Minutes-PC 1988/07/18
Date: July 18, 1988
The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to
order at 10:00 a.m., July 16, 1988, by the Chairwoman in the Council Chambez,
a quorum being present and the Commission reviewed plans of the items on
today's agenda.
RECESS: 11:45 a.m.
RECONVENE: 1:35 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairwoman Bouas
Boydstun, Carusillo, Feldhaus, Herbst, McBuraey, Messe
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Naae
ALSO PRESENT: Anaika Santalahti Zoning Administrator
Joseph W. Fletcher Deputy City Attorney
Debbie Fank Deputy Traffic Engineer
Karen Urmaa Traffic Engineering Department
Greg Hastings Senior Planner
Mary McCloskey Senior Planner
Linda Rips Assistant Planner
Edith Harris Planning Commission Secretary
arENDA POSTING. A complete copy of the Planning Commission agenda was posted
at 10:00 a.m., July 15, 1988, inside the display case located in the foyer of
the Council Chambers, and also is the outside display kiosk.
Published: Anaheim Bulletin - July 8, 1988.
PUBLIC INPUT: Chairwoman Bouas explained at the end of the scheduled
hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak oa items of interest
which are within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission and/or agenda
items.
MINUTES FOR APPROVAL: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED, that the minutes of the meeting of May
9, 1988, be approved as submitted.
0112m 7/18/88
ITEM NO 1 CEQA NF3ATIVE DECLARATION• GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO 240•
Rs;LASSTFICATION NO 87 88 46• VARIANCE NO 3787
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: RUTH MARIE MOUNT (SIGLER), 929 North Citron Street,
Anaheim, CA 92805; DENNIS MONTGOMERY, 931 North Citron Street, Anaheim, CA
92805; BENJAMIN SEDOLLA, MARTHA BEDOLLA AND JESUS JIMNENE2, 937 North Citron
Street, Anaheim, CA 92805; RICHARD M. BREWAAICER AND NANCY JO BREWSARER, 943
North Citron Street, Anaheim, CA 92805; AGENT: THE AMERICAN COMPANIES,
ATTN: BRENT NERGUI2IAN, 18300 Von Barman, Suite 610, Irvine, CA 92715;
LOCATION: 419 931 937 and 943 N Citron Street
Request: RS-10,000 to RM-1200 or a less intense zone, to consider an
amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plaa, proposing a
redesignation from Low-Medium Density Residential to Medium Density
Residential. Waivers of (a) minimum building sire area per dwelling unit, (b)
mazimutn structural height, (c) mazimum site coverage and (d) maximum number of
bachelor units to construct a 1 to 3-story 47-unit affordable apartment
complez.
Continued from the meetings of May 9, 1988, May 23, 1988, and
June 20, 1988.
There were three persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject
request and although the staff report was not read, it is referrev to and made
a part of the minutes.
PRESENTATION: Chairwoman Bouas informed those present is opposition that the
petitioner had requested the petition be xithdrawa and that another project
was planned in the future, and they would be notified of any hearing.
~T~N: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
McBurney and MOTION CARRIED t:'.at the petitioner's request to withdraw
petitions for General Plan Amendment No. 240, Reclassification No. 87-88-46,
and Variance No. 3787, be approved.
Additional Discussion by Opposition:
Darryl Ameat, 923 Fall Place, Anaheim, stated he appreciated that the
applicant had withdrawn this petition and noted that in 1981 the Planning
Commission had adopted a General Plan Amendment in that area which did lay
some quidelinea and he thought it might be helpful to the developer if they
had a sense of this Planning Commission's feelings with respect to that
amendment so that the residents do not have to be constantly returning to
these hearings. He noted there was an expression by the Planning Commission
in 1981 that the property be limited to single-story reaideatial medium
density.
Chairwoman Bouas stated at this time the Commission doea not know what the
developer will be submitting, but the developer is going to start all over,
and the residents will be notified when a new application is brought before
the Planning Commission.
07/18/88
Commissioner Hezbst stated be had some telephone calla from the developer
regarding the project and that be had told the developer emphatically what
this Commission had done in the past. He noted the developer was aware the
previous Planning Commission had adopted the single-story residential
concept. Commissioner Herbst stated he was on that Planning Commission in
1987 and they had to have public hearings, but the developer is aware of the
problem and the Commission would not know whether the plans he submits abide
with the intent of that amendment until they are presented.
I',~EM-NO 2 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION' aart.tsS2FiCATION NO 87-86-53:
VARIANCE 2i0. 3796
ptJBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: HERBERT F. BERGER AND BETTY JEAN BERGER, 2240 W.
Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801; AGENT: HUGO VAZQUEZ, 2240 W. Lincoln
Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801; LOCATZON: }~88 N West Street
Request: RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 or a less intense zone, to construct a
3-story, 12-unit apartment complez with waivers of (a) permitted encroachment
of carport eave, (b) required coverage of parking spaces, and (c) mazimum
structural height.
Continued from the meetings of May 23, 1988 and June 20, 1988.
There were five persona indicating their 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.
~jt~SENTATI ON
Brent Nerquizian stated he is the authorized agent processing this project and
Mr. Vasquez is no longer iavolvod. He stated they had revised the project
from 14 units to 12 two-bedroom, 2-bath units, and are requesting a waiver of
height and as encroachment of part of the carport.
Mr. Nerquizian noted this area is designated on the General Plan for RM-1200;
that they have apartments across the street; and to tho north they have
apartments; and to the east is RS-A-43,000 zoning which has a single-family
residence on it; however, the owner of that property also owns the adjacent
property and both are apartments. He stated that owner intends to develop the
lot with the single-family residence oa it as apartments at some point.
Susan Rocais, 206 South Ohio Street, stated she owned property at 1152 North
West Street, which is the location of the condominiums mentioned on Page 3 of
the staff report, as being directly south of subject property. She noted one
of the waits she owns is directly across Lodge Street and those are one-story
buildings, not two-story or three-.tort'. Ms. Rocsis stated the apartments
referred to as being directly west are also one-story buildings. She noted a
three-story building is a violation of code that has been there since 1955.
She stated she finds the height totally objectionable oa the grounds that most
of the surrounding property consists of one-story buildings sad this project
07/18/88
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. JULY 18. 1988 88-4
would be out of character. She stated there are 62 condominiums there that
are essentially single-family types of properties, and not all of them are
owner-occupied, but the project proposed is objectionable. She stated there
was a document turned in at the last meeting from the tenants stating they
found this project objectionable.
Ms. Rocsis stated she felt the encroachment being asked for is unheard of and
was concerned that the Planning Commission might allow this. Ms. Rocsis noted
that Paqe 5 of the Staff Report states that the on-site vehicular circulation
had been provided by the elimination of four parking spaces and she felt,
although parking does meet code, she wanted to point out that there was
already a congestion problem because of parking on the street. She stated
while the project allows two spaces per unit, it adds to the parking problem
and is really not good for the area. She added she could not understand how
adding 28 or more cars would not affect or have an impact oa traffic in the
area.
Ms. Rocsis stated she lives in a single-family residence and the Commission, a
few years ago, approved a three-story, 24-unit, low-income apartment building
across the street from her which is totally objectionable. She indicated she
keeps the Anaheim Police Department busy just keeping the stereos down, sad
controlling the parking in front of her house; and that she has semi trucks
parking is front of her house, etc. She stated she does not want these same
problems happening to her tenants and the people living aezt to the proposed
project.
Nancy Rirk, 1152 North West Street, stated she lived is the condominiums Ms.
Rocsis was referring to and agreed with her comments. She stated she had
lived there 15 years and was noticing the traffic getting worse oa West
Street, xhich was their main way to get out. She also noted parking xas very
difficult. She stated she believes this area is over built.
Jessie Valencia, 1152 North West Street, stated her complaint was that the
traffic was getting worse sad when visitors come they have a very difficult
time finding a place to park. She also noted there are three to four semi
trucks that park on Weat Street that take up parking spaces.
Pearl Kazarian, 1152 North West Street, stated she owned one of the
condominiums across the street from the project. She stated she could not
understand how anyone could say there would be no impact oa traffic when 12
more units to be built there. She stated she faces West Street where a large
number of cars pass, many speeding sad driving reckleasiy. She also voiced a
strong objection to three stories and did not want the Planning Commission to
grant any more variances.
Delona Smith, 1152 North West Street, facing Lodge Street, said she noted
almost everyone had at least two cars in a family and if they havo a teenager
that would make three cars, so she did not know box they could have that many
people living in the proposed complex and not havo a parking problem. She
stated the idea of a three-story building is her obj~~ctioas.
07/18/88
INUTES ANAHEIM CI
REBUTTAL'
Mr. Nerguizian stated that as far as traffic goes, the City Engineering
Department felt West Street was adequate to accommodate the proposed
development. He stated xhenever you put more units ia, there is some effect;
however, the City feels the street is adequate to accommodate the project.
Mr. Nerguizian stated they meet all parking codes, and that they did have to
decrease their parking spaces to allow a turn-around inside their parking
garage, but in doing so they decreased the number of units from 14 to 12.
Mr. Nerguizian stated the size of the lot allows 13 units to be built on the
property; but to comply with other codes, they reduced the number of units to
meet the recreational open space requirement.
Mr. Nerguizian stated, in regard to the carport encroachment, and the save
encroaching into the side yard, that this is a coraor lot and they were
required to have setbacks oa two sides, and that made it very difficult to
meet all the codes requirements for setbacks.
Mr. Nerguizian indicated they had tried their very best to bring Commission a
project they felt xas not a run-of-the-mill square boz kind of development.
He noted they had put a lot of detail into the moldings and roof structure.
He stated he felt this project would be a benefit to the community. He noted
the majority of objections were traffic, parking, and the height of the
building. He stated in order to develop under the RM-1200 standards, the
height waiver was necessary.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Boydstun noted oa the west side of the plans, it ahoxed the
parking and the two stories, with two windows up at the top. She asked if
this vas decor or if there was a loft. She r+tated this looks like a
four-story building.
Mr. Nerguizian stated as far as he could tell, those windows were cosmetic
only and there is no living area there. He stated he thought that is a vent
shown oa the east elevation. He stated there was no provision in the plans
for any living area or storage in that location.
Commissioner Herbst stated, it does give the appearance of a four-story
building.
Mr. Nerguizian asked if Commission xould like that removed as a condition of
approval.
Commissioner Herbst stated he was concerned about the height. He noted the
peak of the roof is at 35 feet, xhich would be equivalent to four stories.
Commissioner Carusillo asked the applicant if they would consider subterranean
parking is order to reduce it by one story.
