PC 1984/04/16REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR l1~;F:TING The rcgular meeting ot the Anaheim City P.lanning
Commission was called to ordec by cF,~irwomt~n 8ouas aC
10;00 a.m., April .16, 1984, in the Council Cnamber, a
quorum being prPSent and the CommiRSion reviewed p1Ans ot
the items on t~day's agend~.
RECESS: 11:30 a.m.
kECGNVENE: 1:3C p.m.
PRCSENT Chairw~man: Oouas
c:ommissinnere: au~~hore, Fry, Herbst, King, McBurney
ABSENZ' Commisaionerc: ~.a CIA~CE
ALSO PRFSENT A:-nik~ Sant~~.:ahk.~
Jack WhitP
Jay Titus
Paul 5inger
Jay Tashiro
Greg Hastings
Kendra Morries
Edith Harcis
Assistant DirecL•or for Zoning
Assistant Cik}~ Attorney
Oftice Engineer
Traffic Engineer
AsEOCiate Planner
Assistant Planner
Assistant Planner
Planning Commisaion Secretary
APF~ROVAL QF MINUZ'ES: Commi3sioner King offered a m~ti~n, ;~econ~3ed by
Commissionec Fcy and MO't'ION (:ARRIFD !Commissioner La Clair~a absent and
McBurney abstaini~~g), that the minu~es af Aprii 2, 1984, be .~~proved as
submittpd.
ITEM NOS. 1 Ti~ROUGH 11 WERE CONSIDF,RED TO(iETNER.
ITEM N0. 1. EIF2 NEGATIVE DECLARATZON, WAIb'F.R OF CODE REQUIR~MENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2446:
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: RTCHARD C. HUNSAKER, P.O. Box 2423, Santa Ana, CA
92707. AGENT: ItEGENCX OUTDOOR ADVERT.tSING, INC., 8820 Sunset Boulevard,
Suite F, Lo~ Angeles, CA 9006Q. Property described as an irregul~rly-shaped
parcel of lan~ consisting of approximately 0.65 acre l~cated at the
northwesterly terminus of Regal Park Dri~~~, 27q0 Regal Park Drive.
To permit a billboard in 'ti~a ~II Zone with a~aivers of mini~num structural
setback and maximum height.
Continued from February 6, and March ~9, 1984.
84-192 4/16/84
MINUTES, AN_A__HBIM ~:Ii'Y PLANNING CC)MMISSION~ APRIL 16, 1984. 0~-193
ITEM N0. 2. B1R NECA'PIV~ DECLARATION, WAIV~R UF CODE REQUIREMENT ANA
CONUITIUNAL USB pERMIT N0. '1447;
PUBLIC NCARING. OWN~RS: ABJ DEVELOPMBNTS, 3U1 N. RampArt Street, ~range, CA
~26G8. AGENT: k~GENCX OUTUOOR ADVERTISING, INC., 8820 Sunset ~uulev ar.d,
~uite C, Los Anyelea, CA 9UU69. ~roperty deacribed as an ircegularly -ahnped
~arc~l oE land conoictiny uf Approximately 1.1 acres, lU1Q Grove Stre et.
To permit a bi.llt>oa~d in the ML 'Lone with waiver of m~ximum height.
Continued Lrom Fetiruary ~, and March 19, 1984.
ITEM N0. ~. EIR NEGATIVE UBCLAP.A2'IUN, WAIVER l)F CUDE REQUIREMGNT AND
CONDITIUNAL USE PERMIT NU. 2448:
F~UI~LIC tIEAFt1NG. OWtJLftS: DON V. ANU GAKNET A. EUMUNUS, .186f32 Meca ~r iVe,
Villa Park, CA 9'1b67. AGENT: REGENCY OU'PDOOR ADVER7~ISING TNC., 882Q Sunset
Boulevacd, Suite F, Los Angeles, CA. 900b9. Property def;crik,ed aa a~
irr.egulsrly-~shaped parLel of land consisting of apprcximately 1.9 ac;. !a
].~cated at the northwest corner of Taft Avenue and 6~kun Way, 2691 E. 'PAft
Avenue.
To permit a billt~aard in tti~e ML 2one with waivers of permitted locaki~n and
maximum heiyht.
Continued fcom February 6, and March 19, 198~5.
ITEM NQ. 4. EIR ~IECATIVE DECLARATIUN, WAIVER OE' CODE FtEQUIREMENT AN D
CONDITIONAL US~ Pf:RMIT NU. 2449:
PUBLIC HEARING. UW~:,'RS: E.B.Q. PRUPERTIES, 1274 Sunshine Way, Anah ~im, CA
928U6. AGENT: kEGENCY OUTDOOR ADVEFTISING, INC., °820 Sunset Boule vard, F,
Los Angeles, CA 90069. Property desccibed as an irregularly-ahaped parce.l of
land consistiny oi approximately U.9 acre, 1281 Sunshine Way.
To permit a biilboard in the ML Zone with M•aivers of minimam structu ral
setbach and maximum heiyht.
Contin~ed from February 6, an~ Mar.ch 19, 1984.
ITEM NU. 5. E:R NE~ATIVE DECLARATIUN, WAIVF.R OF COnE REQUIREMENT AI~TD
C:ONUITIONAL U5E PFKMI'i' N0. 245~ :
PUf3LI~ HEARING. OWNERS: CONSOLI, McCOMBER, McCUBdIN INVES:MENT, CG., 1274
Sunshine Way, Anaheim, CA 92806. AGENT: REGENCY qUTD00P. ADVBRI~I:I NG, INC.,
8820 Sunset Boulevard, Suite F, Los Angeles, CA 900G9. Fror~r~v cie scCibed as
an irregularly-shaped parcel ef land consisting of approximately 0. 6 acre,
1270 Sun~hine Way.
To permit a billt~oard in the ML Zone with waivecs o£ minimum struct_ural
setback and max~murt~ heigt~c..
Continued from February 6, and March 19, 1989.
4/16/84
MINU'fE5,__ANAHEIM CiTY PLANNING CUMMISS_ION,_APR1~_ 16, 198~4. ,_ __~ 84-19A
ITEM N0. b: EIk NEGA'1'IVE DECLAkATION, WAxVER ~~(' CODE R~,~UI,REMENT AND
CUN[)IT.lUNAL US~ PERMIT N0. 2451:
PUBLI(: HEAKII~G. UWNERS: BRISTOL COMPANY, 1U899 Wilshi[e E~ouleva[d, Suite
y33, Lua Angeles, CA 900'l4. AGEN'I': R~:CENCY OUTDUOR ADV~RTISING, INC. , 8820
Sunset liuu~evard, Los Anyeles, CA 9U069. Property described as An
icregularly-shaped E~a[cel of. land consi~tir~q oE approximately 660 Eeet on the
nortt~ side of La Yalma Avenue, and furthtr described as 2311 to 2323 West I,a
Palma Avenue.
To permit twa (1) billboards in the ML 2c~ne wir.h waivers of minimum c~tructural
F3ftVACk and maximum height.
Cvntinued Lrom t'ebruary G, an~ March .19, 19b .
