Minutes-PC 1996/09/04SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA
ANAHEIM CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMEER 4, 1996
PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW: 10:00 A.M.
PUBLIC HEARING (TESTIMONY): 1:30 P. M.
C'.OMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOSTWICK, BOYD3TUN, BRISTOL, HENNINGER, MESSE, PERAZA
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: MAYER
STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann
Greg Hastings
Cheryl Flores
Greg McCafferty
Karen Freeman
Bruce Freeman
Alfred Yalda
Melanie Adams
Margarita Solorio
Lisseth Garcia
Assistant City Attorucy
Zoaing Division Manager
Senior Planner
Associate Planner
Associate Planner
Code Enforcement Supervisor
principal Transportation Planner
Associate Civil Engineer
Senior Secretary
Assistant Clerk
A5090496.WP
SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, 1996
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
q, ~DiTIONAL USE PERMIT NOS 2905 3253 AND 3414 -
CATION OR MODIFICATION Request to initiate
modiflc;ation and/or
INITIATION OF REVO
PR EEDIN City initiated (Anaheim Redevelopment
2805 revocation
proceedings for CUP's
.
Agancy), 201 South Anaheim Bivd., Anaheim, CA 9
initiate revocation or modification proceedings for
t t 2905 and 3414 was
o
Reques
Conditional Use Permit No. 2905 (to permit a 40 foot high withdrawn
10-screen, indoor theater complex (Cinemapdis) with waiver of
minimum number of parking spaces), Conditional Use Permit
of a multi screen indoor
i R uest to initiate
~
on
No. 3414 (to permit the expans
theater complex (Cinemapolis) and to construct a 29-foot high mod~ication and/or
parking structure, with waivers of minimum number of parking
i
i revocation
proceedings for CUP
mum
n
spaces, prohibited roof-mounted equipment and m
landscaped setback adjacent to a railroad right-of-way, and 3253 was continued to
Conditional Use Permit No. 3253 (to permit commercial retail October 14, 1996
center (Imperial Promenade) and asemi-enclosed restaurant
with on-premises sale and consumption of alcohdic beverages
with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces, minimum
structural setback adjacent to Imperial Highway, and prohibited
roof-mounted equlp~nent). Properties are located at 5635 East
La Palma Avenue (l;lnemapdis) and 5645 -5675 East La
Palma Avenue (Imperial Promenade).
Robert Gorson, Senior Project Manager, Community Development, gave a short review/history of these
conditional use permfts. He indicated that the theaters had made partial payment on the signal fee and
that the Imperial Promenade has indicated that they will pay the balance in four to six weeks. Under
these circumstances he is requesting a continuance to the Planning Commission meeting o: October 14,
1996.
~;~NDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 188 -INITIATION OF Initiated revocation
REVOCATION OR MODIFICATION PROCEEDINGS: City and/or modification
Initiated (Code Enforcement), 200 South Anaheim BNd., proceedings for
Anaheim, CA 92805. Request to initiate revocation or ;.UP 188 - to be
modification proceedings for Conditional Use Permit No. 188 consklered together
(to establish a planned unit shopping center including a with CUP 2090 on
restaurant with cocktail lounge). Property is located at 1160 Sept. ~, 1996
North Kraemer Boulevard (Bobby's Shack).
Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement Supervisor, stated that they had initiated the request to revoke
and/or modify this conditional use permit because of the extensive citizen complaints and the number of
pdice service calls to this location.
Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion to continue this item to the r:ieeting of September 30, 1996,
and Commissioner Henninger asked for a madification to the motion that the continuance be to the
9-96
Page 2
SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, 1996
same meeting date as Conditional Use Permft No. 2090 because the two use permits should be
~~viewed at the same time. It was confirmed that CUP No. 2090 has been set for public hearing on
September 30, 1996 and the motion was seconded and carried.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
2a. ~EQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) I Continued to
2b. ~NDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1829 (READVERTISED) September 30, 1996
OWNER: LANDSDALE & CARR, 17662 Armstrong Avenue, Irvine,
CA 92714
AGENT: STRATA LAND COMPANY, Attn: Michael Toerge, 3810 E.
Coast Highway, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
LOCATION: 950 North Harbor Boulevard. Property is an irregularly-
shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.37
acres located at the southeast comer of La Palma Avenue
and Harbor Boulevard.
To permft automotive repair in conjunction wfth apreviously-approved
"' fire sales/installation business.
This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of
August 5, 1996.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: There were two people present in opposition.
ACTION: Continued subject request to the September 30, 1996 Planning Commission meeting in
order fcr the applicant to prepare addftional documents.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: This ftem was not discussed
9-4-96
Page 3
SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA, ANAHEIM CIT1f PLANNING CO(v1MISSiON September 4, 1996
t
3a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATI N
3b. ^^"'DITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3857
Continued to
September 16, 1996
OWNER: AETNA UFE INSURANCE COMPANY, c/o UNCOUV
PROPERTY COMPANY, Attn: S. Ritschel, 30
Executive Park, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92713
AGENT: AIR TOUCH CELLULAR, Attn: Melinda Hsu, 3 Park
Plaza, P.O. Box 19707, Irvine, CA 92713
LOCATION: ~°~ ~^~' 405 North Muller Street. Property is a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 1.67 acres, having a ftontage of
approximately 274 feet on the west side of Muller
Street and located approximately 300 feet south of
the centerline of Corporate Way.
