Minutes-PC 1978/08/14City Hali
Anahetm~ C~11Parnla
Augus t 1 ~i ~ 197a
RCGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC COMM_ I~SSION
RE GULAR - The rcgula~ maeting af the A~ahelm Clty Plan~tnq Commission was calied to
NE E'flNf order by Chainnan Herbst at 1:34 p.m.~ Auyust 14~ ly7$, in the Cou~cil
Chamber~ a quorum bcing preser~t.
PRESENT ~ CHAIf'MAN: Nerbst
COMf115510N~RS: Barnes~ David, Kiny~ Linr.~ Johnson
ABSENT - COMMISSIOt1ER5: Tolar
ALSO PRESEPIT - Jac:k White Deputy Clty Attorney
Jay Titus Off(ce Enginee~
AnniF,a Santolahtl Assistant Dlrector for Zoning
Jay Tashiro Assoctate Planner
Edith Narrls Planning Cvmmisston Secretery
P LEUGE QF - The Pledge of Allcylance to the Flag was leJ 5y Commisstoner Barnes.
ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF - Commtssioner King offered a mntion~ secondec! by Commissloner Johnson and
T NE MINUTES MOTIQtr CARRIED (Gammissioner Tolar being absent). thrt the minutes of
the meettny of July 17, 1978 I~e approved~ subJect to the deletton of the
words "pc~ acre" on the first li~e of the s(xth paragraph of Page 78-564.
tTEM N0. ~ GONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ALBAN AND
~ N~~VE DECLARATION QERNADINE HOLTZ~ 1451 East Irvine Boulevard. Tustin~
RECL SI~ICA i0N N0. -79-8 CA 92630. AGENT: THE ROBEaT P. ~lAhMING70N COMPANY,
16592 Nale Avenue~ Irvlne~ CA 92714. Pettttoner
requests reclasstflcatton of property described as
a ~ irregularly~shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.8 ecres located so~th snd
west of the southwesr r_o~ner of ltncoln Aven~K and ato Vtsta Street~ having approximate
f ~ontAges of 344 feet on the south side of llncoln Avenue and 73 feet on the west side of
Rio Vista Street, and beiny located appraxim~tely 195 feet west of the ce~terline of Rio
Viste St~cet and approxim~tely 1fi0 feet soutn of the centerline of Lincoln Avenu~~ from the
RS~A-43,000 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTi1R.AL) T.ONE ta the CL (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITEO) ZONE.
5 ubJect petition was cantinued fran the neeting of Juiy 31~ 1978 at the request of the
peti ~ioner.
It was pointed aut the petltioner has requested a two-week co~tinuance in order to
incorQorete the adJacent property to the west into the proJect proposed and to readvertise
the proposed addition,
ACTION: Commisslo~e~ Linn o'~fered a rt: ~econded by Commissioner David and MOTION
~D (Commiss:aner Tolar betng abse, ~! co~sideratton of the afo~ementioned item
be conttnued to the regularly scheduled ~,._ 'ng of the Mahetm City Planntnq Car~nisston of
August 28, 1978, at the request of the petitioner.
78-654 8/14/7a
~,
~
78-655
MINU1'ES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. AUGUS7 14~ 197a
(TCM N0. 1 CON71NUED PUISLIC t~CARIl1G. OWNERS: MOTEL 6 OF
EIR~CA'~'E~RICAL EXEMP710N-GLASS I1 W~ ~FSanta BarbareANCA 9t31~5s~ AGEINT:~,FEDERAL Ck
R CE NO_._ 302 Y'
51GN COMPIINY~ 1100 Narth uestssWAIVER OFsMAX9MUMs~
CA 9~012~ P~tltioner rnQ ro erty descrlb~ed
NEIGNT QF A FREE~STANDING SIGt~ TO CONSTaUCT A FREC-STANDIN~o ~matelYP1•1 ac~es heving a
as A rectengula~ly~shaped parcel of lend cansisting of app
fro~tage of approximatelY 1GO,feet ~n t~o ated approxi ately 20nlfeet~northiof theacenter-
dapth of approximately 29~ fee.t, bet g
line of Dell Road, and furthr_r descrlbN~.as y21 South Beach Boulevard. Property presently
classffied CL (COMMERCIAI~ LIMITEU) 20
1 17 ~~7a at thc reauest of the
SubJeet pctl tion wa~ r.ontinue3d from
petiti~ner and from the meetiny af
the meetiny of Ju y r
July 31, ~978 because of a tic vote.
71~ere was no one indicating thelr presente in opposition
thc staff r~portiti°isheefcrrecJnto a dimAden~dPert ofythe
public hearing~
Chairtnan I~erbst explatned the public heariny was closed
if there was any addittonal inf~rmatlon tn be presented.
Jack Gray~ representing
sign~ 40 f~et high~ and
helght to 35 feet.
to subJect request~ a~d although
1u~ 1978 wt~s rot read at th~
minutes.
at the previous hearing and asked
for a 320-squar~ foot
245 square feet a~d the
the agent, stateJ the oriyina) request was
thcy would reduce the slze of the siqn to
Canmissioner Linn polnted ouin~~` ted'Chatrwasecotrect
Tashiro~ Assoctate Planner~
for a 2~-5-sGuare foot siyn~ end Jay
It was noted that the Pla~ning Direcinrthe Jefinitio~1ofdCategoriceltExemptionst~Classdll~
that the proposed pro)ect falls with
as deflnad in paragraph 2 of the exey tffAomhtle requtrcment~to'prepareeanr~~Ruidellnes
and is~ therefore, categorically mp
ACTION: Commissioner King offered Rasolutian No. PG7a-18~ and ~rantfPetitionef~r9e and
e~optTon~ that the Anaheim City Planning Cortmissio~ daes hereby g
Variance No. 3026 to permit a maximum 245-square foot sign with on^~ h~^'basisithat th~,
feet, as stipulateJ to by the petitioner at the public hearing~
adjacent property and other properties ~odehethat thttwestGwallYofnthe motelrist5efeetf
ht~her signs than currently allowed by -
from the west propcrty line and will block the vtew of the sign from the res~~dential area;
and subject to Interdepartmental Commictce recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolutian was passed by the following vote:
AYES: GOMMISSiONERS: BARNES. DAVIp, HER4ST. JQfINSON, KING
NOES: COMMISSIONER5: LINN
ABSENT: COMMISSIONE6tS: TOIAR
Choit~man Herbst i~dicated his suppArt of this request aas bec~use the petitio~er had
compromtsed with the height and size ~f~r~ visible~where it~isepresentlywlocated9 himself
an Injustice because the sign would b
a~ ~ ai~s
~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 14~ 1978 78-656
I~EM N0. 2 CONTINUED PUBt,IC HEARING. Ob1NEat CLYDE E. STIRES~
~`~7~1 VE DECLARAT I ON 2100h An-busF~ers S t eet ~ 01 amand 8ar ~ CA 9) ; 65.
~~ ~ Petttianer ~equests WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF
PARKIN~ SPACES TO CONSTRUCT A RETAIi. COMMERCIAL
BUIL'JiNG on property descrlbed as an frregularly-
shaped pe~ce) of land cansisting of app~oximately Q.5 acrQ located at the southeast
corner of Wilshire Avenue and Loara Street~ having a frontege of appraxtmately 362 feet
on the south st~e of Wll~hire Avenue~ having a maxtmum +epth of approxlmately li5 feet,
an~ further described as 351 North Wilshire Avenue. Property presently clas~tfttd CG
(COMMERCIAL~ GENERAL) ZONE.
SubJect patition was continued from the meeting of July 1J~ 1978 at the request af the
petitloner and from the mcetiny of July 31~ 1978 for the submisslon of revlsad plans.
There was no one indicating thetr presence ir- uppusition to subJect request~ and although
the s taf f report to the P 1 ann t nc~ Commi s s i on d~ted Augus r. 1 W~ 1978 was not read at the pub 1 t c
hearing~ It is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Clyde E. Stlres, petitioner~ wes presc.nt to answer any questtons.
TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
ACTION: Ccxnmissioner King offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner D~vid end MOTION
A R EO (Commissioner Tolar being absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commlsston has
rsviewed the proposal to canstruct a retatl cammercial butlding with waiver of mintmun
number of parking spaces on a~ irregularly-shaped parcel of land consist~ng of
spproxlmately 0.5 acre iocated at the southeast corner af Wilshire Av~nue and Lodra
Street~ having a frontege of approximatcly 362 feet on the south side of Wtlshlre Avenua,
having a maximum depth of appraximately 115 feet; and does hcreby apprvve the Negetive
Declaratiun from the requirement to prepare an environmental impect report on the basis
that che~e would be. no siyniflcant individual or cumulattve adverse environmental impact
c'.ue to the approval of this Negative Declaration since the Anahelm Genera) Plan des(gnates
the subJect property fo~ general commercial land uses cortrnensurate wtth the proposal; that
no sensittve environmental impacts are involved In the proposal; that the Initial Study
submitted by the petitioner indicates no stgnificant indivtdual or cumulattve adverse
envt~onmental impacts; and that the Negative Declaration substan[tattng the foregoing
findings is on file in the City of Anahelm Planntng Departrn~nt.
Commissloner King offered Resolutian Na. PC78-137 and moved for its passage and adoptlor.,
that the Anahetm City Planning Commission does hereby gr~+nt Petition for Variance No. 3030
due to the stte and trisnguler shape of the p~operty which prohibits pro~id~ng the number
of parking spaces re~uired by code and that the use proposcd does not generate the need
for the required nurtb er of parkiny spaces; subject to the stipulatlon by th~ petittoner
that the property w(11 br devaloped substantially in accordance wtth plans submttted; anci
subject to Interdepartmental Committee recomnendations.
On roll call, the foregotng resalution was passed by the folloaing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ OAVIO, HERBST, JUHNSON~ KING, LINN
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; TOLAR
8/14/78
~. t
~
MIPIUTES, ANA11EfM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 14~ 1978 ?8-657
ITEM N0. CONTINUED READVERTISED PUDLIC NCARINf. OWNER3:
~TR~VE DECLARATION HAROLD HENaY~ 3600 Wllshtre Boulevard~ Suite 1114~
R~~'~'f (~'~; ~- -4 Los Ange 1 es ~ CA g0010 and STA~IDARO aRANDS PA 1 NT ~
~~ ~ { AfENT~~sRONDELL HONES~~INCr~Ag774 West~Ketella
Ava~nue. Sulte E~ Anrheim~ CA 92604. P~operty
described as an t~reyularly-shaped parcel of land conslstl~g aP approxtmately 6.7 ecres
having a frontage af apprax(mately 29Ei feet on the north side af Lincoln Avenue, heving
a maxlmum depth of epproxirnately 720 feet. end being lotated approximatcly 915 feet
eaat of the: centerline of drookhurst Street. Property presently cl~ssified PD-C
(PARKING UISTRICT-COMMERCIAL)~ CL (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITED), ANO RS-A-43~OOn (RESIDEN7IAL/
AGRICULTURAL) ZQNE.
ftEQUESTEU L'LAS5IFICATION: KM•12f~t~ (RESIUENTIAL. MULTIPLE-FANILY) ZONE.
VARIANCE REQUE.ST: WAIVER OF MIi~IMUM SUILDING 51TE WIUTtI TO CONSTRUCT
A 170-UNIT APARTMENT CUMPLEX.
SubJecl petition was contlnued from the meettngs of July 17 and 31~ 1978 dt the request of
the petitioner.
There w~re app~oximately 1~ persans indicating thelr presence ln oppositipn to subJect
request~ and aithough the staff rcport to the Planning Ccxrnntsslon dated August 14~ 197~
was not read at the publ~c hearing. it ts ref~rred to and made a part of the minutes.
Jay T~shlro~ Associate Planner~ stated one letter hed benn recetved indlcat(ng opposltion
to the subJect request.
