Minutes-PC 1980/09/081 y
i
~ Civlc Cenh~ j
Anaheim~ C~llfornl~
SeptemAe~ ~~ 1980
REdULAR MEETIN~ OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINR COMMISSION
RF.Gt)LAR - The ~egular meating of the Anahelm City Pl~nning C an~nl~slan was celled
MBETiNG to o~der hy Chalrnwn Tolar at 1s3~ p.m.~ Septen+Aer ~~ 1AA0 in the
Councll Chamber~ a quo~um betng pr~aent.
PRESENT • Chalrman: Talar
Commissloners: 8srnes, Bou+~s~ 9ushore~ f ry~ Herhst~ King
ABSENT - C~MMISSIONERS: NONE
ALSO PRESENT - F~ank lowry
Jay Titus
Annika Ssntalahtt
Joel Fick
Debn Sherer
Edith Harris
Senlor Assistsnt City Atkorney
Office Enqineer
Assist+~nt Dt~ector for toning
Assistant Di~ecte~ for Planning
Asststant P1Anner
Planninq Conmisslon SecretarY
PICQGE OF - The Pledqe af Alleglancr_ to the Fleg was l~d hy CcMnmtsston~r F~y.
Al.LEG IANCE
APPROVAL OF - Canmtssioner 9srnes offered a m~tlon~ s~cc+ndeA hy Commlsslo~~er Herbst
THE MINIITES and MOTION CARRIED~ that the minutes of the meetlnq of
August 11. 19$~ bc opp~oved as suMnltt~d.
CONTINUED f7EM:
M N0. 4
IMPAf.T REP
~
on the -~est side of Hiddan
(aESIDENTIAL/ArRIC~-LYURAL
PuBIIC NEARINr,, r~uNERS: TExAC~-ANnHfIM NIt,LS~ INC,,
T N0. 236 3R0 Anahelm Hllls Ro~d~ Anehelm~ CA Q?R~7~ A6ENT:
=~~"~~-"~~ E R ~ K 8E RG ~ A-!AHE I H H I LLS ~ 1 NC ., 3A~ Anshe im H 111 s Roed,
~0~9G Ahahelm, CA 9TA~17. Pr~~~rty desc~ibed es an
~ irr~gula~ly-shet~d perc~l og isnd consisttng ef
approxtmately 73.n acre~s at th~ southweat cor~er of
L'~T1~'~'REES Avenida de Santlaqo and Hidden C~nyon Road~
having ~ fr~~taQe of 2375 feet on the sou~h stde
of Ave~ida de S~nttago and a frantage of ??0 feet
Canyon Road. Property presentty clssstfted aS~A•y3~040(SC)
- SCENIC CARRIOOR OVERLAY) ZONE.
RECLASSIFICATION REQUEST: PORTION A• RS-A-43~~00(SC) TO RS•MS-22.~~~(SC)
PORTIAN B- ttS~A-43~000lSC) TA RS-NS-43~nAQ(SC)
TRACT REQUESTS; T~ ESTA9LISH ~ TRACTS CQNSISTING OF:
22 RS-HS-22~000(SC) LOTS AND
IW R5-HS•4~~000(SC) IATS.
TREE REMOVAL REQUEST; TO REHOVE 6 SPECIMEN TREES.
It -a s noted the pettttoner had r~uested a two-week co~ti~udnce te (he meetinq of
Septen~~er 22, 1960.
ACTlON= Commissloner Kiny affered a awti~~~ seeonded by ConNnlsston~r Herbst, snd MOTION
~~b~ that ~onsideration of the aforementioned ite~ be continued to the regulariy
scheduled mseting of Septea~ber 22, 1980. st the requesC af the petit~o~er.
IT MAS NOTED THAT 7HE PETITIONER fOR ITEM H4. 1 1iAS N01' PRESENT AT 1'HIS TIME.
Page 80-510 9/8/80
~»
~ ~; ~ ;=.J~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 8~ 1980 80-511
(TEM N0. 2 PUBLIC HEARINR. INITIATED dY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING
~T1~~1~'1~~'~ OECI.AMTION COMMISSION~ 2A0 South Anahelm 6oulevard, A~ahelM~
_ . 118 CA 92805. Patittoner ~equsst= GONSIDERATIaN OF
VEHICULAR ACCESS to •pproximately A.~ ac~es gsnerally
bounded by Polk Ave~ue to the north, Grand Avenue
to the eaat~ Llncain Avenue to the south and
Western Avenue to the wast.
ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARiNC. INITIATED 9Y THE CITr OF
E DECl.ARAT I ON ANAHE I M PI,ANN I NR COMM 1 SS I ON ~ 20f1 South Anahe im
R-- • ~ M31 BoulevArd~ Anahelm, CA 92Ar15~ Petitioner
requests that property desc~lbed as a rectangul~~ly-
shaped parcei of lend consfsting of approximately
3.40 acret having s f~ontage of approximately 994 feet on the north alde of Ltncoln
Avenue~ hsving a maximum depth of ap~roximetely 14~ feet o~d being locsted approxlmetely
30A feet east of the centeritne of Weste~n Avenue~ and furthor desc~lbed ss 3103-3165 Wast
Lincoln Rvenue be ~eclasslfted from the RS-7240 (RESIDE~~TIAL, SIIIGLE-FAMILY) iONf TO 7HE
CL (COMNERCIAI, IIMItED) 20NE.
There wsre sixteen (16) inte~ested ~ersons Indicettng thelr presence at the public hearfng
and although the staff report was not r~~d at the pubtic hearinq it Is referred to •nd
made a pa~t of the minutes.
It wM~ the gene~a) ccx~sensus of the Plenning Canmtsslon to censfd~!~ A~ea Development Plsn
118 a~ Reclas:iticatlon No. 79-8~-37 togetF-er slnce they pe~taln to the same p~ope~ty.
Dsa~ Sh'rer~ Assistent Pianner~ presented the staff report the Planning Comnl~slon dated
September 8~ 1980~ noting A~ea Development Plan lia. 11P was initiated br the Pianning
Can~nisslon in co~Junctlon wtth CommisslA~ tniti~ted Reclassiticatlon No. 79•80•37~ which
wat requested Dy tb of 16 p~operty ov~-ers in the 31~d biock of Llncoln Ave~ue~ in o~dar to
study vehfcular access for the area if all the ~esidential properttes along the north side
o} Llncoin Avenue between Western Avenue on the west and Gr~nd Avenue on the east were
dweloped fo~ co~nie~ciai uaes. Ne prQSe~ted Exhibics "A" and "9" ana axplalned subJect
property is coniprised of Portion 1(CL) the westerly 250-foot frontage af the block along
Ltncoln Avenue developed wlth a drive-th~ough rastaurent (Wendy's) and undeveloped land;
Portlon 2(RS~7200) the aaste~ly t00Q-foot fro~tage of Lincoln Avenue fs developed v+ith
fifLeen single-famlly restdences and one dupiex, and Portlan 3 fronting on Po1k Avenue ts
dsveloped v+ith stngle-fa~sily resl~de~cea and ewo duplexes. He explat~ed camine~cial zoning
Is pote~tial to~ Po~ttons 1 a~d 2 because of posstble vehicular acce~~ to lincaln and
~o~tlon 3 w~s Included tn this plan because of th~ tmpact con~n+erctal uses could have o~
tha existing raslde~tiai uses, parttcularly because of the sha red public a11ey.
Surroundi~g land uses include single-ta+nily residences (RS-7ZO0) to the no~th across Polk
Ava~ua~ ca~nerciai uses and ~ aiabilehane park (CH) to th~ eeat across Gr~nd Ave~ue.
ca~ne~clal u~es (Cl) and one single-family residence and u~developed land (aS•A-43~00~) t~
eh~ south atross Lincoln Avenue and caamerciai usea (CL) snd muitiple-famtiy realdences
(RM-1200j to the ~sst across Idestern Avenue.
M~. SherQr explalned several reclassificatTons e~d s ca~ditional use permit have be:en
9ranted o~ th~ subJect block fra+ttng on Lincoln Avenue pe~n+itttng can~ercial uses.
Accesa to ~11 po~tions is p~ovided by sn exlsting standsrd 2A-rt~t wlde improved dedicated
3/8/80
~l
t t
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CI?Y PLANNINC COMMISSION~ September 8, 1980 80-512
EIR NEGATiVE DECLARATlON~ AREA DEVELOPNENT PIAN N0. 118 AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 79-80-37
(continued)
all~y and ! M o~1y parceis having str~et ~ccess ar~ Wendy~s on Ltncoln Ave~ue and three
houses which ha w driveways to Poik Avenue.
M~. Sherer co~ttnuad that thls plan has baen revlewed by the City Trsftic Engineer end two
alte~natives h~ve been p~epa~ed. Exhibit "A" sh~ws the extstfng ~11ey betwea~ Western
Avenue and G~~nd Avenua as tha sole means o~ vehicular access to the parcels fronting on
Lineoln Avenue. T~Is ~ttar~~tive would requlre an sdditlonal elQht-foot dedlcation from
the proparties on Portlons 1 and 1 far wtdenlnq the exiatinq ~0-foot wlde east/west alley~
plus dddication an Lincoin Avenue which would be requlred to permlt s 54•foot rlght-of-wsy
which wouid be a 14-foot dedicatlon off ~he front of these percels. Exhihit "B" shows two
ZS~foot wids a11ey retu~ns to Ll~coln Avenue In +~dd-tlon to retentton of acc~ss to the
east/v+est altey and 25-fooc wid~ drdicatlons for atley purposes would be required of th~
prepertf~s in Portlon 2 only. It t~ the opinlon ot the City Trafflc Engineer thet It Is
preferable, tn terms ~f traffic along Lincoln Avenue~ ta ~ake acc~ss fran the exiattng
alley only. However~ access could be teken from lincotn Avenue only at approved alley
accass ~eturn polnts. Mr. She~er stated staff would prefer to see these pa~rtlcular
parcels developed In an assen+bled mannar rather Lhan Indivldually.
Mrs. Mobson, owner of property at 3~47 West ltncoln Avenue~ stated she do~s not kna~+ what
Is qoing on, but dld get a notl~e of the hearing and she felt +~nythi~q that can be c:one to
better the canmunity is needed because tt Is a bad eyesore for Anahelm; that most of the
properttea are rentais houqht for tnvestments. She asked for further clartficatlon
regarding st~ff~y indication that they do not Nant the properties developed Indfvidually
and asked if the owners Are supposed to ]ust watt unti! som~eone ls tntGreste.d in
developm~n~ of the whole erea.
Chairman Tolar explalned staff is recanm~ndtng land assemblY and in prrvio~s discusslons
throughout the City It has been the desire to assemble parcels of lend togethe~ such es
this~ rathar than to tndividuslly develop each property; that there are many plsces In the
County which have t~een develoved individually and sare of theM are s catastrophc ao It
was felt land utilizatton wauld he better. Stsff's recormendetlon hes been predtcat~d on
commitments from the p~operty oNners thRre, as ti+elt as a possibie future development of
the a~ea~ to combine somc of the parcels te make a nlce conmerciai develop~nent. Ne
explained the Commisslon has not voted yet~ but this is ahat staff hs~ recortn+ended.
Mrt. Hobson stated she ceRnot affo~t to develoa her propertY because her husband has been
very ill and they are ]ust rentinq thQ propertY and hopinq somrday it will becane
valuable. She stated sh~ Is ve~y interested (n hetterinq An~helm.
Co~+mla:loner Buahore asked tf M~s. Nobson would be Interested in ,joining wlth her
nelghbors on etther slde and offerinq the three properttes f~r sale at a reasonabte price
to actract a la~ger developer. Ne felt development o~ one parcel st a timc woutd create a
hodge-podge and wantad to encourage the awners to Jotn their nelqhbors In seiling th..
property.
Mrs. Hobson stated she would be interested in checking into the sttuation. She explained
she does not know her neighbbrs very aell.
O~s Hethe~ington stat~d she 11ves nn Western Avenu~ across froer~ Poik and there is an
eldnentary schaoi there and she war concernecf about cunmercial development. She stated
that the area is an eyeso~e and couid ~e nicer~ but Chere are accidents the~e at least
th~ee times a aeak and ehe was conc~rned ebout comne~clal develapment with the children In
the a~ee. She stated two ltttl~e boYS hav~ already been k{lled Q~ thelr bicycies; that
9/8l80
~
_
i'
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ September 8~ 1980 80-513
~IR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AREA DEVEI.OPMENT PLAN NQ, 118 AND RECLA5SIFICATION N0. 79-80-~7
-- - _____________ (co~tinued)
the~e is heavy tr~ffic an MesLern ~nd she dtd not know how the additlon~l trafflc thesa
bualneases would bring In could be handied. She expiotned behind Wendy~s the ca~s tr~vel
fest In and ouR of tha a11ey.
Chalrmen Tolar nxplained thls ta on erea that for e long time~ has been e m~in arte~lal
hfghwey and haa developed Into propertles whlch are not as beneficlel for residential uaes
as ~hey once were e~d obviously there is same ~eason to belleve that the area wouid be
good for conwnercl~l venture atong Lincoln between G~dnd end Western. He stated the
Commission~s concerna are thst in the past when Indlvidual propr.rty ~orme~s h~ve been
alloNed to develop thelr property through ~ reciassification~ lt hes nat be~n In the best
intarest o~ the cammunity. He ~tatad he ts not gotng to support the requested
~eclasstficstlon aa It now standa. unless the c~w~ers of the property cane to some
•greemo~t to devolop the prapertY collectively rathe~ than InAtvtdually.
He felt ssaemblfng the parcels for a nice canmercl~l development with the constructlon of
medlans~ etc. would resolve somn ~f the tr~ffic problems and wouid divlAe Ltncoln Avenua
and teke ca~e af somc of tha danger with pedestrians crossinc~ the street ~nd deter sane of
the traf~-c because they cannot n+ake turn-ercw nds.
Commissianer Ba~nes stat~d if comme~clal devetopment Is ep~reved for that area~ rhe
Planning Con+mlasion would pay close attention to eny develooment proposed for the area and
thanked Mrs. Netherington for her input and cQncern r~qardinq the school.
Cheirmen Tolar palnted out Exhihlt "R" shows two ~ccess polnts onto Lincoln Avenue so if
comrnerclal is dev~toped~ there ~aould be Inqress and egres~ onto Wcstern and Grand and also
access o~to Lincoln~ which scaff feeis wouid heln allevlaie the traffic. He stated,
ho+~ever~ h~ felt two accnss polnts on Lincoln Avenue are not necessary and wouid add
another dimension bnd create more probleans, He thouqht one access in the center of the
two parcels wlth development on either side wauld he better tn terTs of trafftc.
B~Idgett Cartlnski stated her mother owns a house off Nestern and Tyler right be~hind Polk
and a~ked tf this change wlil only atf~ct houses on LI~cn1n.
Chatrmen Tolar ex~~talned It has not been declded that this a~ea wilt be changed and
~othing will ba dane u~til the ch~nge fs approved~ but If the request ts approved for
comnerct~l. the pians ere to go batk ta the alley and an 8•fcx~t dedication would be
requl~ed of those prope~ttes on lincoln for widening the alley and development wnutd not
aff~ct Polk. except posstbly maktng it bettar for the ~estdents by givfng them a wider
alley and a mora deflnite separ~tlon.
Mrs. Hobson referred to prevlous r~mors that Csntraita Elementary School would be closed
~nd noted a lot of people w~re opposed co th~t ciosin~ and suqqested if there are that
n-any chlld~rn in Lhe area, that maybe sn everpass would be a soiutton because she knows
children have been hit there.
Commissioner Talar stoted the Plennlnq Cannisslo~ wouid not hav~e the pvwer to propoae that
type of constructton~ and he dtd not think en overpass woutd he econanicdlly fessibie.
Mrs. Hobson asked i! • algnal Is ptenned on Grand and Lincoln. Joy Tttus~ Otftce Engineer~
was not certatn but aas not awsra o~ a~ny plsns and suggested Mrs. Hobson contsct the
Treffic Engtneering Depart~nent.