1'o permit a 15 foot height extension (91 feet total including whip
antennas) and addftlonal antennas on an existing monopde
communication antenna.
This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting M
August 5, 1996.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Continued subject request to th9 September 16, 1996 Planning Commission meeting in
order to further discuss the screening of the monopde with staff.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed
9-4-96
Page 4
SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, 1996
,~ Cen~,e, u~re7ryE DECLARATION I Approved
4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3862 Granted
OWNER: 2550 MIRALOMA COMPANY, c/o RONALD S.
LUSHING, 9399 WUshire Boulevard, #109, Beverly
Hills, CA 90210
AGENT: JEFF JONSSON, 6 Morgan, #100, Irvine, CA 92718
LOCATION: X50 East Miraloma Wav. Property Is an
ircegulariy~shaped land-locked parcel of land
consisting of approximately 0.87 acres located on
the south skis of Miraloma Way and located
approxi.~nately 200 feet west of the centerline of
Lawrence Avsnue.
To permit an automobile wholesale/suction facility.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC96-88
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke in opposition
Jeff Jonsson, agent for the owner, stated that they are requesting a conditional use permit to percnit an
automobile wholesale/auction facility at 2550 East Miraloma Way.
Clifford Murray, 19671 Waterbury, Huntington Beach, California, owner, stated he sells repossessed cars
and stocks ftom 45 to 80 cars onsfte and the cars are sold at a closed auction. He stated this auction is
held only on Mondays ftom 12 noon to fNe o'clock p.m. and that the customers wishing to bid on the
cars are on site only on that day and they do not all arrNe and leave at the same time. They make
indNkJual inspection of the cars for sale and then leave their written bid wfth the office. The cars are
delNered to this business either by a tow truck or they are drNen in most of the time. At nu time is
there any large auto transport trucks delNering or picking cars up. There wUl be sbc employees on site.
Charles Schaffner, 2548 and 2552 E. Terrace Street, Anaheim, which is directly behind the subject
business. His main concem is traffic on Miraloma Way as that is they onl ~~~ nd his h ~s~prope a. His
second concem is that the use may affect the value of his property ega Y P Pent
already suffered some devaluation.
Web Whitlock, 2568 E. UnderhRl Street, Anaheim, said his biggest concem is parking and Miraloma Way
is the only access to his property from btiraoma and Sunshine Way. Traffic on Miraloma Is fast - 50
sihis primary oncem and he feelsthat parking may spill over into hs tract because ftiis aconvee Ming
9.4-96
Page 5
SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, 1996
~_.
place to park. Most apartment units have at least 2 cars and there are approximately 100 units and they
all compete for access an that street.
Mr. Murray responded he does not run a public auction. People don't understand his business. He
currently operates at a fxatic~n with 20 parking spaces and they have never filled up. His ~Isine~lndoe
not generate a large volume of traffic. All business wiil be conducted within the property. pa 9
be on the property. There wGl not be any junk cars. All cars will be 2 Years or newer and he sells only
to dealers. He may have five customers a day. He does not infringe on his business neighbors where
he is in Orange and he shares a drNeway with 14 other tenants at that location. There is no advertising
on the business.
There was discussion regarding, parking, customers, number of employees and employee parking,
expansion of business in the future, the dirt area adjacent to the freeway, vacated sign and display of
cars on Mondays, and unloading on streets. The discussion resulted in conditions added to contrd the
business. If he desires to expand the business sometime in the future he will have to appl;~ for that
through the Planning Commission.
The public hearing was closed.
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3862 with the fdlowing changes to conditions:
Deleted Condition No. 3
Added the following Condftfons:
That prior to commencement of actNity, a revised landscape plan showing specfflc
types, size and location of landscape materials shall be submitted to the Zoning DNision
of the Planning Department for staff review and approval.
That no cars shall be delNered to this site by transport truck-haulers over thirty (30) feet
in length.
That all customer and employee parking shall be maintained on-site.
That there shall be no parking or display of cars on landscaped areas.
That the applicant shall pay for up to two (2) Code Enforcement inspectior+a peg month,
H determined to be necessary by the Code Enforcement DNision.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: 21 minutes
9.4-96
Page 6
SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, 1996
~, CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 11 `Concurred w/staff
5b. VARIANCE N0.4296 I Granted
OWNER: NORMS RESTAURANT, A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION, 17904 Lakewood Boulevard,
BeIlPower, CA 90706
AGENT: PROMOTIONAL SIGNS, INC., 22552 Muirlands
Boulevard, Lake Forest, CA 92630.