0/18/88
Mr. Nerquizian stated because the lot is a side lot, there was not adequate
room to put parking underneath because of the ramp areas required.
Commissioner Messe asked if the height could be dropped at all and Mr.
Nerquizian stated he would then need to take out parking spaces to accommodate
the ramp.
Commissioner Herbst stated from looking at the plans, it appeared that the
bottom section, where the garages are, protrudes out and asked if the overhang
of the top apartments would come out to the property line also.
Mr. Nerquizian responded they did not and referred Commissioners to the site
plan, which showed the outline of the building.
Chairwoman Bouas asked residents of the condominiums at 1152 North West Street
how many parking spaces each co:~dominium had and Ms. Rocsis replied they each
had one. Chairwoman Bouas asked if those were one-bedroom condominiums and
the reply was ao, that they were two-bedroom units. Chairwoman Bouas stated
one of the problems is the the condominiums are creating a parking problem and
to penalize someone, who is meeting the code today by providing more parking
places, is not right. She stated it was not right to say the proposed project
would be creating the problem, when it is the condominiums creatingotect did
problem because they do not have adequate parking; however, that p j
meet the code when they xere constructed, but today a property owner is
required to provide more parking spaces per unit than the old code required.
Chairwoman Bouas stated she was toacerned about the height of the proposed
project and the landscaping. She stated she did not feel the landscaping
plaaa are adequate, and Mr. Nerquizian stated the plans turned in were not
intended to be the landscape plans.
Chairwoman Bouas stated she realized that, but Commission is asking that
landscape plans be submitted when development glans are submitted.
Mr. Herguiziau stated he would be glad to have some landscape plans prepared
and submitted to the Planning Commission. He noted the City has a new
requirement the-_ they submit architectural plane separately and independent of
their preliminary site plans; and at the time that project was presented in a
revised form, that vas not a requirement. He stated they intend to landscape,
as they have oa other projects, but quite a bit more dense than what is shown
here. He stated, they could revise the roof to lower the overall height, but
it would not look as nice and a mansard roof would take away from the
aesthetic look. He noted they are ::t a 28-foot height as far as the top plate
goes and the additional height xas for aesthetic appearance.
Chairwoman Bouas indicated .if someone was living is a one-story house or
condominium and sax this structure across from them, it would seem pretty high.
Commissioner Boydstun asked iE the overhang comes to the property line, and
if that would preclude the applicant's receiving a building permit.
07/18/88
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated ho believed with the typical
construction, there would be a required setback of three feet; that the
applicant would have to meet building code which could be a concrete portion
of the roof, otherwise they would have to set back tL~ree feet by building code
and the zoning code requires that it be set back a little further..
Commissioner Messe asked if this meant that even though Planning Commission
granted the variance, the Building Department might not grant the building
permit; and Mr. Hastings stated that was correct.
Mr. Nerguizian stated he was interested in putting units there, and whatever
was necessary he was willing to do.
Commissioner Boydstun informed Mr. Nerguizian that he would nol: be able to get
building permits if he did not meet their requirements.
Chairwoman Bouas stated she would not be willing to approve this project on
that condition, and she wanted him to have the plans for Commissian to review
including landscape plans, perhaps the applicant would like t•o have a
continuance to see if he could reduce the height and keep .t architecturally
attractive, etc.
Commissioner Messe suggested if the applicant does look at landscape pleas.. he
should pay particular attention to the interior. He noted the central area is
one of the reasons Commission has been asking for landscape pleas.
Commissioner Carusillo asked for suggeatioaa on alternatives for the glazed
pebbleatone look oa the first floor. Mr. Nequizian stated 'hey could put in
cobblestone or tile. Commissioner Carusillo said he wan thinking more in
terms of foliage and asked about live grass. It xaa noted that area would be
on top of the garages.
Mr. Nerguizian stated grass requires heavy watering dad there could be a
problem getting proper drainage, causing it to leak onto the cars below. Ae
stated he would prefer to put landscaping in which would not require heavy
xatering, something that might be in planters. He stated he would like to
have a continuance sad discuss the matter with his landscape architect, who
xauld be better able to tell what should go there.
Mr. Nerguizian asked rhea plans would have to be submitted; and the reply was
Friday. He then asked for a continuance of two reeks in order to bring in
revised glans, including landscaping plans.
Commissioner Herbst also noted on the east side where the patios are, the
patios would be looking into the neighbor's yards and windows and that
bothered him. He stated the privacy of those homes must be protected. He
noted code will allow certain things, but the only ray he would consider a
project something like this favorably is if it met code entirely without
waiver.
07/18/88
~ .'
MINUTES. ANAHEIM PITY PLANNIN!? ~O ISSION. JULY 1.8. 1~_ 88-8
He noted if they meet code entirely applicant would not even have to come
before Commission ezcept for the rezoning RM-1200.
Mr. Nerquizian stated again the property to the east is owned by a landlord
whose interest is is owning apartment buildings, and this owner owned the
property and was renting it to s group whose house 5s physically oa Romneya,
100 some feet north of this proposed project. He stated there is vacant
property behind this project and the owner is axare of the applicant's
intentions to develop the lead in this manner and has not objected, Mr.
Nerquiaian stated they were going to try to make the property so that it does
not sit on a zero lot line and that in doing so, they also hope to comply with
what Commissioner Herbst has asked them to do.
A T N:
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and
MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to
the regularly-scheduled meeting of August 1, 1988, at the request of the
petitioner, in order to redesign the project and prepare landscaping plans.
p~DITIONAL DISCUSSION:
Chairwoman Bouas informed all those present concerning this item, that it
would be continued until August 1, and if they wanted to come back, they
should telephone the Planning Department first to be sure the applicant has
not requested another continuance. She also suggested the applicant might
want to meet with the neighbors so they can see and understand what he is
attempting to do on that property, and discuss the garkinq situation, etc.
She also asked if it is legal for semi trucks to park on Weat Street.
Debbie Faak, Assistant Traffic Engineer, said she believed they sere not
allowed to park during the night, but neighbors would have to call the Police
to come out and cite the trucks.
Chairwoman Bouas stated if there were semi trucks parked oa West Street, xhich
are taking up many parking spaces and creating a problem, the residents should
call the Police Department to report it, and if the Police Would cite these
trucks a few times, they would get the message and atop parking there.
Two unidentified speakers informed the Planning Commission that they had
called the Police Department on several occasions concerning parking and
several other matters, and the police would not come out.
Commissioner Feldhaus informed them they should call the Police and then call
the Mayoras hotline and report it.
Chairwoman Bouas said they should report that the semi trucks are parking on
West Street and Lodge Street, and that this was causing a parking problea.
07/18/88
.~ r~ - ah.tlNG CONLMIcc*nN nJLY 18 1988 88-~
~~.5:~
Commissioner Carusillo stated if this was a continuing problem, he would
recommend they ask to speak directly with the Lieutenant in charge of the
Traffic Division, which may have more impact.
Mr. Nerguizian stated if any of those present in opposition would give him
their names and addresses, he would call them or could give them his address
in case they have further questions.
NO 3 CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATiQN1_rnt. TIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3011
~nrTr HEARING: OWNERS: MADHUBALA RAMESHBHAI PATEL AND ROMESH NAROTTAMBHAI
PATEL, ET AL, ATTENTION: RAMESH N. PATEL, 1914 South Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92805; LOCATION: X14 South naheim Boulevard
Request: To permit a 64-unit motel.
Continued from the meetings of June 6, 1988 and June 20, 1988.
There were no persons indicating their 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.
~TION: (This action was taken at the beginning of the meeting)
Commis~~ioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Cortanissioner McBurney and
MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforemet+tioned matter be continued to
the regt-larly-scheduled meeting of August 29, 1988, at the request ofresentl
petitioner, in order for the petitioner to complete an impact study p Y
being prepared.
vnr aoaTI QN GFNERA.o_PL-~N ~'NDME_27T N0. ~74`2~
ITEM NO 4 CEQA NEG a>JrF N0. 3811
$rrrac¢7FirATION NO 88-89-03: VARI.
attBLIC HEA-RING: _OWNER: LINCOLN PROPERTY, LTD., 4200 Trabuco Road, Suite No.
222, Irvine, CA 92720; AGENT: CHRISTOPHER PIERCE, A. M. HOMES, 4060 Campus
Drive, Suite 250, Newport Beach, CA 92660; LOCATION: ],780 West Lincoln
avenue
Request: Petitioner requests amendment to the Land Use Element of the
General Plan proposing a redesignatioa from the current General Commercial
designation to a Medium Density Residential or Low-Medium Density
Residential designation; CL to RM-1200 or a less intense zone, to
construct a 106-unit apartment complez with waiver of mazimum structural
height.
There was ose person indicating their 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.
07!18!88
~~
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COA'A7ISSION JULY 18 1988 88-10
~SENTATION
Ren Lipinski, President of A. M. Homes, stated his company is is escrow to
acquire this site from the ezistinq landowner, who is present in the
audience, along with other members of this development team.
Mr. Lipinski acted the property is bounded by the Rettle Restaurant and an
ezistiag 2-story apartment oa one side; residential houses on the
southerly portion of the property; residential houses oa part of the
westerly portion of the property and a Ha'Penny Motel on the rest of the
westerly portion of the property. He stated there are two office
buildings located on the property now, one is being used for Control
Data's Training Center.
Mr. Lipinski said the proposed units are mostly one-bedroom and
two-bedrooms, with a small number of bachelor units. He noted they are is
excess of the perking requirements for the site; and it is two-story with
subterranean parking. He stated there will be a pool, exercise room, and
spa; and that the site could accommodate a maximum of 133 units and they
are asking for 106 units.
Mr. Lipinski stated he felt a residential use is more appropriate than a
commercial use and that the ezistiag commercial use is a combination of as
automotive service center and commercial center, where they do some work
on earn and some office buildings and with the residential uses
surrouadiag that property, that is not a compatible use. He also noted
the existing owner of the property, in attemptiaa to make this a
commercial use, found the frontage of the property was too small to do
that adequately. Additionally, he noted with this proposal, they reduce
the traffic by 1/2 - 2/3.
Mr. Lipinski stated they do encroach within the 150 setback on the
southerly portion of their property, which they have attempted to mitigate
by having no balconies, patios or windoxs that overlook the individual
homes. He stated they will have a sin-foot above grade retaining wall
surrouadiag the entire site; and that they had met with five ~f the sir
single-family owners of the adjacent properties, and their comments mere
of total encouragement to go forward with the project. He noted there was
one concern whether the carports that will be abutting the property line
would be noisy; however the carports would be subterranean with a wall
attenuating the noise, and it did not appear there were any objections
from the surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. Liginski referred tp Condition No. 5 which requires that they
terminate ezistinq Conditional Use Permits and soma ezistinq variances on
the property and that inadvertaatly included Conditional Use Permit No.