IZ'EM NU. 7. EIK NEGATIVE DECLARA'IION~ WAIVEk ~F COD~ REQUIREMENT AND
CUNDITIONAL USE PF.RMIT N0. 2457:
PUE~LIC H~:ARIN~. OWNE:EtS: MAX CUKtER, ET AL, 27520 HawthornP Boulevard, Suike
1q8, 1~alo~ Vecdea PEninau.la, CA 90274. AGf:N7': REGENCY OUTDOOR ADVEKTISING,
INC., 882U 5unset Boulevard, Su ite F, Lc Angeles, CA 9U069. I'roperty
described as an irceyularly-shaped parc~l ot land ec~nsi~ting of ~~ppror,imakeiy
8.4 acres locatHd at the nocthwESt cornc~r. ot Miraloma Avenue and Alue C;um
Stteet, 1311-1347 B:ue G~~m Street.
'1'o per.mit a bi.llboard in the ML Lone with waiver of maximL~. height.
Continued t~om Fei,ruary b, and March 19, 1984.
1.TEM NU. 8. EiR NEGATIVE AECLARilT1UN1 WAIVER OF COGE RE(~UIREMENT AND
CUNDITIONAL USE~ PERMIT N0. 2534_:
PUBL].C NBARlNG. OWNERS: RAPT CCMPANY, SU31 Birch Street, Newport Beach, CA
92660. AGENT: REGENCY OUTDGOR AnV~:HTISING, INC., 8820 Sunset Boulevard,
Suite F, Los Anyeles, CA 90069. ~'roperty desccibed as an icregularly shaped
parcel vf land consisting of approximately 10.6 acres, 2430 East Katella
Avenue.
To permit a billboard in the ML Zone with waiver of maximurn hEight.
Continued from February 6, and March 19, 1984.
ITEM N7. 9. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WAIVBR OF CODE RE UIREMFNT AND
COHDTTIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 253 5:
PUBLIC HE~ARING. ~wNEItS: WALTER T. ERICKSON, ET AL, 1850 S. Anaheim
Boulevacd, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: REGENCY OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC., 8820
Sunset B~ulevard, Suite F, Lo s Ariqeles, CA 90069. Property described as a n
irreyularly-shaped parcel of. 1 and consisting of approximately 0.5 acres, 1850
South An~tieim Boulevard.
TQ permit a billboard xn the ML Zone with a~aivers of mi-iimum structural
setback and maximum height.
9/16/84
MINUTES1 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CAMMISSION, APRIL 16, 1984, 84-19~
Continued fram February 6, and March lI, 1984.
ITEM NU. 10. EIR NEGA7'IVE DECLAItATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT ANp
CUNDITIUNAI. USE PGRMIT NQ. 2536:
PUBGIC HEARING. OWNERS: JOHN C. ANU EVF.L:V AUAMS, 23075 'Ji~ S~nta Mt~ria,
Misaion Viejo, CA 92691. AGEN;: R.EGENCY UUTDOOR AUVERTISING, INC., 8820
Sunset Boulevarc~, Suite P, I~UC Angelea, CA 90U69. P[operLy described oa an
irregularly-shaped parcel. of land coneisting of apprc~ximataly 0.8 vcre,
1E~45-1849 Suuth Manchealer Av~nue.
To permit a blllboard in the t4L Gnne with waivers oE minimum atructural
setback and n~~,ximum heiyht.
Continu~:d Lrum E'ebruary 6, and March ]9, 1584.
ITEM N0. 11. EIR NBGATIVE DECI,ARATION, WAIVER ON COUE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIUNAL USE PERMIT N0. 25:~7:
PUBLIC: N~ARING. OWN~R5: h~NNE'I'Fi Kh~ESEE, 19'l8 5. Anaheim aoulevard, Anaheim,
CA 92805. AGCNT: REGENCY OUTDUOR AUVERTISING, INC,, 8820 Sunsek E~oulevard,
Suite E', Los Angeles, CA 90U69. Pruperty described as an irregularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approxima~ely 0.94 acce, 1922-197.8 South Anaheim
Boulevard.
Ta permit a billboard in the ML Zone with wai:er~ of minimum structural
setbacks and maximum height.
C:antinued from ~k.,ruary F,, and March 19, 1984.
It a~as noted the applicant has requested continuuncea of items 1 througr~ 11 ta
the meeting ot May 3U, 1y~4.
Floyd Earano, Attorney, l0U S. Anaheim Doulevard, Anaheim, explained Regency
Gutdoor Advectising Company has no intention of pursuing all eleven
applications and they are remair~ing ~n calendar because the petitioner has
already paid approximately 33,000 in filfng fees. He staked the City Council
is going to co~sider a prop~sed ordinance and if they do adopt ai~ ordinance,
they will pursue those applications which are within the permission granted by
the ordinance and all others will be droQped.
ACTIp;1: Commissioner King offer?d a moti~n, Reconded by Commitssioner hry and
M02'i0N CARRIED (Commi~sioner La Claire absent), that consideration of the
aforemEr.tioned itetns be :ontinued to the ~egularly-scheduled meeting of May
30, 19~4, at the requast of the petitioner.
ITEFS N0. 12. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NU. 256 (PREV. APPRUVED), WAIVER OF
CODE REQUIREr~~-NT AND CONDIT.IONAL USE PERMiT N0. 2541
PUBLIC HEARING. QWNERS: KAYSER DEVELOPMENT CQMPANX, ATTN: CLit7TON DAVIS,
P.U. E3ox 30b, Carlsbad, CA 92U08. Property described as an irregularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of appcoximately 37.2 acres located at the southwest
corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road.
4/1G/84
MINUTES ANANEI;~_~ITY_PLANNING COMMISSYUN, APRIL 16, 1904,__ 84-196
To permit an 18-lot, p].anned comme~ci~] oEfice And light industrial ccmplex
ttiat include~ a hotel, re3taurant and drive-through financial institution with
waiver of mAximum builu~ny height.
C~ntinued fcom E'ebruarY 22, Ma!ch 5, 19, and April 2, 1984.
ThEre w~~ no one indic~ting their pre:~ence in oppoaition Co cubject request
and althouyh the ~taf[ repocr. wa~ not read, it i.s referred to or.a made a part
of the minutes.
E'runk Ri~e, 212'l PalomAr Airport Road, Carlsbad, Californta, explained this
mat•r.er was c~ntinued Lrom the last meetiny in order for at: .lAaat one ~t khe
Commissionere to review Ghe property. He referred t~ the request for height
waiver and explained they are reyueFting 4-story height.s for four of the
eighteen lot~ and 3 sloriea for f~ur ot tfie eighteen lots. He reviewed the
seven reasons tt~ey feel are justification for ~pprovAl of th~ waivert (1) the
request is not in conElict wirh the ohjectivea of the Scenic Corridor Overlay
Ordinance and tF~ey believe ttieir buil~ings will be in scale wikh and
comp~iment ~he natural environm~~~~t and the visual appeacance ~f ttie area will
he siynificant:ly ent~anced by their we11-dee,igned and well-landscaped
buildinys, (2) will not lead ~o a proliferatio~ of other requests for waivers
because the City's General Plan concentrates almust all future commercial
d~velopment in the Scenic Cor.ridor near tt~eir proj~ct, (3) a high yuality
pcoject is likely to be develo~~ed, iE tl:~ waivers are granted today while
evaluating the entice prajc~c:t on a comptehensive basis, (4) khe lots they are
ceyuesting waivers for yenerally have «~lc~vated locations with landscaped
embankment~ and setback areas (slides were ~~resented shawiny the heavily
landscaped embankments whict~ soften tt~e ~:+ppparance of the buildina heigt~l),
(S) the lots they are reque~ting waivers Eo~ are all adjacent to major
arterial. tiigiiways, (6) nane oE the lot~ are adjacent to residential areas, but
are adjacent to other commercial areas or landscaped bugfers, and (7) given
the topography af the site and their plan, views f.rom the resi.dential areas
ace not going to be blocked by the building heights.
