Minutes-PC 1994/09/07
ACTION AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1994
r'~'~
:..
11:00 A.M. - PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW
(NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY ACCEPTED)
1:30 P.M. - PUBLIC HEARINGS BEGIN (PUBLIC TESTIMONY)
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOYDSTUN, CALDWELL, HENNINGER, MAYER, PERAZA,
TAIT
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: MESSE
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 ff, in the opinion of the Commission,
such additional 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 uni6~s additional time is requested and the compiexfty 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 Commission 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 ff, in fts opinion, the
ends of fairness to all concerned will be served.
6. All documents presented to ..._ Planning Commission for review in connection with
any hearing, inch iding photographs or other acceptable visual representations or
non-documentar. evidence, shall be retained by the Commission for the public
record and shall t. 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 items. Each speaker will be allotted a maximum of five (5) minutes to
speak.
AC09W94.WP
~~
/'^.
(~
i ~
1a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
1c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3685
OWNER: EUCLID SHOPPING CENTER, 2293 W. Ball Road,
Anaheim, CA 92804
AGENT: FANCHER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, 1342 Bell Avenue,
Ste 3-k, Tustin, CA 92680
LOCATION: 1600 West Katella Avenue. Property is approximately
18.6 acres located at the southeast corner of Katella
Avenue and Euclid Street.
To permit a 1,989 square foot drive through restaurant wfthin an existing
commercial retail center wfth waiver of minimum number of parking
spaces and minimum landscape setback adjacent to a residential zone
boundary.
Continued from the June 1, June 27, and August 8, 1994, Planning
Commission meetings.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
Continued to
September 19, 1994
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
INTERESTEL' PARTY:
Nina Ray. She stated a contimiation to September 19, 1994 is alright wfth them. She
did not state for the record what her position was, i.e., for or against the protect or
whether she was representing the applicant.
NATION:
Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mayer
(Commissioner tdesse absent and Commissioner Taft abstained) and MOTION CARRIED
that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled
meeting of September 19, 1994, in order for the applicant to prepare additional
information addressing the Planning Commission's previously stated concerns related to
the location of the drive-through lane.
- ~;,.
~sI
09/7/94
Page 2
tt
x
t.r ~
2a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
2b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 93-9411
2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3887
OWNER: WILLIAM TAORMIhlA, P.O. BOX 309, Anahelm, CA 92815
AGENT: DAVID STOLL, 327 N. Anahelm Blvd., Anaheim, CA 9_^.805
LOCATION: 423 North Anahelm Boulevard. Property is approxlmateiy 1.08
acres located un the southwest comer of Anahelm Boulevard and
Sycamore Street.
Reclassification from the CG and PD-C Zones to the CL Zone.
To permit a bicycle racing track wffh accessory uses, includ(ng a retail area,
concession stand, and picnic area.
Continued from Juna 13, July 11, and August 8, 1994 Planning Commission
meetings.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
Continued to
September 19, 1994
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES.
OPPOSITION: 1
OPPOSITION'S CONCERNS:
Esther Viljak. She swt~d she would be or a business trip that is Company mandated.
She explained starting the 19th through OctoF3r 3rd. Sho added she wrote a letter to
the Planning Commission yesterday.
DISCUSSION:
Chaiwoman Boydstun stated they have a problem that there is no meeting on October
17th and they have to stay wfthin the time Ilmits. She asked Mr. McCafferty ff they were
able to get hold of the applicant?
Mr. McCafferty stated he ~:alled Dave Stohl this morning and he has not resumed his
phone call. Fie added he explalned the situation to him on the his voice mail.
Chairwoman Boydstun stated they will continue ff to the 19th and ff they can work it out
with the applicant they could just continue ff again. She added until :hey contact the
applicant they cannot do that due to the time Iimitatlons.
09/7/94
Page 3
Mrs. Stohl, mother of Davld Stohl and also representing Mr. Taormina. She stated the
n report they requested wlll be fumed in to them tomorrow and the City will receive the
sound study report at the beglnning of next week. She stated the two weeks is all they
need in crder for the Commission and staff to go over it. She explained Mr. Stohi was
home very III today and that is why they were unable to contact him.
k~)
Chairwoman Boydstun stated this will gNe them an opportunity for them to speak with
him and see if they can go to the 31st.
ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Mayer (Commissioner Messe absent and Commissioner Tak abstained) and MOTION
CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned ma!?~r be continued to the
regularly-scheduled meeting of September 19, 1994, in order for the petitioner to
complete and submit the requested noise study for staff's review.
Commissioner Caldwell assured Ms. VilJak that the items she brought to the
Commission's attention previously will be considered very strongly.
i
09j7/94
Pag9 4
;~
3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
3b. VARIANCE N0.4256
OWNER: R.H. SIEGLE, 919 E. South Street, Anaheim, CA 92805
AGENT: PHILLIP R. SCHWARTZE, 31682 EI Camino Reai, San Juan
Capistrano, CA 92678
LOCATION: 919 E. South Street. Property is approximately 3.6 acres located
at the northwest comer of South Street and Rose Street.
Waiver of dedication and Improvements for Ten: hive Parcel Map No. 91-164.
Continued from the July 25, 1994 Planning Commission meeting.
VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. PC94118
Approved
Granted
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
Charwoman Boydstun declared a conflict of Interest as defined by Anaheim Clty
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of Interest Cade for the
Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., in that Mr. SlaY,le has
aided in her campaign for City Council, and pursuant to the provisions of the above Codes,
~"~ declared to the Chairman that he was withdrawing from the hearing in connection with
~ Variance No. 4256, and would not take part in either the discussion or the voting thereon and
had not discussed this matter with any member of the Planning Commission. Thereupon
Chairwoman Boydstun ieft the Council Chamber.
it is noted by the Secretary that the meeting was then turned over to Commissioner Taft,
Chairman Pro Tempore.
PETITIONER:
Glenn Hellyer, agent for the applicant, 1225 W. Lincoln, Anaheim, CA. He stated the
applicant has read the staff report and is in agreement with the conditions.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Henninger stated they have worked on this for some time and ft has been
through some continuances and it seems like the conditions have finally gotten into the
right state.
09/7/94
Page 5
!~` ACTIC'N:
c
Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell and i
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent and Chairwoman Boydstun declared a
Conflict of Interest) to approve the CEOA Negative Declaration (findings in Paragraph 9
of the staff report).
Commissioner Henninger stated the recommendation relates to changing conditions on
the Tentative Parcel Map. He asked if that meant they did not need the variance?
Cheryl Flores, Associate Planner, stated they will need approval of the Variance to
change the conditions.
Commissioner Henninger asked Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, ff she agreed with
that?
Ms. Mann explained what is being waived is the time that the dedication and the
improvements will need to be done, so it is really a deferral. She stated it would need to
be an approval of the waiver to the extent that it Is a deferral of the decision relating to
dedication. She added Just so it is clear that approval of the waiver does not waNe the
City's ability to come in later on and have the dedication Improvements provided that
the nexus argument can be made.
Commissioner Henninger stated for clarification they are approving this waiver because
at the current time there is not a use being proposed on this site which requires these
Improvements and that they are preserving the ability to require these Improvements if
they become needed through a change In use of this sRe.
~*~
~ ~ ACTION CONTINUED:
Commissioner Henninger offered Resolution No. PC94-118 to grant Variance No. 4256
(Commissioner Messe absent and Chairwoman Boydstun declared a Conflict of Interest).
Findings in Paragraph 10 of the staff report.
VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Messe absent and Chairwoman Boydstun declared a Conflict of
Interest)
1
09/7/94
Page 6
,~
ia.
4a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3710
Continued to
October 31, 1994
OWNER: TEXACO REFINING & MARKETING INC., Attn: Doug Elston,
P.O. Box 7812,
Universal City, CA 91608-7812
AGENT: FRED FIEDLER AND ASSOC, Attn: Patrick Fiedler, 2322 W.
Third St., Los Angeles, CA 90057
LOCATION: 3080 East La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 0.91
acre located at the southwest comer of La Palma Avenue and
Kraemer Boulevard.
To permit an automotive service station with an accessory automated car wash,
convenience market, and drive-through restaurant (wfth no seating) with waivers
of permitted signs, minimum number of parking spaces, minimum side yard
setback, minimum rear yard setback, required landscaping, and minimum dfire
through lane requirements.
Continued from the August 22, 1994 Planning Commission maeting.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
,a-~
~~ a
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION:
Commissioner Henninoar offered a motion, soconded by Commissioner Mayer and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent and Commissioner Tait abstained) that
consideration of tF.a aforementioned matter be continued to the regulady-scheduled
meeting of October 31, 1994, in order to readvertise subject request..
09/7/94
Page 7
r~
5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Approved
5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved, in part
5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3703 Granted, in part
OWNER: SIDNEY E. LEWIS FAMILY TRUST, Attn: John 0. Frankl(n, 6375 East
Tanque Verde Dr., Tucson, AZ 85751
AGENT: LEWIS R. SCHMID, 1725 S. Douglass Rd., Ste. C, Anaheim, CA
92806
LOCATION: 2810-20 Eest Katella Avenue. Property Is approximately 1.32
acres located south and east of the southeast comer of Katella
Avenue and Douglass Road.
