Minutes-PC 1980/06/02~~ i ,
City H~1)
An~helm~ Ca~llfornia
June 2, 1980
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR • The regutar meeting of the Anahelm Clty Planntng Commtsston wa~a ulled
ME~TING to ordc~ by Ch atrwoman BArnes at 1:35 p.m.~ June 2~ 1980 in the
Counci l Chanber, a quo~um being present.
PRESENT - Chalrwoman: Barnes
Commissionors: 9ushore~ David, Fry~ Nerbst~ King~ Tolar
ALSO PRESENT - Jack Whitc
Jey Titus
Annika Santal~htt
Dean Sherer
Edtth Her~ts
Assistant Clty Attorn ey
Office Engineer
Assistant Dlrector for Zoning
Aasistant Planntr
Planning Commission Secreta ry
PL~OGE OF - 1'he Pledye of Allegtance to the Flag was led by Commiastoner Toler.
ALIEGIANCE
APPROVAL 0 F - Commisslone~ King offered a mation, seconded by Commissio~er Davtd
THE MINUTES and MOTION CARRIEO~ that the minutes af the meeting of May 1~~ 1980
be approved as submitt~d.
CONTINUED ITEM~
ITEM N0. 1 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JAMES 0. 9AKER, III AND
Ei~t E ORICAL EXEMPTION-CLA5S JON MARIE BAKER~ 563 Paseo Ganado~ ARaheim, CA 92807.
. Peticioner ~equeste WAIVER OF PERMITTEO LOCATION AND
ORIENTATfON OF STRUCTURE TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-FAMiLY
DWELIItIG on property descrtbed as an trregularly-
shaped parcel of land consisting of aQproximately 1.06 acres located at the southesst
corner of Canyon Rim Road end Paseo Ganado, havtng spproximate frontage3 of 300 feet on
the south side of Canyon Rim Road and 80 feet on the east s(de of Paseo Ga~ado~ a~d
furthe~ described as 563 Pasco G~ado. Property presently ciassifted as RS-7200(SC)
(RESIQENTIAL~ SINGLE-FAMILY) 20NE.
It was noted the petitioner had requested a contin~ance in order to submtt revised plans.
ACTIOt~: Con~nissioner King offered a motion~ seconde~d by Commissioner Tolar and MOTIdN
CARRIEp, that conslderatio~ of the aforementioned ttem be continued to the reqularly
scheduled meettng of July 1~!~ 198~.
iT~M N0. 6 PU@LIC NEARI~~G. OWNERS: JERRY L.~ BARBARA A.,
~T~E '~VE DEClARA7fON DE~DERT L. AND ELMA MARIE PQE~ 17032 Ntllwood Drive,
_ _ N1~ Yorba Ltnda, CA 92686 AND BANK~RS LIFE INSURANCE
C~ND~~f I ON U~SE E~Rl~11T N0. 2084 COMPANY ~ Home Of f i ce, L i ncol n~ Nebraska o8501.
AGENT: J. S. I. TRUCKING, JIM ~. SANDERS, President~
918 East Ve rnant Avenue, A~eheim, CA 92805. Petitioner requesta permission to PERMiT A
TRUCKIlIG YARO I~~ TNE ML ZONE WITH wAIVER OF Ml1XIMUM FENCE {iEIGHT on property described as
an irregularly-shaped pa~cel of land conslsting of approximately 2.0 ac~es having a
frontage of approximately 77 feet on the south side of Vermont Avenue~ having a maxtnn~n
depth of app roximately 490 feet and bning located 750 feet west of the centerltne of East
Street, and further described as 918 East Ve rnant Ave~uo. Property presently classified
HL (INDUSTRIAL, LIMITE 0} 20NE.
60•312 . 6/2/80
~~
,
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 2~ 198Q ~'313
CONTINUED ITEMS (CON7INUED)
It was ~oted tha petitfone~ had requested a contlnuance in order La submit rnvised pl~nt.
ACTION: Commissloner Ktng offered a motlon~ seconded by Commissloner Tolar and MOTION
~D~ thet cronaide~atio~ of the aforementlon~d item be conttnued to the requlerly-
sche~uled meeting of June 16~ 1980~ tn ordnr for the petitioner to submit revised plans.
ITEM NO.~ PUBLI~ HEARING. OWNERS: TEXACO INC.~ 3350 Wtishir~
~1~E RICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS " Boulevard~ Los Angeles, CA 90010. ACENT: JAIRO A.
R NCE N0. 315 CORREl1~ 3350 Wiishire Boutevard~ Los Angeles~ CA
._.~...~.._.___
90010. Petit~oner requosts WAIVER OF MAXIMUM SI '1
AREA TO PERMIT A FREE-STANDING SIGN on property
descrtbed as s r~+ctangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting af app~oximetely 0.8 acre
hsving a frontag~s of approximately 186 feet on the east side of Anaheim I~ills Road~ having
e maxtmum depth af epproximataly 189 feet and bning locatad approximately 5A0 feet north
of the cente~lin~ of !lohi Ranch Road~ ~nd further descrtbed es 400 South M~helm Hills
Road~ Property presently classtfied CL(SC) (COMMERCIAL~ IIMITEO) ZONE.
It was notad a conttnuance hes been requested tn order to readvertise.
ACTIUN: Commtssioner King offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Tolar and MOTION
~D, that consi~deration of the aforementtoned item be conttnued to the re~ula~ly
schnduled meeting of June 16~ 1980~ in order that the petitton may be readvertlsed.
ITEM f10. 2 PUBLi;, HEARING. pWNERS: CIL AND FAYE ROD~tIGUEZ~
'~1~~7~'tTVE OCGLARATION STEPI~CN AND VELDA BR~OKS, 80~ North Fern Street,
CL S C ON t~0. 9-8A-38 Orange, CA 92661, Property described as a
1~AR~ANC~ P~O. 315 rectangularly-shaped parcel of tand conslsting
-~~'-' "-"'-""" of epp~oximately 0.25 acre located at the northeast
corner of Chartres StreQt and Citran Street, havln± a frc+ntage of approximately 122 feet
on the north side of Chartres Strcet and a fronte9e of approximately 91 feet on the east
side of Citran Street, and further described as 20G North Citro~ Street.
REQUES3ED CLASSIFICATION: RM-1200 (RESIDENTIAI, M1ILTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAtVERS OF MI'~IMUM LAMD5CAPED SETBACK ANO MINIMUN RECREATIONAL•
LE~SURE AREA.
There was no one indicating thsir presence in oppostLion to suD,jc~cC request, and alth~ugh
the staff report to the Qlanning Commtssion dated June 2~ 19~ was not read at the publtc
heartng~ it is referred to and made a part of the minutes,
gill Uh1, 27~gA Satte rn Strest~ Brea, p~esented a colored rendering nf the site pian and
expl~ined *he property is bounded by RM-2400 zoning, parking ~oning developed as single-
family resid~ntial and a schooi; that the neighborlrood is otd and is deteriorating and
they feel this proJeck will be an improvement to the area; and thac windows to the north
are oriented away f~om tf~e adjacent RM-2400 development to the north. Ne pointnd out the
need for ap~rtments tn tha Ci ty.
Mr. Uhl steted subJect property co~sists of two 47•foot wide lotswith street frontagas on
two stdes which severely ltmit the size of the buitding and also there ts a~•foot
dadication e~ Chartras Stre~t a~d a 3-foot a11ey dedication. He explafn~d ~e waa not
aware that the recreational•letsure area was a problem until he read the staff report
bec.ause they had thought the front yard areas oould be constdered as apen space.
THE PUBL{C HEARIt~G WAS CLOSEO.
6/2080
;..~F;~
~
ca
~.
