PC 1984/11/26REGUL~R MEETING OP THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING The regular meeting of l•he Anaheim Ctty Planning Cammis~ion
was called to order by Chairman Herbst at 10:00 a.m.,
November 26, 1984, in the Co~ncil ChAmber, a quorum being
preaent and the Commisaion reviewPd plnns of the items on
today's agend~.
RECRSS: 11:30 a.m.
REC~t~VENED: 1:32 p.m.
pRESENT Chairman: Herbet
Commissioners: eouas, Bushore, Fry, King, La Claire,
McBurney
ADSENT; Commissioner: Nane
ALSO PRESENT Annika 5antalahti
Joe1 Pi ck
Jack White
Jay Titus
Paul Singer
Jay Taahiro
Pat Whitaker
GKeg Ha~tings
Edith Narris
Assistant nirector for Zoning
Assiatant Director for Planning
Assietant City Attorney
Office Engtneer
Tr.affic Engineer
Asnociate Planner
Neighborhood Restor.ati.on Specialist
Aasociate Planner
Planning Conunission Secretacy
ANPROVAL OF MZNUTES: Commi~s.ioner King of.fered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner La Claire and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners 8ouas and McBurney
abstaining on the October 15th minutes and Commissioner Herbst abstaining on
the October 29th minutes) that the minutes of the meetings of October 15 and
October 29, 1984, be approved as submitted.
ITEM N0. 1. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAI~ USE PERMIT N0. 2619
PUBLIC EIEARING. OWt~ERS: SCONONY M08ILE OIL COMPANY~ INC., 17822 East 17th
Street, Tustin, CA 92680, ATTN: H. C. ERICSAN AND MP.S. ANNE HBNNING PAULUS,
East Lake Shore, E3ig Fork, Montana 59911. Property der~cribed as an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximbtely 0.63 acre,
located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Rio Vista Street, and
further described as 2800 East Lincdln Avenue (Mobil Oil).
Request to permit convenience retail sales in an existing service station.
Continued from the meetings of October 15, 29, November 14, 1984.
ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Bnuas and M~JTI.ON CARRIED thaL coneidFratian of the aforementioned matter be
continued to the reguiarly-scheduled meeting of December 10, 1984, at the
cequest of Che petitioner in order that he may submi~ revised plans anc~/or
information pertaining to the closure of the existing driveways.
744 11/26/84
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITX PLANNING CbMMI5SI0N, NOVEMBER 26, 1984 84-745
ITEM N0. 2. EIK NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2614
PUHLIC HEARING. OWNER: LUCIGL~ M. PERRYMAN, 210 W. Vermont Avenue, Anaheim,
CA 92805. AGENT: EMBASSY PARK AEV~LOPMENT CUMPANY, 5480 Lincoln Avenue,
Cypceas, CA 9063Q, ATTN: WILLIAM FIFIELD. Property described sA a
cectangularly-shaped p~rcel oE land consisting of approximately 0.4 acce, 210
Weat Vermont Avenue.
To permit a 36-unil• senior citizen's apartment complex.
Continued from the meeting of October 15, 1984.
ACTIUN; Commissioner La Claice offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
eouas and MO'I~ION CARRIED that conaideration oE the aforementionPd matter be
continued to the regula~ly-scheduled meeting of January 7, 1985, in order for
the ~etitioner to investigate the feasibility oE Alternative pro~vsals on
subject praperty.
ITEM N0. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 264 ANU GENERAL PLAN AMENqMENT
N0. 187
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: RICHAi~U A. WALLACE, ~T AL, P.O. Box 11626, Santa
Ana, CA 92711. AGENT: RUT~N ~ TUCKER, c/o James Moore and Scott Rogers, P.O.
Dox 1950, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. Property described As approximately 325 acres
bounded on the north by the Bauer Ranch and Santa AnA Canyon Road, east by the
irvine Compariy property, south by the Oak Hills Ranch, and west by the Anaheim
Hills Development Corporation pcoperty and khe Bauec Ranch.
Amendment to the Land Uae Element of the General Plan: Alternate pr~posals of
ultimate land uses including, but not limited to Hillside Estate Density
Residential, Hillside Low Density Residential, Hi,llside Medium Density
Residential, General Commercial, and General Open Space.
Continued from the meetings of October 29, and November 14, 1984.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject re~uest
and although the staff rEport was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Jay Tashiro, Associate Planner, presented the staEf report to the Planning
Commi~aion dated November 26, 1984, indicating the a~plicant proposPS ko
develop a mix of housing densikies, neighborhood, commercial and school
facilities on the 325 + acre~ with a maximum of up to 1,119 dwelling units,
decreased from the ociginal proposed for 1~190; khat subject am~ndnient would
skfll have the highesk residential acreage density of major General Plan
Amendments in the C~nyon Area since the adoption of the Canyon Acea Gener~l
Plan; however, it does not exceed the proposed density bpproved for the Oak
Hills Ranch property. He stated the applicant submitted a letter indicating
that if the subject Generel Plan Amendment is appr~ved by the Planning
Con~mission and City Council, they have no objection ta ~nnexing into the City
of Anaheim. Concerning traffic, he explained Bxhibit B wi~l have
approximately the same traffic impact as originally propased on Exh~bit A.
11/26/$4
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOMj NOVBMBER 26, 1984 84-746
He painted out ^tiaff's concecna aftPr review of the Exhibit are: (1) the
appropci.atenes. ~f increase in presently adopt~d Ge~eral Plrn dwe.ll~ng unit•s
from 738 to 1,119, an inerease of 528t f2) ap~ropclatenes~ oE the pcopoaed
density on a study area where approximately 1/4 of the slopes excEed 30~t (3)
the proposed hlgh denaity of 11 dwelltng unita per acxe in propoaed in four
plann.ing areas and Oak Hills Ranch and Bauer Ranch had one planni.ng area each
with a deng~ty of 11 dwelling un.its per acr.es (4) of. the 1,119 dwelling unita
prnposed with~n the atudy area, 877 dwelling unita (78~) are designated for
hillside medium density resldenL.ia1 which is typically implemented by
multiple-EAmily unitsj (5) the propased amendment indicates a reduction of
Upprox~mately 58 acre~ of residentially designated arEas but maintains an
increase of general o~en space area by approxirt~ately 24 acres; (6) approval of
subject amendmenl• ~ay precipitate the requeat for i.ncreaae~ tn density for ~he
remain~ng undeveloped areas in the hill and canyon Area. He stated the
revised physical imE~act report indicates that Exhibit B will have a pastti.ve
imp~ct to the City of ap~roxi.ma~ely $18,600. Fie stated if the Plannfng
Commission and City Counc~l were tc approve the subject amendment with a
maximum of 1,119 dwelling untts, approval ta not automat~cally guarar~teed for
development of that number of units and under the General Plan designation,
the number of developable units would range Erom zero up to 1,119 units with a
total actual number of ~mplementable units tv be authori.zed by the City at the
time o~ apptoval of planned community zoning or suhdivi.sion approvals.
Jarod Ikeda, 1802 Cowan, consultant to the applicant (owners nf the Wallace
Ranch) explained the planning Eor this proposal started about one year ago
when the Oak ~iills Ranch planni.ng began For the 6C0 acres upstream Erom this
property and alsa the Bauer Ranch planntng which was downstream from th~a
property; that when those two properties started their plans, it became
apparent that the development of the Wallace Ranch would need to be
coordznated with those developments. He stated ~t was the intent to clearly
plan that whole area in a coordinated tashion and eliminate any potenkial
conflxcts in the future ot pos~ible fnfrastru~ture and public service not
being pco,~erly coordinated. He stated the orx~inal plan was fo: 1,190 units
and three ~ssues were raised by the Planning Commission, density, traffic and
annexation; and tlie changes that have occurred aE a result of that meeti.ng
consist.ed of reauution in khe over-a11 number of dwelling sni.r.s by 71 from
1,190 to 1,119; that the hillside low-density residential has been reduced
from approximately 49.8 acres to 42 acres and the number of units reduced from
217 to 211; that none nf the planrting areas for the h~l~side low-density
designation would exceed 5 dwellings per acre; that tn the hiliside
medxum-density area, they have increased the acea from 6d.9 a~res to 79.2
acres which resulted F:om a reductton xn the commercial area by almost 1/2
which wa~ a net increase of 18 acres of hillside medium-de~s~ty cesidential;
however, the n~mbec of unit~ was reduced fr~m 937 to 872 wh.ich resulted
because of the reduct~on in the ptoposed denatties from two planning areas to
11 units per acre which was consistent with the highest densi.ttes, both in Oak
Hills and the Bauec Ranch areas; khat the commercial area wa3 reduced from 32
acres to 25 acres ano the amount of open space reduced by 3 acres to
cumpensate for addxtional adjustments ~n the r.esident~al area; however, almost
1/3 of the 325 acres would remain xn open space= and that the physical i~pact
would be a pos~tive impact of $18,600 as compared with the current General
Plan designatton wh~ch shows a negative xmpacts that the traff~c rema~ns the
same and the ultimate development of this canch and the 0~': Hills Ranch and
Bauer Ranch has
11/26l84
MYNU~~S, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOVEMBER 26. 1984 84-747
been planned for and anelysed by the traffic coneultant~ and it has been
determined that Dased on s phased devylopment and e monitoring Nrogcam, that
aa development occura in this particulAr Canyan and as impravements occur,
including the Eaatern Corridoc, the ~raffic c~uld be handled.
Concerning ennexation, he stated th~ ownera of the Wallac:e Ranch have been
contacted and if the City ia dPSirouo of annexatior-, they ar~ willing to annex
into rhe City and sign the n~cessary documenks and provide the fees ancl begin
tho pcoceas f~r annExation u~on dpproval of thib General Plan Amendment.
Roger Grable, Rutan and Tucker, 611 Anton, Costa Mesa, stated in view of the
Commis~ion's concerna at the previoue meeting and atnce k1~e Cil•y had indicaf~d
they would be wi].ling to init~ate the Annexation, ttiey feel comfortable in
agreeing L•o becume a part of the City as a~art oE ttie process and that
proces~ has alre~dy been etarted at the preaent timp.
THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairman Herb~t asked wha~ would happen if the Ea~tern Corridor d~esn't go
througli into Orange.
Mr. ikeda stated the ICU at the intFraection of Santa Ana Canyon Rond and Weir
Canyon Rnad would be ~uat abovQ c~pa~ity.
Westan Pringle, 265~ E. ChapmAn, Fullerton, tr~ffic ~onaultant, etated all the
dffferent de~elopment that is anticipated in the area cannot be accommodated
without the Eastern Corrid~~r oc eome other acterials tt~at Lhe position right
now is that this is at the Gener.A1 Plan level and the Eastern Corridor is a
part of the General ~lan and l-hey heve a~sumed it wi.ll be there; however, if
the Eastecn Corridor ian't buil.t, then either another arterial would tiave to
be built or the total development anticiNated in the area cou.id not be
accommodated.
Chairman Herbsl• stated he has some concer~s abouh the total amount of ~creage
involved in the medium density areas because it appears to be so far above
what has been approved in the past and ik apPears there could be a better
mix. He stated he is eoncerned with the num:~r of homes that wi11 be built
when compared with th~se built in the Anahei: Hills area and the density here
is far h~avier. '
Mr. Ikeda stated they were loofcing at the market place and the median income
fn the Anaheim Hills area is about ~28,000 and in looking at the potential
buyiny power, the ~rice of housing has to be in the neighborhood of $135,000
and xt becomes very difficu~t to bui.ld single-family, detached homes in a
hillside area at that pricej that the Genecal Plan ,tndicates the City wants to
provide housing for the peopl~ who work in the Anaheim srea and in order to do
that, the housing costs have ta be ~omewhat reasnnable; that hillside density
is about 11 units ~er acre and they have demon~trated a number of examples
where densities can be achieved beyond the 11 units per acre in a high quality
menner; that the area is somewhat flatter than the Oak Hil~s property and that
is why it is feasible to provide more housing in this acea. He staked because
of the toroyraphy and the matket place, ~hey feel it is neceasary to have this
kind of density.
I1/26/84
MINUTES. ANAHBIM CI'rY PLANNING COMMI55ION, NOVEMBER 25, 1984 84-748
ChairmAn Herbst atated the dens~ties wece planned in the hilla and canyon area
in the earlX '70's, but developeca were never able to achieve Chose numbers
because of the nias~ive grading req~ired. He akated he wants to be sure the
petitioner realizes that evEn iE th~s amendment is approved, .it doean't rea±ly
mean they will be ab1N to get that kind of denaity.
Mr. Ikeda responded they reali~ed that and eince tti~s is just a General Plan
Amendment, therc+ will be future detAiled development plana that will have to
come befoce the Commission and Council for rev.tew.
Chairman Herb~t stated developer~ alwaya refPr to this kype of density and
point out to the Planning Commission that khe General Plan says they can build
a certain number af units; hawever, the Commiseion does refuse to approve some
of those plans an~ make them revise them to provide a goo~ development and
good living environment. Mr. ikeda stated they cleacly understand and that
khey envisivn the Weir CAnyon to be devel~ped in a very high quality manner.
Commis~ioner L~ Claire atated ~he would agcee with Chairrt~an Herbst And wanted
to point out that when tlie plane do comE in with the tract map, they will be
reviewed very closely by the Planning Cnmmission and she doubted if the
developer would be able to get tfiese densities and also, it all depends on the
Eastern Cocridor and access. She stated she tE happy with this Exhibt~ for
the General Plan, bu~ she would like to know what kind of procedures have been
initiated rEgarding annexation.
Roger Grable responded they aubmitted a letter to the City indicating they
understood the City desired to annex this prupecty, and they ~ndic~~ed their
concurrence with that desire, assuming the plan is acceptable through this
process and since then, the Cily has responded regarding timing and necessary
do~uments they need to sign and havE sent thoae to them and they intend to
have those completed and returned to the City, along with the fees, prior to
the City Council heacing and their petition will be to the CiCy and the City
will submit the applicati~n to LAFCO.
Commissionec Buahore stated if thia is not approved, then annexation is not
acceptable and asked what they would do then. Mr. Grable respon~ed if they d~
not have an acceptable plan, they would have to review their optxons at that
point.
Commxssioner Bushore stated he has no problem ~ith l•he property coming into
the City, nor with ti~e developer not wanting to come to the City .if the plan
is nat approved, but he .ts concerned about tl~e density and did not votF for
the highpr density on ihe Oak Hills property because he did not like approval
being tied to a eertain numbec ~f units, and he wuuld pcobably not vote for
approvel of this request eitherj and that he felt theee higher denstties are
drastically changing the Canydn Area.
