Minutes-PC 1992/05/04
ACTION AGENDA
MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, MAY 4, 1992 AT 10:00 A.M.
REGULAR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING
(PUBLIC TESTIMONY)
10:00 A.M. 1:30 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BRISTOL, HENNINGER, MESSE, ZEMEL
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: BOUAS, HELLYER, PERAZA
PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. The proponents in applications which are not contested will have five minutes to
present their evidence. Additional time will be granted upon request if, in the
opinion of the Commission, such additional time will produce evidence important
to the Commission's consideration.
2. In contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each be given ten
minutes to present 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 he says.
3. Staff Reports are part of the evidence deemed received by the Commission in each
hearing. Copies are available to the public prior to the meeting.
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 aze 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.
CO 1329JJ. WP/PCAC0504. WP
05/04/92
Page 1
i
~~la. CEOA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION !Continued
lb. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3506 to 5/18/92
OWNER: VINEYARD CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP, 5340 E. La Palma
Ave., Anaheim, CA
AGENT: PHIL SCHWARTZE, 27132-B Paseo Espada, Ste. 1222, San
Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
LOCATION: 53(10-5340 East La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately I~
23 acres located on the south side of La Palma Avenue
approximately 141 feet west of the centerline of Brasher
i
Street.
To permit a school (K-12) in addition to a previously approved church.
Continued from the March 23, Apri16, and Apri120, 1992 Planning
Commission meetings. ~
!
Conditional use Permit Resolution No.
FOLLOWING IS .A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. ;
a
ACTION: Continued to May 18, 1992.
i
I
I
i
~~
05/04/92
Page 2 `-
i
f,~,2a. ~EOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Lb. WAIVER OF CODE REOUTREMENT
2c.. C'ONDTTIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3508
OWNER: MARGARET ARBALL ESTATE, ROBERT ARBALLO
(Executor), 10292 Rhiems, Anaheim, CA 92804
AGENT: BLASH MOMENY, 27762 Pebble Beach, Mission Viejo, CA
92692
LOCATION: 2n3 N. Coffman Street. Property is approximately 0.27 acres
located on the west side of Coffmae S'.rcet and approximately
430 feet north of the centerline of Center Street.
To permit a 2-story, 5-unit, condominium complex with waiver of minimum
building site area per dwelling unit and maximum structural height.
Continued from the March 23, 1992, Planning Commission meeting
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PC92-57
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES
OPPOSITION: 2 Concerned
OPPOSITION'S CONCERNS: James Mallard, (last name not spelled for the
record) 239 Evelyn Dr., Anaheim. He was one of the n•,embers of the group from
Evelyn Dr. that attended the meeting with Momeny last Monday that he referred
to it as a productive meeting; from what he observed, considering the size of the
lot and the fact that it abutted against a single dwelling neighborhood, they felt it
would be best for them and the people that will be occ;;pying the property to
construct a 2-story high, 4-unit condominium giving those people more room and
less density on Coffman Street.
Rodney Bates, 231 Evelyn Drive., Anaheim. His back yard butts right up to his
project; he agrees with Mr. Mallard, that they want to keep the density down.
Approved
Approved
Granted
05/04/92
Page 3
,PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Blash Momeny, 2082 Business Center Dr., Irvine,
CA 92715. He stated he has revised the project to go to a less no. of units and
2-stories instead of 3; he has contacted the neighborhood regarding what wou13
satisfy them regarding this project; had a very constructive meeting with Them; he
is applying for 5-unit condos that are designed like townhomes.
In summary, he stated he is going to 2-stories, 5-units and a 10-foot block wall
instead of 6 feet and that is a lot towards what the neighborhood wanted.
COMMISSION/STAFF COMMENTS: Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, stated
they have a~ncerns regarding the location of the driveway and would like to see it
perpendi;ular to the street for the site distance visibility.
Momeny -This could be corrected; they have more recreation area then what is
required by Code; this could be one of the conditions.
Messe -When they zoned this area, i.e., the west side of Coffman Street, they put
a cap on the no. of units per acre at 15 per acre and that would take this down to
4 point something so they would have to change the resolution if they were to
approve this project; woutc be good if applicant would have one as an affordable
unit.
Momeny -Worked hard on this and if Commission approves this project, he would
agree to clo that.
Laura Monical, Community Development, clarified what Mr. Momeny would be
agreeing to. She explained one unit would be sold to a lower income family, i.e., a
2-bedroom unit would have a sales price of a maximum of $115,000 with an
income maximum of about $35, 000 a year. She added it is not a very low income,
but it is a lower income in the Anaheim standards.