To permft a 22,000-square foot planned unft commercial shopping center
including a 14,000-square foot semi-enclosed restaurant wfth on-premise sale
and consumption of beer and wine with waiver of (a) minimum landscape
requirements, (b) required parking lot landscaping and (c) minimum number of
parking spaces.
Continued from the August 8, 1994 Planning Commission meeting to readvertise
for parking waiver.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC94119
~ "~ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER:
Lewis R. Schmid, 1725 S. Douglass Road, Anaheim, CA, the owner and applicant of
subject property. He stated the last time they were before the Commission he was
Informed that the adjacent parking needed to be advertised since ft was only parking for
part time during the day.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Henninger addressed staff and stated that ft seems that this development
is dependent on tha adjacent parking agreement and asked ff the parking agreement
would need to be recorded?
09f7%94
Paps d
i
Mr. Hastings stated staff would recommend an amendment to Condftion No. 1 that
!^, would tie ft down more precisely. The suggested wording is as follows: "That the Code
required parking shall be available for subject property. If parking is to be provided on
the adjacent County owned property, a parking agreement approved by the City
Attorney's Office between the property owner and the County of Orange guarantee a
minimum of the Code required amount of parking spaces shall be recorded and
submitted to the Zoning Division. This conditional use permit shall only be effective
provided the Code required parking is available and that this would be a recorded
agreement subject to the approval of the City Attorney's Offce.'
Commissioner Henninger stated the concept is that they are providing enough parking
for a restaurant in the main facility and then General Commercial use in the accessory
spaces. He stated the main use is the subject of this CUP and they have described this
use in the CUP itself and the list of uses In the accessory buildings that are accessory
spaces wouid be the subject of this list in Attachment No. 5. He stated ff that is the
case, some of the uses listed In Attachment 5 really are not consistent with the Generai
Commercial concept that was talked about in the staff report. He asked staff ff they had
a chance to look at the Iist7
Mr. Hastings stated basically the list of uses reflects most uses in a Commercial Limited
Zone. He stated there are some uses which the Commission may take a close look at
as to whether they would be appropriate at this location and perhaps ask the applicant if
those uses could be modified or removed from the list.
Commissioner Henninger suggested they remove the following uses: Fool related sales
& Preparation & Distribution; Medical Clinics; Restaurant and/or Fast Food
Establishment; Motorcycle Sales & Service; Car Rental Agency & Auto Sales; Micro
Brewery Saes & Distribution wfth Restaurant; Sports Bar & Restaurant; Pool Hall (high
end); Medicai Rehabilitation Center; Dental Office and Doctor's Office. He stated these
are all high parking requirement uses that are not consistent with the proposal that is
before them.
Chairwoman Boydstun asked what about under Retail Supply Stores which Include
Hardware and Pet Shops?
Commissioner Henninger stated from a parking point of view he thought they would be
o.k., but they may not fit in with the theme. He stated he would like to strike Hardware
and Pet Shop out of that list. He asked the applicant what he thought of the
amendment to the list.
Mr. Schmid stated he thought they had enough parking for a food related business and
they could have another small shop such as a Coffee Shop along wfth the Sports Bar
which is a Micro Brewery with food. He stated the building at 2620 (the far east end of
the property) has been used for medical for some time and vacated 2 years ago when
he took over the property. He has no problems with Pool Halls. He explained most of
this was taken from tha City's Ordinance,
Commissioner Henninger stated Medical requires a high parking ratio and he has not
provided the parking for that, therefore, it is inconsistent with the proposal.
09/7/94
Page 9
Mr. Schmid stated he has no problem dropping the Medical.
,^
Commissloner Henninger asked staff ff they thought the applicant had enough parking
for a Coffee or Donut Shop?
Alfred Yaida, Traffic Engineering, stated ff they have less than 10 customer seats, the
parking would be 5.5 per 1,000, therefore, it could fall under Retail Stores.
Commissioner Henninger asked Mr. Yaida if they modify Food Reiated Sales &
Preparation & Distribution by saying "with up to 10 customer seats"?
Mr. Yaida agreed.
Commissioner Mayer asked if the Bakery (Donut Shop) had the same criteria?
Commissioner Henninger indicated he thought K did.
Chairwoman Boydstun asked about the Hardware Store and Pet Shop. Traffic was her
main concern.
Commissioner Henninger stated he thought those would be o.k.
A discussion took place regarding striking the Sports Bar & Restaurant off the list. The
applicant agreedt.
Commissioner Henninger stated they will amend Food Related Sales & Preparation &
Distribution to Include a statement that says it is limited to facllfties wfth up to 10 seats
for customers.
~'
He stated he wanted to make ff clear that the list dictates the uses that can be had in
the accessory spaces at this center. He stated the main space, which is the subject of
the CUP, is the Micro Brewery and restaurant.
Mr. Schmid asked ff they would reconsider the small coffee shop? He asked them to
reconsider.
Cormissioner Henninger stated he did not think he had the parking for that.
Mr. Yaida stated ff it is up to 10 customer seating capacity the parking requirement is
5.5 per 1,000 and ff it is more than 10 the parking ratio goes to B per 1,000. Further
discussion took place.
Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissloner Masse absent) to approve the CEQA Negative
Declaration (findings in Paragraph 14 of the staff report).
Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Masse absent) to approve Waiver of Code
Requiramsnt in part; that waiver (a) and (b) were denied as they were deleted following
public notification and that Waiver (c) be approved (findings in Paragraph No. 24).
09/7/94
~ Page 10
Commissioner Henninger Offered Resolution No. PC94-119 to grant Condftional Use
Permit No. 3703 (Commissioner Messe absent) subject to Interdepartmental Committee
recommended conditions (findings in Paragraph No. 25, page 7 of the staff report). e
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Approved, in part, Waiver of Code Requirement
Waivers (a) and (b) were deleted following public notffication.
Granted, in part, Condftional Use Permft No. 3703 with the following changes
to conditions:
Modified Condition No. 1 to read:
1. That the code required parking shall be available for subject property. If
parking is to be provided on the adjacent County owned property, a
parking agreement (approved by the City Attorney's Office) between the
property owner and the County of Orange (guaranteeing a minimum of
the code required amount of parking spaces) shall be recorded and
submitted to the Zoning Division. This Condftional use permft shall only be
effective, provided the code required parking is available.
Added the following Condition:
The following list contains the accessory uses that shall be permitted for the
planned unit commercial shopping center:
a. Cellular service and/or distribution
`' ' b. Bakery, sales and/or preparation and distribution Iimfted to facilfties with
up to ten customer seats
c. Food related sales and preparation and distribution limited to tacilfties
with up to ten customer seats
d. Clothing and apparel sales and distribution and/or assembly
e. Confectionery and/or candy store
f. Photo store
g. Photography studio
h. Coin shop
f. Sporting goods store or related type
J. Sports related paraphernalia or collectibles sales and assembly and/or
distribution
(L(st of uses continued on following page)
09/7/94
Page 11
(Continuation of list of uses)
~.
~ k. Ticket agency
I. Travel
m. Hobby shop
n. Jewelry sales, distribution and/or assembly
o. Interior design or related use (tile, bath accessories, etc.)
p. Retail supply stores including but not limited to vehicle accessories and
parts, books, hardware, pet shop, toys
q. Rental services
r. Athletic shoes sales and distribution
s. Recreational type store -exercise equipment, etc.
t. Aquatic related sales, services and/or distribution
u. General off(ce use
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Messe absent)
~'y,.
ti. ,
4
1
i
~..
fE
i
i
"~~..
as/~/sa
Page 12
s
a
6a. CEOA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Approved
sb. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved
6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3716 Granted
OWNER: LEWIS R. SCHMID, 1725 S. Douglass Road, Anaheim, CA 92806
AGENT: JASON SCHMID, 1725 S. Douglass Road, Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 1725-1751 South Douglass Road. Proporty is approximately 3.2
acres locate on the west side of Douglass Road and
approximately 448 feet south of the centerline of Katella Avenue.
To permit an automobile parking lot for event parking purposes with waivers of
minimum landscape setback abutting a freeway right-of-way, minimum layout
and design of vehicular parking spaces and accessways and minimum parking
lot landscaping.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC94120
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
~'~' PETITIONER:
Lewis R. Schmid, 1725 S. Douglass Road, Anaheim, CA 92806. He stated they are in
agreement with the exception of two hems that staff has recommended. He referenced
Condition No. 14, page 8 of the staff report and stated he would like to modify that
condition. He stated in Iteu of fencing they would like to install large boulders which
would keep the cars from entering the parking lot other than the regular Ingress/egress.
He thought it would look better than what they originally came up with.