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE a, ~9~
EIR NEGIITIVE DECLARATION~ RECLASSIfICAtION NA. 79'~'38 AND
VAftIANCE N0. ~,1,~ (CONTINUED)
8c~-31k
ACTION: Commisslonar Ktng offerod a n~-tlon~ scconded by Commisslone~ Tolar ~nd MOTION
~Q~ that the A~ehoim City Planntng Commisston hes revlev+ed the propo~al to ~eclaaLlfY
subjact propsrty from the RN-2440 (Raeldential~ Multiple-Femliy) Xone to canstruct 8 9•
u~it epartmont compiox with waivars of minim~xn landscaped setback and minimum
recre+~tlonai-lei~u~e are~ on s rectanguiar'y-shsped parcal of land consistinq of
spproximately Q.2~ acre lacated at the no~theast corner of Chartres St~eet and Citron
StrAet, haviny a f~ontdge of app~oxlmetely 122 feet on the north ai de of Ch~+rtr~s Straet
•nd a frontage of approximatcly 91 feet on the east side of Citron Street~ and does hereby
app~ove the Neqatt ve Oacl aratl on f n~m the requt ~roment to prepa~e en envt ronme~tel impact
report on the besis that ther~ would be no stgntficont individuel or cumulative adverse
envtranmental impact due to the approvel of this Negative Daclaratt4n sinca+ the Anr~eim
General Plan designates the sub~ect property for modlum dens(ty land uses commenwurate
wt th the p ropo~ 1; that na se~a 1 t 1 ve envt ~onmcn *A1 Impacts t~re 1 nvo 1 ved I n the proposai ;
thet the Initl::~ Stucly submitted by the petltioner indicates no slg~ificant tndivfdua) or
cumulstive ad~frndinns'isnon~flle~ineche~Cicy ofeAnahetm~PlanningeDepartrnents~stantieting
the foregoiny t g
Commissloner King offered Resolutlon No. PC80-fi7 and movad for iCS p~ssage and adoption
that tho Anahetm City Plann(ny Commtssion doas hereby grant thc Petitlon for
Reclassification No 79•~'38~ subJect to Intardepartmental Committee recommendatlons.
On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the follvwtng vote:
AYES: CQM1115510~IER5: OARf~ES ~ BUSIIORE, DAVIO, FRY ~ HERBST. K111G~ TQLAR
NOES: COMMI S51 ONERS : NOtdE
ABSE~JT; COM.MISSIOt~ERS: ?~ONE
Commissioner Kirg offered Resotution No. PC80-88 and moved for its passage and adoptlon
that the Anaheim City Planning Cortmissio~ does hereby g~ent Petition far Va~tanca Na. 3~50
on the baais that other existing bulldings in the dree ara located 10 feet from Chertres
St~ent; ancl due to thc limited size of thc propcrty; end tn order to make efficiont use of
the propertYend subvect toulnterdepa~tmentalbCommittee recommendationserea extsts across
the street. j
On roll call~ the foregoing resolutlon was pas.sed by the following vr
AYES : COMMI SS I O~IERS : BARNES ~ BUSNORE 1 DAV! D. FRY ~ HERl~5T ~ KI NG, TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMI SS I OtdERS : NONE
6/2~80
~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 2~ 1g80
%
80•315
ITEM N0. PUBIIC HEARiNG. INITIATED BY TNE CITY OF
VE DEC~ARATION ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION~ 204 East lincol~
__,~,_____.,,._.~. Q:37 Avenue~ Anahelm~ CA 92Bt1y. P~tttton~r reque~tts
th~t proparty described as a rect~ngularly-~h~ped
parcel of lsnd cansisting of spproximately 3.40
ac~ot havi~g a frontage of approximately ~9b feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue~
having ~ msxlmum depth of app~oximat~ly 147 feet end betng lac~ted approximataly 300 f~et
east of the centerl ine of Western Avenue~ and further described aa 31~3-31b5 West lincoln
Avenue be ~ecla~sifted from the RS•72Q4 (aESIDENTiAI~ SINGLE-FAMILY) 20NE TO THE CL
(COMMERCIAL~ IiMITED) tONE.
Tha~e was one penon tnd(cating his presence in opposttlon to subJect request~ seven
(nterested ~roperty ewners tndicat~d thelr presence end five (ndtcated thoy ltve on thelr
p rope rty .
Dean Shere~~ Asslatent Planner~ presented the steff report to tha Plenning Conxnission
deted Ju~e 2~ 19A0~ and pointed out cl~e exhibi t dn the wei l.
Nancy McCa rdeil~ 312G Polk, steted th~re is an allcy wherc thc chtldren play and b~ceuse
of the co~r~+brcia) uses there Is a lot of tra~fic in the alley. She feit tf this whc~le
block ts reronod to com~nerciwl~ the houses on Palk would be affeceed dnd sho was opposed
to the reclassificatlon,
Fred Covtna~ 3143 West llnooln, statcd hc awns the proparty at 3143 and 3139 West Lincoln,
and pal nted out there ere no ai dewal ks or dr• i veways 1 n th ( s araa. tle s tsted o~e of the
Planning Gonmissloners had sald tan years ago that this property should be rezoned; that
hc has to use thc alicy becausc they have no access to Lincoln; thak he Is In favor of
this rezoning and asked wl~cn sidewatka and drlveweys wtil be constructed~ noting Llncoln;
is a ge~etivay to Anahelm. He stnted hc is ?0 years old and ta happy to llve wherd h~ (s.
Responding to Chairwoman Barncs' questio~~ five psrsons indicated they were in favor af
this request.
David McG~oen~ 3115 Lincoln, Indl~ated 14 letters were received from property owners
supporting the req;~est and stated thls area ia not adequate for h4using because of tht
conditlon of the street end tha conn~erctal uses in the area~ anci fait It Is dangerous for
cht ldr~n.
TFIE PUdli G NEARING WAS CLOSED~
Cc-mmtssio~er Herbst atated he would like to see the area zo~ed for cannercia) uses only if
an A~ea Oevelopment Study is done to ailow for land assembly~ ;xith posslbiy three Access
potnts on to Llncoi~ and the houses to thc rear would have to have~ adequate protcction with
sldewalks and landscaping. He statcd staff will be given the teak of providtng a desi~n
with access onto Lincoln alignedwith other eccessos to provide adequate t~affic
6/Z/80
~~ ~' ~ ~ }
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI5SION~ JUNE 2~ 1980 ~';16
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RECLASSIFICATION r~0. 19~~~Z (CONTIyuEO)
circulatlon. He dld not feei the p~opartios could be developed commercially without land
assertb ly.
Commtasioner Tolar agraed and folt commcrcial dcvelopmant wauld oliminate the problem of
chitdran ptaying I~ the ~i ley and lendsceping wouid c~eete a buffer and provide protaction
to tho residents an Polk; hawever~ he would oppose ttiis propnsed reclassificatiun wlthout
an Area Developmant Plan and without land assembly becausa he felt it u+eulc' be spot
zoning. He agreed Lincoln Is a gateway to the Ctty and approvei would be creetin9 more of
a prob lem.
Commissioner tlerbst fett without access to Ltncoln, t~afftc would be a problem end asked
hvw lo~g staff would n~ed ta provida the requested study.
A~ntka Santelahti~ Asststant Oi~ector for Zoning, felt two months w~uld he requ{red and
~ ugges ted Augua t 11 th as an app rop r t ate date .
ACTION: Commlssioner Herbst offered a nbtlon~ saconded by Cortmisslone~ To1ar end MQTION
~D, that the Anaheim Ct ty Planning Commisslon does hereby continue the aforementioned
matter to the meeting of August 11~ 1980~ fn order for staff to provlcie en Area
Oovelopment Plan.
Chairwoman Barnes explained land assembly means the property owners get together and
develop a commercial pro_ject rather than converting each individual house and this matter
has been continued to August 11th tn order for staff to create an Area Development Plan
shorring how the whole area can be developed. She pointed out thc property owners wi il not
be re-notifted of the August 11th hearing.
