Minutes-PC 1985/03/18a
RBGUI.AR MF:F.TING ~F TN~ ANAHEIM CIT1 PLANNING COMMISSIUN
REGULAR ME~TING The reyuluc mNeting of the Anahoim City Planning
Commiasion was called to order t~y ChAirman tlerbst nt
10:00 a.m., MArch 18, 1985, in the Council Chamber a
quorum being present anc9 the Commission ceviewed plans
of the itemo on today's agendA.
R~C~SS:
RECONVENED:
PRESE;NT Chairman:
ConunisaionN.s:
ABSEN7': Commisaioner;
ALSO PRESEII~T Annika Santalahli
Malculm Slaughtec
Jay Titus
Paul Singer
Jay Tashiro
Greg H~stings
~dith Narris
11:30 a.ru.
1:30 p.m.
HerbsC
Bouae, Bu~hore, Fry, King, Lar,laire,
McBurney
None
Asaistant Director foc Zoning
Deputy City Attocney
Affice Engineer
City Traffic Engineer
Asoociake Planner
Assnciate Planner
Planning Commission Seccetary
APPROVAL UF MINUTES: Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Bouas
and MOTION CAFtRIEn (Chairman Herbst abstaining on the minutes of March 4,
1985) that the minutec of the meetings of February 20 ar~d March 4, 1985, be
appcoved as submikted.
ITEM N0. 1. EIR NEGATIVk: bECLARATION, WAIVER QF COAE REQUIREMENT AND
C0~7DlTIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2669
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: LOUIS A. POSSEMA~'0, FT AL, 1909 Margie Lane,
Anaheim, CA 92802. AGENT: TEkRY POSSEMATQ - CUGVER, 1188 West Katella
Avenue, Anaheim, CA 928U2. Pr.operty descrihed as a rectangularly-shaFed
parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.3 acrea, having a frantage ot
approximately 20U feet on the south side of Katella Avenue, and being located
approximately 220 feet west oF the centerline of Casa Vista Str.eet and further
described as 1188 We~t Katella Avenue (Poss~mato's New Deli).
To permit on-sale beec and wine in an existinr, delicatesEen with waiver of
minimum number oE parkih~ spaces.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
and althaugh the ataff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
85-126 3/18/85
~
~
;
E
;
MINUTGS, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSIUN,.MAR_C_H 1$, 1985 85-127
Terry Possemeko, agent, wnn present to answec any queations.
TfiB PUDLIC: NEARING WAS CLU;iGd.
AC'PIUN; Commiasioner Kiny off.ered a mation, aeconded by Commissioner Fry and
MUTIC~N CARItIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion has revi~w~d the
pcoposal to p~rmit on-sale beer and wine in an exisl•ing delicateasen wi.th
waivec of minimum number of parking apaces on u rectangulArly-sheped parcel oC
land consiating of approximutely 1.3 acres, having a frontage of appraximately
2(10 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue and furtl~ec described as .i148
West Katella Avenue (Possetn~to's New Deli); and doec hereby approve ~he
Negakive De~:laration upon finding that it h~a considered khe Negdtiv~
Ueclaration togettier with any comments receivec: during tlie public review
pro .as and furttier finding on the baais at tt~e lnitial Study and any comments
received that ~fINfP. ic no subrtantial evidence Ltiat the pro~ecl will have a
signiticant effec:k nn the environment.
Commiesioner Kiny atFered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION
CARRIFU thAt the Anahpim City Plannirg Commisgion doe~ hereby grant waiver of
Code requirement on basls ~tiat the parking waiver will not cause an
increase in traFfic conr~e~tion in the immedipte vicinity nor adverse.ly affect
any adjoining land uses and yranting af the parking waiver under the
conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimen"tal to the peace, heall•h,
safety and general welface of khe citizens of, the City .~f Anaheim.
Commi~sianer Ki.ng offered Resolution No. PC85-72 and maved ior its passage and
Adoption that the Anahrim City Plonning Commission does hereby grant
Conditional Use Permit N~. 2669 purauant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections
18.03.03U.03U r.hrough 18.U3.030.035 and subjFct to Interdepartmental Committee
recomm~ndations:
On roll call, the foregving resolution waa passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSNC~RE, FRY, HERBS'f, KING, LA ~I,\IRE, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Malcolrt~ Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, pcesented the written cight to appeal
the Planning Cam~aicsion's decision withi~i 22 days to the Gity Council.
ITEM N0. 2. EIR ivEG~TIVG UECLARATICN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2657
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: KENNETH W. AOLT ANb HELEN L. HOLT, 1557 West Mable
Street, Anaheim, CA 9280'l. AGENT: DAVID JACKSUN, 1557 West Mable Stre~t,
Anaheim, CA 92802. F~roperty described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel o£
land consisting of approximately 0.66 acre locatecl at the northwest corner ~f
Chestnut Street and Citron Street having a~proximate frontages of 155 feet un
the norkh side of Chestnut Street and 180 feet on the west aide oE Citron
Street and further described as 121 South Citron Street (Fairmont Sct~ool).
To expand an existing private school f Ar a maximum of 225 students.
3/18/85
MINUTES, AN~HEIM CTTY P~ANNSNG C~MMISSION, MARCH 18~ 1985 85-12~
There wda no one inc~icatin~ lheir pcesence in appoaition to subject requeat
and althauc~h the ataf.f re~ort wAS not reed, it is referced to and made a part
oE the minutea.
