Minutes-PC 1987/08/17..~
MINUTES - August 17, 1987
The regular meeting of. thc~ Anaheim City Planniny Commission was called
order by Chairman Mes:3e at 10:00 a.m., August 17, 1987, to the Council
Chamber, a quorum beiny present, and the Commission reviewed plans of
items on today's agenda.
RECESS: 11:30 a.m.
RECONVENED: 1: 3U p.m.
PRESENT:
ABSL•"NT:
AhSO P.~I;SENT:
Chairman: Masse
Commissioners: Bouas, Boydstun, Carusille, Feldhaus,
(icr!~st
Commissioners: Mc Burney
Annika Santalahti
Malcolm Slaughter
Jay Titus
Paul Singer
Debbie Vayts
Greg Bast ings
Ed.i th Ilar r is
Zoning Administrator
Deputy City Attorney
Of f. ice F,ngineer
Traffic Enyineer
Leasing Supervisor
senior Planner
Planning Commission Oecretary
to
the
AGENDA POSTING - A complete copy c~ tl~e Planning Commission agenda was posted
at 8:30 a. m., August 14, 1987, in the Council Chamber display case located in
the lobby of the Council Chamber, and in the Civic Center Kiosk.
MINUTES FOR APPROVAL - Chairman Messe pointed out pages 520 through 523 ar.e
repeated with pages 524 throuyh 527. Co-nmissioner Feldhaus pointed nut he had
abstained from the vote on Conditional Use Permit No. 2929 ind tha minutes
reflect him being ahsent ~n page 5U6.
.ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Comnissi~ner :1eri~st
and t4OTI0N CARP,IED (Commissioner Mc6urney absent) that the minute.^- of the July
20, 1987, meeting be approved as corr~ct•ed, and that fife minutes of the
meeting of August 3, 1987, be approved as submitted.
PUBLIC INPUT - Chairman Messe explained at the end of the agenda any member of
the public would :~e allowed to ,isct:ss any mailer of interest within the
jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, ~ r arry agenda it.ern.
ITEM N0. 1 EIR NEGATIVE DECLA°.%~"'.~~N, WAIVER OF CODE RF. JIRE!~ENT AND
CONDITIGNAL USE PERMIT NO. 293?
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: OW' ;~: THRIFTY OIL COMPANY, 10000 Lakewood Dlvd.,
Downey, CA 90240. AGENT: TAi'P & AS5OCIATES, INC., 900 Orangefair Lane,
Anaheim, CA 92803. Pr~~erty described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of
land co .sisting of apprcximately 0.43 acre, located at the northwest corner of
South Street and East Street, 727 South Eaet• StreeC.
To permit a convenience market with gasoline sales and off-sale beer and wine
with waivers of (a) maximum number of small car spaces and (b) minimum
landscape area.
-552-
,,
,,~.
MINUTES, l-NAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN~ AUGUST 17, 1987 Paye 87-553
It was noted the petitioner has requested a continuance of this matter to the
meeting of August. 31, 1987.
Mike 'Lneos, Tait and Associates, representing Circle K, explained they are
reyuesting a continuance in order t~ make revisions to the plans and also to
review the 24-hour operation issue. Eie explained they receiver] a letter Etom
some members of the community indicating concern and they would like to he
able to address those concerns.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, r by Commissioner
Felc9haus and MO'PION CARRIED (Comrnission~r McBu ~s~?nt) that consideration
of t'r~e aforementioned matter he continued to the ~ularly-scheduled meeting
of August 31, 1987, at the r!~quest of the petitioner.
ITEM N'). 2 EIR NEGATIVE DECLAR„TION, WAIVER OE' LOUT, REQUiRF.MEN'P AND
CONDITIONFL USE PERMIT N0. 2924
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: GOLDEN GRAIN MACARONI CO., 1000 E. Cerritos Avenue,
Anaheim, CA 92805, A'PTN: DENNIS DE DOME;NICO. AGENT: PAUL SM[TH, AMA.; BROS.,
INC., P.O. Box 4233, Covina, CA 91723. properky described as an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 7 acres located
at the southeast carnet of Cerritos Avenue and Lewis street.
To retain a road base materials, processing, storage and distribution
operation with waivers of (a) minimum landscaped setback, (b) permittec9 fence
encroachment and (c) required sire screening.
Continued from the meeting of July 6, 1987.
It was noted the petitioner has requested to withdraw the petition for
Co~lditional Use Permit No. 2924.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst
an~9 MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney absent) th;,t the Anaheim City
Planning Commission does hereby approve the request to withdraw the petition
for Conditional Use Permit No. 2924.
ITEM N0. 3 E,lF2 NEGATIVE I)ECGARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONUITIONP.L USE' PERMIT N0. 2925
PUBLIC EIEARING. OWNERS: LARRY R. SMITH AND JUDITH I. SMITH, 17046 Marina Bay
Drive, I)untinyton Beach, CA 92649. AGENTS: SHELDON L. POLLACK CORP., 3938
Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90010 ATTN: AI.VIN Y. LEE. Property
described as an irregularly-shaped para.=' of land consisting of approximately
3.56 acre located north and west of the northw~;t corner of Ball Road and
Knott. Street, 919-959 Knott Street.
To permit a drive-through, walk-up restaurant in conjunction with a commercial
center expansion with waivers of (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b)
minimum drive-through lane dimensions, (c) minimum distance between buildings
and (d) required site screening.
Continued from the meeting of July 20, 1987.
8/17/87
.~
t
MINUTES, ANAHEIM Ci'PY PLANNING COMMISSIONL AUGUST .17, 19c3'1 Page 87-554
It was noted the petitioner had originally reyueste~? a <.ontinuance to the
meeting of August 31., 1987, but. has since changed that re~;.~e,t to September
14, 1987.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
eoydetun and MUTTON CARRIED (Comm:ssioner McBurney absent) that consideration
of the aforementioned matter be continued t~ the regularly-schedu?ed meeting
of September 14, 1987, at the reyuest of the petitioner.
ITEM N0. 4. ETR NEGATIVE DECLARATIUN, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 87-88-O1, WAIVER
OF CODE RE~UIREMF,NT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. '1920
PUBLIC HEAR7.NG. OWNERS: i-HSIt.ING KUO AND SCkiUCNIH LIAO KUO- 10650 E1 T~r.c,
Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA 92708. AGENT: ANHSIL'NG HENRY HSUr 15761 Pasaden,~,
Tustin, CA 92680. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 0.81 acre, 1556 West Katella Avenue.
RS-A-4.3,000 (Residential, Single-Family/Agricultural) zone to the CL
(Commercial, Limited) or a less intense zone.
To permit a two-story, 5U-unit motel with waivers of maximum structural
height, maximum fence height and minimum number of parking spaces.
Continued from the meetings of July 6 and August 3, 1y87.
It was noteU the petitioner has requested a continuance to the meeting of
August. 31, 1987, in order to camplete revised plans,
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offer.eu a motion, secondec] by Commissioner Herbst
and MOTION CARRIED (Commiss.ioner McBUrney absent) that. consideration of the
aforementioned mat.r.er be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of
August 31, 1987, in order for the petitioner to complete revised plans.
ITEM N0. 5 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANll COt7i~.'PTONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2922
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: SANTA FE LAND IMPROVEMENT CO., 3220 E. Imperial
Highway, Brea, CA 92621, ATTN: RICK DEL CARLO. Property described as a
cec-.,i,,~~rl,~r.ly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately ZO acres
located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Manasse[o Street.
To permit. industrially-related office uses.
Continued from the meetings of July 6, 2U, and Augrist 3, 1987.
It was noted the petitioner has requested a continuance ;o the meeting of
September 28, 1987.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Feldhaus and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner. McBurney absent) that consideration
of the aforementioned matter be continued to the reg~rlarly-sci~eduled meeting
of September 28, 1987, at the request of the petitioner.
..
~~
,~.
MINUTF;S, 4NAHSIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 17, .1.987 Pie 87-555
ITEM NJ. 6 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, F<L•""CLASSIFICATION N0. 87-88-04 AND
VARIANCEr N0. 368U
I~UBLIC HEARING. OWNIR:i: PHILIP W. GANONG, et al, 2307 MyCtle Street,
Bakersf.iel~?, CA 93301. ATTN: JANET GANONG. AGENTS: SAND DO[,LAR
DEVCLOPMGV',', 17802 Sky Park Circle, Irvine, CA 92714. Property described as
an irregularly-ahaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5.8 acres,
700 N. :,akPView Avenue.
RS-A-43,000(0) to RS•-5,000(0) or a less intense zone.
Waivers of (a) reyuiced lot frontage, (b) maximum lot coveraye, tc) maximum
number of bedrooms.
There was one person indicating his presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and rnac9e a part
of the minutes.
Bill Blanchard, Sand Dollar Development Company, explained this is a 25-lot
single-family rN~idential subdivision for. the development of 22 single-family,
3 and 4-bedroom residences.
Kenneth Meurs, 4526 t[ightree, stated his only concern would be to allowing
srna'.ler lots. He explained there is a parking problem on hhat street now
because their driveways are not long enough to park a vehicle and he Eelt if
the driveways for these proposed residences are short, Lt would add to the
current. parking problem. He stated Borne residents are currently parking at
the shopping center on street sweeping days.
Chairman Messe explained this plan indicates the driveways will be .:''> feet.
tong.
Mr. Meurs responded he had not seen the plans but if the driveways are ?.5 feet
.long, he would have no opposition.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst stated he did not. think justification could be made for
granting the waiver of maximum lot coverage to permit four bedrooms, even
though he realizes there is a need for 4-bedroom residences.