(Commissioner Nerbst left the meeting at 2:35 p.m•~
ITEM N0. 4 PUNII C FIEARI NG. OWNERS: JOHN rRl EM~ SR. , a32
EIR ~~IE~~TVE UECLARI1T101~ South Knott Street, Anaheim~ CA 9zBu4• Prop~rty
RECLA~SI ICATION N0. '-80- 9 described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land
~1~~~ODE .QU REM NT consisting of approximately 0.53 acre having
~~ M 0. 20$3 apProxirnate frontages of 29; f~et on Che south slde
- of Lincoln Avenuc~ GG feet on thc eaat
side of Harding Orive and 6G feet on the west slde of Grand Avenue~ and further described
as 3100 West Lincotn Avenue. Prope~ty presently classified R5-A-43,f~OQ
(RESIDENTIAL~AGRICULTURAL) ZOI~E.
aEQUEStED CLASSIFICATIOt~: CL (COMME.RCIAL~ LIMITED) 20t1E.
REQUEST~D COtiDITIO~JAL USE: TO P~RMIT AN AUTO SERVICE CENTER WITH WA1 VERS OF: (a)
MAXIMUM STRUCTURAI HElGHT, AND ~b) MINIMUM LMIDSCAPEO SETBACK.
Ttere was no one Indicating their p~esence in oppositlan to subJect request, and although
t-~e staff report to the Plannin~ Commisston dated June 2, 1~~0 was not read at the publlc
hearing~ it is referrecl to and made a part ~f thp minutes.
John P~iem~ 832 South Knott Aven..e, ~+naheim~ vwner, referrea to the staff report which
indics+tes exterior building materlals consisk of stucco~ metal an~i waod trtm, and
Glarified th~t the building wi il be concrete b1ocM and that the tandscaping is shown on
his plan as three f~et.
6/2/80
~
E ~
MINUTES, ANANCIM CITY PLANNING CONMiS SION, JuNE 2~ 19H0 80-317
Ei a NEGATIVE OECI.ARATION, aECLASS 1 FI CIITION N0. 79-$0•39 ~
WAIVER OF CODE REqUiREMENT AND CANDIT IONAL USE PERMIT N0. 20f33 (CONTINUEQ)
(n ~esponse to Commisstaner King's q u~atton, M~. Priem tndicated he thou~ht the alley wds
dsdicated and is f6 feet wt~ie.
THE PUOLIC NEARINf, WAS CLOSEO.
Cc~mmissloner Ktng paint~d out a S~fac~t l~ndsc~~~e setback is required and ~~ feet is
propose~.
Mr. Prler.~ st++ted oriqinnlly a 1A-foot setback was proposed on Ile~dlnca Urivc and G~and
Avenue; however, (t was lotcr Jetcrmi ned that some ded(eatfon an tlarding Drive would be
~equt rod and the sl ze of thc t~ays was ruJuce~l anci the resul t was a~i-foot setback.
Commissioncr [~ushorc asked when thc alley would bc tm~rovccl end who would improve It.
Jay Titus~ Office Englnr.nr~ expl~ined thc 1(,-foot wtcic alley is existln~ and the Clty is
a~king for dedlcAtlon to 2(1 feec. H ~ statecl the Ctty normdlly requ(res the developer to
imp rove the a11Qy and natrd the City do~s not have a sch~dule for improving that
perttcutar alley.
Commisstoncr Elust~ore fet t the Ci ty's al ley Iriprovcm~nt progr~m has b~cn Inadequata and
felt tP thc dedication Is made~ then thc allcy thould bc lmproved lmmcdit~tely.
Mr. P~lem ~explainr.d he liad changcci che trash location becAUSe tha ailey Is not pdvnd; snd
that the alley is ovc~ 2~~ fret lon g ond only serves one property.
Commisalo~sr aushore diJ not unciers t and how this alley was originally allawed for access
for one pers~n end felt In sc~me inst~nc~s, it a~pears the Clty is "land grabbing" for no
apparonk good reason, polnting out Ltic City Is r~questinh a two•foot dedicaClon and can~ot
even say when the al ley wi 1 1 be irnnravcd.
Mr. Titus esked when the de~icaLiAn vrould ultimately be yottcn lf thc elley were to be
im~roved in the futurc anJ stated if there i• no need for the alley, it should be
abandoned.
Chatrwoman (iarnes statrd the Commission is rot ln a position to debatc whether the alley
is needed and Gommissioner Bushore pointed out thc atley ck d(cstlon is a condition of
e~pproval an~i clartffe~ he is not sa~ring the alley should be abandoned.
Gammissioner Tolar stated if the txo-faat dedtcation is ne~ded~ this Is the only time to
get i t and the cywnc r cen reques t abandonmen t of the ~ I 1 ey i f th i s reques t I s approved
lncluding the condttions~ ancf can tt~en create access for that one property owne~ usiRg the
~a11eX.
`!,~ ~ P~c,~~ ~h
Nr. W~•1 stated he wtll dedicst~ th e Mo feet on the ~11ey ~nd twclve feet on Harding in
order to get the proJect apprnved a~d stnrtecf.
Commissior,er Rushore statcJ chis is a new development an Lincoln wich en owner trying to
i~nprove his property and fett If th~e City is esking the owne~ for a d~dtGatlon~ the City
haa an obligation tn do same:l~ing with the altey. Ne explalned in Z9E~ or 1970 he had
persanally upp~ared before the City Cou~cil asking that alleys be pavad and it has not
been done; that restdenti+~) alleys were supposed ta be less than 20 fcet and the
requlrement fo~ commerciai alieys i s 20 feet and stated his motives are somewhet personal
beceuae of s problem he had relating ta dsdkatiom m~d ralo cation of a kall. He did rtot
thlnk it fair to "land greb" withv~st pra~nising something in return.
6/2/80
~:. ~ l. i~
' . !
MIKUTES, ANAHEIM CI'1"Y PLANNING COMMISSIQN~ JUN~ x~ 1980 $0•31$
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 79•80~39,
WA 1 VER OF COdE RE4U 1_REMENT AND CON01 TI ONAL USE PERM 1 T N0~ 3(CONT I NUEO)
~~~'O~Mr ~W~F indicetad he undarstsnds (t is sp~+ropriat~.~LQ seek abendonmont of the ~lley i} tt
ts nAt needed, but the~ro was somc doubc obout who would own the alley~ etc.~ ond that he
hsd not wantad to c~at Involved bacause oP the tlr~e anci oxpcnsr Inv~ivad tn the actual
eb+s~donmant~ He~ felt the aliey wlll eventually bc abn~Jonocl.
I ~~~d~
Commisstonor David noteci thet tF the elley is abandonecf after this prc~Ject ts developed~
It wauld not bc functinna) an~ Commtssloner 6ushare agrced end tl~rifled his Intent that
If the two feet is decJicat~:d anJ the atley services the new d~velopment~ a commitment
shauld be made for improvemc:nt of tl~e alley.
p~, w~.
Mr. !!M statcd this alley do~~ not even align witl~ the t+iley across the street and he sees
no reasa~ for the al 1 ey .
Commtssioner Tolar statE~d f~e is In fevor of the ~roposnl but nat at thts time bscause of
this dlscusst~n regardine~ thc allcy. Ne ~uygestnd thc petitl~ner requcst abandonment of
thc elloy and redesign thc pro,jcct sU ct~At tht~t property w~ll not be left dormAnt.
f~. ~'~
b`,~+~rht~. tlM1 statec~ tt~~re are pr~pcrty awners on tt,e other stdc of che elley wha may want the
p ~opErty .
~~
~~n T~ash ~reaa werc discussed and Hr. 11M explalr~d arininallv thc trash w~s located on the
alley~ but after lcarnin~ that thc 12-foat d~dlcation would be required~ the size of the
bays was reduced nnd the tresh was relotAt~ci ta tha front because he did not wt+nt the
~~ash lacatrd at the corn~rs ~f the bui 1 di ny.
Comnissianer F~y sugcjes[r,d a~~proving tf~e p~oJECt and instructing staff to abandon the
allcy.
