Minutes-PC 1985/06/24KEGULAR MGBTING_OF THE ANANEIM CITY pLANNING COMMI35ION
RECULAR MEETING The regular meeling oE the Anaheim City Plan r~ing
CommiHSian was cAlled to order by ChairmAn H erbs~ at
10:U0 a.m., .1une 24, 1985, in the Co~incil Chamber, a
quorum being present, and the Commission rev iewed
plans o:t the itema on toclay's aqenda.
kECESS: 11:30 ~.m.
ftECONVENED: 1:33 p.m.
PRESENT ChaiKman: t~erbst
Commissionera: Houas, eushore, Fry, King, La Claire,
Mc t3urney
AP T: Commfssioner: ~'ry, La Claire
ALSU pRES~NT Annika Santalahti Assistanl Direct~r fo; ?oning
Malcolm Slaughtec D~puty Ci.ty Attorn ey
.1ay Titus Of~ice Engin~er
Paul Singer City Traffic Enyin eer
Kendra Morries Associate Plsnner
Edith Harris Planning Commi.ssio n Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Cammissioner King offeced a motion, secon ded by
Commissioner Bouas and MOTIUN CARRIED (Commiasioners Fry and La Claire
absent3, tliat the minutea of the meeting of June ~0, 1985, be approvecl as
submi t ted ,
ITEM N0. 1. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3432
PUBLIC HEARING. UWNERS: ORVILL6 H. WWDS, ET AL, 1224 E. La P blma Avenue,
Anahein~, CA 92805. AGENT: MAGDY HANNA, 4000 MACArthur ~3ouleva rd. Suite 680,
Newport Beach, CA 9266U. Propetty described as an irregularly -shaped pa~ccel.
of land consisting of appr.oximately 0.79 acre, 1224, 1228 and ~236 Eask La
Pa.lma Avenue.
Waiver of maximum s~ructural height to construct a 3-story, 22 -unit apartment
cumplex.
Continued from the meetings of April ?9, and May 29, 1985.
Thece was no ane indicating their pcesence in opposition to su bject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a pact
of the minutes.
85-333 G/24/85
,
~,
MINUTF:S, ANANEIM CITY PJ.ANNZ NG _CGMMISSION~ JUNE: 24. 1985 85-334
MpgdA tianna, agent, explained as a resulk of ell thc previoue disciaesion and
d~e to all the cancec~a ~f the ~eiyt~born and the Pl~nning Commission, the
plans have been reviaed to reduce the hQight of the structure to 2 atorieo
wikh aubtercanean pa.cking ar~d thnt the landacaped area has been preaerved.
THE PUBGIC HEARING WAS CLOS EG~
Chairman HFcbat stated a aouth vicw ~f the elevation has n~~ been aubmitted
and thece i~ a miakake on tt~e d~awinge indicating l•he di rection ie khe a~uth,
but it ~is really north. Ne ~dded he is quite concerned about the ar_airways
and balcanies on the sourh fncing the single-f~mily homes.
Mr.. Hanna sCated they can w ork out the details witr, the Planning DepartmenC
staff and that they had to zevine the plans in a hurry in order to meet the
dea~llinea by the staff. H e atated th ece are no balconies oc windows adjacent
t~ the single-family resid P nces L•o thc• aouth and explained they witl be happy
to provide the south eleva t iun. He explained precise landsca~ing p1Ans have
not been completed, but th e y Will provide whatever landscaping ~s required by
staff and they wauld stipu Late ko minimum 15-galton tCBP.&.
Kendra Morr~es, As~oc~ate Plr~nnec, cesponded to Commissioner Bushoce that 2
stories were permitted on the prnperty next door wLthin 7~ feet and 82 feet of
~ingle-family zoned proper ty to the west and south and 3 stories within 108
feet of. the single-family zone to the norCh acr~sa Lt+ palma. 5he explained
the height of khe proposed oriyinal 3-story project was approximately 32 feet
and the height of ttiis cev ised project is 22 feet 6 inchet~ f rom the f inished
gc~de level, plus l•he 4 fe et additional for parking. Annika Santalahti,
Assistant Director for 2on ing, stated the new Co~e will allow a maximum
2-story buildiny at 35 fee~ with a 1 story maximum at 25 feet ancl includes the
roof in either case.
Kendra Morcies stated the 12-f oot and 32-foot heiahts did include the roof
lines. She explained the buildiny to the east har; an elevation from finished
grade to the top of the s t ructure of appcoxim~rc;! 2~. t ee~
Responding to Chairman He r bst, Mr. Hanna stated ~hey ~io a~?re~ with alt the
Lecommended conditions. C hairman Herbst stated the Cit y C'o:sncil has allowed
2-story units within 53 fF Et o~ sing~.e-family re~idential zones.
ACT10N: Commissioner Kin g offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas
and t10TI0N CARRIED (Cortuaissioners Fry and La Claire absent) that the Anaheim
City Planning Commission t2ae revieM ed the propnsal to conskcuct a 2-story,
22-unit apartment complex with waiver of maximum stcuctucal height on an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of ap~roximately 0.79 acre,
having a fxontage of approximately 2i6 f~et on the south side of La Palma
Avenue and further descci bed as 1224, 1228, 1236 E. La Palma Avenuej and does
hereby approve the Negati ve Declaration upon finding that it has considered
the Negative Dec.larat•ion toyether w ith any comment~ receiv~d during the public
review process and furthe r finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any
comments received that th ere is no subatantial evidence that the projeat will
have a significant effect on the er.viconment.
6/24!85
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON, JUNE 24, 1985 85-335
Commi~aioner King oEfered He$alutian No. PC85-158 And maved for ita passage
~nd adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does herehy grant
Variance No. 3482 on the b~siA that there Qre apecial circumstances applicable
to the property such as size, shApe, to~oyraphy, location and aurroun~inga
which do not apply to other identically z~ned property in the same vicinitys
and that atrict ap~lication of the 7,oning Code deprives the properiy of
privileges enjoyed by oL•her properties in the identic~l zone and
classiEication in th~ vicinity and Rubject to Interdepartmentnl Commitl•ee
recommPndationa including khe sripulation of the petitioner to provide
landscapiny with minimum 15-gallon treea planted on 3-foat cE~nkers, subject to
the approval of the Plannin4 DeP~ctmHnt otaff, and also khrt there should be
no stairways or windows on che south aide nf the compl~x.
Un roll call, l•he furegoing r~?solution was passed by the following vote:
A~ES: BOUAS~ BUSHQRk, HERBST, KING, MC BURNLY
NOES: NUNE
AHSENT: FRX, LA CLAIRE
Malcolm slaughter, Ueputy City Attorney, presented the written right to a~peal
the Planning C~mmisaion's d~cision within 2Z days to the City Council.
THE FULLOWING ITEMS (NU. 2 ANU N0. 3) WERE I~EARU AT TFiE IIEGINNING OF TNG
MEETING.
"'.M NO EIR NEGATIVC DECLARATION, WAIVER OP COGE REQUIREMENT AND
COND.~ ~ ~SE PERMiT N0. 2689
PUBLIC 'IEh~.l~~... OWNERS: GRAY S. AND PAUI.A S. KILMER, c/o C-21 Laurel, 607 S.
Harbor Boulevard, .4nahein!, CA 92805. AGENT: MARY VERDONCK, c/o C-21 Laurel,
607 S. Harbor Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805. Propecty descri.bed as a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.43 acre
located at the southeast cocner of Cypress Street and Olive Street, 220 and
224 N. Ulive Str_eet.
To permit a 24-unit senioc citizena apartment complex with waivers oi° (a)
maximum fence height, tb) oermitted encroachments into required yards, (c)
minimum buildi~g site area and (u) minimum structucal setback.
Cuntinued from the meeting of May 13, and June 10, 1985.
ACTIO~.~: Commissioner King offered a motion, secondec~ by Commissioner Bouas
and I,CJTION CARRIED (Comm.issioners Fry and La Claire absent) that consideration
of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-ached~led meeting
of July 8, 1985, at the request of the petitioner in order to submit revised
plans.
ITEM N0. 3. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL US£ PERMIT N0. 2697
PUBLIC tIEARING. UWNERS: APF CENTER* •'~xCN: JACK HOROWITZ, P. A. BoX 27153~
Los Angeles, CA 90027. Property desck .~ed as an irregularly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of appraximately 4.1 ~cres located at the southwest corner of
Orangethorpe Avenue and Placentia Avenue, and further described as 1631 Nnrth
Placentia Avenue; Units A, B, E, : O, P, R, S, and T.
6/24~85
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMTSSIONL JU~E 24, 1965 85-336
To retain ~ix automobile tepair and aul•omotiv~•relat~d buslnesees,
Continued fcom the meeting of June l0, 1985.
ACTION: CUmmis»ianer Bouas oEfered a motion, aeconded by Commiasioner King
and MpTION cARRIED (CommiASionecA Fry and La Claire abaent) that conaider~tion
of the aforementioned matter bQ continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting
of July 8, 19~5, at the request of tr~c petitioner !n order tn submit
additional information as requeated by th~~ Planning sCaff.
ITCM NU. 4. EIR N~GATIVE DECLARATION, R~CGASSIFICATIUN N0. 84-85-37 AND
VARIANCE NG. 3486
PUHLIC H~ARING. UWNER5: RALPH W. ANU VIRGINIA G. MAAS, c/o WILLIAM R.
Froeberg, :i553 CAmino hlica Coata, Suite F, San Cl~mente, CA 92672. AGENT:
RICK LLSLIE, 4246 Greenbush Avenue, Sherman Oaks, CA 91423. Property
desccibea ~s a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land cor~isting of approximately
11,340 squc~e feet tocated at the aouthwest coGner of VecmonC Avenue and
Harb~r Boulevard, 901 South liarbor aoulevacd.
Waiver of minimum structural betback to c~notrur.t ~ commerciat sho~ping center.
There was no one indicating their presence xn oppoaition to subject request
and a~though the stafL report was not read, it is referred to and mAde a part
of the minutes.