Mr. Rice stated the Commission expressed concern about the nature of the R 6 D
ar~d ligtit industrial uses and since the la~t meeting they have reviewed
numeraus o~her cities' zoning ordinances t~ come up with a list of T.t & D and
uttier light industrial uses and that list ha~ been provic'.ed t.o the Commission.
Conce~niny control Eoc the build-out ot each lot, Mr. Rice stated they will
record StCiCr CCbRs which will include an architeclural. design review
committee anc: that comm9.ttee, in addition to City staff., will be responsible
for reviewing all arctiitectural design, setbacks, landscaping, drainage,
signage, ligliting, trash and storage faciliti~s and every aspect of the
building which can be seen fzom the outsi.de.
Mr. Rice stated the Commission expresaed concern about buildings being
developed in their project which would be similar to a madical buildinq
currently located in Anaheim Hills which has apparently been a concern to a
numbec of Commissioners and other people in the area and stated under no
circumstances would they develop a building such as that with inadequate and
out-of-scale landscaping and with no setbacks from the top of the embankments.
4/16/84
MINUTESL ANAkIF:IM CITY PLANNIN~ COMMISSION, APRTL 16, 1984. 84-197
~link uevis, En~ineer, Kaisec Development Company, pointed out the Aite plan
displayed and reEerred to t~~e n,:Qas where commerciAl dev~l~pr~~ent will occur in
the 5cenic Carridor conniatin~ of c;:~ rAgional shopping center on the west and
other commercial uses on the noctl~ side adjACent to the Ereeway. Fie stated
they are proposing a total ut 8 lohs to huve height wa.i.vers and kho$e ~ots are
either. adjdcent to ather commerciAl areas or to oE~en apACe buffecs, and none
ot the buildinga will be adj~r.er~t to reaidential area~ and the lots ~ire
generally conaiderably lower in olevation than the residential areas and
explai~~ed the line-of-sight for the dlEferent elevations and explained because
their property slopes away ftom the residen~ial areas, the 3-story buil~ings
will ~p~car to be the same height as l•he 2-story building~. fie presented a
aectior ~:ew drawing showing tihe view from the residential areAS to the aouth
and weEt of the property acrosa their property looking ovec the topa of the
2-story buildings und the tdller building~ are much fur":Pr away and will be
tnucl~ lesa visible,.
Mt. Davi~ stated the elevated, heavily-landscapE~d embankments will greatly
ceduce the s~ale and vicual impacts of the taller buildings and poi:~ted ouk
another section d~aN~ing to il].ustcate th~t point showing the visual
E,er~pectiv~s frc~m adjacent rt~ajor arterial streets and adjacent properties and
staked all the proposed taller buildings will cc,,.~ply with the Scenic Corcidor
Ocdinance Lor 150-foot seY.backs and that w.ill r~duce the views of al.l the
buildiciqs. He referred to thc~ existing medical buil.di.nq in Anaheim Nills and
slated ttiat building is not set back at all from the top of the adjacent
embankmNnt and it~ setback is much less than 100 feet fzom the street. Ha
3tated their p~oject consists of 37 acces of hasmonious bu~iness u~~s which
will compliment each other and the surroundinq are~.
7'NE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Frank Ri.ce stated they are unly pro~osing 4-story buildinga on four lots and
pointed uut if :, hotel is ultimately developed, it will be built• on three lot~.
Responding to Commissionec Bushore, Annika Santalahti stated staff has not
seen any preliminary Proposals foc the region~l shoppin<3 center, especially
pertaininy to heights. Jay Titus re~ponded tha~ the ycade pecmits have not
been issued f~r the sho~ping center site itseli, t~ut Kaufman and Broad do have
grading pe:mits where they wi.ll be doing some preliminary grading, basically
removing earth f~r fill in oCher areas.
c;omroissa.onec Rushore stated the massive grading that will be done could change
the topogtaphy. He stated he would not want to look down on those rooftops.
He added he is concerned about the ~recedent that would be set when it comes
ta developing the regional shop~,iny center.
Commissioner Fry thanked Mr. Rice for the topo showinq the grade leve'.s and
stated he is a lot more comfortable with this than he was at the previous
meeting. He staCed he sces no problem now with the way it is going to be
looking from the cesidential area and he did not think therE is concern about
establiahin9 a precedent for 4 stories on this property becau~e exceptions are
made in the hill and canyon acea c]epending on the topogsaphy and terrain.
4/16/84
MINUTES. ANAHElM CITY PLAiJNING uvMMISSIUN, APRIL 1G, 1984, 8A-198
Cummissioner Nerbst atat,~d the Commiar;iun had discus$ed a ~ennnt ~o be
recorded and ~sked iL that would be on the balance ~f the property limiting it
to 2 atories. Jack White ~ctated the c:ovenant could be contained in the CC&Rs
or it could be a separAte document and if the Commiseoion want~ to control the
height of the pr~rcels, the covenant ahould be plnaed on those paccels.
Cammissioner Herbsl- stated i~ is ,~a~sible that these lots could be nold
individually und he wr~nted to be sure that if ttie properties are sold, the
buyer unciersC~nds that tt~e I~eiyhts are re~tricted and he r_hought the only wa~+
to contcol t1~at would be with a covenant. .Iack Whil•e stated the Commission
could tequire the heiyht limits ta be incl~~~led in kt7e CC&Rs and also an
additianal pravisian should be included yiving lhe City the pow~r to enforce
the height limits.
Commissiuner Herb~t stated the Commission ia not su~i~oaed to set E~recedents,
but it hoppens tall the kime and some developer would want 4 stories ~n one of
the other lots and that wou.ld not be zuitable.
Underyround parking was discusscd and Mr. Ric~ stated typically there would
not be any undergcound parkiny, buk that the perimeter landscaping of the
project wil.l effectively hi~]e ~he v!ew of most of their parkinq frocn adjacent
re:;idential areas. Cotnmissic~nec L~ushore indicated concern that if
ui~derbuildiny parking is propo~ed, another story could eftectively be added.
Mr. Rice stated ttie underbuil~3~ng parkLng is defini~ely not C~ro~o~ed tor the
bui.ldinys adjacent to khe cesident.ial areas. lie .tated they wauld not attempt
to p~•t wtiat would amount to a 3-story k~uilding on one oE thacc lots.
