Minutes-PC 1985/05/13REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAH~IM CJTY PL~NNIMG CC~MMI_„S9ION
REGULAR MEETING The rpgular meeting ot the Anaheim City Planning
Commiesion wae called to order by Chairman Nerbst at
lO:OQ a.m., May 13, 1985, in the Council Chamber, a
quorum being present, and the Gammiasion reviewed
plans of the items on today's agenda.
REC~SS: 11:30 a.m.
RECONVENfA: 1:35 p.m.
PRESENT Cf~Airman: Herbst
Commiasioners: Bou~s, Hushore, Fry, King, LaClaire~
Mc~urnPy
ABS~NT: Comm.iseioner.: Non~
ALSO PRESENT Annika Santalahti
Jack Wbite
Malcolm Slaught•.et
,~ay Titus
Paul Singer
Gceg Hastiny,~
Kendra Morries
Edith Harci~
A~sistant Director for Zoni.ng
Acting City Attocney
Le~uty City Attorney
Uffice Engineer
City Traffic Engineer
Associ.ate Planner
Assiatant Planner
Planning Commiasion Seceetary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: C~mmisr~ioner King offered a motion, seconded by
Commfssioner McBurney a~d MC~TION CARRIEU that the minutes of the Anahpim City
Planning Commi.ssion meeting of April 15, 1985, be approved as submitted and
the minutes of J+~ril 29, 1985, be approved as correcked by Commisaioner
Bushore on page 253 indicuting that Commissioner Bushoce abstained on Item 15b
- Reports and Recommenudti~ns - T~ntative Map of 'iract No. 11600 (Revision 'No.
1).
ITCM NU. 1. EIFt NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERFIIT N0. 266U
Pt3BLIC HEARING. OWNERS: C C~ F LA PALNA INVESTMENT CO., 2390 E. Orangewood
Avenue, i380, Ar~r~heim, CA 92806, ATTN: JEFF SMITH. Property is
approximately 8.64 acrea at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and
kichtield road.
To permit an industrially-related two-story office complex.
Continued from the meetings of February 20, and April 15, 1985.
There was no one indicating their presence in oppasition to subje~t request
and r~lthough the staff report was not read, it ia refezred to and made a part
of the minutes.
85-255 5/13/85
MINUT~S, ~N~HEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION, MAY 131__1985 85-256
Bill Dui~lap, agent, explained there was a recent amendment to the Code to
permit thiA application and the request is for a conditional u~e permit to
allow ~ccupancy of buildinya they are currently conatructing in the ML rane
wiCh ap~Cific usea ae listed in the ataff report~ that they Eeel these uses
are com~atible with uses that are existing and would serve the Qxiet~ng
industcial uae8 in ttie AC@A; And th~t this will make it easier for the ntaff
and the City to ceview theoe usea.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLUSED.
Commieaioner LaClaire s~ated there acE~ a lot of *_hingF on the proposed list
which she was not suce would be compatible in that area and felt that the Code
shou~d be upheld and individual requpsts reviewed by Planniny Commissian.
Commissioner Bushare Agre~d and stated he agreea with the City's current
thinkinq in terms of industrial uaes in that zone ~nd that this list should
not be approved.
Mr. Dunlap .tated this came about ~ecause staEf and local developers,
including ~hemselver~, 5anta Fe Land Cort~pany, Dunn Properties anc3 the Mackl~ttd
C:ompany supported the amendment to the Code to give the develo~,er khe
flexi.bility to follow the guidelines of the CLty. Ne statE~d they feel if they
have to come back in on an indivioual CUP basis for office usea, it would be
an arduous task and put the Canyon Cocridor area out of the marketplace
because oE the time it will take the developer to respond t.o a prospective
tenant who will then find some other place Co gc becauae he does not want to
yo through the City process Lor a permit.
Mr. Dunl.ap painted out ovez 1/3 of the uses on the list 4those asterisked) Are
already permitted in the 2one. He stoted they have done an z-nalysis of the
area and he has a document listing the addresses, numbec of ~mployees and the
use which encompasses 5/6 of the proposed list, includir~g ba~ks, accounting
firms and lawyers and those usea are thece and they are compatible with the
induatrial users.
Commissionec Bushoce stated the ordinancp states that any use which is found
to ::ncourage retail sales of products or merchandise or to attcact customers,
o~_her tha-~ industcial useca, foc industrial pucposes permitted in this zone
shall not be deemed a use which prima[ily serves and fs ~compatible with
industriat uses. He stated industrial use is probably a very small part of
the tru~ and ac~ual busine~s of some of the uses shown on the list. ~Ie added
to define t~ow a use su~ports the industrial area is the reason hhe Commission
wants to take these on a case by case basis.
Mr. Dunlap stated witt~ this permit the determinatfon as to whether or not the
use serves the industiial area will be made at staff level so the petitioner
does not havp to come before the public forum. He atated nne of the
cecommendations is that a title restriction be recorded at the County
Itecorder's Office sa if there is a change in ownership or a parcel is split,
the City still has cont~vi.
Commissioner La Claire stated shp understands it is easier to market the
pcoperty with a list; however, from the City's standpoi~t, this list has some
5/13/85
MAY 1,"~ 1985 85-257
MINUT~S. 1-NAHEYM CITY PLJ-NNING COMMISBION. ,,~ _______...._
very vague uaes ouch a8 advertt~ing, app~alaersN developnient compmnies, etc.
and ciscified she ia not saying ~hat these usea are nor. campaCible, but there
i~ a whole r.eelm af different kinda o~ activitie~ that could be under this
liat and it has bse~ the Commis~ion's experien~:e that developece interpret the
different kinds of businessea in different ways. She added there is a fairly
long lfel of thinga allowed by right.
Mr. Dunlap stated there are uses there now which do noC comply and he is
tryiny to follow the ordinance by coming up '~~ith a list ot uaes, whether it be
amended or not, Co ata:t with some framework whe~.e cievelopers can know that if
they are within the perimeters, they can y~ ahead and develop and not get into
the aituation of miadesign~ting plane.
Commisbion~er La Claire stxted the Cocle L•'nforcement Ufficers are now citing
those usecs who are not in compliance.
Commisaianer Buahare skated about one year aoo there waF an interpretation
completely different than the proper interpretation as it was wcitter and
implied and if the use wa~ not ligted, the petitioner could not even submit ~~n
application, and the amenclm~~t was to allow the right. to make the re~ueAt, and
now khis petitioner i~ requesting ~ broad lisk and the Commission is not rer~dy
to bend.
Commiasioner Bushoce ue~ed eusiness O~pork-anity E3rokers, as an example stating
kh~y uaually se?1 small type businesses which are not industcially r~lated and
are not primaril.y seryiny the indu~trial area.
Mr. Dunlap stated Ataff would be able ko ask who the tenant is and what the
use will be and if it did not comply and fit in with the list, it woulr' be
denied, so there is a control factor.
Commissioner Bushore sCated he thought the Commission would like to m.-intain
contcol and kants the opportunity to ceview the requests to keep con~:col of
that induatrial area.
Mc. Dunlap responded t~ Commissio~,ec La Claire that they want to hr~ve this
list approved for timing beca~se high kech manufacturing is a very competi~ive
market rigt~t now with existing buildin,~ all ov~r Orange County.
Commissionet Bu~hore stated it is the City's and Industrial Development
Com~nittee's desire tu pre~erve as much ind~strial land as possible for
industrial uses. Mr. Dunlap stat.~d he ~alked to the Industrial Review Board
and Mr. Hughes and they suFported r.he final Cude amendment and said they want
the high kech user, ac loc,g as th~re ia c:ontrol and having it ,r~o through staff
and with the restriction, *.hey would approve it.
Commi~sioner Bushore atated he did no~ think the burden shau~d be put on staff
to make the determination and M~. Dwrelap asked why the burden should be placed
on the tenant.
Commiosioi~er La Claire stated she re~-lizes it would be much nicer if the
tenant didn't have to come in; however, the :.ommisaion has to consider the
interest of the other ci~izens, par~icularly in the industrial area, be~ause
5/13/85
85-?.5K
MINUTk;S ANI~NEIM CITY PI.J!NNING COMMISSION MAY 13 1985 _
there are a lot of uaes in the industriAl dCRA Whicl~ make othE~r indu~t.rial
users very unhappy because the City is allowing uRe~ which don't fit and arFr
not trulY industrfal uses.
Mr. Duntap srated if th~ industrialist~ have a complai.nt that thia would erod~~
thp Area, they ehould be present because he h~s t~ca~d from the induetrial
Review Cornmittee r~nd Chambec of c;ommerce and L•hey feit conEident thAt as tong
as they had control dt eome level of yovecnment, whether it be .^~tBfE or tne
Recorc'er's Office, it would be acceptable. Commissioner I.~ Claire sCate~l the
Planniny Commisaion is tt~c control.
Mr. Dunla~ stated evecy tenant ttiey talk Co, whethec they have signed a lease
oc not, wi11 not want to come before khe Cummission jusl t•o f~nd out if they
qualify. He ~dded he would aycee thece has to be a c~n~rol, but thaug't~t it
could be ak ~taff level. t~e atated they are just trying to make tt~e Anaheim
lndustrial area cht+nye into the 198U's with a high tech market which `.s a
booming business.
Chairman Hecbst otatec~ he hus no ~coblem ~~.th yoiny tp c~tafE foc
recommendations, hut assutning the use i~ ~~ucginal, the staff would be
reluctant to make ~he decision, and tF~~~`-lt~y~confoctableUwirhathis~situatione
Commission anyw~~y. Ne asked if staft •
Jack 4~hite, Actiny City Attorney, rf -~ •?~:: ~n_ qoes ~ot teel comfortable with
this request. Commissioner La clai~~= .~s? K~; •==*~e does not like putting staff
in this kind of pasitiun.
stated the most dif f: :~-' "~~ ?'^•_~ to understand is what ia
Mr. Lunlap ~.timarily ~ervea the industrial user.
industrial, what is hiyh tech, ,~i~ ~~!
He ataled the ~enant will laok a~ ~*~~ rireas oi Urange County which don't go
through a CUP pcocess ta allow c~,+t~ ~~ =~~1~ 118P_S in the industrial area and he
thought Anaheim has to look ai. ~:~-~- ^~; ~- chance, if ual.ifiedienough tokreview
chance. He stated he thought t:;~~ ,~~ ~ is highly ~
individual cases.
Jack White explained the ordinanc~~ k~ set up to pPrmit, by conditional use
permit, sales, businesaes and off.:ce uses whi.ch primar.il.y serve and are
compatible with industrial use" a~.~-`~: fur~hcetaillsalesfof products or this
section, uses that are found ~o er.::~u[ag
mecchandise oc to attract cust~.~m~~zs othF than industrial users for industrial
pu[pose~ permitted in thi.$ z~or~e sta11 n~t be deemed a use which primarily
serves and is compatibie wit'h industr:al uses. He stated just as with any
other ocdinAnce that f~ermits ust:s by conditional use permit, the burden is on
the ~applicant to show,, by evidenc~ presented at the publ.ic hearing, that hfe
proposed us~: meets the criteria k~ grant the permit; and that what was
submitCad to the Ylanning Commiesion in this casE ie a list of prospective
uses ar~ the Planring Commissio^ is being asked to bless each of the uses as
fitticra the cri~eria set fortli in the ordinance. He stated, in his opinion,
thore is no evid~ence ta indicate that thoae uses, in all cases, will fi.t that
criteria. He stated allowing atai~ to make the determination that the use
actually fits the criteria in the ordinance would not be a proper delegatian
of th~ Plaubli~ heatinglis to ~llowitheCprospective use~to be fullynaired and
having a p
5/13/85
M1NUT~5, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION~_MAY_13. 1985 ~_~_ 85-259
di~cugsed and the public and aucrounding property owners to be advised nnd
know exactly what it ia going to be beEore it is approved.
Cammissionec Bushoce stated he would nok place thF burden on ataff bE~cauae a
t.~nant could say he is in advertisiny and ~ne men~bet of stAff mAkee lhe
deCerroination that it. ia compatible and ppptoves it, and thP^. Another ataff
rn~~bec might ask the next adverlisec wh~t type of advertlsing he ~nea and bc~se
the determination foc denial ~n a diff.erent criteKia, which would creaCe
problE~ma. H~ noted three months ago, lhis requebt could not evEn be made and
he w~o~ opposed to the fack that the ~etitloncr cauld not even aek, but now he
i~ opposed to the petitioner reyuestina approval of this bcaad list.
Mr. Uunlap stated he takes except,ion to Commisaioner Hushore's commentsr and
noted ehere Are asteriska on ttie list ar usei; already existing and right now
no one iK ~sking whethec or not they are compatible, and this approval will
give moce control than curcently exista.
Con~misaionec ~uahore etated from time to time other usea are added to the list
when it i~ ahown that they are compatible. He a~ded the applicAnt wa~ mA~e
aware af nis position from the very beginning; that t~e supported the
cunditional use permik prncess, and will stick by it so ttie petitioner will be
able t~ make the request. He stated if this ie list is ~pproved, every future
f~etiti.oner will want to add to the list.
Jack White explained the a~terisked uses on the list are cectain uses that are
permitted in the ML l?ndustria,, Limited) Zone and each petition~r would have
to demonstrate that it is a per;~itted use, He added if thfs requeAt is denied
or granted, it would not change the list of permitted uses in the ML Zone and
iE this applicant wants to put in a use that is permitt^~' in the xone, a11 he
has to do is show that it i~ a permitted use in the zone.
ACTION: Commission~r Dushore ~ffered a motion, seconded by Commissioner King
and MUTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has teviewed the
pcoposal to permit an industrially-r~~lated, two-story office cnmplex 3n the ML
iSC) (Industrial, Limited, Scenic Corridoc Overlay) Zone on a
rectangularly-shaped parcel o£ land conaisting of €+pproximat~ly a.64 actes,
located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Richfield Road; and
does hereby approve thp Negative Declaration upon finding that ft has
considered the Negative Declaration to4ethec with ~4ny comments r~ceived during
the public review process and furthec finding on tt~e b~sis of the Initial
St~~dy and any comments received that there is no s,~bstantial evid~nce that the
project will have a~ignificant effect on the environment.
