Minutes-PC 1985/01/07REGU~AR M~ETJNG 0~ TtiE ~NAHEIM ~ITX FLANNIhG COMMI5SION
REGUL~R ME~TING The regular meeting of the ~n~heim City Nl~nning Commi~sian
was called to ocder by Cr~airmen Nsrbet at lO;Oq a.m.,
Januacy 7, 1985, in tha Counci~ Cha~ber, A qucrum being
prPaent and the Commission reviRwed plane of the itema an
taQay'~ agen~]a.
R~~ESS: li:3U n.m.
RECONVBNED: 1:4U ~.m.
PRES~NT Chairman: Nerbst
Commiseionere: Qouas, [3uahoce, Fry, King, I,a Claire,
McDurney
AB56NT: Commi9aioner: N~ne
Cornmiesfoner Buahore errived at 1;b5 p.m.
ALS~ PRRS~NT Anniha Sontalahti
Jack Wl~ite
Jay Titus
Paul Sinyer
Jay Taehiro
Gre~ Nastings
KendrA Morrias
Edith Narri~
1lseiatant Director foc 2aning
A~ssiata~nt City Atkocney
Office Engineer
Traffic Fnginepr
Assoc~.ate Plenner
l~ssociate Planner
Assietant Planner
Planning Commioaiao Socretary
APPROVAI, QF MINUTES: Commiasior:er King ofEered a motion, aeconded by
Commissioner Aouas and MOT'~N CARRIE~, thnt khe minutes of the meeting oE
December lU, 1984, be aprvved +~s submitted.
ITEM N0. 1. EIR NEGATIVE UECLARATION AND CQNDIT~ IONAL -;SE PERMIT NO_. 2614
PUBLIC NEARING. OWNER: LUCILLE M. ^EHRYMAN, 21Q W. Vermont Avenue, Anaheim,
CA 928Q5. AGENT: BMAASSY PARK ~BVELOPMF~iT COMPANY, 548G I,incoln Avenue,
Cypress, C~ 90630, ATTN: WILLIAM FIFIELD. Propecty det,cribEd a~ a
rectangularly-ahaped parcel of land coneiating of approximAtely 0.4 acre, 210
West Vermont Avenue~
To pE~mit a 36-unit seni.oc citiz~n's apirtment complex.
Conkf.nued it~m the meetings of October 15, and Navember 26, 1984.
ACTION: Comiiissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
McBurney a~~ MOTION CAPRIED (Commi,asioner DuahnrQ sbsant) that the Anaheim
City Planninq Commission does her~by grartt the petitioner':~ request to
withdraw the petition for Conditic~nal Uae Pecmit No. 2614.
85-1 1/7/85
MINUT E8. ANANEIM CITY P~ANNING COMMIS~ION, J'ANUARY 7, )985 85-2
ITEM N0~ 2. EIR CATBGORICAL ~XEMPTION~r_LASS 3 AND V~RIANC~ N0. 3938
PUBLIC NEARING. nWNER:: RUDF.Rx' A. AND ROSEMA~'IE 3MITN~ 13729 E. Rosecrrans
1-venue, SAnt~ F~ 5pringo, CA 90670. ACENT: MIKF. A(.DERSON, P.O. 9ox 399,
~twood, CA 92601. Prc,rcarty dascribec~ m~n An irregularly-Ahap~d pnrcel of IAnd
cone ieting of appru:;imately 2.3 acceA, 1431 Sautl, SunkiAt Street (U-Store).
Waiver of maximum EQnc~ hei.ghk to constxuct a r.onrrete block fence.
Cont i nuad f rom the meeting of November lA, ancl Deeertibec 10, 1984
Ther e wa~ no one indicating their pcesence in opposition to aubjock requeEt
and although L•he staPE repork waa not read, it is reEerred t•o and made ~ part
of the minutee.
Mike Alderson, ayent, was preaent t~ anbwer any queations.
TH~; PUDLIC HEARING WAS CLOSF.D.
Comm iaetoner King asked about ~he Plunning Department etaEE's recommendation
that su~i~e~t request be denied. Greg tlaAtinys, Associate Planner, reaponded
tha t cartain membecs of the Planning Depactment ataff feel ttiis would set an
unde sirable p~eced~nt for Che ~tadiur~area for encroachments into the front
setdack area.
Cnairman fierbst stated he felt tt would be better to have the property fenr.eds
and noted thit '_.: .;~:~e, a long distance fram the Stadium area.
It was noted the Planning Uicector oc his suthorized repcesentative has
dete rmined that the proposed project Falls within ttie definitian of
Categ orical Exemptions, Class 3, as defined in the StatP Environmental Impact
kepurt ;uidelines and is, therefoce, categor~.aally exempt from the req~irement
to prepAre an EIIt.
ACTION Commissioner La Clai~•e oLfered Resolution No. PC85~01 and moved for
its paasage and adoptiun that the Anaheim City Planning Cammfssion does hereby
gran t Variance No. 3438 on the basis thar_ there are special circumstance~
appl icable to the property s~ch as size, shap~, tnpoyraphy, location and
surr oundings which do not apply to other fdentically zoned property in t:~e
same vicinityt and that strict application of the Zor~ing Code deprivps the
property aE privileges enjoyed by othec pro~erties ir. the identical zone and
clas si~ication in the vicinity and subjec:~. to Interdepactmental Commiktep
recommendations.
On r oll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ BUSEiORE~ t~RY, HER9ST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
N4ES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
1/7/85
S
`
l~INUT~S. J-NAHEIM CYTY PLANNING COMMI35TON. Jr-NU?1RY 7, 1985 85-3
ITEM_N0, 3. EIR N~GATIVE D~CL:+RATION 1-ND V7-RIANCE N0. 3445 (REApV. )
PUBLIC NEARING. OWNBRS: RUTN C. SPENCBR 1-ND RTCNARD H. SPENCER~ 303 B.lack
Oak Itond, Anaheim, CA 928Q7. Property de~cr ibed as a cectangularly~-ahapad
percel of lend conoisting nf eipproximntely 9,600 square f~et loceted at the
southwest corner of Maple Tree Drive and F31a ck Uak Ro~d, 303 Black Oak Road.
Wnivara of minimum setback for rabbf.t hutche s and maximum number of rabbits to
retain 30 rabbite.
Continued Erorti tt~e meeting uf December 10~ 1984.
Ther.e wece approxi~aately six persona indicA ~ ing theic ptesence in oppoaition
and approximatel;~ aix pereUna indicating khe ir pretsence in Euvor of aubjecl•
request and ~lthough t:he ~laff repocl was no t read, it ie reLerred to and made
a part of the minutes.
Ruth Snrenaon, petitione~, explained ahQ wou ld like a vaciance to keeN 3U
grand champion stiow rabbits and that this iR her hobby t~nd ahe has been doinq
it for 4 year.R.
Robert Mc4ceon, 3U9 Black UAk Road, explained he t~as lived in his residence for
14 years and hia property ia next door tu su hject property and he has not seen
any problems, either visual ~r odor intrueio ns, from these rabbi.ts ~nd his
children and grandchilc]ren have enjoyed the bunnies. Eie stated this is
probably one of tl~e nicest looking Eacilitie s and he would supp~rt ~he requesh.
as en immediate neighbor.
Duve Tennant explained he ha~ been the gar d enec f~ar the petitioner's neighbor
directly across the street (Mrs. Gaylocd) f o r 8 m-~nths and he *~as had two
different ~ccasions to see the petitioner's rAbb,.ta and that st~e doea take
very good care o€ them and he has never see n•ny problems nor smelled any
odors from the rabbits.
Janet Kuslowski stated she passes the petit i aner's home every day when she
walks her dog and has never noticed any odor s or problems and the property is
beautffully kept and shP would endorse khe petitioner's request for a variance.
Norm Nicholson, 315 Black Oak, stated he supports the petitioner's request
r~nd, in fact, until this fesue came up, he w as not even aware that she had the
rabbits or, her pro~erty and that he very of t en takes his dog for wa1kR past
the praperty.
Edith Gaylord stated she had livtd directly across the street for 14 years ancl
never noticed any odors and there have been no problems with the rabbits.
Joanne Royst~r, 4003 Maple Tree Drive, stat ed they have lived al• their
property for 12 years and the petitioner ha s kept up her groperty very well
and she and her husbAnd run past this prope rky everx morning and have never
seen any problems.
1/ li 85
MINUT~S~ ANAH~IM CITY PI,ANNIyG CQMMISSIUN ~ JJ-NUARY 7. 1~905 ___ 85-4
Ruth 8pencer, petitior.er, expleined there waa e ceal estete agent Who l~ivea in
this acea preaent earlier wha had to leAVe, but ahe was called by one of the
opponanta nnd asked to ope~k ay~+innt the ceq~est on the basie Cl~ak the us~
would dvccean~~ tl~e proNerty valupy ir. ti~e Area end thae the real ea~ate agent
hac! indicated she wouid not be willing to d~ that.
Bill 'PhomuR, 3961 Maple Tree Dcive, Anaheim, stated he is againar. this reqursst
bec auae of the odors and F11eu and also becauee thec e ia a Posaik~ility it will
red u c~ theic propecty values. tie statad the petitioner had told him at one
tim~e that aha had over 100 cabbita and he felt thie is n commercial bus inpsst
tha t he felt af ahe only has ahow rabbits, she should be able to ehow
certificates from whexe she hAa ehown them. Fle stated the petitir+ner
indicates khat this is not adJacent to any neighhors~ however, there are
nei ghbucs on tw~ sid~e and he is acros~ the street and [elt h~ ahruld be
con sidered as an ad~acent neighbor. lie stated thic use h~s Laken awaY from
his personal good health and he is opE~oaed to the vaciance.
Violet Thom~s, 3961 Maple Tcee Drive, aubmitted a petition Eigned I~y some o[
the neighbore agAinst the request and etated the smell thi~ past sumner.
ac t ually made her husband and family sick and tha~ she is ralso conc.erbQ~naWik~
pr.opectY values because of the flies. She stated she has ~ersonally
Mr s. Spencsr, thQ petitioner, when ~he made deliveries to pet stores.
Lola Gersbacher, ~19 l~lack Oak Road, flubmitted a petition cirr,ulate~! on her
sCreet $howing the people who are °roblem9andifeltqvery atronglyeit'~will&re
mainly oppooed becauae oE. tJne fly p
decrease kheir property val.ues.
Jody Parker stated she lives directly behind the Spencers and it is true tl~ey
ma intain their property the ~est they can, buk with thP weather changes, there
are sti~l f.lies and odors and ahe is againat the request.
Mrs, Spencer stated she has had her bunnies f.or 4 years and in the n~ist Mrs.
Parker and t9rs. Tt~omas have b~th purcha~ed bunnies Crom her; and also Mrs.
Th omas has been with her on n number of occasions when she has purch~sed
r a bbits, and iE she had had a legitimate c:omplaint from someone coming to her
d oor, she would have had tried to reaolve i~ and if she could not hav e taken
cace of it, she w~uld have got,ten rid of the rabbita; and on 9/4/a4 when tl~e
c umpl~int was made, it was 104 degreea and that she had two fans runr,ing on
e ach end oE the rabbitry and khece was a smell, b ut that was a racity and she
h as been to the Thomas' home many times to check when she implemented any kind
o f new equipment to determine if there wac any smell, and st;e would r.ever have
allowed her neighbors to be offended by looking dowi~ into her backyard and
s eeing Eomet'~ing where barnyard odors are created. She ceferrsd to pictures
o f the rabbicry, poir.ting out all the hutches hav ~ trays and are cleaned
d aily, and stated s:~e did have over 100 rabbits at one time. She stated she
o nly got signaturP~ on hec ~etition in £avor from her street. She stated the
s uperintendent from the Orange County Animal Control has been to her house on
several occasior,s ar.d has purchased bunnies from her.
T NE PUHLIC H~ARING WAS CLOSED.
1/7/85
MINUTFS~ ANAFiEIM C]TY PLANNING CQMMISSIONyJANUARY '!. 1985 85-5
Respanding to Commisaioner ~ushore, Mre. Spencer stated ehP h~s been doing
thia foc 4 yoars and sho Rtarted with 2 bunnies a nd she waa not aware oE the
Zoning lmws, but knew that ehe did have a lot of bunnies. Sh~ stnted raiai~g
the rebbita is Htill a hobby and in not a commerc ial enterprise.
Commiseioner Buahore esked if she needa 30 rabbit s in order to conduct her
hobby. Mr~. Spencer stated ahe wil2 cqmply with kaeping only 30 rabbit~ and
ahe is selaing the rabbika and I~utchea that are over and above that number.
Stie stated she currently t~as 53 rabbits, but thEy will be gon~ in the neac
futurN.
Commiscion~sc Buah~re stated he knaws if thoaP cag ex are not cle~ned ~ail,y,
they would cause an odor. Mca. SpQncer c~al•ed ah e cleanA her cayea every day
and they are wiped out with vinegar every day and ~he fpeds the bunnies at
niyht.
Commi~sioner Bushore state~ he could not go alono with the 30 rabbit~t
however, he did not think the rabbit hutctie~ will ~9ecrease the pcopert•y value.
Commisaioner La r,laice asked Ms. Narkec if ahe co uld ~mell any odac because of
the rabbits. Ms. Parker atated when the petition er firat started raising the
rabbits, it was not affensivr., but the weather ha s ~hanged and it ia more
humid now ai~d they can smell the rabbits, especia lly when the,y ~re in the back
yard in the area of the pool.
Ms. Packer responded to Commissioner aouas that s he has no petn.
•,~s. Spencer responded to Commi~sinner eouaa that she has about 22 show
rabbits and she is redur,ing that number all the tim~. She explaine~ that she
ha~ sh~wn the rabb!.ts in San Diego, Dana Point, Del Mar, &an Jose, Arizona,
etc. 5he explained she hires sc~meone el.se tc take cace of the othPr. cabbi.ts
when she is uway on a trip. 5he explained she coald not continue to show thp
rabbita it she had to reduce the numher to 5 or i 0 bunnies because they are
different pediyrees.
ACTION: Commissioner Bustiore oFfered a motion, s econded by Commissioner Fry
and MOTION CARxIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed ttie
proposal to retain 30 rabbits in the RS-HS-10,000 Zone with waivera of minimum
setback fot rabbit hutches and maximum number of rabbits on a
rectangularly-shaped parcel ot land conRisting o£ appraximately 9,600 square
feet iocated at the so~thweat cornec of Maple Tre e Drive and Live Oak Itoad and
furkher described as 303 Black Oak Road; and does hereby approve th~: Negative
Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declarat~on
together with any comments ceceived ducing the public revlew procQSS anc3
further findi.ng on the i~asis of the Initi~?1 SCudy and any comments received
that there is no autastahtial evidence thut the project will have a s~g~ific~nt
effeck on the environment.
