Minutes-PC 1981/07/13Civic Ce~tar
Anehelm~ C~iifornis
~uly 13. 1981
RE6UlAR MEET t NG QF TNE ANAHE 1 M C 1 TY PLANN I Nf COMM 1 SS I ON
REGULAR - The reguler n~eting of the Anahetm Ctty Plenning Commisston
MfETING wos cat led to order by Chsirman Pro Tempc~re Dushore at
1t30 p.m.. July 13~ 1~at in the Counci l Ch+xnbe~, a quorum being present.
PRESENT • ~hat rntan Pro Temporc pushore
Cornnissioners: Barnos~ Bouai~ Fry, flerbst~ Kinq
AEiSENT - Can~mtssloner: Toler
ALSO PRES~NT - Annika Sent~lshti Asslstant C?irecto~ for Xoning
J~cl. Mhite Assistont City Attorney
Jay T i Cus Of f I ce Eng i nee ~
Shirley LAnd Trafftc Cnyineer Assistant
Dean Sherer Assistant Planner
Edith Harris Plonning Cotmiisslon Secretary
PLEUGE OF AILEGIANCE TO TFIE FLIIG I.EU SY - Conxn{ssioner Bou~s.
ElECT10t~ OF 1981-~2 PLANNING COH-IISSI01~ 411AIRMAN. CIIAIRMAN_PRO_ TENPORE AND SECRETARY
1 t was noted the terms of tlir of f i ce far ti~e Chat rr.+an. Chaf rman Pro Tempora a~d
Sacrctery ~f the Anahe im Ct ty P1 anning Commi ssivn expi red as of June 30, 1981 ~ and
therefore~ it was in c~rder to elect seld officers.
Camnisaianer 9arnes off~red a motion~ soeonded by Cortmisstaner King rnd MOTION
CARRIED (Chairman Tola~ being absent)~ that Commisslon~r Herbst act as Tempo~ary
Cha 1 rman for the e 1 ect i on of of f i ce rs .
C~mmtssioner Nerbst assumed the chair.
CHAIRMAN - Temporary Chairman Herbst noted that rsomin~etions were in o~de~ for the
o~fTc~ f Chalrmsn of the An~heim Clty Pla~ning Commisslon for the 1981-t32 fisca)
year.
Cortrr-tssioner Bouas nor~inated Comrs~issianer ~ushore as Cheirman.
Commissic-ner King offered a motion~ seconded by Con+misltoner Bt~rRes and MOTION
CARRICU (Chaf nnan Tol a~ bsing ebsw~t). that the nominations be a~d hereby are closed.
Commissicx~er Ktng off~red a n~tion~ seconded by Co~!~misslo~er 8a~~es and MOTION
CARRIEU UNANIMOUSLY (Chairmma~nn 7olar being absent). that Commisaicmer Cesrald Busho~e
be and hereby le elacted Chsirman of the Anaheim Clty Plannfng Commissior~ for the
1981-~i2 fiscal yea~.
Ch~i rnia~ Bushore esswR~ed thc cha t r.
CHAIR~iAt~ PRO TEHPORE - Chelrn~a~ Bushore noted thst nominitio~s vwre in order for the
o ce o ~ rman re Tempore of the Anahalm City Pian~-ing Commission for the 1981-
$2 fiscal year.
~t-433 7/t 3/81
~
MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUIy 13~ 1~81 81-43q
Comml~sione~ B~~nes naminated Commissta~er Fry ~n Chairman Pro Temporc.
Canmissioner Kln~ offered ~ nwtion~ sewnded by Comm)s~icxier Boues and MOTION CARRIEO
(Cornmissia+-er Tolar being abs~nt)~ th~t che nomin~tions be and hereby ere closed.
Commis:lcmer King offered a motion~ seconded by Commisstoner Bouas end MOTIAN CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY (Commissio~er Tol~r being sbsent)~ that Commissioner Fry be •nd hereby is
alected Ghetrman Pro Tempore of the Anahsim City Pl~nnt~c~ Comn(ssion for the 1981-8=
fiscal year.
SECRETARY
a rman ush~re notec! that ~ominatto~s were in order for the nffice of Secretary of
the Anaholm Cfty Pla~niny Commisslon for thc 1981-fi2 fiscal yeer.
Commissioner Birnes nomtnatod Edttl~ flarris as Sec~etery.
Conrnissioner Kiny offerod a moclon~ s~conded by Commisslon~r Bouas and MOTION CARRtED
UNANIMOUSLY (Commissloner Tol.,r being absent)~ that the nominations be and hereby are
closed.
Commlssioner 8arnes offered a motla~~ seconde d by Commissioner 8ouas and MOTION
CARRIED UNANIH~USLY (Commisslonci Toler being absent)~ that Edlth Narris be and
horeby ts olected Sec retary or th@ Anaheim CItY ~'~A~ntng Commlsslon f~r thc 1981-82
fiscal ysar.
ITEM ~10. 1: EIR NCGATIVE DECLARATION~ uAIVER OF CQDE REgUIRCMENT AND CONDITIONAI USE
ERM~ 1~ T N0. 221 :
REAOVCRYISEp PUt3LIC NEARIt~G. 0~1t~ER: I:OSA MARY CASELLA UL11~! ANO AIIGELO CASELLA,
212W East Valley Clcn Lane~ Oranqe~ CA 92fi67. A~ENT: PATaICK J. ANU JULIA R. DARR,
3033 East Mircioma, Anaheim~ CA g23UG. Property desGribed as a ractangularly•shaped
parcel of land consisttng of apprcixtmately 0,~ sc~e. located at the northwest Gorner
oF Miraloma Avonu~ and Kracmcr Boulevard~ 3Q93 East Miraloma Avtnue. Property
preseniiy classificd ML (It~DUSTaIAL, LIMlTED~ 20NE.
CQNOITIONAL USE REQUEST: TA RETAIN AN EXISTING AUTO UETAIL FACILiTY AND PEftMIT AUTO
5ALES AND TRUCK STOF~AGE IN TfIC ML IONE VITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM LANDSCAPED SETBACK.
Subject peticion was z~ntinued from the meetings of June 15 and 2g. 1981. at the
requcst of the petitionar.
There was no o~e Indicating thelr presence in op~,osttior~ to sub.ject request~ and
although th~e staff re porc was not read. tt is referred to and made a pa~t of the
minutes.
Pstrick Da~r~ egent~ explalna~ hg is requesting the right to retail used cars; that
he operetes en automobile trsnsport business an~ ~o~mally the t~ucka are on the road
and mey be parkcd on the property overnight or on w~ekends; and that he also has a
deteil sarvice provided to the public Nhtch is not a mechsnicai aperatlon but
consists of wsshing~ wexing. polishtng and ste~n+ cleentng the vehicles. He stated he
slsa wishes to enlarge the storage area.
7/13/8t
)
MINUTES~ ANAIIEIH CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION~ JUIy 13~ 1961 81-435
THE PuULIC NEARINC WAS CLOSED.
Commissto~er Klnfl referreci to the Traffic Enginear'a recan~nendstton that the proposed
yate adJacent to Krsemnr Bouleva~d bc relocatad e minimum of 60 faot from the
property 11ne. Mr. Darr explalned there Is an existln~ gate which Is not uied and
that they hava ~equested to move cha fence out and put the gate back Into use to
ancloso the erea. He oxplaindd this was a servlce stAtlon sito and peopie cut
through the property to avold the traffic signal on the corner and moving the fanco
would eliminate the trafflc hazsrd.
Ratpond(ny to Cheirman qushora~ Nr. Darr explAlned he hes a month-to•month lease.
Chairman ~ushorc noted the prevlous use permit was granted for s six-month period to
alivw euto detatling ~nd now this requcst Is for used automobtle sAles.
Mr. Darr explainRd the uriyinel permit was is~+ued for Austam International~ Inc.~
but that the petittoner never foliaved througF~ A~d tt exptrtd in Jsnu~ry whtn he took
over thls operetlan. Ne explolnad he I~as b~en trying to get all the paper work
Logether for this ~ew permit.
Commlssionor f3ernes askcd Mr. Darr to raspond to the Redevel~pn~nt Commission's
recomn~en~iat iu~s thot the uae be I lml tecf to eut.arob i le cktai 1 ing and used car sales
only, wtth no truck stor~g~, for a six-manth pertod and A mt~xlmum of fiv~ used cars
for sale displayad; a~d tF~at the o~lglnal condittons of approv~l pertainfng to
removat af existin<~ canopy and pum{~ isln~d and londsceping be imposed on Chis new
pnrmtt.
Mr. Oarr reptied he fnit the te~m "truck storage" miyht ba mtsleading because thia ls
not e aervtce p~ovlded for the public and tl~ey do rwt rent spaces fo~ truck storage
snd the cx~ly vehlcles stored on tho stte are his awn vehlcles ahich are used to
Lranapvrt suton~obiles. tle expiained he owns two auto transport veh(cles and anothAr
one (s currently stured on the prop~rty because he (s watting for disposftlon of a
lewault to determ(ne whether or not he r+lll recelve tha truck (n lieu af payment.
Chairman Bushorc asked hcyw thesc lany vehiclcs whlch carry fivo o~ six sutomobtles.
in additicx~ to the cer seles~ and the detalling facil(ty can all o;erate on this
smali lot.
Mr. Derr replled thc transport vehlcles ere rarely there at the sen~ time~ but
occasionally wlll be tf~ere at night.
Chalrnwn 9ushore asked if the vehiclas b rought In on the trensport ca~rtera are than
detai led and taken to the dealers. 11e IndlGatnd he felt tl,ere are too many usea o~
that propercy an~ asE.eJ for cla~ificetion uf ehe diffe~ent uses.
Mr. Derr explatned he has a used car deale~ship licans~ and a detail shop for
clnalers~ axplelning the automobllc auct(on 1s approximately one mile awtnr. Ne stated
a load Is currently being picl:ed up fn Las Vegas ~nd could be brought into thts
proparty and unlwded and dQtalled and tne,n taken to the •uctto~~ havever, thls
'ttcular load will ba taken directly ta the auction,
7/13/8t
MI~~UTES~ ANAHEIN CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOf~~ JUIy 13~ 1981 81-436
Commissionor Bouas asked approximately how many cars are for sal• on the lot and Mr.
Da~r replied they have ba Meen ten end itfte~n ~nd they are Just on tha front
circula~ portlcx~ of the prop~rty which is not fenced.
Chairma~ 9ushore nnced the staff repnrt indtcetaa there ts a posslbility of five or
six transport vehiclas end eskod hvw tMey could be gotten tnto the raar portton ~~d
Mr. Dar~ explatned there Is o yate ~nd access aff Miraloma Avenue.
Comml~sloner Nerbst stated tf~ts Is 154'x125' service station lat; thet certain uses have
been allowed on servlce 9tation lots In the past In ord~r to allow paople to use
thelr propertles. but he felt a used car lot an thla perttcular c~rner would set a
ae~lous prsced~nt becAUSe this hnppens ta be one of the bustest corners in the
tndustriel area with some conMnercial uses on Krae+n~r. Ne stated he felt this use
would be cfetrtmental to tl~e area and nat canducive to the tyne of buslnesses wanted
in the aree.
Chatrman Busl~ore ayreed and noted the prevlaus permit was ltmited to six months for
an outomoblle detatling operotia~ and nc~w this use wauld be tmpactinq property with
cars parked out front ~nd he felt this woulc! bo too much o~ that small property.
Commtsstoncr Nerbst statcd hc gocs by that pr~pcrty uftcn and (t appe.~rs tao crvwded.
tte stated the trucl;s b~long tn An tndustrl~{ area but not on a corner such as this.
Commissioner Ktn~~ asked lf Corm~isstoner I~erbst could approve the request excluding
thc auto sales and Commlssfoncr fierbst stateJ he Hould not go elong with the truck
storagc efther. Ne stated he has seen trucks stored on ti~e ~,roperty end he felt if
this is ellpwrd~ (t sh~uld br Itmtted to this type of truck to pravent any other type
of truck storagc In the futur~.
