Minutes-PC 1980/03/10` :`
Z ?
City Hall
Ansheim~ Ca111'ornl~
March 10, 19~
FtEGULAR MEETING OF TNE ANANElM C17Y PLANN~NG ~~~~~~+~^
Planning Ccmmisston was ulled
REGULAR - Ths regular meeting of the Anahalm City•m,~ March 10, 1980~ in the
MEETING to order by Chalrwoma~ Sernes ~~ ~QS~nt.
Cauncil Chsmber~ e quarum baing p
PRESENT - Chairwoman: Barnes F Nerbst~ King. Tolar
Commissioners: Busho~e~ Oavid~ ry~
ALSO PRESENT - Jack Whi~a
Jack Judd
Paul Singer
Ar~nika Santalahti
Dean Sherer
Edith Narris
Assistant Clty Attorney
Civil Enginraring Associate
?raffic Englneer
Assiatent Director for Zonfn~
Zoning Representative
Pla~~ing Commis~lon Sec~etary
Yhe Pledge of Allegiance to ~he Flag was led by Commissionee' Bushora.
PLEDGE OF '
ALLEGIANCC
OVAI OF - Com+nissloner King offered e"1O~~utessof thed^~eet1"9 °fsFebruaryv~5, 1980
APPR
TIIE MI~~UTES ind MOTION CARRIED, that the
be approved as submitted.
CON711~UE0 ITEhtS
pUgLIC NEARING. 70 CONSlDER ANENDMENT 70 TI~E LAND USE
ITEM M0. 6 ELEMENT: Aitcrnute proposals of ultlmato lsnd uses
ENVIRONMENTA~ ~MPACTNREPC~RT N0._ 23~ j~~~udt~g but not lin+ited to ti111side Estate, Nillside
. » . Hillsidd Medium~ Ganeral Cann~erclal
~cw Medlum~ roximatelY
and General Open 5pace for sn ares of app
cres enerally located south of the Baue~aR~forniacEdisonteasementcandneastuofa the
95o a 9
Ranches ~ ~+o~t~+est and north of the sauthern
nt Anaheim Htils Planned Cam-unity and d betweenESantaNAneNCenyonHRoadRsnd W~Or
prese
ElnM~oNTRoadras~aeHtllsideeArterisl highwaY•a
Ca y
a~ed there have baen several request~ for a conttnuance of consideration of th s
I t wes n
matter, including a request from the pezit oner•e~nded by Commissione~ David and MQ710N
ACTION: Commissianer Herbst offered a motion, s ~ gQ~ ~t the
that the a~~heim Clty Planning Gommisst'ed ~Qt~ngeof rfa~chn2,~9s~deration o
'~D ,
the above-a~ehetaE~dtionerto the regularly-schadu
req~,ies t of t P
3/10/~
80-191
s ~
MtF~uTES. A~::~ILIM ~ITY P~ANNIn6 ~unMISS10N~ MARCH 10~ 1980
80-192
ITEM N0. 1 READVERTISED PUB LICNEARING. OWNERSt ANGELO AND
~E~VE DECLARATION I aENE M4NN1 , 3403 we+t Thor~ton Avenue, Anahetm~
~ CA 92~~ AND GEORGE II. IWD LINrA L. SACAGHIANI ~
700 North Ha~bor 8oulevard~ Anaheim, CA 92805.
hGENTt LESTER l. CARDEN~ JR.~ 914 West Lincoln
Avenus~ A~ahetm~ CA 92805. Petitloner requests WAIVERS Of (A) PERMITTEO PRIMARY USES ANO
STRUCTURE~ (B) MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT~ (C) MIN111UM FLOOR AREA PER OWELLING
UNiT~ (U) MINIMUM NUMBER ANU TYpE OF PARKINr ;°AGF.S TO RETAIN E1fISTING DUPIEXES AND
ILIEGAL GARAGE CONVERSIONS on property descrtbed as a ~ectengulerly-shaped parce~ ot land
consiating of approximatety IW~850 square teet~ having a front~ge of approxim~tely 110
feet o~ the north side of Thcrnton Aven«e, havinq a maximum depth of appruximatnly 135
feet snd being locsteci approximatel 6;y feet esst of t hn centerttne of Knott Street~ end
further d~scribod as 3~+~3~ 34Q3A~ 3~~9 and 3~~11 West Thornton Avenue. Proparty presantly
classified RS-7200 (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONE.
Thera ware eleven persons incficsting the~ r prasence i n oppos i tion to subJect request~ a~d
although the staff report to the Planning Commissio~ dated March 10, 19~0 was not ~ea~ at
tha public heartng~ it fs rcferred to and made a part of th~ minutes.
Laster Cardan~ 914 West Ltncoln Avenue~ M eheim~ agcnt representing Mr. and Mrs. Mannl and
Mr. end M~s. Sadaghient ~ explatned tha request for rec 1 aasif itetic~ has been w) thdrawn;
that ~he petitioner has agreed to remove the fenca betr+een the two propertles for parking
and to landscape the front setbatK rather then paving andMr. Manni wilt alao chenge his
present trtplex back lnto a duplex. Mr. Carden stated they heve elght parki:~g spaces
~ather than stx as shown in thc siaff report.
pean Sherer~ Asststant PlannPr~ aointed out a correction In the staff ~eport~ w~tver (b)
should read "minimun+ lot area per ci~,elling unic~" rathGr th~n "minimun floor area per
d-~e 111 ng un 1 t."
Don~e Westbury,3y34 Thornton~ stated they do not wanc to sec a precedent !~ the
natghborhood; that the dupiexes wtre an existing prob ~e~n, b~t they are wi lltng to go alang
wlth the Coanmisslon's request of Februa ry il, 19a0.
THE PUBLIC HEARItIG WAS CLCSED.
~c~amitsio~~+~ 9ushore asked when Mr. lit~nni bought the property~ when the gar~ges v+ere
co~ crted and when Nr. Manni got hts real estate licen se.
Hr. Mo~nt respo~ded he bought the prop~rty tn Septenb~r af 1976 ~nd cranverted the garage
about feur nanths lster in early 1977~ a~d got his real estate license in Jsnuary 1971.
Co~-i3a(oner Bushore felt sn individual studying and testing for a b~oker's lice~sa or
real estate license should have known tha ~egulatior-s and Mr. Mannl lndicated he had not
known anything about it. Cuim~lssioner Busho~e recsi led Mr. Mannt had r~ported ~t the
previoua n+eeti~g tha~t he was not licenaed v+hen the cos~version wss ~ade and fel~ aa a
knawledgeable reel estate agent, M~. Manni should hsv~ been aware of the codes end would
actua~lly ae negligent of thi,gs he was t ~Ined to look for, and ta na+ asking th~s
Comnissio~ to co~rione something he di: i ilegally~ kr-a~wingl~ Qr unkrw~ringly. He s!ated he
cauld not support the garage conversion •nd ha~d as~:eo a month ago that the gsrage ba
3/t0/80
~~~
MINU7ES, ANAMEIM CITY PLANqIN6 COMMISSIOH~ IM1RC11 10, 19~
E 1 R N~GAT 1 VE ~f CLAAATI ON MIO VARI ANCE N0. 3122 (CONT 1 NUEO)
..`i r~ ~i~~~~w.
80-19 3
r~conwrt~d ~nd now these ~svtsed plans shaw the ger~9es as bedrooms. He etated the
Co+~is:la- ~~ies to be as teir as posslble, but hav~ ~ever ellowed s oonverslon such as
thi~. H• stated tho reco~ds da not show whe~ the other property w~s converted ~~d thvse
units propably camo into tha City from a County dis~rtct~ but there is ~o yuestion on Mr.
