Minutes-PC 1992/09/09 ~r
t
WEDNESDAY ,SEPTEMBER 9, 1992, AT 10:00 AM.
PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW
PUBLIC HEARING
(PUBLIC TESTIMONY)
+ ~`' 10:00 A.M. 1:30 P.Ml.
:~
~~ ~.AMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BRISTOL, HENNINGER, MESSE, PERAZA, TAR, ZEMEL, ONE VACANT
_,~~.~;_.: ~. SEAT
STAFF PRESENT: BORREGO, FREEMAN, HASTINGS, JENSEN, JALAI, LOCKMAN, MANN, MONICAL,
`~, .' SOLORIO
y;~
Lai'' PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS
~~ 1. The propone;~ts in applications v-fiich are not contested w111 have five minutes to present their
evidence. Additional time will be granted upon request ff, in the opinion of the Commission,
such addffionai time will produce evldence important to the Commission's consideration.
2. In contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each be given ten minutes to
pr~errt their case unless additional time is requested and the complexity of the matter warrants.
The Commission's conskteratlons are not determined by the length of time a paNcipant speaks,
but rather by what is saki.
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 ftom the foregoing ff, in its opinion, the ends of
falmess to all concerned will be served.
6. All documents presented to the Planning Commission for review in connection with any hearing,
induding photographs or other acceptable visual representations or non-documeniory evldence,
shall be retained by the Commission for the public record and shall be availabe far public
InspedJons.
7. At the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on items
of Interest which are rvithln the Jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, and/or agenda items.
Each speaker will be allotted a maximum of five (5) minutes to speak. Anyone wishing to speak
should fill out the forms available in the rear of the Council Chamber and submit them'o staff
prior to the meeting.
AC090992.WP
O9/b9/92
Page 1
~
~~
~~~~~~ :. ~
'4v
e
„rn, '
l
_~ ,oe ~ -
>~`~~ CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ta Continued to
.
1}b: ~: AMENDMENT TO THE SUMMIT O F October 5, 1992
~`
ANAHEIM HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN (88-21
~s
DENSITY TRANSFER REt~UEST NO.92-02
1c.
1
~y ~ ,
~
Yi ~'
^;,;
~ ~~ OWNER: BALDWIN COMPANY, ATTN: JEFF WARMOTH, 16811 Hale
~ ~}_
~
v,•„ Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714
~` ~ ~ LOCATION: Davelat~ment iE'eaa 104. 105. 202.203. 204. 205.208 and
w : - ~
~~ 207 of the Summft of Anaheim Hllis Specific Plan SP88-2Z
~~x~r
z.~, .
Petitioner requests an amendment to Ordinance No. 4976 in order to amend
w ~"~ Development Area 205 and 206 Zoning and Development Standards (Code
Section Nos. 18.72.070.040 and 18.72.070.050) to create one Development Area
(Development Area 205) to permit the development of a 270-unR condominium
r > cornplex.
~ t To transfer a total of f 63 unRs ftom Development Areas 104, 105, 202, 203, 206
'~' and 207 to Development Areas 204 and 205.
Continued from the June 29, Juiy 13, July 27, and August 10, 1992 Planning
Commissbn meetings.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED AFFICIAL MINUTES.
ACTION: Commissioner Messe Lffered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza (one
vacant seat) and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be
t~ntinued to the rog~~lariy-scheduled meeting of October 5, 1992, so that petitioner may
further address issues related to potential impacts upon the existing Community Facilities
District.
I
a'r
b ~~~,
OB/b9/g2
Page 2
~.
m'~4 }^
~,
~' ';
..~-t . ;.
~2b'' CONDITI
t' '' OWNER:
r~;.; ,~
,, ~
n
~,F
Approved `_
Granted for
2 years
ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, Attn: Eiisa Stipkovich,
Executh-e Director, 300 S. Harbor Blvd., X900, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 195 West Harbor Place. Property is approximately .20 acres
located at the northeast co;~ner of Harbor Place and Lemon Street
To pennft a600-square foot outdoor dining area in con)unctlon with a previously
approved restaurant with on-premise sale aril consumption of alcoholic
beverages.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. F -1 4
"'.' = FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
- OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Michael Welch, Senior Project Manager, Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency. He stated this is for the proposed outdoor dining area for the
agency owned site on Kdl Anaheim Center (located on the northeast comer of West Harbor
Place and Lemon Street). They are proceeding to construct the restaurant. An operator has
signed a lease with the agency and they plan to open in December. The restaurant r:se was
approved and this action is for the proposed outdoor dining area which include a series of
tables and chairs and umbrellas. He presented two schematic illustrations. It is noted tf~at
one schematic is for Item no. 3.
He explained this Is a full service restaurent for both lunch and dinner trade. The applicant is
proceeding to obtain a liquor license for on-sale beverages. The public access to that space
is exdushrely through the entrance to the restaurant and out to the outdoor area; no one
would be allowed to leave the outdoor area without flrv. going through the restaurant and
exiting the restaurant.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairman Henninger Indicated that the schematic he just showed does not show a complete
enclosure of the subject area.
Mr. Welch stated this schematic was proposed by the lands~pe architect that showed a
series of circular and rectangularly shaped planters. Since that time, they have instructed the
designers to make that area completely enclosed with rectangular planters enclosing subject
space.
Commissioner Messe stated they could offer this request for approval with the stipulation that
they would bring back the final drawings under Reports and Recommendations. He added
this is very sketchy.
~~
c ~ ,.....