Kend~.• Morries, Assistant P]annec, stated the plans :eviewed by staff did not
include ~~v ~rovisions f~-r tucked-under parking; however, there are a number
of lotc whe.e subterranean parking is proposed witt~ t.:he parkiny structure
completely b~low the grade.
Commissione~ eushare stated subtercanean ~arking doe3 n~t always go completely
underyround aid rould be a half-story above grcund which would add another 8
to lU feet ta ttie height of the building.
Commissianer li~~rbst stated the reatri.ction could be tied to an exact height
for 2-story buildi~.:~~. Jack White ~tated he would strongly recommend that if
the Commission wishes tu place height limitations on an,y ~'~f t}~e parcels,
tather than basing it solely on *.erms nf stories, that it could be based on a
maximum nur~ber of feet above grade lev~i. Mr. Rice state' khey submitt~~ci
plans foc specific building heighls and ~ 4-story building would be ~l-feet
high. Commissioner Bushore s;.ated the first building closest to the
r~sidential area is very critical.
Comt~issioner Fry suggested designating that 3 stories ace nct to exceed 's0
feet, and 4 stories are not to excePd 63 Eeet, and if it is aporoved that way
with those structures on those lots, he did not cee a problem. Mr. Rice
stated they wculd be pr~pared to live with whac they have submitted on their
plans.
Kendca Morries pc,inted out c,n Page 12-e of the stzff report, the buildings for
thoae specific lots and building heighta are listed and they range from 20
feet to 63 feet.
4/16/84
MINU2'E_~,_ANAHExM_ CITY_P_LANNI_NG_l'_OMMISSION, APR1L 16, 1984, 84-159
Cotnmiaaioner Buahore eteted he ~hougtit it would be acc~ptable as long as it is
cacefully apelled out because ~he ~`lanning Commisaion doe~ not approve grading
permits an6 it is not uncommon for the developer ko come up with pcoblema in
the field that they were not awace of which does chnnge thinge.
Ja•k White Fuggested the Flanning Commiasion offer a motion to ttie effect that
~:~ey have reviewed l•I~ie a~dendum Environmental zmpact Report No. 256 Eor
purposes of this paCtl~UlaC project al~ng with tt~e Einal EIR No. 256 prior to
acting on the other reyuests.
ACZ'ION: Commissioner Herbst oEtered a motion, seconded by Cammissioner Ki.ng
and MUTIUN CARRIED (Commissioner Lp Claire absent), that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission haE ceviewed and considered tl~e addendum to tt~e
Environmental lmpact Repoct No. 256 as ik pertaing to this pacticular praject
dlong with the Cinal EIk Nu. 25G.
Chuirwoman I3ouas relerred to the lifit of uses ~o be included in the research
and develoNment ~rojects and a~~ked i.f. the optical, dental or medical uses
meana tt~ere r.ould be medfcal office ar dental offices.
Mr. Rice stated re:.earch and development would include design, engineering,
te,tiny, expecimenting, asserobling, pac~agfng and light manufac':urinq,
processing, servicing of those instrument~, c~mpunents or products.
Commissioner Herbst suyyested a~ding the clause 'ihat there would be no retail
uses" on those lots.
Y.endra Morcies stated medical and dental uffices are permitted under the
Zoning ~ode; ~,owever, thP Parking for this project haa been calculated on
straight ofEice uses, excluding medical and dental uses.
Mc. Rice stated they fully understand thar_ if rnedical and dental offices ace
propuseo, that would reguire additional parking and l:~ey would have t~
de~rease the size af Cheir bui~ding *.o add parking.
Commisaioner Bushore stated Weir Canyon Road and Sant.a Ana Canyon Road are
fast becoming very serious traffic probl~ms and if this is supposed to be a
1~lanned community area, those impacts ~hould b~ reviewed, pointing out that
four commercial centers are proposed for t}iat area an~ that is acceptable as
lorig as it is properly planned for the ~,mounC vf traffic anticipated. He
stated there are other properties in the area ~uch as SAVI Ranch, which are to
be cleveloped.
Paul Sinc~er, Traffic Engineer, stated conce~ning the Oak Hi11s Ranch and the
Wallace Ranch develop~ent, a special atudy i•= heing conducted to determi.ne
exact traffic impacts on Weir Canyon Road, the 91 Freeway, and the Santa Ana
Canyon Road interchanges so tne Corunission will have more information. He
stated that has already been calculated to exceed capacity. Commissioner
Bushore stated if this is to be a planr.ad c~mmunity, he would rather not see
so many mixed use~; that he has no prob:em with the regional shopping ce•~ter,
but when h~e thinks ~f offices, he thinks of pEOpZe who go i~to work and arE
there alJ day with the normal amount of clients -n and out, but if there is to
4/16/84
MINUlES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CC- '+ISSION. Ai~IG 16~ .98~, 84-200
be medica] or dental o[fic~,s, the traff~c load ch~ngea completely And noted ~
poten~ial hotel and re~tauranl a:e L~ing shown And he f.elt that cor.ner is
really going to be imp~cted.
Mr. I,ice RtiAtCCI they did do a tra[f.ic study for l•his project and o'~viously, as
l•he developer, tf~ey care aa much as the Ci~:y does abouk congestion. He stated
prohibiting medical uses would be penaliziny the residents oy nok ~,ertnitting
them t:o have reasonable accessible m.:c.ical or dent:al oCf i.~es.
Kendcci Mo~ries stAted the E~arcel on the northwest corner ot Weir C+~nyon and
Santa Ana Canyon Roads does fiave CL Zuniny whieh woulcl a]low medicdl c~ffice
uses.
Commissioner Bushore statHd ~hi~ doesn't look like a~lannrci community with
F.he mixture oE u~es with the R& D light industrial uUe:, r~ re~taurant. which
will serve the arc~ and wockers, and A hotel whict -.i~.l cause a considerAUle
amount of traffic.
Paul :~inyer stated the trafFic atudy for the Bauer Ranch included the impact
uf thi:.~ development; that the Wallace anu Aouglas pcoperties are prepariny new
EIH's including extensive I.raific studies, but the impact created by this
particular. c3evelopmc:nt in no way changes or arner~ds the Bauec Ranch EIR and
traffic imr.~act. He explained tt~e SAVI Nropt~rty was included in those studies;
however, tt~e Uak Hills and Wallace properties were n~t and if increased
densities are appcoved for ~hose praperties, ~bviousl,y there will be a
problem, but a~ long as the densities do nnt exceed those stated on the
Gene~a.l Plan, there will be n~ problem.
C~mmissioner Bushore st~tea A lot of t:ade-offs have beer. a;lowcd an this
property to allaw ttie specific number ~f residential units. Pau2 Singer
stated the en:i~e ranch ir~ still wikhi the :;cope of L•he EIR, so nothing is
exceeded at this time, but once Oak liills and Wallace ccmes in, ~ome
additiona' i provements will be requirec! in ordQr to accomm.~date the capacity.