Bristol -The neighbors to the west talked about a 10-foot wall; they discussed the
one wall to the north is 7 to 7-1, 2 feet; would like wall to the west to be matched
instead of a 10-foot wall.
Momeny - It is 8 feet.
Henninger -Noticed applicant has a nice dense landscaped plan at the west
property lir.:.; that the planting is proposed as 5-gallon plants and asked if the
applicant would consider 15-gallon plants?
Momeny -Indicated he would do that.
05/04/92
Page 4
„ACTION: CEQA Negative Declazation -Approved
~ Waiver of Code Requirement -Approved
Conditional Use Permit No. 3508 -Approved
1. Driveway to be redesigned if required.
2. Match existing wall height to the north.
3. Instead of 5-gal plantings at the west property line, it should
be 15-gal. plantings.
4. (Includes the following condition which was read into the
record by Laura Monical, Community Development:
'That prior to approval of final tract map, the legal property
owner shall enter into an unsubordinated recorded
agreement with the City of Anaheim, pursuant to California
Government Code Section 65915 to provide that one (1) of
the proposed number of residential units shall be sold as
lower income housing as defined in California Government
Code Section 65915 and with appropriate resale controls as
approved by the City of Anaheim for a period of not less
than 30 years from the date of issuance of occupancy
permits. A copy of the recorded covenant shall be
submitted to the Zoning Division:'
:- VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Bouas, Hellyer and Peraza absent)
05/oA/92
Page 5
!~~3a. ['EOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
3b. RECLASSIFICATION NO 91-92-]5 (READVERTISEDI
3c. VARIANCE N0.4180
OWNER: MARGARET PETER, 610 S. Sunkist Street, Anaheim, CA 92806
AGENT: iiCD CORP., Post OfTice Box 5410, Fullerton, CA 92635
LOCATION: 610 South Sunkist Street. Property is approximately 1.07 acres on
the East side of Sunkist Street and located approximately 400 feet
north of the centerline of South Street.
To reclassify from the RS-A-43,000 to RS-7200 Zone.
Waiver of location and orientation of buildings, required site screening and
minimum lot width to construct 4single-family residences.
Continued from the March 9, 1992 Planning Conunission meeting.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC92-58
- VARIANCE RESOLUTIOI'd NO. PC92-59
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: 1 concerned
1 in favor
OPPOSITION CONCERNS: Richard Vogel, 564 S. Sunkist, Anaheim; his
property borders the north of this project; they are concerned about the wooden
fence between the developed units; it does not specify anything on their boundaries
and would like to see a 6-foot block wall at least from the beginning of the house
continuing on through the back yard.
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Craig Hoster (not spelled for the record)
122 N. Harbor Blvd., City of Fullerton. He stated this is a revision from a
previous request of Mazch 9, 1942; they were directed by staff and the Planning
Commiss~.~n to look at developing this as asingle-family detached project.
approved
;ranted
ranted
05/U4/92
Page 6
COMMISSION/STAFF COMMENTS:
Henninger -Asked the applicant if he had any continents concerning the fence?
Applicant -They have a 6-foot high wood fence planned between Mr. Vogel's
property and the subject property; Code allows them to construct the structure 5
feet from the property line.
Henninger -Asked if he was not willing to put in a block wall?
Applicant -They have not allowed for a block wall.
Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, stated they have requested that the no. of
driveways be limited to 3 for that site providing aturn-around area so they do not
back up to the street.
Applicant -This was discussed in the 1DC meeting and they do not have a
problem with that. The two lots to the north end of the property will be combined
as one driveway approach; the two lots in the middle will stay exactly the way they
are and they will have aturn-around for the one lot directly to the south of the
existing home; the property at the very south end will stay the way it is, however,
there will be a turn around in the front of the property so the people can back
'' their car in and head out onto Sunkist rather than to back out onto Sunkist.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, asked if it was the Planning
Commission's intent to hold these properties to the development that they see on
the plans, or would the Planning Commission allow the properties to be developed
with RS-7200 using those standards? He explained that any future additions to
these homes may cause confusion; they have a choice of approving these plans
exactly the way they are or in substantial conformance or allowing future
development to occur in the RS-7200 zone using RS-7200 standards or something
totally different.
Henninger -The existing plans are what they are approving; he did not think they
could build homes without some variance because they generally have a
requirement that you rear onto an arterial and this is an arterial and they have no
other way to access.
