Minutes-PC 1981/05/04~_ f
Civic Center
Maheim~ Cellfarnta
May 4~ 1981
REGULAR MEETING OF TNE l1NANEiM CITY PLANNINC COFtMISS10N
REGULAR - Thc regular maetin9 of the An~heim City Planning Commiasion was
MEETING called ta order by Chairmen Tolar ~t 1:30 p.m.. May ~~~ 1981
In tho Council Chamber~ e quorum being prasent.
PRESENT - Chairman Tolar
Commlssloners: Barnes~ Bouas. Bushore~ Ilerbst, Kinc~ (Bushore arrived 1:45)
ABSENT - ;,ommtss(on~r: F~y
AI.SO PRESENT - Annika Sbntal~hti
Jeck White
Jack Judd
Paul Singer
Dean Sherer
Edith Narris
Assistant Director for 2oning
Aasistant City Attorney
Ctvil Engineering Associate
Traffic Enginoer
AsststanL Planner
Pionntng Commisston Secretery
PLEQG~ OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG LEO DY - Commissioner Herbst.
APPROVAL 0~ TIIE MINUTES: - Commissioner King ofFered a mott~n, seconded by
omm ss one~ ouas an OT{ON CARRIEO~ that th~ mtnutes af the Aprll 20~ 1g81 meeting
be epproved as aubmitted.
1 TEM N0. 1: F I R CATEG(, il CAL EXEMPTI ON~GLASS ANO VAftl ANCE N0. 3214. E I R NEG
DEC MT pN ( REVIOUSLY APPROVED . CONDITIONAL USE ERM~ N0.Tt1~~9TREADV.~T~
. ~i~» ~r~cv~~iun nu. ~-:
PUDLIC HEARING. 041NER: THE WI~LIAM LYON CAMPMIY, 19 Corporete Plata, Newport 9e~ch~
CA 92G60. Property described as an irregulariy-st-aped parcel of l~nd consisti~g of
app~oximately 12.3 acres~ located at the southr,est corner of Cerritos Avenue and
Euclid Strent~ havtny a frontage of approximstely 93p feet on the south stde of
Cerritos Avenuc~ and a frontage of approximately 42> feet on the west side of Euclid
Street. Property presently classified RS-A-4J,000 (Resolutlon of Intent to RM-3000).
VARIANCE REQUEST: uAIVER OF MAXIMUM FENCE NEIGIIT TO CONSTRUCT A 6•FOOT HIGH
MEANDERING BLOCK WALL.
TENTATIVE MAP REQU~ST: TO ESTABLISH A 5-LOT~ 178-UNIT C~JNDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION.
It was noted revised plans delated the need for Variance No. 3214 and the petittoner
requeste~ it be withdrswn.
There were three peopl~ indicating their presence and stated they were interasted in
finding out whai is being proposed~ and although the staff report was not read~ tt is
referred ta and made a part af the mtnutes.
Brian No~kaitis~ agent~ William Lyon~ Company~ steted this pla~ is a revisto~ of the
plan submitttd in Dece~nber 1980 a~d reflects a pianned unit of 178 townho~se units
and represents tokally the development stt~ndards of tha revised ctindomtnium
81-243 5/4/81
MIt~UTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ May 4~ 1~81 ni-2A4
ordtn+~nce. He ttated th~y trted to prase~ve the maJor destgn elements of the
originel pian holdtng to the aame maJor polnts of access and developing e similar
loop st~eet system and stmllar setbacks. He polnted out th~ exhibtts on the wall
shaving tho proJect a~d stated they want to preserve the privecy of th~ residents to
the south.
Commissloner Buthoro arrivc~d et 1:45 p.m.
Bob Messee~ 1~23 South Bayless~ M aheim~ stotod they have Just soen the plans today
and asked if the Planning Depa~tment staff has thorouyhly reviawed tho plans a~nd made
a recomrnendatlon for epprovol to the Plannt~c~ Commisston. fle stated he Is concerned
about the fiow of crefftc w(thin the project. He stated it seems ~ather like a maze
with someona living in the no~thwaat corner having to exit onta Eucltd.
Chelrmen Tolar stated the Planning Department st~ff and the Planning Commisslon have
studied the specific plans and the proJect would hnve to be butlt tn accordance wtth
thase plans if approved. Ne stoted orlginally 220 units wnre appraved and this is a
reductton to 17~ units and that the previous pro)ect had a lnt of variances and was
subject to the effordablE housing criteria, but that hos becn removed.
Mr. Messec asked about tlic drivaway opposite Loara 111gh School and Chairmart Tolar
potnted out the drivc~way on the plans to Mr. MessQC. Mr. Massee asked tf the Ctty
Trafftc Engfneer feels thls is the safesc pian and Commtssioner ga~nts stated the
previous plans were approved with the driv~+vay dircctly opposite Loara Nigh Schaol.
Mile Landers~ 1737 Crts. referred to the proposed 6-foot high block wall a~d stated
the majority of the property awners already havc a block wall and asked (f they
wauld be removed.
Dean Sherer, Assistant Planner~ explained thc requirement is for thc devalopers to
construct n G•foot htgh wall and there wouid not be any alte~at~ons made to the
existing fences. He explalned thts wall ts required by code and the old fences
cauld be renaved after tlie new wall is constructed.
Joanne Stanton, 1509 Flarle Place~ asked what the setbacks would be~ pa~ticularly from
the priv~-~te homes to the south.
Dean Shcrer explained the code was recently revlsed by the City Council and it wilf
pe~mit 2•sto ry condomtnium structures adJacent to single-family structures no closer
than 50 feet wlth the stipulatton thst the developer provide ~vidence shawing thcre
w111 not be arry visual impact on the adJotning residential propertics. Ne stated in
thls instance the units are weil away from the single-family homes to the south.
Ms. Stanton asked tf there is any concern with the templc to the west as far as
setbacks are concerned. Mr. Sherer stated there aro no setback restrictions fo~ the
property devcloped with thc temple and the restrictions only apply to the single-
family residences.
5/4/81
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLAt~lING COMMiSS10N~ May 4~ 1981 g~_Zq5
Chatrman Tolar ~sked Paul sinper~ City Traffic Enqineer, if the egress e~d inqreas on
Corritos aligns wfth tho drtveway at loara High School ~nd Mr. Singe~ repited that It
doei and thia (s the plan tliet has been worked outsome tiiro ago end (s the desirable
plen.
THE PUI~LIC HEARING WAS CLOSEU.
Chairman Tolar agreod that two fe~ces slde by side would r-ot look good and asked thn
petitloner to sttpulate to provide the 6-foot woll along the south and to work with
the property owne~s tn the rerrbval of thalr fRncea.
Brian Norkeltis stated (t ts thelr intentlon to construct a new co~c~ete block wall
alony tho ~outherly edg~ of the property on thetr own property Ilne. i~e st~ted they
would work wtth the property awners rcgarding the removal of their fences If they get
permissic~n to go onto their property and steted they would remove the fences (f It is
tho desire of the propert.y awner.
Jack Whito~ /lxsistant City Attorncy~ explained the rcqulrement Is for fencing and
there would havc to b~ a prlvace agra~ment betwecn the developer end the property
awner pertalning to thelr fences.
AC~: Commissloner Barnes offered a mntion~ seconded by Commissloner Bouas and
MOTION CAaRIEO (Commissioner f~y bc(ng ebse~t)~ that the AnahQlm City Plsnning
Comm(~sic~n does hereby withdr~r petition for Varlancc No. 3214 at the request of the
petltioner on the basts that said welvcr w~s deleted by revtsed ptans.
Comn(ssloner Barnes offc~ed e rn~tion~ s~conded by Cammiss(oner 6ouas and MOTION
CARRIEO (Comnisstoner Fry being absent)~ that th~ Anaheim City Planning Commission
has revle+wed the proposal to permit a 5-lot, 178-unit condomtrslum subdiviston on an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land cnnsisting of approximately 12.3 acres located at
the southwest corner of Cerritos Avenua and Euclid Street; and doas hereby approve
the Negat(ve Declaratton fram the requirament to prepare an envtronmental lmpsct
report on the basts that there wauld be no signif{cant indlvidual or cumulet)ve
adverse environmental impact due to the approvbl of thts Negative Declaration since
the Anahe~m Generel Plan designates the sub)ect property for ivw-density restdenttal
land uses commensu~ate w(th the proposal; that no sensttive envl~onmer~tal impacts are
involved (n thc proposai; that the tnitial Stu~y submitted by the petitione~
tndicates no signtficant tndividual or cumulattve adverse envtrormiental Impacts; and
that the Negative Oecla~atlon substantiating the foregoing findtngs is on flle in the
Lity of Anahe(m Planning Department.
Commisstoner Barnes offered a motion~ seco~ded by Commissianer Nerbst and MOTION
CARRIEU (Cortmisslontr Fry being absent) that the Ansheim City Planntng Commisston
does hereby recommend to tha City Counci) that the revised pians are cunsistent with
the spprovai of Conditional Uae PerMtt No. 2119.
Commissio~or Barnes offered a motion~ seconded by Conmissio~er Nerbst end MOTION
CARRIEO (Commisstoner Fry beirg ebsent), that the Anaheim City Ptanning Commtssion
5/4/81
,
~
MIt~UTES~ AI~AHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 4~ 1981 81-246
does hereby find that the propased subdivtston~ togethar wl~h Its design and
(mprovement, is consistent with the Ctty of Ansheim's General P1an~ pur:uant ko
Governnant Code Section G6473•5; +~nd doos~ thorafore~ approve Tentattve Map of Trsct
No. 11053 (R~vislon No. 1) for a 5-lot~ t78-unit condomtnium subdiviston~ subJect to
the follvwiny conditions;
TENTATIVE MM OF TRACT N0. 11053 (Revtsion No. 1):
- --- -----
1. That the app~oval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 11053 (Revision No. 1) is
grantad s~bJect to the spprova) of Reclasstfication No. 8A•81•13.
2. That should this subdivision be devoloped as more then one subdivtsion~ each
subdivision thereof shail be submitted 1~ tentetlve form for epproval.
3• That the origlnal documants of che covens~ts~ condltions. and restrictions~
and a letter eddressed to developer's title comoany euthorizing recordation
thereof~ shall be submltted to thc City Attorney's offtce and appraved by
the Clty Attorney's Off-ce, Public Utlltties Departme~t~ Building Otvlsio~~
and the Engtneering Dtvislon prtor to ftnal tract mep approval. Seid
documents~ as approved~ shal) be filed and recorded i~ che Office of the
Orange County Rrcorde~.
4. That street names shai) be approved by the City Planning Department p~lor to
approval of a final tract map.
5. That drai~age of s~bject property shail be disposed of In a man~er
satisfnctory to the City Engineer. (A storm drain leteral shall be
constructed in Cerritos llvenue so that ultimataly ali dral~age f~om subJect
p roperty wil) ba taken back to the proposed drain in 'cuclid Street.)
G. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City nf Anaheim the
approprlate park and recreation in-lleu fees as determined to be appropriate
by the City Cauncil. said fees to be paid at the ttme the buiiding permit is
tssued.
7. That all prtvate streets shall be developed in accordancc with the City of
Anaheim's Standard Detail No. 122 for private streets~ including
installation of street name signs. Plans for the private streec lighti~g.
as required by the standard detall~ shal) be submttted to the autlding
0lvision for approval and inclusion with the bu(ldtng plans prtor to the
issuance of building permits. (Private streets are thoYe whtch provide
prtmary access and/or circulation wtthin the proJect.
8. If permenent street name stgns have not been instatled, temporary ~treet
name signs shall be installed prtar to a~y occupa~cy.
9. That the owner(s) of subJect properey shal) pey the trafftc signal
assessment fee {Ordinance No. 3896) in an arrio~nt as determined by the City
S/4/8t
c~
;~
MINIITES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION~ May ~-, 1981
81-247
Councll~ for eech new dwelling unit prior to the isau~nce of a buliding
permit.
10. Prtor to the Issuance of buliding permits~ the appitcant shal) present
evidence satisfactory to the Chlef Butidtng Inspecto~ that the units wil) be
in ca~forrrNnce with Nolse I~sulatlon Standa~da speciffed In the Callfornls
Adminlst~stive Code~ Title 2S.
11. Tha saller shall provide the purchaa~r of oech condominium unit with wrtttan
infermatlon concerninq An~hetm Municipal Code 14.32.5A4 pertetning to
"perking restrtcted to facilltete street sw~eping". Such written
tnformatian will clearly tndtcate when on-street pa~king ts prdhibited b~d
thc penalty for violation.
12. "fio parking for street sweeping" signs shail be tnstatled prior to finel
street i~~spection as requirnd by the Publtc 4lorks Executtve Director i~
eccordance wtth specificatlons on ftle with the Street Matntenance Division.
13. That all orsite ssntte r/ sewers shall be p~tvate.
14. Prlor to issuanco of bullding permtts~ the appiicant shall present eviden u
satisfactory to the Chtef auilding Inapector that the p~oposed pro)ect is (n
conformance with Council P~ilcy Nun~ er 542, Sound Attenuation In aesldential
ProJects.
15. That the prcpos~d s~bdivision shali provide, to the extent feasible~ for
passive or natural I~eatinq and coc~ling Qp~rtunittes.
16. That a 6-foc~t high masonry block wall shall be const~ucted along the south
property line, and that the developer shel) work wtth th~ adJoining property
owners to the south~ to the extent possible~ pertatning to the remova) of
thelr cxisCing fences.
Jack Whtte, Assistant ~ity Attorney, presented the written right to appe~ol the
Planntng Commission~s dectslon wtthln 15 days far the tentativ~ tract map to the City
Counci I .
ITEN I~O. 2: EIR NEGATIVE OECLARATION RECLASSIFICATION N0. 80-81-20 VARIAN
~NO_'FEN _ VE . N . :
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNfRS: GERARD F. AND JOYCE M. WaROE~ 4334 East la Palma Avenue.
Anaheim~ CA ~2807. Property described as ~ rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
caisisting of approximetely 0.64 acre located at the northeast corner of Katella
Avenue and Dallas Drive, 2035 West Katella Avenue. Praperty presently classified RS-
7200 (RESIDENTIAI~ SINGLE-FAMILY) ~ONE.
RECtASSIFICATION REQUEST: RM-30p0
5/4/81
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ May A~ 19&1
81-248
VARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVERS OF: (a) MINIMUM LOT AREA~ (b) MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL NEIGI~T~
(c) MINIMUM LANOSCAPEO SET~ACK~ (d) MINIMUM RECREATIONAL-LEISURE AREA~ (e) MINIMUM
NUMt3ER OF PARKING SPACES.
TENTATIVE M/1P REQUEST: TO CONSTRUCT A OI~E LOT~ 9'~UNIT CONDOMI~~IUM SUa01VISI0N.
There were four persons tndicating the(r presence tn opposition to subJeGt request~
and although the st~ff repo~t was not read, tt (s ~eferred to end made e part of tha
minutes.
R. S. Jones, ~601 Mountain Vlew~ Yorba Linda~ design~r~ prasented e rendertng Qf the
proposed praject and noted tiiree of the waivnrs as referred ta In the staff report
would be deleted under the new condomintum ordinance to be adopted May 7~ 1981. He
explalned the pro~erty abuts sinqle-famity property to khe rear and thr nearest house
will be 35 tn 4~ feet from thelr property line. li~e stated they have tried to meke
the ~ea~ of th~c property Inok Ifke one-sto ry structures and [here will be no wlndaws
facing the single-famlly structuros. lie acided if It is the Commisslon's desire that
addtttona) recreatianal•lelsur~ areA be provided, they could obtatn sdditlona) area
o~ top of thc guest p~rki ng area.
Margaret Geall~ 1775 South Dalles Orlve, stat~d :he owns Ch~ property on the
nortFw est corncr of Dallas and Katella and that she obJects to this project because
this is a one-story, single-family area end traffiG is heavy; that this is a daadend
streec and shc has a hard tirr~ getting out her driveway anto Dallas. Shc stated she
also objects to thls many unlts on that small lot and to thc two-story units ~ but
that she would not object to one-atory units.