ACTION: Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconde~ by Commissioner Fry
and MOTION CARRI~D that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find
that after considering Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 264 for the
pcoposed development of the Wallace Ranch and reviewing evfdence, both wr~tken
and oral, presented to supplement Draft EIR No. 264, that EIR No. 264 is in
complfance with t•he California Environmental 4uality Act and the City and
11/26/84
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING GOMMISSION, NOVEMBG~ 26, 1984 84-749
State CBQA Guidel.inest that econumic- soci~l and phyuical considecAtions make
it infpasible to eliminate all the sign.tfiaant environmental impacts of the
project which have been identified in EIR No. 264t that it will be necessary
to complete planning and provids funding of a system of arterial highways
having adequate c~pacity to fierve thia pcoject and ~ther futute developmenta
in the reyion prior to approval of zoning the Ptoperty for develoPment;
however, the benefits of the project hev~ been balanced aga.inst r_he
unavo~dable environmentAl impacts and ~ureuant to pcovisions of Sect.ton I5093
of State CEQA Guidelines, tt~e occurrence of significant environmental effects
identified in EIR No. 264 and as ~et Eorth above may be permitted w~thout
further mitigation due to the following overriding consideratton¢: (1) the
project will provide a balanced residential community t~ Etll a need for
housing an incceaeing populations (2) the project ts compatible wtth
surcounding land uses; and (3) mitigation mea~ures have been incorporated into
the pro~ect to reduc~ the enviranmental impact to an acceptabl~ level;
therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that the Gity Council certify
Environmental Impa~t Report No. 264 fc~c the General Plan ot ti~e Wallace Ranch
and adopt this Statement oF Overridiny Considecatians.
Commissi~nec La Claire offered Resolution No. PC84-241 and moved far its
passage~°adoption that the Anaheirn City Planning Commission does hereby
rer.ommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment No. 187 - Land Use
Element Exhibit B be approved with part,tcular emphasis on the fact that this
approval does not automatically guarantee the maximum of 1,119 dwelling units
and the number would range from 0 to 1,119, with the actual number af
implementable units to be authorized by the G'ity at the time of ~nproval of
Planned Community Zoning ~nd subdivision approvals.
On roll call, the f~regoing re~olutiun was passed by the following voke:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NOES: BUSHORE
AIISENT: NONE
Commissioner I.a Claire offered a motton, seconded by Comm~sstoner Herbst and
MOTION CARRIED (Commission~r Bushore voting no) that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that annexation of ~he
Wallace Ranch property be processed through LAFCO as quickly as aossible
because they feel it is very impurtant that this property he annexed into the
City of Anaheim.
~ack White, Assistant City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the
Planning Gommission's decision within 22 days to the City Counc~.l.
ITBM NU. 4. ~IR NEGATIVE DECLARATIO~ AND VARIANCE N0. 344U
PUBLIC H~ARING• OWNERS: FANNIE AHRENS, 20332 Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim,
CA 92807. AGENT: OCEAN-WOOD GONSTRUCTION CORP., ATTN: DA~E WOOD~ 1680
Louise Street, Laguna Beach, CA 92651. Property described as an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.34 acres, 6110
East Santa Ana Canyon Road.
Watver of minimum lot wxdkh to establish a 9-lot, aingle-fam~lY subd.ivision.
11/26/64
MINUTBS. ANANEIM CITY PI~ANNING COMMISSIOU. NOVEMBF.R 26. 1984 84-750
Thece w~s no one indicetiny lheir pr~sence in oppos;tian to aubject requ~at
and elthough the st~fE copoct waA not rea~, it is ceferred to nnd made a pert
of khe minutes.
Dale Woad, agent~ explained bocause of tha irregular shape oE aubje~t proper.ty
And becausd of the access being provided to ~he adjacent proE~erty to the
immediate west, r.hia proposa.l waa ceauced tn a y••l~~c ~ub:~lvision and the
average lut area is 8800 aquare teet.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLO5ED.
Responding to Commisaioner i.a C1Aire, Mr. Wood stated he has bcen working wikh
Ci'y Rtaff on the horse ttail isaue.
ACTIUN: commiasioner ~cing ofEered a motion, seconcied b~~ Commissioner BouAP
and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion has rEVi,ewed the
propasal. to entabliah a 9-l~t RS-720U(SC) 31ng.lr..-iamily ~ubdiviaion with
waivec of minimum lAt width on a irregularly-~ha~ed parcel of .land consisting
of approximately 2.34 acres, t,avirg aporoximatE Erontagea af 249 L~Pt on the
soutt~ aide of Santa Ana Canyon Road and 1a0 feet on the north eide of
Arboretum Road and further descrihed as 6110 East Santa Ana Canyon Raadj and
does heceby approve the NegAtive Declaration upon finding that it has
considered the t~egative Declaratton together with any comments rec~ived during
the public rev~ew process and fucthec finding on the basta uf the Inittal
Study and any commente~ recetved that l•here is „o substanttal evidence that the
project w111 have a significant effect on the enviconment.
i.ommis;ioner King offered Resolution No. PC84-2A2 and moved for its pas~+age
and aaoption that ttie Anaheim City Planning Cammisaion dc~•~s hereby grant
V~riance No. 344U on the basis that there are special :ircu~stAnces a~plicable
to the properky such a8 size, ahape, ~opograPhy, loc~kion and surroundings
whic'.~ do not apply to oth~r identically zoned pcoperty in the same vicintty;
and that strict application of the Zoning Code dc~prives the proPerty of
privileges enjoyed by other propertfes in the identical zone and
classzfication in the vicinity and subject to interdepartmen'cal Comm~ttee
recon~merd~r. ions.
Un roll call, the foregoing resQlution was passe~ by the fo]lowing vote:
AYES: SGUr~S, BUSHORE~ FRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE~ MC SURNEY
NOES: N~NE
Af3~ENT: NUNE
ITEM N0. 5. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIOt1, GENERAL PLAN AMEND_MENT N0. 198,
RECLASSIFICATIUN N0. 84-85-13 AND VARiANCB N~. 3442
UWNERS: DONALD M. & ALEENE E. WILEY, 1A811 N~a.t Ave., Tustin, CA 92680.
AGENT: JAMES MO:iLER, 874 N. Batovia Stree~, Orange, CA 92668. Property
dESCCibed as a rectangula:ly-shapec3 parcel oE land consisting of approximately
1.0 acse havi~g a front.age on the east side of Western Avenue, approximately
530 feet south of lhe center2ine of Lincoln Avenue.
11/26/84
MIN,,,_ UT~S. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NOV~MBER 26 1984 84-751
Further analXsis by st~ff. indicatee that khe atudy acea is located in the
yenecal area designated for Medium Denaity Reaidential on the Genecal Plan.
This deaigr~ation is typicelly implemented by multiPle-femily r.esidentiAl lend
uaes. It io Ataff's apinion thal the applicant'a praposal is in confarmance
with the General Plan. 'Pherefore, the appl~cant has requeated that the
subject artiendment be withdrawn.
Th~re ti•as no one indicatiny t~iefr presence in oppositian to subject requeat
and althaugh the ataff report was not cead, it is referred to and made a pAr*.
of the minute~.
Bill Uhl, arch.itect, explAiner3 they trted to Qeatgn this project with the
aurrounding properties tn mind and located the carports on the south pro~ertx
line tr act as a visual and acoustical bw:rier to the re~ide~itial property to
the sauth and the waiver is needed because the property is ..arrow and noked
there will be no windows factng the ~outh. He 3tatQd ti~ey lAVe also abked to
have a tcash enclosure within tlie fronk aetback so the tr~sh crucKS would not
have to go onto the narrow stte bPCauye it would be difficult Eor them to tucn
around.
THE PUBLIC HEA~ING WAS CLGSED.
Commias.toner Bushore ascertained that the apartments r,p the east are single
stary and that property is v~cy similar to subject proF.erty in size, shape,
etc. anC aske~ what the hardship would be foc gr~~ntin~ the variance.
Mr. Uhl stated r.he property t~ the east was developed in a different economic
climate when land was much chPaPer. He added this site rigt~t now only haa
access from Western and the property to the east has access also £r.om the
north off t;,e alley ~nd this pcoject is providing an .~mergency accesa on.ly to
the alley, for secvrity reaso~s. He explaine~ the driveway eaEement. is not on
aubjPCt property and it does not have any rigt~ts to use ~hat eaaement. He
statPd thece ace existing carports and garages on the eastern property line of
subject property.
Cencerning the 2U-~oot landscaped buffer required to the single-family
residential area to the south, Mr. Uhl stated they put the carporfs there
because they felt it would be a superior screen ovec the actual landscaped
easeme~t and explained the carports will be enc;osed oi~ three si~es.
C.hairman Herbst stated a few years ago, a few projects with this type of
carport were approved adjace~~ to single-ian~~ly homes and after seeing them
devsloped in the field, I~e would not vote for anothe~ one and that ia the
reason for the Commiasion policy for a 20-foot buffer. He stated t~:~s would
mean an 8-foot high wall or more backing right up to those peopl~'s backyards
and he fe].t tt~ey deserve some kind of Qtotection.
Mr. Uhl stated there is an exist.iny kree sccean :n the people's backyards and
that was probably because they were up againet e cammercfal pzo~ect and also a
two-story commercial project could be built on this property with very little
concern w.hether or not they ace looking into someone's backyard. • stated
they were tzying to design something that would be sensitive to tnoao
residential propettiea and thouaht a mult±~le-fami~y residential project would
11/26/84
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY P~ANNING COMMI5SION, NQVEMBER 26,_1984 84-752
be better auited adjacent to the rear of single-family propertiosJ and if the
people are not gceatly impacted at the preaent ti.me, it ia becau~e thie
commerci.al property i~ currently being under utilized. i1e statpd the praject
will block a lot of the n~~ise Che neighbors are pcesHntly getting from the
ex~eting commercial pcojecr fcom the north. Ne added he thought screening
wo~ld be cedundent on this side beceuae thore are fu~l matur~ trees on those
properties and the neighbora would nat he able ko see any of their landacapin~.
Commi.sa~oner La Claire st~ted she thought this would be the best use fot thts
property and it i.s not auitable foc commerc~al us~ or aingle-famtly
reaidential uae and ahe thought the developer t~ao t•rted to cons;der the
neighbors and af.ford them Aome privacy. She stAted she ls ylAd to aee the
car.~~rts ace gotny to be op~n ~nd ahe is not Coo concerned at~out the two
stories.
Mr. Uhl stated when a proje~t is built on the south property line, there ta
concern it would l.imit the solar ~ccess to ttie praperties to Che north. He
stated if h~ was li.ving in one of theQe restdential Properties, he would
prefer to have a hi.gher than nor.mal wa11 than to have landscaping becauae even
though tt provi~es a visual barrier, landscaping doe~ nothing to cut dawn ary
of the noiae generaCed by the project.
Commissioner La Claxre referred to the traah encl~sure and a~~ed if it would
be possible to relocat~ the enclosure to the other side of the driveway. Mr..
Ut~l responded that would be possiblc and he thought it might be bettec suited
c~ the other side and tt~e only reason ~t was up front Waa because of the
tr~~cks having to cume onto the sil•e.
Respondi~y to Commissioner King, Mr. Uhl statcd ~.hey did a number o£ schPmes
bk~fore finally pres~_nting this plan and 1f they tried to move the gaGages, the
units would be clo~er to the property line whi.~h t~P thought would ~mpact thP
residents more than a garage.
Commi.ssioner Bouas a9reed that the uni.ts wauld impact the reaidents more rhan
the carports and Chairman Herbst disagreed and stated ones that were approved
similat to this have been entxrely objectionable to t!e neighbors and ~he
thought the entire project shouJ.d be reversed fQr a n~uch better pro~ect. He
s~ate~ he realizes thete is a problem with thiF pcoperty, but m~ybe the uniks
should be single-story.
Mr. Uh: stated if the project was re~ecsed, there would ~robably be some
setback pr.oblems.
C~mmissioner eushore stated putting the catports on the property line wi.ll
definitely have an impact on the resa).e value of thESe homes be~ause potent~al
buyecs will look at that wall and it will probably kill the sale. He stated
even though the property is zoned comr.ieccially, it is not suitabZe for
comm~rc~a~ use or ~t woui~ have been developed already for commQrcial uses.
He added the appropriate use for this propecty is probably apartments;
however, there is no hardsi,~p on this part~cular pr~perty, except for
economics, which the Planning Commi.ssion can not consider.
11/26/84
MINUTES. AN~HEIM CITY PLANNI NG_ COMMISSION. NOV£M~ER 26, 1984 __ 84-753
Mr. Uhl s~ated khe shape of the pr~perty and accese should be conaider.ed as
hacdshipa. Commissi.oner Bu s hoce responded tl~e driveway easement ta not a
hardshlp.
Commiso~oner Ga Claire atat e d she did not know how many units could be
developed if thia waa only o ne story. Mr. Ut~l responded ther dtd not conaider
the project from a one-atory ~tan~point.
Commissioner La Claire atat e d st~e underakands the conatra~nt~ on the property
because of the stiape and slze and ahe is not opposed to two storiea nd etie
under~tands the ras.identtsl neighborhood is at the ce~r; but that th~y would
bp impacted moce from a comm~ccial development for whieh the property is
2oned, and she thought some ~,eople wauld prefer to have the cacs rather than
peuple adjacent to their pr operty And ottier people would want unite closer to
theic propecty with pack.ing furthec away.
Mr. Uhl stated they have ha d aeveral projec~s .in Anah~im where they have had
carpocts on thE property li ne and there has been no resistance. '~e atated he
thought it is a matter ot p reference z-nd i~ a person likes privdcy, this will
provide tt and it will ~ut any noise genecated from the complex 20 feet away
from the pruperty line.
Commisaionec k3ushore a~ked xf they have talked wtth the pcoperty owners to the
south. Mr. Uhl responded t~ey have not. Commiusioner Bu~hur.e suggested they
talk to the owners and ask them to indicate in writtng that lhey have no
problem with the carports o n the praperty line.
Jim Mullec, develo~er, ska t ed they butlt e 34-unit project on the cornec of
Dale and Ball in Ariaheim in 1982, under tl~e --ame cundiktons and it has worked
out very well. He stated t•e has had personal contack with some of the p~ap1Q
on the other side to see if there were any complaints. He added the only
other suita~le use for this property they could think of was an automottve
center; how ver, they ace mainly apartment builders and have built a lot of
apartments in Anahexrt: and they are all well-maintained. He clarified there
was a project next ko the strip commercial center on tihe southeast corner of
Ball an~t Dale in Anaheim a nd it is adjacent to single-family properties.
Chairman Herbst stated the City C.ouncil just denied a request similtac to this
and the c3eveloper has to c ome Uack in with single-story un~ts abutting a
single-family residential acea and with the two-story units at least 50 feet
away and he thought this d eveloper cnuld do the same thing by puttin~ ~ingle
atories w~thin 5 fe~t of t t~e south property linP and then putting the
two-stories on the other s ide.