09/U9/92
Page 3
~ } 4
~~ ~~`
~>n i
~iX
tx, ,
ch explained,he would be happy to bring back further detaN that would probably have
~tfon of that space.
arr Henninger stated: the.outskle u~ is something that (s new to this area and a time
some periodk; review of this CUP would be appropriate. He suggested a 2 year time
,, ; rMr Welch explained these are uses that are consistent with their overall master plan and they
~ ~ ~ : ;' add an amenity to the project.
~~~ ~~ .
r .9~eIlQ~: CEOA Negative ged~iratic~. -Approved
Conditional Use Permft No. 3541 • granted for 2 years
(To expire September 9, 19941.
Petitioner to bring back fi,~al drawings and elevations to Planning Commission
under Reports and Recomnsndations. Site plans are to show a lull enclosure of
subject space.
,~au~
y~g: fi-0 (One vacant seat)
~/~~
_~
,~~,
n'
'r.'
~.' a
' ~ ~ ~ -:9
38z, , CEOA NEtaA~1VE DECLARATION Approved
Nab: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3540 Granted for
~N~' 2 years
OWNER: ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 300 S. Harbor Blvd., X900,
' Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 201 West Harbor Place. Property is approximately 1.09 acres located
at the northwest comer of Harbor Place and Lemon Street.
~,;
To permit a600-square foot outdoor dining area fn conjunction with a previously
approved food court.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. P 2-1 I
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED
~~,;, '' OFFICIAL MINUTES.
`~~
OPPOSITION: None
Michael Welch, Senior Project Manager, Anaheim Redevelopment Agency. Project is an outdoor dining area at
the northwest comer of West Harbor Place and Lemon Street. This is in conjunction wRh a food court that has
been constructed with 4 spaces forfast-food operators. They have provided the Planning Commission with a
schematic that shows actual layout of tables and chairs which reflects 40 outdoor seats. He explained it is a
combination of an indcor and outdoor dining area and is not to be enclosed in terms of the streetscape and is
open. There are no proposed alcohdk: beverages for sale at the present time. The proposed table, chairs and
umbrellas would be brought in nightly.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Bristd asked for clarification regarding the 7 trees as indicated on the plans.
Mr Welch explained they are planted and lighted.
Commissioner Messe asked for clarification as to how many more vendors they have room for and
Mr. Welch explained they have room for 3 other vendors for a total of 4 vendors.
Commissioner Messe expressed his concern regarding future vendors wanting to serve beer and wine.
Ohaimian Henninger stated they should add 2 more conditions. One that specifically states that there be no
outdoor consumption of alcohdic beverages and that this be limited to a maximum of 40 seats.
N: CEQA Negative Declaration -Approved
Conditional Use Permit No. 3540 -Granted for 2 years
(To expire September 9, X994)
No outdoor consumption of alcohdic beverages; and that outdoor seating be limited to 40 seats.
11 TF: 6~0 (One vacant seat)
~}
. 'OWNER: THE PRESLEY COMPANY, Attn: Alan Uman, 19 Corporate Plaza,
'~' Newport Beach, 926E0 CA
~:
r
` = LOCATION: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP MO. 12693x Property is approximately 8.2
;~,;';;, ` acres located on the north side of Sunset Ridge Road and
?~' approximately 500 feet south of the cantert(ne of Moonddge Lane.
~ ~ ,
C~F~~ To establish a 48-lot single-family detached residential subdivision in The Highlands
'~~"~~ ~ at Anaheim Hgls Specific Plan (SP87-1).
j4:`;.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED
;, ` OFFICIAL MINUTES.
r . ~`~
$~,Q~: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza (one vacant seat) and
MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled
meeting of October 5,1992 per staffs recommendation in order to readvertlse subJect petftion to Include two
additional lots and redesignate subJect petftion as Tentative Tract Map No. 12693 (Revision No. 1) for a 50-lot,
sh~gle-family detached residential subdivision within the Highlands Of Anaheim Hills SpecHic Plan (SP87-1).
~~~
Page 6
y lrZy.
1 ~uAl~~~"AL,Ga; `-~
z; ~i~
?= 9
y'~S~'c;
x s y;
ci ...r,..,...,: ,. ~. ..
~6a.: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0.273 (Previously Certified) Continued to
5b' TENTATVE TRACT MAP NO.12686 AND (Revision No. 1) September 21, 1992
'' ' '?JdNAL SITE PLAN
OWNER: THE PRESLEY COMPANY, Attn: Alan Uman, 19 Corporate Plaza,
Newport Beach, 92660 CA
LOCATION: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12686. Property is approximately 66.7
acres located on the west side of Sunset Ridge Road and
approximately 45 feet west of the centerline of Moonridge Lane.
~~ . To establish a 101-lot (plus three open space lots including one open space lot
;~ ~;
y~ comprising a portion of Deer Canyon) single-family detached residential subdivision
r,,,,; in' H;1-iighlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP87-1).
~..,' FOL!.OWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED
,~ , ; IJFFlCIA:. MINUTES.
,APPOSITION: 1 (Received one letter of opposition)
David Boyle, with David A. Boyle Engineering, 2098 S. Grand, Suite A, Santa Ana, CA, representing the Presley
Company. The proposal is to adJust the lot count. He explained there was a question raised about the change
h elevation of the proposed pads. He explained Presley is doing this as a follow through from the original
approval which was to minimize the grading. While the pads are being raised in the two tracts before the
Commission, they are reducing the cut, so they are not being raised above the ground that exists. The
6xxease in elevation i8 a reduction in cut, Le., previously they were cutting down to a gh!en elevation and now
Presley is proposing not to cut it down, quite so far. He explained the overall adjustment is io accommodate
the balance of the total site, therefore, there is no hauling of dirt in or out of the site. it is a matter of refinement
of the design as the tract and development has proceeded. He submitted some cross sections and explained
some exhibits.