David Jack~~n, UirQCtor ~f Fairmont School, expla ined I:he proposal la ta Add a
cauple of classrooma for the expaneion of theic e xiating kinderyarten and
Eirst grade to include a pre-ecliool Eor t~ maximum c~f 75 add'tional etudenls.
THE PUElLIC HEARING WAS CI.USED.
Responding to c:ominisaion~r f3ouas, Mr. Jackson explnined right now th~ir
sludents are kaker~ by bus to the main campus whe r e th ey ride the cegular buaes
with thetr brothers and sisteraj and they lond a z d unload one bus on Ci~con
and one bus on Chestnut Strecrt~ and that parents drop otf a~d pick up students
on Cieron and they have nnt fiad a problem in the past. He furlher explained
tcaffic wa~ more of a problem betore the ;~unior h igfi schoal waa closed.
Commissioner Buehore ~tar_ed hc could still ~ee a potential problem becaur~e o~
the conyestion and tcaffic and amall children in the ar~a. Mr. .Iackson st~ted
if it becomes a problerti, they would have L•~ wor.k out a route through the
ingcess and e~reae and explained tl:ey dc have sc h ool personnel present to meke
sure no one double parks and he would expect few Pr problema with the smaller
children since some parents nf thc~ older children do expect them to crosa the
street. He explained ttiey hAVe two bus loads pe r day with 72-passenger buaes,
Reaponding to Commi~sioner Mc~urney, Mr. Jackson st~ted approximately 5~ of
the parents drop off khe ctudents, rather than h a viny thpm ri.de the bus and
they disco~rage it b~cauae they do not hr~ve exte n ded day classes. Ne
explained they have 150 students now and this ex gansi on would brina the total
to 225 and most oE the pre-schoolecs would only b e th ere h~lf-days, and they
would p[ovide additional buses if necease~ry. He recpcnded to Commissioner
F3ushore that all three buses would not be there at the same time.
Commissioner Bushore stated he thought it makes m c[e sense to have the buses
load and unlaad on Chestnut Street since it is a quieter stceet wfth less
traffic. Mr. Jackson responded that would be fin e.
ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion, ~sec onded by ~ommis~ionet Bouas
and MUTION CAEtRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Cor.unis~tion has ruviewed the
proposal to expand an existiny private school fo r A max~mum af 225 students on
a rectangularly-shaFpd parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.66 acrec
located at the northwest carner of Chestnut Stre et and Citron Street.and
further described ra~ 121 South Citron Street (E'a irmont School); and does
hereby approv~ the Negative Declaration upon fin ding that it has considered
the Negative ~~eclaration togethzr with any comme nts ceceived during the public
review ptocess and fucther finding on the 5asis of the Initial Study 3nd any
comments received that thers is no substantial e vidPnce that khe project ~vill
have a significant effect on the enviconment.
Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC85-7 3 and moved for its passage and
adoption tr,at the Anaheim City Planning Commiss i on does hereby grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2667 pursuank to Ana h eim Mun.icipal Code Sections
18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to the conditions and
stipulations of the applicant.
3/18/85
~
MINUTF:S, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMZSSIUN, MARCH 18y 1985 95-129
Prior ko voking on the above reaolution there wee a brief diACUeaion as to
whether or not the lo4ding end unloeding of buses on Cheatnut Street rather
than Citron should be a condiGion and it was dekermined the atipulakion would
be adequate, rett~er ttian a condition.
Un roll ca11, the faregoing resolution was pasaQd by the following vote:
AYE:S: BOUAS~ QU5NORE~ FRY, H~RB~T~ KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NOES: NUNE
AIISENT; MONF.
Malcolm 5laughtec, DeF~uty City Attorney, ~reaented the writhen right to ap~eal
the Pl~nning Coinmission's deciaion withi~ 22 days to the City Council.
I'1`~:t1 N0. 3. _~IR Nk;GATIV~ nE(:LARATION. WAIVER UF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITTONAL ~:SE YERMIT N0. 2F68
PUBLIC HEARINC. ~rIN~R; AIRPORT SERVJCE, iNC., 851 Eaet Cerritos, Anaheim, CA
~2805, ATTN: RUB~RT F. HERWIG. AGENT: RONALD ROCERS, DBA MAGTC CARPET
AMt3UL£TTE CONFORATIUN, 310 North Tustin, Orange, CA 92667. Propecty described
as an irr.egularly-ahaped par~el of land consLsting af approximatply 2.5 acre~,
142C South Allec Street.
To permit an outdoo. non-emergency ambulance ~torage and maintenance faciliky
and an outdoor recreational-vehiclE storage yard with a waiver of ceyuired
Er~cloaure of outdoor useA.
Ther.~ wa~ no unc . iic~+t neir presence ~n oppo3ition to subject cequest
and although Che staf' _ WHS not. read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minute
Ronaid p~gers, agent, was present to an~wer any question~.
TH~ PUBLIC HEARING WA5 CLOSED.
Commissioner King ntated he would agree that slats should not be required
because of the added security the open fence would pc~vide.
ACTIUN: Commissioner King offered A motion, secon~ed by Commissioner Fry and
MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the
proposal to permit an outdoor non-emergency arabulance storage and maintenance
facility and an outdoor recreational-vehicle storage yard with a waiver of
cequired enclosure of outdoor uses on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 2.5 acres, being approxirtiately 360 feet east of
the centerline of A11ec Street and 500 feet north of the centecline of Citrus
Aaenue and further desctibed aa 1.42U Sourh Allpc Street; and does hereby
approve the NegativQ Declaration upon finding that it has considered the
Negative Declaration toge~hez with any c~mments received during the public
review process and further findfng on the basis of tine Initial Study and any
comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project wi21
have a signifi~cant effect on the environment.
