Minutes-PC 1980/04/21~i ? ~ ~~
w
C1 ty Nal l
Anahelm, C~lifornia
Aprt 1 21 ~ 1~80
REGUTAR MEETING OF THE ANANEIM CITY PLAIINING COMM15S10N
.~w~r^ -
RCGULAR - The reguler mnetin9 of the Anaheim Ctty Pienntng Commlsslon was cailed
MEETING to ordnr by Chairwumen Barnes at 1:35 P.m.~ April 21~ 198~ In the
Cou~cii Chamber~ a quorum being preaenc.
PRESE~~ . - Chat rwoman: Barnes
Commts~loners: Busho~e. David~ Fry~ 1lerbst~ Ktng~ Tola~
(Commisslonar Bushore arrived et 1:A~ p.m,)
A150 PRESENT -
Ronald Thompson
Jack White
Jsy Titus
Joel Fick
Annika Sentalahti
Dean Sheror
Edith Nsrr(s
planning Director
Aisistant City Attorney
Office Enqineer
Assistant O) roctor for Planning
Assistant Dlrector for Zonfng
Assisca~t Plan~ar
Planning Commisston Secretary
PLEDGE OF - The Pledye of Allegiance to the Flag wes led by Commisstoner King.
ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF - Commissloncr F ry offered a mation, seconded by Commissfone~ King
TliE MINUTES ~nd MOTION CARRIED (Commissloner 8ushore being abs~nt and Commissio~er
Tolar abstetn(ny)~ that the minutes of the moeting of April 7~ 1980
be app~oved as submitted.
ITEM N0. 1 PUBLIC HEAaING. OWNERS: DE~~NIS C. AND ERIN E. FRY,
~'t'~VE UECLAaATtON 9W~i East Cor~cord Avenue~ Orange~ CA ~2667. Property
R CL C 0 N0. 9• ~-35 descrlbed as a rectangularly•shaped parcel of land
1~ I E 0 CODE REQUIREMEPI 5 consisting of approxin~tely 0.67 acre having e
~~2070 frontage of approxlmatcly 161 Peet on the west side of
East Street~ having a maximum depth of approximately
150 fcet~ ~nd being located app~oximately 430 feet
south of the centerline of South Street~ and further described as 837 South East Street.
Property p~esently ciassified RM-1200 (RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE.
aEQUESTED CLASSIFICATIOt~: Ml (iNDUSTRIAL, LIMITEQ) ZONE.
REQUESTED CONDlT1aNAL USE: TO RETAIN A CONTRACTORS STORAGE YARO Mi1TN WAIVERS OF (A)
MINIMUM LANDSCAPED SETaACK, (B) MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL HEIGHT, ANO (C) MAl(IMUM F~NCE NEIGHT.
There was no one (ndicattng their presence (n opposition to subJect request~ and although
the staff roport to the Planr,ing Comntssion dated Aprf) 21~ 1980 was not read at the
public hearing, tt is referre~i to and made a part of the minutas.
Dennis Fry~ 837 South East, awner~ stated he wishes to change the zone from residential to
industrtal to permit a contractor's storage yard~ explaining he (s using the p roperty for
a storage yard at the present time and received a nAttc~ of violation; that the residence
is 78 years old and he had made many improvements on the property. He presented an
enlarged photograph of the pr~perty shewing the exiating oid wood fence and another
enlarged photograph showing a new 6-foot high slatted fence in the front and explained
without the fence~ the property is not usable.
THE PUBLIC NEARIHG WAS CLOSED. $p_253 4/21/80
~
MINUTES~ ANJWEIM CITY PLANNiNC CQMMISS~ON~ APRIL 21~ 1980 80'254
Elft NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ RECIASSIFICA"ION N0. 79°84'35~ WAIVER OF COOE
aEqU1REMENTS AND CONDITIONAL USE P~RMIT N0. 20~0 (CONTINUED)
-- -..._~...........__.-- -.~..~.._, ..~.......~~.
Commtssioner Herbst suggestad satting the gete back further so that vehicias could be
d~ivan o~to th@ property wlthout hAVing t~ open the vste, If it happened to be closed. Ne
asked tf tha petitlonar plans to park vehiclas in the fro~t yard.
Mr. Fry reepllad he has hts constructlon vehicles In the rear a~d does not heve room to
move them around and that he plans to park some of his salcs vehtcies In the front. Ne
pointed out the area on the photograph.
Commissloner King asked if the proposed fence is on the property line and whether or not
the petitloner had constdered a block wall conststent wlth th~ o~e across th~ street.
Mr. Fry explalned the fence will be 10 feet from Che walk and (ndicated he wauld consider
a block wall. Ne steted the Ctty dtd not want a solld block wall whlch is the reasa~ he
is propasing the slatted chainlink fcnce.
Responding to Commission~r Herbst's quastlon~ Mr. Fry explained he has 17 vahictes and
steted the property is 181 feet by ty0 feet. He st~ted all th~; vehtcles are locdted in
the rear at the prasent ttmc and oxpleined che t~ack area Is nat developed~ and there is a
storage trailer locAteJ there and wtth Mo dump trucks~ tr~ctors and trailers (40 fe~t
long) the aree Is f(Iled. Ne e~tained that Commisstoncr Herbst's suggastcd change would
be just the same as it is at the present tlme a~d Canmisslone~ Nerbst indicated he liked
that better than the proposed change.
Commissioner Barnes stated the plans do not show parking in th~ front encJ Mr. Fry felt the
plans had been misinterpreted and the parktng spaces shown have nothing to do with the way
he Is golny to park thc vehicles in the rear.
Comrnissioner Harbst was concerned that the gates co. ~d be closed and a vehicle 3Q feet
lo~g would heve to back up on East Street and Mr. Fry stated L. A. D~ug Company has given
him an easanent to use their propcrty and they are currently using that access.
Commlssloner King stated the homes across the street are nice and have a nlce block wall
a~d he felt a block wall would be consistent wlth those homes and Mr. Fry responded he
would be wiliiny to const~uct a block wall (f necessary because he can not move hts
business. I~e explained he has been there ebout 2-1l2 years.
Cammissioner Fry felt a block wall would create a graffitl probiem.
Desn Sherer~ Assistant Planner~ explained the City Clerk's office received a letter thts
morning signed by nlne propcrty arners a~ Opal Avenue protesting this particular zo~e
change.
Commissioner Bushore stated he has no problem with the zone chan<;e~ desptte the letter~ as
long as the plan enhances the area.
Mr. Fry felt grafflti will not be a problem and noted that the property was a mess when he
bought it and he has improved it end if the property is not rezoned he will re~t it. He
felt the neighbors are much safer now than the/ were before h~e moved in because he has
somebody there all the time~ pointing out there were robbe~les in the area before.
(Cammissi~ner Fry notad for the record that he is not related ta the petitioner.)
4/21/80
~}
i ~~
MINUTES~ ANIWEIN CITY PLANNING CONMISSION~ APRIL 21~ 198Q 80•2y5
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. ~9-80-;5~ MAIVER OF CODE
REQUItiEMENTS ANO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2A70 (CONTINUED)
The ronn~it~lon revlewed the petitlon submtkted encJ Chatrwomen Bar~es notmd the opposition
la cor ~rned about Incraesed traffic~ the parked trucks~ the nolse from cleening equipmant
and activities afto~ the ond of the workdsy.
Mr. F ry at~ted htf~ cleening equlpment consists of a hose wlth no spray cleantng ~qulpment.
He state~J tha onployees leave at tf~e e~d of tha day and do not cause any trafftc problems.
Two y~ars ago an employee unloaded a mochine at five ln t1-e morntng and th~t hAS not
happened since. No felt thc netghbors are afraid he wlll dcmollsh the house and bulld an
officm~ but th~t ts not a consi;leratlon.
Chairw oman Barnes askad if there tY any noise efter working hours end Hr. Fry did not feal
the noise even during the dey would be ony worsc tha^ the t~afflc notse from East 5treet.
Rasponding to Chalrwoman Barnes~ Mr. ~ry explained the property wil) be landscapad.
Dean Sherer explalned a conditlon nf approvAl has been roconmondad th~t the improvements
be made withtn GO deys bacausa thc use has b~e~ In r.xisrence for 2-t/2 yeara.