Greg Hustings stated the waiver of minimun sekback should be deleted since the
cfted Gode Seckion pertains only to animal enclosures such as horse corrals or
corrals for bovine, etc., and it does not specif ically include rabbit hutchzs.
1/7/85
MINUTES. AN~FI~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 7. 1985_ 85-b
Commissioner eushore sr.ated he wAnta to limit t1iR arRe ~h~~ r.abbit~ are in to
the furtheceat away from the neighbora proportiee.
Jack White, A~eietant City Attorney, stoted w~iver (a) fel~auld ~e deletad eince
it ia not required by Code snd the Commission could require ~s a condition in
the Approval of w~iver (b) thet the rabbite he locaCQd in a aerkain acea away
from the ~~roperty line. He expZained the Code pecmita 5 rabbit~ in this xone
on the property line and tl~e vari~nce cnnnot ~e grant~d to ~pply only to the
present property owners, but a variance or conditianal use E~ermit rune wit.h
the landj however, the Commiasion can impoae a rime limit on the approval.
C~mmissioner Bushore otated he would want to limit the ~rea whece the bunnies
can bR lucated ko the northwe~t r.or.ner, 50 feet away from the uentE~line of
glack oak Dcive and on the aide to 26 feet.
Commissioner La Claire pointed ouk if the prPSent oNner calls this property,
the variance stay~ with tt~e pcapecty and Che next owner~ m~y not conduct the
businese in the oame way. Commisainner eushote explained right now the
property owner could take 5 rabbit~ And move them cloaer to the neighbors and
he wanted ko be aure and limit t:t~~ number of rabbits to 6 and rest~ict the
area where they can be kept.
Commiasioner La Claire stated the C~mtnission has to consider both sidns of the
iasue and her main concern is that ~t~e variance stays with ~tie land. Mrs.
Spencer asked ii st~e cuuld t~av~- the ~~ariance for a two-year period.
Commissioner Fcy offerpd Rpsal+ation No~ Pc;85-02 and moved f.oc its pagsage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Ccmmission does hereby deny Variance
No. 3445 on the basls that the use has crQated a nuisance in the neighborhood;
and further on the basis that there ~~re ~pecial circumstances applicable to
the proper~y such a~ size, shApe, to~~ography, location and surroundings which
do not apply to or,her identically 2oned property in the same vicinitys and
thak ~tcict appli.cation oE the Zonin~ Code deprives the property of privileges
enjoyed by oth~r properties in the identical zone and classificatfon in the
vicinity.
On roll call, khe foregoing resolut!.on was passed by the following vo~e:
AYES: BUSHORE~ FRY~ H~RBS`P, KING, LA CLAIRE
NOES: BOUAS, NlCBURNEY
ABSENT: NONE
Jack White, AeaistAnt City Attorney, pcesented the written right to appeal the
P.lannfng Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council,
ITEF1 N0. 4. EIR NEGATIVE P.K~) CONDTTIONAL U5E pERMIT. N0. 2642
PUBLIC HEARING, QWNE25: LARRY R. SMITH AND JUDITH :t. SFSITH, 1706 Marina Bay
Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 9?~47. AGENT: RICHAFtD MONSOUR, ARA DICK DALE,
2296 Channel Road, Balbor.., CA 92661. Property described as an
irregularly-shaped paccei of larid consisting of approximately 1.6 acres
located north and wesk of the northwest carner of Ball Road and Knott Street,
951 and 959 S~uth Knott Street.
To permit on-sa~e alcoholic beverages in a proppsed rPstaurant.
Continued from ehe meeting of December 10, 1984
MINUTBS. ANAHEIM CITY PL,ANNING COMMISSION. JANUARY 7, 1985 85-7
Thece was no one indicatiny kheic pcesonce in oppo~ition ta sub~eat ceyueet.
and although the atAEf rc-port waA not read, it is referred to and made a p~rt
of the minute~.
Richar~ Monaour, ayent, w~~a present to An~wer any queetions.
TN~ PUOLIC H~ARING WAS CGOSEA.
kesponding to Commisaionar King, Mc. Mon~our stat~d he ie willing to com~~ly
with the propoeed conditione pert~~ning to noiae abatement. Reaponding t:o
Commiasioner Bouas, Mr. Monsouc stated he did went ta have entertainment and
that mainly h~ does do oome pcogrAms Eoc charitable organizationar however, he
is willing to yo alang with khe Mayor and City Counci~'s dcc:ision. Ne e~tated
they will have vale~ parking, etc. in order tn abate naiae in the p~rkir~g
lot. He atated he realizPS l•his ie a difficult ACBA but L'elt he could
ma:ntain control and that thia wil.l be a very high-class f.acility with volet
parking and a dcesa code.
Responding to ~hairman flerbet, Mc. Monsouc stated he has read the stafE report
and io willing to comply with tl~e conditiona.
ACTION: Cammissioner King offered a motior-, seconded bX Commisaioner Pry and
MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commiasion has eeviewed the
proposal to permit on-nale alcoholic beverages in a~roposed cestaurant on an
icregularly-sha~ed parcel of lAnd cansfstiny of appcoximately 1.6 acrea
located nocth and weat of the northwest cornec of Ball Road and Knott Street
and further deacri~ed a~ 951 ~nd 959 South Knott Streett and doEn hwreby
bt>prove L•he NeqatLve Declacation upon finding that it haa considered the
Negatfve Declaration t~gether with any commenta received ducing the E~ublic
review ptocess and further finding on the basis o~ the initial Study and any
commenta received that there is nu substantial evidence that the pro;)ect will
have a significant effect on the ~nvironment.
Commissioner Kir~y offered Resolution No. PG85-03 and moved for its pas~age and
adoption that the Anaheirt~ Ciky Planning Commission does hereby grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2642 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal C~de :;ections
18.03.U30.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to interdepartmenta'l Comrt~fttee
cecommendations.
On roll call, the foregning reso2ution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC 6URNEY
NUES: NONE
A~SENT: NON~
ABSTAIN: BUSHORE
ITEM N0. 5. EIR NEGATIVE UECLARATION ADiD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2641
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ANAHEIM SCHOOL DISTRICT OF OAANGE COUNTY, ATTN:
JAMES BRIER, 412 E. Broadway, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: ~ELODYLAND SCHOOLS
AND COLLEGES, ATTN: RAY MCMURTkY, 2000 W. Ball Road, Anaheim, ~A 92804.
Property de:~r:hed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consieting of
approximately 7.8 acres, 2000 W. Ball Road (formerly Key Elertentary School).
1/7~85
MINUTES, ANAHFIM CITY P~ANKING COMM'iSSION, JANUARY 7~ 1995 85-8
Tu retein 9~[~Vdr@ educationel inatitution in an existing public ~chool
facility with waivwK of minimum nurr~ber of parkin~ ~par.es.
Thece wes no one indicnting thei~ preA~nco in opp~sition to eub~ect requr.et.
and although the ataf[ ce~~orC was not read, ~t io rn.fetr~d t~ snd made a part
of the minutes.
Ray McMi~rtry, agent, was present to anawer any qucstlone,
THE PUl3I,IC Hf;ARIliG WAS CI.USED.
keapon~iiny to Commisaioner Bu~h~ce, Mr. McMurtry etbted khe lease is for 5
years.
ACTION: Comm.iesioner King of..Eered A motion, seconded b}• CommiASioner Hc9urney
~nd MOTION CARRIED that ~he Anaheim City Planning Comm;a~ion has r~~viewed the
proposal to retAin a private educational inatitution in a existinc, public
school facili.ty with waiver of minimum number of parking apacea on a
re~tangularly-shaped paccel ~f .land conaiRtiny of appr~ximately 7.8 acres
having a frontage of appraximately 4A6 feet on the south aicfe of Ball RoAd tfnd
further d~acribed as 200~1 W. eall Roadj and doea hereby approve ~he Negative
Declaration upo~i findiny that it tias considered thP NQgative Declacation
toget.her with any commenGs received during the ~ublic ceview p~oceas and
Eurtt~er finc~ing on the basin of the Initial Study and any comments received
that there is no substantia.l evidence that the ~roject will h:ive .n significant
etfect on the enviconrnent.
Cammissionec King a matLon, seconded by Commiasioner Fry anc'~ MOTION CARRIED
that the AnahPim City Planning Commi~saion doea heret,y gcank waiver of Code
requirement on the basis that the petitioner has agreed ta provide additional
parking on-site, if it is de.termined by the City TcafEic E:•.,gi:~er that is is
required in the tuture, and on the basis that the parking 'wbiver will not
cause an increase in traffic congestiun in the immediate aicinity nor
adversely affect any adjoini~ng land useR and granti~:g of the parking waiver
under khe condition~ imposed, if any, will not be detcin~antal to the peace,
health, safety and generc~l welfac~ of the cikizerts of t',tie City of Anaheim.
Commissioner King affe~ed Resolution No. PC85-04 and m~.~ved for its ~assage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Plannfng Commisbion does hereby gcant
Conditional Uae Permit No. co41 pucsuant to Anaheim MunLcipal Code Sections
18.03.030.03Q throuyh 18.03.030.035 for a period coterminus with the existing
5-year lease and ~ubject to Interdepartmental Cammitt:ee recommendations
deleting Condition Nos. l and 2 and adding a condition requicing the
petitioner to cecord a coven~-nt agreeing to pcovide additional parking, if it
is determined it is needed in the future.
Responding t~ J;ack White, Paul Singer, TraEfic Engineer, expl~ined if the
parking should becnme inadequate for this us~, thE:re should be a condition
included requiring the applicunt to provide additional parking on-site to meet
Code requicementa sfnce there is a~equate space on-si.te.
i~~~as
MINU'TES. ANAHEIM CI~`Y PLAN~ING COMMISSIQN, JANUARY 7. 1985 85-9
Jack White eCdt4d the conditlon ahau~d read: "xhat a covenen~ will be recorded
on the pr~~ecty by the owner to providp ttial 69 edditionAl pt~rking SQACP.A will
bo prz~vided on-eite•.
On roll call, the fnc~egoing cesolution wa:~ pasaed by the fo;iowing vote;
AYES: BOUAS~ BUSEIUf2E, FRY, FIERBST, KINC, I,A CI.AIRE, MC.' BURNEI'
NpES: NONE
AdSBNT: NONE
ITEh NG. 6. E:IR NEC~ATIVE DECLARATION, F2ECLASSIFICATION N;l. 84-85-18 ANU
VARIANCE NO. 3453 !
PU~3LYC HEARING. OWNrRS: A1tTHUR AND MAR.JOi2IE STAHOV1CIi, 805 RamblQwood i+rive,
Anaheim, CA 92804. Property clescrlbed as an icregulerly-shnped parcel of lnnd
consisting ~f appruximately 0.47 Acre, 3639 W. SavannFA ;.;trec~t.
RS-A-43,000 to RM-2400 or a le~.s intenre zone, h'sive~r of maximum structural
height to construct an 6-unir .~partm~nt compler,.
There was no one indicatir,~=~~eir rresence in opp~,iikinn ko eubjecl- request
anci all•hough the ata£f c~~> •~~ ~'. WdS nOt cead, it ifl referred to and made a part
of the mfn~tes.
E3i11 Phelps, 1259 N. B~,~a ,•~, ?rcb.age, agent, wa~ {~resent to answec any
queations.
TH~ ~UBLIC HEANING ~rp:: .-~::aE~',' ~
ACTIUN: Commissiont=r ::~.: ~£~~ced a motion, se~conded by Con,~nissioner Fry and
MOTION CARRIED that *~. ~~nr:m Ciky Planning Commiasion h~a reviewed the
proposal to recla~ssi'~'~~ -ur,~e~cr property fram k.he RS-A-43,000 to the RM-2400
Znne to canstruct ar. .:---_~-; c apartment camplex with waiver of riaximum
str~~ctural height on a.~v, .:.-2~egulacy-sh~ped parcel of land consir~ting of
approximately 0.47 acre ^aL~ing a fronkage of approxi.mately 130 feet on the
north side of Savanna :~r-~et and fu~th~ec de~cribed as 3639 W. Savanna Srreet~
and c3ue~ hereby ap~rvv~ the Negati,ve Declaration upon finding that it has
~•..nsiderecl che Negative ~eclaration tagether with any comments received during
'the public review proc~s and furth~r finc~ing on the basis of the initial
Study and any comnrenr.~: ;ecei~•~d that there is no substantial evidence thAt the
project ~ill have .~? .si~aaific _nt effect or~ the environtnent.
Gceg Hastings suygest.ed that the conditions be amended by deleting Condition
Nos. 1 and.4 of thP reclassification a~id that Condition N~. 15 of the variance
should road; "Ti~z,t the owners shall r~ay the City of Anaheim a fee for tree
planting purPoses along Savanna Street in an amount to be determined by the
City Council' 3r.d amending thP new Conc~ition No. 16 to read: "That pci~r t~
issuaare of zi ~uilding permft---', rather than as shown.
1/7/85
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CI'rY PLANNING COMMISSIUN. JANUARY 7. 19~5 85-10
Comm~esioner King offe~rd Raso~uti~n No. P~85-05 ~nd moved ~ax ita peasage dnd
adoption thar. the Anah~im Ciry Planniny C~mRioaion does hereby grant
Reclaasification No. 84-85-18 auDject to IntUCd~pactment~l Commiltee
rQCOmm~nd~tiona as arnended.
On coll cali, the foregoing ce„ol.ution w~s pas~ed by L-he foll.owinq vote;
AYES: BOUAS~ 6USNORE, FRY~ HERBST~ KING, 1~A CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY
NOES: NANF:
ABSGNT: NONE
Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC~5-06 and moved for its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commi~aion doea hereby grant Variance
No. 3453 on the basis t•hat there AcP special circumatances applicable ~o the
propecty such as size, ahape, tapography, local•ion and sucroundings whi~:h do
not apply to other identically zoned pro~erty in the aa~ne vicinit:yt and thAt
stcick application of the Zonlnr, Cod~: deprives the property of privilegea
enjoyed by uther properties in the identical zon~ and classiEic.atLan in the
vicinity and aubject to Interdepartmentnl Committee recommendationa, as
modified.
On rull c:all, the foregoing resolution waa p~ssed by the following vute:
.IYES: 80UAS~ BUSHORE, FRY, HER85T, KING, I.A CLAIRE~ MC 9URNEY
NOE5. NONE
ALiSENT: NONE
ITEM NU. 7. EIR NEGATIVE DECI.AS2ATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 84-85-16, VARIANCF.