[~Za~~~117~
E has been noted that one letter of opposition has been received.
Sally Smfth, 7370 E. IQte Drive, Anaheim, CA. She stated she has submitted a letter stating that they were
assured by the Presley Company that their views would rat 6e tampered or Interfered wfth aril that is not the
cs~se with the proposed elevations. The resident's met on May 7th with the Anaheim Hills Citizen's Coalition
and the Presley representatNes who showed them the proposed maps as to what they were planning to do. At
that Ume they were assured them in every way that their views would not be Impacted. There have been views
that the resident's have enjoyed since the late 70's. The proposed changes would deeply impact their view of
the mountains let alone City views that they have enjoyed.
She referenced Lot 20 in Tract 12686 and expressed her concerns that initially the natural grade ran from 660
11eeR to 715 feet and was approved at 745 feet average; now they wish to raise the elevation to 771 feet. She
added this will not benefit the community.
09/t19/92
Page 7
;{
M~
explained his positlon and referenced the exhibits. The proposed change wllf not c~ranga their view
R has always been.. He added they are just reducing the grading and not Increasing it or ffiling
j: lilgher than what was pn~-lously proposed.
JC HEARING WAS CLOSED,
x Chairman Henninger asked the petitioner to point out Lot 20 of tract no. 12686 and asked that ?-e show where
~'° Kite Drive was located.
~~ ~~ .
~ .mot=
` '"',," a- Further discussion took place between the petitioner and the Commission regarding the proposed change.
~'~ ~''~
' ` ~ ~ Commiseloner Meese suggested that they have a field trip and take a look at the project and see what the
" ' ` Impels would be. He suggested that they go out with one of Presley's Engineers and perhaps someone from
staff:
way Chairman Henninger stated he would Iike to make a spec}flc request of the applicant that before they get there
~ x a : they put out a target for the ridge Ifnes of the finished houses both in the existing approved tertative and the
`";rt ;'- . proposed tentative tracts so they could see those across from Klte Drive.
Commissioner Masse suggested that they take the field trip on Monday, September 14th prior to their nom-al
work session.
Mr. Hastings suggested they meet at i a>Op.m. rather than 3a)Op.m.
ACTION: Commissioner Masse offered u motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol (one vacant seat) and
,;~ MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled
meeting of
September 21, 1992 in order for the Planning Commission to tour the proposed project.
5~ } tii1; Y
ti +w
~''~
-.tad
,1;
.,~~
VIRONMENTALIMPACT REPORT N0.273 (Previously Approved) Continued to
NTATNE TRACT MAP NO. 12687 AND (Revision No. 1) September 21, 1992
iwr-~a~e erw~
rr,:..,,:,.,._
OWNER: THE PRESLEY COMPANY, Attn: Alan Uman, 19 Corporate Piaza,
Newport Beach, 92660 CA
LOCATION: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12687. ~~„perty ii approximately 100.7
acres located on the south side of Hdlow Oak Road and approximately
110 feet west of the centerline of Tristania Lane.
'~ ~ To establish a 118-lot (plus two open space lots induding one open space iot
comprising a portion of Deer Canyon) single-family detached residential subdivision In
k ~ The Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Pian (SP87-1).
~s r ,
` FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDEREQ
;'" OFFlGAL MINUTES.
~1:-
~Qj,QjY: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristd (one vacant seat) and
MQTION CARRIED that conskleratian of the aforementioned matter be continued to the r ularl -scheduled
e9 Y
meeting of September 21, 1992 in order for the Planning Commission to tour the proposed project.
i•
O9/U9/92
Page 9
,j
y~~b rF
CY I r
~y.r ..
Te. WAFiIER'OF COUNCIL POLICY N0.542 Approved
~z
r' OWNER: SOUTHERN PACIFlC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, 1200 Corporate
,,,~~ Center Drhre, #100, Monterey Park, CA 91754
Jk ' .
,,~ ~ ~" AGENT: DANIEL R. POSILOVICH, 1729-C South Douglas Road, Anaheim, CA
~,. Y~ 92806
a ,~ LOCATION: 2001 West Folsom Street. Property is approximately 0.84 acres
located on the north skle of Folsom Street gnd approximately 301 feet
north of the centerline of Forest Lane.
~ ~ ~ 1'o reclassify subject property from the RS-A-43,000 to RS-7200 Zone.
~G'
Waiver of minimum lot area, minimum ftont yard setback and requirod lot ftontage.
To establish a 5-lot, RS-7200, "affoniable", single-family resklential subdNision.
:~ECL,~SSIl:ICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC92-106
VARIANCE RLSOLU710N NO. PC92-107
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED
OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: 1
Dan Posilovich, Pasilovich Construction, 1729 S. Douglass, Anaheim, CA. They are proposing a subdivision of
a vacant lot for the development of 5single-family homes on Fosom Street in Anaheim. lie explained that
there are 2 dHferent floor plans and the smaller floor plan, Plan 1, would qualify for affordable housing.
Q POP SITION:
Ted Marowftz Qast name not spelled for the record), 2026 Folsom Street, Anaheim, CA He lives directly across
the street from the proposed subdivisbn. He stated the property could be better utilized if it was oily divided
Ito 4 lots rather than 5. They would require less waivers In order to meet the minimum lot size and some of
the other waivers.
.@~~
They have looked at the feasibility of subdivkling the property with 4single-family homes as opposed to the 5
they are proposing. By doing so, it would become economically uMeasible to proceed with the subdNision.
® 09/Cl9/92
Page 10
au'~~xi,v ... . .
l.,_7-t ii ~~y
5~ ~yp.
