Minutes-PC 1985/08/05~ ~... ~.
._
; ~,.
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNLNG CUMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning
Commission was called to order by Chai[woman La Claice
at 10:00 a.m., Auguet 5, 1985, in the Council Chamber,
a quorum being present, and the Commisaion reviewed
plana oE the 1Eema on today's agenda.
RECESS: 11:30 a.m.
RECONVENED: 1:33 p.m.
PFtESENT Chairwoman: La Cl~ire
Commissioners: E3ouas, Fry, Hetbst,
Lawicki, Mc Burney
ABSENT: (:ommissioner: Messe
ALSO PRESENT Annika Santalahti Assistant Directar for Zoning
Malcolm Slaughter. Deputy City Attorney
~ay Titus Office F.ngine~r
Paul Singer City Traffic Engineer
Kendra Morri~s Aasistant Planner
~;dith Narris Planning Commiasion Secretary
APPRO~~AL OF MINUTES: Commiscioner eouas offered a motion, aeconded by
Commissionec McBurney and MUTION CARRIGD (Commiaeioner Messe absent) thak the
minukes of t~~e meeting of Juiy 22, 1985, be approved as submitted.
ITEM N0. 1. EIR NEGATIVE AECLARATION ANU CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2697
..~_._
PUBLIC NEARING. OWNERS: APF CENTER, ATTN: JACK HOROWiTZ, P. 0. BoX 27163,
Las Angeles, CA 90027. Pcoperty desctibed as an irregularly-ahaped parcel of
land conaisting of approximatety 4.1 acres locateo ak the southwest cocner of
Otangethorpe Avenue and Placentia AvEnue, and £urther desctibed as 1631 North
Placentia Avenue; Unita A, B, L, G, 0, P, R, S, and T.
To retein six automobile cepair and aukomotive related businesses.
Continued from the meetings of June 10, 24, July 8, and 22, 1985.
The appli~ant was not present and at the end of the meeting, at 4:40 p.m.,
Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, secondeci by Commissioner McBurney ar.d
MOTIUN CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent) that considecation uf the
aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting o£
August 19, 1985, in order for Che applicant to be preseat.
85-403 8/5/85
MINUTES, ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION. AUGUST 5, 1985 85-410
ITEM N0. 2. EiR NEGATIVE_DECLARATION. RECLASSIFZCATION N0. b4-85-37 AND
VAKIANCE N0. 3486
PU~LIC HEARYNC. UWNHRS: RALPH W. AND VIRGINIA G. MAAS, c/o WTLLiAM R.
FRUEHERT, 3553 Camin~~ Mira Coat~, Suite F, 5an Clemente, CA 92672. AGENT:
RICK I.~SLIE, 4246 GreNnbueh Avenue, Sherman Uaks, CA 91423. Propecty
described as a rectangularly-ahaped parcel of land conAisting af approximately
11,36U square feet located at the southweat corner of Vermant Avenue und
Harbor Boulevard, 9U1 Sout.h Harbor nouleva[d.
Waiver ot minimum structucal ~etback to construct a commercial shopping center.
Continued from the meetings of June 24, July 8, and 22, 1985.
Ther.e Nere two 7ecsons indicating thelr pcesence in oppo~ition tv subjecC
request and although the ~taff repoct was not read, it is teferred to and made
a part of the minutes.
Greg Dickson, agent, explained they have made many attempts to work out a
solutian w.ith the adjoining property owner, including moving the driveway on
Harbor ro a location so th~t the 20 Eeet he owna fllong the southerly boundary
can be uaed Eor parking with sn 18-fnot depth for parking spaces.
Mary Wong ctated she is Fir. Wu's broker and interpceter and £o11~~wing the last
meetiny they did meet with the agent and at that time both parties showed a
willingness to work aut the differences, but they did not arrive at any
agreement. 5he explained when the petxtionec offered the 10 feet on the south
sid~ of their property, she thought it waa a good idea, but Mr. Wu explained
it was the same lU feet discusaed Prom the very begi.nning and it would not be
larya enougti ~ot a two-way driveway. She added she had suggested that the two
parties work out a parkiny agceement since the shopping center is closed at
night when the motel has most of its traffic. She stated she also suggested
that the shoppi~y center building be moved in a different d~rection and tl~at
sugyestian was in Mr. McGuigan's letter to the Planning Commission; however,
Mr. Dickson indicated that would lower the value of their building.
Mrs. Wong stated the following day after the last Planning Commisai~n meeting,
a fencing company came to put up fencing at the property line which wa~ at the
doorstep of the motel, even though thece is a restrafning order prohibiting
any construction within 20 feet of the motel until the lawsuit is settled.
She ex~lained after many ~iscussions with the Police, City Aktorney's Office,
etc., the peti~ioner aamitted he did not own the property after he had
orfginally indicated he nwned the property and had closed esccow, and ahe did
not think that wa~ an tionest way ko handle business. She explained they are
going to court tomorrow to try to ceso.ive the ea~ement issue. She stated t•hey
have documents to show that about 20 years ago when the present owner still
owned the prnp~rry and leased it to the Mobil Oil Company, there was an
agreemEnt thak the 2U feet would nat be built on.
Jim McGuigan, attorney, stated that thece was conjecture at the pcevious
meeting that they were uncooperative and they wish to dispel that feeling. He
presented a photo9raph showing the site with a driveway on Harbor. coming to a
dead end at the si~e af the motel and ~he current fence which is approximately
8/5/65
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION, AUGUS'P 5, ]985 85-411
2U feet Erom the pcopecty line and also sho~red tl~e sepnrAklon oE the
buildinys. F1e sLated the pictur~ also Ahows where the fRnce has cloaed 1/3 oE
the rear drivew~y and udded they feel that is a aafety hazard because it is
unsafe and unmarked. He ~tated he did not think that ahows orderly
development or plannin9.
Nr. Lickeon stated they teel the ~~rescripL-ivH cighta iasue should be seltled
in a Civil Court and they feel they have done everythiny th~y aan to
accommodake Mr. Wu And wuul~ appreciate approval ot this plan.
THE PUdLIC HEAkiNG WA5 CLUSED.
Mc. Dickaon reviewed Cne pictureE aubmitted by the opposition and explained
the current fence is locAted 20 feet from the aouthern boundary of their
propecty.
Mr. McGuigan agreed tl~e fence along the southern boundary is prabably 20 feet
trom the propert,y line; however, th~ rear section ad~aining the back parking
lot is exactly on the ~t~petty line.
Chairwoman La Claire stated the Commissiun is in ~ quandary t~ecause they
cannot work out their differences. She stated the only thiny before the
Commis3ion, however, is the variance.
Commissioner Herbst stated the ~lans shc~w the fence is to be located 10 feet
from the ~roperty line, buk L•he current fence is at 20 fEet. Mr. Dickson
explained that was because of the kemporary re3training ocder and they could
not put the fence at 10 feet. Commis~ioner nouas clarified that the building
will be lU feet nurth of the southerly boundary line which is 10 feet south of
the exiating fence aE shown un the photogceph.
Chairwoman La Claire stated even if the variance is not gcanted, the building
would be 10 feet beyond the fence, depending on what the courts decide.
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, sL•ated the present application is for
the 10-foot setback waivQr on the west and the setback onthe south c~mplies with
Code.
Commissioner Herbst asked if the 10 feet would be used as a driveway to the
motel nnd Nr. Dickson stated the Code requires landacaping, but they would be
amenable to allowing an easement over their property.
Commissioner Herbst stated he would offer a m~tion for denial on ~he variance
~nless the petitionec wa~ks to request a continuance until aftec the court
hearing, which means the bui.lding would have to be set in 10 feet on the
rear. Mr. Dickson s~ated that would make thE whol.e project uneconomical.
Malcolm Slaughker stated the court hearing is a hearing on the preliminary
injuncticn and cegardless whethES it is granted or denied, the ultimate
determinat~on ot ~he rights of the property owners and the driveway issue may
not be determined until trial, which c.~~~~~id be two or three years £rom now, and
the hearing tomorrow may not determine anything finally.
8/5/85
MINUT~S, ANAN~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN, ~UGU5T 5, 198 5 05-412
Commiseioner Herbat etated the Commisaf.on dn~+a not like to ~4ttl.e ~rgumenCs
t~nd he would like to yive the parties an app.. ~.uni ty to work out an agrePment,
but ho does n~t see a har~ship ft~r. yrantiny the varinncA +~nd thought the
pro;~eut ia overUuilding t~ property and a vbrian c e ie u sually alright if it
doean't affect tho n~iyhbors, but. in l•h.is case, th e neig hbors are afEected~
Mr. Dickson stuteri they triea to negotiate with th e neig hbor and hasically
said they would glve them the lU feet and nnt tak e anyCh ing in retucn and
ex~,lained thf~ vaciance is not. tioc the south side where tt~er.e is an iosue, but
is for the weat ~ide. fie stated the motel is about e f.eel Erom the nourh
property line and the eidewalk is 18 inchea from the pco perty line and the
motel ~n ~he west side i~ about 40 ko 6U feFt Ecam ~he properky iine.
Nr. Uickson reaponded to c:ommissionrr Nerbnt lhat if a~+utual 8CCP88 ayreem~nt
with Mc. Wu is not worked o~at, khe driveway on Harbor Houlevard will be
eli.minated.
Commissi~ner Herb:.,t stal-ed Chece is raom to work out a plan that •.rou~d ~ro~~ide
better access for bo~h parties and that is not i~appening.
Mr. Dlckso~ stated ceyue~liny a continuance w~uld not be feasible because they
have a deadllne to meet and attec hearing the Pla nning Commission's deciaion
today, they will have to make a decision whether or not lo proceed with the
projer_t and t~ake the risk due to Lhe 22-day appea 1 neciod.
Mr. McGUiyan ~tated the rear 10 Eeet along the we slerly preperty line is ~rhtC~
8 par.king apaces are located and it takes 25 feet Eor a pcope, turning r:,df~s
inta a packiny space. He staLed d.:A t~ the disturbance of the dCC~86, he had
to go into the rear of the motel property ovec tt~e weekend and with a limited
numbec of cars parhed in that area, it was almas t im~os sible to maneuver hi~
car because of the f~nce.