Mr. Blanchard stated their decision to provide the 4-bedrooms was based on
their marketing studies which indicated there is a need. Commissioner Herbst
stated he would have no problem allowing 4 bedrooms, but these are being
proposed on smaller lots and there is enough room for larger lots. He stated
the lot coverage is greater than allowed by code because of the smaller lots
with larger units.
Mr. Blanchard stated they are trying to provide the housing within the
confines of the market demand. He stated they could change the plan and
provide 3-bedroom units rather than changing the number of lots.
Commissioner Herbst st:~ted he realizes there is a need for four bedrooms but
that also means there would be more children in the units, etc., and he felt
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 17, 1987 Pace 87-556
Mr. Blanchard responded their marketing studies have shown that people uae the
extra bedruom for an office, etc., and there will not necessarily be more
children in the 4-bedroo-n units. He stated they have some lots with more than
7000 syuare Eeet and they are within code requirements on those lots.
Commissioner Herbst stated the extra room could be rented or they could have
children and he could not justify approval of th«: waiver.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, pointed out Paragrapi~s .14 and 15 of the gtaEE
report explain the maximum site coverage and maximum number of bedrooms
proposed, and that information was shown in a chart on the plans.
Chairman Messe statea those lots over 7000 square Eeet would be able to
accommodate the 4-bedroo-n units.
Chairman Messe stated only 3 of tl~e i,ots would be over 6500 syuare feet and
Mr. Blanchard stared he believed those are the lots which back up to
Lakeviewa. The Commission reviewed the plans. Mr. Blanchard stated he is
willing to change the plans to all 3-bedroom units.
Commissioner Herbst suggested denial rE the waiver for maximum lot. coverage
which would require development in conformance with Code and would still
permit sume 4-bedroom units on the lar7er lots.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst. offer^d a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissiorn~r McBucney absent) that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property
from Itre RS-A-4,000(0) (Residential, Agricultural (Oil Production Overlay)
Zone to RS-5000(0) (Residential, Single-Familf) (Oil Production Overlay) Zone,
to establish a 25-lot, singly-family subdivision with waivers of required lot
frontage, maximum lot coverage and maximum number of bedrooms on an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5.8 acres having
approximate frontages of 230 feet on the east side of Lakeview Avenue and 300
feet on the north side of High tree Circle and further described as 1770 N!.~rth
Lakeview Avenue and does hereby approve the Negative Declar-~tion upon finding
that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments
received during tFie public review process and further findinc 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 ~•nvironment.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PCli7-157 and r.~~ved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby Brat
Reclassification No. 87-88-04, subject to Interdepartmental Committee
Recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AY>;S: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MC GURNEY
8/17/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 17, 1987 Page 87-557
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-.158 and moved for ita paciaage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Variance No. 3680, in part, granting waivers (a) and (c.) on tl~e bA319 that
there are special circumstances applicable to the property surh as size,
shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other
identically zoned property in the carne vicinity ar, it applies to waivers oC
required lot frontage and maximum number of be~druorns; ,nnd that strict
application of the Zoning Cade deprives the property of uri vileges enjoyed by
other properties in the identical zone and classification in trre vicinity; and
denying waiver {b) on tt~e basis that there is adequate pro ~ erty to develop all
lots irr conformance with the Code requirement of maximum pe r:nitted lot
coverage, and further that there are no special circumstances applicable to
the propPr.ty such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings whicVr
do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinlty; and
that. strict application of ttre Zoning Code does net deprive the property of
prlvileges enjoyed by other propertles in the identical :one and
classi.Eication in tt~e vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations.
Oar roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by khe fa lluwing vole:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYUSTUN, CARUSILLO, RELUHAUS, fiERBST, MESS E
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MC BURNEY
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council nevi 2w the proximity of
residences ko oil wells and that landscaping and screening from the oil wells
be carefully reviewed.
Mr. Blanchard stated they will provide a solid concrete blo ck wall 8 to 11
feet high.
Malcolm Slaughter, Ueputy City Attorney, presented the writ ten right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the C i ty Council.
ITEM N0. 7 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NU. 230.
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: THCMAS P. WALKER, RIDO INVESTMENTS, SIXPENCE INNS OF
AMERICA, INC. c/o THOMAS WALKER 2855 E. Coast Highway, Cora na Del Mar, CA
9262. AGENT: DA`/ID GUNDERMAN, 17782 Sky Park Blvd., Irvine, CA 92714.
Property described as four irregularly-shaped parcels of 1 and having a total
of approximately 3.4 acres located t.o the south and east. of the intersection
of State College Boulevard and Via 8urt.on.
To consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan,
proposing redesignation from General Industrial to General Commercial.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition t o subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
8/17/87
.,.
,.
MINUTES, ANAHEIM 'I'CY Pf.ANNING COMMISSION, AUGUS'P 17, 1987 Pa e 87-558
Uave Gunderman, agent, explained the property he is inherested in is on hhe
corner of £,tate College t3oulevard and Via Burton and is included in this
General Plan Amendmenh request. tte staled the property is currently vacant
and was developed wihh a service station for 20 lO 30 yeacs and thah there
have been a number vt buyers inherested in purchasing the property, buh wank
commercial zoning. tte stated in that general area the properties are
primarily developed wihh commercial uses and khat commercial zoning would be
more compatible with existing uses in the area.
TriF; PUf3~IC HIsARIIVC; WAS CLOSEU.
Commissioner Herbst stated he is not in favor of spot zoniny of these [our
lots at phis time, but would be inhereshed in looking at the oast side of
State Colleye all the way to the i'.lood control channel Eor a Gencaral Plan
Amendment. tle stated that area is primarily commercial and the uses that are
there do not really service the industrial cormnunity, except the oEfi.ce
furniture business. Commi.ssion~r Rouas and Chairman Messe agreed.
Respondlny ho Commissioner Fe.ldtraus, Mr. Gunderman explained the Uenny'+~ lease
will terminate i.n five year~3.
Thomas Walker, 2855 E. Caast ttigtrway, Corona Del Mar, owner of one of the
properties, stated he ha3 owned this property since it was an orange grove and
explained he has approached the other property owners on the east side of
State Colleye about a General Plan Amendment and they are not interPSted;
however, he would agree that the entire east side of the street should be
redesiynated for commercial. uses. ite explained he has toad some discussions
with the representatives of Penny's and they would like to vacant the premises.
Chairman Messe asked what reasons the other property owners gave Eor not
wanting to have their property redesignated foe commercial uses.
Mr. Walker stated the people who own the lighting business stated they were
informed that. if the property was rezoned Eor commercial uses, they would not
have adequate parking so would want their property to stay the way it is and
they da have commercial tenanhs in the building at the present time.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated in response to Commissioner Herbst, that
those properties may have had a parking waiver granted or they were developed
in conformance with Code when originally developed; however, the parking codes
have changed.
Commissioner Herbst stated before any change is made, there will be public
bearings and that. the buildings are exist ing and the street has been widened
and explained he is talking about the properties north of this corner property.
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, explained an amendment to the General
Plan would not affect the zoning of t•he properties, and as long as the
existing owners did not change their uses, there would not be any problem
because the existing uses would became non-conforming with a zone change. He
abated if the zone is changed and the owner wants to change the use to
commercial, then the parking would not be adequate.
a/17/x7
w
MINUTEST ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 17, 1907 Pale 8'1-559
Commissioner IIouas asked how much effect a General Plan Amendment would have
on t.i~e other. properties.
Malcolm Slaughter stated the Commission could recommend approval of this
Ger7eral Plan Amendment which wou]d only pertain to this property and then
request staff to initiate a General Plan Amendment L•or the rest of the block
and that would tie the proper way to proceed only iF the Commission is willing
to grant the GPA as to a portion of the property, but if it is the
Commission's intent that the General Plan be arrrended Ear this property only if
the entire area is amended, then the whole matter strould be readvert•ised.
Mr. Gunderman stated this property has been vacant Eor .1.4 months and even iE
this is approved, it would be 4 to 6 months before they could proceed with
plans for development. He stated he would like to see this matter expedited.
Leonard McGhee, Associake Planner, stated a General Plan Amendment Eor the
whole block on the east side of Stake College could he readvertised for the
next public gearing on August 31, 1987, but staff would prefer to have tt~e
Bearing in four weeks.
Malcolm Slaughter stated it takes about one month to yet the matter to the
City Council Eor public hew ing after the Commission acts.
Chairman Messe stated this application could be denied, or continued for
readvertisemenk to include t}ie east side of State College all the way to the
Flood control channel.
Mr. Thomas stated tt~e whole block is included in this reyuest. H~ asked the
Commission not to penalize him and explained he has talked to ttie other owners
and they are not in favnr of a General Plan Amendment.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated the property being discussed is completely
surrounded by industrial zoning and this block has been developed with
commercial uses through approval of conditional use permits. He stated he
would like to see the whole east side of the street advertised for
redesignation and that he is sympathetic to Mr. Walker's comments regarding
the length of time to get this resolved.
Mr. Walker stated if this would only add 30 days to the time, he would be
willing to go along with it and added he has been working with the Planning
Department for about three months on this property. }ie indical-ed concern
because the adjacent property owners do not want to rezone their properties
because of parking requirements.
Chairman Messe explained the present developments would not be affected by the
change and only future developme nts would be affected. Commissioner Herbst.
Further explained if someone else wanted to develop a commercial use after
this zoning is changed, they would have to meet the commercial requirements.
6/17/87
MINUTES ANAHEIhI CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17 1987 Page 97-560
Leonard McGhee explained the commercial uses which have been approved north of
Via Burton were found to be less intense anc9 such that would not adversely
affect the industrial community and they did not need additional parking. tfe
added this is a request for a retail use which is more intense and does
require more parking.