Ma~nl's units.
Gommisaior-a~ Tolar Indic~ted his only problem Is trying to detarmine what is agreaable
from the neighba~hood's standpoint a~d what the nRighborhood d~serves and the fint~hed
pwdu.;t. Ha w~s concerned about the poss (b 1 1 t ty that the th i rd unl t might end up as a
duplex botng ~antedout after th~ approva) Is granted, po(nting out the difficulty
polici~g thls type eitustton.
Fk recagnized there is no way to force peopie to park tn their geraqe, but w~~ concerned
abeut the park i ng prob lem and whet the f i ni shed product wl 1 I look 11 ke for thc
netghborhood. He felt with the pavinc~ removed ~nd l~ndscaping provided~ the area will be
i mproved.
Commisalonef Klr-g nated the petitloner has to get buii~tno, permtts~ brfnging the units up
ta Code requi ~ements and Chai nroman Bs~nes ~oted o~ly one of~ the bedrooms has a bath.
Commissioner Nerbst felt if a solt~ well is provtded batween the units wfth no openings to
the outside. thc unlt could not be rented as a separate unit.
Commtsslonar Bushore felt granting epproval of this i llega) actton wi 11 not help the
Commis~lon uphold the Codes and make dec(sions tn Chc future.
Commissioner Harbst felt the Commission is trying to maka something reasonable out of an
axisting mess. He felt pa~king (s adequate on-site and with the oniy sccess f~om these
bedrooms betng (nto the llving area and the units cloaed off with a solid well, the
posslb 11 ~ ty of rent(ng them out as a separata un i t v+ould be el iminated.
Chairwoman Bar~~es stated if the u~its were converted back ta gar+~ges~ eccess woula be very
dlfficult and she did not belleve anyone would park in them.
Commissionar Bushore stated the garages wouid be accessible with the fence removed. Me
reststed the petitloner should havr knawn bettar and felt i~ Nould be wro~g to ccndone his
actio~ and that ith~s not bee~ allowed in the past. Ne feit s(nce the proparty was
original ly convPrted whi le it was in the County. the circumsta~ce is beyond oentrol of the
Sadaghiar.t's. but Mr. Manni had full cantrol of his sltuatton. Ha felt approval would set
~e pr~c~dent.
Commissioner King asked if the patttioner would be wiliing to follow through on
Commissione~ Herbat's suggestion of A soi id wol l And Mr. Carden stated they would
stipulate to a solld walt wlt~~ no access to the outside or betvisen the units.
ACTION: Coramtsalonar King offered a motion, second~d by Car~tssio~er Fry a~~i -+0'fiON
~D~ that the A~aheim City Planning Conmissian has rev~ewed t:.e p~oposai t~ retain
existing duplexns and iileyal ga~~ge conversions with waivers of pennitted primary uses
and structures~ minlmum lot aree per dweiliny unit~ minimum floor area per dweliing unit~
mtnimum nw~bor and Cype of pa~king spacc on a rectangularly-shaped parce) ~f land
3/10/60
1.`'
MINUTES~ AIiIWEIM CITY PLANIIING COMMISSION~ N11RCH 10~ 1980 ~'193
EIR NEGATIYE DECIARATION AND VARIAIICE N0. 3~Z~ ~CONTI NUED)
--.~..~.~..~.~
reconwrt~d and naw thesa rovtsed plans shca the gsrages as bedrooR-s. He stated the
Conhnlsslo~ trlas ta b• e: felr as pa~:ible~ but heve ~aver •1lowed a co~vara' n such a~
this. H• steted the rsco~ds do not sho~w when the oth~r property was c~nvertc~i and those
u~its probably cama into th~ City fram e Councy dist rist~ but thera is no que'tlon on Mr.
Nannt's unitt.
Cammissianer Tolar tndicatcd hls only problam ts tryi ng to determina what ts agrseeble
fran the ~elghbarhood'a standpoint and what the neighbo~hood daserves and the finished
product. He was concerned about the poas (b l l i ty that thc tht rd unt t might •nd up ~~ e
duplex boing rent~d out afte~ the approval ts gra~nted~ pc~inting out the difficulty
poltcing tht~ type situ~tlon.
Ne recogn t sed the re 1 s na aay to force peop 1 e to park i ~ the i ~ garage ~ but waa concerned
~bout the parking p~oblem and v+hst the ftnlshed product w111 look ltke for the
nRighborhaa-d. Ne felt with the paving removed and landscaping provtded~ t}ie erea will be
inproved.
Commlsaloner King noted the pctitioner has to ge: butiding pe~mits~ brtngtng the units up
to Code requl~cmants snd ChAirv+omen Bernes noted o~l~ o~c of the badrooms has a bath.
Commisaloner Herbst felt If a solid wall ts p~ov{ded between the unlcs wf th no openings t~
the out~t 1 de ~ the un i t coul d not Ne ~ented as a sepa~ate un t t.
Commissloner Bushore fclt granting appr~val of this illeyal sctlon Ntll not help the
Commisslon upholo the Codes and make decisions ln thc future.
Commissioner H~rbst felt the Commission ts trying to mske s~n+ething reasonable out of sn
existi~y mass. He felt parking Is adequate on-site and wi[h the only access from these
bedroams being into the living area and the units ciesed oFf with a solid wali, the
~ossibtlity of renting them out as a separate unit vrould be eliminated.
Chai rwanan Barnes stated i f the uni ts were cronverted back tn ga~ages, eccess w~uld be very
difftcuit and she dtd not believe anyone Mould park tn theQn.
Commissioner Bushore ststed the garsges woutd be aceesstbin vaith the fence removed. He
restated the petttioner should have known bettar and felt tt would be wrong to condone his
action and chat i t has not been al lowed tn the pas~ . H~ fel t st nce the property was
orlglnally converted while it was in the County, th~ circumstan~e is beyund control of the
Sadaghlani's, but M~. Manni had full cont~ol of his sttuatlon, hte felt approval would set
a precedent.
Commlssioner King asked if the petittoner wauld be v~ellli~g to °ollow through on
Conr'asloner Herbst's suggnstlon of a solid wall and M~. Carden stated ehey would
stipulate to e so11d wali with no access to the outslde or bet~een the units.
ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion, secon d~d by Conmissioner Fry and MOTION
~D, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has revtewed the proposal to reteln
axisttng duplexes and i l legal garage co~versions wi th watvers of percni tted primsry uses
and structures, minimum lot area per dwelling unlt, minimum floor area per dwelling un1t,
minimum nurti~er and type of parking space on a*ectss~gularly-shaped pare~l of la~d
3/t0/8o
~M`r
MINUTES~ ANIWEIM CITY PLANNINO COMMISSION. MA~CN 1~~ 19!!0 80'194
EIR NEGATIVE OEClAR11Ti0N AND VARIANCE N0. j122 (CONTINUED)
......._._,~..,...~...~.. _~~.....
co~slsting of ~pproximately 14~850 t~quare feet~ havtng a frontage of approxtmately 11A
feet o~ the no~th slde of Thornton Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 135
feet~ approximotei~r 675 feet ea~t of the centarllne of Knott Street; snd does hereby
spprove the taegative Declaration from the requlrement to prepere en environmenta) tmp~ct
r~rpart on tho be~i s that there wouid be no signif;cant Indivtdue) or cumul~ttve adver:e
envl ronmeRtal impaet dua to the epproval of thla tlegative Decleration slnee the Anahelm
Gane~al Plan designatet the subJect prope~ty for low-density restdential lanJ uaes
commensurate with the proposal; that no sensltive environmental impecta nre Involved tn
the proposal; that the Initta) Study submitted by the petitloner indicates no signlficent
Indtvtdual or cumu lettve adverse e~vironn+ental (mpects; and that the Negattve Deciaration
substantlsting the forcgotng flndtngs Is on filc In the Clty of Anahetm Pla~ning
Depa~tment.