Rick Leslie, ayent, was present to answer any queati~n~ and explained they do
not feel a continuance is necessary because the guarantee is included in the
conditions that they mu"r .:cme to an agreerrent witi~ the property owner ta the
south reyarding acr.ess a: that they would l~ke appcoval today in order ko
speed up ttie process.
Chairman Herbst atated he would like to se~ the proh~lems re~olved befare
voting on the project.
Jim McGuigan, attocney~ San~a Ana, explained he is representing the adjacent
propecty owner wha o~e-ates a motei and they would like to request a
continuance in ocds :neet with the developer and peci~apa iron out the
diffecences; and t' ' c~.~e of them axe aevere sinc.e they are questions
pectaining to propeci.y rights, etc. He stated he would disagcee at khis time
that khe conditi~n included protects the adjacent property owner a~d added he
would be willing to c~operate with the devel~:, •r.
Mc. Leslie stated for one month they have made many attempts to contact the
adjacent property owner and finally had a meeting last Thursday Ar~~' qot
prelxminary vecbal App:oval that all problems could bs worked out. -,d that
basically the plan would be acceptable to them.
THE PUBLIC t1EARING WAS CLOSEU.
Commissioner t3ushore clarified that khe issue is the dual driveway.
Commissioner McBurney atated the Commfssion is also concerned abuut the
dedication and improvement o£ the 15-foot wide etrfp ad:Sacent to subject
6/24/85
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUt~E 24, 1985 85-337
properCy. Chairm~n tlerbet stAted if they cannot come to an agreement, the
project will have to be redeaigried end t~e wnuld oppoae ir the way it ia
designed without that agreement.
Commissioner dushore et.ACed tie would oppoae it. the wAy it is desi,7n~d right
now with the dual accesa and the cemaining poction ot the motel E~ruper.ty
jutting out onto Harbor. ChAirmnn Nerbst et.ated ti~e Commiaeion hears ~ lot of
pcoposals that never happen a~d he wants to see the plans khat sre Eirm
without a contingency thAt the property owner~ work out an agreement. He
stated he thought ~ 2-week continuance would be in order.
Malcolm Slauyhker statpd the applicant has not cequested a continuance;
however, the Code pecmits the Commiasion to continue ~he matter when necessary
to take further evidence, but since the he~ring has already been closed, he
thought the Commi~sion may be in a poeit.ion to act un this petition aince
there was no request for n con~inuance from the applicAnt.
Commissionec Buahore stated if he is reyuasted to act on thi~ petit'nn today,
he would oppose it. Chairman Herbst a~ked if the petit.toner would ~ke a vote
today or continuance.
Mr. Leslie cequested a 2-week continuance. It was clarified the pe~itioner
can cequesk additional continuances it necessary.
ACTION: C:ommissioner Mc~ucney offered a mation, seconded by Commissioner King
and MOTION CARRIEU (Commissioner~ Fry and La Ciaire absent) that consideration
of the aforemPntioned makter be continued ta the regularly-schPduled rt~eeting
o: July 8, 1985, at the request of the E~~titioner in order to work out mutuai
acceas problems witti the adjacent property owners.
ITEM N0. 5. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE P~RMIT N0. 2314
(READVERTISED)
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ROVI PACIFIC CORPORATION, 180I Centurv F.k East,
~111, Los Angeles, CA 90U67, ATTN: DANIEL WEBER. AGENT: FARANO 6 KIVIET,
100 S, Anaheim aoulevard, #340, Anaheim, CA 92805, A;TN: FRANK A. LQWRY, JR.
Property describQd as a cectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 3.U acres located at the northe~st cocnec of Secrano Avenue and
Nohl Ranch Road, 6~Qy, 6511 and 6513 Serrano Avenue (Town and Country Early
Education Center).
To amend Condition No. 2 of Planning Commission Resol.ution No. PC82-68 for
approval of revised pl~.~s (No. 1) to permit expansion of an existing private
day~care and elementary educational faciliky (ages 2-1/2 yeacs through third
gcad~).
There were five p~.rsons indicating their presence in opposition to subject
requesr and although the staff report was not read, it is referred ta and made
a part ot the minutes.
Prank Lowry, attorney, 100 S. Anahefm Boulevard, explained they have requeste@
exp~ns{on of a child day care center by 2,000 square feet far additional
classcoom space; and that there will be no increase in the use as to the
6/24/85
MINUTE5, ANANEIM CITY P1.ANNING COMMI5STON,_JUNE 24~_1985 85-336
number of childcen and they will still be ur~der Che ellowable number and thece
is no need for a aound ~tuc9y becau8e they h~ve not reached the limitnticn ea
~eC Eorth fn khe original conditfonal uae permit. tte adde~ there have b~E~n no
com~laints that ttiey are aware aF. And that ttiey did not know there was any
opposition until right now
Joan XeAter, 6564 F. Carnegie, Ansheim, presenGe~ u~etit~on containing 35
slynatures in opposition becauee of the exceseiv~ r~eise Erom the chlldren;
that peop.le wf~o work at night can n<~t sleep dur.ing the day because of the
na~set that the children tl~row cor.ks, bottlea, cans nnd balls, etc. into her
y~rd nnd children do ciimb ovec the 6-~ooC wa~l into Che yards making !t
dAngerous for the children and n burdnn an hheir in~urance caverage. She
e~tated st~e has ~ p~ul and con~tanr ly has t.o pick up racks f rom tt~e jc+cuzzi And
pool, in addition to chewiny gum, she added she does not know if tlie children
come into hec back y~rd because she wotka durinq the dAy, but that her
rteighba[s who aGe t~ome during th~ day have comnlained the ~hildren have been
in ttieir back yacds. she fiL'At@Cj s~he hes complained to the pecson in charge at
the ~chonl taut ha$ not called the police and ahe does not want to aee the use
expanded and, in facr_, wauld like to a~e it yone. She stated originally they
thought this pre~cho~l w~s qoing to be across the street by the grade school
anci noted the playyround is a parkiny lot and the 3 acre~ ia the whole corner
including the liquor atore.
E3ua Ull~y, 998 C~uincy Circle, Anaheim, stated he has lived in Anaheim since
1452 and liviny in his preHent home, which i~ wo[th approximately $350,000, is
a dream come kcue; thti:. he wart aware rhece was a ~chool ~:coposed and did not
o~pose it originr~lly, but that the noise is just terrible and he would like to
invite the Planniny Commissianec~ to come up and just listen to the noise;
that most of the neighbors ~re close to 65 year~ old, but are talerant and
like the children, but a liouoc store right next doar is not appropriate and
thdt this is not a place for a school. He ~stated his wife has been hit. by a
battle thcowr~ by a child and that the neighbors have chased children out af
their back yards.
Esthez Peck, 991 S. Ruincy, stated she is happy living in Anaheim Hills, which
was their dream also, and when the school was first proposed, ~he never
imagined it wuuld be put into a shopping centet direclly bPhind tier house.
She stated her husband is nok well and ne~ds his rest and they have not
complained to the ownera of the achool, but no~ that thia new proposal to
expand is suGmitted, they fcel is would be impossible for thrm to live there
with the additior,al noise. She ~tated e`~e does not object to peopie making a
living, bu.k thie is her home and she is appealing t~ the Commission to do
somethiny about the situation which ie entirely out of hand. Chairman Herhst
asked if there are childcen there af.ter 6 p.m. Ms. Peck re~ponded it sounds
like the noise is continuous. 5hr stated she laves chi:dren and aould not
wanr to ~eptive them of a place to gu to school, but felt there arE other
places for a presr.hool.
GKdCE Blanchard, 120 E1 Docad~ Lane, Anahei:n, stated she is in shock at what
she ha8 juet heard because they have had a echool in this area for 3 years and
they have never had one complaint voiced Co them or to the City; that there is
A liquor store at the other end of the shopping center and there is now a
church which occupies 4 of the units between them and *_he liquor store and
6/24/85
_ ; _..._..--~~ ^
MINUm~5~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNE 24. 1985 85-_3_39
they have hed no problern wi~h L•h~ liyuoc atorei and that their houcs of
operation are 7:OU a.m. tu 6:00 p.m. fiva days a week. She sCated they did
have a problem with a neighbor's solar unit and the owner felt a rock had been
thcown by one of the chi.ldren ~nd in ardeK to be sure they had no problems
with any of the orher neighbora in the area, they got Cheir ineutance to pay
foc fixing the d~:~t in the solac u~iL. She added that ia the only problem
khey have hbd, to her knowledge, and 1E people would only leC them know when
thece is a problem, they can do their best to limit the number of childcen in
the yard at any on~ time because they do hAVe a large acea. She stated there
is no reason Eor this unhappinesa ~nd they are very aware khat there are homea
~ehind them.
TH~ PUdLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commisai.oner. Bushore asked t4~. Yeatec if she and her nefghbors were present
when thia wa~ originally ap~~roved 3 yeara ayo And Ms. Yeater responded shp was
here. Commisaion.Pr B~!ahore atated there were quiLe a few neighbnrs pcesenk
and they were a~vised at that time khat i£ there wece problems, they should
let the City know, and so it comes as a complete ahock to the Commiasion since
the staff repor.t states there have been no aomplaints during the past 3 ysars
regarding this schaol.
Ms. Xeater re~~~o~>d~~d she CAll@~ the school complainin~ abAUt the rocks. She
added she was not at the meeting 3 years ago. Commissionec Douas clarifi~~
that the request i3 not to have additional students.
Ms. Blanchard cxplained they wanced to expand into the other 2 units because
they are facing into a courtyard and they Leel if they do not take use of
them, a retail store could come in which would totally destroy the whole
concept oE the school and this will protect the atmoephere of the courtyard.
Ms~ Blanchard responded to Chairman Herbat that they have appcoximately 180
students at the present Cime and that xs Pully enrolled. Commissioner Bushore
stated the staff report indicates they have a 140 student enrollment.
Kendra Mo~ries stated the information given to s~aff was that the enrollment
was leas than 140 and that figure was Che limit on the previous CUP that would
t~igger the nee~ fcc a sound stu~y. Ms. elanchard stated 180 is the total
enrollmpnt and that preschool children uo not come to the school five days a
week and there are not 190 atudents in dafly attendance.