Commie:sioner Bushore offered Resolution No. PC85-118 and moved for its passage
and acloption that the Ant~heim City Planning Commiss~on does hereby deny
Conditional Use Permit No. 2660 on the basis that it has not been demonstrated
that some of t:~e proposed uses o~ the submitted lis~ would prim~rily serve and
be compatible with the industrial users and the Cornmission wauld like to
teview the proposed u~es an an individual basis.
There was a brief discussion that the building is cutrently under construction
and d~nial of this request will not affect that building.
5/13/85
MINUTES. ANAHBIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION, MAY 13, 1985 ___85-260
Un c~ll call, thE foregoing reaolu~lan waa pasaed by the fallowing ~ote;
AYES: aUUAS~ HUSNORG~ FRY~ N£FtBST~ KING, ~A CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NUES: NONE
ABSE;NT: N(1NE
Jack White, Acting City Attocney, pce~ented the wcitten riyht ta appeal the
Planniny Cornmiesion's decision within 22 days to the City Counc~.l.
ITEM NU. 2. EIK NEGA'i1VC DECLARATIUN, RF.CLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-33, WAIVER_
OE CQUE RELUTREMENT, CONDITIUNAL USE PERMIT NU. 2679 AND RE UEST FOR PEMOVAL
~~F SPECIM~N TR~:FS (REAUVEFt'PISED)
REAQVEkTISEU PUBLIC N~'.ARING. UWNE~RS: SXNOD UN SUUTIiE:RN CALI['C~RNIA AND
HAWAII, 15U1 Wilshire Boulevard, Loa Ange~es, CA 90017. AGENT: VICTUR
CUNSTRUCTIUN CO., 3445 E. La [~alma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806. Property
described as an icregularly-aha~ed parcel of lAnd cansisting of approximately
2.4 acres located ~t t.t~e southeast corner of Santa Ana CAnyon Ro~d and
Fairmont Boulevard,
R5-A-43,000(SC) to c'L(SC) or a less intense zone. To permit a retail center
with on-sale a:r.ah~lic beverages in an encl.osed restaucant with waiveCS of
minimum number of signs, maximum number of gign dis~lay surfaces, required
siyn placement, maximum aign acea and minimum building sptback. Request for
retnoval ai six (6) ~pecimen trees.
Continue~ fra~ the meeting of April 15, 1985.
C~•mmissione: Bushore declared a conflict oE interest as defined by Anaheim
C1tv Planning Commission Resolutian No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of
Intecest Code for the Planning Commission and Govecnment Code Se~:tion 3625, et
seq., toc reasuns previously explained, ~nd pursuant to the provisions of the
above Codes, declared to the Chairman th~~t he was witlidrawing f~com the hearing
in connectio:~ with Item Noa. 2 and 3, Reclassificatian No. 84•-85-33, etc., and
would not take part .in either the discussion or ttie v~tinq thereon and had not
discusaed ~his matter with any member of the Planning Commission. Thereupon
Con~missionec 8ushore left the Council Chamber.
AND
ITEM N0. 3. E;IR NEGATIVE DECLAkATION WAIVER OE CODE RE UIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERPIIT N0. ?.680
PUBLIC HEARING. qWNFR5: SYNOD OF CALIPORNIA AND HAWAII, 1501 Wil~hire
Boulevard, L~s Angeles, CA 90017. AGENT: CANYON HILLS UNITED FRESBYTERIAN
CHURCH, 6200 Canyon Rfm Drive, Suite 114, Anaheim, CA 92807 AND VICTOR
COhwTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., 3445 E. La Palma Avenue, Anal~eim, CA 92AOG.
Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consistfng of
approximately 2.2 acres, having a frontage of approximately 348 feet on th~
east side of Fairmont Boulevard, approximately 452 fee1: south of the
centerlin~ ^f Santa Ana Can}on Road.
5/13/85
85-261
MINUT~S ANAHEIM CIT.Y YLANNING COMMISSION MAY 13 1985 __
To permit a church and preschool facility with waivers of minimum landaaaped
setback, mAx.~~.um numbec and ~ize of idenkitication signs, minimi~m number of
parking spacea ana maximum t~tructural hei.ght,
c;ontlnued f rom the meeting of J4pr i 1 1.5, 1985,
There was no one indicating their ~re~ence in oppositiun ko ~~ubject cequest
and r~lthough the staff report was not r~ad, it is :eferred to and made a part
of the minute~.
.1ae Woaile~t, ArchitFCt, explained they have made several modificationa to the
pl~ns consisting of providin9 a walkway between the church and the retait
center to eliminate a potential traffic hazard between pedeatcians and
vehiculac tca~fic oEf Fairmont Boule~~ard; that the rerail centec has been
extended approximatel}• 10 feet into the 150-foot setback on Santiagu Canyon
Koad to accommodate the change to the retail center on its weat winy; and that
parking has been changed moderately also to accommodate that change.
TH~ PUBLIC kiEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner La Claire stated she liked thEO3edetogthefsign~geCeSheaaskedeif~
not oppoaed to the variance, but she is ~pp
the Hughes Center across th~ ..ritC@f'C has a sign variance. She added she is
opposed to an,y variance from the sign ordinance because there is absalutely no
problem with the way it is written and there is no problem on tha~ property
with identification and it can be ~een down ttie road E:>c probab.ly one halE a
mile and signs are allowed on the building, cestaucant and retail cenl•er;
however, she might consider a vaciancp foc one cign at the ~outhwest corner of
the church property.
~•;r.. Woollett stated the signs are needed be^ause of the topography of the
propecty; that Fairmont youlevacd is fairly steep at this location and the
junioc high school on the east is at a much higher elevation; and the reason
for the sign at the southern portien of the church is so that people coming
down F~irmont 8oulevard will kr~ow which church it is, which could be a probtem
for a visitor... He added the c~ncern with the retail cente~: is people
craveling on San~"iago Canyon Road from t~.he east because the projeck is
shielded by the hill of the junior high school.
Ch.:irman Herbst stated the 10-foot high, 12-foot long sign would block the
view of traffic wanting to turn the corner. He stated i.t is ~nfortunate ~hey
are behind the hill, but there is a shopping center and a stop sign th~re and
there can be a aign on the buildinq and he di~ not think the Planning
Cammission would ever consider a sign on the cocner because it would be a
detriment to the traveling public.
Vic Pelaquin, Victoc Co~struction Company, 3445 E. La Palma, Anaheim, stated
one of the signs is basic~lly a 24-square foot identifi.cation sign on site and
is~ appcoximate.ly 70 fePt from Fair:~ont, and they £eel the other sign is
nQCessary because the building is shielded by the school and the shopping
center is behind an approxim~tely 20-foot embankment and cannot be seen from
the east on Santa Ana Canyon Road. E:e added there is alao a monument sign for
the Hughes Center across the stceet at approximately the same location.
5/13/85
~
1
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MAY 13. 1985 85-261
Chaicman tlecbRt pointed out the Flughea sign is not 10 feet high, and notec] if
they put a smaller aign do~~n next the skceet, i.t would nok be seen anyway. He
stated thE Cammission and City have been very tough ori si~nR in tllN Canyon and
even the Albertson's Shopping Center could not put a sign on tT~e tower.
Mr. Peloquin asked if thE Commisaion would acce~pt a reduction in the si~e oE
the corner siqn so they can h~ve identification becausc they do not• have a
large anchor tenant in this cAnke~~ and will have to identify the center with a
particula~ name.
Commissioner LA claire stated tt~e Huqhes Center has no ~ign variance. Sh~
added she has miagiving~ about a shopping center. on this aite an,yway and naw
they are ~~roposiny large signa. She stated ahe thouyt,t this will cause
traffic probiems in th~ area and aluo being nexl: to khe school, And ahe does
not like mixing the church with the shu~~ing center. 5he atated the
Cnmmission is not going to allow people to devie~tp from r.he sign ordinancej
and that the Commission gave th~ churches varia~~ce~ fur the bell towecs and no
~ne else is gekting those variances, including A;eno's, etc.
Mc. Pe~oquin stated if they are allowed to d~~ wtiat Hughes did across the
street by [educing thE sizer that would be acceptable.
Paul singer, Traffic Engiheer, stated the sign on the corner, as shown on the
drawings~ would block view r~f not only traffic, but of pedestrians, noting
there ie a great number of pedestrians in the arE~a Prom the juntor high school
and he believnd if a sign is be inEtalled, St woulcl have to be done in such a
locatio~ and manner as not t~ obstruct view of pec~eatrian tcaf.fi~ and if the
Planning Commission wfshes, he will be happy to work with the applicant to
resolve that problem, subject to approval of the Planning Commission.
Chairman Herbst stated this property is in the Scenic Cocridor and lhat
designation was established by the State and the Commission must abide by the
rules ~r.d regulations set forth.
Greg Hastings, Associate Planner, stated the petitioner is requesting two
signs and they are only pecmitted one a.nd the size of the sign should be 20
square feet and they are proposing 36 square feet. Responding ~o Commissioner
La Claire, Greg kiastings expl~ined two variances have beer~ granted for
churchts, one at the San Antonio Catholic Chucch ~or two monument signs f60
and 24 square Eeet) and the Lutheran Church was permitted a 20-square foot
identification sign and explained they are both monument signs. He explair.e~9
the Code for the Scenic Corri@or commercial zones pecmits the sigr- only if it
is attached to a retaining wall, and a monument sign is a Ereestanding sign
wi~h two sides.
Mr. Peloquin explained they show t•wo signs, one 36-square feet on an existing
retaining wall which is angled toward the nocthwest. Commissioner La Claire
stated she wonld have no objecti~n to that sign since the wall will be L•hece
anyway and clarified the sign would not be neon. Mr. Peloquin stated the sign
at the southwest corn~r of the property is a ane-sided 36-square foot monument
sign, however, they would be willina to make it smaller~
5/13/85
..~
.a
MINUTES ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN MAY 13 1985 (35-263
Paul Singer etated the sign on the corner would ohatruct the view of
~,edestri~n traffic ~and the one on the church por.h.ion of the property is 3 feet
high and meybe that should be lowored to prevent amAll children from darting
out from bPhind it.
Mr. Peloquin atated l•here is a slope at that locatio~ and tl~~~ walkway in th~t
area is quite a bit lower and if the eign wa~ lower~d, ic: wauld be hard ta
observe. Commissionec ~,a Claire augycsted putt:ng the r:~,;~~ on the building.
She also r~~g~eated denial of that sign and the one of t.ie carner, and Greg
Hastings explaineci that wo:~ld eliminate waiver (a) on the first application
and partially waiver (b) of the second application, and the waiver woutd still
be required for the 36 squAre feet ii;s~ead of 2U s~~uare feet.
Mr. Peloquin atated each aign is 36 square [eet, and the actual letterinq area
is 7.4 inches high, by 12 feet lonq and he thought they could reduce the one on
rhe soutt~ern pa[~ of the c,hurch to 20 s5uate Eeet, eli.minatinq the waiver.
ACTIUN: Commiasioner La Claire oftered A motion, seconded by Cammiesioner
King and MUTION CAttRiED (~ommissior-er Buahnre absent) that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property
fcom thc~ RS-A-43,U00(SC) (Reai~dential!Agricu'tural, Scenic Corcidor Oveclay)
Zone to the cL(SC) (Commecci.Pi, Limited, Scenic Corridor Uverlay) or a lesa
intense zone to pe~mi~ a re~:ail center with on-sale alcoholic beverages in an
enclosed restaurant with waivers of maximum number of signs, maximum number of
sign display surEace, required sign placEmeri~, maximum sign area, and minimum
buildiny aetback and removal of sir. (G) specimen trees on an
irceyularly-shaped parcel of iand consa.atin9 of appcoximately 2.4 acres
located at the southeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and F~l.rmont
Boulevacd; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that
it has c~nsidered the Negative Declaration toget.her with any comments received
during the public review proress and further finding on the basis of the
Initial Study and any comments rECeived that there is no substank.ial evidence
that the projeck will have a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner La Claire offered Reso2ution No. PC85-119 and moved for its
passage and adopkion that the Anaheim City Planning Commisston does hereby
grant 1Reclassification No. s4-85-33, subject to Interdepartmental Committee
Recommendatiuns.
On roll. call, the foregoiny resolution wa~ passed by the following vote:
AYES: BGUAS, FRY~ HERBSTt KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURN~Y
NOC,: NCN~
ABSENT: SUSHURE
C~mmissioner LaClaire a motion, seconded by Com.missioner King and MOTIUN
CARRIED (Commissioner Bushore absent) that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby yrant wai.vera of code requirement, in park, denying
waiver (a) on the basis th4t Lhe petitioner stipulated at the public hearing
to eliminate one of thp sign~ and to comply with i:ode requirements; and
grantfny waivers (b); waiver (c) for one monument sign, rather than twos
waiver (d) for one 16S square feet cather than 24 and 168 square feet; and
waiver (e) on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the
5/13/85
MINUTES ANAHEIM CI1'Y PLANN~NC COMMISSION M~Y l.3 1?f,~~i 85-2b4
~coperty such as size, ahape, topography~ Yocatior~ ~nd surroundinga which do
not apply ~o ottiec i.dentieally zoned pcoperty in the same vicinityr and tt~at
stricedabplothe~ppc pertieeoinnthe~identicalez~ne~and claasificeCionline t ~e
enaoy Y
vicinity.
Commisaioner La Claire nt£eced Resolution No. PC85-120 ~nd mnved for it~
passege and adoption that the Anaheim City Planniu98uentikoiAnaheim Municipol
grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2G79, in part, p
Code Sections 18.U3.03U.U30 thcough 18.03.030.035, and subjECt to
Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing cesolution was pasaed by the following vote:
AYES: dOUAS~ FRX~ HERdST, KING, I,A CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
A[iSENT: EIUSfIORE
Cammisaioner La Claice offeced a motion, aeconded by Commi~sioner Mc Bu r ney
and MUTIUN CARRIED (Commissioner Buahore absent) that the Anaheim City
Planning Commissian does hereby grant approval fur removal of six (6) s pecfrt~en
trees on the basis that a reasonabie and pcactical development of the p r operty
on which the t•rees are located cequices cemoval of the trees whose rema val is
sought= and further than any specimen treee cemoved shall be replaced w ikh ttie
planting on khe same parcel of ari equA1 number of trees from the specif iEd
list in the Scenic Cocridor Overlay Zone.