3/18/85
~
<~
MINUTE&, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMTSSION. M1-RCH 181 19H5 85-130
Commiasioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commisaio~er Fry and MOTION
CAItRIE~D that the Anaheim City Planning Commiasion doea hereby grant waiver of
Code requirement on basia that the u~slatted Eence would pcovide additional.
security and further an the basis Chat there Are special circumstancea
ap~liceble to the ~roperty such as Aize, shope, topography, location and
surroundinga which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the
same vicinityt and thAt skrict application of the Zoning Code deprives the
property oE privilegea enjoyed by oth~r propectiea in thE identical zone And
classification in the vicinity.
Commiasi.oner King oEfered Res~lution No. PC85-74 and rt~oved tor its pASSage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Cummisaion does hereby gcant
Conditional Use Pecmit No. 2668 ~ursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections
18.03.030.030 thcaugh 18.03.030.035 and subject to InteKdepart.mental CommitCee
recommend~tions:
On roll call, the foreyning i•enolution was pa~sed by the following vote:
AYES: BUUAS, F3USHORE, FFtY, tiF.R85T, KING, LA CLA2RE~ MC BUf2NEY
NOES: NONE
ABSLN`P: NONE
Malcolm Slaughtec, Deputy City Attorney, pre8ented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 daya to the City Council.
1TEM N0. 4. EIR NEGATIVB DECLARATi~~N AND 'JARIANCE NU. 3466
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: LUCILB hS. PERRYMAN, 210 West Vermont Avenue, Anaheim,
CA 92805. AGENT: KENN~DY b NAUSB, 504 West Chapman Avenue, Suite F, Orange,
CA 92668. Property described as a cecta~gularly-shaped pArcel of land
consisting of approximately 0.4 acre, 210 w~;t vermont Avenue.
Waiver of maximum structural height to cca~:::t:~uct a 14-unit apartment complex.
There was one person indicating his precence in o~position to subject request
and although the st.aff report was not read, it ia referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Scott Vos, 504 West Chapman, Suite F, Ocange, was pcasent to answer any
questions.
George Beals, 225 W. Vermont, Anahein~, ....,ted they would ask thnt the
standards for height and setbacks be maintained; that some people in the
neighborhood want to sell their property and move, but they do ^~=t wish to
move and iF the standards ase not maintained, they can be forc- ', r_o move and
b~cause of lower values of their property, wauld be unable to afford to
replace what they have now and that would force them to leave the Acea
entire.ly. He presentec! a copy of the letter he submitted and explained his
propecty is directly across the street.
Mr. Vos stated he sent Mr. 9eals a plot plan a couple of weeks ago and then
called him and asked if there were any problems and he had indicated there
were no problems= and that he also asked Mr. Pietrok if he had any comments
and there were none.
3/18/85
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. MARCN 18, 19~5 85-13]
TfIE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOS~D.
Commiasioner BuAl~oce ataked thN applicant's Stutement of ~ustification
indicated thet the pcoperty does not ditEer from other propertieR in Che eAme
zon~ and viciniCy as to size, shape, topography, location or aurroundi.ngs, but
they need th~~ waivers in order to qet 14 unita per Code. Ne asked how they
lnterpreted the Code and ~tated he did not see uny hardship for justificati~n
Co grant the height waiver.
Mr. Vos stated they had r.onsidered requeating a denaity bonus and going for 16
unita. He stated Kennedy and Hause hao several t~undred units in Anaheim and
they do pr~vide fine projects.
Commissi~nec Fry stated in order for the Commission to grant a variance, there
has to be a hacdship ahown And the Commiseion cdnnot find ~ hardship on this
property. Mc. Vos responded to Commissioner La Claire that there ~re 2-atory
apartment units on the east side of the property and oldet residential units
on thE west 3ide and explained the height of their project is proposed at 35
feeC which he felt was permissible for 2-~tory unik£.
Greg Fiastings, Associate Planner, stated the rPquirements of the RM-1200 3one
do not refer to height in terms of feet, but in terms of atoriesj however, if
ti~is was a condominium, the minitnurn would be 35 feet, measured to the ceiling
of the top floor, rattier than the peak of the roof, and an average 2-st~ry
liouse would be a~proximately 22 to-25-feet h~.igh.
Chairman Flerbst asked if they would be permitl•ed lo put tr~e gacage
underycound. Creg tiastings explained, providiny the Parking level is 508
below the naturai grade level, the projec;t wauld bec~me a 1 and 2-story unit.
Mr. Vos stated there ac~ two 3-story projects in tt~e immPdiate area--one on
Vermonk and one at Anaheim Boulevard and South 5treet.
Commissioner La Claire stated Cade requires a 150-foot distr~nce to
single-family zones and this proposal is for 104 feet. Greg Hastings
explained the C.oc3e does nat permit 3-scocy units at all and the 2-story
pottion would have to be set back 150 fcet frum the single-family zoned
properties. He stated the parking is at grade level for this project, with 2
levels of living units above.
