Minutes-PC 1995/07/24~pa.~ -~i
~" -~ ACTION AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
July 24, 1995
11:00 A.M. - PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW
1:30 P.M. - PUBLIC HEARINGS BcGIN (PUBLIC TESTIMONY)
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOSTWIGK, HENNINGER, MESSE, PERAZA
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: ONE VACANT SEAT YER
STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann, Jonathan Borrego, Maggie Solorio, Danielle Masciel, Melanie
Adams, Greg Hastings,Bruce Freeman
PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. The proponents in applications which are not contested will have five minutes to present their
such additional timeiwiU produce evidence pmportant to the Commission'sfconsideration ion,
2. In contested applicattions, the proponents and opponent will each be given ten minutes to
present their case unless additional time is requested and the complex'~~ 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 if, in its opinion, the ends of
fairness to all concerned will be served.
g. All documents presented to the Planning Commission for review in connection with any hearing,
shalldbe9 stained by the Commissionf orbthe publicereco d and shall be avaitab a forpubiicdence,
inspections.
7. At the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on items
~f 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.
AC072495.WP
1
~~
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 1234 -REQUEST FOR Determined that the
SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE DETERMINATION TO proposed use is nit
pFo~; IT A TECHNICAL TRAINING CENTER (INCLUDING in substantial
~TOMOTIVE ncPAIR IN TRUCTI I`S : Calffornia Career conformance,
Schools, Attn: Chuck Emanuelle, 3y~ 'vi. Cerritos Avenue, Bldg. (without prejudice)
7, Anaheim, CA 92805 requests substantial conformance
determination to permit a technical training center .(including
automotNe repair instruction). Property is located at 1100 S.
Claudina Place.
Chuck Emanuelle explained they are currently located at 332 W. Cerritos and have a conditional
use permit, approved en February 6, 1994. They are adjacent to a mobilehome park and the wall
which separates the properties is only 5 feet tall and the homes are about 10 to 15 feet away
from that wall. Any actNiry is easily seen or heard by the mobilehome park residents.
He stated they have been looking for another facility and wanted to stay in Anaheim. They think they
have found a building which they feel meets their requirements at 1100 S. Claudina. He explained the
dividing wail is 7 feet high and it is 30 feet long and the garage is 20 feet long. He stated they are
proposing to do automotive repair training at that location and most of the activity will be conducted
Inside the building. There would be an occasional need for automobiles to be outside but they would be
to the north an additional 80 feet. Any actNity would be at least 160 feet away from the apartments to the
north.
He stated the original CUP noted the ML Zone allows industrial training centers as a matter of right and
they are asking for compliance based on the original conditional use permit.
Acting Chairman Messe stated automotive uses require a conditional use permit and the original CUP
does not mention automotive uses. He thought there would have to be a separate public hearing in
which a conditional use permft is considered for this use to see how close the training would be to the
apartments to the north and how they are going to treat the garage door.
Mr. Emanuelle stated they understand the situation but part of the problem is that it is very difficult to find
property which meets their requirements and this property does.
He explained the landlord wants a tenant who can move in there fairly qu(ckly. He stated they are
requesting to be able to acquire a business license so they can move in and then they would be willing to
go through the CUP process after that and ff there are any restrictions imposed, they would comply. He
explained ff thsy wait, they would not be able to move in until December, and the landlord has said he
has other tenants interested and he would probably lease it to them.
Acting Chairman Messe stated he did not think the Commission has any jurisdiction over issuance of
business licenses. He asked ff they have applied for a business license.
Mr. Emanuelle responded they are asking for the ability to apply for a license now prior to the granting of
a conditional use permit.
7-24-95
Page 2
, °~..
Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated ft is her understanding that the Business License Division
would be looking to ensure that whatever application for a business license comes before them is in
conformance with zoning. If the decision is that ft is necessary to have this readvertised in order to
change ft so ft is in conformance wfth the Zon(ng, there would be no way to grant a license until that is
done.
in time fo Bhe next me ling but ft cou d be re-advertised forthe mieetingtof August 21 Id be readvertised
Mr. Emanuelle stated he has been talking wfth Jonathan in Planning and this was the first opportunity to
bring this out.
Commissioner Messe stated he did not see any way to vote on this today without a public hearing.
Mr. Emanuelle stated they will not make any changes to the building.
Commissioner Henninger offered a motion finding that the proposed use is not in substantial
conformance.
Acting Chairman Messe added this action would be taken without prejudice.
Commissioner Henninger added wfthout a commitment, he felt this seems like a good location for this
use and the CUP needs to be amended to allow ft and some conditions added.
g, ONDITI NAL E PERMIT N0. 768 -REVIEW OF REVISED A ans wi h addtional
LANDSCAPE PLAN AND PROPOSED FREESTANDING P
_ FREEWAY-ORIENTED SIGN PLAN: Gary M. Graumann, Post changes
Office Box 7458, Menlo Park, CA 94026 requests review of
revised landscape plans and proposed freestanding freeway-
oriented sign plan in conjunction wfth Conditional Use Permit No.
