Minutes-PC 1985/02/04R~GULAR MBBTING OF_THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING ThQ regular meeting of the Anahpim City Plunning
Commissian was called to order by Ch~irman Hecbsl at
10:00 a.m., Pebruary 4, 1985, in the Council Chamber,
a quorum bQing present and the C~mrriaston reviewed
pl~ns of the itema on today's agenda.
KECESS: 11:3U a.m.
RECQNVEi~ED: 1:34 p.m.
P~ESEN'P Chairman: Herbst
Commiseioners: aouas, Dushoce, Fxy, King, La Claire,
McDurney
ABSENT: Commlasioner: None
AL~O PRESENT Annika Santalahti
Jack White
Jay Titua
Paul Singer
.;ay Tashiro
Greg Hastings
Edith HarriB
Assist~nt Director for 7,oning
Aasistant City Attorney
OFfice Engineec
City Traffic Engineer
Associate Plr~nner
Aesociate Plar~ner
Plannir.g Commission Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Comtnissi~oner King offered a motion, aeconded by
Commissioner Bouas and MO'PIQN CARRIED, that the mi.nutes o~ the meeting of
J~nuary 21, 1985, be approved a$ amended on Page A5-61 to ii~clude a change
that Commissioner McBurney abstainecl on Item 1.1-A.
ImEM N0. 1. EIR NEGA'PIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 345G
PUi3LIC HEARING. 0{+NERS; EMKAY DEVBLOPMENT AND REALTY CO., INC.~ 1500 Qtlail
StCeet, Newport Reach, CA 92660, ATTN: RICHARD SMITH. AGENT: LA~G-LAMPERT
ARCHITECTS, 3152 Redhill, S~~ite 200, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, ATTN: DAVID E3.
LANG. Property described as an irregularl.y-shaped parcel of land consisting
of appcoximately 0.37 acce located at the so~it!:east corner of Pacifico Avenue
and Anaheim 0oulevard, 1950 South Anaheim Boulevacd.
WAiver of ~inimurn cequLred front yard setback to construct a warehouae
facility.
Continued from the meetings of January 7 and 21, 1965.
There was no one indicating their presence in o~position to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, i~ is re£erred to and made a part
of the minutea.
85-68 2/4I85
MINUTES. ANAH~LM CITY PLAIi_KING_CGMMISSION, PEBRU~~Y 4, :985 85-69
David Lnng, agent, and ~aul Rawe, oper.atoK of the busine~a, were pcosont ~~
~nswer any guestiona.
THE PUBLIC HF,ARIN~ WAS ~GOSED.
Responding to Commissioner 9ush~-e, Mr. Rowe explained they sre presently
located at ~920 5. Anaheim aoulea rd. Commisaioner Buahore referced to a
letter submitted by somaone irom their Eirm wtien the original permit was
~pplied for in ,1982, which indiceCed that only 20a of the busineRS would be
cetail sales. Ne at~ted he assumpd this request wac simply for that operation
to move ~rom their present location to thia site= and that the Plnnning
Commisaion is primarily being asked to Approve a variAnce Cor a warehouse and
if it is a warehouse, only 10~ cet.ail sales would be permitted, iE the product
is manuFactuced on Rite and that thi~ operation would not be doing any
manufacturing on site, but will be daing sales, a~cvlce and repairs. He added
he felt they should he requehting a conditional use pe~mit for r.1~e busineas so
tt~at if there is a problem with pa:king, etc. in the future, the Plnnning
Commission wi~l have a handle on the ~ituAtion. He explained the p~rking
cequiremenCs are bARed ~n the use as purely a warehause and with retail sales,
more park~ng would he required. Mr. Rowe explained he would considec t~~e usP
more warehuuse with a showroom than retail and that ~hey go out to the
customer.'s location to service the machines and that the trade-in machines are
nenk to unother location.
CommissionPC Bushoce stated he would not eh~.nge his minc~ dnd vote in favor of
this reque~t because they Are doing retail and that is wt~y they chose this
location next to the freeway. Mr. Rowe sCated maybe two or thcee peo~le would
come in in an entire day and on Sundays no one comes in and the retbil sales
would b~~ less than 208 of L•heir busineas.
Ch.~irman Herbst stated he realizes this variance is necessary to construct a
warehouse; however, the use required a conditional use permit at 1920 S.
Anaheim 8oulevard and he would Agree that a conditional use ~ermit should be
required ~t this location.
Jack White, Assistant City Att~~ney, stated the matter before the Planning
Commission k~day is a vaciance to permit construction of the warehouse and
Ghere is nathing :~efore tl~e Commission to allow a use other than what is
authorized by the Code and the petitioner would have t~ come back in foc
approval of that use if the use is not permitted by the Code in tha'.: zAne.
Richard Smith, Emkay Development Company, stated thPir firm owns this site and
the 38 acres crntiguous to the site and pointed out approximately 3 years ago
NicMahon Desk Company bought a site for them for a similar type operation where
a persan can walk in and buy a desk; however, that is not their primary manner
of operation.
Chairman Herbst stated I;e has r~o pcoblem with the warehouae, but if they want
to da any retail salas in an industri.al area, they wAUld have to have a
conditional use permit. CommissionPr Bushore ~tated the letter written
Septembe~r 22, 1982, ihdicates that the 100 ~opier Showroom will be operating
as a warehouse/retailer on a 80-208 basis in the secvicing and sul.es of copiec
~~achines pnd they would have four employees working from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00
2/~.6/85
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITX PLANNING COMMISSIUN~ ~EBRUARY 4~ 1985 85-70
p.m., Monday thcouqh ~riday, ~nd to accommodate custom ete wtio are unable ta
viait their bhowroom on weekdays, they will be open o n Aeturday between 9:OQ
e.m. and 3:00 p.rn. He atated 10! retai 1 sales are permttted for producte
manuEactured on-aitN in A warehouse and r.hat theae co~aiern are not
manufactur~.d on thia site.
Mr. Rowe r~tatQd the copiera are not ready for uae whe n they ~re taken out oE
the boxes and the machinea have to be aet-up beEore t hey can make copiea.
Commiseioner Buahore stated he did not think there is n problem with getting .~
conditional u3e permit, but that is not before the Commi~eion at this time,
and the C.ommi.ssion hac the knowledge that that is wha t is yoing in, inatead oE
a warehouae.
Mr. Smith stated they merely tried to clariEy the use And anked if the parking
will stnnd at 2.4 spaces as propo3ed.
Commissioner Bushore r?tated if it ia appr~ved f~r a w arehou~e, the ~S~rking
will ~tand £or a warehouse regardless of what use goe s in.
Chairman Hert~st asked if it would be advisable to n~s tpone this request and
consider it together with a condi.tional use pecmit fo r the sales and service
facili~ty at the same time.
Jack White stated the Code does no~. specff.ically provide cetail sales as a
conditional use in this Zone, but that the Planning Direct.or hAS the
diacretion in Seclion 18.03.030 of the Anaheirn Munic i~al Code to determi.ne
that retafl sales, when incidental to warehousing, wo uld be a conditi.onal use
in this zone as being a similAr use in nature to oth e r uses that are
permitted, and if the directGr. makea that determinat i on, the application could
be filed; and L•hc~t the present intention seem~ to be to ~ermit incidenlal
cetail sales in conjunction with a warehouEe.
Greg Hastings ~explained assuming 80$ of the facility will be used as
wacehousing, approximately 14 parktng spaces will be required and a variance
would be required along with A parking demand study. Paul Singer clarified
that the plans submit~ed do not show any loading doc k doors and thak may
further reduce the number of parking spaces.
Commissioner La Claire stated she questioned this bec auae she did not see how
they could qet any n~ore than 11 parking spaces on th P sire, so a vaciance
would be requi.red; and that she is not opposed to th is project, but it should
have been submitted us a c.onditional use permit, so if there is a problem in
the futur~, the permit could be *evoked. She stated ahe would not be opposed
to a parking variance.
Greg Hastings explained in order far this to be read vertised with a
conditional use permit, it should be postponed until the Macch 4th meeting,
providi.ng the paper.work is s~~bmitted by February 6th.
Paul Singer etated they will need a parkfng demand ~ tudy and that may take
longer. Commissioner :.a Claire a~ked if the packing study could consist of an
analysis of the present business, with Paul Singer r esponding it could.
~
2/30"/85
MINUTES. ANAHEIM C_I_TY ~LANNING COMMISSION, ~EBRUARY 4. 1985 85-71
Commissioner Bushore stb~pd ttie Cummission waa concerne~ about this rAquost
becauae this site is located Gight next to the Croeway and nothing was aho~an
on the plans except the wArehou~e and ba~ed ori e:xpPCience the Commission knowa
that they ur.e not going tA put that type af bullding next to a freewAy without
wanting retail sales.
ACTION: Commiasioner La Claire offered ~ motfon, seconded hy Commissioner Fry
and MOTION CARRIEp that con~ideration of thc aEorcmentioned ma~ter be
continued l•o the meeting of March 4, 1985, in ordec for the petitioner to
submit a parking demAnd atudy and upplica~ion for conditional uae permit.
ITEM NU. 2. ETR NEGATIVE D~C[~ARATION AND CONDITIONAG USE PERMIT N0. 2652
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: SNIRAN A. DAMANI, ET AL, 1200 Wesk Cer.ritos Avenue,
Anaheim, CA 928U~. Propect•y described as a rectangular.ly-shaped parcel of
land consist~ng of approximately U.3 acre l~cated at L•he couthwest corner of
Cerritos Avenue and walnut Street, 1200 West Cerritos Avenue (Prince
Supermarket).