Commissioner Bushore stated he tr~ought the condition was fot total enrollment
and not for just when the students were at the sch~ol. Kendra Morries stAted
the Planning staff looks at the total enrollment in terms of sLudent
population, regardless of how many are there at any one given time.
Ms. Blanchard stated the hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. ta 6:00 p.m. and the
church uses the faciliti~s on Sunday mornings for 2 hours, but there are not
any children in the yard on Sundays. She explained there are no fees
irrvolved, bct the church currently uaes a~ortion of their fac:lities. Ms.
Yeater stated she thought the block wall is 6-feet high and there is ~
cetaining wall which i~ at the cear and their yard is ?owec th~n the retaining
wall. She stated the chi.ldren climb up on the wall to get over.
6/24/85
MINUT~S~ ANAtiEIM CITY ~~ANNTNC COMMISSION, JUN~ 24, 1985 85-340
L.loyd Blanchard, co-owner, stal•ed the block wall io on top of tt~e 6-to 8-foot
hiyh ~vy coveted embAnkment and he did not see how a child could climb over
that wall and that thie is the first they have heard about that problem. He
added when the achool is clused they have had some probleme with vandaliam
fcom neighborhood children beceuse ot the ~lAyground equipment, etc. tie
explained the children ar~ wotched and they maintain teacher/atudent ratios
which are covered by tt-e state And atated again, this oppoaition comes as a
cotnplete surprise to them.
Malcolm Slaughter stated the question carlier was whether. or not the numbec of
students enrolled or the number on site ~t any one time was the one requiring
the sound study and ~ccording to the minutes oE the meeting in 1982, a motion
to appcove was made by Commissioner Bushore, uubjeck to the condition that a
sound s~udy wuuld be conducted whenever enrollment reached 140 students.
Commissioner ~uahoce stated this was advertised tlie same as it was 3 years ago
and noc.icPS wece Aent to people within 300 feet and there were 3lgnatures of
peo~le who livad in rhe area and they were told when it wa~ approved then to
let lhe City know if lhere were problems and none of those people are present
today. tie stared he felt before tt~e Commis~ion proceeds, it is time for the
study to be provided b,y the applicant under the dicection of City staff.
Fr.ank Lowry stated he did not read thP approval, but they would be happy to
atipulate to doing khe Aound study and would re~uest a one month continuance.
Kendca Morries stated staff would reque~t additional infocmation alnnq with
th~ sound stu~y. Stie explaine~ there is an exi~ting conditional use permit on
the property at 6509 Serrano Avenue to permit a church and the flooc plans
submitted by the church indicat~d they will occupy all of 6509 Serrano Avenue
(approximately 4400 syuare feet) and the fluor plans submitted by khe school
for the expansion indicates that the classroom space overlAps the church
building using 1/2 or 220U square feet and staff would request that the
applicant submit additional information a~ to the hours oE operation and the
o~erlapping activities for both the church and the school. Mc. Lowry
e.xpiai.ned the church is only uaed on Sunday. Commissioner Bushore stated the
issi~e is that they are using the ~~hool facilities. Ne continued that staff
would direct the sound sL•udy and indicated it would be helpful if the
neighbors would let City staff know when the noise peaks durin~ cettain
periods ~f the day, etc.
Chairman t~erbst stated someone from the City would probably t~ave to come inko
theic backyards to measure the sound. He ascertained there was no timE limit
on the original conditional use permit and also that the ~nrol'lment is a great
deal less during the summer.
Kendra Morries stated the currounding property owners sho~~ld contact her for
any in£ormation oc to give any input pertainin9 to the sound study.
Commissioner Bushore usked far an enro.ilmNnt cecord, mo~th by month, so the
peak activity periods can be ~3scertained.
ACIION: C~mmissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas
and MOTION CARRI~D (Commissioners Fry and La Claire absent) that cansideration
of the atarementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meetin~
of July 22, 1985, at the request of the getitioner ko submi~ a sound study.
6/24/85
1
~
MINUTES, ANANE;IM CITY PLANN~NG COMMISSIQN. JUNE 24, 1985 ~5-341
?'.cM N0. 6. F.IR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIUNAL USE PERMIT N0. 2693
PUBLIC HEARING. OWN~RS; SHELL OIL COMPANY, 51.1 N. Brookhurst 5tceet,
Anaheim, CA 92~01, ATTN: RYCHARD M~YERS. Property described ~s an
irregularly-shaped parcel af land consisting of opproxlmakely 0.72 acce,
located at the oouChwesk c~rner of Lincoln Ave~ue and State Collpge Boulevard,
2U1 South State College Boulevard (Shell Service Station and cac wash).
To construct a convenience market with ~~ff-sale beer and wine in conjunction
a~ith an exiating service atation and car wash.
Chaicman Efe[hsk left the meeting temporarily and Commiseioner Bushore ASSUMED
~`HG CHAIR.
There were two persons indicating their presence in nppoeition to sub~ect
cequest and although the staff reFort wa~ not read, it is referred to and made
a part of the minutes.
Hicam DeFries, 23276 South Pointe Drive, Suite 204, Laguna Hil.la, 92653,
attorney, explained tt~ia station opened abou~ 13 yEars ago and toc~ay the whole
make-up in that area has ctianged; that it is n~t ~ fceeway-oriented station
and it has become a neighhochood-oriented Eacitity and they woi~l.d like to
change ttie uae. He stated they wish to improve the station with new tanY.~, a
median island, driveways, etc. and Al~o, the addition of a convErnience store.
He presented petitions siyned t~y over 150 people in favor of the request and
stated almost all the siynatures are from people within that customer base.
He stated because of the cacwash facilities, some people ~pend more time than
normal on the premises detailing their car and they have Asked far certain
goods wt~ich they wish to purchase.
t4t. DeFriea stated he knows the CommiASion ia nat in fav~r of beer and wine in
convenience markets; however, bpcause this ia a neighbor;~ood oriented station,
he felt it wauld be more appropriate. He stated the associated sales with
bee~ and wine, in addition to the sale of beer and wine, makes Up about 18 to
208 of the total sales. He statEd not many peoE~le walk ta purchase becr and
wine and there are several places to purchase beer and wine in that
neighborhood, including the drive-through dairy on State College. Eie stated
there was a market aC 211 S. State College, Frank's Uriental Market, which had
a beer and wine license, so this is not a unique situation. He added in
surveys they have done in A.M. - P.M. Markets on Fcidays from 2:00 p.m. to
8:00 p.m., people have purchased beer and wine, but have nevet opened them on
the premises. He stated he i3 an attorney and has defended a numbec of drunk
dciving cases, but never one whece the defendant had purchased the beer and
wine at a convenience storej and that the first place was usually a bar, the
second a restaurant and the third, a party or some social funetion and the
last was a sporting event. eie stated the dealet has been at that site fox 10
years and started as an employee, shift manager, then station manager, ~nd at
the beginning of this year purchased the station. He stated the use has been
there for rtiany yeara without incident and they have tried to be a qood
neighbor. He stated the whole area has been upgraded and the secvice station
has a record of good management.
Chairman Herbst returned to tne meeting.
6/24/85
~
MINUTES.,ANAHBIM CITY PI~ANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 24~ 1985 d5-342
Mcs. Yatteraon stated c~hp lives directly behind where thP liquor atore will be
located and At~e tiaa had experience before with the other market with t,eer
bottles and cans in the altey and that the ~atrane did come back in the alley
which ie ciirecrly into her garaye and they wauld atand around drinkinq beer,
smoking cigarettes and talking in front of her garage and she has had problema
with grafEiti on her yaruge dooc and felt bnother liquor atore would creAte
the same type problPms. She steted a~othec liquor atore is not needed because
there are several in that aren now and etAted she khought beer and wine should
not be cold a~ a service because of drunY, drivers.
Ray Case, 'lA3 Beechwood Avenue, Anaheim, stated hie has several complain~s and
one is the houra af operation since it is propoaed to be a 24-hour facility.
F~ stated the Environmental Impact Repor~ atatus states there are no impac"~
and hc strongly disagrees with that because he tias picked up beer and winF
bottles in hie yaCd. He added also khere is a lot more congeation along the
street, especially when Angelo's is in a~~eration, and he disagreed with the
request because other convenience outlets have u lot oE loitering by youths
and possibly undesirables and there have been a lot ot i~cidences oE Eist
figt~ts, etc. in front of these 24-tiour Eacilities. He ~tated pxtra tra~h can
be generated ~~nd that waa over;ooked in the Enviconmental Im~act Report
analysis. He stated there will be {~roblems witl~ noise and also tie tias liaed
there for 7 years and would not appreciate them being open 24 hours : day,
pum~ing gaaoline, etc. Fie stal:ed the cooler size is proposed to b~. 12fi square
feet and thought that i.s a lacge cooler which indicates they will be trying
very stcongly to sell a lol of l,eer and winc. tie added standing on the corner
of Lincoln and State '.~llege, a pecson can s.~~: a liquor store across the
Etceet, so he did not think another facility ^..~~i~ as this is needed.
Mr. Ue['[ies sCated thece was parking in the rear of the former markel and
people would park there creating a problem. He staled the sale of bee[ and
wine has hour limitations set Eorth by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
and the app~icant would have to keep tt~ose rules, ~a they would not be se).ting
beer and wine 24 iiours a day. He added the goods that would be sold through
the convenience atore would be sold through a transaction drawer ~ecause the
front daors would be closed for securitY pucposes at about midnigh~. He added
the cooler would be f.or other types of drinks, in addition to the beer and
wine. He added thare are u lot of people using the bus stop in front of this
station and Lhey would expect to attract some of those patrons to purchase
cnld drinks, etc. He staCed there is not a school close to this facility with
Lincoln Elementary being about a quarter of a mile away.
THE PUBLIC H~1~RING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Mcb~rney asked iE the station would be improved without the
convenience market and Mc. DeFries ceapondeci it would not. Chairman Herbst
asked if it would be imptoved if the convenience market was allowed without
the sale of beec and win~ and Mr. DeFCies responde~ they probably :~ould not
spend the money.
