Minutes-PC 1993/10/18~•
ACTION AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1993, AT 11:20 A.M.
PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW PUBLIC rIEARING
(PUBLIC TESTIMONY)
11:20 A.M. 1:30 P.M.
11:00 A.M. DISCUSSION PERTAINING TO REQUIRED LANDSCAPE MP.INTENANCE BY LICENSED
ARBORISTS AS A POTENTIAL CONDITION OF APPROVAL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOYDSTUN, CALDWELL, HENNINGER, MAYER, MESSE, PERAZA
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: TAIT
STAFF PRESENT: ADAMS, BORREGO, HASTINGS, JENSEN, MANN, SANTO, SOLORIO, YALDA
PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. The proponents in applications which are not contested will have five minutes to present their
evidence. Additional time will be granted upon request k, in the opinion of the Commission, such
,~ addkicnai time will produce evidence Important to the Commission's consideration.
~..~
2. In contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each be given ten minutes to present
their case unless additional time is requested and the complexity of the matter warrants. The
Commission's considerations are not determined by the length of time a participant speaks, but
rather by what is said.
3. Staff Reports are part of the evidence deemed received by the Commi~sfon in each hearing.
Copies are available to the public prior to the meeting.
4. The Commission will withhold questions until the public hearing is closed.
5. The Commission reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing if, in its opinion, the ends of
fairness to all concerned will be served.
6. All documents presented to the Planning Commission for review In connection wkh any hearing,
including photographs or other acceptable visual representations or non-documentary evidence,
shall be retained by the Commission for the public record and shall be available for public
inspections.
7. At the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on Items of
Interest which are within the Jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, and/or agenda kerns. Each
speaker will be allotted a maximum of five (5) minutes to speak.
~~
AC101893.WP
~,~,~, ~~_ ,~/~ ~ C~~
j..
1a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved
--. ib. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved
1c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3639 Granted for 5 years
(to expire on 10-16.98)
OWNER: AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO. C/0 Uncoln Property Co., 30
Executive Park, Ste. 100, Irvine, CA 92714
AGENT: DENNIS INGRAM, 1919 S. Vermont Ave., Ste. 600, Torrance,
CA 90502
LOCATION: 385 Norlh Muller Street. Property is approximately 1.66 acres
located on the west side of Muller Street and approximately
1,310 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Ave.
To permit a 13,400-square foot church with waNer of minimum number of
parking spaces.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC93-113
FOLLOWING IS A SUiAMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
PETITIONERS COMMENTS:
Dennis Ingram, 1979 S. Vermont Ave., Ste. 600, Torrance, stated he Is representing the Korean
Pentecostal Church. The church has spent approximately one year looking for a location in the
centre) Orange County vicinity. They were particularly impressed wfth this facility because ft laid
out uniquely for their operation. They would like to operate the church for business purposes
during normal business hours of the week. They have meetings on Wednesday and Friday
evenings, and service on Sunday mornings and evenings. He contacted various tenants in the
immediate vicinity and found that they occupy no more than five parking spaces on Saturdays
end Sundays. He stated he is referring to the three addftional tenants in the neighborhood.
~...i
He stated the church has approximately one hundre~! members at the present time and will have
minimal impact on the neighborhood. During normal business hours they might have five cars
parking on their location and would merely be for administrative office use.
OPPOSITION: None
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Bcydstun asked how long is their Iease7
Mr. Ingram answered they are requesting a five year lease wfth a five year option to extend.
i
Commissioner Boydstun asked if ft would be satisfactory to permft this use for five years. j
10/18/93
Page 2 ,
's,
Mr. Ingram asked ff they would have a review at that time.
~~ Commissioner Boydstun answered yes and added they could roquest an extension at that time.
Mr. Ingram stated that would be satisfactory.
Selma Mann, City Attorney, stated ff a condRional use permft is approved for five years, h will
expire at that point. The applicant could then come In and apply for a new condfflonal use
permk at the end of the flue years.
ACTION: Approved CE~A Negative Declaration
Approved Waiver of Code Requirement
Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3639 for 5 years (to expire on 10/18/98)
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Tait absent)
<, ~~
10/18/93
~../ Page 3
2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved
2b. RECLASSIFICATION N0.93-9403 Granted
2c. AMENDMENT TO SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD ACCESS POINT STUDY. Granted
EXHIBIT N0.7
OWNERS: CITY OF ANAHEIM, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805
AND
C. ROBERT LONGSLET & SONS INC., P.O. Box 14478, Lang
Beach, CA 90803
LOCATION: Abortion of the S.A.V.I. Canal. Request to amend Exhibit No. 7
of the Santa Ana Canyon access point study to provide access to
property located at 6270 East Santa Ana Canyon Road.