To permit a convenience mar.ket with off-s~le beer and wine.
Continued fcom the meeting of .7anuary 7, 1985.
There were approximately six persons indicating their pre~ence in appositiun
to subject re~uesk, and approximately twenty-two persons fndicating theic
presence in favnc of subject request, and although the staff report was not
read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Frank Lowry, 100 5. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 340, Anaheim, explained the pr.esent
applicant acquired contcul of subject propecty in September 1982, and there
were several zoning problems at that time; that ;n July 1983, their firm was
hired to help them resolve those problems and since then there have bpen no
cite~ions or v.iolations. He stated on February 4 of this year, the Zoning
Division indicat~d that pursuant to Condi~ional Use Permit No. 2110 and 2202,
certain conditions have not been complied witt~, and that as of Thursday of
last week, the petitioner and the City Sanitation Division entecEd into an
~greement indicating that a tcash compactor would be used and a contract with
a recycling pl.ant would be entered into 3'~1, and explained over 908 of the
trash i~ cardboacd which can ba easily compacted and pirl:ed up ~pon demand,
with the remaindec of the trash to be picked up weekly. He stated the
condition requiring the removal of the gas pumps and tanks is a problem
becanse the pumps have been removed, and they were informed by two pzevious
owners that the undergsound qas ta~ks were removed over 4 yeara aga, but that
the Fire Department has no record of their removal and they have not been able
to locate any F~roof excspt nne pprson who lives c:lose to the property who will
testify ~he Aaw the tanks being removed a little over 4 year~ ago. He added
they would request that the canopies be allowed to remain. He presented
photographs of the canopies and stated they are good looking and do pravide a
certain amoun~ of shelter and removing them would leave a cectangular box and
then this facility would look just like other convenience markets in the
area. He presented photographa of the restriping of the packing lot and the
landacaping and indic~ted they now conform to the conditions. Concerning the
street lighting, stree; trees, and traffic signal assessment fees, he added
~
2/~8/85
MINUTES, ANAI~BIM_ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ FEBRUARY 4, 1985 ___HS-72
dll those feea have beE~n paid which ere required at this time and the other
fees will be pAid when Lhe request ia appcoved. He staked th~ey feel with no
gae pumps or tanka, the pr~perty ie ai.mply a convenience macket and every
con ven;Pnce m~rket in thia City h a~ thQ oale of beec and wine. He stated he
was not aware ~l~ere was ~~position And prer~ented a petition with over 500
sig naturee of pe~ple in favoc of this requeat and explained 95~ of the
sig natucea were gathcred Erom th e immecliate aceA. Fle stetea they have added n
aec urity service to monitor the i nterior of the premisec~ and the ~ear of the
premiaes and have painted khe bu ilding walls with anti-qcaffiti p+~int which
~ill easily wash off.
Ric hard Lipahin, Mara:hon Securit y, stated he has contracted with the
operators oE thi.s facilir.y to ~ut in a closed circuit syatem which will have
camer.as inside the stare to record whnt ~;{oes on, with a date and rime
gen ecated on the VCR, and all in ciden~es wilJ. be cecorded and he felt this
wil 1 take care oE the problems; and Addec4 also the back area will be monit~red.
A1 Kotch ~tated he awns the apactments adjacent to the market and knows the
owner and he is glad to have the market ar~ a neighk~~r, bec~use before it was
th ere, this area was a h~ng-out. and hP thought this ie An asset to the whole
c~mmunity and thouqht the petit i aner deserves a chance to have a liquor
license just liY.e everyone else who ha~ a c~nvenien~~^ market.
Michele p:ecutki. stated she saw the ~umps i:aken out nf the ground about 4 or 5
years ago and there was a big hole left ~n~9 then it wa:~ refilled and
black-topped over; and L•hat she has known t:he peCitior.~r for the past two
years and thought: he r~hould have a liquor 2icense.
Lo uise Preaukti, mother of the previous speaker, stated ~he knows the owner of
th e market a~d he is a very remarkable person an~ has done a lot for the
ne ighborhood and she has no o5je ction to allowing him to :;ell be~•c and wine.
Pharon Muller stated he has bee n a re~ident there for quite a few years and
th ought the owner of this busin e ss is very i~espansible and shc~uld be granted a
pe rmit ta aell ~lcoholic bevera g est that he knawa Che applicant would nok sell
to minors and that he thought i t would be a h~elp to the people ao that they
wi 11 not have to drive down th e street to purchase heer and wine at another
store.
Mi chael Deak,tn, member of the board of directors of the Pepperwaod Condominium
Association~ wt~ich is a 287-un i t complex directly acror.s the street, stated
th ey oppose the granting of th i s permit based on the lack of good f.aith the
pe titioner has shown to l•he community regarding the maintenance and management
of subject prop~rty. He stated the petiti~~ner did not comply with the
regulatlons as sst forth by th e Planning :.'ommission until he wanked to ask for
something else. He stAted the lack of maintenance on this property is all
recorded with the violations, e tc. and the l~ck of mainkenance has made it
conducive as a hany-out for young people in the neighborhaod ~vhich has led to
v iolence ~nd vandalism as showri tn the Polic~e Department ~ecords. He stated
t hey feel this lackadaisical ma nagement of ~he pro~~er~y is not canducive to
s elling alcoholic beverages and he has only starked to comply with aome of the
regulatfons in the last few weeke. He noted the canopies are now being used
a s maintenance areas for car .r epair~ for the npartment tenants behind subject
2/~/85
MINUTES. ANAHEIM C.iTY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 4 L 1985 85-73
pcoperty, and aloo they are uaed at night for parking and they did not Eeel
this is condunive to selliny elcohol. He added there Ace 9 facilitiea within
a 4Q0 yacd radiua ~i thi~ property which sell b~er end w~ne and they do not
want anott~er one, especially in the mid~le of the community.
Esther Thomas, paet board member aE the Pepperwood Villbye Homeowneca
Asoociation, stoted this property is nat zoned for commerciAl uaea and asked
if a vari.ance w~uld be raquired for thia type u~e. She Rtated with 9 aimilar
facilitiera in the area, they do not feel this is a neceseacy request. She
pointed out there ace 1 ow income families living in a portian of the
apartmerits and they rea lly dn need their money £or food and r.ent, rather than
for beer and wine. She atated ~hey hav~ a tremendoua amount of broken beec
bottles in Chts aren and ahe thought thifi would add to that problem.
~ta, Thomas stated havin g an additional fflcility whece beer and wine are s~ld
will increase the cosL of mainl•enance Eor theit property and there hae been a
lot of trouble with homeawners wh~ have had flat tires from broken bottles and
with more ~eople coming lnto the area diaposing of ad~itional bottles of
alcoholic bevecages, will be an additional pcoblem.
Jim Summecs, 1491 S. Walnut, Anaheim, acrass the skreet from sul~ject property,
stated he is relired an d spen~s a lot of time in the immediate area and hus
obsecved a lot ot probl ems com~ng from that Area with people brinying trash
into the area and people who do not live there w~ndering fnto the area of the
condominiums. He atated he ha~ be~n picking up trash around the perimeter and
off th2 sidewalks and t hece are numerous containecs a~d bottles from that
facility and mo~t of th eir pcoblems are coming from the south side of
Cerritos. He ~t~ted he believes the sale af beer and wine will cause problems
with undesirables hangi ng out, parking in their vehicles, drinking, and
tl~rowing bottles over the fence.
John Poo],e, Zo~iny Code Enforcement Supervisor, ~xplained his report is
uutlined in the stafE r eport with a list of actions and violatfons which have
taken place from Se~tember Z2, 1983 through July 6, 1984.
Frank Lowry stated they have worked extensively with the Sanitation Uivision
to resolve the traEh pr~blems and they are commencing an immediate clean-up of
that entire neighbarhoodt that there is a big problem in the whole area with
people abusing the trash problem; tha~ if they put out ~rash containers, the
people from khe surrounding neiyhborhood use them and they are forced to have
daily trash pi~k-up. Concerning people drinking on the premises, he stated
that. fs the reason for tlle instiallation of the security system with television
cameras.
Mr. Lowry stated this applicanC purchased the property on February 7, 1983,
and was not respan~ibl e for any prablems laaf~ore L•hat time and stated they will
take care of any probl ~tns that are ident?fi~d. HQ stated if the gas tanks
huve not been removed+ the applicant will remuve t~7cm. He sta~ed they did not
know irrigation al.ong Walnut was a cequirement; hawever, if it is a
requirement, it will be provided.
THE PUHLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEll.
'f!
2/2~A~ 85
~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY P1.ANNING COMMISSTON, P~BRUAF;Y 4, 1985 A5-7A
Rosponding to Commiasioner King, Mr. Lowry ~tatr~d they will be ~pen between
7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., sevon daXe c~ week.
Commissioner Bushoce asked why 2,780 squAre Eeet o:E ~utdoor atorage arPa is
needed for a 1,600 squt~re fooL• mxni-rnarkel. Mr.. L~~wry stated nlmoat all the
insi~9e of the facili~y is needed Eor ~ounters and cliaplays and L•he outside
ACQA is being used as a wnrehouae for the inside o~~erationJ however, the
mat~cial is not leEt out very long.