Mr. Uhl s~ated the site is only 134 feQt wide and the sekback requ~rement is
150 feet with Chairman Her bst pointing out Council has approved projects at 50
feet and this would mean r eldcatinc the carports away from the south property
line. Cpmmissioner Fry po ~nted o~: he would prefer to have the carports on
the property line rather t han another projact within S feet of the property
line and Comm~sAfoner Boua s agceed.
11/26/64
MINUTES~ AN~HEIM CITY_PI,~NNING COMMISSION. NQVEMBER 26. 1984 84-754
ACTION: Commissionec King offered a motion, seconded by Cornmiasioner Fry and
MOTION CARRIEA that the Anaheim City Planning C~mmiasion has ceviewed the
proposal to reclassify eubject propecl•y fcom the CL (Commerctal, Uimtted) Zone
to tl~e RM-1200 (Re~idential, Multiplp-Family) Zone to construct a 24-un.it
apactment complex with waivera of mdximum struccural heigh~ and min..mum
landscaped aetback an A rectbngu.l~rly-ahaped parcel oC land consi~C~ng of
approximately 0.89 acre having a frontage ~f ~ppcox~mately 134 feet on tt~e
east side of Weatern Avenue and further deacr.ibed aR 134 South Western Avenues
and does h~reby approve the Negative Declacation upon finding that it has
conaidered the Negattve UUClaration together with uny commenta recetved during
thP public review pr~~ces~ and further ~ind.ing on the basts of the Initiai
Study and any comme,~~a received Chat ~n~re is no auhstanttal evidence that the
project wtll have a significant cffect on l•he environment•.
At the beginnin9 of the meeting Commisstoner La Claire offered a motion,
seconded by Commissioner BouaR and MUTION CARRIGD that the request Eor Gener.91
Plan Amendment 196 be withdrawn on the basts that the study area is located in
the genezal area deaignated for medium density reaident~al land uses on the
General Plan tt~is denignation ia typicall~ implemented by multiple-famtly
residential land uses; therefore, the applicant's propoa~l is in conformance
wxth the ~neral Plan.
Commtssionec King ot.fered kesolutton No. PC84-213 and moved £or its passage
and acioptton that the Anaheim City Planning ~mmis3ion does hereby grant
Reclassification No. 84-85-13 subject to Intecdepartmental C~mmittee
recommendationb.
On roll ca]1, the fo~eyoing resolutton wa~ passe~ by the following vo~e•
AYBS: BOUAS, BUSHOltE, FRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURN~Y
NOES: NUNE
ABB:NT: NONE
Cammissianer Kin,r, offered Resolutlon N~. PCBa-244 and moved for its passage
and adoption thal. the Anahefm City Planning Commission does t~ereby grant
' riance No. 3~~43 on the basis Chat there are speci.al circumstances applicable
the property suc:h as si2e, sha~e~ topography, locatioa and surroundings
which do not apply to othec identically zoned properky in the same vic~nity;
and that strick ap~licat.tan of the Zoni~~g Code deprives the proper~y of
privileges enjoyed by otf~er properties ~n tt-~e identtcai zone and
classification in the vicinity and aubject tu Interdepartmental Committee
recommendat~ons.
On roll call, the f~regoing cesolution was pas~ed by the followxng vote:
AYES: BOUA3~ FRY, KING, LA CLAIRE
NOES: BUSHORE, HERBST, MC BURNEY
ABSENT: NONE
Jack Whi.t~, Assistant :ity Att~rney, presented the written right to appeal the
Plann~.ng Commiss:~on's decl3ion within 22 days to the City Council.
11/26/84
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING COMMISS_I"V, NOVEMBER 26, 1984 84-755
ITEM N0. 6. EIR NEG~TIVE D~CLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 84-85-14. VARIANCE
N0. 3A~3 ~ND WAIVER OP COUNCIL POLICY N0. S42
PUBLIC HEARING. ELMER ANp VIVI~N WE88Ek, 3020-0 Via Buena Viste Blvd., Laguna
Nills~ CA 92653. AGENT: G6URGE H. PABST~ JR.~ 5150 E. PdC~f~C Co98t NighWay~
Suite 47U, Long Beach, CA 90804. Pcoperty is a rectangularly-ahaped parcel of
land con~isting nf approximately 0.11 acre, 406 E. South Street.
RS-7200 ~o the RM-1200. Wa~vers of maximum atructu~al height and pecmitted
type ~f tenant packing spaces to construcl a 7-unit ~pArtment complex.
There w~s riu one indicating theic presence in opposition to subject request
and although the ataff repocC was not read, it is reEerred to ~nd mAde a part
of the minutes.
George Pabst, agEnt, expiained they plan to buil.d a 7-unit ~pactment complex
with units being 905 square feet eacti and ttiat 208 oE the units will bE rented
as affordable unit$.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEU.
Greg Hastings, Associate Plz+nner, explatned this matter wa~ not advertised as
a low-income hous~ng project and staEE did not know it was to be An affocdable
project. Annika Santalahti, Assi.stant Aicector for Zoning, stated the
developer is not requesting a density bonus and if he is workir~y with the
Housing Department on an affordable agreement, khat can be considered as b
separate xs3ue.
Mr. Pabst stated they are planning ko partict~ake tn a bond issue through the
State and City of Anaheim and they would be required to provide 20B of the
units as affordable.
Fat Whitaker, H~using Restocatfon Specialis~, scatea in th~s case it is the
State througti the CHFA Pr~gram, and tt~e developer has ag.Keed to 208 affordable
under the State guidel~nes which z+re more restrictf~e tlian the City's.
Concerning the request fer waivpr of Council Policy, Greg Hastings explained
the Counci.l Policy requires that there nut be any use within 100 fee't of a
railcoad track and anything within 600 feet ~rould have to be sound attenuated
anc3 th~~y a~p E~roposing a unit within 95 feek of the raxlroad; however, it
would be sound attenuated.
Commissioner Bustiore stated he ttiought a conditton should be added pertaxn~nq
to affordability because ~f a£fects his khinking on this project.
.Tack White, Assistant City Atto~ney, explained thece is n~ request for a
dens~ty bonus, so there would be no basis for the Commission to include ~hose
provisions.
Commiesioner Bushore stated one of the reasons he would be willing to vote for
the approval of th~s project is because the petitioner has agreed to the
affurdability. Ar.nika Santalahti stated the Council Policy states when 258 of
the units are set aside as affordabie, the Commission may wish to grant the
density~ or other ~vaivers; however, the bond issue only requxres 208
affordable, eo this doesn't fall within the Council Policy.
11/2b, 84
MINUTRS ~NAHEIM CITY PLAI~NING COMMI53ION NOVEMHER 26 1~84 ~6
Commiseioner Buahore stated the developer wants aifordabi~i.ty for the CHFA
fin~ncing and he thouyht aince the pekitionet ie wi.lling,it b~ould be included.
Con~~ss~oner La Clair~ stated she would look at thc project without ~he
affotdability and the developer is not asking for dena~ty bonuse~, but is
~aking for a 3-atury ~roject. she aaked about the tandem parking.
Paul Singer, Traffic Gnginee[, ~•cbted the t~ndem parking, other than whether
it would be covered or uncover.ed, ia adequate and the aiza doea meet the
minimum etandards.
Commiesioner ~a Clairc. stated the ~ommisston just approved a sentor cttizen's
project with all open spACes, so she did not see a problem with these being
open. She stated it seems everything in the area is RM-1'l00 an~ with an
elementary achool on onP side, she did nok scP Anything disturbing about thia
project at ull.
ACTIUN: Comm:~sioner La ~:aire offeced a motion, seconded by Commisstoner
King and ~NO'AIO~.J .^.ARRIEU khet the Anaheim City P~anning Commission h~s reviewed
the proposbl co ce:lasbify subject property from RS-7200 (Restdential,
Single-E~amily) to tlie RM-1200 (Residential, M~ltiple-Family) Zone or a less
intense zone ta construct a 7-unit apactment aomplex with waivera of max~r~~um
structural height and permttted type of tenant apaces on a
rectang~.ilarly-shaped parcel oE land consiattng of approximately 0.21 acre
having a frontage ~f appcoximately 65 feet an the aouth side of Soukh Street
and further de~cribed as 406 East South Street= an~ does herebv approve the
Negative Declacation upon finding that it has considered the Nega~ive
Daclaratton together with any comments received during the public review
procesa and further finding on the bas~s of l•he initial Study and any comments
received that there is no s~ibstantial evidence tl~at the project w~lll have a
significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner La Claire offered Res~lution No. PC84-245 and moved for its
passage and adoption thac L•he Anaheim City Planning Commission doas hernby
yrant Reclassification No. 84-85-14 subject to Interdepartmental Commzt,:ee
recomm~ndations. She added the resoluf,ion foe the reclassification was based
on the fact she felt thts would be a good use for che pco~ecty eensidering the
surrounding land uses.
On roll call, the fore~~oing resolul•ion was passed by the following vote:
,AYES: BOUAS, 9USHORE, FRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURN~Y
NUES: NUNE
ABSENT: NONE
Regponding to Commissioner Bushorer Pat Whitaker said she did not know if
there is a state mandate pertaining to affordable housing, but the petitioner
hae agreed tc ~arki.cipate in the possibili.ty of the bond issue and he has
already entered into a letter of undecstanding w:th the staf£ and aill enter
into an agreement when this is approved.
Mr. PaF~st stated if they do not get the bond financing, they might wish to go
with ~he County pcoc~ram.
11/26/84
~
84-757
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NnVEMBER 26. 1904 --
Commiasioner Duahore stat~d he tl~ought t•he ceatrtction ahould be inc.luded
because the developec is willing to provide 2 aEfordable units and iF the Ctty
doea have a plan that aeye how many unita has to be pcovided ~er yedr to meet
ti.~s h~u~ing neod, this will help. Pat Whitaker atated thetr depactment does
have a houatng plan ahich ape~'fie~ a certain number of untta, with
Commiasioner Hushoce pointing out the petttionec has agreed to provide tw~ o£
those units.
Commiastoner La Claire ~tated thia is a small project, otherwise, she would
nocmally agree with Commi.Aaioner Buohore and noted the petttioner ~s noQW
Asking f•oc any d~nsity bonuees and th~s is a smAll property with very `
unita.
Commissionec La Claire offered Reaolution No. PC84-246 and moved fcr its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Plann~ng Cort~mission does hereby
grart Variance yo. 3443 on the basis that there are special circumstances
applicabl~ to the pcopecty such ~s size- shape, to~ograpY~y, location and
surroundinys which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the
same vicinity; and that strict application ot the Zonin9 Code deprfves the
property of privileges en~oyed by other properties in the ide~tt~aarking space
classification in the vicinity and further po~nted out this tyP• P
has been en~r$ubject toeinterdepactm~ental Comm~ttee recommendations~~ be a
pcoblem,
On roll call, the foregoing resolutfon was paased by the following vote
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, NEk~ST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NUES: NUNE
ABSENT: NONE
Commissioner La Claire referred Lo the ~aivers pectainin~ to the so~nd
attenuatio~ :or :esidential structures located within 100 feet of r~ilroad
tracks and noted if this xs approved, tt does notWaa;ingt~h~SCQUnciltPolicy~to
requicements in the other units and thiR is onl; '
a~low for conRtr:~ction of residential un.te 95 feet Erom the existing railroad
tracke. She explained the sound attenuation requiremFnts would not be waived.
Comm~ssioner La Claire offered n mot.ion, secon~.d by Commfssianer Ktng end
MOTION CARRIED tt~at the Anaheim City Planning Commission does herehy recammend
to the City Council that Council Policy No. 542 be waived p~rtaining to sound
attenuatiio~ for resident~al str~~ctures located with~n 100 feet oE a railroad
track, noting th~s would not be waiving any sound attenuation measuces for the
units themselves,
IZ'~M N0. 7. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3441
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CHARLES F. MASS AND VIVInN ELEENE MASS, 1185
Tropical Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91107. AGENT: CENTURY CAPITA'~ DEVELOPMENT
CURP., 17581 Irvine Blvd., Suite 211, Tustin, CA 92680, ATTN: M. HUSSAINr
HASHIMo sistinKAOF'approximately80t59eacre,~514c516uEastyS utheStreet 1 ~•
land c 9
11/26/Q4
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOVEMBER 26 1984 04-750
Wa~vecs oE permitted enccoachment into aide yurda, permitten location of open
parking spacea, ~aximum aikF coverage, m~ximum nutnb~r of bachelor unita,
minimum f[ont landacaped aetback and mi.nlmum structural aetbACk to conatruct a
21-unit apartment complea.
There were thcee persons tnd ating their p~e~ence in opPosition to eubject
request and althouqh the st~~ f report was not read, it is reEerred to and made
a ~art of the minutes.
Bill Bigattl, 1758 Irvi ~: 9oulevard, Tuatin, explained they plan to construct
a 21-un~t apartment cr~plex and they are planning private outdoor patioe for
~ach unit inatead of ~_he common landscaped areae. He st~ted he tt~ought there
in an errar ~n the staff repork on Page 7-c, Paragraph 16, becau3e they are
not asktng for a 24M increaoe nf the maximum site caverpge and explatned on
the second floor of ~hi~ complex there wil' be 1a5U square £eet ot outdoor
pr~vate pat~o which was included in the site coveragE calculutions. He srated
the minimum front landacaped setback pertains to the ~outh property line foC a
d:stance ~f 7 feet along Dakota Street. and compacing thta property wi.th
adjacent parcels, it is apparent it i.s unique tn size and in order to get the
~acn3ity th~t that area is zoned for, there i.s no alternative but to request
the waiver.s.
Ri.ta AuEfrey explained she is a tenant at sub~ect property and c~~me to the
meeting today hoping to aee Mr. Maes, the ownec, who haA apparently aold the
property and the tenants have not been told anyttiing. She explai.ned she moved
into this property in May from another property which was in the Redevelopment
area where st~e had lived fnr 11 yeare and she was led to believe that she
could b~ at this property for a lonQ time. She explained they found out about
khe proposal because she works Eor the newspaper and saw the legal
advertisement. .
Marie Munson, 514 E. South ~treet, stated she has lived ak this ~roperty for a
lung time and these awners had not told them anything. She stated they have
pift up wikh a lot of problems from the neighbors and have taken core of the
property for tht: owner.
Chairmau Herbet explained th~~ Planning Commission knows nothing about L•he sale
of the property and there is nothing they can do sbout the owner not telling
the tenants his plans. Cummissioner Bushore suggested the tQnants r..ontact the
petiti.oner after the meetinq and find out the plans, with Chairman Herbst
explaining the petitione~ has sZent qui~te a bit of money having p~ans prP~~ared
so he will probab~y know the answers.
R. L. Kilingsworth stated he is anothec tenant who has been living on ti~~s
property for 31 years an~ did not know what was gotng on until he saw the sign
posted in ftont of the ptopecty. He explained thece ~is a school next dooc to
the proper*_y and asked if this would be a place for bacheloc apartments.
