Minutes-PC 1986/02/03REGULAit MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REG~LAR MEETING The regular meeting ci the Anaheim ~ity Planning
Commission was called to order by Chairwoman La Claire
at 10:00 a.m., February 3, 1986, in the Council
Chamber, a quorum being present, and the Commission
reviewed plans of the items on today's agenda.
RECESS: 11:30 a.m.
RECONVENED: 1:35 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairwoman: La Claire
Commissioners: Bouas, Fr}~, Herbst, Lawicki, Messe,
McBurney
ABSENT: Commissioner: None
ALSO BRESENT:
Annika Santala
hti Assistant Director fo*_ Zoning
Malcolm Slaugh tec Deputy City Attorney
Jay Titus Office Engineer
Paul Singer Traffic Engineer
Greg Hastings Associate Planner
Doug Faulkner Assistant Planner
Edith Harris Planning Commission Secretary
Chairwoman La Claire announced that Assistant Planner. Kendra Morries has just
taken a position with the City of West Hollywood as Director of Planning and
wished hec the best in her new position and thanked her for her contributions
to the City of Anaheim Planning Department and Planning Commission.
MINUTES FOR APPROVAL: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by
Commissionec Bouas and I90TION CARRIED (Commissioner Lawicki abstaining on the
minutes of Januazy 6, 1986, that the minutes of the meetings of January 6 and
20, 1986, be approved as submitted, except that the fir~t word of the second
paragraph on Page 58 of the January 20th minutes be corrected from
Commissioner Bushore to Mr. Bushore.
ITEM NO. 1 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-14
(READVERTISED) AND VARIANCE NO. 3518 ~READVERTISED)
PUBLIC H~ARING. OWN~P,S: DOROTHY LEE MACDONALD, 925 S. Webster Avenue,
Anaheim, CA 52804 and THOMAS CHARLES CONWAY, 917 S. Webstec Avenue, Anaheim,
CA 9~8U4. AGENT: BLASH MOMENY, 25283 Cabot Rd., ~205, Laguna Hills, 92653.
Prooerty is described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximatelf 0.87 acre, 917 and 925 South Webster Avenue.
RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 oc a less intense zone.
Waivers uf maximum fence height and maximum structucal height to construct a
25-unit apartment building.
Continued from the meetings of November 25, December 9, 1985 and January 6 end
20, 1986.
66-8b 2/3/86
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY_3~ 1986 86-87
Thece was no one indicating their presQnce in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Mohammad Esmaeeli, 27391 Via Garcia, Mission Viejo, was present to answer any
questions.
THE PUBI,IC HEARING WAS (:LOSED.
Commissioner F'ry indicated his concern because it appears a wall was removed
from what was ociginally proposed in the 1-bedroom units to make them into
bachelor units and he was not sure that was within the intent of the Code
because it would be very easy to convert them back to 1-bedroom units which
requic~s moce parking spaces.
Commissioner Bouas stated the gacages were loweced and parking spaces were
lost because of that and that is probably why they made those into bachelor
units. She stated they did ceduce the size of the units, but they are still
cathec large for bachelor units. Mr. Esmaeeli stated the bachelor units are
685 square feet and 1-bedroom units must be 700 square feet and these will be
rathec large, but they will remain as bacheloc units. He explained they came
up with this configuration in order to provide an adequate number of carages
and will stipulate that they will not be converted into 1-bedroom units in the
futuze. He further explained they need the 25 units because of the price they
paid for the propecty.
It was clarified there are other similar units in the area and that the people
in the rear were notified of the request for the 10-foot wall and this hearing
and also that the plans we[e discussed with those neighbors and they were the
ones who requested the 10-foot wall.
Annika Santalahti explained units developed in the past on the pcoperty to the
south were probably very close to the Code regulations.
Blash Momeny, partner, explained next door to the south thece are 16 units and
when they were developed, that number ~.f units was probably more feasible
because of the cost ot land, etc. He explained they tried to stay with 25
units and provided more bachelor units because of the City of Anaheim's
detinition of a baser~ent and story and they have proposed the garage to be
dropped 4-1/2 feet which eliminated 10 parking spaces.
Mc. Momeny stated whil~ they were reviewing this definition oc the parking, it
was cleat thece are similar projects recently built and they thought they
woultl be able to build '15 units.
Commissionec Fry stated there isn't to~ much more to develop on Webster Straet
and accocding to the map and staff report, there are other similar projects in
that area.
ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and
MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Plannin9 Commission has reviewed the
proposal to ceclassify subject property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential,
Agricultural) Zone to RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone to construct
2/3/8~5
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 3, 1986 $6-88
a 25-unit apartment building with waivers of maximum fence height, maximum
structural height and maximum numbec of bachelor units on a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.37 acre,
having a frontage of approximately 127 feet on the west side of webster Avenue
and furthez described as 917 and 925 South Webster Avenue; and does hereby
approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the
Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public
review process and fucther finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any
comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner Fzy offered Resolution No. PC86-33 and moved for its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hezeby grant
Reclassification No. 85-86-14 subject to interdepartmental Committee
zecommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBSi~ LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Commissioner Fry oYfered Resolution No. PC86-34 and moved for its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance
No. 3518 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the
property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do
not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that
strict application of the Zoning CodQ deprives the property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the
vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations.
On rolJ. call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ FRY, HERBSi~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, pcesented the written right to apgeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
Chaicwaman La Claire stated she would like fot the Commission to come up with
a policy or ordinance regarding stories because there is a lot of confusion
and suggested the criteria should be basea on the actual height of the
structuce.
Commissionec Fry asked staff to prepare a revision to the ordinances
pertaining to stories considering building height from the roof ridgeline to
the street le~~ei, realizing that there ace areas where this mt.y not be
applicable, but in that case the petitione[ could request a variance.
2/3/86
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 3~ 1986 86-89
ZTEM N0. 2 EZR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 207
PUBLIC HEARING. UWNERS: AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE, 666 Baker Street, $263,
Costa h7esa, CA 92626. AGENT: VIC PELOQUIN, 3445 E. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim,
CA 92806. Property bounded by Santa Ana Canyon Road on the north, Royal Oak
xoad on the east, Nohl Ranch Road on the south and Nohl Canyon Road on the
west.
The trails proposed for deletion include the entire Nohl Ranch Trail,
extending from Santa Ana Canyon Road between Peralta Hills Drive and Nohl
Canyon Road to the Lakeview Trail; the portion of the Fouc Corners Trail
extending from the Lakeview Trail to Royal Oak Road between Honeywood Lane and
Nohl Ranch Road; and the portion of the Lakeview Trail extending from Peralta
Hills Drive to Nohl Ranch Road whete it intersects with Meaks Avenue.
The tcails proposed for addition include a trail adjacent tu the east side of
Royal oak Road, extending fcom Crescent Drive to Nohl Ranch Road; and adjacent
to the south side of Nohl Ranch Road extending from Royal Oak Road to Meats
Avenue.
Continuea from the meeting of January 20, 1986.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is ceferred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Commissioner Messe declared a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of Interest
Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., in
that the petitioner is his landlord and pursuant to the provisions of the
above Codes, declared to the Chairman that he was withdrawing from the hearing
in connection with General Plan Amendment No. 207, and would not take part in
either the discussion or the voting theceon and had not discussed this matter
with any member of the Planning Commission. Thereupon Commissioner Messe left
the Council Chamber.
Vic Peloquin, agent, explained they were here two weeks ago cegarding this
General Plan Amendment and there was opposition, but it ~id not relate
directly to this request, but to the subdivision. He explained tt~ey met with
the homeowners in the acea, and their major concern was the drainage because
they have had problems in the past with mud and water drainage. He stated
they explained that with this subdivision, 99~ of the water will be dcained
into the storm drains and will alleviate most of the existing pcoblems. He
stated one of the homeowners objected because the subdivision would be
approximately 25 feet highec than his residence and he would like to see
restxictions on Lot No. 10 tequicing a 50-foot setback rather than 25 as
permitted by the City Ordinances and that he is considering that possibility,
but it has not been resolved at this time. He stated one homeowner adjacent
to the property has a pie-shaped lot which borders three of the subdivision
lots and that owner would like to have a block wall and they hav offered to
heavily landscape the property with a chain link fence which was not
acceptable to that homeowner, even though the lots above are quite a bit
highec, and they are working to resolve that issue at this time.
2/3/86
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ FEBRUARY 3, 1986 86-90
Tt!E PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Dick Mayer, City of Anaheim Parks Division, explained they have looked at the
possibility of deleting the trail across the Peloquin's property, and in
several other locations, and have taken the matter to the Trails Committee for
zecommendation; that they believe the trail, as shown on the plan, is not
buildable and it would be a det~iment to try and build it. He stated they
have pcesented that to tt~e committee and they have indicated they agree it
could not be constcucted. He stated in parts of the east Anaheim F~ills area,
there are lines drawn on maps which cannot be implemented and they are in the
process ot looking at the trails map to revise it and improve the existing
trails and come back in with an overall General Plan Amendment to delete tho~e
trails which are not feasible and put new trails on the map. He ceferred to
the map on the wall and indicated the trails alignments that are considered to
be feasi~le are shown in red and the trails where the alignments ace not
feasible are shown in blue. He stated this is still a draft map and there
will be additional staff work on it, but this is an indication of what to
expect in the future. He stated the map on the top shows the original Trails
Msster Plan for the City and many of tne lines were drawn in the places where
it was thought they wece feasible, but they are no longer feasible because of
development, ri9hts-of-way problems, subdivisions, etc. He stated they have
no objections to deleting the Nohl Ranch Trail, the Lakeview Trail and a
~ortion of the Four Corners Pipeline Trail, consistent with that shown on
EXhibit B.