Chairman Herbst stated the Commission has voted against all these type
requests foc beer and wine sales in service stations and this petitioner's
arguments have nok chang~@ his mind that they should be altowed. He added
there ha~ been some intecest throughout Californi,a in getting some sort of
6/24/85
MxNU7'F.S, ANAHEIM CITY P~ANNING CO_ MMISb'tON~ JUNE 24R 1985 85-343_
lAw paseed that beer and wine would not be sold through service skationa
bvcausa it is a known kact that when beec and wine is made conv~nient, it i~
bought on impulee and contributes ko the drunk drivina problem. He added he
would conaider a convenience market at this locatian, but not the salp oE beer
and winev
Mr. lleNcies adde.d that they hove air and water at the statian and re6ponded to
Commissioner Buehore that the percentage of profit from the beer and wine
sales and as~ociated aales would be Approxfmately 18 to 25t.
Commisaiuner 5ushore at~ted he is glpd the petitionec has finally said the
actual amour~t oC profil expected bPcauae many petitioners have indicated they
expected it to be much lesa. He stated the Comrt~ission is nat trying to
dictate morals, but really feel they are cherged with the public's safety ~nd
~e~l it bec~meA too c~nvenient.
Mr.. UeFries stated he has def~nded drunk drivers who got drunk at Anaheim
Stadium.
ACTION: Commisaioner aush~~re oEfered a motion, seconded by Commissioner King
an~ MOTIUN CARRIBD (Commiaeioners Fry and La Claire abaent) that the Anaheim
City Planning Commiss~on h~s reviewed the proposal to construct a ~onvenience
market with on-sa1.e beer and wine in conjunction with an existing service
stdtion and cac wash located on an irregularly-shaped paccel of land
consistiny of appc~x~makely 0.72 acre located at the southwest corner uf
Lincoln Avenue and State College Boulevard and furtt~er described as 201 S.
State College aoulevard (Shell Service Station and Carwash); and does heteby
approve the Neyative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the
Neyative Ueclaration together with any comments received during the publfc
review ~rocess and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any
comments ceceived that there is no substantiat evi~~nce that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner Bushore affered Resolution No. PC85-159 ~nd moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commiasion does hereby deny
Conditional Use Permit No. 2693 on the basis that the sale of beer and wi.ne in
c~njunction with yasoline sales could contribute to drunk driving problems and
adversely affect the public's health and safety.
Chairman Herbst stated he would add that lhere is a shopping center dicectty
across the street wikh adequate apportunity to purchase beec and wir~e and
there is no need for a conveniQnce market at this location.
On roll cal.l, the foregoing resolution was passed by the fol~owing vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, HERBST, KING, MC aURN~Y
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: FRY, LA CLAIRE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Fttorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commiseion's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
6/24/85
MINUT~S. ANANEIM CITX pLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 24, 1985 85-344
kEC~SS: 3:Oa ~.m.
RECUNVENED: 3:13 p.m.
TH~ FOLGUWING IT~M WAS IiEARD AT THE BBGINNING OF TH~ MEETING.
ITEM N0. 7. EIR NEGATIVE DECI,ARATION, WAIV~R OF COA~ RELUIR~;MENT AND
CONOITIUNAL USE PERMIT N0. 2700 ~
PUdLIC HEARING. OWNERS: KENNETN W. AND DAWN L. MATNEY, 1380 Knoltwood
Ci[cle, Anaheim, CA 928U1. AG~NT; CHARLFS STEIN, 2231 Viata Huert~, Newport
Beach, CA 92G60. Property de~cribed as an ircegularly-ahaped parcel oE land
cansisting of approximately 2.14 acres, 1380 Knoliwood Circle (Inteccem).
2'o retain the manufacturiny and ~torage of liquid and powder chemicals,
including petroleum and petroleum based products with waivFr of minimum number
of parking spacea.
ACTION; Commissioner ~~uas offered a motion, seconded by CommiESioner Ki.ng
and MUTION CARRIED (Commissioners Fry ~~nd I,a Clafce a~sent) that consideratton
of the aforementioned matter be continued to the reyularly-scheduled meeting
of July 22, 1965, at the cey~est of khe staff in order for the petitioner to
submit additional infUrm~tion pertaining to the type of raw materials stored
and handled on subject property.
ITEM N0. B. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3489
PUBLTC HEARINC. UWNERS: MARY F.. KIRK, 623 5. Emily Street, Ana~eim, CA
92805. AGEN'P: BOB LISKEY, 10802 Jean 5treet, Anaheim, CA 92804. Property
described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appcoximately
5,564 aquare feet, 623 South Emily Street.
Waivers ot maxitnum cear yacd ~overage, rt~inimum side yard setback and minimum
rear yard setback to construct an attar.hpd addition to a sinyle-family
residence.
Ther.e was no one indicating their Qresence in opposition ta sub~ect request
and allhough the stafF reQorC was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Bob Liskey, agenk, was present to answer any questions.
THE PUBLIC H~AFtIN~ WAS CLOSED~
Responding to Chaicman Hecbst, Mr. Liskey explained the garaqe will be
attached to the house. Eie explained to Commissianer Bushore there are two
doora planned to the ou~side fron the roo~ addition and the stairs shown are
simply to get dawn to the grade level. He explained the lady who livQs there
is 72 years old and wants to have access to her laundry facilities which is
one of the reasons for the a~dition.
ACTION; Cnmmissioner King ~~~'fered a moti4n, seconded by Commissione~ McBurney
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissiuners Fry and La Claire absent) that the .Anaheim
City Planning Commission has reviewed thQ proposal to construct an attached
6/24/85
95-345
MINUT~3 ANAHBIM CITY PLANNING C~MMI~SION JUNE 24 1985
addition to a single-~am~ly residence with w~ivere of mAximum reec yerd
coverage~ minimum aide yerd aetback and minimu~n rear yatd eetbeck on A
rectenyutarly-ehaped parcel of •~nd con$istLng of Approximately 5500 square
feet and furL•her dQSCribed ea 6~? 5. ~rnily Street~ and ~oea hereby a~Frove the
Neyative Da .eratiun upon finding thmt iG has considecad the NegaCive
DeclaKatiun togerher with eny commenta received ducing the public review
pcaceas and~~u~hece isnnonsubstantial~evidenceethatFthe ~rojectnwillYhavemant.a
received th
signiticant effecC on the environrt~ent.
Commissi.onec hing ofLeced Resotution No. PC85-16U and moved for its paesage
and adoption thnt the Anatieim City Planning Commisaion doea hereby grant
Varit~nce No. 348y un the baeis that there are ap~~~-ia1 circumstanceo applicable
to the pcopecty ~uch na sfze~ ahape, topography, location a~d aurroundings
which do not apply l:o other identiaally zonod property in the same vicini.tys
and that strict application of the Zoniny Code deprives t~he property of
privilpgea enjoycd by other propertie:. in the identical zone and
c.lassific:ation in th~ vicinity and su~ject to IntEraepartmental Committee
recommendations.
Commissi~ner Bushore asked if che pco[~erty ~vr~ec lives alone on subjeet
property. Mr. Lipskey responded she does At the pre3ent time, but tho~ght a
frienci would be moving in with her. Com~rissioner Bushore stated he would
op~o~e the pro~ect. Commissioner Bouag asked if the addition could be rent~~
out as a unit later. Mr. Lipskey stated it c.~n not be sepacated because the
wall between the den and khe room addition will be cemoved. Commi~ssioner
Bushore indicated he would supPort the request i[ the appco~'al i8 tied to the
plans as submitted with that wall removed.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: 8UUA5, BUSHOR6, HER85T, KING, MC BUANEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: FRY, LA CLAIRE
Malculm SlaughtEr, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written cight to appeal
~r~ the Planning Commission's decision wiLhin 22 days to thc City Counctl.
ITEM N0. 9. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3490
PUBLIC H~ARING. UWNER~: PACE/SET7'ER PRODUCTS, INC., 1441 N. Baxter Street,
Anaheim, CA 92806 and AUGUSTINE L. NIETO, c/o ANTHONBY RUSSELI., 4631 Telter,
Suite 140, Newpoct Beach, CA 92660. AGENT: JORDAN ARCHITECTS, 22Q1 Mactin
Street, Suite 2U1, Icvine, CA 927Y5, ATTN: AERIAL L. VALLI. Propecoximatel
desccibed as an ircegulArly-Ahaped parcel of land consisting of app Y
2.8 acres located at the southw~st co:~~er of Via Button and Baxter Street,
1401-14A~ Baxcer Street.
Waivers of minimum numbec of packing spaces, maximum b~iilding height and
minimum structural setback to construct a public mini-storage facility and
on-site caretaker's cesidence.
6,'24/85
MINUT~SR ANAHEIM CITY PLA~NING COMMISSIUN, JUN~ 24, 1985 Q5-34S
addition t~o a sing le-Lami ly residence witl~ waivera of maximum reer yard
coverage, minimum side yard setback and minimum renr yard aetback on a
rectengule-rly-ahap~d paccel af tand consieting of approxi.mately ti500 sc~uarr
feet and fucthec d~acribed as 623 S. Emily Streetl and doeo hereby approve the
NeyAtive Declaration upon finding that it haa coneidered the Negative
~eclarotion together with ony comments ceceived during the publi.c review
pcacess and further finding nn the basi~ of the Initial Study and Any commEnta
cec~ived that there ia no aubetantial evidence that the project will have a
signiYlcan' effeat on the envi.ronment.
Commiesianer King oCEe4ed Resolution No. PC85-160 and moved tnc i.ts passage
and adoption that the Ana~heim City ~lanning Commission does hereby grant
Variance No. 3489 on khe hasis th~t there are apecial circumRtances applicable
to the propprty such as size, ahrpe, topography, lucation and surroundings
which da not apply l•o other identically zoned pcoperty in tt~e same vicinityt
and khat strict Application oE the Zoning Code depri.ves the property of
pcivileges en joyed by other proparties in the identical zore ~-nd
clasaification in the vicir~ity and aubject to interdepartmental Committee
recomrnendaL•ions.