Hastings - In terms of the design of the homes, they may come up with a
completely different floor plan; they provided the Commission with a plan of how
they aze proposing to develop each one of the lots and unless they restrict it to this
plan, they could develop according to RS-7200 standards in terms of height and
setbacks.
_~
os/oa/s2
Page 7
~~^~Applicant - These floor plans are pretty much what they are planning on doing,
however, he cannot say they will be the exact floor plans until they are completed.
Right now they have one floor plan for a1141ots, but they may change this to 2
different floor plans; they would stay within all of the constraints required by the
RS-7200 as far as setbacks and heights and they have no intentions of changing the
intent of the location.
Messe -Asked if footprint of the plot plan would be the same?
Applicant -May change, but not drastically; it may change with the location of the
front door. They presented what they felt comfortable with and cannot say that
this will not change as far as the actual footprint of the home, but the intent will
be to meet with the waivers as far as frontage, screening, etc.
Henninger -Sounds like substantial conformance would not be an onerous
condition in that case.
Hastings -His intent of asking that question is that they do have neighbors present
and as Mr. Nuttal pointed out, he wanted to make sure if there were any changes
to these plans, that the neighbors wanted to see them; typically something like this
would go through a plan check procedure. Some of the neighbors may want to
hold to these plans and ff that is the case, then the Planning Commission needs to
" make it clear that these plans are the ones.
Messe -The developer is saying that there might be minor changes to the footprint
and the plans and that the floor plans would not really affect the RS-7200
classification and he could not see them objecting to that too strenuously.
Henninger - ~~Jould like the original homes to be built in substantial conformance
with these plans and then as the owners of those homes come in and make
changes, then he would like to see them held to the RS-7200 standards. Asked
that they draft a condition that works that way.
Hastings -Indicated they could do that.
Henninger -Asked Commission their opinion on the wood fence versus the block
wall on the north property line.
Zemel -Prefers block wall, however, they cannot force someone to put in a block
wall. Is block wall that objectionable to the applicant?
Applicant -Looking at the economics; this is a very tight project.
Messe -The rest of neighborhood does seem to be block wall for the most part.
05/04/92
Page 8
applicant -Needs to look at the financial aspects as they have not planned for
this; would meet with Mr. Vogel and work out something feasible for both of
them. He added he was not able to commit at this time to a block wall.
Henninger -Does wood fence meet Code?
Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, indicated that the wood fence meets Code; no
block wall requirement.
Henninger -The property owner has made a major change in the density and has
delivered everything that was asked for at the last hearing and a wood fence would
probably work there.
Applicant - If changes foots nt is that going to be a major problem? Looking at
putting the gara.~e a little bit off of the back of the home rather than the front of
the home and asked 9f he had options?
Henninger -Asked staff how they normally handle a substantial conformance.
Hastings -Normally when the plans are submitted to them during the plan check
and before the building permit is issued, they will look at the plans that the
Planning Commission approves and compaze the two. ff they aze substantially the
same, the building permit it issued. If for some reason, the plans are not
substantially the same, then the Commission would want to see those as a Report
and Recommendation item.
Messe -Suggests applicant works with neighbor regazding the block wall fence and
see what they can work out.
Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner, stated he had a letter from the Anaheim City
School District indicating that this development would generate 2 students in the
Juarez Elementary School District azea and they have requested a dollaz amount
to mitigate school impacts. They asked that this letter be made part of the public
record.
ACTION: CEQA Negative Declaration -Approved
Reclassification No. 91-92-15 (Read.) -Granted
Variance No. 4180 -Granted
(Plans to be in substantial conformance and reviewed by staff )
Note: Applicant to work with Mr. Vogel regarding block ~vall fence as
suggested by Commissioner Messe.
VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Bouas, Hellyer, Peraza)
l 05/04/92
Page 9
r•.~4a. ('EOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLP.~~
` 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3021 (Readvertised)
OWNER: INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard,
CA 92805
AGENT: PROPERTY OWNER: Marion Malouf and Robert Malouf,
900 E. Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 900 East Ball Road: Property is approximately 4.97 acres located
at the southwest corner of Ball Road and Lewis Street.
To consider the termination or modi5cation of Conditional Use Permit No. 3021
(to establish a vocational school with waiver of minimum number of parking
spaces).
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC92-60
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Code Enforcement initiated.