Les woods. 202a Miclwood lane~ scated t~is p~operty adJoins subJect pro~erty at tha
northeast corner and he obJects to the two-story bullding~ even though the~e will be
no windaws because he would havc to looic out hts ltving ~oom wlndow into a blank
w all. He stated tie objects to the notse pollution that will be created by the
addi~lonal traffic; and that It appears there will be Ilttle if any off-street
parking and that there are a considerable number of cars already In thelr
netghborhood. He stated these are deadend cul-de-sac streets and thay will have to
Colerate the excess traffic in an~ out of this apartment complex. He scated the two-
story buildings w111 cut off hts breeze which now comes In off Katella co the south.
Sidney Smith~ 2011 West Katella~ stated his prope~ty is ri4ht next door and is zoned
at the present time for onrstory structu~cs and he felt the two-story structures
will block the weste rn afternoon sunshine. He felt the proJect should be constructed
according to code bncause the codes ~re there for a reasan and he saw na reason to
allow these vartances merely to allaw 9-units on 1/2 acre of land. He felt there
will be a lot of people tiving on that small property a~d that the people in hts
project wil) be looking at a blank wall on the waste~n stde with very ~ittle
afterrMn sun. He stated it ~11) also cause an increase in traffic and create more
probiems getttng in and out the street. H@ s;ated agaiR his chtef concern is to the
nunb e~ of people who would be living on the property and the height of the butlding.
Ne stated grantiny these variance will increase the subJect property's value by about
5/4/81
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINt COMMISSION, May 4~ 198t 81-249
thre~+ timns and he felt there is planty of land In Mahelm which ts elready so~ed for
this type developme~t and he felt tha proJect should meat the codes.
L. Dean W11•nn~ 4334 East Le Palma~ ststed the ftrat pe~son who spoke In oppositton
wa: probobly not aware that Lhe bulldt~g whlch wtll back up to his property is only
one st~~ry a~d has no wtndowa above the ground level and that the secand person in
opposttlon's back ;ard is 14-feet deep. lia preaented photographs and stated they
have trled to comply with the code In everyway possible.
T11E PUaI.IC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissionar Ktng stated he hsa no ob)ectlons~ except to the walver fo~ the minimum
landscaped setback~ ~+otnting out a 20-foot setback is requtred.
Chairman Toler stated he has some p~oblems with the pro.~ect and the questlon (n his
mind was w heth~r or not these many units should be allowed in this obvious stngle-
family rasidentia) area with only one access; that he reu~gntzes the awner has some
rights to develop his prope~ty snd he did not thtnk anyune would wAnt to butld one or
two single-famtly homes there; that the matn problem is that the Pla~~ntng Commisslon
has spent a long tlme studying and revising the code for condomtnlum standards~
reducing the standards considerabty~ and before it Is even effecttve on May 7, 1~81,
the Co mnission is being asked to reduce it even further. He stated hc cannot support
that concept. He stated the ardinancc was changed after a long study because the
changes were necc:,sery and that the Commission Is manda~ted by the State to Justify
why they would grant walvers and that he dId not ~ee how tt~e tero waivers could be
justlfied; that the Planning Commission does not have the jurisdictlon unless they
can prove the property does havc unusua) hardshi~s.
Mr. Wilson stated the pi~perty adjacent ls devetoped with condomtnlums Hith 1d•foot
rear yards. He stated if varlances cannot be grant~d unless tha proparty dtffers due
to size~ shape~ topography or location~ then thcre wouid not be much tnat r.ould be
done in Anaheim and stated the Plan~ing Commisslon grants varia~ces all the time.
Cheirman Tolar stated he w~uld disagree because a lot of people are dcveloping their
properties every day according to code and explained the Commtssion }ust spent n~ore
than three months chanc~ing the RM-30A0 o~dTnance. He stated it is not up to the
Planning Commlssion to find the hardship.
~Sr. Wi lson stated he did not think the proJect is so terribly off Lhe requirerr~nts~
po:nttng out the secon~-sto ry wtndows were eltmfnated, etc.
Chairman Tolar stated the waivers may be minimum, but that opens the door for future
req uests. Ne stated even if the Plann(~g Commission wanted to g~ant the request~
they Gould not and if this r~uest is granted,the next one would want just a little
bit more.
Gerard Warde~ 4344 East Le Palma, explained they can comply with waiver (d) by
p~oviding additlonal recreattonal srea over the gerages; that the only request would
5/4/81
~>
t
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ M•y 4, 1981
81•~~A
th~n b~ fo~ th• ~~-toot rotb~ck~ wtth 10 f~et propos~d. Mi~ ~t~t~d tM photoq~aph• h•
pro~s~ted tfwa theh •r~ ot~e~ •tructun~ r{ql+t up ag~inst th~ block w~11 1~ eh~ •~~a
~nd the n~tqhbors h~ve not complied with th~ 10•tuut requlnn~nt.
Chalrm~n Tolsr pointed out tht sinqle-family :ening does nat ~equl n. za rooc
~atback •nd th~t tha• properttes do comply Nith th• cod~ under which thay wer•
built.
Nr. Warde st~ted he felt thcre a~e ( llegal st~uctures •xisting which ~-ould not h~v~
beon alivwed tf ~ermits hid b~en roquestod and th~~e sre the s«ne ~ropartY a+ns~w
con~l~ining about his proJect. Ne sddsd the rastdsnt• In this p~oJect wouid not be
looking Into thalr nelghbor'r property because thnt ~uiiding would be e•in91~•sto~Y
bullding.
Comnlsslone~ 9ornes ~~ked the halght of tF-e bulidtng which would be 10 faet f~an th•
p ropsrty I i ne e~d i t was notad by Mr. Warde th~t t t woul d be no hl gher than a ont•
story bullding or ~bout 18 or 19 feet high at the highest poi~t.
Chal~msn Tolar ssked why the proJect w~~ not designed to canply Nith tM nwv
ordinance end a:ked Mr. W~~da what h~rdshlp he would flnd to )usttfy the varlane~.
M~. W~rde stated the prop6rty ts a corner lot snd they are requi~ec! to dsdlut• 18
feet to the Clty of Ansh~im for street wtdening pu~poses.
Chainnen Tolar ~tsted ~either of thos~e things ere co~sider~d just{fic~tion by Stat•
law and the anly basis for grsnt(ng a vari~nce i~ the ~1=e~ shape. topoq~~phy or
tocatton of the property~
Hr. Warde sta*.ed the sfze of the property Is a h~~dship beceuse it could not b~
divided for singie units,
Comnissioner Bsrnes aaked wh~t the requi red re~r y~rd setback w-ould be for a singir
f amily cfwelling and Oean Sh~rer~ Afsistant Plsnner, explslned the RS-7200 2o~in9
would appiy whtch is consistent with the prapartles to the north. and the ~ninimua
rear ysrd se ~sck would be 25 feet; havaver~ ~oom addttto~s would be sllaved to
encro~ch to within 10 feac of the pr^~erty line.
Commtssioner Nerbst stated it appea~s il~ts p~operty was held out hy the a+~ar fran
the original development and for es long as he h~s bean o~ the Pianning Conn-Issia-.
ownars havc attempced to use thls as e hardshlp~ but the hardship wa c~eated by the
originA~ av~ar by not putting the pr~perty in the o~~qinal a~diviston. H~ stated
the people who bought those homes are na+ betng asked to be encroached upo~ with
condominiums. He stated the Canmisslon haY spent hours revising the code and unl~ss
th(s p~oJect can meet those nw requl rements and provi de the property owners r+i th
protectlan they deserve~ he could not su~po~r the request.
5/4/$1
~
M~NUTE~~ ANANEIM GITV ~lANt11N0 COMMISSION. ~Y A~ 1981 81-Z51
Ch~l~nwn Tpl~r ~t~t~d th~r~ It ~ po~ltlv~ corslder~tlo~ lo~ thl~ typ~ ~v~lof+nNnt In
th~t It would p~ovide ~ bu~t~r lr~ th• t~af~tc nol~• w+ K~t~ll~ Nhich wu10 b• •n
~~Nt .
Coarni s~ lon~r Fh rbt t• t~t~d h~ h~~ no ob) ~ct 1 c~n to cor+do~wii n 1 u~n d~w lopn+~nt on th 1 t
prop~~tY. sut 1~ Nkinq th~t It n~et th~ cnde. 1~~ •ugq~~ted th~ petltion~r r~qwst ~
tonttnwncs to nvts~ tM pi~nf.
Conwnission~r 6~rnes st~t~ th• Conmisslo~'s h~nds ~rs t lAd by St~te 1~+ ~nd if it
w~h not tor th~t Iw+~ she would se in teve~ oF this preJect b~ceus~ •he f~~is (t is
N~II dstiqn~d ~nd f~e1 t It would h~ve 11 ttle tmpset on ih• n~ic~hbor~ ~nd i f It ~~~
not for the new ordinanc~,she wouid vo~e for tho proJeet- Sha st~ted wlth tho d~sign
of thr bul idiny. th~ i~•foot •~tb~ck 1~ gnod.
Ch~irm~n Tol~r stated sinqle-fami ly dewlopnwnt .rould •llo-- cao-~to~y ~esidentl~)
hom~t~ wlthtn 10 f~et of the prope~ty Iln• which wouid not giw th• pM1Mff wh~t th~y
•r~ lookin9 for. N~ st~ted hc thou9ht this project ~uld pr~vido s better
protece~~x~ to the single-t~mily Avelllnys~ but felt the Coarnission has ~n obliq~tlon
to b~ing tM proJect to cade. Ha st~tad the potition~r c~n elther request •
continu~nce or an ectiw+ from ths Plennlnq Canmisslon.
Mr. W~~de •sked far clarlf{cetivn as to -+hether or noe the Plsnning ~o~nmission is
sayinq th~t thay will not b• qrsnting anY v~rlanccs In the futura,
Commisiloner Buthore st~tad the petitloner wae befo~e the Coi+~nisslon G to 10 weeks
•go snd t~et •t tinr, tha Con~nisslon u~yed him tn tske ~ continua~ce ~nd he chose not
to and h~ ts na+ caning b~ck wlth the san~e srguments ~+d ~ns~rs. He stated he feit
it wouid bahoove the patitloner to ~sk for ~ conti~ua~ee bec~ute the GaTMnisslon does
not want to see hlm spend 10 no~e wa~k~ of time ~nd nw~cy to qet approv~l. He stated
h~ thouqht tha Councll would t~ke the s~rno ++cticx~ becsuse th~ Commls~lon sat with th~
Council (n thr jotnt public he~rings s~d heard whst dl rectlon they ~re to take. He
stated the code is beln~ ch~nged ta the developert adv~ntege •nd nor+ the petitloner
is asking fo~ additton~) waivors and pushing to get th~t extr~ (nch. Ne added tfie
Gommtssion aants ta see the project bulit.
M~. Warde •sked fo~ a two-we~k co~tinuance.
ACTION: Conmissloner Bushore offered a motion~ seconded by Commistione~ Ne~ast and
M ON CAaRIEO (Commlssioner Fry being absent). that consideratlon of the
~to~en~ntloned iten+ be continued tu the ~egul~rly-scheduled Meeting of May 18~ 1981.
Commiss{one~ Bushore ~sked that e correction De n~sde an Page 2•b nf che staff report
:ha+l~g the •cre~ge at .G4 rather than 6.4. parag~aph G.
S/4/81
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CIT~ ~~ANNING COMMISSI~N~ May 4~ 1981 81• 2 SZ
M
1?1
PUtlLIC NEARINC. OI~NER: M. J. 81tOCK t SONS~ INC., 1698 6r~~nbriar L~ne~ 8r~s, CA
9Z621. Prope~tlr hscribed ~~ ~~ I ~re9ul~riY•~h~p~d p~~cal ef land oonsifting o~
~pproxim~t~ly Z.9 ~cre:~ h~ving ~ frontepe ^f +~proxi~wetely 35~ ~~~t a+ the south
~ i d~ of lbn~ty• Or Iv~. h~vl n4 ~ m~ximun d~pch of ~pproxl nr ta 1 Y A6~ te~t •nd ba i ng
located p p~axim~t~ly 1650 teet w~st of th~ c~ntarlin~ af Euclid Streat. P rope~ty
pr~~~ntly cl~sslfed al*Z400 (RESIO~NTIAI~ MULTiPLE-FAMILY) T.ONE.
CONOITIONAI USE ~IEQUEST: TO PEPMIt A MaSPITAI PARKIHG LOT WITH WAIVER OF MAXIMUM
FENCE t1ElONT.
SubJ~ct petltlon w~~ continuod from the meeting of Aprll Z0~ 1~81 at t' rtq u~st of
thr petl tloner.
Thtre wera severil pR~sans Indic~tinq th~ir ~res~nce In oppositton to ~ub)e c t
roqu~s t. end al though the s t~f f raport wss not resd ~ 1 t I s reterred to and ~e+ade a
part of the minutes.
T~rry delmo~t~ Prestdent~ Mertl~ Luther ilospitei Medical Center~ 1830 Wast Ranneya~
Anahe{m~ steted the r~uost is fer e pbrking lot to th~ west of the hospltal; thAt
th~e hospite) nAS boen tn Anal-eim for 20 Ys~~s ~nd is + 1f,8-bed hospltsl end ~mploYs
approxinNtely 700 ~o~~le~ many of tham An~heim residenta~ with 45n members on thtlr
modicel staff; and th~t 50~ of their patients are Anehelm rastdents and tha t they
have over 10~000 ~~ticnts per year. No ltated the number of An~helm pstien~s v+hA use
the hospit~l. ss wsll as ~ wide r~nge of In-p~tient and out-p~tle~t service s.makes
them ~ coinnwn ( ty asset; that thry h~ve been i n tt~• r+ea hosp 1 tal tor about 6 Ya~rs and
h~ve trled to plan for the future by p~vidtng nwv servlces and heaith care tA the
conm~x~ity. He stated ~t the tirt~t they pl~nned thie facllity. they did not
anticip~te ta+e chanqes that wouid take pl~ce In heelth care; th~t the f~cltity w~s
planned aver 10 ye~rs ago ~nd at that tin+e in-patient heelth c~re w~s the maJor
focus, but due to ths hlgh cost of inedical care ~11 hosptt+~is ere focusing on out-
pattent care enct this h~s affected the{r hospita) becsuse It was planned fo ~ in-
patient care. He stated ~s a resuit they have nwre employees, nare nwdica) staff and
na rs p~tle~ts comtny to the hospital thsn ~ntlcip~ted; chat probtems have b~en many
with one majAr problem occurrinq outstde r+lth the lack of parking; thst on enny days
thay have not boen abl~ to accannwdAte a) t the wshicles. ~e ststed in March of last
year they recognized Chat they had a problem to solve and sta~ted looklnQ for
aite~netives.
~ob Mickelson~ 134 South Glasselt~ Oran9e~ explalned the pla~ning process t he
huspit~l v+ent through In selecting this site; that the~r looked at alnast all the
prape~t'es in the In~nediat~ vicinity and most ot them ~re devetoped a~ ere und~r
develoRa~nt; that th~y Iookad at the posslbility of bullding a parki~g strueture on
sfte and a major probl~n v+ith that~ in •dditlon to the disruptia~ to the entt~e
p~rking program for • long perlod duriny construction, rva~ the aesthetl~.
co~sideretlons to the acljacent propsrties. r+ith the residmnts having to look et a
I~rga parking structu~e rathsr than the hosp{t+~l building.