P~c,lr.~
Cvmmtssioner Tolar t..it the mattrr shoulci be cleaned up end Mr. brtl pointed out there is a
$250 abancSanment fee ancf ~sl:ed if the alley ~+auld be given to him (f lt is ~bandontd.
Commissluner Tolar state:f as a lanJ planner he cannot support thts pro]ect~ elthough he Is
totally in favar of it~ because it would create an unusable piece of tand behlnd it and
suggasted this n~attcr be continuQC~ unti 1 tt~~ is§uc has been resolved.
Cortr.iissioner Tolar offered a nx~tlon~ seconcle~l by Chalrwoma~ Barnes that consideration of
thc afo~ementtoned item be continucd to thc me~ting ~f Junc 1G, 19~0.
Mnike Sancal~+hti~ Assistant Director for 7oning, ex~la~ned the dedicetion of the elley is
a raquirament af the Zoning Gocic and the 20-foot aliey ts an thc Generai Pian and another
publit heertng wauid he necessary to waive tt~~ deciication.
~~r ~
Mtr. !1M st~ted tf the allcy is ~bandoncd i~ the future~ the elght feet could t~e cfeveloped
for park) ng .
Camnlsslancr 7olar stated he could supPort the proJect as tt is if che peticioner +vtll
stlpulatc to request mn abancluntnent~ :hen Impravc the pro~arty for parking and maintain
i t.
Jack whtte~ Assista~t City Attorney~ stated that stipulatlon aould be ~ut of the Planning
Commissian's ~urisdictian.
Jay Titus. Office Enginaer~ explained to abancion the aliey, contact would have to be made
rri th ai l uti 1 i ty cortpenies ~ R~aPeftY ~+~ers. etc.
6/2/90
- .. _ ~=~~
~~
~ j
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 2~ 1~80 8~•319
EIR NEQATIVE DECLAMTiON, REClASSIFICAT10N N~~. 79'~'~9~
Wl11Vf R OF CODE RE~UfREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PE_RMIT N0. 2083 (CONTINUED)
~.. ...~~,...._...~...- -
Commissionor Uusl~ora ssked th~t tha motion end snccm d be wtthdrawn because h~ w~s merely
questiontng why the cleJtcetlon was br.irg ~equlred and hed not Intended to delay the
proJact.
ChalrwamAn tiarncs fcit tha Commission has ~ d~~ty to perform an~! stnce the sub_~ect h~s been
brought up~ thc problem sl~o~~lc1 bc rc~solv~~l. Shc f~lt the Carxhisaian would bo 'hlrkfn~
their duty in epproving the proJact as proposed.
The wote was taken on the prece~ling mc-tinn t~ continue the matta~ for two weeks and FAILED
TO CARRY (Commla~lon~rs aushorc~ pavid~ Fry~ nnd Kinn v~tin~~ no).
Commi~si~nrr Tal.ir stat~~d he orihinally was gatny to support this prn)ect In its entirety
bccouse hc lll~.es it, but cannot support it -~+lth thc excess lan~f wf~ich Eng(neering says mey
not ever bc an ~lley. lie felt thQ qucstian is whccher thc al~ey is nepJed and Jay Titus
oxplolned It ls a Jc~iic~tcd allcy~ but hc ls not sure tf nnd ~ahen (t wlll bc improved or
( f 1 t i s ncede~l,
Ns rvay Owcn~ 110G1 H w~ti~~ Norn~ 5anta Ana~ suygested the allcy be IAndscr~ed und
rtwlnt~lned by thc patitlancr.
Jack White. Asslstant City Attorncy~ polnted out thc c~wner of thc alley would hsve to b~
d~te~mined befvre tl~at rcquircment could bc l~poscd. lie explAlneci three contingc~ctes
(wl~o ewns t~~c property ~ whcther thc ol lcy is necded and whether thc Ci ty Counci 1 wi I 1
abendon it) ~rc comp~undcd uCon each otF~er. 1Ie staced a conclltton coutd be added ta the
epp~ova) whleh tnelu.iec'. all three- c~ntinge~cies.
H'-+~^~
Mr. t?h) stat~ed if th~ Cicy abandaned the allcy~ o lot of tlme would he involved t~nd
indt catod he woulci not landscape thP Al ley ~ but wAUI d Ir~prove 1 c wi th ~aving to bc used
for parklnc~. !le stated he could move the buiidtng back and hbve a nicer proJect~ but
would havo to cre~tc access fnr one property cywner,
~rCortmiss( n r Tolor fcl t use of tl~e aJdi t(r~nal le~d waul d make up for lost tlnr~ and deslays
~~ and Mr. ~~nd(cated tt~e aciaitlonel I~nd would not make the proJect any larger becaus~ it
adds depth rether th~n width, anc! hc would g~t the samc amount of rent because he had
decrsased thc size of thc bsys and not thr. bullding.
AC` T10~l: Commissioncr Iiushorc pffQred a motion~ secondcd by Cortmisslnner Fry and MOTION
CARRIEO (Commtssioncr 9arnes and Tolar vat(ng no and Cwrmissioner Herbst 5eing sbsent)~
that the An~helm City Plennlny Camissian has reviewcd the p~aposal to reclasstfy sLbjact
property from the RS-A-43~+~~0 (RaaiJcncial/Ag~irultu~~t) 2o~e to the CL (Gommercial~
Limitcd) Zanc to pcrmi t+~n automobi la servtce centcr wlth wrivors of ~naximum structural
height and minimum landsGaped setback on an irreyularly-ahaped pircel of land consisting
of ~pp roximately 0.y3 acre having approximatc f~ontages af 295 Pect on the south aida of
Llncotn Avenua. 6E> fcet on the east sl~le of fie~diny Drlve and a front~ge of ~epproximataly
66 feet or~ thc west side of Grand Avenue; end does hereby epprove the Negative Declaration
from che requtr~rnent ta prepere sn envir~~mgntal impact repa~rt o~ the basis that there
would be no ufyniflcent indivldual a~ cumulative adverse envi~onmenta) impact due to the
epproval af thls Nagt~ttve DaclBrati~n since the Anaheim General Plen dasiynates tha
s~fij~et property for gane~al canrnerct A1 land uses co+m~ensurt~te wi tf~ the proposal ; that no
6/=/80
~ 1 /~ ~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION~ JUNE 2~ i9t30 80-320
EIR NERATIVE DECLARATI9N, RECIASSIFICATION N0. 7g•80-39,
WAIVER OF CODE RE UIREMENT ANQ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT k0. 2083 (CONTINUED)
- ....-. _.~,
senaitlve environmental impacts erc invalved in thr. proposal; thet the Inltlal Study
submlCled by tho petitlanc~ (ndicates na slgnlficant incilyldual or cumufatlve edverse
envtronment~) impacts; ancl thot the tlegattve Dacleratton substentintln~ the foregoing
findtngs ts on fila In thc City of Anaheim Planntny Depnrtn~nt.
Commissi~ner 8ushore offcred Resolution tlo. PCB~-J~ an~1 rn~vQd for its passnhe and adoption
that the Petttion for ReclASStftcetion No. 79-~~-39 be grantecl~ subJect to
Pnt~.rdapartrrantAl Comrotttee rccomir~•.ndacions.
On roll call~ the f~rrgotng resolution was possed by tfie following votc;
AYES: COMl11SSI0Nf.RS: DUSIIORE~ DAVIU~ fRY~ KIt~C
NOES: COW115SIONCRS: QARtIES~ TOLAR
ABS~NT; CO~If11SS ION~R~ : f1ERCiS7
Commissioncr ~ustiorn offcred a motion~ sec~nded by Comni~ ~ioner Fry and ttOTION CARRIED
(Commissloners DarnQS and Tolar voting no~ ancf Canr.,issionrr Herbst batn~,~ absent)~ that the
AnAhelm City Planniny ConK~lssion does hereby carant the requcst for walvers of Codn
requlrement on tl~e basis ti~at dedtcatlon required f~r str~E~t and alley wldening purposes
decreases the Size of the propcrty a~' tho wa(vcr c~f lanclscaped setback roquest ts
mintrnrt~ oncl there o~e other t~ro~story corw,~ercial ;~roperties exisctn~ 1~ the area.