Ima;~lenn; Deputy City Attorney, gave her commer><s on pdicy with regard to the needs for affordable
using in-the State of Calffomia
Commissioner Taft stated when he looked at the site he was concerned about the lot located on the far west
stile wkh the dual driveway and asked ff there was an aftemate configuration for that shared driveway.
~ ' Mr. iNarowitz stated staff suggested that they slightly modify the driveway and they are (n favor of going with
-~t~ r. the modffication as Indicated In the staff report.
vr~ ,
.. Commissioner Bristol expressed his concerns about Waiver of Council Pdicy No. 542 regarding the 50-foot
distance from a railroad tr2:ck. He asked for darfficatlon as to how many trips a day are made?
Mr. Marowltz explained h is currently being used as a service Tine to service a few of their ftelght customers.
'_ ,Accorcling to the railroad they are running less than: one train a day.
Greg McCafferty, Planning Department, stated it is 3 trains p9r day.
Commissioner Bristol asked about the proposed wall.
Mr. Marowftz stated h would 1+o a masonry construction and that K would have a berm. He e~cplalned K WiII
reduce the exterior noise level to below 65 CNEL and the Interior below 45 CNEL.
Commissioner Messe asked for clarification ff they were going to have dcuble windowpanes and Mr. Marowitz
indicated that was corre~,t.
Commissioner Messe asked ff they received any correspondence from the Scholl District and Mr. Borrego,
~Plan~ing Department, Indicated they did. He read the letters Into the record.
Discussion took place regarding the driveway spaces that are proposed for Lot No. 2 in that they may conflict
wfth the access to Lot yo. 1 because of their location within the access easement that is proposed to Lot No.
1.
Mr. Marowtfz explained that the house an.; th9 driveway would be reversed and that would prohibit Lot No. 1
driveway from impacting the exterior open parking area
Chairman Henninger asked for darffication ff he would provide enough room in front of me garage on Lot No. 2
so two cars can be stored without interfering with the access easement for Lot No. 1 and Mr. Maro~vitz
indicated he would.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated the only thing that would negativel;~ impact Lot No. 2 would be
to reduce down any landscape area next to nothing ir. the ftont yard area which is a problem of the existing lot.
Chairman Henninger asked ff there was enough room io leave the garage fn fts current location, except set it
back further?
Mr. Marowitz explained they are trying to maintain the maximum ssiback from the ra(Iroad to reduce the impact
from the adjacent railroad and further discussed the landscape issue.
® ~/~/~
Page 11
r~"
Benninger suggested they add a corrdltion to the varkince that the applicant wqi bring in a revised
h af~ows storage for two cars in front of the garage on Lot No. 2 whk:h wBl not interfere with the
ise'merrf for Lot No. 1.
loner Messe asked that a currdition be placed that the initial buyer of the property be informed of the
Wercrowding of the schools and that their children might attend a schod that is outskfe of their
{
Mr Hastings suggested that they add to condition no. 1, pertaining to the block wall, that tie wall shall include
the`plenting and maintaining of some type of dinging vines to eliminate graffiti oppa ~nlties on the outside of
the wall feoing the ragroad track. He added lt is currently a Code requirement in multiple-fam9y zones, but not
in'singlefemgy zones.
,gQjQjj: GEQA Negative Declaration -Approved
3iedasslficatbn No. 52-93-01 -Granted
~~
;_ _
VOTE:
^ ,
i•
Variance No. 4194 -Granted
With addltkrnal conditions relative to schod overcrowding and the approval by staff of the new
conflguratton for the parking on Lot Nos. 1 and 2.
Add condition that the developer will plant the clinging vine and that the developer provide a letter to
the homeowner notifying the homeowner that he has a responsibility to maintain his property free of
grafflti.
Tentative Trail Map No. 14702 -Approved
Waiver of Council Policy No. 542 -Approved
5-0 (Commissioner Zemel abstaining and one vacant seat)
Note: Commissioner Zemel abstained because he was called away and he missed part of the public
Input.
as/ue/s2
Page 12
~ 4 :,
o ..''-;
~ 'a .r x . ~ : r r4^
~~ ~ ~~7 ~'SY ~ ~~ Kc
.. .,, ~ f
~ - ~ ~~.
5
Approved
Approved in Part
Granted In Part
'~ SjONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3537
~::,
OWNER: HEPHATHA LUTHERAN CHURCH, 5900 E. Sarrta Ana Canyon Road,
Anaheim, CA 92807
AGENT: McLEAN AND SCHULTZ, A; tn: Gerald D. Steaks, 2000 E.Chapman
Avenue, F~lerton, CA
r
~~. .
:•~,.
LOCATION: 5900 East Santa Ana Can. cn~ Roed. Property is approximately 4.23
acres located at the southet~st comer of Santa Ana Canyon Road and
Sdomon Drive.
To permft the phased expansion of an existing church, schod and preschod fac0ity
with waiver of required number o~ parking spaces, maximum structural height
(deleted), minfmum landscape requirements and required parking lot landscaping.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC92-108
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED
OFFlCIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
Gerald Steaks, Architect for Mclean and Schultz located at 2000 E. Chapman, Fullerton, CA. He is also the
agerd for Hephatha Lutherar+. Church. He made a presentation and explained the expansion of the existing
deurch.
THE PUBLIC NicARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Messe asked Mr. Staake to give some justification for the variance on minfmum landscape
nequiremeMS.
Air. Steaks explained that the new landscape requirements would require them to put in additional planters in
t'ne parking lot; those addRlonal planters wii interfere with the basket atxl volley bail courts. He explained that
the parking lot is double used after schod for sports programs during the week. He stated if they put the
planters in, they would have to reset their courts. He added they have a back to back basket ball court
Hie stated there would be a problem putting In trees and getting them to look compatible with what is there
now. He explained that the trees that are currently there are very mature.