S/4/81
_ _ ,..~i
NINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ May 4~ 1g81 81.Z5j
1h st~t~d fub)~ct proJect w~f the most logical cholc~ b~ceuse it wa• InnNdl~tely
~dJ~c~nt to th• existin9 p~rkinq lot and wes v~c~nt •~d eveil~ble. H~ stated they
n~t wlth th~ •dJacent hon~vwn~rs assocl~tion to (nPerm them of their plens ~nd
~ttsmpt to y~t thei~ InpuC. He ft~ted originally the ho~pitel t~tended to acqulr•
all th~ vec~nt lots ~wr to th• next privete streat~ but s(te~ h~~ring the nelghbor's
concern~~ ~9r~~d to pul) b~ck one ~a-~ of lat~ so they wauld have naw homes
conatrucc~d directly ~cross th~ st~eet on Balle~t lene~ and furth~r to the eest which
(s ~ttll v~t~nt~ they woulti dtlck tv the orl~in~) plsn to provlde ~ solld well with
propar =etb~cks and la~Qscaping ss a buffar to tl~e new hort~s wl~ich wii) b~ built. I~e
~ tsteJ cxtens 1 ve i ands csp i ng (s p raposed and tho p~rk ( ng lot 1 1 gh t i ng w I I 1 be
d 1 racted davn end aw~y f rorn the res i Qences. lie stnt~d they h~ve asked homeownert to
be ropresonted on a commi t tee to he 1 n des (qn the lot.
M~. Micksison statcd the I ~terdepr~tmcntal Conmittee recommend~tlans ore ~11
~ccr~table~ exccpt Condition No. 4 requiring s standard cul-de-sac at tho end of
OutrigQ~r W~y. He presented ~xliib i ts of their proposed elternative to the cul•de-sec
and stated providing the standerd cut-da•sac t+~kee ~-vay e yreat dea) of the avai lable
area for perk{ng. tl• st~ted thoy considered the alternatives of a prtvate alley ~o
connert that street with Romneya or back to Oallest Wey; howev~er, they fee) the
benafit derlved from pmvi diny the cul•de-ssc or addttlonel ac~rss la not worth the
preblerts end expense created end tfte reduttton of avall~bic parking and they would
s~rva oniy twa lots. with the fu~thest ~pt being approximatety 100 feet from
Dallast Wey. Ne statad the real pu~pose of chat cul-de-~ec ts to givo the tre~h
truck en srae for turntng around and they fac) providing that cul-de-s~c for trash
pick-up for Mo homes onc~ or twtce a week is e ~raAter condition than they would
11ke to accept. 11e ststed they fQe 1 it is reasoneble to esk the owners of two hw+~es
to ca~ry thetr trast~ 50' or 100' dawn to Bsllast Way onc.e a week.
M~. M1 ckei sor+ re fer red to the requl red f i nE) ngs on page 3-c and ; tated they feel th I s
projact meets that criteri a, Ile statod the origin~l plans h~d hor++e~ bl~cked up to the
existing parking lot and i n closer prox(mity to th~ stesm plsnt and conden~er and
they feel thls is a better pi~n becaus~ it createe • transltion which will be vtewed
partially aa open spece and landscaping and put Che hemes to be canstructed further
awa~r from tha sceem plant. Ne stbted they feei thls proJect is to take cere of
extsttng •raffic sndwill not generste sdditional t~efftc and they feel tf something
like this is not done in the nes~ futuro~ vtsttors and anployees M-ill be seektng
p~rlciny in the area ond they feel it will be • beneflt to thp a~eo rather tha~ +~
detrimenc.
Jemes Perker~ attorney. 1201 Dov~ Street, statod he has been retained by the Anat-elm
Shares Homewners Associa~ion~ whTch consists of 195 lots nepresenting 390 tax•pa~ring
c'es idents of Anahetm. Ne stata4 these hemQOwners have contl rx~us 1y baen oppased to
this project~ despite the represe~tation made by the petitinner. Ne stated there
have bee~ nogotiations bu: the homevwners have never consented to approve of this
rnatte~. Me steted they feei what ts redliy gofng on here is an expanston of the
ho~pital bacause at the p~esent time thare are I(+8 beds tn the hospital with 457
parking spaces or 2 speces pe~ bed. whtch Is twlce what the code requires and wtth
this sdditional 2g3 spaces. tharo vri 11 be 4-t/2 spaces per bed for this hospitai and
5/4/81
i
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMNISSION~ M~y 4~ 198) 81'254
hs did ~at bsll~v~ thla Is to •ccAmmcd~te pr~s~nt uee but la flatting 'at up f~r a~
expanslon of the haspit~l. Hs s'ated they fael tht• Is the second leg of that
exp~~slon bacau~e the Commi~~lon has alresdy ~pprovad the first 1e9; that th•
hospite) a+ned a largs p~rcel of undeveloped property to tho no~th and west of thQ
h a pit~l which was sold and Is being devsloped a~ s high•~Ise medicel bulldi~q far
some 70 doctora and 5S0 pa~king ~peces. He ~t~ted th~ thtrd ieg of the axpanslan
wtll bQ hs~rd in the future whan th~y ~sk for epprov~l of a high-rise wing to the
hospit~l and it will b• difflcult to deny that request slnce the parking h~s •l~esdy
been ~pproved. N~ stated thay feel this is "boot strepping" end do not belleve the
out-patient iss ue wae only roalized one year ago. Ne polntcd out the Aneheim
Msrr~rlel Hospitel is i/2 mile to the east and it appeers Anaheim has become a
hospital capitsl of Southern Californla.
Mr. Parker stated the homeowners do not obJect to tek(ng cere of th~ health needs of
the community but they fee) thts hesptta) will be cAmpeting for pat(ents. 11e stated
this is an RM-24~0 resldential zone which has been in cffect for many yners and they
think the t~afflc on Romncya Is alroedy very burdensarr~ and is ~ot getttng eny better
and they bel leve an expanslon of ti~e hos~it~~ ~ eionq with the new r~edicel bul ldinq.
Is yoing to i~trease the traffic to a polnt wherR a doubie-decker street on Ronnaya
will be necessarv. Ne stated this t~affic is a result of a mixed use area and
raaltted th~nt evesryone knaw the use was mlx~ed when they bought tt~elr proparty~ but
did not feel the problem should be f~rther compl icated.
Ne statad they feel this alli affnct thn value of their properttes bacause tt wtll
sffect their vlew. He stated it ha~ been suggrsted that the vlew over this
lendsca~~ed parklnq lot wtll be some kind of e plus to the value of the homea, but
asked what kind of a vslue it would be to the Commissioners' own hames with a parl:lr~g
lot next cbo~. I~e stated thcy arc :.oncerned for the ssfety of thc chi Idren In the
srea and they don't w snt to see the present parki~g lot doubted (n size. Ne stated
th~y do not believe there are any special circumstances here that wlll dep~l~~~ the
owners of any privllec,~es enjoyed by others in the a~ea. Ne stated the hameawner;~ in
A~ahelm Shora have relied upon the represcntation of the M aheim Shores developer
and have relied on thc zoning in the Ctty. Ne stated they reoognize there is no
vasted right in zaning. but suggested to the Commission thac perhaps tn the exQrclse
of their discretia~, they could ecknarrledge and give sort~e consider~tion to the
homeawr~rs v+hc~ have bought relying on the Zoning Code.
Mr. Psrker stated the hospita) should be ~equired co show their need fo~ expensto~ i
terms af health care to the community snd stated there is a procedure by which thet
can be done whith is done th~ough the State Director of Health Services wherein they
must prove there is a heatth necd in the community which their hospital expansion
will satisfy. He stated if ti~st is done. thry can then ask the City to approve the
pro,ject so that the property cen be condenned on the basis of need. He stated the
ho~pital is not foilowing that procedure ~nd are nesgotiating to pu~chase a property
w htch ts tha sccond leg of the exps~sion program.
Mr. Parke~ atated the hameawners es sociation astablishea by the previous developer
(M. J. 6rock Company) w~s set up as a community associetion which would essess the
5/4/81
~
~,
MINUTES. ANAHEIM C1TY PLANNING COMMISSION~ May 4r 198) 81-255
msnb~rs dues and malntain the common srsss. Na st~t~d~ in the CCbRs the~e wds a
pracadure establlshed for snnex~tlon ol ~ew t~act~ which rep~asented approxtn+~tely 7
phases of devrlopment; th~t st each stage af th~~ dev~lapment the daveloper-awner was
to come to the honwowne n sssocletlon and ask for a vote as to wh•ther or not they
~groed to annex the naxt stagc. He stated th~t has been done on fou~ occasto~s. Ne
statad the vw~ar ceme to the homeawne~s ~ssocletton the latter pa~t of last year and
•sk~d to •nnex two tracts to the sssoclation end one of those tracts wes thts one and
naw they find that inst~ad of 42 residentle) lots on which budgets end plans are
based~ that thcre wtll onty be 18 even though th~y voted for tho annexation.
Mr. Parker roferrQd to the auygestion that people be osked to cArry trash 50 feet and
steted they fee) that la an oftensive suggestion; t+nd that they were also concerned
thst if the cul-de-sac is not t~uilt as s uggestHd~ perhaps ther~ is a safety
impllcatton end ~sked if the turning redlus on the elternative cul-de-sec is
sufficitnt to turn a~ound a pumper fire truck. He stated they fecl thls mattor
should be denied.
Ray Murray~ 11~$ Voyager Lane~ Anaheim Shores~ steted he wants to state his
oppositton to this proJect; that he bought tn Anshcim Sho~es on the basis that It waa
a planned community. based on r certaln nuab a~ of units end recraationul areas to be
mainteinod by the dues-paving n~ers. Ne steted a lot of his neighbors are work{ng
today and couid nat attend, b ut he could say for most of them thAt chey a~e sgeinst
thla proposal. 11e stateci hc talked t~ Mr. Belmont ~bout thls propossl and suggasted
he ha~ heard ther~ was property rvai lable to the ~orth of the medicai center ss e
po~s (b le A1 ter~ati ve s 1 te enc! Mr. E3~ Imont had ~esponded th~t wauld tnvolva al l ht s
empioyees having to walk about 1•!/2 bincks ~cross two streets. Mr. Murray stated he
dfd not understand that eomment because the~e are people 1~ Lns Angeles end othe~
places who walk further than that tn work every day.
Cherles Miggins~ la~v flrm of Musick~ Peeler and G~rrett, ~-OOb tM~cArthur Boulevard~
'~ Newport Be~ch~ stated their firm ts tha counsel for the hospita) end he has been
asked to hclp thc hospltat present thei~ case todey. Ne stated Martin Luther
` Hospital is a non-p rofit organization and Is menag~d by a boarJ of dl~ectors~
~ composed of rr~embers of this community and Is a very significa~t and valuable asset to
the commu~~ity~ managcd Irt the Intcrest af. the people oP Anahetm and those cltizens
served bY the hospltal. He stated proper planning and zaning constders many factors~
but the fu~ctlon of the Planning Cortwnisslon is to sa~ve the publtc Tnterest and ~f
g~antlny this ~pplicatlon is consistent with the law and in thc public interest~ he
would hope tfiat thc Plan~ing Cemmission v+outd vl~+v thls Favorably. Ne stated it has
b se~ s uggested this raquest is In the nature of a s~fiterfuye to exrand the hospita)
in.rementaliy and that thls is only one step; ha+ever~ the nurtt,er of beds is
authortzed and dtrect~d by the State anci the hospital cennot be expanded wtthout a~
elaborate p rocedure involving the State and local he+~lth planni~g aqencles and the
~equeat is not for the purrose of sny expanstnn of its facilitt~s~ but la to try and
manage an existing prablem beca~se af the ex(sting fscitity. He stated he had drtven
to the hospital this afternaon to meet with his client and his ftrst problem wes to
flnd a plau to park and stated tha present over-use of the parking lot is a fact
today. Ne stated good plan~ers. both p~iv~te and pubiic~ must look to the future and
siaia~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY P~ANNINC COMMISSION. May 4~ 1981 81-256
it Is quite clear that as the utili:etton of the hospital conttnuas to grow, which
ttattsttcs will demonatrate~ there wlll be more cers. He stated they ar•e not trying
to build iomething to ettract mora car~ but ere trying to manage the extsting c~rs
for the benefit of n w n those people presc t In opposition because the cers would b•
parking on their streats~ He stated he wanted to dtspell the ide• that this ia a
:~b terf uge to 1 ncreese the s 1=e of the f~ospl tal anci that 1 s not the i r i ntent and
cannot bs done.
Mr. Wtggins stated it has been suggested tlist a primary concern should be the saf~ty
of the chtldren in the ~~sidentisl area to the south an~ he woutd concur and pointed out
thc plenning of the parkin~ lot pr~vents any ~ccess to the residentla) aree by
automabilesintending to use tl~e parktng lot and that the accass to the parking lot
wii) be from axisting publtc streets. He stated without the parking lot~ those very
chlldr~n would be s~bJected to traffic loc~king for places to par~ in the restdentla)
area. He stated the attorney for the homec*vners assoclatlon hAS Indicated thst thelr
cliencs rolied on existing zoni~g and ~tated he believed it ts t~ue thet all citisena
rely on extsttng zoning; that the Planning Cammtsslon hears hundreds of cases in
which thay decide the public I~terest is beat sarved by chenging the zone. He ststed
the people the Plen~tng Commissi~•~ represent do nut have a legal vested rtght ta thn
continuation of any particular zone, but do havr the rtght to oxpect that no zone
would be ~hangnd for any arbitrary or frivolous reason.
Mr. Niygins stated he bellcved tl~e cssence of the opposition'~ arguments was raised
whe~ they stated it wes cumtempiated this property wouid be developed into stngle-
famlly units of a planned unit cammunity and that those ncw hort~s would joln thelr
existing homeawners association. Ne stated those hameowners have no legsl right to
expect the property to bc developed at el i or no legal right to expect thet if it is
developed,that lt would be developed conslst~nt wlth thc present aoning or that It
would be annexed to thelr homec~wnars assoclation.
Mr. Wiygins stated hc is askiny the Commission to w~ioh the belance between the ~eeds
uf this comn+unity senred by Flartin Luthar Hospital versus the potentia) few doliars a
manth savings tn a handful ot indivlduals wha belong to an existing homeavners
associatlan. Ne thouyht givcn that choice the Commission would h~ve no difficulty in
reachi~g their decisio~.
Mr. uiggins stated he would Ilkc t4 add his wotd of support to eliminatlon of the
cul-de-sac and stated the cul•de-sac was not designed to taka care of a pumper untt
and ths Fire Department has a prablem with it; that the cul-de-sac was designed
snlaly ~nd exclusively to p~ovick turn-eround radius for a t~ash truck which services
two homes perhaps twice a week snd the option of not provlding that cul•de-sac is to
provlde an alternative on the existing road which wo~~td require those twa homes to
carry thrir• trash. anG the panalty of providing the cul-de-sac ts to prevent the
developm~nt of this parcel into the nwrber of spaces for whtch it is optimstely
suited. t1e steted he knaws It la difficult to make decisions where there are
conflicting values, but gfven Che option of the burden to two homeowners tr+ice a week
does not outwelqh the detriment to the people of the City of Anaheim cause by the
siaie~
~:
MINUT~S, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 4~ 1981 81-257
fsilu re to p rovtde adequete parking facilities to such an Importent community asset
as tho Marttn Luther Nospitel.
Mary Murray~ Voyeger Lane~ Ansheim Shores~ stated she feels this Cortxntsston has a
~espo~sibiltty to not put the homeawners In the positlo~ that they are (n now; that
not only heve the developers who came befora the Commission end met ~11 the
requi rements let them dawn but now they a~e tn this bind with the canmunity fecl l ity
s uch as the hospital who had adequate ttme to prepare for thelr own pa rking needs and
even to this dete can go up with multi-story structures tnstead of comtng Into their
restdentlal area. She stated they cannot be compensated for a11 the things that have
happencd end it meda her mad to hea~ that thelr intere~t w~s petty revenues; that
wh~n they bough t( t was based on the revenues comi ng f rom e certe ( n number of
dwnllings. She stated they have had one dissppolntmant after another; first from
Rarm eya Street~ then from thc develope~s and now thts and she thought the hospital
should heve prepared better a long ttma eyo.
TItE PUE~LIC H~ARiNG WAS CLOSED.