Philfp Case~ representing the agent~ expleined the revised plsn eltminates the conm~erclal
portio~ previously proposed and a proJsct of 170 units rather than 143 units. He po(nted
out the entra~ces on the exhibit and the parktng areas and stated the traftlc clrculation
has been relocated adJacent to tne conxriercia) property~ 140 feet away from the property
llne, and is down grade by 4-1/2 feet so that any traff(c notse~ fumes, etc.. should be
adequetely buffered. He potnted out the s(ngla-story and two-story units and ln~+!cated
al) the recreatio~al faciltties have been malntained~ with volleyball courts~ pool,
lau~dry facilities~ etc. Ha stated he haa met w(th the Treffic f.ngineer and had
eliminated the left-hand turn on Lincoin Rvenue and all tenants will have to come int~~ the
praJ~ct from an easterly di~ection~ and che drtvewey has bee~ r~located and the Traffic
E~gineer felt it would be safer. He stated this Is a bad intersection currently and felt
deveiopment of this property would eliminate any possiblltty of add¢d confusion. He
stated the area in front of the proJect will be bermrd end heavtly landscaped and the
units wil) be set back on Lincoln Avenue 70 to 80 feet~ v+hich will attenuate the sou~d.
Ivan Hatfield~ 127 North Aladdln Drive, Anaheim~ stated he and ~is neighbors are more
opposed to th~ proposed higher density of 170 u~its Chan 143 units previously ~roposed.
He stated th6y were shocked to find out the strawber~y farm was zoned cortmerclally in 1968
a~d theY had checked the City files and found when the zoning actlon was prese~ted in
1968~ the notices were rnalled to "qccupents" in thei~ area and his notice Fu~a~± been
addressed to Occupant~ 127 Nest Aladdin, a~d had been missed since most people do not pay
very close attentlon to maii addressed to "occupant". He inclicated the file revealed the
propasal was presented as con+me~cial on the west where the matal is locate~f and RS-A-
43,000 for 100 feet~ and peopie on the north were County residents and he t~lt thetr
opposition at the public hea+ring was not given serious conside~etlon.
8/14/78
¢.
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 14~ 1918 78-658
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ RECLASSIFICATION N0.^78-79-W AND VARIANCE N0. 3024 (conti~uad)
Ne presdnted a petitlon signed by 332 residents of A~ahelm o~ Aladdtn~ Sunset~ und
Llncoln~ of which 90$ arn ownor-occupied~ snd reed the~ir statement o1' oppoattlan (subJeet
petition Is on flle in tho Clty of Anahetm Pl~nning Department). ~ie stat~d they agree
with the des(gnatlo~ of the General Plan for comnerclal al~ng the Lincoln Avenuo frontage
and thet thoy have never opposed this strip coorw++erct~l develapment. but they ern opposed
ta 170 ape~tments with 3~U parkt~g apaces and with three apartmant patlo~ behtnd eech
home~ He sr.ated the cx~ly chan9e m~de on the revtsed plen wt+s the sllghtly enlarged patlo
or "Iiving arna" egainst thel~ 6-foot high fence~ end pointe~ out c~ne Instance whore there
(s only a 4 or 5-foot space nnxt to the actual ~partment structuro. Thny felt thls plan
shows no respect to the prlvacy of the surrounding ~esidenttal areas.
He stat~d when thcy had voted tn become resldents of Anaheim 17 ycers ago~ they were
assurer~ the residentlal zoninn woula be respectc~; t~iat land ~peculators ond itnenctal
opportunlsts presumc their finnncfal power rnd eccmomtc thrust can maneuver and circumvent
tha General Plan low density zoning. fle stated any intruslons tnto re~tdentlAl zones in
Anahelm have had 8 to 10-fout high atC~nustton wall; with 20 feet of "no lfving" arse and
planted and rnaintelned buffe~ xones to block the noise, dust~ ~umes and ~dors f rom thc
mediu~n density areas~ and Chere Is not a"no llvinh" area on this ~lan and lt shows no
respect for their priva~y.
He :~tated he and his wife~ along with others, concur with the Anahelm General Plan and
that this is an ideal locatlon for tl~eir homes~ and they have lfved here for 25 years and
that (f the (ntegrity of thelr ccxmiuntty is malntalned~ they hoped to ltve out their llves
liere. as do many of the other 332 petitioners.
M~. Case stated their company has done business in this clty for t~ years and they are not
s htt-and-run typc operAtton; that they havF {nvlted thG hor~eowners to look at some of
thelr pro,jects to sha,- chem tl~ey lntend ta be good neighbors; that the single-story
apa~tments have been moved back 20 feet away from the 6-foot high block weli which will be
constructed to replace the exlsting chainlink fence and other fences; that they have
complted wlth the guidelines and suggestions of the Commisslon and feel this is a law
density apartment proJect and the effect on the surroundtng cc.mnunity will be
substantially iess than if the property were used comnerctally as it is currently zoned.
He stated they intend to develop the property exactly as shovrn and maintain and operate
it. and there are no immediate pl~ns to sell tt and their company could b+ considered as
vcry substantial contributors to the Gam~u~ity of Anaheim.
TNE PUBLIC HEARING WA~ CLOSED.
Comm(ssioner Lin~ stated Mr. Natfleld had indicated the Gene~al Plan called for medlum
denstty and pointed out RM-1200 as proposcd is not constde~ed medium density, and Mr. Case
replted the property ts currently =aned ccxnmercially and he d~d not thtnk studies were
conducted as to the usage af the property or the layout and nature of the properties whe~
the General Plan was adopted.
Gummlssioner Linn felt the problem has been created by the way the large~ rectangularly-
shaped parcel has been split and developed, tle staied he c~uld not support going from low
density or RS-7200 on all three sides to RM-1200.
Mr. Case stated the present praperty owner did not split this property~ but had acquired
the property to develop it commercially~ and it is inconceivable that anyone would develop
this pa~cel as single-family residential. He stated the proposed zontng is really dow~-
zoning f~om the current zoning.
8/14/76
G.
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIHG COMMISSION~ AUGUST 14~ 1978 78-659
EIR tJEGATIVE DECLARATIQN R~CLASSIFICATION N0. 8- -4 AND VARIANCE NO 024 (continued)
Commissloner Linn statec~ when othc~ parcels (n the Clty have been surr~unded by RS-720A
davelopmer~ts~ the r.oniny has not b~en epproved at RM-120~~ but for RM-4000 or sort-ething
simflsr. He po(nted out RM•1200 hes been appraved on arterial hlghways~ such as Katella
and Ninth~ but behind that property there was a pl~ygr~un~~ drelnage ditch ~nd school thet
would b~~d~veloaeducommerciallys'whichfwould prese~t othereproblems~ibutlthishpr posajrty
could c p
cioes not gl vc the t,omeowners eny al ternet i ves .
Commissioner Kiny stated this Is the type of housing neeJed In Anaheim beCause there ls a
shortage of housing for law and modrrate income people~ a~d Commissioner Linn steted 50'~
of the housina in Anahetrn Is apartments and he felt adequatc apartments a~e bcing
supplted.
Conmissloner K1ng polnted out thc 2~•f~ot buffer has becn provtded to give protectlon to
the single-family areas and this property could be develop~d comnerclally, r~nd felt the
He
property awners would f1nJ apartnents more acceptabl~ th~n commcrclal de~~lopment.
stated thls proJect is proposed to be an ~dult-only proJect; and that there are very few
people who could afford to buy an RS-7200 dwelling and felt thi5 proJect would help young
marrled couples Just st~rt(ng out in ltfe and older peo~le on fixed incomes.
Mr. Case discussed the apartmcnt supply in Anaheim~ polnttng out their apartment proJects
have a vacancy factor which is alrtx~st nil and suygested these property owners cansider
that when thelr ~o~s and daughters merry they w111 n~ed houslny and that rents Are
escalating because there ts very little supply and the demand Is increasing. He pointed
out they have a sma11 parcel of property Lhey plan to develop for single-family houses and
are trying to develop them at a price under S100,000~ and it is a very difflcult job to
do, and wondared how many people can affard to purchase that Lype of housing. He stated
apartment developers are the only p~ople tryfng to provide ba~ic shelter people can
afford. He indlcated they had cxamined the feasibility of developing condominiums; that
the purchase price for condominiums would be $75~000 to 585~DOQ minimum and the big
dlsadvantage of a condomintum proJect is the avners wl-o buy them star[ moving out and
there is no one to see the unlts a~e maintained and this is a situatlon which would not
exist with thls apartment proJect. He felt the hcxneaw~ers would itnd the noise level from
those people ~iving i~ condominlums higher than those living in apartments.
Commtssioner Linn polnted out that providing low cost housing to you~g marr~ed cauples is
~at a valid point since this is an adult-only project, and married couples will be asked
to move r+hen they start a family.
Chairman Herbst stated rhe issue befare the Planning Comm(ssion is land use and he thought
this proJect~ with single-story garden apartments with the traffic 150 feet away and the
ga~ages a minimum of 100 feet away and with the circulation pattern developad for this
site. would be the highest and best use of this property and would givc the homeowners
better prutectio~ than a commercial development on this site. He polnted out if the
property were developed commerctally, trafflc could be 20 feet away from their walls since
most commerctal developments are developed with the bufldtngs in the center and the
trafflc sur~oundtng them. He stated ~n R5-5000 developr!~ent could have two-story hanes
within 1S feet of their hvmes~ with garages within 50 feet of thei~ fences~ and this
project places single-story apartments wtthin 150 feet of thctr homes a~d the garages 150
feet away f~om their homes. He stated the circulation elemcnt to Lincoln Avenue is far
better and pointed out the Traffic Engineer would scill ltke to have the one driveway
meved further away from the other accoss about 35 feet and stated it would have no pffect
an the plan (Nr. Case indicated this would create no prohlems and they would comply).
8/14/78
r~
~ ~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 14~ ia78
~
7a-66o
EIR NEGATIVE DEGLARATION~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 78-7y-4 ANO VARIANCE N0. 3024 (cantinuQd)
Chelrman Ilerbst continued that there are no variances being requ~sted o~ thls proJect;
khat maxlmum recreatlona) fecllitles are being proposed and the clrculatlon Is edequate
and sAttsftes all the T~affic Engineer's concerns.
Commtssioner Barnes stated she did not thlnk the homeown~rs rea~lized wliat they w~uld be
getti~g wtth a commerclai devtloprr~nt. She ~eferred to a commercia) develepn~nt at State
Coltoge Baulevard end Llncoln Avenue wtth homes across the street enci polnted out that
trash trucks collect the trash and trucks n~ake deltverles at 3:OQ a.m. and the residents
are having a terrlble time try(nq to solva these problems. She st~ted thts property could
he developad wikh a supermarkCl or a two-story~ flat bullding wtth all k(nds of traffic~
anci this plan has providcd everything possible to c~tve thc hpmcowncrs privacy. She
pointed out a sfngle-famlly proJect would n~t r~quirP racrwAtl~nA1 fec(littes an~1 there
would be an abundancc of children partictpattng in thc same actfvttles these hameowne~s'
chtldren are partlcipating in (cltmbing walls, etc.) and there would be more problems.
St~e thought an adult comnunity would have less irrltation and that they Noutd rether have
an apertment proJect than cormic~rclal develop+nent.
Commissianer King poir~ted out the dens(ty propnsed for this proJect is 2g.3 units per acre
and 36 dwelling unlts per acre would be allowed.
Commisstoner Ll~n Indicated he was not (mpressed by the adults-oniy portion of the proJect
because if the demand chanyes, the adults-only stipulation would disappear very fast and
the apertments would be rented to anyone.
Commissio~er Johnson Indicated he had a passible con,`lict of tn[erest in connectlon wtth
this item and stated he did not wish to vote.