Fisther discussion took place regarding the trees.
Commissioner Messe stated he thought that he would want to bring the landscaping up to par wfth the rest of
ties community and Improve the landscaping as ft is needed.
~~
~z;
ti ~
i. ~i,':~
09/09/92
Page 13
nke explained there are trees along there, however, they are set bads further tcrnvards the buAding.
at;loner Meese tndit~ted they could Improve the landscaping.
CE(~A Negative Declaration -Approved
Waiver of Code ReaulremeM -Approved in Part
Approval of waivers'A' and 'D' with a dental of waiver'C
(waiver'B" has been deleted)
f`.nrrlMional Usw PArrnit No. 3537 -Granted in Part
(With stipulation that staffs recommendatbns be met)
6-0 jOne vacant seat)
d.
.,.s,
~ ~w ~ . ,
09/x/92
Page 14
C7H lC"`kj`~r~r
}
~ ~ "'• ,..
,j . ~'" ."~~,ll"C
'tF' ~F
J/'
~.G
~~ ~9b ' WAVER OF CODE AE~UIREMENT
,~~ ~~IJQfl7dalAL IISE PERMIT NO. 3539
x'° `OWNER: MARY LEE McWILUAM, 23692 Via Pellicer, Mission Viejo, CA 92692
}
AGENT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCTS, Attn: Ron Rduffs, 904 S.
~` ~'' Corrrvvall Drive, Anaheim, CA 92804
LOCATION: 330 North State College Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.32
acre located on the east side of State Colege Boulevard and
approximately 1,180 feet south of the centerline of La Palma Avenue.
Denied
Denied
Denied
To permit a 44-unh, single-room occupancy (SRO) resklential hotel with waiver of
,' minimum landscape requirements.
~,
05.,, ', CONDRIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC92-109
. ,~4
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED
OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: 15 people present; 1 letter received fn opposition; submitted petition wfth 41 signatures.
Ron Rduffs, 904 S. Cornwall, Anaheim, CA. He gave a presentation explaining his project. He explained he
works for the County of Orange and his profession is new housing development for "affordable" housing
• throughout small cities in unincorporated areas of the County of Orange. They have no such guidelines or
pdicy currently in their area.
Dr. Wayne Aspenal (last name not spelled for record), 310 N. State College Bivd., Anaheim, CA. He stated he
has the State Colege Animal Hospital that shares common parking with the proposed project. His major
concerns are high density which may attract criminal elements; his other concern is parking.
Gordon Bush, 2214 E. Sycamore, Anaheim, CA. He stated he has a petition signed by 41 people opposing this
project. He submitted the petition to the Commission. He agrees with siaffs recommendation to deny this
protect.
Chang Tai Shao (name not spelled for the record), owner of the property north of the proposed SRO, 400 N.
State Colege Blvd. He explained his main concerns were parking and trefBc.!
Martha Nordabe Qast name not spelled for the record), 229 N. Curtis Way. They are on the other sloe of the
alley from where the proposed SRO will be. Her major concern is privacy; they Just put a pod in their
backyard and this proposed SRO looks directly down onto their property. She explained ft fs acceptable right
now because there are businesses during the day time. Right now they are able to use their backyard in the
evening and on the weekends with no one looking down on them. Their other concerns are traffic in the alley
and parking.
~/~/~
~~yYYr a 4~ '.',
~~; ~S
y F ~ ,
~{..~
~r%
,'
"~y ~.
19;;Mersh,`2031 Bangor, Anaheim. CA. She lives on a cul~Je-sac street snd the alley is between this
IJ 0 end their homes. She carrvased 'the neighborhood and came across no one who was for this project;
yone;;is;very worried about this project A major c~ncem was small ch8dren in the area. She submitted
ire to the Commission that were signed by the residents.
n,;tiogers:(Iast name not spelled for the recordj, owns State Cdlege apartments directly across the street
'.tits' proposed development. Very concerned about the crfmir>al element, graffiti and density.
Patterson (last name not spelled for the record), 2111 E. Bangor, Anaheim, CA. Works at Savon Drug
s ; He expressed his cortcems regarding the crfminal element and people panhandling in the parking lots;
customere are upset about iL
~ Chrfstine Nyman, 2020 Bangor, Anaheim, CA. Just purchased her home about 2 months ago; their backyard
;>?t`~ ;,;~, twos up against the alley; they have backyard access to the alley. She stated this is a transient Issue and
h~ ~ ' wanted to know who was going to regulate the type of tenants that would be living there and how many per
snit? Her other concerns were drugs and alcohd.
~~- ,: ,~EBUTTAh
" " Mr. Willis stated he wished he could show the Commission their projects in San Diego; most of them have no
-- `parking and that SROs are the sdutlon to housing. He stated that there is no way that someone would be
hanging around outskfe because it is 10096 secure. He explained their fs only one way into the bu8ding and
they are dosed circuit monitored every day. A licensed security firm will come by twice a day.
He referred to Dr. Aspenal's, comments and stated they will allow adequate parking places along the southerly
side of the central court for his people and that h would not be a problem. He added they will put it in writing
because they do not want another variance and explained that the Anaheim Code states that they cannot
S assign spaces, but they would like to assign the spaces and would be happy to do so in their management
plan. Would be willing to stipulate to a 2 year perfod to make sure they will operate in a manner that they are
talking about. The management plan runs with the land.
He referred to Mr. Shao's comments and stated they have a shared alley between their properties; he has his
perking spaces on the other skis of the alley and they have them on their skis of the alley. He has no
objection to a wall per se, but that would be an imposition to both of them. Does not know what he can do
with back yards. He stated he was not sure what he could do about the back yards.