2956 and he believed they would want that left in. Additionally, he
referred to Condition No. 19, which includes a series of coalitions that
must be met prior to the issuance of building permits, and Condition No.
14 relates to the wall surrounding the property and he would request that
07/18/88
t ;
\J
ES ANAHEIM CITX PLANNIhG COMMISSION JULY 18 1988 ~8-11
condition be moved out of Condition No. 19 and added into Condition t:o.
20. He stated the reason for that is that with today's current financing
market, and with the fear of moratoriums, lenders generally are not giving
loans or allowing the drawing of money out of loans until the building
permits are in hand, and they cannot do anything on the property until the
wall is built, and since they are going subterranean they need the wall,
so moving that condition to Condition No. 20, it would be helpful.
Commissioner Messe noted Mr. Lipinski had indicated a six-foot fence and
yet the plans show a seven and one-half foot fenco.
Mr. Lipinski noted the fence varies on the backside of the property from 6
to 7.6 feet because they have to get a fire rating on that back area and
that is a part of the conditions.
Commissioner Messe asked if that higher wall would require another
variance. Greg Hastings responded a carport is allowed against the
property line.
Mr. Lipinski stated in addition to the 6 to 7-1/2 feet of wall that is
above the property line, there is the wall that is going below the
property line at 4 1/2 feet, so the wall that is going to mitigate the
noise from the cars will be between 10-1/2 feet to almost 12-1/2 feet.
OPPOSITION•
Dolores Smith, 206 South Florette, stated she lives right behind the
carports on the west and they are going to take out two massive trees in
that area and that they have a pool that is 7-1/2 feet from th:i brick wall
and she is concerned about what would happen to the pool when those tree
roots are removed, as well as what will happen with the underground
parking when it rains and drainage is a problem.
SEBUTTAL•
Mr. Lipinski stated he could not answer Ms. Smith's concerns because he
did not know where the root system grows, but he could say the way they
are now, the root system is breaking up the sidewalk and the parking
facility on their property line, so it appears the root system is more on
subject property than the neighbors. He stated in thn event there is a
problem with Ms. Smith's property, he would indemnify her and make sure he
puts her property whole and that they would not damage her property. He
stated he cannot answer her specifically until they take a look at where
that root system is.
Ms. Smith stated she wanted it in the record, so that the Planning
Commission knows that if their property is damaged, it will be repaired.
She noted the trees are a nuisance because the people who own the property
do not maintain them; and the trees are way over aato their property. She
stated she wanted it in writing that their property would be protected,
07/18/88
r
i~INUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18 1988 88-12
and they are concerned that their pool, with an earthquake or somechinq,
might break and qo down into this project's carports and she wanted to
make sure the proposed building is solid.
Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, stated that as a zoning action,
the Commission does not have a lot of jurisdiction over this issue. He
noted there is a whole area of the law on abutting property rights and he
thought ox~.e area Ms. Smith may want to take interest in is the grading
permit that has to be processed as part of the excavation and the type of
pilings that have to be placed adjacent 5o her property to preserve
lateral support. He suggested Ms. Smith contact the Engineering
Department and she might get information oa when the grading permit is
going to be processed.
Mr. Lipinski stated Ms. Smith has a valid concern and that he is willing,
as a condition on this whole thing, to stipulate for her benefit that they
will agree to indemnify her should there be any damage to her property.
Commissioner Messe pointed out that is a matter is between the developer
and Ms. Smith, rather than being a part of the City's zoning action.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Caruaillo referred to the trash storage area on the west
side, in about the middle of the project, and stated it looks as if they
could move it north about 20 feet so it would not abut so directly the
single-family residence there.
Mr. Lipinski noted the plan currently in front of Commission requires that
Embassy Street be used as a fire access gate, sad as long as they could
move the trash storage area and accommodate the Fire Department, they
would be grad to do that, and they would look into that.
Commissioner Herbst noted that the trash storage area in a couple of areas
are right behind homes and those two areas should be reviewed, even though
they are subterranean in that area.
Sill Uhl, architect, stated when they went through the various meetings,
the Pre-file and Interdepartmental Committee Meetings, he found the
Sanitation Division was requiring considerably more trash enclosures than
they used to and it was not clear why they wanted to do that because they
will pick up trash more than once a week. He stated this project has 14
trash bins which is far more than any project they had ever dune of this
size. He stated originally they had no trash enclosures on the year
property line, and had four double trash bins, which is eight dumpsters,
and have had to add three more xhich they did not want back there to begin
with, but since they were required to have the additional ones, they tried
to spread them around to make some kind of sense. He added they would
rather have more frequent pick up and get rid of some of them.
07/18/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY *~~Tnu nn.v is 1gg8 88-13
Commissioner Messe stated ha would like to see the dumpsters two at the
south portion of the property eliminated; and Commissioner Herbst stated
those should not be there and he believed applicant should make other
arrangements.
Mr. Uhl stated they would move them.
Commissioner Herbst stated another concern is that this Commission has
never allowed nay two-story buildings closer than 50 feet to single
family. He indicated the code requires 150 feet from single-family and
the Commission has never reduced that further than 50 feet and now this
developer is asking for 46 feet. He stated this bothers him because it
would set another precedent.
Mr. Uhl noted the City has a policy to have a 20-foot landscape strip and
they approached this from the viewpoint that if he lived back tY:re, the
main thing he would be concerned about would be visual intrusion and
noise. He stated they have depressed the entire project 4 1/2 to 5 feet,
half a level, because they were attempting to comply with the requirement
to have two-story buildings. He stated this appears as a two-story
project and by depressing it, and having the normal 6-foot high wall, they
have an 11-foot high wall. He stated for security, and noise mitigation,
this was far more advantageous than just providing a landscape strip back
there. He noted the current property owners had a problem which was
evidenced by just walking around the project, and there is a five foot
wall back there now and one of the owners had erected barbed wire on top
of his fence because, evidently, he has a problem with people getting over
the wall. He stated the 46-foot setback just happened to be a product of
the fact that the carport is 21 feet wide and the driveway is 25 feet
wide, and if they put anything behind the carpart, it would be just a
nuisance and a security problem.
Mr. Uhl said he knew what Commission xas out to accomplish and they tried
to meet those concerns with a little different tact, and they designed the
buildings so there are no entries, doors, or windows that can look onto
those properties.
Commissioner Herbst stated they have gone a long way from the 150-foot
setback to a 46-foot setback, which means they have put more density on
the property than they could normally get by meeting code.
Mr. Uhl stated they have far more open space than required, and he felt Dy
building it with two-stories over parking, they are considerably under on
the amount of site coverage so there is more open space. He stated they
have not used the land to the mazimum.
Mr. Lipinski, addressing Mr. Herbst, stated this morning they had a
conference call with City Staff and learned the apartment property
adjacent to this project on the east, did have a waiver of that i50-foot
setback.
07/18/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18 19Q$ 88-14
Commissioner Herbst stated he was aware the Commission has granted
variances of that 150 feet before, but they have never gone under 50 feet,
and he thought this project was very large and it was not necessary. He
stated they are creating their own hardship.
Commissioner Carusillo stated he disagreed with Commissioner Herbst, and
that this Ss an area of give and take and considering the size of the
project and the efforts the applicants have made, he felt it is a fine
project and the landscape and recreation area are well done and he did not
have a problem with it.
Mr. Uhl stated the design they have is efficient and makes good use of the
property. He stated they knew what they are doing would require the
support of the neighborhood, so they took the effort to meet with the
neighbors, and gave them sets of plans, and made an effort to accommodate
them. He felt they have come up with a project that has made the best use
of the property. He sympathized with what Commissioner Herbst was saying,
however.
Commissioner McBurney asked Greg Hastings the minimum distance between the
buildings and Mr. Hastings stated it depended on what was on the wall of
the building. He stated the minimum would be ten feet for two blank walls
and they could qo up to 40 feet; but if there was an opening, such as a
window, it would be 1 foot for each 15 feet of the building length and 1
foot per story, plus 5 feet.
Commissioner McBurney stated what he was trying to come up with was a
compromise to get the 50-foot setback by taking it out of the center
courtyard area and moving those buildings four feet closer together and
see if that would work.
Commissioner Messe asked if taking it out of the central courtyard area,
really makes a better project. '
Chairwoman Bouas felt not to take it out of the central courtyard may make
it better for those living in the project, but does it make it better for
those living outside the project.
Commissioner McBurney atated there are only two areas where the project is
near single-family homes, and that is on the west and south lines. He
stated he believed accommodations could be made to increase that to 50
feet. He noted along the east property line there are all apartmenC units
and commercial and he did not have a problem with the 46 feet.
Mr. Uhl said it was more than likely possible to resolve Lhe prohlem; but
the only thing he hated doing was to put the space xhere it accomplished
nothing, and the only thing accomplished would be to move the back wall of
the building four feet further away from the adjacent residences.
07/18/88
a
Commissioner McBurney stated it would give them more latitude in the
driving area, which they needed, and instead of having 24 feet, they would
have 29 feet in the drive lane which would give more freedom of movement
for the trash trucks, fire vehicles, and the public coming out of the
parking stalls.
Commissioner Messe asked what could be done about the three trash
containers that seemed to be an issue.
Mr. Hastings stated possibly they could double up some of the other trash
enclosures; but they would have to talk to the Sanitation Department.
Commissioner Herbst asked about the drainage easement on the rear, and
added staff has said it has to be re-routed, and asked if they were going
to pump that out of there and Mr. Uhl replied more than likely. Mr. Uhl
stated they had not had a study oa the quantity of water which they would
be looking to handle.
Commissioner Feldhaus asked about the reciprocal parking agreement with
the owner of the site now and the Rett1E Restaurant, concerning parking,
and asked if that had been invalidated. Mr. Lipinski said that had been
terminated, and they had a quitclaim deed xhich had been recorded.
Commissioner Messe asked if the left turn pocket for the driveway opposite
the Kettle was going to be closed. Mr. Lipinski stated it was.
Dolores Smith asked the depth of the wall and was told it would be about 8
inches wide.
ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has
reviewed the proposal to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to
redesignate the ezistinq General Commercial designation to a Medium
Density Residential or Low-Medivm Density Residential designation; and to
reclassify subject property from the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone to the
RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple Family) Zone to permit construction of a
106-unit apartment complex with waiver of mazimum structural height on an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approzimately 4 acres,
having a frontage of approzimately 213 feet on the south side of Lincoln
Avenue, and being located approzimately 1,030 feet west of the centerline
of Euclid Street and further descrihed as 1780 West Lincoln Avenue; and
does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has
considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received
during the public review process and further finding oa the basis of the
Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial
evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the
environment.