LOCATION: 1125 North Euclid Street. Property is a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 1.58 acres located at the southwest
comer of Glen Avenue and Euclid Street.
Petitioner requests waiver of maximum height of freestanding signs
to construct a 35-foot high freestanding identff(cation sign for a
proposed restaurant.
VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. PC96-89
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: No~A
Richard Christy, Promotional Signs, Inc., 22552 Mulrlands Bivd., Lake Forest, CA 92630, agent for the
owner, Norms Restaurant, stated this sign is a landmark type sign and that Norms wishes to be able to
continue to use this type of sign until they are well established at this new location. The new location
was necessitated because of the I-5 Freeway wkiening. It is realistic to offer that when Euclid Street is
widened in the next five to ten years, that Norms will replace this sign with a sign that conforms to Code.
Public hearing was closed.
There was some discussion between the Commission and the agent regarding the sign in the right of
way and moving the sign and changing it when and if necessary for street improvements and the need
for the sign as proposed as tt is a landmark and klentfficaticn sign.
Commissioner Henninger offered the Resolution granting the variance and adding a condition that the
sign will be removed when the street wkening occurs and replaced with a sign under the Code.
Findings on this were based on the fact that this business was forced to move because of the I-5
wkfening and to allow them tNe years use of the current sign, but when the Streei widening occurs in
fNe to ten years, K will need to be changed.
94-96
Page 7
~._.
SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, 1996
ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical
Exemptions, Bass 11, as defined in the State EIR and is, therefore, categorically exempt
from the requirements to prepare an EIR.
Granted Variance No. 4296 with an additional finding that this business was forced to
move by the widening of the I-5 Freeway and that the relocation of the sign allows for
customer identity wfth the new sfte, use of the sign, modified to a maximum 35 feet in
height, permits continued use of the existing sign, and to allow them to move ft is a fair
compromise to the problem.
Deleted Condition No. 1
Added the fc~lowing condftion:
That when the widening Euclid Street occurs, the freestanding sign shah be removed
arw replaced ~Nfth a Code conforming sign at the owner's expense.
VOTE: 6-0 (CommissionF~~ Mayer absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: !f min~~es
9-4-96
Page S
SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, 1996
6a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 15314
6b. WANER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3861
Concurred w/staff
Approved
Granted
OWNER: GRACE C. & OMAR L. BLANCHARD, 120 EI Dorado
Lane, Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION: 1,91 South Old S~rinas Road. Property is an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 1.42 acres located at the northwest
comer of Monte Vista Road and Old Springs Road.
To permit a temporary modular building in conjunction with an
existing child day care facility and private elementary schod with
waiver of minimum setback from a Hillside Secondary Highway.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC96-90
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIGN.
OPPOSITION: None
Grace C. Blanchard, owner, 120 EI Dorado Lane, Anaheim, CA 92807, was present to answer any
questions.
The public hearing was closed.
Discussion included Commission's request to see a photo of the specific unit that will be placed on she
and was advised that this was covered under one of the existing conditions. It was suggested that the
parking may need to be reviewed and that a condftion be added stating that the modular unft will only
be for library and computer use only.
ACTION: Concurred wfth staff that the proposed project falls within tf : deBnftion of Categorical
Exemptions, Gass 15314, as defined in the State EIR and is, therefore, categorically
exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR.
Approved Waiver of Code Requirement
Granted Condltlonal Use Permit No. 3861 with the foilow(ng change:
Modified Condition No. 13 to read as follows:
13. That use of the proposed modular unft shall be limited to studerrts and faculty of
the subject child day care and elementary schod facUfty for library and
computer lab uses er~y.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: 13 minutes
9-96
Page 9
SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, 1996
~.
7a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) Continued to
7b. rONDITiONAL USE PERMIT N0.3750 (READVERTISED) October 14, 1996
OWNER: ABBEi.. TRADE, INC., 804 N. Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 804 North Anaheim Boulevard. Property is a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately .16 acres, having a ftontage of
approximately 50 feet on the east skis of Anaheim
Boulevard and located approximately 95 feet north of
the centerline of North Street.
Petitioner requests modification of a condition of approval pertaining
to the maximum number of displayed cars in conjunction with a
previously approved automobile sales lot.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposition/correspondence was receNed in opposition
Mary Cruz Valenzula, wife of one of the new owners of the car lot, saki she was here to seek approval of
the request to place 29 cars on the lot for display.
Wilbur Parnell, 115 E. North Street, Anaheim, CA, stated that he INes 16 feet ftom this car lot and he
opposed the request for more cars. The gate for the entrance to the lot is not big enough and
customers need to back up to get Into the lot. Four or five junk cars have been in the northeast comer
of this lot for six weeks or so; oil and water drain Into the street because they have washed the engines
and cars there; parking spaces are not marked; no handicap space indicated and gate only half as wide
as It should be. The owners have not INed within the existing conditional use permit Issued. He has
sent a letter opposing this request to the City and it should be in the file. He doesn't oppose the lot.
