Minutes-PC 1978/06/05{
Ctty Nall
A~at~e~m~ f:allfornta
.~u~e ~, 1978
RLGULAR MEt.TING OF THE ANONEIM CITY PLANNI~~G COMMISSI(1N
--_.-.----
REGULAa - The reyular m~ct(ng of thc Ar,aheim City Plenning C~ommnsthc~~ouncll~~ed to
MGETIt~G ordor by Chairman Tolar at 1:35 P~m~, June 5~ '37 ~
Charnber~ ~ qu~rum heing present.
PRCSENT - CHAIRMAt~; Tolar
COMMIS510NERS: Bernes~ Uavid~ 11~rost, Joh~son~ F~Ing
Lommissioncr Llnn arrived at 3:00 p.m•
ALSO PRESENT - Jack White Deputy City Attorney
Paul Singer Trafflc ~ngineer
~ay Titus Office E~gineer
Annika Santalahti Assistant Dlrecior for 7_oning
~ay Tashiro Associete Pla~~ner
Edith Harris Planning Commission Secrct9ry
PLEOGE OF - Thc Pledge of Allcyiance to the Flag was led by Conmiss~oner Ilerbst.
AILEr, I ANCE
APPROVIIL OF " MQ~ONSCARRIED,nthaCf tliedma,~utes~of the~~~ting af Mays8,n19jb8Vbe and
TNE MINUTES
epproved as submitted.
ITEM N0. 7 PUBLIC HEARING. ONNERS: JAMES HdOPS AND GEORGE
EtR tiE A IVE DECLARATION OLSEN~ 5N4 North Cypress, Orange~ GA g2G6~. AGENT:
VARI 1CE N0. 30 AL FINK, 4949 Watner Avenue~ ~luntington 6each, CA
- 92649. Patitioner requests WAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM
RECREATIOM•LEISURE AREA. (6) MfNINUM WIrTN Of
PEDESTRIAN ACCE5SWAY~ AND (C) REQUIRED VEHICULAR ACCESS TO GARAGLS, TO CO~IST~UCT A FOI1R-
UNIT APIIRTMEN7 COMPLEX on property described as a ~ectangularly-shaped parcel of lrnd
consisting of approximately 6000 square feet !ocated atfeet on'theenorthrside ofgBroadway
and Melr~se Street~ having approximate frontages of 50
anci 120 feet on the west~fied RN-M200 (RESIDENTIAL~,dMULTIPLE-FAMILY)eZONE.4t7 Fast Broadway.
Property presently class
Chairman Tolar pointed out there were some problems with subject request and asked if the
petitioner was present.
A1 Fink~ a~~nt~ indicated iiis presence.
:hairman Tolar explained that there are setback problems ln connectio~ with the plans
submitted; that it has been determined it wi11 be necessary for the property ownpr to
dedicate 6 feet ~f property on Broadway, which was not indicaced in the sta~f re~ort,
which woul~i creatc: a waiver of che landscaping area since a 20-foot setback is required
7s-~~~ bisi~a
~.
MIMUTES~ ANAt1EiM LITY PLANNING COMMIS510N~ JUNE 5~ 1978 7a'413
EIR NEGATIVE DECLf1RAT10N ~~ND VARIANCE NA. 3014 (contlnucd)
_._._._.___
od,jar,ent to Uroociway and osk6d tf t0~e peticlonar wished a continuance to revise his plans
o~ to requ~st a varlonce, but In eitl~er case~ tl~e item would have to be ~eadvertised.
Mr. Fink Indicated he presencly hes ~~lans into tf~c Building O~partmesnt for tw~ units
adJacent to thl~ onc~ ana Jt~y T(tas~ Office Engineer~ pointeJ out thcrc would be an
additional G~foot dedicatir~n required nlung thc north stde of Broadway.
Gt•~ai~man 7olar expialned tl~is ~s tn tho redevQlopment area and lt would be ne..essAry to
r~advert i se tiie I~ear i ng,
Jay Tash(ro polnted out this petition could be cor.sldered ac the Jun~ 19th ~•iAetln~a if Cf1C
plans wcre submitted by Tucsday~ ~~r the petici~ner rnay wish to requc~t an Additione)
walver, and Mr. Fink in~licated f~e wishcd to request an additlonal walver.
AGTION: Gommission~r Johnson c~ffcred a rtx~t+on~ seconded b~• Commisslon~r Oavid and t1UTI0N
C RR ED, that considera~tton of tf~N aforementioned item be continu~d to the reqular meeting
of June 19, 1973~ at tt~c re~ucst of the petitioner~ in order to adverttse an additlonal
waiver.
fTEh N0. 2 PUBLIC E~EARING. OWNERS: ART~IUR G. ANO LINOA
EI~GORIGAL EXEMPTION-GLl+SS a S. RICKETTS. 4q41 Eas[ Crescent ~rive~ Anahein~~
VARIANCE N0. 3015 CA 92f~b7. Petitioner requcsts WAIVER OF SIUE
YARO SE78ACK TO CONSTRIlCT A TENNIS COURT on
property descrit,eJ ~s an irregularly-shaped
parcel of land consisttn~~ of approximately 1,0 ocre having a fronta~e of approximateiy
13G feet un the nortl~ sicle of Crescent Urive~ having a maximur~ depth of approximately
504 fcet~ being located approximately 125 fcet east of the centerline of Peratta tl(lls
Drive~ and furthcr d~escribed as 4941 East Grescent Drive. Fropr.rty pregently classiffed
RS~NS-43~000(SC) (RESIUEhTIAL/AGr~iC~!_TURAL-SCENIC CCRRIDOR OVERLAY) ZONE.
There was nu one indicating cheir presence in oppcn(tion to subject request~ and although
the staff report to the Planning Commission dated June 5, 1q1~ was not read at the public
hearing~ it is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Arthur Ricketts~ own~r~ indicated he wished to bulld a 1(!-foot fence around his tennis
court rather than 12 fect as indi~ated in the staff report.
THE PUliLIC HEARItJG WAS CLCSF.D.
Chairman 7olar potnted out there is a private road on the west p~operty line.
Mr. Rickctts Indicated tt~is Is corre~t and tnat he owns tne pronerty immediately to the
east. which is dver an acre.
Commissloner Barnes asked the type of lighting proposed, an~d a capy oF the lighting plan
was presented to the Planning Comni~sion.
Gh~irman Tolar asked if a plzstic-type liner was p~ar~ned for inside the fiencing~ and Mr.
Ricketts replied he may eventually put that in. but not at ~he pr~sPnt time.
6!5/78
MINUTES. ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUN~ ~~ 19i~ ~8~~~14
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION•CLA_SS 5 ~NU VARIANCE No. 3A15 (continued)
Chairman Toler polnted out he had no ~~roblom with what this petitioner desires to do with
the property and that it Is an unusuel-shaped plece of propcrty~ but tl~ere are questlons
in relationshlp to thio lightlnq and ~sked if there is a posslbllity of mc~vtng tha court
forward. closer to the house.
Mr. R(cketts painted out tl~is would be imposslble because of the hill,
Comm) ss 1 onar Johnson asked the fa 1 1 of tlie I and f rum tl~e back of the court to the f ron t~
and Mr. Ricketts replled it is about one foat.
Chelrman Tolar indic~ted tl~erc are ++ I~t of p~ople ln ttie Pe~alta 11i Ils area who are
putting in tennls courts and that Ilyi~tin~~ is a problem, Ile pointed out thdt at the
presont tirr~~ ~e~ause of the road on ihe wPSt anci the f~ct that property on thc east is
vacent. hc did not sec any problems~ and whocver buys the property to the esst wtll sco
the tennfs c~urt is establlshed.
It was noted tt~at thc Planning Df rcct~r or his authorized representatlve has determinecl
that the proposed proJ~ct falls with(n Che defintt(on of Categorical Exerr~tlons, Class 5~
ds define~ ln paragraph 2 of the Clty af Anaheim fnvlronmental Impect aepart Gutdcllnes
and is, therefore~ cate~orically r.xempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR.
ACTION: Commissianer M.inq offered Resolution No. PC7$-114 and mc~ved for its passage and
ac~optTon o that thc Anahe i m C t ty P 1 an~~ i ng Commi ss i on does he ~eby g ran t F'et 1 t lon for
Varianc:e No. 3~~1~ on the basis that the propcrty ls relativcly narra•r bnd extremely deep
and there is a prlvate road along the ent(re west property line and the property to thc
east Is vacant~ and subje~_t to I~terd~partmen~a) Committec recommendattons.
Nrlor to voting, Commisslone~ Jnhnson indlcateJ he felt an acre af ground (s a larqe area
and should not require a variance for fencin~~ hut that he would go al~ng with this
request ~ir~ce tf~e property is lony and narrow. He asked Mr. Ricketts if he had ony Idea
what ls planned for the property in back of his propertY~ anci Mr. Ricketts replied lt (s 6
acres of vaca~t land at the present time~ and he has :~o +dea what ~s planned for that
property.
Commtssioner Barnes pointed out the property owners within 3~Q fe:t had been notiFied and
are not here to obJect.
Julian Ebel~ 5031 ~ast Crescent Drive~ Anaheim, indicated he had no obJectia~s to the use.
On ro11 calt~ the furegoing resolution a:as passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES. UAVtU~ HERDST~ JOIiNSOt~, KtNG~ TOL R
NOES: GOMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONf:RS: LINN
Commissioner Darnes po~nted out she felt the Planning Commisslon ~I+ld bc fated with more
and more requests from people in Peralta Nills wanting to put in tennis courts; that one
case which was ap~roved is ~ow in liitgation; and that the Planning Cortimission must be
very careful about granting varia~ces. She felt the Planning Commisaion shoulci ~o on
record stacing this variance had been approved because of the irregul~r yhape of the
prAperty.
6/5/7g
~
MlI~I:TCS~ AI~AIIEIM CITY PLANNING GOMMiSSION~ JUNC 5~ ~~?~ 7fl'4~~
ITEM N0. 3 PUBLIC NEARII~G. ~W~ICRS: aONAIU W. AND NANCY R.
EIR A L'GORICAL EXL'11PTION-CLASS 5 PNARRI~, 13Q EI Dorado l.anc~ Anaheim~ CA 92a0J.
V RIIINGE N0. 3Q~J Petitioner requests I~AIVE:R OF MININUM Sll)~ YARD
""-' S~TI3ACK T(1 CONSTRUCT l1 TENNIS COURT on property
described as an Irreqularly-shaped parcQl of
Isnd consisting of opproxlmately 1.~ acre I~evl~g a frontage of approxirnatesly 200 f4et
on the east sl~e of EI Uorado Lanc, liavfng a maxlmum depth of approximately 223 feet.
being located a~proxlmately 210 feet north of the centerltne of Cerro Vlste Drive, end
further described ~s 13~ EI DorAdo Lan~s. Prope~~;~ presently classifled RS-HS-b3~QAt1(SC)
(RESIUEt~TIAI/AG111GULTUW1l-SGEI~IC CORRIUOR OVCRLAY) ZQNC.
TherQ was no ane Indiceting thelr presence in opposition to subJect request. and although
the staff report to the P18nning Gommfssion datNd June S, 1`~If3 was not rsad at the publtc
hearing, it ls referred to and rnede a part of the minutes.
It wes noted the Nill ar~d Canyon Munic{pal lldvisory Committee (NACMAC) reviawed the abovc
praposa) on May 23. 1978 and with stx membcrs pres~nt~ the Commmittee voted unenimously to
recommend ap~roval of Varlance No. 30SJ, subiect to dvwnlighting being utilized In the
tennis court are~.
Ronald Pna;~is~ the petitloner, indica[ed t~e ls requesting a variance to ins~~ll a 10-foot
fence f~r h(s tennis c~urt in the rninimum slde yard setbacks; th~t flve of his neighbors
presently have tennis courts wlth slmilar or even closer setbacks to tlie propGriy tine.
He indiceted he plans to bulld a paol and wnuld not havc room for vcry much decking.
7he Commission discussed the property awnr.rs in the Imrnediatc areo F~nd asked if the
property owner 1r~medlacely In back of sub)ect property had seen the alans, and Mr. Pharrts
pointed out he had looked at the plans and hacl tndicated he would agrec wlth them. He
pointed out there is a ~ow of 5~)-S`oot euGalyptus trees adJacent t~ the property an~ the
property ew~cr to the south had si9ned the p~tition In favor~ and tl~at everyone on the
strcct had indtcat~d they eq~eed with thfs proposal.
Canmissioner lfarnes lndic.a*~d this is exactly ~'~at she had referred to during the previous
he~ring; that this Is a lnrge piece of ground and is not irrec~ularly shaped and t-~er~
would be room to devetop the tennls court without the varfancr by elim(nating some af the
pool decking.
Chai~man Tolar polnted out a 6-foot fe~ce could be bullt to the property Ilne and that (t
is a fente and not a structure.
Commissioner ~arnes stated there are also light standards and a fence is a structure that
can be seen from the adJolniny prope~ties, and asked what the hardsh~p for this case could
br; that there is a requ(rement In nranting a variance to show a hardship.
Chalrman Tolor poinCed out to the petltioner that the State law requires a hardship must
bt shown by the petltio~er and that it has to da with the land itself~ and this Is an acre
of ground that is almast square and would ~ot be corstdered unusual by State siandards.
Mr. Pharris point~d out it Is unusua) because of the way they plan to develop the yard.
He i~dicated that when he had bought this property~ there were five tennis co~rts existing
and he believed he could develop his property in the same way.
6/5/78
~^
MINVTES~ ANAf1EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNE 5~ 1978 78-416
EIR CATEGOftICAI FXEMPTION-CLASS 5 AND VARIANCE N0. 3017 (continue d)
Chelrrnan Tolar asked M~. Pharrls If he was sure the other fences we ~e b uilt on the
p~operty Ilnes~ end Mr. Pherris repiled thot he liad not me~sured th em~ but that he h~d
based thn value of his h~ma on the assumption he could build a ten ~ is court.
Commiss(oner 9arnes polnted out he could bulld a tenn{s court~ but that ht would have to
compromise ond lose some of hls pool decking.
Chatrman TolAr pc,inted out therc is a lot of lawn area in the pla~ and he ~olt the poo)
could be relocated i~ order to provide sufficle~t setb~ck area for the tennis court.
Mr. Pherrls stattJ uut he has a youn~ family end desirPS to put th e pool tn an area where
it could b~ supervisad and he dlci not want his children ta h~ve to play ln the street. Ile
falt this develupment wouid enhance the nelyhborh~od ond nat be ~ ciptrlrnPnt. Ne polnted
out others have ~et the precedent~ but he thought he cuu1J do the s ame th(ng.
Chalrman Tolar pointed out that is one of the p~oblems the Plannin g Corm~isslon has In
approving a varience; that precedents are set whether It Is intend ~d that way or not.
Cortimfssioner Barnes p~inted ou[ that rc,yardless of how this requcs e Is handled, she woulcJ
Itke staff ta look into the other properties In this area with ten nls courts to finci out
wt~r.ther qr not they are encroachinq.
Jack Mlhite~ Deputy City Attorney, read tlie cr(teria of Section 18.n3.040 of the Anahelm
Muntcipal CoJe concerniny herdships.
~Ir. Pharris indlcAted I~e felt the hardship would be because of sp~ =lal circumstances in
that ot~~er properties in this same area havc tennis courts.
Jack Whlt~ poi~ted out if therr. are tennls courts in the same vlcinity and zont~ th(s only
becomes appl(c~ble if the other parties have a similar type hards hip,
Commissioner Kiny asked Mr. Pharris If he wauld go on record stating there are other
tennis courts (n the imrnediate area that hav~ 3 and 12•foot s~etbae ks f rom the property
iines~ and Mr. Pharris Indirated he had not measured the setbacks. so could not go on
record stating this as a Fact.