Robert Fitzgereld, Affordable Housing Products, Inc., 503 Vista Bella, Oceanskle, CA. He explained he has had
experfence in SROs in San Diego and gave a brief presentation regarding those projects. He referenced the
restrfcted use for the hospital next door and they would be willing to restrict the use of those parking spaces
durfng working hours and they would be willing to put that Into any kind of covenant that the City wanted to
prepare.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Brfstd stated tt;e pdicy indicates that they do not want SROs within a 1,000 feet of alcohol
related businesses, yet thoy have 25 such uses in this area. He asked ff he still thought this was a conforming
piece of property for an SRO?
Mr. Willis stated he dkf and referenced the location map. He explained this is in walking distance to the East
Anaheim Winter, a Redevelopment project fn the City of Anaheim.
~/~/~
Page 16
Xygt,t v .., .. .
~nJ ~
.~
I ~
n~a ,,
a' ~.
Bristol stated they were frying to force a square peg into a round bile, i.e., you aro trying to put
a:.use thaf Is rat conforming
-t
y;l1:_~ ~ Henninger stated the Cky of Anaheim has a Neighborhood Preservation Pdfcy
t3ruis.~Freerrian, Code Enforcement, stated one of the elements Is to maintain the quality of life in the
„~resldettUai, oommercal and industrial neighborhoods of the City. They do have some concerns stated here in
~n regards to the residents and single-famgy homes adjacent to this project and this new proposed SRO in the
}$ commercial district The Code Enforcement Division of the Planning Department has had extensive problems in
~~~~~:. and around that entire neighborhood and this is almost on a daily basis such as grafffti, the loftering, vehicle
N~ parkirtp and numerous problems in the public alley which would also be adjacent to this property. They have
,,~L ~~ tied eodensNe problems with vehicles being abandoned in the alley and just general vandalism of the property,
;` . so currently this problem exists and whether or not it would further e~ralate that, he has no idea. The purpose
is'to maintain the quality of life within the resklential, industrial and commercial zones.
Chairman Henninger asked if they saw fit that they would have to have full time security at that location?
Y ~ ,-' Ms. Monical explained they did allow for some flexibility. They do not have an SRO in Anaheim or in Orange
Gotinty so k is dfflicult to evaluate a number of items including the security issue. The project on Anaheim
SMd. has not been bugs othervvise they could use it as an exempla and be able to evaluate the security needs.
Commissioner temel stated the SRO pdicy was put together and the research was done. He asked with
i special regard to the alcohd related use wfth the 1,000 feet, dkl the Pdice Department have input on that?
Ms. Monical explained when they put in the SRO poicy, they worked very dose wfth the Pdice Department
because of the crime issues that are often associated with SROs and lower income housing; they wanted to
'~ make sure those issues were addressed properly so they could evaluate the first SRO.
Commissioner Masse stated the petitioner keeps talking about going to San Diego to look at their SRO project
there. The Pdice Department spent countless hours in San Diego. The Planning Commission went down to
San Diego before the pdfcy was written and after they dki that study, t'~ Bey came up with a policy. He stated ho
dkl not think that they Ignored the while pdicy, but they made the piece of property fit the policy, but ft Just
does not fit_g is the wrong place and size. He added the while thing falls apart.
Commissioner 2emel stated his concern was that the Police Department did advise the Commission before the
City adopted that poicy.
Mr. Willis stated he did not want to belittle the policy, but there is not a major street in Anaheim that does not
trove an alcohd related use.
Chairman Henninger stated there ale places in Anaheim that do not back up directly on single-family homes
and the one that was previously approved was in a more buffered location then their current proposal.
Commissioner Peraza stated not all low income wage earners are criminals and they have a right to live some
piece. He stated he ,personally does not feel that this property is adequate and large enough for an SRO and
to meet their poley.
Commissioner Taft stated there is nothing but major parking problems on this property.
i.
~/b9/92
$+ _f
~4ltH ...
09/U9/'g2
Page 18
' OWNER: THE GRACE BAPTIST. CHURCH OF ANAHEIM, 2530 W. La Palma,
Anaheim, CA 92801
AGENT: REVEREND TIM GRIFFIN, 2530 W. La Palma, Anaheim, CA 92801
LOCATION: 2530 West La Palma Avenue. Property Is approxlma~ely 2.5 acres
located on the south skle of La Palma Avenue and' approximately 665
feet east of the centerline of Magndia Avenue.
~;`, To permit a prNrate educational facility (Tth through 12th grauesy in conjunction with
an existing church and preschod with waiver of minimum num~er of parking spaces.
1tfi '
~•
' ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC 91-110
A ~
~ka.:gr
~ .
i
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED
aFFICIAL MINUTES.
OP(a'OSITION: None
`~ Tim GrHfln, Senior Pastor at Grace Lutheran Church, 2530 W. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA. He made his
presentation regarding their proposal.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Messe asked out of curiosity why they want to jump to junior high and senior high schod when
tgrere are preschod children attending? He asked why they dki not choose to go from Kindergarten through
grade 12?
Pastor Griffin explained they were approached by an existing schod that has been located in a church in
Fullerton and prior to that they were in a different church. They have been advised to move to another location
due to the fact that young people tend to wear out a facility and particularly churches.
Taher Jalai, Traffic Engineering, stated they looked at the parking study that was done in 1991 aril at that time
the peak church demand was T2 cars which was on a Sunday and is adequate for the 115 parking spaces
provided. In terms of schod and office, the City Code is on the high skis due to the high schod parking.
Further d::~cussion took place regarding the parking and Mr. Jalai indicated that the data he had was not clear.