Commisstoner King offered Resolution No. PC~O-47 And moved far Its passage a~d adoption
that the Anahelm City Planntng Commisslon docs hereb;~ grant Peclt{on for Vsrts~ce No.
3122~ (~ psrt, on tha basis that the duplex and triplex existed prtor ta purchese snd
revlaed plans indieete two duplexes and denla) would deprive two familles of living
quarters; and on thc basis of the limited size ~f the property.
Commissianer Bushore stated the triplex was not existl~g ;:~ ior tQ the present owner as
s tated.
Commisstoner Tola~ indicated he wouid supp.~rt the resolution because the end result ts to
get a better product for ;he neighborhood and this accompl ishes ~5 to 9Q$ of rhat was
requested w(th tht (andscaping p~ovfded and the fenc~ removed ~o provide parking oR-stte
for two duplexes.
Commissioner Bushore felt the Commisslon sliould get 100$ of whAt they have requested and
shouid not com~romise. tie stated the Commission had requested the garages be converted
back and also~ he dld not thlnk a solld r~all would eltminate the rentir~g possibllity
bec~use as a real estate agent. he has seen many time' after approval a wa11 Is remoyed to
make another unit and thpre's nothing to prevent this from happeni~tg in this instance.
On rol 1 ca) 1, the fo~egotng ~esol ut(on was passad by the foi loeyi ng vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ ~9MA#E, DAVID~ FRY~ HERBST~ KIN~~ TOLAR r~~°''t't.a`.~~`~c'Q'
NOES: CAMMISSIONERS: IiMIE (,;r.~<,~c~Kt~ 3~'2~~`~~'
A:'~ENT: COMMt tS I ONERS : NONE
Jack Whtte~ Asstsient City Attorney~ presented the wrl2ten right to appeal to anyone
aggrleved with th~ decision of the Planniny Cormisston to the Gtty Council withln 22 days.
Chairwoman Barnes pointed out to the oppos(tion they should report any actlvity taken o~
this property~ other tha~ ~hat was just approved. She explained this variante can be
ravoked at anyttme (n the futur~.
3/to/8o
~'
MiNUTES~ AHIWEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 10~ 1980 80•195
ITEM N0. 2 PUBLIC 11EARING. 041NER5; BERN~RD GEORCE, 1018 North
~~VE OECLARATI4N East Street~ A~eheim~ CA 9280y AND BiLLIE OEAN ANQ~
ECL S I ION N0. _-80-29 EARL CIIARLES WAFFLE, JR.~ 1216 Belmont Avenue~ Anahetm~
CA 92~Oy. AGEN~: GORdON E. SLOAN~ 3A5 Carousel P1ac~.
Anahelm~ CA ~2606. Petitloner requests that property
daac~ibed ~~ an irregularly•sh.,ped perce~ of lsnd consfsttng ~f approximetely 1.4 acre
lacated •t the southeaat corner of 6elmont Avenue snd East Street. havin~ fronteges of
approxtmately 305 feet on tho south side af Belrtant Avenue~ and npproxlmately 175 feet an
the east sld~ of East Streat. anJ further described es 1216 and 1222 aelmont Avenue and
1018 North East Street be reclassifled from the RS-7200 (RESIDENTIAL~ SINCLE-FAMILY) ZONE
TO THE RM-1200 (RE51DC NTIAL~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE.
Subject petttt~~ was cont(nued ~~om the meeting of February 2y~ 198n nc th~ raquest of the
petitloner In order to submit revlsed plans.
There were three persons (ndicating their presence In oppositlon to subJect request~ and
although the steff report to the Planning Canmisslon dated March 10~ 1980 was not re~d at
the publlc heartny~ It ts referred to end made a part of the minutes.
Commissioner Busl~are d~clared a confltct of interest as defined by Annhetm City Planning
Commlsston Resolutlon No. PC16-1;7~ adopting a Confl(ct of Intc~est Code for the Planning
COmmigSI011~ and Government Code Sectlon 3G2; et seq.~ in thet hc may I~ave a potentta)
co.,~~ict and~ pursuant to the provlsions of the above codes~ declared to the Chairwoman
that I~G was withdrawi~g from the I~earing in connectton with ReclBSSiFication Ao. 79-80-29
and did not take part in either the di~cusston or the voting therean~ end had not
discussed this matter wlth any member of the Plannlny Commissio~. Thereupon, Canmtssioner
Bushore left the Councit Chamber at 1:50 p.m.
Gordon Sloan, 3~+; Carousel Placc, r,.:nt and awner~ stated he agrees with the staff report;
that he has owned subJect property for 14 years an~d h~ad purchesed it as pote~ttal multl-
famlly and has purchased other properties as they became aveilable and he Is interested In
purchasing other prope rties if enyone ts tntereste~.
Jim Lucey~ 1217 East La Palma. presented a patition signed by 65 neighbo~s asktng that the
subject property be retained as single-femily rrsldential. He als~ presented maps shvwing
locattons of those people signing the pet(tton, potnting out they live on La Palme,
Belmont~ Sandlewood and Banyon. tie contlnued they are totally opposed to this change and
want tc ke@p the neighborhood as single-family and whether the change wlll raise thetr
p roperty values is not the issue bec~use they want to iive there; that they do not want
anymore apertme~ts; that i~ their vicinitu now there are two pockets of itlegal~
undocumented allens that are condoned by authc~rities and they do not ant this to happen
on thelr atreet; that they do not want any other ~roblems assoctated with apartments such
as notse~ treffic~ graffittt~ crlme~ lack of pride of cavnership and they want to llve in
their chosen hcxnes without haviny to mebilize periodically because a develAper or
opportunist wants ta turn their netghbarhood into a money factor,~ for himself and
suggested the petitioner attempt to make these changes in his own neighborhood. He urged
the Commission to reject this reclassificatian as they would in thzir own neighborhoods.
Ne stated nntices were malled aut regarding the carner praperty, but not the iwo
properties on Belmont and he also wanted to know the criteria for matling naCices because
3/10/SO
~'
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MhRCN 10~ 1980 80'196
EIR NE6ATIVE OECLARATION ANO RECL~SSIFICATION N0. 79-~•29 (CONTINUED)
- ,------ --~----
ha haf been told whan calling the Plsnntng Oe~artment~ 300 fe~t. 1000 feet snd one miie.
He stated many people dld not receive no:ic~s.
THE PUBL1 C NEARI NG WAS CLOSED.
Chairwomen B~rnes explatned the City of M eh~eim notices property owners on the cur~ent Tax
Aasessor'a rolls witht~ 300 reet of subJect p~o~e:rty by mall~ and posts s notice en the
pro~~~:rty Itself and edvertises the h~a~ing in the newspeper; that legally onty c+ne
nottficatton ta requlred~ but eve ryth(ng poss'ble is done to tnsure that everyone possibte
is notified.