To reclassify subject property from the RS-A-43000 (SC) Zone to the CL (SC)
Zone.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0. PC93-114
ACCESS POINT RESOLUTION N0. PC93.115
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
CONCERNED PARTY: 3 (1 of them spoke)
Norman Barsky, 6277 Rio Grande, stated he and two of his neighbors present here today own
properties that directly overlook this property. They want to know what the future pians are for the
south section of the Savi Canal, the hiking trail. They are concerned because they don't want it
to be turned Into a construction site driveway. They would like to know what tho building plans
are. Several of the homeowners have asked to purchase that property in the past and the City of
Anaheim said it is not for sale.
He stated they know that is not the property that is in question today, but they want to make sure
h does not go up for sale In the future and, ff it does, they would like to be the first ones to be able
to buy it.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Henninger asked Mr. Barsky ff his coskern was that the trail be maintained as a trail
or a view.
Mr. Barsky answered yes. Ha stated the trail has access to Bell Grande Drive where trucks could
go in and out. Obviously, this would be an easy route for construction crew to go through and
that is what they are against.
10/18/93
~ Page 4
Commissioner Henninger asked Mr. Barsky when he said that they wanted to purchase the land
that abuts their lots, what were the plans for ft?
Mr. Barsky answered to leave ft like ft is.
Commissioner Henninger clarified that they were going to maintain a public hiking trail ff they were
to buy ft and Mr. Barsky agreed.
Mr. Barsky added he is not talking about the land that is in question today. He stated they would
like that hiking trail to be maintained by the Cfty, but if the City has plans to sell ft to somebody
for construction then they would be Interested.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Jonathan Borcego, Senior Planner, stated they have some information regarding the future use of
the remaining portion of the canal. It is the intont of the person who initiated this application to
combine the western half of the canal with the property to the west which is where a previously
proposed shopping center was denied. He stated his conversations with that person indicate that
he is going to attempt to build a commercial building on the sfte which would conform to Code
requirements. He stated ft they cannot meet those Code requirements or ff they request a type
of use that requires a condftlonal use permft the applicant would come back before the Planning
Commission for a public hearing.
Richard Santo, Senior Real Property Agent, stated the piece of land t!iey are talking about was part
of a prior abandonment. Half of the property was part of an old Savi relinquishment and the other
half went to use market In 1982. This particular piece of land Is property the City kept and had no
intention of using ft so they abandoned ft and sold ft to Mr. Brown. He stated there is an
equestrian and hiking trail that is at the bottom of that place that continues back to Rio Grande
Drive.
Commissioner Boydstun asked where does the trail come from?
Mr. Santo responded ft starts south of the easement and then ft goes off to the east and then south
to Rio Grande Drive.
Commissioner Henninger clarified that the trail does not go down this part of the old Savl
easement, ft turns a comer and goes behind those houses.
Commissioner Boydstun stated the people in the audience want to know ff there would be a way
that that piece of property could be sold off or be able to be used for a construction road with the
trail there.
Mr. Santo answered absolutely not.
Commissioner Masse stated there was some Interest by the property owners that the City abandon
that other piece of property and maybe they would buy ft.
i
Mr. Santo stated that Is not possible because ft is a continuation of the equestrian/hiking trail. ~
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
10/18/93
~ Page 5
~e
..
ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration
Granted Reclassftication No. 93.94-03
Granted Amendment to Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Point Study, Exhibft No. 7
Note: Council review required for Amendment to Santa Ana Canyon Road Access
Point Study
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Taft absent)
'»
~ 10/18/93
Page 6
3a CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Previously Approved
3b. rONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3278 Readvertised
OWNER: EL VEE, INC., Attn: Paul Bostwick, 200 W. Midway Dr.,
Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 200 West Midwav Drive. Property is approximately 6.65
acres located on the southwest corner of Midway Drive and
Zeyn Street.
To permft an expansion to an existing mobile home/trailer park for an
ultimate total of 189 recreational spaces.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
Continued to
November 1, 1993
------------------------------------------------------------
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Continued subject request to the November 1, 1993 Planning Commission meeting
in onier to advertise three (3) code waivers pertain(ng to the proposed recreational
vehicle spaces.
VOTE: 6.0 (Co:nm(ssioner Tait absent)
,...~A
~.
10/18/93
~ Page 7
4. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3573 - REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND Approved sign
APPROVAL OF A SIGN PROGRAM FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CAR program
WASH: Elvin L Whipple (owner) requests review and approval of a sign program 6-0 (Commissioner
for a previously approved car wash. Property is located at 201 E. Ball Road. Taft absent)
Tim Bundy, architect, stated k was brought to their attention by the Planning Took no action
Department that they had made some minor changes to the exterior of the building due to non-
from the designer view approved package to what they have now m the proposed conformance of
permit package. He brought a small model that describes the massing of the originally approved
building to help visualize what he is talking about. Originally, the tunnel roof was plans
out of a standing ceiling metal roof and what they are proposing now is a
monolithic roof system. It is a three ply roof with a final coat that is a contirn~ous
surface and has grayish reflective color.