THE PUl3LIC HEARING WAS RE-OPENED FOR ADDITIONAL C~JN,MENTS FROM OPPOSITIQN NOT
PRESENT EARLIER.
Ted Pietrok, owner of pro~erty next door to the east, stated there are
actually 8 unfts on nis property, and, as propos~d, this would add to the
traffic problem and create additional ~.arking problems and also most of the
parking that is provided cannot be usEd, in hia opiniun. He added he thought
this is way over the density allowed and he had to stay 15 feet from the
adjacent property when he built 2 stories, and it appears thi~ project is at
10 feet.
Mr. Vos stated he did not think tcaffic would create a major problem,
e~pecially with the parking proposed which is a lot better than the 36 units
tt~at were propoaed on the properL•y.
3,~18/85
f'~~
~I,
ad
MINUTE6~ 1~NAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,_MARCEi 16. 1985 85-132
THE PUBI.IC NEARING WAS CLOSEA.
Responding to Commisaiunet La Claire, Mc. Pietcok stated hia property is an
•L-ahaped• paccel and tt~e~e are 11 unitr~ on the two piece8 of pro~erty
includiny the 'L" portion that goes aver to I.emun Skreet and ~dded he thought
the two parcels ~re u lot larger than Chia or~e subject ~roperty.
Cummie~ioner La Claire claritied thAt the subject prnper.ty is 1QQ feet by 160
feet and added ths ]ocr+tion plan incl~ded with the staf£ report waa probably
out ot scale.
Chairman Nerbst a:~ked if: the pekitioner wauld like to have a continuance; that
he could not approv~ thiu project, a~ propoaed, because chere ia juat too much
pr~posed on khe property becauae of the size; And that Ll~ere ia gingle-tamily
developmen;: on Vermont: and this would be infringing un their rights.
l1r. Vc-~ asked it any waivErs would be cequirNd to have the ~arking A-1/2 feet
below ytade. Crey Hz,stings responded khe ~~roblem is that the parking apacns
clos~est to the driveway probably would n~t be usable because of the ramp. He
st~ted if the project is recesaed so ttfe proposed bottom levcl is 508 or more
below ~rade, no vAriance would be reyuired using the same p].oris. Ele stated hie
understands there r~rE 2-story unit~ to t~~e east, but this would be 2-story
units ~ittiin 1S0 feet of single-fami~ly residences.
Mr. Vc~~ rp~guested a two-week contin:aance.
ACTiGN: Commissioner King nffered a~notion, secc~nded by Commissioner Bouas
arnd M4~T.i0N CARRIF,U that consideration of thp aforementianed matter be
caqtinucd to tt~e reyularly-scheduled meeting of April 1, 1985, at the request
c~f the petitioner.
Chairman HerbsL- suggested the petitior~er work with the neighbora to satisfy
their toncerns.
Commissionet Bushore ~uggested tti~se present in opposiCion should call the
Planning Departmen~ on A~ril lst to make ~ure the project would be presented.
ITEM N0. 5. EIR hE:GATIVE DECLARATION ~ANQ VAF2IANCE N0. 3468
PUBLIC HEARING» UWtdER: HIGH TECH INVEST'MENT, LTD., ATTN: LUCIA i,IU, 1301
North Dynamics Street, Anaheim, CA 92807. Property described as a
rectang~l.arly-shaped parcel of l~nd consisting of app~oximately 0.54 acre
located at the norkhwest corner of MiralomA Avenue and Oynamics Street, 1301
North DXnamics Street.
Waivec of minimum number of parking spaces to cartstruct an interior addition
to an existing industri~l building.
There was na one indic~ating their ~resence in opposition to cubject request
and althaugh the staff report was nct read, it is referred to and made a part
of t-,e minutes.
3/18/85
~.. J
MINUT6~ ANAHEIM CITY PJ~APINING COMMISSION1 MARCH 18. 19$5 85-133
Larry Greer, Greer and Company, 4~9~~ E. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, explained
the reque$t is foz a vAriAnce foc parkinq apace~ for expansion of 2680 equare
feet to the inl•etioc of an exiating industrial bui.lding. He atated a parking
analyeis was perfocmed to determine the parking reyuirements f.or the entire
~evelopmen~ conaiating of three buildings. t!e stated thia building ia
preaently ui~u~cupied and there will be 3 or 4 employees in the ~eginning with
7 or 8 at its abaolute peak and ~he parking demand study indica~ed there was
no need for additlo~al spaces.
THE PUBLIC hEARING WAS CLO:;ED.
Commissioner Bush~re stated the parking study covered three properties located
at 13U1, 1321 and 1331 Narth Dynamic Street anci it wa~ clarified that there
are three aeparAte buildings and th~k there are considered bs three separate
properties. Commissioner IIushore atated he Lelt the parking should be able to
stand on its own foc e~ch building and that. the ~tudy should not have been
based on all three properties. Mr. Greer stated there are reciprocal parking
agreements and they wanted to make sure the activities in the other two
buildings did not cequire additional parking.
ACmION: Commiasioner King oEfered a motion, 3econded by Commissioner. Boua~
and htOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commiasion has reviewed the
proposal to construcf an interior addition to an existing ~ndustrial building
with waiver of minimum number of packing spacec on a rectangulacly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of appco,:imakely 0.~4 acres located et the northwest
corner of Miraloma Avenue and Dynamics Street and further described as 1301
North Dynamics Street; and does hece~y a~prove the Negative Ueclaration upon
finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together wikh any
comments received during r_i,~ public review process and further Linding on the
basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no
substantial evidence that the project wi11 have a aignificant eff.ect on the
environment.