Chairwoman L~~ Ctaire stated it would be in Mr. W u's bes t intezest to negotiate
for that lU-Eoot easement; and that it looks lik e the p roperty owner sold two
~+i2ces of property and the per~on whQ builr_ first thought he owned the
property. :~he stated if i.t wasn't for lhis problem- she would probnbly go
along with 'che varianc~..
Cummissionr}r McIIucney stated the 25 feet of the ~ropert.y beinq dedicated to
the City is a considerable loas of pco~,erty and probably the v~ariance would
not be requirecl without that dedication and he t hought the petitioner has bent
over back~dards to tr,y and wor.k out an agreement.
Malcolm :3laughter state:d the v~riance on.ly ccmes inta play as a waivec of the
standards of the CL 2one and it may be simplest to appr oach the zoning
que$tior~ first and then deal. with the variance t~ec~use iE the z~~ning is
denied, the variance will nnt be necessary.
Chairwc~man La Claire statecl she did not think th~re was any question about the
reclasraification. She stated granting the variance would create more of a
incentive for the pr:~perty owners to yet togethe r and work out an agreement.
8/5/65
MINUTBS ANAHFiM CITY PJ.ANNING COMMISSION~' AUGUST 5. 1985 g5-413
Commissioner Flerbat atated eve[yone else hae to dedicate along Harbor, but in
ti~is case he felt they are tr,ying Co put a shapping center on a s~~rvice
statian Kite which would impact the neighbors and noted the ahopping center
will be thece torever. tie add~d tie felt denial oE the variance would for.ce
th6m t~ get together to work out an ayreement faster; and thak he Eelt the
petitioner i~ trying to ~orce the neigtibor into doing ~omplhing by tearing out
the b1A~:ktappiny and puttinq in the fencing. He steted he has no probiem with
the reclaseiticatio~, but a variance ia needed becau~e of the aize of the
~accel And the proj~ct.
Comtnisfaioner Ery stateri the pr~ject still talla within the Perimeters of the
z~ning and etaCed it the variance is not granted for lU feet, the wall can be
construeted anyway.
Chaira~oman La Claice asked w;at the ordinanr.e stat~as about commercinl
~~oNec:tiea abutting each other. KendrA Morcies responded there .ia no eetback
tec.~uicement if botl~ ptoE;erties Are commerciol and in thia instance the
variance is needed because the mokel ia zoned RS-A-43,OQU.
Kendr.a Morries asked that ~n adciition be made to Condition No. 1 to read at
the end ot the gentence: 'if acces~ is propoyed to and from Harbor Boulevard"
and that c.ondition No. 13 ~n P~g~ 2-e be chanqhd t~ read: "Thak subject
pro~~erty shall be aeveloped substantially in accordance with plans and
spec:ifications on file with the City of Anatieim marked Revision Na. 1 of
Exh:ibit: No. 1 and Lxhibita ~~o• 3".
Malcolm Slauyhter btated the motel has a rea~lution of intent to CU Zoning.
AC7:IUN: Cammissioner McBur~ey ~LEered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry
an~9 MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner ~lesae absent) that the Anatieim City Planning
Commission has reviewed the praposal to reclassify subject pcoperty from the
RS~-A-43,ODU (Aesidential, Agricultural) xnne to CL (Commeccial, Limited) oC a
lE:ss intense zone to construct a commeccial shopping center with waiver of
m~aximum structural setbnck on a rectangularly-shaped parcel ~f land consisting
of a~ipccximately 11,360 syuare feet located at the southwest co[ner of Vermont
Avenue and k~arbor Boulevard and fucther. described as 901 South Narbor
6oul.evard; and does he~eby approve the Negative Declar~tion upon finding t.hat
it has considered the Negative De~lacation together wit~~ any comments received
during the public ceview process and further finding on the basis of the
Initial Study and any comments received that thece is no substantiat evidence
that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Conuni~sioner McBucney offered Re~olution No. PC85-180 and m~ved far. its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
grant Reclassification No. 84-85-37 subject. to tnterdepartmental Committee
Xecommendations.
Un roll call, the forego.ing resclution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: FiOUAS, FRY, NERBST, LA CLAIRC, I,AWICKI, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
Ak~SENT: MIESSE
815/85
_ . ,~'
MINUTBS, ANANEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISS[ON, AUGUS~' S, 1985 85-41A
Commiesioner Mce~rney oEfecr~d Resolution No. PC65-181 and moved for its
pass~qe and adoption that tt~e Anaheim City Planning Commiasion doea heceby
gcAnt Variance No. 348G on thP basis that there ase ape~ial circumstances
Applicable to the property 8uch as size, shape, topogra~hy, location and
surroundinge which do not apply to othec identically zoned ~ropetty in thP
eame vicinity= and that atrict application uf the Zoning Cnde deprives the
~co~erty oi privilegea enjoye~ by other properl•iea in the ident.ical zon~ and
classification in l•.he vicinity And further on tf~e basia Chat the odjaining
property to the anuthwest tias a resolution of intent tn CO (Commercial,
OEtice) Zoning and sub~ecl to interdep~rtmental COmmictee rer.ommendations.
Un ro11 call, tlie E~regoing cesolut~on w~~ paesod by the following vote:
AY~S: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY
NUES: NONC
AEfS~NZ': M~SSE
Malcol.m 5lauyhter, baputy City Attorney, presented the wr.itten right to appeal
the Pl~innin9 Commissioii's decision within 22 daya to the City Council.
tTEM NU. 3. EIR NE:GATTVE DECLARATTON ANU VAf21ANCE N0. 3497
PUESLi(; H~ARING. UWNBftS: ROEi~RT A. F~RRHNTE, 2171 Campus Drive, Irvine, CA
51715. AGENT: MICHAEL K. FRAZIER, 4712 T~c~~~^. Yorba Linda, CA 92686.
Property de~ccibed as an irregularly-•shaped ~~ ~~1 of land consisting of
approximately 5 acreE lucated at the northwest c~4ner of Santa Ana Canyon Road
and Imperial tiighway, 5565 to 5595 East Sanl-a Ana Canyon Road.
Waivers of minimum number of parki.ng spaces and minimum landscaped setback to
expand an existing commecci.al centcr.
Continued fram the meeting of July ~, 1985.
There was no one ind.icaCing their preaence in opposition to subject request
and a.lthough thE ~taff repcct was not rea~, it is referred to and made a pArt
of the minutes.
Michael Frazier, architect/agenk, explained a coloced Eite plan has been
provided and pointed out the landscaping and the 10-foot buEfer s*_ri~ between
the residential tract to the north and Uld Santa Canyon Road. He explained
they will be providing an irrxgation system and trees of sufficient size to
p~ovide a visual and sound screen. He stated Old Santa Ana canyon Road is a
public roadway which th~ City maintuin~ and the general publ.c has virtuaily
no gain to the roadway and it serves only as a drfveway to tt,e ahopping
center. He stated they propose to construct asphalk paving, curbing, gutter,
etc. fuc the propec parking spaces a~d to maintafn the existing landscaping
~+nd a stand oF Eucalypkus trees which would be 3 to 4 Eeet from the new paved
atea. He ceferced to the yreen acea on the color exhibit at khe ~orner of
Imperial and 5anta Ana Canyon Road and stated they will add to the landscaping
at thAt locatian which will ent~ance it.
Mr. i~cazier atated they would request the Commission's cunaideration in
granting approval of this request contingent upon an agreement between the
8/5/85
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COlMlM1SSIQN AUGUST 5 1985 85-415
City and develo~er for the uae af Uld Santa Ana Canyan Road ae parkLny spaces
for the center itselE. t~e added thie is a unique situation Aince l•hat is a
public stcpet, but does not oerv e tnR Public, and the owneca will take over
the maintenance and repair costs, liability, etc.
TtlE PUCiLiC FIEARiNG WAS CLUSGU.
Mr. ~razier responc~ed to Commiss i oner BouAa l•hot they will have 244 parking
apar,ea on site without the use of tt~e spacea on OlU santa Ana canyon Road. He
explAined they a~re ~roNosing 81 s pacea on Old Santa nna C~nyon Road with l/3
of the spaces on the aouth eide a nd 213 on the nocth side.
Kendca Mc~rries [esponded to c:hairwoman La Claire that 4.`~ s~~cea per 1,000
~quarQ feek ot gross floor z~rea are required by Code. Chairwoman I,a Ctaire
stated 59 additfonal spacea are n Qeded to meet Cnde and they would have to
reduce ttie aize of the p[ojeat, with Kendra M~rcies explaining they would need
to reduce the building by about 1.0,00U equace feet. She also explained the
landscape exhibit diaplayed was given to stra~E this morning and ahowed a
diEf•~~rent design and number of packing epacea. Mr. Frazter stated the exhibit
was for aolor purposes only and was modif:ied to show the number ol s~aces on
the submitted ~lans.
Malcolm Slaughter, Ueputy City A ttorney, stated any agreemerit t al the City
would entec into regarding parki.nq spaces on Uld 5anta Ana Canyon Road would
be for public parking spaces an d not intended only for ttie tenant~ o~ the
center.
A petson in the audience asked t o speak.
TH~ P~BLIC HEARINC WAS RBUPENEU _
Garol Rudat, 2H1 Uld Bridge Roa d, Anaheim, (Secretary cnuld not veri.fy name)
stated there i~ a post office c vccen~ly under construction and as the shopping
center exists now, it has a pur king problem and explained she usea that
shopping csnter. She noted th e ze are two restaurants exlsting and th ere is
alxeady a saFety hazard getting in and out of Santa Ana Canyon Road and she
tho~ght sdding more building w i th incc~:ased tc~ffic, in addition to a new post
oEtice, will cause increased c o ngestion and tr.af~ic hazards.