NU. 3451 AND WAZVER OF COUNCIL POGICY N0. 543
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: LAURETTA EMMALINE MAAHS, ET AI., 3233 h. Lincoln
Avenue, Anaheim, CA 9~BU1. AGENT: PRALLE AND CASE N0. 2, 1249 E. Imp~cial
Hiyhway 'A", Placentia, CA 92670, ATTN: PHILLIP CASE. Property desc,~ibed as
a rectangularly-ahaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.6 ~cces,
3233 ~lest Lincoln Avenue.
RS-A-43,Q00 Zor.e to the RM-1200 oc a less intenRe zone. Naiver of m~nimum
building site area per daelling unit to construct a 60-~snit aff.ordable
apurtment complex. R~quest for waiver of Council Policy No. 543 pertaining to
density bonuses.
There was no one indicating thefc pres~.~nce in opposition to subject request
and although the ataff report was not ~-ead, it is refecred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Phillip Case, ~gent, explained tt~ey have vecbally agreed to rQnt three of
these units as affordable units.
THE PUBLIC HEAkING WAS CLOSED.
Respondinq to Commissioner Bushore, Hr. Case atated this will be a fualy
secured building, both pedestrian ar~d v~ahiculac.
1/7/85
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSIpN. J~NUARY 7, 1485 85-11
Respon~ing to Commisaioner I,a Cla~r~, Mr. CAae ACated he thought the
~EEur.~ablc agceement was for a 10-year period.
Jack WhitQ stated Condition No. 15 pcovidea for a 20-year agceement. Chalrman
Hecbat stated the Commtasion has been mAking khat requent on previouA
Apocovals. Mc. Case atated 20 }•enrs wauld be agreeable.
ACTION: C~mmisaioner I.a CJ.airc o~fered a motion, seconded by Commioaioner
Bou~s and MOTION CARRI~D, th~t the Anahe.im City Planning Commiaeion hHa
reviewed Che pr.oposal to reclassify ~ub~ect ~rorerty from the RS-A-43,000 to
th~ RM-2400 Zone to conatruct a GO-untt affordable apartment complex on a
re~kangularly-shaped parcel of land r.or~aist~ng of approximaCely 1.6 acres,
having a frontAge of approximately 222 feet on ~he nocth aide of I.incoln
Avenue a~~d Eur~hr.c described ~ja 3233 West Linco.ln Avenue; and does hereby
apprnve t~e Negative Ueclaration upon finding that it has considered L•he
Negative Decl~ration toyether w.ith any commenha recelved during tii~ public
review process and fucther fi.nding on the baaia of the Initia.l Study and any
comments ceceived that ~herc~ is no substantial evidenc~ r.hat the pcoject will
have a siqniEicant AfEect ~n the environmPnt.
Jack Wt+ite stated Condition No. 15 ahould be reworded to delete Che reference
to Government Code Section 65915 since it w~uld no-: be applicable hPre since
the unita requiring a denaity bonus are l~as than the 250 and the condition
shaa:ld read as follows: "That prior to iasuanc~ of a building permit, the
d~ve.loF~er ahall enter into an ayreement with the ~ity of Anaheim to provide
tt~~t. three of the permitted number of residential units ahall be rented ba lnw
~r moderate hou~ing as defined in HeAlth and SaFety Code Section 50093 rand
with appcopriate rent contcols as appcoved by the City of Anahe~m for a period
af not less tlian 20 years from the date the issuance of occupany permits.`
Commissionec La Claice offered Resolution No. pC85-0~ and moved for its
passage and adoptian that the Anaheim City Planning r,ommisaion db08 her~'~;-
grant Reclassification No. 84-85-16 aubject to Interdepartmental Committoe
rAcommendal•ions.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution ~+as p~ssed a,y Che fallowing vote:
AYEu: BOUAS, BUSHURE, FRY, HERBST, KJ:1G, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NUES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Commissioner La Claire ~~ffered Resolution No. PC85-U8 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planr,ing Commission does hereby
grant Variance No. 3451 on the basis that khere are special circumstances
applicable to the prapzrty such as size, shape~ topography, location and
surroundings which do not apply L•o other identically zoned propecty in the
same vicinity; and th~t strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the
pro,perty of privileges enjoyed by Ather properties in the identica: zorte and
classification in the vicinity and subject L•o Interdepartmental ~ommittee
recomm~~dations, as modified.
1/7/85
MINUTE&. AN~HEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMI5SI0~~1 JANUARY 7. 1985 85-12
On roll cnll, the [oregoing resolution wae pe~aed by th~ following voke:
AYES: BOUA3~ BU5NURE~ PRY~ HERBST, KING~ )~A ~~AIRE, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
AnS~NT: NONE
Commisainndr La Claice oftared a motion, aeconded by commiesionQr Aouae and
MOTION CARRZE~ that the Anat~eim C~ty Plan~ing Contmfaeion does hereby rec~mmend
to the City Council th~t the waiver of Council Policy No. 543 pertaining to
density bonus be Approved.
ITBM NU. 8. Elft NEGATIVB DECLARATIU~ WAIVER OE COUC R_~UIkEMENT AND
CUNDITIONAL USE PERMI_T N0. 2653
pUBLIC H~ARING. OWN~RS: CORPURATION OF TNE PRESID~NT ~F THF. CHURCH OP JESUS
CEIRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, 50 E. Nocth Temple, Salt La~e City, Utah, 84150,
AT'rN: .3. ALAN BLODG~TT. AGBNT: WF.STPORT CENTERS, 1601 ~~ove Street, Suite
155, Newpo[t Beach, CA 926G0, ATTN: JON CHRISTESON~ Prope[ty deacribed aa An
irr.egul~tly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 7 acre~, having
a frontaae of approximetoly A6U :eet on the north eide ~f Me~ical Cen*_er
Driv~, approximately 565 f~et West of r_he cente~line oE Eucli.d Street.
To constcuct a 165-unit senior citizens' retirement fACility with waiver o£
required lot frontage ~nd req~ired type of p~rking spacea.
There wua one peraon indic~ting her presence in opposition to aub~ert request
and a2though the staff report was nor ~ead, it is referred to end made a pact
of the minutes.
Jon ChriFteson, agent, explained they plan to canstruct th,is pro~ect :.n two
phases and i~ wfll be a cong[~gete care facility With full-meal ~ecvicE~s
provid~d for ~he residents, as well as u number of social snd hea.lth ca;e
programs, and t.he un3.ta will have a small kitchenetke for incidental pur~~oaes
and each unit wil.l have a ful.l parking space provided, and they wi21 be
providing common transpo.rtation services end expect low usage of the parkin9
spaces.
Donna Akerman, ~estco Propertie~, explained they manage the assaciation for
the medical condominiums across the atreet on Medical Center Drive and
presented a petition and letter showing they do not want ~he parking reduced;
however, they do not object to the project.
Commissioner Fry pointed out the number of packing spaces will not ve reduc~d
and the waiver pertains to the type of parkiny apacpe (open rather than
closed).
Cammissionec La Claire asked what the rental ratee will be and if any
activities ace planned.
Mr. Christeson responded the rates will range from ~g00 to ~1200 per month
depending on the ser.vices the residen~~ ~ill need or want. He stated there is
public bus tranaportation service in fcont oE the Eacility and they are
an~icipating having one or two 9-passenger-4YPe vans to provide s shuttl~-type
1/7/85
MSNUTES, AN~N~IM CITY_P~ANNING COMMISSION, J~NU~RY 7, 1985 ,_ 85-13
aervice. He etat~d th~y will hA~R a progcdm dicector as an employee tu plan
ectivities for the residentK. He reeponded that the reataurank will probably
not be open at nighti how~ver, they are considering the poAaibllily of a amell
aecondacy food aervice (onack bac type) Eacility.
Mr. Chriateaon stated thia ia not a life-care pr~~j~ct which requires that the
residents make a substantial fcon~~end depoalk, even though khey are not
purci,aeing an interest i.n the facility, and this will he conventional rentel
type h~using with no aubatanl•ial depuaits requiced. He atated they will have
4 elevatora.
Reapondi~ig to Commissi~ner Houes, Mr. Chr.ist•eson explained the ~linir~y area is
1200 oquace feet and will seat about one half. oE the resi~ents.
David Brindell, architect, lOl Weskwaod Blvd., LoR Angtles, ex~~,nined ~he
dining room will hold approximately 75 diners at one time. He e~~plain~d L•he
dLning room is on the ground floor ~nd the occu~ants will be Ab1~~ to get ther~
in an enclosed ~assageway.
Commis~ionec La Claire asked ff th~~ dinir-g ro~m will be open to tlie public and
Mr. Brindell res~onded that thoughk has bePn given to busing older p~op1N from
the neighborhood in for mealfl .
Jack White referred to Condition t~o. 18 perkain~ng to the age limit: of the
occupants and noted upon completion, the project will have o~~er 150 unitss
however, it will be phased and the first ~ha~e will be 100 units, 5o this
condition $hould read: •That the oc~upants shall be 62 years of ag~'a or older
until tre project exceeds 150 units, after which tim~ the occupan;.s msy be 55
years ot age ur older.• Iie stated there is no assurance that the second phase
will ~ver be built.
Chairman Herbst stated as of January lst of this year, the State enacted laws
requicing that complexes c,ver 150 unitJ. in size allow persons at the age af 55
and ~here are many people ~till working at that aye and ic~sny still drivP
vehiclest howevec, until th~ second pha3e is completed, this project must
comply with the City'o present ordinances. He explained standard aparcment
house parking stendarde are higher than what is proposed for thia pr~:~ect.
Mr. Cnristeson stated they fully ancicip~te the occupants will be much older
than 62 years of age and they do ~~ot anticipatQ a parking problem. Respondin~
to Commissioner Bushoce, Mr. Christeson atated this is the first such project
they have proposedt that khey arr atate-wide medfcal developers and many o~
their hospital clients have asked them to begin work an ~rajects of this type.
Cammissioner Aush~re asked if the plan to provfde uncovered parki~tg spacea
rather th~n covet~d spaces was to discourage tehants who want to have
vehic2es. Mr. Christensan stated the typical senior drives an older, lazge:
American car and they also probably l:ave difficulty maneuevrring the car into
tight covered apaces which is anether rea~on foc having unc~vered spaces.
ACTION: CommisRioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fr.y and
MOTIOh CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning CommisRion has reviewed the
proposal to constcuct a 165-unit ~eniot citizen cetirement facflity with
1~7/85
MiNUTE5, ANAHEI~ M CITY PLANNING COMMIS5IOh. JANUARY 7y1985 6"~-14
wdiver of requlrad lot Eronta~e a~~d roquired type of p~rkinq opaces on an
irregularly-ahaped parcel of land con~iotiny o[ AppcoximAtely 7 ecre~, having
a fconkag~ oE approximAtely 460 Eeet on the north aide ot Medical ~enter
Drives and doeo hPreby approve the Negative baclaretion u~on finding lhat it
hns conaidered Ch~ N~g~l•ive Declacation kogcth~~r with any comm~nte received
during the ~ub11r, r~view ~recefiA ~nd fucthec tinding on the basis of the
Initiel. Skudy end any comments ceceived thnr. r.herE, is no oubotantial evidance
that the pco~ect. will hnve a significent pEtect ~~n Che environment.
Commissionet King o[fered ~ motion, aeconded by Commisaionec La Clelre and
MUTIGN CARRIED that the Anaheim c:iGy i~lanning Commi$sion doon her.eby grant
waiv~:[ (a) on the basis thAt there nre special ciccumstanrea applicable to the
pro~+ert.y such as size, ahape, tuaography, locatian ~nd aur.roundinqa which do
not apply to uther identically zoned propecty in the aame vicinityt And that
atricC epplication oE ttie Zoning Code deprives the ororerty oE privilegea
~n•~oyed by other pcupert.ies in the identice~ zone and class.tEicat.ion in the
vicinity, ai~d yranting wAiver (b) on the basia that the dpen ~pacps will
peuvide better visibility and secucity And easier accesa and further on the
basis thaC the packing waivet wi11 not cAU~e an in~rease in trafEic c:ongeation
in the immediAhe vicinity n~r e-dveroelS~ affe~t an}~ adjoininc~ iand uses and
yranting of the parking waiver under the condittuns im?oaed, if any, will not
be dekrimental to the peace, health, safety and generel welfare of the
r.itizens of the City of Anaheim.
Commissionec K~ng offe;ed Re~olution No. PC85-09 and moved tor ite passage and
adoption that the Anah~im City Planning Commisoion does hereby grant
C~nditional Use Permit No. 2653 purauant to Anaheim MuniciFal Code Sec~ions
18.03.U30.030 thruugh 18.Q30.03Q.~35 and ~ubject to interdepartmental
Committee reconunend~tinns.
Commissioner La Claire atated ahe would like a condition added requirir~g that
the dining coom oc restaurant only be used by the reaidents and their gueats
and not be open to the public.
Jack Whi~e added that Condition N~.,. 17 should b~ amended to read: "That the
tenancy af each unit of subject facility Rhall be cestricted to persons at
least une ot whom in each unit is 62 years of aqe or olde.r until such L•ime As
the total number of units within the project equal ot exceed 15U units, at
which time at least one person in each unit shall be at least 55 years of age
or older and a covenant shall be recorded by the property owners in a form
approved by th~ City Attocney's Uffice so limiting such occupancy and copy of
sai9 covenant shall ~ae presented to the Planning Department.'
Greg Hastings scated Che stafE would recommend that Condition No. 9 be delpted
since ~t pertaina 'to a packing stcucture design and there is no parking
atructur^ propoRed in this pro;ject.
Mr. Chriate$on s~aced one of the opti.ons they are conei~eting in t.heir
programming fs th~~ potential o£ dPveloptng a fairly signi.ficant senior
citizen's center here to serve not only residents, but to ~:ovide a senior day
care center and they would pick up people from the surrounding ~rea in their
vans and bring them to the cer-tp: for bocial prograa,a, physical ret~abilitation
~rograms, diek proy[ams, etc.
1/7/85
MINUTES~ ~N11NrIM CITY pL1~NNING COMMI96IQN. J71N';ARY 7, 1985 __ 85-15
Conmiasionec pcy etated khat woul~ be +~n additionel and diffetent us~ ar~d if
the petitivnec decides to do that, they can make A requeek for thet in the
futuro. Commiseionec 8uahore ad~led that cen eignificantly chenge the perking
requicemente. Mr. Christeaon atdted the people wi11 be coming to the medicel
ofEice building dnd no additional perking woul.d be necessAry. Commiaeioner Le
Claire stdted no one is ~pp~sed to the uae ae is, but that ie not whet is
being requeated end wae adverCised and tha Cnmmisei~n ce~nnot voke on Chat
request today.