Commissianer Bushore statc~d he did not know if there ic Any way to deCermine
whether or n~t the tanka have been removed and sugc~~asted the petitioner. check
with Conwax Mor~ie, an attorney who used to own thi~ property, and he might
h~ve an iden. tte stated apprr~ximately 4 to 6 year~ ago, all the secvice
stati.ons had t:o take out diffecen~ types of tank~ and put in ~nother kind of
tnnk, ao one tank may have been removed, but there cou.ld still be o~her tAnks
there. He added when khia was requested in 1980, there were conditions
included and there was n~ intention that beer z-nd wi.ne would be sold because
of. the proklemn in ttie neigl~borhood and he will vote againat it becauae of the
location.
Commissioner King ca~rified that the petitioner aantE ta retain the canopies
ar~d a~reed they should be leEt.
Frank I.owry stated they are willfng to stipulate to a kime period to prove
the4r capability ko h.andle the situation ond prove th~~t with proper security,
t}:ey c~~n have A successful track record.
Cam~nf~sianer La Claire stated Che clieni bought the pro~erty in 1983 and there
hav~ been 13 incidenc~es witt~ Code Enfarcement since thAt time; that she
r»alizes this neigtibur.F~ood has a problem; tiowever, it is obvious the
petitionax has not done what he waa suppnyecl to d~ and he has a negative track
record.
Mr. Ls,~cy stated there have not been any prQblema ei.nce their Eirm was hired
in July 1984 and they will remain on the projec~ to take cace of the
conditions, etc. and if thece are any pcoblem~, they wlll help to resolve them.
Commissioner La Claice stated obviously there has been a prablem even though
the last cikation was issued in .1u]y; however, she can undecstand the
neiqhbora' concerns with the trash and she wa~~ld like l-o ~ee ihe petitioner
establish a good track record by operating Lhe busines~ for a period of ~ime
withr~ut any problems before granting any expanded uses on this pruperty.
C~mmissianer King suggested granting t:he ~~se foc a one-year period.
Commissioner La Claire »tated she would rathe~c see the petitioner run the
bu~iness without any pcoblems for a one-year period because he did not try to
resalve the problems until he decided he wanted to have the beer and wine
license.
Respon~ing to Commissioner Buchore, Mr. Lowry stated hhe fee~ have ~il been
paid that have to be paicl at thi.s time and the okhers will be pAid ~hen .the
permil• is granted. Greg Hastings explain+ed the fees for lights and trees were
not a condition of the original conditional use permit.
~
2/-~9/85
MINUTFS. AN~HEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI3SIUN, F~BRUARY 4, 1985 85-75
Commisaioner Fry ateted he would agcee that the cdn~pi~s ahould be allowed to
cemain beceuae of the location nnd aiz~ af th~ property, buk wou~d ngree w.ith
Commisaioner L~ ~:~ire that the petltioner has not tried to renolve any
problema until he decided he wanted t~ have the right to ae.ll beec and wine.
Commission~r Herbst ogrPed and ateted he did not think he voted in Eavar of
thi~ convenience market originally, without the aale of. beec and wine, and it
tiaa been a problem all al~ng. Ke atated he would agcee that the c.anapies
should remain and iE lhis request is deni~d, they will be requirecj to comply
with the conditions of the original u~e permi.t which would requir~~ the removal.
of thc canopies.
Jack W-iite explained that is correct and ex~lAined khe previou~ conditions
will rem~in in p1ACe if this ia denied; howevec, the conditions could be
modified or de.let.ed by the Planniny Cummission Eollowiny a public hearing, but
the Planning Commission is nc~t in r~ positi~n toclay to resolve that problem and
the petitioner wou.id hAVe to rr_queat that the originAl conditions he moaiciQa
and another public hearing wpuld be required to make thAt change. t4r. Lowry
responded he undecstands what: neeils to be done.
ACTION: Commis~ioner La Claire oE'fered a motlon, secondEd by Commissioner Fry
and MOTION CARRIFD that tt~e Anaheim City Planning Commi~sion has reviewed the
pcoposal to ~ermit a con~~enience market with on-sale beer and wine in the
RM-2400 (Residential, Multiple-erimily) 'Lone on a rectangularly-3haped parcel
af land consisting of r~pproximat~ely 0.3 acre located aC the ~outhwest corner
oi Cerritos Avenue un~~ Walnut Street and further deficribed as 1200 W. Cerritos
Avenuej ar~d does hereby approve the Neqative Declaratian upon finding tha~ it
has considered the Negative Decl.acation together with any comments recpived
during the public review proces:s ana further findinq on the basis of khe
Initial Study and any comments i~eceived that there ic no suh~tantial e~~idence
that the pcoject will have a si~3nificank effect on the environment.
Comr~issioner La Claire oEfered Recolution No. PCaS-34 and moved far it^
passage and adoption thal• the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hzreby
deny Conditionai Use Permit No. 2652 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Cod~~
Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 on the basis rt~at there i3
sufficient evidence to believe that the applicant has not complied with
conditions of the origfnal use perrrit permitting a convenienc.e ma:ket, with~ut
the sale of beer and wine, and there have been many violations during the last
two years and a13o on the ba~ia that the proposed use will a~versely affect
adjoining land u4es and thc~ grawth and development of the area in which it is
proposed to be located and gcanting of the conditional use permit will be
detrimental to tl~e peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens
of the City o~ Anaheim.
On coll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST, KING, T.,A CLAIRE~ ~1C BURN~Y
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Jack White, As~istant City Attarney, presented the written right to appeal the
Planning Commi~sion's decision within 22 days to the Cir_y Council.
~/iti6 85
MINUTBS, AT~ANEIM CITY PL~NNING COMMIS5TON, EEBRUAR~' 4, 1985 85-76
Chairman N~erbAt stated hP would consider revoking the original use permit if
thece are any more violationA and he thoughC the petitioner ahould l•ry to
re~olve tlie problema and be a good neighbor.
ITEM N0. 3. EIR N~GATIVG DECGARA'P101~ ANA VARIANCF N0. 3417__(READVER~ISED)
__~-__.--- --
PUaLIC HEARTNr,. OWNERS: AHMANb A. STEPE~ANIAN AND VIRGINIA A. STEI~HANIAN,
2546 Wer;t Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805. Pcoperty descrih~d A~s an
irceyular.ly-aha~ed parce.l ot ].and conaisting of approxima~ely 1..18 acreo, 2546
West L:nco2n Avenue.
wuiver ~E' minlmum building siCe area per dw~~lling unit and maximum builc7ing
height to construct a 40~unit affurdab.le a~^act.menk complex.
Continued from ehe meeting of January 7, 1985.
AC7~ION: Commtssioner King offered a moCi.on, seconded by Commisaioner Bou+~s
and MpTION ~ARRIEU thaC cansideration of the aforementioned natter be
withdrawn -at the requeat of the pekitior-er.
ITEM N0. ~i. EIR NF.GATIVE DECI~ANATION, WAIVER OF CODE RF.QUIREMF.N'T ANll
CONDITIONAG USE PBRMIT N0. 264f3
PUBLIC HBARING. OWNERS: JAY D. CUWP~N AND F3ARBARA E. COWAN, 3030 F3reakern
Drive, C:orona del Mar, CA 9t625. Property described as an irregulacly-shaped
parcel of land con:~isting of apQrox~mately 1.5 acc2n, 2760 Weat Ginco Li Avenue
57-11 Motel and 'I'cailer Park).
To expand a recreational vehicle ~~ark with waiver ~f required setback in
speci.al ac~as.
Continued from the meeting uf Ja.c~uary 21, 1985.
Jay Cowan, owner, explained he r~uKCha3ed this motel in 1979, and has been
operating it in the same manne~: aince and that it consist3 oF a 10-unit,
1-story motel with an old houF~e on the property whlct; ser~es as a residence
toc the manager and thPre are 44 recreational vehicle spaces in the rear and 2
spaces in the front, with twc~_ RV•s parke~d in the~5-faot ~etback area oCf
Lf°•..:o1n. He stated this is rx yood clean operation and provides housing for
peaple who want to be independent; that people stay one day, one week, and
some six months, and probab'ly 1 or 2 stay a year or tw~, and that aIl of them
could .teave on a 10-minuCe's notice an~ there is nothing stationary or
permanent. He stated ther~. is a mot~ilehome park within 15 feet of the
propecty line next door.
THE FUBI.IC HEARiNG WA~ CL.OSED.
Chairman Her~st stated thls petitionec hus been in violation of the original
use permit since he owned the property; that the permit ~~ras granted Eor 39
spacrs and that people ate not aliowed to stay for more than a certain amounk
of kime. Mt. Cowan clacified that the permft was granted in 1972 Eor a
48-space RV park. Greg Hastinga furthec explained the original plar-s were for
48 spacest hnwever, revised plans were submitted and npproved for only 39
~
2/~8/95
MINUTES. ~NAHEIM CITY PLANNING CnMMISSION, F~BRU~RY 4, 19~5 85-77
apaces. Cheirman Nerbnt ~ninted out the p1Ana wero approved by the City
Council in 1970 for 39 spaces and thet has not been changed and the pl~na also
included a swimmii~g pool whicl~ wab n~ver conetructed where ther~ are two
sl~aces ex~sting.