Mr. Fraziec staLed there will b e a tratfic impact with the completion of the
post officE and the shoppiny c e nter ownets are aware of that and that is why
they f.ee.l the use of the coad i s a good place for additional parking. He
explained tne additional sp$ce wiil be for offices and will not have the same
hours oi pcime usage as the re staurants and uain9 Old Santa Ana Canyon Road
for parking is a legitimate cequest because oL• the proximity.
TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissionec Herbst asked if t he re3idente had been contacted regacdirsg the
pos~ibility uf purchasi.ng that pcopecty. Mr. Frazfer stated the ownec told
him he had done some spot checking and tt~e resfdents were con~used because
~hey did not know lhey might be involved.
8/5/85
M2NU_T_ES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNLNG cUMMiSS~~c~, AUGU5~r 5, 1985 85-416
Commissloner t~erbst ntated he Eelt allowin~ the vuriance end permittiny
parking on the public street would apen 'pandora's box' for the Planning
Commisaion beceus~ developers do watch all the actions oI the Planning
Commtoaion and wil.l want the same thiny. Ne stated he would not vote for lt
and added he did not agreN with the parkiny otudy and did not think the
conbulCant had consider~d the post oEfice and the impACt it will have on the
ahopping center. Ne atated that will ne a large poet office and it will have
~ good impact on the ehopping center becauae it will bring more people into
khe area. tle stated the City migl~t be willing to deed the street back to r.he
~hopping center ao it can be in~luded as parr of tt~e ahopping center und that
should be lonked into so the plan cun be re~eRigned.
Mr. Frazier stated t;~is is a unique situation with r.he public roadway secving
only a ahoppxny cenl•er and that w~uld bP obligating the awner to the total
cost ot impcaving and maintaining the street and everyone involved witl gain
from that and it will help the present aLtuation at the ahopping center. Ne
explained efLectively with thi~ proposal, they will be adding 32 parking
spaces to the exi~kin,y situatian.
Cortuni9sloner Fry stated the present ~roposal contains 244 on-sike a~,aces ~~hich
is about 8U~ of Code requirement. Mr. Frazier stated ttiey did nat reguest any
compact spaces and the parkiny lot could be restriped to include cnmpact
spaces. He stated at most time~ during the d~y khey do have an abundance of
parking spaces available.
Chairwoman La Claire stated she is concerned about setting a precedent and she
knows there ace times when r_he parking lot at this center is not full during
the day and also there are times when it is very crowded.
Cummisslonec Fry pointed out the shopping center at State College and T.incoln
has a 758 waiver and it is doing well.
Cha~rwoman La Claire stated the Von's parking lot is never full from her
absecvation, but she does not li.ke providing parking on a public street.
Paul Sinyer, Traffic ~nyineer, stated the percentages of parking sometimes are
misleading simply because of the location of available parking spaces and
people will not park and walk. He stated he feels confident in the parking
study submitted for this development and does not have a problem with it and
that he is concerned with allowing parking for a private enterprise on a
publia street because if it was needed in the future at a different loaation
to prohibit pArking for travel lanes, that would be precluded by the
cunditional use permit. He added he felt ~hey do have adequate parking on
site b~cauBe of oveclapping uses and that the waiver is raot that great.
Chairwoman La C.laire suggested approv:ng the parking ~aiver with Che
stipulation from the applicant that no more restaurants or medical uses would
be permitted in the center. Mr. Frazxer skated they would be willing to make
that stipulation.
Commissioner Fry stated he has no problems with the waiver of parkinq as long
as he knows there are 244 on-site apaceE, but he would want all references
eliminated pertaining to Old Santa An~ Canyon Rnad.
8/5/85
MINUTES. ANAH~T~1 CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONl AUGUST 5, 1985 85-417
Kendra Mocries expl~ined tl~~ rey~eat for w~iver of minimum landscaped setbacY.
peckAln~ to the 2U-foot land~ca~ed setback adja~ent to Old Santa Ana CAnyon
Roaa And if it is denir.d, ti~ey w111 be requir~d to put in the landscaping, but
they would still have 244 parking apaces.
Malcolm Slau~hter statea the City is not in a pooition to permanently devot~
thos~ parking spaces on a public streel to any ~articular co~figuretiun and
the City will cetain, und~r Agceemant, ttie right to convert thoae spacea back
to patallel parking at such tlme it is deterrt~ined it is necessary foc public
use ot the street and the city is not relinquishina cumplete control of the
~ublic street. He added the recommended conditi~n is that if khe Planning
Commission granta the variance, the applicant be r.equired to pravide
addition~l parking spaces under a number uf. difEerent alternatives and one is
to provide parking on ~~ld SAnta Ana r_anyon Ro~d as a mitigati~n measure. He
stated the Cummissian can simply grant the variance wittiuut those mitigation
mPaauces ar-d if they do that, ttie ap~licant may sti11 pucsue the redesign of
Uld Santa Ana C'anyon Road.
Commissioner H~rbst suyyested a condition khat if it becomes necessac,y in the
fut.ure, a parking structure for otf-street parkiny wuuld be provided and added
he w~uld nok want to eliminat~ that porti~n of thr condition. Paul SingE~r
statea in the pASt that has been reyuired on othec project~ and tt~at a bond be
posted for a periud of three years following the completion of constructi~n to
provide a certain number of parkiny spaces. H~a added he did not teel it is
necessary in this case. He ctated Old Santa Ana Canyon Road should be
abandoned as a public stceet beceuse it is not needed and his cancern is not
with the City retaining owner~hip of public p2~rkinc~ on the skreet, but getting
it ct~anged if it is committed.
Respondin9 to Commissioner McDurney's yuestion, Kendra Morrfes stated the
Albertsan shopping center is at approximately 98t of Code requirement.
Commissioner Herbst stated this vatiance is getting a bit further aw~y from
th~ reyuirement and he thoughk Old Santa Ana Canyon Road should be put .,ack on
the tax rolls since it only serves this shopping center and he felt the
property owner should take care oE it. He added there fs a possible liability
to the ~ity with it becominy a parking lot with a 25-foot driveway with cars
parked at 9U degree angles on both sides, and trucks ~sing it to service the
shopping center.
Chairwoman La Ciaire stated that partion of the request will probably be
denied because the Commission does not like the idea of Old Santa Ana Canyon
Road being used for a parking lot foc the ahopping centec wit.hout them owning
it. Commissioner Herbst pointed out the recently ~pproved Hughes shopping
center on the r_orner of Fairmont does not h.ave a parking waiver and he thought
with the post office ~eing eonstructed, it wil.l really impact that shopping
center, And he th~ught the shopping center is befng nverbuilt.
C~ an La Claire aEked if the p~st office is providing adequate parking.
Pa~ ~~nger stated there will be parking provided for the employees in the
rear an~ he thought there wou2d be 20 to 25 spaces in the fro~tj howevec, they
have a high turnover ot traffic and post officea never have enough parking,
but there is adequate acseage in the rear. Chairwoman La Claire stated Old
8/S/85
M1NUT~S._ANAHEIM C[TY PLANNING CqMMISSIUN. AUGUST 51 1f185 ___ 85-418
sa~ta Ana Canyon Road also cuns in tt~e back of the porjt office ~nd Asked if j
th~y have an eAaement. ~
i
commtssioner Nerbnt stated sinee the pou~ otElce wi11 attcact n lot oE ~POpte,
it will benEfit the ehop~~ng center, creating an im~act that is not shown in i
tlie tcaf[ic study. PAUl 5iny~c staked th~ traFfic etudy indir,ated there are i
usual.ly 6U plus empt,y s~aces and surveys were taken on different days and at ,
di.Eterent times and ~~.he higheat ugage was on a Saturdny at 2:4U p.R~. Mr.
Erazier stated if ~he Pldnniny Commission wishes to approve thia contingent
u~on abAndonmenl• ot the roAdw~y, 1/2 oP the atreet would immediately transfer
into thelr ownership and those spaces coul.d be developed into uaeful parking
skaces.
Chaicwoman La Claire stated grant.ing this vaciance precludes the developer
from haviny to gek old Santa Ana Canyon Road, but it daes not preclude him
from pucauing it in tt~e future.
Kendra Morriea st•ated if it i~ the Cummission's desire to approve the request
for 244 spaces on-sil•e, Condition No. 8 should t~e eliminated.
ACTtUN: Commissioner Fry otf~red a motion, sec:onded by Commissioner McBUrney
and MUTYON CARRIEU (Commi~Rioner Messe abcnntl that the Anaheim City Planniny
Commi~sion h~as reviewed th4 proposal to expand an existing commercial center
with waivera of minimum number o[ parking opaces and minimum landecaped
setback ori an irregularly-shaped E~arcel of l~nd consisting of approximately 5
acres lorated at the northwest corner of S~nta Ana Canyon Road bnd Impecial
Highway and further desciibed a~ `~~G~ to 5595 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road; and
does hereby a~>~rove the Negative Declaration upon Einding that it ha~
considered the Y~egati.ve Declarati~n together witt~ any comments ceceived during
the public review process and further findiny on the basis of the Initial
Study ana any comments received ttiat there is no substantial evidence that thA
project will hav~ a significant effect on the environment.
c.ommissionec Fry otfe[ed Resolution No. PC85-182 and moved f~r its passage and
adopkion that the Anaheim City planning Commission +~oes hereby grant Variance
No. 3497, in ~art, approving wai.ver (a) on the basis that the parking waiver
will not cause an increase in traffic conyestion in the immediate vicinity nor
adversely affect any adjoining land uses and yranting of the parking waiver
under the conditians imposed, if any, will not be detrimentel to the peace,
health, safety and general welfare of th~e citizens of the City of Anaheim and
denyinq waiver (b) on the basis that strict application of the Zo~ing Code
does not depcive the prnperty of priviteges enjoyed by okher properties in
identical zoning classifications in the vicinity; and subject to
Interdepartmental Committee recommendations, c3eletina Conditinn No. 8.
Commissioner Herbst stated he wf.ll vote against the resolution because wiL•h
the available parking being around the cestaucant, customers wilt not park
there and walk to this new addition. He added the Anaheim Hitla area is
growing considecably and granting this v~riance will create an undesirable
precedent.