3768 (to permft industrially-re{ated sales in conjunction with a
proposed 144,000 square foot electronics sales facility).
?roperty is located at 3370 East La Palma Avenue.
Gar, Graurnann, agent, stated they are here to discuss both the freeway-oriented sign aiant there have
landscaping plan for the project at 3320 E. La Palma. With respect to the landscaping p
besn substantial changes to the plan. In reviewing the ?tanning Commission comments and the
Redevelopment comments, and working wfth the Code as to the number of trees required, which is
something they are willing to do, and to maximize the greenbelt effect from the freeway, the plans
submitted have three different breaks in the parking lot.
He explained they considered the particular needs of this tenant and for security they want to maintain
the additional lights in the parking lot to make ft safe and inviting for all the customers.
7-24-95
Page 3
,, ;_9-.,
Concerning the freeway-oriented signs, he stated in working with the Redevelopment Agency, they have
been able to work out a substant~l compromise as to what the applicant wanted, and they are
~,~ proposing a352-sq. ft. sign 40 feet a~ve the first grade level of the freeway closest to the property.
Commissioner Henninger asked where the sign sits in relationship to the drive aisles. He thought it
appeared there was Just a spot shown where the old pole sign would go and now the new sign has two
poies.
Mr. Graumann stated they will have to redesign where they want the sign located. He explained the
sign is approximately 22 feet high and has two poles on the outer portion of the sign. He added they
want to have safe and very easy circulation in the parking lot for the customers.
Commissioner Messe asked ff they are talking about relocating that sign.
Mr. Graumann stated they want to keep it in the same general location and ft may be a relocation of the
parking lot and fney will have to look at it from the standpoint of not losing any parking spaces.
Commissioner Henninger suggested movi~~g it back and putting one of the poles in the end of the drive
aisle and one pole between two parking spaces.
Mr. Graumann stated the poles would have to have ballards for protection.
Commissioner Sostw(ck stated he thought there was a question about trees on the end closest to the
freeway rather than trying to plant four trees in each of the end aisles or the middle aisles where they
have four trees grouped together. He stated taking some of those out of there and putting one larger
tree in each of the far ends to give some type of landscaping toward the freeway would be appropriate.
Mr. Graumann stated they discussed that with the Redevelopment Agency and thought with the freeway
being 6 to 8 feet higher, ff they plant trees closer to the freeway, the site view is limited as the trees get
larger. He stated the front door is being changed to the south side and in the future they want people
to see the front and they want to maintain the greenbelt effect looking through the screening. He
referred to Caltrans requirements regarding the height of the landscaping in that area. He added they
want people's eye to go to the greenbelt and then to the building and see that that is the front of the
building.
fie stated the four trees shown are all 15-gallon trees per Code and over time, he did not think a person
would see a massive amount of trees there and have an unsightly view. He thought it would create
more greenbelt.
Commissioner Henninger asked ff the trees in the parking lot will have a 4x4 planter around them and if
they will be fully irrigated. Mr. Graumann responded that is correct, and added currently there are 16
trees along La Palma and they propose to maintain the landscaping along La Palma. He added his only
concern is the vehicular and pedestrian traffic since there is an interchange there and a bus kiosk.
Commissioner Henninger asked 'rf the objection to planting trees next to the freeway is that they would
eventually grow and block the view of the building. He asked about putting in landscaping planters with
shrubs that would grow to six feet.
Mr. Graumann responded the objection he would have would be installation of irrigation and disrupting
the existing parking lot which has had 30 years o.:~~mpaction.
7-24-95
Page 4
'4-.,
Commissioner Henninger pointed out they would be trenching out there for installation of electrical
~~ utilities.
Mr. Graumann stated they would be trenching for electricity but the ditch would not have to be as wide
and there would be seepage of water, etc.
Commissioner Henninger stated this landscaping plan is considerably better than the first proposal. He
added he did not quite understand the comments about the trenching and thought the irrigation could fit
in the same trench as the electrical utilities.
Commissioner Meese asked how many Tight standards are proposed and Mr. Graumann stated some of
the rows will have three standards and some will have two.
was noted by Commissioners Messes& Peraza that therehwould be a trench~forg hatisign,i'as wiellt~ It
Commissioner Bostwick noted ft would require a deeper ditch, but it would not have to be any wider.
Mr. Graumann stated because the trench is going to that pole, maybe he could put some hedges,
flowering ground cover, etc. in that location, versus going all the way down each one of those rows.
Commissioner Henninger asked about four planters there rather than just the one for the sign, pointing
out he is talking about adding four planters at the end of one of those parking bays, noting there are
seven sows and he is suggesting planters at the ends of four aisles.
Mr. Graumann responded they will consider that alternative.
MOTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and MOTION
CARRIED (Commissioners Boydstun and Mayer absent and one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission does hereby approve the revised landscaping and sign plans wfth the following
changes:
1. That four (4) of the seven proposed parking aisle end bays closest to the freeway shall be
landscaped with shrubbery. Said landscaping shall be fully irrigated.
2. That the proposed freeway-oriented sign shall be relocated, or the adjacent drive aisle
reconfigured, in order to allow unobstructer' +ehicular circulation around the base of said sign.