Flr. Fry explained he undnrstands na~ tl~at thase improvements arc necessAry end he will do
them~ but fett it would be difficult to cc~mplcte in b0 days.
Gommisslonor Busharc dld not want a fence higl~er than 30 (nth~s on th~ front of the
property and wanted a gaCC on thd north s~de nf the property.
CommlRSioner Tolar stateJ fcnces arc allowecf for converslons of resiJent(a) property~
particularly on arterlal streets and he haci no obJections to this fence.
Mr. Fry stated he wants the fence tn frant because he would have a theft problem
otherwise~ axplalning the trucks are pick-ups wlth tool boxes~ etc.
Commisstoner Herbst pointcd out the request ts for e zone change ta Industrlal~ and an
tndustrlal setback is fifty feet~ and AISO a varianr.~ is requested for a six-faot fertce.
i~e felt the request is ~reasonablc. Ne saw no problem with the use, but did nat want to
comp romise the whole aro~ and folt the landscaptny would have to be tmproved. No stated
he would not vnte for the zone ct~~enge, unless more tAndscaping (s pravided.
Cortunissloner Bushore was concerned if this request ~s grant~d. as proposed~ in a few years
{t Wilt become unsightly. tle stated thc petitioner has been in business 2-1/2 years
kna+tng tha proparty was nat properly zoned.
Chatrwoman darnes felt thls is a transittona) area and she had no obJection~ to the zone
cl~an~e, but was concerned that someone in the future could develop the property to the
induatrial standards and wahted to be falr.
Mr. Fry felt tlie Commission was concarned about vehicles being perked in frone af the
structure~ end pointed out theso would be the smaller vehicies and would '~e hldden by the
six-foot fence.
Commisstoner Nerbst stated he would support a six-foot high fence ar wail but not ln front
of the house where he fett there should be landscapi~g~ with a 30-inch high fence; snd thet
the gata shoulJ be set back ao the vehicles can swtng in out of the street.
4/21/80
~:,'
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRII, 21~ 198U 80-256
Ela NECATIV~ oECLARAT1oN, aECLASSIFICATION No, 79-80-35, wAIVER oF CooE
REgUIREMENTS AND CONOITIONAL USf PERMIT N0. 20_70 (CONTtNUCD)
Mr. Fry suggasted brtnging the narth ~ide of the fenca out Ju~t liko the south atde and
reviewed the plan wich Commisitoner tlerbst •nd Commissloner Flerbat explalned a variance
gaes with tho p roperty and anyona else could have a starege yard whtch may be cort~pletely
diPferent.
Commtssloner Fry stated he is w(lling to grant tlie~ request and did not see anything w rong
wtth thn fence.
M~. F ry sta~ted he is trying to keep this buaincss going ond wents to operate in the best
manner posslble. 11e explained he has 13 enQloyees and 20 sub-cantractors.
Chelrw oman Ba rnes stated ather businesses oper~te in their proper zones and do not need
walvera or candittonal use ~ermtts. She asked if Mr. Fry would be able to ~ark the sales
vehtcles In the rear.
Mr~ F~y repltod he cou1J find room for these v~hlcles and respo~dlne~ to Commtssioner
6usfiore'a concern, explatned the sub-contracto~s da not park equlpment here.
ACTION: Commissioncr Kiny offered a mution~ s~conck d by Commissioncr Devid and M0710N
C~ED~ thet the Anaheim City Planning Canmission h~s revlewed the propos al t~ reclassify
subJect p roperty from the RM-1200 (Restdential' Nultiplc-~am(ty) Zone to Lhe ML
(Indust~ial~ ltmited) Znne on a rectangularly-sh~+ped parcel of lend consisting of
epproxirt-etely 0.67 acre, having a frontege af app~oximately 1C1 teet on thc west side of
Eest Street~ heving a maximum dcpth of eppr'oximetely i~o feet and being tocated
approx(mately 430 feet south of the centerline of South Street; and does hereby approve
the Negative Ueclaration from the requirement to prepare: An environmental tmpact report on
the basis that there would bn no slgnificant indlvldual o~ cumulatlve adverse
enviro~n~ntal Impact due to the approval of this Negative Decla~acio~ slnce the Anahefm
Cenere~) Plan deslgnates thc subject property for n~dium denslty residentlel land uses
commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive ~nvironmentai Impacts are involved in
the proposel; that the Initlal Stucfy submltteJ by the petltioner tndicates no siqniftcant
indlvidual or cumulative 8dylfSt environmentel impacts; and that the Negaiive Declaration
substantiating the foregoing f(ndings Is on file in the City of Anahetm Plenning
Departrt~nt.
Comnisstaner King offered Rcsolutfu~ t~a. PC30-66 and rn~ved far its passage and adoptton
that the Anahetm City Planning Commt~ston does herrby grant Petttlon for Raclassification
No. 79•a0•3S, s~blect to Interdepa~.,nental Committee reuonmendations~ dalettng Condttion
No. ~.
On roll call, the forec~oiny resolution was pessed t~y the following vote:
AYESs GOMMISSIONEkS: BARHES. BUSHORE, DAV10~ FR1', HERBST~ KIt~G, TOIAR
NOES: CUMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENY: CQMM I SS 10l~ERS ; t~ONE
Commissio~er King offered a motion, seconded by Commtsstoner Fry and MOTION FAILED 70
CARRY (Commisstoners Bernes~ Bushore~ David and Herbst voting no) that the Anaheim C~ty
Ptanni~g Commtssion does hereby grent waiver (a) on the basis that to ae~s~alish a portton
of the existing buildtng would harm the archttectural value of th~ buiiding and grnnting
waiver (b) on the basia that approval would not have the effect of a specisl prtvllege
since other two-stary strucLures currentiy exist tn the area and granting weive~ (c) on
the basis that a stx-foot high block wati exists across the street.
a~z,iso
~~
MINUTES~ ANIW EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 21~ 1980 80-2ST
EIR NEGATIVE DECIARATION~ RECIASSIFICATION N0. 79-80•3S~ WAIYER OF CODF
REQUIREMENTS ANO CONpITIONAI USE PERMIT N0. x07U (CONTINUEO)
.~~-----------
Commisslone~ Tolar statod there are fences in othe~ arees on arterisl highways and he dld
not sne the obJection to the fencc and felt this would be one of the best looking
developmnnta along East Street. fla noteJ thia property owner is willlnc~ to spend the
money necessa ry to (mprove the property and that other storege yards nro requlred to
provlde fencing.
Chalrrvoman Barnes felt sure th{s ~etltloner would have a good proJect~ but was concerned
what futurc owners might do, notiny a walver yoQa with the lAnd and fcit approval would
have m~ny ramtfications.
Commisstoner David felt the issu~ is really whather the p~tit(aner can park all the
vehicles (n the reAr tnstcad of the front~ and I~e h~s Indicated that f~e n.
Chatiwanan Barnes felt the real issue is the fencc~ noting hc could use ~he front aroa for
parking for custon~ers and hls own cars. She was concerned about the future and wanted to
be fai~ to ~thers who have asked for watvtrs in the industr181 zone in the past.
Mr. Fry felt the Ctty should have checked the property whe~ it went throuc~h escrow and
felt he ls bcing penalized for sornething t~ future buyer might do 15~years from now and it
was clarified that the Gity is not involvCd tn any escrow.
Chainvoman Earncs stated the petttloner is not beina penalized~ polnttnc~ out he
estsblfshcd his bus(ness in the wrony zonc.
ACTION; Conmissi~n~r klert~st offered a motion~ seconded by Cortr.,issloncr 8ushorc and MOTION
CA-RRIEU, that the Anahelm Ctty Planning Commtssion does hereby yrent waiver (a) an the
basis that tt~c petitioncr sttpulated to complete thc landscaping in the front and on the
basis thAt the structurc is exisifng~ and grantiny waiYCr (~) on the basis that other Mo-
story structures ara existing in the t~rea; and granting waiver (c)~ in part~ pe nnttting a
six (6) foot hi~h chainlfnk fence with ~e d+ood slatting along the east property line
approximatiely b9 feet from the south p~operty line~ and denying the requesC for a six (b)
foot high fence for approximetely 92 feet In fronc of the existing structure from the
perking spaces north to the north property line and subJect to the petttioner's
sitpulatlan to locate the ~orthe rn access gate app roximately forty•one (41) feet from the
east p roperty line~ and subject to the condicion that no consiruction equlpment shall be
parked outs i de tl-e fenced area.
