Minutes-PC 1988/09/12c_~
MI TE
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM TTY PLANNING COMMISSION
September 12, 1988
The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission wa.~ called to
order at 10:00 a.m., September 12, 1988, by the Chairwoman in the Council
Chamber, a quorum being present and the Commission reviewed plans of the items
on today's agenda.
RECESS: 11:45 p.m.
RECONVENE: 1:35 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairwoman Bouas
Boydstun, Carusillo, Feldhaus, McBurney
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Herbst, Meese
ALSO PRESENT: Joseph W. Fletcher
Carol Flynn
Paul Singer
Karen Urman
Greg Hastings
Mary McCloskey
Linda Rios
tdith Harris
Deputy City Attorney
Deputy City Attorney
Traffic Engineer
Deputy Traffic Engineer
Senior Planner
Senior Planner
Assistant Planner
Planning Commission Secretary
AGENDA POSTING. A complete copy of the Planning Commission agenda was posted
at 10:00 a.m., September 9, 1988 inside the display case located in the foyer
of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk.
Published: Anaheim Bulletin - September 2, 1988.
PUBLIC INPUT: Chairwoman Bouas explained at the end of the scheduled
hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on items of interest
which are within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission and/or agenda
items.
g0119m
9/12/88
pi,t~
'-r
MINt)TES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12 1968 2
ITEM N0. 1. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• CONDITIONAL 'JSE PERMIT NO 3011.
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: MADHUBALA RAMESHBHAI PATEL AND ROMESH NAROTTAMBHAI
PATEL, Et al., Attn: RAMESH 2`.. PATEL, 1914 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim,
CA 92805. LOCATION: 1914 South Anaheim Boulevard.
Request: To permit a 64-unit motel.
There was no one indicating their presence is opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Peter Wittlin, Attorney, explained the traffic report from Justin Farmer was
mailed to the City Planning Department a few weeks ago. He stated their claim
is that they are exempted from the imposition of the planning fees under
Section 17.30.O70b, because they propose to build a similar or less intense
land use; that thoy are changing a 36-unit motel to a 64-unit motel, and from
1-story to 2-story; however, by the character of the motel, the trips are
actually going down from 515 per day to 303. He stated the traffic report
from Justin Farmer shows that because they are changing the nature of the
motel to a budget motel situation, although they have more units and more
parking spaces, there will be less traffic. He stated page 3 of the staff
report indicates the Traffic Engineer has indicated that the proposed motel
would more likely be closer in number to trips generated by the ezistinq
motel; and that it may be closer in number but a similar or a less intense use
is exempt from the imposition of the Anaheim Business Center fee. He stated
if the Commission has any questions about the traffic report, Abbi Mocarabbi,
who prepared the report, is available and on call.
THE PIiBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissie;ner McBurney stated the applicant has one interpretation of the Code
and he was sure the City Attorney probably had a different one.
Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, explained that fee is imposed by
Chapter 17.30 of the Municipal Code, and that is an obligation imposed by law,
and there is no variance provision in the code for the Planning Commission to
waive the fee; and even if the fee wr~s droppe3 as a condition of approval of
this project, the issue will still be faced at the building permit stage. He
added the Planning Commission does not have the jurisdiction to waive it; and
it is tha City Attorney's opinion that the ezemption provision relates to
conversion of buildings and where there are internal modifications to an
existing structure, and not the demolition and replacement of the structure,
which he understands is the situation with this application.
Mr. Fletcher stated Section 17.30.070(b) reads "that this Chapter shall not
apply to a conversion of a building or structure to a similar or less
intensive use," and applies only where an existing structure is internally
modified, or the use of an existing structure is modified, not where the
structure is demolished and replaced by a new structure. He stated the City
does not have a credit provision for existing square footage of existing
9/12/88
^~
INUTE$,ANAHEIM_CSTY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12
buildings, and that once the building is demolished and replaced, the fee is
imposed on the total square footage without credit for previous development on
the site.
Mr. Wittlin responded that interpretation is not set forth is the copy of the
Ordinance, and it does not refer to demolishing an existing building or talk
about a new building, and is silent in that regard. He said he was not aware
of anything is writing to that effect.
Commissioner McBurney stated the Commission cannot waive this particular
condition but can take action on this matter and would have to leave that
condition is and the applicant can take it to the City Council.
Mr. Wittlin asked if the City Council is empowered to determine whether the
exemption applies or not, and Commissioner Feldhaus said the Commission could
not answer that, but Council is empowered to change an Ordinance.
Mr. Wittlin stated he was not looking to have the Ordinance changed, but he
wanted an interpretation.
Commissioner Feldhaus said the City Attorney's Office had just .interpreted
that Ordinance and that is the same way that he, as a Commissioner,
interpreted it when he read it. He stated he did not agree that changing from
36 units to 63 units would not be impacting the use of the property.
Chairwoman Bouas said this was an improvement on the property and that she
understood the applicant's thinking and concerns but there was nothing the
Commission could do since they can not waive this condition.
Commissioner Feldhaus referred to the shortfall program which is a different
issue and stated on behalf of the petitioner, he did not feel they should be
subject to the entire fair share of the shortfall because they are adding
development to the property; and that naturally they are impacting to soma
degree, but he thought there was some negotiable figure, without requiring the
whole 53.57 for the shortfall.
Chairwoman Bouas stated that was still a decision that should be made by
Council and Commissioner Feldhaus said he thought the Commission needs to give
the Council some direction and recommendation.
Responding to Commissioner McBurney, Mary McCloskey, Senior Planner, stated
the interim fee for the stadium area was meant to finance not only traffic
improvements, but also sewers, storm drains, fire stations, etc. and she felt
it should not be viewed strictly from a traffic generation point of view.
Commissioner Carusillo stated he believed the petitioner would be penalized
with both those fees required is Condition Nos. 12 and 18 boing imposed on the
entire building. He said he felt it would be morn fair to require something
like an assessment for the difference between the present square footage and
the increase. Commissioner Feldhaus agreed.
Responding to Mr. Wittlin, Chairwoman Bouas stated the Commission's report
would be made available to the City Council, but there was no way to waive
that condition unless the Ordinance is changed.
9/12/88
7 {
MI ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12 1988 4
Mr. Fletcher stated the Interim Fee Ordinance does not have a waiver
provision; that there are certain exemptions written into it, but there is no
hearing or waiver process.
Commissioner McBurney asked Mr. Wittlin if he had read the other conditions
and if he had any problems with them.
Ramesh ?Betel, 1914 South Anaheim Boulevard, asked about the traffic signal
which the Traffic Engineer had brought up, and asked whether they pay for the
whole thing or just a portion, (Page 5, Condition No. 3).
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated that particular condition related to
street lighting, not a traffic signal; and that he believed the o:^ly condition
relating to traffic would be the traffic signal assessment fee which is
required with any bailding permit. He explained that fee is based on square
footage and the information would be available from the Building Department.