Chaitwoman La Claice refer[ed to the Meats Trail and t9r. Mayer stated the
trail dedication in the City of Anaheim has been made, but the improvements
have nut been done. He stated he would check with the staff in the City of
Orange to see exactly what they intend to do in the future, but at present he
is not aWare of any efforts to cuntinue the Meats Trail into Orange.
Chairwoman La Claire clarified that staff is suggesting that Exhibit 'B' be
adopted since the trail along Nohl Ranch Road is not feasible. Mr. Mayer
stated the City's Subdivision staff. and the Traffic Engineer had determined
that it would not be a safe proposal since parts of it would be on the
sideaalk and patts adjacent to a highly travelled and speedy road and other
pacts would ~equice quite a bit of constcuction. He added it would probubly
be about two months before he could present the draft• proposal to the Planning
Commission and he intends to have tinished and approved a General Plan
Amendment for the trail systems before the end of this fiscal year and that
would include the Weir canyon Area and all areas to the County line and they
would coordinate this with the City of Orange, the County of Orange and Yorba
Linaa.
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attocney, stated if this deletion is approved,
presently dedicated or offers of trails dedication to the City, will not be
affectea.
A~TION: Commissioner Herbst offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner
McBUrney and t90TION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent) that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to amend the riding and hiking
trails portion of the Environmental Resource and Management Element of the
General Plan to delete the entire Nohl Ranch Trail extending from Santa Ana
2/3/86
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 3, 1986 86-91
Canyon Road between Pecalta Hills Drive and Nohl Canyon Road to the Lakeview
Trail, the pottion of t5e Four Cocners Trail extending from the Lakeview Trai2
to the Royal Uak Road between Eioneywood Lane and Nohl Ranch Road and a portion
of the Lakeview Trail e~tending from Peralta Hills Drive to Nohl Ranch Road
wheze it intecsects with Meats Avenue; and does heceby aQprove the Negative
Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration
togethec with any comments received during the public review process and
further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments ceceived
that thece is no substantial evidence that the pioject will have a significant
effect on the environment.
Commissionet Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-35 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby adopt and
r:ecommend to the City Council of the City of Anaheim adoption of General Plan
Amendment No. 207, Exhibit B, Riding and Hiking Trails portion of the
Environmental Resource and Management Element.
On roll call, the fo:egoing resolution was passed by the foll.owing vote:
AY~S: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI, MC BURNEY~ MBSSE
NUES: NONE
ABSENi': NONF:
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
Commissionec Messe retu[ned tu the meeting.
ZTEM N0. 3 EIR NO. 255 IPREV. CERTIFIED) AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 12617
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: D 6 D DEVELGPMEN: COMPANY, 711 E. Impezial Highway,
#3, Brea, CA 92621, ATTN: CAMILLE COURTNEY. Propecty desctibed as an
irregul~rly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 7.5 acres,
having a frontage of approximately 513 feet on the south side of. Lincoln
Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 1,182 feet and being located
approximately 1,340 feet east of the centerline of Rio Vista Street.
To establish a 4-lot, 99-unit RM-300U condominium subdivision.
There was no one indicating theic presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Commissioner Fry dec2ared a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adoptin9 a Conflict of Interest
Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., in
that he is employed by Downey Savings and Loan Association and pursuant to the
provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairman that he was
withdrawing from the hearin9 in connection with Tentative Map of Tract No.
12617, and would not take part in either the discussion or the voting thereon
and had not discussed this matter with any member of the Planning Commission.
Thereupon Commissioner Fry left the Council Chamber.
2/3/86
MINUTPS, AN~HEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSl~ry;'~ ~,_`.:•~ 3, 1986 86-92
Bruce Dohtman, agent, was present to answez any questions.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Jay Titus, Office Engzneer, recommended that a condition be added to read as
follows: 'That the pcoperty owner shall furnish to the City of Anaheim an
agreement in a farm to be approved by the City Attorney agreeing to complete
the public improvements required as conditions of this map at the owner's
expense. Said agceement shall be recotded concurrently with the final tract
map and is not to be sutocdinate to any recoeded encumbrance against the
property.'
Commissioner Bouas asked that Condition No. 16 be modified by deleting the
word "converted' since these will be new cesidences.
It was noted Environmental Impact Repoct No. 259 was prev'o~sly cectified by
the City Council on December G, 1983.
ACTIUN: Commissioner McBUrney offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (COmmissioner Fry absent) that the Anaheim City
Planniny Commission does hereby find that the pcoposed subdivision, together
with its design and improvement, is consistent with the City of Anaheim
General Plan, pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5; and does,
therefore, approve Tentative Tract No. 12617 Eor a 4-lot, 99-unit RN-3000
condo¢iinium subdivision subject to the following conditions:
1. ihat prior to the approval of the final map khe owner of subject property
shall pay to the City of Anaheim a fee fot tree planting pucposes along
Lincoln Avenue and South Street in an amount as detetmined by the City
Council.
2. That prior to approval of the final map, pcimacy water main fees shall be
paid to the City of Anaheim, ir an amount as d~termined by the Office of
the Utilities General Manager.
3. Tha: prior to final tract map approval, appropriate park and recreation
in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as
determined by the City Council.
4. That prioc to approval of the final map, the appropriate traffic signal
assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Aaaheim in an amount as
determined by the City Council for each new awelling unit.
5. That all engineerin9 requicements of the City of Anaheim along Lincol^
Avenue and South Street, including prepatation of improvement plans and
installation of all improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks,
water facilities, street grading and pavement, sewer and drainage
facilities, or other appurtenant wotk shall be complied with as req~:ired
by the City Engineer and in accordance with specifications on file in the
Office of the City En9ineer; and that security in the form of a bond,
certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form
satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be posted with the City to
guarantee the satisfactory completion of said improvements. Said
2/3/86
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 3~ 1986 86-93
security shall be oosted with the City pcior to final tract map approval, to
guarantee the ~nstallation of the above-required improvements prior to
occupancy.
b. That all private stceets shall be developed in accordance with the City
of Anaheim's Standard Detail No. 122 for pcivate stcee:s, ineluding
installation of stteet name signs. Plans for the private street
li9hting, as zequiced by the standacd detail, shall be submitted to the
Building Division for approval and included with the building plans pzior
to the issuance of building permits. (Private streets are those which
proviae primary access and/or circulation wittiin the project.
7. That pcior to final tract map approval, street names shall be approved by
the City Planning Department.
8. That temporary street name signs shall be installed prior to any
occupancy if pecmanent street name signs have not been installed.
9. ihat dcainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
10. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision,
each subdi~oision theceof shall be submitted in tentative form for
approval.
11. That street lignting facilities along Lincoln Avenue and South Street
s1ia11 be installed as required by the Utilities ~eneral Manager in
accordance with specifications on file in the Office of Utilities General
Manager, and that security in the fo~m of a bond, certificate of deposit,
letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City
af Anaheim, shall be posted with the City to guarantee the satisfactory
completion of the above-mentioned improvements. Said security shall be
po~ted with the City of Anaheim prior to final tract map approval. TYe
above-required improvements shall be installed prior to occupancy.
12. That prior to commencement of structural fcaming, fice hydrants shall be
installed and charged as required and detetmined to be necessary by the
Chief of tt~e Fire Department.
13. That prior to appcoval af the final map, the vehicular access rights to
Lincoln Avenue except at the approved street openings, shall be dedicated
to the City of Anaheim.
14. That subject property shall be secved by underground utilities.
15. That prior tu final building and zoning inspections, 'No parking for
stceet sweeping' signs shall be installed as requirEd by the Street
Maintenance and Sanitation Division and in accordance with specifications
or. file with said division.
16. That prior to final tract map approval, the applicant shall present
evidence satisfactocy to the Chief Suildin9 Inspector that the
cesidential units will be in conformance with Noise Insulation Standards
specified in the California Administrative Code, Title 25.
2/3/86
MINUT~S ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 3, 1986 86-94
17. That prior to approval of the fina2 map, the owner. of subject property
shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim a strip of
land 53 feet in width from the centerline of the street along Lincoln
Avenue, and 32 feet in width from the centerline of the street along
South Street for street widening purposes.
18. That prior to final tract map approval, the original documents of the
covenants, conditions, and restrictions, and a letter addressed to the
developer's title company authorizing recordation thereof, shall be
submitted to the City Attorney's Office and approved by th2 City
Attorney's Office and Engineecing Division. Said documents, as approved,
will then be filed ar.d cecorded in the Office of the Orange County
Recorde[.