Commissioner King offeied Resolutian No. ~C85-75 and moved for its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission doe~ hereby grant Variance
No. 3468 on the ba~is that the parking waiver will nor cause an incr.ease in
tcaffic congestion in tt~P immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any
adjoining land uses and grsnting of the packing waiver under the c~nditions
imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and
general welfare of the citizens of the City af Anaheim.
Commissioner Bushore etated he would like a condition added that the
reciprocal parking agreement ~e executed and recorded as approved by the City
Attorney's Office. Commissioner King stated he would add that to his
resoluti~n.
On roll call, the foregoing resolukion was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ BUSHORE, FRY~ HERBST~ KING, LA CLAIREi ~~ BURNEX
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: ~ONE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Comm~ssion's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
3/18/85
MINUTES. ANAH£.IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 18~_1985 85-134
_~_
ITEM N0. 6.__ EIR ;J£GATIV~ DECLARATION AND VARIANC~__N0. 3467
PUBLIC NEARING. OWNER: S. K. S., INC., 1730 Weat Miasion, Escondido, CA
92025, ATTN: CLAUDE F. SYMPSON. Property ciescribed as an irregularly-shaped
parcel of land conaieting of approximAtely 0.9 acre located at the soulhwest
cornec of Santa Ana Street and Ulive Street, 501 South Olive Street.
Waivors of minimum number oF parking spacea, minimu~r~ landscaped building
aetback, required screeniny of parking area to expa~d An existing industrial
facility.
There we~e two pecsons indi.cating their ~~resence in oppooitfon l•o ~ub~ect
reyue~t An~ although the etaff report was not read, it is referred to and made
a part af t.lie minutes.
Eric Kr~~~eche, 501 S. Olive, Anaheim, stated ~his facility has been there since
1922 ~nd they olan to remodel. ife ndded thece liave been changes in the
ser,raar,k cequirementn in the area and also parking reyuirements have been
incr.ea~ed.
r.unnie Atendoza, 308 Ellsworth, presented a peL•ition siyn~d by most ~~f the
~~r.operty owners dicectly adjoining the other John ~lack facility an Ellsworth
~nd Olive Streets. She presented phoL•ograph~ of. the existing facility and
read the petition, a c~py oE whici~ is available in khe Planning Depactment's
files.
Dtr. Kroer_he explained the prop~cky rPferred to by Ms. Mendo~a is about a block
away from subject properky and has nothing to do with this property. He
pCesented picture:~ of their present facil.ity and noted this is an industrial.
commercial area and they do make noise, and they do not store volatile
producta in drumr~, but do store mokoc oil and that Che area is landscuped. He
added they try to comply with the Cit.y rules and regulations and be a goad
neighbor.
THE PUBLIC HERRING WAS CLOSEU.
Chairman Herbbt askeci where the photographs were taken from which wece
presented by Ms. Mendoza. Ms. Mendo2a responded the pictures were taken frnm
her fr.ont and back yards and Erom her backyard, a11 she can see is a lot of
barrels. She asked how they can get away with maintaining such poor pcoperty
in that neighbochood.
Nialcolm Slaughter, Aeputy City Attorney, stated the only item for
conaideration before khe P2anning Commission today is the activity conducted
on the propecty at the corner af Olive and Santa Ana Street and if there is a
problem with another property, the appropriate proceduze would be to contact
the Code Enforcement Officers in the Planning Department so they can
inveatigate the propecty and take appropriate action.
Ms. Mendoza indicated she had contacted the Code Enforcement Officers several
times. Commissioner La Claire stdted she will instrucr the Code Enforcement
Officec to taice a look at the area.
3/18/85
~ ~~
, ~.
,~;`
MINUTE5, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. MARCH 18, 1985 ____ 85-135
Commiasionet tiushore etal•ed there is pcobably nok Any violati~nA there except
start-up times which he did nat think would even e~ply in that aceA and he did
not think khat lorAti~n is cequired to have landr,caping and there ar.e no
aetback requiremencs, ae long ds m~~ecial is atored under tt~e fence line.
ACTIUN: Commiseioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry an~i
MOTION CARRIED that the AnaheLm City Planning Commisai.on tias reviewed the
proposal to expand an ~xi.Rting induat~iA1 facility with waivera of minimum
number of packing apacea, minimum landscaped building setback and required
screeniny of park+n~ area on an ir~egu.larly-sha~ed parcel of land consisting
ol' approximately 0.9 acr~ located at the southwest• corner oE Santa Ana Street
nnd Ulive Stceet ~nd t~rther described as 501 Soutt~ Olive Streetj and doea
hereby ap~rove the Negative Declaration upon Einding that il has ~onsi.dered
the Negative Dec].arAtion togpther with any comments receive:~d during the public
review process and fucthec ffnding on khe basia of. the Ini.tial Study and any
comments received tt~at thEre is no substantial evidence that the pzuject will
have a significant e~fe~t on the environment.