TI N: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Boydstun and MOTION CAP.RIED (Commissioners Herbst and Messe absent) that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a 64-unit
motel on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.6
acres having a frontage of approximately 120 feet on the northeast side of
Anaheim Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 420 feet and being
located approximately 450 feet northwest of the centerline of Pacifico Avenue
and further described as 1914 South Anaheim Boulevard 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 basin 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 McBurney offered Resolution No. PC88-252 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3011, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code
Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, and subject to Interdepartmental
Committee recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, MC GURNEY
NOES: NONE
ASSENT: HERBST, MESSE
Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to
appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and
MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
that the City Council review Condition No. 18, for Conditional Use Permit No.
3011.
9/12/88
[~a11~VAGJ 'vavsTV rT•rv nr a1T7Txr rnMMTSSiON SEPTEMBER 12 1988 5
Additional Discussion:
Mr. Wittlin asked if his client would be receiving a copy of this decision
there today and he was informed that he xould.
Mr. Hastings asked the Commission if they wished to make any recommendation
regarding the fee, other than having Council review it.
Commissioner Carusillo said his recommendation was that the standard fee apply
to the difference between what is existing and the new square footage. Mr.
Hastings suggested it might be appropriate for the Commission to offer that as
a motion.
ADDITIONAL ACTION:
Commissioner Carusillo offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Feldhaus and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Herbst and Messe absent) that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission recommends that the City Council review Conditional Use
Permit No. 3011 and consider calculating the shortfall and stadium fees on the
increase in square footage only, reducing the amount to be calculated by the
square footage of the ezistiaq structure.
9/12/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12 1988 6
ITEM NO 2 CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS-3 AND 5• WAIVER OF CODE
REQUIREMENT; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3043
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: LIGIA DOMINGUE2, 1223 S. Walnut Street, Anaheim, CA
92802 LOCATION: 1223 S. Walnu~Street
Request: To construct a 504 square-foot "granny unit" with waivers of (a)
minimum side yard setback, (b) minimum rear yard setback and minimum number
and (c) type of parking spaces.
Continued from the meeting of August 15, 1988.
There was no one 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.
Mr. Dominguez, 1223 South Walnut Street, stated he wanted the permit to build
a "granny unit" in the back of his house. He explained there was opposition
the last time he was before Commission because of the parking and they had
made plans to expand the parking.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
It was noted the Planning Director or his authorized representative has
determined that the proposed project falls within the 3efinition of
Categorical Exemptions, Class 3 and 5, as defined in the State Environmental
Impact Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to prepare as EIR.
ACTI(,~I: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
McBwrney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Herbst and Messe absent) that the
Ana'noim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT waivers (a) and (b) on the
basis that 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 is the vicinity; and that strict
application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by
other properties in identical zoning classification in the vicinity; and
granting waiver (c) on the basis that the parking variance will not cause an
increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect
any adjoining land uses; and that the granting of the parking variance under
the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health,
safety or general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Commissioner. Boydstun offered Resolution No. PC88-253 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3043, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Codes
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, SOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: HERBST, MCBURNEY
Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to
appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
INUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12 1988 7
ITEM NO 3 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3044
(READVERTISED)
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: RYO HO YUN and YOUNG SOOIC YUN, Attn: RYN HO YUN,
9252 Garden Grove Boulevard, Garden Grove, CA 92644; AGENT: CHANH NGOE
NGUYEN, 16572 Mt. Neota, Fountain Valley, CA 92708;
LOCATION: 505-509 Sou*h Brookhurst,~LreP~ The Ritz)
Request: To retain a public dance hall with on-sale of alcoholic beverages..
There was no one indicating their presence is opposition to subject request
and although the staff report •::as not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Sagn Nguyen, 555 Brookhurst Street, stated they are requesting a permit for
the sale of alcoholic beverages on-site. He noted at the last meeting the
request was just for beer and wine, but they are now requesting the permit for
alcohol. He said they do have a permit for the dance hall and sale of beer
and wine.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Boydstun asked the applicant if he had anyone on duty after the
dances to clean ~:he parking lot, noting when she was there it was pretty bad.
Mr. Nguyen responded they do have people to take care of the trash and clean
the parking lot, and that they put the trash can inside and take everything
out on Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights.
Chairwoman Bouas asked if they just had the dancing on Friday, Saturday, and
Sunday nights and Mr. lfguyen said they were only open those three nights.
Chairman Bouas asked ii the bar and restaurant would be open on other nights
and Mr. Nguyen said if they get the permit for the sale of alcohol, they will
open at other times, but the dances would only be oa the weekends.
Commissioner Feldhaus noted they did not have any windows fronting on
Brookhurst Street, and asked if they intended to put advertising up indicating
they are selling alcohol. He explained the place vas all boarded is the front
with no windows or any place to advertise this as a place selling alcohol and
asked how applicant intended to promote the sale of alcohol.
Mr. Nguyen said they would advertise if they obtain a permit to sell alcohol.
Chairwoman Bouas asked if they would charge admission, and Mr. Nguyen
responded they do charge for the public dance. He explained the music would
be Vietnamese songs and country music, and ezplained they do not rehearsed
there during the day. He also explained they keep the back door closed so
there would be no sound going out into the neighborhood.
9/12/68
MIh^J'~'ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12 1988 8
Chairman Bouas asked if patrons are required to be 21 years of age and Mr.
Nguyen said at this time they are not, and that if they had the permit to sell
alcohol, and if they had the right to let someone in who was under 21, they
would let them in, but they do not have a permit for someone under 2i to get
in.
Commissioner Feldhaus informed Mr. Nguyen that the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Board of California controls the age limit and that a person has to be 21
years of age to eater a place that is selling alcohol. He stated he could go
along with this maybe on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday nights, but that he
could not go along with the alcohol sales because then it actually becomes a
bar that actually is having dancing, instead of a dance hall that is having
alcohol.
Mr. Nguyen said they would have someone to check everyone coming in, to check
their identification card and they would not let anyone under 21 get in.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated they were presently applying for a dance haYl
permit with the sale of alcohol and what he is hearing now is they are really
wanting a bar that has dancing; and that hs could go along with the fact they
wanted to sell alcohol at their dances on weekends but not being open all the
time selling alcohol with just dancing on Friday, Saturday and Sunday.
Commissioner Carusillo said if they had a permit that alloyed them to sell
alcohol, they could sell it all the time.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated it was staff's understanding that this
was an existing restaurant and the applicant was asking for a public dance
hall permit, which means they would be charging at the door, as well as have
on-sale alcohol for both the restaurant and the dance facility.
Mr. Nguyen responded to Chairwoman Bouas that they do not serve food now and
Chairwoman Bouas stated then it was not a restaurant and there seems to be
some confusion as to what this truly is.
Mr. Hastings said staff's interpretation is that this would be a public dance
hall/cocktail lounge.