19. That the property owner shall furnish to the City of Anaheim an
agreement, in a focm to be appcoved by the City Attocney, agree~ng to
complete the puulic improvemenks cequired as a condition of this map, at
the owner's expense. Said ag~eement shall be recorded concurrently with
tt~e final tract map and is not to be subordinate to any other recorded
encumbrances against the proper.ty.
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 10 days to the City Council.
ZTGM N0. 4~IR N~GATIV~' DECLARATZON AND TENTATIVE MAP Or iRACT N0. 12619
PUBLI~ HEARING. ONNERS: FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN INSURANCE CORP., C/o THE
PALMIERI COMPANY, 609 S. Gcand Ave., #400, Los Angeles, CA 50017. AGENT:
ANACAL ENGINEERING CO., 1y00 E. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 42703-3668,
AT'PN: WAYN~ JOLLY. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of
lana consisting of approximately 4.40 acres, located southwestecly of the
intersection of Silver pollar Lane and Eucalyptus Drive, having a fcontage of
apgroximately 46'1 teet on the south side of Silvec Dollar Lane and having a
maximum depth of approximately 650 feet.
To establish an 8-lot single-family cesidential subdivision.
There was no one indiceting their pr~sence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Cal Uueyral, Anacal Engineering, agent, refPrred to Condition No. 6 requiring
that theiz drainage facilities shall be completed and functional from the
downstream bounaaries of subject pcoperty to the ultimate point of proposal,
and stated that could imply from the tract to the river. He stated this is a
new map which separates the ori9inal 11-lot subdivision and the other lots
have been appcoved previously and this will be foc 8 lots. He stated the
propecty drains into an existing natural drainage gully and downstream there
is an inlet stcucture and they would agree to do some work on that inlet
structure if they would get credit as part of theic drainage fees, but the
pipes from there to the ultimate point of disposal could all be deficient and
this condition implies they would have to provide those facilities and they
feel that is a iittle open-ended.
2/3/86
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSYON FEBRUARY 3 1986 86-95
Jay Titus, Uffice Engineer, stated that condition is the normal one used
regarding drainage to the ultimate point of disposal and in this case that may
be the existing ir.let mentioned. He stated if the downstceam pipes are
deficient, they should be upgraded !o handle the water intended to t,e put
through there and it was his intent to go to the ultimate point ~f disposal,
whatever that may be.
Malcolm Slaughter stated if the downstream drainage is not sufficient. this
propecty ~hould not be subdivided until that problem is cured.
Mr. Queyral stated if the deficiency was created as a result of actions
approved by the City and the constcuction of downstream facilities, they do
not feel upstream developers should be penalized by those actions.
Commissioner Fry suggested not approving anything ~~ntil this is ceviewed
because it has been intimated that this might add to a problem which i.s
already there and he did not see how this coulb be approved.
Chairwoman La Clai~e stated if their propecty and other properties are
developed, the pcoperties below will be flooded, and that could be a pcoblem,
and that is why the ordinance makes these requirements. She stated the
property owners want to develop and if there isn't sufficient drainage, basec.
on the facts, then there should be no more development upstream until there is
sufficient drainage.
F1r. Queyral stated he is not sure that the downstream dtainage is deficient;
however, it could be.
Jay Titus stated he does not expect there is a problem, but he could not
guzrantee that things in the future will not change.
Commissioner McBurney asked if the downstream drainage system was designed to
carry this type of development. Jay Titus stated originally it was designed
for the developments as proposed and he does not believe it is undersized.
M~. uueyral stated he would go along with the condition, as long as he and Jay
Titus have the agreement that they are not sayi~g it is deficient, and agreed
to let the condition stay as is and to work with the Engineering Department.
Jay Titus cecommended the condition be included in this approval requiring the
property owner to fucnish the City of Anaheim an agreement in a form approved
by the City Attocney agreeing to complete the public imprcvements required as
conditions of this map at the owner's expense and said agreement shall be
cecorded concurcently with the fi.nal tract map and is not to be subordinate to
any recorded encumbrance against the property. He explained that the
developer has to pay for any new study.
ACTION: Commissioner Mcsusney offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Bouas antl MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has
zeviewed the proposal to approve the Tentative Tract Map 12619 to establish an
8-lot, RS-A-22,000 (Residential, Single-Family Hillside Scenic Corridor
Oveclay) Zone ~ubdivision; and does heceby approve the Negative Declaration
upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declacation together with any
2/3/86
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, FEBRUARY 3. 1986 36-96
comments received during the public review process and further finding on the
basis of the I~itial Study and any commen~s received that there is no
substantial evidence that the project will have a signi£i~ant effect on the
environment.
ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
find that the proposed subdivision together with its design and improvement,
is consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan, pursuant to Government
Code Section 66473.5; and does thecefore, approve Tentative Tract No. 12619
for an 8-lot, RS-HS-22,000(SC) (Residential, Single-Family, Hillside (Scenic
Corridor Overlay)) 2one subdivision, subject to the following conditions:
1. That prior to final tract map approval, appropriate park and recreation
in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as
determined by the City Council.
2. That prioc to final tract map approval, the appropriate traffic signal
assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as
determined by the City Council for each new dwelling unit.
3. That prior to tinal tract map approval, street names shall be approved by
c~,e City Planning Department.
4. That temporary street name signs shall be installed prior to any
occupancy if permanent street name signs have not been installed.
5. That the private streets shall be developed in accordance uith the City
of Anaheim's standards for the Mohler Drive acea.
6. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer. This shall include construction of
drainage facilities of a si2e and type sufficient to carry runoff waters
originatin9 fcom subject property, and higher properties which drain
throuyh subject property, to ultimate disposal as approved by the City
Engineer. The precise type and size of facility shall be approved by the
City Engineer after a hydrology study to be nade by the developecs
engineer. Said drainage facility shall be completed and functional from
the downstream boundary of subject property to the ultimate point of
disposal prior to any final building inspections or occupancy permits.
That security in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of
credit, or cash, in a~ amount and form satisfactory to the City of
Anaheim, shall be posted with the City to guarantee the satisfactory
corplet~on of said improvements. Said security shall be posted with the
City prior to final tract map approval.
7. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision,
each subtlivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form foc
approval.
8. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground util:ties.
2/3/86
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSZOI~, FEBRUARY 3, 1986 86-97
9. That ptior to cammencement of structural framing, fire hydrants shall be
installed and charged as cequired and deLermined tu be necessary by the
Chief oE the Fire Department.
10. That prioc to final tract map app~o~al, primary water main fees shall be
paid to the City of ~naheim, in an amount as detecmined by the Office of
the Utilities General Manager.
11 That prior to the issuance of a building permit the owner of subject
property shall pay the appropriate fee for financing and construction of
the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Cotridor pursuant to the Major
Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program, adopted by City Council on September
24, 1y85.
]."l. That no public or private stseet grades shall exceed 108 except by prior
approval of the Chief of the Fire Department and the En9ineering Division.
13. That the owner of subject property shall execute and recocd a covenant
obligatzn•: `:ie Homeowners Association of subject tract to: (1) maintain
and rep-_~ _he hiking and equestrian trail, (2) indemnify and hold the
City of Anaheim harmless for damages resulting therefrom, and (3)
mai~tain liability insurance for said trail naming the City as a*
additional insured. The focm of said covenant shall be approved by the
City Attorney's Office and shall be recocded concurrently with the final
tract map. The developer of the subject tract shall impcove and maintain
t}~e hiking and equestrian trail as shown on the tract map, including
Tentative Tract Map No. 12619 providing the above specified insurance,
until such time as the Homeownecs Association becomes legally obligated
therefor as heceinabove provided. The developer shall post a bond in an
amount and form satisfactocy to the City of Anaheim to 9uarantee
performance of the developet's obligations herein described. Evidence of
the zequired insurance and bond shall be submitted to and approved by the
City Attorney's Office prior to appcoval of the final tract map.
14. That gradir,g, excavation, and all other construction activities shall be
conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of any silt
originating from this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by
storm water originating from or flowing through this project.
15. That all requirements of Fire Zone 4, otherwise identified as Fire
Administtative Order No. 76-01, shall be met. Such requirements include,
but are not limited to: chimney spark arrestors, protected attic and
under flAOr openings, Class C or better roofing material and one hour
fire resistive construction of horizontal surfaces if located within 200
feet of adjacent bcushland.
16. That fuel breaks shall be provided as determined to be necessary by the
Chief of the Fire Department.
17. That native slopes adjacent to newly constructed homes shall be
hydroseeded with a low fuel combustible seed mix. Such slopes shall be
spcinklered and weeded as required to establish a minimum of 100 feet of
separation between flammable vegetation and any structure.
2/3/86
MINURES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNZNG COMMZSSION~ FEBRUARY 3~ 1986 86-98
18. That prior to final tzact map approval, the original documents of the
covenants, conditions, and restzictions, and a letter addressed to the
developer's title company authorizing recordation thereof, shall be
submitted to the City Atto*ney's Office and approved by the City
Attorney's Office and Engineering Division. Said documents, as approved,
will then be filed and recorded in the Office of the Orange County
Recocder.