Jeck Whlte~ Assistant Ctty Attorney~ explelned after revtewing the notice thet It is
logal)y adequate end speclfies property oonsisting of one acre which encompesses ell three
lots.
Commissioner Nerbs: referred to Bulldtnc~ No. 6, an existing resldence~ and Mr. Sloen
expialned he does not live on the stte. Commisstoner Flerbst askc:d if all thc rest of the
butldings are going to ba removed and M~. Sloan statecJ ell the butldings wilt be removed
and the pool w(11 be malntalned. Ne statcd everything on the easterly stde wlll be as it
cur~ently exists~ except the block wall fence; that the ~ool contlguous to the adJacent
property awner will be the same and the property awner to th~ tmmediate east would be the
same~ expect for the two one-bedroom units In the corner. He explelned the butldings ere
all s(ngle-story.
Commissioner Herbst stated the etmosphere of the stngle-family homes o~ the eesterly
portlon wlll ~emeln thc same and Mr. Sloan stated it is possible that will be the
manager's unit.
ACTION: Commtssloner King offered a nsotion~ seca~ded by Canmissioner David and MOTION
CARRIED (Commtssioner 9ushore being absent), that the Anahe(m Clty Plsnning Commtssto~ has
reviewed the proposal to reclassify subJect property from RS-7200 (Residentlal, Single-
family) 2on~ to RM-1200 (Residential~ Multipie-Family) Zone to construct a 20-unit
apartrnr.nt complex on an irregularty-shape~.~ pa~cel of land conststing of approximately 'i
acre tocated at the soutlieast corner of Belmont Avenue and East Street. hPVing a frontage
of 175 feet on the east sid~ of East Street; c~d cbes he~eby app~ove the Negative
Oecleretion from the req~trement to prepare an envirunmental tmpact raport on the basis
that there would be n~ stg~ificant Individusl or cumulatlve adverse environmental tmpact
d~e to the approval of this Negative Decla~atio~ since the Anaheim General Plan designates
the s~Ject property for iow and low-density land uses commEnsurate with the proposal;
that na sensittve e~vironmental impects are involved in the proposal; that the Initiel
Study submitted by the petitlaner indicates no significant tndividual or cumulative
adverse envlronmental Impacts; and that the Negative Declaration substantlating the
forrgoing findings ls on ftle in thc City of Anaheim Planning Oepa~•tment.
Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC80•48 and moved for its passage a~d adoption
that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition for Reclasstfication
Mo. 79- 80-29 subject to interdepartmental Committee recommendatlons.
Chairwoman Barnes stated she Is voting in favor of this resolution because in the City of
Anaheim, as well as eve rywhere else~ people cannot fi~d a place to live and there are not
3/10/SO
~y`.
k~ t
MINUTES, AHAHBIM CIT1f PLANNING COMM-SSION~ MARCN 10~ 1980 ~'197
EIR NEGATIVE DECLAM T10H AND RECLASSIFICATION NQ. 7q"„~- 9(CONTINUED)
r
n~ny new apartmsnts being constructed; th~t this if one-story and ~he dtd not think It
wli) detr~ct f~om the netghborhood; that the rasidence on Qelnant will be retalned and
thern are apartment units •cross the street and s~~a felt this wtil improva the aroa and
provide much neeJad housing.
Commissione~ Nerbst scated he ilved in thts area for 27 years end the bulk of chese units
will face East Street which is prlmarily multi-fsn~ily and directly across the streat
there's a duplex ~nd apartn~rnt and he would cansider this a continudtio~ of th~ zoning in
the area and thls Is a weil lald out ainyle-sto ry pro)ect.
Deen Sherer. Assistant Planner. amended Conditlon No. 3 of Int:rdepartmental Cannittee
recartmc^dations ~o read "...1ur tree planting purposes alo~g Belmont Avenua."
On rall call~ the faregoing resolutlon was pessed by thc following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARIIES. pAVID~ ~RY~ HERE3ST~ KING~ TOLAR
NOES: COHMISSIO~~ERS: NONE
A95Et~T: COMMI SS IONERS : 6US110RE
Jeck Whito~ Asststant Clty Attorney~ presented the written right to appea) ta anyone
dlssattsfled with thc decisian of the Pla~ning Commission wtthln 22 ~ays to the City
Cou~ci 1 .
IT~M NR. PUBIIC HEARING. OWNERS: PIi1LLIP F, AND EMIIY PORRETTA,
EIR NCGATIVE JECLARATIOt1 700 South Magnolla Avenue~ Anahel~r~. CA g2804. AGENT:
I 1 . -80-2G RONAID :~. MONTGOMERY ~ P. 0. Box 1132 ~ Nuntt ngfon Beach,
CA 92647. Petltioner requests property descrtbed
as a rcctangularly-shoped parcel of la~d co~sisting
of approximately O.A8 acres~ havtng a frantage af approxlmet~ly 85 feet on the east side
of Magnolta Ave~ue, havinq a maximum depth ~f approximately 245 feet and being located
approxlmately F.JO feat south of the centerltne of Orange Avenue~ and further described as
700 South Magnolla Avenue be reclassified from RS-A-43000 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE
TO RM-2b00 (RESiUENTIAI~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY) 20r1E.
There were thrae persons tndicati~g their presence in opposition to subject requesi~ and
althnugh tho staff report to Lhs °lanntng Commisslon dated March 10~ 1g80 was not read at
the public hearing, it is referred to and madc a part of thc minutes.
Ron Montga~s~ery. egent~ was prese~t to answer questlcros.
Mr. Gunawardena~ Gk~ South Nagnolia~ stated he believed his property would be adversety
affected with theae eight units; that traffic ls already heavy and tt is difficult to even
make a l.ft turn out of the driveway nav and he felt there wouid be coo much interference
with other ,~eople comtng In. H~ was aiso concerned about unnecessar•/ changes and stated
this has been a qutet neighborhood and they want to keep tt that way. He asked why the
public hearing notice wss placed on fils property.
3/10/80
~
i .
MfNUTES~ ANAH~iM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCN 10~ 1980 kS0•198
F R NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANO RE~IASSIFICATION N0. 7g-80-26 (CONTINUED)
~
Oean Sherer. Assiatant Planner~ stated the notice was probebly posted in error on the
wrony property. It was noted that notices are mellad to pr~perty vw~e~s wlthin 300 feet,
e notice of the hnarin~ ts published in the neaspoper and a notice Is posted on the
property~ wF~tch 1~~ thls caae was on the w~ong property.
Mr, Perera~ 123g 5out1, Magnolta~ pol~ted out hfs deughter ts planning to buy property
across the street from subJect p~operty; end that the staff report is wrong In showing M~.
Gunawordene's prnperty to the north as betng vacant; that north of Mr. funawardena's
property is vacant isnd belonging to the thurch end furthe~ sa..ch af subJect property 1s
another church. He ststed he Is vbJecting to the requast because he would wait lhe
property to rerr~tn singla-family slnce his daughter is buying praperty across the street.
Dean Shorer~ llssistant Planner~ oxplalned tf~ere Is approxtmately ~0 feet of church
p roperty to th~ north~ south of Orenge Avenue~ and that the map does not tndtcate how t!~c
adJacent parce) to tha north ia developed~ and further south of subJect property~ ts
another church prc~party.
Annikt- Sancalahtl~ Assistant Olrector for Zaning, explaincd ~urrQUnding land uses are
identtfied per the land uae ma~~s i~ the Planning Department and thuse are surveyed eve ry
yee~~ b ut occasionally Nith vacant parcels~ a elwelling ~inlt could be swltched
inadvertently.