He did suggest to the lot management that they install a drain but they saki they would not wash
vehicles or detail them on site; however, that is exactly what they have done after opening the business.
Mrs. Valenzula stated that they are new owners and those things are not happening now - no detailing
or engine work. That work will be done at another location. Ms. Valenzula responded to Chaim~an
Messe that she had not read the conditions of the existing conditional use permit. Commissioner
Boydstun asked about trash for this business and Mrs. Valenzula responded she didn't know; there were
trash bins there and they are going to remove the old cars left by the previous owner and dean the lot
up for their cars. They want to make it dean and nice for their customers and are trying to the best they
can. They have only been there three or four weeks.
Commissioners Peraza and Boydstun asked about how many cars are on the lot and about widening the
gate as well as where do customers and employees park.
9-4-96
Page 10
SUMMAP.Y/ACTION AGENDA, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, 1996
~. _
Mrs. Valem_ula stated that there are only 2 employees.
tooreadvertiserto agendize thiso nditional use petrmit for revocatior°andor modifZcatioa nd check allff
other problems then. Motion seconded and carried.
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, explained the continuation to Mrs. Valenzula.
ACTION: Continued subject request to the October 14, 1996 Planning Commission meeting in
order for the applicant to meet wfth Code Enforcement staff to bring the property up to
Code.
M TI N: Commissioner Henninger offered a Motion, seconded by Commissioner
Peraia and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Mayer absent) that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission does hereby direct staff to readvertise Conditional Use Permit
No. 3750 for possible modification and/or revocation of subject use permit
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: 15 minutes
9.4-96
Page 11
SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, 1996
l_.
ga. ~EQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
8b. RECLASSIFICATION N0.95-96-05
8c. WAIVER OF CODE REOUIREMFNT
gd, rONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3868
8e. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 15345
Approved
Granted (Vote: 5-0)
Approved (vote: 41)
Granted (voce: 41)
Approved (vote: 41)
OWNER: BALAN PROPERTIES, 225 S. Lake Avenue, 9th
Floor, Pasadena, CA 91101
AGENT: THE OLSON COMPANY, 3010 Old Ranch Parkway,
#400, Seal Beach, CA 90740
LOCATION: x,925 West Uncoln Avenue. Property is a
rectangularly-shapeu parcel of land consisting of
approximately 5.67 acres located at the northwest
comer of Uncoln Avenue and Muller Street.
To reclassify subject property from the RM-1200 (Residential,
Multiple-Family) to the RM-3000 (ReskJential, Multiple-Family) Zone.
To permft a 2-story, 68-unit (originally 69-unts) detached
condominium complex with waivers of maximum structural height
adjacent to asingle-family residential zone and minimum structural
setback and yard requirements.
To establish a 1-lot, 6&unR (originally 69-units), airspace
condominium subdivision.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0. PC96.91
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PCS'~? _
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
3 people a, oke with concerns and a petition wfth approximately 200 signatures was
s~ ~bmitted
Alex Hernandez, rn 'he Olson Company, 3010 Otd Ranch Parkway, #400, Seai Beach, CA 90740,
agent, explained the proposed project. He stated that he has read the staff report and concurs with the
conditions except for the bus turn-out on Muller Street in front of this project and the adJitional
compensation requested by the schod district which is over and above those sehod fees required• li e,
to Condition No. 20, cage 13, reference the opaque bathroom windows that face the west property
they propose standard glass and the windows to be at five feet in height on the second floor level to
prevent viewing of the neighbors to the west.
94-96
Page 12
SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, 1996
~...
With reference to Condition No. 23, page 14, and the landscaping adjacent to the main/common
recreation area which includes the pod and Jacuzzi, the intent fs to provide a densely landscaped area
between the pod and west property Iina and designate that area as a passive recreation area with
perhaps a couple of benches and walkway and no place for ball kicking or throwing. Perimeter wall will
be the property line and there wUl be a fence around the pod.
Regarding Condition No.3, page 15, in which Public Works requests a vacation of Diana Way just east of
Dahila Drive. They do not own that property nor do they intend to use that street.
Regarding Condition No. 5, page 16, relative to the hardscape in the rear yards that about the west
property Iina. They warrt those property owners to enjoy the same prNilege of having a patio in their
rear yard setback as others in this tract. They would be comfortable with a 5096 coverage and accept
the 10 foot setback for landscape buffer.
Condition No. 18, page 13 with reference to height ofi (once on the north property line, Cly Code calls
for stx fe~:t and staff is suggesting eight feet in height. They agree with the intent and will do so but do
not want ~chis condition to delay their construction schedule, grading or building permits, and asked that
it be changed to read 'prior to occupancy or recordation of final tract map' rather than 'prior to Issuance
of building permits'.