ACTIONS ON ITEM N0. 3
Commissioner La Claire offered a motion ~econded by Commissioner Mc9urn ey and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bushoce absent) ths~C the Anaheim City Pta n niny
Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a church and preschool f acility
with waivers of mfnimum landscaped setback, maximum number and size of
identification signs, minimu~n numbec of packing apaces an~3 maximam str~ ctural
height on an ircegularly-shaped paccel of land consisting of approxima tely 2.2
acres, l~aving a frontage oE tappcoximately 348 feet an the east side of
Fairmont BoulQVard; and does hereby approve the Negative Declarati~n ugon
finding that it haa consideced Che Negative Declaration together with any
comments received during the public ceview process and furthe~ finding on the
basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant eff~ct or~ the
environmen~.
Commissione~ La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mc Surney
and MOTTON CARRIED (Commiasioner euahore absent) that the Anaheim Cit y
Ptanning Commission does hereby grant waivers (a) and (d) on the bar~i s that
there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as siz e,
shaQe, to~ography, location and surroundings which du not apply ko ott~er.
identically zoned property in the same vicinity= and that stcict appl ication
of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privilegeR enjoyed by oth er
properties in the identical zone and classification in the vfcinity; and
denying waiver ~b~W~th~Codeapertaining~to signs~inrthelscenic~COrrido z~Overlay
hearing to comply
5/13/85
MINUTES, ANAHEIM C Z TY PLANNINC COMMISSION~ MAY 13, 1985 85-265 ,
Zones and grent~ng wniver (c) onthe bAais thAt the parking waiver will not
cAUSe an incr~ase in tr.effic congostion in the immediat.e vicinity nor adversPly
effect any adjoining land usRS end gcanting of. the pecking waivec under the
condition~ imposed, if Any, w~ill not be detcimHntal to the ~~eace, hedlth,
aafety and genere-1 welfaro of the ci~izens of the City of Anaheim.
Commissioner La Claire offered Hesolution No. PC85-121 and moved for ~ta
pesaage end adopti on thaC Che Annheim Ci.ty Planning Commieaion does herc~by
yrant Cond:tionnl Uae Pecmit No, 2680, in part, pucsuant to Anaheim Municipal
Code Sections 18.U 3,U30.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to
Interdepactmental Cammittee Recummendationo.
Un roll call, the foregoing resolution wa~ passed by the Eollowiny vol•e:
AXES: BpUAS, ERY~ HERDST~ ~ING~ LA CLAIRk:~ M(: [3URNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: BUSHURE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented th~~ written right to appeal
the Plar.ning Commisaion's deciaion within 22 days to the City Council.
Commiseianec Bush ore returned ta the Council Chamber.
ITEM N0. 4 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARA'1'ION~ R~CI,ASSiFICATION N0. 84-85-31~_WAIVER OF
CODE REQUIREMENT A NU CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2678
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: TA TSUN LIN AND HEH-NIANG JAN LIN, 7777 Beach
Boulevard, Buena Park, CA 90620~ AGENT: JOHN E'. SWINT, 707 W. North Street,
Anaheim, CA 928U5 . Propecty described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of app roximately 0.92 a cre, 705 South Beach Boulevard.
RS-A-43,000 to CL .~o permit a 71-uni.t, 3-stocy motel with waiver of mini~num
landsceped setbac k (deleted).
Continued from the maeting of Apri 1? 5, 1985.
Thece were approx imately eight persons indicating their presence in opposition
to subject reques t and although the staff cpp~ct was not read, it is referred
to and made a par t of the minutes.
John Swint, agent , explained the plans werp revisec] and 12-1/2 feet of
landscapiny wae a dded with trees every 2Q feel•t that the tcash encloaure was
moved closer to t he motel and that a screening device will be provided to
obscure all vision so that no one can actually see over the top of the fence on
the west side. H e added khereare no variances or waivers requested and that
~his use would be the least objectioneb.le of any that could be developed on
that site.
Cindy Stanaker, 3024 Cheryllyn Lane, Anaheim, President of the Wfnd Rivecs
Condominfum Association, explained their project bocders subject property on
the north and west sidet that in a brief diacussion with Mr. Swint following
the April 15th P 1 annfng Commiseion meeting, they decided to meet with him as
requested after t heir annual meeting on April 22nd; that they formed a
Committee and met with him on April 27th and he had not yet revised tPie plans
and brought the original planafor them to study and pointed out the changes
5/13/85
t ~
~
MZNUTES, ANAHE! ~M CITY PGANNING COMMISSIUN,_MAY 13~_1985 85-266
recommended by tho CommiseionJ that their Committee asked Mc. Swint iC the
owner of the property would be will.ing to build anything other thnn a motel on
Ghat site and he ceapanded that the owncr ia in the motFl businesA and ~lans
to atay in the m~tel bu~inees. She atated there Are motel~ in the acee fot
sale and they asked if the ownor would be wilting to p~rchase one of thoae
instead of bu~lding a nrw one on their ~oaratep and Mr. Swint cesponded that
it coeta leas to bui:.~ a new ~ne than to buy an existing one. She stated they
v~iced theic concerns about inereased noise, ~rivacy, light pollution,
additional liability, increase in ccime including prostitution, tra8h being
thruwn on their propPCty and the reatrtction oE bir Elow caused by a
thre atory motel.
Ms. Stanaker stated they g~ve their liat of cor~~erns to Mc. Swint and asked
him to meet with the pcoperty owner and after st~e heard nothing from him, ahe
tel.ephoned him an MAy yth, but he had not yet met with the ~wnec to diacuss
the concarns and infrrmed her that he had a meeting set Eor the fotlowing
a@ternoon, May lOth, .t ~he t~as not neard from him. She skated ahe fa here
today to again ask that the Comtnission vote a~ainst rezoning the ~roperty at
705 South Beach ~oulevacd ta Commercial, Limited to all~w a 73-unit, 3-story
motel to be huilt tFiere becuuse it would be extremely undesirable for the
residents at Wind River~ and would pre~ent vacious problems s~ch as the mocel
is scheduled to be open 25 houcs a d~y, a~d the increaae in noiee caused by
F~eople and c~rs would directly affect a minimum of 42 of the 60 condominiums,
that the pcoposed pool would also cause additional noise which would affect at
least 20 oE the units, and there will be an increase in light. Concerning the
noise and light, she ceferred to comments ar_ the April 15th meeting concerning
the ba ting caye3 located ~out:h oF bubject property ard stated that f~cility
close~ at 10:0U p.m. everyday and doea not reopen until 10:00 a.m. and the
motel would be open ~4 hours a day. She added khe motel will face the front
oE their cundominiums and a minimum oE 36 units will be adversely aifected by
the decrease in ~~rivacy. 5he ~tated Et~e was not able to fin~ any instances
w~re'screening trees adequately blocked the view of one property to another
property and she felt the motel occupants will still be able to see into many
of their uniks and will definite.ly be able to see them enter and exit theic
homes, and that wo~~ld be a tremendous adv~ntage foc criminats to stay there
and watch for the residents to l.eave and break into their homes while '~hey ar~
away.
She stated motels are noted for their prostftution problems, and they tend to
attract undesirables, and their liability insurance wit'. need to be greatly
increased, at a substantial expense to the homeowner~, due to greater
possibility of damage to their property with an increase in the number of
people on the neighboring propertv such as destruction of their fence,
possibly br4ken windows from rocks thrawn by chil.dren and break-ins.
Regarding kraffic cong~ation, she atated the only accesa to the property in
question is from southbound Beach Boulevard and thE~e is an island wh:ch
~rohibits traffic traveling northbound on Beach fcom turr.ing into the property
and narthbound traffic will have to make a u-turn at Orange Avenue which will
congest the left-ti~rn lAne and motel gue~ts upon leaving will have to travel
southbound on Beach or try to cut across three southbaund lanes to a turn lane
in order to make a u-tucn to travel narthbound.
5/13/85
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY P~ANNING COMMISSION_,_MAY l~ 3_; _1985 85-267_
She atated the tast concetn ie th~t the resale value of their hamea will bo
adveceely off~cted iE the motei is built. 5he etated s'~e hoped all the
Commisaioners had taken the opportunity to visiC their condominiums to eee the
aituation and a$ked thrt they put themaelver, in their place and try ka imagine
how tt~ey would feel if , aEter they pur,ahe-aed thei c h~me, t<<~: propecty which
they viewed out their living room and kitchen windowa was developed from a
one-atory veterina[ian hospital which did not face them i.nto a three-story
motel which would face them. She atated theics is a unique situation becAUSe
in all her travela throughout Anaheim, all ceaidential proper~ies adjacent to
motele back up to the motela.
She added the res.idents of Mrin~ River.s would not ~bject to develapment oE the
property for residential purposss, or a business with normal buaines~ hnurs
which would be closed at ni.gl~t and samethi.ng that did not have !ts windows
facing their living and kitchen windows.
Aon Teettcher, 30M18 Cheryllyn l.ane, staCed t~e was concerned about securityr
tht~t his former address is 206 Laxlor which is very close by and approximately
2-1/2 yeacs ago therP was a incident that occurred fn the Amecican Motel which
is facing Beach 8oulevard on the opposite side of the streetj thnt behin~ that
motel is LAxlor Street and two or tf~ree men rented a motel unit on the second
floor, ataaked out the Laxloc Street Apartrnents, broke into r.hree of the
apactments, takirig a considerable ~+mtiunr_ oE jewelry, cash and ather items, and
noted the Art;erican Motel is not as clo~e to the residences as this mntel will
be to their condominxums.
N,r. Toettcher stated Paragraph 18 refecs to the peace, health, safPty and
yeneral welfare oE the citizen~ and the resfdents of Wind Rivers Condominiums
are concerned about their peace, healkh, safety and general welface.
Mr. Swint stated the arguments today were almost identical to the ~nes
discuased at thE meeting ~n April 15; ttiat there seems to be a lot ~f concecn
about motel guesks b~ing able tn see into their homes from the winc'.ows of the
moCel and pointed out it will be physically impossible foc any~„~ in :.ny of
the rooms to be able to see anyone in the buildings o~ the nortn. He state~i a
m~tel is c1aFS ified reside~tial as far as the Code is c~~ncerned.
THE PUBLIC :iEARING WAS CLt7SED.
Itespondiny to Commissioner King, Mr. Swint explained the 12-1/2 feet of
landscapinR wi~l be located all along the north side of. the property.
Chairman H ~st asked how the stairway will be screened, and Mr. Swint stated
he would put the screening where the balcony is 1.ocated because gueats could
be s~anding outside their units aiid see into the hAUSes.
Chairman Herbst stated no variances ace requested and with the landscaping, he
thouyht the pr ojecr would be acceptable because eeach aaule~ard is zoned for
commercial uaes. Responding to Commissi.on~r Fry, Gzeg Hastings, Associate
Planner., explained two-stozy condominiums could be developed up ko 35 feet
high and approximatel.y 12 or 13 unita could be developed if the rezoning
became effective.
5/i3/85
MINUT~S, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNYNG COMMI~SION1 MAY 13, 1985 85-268
Commiaeionec ~ushore esked that a candition be added thet the acceening
devicea will be maintained. tie asked if th~ae acreens will be edequate to
pceve~t people from throwing rocks. Mr. Sw.inC atated rocks could not be
thr~wn throuyh theae because they will be apaced 3 inche~ on center and angled
45 deyrees.
C~mmisaioner I,a Claire clarified that there are existing walls and that the
landscaping will be right adjacent to their wall and explained the purpoAe is
to s creen the entice building and she thought 15-galton treea shoul~ be
planted, so that the reaidents will eventually ~nly see the trees. Mr. Sw~nt
stated he offe:ed to move the building to the oChec side of the lot, but khe
roaidents did not wanC to look At a blank wall.
Commissioner LA Claire clarified there will be screening on ~il windowa and
balconies :aciny kow~rd the condaminiums s~~ no one will be able to khrow a
rock and they wi:1 noC be able to atand outside and look into the neighbor's
propecties. 5he added she underatande wha:. rhe neigt~boro are saying,
eopecially wtien they said, "Put yourself in our place,° and she is trying ta
do that, but felt a comprom~se could be reached and that this may be a use
wit•.h the least impact, if it is properly screen~d.
ACTZUN: Commissie~:er King offered a motion, seconde d by Commissioner Fry and
MUTIaN CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Co~nission has reviewed the
proposal to reclassify aiibject prapert•~ from the RS-A-43,000 (Reaidential,
Agricultural) to ~he CL 1~~~~*±-a•~rcial, Limited? Zone to permit a 71-unil-,
3-story motel or ~ icr ..ly-ahaped parcel of lan d consisting of
approximately 0.92 r~,- . ing a fcontage of appr~ximately 112 feet on the
we~t aide of ~each 8ou1.. ,~d further described as 705 South Beach
F~~.~tevard; a~-~oes hei-eby a~Nrove the Negative Declaration upon finding that
it has r_onsi~<sed khe Negarive Declaration together with an,y comments received
during che public review process and Further finding r~n the basie of the
Initial 5tudy and any comments received that there i s no substantial evidence
that the project will have a significant effect on the enviranment.
Commissi.oner La Claire stated the petitioner stip~~la ted at the previous
hearing to putting the parkinq Lot lighting low, with Mr. Swint re~ponding he
pref era the mushcoom type lights which are about 3 az 4 feet high so that the
light shines on the landscaping itseif. F1e added there will not be any lightf:
visible from the outside since the lights will all b e on the tnside of thE
balconies.
Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC85-:~22 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commis~ion does hereby grant
Reclassi~ication ho. 84-85-31, subject to Interdepar tmental Committee
Recommendations.
On roll call, the fore9oing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, HUSHORE~ FRY~ HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
5/13/85
rT5
~„r'
~,~
MINUTES, ANI-NEIM CITX PLI~NNING COMMISSION, hiAY 13, 1985 85-269
Commisaioner King offerRd Reaoluti.on No. PC85-123 end moved for ite passage
and adoption that the Andheim City Pla~nning Commiseion does h~ceby grant
Conditional Uae Pecml.t No. 2678, in part, puraunnt to l~neheim Municipnl Code
5ectiona 18.03.Q3U.030 thcough 18.03.030.03~, denying wniver oE Code
cequirement on the basis that aubmitted cevised plans deleted aaid waiver, and
aubject to Intecdepertmental Committee Recommandationa, including the
petitioner's sti.pulationo regacding lighttng, meintenenc:e of the screening,
~nd screening of all halconiea and stdirwaya i:o c~bstruat view of adjacent
~roperties.