07/18/88
IhJ'j'ES ANA_siEIiv CITY PLAN 7ING COMMISSION JULY 18 1988 88-16
Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC88-186 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that the City Council GRANT General Plan Amendment No. 245 on ,
the basis that Medium Density Residential (Exhibit A) is an appropriate
designation for subject property
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST,
MC SURREY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC88-187 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
GRANT Reclassification No. 88-89-03, subject to interdepartmental
Committee Recommendations.
Oa roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, HOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST,
MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ASSENT: NONE
Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC88-188 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
GRANT Variance Ho. 3811 on the basis that there are special circumstances
applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in
the vicinity; and that strict application of the 2oaiag Code deprives the
property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in identical zoning
classification is the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee
Recommendations including a condition that the buildings oa the south and
west property lines be relocated to accommodate a 50-foot setback; that
the trash enclosures that abut the single-family residences be relocated,
as approved by the Sanitation Division; and modifying Condition No. 19 to
exclude Condition No. 14 and modifying Condition No. 20 to include
Condition No. 14.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: HOURS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST,
MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to
appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City
Council.
07/18/88
_ __ _ _
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PL,~NNING COMMISSION. JULY 18. 1988 88-17
Commissioner Messe offered t motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and
MOTION CARRIED that the Anahe+im City Planning Commission requests the City
Council to review the zoning actious, Reclassification No. 88-89-03 and
Variance No. 3811, in conjunction xith the Council's consideration of
General Plan Amendment No. 245.
I~,NO. 5. - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION; VARIANCE NO. 3816
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: EDITH A. JONES, 318 S. Helena Street, Anaheim,
CA 92805; ARNOLD 0. HOLMVICR AND COLEEN J. HOLMVICR, 214 W. Hampshire,
Anaheim, CA 92805; ISAAC DICRERSON FARISS, 1585 Lullaby Avenue, Anaheim,
CA 92802; AGENT: TERRY AND NZROLS COMPANY, 4 Upper Newport Plaza Drive,
Newport Beach, CA 92660; LOCATION: 318-322 and 326 S. Helena Street
Request: To construct a 3-story, 15-unit apartment complex with waivers
of (a) minimum building site area per dwelling unit, (b) maximum building
height, (c) maximum site coverage, (d) minimum structural setback, (e)
permitted encroachment into front yard and (f) maximum fence height.
There were no persons indicating their 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.
PRESENTATION•
Don Nikols, Terry and Nikols Company, 4 Upper Newpozt Plaza Drive, Newport
Heach, stated he had brought a couple of aerial photographs to be a visual
aid to the Commissioners. Be indicated, as an overview, they really
believe is the downtown redevelopment area and the trends; their intent is
to build something better than is there now and whoa the xhole area is
developed they will still own what is the best improvement in the
neighborhood. He stated they intend to build double master bedroom, 1000
square feet - 2-bedroom 2 1/2 bath- townhouse configuration rental
apartments with fireplaces, a high amenity package there. He stated they
are oa a corner which requires that two sides of their property dedicate
five feet for street purposes, to build new curbs and gutters, 3s well as
bring sewer lines down and underground utilities, which they axe prepared
to do.
Mr. Nikols stated immediately adjacent to their property, to the north, is
an older u-shaped rental apartments that are one-atory. He said oa the
other side is a two-story, approximately 8 year old, rental apartment. He
stated directly across Helena from them is a four-story concrete parking
structure for the Sank of America building, which he feels is a large
imposing structure and he does not believe their three-story structure
will appear to tower over it by any means. He indicated that directly
across Elm from their property was a multi-family zoned, but single-family
use, older structures which he was axare were all under contract to be
developed into multi-family use.
07/18/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION nrrv is iogg 88_18
Mr. Nikols stated there was a minimum site per unit variance of 1200
square feet and they were asking for 1111 on the height of three stories
vs. two stories and a site coverage of 70~ as opposed to 55~. He stated
these are pretty much consistent with the variances afforded the property
diagonally across from them, which is a 22-unit groject under
construction. He stated there were some efficiencies to a townhouse unit,
everyone enters in front on grade and they do not have any interior
hal7.ways or catwalks which gives economy of square footage of coverage
without covering up the land. He believed their recreation-leisure space
was 1 per 270 some odd square feet which is 38~ increase over the 200
square feet per unit minimum requirement.
Mr. Nikols stated in the parking structure they had come to the property
line for a portion of it which will make access to the parking spaces
easier. If the variance is denied they can accomplish the same parking
spaces within code and pull it back but they feel this is an improved
design and will improve the habitability of the site; it will not encroach
on the livability of the neighbor. He stated the balconies were allowed
to encroach 2 1/2 feet into front yard setbacks and they are requesting
that they get as much as 5 and 7 feet in some cases. He noted they could
eliminate that as well but felt it was a better. rare attractive street
scape design by pushing some of the units up and pulling some back. Ho
said with landscaping it would not be two flat sides.
Mr. Nikols stated they had decided to eliminate their request to vary the
fence height, the location would be oa the corner and was to be a solid
fence which he said would cause a problem with visibility coming around
the corner so they decided to make that wrought iron with landscaping
behind it, as noted on the landscaping plan.
Mr. Nikols stated they are asking for a number of variances but he thought
they were warranted. They did not want to build something they were going
to sell to another developer, they were going to build them and own them
for a long time.
THE PUBLIC FfEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Messe stated he had not heard of any hardship that would
justify all the variances requested. He stated applicant is asking for
more units than code allows, more site coverage, more height, waiver of
minimum setback, etc. and he did not understand what the hardship was that
applicant was facing.
Ms. Jaworski, architect, 3747 Myrtle, Long Beach, said the circumstances
that would apply to this project was the location, the on corner, so they
had to provide two street setbacks. She indicated they also had to
dedicate five feet from the two property sides on Elm and Helena so the
buildable lot area is reduced and she did not think that those
circumstances would apply to all properties. She said she believed that
was the special hardship for the designer and owner to comply with the
07/18/88
MT Ni1TES. AYi.'~:*~;~%:'' :~, 7:"w?.KiieS~~hv COMMISSION ,7IjrY 18 ioug Q@~
dedication requirements and provide the number of waits that would support
the project. Also, she stated, with the townhouse concept it was a more
livable design and they felt if they could get more than allowed number of
units they would Like to provide additional amenities like a sauna and
Jacuzzi, to make the quality of life better. She noted one more hardship
was that they had to improve and build the new sewer line from Harbor
Boulevard. She stated just for 15 units to bring the sewer line for
almost two blocks was a very large cost item.
Chairwoman Bouas a~'ked how many units for a density bonus could they have
if they listed them with housing authority.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated they would be allowed to have a 25~
density bonus which would be 25~ over the maximum number of permitted
units; they are allowed to have 13 which would enable them to have about 3
extra units with 10~ of the total units being affordable.
Commissioner Messe stated they were not requesting affordable units and
Ms. Bouas wanted to know if they would be willing to have the affordable
for the next 30 years to have the density bonus, otherwise, she did not
see how they could grant the density bonus.
Mr. Nikols stated he would have to understand what kind of income return
would come from the cost of that. He said he would have to review the
return on cost since this is already a very costly project. He stated ha
realized the Commission was not concerned with economics but he had to be
and it was getting down to where the costs are pushing per unit comps of
saleable Finished apartment projects. Mr. Nikols said he would like to
see what the requirement might entail, what the maximum rents might be,
then he would certainly consider it.
Commissioner Carusillo stated what Commission was talking about was 16
units with 'three being affordable. Ms. Bouas said since the design was 15
units they could do two under the affordable.
Mr. Hastings stated, depending on the affordable program they chose, it
would either be two units or four units, the four units being 25` of the
median income and the two units being 100.
Commissioner Herbst stated it was still taking as awful lot of variances
and is his opinion adding the affordability does not justify adding all
the other variances. He noted that may be one way to go but he would not
want this applicant to go ahead and apply for this with the indication he
had seven votes from the Commission. He stated he felt the project was
too dense and with the traffic problem oa Helena Street, with the parking
structure across the street, it could be a hard time even getting in and
out of the place. While he realized it was a corner lot, he noted there
were many apartments that came into Anaheim on corner lots and they have
to build accordingly, that is why we have codes. He stated he did not
have a problem with the 3-story in this area but he had a problem with the
other variances, they were just plain over building on this piece of
property.
07/18/88
~..'
taIhJ'~'ES ANA_wEIM CITY PLANNING COMMTCCTON JULY 18 1988 88-20
Mr. Nikols stated they could eliminate a number of the variances and Mr.
Herbst suggested that be do that, then come back. Mr. Herbst stated the
applicant should eliminate all the variances he could, that he did not
like for applicants to use this forum as a fishing ezpeditioa; they knew
what the problems were and it bothered him when developers came in with
variances when they know what the codes are and they should live up to
them. Mr. Herbst stated if there ~za real hardships thra7 could look at
them but a lot of these things applicant says can be corrected, so he felt
that is what they should do in the first place.
Ms. Jaworski noted they had already asked for the deletion of variance for
fence height, and the variances for encroachment and setback, were really
minor changes, could be also eliminated. She noted, however, with her
conversation with the Planning Staff she bud the feeling that their
proposal was an improved design and they were trying to present the best
option. She noted if the Planning Commission did not agree with this they
had already studied other options sad they could eliminate tkaese waivers
subject to conditions of Planning Staff approval in compliance with the
zoning code.
Ms. Jaworski said if Commission was concerned, they could go over
variances for 1. density, 2. height, and 3. lot coverage. She noted they
would have to make a decision about the 15 units with two being afforable.
Commissioner Herbst stated he would like to see a revised net of plans and
Commissioner Messe agreed.
Ms. Jaworski stated she did not want them to waste the time because they
knew that variances number four and five were minor changes and could be
eliminated, without affecting the elevations.
Commissioner Herbst informed Ms. Jaworski that they were trying to put 15
units on three lots; that is five homes oa a single-family dwelling lot
and that vas too dense. Mr. Herbst stated those are things they should
have known when they came before Commission and when asking for density
bonuses, this City is becoming concerned that because there are too many
apartments is Anaheim are too dense and causing grid lock and all kinds of
problems; and that the City is considering down zoning quite a few areas
because of the density problem. Mr. Herbst stated he would not give one
inch on density.