He referenced item no. 26, page 7 of the staff report. He explained staff was not totally
aware that LA. Fitness will be selling parking spaces as they have in the last year for
Arena events. He stated there are two reasons for this: 1) They cannot get their
patrons in and out; and during the week, at certain times during events, the Arena is
very congesteJ and sometimes they close oft Douglass Street. He has been impacted
greatly and subsequently thay thought they could use this as a parking lot and hopefully
not lose the amount of money they have been losing in their center since the Arena
went in. He stated they simply cannot keep people in there-they are short termers. He
has letters stating that people cannot get (n and out of that area for purposes of their
use which is industrial and office, therefore, they have come up with this concept as a
parking lot.
He stated L.A. fitness will be leasing these 111 parking spaces from him which they will
use for their members as they do not have enough parking right now. Howover, they
have told him they will close at 6:OOp.m. on Friday and Saturday nights and lease the
09/7/94
Page 13
spaces out or take parking fees to offset the present loss they arb experiencing. He is
~ asking the Commission to take a hard look at this item, I.e., the lack of waiver that staff
has put on this parking lot whereby they have to come up wfth their various landscape
design for the 111 spaces.
He stated it does not make sense to him-he simply cannot do ft. He stated this is not a
threat, this Is just the way ft is and he has told staff and everyone else this is a condtion
on their lease. He explained ff they do not execute a lease they still will not be doing ft
even ff it should be approved here today and then by the City Council.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
DISCUSSION:
Chairwoman Boydstun asked if he could move the handicap spaces up where ft is close
to the front Instead of it being clear at the back where people have to walk an extra 750
feet?
Mr. Schmid stated he did not see why not and added k was alright with him.
Commissioner Caldwell stated ft was his understanding that he did not want to put in
landscaping and do the parking lot to Code, i.e., to the same Code that they hold other
parking lot developers in the Ciry because he cannot afford to do ft or ft does not make
sense?
Mr. Schmid stated he could afford to do ft. He could piobably hind the Cfty a million
dollars, but his property has already been devaluated approximately two million dollars
by the Ciry putting In the Arena and that is a fact. It comes down to good business
sense-he simply is not going to do it. They asked the City to allow them to go to 8-foot
'• Y ` wide spaces and they said no, so they lost 35 spaces. He stated he did not know about
this condition until Monday and ft was quite a surprise to him.
Commissioner Caldwell stated he thought he should put in the landscaping and provide
the trees. He explained they hold other property owners to this also. He further
explained he is here to see to ft that this piece of properly is developed to Code unless
there are some extreme circumstances which he did not think this piece of property
qualifies for.
Mr. Schmid thought there was. He stated he has been impacted tremendously whereby
his property has been devaluated by approximately two million dollars. He has gone to
the City regarding this and they voted 5-0 to disclaim any liability. He has preserved his
legal rights by doing that. He has tried to work with the Ciry. The Traffic Impact report
that was submitted is erroneous as ft did not even mention impacting his property. He
explained since that time he has tried to resolve this matter and he has had to spend
$7,200 for a traffic report. He stated in addition he had to pay the City an additional
$2,200 to read it.
09/7/94
Page 14
Commissioner Henninger stated he heard this morning that Mr. Schmid told staff that he
!'~ would not provide a planter around them, but that he would asphalt them and leave a
tree well. He asked if that was correct?
Mr. Schmid stated that was incorrect. He stated he spoke with Greg Hastings and they
are planning on putting in a "V" whereby you end up with a small planter to house the
tree.
Commissioner Henninger asked for clariflcatlon ff he w2s speaking about up against the
freeway?
Mc Schmid states against the property Tine.
Commissioner Henninger asked how big the "V" would be?
Mr. Schmld explained that is something that he would work out with the Planning
Department.
Mr. Hastings stated the only thing they determined is that h would be far less than 5
feet, but did not know how much less, so it would not encroach Into the parking spaces.
He explained this would be using the existing plan with the parking spaces and aisle
widths. He further explained the way they are ff would not leave very much room. i le
added he was not sure what the dimensions would be.
I
Commissioner Henninger stated it seems if you scale the drive aisle next to the freeway, I
it gets fairly narrow in some places. He added ff scales at 9.5 feet.
;-' i Mr. Schmid stated they could add a condition because it will be 10 feet or better. j
Commissioner Henninger asked including where it is measured from these landscaped !'
areas where the trees are going to be? ~
Mr. Schmid explained they have grouped the trees, however, they are not exactly every
20 feet. He stated for example, they have the trees every 17 feet so they line up on the
white lines that dissect each parking space.
Commissioner Henninger asked why he has proposed to make a separate parking area
for LA. fitness? He asked ff it would be Just as easy and a little more efficient and
Improve his parking yield ff he had this whole lot as a single lot and he just leased them
an area out of it?
Mr. Schmid stated they would have to monitor it. He explained this way it is their
responsibility as tar as monitoring their own people. He elaborated.
Mr. Schmid stated this will reduce the cost to the City to some degree by having 2
Policemen out thereto allow their people to get In and out of the development. He
added it is very costly.
Commissioner Henninger aske•,1 staff ff they landscaped this the way they normally
rjesire, how many trees would they have on the site?
09/7/94
Page 15
Ms. Flores stated Code would require approximately 46 trees based on one tree for
~~""~ every 3,000 square feet of lot area.
Commissioner Henninger asked how many trees were they proposing?
Mr. Hastings stater! he believed the reports indicate 48 trees. He stated he thought what
was not being complied with was the square footage of the landscaped area that needs
to go with each tree. He added there Is 48 square feet of planter area required per tree.
Mr. Hastings stated that is approximately 2,500 square feet of landscaping not counting
the front setback area which is a completely different requirement.
Commissioner Henninger stated they are going to have some landscaping and some "V"
planter areas for each of the trees and there also appears to be some spaces in the
parking area that could have some landscaping.
Mr. Schmid stated there really is not ff you take Into consideration the speFd parking
and exiting which fouls it all up. He stated they studied that at great length. He stated
they have an excessive amount of landscaping along Douglass and it looks much nicer
than anything the City has put in.
Commissioner Henninger asked staff if they have taken that into account?
Mr. Hastings explained that is ccnsidered a different calculation and that complies with
Code. He further explained that the setback area is required to have a certain number
of trees and a certain amount of landscaping that complies. He stated the second
portion of the landscape ordinance requires a certain amount of landscaping for the
'`? Interior parking lot.
Commissioner Tait stated he was not so ccncemed about the landscaped area as the
tree count and the tree count is above. He added he is more concerned along
Douglass which looks good. He added to him what they proposed makes Dense.
Commissioner Henninger stated they have asked for a change in moving the
handicapped spaces and they have a commitment regarding these aisle widths and also
regarding some planters for the trees. He stated he would like to see this on the plan.
He stated they could bring bark a plan with Reports and Recommendations.
Commissioner Tait stated they are talking about some minor adjustments such as the
tree wells alony the freeway.
Chairwoman Boydstun stated :Ise get the handicapper) parking moved and that they do
have a 10-foot aisle as clearance. She added they could see that under Reports and
Recommendations.
Mr. Hastings stated if they decide to approve this today, then a Report and
Recommendation item could come back showing actual landscape plans and the final
parking layout fully dimensioned which would need to be dons anyway prior to them '~
doing the striping and paving of the lot.
09/7/94 ~
Page 16
~2
{
Commissioner Caldwell stated they are still agreeing wfth Mr. Schmid that L A. Fitness
~ is a speed parking situation and does not need to be held under scrutiny like the lot for
the parking on the adjacent lot. He asked are they going to apply the same thinking to
both areas?
Commissioner Henninger stated they are not talking about much landscaping-that is not
that many spaces. He asked on the area he is going to lease to L A. Fitness, that he
could find some area to put some landscape planters In that parking lot?
Mr. Schmid stated he could not the way it is laid out. He could, however, put the
planters by the trees.
Commissioner Henninger asked him ff he couldn't lose a few parking spaces for that
purpose? He asked ff this was absolutely the bare minimum of parking spaces he
would deal with?
Mr. Schmid stated he could say he could, but L A. Fftness inftially wanted 125 parking
spaces. He added if they do not lease ft he cannot because it vrill not be a parking lot.
Commissl;;r+er Henninger stated leave the L A. Fitness number the same and move the
fencing around a little and take him out of his parking lot.
Mr. Schmid explained tt did not lay out that well. He stated they worked at it for about 3
months.
Commissioner Caldwell stated it is not complicated, it is a square piece of ground with
some striping on it. He added we have a Crde.
t' ~ Mr. ;.:hmid stated the City dons not practice what they preach. He added he Is asked
to adjust and the City does not. He has been Impacted and forced to demolish a
building. He added he thought it was wrong and asked them not to do ft.
Commissioner Henninger stated he was trying to help him out. He stated he was not
asking for much, he was asking for a little landscaping in the area for L A. Fftness.
Mr. Schmid asked if they were asking'ar two spaces?
Mr. Yalda stated probably all along the boundary line would be affected, probably B or 9
spaces.
Commissioner Henninger stated he is tempted to continue this for two weeks to ask him
to come back and show them a plan that has a little more landscaping in that area.
After some discussion it was determined that they trail this Item and a staff member
should work with Mr. Schmid on the landscaping.