Commiasi.or.er Bushore asked iE the proE.~erty owner lives alone on subJect
; ror~rty. Mr. Lipskey responded she does at the pceaent time, but thought ra
friend would be moving in with her. Cc,mmiseioner Bueh~re atated he w~uld
opposa the project. Commissioner Bouas asked if the Addition could be rente~3
out as a unit later. Mr. Lip~key stated it can not be ~eparated because the
wall betwee~ the den and the room additi.on will be removed. Com~nissioner
eushore indicated he would sup~ort the requeat if the approval is tied to the
plans as submitted with that wall removed.
On rull ~all, the Eoreyoing resolution was p~ssed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BU8f10RE, HERdST, KING, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: FRY, LA CGAIRE
Malcolm 5laughter, peputy City AttocnPy, pcesented the written right ta appeal
the Planning ~ommiseion'a decision wit ~i.n 22 days to the city Council.
ITEM N0. 9. EIR NEGATZi~E DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3490
F~UBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: PACE/SETTER PRODUCTS, INC., 144~1 N. Baxter Street,
Anaheim, CA 92806 and AUGUSTINE L. NIETO, c/o ANTHONEY RUSSELL, 4631 Te11er,
Suite 140, Newport Beach, CA 92660. AGENT: JORDAN ARCHITECTS, 2201 Martin
Street, 5uite 20I, Irvine, CA 9~715, ATTN: AERIAL L. VALLI. Property
descciped as an irregulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately
2.8 acres lo~at~d at the southwest corner ~f Via Burton and BAxter Street,
1401-14A1 Baxter Street.
Waivers of minimum n~~mber of parking spaces, maximum building height and
minimum structural setback to construct a public mini-storage facility and
on-site caretaker's residence.
6/24/85
i.4:
MINU'~ES, ANAtIGIM CITY PL~NNING CUMMISSION, JUNG 20, 1985 85-345
a~diCion t~~ a aingle-family reaidence with weivera of maximum rear yard
coverage, !.iinimum side yard setbsck and minimum rF~r yerd setback on a
rectengularlx-ahaped paccel of lend consieting o~ a~pcoximately 550U aquacc•
feet and Eucthet described as 623 S. Emily Stceetj and d~es hereby a~.pcove the
Negative Oecldcetian up~n Einding thak .it h~a considered the NQgative
Ueclar~tion togeL•her wfth any comments received during the public review
proceas and fucthe~ Linding on the besis oE the Initial Study and any comments
ceceived that ther.e is no substantial evidence that the project will hove a
significant erfect on the environment.
Cot~miasioner King otfered Resolution No. PC85-160 and moued for its passage
and adoption that :he Ar~aheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Variance No. 3489 on the basis that there are special circumstence~ applicable
to the property such as size, shape, topogcaphy, location an~ surroundings
which do not apply to other. identically zoned propecty in ~he ~ame vicinityt
and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the properLy of
privilEgea enjciy~d by other properties in the identical zone and
c1~GSifical•ion in the vicinity and aubject to Interde~artmental Com~itt~e
re~ommendations.
Commiasioner eushore asked if th~e property owner lives alone on subjECt
~ropecty. Mr. Lipskey responded she does at the pcesent ti~~e, but thouoht a
friend would be movfng in wi~h hec. Commissioner Buehore stated he w~utd
oppose the praject. Commi~;:,;^ner Bauas asked if the addition could be rented
out as a unit latec. Mr. L~~ ~~:~, stated it can nat be sepacated because the
wall between the den ~nd the ro~.n addition wi.l be removed. Commissioner
Bushoce indicated he would support the request if the approval is tied to the
plans as aubmitted with that wall removed.
On roll call, the furegaing resolution was passed by the f~llowing vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ BUSHORE, HERBST, KING, MC BURNEY
NOES: ~ONF
ABSENT: FkY, LA CLAIRE
Malcolm Slsughter, Geputy City Attocney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planninq Cnmmission's decision within ~2 days to the City Council.
IT~M N0. 9. EIR tJEGATIVE DBCLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3490
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: PACE/SETTER PRODUCTS, INC., 14~1 N. Baxtec Street,
Anaheim, CA 92806 and AUGUSTTNE L. NIETO, c/n ANTHONEY RUSS£LL, 4631 Teller,
Suite 140, Newp~rt 8each, CA 92660. AGENT: JORDAN ARCHITECTS, 22C,1 Martin
Street, Suite 201, Irvine, CA 92715, ATTN: AERIAL L. VALLI. Ptoper.ty
desccibed as an irregularly-shaped parcel of iand consisting of a~a~roximately
2.8 acrea located at the southwest corner of Via Burton and eaxter Street,
1401-1441 Baxtec Stteet.
Waivers of minimum number of pArking spaces, maximum building height and
minirnum structural setback to construct a public mini-storage facility and
on-site careteker's residence.
6/24/85
~ 4
MINUTES ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISS ZON JUNE 24 1985 85-346
AC_ TIpN; Commiaaio~ec Boues offeced a mution, aeconded by Commissioner King
and MOTION CARRIEp (Commi~eionere Fry and L~ Cldire ebsent) thet subject
petition be withdrawn at etaff's cequ e st in order foc the ~etitionet to make
application for a conditional use per mit in complience with DraEt Ord~nAnce
Section 18.61.050.433.
ITEM N0. lU. EIR NEGAmIVE__DECLARATIUN ANU VARIANCB N0. 3a92
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNGRS: ROY M. KUYANO, 1471-1/2 Allison Avenue, Los Angeles,
CA 9UU26. AGENT: ALCOM INC., 800 S. B[ookhucat Street, Anaheim, CA 92604,
AT9'N: MARCE KATU. pr~oximatelyc0ia 3 dactea 3423&WestaOrangeaAven~ercel of
land cansiating of app
W~ivet of maximum building height t~ conatruct a 2-etory 10-unit apartment
complex.
There was no one indicating their pr e sence in oppooltion to aubject request
and although the staff report was no t rQad, it ia reEerred to and made a part
of the minukes.
Ken Nishimoto, 732 N. I.ake Ave,7ue, Pasaden~, agPnt, explained the plans are
currently being checked by the Build ing Department. He st~ted the first units
would be lower with the majority of the unitn t~.viny tuck-under packing 508
below grade.
Doug Stevens, 3411 Otange, stated h e owns the 8-unit apartment complex
directly ea8t of subjeck property wh ich ia ~e~co~ect next dooriwil~obe an
apartments with patios and felt this 2-story p j
invasion of their privacy. He state d he discussed this with the developec and
Eelt the matter can be resolved by c oacdinating the f encing between the two
properties. He added because of th e subterranean parking a~d the 2-atory
building, there will be an 8-foot d ifEerence between subject property and hia
propecty.
Mr. Nishimoto stated he has diacuss ed L-his problem with Mr. Stevena and is
willing to work with him in anyway possible to create a very aesthetic
walkwayt that tt~ere is a public wa llcwa~ next to hie property and a 6-foot
fence on their sid~ and there is a 14-to 15-foot setback from his property
line to the face of the proposEd b u ilding. He stated they could work out
something attractive for both side s and the proposed project wil~ not have any
outdoor staics, balconies or exter i or areas ~acing where anyone could
congregate and be able to look int o the adjacent property.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner McBurney asked for clarificar.fon regarding thE a~vertised
waiver. Kendra Morxies responded t he waiver was advertised correctlyt
howevet, the location map with the etaff report is not correct in that the
thicd property ta the east of the s outheast corner of Orange and Knott is
incocrectly labeled and is proper ly zaned RS-A-43,000 and th~e height waiver
pertains to that property.
6/24/85
MINUT~S, ANAtiEIM CITY PLAtJNYNG CUMMISSION, JUNE 241 1985 85-347
Commissioner Buahore atated khere is ~ 22-dAy appeal period ~nd thought it ia
possible that City C~unci.l would aet this for a public hParing and approvat
could ectu~lly teke b Co 7 more weeke end asked if khat ia when they pl~nned
to begin clearing the aite for new conatruction.
Kendca Morxies stated the Codo Enforcement Officera probably geve this
propecl•y owner a riotice of viulation rethr,r than a citation. Marge Kato,
broker and agent foc the propecty owners, stated th~ petitioner owne the
property and is able to do whatNVet is necesAary to take care of the existing
conditiona properly and ~iot wait for approval to begin consLructi~n. She
etated ahe wss the developer for a project called •Normandy Villas" at 705 S.
Velarer e~st of Magnolia and aouth oE Orange and this will be a se~arate
project. Commissioner ~u~hore stat~d he wants the exisking pcoblema taken
care af and Ms. Kato responde~ they will tak~: care oE it aR soon as possible.
Commissi~nec aouas asked w~at yuarantee there woiild be, if thi~ is approved,
that the two propecty owners would work out a satisfactory solution to the
problem. Mr. Stevens stated he was suxe ~omething could be worked o~t and
chairman Herbst sCated the Commission will need to know what exactly ia going
to be done.
Mr. Niehimoka responded that a 6-foot woll wuuld ~e adequate for the
pede3trian traffic, but there is no wall high enough to reasonably screen the
view from the upstairs bedr~om windows. Ne added ther.e are b~lconies or
recreational aceas upsteirs and the adjacent property's 6-foot fence would be
1 feet. above the grade of the patios of the proposed projec~ which means an
8-foot fence immediately adja~ent to the apartments.
Chairman Herbst stated the Code requires a 6-foot wall measured from the
highest grade.
Mr. Stevens stated thpy are gradin9 their property 2 feet and he is objecting
to the B-foot fence on his side because it Would be right next to the patias.
He stated he wants a reyuicement that the developer work with him to work out
an acceptable fence.
Kendra Morries stated no block wa11s are reyuired adjacent to the property
line. Commissioner Hushore asked why the grade would have to be 2 feel
lower. Kendra Morriea stated the finishEd grade do~s not have to be 2 feet
lower, but the parking structure has to be at least 50i below the fini~hed
grade.