Floyd Haugen, Practical Schools, 900 E. Ball Rd., Anaheim. He stated they are a
vocational, technical training school; they are here to ask for an extension to a
conditional use permit which would give them time for the paving of the parking
lot; unfortunately, all the money that had been set aside for the complete
renovation, had been used up by the contractor and the work had reached about a
40% completion rate; they have several bids in hand to complete the work,
however, they have not been able to get terms to finance the operation; need a 6
months to a one-year extension in order to complete the paving of the parking lot
and landscaping.
Director of Admissions at Practical Schools. He explained that the average age of
the student body is 34 to 35 years old and they deal with a lot of JTPA students;
their record fo:~ the JTPA in Anaheim was 100% placement; they also deal with
injured workers. If something happened to Practical Schools, it would have an
impact on about 200 people that were in the middle of training.
Jo Action
Jo Action
;ranted a 4
nonth time
;xt. in
order to
:omplete
improvements
(to expire
9/4/92)
05/04/92
Page 10
COMMISSION/ STAFF COMMENTS: Pam Kessler, Code Enforcement Officer,
stated they started their investigation at the request of the Planning Commission to
see if there were conditions that were not fulfilled from the original CUP; they
started their investigation on June 3, 1991 and found out that the site plans had
not been followed through with; the major dirt pazking lot was never paved; the
ingress and egress that led onto Lewis was never completed; there is only one
driveway leading onto Ball Road for all of their students.
On June 27 and July 10, 1991, were the actual first contacts they had with Marlyn
Sheehan; (It was also noted that Ms. Sheehan was in the audience); they issued
several notices of violation; they have been awaze of the impending action for
almost 9 months and they have not seen any improvements or any real indications
that she was going to be able to meet these conditions. Last October Practical
Schools stated they would like to conform, however they just did not have the
funds.
Code Enforcement would like to see the conditions be met as approved back in
1988 or that the CUP be modified or terminated.
Henninger -Told Mr. Haugen he understands that he has been through a couple
of touch years in 1989 and 1990; asked if they gave him an extension of time, could
get a Letter of Credit to secure that?
Mr. Haugen stated he thought that they could, but could not make a promise like
that, but thought they could.
Me~ae -Asked how long of a time they would need to get that Letter of Credit?
Henninger -Stated you normally need 30 days.
Mr. Haugen agreed.
Henninger -This may be a way to meet both of their needs to give them some
extra time and the Commission the comfort they need in order to allow them to
continue.
Zemel -You mentioned you were in the process of obtaining financing?
Mr. Haugen indicated that was correct.
Zemel -Asked how much the bid was to pave that portion?
Henninger -Asked Engineering if they could estimate the improvements?
05/04/92
Page 11
f~Melanie Adams -Stated they could prepare an estimate for the pavement work.
Zemel -Wants Letter of Credit to match the work that needs to be done.
Henninger -Shared that concern; also a Letter of Credit to be any good needs to
be irrevocable and unconditional; if applicant has not performed in whatever time
frame they say, then the City will write to the bank and the bank will se^' them a
check and then the City will do these improvements.
Melanie Adams -The irrevocable Letter of Credit would need to be reviewed by
both the City Treasurers Office and the City Attorney's Office for terms and
amount.
Greg Hastings - Is this to include landscaping and striping as well?
Henninger -The amount is to cover all conditions not completed.
Mr. Haugen asked for someone to summarize this for him.
Henninger -They are willing to go along with their request for a little longer time
to make these improvements provided they give to the Commission a real
guarantee that these things will be done and the real guarantee is an unconditional
" Letter of Credit for the amount adequate to cover these improvements. Will give
him a date certain and if improvements are not done, then the City will call the
Letter of Credit.
Pam Kessler -They would like some sort of dust control measure to be
implemented each day, i.e., wafer down the dust or somehow preven~ the dust from
entering the public right-of ways.
Commissioner Messe -Suggested they hire a service to come in and water down
the dirt every morning before the cars got there.
Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner, stated this is something that the SCAQMD
requires this anyway through Rule 403 for fusion of dust when they are doing
clearing or grading or improving operations in that area, so it is some thing that
they would have to comply with this anyway.