Mr. Nikols stated they had drawn plans, basically, without a couple of
those variances so he felt they would need eery little time to create
these and if they could continue this two weeks, they would be back with
the revised plans.
Mr. Hastings noted the workload for the nest meeting was pretty heavy and
staff would recommend that this go back before the Interdepartmental
Committee as xell; he suggested a four week continuance.
07/18/88
f
MIH[JTFC ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI°crnu **rrV 18 1988 88-21
Commissioner Feldhaus stated he believed it was time that they took a look
at some of these "go back and redesign" plans and come back through
interdepartmental Committee again.
DTI ON:
Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurner
that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the
regularly-scheduled meeting of August 15, 1988, at the request of the
petitioner in order to redesign the project.
RECESS: 3:10 p.m.
RECONVENE: 3:25 p.m.
ITEM_NO 6 CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS il• VARIANCE N0. 3818
PyBLIC HE RI7 OWNERS: MYUNG SHIR YUN AND RUM OR YUN, ET AL, 727 S.
Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92804; LOCATION: 201 Via Cortez
Request: To permit two additional wall signs for a motel with waivers of
(a) mazimum number of wall signs and (b) permitted lighting of signs.
There were no persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject
request and although the staff report xas not read, it is referred to and
made a part of the minutes.
PRESENTATION•
Belly Vaught, with the Signs and Services Company, 10980 Boatman Avenue,
Stanton, said he would like to address some of the hardships and
privileges obtained by others that would be denied them if they xere not
allowed this vital sign. He noted the harships were primarily due to the
shape of the lot and the lack of accessibility; they do not have an
entrance facing imperial Highway or the 91 Freeway. He stated their only
accessibility was around off Santa Ana Canyon Road through Via Cortez. He
stated they do have a sign at the entrance of the property, but from every
other arterial the facility is unidentifiable other than that it is a
structure. He noted that without a sign identifying it, it could be
confused with a professional building, hospital, or any number of uses
other than the motel which it actually is. Mr. Vaught note3 that is a
facility such as this about 90i of its occupancy was due to walk in; weary
travelers who if they saw the motel would pull off and pull is and they
try to benefit from phone ahead reservations but the reality is that the
majority of their users are walk in. Mr. Vaught noted the surrounding
that nearby uses, including hotels, do have visibility and signage: in
ezcess of what the code allows, such as Household Sank, Reno's Restaurant,
Anaheim Realty, Don Jose's, Bank of America, First Interstate and several
shops in the adjoining shopping center.
Mr. Vaught stated it was vital to the success of the parcel that you be
able to identify it, that was its sole source of identity, was signage.
07/18!88
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED:
Questions from the Commission:
Commissioners Herbst and McBurney asked Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, for
clarification on the request.
Mr. Hastings, stated the way it xas purported to the Planning Department
was that they had one permitted sign, which xas permitted, facing east and
they were proposing to add two additional xall signs.
Mr. Hastings stated the third ezisting sign, was a channel letter sign
facing east, located on the building just over the entrance oa the
southernmost building.
Commissioner Messe asked if that channel letter sign xas illuminated and
Mr. Vaught stated that it xas.
Commissioner Herbst asked what type of illumination they would have on the
proposed signs and Mr. Vaught stated that would be 30 mil amp 15 milimeter
neon illumination behind the face of a cabinet ~j:,'.
Commissioner Herbst asked .`or clarification.
Mr. Vaught stated they were illuminated xith "lourescent lamps xhich are
not as iaten!:e as neon and the background xa~,~. opaque black, xith soft
yellow lettering, lox intensity.
ACTION
It xas noted the Planning Director or his authorized representative has
determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of
Categorical Ezemgtions, Class 11, as defined in the State Environmental
Impact Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to prepare an EIR.
Commissioner Herbat offered Resolution No. PC88-189 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
GRANT Variance No. 3818 to permit two additional xall signs for a motel
xith xaivers of mazimum number of xall signs and permitted lighting of
signs on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the
property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundgins, xhich
do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity; and
that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in identical aoninq classification
in the vicinity and subject to Enterdepartmental Committee Recommendation.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, SOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST,
MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
07/18/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18 1988 88 23
Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to
appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City
Council.
ITEM NO 7 - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATIOH• CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT !i0 3033
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: THRIFTY OIL COMPANY, 10000 Lakewood Boulevard,
Downey, CA 90240
AGENT: TAIT AND ASSOCIATES, P.O. Boz 4429, Orange, CA 92613; LOCATION:
2800 W. Ball Road
Request: To permit a convenience market with gasoline sales.
There was one person indicating their presence in opposition to subject
request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and
made apart of the minutes.
PRESENTATION•
Steve Tarkoff, agent for the applicant stated they would like to have this
continued for about two weeks if possible.
Chairwoman Bouas indicated that would be August 1, and Commissioner Herbst
asked staff how large that meeting was going to be and Greq Hastings,
Senior Planner, stated that meeting was a little over average in size but
if there were no changes is the original submittals it could be taken.
Commissioner Messe noted that was the meeting at which there was an item
to be heard after 6:00 p.m. anyway.
Mr. Herbst stated he wanted to make a point, is looking at the drawings
submitted, he did not believed Traffic Engineering had looked at it
because with the way the islands were going to be there was a possibility
of cars backing out onto Ball Road. Commissioner Herbst suggested
applicant might need more than 2 weeks because they have to have plans is
by this Friday for a 2-week coatinuence.
Mr. Hastings stated there may be difficulty if there are changes in the
plans that would create new waivers; however, if there were ao waivers
created they could handle it.
Applicant indicated that perhaps they should make it four weeks, which
would be August 15.
OPPOSITION:
Maureen Powell, 2860 west Ball Road, stated she lived just down the street
from where they wanted to put the convenience store and she disapproved
it; they already had two liquor stores near the corner plus a gas station
across the street from this site.
07/18/88
j'
~.1
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CnnnerSSTn?1. JULY 18 1988 88-24
Chairwoman Houas informed Ms. Powell that applicant had asked for a
continuance until the 15th of August and suggested that Ms. Powell call
City Hall to be sure this item was on the agenda for consideration before
coming down.
A T
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun
and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be
continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of August 15, 1988, at the
request of the petitioner in order to restudy the plans.
ITEM NO 8 - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT•
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3~~d
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: ANTRANIIC OZBAG AND VERCIN OZHAG, 1 Plymouth,
Irvine, CA 92x14
AGENT: TOM GUEVARA JR., 1214 S. Oaks, Ontario, CA 91761
LOCATION: 1825 West Lincoln Avenue
Request: To permit on-sale of beer and xine in an ezistinq fast food
restaurant with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
No one indicated their presence in opposition to subject regLxest and
although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
PRESENTATION•
Tom Guevara, 1825 West Lincoln Avenue, stated they xere asking for
deletion of Condition Nos. 1, 3, and 4. He stated Condition No. 1 was
dedication of 32 feet along Crescent Way, Condition No. 3 was closing two
ezistinq driveways and Condition No. 4 was a 10-foot radius curb return;
he stated this Conditional Use Permit (CUP) xould only supplement the
restaurant's ezistinq use and menu. The goal of the CUP was to eztend the
menu and not to significantly increase traffic or customers. He noted
that Condition Nos. 3 and 4 were not economically feasible to his client
and noted the property owner was unwilling to participate in any of the
dedication or construction of the improvements. He noted tha: Code
Section 18.44.100 of the CL Zone, in which the property was located,
states that dedication and improvements of streets, public utilities, etc.
shall be required in connection with any work pertaining to the erection,
construction, addition, etc. to any building or structure within the
zone. He stated their interpre*_ation of this code is that they do not
meet this definition, because they are not physically altering or
modifying the existing structure. He stated he believed this also applies?
to Condition No. 1.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Questions from the Commissioners.
07/18/88
c s-t~HFTM rITY PLANNING ~Q . ION ntt Y 18 X988 88-25
Commissioner Feldhaus asked if the building owner had already dedicated
this footage.
Debbie Frnk, Traffic Engineer's Department, stated that the submitted
plans do not show what the dedication is, so the conditions in the staff
report are the standard conditions to assure that things are up to current
requirements.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated the latest variance applied for was
in 1967.
Ms. Fank stated that it was, therefore, probably not up to current code
standard.
Commissioner Bouas stated that this project certainly was not making any
physical changes of the property and she did not see any reason that they
should have to do the improvements requested.
Commissioner Carusillo asked if there was any connection with the
ownership of the establishment to the ownership of the real property and
Mr. Guevara stated there was not.
Commissioner Messe asked if there was anyway to close those driveways,
that staff was requesting be closed, without putting standard curb and
gutter in.
Mr. Guevara stated that it was legally impossible for applicant to do that
because the property owner would not allow it.
Debbie Fank noted there are two driveways each, on Lincoln and oa
Crescent, and they were asking that the two closest to the corner be
closed so that they would have one driveway on each street.
Commissioner Messe noted that it is an application for a Conditional Use
Permit, and he understands that it is just to add the beer and wine, but
if they could get a safer condition oa that piece of property at the same
time he would be for that; that is with the closure of two driveways. He
stated he did not think they needed to reconstruct driveways for the 10
foot radius or make a person do a dedication on this type of thing but a
safer condition would be fine.
Commissioner Carusillo stated he agreed with Chairwoman Bouas that it
would be an economic hardship oa the applicant to have to submit to those
conditions in order to get a beer and wine permit. He did not know why
the property or+ner would not be in agreement to close those two driveways.
Mr. Guevara stated the property owner had stated to him that it mould, for
the entire center, lower the business because of reduced accessibility;
the bottom line is it is his property and they cannot touch it.
Commissioner Bouas stated that at the time the owner may want to rebuild
or develop thaC property, that xould be the time to ask for the
improvements.
07/18/88
Commissioner Feldhaus asked hox long the lease was for on the sandwich
shop.
Mr. i.lsky, leasee, stated his lease was two months old and he had two
years on the first installment on the lease with a three year option,
followed by a five year option.
A TI
Commissioner Carusillo offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe
and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed
the proposal to permit on-sale of beer and wine in an ezistinq fast food
restaurant with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.3 acres,
located at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Crescent Way, having
approzimate frontages of 400 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, and
255 feet on the east side of Crescent Way and further described as 1825
West Lincoln Avenue (Sandwich City) and does hereby approve the Negative
Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration
together with nay comments received during the public review process and
further 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 effect on the environment.
Commissioner Carusillo offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe
and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
GRANT waiver of Code requirement of minimum number of parking spaces on
the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic
congestion is the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining
land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed,
if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general
welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Commissioner Carusillo offered Resolution No. PC88-190 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
GRANT Conditioanl Use Permit No. 3034, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code
Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to
Interdepartmental Recommendations with a modification of the Conditions to
delete Condition Nos. 1, 3, and 4.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, AERBST,
MC BURNEY,
NOES: MESSE
ABSENT: NONE
Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to
appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22. days to the City
Council.