Jack White pointed out bath criterions would have to be met.
Commtssioner Herbst stated the Planning Commission had not consid~ rcd the fact that tennis
cou~ts requi re 10 to 12-foot fences ancl other rec~ eational faci 1 i t ies ~ xuch as a swimminy
pool~ allow for a 6-foot wall an the property linc; that chis wouid provide recreatlonal
facilities (n their own back yard and maybe the hardship could be established on the fact
that the t~nnts court could nat be put into the yard witl~out a variance, and the
petitioner would like supervision for the swlmming pool, placing ~t in view of the llving
area. He indicated he did not see anything wrong wlth these plan s except tha•. they do not
agree with the City of Anahe(m codes. 11e tndicated tennis courts haue a speciflc n~ed for
a fence this h(gh and the next door neiyhbors could develop a swirm~ing pool and there
would be more noise from the sw(mminy pooi than from the tennis court. and to relocate the
tennis co~rt would create an area of totally unusahle land.
Chairman Tola~ ind(ceted he agreed with what Commtssioner Herbst rras sAying, and that he
has a problem in visualixing a fence as a structure; chat e 6-foo t fence could be built
and he would rather sce tfie property develaped as propased than have a G-foot fence.
6f 5/78
MINUTCS~ hNAII~IM CITY PLANNING CdMMISSIAN~ JUNE 5. 1A18 JS-41]
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS S ANq VARIANCL N0. 3017 (continued)
Lommisslone~r Nerl,st paintod out that any (ence aver f, feet must Ge considered structur~lly
by the Unlform Uuilding Codes .
Chalrmen Tolar Indicated it wauld be difficult to justify a t~erclsl~ip ~f providin~ e place
for the chlldren to nlay when there is an acre of ground.
Mr Pharris pointcd out the supervision of the pool could not bc dane from behind the
tiou:e, and he felt that could be consldared tf~e hardship, tle stated they would t~~ve dead
spacF c~r would have to eliminate ~I~e pool in orde~ to conform to the setl~eck requlrements.
Commiss'oner Nerbst askr,d if the tennls court and swimming pool locations cou!d be
roversed and Mr. Pt~arris ren lled tl~at would sti I 1 plar.e the pool behina thP bedrooms and
not ellow for the supervision ciesired.
Comrnlsston~er Barnes indicated her concern tliat th: s would bP setting a precedent and
evcryone wc~uld be wanting to put someChing next to the prop~rty llnes, even thougi~ thcy
liave an acre oF lend. She pointed out tf~at even though the present edJacent propercy
owner agree: wi th the praposa 1, tlie ncxt property owner mlght not I ike the fence being
that close t~ his property li ne.
Mr. Pharris Indlcated he bel i eved this w~ id enhance the value of the house. and
Commiss(oner 8~~rnes indicated she was not referring to the value ~f his house~ but to the
impact on the neighbor's yard.
Mr. Pharr) s pol n:ed out tha[ at the prevlous I~ear i nc~ a pet i t ion~r had been granted a
var i ance ~ and Commi ss i oner Ba rnes i nd i cateJ slie d i d not ~ee a hardsh i p 1 n th 1 s 1 ns tance
and felt the petltioner was trying Co overbuild the property.
Commissioner Johnson pointed uut a variancc had b~en granted in the Peralta liills area
very close to the~ property 1 i ne and it has not turned out to be a very good development
and tlie petitloner i~ that instance had had an odcS-shaped piece of property.
Commissioner Barnes potnted out the tennis court she remembered being approved in Peralta
Hi l ls is now in 1 i t(gation because the ncighbor does not 1 ike the locat(on of the fe~ct~
and these are the problems the Planning Gommisslo~ wili be faced with.
( t was noted that the P 1 ann i ng 01 rector or h i s authori zed representat i ve has detrrmi ned
that the proposed proJect fai ls withtn the defini tlon of Cetegorlcal Exemptions. Class 5~
es defined in paragraph 2 of the City of Anahe~im Env(ranmr.ntal Impact Report Guidelin~s
and is ~ therefore. categort eal iy exempt from the requi rement to prepare a~ E IR.
Commissloner lierbst offered a resolution and moved for its passagc and adoption, th~t
Petition for Variance No. 3017 be g~anted (nasmueh as tl~ere are flve other tennis courts
developed in the same neighborhood and thc ncighbors havt signed an endorsert~nt of thls
tennis court; that it wauld bo a hardship to move the tennis court and leave an ares or
dead space between the prope ~ty 1 ine and the tenn is court which is not usable; an~j that
utillzat(on of the back yard would provide supervislon for tl~e ch(ldren in the swfmming
pool.
Coim~issioner David tndicated he was yoing to vote agai~st this resolution because he felt
the land is being overdeveloped. He indlcated he appreciated what the peti tioner is
tryinc~ to do and he could view this as an ideal situetion, but khat in many ~nstances the
6/S/78
MINUTES, A~IAHEIM CITY PLANNINC OOMMI5SION~ JUNE 5~ 1978 78-41$
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 ANp VARIANCE N0. 3017 (contlnued)
Pla~ning Commisslon has refused vertances where they fclt the propmrty was belnq
ove rbutlt.
On ~oll call~ the foregoing resolutlon failed to cerry by the following vote:
AYESo COMMISSIQNERS: KI~~G, TOLAR~ NER95T
NOES: COMMISSIONE:RS: DAVID~ BARNES~ JOHNSON
ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: LINt~
Jack White potnted out the motlun fAlled co carry becnuse of the tie v~te and clie item
would h~ve t~ bc centinued untll the seventh Commissloner was present.
ACTION: Commisstonc~ Barnes offered a mati~n~ secondcd by Commissloner Oavid end MOTION
GllttRlCD~ that cansi~cratl~n af the aforementioned Item be ccmtlnued to the regular meettng
of the Plenning Commission on June 19, 1918~ because af thc tl~ vote.
PrTar to voting on the preceding motlon~ the Commission discussed the possibility of
Commtssloner Linn Iistening to tlie testimony of this hearinc~ and voting on the matter
later ln the day.
Annika Santalahti~ Assistant Director f~r Zoning, pointed out the matter sl~ould be
continued for two wee:ks and that perhaps the petitioner could make modiflcations which
would be helpful to the Commissloners.
The Commisslon also dtscussecl the ~ossibility of Mr. Pharrls rr~ving forwarJ ~o the City
Counci 1 wl th his rcquest ~ and Jack 41hi te~ pointed out the matter could not br. consldered by
the City Council s(nce no decislon has been reached by the Planning Commisslon.
Chairman 7olar indicated to staff he would like to have the other fences checked out In
this area to flnd out whether or nat ti~ey have Guilt cloYer to the propPrty line than
al lowcd.
Jack White p~inted out the c~ntinued meeting will be a continuatlon of the public hearing
an d that the applicant wil! be able to make addittonal comments.
ITEM N0. 4 PUf3LIC HEARING. OWNER: CANYQN VILLAGE, P. 0. Box
'~ R EG RiCAI EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 63~+$, Orange, GA 926G7. Petitioner requests
0 0 ON L SE ERMI N0. 1 0 permission to GIVE PRIVATE TENNIS LESSONS IP~ AN
EXISTING APAR'iMENT COMPLEX on property described as
an irregularly-sh aped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 7.5 acres located at the northerly terminus of Chrisden Street, havl~g a
frontage of apprnximately 372 feet on khe east side of Imperiel Highway, having a maximum
depth of approximately 787 feet. being located approxtmately 565 rteet north of the center-
line of La Palma Avenue~ and furttier described as 1265 and 1275 Ch~isden Street. Property
~rescntly clasgified RM-12~0(SC) (RESIDENTIAL~ MULTIPLE-FAt41LY-SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY)
zor~t.
The~e was no one indtcating their presence in opposition to subject request~ and altho~gh
thp staff report to the Planning Commission dated June 5. 1g78 was not read at the public
haaring, it is retierred to and made a part of the minutes.
6/517~
~,
MINUTES~ ANAIiEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUt~L 5~ ~97a 18-W19
EIA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLA55 1 AND CONDITIOIiAL IISE Pk.RMIT N0. 1i~40 (contl~ued)
It was noted the Nill and Canyon Munic.lpal Advisary Gommittee (fiACMAC) reviewed the
proposal o~ May 23rd~ and with six members present~ voted un+~nimously wlCh ana obstention
to recommend dental wlthout preJudtce of Conditlonal Uso Permit No. 184~ so that the
applicant could receive reconsldnration from the cammlttee If tennis lessons were endar~sd
by che apartment residants.
Ulck Droadway~ representlnq the mena,yement compony for Canyon Vlllage~ indice-ed this
complex is presently developed wlth tsnni~ courts and there is a professional tannis
Instructo r Ilving on the premises, and they are requesting pormisslon t~ conduct tennis
lessons on the existfnq tennt~ courts. Ile steted t1~ey prescncly offer tennis lessons to
the residents~ but that the Instructor has not been able to flll hls sched~ale ~nd would
like to be ~ble to offer iessons to penple ~uts(de tl~e proJect. He Ind(ceted he would bn
organtzing competltlans with otl~er complexes~ tennis clinlca~ etc. Ne polnted out they
havo made the facility available to the Yorba Llndr Y.M.C.A. and e letter has been
furnished for tt~e Planning Cornmission's revtew. He indicated the instruct~r wished ko
conduct lessons on two evenings~ but yenerally from 9:00 a.m. to ~:0~ p.m. He pofnted out
wit~~ a tennls professional on the premises, the courts ar~ better maint~ined~ whlch ls an
advantac~e to tha complex residents. Ile lndicated the instructor has kept outsiders from
using the courts and polnCed out this Is e progrom In the facllicy that Is not supported
by tax dallers.
THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSCD.
Commissianer Herbst indicated when the proJect had been approved~ the tennis courts had
been o~e of the amenities provided for the campl~x and referred to the hours bcing
requested for tennis lesso~s and polnCed out this wou0d be a commercial ventu~e. tle
palnted out tenants in thc corr~plex would ~ot be able to use t~ie courts during these lesson
hou rs .
M~. kiroadwey pointed out the tnstructor had kepe a log of thP use of the courts during thG
past three weeks and 50`~ to GQe of the tlme the court that was n~t t~•ing used for lcssons
was vacant.
Dav(d Kornreich. the tennis instructor~ paint~d out I~e vrished [o teach lessons on the
courts f ~om 9:00 a.m. to lO:OQ p.m. on liondays and Tuesdays and Saturday mornir,gs from
10:00 to 11:00 a.m.~ a~d [hat the other evenings the cou~ts would be vacant for the
tenants' use. He indicated thase courts a~e not being used~ inciuding evenings, and that
there hav~ been times whe~ none of the tenants have used the cou~ts.
Commissloner David asked Mr. Kornre.ich how many applicants he Nduld expect to sign up for
the tennis lessons~ and he replled Lhere would be five ar six per lesson and he has had as
many as e(ght in a class.
Commissioner Davld asked if the te~ants had been notified of this request. and Jay Tashiro
pointed aut tht notlce had been pusted tn various places at the complex sa the fesid~nts
could see tt.
Mr. Kornreich pointed aut the residcnts are usually grateful he is thert be~iuse the
courts are kept clean and there is better securiKy and he can keep non-reside~ts from
using the court.
6/5/78
,1.
~
MINUTES. AN/WEIM CITY PLANNIhG CUMMISSION~ JUNE >~ 197Q 78-420
EIR f.ATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-C~A55 1 AND CONDITIQNAI. USE PERMIT N0. 1840 (contln~ied)
Commissloner King indicated h4 felt these two courts reerc built for the enJayrx nt of the
people renting the u~its In the complex and it would be unf~lr to take the co~irts aw~y
from those people.
Mr. KornrelGh pointed out that whan he hss had lcasons on the cou~ts there ha!~ been no
pressure to use them.
CvmmissionQr Herbst Ind(cated he would off~r a motion for approvel of the req~rest~ subJect
to the haurs of operatian as stipulated to by thc applicant~ fc~r a onc-year p~*.rlod of time
as a trla) basis In order t~ fiiiJ out wtiother or not the residents in the com~lex will bc
affected by the tennis lessons, and It ~lsa would give the applicant a chance to check the
progrem.
Gommisslonc~ Barnes asked if any of the tenants had been nottfled of this change, and Mr.
Oroedway replied that when tha tenants had moved into che complex, availeble tennis
losso~s was part of the marketing pragrar~.
Cormnissione~ 9arnes clarlfied that she wanted to knvw whether or nut che tenants had been
nattfled the rnansgementwas contemplating offerlnq tr.nnis instruction to outstders.
Mr. aro~dway replied this had bren happening for a couple of months; that they were not
aware a condltlonal use permit wauld be required and there had been no probltms.
Jay Tashlro. Associate Planner, paintr.d aut the Zoning Enforcement Off(cer ha~d observed
banncrs dtsplayed on this complex advcrtis(ng tannis lessons~ and that was th~c reason for
tht citatlon.
Commissioner Johnso~ indlcated he could support Cammissioner I~erbst's mation for approval
tf therc ls a stipulation tMat there will be only one instruct~r for these lessons.
Commissioner darnes (ndicated It was her feeliny thls would be a commerclal venture into
an apertment complex and there are a lot of peo~le whn would like to have a commerclal
actlvity in an apartment complex~ and that was her problem~ that tt would be a dual use of
the tand. She indicated she found it extremely hard to believe that these courts are not
being used by thc residents and ~rnndered haw many o~ the tenants knew about the proposed
change. She felt the r~s(dents would lonk out thetr wlndavs and see thc tourts are betng
used and not try xo use tfiem.
Mr. Ko~nreich indicated It was his impression that people who llve In apartments are not
active ln 2ennis and that most of tht time the tennis courts are not being used.
Cnmmissioner Ba~nes Indicated sh~ realize;d this wa~ not the proper ttrn~e to bring up this
matter~ but she was concerned about the north wall along the complex, which ts a ve ry htqh
wall edjacent to thG railroad tracks, and indtcat~d she believed when the proJect had been
approved that area was supposed to be landscaped. She pain~ed out the people who liv~
ac~oss on Espe~nnza Road have a real proble~n as this hlgh~ sound-barrier wall acts as an
echo chamber wh~en the trains gc~ by. She ir~dlcated it was her understanding that there was
supposed to be landscaping alor.g the wall adJacent to the railroad tracks.
Mr. B~oadway indicated he did not ramember that the plans showed landscaping, that is
ra i 1 roed prope rty . b ut i f i t i s s upposed to be 1 ands.caped ~ they wou 1~i do i t.
6/5/78
~` .
MINUTES~ AUAIiE1M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE y~ 1978
78-421
EIR CATEGOa1GAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 ANU C~NUITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 18~~0 (continued)
Annika Santalalitl~ Assistant Dlrecto~ for 2oning~ indiceted the str~ff would liavc to verify
whether or not landsceping was (nclucied In the plans for this deve~opment.
Chsirmen Tolar pol~~tcd out the woll is not before the Planntnn Conmisslon at thls tirt+e and
thcy should kecp their comments relative to thr. tennis lessons fn• persons otl~er tha~ the
residents of the complex.
Commissinner Kiny i~dicated he feit the people living In the com~lsx should knc~w about
this change and he dld not feel they h~~d b~en notlficd of thi~ ~equest.
Mr. Kornrslch polnted out th~ere were notlces posted at the entrance tc~ the tomplex and
also in tlie parking area.