Selma Mann,1)eputy City Attorney, stated ordinarily, they would have a Letter of
Credit procedure where they are asking for some type of public improvement; they
would then call in the Letter of Credit if it was not timely completed and have the
City perform the work that needed to be done; what they have here is some
private property, so the applicant needs to be aware that they need to have a
license in conjunction with that Letter of Credit from the owner and tenant that
`/
05/04/92
Page 12
would authorize the City to have this work performed and whatever other
provisions the City Attorney's Office determine to be necessary on that license
agreement; it is a little more complex then having work done on the public right-
of-way. The only requirement for modification or termination of a CUP is the
public hearing; if it is such that the requirement for a Letter of Credit be in place
in 30 days and that it terminates at that time, then you would have an appeal
period running from that day (decision of the Planning Commission); it could get
complicated if the matter is appealed by the applicant to the City Council; they
may need more then 30 days or the City Attorney's Office may need more than 30
days; whenever you have anything that requires having more than 2 parties, it is
pretty hard to get it done within 30 days to get it executed. She requested at least
45 days and that may be pushing it.
Melanie Adams -This is going to be quite a costly job in the neighborhood of
$2.00 asquare-foot; will they be prepared to go forward with such a large job?
Haugen - He was aware of the cost.
ACTION: CEQA Categorical Exemption -Class 21 (No action required)
Waiver of Code Requirement - No Action
Conditional Use Permit No. 3031- Granted
(Terminate unless applicant submits an irrevocable Letter of Credit to
the City Attorney within 45 days from date of hearing (6/18/92) along
with a license agreement from the lessor and the property owner;
extension of time granted for 4 months, to expire 9/4/92).
VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Bouas, Hellyer and Peraza absent)
~`-~ 05/04/92
Page t3
~^
5a. ~EOA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
.ib. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 91-92-20
Sc VARIANCE N0.4181
Sd. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14641
Se. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 92-02
OWNER: M.Y. PELANCONI ESTATE, C/O BERNARDO M. YORBA,
EXECUTOR, 300 S. Harbor Blvd., Ste. 912, Anaheim, CA 92805
AGENT: MORGAN DEVELOPMENT INC., Attn: Max Morgan, President,
20341 Levine Avenue, Ste. D-3, Santa Ana Heights, CA 92707
LOCATION: X40 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is approximately
12.38 acres located on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road
and also having frontage on the north side of Avenida Marguerite
and approximately 1,211 feet east of the centerline of Royal Oak
Road.
To reclassify from the RS-A-43000 (SC) to RS-5000 (SC) Zone.
Waiver of required lot frontage and required location and orientation of buildings
To establish a 40-lot ,tS-5000 (SC) and RS-A-43,000 (SC) single-family
residential subdivision (including the construction of 38 single-family
residences)..
To remove 75 specimen trees.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO.
VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMIv1ISSION ACTION.
NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
ACTION: Continued to May 18, 1992 (Petitioner was unable to attend the
May 4, 1992 public hearing)
Continued
~to 5/1S/9.
05/04/92
Page 14
r•"`~, CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED)
~ 6b. r'nNDTTIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3521
6c. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14681
OWNERS: ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT' AGENCY, Attn.: Brent
Schultz, 300 South Harbor Blvd., Ste. 900, Anaheim, CA 92805
AGEbIT: KAUFMAN & BROAD INC., Attn: Scott Minami, 180 N.
Riverview Drive, Ste. 300, Anaheim, CA 92808
LOCATION: 206 210 and 214 oath Olive Street. Property is
approximately 0.50 acres located on the past side of Olive
Street and approximately 200 feet north of the centerline of
Broadway.
To permit atwo-story, 6-unit, condominium complex and to establish a 1-lot, 6-
unit, RM 2400, airspace condominium subdivision.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC92-61
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Scott Minami, stated the project is being
purchased from the Redevelopment Agency; purchase contract and conceptual
drawings were approved by at the joint City Council and Redevelopment Agency
meeting on Apri121, 1992.
He referenced condition no. 2 and indicated the width of the street is requested to
be 26.75 feet and for clarification it is measured from the centerline of the street to
the back of the walk; he referenced condition no. 5 and stated it is in error and,
therefore, is requesting deletion of this condition since they are being asked by the
Redevelopment Agency to install seven 36" box trees along Olive Street to meet
the intent of the street trees in that condition; parking conforms to Code.
COMMISSION COMMENTS/ STAFF COMMENTS: Concern was expressed
regarding the guest parking.
approved
Jranted
approved
~_.%
05/04/92
Page 15
~~4elanie Adams, Public Works-Engineering, indicated that the clarification for
condition no. 2 is acceptable, that after 26.75 feet in width can read "from the
centerline of the street along Olive Street for street widening purposes. 'Trees are
to be placed on private property and maintained by the homeowners association
rather than being placed in the public right-of--way, therefore, condition no. 5 may
be deleted. Also the last sentence is conditions 2 and 3 should state "on" file fmal
tract map rather than "of."
Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, recommends that condition no. 5 be replaced
with another condition requiring that the applicant prepare and record a covenant
agreeing to notify potential buyers of these units of pcssible school overcrowding.
He expressed concern regarding the location and placement of driveways behind
the garages and having a pull through situation; open parking is located in the rear
yards of the units; guest parking is o.k., it is the additional 2-1/2 spaces per unit for
the 2 bedroom and the 3-1/2 spaces for the 3-bedroom units that he was referring
to.
Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, stated he agrees with Planning's coc.,srns
regarding the parking; if they flip flopped the driveway they would only be required
to lave 5-feet of setback from the alley for their parking instead of 8-1/2 feet, or
•nother suggestion would be pe-paps they could flip flop the 3-bedroom units at
each end, and then it would meet the parking required by Code.
Henninger -For clarification the garage in the 3-bedroom ought to be setback and
have the parking in front of it directly adjacent to the alley.
Minami -Prefers to keep parking structures in tact because that is the way it has
been designed.
Henninger -Does not believe that those spaces will be used.
Brent Schultz, Redevelopment -Staff is recommending that it stay the way it is; a
good set of CC&Rs are pretty tight and have a lot of restrictions; asked them to
allow developer to keep this layout.
Zemel -Building parking spaces that no one can get to is a prc'.:lem; flip flop it and
post signs that there be no over night parking in the g_.:st spots.
Ms. Adams stated the Ciry no longer reviews the entire CC&Rs; they have placed
their requirements in a small document called a Maintenance Covenant.
Restrictions could be placed in the Maintenance Coven~;;t, however, she did not
know how much strength they would have.
05/04/92
Page 16
{"`.CTION: CEQA Negative Declaration - (Prev. Approved) -Approved
Conditional Use Permit No. 3521- Granted (3-1) Messe NO
Tentative Tract Map No. 14681- Approved
1. Change condition no. 2 to read as follows:
"that the legal property owner shall dedicate to the City of Anaheim
an easement 26.75 feet in width from the centerline of the street along
Olive Street for street widening purposes. The dedication shall be
made prior to final tract map approval or can be made or. the final
tract map."
2. Condition No. 3, last sentence, change the word "of' to "on."
3. Delete condition no. 5 and replace with the following condition:
"That an unsubordinated covenant shall be recorded with the Office of
the Orange County Recorder agreeing to provide the buyer of each
dwelling unit with written information obtained from the school district
pertaining to possible overcrowded conditions and busing status of the
school serving the dwelling unit. A copy of the covenant shall be
submitted to and approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation.
A copy of the recorded covenant shall be submitted to the Zoning
Division."
VOTE: 3-1 (Commissioner Messe voting NO) Commissioners Bouas, Hellyer and
Peraza absent.
~.
05/04/92
Page 17
r'~. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
7c. t .ONDTTIONAL USE PERMIT NO.3519
OWNERS: DR. R. S. MINMCK AND JAN W. MINNICK, 12269 Skylane, Los
Angeles, CA 90049
AGENT: GANNETT OUTDOOR CO. INC., Attn: L. Ronald Cipriani,
1731 Workman Street, Los Angeles, CA 90031
LOCATION: 30 East Orang to horpe Avenue. Property is approximately 0.43
acres located at the southeast corner of Orangethorpe Avenue
and Lemon Street.
To permit two (2) 36-foot high billboards (241 and 672 square feet each).
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC92-62
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
" lOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: 2 (6 letters in opposition received)
OPPOSITION CONCERNS: Richard Carter, Bryan Industrial Properties,
146 E. Orangethorpe, Anaheim. They are one of the adjacent property owners and
are very much opposed to these signs and are a visual blight to the neighborhood.
Barry Eaton, l;h.ief Planner with the City of Fullerton, City Hall Fullerton. The
Mayor of Fullerton submitted a letter in opposition to the Planning Commission;
with regard to the variance, he did not see how they could make their findings.
PETI'TIONER'S COMMENTS: Chuck Daggett, representing Gannett Outdoor
Co., Inc. The proposed signs on the corner of Orangethorpe and Lemon will add
value to the community with the promotion of products and services that are
available; 2 of the larger enterprises, Disneyland and The Angels, currently have
campaigns that they are promoting with their billboards; they also add value to the
community with the public service space they donate on their billboards.