Responding to Chairman Messe, Gr.'eg i~astings explained the penny's restaurant
was probably developed in conformance with Code at the time it was developed,
but the parking codes have changed.
Mr. Walker painted out he is not requesting a parking waiver, and stated the
mol-.el has excess parking under tt~e present. parking codes.
Commissioner Bouas asked if a problem would be created for the other
properties if the General Plan is amended.
Malcolm Slaughter. expl.aine~9 a General Plan Amendment Eor ttie redesignation of
commercial uses does not change any requirements; however, a reclassification
L•o the ~ornmercial zone would bring about the problems.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated the tone of the Commission seems to be t}rat they
are reluctant to spot zone that one area without nokiEication to the other
property owners and possibly redesignating the entire street. He asked iE the
petitioner would be willing t.o continue this matter.
Chairman Messe asked if the petitioner would like a vote on khe matter before
the Commission today or if Vie would like a continuance. Mr. Walker stated he
thought by bringing in the whole block, he had brought this to a point to
avoid the spot zoning situation.
Leonard McGhee stated the matter can be readvertised for the August 31st
meeting. Greg Hastings explained the reclassification would not have to be
readvertised. Mr. Walker requested a t.wo-week continuance.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst. offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner MrBurney absent) that consideration of the
aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of
August 31, 1987, at the request. of the petitioner, in order to t;Q readvertised
to include the entire east. side of State College Boulevard, north of Via
Burton all the way to the flood control channel in this General Plan Amendment
study area.
ITEM N0. 8 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RRCLASSIFICATION N0. 87-88-05
Coast Highway,
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: THOMAS P. WALKER, et al., 2855 E.
Corona Del Mar., CA 92625 and SIXPENCE INNS OF AMERICA, INC., 2020 Via Burton,
Anaheim, CA 92805 ATTN: DOtvALD E. SODARO, President. AGENT: ROBERT C.
SUNDSTROM, 17782 Sky Park IIlvd, Irvine, CA 92719. Property described as a
.~ acres
rectangularly-shaped parcel ot• land consisting of approximately
located at the southeast corner of Via Burton Street and State College
Boulevard and further described as 2020 East Via Burton Street (Sixpence Inn
Motel), 1420 N. State College Boulevard (penny's) and 1440 N. Skate College
Boulevard (vacant).
8/17/87
_ .. _ . .... r~;:,.rra ~::.~~..:uv. ~
...
.,-
----- ~-ten
,;.
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION L AUGUST 17, x.987 Page 87-561
ML to CL or a leas intense zone.
ACTION: Commisaioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney absent) that consideration of the
aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of
August 31, 1987, to be considered !n conjunction with Genera]. Plan Amendment
No. 230.
ITEM N0. 9 EIR NEGA'PTVE DECLARATION, RECL,A~SIFICA'PION N0. _8.7-88-05 AND
VARIANCE N0. 3683
PUBLIC NEARING. OWNER: PETRA CALVIN, 2230 W. Laverne, Santa Ana, CA, 92704
AND MUDL'STA BARRON AND CATALINA BARRUN, 200 S. Walnut, Anaheim, CA 92805.
AGENT: RAM AT I. SAMAN, SAMAN CONS'PRUC`1'ION, 1240 N. Van Buren Street ()101,
Anaheim, CA 92807. Property described as a rectang~al.arly-shaped parcel of
land consisl•ing of approximately U.2 acre located at the southwest corner of
Elm Street and Clementine Street, 403 South Clementine Street.
RM-2400 to RM-1200 or a less intense zone.
Waivers of (a) maximum site cover.aye, (b) rnaxi.mum number of bactrelor units,
(~) minimum structural setback, (d) minimum recreational-leisure area to
construct a 7-unit apartment complex.
There were four persons indicating their 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.
Mr. Saman, agent, presented an exhibit for Commission's review st~owiny the
comparison of the impact of dedication between a corner lot and a non-corner
lot and referred to the requirement by the city for dedication of 5 feet on
both streets. ite stated the property does not enjoy the same privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the same zone and vicinity because it. is a
corner lot. fie skated kt~ey are dedicating almost three times as much property
as a non-corner lot. He pninted out the General Plan designation is for
medium density permitting 36 units per acre which is more than they are
requesting.
Ruth Mot.l.ey, 203 Evelyn, real estate agent representing the sellers, stated
they feel since a lot of the surrounding area has been changed to RM-1200,
this property should be rezoned.
Donald Dexter, Associate Pajtor, Eirst Presbyterian Church, 310 W. Broadway,
stated they are concerned about the number of variances being granted in t~~is
area between Santa Ana and Broadway which has increased the density and all
the structures which have been upgraded are ~•tarting to deteriorate, and the
overall cumulative effect is going to have a detrimental effect on the
neighborhood and on the citizens. He stated the staff report indicates across
the street to the north there is a single-family unit, but that existing house
has had additions added right up to the property line and to the north and
west there is another building with a very small green area in front with no
recreational area, and these do have a cumulative effect on everyone. He
added one real problem in this neighbork~aod is the criminal and drug
activities happening in the Little People's Park. He stated any variances
approved should be to upgrade the area and not be detrimental.
8/17/87
,J-
MINU'PES, ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING COMMI~iSION, AUGUS'P 17, 1987 Pace 87-562
Reverend Steven Mather stated he was recently elected Pastor of this church
and came here from Philadelphia. He stated lie was excited about corniny here
because the City Council and Planning Commission have been very careful about
development of this area, but he was quite surprised when he arrived and saw
the area adjacent to the church left. unattended and was surprised to see no
setbacks in many cases. He stated continuing to grant. these variances is not
good for the area and they are beginning L•o take their toll on the appearance
of the neighborhood, anti there is very little area proposed for tl)e children
to play, and he felt at. some point the Commission has t•o say "no".
Medessa P.ar.ron, 403 S. Clementine anti also owner of property at 4A3 S.
Clementine, stated she understands the Little People's Park is owned by the
church and there are undesirable characters attracted to that park and they
have caused a lot of deterioration to her property and peoplr_ are coming to
that park fruin all over Orange County and the Police department does have a
lot of pcob.lerns in that park.
Mr. Saman 3tat.ed they are paying their fair share towards making safer traffic
by making the dedications and improvements and this project will not have an
effect on the traffic and he did not understand why the church representatives
are concerned about. these sevF~n units.
THE PUDLIC HEARING WAS CLOS[;U.
Commissioner Bouas stated she understood Mrs. Barron to say that the church
owns the Little people'r, Park and she wanted to clarify that the City of
Anaheim owns the park and any complaints about the park should be directed to
the City.
Commissioner Herbst asked if the developer had reviewed a project under the
RM-2400 zoning requirements for this property. ite added traffic flow is a
major problem In this city and that he does have a problem with upgrading the
zoning and then granting so many waivers and could not justify a hardship for
the approval of these waivers. He stated because of the dedication and
improvements required Eor the widening of the street, he could see
justification ::or granting some waivers under the RM-2400 zone.
Mr. Saman stated the site coverage at 558 would not change with a RM-2400
project, but the number of units would change.
Commissioner Herbst stated there is RM 1000 zoning on the north side of the
street, but the entire south side of the street is RM-2400 and he could not
grant. this request and thought the property would be overbuilt. with this
development.
Mr. Saman staked the 0-lot line is only for the garages on the first. floor,
but the apartments would be 5 feet away from the property line. He responded
to Commissioner Herbst that an RM 2400 project would permit only theee un<ts
and the site coverage would be the same.
Chairman Masse stated possibly three units is all this property can handle.
Mr. Saman stated they are losing about 258 of the value of khe property for
street dedications and without that requirement for dedications, they could
have developed four units.
8/17/87
;,
...
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING COMMISSION, AU'~UST 17, 198"_ Pa a 87-563
Commissioner Bouas suggested a variance to permit. the fourth unit might be
acceptable, but seven is just too many because this area is ~~er.y congested.
Commissioner Boydstun stated parking is already a problE+m and the addition of
these seven units would make it wor.ae.
Commissioner Herbst stated he could justify a hardship Eor some waivers but. 7
units would be overbuilding hhe property. He stated an RM 1200 project was
recently denied on the property next door. He suggested the developer propose
a project within tl~e density allowed with the possibility of a variance for
some waivers because of the street dedication requirement.
Mr. Saman stated he did not think this property owner should be penalized
because this is a corner lot and RM 2400 would only permit three units.
Mtrlcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated perhaps the r„ornmission should
a<:t on the request Eor reclassification and if. it• is denied, the petitioner
c,an seek the variance under tits present• : ~ning.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated a variance would have to be advertised
i.f the petitioner submitted a revised plan rot four units.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated the petitioner has indicated he would nit wish to
submit. a RM-2400 project anti suggested the Co-nmission go ahead with a vote on
this request as submitted.
Commissioner Herbst asked again ~f the petitioner would like a vote on the
project as presented today or reyuest a continuance to consider revising the
plans for a RM-2400 project with the possibility of some waivers.
Mr. Saman stated he would like to request a continuance.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Mc Burney absent) that cansic?eratio~.r
of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting
of September 14, 1987, at the reyuest of the petitioner in order to consider
submitting revised plans.
RECESS: 2:45 p. m.
RECONVENED: 3:00 p.m.
ITEM_N0. 10 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLA_S_S_IFICATION N0. 87-88-07, VAR'iANCE
N0. 3685 AND WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 542
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: ROBERT D. SCHAFER ET AL, 292 Wilshire Ave, #107,
Anaheim, CA, 92801. AGENT: MASSUUD Id0NSHI7.ADEH, 1524 Victoria Way,
Placentia, CA 92670. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of approximately 1 acre located between Broadway and tt~e
northerly terminus of Gilbuck Drive, 1500 West Broadway.