9/8/80
~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Septamber 8~ 1980 8Q~514
EIR NEGATIVE pECLARATION~ AREA OEVELOPMENT PLAN N0. 118 ANO RECLASSIFICATION N0. 79-80-37
(contin~ed) _
Can~nissloner H~rbst stst~d 13 or 14 prope~ty ownars on Lincoln have request~d cann+e~clal
:oninp •nd telt tt ls the Con~isslan's respo~+ibility t~ give then+ son+e sort of tool to
~ccomplish that and Indtcsted h• Nould like to see Area Development Plan No. 119 adopted
with sane modificatlo~, possibly exhibit "C"~ which would Include widening the elley and
one accessto Lincoln in tha center between p+~rcels 1 and 2~ tn order that the propmrty
or~mers w111 have a development tool ta ~s~e~nhle their propertles and ~equest
~eclassificatlon witl~ speciftc plana.
Commissloner Barnes steted she wr~uld ilke to have a square footaqe specifled so that only
two property owners wc>utd not be requesting r~classific~tton.
Commissloner Herbst folt a developer weuld need to develep at teast half the area In order
to meke It eco~omlcslly leasible beceuse of the barriers on l.incol~ and ha a1~a felt some
of the problems o~ Western and Grand would be reaolved with the eccess tn the center. He
polnted out th4 access po~nt on the plen dtsplayed on the wall. He stated the setbeck on
Lincoln witt be 35 feet.
ACTIQNs Commtsatoner Nerbst offered a motlon, seconded by Cc~nmlastoner Kinq and MOTtON
~t 0 thst the Anaheim City Planning Commisston has r~viewed the preposs) for sn Area
~evelopment Plan to study vehicular access and reclASSificatlon f~c~m the RS•72nn
(Residenttal~ Single•Family) 2one to the CL (Cafrnerctal~ Llmited) Zone on a r~ctangularly-
shaped parce) of land consisting of approximataly 3.~+^ acres, havin9 a frontage of
approxtmately 99y feet on the no~th sid~ of Lincoln Avenue~ havinq a maximum depth of
approximately 147 feet and being located approxim~tely 3~ f~~t ~ast of the centerline of
Western Avenue; and does herehy app~ove. the Negacfve Declarat~on from the requlrement te
prepare an environm~ntal Impact report on the basis that therR would be no stqniftca~t
tndtvidual or cumulative adve~se envlrorwnentel Imp~ct due to th~ approvel of thfs Neqstive
Declaration slnce the Anaheim General Pldn destqnates the suhJect propertY for low-density
~esidentla) i~nd uses~ however, property to the southeest is desiQnated for and developed
wtth co~m~ercisi land u~es~ that no sensitive envi~orxnental iMpacts are involvQd In the
propossl; that the Initial Study submttted by the petttlan~r~ indicates no slgnificent
indlvidual o~ cumulative adverse environme~tai imoacts; and that the Neqative Decla~atlon
subatantlat~ng the foregoing findinqs Is on file ln the City of Anehelm P1Anning
~epartment.
Comnissioner Nerbst offered Resolutlon No. PC80-1~+4 and moved fo~ lts passage and edoption
that the Anaheim City Planninq Commissi~n does hereby approve Are~ Developne~t Plsn No.
118~ Exhibit "C"~ as ~ nad~ftcatlon of Exhibits "A" and "B". showing one access point onto
Lincoln Avenue to be allgned wtth Topanga Drive in order that subJect srea can be
develaped with land assembled in Parcel 1 to the west of the access and Parcel T. to the
east of the access with s dedicated twenty-elght (28) foot wide alley.
On rolt cail, the foregolnq resoiution was passed by the failowing vote:
AYES; COMMISSIONERS; BARNES~ 80UA5~ BUSHORE~ fRY~ HERBST, KING. TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIQNERS: N01~IE
Commissione~ Herbst offered Resolution No. PCS~-145 snd moved for Its passage and adoptlon
that the Anahnim City Planning Cannisston does hereby deny Petitt~n for Reclassificatlon
No. 79-aa37- without preJudtce~ on the basis that reclassiftc,~tion shoutd not occur
wi thout land assei+ibly.
9/8/80
~~
€, ,'
MINUTbS, ANAHEIM CItY P~ANNING COMMISSION~ September 8~ 1980
80•515
EIR NEGATIVE OECLARATION~ AREA DEVELOPMENT pLAN N0. 118 AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 79-80-37
( ron t i n ue d~__
-- - ~_ ._._~._..~~ ..
On ~oll ~all~ the 'oregoing rasolutlon was passed by the fellowing vote:
AYESs COMNISSIQNERSs BARNES~ BOUAS~ BUSNORE~ FRY~ H~aBST. KING~ TOLAR
NOESs COMMISSIONERSt NONE
ABSENTt COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Commisslone~ 9arnes explalned that since the request fer r~ctassific~tton was denled~
nothing wtll be dohe until the p~operty owners get teqether t~ sell or develop thelr
prope~tlea.
Commissiane~ Her6st clarlflad Chat th~ Planning Cdmmisslon d~es recog~lze that the
p~operty is sulteble far cann~rcial developrr-~nt~ but a~re tookinq for the lsnd assembly.
Anntka Sentelahtl, Assistant 01~ector for Zontnq expt~ined ther~ is no traffic slq~ai
pl~nned for Grand and Ltncoln and Jay Titus~ Otffce Enqtneer~ explalned th~t ts a state
highway and the state would b± Inv~lved In ~ny siqnalization.
(TEM N0. 1 PUDLIC HEARINr-. buNEaS; CAS7ILL[ Bu1LOER5~ LTD.~
~A~~~11E DECLARAT 101~ 166~ Eas t L i ncol n Av~nue ~ Oranc~e, CA 42~~5. AGENT;
0. 111 8 ANACAL ENr,INEERI~IG Cn., 222 East 4lncoln Avenue~
REES Anahelm~ CA 92t4n5. Property described es an
"`"-""""""'r`"" - '~ irreqularly-sha~ped parcel of land censisting of
app~4xlmet~ly 4.F acres havln~ ~ frentage of
spproximatelY 750 feet on the south slde of Martella lane~ hAVtng a max~mun depth of
approximately 3tY0 feet~ end belnq lotated apprexlmstety 72~ f~et southeast of the
centerllne of Santa Ane Csnyon Road. Pr~erty presently classifled RS-A-43~0~~(SC)
(RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE.
TaACT REQUEST: TO EStABLISH A 9•LOT~ RC-HS-22,~100(SC) SU801VISION.
TRE~ REIIOVAL REQUEST; TO REMOVE 33 SPECIMEN TRE~S.
SubJect petition +++ss continued f~om the n~eetings of Auqust 11 and 25, 198r1 at the request
of the petitionet in order tn suMnlt revised pl~ns.
ThQ~e was no one indicattng the{r p~e~ence In opposttion to subJect request~ and althouqh
the staft report to the Planninq Commtsalon da~ed Septe+nber ~3~ 199~ was not read at the
public hearing~ It is ~efe~red tc~ and made a part of the mtnutes.
Ga ry Jones~ 161 South Canyon Crest Drive~ Anaheim~ apologizeA fo~ not being present at the
prevlous heartnq because he incorrectly assumed that the tentativ~ map would n~eet all
conditlans snd there would be no problems. Ke exal~ined he has reviewed th~ minutes of
that meetinq. Ne stated he was the agent for the developrnent of Tract No. 9262 whlch is
ad)acent to Martella Lane end Is slso the sgent tor the appltcent for subJect tent+~tlve
map; thai he Is also s property owne~ in the easem~nt arc~a; that he and the orme~ of this
prope~ty Hsnt to cooperate snd ~et a satisfactary readwsy system for the benefit of all
property owners living above this ares on Possun- Ho1fo~ a~nd also f~r this development.
Mr. Jones co~tinued that he would provlde the CItY Rttorney copies of the pertinent
Informstlon; that basically there is a~ eaae~nent grant deed that was recorded tn 1973, the
consideratlon of which was tha installatlon of ~aad in~provements and those road
Imp~ovanients hsve nat been completed. He presented tw~o photographs of the q~ading that
his con~par+r did on thst road~wy to hava It accept~ble for paving and expl~lned the gradtng
9/808U
~ ~~ ~~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ September 8~ 1980
80-516
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0.11158 ANO REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF
SPECIMEN_TREES (contlnued)
th~t w~s done for T~act 9262 was done fn c~nJunctlon wi:h the requtreinents that wers
placed on It by the County s~d s copY ot the g~adinq pian~ which w+~s not ~equlred for a
pe~mlt~ ts (n the Cou~ty ~ecorda; and that as th• deveieper or agent for thla parttcule~r
P~QPe~ty~ th~y underslsnd and accept the responsibiitty that that roadr+ay system would
heve to be canpleted co~aurrentiy with this deve~lopment tf Lhe pe~san v+ho is responsible
folls to put It tn. Ha steted the County is preaently In litigation~ foreclosing on a
bond~ to have the rosd const~ucted. He stated he and the petittoner wlll heve to make the
decislon to proceed with const~uctlon of the ~oad thu~ work out en agreement wlth the
per~o~ th~t Is responstble for It and expl~ined M~. Mertin la the res~onsible person. He
explained there are copies of the cemmunications between the County agencles and also a
lette~ fran Mr. Martln to the CountY stating thst ss soon as the pr4perty was qrsded
he v~wuld pave the road.
Mr. Jones ~equested approval of the m~p and ststed ~hey wt11 wc~rk witn the Engineerinq
Department to heve the roedw~y system compl~ted properiy~ but th~ pian has al~eady bRen
estabiiahed by the County end the Ctty is awer~ of It and the ~osd would be constructed tn
accurdance wtth th~et plan.
Mr. Jonea discuased the dratn~ge and stated the orlgtnal olen w~s to put the flow acrosa
Martella lane and pick up a gutter at that section to avold any possib111ty af creating
erosion unde~neath the root systems of the sran~ of Eucalyptus trees between thelr
davelopme~t snd the resldences. He explained thelr plans are to tte tnto the exlating
structures.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commisaioner Barnes found it ~nte~e~ting that Mr. Martin 1s not pras~nt because he was the
person ob~ecting at the previoua hearing and Nr. Jones ~xplsined he hed not had any
discussion with Mr. M~rtin~ but intends ta bec~use it would he In everyone's best
interest.
Chalrman Tolar though~ the p~oJect Is flne. but did not want to see any f~~als unttl this
roa~dway and dralnage problem is resolved. He did not want to delsy the proJect b~cause he
realize~ thase coats are passed on to the cortsumer. He suqaested thst na f(na) occupancy
permits be lssued unttl the road is tn. He steced he was In the area ~eeently and it is
bad enough for the people wha tive the~e alreedy~ without adding the addltlo~al 9 or 10
p~ope~ty ownera. He was aiso concerned because wlnter Is near s~d there will be s
dralnage problem.
M~. Jonea stated they had that problem when they developed Tract 9262 and it wasn't thet~
liabliity. but they did put In quite a bit of gravel and tt wes appreciated by the
resident~ and thls is the sAme situation as tt hss been sfnce 1973. He stated he
certainiy woutd not proceed with selling a house with that type of road situation because
it wouid not be sslable.
Ca~mmissioner Barnes potnted out the petitione~ has agreed to develop thr rtwd concurre~tly
wlth the dHVelopment.
Mr. Jones aanted the Planning Coaraisslon to recognlze that hts stipulstlo~ Lo co~st~uct
tt~e roadwsy~ if nccessary~ does nr~t flx liability or responslbl)lty for Tts construction.
Chairmen 7oier stated he did not want to be responsibl~ for ptectng lisbtitty etther and
wanted to aee app~oval tied tio ttnais because that is not a stipulatlon and merely states
9 /8/80
~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ September 8, 1980 80-517
EIR NEGATIVE OECLARATION, TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 11158 AND REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF
SPEC I MEN TREES ~ont i nued~
_._._._~,.._.
the roed has to b~ tn betore certificate~ of occupancy w111 be g~anted and the agent csn
reaolve tt hatween the County~ M~. Martin e~d themselves.
Fr~nk Lowry~ Senior Assistent City Attorney~ stetad the finsl tract map c~nnot be
condltlo~ally spproved (n this way but a condition can be adcfe~d that the Chlet Buildlna
Inspe~tor w111 ~ot issue a certlficste of occupsncy until thR ~oad and dr~lns are
canplete. He explained there are only tive grounds for denylnq a final t~act map.
ACTIOM: Commlssioner Ba~nes otfered e n+otlon~ seconded hy Commfsslaner Kin4 and NOTION
~D that the Anaheim City Planning Cortwntssl~n has revtewed the p~oposa) to establish a
9'lot~ RS-NS•22.A00(SC) zone subdivislon and the re~noval ~f ;3 speclntien tre~s on an
trregularly•sheped parcel of lsnd cansistinq of epproxim~tely 4.F acr~s~ having a frontage
Af approximately 75~ feet an the aout'~ side of Martelia Lane and havinq a maximum depth of
approximately 300 feet a~d t,eing located +~pproximately 720 feet southeast of the
cent~~line of Santa Ana Canyon Road; end doss hereby epprove the Neqative Decla~ation from
the requtrement to prepa~e un enyi~onrr~ntal impact report on the besis that there would be
no slgntftcsnt indivtdual o~ cumula2lve adverse envlronmentai impact due to the app~oval
of this Negative Declaration since the Anehelm Genersl Plan d~stg~ates the subJect
property for hillside-estate dengit~ land use~ cc~nmensurate with the pror~osal; that no
sensit~ve enviro~mantal Impacts are Involved tn the proposal; that the Initia) Study
submitted by the petitloner indicates no signtftcant Individual or cumulative adverse
environmental impscts; and th~t the Negattve Decleratlon substantiattne+ the foreqoing
flndings is on file In tho Ctty of Anaheim Planning D~~artment.
Commissloner Barnns offered a motlon, seconde~d by Comn+lssloner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED
that the Anaheim City Ptanning Commisslon does hereby flnd that the proposad subdlvtsion.
tog~ther wlth its destgn and Improvem~nL. is c_o~slstent with the City of Anaheln~ Gtneral
Plan~ Rursuant to Gover~+ent Codc Sectic+n 664~3.5; and does~ ther~fore~ approve tentative
rnap of Trsct No. 11158 for a 9•1ot-RS-HS•22~OOQ(SC) (RESI~ENTlAL~ SINGLE-FAMILY HIILSIDE -
SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERI,AY) 7.ONE subdivlsion, subJect to the follawinq canditlons:
1. That shouid this subdivislon be develoced as more than one subdivisian, cach
subdtviston thereof shatl be submltted in tentative form for app~ovel.
2. That ail lots withln thls tract shail be serveA by ~anderqround uttltties.
3. That the original docurnents of the covenants~ conditions~ and restrictlons, and a
letter addressed to develoQer~s tltle company authoriztng recordAtion thereof~
shsll be suMnitted to the City Attorney's offiCe anrf approyed by the City
Attorney's office and Engineering ~ivislon prior to flnal tract map ~~-proval.
Said dexuments. as ~pproved~ sha11 be tiled ~nd rec~rded in the Office of the
Orangc County Recr~rder.
4. That stree~t names shall be approved hy the CttY Planning Department prior to
approvat of a finai tract mep.