Glenda Flora, 106 N. Bemfeca DrNe, Anaheim, CA, Mated that she has lived In the tract west of the
proposed development since 1954. She has no objection to the rezoning to RM~000. Sha does
questior. the variance -page 9 -and believes that the Anaheim Municipal Code is very liberal and
therefore she questions the two requested variances. She feels that the request to be only 20 feet from
the single family residences on the west property line is too close to the one-story single family homes.
Regarding the vacation of Diane Way and an access to Muller Street from their tract, she mentioned
that this access/easement/right of way over this property has been there for a very long time. She a~so
mentioned that when previous developments were proposed for this property City Council indicated to
the reskents of this tract that Ef and when a project was approved and Diane Way dosed off, that there
could be a signal installed at Lincon Avenue and Aladdin, and there is no mention of that in this staff
report. She does not think tt:a variance should be approved strictly for the financial benefit of the
developer.
Robert Schmahl, owner of the property at 223 N. Card DrNe, Anaheim, CA wants to congratulate the
developer on what appears to be a nice project. However, he does not believe that the combineC
efforts of the property owner, developer or the staff has ad,°'ressed some of concerns of the residents
and property owners in his tract. He believes the safety of the reskle~rts of this tract as they exit onto
Uncoln Avenue should be a prime concern in conskJering the approval of this project. He mentioned
the use of the access aver the dd Anaheim 13owi parking lot and stated that it has been open without
recourse for public use for many, many years. They are of the opinion that this access cannot be
dosed arbitrarily without gNing consideratirn to the right of way that has been open for more than what
Calffomia Code requires - it has been continuously used uninterrupted for more than flue years. The
original design of that tract with the landscaped buffer zone bet.~een Lincoln Avenue ar±'a r~lane Way is
probably not a very good one as most tracts open onto a main thoroughfare such as Lincoln. The fact
that these plans ware not the best should not make the penalty to be home on the current property
owners and resdents. He has submitted a letter of protest signed regarding the dosing of Diane Way
through to Muller Street and has another 200 signatures to add to that which he is submitting today He
9-4-96
Page 13
SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, 1996
t
is asking that the Commission and the developer consider the request to keep this access open. He
feels that this access is an uncontested easement.
Chairman Messe asked the developer to respond to these comments.
Keny Chappin, The Olson Company, stated he is the overall project manager for the developer, and Mr.
Hernandez is the project manager. He believes the project as presented is the best that can be offered
for this site in present day economics. He discussed at length the easement/right of way/access from
the end of Diane Way across the property they propose to develop as well as the alternate access to the
established reskiential tract off Aladdin onto Uncoln Ave. He believes the request by the reskier~ts of
that tract for this land to be dedicated for continued use as an access to their tract is not appropriate
and would like the Commission to consiJer that.
Mr. Hernandez responded to the comments of Mrs. Flora regarding the two variance waNers requested.
He explained that this project is 'single family' which would make this a single family next to a single
family development, and they don't think that the Code specifically addresses this type o;` project. There
will be trees at 20 feet on center along the entire west property line which will be maintained by the
homeowners association and the trees will be there for the life of the project The second waiver is with
reference to side yard setbacks -10 feet between buildings. Each unit will have a five foot skle yani
setback which is typical of a single family development not a large condominium project, which lt could
be, and they ask for the Commission's support on this request.
Mr. Schmahl responded that the real Issue is the safety of the residents exlting the tract He mentioned
__, the posted speed limit on Uncdn Avenue is 40 miles per hour and most cars exceed that which makes lt
very difficult to make a left turn to go east on Uncoln Avenue. He has not done lt but once since 1971
and he does not want Aladdin to be the only exlt to their tract.
Mrs. Milecki stated that she has lived in this tract since 1953. She described Uncoin as a two lane street
at that time and there was adequate access. Now the street is wkler and there is more traffic and lt is
difficult to get in or out at Aladdin. She continued to klentify the problems stating how Aladdin and
Empire streets do not align; tfoat the cars exiting from the apartments to the west of Aladdin actually turn
left Into the westbound traffic on Uncdn to go east because the raised median ends at a point where
those drivers wait for a chance to make that kind of turn; other traffic is 'u' turns at that Intersection and
persons making left turns into Aladdin and left and right turns from Aladdin to Uncoln. The residents of
this tract are interested in a safe access to lt.
Chairman Messe acknowledged the resident's request and the safety factor for access to their tract. He
stated that a decision on the easement cannot be deckled by the Planning Commission and needs to be
deckled by another forum.
Corr:missioner Henninger indicated that he would not like to have construction start on this site untU that
issue is resdved.
Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineer's Office, presented a sketch of the Intersection in question and indicated
that they propose to remove 120 feet of a raised median Island on Uncdn Avenue east of Aladdin; and
resurface with atwo-way left turn lane so traffic could turn left from Aladdin to go east on Uncoln; and
there will be a space for them to turn into and then proceed to enter the eastbound traffic. A traffic
signal may not be warranted there because lt would create a split signal and tf~at would not be safe for
the traffic movement in that area.