C. CONDITIONAL USE PEIRMIT NO. 103 - REQUEST FOR and/or modificatt~on
INITIATION OF REVOCATION OR MODIFICATION roceedin s
PROCEEDINGS: Initiated by the City of Anaheim, Code P g
Enforcement Division, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA
92805 request for initiation of revocation or modffication
proceedin~~s for Conditional Use Permit No. 103 (to permit an 18-
unit motel). Property is located at 500 S. Beach Boulevard.
Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement DNision, explained the Calico Motel is being brought before the
Commission for possible modification and/or termination of their CUP. He explained this is based on
7-24-95
Page 5
~,
extensive police activity, as well as Code Enforcement action against the property which continues to
date. He stated they ask that this matter be set for a public hearing.
b ACTION: initiated revocation and/or modffication proceedings based on the staff report and summary
of service calls of Anaheim Police Department.
p, REFINEMEN T PE IFIC PLAN N0.94-1 AND FINDINGS Recommended
OF FACT: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, 201 S. Anaheim approval to City
Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 requests refinements to Specific Plan Council
No. 94-1 and associated findings of fact. Property is
approximately 2,645 acres generally abounded by the Orange
(57) and Riverside (91) Freeways, Orangethorpe Avenue and
Imperial Highway.
Commissioner Messe declared a conflict of Interest.
rer oast that anyxcanisiderat v be given) nethe form ofha recommenda~ n to the City Counciwould
q
PUBLIC COMMENT
Tom Kieviet, Farano and Kieviet, Attorneys, 2100 S. State College Boulevard, Anaheim, explained they
are here on behalf of Mr. Kim Johar of Mr. J's restaurant, 1074 N. Tustin. He stated he was present to
ask for clarificatlon and possibly a continuance in view of the fact their firm was just approached by the
applicant last Friday. He added they are not aware of the proposed changes to the Specific Plan for the
Canyon Industrial Area. For clarification they have questions primarily on Item 4a and 4b, deletion of
alcohol sales, apparently for drive-through and drive-in restaurants, but appears to leave in the section of
the proposed code that allows alcoholic on-premise anti consumption facilities whether or not they are
integrated within a restaurant.
He stated they would like to confirm that alcohol sales will be permitted under the new code as
recommended whether or not there is a restaurant, as long as it is by way of a conditional use permit.
Commissioner Henninger stated he thought that was true.
Greg Hastings responded regarding 4a that the intent is to basically allow drNe-in or drive-through
restaurants without alcohol and it was basically overlap and there was no charge in the Intent. There
are two code sections and one reads, "restaurant with alcohol sales, drive-in or drive-through service"
and the other section which is proposed would remain the same which allows alcohol beverage without
or integrat~ad within a restaurant.
It was clarified a conditional use permif would still be required.
Commissioner Henninger stated the language at the bottom of 4a is included in the Specific Plan and
the words "wfth alcohol sales" are being stricken because it was felt that the use was covered by this
language.
7-24-95
Page 6
~' . ..~
Mr. Kieviet referred to 4b and asked for clarification and stated they are proposing to eliminate the
section that was by condiional use permft for amusement and entertainment facilfties involving the legal
assemblage of persons, etc. from certain areas of the new Canyon Industrial Area and they wcuid like
clariffcation. He added Development Area 5 which would include Mr. J's is zoned CL, and that zone did
allow this kind of use by CUP. He stated he understood that the new Specffic Plan would not allow this
use in Development Area 5 and they would be looking perhaps to retain this use as part of Development
Area 5 in the event Mr. J's had to qualify under that section.
Mr. Kieviet stated his request for clarification is to confirm whether or not this section would exist
or can exist in Development Area 5 and if ft is possible for them to seek a continuance to discuss
wfth staff and/or Commission the advisabilfty and desirability of including ft in Development Area
5.
Greg Hastings responded the wording was actually for the other development areas and ft was
inadvertently included in those areas. He did not believe Area 5 had this language. He added
currently this provision is nowhere to be found in the Canyon Industrial Area and Mr. Kieviet is
correct in assuming that the commercial limited zone was used as a base zone for Development
Area 5. However, the uses are not the same as they would be in other areas of the City which
has commoer niate ~n an area whicheisnstilltconsidered to be an industrial based areahat would be
most app p
Commissioner Henninger stated the Commission is being asked to make a recommendation to
the C'~ty Council for these changes to be included in their public hearing on the Specific Plan on
August 8 and suggested Mr. Kieviet bring these concerns up at that hearing.
ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and
Motion Carried (Commissioner Messe absent) recommending approval to the City Council.
E, NDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3566 -SUBSTANTIAL Determined to be in
CONFORMANCE: Donahue Schriber, Attn: Ernie Weber, 3501 substantial
Jamboree Road, Ste. 300, Newport Beach, CA 92660 requests conformance
substantial conformance review of the design and layout of the
multi-tenant food court sign in conjunction with Conditional Use
Permit No. 3566 (to pemift the phased construction of a regional
shopping center). Property is located at 500-600 N. Euclid
Avenue.