Commtssioner Herbst stated he ~e~liz~s advanted planntng ts very Impnrtant and he
does not want to see the seme thtn~ happon wtth tl~is hospital thot happened at
Anaheim Memorial Hosptt~e) wherc they condemned a lot of homes to takc care of thel~
parking needs. Ne stated this is a large parking lot and he would like to see some
p~oposat for controls on the pa~ktng~ recognlZing that there wlll be homes backed up
to the perktng lot and that thc drlveway gaes eround the pe~imnter of the parktng lot
and s ane emplay~e~ do rtde motorcycles. etc. and hospltals are 24-hour operatians
with shift changes in the early morning and late night hours whlch couid cause
p roblems. He steted controls guarding agatnst parktng rdjacently ta the homeowners
area should ba constde~ed. lie statad the design of th~ p~rktng lot does force al)
the cars out one exit and he felt there could be e betce~ flav of t~afftc.
Commissloner Herbst stated he thought there could be som~ sort of compromise
~egArding the cul-drsac to provide a turn-around an the existing strect and subJect
property without putting It all on one property. Ne felt it would be an (mposition
to ask these homevwners to carry the trash 100 feet and he did not care how rnany
homes v~ould be affected. He stated he thoughc the parking lot its~lf has a park-like
atmpsphere and It would not have as much an affect on the homeowners as there would
be if the property was dev~eloped with homes.
CommissioRer King stated he has no problem with this p~ojcct but was concernad about
the cul-dr sac and would 1(ke to see a mutual agreement workad out.
Chalrman Toler stated one of the maJor changes tak-ng plsce in tha development of
parking lots Loday is the consideratlo~ that better than 40$ of the cars being driven
tocisy are c~ompact cers and the size of apaces cen be reduced by 3~ to 40$. Ne stated
he was somewhat su~prised that ihis was not caken lnto consideretion durin9 the advanced
~~lanning stagqs for this parking lot. .
5/4/81
~l._ °
~ ~
MINU7E5~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ fley b~ 1981 61'25~
Mt stated to the oppositlon that "~e wet on this Comnisston and spent many houra in
the pl~nntng of Anahcim Shores~ but things do change and the awners heve to recognise
thst chsngee do take place. He stated the cost of the homevwner~ associAtlon dues
must be considered but the membe ro must recognize thsy do ~t heve to maint~in what
thay do not own; thst duea NI11 probably go up whether or not thls property is
developed es 24 residentfal lota or a parking iot. Ne statad It bathera him tha~t the
hospltal dief nat h~ve the toresight when they sold the property to the no~th for
dev~elopment of the corm~ercial offlea bullding~ and did not pursua the posslbllity of
a parking st~ucture~ end it also bothers I~im that somoone dtd mekr a statement th~t
1-1/2 blocks was too fa~ for employees tn wa1k. 11e added there a~e msny areas (n Los
AnqelQS and Orange County wh~re employees walk much further. IIQ steted ha dld not
thlnk a parking lot wo~~ld be s detrlmant to tF~e area and would~ in fact. be an asset
and probably create less traffic than a resio•ntiel development. Ne stated he
believed~ hawever~ there are some questions that need to be answered. such as, why
thry eletted to bulld in this d(rcctlon ratlier than to the north on land th~y
origln~lly awned.
Commissloner 8ushore statcd some things havc bathered him about this proJect. He
statcd Saint Jude's 1lospita) used temporary structures where amployees parked one
above the Qther on maclitnes and asked if that possibility has becn considered here.
Mr. Mtckelson replled he did not balieve that ~lternetive was conatdered.
Commisstoner Bushoro contlnued that the statement that the hospital cennot be
expanded without a Certificace of Need from the State bothered him because~ it would
be true if beds were beiny added, but expanding services cioes not require such a
certiftcate. lie asked if there is any future contemplatlon of a~ldinc~ additlonal
services to the hospital and clarified that he is not talking about addttlonal beds.
Mr. Mtcketson stated thts proJect is not based on any plans tu expend the hospital
and that was an ess~nption made by the attorney for the f~omeawr~ers assoctatlan and
to the best of hls knawledgcs froM alt the discussions wtth the people at the
hospital~ thcre are no plans for expansion.
Mr. Wiggtns stated there ls a plan whtch has not b~een approved to expand the Neo-
Natal Unit in t~~e hospital and that Is merely to change the charecter of ar+ existing
use in the hospita) rather than to expand its s(ze or the potentia) for new beds. Ne
stated he thought th~ correct answer to the questlon is that an arpiication is
pending with ~espect to changing a servtce in the hospital, but tt~.~t the square
footage available for medicai uses Is not being changed. Ne stated they have to
apply to the Stata for thls beceuse the cetegory of license is chanqed.
Commissioner 9ushore ascertai~ed that the hospltai does not own or control any of 2he
four-plexes to the south. Ne asked tf there was any conteniplation of going to thF
south wh~~e some reJuvenation is naeded. Mr. Mlckelson stated that waa considered
sane time ago~ but wss reJected because 1~ does not offer a great deal of usable
space arsd woutd Involve demolition and displacement of peopie and would be even more
co~ t rove rs i a 1.
5/4/81
MINUTES~ ANANEIM GITY PLIW-:~NG COMNISSION~ Msy N, 1981 81•259
Commissioner Bushore clarified that the p~rcel the hospttal Is now on was originslly
own~d by Farest Lbwn Corporetlon and stated many of the rnedica) offices in the eres
wero s t) 11 •va ( 1 ab 1 e a year ago and esked why th 1 s wasn' t cons 1 dered.
M~. 8~lmont stated the madicai offices are Individual condomi~tum offlces and Fo~est
Lawn Corpor~tton sold them to tha t~divtduel phyalcians about Mo ye~rs ago or leaa;
and that then~ is one phy~sicle~'s group which will be naving to the new medlcet
affico bullding. ~~e stated the negvtlations Por tha new medicel offica buiidtng
begen about throe years agc~ and the reeson for the offtce building was beceuse they
had physicia~s using the hospttal who had thelr offtces far away and hed patients
coming to thetr office and then having to go co the twspitol for tests~ etc. t1e
stated ther^a are a lot of Ahystcians who had off{ccs In other areas of the community
whase patlents wented to come to Martin Luther Nospital end they are relocating to
th (s srea.
Mr. Belmnnt stat~d they loaked st on-slte parking structure and that could not be
handled because af thn service departments ta the rear of the structur~ which would
abut th e ncw hauses to tho west and the on-site structure would not seem feaalble.
He stated they ar~ plsnning to use the lut fa~ employee perking and hope they woutd
not have to h~ve the public walk thet far. He steted he did make thet cortvnent that
they would rather not hsve their employees walk 1-i/2 blocks to work and he thought
as a s upervisor of many employees, he wouid do thc best he could for the employees to
make it as safe and convenlent as possible. He steted the property on the far side
of the medical office bullding was Forest Lawn proparty which they had looked at but
they were unable tc acqutre thet property.
Commissio~er Bushorc asked if they have trled to compromise wlth the homeowners
associetlon pertatning to the reduction of the 24 hames.
Mr. Belmont steted they did meet witl~ th. homeowners assoc(etion with at least 50
individuals at one meeting and 30 to 4A aC another meeting; and met wlth their Board
of Directors and the outcome of those meettngs was the ~equest that a ruw of houses
be placed between the housi~g and the ~+arking lot. lie explained they had offered to
have a couple of the homeawners be repres~nted on a parking lot pienning oommittee ta
work out their co~ccrns. He explained they had discussed the possibility of
obtaining property or~ the corncr of La Palma and Romneya whlch could be traded wlth
the developer for residentiai development and that commttme+nt was made. We stated
they feel they have been very up front with the homeowners; that they wrote a letter
to the homeauners explaining they had gone into escrow, but ware stopped from passing
out the tettcrs by a memb er of ihe homeawnars association. stating that ft should
have been approved by the boa~cf before being passed out. Ne stated he felt this ls
what has caused a l~t oF tho poor feelings be Meen the hospital and the homeowne~s.
He stated lie sympathizes and empathizes with their situatlo~ but did not think this
wss something thay cc~uld change unless they offer lest services at the hospitai. He
stated it is not tf~etr tntention to maka thetr hospital che biggest and the bast~ but
thet thay are here to serve the people who canc to them for health se~vic~es. He
Stated in thelr master pianning they tried to find out what the comrtwnity needs were
and to se rvice them and mistakes have been medt in the 10 years.
5/4/81
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 4~ 1981 81•260
Chainren Tolar asked if the hospttal has reviev+ed sny praliminary studles ~egardinq
either a two or th~ee-story parking structure where the exlsttng parking lot is
loceted ena why thay hava a need for suct~ a large p~rktng lot when studtes •haw thst
30 to 40s leaa parktn9 Is needed today because nf compact cars. Ne ststed ha would
Iike to knav if aithsr of thase •tudiea h~ve been exhAUSted.
Mr. Oelmant stated they made e misteke in mester planning 10 yeers ago snd the~e a~e
no plans to axpa~d the numb~r of beds rlght r~ow; that they hsve a 7th f1oo~ whlcl~ is
op~n and thay have a tremendous need for mare ancillary space; th~t they have gone
through e full year of master planning process end consuitants h~ve Indiceted thet
the parking s psces erc needed. Ne stated withln 5 to 10 years they will have to have
an addittonal 64.000 square feet of anctilary spec~; that the hospttal was planned as
an irr patient hospital, but thet (s not the nature of heelth care today. Ne stated
phy aiclans c~~ ~a longnr provtde sanc of tho serv-ces they use to provldo (n thetr
offices because of malprnctice suttes and the hospttal needs to expand thelr
radtology~ surc~ery and many other areas.
Chairmen Tolar clarifted that the hospltst nlans to restripc the parkt~g lot 1~ the
next 5 to 10 years to provlde more spaces for compact ca~s, etc. and Mr. I3elmont
indteate~d that is correet.
Commissianer Bernes as~:ed ha~w much the hospitel staff hes grown In the past year and
haw much of that could be attributed to the growth of the out-patient care, polnting
out the comment was made that pa~ktng is needed because steff has grown due to the
out-pattent programs.
Mr. Belmrx~t stated staff probsbly grew In the past three years from 450 to 650 or 700
employeas end the nunber of petients has grown.
The Neo-Natal Intenstve Ca~e section was discussed wlth Mr. Belmnnt pointing out they
would be ustng a larger portlon of the cxisting space. Mr. Belm~nt stated they a~a
increasing the Nea-Natal Intensive Wre Unit to cere fnr thetr present needs which
would be an additional two babtes per day.
Commissioner aarnes stated she is concerned about the Inner circulation nf the
parking lot because the driv~way whlch will carry all the traffic is near the homes.
Mr. Mlckelson statnd this lot was planrned primarily for empioyee parking and the
acuess was placed there to make it less conventent for the public to use and because
it tould be controllcd. He pointed out the drivavaY is only behind three home~s with
the required setbacks and he did ~at think it wouid be a problem; however~ he stated
they can revfew the Interior cksign of thc parking lot and revise it. Ne stated
moving the driveway to the north would Involve a grade separation.
Mr. Mick~lson referred to the cui-de-sac requlremonts and stated th~y had considered
ths possibiilty of a hsnrn3r-haad turn-around. He steted thev did review standards
for compact cers but unfortunately at the present time the City does not hav~ compact
car spaces in the ordinances and a variance would be required; and that they have
5/4/81
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ May 4~ 1981 81•261
con:idered that ~s a little cushlan which th~y will p~obably need In the future. He
ateted 10 to 15~ is about thn moxlmum that cauld be added wtth compect speces.
Chal~man To{ar aaked Mr. Perker If he felt the hospital representstlve~ had mede
eve ry effort to try ind work out the differencas.
Mr. Parker replted he does not knaw what ali the efforts ware~ but efforts hava been
made and there have been negotlatians between the hospttal~ the develope~ and the
assoclation~ but he underatdnds tho~e wero inconcluslve results. Ne stated ha h~t
heard the representatlon m~da by Mr. Mlckelson as ta ~-hat occurred~ howevar~ there
was a misapprehenston on his part beceuse the~e wss no concurrence by the homeavners.
HQ ateted ha did not knav what edditiona) efForts could even ba underteken; that es
he loc~ka at the hospitel plans and Ilstens to what thQy are sayl~g end understands
the configuraticx~ of the property in the araa~ tf~e hospttal Is bound and determined
to provide the additlona) perking end thoy have alreedy glveR up a ch~nce to utilize
the pranerty they awned acroas tha st~cet and thay dre unwllling to dlsplaco people
t~ the south of them.
Chairman TolAr steted there is no development abutting thts pro~e~ty at the present
time and lf this developrient doas occur~ the buyers of khe property would know that
this Is a parking lot before they bought thcir I~oi+~s.
Mr. Pa~ker statad the people who bought previously tn Anaheim Shores knew there would
be home!c that would ultimately rbut tlie steam gencrt+ting pl~nt~ but tt was to be only
two lots and those would probably be the last Mo lots sol~ and naw he understands
there w i 1 1 be four lots abutt ( ng tl~at p 1 ant And everyo~e buyi ng i n tha pas t and those
i n thc future wt 1 1 ~:naw that i t t s there.
Mr. Parker stated severa) camments have baen made that the hospitel i~as been tnvotved
In advanced planntng but he has not secn any advanccd plar+ning~ but that he sees a
lot of mistakcs that were madc; and thet he felt the planninq that shauld have takQn
place should heve been done when the building site ecross the street was sold.
Chairrt-an Toler statcd no one knews what is going to happen in the future; and that he
has hei~ad to make a lot c~f mistekes in th9s Clty end the Cammission is trytnq to
recognize that with the chsnges that are going on, they must mintmiz~ tl~oso
mistekes. Ne stated laws change and plans have to be changed to rt~et the changing
tfines. He statcd he helped work on this ptanned cormiunity of Anaheim Shores and th~t
he also sees the necd or thQ parking lot. but sees the violation of trust to the
homeawners assoclatton because they thought this would be 2~ lats. He stated he
thtnks wttt~ 2k residential lots there would be more traffic on their streets and that
this parkfng lnt mey be a factlity that these peopie nu~y n~ed in the future and It
wi{) be convcnien~. He stated hc (s also esking himself if this w~uld be detrimental
to thos~ people who hav~ tnvested their life savings in that area, because as a real
ostate broke~ he cannot envtston haw this parking lot~ with the butlt•in protectton.
will have that kind of ill effect on that conmuntty. He stated it wiil be buffared
and wil~ prc~vide more privacy than there Nould be with resid•_ntte) structures and it
will produce less traffic.
5/k/Si
; ~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION~ May 4~ 1981
81-262
Mr. Parker s teted thetti ts an element of syn~ethy here because thls Is a reltglous
~on-profit hoapital and that ev~eryane haa latched onto his comment about Lhe
homeowners a'soctatio~ dua~ and that was not the n-eJo~ Issue. He stated the maJor
laaue is that theae are these people homes a~d they have bouc~ht tn the pianned
community because tt Is a beautiful spot and ts conventent snd e sefe placa to reise
thelr chlldren. He stated the probldn here is a conflict between two aympathetic
In~tltutiona. one is xhe health care end the other (s a men's home which has long
been sacred. He stated It seams to him that this is thn place ta finally stop end
allow no more churches, schools o~ hospitals because the area is already s~eturated
w 1 th these uses.
Comnissloner 6ushore sCetcd he thought Mr. Parker hed made e gc~od point• end the
Pl~nning Commiss(on has been manuevered tnto thts posl• n by the hospital's planning
end not necessartiy by the City's planning a~d that he recognizes mi~takes are mad~.