Commiesioner Fry poiated out it wns originAlly approved aa a travel t:ai~"~
park and under Section J.8215.5 of t.he Code, regidents are only permi,tted to
etay two week~ and thcre are ~eopla who live here for mo~tha oc ,yeara at a
timN which ia a vi.olation of the c~ciginal uaN permit. He added violations
include the number of. apace~ with the two in the setback, and th~ ,lengLh ~~f
stay of reaidents.
Mr. Cownn st~ated this ~ark is no',: beiny run any difEerent thAn o;her t:ailer
p8LK8 in Anaheim. He stated he is not running it any different now t!~an it
was when he pucchased it in 1979 and asked whal he nepds to do ao it will nat
be in violaL•ion.
Commi~.sioner t~a Claire stated the Commission is c~ncerned About F.rotecting the
3~-f^r:~t sr~tbn~k and ahe fe.lk that setback muat be maintained an~] landacaped.
She ,~~ded :~he is not con~erned about; the 2 epace~ where hhe poul shou2d have
b~~,. Sh~ suggested the peti.tioner should talk to L•he City P.ttorney's C~Efice
-;~t;:lu~ the City's ordinance relatinq to ~ermanent residency in mobilehon~~ ~nrka.
,.:.Y, ~:~i~~~e, Assistant Clty Atturney, stated the Civi1 Code doe~ not limit
~~;y:< ;:n travel tcailec parks, but the urigfnal conditionbl use pecmit liml-:ed
~:cugawn~ to travel trai.ler~ as defined ln the Administrative Code, ~ut khe
~+n~3~~n ~rf stay is restricted in the ~pproval of the c~riginal conditional use
~.~rrrat, so the petiki~rner has been in violation oE the existing pecmit. Ne
:-.r~~d iE the Planning Commi~sion apF~rove~ thic permit, he would recommend the
~«~i~:r~nce to ihe Administcative Code be changed to the current pruvisions of
~:tion 799.24 of the California Civi1 Code which defines recr~ational
uehicles, but ik does not s~t a t.ime limit.
w~mmissi~ner 8ushore stated hp believes there is a section af the Code which
af~fines a peraon who livea there for a certain period of t3.me as beiny a
aermane~t resident and that would c~ame under the mobi]ehome pack ordinance
requirements of the City of Anaheim. Mr. Cowan stated he ~nderstands the
difference between a mobilehome park and a recreational ve5icle park and
understands the requirements for relocation expenses if any RVi cemains in one
pla~a for 6 months or more.
Cc unissio~er Bushore stated the City of Anahefm also has ~ mobilehome park .
ordinance which would apply under certain conditions. Jack White Etated the
City's mobilehome pack ordinance expressly excludes all recreational
vehicles. Mr. Cowan stated there are no mobilehomes in this park.
Commissioner Bushore stated there are people who stay there for longer than 2
weeka, but that there are other parks in Anaheim whi~h are run .in the same
mannEr. Jack White stated he did not thinl: there is ar-ything in the ordinance
which the petitioner needs to be made Aware of.
Comjnissioner Bushore st~ted there are akher variances granted .for the 35-foot
setback in th~t aceaN but they have been for more perman~nt type uses;
~
2/.20,/85
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY FLANNING COMMISSION, ~EBRUAKY 4, 1985 85-78
however, hE would havs no objection to chdnging the aciginal permit and he did
not think it would be right to deny this petitioner that same privilege. He
stated he would favor the appiuval of this variance, 1E the petitioner
providss a plan to provide landscaping and screening or fencing to hi~e the
RV's, and I~e Hould not object to ~ilor-ing the residents to stay longer than 2
weeka.
Commisaioner La Claire poi.n~~d out tht» requeat i~ the result Af an action b~
the Code Enforcement OfE!cHre for violationa, even thougirti ehe tealizes others
are in violation of their permits albo, and ehe did not think thP 35-foot
set•back is an unreasonable requirement particularly aince t~e has ~ir.eady
gained 4 additional spaces by elimi.nating Che swimming pool.
CommisAioner Buahore s~ated the ~etback waives was granted right neat door and
he did not think this request could be denied. ChAirman HeGbat stated he
would agreet however, he thought a block wall with landecAping should be
provided and that this matter sP~ould be conl•inued in order f4r the petitioner
to provide plane showing the wall pnd landscaping. He added whatever setback
was granted next door ahould be granted ta this petitioner, but that it should
be screened.
Greg Hastinya responded if the only yuestion is the wall and landECaping, it
could be submitted at the next meeting. Commissianer Fry sugges~ed that thp
Commiseion act on this accacding to the petlt~oner's ~tipulation to provide
t•he plans. Mr. Cowan atared he will not be ~ble to attend the meEting on
~ebruar.y 20th because he will be on vacation until March 15kh. It wao
generUl2y felt by the Co~nmissioners that they would like t~ see the plans
before approving the request and the matter should be cantinued until April
29t.E~.
I~CTION: Commissioner La ~laire offere~ ~ moti~~n, seconded by CommiRSioner
McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that coneideration of the aforementi~ned matter be
continued to the regularly-sch~duled meel:ing oL Aprf.1 29, 19s5, in order rhat
revised plans to include a block wall located 17 feet from Lincoln Avenue with
landscaping could be submitted.
RECESS: 3:05 p.m.
RECONVED~E: 3:15 p.m.
ITEhS N0. 5. EIR NEGATIVE DEGLARATION AND RECLASSlFICATIOH 170. 84-85-24
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: HARRY SHAM, ET AL, 114 N. Eask Street, Anaheim, CA
92805. AGENT; HUGO VAZQUEZ, 619 S. Live Oak Drive, 'naheim, CA 92805.
Property described as a rectangulacly-shaoed parcel of land consiating of
Approxi.mately 0•96 acre, 114 North East Stceet.
CL to RM-1200 or a leas int~anse zone to construct a 32-unit apartment complex.
There was no one indic~ting their presence i.n opposition to subject request
and although tt~e staff rep~rt was not read, ft is reEerred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Hugo Vazquez, 619 S. Live Oak Drive, Ar.aheim, was presenti to answer any
questiona.
y
2/~85
MINU'~ES. Ay NAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIuSION, PEBRUAHY 4, 1985 85-79
THF P~gLIC HEARING WAS CLOSF.D.
Commissioner LA Claice atated ahn wes pleused to see the pcoject aubmitted
with no waivers tequssted.
ACTION: Commiasioner Ki^g ofEer.ed a motion~ seconded by Commissioner McBurney
and MOTION CARRIED that the Anoheim City Planning Commis~ton has reviewed the
propoaal to reclas~ify sub~ect pcoperty from the CL (Commercial, Limited) 7.one
to khe RM-1200 (Rpsidential, Multiple-FUmily) or a less intenae xone t4
conAtruct a 32-unit apArtmerit complex on a rectangularly-~hApPd parcel of land
can~lnting of approximately 0.96 bcre, having a Lrontage of. npproximately 305
feet on the enst side of Easl- Street and further described a~ 114 North F.a~t
Streett and does hereby appr.ove ttie Negstiv~ Ueclaration upon Einding that it
has can3ldered the Negative Declaratio~ together wirh any comments received
duting khe public review proceas and further finding on the baeis of the
Initial Study and any commenls received that there ia no subatankial evidence
that the project will have a significant efEect on the environment.
Commiasioner King offered kesulution No. PC85-35 and moved for its paaaaqP
th~t thE Anaheim City Planning Commi~sion does hereby grant Reclassification
No. 84-85-24 subject to Intecdep~rtrnental Committee rer.ommendntions.
On roll call, the foreg~ing resolution wa~ pa$sed by the following vote:
AXES: BOUAS, BUSHORF,, FRY, HERB~T, ~.TNG, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NOES; NUNE
ABSENT: NONE
ITEM N0. 6. EIR NEGATIVC DECLARATION AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 84-85-23 P.ND
VARIANCE NA. 3459
PUBLIC H~ARING. OWNERS: NENRY B. WESSELN AND THELMA M. WESS~LN, 1717 Weat
Linc~].n Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. AGENT: CURTIS R. WESSELN, 171~ West
Linco~n Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. Property described as a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land conalsting oE approximately 0.83 acre, 141
Sauth Dale Avenue.
RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 or a lesa intense zone. Waivers of maximum stcuctural
height and required bl~ck wall to construct a 24-~nit apartment complex.
There was no one indicating their pres~nce in opposition and two peraons
indicating their intereat in subject request and although the staff report was
not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Stan Wi~e, 1249 E. imperial Highway, Placentia, explained the architecture of
this building will be tied in with the building they developed t~ the south
and eventually when the property behind subject property is developed, it will
appear as one complex. He stated they are only asking foc ~ waiver of. the
height limitakion and would like not to construct l•he hlock ~all directly to
the soukh because if that property does develop in the future, it would be a
waste of m~ney to put in a block wall since they have an existing fence.
~
2/~$/85
MINUTBS, ANAHEIM ~ITY PLANNING COM~ I0~ ~EBKUARY 4~ 198_ 5__,_,_ 45-60
Dwight and Deniqe Auchard etated the,y own the pcoperty j~st Routh of aubject
praperty and theY would like to keep their pcivr,cy ea mucii as poasible and Mr.
Wesseln has just agreed to put up the 6~foot wAll on their property line ao
that problem ie settled.
Mr. We~se].n indicat~d from the audience that he is willing to put up the
6-foot block wall.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
C~mmisnior~er La Claire a:~r,ea what the stre~t address is,pointing out the staf[
report indicates t.wo diff~~cent addresses. There was a brief discussion with
Mr. Wise pointing out ther~ wa~ a change in the street addrese by the Building
Department and ataff indicated they w~uld verify the propec addresb.