Commissioner Nerbst offered Rcsolutton t~o. PC80-G7 and noved f~r Its passagt and adoption
tfiat the ~lnaheim City Planning Comrn(ssion does hereby yrant Petition for Condltiona) Uses
Permit No. 2070. in part~ subject to thc condition that no construction equlpment shall be
parked outaide the fencad area, and subJ~cc to Intardepertm~ntal Commlttee
recommen dat 1 ons .
0~ roll tall, the foregoing resoluti~n was passed by the followtng vote:
AYES: COMMISSIQt1ERS: BARMES~ BUSIIORE~ DAVID~ FRY, NERBST, KING. TnLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMIHISSIONERS: NONC
J~ck wht te, Assistant Ci ty Attorney, presented the petl tioner wi th the wri tten ~ight to
appeal the Planning Commission's ckcision wfthin 22 days to the City Council.
Choi rwoman Barnes cor~nded Mr. Fry o~ the ni ce pro,ject.
4/21/80
~:
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 21~ 1980 8~-x58
ITEM N0. 2 PUDIIC -IEARING. OWNERS: SELECTIVE INOIVI~UAL
'~~VE DECLARATION INVESTORS~ P. 0. gox E34y. Anahelm~ CA 92~02.
CADE RE UIREMENTS AGEtIT: DqNALO ~. LIlJl1~ VOCATIONAL NURSING SG1100L
L M N. 206y OF CALIFORNIl1~ 2fi20 Wost O~ange Avenu~-., CA 9280G.
" ' Petitloner requests permission TO RETAIt~ AN
EXISTII~G NURSING SCIIpOL WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM
NUMBER OF P ARKINC SPAGES on {~roperty descrtbed as an IrregulA~ly-shapcd psrcel of land
canslating of approxirn~tely 0.8 acre located south anci west oP the s~uthwest corner of
Ora~ga Avenun and Magnolla Avenue~ havtny approxim~te frontages of approxtmstely 114 feet
on the aouth side of Orangs Avenue and approximA~clY 77 fecet on the west stde of Magnolla
Avenue~ and further Jascr(bed ns 2G20 We~t Orange Avcnue. Property presently cla~ssifled
Cl, (COFIM~RCIAL, LIMITEO) ZONE.
Tha~e wes one person tndicating her presencc t~~ opposition to sub)ect request~ and
although the staff report to the Planning Commisslon dated April 21~ 1J80 was nnt read st
the pub i i c heari nc~, i t i s refc rred to end mad~~ a part of tl~c mi nutes .
Dc~n~id A. Lilja~ ayent, scated th(s locatton Is ideal for thetr situatlon and for the
genere) welfare of the nalghborhood ond he felt tt~ey confo nn to tha context of previous
Co~+~misston ~pproval; th~t thcre seeir~s to have been a corrplaint regarding pa~king~ but did
not belleve It is warrante~~; tt~at the north st~ie of the street h~+s bcen pr~sted for "no
pat'king" end they are wtlling to comply with that; that there are block walls abutttng the
houscs on the soutt~ sido of the street and ttiere are no chtldren walking in thts area
becausc they cross at the crosswalk and there Are relat(vely fRw pedestrtans in the area;
that there ts ~ complatnt about the strAet sweeping on Wednesdays~ but with their normal
schedule there are na students tliere on Wednesdays.
He dld not think parkiny on thc street wo~ld bc any differertt than any otl~~r parkin~
situation n~e~r a school~ Ile explained the nursing schc±ol hes a p~rking lot across the
at~eet for thelr students ana thay have been instructcJ to park there~ but they cannpt
control the public parkin~ and hr has asked hfs students not tc~ park in the street~ but aa
citizens they do have the right to park in the strect. He ~xplalnad thelr prosent
schedule is for 32 stuclents on Fbndey~ none ~n Tuesday and Wednesday~ 40 students on
Thursday and ~2 students on Friday. He stated chcy wlll never have morc than 90 students
in thts school; that cu~rently they dv not fill t- parktng lot assiyned them~ and the
a~rangdnent they orlgtnally made wit~~ the lessor was to allvw no parking In the tnmediate
area. Ne stated they would be hsppy ta sce the area posted for "no pa~ktng" for the two
blocks vrest nf che school.
Barbara Vernengo, 2G17 Westhaven Drive, steted since the nursing school started its
pperation~ they have been faced with constant parking up and down Westhaven Dr1ve, Kenmore
and Hagnolla; and that when the pro,jecc waY o~iginally approved shc brought in 55
signatu~es stipulating they did nnt want to s~e a waiver grented.
She st+~ted alsa the ~~te Is supposed to be kcpt shut behind those buildtngs and it is
elways apen.
Mr. li1Ja stated ha was n4t a~~are af thc perking p~oblens on Nesthaven and stated pubitc
parking is not something he can control and he has no control over the gate. Ne suggested
4/21/60
~
MIN~1'ES~ ANAMkIM CITY PLANNING COMI!iSSION~ APRIL 21~ 1980 80•259
EIR HEGATIVE DECLARATION~ WAIVEit OF CO~E REQUIREMENTS ANO CON01710NAL
USE PERMIT t~0.~ (CONTINUEO)
the straets ba postod for "na p~rking" ~nd statec. ~f~ey will try to meke their stud~nts
perk In the deslgnated area.
TliE PUI~IIC NEARI~~G WAS CLOSED.
Commissioncr Dushorc clertfled Nith Mr. 111Ja tha~ the schoo) h~-s ~n agreement with the
i1~~dtord not tu im~act the other businesses~ ycc ;f,oy are perfectty satlsfled wtth
fmpactl~g thc nefghborhood.
Mr. Li l)e stated they are ~rovlcling a pa~4.ing lat wi :1~ adequate pa~king.
Conmisalonar ~~sh~re stato d posti~g the streets for "no parking" would cause the residents
~'~ardsiitp 1~ order to force th~e scudcnts to park on thQi r perking t~,t; that he wes there
this morniny and the students were alreedy ~+arkin~ on Orange which do~s cr~ete problems
oven tt~ough they do havc tha rigl~t to park thGre. lie statod not all chi~dren cross at thc
c~osswalks and was concerned tf~at sooner ar later cx~e of thwn might run out baMeen th~
p~rked c.ars end c~ct hit, Ne felt the pctitla~cr has to show the ~ommission ~~ way to force
the nurslnc~ students ta park on thc parking lot and that the lot has adeq uate snaces. ~le
askad wl~ere the lat is located cnd hao many spaces there are and what ar~anyements have
been mede to use it.
N~. Lilja responded the plan shows the perking lot in roletivn to the church and the
tehool and indicated they hsve made an agreement with the church's pascor fo~ use of the
church pArking lot; and that the lot is locked dnd the ~tudents have keys.
Commissiuner Tolar steted when :his property wes rezoned fo~ cemmerclal ~ses~ tha~e. was
some q uestlon about parking. end the rcquested park'ng variance was Jenled by the
Cammissinn and Council because it backs un t~ residentiel property; and chat the developer
stlpulated ta restricC the types of uses so a parking ~~risnce wauld not be nted~d. 11e
added .bc~ttonal schools hlstn rically have cr~ated Farki~~~~ problems. Ne stated unless the
~arking p rovi;led on-site for this use is adequate~ he will nat support tht usc because
L:~is was a bad conxncrcial propcrty and the Comntssion has spent e lot oF tim~e reviewtng
~his particular property and fe:lt this vocationnl school is In the w~~ng plaee.
Cc~mr~isslo~~r [3ushore wanted the petittoner to satisfy for him that the parking is adequate
anc thot thr a~.udenr,s will use ch~ lot. He presumeJ the parking ag~eement is verbal a~d
i f the students cause a probtem~ chc agreen~nt Hi S 1 become nul ! and vol~f, end if the
parklny lot Is lost, lhe neigt~bo~hoa~d wil) be !mpacted more.