07/18/88
i~ ! ~J
^^^^ ANw c.iM C' °t awTVG CO*4lISSION JULY 18. 1988 88-27
ITEM NO 9 CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3035
P~JBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: WONSON RIM AND HAESOOR RIM, 11443 E. Stapleton
Court, Cerritos, CA 90701
AGENT: A. W. RIMMEL CONSTRUCTION, 747 S. Brea, Suite 33,
Brea, CA 91621
LOCATION: iia~ Nnrrh Brookhurst Street
Request: To permit a 5,900 square-foot, 10-unit commercial retail center.
No one indicated their 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.
PRESENTATION•
Don Kimmel, 747 South Brea Boulevard, Brea, stated he was representing the
owner. He indicated they are asking for a Conditional Use Permit to
increase an existing shopping center that is under construction from the
two allowable stores.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Questions from the Commission:
Commissioner Boydstun noted that on the plans they showed two sets of
restrooms and six stores.
Mr. Kimmel stated that code required them to have at least one restroom at
time of final inspection. He noted the rest are plumbed for restrooms to
be done as tenant improvements.
Commissioner McBurnoy asked staff if a traffic study had been done on this
and Greg Hastings, Senior Plaanar, indicated that one was not necessary
since this project meets code requirements.
Chairwoman Bouas asked if applicant did agreed not to put any fast food or
take-out food and Mr. Kimmel stated he did agree to that.
Commissioner Feldhaus inquired if the critical intersection had been taken
care of and agreed to, and Debbie Fank of the Traffic Engineer's
Department stated that it had.
~~~
Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and
MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commissioner has revieeed
the proposal to permit a 5,900 square-foot, 10-unit commercial retail
center to be constructed oa a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
07/18!88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 1988 88-28
consisting of approzimately 0.54 acre, having a frontage of approzimately
103 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street, having a mazimum depth of
approzimately 230 feet and being located approzimately 130 feet south of
the centerline of Falmouth Avenue and further described as 1142 North
Brookhurst Street and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon
finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any
comments received during the public review process and further finding on
the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no
substantial evidence that tie project will have a significant effect on
the environment.
Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC88-191 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3035, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code
Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to interdepartmental
Committee Recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDAAUS, HERBST,
MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to
appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City
Council.
ITEM NO 10. - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3036
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: OCCIDENTAL BUSINESS CENTER II, 30390 Pullman
Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92626; AGENT: RRISTINA ROBERTS, 702 East Ball
Road, Suite 100, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 721 E. Ball Road
Request: To permit a restaurant in an ezistinq industrial park.
No one indicated their presence is opposition to subject request and
although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made apart
of the minutes.
PRESENTATION•
Christina Roberts, representing Occidental Business Center II, located on
Ball Road, stated she resided at 21141 Hidden Springs Lane in Trabuco
Canyon. She stated basically they would like permission to proceed with a
1000 square foot sandwich shop in their project, which is 117,500 square
feet totally. She noted she had five office buildings and the sandwich
shop would be to accommodate her tenants there.
07/18/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18 1988 88-29
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Commissioner Herbst wanted it clarified that they would not have any wine
and beer and Ms. Roberts indicated they would not.
A TI N•
Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBuraey
and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission had reviewed
the proposed project to permit a restaurant in an ezistinq industrial park
located on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approzimately 6.9 acres, having a frontage of approximately 33S feat on
the north side of Ball Road, having a mazimum depth of approzimately 415
feet, :.zing located approzimately 700 feet west of the centerline of Lewis
Street and further described as 721 East Ball Road and does hereby approve
the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative
Declaration together with any comments received during the public review
process and further finding oa the basis of the Initial Study and any
comments received that there is ao substantial evidence that the project
will have a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner Boydstun offered Resolution No. PC88-192 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3036, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal code
Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to Interdeparmental
Committee Recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution wan passed by the following vote:
A%ES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, IiERBST,
MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: HONE
Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to
appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City
Council.
ITEM N0. 11. - CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION (STATUTORY EXEMPTION): VARIANCE
N0. 2194 (READAERTISED)
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: ALLEN R. LOISELLE, P.0. BOX 4161, Garden Grove,
CA 92642; LOCATION: 1551 North Miller Street
07/18/88
i
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18 1988 88-30
Request: Petitioner requests approval of a 2-year (retroactive to
8-20-86) extension of time under authority of Code Section 18.03.093 and
deletion of Condition No. 4 of Resolution No. 70-144 pertaining to
required extensions of time to retain outdoor storage for a pallet repair
service.
There was one person indicating their 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.
PRESENTATION•
Chairwoman Bouas asked if the applicant was present and no one responded.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, indicated this was a public hearing to
determine if this use should continue.
OPPOSITION•
Gloria Saraglia, 4018 Tamaskill, Norco, stated she was not really opposed
to this but she wantod to know whatt the height and various other
requirements were for this type of business. She indicated she had some
pictures, which were presented to the Commission and entered into
evidence. She stated she had tree tenants is two separate buildings
adjacent to this project. She noted that the applicant has pallets that
are stacked higher than her buildings, at most times, although in the past
two weeks they bave reduced this height. She stated they are right up
against her buildings and she would like to know what the restrictions are.
Commissioner Feldhaus asked if Ms. Saraglia had complained to anyone about
this previously.
Ms. Saraglia stated she was told to call the Fire Department, which she
did, and they said they could not do anything, that applicant was allowed
to go 20 feet Y.igh with their skids and they were within that height;
however, when she checked with the City, she was told they were only
allowed to qo fence high, which is six feet.
Commissioner Feldhaus asked staff to produce the original conditions.
Greg Hastings, stated the original condition allowed them to have outdoor
storage, provided they had dense screen landscaping at a height and size
that would ensure complete screening of the outdoor storage area; so it
does not give a maximum height, it is just a matter of screening whatever
height they have.
Commissioner Herbst noted that usually City does not allow anything over
the top of the screening.
Mr. Hastings, stated that being this is an industrial zone, they could
potentially go much higher with their fence.
07/18/88
rt
Commissioner Bouas noted that they do not have a fence, not even a screen
fence.
Mr. Hastings stated the original approval was for a chain-link fence
without slats.
Commissioners Bouas and Herbst indicated that Commission had better
continue this item and have the applicant come in. Mr. Hastings stated
staff would contact the applicant.
Commissioner McBurney indicated Commission should do one of two things,
either have applicant put in dense landscaping, or put in a screening
fence wall to cover those pallets; Chairwoman Bouas noted that applicant
has to know that they cannot go higher than fence level and Commission
certainly does not want to approve applicant's request without their
mitigation of this situation.
Commissioner Feldhaus asked how long the applicant would have to come in;
Commissioner Herbst noted that if they did not come in the Commission
could simply deny this application.
Mr. Hastings stated,. if they did not come in, Planning Commission could
deny applicant's request and they would have the chance to appeal to the
City Council. After that point if they were still operating, Planning
could send Code Enforcement out to let them know they were no longer
operating under a Conditional Use Fermit.
Chairwoman stated we should have them come in and give them a chance to
answer Commission's concerns.
Ms. Baraglia stated she had checked with the City and was advised to get
the pictures, is case she had problems later, and that was what she did.
She noted that trucks come in to take the pallets away but in the nezt day
or two they bring them back and then the same problem ezists.
Commissioner Messe asked Mr. Hastings for clarification, noting this was a
request for approval of a 2-year eztension retroactive to August 20, 1986,
and asked if approval would make it just to August 20, 1988.
Mr. Hastings noted the normal procedure was to only eztead it the original
amount of time; hoxever, since that date is approaching, the Commission
may wish to eztend it retroactively with another two years beyond August
1988.
Chairman Bouas noted if they made it retroactive, it would just be as of
August, 1988, then applicant would have to apply again for as eztuasioa.
Mr. Hastings noted that was correct, applicant would have to resubmit the
fee and staff would have to readvertise.
07/18/88
~,_
Ms. Baraqlia said she was especially concerned because she saw this as a
dangerous situation.
~~~
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney
and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission determined
that consideration of the aforementioned matter will be continued to the
regularly-scheduled meeting of August 15, 1988, in order for the applicant
to appear and answer the concerns of the Anaheim City Planning Commission.
ITEbI NO 12 -REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. CONDITIONA. USE PERMIT NO 2586 - George Gemayel, property
owner, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 2586.
AcTION~
Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC88-19'3 and moved for
its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning
Commmission does hereby terminate all proceedings in connection
with Conditional Use Permit No. 2586.
B. ~Q17DITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS 1422 AND 2381 - Donald L. Nelson,
property owner, requests termination of Conditional Use Permits
Nos. 1422 and 2381.
ACTION:
Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC88-194 and moved for
its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby terminate all proceedings in connection
with Conditional Use Permit No. 1422 and 2381.
C. VARIANCE N0. 990 - Allyn B. and Rosemary B. Scheu, property
owners, request termination of Variance No. 990.
ACTION:
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-195 and moved
for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby terminate all proceedings in connection
with Variance No. 990.
07/18/88
1 F
~S;MUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18 1988 88-33
D, (•RNFRLT PTLN STfmv FOR AREA ON NORTH SIDE OF HALL ROAD BETWEEN
WESTVALE STREET AND WESTERN AVENUE.
DISCUSSION•
Roy Hatanaka, 3323 West Sall Ra.ed, wanted clarification as to
what the Commission is planning witY: this Staff Report and if
the Commission was going to take at~cion as to one of the
alternatives.
Commissioner McBuzney stated they were looking for alternatives
for these properties because of the proposed continuation of
that street to find out what the alternatives could be. He
noted from this point on Commission had not gone any further
than just to find aut what the alternatives were and that is why
Commission is having this discussion.
Commissioner Feldhaus asked Mr. Hatanaka if he was the owner of
the nursery located there and Mr. Aatanaka stated that he was
and asked if action was to be taken today; the reply was no.
Pat Fitkin stated she was present, representing the owner of
3333 West Ball Road, Parcel A; Commissioners stated they were
not going to take nay action today but were just looking at
alternatives.
Mary McCloskey, Senior Planner, stated staff had presented all
their information in the Staff Report and would answer nay
questions.
Commissioner Herbst noted that the Staff Report had given them
what they had wanted, the alternatives.
Ms. McCloskey stated she would say the decision on the General
Plan Amendment would be before them an August 1, at the next
meeting, relative to the property at 3333 West Ball Road.