Un roll call, the forPgoing cesnlution wes passed by the following vote;
AYES: BOUAS, BUStiORE, FRY~ H~RBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NUES: NON~
AASENT: NONE
Jack Wiiite, Assistant c:ity Attorney, pre~ented the written right to nppc~~l the
Planning Commisa.ion's decision withih 22 days ~o the City Council.
RECESS: 3:U0
RECONV~NE: 3:15
COMMISSIONER LA CLAIRE DID NOT RETUl2N FOR TFfE FtEMAINI3~R OF THE MEETING.
ITBM NU. 5. EIR NEGATIVE, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIRE;MENT ANU CQNDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NU. 2681
PUBLIC NBARING. OWNER: COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL GaItP., P.U. Box 76478, Los
Angeles, CA 90076. AGENT: UNI'fED SUITES OF AMERICA, INC., ATTN: ROBERT
FULLER, 450 Newpart Center Drive, Newport ~~:~ach, Ca 92660. Propecty described
as an irregularly-ehaped parcel of land c~~.~.~iating of a~proximately 6.34 acres
located at the ~outheast corner of Fronteca 5treet and Glr~sse~t Street.
To permit a semi-enclosed freestanding cestaurant with on-sale alcoholic
beverages and waiver of minimum numbec of parking spaces.
Continued from the meeting of April 15, 1985.
There was no one fndicatiny tbeir pr~ ~.~~~ in opposition to subject cequest
and although the staEf repcrt was na: ...,3, it is refecred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Robect F. Puller, ag~nt, was present to answer any questions,
THE PUBLIC NEARYNG WAS CLOSED.
Commiesioner Bushore asked if originally~ the rest~urant was ta be proposed at
same future date bftet the hok~l was built. Mr. Fuller responded it wus
proposed oriyinally, but the Commission eliminated the re~ztaurant and incl~ded
a requicement that it be brought up after the hotel was opened for one year.
be explained many of the hotel guests are picked up at the airgort and brou~ht
to the hotel and most ace salesman and they stay at the hotel for about a week
and they pcefer to have another restauxant they can walk to without having to
5/13/85
~ .
i
MIN„~UTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PI~ANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 1_3~ 19fi5 8, 5'Z~0
take a taxi. tie reaponded to Commisaioner ~ushore thaC this hotel will have
anotihec ceakaurant attached, And noted this aeparate reatauxant will be a
Fuddruckers.
ACTION: Commiasioner Kiny offered a motion, seconded by ~ommisaioner Fry and
MUTIUN CARRIED that the Anahei.m CiCy PlAnning Commisaion has reviewed the
pro~osal to permit an encl.oaed Eceestanding reataurant with on-sale alcoholic
beverages with waiver of minimum number oE Parking spaces on an irregularly-
shaped ~ar.cel of land consiating of approximately 6.34 acres located at the
southeast cornec of Fronteca Street and Glassell Stceetl and does hereby
appcove the Negative Declaration upon findi.ng that it has considered the
Negative Ueclaration together with any comments received during the public
review process and furthpr finding on the basis of the Initfal Study and any
comments received that there is no subatantial evidence that the project will
have a siqniticant effect on the Pnvironment.
Commissioner Kiny offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ery and MOTIUN
CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver of
Code cequirement on the basis khat the parking waives will not cause an
increase in kraffic conyestion in the i.mmediate vicinity nor adverscly affect
any adjoininy land uses and ~.3ranting of the parking waiver under the
conditions i.mpo~ed, if any~ will not be detrlmental to the peace, health,
safety and general welfare of the citi2ens of the City of Anaheim; and further
on the basis that the petitioner has agreed to execuke and recocd a covenant
agreeing that if, within thcee years following occupancy of the entire hotel
compiex, the City conducts ~ traffic study which indicates that the ~ff-street
parking is inadequate fot the on-site uses, said owner shall construct a
parking structure on sub7ect property or shall otherwise provide additional
off-atreet parking in a number (not to exceed 166 additional spaces) and
manner satisfactory to the City Engineer.
Commissioner Kin9 offered Resolution No. PC85-124 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby g:ant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2681 pursuant to Ansheim Municipal Code Sections
18.03.U30.030 throuyh 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepactmental Committee
Recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOURS~ BU5HORE, FRY, HERBST, KING
NOES: NONE
ABSEN~: LA CLAIRE, MC HURNEY
Jack White, Assistant City Atto~:ney, presented the written righZ to appeal the
Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
THE FOLLOWING IT~M WAS CC1lJSIDERED AT THE BEGINNING OF T1fE MEETING.
ITEM NU. 6. EIR NEGATIVE DECLAP.ATION RECLASSIFICATIOti N0. 84-85-32 AND
VARIANCE N0. 3476
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: SEVERIANO J. AND RUTH ANN PEREZ, 3153 W. Ball Road,
Ansheim, CA 52804 and ARTHUR P. AND BEVERLY R. LANE, 3157 and 3163 W. Ball
5/13/85
t
MINUTES, ANI~NEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN MAY 13 1985 85-271 ~
Road, Anaheim, CA 92804. AGENT: MAGDY NANNA, 40Q0 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite
G~O, Newport deach, CA 92660. Propecty described ae a rectnngulArly-shAped
patcel of land consieCing of approximately 1.17 ac~a, 3153, 3157 a~nd 3163 Went
Ball Road.
RS-A-43,000 to RM-120G. Waivecs oF minimnm buildiny site Area, maxi.mum
bui2ding height, minimum cequired cecreational-lelsure area and minimum
dietance beGween buildings to cunstruct a 48-unit ~affocd~ble ap~rtment complex.
Contiriued from the meetiny of April 15, 1985.
It was noted r_he petitioner has req~iested that the reclassification cequest be
conttnued to the Planniny c;ommission meeting of June 10, 1985, and th~t thr
variance request be withdrawn from [urther Planr~ing Commis~ion connideration
in ocder for the ~etiti.oner tA submit reviaed plans.
ACTIUN; Gomenissioner King of~~ered a matic~n, seconded by Commiasioner Bouss
and MOTION CARP;IED that consideration of ReclassiEication No. 84-85-32 be
conkinuec~ ta the cegulacly-scheduled m~eeting Junp 10, 1985, and that Variance
No. 347b be withdrawn from consideration by tlie Flanning Commir;aion at the
ceq~est +~f the petitfoner in or.der to submi.t revised plans.
ITEM N0. 7. EIR NEGATIVE DECLAFtATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CUNDI'~I(7NAL USE PERMIT NU. 2685
PUBLIC C~EARINC. GWNERS: PHI[,IP C,. De t,ARION, ET AL, 1682 Kettering, Irvine,
CA 92714. AGEtJT: ARCHITECTS ORANGE, 144 N. Ocange 5treet, Urange, CA 92666,
AT'fN: PF~ED WALT~Ft. Property de~ccibed as a zectangularly-shaped parcel ~f
lanc~ consisting oE approximately 1.6 acres, 1074 North Tustin Avenue (BESSie
wall~ R~esCaurant>.
To ~xpand a restaurant and cocktail loun~e ~~ith waiver of minimum number of
parking spaces.
Continued from the meeting oE April 29, 1985.
There was no one in~dicating their presence i~ apposition to aubject reyuest
and althougti lhe ~taff ceport was not read, it is re~erred to and made a part
af the minwtes.
Philip De Carion, oanec, ex~lained he is the owner/operator of Bessie Walls
Restaur.ant and approxirnately ~even years ago it was rehabilitated and a patio
was added oc remodel:d in the rear with a r~latted cover to be an outdoor
eating area, and it has been theic experience th~t it needs to have a roof and
aindows around it because of winr~, heat or rafn. Fie stated, in addition,
thece is a lake in the rea: which is unsightly witti people fishingr and odors
etc. '.ie added they are proposing windows, roaf and air c~nditioning to that
patio acea and also some lawn area will be removed along the north to make 47
more parkiny spaces.
THE PUBLIC HEARSNG WAS CLQSED.
5~13/85
MiNUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION, MAY 13. 1985 85-272
ACTION; Commisaioner King offered a motion, aeconded by Commia~ioncr Fry and
MUTION CARRIED (Commisaionec La Claice abaent) khat the Anaheim City Planning
Commission h~g reviewed the proposal to expand a restaurant And cocktail
lounge with waiver oi minimum number o[ parking apaces on a
rectangul~rly-ehaped parcel of land consieLing of appr~ximately 1.6 acrea,
having a frontage of appc.oximately 182 feet on the east side oE Tustin Avenue,
and further dosccibed as 1074 North Tustin Avenue (IIessie Walls Restaurant)=
and does heceby appcove the Negative Decla[ation upon finding that it has
conaideced the Negative Ueclarati~n t~gether with any commente received during
the public :eview pror.ess and further finding on the bAais of the Initial
5tudy and any commenta ceceived that thece is no aubsCanti~l evidence that the
project will have a significant eEfect on the environment.
Commiesioner King of£eced a motion, seconded by Commiesi~ner Ery and MGTION
CARRIED (Commissioner I~a ~laire absenl) that th~ Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby grant waivet of Code requirement on the basis that the
~,arking waiver will nut cauHe an incteaae in t.raffic cangeation in lhe
immediate vicinity nor adversely af~ect any ad~oining land uses and granting
of the parki.ng waivec under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be
detriment~l to the peace, health, ~afety and general welfare of the citizens
of the City of Anaheim.
Commiesioner King offered Resolut°o~~ No. PC85-125 and moved for its passage
and adoptian that the Anaheim City ~lanning CommiHSion daes hereby grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2685 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal r.ode Sections
18.03.U30.U3U through 18.030.030.035 and sub~ect to Intecdepartmental
Committee Recommendatiana.
On rall call, the foreg~ing resolution was passed by the foliowfng vnte:
AYES: BOUAS, 6USHUR~, FRY, HERBST~ KING, MC BURN~Y
NOES: NUN~
ABSENT: LA CLAIRE
Jack White~ Assistant City Attorncy, presented the writcen cight to appeal the
Ptanning Commiscion's deciFion within ?2 days to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 8. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RECLASSIEICATION N0. 84-85-35
YUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: NELSON AND DYE CONS'PRUCiION, INC., ET AL, 29b9 F..
Goron~do Street, Anaheim, CA 92806 and Robert M. and Marilyn L. Shephard, ~/o
Boydatun Realty, 703 N. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 93805. Property
desccibed as a cectangulac~y-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately
U.48 acre, 533, 537 and 539 West Broadway.
RM-240U to RM-12U0 to consttuct a 12-unit apartment compler..
Continued from the meeting of ~pril 29, 1985.
Thete was na ane indicating their presence in opposition to s~ibject requeat
and although the staff ceport was not read, it ia referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
5/13/85
a~
~amea l~eedham, agent~ was pcesent to dnawec any queationa.
THE pUQUIC HEARING WAS CLOS~D.
offe~ed a motion, seconded by Commisaioner Fry and
ACTI~N_: Commissioner King
MOTION CARRIED (Commiaeione~ Lo osa1C~~AbQClasEifytsubje~etdpcopectyxfrom the9
Commiasion has ceviewed the pr p
RM-24U0 (Residential, Mulco~stcuctiayl2tuniteapartment(complex~onla
Multipte-Family) Zone to of a~Proxim~te1y 0.48 acce,
rectanyulacly-ghAped pa[cel of land conaisting
having a frontage of approximatel,y 138 feet on the north 31de of Broadwa~ovEnd
fucthec desGribed as 533, 537 and 539 Weat B~oadwayi and does hereby apP
thF i~e9fltr'~e Aeclatation upon finding that it has consi~h~epublicNrevi.ewe
Ueclarat.iun together w1th anY comments received duting comments
~•~~c~~s and further f8~no~~ubstantial8evidenceethattthe pco~ectnwfllYhave a
received tnat ehece i
~iyniticant effect on the environment.
Cuinrt~.issioner Kiny offered Resolution No. I'Cd5-126 and moved for its pan~a9e
~~id a~loption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby q
keclassification No. 84-85-35 subject to Interdepactmental Committ~e
Recommendatione.
On coll call- the foregoing resulution was pAS~ed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUASr F3USHORE, ERY, HER(3ST, KING~ MC RURNEY
NUES: NONF.
A~SENT: LA CLAIRE eal the
Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, presPnted the written right to app
Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to th~ City Council.
THE FOLLOWING ITEM WAS HEARD AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING.
ITEM N0. 9. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VAKIANCE N0. 3482
ORVILLE B• WO~D~- ET AL, 1224 ~• L~ Pglma Avenue,
PUHLIC HEARING. OWMGRS~ MAGDY HANNA, 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 680,
Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: a~ecribed as an irregularly-shaped parcel
Newport Beach, CA 92660• Property o.79 a~re, 1224, 1228 and 1236 East La
of land consisr.ing of approximaL•ely
Palma Avenue.
Waivec of maximum struetural height to consrruct a 3-stocy, 26-unit apactment
comp~ex.
Continued fcom the meetln9 of April 29, 1985.
It was noted the petitioner has tequ~gted a c~ntinuance.
Commissioner King
Commissior~er McBurney ~ffered a motion, seconded by
ACTION:
and MOTION CARRIED that conaide=atiun of the aforeme~29;°i985maat theerequest
continued to the regularly-$cheduled meetin9 of May
of the petitionec in order t~ submit cevised plans.
5/13/85
MINUTES. ANAklEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MA] 13, 1965 85-274
ITEM N0. 10. EIR NEGATI~F. DECLARATION. RECLASSIFICATION_NO. ~4-85-17 ANp
VARIANC~ NQ. 3452
PUBLIC tiBAItING. OWNERS: WILLIAM RI~HAR~ BAMATTRE, ET AL, '14651 Seth Cirale,
Uana ~oint, CA 92629. Property desccibad as e rectangularly-shAped parcel of
land consisting of approximatel,y 9,322 equare [eet loc~ted at the southwest
corner of Ball Road and Pern Avenue, 2902 Weat Ball Road.