Commiesioner Bouas pointed out the kitch~nettes proposod nre very sma).1 and
the t~nanta will not bR expor.ted ra do very much cooking dnd would be eeting
in the restaurent and not in theic unite and that would c~eate a problem.
Commissioner La Claire stated ahe is not too hA~py abaut the proposed siz~ of
the dining ~oc~;n and ahe would like to eQe all the cesidenra coming into the
dining room acea to meet.
Mr. Chrfeteson pointed out thAre are other cpmman areas where they can
congregate and mingle and to put everyone in the same dining room nt the anme
time would be unneaegsary.
On roll call, the foregoing reaolution was pasaed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ f3USHORF:, FRY, NBRBS7'~ KINC~ LA CLAIRB~ MC BURNEY
NOES; NONE
AHSENx: NONE
RECESS: 3:25 p.m.
RECONVENE: 3:35 p.m.
ZTEh! N0. 9. BIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3417 (R~AI:VERTISED)
PUBLIC HEARYNG. OWNERS: ARMAND A. STEPHANIAN AND VIRGINIA A. STEFHAt~IAN,
2546 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805. Proparty described as an
ircegularly-shaped parcel of land cansistiny of approximately 1.18 acres, 2546
West Lincoln Avenue.
Waiver of minimum building site area per dwelling unit and maxfmum building
height to construct a 40-unit affordable apartment complex.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Mc~3urney and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the abovementioned matter be
continued to the meeting of February 4, I985, in orc~er for th~ applicant to
submit revised plans.
ITr^.M N0. 10. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND V.~RIANCE N0. 3447
--.r.~._
PUBLIC H£ARING. OWNERS: PLORENCE E. HEPPFRN/FLORENCE E. MITCHELL, 626 North
West Street, Anaheim, CA 928UI. AGENT: JAMES J. BRENNA[3, 191 South Orange
Street, Orange, CA 92666. Property described ao a rectangularly--shaped parcel
of land consistir~g of approximately 1.38 acres located at th~ northeast corner
of Pioneet Drive ana West Stceet.
1/7,/85
MINUTES~_~t~AHEIM CITY PL~NNING CUMMISSION JANvARY 7 1985 85-16
Weiver of minimum ,1~~~: aidth dnd fcontage to eateblish a A-lot, KS-10,U00
aingle-family eubdiviaion.
There were thr~e persona indic~Cing thQir presence in opposition to sub~-ect
reque3t and although the etafF cepoct was not reed, it is referr.ed to and made
n pert of the minutes.
~I.ocence ~. Mitchall- owner, explein~:~d hec family hAS owned and lived an this
propecCy since 1859t nowever, upkeep became a burden And they feel this is the
only way Chgy can develo~ thi~ proper~y bec:aube oE its size and shApe and
pointed out the layout of the proposed lota with the flAg lot. She added
beaauae oE the eecurity pcoblem, they feel it would be better to have th~
propecty developed and occupied. She stated the[e ia an architectucal
c~mmitteu which is part of the aubdivisi.on and that would c:ontinun with this
property to insure that whatever is constructed would be of pride to the
n~ighborhood.
Jean Nicklas, Pioneer Drive, atated they purchnaed theic property in 1y73
undec the assumption thAt this was to be an open area and there Ace heavy
restrictions on their deedg and ticlea against tw~-story developmenta, etc.
He atate~ aEter receiving the notice, he went to the City I~lanning Department
and all they could Hrovide was a rough sketch ~~nd he does n~t know if thece
are to be any twn-ntory homest that Paccel 1 doea not meet the minimum
requirements; that they feel the existing garage on Parcel 2 has been
converted to a gueat house because of the heavy traffic on the drive area and
they feel the existing hause will be demoliEhedj that unGil 1984 the property
wae not taken cace oF pco~erly and they had problems with rodents, etc. and in
April they did clean the property un. He etated homes ace apprbise~ in this
tt.act fGOm $175,000 to $225,000 and ~he homes ar~ prFtty atable and tt~ere is
heavy traffic on Pioneer and Wesh Streets. He presented a petition of 13
homeowners who are against this project. He stated tlie st~ff report refers to
othe~ va[fances which have been approved and they are all n~rth oE Norkh
Street to La Palma and that has nothing to do with this area. He stated he
did a study with the Traffic De~artrnent and with the 1983 figures on Weat
Street between Sycamore and Notth, ther~ are 710G vehiclea per day which use
that street through a residential area. He stated they have requested a 3-way
stop sign on Pion~er and West Streeta and that was cefused. Eie stated there
have been a 1ot of accidents and the EIR Negative Declaration is incorrect.
He stated there is a condition reqUicing sidewalks and there are no sidewalks
in the area und they do not want sidewalks in the area and there is also a
condition requiring trees and they feel more trees would cause a 3efety
hzzard. He atated thece is a drainage f.acility on the north side of the
property and riqht now it ib a high crimQ area and there are people actually
living in thAt area undec heavy foila;_ tle sagge»ted denial oF Parcel A, and
a security fence to b~ required around the ~r~inage facility and conversion of
Pioneec Drive into a cul-de-sac.
Robect Nichols, 623 N. We~t Street, stated hi~ property i~ right across the
street and he has lived there since 1966= that these are not typical tract
homes and every lot on his side of the street is 170 feet deep and 90 feet
wide. He stated su~ject propecty ~as been a jungle for 20 years and has not
been taken care of and the petitioner has not hdd any concecn for the
neighbors for the last 20 yeaes. He stated he did not think this proper'ty
1/7/85
MINUTES~ AN~NEIM CITY PL~NNING CUMMISSION, JANU~RY 7,_1985 85-17
would be larye enough for e home and if it is deve 1 oped, it would hnve to be a
smallec hovae or a two-atocy house. F~e sl-ated the othec vbri~nce~ montioned
are not clo~e to thie pcopecty and thie is one of t he prime AC@AA in Aneheim
And theGe are no two-story h~mea nn W~at Street bp t ween We.at end North Stceete,
P~ul Ocegieff, 936 W. WilhelminA, atated his prope rty ia directly behin~
eub~ect property and Ghat he purchasod the propert y 4-1/2 yeara ago through a
realtor who told him that one of the advant~ges af buying in thia acee was
that these wece ei~~gle-atory homes and th~re wece restrictiana Against
r.wo-story stcuctucea and hi:a property is directly behind tho flag lot and he
would be very disappointed if someone was allowed t o build a kwo-atory home
becauae they would loak right into hi.s backyacd.
Roger t'aust, 928 Pioneer Drive, ataked he built hia own hotne and tie objecte to
thia request because he feels it would lesaer the value of hie property. He
r~tated when he purchased his property, there w~re s~tback restri,ctions and
also restricr.ions that he could not build a two-s t ary atructure. F!e stal•ecl
the peraon who originally aubdivided the proparky and sold it imposed those
conditiona on the p*^pecty r,nd now that same petit~ione[ wants a weiver of
those resl•rictfon~ ~ he did not think that is fair.
J~.m Ficennan, engineer, repceaenting the petitione r, stated the aub~ect
pcoperty is Lot 9 of the original tract and wae k e pt by khe Mitchell family
for them to live on and tl~at ~hey have uccupied t h at property ~inc:e the lot
was crer~ted and the restrictiona imposed will aZs o epply to these new lots.
Concerning the problem with rodents, he stated if the property is not
developed that problem will continue. Concerning crime in the area, he stated
developing the prooerty wil.l eliminate that probl e m and the property whece the
drair zge faci.lities are located belongs to the City of Anatieim.
Responding to Commi,,sioner McBucney, Mr. Hrennan stated no spec:if.ic plans have
heen done for the structures and the property own ec ia currently intecested in
crealing these 4 lots and is planning to sell the m as individual parcels in
the future.
'1'HE PUBI,IC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Mr. Brennar~ stated the CCb~t's on the pcoperty 1im it the development to
one-story and t~iia lot has to comply with those ~ ame restrictions.
Commissianer Bushore stated he preaumes it is the Enyineering Division of the
City wha is requesting these sidewalks and asked if the CC6R~s restrict
sidewalks specifically, adding he thought they a r e being ceque~ted because af
the school children in the acea. Mr. Brennan ~ta ted the petitioner will
comply with whatever Conditions ace imposec] unle s s they are restricted through
the CC&R{s.
Commiesionec Bushore atated he agrees khe area n crth of North Street, as
mentioned in the staff report, is a different ar ea, but he also agree~ wtth
the cight of the propecty awnecs to further subdivfde tF.e property because
these are the same size lots mini~a2ly that were ociginally subdivided. He
stated approval of this flag lott however, might be creating a hardship lot
and in the futute the petitioners will be wanting certain variances in order
1/7/85
MINUT~S. AN~HCIM CITY P~ANNING COMMISSION. JANUARY 7~ 1985 85-X8
to develop the property becauae of this herdship. tIP stb~ed he underetAnds
why the iot is bainy aubclivided in thie menner in an attempt to BAVR the
original $tructure, but he thought th e lots could be rearcanged in another
manner end hie only objection is to th4 flag lat.
Jay Titus, Office Engineer, cpspanded to Commiesioner King that aidewalkA do
exisk on West Sl•reet and Chairman Herbat asked why the Ciry i~ requesting
eidewalks on l+ionACSr if none of the other h~mea have sidewalka. Mc. Titus
explained that is a atandard cnndition in a residential area with Commisaloner
E'zy stating he kh~ught ther.e would no t be nny way to get sidewelka on the rest
of the atreet. Mc. Titus etated the recommend~tion ia to atill require lhe
condition, and then the petitioner c:~n request a temporary sidewalk waiver and
wi.th that conditioR, if c~nditions change in the Euture, sidewalks r,ould be
inatalled.
commis~ionec La Claice ststHd all these Jots are over 10,000 square Eeet and
the only reason this is before the Planning Commission is bect~use of the flag
lot and there are other flag ]ots in other ~arts of. the Ctty which are
consideced to be moce deaitable rhan the othec lots because of the privacy.
She stated it appears theAe iots will be ae large as the other lote in the
neiyhborhood and tt~c development of thie properCy will eliminate the problem
with rodenta, etc. She stated she thAUght since these lots ~re Fairly large,
a qual~.ty development could be done and that the CC6R's will protect ::he
nsighbors fram the two-ator,y atructures. She stated she did not thfnk this
would be detcimental to tt~e oCher properties, but denial would be denying this
property a~rivilEge r.he other neighbore have.
ACTION: Commissionec La Claire offered a motion, seearided by Commiasionec
Bouas and MOTION GAFtRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion has
reviewed the proposal to establish a 4-lot, RS-10,000 (Single-F~~mily)
subdivision aith waiver af mi.nimum lot width and fcontage on a
rectan,yulerJ.y-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximal•ely 1,38 acreR
located at thc: northeast corner of Pioneer Drive and West Street and f urther
deacribed as 626 North West Street; a nd does hereby approve thw Negative
peclaration ~~pon finding khat it has considered the Negative De~~'~aration
together wit;h any comments received ducing the publ;c review rrocesa and
further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments receiv~d
that there is no substantial evidence that the pr~jec~: will hav~ a si~qnifir.~,nt
effect on the environment.
Commissioner Bust~ore stated the flag lot ~e shaped the way it is because of
the existing fence. Mr. Brenner stated the existing resfdence comes out just
short of t~A properky :ine and the exiating residence dictated the location of
that parcc .
Comrnissioner Bushore stated the lot could be madE much wider by moving it into
Parcel 1 and explained he is talking abouk t~king down an existing block wall
and asked if the pet;tioner would be willing to consider that change. Ms.
Mitchell explained the wall cannot be removed because of an existing st:ucture
which fs used as a caretaker facility~
Commissioner Fry asked if a r.ondition could be imposed that ull the structures
could be limited to ane story. Jack ~Vhite explained a condition could be
1/7/~5
,
l •'
, ~ 4 ~ ~, ~ C_ 1
MINUT~S. ANI-HEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 7~ 1985 85-19 '' "~~ "~ ~/f ~~
~ r'~.,
added that would requice recordAtion nn the pArcel mdp limiting conatruction
tr~ one etory. Commiseioner Fry etated it aeema he cecalla when the ownere
subdivided Pionaer Orive, tho aubject perce~ wAe exclud~ed and if it was
excluded, the CC&R's would not necenearily Apply to sub ject propecty and he
would like to aee e, restriction on that. Ma. Mit~:hell stated ehe would have
no abjecti.ori to including aubject property, but thought it waA included in the
oriqinal subdivision.
C~mmiasioner Bouas stated ahe £elt aure th~ pptition~r would wat~t on~-atory
atructuces around her dwelling and noted there is a at.ructure on Pioneer
Street whiah is 1-1/2 atories high.
Chairm~n l~erbbt pointed out a S,U00 gquare Eoot. hou~e could be built un that
lot and still be within Co~le and Commisaioner llushoce stated he would wnnt to
be sure that it would conform to the other exi.sting homes in the area r~nd Ms.
Mitchell staL•ed they would have to get the Architectu r al Commiktee's approval
of any development.
Commissioner La Claire atated L•h~se ]ot~ are all over 10,000 square feet and
are wider than the ones across the street except Eor t he flag lot anc~ in her
experience, flag lota have not had a detrirnental im~a c t on the neighborhood
and they will be controlJ~ed and she would include a c onditio~ if the existing
CC6R's do not reflect ~hat theae .lots are inc.luded, t h at there would be deed
restrictions so c~_~tricting tt~e development to one-st ory atructure and when
plans ate submitted, L•tie Cammiseion will be taking a closE look to pcotect the
people in the area.
Commir~sioner E~:. ~re f ~ if the plans meet Cade, the Commission will not
see them and he w~~ -~nt to see any vac:ancc~ o n the flag lot.
~J
i;c.~uniss.tone. '. Clairr ot~ered Resolution No. PC85-10 and moved fnc it~
passaga and :~doption that Che Anaheim City Planning Commisaion does heceby
Qr~~nt Variance N~. 3417; on tt~e basis that the flag lot will not be detrimental
r-1 '; ~.~ co the surrounding area and on the bas:s that ther.e are special circumstances
- arPlicable to the property such as size, shape, topog raphy, location and
3urcoundings which do not apply to other identlcally zoned pcoperty in the
aame vicinityt and that strict BpQlication of the Zo n ing Code deprives the
property of privileges enjoyed by other properhies in the identical zone and
classi£ication in the vi~inity and subject to Interd epart~nental Committee
recommendations including an additional condition req uiring that if oubject
property is not included in the existiny CCbR'e on t h e property, that the
resttiction ~~hall be recorded on the parcel map restc icting conatruction to
one story.