19. That the proposed subdivision shall provide to the extent feasible for
passive and natural heating and coolin9 opporfanities.
20. That prior to approval of the final map appropriate water assessment fees
shall be paid to the City of Anaheim, in an amount as determined by the
Office of the Utilities General Manayer.
21. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay appropriate drainage
assessment fees to the Ci.ty of Anaheim as determined by the City Engineer
pcior to approval of a final map.
2"L. That prior to approval of the final map, primary water main fees shall be
paid to the City of Anaheim, in an amount as determined by the Office of
the Utilities General Managec.
23. That the property owner shall furnish to the City of Anaheim an agreement
in a form to be approved by the City Attorney agreeing to r_omplete the
public improvements required as conditions of this map at the owner's
expense. Said agreement shall be recocded concurrently with the final
tract map and is not to be subordinate to any recorded encumbrance
against the property.
~alcolm Slau9hter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM NU. 5 EIR NEGATIV~ D~CLARATION ANll CONDIiIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2757
PUBLIC HEARING. OWN~RS: SIK YAP1 CHAN, ET AL, 234~ W. 230th Street, Torrance,
CA 90501. AGENT: LEE ~ CHIU DESIGN GROUP, 13523 Francisquito Avenue, Baldwin
Park, CA 91706. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 1.13 acres, 916 South Beach Boulevard (Rustic
t9otel).
To construct a 57-unit addition to a 24-unit motel.
There was one nerson indicating his presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staif report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Patr.ick Ch:iu, agent, explained all the other motels in this area, except this
one, are eiither new or remodeled and the location is a very busy location and
explained I.his is a new owner. He stated they are providing moce landscaping
than requi¢ed ?ncl referred to Condition No. 3 requiring fire~hydrants and
explained i;hey are working with the Fire Ftazshall regarding sprinklers for the
whole mote:i.
2/3/86
MSNUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, EEBRUARY 3, 1986 86-99
B. A. Smith, stated he owns the adjacent pcoperty to the east and is objecting
because they have had a problem with the existing motel and suggested the
Police Department's records be checked to see what type of complaints have
been filed; and that they have had to replace windows which have been broken
by tenants living in the existing units, etc. He stated the development will
complete the wall on the west side, but he would object to any windows or
balconies in that wall because of the noise level and objects that could be
throMn into his development.
Mr. Chiu stated this project will upgrade the motel and the large unused area
in the rear will be eliminated where people now congregate. He stated there
will be a defined entrance to limit people coming into the motel. Concerning
the windows, he stated all the guest rooms need light and the units cannot be
constcucted without windows.
Chairwoman La Claire clarified that 17 units have kitchenettes and asked if
those units are rented to permanent residents or if the guests stay for only 1
or 'l weeks and asked if there is a lacge numbec of permanent residents at that
motel.
Mc. Chiu stated these will not be permanent residences and i~e is not sure
aboui the existing units, but after this project is finished, it will be an
upgraded motel and the rates will be much higher than they are now and should
discoucage permanent residents.
1HE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Sik Yam ~han, owner of the Rustic t4otel, stated they rent 90$ of the units on
a daily basis and only 108 rent on a weekly basis which is a very small
percentage and they have to move after 3 or 4 weeks.
Commissioner Bouas asked if windows on the east side of the motel could be
high windows so the guests could not look out into the apartment.
Mr. Chiu stated there are a few balconies on the east side of the project and
even fot the people looking at the motel, it would be better to look at than
blank walls. He explained the guests can go outside on the balconies.
It ~~~ d2termined that there is about 30 feet between the motel and the
apartments. Mr. Smith explained the bedrooms are all upstairs and the
balconies wiil be at the same level and suggested tha balconies be removed and
high windows installed in those units.
Chairwoman La Claice clarified that the apartment tenants have had problems
with people coming out on the balconies from the motel and making noise at
night. Mr. Smith responded to Chairwoman La Claire that there are some guests
at the motel who have been there for a long time and there are a lot of people
in one unit. Mz. Smith stated he has owned his property for 15 years and
lives on the premises. He stated only 16 parking spaces are proposed for 81
units and he thougt~~ there would be a parking problem and noted this is a
crowded area and added he did not think there would be adequate parking.
2/3/86
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 3 1986 86-100
Commissioner Fty pointed out from the plans there are only 4 small balconies
to the south end of the building which is the portion that backs up to the
bank and there are no balconies across from the apartments.
Chairwoman T.a Claire declared a 5-minute recess so Mr. Smith could review the
p.lans with tne petitionec.
RECESSED: 2:30 p.m.
RECONVENED: 2:35 p.m.
Mr. Chiu stated he discussed the plans with t4r. Smith and it is true there are
no balconies next to the apartrnents. He stated Mr. Smith was concerned that
people would be aGle to come close to the fence adjacent to his property,
however, afte~ showing him the plans, he understands that no one could get
close to the sekback area or fence because there would be a locked g«te.
Commissionet Messe asked about the fact that no parking spaces are allocated
for the manager or his family and also noted there are only 4 employees
pruposed for 81 units.
Mr. Chiu stated this is a family run business and a lot of people will not be
hired and L-he pa~king is in conformance with the Code. He stat.?d they did
work with the Planning Depaztment staff and there was no mention of the
parking issue. He stated the office and manager area is only 600 square feet
which is vecy small, but if they need to add more parking, they could use some
of the landscaped area. Mc. Chiu stated if the manager uses more of the guest
rooms, less parking would be required and ex~lained there are two members in
the owner's family.
Chairwoman La Claire scated in the past 2-1/2 parking spaces have been
requiced for the manager's unit and there are no variances for parking
requested and the Commission is requesting the ordinances be reviewed because
it isn't clear; however, staff has been instructed to ~.<il everyone about that
requiremer.t.
Annika SantaZahti stated Council not too long ago ~eviewed a motel with
kitchenettes and was very concerned and suggested it probably would be
appcopriate foc developers to provide 1 parking space foc each individual
kitchenette antl also felt the manager unit should have 2-1/2 parking spaces
because normally there would be a family living in the unit just as in an
apartment.
Mc. ~hiu stated they wete not told about this parking requir.ement for the
manager's unit.
Chairwcman La Claire stated typically, it has been required on every motel
appcoved and she was concecned that with S1 units and no parking for the
manayer, there would be a parking problem. She stated variances have been
allowed for motels with less parking when they have been closer to the
Disneyland area.
Responding tc Chairwoman La Claire, Mr. Chiu stated the occupancy rate for
this motel between October and December was 65 or 708 and that was based on 24
units only. 2/3/86
MINUTES, ANAHEZM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOy, FEBRUARY 3, 1986 86-101
Commissioner Fry stated he does not see a big problem.
ACTZON: Commissionec Fry offered a motion, seconded by Comnissionec Souas and
MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has revieweo the
proposal to construct a 57-unit addition to a 24-unit motel located on an
itregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.13 acres,
having a frontage of approximately 94 feet on the east side of Beach Boulevard
ana fucther described as 916 South Beach Boulevard; and does hereby approve
the Ne9ative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative
Declaration together with any comments received ducing the public review
process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments
received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect on the envir~nment.
Commissioner Fcy offered Resolution No. PC86-36 and moved for its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2757 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections
18.03.030.030 through 18.03.U30.035 and subject to Interdeparemental Committee
recommendations.
On zoll call, the foreyoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE
NUES: NONE
ABSENT: NON~
Chairwoman La Claire stated the parking requicements for the manager's unit
should be included in the ordinance so the developers are aware of it.
Commissioner Herbst stated when kitchen units are allowed, the parking space
cequirement should be 1 space for each unit and asked if that could also be
included in the ordinance. Commissioner Fry suggested the term 'kitchenette'
should be defined more clearly.
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM NO. 6 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE RE~UIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2758
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: A. G. AND DORIS RICHTER, 3640 Meadowlane,
Sacramento, CA 95825. AGENT: C. C. HUMPHRIES, 30001 Crown Valley Parkway,
'P" Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 and JOHN HARRY GEORGES, 1098 N. State Cullege,
Anaheim, CA 92806 and KREINCES, HEMLEY ~ O'BRIEri, 713 E. Ghapman Avenue,
Fullerton, CA 92631. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of approximately 8.8 acres located north and east of the
no~theast cornec of La ?alma Avenue and State College Boulevard, having a
frontage of approximµ~ely 525 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue, 1098
North State College Boulevard (Uncle Gee'z Restaurant).
^o permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant with waiver of
minimum number parking spaces.
2/3/86
MINUTES ANAHEZM CITY PLANNING CODIMISSION FEBRUAKY 3 1986 86-102
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff repoct was not read, it is referced to and made a part
of the minutes.
Glen Alterman, 713 E. Chapman, Fullerton, agent, ~as present to answer any
questions.
4HE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CL05ED.