Greg Nastings also explained the City has the litle report which includes ~he
proper description of the Rubject pr.operty.
ACTION; Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commisaioner B~ouas
and MOTION CARRIED that the Anat~eim City Planning Commiesion has reviewed the
proposal to recl.asaify subjeck prcperty from the R5-A-43,00:, (Reaidential,
Agricultural) Zone to the RM-1200 ~Residential, Multiple-F~,mily) or a leas
intense z~ne to cunatcuct a 24-unit apart~nent complex with waivecs of maximum
sttuct~ral height and cequired block wall on a tectangularly-shaped par~el of
land consir~ting of approximately 0.83 acce having t~ irontage of approximately
148 feet on the west side of Da?.e Avenue and further describe~ as 141 S. Dale;
and does hereby apP:ove the Negat.ive De:.laration upon finding that it has
considcred the Negative Declacation toge'her with any comments received ducing
the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial
Study and any comments received hhat there ia no subscantial evidence that the
proje:t will have a significant effect ~n the environment.
Comm;ssioner King offered Resolution No. PC85-36 anc~ moved for its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission doeE hereby grant
R~classification No. 84-85-23 subject to interdepa:tmental Conunitkee
recommendatior~s.
On roll call, the focegoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NOES : NOtJE
ABSENT: NONE
Commis~sionec King offered Resolution No. PC85-37 and moved for its passa,e and
adoption that thF Anaheim City Planning Commfssion does hEreby grant Variance
No. 3A59 granti.ng wr~iver (a) on the basi~ that there are special circumstances
applicable to the ptoperty such as size, shape, topoyraphy, location and
surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned pruperty in the
same vicinity; Znd that stcict application af the Zonin~ Code deprives the
property of privileges enjoye6 by other properties in the identic~] zone and
c2assification in the vicinity; and denying waiver (b) on rhe basis that the
peCitionec stipulated at the public hearing to provide a 6-foot block wall on
the south property line and subje~:t to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations. ~
2/~/85
MINUTESZ AN~HEIM ~ITY PLANNING C~MMISSION, F~BRUARY 4, 1985~ 85-81
On roll call, the foragoing re~olution was peased by the followii~g vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ BUSHORE~ FRY~ EfF.RBS~~ KING~ 4A CLAIRE~ MC BUF.N~Y
NOES : NOt~E
ABSENT: NONE
ITEM N0. 7` EIR N~(~n"IVE PECLARATION, +~AIVER U~ CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONQI'fIONAL USE PERIIIT Nli. 2656
PUBLIC HEARING. OWN~RS; S'PEWART, ~:~REF.N ASSOCTATES, '2180 E. Lincoln Avenue,
Anaheim, CA 92806, ATTN; KARL MF.ADE;R. Praperty deacr~.bed as an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land conri~l:ing oE approximately ~7.11 ncres
located at the F~)UtI1P&8C corner of Lincoln Avenue and S~ate College Boulevacd,
2010 East Lincaln Avenue (East Anaheim Center).
To permit on-sale beer and wine in a propoued rest~zurant with waiver of
minimum numt~er of ~~rarking apnces.
There was no one indicating ~heir prei3ence in oppositior~ to aunj~~t request
and alLhaugh the ~taff repurt was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Karl Meader, ayent, explained they are requesting a new conditional use permit
and will subject a lett~r reqi~esting ter.mination of Conditional U~e Permit No.
2630 which was g~anted on Octobec 29, 1984, for a larger restaurant, pointing
out this will redu~e the numher of parki.ng sp~7ces required.
THE YUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSF.U.
Chairman Herbat pointed out the Planning Commissinn received a letter from the
owner of the Caprf Restaurant pertaining to a parkfng a3reement for 45 parking
spaces and asked if those spaces were included in the packing ratios. Grey
Hastings, Associate Planner, respo;~ded that: staff did not include those spaces
in the calculations of the required parkin•~.
Mr. Meader stated it was determined by th~a~courts that. the coffee shoF had no
right to park on the shoppirag center parking lot, but in the interest of gaod
faith, they have allowed them to park thE~re for a mode:st charge because that
is l•he only place they have to park and ~stAt~d the car.3 parked thece were
countec. f.n the latest coUnt by the parking con~ultant in 2~~vember.
Greg Hastings stated actually more parking spaces would be required because of
tt-at agreement and they t,ave r~ot been calculated in the number of parking
spaces as shown in the staff report.
Commissioner r^ry stated undec the circumstances, he does not see thir as a
~roblem and Chairman Hecbst a~lded he felt the spaces she~il~ be inc:.uded in the
next calculations.
Mr. Meader r~esponded they wo~ld not want to inc2ude the coffee ehop in the
square footage calculations of the shopping center and the agreement for the
parking agreement was mads .~ith the owner of the cofFee shop because they have
no place to park. He explai.ned the coffee shop's busiest time is fcom 6;30
~f
2/~ff~/85
MINUTE£. ANANFIN CI4'Y PLANN_ING COMM_I~SION, FEBRUARY 4. 1985 85-82
a.m. to 10:30 a.m. and point~d out again thoae vehicles were counted i~~ the
traffic study because theY wuuld have been ~arkFd thece when the counta were
taken and he did not think they would have a significant impact.
Paul Singer, Tr~ffi~: Enyineer, stated the parking on the ueaC side of this
parking cen~ec has xecently been investigate~ by the City Counr.i.l because one
of khe Counci.l rc~ar,~bc~rs felt Lherc was a ahortage of. parking ~nd he though:
t:his issu~ wou".d come up again before the City Council. He added thece seemR
to be adequate parkinq on the aide althouyh there is not an over ab~andanc~ and
±t is sa:netirnes difficulk t~ '.tnd a apace, but there are al~rays vacant
sp~ces. He add~d his concern i~ l:he problems being exp~rienced on StAtp
Gollege and evr.ntually tt~e Clty will be prohibiting left L•urns on State
College with r:edianA and ac~ess will only t~e permitted at controlled access
points. He felt l•here were moce problems in thi~ c~ntet than the Planning
Commission is aware of, but did not think parking i~ one of them.
ACTIUN: Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by CommiRSioner Fry and
MOTION CARP.TF;D that the Anaheim City Planning Cammission has review~d the
proposal to permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed restaurant with waivec
of m=.nimum number of parking spacer~ on a irregular.ly-shaPed parcel of land
consisting of approximately 27.11 acre~ located at the southeast corner of
Lincoln Avenue and State College Boulevard and Eur~her degc:ibed as 2010 E.
Lincoln Avenue tEast nnaheim Centerl; and does hereby apProve ttie Negative
Decl~,ration upon finding that it has considered the Neqetive Declarat~on
together with any comments received cluring the public review process end
further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and anY commer~ts received
that there is no substantial evidence that the pc~ject will have a significant
effect on the environment.
Commisr;ioner King offerEd a motinn, seconded by Commiasioner Fry ana MOTION
CARRIED that the waiver of minfmum number of packing apa~~8 is hereby granted
on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an inc.rease in traffic
c~ngestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land
uses and granting of the parking waiver under the r~nditions imposed, if any,
will not be detrimental to the peace, t~ealth, safpty and general welfare of
~he citizen~ of the City of Anaheim.
C~mmissioner Kiny of~ered Resolution Na. PC85-38 and moved far its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim Cit,y Planniny Commission does hereby grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2656 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Seckions
18.03.030.030 h.hrough 18.03.03~.035 on the basis that this is a smaller
reskaurant than the previously approved restaurant requiring less parking
spaces and subject to Interdepartmental Cornmittee recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed oy the folJowing vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ BUSHORE~ FRY, FIERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, M~ BURNE!
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Commissior,er Fry slat•ed with the SAV-ON Drug Store leaving this shopping
c~nter, he wanted the petitioner to know if they are planning to try and bring
in more restaurants, there will be oroblems becauoe of the parking situation.
~
2/~/85
MINUTBS. ~NAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSi0N1 FEBRUA^ RY 4. 1985 85-83
ITEM N0. 8. BIR CATEGQRICAL EX~MPTION-CLASS 3~ND VARIANCE NQ. 3456
.~_..
PUBLIC N~ARING. UWNERS: WESTF;RN MEDICAL C~NTER - 1-NANEIM, 1U25 S. Anaheim
Bouleva[c~~ Anaheim, CA 92805, ATTN: CAROLYN GIGI.EPuIB. AGEN'~: JOHN GOETTEN,
1900-H F. Warner Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92705. l~ropec':y describ~d as a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land conai~ti.ng oE approximately 4.45 acrea, 1025
South Anaheim Bouleverd lWaetPCn Medicel Cent~c).
Wa.iver of minimum structural ~Ptback And height of masonry wall to conAtruct a
3-f oot high maeonry wall.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject rpquest and
althouqh the staff report wt+a nc~t. read, it is reEerred to ond made A~~act of the
minutes.
John Goetten, Agent, explained they took over the Western Medical Center ovec two
years ago and have been aorking on the general improvemont of this site and also
there have l~een some modificationo ulang Anaheim Houlevard and 4~ey have made
aeverAl interior modification~ and in reviewing the sfte, they Eelt it would be
helpful to lower thE height of the wall on Lemon Street to ~ive the hoapital more
oE a residenkiul character, having a better feeling far the community. He
explained the building is a onc-etory structur.e with landscaping along the front
and also the lower wall would improve the view in and out and provide better
security and less gruffiti.