Chairwoman Bouas asked what the rules are shout age and Mr. Hastings said that
is under ABC control; and that it is his understanding that as long as food is
served, there is no age restriction, but if food is not served as in this
case, then there would be as age restriction.
Chairwoman Bouas noted if they could serve alcoholic beverages, they could
serve it any time unless Commission puts a time limit oa it; or, if they had a
permit to sell alcohol, they could do it under the hours that ABC allows.
Commissioner McBurney stated he believed that would be a zoning nightmare.
Mr. Hastings said he did not think the ABC would allow the City to restrict
the hours of sale; however, they might want to restrict the hours of operac:ion
of the dance hall.
9/12/88
plINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12 1988 9
Chairwoman Bouas stated the applicant is saying the dance hall would only be
open Friday, Saturday, and Sunday nights and the rest of the time it would
just be a bar.
Mr. Hastings stated he thought the Commission could probably limit the hours
of operation of the bar itself; and that part of the application is that ABC
has to give their approval and ABC is xaiting to see what the City is going to
do.
Responding to Chairwoman Bouas, Mr. Hastings stated Oscars is the only dance
hall with alcohol which does not serve food in Anaheim, and there are two of
those in the City.
Commissioner Carusillo stated the Commission should keep in mind that the use
is really not changing and there have been no code enforcement problems is the
area; and Commissioner Soydstun noted that it had only been open as a dance
hall and had never sold alcohol before.
Chairwoman Bouas asked if they had been open during the day previously, and
Mr. Nguyen said they had just been open the three nights.
Commissioner Carusillo stated they had been open just the three nights, with
no problem and asked if the applicant had any opposition to continuing being
open Friday, Saturday, and Sunday nights only.
Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, stated the Commission can limit the
hours of operation of an on-sale establishment but they could not regulate the
times of sale of alcohol while they are open; and that they could control the
dance activity.
Commissioner Carusillo asked if the applicant would be happy with the dancing,
as he requested, from 8:00 p.m, to 1 a.m. on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday
only, and Mr. Nquyea responded he would.
Commissioner Carusillo referred to Condition No. 9, on Page 5 of the staff
report, and stated he thought the second part of the first sentence, "or
within a period of one year." should be removed. He stated pertaining to
Conditions 1, 3, 4, 5 and 8, requiring repair of the driveways, etc., that he
did not believe Commission should allow one year, especially Condition No. 3
which requires refurbishing and maintaining the landscape is compliance with
City standards. He stated the landscaping is really in bad condition in that
shopping center and recommended that Condition No. 9 delete all but No. 1 and
that the other three conditions, should have a shorter compliance time period,
such as 60 days.
The applicant responded to Commissioner Feldhaus that he did not own the
property and Commissioner Feldhaus asked if the owner of the property would qo
along with these conditions. and pointed out if the owner did not comply, then
the permit is not valid.
9/12/88
raIh J'T'ES ANA~IA, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Sg~TFMRFR i ~ . i 088 10
Commissioner McBurney suggested eliminating 3, 4, and 5 out of Condition No. 9
and adding a condition that prior to commencement of the activity authorized
by the resolution, or within a period of 60 days from the date of the
resolution, Condition Nos. 3, 4, and 5 shall be met.
A TI N: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Herbst and Messe absent) that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal So permit a public
dance hall with on-sale of liquor on a rectangularly-shape~,parsel of land
consisting of approximately 1.1 acre, having a frontage of approzimately
253 feet on the west side of Brookhurst Street, having a maximum depth of
approximately 330 feet, being located approximately 260 fec"t north of the
centerline of Orang:; Avenue and further described as 505-509 South 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 the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PC88-254 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3044, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code
Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental
Committee recommendations, including modification of Condition No. 9, removing
the Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 8 and adding a condition that prior to the commencement
of the activity authorized by this resolution, or within a period of 60 days
from the date of this resolution, Condition Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 8 shall be
complied with; and including the stipulation of the applicant that the hours
of operation will be limited to 8:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. on Fridays, Saturdays,
and Sundays, that all patrons must be 21. years of age; that the rear doors of
the structure will remain closed during the hours of operation; that the trash
will be picked up and the parking lot cleaned up on the morning after each day
of operation; and that existing landscaping shall be maintained.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the fallowing vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, MC GURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: HERBST, MESSE
Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to
appeal the Planning Commission's decision xithin 22 days to the City Council.
9/12/88
ass rr.rv or r,uurur rnwrccTnN CFPTFMSER 12 1988 11
ITEM NO 4 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• VARIANCE_170. 3836
P~JBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: VERNON L. FREDERICK AND JEANNE E. FREDERICK, 6272
Trailcrest Lane, Yorba Linda, CA 92686; DONALD G. NIROLS AND CARRIE W. NI.ROLS,
2432 Circle Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92663; AGENT: TERRY AND NZROLS COMPANY,
4 Upper Newport Plaza Drive, A103, Newport Beach, CA 92660;
LOCATION: 1220-32 Diamond Street
Request: To construct a 22-unit apartment complex with (a) waivers of maximum
structural height and (b) maximum site coverage.
There was one person indicating her 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.
Don Nikols, 2532 Circle Drive, Newport Beach, presented photographs, maps,
etc. to show the neighborhood and their proximity to the commercial which
fronts on Lincoln and abuts the alley that they would be sharing, as well as
the commercial that borders them on the west, which is currently under
construction; and their proximity to other 2 and 3-story above-parking,
multi-family residential which is within a few hundred feet of this site.
Mr. Nikols stated they plan to build something they intend to own for quite
some time; and that he hoped it would be better than the other multi-family
residential products generally located is the City. He said their project was
all 2-bedroom, 2-1/2 bath, roughly 1,000 square foot, double-master
townhouses. He said he personally owns one of the four lots which they have
assembled and the other three are is escrow; and that he found with this
expensive a building, it was not feasible to do anything but maximize the
RM-2200 zone because of the cost of improvements, as well as the land, so they
are requesting two variances, which he felt are absolutely required for them
to be able to proceed.
Mr. Nikols stated there are some unique locatioaal aspects; that Diamond
Street is mostly multi-family residential, and there are a couple of
single-family uses oa the street. He said they are requesting a height
variance but to mitigate that, are proposing a flat roof facing Diamond which,
overall, is a couple of feet lower, at 31-1/2 feet tall is the middle for
architectural relief, rather than a mansard or gable roof, but they were down
to about 30 feet which was absolutely as low as they could possibly get
otherwise.
He said they will use a lot of horizontal lines of mansard the roofing,
balcony lines, fence lines, etc. and their building is 160 feet long, but it
would not be a 40-foot wide boz by 38 feet tall.
He said along with the landscape plan, they are preparing to continue the good
look from inside to the outside, so it has to look good on the outside.
He stated he thought the project would serve as a bit of a mitigation from the
commercial on the back; that this would be a substantial structure, definitely
with a residential structure feel and at the cul-de-sac the focus would no
longer be on the 2-story block commercial.