Jan Woven, General Manager, Anaheim Plaza, was present to answer any questions.
ACTION: Determined to be in substantial conformance with previously approved plans.
Greg Hastings, added currently there is 420 sgtft. andlthattis showntilin thenstaffreporti but ft was not
square feet. He
the staffs intent to limft ft to that amount.
7-24-95
Page 7
,, - 0-,
Continued to
2a. CEtiA NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 7, 1995
2b. RECLASSIFICATION NO.9495-10
2c, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
2d. 1CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3772
OWNER: CHRYSLER REALTY CORP., 1450 W. Long Lake Road,
Ste. 280, Troy, MI 48098
AGENT: R.A. BEEHLER, 14252 Culver Drive, Ste. A-349, Irvine, CA
92714
LOCATION: 1120 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property is
approximately 3.8 acres located at the northeast
comer of Ball Road and Anaheim Boulevard.
To reclassify subject property from the ML, CH, CG and PLD-M
(Umited Industrial) (Commercial Heavy) (Commercial General) and
(Landscape District, Manufacturing) Zones to the CL (Commercial,
Limited) Zone.
buses and adminbstrative officescwith waiver ofraequired parking of a of
landscaping.
Continued from the June 26, 1995 Planning Commission meeting.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Continued subject proposal to the August 7, 1995 Planning Commission meeting in order
to allow the petitioner to complete the redesign of the proposed terminal in order to
incorporate the required 15-foot dedication.
VOTE: 4-0 (Com?rissioners Boydstun and Mayer absent and one vacant seat)
7-24-95
Page 8
,, = 'i~.
3a. CEQe NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Previously Approved) Continued to
~.1 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3417(Readvertised) August 7, 1995
OWNER: A.G. CASSIS, 413 Sharon Road, Arcadia, CA 91007
AGENT: ADVANCED PROFESSIONAL IMAGING MEDICAL
GROUP, Attn: Dr. Sim C.Hoffman, 585 S. Knott Street,
Anaheim, CA 92804
LOCATION: °"~-°O~ South Knott Street Property is
approximately 0.68 acre located at the northwest
comer of Knott Street and Orange Avenue.
Petitioner requests amendment to conditions of approval pertaining to
the time Iimftation for a previously approved mobile medical unit within
an existing shopping center.
Continued from the July 10, 1995 Planning Commission meeting.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
--------------------------------------
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Continued subject proposal to the August 7, 1995 Planning Commission meeting in
order for the applicant to be present.
VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Boydstun and Mayer absent and one vacant seat)
7-24-95
Page 9
tYi
4a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT°~EPORT NO.31T (Certification Pending)
4b. coFriF~C PLAN 914-1 (Readverfised)
OWNER: Initiated .by City of ANAHEIldi PLANNING COMMISSION,
ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, C/0 ATTN:
Michael Welch, Anaheim, CA 92803
LOCATION: The proposed acre 2,645 Northeast Area Specffic Plan
project area is generally bounded by the Orange (57) and
the RNerstde (91) freeways, Orangethorpe Avenue and
Imperial Highway and includes the Canyon Industrial Area
and properties within and surrounding the boundaries of
Redavelopment Project Area Alpha.
To add development standards for freeway-oriented signs within the
specific plan area.
SPECIFIC PLAN RESOLUTION NO. PC95-84
Recommended to the
City Council the
inclusion of the
proposed sign
standards
---------------------------------
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
Commissioner Henninger stated this is city-initiated and the staff report does a good job explaining it.
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion recommending to the City Council the inclusion of the
proposed sign standards.
ACTION: Determined that the previously recommended EIR 317 is adequate to serve
as the required environmental documentation for subject request.
Recommended to the City Council the inclusion of the following sign
standards in the previously recommended Specific Plan No. 94-1:
The intent of this section is to permit freeway oriented identification signs by
conditional use permit, only for those businesses which serve the needs of
the freeway motorist such as service stations, motels, restaurants, or those
retail businesses of area wide significance. This section shall be limited to
parcels adjacent to the north and south side of the 91 Freeway or
associated freeway frontage roads between the Santa Ana Riverbed and
the 57 Freeway.
7-24-95
Page 10
~}
4a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO•Readvert sed) lion Pending)
4b. SPECIFIC PLAN 941 (
OWNER: Intiated by City of ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION,
ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, C/0 ATTN:
Michael Welch, Anaheim, CA 92803
LOCATION: The proposed acre 2,645 Northeast Area Specffic Ptan
project area is generally bounded by the Orange (57) and
the Riverside (91) freeways, Orangethorpe Avenue and
Imperial Highway and Includes the Canyon Industrial Area
and properties wthin and surrounding the boundaries of
Redevelopment Project Area Aipha.
To add development standards for freeway-oriented signs within the
specffic plan area.
SPECIFIC PLAN RESOLUTION N0. PC95-84
Recommended to the
City Council the
inclusion of the
proposed sign
standards
---------------------------------
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
Commissioner Henninger stated this is city-initiated and the staff report does a good job explaining it.
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion recommending to the Ciry Council the inclusion of the
proposed sign standards.