Corxnissi~~er aushore oFfcrcd Resolutlon No. PC$~-~0 ~yn~! mo~ed for its passagc and adoption
th~t the Anah~im City Plannlnc~ COf!1mIS5Ibn docs hereby grant tha Petttion for Co~dltional
Uae Pennit t~o. 2~Q3, sut;ect to Intnrdcpartmcntol Cor,mittec rGCOnmr„ndations.
On ro11 call. the foregolny resolutinn was passeci by thc f~llowing votr.:
AYES: COhlMISSIOIICRS: BUSHQ~'E~ bAUID~ FRY~ KIi~G
NOES: CQW11SS10>1CR5: BAR'1~5~ 7ULAR
ABSENT: CONMISSIOFJCRS; HERDST
Chetrwo~an Barnes tndic.9ted shc cbes n~t agrr.e with the hardships as stated.
Cornmissloner Tolar agre~~1 and statccf he fccis in ~11 hanesty this wiii create a probiem
snd he w111 sugqest to the Ctty Counctl tt,at this tten~ be appealGd ancE set for publlc
hearing so the issue of thc a! ley c~r~ bF resalved befor~e a probiexn !~ creeted for the Clty
and thc propcrty vwner. Ne felt the d4vcinper cautd provide a better project even though
(t will ovst htm time. N~c su~gcsted ih~ cieWeloper ~ttempt to resolve the question befo~•e
the metter goes to Cour-ci l.
. 6/2~80
~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE T~ 1980
80-;21
ITEh N0. PUBLiC HEARINC. O~rNERS; C. D~RI.r Ii^~.E AND
NC iVE OECLl1RATION a00ERT ALLEIl~ 39tn East Caron~do~ An~neim~ CA
L _ ~.O.w2A76 g2a~6. ACEtiT: RALP11 STELLA~ 3910 East Coronado~
Sec. G~ A~ehalm~ CA g28~E,. Petitionar raquesta
permlaslon t~ PEaMIT AUTAMOTIVf. RCPAIR SERVICES Ihl
TISC ML ZOtI(: An prop~rty described as a rectangulr~rly•shaped pa~cel of land conststing of
approximately 1.5 acros haviny a frantaye of approximately 207 feat on th~ south side of
Goranado St~e~t~ hAVing a niaximun, depth of epproximately 31,r, feet rncl br.ing located
apprvxlmately ~14 feet wast of thc centerlln~ of V~n 8uren Strer.t~ ancl further desc~tbed
as 3gE~0 and 3~1n East Coronadu Street. Proprrty presently classified ML (iNDUSTRIAL~
LIMITCD) tONt:.
There was no one (ndicatinc; t~ietr presance fn opposition fo sub)ect request~ and althpugh
the stoff rep~rt ta the Pl.~nning Commission dated June 2~ I~P,~ wos not re~d at the pubile
hearing~ lt is referrr_~i to and m~~de a perc ot t~~e ~;~inutr.s.
Ralph Stella~ co•n.~rner~ was ~res~~nt to answer any qucstions.
TH[ PUBLI C IICAP.1 Nr, ~~~, CLOSC~~.
Mr. Stclia answer~d Cann~issioner Tola~ tl~at his Ir.~sc w~s orlgin~illy for two yeers~ to
expi re In February on~f hc was ~nt sure wt~ethen c~ r~oul~ stay in thls location.
Responding to Chatrwomc~n Uernes, Hr. Stellr~ state~i alI wor4 wiil be conducted lnstde the
focllity ard Indicated he has f(ve par~ing spaces anJ atl the vehicles to be ~epalred wit)
bc pArkec! insiJe, anJ indlceteci he undcrstoo~ therc will bC na outdoar st~rage.
ACTIOtI: Commissloner Tolar offcrcd a motion~ scconded by Cortxnlssioner K17g and MOTION
CI1RfilEO (Cortr~issioner Nerbst bein~~ abscnt) ~ that tt~c Anahe(m City Planning Commission has
reviowed the proposal to pcrmit four automotivc rQpair faclliti~s in the ML (Industrlal~
I.imited) xon~ un a rectangulariy-s-~apecf parccl of land conslstln~ ~f approxlmately S.y
acres~ hevine~ ~ frontage of approximately 2f1j fcet o~ the south side of Coronado Street~
having a max(nium depth of apprpxlmatcly ~15 f"cet and b~ing located approxlmately 714 f~et
wzst of the centerilne of Van Burcn Street; and ~k~es hereby approve th~ t~egatlvc
Declaration from th@ requirert-ent co prepare ar, environmrntal impact report on the basis
that there would be ~o significant indlviduAl or cumulat~ve adverse envirocur~entel impatt
d~e to the approval of th(s Neyative Deciar~tion since the Anahelm Ganeral Plan ck signates
the s~bJect property for general (ndustrlal tand uses c.onxnensurate wlth the proposal; that
ne sensitive enviro~r:~ntat (mpects sre fnvolved in the p~oposal; that the Initlat Study
submltted by the petittcm cr tndicates no signif(cant individual a~ cumulatlve sdverse
envi~or~mental impacts; and thac the liegat(va Deciaratton substanttating the foregoing
findings is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Depa~tment.
Commissionor Talar offe~cd Rasolution tlo. PCfSO-91 and moved for its passage and adoption
that the RnaF~elm City Plar.ni~g Cc~mmission does he~eb~ grant Petition for C~nditional Use
Permit No. 207G. for a pcri~d af three (3) ysara~ subJect to revlew fnr possible
extensions of timm and subject to Interdepartmentai Committee recortrnendatton~.
On roll cali~ che furnyoing resolution was passed by Che foilawinc~ votes
AYES; COMHISSIOFICRS: SAK~~~S, BUSHORE. OAVID~ FRY, KING~ TOI,AR
NOES: COMl11SSIONERS: NONE
A95EN7: COMHISSIONERS: HERtiST
1'-; ~ 6/2/eo
~
~
t j
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CiTY ~LANNING CONMISSION~ JUN~ 2~ 1980 ~'3Z2
ITCN N0. ~ PUpLIG ~IkARIFlG. OWNCRS: -~AaVEY AND NORMA MICNELLE
~ GA I E D~CLARATi0t1 OWEN, 110h1 Hunting Harn~ Santa Ana, CA 9x70~.
_ N U_ I~tQ~~90 Petitianer requssts pormission to PERNIT A PUBLIC
DANCE FACIIITY IN TNE ML ZOkE on property described as
a rectangul~~ly-sheped nercel of land canalsting
of app roximately 175 feet on th~ easc eiclc of Kreerner poulcvard~ hevinq a maximum depth of
approximately 21G feet, and being locatad approximatoly 2~~2 feet south of the ce~terline
of Coronado Street~ and further described a~ 11G~ ~lorth Kraemer doulovard (Oscar's).
Propa~ty preaontly classified Mt, (II~DUSTRIAL~ LIMITEQ) ZQtIE.
There w+n no c-ne l~ciicat(ng their presence in o~~sition tA subJect request~ and Although
the s taf f re~rt to the ~' 1 ann I ny Camm1 ss i on datad June ?. ~ 19~''1 wt~s not r~ad at the pub 1 t c
hea~ing~ it is refPrrcd to en~t made A part of thc mtnutes,
Harvey Owen, 110f~) Nuntiny Horn~ Santa An~a~ wes pres~nt to answQr any questlons.
THE PUDLIC NE~1RI~+G IJA: CLOSf:O.
Gommisslon~r Tolar asked if the p~ti[loner plans t~ continuc to sclt food dnd Mr. Owen
ex~latned t~~c use wl i 1 be t~~c same and thc request Is mercly ta a) low tham t~ charyc
admissinn.