9-96
Page 14
SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, 1996
Mr Yalda presented an ovefiead view of that Intersection and explained it shows where the median
would be removed and the two-way left tum lane added and indicated that this lane could also be used
for 'u' turns.
Mrs. Flora discussed the intersection(s) irndved and suggested that the median be removed past the
apartments so that traffic ftom that street can also turn Into the left turn pocket and not go against traffic
as she has previously mentioned.
Further discussion suggested other arrangements at this intersection to improve the stuation. It was
noted that some of the suggestions are not workable bo'- .:se of the number of driveways on the south
Yda said~ey would check this (ntersec on with referen a to theandscaping in thee paarkway andMifr•
workable, paint the curb red.
Commissioner Peraza stated that the Planning Commission cannot increase the school fees.
Chaimran Masse stated ff the Commission does approve this development, that the developer will be
required to inform the potential customers in writing regarding the fact that their children might have to
be bused to accommodate the schod situation.
Mr. Hastings, Zoning Manager Indicated that is covered under Condition No. 13.
Commissioner Henninger mentioned that the condition for the bus stop is basically a public
improvement directly adjacent to this development and not large compared to the scale of the property
and it is reasonable to require this. There is also other work to be done in this area, i.e. sidewalks etc,
so it Isn't an issue here. With regard to the hardscape in the back yards on the west property line, a
good point has been made. He would suggest that no structures or patios be allowed within ten feet of
the west property line.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, described the Code and stated that in this particular case, they
are using the area for a buffer area as well as a back yani and staff was trying to be consistent to the
Code In that respect, but that would be subject to Planning Commission's interpretation.
Commissioner Henninger stated that this is more like a single family detached product and the
percentage doesn't talk about the location and perhaps they should recommend 40% coverage of the
back yard.
There was discussion on Condition No. 18 and the fence on the north property being completed prior to
recordation rather than building permits. The condition was not changed.
Discussion on Condition No. 20 regarding the bathroom windows being opaque and raised to a height
of five feet. It vas noted that there are also bedroom windows on the same west skis of the houses but
that this should not be a problem because of the trees to be planted across ftom each window.
It was determined that Condition No. 23 regarding the fence and pod and landscaping that what has
been proposed should be adequate to keep the noise from the adjacent single family reskfents. It was
also restated that the 20 feet to the west of the pool area be denselanS ~ P~~S bue~submitted foe
recreation area. Condition No. 23 also requires that landscaping pl
approval.
9-4-96
Page 15
SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, 1996
Vacating of Diane Way -'gas discussed and who would pay for this. It was ad,~~owledged that the
dosing would be a negative 1m~ct on the established tract but because the new development does not
plan to use that area, ft would be proper to dose that area off.
Melanie Adams, Public Works, stated that payment would be based on other items the developer would
provide. If dosed, some modification would need to be made so that the street sweepers could
properly sweep that area; that ff dosed h would be merged in with the existing single family lot or
landscaped; all at the expense of the developer.
Selma Mann stated that the Planning Commission cannot determine who is going to be the owner of this
property, ff ft is vacated by the City.There are quite a number of factors to be considered inducting ff the
City holds an easement for right of way or whether the City owns the actual fee. It may be that ff the
City owns a easement, ft may hold a reversionary interest but she doesn't know who hdds that
reversionary interest and she is not sure what authorization the City would have to be requiring or
conditioning landscaping on a vacation that would no longer be the City's. She is concerned about
creating a condition that may not be something that the Planning Commission has the authority to
create or that the City has the authority to create. If it is an easement that is no longer being used for
road purposes, then ft may be that the City has no rights to that at all. It may be a very specffic
easement that was just strictly for road purposes. It may be that landscaping is somethnog thafte as ithin
the grant of the original easement. There are a lot of factors that come into play . q
simple as a vacation when you have a street that is Immediately adjacent to that property and i< is
appropriate for that property owner to be requesting the vacation.
In response to Commissioner Henninger's question as to what she would suggest, Ms. Mann saki she
thinks the main thing that she can do is point out some of the Issues with what is being recommended.
The problem with the way that little stub is configured right now: it may be that the Traffic Engineer or
Public Works can propose an alternative that will not pose the same problems for street deaning and
still not have the same legal implications.
It was a general consensus Yhat it may be best to leave the street as it is and some sort of modffication
for street deaning.
Ms. Mann continuer; that Commission would certainly have the authority within what's being requested
here to require t:~s developer to create a cul de sac there as one of the condftions since ft is the
development t',~at is choosing not to make use of this potential ingress or egress.
Commissioner Bostwick stated that ff that requirement was changed before the final tract map approval,
Diane Way east of Dahlia shall be constructed as a modified cul de sac to facllttate street sweeping.
Commissioner Henninger suggested an alternative as approved by the City Engineer.
Chairman Messe said he thought what Ms. Mann was saying was that we really don't know what the
situation is.
Commissioner Henninger saki he thought that ff was better that ultimately ft doesn't go anywhere to
have that vacated and either added Into that lot or landscaped.