Commissioner Messe questioned Pastor Grilfln further.
Pastor Griffin explained they have a large parking lot in the back of their facility that would accommodate
basket ball and vdley ball.
Commissioner Messe expressed his concerns that the parking may not be adequate.
o ~/~/~
Page 19
j A. ) r
11<}
~' _ _
~b ~ ;h
- .. ~.T;
1~ Y f'
~.y ~
~rrratt Henninger asked how many parking spaces they woukJ need on a normal day?
~~tk .. .
or. GrffRn stated Monday, through Friday, they would need 70 spaces at the very most. The office building
w.n ,: :,
Cent to their property wNl use their facAfty for periodic boani meetings and that may be once a month. As
is the school !s concerned, in :jdditlon to the office use. There are 35 to 40 spaces in the front lot.
xplalned,that the basic parking needs for the high ached students have been upwards to 25 spaces based
tasc experience, therefore, they should have enough parking available to accommodate the schods and the
o~ uses at the same time.
5 ~ ~ The' Commisskxr asked about the sports activities.
~~ ' ^ _
Pastor Grfffln stated the rear of the parking facility could be arranged to accommodate both at the same time
.r _ by realigning the vdley bail and basket ball court.
~r
... ~,
~~. Commissioner Zemel asked ff the Traffic Engineering Department would conskier that to be adequate parking?
3~
~~ AAr- Jalai explained they can take a look at the plan.
ry ~...;
~ CCmmissioner Zemd asked how many studenrts they would have that are driving age?
David Raider, (last name not spelled for the record) 2535 West La Palma, Anaheim, CA. He explained this past
year they had 86 students enrdled; they had an average of 8 to 10 students who drove cars.
Commlasloner Zemel asked for the total number of Junior and Senior High Scholl students.
• Mr. Raider stated 40 students. He stated not all students have access to a car and some do not drhie at all.
Commlasioner Messe suggested that they approve the protect with petitioner coming back with plans to move
the sports areas so it does not impact the center of the parking lot and so many parking spaces; have Traffic
EngineEr:~ig take a look at the plans and bring it back before the Commission for approval.
Yr. Rakier explained for darification that all of their sports programs will be held off-site; they rent gymnasiums
ant fields, etc. for all of those events. The only thing that would happen on-site would be during recess or
knch time.
Commissioner Peraza stated the landscaping in the front needs to be taken care of and Pastor Griffin stated he
agreed and they have recently changed that responsibility to someone else.
Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated he noticed that someone had drilled or mounted some type of eyelet
bolts in the middle of one of the handicapped parking stalls. He expressed his concerns that someone may
damage a fire ff they parked in that stall.
Pastor Grfffin explained they run a vdley ball league on the lawn in ftont of their buildings and to rope down
their vdley ball standards, they installed an eyelet in order to run the cables. After the game is over they
remove everything.
09/09/92
Page 20
a
~ ~_ ~,
~~~ ~, o
r Borr6go,~ed he elmOSt ten over one Of the.eyelets and Stated k would not be a good idea to leave k
~; ~
~ , k would' be a benefit to everyone N those tie removed when k is not being used.
. -~.:
~;ia, G,~
Pasta' Griffin explained they normally are removed and dk1 not know what happened this time.
k ~JQ[(: ' CEQA Negative Dederation -Approved
~., ~'=' Waiver of Code. Requirement-Approved
r-r:;;,, ~tip~( Use Permk No. 3538 -Granted
~- Add cardklon that petkioner bring back a revised packing plan to be reviewed by the
Traffic Engineering Department and submkted to the Planning Commission under Reports and
Recommendations; landscape to be refurbished in the front.
~"~~~ 6-0 one vacant seat
:;~;:
tit
~:~, {'„:
<a
Q~~. ~'.
•
,i adE../~- -,
{q~/ ~_
Page 21
{
' iA .
E_ L~.
A`NE
G_oTIVE DECLAR ,:_
A~,Q~ , Approved
~p OF GODE'REt]UIR EMENT Approved
.
I".rr"nuwr~~nee eeeurr WA !lS!iR Granted ~:.:-;
~.. .. .,
~~ ~ OWNER: JOYCE I. STUCK, ROY A. PARSONS, KATHERINE W. PARSONS, Co-
~, ~' Tnlstees of the Parsons Famiy Trust, GEORGE FRANCIS COPPENS and
a DARLENE COPPENS, Trustees of the Coppens Family Trust, c/o George
~'~ ,;~~, Coppers 1033 Granville DrNe, Newport Beach, CA 92660
~ ~~_
s ~ < . AGENT: BRUCE PARSONS, 1625 Arcata Drive, Redlands, CA 922374
"~'~~rz
4f11d .~
LOCATION: X287 "C" North Jefferson Street. Property is approximately 0.79 acre
~k , located at the southwest comer of Miraloma Avenue and Jefferson
~' Street
~; •.`
To permft a 3,132 square-foot auto repair facility wfthln an existing industrial building
wfth waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. P 2-1 i i
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED
OFFlCIAL MINUTES.
APPOSITION: None
1 In favor
Bruce Parsons, 1624 Arcata DrNe, Redlands, CA, agent representing owners. Ho gave his presentation
regarding the project. They are requesting permission to open the business as soon as possible. He was
forced by Exxon to dose down August 1st and since then he has been paying the salaries of his employees.
He asked for relief from additional finance costs wfth respect to Condftion No. 3 regarding curb returns for the
driveway approaches.
Pedro Veronese, business owner. His resklence address is 906 La Paz, Placentia, CA. He has been running
the Exxon station on the comer of Yorba Linda and Rose Drive for 15 years and has a good clientele. His
business use is to be run by his family. Exxon deckled to move out of California and since July 1st they have
no place to do their business. He referenced some letter he had from some of his customers and a newspaper
article that refers to them as'fhe Golden Mecha~~l.:."