He stated above all and no metter hvw badly the hospital ~eeds this parking lot~
there are other soluttons which could be explared. I~e stated he feels it is w~ong to
be manuevered Into thls positton at th@ ex~ensa of the people who bought tn a pla~ned
communtty and hc felk somathing Is awed to those pQOp1e. He stated he hss been
concerned a~cr this for a long time ond gcts disturbed when a doveloper buys a
proJect end ~udde~ly agrees~ obvipusly to hls own ec~nomfc beneftt~ to do these
things ta a community. He stated ho faels the Camrr,isslon owe~ it ta thls comn-~nity
to protect their rights end sf~ould vlew tt~is TurPly from A plannfng standpotnt rather
tlian a polit(cal stands~~int and l~ve it as it stends enci let the hospitai solve the
prablem in another way.
Comnissioner Herbst stated ha has bcen on tt~e Gonmisston for a long time and tlmes do
change and land uses change and these changes dc~ aff~ct liv(ng condit(ons. He stated
this raquest ts because there ts o need fo~ a hospital change. Ile stated health care
has changed wlth the out-patient care and ho o~e could have foresean these changas.
He stated the developers havc come in fo~ epproval of homes and than changed to
condominiums and then to apartments De~ause ttmes do change because of the high
costs. Ne stated fortunately here no one will ba hurt because the property ts vacant
and a parking ~ot can bo destgncd with screening which wlll heip the residents and
thts development ls only on th~ edge of thelr planned cwrmunity rather than
encroach i ng t nto i t.
Comm~ssloner King stated he would I ike to offor a nnclon buc wanted to resolve the
issue of the cul-drsac.
Chatrtnan Tolar suggested A m~difled cu)-de~sac and Jack Judd stated the Engineertng
Departmcsnt would have no problem with a rnociificd cul-d~-sac as long as the trash
could be h~dlcd.
ACTION: Cnmmissioner Ktng offered a motion, seca~ncled by Commissioner Herbst and
~1 CARRIED (Commisslonar Fry being absent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning
Cortmisston has reviewed the requese to permit e hospital parking !ot on an
irrdgularly-shaped psrcel af land consisting of approximately 2.9 acres, h~aving a
frnntage of approximately 350 feet on [hn sauth side of Romneya Orlve, '~avin~ a
5/4/81
MINUTES~ ANAl1EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ W+y !~, 1981 81_263
maxlmum depth of epproxinately 460 feet and being loceted approximately 1650 feet
from the ccnterline of Eucltd Strmet; and does hereby opprove the Negatlva
Oeclaratio~ from the requtrement to prepare an environmenta) Impact report or+ the
bssta that the~e would be no signtfic~nt I~divtdual or sumulstive adverse
envi~onmentel (mpact due to the epprovel of this Negatlva De~cloretlo~ since the
Anahetm General 1°1an designetes the subJect property far low-medium r~sidential land
uaes wmmensurate wlth the proposal; thet no sensitive environmental Impacts are
In w lved in the proposal; that the inttla) Study submttted by the petftioner
indicates na signific~nt Individual or cumulattve edverse environmental tmpacts; end
that the Negative Declarat~on substantiating the foregoing findinga (s o~ flle tn the
Ctty of Anahetm Planning Department.
Commt ss to~er Kt ng of fe red a rr~t tnn ~ seconded by Corrmt ss lAne~ Hcrbst and MOT I ON
CARRIED (Conmtssioner Fry being absent)~ that the request for waiver of code
requirement be denled on the basis that revts~d plans del~tcd the need for said
waf var.
Cammissianer Ktng offered Resolutton No. PC81-92 end moved for its passage and
adoptlon thet the Anahetm City Plann(ng Comnissl~n does hereby g~ant Conditional Use
Pe~mit No. 2195 pursuant to Se~tions 18.03.030; .031; .032; .033; .~3~+ and .o3S~
Tltle 18 of the Anaheim Municlpai Code and sub)ect to Intn~departmental Committee
recommendacions changtng Condit(on No. 4 to require a modlfied cul-dr sac rather than
a standard cul-de-sac.
Commissiane~ Ba~nes steted she has a p~oblem because she feels she w111 be the
deciding vote; thet fier besic problem is that she feels th~ hospttal (s probabiy
going to expand their servtces, howev~r~ she beileves thec the parking lot is needed.
She stated she Is disappo(nted that the hospita! Is not purchasing the prnperty
across the street; that she really thtnks thig ~arking l~t wt1) not have a
detrimental sffect to the peopl~ tn the area and it will not affect the value of
their homes and ~IChough she has grave misgivings~ she would have to vote in fsvo~
of the pr~ject.
On roll cal), the foregoing resolution was passed by thc followtng vote:
AYES: COMMtS51011ERS: BARNES, HER85T~ KING, TALAR
NOES: CONMISSIONERS: 60UAS~ BUSHARE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; FRY
Jack White~ Asststent City Attorney~ presented Lhe wrttten right to appeai the
Planning Commtssion's decision withln 22 days to the City Council.
RCCfSS There was a t~n-minuta recess at 3:55 p,m,
RECONVENE The meeting was reco~vaned at 4:05 p.m.
S/b/81
MINUTES~ AN-.NEiM CITY PLANNING COMHISSION, May 4, 1981 81-Z64
ITEM N0. 4: EIR CA~lGORI~AL EXEMPTIOl1-CLASS 1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2204t
PUBLIC HEARING. tri1NERt LAK~ViE~I PLAZA INVESTMENT CO.~ LTD.~ if.1 Town and Country
Ro~d, Or~nge. CA 92G6a. AGENT: TEIh1A WAKIMOTQ, 2~9 South Empl re Stre~t~ Anahelm, CA
92$Ok. ProAe~ty described at rn irra9ularly-shapod percet of land cor+sisting of
approximately 3.1 a~r~~• ~~~~~tcd north end east of the no~th~est oorna~ of McK~nnon
Orive and Lakeview Avdnue~ 414 N~rth l.akevlew Avenuc. Prope~ ty presently classlfled
CL(SC) (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITED SCENIC CORal00A OVERLAY) 7.ONE.
CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO P~R111T ON-SALE DEER AND WINE IN A PROPOSED RESTAURIWT,
There was no one indlcsting the ir prasence In op~-osition to subJnct request~ and
altf~ough thc staff report wes not read~ it Is rcfe~red to and nwde a part of the
mt nutes.
The appl tcant was not presenk snd th Is f tem was hearc~ fol lowtng Iter~~ No. 12. Dean
Sherer~ Assl stant Planner, ox~~ ainecf the peti t~oner has tndicated thls NI1) be a
Jepanese faod resteurant and wi th thQ t'rne of ABC license~ It ec~uid not be s cocktai l
lounge or beer bar.
TI1E PUBIIC HEARING WAS CI.OSEO.
ACTIAN: Commtssioner H@rbst offnred Resolutton No. PC81-93 and movad for its pa~tage
an~aJoptio~ that the Anahetm City Planninc~ Commisslon doe~ hrreby grsnt Conditlonal
Use Perm~t No. 2204 pursuant to Sercio~s 1C.03.030; .c•31: .J3': .~33: .~34 and ,035,
Tltle 18 of the A~aheim Munlctpal Code and subject tn Interdepartmental Committee
~ecoimiendations.
On rol l cal i~ the foreyoing resul~ti on wae ~assed by the fol tawing vote:
AYES: CQMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ nOUAS,
NOCS: COMMISSIONERS: NQNE
ABSENT: COMMISSIOtIERS: FRY
I TEM N0. 5: E 1 R CATEGORI CAL E xEMPT I ON-
C[1N~ITI~~IJAI. l1SE PERMIY N~. 22~ SS
4U5HQRE ~ HERBST, KI NG. TOLAR
S 1. 41A1 VER OF CODE REQU I REMEN
PUf3LIC HEARING. ONNER: PMILEAS S. K. KAN AND JULIA TAM KAN~ iG3~+ S. Crest Vista
Orlv~~ Plonterey Park~ CA 91751+• AGENT: ERNEST C. ROSSER. 3070 West ltncoln Avenue,
/1~ Mahaim~ CA 92801. Property desc~ibed as a rectangulsrly-shaped parcel of lend
conststing of approximateiy 1. 37 ac~es~ located et the southeast corner of Lincoln
Avenue and Grand Avenue, 3070 ~lest li ncoln Avenue (Ernie's Pt zze). Property
p~ese~tly classified CL(COMMERCIAL~ LINITED) ZONE.
CON01 TI ONAL USE REQUEST: TQ PE RHIT ON-SALE BEER AND W 1 NE I N AN EXI ST i NG RESTAURANT.
Thare wes no one ~ndicating tt~eir presence in apposition to subJect ~equest, and
although the staff report was nat read~ it is referred to and made a part of the
mtnutes.
SJ~:~/81
MiNUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIt~G COMMISSION. M~y 4~ 1981 81-265
Ernott C. Ro~sar~ •gen~~ st~ted h• is p~oposing to utliize the store next door and
operate a rost~urant with on-~~le b~er •nd wine.
THE PUBLIC MEARING HAS CLOSED.
It wes notod th~ Plannin9 Dt~octor or hi~ euthorized representatlva h~s dAtermtntd
that the proposed proJect falls within the definition of C~tegoric~l Exemptlons~
Cl~ss 1, as de tined in p~regraph 2 of the City of An~helm Environmentel Impact aeport
Cu 1 de11 ne• •nd 1 s~ thoro fore ~ cateqor t cal ly exempt from the requi ren+ent to prepare •n
EIR.
ACTION; Conmisatone~ Kin~ afferad a notion, s~conded by Com++tsatoner 0ushore and
~~ CARRIED (Comntsslonar Fry ~~eing absent~, thst the Ar~~hetm Ctty Planninc~
Commisston dogs he~~by grant the reques! Fa~ code requtrement on the baals that the
request Is mininal and tha times cuatcxne n would frequent tha shopping center would
vs ry and denial would dany s~t.)ac~ pra~erty of a privllec,~, enjoyed by other property
In the same tona and vicinlty.
Commisnionc;r King offe nsd Resolution No. PC81-94 and moved far Ics passAge and
adoptinn thet the An~he(m Clty Planniny Commi~stan does hereby grAnt Condltione) Use
Perm~t No. 220y pursuant to Sections 18.Q3.030; .~31; .Q32; .~1~; .0;4 and .035~
Tt tla 18 of the Anahalm Munlcipa) Coda and sub,ject to Interdepnrtmenta) Committee
~acon~n~e n da t i on s.
On roll cell~ the foregning resolutlc ~ea passed by che follow(ng vote:
AY~S: COMMISSIONERS: DARNES~ El0UA5, aUStIQRE~ IIERBST~ KING. TOLI.R
NOES: COMMISSIONEaS: NOt~G
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: FRY
ITEM N0. 6: EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CQNDITIONAI USE PERMIT N0. 220G:
PUBIIC HEARING. 0~lNER: GENERAL IIMCRICAN LIFE INSURA{VCf.~ Cd., 1b~A South Sunkist
Street~ la, Anal~elm, CA 92806. AGEHT: DON TILLEY, 1500 South Sunkist Street~ d~C~
A~aheim. CA 92846. ProF•rty c:escribed as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land
conststing of approximatAly 7.2 acres, lacated at the southeaa: co~ner of Cer~ttos
Avenue and Sunklst Street~ 1~~0 "B" South Sunktst Street (Tilley's Trim Shop).
Property presently classified ML(INDUSTRIAI., LIMITED) ZONE.
CONQITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO RETAIN AN AUTO UPHOLSTERY SHOP IN THE ~!L 20NE.
Accion was taken on this matter at the beginning of the meeti~~. ,,
It was noted ths petltlone~ requested a continuanc~ to the met~ttng of May 1~, 1Q81.
ACTIOfa: Comnissioncr He~bst offered a mett~n~ seconded by Commissioner Barnes a~d
MO- TION CARRIED (Cortmis4loners ~rv end Bushorc. being abscnt). that co~stderation of
the aforementtoned it~m be continued to t~~e regularly•sc' .d~ led meeting ot Nay 18~
19$1 at the~ request of tha patitiancr.
siaia~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION~ May 4~ 1q~1 81-266
Actto~ w~! tAken an Items ~ and 8 at the be~inning of the meeting.
ITEM N0. t EIR MEGAtIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIQNAL USE PERMIT N0. 2~07:
PUOLIC HEARING. ONNERs ORANGE COUNT~ WATER ~ISTRiCT~ P. ~,. Box 83A0~ Fountal~
Va I l~y. CA g:~08. AGENT: t. l. PHAithi S SANO AND GRAVEL, I NC. , 28$!- ~~orth S~nt i ago
bo~levard~ I20p~ O~~nge, CA 9~~i67• Prop~rty described ~s a~ irragulsrly•shape:i
par~:el of land consisting of dpproximataly 3•~~ ac~es~ having a trontage of
•pproxirtutely 120 f~~t on the wast side of Rlchtteld Road~ heving s maximum de p th of
approxtmat~ly 57U feet ond b~ing loc~t~d epproximately 1750 feet south of tha
centerltne of La Palma Avenue.
CONDITIONAI USE REQUEST: TU PERMIT A PORTA6LE COMCRETE BATC11 PLANT.
Jack White~ Asslstant City Attorney~ e xplained the Plenning Commtssion cannat a ct on
this matter tince conditionel use permits to permit portabie concrete mlxing piants
In tho Scenic Corridor Zo~e, are not currently pen++itted by c.ode; however. tharo (a a
relatod ltem on thQ Reports and Recommend~tions Dortlon of the agenda pertalnin g to a
code amendment to permlt such usea~ and that this metter should be continued un til
after !hat code amendment has heen ~do~+ted.
A~TION: Commlssloner King offered a motion~ secunded by Conmissione~ N•rbst a~ d
~~ CARRIED (Conmissioners Fry end Bushore being t~bsen~)~ that the M eheim City
Planning Canmission does hereby continue consideratio~ of tl~e aforementtoned item to
the regulerly•schedulad meettng of June 1. 1981.
ITEM N0. 8; EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIOt~. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIaEME~IT AND CONUITIONAL__USE
~---•~-•--- - --
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: RO4ERT LOUIS CI~RK AND NELE1~ ALLGEYER CLARK~ 3021 lakeview
Terrace, Fullertpn, CA g2635. AGENT: JOHN BOB CAMPREGHER~ 1243 AlAna Street.
Anehetm, CA 92801. Property described as an irregularly-shaped p~rcel of land
conslsting of approximately 0.93 ac ro s~ north and east of the northeast corner af La
Pelma Avenue a~d g~ookhurst Strcet, 1112 North Brookhurst Street (Chez Paree).
Property prese~tly classiffed CL (COMMERCIAL. LIMITEO) ZONE.
CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT A COCKTAIL LOUNGE WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM NU MBER OF
PARKING SPI1C~5.
It was noted the petltio~er has requested that subject petitton be wtthd~awn.
Chairr-bn Tolar explained the only action the Planning Commisslon was to consider
today would be th~ request to consider a cacktail lounge rather than a restau ~ant
with on-sale alcaholic beverages. He explal~ed the Plan~ing Commission ts aw a~e of
a 11 the prab 1 errt i n the ne i ghborhood and dc,es have a capy of the Po 1 i ce ReRort ;
howev~e~, the petttioner has withdrawn his a~+plication and the~e wii) be no actian
today by the P 1 ann i ng Commi ss ion.
A gen:lemen in the audience, who as kcd not to be identified, stated ail the p ~operty
ow~ers were noti f i ed of th is heart ng anci are present today and the appl i cant has
~/4/S1
~, 1
MINU~ES~ AN~NEIM CITY PLANNINQ CONMiSSION, May W, 19$1 8~'Z67
dcfau) tad by not being present. HA •sked 1 f they would be notl fled ~q~in af •
continued hearing. H• statod h~ f~lt this property ~houid not be allowed to h+~ve !he
nwtorcycl~s •round (t ai l night. H~ st~tad the p~opis in th~ nel9hbo~hood could buy
~h• lot; that sinae this ast~blishn~nt has baen In the srea. he h~s not h+~d any
sleep. He stated his hane It lo~atad dircctly behind tha ba~ ++~d Is worth S19~~000.