9/12/88
S ...._.._...._...___ .._ ...........e,... ..
MINUTE$~ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 12. 1988 12
Mr. Nikols stated they need the waiver of lot coverage just to compete in the
business; and that they have it down to 68i and the issue is life quality;
that the tenants will have a nice 2000-square foot, double-master, 2-1/2 bath
with a balcony the full width of the unit, and is many cases the ones is the
back will have balconies that are 18 feet by 10 feet which is an unusually
large personal private space for each of the units. He said they had a
sauna/jaccuzi area on grade, with landscaping.
OPPOSITION•
Hazel Warner, 1202 Pearl Street, corner of Carleton and Pearl, said she was
one block from this proposed project; and that the City has codes for such
things as setbacks and number of units to be built on a property. She said
this project is over built and too high; that everyone on Pearl Street worked
very hard to keep out a 7-unit, 3-story project that was proposed right in the
middle of a single-family grouping, and now this one is proposed on Diamond
Street. She said she believed the traffic will be much more extensive and
that she is protesting this project.
REIIUTTAL•
Mr. Nikols said Ms. Warner's concerns were valid and he respected them but
that the realities are that the housing stock is getting replaced. He said
these properties do back up to commercial on Lincoln Avenue which is a little
different than being is a single-family residential neighborhood. He stated
when multi-family units are constructed and the neighborhood redeveloped,
traffic will be affected; however, they are building 1000-square foot units
that would be double master-bedroom townhouses, and there would not be four or
five people living there. He said he has to live with this building for the
next 20 years and wants his tenants to be people who will pay for the kind of
quality they are providing. He said they have done their best, given the
site, their motivations, and the neighborhood.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated is the pictures presented to the Commission, the
houses looked a lot better than the houses themselves and that he believed
this would be a major improvement to the area; and that they have a commercial
area to the south and across the street, they have some 2-story, RM-1200
apartments; and that this project will terminate in a cul-de-sac and he
thought it would be a nice improvement to the area.
Commissioner Carusillo said he liked the landscape plan, which xas quite
detailed. He asked what the finish was going to be oa the floor over the
garages.
Mr. Nikols stated he had not chosen that finish and they are still trying to
determine if they were going to put some more architectural relief along the
back of the buildings because he was real concerned about who was going to
pay S950 a month to live is the back of that building so they would have to
come up with something nice.
9/12/88
ES,_AN~NFIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12
Commissioner Carusillo stated the Commission is concerned after viewing some
projects in the past which were very stark xith no landscaping whatsoever; and
that he believed that psychologically it was damaging to whoever might live
there.
Mr. Nikols responded that would also be economically damaging to the owner
because they would have a lot of turnover and then he would have to accept
tenants who could not qualify for a better project and he thought that was
self-defeating. He said it is cheaper to build a stacked flat, because of the
plumbing and electrical.
Commissioner Feldhaus asked if they had any problems with any of the
conditions included is the staff report. Mr. Nikols said he understood that
they had the pressure test done on the fire hydrants and that may have to add
sprinklers to this building, which comes up to another 53,000 to 54,000 per
unit; and that at some point the project would not be possible economically
and that he did not know if they were there yet.
He said they would like to make this project work but might have to come back
in front of the Commission and then with some good justifiable answers, ask
for changes, but right now he would like to work with it.
Commissioner Feldhaus said everyone is sprinkler conscious these days and he
thought sprinklers should be required and that is an ordinance now is the City
of Anaheim. He stated he was just a little disappointed they could not get
1214 and 1202 Diamond in this project as xell.
Mr. Nikols stated if they proceed with this project and it all makes sense,
then the next logical thing would be to start at the corner. He stated the
other people own everything but the one house next to their project and that
person does not even occupy the house, he rents it out; but if they get
everything on the other side, then maybe they could have a conversation with
him tci buy that.
Commissioner Feldhaus if the landscaping plans met Commissioner Carusillo's
expectations and Commissioner Carusillo responded there is a possibility of
maybe 50 more projects down the road and there have been cases where,
aesthetically, the Commission has been quite disappointed, and got the
impression the developer was more concerned with putting something up, selling
it and getting out. He skated until nox Mr. Nikols has not disappointed him
with his concern about aesthetics and the overall appearance.
ACTION: Commissioner Feldhaus offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
McBurney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Herbst and Messe absent) that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct a
3-story, 22-unit apartment complex on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 0.6 acre, having a frontage of approximately 200
feet on the south side of Diamond Street, having a maximum depth of
approximately 135 feet and being located approximately 280 feet west of the
centerline of Carleton Avenue and further described as 1220-32 Diamond Street;
and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has
considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during
9/12/88
INUTES, 'NAHEIM CITX PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMaER 12
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 oa the environment.
Commissioner Feldhaus offered Resolution No. PC88-255 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
GRANT Variance No. 3836 on the basis that there are special circumstances
applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and
surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the
same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the
property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and
classification in the vicinity and subject to interdepartmental Committee
recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: SODAS, SOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: HERBST, MESSE
Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to
appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
9/12/88
~_
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 12.
ITEM N0. 5. - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION; VARIA37CE N0. 384
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: FUJITA CORPORATION USA, P.O. BOX 1607, Santa Monica,
CA 90406; AGENT: SEABOARD ENGINEERING CO., 1100 S. Beverly Drive, Los
Angeles, CA 90035.
LOCATION: Propgrty is approximately 10 9 acres nn the south side of Miraloma
Avenue approximately 319 feet east of the cent>rline of Fee Ana Street.
Request: To establish a 22-lot (plus 1 common lot) industrial subdivision,
with waiver of required lot frontage.
There was no one 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.
Mr. Youssef, 4 Aristo, Irvine, Agent, stated this particular development
fronts on Miraloma and falls within the City of Placentia; that they had been
trying to get together with the engineer in the City of Placentia and the
Planning and Zoning staff for quite awhile, and were finally successful last
Friday. He stated they learned that the private street, which they had their
20 parcels fronting on, has to be shifted to align with an existing property
north in Placentia, so there would be no danger to people making left turns
into this property and people making left turns onto the other property. He
stated the exhibit needs to be amended and they haC, the option of either
telling Commission what the amendments would be an3 following up with a new
exhibit, or they could request a continuance for two weeks.
Chairwoman Bouas asked if they could have the plans in by Friday.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated staff would not recommend a two-week
continuance because a very full agenda is anticipated.
Mr. Youssef stated a longer continuance was the problem.
Chairwoman Bouas asked if the Commission wanted to qo ahead and hear this,
then if approval is granted, it would be based on the approval of staff.
Mr. Youssef staled he could explain it very simply; that right now they have a
U-shaped street and pointed out the location of the 22 lots and the distance
from Fee Ana. He explained they would slide that whole development about 40
feet towards Fee Ana and the buildings, 1 through 5, would have to absorb that
extra 40 feet; and that revision is going on right now is their offices.