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Bristd referenced condftion no. 10 and asked about final building and zoning inspections.
Mr. Borrngo explained that would be before the final sign-off is gNen on their building permft prior to
occupancy.
Chairman Henninger stated ft could be delayed. They could ask for 180 days.
09/b9/92
Page 2?.
i rf ~, -',~r t ~ '~4 ¢ s ~~~ ,
^~...
~r _ .-.
- - _ ~i
~::~
ao stated the.only reason they Ilke to tie it to occupancy is, that they do have a bugt to mechanism so
oan: monftor, these conditkx~s as opposed to having to send someone out there In 180 days and make
°The t~nditlott c:ouki be extended as far as the timing goes, although their enforcemerrt of the
would not be as effed9ve.
loner Peraza notkx3d that mast of the parkng spats3s were assigned and asked ff that could be taken
y would have enough parking? Ail of the ones on the Jefferson side had n mes on them.
t
Mr. Persons stated that was done by GTemp whkh is a manufactwing business that occupies approximately
r ~ `half of the buiding and they thought they were entitled to one-half of the parking spacers so they went out and
~'~. maFlced tham. They have had in the past, automobile uses occupying the building because ft is dose to the
~~' ~~ ~ auto auction and they have had problems with cars parking there. He added the assigned parking could be
t,''~ removed.
Commissioner Zemel asked that Traffic Engineering elaborate on Condition No. 3 regarding curb returns.
Mr. Jalal stated they would prefer to have the driveway redone to provide 10 foot curb returns because tow
,~ '. ' trucks are ingressing and egressing. He explained wfth the existing drop curbs rather than the curb returns,
cars or trucks tend to run over them and in time damage the curb. They normally condRion new projects to
provide curb return driveways.
' Commisskmer Messe stated n is generally done in order to keep traffic moving, but Jefferson Street is not a
very highly travelled street and people tend to slow down when the curb return is not a wkJe radius.
Chairman Henninger asked ff there would be some immediate safety problem ff they were to delay this 6
months?
® Mr. Jalal indicated h would not.
ACTION: CE~A Negative Declaration -Approved
Waiver of Code Requirement -Approved
Conditional Use Permit No. 3535 -Granted
With stipulation that applicant be allowed 180 days to comply wfth Condition No. 3;
eliminate assigned parking.
VOTE: 6-0 (One vacant seat)
® ~/~/~
Page 23
xs_.. - .
+" + .
~ 'w
f, r-
~~t .. "~~
~`- •G
-~: F.}-;
X12;" DEPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
~
. A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. - REQUEST FOR RFLTROACTIVE TIME
~ Approved
~
~ro
, ,
EX_fENS10N TO COMPLY WITft CCND1110NS OF APPR0IPAL:
.
.. To expire
,
~
, .
..
~~° ,
Phflip Schwartze requests a 180-day retroactive extension of time to comply with
3/23/93
,
=~+ conditions of approval to for Conditional Use Perrnit 3453 (to construct up to 141,135
~~ ~ ~ square feet of industrially retatled office uses wittrin a proposed 205,685 square feet
,~, ;!~''~~`
~ ~~i; industrial park) to expire on March 23, 1993. Property is located at 2890 E. La Palma
;~. ,:: ~E x! Avenue.
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3413 - REQUEST TO AMEND OR DELETE Approved
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PERTAINING TO TIME LIMITATION OF A PREVIOUSLY-
~QPROVED RESTAURANT WITH ON-PREMISE S,4LE AND CONSUMPTION OF BEER
r grip WINE: Gus Riker requests to amend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to
. time Ilmitatk~n of a prevbusly approved restaurant with on-premise sale and consumption
of beer and wine. Property is located at 2521 E. Ball Road.
Norbert Waters, 12132 Maurie Lane ,Gordon Grove, CA. He referenced 12c and
indicated ii was in conflict with No.10 under Evaluation.
. Greg Hastings, Zoning Div(sion Manager, stated he could clear this up, i.e., 12c on page 3
should be deleted. He explained that in this particular case there was a she plan that was
approved a while back that would not meet the current landscape ordinance, however,
this was already approved arxi, therefore, would be exempt from the landscape
ordinance, particularly the islands required for the inside of the parking lot. One of the
remaining conditions to be met on this ~ that a landscape plan be submitted to the
Planning Commission in the future which Mr. Waters is in the process of preparing. They
wdl compare this with the new landscape ordinance, but will not be required to be in
compliance and that ~rould be for irrforrnation purposes.
C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.341d: Information for Planning Commission pertaining For
to compliance with parking requirements for the Cinemopolis Theater expansion. informational
purposes only
~~< ,
t ~~ ~ . .
~/b9/9Q
?' ~.~
}. Y -
~P~. ~: ~.
..(~7w
INFORMATIONAL ITEMSc
~.. ~.
~Chaimnan Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissiorer Messe and MOTION CARRIED
(~ytacant ;seat),, that. the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby appoint Commissioner Peraza as
the~Planriing Commisson representative to the Parks and Recreation Commission urn June 30,1994.
~+~
~~~•
gQJ,Q~ Chairman Henninger offered a motbn, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED
G(one:vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby appoint Commissioner Bristd as
''~~the Planning Commission representative to the Underground Utilities Commission until June 30,1995.
~r;~,, gQJ4~: Chairman Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Masse and MOTION CARRIED
(one:vaoant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby appoint Commissioner Pereza as
the Planning Commission representative to the Parks and Recreation Commission unttl June 30,1994.
` l.1
Page 25
~/~/~