Commissioner Henninger stated his direction is to get some landscaping in that area
and to do it in a way that minimally Impacts the plan, i.e., the area that is going to be
leased to L A. Fitness.
09/7/94
Page 17
THE ITEM WAS TRAILED.
DISCUSSION CONTINUED AFTER ITEM N0. 8:
Mr. Hastings stated k appears that 4 parking spaces would be lost ff there were to be a
separation between every row of 10 parking spaces. He stated the width of the
landscaped areas will be 5 feet wide in accordance with Code. He stated it appears that
the number of trees required for this portion of the property could be planted within
those areas and any that could not be could still be planted adjacent to the Caltrans
right-of-way. He added it appears that by losing 4 parking spares, the minimum
requirements could be met.
Chairwoman eoydstun asked ff this was agreeable to the applicant?
Mr. Schmid stated what they worked out will be fine.
ACTION:
Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mayer and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent) to approve the CEQA Mitigated
Negative Declaration (findings in Paragraph 14, page 4 of the staff report) and to
incorporate Attachment "A", Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 84 -Parking Facility.
Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mayer and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent) to approve the Waiver of Code
Requirement (findings in Paragraph 22, page 5 of the staff report).
Commissioner Henninger offered Resolution No. PC94-120 to grant Conditional Use Permit
No. 3716 subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommended condkions as listed on
-"~~ pages 7 and 8 of the staff report and to Incorporate amended Condition Nos. 1, 13, t4,
~ and 21 to read as follows:
Amended Condition Nos. 1, 13, 14, and 21 to read as follows:
1. That a minimum of forty seven (47) eucalyptus trees shall be planted along the entire
length of the southwest property line adjacent to the freeway right-of-way spaced at
Intervals of twenty (20; feet on-center. Trees shall be not less than 15-gallon in size
at time of planting. Furthermore, all Interior parking lot surface area not otherwise
utilized for parking stalls or drive aisles shall be fully landscaped, equipped with an
automatic irrigation system and permanently maintained. A minimum five (5) foot
wide landscape area between every rcw of ten (10) parking spaces shall be provided
for the parking lot serving the LA. Fitness Health Club.
13. That the sign shown on Exhibit No. 1 shall be the only sign permitted on subject
property. Said sign shall only identify the name and purpose of the parking lot
facility.
14. That ff a chain link fence is Nroposed along Douglass Road, h shall be completely
screened by landscaping within one (1) year of planting or alternately, large boulders
may be used in place of chain link.
(Action continued on the next page)
09/7/94
~~ Page 18
(Action continued for CUP No. 3716)
(~,
t ~ 21. That prior to the commencement of the acthrky authorized by this resolution, or prior
to final building and zoning Inspections, whichever occurs first, Condkion Nos. 1, 4,
5, 9 and 19, above-mentioned, shall be complied wfth.
Deleted Condkion Nos. 6 and 18.
Added the following condition:
That a revised final sfte plan showing the location of the hand(capped parking spaces in
the northerly portion of the parking lot wfth minimum 10•foot wide drive aisles
throughout, and a landscape plan Including the Iandscap(ng for the parking lot serving
the LA Fitness Health Club, shall be brought back to the Planning Commission as a
Report and Recommendation Item for review and approval.
Deleted Mitigation Measure A~5 found on Page 2 of Mitigation Monkoring Program No.
84.
VOTE: 6.0 (Commissioner Messe absent)
`~h:
!~
09/7/94
Page 19
~^
i
7a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3717
OWNER: STERIC~; COMPANY, 828 Moraga Drive, Bel Air, CA 90049
AGENT: RALLY'S HAMBURGERS, Attn: Ralph Deppish, 5150 E.
Candlewood, #18, Lakewood, CA 90712; Dave Bartlett Associates,
6082 Jade Circle, Huntington Beach, CA 92647
LOCATION: t21 North Beach 9lvd. Property Is approximately 0.42 acre
located at the northwest corner of Uncoln Avenue and Beach
Boulevard.
To permit a drive througfi/walk-up restaurant wRh outdoor dining with waNers
of (a) minimum structural setback and (b) minimum distance requirement for
drive through lanes.
Approved
Approved, In part
Granted, in part
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC94-121
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER:
~"'; Dave Bartlett, (phonetically spelled), land Use and Planning Consultant, representing
Rally's, 6082 Jade Circle, Huntington Beach, CA. He stated they are in concurcence
with the staff report recommendation for approval and the conditions of approval as
suggested by staff in the report. He scaled there is a waiver that they are requesting for
a slight reduction in one of the drive-iicrough lanes not meeting the exact Code
requirement of approximately 10 feet.
He explained that the difference can be made up on the other drh~e•tiirough lane which
exceeds Code. He stated the way the business works, the characteristics of the dual
drNe•through business combined with their consultation wfth Traffic staff and Internal
review, they thought this would pose no negative Impact on the project. He added
other than that they are in full concurrence with staff and would be happy to answer any
questions.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
09/7/94
[M~ Page 20
DISCUSSIOf::
~' Commissioner Caldwell asked if Mr. Badett read page 5 of the staff report, (paragraph at
the top of the page) which describes the waNer and an alternative to the waiver?
Mr. Bartlett stated he sl;~ke to Ms. Flores regarding that and h does not eliminate the
waiver. He stated they can eliminate those spaces, however, operationally the way the
business works and parking, those 3 spaces are for employees and it is a very rare
occasion that you would have stacking on both sides of the building all the way to that
location. He stated it would probably occur maybe one-half of one percent of the time.
He stated the project is extremely over landscaped; there is an abundance of
landscaping on the proJert because of the 35-foot setback along Lincoln. He stated
they have taken great care on making a very nice landscaped statement on this corner.
They can add more landscaping, however, they do feel it makes more sense to have
employee parking there. He added they can work wfth landscaping there as well, but
operationally it makes better senso for them.
He stated the business would work better with the parking because obviously parking is
a premium so they tried to get as much parking as possible and they are 5 over. He
stated it is up to staff and the Commission and they will accept k efther way.
Commissioner Henninger addressed the Traffic Engineering staff and asked ff this area is
designated for employee parking, would it Interfere with the drive-through, lane?
Mr. Yalda stated he did not think so. He thought it would be appropriate ff they
designate ft for the employees. He explained the employees usually come in before the
store is opened and when they leave it probably would not be at peak hour. He did not
t'h %, see any problem.
The Planning staff concurred.
Ms. Flores suggested that they change the wording on condftion No. 7 as follows:
'That unless approved by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager, a minimum of i6
foot Inner and 26 foot outer radius shall be required for all fuming movement. Said
dimensions shall be indicated on plans submitted for building permits."
!.
ACTION:
Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza
(Commissioner Meese absent) and MOTION CARRIED to approve the CEQA Negative
Declaration (findings in Paragraph 2;, page 4 of the staff report).
Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Taft and
MOTION CARRIED to approve the Waiver of Code hequirement (waiver (a) was deleted
during public notification) and subject to Endings in Paragraph 27, page 5 of the staff
report.
09/7/94
Page 21 I
5
i
(Action continued on next page)
(~
t Commissioner Henninger offered Resolution No. PC94-121 to grant Conditional Use
Permit No. 3777, in part (findings in Paragraph 26, page 5 of the staff report) and
subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommended condRions and with the following
modification to Condftion No. 7:
7. Unless otherwise approved by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager, a
minimum of 16 foot Inner and 26 foot outer radius shall be required for all fuming
movements. Said dimensions shall be indicated on plans submitted for building
permits.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Messe absent)
,,,..
l:~
°'r~
Lit
09/7/94
Page 22
r
8a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Sb. RECLASSIFICATION 9495.0,E
8c. WAIVER OF CODE REOI;iREMENT
8d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3715
OWNER: SNOYMAN LAND DEVELOPMENT, LTD., 801 S. Anaheim Blvd.,
Anaheim, CA 92805
AGENT: J.R. HAXTON, POST OFFICE BOX 2815, Orange, CA 92663
Approved
Granted, uncondRionally
Approved
Granted
LOCATION: 801 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property is approximatelu 1.79
acres located at the southwest corner of South Street and
Anaheim Boulevard.
ReclassKy subject property from the CH (Commerclal, Heavy) and PD-C
(Parking District-Commerclal) Zones to the CL (Commerclai, Limited) Zone.
To permit an automotive complex containing an auto sales lot with a modular
office trailer, auto repair facilities and an auto parts retail store with waivers of
required parking lot landscaping and minl~num number of parking spaces.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. _ PC94122
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC94123
.~ .
S ;.
i,~
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER:
J. R. Haxton, Protect Architect, 519 No. Dark Canyon, Arrowhead, CA, representing the
property owners. He stated they concur with staff's recommendations.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
DISCUSSION:
No further discussion took place.
ACTION:
Commissioner Tait offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Henninger and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent) to approve fire CEQA Negative
Declaration (findings in Paragraph 16, page 3 of the staff report.
Commissioner Tait offered Resolution No. PC94-122 to grant Rec{assfffcation No.
94-95-03 unconditionally.