Portion A from RS-5000 to RM-3000 or a less intense zone.
Portion B from RS-A-43,000 to RM-3Q00 or a less intense zone.
8/17/87
MINU'PES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 17, 1987 Page 8'1-564
Waivers of (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b) minimum structural
setback adjacent to Arterial Highway, (c) minimum structural and Cflr.king
setback adjacent to local street, (d) minimum structural setback (e) minimum
structural and parking setback adjacent to single family residences, and (f)
minimum recreational- leisure area to construct a 15-unit condominium complex.
Waiver of Corancil Policy No. 542 pertaining to proximity of residential units
to a railroad track.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
and although the stafL• report was not read, it is ref cred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Jesse James, agent, explained they are proposing a ].'S-unit condominium project
and are proposing 52 parking spaces rather than 41 a:3 indicated in the staff
report.
Greg Hastings,, Senior Planner, stated staff ha got seen the plans showing 52
parking spaces.
Mr. James staked the setback from Broadway ~~ °i~e r~>sidential property was
also a concern. He added these will be hi ~~.~l.it;~ condominiums and will be
compatible with sur.roundiny homes, and al -~ ~.,i'.l have more than 1500
square feet.
Commissioner t3oydstun referred to the .'.- ' r_ .. ~x:':ibits for the one-story
units and asked t•.i~e length of th~~ dr.i~:~ ~~~=
Massoud Monshizadeh, agent., responde,j ~ !?'i.~rwr~y is 22 feet lung. Regarding
the revised parking plan, Mr. Monshi::ar.>~~. --~ e~i he has been working on the
revised plan with Paul Singer, Traffic _ _~~~er, and now they are proposing 50
spaces with room for two additional sF-~~-~;, anc3 that Mr. Singer has indicated
since the waiver is minimal, he would r~r~ w~.~:.ing to work with them. He stated
they do not need the recreational-leis~:_e :~r~ea and the balconies were not
counted in the total.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Responding to Commissioner Messe, M~. S-.~~3er stated he has indicated to the
applicant that he would disagree w,irti r~;s prc osal and would recommend that
no parking waivers be granted in any r?:ident ~~1 area; and to provide the
parking spaces as mentioned by the applicant, would substantially reduce the
landscaping, but it can !~ done. Ae Mated the Commission did not see revised
plans because the applicant chose ro go ahead with the plans as s~,bmitted with
the understanding that staff would recommend denial of a parking waiver.
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City attorney, stated since the applicant has
indicated a waiver is not. necessary for parking, the Commission can deny that
portion of 'the request. and then they will have to meet Code requirements.
B/17/87
1
1
1
MTNUTI;S, hNAH_F.iM CITY PLANNING COMMi5SION AUGUST 17 1987 Pa;~e 87=,565
542 and
rommisPioner Feldhaus stated he is concerned about Council Policy No.
the proximity to the railroad t.rackc. Fle slated the 100 feet. was established
as the .ninimum and this reyueF': !s for 41 feet and he was concerned how they
would buf#er the sound and visibility of the railroad tracks.
Mr, Tionshiradeh stated the 41 feet is measured Erom the wall, but there is
another ]5 feet to the house. lte explained they have a sound engineer to
;.oiiduct the sound analysis as required by the City and they will be submi.~-ting
a ,3ound report to the Building Department.
Chairman Messeemedeto,be al~loteoEeopennspaceiinrt.hecoriginalaplansted and
notF.d there
,reg Hastings explained 226 rq. Et. per dwelling unit area is proposed and
l,~,pp eq. ft, is required for those units which have private yard arF,~zs and
1,7p0 sq. ft, for those which do not have private yard yards. He stated the
parking is proposed right at the west. property line adjacent to single-family
residences.
C~~nmissioner Herbst pointed out they have cequested a recla~si.F.ication and
then are requesting waivers from that new zone and he felt the project should
conform t.o tt~e RM-:3000 requirements since that is the zone being requested.
He skated the standards have been established ointedvcut the proposalhoslfor
in the units with adequate living space. He p roust of
10-f.oat back yards and the code requires 20 feet and he thought. app
t.hase waivers would be downgrading ttie l.ivi.ng environment.
Mr. Monshizadeti stated before he entered into escrow on this transaction, he
came to the Planning Department to find out. what. would be acceptable and
presented his proposal, and is proposing the single-story next to the
single-family residential area; and that they took the parking, driveway, and
garage into consideration. He stated tt~e cost of the land is very nigh and
some developments have been approved as close as five Perking spaceslperaunit.
residential areas. He added they are proposing 3-1/2 p
for a 3-bedroom unit.
Commissioner Hecbst stated one of the problems is the packing adjacent to
residential aceas with car starting their engines early in the morning and
late at night next to those homes. He stated the ordinances have been adopted
to protect people's privacy and he was glad to see the sinc,le-story next to
single family residences, and noted a two-story unit probat~ly would not have
been approved anywaY•
Mr. Monshizadeh stated they are not asking for anything other than RM 3000 and
he did not. ehstatE~deherdidcnotsthinkbt.here willtbeysound problemsabecauselof
r.equest.. H
the railroad t.racF;s.
Commissioner Herb~:t stated the City's parking codes work for apartments and
condominiums and iE this project. does not provide adequate parking, the
occupants wi3.1 be parking on the streets.
8/17/87
,...,
MINU'PI;S, ANAtIFIM CI'PY I~LANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 17, 198? ~~e, 87-566
Mr. Mons}tizade}t stared he presented ttte rF~vised parking plans to the City and
also talker to the Planning staff and that they can provide the required
parkiny and do not need a ,arkiny wa vet.
Chairman Messe stated staff has not reviewed the revised parking plan. Mc•
Monshtzadeh stated he could redesign the parkiny p'.an and added he does have a
time probl~am with the se.llec of the property. He stated they designed this
project so that it would be compatible with the surrounding houses and that it
will. be a nice project. He stated the front 3etbark is not calculate~3 in the
racreal•ional leisure area and they worked exceptionally hard on that area to
make this a nice project for thn neighborhood. He stated the 150 sy. ft.
balconies do not. count towards the recreational area.
Greg Hastings responded to Commissioner Herbst that the balconies must meet a
minirnum dimension of lU f.eet in either direction in order l•o be counted an
part of the recreational area, otherwise they are considered unusable.
Commissioner ilerbst stated t}tat is another reason he thinks the project is
being overbuilt and that he is trot in favor of: 10-foot setbacks in the rear
and this project is not within ttte intended environment Eor a RM-3000 prujec.t.
Chairman Messe stated the units are livable but it is very crowded. Mr.
Monshizadeh stated the City has approved three of. his condominium projects and
he would request aparoval of this project based on economics and would reyuest
that the plan not t,e reduced because they think it is a good plan.
Mr. James stated tie lives in a condominium project with two-car garages and 8
additional parkiny spaces, with rear yards of approximately eight feet and lt.
is adequate, although there is definitely a parking problem, but they have
provided larger setbacks in this projeck.
Mr. Monshizadeh stated he is requesting exactly what has been approved on
other projects and that the average is 2600 sq. ft. per unit and they have a
kotal land area of 46,000 square feet which is more than they need for this
project.
Responding to Commissioner Herbst, Greg Hastings stated staff would need at
least a two days to review revised plans. }le pointed out the agenda for the
meeting of Sepl•ember 14 is rather large with all the additional continuances.
Foul Singer stated the parking spaces proposed on the revised plan submitted
by the applicant do nok meet code requirements because they are small car
spaces and code permits only 252 of the spaces to be designated for compact.
cars and that. small car spaces cannot be assigned to the individual units.
Mr. Monshizadeh stated they have previously presented plans to the Commission
on an aparkment project and a year ago a study was done which Indicated about
552 of today's cars are compact., and added he did not believe the total
proposed for the compact spaces would be more than 358 and 258 is allowed by
Code.
8/17/8?
MINUTl;S~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 17, 1981 Page 87-567
Commissioner. Herbst skated the spaces do not satisfy the City Traf[ic Engineer
and asked if a coy inuanre to the meeting of September 14, 1987 would allow
adequate time f.or the developer to revise the plans.
Mr. r'onshizadeh responded he has a deadline with the seller and would like the
matter to be heard in two weeks.
Commissioner Herbst stated staff teas to review any plans for Comrni:;si~~n's
consideration. Malcolm Slaughter stated the staff report indicates a parking
study was not submitted and the Code requires that study, so the Commission
would have a difficult time justifying approval of a parking variance, so if
there is to be a parking waiver, a parking study would be necessary.
Mr. Monshizadeh stated he was not sure a parking waiver would be necessary and
that he realizes staff is very sensitive about parking waivers. He st.atEd he
would request a contirnzance to the next meeting and because there is a full
agenda, he would request. that his be the last item on the agenda and if the
Commission could not get. to that item, he would accept that. He added the
seller is not very easy to work with and that l•he property is very expensive
and he would lose a lot of money iE he had tc~ reduce the project.
Grey EFastings slated it is possible to consider this at the next meeting witYr
staff putting in additional hours. Malcolm Slaughter stated the Ccmmission's
concerns seem ho be regarding tine variancE, but he was not sure what the
feeling is of the entire Commission and suggested possibly they should act on
the request for the rzclassification acid if it is denied, discussions on the
variances would be a waske of the applicant's time. Commissioner Herbst
suggested a Eour-week continuance bPCause he is concerned about things other
than just parking. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he is also concerned about
the noise attenuation and the setbacks from the railroad tracks and the
landccapin~i and asked that. those issues be addressed wren the matter is
brough!~ b:.ck to the Commissio ~. He asked the developer to explain how they
plan to attenuate the noise from the railroad tracks and suggested the
developer review the Council Policy regarding that issue.