Greg Hast~.ngs, Asso~iate Planner, explainec3 6 haeheloc units are proposed ~n
this complex.
Mrs Biyatti explz ~his is not tA be a bachelor complex with only 6 units
propoeed an,d the dnCe will be two-bedroom un~.tc and they have been
designed, hopeful.ly, for young families and each unit has a priv~te pat~o
where childcen could play.
MINUTES, ANAiIEIM CITY PL~NNING COMMISSION, NOVEMBER 26 L 1984 84-759
9`HE PUBLIC NEARING WAS 1:1,OSED.
Commissioner La Cla~ce stated it ap~eArs [or the moet part that requeat,,d
waivers are technical. She etated she aympakhizea with the people liv~ng ~n
the property and felt they should have heen Cold the plz-nst however, she did
not think the pro~ect will be harmEul to unyone.
AC:TION: Commieaiuner La C1Atre offered a mottan, seconded by Com~ni~aioner
Bouas and MOTIUN CARRIED that the Anai~~im City Plannin4 Commission has
revi~wed the proposal to construc~ a 21-unit apartment complex w~th waivers of
~+ermitted encroachment into side yard3, m~ximurt~ site coverage, max~mum number
o£ bachelor unttc, minimum front yacd setback and m.intmum structural setback
on an irreyularly-shaped parcel of land consiating of approximt+te~,y 0.59 ~cre
having approximate frontagea of J20 feet on the aouth ~ic~e of South Street and
8 feet on the north ~ide ot Dakota Street and further descr.ibed as 514-516
Bast South Street; and does hereby approve the i,egative Declaratton upon
finding that it has coneidered the Negative Decl~.ation tagether with a:
comments rer.etved during the publi~ review process and further find~ng on the
basia of the Initial Study and any comments received that th~re i.s no
substantial evidence that khe project will have a sfgnificant effect ~r~ the
environment.
Commfssioner La Claire o~fered Resolution No. PC84-247 end moved Eor ita
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Cummiss.ton does hereby
grant VariAnce No. 3441 on k.he basis that the waivecs requested are minima'
znd on the basis that there are special cl~rcumstances applicable to the
property such as size, shape, topography, location And surroundinqs whtch do
not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vtcinity; and that
strict applicati~n oE the Zoning Code deprives the property of priv:legea
enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classiftcattor~ in the
vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendattons.
Greg Ha~tings asked that Condition N~. 12 ~n Yage 7-b be corrected to show the
perpetual pasement agreernent should be with the owner cf the property to the
east ~nstead of the west as shown .in the staff r~port.
Respondiny to ~hairman Herbst, Mr. Bigatti explained 'hey do have a tentative
agreement with thP ownec to the east and if this pro~eck is appr~~ved, they
will c~et the ~,greement. Chairman Herbat pointed out that it will have to be
submitted :.o the C~[ty Attorney's Office tor approval and recorded ~n the
Oran9e County Recorder's Ufftce.
Gn roll call, the toregoing resolutiun was passed by the fo ~winq vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, HEP.BST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NUES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Jack Whtte, Assistant Ci~y Attarney, presented the written right to appeal ~he
Plannxng CommisRtan's decision within 22 days to the City Counr.il:
RECESS: 3:Q5 p.m.
RECqNVENE: 3:15 p.in.
11/26/84
MINUTES~ ANANBIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NUVEMHER 26r 1984 84-760
IT~M Np. 8. EIR NEGATIVE D~CLARA'fI~'~~PREVIOUSLY APPROV~D~, WAIVER OF CpDE
REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIdNAL USE PERMIT N0. 2607 (READV~RTISED)
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ANANEIM CITY S~N00~ DLSTRICT~ 090 ~. Olive ~treet~
Anahei.m, CA 928U5. Ar,~NT: GNINLSE BAPmIST CFiURCH, 1275 E. HroadwAy, Anaheim,
CA 92805, ATTN: ANllY CHEUNG. PCOpeCty desC[ibed as an lrregula[ly-Ahaped
parcel of .land constating of approximately 1.6 acren located at the southeast
corner of Broadw~y and Olive 5treex, 412 East Braadway Street.
To construct A church faci]ity with waiver of minimum l~ndscaped setback.
The.:e was no one indic~ting tt,eir presence tn opposition to ~ubject request
and although the staLf report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of Che minuhcs.
Chacles Beck, 1544ti Redhill, Tustin, explAtn-d they are no longer proposing to
utilize the small oft-Rite park~ng lot at ~_he corner af Melrose and Hroadway.
Greg Hastings exp.lained l•hey have excess Farking spacea so that ct~ange wi11
not affect the prnposal.
THE PUBLIC F;L•'ARING WAS CLOSED.
Jay Titus, Off.ice Engineer, stated a condition was inadvertently left out
regar.ding the relocation of ~he ex.isting street facillties to theic ultimate
location at such time the City Engirieer feels it would be necessary and that
should be added to Conditian No. 2 which requirey addiCional dedication of
Broadway and Ulive Streets.
Paul Singer, Tcaffic Engineer, explatned the widentng af Broadway is to take
place wt~en the Re~.:velopment Agency widens the streets and ti,at Olive Street
will have to widened prior to ~~ccupancy because of t~~e left-turn lane
r~quirement.
Mr. Beck stated they have no objection to the widenxng a~ Olive Street and no
ob;ecti~n to ::he dedicat.ton of Broadway .~t this tim~; bu'. they pl~n ta come
~ back with a revised maoter pl.an to r.onstruct th~ sr.nctuasy i.n about 3 to 5
~ year~ and would want h ~ widen Broaa:~..~+ at that tima.
Mr. 5inger explained Broadway will probably be widened in about 3 years and he
thought all the widening could take ;~J3ce Rt the same time.
.iay Titus stated they would recommQ~ that the condition require th~
relocatzon upon demand of the City ;,gin~:er a~~a that the pekttioner could post
a bond untfl it is required. He explained the bo~d amount c~uld te determined.
It was noted the negative declaration was pr.eviou~ly apptoved.
ACTION: Cc,mmissioner King oFfered a motion, seaondE~d by Commissioner Bouas
and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
waiver of Code requirement on the basis of the proposed widenzng of Broadway
and fucther on the basis that thQr~: are special circumstances applir.able to
the pc~perty such as si2e, shape, topography, location and surround~ngs which
do not agply to other i~entically zo~ed property in the same vicinity; and
11/26/84
MINUTCS, ANAHETM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOVEMBER 2~,6y,_,1984 _ 84-761,
that atrict ap~lice~ion of the Zon.tng Code deprives the propecty of privilegea
enjoy~d by ather propertiQe in the identical zone and claeaification in khe
vic~nity.
Comm~asioner King offezed Resolution No. PC84-2A8 and moved f~r ita paasage
ar.d adoption that the Anahe~m City Planning Comm.is3~on doea heceby grant
Conditional Uae Permit No. 2607 pursuant to Anaheim llunicipal Code Sectton
18.03.Q30.030 through 18.03.03U.035 and subject to tnterdepartmental Committee
recommendations inclu~ing the mod~fica~ion to Candit+ ~ r.equirtng th~~
relocat~on oE the existing street facilities to thei. ~te locAtion, and
the postiny ot a bond ko guurantee aaid installati~n.
Un coll call, the Eoregoing resolut.ton was p~ssed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, HER85T~ KING, LA CLAIR~, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
Af3SEN'P: NONE
ITEM NU. 9. EItt IJEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIR~MENT ANA
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2637
PUBLIC H~ARING. UWNERS: S'PEWART, GRGEN ASSOCTATES, INC., 2914, 330-]tn
Avenue S.F1., Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2P014, ATTN: Kacl Meader. Property
desccibed as an ircegularl.y-sh~aped parcel of land consisting of approximately
27.11 acres locuted at the southeast cr,rner of Ltncoln Avenue and State
College eoulevard, 221U East Lincoln A~enue (East Anahe~m Center).
To pecmit a drive-through rPstaurant with an outdoor play area wtth waiver nf
minimum number of park~ng ~~paces.
There was no ^ne indicatinq their presence ~Ln opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it fs reEerred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Karl Meader, agent, explained a new parking study has k+een submitted and
expla~ned at this ~ime, they do nat anticipate any moce restaurants in the
center.
THE PU9LIC HEAI~ING V1AS CLOSED.
Responding ro Comrnissioner Bushore, Mr. Nleader explained they have 50,000
square feet left to be leasQd and that one 40~000-square foot freestanding
buzlding is proposed near the post office and a 5,000-square foot pad to be
located north of the post office and that the 40,000-square foot building,
t~upefully, will be lea~ed to a retaxl opecat~on sucl, as an Angels or Ole's and
that the 5,000 square foot buildtng is suitable for a tires, battery and
accessories operat~~n.
ACTTON: Commissioner K~ng offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner F'ry and
MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Comm~ssion has reviewed the
proposal to permit a drive-through restaurant with an autdo~c play area with
wa~ver of minimum numbes of ~arkinc~ ~peces on an irregularly-shaped parcel of
land consist:ing of appcoximatiely 27„11 acres located at the southeast cotneC
11/26/84
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY_PLANNING COMMISSIOtJ, NOVEMHER 26y 1984 _ 84-_E2
of Ltncoln Avenue and State College Boulevard and fucther deacribed as 221U
Ee~at Li~coln Avenuet and does hereby approve the Negative Declaratton upon
f.inding that it hae considered the Negative ~eclAration togeC~,.~r with any
comments received ~luring the pub.lir.. review procees and further finding on the
basis of the Initial Study and a~y commenta recelved th~C there iR no
s~batantial evidence th~t kt~e project will have a aignificank effect on the
enviconment.
Commisatoner King aEfered a motion, s~conaea by Commiasioner Fcy and MOTION
CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commiasion does t~ereby grant waiver ot
~ode requicement on the basia that r.t~P parking waiver will not ca-~se an
increase in tr~fEic congestion in khe immediate vicinity nor adver.se].y effect
~ny adjoining land uses and granting of the parking watver undec the
~onditions impoaed, if any, will not be detr~mental to the pear.e, health,
saEety and general welfare of the citizens of the Ci,ty of Anaheim.
Cammisaioner K~ny offered Resolution No. PC84-1~49 and moved for its passAge
and adoption that the Anaheim Ctty Planning Commw3S~O~1f~OP3 hereby grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2637 purauant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sect~on
18.03.U30.03U through 1~.U3.030.035 and auhject to Interdepartmental Committe~
recommendations.
On roll call, the forego.ing resclution was passed by the following vote;
AYES: E~Ol3AS, HUSNORE, FRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BUKNEY
NOh,i : NUNE
ABSENT: NONE
TT~M N0. 10. F.iK NEGATIVE DFCLARATION~ WAIVER OF CUilE REQUTREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL US~: PERMIT N0. 2640
PURLIC HEARItiG. OWNERS: REDONDO INVESTMENT COMPANY, 296 Redondo Ave., Long
Beach, CA 90803, ATTN: C. ROBE:tT LANGSLET. Property described as an
icregulacly-shaped parcel of land conaisting of appr~ximately 6.6 acres
located at the southwestecly corner of Santa Ana (:anyon Road and Fe,irmont
Boulevard, 6358 East Santa Ana Canyon Road.
To ~.ermit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed restaurant with wuiver of
minimum i~uml,~~ of parking spaces.
There was no one indicating their presence in oppositton to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is refecred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Christopher BeliA, Redondo Investment Company, explair~ed they were before the
Commiseion Apptoximately 2 manths ago for permitb foc the sale of beet and
wine in two restaurants x~ th~s same center, but those werF in the opposite
buildings and thf.s will be the only restaucant in thia build.ing.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Ed Campellone, manager of the propased faciZity, explained th~s w~ll be a
barbecue restaurar,t.
11/26/84
MINUTES, ANrHEJM CITY P~ANNING COMMISSION, NOVEMBEk 26. 1984 84-763
Chairman Herba4 asked if any oLher usea are betn9 cona~dered for thet property
where the proposed bank is planned because they ~re running out of par.king
spaces.
Mr. B~lla statud they are limxked to a eavings and loA~ f~ciltty or. bank in
thqt facilit:• because that ty what they have ptopose~ to the County of Orange
in their :ease of th~ adobe s~ructure and that the tennnt of that building
will have ':o be reApo~iatble for the datly opentng and clo~ing of ~he adobe
structure. He stated they have no ~lano for any fukure resta~irants in this
centec.
Commisstoner La Claire c~laciEied that the Commtssion's concern is the parking
and any fuCure uses will be closely reviewed; however, she thought the
property could tiandle this uae.
Greg Hastings pointEd out the two previous restaurant approvals were
restrict.ed to houra of operation and asked ~f the CommtsKion wished to tnclude
hours of opecation in this approval.
ACTION: Commiss~oner King offeced a motton- 3econded by Commisstoner ~ry and
MOTIAPI CARRIED tha: the Aneheitn Ctty Planning Commission has rQVtewed the
proposal to petmtt on-sale beer ar~d wine in a pc~posed cestaurant with waiver
of minimuin number of p~rking spaces on an icregularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 6.6 acres loc~ted pt the ~outheasterly corner of
Santa Ar.a Canyon Road and Fairmont Boulevard and fucther described a° 6358
East Santa Ana C,anyon Road; and does heceby apprave the Negative Declaratton
upon finding that it has considered the Negative peclar.atiun together with eny
comments received during the public review pr~cess and further fir~ding on the
basis of the in;tial Study and any comments received that there ts no
substantial evidence that khe project will have a s~gnificant effect on the
en~~ironment.
Commissioner Ying offered a motion, secondzd by Commissioner Fry and MOTI~N
CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does nereby grant waiver of
Code req~irement on the basis that the park~ng waivec will not cause an
inccease in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect
uny adjotnxng land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the
conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health,
safety and general welfare of the r.itizens of the City of Anaheim.
Comm~ssioner King offered Resolution No. PC89-2S0 and moved for ita passage
and adoption that thE Anahei.m City Plann~ng Commission does hereby grant
Conditional Use Petmit No. 2640 pursUant to Anah~im Munic~pal Code Sections
?8.03.U30.030 throuyh 1~.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committep
recommeridations incl!~ding an additional condition that the hours of operation
shall be limited t~ 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 5:00
o.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Satu:d~y and closed ori Sundays.