Jack White auggeated a condition be added to read: ' That the deve:lopment of
~ach parcel shall be limi.ted to one single-family ceside~ti+~l dwelling not
exceeding one etnry in height• and that Condition No. 10 should be revised to
incorporate Condition i'o. 11 requiring that prior to the final parcel map
appcoval, the xequicement set forth in Condition No. 11 and the others would
be set forth on the face of the final tract mAp in a focro satisfactory of the
City Engineer.
1/7/85
MINUTE&. AN~NEYM CITY PLANNIN~ COMMISSION. JANUARY 7, 1985______ _ 85_-19
added that would requiro r~cordetion on the percPl mep limitiny conetruction
to one story. Commis~ianer Fcy eketed it aeems he recdlls when the ownera
aubdivided Pionedr Ucive, the Rubj~ct parcel w~s pXC.lUdRd and if it wAs
excluded, the CC6R's would not neceoearily apply to aubject proparty and he
would like to seR a re~tric~ion on that. Ma. Mitchell ~taked sha would have
no objection to including Aubject property, but thought it wAn included in the
original aubdivieion.
Commiasiuner Buuos stated ~he felt aure thp pel•.iti~~er would want one-IItory
atructurea aro~and her dwelling ~nd nuted there iR A etructure on Aion~er
Street wt~ich ir~ 1~1./2 stories high.
Chaicman Nerbst ~~oi.nted nuG A 5,OOQ square foot house could be built on thak
lot and still be within Code and Cammissfoner Buehoce atated tie would want to
be aute that it would conform Lo the ottier existing homeH in the area and Ms.
Mitchell t;tated they wou].: have L•o get thP Architt~ctucal Committee's npproval
uf any de~~el~pment.
Commi~sioner La Clt~ire sk~,ted ~hese lats are a11 over 10,U0U square fe~t and
are wider then the ones acrr~sA ttie etreet exce~t for, the f lag lot and in her
experiencN, flag lots I~ave n~t had a detriment~l impact on the nefghborhood
and they will be controlled and ahe would include a condition if the existiny
CC&R's do not reflect that ttiese lot~ are included, that there Would hie deed
restrictions so cestricting tt~e development to one-skory structure and when
plar:. are aubmiGtPd, tt~e Commission will be taking a close look to prot•ect the
pe:.~~le in th~ area.
Commi.ssioner Buahore stated i[ thP plan3 meet Cnde, the Commiesion Mill not
see them and he would not wa~~k to sce any vaciancen on the flag lot.
Commissioner La Claire nffered Fter~olut; ~ l~o. PC85-10 and moved far its
paseage and ac3option that tr~e Anaheim C~,,j Planning Commission doea hereby
grant VariAnce No. 3447 on the basis that the flag lot will not be detrimental
to the surrounding area and on tne basis tha~ there are special circumstances
a~plicable to the property such as size, ahape, topography, location and
surcoundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the
eame vicinity; and thar. strict applicatton of the Zoning Code deprives the
prop~cty of privileges enjoyed by othex F~caperti~. in ttie identieal zone ~nd
classi£ication in the vicinity and ~' ~ct to interdepartmental Committee
recotnmendations including an addi~ ~,. rondition reauiring that if subyect
pro~erty is not included in the ex:•-. .y CC&R's on the property, that the
restriction shall be recorded on the paxcel map reatricting construction to
onE atocy.
Jack White suggested a condition be added to read: 'That t-~E develapment of
eaah parcel shall~be limited to one single-family reaidential dwelling not
exceeding one etary in height` and that Condition No. 10 should be revised to
in~orporate Cor.dition No. i1 requiring that prior to the final paccel map
approval, the requirement set forth in Condition No. 11 and the others would
be set forth on the face of the final tract map 1n a form sat~.sfactocy ~~ th~
City Engineer.
1/.' ~-
MINUTES, ANAH~IM CITY PGANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 7, 1985~__ _ 85-20
Commidsionec La Claire stated she would include that condition in her
reaulution requiring eidewalks, with JAy Titus expleining the petitianer could
cequest e tempocacy sidewelk wAiver and that aidewelka will not be in~r_alled
unless the area chAnges.
On roll cull, the Eoregoing cesolution waA paese~ by the following vote:
AXES: BOUAS~ PRY~ HBRBST~ KING~ I~A CLAIRE
NU~S: B~J:HOkF;, MCBURNEY
ABSENT: NONE
Commisaioner Bushore stated he thought that lot could have been deaigned in a
manner pleasing to th~ nei~hbors and he felt there would be requests in the
futuce for variances on that flag lot.
Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, presented thE written righ~ to appeal the
Planning Commission's decision within 22 daya to the City Council.
iTEM N0. 11. EIR NEGaTIVE UECI~ARATION, RECLA5SICICATION NO 64-85-15, WAIVEFt
OF CuDE REQUIREMBNT ANO CONDImIONAL USE k~ERMIT N0. 2646
PUHLIC FIEARING. OWNER5: JOE PERSHING AND CATHERINE NILDA ADELE LEMONS, 1808
Weat Chalet Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804. AGENT: DR. DONALn F. REAS, 441 S.
Euclid Street, Anaheim, CA 92802. Property described as an irregularly-st~aped
parcel of land consistiny of approximately 0.39 acre, 441 South Euclic9 Skreet.
RS-A-43,000 2one to the CL 'l.one ar a leas intense zone. To permit the
commercial use of a reaidential structure with waiver of required location of
parkfng space~.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report wa~ not read, it is rePerred ta and made a part
of the minutes.
Joe Lemons, property owner, explained they are requesting permission to use
the structure for a docror's r_hiropractic office with an apartment within the
structure to be used as a residence for the doctor and indicated he was not
aware of any opp~sition from the neighbors for th:s type of use. He stated he
did not think they should be required to ~rovide access from ths alley to the
rear because the two properties to the north of subject property do not have
alleys in the cear and they would like to keep one access on Euclid.
Donald Reas, aqent, stated hp would request that the requirement to improve
th~ 20-foot wide alley and close the d*iveway on Euclid Street be deleted;
that he felt putting in landscc~ping would be mnch bQtter than an alley which
would destroy the existing 2-cac garage which he intends to uae for his
automobile at the prese~nt time, and possibly in the future u6e it ~s a
physical thecapy raom. Conc~rnin~ acce~s to Euclid, he explained all the
other pcoperties on Euclid do have a driveway on Euclid and denial would be
denying him that s~me privileg~e. He stated a patient, after finding his
office, wouid have to proceed 330 feet past the building to the Orange
intersection make a right tuln and go one-half block on ~range and make
Another right turn and go 330 feet back up an ally to get to his office. He
stated he felt not having an access on Fuclid would be a disadvantage.
1/7/85
a
~
MINU:ES, AHANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISEION, JANUARY 7. 198~_ ____ 85-21
He exp].sined thero is a cicculac drive exi~C,tng and he would be willing to
yive up or~e end of that ciccle to el~minate people exiting bACk ont~ Euclid
and wnu2d have them exit acrosa kh~ property to the existing alley which now
eomes up to theic propecty linej and that thece is a gatP there now and it
would be ~~asy to apen it in th~ mocning so that the patients could have access
to the alley out to Ocange. Ite stated ther^ is a conditi,~n requiring "no
parking" $igns on Euclid and at the prQeent time there ia parking permitted on
Euclid, except on atreet sweeping days.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Responding to Comr.o.issioner Bouas, G~c. Reas state~ he has a 5-year l.ease with a
5-year opti~n.
Paul Si.nger, 'Traffic Enqineer, stated at the pre~ent time there is parking
allowed on Che we~t side of Euclad; however, ehe C.ity is in the process ~f
protiibiking pdrkiny on both Euclid and Brookhurst and the urdinancP has
already been a~p~oved. Ke etated the reason for khe clonure of the driveway
is because ik is otE-~et ~ram Tedmac across the atreet ju~t by a few feet. tic
stated having an accESS aff Euclid wi]1 rause an offse~ intersection with
Tedmar and if a driueway is permitt.ed, it shoul.d be tow~rd the south poction
oE the property.
Commissi~oner Fry stated he did not th~.n~ Tedmar beiny acrass the strcet has
~nything to do with this driveway at all and it seeme to make more sense to
allow a 'li-shaped• ~riveway.
Paul ainger stated coming in oEk Euclfd and exiting through the a12ey will
accom&~lish the same thing and he ia tryir.g to get the driv~way Away from the
lnkersec'tion t~y moving it ta the ~outh.
Dc. Fte~as stated Tec~mar is not a through atceet. Mr. Singer atated the hazard
is bPCause of tucns being exec~.ted on Euclid. Commi~sioner Fry ascertained
tha~t there is not ~n a11ey ~edication across the rear of the pcoperty. Jay
.
Titus stated t.he City would nat want the pro~erty owner to dedicate the a:ley
as a public alleyr but would want it to he ret~ined as a privake alley.
Chairman Herbst stated this property ownec would have to put fn the entire
alley. Jay Titus ~~ating the access turns back out to Euclid before it gets
tA Orange. Commis~ioner La Claire state8 there is a driveway tt~at goes back
to the slley.
Dr. keas stated if this driveway on Euclid ie denied, he would be the unly ohe
on Euclid without a driveway.
Mr. Lemo~s stated he knew thfa parcel was locked Erith no access onto Euclid
~nd he t~ied to get the propprty ~wner to the sauth to purchase it
unsuccessfully.
Commissionec La Claire stated this City has beeri trying to get all the
accesses on Euclid closed because of traffic problems and it was determined
that an alley shauld be constructed all the way down, and as the properties
hr~ve come into the City, they have beEn aaked to dedicate property so an alley
1/7/85
MINUTE5, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI5SION,_JANUARY 7. 1985 85-22
could be constructed and the driveways could be cloaed. She steted ahe would
request thia property owner to do the samo thing. She asked if all the
driveways have been closed along Buclid ta the aouth. Mr. Lemona atated th~re
ia an alley up to his property end all dciveways to thQ south have been
cloaed, but not to the north. He stated hP haa cwned the property since
1946. Commisaioner auahoce stated this property owner h~~ sold off p~ct of
his prop~rty to the north and now ia suffeKing from aoine oE the Chings he did
himaelf. He stated he felt tti~ uciveways Ahould be retained as long as the
ceaidence is there and when the propecty is ultimately developed, wou.id be the
time to clo$e ttie driveway.
Chairman Herbst atated th~re is an ordirAnce a~~proved to widen the atreet and
no parking will be allowed and it wi.ll be dangerous to bdck out and pull into
that driveway. He atated with packing out Eront, it would make it appeAr as a
black top mess and he thaught the parkin,y shouZd all be to the rPar, with
landscapiny in the front. He stated he fe.it the gArage structuce could remain
until the alley is put al.l the way through.
AGTIUN: Commiasioner La G:aire offere~ a motlon, ~ecanded by Comm9.saioner
Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has
rpviewed the proposal to reclassify subiect pro7erty f~om the RS-A-43,000
(Residential, Agricultural) 2one to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone to
permit the commercial uae of a residentia~ stcucture with waiver of requiced
location of parking apaces on An irregulacly-uhaped parcel o~ land c~nsisting
oE approximately 0.39 acre hdvi~~~ ~ frontaye of approximately ].64 feet on the
west side of Euclid Street and fucther desccibed as 441 South Euclid Street;
und does hereby appcove the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has
considere9 the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during
the p~blic review process and fur.ther finding on the basis of. the Initial
~tudy and any commenks received that there is no 8ubstantial evidence that the
project will have a~ignificant effect on the envircnment.
Commissioner La C.laire offered Resolutian No. PC85-11 and m~ved for i~s
passage and adoption that ttie Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
grant Reclassification No. 84-85-15 aubjecr, to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations.
Gre9 Hast.inqs pointed ou:. Condition No. 4 pertains to the all.ey and Chairman
Nerbst atated it i~ the Commisaion's desire to cequire the alley and stated he
did not think the garage struc~ure should have to be moved until the all.ey is
put all the way through.
Jack White explained this will be a private alley and Condition No. 4 should
be amended to ptovide that this is not to ba dedic:ated to the City, but will
be retained ae a private acceasway across the 20-foot westerly portion of the
~toperty. He etated a conditfon should be provided in the conditional use
permit requiring that the garage structure should be allowed to remain untfl
such time as adjoining properties provicle reciprocal. access zights that would
pe~mit vehicular access acrass that s.ide of the property.
On roll call, the foregoi~g resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOl1AS, BUSHORE~ FRY~ HERBST~ KING~ LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NOES: N4NE
ABSENT: NONw
1/7/85
}
I
~
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. JANUARY 7, 19A5 85-23
Commissione~r LA Clr~ire aPfoced a motion, seconded by Cammieaioner Bouas nnd
MOTIOt~ CARRIED khat the Anaheim Ciry Planning Cammisaion doea hereby deny the
requQSt for weiver oo there will be no parking in the front and all parking
will be to the rear.
Commissioner Le Cla~re o~fered Ftesolution N~. PC95-12 and moved for !ka
paasage and adoption ~I~at the Anaheim City Planning Commiasion dues hereby
grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2446, in part, pursuant to Anaheim Municipt-1
Code SecCiona 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject ta
IntQrdeparkmental Commitkee cecommendations, changin; Condition No. 2 to bP
simila• to Condition No. 4 of the reclaBSiEication and to pcovide that the
r~ll~y wi.ll not be dedicated to the City, buk will be a private accessway and
ttiat C~ndirion No. 4 pertaining to the 'no parking' signa should be deleted
until such time as a pnrking r.estriction is implemented.
On ra11 call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the Eollowing vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSNORB, FRY, HERBST, KING, GA CLAIRE, MC BUI2NEY
NUbS: NONE
ABSE.RdT: NONF.
Jaclc White suggested a~ew condition allowing the gaKage structiare to remain
until additional. acces~ r~ghL•e~ are reciprocally granted for the adjacent
property.
Commissioner I,a C'.F.re stated those are conditiAn~ imposed on the property
ownera to the s~~ar~~ and w~ill be imposed on all those p[opertiea on Euclid
which are invo] ~~:-~ in ~he alleyway.
'Lt was clarifie.i for Ur. Reas that there will be no driveway an Euclid and
parking wil' F-e permikted on Euclid until the City implements Che •no parking"
restrictic-.~.