ACTION: Commissioncr Kin~ offered a motion~ sec~nded by Commissioner Oavid and MOTI0~1
t ED (Com-iissloner Toiar being absent and Commis~ioner Johnson anstalntng), that the
Anaheim Clty Planni~y Comnission has revtewed the proposal to reclassify sub)ect property
from the PD-C (Parking Distrlct-C~omnerctal) ~ CL (Commercial ~ Limlted) ~ and RS-A-~~3,000
(Reside~tial/Agricultural) Zones to the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) I.one on an
irregularly-shaped parcet of land consisting of approximately 6.7 acres having a frontage
of approxlmately 29(~ feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenu^. having a maxjmum depth of
approxfmately 720 feet~ ~nd being located approximetely 915 feet e~st of the Genterline of
Brookhurst Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Declar~tton from the requirement
to prepare an environmental impact report on the basis that there wauld be no sfgnificant
i ndi vt dua 1 or cumu I at t ve adve rse: env i ronmen ta 1 1 mpact due to the app~•c~~~! of th i s t~egat i ve
peclaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subJect property for general
commerclal land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive envlronmental
impacts a~e involved in the p~oposai; that the ~nitial Study submitted by the petltloner
indicates no signif(cdnt indlvidual or cumulative adverse snvlronmental impacts; and that
the Negative Dcclaretlon substantiating the foregofng findings is on file in the Ctty of
Anaheim Planning Departmen~.
Commissioner King offered Resolutlon No. PC78-18& a~nd moved for !ts passage and adoption~
that th~ Anaheim ~Ity Planning Commission does hereby grant Petttion for Reclassiflcatio~
No. 78~79~4~ s~bJect to the stipulation af the petittoner that the driveway w111 be
relocated in accordance with the Traffic Engineer's approval~ and sub)ect to
lnterdepartmental Committee recortKnendetions.
Un roll call~ the foregoing resolutlon was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
BSTAIN: BAR~JES. DAVID, HERBST, KING
LINN
TOLAR
COMMISSIONERS: JOHNSON
8/14/78
~
t~
t
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSI4N~ AUGUST 14~ 1978 78-661
EIR NEGATIVE DECLAaAT10N. RECLASSIFICA?'ION N0. 78-79-4 AND VARIANCE N0. 3024 (contl~ued)
__._.__._.__
Commiastoner King offa~ad a motlon~seconded by Comm(ssloner Devtd and MOTION CARRIEU
(Commissloner Tolsr betng absent and Coirmissioner Johnson abst~intng)~ that Petition for
Varla~ce Na. 3024 bc tcrmtnatcd at the request of the petlttoner.
Jack White~ Deputy City Attorn~y~ presented the wrltten right to appeal the Planning
Commisslon's dectston wiChtn 22 days to anyone wha ts not happy wtth th~ decision.
ITEM ~N0.~5 PUBLIC MEARING. OWNERS: ANDREW W. AND I.IIJ~A
FTA CATEGORItAL EXEMPTION-CLASSES 3 6~ T. KLEIN~ 191 Sterllyht Drive~ Anahelm~ CA
RIANCE N0. ~Oit 926Q7. AGEN7: T. H. FORNAN 6 ASSOCIATES~
~ 12812 Gardcn Grave ~oulevard~ AM~ Garden
Grove~ CA ~2G~3. Petitloner requests WAIVER
OF (A) MAXIMUM FENCE NEIGHT AND (E3) MiNIMUH STRUCTURAI SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT AN ACCESSORY
LIVING QUARTER~ GARAGE~ A`~0 FENCE on prop~~ty descrtbed as a rectan~ularly-sh~ped parcel
of lend conststing of approximalcly O.g acre having a frontage af appr~xtmately 164 feet
on the west side of Starltght Drive~ having a mdximum depth of approximately 247 feet~
being located a{~proxtmetely 165 feet north of th~ centerline of Peralte Nills Drtv~~ and
further described as Igl Sauth Starlight Drive. Property presently class(fted
RS-HS-43.000(SC) (RESIUENTIAL~ SINGLE-FAMILY liiLLSIDE) zONE.
There w~s no one Endtcet(ng their presance in oppositlo~ to subject request~ and althqugh
the staff report to the Plann(ng Camnisslon date~ August 14~1978 wss not read at the publlc
hearing~ it is ~eferred to and made a pert of the minutes.
It was noted the Hill anc! Canyon Munlcipal Advisory Committee (HACMAC) reviewed the abnve
p~oposal c~n August 1 197a~ and the applicant had indicated at that meetiny that the
proposed guest hnuse and garage were located within the ~equired side setbeck in order to
preserve a row of eucalyptus trees and the applicant's nelghbor who abuts subJect p roperty
to the north lndicated na obJecti~ns to the locatton. and tfiat two other neighbors had
been contacted and they had no speclfic concerns relative to this fence stnGe it is not a
soltd fEnce t~nd had indtcated some landscaping tn front of the fence would be desirable;
and with ntne members pres~nt. the conmittee voted to recanrnend approval of the req~ested
waiver pertaining to the maxtmum fence helght and the required front setback~ wtth thP
basls for approval be(ng that the proposad fence is not solid and, therefore. will not
pose a traffic safety problem nor bloc.k views of adjacent properties; and furthGr voted to
reccxnmend approva) of the requested waiver pertaining to mi~imum structural setback to
construct a guest house and garage in the interest of saving a row of sucalyptus trees and
p~eserving the beauty of th~ netyhbo~hood.
Andrew Klein~ petittoner, stated he felt the hardship involved for granting the vartance
is that the property is located in the Scenic Corridor and ther~ is a row of eucalyptus
t~ees which would have to be removed if the proJect were developed according t~ the code;
tl~at the structure would be located behind the row af trees and would not be visible from
the street or the back yard; that the immediate nelghbors do not ob)ect; that NACMAC had
rev(ewed the project; and his immedfate neighbor was present a~d It was pointed r~ut there
1s a 65-foot distance from their property ltne to thelr neighbor's structure, whlch is a
garage, and the neighbor was satisfted with the plan. He potnted out the fence Is not a
block wall~ but a w~ought-iron~ cosmetic-type fence; that there is also a hardship in that
the p~operty is zoned for hiilsfde standards with a minimum of one acre; and that the
proJect was somehaw approved with a private roadway and no variance was obiained so that
its net and possibly gross size is under the standard for the area.
TNE PUBLlC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
8/14/78
~~
~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY P UINNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 14~ 1978 76-6G?.
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASSES 3 6 5 AN~ VAaIANCE N0. 041 (conttnued)
Cheirman Herbst stated he had viewed the property and could not understand why the rvw of
eucalyptua t~ees would have eny efPect on the stde yerd setback~ and Nr. Kle(n replied
thta Is the only feasible wey to devalop the property tn order to h~ve the access and
provlde the 25~f~t mtnimum turn-around area necesaary.
Chalrma~ Herbst stated he wouid nat suppo~t any devtation from the code In this area
b~cause the people tn Peralta Hills have had mt+ny pubiic he~rtngs and Are adamantly
agatnst any ve~lances re~arding setbecks. Fle stated tennis court fences havo been allowed
recently because the•y are not considered to be structures~ but no butldings have been
allawed In the setback areas~ end he felt a lot of this size would allow the plan to be
arranged so that no varlances are necessary.
Flr. Klein replted thls would be possible. but the treos would have to be removed and he
felt the homeawners would itnd that more objectlonable [han the structure. and the removal
of spscimen t:rees would requlre an environmental tmpact report and he could not remove
them eccordin9 to w de.
Chalrman Herbst stated he wanted Co protect the Lrees, but he dtd not fee) eucalyptus
trees are the most advantayeous trees to h~ve in this arca and are fast growing and could
be replaced, but that a building would be permanent. He did nat feel malnteining the row
of euGalyptus trees could be consider~d a hardship and that they would be detrin~ntal to
the structure in the future~ and allowing a variance o~ that basls would be creating an
undesirable pracedent.
Mr. Klein stated he was requesting a variance based on the facts presented: 1) tt is a
substandard lot~ 2) he could not rertr~ve the trees~ and 3) he could not argue the variance,
if granted, would establish a precedent.
Commissioner Barnes stated two weeks ago a gentleman had requested approval of a
greenhouse and lath house on the back of his property with about this same setback and the
Planning Commission had dented that request. She stated tennls court fences have been
atlvwed~ but felt the property owners are just over~uflding their propcrty and ~re not
willing to ,~Ive up 5 feet af their property when they have an acre; that there ls a lot of
devrlopment on thls particular property and she felt everything could b~ developed as the
petttioner d~sired without variances. She stated the Planning Commission has a1lawCd the
rsmoval of some eucalyptus tre~s~ but that legally the P1anRing Commtssion cannot grant
one property awner a privilege they have not allowed others and that certain hardships
must be found for variances.
Mr. Klein stated he felt the hardshtp exists in that he ca~not remove the trees. ~nd
Cortmissioner Barnes replied h~ coul~ apply far a variance and pointed out the guest house
couid be built in another location~ for exAmple. wfi ere [he poo) is proposed.
M~. Klein stated that with the turn-around area he would have to place the st~ucture in
this position or In the back where it would be vtsible to three neighbors and with the
present propo~al~ it is o~ly visible to one neighbor and he has nc obJectlons to it. Ne
stated the plan has gone through the P~anning Comnisston for the hiils and they have no
obJections to it and that he ts asktng for a variance not based an this betng a precadent~
but strictly on the case basis.
Commissione~ 8arnes poi~tcd out HACMAC is an advisory comm~ttee and they make
reco~ortiendations to the Planning Commission, but do not approve plans. She did not see how
the Planning Commission could grant this request since they have not granted others the
same request. She fclt there is a larger issue at sCakc in that other dcvelopers will be
submitti~g proposals with estate zoning and this kind of question wtll be coming up before
8/14/18
o.
,
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING GOMMISSION~ AUGUST 14~ 1~78 J8-663
EIR CATEGORICAI~ EXEMPTION-CLASSES 3 b S AND VARIANCE N0. 3041 (conti~ued)
tho Planntng Comntssto~ qulte ~ften~ and ln orJer to p~otect future development and
preserve lt for one-acre developrnent wtth the amenitie~ a}forded a one•ac~e development~
she dld not see how the Plenning Comm(ssion could ~pprove this r~que~t in that no hardshtp
exlats according ta the law, and the Plenninq Cortmtsston csnnot legally g~ant a veriance
unlnss there is a ha~dship.
Chairman Herbst (ndicated he had reservatlons regardtng the large guest house and four-car
gar~ge and concer~ that the petitioner plans ta use the garage for rebullding and
resto~ing a~ttque autamobilas as a hobby~ and asked what he planned to do wlth these
automoblles after they iieve been rebuilt.
Mr. Klein stated he wnuld keep them and did -.~t p18n to havc a uscd ,,~r lat; that he has
cars at other locations b~cause he cannot kAcp them in his pres~nt garage facflittes; that
he is not a licensed dealer and would not keep cars clutte~ed tn the erea.
Chetrman Nerbst stated the guest housc appears to be a rentable apartm~nt, and Mr. Kieln
steCcd that would be ~agalnst the Zoniny Code, but that ma(d's quarters are allowed by
code.
Commlssioner Ltnn steted he could not see a hardship in this case as thP st^ucture couid
be placed in some oeher locat(on on the property without a verlance beina necessary; that
this is a large. rectangular lot with plenty of room.
Commiss(oner Johnson stated he agreed with Mr. Klefn in that the vartance shouid nat be
denied because a precedent would bc set anJ dtd not think the Planniny Commission should
make that sort of claim~ but that he disagrees with Mr. Klein regarding the hardship since
this lot appears to be on~ of the most uniform-shaped tots in the t~act, and he felt to
say It is substandard is tncorrect, He stated these lots were orlgt~ally developed undGr
RS-40.000 zoning requlrements with the depth of the street included and that this is a
large Ic,t~ plus it is ~~ot a narrow~ skinny lot~ but Is probably one of the widest iots (n
the tract. I~e stated there are laws the Planning Commisslon must live within and there
have been cases whc~re hardsliips could bc claimed~ but therc was no way he could s~:e e
hardship on this parcel.