ACTION: Commissionec Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and
MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the
proposal to pecmit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant with waiver
of minimum number of parking spaces on an irregularly-shaped paecel of land
consisting of approximately 8.8 acres located north and east of the northeast
cornet of La Palma Avenue and State College Boulevacd and andtdoesaherebyed as
1098 N. 5tate College Boulevard (Uncle Gee'z Restaurant);
approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has consideced the
Negative Declaration togethec with any comments received during the public
review pcocess and further finding on the basis of the initial Study and any
comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the enviconment.
Commissioner Ery offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION
CARRZED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver of
Code requirement on the basis tt~at the packing waiver will not cause an
increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect
any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the
conditions imposed, iY any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health,
safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Commissioner Fry offeced Resolution No. PC86-37 and moved for its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heceby 9rant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2758 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections
18.03.030.030 thcough 18.03.030.035 and subject to Intecdepactmental Cemmittee
cecommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY~ MESSE
NOES: NUNE
A~SENT: NONE
Malcolm Slaughtec, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's deci~ion within 22 days to the City Council.
I'PEt9 NU. 7 EIR NEGATIV~ DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2759
PUBLIC HEARING. OWLJERS: GENERAL ELECTRIC COt9PANY, One River Road,
Schenectady, New York, 12345. AGENT: PAUL C. SCHATZ, 1390 S. Main Street,
Walnut Cceek, CA 945y6. Property described as an i:regulacly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of approximately 6.33 acres, 3G01 East La Palma Avenue
(Gene:al Electric).
2/3/86
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, EEBRUARY 3, 1986 _ 86-103
To retain the accessory indoor storage of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) in an
existing industrial building.
There was one interested person indicating hi.s presence and although the staff
report was not read, it is referred to and made a pact of the minutes.
Paul Schatz, agent, explained they have been operating at this location for
two yea~s and this is an accessory use to their transformer repair and
replacement operatior~ and they have been in co~plete compliance with all the
cegulations.
Mike Doty, City of Anaheim Fire Marshall, explained the Fire Department did an
inspection at this facility on January 31, 1986, and they have compliPd with
all the fire regulations and the material is stoced in a fire rated room until
it can be hauled away and they have met all Fire Department requirements.
xesponding to Chairwoman La Claire, Mr. Doty stated they inspect the faciliey
at least annually and try to do it twice a ycar and January 31, 1986, was the
last inspection.
Mr. Schatz stated the County Health Department has made two inspectians and
they were in compliz.nce with both those inspections and the City of Anaheim
Fire Depactment has made at least 3 oc 4 inspections and the California State
Highway Patrol has inspected their trucks.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner McBucney statea this fa~ility has had an excellent record for the
tw~ years they have been at this facility and they have stayed within the
guidelines set down by the different agencies.
ACTION: Commissionec McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has
ceviewed the proposal to cetain the accessory indoor storage of
polychlori~ated biphenyl (PCB) in an existing industrial building on an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 6.33 acres,
having a f:untage ot approximately 370 feet on the north side of La Palma
Avenue and further described as 3601 E. La Palma Avenue (General Electric);
and does heteby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has
considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during
the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial
Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the
pcoject wili have a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner Bouas stated she felt a time limit should be included on this
approval.
Commissionec MeBurney offeced Resolution No. PC66-38 and moved for its passage
and adoption tnat the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2759 for a period of two years pursuant to Anaheim
Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to
Interdepartmental Committee recommendations.
2/3/86
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 3, 1986 86-104
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLRZRE~ LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE
NUES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the ~lanning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEP1 N0. 8 EIR NEGATIV° DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 276U
PUBLIC HEAFING. OWNERS: HAVADJIA HOLDINGS, INC., 4320 W. 171 Street,
Lawndale, CA 90260. AGENT: ROBERT G. JENKINS, 23041 Mill Creek, Laguna
Hills, CA 926ti5. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 0.41 acre located at the so~thwest corner of La
Falma Avenue and Richfield Road, 4150 East La Palma Avenue.
To permit a drive-through restaurant with waivers of maximum number of small
car parking spaces, minimum number of parking spaces and minimum distance of a
drive-through lane.
Tt~ece was one person indicating his presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff repoct was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Mike Havadjia, owner, explained this restaurant will seat about 35 people and
they do not anticipate a parking problem. He asked about Condition No. 13
pertaining to roof-mounted equipment and stated they do have to have vents and
air-conditionirg on top of the structure and there will be a 5-foot parapet to
screen it ftom the street.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, explained roof-mounted
equipment is prohibited in the Scenic Corridor in the commercial and
residential zones and shielding would be cequired in the industrial zone, and
pointed out this pcoperty is still zoned cesidential, agricultural and even
with the conditional use pecmit, they will be prohibited fcom having
roof-mounted equipment unless the zoning is finalized to industrial, then the
equipment would only have to be ~hielded.
Mr. Rab, 4200 E. La Palma, stated his property is right ac[oss the street and
he thought a restaurant will be great at that 2ocation, but was concerned
because there is no left turn off Richfield and thece is no traffic signa.l and
there are a lot of accidents there now and with more cars from the restaurant,
traffic would be a major concern. He was also concerned that people would be
packin9 on his property.
Mr. Havadjia stated they will be required to pay the tcaffic signal assessment
fee and also they have furnished a traffic study; and that the traffic to the
tacility will be light since this will not be a high volume restaurant like
McDOnald's. He stated they expect a lot of customers to walk to this facility
from the sutrounding industrial builaings.
2/3/86
MTNUTES ANAHEZM CITY PLANNING COMMZSSION FEBRUARY 3 1986 86-105
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairwoman La Claire stated she is concerned about the length of the
drive-through lane and did not think the Commission has granted any permits in
violation of the minimum distance for drive-through lanes because traffic
backs up onto the streets.
Mr. Havadjia stated they ate complying with the Code on the drive-through ~ane
requirzment. Annika Santalahti stated the dcawing on the wall shows 50 feet
from the ordering window to the delivery window and that is the minimum
required, and pointed out the lane has a curve, and the inside of the curve
has to be 60 feet, and the distance behind the ordering box to the street is a
lane, and the customer has to choose when he comes in the drive~ay to either
get into that lane to go tncough the drive-through or get into the lane which
takes him into the parking lot.
Paul Singer, lraffic Engineer, stated the layout is very awkward because there
is another driveway adjacent to this on the adjacent property and if the
driveway is moved 10 feet from the property line, it would eliminate the
drive-through lane, and he did not think the drive-throu~h lane as laid out
will work and will be a detriment to traffic on La Palma.
Ckiairwoman La Claire pointed out it is staff's opinion that the property is
too small for tY,is type Lacility and suggested a restaurant without a
drive-through lane.
Mr. Havadjia stated he bought this property to put in this restaurant and he
has had to make a dedication of property to the City and the City put the
driveways in this location because they did not want them too close to the
intersection.
Commissior~er Herbst stated a restaurant could be established on that pandethat
without a dcive~thcough window because there is no room for stacking;
the ocdinance is very specific because thece have been drive-through
restaucants in the past which created major traffic problems.
Mr. Havad~ia stated there is an ~zisting house on the propercy and asked if
the Commission would consider that as a restaucant, if it was remodeled,
because when they remove the existing house and rebuild with a new facility,
they have to set back 50 feet and instead of having the existing 3000-square
foot house, they could only develop 1960 square feet.
Rnnika Santalahti stated a conditional use permit would be required for a
restaucant whether they remodel the house or build a new facility and if they
revise their plan for any type restaurant, they would have to submit a new
application for a conditional use Permit and suggested moving the building and
drive-through window and submitting revised plans with the drive-through
situation imp~oved. She explained the cequest for remodeling the existing
house would be reviewed in terms of the building requirements, and the parking
requicements for a restaurant are fairly high and she thought there would
probably be a variance required.
2/3/86
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 3 1986 86-106
Paul Singer stated they have tried several different configurations on the
property for a drive-through restaurant and the drive-through window just
doesn't seem to work on that properl•y because of its size.
Chairwoman La Claire stated it could probably be done, but ws'ci: vasiances.
She stated she would not personally be opposed to the petitioner rF.~odeling
the house to convert it to a restaurant, if it meets the Code. Mr. Havadji.a
stated when they dedicated the property to the City, there wa~ no objection to
this proposal, and they had to revise the plans because of the trash location
and he thought it was not fair and explained there is 170 feet between the
window and the street.
Chairwoman L'a Claire stated these requirements are placed on everyone;
however, the Planning Commission looks favorably on most projects and the only
thing she is concerned about is the stacking problem and everyone nas had to
comply with these requireraents.
Mr. Havadjia stated if they move the restaurant more to the east, they can
provide more stacking area, but would eliminate parking spaces and they are
going to have lU tables and the Code requires 35 parking spaces. He stated
the State study results indicate there are 408 compact cars today and if he
could have 2 or 3 more compact spaces, he would not have a problem.
Commissioner Fry stated the Commission is not concerned about the number of
compact spaces or the nurtiber of parking spaces, but the petitioner is the one
who bought the property and is now asking for the variances and he has not met
the Code on the stacking lane. Mr. Havadjia stated it is his opinion that 160
feet are required and he is providing 170 feet. Annika Santalahti stated the
stacking area begins right at the stceet, so when a customer comes off La
Palma Avenue, they make the choice to get into one of the lanes and there is
also an interterence of the neighboring property's dri~~eway apron and that is
not satisfactory to the City and the stacking lane should be moved further
into the property.