Commissioner Barnes stated she would be in fevor of allowing the truck storage
becau~e the petitioner needs that {n connection with the deteiling operAtlon but
would want to limlt It t~ vehicles neede~! for hts awn operatlrxt.
Cha(rman Bushore stAted he would heve to toke another loak at the property in o~der
to vote for approval of the truck storage and asked tlie length af the auto ca~rters
and Mr. ~arr rcplicd they arc 6$ f~t long.
Chairman Bushore stated eact~ transporter would take u~ one half the distance of the
shortcst part of tt~e lot and he did not think three vehlcles could be eccommod~ted
and still make the turn.
Mr. Darr stated the maxlmun number of t~ucks par~.ed ove~night would be Mo and he is
not lookin9 for an operation of ten or fifteen automobile transporters and tf~ese two
vehicles are tt~e anes he uses for hts ope~ation. He noted cha auctlon is c~nly about
one mlle away an~~ the vehicles are driven to that locatlon and no vehtcles are
tra~sported f~om subJect property. He statcd trucks would never be parked out front
where the used cars ~re pa~ked. He explained the trucks cane in one of two gates and
go out the other gate snd neYCr go through the front portlon of the property.
7/13/8t
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNIt~G COMMISSION~ JUIy 13~ 1~81 81-437
Commissionar Nerbst •skRd if the trucks wouid have ta park ln the street to open e
g+~te and Mr. O~rr expl~i~ed the trucks would use the gete off Mlraland whtch is
approximetoly 80 feet from the street ond the trucki could clear the street
completely. He steted tho request for the additlonsl footage wes to provtde a l~rqe
clrc~lar drtve.
Cnmmissioner flerbst explained he ts bothered bscauso this (s on the corner end the
patitlondr is praposing not to provide thc required setback ond a~y other industrial
p~operty would be required to p rovido those setbacks with landtcaping.
Mr. Oarr explained he does rw, need the edditlonn) area for the trucks snd it was
only to provide additlonal enclosed area for customer's vahtctas and eiso because
people like to use service stetlons as a cut throu~~h to avoid the trafftc signa) on
th~ corner whlch Is t~ue of a~y other service station on sny corner.
Commissioncr Nerbxt stated posts with chains would accomplish the sart~ thing.
Mr. Da~r state~t that ereo is Just dead space snd h~ war~t~d to use it for a larger
protected area and notod he hed a vehlcle stolon )ust last night.
Commissloner tlerbst stated the petitioner rs ~~sc verify0ng that the lot ts too smal)
for this operAtion Gecause he nceJs ta encroach out to the sidewalk. Ne stated other
p~operty owners are not allowed to encroach to the sidewalk.
Mr. parr stated iie can continue the operetlon as he has besen doing sinct August and
does not need to move the Fence and,ould continue to bring seven or eight cars at a
time for detailing. He stated the Fire De~ertment hes insp~cted the facilittes snd
gtv~n th~ir ap~rovai and th~y ht~ve adequate ventilatlon and eccess~s.
Commissiancr Fry ask~d Mr. Dar~ wl~en ha took over the operation ~d Mr. Darr replted
January 4.
Commissioner aarnes askcd wha~t the hardship wouid be if the Commission denled the
waiver and required a y0-foot setback. Mr. Darr repliad that would not be a
hardship and the extra ro~m is just a ccx-venience and he could get along without it~
but it is approxtmately 50 feet of w~sted sp~ce. He stated he is more thsn wtiling
to ccwpe~ate and has done eve rything which Mr. Calns promtsed to do. Ne stated he
has hed the bullding prepared fo~ pa~nting and has had the arei~ totaliy landscAped~
etc. Ha stated he feeis he is payiny the consequences for what saneone else did not
do and that he found out the operatlo~ was illega) on January 4.
Chairman Bu;hore pointed out the petttioner has aaid he was there stnce August and
M~. Oarr replied that John Cains had asked liim to ope~ate the business for him in
August whtch would provide a place for hfs operation and he thought that would be a
good deal untii he found out it wes the~e iilegaliy.
Commissioner Fry ask~d if the trucks going west c,n Kraemer would have to pull out
into the middle lane to make that sharp turn for entry. Mr. Der~ explained an auta
transporter is a t~uck pulling a semf-t~ailer which turns ltke a truck end trailer
which me~+s they come in ciose to the right curN a~d swing in wide. He explained the
7/13/81
.
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUIy 13. 19~1 81-438
flfth wheel Is mou~ted o~ a stingcr approximately 2 fe~t off the gr~und which Is the
reeso~ the turniny r~dlu~ is much ~hart~~.
Commissionor Herbst •sked about unloading cars on the property and Nr. Darr explained
the c~~riers could accommodate up te nine vehicles depending on the stze of th~
automobile and th~t th~re is ample room behtnd the fence for unloe~ing but thet 60Z
of the deliveries ~re dtrectly to the auctton. Ne expleined they aiso pick up and
deliver direct to the dealers from the suctlon,
Chairman Bu:hore stated th~ last petitianer was givcn six months for his detailing
operatlon and tl~at t~e did mnke e lot of promises which he did not kaep; and that the
Commission does not Intend to put anyon~ out nf their ttvcllhood but cannot glve more
to ohe pctttione~ than another; ~nnJ that he really felt this wouid be tmpacting thet
property and even thouyh the petitioner says he only hes two vehicles. that daes not
mean he will not have r+x~re tn thr futurc.
ACTION: Commissloner Hnrbst off~red a mntion~ seconded by Commtssloner King and
0(ON CARRIEU (Commission~r Tola~ belny absent)~ that the A~ehe(m City Planning
Camn~isslon has reviewed the proposal t~ retaln an existing automobile dett~li feclllty
and {~ermit auto sales ancf truck stornye in tt~e ML (Industrial~ Limlted) 2one with
waiver nf minimun landsceped setback on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of lend
consist(n~~ of approximately O.G ac~e l~cated at the northwest corner of Hlraloma
Avenue and Kracmer Bouleva~d (3~~)3 East M(relome Avcr~ue); and does hereby approve the
NegaCive Declarotion frcNn ti~e requirement to prepere an envlronmentsl tmpact report
on the besis that there would be r-o slgnificant InJividua! or rumulative odverse
enviroe~n-ental tmpact due to the approval of this Negattve Declaretion slnce the
Anaheim General Plan desiynatas the sut~.ject property for general Industrial land usQs
comn~ensurate witt~ the proposal; thAt no sensitive environmentol impacts a~e Involved
in the proposal; tl~at the Initlal Study submitted by the pctitloner Indicates no
sic~nificant indiviJual or cumulative adverse environmr.ntal Impacts; and that the
Negative Oeclarat(on substantiatiny the foregoing ft~dinys (s an f(le (n the Clty of
Anaheim Pla~ning Drpartm~ent.
Commissioner tlerbst offered a motlon, seconded by Commissioner Barnes and MOTION
CARRIED (Commisstone~ Tolar bCiny absenc)~ that thc Anaheim Clty Plannt~g Commisslon
does hereby deny the rcquest to relocate thc fencc; end does hereby grant the request
to perrnit the existiny canopy snd pump islaiid to rematn.
Dcan Sherer, Assistant Planner~ clarified the waive~ covcrs xwo dreas: the existing
canopy within faurteen fcet of the property linc and also the proposed G-to 8-foot
high fence adjACent to Kraemer. Cortrnissioner Nerbst clarified that he ts not denying
the existing cannpy and waulci permlt it to remain 14 fect from the praperty line~ but
that he wauld not want the fence moved inCo the setbeck.
Commissionsr Nerbst off~red aesolut~~~ No. PC81-1W9 snd moved for its passage and
adopticx~ that the Anaheim City Plannirtg Co-s~mission docs hereby grant Co~ditional Use
Permit No. 221a, in part~ t~ pe nnit two trensport vehicies to be stored behind the
existing fence to permit the opciatton of ihe detailing opsratlon for a period ~f
one•year subjecC to review, and denytng the requesc to permit autanobile sales,
subJ~ct to Interdeparmeneal Lommittee recarimendations.
7/13/81
.~
NINUTES~ ANAIiEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUIy 1~~ lgpt a1-439
Com~nisaloner King •:ked wheth~r or not the gate would be set bsck 6A feot and Oean
Sherpr clerified the ~esotutlon would be to grant the minimum isndscaned setbeck to
permit tha existiny canopy and pump island but denying the rQquest for weiver fo~ the
6-to $-foat high Fence located 12 feet from the praperty itne adJacent to Kraeme~
9ouleva~d and requiring that the gate be relocatad to e mfnimum of Gn feet of the
praparty Itne edJacent to K~aemer doulevard in eccordonca with the Traffic Engineer's
recomnendatlons. He exptalned tl~ere i: en axlsttng fence at ~0 feet In 11ne with the
oxisting bui lcling.
Chslrmen Dushare asked if the cenopy Is to be removed according to this resolution
end Mr. Sherer explalned It would remein.
Commisstoner Herbst stated this resolutlon would deny the suto sales a~nd require that
the transport vehicles be stared behind the axist{nc,~ fence and it wouid bQ only fo~
these bwa pe~ticulnr vehicles.
Chairman Busliore atated he felt If this use is going to be allaved~ the property
sh~u 1 d be imp rt~ved wh i ch means the remova I of tlie canopy .
Chalrman Bush~~e stAted he wouid ltke to affer a motton to reconstder the p~evious
motton pertaining ta the watver of code ~equlrement because he misunde~stoad and
thought the conopy and pump Island would b~s removed.
There was no secand to thc motion and Jack White~ Assistant Ctty Attorney~ expleined
the mihutes would reflect tliat Chairman Bushore's vote has been changed but the
motion still carrtes.
On roll call. the foregoing res~lutiQn was passed by the following vote:
AYES : COMMI SS I Or~CRS: BARNES, BOUAS ~ BUSt~ORE ~ FRY ~ HERDST ~ hI NC
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COHMISSIOt~ERS: TOLAR
Jack 1Jhite~ Assistant City Attorney, presented thc writtcn right to sppeal the
Planniny Commisston's clecislon witt~tn 22 days to ~he City Council.
Mr. Darr clarified that he understends the extsting canopy will remain and the
extsting fence will remain and he can operace the two trucks and the sto~age behind
the fence and cantinue the detatl operation~ but no retail sales of automobiies will
be permitted. He stated he wants to assure the Commission that he is not only
regulated by the laws of M aheim, but is cavered by the Californla Publtc Utillties
Commissian and the number of cars allawed to be irensportad is regulated and he
must take the cars where he states they are going to be taken and this is determined
at the time any vehicles are going to be moved. Hr explatned the front canopy 1s
pert of the mein structure and cannot be rtwved; ~nd that he dld Investigate having lt
removnd.
Chairman Bust~ore explained the pctltioner h~s the right tn appeal the denia) of auto
sates to Lhe Ci ty Counct 1.
7/13l81
~
HINUTES~ ANAHEiII CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUIy 13~ 1981 81-4b0
ITEM N0. 2: EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 8A-81-4
PUBLIC IiEARING. OWNER: JOSEPN C. ANO OOaOTHEA M. STEPIIENSON. 822 Jade Way~ Anehelm~
CA 92a0y. AGENT: JAMES R. NEEOIIAM~ 9k92 Sandra Ci~clo~ Villa P~rk~ CA 92b67.
P~operty deacribed es a ractanyularly-shaped parcel of land consisttng uf
apprnximately 0.43 ec~e- 9~1 Nortt~ Citran Street.
RECLASSIFICATION RQUEST: RS-10,040 TO RM-24d0.
7hore werc approximately twelve persona lndicatinc~ their p~esence in oppositton to
subject req~ast~ And althouyh the staff repcart was not read, it is referred to and
made a part of the minutes.