An~ike Santalalitl potnted out NACMAC had been concern~cl .~hout the tenants not being A~~aro
of the cF~ange and the Zonin~ Enforcement Officer I~ad h~en (nstrucced to post more na',ices
than usuol.
Commissioner ~arnes pointed out the notiGe docs not 'ndicnte the hours being ~equested for
instructfran.
Carnmisstnner Johnson indicated t~e felt he could support this for a one•year pe:ri~d to glve
them a chance to look at it ond to dptermine whether or not the tenants are shut off from
using the tennis courts; that the tPnnis courts were Installed for the rocroatio~ of the
pevple in the complex and wonderPd if this migtit be forcl~g them Co take the lessons in
order to use thc courts. Ne indicated (f a ~eport is received that th{s is what is
happening, the conditional use permit could be terminated.
Comnissioner Y.lny indicated he was concerned about this beinq a cammerclal enterprise in a
residentfal area.
Mr. Kor~relCh polnted out the c~mplex does nc~t receive any money fram his lessons; that h;;:
is allowed to have acccss to the courts and provldes the lessons.
Chalrman Tolar indtcated he had ~ problem with appraval of this condttional use permit
since there are a lot of commercial ventu~es that would Iike to go into an a~artment
~ompl~sx. ~le stated the e~~acher has very impressive credentials and he was sure h(s
intentions were honorable, but was concerned this would set a precedent with other peonie
~~anting to have commercial uses ln apartment complexes as well as residential homes.
On roll cail~ the foregalny resolution fatled to carry by the following vote:
AYES: COMMiSSlONERS: DAYID~ HERBST~ JOHNSON
NOES: COMMISSIONc.RS: BARNES, KIPIG, TOIAR
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: LlWN
Commissio~er Barnts potnted out the petition~r would have two weeks to contact the
apartment dwellers and to ffnd out whether or not they wcre aware of this change.
ACTION: Comnissioner Barnes offered a motian~ seconded by Commisstoner Oavid and MOTION
C R ED (Commissioner Ltnn b~ing absenk). that considcrat'on of the aforementloned item be
continued to the regular meeting of the Planning Commissian of June 19, 1978 because of a
tip vote.
6/~/18
~ .
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANN(NG CUMMISSION~ JUNE 5. 1978 78-422
EIR CATEGORiCAL EXCMPTION-CLI15S 1 AND GONDITIO~~AL USE PERMIT N0, 1A40 (continu~d)
Chatrm~n Tola~ f~lt s petltion signed by the epartment tenants, not n~cessarily supporting
tl~e ~equest but ~t lea~t ecknowlodging they were made eNare of the request~ wc~uld heip thc
Planning Commissiom m~ke their decisiun.
Mr. Kornrolch polnted out tt~e residents would have use of the courts five n(ghts a w~ak
and if they wanted to use the courts when ~ lesscm was scl~Pduled~ they wauld have to walt
untt) the lesson waa aver.
Chatrman Tolar indicated he was concerned because he felt the tcacher could actuaily fl'I
the schedule~ with tenn(s betng as popular as (t ts today, And *.he tennnts would not be
able t~ use th~ courts .~t All,
ITEM N0. 5 PUEil.IC HEApING. OWNER: HUFITER'S PAaADISE, INf,. ~
E I R~Nf.G-A E DECLARAT I ON 2141 Wes t La Pa Imn l~vcnue ~ Anohe i m~ CA '~280 I.
ECLA SIFICATION N0. 7-76-GO AGENT: N~A7N b Ru55E.~~ DEVEL~PMErJT COMPANY~ 11;8A
Iris Avenue, Faunta ~ Valicy~ CA 92~Qa. Petlt{oncr
requests reclassif+;iti~n af property descrlbed as
a rectangula~ly-shaped parcel of land canslsting of ap~+r~~~mc+te~v ~.7 acre having a front-
age af approx(mately 221 fect on the 5outh side of Bal '~,a:1, having a maximum depth of
approxirnately 1~2 fcet~ bning locatecl approximaccly 8 ~M•~»- ~ast af -he tenterllne of
Beach Boulevard~ and further described as 2~18 West E•, •o~+~+ ~~rcxn the RS-A-4~~~00
( RES 1 DENTI AL/Af,f~ ! CULTUi~1l) ZONE to the aM-1200 ( RES I..- ~l .*~kT I PL~-FAMI LY) ZONE.
There was na one indicating their presence in opt~~~• ' -,: ~~:mjeci request~ and altho~gh
the staff rcpnrt to the Pla~ning Commiss{on dateo .~ .-~+:'. was not read at thc public
heartng~ It is referred to a~d made a part of the ~-».~-.~-,.
M~. Russel) and Roger Heath~ ayents, were p~es~n[ ~-• ~n-~+er any questio~s.
TN~ PUBLIG HEARING WAS CLOSEU.
Corrcn(sstoner Kiny referred to the T~affic Enginee:'~ c-~ncerns regarding the lnterse~tlon
at E3all Road and Gaymont Stree~t, indicatir~g E~ (:, +nn.-rative th~t the offset drtveway as
shvwn be discourged and access to subject property `~a a9lgned with Gaymont Street.
Mr. Russel) replied that they have presented the ~~rr,.,aasal to reverse the entire project,
which would help eltminate Mo cars turning le~'t in~~•rferi~ ~ with each other. He
(ndtceted it still would not be aliyned with Gavmon;~ but t would be a better alignment
than the plan as presented.
Paul Singer, 1'raffic Ei~,~ineer* indicated therE is a school crosswatk on Gaymant and the
sehool dtstrfet hes ~ndicated it is ~eetiessary to ma(ntain ~hat crosswalk and th~ plan~ as
presented~ would definitel~y create a safety ~r~lem for the schoc~l children. He indi:ated
that by reversing thc pro~ect. the offset intersectlon would t,e improved.
Chairman Tolar felt that ~y req~:t^iny the d~ive~vays to be aligned would be eliminating the
landscaping~ which would !nave ~n ill effect on Eht aesthetics of the proJect. Ne pointed
out they a~e requ~sting no variances and felt he could supp~rt the project.
ACTlON: Commissioner King nffcr~ed a^iotion~ seconded by Conmissloner Dav(d and MOTION
CAR IED (Conaniss(oner L1nn being abse~nt), that tha Anaheim City P1aRninq Commission has
6/S/78
~,~.
'k,.
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM C1TY PLA~~NING C0~IMISSION~ JUNE 5~ 1978 7g-W23
EIR NEGATiVE OECI.ARATION ANO aECLAS5IFICATION NO..~_J8-.60 (oont(nued)
rAVlewed the proposa) t~ reclassify tfie xoning frcxn RS-A-43~Q00 (Resident~al/Agricultural)
to RM-1'l00 (Rhsidentlal~ Multi~le-Family) nn ~ rectongularly~shnped po~cel of lend
consistl~g of approximetely 0.7 acre h~ving s frantage of apt,roxln~ately 221 feet on tl~e
snuth s(de of~ k3s11 Roed~ being located approximately 87t~ feet ~~ast of the centerline of
Bee~ch Boulevard; a~J does hareby appr~ve the Negative Declaratian from the requ(rement ta
prepn~e an environrr~nta) impect repors on the basis that there would be no siynif(cent
lndivtdual or cumuletlve adverse envir~nrnental impact due to thc +~ppr~va) of thls t~~,atlv~
Declar~atlon since the Anaheim f,eneral Plan desiynetes the sub)ect property fo~ low-medium
denstty rasident(al land uscs cnmmensurntc with the ~ropasAl; that no scnstttvo
envi~onmentbl impacts are (nvolved in the prop~sal; that tl~e Initial Study submitted by
tlie petitian~r incilcat!~s n~~ 51~nlfic~nt lnclividupl n~ cumul~tiv~ advers~ environrt~ntal
lmpacts; a~nd thet the Neqat(ve Dacl~ration substantiating ttic foregc~ing findfngs is on
flle. (n the City uf Anat~eim Planning pepartment.
Cnmmlsslono~~(i~yoffercd Resolution No. PC7E3-11~ and movcd for fts pessage and adoptlon,
that thc Anahclm City P{anning Coinmissian dwVs licreby c~rant Pctition for Reciasstficatlon
No. 77~7~"~~~ subject tn the condltlon tl~et plans wiil tae revised~ reversiny the entire
proJect~ and subJect to Intardepartmental Co~+mittee recommendations.
On rol) cail, the foregoing resolutlt~n was passed by ttie followlnq vote:
AYES: CONMI5510NERS: BARNES, DAVIU~ HEftElST' JONNS0~1~ KIIJf,~ TOLAR
NOES: COMhfI5510NER5: NANE
ABSEPIT: COMMISSIOhERS: LINN
COMMISSIO~~ER LINN ARRIVEO AT 3:00 P.M.
ITEM N0. 6 PUBLIC NEARING. OWNER5: PAUL R. ANO FRANCES B.
~~~~VE DECLARATION GARDNER~ 3109 West Orang~e Avenue~ Anahetm~ CA 92804.
RECI. SS ION N0. -78-61 ProperCy descrlbed as an irregul~rly-shapod parce)
COt~DI 0~1AL US~ ERMI t~0. 54 of lond conaisttng of approxtm~tely 1.3 acres havinq
~N~C~RO. ~30~ a frontage of approxtmately 358 feet 4n the north
side af Orange Avenue~ having a maximum depth of
approximately 164 feet. being located approxlmately
730 feet east of the centerltne of Wc:stern Ave~ue, and furthe~ described as 310y West Orange
Avenue. Property presently classified RS-A-43~000 (RESlDENTIAL/AGRICUL7URAL) ZONE.
REQUESTEO CLA5SIFICAT101~: CL (COM~IERGIl~L, LIMITED)
REQUESTED COlJD1TIOIJAL USE: TO PERMIT A RACQUETBALL GOURT FACILITY.
VARIANLE REQUE57: WAIVER OF (A) MAXiMUM STRUCTURAL HEIGNT AND (k3) MINIMUM SID~ YARD
SETBACK~ TO PERMiT TNE CONTINUED USE OF AN EXISTINC OFFICE BUILDIIiG.
7here was one person indicating their presence in oppositlon to subJect request~ and
although the staff rcpore ta ttie Plan~ing Commission dated Ju~e 5~ 1918 was not read at
the public liearing, it is ~e.~erred to a~d made a part of the minutes.
Charles Whitaker, represe~ting Paul Gardner, I~dicated they are requesting permisslon to
build an 8-foot higt~~ racquetbal) b~ilding on Orange Avenue.
6/5/78
7
~
MINUTES~ ANAf1E1M CITY PIANNING COMM15510N~ JUNf. 5~ 1978
78-424
EIR NEGl1TIVE UECLARATION~ AECLAS~SIFICATION N0. 'j7'78'61, CONUITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1854~
ANO VARIANCE N0. 3027 ~co~t~nue ~ __ ___.__ --------
Mar~on Alamla~ 3131 Wc~sthaven Ortve, Anetieim~ presented a petltlon to the Planninq
Comnisslon siyned by 28 neighbors who are opposed to the pruposed racquatball fscility.
She indlcatod they were concerned ebout changing tho xone frcxn reside~tlal to commercial;
thst they ware not speciflcellY cance~^~d about the r~cquetb+~ll court~ but they do have
resa~vatfons about It; that she has seen these types of usas come ~nd go anJ referred to
recreatio~al facllitles such as trampc~lines~ GAtting ceges~ etc.~ and was cencorned if the
propArty Is rezoned and tl~is ventu~e doe:s ~ot make It~ then some other use such as
manufacturing migl~t be allowed to qo into the facllity~ wl~ich would decresse the value of
thelr homes. She Indlcated her bedrooms face this erea end she was concerned there would
Se a lighting problom. She indicated she was concernesJ because the hours of ope~ntlon hed
not been Indicat~d. She read the following stntement on the petitlon elcl~ed by 28
neighbors:
"Wa~ the u~dersign~d~ ere ayainst thc proposei to walve the maximum structure
helosedsto the'variance no~ 3~27aandtt~~eec~ndltlonaluusesdP~~mitrno. W854rfor
opp
thc following reasons.
1. It would Infllct a commercial aspect on the residential atmosphere of
the area.
2. Thr, location is ~pposlte ~ p~rk which is a vathcring plecc fo~
childre~. The Increased traffic would present a hazard.
3. ThG facflity would create an intruslon of privacy on t he homes d f r e c tl y
opposite. ~ are not conducive
4. The normal operattng ho~ars of a business of this typ-
to a qulec~ ~esidentlal neiyhbort~ood."
Mr. Whitaker pol~ted out tliat on thc ~outh side of subject property thore is a Clty~ow~ed
park a~d a cr~nvalescent home on the eASt side~ a~d Carbon Creek Chunnel to the north. He
felt this type facility would be an advantaye to the pe~ple in the convalescent haspital.
He indicated there would be ne noise cominy frem this building; that it is completely
enclosed. He polnted outuaieincrease 9n^thettraffic~ thure~wauld bernoanolserw atsoevernd
that would not be a~ un s
and would not be a gath~.:ring place for youngsters.
THE PU6LIC NEARING WAS GLO5ED.
Commissloner Linn asked if the facility would be oper~t~d on a reservation basts~ and M~.
Whitaker replied it wi11 be open to the pub~lc•
Paul Gard~er, owner of the property. indicated this location presently is in need of
repair. He felt chis type facilitY ~+ould be an asset to the City of Anaheim; that it is
locatad across the strect from a park and therc are a lot of people using the park and it
would be an activity the paople could enjoy.
Commissioner ~i^"niand`whether ordnot usebofmthet~ecilityewould besb~ rese~vatlo~~,twhlch
hours of operatio
would help eliminate trafflc prublems•
M~. Gardner pointed out he had not made any restricttons concernSng the hours and that
some racquetball courts feel thennalghborstwould be awareeofUanyt~ctlvities goinguon "
midnight and he did not
i~side this fecility.
6/S/78
~`.
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMiSSION, JUNE 5~ 1978 7$-425
EIR NEGA7IVE DEGLARIITION. REC1.115SIFICATION ~;0. 77-78-61. CONDITIONAL USE PEaNIT ~IO. 185Q~
AND VARIA~~CE N0. 3027 (continued)
Commissioner Linn asked the potitlo~W~llingtto"stipulate~tcei GYO~ afn,l:o~ps'of~~Pmidnie~ht.
and Mr. Gardner rcplled he would ~e 9
CUeratlonnand~henwoullnbe`mc~re wlliingmtotllste~n~tothnu~rsefronl~:0~ almstc,a10~0~~prm•
op
Commissioner Johns~n indicated I~e was concerned that the lady wha had spoken in oppasitton
was not exactly sur~ what s~~~ was crltlcizing and pointed out there would not be a lot of
lights from thls facility slnce it is completely enclosod.
Mrs. Alamla repl ied she was surP tlic parking areas would bc 1 i<~I~ta~f. Shc Indlcated she
ayreed the property as It stands in its present conditlon is an eyesore and shc would like
to see it Inprovcd in somc way. She st~ted she has A nice view from her propertY othEr
than the fact that the area is ~sed for a storage yard. and sl~e did nut want her view cut
off completesly and did not want to be tliat ciose to a hi~~h building. She lndlcated her
main concern was the future of the property, what would happen tu it flvC years from naw
if thls buslness did not makc it, and she was strangly opposed t~ the rezoning from
resldentl~l to commercial.
Chalrrnan Tola~ asked what uses would be permitted on the property if the racauetb:~ll
facility did not makN it.
Jay Tesl~iro~ Associate Planner, pointpd out that in a commercial zone most types of retall
facllitlQS~ yaneral office uses, and medtcal buildings would be ~ermitted.
Chairman Tolar polnteci out to Mrs. Alamia that a trampoline court or battira cages could
nAt go in without appr~~val of a conditlonal use permit.