(Action continued on iollowing page)
09/7/94
Page 23
(Action continued for CUP 3715)
Commissioner Tait offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Henninger and
r. MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent) to approve 1Nafver of Code
Requirement (findings in Paragraph 27, pag: 5 of the staff report).
Mr. Hastings explained originally Condition No. 6 had to do with the parkway adjacent to
MacArthur Manor and actually the landscaped area appears to be adjacent to the fence
on private property and they would recommend that vines be placed on the outside of
the wall to deter graffiti. He expiained MacArthur Manor Is the street to the south.
Mr. Hastings stated he did have some recommended changes to the conditions for
Conditional Use Permit No. 3715. The changes were road Into the record and are listed
below.
Commissioner Tait offered Resolution No. PC94-123 to Brent Conditional Use Permit No.
3715 (Commissioner Messe absent) (findings in Paragraph 28, page 6 of the staff
report) subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommended conditions fisted on page
7 and 8 of the staff report. The fallowing conditions were modified as follows:
"6. That the property owner shall instaii and maintain permanent irrigation and
landscaping Including vines on the wall in the landscaped area adjacent to
MacArthur Manor."
`'19. That Condition Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 18, above-
mentioned, shall be completed within a period of ninety (90) days from the date
of this resolution."
~~,; Deleted Condition Nos. 20 and 21.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Messe absent)
09/7/94
Page 24 ¢
h'.
1
,F
~ r
li~
9a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.3713
OWNER: ORE HOLDING COMPANY, 865 S. Figueroa St., #3500, Los
Angeles, CA 90017
AGENT: TRANSTAR REAL ESTATE SERVICES, 2115 W. Crescent Ave.,
#201, Anaheim, CA 92801
LOCATION: Parcel 1: 2101-2121 West Crescent Avenue. Property consists
of two (2) Irregularlyshaped parcels of land: Property Is
approximately 3.4 acres located at the northeast corner of
Crescent r+venue and Valley Street (having approximate frontages
of 490 feet on the north side of Crescent Avenue and 240 feet on
the east side of Valley Street.)
Parcel 2: 700 - 720 Norlh Valley Street. Property of
' approximately 9.2 acres located north of the Orange County Flood
Control Channel (having a frontage of approximately 840 feet on
the east side of Valley Street, having a maximum depth of
approximately 890 feet and being located approximately 360 feet
north of the centerline of Crescent Avenue.)
To permit a 4,542 square foot child day care facility.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
Continued to
September 19, 1994
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER:
Kirk Nelson, Design Intervention, 4440 Von Kerman, Newport Beach, CA 92660,
representing the owners.
He stated they are proposing to put in a day care facility for foster children located In an
industrial project which they feel Is very convenient to the community as well as
something that will not be obtrushre to the project. They have determined the location ~
of the project based on the fact that it is located at the farthest corner of the she. He
stated it does back Into the freeway and is bordered by large bushes and planting and it
has a grass play area. He explained they will also generate an area where the children
can ride their tricycles and bounce balls, etc.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
09/7/94
Page 25
a
;~
's,
DISCUSSION:
(^` Commissioner Caldwell asked ff he had any comments regarding the noise study and
~ the inappropriateness of the nse with the other existing uses including traffic and other
dangerous issues? He erpress his concerns about the safety of the children.
Mr. Nelson explained it was their primary purpose to protect the children. He did not
understand how this site could be considered detdmental.
Commissioner Henninger stated the staff report said that the freeway noise at the play
yard location, is between 70 and 100 db. He explained that 100 db is a level of noise
that is painful to most humans.
Mr. Nelson stated he was not an auditory expert so he has difficulty responding to that.
He stated it was his understanding that there are plans for a sound wail to be ins:a!!ed
between the freeway and the site.
Commissioner Henninger stated the industrial park was not a nice environment for a day
care facility and he questioned why the applicant thought ft was.
Mr. Nelson stated there is Ilmfted capacity for them to find compatible locations relative
to the centralized need to the foster parents that they will be serving. He stated this
seemed to work out to be a very compatible location given the fact there is yard area
and the ability to play and it Is remote so as not to be any danger to the children. He
explained there is a great deal of space for turn-around; loading; and ft Is not in a traffic
area. He stated he cannot respond to the freeway noise.
He further explained that theca is a great deal of protection via a planting wall that exists
°`a of bushes and he does know there is a future sound wall that is to be installed adjacent
~ 'r to the freeway.
Commissioner Henninger asked ff he has examined the lead level fn the dirt adjacent to
this property?
Mr. Nelson Indicated he has not.
Commissioner Henninger stated most of the areas adjacent to the freeways 11ke this
have elevated levels in the soil because of lead coming out of the exhaust pipes.
Margaret McLaughlin (phonetically spelled), Property Manger, for fire multi•tenant mixed
use park. She explained their property is separated from the freeway by an expanse
which also carries the railroad, so they are not right next to the freeway at all, but
setback quite a bit. She explained there is a mature hedge of oleanders and also a
wrought Iron fence between the railroad and their property. She stated they are actually
setback some distance from the freeway.
She stated she was quite surprised when she saw the staff report than indicated the level ~
of noise because they have tenants that are in that buildings and she has never ~
experienced sound levels that they would consider to be obnoxious or harmful. She ;
was curious as to what times the readings had been taken-•was it on one day as
opposed to an average of several days? She added it seemed to be very high.
03/7/94
Page 26
~~
~~'
She stated there might be ways that they could accommodate them H there is a decibel
~ level reading that is considered to be appropriate. She stated not just the sound wall,
~, but perhaps something like plexiglass to be installed against the fence which would also
' be another sound reducing barcler. She stated they may be able to get the sound level
down to something that will be acceptable.
She explained it is in a very secluded corner with existing lawn area ~vfth shade trees so
the children can be protected from the sun when they are out playing. She stated it is
away from the main traffic.
She stated one of the other objections in the staff report was that the unloading area for
the childrer. would be adjacent to another tenant's entry way which does have aroll-up
door. Perhaps they could relocate the point of drop off for the children away from the
building and Dave it at the other end of the playground so that it will be right against the
fence and the oleanders.
She stated ft is simply a parking area and there Isn't any other building access point.
She stated she thought they could satisfy that recommendation. She stated she thought
they could come to a mutual ground.
She stated there was an Indication by the staff report that there was a forMfft and
welding equipment in the same building. She stated that may be an ercor as there is no
welding company-they do not have that kind of use at the dark and they consider
themselves to be a clean user and a distribution type of property. She added h is not a
manufacturing property.
She explained they do have one tenant in the building and the name may have led one
of the staff members astray. It is called UTP Welding, however, they are the sales point 11
for a company that supplies tool parts for the welding Industry and all they have in there
are racks wfth boxed parts. She stated she would be more than happy to arrange for a
tour of that facility with the staff members ff they would Ilke to see it.
Commissioner Henninger asked staff H they thought there are things that could be done
to amend this to make it compatible? He asked ff they should continue this for two
weeks so they could work with the applicant?
Mr. Hastings stated the only changes they could see would be any validation of the uses
on the property and perhaps a second noise reading ff that is an issue.
Commissioner Henninger stated and maybe a relocation of the point of entry and some
provision for turn-around at the end of the parking bay.
Mr. Hastings stated that could be looked at as well ff the applicant is willing to make
some adjustments to the design of the use.
Commissioner Mayer expressed her concerns relative to the oleander plant. She stated
it is a poisonous plant.
09/7/94 I
~~ Page 27 f
~'~`.
~:
;i
Ms. McLaughlin stated ft was on the other side of the wrought iron fence. She explained
~ the wrought Iron fence comes first and the oleanders are behind ft. She stated they
~ ~ could be kept trimmed back so the chlldren could not reach through. She stated ff they
were to put in something Ilke the plexiglass for the sound bawler, that would be a
physical barrier to the children also.
Commissioner Caldwell stated he would be willing to give this a shot with the
information he has before him today. He thought ff they wanted to work with staff and
come up wfth some ways to mftigate the problems discussed today, he would like to
see ft go in.
Mr. Hastings stated ff they have the design changes by Friday, their staff person can go
with the applicant out in the field to look at the other land uses.
Commissioner Tait stated ff they are going to approve this, he would like a list of what
cannot go in adjacent to this project.
Mr. Hastings stated there is a conditional use permit on the entire center which goes
back to 1974 for a planned unified Industrial service center. Thay could readvertise that
conditlonal use permft to limit uses, however, he bel!gved ft was pretty Iimfted. They
could give them that informatlon in the r;e~ aKaii rp-:~~n ae to what ft is Ilmfted to.
ACTION:
Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissloner Peraza
(Commissioner Messe absent) and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the
aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of
September 19, 1994, in order for the applicant to address concerns pertaining to
~ "~ exterior noise, safety of drop off and turnaround area and to identify any Ilmftations
to adjacent building uses.