On roll call, the fore~oing resolu~ion was Fassed by the following vote:
AY.ES: BOUASi BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BU~NEY
NCES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
11/26/84
MINUT~ E3 ~1-NI-HEIM CITY Pi.ANNING COMMTSSIUN, NOVF.ME3ER__26. 1984 ___84'764
tT6M N0. 11. EIR NEGATIVE DECGARATION, WAIVER OF CODE RBQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL U&E P~FtMZT N0._ 2E 39
PUBLIC kl£PRING. UWNBRS: BRC70KHURST fiTREET ASSOCIATES, ATTN: TNOMAS L. XAST
ANL~ kICHARU TNOMAS, 455 E. A[tQxia Blvd., T.ong 9each, CA 9080~. AI;E:NT: CY
CONFOR'PZ, P.O~ Box 5546, Mission Hills, CA y1345. Propecty descr.ibed e~a a
c~ctangularly-shaped parcel of land coneisting of ~pproximately 0.76 acre,
1237 South Fir~~khur~t Street.
Tu permit an uutomotive s~,-vicr, center with w~iver of maximum struclural
hQi9ht adjacent to singl.e-f.~mily zoning.
There wece twelve peraons indicating their ~-esence in opposition to subjecr
request and although the st.aEf reporl• was r-uC cesd, it is ceferred to and made
a part ot the m~nutes.
Richar~ Thomaa, 12Q 38th StreEt, Manhatten E3each, explained this stte is c,utte
srrall for commErcial develor:ment nnd they have h~d a diEf icult time securing a
suitable tenont. He atated the site is be:twcen a pcivate school anC a bar and
the wall in che raar of tl~e building will be factng the private school and it
wi:il be a soltd wall wtthuut any openingb. He r~tated there Are two
c~sidential hamea on the west and a 6-foot blocfc wall wtth a 10-fo~~t
landscaoed buffer te ~roposed betw~en thfs development anc] the residenttal
area. He stated thp operator of the a~:tamotive center had indicated there
will be 8 to 10 cars per duy worked on and 8U8 of the wock is brakes and
front-en~~ ali.~nment~, so there w~uld not be engines cunning all day putting
pallution ~n the air. He addE~d there will be no body work, patnting or
welding done on these premises and all work will be dane inside tt~e bui.lding.
He stated they have talked to the neighbora tn the rear and ko the operator of
the pre•-school. He statFd the waiver is ceqt!ested because of the length of
the lot wh.ich is 115 fee~ and both the bar and private schoo: have 10-fook
~etb~cks.
Tom Yost, 31?1 Yellowt~iil Drive, Los Alam.itos, explained they have mnved the
building t~ t}ie south proper.+.y line and there will be no openfngs in that wal.l
adjacent to tt~e residential ar.ea and they have agreed ta conatruct a 6-foot
hiqh block wall Along that pco~erty line and to provide 10 feet of landscaEing
with trees. He added Chere will be no body work, painting or sanding done on
the premises. Responding to Chairman Herbst~he explained t~ere are 4 bays,
but there would not be 4 different tenants and there would be approx~mately 6
employees and the houca of operation w~ll be .fcom 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and
the facility wi.ll be closed on Sundays.
Denise Kocek, 1241 S. Hrookhurst, owner/teacher of *_he eelaira Hontessori
School, stated they have been serv:ing thls communiky for 15 years. Shp
ceferred to an incident reported on television not long ago of a school being
evacuated beGause of texic fum~s escapi;rtg from a dry cleaning operatton acroRs
the street and pointed out it did make some of the children very i11 and it
was found the fum~s had been escaping from that facility for the last 2
yea:g. Sh~ a~ked who is resp~nsibie ~or th~s type of lnc~dent, the school
~istzict, the corForatien manufacturing the chemical, the Ctty who isaued the
permi.ta to allow these incompatible uses, etc. She stated they have been told
the noise and fumes are not really tha~t bad and there is smo~ everywhere
11/26/8d
MINUT~~, ANAHEI!' GITY PLANNING CQMMISSION._tiOVE~1~ER 26~ 1984 84-765
elready. She added she did not think th~ sma~ ehoul~ be increa~ed and the
incident she refecred t~ earlier should be avoided ar,d we should start
cleAning up the enviconment with preventivR ~ctiona by not polluting in the
firat place and ahe would encoucage the Commiasion not to issue thls
conditional uoQ permi.t foc an automobile cQnter in thie location. She read a
~etition aigned by the pbr~nts of. th~ ch~ldren ~t the school and preaented it
to the Commie~ion for the file.
Chairman Herbst pointed auk in response to a couple of comments made by M~.
Kocek that this i~ not a request for a zone chnnge, but ~or a conditionel use
permit Co pe~mit this use which is an allowable usp tn the CO 2one.
Denn~s Pcaw, 12206 Moviu~ Drive, Gacden Grove, referr~d to Pacagraph ~G of the
staff report regarding the findings the Comm~saton must make betore gr~nt~ng
thia us~ And atated he would not agree thak (c) and (d) exists that thia is a
4-bay facility wiCh double doors wh~ch means he could acaommodate 16
autom~biles at one t9me And with 26 park~ng apaces availnble, there could be
36 vehicles on-site and he did n~t thxnk they would only work on 8 Co 10
vEhiclea a day. He atated between the houts of 7;30 ~nd 8:30 a17 the parents
ace dropping off. thefr chtldren and that is when thie fa~iltty would have ita
heavieet traEfic congestion and the same thi,g i.s true agatn in the evening
and he thought it would be very detrimental not only to the adults, but to the
childcen and increase the chances of Accidents happening betMeen thasQ rush
hours. He a~ded he felt th~ t~uainess w~u'.d work on 100 to 20U vehicles per
day and that people will be comin,y in and out to get estitnatea on their cars,
etc.
Michael Busk.irk, 1021 Hearth Lane, stated his ~roperky is dtcectly to the rear
of subject property and he understanda the facility will artually be 20 f~~at
above their propecty's elevation and he does not look forward to getting up in
the morninq and looking at a b~ilding instead of th~ sur, Cise and felt it will
make a s.igniEicanr d.itference in his property value and quality of life. Ne
stated the petitioner has indicted that approximately 808 af the husiness will
be done on brakes and front end alignments which means there will he asbestos
dust from the brakes which is mace dangecous than pollutions from other
sources.
Walter Motley, 2U03 Figwood, Anaheim, stated they chose th~a particular school
because they felt it was a nice enviconment and would be safes that he has
oeen in tl~e automotive buainess for 25 years and did not agree with the i~umber
of vehicles that would be worked on on this sm~ll pi~ce of property and
repairing 8 to 10 cars per day wtth 6 to 12 employFes with an average per
order of $30 woul~ not make a prof~t and they would not be ~n business for
very long. He stated in his experience they have never turned down any type
of work which they felt they had a mer.hanic to do. He atated therp will be a
great deal of kox~c fumes, not only fcom the exhaust, and he dtd not think it
should be that close to a school. He stated also there are acc~dents in th~s
businese with the mechanics road testing vehicles ana walls have been torn
down, etc. and there is a wall against the playground of this achool and also
the engines wxll be reotved ~n the driveway prior to being turned in to be
worked on to see what the problem ts. He stated he thought there w~ll be a
great deal of noise and pollution and danger ~f vehicles going through the
wall and there would be a lot of congestion.
11/26/84
MINUTES,r ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NUVEMSGR 26, 1984 84-7 56
John Roetman, 341 N. Pine, Arang~, alated hia concern ie with t;~e noise that
w~.ll be gen~rated by the mechanicR using aic impACt wrenches, etc. He stated
he Was also cancerned abnut flamable solvents. He atated he could noh think
aE any achoal in the Anahe.im School Distcict wtth thts type facility that
cloae and he d.id not aee the dtffecence between a private scho~l and a publi.c
echool and felt the privAte sch~o.l deaerves the same proCection.
Mc. Yoat state~ there are 4 double bays and in all probabllil•y the fr~nt bay
will constst of officN and watting rootns, eo there will be a maxirnum of 8 ca r s
oc up to 16 And the proposed tenant tndtcates 8 to 10 cars per. day is
accurate. Ne s~bted the aouth wa11 of the buildinq whi.cli i~ adjacent to the
ochool ia not exactly adjacr.nt to the stcucture, but to the parking lot. He
stated the number of cacs that will be coming to thi~ facility pe[ day would
be far less than the number oE cars comi.ng and gai.ny ko the ~~re-achool. tie
Added they t~AVe had pcoposals [or other ~~sea that would he fac heavi.er wtth
traPfic auch as a drive-through reataurank, convenience ~tore, etc.
TNE PU6LiC HEARING WA5 CGOSED.
Chairman Nerbst stated if the p1~nA are gatng to be changed, he would like t o
sse those change~ and referced to the commenta regarding ofEtces and wai.t~ng
cooms. Mr. Yost state~ he was not sure they are talking about changi.ng the
plans and they were asked to aubmit theoe pla~ts as a f.oot print and the
confiyura~~on aE tF~e building would not change whatsoever and the dtffFrencP
would be that the tenant may require a w~iting room, off~ce ecea or rest roo m
and t:hat wouid eliminate part of the bay i.n the fcont, cloEest to nr~okhurst,
from being uaed for automobiles.
Gr.e~ Nastings expla~ned that if the office was counted, parking would be
reduce~. Chairman (ierbat stated ik appears one parking space ts proposed i~
the landscaped setba~h.
Commi.sEioner Sushore stated his concern is the multiple autamobile uses r.n t he
property because the other automotive centers which have been approved in *~ _
C.ity i~ accordance wiCh the packing standacds have not worked out ~ecause
thece are cacs st~cked up on the park~ng lot waittng to be repa~red and the r e
has to be employee parking and ~paces needed f~r vehicles waiting for parts
o,~e or two days, etc. He stated if there were less bays with more parking
proposed and one tenant, he thought the use could be contcolled and ~t woul d
be a proper us2 for the property, but in this present configuration, it's just
too r~uch ~se on this sxze property.
Comm~csioner La Claire stated she is concerned about the noise; however ~he
Montessori School could have been allowed in an area where it should not ha v e
been because it is a school on a major street tn a cnmmercial area and now,
r~hen another commercial use comes along, the school does not like it becaus~e
ft is not compati~ble. She stated ahe is not necessarily concerned about th e
noise because it is far enough away from the schoole but she is concerned
about the noise for the resident~ because that is where the~e people live.
She asked what kind of secur~ty is proposed,
Mr. Yost responded there wi.11 be wrought iron sliding gates to secure the
property. Paul Singer, Traffic Engine~r, stated gateG would have to be
lli 26/84
MINUTES~ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN. N4VBI~HF.R 26, 19(34 _ 84-767
set back at ler~st 40 feet mi.nimurt~ fcom the property li.ne so carR would not
have to atop on the otreet t o open th~ gate.
Mr. Thomas atated they will do whatever ia r.eyuiredr that the oporator of the
facili.ty indtcates that any cars will be storpd innide the facilify at night
and furthec p~.tnted o~t all work wil.l be donQ inside the building.
Rex King, 18131 Perando Circ le, Villa Park, atated they currently operate 6
Amecican Automotive Centers, the closesk one be.ing in Garden Grove and fur.ther
explained l•hey do abut restdential areas in maat of tho~e facili.ties. tle
explained the ai~r compresaor is a 5 horsepower 80 gallon piece af equipment
~nd will be loctlted inaide t he building. ReAponding to Commi.sst~ner Buahore,
Mr. King stated the thcust of the ir busineRS is tune-upa, brakes and front-end
work and minor automotive w ork such as alternetors, generakors, etc. and Chere
will be no engine overhaulin g at thie faciltty.
Commiastoner 9u~hore asked a bout t.he ssecond uae an the pcoperty. Mr. ~(ing
stated they are tak~ng up 3 b~ys and it depends on the configuration of the
affice and waiting cooms wh e ther or not Chey will let~se the whale building and
a compatible use would be a n upholstery shop, etc. He atated they would do an
average of 8 to 10 vehicles per d ay and a good da,y would bA up to 15 on A
Saturday and t.he average ticket is ~+bout .;lOS. tie steted tliey will not be
grinding or sanding on the brake work and would be mer~:ly taki.ng oId asbestos
off ex.isting bcak~a and curcently moat ot the new oara are using aemi-metallic
material and that any turni~g wauld be ~n lhe hrake lath. ye sta~ed they
would like to be an officia 1~mog centQr. He atated all the cars are equipped
wi.th catalyt.tc convertecs a n d the tune-up i.a no more than a peraon would do i.n
their own garage.
Commi.ssioner McBurney asked why it is necessary tu have a 16-1/2 fooc high
building. Mr. Y.ing responded the structure door is 2U feet by 13 feet in
ordec to accommodate a l.if t and the 16 feet is probably to accommodate
hydraulic lifts. He respon ded t o Cammissionec Bu~hore ~hat 708 of their work
dops not require liftso
~ommissioner eushore stated some of the 16-1/2 high area could be moved much
closer to the front where the offices and wa~ting rooms are be.iny pcoposed and
the off~tces and waiting ro~m mov ed to the rear. Mc. King stated they do not
r~eeci the hi.gh roof for storage rooms, cestrooms and off~ces, but they would
need some amount over 13 f eet in the working area, but they could prrbably
work w~th the use as propos ed Uy ~ommissianer Bushore.
Commissioner BushorP state d he thought that woul~ put the noise fur.ther away
and el~minate some of the height wai.ver. Cha:[rman Herbst stated he did not
think there is any commerc ial bu ildi.ng in town with iess height. Mr. King
stated they have never had compla~nts and the impact wrenches would always be
used i.nsi.de the building anc3 the noise would be out towacd the bar and
Brookhurst.
Chai.rman Herbst stated the average commercial bul.ld:ing i.s 20 feet htgh. Mr.
King stated the builder is goi.ng to build to the building standards for
commercial buildings. Mr. Thamas explatned they would not want to pl.ace a
bui,ldi.ng on the property that would be so single purpose that if the market
11/26/84
MINUTES. ANAHEIM ~ITY Pf,ANNII~G CUMMISSION, NOVEM9ER 26, .1984 84-768
plt-ce changed, they would be left with a highly atngle pur~ose9 building enc~
this butlding coul.d be convected to ~ cetail use ~nd stlll meet p~rkiny
re~uirements, etc.
Mr. King presented a~endering of the tacility in Garden Grove. Commissioner
McE~urney stated he t}~ought thin use would aever~.ly impact this small property
becAUae it ~s a heavy use And will bother the n~~tghbars and maybe it would be
a different situation if the echool was nut alrc~ady there.
Commissioner La Cla.ire stated ehe was concerned et~out the neighbors anc~ ahe
would not want to live next door with those impact wrenchea, ev~n though it
looks like ~t would be a beautiful project and she dtd not think Fcee
enterpcise should do its awn thing At the expene~ of the netqhbors and even
though it ts facing the other way, she thought it would be a real impact on
the neighborhood.
Cha.irman Herbet stated the property will be surrounded by ~ block wall and the
sound will not go toward the t~omes because it does nat go around corners. He
stated thece are a lok of othec use3 wiiich could be established on this
property without gotng thcough this procesB becAUae it is commercially zo~ed
property. He stated t~e did not think this use would impact the schoo]. with
noiae and the traffic impact would be lesa with this use than wtth many other
usQS that could go onto the property by right. lie pointed out the facility
wi.ll be closed at night and on Sundays And thoge things can be controlled
becauae xt w.ill be wfth a conditional uae permit and i.f the condittons are not
met and the us~ bothers the netghbors, the permit can be revoked; hnwever,
there would be no such control on uses that could go in without a condittonal
use permit.