Staff informed the Commission that the request was asking for
condominiums at either RM-2400 or RM-3000 zoning, but according
to RM-3000 standards.
Al Marshall, stated he was surprised the neighborhood was not
present, because they were concerned about this. He noted he
had spoken with Mr. McAdee, who owned the property, and was very
concerned. He indicated he had brought a very simple sketch
along showing a portion of what is left of the property. Should
the street be put through, what is left in the back section of
the property is approzimately 40 feet and with setbacks, etc.;
not much development could be put on it. He anted that the
07/18/88
r
~.-
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIO"' rrtt.y ig 1988 88-34
Deerwood eztension going through there would take out
approzimately 6,000 square feet of the property, which severely
affects that property. He noted that if the street goes
through, the property he was looking at, that basically it would
be difficult for them to develop particularly at any price they
had discussed with the owner at this point. He indicated that
if the two properties were developed together, it would of
course be more advantageous to the property they had been
looking at. He stated he had spokes with Mr. Hatanaka earlier,
but he did not know what the plans were for Mr. Hatanaka's
property.
Chairman Souas stated this was just a study Commission had asked
staff to put together, to take a look at, and they would be
hearing about Mr. Marshall's proposal the next time.
Mr. Marshall indicated he had spoken with the neighbors at
length and the neighbors indicated they really liked the idea of
single family and they do not like the idea of the street going
through, and from this developer's point of view, if the street
went through it would be very difficult for them to develop.
E. cOh'DITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2917 - Huqo A. Vazquea, Young Lion
Development, requests approval of a one-year time eztension
(retroactive to June 22, 1988) to expire on June 22, 1989, to
comply with conditions of approval.
AST.i QN s
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
McSuraey and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby GRANT a one-year time eztension
(retroactive to June 22, 1989) to ezpire oa June 22, 1989, to
comply with conditions of approval.
F. E;BANNING COh,r,ISSION INITIATED REQUEST TO A~•,r,ND SErTiON 18 84.042
(BUILDING AND STRUCTURar HEIGHT LIMITATI02~) OP CHAPTER 18._84
TjTLE 18 OF THE ANI~FiEItd_~~dICIPAL CODE RELATING TO BUILDING
`•°TGHTS (SPECIFICALLY CHIMNEY PRO.?P.CTIONS) IN THE SCENIC
CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE (Motion required)
Commissioner Herbst said this was one of the things they had
discussed at the morning work session, that the ordinance
drafted had left height ttse chimney off completely. There had
been some discussion as to whether that should or should not
be. He stated they had discussed whether there should be some
sort of restriction in width and height.
07/18/88
~~~`
MINUTES ANAAEZM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSIOK TTn Y 18 1988 88-35
Commissioner Boydstun asked if they could put a five foot limit
chimney height above the roof, and if that would take care of it.
Commissioner Carusillo said he thought so. He believed they
should have some kind of restriction just to prevent that odd
s:~•~ation that may want four chimneys, 15 foot high, because
that is bound to happen on some of these contomporary designs.
He stated they should establish some kind of reasonable
limitations in terms of height or width, then if someone wants
to come in for a variance and it is reasor..able there should not
be a problem.
Commissioner Herbst asked, in looking at certain designs of
houses, if they should make the recommendation from the highest
point of the house.
Commissioner Boydstun noted it has to be 2 1/2 feet above the
peak of the house; Commissioner Boydstun noted that in
something like an English Tudor, where they have a high peak is
one place and a laver roof line is another place with the
chimney there, they would not want them to have it 5 feet above
that but would want them to have it 5 feet above where it was
going to be constructed.
Commissioners asked about the Eire Code. Joseph W. Fletcher,
Deputy City Attorney, indicated the Fire Code wan a minimum
which is somewhere between 2 and 3 feet above that point of the
roof that is within 10 feet of the chimney.
Chairwoman Bouaa noted Council had sent this back to them
because they did not want a cap (limit) on it.
Commissioner Carusillo stated it makes sense, it is not going to
become a concern unless someone really wants to get eztravagaat
and he believed they really needed some kind of restriction to
block that sort of thing. He recommended that it be no higher
than 5 feet and ao wider than 6 feet, which would service about
any kind of chimney.
Chairwoman Bouas stated she would hate to see them put a width
restriction oa it, because that has to do xith architectural
structure that Commission is not as authority on; they did not
have a width restriction before on a chimney height.
Commissioner Carusillo stated he had a little confusion about
the 2 1/2 feet that was recommended and now they were talking
about 5 feet and asked for clarification.
07/18/88
~.'
Mr. Fletcher stated he did not know if there was a
recommendation for 2 1/2 feet, that is simply what the minimum
of the Building Code is. It is not a design issue, it is an
operations and safety issue.
Commissioner Carusillo asked staff what the consensus was of the
committee in discussing this.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, indicated committee's concerns
(committee that staff met with regarding structural heights in
the scenic corridors), was that there not be more than one
chimney on a house that would exceed the 25 feet structural
height. They were not too much concerned about height, they
were concerned about the width but there was no direction given
as to what as appropriate width should be.
Commissioner McBurney stated he would go along with 5 feet above
the roof, and at any point 10 feet away from where the chimney
is being constructed, with a maximum of 6 feet wide.
Commissioner Messe stated he did not know that it was necessary
to restrict the width since they had no other standards that
describe widths of chimneys.
Commissioner Carusillo stated there may be a situation where
someone may want to develop a 6 or B foot wide chimney that may
have an impact on someone's view, even if it were 2 feet above
the height of the roof.
Mr. Fletcher noted the draft ordinance talks about projections
above the roof line so in defining whatever this section will
be, they are talking about that which is above the roof, (with
ao reference to actual roof height). He noted another concern
he had was changes in the Building Code and although he did not
think tLz Building Code would change and go from 2 1/2 to 5
feet; they need to recognize the implications of the Building
Code, as applies to this zoning regulation.
Commissioner Herbst noted the Building Code dealt with minimum
height and Commission is talking about maximum height. Mr.
Fletcher stated his concern was whether the minimum would rise.
ANION: (Later action taken to countermand this motion, see
below)
Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Messe and MOTION CARRIED, Chairwoman Bouas voting no, that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend adoption
to the City Council of an amendment to Subsection 18.84.042
(Building and Structural Height Limitations) of Chapter 18.84 of
07/18/88
~..:
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18 1988 88-37
Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to building
heights (specifically chimney projections) in the Scenic
Corridor Overlay Zone to limit the structural height and width
of each and every chimney above the roof line, as measured 10
feet from the adjoining roof, not to exceed 5 feet in height nor
6 feet in width.
The folloxing_discussi n and ACTION was taken at the end of the
meeting.
Mr. Roland Rrueger, 561 Peralta Hills Drive, asked abcut the
Item 12-F regarding height. Mr. Fletcher informed him of xhat
the Planning Commission action was. Mr. Rrueger stated he was
asked to appear by the Anaheim Citizens Coalition. He stated
they were not taking issue with the recommendation but it was
really a question of timing. He noted they were probably aware
of the fact that there was a group set up as an advisory
committee was set up with the staff and citizens to take a look
at the height variance conditions with an eye toward either
improving or clarifying the height variance conditions with an
eye toward either improving or clarifying the code. He noted
they had had one meeting and the next meeting they have should
wind things up and they thought it would come back to the
Planning Commission xithin txo weeks with their recommendations,
and then to the Council. He said the item on the agenda
concerning the chimney height xas one thing that would be
considered by that group and they thought that in view of the
short time involved it would be better to look at the whole
package, rather than just one item a couple of reeks is advance,
so the Adverisory Committee's recommendation is to table the
item concerning the chimney until then.
Commissioner McBurney noted that this xas going to qo before
City Council and he did not know how long it would ba before
they would take Planning Commission's recommendation.
Aanika Santahlati stated it would normally make 22 days, which
might be a little faster than the committee. She asked when
committee would be next meeting. Mr. Rrueger said the report
would be back by the 21st or 22nd so it woul$, probably be a
couple of weeks after that. Annika stated it would probably
then be easier for Commission to continue the item.
07/18/88
~~*
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 1988 88-38
A TI N•
Commissioner Berbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the
aforementioned matter be continued until such time as the
Anaheim City Planning Commission hears from the Anaheim
Citizen's Coalition Advisory Committee and has their
recommendations on this matter.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
1. Discuss possibility of instructing staff to investigate procedures
for notification to property owners when the developer requests a
continuance after they have received the notice of public hearing.
Such procedures could include the developer sending property owners
registered letter or telegram, etc.
DISCUSSION•
Commissioner Feldhaus stated he believed there were some role playing
and game playing with respect to these continuances. He noted,
according to the City Attorney, the developer has his rights in
parliamentary procedure and due process but, at the same time, the
hearings are set for the benefit of the public and xe see what
happens when a developer comes in and finds the audience hostile,
then the first thing developer does is request s continuance to
modify the plans to meet the criteria that the Commission has set for
them, or for the benefit of the p•.sblic to try to qo out and mitigate
their concerns and problems because he has not dose his homework in
the first place; then the second time the hearing is brought up the
audience has depreciated considerably and the third time the audience
is practically nil and there is no opposition at all, because people
cannot afford to take off the amount of time needed to keep returning
to these hearings.
Commissioner Feldhaus noted there is a Council policy in place that
very specifically addresses this (Council Policy No. 540, adopted
August, 1973) which says that it is the policy of the City Council
that public hearings for revised plans be handled as follows:
(1) In the event that the Planning Commission denies a project,
and revised plans are submitted between Planning Commission
Consideration and Fublic Hearing before the Council which
appear to be better than that considered by the Commission
then the plans should be referred back to the Planning
Commission before the Council considers them; and where
significant changes have taken place is the plans, whether
the petition was contested or not, these should be
submitted to the Commission to determine whether a new
public hearing should be set.
07/18/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY. PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18 1988 88_39
Commissioner Messe asked Commissioner Feldhaus if that was what they
were addressing and Commissioner Feldhaus replied that it was because
Commission itself should be more judicious in their allowing of
continuances, as sug~~ested by that policy. (i.e., whether revised
plans should be advertised).
Commissioner McBurney stated, on the other side of the coin, by
putting oneself in the position of the developer who spends 5700 -
$800 to file an application on his piece of property and tries to
develop the best product while coming up with some kind of a profit
and finds that because of some opposition that there are a lot of
issues that should be corrected before it reaches the Commission
level, so they decide to ask for a continuance. He stated he felt
dais was only fair, even though the public is effected by it, the
gentleman has probably more at stake with that piece of property than
his surrounding neighbors a'nd that is his right.