THE PUBL{C NEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Fierbst was ~.oncerned because ti~e drawinga a~e sketchy and also bacause f Idt-
roof ga~ages ere facing P;:~notie which he felt w~uid be ve ry detrimental to the
nei~hborhood.
Mr. Montgomery stated he would b~ willing to provide roofs on the garages similar to the
frant of the structures. Ne stated he could put the parking up front, or have a long
driveway down the side of the pro~erty.
Commtssloner Herbst recognized tt,is area abuts spartrn,:nt complexes and asked what the
resalutto~ of intent is on thts pr~~perty.
Dean Sherer, Assistant Planncr, stated ;~~re is no current resolution of tntent on this
prope~ty and the petitio~er wants a reciasstficatton; and that the Gennral Ptan designstes
the property for medtunrdensity restdentlal land uses.
Commfsstoner Nerbst sceted he could not vate on thts request because of the sketchy plans
and felt the appiicsnt should show wl»t ts reelly gotng to be constructed. He did not
think the garages out frant with flat roofs would complfinent the area.
Commissloner Tolar stated he has no problem with the concept of the units becauae Magnolta
is a ve ry busy artcrial htghway end he old ~-ot think anyone would develop a single-femily
residence~ but he was not sattsfied with the drawings .:nd wanted to see the unIts
aesthetically destgned so they looK better facing the street~ ev~n if an access has to be
provided down the aide of the proparty. Ne pointed out there are !,ne very nice
propertias on the west side of Magnolia and this pro)ect does ebut residenttoi~ even
though he recognizes it does back up to a lot of units. He stated he cauld not support
the raquast untiess he sees renderings. etc. to shaw what is going to be done and what tt
wlli look like from Magnolia.
3/10/80
~
< . p
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ M11RCN 10~ 1980 ~'199
EIR NEGATIVE DEGIARATtON AND R~CLASSIFICA7iQN N0. 79-~•Z6 (CONTINUED)
Mr. Monty~nery asked for a continuance~ Indicating he would only need three or four days
to submit revited plans.
Chalfwana~ Barnas ststed r vlsad pla~s would heve to be submltt~d by Friday in orde~ tor
the matter to be hea~d ' two weeka•
Ccunmisatoner Herbst s.ygested the petltioner revtew the plans of the prevlously approvad
apsrtment praJect w~~ch were very comPlete showtng the rcioflin~s, and what ihey will look
lika, and he feit 'ne paoPle oppoatng the project have a right to see whet is going to bt
butlt. He state;' he recognixes these wilt be sfngle-story garden type apartments~ which
he felt will be ~~nmp~tible with the area and the Ctty does need thes~ type units •nd they
will not dawngrade ~nyona's property~ tf properly deslgned and constructed.
Mr. hbntgomery ayKCd if there would r~~ any obJectlons to the gerages bcfng In the fr~.,c:.,
tf thay ere aesthetlcaily pleasing.
Commtssloner Ilerbst statcd he has no obJections~ es long ea thc neighbors' properties are
not downgraded.
Dean Shnrar~ Assistant Planncr~ explelned the Generat Plen indicates a mixture of
comi~ercial~ lu~w-medium end medtum dnnslty resiJenttal land uses on the east and weat sides
of Magnolta; that this particular portlon woulc! fell within the low•madlun a~d medtum
denslty residantial land use dasignations.
Chairwoman Barnes clarified the property to the north is devnloped as single•femily
residence and was concerned whether both properties v+ould be designeted the san-e and Mr.
Sherer expiatned the destgnatio~ is medium-denstty all atong the strect a~d on the west
stde the desig~atto~ is law•medlum.
Commissioner 7ola~ offered a motion~ secondad by Cornntssioner Davld and NATION CARRIEO,
that consideration of the aforementioned item b~ co~ttnued ta the regularly-~.:heduled
meeting of March 24, 1980, at the request of tha petttlon~r in order to submit final
detatled drawings.
~
~
~
~
a0-200
MIINI-1ES~ ANAFICIN CITY PLANNINC COMMISSIQN~ MARCN 1Q~ 1g80
; tEM N0. ~+ PUBII C HEARI NG. OWNERS : CONRIID J. ~::T~TER AND
'~'~'I~VE DCCLARATION JOSF.PFIINE M. LETTER~ 3102 Wast Vallejo Drtve~ Anahetm,
V ~~ CA g2IIo4. AGENT: WALTER K. BOWMAN~ 7936 Cerritos
Avenue~ Stanton~ CA 906~. Petitla~er reyuests
WAIVER OF MAXINUM STRUCTURAI NEIGHT TO CONSTRUCT A
7-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX on property described ,s en irreyularly-shAped pa~c~l of land
consisting of a~praximately 0.65 acrc having a frontAge of approximatcly 80 feet on tha
sotith side oF La Palma Avenue~ havinc,~ a maximum dcpth of epp~oximately ?.80 feet an~1 being
luceted approxlmately 800 f~e~t~~s~esently clt~ssified RM-120Q (RESIDENTIAL~,rMUIT~p~Ec~~bnd
ss 1260 East Ls Palma. Pr~P Y P
i1W I LV ) ZONE.
There were three persons indicating thcl~ ~resence in orpositlon to subJe~.t request~ and
although the staff r`poig r~fc'rred1tonand maJeiaspart~ofcthGAminutes.19 ~ was ndt read At
the public hcaring~ t
Robart Bowman~ agent~ stated the proparty is lonq and narrow and the vart ~ce Is being
requested on that basis and Alsn on ihe baais of ~h~r1e°S~ate~fgthe proposedh7-unlc density
v+ould be the htghest and best use of the properiy.
is less than the maximum of 17 units allnwed• Ile cxplained t~e petltioner originalty
Intended Co ~eside on the property but that it would be too wstly to improve the existing
structure and that would result in avcr-tmprovement of th~ neighborhood, lie explalned
anothe~ reason far this proposal is financial becausa aft~r conta~ttng lenders, detcrmined
thcy ar~ not rt-aking any lo~+ns on ~rojects over clght units. He stated three contiguous
p~opcrty awn~r~ hfeetrfarefuturerstrecttwide~ing~n~ ~hange to Rh~-120~ and that the awnsr
has dedl cete 3
Aud~ey Barrh. 703 Hemlock Place~ stated her pr^~erty does not ad}oin .ubJect property. but
when they purchased their propcrty~ ic was with the ictea of living in a~ ~rea of singte-
family dwellings and thou,yht they could depenJ on the City of Anahefm to leave tht aree a
singl~e-family area and now all evc~yone seems to be Interest~d ~~ is the nceci for housing
and it daes not seem to matte~ whether tt will disrupt saneo.e ~ise's life as long as tc
is not in a Commissione~'s neighborhood; that more apt+rtmt~ts bring ln more people and
rtare crowded arLesPalmamin this'parLicular,arEaththererare~omapartments,nbuttthispwould
aiready ond n~
start anather string of units.
pennis ~~orman~ 720 No~t~~ Junlper~ ay~eed w) th ~s. Barch in that I~e and his wi fe bought
thelr ~ roperty six ycars ago as a ilfetirn~ residcnce for their fa^ily; that they moved
th~re to get awaY from apartmen[ living after 1~ yeers and r.'~ey have seen a l~t of the
proi~lems resulting from apartments such as burglary and Inr;~eased crime~ traffic~ etc. He
stated after rece'vin<~ nottce of this hea~inc~~ he contacted a reat Pstate egent and was
(nformed the value of his propcrt~~ w~uld go cio~wn; an~~ eastha't mon iof~ht~dneiyhbors feel
Insurance agenbuthworki andncouldcnot~attend} ihep~eet~ ~~g. y
the same waY.