5. That dreinage of said property shall be disnosed of in a manner satisfsctory to
the Clty Eng{neer. If~ in Che preparatlon of the s~t~~ sufficlent qradtng ts
requi~ed to necessitate s!~rading permit, no work on grading witl be pe nnitted
between October 1Sth and Apri) 15th untess al) required off-site draTnage
faciltties have been instslied and are operative. Posltive assurance shall be
provtded the City that sucfi drsinage faciiittes w111 t>e completed prior to
October 15th. NeCessary right-of-way for off-site drainage factltcles shall be
9/8/80
~ ~y;~ I
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM C~TY PLANNING COMMIISSION, September 8, 1980 8^-518
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARA~ION~ TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 11158 ANO REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF
SP~CIMEN TREES (continued~
dedtcated to the City~ or the C1ty Counct) shall have initlated condemnatlo~
proceedings the~eto~ (tha coats of which shetl be bo~ne by the developer) p~lor
to the comnencement of grsding operatlons. The required d~~inage facllittes
shall be of a size and tyPe sufficlent to carry runoff waters ariginatin9 f~an
higher properttea through said prope~tY to uitimate disposel as approved by the
Ctty E~gineer. Sald dralnage faciiltles she11 he the ft~st item of const~ucLion
end shell bn compietesd snd be functlonat threu~hout the tract anA from the
downstream boundsry of lha propertY to the ultimate polnt of dis~aal prior to
the isauance of any final buiiding inspections or occupsncy permits. Draln~ge
district reimbu~aement agreements mey be made avaliable to the developers of sald
pt'operty uro~ their request.
6. That gra~ing, excsvatlon~ and a11 other const~uctlon ectlvities shall be
.:onducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of any silt
o~iginating f~a.n this proJect betng cerrted into the Santa Ana Rlver by ato nn
water origln~ting f~om or flvwinq thraugh tht:~ pro)ect.
7. Thst ftre hydrants shall be inst~lled and charqed as requi~ed and detern+ined to
be necessary by the Chief of the Ftre Department p~lo~ to commencement af
structurai framing.
8. That the awner(x) of suhJect prope~ty shell pay approprtate dralnage assessment
fees to the City of Anahelm as dete nnine~i by the City Engineer prior ta approvel
of a finel tract rt~p.
9. 'hst no grades she11 exceed 1~E excnpt by prlor approv~l of the Fire Oepartrnent
a~d the Engin~ertng Dlvlsion.
1J. That the owne~(s) of subJe~t property shall psy the tra~fflc slqn~l assessment f~e
(O~dinance No. 389~) tn an amount ss determined by the City Counctl~ for each nea
dwelling unlt prior to the tssuance of a bulldfng permit.
11. That the owner(s) of subJect property ~hall trrevocably offer to dedtc~te and
improve a 10-foot wide equest~ian and hiking traii as shavn nn the Equestria~n and
Hiking Trails Component and that Im~+rovdnent p1Ans~ in scco~da~nce with sta~dard
pia~s and specificatlo~s on file i~ the Offtce of th~ Clty Engineer, shatl be
submitted tn conJunction with the gr~ding plan; and/o~ that a bond in en dmount
and form satisfactory to the C{tv of Anaheim shali be posted wtth the City to
guarantee the installatlon ~f the above-mentloned requF~e+nents pr(or to
occupancy.
12. 7hat all p~ivat~e streeCs shal) be dev~loped In accordance wtth the Ctty of
Anaheim~s Stsndard Oetail No. 122 for private streets, Incl~,dtnq Installstion of
st~eet name slgns. Plans for the private street itqhtinq, as requl~ed by the
standard detall~ shall be submitted to and app~oved by the Etectrical dtvision.
Approved prlvate st~eet lighttng pl~ns shall then be submOtted to the Buildtng
Divislon fer i~clusion ~rfth the bulidinq plans priar to issuance of butlding
permita.
13. That che owner of subJect property shal! pay to the City of Anahetm the
apprr~priata park and recr~ation in-lieu fees As dotermin~ed to be appropriate by
the City Cou~c' .;e'' °•:s to be paid at the time the bvil~ing pen++it is issued.
9iai~o
,
~
+~r'
, ~
M I NUTES ~~..,~HE I M C I TY PLANN 1 NG COMM I SS I ON ~ Septembe r 8~ 198~ 80•519
EIR NEGATIYE OECLARATION~ TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 11158 AND RE QUEST FOR REMOVAL ~IF
SPECIMEN TREES contlnue ~ _ ,.
14. I~ permane-~t ~treet~ n~me tign: have no; bean inttalled. ton+~orary streat n~me
•I~ns sh~11 b• In~t~ll~d prtor tc ~ry occupancy.
1S. That trash stor~ge ar~es shal) be p~ovided In sccordance wtth epproved plen~ on
file with the Offlee ~f the Executive Director of Puhite blorks.
lf. That the alignment •nd terminal polnt of stonn d~~ins shown on thls tentallve
tr~ct nu~p shsil not be considertd final. These d~alns shs11 be subject to
preclse design consideratlons and approval of the CttY Engineer.
17, Th~t the constructlon of a11 acc~ss roads and storm drains shall be completed
prior to the issusnce of final oc~upa~cy pe~n+its by the Buliding Divislon,
Conrnis;loner Barnes offe~ed s nbtlon. seconded by Commisslon~r F~y and MOTION CARRIED thet
the AnehelM Ctty Pl~nning Commisslon does hareby •pprove the su bmttted tree remov~) plan
for Trect No. 11158 for the ramoval of 33 specimCn trees to acco+npt ish rough grsding +~nd
specimen repl~c~nent trees ~hall be planted In accordanc~ with C ode requirements at or
prlor to the ttm~ of ~esidential construction.
ITEM N0. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: WILLIAM KIIGEI~ 1215~
~~~E DECLARATION Mutholland Orive~ Beverly N111s~ CA Q~'.'10 . AGENT:
, - 1-7 JAMES Q. WHITE~ FREDRtCKS OEVEIOPMENT
CORPORATIuN, 1R Brc-okhoT low Drive, Santa Ana~
CA 927n5. Praperty desc~ihed as ~ r~ctanqulerly
shaped parcn) of land consisting af approxtmatelY 1~.5 acres At the northwe~t to rner of
Crescent Avenue and Euclid Street. having a frontaete of a~~roxin+ately 7h~ feet on the
north ~lde of Crescent Avenue and a frontage of 61.~ feet ~n the west side of Eue lid Street
and further descrtbed as 600-650 North Euciid Street. PropertY Presently classtfled as CL
(C~MMERCIAI., LIMITED) AND CG (~OMMERCIAL~ GENEFAL) ZONES.
There was one person indicating his presence in favor of subJ~c t request, end although the
stafl` repo~t to the Planning Ccxnmisslon dated September $~ 1~A n was not read at the pubtic
heartng. it is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Commissioner King declared d ~onfllct of int~rest bs detlned hy Anahelm City Plsnning
Commission Resolution No. PC,.~-157 ad~pting a Confltct of Inter ~st Code for the Plenning
Canmisston and Government Code Section 3~25~ et seq.. in that he owns con~n+on stock in
Pacific Lighting Corpo~atio~ and Fredricks Developmenc is assoeiated with Paclf f c
Llghting~ and pursuant to the provislons of the above Codes~ d eclsred ta the C halrman
~hat ha was withdrawing from the heartng tn connection with Rec lassiflcation No . AO-81-7
and wauld not take part In either the discussion or the vottn~ thereof and had not
d 1 scussed th i s matter wi th any member of the P) annl nq tanrtsi ss t on. THEREUPON COMMISS I ONER
KING LEFT THE COUNCIL CHAMBER AT ::20 P.M.
Jtm 1~Ihite~ of F~ed~tcks Development Corporetton~ stated the subJect ~roperty is ai~
existing shopping center whlch they feel is dying of old age; tr~at they have done a
feaslbiiity analysls and have determined that the highcst and best use~ in thei r opinion~
is th~ development of an office complex and have determined tha t it Es the only feasibla
econanic alternative. He stated that an office buiidtng compiex wtil upgr~de the area and
be canpakible wtth the surroundina uses in the area; that the ~~ ts a saturatlon of
shopping centera Tn the area and the extsttng center is very old and unable to eanpete;
that the proJect will be b~oken tnto phases and a phasing map has ~een provided to zhaw
ehe phasing schedulo which will be a function of the ~~~kct absorption rate; that the
9/e/ao
~
a. t
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Saptember 8~ 1980 80-5Z0
EIF NEGAtIVE DECLARATIOV AN O RECLASSIFICATION N0. 80-81-7 (continued)
r Y~~~~ ~~~~ !~
tentative plan •t tht~ tl~ae ts to develop e i~0~c100~squar~ ~~t tawe~ en Crascent Avenw
~nd concurra~tly with th• caaipletlo~ of that tower~ demoll~h a11 of the exl~ting shopping
center. wlth the sxceptio~ of the Chris' and P1tt's Restaur~nt et the intersectlon of
Euclld a~d ~~e!tcent and the Unitax Building, whtch is the old g~~ce-~Y market o~ the res~
of the p~aQe~ty. Depending on tha mai~ket ~+bsorptlon rete~ they would proceed to construct
the sscond tower on Eucii d Avenue ahich would he tlmed ever the rental absorptlon r~te o~
th~ fl~st phese. The res tau~ant is 1~ • neehulc+us leqet positlen bec~use they are under
the impresslon they hsve a lease until 1Q8 5 e~d the own~r disputes this and the ultimate
dispositlon of that is no ~ being pushed at thfs time which ts the reason for Phase 3.
Thpy feel the proJect wtl 1 be good for the City and witl be a nice cempitment to the
redevelopmenL of darmtown rnd a~iso the upq ~adin9 ot the surreunding ~rea an Euclid snd
th~t e tirst-clasa offic a bullding wlth f~eeway acc:ess in that ~rea would he very
bensfitlal te the cammunf ty.
TIIC PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEp.
Commisatonar Herhst felt thts is a good d~vetopnent and Is scxnethlnq the nrea needs and
N111 be ~ g~~at esset to the communlty~
Wtlliim Bass xtated he itves on Greenleaf and hss
20 ye~rs~ and a~t this loeatlon for 16 yes~s~ and
and has often wondered wt~at Is going to become of
excellent proJect. He s tated he ts very prcw d of
there are scra nice rec~nt developments there and
p~operty In the Immediat~ s~ea.
llved In thR qeneral srea approximately
~lso has property an Glen )ust off Euclid
this aree. N~ thought this Is an
the ~ras on North Euclid and pointed out
feit this w111 enhance the value of all
Commtssione~ Bushare ind icated concern abAUt the pc~ssibility of ~ future flRanclal
facility and noted a drtve-through benk couid be a problan.
Deen Sherer, Assistant P 1~nner, stated th~ Trafflc Engineer has requested th~t when they
develop thot particular o~rt!on~ revised pl~ns be submitted so the tre~fic pattern can be
revtewed prior L~ approval. He sugge~ted that a condition he added to the resolutlon.
Comr~issloner Barnes advised the developer that driveways and traffic access should be
taken into consideration ln planning the whole area.
Cort~missioner Tolar did nct think the Conimissfo~ would take ktndly to heartnq any self-
imposed hardshtps on thi s large parce) of ground in the future.
ACTION: Commissloner Ha rbst offered a matlon. seconded ~y Cormissloner Fry and MOTION
~D (Canmissioner K t ng being absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commlssto~ has
reviewed tMe praposal to reclessify subJect nroperty from the CL (Cortrnercial, Limited)
Zone and the CG (Cam~er eiel, Genersl) Zone to permit constructlon of an offlce aomplex at
the north~vest corner of Crescent Avenue and Euclid Street~ havtng a frantage of
approximately 7~ feet on the north side of Crescent Avenue and approxtm~te frontage of
62A feet on the west side of Eucild Street; and does hereby approve the Negattve
Decla~atton from tht rec~ul~dnent to prepa re an environmental impact report on the brsts
that there wauld be no signlficant tndlvidual o~ cumulative adverse en~ironmentsl tmpact
due to Lhe spp~oval of this Negative Deciaration sincG the Anaheim Genersl Plan destgnates
the subJect prope~ty fo~ gsnnral co~tir~ercial land uses cc~nmensurate with the p~opossl; that
no sensitive environmen tal impacta ere tnvolved in the proposal; that the initial Study
submiCted by the petit ioner indicates no significant individual o~ cumulatlWe adverse
environmenta) impacts; and thrt the Negattve Declarattan substantlattng the foregaing
findinga Is on file tn the Ctty of Anaheim Planni~g Departmen~.
9/8/80
~'
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNiNG COM~iSS10N~ Septemb~r 8, 1980 80-521
EIR NEGATIVE DEC~ARATION AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 80-81-7 (continuad)
Commtssioner Herbst offsred R~solutlon No. PCRn-14F and nwved }o~ Its psssaqa ancl edoptlon
that the An~helm City Plannlnq Commisaton dc~es hs~eby g~ent Petitlon for Racles~itleatlon
No. 8A-81•7~ subJect to the condltlon that revlaed plans sha11 be suMnltted fo~ ~evlew end
•pp~ovsl of !he CitY Tratftt Engineer prlor to the ievelopn-ent e~ the second and tht~d
phases of the proJect and sub)ect t~ inte~depa~tmental Con+mltt~e r~conrnendatlons.
On ro11 ca11~ the to~egalnq res~lutlen was p~~ sed hy the Follnwinr~ v~te:
AYESs COMMISSIANERS: PARNES~ 90UAS~ PUSHOPE~ FRY~ HEP,(tST~ T~LAR
NOES: COMMISSIANERSt NONE
ABS~NTt CAMMISSIONEaSt KING
(COMMISSIONER KING RETURNEQ TO THE MEETING.)
tTEM NQ. 6 Pl18LIC NEARIN;. OWNERS; MIrHl1El D. 9ECKNER~
~`~11~11E DECLARATION fT AL. 2755 west 9e1) Ro~d~ Anahelm, CA ~2Rnt~~
. - 1-8 AGENT: DANIEL K. K. C-+AN~~ 1774 Colonial Avenue~
. Anaheln+, CA ~28~b. Property ~lescribed as a~
~~actangularly-sheped ~~rcrl ~f land cansistln~ of
ap~roximatety f1.3a acre-~ havinq u frontage of approximately iM f~et on the north side of
Ball Road~ havlnq a maximum depth of epproxims tely 114 f~et fln~l helnq loceted
approxfmately y65 fee~t east of Dale Avenue~ and further descrihed es 2755 West 9a11 Road.
There was one person indicating his presence in opposttlon t~ sub~ect request. anA
altheugh tha steff report to the Planninq Conrr.isslon dated September a~ 1~f~A was not read
at the publlc hesrtng~ tt Is refer~ed to and r,+ade a part af the minutes.
Danlel K. K. Chang, agent. stated the proposal Is ta construct a hlqh-p uallty~etqht-unlt
ap~rtment complex and presented ohotoq~sohs e f a aimiler prn)ect. He stated the proJect
wi 11 be stucco with wood trlm ar,d misslon clay ti le roc~f. He felt f f the pre)ect is
ap~rovecl it wlll henefit the urhan ~eveloqmer t of the tlty; that thts a~ea of West Anehelm
ha~ been Igno~ed for 20 years and it is time to do something ahout it a nd A~SA the tax
base would be Increased. He stated the Anaheim Generat Plan curr~ntty desfgnates medlum-
de~sity residential land uses ~n this ~~ea and this prc~J~ct wlil comply. He felt aiso
thla would be the hlghest and best ~ise of this property snd It wlll he cemnatible with the
neighb~rt~ood. He stated the finished product wili attract t~n qualtty tenants bec~use of
the rent rates charged. Ne referred to the rental houslno shortaqe problem and st~ted
these units wiil contribute to the solutlo~ o f that prohlem.
Mr. Cha~g explained this project wllt also eliminate a traffic hazard because they wi1)
dedicate property for street wideninq purposes which wiil ellminat~ )ogs tn the street,
Mr. Chang felt denial of thls proJect would discourage and deley develotxnent tn this part
af the City and leave it In a miserahle state. pol~ttng out It Is an eyesore.