Mr. Feldhaus indicated, for ezample, there was an item today, where
everybody had received public notification of today's hearing (July
18), and the applicant had given Commission a letter, dated July 14,
asking for a continuance, then *_hat applicant could be required to
notify those people that were notified of today's July 18 hearing of
the continuance request.
Commissioner Messe asked if this discussion didn't actually address
those people who come to Commission on "fishing expeditions" rather
than those applicants who fully think out their project and interact
with the neighborhoods involved and with staff before the public
session and yet may have a project that may need revisions.
Chairwoman Souas noted that "fishing expeditions" have always been a
part of the process. An applicant will ask for Lhe maximum because
maybe they will be luck] and get it, otherwise, they will go back and
make revisions.
Commission Messe agreed, but noted that is wearing on the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated that he believed there should be a
mechanism in place to re-notify those people who have begin notified
of a public hearing when a continuance is requested and since they
are not notified currently they take time off work to come down.
Commissioner Carusillo stated he thought the most ezpeditious
solution would be that they encourage, is connection with a
continuance, that thosa parties concerned parties please call before
th.: nest hearing to confirm that there has not been another
continuance request.
07/18/88
Chairwoman Bouas also noted that they did not want an akplicant
walking in, sizing up that they have a hostile group, then asking for
a continuance because of that. She indicated Commission wanted
applicants to notify staff before they xalk in that they want a
continuance, and that they have a reason for a continuance.
Ms. Santahlati reminded Commission that a continuance is granted by
*_he Planning Commission once there is a staff report and the petition
has been advertised She noted in one or two instances recently, at
Council, applicants have asked for a coatiauancg and because there
were a number of people present in opposition, Council has taken
input from tY.e public who were upset at having waited all day. She
noted, hoxever, that the bad side was that if the opposition does not
come in the next time, the impact of their opposition is not as
strong and Council or Commission might not remember from week to week.
Ms. Santahlati noted that when people call and are told that there
has been a request for a continuance, callers are told iC is a
request and it is not known, until the Commission takes action at
1:30 p.m., if it xill actually be continued. The best staff can do
is tell them it is best to come at 1:30 p.m., whether the item will
actually be continued, if they wish.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated Commission could require if any plan
changes are made, whatsoever, that the developer resubmit revised
plans, maybe pay a continuance fee and then go back through the xhole
procedure again (staff review, re-notification, etc.).
Commissioner McBurney stated he felt the fees were adequate as
structured right now. He was looking at the flaw chart for the time
that plans are submitted until the time of Interdepartmental
Committee Meeting; that the time frame between the Interdepartmental
Committee Meeting and Planning Commission is only one week. If their
meeting is 7 days prior to Planning Commission and certain conditions
or suggestions are set down in that meeting, that would mean there
would only be a 2 - 3 day time frame for a continuance regaest
because developer did not have enough time to make those changes.
Commissioner Feldhaus noted that the developer could pay for sad
notify by direct Western Union Telegram t:sat he is making a request
for a change in plans.
Commissioner McBurney noted this will cost developers dollars, which
will drive them out of Anaheim. Commissioner Feldhaus interjected
that they should look at what it is costing in staff time, paporxork,
and Commission time as it is now.
Commissioner Bouas indicated that perhaps they should just not grant
the continuance, that it was up to the Commission to make these
decisions.
07/18/88
~~~.
S
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. JULY 18. 1988 88-41
Commissioner Messe said he agreed xith Commissioner McBurney that
when a continuance is requested because of the IDC Meeting or other
regular procedures there is ao question that Commission has to grant
the continuance; but, when the developer comes to the Coranission and
tests how they are feeling and sees if there is very much opposition,
then asks for a continuance, that is a different question. He noted
the Commission should not ask the developer if they want a
continuance but, instead, say that the Commission has this plan in
front of them, offer a motion to deny the continuance, and go on with
the meeting.
Commissioner Herbst said he felt one thing could happen, the
developer would appeal Commission decision to City Council, thereby,
bypassing the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Messe noted it would be either that, or they would begin
to get better applications.
Commissioner Herbst noted if they were going to give a developer a
continuance that they make it a 6-week continuance automatically,
that way if staff warned them that asking for a continuance may
continue the item to 6 weeks, the applicant may he encouraged to come
up with a better application in the first lace, because a
continuance will be costly.
Commissioner Herbst noted that some applicants come in with 5 or 6
variances and are way over code requirement and that is a proposal
Commission needs to be concerned with. Ae noted that each situation
will have to be looked at and a determination made.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated there vas one other thing that they
might do and that vas, placing language in the original public
notification that says that there is a possibility that this Item may
be continued and that they should call, if they plan on attending, on
a Friday before the meeting at a certain time when they could receive
a recorded message indicating there has been a request for a
continuance of the Item.
Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, stated the Planning
Commission had the power to delegate the granting of a continuance,
under certain circumstances, to the Planning Director. He noted
that, if it was decided it would not be tom hard on the staff, it
could be delegated under certain circumstances. However, he noted
the one that asked for a continuance on a late Friday afternoon or
Monday morning, this would probably not work.
07/18/88
`It
~INL~ES ANAHEIM QTY PLANNING COMMISSION._ ~'> is 1988 _88-42
Chairwoman Bouas indicated that xould be fine, if it could be done in
a r•'>• where neighbor. could call in and it would tell them what the
st .~us of the situation was; but if someone would have to answer the
telephone and take the time for explanations and go through all of
this that would not work yell.
Annika Santahlati stated she wanted to comment, that she has talked
to developer personally when they are getting ready to file and she
had gone through pretty much xhat Commission is concerned xith and
they show up with a set of draxings that she could not recognize.
She noted that a majority of developers qo through a profile meeting
~,<,fore they file. She stated on occasion another department will
whip out a grand wonderful surprise, which does happen, but she would
say that happens only about 1 in 10 times, probably less than that,
so the majority know what is coming. She noted that when you tell
tb.em what the concerns are of Commission or Council, they either
don't believe, but all of a sudden t2sey believe it at IDC Meeting or
when it is writing. You can tell them with a 1sst, put it in the
Staff Report, write the conditions, aid they are shocked.
Commissioners agreed that they should let staff know what Planning
Commission policy might be and that it is a matter of policy.
Mr. Fletcher stated that xould be a good way to start, to try that
out. He also noted that if they decided to qo xith some sort of
delegation of the poxer, that xould require staff to acquire the
hardware to install the telephone.
Discussion of proposed revier of Section 18.87 of the Municipal Code
relating to service station provisions for restrooms (such as being
properly maintained and cleaned and that they not be unisex), and
also relating to the right to charge for air and water.
DISCUSSION•
Commissioner Herbal noted the City Council bad been pretty adamant
about wanting' two restrooms end Commissloser Boydstua ladlceted that
they should require that service stations have two restrooms and that
they be operational and maintained for the public.
Commissioner Feldhaua stated he had a meeting with the City Attorney,
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, Joel Fick, Planning Director, and Dick
LaRochelle of Code Enforcement and theze is a State Lax that may
preempt some of the things Commission would like to do, xith respect
to service stations. He noted that one thing that was a concern of
Councilman Pickler, was provision of aiz and water for convenience of
the traveler and the charging of fees for those. Mr. Feldhaus said
he believed the State Lax addressed that.
07/18/88
~.~
Mr. Fletcher noted that Section 13651 of the Business and Professions
Code was enacted back is late 1984. He stated effective January 1,
1985, it required all service stations, as defined by California
Business and Professions Code, which is all those stations regulated
by the Weights and Measure Departments of the counties requires that
during operation hours water, compressed air and a gauge for
measuring air pressure be available to the public for use in
servicing passenger vehicles and light trucks. Ae noted the code is
silent on the question of charges. He stated that, as a goneral
principle, if from the language of the statute it is clear that the
State intended to occupy the field of this regulation then the City
is preempted from regulating field. He noted it was difficult for
him to tell from that one section whether this was the State's
intent. Ae noted generally the City is entitled to regulate service
stations, together with the State. Mr. Fletcher stated he believed a
strong argument could be made that if the Legislature intended to
require these people to have air and water but did not discuss
whether service station owners/managers could charge for it, the
inference is that they intended to occupy the field and permit them
to charge for it, is exchange for the obligation of requiring it.
In reply to a question from Commissioner Messe, Mr. Fletcher noted
that service stations, as regulated by this code section, are any
business that dispenses gasoline and is subject to the Weights and
Measures inspectors.
Commissioner Herbst noted that on today's agenda, the service station
proposal had two restrooms but they were not accessible to the
general public, is that customers had to go through the store and
another hallway to get to them; Commissioner Messe interjected, he
believed that was accessible.
Commissioner Feldhaus said his concern was that they put signs on the
doa~rs that say "out of order" all the time because the proprietors do
not want to maintain the restrooms.
Chairwoman Bouas noted there was little way to control that, you
could only hope they would not do so but there were not enough people
to go out and enforce restrooms being open to the public. She noted
it could only be enforced if someone complained about it.
Commissioner Feldhaus noted, however, if he wanted to complain about
this type of situation right now, Code Enforcement would have no
jurisdiction to enforce it and one solution was, according to Mr.
Fletcher, to add a section to the development standards in the code
to require those restrooms, by separate gender, and properly
maintained. He noted we are in a heavy tourist area which makes the
City somewhat unique in the provision of services for tourists.
07/18/88
AS _I2~
Commissioner Feldhaus offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
McSurney that the Anaheim City Planning Commission recommender an
amendment to the Anaheim Municipal Code, Section 18.87, adding a
subsection to 18.87.030 (Site Development Standards for Service
Stations) requiring two, by separate gender, sanitary, operable,
restrooms in all service stations, and that said draft ordinance be
prepared by staff.
Commissioner Herbst stated he would like to have the staff check into the
drawing on the "great wall", along Nohl Ranch Road as he talked abaut this
morning. He noted that in looking at the plans he had seen a lot of
landscaping along the wall; that he drove by yesterday and saw that the
landscaping consisted of a few shrubs, right in front of the wrought iron
areas and the rest was just ground cover. Commissioner Herbst stated that
applicant made a commitment to this Commission that he was going to
landscape the wall, and that all that has been done is lox yellow ground
cover the full length of the wall and bushes that in fact are not very
high in front of the wrought iron fend., which area should be left open
for viex purposes. Commissioner Herbst stated that if this has not been
lined up to what he said he was going to do, something should be done
about it.
Chairwoman Bouas noted that there was no further business and the meeting
was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
Respect~ffu~ll/y subm~itted,~/q~ ~ ~~
Prepared by Marvelyn McMillan for
Edith L. Harris, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
0112m
07/18/88