RS-A-43,UUU to RM-1~(JO or ~ less i,.~enae zone. Waivera of la) minimum number
and type of parking epacea, (b) minimum building s~te area, (c) minimum floor
area, (d) minimum sid~~ ~~ard ~etback and (e) minimum cear yar~ setback to
retain a second detached single-£amily cesidence.
There were three pereons indicating their preeence in oppoAition to subject
request and although the staff report was not reAd, it is ceferred to and made
a part oE the rninutes.
William Eiamattce, owner, explafned prior to ~ucchasing the ptoperty in 1981~
they checked with the Planning Department to determine if the two atructures
on the property Were leyal and was given the information that th~re wus no
problem because the Genecal Plan had that earmarked for low to medium denaity;
that the structure was built in M~ay 1956 and hns been existing As is for 29
yearat that it was built at the same time aa the hounea in the rest of the
tract and was, in fact, the model homej and that the City Tr~ffic Engineer has
addressed the parkin9 w~iver and has said that ia no problem.
He stated a Code Enforcement Officer for the City of Anaheim w~nt i.nto the
second structure and informed him everything ~~as built t~ Code and he saw no
problem with the structure. He sLated their concern lies with the proposed
conditians, and asked it those will be included since they did not think they
will be applicable to their praperty.
Patricia Manoukian, part owner, stated when they purchased the pcoperty, they
did check and wpre under the assumption that everything was legal and
constructed by permit; that those residences have been occupied for the last
29 years. He stated in reviewi.n9 the conditions perteinin9 to the
reclassification, they agree with 1 through 3r but regacding the cc~ndi.tions
for the variance, they thaught Condition Nos. ~, 4, 6 and 9 which discuss
application for a building permit do not apply since they are not asking foc a
buildiny permit, nor do they wiah to chanye anything an the property.
She referred to Condition No 2 pertaining to tceea and stated the trees ttre
already planted and she understood thQy were already paid for. Greg Hastings,
Associate Planner, explained that ia a standard condition and if the fee has
already been paid, it will nat be required= hnwever, the city has no record of
it havfng been paid.
Mr. Bamattre stated they have spent a considerable amoun~ of time searching
for the records= th~t the pcoperty was in the unincorporated area and annexed
in December 1956, about 6 months after it was built; that the County records
were lost in a fire, so there are no existing plans; however, that he finally
got the building permits and has the permit number. In response to Greg
Hastings, he explained there was a buildiny permit issued fot a residential
structure and one for an affice.
5/13/85
i
MINUTGS ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION ~AY 13 1985 85-•275
Greg Hastingo explained this is a[equest foc a conversion f[om an ofEice to a
residence and ~hese fees would not have been originally collected for thie
unit.
MH. Manoukian continued regarding Condition No. 3, that they aKe not
requesting any building permit and do not be'lieve that approptiate park and
recreation fees would apply. Greg Hnstings atated a building permit may b~
cequired since the conversion has taken place withaut benefit of a building
permitt and although the o[iginal structurc wus constcucted as An office,
there was no permit for a conversion. Ms. Manoukian explained when Lhe
original building w~s constructed, ther~ was kitchen, bathroom, bedroom,
living room, et-c. and it was constructed as a cesidence, and it has been
inhabited foc a stri~cture for 29 years. She a~ded C~de does pecmiC a guest
house on the premisea which can be u~ed by guests or other membecs ~f whateveG
family residea on that lot and it has been used Eor that purpose. Greg
Hastings explained Building Division r~cords indicate thic was an office at
~ne timF since annexation. He stated st~ff would be haPpy to work with the
petitioner to review tha recorda and to determine whether or not these
conditions wauld apply.
Paul Singec, Traffic Enqineer, stated if this remains a reaidence ar.d there is
no building permit required, abviously, there would be no fee; however, if
there is a cunveraion to sn office, there wilt be & fee of the difE~rence
between office use and re,idential use.
Ms. Manoukian stated it is theic poaition ttiat Condition No. 5~~~uld not apply
since street liyhting is in and lias been there And has been paic F~~, and that
they have the same positio~ on CondLtion Ncs. 6, 7 and 8, and explained it is
their understanding that when both re~idences were built, they were built to
Code by permit and plans were submitted And 1t is their position ~hat they
would not need to submit any additional plans. Commissionec McBurney etated
they dere probably built under different Codes.
Mr. Bamattre stated they ceceived this report in the mail on Eriday and it
included these conditions which could amount to a consid~ration sum and they
have not had time to do any cesearch to understand what is involved.
Chairman Herbst sr_ated a City inspection may be rc~quired to make sure the
structiures are up to Code. Commissioner Bushore stated the Commission does
not have the authority to waive any of these things since they were adopted by
Ordinance and they are assessments against individual pcoperties and if the
fees have never been paid, they musl be peid, and if the ordir,ances were
adopted aince th~~ construction, he would assume they need to be paid because
every piece af property in Che City is assessed with those same fees. He
a~ded if the property was converted legally, the fees would have been imposed
iE they were appropriate. He stated the Bu9.lding Code requires a permit and a
germit will have to be taken out, cegardless i~ it was built to Code or not,
and clarified that the permit was originally taken out for an oEfice and the
requirements are different far a residence.
Ms. Manoukian stated they are willing to work with the City; however, they
underst~nd plans were submitted in conformance with Cude at the time, but wi21
do whatever they need to do to comply with the City's requirements.
5/13/85
MINUTES, ANAHEZM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONj MAY 13. 1985 85-276
J. C. Chambera, 934 S. Gaymont, Annheim, etated hia pcoperty is acroas the
street and slightly to the weat~ that Chey are not concerned with the
buildinga Aa they exist today, but are concerngd about changing the zoningi
that recently multi-family apactments were pcoF~osed on adjacent property in
excess of what they thought wa~ standard and they wanted to make sure that
changing this zoning would not qi.ve them a pcoblem. He ~tated they had to go
to the City council and get the other. request denied and are concerned tt~at if
the zoning ib changed to RM-1200, they ma,y wan~ tc~ make chAnges on this
prapecty and maybe combine with the pcoperty next door and that would create
pArking problems.
Robert J. Waltun, 926 S. Gaymont, Anaheim, ataL•ed at firat he objected to
haviny a multi-story pcoject on this property and it was not clear whether new
canstruction was proposed.
Mr. Bamattce stated he attendPd the meeting when the previously proposed units
were diecussed and he understands the neighbor's concerns and also felt the
zoning might set a precedent, but they are only concernsd that they have the
existing uses they bought and the way it has been for 29 years.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion, seconde~ by Commissioner Fry and
MOTION CARRTED (Comtni~sioner La Claire absent) that the Anahexm Cily Planning
Commis~ion has rEViewed the propoaal to r~classify subject property from the
RS-A-43,000 (Residential, Agricull•~ral) Zone to the RM-1200 (Residenti;~l,
Multi-Family) or a less intense zone to cetai.n a second detached eingle-family
residence with waivers of minimum number and type of parking cpaces, minimum
buildiny site area, minimum floor area, minimum side yatd setback, and minimum
rear yard setback on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land conaisting of
approximately 9,322 square fEet located at the southweat corner of Ball Road
and Fern Avenue, and further described as 2902 West Ball Road; and does hereby
approve the Negative Declaration upon Eindiny that it has considered the
Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the publlc
review process and furthec t~nding on the basis of the InitiAl Study and any
comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant eEfect on the environment.
Commissioner 8ushore asked why this was not submitted as a Conditional Use
Permit requesk rather than a Reclassification. Greg Hastings explained
the second unit may be too l~rge to become a'9canny unit' and they are
askin9 for a waivec to retain a second unit and tnat an accessory guest
h~use is only allowed in the RS-A-43,OU0 zone if khe property is one acre
r more.
Responding to Comnissioner Bushore, Mr. Bamattre stated none of the owners
of the property are licensed real estate agents and that they checked the
~on~ng when they purchased the pcoperty to make sure the second unit was a
legal unitj and that he had told staff about the second unit and was
informed it was a lega~ unit. Greg Hastings explained there was no
complaint filed on this property and the app~icant brought the request in
him~elf with Staff understanding that this was originally an office
atructuce and was built as an office structure and converted to a
5/13/85
MINUT~S~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MAY 1_3,_1985 _____ __85-277_
residentiAl unit some yeare byo and they wented to bring the propert:y in~o
conformance with Code by rezon~ng and requestir~q a variance to retein the
second unit.
Mr. Bamattre stat~d when the proje~t was proposed nexC door~the Code
Entorcement OL•ficer ceme Lo theic daor and told rhem the aecond at.ru~ture
was not legal and that was the Eicst they wece awace of the pcoblem, and
staff suggested this wae thc coute to t~ke to get the situation reaolved.
Commisaionec King uffered Resolution No. PC85-127 dnd moved for its
passage and adoption that the AnAheim City Planning Commisslon does hereby
grant Reclassification No. 84-85-17, subject to interdepertmental
Committee Recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing cesolution was pa~sed by thp following vote:
AYES: QOUAS, BUSHURE, FRY, H~~gSm, KTNG, MC BURN~Y
NUES: NQNE
AbSENT: LA CLAIKE
C~mmissfoner King offered Resoiution No. PC85-128 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City ~lanning Commissi~n does hereby
grant Varfance No. 3452, waiver (a) an the baais that the parking waiver
will not cause an inccease in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity
nor adversely affe~t any adjoining land uae~ and granLing of the patkinq
waiver undec the conditiong imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to
the peace, health, Bafety and general welf~ce of khe citizens ~f the City
of Anaheim; and f.urther granted waivers (b), (c), (d) and (e) on the basis
that there are special circumstances app;ic~ble to the property such aa
size, shape, topography, lucation and surroundings which do nat apply to
other tdenkically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that sttict
application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enj4yed
by other properties ir~ the identical zone and classification in the
vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations.
On toll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the fo~l~wir.g vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BU7HORE, FkY, HERBST, KINGi MC BURNEY
NOE5: NONB
ABSGI•~'f : LA CLAIR~
JacY. White, Assi~tant City Attorney, presented khe written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's deci~ion within 22 days to the City Council.
THE FALLOWING ACTION WAS TAKEN AT THE BEGINNING OF iHE MEETING.
ITBM N0. 11. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 34P4
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: PATRICIA N. SAH~GUN, 1003 E. Broadway, Anaheim,
CA 92805. AGN:t~T: TOM COULTRUP, 18132 Norwood Park, Tuatin, CA 92680.
Propecty described as a rectangularly-ahapc._~c~arcel of land consisting of
approximately 6,250 square feek located at tne nort~east corner of.
Broadway and Bush Street, 1003 East Broadway Street.
5/13/85
MINUTGS ANAfiEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMI55ION MAY 13 1985 Or-27a
Waivere of (a) min:mum building site erea, (b~ inimum floor drea and (c)
mi~imum side yard ~etback ko construcC a secona ~etache~ single-family
cesidence.
It was noted r.ti~ peCitianer has requeated U continuAnce to zhQ meeting oE June
10, 1985.
ACTIUN: Commissioner Kiny ~fEered a mc~tion, aeconded by ~ommisRioner 8uuae
and MUTION CARRIE.D that conaideration of the above-menti~ned matCer be
continued to Lhe regularly-ACI1@~ULE~d meeting of June l0, 1985, at the requeat
of the petitionee in order to aubm;t revised plana.
I9'EM NU. 12. EIK NECATIVk AECLARATIGN, WAIVER OF CODC RF~JIREMENT ANb
C(1NDITIGNAL USE PERMI'P tJU. 2689
PUgLIC N~ARINC. OWNE3tS: GRAY S. AND PAULA S. KILMER, c/o C-21 LAUrel, 607 5.
Har~or Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGFNT: MARY VERDONCK, c/o C-21 Laurel,
607 5. Harbor Blv~., Anaheim, CA 928U5. Propert;~ describer' as ~
rectangularly-sh~ped parcel ~f land conaieting o2' approxfmb_e:.y 0.43 acre
located at the southeaGt corner of c:ypresa Streer,: and Ulive Street, 220 and
224 N. Ulive Street.
To permit a 24-unit senior citizens apartment complex ~+ith waivers of (a)
maximum tence height, (b) permitted encroachmenta into required yarda, (c)
minim~im builuing site area aiid (d) minimum structural setback.
Commissionec Bushote decl~red a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim
Ciky Planning Cotnmission Resolution No. PC76-157 adoptiny a Conflict of
Interest C~de foc the Planiiing Commisaion and Covernment Code Section 3625, et
seq., in that he is a contractural real estate acquisition agent for the City
Redevelopment Agency and pursuant to the pcovisions of the above Codes,
declaced to the Chairr~an that he was withdrawi~~g from the hearing in
connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2689, and would not take part in
either the 9iscussion or the voting thereon and had not discussed tl~is matter
witit~ any member oE the Planning Commiasion. Thereupon Cammissfonec Bushore
left the Council Chamt~er.
There wece four persans indicating their presence in opposition to subject
request and although the ataff cepoct was not read~ it is referred to and made
a part of the minutes.
Cray Kilmer, owner, explained this project was originally based on a similar
project at 127 Cypress, and they evaluated a.il the costs of construcl•ion, land
acquisition, Etc. on the basis of what was allowcd at ~;,at Cypress address.
He ctated after becoming committed to purchase of subject property, they found
thr~k the City's Senior Citizen p~coject Ordinances had been changed to their
disadvantage and any other propasal would be infeasible for that property. He
added he thought the project is being discciminated dyainsC in comparisan with
the Cypcess project; that the Cypress aite hac~ 12,705 aquare £eet, and 20
units (4 affordable) i-+ere allowedj and that subject property has 19,021 square
fept and they are asking for 24 units (8 affordable). He stated this project,
aa p~:op~sed, is rathe[ unique with the majority of the parking underground
which would provide the spniors added security for their vehicles and
themselves.
5/ 13/85
MINUTES, ANAHBIM CITY PLANNING CUMMIS SION, MAY 13, 1985 85-279
Joseph Cholak atated he owns the pro perty at lhe northwest corncr of Cypreas
and Olive, and t~ie tenants are blan t~eniora And he co~cucs with tl~e atafF
findings in Paragraph 25 of the ataff report, and added he is primerily
concecned about tha density and reaultant congegkion on the ~treet.