Elmer hbagl~er~ 121~i1 Nerbor ~oulevord, Garden Grovc~ agent wes p~esent to answer any
question,
Ruth M. Mount statcd she owns the property at 929 I~orth Ci~~ron whfch Is next door to
the proposed proJact and she is agalnst the project because thts is a single-famfly
area and multiple-family units would make the density too high. Shc referred to the
32-foot required street ~fedlcetlon from centerline and stAted that Is much wider than
the city has prevlously requlred. Shc st~ted ~I~e Is agalnst ths project because her
home is patJ far an~ this would maen apartments goinq in next to her home. She
stated the pla~s siu~w 11 to ly feet of landscape area adJoining the single-family
homes and that ail the oxhar l~ts t~ave to have 20 feet from the single-family
propertles. She stated she felt her properxy is be~ng used for a buffer zone and she
did not thtnk this would I~elp her property value at all. She stated sevan years ego
the Plannfny Commtssicm agreed that the awner could flag lot this property and build
two apartments~ but h~ has not cbne that and hes let It run down more and more and
she felt that it is lnvadiny her property.
Ben Gooper, 923 North Winter~ stated his property is just to the west at the ~ear of
Citron end this is a residential area and people wh~ live here have pride in their
homes and that there would be ton much congestion with these apartments. He stated
he assunced these would be twu story and would not bc a beautiful thing to see. He
stated hG has been there since 1958 and there ls alr~ady too much congestion on
Citron and that thcre is only a small section with siJewalks on one side of the
street and that this is a main area for children going to the high school; and it is
already a traffic hazard. I~e steted if this developer constructed stdewalks~ it
still woulcf not allevlate the existing problem. tie stated there is already too much
traffic in the area and he does not beltevs an apartment house would be practtcal for
that neigf~borhood. Ne statad he saw no reason why they could not bulld a single-
famlly residence and he felt the problem is whether or not the Cortmisslon is going to
vote for the owners who don't live in tl~e area and want to seil their property for
financia) ga(n or listen to the peaple who live there and who take pride in thei~
homes and felt the Commtssion shouid listen to the residents.
Nancy B~ewbaker. 943 tbrtt~ Citron~ p~esented a petition signed by 2G surrounding
p~operty owners who are opposed to ihe project because this is a single~f~mily
residential area and they do take pride in thein c~x»es and she felt if this devrloper
wants to build apartments, he should qo to another piace which is already zaned for
7/13/81
IIINUTES~ ANAtiEIM CITY PLANNIHG COMMISSION~ JUIy 13~ 1981 81-441
apartmenca. Shc stated tl~ny are ftghting treffic problems already end there are e
loL of school chlldran in the area and this proJect will Increaae the traffic. She
refer~cd to the request for dedicatton Qf 32 feet off the front of the property and
steteci she thauyht that would be setting r precedent because thr. rest of thG prope~ty
owner~ would have to have cu~bs inatalled a~d the ma)~rity of the housas cannot
toler~te 32 foat with a par~way and thQ stdcwaik wouid be right there at their front
door and they would have no ~rivacy. She steted they bttterly opposed the apartments
on the corner but tli~y ware sti 1 I approveci and sl~e cild not th(nk thts pro)~ct should
be allowed Just because that ona mistal:e was mAde. Shc referred to Chalrman
Bushore's remark tl~at th~ Commtsttion cannot do mare for one petitloner than for
another E~arson ond stated sl~e dtd not fcel thls propcrty owner should I~ave the
property rezoned,
Nhyllis 6oysto~- steted she (s a real estate bro~.er and is an agr.nt for the
Stephensons wlio own this property. She presented pl~otographs of the area and
Cha(rman Qushnre indicat~d the photographs cauld not be returned. Ms. ~oyston stated
tl~ey know they havc a ve ry messy~ vacant lot with an empty house and felt this
proJect would be good for the arce. She sC~ted photographs nun~ber one and two are of
houses dawn tl~e street whera they are storing cars and trucks end bullding prupa in
the front yarJ and that the propertics look junky. Shc atated photograph number 3 ts
of the subject property m-~d pl~oto~.iraph number ~+ (s a view from th~ apartment showing
ttie wl~ole streat anJ the units on the corner and the dlfference tt makes having
sidewal~:s and curbs a~cl aligning the street. She identif(ed photograph nun~ber 5 as
the apartment showing the existing p~oduct. She s[ated the Otsens across the street
reviewc:d the plans this morning and were opposed before reviewin~; the plans but have
naw dacidad they are not going to oppose the proJect. She stated she thought
eventually tt~r_ strcet would have curb i and sidewalks Iike everythtng else in tawn.
She stated they had o lc~t of offers for the property a~fter it was put on the marke't
and tried to be seiective and picl: the one they feit would be the biggest asset for
the netyhborhuad. She stated the lot is too t,iy to be practical for a single-famtly
house.
Gertrude (Se~retary could not identify last name) ~statcd she has Iived In the area
for years and is on the Board of O~rectors far thr. Chrtstian Scirntist Church across
the street. She stated she feels sorry for the peoplc in this nefghborhood, but the
area is eventually yoing to hav~ sidewalks~ etc. She steted there doesn't sc~m to be
too much conc~estion from the apartments r,n Northgate. She stated th~ Board of
Directors dtscussed the project and ara not opposed to the proJect as long as they
are single story and the sidewalks are installed.
Nr. Meagher stat^d there are units on the corner and the developer intends to fotlow
that same schemc; that there will be seven single-story~ two-bedroom units whtch
will provide seven additfona) housing unlts which are needed in thts city; and there
will be a G-foot high block wall. He stated from hls observation of that street, it
is quitE Junl;y with people painting cars in thetr backyardst etc.~ and he felt this
proJect would be good for thr. area.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEQ.
7/13/81
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOFI~ JUIy 13~ 1981 81•~W2
Comml~sioner King steted thoro will be a G-foot hlgh block wall completely
surrou~Jing their proJect end the property to the north hes e driveway on the sauth
aide wf~ich would providr qulee e dlstance between thetr property and this pr~Ject.
Chalrman Bust~ore stated he did nat tt~ink thia prop~rty would be suitable for single-
femily use an~i tt is su6table for muitlple-family use due to the fact there are unita
on Northy~te an~1 irm+ediatcly to the south Is zo~ed RM-2~00 whtch altews apartments
anJ tl~c requested z~ne change ts far less dense than those. lie stated he did not
think (t is fair to ~eny snmeone els~ the rtght to awn a home Just because the~~
people alreacly awn thcir homes, but at the same tlme he felt tf tt~e people
surroundiny the praperty do not want apartments in the arca, ttretr naeds shouid he
taken tnto account. He stated iic would li~;e to see the units butlt under the
standards and the 20-foot l~ndscaped buffer provided because he felt that would only
be falr to thc pcs~plc wlio -~~ve live~ there for many years. 11e st~'ed he did not
think seven units would be impacting the area but tl~at thcy should bP developed in a
manne~ to accommoclate tl~e ne(~hbors as much es possible.
Commissiancr King ststed ~~~ of housetwlds in Callfornla cannot effa~d to buy a
rt-edtum priced hcxne today end that the young couples, Qiderly,_~~d ~~et~'red pec~pfl~lt-~}lould
be cnnsidered and asked where they are supposed to iive.
Commissioner Barnes stated the General Plan designates this area for si~gle•famtly
resldent(al development and stateJ she would be in favar of at least studying the
area to determine whetl~er t-~r rest of thc block sf~ould be design~tcd for multfple-
famlly developr~ent. She sgreed this project would probably be an improvement to the
area but did not want to penalize the rest of tlie peoplt on Citron. She stated (f
the propercy was zoncd for multiple-family development~ the owners would beneflt from
inc~easec! property v~11ue5 and that wauld probably offset most of the problems.
Commissio~er Ilerbst ogreed tF~at e study should be done recognizing with htgh property
values and tt~e larye size of t~~e lnts nn Citron~ it would not be pr~ctical on today's
market to considcr a singlc-fanily hoa-e, Ne stated thls is a problem with thls type
of property abutttnq single-family devetopmenc end felt a study should be conducted
to consic~er tlic size of the lats and t~ get thc feel of other property owners in the
araa to determinc if tt~cy wish at some point in the future to have that area rezoned
for multiple-family developrr~n[ as this is going to be the mode of ltving tn the
future. F1e stated people cannot be denied the right of owning a home and stated
these in-fill lots are larger sized lots and should be allowed td be developed for
smaller units because Anaheim is practically filled with hanes and orAnge groves are
no tonyer feasibl~ and he feit the land must be utilized to its fullest benefit. He
felt this proJect 15 well designed and will not encroach on the RS-1~.000 zoning to
the rear. Ile steted the p~operty to tl~e north is probably going to be infringed upon
but will have the same rtghts in the future.
Commiss(~ner Barnes stated she wouid ltke t~ make a rmtion when this is c+ver for a
Generai Plan Amendmant for a low to medium density designatton and J~c~ rl~~ite~
Assistant City Attorney~ tt~ted that should be a sepa~ate actio~.
7/13/$t
MINUTES~ A11AIiE1M CtTY PLANNING COlIMISSIOf~, Ju~y 13~ tA61
a~-W49
Chalrman sushore asked (f tlia Commisaio~ wants to set the precedent of an 11•foot
buffer bebwecn the single-family homes and the multiple-family devel~pment end
Commtssioner Hnrbst stated ha fnlt the 20 feet should be re~uired.
Commissianer King poinxc.~ out the property next daor has tho driveway o~ tho south
sida wl~ich provtJns adcquatc buffer.
Cheirr~n aualiora stated that may be true in this cese but ea development conttnues up
the street~ tliat may not be the case and should be deflnttely tAken into
constderotion.
Commissloncr Barnas stated if the~c Is a resolutlon of Intent for low to medlum
denslty, that buffcr w~uld not be requt~ed.
Cammissioner Fry statad hc wou1J like to soc the 20-foot buffer providecl.
Chatrmen aushore poii~ted out that cxistln~ homes on the west side of the property
wtll remaln for o lony tin~ and Commisstoner Barnes agreed that the 20-foot buffer
sh~ould be pravidecl an tlie west side.
Chairman aushore polnted out to the pctitioner that the Commtsstoners have indtcated
their destre to maintein thc 2:~-foat landzcaped buffer on thc west property linc
should Jevel~pment continue up the street in the future and nskeci lf the petitioner
would be willing tu revise the plans to reflect that buffer.
Mr. Meayh~I stated he wou1J like to request a twa-week cantinuance in order to
discuss the revised ulans with the owncr and Chalrman Bushore explatned that revis~d
plans would t~ave to ba tn by Friday in a-der to be heArd in two weeks.
ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motton, seconderi by Commissioner 6oues dnd
MO~TI~ON CARRIED ;Commissioner Tolar belny absent) ~ that ccrosideration of the above-
mentianed itern be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of July 27~ 1981.
Chairman t3ushore suggested those peoplc prasent in opposttion call the Planning
Oepartment on July 27th ta make sure the item is still ori the agende and Mr. Meagher
indicated lie shauld probably ask for a 30-day r.ontinuance because his client is aut
of town and will pr~obably not be ~ble to get revised ~lans in by Friday.
Commissioner Herbst pointed out the staff roport indicated the petitioner was
informed of the Plan~ing Commission's policy regarding the 2n-faot landscaped setback
which is the reason for this dclay and stated the Planning Commission ls a little
hard-nosed about tl~ese landscaped buffers adjacent to single-family dwellings.
ACTION: Connilssioner King rescinded his nx~tion for a contlnuance to July 27 and
o ered a new motion seconded by Commtssioner 8oues and MOTION CARRIED {Commissianer
7olar being absent), that the metter be continued to the meetfng of August 10, 1981
at the request of the petitioner.
Commisstonar Barnas offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner King and MOTION
CARRIED (Co mmissto~er Tolar being absent), that Planning Department st.~ff conduct a
atudy of this area on Citron Street with ~ poasibie consideratton of law and medium
d~+nsity residential develapment.
7/13/81
,,..-~~,
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITti
: E
hFINiNG COMMISSION~ JUIy 13, 1981
~ ..,, . .
, 1.
81-444
.. , . r~f~ ~ . , . ~ ..ih:?j.~r~
. 8~•81-4
PUULfC NEARIf~G. OWN~R: LESNEY DEVELOPMENT COHPIINY~ P. 0. Box 55aG~ Q200 Wllahire
Bouleverd~ Beveily Hllis~ CA 90210. AGENT: GEOaGE ~. LASKY~ V. P.~ COATS b WALLACE
pEVELOPMENT CO.~ INC., a071 Sleter Ave~ue~ Suite 2~+0~ liuntington aeach~ CA ~26~~7.