Commisstoner Barnes stated she had felt this would be a type of precedent-setttng
situatian because the Planning Commission has ta find that they a~e not denying anyone the
same privileges granted to others in the area and felt if thts request wes granted~ the
~ext request. if not granteu~ would be denied a privilege granted and felt this. more than
any other type of request~ would set some sort of precedent.
Chalrrnan Fierbst staeed he recognt~es the Planning C~ m(sston must look at each individual
request~ but that othsr people do point to prevtous :~ctions of the Planning Cam~i$ston and
ask why they cannot have the same privileges.
Mr. Kiein polnted aut variances have been granted for tenn(s court fences of 12 feet~ and
Chairman Herbst replied the o~dl~~nce is bein~ reviewed rega~ding a fence being constdered
as a structure because they are recreatlonai facilities and can be removed and an
amendment might be in order~ t~ewever~ this building is definitely a structure and would be
there permanently.
Cortxntssioner Oavid asked the process fnr rennvi~g the trees~ and Jay Tashtro, Associate
Plenner~ stated the petittoner would have to apply for a permit and it would be reviewed
a~nd approved by the Planning Commission.
3/14/78
R•
~
MI NUTES ~ ANANE IM C ITY PLAI:N I NG COMMI SS I ON. AUtiUST 14 ~ 197a 78-664
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASSES 3 b $ AND VARIANCE N0. 3py) (continued)
Comniastonar D~vtd askad the petit(one r if hn had eny ob,jectlons to epplytng for such a
permlt~ and Mr. Kieln asked what the ch ancas of epprovA) would be~ dnd Commissloner Oavld
pointed out it Is quite clear the~ Planning CornmisslAn ~s saying th(s Is a possibla
solutlon. He stateo he did not have a ~v problems with the petitlone~ havtng as meny cars
on hls property as he wanted es long a s thcy have baen approved.
Mr. Klein st~+tod he understoo~~ from M~. Buffington at the HACMAC rt-eetl~g that they we~e
not obJecting to the setbsck~ but would create el) kind of difficultias tf they trlod to
renave the t re~es .
Commissloner Barnes pointed out~ agaln , that 11ACMAC is an advisory group. She esked Jey
Tashiro tu explain tl~a prncr.Jurr. for applyiny for rernova) of the trees~ and Jay Teshi ro
explelned the petttloner would have to submtt two sets of ~lans showing the location of
the nxist~ng speclmen trces and a permit for removel of the trees would be rev(ewed by th e
Planning Commission after a negottve d~clArat(on hnd becn advertlscd. Ne polnted out
there would be a$25.00 charge ror tl~e advertisement of the nQyattve declaratton.
Cheirman tlerbst pointed aut thts vdr~a~ce tould be approved, al lowing the tennis court
fence and denying the accessory strur.t ure setback; that many times swinming pool
construction reyulres a variance and t hey have been granted; that this fe~ce is wrou~ht
(ron and would not create a visual ba r ~ter.
Commissioner 6ernes steted the interp r~tation of the te rm "fenc(ng" has been left to the
dtscretfon of the Planning Commission and they have ruleci in the past that wrought Iron is
pcrmissible.
Commisstoner Johnson stated i~e dtd not thtnk the fence ordinance should be conside~ed that
1 ightly; that he did not have any obJeetfo~~s to thls fence~ but did not remember eny in
the Peralta Hills area betng allawed.
Chal~r~an Herbst pcinted out tl~is typa of fencln9 has bee~ ellowed in all ereas of Anaheim
H i I 1 s when they abut the p ropa rty ~ t ne , And I t I s a common prac t i ce. tie s teted he
believes the ~rdinance shouid be chan ged ~ega~rdtng this type f~s~cing~ but he did not see a
hard~hip in this c~se.
Commissioner Barnes asked if removal of the trees could be tted to this request, and Jaek
White~ Deputy City Attorney~ rept:ed t hat request would have to be ~dvertised.
Commissioner David stated NACMAC does offer valuable input and opinions to the Planning
C~~nnission~ but they do not help in fi ~diny the leg~l ha rdships necessery to grant
vari~nces.
Comnissioner Linn asked if there were ather 6-foat high fences allowcd in Peralta Hills.
and Annika Santalahti~ Assi~tant D(rec tor for Zoning~ replied there was one Just to the
southeast, on the corner, with a similar fence wh(ch was brought before the Commtssion
about a month ago.
it was noted that the Plan~inq Utrector• or his authorized representattve has determined
tihat the proposed project falls wtthin the definition of Categorica) Exem~tlons. Classes 3
and 5, as dcfined in paragraph 2 of th e Ctty of M ahetm Envlronmentai ~mpact Report
Guidel ines a~d is ~ therefore~ categor i cel ly exempt from the requi rernent to prepare an EI R.
~, fON: Comnissic~ner Johnson offerad Resolution No. PC7g•189 a~d moved for its passage
ano adoptfon~ that the Anahetm City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petttion for
Variance No. 3041~ in part, granting araiver (a) cn th~ b asts that denial would be
8/14/78
~
MINUT~S~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 14~ 1~78 78-E~65
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEtfT10N-CI.ASSES 3 b 5 AN~ VARIANCE N0. 3041 (continued)
d^privtng thfs property of privtlages g~an ~ed others in the seme vicintty and zone;
de~ying walver (b) on tha basis that the p rope~rty has ~ufficiont aree to ellow the
structure to bs constructed without the w aiver; end subJect to Interdepartmenta) Committee
recommendatlons.
On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was pessed by thc toilowin~ vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ DAVID, NERBST~ JONNSOM~ KING~ LINN
NOESt COMMISSIONER'S: NONE
AB5E~IT: CUMr11SSI0NER5: TOLAR
Jack Whita presented the petitioner with t hp written right to appeol any pa~t of the
Plenning Commisston's decision within 22 d ays t~~ the Cfty Counctl.
ITEM N0. G PUB lIC HEARING. OWNERS; TOWN Tt~UR FUN BUS
~~~1~TTVE DECLARA710N COMPN~Y ~ I MC. ~ 30~- Eas t Kate 11 e Wey ~ Mahe i m,
. ~79-11 CA 92802 and CLARENCE MEDDOCK, 5~15 Nasty Avenue~
-"---~" Daw~ey, CA 90240. AG~N7: MICHAEL YALEN, 733~
Grovewoad lane~ Orange, CA 92669. Pettttoner
requasts raclassiftcatton of property des c ~ibed as a rectangularly-shaped parce) of land
tonsisting of approximately 1.U acre having a frontage of eppro::imately 118 feet on the
west side of Mountairt View Avenue~ having a maximum depth of approximately 355 feet~
being locat~d approximately 3Q0 feet soutt: of thc centerline of Katella Way~ and further
described as 1825 and 1a2~1 South Mountain Vltw Avcnue, from th~ RS-A-43~OQ0 (RESIDENTIAL/
AGRICULTURAL) tONE to the CL (COMMERCIAL. LIMlTED) ~ONE.
There was no one Indicatiny their presence in opposit(on to subJect request~ and although
the staff report to the Planniny Commission dated August 14. 1978 was not read at tht
public hea~ing~ it is r~ferred to and made a part of ,~e minutes.
Henry Watton~ 1400 South aouglass~ A~aheim~ stated the Town Tour Fun Bus Company has
entered ;~to a contract with the O~anye Gounty Translt Oistrict to operate Dial-A-Ride and
this reclas5lficatton is nece.ssery- for future development.
TNE PUBLIC NEA~'tII~G WA5 CLOSCD.
Commissioner iting tndicated he felt the a ddress listed on the applicatton was tnca~rect,
noting the address should bc 1825 and 1i,2 9 South Mounta~n Vlaw Avenue rather than 1425 and
1~29 South Mountaln Yiew Avenue, and Mr. 1~atton replfed this was correct.
l1CTI0N: Cortmissioner hing offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Davtd anci MOTION
C~RRI+EU (Commissioner Tolar ,~eing absent) , that the Anaheim C1ty Planning Commisslon has
revtawed the proposal to rec~asstfy tfie zoning from RS-A-43.000 (Resldential/Agriculturai)
to CL (Commercial~ Limited) on a rectang ularly-shaped parcel of land consis:ing of
approximately 1.0 acre having a frc+ntage of approxlmately 11E feet on the west slde of
Mountaln Viaw Avenue. having ~ maximum de pth of appruximately 355 feet~ betng located
approximat3l~ 300 feet south o{` thc cente riine of Katella Way; and does he~eby apFrove the
Negative Declaration from the requireme~t to prepare an environmental impACt report on the
basis that th~ere would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental
impact due to the appraval of this Negative Declaration since the Anaheim Generai Pla~
designates the subJect property for comme rctal-recreatio~a) land uses cortmensurate with
the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are 6nvolved in the proQosal; that
the Inittai Study submitted by the petitioner tndlcates no signiaicant individual or
8/14/78
*.
~~.
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM GITY PLANNINC COMMiSS1eN~ nucusr i4~ ly 7~3 ]8-666
EIR NEGATIVE DECLAItATION AND RECLASSIFICATION NO~ 78•79-11_ (conttnued)
cumuletlve adverse envl~onmental impact~; and that tho Ne gattve Declsratton substantinti~g
the foreyoing findtn~a ts on ftle 1~ the Ctty of A~ahaim Planninq Qepertment.
Commisaloner King offered aesolution No. PC78-190 and mov e d for tts passage and adoptlon~
that thn Anehelm City Planning Cummtaslon does hereby gra nt Petittan for ReclAYSiflcetton
No. 78-79-11~ subJect to Inte~departmenta) Cammtttee recomn~ndetions.
On roll call~ the fore9otng resolutlan was pass~d by the Pollowtng vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS; BARNES~ DAVID~ HERaSI'~ JONNSON~ KING~ LiNN
NOES: COMMISSIONE~S: NOWE
ABSENT; COMHISSIONER5: TOLAR
1 TEM N0, 7 PUd L I C NE/1R I NG. 04/NERS ; DENN I S D. AND Sl1LLY f1NN
~t~.`~'~RICAL EXEMPTION-CLI155 3 ROGK~ 923 Ch(ppcws Avenue, Anaheim~ CA 92001.
NO,,.,,_ 35 Petit(oner requests WAIVCR OF MINIMUM OIMENSIONS
OF A TWO-CAR GARAGE Tq CONSTRUCT A 1W0-STQRY
AO~ITION AND GARAGE TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY
STRUCTURE on property described as a rectengu~arly-shaped parcel of land con~isting of
approxlrt~tely 676o square feet having e frontagc of approximately 65 feet on the wsst
slde of Chippewa Avenue~ having a maximum dnpth c,f approxima[cly 104 feet~ befng loc~eted
approxlmately 355 feet north of the centerlinc of Catalpa Avenuc~ and furtfier descrtbed
as 923 Chlppewa Avenue. Prope~ty presently classified RS- 720r~ (RESIDENTIAL~ SINGLE-
FAMILY) ZUNE.
There was one person indicattny her presence In oF ,osltion to subject request~ end
al though tf-c s tef f repart to the P 1 ann ( ny Comm t ss I on dated Augus t 14 ~ 197a was not reed a t
the publlc hearing, it is refe~red to and mede a part of t hc minutes.
Den~is 0. Rock, pe[Itloner~ was present to answer any que s tlons.
Barbara Edwards, 2201 North Redwood Street, Anaheim~ stated shc was pert owner of the
property at 932 No~th Ghippeywa Avenue and that her conce rn was the two-sto ry structure
proposed since it would be the only one In this neighborh ood.