Clifford Vogel~ 2761 West Bsll Road, adjacent west oF suhJect propertY, ~tated he realites
the Ctty of Anaheim and this Commission is tn favor of hulldirtg ~•oartments, but dld not
tht~k this is the proper locati~n for apartments because al) the houses fn this area are
single-sCory. He questioned why the ~ubJect p ~operty was listed for ssle a~d sold as 1/2
acre~ and this development 1s for 1/3 acre. He dtd ~ot think eight untts and sufficient
parking can be p~ovided on thts site. He sta ted he h~s a ret811 egq ssles buslness and
hls next door neighbor to the west has a wFwtesale nurse~y and both de pend on those
bustnesses for a Ilvlnq, anrJ he ha~ been app~aeched a number of tlmes in the past
reyarding the sate of his property tor a conxnercial use~ but that he does not Intend to
sel) and is happy wtth this property and his h usi~ess. He stated the apa~tments scross
9/8180
~~
~. y
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, S~pte mber 8, 198Q
80-522
EIR NEGATIV~ DECLARATiON, RfiCLASSiFiCAT10N N0. 80 -81-8 ANO VARIANCE N0. 316 8(continued)
~ ....r._. ...
the street ara two-slory and evarYthing •lse In the ~rea Is e~e sto~y, ~nd that apartmant
cemmpiex ha• ove~ 50$ vecancles~. Ha s~ated he has a lettrr f~a+- his Att~rney signed hy he
and ht~ nel9hbo~s~ Msralshi Y~mane~ askln9 f~r denlal ot thfs requeat In its entirety. Ne
•tate,d Mrt. KaJiya It e pisna tssche~ wlth qulte a tew students and thl~ e~nst~uctlon
could hurt h~~ livelihood. He •tat~d he Is opposed to ~partn~ints et thls location.
M~~ Chang ~~spondad to M~. Voqel's question rega~ding t~+e slar, of the propertv. explalning
after the~ streets are dedicated~ 1/3 •cre Is the cor~ect sizA. He did n~~ kno+r the
vscancy rate of the apartment canplex Mr. Vogel had referr~d to. Ne stated ~gain~ In his
peraonai opinion~ medfum de~sity for •Qartments Is the highe~t and best use of this
property •nd that (s the designation tor this property on the Genera) Pla ~.
H• •tated they feal all usea •long one street shauld be :oned the sen+~ wa y end he would
not Nant to sse canmerclsi uses (n e predomtnatly residentl~l nelahh~rhood end felt medlum
density resid~ntlal lsnd uses would be the highest and heet us~ end most ccM+Datlble use
fAr sub)ect property.
TNF PU9LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Conn+lssl~ner King stoted denlal of this rectuest ~~ould Aeprlv~ thl~ property of privlleges
en)oyed by othr.r t~roperties ln the area.
Ch~+irn-~n To1ar referr~d to Mr. Voqe1's comments regarding the S~Z vacancy factor of the
apartment compi~x ac~oss the street and polnted out there Is l~ss than a 2~ v~cency fector
in the City of Anahelm.
Cathy Beckner, owner~ stated the apartm~ents across th~ stre~t have been vacr~t b~cause
thcy are being palnted~ rtew drapes provtded~ etc.~ but they Are now helnq rented rapidly.
Shc felt this pro)ect will lmprove the netghborhood. She st~~t~d the property owner to the
resr is supposed to m~intein the eastment, but she and her hushand have had to do it; and
aln~e this transaction has been In escrow~ they have rtot n+alntained it and It looks
terrible. She explalned they are willing to pa vc the nelghbor's drivew~y which would make
It better fo~ her piano students.
Comnl~::oner Bushore was concerned about access to the nelghbor's aroperty fa~ her
students du~ing constructlon while rough grading is beinq done, etc.~ and esked if the
atces~ could be paved before the butlding Is constructed.
Mr. Chang ~epiied they would try to iimlt excavation durinq constructlon and wcwld recover
the access as soon as posstbie after any exca vation.
Commissloner Buahore stared this is a tr~nsittonal srea with ~ school behtnd it e~nd the
surrounding are~e is d~veloped~ but the owners ar~ not interssted in sGlling their property
and want to maintaln thelr particuler 1lfestyle. He could see no reason for not grantinq
s waiver for two atorles because it will tmprove the area. He stated the property owners
living the~e~ also sre operattng businesses on thelr p~ope~ti~s. He wanted to be sure the
ptano teache~'s 1lvelihood is not cut oPf durTng constr+~Ction.
Mr. Chang stlpulated they would keep that access ocen during the constructlon perlod.
Chal~man Tolar stste~ the current General Plan destgnated subject property for medium
density residentlal, but this request would not be before the Canrnisslon If it were not
for the two-story variance.
9/8 '80
~J ~ ~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ September 8~ 1980 80•5~3
EIR NEGATIVE CECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 80•81-8 AND VARIANCE N0. 3168 _(contlnued)
riw~ ~
Commtssione~~ M~rbst steted oth~r prope~ttes In the ~~ea wil) he entitled to the sartie
developn~e+~it; that two stor~^s h~v~ been •pp~OVed ad)acent to RS•A•k3~~~~ zening In the
past~ and the Commisslon is In the p~ecess e} car~sldertng ch~nqin~ the Code to allew this
by right hec~use ad)acent property cawnere wlll prohably huil~ apartment~.
ACYIQN= Conrnisslan~r Kinq offered a motlon~ sec~nd~d hy Comnisslener bernes and MOTI~N
~ that the A~ehelm City Plennln9 Co+nn+~ssron hes revlewed the prepo~al to reclassify
suhJect property from the RS-A-43•~AO (Reside~ttel/Agriculturel) Zone te the RM•12~~
(Residential~ Multiple-Famliy) 7.one to construct an 8-unit apartment hulldtna with walver
of maximum structural helght on a rectangularly-sha~ed pe~cel ef 1~nd consisttng of
approxim~tely A.33 Acres; hevinq a frantaae of eppraxim~t~ly 1~~ feet on the north side of
Ball Road~ having a maximum de~th of eppreximately 114 Peet and being lec~ted
appreximetely 565 feet east of the centerline of D~le Aven~ie; end does herehy approve the
Negatlve Decl~ratlon from the requirement to pr~psre an envir~nmentai imp~ct report ~n the
basis that th~re would ba no siq~lflcant Indtvtdual or cumul~tiv~ adv~rse Rnvironmental
impact due to thn appr~vel of this Negative Declaratlon slnce the Anahr.im GenerAl Plan
designat~s the subJect prope~ty for medlum denslty l~nd us~s conxnensurate with the
proposal; that no sensttive environmental impects are Involved tn ch~ pro-~sal; that *.he
Inltial Study suhmitted by the ~etltloner Indicat~s no siqntficant Ind{viduel or
cumulative adve~se environmental impacts; and that the MeeAtiv~ ~eci~ratlon substsntiating
the foregoing ftndings Is on ftle tn the Clty of Anahetm Planning Depsrtm~nt.
Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC8n-1~+7 and mc~ved for Its passage and adoptt~n
that the Anahelm Clty Pl~nning Commisslon does hereby grent thP Petltion for
Reclasstflcatian No. 80-81-8~ suhJect to Interdepartme~t~l Commtttee Recomn-endations.
On ro~l c~il~ the foregoing resolution was paRSed by the followinq vote:
AYCS: COMMiS510NER5: BARNES. BOUAS~ BUSHOpE~ FP,Y~ HERBST~ KiNG~ TALAR
NOCS: COMMiSSI0NER5: N~NE
AB~ENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Conmissioner King offe~ed Resatutlnn No. PCB~-1~~9 and mov~d fnr its passaqe and adoption
that the Anahelm Clty Planning C anmisslon does herehy qrant Petitton for Vartrnce No. 3168
on the hasis that denla) wa~~ld deprive subject preperty ~f a ~rivlieqe enlayed by ether
property under identical zoning classlfication in thr. vtcinity and en the basfs that
adJacent single-famtly propertles are desiqnated on the General Plan fo~ medium-density
residenttal land uses and wlii uttimately be developed for mu1t1-family restde-•=al uses
and subJect to Interdepartmentai Committee Recomme~datlons.
On roll ca11, the foregoing resolutton wss passed hy the following vote:
AYES: CAMMISSIONERS: BARNES, BOUAS~ BUSHORE~ FRY~ HERBST, KING~ T~LAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT; COhIM155IONERS: NONE
Frank Lowry, Senior Assistant City Attorney, presented the petittoner wlth che w~Ttt~n
right to appeal the Planntng Commission's decislon wtthin 2Z days to the City Council.
9/8/80
.~ -,~
~~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ September 8, 1980
ITEM N0.
ETR--AEFI~TTV E C EC LARAT I 0 N
. - 1-10
.
Irregulerty-sheped parcel
of epproximately 43~ feet
approximet~!ly 3~5 fRet on
approxlmately 290 feet and
Harbor 8oulevard.
80-524
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERSt ANAHEIM REOEVEL~PMENT
AC~NCY~ 1~6 North Cla~idin~ Street~ Anaheim~ CA 92A05.
AGENTs NORMAN J. PRIEST~ EX~CUTIVE OIRECTOR~ ANAHEIM
REpEVEI,ffPMFNT AGENCY~ tAF North Cleudins Street~
Anahelm~ CA ~2A~~. Pr~perty descrih~d es ~n
land conalstinq of epproximately 1.° acres~ havinq a frontage
of
on th~ north ~Ide of Lincoln Av~nue~ and a frontage of
the south slde of Chartres Strr.et~ having a maxtmum depth of
being iocated a~proximately 355 feet east of the centerltne of
There was no one indicAring thelr presence in oppositlan to sub)ect request. ~nd elthough
the staff ~eport to the Ptanning Comml~slon dated Septemhe~ R~ l~a~ wes not re~d at th~
public hearing~ it Is ~eferred to and made o part of th~ min~ites.
Commissloner Bushor~ declared a confllct of interest as defined hy An~helm Ctty Planning
Commis~ion Rasolutlon No. PC7~~157~ adapting a Lonfllct of Int~re~.t Cod~ for the Planning
Commisslon. and Government Code Section 3G25 et seq.~ In that sub)ect propertY is withtn
the Alphe Redevelepment Area and he has a contractual agre~m~nt wOth the Redevetopment
Agency +~s s ldnd acqulsitl~n aqent and~ pursuent te the ~revlslons of the eb~ve codes~
declared to the Chalrman that he was withdrawing from the heering in connectt~~n with
Reclassificstion No. 80-81•1~ ~nd Verlence No. 3171 and arould not t~ke pert Ir elther the
dlscusslon or the voting thereon~ and has not discussed thi~ n-~+tter with any --+ember af the
Plonning Commisslon. THEREUPON~ COMMISSIONER BUSH(1RE LFFT TIIF CC-)NCIL CHAMBcR.
Mtke We1ch~ Anahe!lm Redevelopment Aqr.ncy. stated thr. pronosr` Iz for a tw~c,•~story proJect
with the first floor to ba developad Nith retall ccxrK++erclel us~s ~nd the second floor to
be develap~d wlth commerclal offtce uses and e Masonlc lodqe. He exotalneo the psrking
waiv~r is being ~equested baceuse the l~dge use ~f the parkinq lot wc~uld he dartnq the
wee~kends and evening hours and rrould he diPfer~nt than thG other uses.
TNE PUALI~ HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissloner King asked the p~tttToner to sttpulaic that there wi11 be no Masonic n+eetings
or socl~l events scheduled durtng business hours.
Mr. Wetch stated a letter has been sutxnltted fran th~ Masontc Temple Assoctstion whlch
states the hours would be itmfted to eventngs after nornial worktng hours~ except for
approxim~tely three nights durl~g Decemher when they would beqin thelr activftles st 4:00
P.M. for thoae th~e~e occasions.
Commissioner i(ing offered a mottont seconded by Con~entssloRer Ha~n~s and yATION CARRIED
(Commissloner Bushore beinq absent! that the Anahelm City Pl~nntnc~ Commission has reviewed
the p~opos+~1 to reclassify sub,ject prope~ty from the C~ (Commercial, Cener~l) xone and PO-
C(Parking Dist~tct~ Canmercial) Zone to CL (ConM,+erct~l~ Limlted) Zone to construct a
Masonic Tanple and commerctal retait faclllty wlth a walver of mintmum number of psrking
spaces on an t~regulerlyshaped parcel of tand conststing of ~pproximately 1.9 acres~
having a frontage of approximately a30 feet on the north side of Linc~oln Avenue a~d a
fror~taqe ot ~95 feet en the south stde at Chartrea Street~ h+~ving a maximum deoth of
app~oxlmatety 2g0 feet and being located approxi~ately ~55 fRet east of the centeritne of
Narbo~ 8oulevard, and does heraby epprove the Negative Declaratlon fra* th~ requirement to
preparK an environmentst impact ~eport o-, the baals that therr, would be nA significant
Individual or cumulatlve adverse envl~o~mental impect due ta the ~ppravsl of this Negative
9ieiao
~
~ ,~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ September 8, 1980 80-525
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. SO•81 10 AND VARIANCE N0. 3171 (c~ntinuad)
Declar~tion tlnce the Anahelm Gene~al Plan destgnatas the suhJect prape~ty far medlum
density land u~es can++ensurate with ihe preposati thet ne sensitfve snvironinental Impacts
are InvAlved in the p~oposal; th~t the Inltlal Study suhmitted by the petitioner
Indicates no slgnificent indtvidual or cunulattve adverae envirornnente) impect'i and that
the Negatlve Declar~tion suhst~ntiating the foreqoing findings is en file In th~ CiLy of
An~helm Piannin9 Depa rtment.
Commisstoner Ktng offered Resolutlon No. PCBA-1~~g ,~nd moved f~r Ita pessage en~i adoptlo~
th~t the A~ahelm City Plenninq Commisslon doas her~by grsnt Petltlon fo~ Reclassiflcatlon
No. AO•81-10, subJect to Interdepartmenta) Comrittee Recommendations.
On roll c+~ll~ the foregoinq resalutlon was passed hy thr. fn'lowfnn v~te:
AYESs COMMISSIONERSs BARNES~ BOUAS~ FRY~ HEQRST~ KINr~ TO~AR
NOES: CAMMISSIQNERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER : BU~NORE
Commissloner King o~fered Resolutlon No. PCBA-150 ~nd moved f~r its passaqe and adeptton
that the Aneheim City Planninq Conn~isslon does herehy grt~nt Petitlon for Varlance No~
3171, subJect to the petitloner's atipulatlon that ++ forn+ai i~tter shail be suMnttted to
the City of AnshP!im fromthe Masonic Tempie Ass~ciatlan stipul~tinq thAt all Masonic Lodge
buslness wlil be conducted on weekends and eve~inqs~ and subj~ct te Ineerdepartmental
Committee Recommendatio~s.
On roil call~ the forsgntng resolutton was pessed by the foliov-Inq vot~:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: 6ARNE~~ BOUAS~ FRY, HERBST, KIN~, 70LAR
NOESt COMMI5SIOHERS: NnNE
AsSENT: C4MMISSlOt1ERS: ~uSHpRE
REf,E55 The~e was a te~-minute recess at 2:55 p.m.
......~
REfONVENE The meeting r-as ~econvened at 3:~5 p.m. (Commissioner Bushore returned to the
"""""""- mee t i ng . )
ITEH N0. a PUBLIC HEAaING. OM~-ERS: LARKIN 0. MINOp~ '~ti~ Eeat
~~,~~RICALI.1' EXEMPT Cl.ASS 3 Chspel ~ Santa Merla, CA Q3u54. ARENT: STEPHEN
~ ,, WILLIANS~ 681~9 Lfv~ OaM Street, Betl Gardens~
6e1 1 ~~rdens, Ca ~0201 . Pet 1 t 1 oner roquests 11A IVERS
Of: (A) MAXINUM Nt~MA~R, (8) PE~tMITTED IOCATiAN AND
MiNIM'JM DiSTANCE BETWEEN SIGNS TO CONSTRUCT A-~REE-STANpING SICN on preperty described as
an irregularly-shaped parcel of land conslsting of 3.2~~ acres located south snd west of
the southwest corner of lincoln Av~nue a~d Brookhu~st Street, hrvinQ a front~ge of
App!'Axlmtltely 1;0 Peet on thE south s1Ae of lincnln Avnnue and a f~orttage of approxlmstely
45~ feet an th~ a!~est side of Brookhu~st Street. and further dr.scribed as ~210 West lincoln
Avenue.