Property descrlbed as a rectangula~rly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approxtmatcly 1.C acres on the wcst sicie of Magnoll• Avenue~ approximately 3h0 feet
south of Bsll Road.
RECLASSI FI CATI ON REQUEST: RS-A-1~3~000 TO RM-300A.
VARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVERS OF; (a) REQUIRED LOT FRONYAGE ANn (b) MIt11MUM LANOSCAPED
SCTIlACK.
T~NTATIVE MAP REQUCST: TO ESTAi3l.ISH A 25-LOT~ 24-UI~IT CONDOMII~IUM SUBOIVISION.
There was no one (ndlcc~ting their presence in oppos(ttan to subJect request~ and
although the staff rep~rt was not read~ (t is referred to and made a part of the
minutes.
George t.i,ky~ a~tnt, exrlained this will b~ a townhousc fee simple proJect.
THE PUf3L 1 C NEARI t~G WAS CLOSED.
Oean Sherer~ Asaistant Planner~ explalned codc ~equlres a mtnimum 2~-foot widt fully
landscaped setback for multi-family proJects abuttiny single•family zoning and the
developer is pro~osing scxne guest parking spa~.es In that setback area.
ACTION: Comnissioner King offer~d a motlan~ seconded by Comnlssioner F~y and MOTIAN
CA- RRIED (Co mnissioner Tolar betng absent). that the Anahetn, Ctty Plenning Conmission
has reviewed the proposal t~ reclasstfy subJect propc~ty from the RS•A-43~OOQ
~Residential~ Agricultural) Zone to the RM-3~~0 (Rasidential~ Multiple-Family) Zone
to construct a 25~1or.. 21+-unit condomintum ~ dlvislon with waivers of required lot
frontage ancl minimum landscaped setback on a recta~c~ula~ly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 1.a acres, I~aving a frontsge oF approxtn-ately 164 feet on
the west s i de of tlugno 11 a Avenue ~ approxi n~ate ly 340 feet south of the centerl t ne of
Bali Road; and daes hereby approve the Negatlve Declaratton from the requlrement to
prepare an environmenta) (mpact report c~n the basts that ther~ would be no
significant individual or cumulative adve rse environmental impact due to the ~pproval
of this Negative Declarotion since the Anahetm General Plan designates the subject
property for mediunrdensity and general oommercial iand uses tomme~surate with the
p~oposal; that no sensitivt environmenta) lmpacts are involved In the proposal; that
the Initia) S~udy submitted by the p~titioner (ndicates no significant indtvid~•al or
cumulative advarse environmental impacts; and that the Negative ~eclaration
substanttating the foregoing findings is on file in thc City of Anaheim Plenning
Department.
7/13/81
~
MINUTES~ ANAl1EIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMIS510N~ JUIy 13~ 1~A1 81-y1~5
Cornmissiona~ Ktnq offered R~solutlon No. PC$1•t;0 end moved for its pe~sage and
adoptlon that the Anahelm Ctty Planning Cc~mmisslo~ does hereby grant 'lecies~ific~tlo~
tlo. 80•81-45 subject to Interdepartmontal Committec recommondatlons.
On rol) co) l~ the farcgoing resolution wan ~assed by the follawin~ vote:
I1YEs; COMMISSIOIIf.RS: BARNES~ BOUAS~ dUS110RE~ FRY~ HER9S7, KING
NOCS: LOMMISSIONE:RS: NOWE
l1DSENT; COMMISSiANERS: TOLAR
Commissioner Ktng offered Resolutlon Na. PCB1-151 and moved for (ks pa~sage and
adoptlon thr~t the Mshelm Clty Planning Commtsslon does hereb~~ grant V~rtence No.
322~ ~x~ cti~ basis thet aithouc~h ~J,jncent properttes t~ the north And ~outh ere zoned
stngle-faml ty residential ~ the pro~erty to tt~e north (s devcloped as e sub-stdtlon
end tha property to the souttti is developed with a privata school and dcnia) would
deprive s~~b,ject property of a privt lege being enj~yed by other propertles (n the same
zone and viclnity and subJect to Interdepartmenta~ Commltte~ reccxnn+end~tions,
On roll ca) I~ the forcgoing resUlutlon was pessed by the fol lowing vatr.:
AYES: COMMISSIOfdERS: DARNE:S. OAUAS~ BU51i0RE. FRY~ NERaST. KING
NOES: C~MMISSi011CRS: NONE
11D5ENT: COM111 SS IONERS : TOIAR
Commissione~ King pffered e motlon~ seconcled by Gommissione~ Bouas ancl MOTION CARRIED
(Commtssioner Tolar beiny abson[) ~ that the Anaheim City Planniny Cortmission does
heroby fina tt~at the proposed subdivisl~n~ togather wtth tts design and improvement~
is chnststent with the City of An~holm Generai Plan~ pursuant to Governn~ent Codo
Section GGb73.5; and does~ theref~re~ apprc+ve Tentative Map of Tract No. 11568 for a
25-1ot, ?l+-unit condar-(nlum subdiviston, subJect to thc foi laving condlt ions:
TENTATIVE MAF' OF TRACT N0. llyf,8:
1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 11568 is granted subject to
the approva 1 of Rec lasa i f i cet ton I~o. 80-~1-45.
2. Thet ahould thls subdtvis!on be dcveloped as mare than anc subdivtston~ each
subdivision the~eof shal l be submitted tn tentative form for approval.
3. That al l loes wi thin th{s trect shal i be served by undergraunci utf l(ties.
4. That the original documents of the covenants~ conditlons, and restrfctlons.
and a letter bddressed to devr.loper's tt~le companr authc~rizing recordation
thcraof , shat 1 be subml ttcd ta the C i ty Attorney's off i ce anJ approved by
the City Attorney's Office, Publlc Utilitles Departisient, 8ullding Division~
and the Englneering Division prtor ta final tract map approval. Said
documen ts ~ as ~ppruved ~ sha 1 1 be f i i ed and reco~ded t n the Of f f ce of the
Orange County Recorder.
7/ t 3/ 81
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING LOMMISSItkI~ JUIy 13. 1981
81-W46
5. That st~oat nan~o~ ~hell ba approved by the City Plsn~ing Uepe~tment prior to
spproval of • fin~l tract map.
6. Th at trash stora~~o oreas shall ba provided tn ecco~dance with approved plans
on filn with the Office of the Executive Dlr~ctor of Putlic Works.
7. Th ai fire hydrnnts shal) be Instnlled and cherged as requlred and determined
to be nncesb~ry by the Chlef of the Ftre Depertn+ent prlor to cortwnancement of
structu~al framing.
8. Th at drainage of subJect pro-~~rty shall be disposod of tn a manner
s~tisfactory to ttie City Engino~r.
9. That th~ c~wner of s~~bject praperty shal l pey to the Clty of Mahetm ;~ ~
appropriate pnrk and ~ec~cation in-i leu fees as determined to be appropriate
by the Clty Councl) ~ sald fces to be p~id ot the tlme the butlding permlt Is
i ssued.
10. That a) l prlvatc st~eats shell ba developed tn accordanca with thc Clty of
A~ahelm's StanCard Detai l No. 122 far private streets~ inciuding
Installation of strect name signs. P1Ans for the prtvatc street lightfng,
~s required by tho standard detall~ shall be submiCted to the Building
Divlston for eppraval and inclus(on wlth the bullding plans prlor to the
issuance of buiiding permlts. (Private streets are those whtch provide
p~ima~y access and/or circulatlon wlthin the proJect.
11. 1 f perrrw~ent street namc signs have not bcen lnstal led~ temporary street
name signs shall be tnstalled prtor to any occupsncy.
12. That approprl ate water assessment fces as determt r,ed by the Off i ce of
Ut ilitles General Managcr shr~il be paid to the City of Anaheim prlor to the
i ssuance of a bullding permit.
13. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the trafftc slgnal
assessment °_e (Ordtnanc~ No. 3896) in an amount as determtned by the City
Councti~ for esch ncw dweliing unit prior to the issuance of a building
permt t.
14. The seller snall provide the purchase~ of each condominium untt v+ith written
Information concerning Anahelm Municfpal ~Code 1~+.32.5t1~ pertatning to
"park(ng restrlcted to facilitate street sweeping". Such written
informatlon will cicariy indicate Nhcn on-s~reet parking (s prohibited and
Lhe penalty for vlolation~
i5. "No park(ng for street sareeping" stgns shall be installed p~ior ~o fina)
s t reet i nspect ton As requi red by the Pub I i c Works Execut ( ve D) recto~ 1~
accardance wtth spectfications on file with the Street Matntenance Div,slqn.
16. That reasonable landscapiny, Including irrig~tion faclitttes, shali be
i~stalled in thc unceno~nted portion of the parlawey of Kegnolia Aven~e and
7/ 1;/81
#'
~. ;
MINUTES, ANAN~IM CITY PLANNING COMMIS5IAN~ JUIy 13~ 1981
81•447
a~y Interior or colloctor atreet where there is an ~djacent slope to be
maintatnod by the Nome Qwners Assoctatian. The Homa Owner~ Assoctetlon
shali assurtr: the responsibillty for meintena~ce of aald parkway landscaping.
17. Prior ta issuanc~ of bulidtng pe~mita~ the appltcant shal) present evldence
sattsfacto ry to the Chief Dulldtnq Inspector that the units wfll be tn
conformance with Nolse Insulation Stan~srds sp~cifled In the Celifo~nie
Admintstrativa Code~ Tttle 2y.
it~. Prior to lssuan e~ of bullding pe~mits~ the appltcant shall present evidence
satisfectory to the Chief Building Inspector that the praposed p~oject ia in
conformance with Council Poltcy Number 5h2~ Sound Attanuatlon tn Residential
Pro)ects.
19. That thc propose d condominlum sub divisi~n shall provlde, to the extent
feesible~ for passive and/or naturai heattng and coc~ling opportunlties.
ITE~ M_NO_.. 4; EIR ~~EGATIVE OECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2235:
PUllLIC HCARING~ 01JNER: LEASE-ALL ORANGETNORPE~ 40A1 East La Pslma Avenue, Anahelm,
CA 92i~07. ACE-~T ; A. J. NATAL I, TI~E LEAVE RTON C0. ~ 40~?1 Eas t le Pa 1 me Avenue ~
Anahelm~ C/1 92807. P~ope ~ty descrlbed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approxirr~te iy ;.G acre~ 930 "F" and 970 "p" East Orengethorpe Avenue.
Property presently classified ML (INOI~STRI~L~ LINITC.D) 10NE.
CONDITION/1L USE REO,UEST: TO RETAIN 'T1d0 EXISTINf, AUTQMOTIVE REPAIR FACILITIES IN TH~
ML 20NE.
There wes no one Indtc~itiP-g cheir presence in oppositlon ta subject raquest, and
altl~ouyh tf~e staff report was not read~ it ts referrcd to and n-ade a part of the
mtnutes.
Tony Natali, reprFtenting thc le~verton Company~ agent~ explalned the basic requnst
is for condittonal use permits far these trvo unlts which dtd not start as automottve
r~p~ir but have developed Into that and thc.y havc been tenants for a number of years
and created no problems in the ~Afk. He nated tl~err are 55 tenants ln thts park.
TiiE PU6lIC NEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairma~ Iiushorc asked if the petittoncr is willing to stipulate that there wil) be
no outdop~ storage of veh i~.les ove rntght and M~. Natall replted that he would make
that stipulation.
Mr. Natali clarifled that the condi-ion requiring the payment of the trafftc signal
assessment fees woulcf be for the e dvo units only and not the entire park and Dean
Sherer~ Assistant Planne r, indlcated that is correct.
Lammisstoner 9arnes asked the nature uf the complaint whicfi ~romptad thls actlo~ and
Mr. Natali replied he undtrstood that tt was when the appiicant tried to renew hIs
c i ty 1 i cense w i th a new name.