Greg Hastings stated that was pretty much substantially the same as it is; and
that if the Commission wishes to approve this today, they probably could add
the condition that it be moved over 40 feet, etc. He said staff would bs
looking at the required lot frontage and as long as the number of lots does
not change, theress no problem with staff.
Karen Urman, Associate Traffic Engineer, responded to Chairwoman Bouas that
they would like see revised plans before they approve it.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
9/12/88
~` ....%.
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CC'4fISSION. SEPTEMBER 12. 1
Commissioner McBurney asked if they were taking all of their utilities from
Placentia.
Mr. Youssef said they had no problem ~~-ith getting utilities from the City of
Anaheim, but the problem is that therms is no sewer line in Miraloma, and they
are in the process of evaluating which is the best way to go and probably they
will go to Fee Ana, because there is a good trunk line there. He said
electrical has been taken care of because it cones in Lakeview and they can
loop around and come to their project; and that the water service is still
pending.
Commissioner McBurney stated as long as staff is satisfied, he did not have a
problem with it.
ACTION: Commissionor McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Herbst and Messe absent) that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to establish 1
22-lot (plus 1 common lot) industrial subdivision with waiver of required lot
frontage oa a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately
10.9 acres, having a frontage of approximately 600 feet on the south side of
Miraloma Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 523 feet and being
located approximately 319 feet east of the centerline of Fee Ana Street 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 Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-256 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT
Variance No. 3840, subject to the Planning Department and Traffic Engineer
Division Staff's app:•oval of revised plans, which are to be submitted
substantially is conformance with the previously submitted plans and on the
basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as
size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other
identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application
of the Zonina~ Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and
subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations.
On roll call, the forenoinq resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ASSENT: HERBST, MESSE
Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presente3 the written right to
appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
9/12/88
,dIN'J':'ES ANAF,'EIM CITY PLAh"tING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12 1988 17
ITEM NO 6 CE(ZA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3058
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: LINCOLN CMA, 2415 Campus Drive, Irvine, CA 92715;
AGENT: DENNIS MAILLY, 4511 Eisenhower Circle, Anaheim, CA 92807;
LOCATION: a5~~ Eisenhower Circle (Rios Gymnastics Center)
Request: To retain a gymnastic training center with 29 parking spaces.
There was no one 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.
Dennis Mailly, 4511 Eisenhower Circle, explained they would like to get an
extension of a current Conditional Use Permit which they have for this
facility.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Boydstun stated applicant was supposed to do a new traffic study,
including the parking on the other side of the building, and asked if that had
been done.
Mr. Mailly responded he turned that is to the Traffic Engineer's Division, on
Friday, and that he has a copy with him, if the Commission wanted to review it.
Commissioner McBurney stated he thought the parking was available, and it was
a matter of including it in the study.
Commissioner Feldhaus asked why they were requesting a new Conditional Use
Permit when they had one for 3 years.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated Conditional Use Permit No. 2b16 expired
October 16, 1987, with no provision for any time extensions. He clarified
that quite some time ago the City stopped the practice of allowing extensions
of time for uses and now they have to come back and re-apply according to
whatever new regclations might be in existence at that time.
g~TIOk7: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commission
McBurney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Herbst and Messe absent) that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a
gymnastic training center with 29 parking spaces on an irregularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.67 acre, having a frontage of
approximately 192 feet on the north side of Eisenhower Circle having a maximum
depth of approximately 162 feet and being located approximately 200 feet east
of the centerline of Lakeview Avenue and further described as 4511 Eisenhower
Circle; 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 the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
9/12/88
ES._ANAHEIM CI'T'Y PLANNING COMMISSION. Sromrvnrv 12 1988 1
Commissioner Boydstun offered Resolution No. PC88-257 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3058 for five years, to February 1493,
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, FELDHAUS, MC GURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: HERBST, MESSE
Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to
appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
Additional Discussion:
Mr. Mailly asked if there was a possibility of waiving the time limit, and
Chairwoman Bouas stated the concern is that this particular use is an
industrial area and it has worked out, but the Commission wants to put a time
limit on it, in case the industrial area changes and that property is needed
for industrial use. She added she did not think, if there were no changes,
and if there were ao problems that there would be any problem continuing this
since it has proven to be a compatible use in this industrial area.
Mr. Mailly stated his concern is not in submitting the proposal again to the
City, but the logistics involved. He explained it was very difficult to get
the blueprints, the preliminary title report, etc. and they changed property
managers three times and that was why they were delinquent is filing. He
stated since basically everything the City needs is on record, such as plot
plans, etc., he would like to know if there is some way to reevaluate it but
waive the fees and paper work.
Mr. Hastings said, unfortunately, a new application requires whatever is
required at the time the application is made: and that they could obviously
use some of the information from the previous files, but in five years the
title report would be outdated, and maybe a few other items.
Commissioner Carusillo stated he understood Mr. Mailly's concern but the City
is concerned about what could be happening out there is five years, so the
Commission felt under the circumstances, to allow it for the term of the lease
was about the best they could do right now.
Mr. Mailly asked if the Commission could stipulate what they would be able to
use, and explained the Planning Department requested that absolutely
everything be brand new, and Commissioner Carusillo stated it would be hard to
say what might be needed in five years.
9/12/88
~, ..,}
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. SEPTEMBER 12. 1988 19
ITEM N0. 7. - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3061
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: LAREVIEW BUSINSSS PARR, 19600 Fairchild, #200,
Irvine, CA 92715; AGF'"T: ARC PHYSICAL 1nERAPY CLINIC, Attn: Dennis Phelps,
21730 Mackenzie, Yom Linda, CA 92686;
LOCATION: 1240 N. L .review Avenue
Recuest: To permit a physical therapy/fitness center.
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.
Dennis Phelps, 21730 Mackenzie, Yorba Lindaa, said he was seeking approval for
a Conditional Use Permit to expand their business, that they are currently
industrial medical aiad they would like to broaden their scopes in physical
therapy with a fitness center.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner McSurney stated he did not believe this would have that kind of
impact, as a more intense use, and he thought it would be more of a companion
use to what is exiting and he did not have a problem with it.
ACTION Commissioner McSurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst and Messe absent) that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a
physical therapy/fitness center on as irregularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 4.6 acres, having a frontage of approximately 389
feet on the east side of Lakeview Avenue, having a maximum depth of
approximately 498 feet and being located approximately 320 feet north of the
centerline of La Palma Avenue and further described as 1240 N. Lakeview
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 reviex process and further finding an the basis of the
Initial Study and nay comments received that there is no substantial evidence
that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner McSurney offered Resolution No. PC88-258 and moved for its
passage and approval that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3061, 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, FELDHAUS, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ASSENT: HERSST, MESSE
Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the xritten right to
appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
9/12/88
~~ ,,
~xrrrxS ANAHEIM CITY PL COMMISSION
ITEM NO 8 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• CONDITIONAL~SE PERMIT NO 3060
ptJBLIC HEARING: OWNER: WILLIAM A. COUCH, P.O. Boz 3101, Newport Boach, CA
92663; AGENT: RTM VENTURES, Inc., 12235 Beach Blvd., q5, Stanton, CA 90680
LOCATION: 2144 South Harbor Boulevard (Arby's RPstauran~
Request: To permit a drive through lane addition to an eziLting fast food
restaurant.