Jay Tashi~o pc~lnted ~ut the propertv is presently va~ant and is zoned RS-A-43~000. and
there is an existlny office building on Parcel 2 of subJect pro~+erty. but that the
racquetball faciltty is to be located on the part thet is nc~w vacant, and that the General
Plan indicates the area for commercial-professlonal uses. t1e potnted out the c~mmercial-
professional zone permits business and Ii1ee~~C3~ offices only and no reta(1 facilitles,
unless as an accessary use.
Tlie Commission discussed the location of the driveways with the Traffic Enginee~ and it
was polnted out by Mr. Singer that the westerly driveway shauld be aligned with the street
to the south, and he was not exactly sure where that street was located on this particular
plan.
ACTION: Commissioner King offered a mntion~ seconded by Commissioner David and MOTION
CAR ED~ that the Anaheim City Planning Comnlsslon has reviewed the proposal to reclassify
the zoning from RS-A-43,400 (Residential/Agricultural) to CL (Cortmercial, L(mited) ta
construGt a racquetball court facility and to permit the continued use of an existing
office building~ with waiver of maximum structure hetght and minimum slde yard setback ~n
an irregutarly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.3 acres having a
frontage of approxlmately 358 feet or~ the north side of Orange Avenue. being locatedrove
approximately 730 feet east of the centerline of Western Ave~u~; and does hereby app
the Negative Oeclaration from the requlrement to prepare an environmental impact report on
the basis that there wouid be no significant ind(vidual or cumulative adverse
environmental impact due to the app~oval of tfo~ ~mmercial~cprofessionalnlandh usesaheim
General Plan designates the subJ~ct property
commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in
6/5l78
. ;,~~:~~;,=:.~~~;
'~r ;
MINU7ES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 5~ 1978 78-426
EIR NEGATIVE UECLARATION~ RECIASSIFICATIO~ N0. ~7-78•61, CONDITtONAI USE PERMIT I~O. 185~+-
ANp VARIANCE N0. 3027 (continued)
the proposal; that thQ I~Itl~l Study submlttad by the petitioner Indicates no sl~nificant
indtviduel or cumulAtive adverse envlronmental impacts; and that the Neqatlve Declaratlon
substantlattng thc f~regoing findings Is on ftle tn the City of Anaheim Ptenniny
Qepartment~
Commissione~ Nerbst asked Jack White~ Deputy Clt~ Attorney~ if approval of the
reclasslfication on thls partlcular pruJect could bo tied to a particular developrnent~ end
Jack Whlte replied that once the praperty is rezoned~ those uses permitted in that zone
wouid be allc~wed. He polnted out that in order to get the reclassification ordinence
adopted, the applicant has ta makc certeln Improvements before thc action bccomes final~
but once the property is rezoned~ it is entitled to all the rt~~hts that the Zoning Code
permtts. 11e Indicated every property has to be (n some zone and that the property owner
is abl~ to build end devel~p w+th the standards of that particular zone.
Commtssioner King offered Resolution No. PC78-116 and moved for (ts ~ass~ige and adoptlon~
that the Anahe(m City Planning Cammisslon does hereby grant Petltlon for Reclassificat3on
No. 77-7~-61~ subJect to realignment of the proposed drlveway at che westerly end of
subaect property and subJect to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations.
On roll cdll, the foreyotng resolution was passed by the follawing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONFRS: BARI~ES, DAVID~ HERBST~ JOII~~SOtJ, KING~ LINN. TOLAR
NOES : COMM 1 S5 I OI~ERS : NONE
AIiS~(JT: COMMI SS I ONERS : NONE
Comnlssioner King offered Resolution No. PC78-117 and moved for its passage and adopt(on,
that the Anaheim C~ty Pianning Commisslo~ does hereby gr~nt Petit(on for Conditlonal Use
Permit No. 1854. subJect to the petitioner's stipulations ttiat the hours of op~ration
shall be from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. and that the real(gnment of the driveway on the
extreme we~t end of the ~~roperty by the racquetball courts wlll be realigned subJect to
the satlsfaction of the Traffit Engineer, and subJect to Interdepartmental Commtttee
recormie n da t i ons .
On rcll call, the foregoing resolution was ~assed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIQIJERS: BARNES~ OAVID~ IIERBST~ JONNSON~ KING~ LINI~, TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSEMT: COMMISSI-~OERS: NONE
Commtssioner King offered Rrsolution No. PC78-11o and moved for its passage and adoption,
that the Anah~eim City Planning Commission dnes hereby grant Petition for Variance No. 3U27
on the basis that subJect property is triangular in shape and located across the street
from a City-owned park, with the Carbon Creek Channel abutting on the north property line~
and althouyh the property to the east is zoned RS-A-43~000, it is developed with a
cornnercial use, and subJect to Interdepartmental Commlttee recoR~~~endations.
On roil call~ che foregoing res~lution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ OAVID, HEitBST~ JOHNSON~ KING~ LIP1~1, TOLAR
NQES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
6/5/78
~ ~
MINUT~5~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISS;ON~ JUN~ S- 197N~ 7~•427
RECESS Thare was a 15-minuto re coss called at 3:3Q p.m.
___~___
RECO`NrVEt1E The maeting reconvened at 3:~~5 P•m.~ all Commissloners being prascnt.
I TEM W0. 1 CONTI NUEU PUUL I C I~EARI P~G. OWNERS : R1IUERT A. A~Ir)
~R~~RI CI1L EXEMPTION-CLAS~ 1 1 R05EMAR1 f.~ SMITfI ~ ~ 372~ Rosacrans ~ Santa Fe ~pri ngs ~
Aa ( CE N0. 3~ 13 CA 90670. AGENT: AMOS JQIIN5TONE ~ 11 ~~~ Wes t
tl8mpsh,rr. Anaheim~ CA 92n02. Petltioner requests
WAIVER OF (A) PERNITTLD LOGATION OF FRkF.•STANDING
S I GN ~(l3) MI1X I MUM Hk. I G11T OF FREk-ST!1t~D I NG 5 I GN, At~p (C) MAXI MUM 11REA OF FREE-STAND ( I!G S I Gt~ ~
TO CON5TRUCT A FREt•STANUIIIG SIGN on prnperty described es e rectangularly-sliaped parcel of
land cansisting of approxlmately 4.2 acras having approximete frontages of 317 feet on the
south side of Winston Road and 15~ f~eet on the west sids c~f Sunkist Street. Propcrty
presently classlfied ML (IFIDUSTRIAL~ I.IMITED) ZONE.
SubJect pecitlon was cantinued from the meeting c-f May 22, 1~78~ at thc request of the
petitioncr.
This item was considered immediately foliow(ng the 3:30 P.m. recess since the agent was
not present at the begl nn i ng of ttie meet i ng.
There waa no one indicating their presence in ~pposition to sub,ject request~ ~nd although~
the staff report to the Planning Commission dated June 5, 1978 was not read at the public
hearing~ it is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Gilbert Thomaa~ attorney~ 1A~2 Irvir.e doulevard~ Tustin, {x~tnted out the request is for a
3~-foot hlyh free-standing sign rather than 27 fcet as permitted. He stated the reason
for the request is fnr visibillty to the warehouse faciltty frcxn the freeway. Ne patnted
out a 27-foot sign would be bl~cked by the roafs Af the mobilehome units. He presented
pictures he had taken from che freeway on-ramp indlcating the visibiiity of the slgn.
Ne indicated that only tl~e first raw of mobilehomes would be ablc to see the slgn and feit
street Ilghts would be quite brlght and more noticeable than the propased sign.
THE PUBL I C NEAf' t~G WAS CL~SED.
Commissianer 9arnes was concerned whether or not ttie mobilehome park awner had beer
notifled of thts hearing, and Jay '~ashiro replied that the property owners within 300 feet
had been notified and that subject property had been ~osted with publlc hearing notlces.
Commissiancr Herbst indlcated that everyone wauld like to have visibility from the freeway
and would want bigger and higher signs. He was concerned about the locatton from which
the photographs had been taken.
Mr. Thomas pointed out that the p~~otographs were taken from the elevated portlon of the
freeway at 35 feet an~' again at ~5 feet~ and pointed out thP sign ~ecomes obstructed by
the roofS of the mobilehome units at 25 feet.
Chalrman Tola~ pointed out a hardship must be found in order fo~• ihe Planning Commission
to grant a ~ariance. a~d Jack 4lhite, Deputy City Attorney, reAd the crtteria for granting
a variance to Mr. Thomas.
6/5/78
:~+wurr~:~,.a.r -,.,.«,. . ......... ...._..._..._. .. _:,., . .,...
MINUT~S~ Al1AHEIM CITY PLAI~NING COMMISSION~ JUNC 5~ 19?8 78•42$
EIR CATEGOQ_1CAL EXEMPTION•CLASS 11 AND VARIANCE N0. 3A1~ (ca~tinued)
Mr. 7homaa felt the location of the mobilehome park wou1J be the reason for the hardship
in thls caQ~~htscoft tl~ose1unitsdobcteuctrthetvaa+ from therf~re~wayY and thatrat27sfoat a"d
the ~ouf h ~
high sign woutd not be vislbla from the freeway.
Commissloner Nerbst pointed out thase phoM'9~Thomaseto misrepresent thatnthe signecould eY
but from the on-ramp and he did not wa~t
not bn. seen from the freewey.
Chelrman Tolar polnted out the petltioner's rtason given for the hardship was aconomlc ~nd
was not acceptable to th~ Plonning Cammissi~n.
M~. Thomas i'eptled they erc as9ing for tha varlance In ordeanJ Chatrman Tolar~pnlnted out
warehousing buildin<t with a sl n v(sible fram the frec~way.
those are economtc reasons.
Mr. Thomas indlcated lie would like to request a continuance In order to prepare
appropriete arguments and present ~~ hardst~lp.
Chairma~ Tolar indicated he doubted the petitioner could find a hardshlp, but that he
would support a continuance of two weeks.
Commissloner Narbst indicated he wa3 not in favor of a conti~uance slnce he was not in
favor af the si~~r~. and Indicated thc Planning Commission has had a lat of problems
r@garding slyns over the years and this wo~ld bc a precedent-setting situatl~n.
ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion, setondcd by Commissloner Linn and MOTION
CAR EO (Commissioncrs Johnson, David and Ilerbst beiny opt~osed t~ the continuance)~ that
eonsldcration of the afore mentloncd varlance bc co~tinued to Lhe regular meeting of thG
Planning Cammission on June 19~ 1978 at the request of the petltioner.
Commissioner David asked why tl~e appllcant's statement regarding the special circumstances
applying to this property was not included in che staff report, and Jay Tnshtro polnted
out lt had been omitted since this was a continued item.
Jack White~ Deputy City Attorney~ pointed ou~ to the petitioner that even though three of
the Commissloners had voted in opposition to the request for a continuancn~ it did not
necnssarily mean they would be opposed to the appltcation; that the Commission's decision
would be based on the facts p~esented at the next publiG hearing.
bisi~a
~
MINUTES~ nNAHEIM CITY PLIWNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 5~ 1978 78-429
ITEM t~0. t3 NUbllr, ~IEARIt~G. OwNCRS; RICHIIRD C. AND A~~ICE L.
~ ~~ VE DECLIIRA'f101~ CRUM~ I~~2~ North State College Boulevard. Anaheim~
.~ 1 '~'R~ CA 92806. AGE~~T; DAN L. ROWLAND 6 A~SOCIATES~ IIIC.~
~ 1~00 W~st La Palme Avenun~ Anohetm~ CA 92801.
Petlt(oner requcsts WAIVER OF (A) MIt~iMUM FRONT
SETBACK A~~U (B) MII~IMUM IMPROVIMCHT OF P~RKING AREA, TO CQNSTaUCT A WP~P,EIIOUSC ANf) GEI~ERAL
OFFIC~ AUGITIOIJ on praperty described as g rectanc~ularll~-sha~~eJ parcel ~f lon~i Gonsisting
of approxlmately 1,9 acr~s locatc~d et tt~e soutliwest c~rner of VIA Durtan Street And
State CollPye [foulevard~ having approximete rrontA~aes of 2G~ fect on the south sicie of
Vte durton Street and 32Q faet on th~ wcst side of State f,ollec~e Boulevard~ and further
describod as 1429 I~orth State Cnllege Uoulevard. Pro~~~rty prPSently classified ML
(IIIDUSTRIAL, LINITL'U) ZONL.
Ther~ was no ane I ndicat ( ny the 1 r presence 1 n opp~s ( t( nn to s ub j ect r~ques t~ ~nd a 1 though
the staFf ~ep~rt t~ the Planning Commisslon dated Junc 5~ 1`~7~ W~s nat rcad at the public
heariny. f t is r~•~erred tc~ and made a pert uf the minutes.
Randy iiosch~ ropresenttny Dan Rawland b Ass~ciates~ Inc.~ ahent~ statad a correctton to
th~ s taf f ~eport shoul d be madc i n tl~at the pet i t i on~r 1 s re~ues t 1 ng a v~r i ance for the
minimum front setback only and wili mect the code for minimum Improvemen~ of the parking
area. Ne tndicated they felt special circumstances apply to this property becausA of the
intersectlon of llall Road and State Coilege~ which is vcry con~ested. Ne Indlcated the
propos~d butld(ng would be adJacent to an existing~ nonconfarming use and pointec' out the
encroachment ls merely a stalnray in the setback area. f1e pointed out the City of
Ful lerton, south of tl~ is +~rca~ does not have setback requl rements ~ and he bel ieved they
were in general conformanc.e w) th the Jevelopment in the (mmediate area.
Tllf. PU~L I C N~ARI Nf, WAS CLOSEU.
ACTION: Cormhissloner Nerbst offered a motion~ sccondc:d hy Gommissioner King and MOTION
CARRIED~ that thc Anahelm Clty Planning Cortrnission has rcviewed the proposal to tonstruct
a warehouse and yeneral of(lce addition wlth waiver of minimum front setback on a
rectangularly-shaped parce) of land consisting of 1.9 acres located at the southwest
corner of Via l3urton Street and State College aoulevard. having approximate f~ontages of
265 feet on the soutl~ side of Via ~urton Street and 320 feest on th~e west slde of State
College Boulevard; and does hereby approvc the Negative Dcclaration from the requirement
to prepare an environmental impacr. report on the basis that there would be no significant
indivldual or cumulative adverse e~vironmental impact due to the approval of this Neyative
Declaratton stnce the Anahelm General Plan d~signates th~ subje:.t property for g~nerat
industria) land uses commensurate with the aroposal; that no sensitive environmental
impacts are involved in the proposal; ihat the Inittal Study submitted by the petitioner
indlcates no sign{fic:ant individual or cumulativ~ advPrse environmental impacts; and that
the Negative Declarat3on substantiating the forego(ng findings is on f(le in the City of
Anaheim Planning Depertrr~nt.
Commisslone,~ lierbst offered Resolutian No. PC78-119 and moved for its passage and
adoptlo~. th at thc Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petixton for
Variance No. 3016, in part. approving ~raiver (a) on the basis that the existing~
nonconformin g structu~e was bullt prior to annr ~tion to the Ctty of Anaheim in atcordance
wlth County of Orangc standards and is located In clnse proximity to the City of
Ful lerton, whl~:h city does not requl re a 5~-f~t buf Iding setback~ and that other
extsttng~ nontonforming structures have been developed with stmila~ setbacks; that the
widening of State College Boulevard further reduced the frontage of the setback area; that
6/5/l~
~+
~,
MINUTCS~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ .IUNE 5~ 1978 7a-4~0
EIR N EGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3016 (cnntinued)
thc p~oposod plan provtdes a bettar system of Interi~r circulatlon and parking; thet
waive r(b) be danled on the basis chat the petitioner sttpulated at the publtc hearing to
comply wtth the loning Code requlrements pertaininy to minimum la~dsceptng improvement of
tho p arking aroa visible f~om State Collego doulovard end the Kiverslde Freavay; and
subJe ct to Interdepartmenta) C~mmtttee recomrt-endattons.