ACTION: Commissioner Her~bsL- offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner 6ouas
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Mceurney absent- that consideration of the
aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of
September 14, 1987, at the request of the petitioner in order to consider
revisec' plans.
Greg FFastings stated staff would like to have the revised plans no later than
Monday or Tuesday of next week.
ITEM NO_. 11 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 87-88-08,_WAIVER
OE' CODE ICE UIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2905
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: Y,AISER DEVELOPMENT COMPF,NY, c/o BEDF(1gD PROPERTIES,
2081 Business Center Drive, Irvine, CA 92715, ATTN: KEVIN HAN5ON. Property
described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately
5.54 acres, 5635 East La Palma Avenue.
MT.(SC) to CL(SC) or a less intense zone.
8/17/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17 1987 Pac__~ e_87-568
To permit a 40-foot high multi-screen indoor theatre complex with a waiver of
minimum n~imber of parking spaces.
There was no one indicating their 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.
Bruce Sanborn, SoCal Cinemas, 13 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, stated two
years ago a theatre was approved next door to this property which was never
finalized and now thE~y are trying to establish a theatre on subject property.
TfiE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLUSEU.
Commissioner Herbst stated the Mercury Savings people were very concerned with
tl~e previous project and it appears there are some of those carne problems in
this proposal. Mr. Sanborn stated a lot of Mercury Savings' concernF were
relatAd to the access problem wikh Y.nollwooo~l~itontfrlomythem,3ust a neighbor in
this proposal and he ham not heard any app
Chairman Meese asked if there had been any attempts to yet together with
Mercury Savings regarding a reciprocal narking agreement. Mr. Sanborn stated
they have not attempted to get an agreement for tnis proposal because they are
providing their own parking. He stated he thought l•he -lercury Savings
property weuhasbn,tedilcussedothrapaansawi.th the newopropeortytowners.has t;c~n
sold and h
Commissioner Elerbst stated because of the lack of access on imperial, all
three of those properties would have to use the La Palma driveway and asked if
the new owners ar.e aware of that concern. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer,
stated he has not discussed this project. with adjacent property owc~ers. He
stated there were some discussions previously about the combined access. He
staked the basic problem is ingress and egress and how it affects this
property and the driveway that is left dangling since the median on La Palma
Aven~ie would have to be extended. He statedivesaaccessttofKnollwoodaand
mod ificatian, the driveway which currently g
Mercury Savings would be off-set from an opening in the median island and the
traffic traveling east would be encouraged to travel in khe wrong lanes. He
stated thistdan accesshso thatetheocuraenttdrivewas to Knollwovdsncouldpbeties
for at leas
closed.
Chairman htesse stated it would be left up to this developer to work out an
agreement with the adjacent property owner. Paul Singer staked the median on
La Palma will have to be extended with the occupancy o€ the theatre because
with occupancy of the theatre, it will be a hazardous situation. He stated
one solution would be t.o close the driveway which is currently serving
Knollwood and Mercury Savings and provide all access to all parcels on the
north side of La Palma on the driveway to this theatre. He stated another
alternative would be to construct a median island and prohibit left-turns
going east on La Palma and that would nct make the Knollwood people very happy
since a lot of their business is from the industrial area.
8/17/87
..
.__ -
MINU'I'L•'S, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONS AUGUST 171987 Page 87-569
Mr. Sanborn stated the plan for ttrls project was mailed ko the Mercury Savinya
representatives. He responded to Commissioner Herbst that he did not know if
the new owners know about this project and the closing of their only driveway.
Malcolm Slaughter stated the condition imposed on this proE.~erty requires them
to grant. an easement to Knollwood's for access to La Palma an~i this could onJ.y
be done 1E they ayree to close tine driveway.
Commissioner Herbst strt•ed this condition really says that they have use of
that easement or there will be a median prohibiting left-turns to their
property, and it is not known what their plans are. He stated the zoning is
industrial and he thought at least the Commission should let the new property
owner know about file limited access. Fie stated he thinks the theatre is a
~;ooci use for l•his property, but. the Commission should know what the traffic
patl•ern would be to Knollwood's property because access to imperial would not
be allowed.
Commissioner Bouas asked if the theatre could be moved closer ro the railroad
tracks. Mr. Sanborn stated they would not want. to move much closer because of
fire sound problems. He stated they have discussed moving the new building the
width of one parking space to the north. Mc. Sanborn stated because of the
requirements to accommc•date Knollwoods, they had t•o move the building closer
to the railroad tracks in the previous proposal and since it is not known what
is to be developed on that property next door or what they could be looking at.
if the building is moved towards the railroad tracks. He added they have no
plans f.or the Front portion and it could be used for packing, but ire was told
that area needs to be landscaped.
Ctrairman Messe stated if this is approved with all the condi.t.ions proposed, it
would be up to the developer to come to an agreement with ttie property owner
to the east to close that driveway, otherwise the City would be forced to
change the median even further.
Mr. Sanborn stated they have h~•~ :.ontacts with the old owners, but have not
been in contact with the new ow::yrs. He stated it is possible the new owners
do not have any plans for development. Commissioner Bouas asked if Mercury
Savings knows about the closl.ng of the driveway and Mr. Sanborn stated they
are aware that t.t,e problems are the same as they were previously. He stated
he was just informed that the new owner had been notified of the plans by the
real estate broker and that he does not know what his plans are.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
9oydstln and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney absent) that the Anaheim
City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal t~ reclassify subject
property from the ML(SC) (Industrial, Limited, Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone
to CL (Commercial, Limited, Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone to permit a 40-foot
high multi-screen indoor theatre complex with a waiver of minimum number of
parking spaces on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 5.54 acres, having a frontage of approximately 275 feet on the
north side of La Palma Avenue, approximately 300 feer. west of the centerline
of Imperial Highway and further described as 5635 East La Palma Avenue; and
8/17/87
MINUTES ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17 1987 Page 87-573
does hereby approve the Negative declaration upon Finding that it has
considered the Negative Declaration together with any cum,~ents received during
the public review process and f.urtt,~r finding on ttre basis o[ the Initial
Study and any comments received l'hr,l there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant ett:ect on the environment.
Comrni::sioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC87-159 and moved f.or ite passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby yrant
Reclassification No. 87-88-OB subject to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations.
On roll :all, the Eoregolny resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDS'PUN, CAI2USI[,LO, F'F:~.,UHAUS, fIERBST, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MC BURN F,Y
Commissioner Bouas offered a -notion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney at~sent) that the Anat,eim City Planning
Commission does hereby grant waiver of Code requirement on the basis that the
parking waiver will not cause an increas? in traffic congestion in the
immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting
of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be
detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the .:itizens
of the City of Anaheim.
Commissioner Herbst asked iE the parking waiver. can be tied to the specific
use so that if the theatre is not developed, they would not have the right to
develop a commercial use with tt,e parking a~aiver. Malcolm Slaughter responded
the waiver is t.o allow this particular development..
Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution Nn. PC87-160 and moved for its passage
and adoption thzrt the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby yrant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2905 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections
18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to interdepartmental Committee
recommendations.
Malcolm Slaug~~ter. :,rated iE the adjacent. property owner should not accept the
condition and not close the driveway, then this applicant will have the
obligakion to reconstruct the median on La Palma in accordance Witt, the City
Engineer's recommendations. Mr. Sanborn responded that is agreeable.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MC BURNEY
Commissioner Bouas added she thought the theatre would be a great. use of this
property and Mr. Sanborn responded to Chairman Messe they hope to have the
theatre opened by next summer.
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
8/17/87
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17 1987 Pace 87-571
ITEM NU. 12 EIRE NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OE'' CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL, USE PERMIT NO. 2936
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JOSL VAGDI`lIA AND BONNIE VAGDIVIA, .1075 N. Harbor
Blvd., Anaheim, CA. AGENT: ItUDY VAL'JIVIA, 241.0 N. Grand, Santa Ana, CA
92706. Properly described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting
of. apFroximately 0.68 acre, 1095 North Harbor Boulevard (Specialized Auto
Repair).
To retain an auto repair facility with waivers of (a) minimum mrmber of
parking spaces, (b) maximum number of. compact stalls.
There was one per.~on indicating his presence in opposition to subject request
and although the stlEf. report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Olen !lays, agent, stated they have been at phis location for 13 years and had
a variance prior to this time and there is a condition requiring removal of
that variance. Regarding Condit~.on No. 1 concerning the driveway radius being
reconstructed to a lU-foot radius, he stated evidently when the building
permits were issued for. the. medical building next door, there was a change and
his driveway doe:. have a smaller radius because of the street light equipment
and other equipmenh in the way.
David Tsoong, physician owning the medical building next door, stated he does
not Dave a strong opposition to this request, but that he purchased his
property in ].984 and established a medical office and is currently serving
several large corporations in Anaheim. !le stated they had to build a block
wall between phis property and subject property because of the unsightly view
of the repair shop. He stated he also has the property towards the west end
of the access driveway which includes the auto repair shop and the access had
to be changed because there are cars parked on the Prope`oncerneduabouttthe
cars Erom the auto repair shop. He stated he is mainly
parking for the auto repair facility and did not know if they have adequate
parking so their parking does not extend into their access driveway. He
stated he gave the right-of-way to various property owners, but does not. use
it for his own purpose because there are so many cars parked there. He
presented pictures of cars parked in the accessway.
Dr. Tsoong stated the staff report statd the petitioner indicates all work a nd
storage will be contained inside the building, but that is not t.r~re and he h a s
photographs of cars being repaired outside. He stated even though "no
packing" signs have been posted, the cars still park there. He stated the
site really looks like a "junk yard" and his concerns are the unsightliness
and the parking.