,.; ~~
*k
09/7/94
(~ Page 26
~~
10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Approved
10b. VARIANCE NO. 4262 Granted
OWNER: MCP FOODS, INC., Attn: Timothy W. Smith, Plant Engineer,
424 S. Atchison St., Anaheim, CA 92805
AGENT: TIMOTHY W. SMITH, P.O. Box 3633, Anaheim, CA 92803
LOCATION: 424 South Atchison Street. Property is approximately 5.54
acres located south of Broadway, west of the Atchison,
Topeka and Santa Fe Rail Road right-of-way, north of Santa
Ana Street, and east of Kroeger Street (wfth approximate
frontages of 125 feet on the south side of Broadway, 430
feet on the north side of Santa Ana Street and 300 feet on
the east side of Kroeger Street.
Waivers of minimum number of parking spaces and maximum height and
minimum setback within 40-feet of a residential zone boundary to
construct a 30,000-square foot 2-story office and testing laboratory
building.
VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. PC94124
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
t,~.~ OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER:
Timothy Smith, Plant Engineer at MCP Foods, 424 S. Atchison Street, Anaheim, CA. He
stated he has read the staff report, however, he does have some comments on ft.
He gave a brief summary of the history of the project. He stated the consultant reports
indicate that the she is old and deteriorated and that they do not have a choice but to tear it
down and build a new office building. He stated their choice is to build on the site that they
have proposed. He stated they feel it is the best site available and perhaps the only one
that is reasonable if you take everything into consideration.
He stated there is an apparent discrepancy in the size of the building. He stated a
paternoster is a European usage for a vertical carousel storage and retrieval system. He
stated ft actually pertains more to a type of elevator in use in Europe that goes around and
you step off onto your floor.
He stated he had some comments regarding the recommended condftions of approval.
1. Condition No. 1 -Block wall. He proposed that they either leave the wall at fts exfsting
size or raise it considerably, i.e., issue a variance for a higher wall that ft they are going
to use that wall for screening purposes, they should make a serious attempt to Increase
ft something more than just 4 inches. There does not seem to be any real benetft to
work on the wall and add 4 inches.
1 09/7/94
~9 Page 29
Condition No. 3 - He had another proposal that would better address the Issue of privacy of
~ the neighbors and that would be to eliminate all of the windows on the back wall and use
light defusers or obscure glass Instead. He stated there is some talk of moving the trees
around and what is the appropriate positioning of the trees. If the trees are solely looked at
as a way of providing privacy to the neighborhood, he thought that the glass block,
(something that would allow light Into the building but that you could not see through), that
may work better than trying to plant trees and waft for them to grow. He would actually
proposd to agree to not have any see through windows on the back wall and eliminate the
trees and leave the wall as ft is.
Commissioner Henninger stated you Just proposed to eliminate the trees and he asked ff he
really meant that?
Mr. Smith explained if the only purpose of the trees Is to provide privacy.
Commissioner Henninger stated that is not their only purpose.
Mr. Smith stated then they will keep the trees.
Chairwoman Boydstun asked ff he went with the glass block, would that would give them
the light needed?
Mr. Smith Indicated he would and that that was in their thinking all along and somehow did
not get Into the final drawings for the building. He stated they never really fully intended on
having see through windows on the back wall. he added it was a detail that was left out of
the drawing.
Proposed Condkion No. 2 -They would Ifke to keep all of the existing gates on the
;~i premises, but the existing security gate at the front entrance is made out of a steel tube
construction and it would be a simple matter of removing the razor wire that is along the top
of it and pulling down all of the other chain link fences and other razor wire and replacing
those with wrought Iron. He added they thought the gate itself and the location of ft and the
construction is appropriate. He clarified it would be the gate at the north end of the
property.
He stated when the street was abandoned they were given conditions. He read a letter
dated 2/2/92 from Frank Hardcastle outlaying the condtlons for knox boxes; fire lane; and
fire plug that would be outside of the gate and that the south gate would be for egress only.
(That is the gate that goes out onto Santa Ana Street). He stated the north gate would be
egress and Ingress and would be open during business hours. He added this will be the
gate that will be closest to the new construction.
Condition No. 16 - He stated there is a further issue with this gate. He stated what they
would propose is that all of the gates on the site be allowed to remain. He stated
apparently there is not so much of an issue with the driveway gates (the ones that
essentially block the abandoned portion of Atchison), but the gates that are on Kroeger
Street. He referenced Condition No. 19 and stated that only one gate remain and that all of
the driveways be converted to curbs. He referenced Reclassfficalion No. 93-94.02 which is
essentially the rezoning of that parking lot and it is their understanding that the City was
aware of ft and approved construction of the new block walls; new gates and a landscaped
strip. He stated this is all brand new construction and they had understood that ft was o.k.
for them to have two gates on the Kroeger Street side.
09/7/94
Page 30
a
ii
i
s`
He stated as far as the Issue of their uses for entrance, they are strictly utility gates. He
explained that he is aware of, they have not used them sfgniflcantly since the new wall was
put up. He stated they are simply there to make access to that back property ff it is ever
required. He stated they could have gone with just one gate, but when they did the new
wall they elected to keep two gates and two driveways and since that work has already
been completed they would like for that to remain.
Commissioner Henninger asked ff there are other driveways along there?
Mr. Smth explained there are a total of 4 driveways-two that are serviced by gates and two
that are effectively abandoned. He stated they would have no problem putting in curbs and
the other things for those.
Commissioner Henninger stated then in regard to Condition No. 19, their proposal to them is
that they take out t'~ie word "one" and Insert the word "two."
Mr. Smith Indicated that was correct.
i
Mr. Smith asked for some clarification on the landscaping. He explained there is a portion
of new sidewalk that Is south of the second driveway, i.e., the two southerly driveways. He
stated that portion does not have a landscaped strip and he would propose, ff possible, ff
they could Just have a straight sidewalk from the existing 5-foot landscaped strip to the curb
rather than a second landscaped strip, however, they would be willing to comply with
whatever the conditions are granted.
Commissioner Caldwell stated he would like to see the landscaped strip.
y.,, Mr. Smith indicated that would be o.k. He stated there is a section of brand new sidewalk
f . 'i (approximately 80 feet) and it does not have existing landscaping. He asked ff that had to
be retrofitted?
Melanie Adams, Public Works, stated they would not have them remove new sidewalk.
Mr. Smith asked for clarification then just the areas they are replacing the driveways?
i
Commissioner Caldwell indicated that was correct. He stated ff Mr. Smfth noticed, h does
make K more pleasant. ~
Chairwoman Boydstun asked if he would put in Irrigation so the landscaping could be I
watered?
i
Mr. Smith stated he noticed that the areas north of that where the residences are, there is
lawn in the landscaped strip. He asked what the intent was?
Commissioner Caldwell stated law~~ and trees would be appropriate.
Chairwoman Boydstun reiterated with irrigation.
Mr. Smith indicated that was alright.
09/7/94
Page 31
b
Condtion No. 11 - He stated they will need adequate water to supply to the building,
~ however Kroeger Street may not be the best route to the building. He stated one of the
problems is that it is a long way from Broadway. He stated ft would be Basler to come
t down Atchison.
He explained they also have a water main coming up Atchison from the south, therefore, k
may also be easier to tap into that, although he understands there may be a problem wfth
water pressure. He stated from the standpoint of the neighbors, in order to supply water
from Kroeger Street, they would have to come down the alley. He stated there is at least
one residence and at least one business that has a garage and access from that alley way.
He stated they will not only be taking a long route, they would be disrupting the neighbors
that use chose driveways. He requests that they simply change the language cu allow them
to negotiate with the Water Department what is the best route to the building from the water
main.
Commissioner Caldwell stated they could say: "A new 12-Inch water main extension shall
be installed and that point of installation shall be determined wfth the cooperation wkh the
City Water Department."
Mr. Smith indicated that would be fine.
Condition No. 18 -That the driveways be constructed with a 10-foot radius. They request
that existing driveways not have to be retrofftted in the sense that there are no new
driveways being proposed, therefore, that requirement is not necessary.
Commissloner Henninger stated normally you have to retrofit to the new standards.
fi„ Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, stated usually they ask for that radius return because ft
~ . } makes it easier to Ingress and egress to the site and since this is a new project and adding
more traffic to the site by constructing 29,000 square feet or Intensky the use of the
property, they do request that they redo the drveway.
Commissloner Henninger stated they just testftied that they have a number of driveways that
they are not used on a regular basis and they have some normal entrances that are. He
asked if they could have this Just on the normal entrances?
Mr. Yalda indicated that would be alright.
There was a discussion regarding the various entrances. Mr. Yalda explained they are not
concerned with Atchison Street, they are only concerned with the driveway on Kroeger
Street.
Commissloner Henninger clarified it would be just the one driveway on Kroeger Street.
Mr. Smith stated they would be willing to stipulate that those gages on Kroeger Street would
not be used for normal traffic. The parking lot that is designated in that area Is currently not
used by the employees. He referenced the traffic report and stated they identffled 76
currently striped spaces that are just north of their warehouse building and at the peak load
time there were 73 in use. He stated it has been their experience that they do not have
problems with parking and nobody wants to park in that Kroeger Street lot.
09/7/94
Page 32 I
:§
:f
~.