On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by tho follc~wing vote:
AYES : COMMISS I OIJERS ; BARNCS , DAV I D~ NERl3ST. JOHNSOtI, K I NG ~ l.l NN ~ TOLAR
NOES : COMMISSI ONERS ; NONE
ApSENT: CUMMISSIQNERS: NONC
ITEM ~N0.,~ PUDLIC IICARING. OW~~CR: 1. F. SIIEA C0~IPANY,
~t~.`ATEGORICAL EX~MPTION-CLASSES 3 6 5 INC. ~ 6S5 E1rea Canyon Reau~ Walnut~ CA 91789.
. AGtNT; DONIJ D. FISHER~ ;.40 Termino Avenue~
long tieacli~ CA 90$Q3. P~stttlaner requests
W{11 VER OF MAXI MUM FENCE IIE I GIIT ~ TO CONSTRI~CT A
COMB It1AT10N BLOCK WALL/WROUGf1T IRON FENCE on property descrlbed as an irregularly-4heped
parecl of land consisting of approximately 7500 square feet having a.'rontage of oppraxi-
mate ly 145 fe~t on the s~uth and east stdes of Greenwich Street~ havina a max(mum depth
of approxtmately a9 feet, being located approximately 390 fcet north of the centerline of
Oran qe Avenue, and further descr(bed ~s 530 South Greenwich Street. Property presently
classified RS-%2~0 (RESIDE~~TII+L~ aINGL~~FAMI~.Y) ZONE.
The r e was no one lndlcating their presence in oppositian to subJeCt request~ and although
the staff report to the Planninq Conxnission dated Jurtie 5~ 1~78 was not read ~t the publ ic
hea~iny~ it is refcrred to a ~d maJc a pirt af the m(nutes.
Donn Fisher~ agent~ indicatr.d his desire to build a combination block wall/wrought iran
fen ee In excess of code requirsments bec~3USP. ~f the pfe-shaped lot. Ne presented a
pho t ograph af the l~t and pofnted out a S-font easement to the City would make
app roximately 11 feet of unused space. He indicated he would be willing to ~nove the fence
5 feet eway from the setback l lne.
TI~E PU4LIC HEARING WAS CI.OSEO.
Jaek White~ Deputy Cicy Attorney. polnted out the petitioner had requested a va~lance in
this case b~cause ther~ is a tinx problem; that it takes a long time to process an
enc~uachment permi t or abandonmen t and chat the fence i s ~~eeded r i ght away.
Chairman Tolartndicated I~e did not find any discomfort with granting the vartance with
the fences back 5 feet, even though it would create a 5-foot area of landscaping to be
take n care of, Na felt it would make a much better plan and he could support the request.
It was noted that the Planning pirector or his authorized ~epresentative has determined
th a t the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Ex~•mptions~ Class 5~
as defined in paragr~ph 2 of the Gity of M aheim Environmental Impact Report Gujdelines
and is~ therefore~ categarically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR.
ACTION: Cor~missioner Johnson offered Resotution No. PC78-120 and moved for its passage
an~aaoptton~ th at the Anahsim City Planning Commission dces hereby grant Petition for
6/5/7$
,.
~
~~
MINUT~S~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING tOMMISSION~ JUNE ~~ 197$ 78~W31
E I R CATEGORI CAL EXEMPTI ON-CLASSES 3 b 5 AND VAR 1 ANCE ~~0. 301$ (cont i nued)
Variance No. 3018 on the basls that subJ~ct prope~ty Is located In a cul•de-sec end is a
rovnrsr, corner lot~ and subJect to Interaepartme ntal Commtttee recortxnendat(Ans.
On ro11 cell~ tho foregc~ing rssolution was passe d by the fallowing vote:
AYES: COMMiSSIOMERS: BARN~S~ DAVID, h1ERB5T~ JOIINSON~ KING~ LINN. TOLAa
NOES: COMMISSI~NCRS: NOI~E
ABSEUT: CUMMISSIONERS: NONC
('~EM N0. 10 PUBLIC HEARING. OWI~ER~. ELNER C. AND EL12I1DETN B.
EIR NE~ T VE DECLARATION OREWS ANU CENTRAL IiAPTISI' Cf1URCN OF ORANGE COUNTY~
~ . 0 227 Nortii Magnol ia Avenue~ Anahetm~ CA 92801 ~ and
~N~A V MAP TMCT t~0. 10437 ROLAND J. JCNSEtt ~ 1Q 1~ Ees t Ches tnut 5 treet ~ San ta
-^ Ana~ CA 927~ 1. AGEt~T: DOR I S EL I EFF, 20QG North
Broadway, Santa Ana~ CA 92706. Property descrlbed
as a rectanyulerly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appruximately 7.7 acres having a
f~ontage of approx(mately ~;;1 feet on the west s+d~ ot M~gnolla AvPnue~ havfng a maximum
depth of app~oxlmately 605 feet~ and being loceted approximately 325 feet north af ths
centerline of Lincoln Avenuo. Property presently classified RS-A-43~qQ0 (aESIUENTIAL/
AGRICULTURAL) ZOIaE witF, a resolution of Intent to tho RM-4000 (F,ESIOENTIAL. MUI.TIPLE-
FAMI LY } ZONE:.
V~r;IANCE REQUESTt WAIVER Oh MINIMUM LOT WID?~~.
fENTATIVE TRACT REQUES7; TO ESTAfiLiSH A THREE-LOT~ 132-U~~IT~ RM-400Q CONDOMINIUM
SUEiDIVISION.
There was no one tndicating their ~resence t~ op posttton to subJect petition.
Although the staff report to the Planning Commisslon ~iated June 5~ ~978 was not read at
the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
George Sha~+~back, aqent~ was present to answer any questions.
TNE PUBLI G HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Jack White~ Deputy Clty Attorney~ polnted out ~ h e flood control channel diagonally crossns
subJect property. Ne indi~ated the negative de claration was approved in connection with
Reciassi f icat ion No. 77- JS-50 on Apr i l 24, 1978.
ACTION: Commissloner Barnes affered Resolution No. PC78-121 and moved for its passage and
a~coptTon~ that the Maheim City Planning Commiss ion does hereby gra~t Petltion far
Yartante No. 3019 on the basis that the flood controt channel dlvides subJect property~
and subJact to interdepartmental Cor~mittee recommsndations.
On roll call, the foregotng resolution was pass ed by the following vote:
AYES : COMMI SS I ONERS : BARNES. DAV I D, HERBST, JOHNSON ~ K I NG~ L I NtJ , TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS; NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIOi~ERS: NONE
6/5/78
~,
MINU'fES. hNAFiEiM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIO~J~ JUN~ 5~ 1978 18-432
EIR NEG4TIVE DECLAM'TION~ VARIANCE N0. 3019 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TMCT N0. 10437 (contlnued)
Comm(sstoner ~arne~ offerad a motion~ s~conded by C~mmisslo~er Ilerbst and MOTION CARRIED~
lhet the Anahotm City Planniny Commis~ion doas hereby find that thc proposed sub~ivislon~
togcther wtth tts dasign and improvem~nt~ is consistent with the City af Anahelm General
Plan pu~auant to Government Codo Section GG-~73., and daes~ tt~eref~re. approve Tentatlve
Map of Trect t~a. 101i37 far a three-lat~ 1~2-unit~ RM-A0~0 condominlum suudivislon. subJect
to the falld,rin,y cnndit(c~ns:
1. 7hat the epproval of Tentativc Map of Tract No. 1~~~37 ~s granteJ s~~b.ject to the
approval of Vorlance t~u, 3nt9.
2. That shnuld this subdivision bs developed as mc~re tt~an one sul~division~ eaeh
subdivis lon tf-ereof shall be submitte~f in tentative farm for epproval.
3. That all lots within this tract sl~~l) l~v ycrv~=d by underground uti l i tlcs.
4. That prior ta the lnt~oduction of an ardinance. a ftnal tract map of subject
property sha) l be submitted t~ and approved hy the City GounGi 1 and then bc ~ocorded ln
t':e office of tt~c Orangc County R~corder.
:. That the covenants~ conditions, and restrictions shall be submitted to and
a~»rcv~:d by tlie City Attarney' S Off{ce and Clty Engineer prior to City Counci 1 approval of
the f; nal tract map and~ further. that the app~aved covenants ~ condi t(ons ~ and
restrictlons shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map.
6. 7hat thc ow~ers of subJect property shall pay to the Cicy nf Anaheim the
appropriace park and r~creation in-licu fces ~s detcrmined tu be appropriote by the Clty
Cc~uncil, sa(d fees to be paid at the kii~K~ the building permit is issued,
). Ttiat drainaye of subject property shall be disposed of in a m~nner setisfa~tory
cu t'ie C i ty En g 1 nee r.
TiiE'. AP6;.1 GAI~ i 1~ 15 NOT ~'R.ESENT ~OR ~ TF:M N0 S~1 I T WAS CONS I DEREU LATE~t I N TNE
NEET I NG.
ITEM 1+0. 12 PUBLIG NEARING. OWNERS: JAMES 5. GREGG~ RAYNOND G.
E~~VI RONNEt~TAI I MP,4C :tE('URT N O. 1 79 S I MPSOM, JO~IN S. FLUOR ~ AND RQBEP,T D. SPURGEON, GQ
COND 710NAL USE P~'~tM I T Nb. 1~~ P 1 aza Square ~ 0 range ~ CA 926f>6. Pet i tl oner reques t5
(READVERTISED) AMEPIUMENT OF COtlDITI0~~5 OF APPROVAL on property
~- described as an trregularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of appr~xirnately 32 acres lacated north-
easterly of thc intersection of Ce~•ritos Avenue and Su~kist Street~ having a frontaqe of
approximatzly 983 feet on the east side of Sunkist Street and having ~ maximum depth of
approximateiy 133> feet. Property pr~sently clasxifled RS-A-43.000 (RCStDET~TIAI/AGRICULTURAL)
ZONE.
There was no one Indicatiny their pres~nce I~ upnosition to subjQCt request, and although
the staff report to the Plan~ing Cammission d~ted ,i~ne 5, 1978 was not read at th~ public
hearing~ it ia referred to and made a part of the r'-,utes.
Gommisstoner Herbst indicated he had a conflict of int~erest as defined by A~ahein City
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157~ ddopting a Confl ict of Interest Code for che
P 1 ann i ng Comm i ss i on , and Gove rnmen t Code Sect i on 3625 G t sec~ ., i n that the con tractor
installed Nerbst'a Wunderwal l and that pursuant to the provislc~ns of above eodes~ he
hereby declered to the Chairman that he was withdrawning from the hearfng in r.nn~ection
with Conditiona~ Use Permit No. 1632 (readvertised) and would not take part ~n either the
discussion or the voting the~eon and that he had not discussed this matter 4'th any member
6/5/78
4
ti
MINUTES~ ANAfIEIM CITY PI,~NNING GOMMISSIQN~ JUNE 5~ 197~ 78-433
EIR N0. 179 ANQ CONUITIONAI. USE PCRMIT N0. 16;2 (READVER71SEp) (continued)
of the Plan~ing Commission. TN~REUPON, COMMISSIONEa HERBST LCFT THE COUt~CII. CNAMBER AT
A:15 P.M.
Narry Knlsely~ agont~ was present to enxwer any questions.
TN~ i'U~LIC NEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chalrman Tolar asked haw thls action would offect thc Councll pollGy concern-n~ the
traffic signal aSS~SSmAnt, and tt was explalned tl~is was covered In tlie reconmended
rondltion.
It was notad Environn~entol Impact Rep~rt No. 17~ was approved in con.junctl~n wlth
Conditlonal Use Permit No. 1632 and that the deleti~n of this condttlon would not effect
thc approval of the Ela.
ACTION: Commissioner King offered Resolutlon No. PC7~s-1?3 ~nd moved for its passage and
aJoptfon~ that the Anaf~cim Gity Plannfny Comrt,!gs(on does hercby ~mend the conditlons of
approval for Condit(~n~i) Use Permlt Nn, iG32.
On roll call~ tlie foregoiny resolution was passed by the followin~~ vvte:
AYES: COMMISSIUNERS: uARrI~S~ UAVI~, JOi1NSON, KINf~ LINN~ TOLAR
NOES: COHMISSIONERS: NO~IE
A(iSCI~T: COMNISSIOi~ERS: HERBST
COMMISSIO~IER IiERdST REfURIJEU TO T~iE COUr~CIL C~1AM4CR AT i~:ta P,M.
(TCM I~O. 13 PUBLIL HEARING. MARRI~~TT CORPORATION~ ~iGl Rtver Road~
EI~VIRONMCt~TAL IMPAGT REPORT N0. 21~ Washingtan, U~C. 20~'+., ~nd ZABY'S CONVENTION WAY~ lNC.,
COND ION L USE ERMI N. 3- 4b4 West Kat~lla Avc~,u~, Anahcim~ CA ~2$~2. Petitlone~
requests permission to ~STAf1lIS11 AI~ 1~-STORY HOTEL
COMPLEX on property ciescribed as a rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land consistiny of approximately ty.l acres having a frontage of approximately 1115
feet on the south side of Conventiun Way, hAViny o maximum depth of approximately fi43 fee[.
and being located appro~{mately ~0~ feet west of xhe centerline of flarbor Boulevard. Property
present~y classified C-R (COMMERCIAL-RECREATIO~~) 20NE AN1~ RS-A-43,~~~ ~RLSIDENTIAI/AGRICULTURAI.)
201JE wi th a resoluti~n of intent to C-R ZOI~E.
There were approximately 10 p~:rsons indfcating thelr pr~~...~„e in opposit(on to subJect
requ~st~ and although the sta f report to thc pla~nning Commission dated June 5~ 1978 was
not ~ead at thP publir, hearing~ it is ref~rred to and made a part of the minutes.
Doug Flnming and Pat Cimuso, representing Marriott Corporatlon, indlcated their presence
to ~nswer any questions.
Donald Estle. 743 West tugane Place, Anaheim~ Indicated he llved at Lot 29, Tract No.
3~29~ and if the hotel is built according to the plans pr~sented~ his livingroom would be
10 feet from the 10-foot htgh block wal) prapused, whtch would ~ut off his air clrcutatton
and view. He indicated his property is the oniy one with this problem. He was concerned
about the location of the loading docks and the garbage disposal area.
6/5l78
~~
ti
4
M~NU7E5~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOt~~ JUNL• 5~ 1978 78-43~
EIR N0. 215 AND CONDITIONAL USE PEKMIT N0. 183~~ (contlnued)
M~. Llmuso r>intod ouL tho Zoning Code requlres e 6-faot hlnh hlock wsll edJace ~~. ta e
resldentlal zono; that they ere planning a 20-foot wide land~csped buffer and sre
{ncreasing tha hFlght of the wall ta 10 feet in ordcr to reduce the saund~ but thet thcl
could reduce the heic~ht of the wall if the Planning Commission so desires. Ile stated the,~
had ~~ticlpated an adverse ~esponse to only providlny a 6-foc~~ high block wall~ but they
would ba willing to work within the conflnes of the code.
Mr. Fleming polnted out the 20-fcK~t wide IandscAped buffer would be on their side of the
prope~ty.