Mc. Giagnocavo, 322 N. Olive, stated senior citiz~n houainy i~ needed, but not
in violation of Codes. He added it is hia o~inian that this is to~ many unita
with 24 proposed and only 15 are aufk~ble Enr that ~ropecty.
Conley Clark, 415 B. Chartres, prese nted coC~ies of e petition that waa
clrculated in the neighborhood indic ati~ig tt~e neighbor's opposl~ion on the
basia of overcCOwding, exces~sive traf~ic and adve~~~e oppearance. He explained
he was on the ficst PAC committee wh en redevelapment was Eiret stArted and one
of his fitet questions waa, 'Once th e redevclopme~~t is accomplished, how ko
prevenL• it fcom r~happening' and the answer wAS to plan very carefullyi that
he reviewed the plana on this projec t and wtien he r~aw 24 units proposed and 15
are permitted, he thought it would h ave an adv~erse appearAnce because it would
nof have adeyuAte ael•backs, pl.anting areas, etc. and they do not feel it will
improve the redevelopment area.
Richard ~:urtiss stated he is repcesentirig tl~e ~entral Cit,y Neighborhood
Council as ~t~,~irman~ and the Hoard of Directors, and lhey beli.eve there is a
need for senior citizen housing in t he City of Anaheim and also, they believe
the ownec tins the cight to d~velop i,is ~wn prope:l-y to the fulleet extent, but
do not believe he has the right to d evelop that property ur provide senioc
citizen housiny if it becomes a detriment to the neighborhood. He stated they
believe this particular project will be offensive to the neighbochood because
ot the 24 ~~nits with only 15 permitted under the present Codes and also
believe that 15 units is what should be devel~ped. He stated the approximate
unit size is 525 square feet and r_h e y believe that is far too amall for senioc
citizen housing unless it i~ occupi ed by ~ aingle person; that they object to
the parkin9 and the amount of traff i c the project will add to the area because
the streets are all nacCOw and also the Anaheim Fire Department uses Olive
Streek as a main thoroughfare trave ling north and south. He added they feel
the underground parking will make t h e project appear to be a three-story
building towards the rear and two s toriea in the frant and they feel they do
not need that type pcoject in thi~ n eighborhood and Eee.l it would be offensive
to the neighborhood.
Mark Hepp, 1050 E. Yorba Linda Boulevard, Placentia, architect for the
project, explained parking is in conformance with the Gity ordinances for
senior citizen projects; that he ha s dPSigned abaut 12 senior citizen pro~ects
and probably less than 108 of the occupante own catsj that the units will be
550 sauare feet for a 1-bedroom uni tj thak the project has the same style
acchitecture as t1~e previou~ly ment ioned projeck on Cypress Street and the
Cypr~~3 Stceet project had a site c overage of 578 and this proje~t on.ly ha.s
34~ coverage and it will have a ver y~pen appeacancet that the underground
parkiny is a great deal C added ex pense, but it gives the tenants a grpater
security; that even thaugh it fs two storiea on top o~ the parking structur~,
the parking structure is approximat ely 6 feet underground and the total height
of the project is 29 feet end the
5/13/S5
~ '.
MINU'rESr AN~HFIM C1TY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY I3. 1985 85 -280
two-atory Cypress Stceet project was 27-1/2 feet. Mr. Ne pp teferted to
Condition N~. 3 regacding the ~idening oF Cypresa Street and atated that
would hav~ a negative imPact o~ this prcjecC because they wera told that
only Ulive 5treet would bc widened.
Jay Titus, Office Engineer, stated he wAS not aware who t old the a rchitect
that Cypress Stceet would not be widened, but that 24.75 feet ia the width
oE the stteQt Ln th~ nexC block to the west aL thi~ pro~e cl and tha! iR
Che minimum desirAble on this street to provide adequate tcaffic
circulation i.n the areb.
Mr. Hepp referred to Condition No. 10 regarding thv agre ement foc 259 of
the unita to be aEfordable ~nd explbined they propose to offer 8 units an
affordable units rather than six. He referred to Coi-dition No. 15
~~ectaining to fire aprin~:ler~ And exF~lained he was told by the Fire
MarRhall that sprinklera wece required in a parking stcu cture in excese of
6000 feeL•, but they are on.ly proposing 5200+ square feet.
Mr. Hep~ cef~rred to Condition No. 17 requiring that all air conditi~~ninr,
unitK be properly acreened from vi~w and buffered from a djacent prapert:ea
and added they had enticipated the same type wall units r~a they have on
the Cypress Street project, and he would like to request aome mitigation
oE that candition and cxplgined every attempt will be ma de to acreen the
units.
THE FUDLIC HEARING WA5 CLUSEQ.
Commissioner King pointed out staff has recommended tha t the Planning
Commission either deny subject r.eyuest oc dfrect the pet itloner t o request
a continuance and 8ubmit cevised plans for 15 units or a 19-unit
affordeble proj~ct. Mr. Kilmer stated that wauld not ma ke the project
viable. He stated this project iu not a high Frofit vpn ture as was
originally pcopospd and it was planned on what theu thau ght was the
acceptable cciter.ia of the City of Anaheim and the purch ase of the land
was predicated on the highest a~d best use of the ~roper ty and it was
after he was committed to the ourchase that he found ou t the ordinance had
changed.
Chairman Herbst stated he worked on that particular ord inance with the
City Councii and senior cftizen's groups ~nd the reason for the new
ordinance was prajects were being denied based an tl~e o ld ordindnces and
he could not vote for this project with a new ordinance just being passPC1
and suggested the plano be redesigned because the density is +~~ f ar above
what the City Counril has been appcoving.
Jay Titus sl:ated a condition was omitted requiring the dedicatf.or. of 32
feet on Oliv~ Street and he would recommend that condition be added.
Responding to Mr. Ki,lmer~ Kendra Mocries explained for a Z9-unit project,
9 units would have to be affocdable.
Commissioner Fry asked if the underground Farking is a problem. Paul
Singer, Traffic Engineec, stated ff the applicant stay s within the
standarda set forth for underground parking, they will be acceptable.
5/13/85
MZNUTE6 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN MAY 13 1985 85-281
Mr. K11mec asked fo~ a continuance to meek with steEE and discuas the
projeck. G reg Hastinga stAted atafE would pref~~ et least 4 weeka in case
the petitioner wiahea to redeeign the project.
ACTIUN: Commisaioner MeRurney offeced a moCion, seaonded by Commiasionec
Bouas end MOTION CARRIED (COmmissionec ~a Claice abaent) that
conaideration of the uforementioned metter be continued t~ the
regulacly~-scheduled meeting of June 10, 1985, at the ce~uest of the
applicant.
iTEM N0~ 13. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANU CONDITIONAL USE PERMxT F10. 2686
PUBLIC tlFARING. OWNERS: NA;tl~N OGINTS, ET AL, 3481 La Sombca Drive, Los
Angeles, CA 90068. AGENT: STEVE RUS~NFIELD/EDDIE HARRIS~N, 2431 N.
Tuatin Avenue, Suite 0, Santa Ana, CA 92705. Property dPSCrik~ed as an
ircegularly-ehaped paxcel of land consisting o~ approximately 4 accea
locat~d at the soutt~east cornec of Anaheim eoulevard and Ball Road, 1201
5. Anaheim Bou~evacd (Burger iting) and i10 W. Batl Road (E1 Pollo Loco).
To ~e[mlt two (2) drive-thcough res~.aucants and an outdoox children's play
area.
There was n~ one indicaking their presence in opposikion to subjecc
r~quest and although the atafE cepoct was not read, it ia rePerred to and
made a part oE the minutea.
~ddie kiarrison, aqent, referred to the condition pertaining to lighting
and atated he would like to comply with the existiny lighting on the
shopping center.
Chairman Herbst fitated as long as there is no lighting onto adjacent
propertfe s, there would be no problem.
THF. PUt3LIC HF.ARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairman Herbst referred to the widening of Anaheim E~oulevard and Mr.
Harrison stated tP,ey will be discussing tt~at with the property owner and
also ref~rred to Condition tdo. 3 regarding street lighting prior ~o
occupancy and atated the project will be bonded and the two uAea are
separate and asked that that condition be reworded to state 60 dayc aftec
occu~ancy .
Jack Wtiite explained the Code requires that the improvements b~ comP1Qted
prior to occupancy and thbt cannot be changed. Mr. Harrison atated the
off-site impravements wil,l be a separate contract with separate bidding,
engineering plans, etc. and that Burger King will be completed in about 60
days and the othec restaucant will take a little longer. Gommissioner
McBucney stated he felt 60 days ahould be adequate time to get the skreet
improvements out to bid.
Jack Whi t~ explained the Mu~~icipal Code requires improvements to be bonded
fur prior to builc~ing permit and that improvements be installed prior to
occupar.cy.
5/13/85
!
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PGANNING COMMISSIQN, MAY 13~ 1985 __ __~5-282
ACTION: Commiseinner King offer~d a motion, secunded by Commioaioner Fry
dnd MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commiasion has reviewed
the proposal to permit two drive-through ceataurants end an outdoor
childten'~ play a~ea on an irregularly-shaped para~l oE l.and con~isting of
approximately 4 acree loceted ~t the aouthwest corner of Aneh~im aoulevard
and Ba11 Road and fuxther deacribed as 1110 West oall Road a~d 1201 Soutli
Anaheim Boulevacdj and doe~ hereby appcove the Negative De~la[ation upon
finding that it has considered the Negative peclaration together with Any
commenta received during the public review pracess and further finding on
the basis oE the Initial Study and any commenta received that there ie no
aubstantial evidence that the pKaject will have a aignificant Effect on
rh~ environment.
Comtnissioner King offeced Resolution No~ PC85-129 and moved for ite
passage and adoption that the An~heim city Planning Commission does heceby
grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2686 Pureuant to Anaheim Municipal Cade
Sectlons 18.03U.030.030 through 18.030.03U.035 and eubject to
interdepartmental Commirtee recommendations.
Un roll call, the toregoing resolution was panaed by the Collowing vote:
AY~S: BOUAS, FRYi HERaST, KING, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
A65BNT: BUSNOR~~ LA CLAIRE
Jack White, Assistant City Ar.torney, preaented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
Commissioner 6ushore returned to the meeting. He had left due ta conflic~
oE interest on ztem No. 12 and returned following Item No. 13.
ITEM NO. 14. EZR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2687
PUBLIC HEARING. UWNEKS: H~WARD ENG~LMAN, ET AL, 111 North Glenroy
Avenue, Loa Angeles, CA 90099. AGENT: ALPHA BBTA COMPANY, ATTN:
gLIZABBTH R. BURRELL, 777 South H~cbor Bivd., La Ha~ra, CA 90631.
Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel af land consisting of
approximately 2.4 acres located south and east of the southeast corner of
La Palma Avenue and Euclid Stzeet, 1020 N. Euclid Street (Alpha eeta).
To retain a temporary trailer for supermarket storage use.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject
request and although the ataff ceport was not read, it is referred to and
made a part of the minutes.
Elizabeth Burrell, agent, stated this request is necessary because of the
remodeling of their store in 1981; that during that remodeling the aize of
the backroom acPa was reduced and tt~at ~s where thei: supplies are located
and in order to store non-food item~ such as palletst racks and bales of
cardboard, er.c., they have been using one of their 40-f oot trailers backed
between two existing docks to which there ia no access other than the
trailer; that in their other stores most of these items are stored on the
outside dock in view of everyone and they feel the ttailer presents a
5/13/85
MINUTES. ANAHEIM_CITY PLANNING CUMMISSlQN, M1-Y 13, 1985 85-283
pasitive altecnative in terma fot litter, clutter, poasible vandaliam and
8ometimea fites. She steted khis backroom is about 1/3 amaller than their
other backrooma and eince the remodeling af the atore, volume has gone
from about $168,000 a week to ~bout ~325,000 per weRk and th~y are
ceceiving 28 load8 of groceries ~nd other iteme Erom tho Al~ha eetA
warehouae and other vendora and cungestion in the backroom is impossitale
to live with without the L•railer.
Ma. Burrell referred to the conditinns and the requirment Eor dedication
of 53 feet on La Palma and stated they believe that has already been aone
and could not agree r.o it anyway because ~hey are tenanta, not Che
proE~ecty ownera. 5he staGed they feel it ia unuaual to requice dedicati~n
and stceet improvement.s when they are just requesting the use of a trailer
for storage.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLUSED.
Commiseioner King referred to the ~taff report ir,dicatiny thaL• approval of
this requeat could be settiny a precedent.
Ms. Bucrell stated slie did not feel this would set a precedent becauae
each request should be consider~d on an individual basis and there are
eevecal locationH in ttiis City, one being the Tarqet store ~n West Lincoln
Avenue where they have 3 outside permanent storage ~nits and 9 trailer
units and indicated she has pictures of that property. She ~tatpd this
trailer cannot be seen by anyone and doe~ n~t make any noise because it is
not refrigecated and it does not move.
Gommfssioner Bushore stated in 1981 thir, store was remodeled with the
intent of increasing the volurae and maybe it has increased more than was
expected, but he thought it wds paor planning. He stated he was concerned
about vandatism and kheft pcoblems if the stuff is atored on l•hE outside
and suggested maybe they could put a chain link fence around the dock. He
stated he is conc.erned because in that center there have been several
~ires in trash cana.
Kye Downey, Assistant Manager, ~tated they do not uae ~egular trash cans
and they have not had any fires and expl.ained they use a shredder bin.
Commissionec Bushore atated he would be concerned that they would forget
to lock that 4railer and the kids cauld come along and stact a fire in
it. He sl•ated he would also be concerned about fire if the dock was
fenced in and he thought all storage should be inside the store.
Ms. ~urrell stated when the;~ Hpplied for the renodeling in 1981, they
asked permie8ion to e~pand the store to the north on this property anothec
30 feet and that reque~t was refused ~ecause of the lack of parking and
when she anplied for this permit earlier this year, the first thing
sugg v staff was the ~xpansion of the store tn the nocth. She
stat~ .ore thoae baxes inside the atore would present a greater
hazar~ ~~•~ having them outside.