Thera was no Ane indtcating thetr presencG in opposition to suhJect request~ and although
the staff ~eport to the Plannt~g Cammlaston dated SeptQmher 8, 14°~ was not reed at the
public fi~aring, it is referrr.d to and made s part of the minutrs.
5t~phen Nllilams. agent~ stated Autocraft ia seeking approv~l to ~Qplace an existing sign.
He present~d phatographs of the existtng stgn and expialned tt would be repiaced v+lth a
9/8/80
~~
i ~1
MINUTES, ANAHBIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 8, 1980 SO-SZ6
E{R CATEGO~ICALLY EXEMPT - CLASS N3 and VARIANCE N0. 31b5 _ Gontinued)
~_...._.._.~ - --------- -
•ma11e~ sign which wi11 bs Illuminated and he felt the new •Ign will Improve the in+~g~ of
both thelr busines~ and Llncoln Avenue.
THE ~'1181.IC HEARING I~MS ClOSEO.
Commlasioner 8ern~s did not sea any p~obtem wich this sign since the Canmitsicx~ t~
lnte~ested in Impraving tha ~~ea and the new slgn will be smslle~ than the existing sign.
(t wss noted that the {~lanning Dl~ector or his autho~ired representative has determin~d
that the p~oposed project f~lls~ withtn the definitlon of C~teqo~ical Exen+~tlons, C1~ss 3•
as defined in Paragraph 2 01' the Clty of Anahelm Environmental IMpact Report Gufdelines
and ts, therefore~ c~tegorically exempt from the requirement te prep~re an EIR.
ACTIONs Commissioner Barnes o}~ered ~esoiutlon No. PC~~•1S1 a~d moved for tt~ pASS~qe end
a~optTon thet the Anahelm City Planntnq Commisslon does he~Gby spprnve Petition for
Varlanca No. 3165 on the basls that the proposed stqn is smeller than the
existlnq non-co~fo~ming sign and denlal would d~prive the pr~pertY of prlvlleges enJoyed
by ether property unde~r identica) zontng tn the vtcinity, and subJect to Intedepartment~)
Comm 1 t tea Recommenda t I on:.
On roll cell~ the foregaing resolution was passed hy the failowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: 6ARNE5~ 80UA5~ BUSIit1RE~ FAY~ NEP,AST~ KIN~~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIGNERS: NONE
9/8/80 ~~x
n
........._ _.._.,:,.._.:._ .. ,.- ,.,.~.~
~~
MlNUTES. ANAMEIM CITY PLMM~ING COMMISSIQN. SEPTEMBER 8~ 1980
80-527
I TEM N0. PUdL IC HEMI Nr,, OWNERS: CLI FFORO O. ANO OORI S JEAN
VE OECIARATION BECKI.ER~ NORMAN E. K~UP AND GORdON L. SLATER.
. C/0 1242 E~st L~ Palma Avenu~e~ Anahelm~ CA 9x805.
AQENTS: UR6ANITES~ INC.~ ATTENTION: Al,l LABIB~ 16152
B~ach Boulevard~ Nuntington Be~ach~ CA 9264~ ANO
WALTER K. BOMMAN~ 7936 Cer~tto~ Avenue~ Stantan~ CA 926Q0. Petitioner reQuests WAIVER5 QF
(a) MAXIF~JM STRUCTURAI HEIGHT~ ANO (b) MINIMUM GISTANCE 8E?WEEN BUIIDINGS TO CONSTRUCT A
48-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX on p roperty desc~ibed ~s ~n tr~egulerly-sheped percel of la~d
consisting of approxlmately 1;8 feet on the ~outh slde of La Palma Avanue~ hsving a
maximum dapth of ap~roximetely 360 feet, and being locatad approxirtwitety 550 feet aait of
the centarline af East Street. and further descrtbed as 12~2 -1254 East La Palma Ave~ua.
Property presently cl~siified RM-12A0 (R~SIDENTIAL~ MULTIPIE-FAMILY) ZONE.
There were six peraons indicaciny thel~ preaence in opposttion to subject request~ and
although the staff report to the Planning Commtaslon d~ted September 8~ 1980 was not read
at thQ public hearing~ iC is refer~•ed to ond m+~de a part of the mtnutes.
Walt Bo-+~rt~en~ agent~ stated they have assembled three percels of property ~nd are proposing
s three-story structura 27 feet high; that two-story unita 25 feet htgh have been approved
at 1260 Eaat La Palma withtn G2 feet of an adJacent single-famlly property a~d this
proposel is only two feet higher for a three•sto ry structure~ snd th~t the t~affic
patterns would be the same for subJect property es at 1260 East La Palma and a11 access
wlll be to le Palma which would have a mtnlmel effrct on traffic for surroundtng aingle-
fAmily residence~.
A11 Labib, architect. felt the issue hnre (s mainly the twc+-story butlding ln the 150-foot
setback. He stated they belleve this 150-foot set~ack requirement I~ absolete and changes
have to be mede to meet the growth And this is the only way these th~ee parcels can ba
developed economically.
Mr. Labib referred co meintaining privary for the adJacent single-fsmfly restdents and
felt there are invastons of privscy other than vtaw and a o~e•story structure closer to
the property line v+ould create e noise factor and would b~ an invt+sion of privacy. He
explained they tried to msintaln a one-story buildi~g on the west stdc of the property a~d
in ~rder to do that had to move some second story units ta the aast where they would be
the maximum distance from single-f~mlly resldential uses rvhich is 75 feet. He stated the
design logic ts 20 feec for parktng, a 25-foot road, plus another 20 feet for parki~g and
a 5-faot setback for e total of a 70-foot setback and he wou.d nerd some Justtfication to
provide more.
Tom Lopker~ 702 ~iawchorne~ stated this praJect only came to fiis attention this morning~
and the appositto~ asked htm to speak for them because he is a building contractor and has
dvne remodeling work In the City for 20 years. He stated the EIR Negat(ve [`::clara~tion~
the 150-foot setback and also che height limitations are tn questlon here.
He stated he and the neighbora felt the height of thas~e proposad structures will int~uda
on their prlvacy; that theirs are ail single-story structures, Axcept for one home with a
second-story sddition which he built and it dc+es not exceed i8 feet in height. He stated
the netghbors went to mstntein their prtvacy and thelr single-famtly dwellings end would
ltke a large buffer area between them and eny apa~tmants that msy be built the ro a~d they
feel 48 untts is gotng to create a tot of trafflc out onto la P'alma whicl~ is axtremely
busy. They did not feei left-turns wili be handled very well; that most of the traffic
f rom the spartments is going to tur~ rlght and lef~ turns f rom the south slde of la Palma
9/8/80
~~
~. ~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEM6ER 8~ 19$0
EIR NEGATIY~ DECLARATION ANO VARtANCE N0. 31~ (CONTINUED)
.~....r.._.._,~,
eo-sza
would be going directly across hl~h speed t~afftc~ and the proJect wtll c~eate a lot of
traff{c on the ~errow residentlal stra~t:.
Audrey Bartsch~ 720 North Junlper Pla~e, read s lettar from D~nnis Norman who w~= prasent
and had to le~va as followt ~nd tndicated she wholehe~rtedly sgreee:
"My name ts Dsnnis Norma~ dnd I llve at ~20 North Juniper Place. My property
bQrd~rs the west side of tho parcei of property tn question.
I am opp~sed to the waivering of n+eximum structurb) helqht and minimum dtstance
between butldtngs to construct e 48•untt ap~~tment complex for the followtng
re~sons:
1. Privacy • wtth a 2•story bullding barde~ln~ o~ our property p~lvscy Is
definitely ltmltad.
2. No(se level - with Increased Fopulatlan comes Increased noise, As a former
ap~rtment renter of some 10 years~ i kno+y from axperlence that apertment unlts
arc much naisie~ thsn single-family dw~liings.
3. Insurance - with Increased poputation corties an increase in crime rate and
ftre hazerd. I have b~en (~fo rn~ed by (naurance agent and scveral others I have
checked with that n~r insura~ce rates wauld ga up From 5; to 10; Ar more depending
on the p~roximlty of the apartme~ts to my proparty and the numbor of units bulit.
4. Property value - atthough the value of the p roperty~ technically~ will not be
effectad~ the proxSmtty to apartments wauld make the p~operty less desirsble a~d
would reducc ita resale val~c and, therefore~ equlty I now have in the p roperty.
The above statema~ts apply to virtuaily eve ry pa~rcel bordering the property in
Queatlon and ail athers tn the nnighborhood to a lesse~ degree~ depending on
thpir proximity to the property.
I fully reailze that houstng 1s e problem in Mahetm~ but the ilne h~as to be
drawn sonwwhere. The Codes end regulations were aet for good rneaons~ ~essons
wh~ch are still valid. If yo~ stert making exceptions r-ow, where will it end7
The property i n quest t on ha~ a I ~eady been toned for apa rtn+ents ~ but the arners
bulld wlthl~ ttre existing gutdelines without infringing on tht privacy and pocket
books of thc surrounding reslck nts.
Stgned bY:
Kanneth L. Dunlavy~ 728 Juniper Piace~ M~hetm, CA 92805•
Mr~ and Nrs. Richard, 726 Juniper~ A~ahetm 92$O5.
M~. and M~s. Dennis L. Normen~ 720 N. Ju~iper P1.~ Anahein+, CA 92805.
Mrs. 8artsch stated she and her husband hed obtat~ed the stgnatures on ~ petttian this
mpr~ing and presented a petttia~ oontalnEng app roximetely 26 signatures.
Nary Yost~ 713 North Juniper~ statad they hav~ bcan bettling this for y~a n; that Mr. A.
J. Schuto sald oa~ny yea n sgo that ihts p~operty was bought by these peopt• for their
homss and they should be alipwed to keep it. She hoped che p~sent Conr~Tsatoners vrouid
9/8/84
~.
~. .~
MINU'fFS~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMNISSION~ SEPTEM9ER 8, 1980
EIR NE6ATIVE pECIARATION ANC VARIANCE N0. 31 0(CONTINUED)
80-529 ~
'oon~il` a that in their fevor a9atn; thst this p ro~ect will not diractly Infringe on h~~
p~ivary~ but the~e is ProWOUId :et'an u~dasirable~precedent end,therebwould~be nothingtto
approval of this pro,ject
keep peopla f~om bullding htgh-rtsa apsrtments on East Street to laok diractly into har
backyard.
MI11 B~rtsch stated he maved hare ln 1952 into ane of the fin t honws H^~ felt thlst and
J ust rati red 1• 1/2 weeks ago and hopes to anJoy hts reti rement here~
definitely wouid affect his property and 4H units would add from 50 to 75 ~ar= a~nd would
defi~itely affect the envtron ~~~J w`tih~apartn+~nts about threeebl ckstaw~+1- where~there^are
refer~ed to •nothe~ area deve D
mettrassos end all ktnds of trash on the front lawns~ etc.
Mr. Bartsch referred to the kwo-sNe ~akeduwhyrthcaneighbo~~ werehn thnotiflad of:th~ °ting
they were dlsc~sssing one story.
previous meeting.
Ch~innan To1ar explatned thc Planning Cemm~ssion had denlad the request for two stories,
but it wes sPpealed and approved by the Council for e 62•foot setbeck and a buitding
hntght of 20 feet. N~ e~butgdPdanotdktnow whyyMrf Bertsch was notsnotifbed~ h~arings in
th~ee different formats,
Mr. Bartsch stated the sbetterdtlacesetotbulld htgh~riseaapartn+e~tsOeS ~~ ~~~sted and
he felt there has to be P
N~. guwmen stated the City anti~lPated the increase in t~sffic; tht~t In9ress and egress
would be on la Palma which v+t il be wldened to 93 feet; that prope~ty a+ners an La Paimai
were rnquircd to on;nate~n~theirtproperty~e drhe felt thett~sffirocould be ha~ndled.
fi~a11ze aM-1200 z 9
Mr. 8owmsn stated he did e t~~~O1"'dta~~appralsaica~sLedone~wh~cheindicateddthere wouldinotto
reduud prePe~ty vel uas, xp
be any loss in value to adJaining singie-familY residences.
THE PUBLIC HEAitiNG WAS CLOSEO.
Chairmen Tolar atated the Plenning Lommissian e~d ~~tY Cou^~~1 had a jolnt rneeting to
disGUSS this ~5o-fooc se~bsck~bQ wouldiaffect davei pment oftthisrprope~typ a questton i~
his mind whether or not e cha g
Ne stated as a realtor he w`o~ued`L1 ~s h~~p~ton thatrchey~do.~~ton that apartuients do nat
af fect prope rty va~ 1 ues beca
Chalrmen Tolar steted the 62•~oot setback was a1~a+ed «- the ad~oining property, snd he
ro rt developmant. He
egreed the Conmis~lon shouid be mora liberal thinktng rega~ding p Pa Y
felt~ ha+eve~. this perticuter~ nroLe~Mb~tetl^~y~Putting~garagesrabutttngsthetresidantis~nd
the developer has gotten the Y
property linea. He atat~d he rrould not want to a+n a resldence ~+~cked up to a 10 foot
wsll.
He suggestad if the
Ne stated he could not support thts p~rticuler project as it stands.
arthitect had ettenden e~Q PHe~~~dsno~t th~nk 48 units~is reasonsble and istrtar,abovenwhat
could bave bee~ Prese t
9/ 8/80
~;~ {_ ~ 1
MINUTfS~ ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBER 8~ 1 80
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATI~N AND YARIANCE N0. 3170 (CONTINUEO;
80-530
th• residents wouid have axpected if the~r had known apa~tme~t devalopment Was posslblo on t~ils
p roperty Nhen thay bought their home.
Commt:sto~er Barnes stated the Commlaslo~ is va ry eware of the footages from the varl~nces
discussed and ncm e•ra less than 50 feet, but thet Is not really the problem. She stated
the Conwnission has aitered kheir vtav on two•story structu~es abutting single-famtty and
a~e looking •t each case tndtvtduaily and if there ts no Impact on the sin9le-f+~mliy
homes~ will grant varlancas. She asked haw meny of ihe homeuwners had ~een the plan and
there was a response that oniy one homeowne~ hes aeen the plan. She asked why the
developer had not revte~vad the p{an wtth che homeowners~ especfally stnca he has already
had so meny p rob 1 em w( th them.
M~. avwme~ replled that the plen has baen on tlle wtth the City er+d not(ces were mailed to
the homenwners accordiny to requtren+enta. He stated the last tlme he met with the
h aneowners regerding the 7~unit pro)~ct and shawed them those ptens~ they had votced the
same queatlons ~nd had voiced these sart~ concerns and ~easona for not wanttng apartments
et the Clty Co uncll appoal hearin9.
Commissioner Ba~nes a~ked thosn p resent (n opposition to ~evl~w the pians and Dean Sherer~
Asalstant Planner, reviewed the plans wtth the audlence.
Mr. Lopker stated seeing the plans does not seem to help relteve the oppositlon's c~ncern;
that the gereges are right along the property lines and they do not 1(ke that; and that
orlginally ] unit~ were p roposed and now the p roJect is larger.
Cortmtssionrr Barnes asked how meny persons stiii obJect to the proJect and ali six persons
raised thelr hsnds.
Commissioner Bushorc asked ha+ a threrstory structure can be developed at 27 feet,
polnting out the Mo-sto ry structure At 1260 East La Pslma is 25-feet high and the
di fference ls only two feec.
M~. Labib explalned the alopud root ~ather than e flet raof mskes the three-storles
feastbla.