Chalrman tolar statcd. rcgardless of wl~~ther or not this rcq--est is approved, obviously
somethinq Is golny to be built on thls property and som~ fencing is c~oing ta be required~
whether i t be G feet or 1(1 feet.
Mr. ~stle pointed oul Chat with a wsll there his ai~ clrculatlon would be cut off. He
indicated he welcomecl Jevelopment of tl-e h~tel and he did not feel hc was nit•picktnq~ and
his was tlie only house in tl~is tract with this ~articular problem; that the other hauses
are not set back as far as h(s.
Chairman Tolar asked Mr. Estle if hr, had any sue~qestions to resolve ttits problem~ and Mr.
Estle replted that he did not have very much notice of thls hearl~g and he was not an
engineer an~f dld not have any suggestions. Ne indfcated he was also concerned about the
loading docks and the nolse that wauld be created by trucks coming Into that area.
Mr. Fleming poinced out the l~ading area on thc plan and indicated there wauld not be an
adverse noise impact with the trucks going out of the loading erea.
M~. Estle pointed out if he acc~pted a 6-fool block wall he would be impacted by the nolae
and w(th a 10-foot block wall I,is view and atr would be 5lacked off.
M~. Krause~ 700 lamark Urive~ Anaheim~ suggestcd that thc landscaped area be on his side
of the fente rather than on the pet(tloner's side of thc fence in order to provide
sereening~ and Mr. Fleming pointed out the zoning requires the fence should be on the
property line.
Mrs. Carpenter from Sherwood Viltagc asked the Frant footaye of the Marriott Hotel on
Conventlon Way, and Mr. Fleming replied the frontage was approximately 11Q~ feet.
Chairrnan Tolar p~inted out the Marriott Notel would have a difficult time ma(ntainl~gn~eY~
landicaping on th~ other stde of the fencs~ and Jack 4lhite~ Deputy City Attorney, p
out that would be a violation of the Zoning Code. and would require app~oval of a variance.
TIIE PU(~LiC HEARING WAS CLOS~D.
Chairmen Tolar asked Mr. Fleming if he had any suggesttons on how to resolve the prablem
of air clrculation which Mr. EsCle had referred to.
Mr. Fleming stated that possibly a pe~forated wall could be the answer~ but that they had
followed ttie code which requlres a solid mason ry w all.
Chairman Tolar suggested tFiat snme decorative type wrought iron~ etc., could be provided
along this particular residence and, with the addi,tional landscapirg~ would provEde the
neGessa~y b uffer~ and Jack White pointed out that ~ould require a varlance.
6/5/78
~
MINUTES. A~~1INEIM CITY PLANhING COMMiSSION~ JUNf. 5~ 197$ 78-435
EIR N0._21~ ANO CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1834 (cantlnued)
Commissioner Hsrnes pointed out this Is tt.n first timC she rec~lle~d the developer bnln,y
asked nut ta provide the helght wall he hes prnposed; normaliy~ (t Is the other w+~y
around.
Commiss toncr Herbst (ndtcatecf he fcl t i c arould be better to protect. the~ hcxneavners from
the nolse and traffic Impacts than to protect onc hamevwner's alr ,.irrulatic~n.
Ch~irman Tolar indiceted hc wnuld IIkG ta sc~ the Planning Cammission accomplish bath
these co~capts and pcrhaps th(ck l,indx~aping which could he ~~r~vided rather than a fence
w~uld provide the afr clrcul~~tion needed.
Cnmmissinner N~rbst p~lnte<~ out thc proner sounc! attenuation could nat I~e accompliahed
with la~dscapin~,~.
Nr. Fleminy pointed out there woulcl also b~: the: pruul~~rn of au;amohile lirhts shining tnto
thc residences.
AnnikA Santalahti~ Assixtsnt Dir~~ctor fnr Z~ning~ pointecl ~ut the code requires the b-foot
soltd masonry w~ll and t~~at the Planning Comm(ssion coul~i approvc same s~e-thr~~ugh type
fenctng on top af tlie 6-fc,ac liigh~ solid wall.
Commisstoner ,lohroson indicated hs liked the su,yyestlon of putting the landscaped huffGr on
tfie outs(de of th~ wall, anJ painteci out the ordlnance requires pratecting the residential
property owners by provi~ln~ a?.0-foot landscap~d buffer xon~ AnA with the lendscaped
buffer zone on ttie ochc~r sidr. of tf~e wall, th~ residents would not benef(t by ic.
Chairman Tol~er po(nt~rd out irrigatton and mr-intenance prc.~ler,~s wauld be creAted by this.
Commtssiancr t~arne5 pAintcd out the 2~-fo~[ landscapod buff.:r on the peticianer's s(de of
the wall would put the cArs an~f no(sc farther awav from ihe rr iences.
Commissioner King asked w~~at the thin~:ing wouid be concerning tl~e icie~a of a perforated
wall, a~nd Gommissioner ,~uhnson indlcatecf he felt this would be the san~e as no wall.
Cammission~r King pointed out that with the 10-fool landscaped arca plus the perfor~ted
well~ the nois~e would be attenu~ted~ and Mr. Fyeminn stated the g~ee~ery wauld help reduce
the nofse.
Commissioner Johnson indicate~! h~ felt the Cammission is faced with a problert~ of declding
whethr.r or nat to allow a lU-foot high fence, which ane property awnsr does not want~ or
protect tfie other residences in the ~~rc~a frors the noise and light Intrusfon. He felt the
Commission should not yo against the cock by ailowing a htgher fence.
Cornnis~ia~er Barnes poinicd auc there are otRicr reside~ts present who mlyht like to voice
a~ op(n1on.
Nr. N~.w+berry, 20$8 Eugene Street~ Anaheim, i~dicated he was concerned about some of the
other iterr~ spelled out in the scaff repart~ one being tha fact that the structure would
be located approximately 10~ feet from the south property line, whict~ is about 40 feet
frcxn his home which he had bough~ in 1973. Ne was concerned about the laading docks and
trash storage areas and felt thPy would be creating noise and impacting the residences.
He indicated the hot~l is a 24-hour aperatio~ and these loading docks would be creating a
lot of notse~ and suggested that the trash areas ~and loading docks be relocated further
G/5/78
MINUTCS~ ANANCIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNE 5~ 1q78 7~'l+36
Ela N0. 21~ ANO CONDITIOt~AL USE PERMIT N0. 183W (contlnued)
eway from the residences. I~e also fclt e~ 1a-~to ry building wnuld interfere with his
privacy and a hntrt thls tel) would b~ u disservtcc to thc existing rPsidenttal area. Ile
indicated he was not speaktng only for himself~ but there ere other peoplo who are opposod
to thls prppoaal. Ho indiceted tl~crc havc bPen several mcetlnGS about the future of the
Conventton Centerend wonderedif tt~is erca would be taken aver by the Convention Center In
the future.
Annike Santalahti explalned the Convention Centc:r has discussed this surrounding area In
varlous terms, but nothtnc~ t~ ~~io with thls proposal. Sh~ explnined the matter before the
Planninc~ Cwnmission la th~ hei~i~t of th~ hotel itself since tlic proposa) camplles w{th all
tha other sCendards in this zonc.
Chalrman Tolar polnted out the petitioner is prqpasin~~ a better situation for the fence
tt~an requlred by code since It Is adJ~cent to a r~,sidentlal area.
Commissioner Linn pointed out hls ~r~perty backs u~ to ~ bu,y Area and he would be happler
w(th a 10•foot hlgh wall rathcr than a 6-fo~t h1!~h wAll; tl,~~,t there wauld be less debrls
thrown over the fencc. He felt the 10-fout hlgF~ fencc for s~und attenuAtlon wc~uld be e
bcttsr sltuation for this partlcular property owncr,
Chairman Tolar Indicated I~e would like to discuss thc oppasition'a cornn~enta regarding
relocati~n of the trash enclosures~ and pointcd out the investmenC Lhese people have made
in their' hcxr-es is just as Important to them as tlie !nvestment the Marriott Carporatlon has
rnade.
Mr. Fleminy pointed out relocatiun af tl~e loadiny docks and trasl~ areas would create
considerable nolse problems for the yuest rooms anL it would also be inconvenient fc,r the
maln support facl I( ties of the buf lding wl~icti ~~ould put i[~a considerable diStance from
public space and there would be a number ~f plan~ing problems relocatiny tl~is area.
Mr. Cimuso indicated the Ma~riatt Corporation would like t~ pursuc this plan if posstble
and felt with thc landscaped area the noise would be buffered.
Chairman Tolar asked what would be delivered into these loading dack areas~ and Mr. Cimuso
replied they would be receiving their f~od supplies~ paper su~~plies. etc.
Cha{rman Tolar suggested tl~e hours of delivery could be restrlcxed for loading and
unloading~ and M~. Cimuso pointed out that generally their reGeiving is done between the
hours nf ap~roximately i:OQ a.in. and 2:00 p.m. lie pointed out the trucks are quite large
and bring in a great number of items at one timc, approx(matcly every t~+o weeks.
Mr. Newberry asked if this meant the garbage would only be pic~ed up every two weeks~ and
Mr. Clmuso pointed out the garbage wQUld be dlsposed af througt~ the garbage disposal; thaC
the trash would be picked up approximately every twa weeks.
Michael Brandt, Environmental Systems Research Group~ 901 Dove Street~ Sulte 260~ Newport
6each~ potnttsd out tl~e noises generaled by this project are basically nuisance-type noises
and the noises would be mitigated to an inslgnificant degree through the constructlan of a
10-fcwt hiyh block wall. the 100-foot distanc~, and the landscaped ~area.
Chairman Tolar indicated he would agree with the environmental impact report that the
noises would be mitigated~ and he felt that restricttng the hours of the dock laading and
unloadiny. with the fenciny a~d the landscaping~ tt~ere wouid not b~ any noticeable noise.
6/5/78
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION~ JUNE 5~ 1978 78-437
EIR N0. 2!5 AND CONDITIONAI USE f'CRMIT N0. 1~~4 (continued)
He stated the~P could ba lats of othe~ use5 that could bQ worse than this one, such as an
apa~tment complex.
Mr. Brandt pointc+d out the dtstance being discussed here would be ednquatc to mitigate the
noise of an arterial lilghway or e railroad track~ t~ut that the nolses frc~m the dock
loeding area would nat be that significant.
Comm(ssioner 9a~nes po(nted out sf~e was concerned about a statement In the enviranmenta)
Impact r~port concerning passible nolse created by the trucks maneuvering Into the dock
araas; that there could G~ some Jifficulty w(th thelr turnin~~ maneuvers In this area.
Mr. Cimus~. Mr. ~randt ancl the Commisslon di,cussed tf~e curn(ng r~~+dius~ with Paul SEnc}er~
the Trafflc Enyineer, r~oir~tin~ aut ttie maneuver orca fs more than sufficlGnt for the
trucks and he dld not s~rc :~ny ~roblems.
Mr. Fleminy pointed o~at all of che Marriott Corporatfon trucks are ~leslyned for thclr
lo~diny clocks ~nd thFy wauld be ~bic to yet in and out with [he least amount of problems.
Chairman Toiar ask~d Mr. Fleminy If he would havc thp authority to scipulate to the
loadi~y and unloadiny I~~urs~ and Mr. Fl~ming replicd he did not have that ~uthority.
Cliairman Tolar indic.~ted that if he was in favor of this conditional use permlt~ lt would
be wlth a stinula-.it~n concerninc~ the loeding and unloadinc~ hours f~r ths dock area. Ile
lndtcated t~e rcalized the dcveloper has yone above the requirements in or~ier to provide
mltiyatin~ measures concerning th~ nois~ and ttiac scxne developments coeild bc a lot worse~
but point~d uut it is the Planning Commission's duty to protect the nelghbo~hood and he
wou?c~ wunt th~~ hours stipulated concerniny t~~e loading and unloading before he could vote
for aprrova~.
Mr. Flr.n~ing poi~ted out there would not be a crev+ availeble to load and unload the trucks
duri~g the night; that th~ir rna(n staff operates during the day and I~e could assure the
Conxnis:ion there would be no late deliverles~ but he was not sure about the trash
collection hours. H~ pointed out he could safely say that daylight hours would be
acceptablo for loading and unlaading.
Commiss(oner Barnes suggested, concerning the fence, that the 10-foot high wall would be
accepteble except for Mr. Estle's property, and along his property a 6-faot high fcnce
could be provided with a perforated fence on top.
Mr. Fleming indicated the Marriott Corporation would ae becoming a part of the corrmunity
and would be williny to work with the property owners in ths area to develop the best
proJect. Ne indlcated he wanted to be sure the pPOperty owners understood a perforated
fence would cause a noise problem, but they would be willing to do whatever is necessary
to allevlate t~~is ,~ne particular prnperty owner's problems.
Jack White~ Deputy Ci[y Attorney~ ~ointed out a vartance would be required to build
enything less than a 6-foot t~igh, soltd block wall.
Crxnmiss i o~~er Ki ng asked i f the envi ronmental impact report s tated a 6-faot h~ yh b locF: wal l
is juat as ePficient as a 10^foot wall for sound attenuatian~ with Mr. Bran~it~ the EiR
consultant. replyiny it is not ,just es effective; that a 10-faot wali would provide more
sound attenuation, but that a 6-foot high wall would be adequate to wver the type o~
noise being dtscussed here.
6/5/7$
~
MINUTES~ ANAH~IM CITY PLANNINC COMMI5SION~ JUNE 5~ 19%8 78"4~8
E I R N0. 215 A~~O CONOI ~ I ONAL USE Pi:RMI T N0. 183~+ ~cont i nued)
Commissloner Nerbst polntEd out n~ise travels in a stralght line and a 6-foot hihh wall
would not be hiyh anuuyli t~ atlevt.~tc the nols~ ~roblem.
Mr. Estle {~olnteJ out t~ls proFerty (s 11a f.~et ecros~ the back; that his livtng roc~m and
bedraoms wauld be cut off from c.rnss-ventll~tion witl~ a lcl-~oot high ,vAll acrc~ss the
antl re 118 fee:t. fle fe) t sure e•` : cocie provides tl~at his praperty wi 11 i~eve cross-
ventllation. Ile felt It woul~ a,~o hurt the retall value of his property.
Mrs. Carpenter polnted uut she end four or fivc other nelghhors aro present wl~o livc ~long
the baek wall and thcy would prefer the 1~-f~t well because they fclt It would ~ut off
yuike a bit of thc noisc.
Thc Commisston discussed tl~c possibility of providing a 1~-fioot I~Igh w~ll alonc~ thc entire
property Ilne exccpt for Mr. Estle's pro~-~rty~ with a 6-fuot hiqh wall and perforated
fence an top~ and Mr. arandt po(ntcd out tl~at with a 10-foot higl~ wull w(thin 1~ f~et of
Mr, Estle's homc there would bc a vcntilation cut-off and suyqested thc possibilft~ of
same oiher form of provfdiny ventilation~ 5ur.h as f~~~rs in the atttc~ eCC.
Commissloner David pointed out thee EIR refers to a hotel with 57~ roc~ms and the Nroposal
is for 700 ro~~ms~ and Mr, Flemin_y polnted out tliere will be 700 rooms.
Commissioner Jot~nsan pointed out t~e felt this project is a good pro)ect~ but that the most
damagtng informatlon I~ad becn presented by thc `lar~iott people themselves~ and that was
wlth referenc.e to the tr~sf~ areas being loca[ed adJacent to the yuest rooms bec~use lt
would n~ ke nafs~ for their guests. Ile pointed out tt is the Planning Commission's duty to
protcct the peop 1 c 1 1 v I n~ i n ti~e n e i ghhorhood as we I 1 as the c~~~ts ts 1 n ttie h~te 1 and
wonderecJ hc~w far the CI ty sF~ould yo in tt~e guise of progr~ss ta provide qulet rooms for
tourists at tt~e sxpense of the ~eoplr_ who live in [he area.