Chairwoman La Claire atated this is 808 oE the cequired spaces and the
shopping center ak I,incoln ~nd State College has been gra~ted 75$. She added
8/S/85
MINUT~S AN~FiEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISuiQN AUGUST 5 1985 85-419
L•he atipulation af ~he petitlo~er thar no new cestauranta or medical offices
will be perm~tted should be included in the cesolution. Melcolm Sleughter
added the petitioner ehould etipulate to that conditian. Mr. Frdzier stdted
they woul~ stipulate in writing, or whatevec ia necPSgaryr that no new
faCilitiea or, dd~itionR to the existing Eacilities for reateucants oc medical
offices will be allowed.
On roll call, the koregoing resolution was pasaed by the following v~Ce:
~ygg; BOUAS, FHY. LA CLAIRC~ LAWICKZ, MC BURNEY
NUES: HERBST
ABS~NT: MESSR
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to oppe~l
the PLanniny Commiasion's decision withfn 2'l dAys ta the CiLy ~Council.
RECESSFD: 2:55 p•m.
RECONVENED• 3:05 p.m.
ITEM Np. 4. E~iR NEGATLVE DECLP~RATION WAiVFR OE CODE REQUiREMENT AND
CONDITiONAL USE PERMIT Nt). 2705
PUBLLC H~ARiNG. OWNERS. CENTURY PROPERTlES, 1801 Century Pack East t2100,
Washingtori
Los Angeles, CA 90069. AGENT: FOSTER & KLBISER COMPANY, 1550 W.
Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90Q7, ATT".~: RGO~RT J. VERMAN. Property desCiibed as
an irregularly-shaped paccel of land conaisting of approximatety 3.1 acres
located north and east of the northeast corner of Linaoln Avenue and Beach
Boulevard, and furthet described as 200 North Beach Boulevard.
WAivers af maximum display area and maximum height to permit a billboard i~
the CH 2one.
Continued from tb~ meeGi~g of July 22, 1985.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject zequesk
and although ttie staff report was not read, it is refecred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Robert Verman, a.yent, was present to answer any questions.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLASED.
c:ommissioner Herbst asked whak the hardship is f.or granting this vaciance.
Mr. Vetman stated they huve removed a lot of theit signs and the request for
this variance ie basically for economics and pointed out there are fewer
locatione available and larger signs do bring in more cevenues.
Chairwoman LA Claire stated she just got back from Mammoth and signs up in the
air are pcohibited in that area and everyone seems to be able to find wherever
they waret to go and that this commission has been trying to keep signs at a
minimum in Anah~im by not granting variances and ahe felt the ordinances
ahould be upheld.
8/5/85
. .._. ..._....:. ,. .... _ _._..._ _ ...
. - - ~~,~.,.,~,~..~u ,..;.,., ..,._
.w
_. _ _ _ .
.,,w,.,ae~,w,.~trat~er~flmLtaa6 . . _ _ . ~ ~ ~-'~ . _ ~ . .i . _ .. _ . . _ . _ . _- ~
MINUT45~ ANANEIM CLTY nLANNIN~ CUMMI~SION, AUGUS7` 51 1~85 _~ 85-A20
it was cl~rified thet the proposal is foc a b111boACd and will not even be
advertis~ng the shopping center..
ACTION: Co~nmiASioner FrY offeced u mokio~, aeconded by CommisRioner BouaR and
MOTION CAKRI~U (Commiseioner Messe abaent) that the Anaheim City Planning
Conunisaion l~as reviewed the pcoposAl to E~ermit a billboard in the CH
(Commerc.it+l, Heavy) Zone with waiver oE meximum display ~cea end mnximum
height on a iccegulacly-sha~,ed parcel of lond connisting of ap~roxi.mately 3.1
acres located north and east of the noctheaet cocner of Lincoln Avenue and
Beach ~s~ulevatd and further deACribed aA 200 N. Beact~ Houlevard; and does
hP~eby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered
the Negative DeclarAtion togethec with ar~y commenls received during the public
review process and Eurthec Einding on the basia oE the Tnitial Study and any
camments ceceived thAt there is no substAntial evidence that the ~~oject will
have a signiticant tffect on the environment.
Commissioner Fry offere~i a motion ser,onded by C'ommisAi~ner Nerbst and MOTTON
CARRIED (c:ommissioner Mesoe abaent) that the An~heim City Planning does hereby
deny waiver ~f Code requirement on the basis that thece are no special
circumstances a~plicable ko the property such as size, shape, topograptiy,
location and 8urrounding~ which do not apply to other identical.ly zoned
property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code
does not deprive tne property of privileges cnjoyed by other propertir.s under
identical zoning classification in the vicinity.
Commissioner Ery offered Resolution No. PC85-183 and moved for its passage and
adoptfon that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heceby deny
Conditional Use Permit No. 27U5 on the basis that it will adverxely affect the
adjoining land uses oi t~~e develoE~ment in the area and set an undesirable
precedent and be detrimental to the ~eace, he~lth, safety and general welEare
of the citizens oE the City ot Anaheim.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vore:
AY~;S: OOUAS, FkY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, M(. BURNEY
NOES: NUNE
ABS~NT: MESSE
Malcolm 5iaughter, Deputy City Attocney, preEented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decisi.on within 22 days to the City C~uncil.
ITEM N0. 5. EIR NEGATTVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT N0. 2701
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: WILLIAM U. ALMAtiD AND SHIRLEY ALMAND, 3335 West
Lincoln Avenue, Anahefm, CA 92801. Property described as a
rectangularly-shaped paccel of lar~d cons+.ating aE approxima*_ely 0.71 acre,
3335 Hest Lincoln.
To retain a mobilehome (residential trailer).
There was no one indfcating their pr~sence in apposition t~ subject request
and although the staff report was not cead, it is ceferrecl to and made a part
of the minutes.
8/5/85
MINUTE5. ANANELM CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON ~ AUGUST 51 19~5 85-421
William Almand, owner, explained he has had this mobileh~me on thia property
for 14 yeArs and p~in~ed out he alao awns the pcopert~~~~n the north side
ad~acent tn the block wall, which is a mobileh~me pArk. He ceferced ta the
recflmmer~ded conditions, C~ndition No. 4 and explained l~e hAS lived there foc
42 years and there is no water main l•o service the last two pcoperties, one of
which is a molel, and the water was Cunncled under Beach t3oulev~rd and he did
noC know why a fee iH necessAry now. He referted to Condition No. 5~nd
stated the mobilehome could bc reached by l•he fire trucks within l00 feet ancl
there is a fire hydcant at th~ mobilehome park and there is access hhrough the
north an a lU-foot dciveway. He ~sked iE those two conditions could be
deleted. I!e stated iie will install the sidewalk even though there are ~~o
sidewalks to L•he east oE thzs pro~ecty. He referred to the aertai photogcaphs
which show that the inobilehome cAnnot be seen Erom any direction.
TNE PUBLIC I:i~AkING WAS cLOSED.
Commissionec Nouas staCed she ht~d no ~bjection to the mobilehome since it
cannot b~ seen and refecred to the yate on the north ~icl~ and asked how the
Fire DeNartment would know ko come in that driveway if thece is a f.i.ce ak the
mobilehome. Mr. Almanci stated they would know becauae of the address. F~e
stated he would meet with lhe Fxre Marshall ta work out a way to meet ttii~
condition. Annika Santa'lahti stated the condition was worded the way it is so
he could work out somethiny with the Fice M~~rshall.
Mt. Almand e+xplained he has a bond on fite with ~he City for construction o£
sidewalks.
Pertaininy to water main fees, Annika Sankalahti explained it is a standard
c~ndition which has to be paid on every property and that the Water Division
asked that the fees be paici at this time. She explained it is passible that
the fees are not for watec mains in this area, but in other areas, but the fee
has to be paid on every property once, typical.ly in r.onjur~ction with building
construction.
~CTIUN: Commis~ioner McBurney affered a motion, seconded by Cot~missionec
HeCbst and bt~TiON CARRI6D (Commissipner Messe absent) that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission has re~viewed the proposal to retain a mobilehome
(residential trai.ler) on A rectangularly-shapec] parcel of land consisting of
ap~roximately 0.71 acres, having a Lrontage of approximately 100 f2et on the
north side ot Lincoln Avenue and further described as 3335 W. Lincoln Avenue;
and does hereb,y appcove the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has
considered the Negative Ueclaration together with any comments received during
the publi.c review procesr~ and fucther finding on the basis of the tnitial
Study an~~ any comments received that there is no substankial evidence that the
project wii.l have a significant ~effect on the enviconrt,ent.
Kendra Mo-rites pointed out in Paragraph 14, staff was making a recommendation
that th~ per.niit be granted for a period of 10 years and asked if that is the
Comrt~ission's ~i~aire. Commissioner Bouas stated she would like that added and
also that the use of the mobilehome shall be for the i,nmediate family only and
also subject ko the sale of the propetty. Kendra Morries pointed out the City
Attorney is recommending that a covenant be recorded againsk the property
agreeing that the res~.dency of the mobilehome shall be limited to family
8/5/'85
~
MItJUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIG~N. AUGUST 5, 1985 8:'~-422 `_„
memb~cs only And for ~~Kriod of lU years and aubject to the er~l.e of khe
pr~perty. Mr. Almand stated t~e would be willing Co recocd th~k covenant.
Commi.ssioner McHutney offered Resolution No. PC85-184 and moved far its
pass+~ge and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commi~sion doea hereby
yr.ant Conditional Use Permit No. 27U1 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Cado
Sections 1t~.03.03U.U30 through 18.UJ.U30.035 and subject to the petitioner's
oti~~ulation to eecocd a coven~+nt against the property reatrictiny the use of
Che mobilehome to immediaCe family membecs ~nly for a period af 10 years And
aubject tu the sale of the propecty and subjecC to interdepartmental Committee
recommendations.
Un roll call, tt~e ioregoing reaolution was paysed by the following vote:
AYE;S: BOUAS, FRY, tIFRBS'T, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY
NC~E:S: ~~UN~
AF3SEN2': ME55B
MAlcolm Slaughter, Ueputy City Attorney, presented Che written rlyht to appeal
t.he Planniny Commission's decision within 22 days tu the City Council.