Mr. Hays state(? in the past there were some problems and he understands the
neighbors' concerns, but in the past few months things have gotten better
because one of the partners of the repair business has left. and a lot of
improvements have been made. He stated the hoists are used outside when the y
have to get underneath the vehicles. He stated they have been guilty of
parking in the alley, but that can be eliminated and stated everyone parks i n
the alley. He stated they have only a small amount of traffic and do not need
a lot of parking spaces and stated they have never had a parking problem and
would not park in khe alley in the future.
8/17/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI SSION, AUGUST 17, 1987 Pale E37-572
TILE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLUSEq.
Chairman Messe asked iE vehicles are ntored inside at night. Mr. Hays skated
they have ample parking Cur vehicles inside and also have a Fenced area In the
rear where they Can be stored.
Commissioner F3ouas asked if they gave old vehicles whicYr are just sitting
there hecause maybe someone did not pay their bill. Mr. Hays sta ted that has
been done in the past., but he thougY-rt those were oars brought in to be
restore~'• Ind they no longer do that type of work. fie stated the previous
partner ~1id a lot. of major storat ion.
Responding to Commissioner Herbst., Mr. hays stal•~d approximately 508 0[ their
work is done outside using a hoist.
Commissioner Boydstun asked how many cars they usually }lave on the premises to
be worked on ah. one lime. Mc. bays sl•atec. ere would be a;~proximately 6
vehicles now and previously there were more oecause the partner slid rake in
more and was not able to complete t he work. fie stated they would have a car
on the premises f or a maximum of about 4 days .
Commissioner Herbst. asked if cars are being parked in the driveway to the
a?.ley. Mr. Hays stated there have beep cars parked there along the fence at
different times and they are probac~ly guilty. Commissioner Herbst asked who
else would be parking there blocking ttre driveway. Mr. Hays stated it could
be people who lease other premises in the area. Commissioner Herbst stated he
would be concerned whether fire engines and emergency vehicles would have
adequate access. Mr. gays slated they have always had adequate access.
Responding to Commissioner Boydst~ n, Mr. Hays stated they would post "no
parking" signs in that area.
Mr. Singer stated tine City would not be responsible for who uses the private
alleys, but no parking would be pe rmitted in a public alley. Dr. Tsoong
stated the alley belongs to his p r operty, but sometimes there are 9 or 10 cars
parked there and he does not want. to offend his neighbors and have the
vehicles towed. He added some of the cars parked in the repair shop have been
sitting there for a long time. Fie responded to Chairman Masse that there are
more activities now, but he was not sure the situation has improved. He
skated he would like to see the pl ace more presentable For the betterment of
the community.
Malcolm Slaughter stated the staff= report indicates all work and storage would
be contained inside the building and there has been testimony today that quake
a bit of work is being done outai de and there is not a variance for the
outdoor activities which is what they started out to be under a different Code
Section. He stated he would be concerned l•hat even if this is granted, the
petitioner could not operate outdoors because the necessary variance has not
been acted on by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Boydstun asked if the hoists are in a covered area. Mr. Hays
stated 2 of the hoists are under a canopy and that these hoists have been
there all the time and they are not requesting any changes ir. the use,
8/17/87
MINUTG;S, ANAHEIM CITY F'GANNING COMMISSIAN, AUGUST 17, 1987 Pay~e 87-573
Commissioner Herbst stated a variance was approved in 1979 for outdoor work
and ht would as4ume that variance ha« exrir.ed. Malcolm Slaughter stated there
is not. an applicat.ton f.or outdoor work and perhaps this application should be
expanded. Mr. Clays stated the conditions require the term ination of that
variance and he thought it went with the property.
It was noted the variance was granted for 1 year in 1976 to be reviewed each
year, and they Crave not come back before the Planning Commission to request art
extension. Malcolm Slaughter stated the Commission should bz concerned that
this approval would not permit what the applicant wants to do and he would
then be subject to enforcement activities for the outdoor use which is
technically not a part of this application and he would consider that a
significanl• difference and the matter should be re~idvertised. Mr. bays asked
i. f. Condition No. 7 could be deleted. Mr. Slaughter stated if. a variance is
not yrantc:d for outdoor work, they could not continue the outdoor work.
Commiss±oner Herbst asked if the 1976 variance could be extended and Malcolm
Slaagl~ter stated the neigtrbors could have a problem wil•h that if they moved in
without that knowledge. Greg Hastings stated the exhibit approved in 1976 did
include 2 hydraulic lifts, but it waa not advertised in that matter. He added
that. variance expirwd in 1979.
Chairman Me:~se stated the applicant should apply for another variance.
Malcolm Slaugtrter stated the Commission could api~rove this variance and then
the applicant could request. another variance. Grey Hastings responded there
old be a readvertising fee and a charge f.or the variance Eor a total of
;probably ~250.OU. Comrrrissioner Herbst explained this is a conditional. use
permit and a variance would permit the outdoor activities . He added he has no
problem with this use as long as he cont roues to clean up the property. Mr,
Ha,y~ stated he is willing to apply fora variance. Commissioner Feldhaus
stated it. is important to the petitioner to be able to work or, vehicles
outside.
Mr. Hays asked for approval subject to him paying for the readvertisement.
Malcolm Slaughter stated that would still be a violation_ Greg Hastings
stated this could be heard at the next meeting since there is no staff
evaluation.
Commissioner Feldhaus asked that Condition No. 7 be deleted in tt~e staff
report. Greg Hastings stated he was not sure whether there is outdoor storage
and Commissioner Feldhaus stated he is talking at~out the outdoor work on
vehicles.
Chairman Messe asked about the dr._~eway and Mr. Hays stated evidently the
driveway ha>; been widened as much as it can be because of the existing
equipment. in the area. Chairman Messe skated that condition should also be
modified to include approval by the City Traffic t3ngineer. Paul Singer stated
since the applicant. has indicated khe driveway has been recently
reconstructed, that condition has probably been complied with already.
Malcolm Slaughter suggested deleting that condition because if this is
approved subject to that condition, it. requires a 10-foot radius. Chairman
Messe asked that Condition No. 1 be deleted.
8/17/87
MINU'PES, ANAHEIM CITY E~LANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 17, 1987 Pad a 87-574
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas off.er~d a motion, seconded by Commissioner tierbat
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney absent) that consit9eration of the
aforementioned matter kie continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of
August 31, 1987, in order Car the matter to be ceadvertised to include outdoor
work on vehicles.
ITEM NU. 13 EIR NEGA'PIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OE CODE REQUIREMENT ANl)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMiT N0. 2937
PUBLIC NEARING OWNERS: KEf: WHAN HA AND KYUNG ,iEB HA, 3670 Wilshire Blvd.
X270, Los Angeles, CA 90010. AGENT: JUDY E. CHAIN, 1466 Winn Drive, Upland,
CA 91786. Property described as a rectangulary-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 0.8 acre located at the norttrwest corner of
Orangethorpe Avenue and Orangethorpe Park, (Srooterville, U.S.A.).
To permit khe sales and repair of motor .:rooters wil•h waiver of minimum number
of parking spaces.
Thete was no one .indicating their presence in opposition to subject rec;u es t.
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of tfie minutes.
Jr.tc3y Chain, agent, Upland, stated they searched everywhere for a proper
location and finally after working with Redevelopment, this :~~te was
selected. ,h? erolain~ d th.~ building '.here thev ~ -;~ previously located
burned and kheir business permit expire. lurir, 3-1/2 months that the
business was closet] ar9 when she applied Ec~ Business license, '.vas told
that .a conditional '. se permit would +r necessa.~ ~ narking study was
required. She stateu a r~a-king stun . 'as preE are.. tlnd submitted and this type
business should not pause any '~ype ;a'~rking problem: in the neighborhood
because these scoote~ arp small and 4 or 5 fit. into one parking space and
people usually just :;cop them off for repairs and maintenance and pick them up
when they are ready.
THE PUBLIC HEAPING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst. stated he has no problem with this use and asked if the
petitioner. has reviewed the proposed conditions and if she felt they could
comply with all the conditions. Ms. Chain responded her only question relates
to Condition No. 1 regarding gates cross driveways. She explained the school
occupies the majority of the building and the gates were installed by them.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated the existing gates are no problem and
this condition would apply to any additional gates.
Ms. Chain asked if Condition No. 5 regarding signs concerns the sign on the
structure. Chairman Messe explained that condition is to guarantee signing is
in conformance with Code and the existing sign is probably in conformance.
Commissioner Boydstun stated the sign does not appear to be oversized. Greg
Hastings stated if the sign is less than 10$ of the size of the overall wall,
it would meet Code requitement.
8/17/87
~1fi,
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 17, 1987 Page 87-575
ACT:tON: Commissioner Bouas offerec9 a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Fel~9haus and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney absent) that the Anaheim
City Planning Commission teas reviewed the proposal to permit sales and repair
of motor scooters with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.8 acres
located at the norttrwest corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Orangekhorpe Park
and further described as 1709 Orangethorpe Park; 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 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 environment.
Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Mct3ur.ney absent) thal• the Anaheim City Planning
Commission doss hereby grant waiver of minimurn nilml,er of parking spaces on the
basis that the parking waiver will nut 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, if any, will not
be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of tl~e
citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC87-161 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim Clty Planning Commission does hereby grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2937 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections
18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 anc9 subject to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolut.i.on was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MC BURNEY
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days t.o the City Council.