Mr. Havadjia stated there is a similar restaurant facility located at the
corner of La Palma Avenue an~ Lakeview and he did not think there is 160 feet
of stacking lane at that facility . Chairwoman La Claire stated that facility
meets Code and she remembers it because she was opposed to fast food
restaurants in that area and that approval is one of the reasons she have been
considering this request.
Mr. Havadjia stated they could make the driveway on La Palma 35 feet and lose
one parking space. Commissioner Herbst stated that would not help the
stacking lane.
Chairwoman La Claire suggested a continuance of this request so the petitioner
can work with staff and either go ahead with this proposal or remodel the
existing residence, converting it to a restaucant. Mr. Havadjia stated he
would p:efer to remodel the existing house, but he is leaving the country for
about one month. Annika Santalahti explained revised plans would have to be
in by Friday in order for this matter to be heard at the next meeting or in 2
weeks in ordec fo~ it to be heacd in one month. She stated if the house is
2/3/86
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 3~ 1986 86-107
converted into a testaurant, a new conditional use permit would have to be
Eiled. Chairwoman ?.a Claire stated this matter should be continued and if a
new permit is required, it could be done at the same time.
Mr. Havadjia stated he would like to request a 6-week continuance.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas
and MOTION CARRIED tha*_ consideration of the afocementioned matter be
continued to the regular.ly-scheduled meeting of March 17, 1986, in order fcr
the petitioner to submit ce~ised plans.
ITEM NU. 9 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF_CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2762
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: DON V. AND GARNET A. EDMUNDS, 18682 S. Mesa Dr.,
Villa Park, CA 92667. AGENT: KEN MAAS, 2691 East Taft Avenue, Anaheim, CA
92806. Property described as an irregulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting
of approximately 1.9 acres located at the northwest cornec of Taft Avenue and
Eaton Way, 2691 E. TaYt Avenue (Power Breaking, Inc.)
To cetain a concrete bceaking and cemoval operation with outdoor storage and
required enclosure of outdoor usQS.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff re~or.t was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Ren Maas, agent, was present to answer an~ questions.
THE PUBLZC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chaicwoman La Claire stated she felt there should be site scree~i.ng
particularly on Eaton way, even though that street may be closed.
Ms. Maas pointed out the area he has ptoposed for storage on the plans and
stated thece will probably not be a lot of matecial in that storage area and
it will mostly be trucks and an office.
Jay Titus, Office Engineer, cesponded to Chairwoman La Claire that there is an
abandonment of Eaton Way in the process at ttiis time; however, once the
abandonment is appcoved, the City is not involved in who the property goes to.
Malcolm Slaughter stated under notmal circumstances, abandonment means the
City relinquishes, on behalf of the public, the cight to be on that property
and if the street originally came one halL• from one side and one half from the
other side, those property owners would get one half of the street; however it
is possible that Eaton Way came all fro~ one parcel or any sort of division
and the City does not make that detecmination.
Annika Santalahti stated enclosure of storage areas is required to the street
as well as to other properties, so in the stcictest sense, just because it
might become an interior property line, does not ne9ate the need for proper
scteening.
2/3/86
MIKUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 3 1986 86-108
Ms. Maas stated their p~opecty is three-sided and the fceeway is elevated and
the screening as proposed from :aft would scceen the property.
Chaicwoman La Claire stated with the auto center that is under constcuction,
il• seems this ptopecty will be a very valuable commercial propwith•thei= Maas
stated 'chat is probably true, but the landownez is very happy
operation and they have been there foc seve^ ~~?ars and have improved the
ptoperty and explained they have four more years on their curcent lease.
Commissioner Herbst stated if the auto center is developed and Eaton Way is
abandoned, that portion of the fence should be slatte~. Mr. Maas stated they
will comply with that stipulation and explained the property is completely
enclosed with chainlink fencing and the on.ly pr~oblem they have with slats is
security and feel that makes a site for vandalism behind the fence and they do
not feel their use is unsightly and the operation will be site screened to the
auto center to the east.
Commissionec Fcy suggested a four-year time limit on the permit.
ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst
and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the
proposal to retain a concrete breaking and removal operation with outdoor
storage and waiver of required enclosure af outdoor uses on an
irregulacly-shaped parcel ot land consisting of app[oximately 1.9 acres
located at the northwest cocner of Taft Avenue and Eaton Way, having a
frontage of approximately 300 feet on the north side of Taft Avenandadoes
fucther desccibed as 2691 E. Taft Avenue (Power B~eaking, Inc.);
hereby apPcove the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered
the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during :he public
review pcocess and fucther finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any
comments received that there is no sut tantiai evidence that the pcoject will
have a signiticant effect o~ the environment.
Commissioner Fcy offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION
CARRIED that r,he Anaheim City Plannin9 Commission does heceby grant waiver of
~ode tequicement on the hasis that thece are special circumstances applicable
to the propetty such as size, shape, topographv, locatioa and surroundings
which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity;
and that strict application of the Zonin9 Code deprives the property of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and
classification in the vicinity.
Commissioner Fry offeced Resolution No. PC86-39 and moved for its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2762 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections
18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 foc a peciod of four years and subject to
Tnterdepartmental Committee recommendations including a condition that if the
abandonment of Eaton Way is accomplished, a slatted chainlink fence will be
pcovidea to the most easterly property line,
2/3/86
86-109
MINllTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON FEBRUARY 3 1986
On coll call, the focegoin9 resolution wac passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attocney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
RECES5ED: 3:25 p•m'
RECUNVENED: 3:35 p.m.
ITEM~ 0~IR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3532
PUBLIC HEARING. UWNERS: GARY A. NIE, 16217 Sunset Trail, Rivecside, CA
92506, VERNON L. and LAVINA B. LBIMER, 1772 Partridge Street, Anaheim, CA
928U6. Propecty desccibed as a rectangu'arly-shaped parcel of land consisting
of appzoximately 6,375 square feet, 415 South Kroeger Street.
Waivers of minimum structural setback fcom alley, minimum stcuctural setback
and minimum cec~eational-leisure areas to constcuct a 2-story~4-unit apartment
building.
Thece was no one indicating their presence in opgosition to subject request
and although the staff repoct was not cead, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
C. M. Thompson, 625 W. Katella, Ocange, agent, stated they are proposing a
4-unit complex between two existing 4-unit complexes and that the waiver~ are
necessaLy because the existing units were built under previous Codes for
70-foot lots and this is a 50-foot lot. He stated they are re~uesting a
setback on the alley for t}~e second floor .~hich is reduced fcom 15 feet to
12-1/2 feet and they arrived at this decision after discussions with staff
because they can make nicec units. He stated the sideyaLaleeadjacent the
traverse garage only. He presented a letter from the peop
indicating they have no objection to the zero lot line fot the garage.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Fry stated he was opposed to this request when he fir~t ~eviewed
~he staff repoct, but aftet reviewing the plans, can understand the reason fo[
the zero setback tequest and it involves a fire wall on each end of the garage
and the actual unit is above and sets back from the end of the fice wall and
the cantilever projection is over the alley and is not objectionable. He
added he thought it is a aood plan and he would vote in favoc of it.
Chairwoman La Claire asked about the zer° onlylaboute5bfeetand stated it looks
like the unit is over the pass-through by
Mc. Thompson stated there is only a wall to hold up the support structure and
they can do it completely different with some large steel beams and columns,
but the cost makes the pco7ect not feasible. He explained the units are not
built over the PLOPtheyfloor staucturenly thing over the property line is a
wall that holds up 2/3/86
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ FEBRUARY 3, 1986 86-110
Responding to Chairwoman La Claire, Annika Santalahti stated this is not
typical in apactment buildings, but she is familiar with one at the Ball Road
off-ramp of the Santa Ana Freeway and another one on Beach Boulevard and
typically, adjacent zoning has been commercial or they have had carports
already constructed and rhey are usually on biggec lots.
Commissioner Fry asked how far from each end of the building the living units
will be located and it was noted they would be from 5 to 8 feet.
Commissionec McBurney stated gacages have been allowed to the property line in
several instances and that he has also changed his mind and supports this
request.
ACTION: Commissioner McBUrney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has
ceviewed the proposal to construct a two-story, four-unit apartment building
with waivers of minimum structuzal setback from alley, minimum sideyard
setback and minimum recreational-leisuce areas on a rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land censisting of approximately 6,375 square feet, having a
frontage oi approximately 50 feet on the west side of Kroeger Street and
fu~ther desecibed as 415 Soutn Kroegec Stceet; and does hereby approve the
Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative
Declaration together with any comments received during the public review
process and fucther finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments
received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PC86-40 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Variance No. 3532 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable
to the ptoperty such as size, shape, topography, locati~.^. and surroundings
which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity;
and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and
classification in the vicinity and subject to Intetdepartmental Committee
reco~nendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST~ LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NUNE
ABSENT: NONE
~haicwoman La Claire stated she voted in favor of this project because there
ate four units on the property next door to the north.