Chalrman Tolar pointed out he felt tl~ey t-aJ done everythinq possible to protect the
integrity of the resiJent(a1 area; that everyone rccognizes there is gotng to be something
developed on this property; tl~at tl~ere cnuld be a lot of otl~er ~ rr~_jCCLS that could be
worse than thls one, and her~ we liav~ scxneone ~Nho is tryin~ tc~ work wlth the restdents and
pointed out if s~meone had come in with an RM-12~~ development, it could have a greater
ill effecC.
Commissloner Johnson po(ntcd out hc did feel the loading ducks beinc~ ihside the buitding
~r~uld darnpen the sound and with the heavy landscaping~ felt t~-e noise would be mitigated.
Commissioner Jot~nson pointcd ouC that in defense of the Marriott people, they have
mitigated the sound from the nefghbors; tl~at with the 10-foot high wall, the 100-foot
distance~ and 20 feet of landsc~p1n9, this should be a gooci project, and he dld not feel
there would be any problems; that it was unfortunate that one property owner would be
affected adversely and maybe somethiny couid be done to solve that prablem. but if the
wall is not buitt~ the noise would be a problem. Ne felt cutring ouc a section of a 10-
foot high wall would cause eng(neering problems.
ACTIOt~: Commissioner Herbst off~red a motion~ Seconded by Commissloner Davld and MOTION
~D~ that Environmental Impact Report No. 215~ which was prepared in conJunction with
Conditional Use Permit No. 1~34, to construct a 700-room hotel with ~s5oci.~ted facilitles
on the south stda of Canvention Way between Harbor Bnulevard and ~lest Str~et, having been
cons(dered Lhis date by the Anaheim City Ptanning Commission and evidence, both written
and oral, having been presented to supplement draft EIR No. 215, finds that potentlal
6/5/78
x..
~
;11taU'~ES~ ANANEIM CI?Y PLANNING COMhtI5Ci0Pl~ Jl'NE 5- 1978 7a'W39
EIR N0. 215 AND CONUITIONAL U$E PfRMIT N0. 1834 (continuad)
slynificant Impacta which could result from the proposed pr~Ject rr~Y be mitigated by
configurntlon of the site plan bnd reduced to an occeptoble level hy cunformanca w(th Glty
plans~ pollci~a anci ordinances. and drAft EIa No. 21y is in compliance with the Galifornia
Enviror.mental Quality Act and State EIR Guldelincs~ and the Anahelm C(t~~ Plonning
Commission daes hereby cort(fy CIR No. 215.
Cornmissioner 1ldrbst offercd Resolutfon No. PC78-11.4 ~nd moved far its passage and
adoptlon~ that the Anahelm Ctty ~'lanniny Cammission does hereby grent Petitl~n for
Condl t(~nal USC Permi t No. it~3~~ for an l~i-story ~ 165-foat htqh haxcl con~plcx, subJect to
the petit.loi~er's stipulation to provlda a 10-toot higl~~ solid bl~ck wall along the south
property line~ except on that por;~~.~ adJacent to Lot No. 2~3 of Tract No. 3n2A~ a 6-foot
hlyh~ solid block wall tupped with fo~~r feet of perforated-tyre~ ~I~cnr~tlvr. fencing shall
be constructed to prov(de better yentil.~tiun n-~d c(rculation alo~g the partlon of Lot 2~
whtcfi abuts the residontial structure ano that tl~~ specific plan for clie fencing along the
aforcn~entioned portion uf Lot 29 sl~et 1 be s~ibJect to the revlew and approval of tli~
Planniny Der~artrr~nt and City Enqincer; that ~ruck dellverles shall be lirnitcsd to the
daylight hours only; and subi•~ct to Interdepar~:~~ental Cammlttee recomnendatlons.
On roll call~ the foregoiny resolutlon wag passed by the f~llowiny vote:
AYE5: COMMI SS I ONERS: aARN~s, DAV I D. HEftElST ~ JOIIN501~ ~ K I NG ~ L I NN, TOLAK
NOES : COt1Ml SS I ONERS : 1~0-1E
ABSEIIT : CUMMI SS I ONERS : NONE
I TEM N0. lA PU(3L1 G NEARI Nf,. OWNERS: LEONARD G. MUSKI N AND DON;~LD
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION T. LEAHY~ 8g29 Wllshlre Boulevard~ Beverly Hills, CA
0 D Q L U E M 0. 1839 90211• AGENT: R. A. MANN. It~C.~ 815 West Kr~tella
AIVER 0 ODE REQUIREMEN S Avenuc~ Anaheim, CA g2B02. Petitioner requests p~r-
miss'on to ESTABLISH AN AUTGMOBILE RENTl1l AGEVCY WITH
WAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM LANOSCl1PINf~ ADJACENT TO ti STREET
ANU (B) MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGf1? o~ property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
consisti~g of approximately 0.6 acre having approximat~e frontoges of 1~3 feet on the east
side of liarbor Boulevard and 133 feet on ti~e west sid~ of Acama Street, belnq located aprroxi-
mately 395 feet south of the centerline of Ora~gewood Avenue, anC further des~~ibed as 2132
South Harbor aoulevard. Property presently classified CL (COMMERCIAL, LIMITED) ZONE.
There was no one indicating thelr presence in oppositi~n to subJpct request. and althou9h
the staff r~port ta the Planning Commission dated June S~ 1978 was not read at the public
he~ring, it is referred to and madr a part of the minutes.
Saul ~isman, representing R. A. Mann, Inc.~ agen~~ indicated it Is the desire of the
petitio~er ta use the existing office ~or a car rental ayency and the balance for parking.
Ne pointed out a n wrb er af years a,yo Ralph Williams t~ad been next door where Arby's is now
iocated and had worked out to be very compatible with the area.
TI1E PU@L 1 C HEARI NG WAS CLOSED.
Ctiairman Tolar indlcated Fie did not have very much problem with the use~ but he had a
coupte of questions concerning the driveways onto Acama Street and felt a block wall
should be provided and those two accesses to Acama closed off.
6/5/78
~,,. ,
~.
MINUTES~ ANAIiEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 5~ 197g ~n-W4~
EIR NEGIITIVE DECIARATION AND CONDITIONAI. USE PERMIT NQ^ 183~j (cantinued)
Mr. Elsmen indlcated he th~ught it would be more advantegeous for the car rente) ab~inq to
have one access onto Acoma. Ile lndicated he did not llke the commercial property
next to rasidential property with access ~nto Acoma. He felc one Atc~ss on Acama would
becomo a prima ry aGCess to the facility.
Mr. Eisman pointod out the cars are brought to the front of the facility by thp employaes
wlien thoy have been lea~ed.
Chalrman Tolar polnted out there is enough room to pr~vld~ lnterior circulatlun and he
felt it should be provided. fle f~lt this commercial use would be an increase in tr~~ffic
into the resldential area.
Mr. Eisman p~inted out he felt the amount of tr~ffic would not be a problem with abr~uc 50
tars cornin~ ln and out, and ~inted out there are otl~e~ buslnesses In thc .irca that do
have access to Acama.
Chairman Tolar polnted out thc Plann(nc~ Cornmisslon Joes ,~vt h~vr_ thc opportunity t~
correct those accesses~ but they can do something about this one.
Canxnissloner Kiny asked ha~+ many cars wnul~l be on 'the propertv for rental purposes~ and
Mr. Eisman replled thsrc would be 3~ or 3S ~ars.
Commissloner Ilerbst pointeJ out he a~a~eed with tt~c Chairman concerning the ac~ess onto
Acama and polnted out tlie Traffic Engtneer had recommended one access be removed since he
was concerned about visibi lity~ ane+ he felt ti~e trafflc sho~ll:l be eliminated from a
residential street.
Commissioner King asked Mr. Elsrian lf he was willinc~ to stl~ulate to ciosing off the
accesses. and Mr. E:isman replied t~e wauld likr. to have one opening~ and Canmissioner Uavid
pointed ouC the Traffic E~yineer had recomrr~ended vnly one acccss be closed.
ACT~ON: Commissioner King offered a motion~ seconded by Corrmissloner Davi~i and MO"TIi1~J
CARRIEU~ tha[ the Anaheim City Planniny Cornmissi~n has revica~ed the p~nP~sal to permit an
automobile rental ayency with waiver c~f minimum IanJscaping adjacent to a street and
maximum fence heigl~t on a rectangularly-shaped paresl of land c~nsisting ~f approximately
p,F, acre haviny approximate frontac~es of 133 feet ~n the east side of 1larbor Boulevard and
~~3 feet on the west side ~f Acama Street~ being located approximately 3~5 feet s~uth of
the centerline of Orangewaod Avenue; and does liereby approve the Negative Declarat(on from
the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report on the basis that there would be
no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmP:ntal imp~~ct due to the ap~roval
of this N~gative Oecla~ation sin ce the Anaheim General Plan desi~~nates the subject
property for 9enEral tommercial la~d uses corrxnensurate with the proposal; that no
sensitive environmental impacts are (nvolved in the proposal; that the Inttial Study
submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant inciiviciual or cumulative adverse
environmental impacts; and that the Neyative Declaration substanti~~tfng Che foregoing
findings is on filn in the rity of Anaheim Planning Department.
Commissioner Kiny aff~:red a resalutlon that the Anaheim City Planning Commission do4s
hereby grant Petitlon far Conditional Use Permit No. t839 with walvers (a) and (b) on the
basis that there is currently existing 3 feet between the block wall and the property
ltne, with 2 feet ~f existing l~~ndscaping; that the curb is enclosing drainage pipes and
the height of the wall is the same along Acama Str~et; that it is attractive and well-
maintained property and is a good auffer between comrnErcial an~ residentlal areas; ti~at
bi,i~a
~ i
MINUTES~ A~~AHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNE 5. 1~78 78-441
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CQNDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1839 (oantinucd)
traffic vislbility Is no problem with the wt~ll alang Acame Street +~nd denla) would bp
denying prlvileges en.)oyecf by ~ther praperty owners In the area.
Chairman Tolar polnted out to the petittoncr~ in regard to th~ resolutl~n offe.red~ he wss
~ot sure haw the vote would go~ but wanted fiim to realizc if it does not pass~ it is
probablY predlcated on the <iriveway accesses. Ila dtcl not feel it would be becaus~: of the
use~ but because of the driveways,
Qn roll call, the foreyoin9 resolutlon failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: M.ING~ DAVIu
NOES : COMMI SS I ONERS ; BARNES ~ lIkRBST ~ JOfiNSO'1 ~ L 1 NIJ. TOLl1R
AaSE~IT: COMMISS IO~~ERS; NOIIE
Ccxnmissioner aarnes offcred Resolution No. PC78-125 and moved for tts passage and
adaptlon~ that thc Anaheim City Plannin~ Commtssi~n docs hercby qrant Petition for
Cond(tional Use Permit ~~o. 163~. subject to the condition that tfie ewo driveways onto
Acama Street shall be removed and raplaced with stAnd~rd curb~ gutter and sidewalk~ a~d
that the ~-foot existtng fence shell be continued, eliminattng all access to Acama Street~
and subJect to Interdepartmental Commlttec recommendatlons.
On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the followtng vo~te:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: HAaNES. DAVID~ HERBST~ JOHNSON, KIIJG~ LINN, TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NQNE
AB5ENT: CGMMISSIONEkS: NOt~E
Commissioner Barnes offered a motian, scconded by Commissi~ner Johnsan and MOTION CAR~RIED,
that waivers (a) and (b) be granted on the basls that surrounding properties are developed
with stmllar landscapiny and fencing and strict applicatfon of the zoning Gode d~eprives
subJect property of privileges en)oyed by other propertles in the same vicinity and zone~
and that the existing wall is well maintafned and provides a barrie~ between the
cormiercial an~ resldential areas.
ITEM KQ. 15 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: STEVEfO RAY PITTMAN and
EIR C TEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASSES 1 6 3 OTTIS F. AND ELINOR D. PITTMAN~ 1401 North
CO~~DITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1 5 Jefferson Strcet, Anaheim~ CA 92a07. Petitioner
Q~~ DE .~QT11~.EMEtJ'~- requests permissfon to ESTABLISH A GAT KCNtIEL ANO
-""-"^"'""' A MAIWTENANCE AND STORAGE YARU FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT
WiTFI WAIVER OF PERMITTED STRUCTURES on property
destribed as a ~~ctangularly-shaped parcel af land consisting of approximstely 5.0 ac~es
having a frontage of appraximately 2;G feet on the west side of Jefferson Street~ having a
maximum depth of approximately 850 feet, being located approximatcly 6g0 feet south of the
centerline of Orangethorpe Avenue~ and further described as 1401 North Jefferson Street.
Property presently classified ML (INDUSTRIAL, LIMITED) ZONE.
T'here was no o~e indlcating their presence in opposition to sub,ject request~ and although
the st~ff report to the Plannir~g Commission dated June 5, 1978 was not read at the public
hearing~ it is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Qttis Pittman, the petitioner~ was present to answer any c~uestions.
6/5/78
~.
MINUTES~ ANAN~IM C1TY PI,ANNING COMMISSION. JUNE 5. 1978
?8-W42
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASSES 1 6 3_AND CONDITIONAL USE PF.RNiT NU, 1858 (continued)
Jsck White, Onputy City Attornoy~ polnted out the previous ConJ-tlonal Use Pe~mit No.
1511~ to pe~mit a prlvato cat kennel witn weiver of permltt~d ~; icture, wa~ granted for e
pe~lud of one yeor by the Plannlnc~ Commissir~ on Jenuery G~ 1~]y, and eubJect petltton was
grent~d e two~year extnns t on ~f t t me i n conJ. ,~c.t i on w i th the ebove r~fercncod cond t t lone I
use permlt and the petitio~er fatlcd to request ~~ extenslon of ti~ne on sub,~ect uses prlor
to the date af exptratton and w~s advised that a~proval of o naw condltlonnl use permit
for tho subJect uses would be necessary i ~ ord~r to cont(nue sald an~s,
TIiE PUBLIC NCARING WAS CLOSED.
Commisslone~ Barnes in~lcated she did not see any thing wrpnq wlth the use~s in this aroe
and would 1 ike to offer• n resolutic~n f~r apl~rov~,i an~ would 11';e [~ dlscus~ a tim: Ilmtt
wl th thc Cornmissl~n.
Chalrman Tolar indlcated t~c woulu he wa 1 l Ing ta vote for ap~raval for fi ve years,
Cammisslaner Herbst referred to thc n,r,t~i lehomes on this pro~erty Presrnt ly ~nd asked what
thel r usas wer•c.
Mr. Pittman polr~ted out the two traf lers wor~~ uscrl for storage i~f suppli es and wauld bo
removed es soon as devclopment Is finlshcd. t1e n~intcd out thcy h,avc ~ acres wlth two 4( 1
wells in the middlc of (t on a 10~~-foo• ~a~ement ~nd they could nct bull d anything within
the 1~0 feet. He indi cated the o~ 1 wel 1 s hod gone from primary to secondoiy recovery and
he was not surc what thc outco~ of thes~ oll wel ls would be, but they y~re stt 11 pumping.
Commissioner King askes if bullding permits liad bcen obtained on the prop~rty, and Mr.
Pittman replled that ls the next ste~.
Gonxnissioner Klny pointed c~ut electrical hc~o~-ups I~ad been done an tha property which were
not in conformance wlth tha Gode.
Mrs. Pittman pointeJ out electric~l hoolc-u~s were not put intoth~ prr~perty.