Commis~ioner King pointed out Che Ccmmission must make certatn fi.ndings in
~~rder to approve this permi.t and one is that Ch~ use will not be detrimental
to tlie peace, health, safety and gPneral welfare of the citizena of the Ctty
of F~nahe~.m. Cha~rman Hecbst statEd therP cauld be a commercial project with
traff.ic in and out unttl after midnight and there would be mare fumes than
fcom this use and all work wil] be done inside the bu~~ding and if conditions
are not complied with, the: permit can be revoked.
Responding t~ CoR~missioner Bushore, Greg Hastings expla.ined the Code does not
mention whether or not the parking spaces in front of the bays can be counted,
but the Traff~c Eng.inee: dtd review the plans and he agreed they ire usable.
Paul Singer staked thxs use cannot be treated any differently than any other
bus~ness that has the r:igt~t to pack in front of thetr own facility and every
servicQ station he has evec used does park the cars ir~ tundem with the
vehicles being worked on inside the building.
Commis~ionec Aushore stated there do~s not seem to be any agreement to changE
the plana and have L•he offices and waiting room in the rear and in its pcesent
configurati~on, he coulc~ nc~t support the request.
Cht~irman Herbst asked if ~here will be 3 or 4 bays with offices. Mr. Ktng
stated the configurat.ion could be with 3 bays for service and 1 bay to be used
for offices, waxting r.oom, storage and restrooms. 9e stated they have a floor
plan which showr~ 3 bays with o£fices and that wauld be ~nternal and the
external configuration of the buildxng would not be chanqed.
I1/26/84
MINUTES, AN~HFZM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOVFMHER 26j 1984 84-769
Mr. K~ng stet~d they were trytng to meet the parking r~quirementa and tri~d to
pcovide as much perY..ing As ~oasihlP, but thoy have n~ intentt~n of adding
officea and tncreaa.ing the aize of the butld~ng cnd any offlr.~s wou.id be
with~n the prenent configurntion of the building. Ne ataked final drawings
have riat bden done and the cendecing is of their Garden Gruve tacility.
Mr. Thomas atat~d they huve talked to the neighbors ana~ khe opecator of the
echool hAS been opposed Erom the beginning and one of the property ownera to
the cear had not mnde u~, his rnind and thc othpr property owner indir.ated he
did not o~poae the project.
Irv Landrey, 10122 Hearth Lane, stated tht~ project would be di~eck.ly behind
his home and he was pteviously in favor af thta pcoject• nnd felt he wou.ld
rather have Ctiis than a restaucant oc other type of buainesa, but his btg
conr.erna are noise and ct~emical pollutioni hawpver, if thie buAtness moves
out, he was concetned the opecaring hours could al.so be ctianged. He ~stated
the biggQSt co~cern is pollution and the presenk operalor has eatd they will
not bP uaing chemicals t.o c.lean carburetors, but that could change within a
yeac also. He stated he was foc the ~~ro~ect until he r~tarted hear.i.ng the
oppoaitxon at today's meeting and t~e has now changed his mind. He At~~ted he
thougnt the noise could be heard and they d~ get a lot of notse already Erom
erookhurst and he also thought tt~e achool would be impacted. He ;:t~ted the
pel•iL•ioner did approach him and aft~r hearing a11 the r~rgumentn today, he
would have to go against the request.
Greg Hastinys cesponded to Commissioner BQUar~ that. n dry c:leaning operAtion
could go into this property without coming before the Commisr~ton.
Commiss.taner McBurney ~tated before the cars are tuned up, they would p~llute
the air and the clean.ing establishment would have a ftlterinq syr~tem and
everything would be contAined within the buildiny, but there is no filtering
system in an automot~ve center.
11CTION: Commissioner eushoce ofEered a matian, secnndcd by Commissioner
McBurney and MOTION CARkIED (Commiss~oners La Claire and K~ng voting no) that
the Anahefm City Planning Commission ha~ re~~iewed the praposal ta permit an
automotive serv~ce centier wtth waiver of maximum structural height adjacent to
aingle-fan~ily zoning on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisttng of
approx~mately 0.76 acre hav~ng a Erontage of approximately 100 feek on the
west side of Brookhur~t and furthec described as 1237 South BrookhursE Street;
and do~a heceby approve the Negative Aeclarat~on upon finding that it has
considered the Negative Declaration together w~th any comments xeceived during
the public rev~ew proces~ and further finding on the basis of the Initial
Study and any comments rece~ved that thece is no substa~ntial evidence that the
project ai11 have a aigniEicant effect on the environment.
Commissioner 9ushore ~ffered a motion, seconded by Commisstone~ McBurney and
MOTION CARRIEA (Commisetoners He:bst, Fry and Bouas voking no) that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny waiver of Code requt-.'ement
on the basis that there are no ~pectal ciccumstances applicable to thE
property such as size, shape, topography, locat~on and aurroundings which do
noc apply to other identically zoned property in the same vic~nityt and that
strict appl.ication of the Zon~ng Code will not deprive the property of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the icient~cal zone and
class~fication ~n the vxcin:[ty.
11/26/84
MINU'PES. AN~NBI~ CITY PLANNING COMMISBION, NOVEMBER 26, 1984 84-770
Commissionec B~sharo offered Reaolution Na. PC84-251 and moved for ite passage
a~d a~option that thQ Anahetm City Plenning Comm~saion does hereby deny
Cond~tionel Uee Pecmit No. 2639 on the basis that the uae will adveraely
aEf~ct tt~e adjo~niny land uaes ~nd yrowth And develapment oE the Area and the
s~ze and sha~e of Che atte are not adequate to allow full d~velopmont of khe
proposed uae in a mannec nGt detrtmental to the areA nc~r the peace, health,
safety and general welfare of the citizens and granting of the permit will be
detrimental to the peace, he~lkh, aefety and generA: wetfare of the citizens
of AnahQim becau~e of noise and pollutton.
Oi~ roll call, the Eocegoing reaoluti~n waa passed by th~ following vote:
AYES: dUSHORE~ KING~ LA CLAIRE, MC BU~NEY
NOGS: a0UA5, PRY, t~ERBST
A~SENT: NONE
Jack Wh.tte, Aasistant City Attorney, preaented the wr~tten right to appeal the
Planning Commission's decieion within 22 days ta the City Counc~l.
C~mmisstonec Bu~hore explatned if t.he petitioner had presented a perma~ent
of plai~s w.tth the oif~ce acea to f.he rear of the bui.lding and reduc~ng the
heigt+t, wlth adeyuate parkiny spacea, and 3 bays and a mascimum of 4 lifts,
wo~a.ld have eupported the project.
ITEM N0. 12. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CQDE REQCTREMENT AND
CONDIxIONAL USE PERMI'i' NU. 2638
set
he
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: NATHAN aGINT5, ET AL, c/o ESTHF.R CASCLE, ATTORNEY,
3481 Las Sonbra Drive, Los Angeles, CA 900b8. AGENT; ED MIXON, ANNEX R.V.
INC., 2025 S. Manchestec Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802. Property deacribed as an
ircegularly-shaped parcel of land consieting of approximately 3 acres lacated
aou4h and west of the sour.hwest cor~ec of Ball Road and Anaheim Boulevard,
1221 South Anaheim Boulevard.
To permit a re~creational vehi.cle sales and repair facil.ity wxth waivers of
minimum landscaped setback (deleted), required fence height and location
(deleted) and max~mum ~ence he~ght.
There were two persons indicating ~hetr presence in oppositton to subject
request and aithough L•he staf`f report was not read, ir is referred ta and made
a pact of the mxnutes.
Commissfoner 8ushore stated althoug~ he has no legal con£lict of inter.est, he
is a lease holder of pronerty owned by the same pcoperty owner and would not
take pact in this hear9ng or vote on the matter.
Comnissionec Bust~Are left the Chamber Council.
Bd Mixon, ~gent, was present to answer any questions.
Theodore Klix, 154 W. H~11 Avenue, stated he ~s not entirely against this
request, but was concerned ahout what would happen to ~he neighbochood; that
at the prer~ent time the water from the aprinklers at the temporary bank ace
11/26/84
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. NOVEMBBR 26. 1984 ___ ,84-771
leit on over night ~nd CAUB@ problems and if thia facility hae to add m~~ce
landacaping and do more wateringr ik could be rnoce harmful to the attee~ts. He
AtatQd he cuuld he~r the impact wrenche$ when the gervice atation was .'~n
opeeat~on and w.ia concern~d that iE the rear doors ~re left oFen on thtA
~acility, he would be able to hear. the impact wrenches trom this opera,tion.
He added he would like to see somethtng cleveloped on thi~ prop~rty, hc~wever.
Chairman Herbst pointed out. thia ia a reque~t Eor a c~nditional use {~ermit and
if it does crea~e problPma for the neighborhoad, the pecmit can be reyoked.
Gearge WalCon stated t~e lives cight acras~ the street from Mcbo~ald's at the
cc~rnec of Hall and Iris and he would want ko see a nice facility ga into thtR
property and he d~d not want it to look like a dump and did not want~ Any block
walls.
Mr. Mixon statpd they have an exi~ting facility at 2U25 5. Manchester end they
wiah to reloc~te to a more accessible are~s that. the renaic Hork they do iR
pr~marily on the interior of the recreatt~nal vehicles and the wors: cundition
they would have would be the veh~cles for sale along Anshetm Boulevard wh~ch
would be washed causing more water. He atated he undecstanda the bank ta
moving. He el•ated they will repaic and refurbi~h the buildi,ng on the extertor
and any repaics on the vehicles will be done tnstde lhe facility. He stated
there are no doors a~her than the load~ng and unloading doors s~ the rear and
the area to the weat would only be used for loading and unloading and not
normally be left open. He explained the repaxr faciiity would be on th4 south
stde of the property.
THE PUBLIC F:~ARING WAS GLUSED.
Commissioner. King stated he would not like a slatt~d fence and Would prefer a
concrete wa21 because this ia a bui~iness ac~a.
Mr. Mixon s~ated their primacy concern is with secucity; that there ~s another
reczeationa~. veh~cle facility ta the south ana they have a fenced ~rpa f~r
their vehicles and a slatted fenr_e does present a clean appearance and the
~ tence will not be all the way down to the street.
Commissioner King stated hhe plans Rhow the fence to the street line. Mr.
Mixon responded that ia on the alley side and that is Go do awf; with
vandalism.
Paul Sinaer, Traffic Engineer, explained the fence cannot be but thcee feet
high adjacent to the street in arder to see trafftc and no fence can be placed
within 8 feet of the riyht-of-way line on An~hQ~m Hou.levard. The locatton of
the existing fence and the proposed fence were discussed.
Jerry McComber explained the location of the fence and stat~d the plans show
the fence to the street, but accordtng to the Traffic Engin~er, it needs to be
back 8 feet in ocdec to providp visi.bility for the alley. Mr. Mixon stated
thQre is a~ existing fence about 2 feet high which r~~ns acrosa the property
beyond the sidewalk. Paul Singer stated the street ~s going to be widened and
in order to provide visibility for the driveways and the alley, a pie-shaped
p~ece of property has to be left not fenced 8 feet deep and 50 feet long.
11/26/84
MINUT~S, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIaSION, NOVEMBER 1G, 1984 84-772
Commieaiuner Mc9urney aeked if the ~wners of th~ vehicle~ will De etaying
ovRrn.ight on the prope[ty ahtle thoir veh.iclea are being repaiced. Mr. Nixon
ceapUnded normally they would not encourage people t~ stay ovPrnight, but
khere ie publl.c packing throughout the whole area and there ~re vehiclea which
do stay overn~ght, but they do not encouxage people to stay overnight ut tlieir
factlity.
Cha~rmAn Herbst atated he would not vute for the project tE tf~ey ~ntend to put
slatted fencing along An~heim Boulevacd. Mr. M~xon stated originally thcy
anly w~nted elats in the area where they would be storing the vehicles and
wanted to have open ctiainl.ink fencing for vtsibility in the rest of the ~cea.
Commisaioner La Claire stated with cars P~rked in that area, tcaEEtc wi,ll nnt
be able to s~e to get out of the dr~veway. Paul Singer staked thece has kn be
a 3-foot landscaped setback behin~ the property line and ~ny fenc~ a dri.ver
cannot oee ovec from the car, constitutes a hazar.d, and he has been
recommending that a~~ie-shaped piece be matntained on etther si.cic of the
dr~veway.
Chairman Herbst suggested the pie-ah~ped area be landscnped wi-~ low ,hrubber.y
or ground cover.
ACTION: Commi.es~oner K.ing offered a motton, secondEd by ~~f~. ~=s~ort~r fry and
MUTION CARkIED (Commissioner i3uehore absent? ~ that the A, ;-~ '- : i;~_I r•lanning
Commission has reviewed the propusal to pecmit a r.ecreAt~~tr-~ v~_yw~;r?e sal~s
and repr~ir facility with waivera of maximum fence heigh~ ~_~~
xrreyularly-shaped parcel of l.and coneict~.ng of approx~~{- ':• 3 ac-tes lacated
south and west of the southwest corner af Be11 Road ar~- ~-~,~l+e~;r Boulevard and
fucther describec~ as 1221 S. Anaheim eoulevardt and do~ =~~*etr;- approve the
Negative DNClaration upon findtny that it has constderw:. `w•~~ '+egative
Declaration to9ether with any comments receiv~d dut~ng ~~~-~ ~*~~x~~lic ceview
process and further finding on the basis of the Inir_ik.=~"~~ay ~~nd any comments
receivsd that there is no substantial evidence that Ctr~ :~~°~-:7rt~~:t will have a
significant effect on the environment.
G:eg Hastings potnted out none of the waivers originally ^!~~uested wi.ll be
necessury because the fence is to be relocated.
Commisstonec King offered Resalutton No. PC84-252 aacd mc••-~d for ita pas~a~e
and adoption that the Anahezm City ~lannxng Commissio~ ~es he•-~by grant
Condi.t~o~al Use Permit No. 2638, zn part, pursuant c;; An3he~m ~tun~c;pal Code
Section 18.0:3.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 deny~n~~ wai.vers (a), (b) and (c)
on the basis the petitioner stipulaked to conforro to C.ode cequirements.
Mr. Mixon stated they are in agrPement with all khe conditton~ ~xcept a few.
Chairman Herbst offered a motinn, seconded by Comrnisaioner King and MOTIO:'
CARRIED (Commissioner Bushore absent) tha~ the }lnahetm City Plann~ng
Commission docs hereby deny waxvec (a), lb) and (c) on the bas~s that the
petitiaR~er stipulated to confarm r_o Code requirements.