Chalrman Toler st~ted tha Planning Commi:slon cannot sct an this pa~ticul~r ~equest
today but th~t they do t~tend to mi+ke s mntlQn asking the Ct .y Counc) l to co~stder
~evocatlon of tha original conditlonal usc permit because of all the probiems
currentlY being expcrle~cad.
The gentlemen stated he did not want to be identifincl because they a~e having
prab lorr~ and the Po l ice Uepartment tel l s the c: ners who cal l ed when there t s a
p rnb 1 em.
Gordon Edwl~ Yelton~ 2202 uezt Falmo~~th~ Anehelm~ asked if ~he police ectlvtties
a~ound thls estab119hment a~e go(ng to enter into the PlanRi ~g Conmisslon's deciston
regardin~ this nermit.
Chairman Tolar stated i f the Planning Commiasion could act on this ~equest today~ the
parking wauld be a very va) id reason for ., nyincl th~ apa) iGatlon bec~use the~e '~as
baen a problem. Ne stated the Planning C~rr+~issloners are land planners and thGir
decision c~nnot b~ bdsed on ers-otton but strfctly on lend planning and that a parking
variance probably woulci ~wc be epproYecf with this ~equcst.
Commisstoner Ba~nes pointed out that under steta law~ Planning Commtsslons are not
supposed to grant eny variances that would ba detrtme~tal to the health~ ~afety ar
welfarc of the cltiz~ns of Maheim and that this estabitshn+ent is there under a
condi tior ~l use perml t.
Mr. Y~ltc,x~ stated he f~lt if the police activitles are going to enter into the
decision~ that there should be a ful l meeting with wltnass~s both pro a~d con for the
Police Department and the individuals In the area. He ststed he wanted hls stetemont
in the record that he felt the City Counctl should Investig~te the actlvittes of the
Anaheir~ Police Department at the Chez Paree.
Chalrman To~ar potnted out Mr. Yelton should let the Clty ~ouncil knaw haw he feels
bacause all the Planning Commission can do is recommend that the pe~mit be revler+ed.
Jack I~hite~ Assistant City Attorney~ expleined if there is an action taken rega~ding
rewcati on of tha ori gi nal condi tional use perml t~ that i t would be a heari n~ before
the Plenning Commisslo~ becaus;: the Planning Commission granted the conditional use
permit.
Mr. Ye 1 tan s ta ted he has 1 I ved there for 17 years and i s ar+are of the prob 1 ems w i th
the b i kers; that he has been a b 1 ker for 3C yaars and that these b t kers have a
di ffere~t i i festyle than he doe$ and he felt th~e bar shout d not be thera a~d he did
not want it there tn the fin~c plece. but he dnes not Iik~ the Maheim Police
5/4/S1
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Mey ~+~ 198t 81-~68
D~p~rtn~ nt's methods of snforcenMnt of Anahelm Municipsl Codes and St~te Vehicle
Codos.
Mr. Y~Iton ststed there le a p~oblem with the bike~s but when it come~ to getting
their optntons expressed before a body like this~ they ca~nnot get togeth~r, and he is
standtng here alane.
Ch~lrnrn Tolar stated a letter ta the Clty Counc(1 would certainly be in order fram
che peopla (n the area.
ACTION: Commissioner Barnes offa~ed a motion. seconded by Cammlesloner Bouas and
~ CIIRRIED (Commtssloners Fry end Qusho~~ betng absent)~ that the . ~
Petitio~ for Condttto~al Usa Permit No. 2208 be wtthdrawn et the request of thR
petitloner.
Cheirn~an Toiar ox~lalned thts acrtan by t~~e Planning Commisston is not condon' g what
they s~e doinc~ at this establishnxnt, but thet the petltlan has been withd~sw• snd
the Pienning Commtsston has no eppiicatlon beforA them to act on st this timo.
ITE~ M NO.~: Ellt NEGATIVE DECLAMTIOt~, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 8Q-81-33 AND VARIANCE N0.
'~f. ......._ ~ ......~~
_._._
PU9LIC fiEl1RING. OWNERS: IV1T111 ANt~ N~D R06ERT TIMOTHY SHORT, 515 Valencta Street,
fullerton, CA 9~~33• Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
canststing of approximately 0.27 acre~ 12~~ North C~ffman Str~et. property presantly
classtficd RS•7200 (P' S1uENTfAI~ SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONE.
RECLIISSIFICATI01i REQUEST; RM-240~
VAaIANCE REQUEST: ~.+AIVERS OF: (a) MINIMUM BUILDING SITE AREA AND (b) MAXIMUM
STRUCTURAL HEiG11T TO CONStRUCT A~~-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING.
There w ere e(ght persons Indlcatiny their ~resence in oppositton to subJect request~
and althouqh the staff report was not read, It ts refcrred to and made a pa~t of the
minutes.
Ron Short, 9~3 North Tupeka, A~aheim~ cwner~ stated he plans to remave the existing
house and r,onstruct a k-unit apartmnnt complex; that the property to the north has a
construcCion storac~ yard and the property to the south has o metel shed and the
whole netghborhood needs to be upgraded. He stated these will be ntce 1300
sque~e foot units wlth two-car ga~ages.
Marga~et Ennts, stated she owns the house ncxt doo~ at 124 North Coffman and that her
rnother lives the~e. She stated tl~e aNplicant has seid he is going to improve the
property but she did not think ha aanted to improve tt because he has awned lt for a
long ttn~ and hasn't even claaned it up and rents to questionabte people; that the
p~operty is alrsady an eyeso~e and she felt with 4 units thcre couid be four times
the problems ~hey currently have. She stated thsre are other hnuses which are kept
S/4/81
MINUTES~ ANANEIN CITY PLANNIN~ COMMISSION~ May ~~~ 1~81 81•26~
nica but since Mr. Short bought tht~ property, he hes not done anythtng to improve
tt. 5he asked thet it be left as tt ts for a one-fsmily dwelling.
Mrs. Leste~ 41. Wey~ 169 Evelyn Orive~ one block to the wes~t~ potnted out on the map
th~t thts Is a vo ry nar~ow st~eat end when there are cara parked, the trafflc hes ta
drive ve ry siowly and be very carefui tn order to paas ~ne another wtthout probiems.
Sha statc~ this property la app~aximately In the middle of Coftman on tha east side
and polntcd out the trafflc flow tn the are~ ~n the map.
Mrs. Wey stated Evclyn Or~ve h~s no straet 1lghts or sidewalks and (s ~ community
whlch has qulte e few children who play in the strcets. Sh~ steted they have signs
wh(ch limtt the speed and~ In general~ rvo ryono is very ca~eful; hawever~ they have
notlced thc pc~ple who livr. on Coffman dc not Iike the approach from Ltncoln Street
because they cennot come In on CQntor so they use Evelyn Drlve as an entrance ta
Coffinen Streat. She stated they havr had three bad acctdeni~~ an~1 fortunately no~e
inv~lved th e s mall chlldren. She statrd if thr Cammission changes this Into a
multtple-famlly area~ it would increase the cl~onces for destructlon of the property
and thetr children unless therc ts a barrier ecross Cypress Street to close off
~valyn Urive. She statnd, frank.ly~ she did not see any reaso~ for rnaking this a
multiplc-family area~ but if that is the Commission's wlsh. then they have a
responsibtlity to sec that those Ilving on Evelyn Drive are protectcd F~om a
tremendous amount of additic~nal t~affic.
Ruoben Oeleon stated ho does awn tlie storagc yard which h~s been there for about 50
years. Ho stated it w3s his understan~fing that the Ctty Council wanted to upgrade
the neighborhaod with possibly condomintums and had set the Ilmit at 15 untts per
acre. He steted he would have no obJectl~~n to condominiums but does obJcct to
apartments. Ne stated they alreacfy harre a rtatel in the erea and he is concerned
about the parking~ because with 4 units it could ~ossibly add 16 vehicles.
Carrie Coykendal l, 1;332 E~+st La Falma~ stated she ob,jeccs to the apartme:nts but would
not abject to condominlums because people who awn condaminiums stay the~e and she has
found with aparCm~nts tenan;s ct~ange frequently and there Is always confusion. She
stated she is sur~ these tenants will be parking fn front of her property a~d she
often needs that space for hsrself.
Ms. Sirtmons, i21 North Coffman~ stated one of I,er objections is to the parking
beceuse she already has o t~ard tirne Nith the cars parked in front of her house trytng
to get ~ut her driveway and with more people thiere wil) be more cars.
Ron Short stated these Unfts will not be small and he did not think there wtl) be a
large turnover of rcnters. Ns scated they have allowed for two parktng spaces fpr
every unit and he did not thtnk the paPking situutton would be any wo~se. He stated
he feels thcrc is a need to start son~ewhere to maka this ar~a look decent and noted
these lots are approximately 220 f~Gt deep and 80 feet ~vtde. He stated he felt thls
p~oje~t will increase tha value of the neighbarhood's property.
THE PUBLIC tIEARING WAS CLOSEO.
5/4/81
MtNUTES~ ANANEIH CITY PLANNII~G CONMiSSION, May 4~ 1981
81-270
Commissionsr Bushore askad Mr. Short to submit the photog~aphs he hed ~efer~md to,
whtch he did.
Commissioner Herbst stAted thare wa3 a~ublic heartng not too tong ego and the people
who live fn the ~~°andtCouncilnupheld thelrawishes~ares as it Is at the present tlme
end the Conmisslon
De~n Sherar oxplained thc City Cou~cil hAd a heartng or GenerAl P1an Amendment No.
160 end it was approvecl permitting o~ encouragtng muitiple-famity residential
dcvelopment at a de~sity not to cxceed 1~ ~mits pe~ gross acre. so the Generel Pla~
He remerrber~d o refarenco to the
was emcnd~~~ ' ut therc is no rosolution of ti~tont.
street situatton thot there be a provtsion to provide a cul-de-sac at the end uf
Cypross Street, but th~t would not affect this proJect.
Commiasioner Hor~bt~,i~~ddthcreawaspacrecommendatlon~that ~ypresspStreettwaul~aba Mr.
Sherer s tated he
closed at Evelyn.
Jack 41h) te ~!-ss) stant GI ty Attorney ~ s taced the CI tY C~uncl 1 i s the or.ly authori ty
thet could vacane ~ndSectlona21101~ofsthe Vehiclcreodeand~nh~e~~~sa findtngPthatethe
hea~ing~ pursua t
street is no longer necessary as a through routc.
Cnmmiasioner Herbst stated ha felt an Area Development P1an would be appropriate so
there would be scxne conti nut ty to the dr.ve lopment of th~ area; and that he woul d
classtfy this project as an spot zonlr~g fnr Rli-2400 which would make it one lot in
the middle of R5~lsortr.,land assenblY to make,a nicce dev~lopmenta res~lution of IntenC
sa there could be
Chalrmen Tolar stA~ed he felt thore are a lot of emntions inwlved here, with
people stl 11 1 t vi ng 1 ~ t--el r homcs. but everyone has to recogni ze thet Coffn-en St~eet
def;nitely is going to evcntually be developed as multiple-family rosldrntial
uses. He stated therc is no reason wF~y Evclyn Strcet end Cypress Street could not be
cls~sed. aithough he coula not understand why peeplc ~n~~~h rough'attransitiona~period
CoFfman 5trect. He stated that arca is cert~irlY 9p 9
and th~re are many lots there that need improvement. ~~e stated sornethtng has to be
done in thet area. but he also recognizes thert are some nlce homes !n the area. He
stated this Is an area which needs an Area Deve~o~menk Plan and atso recog~ition by
the homeawne~s that tha property could be far more vaiueble if it were developed for
sc~me klnd of multl~le-famtly uses. Ne stated apartments are needed as bedly as
co~dominlums because there are a!ot of people who cannot affo~d to b W a~ondaninium
at today's prtces andnthisHet~~reed ehatban~Area Development Plan is~needed so~th~
fam~ ly type developme t
lots will not be dev~eloped one at a time.
Commissio~er Herb~t stated he would ~yree that apartments are needed~ but he fe{t
even though the pro aces c rovided andtposslblyfsort+eaof,thertenantscwouldthave more be
no guest parKfng sp p
5/4l81
MiNUTES, ANAH6IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ May A~ i~al 81-271
tha~ two or th roe vehtcl~s. H~ stated tf,o~~ ts no doubt in hts mind thet this ~ne-
lot "tpot zo~ing" atll encroach upan the neighbo~h~od. t~e ~~atad the~e are a lot of
things Coffman Street needs~ but puttir,~ one ap~rtmant development in the middle Is a
little premature and there should be some effort tor land assarr~bly.
Chairman Tol~r aakod haw the develuper w11) derrolop his property tf he ca~not gat
agreement for land essen~bly. Ne stated it Is his opinion that this area d~aerves
multtplr family zoning e ventually.
Conmtaaloner Nerbst stated t~~e whole street needs to be rezoned.
Chairman Toler stated he would much rather .4e tha action initiated by the homeawners
to roquest a zone chAn~e. Ne stated if Commtsston~r I~erb~t (s suggesting a general
plan resolution of Intent for multiple-family z~ning, then he could support that~ but
could not support reclossiflcation for tha whole area.
Co^Ynt~sioner HerGst stated he was referring to a resolutlon of tnten~ because that
does :et tha property avners thQn kr-ow speciftc~lly what the tntent ~f thelr property
wlil i~e.
Commissioner Bernes stated she would agree but here is an vwner who wants to make use
af his p rop~rty and the Gen~ral Plan says it should be ~r+-24o~ which aliows 1S units
per acre. She stated if one pe~son y~es in wlth a 4-unit apaPtment complex then this
wuuld be an Indicatton to other developers that thls Is the intent ~f the clty. She
asked haw to go about putting t~~n resolutlon ef tntent o~ this p~operty.
Jack Whlte exptoined the resolution of intent Is a prelude to the ordinance rezpning
the p•operty which indicates that the conditions have been complied with and those
condit'^ns include such thtngs ~s dedtcatlon and bullding in accordance with spectfic
plans an.! ~n thls Instanue~ there would not be any s~ecific plans. F1e stated it ts
really a aue:.tion whether or not the Commtsston wants to adopt a specific plan for
the area; ttia under fhe General Plan there (s a provision which allaws the
Conmisston to adopC a sFecific plan within thc Genera) Plan that states how a preclse
area is to be ieveloped and he thought that 3s probably what the Commisslon is
thtnking of. -~n statcd the Commission does not have specific plans and must revle~w
this one prope~ty and determtne whethe~ or not the re=oning would conform to th~
Ganeral Plan; h~wever, this spectfic proJect would not conform to the zoning
requir+~ments an~ would requtre cwo variances. He stated the issue is whether this
applicatton should o.. approv~ed as is; that whesther or not it is approved~ the
Commission wants to start the machi~ery ln ~~der to esteblish what he wouid
categor(ze as a specific plan of development for this particular area whlch would
require as a condition that the surrounding devetopment wo_ ' have to havc some type
of land ags~~y as ~ prelude to rezvning to R1+~120~. He stated he w~. not aware
that the Comnissian has ever done thts before.
Commissioner Barnes felt reclassiftcation of this particutar property would be a~
indication to other developers as Lo the intent.
5/4/$1
,,,,..~ -a~.~._ _ _
. ~,
; 's
t~
MiNUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMt11SSI0N~ Mey 4~ 1981 81•272
4
,lack White felt that certa~tnly tf this reclasstfication ls granted~ the Commisslon
could ex~act future reques ts.
Commissloner Harbst stated he wes cancerned that thts wouid set a precedent sllowinq
a smn11 indlvldual developn~nt and would eliminate I+~nd assembly.
'''}airrnan Tolor stated he wa~ not sure that wauld be bad because srr~ll units may be
~etta r than one btg unit. 11e felt trt-ploxes or fou r plexes would pravtde a better
living envtronment then biq opa~tment complexes and certstnly there is e need for
thom In the Ctty, especlelly wlth thosa people who do not want to llve tn a large
complex.
Commisstcx~er Herbst pointed out that la~d assembly would create a posslbility of
eiiminating khe varlances on these lots.