ACTION CONTINUED.: Commassioner H~rbst offer.ed a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Ery and MOTIUN CAP.'2IED (Cortunissioner La Claire absent), Ghat the
Anaheim City Planning Cc~,nission rj~~s hereby grant waiver of Code re~quirement
for maximutn t,uilding hrsght oi 2U feet for the restaurant on Lots 1, G and 18;
3U feet for the financial institution (Lots 2, 5 and 18); 30 feet far the
research an.~ development buildings (Lota 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 1`.~, .~, 17
and 18); 50 Peet f.or the 3-story office buildings (Lots 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9); 63
feet for the 4-story offi.ce buildir~gs (Lot~ 1, 2 and 5) and 52 feeG for ttie
4~story hc~tel (Lots 1, 2 and ?~n khe basis khat there are special
circurnstances applicable to L-h~ ~roperty such as size, sha,e, topugraphy,
lncation and surroundings which do not apply *_o other identically zoned
prope~ty in the same vicinity; and that strict applicatio~ of the Zoning Code
depcives the propertx of privileges enjoyed by ot:~er properties in the
identical ~onp and classification in the vic:nity.
Commissioner Herbst off~red Resolutir,n No. PC84-51 and mo~ed fo[ its passage
and adoptio-~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission daes hereby gc~nc
C~nditional Use Permit No. 7541, in part, pursuant to Anaheim Munic;ral Coue Sec.tions
4/16/d4
MINUTES, ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,L APRIG 16, 1984,_ 84-201
18.U3.030.030 through 1~.03.O~O.U35 and subject to the pelitioner's
~tipulntion h.hat a covenant shall be recotded re~tricting the height limita on
certain parcels a8 stipulated above and subject to Interdepertmental Commiltee
r.ecommendationa.
Jack White ~tated an addition should be made reyuiring th~t ~he CCbRs for
sub~ect pcapecty Enall be ceviewed and appr~ved by the City Attorney's GEfice
prior to cecordatiun and that ~he m~tiximum building heiyhts Eor any structures
on any pacce.la within subject property aha.ll be limited eo the followiny
respective heights for ~~ch parc:el and that the heiyht limita sh~ill be
incorporated as lieted in Para~~rnph 17 ot the stA[f cepork and furthec ~hat
the property ownets stia~ll record a covenant to b~~ enforceable hy the City in a
torm as ~~pproved by the City Attorr~ey's OffirF so limiting the maximum
building heights for each such parcel.
C~n~missioner NerFi~t added that tt~e ures tu be included in the R& D projecl~,
should be included i~~ the r.esolutian and shall include the stipulation that
thcre r~hall be n~ retail sales.
Jack White askf_~d if it is the Commission's intenr.. to alao, by way oL covenant,
limit the uses to those list~d in tt~e staff r~part for tl~f ~;. D buildings.
Commi~sion~~~ Hert,st stated it is his intent and if the petitioner wants to
request othe uses in the future, they cou'_~ submit a request foc cpview hy
tt~e Planning Commfs~i.~n.
Jack White stated in the existing proposed Interdepartmen~al .:ommittee
cecommendations, there is no condi~ion that limits the uses to tho3e speci£ied
in the stafE report. He sugge~tea an addition~31 con~:tion limiting the usNs
of the p~rcels developed with R& D buildings t~~ tt~e lisr as set Locth on P~
1~-h and 12-i of the staff ceport and ra covenant wi.ll t,.e recorded in a form
apF~roved by the City Attorney's Uffice so limitiny the use~ of those parcels.
On roll call, the fore~7oiny r~:~olution ~.~as p~ssed by ~he fallowing vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHUR~~ FRY, HERBST~ KING, 1~IC BURNEY
NOES : NOP7E
ABSENT: L:~ C:LAIR~
ITEM NG. 13. EII: NEGATIVE DECLARATlON AWD CONDITIONAL USE FERMIT N0. 2549
PUBLIC HEAFING. OWNE,RS: W.C. A::ll FHYLLIS E. McCALL, 1120 W. La Palma Avenue,
.;naheim, C~ 92~01. Property des~:ibeG as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of
land con ~sting of approximately 6375 square feet, 415 Snukh Kroeger Street.
To perr~~it a 6-unit senior citizen5 apartment complex in the RM~1200 Zone.
~ontinued from Apri1 2, 1984.
There was no one in~iirxting t:heir presence in opposition to subject request
and although tt,e statf ~eport was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
4/1' /84
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CTZ'Y PLANNI.NG COMMISSIUN, AP~IL 161 1984, 84-202
Greg l,e Bon, Pcoject Desigr~er, 1426 North Burton Place, Anaheim explained thia
ma~ter was c~nti.r~ued from the previ~us meeting in order for the City Council
to meet with t~~e Senior Citi2en ~ommission And Planning Commiesion to discuas
critecia for senior citizen houainy. He stat.ed there was some neigt~borhood
concern about this particul~r project in their neighborhnod and ~s a r.esul~,
he did an analysis of this neighbort~~ud to ~ee if it would be conducive to
senior citizen housing and found that tt~e past kenants had had no prob.lems
with burglaries, robberie~, rape or. ~cimes of tha~ natur.e. He ~tated he
b~lieved the neiyhbochood is in a rr~nsition and it is delicake as to which
direction it ia going ' ~~at there is an apartment project propnsed
across the street whic. enhance the neighDorhuod and heJ.f~ buEfer their
view of thc railroad kr~~. Hu stated they reviewed the acce~sibility t~ `he
bus system and there is a bus every 'l0 minutes, two blocks north on Lincoln.
He stated they will be pcoviding extra ~ecurily f.or this project and yarage
doot op~ners. Concerning parking, he stated tt~ey fe~, one cpace per unit
w~uld satisfy the parkinq need~ and they assume if two people did move into a
unit, it would be an exception and if hhey both worked, probably would not
want to live in this unit and p~in~ed aut this will be t~~using fo[ law-income
people and pointed out there is a need for seninr citi2~n houaing in this
neigliborhood.
Tl1E PUBLIC HE:ARING WAS C[.OSEQ.
Commi.ssioner Herbst asked iE the petitioner had considered low inccme
apartments on this property. He stated he could not agree that this i~ a
suitable site for sen,ior citizen housing and not.ed thE, City likes to have
grocecy ~,tor~s, ,~harmacies, and even some medical ~:~.lces within walkinq
distance uf senior cilizen projects, but in this location the people would
have to drive or get on a bus. He stated the proFerty is suitable for
apartments, however, and sugyested the petitianer review the situation foc
either low income housing Aparl•ments or standard apartments that meet Che Code
requirements. He stated he w~uld I~ave nn objections to apartments, but did
nut think a senior citizen complex would be suitable and did not think this
pcoject cnuld come any whece close to meeting thE ordinance being proposed.
Mr. Le Bon stated they did do some preliminary p.lanniny for standard apartment
units, but experienr,ed econortiic burden because parking requirements are
higher, etc. and did not think it would be as fe~sible so proceeded wi~h th~
Eenioc cit .en concept and stated maybe it was a little premature with regard
to the neighborhood~ but to provide standard apartments wa~ld be quite
difficult.
Commissioner Herbst stated he did not belxeve it would be ui~Picult to builci
standard apartmF~nts because there haue been uther lot: of this size with
regular apartmenc com~lexes and he thought t:he petitioner should canside~
star,aard apartments.