ITEM N0. 12. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANU CONDITIONAL U5E PERMiT N0. 2647
PUDLIC HEARING. OWI~ERS: WILLIAM ~. SNOW AND MARY E. SNOW, 1591 S. Sinclair
Street, Anaheim, CA 92806. Property desccibed as a rectangular'.y-shapPd
parcel of land conaisting of approximately 636y square feet, 1~.U West Ball
Road.
To permit an office use in a residential structure.
There was no one indicating the:lr pzesence in o~por,i,tion ko subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
William Snow, owner, was present to answer any gueations.
THE FUBLIC HEARING WAS ~LOSED.
Mr.. Snow explained there ie an existing fice hydrant at khe weat property line
on Ball Road with a painted rEd curb across the front of the property which
1/7/85
MINUT~S. ANANEIM CITY PLANNING_COMMISSI~N~_JANU~RY_71 1985 ,`_ 85-24
only leavea about 35 feet of frontage on Rall itoad foG paoting 'no p~rking'.
t1e added he did not believo the other prope~ties in the Acea are poated with
"no patking" ~igna.
Paul Singec, TraEfic Englnuer, explained there are plens noW Tot reAtricting
parking an Ball Road and it ia ebout 3 months away Erom bein9 implemented.
Commisaioner Fry stated he did not think the petitioner should L.e required to
poot 'no parkinq' sians a.s long us he agrees to it when :t is ~one.
Commiseiuner duehore referred !o the problem the City has had with signa when
properties are c~nvt,rted to commercial uses and etated th~~ petitianer should
get any aigns approved before putting them in. tie ceferred to Parag:aph 17
pertaining to the Stadium Assessment District And ask~d that the Planning
Commiesion be furniAhed A map shc~wing the Stadium area boundaries.
Commisaioner Fry atated he could not believe this parcel i~ b~ing lncluded in
the Stadium Area Asseasment Uistrict and thought it was ridiculpun.
Crey Hastings explained the Advanced Planning staff has a map showing the area
and it will. be pcesented to l•he Planning CommisFion for the next meeting.
ACTION; Commis~io~er King affered a motion, seconded by Commieaionec McBurney
and ~10TZON CARRIED tlint the Anaheim City Planning Commission h~a reviewed the
propasal to permit an ofEice uae in a residential structuce on a
rectangularly-shaped parcrt of land conalsting of approxlmately 6369 square
feet having a frontage of appraximately 6G feet on the ~outh side of eall Road
and fucthec deseribed as 140 West Ball Road; and does hec~by approve the
Negutive Ueclaration upon finding khat it has considered the Negative
Declaration toqether with any comments received during the public r.eview
process and further finding on the ba~is of the InitiAl Study and any comments
received that there is no substanL•ial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC85-13 and moved fot 1ks passage and
adoption that the An~heim City Planning Commisafon does heceby qrant
Conditfonal Use Permit No. 2647 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections
18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmen~al Committee
cecommpndations.
On roll call, tt~e furegoing resolution was oassed by the follcwing vote:
AYES: BOOAS~ 9USHORE, FRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC B(3RN~Y
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: tiONE
ITEM N0. 13. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONVITIONA~, USE PERMIT N0. 2649
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JU-TSUING LEE;, ET AL, 8923 Lindante Drive, Whittier,
CA 90602. A3ENT: ALFREDO RAMERIZ, P.O. Box 3477, Anaheim, CA 92803.
PXOperty described as rectangularly-shaped parcel of 2and consisting of
approximately 1.4 acres, 518 S. Braokhurst Street (Unit 7).
1/7/85
MINUTES1 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS5I~N, JANUARY 7. 1985 _ 85-25_
To pecmit on-s~le alcoholic beveray,ea in a prap~sed rasteurant.
There was no one indicuting thcir preaence in oppooi.tfon to aubject req~est
and eltl.ough the ataff report wbs not read, it is cefErred to and made o part
of the minutes.
Alfredo Rameriz, agent, wus ~reaznt lo answer eny queations.
THE PUBLIC H~~RING WAS CLOSRD.
Mr. Kameriz reoponded ta Commi.saioner Bouas tl~at he ~lans to secve Mexican
~ood and the houra of operation will be from 11:00 a.m. to 9;00 p.m., Monday
throuyh Friday and 8:U0 a.m. to 9;q0 p.m. SAturday and Sund~y. Following a
brief discussion regarding the hours u~ operation, it was felt the hours
should be changed to a closing time of 10:U0 ~~.m. inetead of 9:00 p.m.
ACTIUN: Commisaionec La Claire offered a motiun, aeconded by Commissioner
McBurney and MUTION CARRI~D tliat the Anaheim City P1Anning Commiasion h~s
review,~d the pcoposal ta ~etmit on-sale alcnholic bevecages in a proposed
re~taurant on a rectangularly-shaped paccel of land con~isting of
approximately 1.4 acre, hpving a frontage of approximately 215 feet on khe
east side of Brookhurat Street and further descr.ibed As 518 South Brookhurat
Street, Unit No. 7; and does hPreby approve the Negatxve Declaration upon
finding that it has conaidered the Negative Declaration together with any
comments received during the public review pcocess and fucther find~ng on the
b~sis of the Initial Study and any commenta received that there is no
aubstantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the
environment.
Cummiasioner La Claire offered Reaol~tion No. PC85-14 and moved for iks
passage and adop:ion that the Anaheim City Planning Cvmmission does hereby
grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2649 purHUant to Anaheim Munir.ipal Code
Sect~~n 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental
Committee recommendations i.ncluding the ~dditional condition that the hours of
operation shall be from 11:Q0 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and
8:U0 a.m. to 10;00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday.
Or. roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the ~ollowing vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, ~C BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ITEM N0. 14. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3449
~LBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: S'auWARm~ GRBEN ASSUCIATES~ INC.~ P. 0. BOX 6371~
Anaheim, CA 92806, ATTN: KARL MERDER. Property desccibed ~s an
icregular2y-shaped parcel of land ~onsisting of approximately 77.11 acres
located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and State College Boulevard,
2250 East Lincoln Avenue (East Anaheim Center).
Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to expand a restaurant with on-sale
alcoholic beverages.
1/7/85
MINUTES, ~NANEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMI5SION~ JANUARY 7, 1985 8~-26
There wae no nne indicating thei.r presence in oppor,ition to eubject requeet
and althouyh the stafi repoct was nut rend, it is ref.erred t~ and made a pact
aE the minutea.
Karl MeAder, egent, was present to anawer any queationa.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSBD.
ACTION; Commissioner King offered a motion, aeconded by Commiasioner La
Cleire and MATION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission h~~
reviewed the pr~posal to expand A restuurant with on-sale nlcoholic beveragea
with waiver of minimum numbe: oE parking spacen on an irregulacly-sh~ped
parcel of land consiating of approxim~tely 27.11 acrea located At the
eautheast corner of Lincoln Avenue and St~te College Doulevard and further
desccibed as 2250 East Lincoln Avenue (East Anaheim Center); And does I~ereby
approve the Negative Declaration upon finding th~t it has con$idered the
Negative Declaration tagett~er with any camments received dur.ing ttie gublic
r~:~~~iew pcoceas and Eurther finding on the basis oE the Initial Study and any
comments rpceived thAt there is rio substantial evidence that the prajer,t will
have a significant effect cn the environment.
Commissi~ner King offered Resolution No. pC95-1.5 and moved for its passage ~~nd
adoption that the Anaheim Ciky Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance
No. 3449 on the basis thar. there are special cic~umaCances applica.ble to the
property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings wh3ch do
not apply ~o other identically zaned propertX in khe eame vicinitys and that
strict application of the Zoning Co~~~:: deprives tl~e property of privileges
en~uyed by othec prop~rties in the identical zonp ~nd classifica~.ion in the
vi.cinity and sub~ect to Interdeparkmental Committee recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoiny resolution was passed by thP following vote:
AYES: 80UAS, BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST, KING~ LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT : IvON E
Mr.. Meadec pointed out in the staff ceport, Page 14-C, the total par.king
required s;~ould read 2244 instead of 2444.
ITEN, N0. 15. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARA°TION AND VARIANCE N0. 3448
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: BEN HATHAWAY AND MARY LOU HATHAWAY, 1~60 West
Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802. AGENT: GREGO~Y PYROS, 1327-A Baker
Stre~t, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of appcoximately 0.5 acres at the southeast corner
of Katella Avenue and West Street, 1060 West Katella Avenue (Tiffy's
Restaurant).
Waiver of minimum number of parkfng spaces to expand a restaurant.
Thece was r~o one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report was not cead, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutea.
1/7/85
t
MINUTES. ANAHEIM_CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARX 7. 1985 85-27
Gregory Pyros, agPnt, expl~ined the City TrafEic Enginaec f~ae no prab]em with
~he requeat for parking wdiver on the basie that the aubject property is
locate~~l directly accoae th~ $tcoet ~rom Disneyl~nd and ie cloae to the
Convention Center and is surcounded by hotels, so a lot oE patrona walk.
TNE PU6LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner eouas asked if the expAnsion woul~: ->e used by aer~ice clubs foG
thQic monthly meetinys, etc. Fir. Pryos sta~ted the expansinn a•ould a~r.ictly be
used as ~t~rt of the restaucant.
Chairman Nerbst stated thia parking waiver request ia abou~ as Lar awav from
Code aa h~ has evec aeen and aince the variance goes with the land, was
concerned if the use changed. Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, explained
whr,tever uae is the*e has to meet the parking requi.cementa for that use.
ACTION: Gomtnisaionec King offered a motion, seconded by Commiseioner Fry and
MOTZON CARRIED thaL• the Anaheiin City Planning Commisaion heu reviewed the
ptuposal to expand a re~taurant with waiver of minimum number o£ parking
spaces on a rectangul.arly-shaped parcel af land coneiating of approximately
0.5 acces located at the southynst cornec of K~tElla Avenue and West S~:re2t
and fucthec deacribed as 1060 West Katellaj and does hereby approve the
Negative Declaration upon finding that it has consi.deced the NEg~tive
Declaration together with any comments received during the public review
process and curther finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any commenta
received that there is no substantial evidence that t;he ~roject will have a
significa.~t effect or~ the environment.
Commissioner King o~fered a resolution grantinq ~Iariance No. 3d48 on the basis
that the parkiny waiver will not cauae an increase in traffic congeation in
the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and
granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not
be detcimental to the peace, health, safety and general ~elfare of the
citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Commissioner Fry stated he would vote againat this resolution because he felt
reducing the packing by thfs tr~mendous amount is ludicrous and the other
restaurant across the ~treet could have used the same Argument.
Chairman Herbst sta~ed he would agree and Commissicner Bushore stated he would
agree and this deviates toa much from the Cade, even though the Traffic
Engineer has agreed with the parking study, and he would question the parking
study.
On roll call, the £oregoing reaolution FAILED TO CARRY by the following vote:
AYES; KING
NOES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, HERBST, I~A CLAIkE~ MCBURNEX
ABS~NT: NONE
ABSTAIN: FRY
Commissioner Fry of.fered Resolution No. :~:.::,-15 and moved fot its paasage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Flanning Ca;~a,nission does hereby ~leny Variance
i/7/85
,
~
MINUTES. AN~INEJM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. JANUIIRY 7~ 19_,~„ 6~,_, _8S-28
No. 3448 on the beaie thet the pecking waiver would ctoate en edveree impect
on the eucraunding properties and would be detrimente~ to the poACe, health,
safety and general welfece of tha citizene ~f the City of ~+neheim.
On roll cell, the foreg~iny resolution wea pusaed by the Eollowing vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ BUStIORE~ FRY~ HERBST, KING~ LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NG~S: KING
AsSENT; NONE;
It ie noted Commia8ioncc Fry acciden taly pushed hie "abstain" button for both
of the reaolutiona and intend ed to p ush the •no' vote button Eor Commiesioner
Kiny's resolution that Eail~d and th e•}~e~• button foc the resolutlon he
offeced for deniel.
Subsequenk to the meeting, th e r~taff report, minutes and resolution were
cocrecked to show the size of the pr operLy ar~ r~pproximakely 0.5 acres instead
c~f 10.5 acre~,
RECESS: 5;15 p.m.
R~CONVENE: 5:25 p.m.
ITEM N0. 16. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CGNL~ITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2652
PUBLiC t1EARiNG. OWNERS: SfiZRAN A. DAMANI, BT AL, 1200 West Cerr.itoa Avenue,
Anaheam, CA 92802. Property deacribed aa a rectanqularly-shapeci parcel of
land consiating of ~pproximrately 0.3 acre located at the southwe$t corner oE
Cerritios Avenue and Walnut Street, 1200 Weat Cerritos Avenue (Prin~e
Supermarket).
To permit a convenience rtiarket with off-aa:le beer and wine.
A~ the beginning of the meeting, Fr ank Lowry, attorney, 100 S. Anaheim
Boulevard, Anaheim, explained there were several pereans pcesent in favor of
subject requestt however, af ter ceac]ing the etafE teport, it was felt there
were severaJ, matter~ which n eed tc be cleared up and he would request a 4-week
continuance.
There were approximately 16 persons prese~t.
ACTION: Conmissioner La Claire off ered a motion, seconded by Commissi~ner
Bouas and MOTION CARRIFD (Commis~iouer Bughoce abaent) that consideration of
the aforementioned matter be continued tc the regularly-scheduled meetinq of
Febr.uary 4, 1985, at the ~equeat of the petit.ioner.
ITEM N~. 17 . EIR NEGATIVF. _DECLARATION, WAIVE~R OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
L USE PERMIT NO. 264
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: LAZARE F. B~RNHARDr 1800 Avenue of the Stara, Suite
500, Los Angeles, CA 9~067 and K~NNETH W. HOI,T AND HELEN L. HOLT, c/o HOLT
FAMZLY TRU&T, 1557 W. Mable Street, Anaheim, CA 92802. AGENT; DAVZD JACKSON,
1557 W. Ntable Stceet, Anaheim, CA 92802. Prapecty described as an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.6 acres
located at the southeast corner of Mabic~ Streetand Loara Street, 1595 West
Broadway and 1550 West Hable Skreet (Pairmont Schoel). 1/7/85
.-...,....._......~.,. ...,~
.,. --.__ ... . . _ .. ,,.~.,~~.~.w»~~~~~y.
MINUTES~ AN~NEIM CITY PLANNING CqMMISSION. JANU~RY 7~ 1985 85-29
'ro permiG expansion o~ a private echaol to include A echool bus yard and a
pce-echool with a mdximum of 125 atudents with weivera oE minimum structurel
setback, minimum landacaped aetback, mAximum fence height and permitted
encroachment into required eetback area.