Jay Tashiro, Associate Planner~ stated two•sx~ry structu~ es are ellowed ln the RS-7200
Zone if all code requtrer.ients are met and building permits are obtained and Planning
Commisslon approval is not necessar~y and this request ts being co~sidered by thr. Plenning
Comnisslan because the proposed garage does not meet the minimum standards of 20 feet by
20 feet~ and that they are proposi~g a 21-foot by 17-1/2- foot garage.
Cl~alrman Herbst explatned the garage propused is basically the samc size as the exts ing
garage and these structures were built before the present code req ulrements~ and the
petitloner wishes t~ maintain the same size garage and with cars getting srt+aller~ he could
proba6iy sti 1) park :wo cars in the garage.
TtSE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissloner King asked Mr. Rock if he had discussed this proposal with his next door
~eighbar~ and Mr. Rock replted the neighbor had agreed wit h the plan and it wauld provtde
more p~ivac~ for that p~operty since there would be no win daws on that side of the
addltion.
8/14/78
~4
MINUTES~ ANAItEtM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 14~ 1978 7$-667
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 A~tD VARIANGE N0. 303~ (continued)
It w~s noted th~t thn Planntny Dlrector or hia authorized raprosentattve has detcrmined
that the propoted p~oJect }alls wtthtn the definition of C~tagorlcal ~xemptlons~ Class 3~
•a dafinnd in para9rapt~ 2 of the City of Anahe(m E~vlronmentel Impact Report 6utdeltnes
and is. th@refore~ categorically exempt trom the requlr~nt to p~epere an EIR.
ACTION: Canmisstoner Linn offered Rosolution No. PC7@-191 ~~d moved for tts passsge ~nd
e~op ron, that the Ansheim City Plann~ny Commission does heraby grant Patltfon for
Vartance No. 3035 on tha basis that code requirements were met when the proporty was
origi~ally dev~loped end due to the size end sh~pe of subJect pr~perty. and subJect to
Interdepartmental ~onmltCRe recomne~datfons.
On rol) cell~ the foregoing resolutlun was passed by the follvwing votet
AYE5; COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ OAVID~ HERBST~ JOHNSON~ KING~ LINN
NOES: COMNIaSI0NER5: NONE
ABS~NTt CQMHIS510NERS: TOLAR
ITEM N0. fi PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS; NEFMAN D. AND
~t'~;~~RICAL EXEMPTION-CLASSES b ~ JUDIT~I M. YOUNGY~EtT~ 93~ South Emerald Straet~
. 3 Anahet m, CA g290~+. Pet i t toner requests
WAIVER OF (A) M~XIMUM FENCE HEIGHT ANQ (D)
MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK TO COlISTRUCT A REDW000
FENCE on p~operty descrlbed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land canststing of approxl-
mately 6000 square fe~t having a frontage of apnroximately 60 fc~t on the e~st side of
Emerald Street. having a mt~ximum depth of approxlmAtely 104 feet~ betng locatad approxl-
mately 450 feet south of the c~nterline Qf Bea. Avenue. and further clesc~ibed as 93~
South Emerald Street. Property p~esentiy ciasstfied RS-72Q0 (RESIDENTI~L~ SINGLE-FAMILY)
ZONE.
There was no one indlcating their presence in opposit(on to subJect request~ and although
the staff report co the Planning Comnlsston dated Auguat 14~ 1973 was not ~ead at the
pubiic hearing~ It (s rcferrcd to and made a part of the minutes.
Herman Youngkeit, petitioner~ indicated he wlshes to construct e swlrr~mtng paol a~nd needs e
variance for a 6-foot htgh fence and pointed out there ~s no rocxn tn the back yard for the
P~~ •
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEO.
Commissioner Kiny asked the petiti~ner if he had discussed thls proposal with hts
neighbors and he rcplted that he had and that they w~re all in ~~ reement.
It was noted that the Planning Director o~ his authortzed representative has determined
that the p~oposed proJect falls wtthin the definitian of Catagorical Exemptions~ Classes 3
and 5, as defined in paragraph 2 of tt~e City af Anaheim Environmental Impact Report
Guidellnes and is. therefore~ categorlcally exanpt from the requirement to prepare an EIR.
ACTION: Commisstoner King offered Rasolutian No. -'C78-192 and mcved for its passage and
a~optTon~ that the Anaheim Clty Planning Cammission does hereby g~ant Petition for
Variance No. 3~38 on the basis that the 6-foot high fence is necessary for safety for the
swtmming poo) and will not restrict vistbility alony the street; that the 20-foot drtveway
is existing and met previous code requirertients; and su6Ject to interdepartmenta) Comnittee
~ecorm~endatlons .
8/14/78
~.
MINUTES. ANANEIM CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSION~ AUGUST 1k, 1978 78-66$
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASSES 3 6 y AND VARIANCE N0. 3038 (co~tinued)
On roll call. the foreyolnq resolution was passed by the following votc:
AYES: COMMISSIOIJERS: BARNl:S~ QAVIU~ HER~ST~ JONNSON~ KINf,~ l.It~N
NUES: COMMISSIU~lERS: NONE
ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS; TOL/~R
ITEM N0. ~ PUDLIC NEl1RII~G. OWNERS; RUTII AND ARNOLD
E R CA EGORICAL EXEftPTIQN-CIASS 1 FEUERSTEIN and JAMES M. ANU H~LENE G. FEUERSTEIN~
. ~ 2293 West Ball Rnad, Anaheim~ CA 928p4. Af,ENT;
INTCRNATIc1NAl, PI.ANT GRAWERS, 28GS East Coast
Highway~ k30~, Corona Dcl Mar~ CA 92fi2$. Pe~t'ioner
requests WAiVER OF (A) REQUIRFMENT '~H~T ALL USES SNALL BE CONOtJCTED WHOLLY WITHIN A BUILU-
I NG ~(D) M 1 N I MUM STRUCTUR/1L S ETI3ACK ~ Ar~u (C) M I f~ I MUM 5 ETBIICK LANDSCAP 1 NG ~ TO PERM I T OUTDOOR
DISPIAY OF PLANT MA.TERIE~LS on propercy described as a rectangulerly-shaped pArcel of land
consisting of epproxtmately 0.4 acre located at the northwest corner of Ball Road and
Brookhurst Street, havtng app~oximate frontages of 12f3 feet o~ the north side of aall Roed
and 150 feet on the west s(de of Brookhurst Street~ and fu~th~r descrtbed as 9~+9 Brookhurst
Street. Property presently classlfied CL (CdMMERCIAL, LIMITED) ZONE.
There was no one indlceting thetr presence in oppos(tion to subJect request~ and although
the steff report to the Planntng Cortmission dated August 14~ 1q78 was ~ot read at the
public hearing, it is referred to and n~ade a part of the minutes.
Eugene Lay~ 11~232 Sprir.ydale~ HunCinyton 6aach~ stated he wants to put ~a greenhause on the
gas station lot~ bvt accorciing to code reyulrements no outdoor ci!srlay is allpwed.
Cl~atrman Herbst esked M~. Loy if he had revicwed the staff report~ and he replied he had
not. Chairman Herbst suggested conside~attAn of this mattcr be tabled until after the
petit(oner had revicwed thc staff ~eport.
After constderation of item No. 10~ Mr. Loy indlcated F~e was not prepared to comment on
the cond~tlons imposed in the staff report and requesteJ a two-week .onttnuance.
ACTION: Commissioner kiarnes offered a motio~. seconded by Commissioner David and NOTl~N
~RRIED (GommisslonPr Tolar bei~g absent)~ that the aforement(oned itr~n be continued to
the regularly sched~.,~~d meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Comnission of August 28~
1978~ at the request of the petitioner.
Chairman Herbst polnted out to the pecttioner that ttie Ptanning Commission has becn very
adamant about the rehabilitation of' service stations, requtring that they be upgraded~ and
they have not devlated from the coda requirements and have not allowed any uses similar to
this.
L. ~ 4/78
~~
4
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 14~ 1g78 ~8•669
ITEM N0. 10 PUBLIC H~ARING. QWNERs ELIZAQETH SCHAFER~ 1500
~~J~'~~RICAL EXEMPTtON-CLASS 1 West Broaciwey~ Anahelm~ CA 92a02. ACENTs REV.
ONO l RMi 0. 2 RO~ERT L. EDWARDS~ 9~i3 South Devid~ Anaheim~ CA
92802. Petitioner requests permission to RETAtN
NINE BEC111VE5 on property descrtbod es ~n
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxlmately 1.~ acres locsted between
Broadway and Gllbuck Drive~ having approxtmate frontoges oP 23g feet on the south side
of Drosdway snd 198 feet an the east s(de of Gllbuck Orive, being located npproximately
2S4 feet east of ttie ccnterline of Gilmar Stre~t, end further descrtbed as 1500 Nnst
draedway. Property presently classlfled RS-A-43~OQ0 (RESIOENTIAL/AGRICULi'URAL) AND
RS-5000 (RESIQENTIAL~ SINGLE-FAMILY) 20NE5.
Therr were two persons Indicatiny their presence tn opposttlon to subJect request~ and
alchough the staff report to the Planning Commissinn deted Auqust 14~ 1978 was not read at
the public hearing~ {t is reterrcd to and made a part of the minutes.
Reverend Robert Edwards~ agent~ stated he was representing Mrs. Elizeb~th Schefer~ he
owner~ ind polnted out she has lived at this property end maintaine~ bees st thts 1 cetlon
slnce 1921~ Instead of 1925 as indicated in ti~e staff report. He Indicated Mrs. Scr-afer~
who is over 90 years old, is present.
Harold Torborg, 1500 West Elm Street~ Anaheim~ stated his prope~ty ts dtrectly meross the
street from the beehives and his biggest obJection is that he has a Jacuzzi and elrn~,t;
every day he has to spray tn order to use tt because of bees~ and in the mor~ing his
child~en cannot play in his ya~d because the bees are attracted to the sprinkler system.
Chatrman Herbst askcd haw long this problem has existed, and Mr. Torborg replied this is a
new houstng dcveloprtsent and has becn there for one year.
TNE PUEiLII. HEARING WAS CLQSEO.
Commt ss toner K! ng asked Revcrend Edwards i f the bees be ionge~f t;~ t~ im or Mrs . Sct;afer~ and
Reverend Edwards replled they belonged to him; that he did know th~:re are people in thr
new housing tract and other pcople in the vicinicy who havc bCe~ a~~d it would be hard to
determine whos~ bees are ceusing these problems. Nr. staCed bce5 arc necessary for
pollinatto~ of Mrs. Schafer's trees, from which ~hc~ derlves rndst of h~r livelihood. He
indicated he has had these bees for about five ye~rs ~nd he hr~d ob~atnt~d them from Mrs,
Schafer beceuse she was unable to maintain ttiem a~y la:~ger due to her age.
Chair-nan I~erbst asked if nine htves ts the maximum r~urt~Escsr uf hiw~s he wi I1 keep at this
property, and Reverend Edwards replied that he had had 30 hives c~n the property~ but that
the builders of the new tract had requested that he ~emc~ve ther, and he npw has e(ght
hives and he would like to keep the hives as long as M~s. Schaf~r is an the property since
she relies on her trees for he~ livelthood and the bees pollinat~ the trees.
Chairman Herbst stated bees are a part of our cor~munity and they pollinatc many things~
and this property owner has had her homc and has lived there far many ye.ars and has been
encroached upon by the tra~t~ and the bees are necessary t~ her Iivelihand. Ne 3tated he
remembered reading in the paper where a city in Washington or Orego~~ ~rhtch depends upon
bees very much and considers them ve ry valuable a~d an asset tfl their cc>mmunity. t~as
actually created speed limtts to cause cars ta slow down so that the he~es w~uld nat be
killed by high speeds, and he felt thls is a stmilar situation and the condition~l uss
pe nnit should be granted and reviewed yearly for as long as the currenx prvpe~ty owner
remains on the property.
8/14/78
~.