CommissionEr Bushore staEed many of the people wha shop at Alpha 8~ta park
on the oGher lot and it is possibte a ceeipcocal parking aaceement exiate
and ~xp~nding further north impacts the other tenants on the property. He
stated he agrees they hava a problem and asked if it would help if it was
5/13/85
MINU7'E5~ ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING GOMMISSION, MAY 13, 1985 a5-Z84
appr.oved for a 1-year period eo they could wor.k their problem out in some
~hher faahion. Ms. burcell a$kod what would be ~cceptablQ to tt~e city.
Commi~eioner Bushuce reaponded he would be agree~ble to ap~rove this on a
onP year ~aeis.
Bob McCacthy, lOZ3 Ottawa Street, Clocemont, stated I~e waa the deaigner of
the pcoject and th~ pcoblem is the volume of the business. Ne stated it
is tight in the backroom due to the confiyuration ot the building and it
is limiked in height which reduces t~iem from 72 palleto of storage space
to 48. He stated they do keep the Lrailer locked ~nd are willing to
accept a year-to-year time ceptriction. He reaponded to CommiAeioner King
that they would confine storaye to the one trAiler.
Comm~ssioner 9ushore suggeated the peki~ionec propoae an enclosed addition
to the l~~bding duck which will require a variance, but it would ~ive
better ~?curity and allevinte his concern about samething happe~ing ~o the
tcailec.
Greg Hasting~ stAted a 2-foot setback would be required Eor every 1 foot
of building height. He al~o explained the previous expansion in 1981 met
Code and the Commission nevsr ~~w those plans.
Ms. Burrell stated they cannot abide by certain conditiona of approval
because they do nak own the property. Jack White sL•ated the conditions
have to be complied with and just because ~ tenant applies for. a
conditianal use permit does not menn ~;~e City cannot impo~e conditions
upon the property which have to be complied with by thE property owner.
Ms. Burrell asked what dedication of the 53 feet hes to do with the permit
for a krailer. ~r. White stated the City has the right ku impoae any
conditions tt~at are reasonably necessacy as a result of the use uf the
pcoperty. He added he would assume the representatives fcom khe
Engineering llepartment fElt that this particular use of the pcoperty
reasonably necessitates the additional dedication of the street.
Commissioner eushore stated the tcailer may not be the problem, but the
use of tt~e propQrty is with the amuunt of trafEic inccease, etc. and maybe
iF the expansion had not b~en appruved administratively, and a variance
had been required, the petitionec would have had t~ come bef~re the
Commission and these things would have been met then.
Ms. Burrell etated Alpha Beta has been cited hy the City of Anahe~m for
violarion of khe Code based on the use of the trailer and that matter is
scheduled to come up for a hearing and the City Attorney's Office tias
indicated khat if the CUP is approved, the matter will be dismissed.
Ann~ka Santalahti explained it is necessary for the Alpha Beta
repcesenkatives to show up at the court hearing and if the Commission
approves this and the appeal period passes without Eurther actinn, the
City Attorney's Of~ice will be advised.
3im Mclntire, 26244 Sanka Loretta, Pountain Valley, lease admfnis±rator
for Alpha Beta, stated they are concetned with the r.ecommendations that
are required if this is approved and cl~rified that these things are based
on the use af the krailet in the rear and on the use of the property. He
stated if ktaey are reynired t~ make the street improvements and it causes
5/13/85
i
~
85-285
MINUT~S, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION M1-Y l3 1985
them t~ cemove the trailer, that aould increase trafEic that is coming in
and nut of tt~e center because withaut tha trailer there would be more
drop-oEfs and pick-ups of products.
Commisaioner Bushace stated I~e is talking about the amount nf traffic and
packing the store generates and :f the strevt hc~s to be widr_ne~l, the Elow
of traffic alung Euclid witl De greatly improved. Jay Titus stated the
condition is ceyuiring that the actual. improvemente be made lACeaiOnteVECY
Puul Singer~ TraEfic Engineer, stated a condition is being ~
condition+~l u~e requeat that comes in foc ultimate dedication and street
improvementa. Jay Titus stated the dedicatio~ on the cocr~er par.cel has
been mAde to the ultimate 53 fee~ and the curba and gutter~ arP in~stalled
at thAt location.
C~mmissioner Buahore stated thece ia a problem and that the use of this
trailer has triggered this request and F~e wuuld be willing to offer a
motion for the use of the trailer for a i-year period and the petitioner
can make the decision whether or not they want to bring the condikhosel
use ~ecmir, into play by complying wi~h the conditions and making
improvements, or they can come in for a variance.
Chaicman Herbst stated La Falma has not been widened in the 7200 block and
across the street where the residentiul stiructuces are located and askede
what is the advantaye of the widening of the atreet in this location.
stated he feele this type of reque~.t is blackmail in that the petitiuner
is being ar~ked to impcove the ~streets in ordec ta have a tcailer to use
for atorage and he did not agree with that cundition.
Paul Singer stated the pr~blem with the street at this location is tt~e
tcansition from where the photo-lab is located ka L•he Alpha Beta frontage
and widening would be lengthening that entry point and making it somewhat
~afer and right now that transition is detrimental to traffic safety.
Chairman Herbst stated he would be agreeable with the request if the whole
street was going to be widened. Annika Santalahti stated the buildfng
permit was granted in 1981 because they apparently complied with Code.
Commissionec E3ushore stated the petitioner should feel lucky because this
was admininstratively approved becauae if they had come before khe
Planning Commission in 1981, they wauld have had t~ widen the st[eet at
that time. He added staff did nothing wrong in 1981, but that expansion
did generate moce tr~ffic and these requir~ments should have been incluaed
at that time.
Chairman Herbst stated he did not feel now i.~ the time to require these
improvements and the property owner should be responsible for those
improvements and that here is a leasee doing business in the City of
Anaheim bringing in taxes and he did not want ka include something like
this on this approval. Commissioner Bushore stated he Eelt there ate too
many driveway~ into that property now, especially on Euclid, and most of
the traffic fs going to the Alpha 6eta store.
Mr. McIntire stated he was sure when the center was developed, the
driveways were constructed according to Code.
5/13/85
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC, r.OMMISSION. MAY 13t 1985 $5-28G
Commieaioner ~uahoc~ atated hE would go along with approval for one year.
and would bo very receptive to a plan to build it on permanently and he
did not aee any reeson why LA Palma should not be improved.
Annika Santalahti stated tt~e Zoniny Code does require that when
im~rvvements ate made on a ptoperty, that ultimate dedicationa be made,
an~ if Commission goea along with the cequest Eor a period ~f 1 year, they
may want to considec the condition~ on the basis oF the impact during that
one yeAr p~riod. She added Ctiis ie a vecy common condition.
~h~irman Herbat Rtated this pctitioner was involved in an expanaion in
1y81 and now the City is sayiny he will have to change the curbs and
gutters that were put in then.
Jay Titus stated that expar~sion was done under the building permit process
and he did not know why i~ was not required at that time and as for the
dedication and relocetion of the ultimate improvements, the City is
charged with tlie obligation of providing safe st~~eets within the City for
the citizens. He added the City ia trying to make a bad situation into a
good situation and an unsafe situation into a safec situation.
Commisaioner Fry atated the situaCion is no more unsafe now than it was in
1981, and Pau1 Singer stated the traffic is continually increasing.
Mc. McIntire ~tated if they are forced to make all these improvements on
La Palma, they have the alternative of dcopping the conditi~nal use permit
and if they do that, the traffic wi~l be increased into the center.
Commissioner Bushore stated he did not understand that because they have
so much food that has to be supplied everyday and they are storing
non-food items in that trailer and added he thought the simplesk way to
handle the probiem would be to pull the trailer out occaESionalty. Mr.
McZntire stated if it is ayreeable, they will pull the tcailer out 4 times
a week with Commissioner Bushore stating if lhey move it every 72 hours,
then it is not consideced permanent. Mr. McIntire stated in the past they
have uspd a drop-off and deli~ery system and wauld leave the trailer ti~ere
24 hours and then pick it up the ~~ext day bnd drop off another one and
they have been cited for having th~ same trailer there over a two-week
period and it appears the eame trailer 2~as been parked there for some time.
Mr. McCarthy stated beEore they started the trailer program, they brought
the 3rocecies in fouc times a week in sets of two Z6-foot trailers and
parked one and left it until the next time around, but have changed their
mode of loading at the warehouse and are using 40-foot and 46-foot ~ingle
trailers rather than sEts of doubles and t.hat manuevering a t.railer into
that sp~t cannot be done with a regular road tractoc and they bring in a
special tractoc, but they can, by r9justing some schedules i.n the
warehouse, go back to sets of doubles.
ACTIUN; Ctiairman Herbst of~ered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry
and MOTION CARRIED (Commiasioner La C1 ire absent? that the Anahefm City
Planning Commission has revieWed the proposal to retain a temporary
ttailer for supermarket storage use on a rectaiigulsrly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of approximately 2.4 acres located south and east of the
sout,hea~t carner of Lu Palma Avenue and Euclid Street and further
5/13/85
85-2a7
MINUTES ~NAHEIM C1mY PLANNING CaMMIBSIpN MAY 13 1985
desccibed ae t020 Notth Euclidt dnd doea hereby approve the Negative Declarati~n
upon finding that ik has considered the Negative Decldration together with any
conunents rgceived duri.ng the public review process and further ~inding on the t~asis
of the Initial Study nnd any commenta ceceived th~t there ie no subatantial
evidence that the project will have a aignific~nt effecl on the environmenC.
Chuirman He[bst offeced ReaolutiAn No. PCBS-130 and maved for ita passag~ and
~doption that Anaheim Cit,y Planning Commission does heceby gcAnt Conditional Usp
Petmit No. 2687 foc A peciod of one yeac pursuant to Anaheim M~~ni.cipal Cade
Sectione 16.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Intecde~Artmental
Committee recommendations, elimin~ting Conditions 1, 2 and 3 and Adding an
additional condition thdt atorage should be limited to non-food itema auch as
pallets, rackn nnd bales of cardboards, etc.
Commisaioner euahore ~tated La Pa.ima Avenue needs to be improved.
Mr. McCacthy stared ~heY would not disagree that La Palma needs to be improved, but
thought about 3100,Q00 worth ot improvementa would have ko be done if it included
those conditiona. He added Alphtt Beta would have to do aome negotiating witti the
property owner in order to get these things done.
On roll call, the foregoing cesolution was passed by the foliowing vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHURB, FRY, HERBST, ~ING~ MC BURNEY
NOE5: NON~
ABSENT: LA CLAIRE
Jack White, Asaistant City Attorney, presented the written cight to appeal the
planning Commiegion's decision within 22 days to the City C~uncil.
I`PEM N0. 15. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE RE UIRBMENT AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMI'P NU. 2688
pUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: J. G. D. COM~ANY, INC., Box 159, Atwood, CA 92601, ATTN:
DOUG BROWNE. AGENT: PAUL E. McKINNEY, A.B.A. MAC'S BATTERY SERVICE, 713 Lark,
placentia, CA 92670. Property deacribed as a rectangularly-ehaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 0.71 acre, having a maximum width of approximately 219
feet, having a maximum depth of 143 feet and being located approximately 365 feet
north oE the centerline of Orangethorpe Avenue and 182 feet west of the centerline
of Orangethorpe Park, 819 E. Orangethorpe Avenue.
There was one paff~reioctcwasnnotireade~itcislrefercedttonand madeeatpartuoftthea
although the st P
minutes.
Paul McKinney, agent, stated he plans ta have a b~t~ery repair and installation
facility and that staff viewed the use as automotive repair which required more
parking spacec.
John IlEC, ownpr of the property in the front, explained his property is leased to
Big John's Billiards and they have had a parking problem with the transmission shap
and brake shop i~ the cear foc the last 5 years. He
5/13/85
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PL~NNING COMMISSION~ MAY 13, 1485 __ _ 85-?88
stated the problem hae been thet the billiard facility ia u~en fKOm 1Q:00 d.m. to
1:00 a.m. and thQy utilize all thcir parkinq s~~ace~ (87 apaces) and the overflow
trom the three buildinga in the rear ~a onto theic property. He atAted if the
petitionec ie only going tu be inatalling batteries, there witl be no ~roblem
with packing, but he was concerned wiCh their prop~sed houra of ~peratian, that
they will need more than two employeea and he was concerned about a toxic waat~
problem.
Mc. McKinnay ataked ther~ is very little battery repair work yoing on becai~se the
bakteries are mostly glued together and heat ~ealed together. He stated it only
takes 10 minute~ to inatall a bAttery.
THE PUBLIC HEA~7NG WAS CLOSED.
Mc. McKinney stattd he very seldom would have two customers waiting at one time
and the hours of operation will be from B:OU a.m. to 5:00 p.m., five days a week
and e:OG a.m. to A:00 p.m. on Satucdays and right now he will be doing all the
work himself. kte explained they ~end the old batteries to a amelter and they
haul them away by the pallet load. He explained there is n~ toxic wastet that he
will be assembling the batteries and th$t once in a while he will repair a
battery and the acid wilt be drained ~nd then poured back into the tank. He
explained he operates now at 209 E. Santa Fe ii~ F~~llertan, near the railroad
ntation and is being moved because of redevelopment.
Mr. iler stated the problem he sees is with storage of the batteries and
clarified Chat the getitioner is in the front building. He stated there will
possibly be damage to khe floor from ~~he battery acid and if a battery is
cracked, it will really chew up what~~ver it is on. He stated he is really
concerned about the toxic fumes, pl~~s the storage oE the batteries over a long
period of time.
Chairman Herbst stated if thfs permit is granted and the use becomes a problem,
it can be revoked.
Mr. McKinney explained it takes him about 3 month~ Eo accumulate 6 pallets of
batteries and then they are picked up and hauled away. He stated he has the
nicest f.loor of any battery shop Decause he keeps it cleaned up.
ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and
MUTION CARRICD (Commissionet La Claire absent) that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission hae reviewed the proposal to permit an automotive battery repair
installation facility with waiver of minimum number of parkxng spaces on a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting oE approximately 0.71 acre, hav~ng
a maximum width of approximately 219 feet and loc~ted approximakely 365 feet
norCh af the centecline of Orangethorpe Avenue and 182 feet west of the
centerline of Ocangeth~r~e Paxk and further described as 819 E. Orangethorpe
Avenue; and does hereby apptove the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has
considered the Neg~tive Declacation together with any camments received during
the public revie~ process and further findir~g on the bas~s of the initial Study
and any comments ceceived that there is no substantial evidence that the project
will have a significant ef~ect on the envfronment.