7/13/81
MINUTES~ ANAl1E1M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUIy 13- 1981 81-4A8
Oean Sherar ax~~latned it was his undnrstanding that thore was a user already on tl~e
property who had made the con~laint regarJing the automative uses In this pattian~er
~rea whlch Is thc roason the Zoniny Enforcement Offtcer had Investigated the
property.
Comnissiancr Barnes esked if there are a~y parking problems or If this use lnterferes
wtth park(ng.
Mr. Natall stett~d tl-ey d~ have parking probclms in all of thcir i~dust~lA1 parks
bocause peoplc do not obey th~ rules ond thr~t it is a constant prablem and o~e of the
biygesc bettlQS fn ~ multl-te~iant park Is monltortng the prrking.
Commissinner Eiarncss asked i f ther~ ore a lot of retall uses in the park and Mr.
Natall replled there are somc fac(ng on Oranyethorpe but none In this particular
park.
Commtsstoner Nerbst asked if Mr. f~d~AII is w(Iling to stlpulate to er,e h~urs of
opcr~t(on inJicated in the staff repnrt and M~. Watall rcplied that he would.
ACoTI,QI~: Comnisstoner Berncs offernd a motlon~ scconded by Commissloner Bouas and
MOTI011 CARRICD (Coma:issioner Toler being absent) ~ that th~ Analietm Clty Plenntng
Commissinn t~as rev(ewed the proposal to retain tMro existtng autor,~otive fatilitles in
the ML (Industrl~l~ Limitnd) tone on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting
of apprvxirt~+t~ly ;.(, acres having a frontage of approxtmatcly ~~A~, fcet on the sauth
s(dc of OrAngethorpe Avertuc (930 "F" ~nd 970 "t3" E~st Orangcthorpe Avenue); and does
hereby approve the Neqativc Declaration froa~ tl~e requirement to prepa~e ~n
environmental Impact rcport on thc bosis thac therc would be no significant
i~dividual or cumulattve advcrsc envlror~nental impact due to th~ eppraval af this
Negative Declaration sincc tf~e Anaheim Gene ral Pi~n destgnates the ~ubJect property
for yeneral Industrial land uscs comm~nsurate: w(th the praposal; that no sansit!ve
environmental impacts are involved in thc praposel; that the Inltlai Study submitted
by the potttione~ Jndic.~tes no significant lndtvidual or cumulative adverse
env(ronmental inpacts; and tt~at the Ikgst(ve Decla~ation Subst~ntiatiny the foregoing
fin<lings ts on file in thc City af M~h~im Planning Department.
Commissioncr kiarnes offersd Resolution No. PC~31-152 and moved for its passage and
adoptlon that the Anaheim Ctty Planning Commission docs hereby grant ConditEonal Use
Permit N~. 223~ subject to the pettrtone r's stipulatfan that there sha11 be no
outdoor storaye of vthicles ovc rnight and t~~at the hours of operation shall be
ltmlxed to 7:30 a.m. to y:00 p.m. Mc~ndAy through Fridey for the Precislon Po~sche
f ac ( 1( ty snd a:00 a. m. to 6:00 p. m. Fbnday through f~ i day for the Adv~nced
Ei te~arises faci 1(ty snd pursu3nt to Sectlons 18.~3.~30; .031; •032: .033: .03~+ and
.QjS~ Title 1~ of the Anahetm Municipal Code and subJect to Interdepartn+ental
Committea recommendati~ns.
On roll call~ the f~regoing resalution w as passcd by the folla Ing vote:
AYES: COMHIS510NERS: BARAlES~ BOUAS, 6USHORE, FitY~ HERBST. KING
NOES: CO-''~ISSIOUERS: NONE
ABSENT: CGNMISSIONERS: TOLAR
1/t3/8t
MINUTES~ ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIAII~ JUIy 13~ 1981 81•liAg
ITEM NO• /t EIR CA7E60RICAL EXEMPTION•CLASS 1 AI~Q CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2233:
-........_. ...~..._,~.~_......~._._
PUBLIC HEARINf. OWNER: DONALD CUaCIE~ ET AL~ 1301 North Jaffersan~ Anaheim~ CA
92a07. AGENT: WESTERN EXTERMINATOR COMPANY~ 1321 North Jefferson~ Anahaim, CA
92801. Property dascribed as an ir~egulerly-shaped parcel of l+~nd consisting of
spp~oxinw~tely Q~y ~cre, 1324 No~th Jefferson Street (Wast~rn Exterminator Company).
Property presantly classifi~d ML (INDUSTRIAL~ LIMITEU) ZOt~E~
CONpITIONAI USE REQUEST: TO RETAIN AN EXISTIt~G EXTERMINATING SERVICE IN THE ML 20NE.
There was no one indicatiny their presence (n oppositton to subJect roquest~ end
although tl~e steff report was not r~~ad~ It is referred to end mad~ a part of the
minutcs.
Michael Ketz~ roprescnting Western Cxterminetor Comqany, w~s present to enswer any
questtons.
TI1E PUtiLIC HEARINC '~IAS CLOSEO.
Chalrmnn Bushore asked tha petitloner to stipulate tf~at all vehicles and chemtcals
w(1) be stored (nside and Mr. Katz re~licd he would make that stipulation.
It was noted tlie P1anning Dircctor or hts auttwrf:ed representacivo has determined
that tt~e proposed projecc falis withtn the definitian af Cstegortcal Exempttons,
Class 1~ as defined in paragraph 2 of thc CiLy of Anaheim Envlronmental ImpACt Repart
Gutdelfnos and Is~ therefore~ categorlcally exempt from the ~equlren~nt to prepare an
EIR.
ACTION: Comnissloner Herbst affered Resolution No. PC81-153 and rnoved for its
pa`s ege and adoption that the Anahctm CiCy Planniny Gommission does hereby grant
Condttionai Uae Permit No. 2233 subJr,ct to the petttioner's stipulation that all the
chemicals enci vehttles sh~it be stored inside and purauant to Sectio~s 18.03.O:i0;
.031; •~32; .~33: •'~34 ~nd .435f Title 18 of the M~hetm Municipal Cade and subJect
to Interdepartrr~ntal Cortmlttee rccommendatlons.
On roll call, the foregoing r~solutton was passed by the follawing vote:
AYES: COM-~ISSIOrJERS: BARNES. BOUAS. BuS~iORE, FRY~ HERBST~ KING
NOES: COMM15510NERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLAR
ITEM N0. 6; EIP NEGATIVE DECLARATIOta I~ND CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 22~6:
PU9LlC NEARING. OWHER: LEASE•ALL lA PALMA. 4091 East Ls Patme Aven~. Anahetm, CA
92807. AGENT: A. J. NATALI~ k091 Eest La Pa1ms Avenue, Unit A, Anaheim~ CA 9284y.
Property describad as an irregularly-ahaped parce{ of land consisting of
approxtmetely 8.5 acre~ 121i4 N. Van @uren Street. Property preae~tly classtfted ML
(!N DUSTRIAL. LIMITED) Zone.
7/13/8t
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLIWNING COMMISSION~ JUIy 13~ 19~1 8~•W54
CONDITIONAL USE REQU~ST: TQ PEKMIIT COMMERCIAL USES IN TNC ML tONE.
Thern whatha ttaff~report~washnot read~^it is ~ep~rred totand~madetarpartsof the
althaug
minutes.
Mr. Netall, rap~esenting TM e Leavarton Company~ explalned this request ts a
continuaklon of a previous r@quest deniod ~bout one year ago because the uses itsted
wore not specific enough. He axplained basod on the reactions he had recelved from
the Commiontth~ adJacentepropertyaandsthet this,would be ahc ntinuationcof those
acce~t
uses .
Chairmen Bushore ~wintad out that the uses os listed by the eppllcant ~~~ page 6-b.
(tem No~ 9 is much broeder than the one approved by the Ctty Council on p~ge 6•a,
paragraph -~ and Mr. Nstalt oxplained tt~at ts the list he h~d stiputated ta and
approved by tho Ctty Council.
Desn Shcsrer, Assistant Planner~ expiai~ a the City Counci~ resalutlon list~d those
uses a through f as g~neral categ~rtes and that the us~s as propos~d by the
petition~r are a mc~re specific brenkdawn of thnse general uses.
Co mntss(o~er i~bb'oAdaend permitsntoo ma~Yicommer~tal uses`in,thcplndustrial zone.
this Ilst Is
~1r. Natati explai~ed his li~,t was develaped from a pe~sonal taur taken between
Imperial ttighway and Kraemer 6oulevard elong La Palma of the ~xisting facilities
cur~entty in oxlstence. He explained he hbd go~c through thc parks and made the list
of the varic~us uses atrcady in the ar~a.
Chairman Dushore suggested Mr. Natali review those I1sCs which the Planning
Commisslan is cur~entlY operatiny under and that any uses not c~n that list could be
brought back fvr Planning Commission apprc~vat under i~eports and Reca+x+-endations.
Mr. Natali rcviewed the 11st and indic~~tcd it ts very similar La the Ifst which ha
has submitted.
Corrmisstoner Nerbst SC~LP.d CR1C uses allowa~7 in the industriel xon~ should be
induscriaily rel~ted and Chst this is indu5trtel property beiny ~~sed for commercial
uses.
Mr. Nat~ndicatcfathe uses ere tosbeiindustrlalliy orlentatednwhlchuarehpermittadein
always
their park.
ACiION: Gommissionor Horbst offered a rrotlon~ seconded by Comnissioner King and
MO ION CARRIEQ .(Commissiw-er Toisr being absent)~ that th~ Maheim City Plan~ing
Conmisst~n has ~evicwred the proposel to pe~mit certdin cortrnercial uses in the ML
(ladust~lali L8m~t~c~~io~A~u'i^9~a fro~tagerof approximacely fi80,feetconstheieastfside
•pproxin~te y 5
7l13/81
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUIy 13~ 1961 81-h51
of V~n 6uren St~eet (1240 No~tt~ Ven euren Streat), •+nd doas hereby approve the
Ntgatlve Daclsration from the requirement to prepore an envi~onn~ental impact roport
on tho bssis that there w~uld be no slgnifiGant indivtdusl or cunK~it+tive adverse
environmental Impact due to the approval of thfs Negative Declaretlon si~ce the
Anahelm Generel Plan designates the sub)ect property for genc~r~l Industrl~+l land uses
cortmensur;~te with Lhe proposal; that no sansitive environmantal Impacts are involved
in thc propasal; that the Inltlal Study submittcd by the petitioner Indicetes no
signtficant indtvidual or cumulative odversc environmcntal tmpacts; and that the
Negative DeclArattan subatantlating the foregoing findings (s on ftle In tha City of
Anaiieim Plan~ing Dep~rtment.
Comnissloner 1lerbst offered Resolut(on No. rCt~i-154 and moved far its passage and
adoption th~t tt~e Anahcin~ C(ty Planning Commisslon daes hcreby grdnt Conditlonal Usa
Parmit No. 223f, to permit the follnwing incfustrially relatcd uses fn the ML
(Industri,~i, limited) Zone: outomotivo (detailiny~ specl~ilty repalr~ off-road
equipment and Installatlon~ paint distributor and von convcrsl~ns). accaunting-
bookt:eepiny, aciministr.itivc businesses~ acivertlsing, answaring service~ appratsnrs~
archltact~ assoc(itl~ns (bustness and trade~ chamber ~f comne~ce, labor.
prafessional~ etc.), attorneys~ banks. brokers (R. E. Bu~lness Opportunitics~ etc.)~
bus(ness system companies~ civic o~qontzatlons, callectton agency~ communlcation
consulta~t~ consultancs~ contractors, wrparati~~n headquarters (regtanel otfice)~
credlt reporting ayency~ d~~ta protessing centcrs~ designers (industrlal, interlor,
grephic). development companles, engineers~ financtal instltutions, general office~
governmcntal office~ importers/exporters/general office» insurance companies,
inventory serviccs~ investig~tlon services~ investment servlces~ leasing companles~
lec~a) services~ management comp.~nies~ m.ir4~eting conpanies~ mortgage companles,
personnel agency~ p~lic agencies, put,llshing ccx~+panies~ research b development~
sales oFfice (outstde)~ secretarial services~ title cornpanles and travel agency~ and
pursuant ta Scctlons 1~.~3•~3~; •~31; •~32: •~33: .~3~- and .~35, Tttlc 1t3 oF the
Anaheim Munfcipal Code and subject to Interdepbrtmental Conmlttee recommendatlons.