Ghairmen Tolar ~elt thesc v~rtance requnsts are smal) and pot~ted out the propertles
next doar to the north end 5outh arc alrcady zoned RM-2400.
Comm(ssioner aushore stated he is conc~rned about nr~ving ~ hardship.
ACTION; Commissloncr Klnc~ offercd a motion~ yccnnded by Chalrrr~n Tolar and MOTIQN
CA (Commissfoner Fry being absent)~ chat the Anahclm Clty Planning Cortmtsslon
has revlewed [he prapcls~l to reclasslfy sub)ect property frc~m RS-7200 (Residential~
Single•Fami ly~ Zone to the ftM-24~p (F`,eslcientia) ~ Muitipie-Fem( ly) Zone ta construct a
k-unit opartment complex With weivcrs of min(mum building stte area and maxlmum
structuri) height on a rectangularly-shaped pa~cei of land consisting of
approximately 0.27 acre~ having ~ frontaye of oppraximately 61 feet on the east side
of Coffman Strcet~ (124 tlorth Coffman Street); and does hereby approve the Negative
Declaration from the requir~ment to prepare a,~ envlronmental impact report on the
basis t.hat there would be no significant indivtdual or cumulative adverse
environmental lmpact due to che ap~roval of thls -~egative Declaretivn since the
Anahelm General Plan designaCes the subject prop~rty f~- low medium denstty
residenttal land uses commensurate wlth the proposei; that na sensttive environmantal
impacts are inv~olved in the proposal; that the Initi.al Study gubmitted by tfie
petlttoner lndicdtes no significant Indtvidual or cumulative adv'rse environnw~ntal
impacts; end that the Negative Declarv,tion substantiating Lhe foregotng findin9s ta
on file in tt~e City of Anaheim Planning prpartment.
Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC81-95 .'-~d moved for its pasaac,~e and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planntng Cortwaission does here~y grant Reclsssificatian
No. 80-$1-33 s~b~Cct to Interdepartmenta) C~ortimittec rec.ommendatlons.
Camnissioner Herbst indlcated he would vot~ no on thls reciassificatian because he
would consider it "spoc zoning" in an a~ea wh :h~ hopefully~ o~uld be developed wtth
land assembly and he felt this would be det~imenta~l to the aroa.
5/4/81
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLAHNING COMMISSION~ May 4~ 19Q1 81•273
On roli cell, the fo~ogoing rosalutt~~~ pessed by the fa~lowing vota:
~~~S: COMMISSIOI~ERS: UARNES, BUSHORE~ KINr,, TOL~R
NOES: GOMMISSIONE~S: BOUAS~ HER~ST
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: FRY
Commissioner King offered a renolutian granting butl~ waivers on the bosis that dental
would bc depriving sub)ect property of prtvileges enjoytd by other property in the
s~ne z~ne and vici~ity and subJect to Interdepartmental Comm+ttee recommendations.
Cheirman Tol~r stated he would support the ~~ariance but wauld like thc reason stated
in the minutes that he is supporting wnlver (a) on tlic basis tl~at If the existlnc~ RM-
21~OQ Zoni ng code was updated, much I i ke ttic RN-3n~~ Z~~~~~ has been ~ he (s not sure the
waivers would be necessary ~nd grantinq waiver (o) on the basts thAt If properties ta
the north and south we~e rezuned to RH-24f10~ thts waiver would not be necessary.
Gcxnmissioner hing sta:ed he wuuld not be op~osr.d ta h. tng thase findin~~s added to
the resolu({on.
On roll call~ the foreno ing resolution FAILf~ TO CARRY by the follrn+tng tie vote:
AY~S: COMNISSIOUERS: k~ARNES~ KING~ TOLAR
NOES ; GOM~11 SS IONERS: NERdST~ UQUAS ~ tsUSt10RE
ABSEt~T: COt1Hl SS I Ot~CRS : FRY
Jack Whfte expl.3lned unl ess scxneone wants to cha~ge thelr vote~ the m~tter should be
continued for two wee~.s in order for a full Commission to be prrscnt.
Commissi~~ne~ liushore stated the Commission tias discussed changing ths code to allow
2~story units closer than 15~ feet~ but t~~e code hos not bee~~ c.hanned and it was
uecided these motters should br. reviewed ~m a cas~-by-case basis. Ne stated he has
no objectinn to the 2-story units~ but ss~s no reason to grant the ve~iance becaust
no hardships were sliown and h~ could nc,t votc in favor of thc p~oJect f~r that
reason.
AGTION: Com~iissioner He~bst offered a ~esolution and r.wved for its passage and
s~co~un that Variance No. 3211 be denied on the basis that no hardships have bee
Shown.
Jack Whitr, pointed out tl~at tl~e reclasslficatton has been granted anJ Condltion No.
11 of that resolutian reUuires that the completlon of ractassification prc...cedirqs is
conttngent upan the yrantiny of Variancs No. 3211. so the applicant can never utilize
the reclASSification. tle stated rpvised plans could be submitted in conformence with
code.
Can-nissioner ~ushore staced that was his intent Secause he understands Conr~+ission~r
Nerbst's reservations; however~ he thought thc Cammission needs to show the steps
they are wtitiny to take to devclop thAt property.
S/h/81
MINUTES~ ANANEIr~ CITY PLANNIt~G COMMISSION~ May ~~~ 19e1 81'274
Jsck Whit~ stated since tl~e reclrssificetion was epproved~ snd if the varia~ce is
denled, Che applicent w~uld have two steps avail~ble~ o~e wnul~ be to eppeel to the
City Council and thc otl~sr would be to redesign the proJect to conform to the zoning.
Cammlssioner Barrns ~tated the ncw ardinance doea not dpplY to apartments and because
thore is ~o resolution o` intent~ haru~hips will still hevc to be shown tn order ta
approve a varlance.
Chairmen Tolar steted he thouqht it ts scm~e.w~hat sad the Commisslon can p~ss e
resolutton support(ny R~1-24~0 Zoninq and then expect the developer to dc~al with
an anttquete~ ordlnance Just bccause this Ccxnmiss(on hasn't changed lt anJ ~+ointed
put that is the reason for tlie varionce procedure. Ne stoted if the whole area wes
xoneJ RH-1~iQf1~ waiver (b) would not bc nec~ssary and the str.e of these units are much
laryar than condc~miniums.
Commissloner darnes statsd ihc developer will Just cut doo+n the si;e of the un;:s~
and lo~gcr units ~~re nce.~ed.
Commissione~ flushc~r~~ stated hc made a statement th~t the RFt-2~~nn and the RM-12~~
orJinances are prohably outdate~i and shnul~ hc revlavc~d at thc sam~ tim~ thc t~h1-3000
cocle was revlewed, and it was decided at that time th~t the pr ~c:.ts weuld be
revlewed on a c~te-by-cas~ basis and the ordinance f'~r apartments cauld b~ updated at
A more appropria~c tin-e and hr thc~u~ht maybe thp eppraprtate ttmc Is naw~ but th~~t
thC ordinancos havc not been chPn~ed.
Ghairman Talar stated hc has nrvcr scen a case whero th~re waR an~ more Justificatlon
for apartments th~n tl~is project.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution FAILED YO CAaFY by thc follvwing tie vote
AYCS: CQMt11 SS I OtiCRS : DOUAS ~ BUSf10RE ~ tIERDST
Nl1E5 : COMM I SS I OF~C RS : BAfiNES ~ K I NG ~ TOLAtt
ABSEFIT: GOMMI SS I Of~ER5: FRY
ACTION: Canmissioner King offered ~ moti~n~ secondcd by Co+m~issior+er Barnes ~nd
MOTION CARRIEU (Commissianer Fry belnq absent)~ that considcration of the
aforementioned item be co~e:r,~Pd to the next regularly-scheduled Plann(nc~ Commission
meeting of Mav 13, 1981 ~~ecouse of thc tie vatc.
Comnissioner Ne~bst ask~~~ staff to nrovide i~fo~mation pertafning to the Closing of
Cypross Street at the herring.
Ms. Er~nls st~'cd shc wlil be out ~f tawn in two w~eks and woul~ like ta be present
when this ct :s befnre the Pianning Commissia~.
Commissioner Bushore stated there ara oth~r people who could attp~cl in her plece and
Ja~k ~rhite stated Conmisstoner Fry wili b~ r~;viewing the mt~~utes or thc Lapes of thc
testirnany given at this meeting today and he will have th~t tnfo nnation in front oP
5/4/81
MINUTLS~ ANAHEIM CITY F'LANNIfJ~ COMMISSION~ May 4~ 19f'1 81•2)5
htm when he votes on this pro,jacc. Ile steted the Commisslon wil) prabably not take
any additlo~el testimony at the continued meetlnc~.
Cheirman Tol~ir clarifled tiiat today a resolutlon of intcnt to rezone the prope~ty ta
RM-2~~00 wes granteci and the actidn an May 18th relatesto the varlance and that thls
developer would not have to canc back before this Commission If he redesigns the
proJect to confarm tU the code. Ne stated Canmisstoner Fry will review the iapes
end minutes and be the declding vota and the public heartnc~ wi11 not be reopened and
no more testtmony will be t~~+ken.
Jack Whitc explalned thcre i• ay appeal pertod pertrining to the
reclassiftcetlon caranted to~, tt~,: a~pe~l periad for tlie vArtance will beqin when
that res~lutton ts granted f~~~ .t~er epprovel or denial.
Mr. Deleon stated frrn~ the au~iJence tit~at he and his nclghbor hAVC ~+ lots and asked
wl~at they can do with those lots and ChAirr~an Tolor stated !~c brltevcd therr has bcen
a lot af testirnony today which indicates t-~at tlie Commission would llke to see land
assembly. Ne st~ted ~ne of ;;,c ~~casons that ~raperty i~ tn a trAnsitlonal position
is because nf the storaye yard and otli~r property similar t~ it in i'~e area ancl the
way thcy are bei~y kept. Nc s[ated tf the owners got toyether,they could make the
property look a iot t,ettFr.
Gommissioner fiushore stateJ If thts n n~ject is redesicaned to conform to code,there
wili be no furLhcr actlan and Commissioner Ciarnes pointed out the property uwne~s
will not be notified by m~tl and su~yested they call City tlall th~t day to flnd out
if the mattcr is ccxntng before the Plann(ng Cexmnissi~n because It is possible the
developer coutd chan~e hls ~ind.
ITEM t~0. 10: ~IR NEfATIVE DECLARATIQI~ AND CONAITIONAI USE P~RMIT N0. 2203
PU~LIC IILARING. OWNCRS: FAMILY IIEALTfI PROC~RAM I~JCORFORATED~ ~1!!3~ Talbert Avenue,
Fountatn Vallr.y, GA ~27~~. AGENt: UAVE YEDOR. 9930 Telbert Avenue, Fountaln Valley,
CA 92)Ou. Property described as A ~ectanoularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 2.L acres. 123~ ~~th Magnolia Avenue (F~nlly tleeith Program).
Praperty presently classified ML (INDUSTRIAI. LIMITED) ZONE.
COt~UIT101lAL USE itEQUEST: TO CXPAND AI~ EXISTING Mt01CAL OFFI..E ~UILQING.
There was no ane (ndicating their presence In o~positton to sut~Ject request, and
although ct~c sta`~ re~ort was not ~eed~ it is referred [o and mede a part of thc
minutes.
pave Ycdor~ agent~ was present t~ answer any questions.
TtiE PUIlLIG NCARING WAS CLOSEO.
ACTION: Ca~unissinner Y.ing c~tfered a motta~~ second~d by Garmissioner Bouas end
M ION CARRI~D (Ccrmissloner FrY bcing absent). that thc Anaheim Ctty Pianning
S/4; 81
~~
l
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING C~MHISSIA~~~ May 1~, 1981
8~-z7E~
Canmisa~on t~as r~vlewod the propos~l ta expand an exlsttng medical offlce buil~inq in
the HL (Industrial, Ltmiteci) tone on e ~ectangularly-shaped percel of land conslsttng
of approximately 2.II acres~ having a fren-.ac~e of ap~roximately 350 feet on the e~sc
aide of Magnolia Avenua~ located •ppr~etmatoly 123!1 fert north of the centerline of
La Pslme Avenue (12~6 North Magnolia Avenue); and dc~ns he~eby approve the Nagative
Declarattun `rom thc requirement to prepare an environment~l iMpect repo~t on the
basis thai there would be no significant indtviduel or cumul~tive sdverse
environmental impact due to the appr~val of this Negative Declaration since the
Anaheim Genert~l Plan dosignates the subJhct pruperty for qene~al industrial lancl uses
carmansurate with thc proposal; that no sensttlve environroenta) impacts are {nvolved
in the prop~sel; thai the Initial Study submitted by the pctitianer indtcate. no
stgniflcant !r,dividual or tumulative adverse envlronmental impAC~s; and that the
Negative Ueclaration substenttetina thc fnre~oln,y f(ndin~s ts on ftle in thc City of
An~haim Plannin~,~ Dapartment.
Mr. Yedor referred to Condiilon N~. 1- ~f the tntecdepartmental Ccxnmittee
recommendat(~ns and stated they wouid have no problem complying If there ts nu ttme
limtt on this pfrmit. It was noteJ thcre is ~o tir~c llmlt.
Gommissioner Ilefbst esked if tliere have bern any paiking problcros and Mr. Yedor
replled Ltiis addition was originally planncd fo~~r yesrs ~go and thc faciltiy h~~s ly2
more ~a~king t~~an needed right nuw.
Commissi~n~r King offered Resolution No. PGaI-~2 ~nd rioved for its passage a~d
adopttan tliat thc Analielm Clty Flanning Cormissi~n docs hereby grant Condittonal Use
Permit No, 22t)3, pursuant ta 5ecti~~ns iL.03.~3~; .~31; .032; •~33; .03~~ and ,035.
T(tie lii of the An~heim Municipal Lode and subJact to Interdepartmental Commlttee
recommendetions.
An roll cell. thc foregoing resolutlon was passed by thc fullaving vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ b0UA5~ l3USttORE. 11ERE2SY. KI-~R~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMIS510NERS: NONE
AI35ENT: COMMIS510NER5: FRY
iTE11 N0. I1: EIR NEfATIVE DEGLAtU1TI0t~ /WD VARIANCE N0. 3212
PUaLIC HEARING. OWtdER5: JEE Q. AND IILLI!1t~ CitAtIG~ t-2~i~ Dogwood Avenue, Seal Beach~
CA 9Q740. Property ckscrit•ed as a rectangularly-~haped parcel of land consisting of
approximat~ly 0.~$ ac~e~ G~5 5outh Webstsr Avenue. Property presently elasslfied RM-
1100 (RESIpENT1A~, MULTIPLE-FMIILY) T_ONE.
VARIANGE REQUEST: WAIVERS OF: (a) ~11NIMUM ElUILOIMG SITE AREA A~10 (b) MAXIMUM
STFtUCTUf~111 11EIGt~T TO CON5TRUCT A 1G-UNIT APARl'MENT COMPLEX.
There waa no on~ incficating their prasence i~ oppositlon to subJect request~ and
altho~igh Cha steff rcport was noc read. it ts roferred to a~d r.~adc a part of the
minutes.
5/4/81
~
ti
MINUTES~ ANAIIElM CITY PLANNlNG COMMISSION~ Mey ~~~ 1~81
81-277
Jee Ch~ng~ avn~r~ explained these requests f~r w~tvers ~re not drastic and the
p~oJect actually conforms to the rovtsed condomintum standards anci in the past
condominium a~d epartme~nts were subject to the sane sto~dsrds In these two aroas. Ile
state~ if he was s;lvwed to use the gross srea for calculatinns, there would be na
prablem ond the waivers da not degrade any ~f the livin~ standerdt.
T~iE. PUtiLIC HEARING WAS CLOSCp.
Chairman Toler stated if the apartment codos I~aJ bcen rcvised~ there would be no
problem.