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Plannin9 Con~ission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
2/3/86
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMt~ISSION, FEBRUARY 3~ 1986 86-111
IiEM NO. 11 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-20 AND
VARIANCE NO. 3533
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ESTATE OF VERLA W. BROWN, c/o iHE LAW OFFICES OP
STANLEY L. ROSEN, 1515 Cabrillo Park Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92701, ATTN: ARNE
W. AIKINSON. AGENT: KHOSROW ESFAHLANi, P.U. Box 6241, Anaheim, CA 92806.
Propecty described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 17,500 square feet, 660 South Sunkist Street.
RS-A-43,000 to RS-7200 oc a less intense zone
Waivers of minimum lot width and fcontage and Fermitted orientation of
structures ro establish a 2-lot, single-family residential subdivision.
There were four persons indicating their presence in favor of subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Khosrow Esfahlani, syent, was present to answer any questions.
Luanr Keith, 2554 E. Virginia Avenue, Anaheim, stated she lives in an adjacent
residential neighborhood and believes this would be a good use for this
property because all the areas acound are residential and that property has
been accumulatin9 tcash and weeds.
Stanley L. Rosen, attocney, estate of Verla Brown, stated there are eicht
heirs to this estate and it is hoped this property can be sold and developed.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offe.*ed a motion, s2conded by Commissioner Bouas
and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the
pcoposal to reclassify subject property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential,
Agricultural) to the RS-7200 (Residential, Multiple-~amily) Zone to establish
a 2-lot, RS-7200 single-family residential subdivision with waivers of minimum
lot width and fcontage of permitted orientation of structures on a
rectangulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 17,500 square
feet, havinq a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the west side of ~unkist
Street and further described as 660 South Sunkist Street; and does hereby
approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the
Negative Declaration together with any comments received duting the public
review process and fucther finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any
comments recei~•ed that thece is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-41 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby gr.ant
Reclassification No. 85-86-20 subject to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE
NUtS: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
2/3/86
MINUTES ANAHE£M CITY PLANNTNG COMMISSION FEBRUIIRY 3 1986 86-112
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-42 and moved for its passage
and adogtion that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Variance No. 3533 on the basis that thece are special circumstances applicable
to the propecty such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings
which do not apply to othec identically zoned property in the same vicinity;
and that stcict application of the 2onir.g Code depri.ves the property of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and
classiEication in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations.
On roll ca.ll, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ FRY, HERBST~ LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE~
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
Responding to Commissioner Hecbst, Annika Santalahti explained the property is
designated for low-density residential land uses on the General Plan.
ITEM N0. 12 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIO'rl AND VARIANCE N0. 3535
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: MICHAEL J. GARAN, ET AL, 1775 E. Lincoln Avenue,
Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: LAWRENCE J. NEES, 9671 Eastwood Circle, Villa
Park, CA 92667. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of appcoximately 0.34 acre, haviny a fron~tage of approximately 30
teet on the east side of Evelyn Drive, approximately 450 feet south of the
centecline of Clpress Street.
Waivecs of minimum lot width and fcontage and required rear yard to establish
a two-lot, single-family cesidential subdivision.
Thece were three persons indicating their presence in favor to subject request
ar~d although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Larry Nees, 5671 Eastwood Circle, Villa Park, agent, explained the property is
only 30 feet wide anci that 70 feet is required by the zoning and he plans to
resolve that problem by making an easement for reciprocal cights to get in and
out of the property and also the square footage of the lots does not comply
with the City's zoning orbinance. He stated he proposes 16 feet for a rea~
setback on one of the properties and 6 f~et on the other and in both instances
the houses will be moved tc the rear of ~he pcoperty in order to provide
adequate packing in front of the garages. He explained this will be creating
two fiag lots.
Michael Garan, 5761 Parkhurst Place, Yorba Linda, stated he owns the property
in question and the property directly south whece their office building is
located and also the property to the east and south and that he has owned
these for quite a few years and originally planned to continue the office
building, but there is no longet a need for offices. He stated the pcoperty
2/3/86
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 3 1986 86-113
has an ingress and egress on Evelyn Dcive and he feels this use will be
compatible with the neighbochood and parking will be off the street.
James Millard, stated he lives on the propetty to the west and that the house
has been in his family since 1948 and that khe vacant lot has been a good
neighbor, but they are in favor of this cequest because they feel these
individually owned homes will be much better than what could be pcoposed and
developed on that propecty. He presented a photograph taken about one week
ago showing subject properly and his pcoperty from the street. He stated the
developer indicates he will be putting up a mutually agreeable wall and they
will split the cost of that wall and that will give him some privacy.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLCSED.
ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and
MUTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the
proposal to establish a 2-lot, singie-family residential subdivision with
waivers of mini~um lot width and frontage and cequired reac yard on a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.34 acre,
having a frontage of approximately 30 feet on the east side of Evelyn Drive
and being approximately 450 feet south of the centerline of Cypcess Street;
and does hereby appcove the Negative Deelacation upon finding that it has
conside[ed the Negati~e Declaration together with any comments received during
the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initiai
Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the
pcoject will have a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner Fry offered Resoluticn No. PC86-43 and moved for itG Qassage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance
No. 3535 on the basis that there are special ciccumstances applicable to the
property such as size, shape, topography, location and ~urcoundings which do
^ot apply to other identically zoned property in tne same vicinity; and that
strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the propecty of privileges
enjoyed by othe~ properties in the identical zone and classification in the
vicinity and subject to Interdepactmental Committee recommendations.
Cn roll call, the foregoing resolu~ion was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY~ HERSST~ LA CLAZRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
Mr. Nees asked about the requirement to pay for street lights and Commissioner
Ery explained that is not something the Commission can waive.
2/3/86
MZNUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 3, 1986 86-114
ITEM N0. 13 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO._20~_
RECLASSIFICATION N0. 85-86-21 VARIANCE NG. 3534 AND REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL
REVIEW OF 13a. 13b, 13c, 13d
PUBLZC HEARING. OWNERS: KATHLEEN F. AND SAMI9Y JOHN NOBLES~ TERRY F. S9YLIE
AND EDWARD L. AND YOLANDA E. ROLDAN, 111 South Illinois Street, P.O. Box 190,
Anaheim, CA 92805. AGEN~: HUGO VAZQUEZ, 619 S. Live Oak Dr., Anaheim, CA
92805. Yroperty described a~ a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting
of approximately 1.2 acres located at the southeasterly terminus of Cypress
Street, 1918-1932 E. Cypress Street.
To consider an amendment to the land use element of the General Plan from a
general commercial and low-density residential desi.gnation to a medium density
or low-medium density residential designation.
RS-A-~3,000 to RM-1200 or a less intense zone•
Waiver of maximum structucal height to construct a 40-unit apartment comp.lex.
Thece were thtee persons indicating their presence in favor to subject request
and although the staff report was not cead, it is refecred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Gteg Hastings, Associate Planner, pcesented the staff r.port explaining this
is a property-owner initiated General Plan Amendment request and that the
property to the west which is about 6.6 acres was redesignated through General
Plan Amendment No. 160 from low-density to low-medium density with the
provision that the density not exceed 15 dwelling units per acre and that the
westerly boundary of Cypress Street he closed in the event ~evelopment occurs.
Huyo Vazquez, agent, explained this is a pcoject with six parcels being
assembled for a total of 1.2 acres and they are proposing a 40-unit apartment
complex.
Jeccy Drukin, 1280 E. Flower, Anaheim, stated the assembling of these six
parcels makes it possible to pcopose a much better project than could be
proposed if developed piecemeal. He explained the design and amenities
pcoposed in this project. He stated he thought this would set the standards
for the quality oY development pcoposed zn that area and that this will be an
excellent buffec for the area. He stated the number of units proposed will
justify the cost of the street improvements to the east and west ends of
Cyptess.
Pat Fitkin, 408 S. Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, presented letters from property
owners in the area indicating their support of this project and explained a
lot of people in the neighborhood have been there for many years and also
presented a map showing the addcesses of the property owners contacted.
Ms. Fitkin stated she did not contact anyone who lived on Almond Drive.
Harold Coykendall, 2890 E. La Palma, Anaheim, stated he owns the property at
206 Coffman and that he suppotts this cequest.
2/3/86
86-115
MINUTES ANAHEIM CI'PY PLANNING COMMISSZON FEBRUARY 3 1986
Dan Torres, 1909 E. Cypress Street, stated he is in favor of this project and
felt it will a~ well in this area and that his family Whichuisoacross theuest
and that they ~ have plans to imptove theic pcoperty
stceet at lU9 , 1099 and 1913 E. Cypress am9 he hoped this sets the standard
for the neighbochood.
Phyllis Boydston, 728 N. Janss Stceet, Anaheim, stated she represents Kathy
Nobles who is owner of two of the lots in this project. She explained the
ptopecties were on the macket for sale before this project was ptoposed and
she thought this would be a big asset to the area.