On roll call~ the faregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIOI~ER~: DARNES. E30UA5. flUSIiORE~ FRY~ HERBST, KING
NOES: COMNISSIONCP.S: tJONE
ABSEt~T: COMMISSIOtIERS: TO~AR
Dean She~er pointed out that any additional uses not on the Iist could be brought to
the Planning Commissinn unde~r R,eports and Recam~endAttons wlthout an acfdltlonal
{~ublic heartng.
ITEH N0. 7: EIR NEGATIVC OECLARATION, ftECLASSIF
;ATION N0. 8~-31-42, WAIVER OF CO
PUE3LIC HEARING. OblNER: ARCIERO BROTNERS, INC.. 20001 E. Walnut Drive, Wainut~ CA
9178g. AG~NT: R. G. B. ENGINEER{IIG, INC.~ 3183 "G" Alrway Avenue~ Costa Mesa, CA
g262G. Property desc~ibed as an irrcyularly-shaped pA~cel of lsnd co~sisttng of
approxlmately 2.8 acrc~ 950 Ibrth Tustin Avenue.
RECLASSIfICAT10fl REQUEST: RS-A•4;~000 TO ML.
7/ 13! 81
_.:~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUIy 13r 1!191
a~•as2
CONDITIO~IAL USE REQUEST; TO F~ERMIT A CONTRACTOR'S OFFICE AND STORAGE YARD IN TFIE Mt,
ZOt~E WITIi WAIVER OF MAXINUM gUILDING NEIGHT.
T~Bre was no one indtcattny th~ir presenco in oppoiition to sut~Ject request~ and
slthough the steff repart was not ~ead, It Is referred to and made a part of tho
minutes.
Bi'1 Arct~ro~ agent~ expla(nod thts re~uest ts for rezoning (n order to build an
office fo~ their comps~y whlch is moving from Walnut.
TIIE PUBL I C IiEARI NG WAS CLOS E0.
Commlssioner tierbst asked if Mr. Arcfero agrees with the craffic sic~nal proposal
wh i ch has b een made .
Mr. Arclero steted that ts one af the problems becausc he had Just found out the coat
on this ~-nd expiatned he understands he has to pay this traffic signal fee plua any
changes to the signal.
Dean Shorer~ Assistant Planner~ statad staff proposcs to dclete Conditlqn No. 9 of
the steff report as a condition of ~pproval for the reclassification which reads that
the awner of aub,~ect property shali pay the traffic signal assessment fee In an
amount as determined by the Ctty Councll for industrlal bulidings prlor to tl~e
issuance of building permit, and that Condition No. 13 should read, "that the
d~velopment af subJect property st~all be contingent upon abt~ining all necessary
riqht of wey clearances and signai modificattons fran the State of California,
Oopartment of Transportatlon~ to fnsure adequatr. end proper access to snd f~om sald
p roperty, and furcher, that all cosis pertaining to said modifications shall be borne
by the petlttoner". Ne stated a ncw Condition No. 18 ahould be added which would
require th~t the traffic s6gnal fee amounting to S~+3.~00 shouid be patd to the Lity
of Anaheirn~ prlor to thc (ssuancc of building pcrmits.
Chairman ~ushore asked M~. Arciero tf he ayrees with these conditions and Mr. Arciero
replied they do nat agree and Chalrm~n Bushore explained the S43~OOA fec is actually
ane-fourth the cost of tf~e signal; that ~ALTRANS pays on~e-half~ the city pays on~-
fourth and the develope~ pays one-fourth. Mr~ Arclero explatned he wauld have to pay
that S43-000 fee. plus the cost of any modificatlon and It is /?osstble the ~~gnal
would have to be moved.
Dean Sherer~ explained that the total cost of the signai to thc State of Califo~nia
and the Ctty of Anahetm was 5172.000~ with Anaheim's share being $86~000 and the ctty
is requesting the appiicant to pay one-half of the ctty's share or S43,OOA; anci tf
the signal has to be further modlfiod~ the applicant Is to be+~r the cost of that
modificatton.
Conmissioner Herbst askcd who this signal benefits a~d Mr. Arciero repiied it only
benefits them.
Cortmission~r He rbst stated if tF-is signal is for the convenience of getttng this
company's vehiclas o~ ~nd off the frea+ay and if this is the only property it
~
,~
~
:,
7/ 13/ 81
MINUTES, A~~ANEIM CITY PLAKNING COnMISSION~ JUIy 13~ Ig81 81-453
ba~mftts~ then he felt they are getting a pretty good desl~ Na explained (f the
signnl ha~ to be naved~ tho only recourse thay have would be the City Council.
Mr. Arctero explatned this Is a thre rwsy signa) wlth an off-ramp at Tuattn which
stops treffic north and south on Tusttn end esked if it coulcl be eliminated as a
four-woy signal~ explatning he did not knaw the cost unttl this morning.
Cheirman aushore suggested that the pera~it be approved subJect to the amended
conditions and (f the petltloner haa any problems~ he can eppeal th~e decislon to the
Ctty C~uncil.
Coramisaioner Herbst potnted out thet a six-foot block wall is proposed along the
~Iverbad ond that could be a ehatnlinie fence ratt~er th~n a block wol) which would
cost less mon~y.
Mr. A~ciero explatned that a block wall fs a requi~ement and Commlssloner Herbst
state~J he ~ealtz~d that~but dtd ~ot thlnk a bleck wall would be necessary along tho
rtverbed sincc there ar~ no other buildtngs in the ar~a.
Dean Sherer oxploined that wall Is a raquirertrant because the property Is adJacent to
RS-A-W3,000 resident(el zoned property and that thcre are no other properties
ad,jace~nt to the rtverbed with block walls. Ne expialned the dQletton of that wa11
would requtre a weiver; and that If the petlCloner deciJes to ~equest a heartng
perCaintng to the siynal ~e~. thst wall weive~ cuuld be advertiscd at the seme tlrr~.
Mr. Arctero refcrrcd to Item No. 11 requiring that th~ aarehouse have flre sprl~klers
and noted thet anytliing stored would be non-flammal~le materidl and thet this is the
thi~d office they have buiit and they liave not hed to provide sprinklers in the pest.
Annika Santslahtl~ Assistant Oirector for 2oning, exple(ned th~t is a requirement
imposed by the Fire Department and he would heve to discuss that condttion with the
Fi re Department.
Chairman Busho~e asked lf anything woulcl protrude abovt the 6-foat high wall along
the freaway and Mr. Arciero replied it wnuld not.
AC~ TION: Comnissioncr Nerbst offerad a motion, seconded by Commissioner King and
MOTION GARRIEO (Commissioner Tolar being absant), that the Anahetm City Planntng
Comnissi~n has reviewed the p+~oposal to reclassify sub}ect aroperty from the RS-A-
43.000 (Residential/Agricultural) tone to the ML (industrial~ Limtted) tone to pnrmit
a contractar's office snd storage yard in the Mt. (Industriel, Ltmitad) Zone with
wsiver of maximum b ullding helght on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting
of approximately 2.t~ acres having a frontage of appro>.imately 4fi0 feet on the east
stde of Tustin Avenue (950 North Tustin Avenuc); and does -+ereby approve the Negatlve
Declaration from the requirement to prepare an environment~l impact report on the
bss(s that there would be no signtftcant individual or cumulative adverse
environmentai impact due to the approval of this Negative Declaration since the
Anaheim Ge~eral Plan designates the subJe~t praperty for general industrial land uses
conmensurate witt~ the propogal; that no sensitive environmentel impacts are Involved
tn the proposal; that the Initia) Study submitted by the potitioner indicates no
7/ 13/81
MItJUTES~ AtJAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMHiSSION~ JUIy 13~ 1~41 81-45W
etgnificant Indlvidual or cumul~tive adver:c envtronmontel impacts; and that the
N~ot(vc Dacloratian s~bstantiatl~g the fo~egoing findings ts on file in the City of
Anaholm Planntnfl Dep~rtme~t.
Comnissionor He~bat offered Reaolution No. PC~1-155 and moved for lts pessage and
adoptlon thet the Anahelm City Planning Commission doea hereby grant Reclassificetion
No. 80-81-42 subJect to Interdepartnenta) Committee recomme~clations.
On roli cali, the foregaing ~esolutton was passed by the followtng vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ a0UA5~ BUSHORE~ FRY~ HERBST, KING
NOESa ' COMMISSIONERSt NONE '' ~~
A85ENT: 'QBMMISSIONERS: TOLAR
Commissloner Ilerbst offered a nwtton~ seconded by Ca~xntssioner Bouas and MOTION
CARRIED~ (~ommiasioner Tolar being obsent)~ that !M Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby grant the request for watver of code requt rement on the basis that there
arQ no other buildings in tha a~ae and although the adJacont property ts zoned RS-A-
~3~000~ it is adJace~t to the Senta Ana River and will ~emein undeveloped.
Commtsstone~ Herbst offered Resolutlon No. PC81-156 and moved f~r Its passage and
adoption Chat the Anaheim City Planning Commisston does h~reby grant Conditional Use
Permit ~lo. 2232 pursuant to Sections 18,03.030; .031; .Q32; .033; .034 and .03;,
Titie it~ of the Maheim Muntcipat Code and subJect to Interdepa~tmental Commtttee
recomme~dattons and Including the condltion rvwqui~ing the traffic signal fee of
S43,OQ0 plus modificatlons.
On roll call~ the foregotng resotutlon was passed by the fotlowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: EiAaNES~ DOUAS~ BUSHORE. FRY~ HERBST~ KING
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSEt~T: COMMISSIONERS: TOLAR
Jack White~ Assi~tant City Attorney, presenteci the written right ta appeal the
Plan~ing Commtssion's decision within 22 dbys to the City Council.
RECE55 Tt-ere was a fifteen-min~te recess at 3:00 p.m.
R~GONVE:NE The moeting was reconvened at 3:15 p.m.
~/ 13/81
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSlON~ JULY 1;~ 1961
..4
: EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATtOr~ RECLASSIFI
N~. ;
81-455
PUBLIC NEARING. OWNER; ANTHONY AND LEA GOUVEIA~ 837 South aeach floulevard~ Anaheim~
CA 92fi04. AGCNT: LA CRESTA dUILUER5~ JIM FREDINaURC~ 8322 ~18ramont Mesa 8oulevard~
San Diego~ C!1 921ii. Praperty dascribed rs a rQCtangularly-shoped parcel of lend
conststing of Approxin-ately 0.75 acre~ 8~7 South Dcach E3oulevard.
REGLASSIFICATION REQUEST: RS-A-43,Q~0 TO Cl.
CONUITIONAL U5E REQUEST: TO PERMIT A 45-Uf~IT MOTEL.
Thc~c ~re two persons indicating theirpres~ncs in opposition to aubJect request~ and
although Che staff report waa noc rcad~ it ts referred to and nu~dQ a part of the
minutes.
Jtm f~edinburg~ agent~ was present to Answer any qucstlons.
Stevo Wozney~ 818 Soutfi Hayward, stated he is rrpresenting himseif end his netghbor
Lane Radke, ti24 South Hayward. Iie statod hn was not awar~ that thls property could
bc zoned for motels when he purchased h(s propercy~ notiny tt is zo~ed for
reside~tlal or agrlcultur.il uses. Ile state~ ~hey are oppused to tiAVlny a motel
because thCre are 8 motels existing on Beach Boulevard in that aree, wlth two more
p roposed and 6 motels on the west sidc of 8each 6oulevard~ plus a restaurant~ etc.