Mr. Mixon etated Condition No. 3 requirea the driveways be designed to
accammodate 10-foot radiua curb returns and they plan to use ex~sti~ng
driveways which are 10 feet; howevec, the properties d~rectly across the
street do not have 10-foot returns.
ll/26/Ad
MINUTES, ANAH~IM CiTY T.~I,IINNI G COMMISSION, NOVdMBER 26. 1984__ 8'-773
Paul S.inger stated ~.h~ btreet. haa to be widene~i an~ the entiGe curb, gutter
and aidownik w~ll l,AVe to be set bACk in order to acr.ommodate the widening o:
Anahei~~ a~uYuvdrd, so th~ a~~licant hae to widen the street.
Jay T.itus, Of~icE Eng~neer, Eucthec explalned Anahe.tm BoulevArd, s~uth ot ball
Raad, has nat ~4en +~id~n~d, ~ut the are~ through the parce2 where the service
atation is locate~ r~as b~~n WidenedJ that fcom that point sonth, it has to be
widened b,y th~s petxtioner and that ~s one of the condikions and requires the
relocation ~i thp aid~w3lk, curb and guttet t~ the ultimate location
(Condition t~o. 21.
Chatcman }[er.b~t st~tera thAr. will be inc~uded as a condition and if L-he
petitionec ha~ ~ groblem with the actton, he can talk to the City Enginee[ and
then with the City Council.
Mr. M~izon referred to the canditton requiring ttie inetallation ~f street
l~gkiks and eCated it appear~ ~treet l~ghts ate existing and Jay Titus
explatned ~h~s aonditian was included at the request oE the Utilities
Deparhment and tl~~ peti~ionee can work with that department regard~ng that
cond~tion.
Mr. Mxxon reEarred to the requirernent for fire ~pcinklers and stated they do
not plan La change the bu.ilding and were tnotructed origina~ly that as long as
they uae the building as is, the tire spcinklers would not have to be cequiced
and none oE the o!her use~ tn the area have spr~nklers.
Annika SanCalat~ti stated very recently the Pire Departmen has b~_en requestinq
tnis type condition and it is based on a changa oi use in the building and the
petxtionec will need to talk to the ~ire Ch.ief or Nire Marshall about this
condition.
Mr. Mixon referced ta Condit,ion No. 14 regacding access £rom subject property
to the commercially zoned residential propE~rty to thp south and explained they
had installed a sliding gate whece the fencing connects to the buildi.ng for
the purpose of mov~ng veh~c.les in and out to eliminate bringing them around
and entPring on Anaheim Aoulevard.
Paul Singer stated he has no problem aith that request, but does not want any
access on Iris Street, but it does not make any difference in the alley.
Gceg Hastings stated if thp g~te was installEd, the traf£ic would empty i.nto a
resxdent~al area althouah that residential ~rea is zoned commeccially. Fie
etated that is a private alley and an easement would be requ~red.
Cortunissioner King added he would want a condition added restricking overri{ght
sleeping facilities for Ghoae waiting for cepatrs.
Mt. Mixun stated khey would agree and they do not encourage that even thaugh
they know it happens in the area and in some othec repair fac~lities; however,
they would have a problem controllinq it with an open g~rking lot on the
propetty.
11/26/84
MINU1'E~, Aif~HETM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEMBBR 26, 1964 . 84-774
Chairman Hocbst clerified there would be no cheinltnk fence withtn 50 foet of
Anahe~m Boulevard and the ~ence will be a block wAll dealgned .ir~ the sdme
manner as the one along Anat.e~m goulovard ~nd that access co the Aasement will
be vecifted by the City Atto:ney's Office.
Gn roll call, tFie forego~ng cesolution was passed by the Eol.lowing vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ NERBST, KING~ LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: F3USHORE
Jack Wh~tE, Asaistant City Attorney, preaented the written rtght tn appeal the
Planning Commisaion'~ dec.taion within 22 days to the City Council.
Cvmmissioner Bushore returned to the Counci.l Chambr.r.
ITEM NU. 13. EIR CATEGORICAL E?(EMP'1`ION-Ci,ASS 11 AND VARIANCE N0. 3444
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: BRITISH MOTOtt CAR llISTRIBUTOR5, LTU.~ 901 Van Ness
Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94109. A4~EN'P: CAMT, INC., DBA ANAF~EIM TOYOTA, 1601
S. Anah~im alvd., Anaheim, CA 92805, AT'PN: JAMES E. CROWLEY. Property
described as an irr~gularly-sha~e~ patcel of land conatsttng of apptoxirnately
3 acres, 16U1 South Anahei.m Boulevard lAnaheim Toyota).
Waivers of maximum he~ght of a fla~~~ing sign and maximum area of a
freestanding sign to c~nstruct ran el~_ctconic freestanding sign.
There was no one ~nclACating their presence in opposi,tio~ to subject request
and although the staff ~epart was not read, it is ref.ecred to and made a pac~
of. the minutes.
James Crowley, agent, explained L•hey wish to instAll ar`electronic message
center sign bec.,~se ~t is almost .impossible to enter l•heir factlity and this
would ~llow the~~ to qive tnsttucti..as ~n how to get to the facil:ity and also
the Haster Street ovecpass has ~mpaired the visibiltty of the nocthbc,und
traff~c and they would like to enjoy the same type visibiiity the GMC dealer
has; that the trees impair the visibility for the southbound traffic; that
this .is a S00-sguare Eoor sign; but all of it will not be used at one time and
the bottom porttor~ will be uaed for the date, time and temperature and the
~ther t;wo lines will 5e directions on I~ow to get to the facility and civic and
autamotxve messages.
Mr. Crowley referced to the condition in the staff report ~equiring that the
ex~st~~g sxgn be taken down previous to installing the new ~agn and sta'ced he
would like to indicate that that wouJ.d be done at the same time. He skated a
condition requires that all electcical utilittes be underground and they would
l~ke to have approximately 1/3 of the ut~lities ove ~T~ead because CheX have an
exiating overherid facility.
Chairman fierbst stated that request would have to be handled by the Ut~lities
Department.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
11/26/89
84-77F
MSNUTES ANMHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOVEMBER_26~ 1984 ,_„ _
C'iaicman Hecbet atrted the petitionec refecred to the GMC aign down the
etreet, however, tF'.s aign is largF', although at the oame heighL. Mr.
Crowley etated rh^ u~ze of the eign was bastcally detecmined from the flaging
atudy they did.
Chr.irman Herbat atated the pcoblem t~e has with thi~ request is that fukure
useca will wanr. to have the same size und heighC and he thought the squace
Eoot.age of this s:yn sl~au~d be kep~ the a.~me as the GMC: sign.
Commisstoner E3ushore atated in tiis opini.on this is the ~ame thing the Planning
Comm:iseion did for GMC and it may be the aame hei~ht;, but looking at the
previous appcovals, the Pacific Inlend E3ank property was allowed two signs
in~tead ot one and also at a higher elevation and a re~~der board atgn wao also
allowed at CALCpMP adjacent to the freewAy.
Commissioner Kiny atat~:cl thp Commisston app~~ved two 49-foot htgh, 582-square
Eoot signs at 505 N. Euclid.
Commisstoner eushare atated the ''~mmi~a~on allowed a height waiver for the
Cruasroada business center alony the aouth side of the Lreeway a* about
Magnolia and he rsally does not like to grant sign w~tvers, but in *_hxs cdse,
o~hers have been permitted. He skated in respons~ to Commissioner La Clatre
that this p[operty is down in a hoJ.e on one aide because oE the overpass.
It was noted the Planning Director oc t~is authorized ceprprentative has
determ~ned that the proposed project falls within the definition of
Categor~cal Exemprions, Class ].1, as defined in the Stak.e Environmental Impack
Repott Guid~elines anei is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requtrement
to prep ,re :n ~.IR.
ACTIOh~: :.ummissione~ K.ing offered Resolutton Nu. PC84-253 and moved for its
passa~e and adoption thac the Anaheim ~ity Pla:ni.ng Commisston does heceby
~ran*. Variance No. 3444 on the basis that ttiece are special ciccumstances
apFlicable to the property such as size~ shape, topography, location and
suttound.tngs which do not apply to cther identically zoned property xn the
same ~'±cin~t)~; and Chat etrict application of the Zoning Code deprives the
propert~+ of ~~rivile~es enjoyed by other propecLi~es in the identic~il zone and
classifi,cation in the vic~nity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution wns passed by the foll~wing vote:
AYES: BOUASr BUSHORE, FRY~ HERBST, KING, MC BURNE;Y
NOES • NOtvE
ABS~NT: LA CLAIRE
Ann~ka Santalahti explained Condition No. 5 cequires the existing signs to be
cemoved prior to final building and zoning ~nspec:.ions which should be no
pCOblem since the exiating sign is to be remove~ when the new sign is
installed.
11/26/84
MINUTBS, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN, NOVBMHER 26,_1984 _ 84-776
ITEM N0. 14. GtR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL US~ PERMIT Nh. 2635
PUBLI' HEARING. OWNERS: COUNTY OF ORA.NGE, GSA/REAL ESTATE DIVISION, P.O. BoX
4106, Santa Ana, CA 92702, ATTN: THOMA3 tiOSPER, PROpERTY MANAGEMENT SECTION.
AGENT: WCS INTERNATIONAL, 32~0 E. F[onl•era St[eet, Annheim, CA 92806 AND
ORANGE COUN^~Y 5TEEL SALVAGE, INC., 3200 E. Fruntr~ra StreeF., Anahei,m, CA
92E06. Proper.ty deacribed as e rectangularly-ahaped parcel ot land conaisr.ing
oi approximately 5 acres located appcoximately 200 feet south of the
centerl~ne of Frontera Stceet and approximately 170U feet east of the
centerline of Glasse].1 Street.
To ppr.m.it temporary outdoor atorage of ~crap ateel.
7'h~:Ke was n~ one ~ndicat~ng their presence in o~posttton to subject request
ai~d although the staff repoct was not read, i.t is refecred to an~ made a part
oE the mi.nutec.
Phi.lip Anthony, agent, explainFd they hav~ yotten approval from the County
8oard of Supervisors for a t~mporary permit subject to the approval by the
Ctty of Anahetm to have accese and surfacz use of the County lots behind che
frant part of the recycling center. [ie expla~ned this r.~ill be a temporary use
and aill allow them access to help move materialg through the cecycltng
process. He expla:ned the County permit is very lim.tted and that no
conatcuctton would be permitked on ttie property ar~3 there would t~e no
permanent access or permanent uses oc improvements on the praperty and it is
for temporary starage and movement of materials in the operakion of the
recycling center. He stated the County's permit can be cancelled wtth a day°~
notice.
THE PUt~I,IC H£ARING WAS CLOSED.
Responding to Commissioner Bushore, Mr. Anthony explained about 1/2 of the
mate:ials they shced is ears (or 5U0 tona) and 1/2 (or 500 tons) is sheet
metal consisting of washinq machines, dryers, etc. He explained the material
is actually s~rted several timcs and the ferrous (ateel and iron) are taken
out first, and then thece is addittona.l processin5 to uncover the non-ferrous
materials whi.ch :tiiclude copper, silver, etc. and it is all resold. He
explained the art:tcle mentioned in the Reg9.ster referred to materia]s that are
left over after a cac has been cecycled, for example, and there is 3ome
question as to where that material should be dumped and that is a S:ate-wide
problPm and the State Department of Health has given a variance saying it is
~kay to dump thi.s stuff in the regular dumps which has been go.ing c,n for a
long time.
Cotm~issioner Bushoce asked if the Orange County Water Board would be tn
conjuncti~on with this uge and if they ure aware of ik and Mr. Anthony answered
they are.
Commiss'.oner 3ushare stated if thp County cannot sell the land at the price
th~y are ask;ing, would they be hap~~y to keep th:[s use there foc a long t~me.
Mr. Anthony stated khe County is due to take the ~roperty to pub~ic auction
early next yeat and the pet~tioner hopes to buy it and hopes to come back to
the City of An~hei.m for approval foc a permanent permik. He added if the
County does not exceed in selling the property, the petitioner might ask to
11/26/84
MxNU'rES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION. NOVEMBER 26, 1984 84-777
co~tinue the u~e, but if it is sold, even the few rtiontha involved wauld be ~f
help to the pekittoner because oE the changea that are going on r~ght n~w. He
ex~la~ned thece are still some changea bei.ng made to mnke the internal flow oE
the mateciais moce etEicient and they do have to finish the otreet
improvements.
Mr. Anthony suggested the City's use perm.it be granted on the name baois ~s
the County's so tt can be cancellod et any t~me. Jack Whtte, Aasistant Ctty
Atl•orney, explnined the permit can be gcanted with a specific time 1im~t.
Commissioner La Cldire staLed the origina.l use permit prohibited the storage
~£ materiAls above the fence height and the scceening ta not as gaod as they
thougt~t it would be and asked if provtsions could be made to screen the area.
Mr. Anthony stated they have been workiny on that problem and havtng
addit~onal space will help with the pilea of matertals and they think the tree
sikuatton .ts gett'.ng betkect tiowever, thecc are Aome old plantings which ace
not doing very well, but the new plar~tings tn front of the new loks and in the
back on the riverha~k are Acacia trees and wxll eventually fill ~n and be 2~
to 3U feet h~gh. He stated he has talked to ~he owner, Mr. Adnms, about the
pos:;ibility of putting in some ].arger trees and he i~ very aqreeable to that.
and is apparently evaluating it and thinking in terms of Bucalyptus or
Sycamore trees, subject to the City's statif approval.
Commissioner K.iny stated there is a conditton which prohibtts storage at a
height that would be visible from any public cight-of-way. Mr. Anthony state~
the County lots are entirely .in the reac behind the existing recycl'ng center.
Jack Wh~te ~tated this pcoperty is within the Redevelopmenk Praject area and
if this is approved by the Planntng Commi~sion, it will be necessary for the
applir.ant Lo obta.in the approval of the Redevelopmenl- Agency as tu conformance
of the propo~ed use with the Redevelopment plan. He bdded it is his
undecstanding that the RedevelopmenC Commtssi.on reviewed this use at their
last meettng last week and felt they d~d not have sufftci~nt tnformation to
i~?ke a recomme~datton to the agency, but tt needs to be presented to the
Agency for approval.
Commissioner Bushore stated this will really be the thtrd conditional use
permzt on the propecty ar,d there was sufficient information f:~r thp
Redevelopment Commxssion to recommend appraval of those unes. Jack White
stated each applicat.ton is different. Wr. Anthony expla~ned they d~? not know
this was goi~g to the Redevelopment Commisnion and were not present. Jack
White staked a condition should be added requi.ring that the use permit will
not be effective u~til following ~ppcoval by the Anaheim Redevelo[~ment Agency.