Commi~sioner King ofteced Resolution No. PC~S-76 and moved for its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Pl.anning Commiasion daes hereby grant Variance
No. 3467, waiver (a) on the basis that the parkir~g waiver will not cause an
increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vic.inity nar adversely affect
any ad~oining land uses and yranting of the parking waiver. under the
conditions imposed, if ar~y, will not be detrimental to the peace, health,
safety and general welfare af th~e citizens of the City of :~naheim= and
g~anting wAiver (b) on the basia that thece are special circumstances
applicable to the property such as size, shape, topogra~hy, location and
surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the
r~ame vicinity; and that strict application of the 2oning Code deprives the
property of privileges enjoyed by ather properties in the identical zone and
cla~sification in the vicinity and s~bject to Interdepartmerital Committee
recommendations.
Chairman Herbst stated h~ would like the w~cding in the resolution to include
a finding that no other prorerty from Olive Street s~uth would be ablP ta
provide the setback and that the ac3jacent propezty tu khe east was allowed to
construct to the sidewalk, a~d that this is purely an industrial area with
railroad~ located on one side and a lumbec yard on the other sfde with no
landscaping provided.
Commissioner King pointed out there are no curbs and sidewalks between Olive
SL•reet and Anaheim Boulevard and should not be required ~n this property.
Mr. Kroeche stated they would be happy to bond fcr the curb and gutters and
put the improvements in when the cest of the area is impraved.
Jay Titus, OfficE Engineer, stated the Engineering staff would recommend that
the curbs and gutters be installed at this time; that the petitioner could
request a temporary sidewalk waiver, but they would recommend that the other
improvements be installed just on the frontage oE this prope:ty. He stated
water in the street would drain to the same place it is dr~ining now and
explair.ed the City has no plans for development of street impcovements at this
time and it doesn't appea.r the property is going to be developed in the near
future.
3/18/85
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN, MARCH 18, 1985 85-136
Commissioner~ Pry And Herbat agreed they did noC nee the neceRSitY of putting
in cucbe and gutters riylit now because a great portion of the frontnge of khet
property ie railroad property.
Juy Titus aketed it could be many years beEoi~e anything else is improved and
the curba and gutters m~y never be instelled. 1ie stated he would like curbs
and guttera in now because of the p~tkiny lay-out proposed and in order to use
the parking as proposed, the car~ would have to back out into the atreet ~nd
that would be dangerous.
Commiasioner eushoce aske~ if they migt~t want not to put in the curb and
yutter because they pl.an to use that area for backing out onto the atreet.
Mr. Kroeche stated that is certainly one oE kh~ considerAtions and ~here is a
lot of congestion. tie presented photographs oE the property, pointing out. the
railroad cars l~ading and unloading and state~ thia is a viable pie~e of
railroad pro~erty on Santa Ana Street.
Commies:oner Bushore stated they tiave another location in Escondido and asked
if this development will be storage Eor that facility. Mr. Kroeche stated
they operate this division and tl~e Escondido division; and that this Anaheim
facility will Eerve San aernardino, Kiveraide and I,os Angeles and Or~nge
Counties for petrAleum diatriUution, handling fundamentally motar oil in cases
and drum~, and that is their staging facility.
Commissioner Bushore stated trucks parked will block one entrance to the gas
pumps and also block parke~ cars while they are being loaded or ~~nloaded. Mr.
Kroeche stated it takes about 1 hour ~o load or unload the truc~~;.
Chairman Herbst asked if the curbs would be aligned with the rest of the
cucbs. Jay Titus responded they will be aligned with tl~e curbs and guttecs at
the KwiM,set ~r.opetty. Annika Santalahti stated Code requires impcovements to
be installed at the time of development and when a bond is acceptable, it is
beca~se of. some time delay and it al~pears it will be developed within 5 yeacs
or less time, and when the developer does not want to specifically put in the
improvements, a waiver should be advertised so it is cleac from the very
beginning. She stated in this instAnc~, if they d~ not want to puk in the
improvements, this matter shauld be readvertised and if a bond is acceptable,
a certain period of time should be 3dentified.
Commissfoner La Claire stated she understands, and would agree that this
developer should be required to provide the improvements now because ~he
Commission does require other people to put in the improvements as neces~nry.
She gtated, in addition, thare are several waivers on the propecty and she
realizes they were existing, but she saw no reason not to put in the curbs and
gutters at this time because they are needed.
Chairman Herbst rtated there are no curbs and gutters ~n either side of the
street from plive to Anaheim Boulevard and he did nok think it fair to have
this develoQ~r put them in. Mr. Kroeche pzeaented pictures showing east and
west on Santa Ana Street and pointed out there are no curbs and gutters
existing and stated it is not timely to install improvemeats at this time, if
the rest of the area is not imgroved. He stated again, they are willing to
bond for these improvements until there is an improvement district to complete
them.
3/18/85
~
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MA~tCH 18, 1985_,___ 85-137
Chaicman Herbst atated the Planning Commiasion does not fiave the authority ko
delete the conditions and Commisaioner La Claire stated she felt the condition
ehould be left in ae is and the Ci.ty Bngineer's OEfice ahau.ld determine
whether oc not. a Uond is accepteble and when the curbs and gutteca ohould l~e
inetalled.
On roll call, the Eoregoing ceaolution wae ~as~ed by tl~e follawing vol•e:
AYES: BOUAS~ E3USf10RE, FRY, HERBST~ KING, LA CI.AIRE, MC BURNEY
NUES: NUNE
ABS~NT: NONE
Malcolm 5laughter, Ueputy City Attorney, presented the writ.ten riyht: to appeal
the Plonning Commisaion's decision within 22 days to the Ci.ty Council.
Commiasionec La Claire stated she would like to ciirect staf.f to investigate
that particular area to aee if there are any zoning violations.