ACTION: Determined that the previously recommended EIR 317 is adequate to serve
as the required environmental documentation for subject request.
Recommended to the City Council the inclusion of the following sign
standards in the previously recommended Specific Plan No. 94-1:
The intent of this section is to permit freeway oriented identification signs by
conditional use permit, only for those businesses which serve the needs of
the freeway motorist such as service stations, motels, restaurants, or those
retail businesses of area wide significance. This section shall be limited to
parcels adjacent to the north and south side of the 91 Freeway or
associated freeway frontage roads between the Santa Ana Riverbed and
the 57 Freeway.
7-24-95
Page 10
Freeway Oriented Sign Defined
~...) A freestanding identification sign whose height, location and sign copy are
designed in a manner which permits identification from adjacent freeways.
A freeway oriented business sign shall only be permitted for retail
businesses of area wide significance or for those serslvnce s at ons, motels
the immediate need of the highway motorist (e.g.
and restaurants).
Business Qualified for Freeway Oriented Signs
Freeway oriented businesses as described above which have a minimum
building square footage of 50,000 s.f. or a minimum of 3 acres for vehicle
sales lots and a freeway frontage of no less than 300 linear feet.
Maximum Number of Freeway Oriented Signs
There shall be no more than one freestanding freeway oriented sign per
parcel. The sign shall be limited to identifying the business occupying the
site.
Location of Freestanding Signs on Parcel
Freestanding sign shall be located in the landscape setback area,
perpendicular to the freeway and shall be located approximately midway
between side property lines within the middle 20% of the property frontage.
Maximum Height of Sign
Maximum height of the freestanding sign shall be limited to 35 feet above
finish grade of the closest freeway tans.
Maximum Width of Sign
Maximum width of the freestanding sign, including sign support structure,
shall not exceed 20 feet.
Maximum Sign Panel Area
The area of each face of a double faced freestanding sign panel shall not
7-24-95
Paye 11
•,
exceed 150 square feet and be in the form of a maximum 10' high x 15'
wide sign panel.
~~
Sign Structure
The sign shall be supported by a two post structure. The posts and
associated framing or metal skin shall not be less than 25% of the total sign
width. The sign panel shall be recessed into the sign structure on each
side 4 inches. No riders or attachments shall be added to the sign
structure.
Sign Graphics
Graphics shall be limited to the sign panel only. Lettering including logo,
shall constitute not more than 60% of total graphic area with background
40%. Lettering shall be limited to the name of the business.
Sign Materials
Sign panel materials shall conform to the establis'ned sign design criteria of
the City. The sign support structure shall be constructed with high quality
materials as approved under the conditional use permit process. The sign
structure shall be of a similar color of the associated business building.
Sign Illumination
Signs shall be internally illuminated. Illumination shall be limited to lettering
and logo only, no background illumination.
~/OTE: 3-0 (Commissioner Messe declared a conflict of
interest, Commissioners Boydstun and Mayer absent
and one vacant seat)
7-24-95
Page 12
~,
1 5a. CEG1A NErATNE DECLARATION (Previously Approved) Approved
Readvertised) Granted
5b. VARIANCE N0.4269 (
OWNER: RUDOLPH M. BRACHO, ROSEMARIE
BRACHO, STEPHEN C. WILLIAi`JIS, and
MONICA HORMAZA WILLlAMS, 18997 Villa
Terrace, Yorba Linda, CA 92686
LOCATION: 122 South Walnut. Property is approximately
5,750 square feet located on the east side of
Walnut Street and approximately 300 feet
south of the centerline of Center Street.
Waiver of maximum number of bachelor units and
minimum structural setback to retain a 590-square foot
bachelor unit above a detached 3-car garage.
VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC95-85
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke/2 letters received
Rudy Bracho, owner, explained this request is for the conversion of apre-existing
structure in the rear of a 3-bedroom home into an apartment. The variances are for
parking space size and setbacks ar~d there was concern about degradation of
standards. He added he thought this is a compromise that would work and that is
to convert this unit to a bachelor apartment. He added the property is very nice and
with this unit, adequate parking will be provided on site, and added they plan to keep
the property nice.
OPPOSITION:
Henry Sanchez, 1120 W. Chestnut, stated he is opposed to this change even though
it has been scaled down because they already have a heavy mix of apartments and
the problems that come with apartments. He stated approval of this would set a
negative precedent for their neighborhood. He added he is also opposed to the
variances because the landlord has broken the rules of development and he did not
think their intent was to build this as a bonus room but was meant to augment their
7-24-95
Page 13
income. He stated also the property has been rented even after the ruling by the
Planning Commission and in view of those discrepancies, he did not feel they should
~--' be granted this variance.
Mr. Bracho stated they did meet with Mr. Sanchez to discuss their intent. He stated
they had no intention of doing anything wrong and were misled. He stated a Code
Enforcement Officer pointed out the problem and explained this is the process they
needed to go through and it has taken a long time. He stated nothing was done
intentionally to break the law nor to deceive the neighborhood.