~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMiSSION~ AUGUST 14~ 1978 78-6~0
~IR CATEGORICAI EXEMPTION-GLASS 1 AND COND1710NA1 USE PERMIT M0. l67~ (tontinue~)
Commltslan~r Barnea indicated she ayreed with ~halrman Nerbst si~ce this was not e naw
request; that someone else saking to ba allawed ta keep bees when there are houses
exlsting in the area would bo a different sltuetion~ but this prapnrty awner h~s been on
the property for a long tim~ and h~s ha~d th~ bees Par e+ l~n~ time. She indlcated she
understends the problems which the ~dJacent awners are oxperie~ciny and did not reelize
sprlnklers ettractnd bees.
Ca-+missioner Joh~son stated he felt this wes ~ claasical cxampl~ of "grandmoCher or
grandfather rtghts" versus something bordertng on a nulsance. Ne indicat:ed he would have
to loan to the rlghts of the indivtdual who has had the bees for many ycers and the bees
were probably there when the adJacent owners moved ln and he could sympachlze with them~
b~~~ would be in favor of the c:ondiklonal use permit bcing allavcd, subJect to yeerly
revlew.
It was noted thAt thc Planning Dlrector or h~s ~uthorized represc~tative has determined
that the proposed proJcct falls within the u~finitton af Categortc,al Exemptlons, C~ass 1~
as defined in parsgrapli 2 uf tfie City of Anat~cim Cnvironmental Impect Report Guldellnes
and is~ therefore, cateyorlc~lly exempt f~om the requirement ta prepare an E~R.
ACTION: Commissloner Johnson Affcred Resvlutlon Nfl. PC78-193 and moved for its passage
a~option, that the Anahelrn Glty Planntng Cortmission does hereby grant Petitton for
Co~dttlonal Use Permit No. 1872~ subJect to yearly revi~w and ltmited to a maxtmum af nine
htves~ since the bees have been kapt on the property for over 5~ years~ and subJect to
InterJepartmenta) Committee recommendations.
On roll call~ Che foregoing resotution was passed by thc foll~ving vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES. UAVID~ NERBST, JOIINSON~ KING~ LINN
NOES : COMMI I SS I ONERS : NONE
AtiSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 70LAR
RECESS There aas a five•minute recess at 3:10 p.m.
_..__.__
RECONVEt~E The rr~eetin~3 w~s reconvened at 3:15 p.m.~ ail Gartmissioners being present
--s except Corm~tssioner 7olar being absent.
8~1~~78
.
~
M I NUTES ~ ANA~IE I M C I TY PLANN I NG CQM + I 5 S I Q1~ ~ AUGUST 14 ~ 19 78 78-G 71
ITEM N0. 11 PUbLIC NCARING. OWNER: wINSTON ASSOCIATES~
E~it C~ATEGOR~CAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 Ia33 South Stete Col{ege BoulevArd~ Anelielm~ CA
~ ~ ~ g2a06. AGENTs NOEL M. BAILCY~ 1321 Sirr~son
Circln~ llneheim~ CA g2806. Petitioner requesta
permissian to ES1'AOL1511 RETAIL SALES OF FURNITURE
IN TNf. ML ZONE oM property described as an irregularly-shaped parce) of iand consisting
of approximately 0.4 acre loceted et the cul-de-sac terminus of Simpson Circle~ heving
a frontege af approximetely 110 feet on the west side of Simpson Circle~ having e maxlmum
dopth of approximately 157 feet~ being locdted appr~, .metely 392 fset north of the
centnrline of Wlnston RoAd~ and furcher described as 1321 Simpson Circle. Property
presently clesslfied ML (INDUSTRIAL~ LIMITED) ZONE.
There was no one i~dicating their presencc in oppasitio~ to subJect request, and although
the steff report to the Plenning Conmisslon dated August 14, lald was not read at thP
public hearing~ it is referred to enJ na de a part of the m(nutrs.
8111 Nuisman~ representing the agent. steted they are requesting a conditione) use permtt
in order to bc able co sell retall f~cxn thefr present facillty; that thcy have
epproximstely 10~000 square feet and sell wholesele to dlfferent d~signers and decorators;
that they obtained signatures of surrounding busi~ess operators and they had no obJectlons
to this us~; that they have ndequate parkiny and adequatP facilities for handiing the
retatl operation.
TtiC PUl3LIC HEARI~~G WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Barnes ssked how long thcy have been In busfness at this locat(on and (f they
had plans to sell retail when they ariylnally opened the bustness~ and M~. Huisman stated
they had apened In May of 1977 to sell wholesale and that in order to Instigate a larger
volume~ felt they need the r~tall opere~tion; that they tike the locatton and feel it ts
adequete and they have no destre to change locations.
Gommisstoner Barnes explained that in the psst the Pl~nntng Commisslon has had~ and is
stil) having~ a hard time keepin9 cocrrnerclal uses where they belony and out of the
(ndustrlal araas; that ~ study is beiny conducted to look At this more closely and she~ as
one Cortmissioner~ wtll not vote for a commerclal use in an industrlal zone unless it i,
deflnltely a related servlce to the indust~ial area since there is so much vacant
commerclal property available; that zoni~g codes arr for the pur~ose of keeping
como~e~rcial uses in commerctal areas and industrial uses in industrtal areas; that In
order to c~eate a tax base and have lower taxes for the people i~ Anaheim~ ~ nice
industria! a~ea is needed for indastrialists~and cammercial users are needed in commercial
areas; and that tndustrial areas have to be protected because an industrlalist comtn~ into
an area and seeing retai) comrn~rcial sales wtl) not settle there because they have had
problems in the past, and felt for all the ~e~ple (n Mahelm it ls ve ry important that the
industria! areas be protected.
M~. Huisman stated the businesxes located around them are not really heavy industrial;
that there Is a carpet warehouse directly behind them and they display their goods; that
there is a tile operation with a sma11 shawroom where dealeis select ttle; and that he
does nat feel :heir operatio~ will be a hindrance in any way to any large industry and he
did not think a large industry wauld locate here since the area is moatly for warehouse
purposes.
Chalrman Herbst stated furnlture werehouaing is allowed in the i~dustrtal area, but that
the retall use involved that would require advertising of retail furniture to b~tng in the
ordinary homeown~r~ public-type customer does not belon~ fn an industrlal a~ea; that the
ai~a~~a
~
79-672
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMyISSION, AUGUST 14~ 1978
EIR GATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-ClASS 1 AND CONOITIONAI USE PEaMIT N0, 1873 ~contfnued)
_.r._...- .-
treffic patterns create an incompatibla use with tha truck routes~ etc.; that a tlle
dealer bringing In dealers is a wholesale type operation a~~d is not bringtng in the
gone~al publlc; that a heavy retati fu~niture sc4re does b~ing in the ge~erai public ancl
should be {n a cornmertla) area; that Lhis ts a cul-de-sac street and ts nr~t a heevlly-
trswoled street and this typc of us~, bclongs where the general public can see~~etstatnd t
in a~ industrlbl area where it will craate en tncompattble treffic pattern.
psople do apply for wholesale permits~ usiny ~he tarm "wholesnle" when they a~e raally
ratatl~ but thet some of them are ctted for violations by the Zontng Enforcement Offlcer.
Comntssloner Llnn stated that other furniture stores in other areas have been allowed on
arter{al streets or whore there are+ ~ther c~rrmercial users on tihe street and that r-~aybe
the raning Is lnc~arrec:c and somc of these arcas shouldGb~ul~e~C"~c'~~siJ~redicvcncremotely
sac street and not an arterlal street and~ (n no way~
a s comrt~e r c i a 1.
(t was note~ that Che Planning Director ~r liis authorized representatlve has deteClassdl~
that the proposed proJect folls within tl~a Jefi~ition of Categortcal Exe~mptions,
~s deflned In pareg Cate ?r~cally exemptffrom the requlrement~to1prePareeanrElRutdelines
and I~~ therefore~ yo
ACTION: Commissl~ner David offered Resolution I~o. PG7~-19~- and moved for its pess~ge and
a~op~t~on~ that thc Anaheim City Planning Comnisslon daes hereby deny Pettcton for
Cnnditional Use P~~m~eate•trafficnpatterns'inccxnpat`ibleiwlth theuareaal area and the
proposed use woul c
No~1 Balley~ partner~ asked lf it m~de eny difference concerniny the radlus from the
facility a~d the attitude of the people of the adJacent businesses. and Chairmt~n 1lerbst
replied the Pl~nniny Commissian i~ cancerned w(th land use tn the overall Industrial
commu~ity (Commissloner ~arnes pointed out the present bustness operators may move).
Cha(~man Nerbst continued that there are places for furniture stores~ recognizing they
nePd warehAUSing space~ but other operat(ons have turned that warehouse space Into retail
space wlthout the Planniny Comnissi~n's knowledge and are operating illegally; that he (s
concernec7 abuut the inteyrity of tt~e industrial area and many commercial areas are
deteriorating ~ue to lack of bus(ness.
M~. -.~iley stated that In ttie irtmedlate area he knows there are a loc of businesse~ that
have stgns indicating they are open to the public and wondered haw they had gotten
approval.
Chairman Herbst stated he was also curious about this and how it has hap~ened, and the
Zoning Enforcement O~:icer is trying to make that determinatiun.
Mr. Bailey statandhitkseems~tpn~ef~nconsistent,xo havcha code whlchtlsndiscrlminatory pen
to the public~
unless there ls some sort of a date cut-off.
Chairman Nerbst stated he has been on the Commission far 1~ y~ars and furniture stores
and/orione~euseatermit~.otf~e~stated,he knowshthereaaredanftwbalong,sarr~dofitheuarterial
condit P
highways~ but he has never voted for one.
Mr. Bailey referred to Superior Furniture on State Colieqe ~oulevard.
Chai•rmen He~bst stated somee ofiretailntrade byaright~ tHeista edmheuiscconcerneddabout
allawed a certain percen g
8/14/78 '
_....., .. . -
~
~.
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 14~ 1978 78-673
EIR GATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND GONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1873 (co~tinued)
what is happening and the Plsnn(ng Comnisslon is tiy-ng to do somethtng about It; that
some operato~s apply for a buslness license under Lf~~ qulse of 'tivholesale" end the
Planning Commission does not see the ~equest and Aro only awa~e of the prablem when they
see a slgn.
Mr. Belley stated they heve enJc+yed s good wholesale bu~iness and heve operated
lagltimately~ but ere disturbed when they see others tn the ~rea~ such as Super(or
Furntture~ which ts a lerger facility with less pa~king than theirs~ and ts open ta tho
public.
Chelrmsn Ilerbst stated he appreclated Mr. Bailey's coimx5nts en~l tlic Planning Comnlssion
feels the same wey and is try(ny to do somethtng about this situation.
On roll call~ che fo~eg~ing ressolution was passnd by the follawtng vate:
AYES: COMMISSIONCP,S: BARNES~ DAVIQ, HERBST~ JOFINS0~1, KING~ LINN
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT : COMF11 SS I Ot~ERS : TOLAR
Annika Santalahti explalned that part of the problem has bcen the definicic,n of the term
"wholesale" and the City Attorney ts preparing a definition af "wholesale" which wtil be
included on the business license application and will specifically tndicete what the
petitioners' rights s~e and they will not be ~ble to clatm they did not know they could
not sell to th^ general publ(c,
Mr. Balley pointed out xhere was a location on Kreemer aff the frecway that he had almost
leased and when he had inyuired about the usage of the property~ it was made very clear it
would strictly be wholesale; and that he had found another locatlon which he liked and
within 30 days anather furnitu~e store haJ leased that proper[y on Kraemr.r and it ts now
open to ~he public~ and It has been within thc last yeer.
Chairman Herbst polnted out the City is eware of this operation.
Jack White~ Deputy City Attorney~ presented the petitioner with the written right to
appeal the Planning C~mniss(on's decision to the Clty Council within 22 days.