He stated thcre Is a lot of conyestion in that area end th~re havc bee~ more fate)
accidents on Beach Eiauleva~d and Ball Road tha~ on any ather street fn Anaheim. lie
noted a varl~+nce was pr~viously yranteci t~ permlt an ~-foot high chalnlink fence on
subJect property, but that th(s request is for a G^foat high fence and he presented
photographs showing a G-foot hlyh fence on adjacent prop~rCy and rwted there is a 2-
1/2 to 3 foot difference in the yround level. He explained a 6-foot high fence on
subJect prop~rty would only be 3 feet abave ground level and there has ~een a lot of
burgleries end robheries In thls ne(yhborhood and anyone could jump right over the 3-
foot htgh fence. He stated he feels the motels are a co~tributing factor to the
c:~ime problem. He statcd they want tt on thc record that they are not against the
development of thc rn~tel, but feit if it is approved, there should be diffe~ent
reconxnendattons than those procosed and a G-foot high wall should be 6 foot on the
subJect property. He presented aciditional phota,y~aphs of the adjacent properttes
which indicate the dtffertnt c ~und levels end other fences In the area.
Commissioner tlerbst explalned code requires that the fence be measured from the
highest point o~ the property.
Mr. Wozny stated they are opposed to the p~oposed swimmtng pool to be built to the
rear of the property because a lot of the residents have retired and do not want to
hear all the additiona) noise. He suggested tht paol be pl~ccd adJacent to Beach
Boulev~rd because (t ts already noisy and that would not interrupt the peace and
serenfty of the ad,jacent residents.
Mr. Wozny refe~rred to the proposed 5-to ;~-foot wtde landscaped area edJacent to the
wcst property line and noted the plans shaw only 5 feet and he did not think there
could be much landscaptny in a$-foot area. Ne referred to other commercial
developments (~tmttries Restaurant and the Sahare Hotel) which ~ere permitted the
same variance and pointed out asphalt paving is right up to the fe~ce end he did not
feel that is right. He ~eferred to the staff repo~t comment that the petttioner has
been infa~med of the Pla~ning Commission policy that there must be a 20-foot wide
landscaped area wherQ comme;cial projects abut single-family residences.
i
MINUTES~ ANAHE~N CITY Pt,ANNINO COMMISSION, JULY 13~ 1g01 81-4y6
He referred to Itam c of paragraph 15 and notcd tf~is proJect will interfere wtth tho
peace, sAfnty ~nd gcnoral welfare of the surrounding ared'and did not tht~k a G•foot
htgh fence betwuen tl~e prope~ty Iines would ., provida any protactton. t1e staced
thore will be almost 9; untts built on these two adJ~+cent properties and tho smog~
congestlo~~ and emtsst~n that will be causod by sll thesa automobtles wlll certoinly
not be boneftctal to the people llving ~iroctly bohind the proJoct.
Mr. Wozny stated most of the neighbors love tholr prtvacy and Jo have netghborhood
gatherings and if thc structurc is to be built~ thcy would not want any re;~r windows
which w~uld Interfere with their prtvacy and f~lt they are entitlcd to thetr peace
and freadom and privacy and pcnplc l~~oking tnto their yards would t~e an invaslon of
thelr prlvacy.
Sherry Kreissly~ is2E Hayward~ stateJ rfght now the Sahara Mote) is behlnd half af her
proporty and this mote) would be behind the other fialf; thAt sl~e h~s llved there
s ince 19G5 and because of tfie Saharo Fbtel ~ they have had pol I ce use thci r property
for ~ stake-out, and have had translents usinq the y-foot arca for smaking pot
because they thouyht the polius could not see them and a lot of people walking around
the araa; that slie has thrae small chlldren and ts also representing her next door
neighbor wlio also i~as ciitldren and has been robbcd 4 timcs becausc of the easy access
off Beach aoulevard wl~ere people c~~n come right over the f~nce because tt tsn't much
of a fence. She stated she ts totAlly agntnst this development but If tt cannot be+
stopped~ stie and her husband want a 12-foot h(gl~ fenca on subjc;ct property wtth
barbed wire on the top.
Mr. Fredinbu~g stated they will be wiliing to do whatevPr is necessary to protect the
security of the resldents and the wall witl be bullt tn satlsfy everyane's ~eed. Ne
stated he believes the swimming pool encroaches ab~ut ~ feet (nto the landscaped
setback and that they weuld be wi l l iny to nx~ve the poc,l and bring it into conformance
wlth code. Ile stated he ask~d about the landscaping and was told the code
requirament would be 20 feet to the swimmtng pcaol~ including the concrete and
walkways. He stated the t~affic out of the motel w(1) be turning right only, or
south on Beacii Bautevard. Fle stated he did not belleve there Are any windows on the
back s i de of the mote 1.
THE PUDLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Comnissioner Nerbst stated the plans sl~aw twa winda,rs on the rear of the motel and
Mr. FreJinburg replied they will be wiliing to eliminate those two wlndows.
Ch airman Uushore explainc~d the petittoner has stipulated to remove the two windows
proposed for the rear of the motel. He asked lf the cement around the pool can be
counted as part of the landscaped setback.
Dean Shcrer. Asslstant Pla~ner, stated this is a Planntng Wmmission poltcy to
require a 20-foot wide fully landscaped setback anc! it would be up to the Conxnission
to dectde whether or not they would consider a portion of the pool concrete as part
of the setback~ noting there is approxlmately 36 feet of landscaptng proposed.
Mr. Fredinburg explained the swimming pool is encroachiny about y feet into the 20-
foot setback, bui it cauld be moved because the poal ts bigger than necessary a~d the
s i ze coul d be reduced to conform wi th the 2Q-foot requt rement.
Commissioner Herbst stated ehe tode requires the fence be G feet above the highest
point of property and he did not understand haw these other fences were app~oved by
the Building Onpartment.
7/11/Q1
~ ~
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOH~ JULY 1;~ 1$81 81•457
Dean Sherar explained the 6 fact shauld be mesaured from the higheat point of the
flnlahed grada and if the fen u needa to be highe~ thon the 6 feet In order to
cortply~ a walver would not be n~ceasery.
Chsirmen Dushore stetad he did nut believa the neighbors reatised how high a 12-foot
fence would bo mnJ he thouql~t en 8-foot high fence would be ad~q w~te~
Mr. Wozny stated hn thnuyht they could compromise but felt there should b~ sane
drasttc ection taken for the othor nbtela in the area because of the burglartes ond
robberles in thQ area. Na suggasted a IA-foot t~igh fenca from the property behtnd
the subJect property wouid be adequate ~nd would prevent someone f~om Jumping over
it. Ne explalned again~ he hes no compinints with someone developing thelr property~
Sut they Just want to protect their awn properttes and felt they could come to an
agreement.
Commissloncr Barnes Rotntad out that if a fence o~ the motel side ~+~sets code
requi reme~ts ~ that would be exectly what the ne) gl~bors we~t.
Mr. Wozny stated propertles at the rear of the r,~ato) RrQ all exactly 1RVe1 end if a
10-foot fence Is malntained from the lawer propertv wlth no windows o~ thc rear alde
end f f the sw i mni ng poo 1 I s movecl out of ti~e setback ~ chey woul d n~t ob j ect t~ the
motel.
Mr. Fredinburg (ndicated he wouid agree to those sttpu;atio~~.
Commissloner Harbst clarificd that the swimming pool wbuld not be moved to the front
of the property, but would just be nbved forward at its prop~sed location and Mr.
Fredinburg indicated thet the pool is larger than necessury and it could remaln in
the seme locatlan but be reduced in size ta conform to the cade requirement.
Commissioner Herbst clerifled the pool would ~e c~mptetely fe~ced and asked the
petitloner to stipulate to cantrol the hou~s of aperation and suggested the pool
operating hours be 8:00 a.m. to ~:00 p.m. so •hs notse f~om the pooi would not
tnterfere with th~ nclyhbors' sieep.
Mr. Fredlnburg indicated they would nwke an agrccment that the pooi would be operated
w( th t n tt~ose hou rs .
Cammissioner He rbst stated he would like to see revised plans.
Comm(sstoner Barnes referred to the next item on the agenda which (s another motel
ad~accnt to this motc~l and fBlt it wouid be ~dvisable to see revised plans and
suggested that thr_ two petitioners meet and revicw et+ch other's plans.
Mr. Fredinburg indicated he would like e four-week continuance.
ACT10l~: Cortmissloner tierbst offsred a nbtlon~ seconded by Commfssione~ Bouas and
~N CARRtEO (Cortmissioner Tola~ being bsent), that consideration ~f the
aforementioned ltem be continued to the regularty-scheduled meeting of August 10~
1981 in order• that the petitto~er may submit revised pians at the request of the
petttioner.
Chai~men Bushore suggested the property awners in the area contact the Planning
Dapartmant on August lOth to make sure the item will be heard on that date,
Conrn3ssioncr He rbst suggestad the petitio~er mect with the neighbors bafore th~
meeting to review the revised plans.
'i~ ~ i ie,
,
MINtJT~S~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 13~ 1~81 81•ky8
Commlssionor Nerb~t stated he would ltke staff ta investlgate other fences in the
are~ whfch ara not 6 faet high at the highast pc~ine.
Annika Santalahtt~ Assistent Director fo~ Zonin~~ explolned staff would check th4
other zoning actions in the ar~a ta make su~e tha fonCes were required when the
prQpcrtlns ware developed.
Chalrmsn 8ushore st~ted he wauld Ilkn t~ have staff theck on tha other propsrtlos
mentlanacl and referred c~ the Dimitrie~ F+~stau~ant with paving right up t~ the fence
end Anntke Santalahti ~xpi.~in~d she ia sure that res~aurant wes developed before thia
palicy was formed and code requirad a tree buffor. She stoted staff could make e
check to find out whlcti properties cnmply with code.
IT~M N0. : Ela NEGATIVE UECLAaATION RECLASSIFICATION N0. 80-81-41 WAIVER OF COOE
~ c~Ul -1E:11 AN~ ND I r1AL ~ I N` 3:
PUBLIC t~EARING. ONNER; FONG TZE WU~ 257A0 Kellogg Streat~ Lome Linde~ CA 923SG.
AGEFIT: DAVID CIIENG~ 5~81 Country Club lanc. Anahelm~ CA 92807. Prnperty describ.~d
es a rectengulariy-sheped parcel of land cansisting of approximately ~.6G acre~ 831
South Beach douleverd.
RECLASSIFICATIOr1 REQUEST: RS-A-43~~00 TO CL.
CONDITIOIJAL USE REQUEST: TO PERY,IT A 43-UNIT MOTEL WITN WAIVER OF MA~IMUM
STRUCTURAL HEIGt1T~
There were avo persons indicating their presonce ir, opeositton to subject request~
and although the staff rcport was n~t read~ It is r~ferred to e~d made a part of the
minutes.
Bi11 Rampf,263~ Nortt~ Llrw~oad~ Santa Ana~ agen., stated the proposal is fo~ a b2-unlt
motel and that this situation Is different b~ca:.~r the property is not as la~ge as
the previous proJect~ so they c~nnot provtde the landscaping. He stated they hav~
already applied for a Best Western franchise and Best Weste~n has very strtngent
rules as ta thc size of the rooms~ etc. and hevtng to provtde a 20-fo~t wide
landscaped setback in thc rear would eliminste ~+ units. He stated he had just
ffnished building ttie Tlffany Inrt Fbtel at 73S 5outh Beach and a var~ence a~d
condl~~i~~al ~se permit wtre (ssued for that motel with mininwm land,caped setback to
the rear anJ this plan is aimost Identical. Ne strted they did comply Nith all the
requlre ments ~f the T~ffany praJect a~~d that providing thts tandscaped setback would
joopardtze their projeGt.
Steve Wozny~ fila South Hayward Strect~ stated his prope~ty would be directly behind
this project and he is atso spesklnq for his netghbor. He stated he moved tnto his
house two years ago thinking this p~operty would be developed as a t-story medica)
offiu building with a fi-foot high block wali. He stated the pictures will shaw that
nothing has bcen done and that this has been one of the biggdst, dirtiest lota in
Anaheim and unfortunateiy he has be~n bothered with everyChing imaginable because of
the neglect of this property.