ITEM N0. 14 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT ANll
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2938
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: RAYMOND A MASCIEL AND CONNIE Y. ~ir.•..-.dL, 1127 West
taorth Street, Anaheim, CA 92801. AGENT: GARY MASCIEL, 420 S. Euclid,
Anaheim, CA 92807. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of approximately 0.15 acre, 1222 West Pearl Street.
To permit a 4-unit senior citizens apartment. complex with waiver of minimum
building site area per dwelling unit.
There were twelve persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject
request and although ttre staff report was not read, it is referred to and made
a part of the minutes.
8/17/87
MINU'rk;S, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONy AUGUST 17, 1987 Page 87-576
Gary Mascie'_, agent, stated they are proposing 4 senior citizen, 1-bedroom,
1-bath, single-story apartment units. fie stated ttrey di~i meet with the
property owners and they basically want the property to be maintained in a
similar use as other properties in the area and that most of the properties on
that side of the street are single sk•ory with Borne 2-story units further down
the street. He stated he proposed Rt4-1200 zoning on this property a couple of
months ago; however, he has revised the plans and is proposing these 1-bedroom
units in order to keep tt~e number of occupants down and to provide
single-story units. He explained there would be restrictions limiting the
occupants to person'; 62 years of age or older which would create less traffic
and they are creating more open space in order t.o maintain an atmosphere that
is similar to what is existing in the neighbor.hocd.
Dennis Carter, 1224 W. Pe~~r.l, stated they have no objections to having senior
citizens in the neighborhood, but do strongly object to the number of units
and added they feel there will be parking problems. tle stared they presented
a petition requesting a zone change in that area and they would request this
proposal be denied. He stated this project represents overbuilding and makes
no positive contributions ho this neighborhood which they can see.
Hazel White, 1202 Pearl, corner of Pearl and Carleton, stated the north side
of Pearl has no 2-story units; however, there are condominiums, apartments anti
4-plexes further down the street, but very suddenly there have been changes
made in this neighborhood and where there were jingle-family residences cn 50
foot by 150-foot lots, there are now 2 structures and mast. recently Mr.
Masciel has proposed these 4 units after reducing them from 2 stories to
single story, but she did not understand how 4 units could be put on a
single-family residential lot.. She stated the building will be on the
property line, and stated she thought tie is overbuilding the property and this
would make this a dif.Eerent type neighborhood and she would prefer that not be
done.
Annie Avales, 1228 Pearl Street, stated she was here before when they tried to
put in a 4-unit apartment and stated there is a parking problem in that area.
She stated she did not think this developer really has an interest in senior
citizens, but just wants to get the zone changed from RM-2400 to RM-1200 and
then would use the zone change in a manner that is really bad.
Mr. Masciel stated any development in that area, even a single-family
residence, would have to take access from the alley; and even if a duplex was
constructed, 5 parking spaces would be required with access taken from the
alley, and the open area would not be as much as he is now proposing; and with
2-bedroom units, there could be more people occupying the un~ s. Ele stated a
senior citizen complex would have less impact on the neighborhood.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst stated he did not feel the neighbors had really done their
homework, because this is a good project and wculd have less impact on the
neighborhood than a duplex; that the back-up area L•o get into a garage is far
better than some of the garages he saw as he drove down the alley; and that
four 1-bedroom senior citizen apartments would have fewer occupants and that
the units coulu not be rented to anyone other than a senior citizen who is 62
8/17/67
~T .
:,~
MLNUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PhANNING CUMMISSIQN, AUGUST_17, 1987 Page 87-577
years old. He stated the Commission has found that. a senior. citizen project
has less impact on an area than any other. use, and because they are single
story, they will fit into the neighborhood and the project. does not. deviate
very far Erorn the RM-2400 requirements. [1e explained the City is mandated by
State law to allow more units than permitted by code because the~~ ire for
senior citizens and also, senior citizen unlts are allowed in any zone.
Greg Hastings pointed out wi.tl~ the current General Plan Amendment that will be
coming before the Commission to redesignate this area to Low-Medium Density
Residential (or RM-2400), this project. would be permitted in exactly the same
manner as currently being proposed,
Commissioner 13ouas indicated co m~~~rn that before a General Plan Amendment is
even approved, someone is requestin~a a change.
Commissioner Herbst stated he is looking at the number of people who would be
living in these units and Ee1t thi:y project would have less impact on the
neighborhood than even a duplex. Commissioner i;ouas stated these property
owners do not wart more than 2 units. Chairman Messe pointe<9 out t•her.e could
be up to 8 people living in 3 units iE they were duplexes, but this project. is
for 1-bedroom units and also, une of the units will be rental a3 an affordable
unit.
Debbie Vagts stated the Housing Department has a signed agreement. for the 1
unit to be rented at 350,00 per month. Mr. Masciel stated the other units
would be rented at approxi.rnately450.00 per month.
Commissioner Carusillo stated he did nod see a problem with this request
because the density, parkin~l and access to the alley have been discussed and
those situations ~aould not change if this was an RM-2400 proposed project.
Commissioner Feldhaus asked about the petikion signea by 50 property owners.
Margaret Carter explaine~9 r.l~ey have petitioned to kiave the area redesignated
on the General plan from Medium Dsnsity to Low-Medium Density because they
felt that is the only way to prevent 2-story developments in the
neighborhood. She stated they do rot want the area overbuilt and to them,
that is what. this developer represents.
Chairman Messe stated the Commission has this application before them prior t.u
the GPA and asked what the difference would be in this proposal if that
General Plan Amendment. had already bEen approved. It was noted there would
not be any differ. ices in the variances and Chairman Messe stated 'the General
plan Amendment will protect the neighbc~rhrod and pointed out khis developer
has reduced the pr~~posal from 2 stories to 1 story and from regular apartments
to senior citizen apartments.
Ms. Carter stated they do nc-t want 4 dwelling units on that section of the
street and stated most of +.ne developments are duplexes and they feel this
will impact the neighborhood, even though to a nicer degree.
Commissioner Herbst. stated with affordable units, the developer is entitled to
a 258 density bonus. Debbie Vagts stated the State law only applies when
there are 5 or more units.
8/17/67
MINUTES, ANAHEIM r'ITY PLANNING COMMISSION, A.UGUST_17, 1987 Pale 87-578
Commissicner Herbst stated this project provides mare open space and driveway
area than would be provided wikh a duplex and the units would only Crave 1
bedroom and ttrat would help satisfy some of the City's need f.oc senior citizen
housing.
Commissioner Herbst explained sl•udies have shown that ~~nior citizen's
projects require less parking because a lot of seniors do not drive.
Commissioner Bouas asked if any of the neighbors had seen the plans and Ms.
Avales responded they object to the 4 units on this small property.
Lena Lopez, 1205 W. Pearl, asked iE the use could be ctranged from a senior
citizen apartment in the future. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney,
explained the developer will have to enter into an agreement. with the City of
Anaheim to provide the units as senior citizen units Eor a minimum of 30 years
and that the age of the occupants is restricted. Responding to Chairman
Messe, he stated a change may be possible, but he has not seen any attempt to
do that. in any of the other developments.
Commissioner Bouas stated she felt the concern was still to a 4-unil• project.
and the neighbors feel if these 4 units are allowed, that will be the start. of
a change and they do not know what will go next.
Commissioner Bouas stated she did not want t.o suggest another continuance, but
she would like for the neighbors t~ review the plans. Zhe opposition
r.rsponded "no" from ttre audience.
Mr. Masciel stated he did meet. with a couple of the neighbors and left his
business card on the door of several others. Comrr,issioner Bouas stated khis
plan is probably much better than anything else that could be developed on
this property and she would like for the neighbors to see the plans. She
stated she can understand their concern that once this is approved, everyone
else would want. more units on their property.
Commissioner Herbst stated senior citizen projects have been allowed more
density than regular apartments. lie stated this will be controlled by the
City of Anaheim and there will be a signed ayreement restricting the use to
senior citizens and the units cannot be rented to anyone other than a senior
citizen and this would add far less traffic than a duplex.
Debbie Vagts explained the owners are required to respond to the Housing
Authority when there is a vacancy, and they must allow the Anatreim Housing
Authority the first right to rent to someone ort the waiting list.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated he sees a lot of hostility from these neighbors
and that some people said they did not get notices of this hearing and there
were 50 people who signed a petition requesting a General Plan Amendment. He
stated he would like to see these people get together with the developer so
they can fully understand wh~:t the developer is trying to do. Commissioner
Carusillo agreed.
Commissioner Boydstun stated if these units are allowed, they will be
regulated and controlled and. with the restrictions, if they rent the units to
anyone other than a senior citizen, the neighbors can call the Code
Enforcement Office.
8/17/87
~~
i~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLAN NING_ COMMISSION., AUGUST 171957 Page _87-579
Malcolm Slaughter skated if there is a violation, the City can take an action
be~~ause a covenant which has been recorded against. the property was not being
complied with and the neighbors can make sure the owners comply. He stated
the City could not evict. t.l~e tenants, bul•. could take legal action against the
property owner.
Chairman Messe suggested trailing this matter until L•he end of the agenda in
order L-or the neighbors and developer to get together outside in the lobby and
review the plans.
Mary Dunlop, 1209 and 1205 Pearl Steeet•, stated the homes in this block are
older homes with smaller garage^ and 2 cars <9o not fit and tt-e overflow of
parking is on khe street. She stated senior citizen housing sounds great and
that there may not be a need for as much parking, but senior citizens do have
friends who come to visit. an~9 also some people do work at age G2 and go out
and do other khings anc} those are their concerns. She stated they don't feel
there would be adequate parking since there is a parking problem on that
street already.
Consideration of this muter was trailed until 5:00 p.m. in order for the
neighbors to rF:view the proposed plans.