Commisaloner Bushore dld not understsnd why the appraisd) mede on a different p~operty !s
bei~g referred to and he felt e person can get whsteven c~- wsnts trom an appraissl und
eva~ though ther. Is no dollar figure to plece o~ it~ apartments adJacent to single-family
residences da havic en effect on their ~esale values and the Lime it takes to sell thc
property. He felc he has e~ouqh experlence to be a Certifi~d Revlew App~aiser and kn~w h~
wouid certainly questian that app~~isai. He did not unde~stand why the possibility of
Mo-story st~uctures wes dtscussed previousty, a~d rww th~ee stortes are proposed and feit
each time the developer crorties back~ the p ro)ect is larger end larger. He did not tike the
garagas ebutttn4 thc praperty lin~es and he Neuld not w+~nt to ltv~a ~he~e eithnr and felt
the garagea would detract from the dealrability of those homes.
Commissioner Bushore referred Lo the criterie the Comeisston hds to use to legelly epprove
the proJect ar~d steted he di~ not care rrhat ts don~ et 126Q East la Palma or how many
time~ the City Cou~ctl reve rses tha Commtssion's decialons; thet he has to review thta
p roJeci as a land planner and hew (t is going ta affect the entire neiqhborhood. HQ
steted it thi~ is app rovad to che detr{ment af the opposition~ then they un ftie a
lawsutt and prob~bly wauid heve e p~etty good ca~se, but there a~a only tv+o elternatives
the Commissian has to app~ove a varisnce snd they are: (a} That there ere speciul
...o.a,
~~
;
MINUtE5~ ANAHEiM CiTY PLIWNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBEit 8~ 1980
Ellt NEGATIYE bECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3110 (CONTINUEp)
circunq~tances appllceble to the p roperty~ includt~y size~
surroundi~~s~ which da nat apply to othe~ pmpe~ty under
in the viclnity; and (2) that. becAUSe of such ~poclal ci
of the Zonin~ Code deprivaa the property of privileg~s er
identical zoning clasaificatiun In the vtctnity. He stal
show the Cummisston those raasons end he hat not heard ar
hts awn mind a~d wtll stand firm.
80-531
shspe~ topogrephy~ locatlon o~
ide~tic~i zoning classitlcstton
rcumstenc.a~ ~trict eppiicatlon
Joyed by othar property u~der
ed It ls up to the petitlone~ ta
ything to ~ustify the variance in
Commi~sioner Bushore stated this property was brought up last Tuesday nvening tn a ~olnt
meeting between the City Planning Conmisaton e~d the Clty Council, ave~ thou9h It waa not
on the agenda, and h~ felt thst was wrong and the people should have been told about it If
it wes gotng to be diacusaed. Ne stated ha does not It~ whet he secs and thet he is
trying to be reAilstic but felt chla proJect Is over-impacting the p roperty and thought it
would be a very definite datriment to the neighborhood. Me ststed he would stand firm nn
the way he votecl before an this haight restriction and does nat c+~re what the City Council
doas snd if the Commtsslon gels overruled~ the p roperty avners do heve othe~ rtghts.
Comnissianer King asked if underground parking wes cansidered far this projact and Mr.
I.ebib atated underground parking woutd not work for thls p roJect because singie•family
reaidencas ebut subJect property on the west and so~th sides.
CArt+missioner 9arnes stated she would not be a~ rancerned with the 150-fooc setback If the
proJect was Ma sto~les and she is not really concerned ebout the denslty. Responding to
Mr. Labib's comment that this Is the density allawred. Commissloner Barnes explstned that
that is thc dens(ty allawed wlthout varlances and Chelrmsn Talar further explalned this
request would nat be befora the Commission If th~ verlances were not requested snd lf the
density wes reduced. the variance could be ellmtnated,
Mr. Labib stated his dtsagreement with the 150-foot setbeck Is nat s~ opinlon~ but from
archiiectural prsctica, it is Impossibie to bulid thts klnd of denstty allawed with ona-
story but ldinys.
Gh~tirnw~ Tola~ stated this prnves to him that chis (~ too much density for this property.
Mr. Labib stated from a development polnt nf vicw. because of the land value snd pr{ce~ it
hss to be developed in this msnn~r.
Chatra~en Tolar ciartfied that the price b~ing paid for the land mskes it eco~omically not
teastble tn build Kithout that nun~ber of u~its and Mr. LaDib tndicated thet is correct.
Commis~ioner Herbst felt thts is one of the wo n t deaigned spa~tment proJects he has ewar
seen 1~ the City of A~ahetm with regard to its ancroachment and p rotectlon to the ~tngle-
family residences abutting it; that a faw years ago the Commisston ailawed apertments to
abut the property Iine and after vtewi~g those proJecta and ~eeing the impect on ehe
single-ta~nily tx~uses and their b~eck yards with xhe lack of sunlight snd air circula~ion~
he decided he wouid never vate for another one. He star:ed the CoaNntssion hed e meeting
l~st week and askad for sonie i~novatlon from develaper's and are wi t l tng to work with
ve~lancas~ but whan the d~velopment t~ansfers the variance tc~ the aajscent property avners
and impacts their property~ h~ w1l1 oppose lt because it ts nat good la~d pisnning and
thosr property a+nors deserve protectinn and this proj~ect does not give th~~n any
protection~ not even a tree. He stated past experience hes proven to the Corn~isslon that
the 20-faot tendscape~d buffer ad]ec~nt ta single•family is necessary. He clarifiad ehe
g~riges abutting Che property li~R are 8 to 10 feet high end there is no landscaped buffer
9i8/8o
~~,
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMM~SSION~ SEPT MBERg 1980
EIR NEGATiVE DECLAi~AT10N ANO VAlt1ANCE NQ. 3170 ~CONTMNUEO)
....... ...r...-
90-~3~
there and st~tad the Commission hes insisted on having that buffar for yea~s. Ne stated
prope~tlet that hava beon developed with the buffer a~e nice develapn~nts and it can work.
He did not feel thts plan Is innavative and is not raprasentettve ot what ls wantad tn tha
City nf Anahelm~ He •tatad he could not vote fo~ th1s pro]ect because the neighbors were
not consicbrad.
Mr. Labib explained he developed a sirnila~ p ro~ect at 3160 Bail Road In 1970 sbutting
~ingle•famlly residences and tt is a va ry good proJect. Ne fett f~om en archttectur+~l
st~ndpolnt the ga~ages are a very good buffsr beMeen single•family.
Commissloner Herbat suggested the declbei readings of noise t~ken from the homa with e 25'
foot backysrd directly behind the garages for a 48•unit spe~tment compl~x would be qutte
high.
Mr. Lablb stated the issue here Is ~uilding two stories within the i5~~f~t setback and
Commissioner Herbst dfd not feel that ia the whole issue and stated he ls wliling to ba
tnnovetiva~ but would not approve a uoncept with this kind of burden on the neighborhood.
Mr. Labib stated thcre is nothing In the Code whtch does not allav ~n auxilla ry bulldiny
on the property line snd Commissioner Nerbit statcd the 20•foot wi~e lsndscaped buffer
adJace~t to singie-famlly has been s Plenning Conmtsslon pollcy for years~ depending upon
development of the AdJecent property.
Commissioner Bushore staCed spp~rently the property arners assembled their percals to try
to get higher density because assemblYing three parc~ls eliminstes setbacks on three
parceis. He asked what the Justificntion was fo~ o~ly 8 teet praposed between the
bui ldtngs wt th 13 feet ~equi red.
Mr. Lsbib rep110d he can meke a correction and meat the 13•feet mintmum distanca between
b uitdings.
Commissioner Oushore potnted aut ±he architect and +egent for this proJect do not ilve in
Aneheim and the Commissl~n and these neighbors opposing the p roJect mske thelr home here
end tfie petitloners are selll~g iheir property and moving. He felt. ha+ever~ if thny were
not movtnu and some developer was proposing a development Itke thi~ next door to them~
they would be sitting with the opposltion. Ne stated the Cammission is wllltng to
compromtse~ but not to the detrtment of the ci~izans Chat are sttll 1{ving here.
Commisatoner 8ushore askad if the pe:f!ioner wouid lik~ tn radesign the proJect or (f they
wouid prefer a vote.
Nr. Labib cfid not kna+ if any communtcatio~s can be established,
Conmisstoner 8a~nes stated she knows the a~chltect did not have sny Inte~tio~ of hurting
anyone and designed the project as well as ha could e~d wes ma~esly d~ing h~s Job In dai~g
what th~e property a+ners wa~t and the property avners all have rights. She s utsd she hsa
no probtem wi th the densi ty ~' ~r wl th epa~tments because they s~e supposed to be there~ but
does have a problem with the wall bsckYng up to singlr fa~nlly residencas. She explained
thec it has beer~ a Planning Commission policy not to allav gs~agea risht on the property
Iine; that the Co~nlssion ~s interested In warktng aut a con~ romtse so both sides can be
satisfied and pointed out the Gomrnisston has c.ompromised and has allowed ds~sity bonuses
in the past.
9/8/80
~~
,
~ E
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COIWISSION~ SEPTEMSER 8~ 1960 80-533
EIR NE4ATIVE OE~I.AMTION ANO VAll1ANCE N0. 3170 (COMTINUEO)
- ----- -_.~.....-...._
Coaimtssioner Fry asl:ad tha •ppllunt it they ~ou1d Itka • conttnu~nca.
Mr. labtb stated ha would like a aonpranise as lon~ ~• ha h~s e crttart~ to work Nith •nd
ststed he e~tablfshed his a+n criteri~ on thi• proJsct.
Ch~inn~n Tole~ we~ sorry Mr. l~btb h~s nut t~ke~ aJvent~9e of the tr~mendous nunb~r of
m~etingf which tF~e Gommtsston has h+~d~ pointt~g out tht• property on L~ Palma has b~en on~
of Lhe n-~In topics In rel~tlan~hip ~:e~ the 150-foot •etb~ck~ and th~rr hsva been
discussio~s with st~ff and s Jo{nt meetln9 was held with the Ctty Council and thtt ~ubJect
w~s dlscussed for four houra; thst the tlaYor~ with the Chalr's p~erogatlw~ used this
pa~ttcular p roperty for discussion which prob~bly thouid not heva been done b~ceusd It was
scheduted for Wublic heartng. Hc stated 182 vsrlances h~ve been gra~ted so the Commit~ton
(s flaxible. Nd polnted aut minutes of tho~e meettngt are avatlable.
Mr. Labtb ststed he attende:f most of tha maetings and ts a~r~re of the problam; and that he
was at the Conmisslon end Council rtrating when the adJace~t property was dtscussed.
Chalrman Tolar stated e dacisinn has to be niede whethar or not a continuence is in order
and the plens can be ~edesigned to work out • balsnce between the oppositton •nd
petitloners, polnting out e lifestyte Is wh~t 1• ra~lly being dtscussed.
Mr~. Labib Indicated he would h~ve to telk with Mr. Bvwnw~n before rtrkinq a dect ton ar-d
es kac! for a crlterte bafare he leaves tod~y noting there ta nothl~g tn the Code
prohibittng ysreges o~ the property llne.
Cheirman Tola~ pointpd out thc ardlnances are ~nvollable and thts h~ bee~ e Planning
Commisslon pollcy for a long time.
Mr. Lablb felt the people ~etting hurt '~ this matter are those being denled the ~ight to
us e the i r p rope r ty .
Chal~man Tolar felt there hss to be a balance beLwee~ the p~ice of the property ~nd
r~ea~onoble devalopme~t and right naw ehe Plsnning Co~mission wuuld be in f~vor of the
epartment unlts on tha eaat sick of La P~lnia.
Conmissioner Nerhst stated this parttcular proJe~t ts impecting the a~ea much n~c~re~ than
the adJscent one wi th a 62-foAt setback bec:ause tt dld ~ot have ga~ages o~ th~ property
line. Ne feit the innovatlon is necessa ry to design the proJcct In a mainner that would
nat impact thc nefghbars.
M~. Labib ststed he cauld redesign the proJcct tn trrms of rolocat'.on of the g~rages. open
spece~ etc., but couid not reduse the nu~ber of units~ poi~ting out the density p roposed
ts allowed.
Cammisstoner Ba~nes clarifted that that is the density allawed by Code If it can be
accompllshtd within the Cades withou[ varl~nces.
Commissioner Bushore stated h~ has never se~~ two people inake hls blood stert to boil Ilke
this~ and stated the Commission can not compromite ~ti) they see the plans. He asked if
the petitloner aants a vote or a contlnuance.
M~. L~bfb stated they wauld I(ke a continuanca.
9/S/80
~
~IINUTE8~ ANAM~IM CITY PLANNING COMMIS810N~ SEPTEMiER 8~ 1980
E I It NEOATI VE DECI.AltAT10N Atlp VAII l ANCE N0. 3170 ( CONT 1 NUE D)
.~., ,
t t
80-~34
Mr. Baw~~ r~f~rr~d to ~ha staff ~eport r~lattnq to satback~ polntin9 out ths st~pp~d up
~ppro~ch of buildin~s from th~ prop~rty lirM with • o~rstory bullding providinq a buffer
and stutsd this 1• the ~pproach Nr. Labib u~ed fo~ which he Is na+ bei~g criti:~d.
Chalrnw~ Tolar the •tudy did not start dsvelopn~~t ~t "A" prapertr 1ine.
ACTION: Comnisrlona~ Bu~hor~ ottered • niotlo~, ~~ca+d~d by Commitslo~er 9~rnas and MOTION
~~D~ thst tha M~heim Ctty Pla~ning Conn+tsslon does hereby grant a four-v+rek
ca-tinwnce of the •for~n~nttoned item to the regul~~ly•schedulad ~~tl~g af Octob~~ 6~
1980 at the request of the pet~tloner in orde ~ to •ubmit ~~vlsed pi~~s.
Comnissiona~ Bushore ~xplatned no ~ddltlon~l notfces will b~ le~t ~nd su9q~ft~d the
oppo~itton Call the Ptanning D~p~rtrtMnt to determine whethar or not anothsr oonttnua~ce
NI11 be rsqwsted.
CoMnittlone~ Fl~rbst suy;~ested the petitioners -neet alth the oppositlan to wo~k out an
~cceptsble ~.onpromtse. Hs patnted out to the oppasttton that tha~e wlll probably be
~partn»nts on thl~ stto and there wil) p rob~bly he ~ oomproml~s an the hetght timit~ttons.
9/8/8a
~..:
~ a
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBER 8~ 1980
80-S35
1 TEM N0. 10 PUBI.I C HEARI HG. OWNERS t JOHN PETE G4NOS ~ ET AL.
~~,~~ICAL fXENPTION~CLASS 3xa North W~~t Street~ Anahelm~CA ~28Q§~
~ P~tltloner ~equs~ts WAIVERS OF (A) MINIMUM LOT
AREA ANO (~) MINIMUM LOT '~TH AND FRONTAQE TO
ESTABLISH A?1d0•lOT SUBDIVISIQN on pr-~operty descrlbed
as app~oximately 0.5 ~~~e~ hsving a frontaqe of epproximately 110 fset on the ~e~~t side of
Wsst Stras~~ having ~ n+eximum depth oP epproximately 190 teet and betng located
•pproxirt~tely ~10 feet south of the centerl ine of Autumn Dr) v~•~ and further de`cribed ss
928 North West Street.
There w~s ane interested person indlc~ting her prescnce far the subJect raquast~ and
although the staff report to the ''lsnning Commlsston dsted Septenber 8~ 1980 wes not rsad
at the publlc hesring~ it ts referred to and mede a pa~t of the mtnutes.
John Gono~~ avne~~ explelned he Is requesting s vartance t~ order to build a howe which
wi t 1 look simt lar to h is vwn, wl th wood structure ~ and v+i I 1 be one•story wi ~h 1700 sqw~e
faet end wi11 be landacsped and look ltke ic belongs there.
Ann SauvAge~u~ 1119 La Entreda~ stoted sho saw tho plan snd it looka unusual the way the
hause wi l l be sec back In front of the existing house. She wes concerned sbflut the
planning of the house, polnting out It has been done on West Street betora in a nnrn
orderly and c.ompettbio fashlon. She did not reall~r have any oppoaltlon end wo~.lered i f
thls has been snen before and wanted to be certatn that the planning was competibie v+ith
the Ccmmiasion's thinking.