Gcey Hastings, As~istant Planner, stated there is a possibility a variance
would not be required for standard apartments and the current zoning allow~ 5
units; however, yiven the parking situation, they would probably bc~ ab3.e t4
provide 4 units.
4/16/84
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CI~'Y PLANlIING COMMISSION, APRIL 16. 1984, 84-203
Jack White, Asaintant City Attorney, etated 1E this was not done as a aenior
citizPn project, it would n~t reyu±:e a cunditional use permit, but it might
requice variAncea if i~ did nol mee~ ~.Jvelopment ~tanda~ds for the zone.
Reaponding to ~ummiacioner Bust~ore, Mr. Le Bnn ~tated they a~e ~ c3esign/build
firm, but did nat know if they would actually be bui.lding ChE~ units. fle
stated they have had r;uite a Lew of thc~se sen~oc citi~en E~rojects approved and
usually the projects ~re larger and furCher exp.lained none have aetu~lly b~en
built as yet, but ~ne is proposed in ~anta Ana.
Commissioner Bushor.e stated he is still concerned about the 6 parking apaces
for these units and was ~lso concerned ~t~out the atairs Lor senior citizens.
ACTI~N: Commissioner Herbst nffered a motion, seco~uFd by ~nmmis~ioriec King
dnd MUTION CAkR1ED (Commisaion~:r La Claire afa~pnt), tiiat tti~ AnahF~im City
Planning C~~mmission has reviewed the proposal t~ permit a 6-unit senior
citizens apartment ~omplex in the RM-1200 (Fesidential, MultiolE-Familv) Zone
on a rectar~gularly-shAped parcel. of land consisting of approximately 5375
square feeC, having a Erontage of. approximately 50 feet on lhe wesl side oE
Kroeyer 5treet, and furthe' dec~crlbed as 415 Sou;,h l~roeger Street; and does
hereby approve the Negati.ve Ueclaration upon findiny that it has considered
the Negative Declarati~n to9ether with any comment_ received during the public
review process and f.urther finding on the basi~ of the initial Study and any
comments received tt~at ther~; is no substantial evidence that tt~e ~roject will
have a siynificant efEect on the e m~ironment.
Cnmmissianer Herbst offFred Re:~~lution No. iPC84-62 and moved for its passage
and adopl•ion that the Anahcirn City P2anning Coinmission does hereby c?Fny
c:anditional Use Permit No. 2549 on the basis ttiat the proposed new ordinance
for seniar citizen projects will have cArtain crite:ia whict~ this project
would not meet, such as uhoppir.g and medical facilities being withlr, walkinq
distance, and transp4rtation facilitie, nearby and on the basis that the
pro~o~ed use would adversely affect the adjoi~ing land uses and growth and
development of the area which is proposed to be located and woul.d be
detri~nental ko the pe~~~, health, safety and genecal welfare of the citizens
of the City of Anaheiro.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was pas~~d by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, tIEkBST, KING, MC BURNFY
NUES : NOt~E
ABSENT: LA CLAIRE
JacY, White, Assistant City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the
P~anning Commission's dpciFion within 2'l days to the City Council.
chairw~~nan Bouas stated she thought this is a gaod concept and she hoped the
petitioner wi~l be able to find anottier location for it.
ITEM N0. lA. EIR NEGATIVE; DECLARATIQN RECLASSIFTCATION N0. 83-84-23 AND
'~~IANCE N0. 3384
PUBLIC HBAPING. 0'wNERS: DON C. AND TAMIRIS DUKE, 3538 W. Savanna Street,
R.~aheim, CA 92804 aiid DUANE FREDERICK ANU SALLY ANN PETERSEt~, G00 S. Nutwood,
Anaheim, ~:A 92804. AGENT: JOHN KING, 19522 Independence, Lane, Huntington
Beach, CA 92646. Property is described as a•rectangularly-shapecl parc~el of
t fl.,.~ r.nr,c: nf; nn nf aenrn'timatelY ~.78 dCLE. 35~a W. Savanna Street.
MINUTGSy ANAH~IM CITY PLANNJNG ~OMMISSION, APRIL 16. .1984, _ 84-204
RS-A~43,000 ko ~he RM-1200
Waivec$ oE: (~) maximum structural height, (b) minimum Eloor ACBA~ (c)
minim~m landeca~~ed aetback, (d) pecmitted enccoachment into cconC yard and (e)
~ermitced l.ocation of tsndem parkin~ spacett to construct a 28-unit apartment
complex.
Continued from April 2, 19f~4.
Ac:TION; CommLssionec King oEferecl A motion, seconded by Commisaioner ~ry and
MU7'ION CARRIGD (Commissioner La C.laire absenk), that consi.deration oE the
~atorementioned matler be continued to tl~e reyuis~rly-scheduled .neeting of Apcil
30, 1984.
I'I`~M NU. 1~. cIR NEGATIVE DCC~,AFtATION, CONDI'I'IONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2547
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNEltS: ANN PRENTICE, 11U1 Reseda, Anaheim, CA 92806.
AGENT: MUE3IL OIL CORP., P.O. DoX 2211, Tustin, CA 92690. P[opeCty described
as an irteyularly-shaped parcel of land consist.ing of approximately 0.5 ac~e
located at the southeast cnrner of Lincoln Avenue and SUnkfst Street, 2500 E.
Lincaln Avenue (Mobil Service Stakion).
7~o construct a convenienc~ marke;: with gasoline sales and aff-sale beer and
wine.
Continued frum April 2, 198A.
There was on~ persan indicating her presence in oppositian to subject request.
and ~lthough the stafE report was not read, it is referred to and made a~ar.t
of the minutes.
Don Robbins, P. O. Box 2211, Tustin, agent, ~.<~~lained Mobil is groposing to
demolish all improvements on the site of the existi.ng service station an~ ko
rebuild a self-service facility with a snack sho~. He explained this would be
about one half the size of Arco AM & PM markets which ace located in the
City. He added that feel khis is an upgrade foc the City and it will be a
modern facility and other cities where they have been con~structed, have been
very happy with the use.
Ann Prentice, owner, stated she is ogposed ta this request because when r~he
leased the property to Mobil, it was ~trictly for gasoline and she had the
choice of the type oE building to be constructed and now they are going to
demolish the building and she is oppoaed ta har•ing beer and wine sold from her
~ropecty. She stated she telt she should have samething to say about what is
built on her pcopetty.
Mr. Robb:ns stated t~e was the real estate ayent involved when th~ property was
leased from Ms. Prentice some 15 years ago and she is making a point that
Mobi1 does noL• hav~ full use af the property and he has checked with theit
legal departmeot and has been told that the lease does a11ow them to do this.
He stated she Assigned certain rights to them and has been receiving rental
from them for these years and now that they want to upgrade the ptope:ty,
s:~e feels this is a chance to get more money.