Commissioncr Tolar could no! understand an owncr/developer telling a tenant they cannot
park on the property impacting other businesses and felt that proves the school is in the
Wf0~19 r IBGC.
Commtssioner 8ushore did not think students would park one block awey and wt11 park on
streets as close to the s choal a~ ;.ossible~ referring ta the parking situatian at Long
Beach SCate where he atte~ded school.
Coinmisstoner Tolar polnted out this is a commercial property which roqui ress a certatn
amount of parking on-site for users of the complcx and thls complex obviously does not
ha~ve that requlred parking.
~+/z ~ iso
~
.
MINUTES~ ANA-iE1M C1T11 PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 21~ 1980 ~'~b~
EIR NEGATIYE QECLARATION~ WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENTS AND CONOITIONAL
USE PEaFII T N0. 2065 ( CONT 1 NUED)
_~
Mr. Lt1Je felt with affice staff~ visltors, ond with students carpooling~ thera wauld ba
laas than 3p cars therc at onc time.
Commis~toner ilerbst stated 90 spaces are required to meet Code and this la not even cloae.
Ne notad stnce this school has been cstablishcd~ the neighborhood has been Impected with
~tudants pdrking ln front of tho ~csidonces and eccording to orlglna) plans~ businesses In
this complex would be restrtcted to thase which would not impact the area.
Mr. LI1Ja stated they made the stipulattan when they moved tn nnd thought the matter had
been rosolved and thn restrictfons were not made clear ar~d they had not reviewed the
mettor until a cc~mplaint w es made~ Ne explained thQy have been in op~ratlon there since
Dece~er 5, 1978•
Conmisslcx~or Nerbst pointed out tf~e opcratlon t~as bcen thcre lltegelly ond if a permit had
been requcsted origln~lly~ the5e facts would have tecn dl~cus~~~i.
Conml~sioner Toiar statad this was a herdship parccl of ;~~~~~rty and the Commtssio~ wsnted
sortbthiny that would be palatable to the netgl~bo~ho~od a~d •he arner cleerly understood
that no parking waivers wnuld eve~r bc granted and It was atipulet~d that the uses would be
rastrictad.
Ile ststed he never would have supp~rtod this request in che bc~inning~ but 1-1/2 years of
opere~tlon hos proven It is in the wronc~ place bcceuse there is a defintte pa~king problem
now.
Commissiv~ar Bustx~re detGrnined that tt~c leasc is for ftve ars with 3-1/2years rert-aintng
and Indiceted he cyuld not support the request even tempo~erfly for thet long and felt the
schAUl oould be relc+cated. He asked M~, lt lJa to clari fy the landlord's restrlcti~s
regarding the parking.
Mr. Lil}a ateted part of the orlgtnal agreement tncluJed the limited number of spaces ~~d
the nur~ber of spaces is allocoted per squ~r~ foc~t, but it would not be agre~able to assign
spaces, so have made an agreement for the students to par+, at ti~e church parking lot. one
`~ lock away .
lie stated he was concerned with bremking the lease; that he has no qualms searching for
anothar location because he does not want these prvblems a~d th~y wc~uld like to be in an
appropt'~ste spot~ but could not say at thls ttme how long it would take to find tfiat
locatio~. He expialned the school ts contt:~uous with one class starting in March and one
in Septenf~cr anc eaCh goes for an entire year.
Commtastoner Toier suggested thc petir.io~cr might hav~ some leg~! recourse wtth the owner
because this zone does not allaw this uae. «nd he was a~ware of tha parkinc~ ~equtrement in
the beginning.
Cvmmissiona~ Bushore suggested e six-mo+~th period with review fnr ~elucation an~1
Commfssioner Toter stated he would not support ar~ything longer than ~(x-rn4nth~.
Cammissloner Eushore stated the pctitlaner arlli probably have a difficult time ftndtng a
locatlon becausc no matter where he goes he wlll have th~ same requirements.
4/21/SO
~/
MI~IUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINQ COMMISSION~ APRIL 21~ 19~ 80•261
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIOt~~ WAIVER OF COOE REQUIRCMENTS AND CON~ITIONAL
USE PERMIt N0. 2Q6S (CONTINUEO)
Mr. L) 1Ja Asked if the use would ba f~esibi~ If thay cen get the ~tudents to park (n the
parking lot. fle noted they are the largost tennnts and ststed he would work o~ he
problem for six months and try ta resalve the p~oblem and either move or work uut an
arrangemnnt with the lancflord.
ACTION: Commissioner Dsvid offercd a motfon~ secondcd by Commissloner Bushore and MOTION
~C~ thet ttic Anahetm City Plannt~~ Commtsslon hes reviewed che proposal ta retaln en
extsting nursin~ schn~l wlth waivcr ot n,intmum number af parking spaces on an Irregularly-
shaped parcal of lend conslstiny of a~praximetely 0.~ ocre located south end west of the
southwest corner of Orangc llvenue end Magnolla !-vcnue~ ~nd having approximete frontages of
approximutcly 11-i foet o~ t-~e south s i de of QrAnge Avenue nncl epproxir.~ately 77 f~et on the
wcst sicta of Msgnolla Avenucs; end docs I~ereby approve th~ Ncgative Declaration from the
requlra~ncnt to prcpare an environmenta) impact report o~ the basis that there wauld be no
signlf(cant IndividuAl or cumulativc ~~dverse environmental impact due to the approva) of
thts t~e~~ative Uecl~ration since the Anahelm Gencrat Plan designates the subJect property
for gener~l comn~ercial Innd uses co~m~ensuratc with thc proposal; that no sensitive
environi~-ental inpocts ~re Involve~ in thc proposai; tt~at the In(tial Study submitt~d by
the pet(tloncr indicates n~ signiflcant IndlvtJuol or cumul8tive edversa environmental
lmpacts; and tf,at thc Negatlv~c Declaratlon substantleting the f~regoing findings is on
file In the C(ty of An~heim Plunniny Dopprtmen:.
Commisst~rer Uushor~ offored a matinr,~ scconded by Commissioner Nerbst and MOTION CARRIEO~
Lhat the Anaheim City Planninc~ Corr,~tsslor~ does hercby cieny the r~qurst for waiver of Gode
requlrements on the basis th~t thc existinc,~ usc -7as had a.lctrirr~ntal impact on the
surrounding resicientia) nciyhbortiood with studcnt parking on the residentlal street5.
Jaek WhICe~ Assis!ant Clty Attorney, pxplaincd the Commission :ould approvc or deny the
permit~ and if denied~ recommend to the City Attorney th~t no stringent enfo~cemant
~ctivitles be taken for six montl~s. or it couls! be a~proveu for a limited period ~f time.
Cor.missioner Tol.~r preferred the permit be grantecl for six r~bnths, but only if the
petittoner suppli~;s a w~itten agreemenC for the off-site parking at tl~e church.
Mt'. White explalned the parking walver has been denied so thc petittoner must arovide on-
site psrking immedlat~:ly.
Commissioner Bushore ~fferad Resolution t~o. PCBQ-6~ and movecl for its pessagt and adoption
that the Anaheim Clty Planninq Commission does hereby deny the Petitlan for Conditlona)
Use P~rtn(t No. 2Q1,5 on the basi~ that the cxisting it;egal use has created an adverse
Impact on the surroundtng residential neighborhood wlth student parking o~ tht residential
strects. and the Cummisslon hereay rc~cortxriends to the Ct ty Attor;~cy ;hat no stringent
enforcement activittes be cak.en f~r six-manths, if possible.
On rotl call, the foregotng resaluti on was p~sseJ by the foilowirg vote:
AYES : COMMI SS tONERS : QARidES ~ BUS~fORE ~ DAVI D, FkY ~ HERBST ~ KING~ TOLAR
NOES: COr~MISSIONERS: u0-~E
ABSEN'f: COMMI~SIONERS: NONC
Jack Nhite, Assiscant City Attorney , presented thr~ petitioner wlth the wri~ten right to
appeal the Planning Conmisslan"s decisio~ within 22 days to the C~ty Council.
aiz~iso
~~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMWISSION~ APRIL 21, 19~0 80-+26Z
IT~M N0. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: RIOS b RIOS CONSYRUCTION
~~~RICAL EXEMPTION CLASS-1 COMPANY, 253G West Lincoln Avenuc~ Anaheim~ CA g2801.