ACTION; Commissioner eouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
McBurnay and MumIC~N CARRIEb iCemmiesioner Huahore absent) that consider.ntion
~f the afocementionad matter be continued to the regu.l~rly-scheduled meeking
of January 21, ]985, at khe request of. the petitionPr in order to aubmit
reviaed ~lens.
IT~M N0. 18. BIK NO 266 (PREV. CERTIFIED) (ADDENOUM), WAIVER OF CODE
RE,a,UIRF,~MENT AND CONDI'i'IONA1. USE PERMiT N0. 2651
PUBI~I~ HEARING. OWNL•'RS: L. C. uMULL, 17b31 Fitch, I[vine, CA 92714. AGENT:
~USTNESS PROPERTILS, 176?1 Icvine, CA 92814, A':TN: JOSEPH WALTHOUR. Property
described as an ircegulecly-ahaped parcel of land consisting of approximately
10.7 acres, 24D0 Easr. K~nte:lln Avenue.
To permit an 11-story, 128-foot 6-inct~ high hotel with on-sale alc:ohali~
beverayes and acceseury usess and a 12 and 15 story, 182-foot and 222-foot
6-inch high commercial office complex with waivers oE minimum stcuctural
setback and required site scrc:ening.
There was no one indicating their pre~ence in opposition to subjert cequest
and although the staff ceport was not rpad, it is [eEerred to ~nd made a~art
of khe minutes.
~tichard OgleEby, BuRinerss Pr~operties, agent, ascertaine~l that the rec~uirement
in Condition No. 3 foc ~inderground utilities means that all utilitieo on ~~~eir
site will be undergrour,i and does not mean they are requir~d to put u~ilities
undErgcound along K~kella Avenue, although they arp considering doing that.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Greg Hastings, Associctte Planner, explained there was an omission in the staff
repoct of some nf the parking spaces and in ordec to cacrect that error,
Condition No. 24 shoul.d read in addition to what ie shown...except that 55
additional on-site parking spaces, beyond those show~i on the submitted plans,
st~all be provided prior to final building and zoning inapections for Phase 2.
He stated staff would also recommend a condition that the owner of subject
property shall submit a lettec requesting terminat3.on of Conditional Use
Permit No. 2550 to the Planning Department which is the previous conditional
use permit approved on this property for office uae.
Mr. Oglesby atated there was a general misunderstanding regarding the parking
and thi~s ac~dition to the condition seems to be the most reasonable way to
resolve it at this time. He state9 he had a question as to the timing of the
te~mination for the previous conditional use pecmit. Greg Hastings explained
that would be termir ~~d previous to any b~~ilding permits beinq issued on this
properky.
Mr. Oglesby staked he would h;ve no problem with that condition.
Commissioner La Claire stated she is concerned about the fence along the
1/7/85
_ ..~
MII~UTES~ANANEIM CI'I'X PLANNING COMMI~SION~ JANUARY_ 7, 1985 85-30
rai~road tcacks and kncws ehe Police Departmcnt wAnta a eecurlty fence, but
did not make r,leac what thNy ~eent by a aecurity fencet that the City does not
want people to come through aubject property beaause they would tittve to go
accoas thP railroad tracks to get to the 5tadiumt And becauae it is ad jaca.nt
to the Stedium, she would like to aee a 6-foot high block wall.
Mr. Oc~lesby stated when they built Ph~ae 1 which ie to the f~r left of the
pr~pecty, tliey wero confcont.ed with their same problem and were req~iired to
install a chain link fence with 3 atrands o£ bacbed wire across the top and
that ik will be landacaped with a very thick thurny material and they would
prefer doing the aAme thing on this projecC.
He added they hav~ ae much conce~n from a sec urity standpoint as the City does
and they would ]ike to get aome cooperation t o eliminake thie problem And he
thought a person would rather go ovec a 6-foo t high bloek wall than to go ovec
3-atranda of bacbed wire.
C~mmiasioner La Cla~re stated she;agceed with that reasoning, but she did nct
liF:g the siqht of tha'E3er.lin wall r.ight next to ~hE Stadi~m 3nd noted this
will be one of tt~e moat expensive areas in t h e country and this will be a nice
project,
Commisaioner Fry agreed a chain link Eence w ith barbed wire on top would be
bettec than a block wall.
Mr. Oglesby stated at this location the [t±7raad track sits elevated a~bove the
bed and the f~nce line cuns along khe bed ,. ~^ did not Chink ~here would be
any advecae aesth~tic efEect and pointed ou t ~ y are trying to diacourage
people Erurn ccossing their property.
Commissionec La Claire asked if they would be renting out their parking for
major evenls at the Stadium. Mc. Oglesby re sponded they are not looking at
the p~rking lot as a source of revenue, but are looking at rpnting it out as a
precautionary meaeucej that fences arP cons tantly being torn down and they
f.eel centing out their parking lot may be t h e safest way to protect their
investment and alea that the hote.l would no t want to close access to their
property dur ing the event.s.
Commi~aionec La Claice asked how the fans w ill get ko the Stadium after t:~ey
park their vehiclps at this parking lot. M r. Oglesby stated there is a
possibility of some type pedestrisn linkag e with the Stadiutn and the second
choice would be to go aut to Katella, under the underpass, and into the
Stadium. He stated they have discussed th e se pessibilities with the
repreaentatives from the Stad:um and also discnssed the possibility c,E
participating in constructing some type of staics or accer• on the wPSC side
of tlie overpass.
Commissioner La Claire stated if khey do s e 11 parking, they will have someon~
on du~y to tell the pedestrianE how to get to th~ Stadium. She added she
still does not like the idea of barbed lan tednwhichfwill•screenrthe fencet
stated thece is going to be shrubbery p
enticely.
1/7/85
r•.
~~~
l1INUTEB._ ANAHEIM CI.TY PLI-NNING COMMISSIO~ JANUARY 7, 1985 85-•31
Mr. Oglesby atated the fence is e security measure and ia to keep people fram
croesing the railroed trc+cke and that th~s final landscaping ~.lan hds not beon
completed, but hhe Phase 1 1t+ndscaping plen ia on file with the City. He
otated tl~e St~dium no lonyer tci.es Lo stop people from croseing the ra~ilroad
tteck s.
Comm i sa~.one[ King atat~d he thought greener.y was munh better and prettier thAn
a blo ck wdll.
Comm i ssioner La Claire atated ahe did not wanr to ~ee the bacbed wire and
aoked if the petitioner is willing to plank somPthing that will cnmpletely
scre e n the Eence inc]uding the barb wire. M r. Ogleoby responded he woul~
gues t ion the 1lability of i~aving the barb~d wire screened so a pereon could
not s ee it end getling hurt if they did not know it was there.
Commi ssioneca Fry, King and Herbst c31d not agree ttiat a block wall ahould be
installed.
Comm ia~ioner Bouas aekecl if the hotel ie pl~-nned for 277 r~oms or 248 rooms,
poin~i,ng out rhece ace two diEferent numbers in tt~e ataff report. Mr. Ogleaby
responded there will be 277 rooms.
ACTI ON: CommissionPr Ktng offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner McBurney
and MOTIUN CARRIED that the Anahei.m City P1~-~nning Commission h~3 reviewed the
inf o rmation contained in an addendum to Envi.ronmental impact Report No. 266
for Lhe Katella. Buainess Center and fin~~ that the ptoject, aa revised, will
hav e the same environmental impacts as iuen tified in the original
env i ronmental impact report, but genecally would be less than the pro~ect as
orig inally approved and that water ccnsumpt ion and waste water generation
wou 1 d increr~sej however, the capacity to se rve the pcoject is available.
Commiasioner Kinq off'ered a motian, seconde d by Commissioner Fry and MOTION
CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning ~otnm ission do~s hereby grant waivers of
Cod e reguirem~nt on the basis tt~at there ar e apecial circumakanr,es applicable
to t he property such as size, shape, topoqr aphy, location an~ surroundings
whi ch do n~t app,ly t~ other identically zon ed propertX in the same vicinity;
and that strict appllcation of the Zoning Code deprives the property of
privileges enjoyed by other propertie~~ in the identical zone and
cla saification in the vicinity.
Com~igsioner King offered Resolution No. PC85-17 and moved Eor its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Co nditional Use Permit No. 2651 pursuant t o Anaheim Municipal Cnde Sections
18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.C35 and su bject to Interdepactmental Committee
ce c ammendations including an addiL•ional condition requiring termination of
Con ditiunal Use Permit No. 2550 and also a n additional condition pertaining to
th e type of landscaping to be planted to s creen the chain link fencing with
th e three stcarf~ of barbed wire on top~
~n roll call, the foregoing ce$olution was passed by the following vote:
AY E S: BOUAS, BUSHORE~ FRY, HERBST~ KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
1/7/85
i i
MINUTE5, ANAHEIM CI?Y PL~NNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 7~ 1985 65-32
ITEM N0. 19. EIR NFG~TIVE DECLARATION ~ND V~RIANCB NU. 345Q
~UBLiC HBARING. OWNERS: ~~K~Y AEV~LOPMFNT AND R~~LTY CO~, INC., 1500 puail
Street, Newport Beach, GA 92660, ATTN: RICHARp SMITH. AGENT: LAND-I,AMPERT
~RCHITECT~, 3152 Redhill, Suite 200, CoeCe Me$a, CA y2626, ATTN: DAVID H.
I,ANG. Pcoperty described as an ircegulacly-ahaped parc~l of land conaisting
of apptoximately 0.37 acre located at the soul•heast cocner of Pacificio Av~nue
and AnAheim Boulevacd, 1950 South Anaheim Boulevard.
Waiver of minimum required Lront yacd setback to construct a warehuuso
facility.
ACTION: Commiesioner Buahoce offered a motion, aeconded by Commissioner douas
and M~TION CARRIED tha~ consideralion of the aforementioned makter be
continued Co the cegularly-scheduled meeting of January 21, 1985, at ataff's
cequest.
ITEM N0. 20. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONnITIONAL USE PEKMIT N0. 2645
PUBLTC HEARING. UWNERS: ANGELO CRSELLA ANA ROSE MARY CASE~LA ULIVi, 2124
East Valley Glen Lane, prange, CA 92667. AGENT: CHRISTOPNER STELLA, 3093
MiralomA Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806. Propecty deacribed ae a
rectangularly-shaped parcpl of land consistiriy of approximately U.5 acre
located at the northwest cnrner of Miraloma Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard, 3093
Miraloma Avenue.
To retain an auromobile repair facility in a aervice skation.
There was no one ind~cating their presence in opposikion to subject request
and although the staff report was not ce~d, it is ceferced to and mbde a patt
of the minutes.
Christopher Stella, agent, explained he would like to have this permit renewed
and explained the trailec office has been removed.
THB PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEB.
Commissioner Bushore stated the original conditionAl use permit expired in
1982 and the Commission has not considered renewing it becauae the petiti~ner
did not apply for another one and that the trailer was denied, but that was a
dfffecent issue.
Mr. St~lla stated he was bef4re the Commisaion in 1982, an~ explsined he has
not purchased the property aE yet and they are in a lease option to buy. He
explained they had gotten a L•railer permit, but it took a lot longer to get
rid of it than they had thought, but the office is now set up in his garage
and the trailer has been cemoved.
Commissioner Bushore st~ted the trailer permit has nothing to do with this
request and the conditional use pecmit w~s given in 1982 for one yeaz and the
Commission had told the petitioner about the problems with the property in the
paut and that they did not want to see those prablems again.
I/7/85
.~.,.,,..,..._..~..._.._ ._. ._ _....._..~.___ ......~.. .._ _ _ __ _ . __ _ _ _ _ _..~~
a~ ~ ~
~ , ,
85-33
MINUTBS~_ ANAHEIMy CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION J NU11RY 7 1905
~ommioeioner aouas BtAtflQ tho peti,tioner waa etating some trucke in the cear
and Mr. Stell~ responclQd those trucka have beon removed and explained he has
plei~ty oE packing. He atat~cl one of the ociginal problema wes the eond±.tion
of the bui].ding +~~d the t~ack area and they have put a lot of. money into th~
pr.operty with landscApin9 in the front, painting the buildinq, etc. and nre
currently in the procesa of putting iri new fences around tl~e building.
P.egponding to CommiRSioner La Clei[e, Mr. Stella stated some fencing was the[e
when theydt~he °intendetorceplncee~t withtnew fencing[in~thA future~,~ needed
cepaic an Y
Commisaionec Bushore read Ecom the minutea of the meeking of June 4~ 1y02,
regarding the gronxin9 of the permit for one year, and at the end af one year,
the application would have to be refiled bc~cause the Commission wantod to
monitor thak corner very carefully, etc. Commisst~ner eou~pmmisaianere
pet.itioner has done c+ lot to the property. Responding
Aushore, Mr. Stel).A ata~ed he h~e two yeara leEt on I~ia le~se.
Commieaioner Bushore e~ated this property has been ~ problPm and it will
conti~&enot doneewhatbhemaaiddhehwould~doionHe stated~hetwouldfgo ai ng witt~$
and h
the request for two years~ however.
Mr. 5tella stated he does keep cars on the property because he doe3 wock on 15
to 20 curs per day, but he has plenty ot room for parking. He stated he does
not want to put in any fencing unril he pucchases the ~roperty because he has
alc~ady put a lot of money into the property.
Chairman Hecbst stated he has been by the property and thought it has been
gceatly impcoved, but the biggest problem tiAS be~n that there has been s~me
wark done un vehicles outaide thr building and he thought thE petitioner
should tell the Planning Commission exar,tly what he plana to do with this
pcogerty. He added the outdoor storage should be scceened with slatr~. Mc.
Stella stated they would get the slats installed and explained the problem was
the cost of the redwood slats and that he was trying ~o find something that
would be cheaper.
Chairman Herbst stated there are certain City ordinances pertaining to
screening and he thought if the petitioner woald get the screening done, he
would have no problem with approval..
Mr. Ste11A stated he M~ould install the redwood slats. Chairman Herbsk pointed
owt that is a condition of the use permit that has never been complied with
and if the conditions are nok met, thece is e possibility of loaing the CUF.