Commissioner Johnson stated he finds it very embarrassing Nhen these types of situations
arlse~ and he hoped a stronger policy could be speeded up. Ne felt when the "ntce guy"
trtes to da things right and is Lurned down and others go ahead and do it tllegally, It is
dory embarrassing and Is not proper.
Annika Santalahti stated she hoped the new defin!tion is very clear and petttione~s cannot
say thtly cio not understand, and ii would probably be fn effect in a month.
Chalrm~n Herbst polnted out to Mr. 8aiiey he wes sorry the Planntng Commisslon could not
help him (n this situation and that~ hopefuily, they are not dtscrim(nating against h!m
and the other illeyal operations wil) be taken care of~ and Mr. Bailey replted he hoped
that was the situation.
8/14/78
MINUTES~ nNAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 14~ 1~76 Jg_67y
ITCM N0. 12 PU~LIC NEARINf,. OWNER; SOUTFICRI~ PACIFIC TRl1N5•
~t~~lE DECLARATIUN PORTATION CO.~ 610 Soutli Maln StrPet~ Los Angeles~ CA
OQE E UIREM NTS 90Q1~+. Afk~i75: 1JESSELN CONSTRUCTION CO.~ INC.~ dba
. 18J4 NALT TAYLOR I,UMBER COMPANY~ 1J17 Wesc Lincoln Avenue,
A~ahelm~ CA 92~01 nnd TAIT b ASS4CIATES~ If~C.~ P. 0.
Box Wb25~ Anaheim~ C~ 92r~0i. Petlt(oner requests
permission to ESTA9L151I A lUMf1ER YARU WITIi WAIVER OF ~A} MINIMUM LANDSCAPED SETDACK~
(a) MAXIMUM ~ENCE HE.tGI1T~ ANU (C) MINIMUM SITC SCRECI~INR on propcrty descrlbed as an
trreyularly-shaped parcel of land conslstin,y af approxlmately 2.6 acres hav(nc~ dpproximate
frontages of 140 feet on the nortt~ side of Ellsworth Strect~ ~i0; Pept on the south stde of
Santa M a Street~ 150 fee[ on the east stde of Claudina Street~ ond 130 feet on the west
side of Ollve Street. Propcrty prtsently clnssified ML (INDIISTkIAL, LIMITF.D) Zf1NE.
ThEre were a~~prvximately four persons indlcating thelr prese.nce In opp~sltion to subJect
request, nnd although thp scAff re~ort to tfie Plnnnin~ Cormnission datecl August t~i~ 197~
was not rcad at the public heariny, it is referrcd to and made a part of thc m(nutes.
Hank Wesseln~ 93~2 Thistle Road, An~heim~ pointed out che size af thc property ts 2.G
acres rather than 3.2 acres as indtcated in tl~e: stafF report.
Vincent Tock~ engineer with Tait b Associates, Inc.~ rPferrecl to the condition conccrning
street lighttng and potnted aut straet lights are already extsting~ and Chairman Herbst
~eplied if the lights are in and paid for~ thcre wtll be nu further charge.
Connfe Mendaza~ 30t; East Ellsworth~ Anaheim, stac~d she 1(Yes directly across the street
from the lumbcr yard which ls already in existe~ce and has a dllapidated wire fence wlth
some broken redwood slets~ with many of them mtss(ny; that the lumber is stacked in
lrregular piles 10 to 15 feet hlyh~ clearly vlstble ovcr thc fence~ an~ this is what she
looks at out of her livfny room window. She stattd shc was uneble to understand why
anyone on that street would want to upqradc his propcrty~ even with tFie low interest loens
being ofFered, and also I~aw che City of Anaheirn wouid spend milllons of dollars on
constructlon of a new civic center and at the seme time permit an eyesore such as this
lumber yard to exist withln ane block of the civic center; that other citles have been
able to use ratiroad lands to beautify poor neighborhoods (e.g.~ La Habra) bY convertl~g
the railroad property into playgrounJ areas o~ parks. She stated there are numerous
chlidren on this street who need a place to play because thry are naw playing in the
str~et. Sne stated Fullerton has cleaned up the railraad property near the new o~~^.rpass
at leman Street and it has become a very ntce open arca which has improved the a~.:a
wtthout much expense. She stated if the lumber yard remalns~ she wi11 immedlately apply
for permisslon to construct a 6-foot high fence with no landscaping around her front yard
to avoid looking at this eyesore and would exprtt permission be granted~ ar.d she stated
she knav of several athier people who live on the street who would make the same request.
Mr. Tock stated they plan to repair tfie fence on [he: EllswArth Street frontage and Also
there are approximately four or fiva large trees which should help shield the activitles
of the yard~ and the height of the stacked lumber will be restrtcted ko 12 feet htgh ln
the m(ddle of the ya~d and near the fence the lumber will be stacked no higher than 6
feet.
TNE PUBLIC HE.~RING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Ktng pointed out the Traffic Engineer has rec~mmended that the existing gate
be set back 35 feet from Claudtna Street to provide for a stack-up a~ea, and Mr. ToGk
replied they have not yet determined whether or not they wtll actually use this gate~ but
they wili comply with the City '~raffic Engineer's recatimendations.
si~ai~a
~
~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 14~ 1978 78-67y
~la N~GATIVE QCGLI~RATION AND CONDITIONAL U,E' PERMIT N0. 187N (cnntinued)
Chalrmen Nerbst stated he racoynlxes this property ad)acent to the ra!Iroed Is going to be
used for e storage yerd f~r a long time~ but f~e saw no reason wh;~ it could not be brought
up to the nurmel site screeniny standprds and scxne landsceping prov(ded so that It will at
least be ccxnpatible with tl~e area. He referr~d to tha Ganahl lumber yard on 9a11 Raad
wlth 1"l-foot hlgh scrcon(ng~ which does an effectlve job.
Mr. Tock stated he cauld agree wtth the consider~ble screening alonc~ Ellsw~rth Street
since it fronts resiclenttal structures~ but the otlier frontoyes abut either industr(al
uses~ the City yard~ or other lurnber yarJs ~+nd he could ~ot see any ressan for screening
those frontayes~ but would ec~ree with eddltlonal screening along Cllsworth. He stated tl~e
petittoner w~uld be willing to landscape the Ellsworth frontagc to the end of the
rasidentlal lots~ but could see nn reesun ur purpose to landscape thc other fronta~es,
Commissioner King state~l t~e had visited thc propert and his feeltngs cancerntng hardships
were: 1) the lacati~ii an~ shape. of the propcrty; 2~ tf~c property would be deprivcd of
privlleyss enJoyeJ by others in the arefl; 3) concerning landsceptnc~, non~ of the ad)oining
properties have ~ feet of lanclscaping and the Clty pr~perty 4n both sides of Claudina does
nat have landscepin~; 4) fence heighc - a yood 6-fcx~t, chalnlink fP.hCC surrounds the
property~ (s feet hiyh In sane placcs~ ~inJ the lumber yard an the north side of Santa Ana
Street h~is a G-foot hiyh, chainilnk fence with no ~la~~s and approximately 10 stacks of
lunber h(yher tl~an G feet; 5) thc pronerty to tl~e ~outhwest corner of Senta Ana Street and
Claudina Street has a 5'foot hic~h fencc at tlic property linc with no slats~ and the City
property on Claudlna 5treet has fenc.~s at tl~c pronerty lines, and it would not make sense
to remove the F~-foot high fence; anJ 6) screeniny - no propertfes in thP area have 12•foot
fences~ the highest beiny 3 feet~ ~~hich is Llty property.
Commissioner l3arnes stated Anaheirn is in the process of red~vel~pment to beautify downtawn
Anahelm and should be taking an interest in aesthetic values ancl these property owners
have suffered for a long tirne because of no lan~fscapin~. She felt this (s the tlme to
start upyrading tfie area~ at least one area at a'.lme- as appiications are received. She
polnted out if this were a new use rather than Just a different comp~ny~ all these things
would be required~ and she felt the landsc~ped setbacks should be reGuired.
Mr. 7ock rnplied that they would be willing to move the fence back ~ feet and put ln
lendsceping all along E11sNarth because it is a residentia) strcet. bu[ he did not se:e any
reason for landscapiny along tfie othr.r street frontac~es hecause i[ would serve no purposa
since they are adJacent to industrial uses and rail~oad property.
Chairman Herbst stated this sane arsument had been used 15 Years ayo~ that landscaping
would serve no purpose Ir~ the industrial cmm~unity, but that the larger industrialists are
putting ln more landscaping and beautificati~n tf,an required slnce they have found it does
benefit the conmunity. Ne stated this is an oid area which has been developed for many
years~ but the Plan~ing Commission has to start someplace to uP9rade the area and fe1C the
industrial integrity of this area must ~e protected. He painted out another user ~n the
area ( Qwikset) has (mproved their area. Ne indicated he reali2ed this property would
probably remain a storage yard forever because of the nature of the parcel~ but it should
be made as nice as possible and brought up to code now and maybe the neighbors w111
upgrade their properttes an,1 sug~esteci the railroad company should participate in
upgrading the property.
Annika Santalahti explained ttie previous lumber ya~d on this property was established
illegaily and staff had allowed it to remain since they had indicated it was a temporary
use and they would be relocating and that they have stacked lumber higtier than the 6-foot
high f~nce~ causing problems~ afte~ stipulating to stack no higher than 6 feet.
8/14/78
_,. .. _ _ -_~_.,~.,. •,'I
MINUTES~ AN~HEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 14~ 197a 78-~7E
EIR NECATIV~ DECLARATION AND CONpiT10NA~ USC PERMIT N0. 1874 (conttnucd)
Commissioner D~vid asked (f thls aperat(o~ was related to the operatton ta the north of
Santa Ane Streel (Ganahl)~ end Mr. Tock replied they are separotc usPs~ end Comm(saloner
David pointed out no va~tences were grartted for this property.
Chairman Ilarbst stated qome of these opsrattons were estebltshed p~lor ta the codea betng
adoptod and were there by "grendfathPr rights~" and Ccxnmtssioner Davtd pointed out Ga~ahl
had movod there recently and wrnted this checked Into by stAff.
M~. Tock explalned the mep shows a reilroad spur on the south side of the property
a~dJ~cent to the C(ty yard end stated that spur was taken ouC samo years ago~ however~
'here is a spur on the Sente Ana Street frontagc: and thcy intcnd to use tt fvr ofF-loading
of lumber end quite often there wtll be railroad cars park~d thPrr.
Tl~e Camrtilssion discussed their aesires rCgarding where the 12-fooc h(gh chainlink fence
with redwood slats and the ~-foot landscaped setback should be locatc:d ta provide the
proper screeniny~ and it was the genera) consensus pf opinton that it would be necessary
along Claudina except where tt~e gate would be located and alony Ellsworth Streec adJacent
to the single-family residentlal structures, and ~rra~ped around the corners on Santa Ana
fram Claudlna in order to provicle adequate screening.
Commtssloncrs BArnes and l.inn tndlcatecJ they would support the use~ but would opp~se any
watvcrs.
Chairman Nerbst dld not feel 18ndscaping wa~ld be nacessary along Santa Ana Street because
of the rallroad~ and Mr. Tock pointed wt the frontage on Santa Ana Street would be elmost
al) gates in order to accommodate the ratlroed cars~ and he did not think Igndscaping
should be required there. Ne also polnted out tl~e fence will be set back 15 feet from the
original lihe. It was noted the spur ts located at the property line.
Mrs. hkndoza asked what the lumber company plan~ed to do wtth the slnyl~-family h~use they
bought on Ellsworth Street~ wondertng if they planncd to convert it to an offtc•.• or public
building, r~nd Chalrman I~erbst replied chat (f they wished te canvert the dwelling
structure~ Planning Cortrmission approval would be necessa~y.
Cammissloner 8arnes pointed aut the landscaped areas would have to have th~ proper
irrigation systerns and would have cn bc ~ro{~~rly maintai~ed so that they would be a
beneftt to the community.