Marle Hannafo~d. 710 Juniper~ agreed with Mr. Norman and objected to the ap~rtments~ and
stated none of her r,eighbo~s ir9nt *h~do ~otrwanttthe samersituation~ t~'e apartments on
Anna Drive and Bush indicatin they
3/t0/8o
,_ __. . .
_.. ,
~
~~
M11RCN 10 19 SQ 3Q• 200
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITIf PINiNING LOMMISSION~ ~
iTEM N0. 4 PUBLIC HEARING. ONNERSt CONRAQ J. LETTER AND
'~T~""~"VE OCCLARATION JO~EPt~INE M. LETTER~ 31Q2 uest Valle)o Driva, Anahetm,
Q~ Cq g28c14. AGE.NT: uAITER K. BON-U-N, 7936 Cerrltos
1~vanuc~ Stanton~ CA gOG80. Petlttc+ner rAqueatt
41!-IV[R OF MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL HEICHT TO CONSTRUC7 A
y-UNiT APARTMENT COMPLEX on property describad as an irreyularl~y•sh~ped parcel of land
contl9ttng or approxtmately Q.G5 acre heving a f~anta9e of app~oximately 80 feet on the
south sida of La Paln-a Avenue, havl~g a mnximum dapt-~ uf app~oximately 280 feet and beinq
located approxlmately 800 feet Qast of the cont~rline af East Street and further described
As 1260 East Le Pelma. Prapcrty presently clasr~ified RM-1200 (RESiDENT1Al~ MULTIPLE-
FAMII.Y) ZONE.
There were thi~ee persans (ndicating thelr presencc {n onpositlon to s;q~~Wescn ts~~adnet
slthc~ugh the ataff report to C1-e F'lenning Commisston dated Narch iJ,
the puhlic hear(ny~ It is refcrrcd to end made a part of the minut~es.
Robert 6owrnan~ e9ent~ s~ate~~i the property is long and norrow ~nd thc verienc~ Es being
requested on that bASis and also on tE•u basis of the housing shor[age and t-,e felt thls
would be the highest a~d best use af chr property. Fle stated the proposed 7-unlt denslty
is less than the maximum of 1J units allowcd. He explained the petitic~~er originelly
lntended to raside on the property but that It wc+~id be too costly to imprH~ee}hie~ne~tiny
structu~e and that wou1d result tn over•improvement of the nelghborhood.
another reason fpr this p~oposel s financial because eft~r contectinq lenders, determined
they Are not making any loans on c~rojects ovcr eight unlt~. F1~ state~ threc co~tl9uou'
property awners havc requested finalizetlon of =c,nc change to R~1-1200 and that the a+ner
has dedicated 23 feet for future street wideninq.
Audrey Barch~ 703 Hemlock Place~ stated h«sr property does not adJoin sub}ect proparty~ but
when they purch~esed thelr property. It was with the idea of itvtny in an a~ea of single-
family clwellings ~~d th~ught they c+ould depend o~ the Ctty of Il~ahe~m to le~v~ the area a
single-fami'y area and naw all everyonc secros to be interested In (s the ne.ed for hausing
and it cbes not seem to matter whether it wiil dlsrup,. sam~c+ne else's life as lo~g as it
is not in a Commtssioner'z ~eigl~borhood; thak more apartments bring (n mare peopie and
more crowded ereasP~ma"'inc:his pa~ticularsareathth~ererare~nomap~rtmentsGnbut'thisewould
elready snd on La
start another string of units.
DeRnis Norman~ 720 Nor~h Juniper, ayreed wi:h Ms. Barch tn that Itie and his wlfe bought
their preparty six years ag~ ds a lifrtime residence f~r their famtly; ~hat they moved
there to get awaY from apartment livl~g 'fter 15 years and they hbve seen a lot of tha
problems resulttng i^Q~^~ottce~ftthis~hearing~9herconnacted~a~realces etete9entc~ndtwas H~
s tatecl af te r rece i v y
lnformed the value of hls pr~~~rcy would yo Ja+n; anuandsthat menytof4htsdnelghbors feel
tnsurance agent that his i~~ ~ance rate would go up;
the same way. but wArk end ~uld not attend the meeting.
Mart~ Ha~naf~rd, 710 luniper. agreed with Mr. !larmen end •b)ected to the apar*.m~ ts. and
srated non~ of her neighbors want t~~es~e~ aoarWa Ltthe samersituationo the apartments on
Annr Driv~ a~d Bush~ indlcattng they
3/ 10I80
~~
M~NUTES~ A-~I iE1M CITY Pt,lWNING COMMISSIQN~ MARCH 10~ 1980 80-2pi
EIR NEr;ATIVE DECLARATION ANO VARIANCE t~0. 3~ (CONTINUEO)
- -----.._.~..~..~_.
Nr~ Bowmsn stated this property has been undar a resolution of intent to RM-120~ since
196a and anyone purchasing property stnce 1~G8 ghould have becn r~wnre af the futu~e usage
of this p roperty; thet there wes never a quest(on abaut the use; that there ts a two-story
house at 710 F~emlack ov~rlooking thc ~ear of sub)ect property and thia would be the anly
parrei within 150 feet of subJect propertY• He did not think anyone withtn 15~ feet had
spo-~en in opppsition, Ite felt th~ project will definitely be en improvement to the area
and f~lt in the near future~ the are~ along East Street an~1 La Palma Avenuc~ will be
developad as epartments.
TNE PUE3t,l C HEARI NG WAS CLOSED.
Comm(sstoner Bushore statc~~ hc supports epertm~:,.ts and the area hAS a resolutlon of tntent
fo~ that zoniny; hc~wever~ t~e agreed wtth the oppc~sttion's concerns and the peaple on
Juniper that wlll back up to the property and hts nbjection would be to th~~ twa-story
units abutting residenttal; :hat if this request is approved~ a precedent w~uld be set and
he felt (t would start to destroy the nelghborhood, tla felt thc pcople behi~d the proJect
can rlghtfully be concerned. He stated adliering to Cocle would mean less unlCS and ~
htgher qual f ty uni t so they do not heve to be umccrned that thc sen-e thing would happen
as on Bush Street and Anna Orive. tle steted fie couid suppo~t on apartr-~nt proJect but not
the two-scory ~it.
Commtssl~r.er Harbst scated he Nes on the Commission i~ 196~ and sat through the public
hearings c~ncerniny this area and the l~ts facing La Palm~ are deep lots and were orenge
g~oves and et ane time the property was sold as ranch-style lots ~nd now it ts dead
property and cennot be develop~d as single-family; that the peopl~ had the c;.rortuntty to
spcek than and he dld not think ft is ~he intent of the Commlssion at thls time to make
any chenges because there is ~~ definitc need for fioustng end the pr~pe~ty wAS purchased
under the auspices tt~at it would be multiple-~family. He sLated, tx~wever~ he drematically
opposes the two-sto ry unit and it has to be single•sco ry within ISn f~et because with
further apartment proJects~ there would be furthe~ e~c~o~chments on the neighbo~s. Ne
stated hc would not app rove any varlanct that wlll be ~letrimental to other peopte's
prope~ty and does not believe in transf~rrin~7 the des~gnation to somebody elsc's property.