THE PUBLI(: NEARING WAS CGOSED.
Responding lo Commissioner McSucney- Mr. Goetten statPd they have ~-n employee
parking lot with ~14 apaceA, althouyh it is nat immediately adjac~nl• tc the
ho~pital, Pnd they will also be restriping that lot to provide 9[~FlCP.B for compact
car~ which will inarease the epaces by 25-;.~-308. E1e explained the major ingress
and egreas for the hospital fs on Anaheim BQUlevard and they have emergency access
in the rear for emergency vehicles and added alco that the lower wall will give a
better view of the tratfic.
it was noted the Planning Dicector or his authocized represe~tative has determined
that the proposed project falls within the dsfinition of Categorical Exemptions,
Class 3, as defined fn the StAte Environmental Impact Repoct G~idelines and is,
therefoxe, categocically exempt from the reyuirement to prepare an EIR.
ACTION: Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC85•-39 and moved for its
passage and adaption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does h~reby gcant
Variance No. 3458 on the basis that the lower wall wiil provide ~ecurity and
visibility of the traffic and further on the basis that there are apecial
circumstance~ applicable to h.he property guch as size, shape, topography, location
and surroundings wh~ch do not apply ko other idenl•ically zonnd property in the
same vicin.tty; anC that stxict application of the Zoning Code depri.ves the
property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and
ciassi£ication in the vicinity and subject to interdepartmental Committee
recommenaations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHURE,
NOBS: NONE
ABSENT; NONE
FRY~ HERBST~ KING~ LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY
~i~n,~a~
MINUT~5. ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMTSSION, FBBRUARY 4, ].985 85-84
ITEM N0. 9. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVBR UP CODF. REQUIRF.MENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PEkMIT N0. 2657
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: AJAX PROPERTIES, 2151 S. HAwth~rne 9oulevacd, t103p,
Torrence, CA 90503. AG~NT: LARRY RBEDER, 13022 Casa [,inda Avenue, Gard~n
Grove, CA 92644. Property deaccib~d as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of lan~
confiis~ing of approximately O,A2 acre, 540 - 544 South Ro3e Street.
To permik An auto bo~y and paint ahop in L1~c Mt, Z~ne with waiver of minimum
landacaped setback.
There were four peraona indicating thel.r prea~nce in opposition to aubject
reqcest and although the staff report wAS not read, it is referred to and mad~~
a pact of the minutey.
GrF3 Hennett, orchitect and Larry Reeder, ag~nt, wrre pceaent.
Mr. Bennett ceferred to Condition No. 1 pertaining to £ire sprinklers and
sta:ed he had apoken to the Fira Marshall and dPtermined that the Code
required that i~n b~~ildingr~ over 600U feet, these changes havA to be made, and
they are ac~ually changing only one of the three buiidinge and the other
portiona of the building will be used for sl:orage and indoor parking tor
employees.
Jeff Jarvi, owner of property at 519 S. East Street, atated he really has no
oppasiti~n to what hAppens to the front oE' this industrial cumplex, but the
cear directly affrcts the tenan~s of L•he apartment and indicated concern about
traffic, air and noise. [~e steted they are r~lso conceriied whethec or not the
alle,y is wide enouyh tor the additional traffic with tow trucks, etc. He
stated he does not know whether the dust from the gri~ding and fumes from the
painking can be controlled and th~re have been complaints fr.om the residents
of the apartments about the noiAe, fumes and acceas ~nd there are children whn
play in the alley and the alley should nat be used for storage or working on
vehicles and he did not see how they could expand the buainess without using
the alley. He stated they f2e1 the back doors of these u~its will always be
open permitting noise and fumee to be aimed t~wards the apartments, however,
if they could keep ull the work in front of the units and k~ep the doors
closed, using the rear poction of Che unit for customer parking, thera would
oe less intcusion.
George Bourget, 1742 La Colima Drive, Tustin, property owner of the propecty
behind subject property, stated the pcoperty has been a problem with
pollution, dirt and trash in the pastj and that they have been working for
three yeara to clean up the alley and it is finallg in good shape compared ta
what it was. He presented pictures of the alley. He stated there are 7 or 8
manufacturing buildings in that area and four of them are businesses that are
hard to keep clean such as chrome plating, automobile repairs and a carpet
business. He presented pictures of pollution on their coofs and stated they
do not w~nt more tcaffic, noise or danger to their children who play in the
area.
Mr. Benr.ett stated they appreciate the comments from the commur-ity; however,
this applicant did nrt cauae the previous problems; that they under~atand the
2/~9/85
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NEqRUAHY A. 1985 85-'~5
concerns regarding noieo and pollution and this upplica nt will aJhere to eny
1nca~ ordinencea, as well as OCHA requirementa for the pa:nt, vehiclee thAt
will be stored ~nd the eprAy booth~ And that all work w i11 be don~ inaide th~
building. Mr. Reeder atated regarding tow trucks, ~ha t 90~ af their busineaA
will be dealec~hip csrs and will not b~ towed .in, so th e~lley will not be
blocked by tuw kr~ckaj that they ace doi.ng m~noc body w o~k and painting pnd
~he uoe of the alley will n~t be a~roblem, and a vehic le ~~~~ld be towod
directly through the buildiny, if riecess~ry, and they w ill not be doing any
work in the ~arking are~.
THE PUBf.IC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Ct~airman Herbst stated thero have been problems in lhe past wi.th noise and
fumeA qeneratc~d by the sho~s and even with A good filt ering syskem, there ere
still fumea and ask~ 1 how tl~at can be controll.ed.
Mr. Reeder reaponded the paint booCh will have a filte ring ~yste~m. He atated
he did not think noise would be a pcablem and they wil 1 be using air-dciven
tools which ace primarily ~anders and disc grinders an d the most noiRe would
b~ the running of the compresaors and that thP comprea sor r~i11 be toward the
rear of the building.
Chairman Herbst stated the rriinacy problem with thia t ype facility in the paet
has been noise and he was concerned About thP noise pa rticularly tor the
people in the apartments who mi.glit work nighta. Commi saioner Bouas asked if
the doora could be kept closed and Mr. Reeder respond e d they could.
Commissioner La Claire asked if the doors being kept c losed woul~l L~ a alth
hazard for the people workirig inside the facility. M r. Reeder respanded there
would te no threat becauae people using the eguipment would be weAring masks.
Commissioner La Clair.e stated she is skeptical that t h e people could work
inside with the dnocs closed because of complaining t h at they could not .see or
breathy etc.
Responding to Chairman Herost, Mr. Reeder explained k h ey have a ventilation
system with filtering on tl~e coof that would be screer:ed from outside vfew and
there will be a mechanical ventilation system that ve nts the internal air
withi.n the buf.lding. Chr~icman Herbat stat~d an+e of the problems in the past
has been that the employees wi11 not adhere to the ~,sl e af keeping the doors
closed and ff the neighbors have problems, they csn s e ek revocation of the
permit. He stated he thought this would be a bad spo t for this business
becauRe oE past pcoblems because it is close to the r eaidential acea.
Commisaioner Bushore stated he will vote against this request because he did
not think 3 Uni.ts could be divided in a manner with employee parking in the
middle, with no outdoor storagQ of vehicles, with onl y 3500 square feet of
srorage space, and he looked at thia as a design to avoid a parking waiver and
aske~l why they would want to use valuable space for e:nployee parking. He
added he thought this rntire facility will b~ used.
Commissioner King left ths meecing at 4:00 p.m. and c3id not return.
Mr. Reeder stated the internal lot was designed for employee parking with
cuatomer parking outside becau$e they felt it would I~e very difficult to
entice cuetomers to drive in tha building to park and triFd to provide publfc
narking on Roae Street.
2/ /85
MINUTES. ANAHEIM_ CITY PI~ANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY A1 1985 85-86
Greg berania, partner of Mc. ReedRr, explained the sanding will be done 1n ~he
same area ae the opcey booth ~nd the baoth will be filtered to keep duRt out
And they have beon running e similar buainese in &rnta Ana with no problems.
Reaponding to Commisaianer McBurney concerning an~ther auto body ahop on the
corner, Shicl~y D~iae, 507 S. E:~~:t Skceet, Apertment 6, Anaheim, explained
they had aome dl~comfoct with fumea and noise from the chcome shap and they
used to dump chemicals and chemicA.l containers in her rrael~ can and it was
hAZardous, but that was seve~al years aga.
Commiesione[ Mceurney etated he reali2es this was a different opecation, but
wanted to have the point of view of exacl•ly how the neighbora feel about uses
r~f this type. He added he thought the petitioners have taken whatever
precautiona they could with the filtecing syetemo and he thoughk the permit
should be gtanted si.nce it can be revoked if there are complainte against it.
Commiss ione[ Bouas t~greed thgt khia petitioner ahould not be punished for
mistakes made by another petitionec and it sounda like thcy will try tv run
the type of business that could be an aseet t~ the areA.
RPapond ~.n9 ~o Cammissioner I.a Claire, Mr. Reeder pxpluined the hours of
aperation wil.l be from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday lhrouyh Frfday.