Regarding the comment about a bad precedent for the neighborhood, Mr. Bracho
stated the neighborhood is mixed with apartments and he felt this is one of the finest
properties in the neighborhood. Their direct neighbors do share a RM1200 status
and which this construction he thought they will have more living space and mare
parking and will be contributing less to the congestion than their neighbors.
Commissioner Henninger asked what they were thinking they were going to build in
the beginning and what advice they received and if they thought this would be
another unit when they first started
Mr. Bracho stated they made a conscious decision to tear down something that was
unsafe and did not fit their needs. At that time they decided to build a 3-car garage
in the rear of the property. When he consulted the builder he showed him the value
of adding something on the top and it was a wise decision. He stated he built a S-
car garage and game room. Subsequently, he left the property and was given
some advice by the property manager and explained he did live on the property
when he built the garage. He stated he moved out and rented the home and the
property manger suggested the room be used for housing in order to get paid for it.
He stated it was built in 1989 or 1890 and it is very nice.
Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement, stated this matter was brought to their attention
because of the multiple meters on the property in October 1994. The property
owners were notified that the rear unit was not built as a rental unit and the property
was not zoned for multiple-family units. The property has been inspected and the
permits have been signed off; however, the property still is in violation because it is a
rental unit. He added he spoke with the tenant this morning and they have lived
there consistently for the last 12 months. He stated they consistently write tickets for
vehicles parked in the yard at that location. There is a 2-car detached garage and
another single garage without a door as well as an extensively long driveway.
Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated regarding the economic hardship
expressed by the applicant, there are findings included on page 4 of the staff report
which describe what needs to be the case in order for this type variance to be
7-24-95
Page 14
ranted and financial hardship is not one ereb ethers li oan unusual c rcumstance and
9
valve that is put into the Zoning Code w y itself, such as the size, the
there is something that is chsuactests'that the Zoning Code may not be ed b I other
grade or the location which g9 that is us Y
applicable in a fair way which doesn't prevent its use in a way
e and not an ~
people in the neighborhood in the sa be a characteristhc of the propnrtyd to e • ant
present and the characteristic has to royal, the applic `
economic issue. She added if the Commission isvch ch would justify such a waiver. }
should identify the characteristics of the property ;
licant knows that economics really {
Commissioner Masse stated he thought this app'
do not play a role in the Commission's denisi ustii'ICation tohoffer. strictly based on
licant has a y 1
land use. He asked if the app
Mr. Bracho stated he has none associated o~~ referredto other st uctures in the
down; and that he thought the first stae re has lots of room and plenty of parking
neighborhood. He explained this prop rty
nd the roperty next door is congested and run down and he did not understand i
a p
this is denied.
Commissioner Henninger asked if he is innic utnl g that the two adjacent properties on
either side of his property have two dwells g
ace and it has
Mr. Bracho stated there is a duplex next door that has ones nrthe ear. The duplex
eo le living in front and five or six pgeop lain
maybe five or six p p limited parking and the nei hbors on both sides comp
on the other side ark in the street.
about having top this
Commissioner Peraza stated the Commission received two letters concerning
property.
ommissioner Henninger stated those letters ar sn Ding on heret t one talks about t
C lain about wha g osition that
of this property and don't comp
negative precedent for the neigon this small of and thislpttoposal stnotfor more
they are against more building arentl not
building. He added he is worried about th hisr a ant recommended r app s tesymony
that this was an innocent expansion wh ro riate.g He did not see a problem with this
understanding that it was not really app p le would think they could build things
particular proposal, but is concerned that peop rove them.
and then get the Commission to retroactively app
Commissioner Peraza stated that is a bee n vetN voclalhborhood. Commissioner
Masse added that neighborhood has
7-24-95
Page 15
~ ~~
Commissioner Henninger added he thought that neighborhood is going to be
changed by Caltrans and asked what those plans are.
Bruce Freeman stated he meets regularly with Caltrans and OCTA
representatives and the major'~ty of the changes are occurring along Cherry :Street to
the west and the properties along Cherry all the way to the alley are being taken as
well as the apartments and the other units on the left side of Cherry and most of
those properties have already been demolished.
Commissioner Henninger asked about the Caltrans plans where Walnut intersects
Broadway.
Mr. Freeman stated he did not think there is a lot of activity at that location. It is his
understanding that the plans are to remove the curved portion of the freeway and
installing a new off-ramp onto Lincoln which is also taking a number of the properties
on Lincoln.
Melanie Adams, Public Works -Engineering, pointed out Walnut will be cul de sated
so there will be no access from W~ gut to Broadway.
Mr. Bracho sated that sounds like a good change and should help things because
they have had a lot of drive-by traffic between Broadway and Lincoln.
Commissioner Henninger stated this is the second hearing and the applicant is
having to change what he built considerably in order to have a bachelor unit and he
is tempted to allow this with those changes. He felt the Commission has made it
difficult enough for this applicant so that others will see it and not try to do the same
thing.
Commissioner Messe asked if there is a way to impose a ~.ne car restriction on this.
Commissioner Henninger suggested adding a condition that says "no parking on the
lawn" with a Code Enforcement inspection payment required.