Ne stated the ste~ff r~port sl~avs a total oF 10r1 square fret for the two dining areas and
i t sh~uld read 1000 SqUAfC fect.
Rasponding to Commissioner Dushare. M~. Owen axplo{ned the ent~rtainnient usually conslsts
of sinc~~rs~ dancers and comed{ans and also explalned he owns the ~roperiy.
Cnmmissloner TolAr painted out thc Redavcl~~ment Cartmisslon recammcnded daniel on the
bosis that subJect cha~ge tn use does n~t serve or benefit the Industrl~l uses In the
area. and lnciicated he diJ not uncierstand their actton.
AnnikA 5antalahtl~ Assistant pirector for Planning~ explel~ed the City Issuss two types of
dance permits~ o~e Is f~r a pubiic dance hall which is open to the pubiic and an
aclmittance fee is charged and the othe~ is a dinne~ dance permit where dlnner must be
served and there Is no edmit[ance fee. and the original permit dtd not include e pul~lic
danea pormlt and the. petitianer h.~s now ft1eJ for the permit.
Hr. Owen ex~lained he has awned the property for one ycar and It was formerly c+~lted the
"Wtid Goasc". NQ stated they catr.r ta people In the industrtal area until 7:Oc~ p.m. ~nd
then try to attract ott,ers.
Mnika 5entalahti explained the dAncc permit is r~viewed eve ry year and thc Poltce
Department is involvgd.
6/2180
~.
-z; _~~ ~.~~
~
~ ?
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIIS310N~ JUNE ~~ 1980 ~'3Z3
EIR NECATIVE DECLAltA710N AND CQNDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2090 (CONTINUED)
ACTION: Commi~=loner Bushore offerad a motlon~ seconded by Canmisslone~ Tolar end MOTION
Z7CI~CI~'0 ~Camml~sloner Horbst being ab~ant) ~ thst the A~~helm City Pla~ning Commisalon h~s
reviawed th~ propot~a) tA parm~t e public dancing factltty o~ a ~ectenqutA~ly~haped p~rcel
of land con:isttng of approximately 0.9 ecre heving a frontage ot approximetely 175 feet
on tl~e e~st eida of Kraamer Boulavard~ having e maximum depth of approximetely 216 feet
end being located approximetely 242 feet south of the canterline of Coronado Street; and
does hereby approve the NegAttve Oeelaretion frcrm the requiroment to proparr. an
environmental impact reporc on tt~e basls that there wouid be no sln~iftcant ~ndivldual ar
cumufsttve edvRrse environmenta) impect due to thn epprovai of this -~egative Declaratlon
since the Anaheim Genersl Plan designates tha subJQCt property for genera) industrial la~d
us~: corn~nensurate wit1~ the pr~po:al; that no sensitive environmantal in~acts are Involved
in the proposal; thet the Initlai Stu~iy submitted by the petltloner indlcates na
significant (ncfiviJual or cumulative sdverse envirann~ntel (mp~cts; and that the NegAtive
Declaration substantt~ting the faregoing ftnclings Is on file tn the City of Anahetm
Planntng Dapartrtbnt.
Commisstonar 9uahorA offr,re~ Resnlutlun No. PC80-92 and moved for Its pASSage ond adoption
that the Anahelm Ctty Plrnning Commission does hrreby gr~nt Patitton for Conditiona) Usa
Permit No. 20g0~ far s one•year pe~lod~ subJect to Interdepartmenta) Cammittee
rccommendatluns.
On roll cel1, the foregoin~ resolutton was pesscd by the following vote:
AYES : CQMMt SS IO~~ERS :
NOES: CONl11SSIONERS:
ABSEI~T: COMFilSS1011ERS:
BARi~ES~ 6US~IORE ~ C!1V1 D, FRY ~ KI I~f,t TOIAR
NONE
NERI3ST
6/: ~84
~
i
.:.,~
~
i j
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSIAN~ JUNC 2~ 1q8A g4•32t~
I TEM t10. ~ PUD1.1 C t~EARI NG. OWHERS s LYNDA LEA AND KEN BQGARDUS ~
~~~~~~~RICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 'i 113~ Rad Cum Strr.et~ Anahctm~ CA 926~6. Patltlaner
~ requesta WAIVERS OF: (A) MINIMUM f~UMBER Of PARKING
SPACCS~ (A) NINiHUM LA-IDSCAPED SETaACK, (C) PERMITTED
FENCE HEIGIIT TO RETAItt A~~ EXISTII~G OUtD00R STORACE
YARO on property dascribed as a ractanguiarly-shaped pe~cel of land conslating of
epproxim~toly 1.+~3 acres locatecl at the southeast corner of 81ue Star Straet and Re~d Gum
St~eet~ having epproximt~te frontAges of 311i feet on the south stde of Blue Star Street
end 12~ feet an the east slde of Red Gun,Street~ nnd further dascribed as Iti~ Red Gum
Stre,et. Prop~rty prescntly rlasslfled ML (INDUSTRIAL~ IIMITEn) 20NE.
There w~s one p~ n nn indicattng her presence In oppositi~n to subJect request~ and
a) thaugh thn s taf f report to t1~c P 1 ann I nc,~ tormi ss tan ~iated June 2~ 1~8~ was not read ~~
the publlc licaring, (t is rcfcrre~: to and made a pa~t of thc minutcs.
Relph Schroeder~ 1130 Red Gum Street, lndicatc~.i hc wrs r~Nresc~ting Ken O~gardus~ ond
stet~d eddttlonol parking wlll be pravidecl in thc fenced Area at the rear of the butldt~g;
that the fence is four ftet from tha screet so landscaping or sidewalks could be
constructed. Ne stated a~0" hlgh fcnce would be of no use an~f ell the surrounding areas
heve six-foo[ fences. Ne ~ derstood tha petttianer has tried to tile for an encroachment
pe~mit end feels he Is bein~,~ single~ out since no one in the nrea ts p~ovlding pn~ktng.
He stet~d thcrc have bcen parking problrms snd olso parking of truck.s in the st~eet end
there ~re th ree campan 1 es f n the area who h.yve fence~i thr, i r par~: i ng areas anci are us i ng
them fo~ storege.
Jol~nda P~Icbe~ 29EI0 Eilue Star~ stat~d they have no oppositton to thc fcnce but would like
to see the fence slattcd if thc area Is going ta be used for storagc and also would like
to see the landscap(ng mal~tained bec~use it cletertoratcs thc neighhorhood.
Nr. Sth rocJe:r stated they plan to put the slats (n the fcnce after approval for thc fence
ta obtained.
TNE PU~LIC IiEAftING WAS CLOSED.
Responding to Comr-iaslone~ Toler's qupstion regarding the changes from the orfginal
applicdtion. Dean Shcrer, Assistant Plan~er~ ~xplained originally the property wes
developed tn accordance with Code~ wlth che reqUtred parking, access~ etc., but the
petltlonr,r has re-ors~antzed the site to providc autdoar storage. climindting several
parking spaces~ instelling a six-foot hlgh fence perttally in the public right-of-way. a~d
paving aver landscape areas.
Mr. Schroeder cxpir:ined he is a empioyce of Hr. Bogardus ~nd Commissfon~r Tolar state~l he
would 11ke to asl: thc owner Hhy he elected td Make these chenges.
6/2/SO
~ ; ~ ~, ~
MINUYES~ ANlWEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 2~ t984 ~•32S
EI(t CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION•C1115S 3 AND VARIANCE N0. 3147 (CONTINUED)
^r~~~.~r~~~~.r~~~
Mr. Schroeder stetod the building wes teased for 1~ yeers snd Mr. Bogardus purchased it
two y~ars ago onci h~d trled to find aut f~cxn the Ctty the requlrert~nts for the fence
bAfore con~tructinfl It~ ancf was t~IJ -w parmlt w~s necess~ry.
Commtsstoner Tolar suc~gest~od a cantinuance in order for the ~etltlone r to be present. fle
tndicated he wes not totally sat(sfied tliat he would favor the variance.