For clarification, under item 9 of the evaluation, it states that the petitioner is
requesting 672 square-foot of displaced area on each face of sign "B" and it should
read only sign "A."
pproved
enied
enied
05/04/92
Page 18
"'"heir company did lose a :~:gnificant asset because of the consti fiction of the new
Sports Arena; they had to take down a double faced sign that was 672 sq. ft.; they
are simply trying to replace what they lost; they are not trying to increase the no. of
signs, but are trying to maintain what they had.
COMMISSION COMMENTS/STAFF COMMENTS: Jonathan Borrego, Senior
Planner, stated that the applicant is correct as faz as pazagraph "9" goes; that should
refer to sign "A" rather than "B"; they would recommend denial based on the
findings that were made and in consideration of some of the improvements that
have been going on within that area and in the City of Fullerton; approval of this
application would be taking things in the opposite direction as far as improving the
visual image of that intersection.
Zemel -Asked about the public service advertising for the City.
Mr. Dagget stated he could not specifically name anything, however, they do other
public service advertising for non-profit organizations that do operate within the
City.
Zemel -That claim is made time after time that you are doing public service
announcements for the City and he has always been curious to see what those
nnouncements are and what the percentage of space is donated from their
company. He asked how many local businesses advertised on their boards in the
City?
Mr. Dagget stated he did not have that information at this time, however, he could
get it for him.
Zemel- Any local businesses that are going to be targets for advertisement?
Daggett - He was sure that there would be, however, he was not able to guazantee
anything until approval was granted.
Messe -Was the only one on the Commission when the last application was voted
on; does not understand why he is back here; they are dealing with land use.
Daggett -The difference would be the impact of losing their previous sign.
05/04/92
Page 19
^.CTION: CEQA Negative Declaration -Approved
Waiver of Code Requirement -Denied
(Nothing on this property that makes it different from any other size
property)
Conditional Use Permit No. 3519 -Denied
(Proposed use will adversely affect the adjoining land uses as outlined in
letters that were received from various businesses and the City of Fullerton
and the size and shape of the site for the proposed use is not adequate to
allow for the development of the proposed sign).
VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Bouas, Hellyer and Peraza absent)
`~ 05/04/92
Page 20
.~•°'~. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
~ db. VARIANCE N0.4179
OWNER: DESANTELS COMPANY, 125 Lakeview Drive, Woodside,
CA 94062
AGENT: INNOVATIVE GRAPHICS, INC., Attn: Scott Angotti, 833 N.
Elm Street, Orange, CA 92668
LOCATION: 2809 East Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 2.17
acres located north and east of the northeast corner of Lincoln
Avenue and Rio Vista Street.
Waiver of permitted location of freestanding signs to construct a 25-foot high,
279 square-foot, freestanding sign.
VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO.
NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
"APPOSITION: None
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Scott Angotti, 833 N. Elm Street, Orange, CA
92668. They are requesting a waiver from Code that requires a freestanding sign
within the middle 20% of the property frontage; they have a previously approved
sign in that location that was part of a larger package that included the remodeling
of the exterior of the super market.
They feel that the previously approved location of the sign would impede the traffic
flow throughout the parking lot and would require removal of approximately 6
parking spaces; the new location would eliminate only one parking space and would
not impede the flow of traf5c throughout the parking lot.
COMMISSION COMMENTS/STAFF COMMENTS: Jonathan Borrego, Senior
Planner, stated there is a shortage of landscaping along the frontage of Lincoln
Avenue for the commercial retail center (other then the Del Taco which does have
some landscaping out in the front of it); they would like the applicant to
incorporate some type of a landscaping scheme into the design of the sign in order
to compensate for the lack of landscaping if at all possible.
Mr. Angotd -Not authorized to agree or disagree to any landscaping proposals,
however, the parent company has been willing to add landscaping to other
properties; cannot say yes or no.
`~
Continued
to 5/18/92
05/04/92
Page 21
%Ienninger - Fn the sign graphic they have the Alpha Beta and then the other
tenants listed below; they are advertised on an existing sign; are they proposing to
duplicate that signage or are they going to move each one off the existing sign?
Mr. Angotti explained Alpha Beta has spoken with the other businesses in the
center; they are proposing to give space to the other business owners free of charge;
currently they pay a fee to the other sign owner per month to advertise their
business.
Henninger -They could agree to a condition that says that they would not give
anyone free space if they wanted the other sign to remain.