V AGEf~T: HANS J. LINDNER~ nl1VARIAN GRILL~ 2524 Wast
. 206f3 Lincoln Avnnuc~ Anaheim, CA 92801. Petttioner
requests permtssion TO PERMIT TIIE ON-SALE OF BEER
ANU WINE IN Ahl EXISTING R~STAURANT WITI1 WAIVEIt OF
MiNIMUM NUMaER OF PARFL111G 5PACE5 on proparty described es a rectdngularly-sha~ped p~rce) af
land consisting of approxirnately 1.12 acres located at the aouthwest corner of Lincaln
Avenue and Gain Streat~ having approximbtc frontages of mpproxlrrM~ely 208 feet on the
sauth slda of Lincoln Avenue and Approximately 1SS fcet on the west side of Gain Street~
and further described ea 252~~ Nest Lincoln Avenue (tsavarlan Griil). Pruperty presently
classlfled CL (COMMERCIAI, L1~11TEU) 20NE.
There was no one Indicatiny tti~tr presence in opposltlon to subJec request~ ~nd elthough
the staFf report Cn the Planning Comnisslon dated April 21, 19~0 wax nat read at the
public heering~ lt is rafcrred to end mede a part of the mfnutes.
-lans Ltndnc~~ part owner of the Bavarlan Grill. steted this is e smalt so up and sandwlch
shop, saat(ng approximately 20 people~ and tl~ey find they do need to scl) bee~ and wlne.
T~~E PUBLIC NEARIr1G WAS CLOSEQ.
It wus nated thc Planning Di recto~ or hls nuthorized representnttve has determined th~t
th~ proposed project falls Nithin thc i~ffnitir~n of CategoricAl Exemptlon.•,, Class 1, as
defined in par~graph 2~f [he City of Anahrim E,~vironmental Impact Report Gutdelines and
is~ therefore~ categorlcally exempt Fr~~m the reauirement to prepare an EIR.
ACTIO~~: Commissianer King offereJ a motlon~ secandcd by Gortmissl~ner To1ar and MOTION
CARRIEU~ that tl~e Anaheim Gi ty Planniny CdTMnisslon cbes hereby grant the rcquest fo~
walver of Codc requi~emcnt on tl~c besis of the limited size of the property and on the
basis that deniat would deprive the prop~rty of prtvi l~yes enJoycd by othcr property under
icfent(ca1 ionln~ ctasstficatic~ in the viclnity.
Commi ss ioner Kt ng of fercd Resol uti on Na. PCB~-b9 and mov~d for t ts pass:~ge and aciopt lon
thdt Lhe M aheim Clty Planning Commiss+on docs hereby grant the Petitlc,n for Conditional
Use Permit No. 20Gn~ subject to Intcrdepartmcntal Committec ~ecomnendatlons.
Qn ro?1 call~ thc foregoing resolutton was passed by the following votc:
AYES : COMt~11 SS I(91:FR5 : BARNES ~[iUS1i0RE , DAV I D~ FRY ~ tiERaST ~ KI ~iG ~ TOLAR
NOES: COt1t11SS10~lERS: ~dOflC
ABSEN7: COMMISSIONf R5: NONE
4/21/80
~•+ V
MINUTES. A1~11HEIM CITY PLANNING GOMMIS510N~ APFi1L Z1, 19E30 80-263
IT~M NU. 4 PUBLIC tIEARING. OWNERSt TERR/~ FIRMA PROPERTIES~ INC.
~~~'TVE DECLARATION 436 East Katolla Avanue, Suite 20~~ Orrnge~ CA g266].
~ M 0. 2069 AGENT: J. WAaD DAWSON~ AIA INC.~ 15012 Red Htll
.~...~_.. _..__.
Avenue~ Tustln~ CA 92680. Petitloner requests
permisslon TO PERMIT A MOTEL IN THE CC ZONE on
proporty Jascrlbed as an irreguler',y-sl~aped parccl of land co~sistinc~ of opproximately
1,12 ac~es locoteci et the soutf~c~st ca~ner of Wi ~ken Way ~nd Harbor poulevard~ having
appraximate frontage~ of eppruxtmately 372 fr.et on the south side of ~lllken Way and
epproximatelY 115 feet on the east alde of ilarbor Boulevard, and further describod as 2000
South Na~bor Boulovard. Propcrty presently classific~l CG (CQMNERCIAL. GENC~iAL) ZA-~E AND
CH (COMMfRCtAL, NEAVY) ZOIIE.
There w as na one in~licating tt~elr prescnce in opposition to SU~jCCC rcquest~ and although
the staf f report to th ~ Planninq Cornnls• ion d~ited Aprl1 21 ~ 19a0 was not reac~ 9t the
publlc hearing~ !t is referred to ancl mrdc a parG af the minutes.
Nard D~.+son was present to answer any questions.
TNE PUBLIC NGARINr, WAS CLOSED.
Cnmmissione~ IiarbSt reforrc~ to thc easement and asked lf a~ll thc traffic wi ll be out onto
Wllken rlay and Hr. Dewson explalned that ls an extsting drivcv+ay.
ACTION: ~+~~isstoncr King offsred a rn~tio~~ seconded by Cam~isstoner David and MOTION
R IC D, that thc An~heim Clty Pl~nntny Commisslon h~s rcvlewed thc proposat to permlt e
motel in thc CG (Gomnx:rciat~ General) Zone on an irregularly-shaped pa~tel of land
conslst3 ng uf epnroximately 1.12 acres locete< <~t [1~e southeosc corner of Harbor Boulevard
and Wi iknn Wey~ having a frontagc of approximatcly 372 fect on the sout~~ slde of Wilkc:n
Wey ~+nd a frontaye of app~oxlmately 11~ feet on thc esost sid~ ~f Herbor Ooulevard; and
does hereby approve the tlegative Uaclaratir.+~ from the requirement to prepar~ an
anvironmental innact re~ort on the basis that thcr-e would be no signiftcant tndividual or
cumulativc adverse envlronmental inpact due t~ the approval of this t~egative Declaratlon
since the Mahelm Ceneral Plan designates the subject property rtor ge~eral cam~erclal land
uses eommen«~rote with the proposal; that n~ sensitive env~ronm~ntal tmpatts are tnvotved
In t~~c propnsel; thot the Inittai StuJy submitted by the petitioner indicatcs no
s(gnifi eant individual or cumulativr_ adversc environnMntai impacts; and that the Neg~tive
Decla ~a Lio~ substantiacing the fore~ot~g findings is on fllc in the Ctty of Anahclm
Plenni~g Clepertment.
Commissioner King offertd P~esolution t~o. PC80~7o and moved for fts passage and sdoption
~'~at t h~ A~ah~tm City Planning Comnission does hcreby grant the Petition for Condltiona)
,u Persnit Ilo. 20G~. subJect to Interdepartmental Com~ittee recamiendations.
On ro11 call, the toreyoing resolution was pessed by Lhe foliowing vote:
AYES: COt4MISS10NERS: BARNES~ 9USI10ftE, DAVID~ FR,Y, NERBST. KItiG~ TOLAR
NDES : COFIM! SS I ~NERS : t~ONE
A9SENT: CONMI5SIONER5: NOi~f
4/21 /SO
~'~
MINUTES~ ANIUiE1M CITY PIANNiNG COMMISSION~ APRII. ?.1, 19E30 a0-264
ITEM N0. P~~~LIC HCARING. OWNCRS; ROCIC~IELL FARMS~ INC. ~~+t ~) ~
~~1~VE OECLARATIA~~ P. 0. dox ~-51~ Sur~ City. CA 92381. AGEtJT: IIAROLO
CQNUI IONAL U~SE ~'ERh~ IT N. 2071 WIiiG1iT~ 2G13 Shelton Avonue~ S~nta Ana~ CA 92707.
------
Pnt(ttoncr rc~ucsts permission TO PERMIT AN AUTOMO IV
TRUCK REPAIP. SNGP IN TI1E ML ZONE on property described
as en lrregulorly-shaped percel of land consi~tlny nf opproximately O.G acre located at
the southsast c~rner of Mtraloma Ave~ur, and Sun~t~ine Way~ having approximete frontages of
approximately 173 fset on tl~e southeast aldc of Mirnloma Av~nue and approximately 4~~2 feet
on the east and northwest sides of Sunshinu Way~ c~nd further described as 1290 Sun3hlne
Wsy. Prop~rty {~resr.ntly classificJ ~iL (IriousT~in~~ LIMITEU) ZOIIf..