Mr. Schrc~eder stated they have beon in the areA for ten yea~s. putttng up with other
peaple pa~king an thc streets~ walNing ov~r thcir lanclscaptng~ etc. and ask~d why thay are
now asked to provtdo parking for th~ir ~mploycos whr~n no one etse docss and felt they ere
being sinylecl out.
Commissioncr Tol.~r stotecl Inst ye.ir an aJditton4) Zoning Enfo~cement Officer wss hired
becausc of vtol~tions in the industrial ar~a with other awncrs dc~~n9 what thls owner has
dona in develo~ing tlic property As he sees fit. Ne stated this c~wn~r Is not belnq singled
out and nthers w(11 be asked to explaln thelr actions.
Mr. Schroesder eske~f why the f~nce c~n be no higher then 30" enci 1lnnika Santalahtt ~
Aasistent Director f~r Zoning, explalned thts violation was orlyinaily dlscovered bec~use
the fance waa adJacent to the public rlght-of-way; nnd Fu~ther investfgdtton reveeled the
landscaping wos missing and thn area had becn pavQCf ovcr. She explalned the 30" hfgh
fenca is allawed in the front five foot secback a~d if It were setbeck with the Flve-f~eet
landscapad, a Ey-foot high fencc would be pc rntiitted.
ACTION: Carr,~nlsslon~r Tolar offered e motlon~ seconcied by Curnmtssipner Uavld and MOTIO~~
i~D (Con~issioner Nerbst bcing sbsent)~ that consideratton af thr aforementloned item
b~ tontlnued to the mceting of June tE~, 1g~n in order for the p~tit(ener to be present.
6/2/80
~~~
i :
4 _.
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNE 2~ 1~80
ITEM N0. i~
' R ~~TD RECOMHfNDATtONS
~• 3z6
Du~ to ona of the Commisstonar's haviny to leave carly~ it was thc general consensus nf
the Commission thAt the fnllowing Item bc consicler~ci before the public tier~rinc~a.
A. PROPOSED AME:~~pME~lTS TO TNE MULTIf'LE-FAMILY 20f1ES aELATItIG_ TQ IIICREASED DENSI
Dean Shercr, Asslstant Planner. prescnteci thc staff report to the Planning
Commission dnted June 2~ 1~~0, pointtnc~ out the possihle vari~tlons ~o
effectlvely reJuce the lycl-foot two-stnry satF~ack ~equlred where a multlpie-
family structurr ts ad.jt~ccnc to e st~~~le-family zona. Ile nated the oltcrnetlve«
presented wcrc a besis for dtscussing possibla amencimcnts to slte developr~ent
stanJards and will require caraful Fx~mination.
Wslt Bowmen. 793f~ Cerrttos. Stanton~ rcpresenting Gonrad J. Letter~ p~ap~rty
owner at 126Q East Le Pal~•~a, Anaheim~ refr_rred to the cknia) of a verlanee by th~e
Pl~~nning Commisslon an March 1~ for A two-stary apartment proJ~ct 62 feet from
s(nglc-f~~nily resiclences~ wf~{ch was Ap()CA~Cd to the City C~uncit. Ne stated the
va~tanr_c was denled by tf~e Plonning Cor,imisslon becausc the st~uctura hcight would
restrict lig;~t onct air circulation and hava an adversc impact on nearby singte-
famlly residencos. ~le explatned their architect h~s discussed this point with
engi~ecrs and it is [h~ir opinion that this structure would not restrict liqht
a~d alr ctrculation anyrtx~rr thon existing trees and twcrsta ry sinc~le-struttures
in the arca. Another reason for the denta) was that the proJect would be
mat~rtally drtrir~entat to thc putrli~ wclfa~e, or Injurious to thc prAperty and
(mpravements (n thc vlcinity and three perso~s opposed the request and was
conccrned about incr~ased crime~. fle expl~ined th~e owner had contacted the
Anahe(rn Poltce Departroent reyardln~ the tncidents of crime committed by ap~rtment
Jwel lers versus hoc~e owne~s a~~d there are no s tat I st i cs to cQnf t rrr+ that
s tatemerst.
ChairwomAn Barnes explained the Corrr.~ission cannot discuss Mr. letter's projeet at
this time.
Nr. Bowman stated he ls in favor of reducing the setback .~nd polnted ouL the City
Councll is in favor of thls type af stucty and was not aware of the Commiss(on's
reasans for denying the request. Ne stated they had a study done by an appralser
who h~s baen in the business 30 years e~nd his ftnding was that the proposed
devclapmcnt would prc~bably not affect the ~rtvacy or cau~e any loss of value to
adJnining propcrt(~s.
Mr. Bowman feit~ b~sed on the c~ata provtded in the staff report, the 150-foot
setback should be ei(mtnated and chat even 1QA feet is out of ltne because the
6/2/80
~~ 1 t 1
l
MINUTES~ ANAMEIM CITY PLAPINING CAMMISSION~ JUNE 2~ 19~ 80•327
REPORTS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS (CONT{NUEO)
ave~agn of ell the the cittes surveYed Is 12 feet~ with the laryest setback betng
7A feat.
TIIC PUHLI f. NEARItIG WAS CLO~CD.
Commisa~onor Tolar fclt the 15~-foot setback needs to bc reduced; that ttmes are
chanylny and the ordlnonce should be changed to allow hiyher danstty to c~eate
housinn in Anahelm; ha+ever~ dlci not a~c~ree with Nr. Dawman that a 12•foot
setback~ as an avcray~ tn this County~ wi~~ benetit r~sidentlal h~xnes tn Anaheim
and stoted he wouid rx~t support anythinc~ as rldiculous AS s 11-foot setback with
two-steries adjacant ta sinc~le-family residnnces and felt tt would be an invasion
of privacy.
Ile referred tQ the survey of 2~ Orangc County citles~ ~nd particulariy the City
of Brea ordinance whtch would allow a two~st~ry building within 100 f~et of
stn,qlc-family property; three storir.s when 10~-20~ fect frcxn singlc-family
property and ~ 7''i-fect hetght Ilmit when further than 2~~ fee:t from si~gle~family
property. F~e suggested that 7; fe~t or r,are would requlre a conditio~a) use
permit and f~lt this would accomplish inGreaseri density bonuses for RM-1200 Zones
end p~ovide protectfon to tt~c sine~lc•famity homes and would also encouragc
devela~ers or builders to butld ~artm~nt coan~lexes~ cspecially ln t~ansttional
a~reas such es the a~ea on La Palma dfscussecf by Mr. Bewman. tie felt~ hawever~
ehangin~ the ordinancc requires more study and a carcful evaluation from staff as
to the i mpact th i s et-ange woul d have and what t t wout d accex~p I 1 sh to b r i ng sbout
what is necded in thls Clty to increase denstty.
Chairwar•uu~n Barnes clari f(ed shr would 1 ike for staff to investlc~ate the 35"f~~
hcight llnte at or beyond 10h fcet~ 50-foot hefght itmit at or beyond 150 feet,
75-faot hcic~ht itmlt when further th~n 2~~ fect and a cond(tlonal usc pe rn~it for
all struci~~res aver 7; feet higf~.
~ammissioner I~erbst pointed out e 75-fcrot high butiding ts five sto~les. H~
sCated it has been Planning Commisslc~n poltcy to allow 252 ryf the totel complex
for bachelor u~its down to G0~ squarc fcet in sizc pnd felt that should be
wrlttcn lnto the ordinance.
Chairwaman ilarnes stated for the publlc record that the Conmission is considering
changing the ordinancc tn an effort to provide more rental units and affordable
haus i ng I n Anahei r~.