He stated the new building, although they are not anticipating any change in employment,
n they are simply moving people from one building to another in tearing down the old
building. He stated the new construction will provide 30 addftional parking spaces by
tearing down a shed that was used for storage and have expanded that into parking spaces.
He stated without utilizing Kroeger Street parking lot, they have ample parking and that lot is
not necessary for use.
He stated they also have an access to that parking lot via the abandoned railroad which has
now been paved. Therefore, they would be willing to agree that those gates would not be
available to employees or visitors for normal use. He added they are kept locked at all
times except on rare occasions where they would use them as utilfry access.
He stated they do have additional access-they have a gate that blocks the railroad right-of-
way and in fact they have to pull their own railway cars in. He added trucks can also go
through that gate.
Commissioner Caldwell asked for clarfflcation ff he has 4 existing driveways on Kroeger-two
of which they do not use and are abandoned?
Mr. Smith stated that is correct.
Commissioner Caldwell stated you also have two gates that access the Kroeger lot and
those aro the two driveways that the Traffic Engineer is concerned about.
Mr. Smith indicated that was correct.
Commissioner Caldwell asked for further clarification ff those gates are not open on a dally
~,,, basis but they are there for emergency Ingress and egress? He asked ff he could eliminate
( 7 one of them including curb and gutter and keep the other one locked?
Commissioner Henninger stated the other thing they could do is to add a condition that
says they could use those driveways twice a month and ff they wanted to use them more
often then they would comply with this condition.
Mr. Smith stated the only opposition they have to eliminating one of those gates is that they
are both brand new and they do not want to tear something down that fs brand new.
Commissioner Caldwell stated he is not extremely concerned about a t0-foot radius but the
Traffic Engineering Department is. He added he is trying to find a way around it.
Mr. Yalda stated ff they are not really using the entry on Kroeger Street and it Is used only
once or twice for utilities, there is no reason for them to redo the driveway and just keep the
two gates closed and redo the other two driveways and that would be alright with them.
Commissioner Henninger stated they already passed that Issue and he has already agreed
to do that.
Condition No. 20 -Requirement for loading docks. He stated he would request that this one
be deleted also. He stated ft appears that they do not now currently meet Code for a
number of truck ramps. He stated as he understands ff, they would need 4 and they
actually have two.
09/7/94
`rrr~ Page 33 f
'z
;y.
`TG
~.
,.+~,
l.i
Ayr/
He stated there are 3 shown on the drawing simply for planning purposes in laying out
parking spaces because thero is a possibility In the future that they would add a third
loading dock. He added they do not currently have a budget or a project to do that, but
they have made a provision that that could be done.
He stated they feel they are able to operate with the w:lsting number of docks and they
would request that that condition not bo required.
Mr. Yalda explained for every 25,000 square feet they are required to have a loading area.
Therefore, they should have a minimum of 4 docks. He explained to Mr. Smith since
Atchison Street has already been abandoned and there ra plenty of room there, they can
designate an area for loading and unloading. He further stated in his discussion whh
Mr. Smith he really did not have trucks coming to the site, but probably UPS or Federal
Express delivery which requires a smaller truck so they could accommodate for a loading
zone on Atchison Street.
Commissioner Caidwell asked Mr. Yalda, then you think they could put a plan together and
meet the requirements without any substantial changes?
Mr. Yalda Indicated he could do that. He stated there really would not be any expense, all
he has to do is designate an area on the pian showing their loading and unloading.
Mr. Smith stated they will submit a plan.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
ACTION:
Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell
(Commissioner Messe absent) and MOTION CARRIED to approve the CEQA Negative
Declaration (findings in Paragraph 20, page 5 of the staff report).
Commissioner Henninger offered Resolution No. PC94-124 to grant Variance No. 4262
(Commissioner Messe absent) subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommended
conditions listed on pages 7-10 of the staff report and subject to the following changes:
Amended Condition Nos. 2, 1 t, 18, and t9 to read as follows:
2. That the existing chain link fencing and gates on the north side of the she shall be
replaced with security wrought iron fencing/gates and all razor wire fencing shall
be removed.
1 t. That a new water main extension shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Water
Engineering Division.
(Action continued on the following page)
09/7/94
Page 34
l1
tr
~~
18. That the two (2) driveways that will remain along Kroeger Street shall not be used more
than five (5) times a month. If they are used more than five (5) times a month, they shall
be reconstructed with ten (10) foot radius curb returns as required by the Cfty Engirn-er
in conformance with the Engineering Standard No. 137 and comply with gate
construction standards in conformance with Engineering Standard Plan No. 609.
t9. That as required by the Ciry' Traffic and Transportation Manager all driveways on
Kroeger Street except two (2) shali be removed and replaced with standard curb, gutter,
sidewalk and landscaping.
Deleted Condition Nos. 1, 4 and 16.
Added the following conditions:
That glass blocks shall be utilized in the window openings on the west elevation of
the building.
That all required landscaped areas shall be fully irrigated with a permanently
installed irrigation system.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Messe absent)
09/7/94
Page 35
4
r,;
11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Previous~y Approved
11b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
11c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3545 Readvertised
OWNER: LEDERER-ANAHEIM LTD., 1990 Westwood Bivd., 3rd Floor,
Los Angeles, CA 90025
AGENT: JOHN SCHROEDER, 1440 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA
92805
LOCATION: 1440 S. Anaheim Blvd. Property is approximately 14.7
acres located north and east of the northeast corner of
Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Blvd.
Petftloner requests deletion or modH(catlon to a condition of approval
pertaining to the time Iimitatlon of apreviously-approved batting cage and
outdoor stereo/alarm installation facility.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0.
Continued to
October 3, 1994
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mayer and
~P ~ MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent) that consideration of the aforementioned
matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of October 3, 1994, In order to
readvertise subject petition to Include request of auto related uses.
09/7/94
Page 36
12a. CEOA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Approved
72b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved
12c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3714 Granted
OWNER: IDM APARTMENT CORPORATION, ONE WORLD TRADE
CENTER, LONG BEACH, CA 90801
AGENT: PENHALL CO., Attn: Dick Reel, P.O. BOX 4609, Anaheim,
CA 92801
LOCATION: 714 North Brookhursi Street. Property is approximately
7.16 acres located at the northeast comer of Brookhurst
Street and Grammercy Avenue.
To permit a road base processing facility wfth on site rock crushing and
a temporary office trailer with waiver of minimum site screening.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC94125
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER:
Dick Reel, Penhall Company, 1801 Penhall Way, Anaheim. He stated they are
.-. attempting to get Into the recycling business. He stated they are attempting to lease
~ ~ this site so they can store thou con; refs and asphalt debris from their demoiltion
projects, and then turn it Into road base material.
He referenced Condition No. 2 regarding material piles exceeding the height of the
storage building walls. He stated with the crushing operation, one building is 16 feet
and the other is 20 feet. He stated they had requested a 25-foot height for the
aggregate piles only-he does not have a problem with the materials stored within the
buildings, but when they actually crush materials they would like to be able to go to 25
feet. He stated that would not be on a permanent basis, but as they load them out and
sell them, a variance of 5 feet would be appreciated.
He referenced Condition No. 5 regarding landscaping. He stated they would propose
to put in a landscaped parkway 10 feet wide on Brookhurst and 5 feet on Grammercy
and Valley with trees on 20-foot centers. He stated the staff report suggested 10•foot
centers. He stated he is not totally clear why that request was made. He stated
certainly he would Ilke to see it on 20-foot centers. He expla(ned wfth the amount of
street frontage on both Brookhurst, Grammercy and Valley, they would be adding 84
trees to the site that are not there now, so certainly from the site beautiflcatfon period it
would definitely Improve the site. He explained they would strictly be a leasehold tenant
on the site fora 5 year period and at the end of that time they are totally demolishing
the site and returning it back to the owner for its development. iI
09/7/94
~~y/ Page 37
9
l's
is
He referenced Condition No. 7 regarding posting a $15,000 cash pond to ensure
~ removal of temporary trailers at the end of one year. He stated he did not think this was
~ applicable. He explained they had a temporary trailer shown on the site which in
discussions with the Planner, they took h off. He added he was not certain N that Is
what this condition means.
He referenced Condition No. 9 regarding solid waste storage. He stated he thought the
Intent was to have an enclosure far a trash pickup. He stated the entire she Is enclosed
with a 7-foot perimeter fencing that they are discussing and would be behind existing
building wails. He asked that this condition be ellminatpd.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
DISCUSSION:
Gommisstoner Tait stated the applicant mentioned he needed a 25-foot height limitation
for the pre crushed debris. He asked Mr. Reel to elaborate.
Mr. Reel explained that the crusher operates by separating various gradation of rocks
and they come off of one conveyor and run up another conveyor. He stated they end
up needing that kind of height. He explained the crusher Itself is about 14 feet high. He
stated you do not get any volume underneath the belts, otherwise you would constantly
have to keep moving the machine.
Commissioner Tait asked H it would be a continuous pile of 25 feet high or would it be a
type of thing where maybe 5 days out of the month he will reach that height?