Mr. Rroechf; stated they were unaware that thex M~ere not a useful citizen and
that tie has made peace with his neighbors; and that the City did make some
recommendations which they Eo]lowed through with pertalning to reducing the
height o£ the drums and also providing landscaping. He stated they do have a
problem with their neighbors and trash from the beer bAr and they wanl• to be
qood citizens and will comply with any regulations.
ITEM N0. 7. EIR NEGATIVE UECLARATION (F~I2EV10USLY APPROVED) AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT IJU. 21~2 (R~ADVERTISEA) +
PUBLIC HEAF?ING FOR EXTENSIUtJ OF TIHE. OWNERS: GLENDON AND SHIRLEY MILLER,
2121 Skyline Drive, Fullerton, CA 92631. Property described as a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting o~ approximately 0.86 acre,
2630 E. Micalama Avenue.
Request for a 2-year (3-month retroactive) extension of time or deletion oE
Condition No. 9 0~ Resolution No. PCBC-198 pertaini.ng to reyuired extensions
of time to retain a truck repair facility in the ML Zone.
r.ontinued from meetings of Febcuary 20 and htarch 4, 1985
It was noted the petitioner was not pre~sen~.
ACTION: Commissioner Bushore offered a moti~n, seconded by Commissioner
~tcBurney and MOTION CARRI~b that consideration o~ the aforementioneC matter be
c~ontin~led to the regulsrly-scheduled meeting of April 1, 1985, and further
,.hat the petitioner should be notiEied by staff that he should be present at
that hearing; otherwise, other actions cauld be considered.
ITEM NO 8. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARAZ'ION (PRFV:GUSLY APPROVED) AND CONDITIONAL
'..SE PERMIT N0. 1063 (READVERTISED)
PUBLIC HEARItiG POR EXTENSION OF TII~1E. OWNER: CHARLES R. MC NEES~ 3648 South
New Gate W~y~ Orange, CA 92667. Property describea as an irregular].y-~haped
parcel of land consiati.ng of approximately 5 acres located on the north side
of Katella Av~nue between Haster Stseet and Manchester Avenue and further
described as 1721 South Manchaster Av~nue (The eand Stand).
3/18/85
. .. . ..._.v., l
~
t~`'
t ~ 4t q~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CI'1'Y_ PLANNING COMMISSION. MARCH 18, 1985 85-138
__.-___...___.
Reguesta Appr~val of a 1-year t5-month retc~active) extensian of time or
de,letion oE Condition No. 5 uf Re~olution PC68-301 pertaining to rPquired
extensions ot tim~ to retAin a public d~,nce hall.
There was no onR indicAting their presence in oppoaition to subject cequeat
and although the stafF report was not read, it is refecred to And made a part
of the minuCes.
Commissioner Buahore stated he would abstaln un r.hia item even though he doea
nor have A legal confli.ct, but felt eth0lcally he should not take part since
one ot thn landowneca is under his employ.
Chuck McNe~efl, owner, stated they have had this permit Eor 14 years and they
have not h~~.d any problem and would like to reyuest that the time extensic~n be
deleted from the original approval.
THE PUE3LIC HEARING WAS CI,OSED.
Responding to Commissioner King, Mr. McNees stated about 1/2 of the acreening
of the air conditioning units has been com~leted and they ace in the pcoceas
of completing it now= that a block wall has been constructed azound two-Lhirds
of the trash area and all ~hey need to do is add the ga~es; that t;~e
handicapped restrooms have been completed and the reskriping of the two
handicaR~[~acking spaces in front will be comQleted within two weeks.
ACTION: Chairman Herbst offered Resolution No. PC85-77 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commissian doe~ hereby
Eind that Condition No. 5 of Resolut.ion No. PC68-301 should be deleted on the
basis the permit is being exercised in a manner not detrimental to the
parkicular area and surtounding land uses nor to the peace, health, safety,
and general weltare.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was ~assed by the following vote:
AY~:S: I~OUAS, PRY, HERBST~ KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NOES: NUNE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: BUSHOR~
ITEM N0. 9. FtEPURTS AND RECOMMENDATIUNS
A. PkUPOSFB CODE AMENDMENT - Amendment to Title 18 pertaining to Fortune
Telling Businesses in the CO and CL Zoneg.
Neil Schwartz, atturney for the Todorovich family, was pre~sent to answer
any questians.
Commissionec Bushore stated t~e would like to see £urthet study by staff
befare making a recommendation to City Council.
Annika Sankalahti, Assis~ant Director for Zoning, stated the major
problem with this use would be traffic and that the proposed Code
Amendmen~ would add 'Fortune Telling Businessea" as permitted uses in the
CO and CL Zones, She stated the quest~..~; is whether the Planning
C~mmission and City Council want to allow this lse by conditional use
permit.
3~18/85
~.
:a. '
,` . .
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. MARCI~ 18~ 1985 H5-139
Commisaionec Buahore ateted sllowing auch A use in a r.onverted
reaidential structure would requice thnt the etructure be brought up t~
6uilding Codea and he would like to refer it bac' t~+ staEE ao they can
come u~ with recommendationa rnd auggest eome c[: aria.
ACTION: Commissioner Bushore of£ered a moti.on, aeconded by CotmnisAioner
King end MUTION CAFtFIED that the Anoheim City Planning Commisaiun does
hereby inatruct ataff to do further atudy nf the Nr.opooed Code Amendment
pertaining to E'ortune Telling Buainesaes in the CO and CL 2ones and
report back to the Planning CommiHSion with recommended criteria an~
standards before the Planning Commier~lon makes a recommendAtion to the
City Council.