4j16/8~
MINUTES, ANAHEZM CITY PLANNING COMNISSION. AFRIG 16, 1984, 84-205
Ne refecCed ta the conditiona and atate~ Mobil doea accept 20 uf krie 22
conditiona t howevec, thwy ob ject Co the fact Lhat tFiey I~AVe to get the
property ownec to oubmit a lottc~r t~ the Ci.ty re<~uesting r.erminat{ ~n of thc
exi~ting ccrnditiur~nZ use permit aa a requirement uf C:ondi~ti~~~ No. 8 h~er.auHe
under the circumatances, th<3y do not Leel ahe will Ue willing to do it. !ie
refer~~d to i;ondition No. 2 concErning cloflure ~~E the c~rivewayo on l,incoln and
~unkiet and stated it ir~ their position because of the configucati~n, they
would Eind lt canvenient to us~ two drivewaXs on une ~treet and propoe~e to
keep the two drivewny~ open on I~incoln and clo3e tt~~ drivew.~}• nearest the
intersecl•ion on Sunkimt.
THE PUBLIC HEAI2ING WAS Ci~OS~D.
Paul Singer., TratEic Enyinecr, stal-eci tt~at it has been documented many times
dcivewaya closest to c~rners cause collisions and since the ~ervice station is
goiny to be totally demolished, the new conEigurotion of thc pumps can be
arranged in such A way L•hr~t total circulat~on can be accommodated on thts site
t.a peovide for cor~venient acc~,s and circulution through and around the ~umps
without the need for driveways ttint cloae to the intPr~ection r~nd Eor the ~ake
oE safety, he would highly Gecommend thc drivew~ys bcing closed. He r,tnted
the atandard ~eyuirement throughout the Coui~ty is thAt ~ drivaway sh~uld not
be clo~er than 11U feet to the ilow line oE ttie opp~sing street on any
arterial street.
.lack white, Asaistant Ci~y Attorriey- respon~ied to Commissioner Nerbst that the
circumstance~ here are thAt ttie lessee is submitking the aE.plic~tion with the
underlying leasor ~eing oppused to the applicatian and that doean'c happen
very often, but the law is such L•hat now where the r:ode require.: that the
a~plication be tiled by the owner ot the property, ca4~ law lias held that the
lessee of the property ic tt~e owner of the pcoperty for purposes of s~bmitting
a conditional use pecmit applical-ion and he would he of. the opini.on that tt~
lessee, being the owner fcr purposes of application, would also be the own~~r
for purpose: for submittiny the letter for termination of the existiny pe~mit.
Jack White stated the approval oc disappcoval of a eonditional use pecmit
shculcl nol• be deemed by either the leasur or lessee as being the position of
tl~e Cily as to any particular covenants contained in tl~eic lease agceement as
to L•he right of the lessee to u~e the property for purposes requested in the
application.
Chairwoman F3oua3 askEd if the petitioner would be willing to not sell beer and
wine. Mr. Robbins res~onded they would prefer to have the right to sell beer
and wine.
Commiasioner Bushore clarified the petitioner was ar+ace that the Planning
Commissi~n typically denies such applications. He continued the other problem
the Commission has had is to detecmine whet~~er or not this is the right
locatian for a convenience market and whether c+r r,ot the size of the site
meets the criteria and it is ~,~teresting that even though it is not a
convenience store and is not o~en 24 hours a day, Ralph's market in that
location is moving because it has nc~t been a good .location for a market. He
atated during Mr. Robbin's presentation, h~ did not indicate any need for ~his
type ~acility in this location and it has been the opinion of the Co~nmission
d/16/89
MINUTE5, ANANEIM CI'1'Y P1,ANNING CUMMI55ION~ APRIL 16, 1984. 84-206
in the past that thia type of convenience mnrket is not really a use the City
appcecietea, so he would not be in favor of. thic application. He s~ated the
City doer ndt like convenience markets wi~t~ gaeoline aalea in the Eirat place
and definitely doea not like tl~e idea uf: the aal~s of beer. nnd wine in
conjunction with that use.
Mr. Robt,ins stated the Rtatf report m~kes the Cammiseion's view~ quite c1eAr.
i4CTI0N: Commiasioner Busho~e oftered a motion, seconded by comrnl~si.oner Kin~
and MU'1~IUN CAEtR1EU (Commissioner La Clnice absenC), eh~tit the Anaheim City
Planniny Commis~ion has reviewed the E~ropoAal to conetruct a convenience
mArket with gasoline sale~ and of.f-sale beer and wine ~~~ an irregularly-she~ec~
parcel of land consi~ting oF appcoximately U.5 acre located at the ooutheast
corr~er of Linculn Avenue and Sunkir~C Sr.reet ~nd further described aa 25Q0 F..
Lincoln Av~nuet and does hereby ~pprove the Negative Dec.lnralion upon finding
that it has con~idered l•he Negative Ueclaration togethec with any commentG
received duriny the ~ublic review procPSR and furthec finding nn the banis of
rhe Initial Study and any comments ~eceived khat there is no subst~ntial
evidence that the project will have a significant eEfect on the envicunmenl•.
Cammissioner F3ushore oEieced Resc~lution No. PC84-63 and moved fnr it~ ~~assage
and adoption that thF Anaheim City Planning Commis~ion does hereby deny
C~nditional Use P~rmit No. 2547 on thE_~ Daais that the location is n~~t suitable
for a convenience market with ofE-~a]e beer and wine and khe ~ale of gasoline
in conjunction with off-sa1P of i~eer and winc: ls not app~opriate and the use
would r,e detrimental to the peace, health, sa£ety, and general welfare ot the
citizens of the City of Anatieim.
Un roll call, the foregoing resolution was naased by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ BUSHORE~ FRX~ NF.RF3S:', KING~ MC BtIRNEY
NUFS: NONE
Af35ENT: LA CLAIRE
Jack White, Agsistant City Attorney, N~esented the writ'•en tight to appeal the
Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
I'PEM NU. 16. EIR NEGATIVE 1)ECLARAZ'ION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMI't NU. 2557
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ROBERT K. WALKER, ET AL, I9U1 E. 4th Street, Santa
Ana, CA 92705. AGEN''i~; MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, 3655 S. Soto, Los Angeles, CA
90058. Property is de~cribed as a rectangularly-shaped Narcei ~f land
consisting of approximately 0.76 acres locat•ed at the southeast curner of
Lincoln Avenue and MagnoliA Avenue, l0U South Magnolia Avenue tMobil Service
5tation?.
To permit a cunvenience market wikh gasoline sales and off-sale beer and wine.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
and alkhough the staff teport was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
4/16/84
. . . . . . ~ ..... .~~wk .y
MINUTE5, ANAHEIM CI7'Y PLANNING CUMMISSION, APRIL 1G, 198A. 84-207
Jim Huntsberry, 3509 Saint Sus~n Place, Los Angplea, Ca?.ifornia, ag ~nt,
explainEd Cheir a~plicati~~n is to reviPw an existing facili4y on th e inte:ior
by pcoviaing shelves tor snack il•ums which they call 'impu~se" item s such as
candy, chips, nuts, sott d[ir~kc, etc. He explaine~ they intend ro l~ave the
facilit.y as it is Mith tt~e ~umps in tt~e ~ame alignment r~nd they will onl.y b~
addin~ shelvinc~ and ~ refriyeraiion uni~j that ehe snbck food area ia only 35l
square Eeet which is very small and limited And they could not expa nd their
product line even if they wanted ta. He reirrrecl to the condltionr~ proponed
and stated tliey would object -_u th~ c~ndition ceyuiring clorure ~f the
driveways ner~cest the intersection anc~ explain~~d in this applic:ation khey are
not complet~ly demo:istiing the existiny f.acility ac in the previous hearing.