Cammissioner tierbst felt most developments will be made on in-ftll lots
thruughout the City which abut sln~te-'Famity dwellings and he felt deserves the
protection fro~ intruston. `
6/2/80
~>
k 1
v
MINUTES~ ANANEIM ~ITY PLANNiNG COMMISSION~ JUNE ?. 1980 L~~'32b
REPaRTS A~~D RECOMMENDASIOraS (CONTINUED)
Commissl~ner King stated In yeo~s p~st land wa~ Ir~Qxp~n3lvc and Avallabte but
taday 1 and i s scarce and expen~ i ve nnd v~ct~nt lanci shoul d be ut 1 1 I zed to the
f ullost i~ arcicr t~ pr^vide housing for young fnmlllea a~d retirees; unressanable
sotbacka a~J open spaces Jecreeso the number of ctwelling unlts needed by mod~r~te
incomc peo~le and tha Commisslon must gtve nare attentton ta the lew of supply
•nd demand~ polnting c+ut 0>t of California houaeholds cnnnat afford a medlun-
prlc~d new ht~n~e bci,ig built bnd industry wll) shun An~'ti~lm if houstng romelns
scerco. Ne fel t the housing shertngc can b~ solvcd ~+nd thG Planntn~ Cortimissi~n
ean help by rel8xing restrl ctions rec~arcfing ful l use ~f the lan~~ ind further by
alming towAr~ts highnr Jensity.
Cammisslanar TolAr stated sincc the La P~lmo ereo meniloned 1~ transitlonal~ he
felt zh~ hc~owners wauld discuss tha merits af thts chanye with the Plar~ing
steff ta see (~ck+ thcy would besnefit. ~~e felt t`~~s could be on r.~Cellent Lest
caae to sce If the change would benefit this particular project nnd felt this
would be a step in the righk dl~~nctl~n.
ACTI~11: Comm(ssiuner Tolar ~fferecl a motton, scconcted by Conmissiuner Harbst
th-a: c~nsideratton of the afc~remnntion~d Iter~ be contlnued to thc regula~ly
achedulecl mc:etin~ of June iG~ 1~160, in orcier to hav~ further staff rnd homevwners
ir~put anJ staff's Inp~l sl~ould (nclude ~1~~ sugyested chnnges ta ~hc~ ordindnce
ralAting to bAChelor untts.
~ornMissloner Oushore quest (uned whether or not thls reducticx~ in setbatk. wi l l do
enaugh to c~eatc effordable hous(ng. Ile f~~lt staff should lo~k at allowing
smaller units because current Cod~s .,ictate the sixe of the units ard prohibit
the buildcrs `r~n afferlny affordablc hausing nnd the puLlic does r,ot demand the
sam~: type units tliat htlve been built In the paRt.
Comnisslone,• Tolar fclt staff's study shauld incorporate tl-e I~~r.helor's unlts and
alsa a re~iuction in the size of the units to tncr~ase densities and !f studtes
shaw s~~.~l 1 P r fanl 1 y un i ts are I n demand ~ hr. woul d not be opposed.
Commissianer 8usliore fclt condomtnlums sl~ould be included but Commissloner Tolar
felt s1n~e the 'tM-300~ ordinance was recently revlewed and adopted~ reducing the
si ze of cordoi~inf ua~~ from -~040 square feat to ;0~0 square feet, this stu~y sh~utd
pertain tn ;.~~a~tmcnts flnly. 11e suggested Commissioner Bushora make a separate
motion to havc the rondcxnir,ium ordinarvce studied at a future date.
Annika Santalahtl, Assistant nirector for Zoning~ t~olnted out Nousing end Urban
Devcloprr-ent (HUD) standards fnr federaliy-funded dcvelopments actualty require
larger floc,.• areas.
Commissioner Dushore explained i~e is trying to create some ingenuity to keep
governmcnt out of h~using.
6/2/80
,.~
c
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 2~ 1~8Q
REPORTS AND aECOMMENDATl~t~S (CONTINUED)
ao• 3z9
Chal rwrxnan Bsrnes cla~i f Ied Commis~ loner Tolor's motion Is to cil rect staf f ~o
stuJ~r the propasals~ Includiny bachelor units and reductlo~ In unlt slies and
report back to the Commission on June ih, 1~n0.
Comml~~loner hlerbst sugyested steff ~~vtew bechelor unl ts et ~~~~ aquare feet end
a single-bedroom unit at GAQ square feet~ with squAr~ footage added for each
beJroom ond batF,room~ to al low f lexibi 1 1 ty an~f motf vat i on.
Mr. Bqwman st~~ted with thc 15n-fc~ot setbock, ~336 of the lond in the La Pslma area
t s( ncl uded on~i che maxln-ur, dens i ty I s 3f~ un I ts por acre, but wl th the 9e tback
the cknsity fy less than 3(1 unlts pr.r acrc. Ne noted wtth the 15A-foot setback
two-story un(ts would bc climtn.~tcd on five of the ten porcr.ls.
Commissioner Tolar suggested ttie cont(nua~ce ~~ staff ean provlde moro
tnfarmatinn on tha impact the chanye wou~~ have and Ch~lrwnman D~rnes nsked those
horicownors prFsent ta ottcn~ thc June 1C~th meetinc~ to provie~ th~ Ir Input.
Nr. f3owmen respondcJ to Corrmtssio~er Davl~i's concern r~c~arding c~lm-s end stated
th~t thr_ Poliee Depnrtment hAS no ~tattski~:s to prove thnt mc~re crimes are
comniltteJ by tl~ase llviny in a~artrnci~ts.
ACTIUN; The votc was t~ken ~n Canunissioner Tol~r's earlter ~oiton to continue
thf5 matter to Junc 1G~ 1~S3A end MOTI011 CARRfED.
~. Tt:fITATIVE MAP (.F TRACT N0. 10G17 - Requcst from Oa~itel A, Saice~- Anaheim Nills~
Inc.~ or ~, or~•:-ycar cxtens on ~f time~ to expire July 29~ 1~E1~ co complete
processing of th~ f)nal tract nwp for prop~rty havtng a frontage of approximately
9Ga fce~ ~~n the east side of Imperlnl Ilighway~
A~T101J: Commissioner Devld offered a motton, seco~ded by Commtssioner Tolar end
~0 I tJ CARRtED (Commissioner Ilerbst bc(ny absent) ~ that the Mahelm Clty Planning
Cornmtssion does hereby grant a one-year extension of ttrnc to ~xpir~ on July 2g~
19i31, c~ Tentative Ma~ of Tract No. 1~G17.
ADJOUP,NMENT There beiny nu furthe~ busincss~ Gommission~r Fry offer~d a motiQn, seeonded
~~- by Caamissi~ner David ancl MOTION CARRIED that the r•,eeting be edJourned.
The mceting was ecJjourned et 3:~~~ p.m.
Respectfuilv submitted~
~~,~ ,~ ~~~.~..~...
Edtth L. Narris~ Secretary
Anahetm Ctty Planning Cor:~rrifsst~n
ELN;Im
6/2/80
~~
~
. _ .. . _ _
-
~; ~ .,. ~ . ' ~ ~
~
~
~
_
' r , ~if4
S
..
'~~-: t~~ i - ~ ~ ' t ~~~ ~i4'_.
~
r
~
a
A=
r'
. _
'
_ ~ ~~'~i w
~
'
i
yv~
Tl
:
~ L
~
Y~ ~ ~
~
Y
'
~
; ~
,~
Jx~ F ~
`~i"~~' }
~'iY` ~'~ - 5y3~ ~''~'i+ria i ,
_
T ? r ~ a ~ t
u -' t
?
e
,
x ~
~'
•~~,
r
r
~yy~ y,~" ~,~y
~
~~;~_ ,>i~ r~
4 ~r.r;,l~"w~~.~AF~fw~~6~'alet7C - ...
,~ ,.:i'.'a.... c ~t..,,r~.. .. ~..,.`:.`.. .._.
~ r ~ } k ....r. ..w.t...:."....a .lt.,
; ~~ 5 ..P .,. r _ _ .F _..
„
._ b_ .. ,
~n.~ .
,
. ~
.i.a. ~ .;ya.~a~f~~,,.:.»
~,it.t..
s_. .. . .Y ~ s L ~ ` ~2~ . ,