Commissioner Bostwick saki he would think the property owner would want to do it, but otherwise R is
just another piece of land that has to be maintained.
9-4-96
Page 16
SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, 1996
Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineers office, said there was ore condition about the modification of the raised
median island on Uncoln Avenue.
Commissioner Henninger interjected that he (s not really comfortable with the solution that is being
offered on the access to Uncoln.
Chairman Masse said he still sees the people fiQMing the westbound traffic on Uncoln.
Commissioner Henninger added Muller Street is a complex intersection and there is a lot of concern
because of the off-set, there is an awful lot of opportunity for conflict and it is not like having a traffic
signal,
Chairman Masse asked Mr. Yalda about tha possibility of having a signal there and how was that going
to function with the off-set streets?
Mr. Yalda said that he thought the condtion required a study to see ff h was possible to install a traffic
signal out there.
Chairman Masse Interrupted and said that was never a condition that a light would go in there. It saki
that we would study it and see ff it was possible. Mr. Yalda agreed with that. Mr. Masse then asked ff
we have then looked at that in that way?
Mr. Yalda saki that we have locked at it and not only is it an off-set intersection, but wfth the number of
driveways that are already existing out there, ft's not going to make it a proper signal at that location.
Aiso, the close proximity to Muller Street as well. The modification of the median island will provide
some relief to the residents, but he also has to mention that there will be people using that to make a left
turn to the properties on the south side of the street and also people that want to make a 'u' turn. A
two-way left turn lane could be used not only by this tract but by others who drNe on Uncdn Avenue.
In response to Chairman Messe's question as to whether or not this would be creating a monster, Mr.
Yalda stated that we have similar situations throughout the city with two-way left turns. They are along
Anaheim Boulevard, La Palma Avenue - su therefore ft's just a matter of people taking caution to make
those turns. In this specific location, It will make it easier for the residents to turn Into an area before
they proceed eastbound. If Commission would like, they could look at this a little bft further as far as the
number of cars that are making different fuming movements during the am and pm peak hours and then
determine at that time ff that is necessary or not.
Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner, asked about Condition No. 19 on page 13 regarding any space that would
be created between two walls along the west property line. She suggested a condition requiring
capping the space between the walls to prevent any vokJ area between the walls.
Chairman Masse stated we do not want any per~anen, physical attachment between the two walls ff two
walls are necessitated.
When asked ff he und9rstcod the change in that condition, Mr. Hernandez indicated that he did.
Commissioner Henninger asked Ms. Mann in a case such as this is where there is a question whether
there is some presc!lptive right, how does the City prevent a developer from coming in and building
across the area and foreclosing the opportunity.
9-96
Page 17
SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, X996
t
Ms. Mann stated she wished there was an easy answer. The ffndings that are stated on page t0 of the
staff report indicate the reasons that make i< possible to deny a tract map, and one of those reasons is
number 7 which is indicated there: That the design of the subdivision or the type of Improve Within the
conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property
proposed subdivision' However, there isn't anything that is actually established here that there is an
easement. Irnposing a condition that is in effect going to require the developer to get a declaratory relief
action in court in order to dear up the right, as a practical matter, it may be something that :he
developer wifl need to do an ~ yunction with ust~ettin~a dear~e toithe pboopertyprescript'Ne
easement on the property j I 9 g
Chairman Messe asked if that is something that Commission could condition.
Commissioner Henninger stated that therA Lg a finding for denial, but we can't make that determination
one way or another now. But we could go forward and approve this and request the proof that that is
true. Which as you say would errtaG going and getting some declaratory relief.
Ms. Mann saki that the other consideration is that there is the presumption of time of timely po She ~s
that the person that has the legal title to the property is presumed to have title to that property.
making the assumption that the developer has legal title to the property, unless sometx~dy else is able to
establish that they have met the requirements for a prescriptive easement.
Commissioner Henninger saki so if you went the other way, and took than presumption, what you are
saying is that the homeowners would have to hire an attorney and presumably get an Injunction against
them going forward until this could be resolved. The balance between those is whether you want to
force the homeowners to Iftigate or force the developer to prove his case and somehow litig<:te. That's
really the balance there.
Ms. Mann saki yes. She thinks that tl the Commission is leaning towards putting a condition. that
requires the developer to establish this, that there be some very specfflc findings made with regard to
the testimony that was presented and whether it was rebutted or not with regard to whether there had
been some question raised about a prescriptNe easement. She can repeat some of the requirements.
from the homeownersgstating thatttheythave met ail theeequiremntstto havteia prescriptNeveasemlent.r
Whether they do or not we do not know.
Ms. Mann stated that the applicant does have the right to appeal to the City Council as does the
property owners.
Mr. Hernandez stated that Commission has someone before them ftom the law profession describing
what a prescriptNe easement is. He is surprised that they are discussing the prescriptve easement at
this level. They have dear title as per the title report. He guesses the ne. t step would be by the
neighborhood but this Issue shouldn't be discussed by this panel, in his opinion, and that it can be
appealed to the City Council, but this is heresay.