7/13/81
MINUT~S, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSI4N~ JULY 13~ 1981
81-459
He stated they do not ca~e w hat is developed o~ thts p~cperty as long es thelr
seren i ty and peace of mi nd i s p~otocted ~nc1 fe 1 t wl thout a ta 11 Ir~• foot hi gh fance~
they would be bothered boceuae the parkinq would be adJ~cent to the property line and
there would be an accoss straigl~t through to Deach 8oulevard; ond thet they are
re~lly getting =cered beceuse there ta already an undealrable ~element (n some of
these motels; en~1 that all ti~ey want is for the nelghbo~hood to be protected. He
~tated without s satback thay will be abie to heer the engines sta~ting at ai) hours
of the nie~ht and day. Ho stated he end his nel~hbo~ have rettred a~d do not went to
ltsten to that notse all day end r~ll ni~tht and ere e~king the Comml~sion to take a
good look at a11 thes~ p~oJects because they are abutting private residenttal homes.
Mr.Dampf statcd w hcn the pr~party is grocied~ Ic wlll be ~aised a to 3-1/2 feet and
the fence wlll be ~ or 1Q feet high. fle stated they would be willtng to butld It 12
feet hlyh tf th~t Is what is dcslred~ but dtd not think that Is wh~t the neighbors
would Itke and th~~t maybe they would prefer I~ndscaping wlth some tetl treea~ etc.
Ne stat~d he understa~ds s,~r~e af the neighbors co~cerns b~cause when ; e was but lding
the Tiffany hbtel~ ther~ wore police using that cc,nstructlon site tn wstch the
varlous motels In the are~. H4 stated !hey wlll be willing to work with the
~elghbors and da whatevc~ is re~u(rad but would ~•efer not to have to give up parktng
in tha rear e~n~ four units because of ecc~nomi;:s.
TIIE PUDL I ~ NCARI FIG Wl1S c~osEd.
Commissic~ner Nerbs[ st~itc~ hc d(d nnt fee) the Commisston cAn toll one property owner
to prov i~te a 20- foc~t b uf fcr and than te 1 I the awncr next cioor ¢het he doesn't have to
p rovide a buffer; end that Best Westcrn does not wrlte the City of Ar~~helm's codes or
stgn ordlnAnces and this ctty has h~ci trouble wltl~ Best Western before; and that the
motel should be builc according to tf-e City of ~ahelm's codas~ not Best Western
cocie~. He stated he felt the petitiorer should request a continu~nce a~d brtng the
plans (ntd conform~nce wtth code.
Comrnlsslan~r Barnes statcd this petitioner should also revlew the ~lans for the mAtel
next doo~ an~ pointed out the swim~inn pc~a) is rtght next to thosc ur,its.
Cha i rmar, ~ushore s tAted the sw irrmi n,y poa I trkes up four spaces and 1 t cou 1:. be
eliminatcd to provide the four un(ts and Mr.p~n,pfi repltcd Best 4kstern requlres a
swimming pool.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offere~ a mot(on~ seconde~: 5y Commissioncr B~~uas and
MOTION CARRI~p (Co mn(ssloner Tolar bein<~ absent), that constderatlon of the
afqrementtoned item be continued to the regularly-scheduied meeting of August 10.
1981~ in order thot re vised plans may be submltted at the request of the petittoner.
Cortn~issioner Barnes stated m~ybe both of these proJects could be better if the two
developers would get toyether.
Cortmissioner Ilerbst st~ted he wi 11 optx~se thc proJect If the ZO•foot buffer is nat
pr~~vt deci anJ the fence must be G feet above the hi ghest ~,rade.
Chairanan Bust~ore stated even though these proJects are bci,.g approWed today~ the
developer would not be required to bufld the fences if the proJects are rsot
constructed. He explained he is rasp~ndtng to one of the opposition's conments that
the fences have not been built on previmusly approved projects.
7/13/at
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PL1W MING COMMISSION~ JULY 13- 1981 81•k60
ITEM N0. lOt EIR NEGATIVE__DECLARliTiON AMD CONUITIONAL US~ PERMIT N0. 2230t
PUBLIC NEARItIG. OWNER: EARL SINGLETON AND JAMES CLAYTON PCACOCK~ lOF,20 Firestone
8ouleverd~ Norwalk, CA ~~6~~0. AGENTt AYIANTIC RICHFIELD CO., CtiARLES ' HICKS~ 300
West Glanoaks Boulevard~ Glandala~ CA g0201~ Propercy described aa an .rregularly-
shapcd parcal of land consisting of appraximat~ly ',.5 acre~ 301 South Euclid Streec.
Property presentiy classtfied Cl (COMMERCI~L~ LIMIT~U) 20NE.
CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST: ~0 PEftMIT A CONVENIENCE MARKET WITH GASOLINE SALES.
There was no one Indlcating thetr p~esence In opposition to sub)ect request~ and
althouyh the staff report was not reod~ it is refcrred to and made a part of the
mtnutee.
Tom Goodnwn, attorncy rapresenting Atlantic Richfleid Compsny~ stated they havG no
objectlons to any of xhc Interdepartmcntal Committr~ recorm~endatlons~ extept
Condition No. 3 snd would not wdnt to close the noriherly driv~wny tn Euclid and the
cast~rly driveway on Broaciway~ because the~y cild not believe In thts tnstance tt ts a
reasonable: roquest~ Nc explaincJ thls is the last of three appltcatlons for
co~version to mini-markets ~nd the ffrst on~ wes on 8~11 and West Street and there
was a reason for closing tl~e eccess at that lacatlon because of the topogra~hy and
locetion w(th A deacf-end strcet; and that the serond loca!ion on Euclid and La Palm~
dtd not hav~ bwo islands.
TH~ PuBLIC F~[nRING WAS CLOSeo.
Cortmissione~ flerbst statcd Mr. Goodman has Just polntcd out [he reasons thls
property would not be suitable for tl~is second usc; that scrvicc statian sltes have
traffic problems already and a secnnd use wauld compound thnse problems even more
with peopla coning (n and uut and parking to buy groc:erles anci al~o the gasoltne
t~ucks would be bloct.(ng the ~ccess whcn they are filllnc~ the storage tanks and he
felt with the additlonal usa, it would be nccessa ryr ta block off those two corners to
protect tt~e traffic In the street. He stated there are certain sarvice ststton sites
in the city whlch probebly could handte the conversion. but did not feel this is one
of t~~ose si tes.
Choirman E~ushure stated most of the abAndoned service statlan sites were a much
la~gnr propertlcs and a~n be devetoped into more a~dvantageous uses and referred to
the site at Euclid and ~all.
Comnissianec• Ktny asked if the use would be fcasible if those two drivswavs w~ra
clas~d, ana l1r. Goodman repiled that it would no~
ACTION: Comrnissioner Nerbst offered a m~tion, sec.fl~ded b~~ Camnissl~ner King an~
pF1 CARRIED (~".ommissioner Tola~ being abaent). that the Mahaii.~ ~tty Planning
Cammisslor~ has ~eviewed the pro~wsal ta permit a canvenle~ce rnerket Nlth gaaoline
sales on an lrregularly-sf~aped percel of land cansistt~g of app~oximately 0.5 acre
lacated at thr !soutt~west cflrner of Broadway and Euclid Street (3~1 South Euclid
Street); and does I~ereby approve the Negative Decieration from the requirement to
prepare a~ environmental i~act report on the basis that there would be no
significant individual or cumulatlve advsra~ envtrnnmentai impact due to tha approvai
of this Negative Declaratlon sinoe the Anaheim Genera) ~lan designates the subject
property for general cemmercial land uses conmensufate wtth the proposel; that no
sensitive environmental lmpacta are invoived i~ 'he praposal; that the Initial Study
submitted by the petttioner indicates no significaint individual or cumulative adverse
e~viro~mentai tnpacts; and that the t~k gactve Decleration aubstantiatt~g the foregoing
fl~dinga is on file in the City af Maheim Planntng Department.
7/1318t ,~
. .... .
_ _ .._.: ;... ~ _
_:~ ~,.~ _ . ~ .
~ ''~~ ,1 ~ ~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITV PLANNING COMMISSION. JULY 13~ 1981 81~+~61
Co~amisstaner H~rbst offsred R~solution No. PC81-157 and naved far tts passaQe and
•doptton that the lMahelM City Plan~in9 CanmTssto~ do~~ he~~by d~~y Condltion~l Use
Parmit 1b. 2230 ~ ths basis th~t the p~operty ls not •ultabie for these du~l u~•s
and tha u~es would compound tha tr~tfic prablem.
On roll c~ll, the foregoing rs~olutton was passed by tha follawing votes
AYESt COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BQUAS• BUSHORE~ FRY~ NERBST~ KING
NOES: CaMMI5SI0NERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSI~NEaS: TOLAR
Jack Whita, Assiste~t City Attornoy~ prasented the written riqht to eppeal the
Pienning Commission's dcctaio~ within 2x day s to the City Councii.
i'r~ Y ~^
1/13/81
~
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COHMI~SION~ JULY 13~ 1981 81•462
ITEM N0. 11
E ORTS AND RECOMMENUATIONS
The follawing Reports and Recomme~dations ttaff ~cports were presented but not read:
A. CONDITIQIJAL USE PEfvr11T N0. 22'2 - Requ~at for sound study of cockCai) lounge
operat on at t e nort est cornnr af Ball Rosd and Knott Street.
It was noted sub,iect petit(a~ should be continued to the meeting of July ~7~
1981~ clue to a City Co uncil heariny of July lG~ 19a1~ pertatning to thts
use.
Ch !rmen Bushore Inc+ c.ited he felt the City Council shoul~l n~~ m~de aware of
tt~e Comni ss i on's teei i ngs as to wl~ether or not the pot t c loner shou 1 d bear
the cost of a noise stuciy. Dean She~er, Assistant Plan~er. replled the
Corm~isslon's conmients would bc releted verbal ly ta the Counci I.
ACTION: Commisslo~er Herbst offered a motlon secondec! by Commissto~er
aB rnes and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Tol.~r being abseryt) ~ chdt the
Anahelm Clty Planning Comnissi~n does hereby grant a continuance of the
above-mcnt(nned itcm to the mceting of July 27~ 19~1.
B. TENTATI Vf. MI1P OF TRACT N0. 10gy(, - f~equcst for extens i on of t 1 me f rom Ed
Devls~ Un(on Mortgage pankcrs ~or property locat~d on the south side of
Wi ll:en Way east of Harbor Boulevared.
ACT I 011: Comm i ss 1 oner 1~' •~g of fe red a mo t t nn, sca~nded by Commi ss i oner 9ouaa
anci MOTI01~ CARRIEG (Cc~m~nlssioner Toiat- beiny absent)~ that the Anaheim Clty
Plann(ny Commission docs hc rcby gran t a one-vear exte~sion of timt for
Tentative Ma~ of Tract Na~ 109,G to expire o~ July 14, 19a2.
C. TENTATIVE MAP 0~ T MCT N0. a~24 - Req uest for extension of time from Horst
chor~ nahe m s. nc., or property located at th~ southwest and
soutt,east cOrne~5 of Strrano Avenue s~d Nidden Canyon Road.
AGTION: Commfssione~ King offcred a motion. seconded by Cor~mtssianer Barnes
an OTIOtI CARRIED (Commiss(oncr Tolar be(ng absent). that th~ Mahelm City
Planning Cortmission does hereby g~an t a one-ye~r extcnsion of tin+e for
Ter,tettve Ma~ of Trect No. 8520 (Revislon Mo. 2) to expir Saptamber 12~
~9a2.
AUJOURr~IiEN? TherG being no furth~r bustness. Commissi~ner Herbst cffered a metion~
seco~dc~i ~y CommisslonQr Souas and HOTIOk CARRI':0 (Commissioner Tolar
being absont)~ that the meeting be ad,journed.
The meet i ng w,.~ ad journed at 4:00 p.m.
Respec tfully submftted,
Q~~~. ~ .
Edtth L. Harris~ Secretary
Anaheten Ci~y Planntng Canmission
EUt:lm
7/ 13/ 81