Chalrman Tolar stated ~nost people don't reeltze it~ but there has bean a g~eet meny of
those flag lots created tn Mahefm Hilis rnd they are very desirable.
Mr. Ganos stated the p~op~~sed structure wlll improve the aree and that t!-e existing pi ~e
t rees w i 11 s tay .
It ws~t noted the Planning Director or his authorized representative has deeermined that
the proposed proJect falls withln the definicto~ af Categorical E~oemptions, Class 5, ~3
d~fined In Paregraph 2 0~ the City of Maheim E~vironmental laipact Report Guldellne: snd
is, the~efore~ cat~egoricatly exempt from the requirement to prepa~e an EIR.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst Afferod Resolutton No. Pc8a•152 and moved for Its passag~ snd
a~optTon that thc Anahe 1 m C i ty P 1~nni ng Comml ss ion doe~ hereby grant Pet i t i on for Va r i ance
No. 31 %2 ~ on the bas i s of the s i ze and shape of subJect p~operty snd on the bas is ths ~
similar flag lots situattons hava been successfully developed in othe~ areas of the City,
and subJect to Interdepertmental Committee Recomn+endat(ons.
6n roll ca11~ the fa~ego(ng resolutlon was pessed by the Poliowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONEF';: 6ARNES, BOUAS~ BUSHORE~ FRY~ HERBS*~ KING~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
AB5ENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
9/8/80
y
~ ~
MINUTCS~ ANAHEIM CITY PLAN~iING COMMISSIoN~ SEPTEM6ER 8~ 1980 a~-536
ITEM NO. 11 PUDLIC HEARING~ OWNERS: BANK OF AMERICA~ NT c SA~
~~~~~ff1E DFCIARATION S~nt~ Ana Oistrict Trust Otttr.e~ 8d1 North Main
NT Street~ Senta M~, CA 92701. AGENTt BOB HOIDEN~
. 2107 CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES~ 1200 North Hsrbor
8ouleverd~ Anahetm~ CA 92~05. P~tttlona~ requests
permt~slon TO PERMIT A DRIVE-TNROUGN RESTAURANT WITH
WAIYER OF MtNIMUM NUMBER 0 F PARKiNG S?"CES on prope~ty desc~ibed es an Irregularly-~haped
pa~ce) of land wnsisting of approximetety O.b2 scre~ havinn a frontege of approximately
200 feet on the south stde of Lincoln Aven~M and a meximum depth of approximetely 13S feet
and being located approxirn~tely 330 feet west of the centerline of 8roadvlew Street and
further dsscribed a~ 1~00 ~Inst ll~coln Avenue.
The re was no one indtcatin g their presence In oppo~~tien ~o subJ~ct request~ and although
the s taf f report to the P 1 ann i ng ~:oneni ss (on dated ' f~~tember 8~ 1900 was not rAed at the
public haaring~ it is refe ~red to and medn a part of the minutes.
Dean Sherer, Asslstant Planner~ polntrd o::'. ~ carrectlon in the stbff repo~t (page 11-a)
whtch showa 29 perking spa ees proposed and the number should be co~rected to 32.
Bob Holden~ Carl Karche~ E nte~prlses. stated C~r1's is cont(nuousiy trying to tmprove
thelr tmege; that the ato~ ~ at 1900 West Linc~ln Avenue Is over ten years old and they
want to do extensive remad~ling both Inslde an: outside; that the additlon of a d~ivs-
through lane wlil furthcr serve som~e of tho(r motoring publlc customers; that the drive-
through lane proposed ~~r•ce~ds the rcqutrements; that they will hsve a drive•througt~ sign
at the ontrance and an "exi t or~~y" sign ei the exi t; that Code re~~~i res a 60-foot stacking
lane before the menu board and they wtl) provide 100 feet which a~iavs for two additiond)
veh i c 1 es; tha~t they do hev~ a s 1 gn p 1 an and are go i n~ to exchanqe the copy and make the
frea•standing pole slgn look much better end wlll delete the clrcles on the facla sign and
explained thay are still lcwer in square footege then Code altows.
THE PUHLIC NEARING WAS CLQSED.
Mr. Holden explalned betwecn 25 and 30Z of their business utillzes the drtve-through
facilitles and dld not fee i losln~~ five parking spaces ~auld be detrimental.
ACTIQN: Commissioner Barnes offarcd a motion~ seconded by Comnisstoner King~ and MOTION
~~D~ that the Anaheim Clty Planning Commtsslon has r~viewed the proposa~) ta permit s
d~tve~through ~esiaurant w ith watver of minimurn number of parking ~pece~ on an
i~reguleriy-shaped parcel of lend conststtng ot approximeteiy 0.62 ecres, havtng a
f~ortrge of app roxtmately 200 feet o~ the south siQe of Ltncoln Avenue, havl~g a maximum
depth of app roxtmately 13$ feet and baing locsted approximatcly 330 feet aest of the
eenterltne of Broadvlew S~ ~eet; a~d does hereby ~Qprove the Negatlve Decla~atton fran the
raguiremant to prepere an anvtronmer.;al impact repo~t on the basis that there would be no
significant individual or eumutative adverse envtronmental impact aue to the approval of
thts Negative Declaration since the Maheim General Plan desig~ates the subJect property
for low density land uses sonmensurace witt~ the proposal; that no sensitive environn~ntal
l~acts are involved in th e proposal; that the Inittal Study submitced by the petitica~er
indicat~s no signlficent i ndivtdual or cumulative ddverse enviranmental impects; and chet
the Negetlve Declaration s ubstantiating the foregoing ftndings is on file (n the Ctty of
Ansheim Planning Departmen t.
9/8/80
'l."
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN~ COMMISSIQN~ SEPTEMBER 8, 198b
E I R NEGATI VE DECIARAT ION ~ WAI VF.R 4F CODf REQU I REMENT ANO
CONDI T I ONAL USE PERMI T N0~ Z_ (CONT i NUEO)
80-537
Comml~sianer Barnea offered Mtolution No. PC80•153 and moved for tts passag~ and adoption
that the A~~heim City Planntng Commlsston doas hereby grent Petitlon for Conditlona) Ute
Permit No. 2107~ subJect to Interd~pa rtmanta) Committee Recommendations.
On roll c~il~ the foregoing resulutlon was pessed bj the followt~g vot~:
AYES: COMMISSIONEitS: BARNES~ 90UA5, BUSNORE. FRY~ NEadST, KINC~ TOLAR
NOE5: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Chairman 7olar statad he votecl In favo ~ of thts ~equest althouch he hes prevlously voted
age'~~~t parking vsrlar~~es for Carl's because thesa are well-run Gufinessea snd ettract
lerge numbars of customers and a lot of the fdciilties have had perking problems~ but he
supparted this ~equ~st because of the location.
ITEM N0. 12 PUBLIC HEARING. O~JNER5: t~EMPNII,L SPRING COMPANY~
E QECLARATION 4220 East Washington Boulevard, Los Angelea~ CA 90023.
~~a{~ ~~NT AGEN1': BAY OEVELOPMENT~ 433 Emereld Bay, Laguna
CONOITIONAL USE ERMIT N0. 2109 Beach~ CA 92G51. Petitloner requests permtssion TO
PERMIT A 58-IOT, 57-UNIT CONDOMINIUM COMPIEX
WITH WAIVEa OF REQUIREU LOT FRONTAGE on p roperty descrtbed as s rectanguleriy-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximstely 6.5 scres located at the northeast cor~er of
Coro~edo Street and JAfferson Street~ heving approxln~te frontages of 385 feet o~ the
north side of Coronedo Stree end G75 feet on the east side of Jefferson Street. Property
prasently classifted ML (INDUSTR-AL~ LIMITEU) ZONE.
There wAS no one indlcating their presence in opposition to s ub)ect tequest, and slthough
the staff report to the Fionning Commisslon dated Sapeember &, 198o was not read At the
publlc haariny~ it is referred t~ end mad~ a part of the minutes.
Ralph Hastings, 8ay Developnient Compa ny~ was prescnt to answer any queattons.
I?ean Sherer~ Assistant Plenne~~ exp~ained Code -equt~cs all lots to front on a public
street ar ailey and the p~oposal ts fo~ indivtdua) lats w~th common access.
TtIE PUBLIC f1EARING MIAS CLOSED.
Comratsstoner Barnes Iiked the concept of r condomtntum industrlal complex~ but felt these
units are awfuily small.
M~. Hastings axpiained the smell units are to give the small (ndtvtdua) businessman such
as a aarden~r, a chance to purchase a unit. He statrd the u~its are 1700 square feat.
Con~nisstoner Barnes stated she was in the i~dustrial sdles busin~ss previously and cannot
figure out what kin ds af business could uttlize such a ~mell area. 5fie ask~d tf a study
waa conducted to detcrmine what kind of businesses would be interested in these units.
Jim I~amc:r statcd a study was done and there ts a muititude of multi•tenant bulldings in
Mahe i m~ espec i a l 1 y i n the Pbr thnas t i ndus t ri a i Ares and s i zes ~ange f ran 500 sqwre feet
ta 90C7 ~quarc teet and these units range f rom 1700 square feet to 4000 square fent.
Chairrnan Tolar stated he is totally in aupport of this proJect and ilkes tt ls concept~ but
the~e wf 1) be problems if any comme~cial users attempt to gr> tn.
9/8/80
~ ~ ~~. ,~
80-538
MINUTES~ ANAMEIN CI"fY PLANkING CQMMISSI~N~ SEPTEMBER 8~ 19~
EIR NECATIVE ~ECIARATION~ aAIVE1l OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONOITIONAL USE PERM~T N0. 210! (CONTINUEG)
.~
Mr. Hamar~Bay Dsvelopmant~ stated their CCbR's wl!) rastrtct the uses.
Commlstto~er 8~rnes osked that eech buymr sign a dacument~ as approved by the City of
/Anahelm~ which states they have ~omplete knoM-ledge that no commerclal or ret~il sates ~nes
of any kind are allowed All~thea robienscatShefstatedathese~unitsew uldaboeperfecttfors
trying to put a stop ~o furnitu~e~ etc.
carpet seles, wallpsper sales~
Commtssio~or Herbst ~idhCUnits backed up~totaliy to driveweysrlalist and :ees clrculation
problems for trucka w t
Mr. Hamer repliad he hes discussed the ci~culatlo~ wtth the City Traffic Engineer and have
elso scaled the truck turning radli on the plan end they do work.
Commissianer Harbst waa concerned sbout the th~ee or four untts on each driveway which
back up to s 25~f~x driveway~ He potnted out a good percentage of dellverles are me~de
today with large trucks and t~ailers and he was concerned that driveways wi11 be block~d.
Mr. Hamesr stated he kna+s without e doubL. that chere Is edequate turninq radll.
Chairman Tolar dld ~ot share the same co~cerns relatin9 to the circulatlon.
Conmissione~ Barnesdeu~fethed2$'fectating a porticr of the 5~~~t area between the par{;ing
spaces on ei ther si
M~'. Hastinga stated he has discussed the circul~tion wlth MH~ did9nothfeal these'wouldnbe
coneern was for emer9end~ ~t~a~~ieipate~usersuwtth~bigstrucks.
a problam becduse they
Commisstaner Herbst stated all steei ~igs requi~e long turning radil and anyona using
steel would neeetitiene~cshouldcobserve othersindustrial9complexe~9to seaehow~dellverles
suggested thc p
are made.
kr. Hastings st~tcd theyb~causeithey1havt a idvity outuonsthenplanrand itddoes~workhere Is
adequate turning radius .
Commissioner Herbst was concerned that o~ce the proJect is bullt and this is a problem.
nothing couid be done a~bo~i~nt toethenwhole~~erea.thHePf~itctheplandscapedtareasewill be
work or it could be a et
ruined by the rea~ tires of the trucks.
Mr. Hastings gtdd~outh he~l~+ndscapedtareas aren~ot reauired.9ai~ sn sdditional 3 to 5
feet. Ne painte
Cheirman Tolar felt the Commission should support the proJect because they do have the
flexlbillty to provide additional turning radius.
Commissianer Harbst stated he Is not opposed to tha projesct but is concerned about the
loading a~d unlaading areas of aQproxtmately eight units.
Frank Lowry~ Senioc Asststant City Attorney, sugge~ted approvsl, subJect eo the Traffic
Engtneer's approval.
9/S/b0
; ~
~`:
80-539
MINUTES~ ANANEIN CITY PIIWNING WMMISSION~ SEPTEMBER 8~ 1980
EIR MEG~tiTIVE DECIARATI4N~ WAIVER Of COD' aEQU1REMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERNIT N0. 2104 (CONTINUED)
... --
Annika S~ntalshti, Asslstant Dl~ector fo~ Zanl~g~ •tated the petitione~ shnuld d~aft the
documsnt praviausly mentloned re~ard~na the rostricttont of retail sales for approval by
the City Attornay's Office.
ACl'ION: Commissioner 8arnos offarad a rt~tto~, reconded bY Camrs+isstoner Fry s~d MOTiON
At ~D~ thet the Anaheim City Plannl~9 Commlsslon has revicwed the proposal to permit a
58•lot~ 52-unit industrial condominlwn con+~+l~ex with e walver of requlred lot frontage on s
rectangutarly•shapnd parc~l of land cansi~ting of epproximately G.5 acres located at tl~e
northeast corncr of Coronado Screet and Jefferson Street. havtng a frontage of
spproximately 3b5 ~eet on the no-•th stde of Coro~ado Street snd a frontaq~ of 675 faet on
the Qast side of ieffers~n SLreot; and does heroby approve the Nagattve Dncla~ation from
the requlremant ca prepare ~n environmental impact report on the b:~sis that there w~uld ba
no stgniflcant individual or cumulativa adverse environmental Impna~~su~he~sub~ec~F~rova)
of this Negative Declaratlon since the Anahelm General Pian des ~
property for yenere) lndu~t~lel ~and uses commensurate with thc ~oposal; that no
senaitive environmentel Imp~cts arc involved in the proposal; that the Intttal Stud~
submitted by the p~titloner indtcat~s no signtficant individual or cumulative adverse
envi ronrrw~~tal tmpacts; end thnt the Negative Declaretton substentlattng the foregoing
findiny~ is on file in the Clty of Anaheim Planning Oepartment.
Commi~sioner Barncs affered s motion~ scconded by Commissioner Fry and NO".ION CARRIED,
that the An~heim City Planning Cornmission does hereby grent waiver of Gode rgquirement on
the basis ttiat common access drtveways are provided for thts tndust~ial condomfnium
complex~ as approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
Commissioner aarnes affered aesolutto~ No. PC80-154 and rteved for its pess~ge and adoption
that khe A~aheim City Pla~ning Commission does herr.by grant Petttion for Condltlona) Use
perm~t No, 210 , subJect tu petitioner's scipulatlon that the CC6R's shall tnclude a
rastrlction th~t there sha11 be no retail sales of any kind and an bg~eement shall be
signed by each purchaser and submitted to the City of Anahelm indicating they have full
knowledga that the~e shall be na retail sales prior toiss~nce of Certtfic~tes of
Occupancy bY the Building Divisio~ and subJect to Interdepartmental Commtttee
recomn~e n da x 1 on s.