Ccxnmissluner Nerbst stated lie has no problcm with the 1~0-foot setback~ and the slze
of th~ unlts Is not the p~oblcm~ but thc walver is to allaw 41 ,~nits to the acre and
code permlts 3~• I~e statcd he would have a hr~rd times finding a hardship and felt the
prapcrty is just belnc~ overbullt.
Mr. Ch~ny steted increasing tha d~nstty reduccs the site aree and redvices the open
space~ but In this case~ the additional unlts will bc upstatrs.
Chairman Tolar stated there is a neeJ for apartr-,ents and there ts a ~eed for a changc
in the code and tl~e Commissian clected tn tak~ thesc on a case-by-case basts rather
t~ian chanyiny code~ but if the code had been chan~ed~ thls ~ro)PCt would conform.
Commissioner Hcrbst stated state law requ(res therc must be a hardship shown on the
property and I~e did not see a hardship. Ile stated he can't recall any pro,ject bullt
w i th 36 un 1 ts to the ac re .
Commissionor ~arnes stat~d there arc 22G square feet of recreatlanal-leisure area per
dwelling untt end code requires 2~~ and that the recrcatlonal area in a proJect of
this size as a patio is more beneficla) ti~an an areR locat~d some place else and th~
petitioner could re~iuce that area by 2G squarc feet per unit~ but thc proJect would
not bc as Iivable or as desirable.
ACTI011: Commissioner King offered a mntion~ seconded by Chairman Tolar and MOTION
CARRIED (Commissioner Fry being absent)~ that the .Anaheirn Clty Planning Commission
has reviawed the proposal to construct a iG-unft apartment complex wlth walvers of
minimum buil~iing sitc area and maximum structural hel5ht on e rectangularZy-shaped
parcel of land coi~sisttng of approximately ~.4$ acre~ heving a frontaqe of
approx(mately G8 feet on the west side of Webster Avenue. epproxtmately 80~ feet
south of the centerline of Orange Avenue (G55 South webster Avenue); and do^s hereby
approve the ~iegative Declaratian rrom thc requirement to prepare an cnvironmenta)
impect reporc on the basis that ther~ weuld be no signlficant individual or
cumulative adverse environmenta) (mpact due to the approval of this Negative
Declaration since the Anaheim Genera) Plan designates the sub)ect property for medfum
density lend uses cortmensu~ate wiCh tt~e prnposal; thet no sensitive environmental
impacts are involved in the proposal; that the ~~itial Study submitted by thP
petitio~er indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse enviro~menta{
5/~+/81
i
MINUTES~ ANAIiEIM CITY PLA~IN1tJG COMMISSION, May 4~ 1g81 81-278
impacts; and that the Negstive Dacla'atla~ sv'stentiatiny the foregoing findings is
on ftle tn the City of M eheim Planninq Depertment.
Cvmmissloncr Ktn~ offered Resolutiun No. PGE~1-~7 and moved for (ts passage nnd edoptian
that the Ansheim City RlanninA Commisslon does h~reby grant Vartanr,e ~10. 3212 on the
basis af the long narraw shape of subject property and de~lat ~,K.~,,Id d.n*Ive sub}ect
prope~ty of e p~ivilega an,Joyed by other property (n the same t~ne and vicintty end
sub,)ect to Intordepartmente) Cort~n-ittee ~ec.xn~nendstlons.
Jn roll call~ thc foregoing resolutior~ wes p~ssed by the followtng vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS;
NOES: COMNISSIONERS;
ABSCNT: C011MISSIAt1EP,S:
AnSTAItl: CUMMI~SIONERS:
dARNES~ BOUAS~ hING. TOLAR
HE RI~ST
FRY
BUSHOR~.
ITCN N0. 1?.: EIR__)~Ef,ATIVE UECLARATION. R~CLASSIFICATION N0, 80-81-3> ANa VAP,IANCE
N 0. 21 ~ ""'"'
PU~LIC IICAR~NG. ONNERS: ~ILI. J. NICY.EL. ET Al.~ P. 0. Nax 22;~ Stanton~ CA ~0680.
Property descrihed as a rectanyul~rly-shaped parcel of land e~nslsttng of
opproximately 0.4 acre~ 122; Soutt~ Nutwood Street. Property p~esently clssstfied RS-
A-~~3~000 (RESIUE~~TIAL/AGRICUL7URAL) .'.ONE.
R~CLA:;SIFICATION REC~UEST: RM-12~~
VIIRIMJGC R~QUkST: 41A1VGRS OF: (a) MII~IMUM lQT AREA MIG (b) MINIMUM DISTANCE BET~lEEN
tiU I LU I NGS TO CONSTRUCT A 1 i--U~I i T 11PI1RTMEt~T COMPLEX.
There was no ona inJicating thelr presence in oppositton to subJect request~ and
aithough ttie scaff repor~, was n~,t read, ic is rcferrcd to and made a part af the
minutes.
Dc rnie Stabe~ co-owner, stated they awn th e prope~ty directly north on which a
simila~ proJect was approved abouc six weeks ago; tiiat th~ recit~ssiftcation wtll be
consistent with other property ln the are a; that the varlance fnr minimuR distance
between buildings is really not applicable because it Is one building with a
courtyard area. He pointed out tha drtvewa;s are excessive along the side and back.
THE PUdLIC NCARlIJG WAS CLOSEO.
AG~TIUN: Cammissioner aernes offered a motion, seconded by Commissiener King a~d
MOTIOt~ CARRIED. (Commtssioner Fry bein9 absent). that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission has reviewcd the proposal ta review the proposal to reclassify subject
property tron the RS-A-N3~000 (Residcntiat ~ Agricul;ural) 2one to the RM-12(?0
(Residential, Multiple•Family) Zone to pee~mit a 14-unit apartment complex wlth
walvers of minimum lot area per dwclling unit and minimum distance betwee~ buildings
o~ a rectangularly-shaped parcel of taRd consisting of approulmately 0.~+ acre~ having
5/4/81
~ `a
NINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMH~SSION~ May 4, 19E31
b1-27~
e fron ta~e of approxin~etely 11y feet o~ the west s{de of Nucwaod Street~
~pprox (mately 365 foet soutl~ of the centerl in~ of Bal 1 Roed (1225 South Nutwood
Straet); end Joes her~Gy approv~ the Negative Declaratlon fran the requirement to
p~apare an envi ronmantal Irnpect report on the beala that there would be no
signi Ficant indtviduel or cur~ulative edverse envlronmental Impect due to the spproval
of Cht ~ Neaatlve ~ecl~~etlon since the Anahetm Cenerel Plan designates the subJect
property f~r mecflum density land uses carMnensuret~ with the proposel; that no
sensi tlve anvironmental impacts are involv~d in the proposal; that the initlel Study
subml tted by the petitioner indlc~~es no signlflcant Indivtdunl or cumuletive adve~se
envtronrn~ntal impacts; and thae the I~yettv~ Declaretlon substantlr~tin~ the foregolnc~
flndings Is on filc In tfic Clty of M~helm Planning Departmcnt.
Commi ssionerli:.rnes offered Resolution Nn. PC81-~8 and move.f for its ~essage a~d
adopt ~on thot che Anaheim City Plannine~ Commisslon does hereby grant Reclessificetion
No. FO-1~1-35, subjcct to Interdepartrnental Cortmlttec recanmendattona.
On roi) call, the fo~egoing rt~salution wr~s passed by ttie follor+inc~ vote:
AYk.S: C011N1551011l.RS: BARNE5~ 130UAS~ UUSiIt)RE~ KINC, TOLAR
NOCS: COMMISSIANERS: IIERqST
ACiSEN?; COMIIISSION~RS: FRY
Commi 5sioncr Eiarnrs ~affer•ed Resolutton No. PCa1-~9 a~d r~oved for its passage and
adopt ion that the Mahelm City Planning Cammission does hereby grant Vsriance No.
3213 on the basis that denial would deprive subject pro~crty of a privilege enJoyed
by ott~er ~,ropcrty in tl~e same xu~e and vlclnity and subject to Interdep~+rtmenca)
Coinn i Ycee recommenda t 1 ons .
On ro 11 call, the foregoiny res4lutlon was passed by the follow~ng vote:
AYES : COM~11 $S I ON~RS : fIARI~CS ~
NO~S: COMMISSIONERS: HERB5T
AUSErtT: COMHI SSIOttCRS: FRY
I TE:M lJO. 13
REPORTS At~U ItECOM1iEt~DAT10~~~
BOI;AS~ UUS110f~C, KING. TpLAR
The f ~Ilowing Reports and Recemmendations staff repc~rts were presented but not read:
l~, TCNTATIVE tRAC_T NOS. 10~~6._10~~]_t_1~q9_~ - Rcquest for walver of street
~g~~~ng and~s~awe c~s ~~rom'~FiTm HT'TT~s, Inc.~ for property located on the
southwest corner af Avenida de Santlago and I~idden Canyo~ Road.
ACTION: Conmisstoncr Kiny offcred a motion, seconded by Cammissior-er 1lerbst
ani~M~TION CARRIED (Commissioner Fry bcing ~bsent). that the Anahelm City
Planning Ccxnmissic,n does hereby recannenQ to the City Council approvs) fo~
permanent waive~rs of conventio~al street lighting stendards and conventional
sidewalk siandards an Tract Nos. 103~iG. 10997 and 1~9~8.
5/4/81
` D
MINUTES, ANAH~IM CITY PLANNINC COtMiISSION, Nay 4~ 1981 81-2E30
B~ CONDITIONAI. USE PEaMIT N0. 10'~i • Requett for terminetion from John 9utlar
.~_.
~or property ocsta south en e~~t of the southeest corner of llncol~
Avenue end Weatch ester Orive.
ACTION: Commlssi~ner King otfored Resolutian No. PC81-1~0 and moved for its
pa-ssaqe and adapt{an that the Anehein~ City Planning Conmisston does hereby
termin~te Canditional Use Pe~nit No. 14y4.
On rol I cal l~ the foregoing rnsolut lon wes passed by the fol lawf ng vote:
AYES: COMMISS~(-NEP,S; Bl1RNE5~ UOUAS~ BUSIIORE~ FIERaST~ KIN~~ TOLAR
NOES : CONF11 S51 pNERS : NONE
A65CNT; COMMIS5101lEaS: FRY
C. VARIANCE N0, 1g1b - aequest for termtnation from 8rookmore Arms for property
1'otated at the nc~rtheast corner of BrQOl:r,ore Avenue and 8rc~okhurst Street.
ACTION: Commissioner King off~rnd ResolutTen PC81-1A1 and moved for tta
pa-ssaye and adoption that the Analieim City Plannlny Commissfon daes hereby
termin~te Yariance Mo. 1~18.
On rol) call~ th~ foregoing resolution was passed by the follc~wing vote:
AYCS: COMMISSIONERS: I3ARI~ES~ E~OUAS~ 6~5HQRE~ IIERfIST, KING~ TOLAR
NOES; CONM15510NERS: tiO~lE
A85EI~T: COMMI5510NER5: FRY
0. CONDITIONAL USL• PERMIT M0. 21~fi - Request for extenston of time from Jeronw
. A e man or property atate at the southeast corner of Orangewaod Avenue
and State Col lege anul evard (Murray' s Ti ckets) .
Conmissioner Bushore aslced the status of the tank removal and Dean Sherer,
Ass i s tan t P t anne r~ exp 1 a t ned the app 1 i can t has reques ted sn add i t 1 on~ 1 s f x
mo~ths (to pece~er 3~~ 19$1) to cantinue use of the trailer and to compiete
neyot i at i ans fnr pu rchase of the p roperty and ar~ange for the remov~ : of the
underground tanks. Hc stated once they h~ve acqui red the property, the
t~nks wi i l be rcmoved and the property developed.
Commissio~er Dushore recalled the o~iglnal sOx months approva) was not
p~edicated on purchase of tt~e property and ha did not think it a valid
rees~n for grant i ng the extens ion.
ACTION: Commiss ionc~ King offered a motion~ secondcd by Cortmissioner Ner'bst
an~`TION CARRIEO (Commissioner Fry baing absent) ~ that the Anaheim City
Pl~nning Commis~ian does hereby dcny request for extenslon of time fo~
Conditlo~al Use Percnit No. 21W6,
5/4~81
!
MINU7ES~ ANAI~EIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ MAY G~ 1981
81-Z81
E. COttDITI0N11L USE PEitMIT N0. 1~1 - Raquest for extension ~f ; Ime from Robert
W, Nastett~r or prorerty et 7~3 North Lemon Street.
ACTI(1N: Commissianer King offered e n~tlon~ secondod by Cammtssloner Nerbst
and MOTI~N CARRIED (Commi~stoner Fry bPing absent)~ that the AnAheim City
Plenn)n~~ LO~-milssf~~n does hereGv c~~nnt n two-yeer extension of ttme for
ConJltlc~nt~1 Ufe Permit No. 1517, tc; cxnire May 2R, 19R3,
F. RECLl1S~IFICATION N0. 79•8~f-~1 I1NL~ VARIANCE: N0. i~~i - Re~uest fc~r
retrc,~~ctivic extc~n~t~~n~ o~ t~~~rcxn ~Ir~i~m E. Uh or propcrty lacated at
thc southesst corncr of FrontcrA Strcet and Rl~ssell Street.
ACTI~N: Cornrnissfone~ Klny offcred a motton, !~ecnnded by Conmissloner Ilerbst
oncl MOTIOi~ C.~1RR.IEU (Comml!ssicme-r Fry be(ng ebsont)~ thet the Aneheirn City
Planntnn Comnission d~es hcreby ~r~nt retrc~.~ctive one-year extenslons ~f
t(n~c for Roclassificati~n Nu, 7~-3~1-31 and Variencc No. 311~1 to expi~e Aprll
7- t9~.2.
G. COJI: N~ENDML-IT CfIAP7ER i".Sh OF TITLE iF~ - ~.epeal tng subsection .~G~ ~f
Sacti~n t~,.~-~.~ +1 pcrta ning t~~ prohib tcd uses In thr. SC (5tenle Corr(6or~
Overlay) tone.
AGTI(~t~a Ca~missloner Ktng oFfered a mntl~n, secondPd by Commtssioner Herbst
en~ MOTIn'I Cl~RRIC~ (Commisgloner Fry being absent), that th~ Anahc!m Ctty
Plernin~~ Corxnissl~~n dc,es herehy rrcrxnmend ta thc City Counci) that the draft
orcJln:,nce be a~c~nted renealir~g subsectlon .~I~ of Sec~lon 16.~'~.~41.
li. COt10171(111~L USE PERMiT N0. 22~2 -~I~nc Pro Tunc Resolutfon grAnttn~~
ConJ t~~n~ Usc erm t No. 2202, in ~art, on the basis th~~t waiver (b)
requir~;~ site screcninq (s nut necessary.
AGiIC~td: Cor~c~issioner Nerbst offercd Resolution No. PC81-i'l2 and moved for
[s ~~~iss,~~~c an~ ~idc~nti~n that thc An~heim City Planning Commission does
hr,reb;~ offer a nunc pro tunc resolution granttng Conditiortai Use Permtt No.
2?.01. in part. denying walver (b) on thc basis that tt is not necessery.
On rdil call~ the foreg~fng resolution wrs passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMt~I l SS I ONEF;S : BARNES ~ DOUAS ~ aUStiORE ~ 11ERDST. KI NG ~ TOLAP,
NOES : CQ-~r11 SS i Or1ER5 : IIONE
ABSE~IT: COMI~lSSIO~lERS: FRY
ADJOURIItSEtiT Therc bcing na further bus(ness~ Commissioner Herbst offered a motion~
secondecf by Cammissloner Bouas and N~TIOM Cl1RRIED (Gommissione~ Fry
being absent)~ that the meettng bc adJourned.
Thc meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitt~d~
d.~.~ •~.°
Edith L. Harris. ~ecretary
Maheim City Planninq Commission
E Lti :1 n
t1~ x N~
i '
ka. ?~.t::A .dr x., ..,~ . ...