Commissioner Bostwick pointed out the conditions are imposing considerable fees in
order to keep this as a rental unit.
Selma Mann asked that characteristics applicable to the r-operty be stipulated.
ACTION: Determined that the previously approvecl negative declaration is
adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for
subject request.
Granted Variance No. 4269 with the following 2 added conditions:
7-24-95
Page 16
1, That all parking shall take place in the designated parking areas.
~.~ 2. That the owner/developer shall pay for the cost of monthly Code
Enforcement inspections if deemed necessary by the Code
Enforcement Division.
VOTE: 3-1 (Commissioner Peraza voted no, Commissioners Boydstun and
Mayer absent, and one vacant seat)
Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
7-24-95
Page 17
6a. CE(aA NEGATNE DECLARATION Approved
~._ .l 6b. VARIANCE NO. 4276 Granted
OWNER: WILLIAM C. and VINCENT C. TAORMINA,
P.O. BOX 309, Anaheim, CA 92815-0309
AGENT: RICHARD B. WINN, P.O. Box 309, Anaheim,
CA 92815-0309
LOCATION: 2820 E. White Star Avenue.
Property is approximately 1.3 acres
located at the northeast corner of La
Palma Avenue and Blue Gum Street.
Waiver of required parking lot landscaping and permitted
encroachment into required yards to construct a private
employee parking lot for regional material recovery
facility.
VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC95-86
`-- FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
Richard Winn, agent, representing Taormina Industries, stated they propose installing
an employee parking lot in the northeast corner of the La Palma/Blue Gum
intersection. This is the second phase of their development. He explained they have
not been able to complete the first phase on the southeast and southwest corners of
La Palma and Blue Gum. He added they tried to accommodate the Fsedevelopment
Agency's desire to have the i?lue Gum/La Palma intersection be the western
gateway to that area.
He added they will apply this pr~nosal to the other three corners as well so it blends
harmoniously.
The first proposal is for the setback and the fencing is to be on the right of way line
rather than 5 feet behind the right of way line on La Palma and they have no
problem with that, nor with the color of the fence. They would like to use the
greenbelt area and additional plants in lieu of the interior islands in the parking lot.
7-24-95
Page 18
~ ~.
He stated they are precluded from access to La Palma or Blue Gum because of the
,~ ~ proximity of the intersection and their intent is to access it for their own employees
~ ~ from White Star. By overplanting the landscape areas on the perimeter rather than
the interior islands, it would give them better utilization of the site.
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Messe asked about the billboard and if it is to be removed.
Mr. Winn stated consistent with the developments on the other corner immediate to
the west, when development is permitted, they would remove the billboards.
Commissioner Messe asked where the existing units would be relocated.
Mr. Winn stated a lot of this is conditioned on development on the south side of tl'~e
street. They are well aware of the Commission's disappointment of the unsightliness
of that entry area and they would like to clean that up. They are not going to move
them to the other side of the street. He noted they are in the process of acquiring
some property where they will be relocated.
Commissioner Bostwick stated he can appreciate their desire to overplant around
the perimeter, but he would worry about low shrubbery that would block visibility
since this is not a secured or locked area.
Commissioner Messe asked if the current landscape plans show the overplanting
being proposed.
Mr. Winn responded it is not shown to any great extent because the plan has been
changed from the berm with the fence on top of the berm to bringing the fence back
to the property line. They will have to revise the landscape plans.
Commissioner Henninger asked if we are ever going to require the landscape
planters in the parking lots and the current landscape plan show varying berms and
thought with berms continuously around it would block the view of the cars. He
explained he was considering asking for that type berming rather than interior
landscaping. He questioned whether security was a reason not to do that.
Mr. Winn stated they would be open to some type of modification to that idea and
noted there is some change in grade and asked if the berm was built to the edge.
Commissioner Henninger thought there is room for atwo-foot high berm with
landscapinv on top of the berm and that is at the minimum areas. The circulation
7-24-95
Page 19
~ h ~,
plans show places where the drive aisles are wider than necessary and some of that
area could be transferred into landscape setback.
Melanie Adams, Public Works-Engineering, pointed out the ultimate right of way is 32
feet, with the curb 20 feet from the centerline.
Ms. Adams explained when the industrial area was first developed, sidewalk waivers
were granted, but since then, it was felt sidewalks would be helpful for people using
buses, or persons with handicaps, etc. Sidewalks are now being required in that
industrial area.
Commissioner Henninger referred to the landscape requirements recently enacted
and felt maybe they should be reviewed.
Commissioner Messe agreed the industrial landscape requirements should be
reviewed.
Commissioner Henninger indicated he was tempted to go along with this request if
they berm up around the perimeter more to hide the parking lot. He suggested a
two-week continuance in order for the applicant to submit revised plans.
Commissioner Henninger offered resolution for approval of Variance 4276 with an
added condition that prior to the issuance of the building permit to build the parking
lot, the applicant shall submit a revised landscaped to be approved as a report and
recommendation, and the revised landscaping plan shall include the increased
berming around the perimeter sufficiently tall to screen the parking lot.