Mr. Nishim~to stated the parking areas will be about 4-1/2 feet below the
natural grade of the property and explAined they have planned to grade the
property 2 Eeet in order. to get a more reasonable staicway sp there would only
be a 30-inch diEference in grade to the uni*_s. He stated they Eelt aince tnat
was not a problem on the Velere 5treet proFerty and that it was not an
eyesore, that it would be acceptable on thia project; however, they are
proposi.ng to provide some sort of conbination type fence oc wall that would be
more attractive than a straiyht bl;~ck ~ell or wooden fence. It was clarified
that there was a single-family residence on one side of the Velare Street
pro~ect and apactments on the other side.
6/24/85
~INUTES~ ANAN~IM CITY PLANNING CUMMI3SION1 JUNE 24, 1985 __ 85-~40
Commissioner Mceurney auggesated the ataff work ouk a solution thAt would mako
both parties heppy. Chairman Herbsr. sugg~sted some a~ct ok touvering-tYpe
devices on Lhe windowa which could not be seen thrcugh.
C~mmiasioner Bushore stuted he did not think the concecns are the ~ame when
there are apartmpnts adj~cenk to each other, but an 8-Eoot wall would be A
detciment to the rental of the adjucent apArtment unitat however, he did not
think the bedroorn windows ace an issue at all. Commissioner Bouas stated the
develo~er is planning to raise the grade ~f the property and that does not
have to be done.
Ms. Kato stated the V~lare Stceet pro~ect was the same situation, with a block
wall adjacent to the existing ppartmer~t complex and the owners were nut
concerned with thatt however, they have indicated the wall is not a detriment
to th~m in the rentAl oP their unita. She stated they will now be adjacent to
an improved property wh~ch will be a brand n~w complex with ground level
~atios and garden area~ and ahe did not Lhink the fence would be a detciment
ttiat would hurt his ~usiness in a tenancy situation. Commi~sinner Bushoce
stated he d~sagree~ and thought the rAised pro~ecty next door woul~l be a
detciment and suggested a two-week continuance to work out a solution. He
stated a vaciance ig requected and khe parking has to be 508 below grade, but
they would lose a lot withaut ap~roval of th~a varinnce.
Chairman Hetbst fiuqgested continuing the matter for two weeka ao the pcoblem
can be resotved.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
McHurney and MUTION CARRIBD (Commissi~ners Pry and La Claire absent) that
consideration of tt~e aforementioned matter be conkinue~ to the
reuularly-scheduled meetiny of July 8, 1985, in ordec foc the developer to
work out the tence prublemg with the adjacent property ownec.
Mr. Nishimoto stated the plans are being checked and he thought they are ready
for buil~ing permits to be i~sued and it was pninted out the permits can not
be issued until the variance has been approved and then there would be a
22-day appeal period.
ITEM NO. 11. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3A93
PUBLIC HEA~ING. UWNERS: BRADMORE REALTY INVESTM~NT COMPANX, LTD., 721 Santa
Monica Boul~vard, Santa Monica, CA 9040~. AG~NT: ASSOCIATED TECHNICAL
COLL~GE, 1101 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, ATTN: GEOEFRY
MIDALETON. Property desccibed as an ircegularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of apptoximarely '1.72 acres, 270 East Palais Road.
Waivec of minimum number of parking spaces to establish an industrial
vocational school.
There was no one indicating tiheir presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Jeff Middleton~ 1101 Anahei~ Boulevard, was present to answer any questions.
6/24/85
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CiTY PLANNING CUMMISSIONj, JUNE 24. 1985 ____8~-349
TH~ PUHLx~ HkARING WAS CLUSEU.
AC7'ION: Commiseio~er King offere~ a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas
and MOTION CAARIED (Commissioners Fry end Ga Clotce absent) that the Anaheim
City Planning Cammiesion has reviewed khe propoaal to establiah an induatclal
vocational school with waiver of minimum number of ~Arking spaces on an
irreyulACly-shaped ~~xcel of land cansiating of approximately 2.72 acres,
having a fr~ntage of approximat~ly 36 feet on Che south aide of Pelais Road
bnd further desc[ibed as 270 ~ast Palais Roadt and does hereby approve the
Negative Ueclaration upon Einding that it has consi.~ered the Negative
Declaration together with any comments received ducing the puhlic review
process and further Einding on the basi~ of the Initial Study and any commenta
ceceived tha~ there is no aubstant:al evidence that the project will have a
significant efFect on the environmsnt.
Commisoioner King of.Eered Kesolution No. PC85•-161 and moved for its pASSage
a.nd adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission do~s hereby grant
V~riance No. 3493 on the basiA that the parking waiver will not cause an
increase in traffic cungeQtion in th~ immediate vicinity nor adversely affect
any ad~oining l~nd uses and granting of the packing waiver under the
conditions imposed, if any, will not bp detrimental to the peace, health,
safety and general welfare of the cirizens of the City of Anaheim arid subject
to Int.erdepartmental Commi~tee recommen~lations.
Un roll call, the Eoregoiny ceaolution was passe~ by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, HERBST, KING, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: FRY~ LA CLAIRE
Ma.lcolm Slauyhter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the wr.itten rigt-t to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision witi~in 22 days to the City Ccuncil.
ITEM N0. 12. EIk NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SPECIMRN TREE R6MOVAL N0. 85-06
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNCRS: YOSHIO KINJO, 1A40 N. Harboc Boulevard, l400,
Fullert:on, CA 92635. AGENT: KIYOTUKI AS~OCIATES, 17748 Sky Pack Boulevard,
~-165, Irvine, CA 92714. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of
lanci consisting of approximately 0.95 acre, 241 South Peralta Hills urive.
Request for approval foc the removal of four (4) Eucalyptus trees to
facilitate construction of a aingle-family residence and tennis court.
There was no one indicating theic presence in opposition to subject request
ar.d although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a pact
of the minutes.
John 5himo, architect, was present to answer any questions.
Tii~ PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
6/2~/85
MINUTES, ANAN~IM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSTON, JUNE ~4, 1985 85-349
THE PUBLIC NkARING WAS CLOSED.
ACTION: Commissioner Kin~ ofEered a motion, seconded by Commiasioner Bouae
AnC MOZ'ION C1-RRIED (Commissionera Fry and La Claire absent) that the Anaheim
City Pl~nning Commiseion has reviewed the propos~l to eatabliah An industriel
vocational a~hool with waiver of minimum numbec oE parking space~ on an
irr~gulacly-nhaped parcel of land conaisting of approximrtely 2.72 acres,
haviny a frontage of approximately 36 feet on Che aouth ~.ide ot Palais Road
and L•urther described ~~s 270 East Palaie Road= and does hereby approve the
Ns9Ative Dsclaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative
Ueclaration together wirh any commenta received during the publlc review
process and f~rther finding on the basi~ of the Initial Study and any comments
received that there ia no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner King offesed Resolution No. PC85-161 and moved Cor it~ passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Plannir.y Commisaion r~oes tiereby grant
Vaciance No. 3493 on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an
incteas~ in tca~fic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affeck
any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the
conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental ta the peace, health,
safety and gEneral welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and subject
to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations.
On co11 ca.ll, the foregoiny resolution was pasaed by the following vote:
AYE5: BOUAS, BUSHORE, klERE3ST~ KING~ MC BUkNBY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: FRY~ LA CLAIRE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, pcesented the written riyht to app~al
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM NU. 12. EIR NEGATIVE DECI.ARATION AND SPECIMEN TKEE REMOVAL N0. 85-06
PUBLIC HEARING. UWNERS: YOSHIO KINJO, 144U N. Ha~bor Boulevard, /400,
Fullerton, CA 92635. AGENT: KIYOTOKI ASSOCIATES, 17748 Sky Park Boulevard,
#165, Irvine, CA 92714. Property described as an irregular'ty-shaped paccel ~f
land consisting of approximataly 0.95 acre, 241 South Peralta Hills Drive.
Request for appcoval for the cemoval of four (4) Euealyptus trees to
facilitate constcuction of a single-family residence and tennis court.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to sub~ec~ request
and although Che staff report s+as not xead, it is referred to and made a part
oE the minutes.
John Shimo, archftect, was present to ansaer any questions.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
6/2g/85
85-350
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,_JUNE 2A 1985
A~~~TIpN: Commissionec King otfeced a motion, secondod by Commiseioner aouas
and MUTION CARRI~D (Commisaionera Fcy and La Claire absent) thAt t.he AnAheim
City Flanninq Commissian has reviewed the pcoposal to permit removal of four
(A) ~ucalyptus treea to f~~ilitate constcucti~n of a aingle-family residence
and tennia court on an irregularly-ahaped parc~l aE land coneisting o[
approximately 0.95 acre, having f+ frantage of approximutety 221 feet on the
south aide o£ Peralta Hills Dcive and Lurkhec described ae 241 South Peralta
Hills Drivet and does heceby Approve the Neg~tive Declaration upon findlnq
that it has con~idered the Negative 1)eclnration together w~th any comments
received during the public review procesa and f.urther finding an the basis of
the Initial Study and any comments received that there ia no subatAntial
evidence that the pro~ect will have a significant eEfect on the environment.
Commisaioner King of:fered a motion, seconded by Commiasioner Bouas ~nd MOTION
CARRI~D ~~ommisslc~ner~ Ery and La Claire ~b~ent) thnt the Anaheim City
Planning Commissi~n does hereby ~rant cequeat for removal of Eouc (4)
Eucalyptus L•rees on the baais thut a reasonable and practical development of
the pcoperty on which the tree is locAked requires removal of the tree or
trees whose removal is ~ouyht, and that any apecimen trees removed ahatl be
ceplaced with the planting on the same parcet of an equa.l number of treen from
th~ speciEied list in the Scenic Corridor Overlay zone.
ITEM N0. 13. fIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV. APPROVEDI ANU CONDITIUNAL USE
P~RMIT N0. 1517 (REAUVEKTiSEn)
Katelta
PUBLIC H~ARING NOR EXTENSION OE TI~tE. OWNE:RS: B0~ HOSTBTTER, 1661 W.
Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802. Proge~ty described as a rectangularly-ahaped
parcel of land r.onsiating of approximately 7700 equare feet, located at the
northwest corner of Wilhelmina St~cet and Lemon Street, 703 N. Lemon Street.