ITEM N0. 6. EiR NEGATIV~ DECLARATION, ftECLASSiFICATION N0. 84-$5-42, WAiVER
UF ~ODE RF.QUIREMENT ANU CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2702
PUBLIC HEARING. UWNERS: JUHN J. STEVENS AND FATIMA STEVENS, 17340 East
Temple Aven~e, La Puente, CA 91744. Property described aA a
rectangulacly-shaped pacce'l of land con3isting of approximately 11,220 aquace
feet, 157U West Katella Avenue.
R5-A-93,U00 to CL or a less .intense zone. Te permit a apiritual psychic
palmist in a residential structure with waiver.s of (a) minimum fronk ~etback,
(b) maximum stcuctural heigtit, (c) minimum landscaped setback, (d) cequir~d
sire sc[eening and (e) maximum sign area.
There was one person indicating hec presence in opposition ~o subject request
and although the ataff reporc was nok read, it is refer.red to and made a part
of the minutea.
John Stevens, owner, ex~~lained the buildin~ wi11 be compl~Lely remodeled.
Jean Vigna, 1556 W. Katella, stated her. only opposition is to the 30-foot s.gn
and st.at~d she thought they should comply with Code requirements.
Phil Wirth, 9371 Coronet Av~nue, Westminster, st~ted he would comply with
whatever is approved by the Commission regarding the sign.
THE PUkiLIC HEARING WAS CLOSSU.
Comniissioner Hecbst auggested moving the prop~sed garage 10 ~eet toward the
house which would eliminate the need for the variance. Mr. Wirth stated that
would be possible and explained thece is a 6-foot w~ll existing on that
propecty lfne. Commfesioner Herbst stated a vaciance is reqiiested on that
portion of the property and asked what the variance would be if the parking
8/5/85
~
MINUTES~ANAk1EIM CITY F~LANNINC CUMMI55IUN f~-JCUST 5 1y85 85-423
structure ia movc~d lU feet toward Kalella. Kendrr~ Morries, Asaietant Planner,
explained a lU-foat ~etback would permit a maximum building height uf l0 feet
and ahe thought tl~e packing garage i.s 12 feet high, so a vAriance would ntill
be required. c;ommiasioner tlerbst clarified a Code waiver would ~till be
necessnry, but Lt would bp lesR and waiver (c) anci (d) could he eliminated and
tt~at a 6-foot wall could be inatalled th~t would c;onFocm to Code and the eign
should canf'orrti to Code. tie clarified ttie parking apaces woul.d t~ave to be
moved al least 7 feeG to ma~e the 1Q feet. Mr. Wirth asked that the packing
be waived becau8e the whole paved area tias to be moved whici~ would use up a
Lot of tt~eic yard area.
Commisaioner Herbst $lated the Commisrian has not allowed variances whPn they
encto~:ch on the neiyhbors who have already been there.
Mr. Stevens asked iE he could have tt~e 3U-squace [oot sign F,ecause people
driviny on Katella wuuld need sume k~ay to identify the building ~nd pointed
ou~ a lot of bua.ines~ses on Katella have signs five times as big as this sfgn.
tie responded to Chairwoman La ClairP that ;nost ot his business is by
wo[ci-of.-mouth, but they do get some walk•-in traffic..
ACTION; Commis~ioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Cortur.y.ssioner
McBurney and MOTIUN CARRIBD (Commi~sioner Messe aboent) that the Anaheim Ciky
Planniny Com~~ission has reviewed the ~roponal to recla~sify subject pro~erty
from Che RS-A~-q3,000 (Resi.dential, Agricultural) Zone to c:L (CommerciaL,
Limited) or a less intense zune ko E~ermlt a spiritual-psyc.hic palmiAk in a
residential structure with waivera of mini.mum Eront setback, maximum
stcuctural setback, minimum landscaped setback, required site screeniny and
maximum sign ~~rea on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 11,220 square feet, having a fronl•age of approximately a9 feet
on the ~outh side of Katella Avenue and further described as 1570 W. Katella
Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it
has considered the Negative Aeclazation Gogether witti any comments received
during the public review process and fuclher fi~~ding on the basiA of the
In.itial Study and any comu~ents received chak thece is no substantial evidence
that the ptoject will have a significant effect on the env~ronment.
Commissioner HeCbst offered Resolution No. PC85-185 and moved for its pussage
and adopl•ion that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Reclassification No. 84-85-42 subject to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendatians.
~n roll call, r.he foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote:
AYES: }3UUAS, FRY, t~ERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MESSE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
Comrnissioner H.erbst offered a mution, secoi7ded by Commissioner McBurney and
MOTION CARRIED (Cammissioner Messe absent) that the Anahe~.m City Planning
Conunission does hereby grant wafver (a) and waiver (b), in part, with the
~
8/5/85
~~
,?i .
'~ ,' {
MINUT~S, ANANEIM CLTY PLANNING CUMMISSIUN, AUCUST 5, .1985 BS 424
- _ ...__-~..__.._._
pco~,osed garag~ k~eing teloceted to 2U Eeet from the eoutherly property line on
the basie that there are special ciccumetanceA applicable to the pcoperty such
as siz~, ahr~pe, topogr~phy, loaation And autroundings which do not apply to
othec i.dentically zoned property in the same vicinity= and that etrict
application nf the 2oniny Code deprives the property oE privileges enjoyed by
other properties in the identical .^,one and claseific~tion in tt~p vlcinity anci
denyiny waivers (c), (d) and (e) on tho basis the Netitioner sti~ulated at the
public heAring to contarm to Code requirements.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resc,lution No. PC85-186 and maved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City planning Commisaion does hereby grant
Conditional Use Pecmit No. 27U2, in part, pursudnt to Anaheim Munici~al ~ode
Sectians 18.03.03q.03U and 18.U3.030.035 and subject to interdeparemental
Committee recomme~datinns.
On roll call, the focegoing resolution wAa passed by the followfng vote:
AYE5: EiOUAS, FRY, HERDST~ LA CLAIR~, LAWICKI~ MC f3UkNEY
NU~;S: NUN~
ABSf:NT: MESSE
Ma.lcolm Slaughter, CepuCy City Attorney, presented khe written right to appeal
the Planniny Cummission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 7. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIGN AND CONDITIUNAL USE PERMIT N0. 2707
~UBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: FRANK N. GREINKF, 1011 Laguna Road, P.O. Box 1207,
, Tustin, CA 9268U. AGENT: FLORENTINU MATA, JR., 214 w. La Palma Avenue,
Anaheim, CA 92801. Propcrty described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of
~ land consisting of approximately 0.6 acre located at the soutt~w~st corner of
Orangefair Lane and Raymand Avenus, 1431 Narth Raymond Avenue.
mo permit an auto repair shop in an exiating service station.
Z'here was one person indicating her presence in op~osition to subject request
~ and alth~ugt~ thE staff report was not read, it is referced t~ and made a part
oE the minutea.
Florentino htata, agenk, explained h~e wi,she~ ~o aperate three bays at an
existing service station as an autamotive repair shup and will be doir.g smal?
repairs such as smog inspections, qeneral turie-ups, etc. He stated this area
is indus~.rial and he did not sPe any harm in op~rating an automotive repair
tacility.
Carul kudat, 281 Old eridge Road, explained she owns 2 properties adjacent to
subject property and one year ago the owner cf this property requested a
liquor p~rmit at this location. She presented a map and painted outi that the
current lessee, Mr. Gr~inke, leases the station from one of the oil companies
and about two years ago he goL• permits to sell dieael fuel and she did not
know at that time about the traffic problems that could occur w~.th large
trucks. Sh~ explained the exhibit sh~~as the trucks in the way of *_raffic,
trucks parking in red 2one~, etc. and noted the street is narrow so khere is
no legal access onto Orangefair Lane without driving over the cen~erline; and
8/5/85
MINUTES L ANAHEIM CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 5. 1985 85-425
also trucka parked in the middie of Raymond walting to get into the station,
etc. She explained ahe haa sevenkeen tenants just behind th.is property and
~hey ace continuAlly complaining about the traffic pro~lems at Chis corner;
rhat the station has four accessea which is an additi~nA1 hazard and olso
there have been severa.l diesel apills within the lasr 1-1/2 years and Mr.
Greinke has nor be~n maintaining the pro~erty or the use of the property in a
safe manner and she Eelt adding an automotive repair shop would cr.eate more
problems. She atated she knows fr.om her ~wn experience with tenants in the
automotive cepaic business that there is no way to keep the vehicles ineide
the building and Chey eventually wiil overflow inko the ~arking lots
cegardless of: the promises they make. She stated there is some parking on the
right side oF the servicE c~tation and when people do not pick up their
automobiles, they will be parked there overnight cceating ~n attraction Eor
vand~lism.
Ms. Rudat atated there is alreAdy a LraEfic problem with the krucks and thAt
traf~ic will be incceas~d in an~ out aE this Etation witt- thic use ~nd the
praper~y is currently an eyesore. She stated this is no~ an industrial acea
and moat of the buil~inqs on Orangefair Lane are research and development type
EacilikiES And hera is the only multi-tenant building and there has been a lot
of time and money epent maintaining the professionaliam oF these buildings and
across L•he street is the Laura Scudder'~ plant and there are many other offic~
buildings in the area and she thou~ht it would bE a mis~ake to bring in hhis
type of business in thc area. She stated the Poli.ce Uepartment cannot
maintain the traffic conditions at this station and there have been many near
collisions. She ~tated if this is approved with certain con~itions, there is
no way tor the Commission ta monitoc those condi.tions and ahe did not want to
have that responsibility.
Mr. Mata stated he haL nothing to do with the trucks and knows there is heavy
Lraffic at that station and he will not. be selling diesel fuel and will be
doing small repairs with no overnight storage. He stated there are 8 parking
spaces for employees which the emplayees have been u~ing and this use will not
be creating very much addition~l traffic.