There wer~ tw o penple inclic~tlny their presence In onpositio~ t~ subject rcquest, and
elthUUgh thc staff report to the Pl~nning Commisslnn Jatecl Aprll 21~ 1~.",A was not read et
the publlt liet~ring~ (t is rcferred t~ and ~e~e a p~'~rt af the minutes.
lisrold 1Jright, egent~ w~a present to onswer any questions.
Robert 11cCoven~ rcpresentiny owners of elyP~t small industrtal buildlnys along Sunshine
Way~ adJ~cant to sub)act prope:rty stoteJ they are uancerned relative to parking in the
area; that these a~e InJustrinl builcling~ far industriAl uses with largc industrial trucks
in and out of thc a~~a anJ ;10;; af thom do ~~ Jir~ectly t~ Che pr~pcr location~ but
occas(anally one will need to turn arou~d and it c~uses •~ Iot af chaos In the perk. They
felt r truck rep3tr facility ~nl~ht t~riny in dJditional trafftc. creating ma]or problmns.
Ile asked if a conditionnl use permit is necessary for this use bccause it Is not a
normally accepted type of us~ for Lhe arc~, and if it Is a he~vlcr uac than light
industrial~ felt it woulJ be mnrc compotibl~ In a I~er+vy industr(a~ zone~ noting the~e is
thc possibt l i ty of al 1 an~J gasol inc spi I lac~e. fle was also co~ccrned eb~uc thc othcr
tenant in the same buflding encl passibilitles of confllcts with truck traffir,~ etc.
Peter Swensvn~ owner ~f thc bui Idln~~ at 12G~ Sunshin~ 1Jay. ~nd tenant renting
approx(mately ~i500 squ.~rc fcet of the building in ~uestion, was concerned about potentlal
nazards. lie explnlned the portion t~e accupies hes two doors and thr.y are us(ng the area
to perk tfietr trucks in tlie eveniny and have one or two full-timee warehousEmen and use l'he
area for sl~ipping ard ~eceiving; and that tt~ey also have e peint baoth for pai~ttnq parts.
tie did n~t thin~: these uses could be compatlble. esp~clally wlt~~ additional traffic tn the
srea with custome~s not knowiny tl~e area, stopping anJ creating trafftc problems.
tle felt the use wc~uld deffnitely a~'rect fils busin~ss, Ile stat~d hls lease expires In
.lanuary; and that it~c use might be c.ompatibie if ha was not already th~re. He stated It
wouid be a tremendous exp~nse for hlm to move; chat this is a limited access park and
alnx~st all vehicles are ke~t off' the street whlch rt~akes it Nork; that there is an
adJecent tenant whu ~oes not hav~: to have ~ condltione) use permit and otcasionally has
prlvate trade which causes trouble a~d friction. lie steted he is conr.erned about
additionai traffic and consumGr treffic because of the ecc~ss and noted the c~ns wner
traffic which has been aliowed~ lega~ly or illeyally~ I~as p rovcn unsatisfacto ry.
Hn did not chink this ~e rniit ahould be granted becruse his err~loyees o~casic+nai~y want
to leave the buflding end rroulJ he unjuaCiftably penallzed. Ne did not think while he is
leasing this buildin~~ the uses would be compatible.
4/a~/8o
~. ~
MI NUT~S ~ a1~ANE I M CI TY PI,ANN I NG COMMI SS I O-t. APR i l. 21 ~ 1980 80-26~
EIR NEGATIVE ~ECLAMTION AND CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT ~~0. 20~ (CONTINUED)
flr. Nrtght statncl thoir busincss does not includc trailrrs end (t is specifled in writing
thet it Is tractors, trucks ~nd ca~i~ mnd rher~e would be n~ drop-in trade and there is not
much vialbtlity from tha freaways. Most of thelr euseomers would be informed by telephc~ne
of the locstlon end tald not to bring A traller tn and no~ed these tractor~ requtre only
twa-fect more width tha~~ a~ aubom~bil~ for p~-rkiny and they .~ilt be capAble of workinq cx~
twelve vehlcles at a time, compl~tiny five or six per dey. Ile ~'d not think he woutd
eeuse any problems for his nelghbors.
TNE PUtiLI C HEARI tlf WAS CLQSED.
Commissioncr Ilorbst referred to t1~e northern drivewey and locatlon nf the outdoor sto~age
end asked (f the norchern driveway (~ the only ncceas~ with Mr. Wri~,;tit replying It Is the
dnly vohicular access.
Commtssloner I~csrbst felt thts ~ roperty would be tatally unacceptable for a truck r natr
faclltty because trailers are considerably larger than an automc~blle and access 1;.hrough
the nelqhbor's parking lot with na access through the fron+t. t1e felt six or sever,
tractors in and out in a day would cause pfoblCm5. Ile further ~xplalned the Commissian
was very Concerned about this problem when the proJe:.t was epprovecl an~ th~t a canditional
use permlt (s requlreJ fur a truck repalr fac111ty In all zanes.
Mr. Wrf9Pit stated if tl~ere were any questtons tn his minci regarding the acc.ess~ he would
not evcsn be rec~uesting the permtt. Ile explained ~~,:; of his businegs wili he repalr of
tr~ctors and there wlll be no ~~ork. donc nutsidc and they wil) complcte approxtmately six
vehfcles per dt~y and hc has stx er~l~yc~s. He explainc~f the divider tn thc buildln~ fs
framewar!:~ with shc~etrock and he did not know whethrr ar not it is soundproof.
Commissianer tierbst felt starting the enytne of diesel trucks would be a ioud dtsturbance
to others in the building and N~, Wright stated r~tth an exhtiust system the tractors would
not be ~ny noisier tt~an an auton~oblle.
Corunissi~ner David nated the apQlicant is confidert he can park thesc vehicles inside the
buiiding wlti~ no access problerm but he wc~s concerned about the neighbor who has
pe rn~i~sion to be there.
Mr. Wriyht felt thc opposition vlsualixes trucks t~ the st~eet tryinc~ te get in~ asktng
directions~ etc. but he does not think tt~is will be a problem because he has been
afflliated with a major trucking compan, for several years and most of his customers will
probabiy bc f~or~ that company and w111 know the location.
aesponding to Comnissioner Bushore~ Mr. Wrfght explained the outdoor storage araa would be
used fpr impounding a vehicle for n~n-payment, etc. and they would be there for
app roximately seven days end thet the outdoor storage does nok include the 24 perking
spaces.
Commissioner Bushcre asked Mr. Swnnson I~aw many spaces he uses for employe•• parking and
Mr. Swe~son replied they use ~11 the spaces ad)oining 12Ei0 Sunshine Wa~y. He pointed out
t.;tie door thcy use hourly anJ felt it would ba difficult for the ~etitioner to get his
trucks in and he was not sure whether his lcase alloaed him co use all the spaces he is
using.
4/21/a0
~-;
MINUTES~ ANAHE~M CITY PLAII~~ING COMMISSION~ APRIL 21~ 1980 80-26f~
EiR NEGATIVE O~CIARATIUN ANO CONOITIOI~AI USE P~RNIT N0. 20~1 (CO~~TINUED)
~.... ...,... .. . ~,. ~ .
Mr. Swcnson ~x{~lalne~d the build(ng ls being used wlth no electriciry or toitet taclitttes.
Ilo potntcd out the paint area and stnted thcre is rr~ ft rewei l. ilo fel t(n a common t~ ant
buildiny~ the Fira dop~rtment woulJ have more stringent regulatinns for a truck repeir
facility.
~ommissioner Busl~orc asked Mr. Swonson if t~is petnt booth has been appr~ved with no
electricl ty. Ilo suggeateJ ap,~rr~val for a one~ycar pcrlod.
Fir. Wrtyht statcd he has been told F~~ can have thc whole building the first of the year
and fully intends to lease it.