Commis~ionec La Claire stated iE this permit ia gcantpd and the use becom~s a
nueiance ~r a health hazard to the community, it can be revoked. She
explained if the doors wece left open for instance, or the proper equipment is
not in~tallpd as atipulated, the permit can he cevoked. SFie added she hae a
lot of doubts about this use.
Chairman Hecbst stated he has been in body ahops when people are working and a
pecson cannot hear anythinq.
Commissioner Buahore stated he would go along wi.th approval for one year and
stated he will be making checks to see 1E the middle area is being used for
employee parking, etc. and if it is not, he will not go along with the renewal.
Responding to Commissioner La C:aire, Mr. ;teeder. .xplained that they have a
5-year leasP on the property and it i.s contLngent upon their permit.
Commis~ioner La Claire stat!~d she has doubtg about this appco~ial because there
is a lot of expensive eqi:ipm~nt to be insta:led and the neighbo~s have to be
considered and she thought there will be problems in the futur~.
Mr. Ber~nett stated they will be willing to go along with the one year time
restriction and they have to sign a 5-year lease and will be obligated for the
4 years left on the propErty with no conditional uae permit, so those doors
will be kept closed.
ACTiOts : Coa,missioner McBurney offered a motion, aeconded by Gommissianer
Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner King absent? that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit an automobile body and
paint shop in the ML (Industrial, Limited) Zone wilh waiver of minimum
landscaped setback an a c~ctangulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately p.42 acre, having a rrontage of approximately ~04 feet on the
T
'a /~.4~ 8 5
MINUTES, ANAH6IM CITY PLANNING COMMISS.ION~ ~EBRUAKY 4, 1985 85-H7
east aide of Rose Dcive an~ f ucther described aa 540 to 544 S. Rose Streetj
and doen hereby approvQ the Negative Ueclacetion up~n finding thAt it hds
conaidered khe Negdtive DeclarAtion togethec wi.th any comment.s ceceived during
the public review pracesa and further finding on the basi~ of the Initial
Study And any comments ceceived that there is no ~ubstantial evidence that the
project will havP a s+.gnificant effect on the environment.
Commissionec McBurney offer~d a motion, ~econded b,y Cammisaionec Fry and
MOTION CARRIED (Commiaeioner King abAent) that the Anaheim City Planning
C ommission does hereby grant waiver of Code requicement on the basis that
rhere are apecial circumntances applicable to the ~,roperty such as ~ize,
shape, topography, location and sucroundingr whic:h do not Ap~ly to other
identically zoned pro~erty in the ~ame vicinity= and that ~tcict npplication
of the Zoning Code depcives r.h~ property of pcivilegem en~oyed by other
properties in the identical zone and classificati.on in the vicinity.
Commiasionec McBurney uf.tered Resolution No. PC85-40 ~nd moved for it.s passage
~n~ adoption that~ the Anaheim City Planning Commiasion daea hereby grant
Conditional Use Pecmit No. 2657 pursuan~ ~o Anaheim Municipal Code Section
18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 for a perlod of one year subject to
Interdepartmental C~~mmittee recommendations.
Greg Hastings, Associate Planner, stated Condition No. 8 should be ~mended
s3nce the pekitioner has indicated the reac area is to be used for outdoor
s ~orage of v~hicles.
-. keeder stated they do not consider packing a cac as outdooc storage;
~ever, a vehicle would only be parked there for a cou~le of hours and there
' no outdoor storage ovecnight. Commissioner McBurney stated he did not
.:t . problem and Greg Hastinqs explained the Condition should cesd: •That
tnere shall be no outdoor storage overn~ght'. Commissionec McBurney stated a
condition should be added that the ce~r door~ must cemained closed during
working hours and the permit is granted for a one-year period only.
On roll call, the foregoing re~olution was passed by khe following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHQRE, FRY, MC BURNF.X
NOES: HERBST, LA CLAIRE
RBS~NT: KING
J ack White, Assistant City Attorney, presented the written right to appe~l
the Planning Commis~ion's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
Commissioner Fry asked Codp EnEorcement staff to monitor the alley on the
west side of East Street south of Santa Ana Street because there is
obviously storage and violations going on.
ITEM NO. 10. BIR NBGATIVE DECLAR~TION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) AND
CONUITIUNAL USE PERMIT NQ. 2186 (REA~VERTISED) ~
PUBI.ZC HEARING FOR TIME EXTE'~a^lQN. OWNERS: CHARLGS L. PANCHERI AND CAROL
P.ANCHERI, 8542 Whitesails Ci. lh, Huntington Beach, CA 92649. Property
described as an ictegularly~-shapecl parcel. of land consistfng of
approximat2ly 0.9 acre located at the noctheast corner of Miraloma Avenue
and Tustin Avenue, 360? ~. Miraloma Avenue. y~
2/,2~6/85
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONI_ FEHRUARX 4, 1965 85-88
Requoat for e 2-year oxtension of time or deletion of Condition No. 3 of
Reaolution No. PC81-61 pertaining ta required extensione of time to retain
an auto and truck wholesdling and ceconditioning facility.
I~ was noted the applicant was not present.
ACTION: ~ommiesioner Fry offered Resolution No, PG85-41 and moved far i.ta
passage and adn~tion that the Anahei.m City Planning Commieaian does herEby
grant a rwo-year extension of time on the basis that eaid permik or
variAnce i.s being exercised in ~ manner not detcimental to the ~articular
a[es and surrounding land uAea, nor to the public pear,e, health, safeky
and genecal we.lfare.
On rol.l call, thr. Eoregoing resolution wa~ ~assed by the following vote:
yYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERIIST, LA CLAIREp MC BURNEY
!~')ES : BUSHORE
A14SENT: KING
ITEM N0. 11. REPORT5 AND F2ECUMMENDATIONS:
A. PROPOSED CODE AMENDM~NT TO TITLE 18 - Pe[taining to Vehicie Impound
Yardg in the Anaheim Canyon Tndustrial Ar.ea.
Oscar Whitebook, 5044 Lakeview, Yorba Linda, explained the Orange
County Towing Services acquired this lot ,3bout I year ago to be used
foc storage of vehicles and they do work clasely with the Police
Department in cleacing streeta ot abandoned and wrecked vehicles. He
explained the petitioner was assured by the previous property owner
that the ~c~~erty had a variance ~or storage and he was under the
impressi~„ ~~,ak that included vehicles and moved in on that basis;
however, ~.~Fo:~ inveatigation it was determined that the skocage was
for pipes, etc. and not automobiles and that a conditional use permit
would be requiced; howevec, it was later determined that they could
not even apply for a conditional use permit because it was prohibited
in this zone in this area. He ref.erred to the ~hotographs preaented
showing the be~'orN and after c~ndition of the pcoperty and also the
use of khe property ~s it is today. He potnted out khe sucrounding
area _~~:~ierally heavy induskrial and explained a zecycling yard is
alsa te>~- area and stated they thought storage of vehicles on a
revol~i~~_~ basis Eits in we21 with the general uses 3.n the area. He
stated this use will not create any t:affic problems with only 2 to 5
trucks per day into tt~e site.
Responding to Cammissioner Bushore, Mr. Whitebook stated they are
still located at the East La Jolla Street location, ~ut the primary
user at that lacation is a company which picks up au.~,nobiles and
sells them and khey do not have enough space.
Garrison Knox, 734 Riverview, Orange, oper.ator of the t~~wing
business, stated they are authorized to use 50 spacea at the La .To11a
5treet location with 6 stalls inside the building, bst they are
currently uaing about 75 spaces And need additional ro~m. He str~ted
2/~/85
MINUTES. ANAHEIM_CSTY PLANNING COMMISSION. FEBRUARY 4. 1985 85-89
l•he economlc struc~uce of ~unk has gone down in price and it is
difficult to diapose of the junk cars. He clarified thak all cars
brought in are not impounded cara ~nd th~t some are ptcked up because
they have be~n abandoned and left on pr~vate propecty or khe Police
Department has them picked up. Ne explained he cannot diapoae of any
abandoned vehicle until he has tl~e prapec paperwock and that can take
fro~m 4S to 90 dAys and he hes to have a pl.ace to nCore khem and he
neede additional room.
Chairman Hecbat stAted he thought the yuestion io whether or not we
want vehicle impound yarda in the Hill. and Canyon Industcial Acea and
that covers khe area from the 55 FreewAy to Impecial Highway And he
thought maybe that boundary should be reviewed and cha~ged to cover
the area east of Tustin to imperi~l because there are storage yard~,
contractor's yacds, etc. which wece thece prior to the Hill and
Canyon Industcial designation. H~~ stated that area ia primarily
tucning into a high-kech acea ber,ause oE the cost of the land. He
added he did not want to chany~ the Code to permit an impound ya~rd in
the Hill and Canyon Area, but wanted the boundaries rhangEd.
Jack White, Assistant City At.t.orney, stated the Code refers to th~e
Canyon Industrial Area based on a certain map in the Planning
Depactment office and he did not think that map was formally a~opted
at a p~iblic heacing by ths City Planning Gommission nor City Counci.l
and thought the boundaries of the prea could be amended by simply
amending the map and he did not think legally a public hear:ng would
be tequired to amend that map.
Annika Santalahti, A~sist~nt Director for Zoning, stated the other
outdoor storage facilities pcedated th~ Canyon Industrial Arpa
deniynation. She retated she thought Chairman Herbat was talking
about the Scenic CocGidur Overlay area and the Code. rfght now rea~s
khat the Canyon :ndustrial Area is the antire area north of the
Riverside Freew~ay and that could be modified to include only the acea
with the Sceni~• Corridor designation which means e~' .ything to the
west of Tustix~ Avenue and the rest would be in the regular induatrial
acea.