Commissioner La Claire askea if khe petitioner has talked to the owner a~out
improving the property. Mr. Stella stated he always talka with the owner
whenevec changes are made, but the owner has not been willing to help
"~ncially. He sta~ed he wou].d be nble to purchase the s1~ts within the next
ays•
,. ION: Commissioner King offeced a motion, secanded by Commissioner Fry and
MOTION CARRIGD that the Anaheim City Planning C~mmission has reviewed the
1/~/SS
MINUTEB, ~NAHEIM CITY FLANNING COMMISSION. JANU~RY 7, 1985 85-34
propoeal to retain ~n automobile tacility fn A eervico station in the ML
(Industrial, Ltmited) 2on~ o~ ~ cect~ngulerly-ahaped paccel Qf land consiAting
of appcoximetely 0.6 ncre located at the northweet cornar of Mireloma Avenue
ond Krsemar Boulevnrd And fucther deacr~.bed aa ]093 ~. Miral4ma Ave~uer and
doea hereby appcove the ~ogative Decleretion upon finding that it h~s
conaiderod the Negative Ueclacatlon together with Any comments received during
khe public review pcncesa and further finding ~n ~he bASis oF. the Initial
Study and any comnents received thak thece ia n~ substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effeck on th~ environmEnt.
Greg Naatinga stated stafE would recommend that Condition No. 8 be deleted and
Condition No. 9 be modified to read: "That Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7
and 8, abovementioned, be com~lied witti within a period of 90 daya from khe
dAte of this resolution." He added he did not know what the Commisaion wants
to do about the timing for the chain link fence acreening. Chairman Herbat
stated he felt it should be 60 daya. Greg HAatings atated perhape all the
condit~ons oho~~ld be complied with within 60 days.
Chaicman Hecbst stated he did nat think the driveways fihould ~e redeaigned to
accommodate 10-foot raaius curb returns until the petitioner purchases thQ
property.
it was the cor~aensus of the Commission that Condition NA. <" be dele~ed and
that all the conditions should be complied with withir~ 90 days.
Commi~sioner King offcred Keaolution No. PC85-18 and moved for its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Pl~nning Commission does hereby granh
Conditional Use Permit No. 7F:;, for a period of two yeace pureuant ko Anaheim
Municipal Code Sectiona 18.03.030.03U tlirougl~ 18.03.030.035 and aubjert to
~nterdepactmental Committee recommendations deleting Conditi~n Nos. 2 and A
and m~diEying Condition No. 7 to read that conditions ahould be complied with
within a peciod of 90 days fcom the date of thfs resolution.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote:
AYES: BUUAS, 9USHURE, FRY, HERBST~ KING, [.A CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT; NONE
Commissioner La Claire poinked out she does not Iive far from that location
and she will be driving by to see iE these thfngs are being accomplished.
ITF.M N0. 21. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION1 WAIVER OF CODE hEQUIREMENT AND
CONDiTIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2650
PUBLiC HEARING. OWNERS: AIRPORT SERVICES, INC., 851 E. Cerritos Avenue,
Anaheim, CA 92805, ATTN: D. W. BOYLES. AGENT: RONALD ROGERS, c/o Magic
Cacpet Ambulette Corposation, ~10 North TuRtin, Orange, CA 92667. Property
descri.bed as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appcoximately
3.6 acres, 1420 South Al1ec Street.
io permit an outdoor non-emecgency ambulance storage an~ maintenance facility
with waivers ~f required lot frontage and required improvement of parking
ar.eas.
1/7/85
85-35
MINUTES. ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONL aANUAKY 7 1985
Thece was no one indicatin~ Lheir preaence in oppoaition to aubject request
and al.thouqh thN ~tnft rep~~rl• wax n~t rend, it ia re£erred to and made a part
of the minutos.
pavid W~lfard, Clearday Development, agent, wa~ pr.eaent to an~wer ariy
queationa.
TN~ PU9LIC HEARING WA5 C~OSED.
Responding to Chaicman Herbst, Mr. WalEord atAted ne aoan as eac[ow fa closed,
the whole sito will be paved, but the gravel is oiled at the present time and
they st~ould be under constr~ction wi~hin the next two tn three months.
ACTION: Commisaioner King offered ~ motion, aeconded by Commissioner Fry and
MOTION CARRi~p that the Anaheim City Planning Commis»lon has reviewed the
praposa~ to permit an outdoor non-emergency ambulance etorage And maintendnce
facility with waivecs of ce~iliced lol f[ontage and required improvement oE
packing are~a on an irregularly-ahaped parcel of land consisting of
appcoximately 3.~ acres having appcoximate Erontage~ of 50 feet on the east
side of Allec Street and f.urther decccibed as 1420 SuuCh Allec StreetJ and
doe~ hereby approve the Negative Geclaration upon finding that it has
consideted the Neqat.ive Declaration together with any comments received during
the public review pcocess and Eurther finding on the basis of the Initial
Study and any comments received that there is no aubstant.ial evidence that the
project will have a~ignificant eEfect on the environment.
Commissioner Kinq offered A motion, 3econded by Commissi~ner ~ry and MOTION
CARkIED that the Anaheim City rlan~~ing Commission daes herehy grant waiver (a)
on the basis that there are cpPCial circ~mstances applicable to the property
such as aize, shape, top~graphy, lacation and surroundings which do not apply
t~ othec identically 2oned property in the same vicinity; and that str.ict
application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of prfvileges enjoyed by
other. pcoperties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity; and
granting waiver (b) on the b~sis that the parking waivec wil~ not cause an
increase ln traffic congestion in the immpdiate vi~inity nor adversely affect
any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver un~er the
con9ition~ fmpoaed, if any, will not tp detcimental to the peace, health,
safety and general wPlfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Commisgioner King of~ered Resulution No. PC85-19 and moved for its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2650 for a p~riod of one year for Phase 1 purauant
to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.030.030.035 and
subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendakions.
On roll call, the f.oregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: HOUAS, BUSHORE, PRY, HERBST~ KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NOES: NUNE
ABSENT: NONE
It was noted the petitioner would need to file for another cnnditional use
permit for the development of Phase 2.
1/7/85
MINUTES~ A.N~FIEIM CITY PT.ANNING COMMI5SION, JANUARY 7, 1985 _„_ 85-36
ITBM N0. 22. EIR NFGATIVE DECI.~RATION (PRBV. ~PPROVED) ANU CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT N0. 2293
PUBLIC HE~RING-TIME EXTBNSION. OWNERa:EL~ERT L. SMZTN AND L1DU I~. SMITH~
12921 Whapler Plece, Sdn~A Ane, CA 92~05. AGF.NT: PATRICK T. PLYNN, DISTRICT
MANAGER, AVIS KENT-A-CAR SYS'P~M, 3409 Lakewood a~ulevard, Go~ig Beach, CA
90808. Property dmecribed es a rectengul~Kly-eheped percel of. land conAisting
of apptoximately 0.5 Acce lncated at the eoutheast cacnec of MAncheatec ~venue
and Narbor ~aulevecd, 1400 South Fiarbnr 6oulevacd (Avie Rent-A-Cer).
Approval of a on~-ye~r extenaion of time ar. deletion oE the provisions of
Resoluti~n No. PC82-12 pectaining to ce~uired exkensiona of time to retain an
automobile renhal agency.
Thare was no one indicating their presence in appasition to sui~ject requeat
and although th~ stet`. rep~rt wa~ not rend, it io refe~red to and made a part
of thP minutem.
Patrick Flynn, a~3ent., waa preaent to anawer any question~.
TN~ PUBLIC H~ARING WAS CGUSED.
Commiseionet Fry etated thc petition~c has done evecything that has been
requested and that the chaina ace gone and sugge~ted the time extenaion
requirement be dcleted.
ACTION: Cammissi~.:nr King offeced tte~olution No. PC85-2~ and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning C~mmLsaion does heceby
delete the provision of Resolution No, PC82-12 pertaining r_o l•he required time
extenaions on the basis that sucl~ delecion is necea3ary ~o pecmit reasonahle
operation under the permiC is yranted.
~n roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: HDUAS~ BUSHORE, FRY, EfERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNtY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ITFM N0. 23. REPORTS ANb R~COMMFNDATIONS:
A. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 10967 (REV. N0. 2) - Request from Aneheim Hills
Development Corporation for approval of specific plan~ (Area 19, A~aheim
Hills), located on the southwest side of Nohl Ranch Road.
David Boyle, repres~nting Anaheim Hills Development Cocporation, was
present to answer any queations.
ACTION: Camm~ssioner King oifeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry
and MOTION CARRIFD that the Anaheim City Planning Commission d~PS hereby
approve specific plans for Tentatfve Tract No. 10967 (Revision Na. 2)
(Area 19 - Anaheim Hills).
1/7/85
MIMUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY ~LANNING COMMIS5ION. J~NUARY 7, 1985 N5-37
B. PRUPO5ED CUDE AMENUMENT - Amendment to Section ~8.61.050 oE Chapter 18.61
uf Title 18 ~dding Sub~PCtions .075 and .375 p~rtaining to banks and
rscycling/roaources recovety krana[er Eacilikie~ in khe ML 2one.
ACTION: Commissioner King uftered a motion, seconded by Commis~lonNC Fry
and MOTION CARRIEU thAt khe Anaheim C~ty Plann~r~g Commi~sion does hereby
recommend to the City Council thdl the accompanying draft ocdinance be
adopked Adding new Subsectiona .075 ~nd .375 to Section 18.61.050 of the
Anaheim Municipel Code.
C. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMFNDING TITLE 18 - Pertaining to gc~~~nd-mnunCed
antennae (including 8atellite dish antennae).
ACTIUN: Cammissioner King offered a motion, serondPd hy CommiesioRer
aouas and MOTxON CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council adoption of the accompanying draft
ordinance pertainin~ to yround-mount~~d antennae (includi~g satellike dish
antennae}.
D. R~CLASSIFICA'PIUN NO. 43-84-27 ANU VARIANCE NO. 3395 - Request from
Richerd N. Hudson, Chaperral Development, Inc. for terminationa f.or
~ropecty locatcd on the southeast side of Imperiol Highway, ~pprox. 1650
feet oouth of the centerline of Nohl Ranch ~aad.
A~TION; CommissionEr King ufEered Reaolution No. PC85-21 and moved fo[
ita pas~age and adoption that the Anmheim Ci.ty Planning Cozn~ission does
hereby terminate ReclassiEication No. 83-84-27 and Vaciance No. 33y5.
Or~ coll call, the forenoing resolution was passed by the f.ollowing vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, PRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIR~, MC BURNEY
NOES: NON~
ABSEN'P: NONE
E. CONDITIOtiAL USE PERMIT N0. 2156 - P.equest from Raym~nd C. Salmi, for an
extension of time, propecty is approximately 10.8 acres, having a
frontage of approximately 400 feet on the ~outheast side oE Santa Ana
Canyon Road, approxoximately 500 feet east of the center.line of
Eucalyptus Road.
ACTION; Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commicsioner
Mc6urney and MUTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Pl.anning Commission
does hereby yrant a one-year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit
No. 2156 to expire on December 15, 1985.
E. REQU~ST FOR DIRECTION REGARDING THC TEMPORARY DISPLAY Ok' BALLOON."; J~ND
~THER IN~LATABLES.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Uirector for Zoning, stated staff's concern
is with the larqe hot-air type balloan and the problem has been that they
ate not specifically addressed in the Code and the ~ule in t.he pAat has
been to aLlow them to be no higher khan the height permitted by the Code
for signs in the zone, and the persnns requesting the permit have not
been abiding bx the rule. She stated the Attorney's like to have the
probiem specifically addcessed in the Code before going to court.
1/7/85
MINUT~S, ANANEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION. JANUARY 7, 1965 65-38
ACTIAN: Commiasinner Dushore offered e motion, eeconded by Commis»ioner
Uouus a~~d MO'1'ION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion does
hereby instruct atetf to draft an ordinancP establishing criteria for
permitting balloons And other .i.nflatablea.
G. RBCLASSIFICATION N0. 80-81-9 - Request frum George Maaon, The Gunston
Hall Co., Inc. for a retroactive exte~slon oE time, property lor„ated at
the southwest corner of Avenida de Santiago and Nidden Canyon Road.
AC.Ti~N: Commisaionet LA Claire offered a motinn, seconded by
Commiseioner Ery and MOTIGN CARRIEU that the Anaheim City P1Anning
Commi~sion does hPreby gcant a one-year (2-yeAr retro~ctive) extension of
time for Recla~sificntion No. 00-81-9 to expire on Oct~bec 6, 1985.
H. CONUITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 913 - Reque~t from Karl Mcader, Stewart Creen
Aasociates for amendment to Condition No. 2 of City Council Re~olurion
No. 67R-92, property located at 2250 E. Lincoln Avenue (East Ana~,eim
5hopping Center).
ACTIUN: Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that tlie Anaheim City Pla~ning Commisaion does
hereby rtcommend to the City Council that Eolluwing a~ity C~uncil public
hearing, Condition No. 2 of City Council Resolution No. 67R-92 be amended
to read as foll~ws:
°That sub~ect property stiall be developed substantially i~ a~cordance
with plans and specification~ on Eile with the City of Anaheim marked
Revision No. 1 of Exhibit Nos. .l, 2, 3 and 4'.
I. VARIANCE 3419 - Request from Hugo Vazguez for. review nf revispd plans
(Revision No. 2). Property located at 920 S. Weatern Avenue.
Hugu Vazguez, agent, explained the revi~ed plans place the two-story
structure 71 feet fcom t~e property line. Eie also er,plaine~ the plans
have been given to Mr. Gaughey, the neighbor who previously opposed the
pcoject.
ACTION: Commiseioner Fry oEfered a moti.on, seconded by Commissioner King
and MOTION CARRIED tha~ the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
cecommend that the City Council approve the submitted revi~ed plans
(Revis~on No. 2) for Varfance No. 3429.
J. TENTATIVE TRACTS 10980 and 10982 - Reuqest from Kaufman & Broad cor
Waiver of Hillside Grading Ordinance pectaining to locating of a
manufactured slope Within tract boundaries. Property located gouth of
Santa Ana Canyon Road and west of Weir Canyan Road within the Bauer Ranch
area.
A~TION: Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry
and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council approval of the requested waiver of
Hillside Grading Ordinance as it relates to the lacating of a
manufactured slope entirely within the tract boundaries of Tract No.
10980 and 10982.
1/7/85
/
~
~
MINUTES,j ANl-NEIM CITX PLJ-NNING C„`Q,~IMYS~ SIONj Jl-NUI-RY 7. 1985 8a-39
l~DJOURNMENT: Commiaeioner King offered A motton, aeconded by Cammiaeioner
McBurnoy and MOTION CJ-RRIFD tha~t the meetinc~ be adjoucned.
The mRering was ed~ourned at 6;25 p.m.
Respectfully eubmitted,
,G /~ . /'~~i"'~ 2~-~a~
~G~~
Edith L. Flarcis, Secretnry
Anaheim City Planning CommiasiAn
ELH:lm
0096m
1/7/85