ACTION: Commissloner fiushorc affereJ ~ rrotion~ seco~ded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION
CA~ED~ xhat the 1lnatieim Clty Planning Corm~iss(on t~as r~viewed the proposal ta permit an
automobile and truck repair shAp In the ML (Industrial, Limited) Zone on an irregularly-
sfioped parcel of land cansistlny nf Approximotely O.G ocre located ~et tt~e southtast corner
of Hiralomo Avonue end Sunshine Way, havin<~ r~pproxlmatc frontages of 173 on the southeast
side of MI rAlom~ Avenue and ~+~i2 fcet o~ ttie cast and northwest sldes of Sunshtne Way; and
doos hereby ap~rove [hc Ilegative Declarptlo~ from tl~e requirPment to ~reparc an
environmentol impact rep~rt on the bssis that the~e would be no signtficant Individual or
cumulative advers~ envtranmanta) impact duc ta tl~e ~pproval of this Nag~t(ve Declaration
since the Anahe(m General Plan destgnates the subJect property far yeneral I~dustrlal land
us~s commensurace with the proposal; t1~at no senstttve environmenta) impacts are involved
in the proposal; that the Initia) Stu~y submittr_d by the petltioner indlcates no
significant individu~l or cu.~ulative aciverse cnvi~onmcntal Irr~~cts; and that the Neg~tive
Declaration substantiating tl~e forcgoing fin~finc~s is on file in the Ctty of Anaheim
Piannlr.~ Uepariment.
Commissioner Bushorc off,~red Ra~olucion t~o. PCuA-71 an~~ nwved for its passAge and adoption
that the M oheim City Planning :ornmissi~n does herei~y grant Pctition for Condttional Use
Permit No. 2071~ f~r a period ~~ ~,~e-year~ s•bJPct t~ r.;view~ end subJect to the
p~ttttoner's sclpuldt(on tc~at there ~`~all bc no autdoor storage and all work shall be
conciucte~ wPi~lly Inside thc facllity ar,~ that no trailers shall be brough[ to the
fecllity~ and subJect to Interdepartme~n~al Committae reconxnendattons.
Chairwoman E3ernes wa~ conce~ned about Flr, Swenson's use of the area and asked when he
tntends to r~ove with Mr. Swcnson indicat'ng his leasc expires J+~nuery~ 19~1.
Chatrwc~man Da rn~:s was atso concerned abo~t the traffic problems end Cortn(sstoner David did
nat think tt~erc w~~id be that much of a pr~~pim.
Mswerin~ Commissioner Buahorc~ Mr. uright pointed out thcr~ is one othe~~ truck facility
in the are~ and three facilities in Orange ancf he Nes not a+~+are of any problems caus~d by
them.
Commtssioncr Fierbst felt the use belongs !n an industrlat ares~ but felt this is the wrong
lacation wi th tt~e 1 icnf ted acccss and iecatio~ of the bui l~ing.
Commisxloner Bushore ftlt tha use se rvices tl~e area end wi~h the sLipulation rQgarding no
trollers~ ih~re should be no problems and ~clt It should be e llvable situatlon for both
bustnesses.
6/z t /Ae
~•;
HiNUTES~ At~ANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 21~ 198~
EIR NEGA7IVE DECIAf~ATION AND CONQITIONAI USE PERMIT N0. 2071 (CQNTINUED)
..._f.~~~.....r.~..._.....__..~_....._~.
Mr. Nrtght explatned the tractors cen be pa~ked In automobile parking spaces.
On rol) call, the fo~cgoing resolutlon was passed by the following vote:
HYES: COMM~SSIONERS: OARNCS. BUSHORE~ DAVID. FRY~ Kit~G~ TOLAR
NOCS : COMrII SS IOt~ERS : NERE35T
ABSENT: COMMISSIONCRS: NONC
Jetk Whito, Assistent Clty ~ torney~ presented the wrltten rlght to appeal the
Planning Commission's deci~~un within 7.Z days to tl•~e City Councll.
80-267
ITEN f~0. 6 PU4LIC IIEARING. OWNERS: AK,IFIE111 MATEL LTb., 2535
€'~~RiCAI EXEMPT .~tJ :LASS-3 Martcopa Street~ Torrance~ CA ~0503. ACENT: S MI
VARI At~CE N0. 31 ! PI:ORO S I Gt~ COMPANY ~ 1I2~- M1 raf lor~ns Avenue ~ San Pedro~
CA y0731. Fati tione~ r~quests 41l11VER OF MAXIMUM AREA
OF FRCE-STANDING Slf~lS TO ER[CT TWO FREE-STANOING
SIGNS on property ~escribcd as a rectangularly-shaped parce! nf land cex~ststing of
approximatcly l~.8 acres, havlny a fronta5~~ ~f approximately 35~~ feet on the north side o`
Katolla Avenue, having a mAxlmum depth of apf%roximate.ly ;95 (ect and being located
approximately 131~ West of the centcrline of Statc Collcge Boulevard~ and further
Jescrlbed as 133t East Ketelln ~venue (Remad~ I~n). Praperty prescntly classifled ML
(IiJDUSTRIAL, LIMITLD) ZOt~E.
The~e was no one tndtcating their presencc in oppc~sit(on to subJect request~ and although
ChE staff report to the Planning Commtssion dated Ap~il 21~ 1990 was not read at the
publlc hcaring~ it Is referred to and made a part of th~e minutes.
Paul Taylor~ agent~ S~n Pedro Slgn Conpany, st~teJ the plan:. show thc aamada Inn stgn on
the left slde of the drlveway and tt~e motel entrar.ce sign on the ri~ht anci they would like
to reversc thosc two s i gns .
THE PUt1L1 C HCARI tIG WAS CLOSED.
Commlssioner Oavid potnted out chis request is double the sign parmttted ~nd Mr. Taylor
sald this size woul~f bQ allowable if it were back 50 feet and there is less tha~ onc
square foot of siyn per lineal foaL of frontage.
Gomm(sstoner King asked if the sign cuuld be recfuced to 1~2 squ.~re fdot as g~anted f~r~Mr.
Stox'~and kr. Teylor dld not think his tlient wauld want the sign reJuced that much. Ne
notad the size of the motel ~roperty was much larger than the restau~a~t property a~~d
stated thts is one of the stendard smalier motcl siyns.
Commissione~r Hefist referred to the large wal t sign~ the larger sign out front a~nd the
entrance sign which all read "kamada Inn" and felt the entrence sign sl~a~ld confo~m to the
Ordtnance of three syuare feet and fclt the other siyn is toc- large, and he had no problem
with the hetyht. Fle suggested reducfny the sign Co 182 square fect~ wl'h the 3-square
foot entrs~ce sign~ requiring only a parttal watver.
Mr. Taylnr potnt~d ouc a" Ramada Inn" siyn rcquires morr i~tters than "Mr. 5tox" and felt
that shou'.~ be consfdered.
It was noted the Planning Qirector or hls auth~rized representative has determin~d that
the proposed pro,Ject falls wtthin the definition af Categorical Eaemptions, Class 3. eR
defined tn paragra ''' of the Ctty c` Anahetm E~vironme~tal Impact Report uidelines end
is, therefore, cr ically exempt from the requlrement to prepA~e an EIR.
~/21/80
i~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANIIINC COMMISSION, APRIL 21~ 1980 8p-268
EIR CATEGORICAt, EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 AND VARIANCE~1~0. 3146 (CONTINUED)
ACTIOt~; Commisalc~ner Hyrb~t offered Resolution No. PC3~-7: and moved for its passaqe snd
aToptfen that the Anahair~ City Planning Coaxnisston does hereby g~Ant Petitlon for Varlance
No. 3146~ in part~ ailowtr;~ a free-atanding sign of 182-squ~re feet an~ an entra~ca aign
of 3•square feet on the b~sis that denial would d~prive sub}ect proNerty of e privilege
enJoyed by other property owners in the aer~e zone and vtcinlty and subJect to
Interdepartmenta) Committec recommendations.