There was no one 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.
Jim Cunningham, representing RTM Ventures, Inc., 12235 Beach Boulevard, Suite
5, Stanton, said they were planning to put a drive through at their fast food
restaurant.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner McBuzney stated he noticed an opening in the curbing or fence of
the easterly edge of the drive through; and that the trash enclosure is
completely enclosed so they would have to wheel the dumpster out for pick up.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, responded the Sanitation Department has looked
at this and they are requiring that it be reoriented to face east, free and
clear.
Commissioner McBurney responded that should be a condition of approval.
Commissioner Boydstun stated the driveways on the plans are 18 feet wide and
the Traffic Engineer feels they need to be 24 feet wide.
Bob Hernandez, 20955 East Lycoming, Walnut, CA 91789, stated the 18-foot wide
driveway would be revised to accommodate the 24-foot wide City standard. He
said one of the conditions was no outdoor seating permitted and that the
parking space requirement is based oa 18 per 1000 square feet, and the seating
area for the lobby, right nox, is actually 700 square feet, and 595 square
feet was the kitchen and bathroom areas of the building.
Greg Hastings ezplained the Code requires 18 spaces per 1000 square feet of
gross floor area and, in addition, 18 per 1000 square foot is required for the
outdoor seating area, which was not calculated into this project.
Mr. Hernandez stated there was a CUP previously in 1977, No. 1.754, and there
was a waiver for minimum parking space requirements and asked if that would
still be in effect koday.
Commissioner McBurney stated this is a new application and they would have to
conform with the new code, and the waiver could not carry over.
9/12/88
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. SEPTEMBER 12 1988 21
Commissioner Feldhaus asked if the City is requiring termination of the old
CUP and Mr. Hastings said they could, and this approval could supercede the
original approval. He stated typically if the use is still there, the City
does not require termination, but that the Planning Commission could ask that
it be terminated.
Commissioner McBurney said if the outdoor seating i~ removed, he would
recommend also that they remove the bolts because from an insurance
standpoint, they would be liable for any kind of accident. He stated in
addition, removal would just negate the possibility of putting outside seating
back out there.
Mr. Hernandez stated currently the parking requirements for the project are 23
spaces required and there were 28 spaces available. He asked if that meant
they are four spaces short of being able to have thE: outdoor seating area.
Mr. Hastings said he had not figured that out but t2sere is some parking
available for outdoor seating; and that a portion of the outdoor seating could
remain, provided there is sufficient parking. He stated he thought the
Planning Commission could grant approval, provided the number of parking
spaces is sufficient to handle whatever they are requegtinq outdoors.
Mr. Hernandez stated as long as they are is conformance and since they have a
surplus of five spaces, he was sure the developer would want to provide
whatever outdoor seating he could, or maintain what they had. He stated there
was discussion at one time about applying for a parki.nq variance but he did
not think they needed that many and thought maybe they could juggle the
arrangement of the parking lot and pick up the difference in spaces.
Commissioner Feldhaus asked how far back the outdoor seating area was from the
street. Mr. Hernandez estimated it was about 25 to 30 feet to the beginning
edge of the slab, and he thought the building sets back at least 50 feet from
the property line.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated he was concerned about the outdoor area and the
fumes from the cars going by. Mr. Hernandez stated it is an exiting outdoor
seating area.
Commissioner Carusillo asked if they were working towards a permit oa the sign
that is apparently not in conformance. Mr. Cunningham responded that has been
taken care of.
T N: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
McBurney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst and Messe absent) that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a
drive-through lane addition to an existing fast food restaurant on a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.69 acre,
having a frontage of approximately 152 feet on the east side of Harbor
Boulevard, having a mazimum depth of approzimately 200 feet and being located
approzimately 500 feet south of the centerline of Orangewood Avenue and
further described as 2144 South Harbor Boulevard (Arby's Restaurant); and does
hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered
9/12/88
! ~
.-~
MINUTES-ANI±H°T~i CIS PLANNIlIG COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12 1988 22
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 the project will
have a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner Boydstun offered Resolution No. PC88-259 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heraby
GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3060, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code
Sections 18.03.030.035 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental
Committee Recommendations, with modification to the conditions to include that
the petitioner may provide outdoor seating, limited to the number of parking
spaces, subject to staff approval.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDNAUS, MC HURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NERBST, MESSE
Joseph 77. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to
appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
RECESS: 3:00 p.m.
RECONVENE: 3:10 p.m.
9/12/88
t
MINUTES. AHAHEZM CITY PLANNING COAA1ISSinx cFSrrch„rarq 12 1988 2~
ITEM NO 9 - CEOA NE ATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REOttIREMENT:
CONDITIONAL U5E PERMIT NO. 305
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: DONALD T. TAICAI AND DOROTHY M. TARAI, 3174 W. Rome
Avenue, Anaheim, CA 42806; AGENT: )dAGDY HANNA, 4400 MacArthur Blvd., 9th
Floor, Newport Beach, CA 92660;
LOCATION: 150 South Dale Aven~a.
Request: To establish a 27 space mobilehome park xith waiver of minimum side
yard.
There were three persons indicating their presence is opposition to subject
request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made
a part of the minutes.
Al Marshall, 4400 MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Beach, stated this a very
awkward, long, narrow piece of property and at the last meeting they had
presented 48 single-story apartments, and had asked the Commission, at that
time, what they would recommend on the property and one recommendation was
mobile homes. He stated since they are adjacent to a mobilehome park, that
did seem in keeping with the area.
He stated they had made permit requests to the Orange County Flood Control
District and they are awaiting their decision, based on the decision of the
Commission to accept this project.
Mr. Marshall explained the only waiver they were requesting is minimum depth
of required side yard, from 10 feet to 5 feet; and that they adjoin
residential and some commercial and it seemed is keeping anQ that this
distance was not a real issu>, He stated they had compli@d with all Planning
Department requirements and had provided adequate turnaround area for fire
trucks and for trash pick up.
OPPOSITION'
Jeff Ochoa, 2745 West Tola Avenue, said he was not necessarily in opposition,
and wanted to ask a few questions. He said there is a fence proposed against
the flood control channel and he wanted to know what type fence that would be,
and how high it would be. He stated if the plan is approved, he xould like to
know if the applicant would need other approval should they decide to change
the plans, such as putting in apartments or something other than the
mobilehome park and would the neighbors be notified.