TH~ PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Lawicki cZarified tt~is vse wlll be primarily tune-ups rather than
overhauls. Mr. Mata staked he ran a similar operation on Beach and Ball and
rarely used the parking that was avaflable and explained a ugual repair takes
about ].-1/2 hours and some customers will b~ leaving their vehicles in the
morning and parkzng will be requiced. He ata~ed the vehicles will be dropped
off in the morning and picked up in the afternoon.
Responding to Commissioner La Clafre, Mr. Mata skated the owner wiil not
neyotiate a lease for longer than 5 years and he will be negotiating the lease
after this is approved and would Iike to have il• for three years,
Commissioner Herbst asked if the sale of diesel fuel is ~llow~d by righ.t.
Kendra Morries atated the service station wouid be permitted to sell dieael
fuel. She stated there is a Code enforcenent history on this property and
notices of violatiion iBSUed a~ recently as June of th?s year, all havin~ to do
with diesel fuel overflowing onto the City streets. She state~ Cod~
Enfotcement Ufficers indicated this is probably occurring bc-. ;: ~~
3i ~/OS
MINI~TES. ANAHEIM CITY PGANNING CUMMISS2UN AUGUST 5 19d5 85-42G
attendant ie not ir~ a physical locfltian that alluws him to monitar the way the
trucks sre beiny filled and 1E the driver ia not paying att~ntion ~r leAVes
the vehiclo while the truck is beiny filled, it is very common for it to
overilow. Comr+s~ionec Nerbat otated it ~pp~AC~ khere is no back-up areA
except in the s4rEet for getting the trucku in. Chairwoman T~a Claf.re ~ointed
out klie Cummiasion realizes the problem with trucke is not this petitivnec's
fault, but that the Conm~iasion ta concern~d.
Mr. Mata indica~ed he thouyht this permit was required hecauae he wanked to
have a aign. Kendra Mocrie~ explained use of the ~ropec ~ for automotive
repaic requicea a conditional ur~e permit and the only type of automobile
repair.s allowcd without s necmit would be minor occessory type aervices or
repairs such as oil cha~ges, changing windshield wipera, ekc.
Commiasionec Nerbst ~kal•ed thi.s use Probably has •grAndfather zigh~~s" in this
area. Kendra Morrie~ explained ~ny service station that is existing which
clo~es for over a year is required to get a conditional use permit beiore
reopening ~nd new s~rvice stations require a conditiona: u~e pecmit and
existing oervice stations are there by 'grandfather riyhts". She er.pla.ined
the City has no recotd when they starked ~c~lliny diesel fuel.
M~lcoln, Slaughter srated t~e was not suce a atation operator who has certain
typea of ya~oline and wanted to change one to diesel would be required to get
a pPrmit. Commissioner fierbet stated tie hhought the service st:ation was
expanded with new pumps, etc. and asked if a condit.ional use permit wa~
required and thought there was a por~sibility it waa expanded illeyally.
Annika Santalaht.i stated she doubted if staft would be involved with a~ervice
station simply adding a new t}~pe £uel and would only be involved with an
expansion to the building itself.
Chaicwoman La Claire stated the problem is not with the sale of dieael fuel,
but with the operator and the Cact that n~ one is waLching it. She state~ she
did not think the petitioner leasing ttiree .ys will cause a problem, but
there is aiready a~rohlem. ~he suygesled approving this request with certain
cunditions because a conditional use permit can be revoked.
Mr. Mata stated he has a five year history with a City licen4e for the
locakion at Beach and Ball and has never violated any regulations.
Commi~sioner Herbst suggested continuing this makter for two weeks so the
property own:r can be brought in because he will be leasing the property to
this gpntlemen.
Faul Singer, 7'rafFic Engineer, stated Condition No. 1 would go a long way in
solviny some of the problems sin~e closing two dcfveways wouid make it
virtually imposaible foc truck~ to get into the pcogerty. Mr. Mata stated iE
the conditions are requiced, he did not think he would be abl~: to lease the
property because closir,g the drivPwr~ys would make it impossible for the
service ~tation to operate as it i~ currently be~[ng operated.
Co~unissioner Herbst statec3 the petitioner should yo back to the pro~. ~. owner
and discuss the prablems with him and if this use is granted with the
8/5/85
~
MINUTE~S, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMZSSIUN. AUGUST 5~ 1985 85-,27
conditions, it will probably never happen and thAUght A compromise ahould bP
worked out between ;.he putitloner, property owner and oppoaition.
Mr. Maka stated the ~r.Aperty owner was not lntecested in mAking any
irtiprovementa and doesn't really cere if thie use is approvPd or not.
Concernir~q the problem with 'leeking fuel, Kendra Mocries explained she
underatanUs that Code Enfarcemsnt is working with the Fice Deparkment and they
have alao contacted the EnvironmentAl Protection Agenc:y und ttiere is e long
hiatory of attemptiny to get. the pcoperty owner to comply.
Mr. Mata stated he has not wi.tnessed any cliesel leaks, but he has seen the
trucks and knows the Area is congeated, but did not tl~ink it any difPer~nt
than the o~eration of any gas station.
ACTIUN; Commi~sioner t~erbst oELered a motion, seconded by Commiasioner
Mctiurney And MuTtUN CARRiED (Commi~siancr Messe absent) that consideration oE
subject petition be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of August 19,
1985, in order for the petitioner tu work out a solution with the property
owner.
AC'PION: c:ommissioner Herbst ofEered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
I.awicki and MUTION CARRIED (CommiESioner Messe absent) that the Anaheim City
E~lanning Commi~sion does hereby instruct stafE to review the permits for the
existing service station an ttiic property to determine wh~ther or not they
have ex~anded illegally and if the use did include a permit to sell diesel
fuel and whether or not any other permits were involved.
ITEM N0. b. EI_R NEGATIVE DECLARATiON, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREM£Nm AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMI'P NU. 2710
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: S7.'EWART GRE~N ASSOCiATES, ATTN: KARL MEADER~ 2180
Eaet Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92~06. Pro~:ert,y described a~ ar.
ircegularly-shaped paccel of land con.~isting of approximately 27.11 acres
located at th~ southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and State College Boulevard,
21A State Collese B~ulevard.
To permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed restaurant wikh waiver of
minimum numbec of parking spaces.
There was no one i-idicating their presence in opposition to subject request
and a.tthough the staff report was not read, it is referred to a~d made a part
of the minutes.
Kar.l Meader, ayent, presented exhibits showing the packi~g lot with trafEic
counts teken durin9 the week of August 19th showing where the autumobiles were
parked and pointed out the highest count waa on July 19th at about 1:OU p.m.
with 557 vehicles garked on the lot on that day and noted the average for the
Entice week was 901 automobiles. He cef erred to the blonk area next to the
eurger King and explained the two young persons doing the actual traffic
counts missed that area, however, if they misxed one out of every three
autcmobiles and added 1/3 to the total based un 557 automobiles, there wauld
be no mor~ than 1200 vehicles on a].5J0 plus space packing lot.
8/5/85
MINUTES, ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING CUMM'[SSION_. AUGU5T 5, 1985 85-428
'i'HE pUBLTC HEJ~RING WAS CL05ED.
Cortimi8aioner Bouas asked iE the c+rea where khe pizza facility is located was
included in the traffic count. Mr. Mead~r stated it wAS and ststed that was
the area whece the Commiesion recnmmended that the .:urb be painted red And
noted thar was done on E'rid~y and Lhe c~igns werp inatalled thia morning.
Commissioner Mc[iurney asked how many empty units were nvailable for rent in
the center. Mr. Meadrr statecl they only have 8 empty uncommil:ted sp~ces to be
leased, in addition to Lhe 40,UUU aquare f.oot nome center by the po3t ofEice.
He atated he knaws fcum experience in ~hoppi.ny centers that if the center iR
ovecbuilt and there is no parking, customer.s will not r.eturn. He ad~ed th~ce
are no City atreets around this shopping center wt~ere people could park. He
stated t.he areae behind the buildings wNre not countecl because that is
basically employee ~urking and cuAkomeCS would nat park and walk. Fte ~,ointed
out the location ~f. the ~LnF~OFPfI r.estaur~nt on the ~xhibit anc~ explained it is
exactly next door to the danut shop And they will be putting a tuxecjo renGal
shop in also and the only other space available would be the one on State
Cullege and Lincoln, buk it tE not large enough for a reataurant. Chairman L;~
Claice stated she does not see a problem with thie request and every time she
goes by, there Reems to be plenty of parkf.ny and there is no problem with
parking at thia end vf the r,enter.
Karl Meader stated they would like to t~ave the right t~ operate until midnight
un 5aturd~y and Sundays.
~hairwoman La Claire offerPCi a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MUT?UN
CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent) that the .iaheim City Planning Commission
has reviewed the proposal to permit on-sale beer rnd wine in A proposed
restaurant witt~ waiver oi minimum numbec of parkiny spaces on an
irregu'.acly-stiaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 27.11 acres
located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Sr.ate College Boulevard;
and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has
conaidered the Negat:~e Usclaration together with any comments ceceived during
the public revipw process an~ Purther Eind.ing on the basis of the Initial
Study and any comments received that thece is no substantial evidence that the
project wi11 have a si~nif.ican~ effect on the environment.
Chairwoman La Claire affeced a niotion, seconded by Commissioner Fry snd MOTION
CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent) that the Anat~eim City Planning Commission
does hereby gcant waiver of C~de requirement on the basis that there are
special circumstancea applicable to the propecty such as size, shape,
t~pography, le=ation and surroundin9s which do not apply to other identically
zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application af the Zonin~
Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the
identical zone and classiEication in the vicinity and further since there is
adequate parking available in ~ther aceas of the shopping center.
Ct~airwoman La Claire oftered Resolution N~. PC85-187 and moved fur its passage
and aduption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2710 pucsuant to Anaheim Municipal Code SectionE
18.03.030.030 through 18.03.Q30.Q35 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee
cecommendationu.