Mr. Reel indicated that was correct. He stated they would only be crushing on a
,,.. periodic basis and by that he means he would build up a stockpile of materials inside
', _ _ ~ the building walls and then bring it out and crush it as they achieve sales. Therefore,
the crusher would only be on site 3 or 4 mont:ts out of the year, or a month at a time
every 3 or 4 months and it is only during that period when it Is crushing that those piles
would exist in that configuration and even then they may be loaded out the next day.
Commissioner Tait asked for clarification if in essence thoy are talking about one out of
four months and then only partial half the time during that one month?
Mr. Reel indicated thy' :+as correct.
Commissioner Henninger asked staff about the fast growing pine trees. He questioned
the 10 feet on centers as they grow together pretty substantially. He asked iF they would
grow together on 20•foot centers?
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated they probably would over time. He
explained that the Intent was to get a rather fast growing large dense screening of the
property knowing that there would :~e things showing above the building lines such as
the conveyor and now the stockpilua as well. He stated the Intent was actually to have
a screen rather than Just the aesthetic nature of the trees.
Commissioner Henninger asked if they would be better off having some tree that had a
head on it above the wall? He asked about the eucalyptus tree.
09/7/94
Page 38 g~
5
,.;~
Mr. Hastings stated they were looking for something that would grow quicMy and grow
r+, up. He added it would depend on the variety of eucalyptus.
t Chairwoman Boydstun asked if they would need the heavier trees any place except on
BrookhursY%
Mr. Hastings explained one concern they have is the property on the south. He stated
thero was a residential project that was approved on the other side of Grammercy
Avenue. He stated staff thought h would be appropriate that ff there was going to be
residential that there. also be buffering on that side as well as from the Valley Street
projects which is a project that was discussed earlier today which is along the Valley
Street portion and is more of a business Com~~,erce type of park.
Further discussion took place regarding trees on 10-toot centers.
Commissioner Caldwell suggested splitting tFre difference between 10-foot and 20-foot.
He stated 10•foot seems too close and 20-foot too far apart.
Mr. Reel suggested that they maintain 20-foot on Brookhurst and 15-foot on Grammercy
and Valley. He added that would give them approximately 90 to 95 trees.
Commissioner Henninger asked staff about the solid waste collection area.
Mr. Hastings stated if you are referring to Condition No. 9, ft is actually a request from
the Department of Maintenance to submit their plan In terms of what they are going to
do to be storing their trash as well as any recycling on site.
,,, Mr. Hastings read new wording Into the record for Condtion No. 7 as follows:
~ 1
"that the property owner/developer shall post a fifteen thousand $15,000 dollar cash
bond to ensure removal of the building walls at the end of 5 years when this conditional
use permft terminates."
He stated the temporary trailers and the one year were from a standard condition which
are not rotative to this and the intent would be t~ make sure that the buildings are
removed at the end of the 5 year period.
Greg fAcCafferty, Planning Department, stated Condition No. 11 should reference the
actual mitigation plan which is 0085.
He stated to the south across Grammercy is the RM-1200. He questioned the noise
whether there were any noise Issues regardi~~g the use if residential is built there?
Commissioner Henninger stated they would have to meet with our noise requirements.
Chaiwoman Boydstun asked if there were any active plans for the property at the
present time?
Mr. Hastings explained there is an approved plan on the property, however, his i
recollection is that k has recently expired wfthin the last year, however, h could be If
reactivated.
k 09/7/94
E~.~d Page 39
~,
'~ i
r:
';.3
..v
Chairwoman Boydstun stated but this will be in place so they will know what is there
~ and they are going to meet our Code, therefore, she did not see where tt would be a
f problem.
Commissioner Caldwell stated when you say reactivated, did he mean that they have
some inherent right because it had come before the City before?
Mr. Hastings indicated that was correct. He explained since their Code allows
retroactive time extensions, they could come back and revive the project even though k
is technically expired. He added currently there is no time Iimttation.
Mr. McCafferty stated the rock crusher Is portable so k could be moved fu,.~ter north
towards the freeway as well.
ACTION:
Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tatt
(Commissioner Masse absent) and MOTION CARRIED to approve the Mkigated CEOA
Negative Declaration (findings in Paragraph 11 of the staff report).
Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tatt
(Commissioner Messe absent) and MOTION CARRIED to approve the Waiver of Code
Requ!rement (flndings in Paragraph 17, page 4 of the staff report).
Discussion took place regarding Condition No . 7 regarding the $15,000 cash bond. It
was determined after some discussion that Condition No. 7 would be eliminated
Commissioner Henninger offered Resolution No. PC94-125 to grant Condttional Use
,,_ Permtt No. 3714 subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommended conditions as
', ) listed on pages 5.7 and subject to the following changes:
Note: The request for a temporary office trailer was withdrawn by the petitioner
following public notffication.
Modifled Condition Nos. 5 and 11 to read:
5. That landscaping shall be installed and include fast growing tree species with
high screening capacity (such as a Pine variety) planted on minimum 15-foot
centers outc'de the perimeter fencing along Grammercy Avenue and Valley
Street and on minimum 20-foot centers along Brookhurst Street.
11. That the permittee shall comply with all terms, conditions and mitigation
measures contained (n Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 0086 (which plan is on file
in the Planning Department and is incorporated herein by this reference) and the
permittee shall be responsible for compliance and any direct costs associated
with said Mitigation Monttor(ng Plan No. 0086 as established by the City and as
required by Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code to ensure
implementation of the mitigation measures in said Plan.
(Action continued on next page) j
I
1 09/7/94
'~,/ Page 40
F;
'~x
(.,
:~~
(Action continued CUP No. 3545)
Deleted Condition No. 7
Added the following condition of approval:
"That subject conditional use permit shall expire five (5) years from the date of
approval of this resolution, on September 7, 1999."
Greg Hastings suggested that he ask the Building Manager to discuss at the next
Commission Workshop, the policy and practice of accepting bonds.
Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated another possibility would be to do what they
did with the landscaping up in Anaheim Hills where they permitted the bond, but
requested that the bond include language that indicated that ff the principal did not
perform as it was required to perform that the bonding company would step up and do
the Improvements rather than require the City to take care of it and then seek
reimbursement from the bonding company.
She further stated if the concern of the Building Department is that there is a very
difficult process in order to try to collect from any bonding company because the
bonding company will not step up and do the work, they can get language in the bond
itself so that k eliminates that difficult process. She added this is Just an alternative.
Chairwoman Boydstun stated the Condition has already been eliminated.
VOTE: 6.0 (Commissioner Messe absent)
.:::9~Ai
09/7/94
Page 41
13. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. VARIANCE NO 4182 -REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME Continued to
TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Blash Momeny, 27762 September 19, 1994 1
Pebble continuance to Beach, Mission Viejo, CA 92692, requests an eMension in order for the
of time to comply with condftions of approval for Variance No. 4182 (Wa(ver of applicant to remove
the required lot frontage, minimum building site area, minimum building site overgrown vegeta-
width and required location and orientation of structures to construct 8 single- lion
family residences) to expire May 18, 1995. Property is located at 2260 W.
Orange Avenue.
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3301 -REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE Approved
EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: (to expire 8-21-95)
Blash Momeny, 27762 Pebble Beach, Mission Viejo, CA 92692, requests an
extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for Condftlonal Use
Permit No. 3301 (to permit the construction of 2 dwelling units wfthin the flood
plain overlay zone) to expire August 21, 1995. Property is located on the
northwest terminus of Garland Circle.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3537 -REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE Approved
EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:_ (to expire 9-9-95)
John Louwsma, President, Hephatha Lutheran Church, 5900 E. Santa Ana
Canyon Road, Anaheim, CA 92807, requests an extension of time to comply
with conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 3537 (to permit the
phased expansion of an existing church, school, and preschool facility with
waivers of minimum number of parking spaces, maximum structural height,
minimum landscape requirements, and required parking lot landscaping) to
expire Sept. 9, 1995. Property is located at 5900 E. Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3575 -REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE
D Continued to
.
EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: September 19, 1994
Steve Macko with Pinetree Village, 3333 S. Brea Canyon Rd., Ste. 219, Diamond in order for the
CA 91765, requests an extension of time to comply with conditions of
Bar applicant to meet
,
approval for Condftlonal Use Permit No. 3575 (to permit the conversion of an with the Housing
existing 40-unit apartment complex to a 40-unit condominium complex) to Division
expire January 25, 1995. Property Is located at 500 North Tustin Avenue.
09/7/94
Page 42 '~
14. DISCUSSION ITEM:
A. REGARDING FURNITURE SALES IN THE INDUSTRIAL AREA.
MOTION: Commissloner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Henninger and MOTION CARRIED (Commissloner Messe absent), that
the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby direct the City Attorney's OfFlce
to prepare a draft ordinance for Immediate Commission/Council consideration, that
would accomplish the following:
Allow application for a condRional use permft in the ML Zone (and Canyon Industrial
Area) to permit retail sales of household furnfture provided the retail sales portion of
the business shall be a minimum of 50,000 square feet.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:47 P.M.
~~
' ~,~,
09/7/94
Page 43