Commissioner King offered A motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION
CARRIED (Commissioner La Claice absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
3oes hetety grant
5/13/85
MINUTES- ANAHEIM_G1TY P~ANNJNG ~UMMISSION. MAY 13, 1985___ 85-289
waiver of Code roquirement on the bAale that the ~arking waiver will not cauae
an increase in traLEic congestion in tne immeaiate vicinity not advorsPty
aff~ct eny adjoining land uaea and gcanting of the perking waiver under ~he
conditiono imposed, if any, will not be detrimental t~ the pedce, health,
saEety and yeneral welfare of the c.itizena of the City oE Anat~eim.
Commi~sioner Kiny oEfered Kesolut~on No. PC85-131 and m~ved foc its paesage
and adoption that the ~naheim City Planning Conuniesion does heroby grant
Conditional Use PermiG No. 2688 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections
18.03.03U.U3U thtough 18.03.030.035 and sub~ect to intecdepartmental Committee
recommendakions.
On roll catl, the foregoiny resotution was paASed by the Eollowing vote:
pyg~; UOUAS~ BUSHOR~~ FRY~ HF.RBST, KING, MC BURNEY
NOES: N~NE
A85ENT: 1~A CLAIkE
Jack White, AssistanC City At~ucney, presented th~ w~itten right to appeal the
~lanniny Commission's ~ecision within 22 days to the City C~u~cil.
ITEM NU. 16. EIR N~GATIVt UBCLARATION RBCLA55IFI.CATION N0. 84-85-36 AND
VARIANCE NU. 3485
PU[iI~IC NEARIN~;. UWNERS: MISAL BUILDING CONTRACTORS, INC., 300 S. Harbor
Blvd., Suite 600, Anaheim, CA 928Q5, ATTN: WARTAN L. MINASSIAN. Propecty
desc.ribed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel aE land consis~ing of approximately
U.75 ~cre, 1830 West Lincoln Avenue.
RS-A-43,000 to CI. or a Less intense zone. Waiveza of mi.nimum stcuctural
height and minimum landscaped setback to construct a one-atory
commercial/retail center.
There wece three pereons indicating their presence in opposition to subject
request and alChouyh khe etaCf ceport was not read, it i.s referred to and made
a part of the minutes.
Howard Richards, agent, was present to answez any questions.
Ella Thomas, 1818 Embassy, Anaheim, stated they are concerned about privacy
and noise; that they understand tk~ere will be another 6-foot high fenae, in
?ddition to their fences= and they would object to khe 12-foot high lighting
since the building will only be about 25 feet from the property line and
suggested the lighting should be l.owered. She stated they feel that the
planting oF trees is a yood idea and also additional ahrubbery should be
provided along the fence.
Mr. Richarda stated there is a 10-foot planter area adjacent to the Eence and
then there ace two additional parking lanes plue a 25-foot driving areR. He
added they will be putting in whatever lighting is recommended by the City.
Pete Rose, Balboa PaciEic Architect, statpd the lighting was a City conditfdn
and they are open to any auggestion~.
THE PUBLIC H~ARING WAS CLOSED•
S/l~/AG
MINUTBS., AIiANEIM CI~Y PLANNING COMMISSION, MAY 13, 19A5 85'Z89
~
waiver of Code caquirement on the basia that the ~drking waiver will nat ceuae ~
an inerease in traFfic congestion in the immpdiate vicinity nor adversely
dffect any adjoining land usea and gr~nting of the perking waiver under the
conditions impo8ed, if any, will not be detrimentat ta the peace, health,
eafeky And general welfarv of the citizena of the City of Anaheim.
Commissioner King offered Kesolution No. PC85-131 and moved for ite passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Ccmmiseion doea hereby grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2688 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sectiona
16.03.G30.030 through 18.03.030.035 and aubject to Intecdepartmental Committee
recommendations.
On roll call, the Eoreqoing re»ot~tion was passed by the Eollowing vote:
AYCS: HOUA5~ BUSHQRE, FR't~ HERBST~ KING~ MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: LA CLAIRL
Jack White, Assistanl• City Attorney, presented the written right to appsal the
Planni.ny Commission's decision wittiin 22 days ~o the City Council.
ITEM NU. 16. EIR NEGATIV~ UECLARATIUN RECLASSIFICATION N0. 84-85-36 AND
VARIANCE NU. 9485
PUBLIC HEARING. OWN~RS: MISAI, BUILDING CONTRACTORS, TNC., 300 S. Harbor
Blvd., Suite 600, Anaheim, CA 92805, ATTN; WARTAN L. MINASSIHN. Property
described as a rectangularly-$hapecl parcel of land consisting of approximately
0.75 acre, 1830 W~et Lincoln Avenue.
RS-1~-43~OOU to CL or a lesa intense zone. Waivera of minimum struct~aral
height and minimum landsca~ed setback lo construct a one-stary
comrnercial/retail center.
There were thcee peraons indicating their presence in opposition ta subject
request and although khe staff report wae not ruad~ it is referred to and made
a part of the minu*_es.
Howard Richacds, agent, was present to answer any questions.
Ellu Thomae, 1818 ~mbassy, Anaheim, stated they are concerned about priva:,y
and noiae; that they understand there will be another 6-foot high Eence, in
addition to thei.r fencea; and they would object to the 12-foot high lighting
si.nce t~:e building ~~rill only be about 25 fee. from the property line and
Auc~gested the lighting shou.ld be lowered. She stat~ed they feel that the
p~anting of treea is a goad idea and also additional shcubbery should be
provided along the tence.
Mr. Richards stated thece is a 10-foot plantec area adjacent to the fence and
then there are two additional parking lanes plus a 25-foot driving are+~. He
added they will be putting in rrhatever lighting is recommended by kh~ City.
Pete Rose, Balboa Pacific Arc:hitect, -;tated the lighting waP a City condition
ana they are open to any suggestions.
THE FUBLIC HEA1tING WAS CLOSEA.
e
,
~,
~~
~
MINUTE5. ANAHEIM CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION. MAY 11, !9N5 +„ 85-290
Commisaioner pr,y stated he felt lighting cou.ld be a pcoblem and he thought
there should not be any lighta on the rear of the building ahining into th~
neighbor'e yards and the li~hting ahould be on the propecty line facing Away
irom their homes.
Ms. 7~homas ateted they do not know wt~at type tenants they plAn to have in
theoe unitar but they would tappreciate not having tenants open ell night, like
a liquor store, laundromat, etc.
Mr. Richards stated they do not have any speciEic tenantA as yet and they
would possibly be open 7:00 a.m. to midnight and they will have retail uses.
ChAirman tier~~st stated he thought aome c.ondition aho~ld be included
restcicting the houra of operation.
J~~ck White, Assfstent City Attorney, stated this requesC is for a
reclassification and variance and ~aes that c~mply with the Code will be
permitted and it would not be appropciate to place cer~krictions on the type af
usea oc hours af operation.
Chairman Herbst suggeated 15-gallon tcees in the planter area and that they
should be quite den~e.~ Mr. Rose stated they will make the landscaptng ~s
attractive as poasible and they will be usiny existing fences. Annika
Santalahti explained the height of the fence will be measured from ~he highes~
yrade and it there is an existing wa11, that will be consideced to be
ca[~pliance for Code for 6-foot high fence. Mr. Rose stated t;~e east pcoperty
line is the anly one that doesn't have a wall and stated they do not hsve a
landscaping plan at this time and there would be Crees along :F~at wall and on
the south.
Commissionet Bushore stat•ed the Anaheim Medical Center is located on the west
side o£ the propecty and he thougtit there is no setback on the easterly
property line, He suggested this project flhould be relocated to the property
line to a~Jotn that property because thak 5-foot area would not be secving ~ny
purpose. He stated the barber college was allowed a 12-foot setback rather
than the 20-Eoot Aetback and that this is ~ commercial retail property and
even though the~e ~re two homes, he thought a conpromise could be reached bo
the petitioner could get the Amount of square Eootage desir~d and still meet
the parking requirments, etc., and provide a wider landscaped setback ad~acent
to those homes.
Mr. Richards asked if the Commission is suggesting that the~ build the
building to the property 1in~ on that side. Commissioner Bushoce stated he
sees no reason to waate that 5 foot of pr~perty and by relocating the
building, it would provide moce landscaping adjacent tu the residential
propecty. He asked if they could red~sign the property to the property line
and euggested a continuance.
Commissioner McBurney stated he has a problem gcanting t.his without knowing
what uses are going to be on the propecty.
ACTION: Commissioner Buahore affered a:notio~, seconded by CommissianNr Ki.~g
and MOTION CARRIED (Commiesioner La Claire absent) t~,~at consideration ~f the
aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-schedule~ neetin~; !:i May
29, 1985, in order for the petitioner to s~bmit revised plr~ *.:~~~ ~..~y the
building to the ptaperty line and adding more landacaped a-... '. :~ rcar.
=;,,~a~
, ~. ~
r'
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION. MAY 13. 1985 85-291
ITEM N0. 17.__ E~R N0. 765 (PR~V. CERTIFICD_) AND I2ECLASSIFICATIUN NO• 84-8:_,~,8
PUBLIC tIEARING. UWNERS: DL ENTERPRISES, 1.TD., 15 Brillantez, Irvine, CA
92714. AGFNT: CITY OF ANAHEIM, P. 0. Box 3222, Anaheim, CA 92803. Pcoperty
descrihed as an irregularly-ahaF~d pe-rcel of land consiating of appcoximetely
600 acr.es lncated 1.1 miles southeast oE the Weir Canyon Road and fiivecside
Fceeway (9.1) interaer.tion e~d bounded on the north by the Watlace Ranch, west
by the Anaheim Nills property, and south and e~iat by the Irvine Company
pruperty (Uak Hill~ Ranch).
County A-1 to US(~C) or a leas intenae zone.
Therc was no one lndicating theic preRenc~e in opposikion to subject requeat
and .~.though the ataEf report waa not read, it is referred to and made a part
of t e minuties.
TE:~ YUE3LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
It was noted the City Council certified EIR No. 265 ~or subjecG property
October 9, 1984, in con~unction with General Plan Amendment No. 188.
ACTIUN: Commissioner Kiny offered Resolution No. PCBS-132 and moved for its
passage and adoptiun that the Anaheim City Planniny Commission dnes hereby
grant ReclassiEication No. 84-85-38, subject to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendationa.
On roll call, the focegoiny cesolution was passed by the fol.lowing vote:
AYES: 130UA5, BUSFiORE~ FRY, HERBST, KING, MC BURNEY
NOES: NON~
ABSENT: LA CLAIRE
ITEM N0. 18 REPOkTS AND RECCMMENDATIONS:
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 254] - Request from Comarco• .xiser Development
for approval nf specific plans i~cr Lot Nos. 7 and 8 locaCed at the
southwest corner of Kaiser B~ulevard and Weic C~-nyon Road.
ACTION: Commissioner Fry ~Efer.ed a motion, seconded by Commiscionec
McBurney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent) that the
Anaheim City Planning ~ommission does hereby a~prove the specific plans
as s~bmitted by the applicant upon finding that the plana are in
aubstAntial conformance with plans previously approved in conjunction
with Conditi~nal Use Permit No. 2541.
B. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 73-74-25(REV. N0. 1) - Request from Michael Frazier,
architect, for approval of revised precise plans, pcoperty located a~ the
northwest cocner uf Sahta Ana Canyon Road and imperial Highway.
Michael Fraziec, architect, was pcesent to ar~swer any questions.
5/13/85
MINUTEB. ANAHEIM CZ TY PLANNING COMMISSIONI M~Y 13, 1985_ ___ 85-2g2
ACTION: Comm i aeionec Kin~ off~ced a motion, a~conded by Commioeioner
McBucriey and MUTION CARRIED (Commiasioner La Claice abaent) that the
Anaheim City Planning Commiasion doee hereby recommend appraval of
the cevised specific ~le-na to the City Counc:il on the bagia that the
aubject plens and the second atory addikion comply with all
epplicdble site development stand~rds of the GL(SC) zone.
C. RECLASSIFICAT I ON N0. 84-85-10 - Requeat from Nlanning Commiasion
Secretacy for a rtunc pro lunc resol~ltian amending Rosolution Nu.
PCG4-201, pertaining to tegdl descr~ption.
ACTION: Comtn iasioner King oFEered Resolution N~. PC85-133 and mov~d
for. ita pansage ancl adoption that the Anaheim City Pl.anning
C~mmission d o ea her~by grank a nunc pra tunc reaoluCion containing e
cevieed lega 1 description in connection with Reeolution No. PC84-201.
On roll ca11, L•he Locegaing resolution was pa~aed by th~ following
vote:
AYES: BOUA S~ BUSHORE, FRYr HERQST, KING~ MC BURNEY
NUES: NON E
ABSENT: LA C LnIRE
U. TEN'~ATIV~ MA P OE TRACT N0. 10985 - Request Erom Robert M. Galloway~
Kaufman and Broad, for an extension of time to Tentative Map of Tract
No. 10985, p r opecty locsted south and east of tl~e intersection of
Sar-ta Ana Canyun Road and the proposed southerly extension of weir
Canyon Road.
AC~IGN: Commissioner Fry offered a moti~n, aeconded by Commissioner
McBurney and MOTIUN CARRIED (Comm~isrsioner La Claire absent) that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant a one-year time
extension fo r Tentative Map ot Tract No. 10985, te expire on June 13,
1986.
ADJOURNMBNT: Commissioner McBurney of.feced a motion, seconded by
Commi~sioner Pry and t~IOTI~N CARRIEU (Commissionec La Claire
a b sent) that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting was
ad ~ourned at 5:30 p.m.
Respectfully sut~mitted,
" ~,'
~~ (/' ~ / e/' M (~ n 'i.~~
~.~ ~ l.Lr..~;~~G(,~ /1 , ! ,L. L ~ ~
v
Edith L. Harris, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commiasion
ELH:lm
0114m
5/13/85
:`