Commissioner La Claire stated she did not ge, an 4nswer to her quest~on
regard~ng the landscaping. Mr. Anthony res~onded when they widen the streEt,
they will put ~n curbs And guttere and new landscap~ng wtll be provided, in
add.it~on lo the la:ger ~rees hF mentioned earYier, and it will all be started
very soon.
Commissioner. La Claire stated she thought this would be a g~od use for the
property, but ehe was concerned abnuk the impact ~n the water source; however,
11/26/84
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING COMMISSION1 NOVF.MBER 26, 19a4 __84w778
th~ County is not concerned, but when the pPtitioner wanta a~ermanent permik~
ahe would like to have a re~ort sa the Commisaion can know for sure that the
roateri~ls will be dinpoaed oE in a manner that wi.ll n~t hArm che water ~upply.
Comm~ss~oner Bu~hore reforred to Dean Sherer's memo which referA to the
Redevelopment Commi~sion and not the Agency. Jack W1ii.te explained the use was
consideced last week by the Redeveloptnent Commia8ton and they d~ld nok
recommend approval of it becauae they felt tliey did not have suffici.ent
informatton upon which to mAke the findinga requircd undec l•he Redevelopment
plan to allow this as a minoc deviakion to th~ uses pecmitted in the project
acea and the ~ltimate deciston i~as tu be made by the Agency and not the
Commiasion ~ l•he Agency being the ftve mem~ere of the Ciky Cauncil.
ACTIUN: Commi.e.stoner King oEfered a muti:~ri, aeconded by Commisatoner Fry and
MO'TI0:1 CARRIED thak the Anahei.m City Plr~nni.ng Commiscion has reviewed the
~roposal to pecmit temporary outdoor storage of. acrap steel on a
rectangularly-~shaped parcel of land conatsting of approximately 5 acres
located approximately 200 feet south of the centerline of Frontera Street and
approximately 170U feek east of the cente~line of Glaasell Street; and doea
hereby approve the Negative Declacation upon finding thAC it has considered
the Negative Declaration together with any comments ceceived during the publi.c
review process and further finding on the basis of khe Initial Study anc9 any
r.omments ceceived that there .is no substantiol evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner King offeeed Resolution No. PC84-254 and mo~ed for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim Ci.ty Planning Commission does hereby g[ant
Cond:lti~nal Use Pecmit No. 2635 pursut~nt to Anaheim Municipal Code Sectfon
].8.U3.U3U.030 thGOUgh 18.03.030.(l35 for a period of one yenr and subject to
Interdepartmental Commitkee recommendations including an additional condttion
requiring approval by the Redevelopment Agency and including the applicant's
stipulations regarding land~scaping.
Un roll call, the faregoi.ng reso?utton Nas passed by tfie tollowi.ng vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BU~iiORE, FRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NUES: NONE
A[3SENT : NON E
ITEM N0. 15. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVTOUSLY APPROVED) AND CONAI'PIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 2263 (REAAVERTISED)
PUBLIC HEARING - T1ME EXTENSION. OWNERS; MELVILLE J. McLean, 3A09 Micaloma
Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92896. AGENT: BEDARA AUTOMOTIVE INC., 1310 Miller
Street, Anahei.m, CA 92807. Property de~cribed as an irregularly-shaped parcel
of land consisting of approximately 0.92 acre, 1310 N. Miller Street (Bedard
Automotive).
Approval of time extension or deletion of Condition No. 5 ~f Resolution No.
PC81-205.
There was no one indicati.ng thei.r presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is refecred to and made a part
of the minutes.
11/26/84
MINUT~S ANANEIM CITY PL~NNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 26 1984 84-779
It wes noted the pet~t~oner was not present.
TNE E~UBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Comm~ssionet BuahocQ stated he want by the pr.operl•y and would suggeat that the
matte[ be conttnued .in order £or :he other CommiAaionecs to review the stte
and in arder far tho ~etttioner to be preaent to Answer c~uestions.
ACTIAN: Carnmissioner BushorE o~fered a motion, seconded by Commisaioner King
and MATIUN CARHIEn (Chaicman Herbst voting no) that consideration of the
aforementi,oned mattec be continued to the reyulecly-scheduled meeting af
December 10, 1984, in order Eor the petitionec ko be presant and for khe
Comm:lssioners to r~view the site.
ITEM_ N0. 16• kEPUR'PS AND RECOMMF.NDATIONS:
A. EtECLASSIFICA2'ION N0. 81-82-13 and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2292 -
Request Erom Jim Bianco foc an extenaion of time on pcope[ty located on
the south side of Ccescent Avanue, approximately 330 feet west of the
centerlina of ecookh~cst St.
ACTION: Commissioner Kinq ofEered a motion, seconded by Comm~asioner Pry
and MOTION CARRIED (CornmlASioner 8uahore abstaining) ihat the Anaheim
City Planning Comm~ssion does hereby grant a one-year extenatan of ttme
for FteclasEification No. B1-82-13 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2292 to
expire or- March 8, 1986.
B. CONDiTIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2:339 - Request from Juanita Sanchez for
termination ~f Cond~tional Use Permit No. 2339. Property locat~d at 1086
t~orth State College eoulevard, Un~t F3.
ACTION: Commissioner Y..ing offered Resolutton No. PC84-255 and move~ for
its passage and adoption that the Anahetm City Planning Commi.sston does
hereby terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 2339.
On roll call, the foregoing resolutton was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ BUSHORE, PRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
A$SENT: NONE
C. RECQMMENDED CODE AMENDMENT - Repealing Suhsection 0.50 of Section
18.U5.085 pertain~ng to permitted days ~f display for temporary display
of flag~ .nd banners in residential zones.
ACTION: Commtsaioner K~ng offered a motion, seconded !~y Commissioner Fry
and MOTION CARRIED (Commtssioner Bushore vottng no) that the Anaha~m City
Plannxng Commisaion does hereby recommend to the City Council that the
draft ordinac.ce be ad~pked repealing Subsect~ion .050 of Seat~.an 18.05.085
of the Anahcxm Municipal Code pertain~ng to permS.tted days of dtsplay for
temporary display of flags and bannecs in residenti.al zones.
11/26/89
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANN.ING COMMIS5ION NUVEMBBR 26 1984 4-780
D. PROPOSED ORpINANGE AMENUING TITLE 18 'ZnNING' - Pertatntng to thA
Development of Sen.tor Cttizene' Apactment Projecte.
Annika Santalaht~ ntated the StatQ eatabJ.ished new regulnttons pert~ininy
to lowec min~mum age cequirement to 55 yeara an~ also allowing other
occup~nts Co be dnyone oE any age and that the pecking requi.r~mente were
a concNrri.
Cha~rmAn Herbat etp~4d he thougtit tl~e Code should reflect the preaent
apartment complex r~tondards for thoae complexes 150 unita or more because
wit! a peraon uf age 55 ~na another person of any aye, there woulu
pto:~ably be two vehicl ~. He staked it is hacd for hi.m ta b~lieve th~
State could mandate khat up to 150 uni.tH the age li.nit is 62 and `.hen for
thoae complexes over 150 uniks, the m.tnimum age is 55.
Jack White suggested the Commiaeion make th~ cecommendation to thP City
Council that the park~ng requirHments be increased. Con;missioner La
Clatre stated sche Eelt th~ recommendat~lpn should t~P thst the parki.ng
requirements ahould be di.fferent if the age cestriction ia 55 instead oE
62, and so it could still remain the sane until the compl~x reaches 150
units and then the parktng requirementa should be the same as apartment
complexes requirementa.
Annika 5antalahti explaxned that would mean 2.5 spACes fc~r a two-bedroam
unit anc~ 2 spaGes for a bachelor un~t.
Jack Whi.te ~tated the Einding oL the Supreme Courl• ~dB@ is that any
ceatriction that is pl~ce~ on the occupan~y of the property is
unenforceable if the restrict~on of the ~ccup5ncy is to a qrebter extent
than the criteria setforth and requires more than one of the occupants to
be a senior cit~zen and establishe~c the aye of lhe seni~or cit:lzen to be
greater than 62 years of age in projecte less than 150 units and 53 years
oE age and projects of 150 units or more.
Chairman Herbst stated the parking the Commission has been previously
dxscussi~ng in other senior citizen's prujects is not a~plicable in
projecke over 150 uiits.
Jack White stated he would have no problem with l•he parking as pro~osed
for projects less than 150 units and if the pr~ject has 150 units or
more, the standard would be the sa,ne as the current p~rki.nq standards.
Chairman Herbat asked i~ the property owner can restr~ct the age to 62
and Jack White ex~lained he could not do that and he thought the logical
way to handle this would be to say ~f the project 1s 150 units oc less,
the parking standards would be less, buk ~n projecte with 150 or more
units becauae the age limit wi.ll be dcopped to 55, more people would be
driv~[ng because oE lower age, so more parking would be requ:red.
Commi.r~si.oner Fry asked if this will have any bear~ng on thp type of
faci,lity that was ap~roved t;wo weeka ago in the Canyon area because he
aould not want to hinder developments such as that. It was noted thi,s
would not have a beari~ng an that type facility.
11/26/84
MTNUTE~, ANAHEIM CITX PL~N NING COMMISSION. NOVEMBF.R 26. 1984 _ 84-781
Ann~ka Santalahti st ated the ~DBUN ~f ~pen or covered apace~ was
di.~cussed with the S enior Citizen Commissi.on and thetr Eeeling wAS that
thR s~acea would app ro(~r.intely he opon. She asked if the Cnmmissian wes
canstdecing thbt when the ~~nil count ia incceASed, dt l~aat one of the
spaces shuuld we cov ~red. She r~eponded to Chairman Herbgt that the
~an~oc Citizen Comm i aston had no apinlons ~bout the age limit of 55 and
they d~d go along w i th aCafE's recommendation.
Ctiairman Necbst eta t ed per hapa lhe Gommiseton could suggest that i.f the
Council doea have n problem with the proposal, another meeting could be
echeduled with the P lanning Commi.~aton and ~enicrc Citizen Commissian to
review thts matter.
Annika S~ntalahti s t ated stuff will inEocm ttic~ Senior Cittzen Commiesion
and asked agnin i.f s tafE should [ecommend that there be at leant o~e
covPced space tn th e~arkinq requi.rements. She c:xplained the ceason ~he
Senior :.itizen Comm i seton was not .in Eavor oE coveced spaces was because
the ..endency was th ey become assigned spaces and tn mAny instances are
used for atorage.
ACTION: Commisc~ion er La ClAire offered a m~tion, seconded by
Commis~i.oner McBurney end MOTIOt~ CARRIED that the Anahei.m City Planning
Commissi.on does hEr~-by recommend to the City Counctl tliat they approve
the proposed ordina n ce with a change in the park.ing cequ:.rements in
projects of 150 uni tA or more and the Commissxon recommenda that the
park.ing requi.cements remain the same as they Are for atandard ap~ctment
projects.
Annika Santalahti a sked t hE Commission if they want to make a
recommpndation rega rding covered or open apaces. Jack White explatned
the proposed ordinance stated tt~e spaces ~an be ei.hher covered or open
and that gfves the developer the option, and it alsu cequires the Epaces
not be assigned.
Commisaioner La Cla ire ciarified any projecls over 150 anits would comply
with the regular apartment Qroject atandacds.
E. PROPOSED__ORGINANCL AM~NDING TITLE 19 'ZnNING' - Pertain~ng to helistops
and heliports.
ACTION: Commission er ~ry offered a motion, seconded by Commlasioner
Bouas ~nd MOTION CAFtRiED that the Anaheim City Planning Comniasion does
h~reby recomme:nc~ t hat the City Council adopt the proposed ordtnance
pertaining to heli s tops and heliports.
F, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11765 - Request by Robert Michelson for an extension
of time on propert y located on Mar~ta Lane, Kellogg Dri.ve and
Oca~gethocpe Avenu e.
ACTIUN: Gommissio~ner Ki.ng offered a motion, seconded by Commi~ssioner
Bouas and MOTION CA.RRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does
hereby approve ~ one-yea~c extension of. time for Tentative Tract No. 11766
to expice November 15, 1985.
11/26/84
MINUTES. AN~HEIM_C_YTY PL~NNING COMM[IBSZON, NOVEMBFR 26. 19A4___ 84-782
G. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 84-85-11 - NUNC PRO TUNC RESOLUTION
AGTIpN,; C~~mmiasionec ~cy offered Reaolutton No. PCB~i-255 end moved foc its
passaga and adopt~on that the Anahei,m City Planning Commission doea horeby
gxant a nunc pro tunc ceaol.ution amendiny Resol.ution No. PC84-220 ln
connection with Reclass~ficat f an No. 84-85-11.
On roll call, the foregning r eaolution was passed by the following vote:
AYBS; BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BUI2NRY
NOES: NONE
A BSENT: NONF
OTHER DISCUSSION;
1. Commi~ssioner Bushore stuted h e_an r~o longer attend the Park and Recreatton
me~tir~go and L•here .ib a meet i ng on Wednesday. Commiasioner La Claire Atated
she has served on the Commis s tont howevec, she did not think it is necessary
for a Planniny Commissioner t a be pres~nt at every meet.ing and suggested the
CQmmission he notified when t here is something pertaining to land use.
Commiseioner Fry stAted when he was chairman of the Parks and Recceation
Camm~.ssion, a Planni.ng Commisatoner attended, but tt waA on a drop-i.n b~sis
and ~f 3otnething came up, a Commis~ioner was requested to be present at the
meeting.
C~mm~sa.oner La Claire augge sted a d+fferenf •nning Comm~ssioner attend a
meEt:ing each montr.~; thezefore only ha~xn~~ ' end one meeting every 7
~nonths. ~ornmissa.: ner qushore stR~ed at 4u~~ ••~` time he ts on a committee
which t~rohibi~ts rim E•om attiendi ! the Parlcs ~~:reation meetings.
A~TlON: C~ra~;issf<~~ry~ La Clnire ~ffered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
[~ry a~d MOTION ~l.,...IEU that the Anaheim City Planning Commissi4n recommends
thac: tt~e City Council approv e that the Planning Commissioners attend the Park
and ReccGation Commiscion me etxngs on a rotation basis starting in January,
1985, ana that the Pl.anning Commission member be an ex-officio member
attending for i.nforr~ational purposes only and not voting on any issues.
Chaisman Eierbst offered a motion. seconded by Co:nmisstoner K~ng and 40TION
CARRIEU thati if th~ foregoing suggestion is not acceptable to City Council
and i~ ~s acceptable that n o Planning Commissioner attend, that the Park and
ltecreat~on m~nutes be provi ded for the Planning Commtssion's information.
ADJOURNMENT: Thece being no fu rthec business, the meeti.ng was adjourned at 5:45
p.m.
Respect€ully submitted,
f r ~
/~ ~~
L./
~~~ T
Edith L. Harris, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Comr.iissi.on
ELH : lm
0092m
11/i6~94