Chairwoman Bouas explained the applicant would have to have a new permit to do
anything different and neighboring residents would be notified.
Mr. Ochoa asked if the applicant would do anything structurally along with
that fence, such as cementing that side, so the fence would not topple into
the flood control with heavy rain.
Linda Schmidt, 2741 West Tola Avenue, asked if the mobile homes would be
rented or would they be privately owned.
9/12/88
MINUTE, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CO~.4+JISSION SEPTEMBER 12 1988 2~
Mary Woods, 2726 West Lincoln, stated she would like to have sa 8-foot high
fence on the north side, because she is on the end and it would be easy for
people to climb over to go back to Lincoln.
REBUTTAL•
Al Marshall responded the fence along the Orange County Flood Control District
would most likely be chain link and that they would have to abide by what the
Orange County Flood Control District requires and that would most likely be a
6-foot fence, set in quite well. He stated it was not a structural issue and
he did not think there was a possibility of damage due to water. He stated it
also has to be accessible by the Orange County Flood Control Aistrict, since
they do periodic cleaning and repair, and they will have to provide what they
require, with gates and locks, according to their specifications.
Responding to Ms. Schmidt, he stated they are planning to rent the pads to
mobile home owners. He said that is their initial proposal unless they get
absolutely no response and that would be the only time they would handle it it
another way. He said they had had a tremendous response from doalers when
they heard this was being proposed, asking to buy it to rent to people they
sell to, but they had chosen to leave it open to people to rent who have
mobilehomes and want to relocate.
Responding to Ms. Woods, he stated he did not think they could do an 8-foot
high fence along there and they would provide a 6-foot high fence but he was
not sure they could do an 8-foot fence. He stated he did not foresee any
problem with people going over that fence.
Mr. Ochoa asked if it would be possible to put up a brick wall so the
neighbors did not have a view into this project.
Chairwoman Bouas informed Mr. Ochoa that the Orange County Flood Control
District would dictate what type of fence would have to go there.
Commissioner Feldhaus said one of the reasons for the chain link is because
they have to have visibility into that culvert because of children playing is
there, etc. and they have to be able to ses in.
Mr. Ochoa said he knows that is what they say, but he also knows that do:sn the
creek there are apartment complexes which do have block walls directly against
the flood control channel.
Mr. Marshall stated in that case, Flood Control has their drive still within
its own boundary so there can be block walls, but not between their drive and
the canal itself. He said this was a situation in which they were actually
asking to improve their driveway, and then to allow them to use that improved
driveway. He noted tt;is is on their property and that is why they would not
allow a block wall.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
9/12/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12 1988 25
Commissioner McBurney said he thought this was a good plan, very workable, and
an applicable use.
Commissioner Feldhaus asked about the recreational area for children, and
referred to a problem recently in Anaheim whereby there was some kind of a
conflict with the children having no place to play within their park and being
relegated to within three feet of their mobile home. He stated there was a
recreational/laundry area which looked very minor; and that they have txo
alternatives, either stipulate that they will rent to seniors only, or that
they will provide a playground area.
Mr. Marshall said they could provide an area specifically for the children,
but it was always good if they could keep it near the laundry facility, so the
parents can watch the children when they are doing laundry. He stated they
would be glad to set that area aside for that purpose.
Commissioner Carusillo asked the dimensions of that area. Mr. Marshall stated
they could eliminate the spa and. convert that area to a playground and put in
a small low-fenced area and that :rauld define the area as a playground, rather
than a spa. He stated that area is approximately 32 feet by 25 feet.
Commissioner Carusillo said that might be fine for the little ones, but he was
thinking about 13 or 14-yea:?-olds and asked if they xould give some thought to
accommodating teen leisure time.
Commissioner Feldhaus said there was a school across the street with a
playground.
Commissioner McBurney asked if they could put something temporary is the fire
turn around area, since the fire trucks would not need the whole area.
Mr. Marshall stated they could pave that area and put in a basketball court,
and that would allow the trucks to turn around; and the other option would be
to put in turf grass to provide more greenery in the area. He stated the
trucks could come in and turn around, but that would not be as desirable as
perhaps a paved playground.
Mr. Marshall said a spa may be inappropriate for this project and perhaps the
best use for that area would be a lox-fenced playground area. He explained
they include spas many times in apartments because of the combination of
people, but mobile homes are a little different, and there are usually more
families or seniors and seniors are not that interested in the spas.
Greg Hastings pointed out that there is an approximate 10 by 20 square foot
area adjacent to each one mobile home that is a private area, and that a
multiple family RM-1200 complex requires 200 square feet of recreation area
per unit, and this actually exceeds that RM-1200 standard.
9/12/88
~;
n.,.IT CCTflAi CFPTF.MRF.R 12. 1988 2
MIhJTES ANAFaEIi+l CITi PLAcir',iNG Cvru
A TI N: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Feldhaus and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Herbst and Messe absent) that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to establish a 27
space mobilehome park with waiver of minimum side yard oa an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.72 acres,
having a frontage of approximately 80 feet on the east side of Dale Avenue,
having a maximum depth of approximately 1019 feet and being located
approximately 650 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue and further
described as 150 South Dale 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 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 McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Feldhaus and
MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT
waiver of code requirement on the basis that there are special circumstances
applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and
surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the
same vicinity: and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the
property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and
classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations.
Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PC88-260 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3059, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code
Sections 18.03.030.035 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental
Committee recommendation, including a stipulation by the petitioner that
playground facilities will be added to include a 32 foot by 25 foot low-fenced
area for small children and paving of the fire truck turn-around area to be
used as an activity area for larger children, and adding a condition that
petitioner shall construct a 6-foot high wall on the south property line in
those places where no wall currently exists.
On roll call, the foregoi•3 resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: HERBST, MFac«
Joseph W. Fletcher, rputy City Attorney, presented the written right to
appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
Further Discussion:
Magdy Hanna, 4400 MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Beach, said there was an
existing mobilehome fence right now on the south boundary lines, which they
might try to maintain, rather than build another fence nezt to it. He said
the areas where there is ao fence available, they would put a block wall fence
there.
9/12/88
I
i .'
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12 1988 27
ITEM NO 10 -REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION EXPLANATION OF MULTIPLE FAMILY SITE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (For information only - no action required):
B. REQUEST FOR CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO HOWLING ALLEYS IN THE "ML" ZONE.
Property is located east of Kraemer Boulevard and north of the 91 Freeway,
just west of an existing recreational facility.
THE FOLLOWING ACTION WAS TAKEN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING.
A TI N: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Herbst and Messe absent) that
the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the petitioner's
request to withdraw the application for Code amendment pertaining to
bowling alleys in the "ML" Zone.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO 283 (PREVIOSJ~LS' CERTIFIED) SYCAMORE CANYON
SPECIFZt' PLAN (SP88 1) FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS 12987 (53 UNITS) 12993 (53-UNITS) AND
13153 (51-UNITS).