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Granted Variance No. 4276 with the following added condition:
That prior to the issuance of a building permit, a revised landscaping
plan (including the location of the proposed fence) showing increased
berming around the perimeter shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a
"Report and Recommendation" item.
VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Boydstun and Mayer absent and one
vacant seat)
Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
7-24-95
Page 20
~, ,
~_ ~ 7a. CE~A NEGATNE DECLARATION(Previously Approved) Continued to
7b. WANER ~F CEDE RE~UIREMEN ~ August 7, 1995
7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2602 Seed)adverti
OWNER: JOHN WOLBERT, P.O. BOX 280, ORANGE,
CA 92666
LOCATION: 127-133 West Hill Place. Property is
approximately 0.75 acre located on
the north side of Hill Place and
approximately 90 feet east of the
centerline of Iris Street.
To permit the expansion of a previously approved 40 bed
board and care facility to allow a total of 49 beds.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Continued subject proposal to the August 7, 1995 Planning
Commission meeting in order to advertise a parking waiver in
conjunction with subject request.
VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Boydstun and Mayer absent and one
vacant seat)
7-24-95
Page 21
S '~ `,
f 8a.
V 8b.
CE(~A NEGATNE DECLARATION (Previously Approved
rOND TIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2090 (Readvertised) 9 j expire 8-26-
O''J11NER: HARdEY S. OWEN, P.O. BOX 1034,
TU~~TIN, CA 92681
AGENT: BOBBY S. OWEN, 1788 S. Euclid Street,
Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 1160 North Kraemer Boulevard.
Property is approximately 0.9 acre located
on the east side of Kraemer Boulevard and
approximately 242 feet south of the
centerline of Coronado Street.
Petitioner requests modification of a condition of
approval pertaining to the limitation of time of a
previously-approved public dance hall in conjunction with
a restaurant.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. _
PC95-87
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
Commissioner Nlesse stated they keep the place looking nice and asked if there
have been any Code Enforcement or Police problems at this site.
Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement Division, answered there have been no
problems.
ACTION: atlas uate totserve as the~equired enveonmental documenltation for
q
subject request.
Approved subject request. Amended Condition No. 5 Resolution No.
7-24-95
Page 22
.~ ..,
PC80-92, granted in connection with Conditional Use Permit No 2090,
to read as follows:
"5. That the use is hereby granted for a period of three (3) years,
and shall expire on August 26, 1997.
VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Boydstun and Mayer absent and one
vacant seat)
Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written 22-day appeal rights.
_.
7-2495
Page 23
i
•~' ~. r..
9a. CE~A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
gb. WANER OF CODE REGIUIREMENT
9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.3778
OWNER: ROSCOE AND WINIFRED GONKLIN, 3030
Terraza, Fullerton, CA 92635
AGENT: ALEXANDER DRAKE HIBBS, INC., 1200 N.
Jefferson,
Ste. A, Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION: 831 835 North oz mater) 0.52 acredlocated
Property is app Y
on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard and
approximately 255 feet south of the centerline
of La Verne Street.
To establish an automobile glass tinting and electronic
trouble shooting facility with waiver of required parking lot
landscaping
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0.
Continued to
August 21, 1995
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Continued subject request to the August 21, 1995 Planning
Commission meeting in order to revise plans and to readvertise subject
request to include a proposed auto repair business in an adjacent unit.
VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Boydstun and Mayer absent and one
vacant seat)
7-24-95
Page 24
1 ~ ~a
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Henninger requested that a w:.rkshop be
scheduled to discuss the new parking lot landscape standards.
~.t
ADJOURNED AT 2:50 P.M. TO THE AUGUST 7, 1995 PLANNING COMMIS510N
MORNING WORK SESSION AT 9:30 A.M.
Res ectfully subm0itted,
Edith L. Harris
Planning Commission Support Supervisor
-24-95
Page 25
~ ~'n TS ~7': "'` `~..ii~7C`7..4 r ~J,~ c
`''"+
~ ~ ~ ~''- '
"'N~4g"
S t a~ `W 47 2 r0, ~2 .2 r ~1 ~".~T~p 3~~ ~x *r+ ,~r'1, ~ l~7
+:
1'
'rt ~"
''Y
6
~
Y
i x
~
~
~
~
"
'
~
~
~~
~~ I z/ p .1 c t r
~ "~ r
~~ /mar cY`N, '+~,~
i
~r
'
~
r
_
~
~
r
ti
,
+y~y
~
~,
.. i
y
y '
+
~
r
r
.1
~ "c $<
~C''~:
x f~ ~-+' ,
, ~ ~,
+;
.
7 .F s}r~. '' 2'.r';vt 41 .
_
t
' ';,
ti;,
~,r ~~ _
t
6
~ ,.
' `;
::.', ,,
r~~,
... ., l`~ ,. ~; .,1.1 Y ~
.. ...~.i.-7 .~.. ti .. .~~~...t,. ...i%s5 ~. ~,+.e~~t~ ~r.'r. ~'4v^. ,. (,. ...z~~G .. ;',~
..~~~.,.eRk.., _r ~ ~ 24 ... ., ,xS~;: ~ M_.. ~..~...7}k