8/5/85
~G~,..,-„~,.,<,~.._.. ......_...,_...,. ~.,_.., . _
~
MIN_ UT~S, At~AHEIM GITY ~LANNING COMMISSiON, AUGUST 5, 1g85 _ 85-429
Un rall call, the for egoing r~solutian wa~ passed by the [c~ltowing vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY~ H~RBST~ LA CLAIRE, LAWiCKi~ MC BURN~Y
NULS: NUNE
A~SBNT: MESSE
Malcolm Slauyhter, U e puty City Aktorney, pcesented ttie written right to appeat
the Planning Commission's deci~ion within 22 dt~ys to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 9. EIR NGGA TZVE DF.CLARATION ANU VARIANCE N0. 3501
PUE3LiC ;iEARiNG. OWNERS: WILLIAM A. MONRUE AND PATRZCIA E. MONROG, 4l1 ~ast
Uld Lincoln Avenue, Ar~aheim, CA 92a05. Property described as a
cectangularly-aha~ed parcel of land consi8tinq of a~pcoximar.ely 0.50 acre,
1655 Soutt~ Euclid Street.
Waivera oL m,~xlmum structural height adjacent to sfngle-fami ly zoning and
mi~iimum land~caped se tbacY ad~acent to single-family zoning to construct a
one-sLory commercial rer.ail compl~x.
There was no one indi catiny their presence in opposition to sub~ect request
and A1Chough the staf f ceF~ort was nut r~ad, it is refecred to and made a part
of the minutes.
~:ommission~r Lawicki declared a conflict oE interest as defined b}~ Anaheim
City Planning Commis s ion Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict af
intereat Code Eor th e pl.anning C.ummission and Government Code Section 3625, et
seq., in that he may hAVe a financial gain from thc outcome of this appcoval
and pursuant to the p rovisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairwoman
that he was withdcaw i ny from the hearing in connection with Variance No. 3501,
and wc~uld n~~ lake ~.a rt in eithec the discussion or the voling thereon and had
not discussed this ma tter with any member of lhe Planning Commission.
Thereupon Cnmmission e r Lawicki left the Council Chamber at 4:10 p.m.
Howard Polzin, construction manager for Wiliiam Monroe, owner of H.P,. E~ox and
Company, explained ttz is business has been !n Anaheim for 58 years and they
wuuld like to reloca t e to subject propecty and are cequesting a variance to
have the building dir ectly on the propecty line without the setbacks. He
explained both build i nys on the property have been removed; and that a similar.
variance has been gca nted on adj~cent property to the aouth.
THE PUBLIC HEARING W AS CLOSED.
Comnissioner Herbst s ti~ted the only problem is the lack of 10-f eet setback and
there is ar~ overhang_ He explained he was concerned about the homes directly
behind the p:operty z oned RS-7200.
Mr. Polzin stated the neighbors seem to be very happy at having this property
developed and explai n ed the wall will be raised 6-1/2 f.eet and they have not
had any objeations from the -.eiy:~bors.
Ulysess 6auec, 173~0 McCallister, Riverside, California, architect, explained
the 10-f oot landscaped area ia on the north side oE the building and rher.e is
8/5/85
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITX PI~ANNING COHMISSTQN, AUGUST 5. 1985 85-430
e concrete dtainAge f.acility Along the r~~rth side oE the pcoperty to prevent
run-ofE water anto the neiqhb~r's property.
~hairwoman La Claice stated this is a 2-atory butlding. Mr. Bauer explained
it ia acGually anly 1-stocy. Chairwnman La Claire continue~ tha~ the
Commissi~n doea not allow anyone to ~uild that c1osQ ta the property linp.
Mr. Bauec stated li~ has dieru~sed this with the neighbors on the nortih And
west and the or-e to the west says ahe ia happy wiCh t.he plans and her on1X
cancern ia that the fence be closed and the wa.ll rAised to 6 feet.
chairwoman La Claice stated the Comm~saion is not coneprned about the pcop~rty
to the south becauae thece io more space between, but she is concerned about
the weat because the building is really clooe at 10 feet.
Mc. Bauec stated they havR two access~s on that side of t•he building and Mr.
Monroe has indicated he wants to c1oEe the one on the north.
~ommisaioner Herbat stated he thouraht the buitding is toa close to the
property line and thougr~t the pcnperty awnec of khe home next door deserves
some protection and it appears this is juat ovecbuil~ing the property.
Mr. ~auer sCated the hardahip is the cost ot the property and the cost af
deve~oping the p~operty and they have reviewed nther alternakivea and this
seems to be the most feasible.
C~mmissioner Hecbst stated thece vaciances are requested on a
rectangularly-shaped parcel ot pcoperty an~ it is hard fur him to justify a
vaciance when the pcoperty is just being overbuilt. He stated he Eelt the
building could be further away from the Propecty line.
Kendra rlorries stated if they left the building at 17 feet 9 inches, they
would stili need a variance because it would need to be 35 feet 6 inches away.
Commissioner Herbst steted other developers will want the same privileges.
Mr. Bauer statad he would remove the accesses and reduce the building by 5
feet and provide a 15-fo~t landscaped aetback. He added there might have to
~e another door an the south side foc delivery of supplies.
Chairwaman La Ctaire stated she would like to see cevi3ed plans end suggested
a cnntinuance.
Mr. Bauer stated the overt~ang to the south w~uld remain the same and added he
could ceduce the heighk on the west side by returning the sloped canopy back
to the nocth wall and pointed out the south elevation shows the west end of
r.he buildiny with the roof line straight through and he could 1~3ve the
building in its present location and run the canopy back. He atated it would
be more expen^ive to return the roof 1ine, but it could be done if the 10-foot
setback cou'.~ be retained and the 10-f.oot setback could be completely
.landscaged.
There was A brief discussion among thQ petitionera cegarding the hardship.
8/5/85
f~
a
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSZON,__AUGUST 5, 19a5 85-431
ACTION: Commiseioner Her.bat offervd e motion, aeconded by Commiasioner Souas
t~nd MOTtON CARRIED (Commi.seionera I,Awicki Anci Messe absent) that the Anaheim
Cit.y Planning Commission doeo hereby contfnue consideration of the
aforementioned mattec to the regularly-acheduled meeting of August 19, 1985,
in o[der foc the petition9r to submft revised p.lans.
Mr. Lawicki roturned to the meeting at 4;30 p.m.
iTEM N0. 10. EIR CATEGORICAL_EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 AND VARIANCE NQ. 3503
PUBLT~C NEARING. OWNERS: LLOYU A. RONR AND SANDRA Rt7HR, 1136 South Ambridye
Street, Anaheim, CA 92806. Pcoperty deecribed as a rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land consistiny of approxim~-ely 5,368 aquare feet located at the
northeaet corner of Clitpark Way and Ambridge Street, 1136 South Ambridge
Street.
Wai.ver of maximum lot coverage to conatruc~ a f.amily r.aom addition to a
sinyle-family reaidence.
There was no one indicating their pcesence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is ~eferred to and made a pact
of the minutes.
Sandra Rohr, owner, was pcesent to answer any questions.
THE PUBLI(: HEARING WAS CLOSEU.
Commiasioner Herbst temporarily left the Council Chamber.
Responding to Chairwcman La Clr~ire, Ms. Rohr stated they have a 5-Poot setback
on the side and 12 on the rear.
it was noted the P1Anning Direct•or or his authocized representative has
determined that the ~roposed pro~ec~ fa11s within the definition of
Categorical Exemp~iuns, Class 5, as defined in the State Enviconmental impact
Report G~iid~lines and is, therefore, categorxcally exempt fcom the requirement
to prepare an EIR.
ACTION: Commissianer McBurney offered Resolution No. PCA5-188 and moved for
its passaqe ~nd adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
grant Varianc~~ No. 3503 on the basis that the[e are special ciccumstances
applicable to Che property such as size, shape, topography, l~cation and
surrounding~ which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the
same vicinity; and Ghat stcict application of the 2~ning Code deprives the
property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in r.he identical zone and
c.lassffication it~ the vicintty and subject to Inkerdepartmental Committee
cecommendations.
On r~lt call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI, MC RURNEY
NOES: NUNE
AbSENT: H='RBST~ MESSE
8/5/85
~
MINUTESL ANAN~IM CITY P1.ANNING CUMMI5SION, AUGUST 51 19H5 85-432
M~lcolm Slaughter, DQputy City Attornoy, pcesented the written right to dppeal
the I'lanning Commiesion's decision within 22 days r~ the City Council.
Commissioner t~erbat returned to the Council ChAmber.
t'CEM N0. 11. EIR NFGATIVE AECLARATtON (PREV. APPROVED) AND RECLASSTFICATZON
N0. 84-85-27 (REAllVERTiSED)
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: SOU'PNF.RN PACIEIC INDUSTRiAL D~VELOPMEN'; CORPORATTON,
52U0 E. 5heila St[eet, ~316, Los Angelea, CA 90040. AG~NT: SANTA EE PACiFTC
Rh~ALTX CURPORATIGN, 5200 E. 5h~ila Street, 4316, Los Angeles, CA 90040, ATTN:
R08EkT P. FRYAR. Property ilescribed as an irregularly-~haped parcel of l~~d
consisting oE approximAtely 1.8 acren located at the northwest corner of
Katella Avenue and Lewir~ Street.
Requeat L•or artiendment of Conditi.on No. 12 0[ Planning Commissian Rer~olution
No. 85-65 pertaining t~ recordakion of a covenant.
There waa no one indi.cating tiheir preaenc~_ in oppositi~n to aubject request
an~ although the staff report was not read, tt ia referred to and made a part
oY the minutes.
ACTION; C~mmiasioner Fry oEf:ered a moti.on, seconded by Chairwoman La Claire
and MUTION CARRIED (Cammissioner Mesae absent) that the AnAheim City Planning
Commission cioPS hereby yrant a maximum 90-day extension of time to Condikion
No. .12 uE Planning Commission Resolution No. PCAS-65 pertaining tu
Reclassification No. ~4-BS-27.