Angotti -That would not be a problem; on the existing sign there are 2 cabinets,
one is completely empty.
Messe - Do really need to add landscaping.
Angotti -Does not disagree, he will propose that to Alpha Beta.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager; stated the Code normally requires a a-
foot landscaped area adjacent to the right-of--way; perhaps they could take that
ame square-footage and transfer that around the sign.
Angotti -Did have some problems with parking spaces; they want to save as many
as they can.
Henninger -Work with staff on parking.
ACTION: Continued to May 18, 1992
05/04/92
Page 22
r^a. CATEGORICAL EXEMPT-CLASS 1
9b. VARIANCE N0.4178
OWNER: ALPHA BETA COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORP., Attn:
David Pine, 248 Palm Drive, Arcadia, CA 91007
AGENT: INNOVATIVE GRAPHICS, INC., 833 N Elm Street, Orange,
CA 92668
LOCATION: 460 S. Anaheim Hills Road. Property is approximately 2.9 acre
located on the northeast corner of Nohl Ranch Road and
Canyon Rim Road.
Waiver of permitted type of freestanding signage and permitted location of
freestanding signs to construct a 6-foot high, 60 square-foot, shopping center
identification sign.
VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO.
'"FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
,rTOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
ACTION: Continued to the May 18, 1992 meeting in order to readvertise subject
petition to include a request for a total of two freestanding signs.
~ontinued
to 5/18/92
,~
05/04/92
Page 23
~^Oa. C'EOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
lOb RECLASSIFICA i ION NO.91-92-19
OWNER: TIIE FLUOR FAMILY TRUST, 4521 Perham Road, Corona
Del Mar, CA 92625
AGENT: CECIL C. WRIGFTT, 265 S. Anita Drive, Ste. 205, Orange, CA
92668
LOCATION: 1320-1382 Auto Center Drive. Property is approximately
7.98 acres located at thesouthwest corner of Auto Center
Drive (formerly Taft Avenue) and Sanderson Avenue.
To reclassify from t'~e ML to CL zone and to construct a 2-story, 50,000
squaze foot medical office building.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF' THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
ACTION: Continued to the May 18, 1992
Note: Staff recommended that this meeting be continued to June 15, 1992,
however, the petitioner respectfully requested that it be continued to May 18, 1992.
Continued
to 5/18/92
os/oa/s2
Page 24
Ala C'EOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED)
llb. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED)
llc. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3042 (READVERTISED)
OWNER: ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP of ORANGE, 2811 E. Villa
Real Drive, Orange, CA 92667
AGENT: REVEREND SEAMUS A. GLYNN, 5800 E. SANTA ANA
CANYON ROAD, Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION: 5800 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is
approximately 6.0 acres located at the southwest corner of
Santa Ana Canyon Road and Solomon Drive.
Amendment to condition of approval pertaining to required street
improvements on Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is approximately 6.0
acres located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and
Solomon Drive.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC92-63
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER COMMENTS: Petitioner not present.
COMMISSION COMMIiNTS: No discussion took place.
ACTION: CEQA Negative Declazation (Prev. Approved) - No Action
Waiver of Code Requirement (Prev. Approved) - No Action
Conditional Use Permit (Read.) -Granted
VOTE: 4.0 (Commissioners Bouas, Hellyer and Peraza absent)
No Action ~
No Action
Granted
._~~'
05/04/92
Page 25
,~''°"'`?. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
r
A. VARIANCE NO 4052 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 14270 -
REOUEST FOR AONE-YEAR FXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY
WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Gary Almos, requests for one-year
extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for Variance No.
4052 and Tentative Tract Map No. 14270, waiver of minimum lot width to
establish a 5-lot, RS-7200 subdivision and to expire on June 4, 1992 and if
approved, to expire June 4, 1993. Property is located 828 S. Western
Avenue.
Approved
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3300 - REQUEST FOR ONE-YEAR Approved
EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Ahmad Jilanchi, (Sabi Development Corp.), requests for one-year extension of tim
to comply with conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 3300, to
permit a 10-unit condominium complex to expire on May 20, 1992 and if approved,
to expire May 20, 1993. Property is located at 719-729 N. East Street.
13. DISCUSSION: None
14. ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission adjourned their regularly schedu:
' Planning Commission meeting of May 4, 1992 to the Planning Commission Work
Session of May 11, 1992 at 3:OOp.m. in the City Council chambers.
``./
05/04/92
Page 26