Commissioner Fcy suggestFd ttiat etaff. contbct a~.her citiea to see t~uw
they are handling similnr requests.
B. GONDITIONAL U5E PERMIT NU. 2325 - Requeat from John Jackson, PAStor, for
a one-year extension of i.ime for Conclltional Uae Permik No. 2325,
pcaperty located at G22 N. Gilbert StrPe~t.
ACTION: Commissioner King of.fered a motion, seconded by Comn sioner La
Claire and l10TION CARRiEU that the Anaheim City Pl~.nning Commiasion does
hereby appcove a one-year. i2-year retroactive) extension of time for
Conditional Use Permit No. 2325, to expire May 3, 1986.
C. VAr~IANCE N0. 416 AND 458 - Request from Bruce H. Dol~cman, President, for
termin~tion of Variance Nu. 416 and 458, property located at 1414 and
14G0 S. Harbor 9~ulevard (Red Lion Inn).
ACTIUN; Commissi.oner King nffered Resolution No. PC85-78 and moved for
its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does
hereby terminate Variance No. 416 and 458.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by ~he f.ollowing vote:
AYES: 80UAS, SUSHORL, FRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE~ MC 23URNEY
NOES: NO:JE
A$uENT: NONE
D. ~ONTiITiONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2652 - Request for n~nc pro tunc
resolution amending Resolution No. 85-34, property located at 120U W.
Cerritos.
ACTION: Commissionec King offered Resolution PC85-79 and moved for
its passage and adoption that the Anaheim Cit•y Planning Commission
does hereby terminate Cunditivnal Use ~ermit No. 2652.
On ral_ call, the foregoing resoluti~n was passed by the following
vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST, KING, LA ~L,AIRE, MC BURNEY
NOES: NON~
ABSENT: NONE
3/18/85
r~
~ ~
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COIdMISSION, MARCH 18, 1985 85-140
E. CONDITIONAL UEF E~E~tMIT NO. 26G1 - Requeat far nunc pro tunc
re8olution amending Reaolution No. PC85-48, proporty located at 1414
and 1460 South tierbor Boulavard.
ACTIUN: Commisaioner King o~Pered Resolution PC05-80 and moved Eor
ita pAesage and adoption th~t the Anaheim City Planning Comm~asion
does heceby terninate Conditional Use PermiC No. 2661.
On roll cell, the foregoing resolution was passed by th e fnllowing
vote:
AY~S: DOUAS~ BUSNORE~ ~RY~ tiERE3ST, KING, LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABS~NT: NONE
F. CONDITIONAI~ USB PERMIT N0. 2623 - Itequest for nunc pro t~~nc
resolution amending Reaolution No. PC84-203, on property located at
2201 F.. Orangewood Avenue.
AC'PIUN: Commiseioner. King offered Resolution PC85-81 a nd moved for
its paesage an~ adopti~n that the Anaheim City Planni.ng Commission
does heceby teKminate Conditional Use Permit No. 2623.
On roll call, r.he foren^:ng reaolution wns pasQed by the following
vote:
AYES: B~UA5~ EiUSHOR~, PRY~ HERBST, KING, LA CI~AZR~., MC BURNEY
NOE;5: NONB
AB5EI~T: tiONE
OTHER DISCUSSION:
Commisaioner 9ushore asked ab~ut the 22-day appeal periad in Anaheim,
wondering if it c~uld be reduced, pointing out Anaheim prabably has one of
thp longest appeal periods in this area. Annika Santalahti explained l•he
reason for the 22-day appeal peziod is that it takes about 1 week to set
the matter for the Ciky Cauncil agenda a~d then another two weeks to get
all the information to the City Clerk's Office since the Coun^il does get
the Planning Commission minutes, resolutians, staff repocts a~~d all the
information available and explained that is a part of nur ordinance~.
Anaheim Hills Golf Course Develepement:
Chairman Herbst stated a gentlemen called and asked him to attend a
meeting regarding the City allowing sAme development on the Anaheim [iilla
Golf Course oE high-density condominiums and he did sugges t that they
contact staff regarding meeting with the Planning Commission f~r a
presentatie;~ at their morning meeting. It was nated the next two Planning
Commissfon meetings appear ta be rather lengthy. Commissioner. La Claire
stated she would like to have y infoxmation when it is available from
staff and noted there are a lot of issues that have not been addresaed and
pointed out the golf course is now making a profit.
3/18/85
t?;
~~
MINUTES, AN1-HEIM CITY PL7INNING CnMMIB&ION, MI-RGH_ 181 1985 85-141
Chairmnn Herbet et~ted he would like to know whAt high-deneity developmenk
would d~ to the Planned Community canaept end who will auffer end will the
infrastructure meet the increased deneity And what affects thls wilJ. hevf:
on Euturo developmont.
ADJQURNED:
ELH:lm
0106m
There being no further business, Commi.esioner ~ry of~eced e
mot.ion, secunded by Commiasio~er poune and MOTION CARRIED
that r.he meeting Ue edjourned.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m.
R~espACtfull.y
~~~
submitted,
~° f~~~,~.
Edith L. HacriA, Secr.~t,ary
Anaheim CiCy Planning Commiasion
3/18/85