On roll tall~ the forcyoing resolution was passed by the fallowt•,;; votc:
AYES: COI~-~ISSIO:ICRS: DAV1U~ FRY~ HLRbS7~ KI-~G~ TOLnR
~IOCS ; CON'!I SS I OIIEI',S : 9AR~IES ~ BUSr10^f
AeSE~IT: COf1t115510t~ERS : NO'IE
J~cl: White~ Assistant Lity Attorney~ presentcd t!~c writccn rla~~t to ~ppea) tt~e P1an~ifnq
Cortris5ion's decisior wit!,irti 22 ~1~ys tc~ the Clt~ Co.,ncil,
ITFIt Nr,, 7
~ P. S ~i:; RECOrr~~~,;~~~TI~t:S
The followinc,~ Rep~~rts and Recomnendations staff reports werr presented but not read:
A. TE117~,TIVE Ml,P OF TF.'~CT NOS. IOS;;7 and 1~5~t - Fec;uest for extension of tlme. by
.lanes .~. McCartt~y~ VT.~, in orucr to completr processing of the ffnal t~att naps
for p~operty locatec! on tl~e west side of Not~l Ranch Roed~ e~~roxir~ately 271 feet
south of tf~e centerline of Canyon RIM Ro~J.
ACTI~i~: Commiasioner Kiny offered a motlo^ seconded by Cormissiener David and
M IGt: GhR~ICJ~ that ti~c Ma~~ei~~~ City Planninq Ca~mission ~oes he~cby grant a
one-year extenslon of time to expire on July 3~ 19;;1~ for ?entative Map of Tract
I~os. 105~; an:i tO;LG.
li. COC;JITIUt~~.L USE PCP.ttfT k0. 1"1'. - Request for termination from William C.
aurm na~ aor~,,~na ndustr es~ for p~o~,Grty at 301 N~rth Anaheim ~oulevard.
ACTIOt~: Comr~issioner K1ng offe~ed Rcsolution t~o. PC80-73 and moved for tts
pas:aye and adoption that the Maheim Ctty Planning Ca;u~issiun does hereby
terminate all proteedinys in connection v+'~n Conditional Use Permit No. 1uib.
On roll call~ tlie foregoing resolution was paised by the foliowing vote:
AYES: COnni:SIQ~~ERS: BARNES~ BuStiORE~ ~AV1o~ FP,Y~ NER85T~ KING~ TOLAR
NOES : COIStt I SS I OI~ERS : NONE
A8SE11T: COt1~115510!IERS; NONE
4/2t/&0
~
MINUTES~ ANAl1E1M CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION, ll~'RIL 21~ 1960 f30-269
REPORTS ANU RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINI:~D)
..._
C. CQNUITIONAL USE PERMI_T_N0._ 1~~b - Rcqurst for one-year extension of tlm~ from
HeZen~i o~n,~rv ne 'ntcrprltes~ to permlt a t~nt cemping factlity In an
axisting racreAtlonal vel~icie perk et 333 d~d 1~75 West Dall Road.
AGTIAI~: C~mMissione~ King affered t~ inotion~ seconded by Comr+~isStoner Qavid and
1~~1 CARRIkD, thc~t tl-c Ana~helm Clty Plnnntnn Commisslon does hereby c~rant th~
request far ~ one-year extenston of time ta ex~ire ~~n May 2i~ 1~81~ for
Condltlonal Usc Permft No, iL~;;.
U. Af3~liU011MLNT N0. 7'i•27A - Requcsst t~ aba~idon e~ortlon of the "Qld" 5ant~+ AnA
Cany~n Road, lying southerly of chc Santb Ana Canyon Road and west of the
S.I1.V.1. Canal from M. C. Nic~:le~ Classtc Develop~~nt Corp.
Co~imisstoner lierbst oske~ whetl~er the access ta Y.uby's Garden ~enter wlll be
aff~clcd if this rcyucst is denie~l nnd Jey Titus~ Officc Ene~ineer~ explained
thc~ir access weuld be protect~cf tl~rau~li deni~l.
ACTION: Cammissioner Kin~ offered n nx~tlon, secondec! by Cartinlsstoncr U~vid and
MOTION CARRIED, that thr I1nAhe(m C;ty Plenning Commisslan does hereby recommend
to the Ci t~ Counci I that the rec~uest for Abandonment t~o. 78-27A be denied as
~ec~mn~cn~ed by v~rious City departments.
E. GONUITIONA~ USE PLRMIT NU. l,t' - Request for retros+ctive sxtenslon of time frvm
lbna~ d L. Sha ar~ to pcrmit tf~~ expansion uf a cocktail louny. And dance h~+ll at
1203 West Linc~ln Avenue.
ACTION: Commissioner t;ing offered a motion~ secc~nded by Co~missioner Oavtd anct
MQTIOM CIIP,RIEU. thr.t the lln~hcim i.ity Planning Commission does hereby gr.tnt the
requcst for a one-ye~r~ retr~active extension c~f timc tu exp:re on Aorl~ 10~
19i,1~ for Conditional Usc Permit No. 1~1?.
F. CUtIUITI('' 1L USE PERMIT N0. 1~i25 - Request for a onc •year ext~nsion of tirr-~ from
La~ry W. ates~ Robert Sch- uTfer Ministries, t~+ permlt a cemete ry on prC~~erty
loc~ted on the east sicie of Lewis Street ana th~ southwe~t sidc of Manchester.
ACTION: Commissioner Kiny ~ffered a motion~ seccndcd by Commissioner Davld and
1F`~p iQN CARRIED~ ch~~t the Anaheim :Ity Planntng ,;omnissian does hereby grant
request for a onc~year exten;ton of ciric t~ expire on Jun~ 6~ 1981~ for
Cnnditional Use Pcrmit No. 't~2;;.
G. R_EI~UEST FOR RECLASSiFICATION OF P ARCELS LOCATEO ON THE t~ORTN SIDE OF LINCOLN
AVEI~UC-EAST flF WESTERttJ AVENUF. - by the Ctty Plann~ng Dcpartment due to reguests
~'ror^ 13 o the 1~ Nroperty ~ners in the 31~0 blocl. of west Lincoln Avenue.
ACTIO~J: Commissioner Kit ~ffered ~:~otion~ se:.~n~ed by Commissione~ Dav1d and
MOTIO CARRIEa~ that the ~~naheim City Planning Commtssio• cnnsiders the
inltiation of recl-,ssification of property located at 3-~3-31F5 tJest Lincoln
Avciu~ from RS-7200 (P,esldential, Singte-Femily) 7.one to the CL (Comrnerctal,
Limited) Zone appropriate at Chis r.ime.
4/21/8@
i~
,~
r
MINUTES~ Af11WtIM CITY PLANNING CQMNISSION, APRIL 21~ 1984 ~•z7~
REC€SS Thrra was A fifteen•mtnute ~ccess at 3s35 P•n~
.,......._
RECONVkNE Thc meeting w~s r~conv~nod at 3:5n p.m.
_.....~._...-
PUC3LIC WORK SESSION
ENVIRQNMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 231
'v~N'~A7CL~ L~JCN ~N D ~I N 0. a~
- ----
1. ANENDMENT TO 1'HE LAND USE EIEMENT: Alt~~ ~posAls of ultimate land uses
nc uding. but not mlted to li ll~i~e Es ~iliside Low-Nedlum~ Hillside
Medlum, General Commercfal ~nd Gencral Open _,ace far en A~CA ~f approx(mately
9y0 acres generally located souch of the Bauer ae~ch. wr.st of the Wellace snd
Douglass Ranches~ northwcst and north of [he sauthern Californla Edlson casement
and east of th~ present An~helm Nllls Planned Comnunlty.
11. A~IENDMENT 70 Tt1E CIP~CULIITION CLEMEt~T; Praposal to Jelete Monte Vista Road
between 5anta Ana Cenyon aoad end Weir Canyc~n Road as a Hillaide Arterlal
Highway.
Followiny a lengthy discussion, the Planning Comnlssfan Indtcated no additlonal
alte rnatives need be presented at tl~e continucd publl~ henring an May 3, 1g~0.
AUJOURNIIENT: Commissioncr Fry offcred a motion~ seconded by Ca-xnissfoner Qavid and MOTION
CARRIED that the meeting be adJc~urned.
The meeting was ad,jnurnr_d at 7~0(1 p.m.
Respectfully submitted~
~~. ~ ~~...:.
Edi*.h ~. Harris, Secretary
Anaheim Gity Planning Commission
ELH:im
4/21/~