Linda Rios, Assistant Planner, corrected the staff report - the final lot
unit min for Tract No. 12993, and the correction pertains to Lot Nos. 47
through 50 and Lot 47 has Plan No. 1, Lot 48 has Plaa No. 4R, Lot 49 has
Plan No. 3, and Lot 50 has Plan No. 2R. She said this list of units is the
list staff would be using to check building permits. She ezplained in the
event the developer needs to change this distribution, if it is just a
minor change such as 5 units or so, it is at the discretion of the Planning
Director to either approve the change of units or refer the matter to the
Planning Commission.
Frank Elf end, 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 660, Newport Beach, was present
to answer any questions.
TI N: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Herbst and Messe absent) that
the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that
Environmental Impact Report No. 283, previously certified, is adequate to
serve as the required environmental documentation for final site plan for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 12987, 12993, and 13153.
Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Herbst and Messe absent) that the Anaheim
City Planning Commission does hereby approve Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan
(SP88-1) and final site plan review for Residential Single-Family Vesting
Tentative Tract Nos. 12987 (53 units), 12993 (53 units),and 13153 (51
units), including the following changes: Lot 47 has Plan No. 1, Lot 48 has
Plan No. 4R, Lot 49 has Plan No. 3, and Lot 50 has Plan No. 2R, on the
basis that the Anaheim City Planning Commissioner finds that Sycamore
Canyon Specific Plan (SP88-1) and final site plan review for Residential
Single-Family Vesting Tentative Tract Nos. 12987 (53 units), 12993 (53
units),and 13153 (51 units) is consistent with the Sycamore Canyon Specific
Plan (SP-88-1} Zoning and Development Standards.
9/12/88
~~ _ i
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12 1988 28
D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2845 AND VARIANCE N0. 3603 - REQUEST FOR
APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLANS: Property is located at the northwest corner of
Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road.
Chairwoman Bouas explained both she and Commissioner McBurney have a
conflict of interest on this matter, but for the purposes of creating a
quorum, she would set in for the discussion, but would not vote on this
matter.
Responding to Commissioner Boydstua, Traffic Engineer Paul Singer stated
he is requesting a reciprocal parking agreement because the parcel map
requires an access agreement and he was not sure if there was a reciprocal
parking agreement. He explained the area was originally intended to
become a shopping center and the nature has changed and they are
contemplating a medical development.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, explained the variance originally approved
was for the entire center and had that requirement and the parking
agreement is necessary is order to use the variance for the parking which
is existing.
A TI N: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Carusillo and MOTION CARRIED (Chairwoman Bouas abstaining and
Commissioners Herbst, McBurney and Messe absent) that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission does hereby approve the submitted specific plans as
required by Conditional Use Permit No. 2845 and Variance No. 3603, subject
to petitioner obtaining a reciprocal parking agreement, and on the basis
that the submitted plans indicate conformance with all applicable code
requirements of the CL(SC) zone.
E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3001 - REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION TO COMPLY
WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVALS James J. Nugent, Ezecutive Director, RSG
inc., requests approval of a 60-day time extension for Conditional Use
Permit No. 3001 located at 523 WEst Victor Avenue.
TI N: Commissioner Feldhaus offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Carusillo and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Herbst and Messe absent) that
the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve a 60-day time
eztension (retroactive to June 24, 1988) for Conditional Use Permit No.
3001 to ezpire on November 11, 1988, to comply with conditions of approval.
9/12/88
,~ _ ,~
MIh T'E'ES ANAHEIM CITY ar sxxruG CpMMISSION SEP~~T~PR ~ ~ ~ a98 29
F. TtFrLASSIFICATION NO 88-89-8 AND VARIANCE NO. 3829: Nunc pro tunc
resolutions to amend Resolution Nos. PC88-216 and PC88-217 adopted is
connection with Reclassification No. 88-89-8 and Variance No. 3829 located
at 1500 West Broadway.
A TI N: Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. 588-261 and moved
for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby approve a nunc pro tunc resolution to amend Resolution No.
PC88-216 on the basis that certain clerical errors were made in Resolution
No. PC88-216 adopted in connection with Reclassification No. 88-89-8.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, MC HURNEY
NOES: NONE
ASSENT: HERBST, MESSE
Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PC 88-280 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anai~eim City Planning Commission does hereby
approve a nunc pro tunc resolution to amend Resolution iio. PC88-227, on
the basis that certain clerical errors were made in Resolution No.
PC88-217 adopted in connection with Variance No. 3829.
On roll call, *.he foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, MC GURNEY
HOES: NONE
ABSENT: HERBST, MESSE
G. FONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3053 - Nunc pro tunc resolution to amend
Resolution No. PC88-215 granted in connection with Conditional Use Permit
No. 3053 to permit a 12-story, 148-foot high, 384-zoom hotel at 201 West
Ratella Avenue.
Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PC88-262 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
approve a nunc pro tunc resolution to amend Resolution No. PC88-215 granted
in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 3053, to reflect the
modifications made to the conditions of approval by the Planning Commission
at the public hearing on August 15, 1988.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, MC GURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: HERBST, MESSE
9/12!88
m.
H. $£CLA$SIFICATION N0. 83-89-06 - Nunc pro tunc resolution to amend
Resolution No. PC88-199 granted in connection with Reclassification No.
88-89-06 located at 400 W. Vermont Avenue.
ACTION: Commissioner b;cBurney offered Resolution No. PC88-263 and moved
for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does
hereby approve a nunc pro tunc resolution to amend Resolution No. PC88-199
granted in connection with Reclassification No. 88-89-C:., on the basis that
certain conditions of approval ;re re incorrectly incorporated into
Resolution No. PC88-199.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: HERBST, MESSE
I. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3037 - Nunc pro tunc resolution to amend
Resolution No. PC88-203 granted in connection with Conditional Use Permit
No. 3037 located at 1660 S. Harbor Boulevard.
~sz~;2'yt% Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PC88-2!'~2 end moved
f'~: r ; ~.:~ passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning "^+xa,~ission does
:~;~y "nprove a nunc pro tunc resolution amending Resoluti;•:~ '•~o. PCEB-203
n.odii~y:. fi the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 3037,
to reflect the modifications made by the Planning Commission at their
meeting on August 1, 1988.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, HOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: HERBST, MESSE
HER ACTI
Commissioner Boydstun was apirointed to serve as the Planning Commission
representative on the Community Development Community-wide Block Grant
Cortanittee.
jaDJOURNMENT•
There being no further business, the Chairwoman adjourned the meeting at 3:47
p.m., to 9:00 a.m., September 26, 1988, for review of plans and items on that
agenda, due to the large number of items.
Respectfully submit~te~d~~~
Edith L. Harris, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
0199m
9/12/88