Request for a 2-year (1-month retroactive) extension of time or deletion of
Condi,tion No. S of Resolutian t~o. PC75-l0y pertaining to required extensions
of time to retain a board and care facility foc the treatment of. alcoholics.
There was no one indicating th~ir presence in oppoeition to subject r~quest
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Bob Hostptter, 2129 Victoria Avenue, Anaheim, 92804, owner/lessor of subject
property, explained the property is operated by the Colanial Manor, Frank Rose.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Bushore stated he would like to retain a condition requiring a
time extension.
ACTIpN; CommissionPr King offered Resolution N~. PC85-162 and mov~d for its
passag~ and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning C~mmission does hereby
1517 to
gr3nt a two-year exte~~sion of time for Conditfonal Use Permit No.
expire on May 28, 1-87~ on the basis that said permit is being eaeccised in a
manner not detcimental ta the partieulac area and surrounding land uses nor to
the public's peace, health, safeky and general welfare.
6/24/85
~
~.
MINUTES. ANANFIM ~iTY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNE„24. 1985 ,r 85-351
On call call, the foregoing cQeolution was passed by thE followiny vote:
AY~S: BUUAS~ BUuHOkE, NERBST, KING~ MC f3UitNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: FRY, LA CLAIR~:
ITEM NU. 14. REPURTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2465 - Request f[oa; Esther Duffy Kasile,
attorney for pcoperty owner, for i:ermination of Conditional Use Permit
No. 2465, properly locatEd at the souChwest cornec of eall Road and
An~heim eoulevard.
ACTIUN: Comrnissioner hing of~eGed Resolution No. PC85-163 and moved for
its passage and adoption ~~-hat the Anaheim City Planning Commissian daes
hereby terminat:e Conditional Use Permit No. 2465.
On roll call, the for.egoiny ces~lution was pasned by the following vote:
AY~S: BOUAS~ HERBST, KING~ MC BURtJEY
NOES: NONE
Al3SENT: FRY, LA CI,AIRE
AB5TAIN: BUSHORE
H. RECLASSIFICATION N0. s3-84-24 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMI; N0. 2550 -
Request f.rom Richard A. O9lesby, Business Properties llevelopment Co., for
extensions of time for Reclassification Na. 83-84-24 and C~nditional Use
Permit No. 2550, proPerty located at 2400 East Katella Avenue.
ACTIUN: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commiasioner
Bouaa and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Pry and La Claire absent) that
the Anaheim Ci~y Planning Commission does hereby grant one-year
extensions of time for Reclassific~tion No. 83-84-24 and Canditional Use
Permit No. 255U to expire on April 16, 1986.
C. TENTATIVE MAP O~ TRACT N0. 10975 (REV. N0. 2) - Request fram George
~ Mason, Gunston Hall Co., Inc., Eor a one-year extension of time for
~ Tentative Map No. 10975 (Rev. No. 2), property located appcoximately 815
feet southwesterly of the intersection of Nohi Ranch Road and proposed
Stage Coach Road.
ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion, secunded by Commissioner
Bouas and t40TI0N CARRIED (Commiasioners Fxy and La Claire absent) that
the Anaheim City Planning Comm:.ssion does hereby grant a one-yeur
extension o~ time for Tentati~:~ Flap of Tc~et No. 10975 (Revision Nca. 2)
to expire on Rugust 22, 1986.
D. TENTATIVE MAPS OF' TRACT N05 10969, 10970, 10971_, 10972, 10973, 10974,
10976, 10977 (Revision No. 2) - Request from George Mason, Gunston Hall
Co., Inc., €ar one-year extensions of time for Tentative Tract Nos.
10969, 1U97U, 10971, 10972, 10973, 10974, 10976, 10977, property located
southwesterly o£ Nohl Ranch R~ad between the intersection of Nohl Ranch
Road with Canyon Rim Road and Serrano Avenue.
6/24/85
__ _
i
MINUTES. AN NEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS3ION, .lUN6 24, 1985 ! 85-352
ACZ_ ~ION: Commissionec King offered a motion, seconded b; Comm.issioner
Douas and MOTION CARRIED (Commisaionerr~ Fry and La Clair~3 absent) that
the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion does hereby grant on~-year
extensions of time foc Tentative Map of 7~ract Nos. 10969, 10970, 10971,
10972, 1d973, 10974, 10976, ~0977 (Rev. No. 2) to pxpire on Auguot 22,
19d6.
E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 745 - Requeat from Lance J. Walter, The Wa.ite[
Compt~ny, for termination of Conditional Uae Permit No. 745. Pcopecty
located at 1850 S. Harbor Boulevacd (Holiday Inn).
AC'PION: Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC85-164 and moved Ear
its pasaage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does
hereby terminate Conditional Use Permi~ No. 745.
On rUll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the fol~owing vote:
AYES: BpUA5, 3USIi0RE~ HERBST, KING; MC BURtvEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: FRY~ LA Ci.AIRE
F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1055 - Request f[om Nathan Smooke, Smooke b
Sans Inveatment Co., for termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1055,
property located at 620 E. Katella Avenue.
ACTTON: Commissioner King offered Reaolution No. PC85-165 and ~roved for
its passage and adoptfon that khe Anaheim City Planniny Commission daes
hereby terminate Conditional Use Pecmit No. 1055.
On rol~. call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORF,~ HERBST, KING~ MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: FRY~ LA CLAIRE
G. CONDITIONAL USES IN THE ML 20NE - Reque~t for interpretation of the
Zor,ing Code pertaining to conditianal uses in the ML (Industrial,
Limited) Zone.
Annika SantalAhti, Assistant Director for Zoning, explained correcti4ns
should be made to the staff report Page 14-G (1), Pa~agraph 4 deleting
the last sentence and Par~graph 14-G (4), the second paragraph should be
del~ted and the next to the last paragraph should also be de.l~ted.
.ia~es Young, Santa Fe Pacific Realty, property owner of property on Lewis
Street approxim~tely 1,000 feet norith of Katella, explained their request
is for an interprekation of institutional uses in the Coc2ej that they
have a proposal fco~n the County of Orange to locate a facility on theic
property to provide speciali2ed juvenile services inc.luding adoption,
dependent child care, licensing and monitoring of
6~24/85
85-353
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION~ JUNE 24, 19~5
foster day care homes end monitoring child abuae preventive program.
He atated the facili~y would be nbaut 36,000 square Eeet to 4U,000
aquate feet and would be designed to look eitnilar to a reaearch and
development industtial ty~~~ building (1-~tory cor~crete tilt-up w~th
windows) and would like to know whether or not this uae would fall
under the Planning Commi~sion's intPrpretation in the ML Zo~~e as
outlined in Section 18.61.050.230 pertaining to inatitutional uaes
(but nat limited to honpikale- convalNSCent homes, re~t homes,
eanitariums and inatitutions foc the confinement and/or treatment of
atcaholics and/or the mentally ill).
Chairm~n Herbst stated in h~a opinion the use does not aerve the
indusdeviationsufrom/that listhbecauaeiit,i~ a~tranaition~leac~eap
been
Commissioner Buat~ore stated he would not have any objectiona under a
conditional uae permit if it is truly built as an R& D buildiny, but
the concern would be what uses the Commission woutd be asked to allow
after the County ia through with the property in 10 yeats. Efe
refecred to the Salva'cion Army facility in that area and explained
that aite was choaen because af its remoteness. He stated this is a
very little traveled area; however, he did not think too many of
theae type uses should be allowed into t.hat areaatconditional~~~se
ChaiCman Herbst atated they would be requesting
permit and if the lease ia for 10 years, the pecmit could be tied to
tt~nt time limit.
C~~mmissioner Bushare stated the building would be buflt to the
County's specifications. Mr. Young stated because of the size of the
parcel (4+ acres), the building could be udopted to an industriNe
use. He stated when the lease expices, the use woUld expire.
also stated there would not be any other uses o~their clients andcel
and explained they will primarily be c~~unseling
visitations will be spcead out throughout the day.
i4nnika ~ac~h1ofttheXCOaproperty$justpapptovedUC~ntLewisttlandlpointedhe
stireet no
out the location on the map.
Ct~aicman Herbst stated this area is going through a transition to
semi-commeccial uses and he would !ae more lenient because of the
location. Mr. Young stated thece is a signal at the intersect;on of
Lewis and Katella which would help the situation.
Commi~sisn~t auuse~thatawouldhcauseYany pro~lems~forianyone else.USe
and i
Malcolm 5laughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated the Commission i.s
being asked to determine whether this particular use is somethiny
that should be reviewed and approvec~ by a conditional use permit and
if that determination i.a made, it means that anyone with thi8 type
6/24/85
MINUTES ANANEIM CITY PLA.NNING COMMISSIUN JUNE 24 1985 85-354
use in the futuce will be able to come in and apply for a conditiona.l.
use permit in the ML Zone. He atated the Commiasion is not
determining at this point whether or nok thia pa[Ciculac site is
Appropri~tQ.
Chairman ~lerbst etated this particular use does not service the
industrial community, but in that area it might be acceptablet
however, he did not want eo o~en the door to a blanket use,
particularly in the northeast indu~trial area. Mr. Young stated
thece was a similac approval for the State nf California Employment
Deve~opment at 900 E. Pacificio which was the ML Zone. Commis~ioner
Bushoce akated lhAt use was approved because they would be providiny
job referrals to the industriel ared. He asked if this would be
t.~ken ko the City Council for their interpretation.
Annika 5antalahti stated the matt~c will be on the consent calendar
and this was discussed relating to a General Plan AmendmNnt foc the
entire Area which would take a lxttle bit of time to process and
staff telt there was some vague possibility that CommiPSion might
feel comfortable taking this under the existing CUF aection which
identifies things called .institutional uses which include hospitals,
etc.
Commissioner Bushore stated the Commissian went throuyh this with the
Salvation Army propoaal and one of the tt~ings City Council was
concerned ab~ut was that this would not open 'Pandora's" box with
others cominy in. He stated this could not be c~nRidered as an
industrial use because the Salvation Army Use co~ld have gone in by
right in the industcial zone. Chaicman Herbst Rtated he ha3 no
objection to this use in that area, but ~elt it would just open the
door to ot.her requests in the rest of the industrial areas.