Conmissioner Tolar stated he agrees end does support the concept of ~pertments, but since
he has been on the Comm9sslon~ he has never supported two-story units wlehir 150 feet of
single•f~mfly dev~lopment. Ne felt the 150 feet provides protection and p~ivacy for those
resiJents ~nd also felt it is just a qu~stion of time before other propertles are
developed and t~is w ould set a prr~cedent.
Corrmissione~ nushore po(nted out by ri~ht the pe[itioner could develop the unlts es long
as they conformcJ to Codc and asked the petitianer if he wanted a vote from the
Ccxmn i ss i on .
Mr. Hontyoma ry scated the avner has i:~tructed ~~fm to ~ppsal a den~ei of the two-story
units.
Chairrrcxnan Ba rnes explained to the oppositton that the petitioner has the right to bulld
one-sLory units and the variance is requested far two-story u~its within ~50 feet. 5he
poi~ted aut to tht petltioner that the City Council is very adamart about protecting the
adjacent h~rneewvn~rs.
3/~ol80
~~
f ~
,
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ M4RCH 1Q~ 1g80
EI_ R,NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANC~ N0. 3137 (CONTINUED)
80- 202
ACTION: Commlastoner Oavid offered a motton~ seconded by Canmisatoner M.tng and MOTION
~D~ that the Anahelm Ctty Planning Commtsaion hss revtewed the p~opnsal to co~struct
a ~-unlt apa~tment con~lex with wsivnr af maximum str+~ctural het~ht on en trregulsrly-
ahaped percel of land conatstt~g of approximat~ly ~.65 acres~ havtng a frontag.s of
approxtrr~tely ~0 fe~t o~ the south side of Le Paime Avenue~ hsvtng ~ maximum depth of
approximetely 2~0 fe~t ard batng loc~ted approximately t100 foet easl• of the centerline of
E~:t Street; and does hereby epprove the Negativc bocla~ation from the rnquireme+nt to
prepare an environm~:ntal impact report on the ba;:is tl~at there would be nv signtficant
tndtvidual or cumulative adverse environmentel impact due te the aporoval of this Negetive
Declarattan since the Anaheim General Pian dosignates the subJect prop~rty for medtum-
density land uses comnensurete with tt~e proposel; tl~at no senaittve envlronmentel impacts
a~e involved !n the prop~sal; that the Initfal Stucly submitCed by thr. petittoner indtcatea
no significant lndivtdual or cumuletive edverse environmental impacts; and thet tt~e
f~egative Qeclaration substantieting tlie foregotng findings Is on ril~ -n ti:e Ctty of
Mahelm Planning Departmcnt.
Commissioner Devid ofP~red Resolutic,n No. PC80-49 and moved fo~ its passagr and adoptio~
that the Anahetm City Planning Commisslon doos heraby deny the ?~titlon for Varlance No.
3137 on the basis thet ihis violation nf Code would creete a hardship on the surroundtng
area by invasion of ch~ privacy and restriction ~f sigh: and air ctrcuiation to nearby
restdenttal p ropert(eg.
Comm(ssioner Tolar askrd that a findiny be edded to the resolution rhat approval would set
en undesirable precedant for future developmenc of property ~long La Palma.
On roll call~ the faregoing resolution was passed by the followin~ vote;
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: QARNES~ BUSHORE~ DAV1;~~ fRY~ fiERQST~ KING~ TOLAR
NOES : COMt11 SS I ONE RS : t10NE
ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: NON~
Jack White. Assistant Clty Attorney~ presented the p~titfoner with the wr(tten right to
appeal the Planning Commission's dec(sion withln 22 days to the Ctty Cour~t(1.
3/ t0/8o
.~„r,,,,.~~.~.-..,~... . ,..._ _
V
MiNUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION, MARCN 10, 1980 t~0•x03
ITC N0. PUOLIC HEARINf. OW~~ERSs ROB~RT P. WARMINGTON AND
'~T1i ~f:~~Al EXEMPTION•CLASS 1 LOaINC P. WAR11iNf+TON~ 16~52 N+~le Avenue~ Irvine~ CA
~i I~t~ U t ~2714. AGENT: DENIHANA OF TOKYO~ (NC., AND ELLMAN~
~ D I L U E ERMI N0. 20b2 PAS~OVOY AND BURK~~ One Ecker Dutldin~~ Sulta 200,
San Franctaco, CA 91i105. Petttloner NEQUESTS TIiE
ON•5ALE OF ALCOt10LIC B~.YERAGES IN A R~STAURNNT WIT11 WAIV~R OF MINIMUM NUMBER QF PARKING
SPACES on p ropcrty dascrtbed as a recta~tgulArly-~hapod parcei of land conststing of
appr~„~in-ately 1.33 ecres having a frontege ~f approxtmat~ly 204 Feet on thn south side of
Dail Road~ having a mnximum depth of epproxim~tely 27g f~~t and being loc~ted
a~• roximately 450 fe~t east of the centarline of ~tete Colicge Ooutovard~ and further
dascribed ~s 21b0 E~st Ball Roed. Propcrty presently classiflecf CL (COMMCRCIAL~ LIMITEO)
ZONE.
There was no ane~ Indiceting thetr prexence tn oppositlon to subJect request~ and although
the staf!` report ta the Planning Commisslon dated March 10~ 19Q0 was not read a~t the
publlc hearing~ It is refer~ed tu end mede a part of the minutes.
Steve Cassidy~ representing 9enlhanas~ was pr~sent t~ ansv~r eny qu~sttons.
TIIE PUDLI C NEARIl~G uA5 CLOSED.
It wes notcd tl~c Planning Director o~ his authorizsd representative has daternsined tl~at
the p roposcd proJect faiis within the definitton af Categorical Exem~~tnns~ Class 1~ as
doft~est in paregreph 2 of tha Cii,y of M ahe(m Environmental Impact Report Cuidelines and
is~ therefore~ cetegorlc~+lty exempt from the rcqu(rement to ~repare an EIR.
Commissiener King offered ~ mc~tion, seconded by Carnmtssloner Tol~r anci MaTION CARRIED~
thet the Anaheim City Planning Commission daes hcre~y grant the reyuest for walver of Code
requlrement on the basis that the rcquested walve~ af mfnimum number of parking spaces is
mi~imal e~d the t~ecitloner has provided a ~eciproc~l parktny agreanent with the remalnder
of the conxne~clal complex for mutual access to all on-site parking.
ACTION: Conmissloner Kinq offercd Resoluti~n tb. PC88-50 and rnov~d for its passag~ and
s~opt~Un that the M aheim ~ity Plan~ing Commtsston cloes hereby g~ant the Petitian for
Conditlonal Use Permtt -~o. ~~G2 suhject to Interdepertmental Lam~ittec recommendatlons.
Oi~ roll ceii~ the foregoin,y resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMiSSIONERS; BARNES~ BUSNORE~ QAVID~ FRY, HERBST, KING~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSEN?: COMMISSION~RS~ NQt~E
3/ 10i 60
~~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM 1,ITY pIANNINC COHMIS510N, MARCH 10~ 1980 8~-204
ITEM N0.
t D REC0~IM~NOAT1 ~FIS
Thc fallowing Reports and Recoi~mendattons steff reports worc p~naented but not read:
A. VARIANCC N0~ 1 1W - nunc ro tunc resoluttan - Cltv of Anahelm Planning
Dopartm~ent rr~quasts approva o a nunc p o~Cunc rtsolution to amend Resolutlo~
No. PC73-2G] to exclude a 1.03 acre parccl from the terminetion of Varl a~ca No.