Jack White stated r.hat couid be handled very easily with a Code
amendment and then the Planning Commission c~ald utilize the typical
processer; for this type request.
ConmisF3ianer La Claire stated she would like ro see this C~de
amendroei.c changed to prohibit the use in the S~enic Corridor area.
Annika Santalahti explained the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone
prc,hibits this type of usP and any uses that are thece predated that
de>.ignation and if the Code was amend~d, this location is west of
Tustin and would not be included in the Scenic Corridor. ~he stated
it would take the standard 2-month period, if the paper work is
properly processed.
~
2/.297~ 6 S
MINUTES. ANAIfk1M CITX PLANNING COMMISSION, FE~RUARY 4,_1985____ ___ 85-90
ACTION: ChairmAn Nerbet offer~d ~ motion, seconded by Commissioner
La Claire and MOTI~~N CARRIBn (CommiRSioi~er Kiny ~baent) that the
Anaheim City Planrlnq Commiesi~n do~s hereby inatruct otAff to
prepare a Code amendment that would include the boun~9Ariea for the
Canyon Indur'~ial Area ko be amAnded to include the area eask of
Tuatin 6oulevard, 4r bnsicAlly the ~ame areA as the Scenic Corridor
ere~, end that all other p:ovisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code
apply to all othec induat.riA1 xonea.
~r. Knox state~ he t~as received a citation and asked wha~: the status
of khak would be, it was c.lAriEisd he had received a notice of
violation, but not A citati~n and ~t~ere wauld be no hArassmenC from
thP Code EnforcemenC Officec~ while tt~is requeat is being procesaed.
Annika SantalAhti explained this property is nut included in the
SCNRIC COCC~d4[.
OTHER DI5CUSSIQN: Commiesioner Auahare ~tated he tiad not made any
r.amments during khe previous discuRSion becau~e he wanted to see what
the intention of the Planning Cortimis3ian would be cegarding this
issue. He stated T~e is disturbed because people cannot even make an
application for certain uses becauAe they are prohibited in the
Canyon Inc9ustrial Area and are nct prohibited fn other industrial
areas of the City and suggested that maybe some of ~hose usES ahould
be r.onsidered at the same time.
fie stated he has ~een looking at the Orange County Scrbp Recycling
Eacility on Fronterb and it took tha~ petitioner L-wo yeara to get
that permit and material is ctackpd higher than the fence at the
present time. Annika 5antalahti pointed out that property is zoned
Eor agcicultural use.
Commissionet La Claire stated she thought they were given a certain
time to comply with the conditions ~nd asked the staff to -eview that
situati.on.
B. PRUPOSED C~DE AMENDMENT TO TI~LE 18 - Pectaining to exclusion of
driveway areas when determining building site area in the RM-2400 and
RM-1200 Za~es.
AC~rIOti; Commissior.er BusY~ore offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner MclBurney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner King absent)
thPt the Anat~eim City Planning Commission does hecehy recommend to
the City Council that the accompanying draft ordinance be adopted
amending Subsection ,010 of Section 18.32.061 of Chapter 18.32 and
Subsection .010 of Section 18.39.061 of Chapter 18.34 of the Anaheim
MunicipAl Code pertaining to excl.usion of the drivewra~~ areas when
deteKmining buildfng site area in the RM-2400 and RH•••i200 Zones.
~
?/,28~85
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSIONy FEBRUAKY 4, 1985 ~ 85-91
C. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 10674 (REVISION N0. 1) - Request from James C.
Gypton for a one y~ar extenaion of time for Tentative Tract No. 10674
(Itev. No. 1), pcopecty loeated on the north side of Ma~tell~ Lane,
aE~proximately 850 feet east of the cen~erline of Martin Road.
A~'TION; Commisaioner Buehore of:feced a motion, secanded by
Cc~mmissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED (Commiaetoner King absent)
tli~t the Anaheim City planning Commisaion does hereby gr.ant a 1-yeAr
ext~nE:ion of. time for Tentative Tract No. 1U674 to expire MArch 21,
1966.
D. CONDITIONAI. USE PERMIT NO. y9 - Request from Mack KanbAya~hi for
termination of Coi~ditional U~e Permit No. 99, pcoperty located at
1175 Nortr~ East Street.
ACTION: Commiasioner Bushore offered Resolution N~. PC85-42 and
moved for ita passage andadoption that t!~e Anaheim City Planning
Commiasion doe~ heceby terminate Coi~ditional Use Permit No. 99.
On roll call, the fore4oing reaolution was ~assed by khe Eollowing
vote:
AYES: BUUAS, BUSHORE~ FRY, tIERBST, LA CLAIRE, MC DURNEY
NO~b: NONE
ABSENT: KING
E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMJT NA. 15G1 - Requeat from William C. and
Margaret N. Sangater foK termination of Conditianal Use Permit No.
1561, property located at 2112 South State College Boulevard.
ACTIOti: Cor.imissioner Bushoce offered Resolution No. FC85-43 and
moved £ec its passage and adoption that the Anaheim r.ity Planning
Commission does hErebX terminata Conditfonal U~e Permit No. 1561.
On roll call, the fore~ir~ing cesolution was passpd by th~: following
vote:
AYES: 80UAS, BUSHORE, FRY, HERIIST, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT; KING
F. CONDITIONAL USE 'PERMIT N0. 798 - Request Erom William C. and Margaret
N. Sangster foc termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 798,
property located at 2112 South State College Boulevard.
ACTION: Commissioner Buahore of.fered Resolution No. PC85-44 and
moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim Ciky Planning
Commission does hereby terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 798.
On roll cal1, the foregoing resolution was passpd by the following
vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ BUSHORE, PRX~ HERBST~ LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: KING ~
2/~97'85
MINUTLS, ANAHEIM CI~X PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 4, 1985 85-92_
G. REQUEST FOR DIRECTION CONCERNING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY ARFA
BOUNDARIES - NORTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH STR~ET AND SUNKIST STREET -
Request from stafE for direction regardi.ng other parcele along
poctiona of Sunkiat Street and south Street.
Jay TAShiro, Aasociate P1annRr, stated thak property owners of the
interior lots will be notified of this study and that property owners
of the 5~arcels on the east aide of Sunkist hAVe requested a General
Plan Amendment and the Planning Commission does not wish to include
those interior Zots, they can be deleted. Commisaioners Fry and
Hprbst indicated they thought they ahould be included.
ACTION: ChairmAn Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commisaione~
La Claice and MOTION CARRIED (Commiss~oner King absent) that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission d~ea hereby inatcuct staEf to
prepare a Gei:eral Plan Study to include the 4 adjacent parcels on
5unkist and South Street as part of the expanded General Plan
Amendment Study area due ta their similaritieo, along with the 5
parcele ~n the east side of Sunkist between Virginia Street and South
~treet.
H. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 78-79-27 AND CONPITIONAL USE PERMIT NU. 1936 -
Request from Janath~n T. Y. Yeh For extensions af time for
Rec:lassification No. 78-79-27 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1936,
property located at 420 S. eeach 6oulevard.
ACTION: Commissioner McBurney affered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner IIus~ore and MOTION CARRIED (CommiESioner King abseRt)
that *.he Anaheim Ciry Planning Commissior. does hereby gr~nt a 1-year
time extension for Reclessification No. 78-79-27 and Conditional Use
Permit No. 1936 to expice February 6, 1986.
I. NUNC PRO TUNC RESOLUTION - Amending Resolution No. PC85-09 in
conr.ection with Gandikional Use Permit No. 2653, pcoperky locatied on
the north side of Medica~ Center Drive.
AGTION: Commissioner Bushore offered Resolution No. PC85-45 and
moved for its passage and adoptio~ Lhat the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby amend Resolution No. PC85-09 nunc pco tunc in
con~ection with Cor.ditional Use Permit No.•2653.
On roll call, the ~oregoing cesolution was p,assed by the following
vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, ERY, HERIIST, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEX
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: KING
r
2/ ~A/ 85
MINUTES. ~NAH~IM CITY P~ANNING COMMISbION, PEBRUARY 4, 1985 ____85-93
J. NUNC PRO TUNC RBSOLUxION - Amending Resolutinn No. PC85-O4 in
c~nnection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2641, pr~porty located at
2000 Weat Bel~ Ro~d (Eormorly Key Elementary School).
ACTIOtJ: Commiasioner Bushoce offered Resolution No. PC85~46 and
moved for ite paoaage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planni.ng
Commiasion doos heroby amend Resolution No. PC85-04 nunc Pro tunc in
connection with Conditioral Use Permit. No. 2641.
~n roll call, the foregoi.~g cesolution wae pussed by the following
vote:
AYES: BQUAS~ BUSHORE~ FRY~ HER9ST~ LA CLAIRF.~ MC ~URNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSEN9': KING
ADJOURNMENT: Cflmmissioner Fry offered a mo~ion, seconded by Commissioner
Mck3urney and MOTION CARRIED (Cornmiasioner Y.ing absent) that
the meeting be adjoucned~
The meeting was Adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
Respe~fully aubmis„~ed, .
Edit~ L. Harr s, Serr t
Anaheim City Pl~nning Cflmmission
ELH;Im
O100m
2/98/85