Commissioner Bristd reminded Mr. Hernandez that earlier in the meeting he suggested that perhaps the
prescriptive easement could be mitigated and asked what Mr. Hernandez Idea of mitigation be in this
matter.
9~ +6
F age
SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, 1996
~_.
Mr. Hernandez stated that the kiss of mitigation came ftom the Traffic Engineer regarding some
adjustment to the median. He believes that this has been discussed for a number of years both in the
prior tract map and this one regarding a signal at that comer. That was not made a condition as far as
they ran determine. He does not know ff a signal would work there because of the non.alignmeM of
that particular comer, but the mftigation addressed was the median.
Commissioner Bostwick said that he would think that ff a condftlon were added that the Traffic Engineer
study the median and its ramifications and ff it appears to be safe, that it would be required to change
the median and restripe and pave the street to effect a double left turn lane of that area of the street. He
thinks that the homeowners need to seek logal counsel and deckle ff they want to seek an injunction ff
they feel they have an easement. It's up to them.
Chairman Meese asked ff there was any further Input from staff.
'iat has been discussed.
Commissioner Bristd asked to make one more comment about the median t,
He asked ff there wasn't a way of putting up a solid concrete median that would only address those
people leaving the tract eastbound and not allowing those folks going westbound on Lincdn to make left
hand turns?
Mr. Yalda saki that this issue is really simple here, but when they go out in the field, there is a lot of
property invdved on the south sloe of the street and a lot of people now enjoying the benefit of making
a 'u' turn at that location to access their properties. If you put in a raised median island it might
complicate further not only the people on the north skis of Uncoln, but also those on the south sloe of
the street; especially all the businesses out there that are enjoying that access for the westbound traffic
to make a left turn or 'u' turn to their properties.
ACTION: Approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopted Mftigation Monitoring Plan No. 93
(Vote: 5-0, Commissioners Mayer and Peraza absent)
Granted Reclassification No. 95-96-05 (Vote: 5-0, Commissioners Mayer and Peraza absent)
Approved Waiver of Code Requirement (Vote: 41, Commissioner Henninger voted no and
Commissioners Mayer and Peraza were absent)
Granted Conditional Use Permft No. 3868 (Vote: 41, Commissioner Henninger voted no
and Commissioners Mayer and Peraza were absent) with the fdlowing changes to
conditions:
Modffisd Condition Nos. 19, 20 and 23 to read as follows:
19. That the existing block wall along the west property line shall be replaced with a 6-
foot high decoratNe (on both sides) masonry wall subject to the approval of the
indNkiual homeowners adjacent to the west property line. Absent the approval of
any indNkiual property owner, the developer shall construL~i e~egin ~wawllslto
immediately adjacent to the existing wall and cap the gap
prevent voki areas between the walls.
20. That second story bathroom windows in all units immediately adjacent to and facing
the west property Tine shall be installed five (5) feet above the floor line.
9~-96
Page 19
SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, 1996
~~ 23. That a 20-foot wide densely landscaped buffer area adjacent to the west property Iine
!n the swimming pool area shall be permanently irrigated and maintained. Said area
shall not be used for active recreation purposes and shall be designed to prevent
such activ!ties.
Approved TentatNe Tract Map No. 15345 (Vote: 41, Commissioner Henninger voted no and
Commissioners Mayer and Peraza were absent) with the fdlowing changes to conditions:
Deleted Condition No. 4
Modified Condition Nos. 3 and 5(c) to read as follows:
3. `that prior to, or concurrent with, final tract map approval, Diane Way, east of Dahlia
Dfire, shall be reconstructed, at the developer's expense, to a modified cul-de-sac to
facilitate street sweeping or, that the applicant shall develop an alternate plan
approved by the City Engineer.
5(c). That no structures of any kind, or patio slabs, shall be permitted within ten (10) feet
of the west property 11ne and that hardscape landscaping shall not exceed forty
percent (4096) of any prhrate yard area with less than 1,500-square feet in area; and
Added the following condftions:
That a traffic study of Un roximatel u 120 feiet of the raised center median on U nldneAvenue
such study warrants, app Y
at Aladdin DrNe shall be removed and replaced with asphalt and restriped to a double, ieft-
turn lane to facilitate eastbound access to Uncoln Avenue from Aladdin Drive, at the cost ;~
the developer.
That the legal property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim, on
the final tract map, an easement on Uncoln Avenue west of Muller Street as required by
OCTA. Prior to final tract map approval, the developer shall submft street improvement
plans for bus bay construction in conformance with OCTA requirements and approved by
the City Engineer. The improvements shall be constructed within the time period specified
in the SubdNislon Agreement at the developer's expense.
DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 24 minutes
MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 4:10 P.M.TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MORNING WORK
SESSION OF SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 AT 11:00 A.M.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
L~ar Solorio
9
Senior Secretary
9-4-96
Page 20
t.
~~