.!ay Tastilro~ Assoclate Planner~ pointcd o~~t one of the conditi~ns lncluded in the approval
of the condi t ional use pcrrni t would be that the propcrty would b~ br~ught up to code
within 30 days.
It was noted that the Planninq Dtrector or hls authorized representatlve has determined
that the proposed project falls within the definition of Cate9ori e~~l Exremptions, Class 1~
as def l ned In paragraph 2 of the Ci ty of Anahei m Envi ronnxntal Irrspact Report Guidel ines
and is~ therefore~ cate~orlcally exempt from the requirement to Prepare an EIR.
ACTION: Commissioner Darnes offered Resolution t~o. PC78-12G and moved for its passage and
adoption~ that the Anaheim City Planning Comnission docs herGby grant Petltion for
Conditional Use Permit No. 1II~8 for a f ive-year perlod, subJecC zo review by the Rlanning
Commisslo~~ for further extensions of tirne upan written request f~am the petitioner;
subject t~ the stipu!ation that the tra ilers us~d for storagewi 7 1 be removed from the
property when thc property has been ful ly developed; and subJect tu Interdepartmenta)
Gommi ttee recorm~andat i ons .
On rol l cal l, the Foregoi ng resol ut ion was passed by the fol lawi s~g vot~ :
AYES : COMMI SS ( ON~RS : BARNES ~ DAV I 0, NERDST, K I NG ~ JONNSqN, L 1 NN, TOi.AR
NOES: COMMISSIONcRS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
6/5/78
~
~~
r-
~
MI~IUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNIMG COhWI5SI0N~ JUNE ~~ 1978 78-u43
ITCM N0. 1) REAOVERTISED PUI3LIC IIEARING. OWNCRS; WARaEN J. 6
ICAL EXEMPTIQN-CLASS 1 ELWOOU D. TCR BEEST~ 1213? Dlwckmer Strcet~ Garden
. Grove ~ CA ~2GbQ . AGENTS : RANHOI~AI! S. PATCL ~ ET Al.
1211 South West Streset, Anah~im~ CA 928~2; KENHETII
OGOCI~~ 122) Sauth W~st Street . Meholm~ CA 92$02;
and GLENI~ K. B.ALLItT~ 11G02 Lampson Avenue~ Garden Grove~ CA ~ZG~-0. Petitloners roquest
A11Ef~DMCNT OF COt~U1TI0tl5 OF APf'ROVAI ~n prnperty descrlhed as an 1 ~regularly-sheped parcel
of land consistlny of approxtmotely 7.7 acres hsvtny app~c~ximate fro~kagoa of 412 fent o~
the soutli s i de of l~al 1 ~io~d and 39G feet on the wns t x I dc c~f Wos t 5 t reet ~ being loc~ted
approxima~ely 250 feet wrst of the centorl ine of West Street and 2G0 fc:et south af the
eontarline af I3e11 fioad. Prup~rty presently clessifled C-R (COMMCRCIAL-RCCREATI011) ZOI~E.
There was n~ one Indicatiny tl~ef r ~~resence in oppositi~~n t~ sub)ect request~ and nlthough
the staff report t~ the f'lanniny Commissfon dated June ~~ 1~7b was not read at the publ(c
hcaring~ it is roferred to and nw de A~art oF ~i~e minu~ey.
The eppllcant was still not present In connectlon with the .~bove pe titton~ however. the
Planning Cor~mi,slon fclt~ aftcr revicwiny the st:~ff report~ thcy could act uron the mattcr
without the petltl~ner b~ing presnnt.
TI~E PUDIIC HEARItIG WAS CLOSED.
It was noted that the Plannt~g Uirector or his authcirize~ reprr.sentativF~ has determined
that thcs proposed praJect falis withln the ~leflnition of Categorical Exemptions~ Claas 1~
as refined In paragreph 2 of thc Clty of Anaheim Envf ronrt-entat ImRaet Report Gulde) Ines
and Is, theretore~ categorical ly exempt from the requlrement to prepare an EIR.
ACTI01~: Commissioner K(n~ uffcreJ Resolution No. PC73-122 and maved for its p~ssage and
a~aptTon~ that the Anaheim Ci ty Planniny Cammissic~n does hereby grant the request to amend
the conJi tlon of approval concerning the G-fuot I~igh block w~l 1 wh ich has created weter
seepage problerr~s into the abuttiny mr~tel unlts.
On roli call, the forcyoiny r~~solution w~s pas~ed by thc follaving vote:
AYES : COHMI SS I QI~ERS : BARNCS ~ OAV I U, HERBST ~ JOHN50N ~ KI t~G ~ L I Nt~ ~ TOLAR
NOES: CONMiS510lJERS; NOtJC
ARSEt1Y: COMMISSI~NERS: NONE
ITE11 N0. 16 PUBLIC IiEARIIaG. pEVEIOPER: ROI~ERT P. k'ARMINGTON
EIR NEG IVE DECLARATION COMPA~~Y~ IG592 Hale Avenue~ Irvine~ CA `3271t~.
Et~T IVE MI1P OF Rl1CT N0, 1043~~ EI~GI!1EER: NUNSAKCR & ASSOC~ATES~ 3~01 Recl Hill,
Costa Mesa. CA y2626. SubJect property. an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land conslst(ny of
approximately 7•3 acres ~:'~ving approximate frontages of 427 fGet o~ the south side of
Ball Road~ ~88 feet an the west side of Palm Wey~ 575 feet o~ the north s(de of Palm
Lane~ and 4k0 feet on the east sicJe of Eucl id Stree[, and further descrlbed as 1230 South
Eucl(d Street~ is pra~~osed for a one-lot~ 116-unit, RM-1200 condominium subdivislon.
The staff report to the Planning Commisston dated June 5~ 197$ was presented~ nottng tl~e
petltioner proposes to establish a one-jot~ 116-unit. RM-120~ ai~ spece condominium
subdtvislon and that Var~anc No. 3~11 was ~pproved by the P1annT~g Commisslon on May ~~
197t3 to aliaw the conversion of an existing apartment complex tnto co~dominlums.
6/5I78
~
MII~UTES~ At1Al1E1M LITY PLANNINC COMMISSIOfI~ JUNC 5. 1978 ]8-444
E!R NEGIITIVE UECLARATION AND TENTATIVE MAP 0~ TRAGT NUi 10434 (contl~ ued)
AC710N: Comnisslonor David offered a motion~ secondeJ by Comnlssloner Nerbst ond MOTION
~D~ tl-at the Anahcim City plennin9 Commit~inn hes revlewcd the ~rapasa) to establlsh
a one-lot~ 11G•unit~ RM-120(1 nir space condominlu~~ subdivtsion on en trregulerly-~h+~pesd
parGel of land consistiny of ap~roxlmately 1.3 3cres havinq npprnximate frontages of A27
feet on th~: soutli slde of Eiall Rned~ yiiK feet on tho west si~ia ~f Palm Way~ ~~5 feet on
the north sfdc of Palm La~e. on~i ~+4~~ fect on tha east sl~fe of Euclid Street; and doaa
hereby approva the Ncgativa Oeclaratlon from the requlrnmont to prepare an nnvironmental
(rnpact report cm tha bas(s that therQ would be no slynificant Individual or cumulative
adversc envlr~ni,~enta) lmpact due t~ tt~e approval of this Ne~ative Ueclaratlon slnce the
An.a~~elm General Pian Jesiynat~:s the subject {~roperty for meclium density resldontial land
uses commnnsurt~te wi th the ~roposdl ; that no sens 1 t Ive envl ronmental impacts ore invalved
in the prop~sal; that the (nitiai atudy submittr..~ by the petitinner inJ{catns no
sir~niflcant indlvl~ual or cumulative advrrsc envirunine:nl~+l ir,~pacts; and t!~~t thc tlcgntivc
Declaratlon substantlatin~ the fore~~~in~,~ flr,dinys fs on file fn the City of Anahel~
Planning Department.
Commissloner Davld offered A motion~ seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTI011 CARRIEp
(Gommissionr,rs Linn and Talar votiny no)~ that th~ Anahcim Clty Plan~in~; Comn~isstnn does
heroby f(nd that [hn proposed subdiv(slon~ to~~ether wt th its ~1esi<~n anci imprnvcment~ Is
consister~t with the C) ty af Anahetm Ganer~l Plan~ pursua~t t~ f,overnment Cods Section
Gb~73.5 and cloes, t-~ereforc. approvc Tentative ~1t~p of Tract No. 1~~+3~+ fo~ a nne•lot~ 11~>-
unit, RM-1200 (Residentiil, Multiple-Famlly) u~ndor~inium subdivlsi~n~ aubjcct to the
foliowiny cor~dltions:
1. That should this sul~division bc ~~~relaped as ~~~-: l~ ~^ne subdivislon~ aach
sub~iivisi~n thereof sl~al l be suhmi tted In tentative furm for ..~,, al .
2. That prlor t~~ the Intro~luction of an ordinancc~ a fin~ l tract nx~p of subJecr
prop~rty shal l be submi tted to and approved by the C! ty Counci 1~nd then be recorded in
the Oi~':e of the Oranye County Recordcr.
3. ?hat the covenants~ conditlons~ and restrlctlons shall be submitted to and
epprovod by the City Attorney's Offir.e and City Enyineer prlor to City Councll approval of
the flnal tract i~~ap a~~d~ further. that the approved covenants ~ candi tions~ and
restfictions shall be recorJed concurren[iy with the final tract map.
6/5/78
~
MINUT~S~ ANANEIM CITY PI.ANNING CQMMISSION~ JUN~. ,r,~ 1A78 1a-4W~
ITLM Nu~ 17
~~~ KECOh1MCNDATIQt15
A. REf.LJ-SS I F t CI1T 1011 N0. GG-6%-fi~~ - Proposal to amend cond ( t i ons ~f ,gppr~va) .
Thc staff raport to the Planning Coirrnissl~n Jated June 5~ 197f~ was pr~scnt~•d by Annika
Sa~tslahti ~ Assfstant Clrector for Zoning, Indlcatlny subjcct pra~+erty cansists of twa
ir~ngularly-shaped parcels of land totaling approximatcly 1~,t1 ecres c~nd gen~rally bounded
by Orangethorpe Avenue t~ the north, Y.ellogg Urive t~ the east~ the Sont:+ Ana Rlver to the
south, and Lakevlew Avenuc tn the west; that staff recorn~nends tlic amcnJmenc c~f Condltlon
N~s. 1 and 3 ln Resolution No, G7n~33k (adupted in connection with subJect
reclassification)~ amendlny Conditlon No. 1 to requlre street ~edtcatton prior to Issuanc~
of building pcrmits nnd clclcting Condition ~~o. ;; and that thc purpose of amcnding s~td
c~nditinns IS tn finaliz!- MI. r.onin~~ on a{+~rtinn ~~f the N~rthc~st Ind~~strlal Arra undcr ~
resolutlon of intcnt t~ industrlal zc~niny. She pointed ~ut it is staff's c~b,jective to
finallze all the Indusirlal area rosolutlons of intei~t ln ~r~lcr to simpl ify and~
hopefully. sliorten tlie processiny tin~ for developers and bullders in s~id areas; that
each rasolution of inte~nt must be amendeJ~ hc7wever~ to modify any condltlons wliich are to
be satlsfic~ prtor t~~ the a~loptfon of an ordinancc rczoning tlic pr~perty; tl~at the
modiflcation wl1) typicr+ily delete the phrase~ "prlor to clie adoptton of an ordinance."
and roplace i[ with~ ''~~rlor to tlie Issuancc of a bullding pcrmit."
I t was nuted that the P1 annt ng DI rr.ctor ~r I~ i s~uthori zed rr.prc~entati ve has determi ned
tfiat the proposed proJect falls w~cr,i~~ the clefin(tton of Cate~~orical Cxemptinns~ flass 1~
as defined in parayrapli 2 uf clic Clty of Anaheim Envlronmenta) Impact Report Guidtlines
and (s~ therefore, cateyorically ex~mpt from th~ rti~uiremenL tc~ prepare an EIR.
ACTION: Comrnissioner Ilcrbst offcrcd a motion~ sPCOn~cd I~y Commissi~ner David anJ N,Ol'I~N
Rt ED~ that ci-e -'lanning Commission does hcreby rscormx~nd to the City Council that
amendn~ents to Resolution No. G7R-33-+ he .idoptcd in c~~nncction wich Reclassification No.
6G-f~7-b~+~ to modi fy C~nJi tl~n Na. 1 to read as fo) lows:
"1. Th~t decllcation sf~all be made to the City of Anaheim cm al I streets wf thin
tl~e are~~ according ta tfie Ci rculation Element of the Genera! Plan - flighway
Rights-of-Way~ prior to tiie issuance of building pcrmits."
and to delete Condition No. 3 fn its entirety.
a. COIIDfTlO-aAl USE PERr~IT W0. lF.~l2 - Request for appmval of an alternate us~e
auto ~o st~op .
Jay Tashiro~ Associate Pianner~ pointPd out under the original Conditional Use Permit No.
1612, which was granted permitting certain 1 ight industrlal uses in the CL 7_one~ including
automobile and boat repair involving rr~ctianical~ fabrication and palntiny of sald items~
t~~ese uses shall be subject tc~ Planniny Commission approval and shatl be restricted ta a
maxfmum of five ernployees~ no business activity shall be conducted on Sunday~ the use
shall be restricted to tenancy in Lhe existing approxtmately ~-50~-square fo~t butlding
whtcF~ Is located in the soutl~west corner of the subject property. and said building shall
not be expanded in any manner~ and all business activity shall be conducted Indoors.
Vernon Monroe, the petitioner, was present and indicated the boat fabrication firm which
prevlously occup(ed this building has vacated and an automobile shap whlch services car
leasing firms and dealerships is desirous of relocatiny into subject building.
6/5/78
,
t
~
,,
M I NUTES ~ ANAHE I M C I TY PLANN I NG COMM I SS (OPI ~ J UNE ~~ 19 78 7E~-446
ITEM B (continued)
Mr. Monroe polnted out this Is tt~e moxt southerly building wl~ict~ ts used by the schoa)
distrfct for a body shop~ and Chalrman Tol~r p~inted aut there I~ave been no problems or
complaintt from the neighbors.
Chalrman Tolar Indiceted he would like to see a tlme llmit tlad lo thls operatlon.
It was noted e ne gativo declaratlon was ap p~oved in connectlon with the o~iglna) approvel
of Condi tlonal Use Permi t No. 1G12.
ACTION: Comrnissianer Herbst offered a rrotion, seconded by Commissioner David and MOTION
t Ep~ that the Anahelm Ctty Planning Cornnission has determtned that the proposed
automobi le body stiop is substantial ly In accordance witt~ the ariginal ly s~~ro~ed use for
Cond) ticx~a) Usa Parmi t No. 1hi2~ enJ sl~al I be granted subJect t~ the stipulation th~3t the
body shop wll) conform to thc 8:00 a.m, to b;00 {~.m. hours of operation.
J01NT MEETIIJG OF PLANNING COMMISSIOf~ AND C 1TY COUNCIL
Chairman Tolar pulnted out as soun as lie has more informa~ion concerning the Jolnt Meeting
wl th the Ci ty Cou~ci 1 ~ he wI 11 pass i t on to tlie other Commissloners.
AUJOURNMENT There being na further business, Commissioner Johnsan offered a motlon~
seconded by Commissiuner earnes ~+nd HOTION CARRIED~ that the Planntng
Commissian mceting be adJourned.
The meeting was adjourned at a:50 p.m.
ELH :hm
Respectfully submttted,
~~~ ~ G~~-cs..~
Edi th L. Harris, Sec~etary
Anahelm Ci ty Planning Commiss ton
6/5/78