131~ o~ proparty loc~tcd on the no~th sidc of Katclla Avenue~ epproximately ~25
fe~t e ast of th e centcrlinc of Narbor pouievarJ.
AC~TION _ Commission@~ H~rbst offcr~d Rcsolutlon No. PC80-51 and moved for i ts
passag~ and adoption th~t thc Annhcim CI ty Plannln9 Commission does her~by grant
a ~unc pro tunc resolution cxcludin~ sald 1.~3•r~cre portlon from thc te rminatlon
of Var i~n~e Ilo. 1314.
On rol 7 call, thc forcyoing resolutlon was passed by thc follow(ng vote:
AY~S : COI~MI 55 I ONE RS : BARNES, DUSNOP.E ~ DAV I D~ FR.Y ~ HERBST ~ KI t~G ~ TOLAR
~IOES : GOMMI SS 1 ONI: RS : NONE
ABSE~IT ; COMNI SS IOI~ERS : WONC
~
,
B. REClAS51FICATl0~1 t~0. 9-80-16 - Request f~r approval of revised plans from Thomas ~
l. Mu Gcey, Pr ee D~ve ppmeRt Company ~ for thc casterly hal f of ~,rape~ty ~~~
consi~3~red uncier Reclassiflcation No. 7~-+~A-iL~ located at the nortt~ese corner~7~r,{)
of Med ical Center Drive and Eucl Id Street.
Annika Ssntalohtl, Assistant Dtrcctor of Zontng~ expla~incd Staff's primary
concerr has to do Nith ti~e clrculatlo~ between the two properties originelly
involve~d end vlsib i i i ty across the propertles from Eucl id Strett; that the
Tr.~ffi c En~~lneer looked at the reviscd ptans and asked thet the drtveway
conneetlon frorn Euclid Street run in a direct llne across the properLy so that
vehtcl~s do no~ I~ave to mak~ turns getting to the undeveloped pertlon of this
proper ty; and that visi'~i l t ty from Euct Id was not qui te as serious as i t nlght be
In oth~r instences because there Is no Ieft turn trt~ffic movemsnts~ except at
Mcdtca 1 Cente~ Drive f~rin~r to thc south. She po(nted out Staff did recomrknd
that aq~provol of a future parcel ma~, inclucie mutual access ease~ents a:ross the
two pa~rcels; that the Trafftc E~gineer approve all driveNays. pi~;s thr main
Interi or circulation pattern to prevent undesirable traffic conditto~s on and off
sit~; and that no buildings or solid fencing be located along the west property
line i n such a menne~ es to block access or vistbllity. She oxplain~d Lhe
arigir~ al seheme did include two restaurants along che street side and thls
proposal stilt sha+s Chose buildings, snd thcra wAUld be no probl~m alonq that
prope~ty ilne, assuming that ts a) t that is developed~ and any othcr change would
be brt~ught back to the Commission fur discussion.
The applicant ~xplained cwo buildinqs wer~ o~iginally shown and o~e couid have
been a bank enu baseo on thei r 1 ease wl th the maJor tenant ~ the s i ze i s 1 tml ted
ta S.flOf) square feet and lt canrtot exceed 1~I feet Ih hetght.
3/10/80
`~ ~` ~ '
C ~
MINUTE5. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS SION~ MARCN 10, 19g0
REPORTS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS (:.ONTINUE ~)
~o•zos
Comnissloner Herbst atet~d hc could not aupport a d~tv~-th~ough restaurant at
thls locetion bec~use of th~ nxisting t~sfftc problams and 1lmited ~ccess.
The ~ppl i cant s tated thoy ha ve th ree proposals far tnn~nts ~ but have not s i gned
any eyreemcnts~ and el i thr~d are ~alatively hlgh qual i ty sit-down type
restaurants.
Commissioner Ilerbst asked ebout the 33,3~2 squsra foot warehouse and the
applicant steted that Is a two-story bullding to be a 9est Catalog 5to~e~ with
marchandfse stor~d on thc s~cond story and tlie ftrst floor being the showroom.
Commtsston~r Herbse explaln~d his oniy co~cern was ~elating to o drive-through
rosteur~nt and the appl icant axplelned at tho preaent time thoy are not
nagoti~tiny with sny drlve- through rostaurant~.
Paul Stnger~ Trafflc Enyine~r, ~xpla(~eci h~e had carefully revtewed the plens and
I t looks 1 ike a reasonab lc 30) ution~ provided the driveway from Euct i d Street
wl il have accRSS straight back to the rear property and eny drive-in festauranta
or banl;s wl i l requi re a separ+~to condi tlonal use Rermi t and wouid be discussed
later.
The applic~nt explainad thryv+ould likc to make e sltght "s" curve w12h the
drtveway because with st~ai yh•-tt~rough driveways peopie wi 11 drive too fast.
Mr. Singer stated he ~ould not obJect to a curved road~ but he dld ~ot want any
offset driveways.
Lommtssioner Bushnre steted this erea already has a lot of ;, •obiams, and he could
not under~tand why thc T~af fic Engir~eer wquld wa~t to put r.,othor driveway out
onto Euclid whcn lt would be bett~r~ In his opi~ion~ tn have two drtveways on the
sou~hern part~ wi th the cxi t cx~to the street wi th a s tgnal .
Mr. Singer explained this i a a dividad highaay and the~e ts no way to mske a lelt
turn and unlaading some of tl~e traffic thraugh the ~ms(gnalized ir.te~section,
roduccs tha time nccessary ot the signal.
Commissioner Bushore was conc~rned because thr~t street is ha~dly ever clear snd
felt this would compound tt~e problem. and Mr. Singer !ndicated he Mas sure the
problcm would not be compoundeJ.
Commissioner Bushore asked thc applicant (f he wes saying that there will not be
any dri vG-1 n restaurents o: i f he was 5aying they are not dex~l ing wl th any at the
present ttr.ie and the appl i cont replled he wo~ild t~ave tr~ come back a~~ rcquest a
permlt for a drive•in restaurant.
3/l0/80
~~
MINUTES~ ANIWEIM CIT~f PIANNiNG COMMISSICN~ MARCH 1Q~ 1980 a0•206
REPORTS AND RECQt~iEN#~hT IONS (CONTI NUED)
ACTtONs Cw~wnissianer Harbst otfered a motioo~~ seconded by Commtsalo~er Tolar and
R~T1`8~ CARR IEp~ that thc Anaheim Ctty Plan~tng Commtssian does hereby spprov~ the
revlsed pla~ for Recl~ssification No. 79-80-16 subJect to the condttions that
~pproval of e future p~rcal map Inciude mutua) access eeseun~nt: across tha tv+o
paresls; th at the Trafftc Engineer approve •i) drlvewsys~ plus the maln intert ar
circuletton patts rn to p~event u~destrable trefflc conditio~s o~ and off si•~;
and that na buiiding~ or saltd fencing be located elo~g the west property 11rte In
such a manner a: to block access or vistb i l i~y.
AOJOURNMENT There being no further businass. Commlssioner Fry offer~c" o motlon~ :econdod
bY Gomrrissioner pavid end MOTIO~! CARRIED thet the meetin~ be ad)ourned.
The rr~~ting was adJaurned at 3:00 p.m.
Respectfully submltted~
,~,~.~ ,~'~~~~~,
Ed(th L. Ilarris~ Sncretary
An~het~n Ctty Pisnning Commtasto~
EUi:lm
3/t0/80