M~. Wesseln pointed out the City-owned pro~erty has fences on the property lines wtthout
~the proper fencing or landscapi~g anJ felt if he is required to comply wtth these
requirernents~ th~ Gity should also be required to abide by the same rules.
Commissloner David asked if the City Zoning Enforr.ement Officer would see that these
vialations are taken care of~ and Chairman Herbst replied that many of these properties
have "grandfather rtghts" and until they r~gu~st a change for the p roperty~ nnthing ca~ be
done.
Cornmtsslonr.r Sarnes stated the City is treated as a private citizen and if this use was
estabitshed before the ordinances and they have "grandfather rights" and as long as they
do not ask for any additions or improvements~ they are considered to be Ieyal~
nonconforming uses. but that if they car~e b~fore the Planning Cortmfssfan~ they wili be
required to a~ide by the sarr-e regutations.
ACTION: Commissioner Johnson offered a motion~ seconded by Commtssioner King and NOTION
~D (Commission~r Tolar being absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has
8/14/78
~ !
111NU1'ES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 14~ 1978 78,~77
EtR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.^ 1$1l~ (conttnued)
revlQwed the p~oposal to permit a lumber yt+rd wlth w~ivers of mintmum le~dscaped setbeck~
maximum fenct hetght~ and minimum site sc~nentng on an (rreyularly-shaped parcel of lond
con~tsting of approxirnetely 2.6 acres having approximate frontAges of 1~+0 feet on the
north slde oP E{lsworth Street, 4~S Peet on the south stde of Santa Ana Street~ 150 feet
an the east side of Claudina Street~ anJ 13~ feet on chc west sid~ of Olive Street; ~nd
does hereby app~ove the ~~egat(ve Declardtton from the ~equ(rement to prepare an
envlronmental impact repc~rt on the basis that tliero would be no significant tndivtdual or
cumulative adverse envlronmental Impact due to the ep~roval of tt~is Ne~ative Declaretion
since the Anohefm General Plan d~titgnates the subJect pr~pr.-ty for general industrlal land
uses commensurate with the proposal; that no se~sitive envlrnnmental tmpacts are involved
in the proposal; th~t the Initiai Study submltted by the petitloner indicatcs no
s(ynlficant individual or cumulative adverse envlro~rrMnt~l impacts; and that the Neget(ve
Declaratlon SubStAnL1ACInc~ che foregofng findlnqs is on filc tn the City of AnAheim
Planning Departmcnt.
Comm(ssionar Johnsc~n ~ffereJ u motion~ seconded by Commissloner Davld and M~TION CARRIED
(Gornmisslaner Tolar bcing absent)~ that tl~c Anahelm Clty Pianning Gortm~ission does he~eby
grant waiver (a) in part, walving the required landscaped setback along Santa Ana Street
only beceuse existing Southern PacEfic Railroad Company tracks would separate the setback
from the street ancl tlie landscapiny would not be vlsiblP frorn the strcet when railroad
cars were present, and thc walver is denied along tlie other street frontages where 5-foot
wlde, landscaped setbacks shall be pravided except at the entrance gate; that w~+lver (b)
is hereby denied and all fenciny shall be set back a minimum ~f 5 feet from adJacent
publlc streets; and that waiver (c) is hereby granted~ in part~ permttting G-foot high
fences along only tt~e property lines which abut the other (~dustrfal p~opertles and the
Southern Pacific Rallroad Company right-of•wAy at the northeast ond southwest sides of the
property~ and in order to protect adJacent and ne~rby residential uses~ a 12-foot high,
chainllnk fcnce with w~ooden slats 5ha11 be pr~vided to fully screen the stored lumber from
Claudina~ Santa Ana, an~1 Ellsworth Strr.ets, and the 12-fc~t higt~ fencina shall be extended
approxirnately 1~ feet easterly fram Claudina 5treet along the south property line~
approximetely 110 feet nartherly from Ellsworth Street along the west property line~ and
approximately 100 fcet northerly from Ellsworth Street along Olive Street.
Commissio~er Johnson offered Resolution No. PC73-1)5 and ~noveci for its passage and
adoptio~~ that the Anahei~n City Pianning Cortmisslon does hereby yrant Petitio~ for
Conditlonal Use Permit No. 1a14~ in part, sub}ect to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations.
On roll call~ ths fqregoing rasu?ution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, DAVID~ HERE3ST~ JONNSON~ KING~ IINN
NOES; COMMISSIONERS; NONE
A6SENT: COMMISSIOt~ERS: TOIAR
8/14/78
~,..
MINUTES. ANRNEIM C1TY PLANNING COhWISSION~ AUGU5T 14, 1978 15-678
ITEM N0. 1~
~~AND RECOMMENDATIONS
~.._..~._~
A. COi~DiTIONtiL USF. PERMIT NO. iG6~ - aaquest Pcr epprove~l of revtsed plans.
Th~ staff report t~ the Planning Commisslon deted August 1~~, 197II was ~resented~ nottng
th~ subJect pruperty ~s an Ir~egul erly-sf~aped parcel of lend cons(sting of approxtmt~tely
O.ti ocre having d frontago of approximstely 16U feet on thc west side of Mlost 5treet~
hav(ng a maxlmum depth of approxt-nately 230 fect, end being loceted e~+proxtm~tely 355 feet
south of the centr.rline oP La Polrna Avenua; that the applicant requests approval oP
revised plans for a boarding hous~ for sfx developmentnlly-dlsable~l adulc~; th~t
Condttiona) Usc Pormit No, lh(,~~ [~ parmlt ~ hoarcfing hous~ f~~ stx devr.fo~mentat~y-
disabled adult~ ~nd a hausekeepinq couple was ~pp~oved by th~ Planning Commtssion on
October 27, 197~~ subiect to the eonditi~n thatsubJect propr.rty shall be developed
precisely in accordsnc~ witf~ plens snd speciflca*ions o~ file with tt~e Clty of Aneheim
markcd Exh(bit Nos. 1, 2 and 3; an~l that e comperlson oP the original plans rn~roved in
conjunctlor. with subJect petitlon and the praposed revised plans (n,ficates the revised
plans appcar to meke more ~ffective usc of an ir~egularly-sl~apFd parcel and has
el iminated the two walvers~and i ts approva) f s recommended.
ACTION; Corn~~igsianer Kiny offered e motion~ seconded by Cortmisslor~er Devid and MOTIQN
~ED (Ca~~~nissione~ Tolar bein~ absent), that the Anaheim CiCy Planning Com~~~~531on does
hereby approve revised plans for Conditi~nal Use Permlt No, ih~+0.
B. A8~1NU0~1MENT N0. 77-2''A - Request to obanc:nn dedicated right-of-way containad in
tFs property ne returns located ar the southeast and southwest corners of
klverdale and Starl ing 1aay~ und the sale of a sma) l portion oP excess land ownE:d
by the City north of sai d souttw+est corner to adJolning property owner.
~'he s taf f report to the P 1 ann 1 ny Comni ss I on dated Augus t 1~i ~ 1915 was presen ted ~ not 1 nc~
that the subJect ~equest has been reviewed by all departments o1' the City and affected
outside agencles and approval is reconmend~d subJect to the reservatton that Parcels 1 and
2 be abandoned subJect to a 5-focat publ' utility reservatinn along the northerly S feet
to be reserv~d unto the Pacific Telepl~o.~e b Telegraph Ccxnpany~ and that Parcel 3 be
conv~yed to the adJoining Eroperty owner~ thc owne~ to pay S5~`.~~; that the property line
at [he intersectlon of Riverdale and Starliny Way was dedicated for public use and the
excess rl~ht-of-way of Riverdale Avenue was acquired tn tee by the St~te and relinquished
ro the C1 ty; that the sale of the excess parcel ta the adJoin(ng praperty owner wouid
return this smal! parcet to the tax rolls and el iminate tl~e consta~it weed contro) and
maintenance problems and po[enti al llability; and that an environmental revi~w of ttie
subJect matter inJicates this to bt cate~orically exempt from the requlrement of filing an
Ela.
ACTION: Cortmissioner King offer~d a motion~ seconded ~y Commissioner David and MOTION
~~0 (Comnissioner Tolar being ~;t+senc) ~ that the Anaheim City Planning Corm~isslac~ dces
hereby recar~end to the C i ty Counci I chat Abando~ment No. i7-25A be approved.
C. itEGOMMENDED COOE AMENOMENT - SECTIQIlS Sa.L1.020.310 and 18.6;.02G.46Q.
The staff report to the Planni~g Canmisston dated August 14, 1978 was presented~ noting as
a result of discussions with potentiai business applic~nts in Che ML (In;!~strial~ Limited)
8/14/78
NINUTES. ANNIE'M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUS T 14~ 1978 7a~~79
ITkM G (continued)
..._...~
snd MFI (Industrlal~ Hsavy) Zones~ It has come to staf~'s attontion th~t Subs~Gti~ns
1a.61.020.310 and 1a.G3.020.460 percelning to "wholesale businesses" has been Interpreted
a number of difte~ent wsys~ tl~crcfore~ It Is staff's opinlon thr~t '4~holesale huslness" b~
ctearly deflned; and that statf recommends Hu~icipAl Code Subsectlons 1a.61.A2(1.310 and
1$.63.020.460 be amended.
ACTION: Cc~nmissloner Barnes off~red a motlon~ seconded by Commisstoner Ltnn end MOTlON
~D (Can~nlssloner Tolar being abs~nt)~ that th~ Anehelr~ City Planning ComnTsston daes
hereby ~ecomnend to the Clty Gou~cil that Anahei rn Nunlcipel Code Subsecttons lE.G1.020.310
and 18.f;3.02~,460 be am~nded tc~ rced es follows:
"Whalesole businesses~ tncluding stor~gc buildi~gs nnd we~eh~uses,
pruvided that all such sales are r,o retailors or merchants for the
purpose of their awn business use or r e salc only and not to consum~rs
or the publ ic in general ."
D. KECLASS I F I CAT 1 QIJ N0. 77- 7~ 1 1- Reques t for extens (on of t I me.
The staff rcport to thc Plenning Cummis5lon dat ~d August 14, 1978 wes presented~ notirig
subJect property is an i~regule~ly-shaped parcel of la~~d consisting af epproximetely 0.7
acra having a frontAge uP apFroximately 241 fee t on the west side of MAgnoll~ Avenue~
havtng a maximum depth af approxlmately 200 feet~ and being lacated t,ppraximately 525 feet
north of the centerllne of Lf~eoln Avenue; tha t the appllcant requests a one-year
extension of tlme; and th~+t no previous rcquests for extension of tlrra have been
reques ted.
ACTION: Camnissioner King offe~ed a motion~ seeondcd by ~:ommissioner Uavld and MOTION
~i~~ (Commissioner Tolar ~eing absent)~ that the Aneheim City Plannin~ Commission daes
hereby grent a or-e-year extension of time F~r iteclas9iflcation ho. 77~7~-11~ to exptre
Augus t 1; ~ 1919.
WORK SESSION
Can~issioner Barnes pnintPd out Commissioner Davld has ~equested a work sessi~n be
establ ishrd to discu~s low income t~r.,using in the City of Anaheim including the Housing
~ommuni ty D~:velopment Cormntssion,
Annika Santa~ahti, Assistant Director for Zoning~ exF~etnect she wouid establish a time for
a work session e~~~! discuss it at the ~ext meeti ng.
ADJOURNWENf There being no further business, Lommissi~ner King offered a mution~
seconded by Comnisstoner Davi~i and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Toler being
absent) ~ that the ~neeting be ad,journed.
The meet 1 ng was adJourned at 4 t 26 p.m.
Respectfut ly subml tted,
`~',c~C •~ • ~-~.~.s...
Ed i th L. Harri s, Secretsry
Ae~aheim Ci ty Plan~iny Commtssion
ELH:hm 8l14/°''