He stated the other Issue is the portion of the building that pops out. He stated it
was originally proposed to be out of wood frame and stucco and they changed
that to keep with the rest of the building which is concrete block.
Commissioner Messe asked if he changed the block itself.
Mr. Bundy stated they had originally specified a split face system and they are now
proposing a rrecision block with a light sandblast finish on it. This gives a surface
that can much easier be treated for anti•graffiti.
Commissioner Mayer asked K they are changing the block because of an anti-
graffiti coating they are going to put on ft?
Mr. Bundy answered that is part of it, but also because of an aesthetic look.
Commissioner Caldwell stated you changed the roof, the block and the structural
materials of the office area. What was the reason?
Mr. Bundy answered they changed it for economic reasons and to be able to treat
the block with an ant(-graffiti coating.
Commissioner Caldwell asked if the roof was changed for that same reason.
Mr. Bundy answered the roof was changed primarily for economical reasons.
Commissioner Caldwell stated so the change in the block on main building in the
office was strictly for graffiti treatment.
Mr. Bundy stated the change from the split face to that is correct. He stated they
changed the office material because of a maintenance issue and also because of
economic reasons.
Commissioner Henninger asked what size is the block you are proposing on this
building?
10/70/93
t'age S
Mr. Bundy answered ft is a standard eight Inch by eight inch by sixteen inch
concrete block.
Commissioner Mayer stated graffiti coating can be applied to almost any surface
successfully. It can go over rock, brick and a lot of materials.
Mr. Bundy stated they talked to several paint companies and found that graffiti
coating can be applied to any surface, but the actual maintenance is different. He
stated split face surface may require sandblasting to remove graffltl, whereas wfth a
smoother finish there is the ability to wipe ft off much easier.
Commissioner Caldwell asked ff they are going to paint the building.
Mr. Bundy responded k will have a clear anti-graffftl coating on it.
Commissioner Boydstun asked what color block are you going to use?
Mr. Bundy responded a standard gray.
l'
Commissioner Caldwell stated, in his opinion, they have compromised the look of
the original plans which was not all that great to begin wfth. He stated he was not
on the Commission at the time it was approved. He does not Ifve too far from
there. He would prefer that they keep the standing ceiling roof because k is more
aesthetically pleasing. The splft face block is also more pleasing. He feels they
are compromising the look of the building. He stated we are in a real struggle on
our part of town to upgrade the way ft looks. They have compromised the
overlook of that structure.
Commissioner Henninger stated he was on the Commission when they approved
this use and he remembers this as being a difficult she. He was not sure about
voting yes for it. Part of the things that overcame that and convinced him to vote
yes was the look of the building and he does not think they have Improved ft with
these proposals. His sense is that they agreed to build k according to the plans
that they submftted and that is what they should do.
Commissioner Peraza stated that is his feeling also. That is how they approved it
and that is how it should be build.
Commissioner Masse stated they have approved a plan that they would like to see
completed so they do not need to take any further action at this hem.
Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated for the benefft of the applicant, the only
way to revise the exhibits that were previously approved would be to come back
before the Planning Commission as a public hearing item.
10/18/93
Page 9
B. a. CEOA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061 Recommended
b. PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO adoption of draft
NOTICE AND HEARING DATES ordinance to
City Council
Requested by Planning Department Staff. 6-0
(Commissloner
Taft absent)
C. a. CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061
b. REVISED SUPPLEMENT TO PETITION AND PETITION FORMS FOR
RECLASSIFICATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS VARIANCES AND
TENTATIVE TRACT/PARCEL MAPS
Requested by Planning Department Staff.
Approved
6-0
(Commissloner
Taft absent)
D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 599 -REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Terminated
Randal L Whipple and Eivin L Whipple request termination of Conditional Use 6-0
Permit No. 599 (to establish a hofbrau with on•sale beer). Property Is located at (Commissioner
201 E. Ball Rd. Taft absent)
TERMINATION RESOLUTION N0. PC93-116
ADJOURNMENT:
The Anaheim City Planning Commission adjourned their regularly scheduled meeting of October 18, 1993 at
2:00 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of November 1, 1993 at 10:00 a.m, for a tour of the Canyon
Area relative to directional signs and a tour of the Auto Center located in the vicinity of Ball Road and the 57
Freeway.
10/18/93
Page 10
,~