Malcolm Slaughter stated if the Commission's intecpretation of the
Zoning Code is that what thi3 petitioner i~ requesting is permitted
by conditional use pecmit in that 2one, then anyone else that comes
in with the same type use will be authorized to apply for a
conditional use permit in that zone. Annika Santalahti stated right
now the Code reads: 'institutional uses incl~:~ing, but not limited
to, hospitals, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanit~riums and
institutions for the confinement cf alcoholics and/or mentally i.ll."
She added it was clear to staff that the use does not service the
industcial area as defined in the new Code definition. She explained
if Commission goes along with this request today and the peritioner
files for a conditional use pecmit immediately, thi~ matter will be
on L•he ccnsent calendac ~or City Council and the petitioner will be
taking the riak that City Council could lo~k at it and disagree with
what Commission has recommended. She expl~ined the City Council is
ski~ping a meeting so thought it was highly improbable that this
would get to the Council any earliec than normal.
6/24~85
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNlNG COMMI5SI0\ JUNF 24 1~85 85~35~
Comm~asioner Bushore asked how th~ County lacaCed thi8 ~i~e becauee
that uee could, by right, be in severAl different zones because it is
counaeling and a conditionel use permit would not even be required.
Mr. Young stated une oE the County's criteriA wafi that they wbnted to
be vety cloae to theis main County facilitiea ana thie was close.
Chairman Nerbst etated thiE is a prime induatrial site and
Commiaeioner Hushore stated thi~ us~ would be under-utilization of
the site.
Annika Santalahti stated this Nroperty w~~ not included in the
Stadium Assesament Distciet and further explained the acea north af
Katella wa8 raken out of the Assessment DiBtcict by the consultant.
She stated the General P1An Amendment requeaC would bring up that
whole issue of the Assesament Study and whether or not it should be
included, and that is Another reason they did not want to pursue that
avenue.
Malcolm Slauyhtec stated Section 18.02.041 of the Code ptovidea that
basically ~~ there is an ambiguity arisinq concerning the appropriate
cla~sification ~~f a particular us~ within the meaning and intent of
this title- ••••• that it shull be the uuty oE the Planning
Commission to ascertain all pertinent facts and by resolution set
forth its findings and reasons thecefor and i~ approved by the ~ity
Council, thereafter such interpretation ahdll govern• He stated the
point is regardlesc of whatever ia ptirr~arily decided- the Commission
is not speakiny to the interpretati~n govetning $olely khe use
proposed by these ~pPllcanGs, bu~ in the fu:ure- any~ne who proposes
this type of use will be under the same intecpretation,
Chairman Hecbst stated if the Commission decides thia is atlowed
under the institutional use meaning of the Code, it would be allowed
by conditional use permi.t. Malcolm Slaughtet stated the Commission
needs to detecmine thak what these gentlemen ate proposing to da is
specifically permitted by conditional use permit under the section
concernfng institutional uses.
Chairman Herbst stated a resolution should ~e offered if the Planning
Commission considers this particular use as an industrial use.
Commissioner Bushore ~tated he did not see the use as a detriment to
the industrial area, but he did not see the need for it because in
othec zones, it is not regulated by a conditional use permit. He
stated in the commercial zones, a conditional use permit is not
required because the use ia considered pucely counseling, but an
institutional use requires a conditional use permit in any zonE.
6/24/85
MINUTt~:S. ANAHBIM CITY PJ,ANNING GOMMiSSION, JUN~ 24L .985 ~ 85-356
Malcolm 5laugtiter fucthec ~xpl.ained tho yuestion before khe Planning
Commisaion is whether thia specific use oc operation doea, in EACt,
Eoll wil:hin the definition oE Subaection 18.61.U50.230 which refer.s
to 'inatikutiona.l uePS'. He ateted if the C~mmiasion determines that
the use does fall within that definiti~n and the City Council ag[Re~,
the applic4nts or anyone else rnay then a~ply f.or a conditional uAe
permit in the induatrial zone. C~mmissioner Dushore atated he Eelt
the key to the iasue is that thie uae in any other zone does n~t
require a cnnditional usE permitr howevec, the uaea on the liat do
require a conditional use permit ~n other z~~~est and this ie not ~n
institutional use because it c:~uld move into a commercial zone by
right ar.d the other uses rec~uire a conditional use permit no matter
what zone ~hey are in. Mr. Young atuted if they wAnted an ulcoholic
tceatment center they could nubmit a CUP applicetion in thnt zone and
asked how the counaeling difEeca from that type operation. He atated
no one would be confined Lhere.
ACTIUN: Commissioner tlerbst offeced Resolution No. PC85-166 and
moved for its pasaage and ad~~pl•ion tl~at tlie AnNheir~i City Planning
Commis~ion does hereby find tti<~t the specific use for a
•treatment/counaeling center to provide s~ecialized juvenile aervicea
including adoptive services, dependenr. child care, licensing and
monitocing of day eace homes and monitocing child abuse prevention
proyrams' would be interpreked as a use that wuuld fit the cr~tegory
of Subaection 18.61.6150.230 -'ir~stitutional uses including but not
limited t~ hoopitals, convalescent homes, resC homea, sanitarians and
institutions for the confinem~nC and/or treatmen',: of alcoholicg
and/or the mentally ill`.
Commissionec Bushor.e atated he thought whc~n thece is a questionnble
use, the Commission should have the contr~l through the condiCior.Rl
use process and he did not see givinq up a good si~e for this type
use when it could go intu anc.thPr zone by cight.
Chairmr~n ~erbst stated if City Council. sees this as ~n institutional
use, the applicant will t~ave the right to file a conditional use
permit which does not mean the Com,~ission has to app:ove it.
C;~nmissioner Bouas atated the c'ommission agrees this would be a good
area f~r this type use. Commissioner Bushore stated he believea
everyone shoul.d have the right to ask foc a use, but this use could
go into any other zone by right.
Un roll call, the foregoing reaolution was par~sed by the following
vote:
AYES: HERRST, KIHG, MC BURNEY
NOES: BOUAS, 6USHORE
ABS~NT: FRY, LA CLAIRE
Chaicman Hecbst st~ted this item will go on to the City Council on
their consent cal~ndar within 22 days. Annika Santalahtt stated the
applicant should pcobably appear at the City Council he. :~3 when
khis matker daes come up and augge$ted he ~ontact the City Clerk's
Office.
6,/24/85
MINUx~S~ AN~N~IM CITY P~~NNING CQMMISSxUN, JUNB 24~ 1985 85-357
H. TENTATIVE TRACT OP M~P N0. 12147 - Requeet fcom Prado Corporatton and
Salkin Bngineering CorporAtion for approvAl of spec~fic plana.
Property is approximately 5.1 acres locatod on the aAUtheaet side of
Sercano Avenue, approximately 125 feet northeast of the centerline of
Nidden Cenyon Roed.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director i:or 2on~ng, pr.esenked a Ataff
report requesting a~eciEic plen approval in cannection with Tentative
Tract Mnp No~ 12147 and pointed nut Item 6-b of the ataff report
Rhould be corrected to cead that a topographic ~l~~n wes submitked
since they have ~ot yet received appr~vnl of the grading plan Erom
Engineering. She noted thia type I~ous~ has been built in Another
projec~ in Anaheim Nills and it appears to be successful. 5he
referced to Parayraph 12 of the etaff report which indicates there
will be no aidewalka in this project and expleined Engineering has
not yet spproved a sidewalk waiver.
Jay Titus, Office Engineer~ stated standard detAils call for
aidewalks, but they ca~i request 4 sidewalk waiver. Commissioner
Bushore stAted he h~3s no ~roblem with the approval of this plan, but
was concerned because the atorage tank (reservoir) wi11 be covered
and asked if the sellers will be required to tell the buyers of the
property that the tank is L-hece.
Annika Santalahti stated when she questioned the petitioner ab~ut the
locatfon of the tank, the tecminology they used waA that the City has
an easement and that they have an easement to be on top of it.
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated hP recalls that the
City owne the title to the propecty on which the tank is locate~ and
when it was conveyed to the Ci.ty, it was subject to a ceservation in
favor oF tr~e conveyer for the riyht to place the street on top of the
reservoic. He stated the atability of the tar~k ie being looked at in
depth ny the Engineering Dep~rtment at this time to make certain that
the work of grading, etc. is gning to be done in such a manner not to
be detrimental to khe tank.
Commissioner Mceucney srated there will be no houses over the tank.
Commissioner Rushare stated 'ne would like a condition added that the
buyers of the site will be made aware oF the location of the stocage
tank. Jay Titus stated the tank was shown on the tract map, but he
dld not know how mAny buyers uf the pcoperty would understbnd that if
they looked at it. He added he would aseume that would have to be a
part of the Departmenl• of Real Estat~ documents.
ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Co~~nmissioner
8ouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissionere Fry and La Claire absent)
that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve final
specific plans (Exhibits 1 through 12) for Tentative Tract 12147
subject to the approval of the grading plans and specific street
design plans by the City Engineering Department and also subject to
the recommendation tha~ the buyers of the properties will be notified
of the location of the btor~ge tank (reservoir).
6/24/85
85-~ 35_8
MINUTES NI-IiSI CITY PI,ANN NG COMMI85 QN JUNE 24 1985
Mdicolm 5lsughter ateted the Ple~ning Commiseian mdy not impose
additional conditions efter the fi~al tract map phdae and the Council
aen not impose e3ditianel canditiona if they f.ind thet the final map
is in substantial canEormance with the apFraved tcect mep.
AD~JOURNMENT: Commie~lonei McBUrnnd MOTIONdCARRIED fCommi.saionere
Commisaioner King
Fry end Ld Cldite absent) that the meotinq be
adjoutned.
The meeting was ad~ourned at 4:30 p.m.
Res~ectf.ully aubmitted,
~~ ~~
.
Fdith L. H~cris, SecKetacy
Anaheim City Planning Commission
ELH:lm
o120m
6/24/85