At the end of the agenda, Mr. Masciel explained the neighbors still have
concerns other than the restrictions that would be imposed on the developer
and how they would be enforced; and that they are still concerned about the
traffic, and do realize that this would be a better proposal than the one
previauslY submitted, but they would still prefer a duplex.
Carmen A'illiams, 1212 w. Pearl anc7 1208 W. Pearl, stated the plans are
beautiful; however, they are against this because it is in the middle of the
block and they do not. want 4 units on that property and feel once it goes in,
others will want the same thing. She stated lye units do not look the same
and will not fit into the r-eighborhood.
Commissioner Carusillo stated he understands the neighbors' concerns and
realizes the only way these units would be allowed in this zone is because
they will be designated for senior citizens, otherwise, the zoning -vould not
allow anything this large.
Greg Hastings stated the parking requirements would be more Eor regular
apartments as well as the size of the units, therefore, the number of
variances necessary would increase. Commissioner Bouas stated the neighbors
do not want anything greater than a duplex.
Greg Hastings stated this development. would be allowed by Code as long as it
met all tt•,e requirements and Chairman Mes~e pointed out. as duplexes, it could
be rented to 8 people. Commissioner Herbst etated there could also be
teenagers living there with additional cars.
Commissioner Boydstun stated she has mixed feelings about this project, but
thought she could go along with it and Commissioner Bouas stated it looks like
one unit. from the front driving down the street.
8/17/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNrNG COMMISSION, AUGUST 17, 1987 Page 87-580
Malcolm Slaughker pointed out. the Commie^?:,~ would have to make findings
regarding the access to necessary services as required by Code and Chairman
Messe responded that report was submitted by the applicank.
Commissioner Feldhaus staked the people are concerned that someone else could
corns in and ask Eor 4 units and this could be setting a precedent and the
neighbor: response from the audience was thak that is exactly their concern.
Commissioner Herbst- stated he has beep on the Camrnission for a long time and
did look at l•he envirorment and the effect this could have on the neighborhooc'
and pointed out that any property owner ;gas the right to come in and request
anything they want on their property and this developer had requested a
4-unit, 2-story complex ~ahich was not approved and now he is askiny Eor a
single-story project and the impact on the neighborhood would be far less than
anything else.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Carusillo and hf0~PI0N CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney absent) that the Anaheim
City Planning Commission has reviewed the pcoposal to permit a 4-unit senior
citizen apartment. complex with waiver of minimum building site area per
dwelling unit on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 0.15 acre, having a frontage of approximately 5U feet on the
south side of Pearl Street, approximately 280 feet west of the centerline of
Carleton Avenue and further described as 1222 W. Pearl Street; 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 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 environment.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney absent. and Commissioner ;eldhaus voting
no) that the Anaheim City ?tanning Commission does hereby grant waiver of Code
requirement 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 Code deprives the property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the
vicinity.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-162 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2938 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections
18.03.030.030 through 18.03.0?0.035 on the basis the developer has provided
evidence as to the location of the site in relation to the proximity of
necessary services, including grocery stores, transit stops, medical
facilities and banks and subject to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES; BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, HERBST, MESSE
NOES: BOUAS, FELDHAUS,
ABSENT: MC GURNEY
8/17/87
MINUTES, ANAfiEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 17, 1987_ Page 87-581
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City At.tarneYr Fresented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision wikhin 22 days to the City Council.
After the meeting was adjourned, Ms. Carter stated the plan they had seen in
the lobby showed r.his is an RM-1200 project. Chairman Messe stated he would
make sure the resolution is clear on that issue.
ITEM N0. 15 EIR NF,GA'fIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLX APPROVFiD)~AIVER OF' CODE
REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2750 - REVISION N0. 2 (READY.)
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: SSP PROPER'CIF.S, JOHN R. SCHANT2 ET. AL, 20100
Brookhurst, Huntington Beach, CA 92646. AGENTS: LEE AND SAKAHAkA ASSOCIATES,
3190-K Airport Loop, Coeta Mesa, CA 92626. Property described ag an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.9 acres
located southeast of the int.ersect.ion of the Riverside Freeway and Imperial
Highway.
To permit a 46.3 foot t•~igh, 164-unit motel with waivers of (a) required site
screening (b) maximum structural height, (c) minimum structural setback, and
(d) minimum landscaped setback.
Chairman Me3se explained the petitioner has requested a continuance to the
meeting of August- 31, 1987.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney absent) that consideration of the
aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of
August 31, 1987, at the request of the petitioner.
ITEM N0. 16 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 11 AND VARIANCE N0. 3684
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: MON'PE VERANO COURT ASSOCIATES c/o SUMMERHILL
DEVELOPt4ENT CO., l•122 E. Lincoln Ave, Ste. 113, Orange, CA 92665 ATTN:
ELIAS JOHN GARCIA. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of approximately 4.5 acres located at the southeast corner of
Broadway and Citron Street, 610-700 West Broadway.
Waiver of maximum number and size of identification signs to construct two
entry m,~nument signs for an apartment complex.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report. was not read, i-• is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Mark Ronson, agent, was present. to answer any questions.
Austin Mougey, 502 S. Citron, asked if any of the signs would be Facing
Citron. Chairman Messe pointed out the plans showed the signs facing
Broadway. Mr. Mougey stated he did not see a need to have a sign on each side
of the driveway and the neighbors would like to keep the signs to a minimum in
that area.
8/17/87
sew
s
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CI'PY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 17,_1997 Page 87-582
Mr. Ronson stated they want traffic to be able to see the signs coming from
both directions. Fie reviewed the plans with Mr. Mousey.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSET).
Commissioner Bouas stated she thought this would make an art.ractive entrance
to this project.
It was noted the Planning Director or his authorized representative has
determined that the proposed project fal.is within the definition of
Categorical Exemptions, Class 11, as defined in the State Environmenh.al Impact
Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt Erom the requirement
to prepare an FIR.
Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC87-163 and moved Eor its passage
and adoption that. the Anaheim City Planning commission does hereby grant
Variance No. 3684 on l•he basis that. there are special circumstances applicable
to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings
which do not apply to other identii:dlly zoned property in the same vicinity;
and that strict. application of the Zoning Coc9e deprives tl~e property of
privileges enjoyed by other propertles in the identical zone and
classification in the vicinity and subject. to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by thy: fallowing vote:
AYES; BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARIJSILLO, FF.LUHAUS, HERBST, MGSSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MC BURNE~t
Malcolm Slaugt~tec, Deputy City Attorney, presented the wricten right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 17 EIR CATEGORI:AL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 AND VARIANCE N0. 3687
PUE3LIC HEARING. OWNER: F.~cNEST MARRUJO, 212 E. Windsor, Rd ~ C, Glendala, CA
91205. AGENT: ERIC CERNICH, Harbor Auto Center, 730 E1 Camino Way N200,
Tustin, CA 92680. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of approximately 4.6 acres, 2232 South Harbor (Toys R Us
Property).
To conskruct a 90 square-foot addition to a freestanding sign with waivers of
(a) business sign definition (b) maximum area of freestanding sign (c)
permitted location of Freestanding sign.
Robert Krep, agent, was present to answer any questions.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairman Messe asked about access to the parking lot. Mr. Krep stated it
appears there is no access and they will be putting in a 6-L•oot fence for
privacy.
8/17/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLAN NTNG COMMISSION, AUGUST 17, 1987 P.a a 87-58.3
it was noted the Planning Direckor or hls authorized representative has
determined khat the proposed project falls within the definition of
CategoriuidelinescandsisClLherefore~ categoaicallyc.exempt. Eromr~heereyuirerpnent
Report G
to lrepare an EIP..
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC8'1-164 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
grant Variance No. 3687 on tl~e basis that there are special circumstances
applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and
surroundings whlch i3o not apply to other identically zoned property in the
same vicinity; and that strict application of. thc~ Zoning Code 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 roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDS'CUN, CARUSILLO, FELI)fiAUS, 13ERBST, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MC BU RNF.Y
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the plar-ning Commission's decision within 22 ~9ays to the City Council.
ITEM NO. 18 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. CuNDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2741 - Request from Andrew W. Edwards
(Owner/Operator of Anaheim Hills Saddle Club) for a one year extension of
time in order to comply with the conditions of approval, property located
at 6352 F.. Nohl Ranch.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Mct3urney absent) that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve a ore-year
retroactive extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 2741, to
expire on January 6, 1988.
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2749 - Request from Richard L. Gonser, Jr•with
Rauh and Price Architects for a one-year extension of time to comply
the conditions of approval, property located at 2580 West. Orange.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst. offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney absent) that. the Anaheim
City Planning Commission does hereby grant a one-year extension of time,
retroactive to January 20, 1987, for Condi~ional Use Permit No. 2749 to
expire on January 20, 1988.
8/17/87
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CLTY PJ.ANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 17,_.1987 Page 87__584
C. CONDITIONAL USE E'ERMIT NOJ3394 - Request from Ronald Lachor for ar
ext.ensian of time in order to comply with Conditions of Approval,
property located at 3538 W. Savanna.
Ar.TION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, Heconded by Commissioner
Bouas (Commissioner McBUrney absent) t.het the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby ycant a one-year extension of time for Variance
Nn. 3384 to expiry on August. 6, 1988.
OTHER DISCUSSION:
A. Chairman Messe congcatu.lated Commissioner Herhdt Ear his award from the
American Planning Association State Ct'~apter and explained Commissioner
Herbst. would be attending a meeting on Friday in San Diego to be honored
and receive his award.
ADJOURNMENT: Ttie meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~r.
42.E%~ "`-'
Edlth L. Harris, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
E1.H : lm
0012m
6/17/87
~...e~