James M±llacd, 239 Evelyn Drive, st~.ted he is not immediately involved with
this project and he undecstands plans have been approved to close Evelyn and
his only concern is that p[opecties on Coffman will. be developed and as a
result ttiere will be an inctease in the number of people with additional
automobiles and wanted the Commission to be aware that in the future there
will he a need for a suitable exit to either State College or Lincoln and
pointed out the existing problem at Center Street where it enters Lincoln
Avenue which is a hazard. He explained he is not objecting to this project,
but is saying that future tcaffic has to be considered.
'PHE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSFD.
Commissionec Fry stated this is a beautiful p~oject, but he would like to know
how they intend to develop the modified cul-de-sac at the east end beavementhe
chucch owns ptoperty. Mr. Vazquez stated riyht now there is street p
which dead-ends into a dirt zoad and explained they 9o have a legal 25-foot
ingress and egress. He stated they did have to have a survey done before the
title company could give them assucance that there was no problem with ingress
and egress.
CoR~issionec Bouas stated her concern is that ownersnontCOffmannandeCypresson
to medium density means that all the property
Street will want ro go to medium density rathec than low-medium density and
that is a p~oblem area that needs to be developed very well to attcact people,
but she thought it would be a problem, pointing out that the Village Inn
propecty is adjacent. Mr. Vazquez stated they feel this will be a community
unto itself. He stated if othec property owners on Coffman Street war.t their
propetty rezoned, those requests will have to come before the Planning
Commission for approval and pointed out this project includes the assembling
of six parcels and those would probably be presented as single pa.rcels.
Commissioner Herbst stated this is a beautiful project, but rezoning this
property would be considered 'spot zoning', in his opinion, and he could not
vote in favor of it. He stated his second concern would be the access on
Coffman which he did not feel would be adequate to take care of this kind of
traffic. He stated obviously the people pcesent will want the same thing
along Coffman and that the City Council considered tezoning that arza and
approved it for low-medium density becau~e of the access and that there have
been pcojects approved for apactments on ~hat street and the problem is the
density because thece is no access fot this type of density ar.d that the
intersection of Lincoln and Center is very dangerous. He stated that is the
reason fot the rest~iction in that area for 15 units, which was approved by
the City Council, and that every other prope~ty owner in that atea would want
the same thing.
2/3/86
MINUTES ANAHEIAI CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 3 1986 86-116
Mr. Vazquez stated he did not think the other ownecs would want the same thing
and stated again they would have to come before the Planning Commission to get
that approval. Ae stated this is a peculiar piece of PLOarcelsabeinhis is aot
a fractional development, but is over one acce with six p 9
developed at one time and is a project that will be a luxury type complex with
private entecprise providing it without governm~nt assistance. He stated all
the property owners present today ace in favor of this project.
Commissioner Hecbst stated he would recommend denial because of the density
and that the petitioner can take it on to the City Council because they are
the ones who set the density in this area.
Chairwoman La Claire stated getting all those p~onerties together is really a
good thing, but several years ago the people on Coffman Street and Evelyn
Drive got together and there were several public hearings because thosedLto
*eally does need upgcading and everyone on the street was really opp
higher densities. She stated that the Planning Commission wanted to do
something with the properties and she thought the City actually initiated a
General Pl.an Amendment to get the neighbors together, she stated the
resolution of intent to RM-2400 was approved and promises were made to the
property ownecs in the area and that pcojects have been approved since then
foc RM-'14U0 and now this petitioner wants even more.
Hu9o Vazquez stated the pcomises were made to the same people who are present
today requesting this change. He refecced to Vermont Streetrohertieseon the
properties wece zoned RM-240U for many years and recently, p P
.,outh side of Vermont have been changed to RP1-1200 and the properties are
being developed one parcel at a time because it is difficult to get several
property owners together. He stated this has not occurred in this area yet
and he feels this approval should be given, because it eould be a good
developnent and there are othe~ developments which would not be as good. He
stated there is no one against this peoject fCOm the area. He stated Evelyn
Drive is yuing to be closed and there will not be any access on Evelyn Drive
at all.
Commissioner Bouas stated the pcoblem is still access to State College because
the access proposed is not adequate.
P1r. Va2quez stated he met several times with the Traffic Engineer and he has
no problem with this project. Commissioner Bouas stated that is probably
true, but this one project, but that other properties in the area will be
developed and referred to the pcoperty at the corner of Coffman and Cypress
which has been appcoved for 8 units and asked if they intend to go ahead with
those 8 units. She stated as soon as this density is approved, the owr.ers on
Coffman will be asking for the same thing on theic propecties.
Hugo Vazquez stated those requests will have to come before the Planning
Commission and Commission could deny them. Commissioner Bouas stated she did
not think it would be right to allow "spot zoning' foc this parcel and then
deny the other people the same request. Mc. Vazquez stated this is no
different than the situation on Vermont Street.
2/3/86
MINUTES ANAHEZM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 3 1986 86-117
Commissioner Fry stated those lots on Vermont were a lot smaller. He stated
with doing some rough calculations, if this is approved, there could be
approximately 160 additional units in the acea, based on approval of this
alone,and that that street cannot handle the traffic.
Commissioner McBUrney left the meeting at 4:45 p.m. and did not return.
Chairwoman La Claire stated she would like to approve this project beczuse it
is a fine project; however, the Commission has had several public hearings and
did foresee into the fueure and talked to the property owners and suggested
the property be rezoned and that projects with higher densities have been
approved and there are some people present today who wece pcesent then who
w~nted the lower density. She stated after approval of the previous projects,
it is too late to change the densities.
Greg Hast:;~gs stated if the Commission wishes to appcove low-medium density,
Exhibit B should be approved.
AcTION: Commissionec Herbst offered a moti~~n, seconded by Commissioner Fry
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBUrney absent) that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission has reviewed the proposa.l to amend the land use element of
the General Plan from general comme~cial and low-density residential land use
designatio~ to medium-density or low-medium density residential land
designation and to [eclassify subject property from the RS-A-43,000
(Residential, Agricultural) to the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone
to construct a 40-unit apartment complex with waiver of maximum structural
hei9ht on a tectan9ularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately
1.2 acres located at the southeastecly tecminus of Cypress Street and further
described as 1918 - 1932 East Cypress Street; and does hereby approve tt~e
Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative
Declaration to9ethec with any comments received during the public review
process and furthec finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments
received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant efEect on the environment.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-44 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commi.ssion does hereby adopt and
recommend to the City Council adoFtion of an amendmer~t to the Land Use Element
~f tt~e General Plan designated as Genecal Plan Amendment No. 208, Exhibit B
for lou-medium density residential with a maximum density of 15 units per acre.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY~ KERBST, L1~ CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MC BUkNEY
Commissioner Herbst oYfered Resolution No. PC86-45 and moved foc its passage
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny
xeclassification No. 85-86-21 on the basis thia would be considered 'spot
zoning' and the street could not handle tY,e tcaffic generated by higher
density.
2/3/86
MINUTES ANAdEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 3 1986 86-118
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MC BURNEY
Commissioner Herbst offeced ~esolution No. PC86-~6 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny
Variance No. 3534 on the basis that there are no special circumstances
applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and
surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the
same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code does not deprive
the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone
and classification in the vicinity.
on roll call, the fore9oin9 resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY~ HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWZCKI~ MESSE
NUES: NONE
ABSENT: MC BURNEY
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, explained the General Plan Amendment
will automatically g~ to the City Council for a hearing and the other actions
would have to be appealed by the petitioner within 7.2 days, He presented the
wcitten ciqht to appeal the Planning Commission's decision.
ITEM N0. 14 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2722 - Request from PBS, Inc. foz app[oval of
specific plans, property located on the northwest cornec of Santa Ana
Canyon Road and Riverview Drive.
ACTZON: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
t4esse and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBUrney absent) that the Anaheim
L'ity Planning Commission does hereby approve the specific plans as
submitted by the applicant upon finding the plans ace in substantial
conformance with the plans previously approved for Conditional Use Permit
No. 2722.
B, RE~LASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-25 AND VARIANCE N0. 3136 - Request from George
Mason, Gunston Hall, inc., for retroactive extensions of time, property
located southwesterly of Nohl Ranch Road between the intersection of Nohl
Ranch Road with Canyon Rim Road and Serrano Avenue.
ACTION: Commissioner Fry offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (COmmissioner McBurney absent) that the Anaheim
City Planning Commissio~ does heceby grant one year extensions of time
for Reclassification No. 79-80-24 and Variance No. 3136 to expire on
February 11, 1987.
2/3/86
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON FEBRUARY 3 1986 86-119
C. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-4 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2605 -
Request from Bob Pettis, Grubb and Ellis, for an extension of time,
propert•y located on the nortt~ si~e of La Palma Avenue, and 708 feet on
the west side of Imperial Highway.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Con~issioner
Lawicki (Commissionet McBUrney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby grant one year extensions of time for
Reclassification Ne. 84-85-4 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2605 to
expire on January 21, 1987.
ADJOURNMENT: Commissio~iar Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissione[
Lawicki and MUTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney absent) that
the meeting be adjourned.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~~( P~t.. ~ ~~~~
Edith L. Harcis, Seccetary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
ELH:lm
0169m
2/3/36