On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was prssed by che follawing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIOI~EttS; BARNES~ BOUAS. BUSHQRE, FRY~ HERB57~ Y.ING~ TOLAR
NQES: COHMISSiONEKS: NONE
ABSEHT: COMMISS IONERS : NOtiE
Commissioner Herbst was concerned thac the owners could vote to change the CCbR's and Mr. Low ry
expl~ined th~y could vote to change them~ but that would not change the City orainance.
g/8/bo
~:
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CIT1- PLANNING COMM15SfON~ SEPTEMBEit 8~ 1980 80'S40
ITEM N0. i PUBLIL HCqRIN~. ONNE!tS: M. CONWAY MORRIS~ 600 North
OECLARATION Eucltd Stroat~ Suite ZO~.~ a~ ~elm~ CA 02801. AGENTs
~ 0. 2110 NERBERT CNRISTENSEN~ 730 Southarn Av~nue~ Orange~
CA 92665. Petitlone- requests pe~misslon to PERMIT
A CONVENIENCE MARKET WITN Gl1SOLINE FAfILITIES on
p~ope~ty described as e r~ctangularly-shaped parcal of land con~isting of approximately
0.3 a~cres located at the southwest corner of Car~ltn~t Avenue and Walnut Streot~ havt~g
epproxlmete fronteges of 145 feet on the south side of C~rritos Avenue and 100 feat on ths
west side of Walnut Street~ and further deacribed as 1200 west Cerritos Avenue. Prop~rty
presently clesstfied RN-1200 (RESIOENTIAL~ MUITIPLE-FAMiIY) ZONE.
There were two people Indicatinq thetr pr~s~:nce tn ~pposttio~ to subJect ~equest~ and
although the staff ~eport to the Plenning Cominlssia~ dated Septemher 8, 1y80 was not ~ead
at the public hearing~ It (s referred to and mede e part of the m~~uces.
Commisaioner F~y deciared a conflict of interest ea def(ned by Anahetm Ctty Planntng
Commission Resalutton No. PC7G•157~ edopting a Confllct of Interest Cods for the Planning
Commiasio~~ and Govcrnment Code Section 3625 et seq.~ in that the uwne~ hss been hts
atto~ney in the past~ and~ pu~suent t~ the provisions of the above codes, declared to the
Chairman that he was withdra~wing from the hear(~g tn connectton with Condltlo~al Use
Permtt No. 2110 and would not t~ke pert in cither the dtscussion or the voting thereon~
and hAS not discussed this ma~tter with any mertber of the Plenntng Commtsslon. THEREUPON~
COMMISS IONER FRY LEFT Tt1E COUNCI L Cf1AM8ER.
Herb Chrtstensen~ aye~t~ ~xplained he is purchesing the p roperty which has been vau nt for
a number of years~ that the bul ldir,g wes constructed by Texaco in 1971 and it was closed
in 1975; thet a numbe~ of proposais have been studied snd a gasoline stetion alone Is not
feasibir. and nething in a s(ngle usaye (s economically feasibte. He stated he ts
proposing to convert the gasoline stet(on butlding by removing all equlpment in~lde to
mske e convenicnce market~ but th.~t alone becort~s a r~rqinal operatlon ~o they are
proposing a self-~:~vice gasoline service station with a menned pay booth end it would be
a totally separate a~~eratior~.
Mr. Christensen state~ he is ewar~ the Planntng Commission has denied slmilar requasts~
but hopes now b~ceuse of the energy shortege this wiii be a peiatable pro)ect.
Steve Connery~ Presldent of Pepperwood Village~ loceted on the northwest side of subJect
property. stated they !~ave a vandelism problem and would ltke n 6-foc~t high wall on the
southwest side of the pro~.-rty; that they investigated the requirements for a wall and
were told it would have to be 20 ~eet from the stdew~lk v+hich wouid put (t in their
d r t vaway .
It was polnted out the Planning Commission could not discuss the Peppe nvoad 1"ltage
property and e variance for e well wauld havu to be requested. It was pointed out
variances have been granted due to increased traffic. etc.
Nr. Conne ry stated they felt approval of subJact request wi~l create more problems for
them. He stated the property has been an eyesore and they wQUid ltke the subJect prope rty
developed with someching useful but are concerned abeut added notse, burglaries~ parking
a~d trafflc.
A) Cotec stated he owns the ad)acent prop~rty and hts w~fe is aiways sweeping broken glass
from the gasolins station and the praperty has been run do-~rn for four years. Ne dtd not
9/8/80
~_. ~,~
~
i
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN~ SF.PTGMRER 8~ 1980 80-541
EI R NECiA71 VE OECIAMTION AND CON01 TIONAL USE PEItMI T N0. 2110 (CANTI NUEO)
know lf thts ts the right use~ but is glad something (a going to be developed thare. He
stated Texsco put In posts bec~use of cera breeking the wsil~ atc. and the beautiful tile
roof i~ being destroyod and li9hts are being broken~ etc.
THE PUBLIC HEARING MIAS CIOSED.
Commiesior r Herbst was concarned ~b~ut th~ hours of operation recognizing some
convenlen.e markets are apen 24-hou n e dey and he felt e 24-hour aperation would be
detrime~•tal to the a~ea.
Mr. f`~rtsCensen replir.d this facllity would noc be o~en 24-hours a day snd the hou~t woutd
pr~~ ably be from 7:00 a.m. to 11 :Op p.m.
Commisslonbr Barnes stated ahe Ia +~wsre of ~imllor operatinns for a convenlence n~rket and
gesotine facility In other cities oparating wtthout any problems and styp~d she would
supNort thr request.
Commtssioner Harbst was concerncd ebout [he dual use and settinc~ an und~st~able precedont~
potnting out service ~tetlons e~Joy certain privileges whlch rru~rkets do not enJoy.
Commtasioner Herbst refe rred to the drtveway whtch the Traffic Englneer wms cancerned
ebnut and indicated he would like a one-year time Itmit placed on approva) to revtew tt,
recog~izing tlrr~s arr changing~ but was concerned th~t existinc~ convenlence n~~kat
aperstions wilt roquest epp rovel of a service station operation.
Chairn-en Tolar asked if the petitio~er was eware that the Traffic Engineer wants one
existing eaatefly drtveway on Cerrltos closest to walnut closed and Mr. Christensen
replied he m~t wfth staff prior to the Intcrdepartme~tal Committee meeti~g and currently
the statlon haa Mo drlveways on Cerrttos end one on Wnlnut, and Mr. Stnger esked thet
both the driveways nearest the intersectton on Walnut be closed~ which he agreed to do
because du~tng a gasoline shortaga ltnes dev~lop whtch reould cause e trafflc hazard and he
has agread to close the blalnut driveway because the one on Cerricos would not cause a
problem since the ltnes would fo~m in the ~esidentlal area.
Commissioner Ktng referred ko Condition No. 3 end Mr. Christensen replicd closing that
driv~way would creace a trafftc flow p roblem.
Jey Tltus~ Office Engineer~ stated the driveway on 1Jalnut was shown closed on the plan so
was not Included in the condition.
Chairmsn Tolar asked if th~ petitto~er could agree with the tlo,~ Ilmit for review and
stated t~~is (s a 180 degree turn from a phtlosphy the Commisston hes aiways had~ but time~
sre r.hanginq and he ts in favo~ of trytng the p roj~ct but since thts is the first such
usa~ asked if s two-year pertod for review woi~ld be ac~ sptable.
Mr. Ch~isten~en noted he will be Investing up tc+ S100,000; th~et the pumps and tanks hsve
been rertwved a~d will have to be replaced; chat the beya ~till have dou~s, but thay intend
to romove them snd remedel th~ building and when completed he wil) have spent tlose to
$100.A04. Ne did not feel he could get tenants on a yoarly basis.
Chairmsn Tolar stated the Commiaston has the right to revok~ the petitlan and Frank l,ow ry
fu~•`er explained tte Commtssion has the handle to revoke ;he permtt if the bust~ess ls
a~A~An
~.
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBER 8, 1Q80 80-542
EIR N~GATIVE OECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PErU11T N0. 2110 (COMtINUED)
not ~u~ properly and It becort~es detrimenta) to the peace~ health, safety and gene~el
welf~ra of the citt:ens.
ACTION: Commissione~ 8srnes offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner King and MOTION
RRI D(Commtsstoner Fry baln9 absent)~ that the Aneheim City Plsnning Commisalon has
~evt~+ad tha p ropoaai to permtt a convenience merket wlth gasoline facilttiea on a
rectangularly-shaped parcal of land consisting of ~~praximstely 0.3 acre IocaLed et the
southweat corner of Carrttos Avenue and Walnut Street~ haviny a fr~ntaye of approximetely
145 feet on the south aida of Carrttos Ave~ue snd e f~ontage of 100 teet on the west side
af Walnut Street; end does hereby approve the Negative Decle~~+tton from the requlrement to
prepare an environmental impact report pn the bnsis thet there wauld b~ no significant
tndivtdua) or cumulatlve adverse environrt~ntel impact due to thc appr~va) of this Negattve
Declarstlo~ stnc~ the M aheim Generel Plan desic~netes tl~e subJect pr~pt~ty for medium
donsity residenttal land uses commensurate with the pr~posal; that ~io senaitive
environmente) tmpacts ere lnwlved in the propo~al; that t1~e In't- ~1 ~tudy ~-ubmitted by
the petitione~ lndicatns no siynificant Individual or cumulativ~ ~:dverae envt~onmental
in~acts; a~ci thet the Nogative Oa~_larat(on substantietl~~;, the foregoing ftndings is un
fl 1~ in the CI ty of An+~helm Pl~nning Depa~tn+ent.
Th~re we: fu~ther discusstcu~ regarding the oonditf~n requlring drtvewey closure and Dean
Sherer. Assistant Planner, expla{ned the Conditton should re~d: "That tha exlsti~g
driveway on Walnut Street shall be closcd...."~ and noted that is what the plan shvws.
Jey Tltus. Office E~gineer. pvinted out a conditton requtrin~ a 45-foot dedtcation on
Walnut Strect was lnadvertently amitted tram the staff rep.~rt and asked tl,at It be
Included in approval.
M~. Ch~istansen stated they have already aqreed co that conditton and asked (f it cs~ be
dedicated conditlonally and Mr. Titus replled the conditional dedicatlo~ was discussed fo~
Cerritos Avenue and Mr. Chrlstensen polnted out the dedicatio~ uncondittonally on Walnut
affects the planter and os~;ed if It has to b~ nr~ved now.
Jay Tltus. Offlce EnginPer~ indic~ted he understood they had discussed the dedication on
Walnut with the plenter ret~cated and then a conditional dadicetion of Cerritos at such
time as neeck+d because chere Is no place fo~ landscaping o~ Ce~rttos. Ha stated the re are
no irnmediate plar~s for widening Walnut. Na stated he has no p roblem wtth the condittona)
dedicatton on Wal~ut.
Commtssloner Ba~nes was concerned abaut landsceptng on Walnut when the street is wi~~ned
~nd Mr. Christensen explalned thc 45 feet would go ~ight to the inside of the present
landscap~•d area and the existing planter ne~r the pumps would be eliminated.
Jay Titus explained relocacion of the plant- would bc done at the property a+ner's
expenae and the wtdening of Wainut would be c~one et the C(ty's expense.
Commissic,ner Barnes off~red Resolutlon No. PC84-155 and moved for tts passsya and ~daption
that the An~heim Ctty Planning Comn+ission does hereby grant Patltion for Condition~l Use
Permlt No. 2110~ subJect tn Interdepartnaentsi Committee ~ecortn~endations, amendlRg
~o~dition No. t ta tnclude 4S-foot condittonal -':dicatta~ of Walnut Street ar,d amending
Condition No. 3 to read the drtv~way o~ Wainut Sti~eet.
9l8,'8Q
~t t ~ ;~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBER 8~ 1980
Ellt NEGAt'IVE OECUIRATION AND CON6ITIONAI USE PERMIT N0. 2110 (CONTINUEO)
On rol) c~ll~ tha f~r~prin9 resc+lutton was passed ~y the fallowing vote;
AYESs COMMISSIONERS: BAIINES. 80UAS~ BUSNOaE, KING~ TQIAR
NOES; COMMISSIONERS: HERBST
A@SENT: LOMMISSIONERS: FRY
Commtssloner Nerbst stated he felt the praperty la too smeil for the dual use.
(COMMISSIONER FRY RETURNED TO THE MEETING.)
iTEN N0. iW:
REPOaTS ANO REC~MMENDATIONS:
80•5~+~
A. PROPOSEO CODE AMEN~MENT - VETERINARY CLINICS IN TIiE CL HS SCOMMERCIAL `LIMITE,D-
Dean Sherer ~ Assis:ant Planner~ explsined the ~pplfcant (Nestor M. Budy~ DVM) is
requesting the Planning Cammisslon to consider ame~ding the Code to permlt
veterinary cl t~s(cs in the Cl-NS (Commercial ~ Liml ted~Nt lislde) Zone.
Mac Shapiro~ anent, referr~a to e report prepared by Dr. Budy regardtrrg the pet
populetion und number of ham~es {n the M ahalm Hills eree and stated he wil) be
providing A social service to the communtty. He stated the problem ot tha pe:
populatlon expiosion would also bc diminished with this cltnic avatlable and the
cllnic will not have an effect on the envtronment.
ACTION: Cammis~ioner Bushor~ offered a m~tion, sccond~c~ by Commissfoner Herbst.
~nc~M~T14N CARRIEU~ that the Anaheim Ctty Plannina Commtssion does hereby
lnstruct staff ta prepare amendmnnts to thi C•~de perm~ttir~g vetertne ry citnic~. ~n
the iL-NS (Corxnerctal, Limited•I~iliside) and CO (Ccxn~crclal~ Offtce and
Professlonal) Zones.
It was explatned that a drbft 81t1~f1df11E/t~ wtl) be prt~ared and p~esented, but rlght
naw the petitioner cannot evtn file for a permit; however, six weeks after
Counci 1 acts on tt~e amnndaeient a aet) tton c.en be f I led.
B. VARIANCE ~~05. 18g2 ANQ ZZf~? - Requast for ~armina~tton from Howard R. Polzin ~or
te m n~acjo~~ o~YirTAnca Nc;~. 1892 and 2282 on property loGated at 896 South lemnn
Street.
AtTION : Ca:nr t~ss Inner Ki~g offered ''~sol ~~tio~ No. PCSO-156 and m~ved for i ts
passage and ~doptlon thet the M ehetm City Plenning Cammirsi~h does hereby
terminate '' riance No. tE~2 and Va~isnce Nc,. 22A2.
On roll Call~ the forcgoing resolution wbs prssed by the folla+~ng vote:
AYES: COMMISSIO11ER5: BARHES~ BOUI~S~ BUSHORE, FRI~~ HERBST, KING. TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONFRS: N4NE
A85ENT; COIiMISSIONERS: NQt1E
9/8/80
t
7r~
~~ ~
NINUTES~ AWIHEIM CITY PLANNIHG COMMISSION. SEPTEMBEtt 8~ iq80 80-544
R~P~AWD ~COMMENQAT I ONS ( CONT 1 NUED)
C. RECLASSIFICATION N0~ a- •1 VARIANCE N0. 0 1• requast for r~tro~cttva
~xtens on o t me rom ~ r~ srs~ n o~9 ~ for p~oparty locat~d ~t 125
South Wastchesta~ D~Ive.
ACTIONs Commt~sio~er King offered a motion~ saconded by Commt~sto~~r Hfrbst~ a~d
~T~ CARRIED~ that tha Anaheim City Plannin Commission doas hereby grant
ext~nstons of ttme for Recia<<t~teatlon No. 7~ ~9-15 and V~risnce No. 3051 to
sxp{rr an Saptember 2~,
OTHER COMMISSION DISCU5510N:
Commisslaner Nerbst asked the status of the Savanns Street D~ainage Ditch~ potnting
out he had lear~ed fram the City Council minutea thet it would be handled an a SO/50
bests.
Jay Tttus, Offlce Engl~ecr~ expl~irted the p roperty avner is :upposed to hsve the plans
prepa~ad and upon comptetlon~ the City of Ansheim will reinb ursa him for thetr :here.
Hs stated he had discussed this with the property a+ne~~ but wauld contact him sgaln.
.4DJOURNMENT There being no further business~ Commissioner Fry otterod a motlon, saconded
by Chairmsn To1ar and MOTiQN CARRIED that the meeting be adJourned.
The meettng was +~djourned at 5:10 p.m.
Rmspnctfully submittad~
~~~ ~ ~~4~ti~
Edl th ~. Narrt~, Secretsry
Maheim City Ptanntng ConrRisslo~
ELN:w/im
~/8/80