ITEM N0. 12. EIR NE:GATiVE DECLARATIdN ANU TENTATIVE ~tAP UF TRACT N0. 12479
PUt3LiC HEARING. OWNERS: CALMARK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. 11111 Santa Monica
Boulevard, Los Anqeles, CA 90025, ATTN: JAMES A CHURLH. AGENT: SUN-RAY
~NGINE~ERItJG, 125 t~est Greeri Street, Pasadena~ CA 91105. .Property described as
a rectangularly-shaped parcel of l~~nd consiating of approximately 4.47 acres
located ak lhe southeast corner af Broadway and Citron Sr.reets.
T~ establish a 5-lot, 72-unit cor.dominit~m s~bdivision.
Thece was one pecson indicating his pcesence in opposition to subject request
and althaugh the staff report was not read, it is ceferred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Jim Church, Calmark Development Company explained basically this is a
condominium prc~ject which was previously approved.
Joe White, 8U9 W. Broadway, Anaheim, stated he is just checking to mak~ s~re
nu changes we~e made to the approved plans and asked that they remove the 6-to
B-foot tall weecls growir~g on the property now.
Kendra Moreies, A$siatant Planner, stated the Fi.re Aepartment did contact the
Planning Department regt~rding the weeds and asked for a contact person's name
at Calmark. Mr. Chutch stated he wse not aware of the problem and would t:ake
care of it, probably withf.n the r~ext two ueek~.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
8/5/85
MINUT~S, ANANEIM CiTY PLANNING COMMTSSION. AUGUSm 5 1985 85-433
ACTION: Commissioner Mc Burney offeced a motion, seconded by Commisaionex
9~uas and MUTLON CARRIED (Commiasioner MecaP absent) that the Anaheim City
Planniny Commisaion doee hereby tind tliat the propoaed subdivision, together
with ita design and improvement, ia consistHnt with the City of Anaheim
General Plan, ~ursuant to Government Gode Section 66473.5t and does,
therefore, approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 12479 for a 5-lot, 72- unit
condominium aubdivisiun subject to the following condikions;
1. That pri~r to final tract map approval, Appropriate ~ark and
recx~ation in-lieu feea shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an
amuunt aa determined by the City c:ouncil.
2. That al.l engineeriny requirem~nts of the City of Anaheim along
~roadway and Citron Street, including pceparAtion af improvement
plans and in8tallatian of all improvpmenta such as curbs and
yuttera, sidewalks, water facilities, skreet yrading and pavement,
sewer and drainaye facilities, or other appuctenant work shall be
complied with as required by tt~e City Engineer and in Accordance
with specificationa on file in the Office of the City Engineer; and
that security in the f.orm of a bond, certif.icate of depo~it, letter
oF credit, or cash, in an amaunt and Eorm satis~actory t~ Che City
of Anaheim, shall be posted with the City to guazantee the
satisfactory completion of said improvettients. Said security shall
be posted with the City prior to final tract map approval, to
guerantee the installatior~ uf the above-required improvements pcior
to occupancy. Said improvements shall inc.lude relocation of
er.istiny street irnprovements on Hcoadway to the ulti,mate location.
3. 'Phat all private streets sha11 be developed in accordance with the
City of AnaheLm's Standard Uetail No. 122 for private streets,
including installation uf street name signs. Plans for the private
street li9hting, as reyuired by the standard detail, shall be
submitted to the euildiny Division for approval and included with
the building ~lans prior to the issuance o~ building permits.
(Private streets are those which ~rovide primary access and/or
circulation within the project.
~. That prior ko final tcact map approval, street names shall be
approved by the City Planning Department.
5. That temparary street name signs shall be installed prior to ahy
occuQancy if permanent street name signs have not been installed.
6. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactary to the CitY Engineer. Nn drainage shall be permitted
to flow onto 9roadway.
7. That should this subdivision be developed as mace than one
subdivision, each subdivi~ion thereof shall be submitted in
tentacive form f~r approval.
8/5/8 5
MINUT~S1 ANAHEIM CYTY PLANNING CUMMISSiON, AUGUST 5. 1985 65-434
8. That atreet ~iyl~ting tacilit.lec a.long Rcoadway and Citron Street
shall b~ inetalled as required by the Utilities G~neral Manager in
accordance with apecif.icatiana on file in the Office oF Uti.litiea
G~neral Mannger~ and that security in the Eorm ~f a bond,
c~ctificate of deponit, lettec of credit, or caeh, in an amount and
focro satigfactoty to the City of Anaheim, shall be pneted with the
City to guecantee the sAtiafactory completion oE the above-mentioned
impcovements. Said eecuriky ehall be posted with the City of
Anaheim prior to final tract map approval. The above-requiced
improvements shall be installed prior to occupancy.
9. That all lots within thf.s tcact shall be served by underyround
utilitiea.
10. That pcior to final tract m~~ approval, the ori.ginal ~ocumenta of
the c~venants, conditions, and restrictiona, anc a letter addressed
to the developer's title company authorizing recordation thereof,
shall be submitted to the City Attorney's Office and appcoved by the
City Attorney's of.fice and F.naineering Division. Said documents, As
approved, will then be filed and recorded in the Office of the
Oranye County Recordec.
11. That prior to final tcact map approval, the developer shall enter
into a re~orded agreement r~ith the City of Anaheim pursuant to
Government ~ode Sectfon 65915 to provide that twenty-~ive percent
t258) of the pQrmitted number of residential units shall be eold ae
defined in Government Code Section 65915 and with app:opriate resale
as approved by the City of Anaheim tor a period of not less than
twenty (20) yeara from the date of iss~ance of occupancy pernits.
12. That the approval of the Tentative Map of Tract No. 12479 fa granted
subject to the approval of Reclaasification No. 84-85-11.
13. That the owner of subject property shall irrevocably offer to
dedic.ate to the City of Anaheim a strip of land 32 feet in widtt~
fxom the cen+.ecline of the street along Citron Street, and a str •~
of land 27.75 feeE ir. wldth from the centerline of the street along
Broadway for street widening purpoaes.
14. Th~t prior to final tract map appcoval, the Police Department
heliport ~hall be relocated and operational and the r~eveloper shall
pay all costs for relocation of tt~e P~lice Department heliport prior
to such time conaisting of, but not necessarily lim~ted to such
items as environmental assessm~nt as tequfred by C.E.Q.A.; any
state, fedecal oc other governmental agency permits; land
acquisition costs; building construction costs, including
construction of a landing pad and hangar and installation oE fuel
tanks; and other necessary site improvement costs.
15. That pr1o~ to final tract map approval, a heliport pecmit for the
celocation of ~he Police Department tieliport, the cast of which
shall be borne by the developer, shall be issued by the California
Uepartment of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics.
8/5/@5
MtNUT~5, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. AUGUST 5~ 1985 85-435
IT~M N0. 13. REPORTS AND KECUMM~NDATIpN~:
A. CUNDITIUNAL USE PERMIT N0. 2369 - Reyueat from Theodare J. Pietrok for
termin~ti4n og Conditional Use Pecmit No. 2369~ property located a~ 125
South l~acbor ~oulevard.
ACTION: Commiasioner McBurney offered Reanluti~n No. PC85-189 and moved
For its passag~ and adoption that the~ Ana~elm City Planning Commisaion
does hereby tecminate Conditional Ua~~ ~ermi~ No.2369.
On rull call, the focegoing resolution was passed by the follawing vute:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HEHBST, LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKt, MC BURNEY
NU~S: ~ONG
ABSENT: MESSE
B. CUNDITIUNAI, US~ PERMIT NU. 2376 - Reyuest Erom Ray McMurtry, Melodyland
Schools, for lecmination of ConditionAl Use Permit No. 2376, prr~pecty
located at 2U00 West Nall Roa~.
ACTION: Commissio~ier Bouas offered Kesolution No. PC85-L90 ar~d moved for
.its passage ~nd adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commiasion does
hereby terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 2376.
Un roll call, the ~oregoing resolution was passed by the f~l.lowing vote:
AYES: ~UAS, FRY, HERBST~ LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY
N()ES: NONE
ABSENT: MESSE
C. PROPOSEU CUDE AMENDMENT - Amending Section 18.04.140.060 of Title 18,
2oning, pertaining to the required type of parking spacr.s for Large
Family Day care Nomes.
Kendra Mocriea explained th~ Code amendment is for purposes of staff
interpcetation and public uncierstanding as to what types of on-aite
parking opaces will be permi.tted under Code requirem~:nts for the
largp-family day care homes. She stated there has been some confusion on
the last couple of applications,
ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (CommissionQr Messe abs~~nt) that the Anaheim
City Planning Cortunission does heceby recommend te- City c:ouncil that the
attached draft ordinance be adopted amending Sec'cion 18.04.140.060 of
Title 18, Zoning, pertaining tc the required ty~,e of parking spaces for
large family day-care homes.
OTHER D:SCUSSION:
Ann~ka Santalahti asked Commission for additional comments pertaining tc, their
recommendation tu City Courscfl pertaining to prohibition of off-sA1e beer and
wi~ne in conjunctf~n with convenience markets and gasoline salea.
8/5/85
~ l
~..+
~ ~
W'
l~INUTES J~NAHEIM CITY PLJ-NNIldG COMMISSION AUGU3T 5 1985 85-436
Chaicwoman Le Claite auggestad ata~ff cantact the National Council of
A? ~l~oli.sm, Mothecs Ayainet Drur,k Dtivi.ng, Ch~nnel 2 Televisian atation And
S~nAtor John Seymouc.
Annika Santalehti sCated Arco had presented a lot of lnformAtion and copied
eome articlea for Council's coneideration And she would pr~vide copieR of that
information for the Planning CommisRion.
ADJOURNMENT: Commiesioner Fry offeced a motion, aeconded by Commiasioner
Nerbat and MOTLON CARRIED (Commissionec Messe absent) that the
meeting be adjoutnPd.
The meeting was adj~urned et 4:40 p.m.
~LH:lm
0129m
Respectfully submitted,
C.~~,~',l f~ ~~-'~-- ,'1- .v L
~ /1 ,~) . .
~dith L. Harris, Secretary
Anahei.m Ciky Planning Commiasion
8/5/85
, ° ~r.;. ~ ' '