THE PUEiLIC HE:ARING WAS Cl,(~S~;U.
Commissioner Hect~st asked about Che sale of becr and wine. Mr. Hun t~bcrry
replied tt~ey do propose to sell beer ancl winP xn the facility and ttie reason
for the snack rhop and bc~er an~1 wine sales is that in this parr_iculdr
location, they ~re proposing a fu.ll sel.t-service facility and there is no
other means far pr~fit for tt~e dealec and in today'~ climate, the iridependent
dealer has had a difficult time surviving becc~use of competition a n d there is
a need foc an alkernate prafit center.
Commissi.oner Her.b~t stated the petitioner had indicated the snack s ho~~ will bc
providing "impulse' itertis and L•hat is c~ne of tt~e problems he tias wi th this
type use because the driver couJ.d purchase thc beer and drive away and drink
on the way and he is opposed tn thaL. He stated he does not think wlne and
beer ai~d yasoline sales mix and the law enforcemenk. agencies have t~een trying
to tell us that Lor a long t:me time and sti.ll the oil companies a r.e insisting
on putting ttiem toyett~er. He stated he felt the oil companies shou ld be
opposed to this because it does causE accidents. Eie stated the Commission has
been drastically oppuser.i to thia and as lc,ng as he is on the Commis slon, he
will not vote for on~ of these. He suggested a snack bac without t he beer a:~d
wine.
Mr. Huntsberry stated he agrees that liyuor and driving do not mix, but a
person's buying habits cannot be legislaled and if a pers~n chaose s to have a
beer or a glass of wine and drive, he would t~aye that opportu~ity i n
cestaurants, bars, etc. or could purchase it at supermarkets and li quor stores.
Conunissioner Herbst stated the customec would be there to buy gaso 1 ine and if
they had to make anott~er stop, the chances are they would not do it , so thia
just makes it too convenient.
Commissioner Bush~re stated the petitionEr said that comperition d ictates that
in order for the dealer to make it, he needs another source of prof it and tha~
is not really the owner's fault, it is the oi2 company's fault bec ause thQy
set the price the deal~r payb and competition sets the price he se 11s the
gasaline fnr, but if the oil companies can keep the dealec's prof i ts Up
through other means, they can artificially inflate the price of c~a s oline. He
stated one year ago the Commission ~as concerned with convenience markets and
gasoline sales, creating two totally different businesses on the s ame
property, end related an incident he had had at a self-service sta tion in Lodi
where he had filled up with g~solire and o~served a young person paying for
4/ 16/84
MINUTCS,_ANA_H~1M CITY pLANNING CUMMISSION, APRIL 16, 1984, 84-208
g~soline and bPer and it was obvioufi he waa under a~e And he thought that waa
Jur,t a little tao convenient and ag~in he went to tt~e same ~ervice station and
ob~erved s womun who purchaaed a package of. cigerettes and immedirtelv went
nut to the pum~s and lit a ciyarette beCore pumping gasoline. He stal•ed
Alcohol and driving do not mix and tie was disaF~nointed because thN Mor.herc
Against rieunk privir~g were not present in o~pooition to this request. He
stated the ~etitioner shuuld either sell gasoline and incidental items or they
should sell beec and wine. tie added there are olher alternative ways Ghe
dealer can make a profit.
C:hairwoman I3ouas asked iE the petitioner would be intereatecl in the permit
without the sale of beer and wine. Mr. tlunt~bercy stated they would prefer
beer nnd wine sales, but wpuld en~ertain an ap~rroval wil•hout bc~er and wine,
hut not to close r.he drivewayr.
Pau1 Singer stated r.he driveways cloEest h.o tfie intersection are very
hazArdous to traffic and ~hauld not be permitted within )10 Eeet ~f an
intersection and noted this is a very bu~y intersection and twa driveways ace
a real problem, Iie stated tic will ~lways try t.o convince the Commission of.
the fact l•hat people do gct hurt in accidents due to khe convenience ot the
two drivzways.
Cc~mmis,sioner Bushore stated it totally am~zes him kh~at gasoline com~panies keep
coming in ~nd saying they can't. make it on the E~rice ot yasuline a.lone and
wank to aell everyl•hing els~ they can with it and the Traff.ic Engi.neer has
studies in hi~ office to prove thal the driveways are dangeraus and the
petitionecs don't want. to r_lose the driveways btcau~e 1t :nay c:~st ~FIE':I1 mor.ey.
He stated the Commisaion i~ empowered to protect the health anci safety of the
public and the petitioners totally disregard that fo~ the almighty do11Ar. Le
added he considers this totally irresponsible.
Mr. Huntsberry stated it is not the cost of closing the driveway, but ttiese
are independenk businessmen who operale these facilities and ~hey lease the
property from Mobil and it Mobi1's j~b to try and make sure they can make a
liviny and khat they firmly believe the driveways are important £or the
success ot the business.
Commissioner Bushore asked if the o~erator was the one who requested the sale
of beer and wine oc whether it was Mobil. Mr. Huntsberry responded the
operator would have to request it thcough the Alcoholic Beverage Co ntrol Baard
if khe CUP is approved and added the operator would li.ke to have beer and
wine. Commisaioner Bushore stated he cauld not understand why the opecator is
not here to make the presentation and maybe he would like the driveway
closed. kesponding to Commission2r Bu3hore, Mr. Huntsbercy stated he did not
think the operator would want t.he driveway closed.
Paul Singer stated at a recent City Council meetirig when another service
stati.on was up fer discussion, the owner said he felt Che driveways closest to
the intersection were dangerous and he would close them even if ne did not
receive the conditLonal use pecmit.
4/16/84
M_INUTES, ANANEIM CITY PtAt:;:2NG CaMMISSION, APRIL 16, 1984~ 84-209
ACTION; Commieoioner Florbat oEfered a motion, seconded by Commi~sioner King
and MUTION CARRIED (Commissianec I~a Claire absent), thnt the Anaheim (;ity
Planning Commi.esion has review~d the proposal to pcrmit a convenience market
with ga3oline eales and ofE-aale beer and wine o~ a cectt+ngularly-ahaped
parcel oE land consisting of rappcoximately 0.76 acre located at thc~ southeast
cornec ot Lincoln Avenue and Magnolia Avenue and further d~rtcribed as 100
South Magnolia Avenuet and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon
finding that it has con~iderec9 the Negative Declsration togal•:~er with any
comments r~ceived during the puhlic review procet~s and further finding on the
basis of the Initi~l Study and any commNnts received that ther.e is no
substantial evidence thar. the project will hr~ve a significant effect. on the
environment.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resulution No. PC84-G4 and moved Eor its passag~~
and adoption tt~at tt~e Anaheim City Plr~nning Cortimission does hereby grant
Condikional Use Pprmit No. 25~7, in pact, permiCting the convenience markel
with yasoline sales, but deleking the right for off-rale F~eer and wine and
i.ncludiny the requirement thdc the dcivew~ya closest to the inte[sections of
L,icicoln and Magnolia be closed and subjec~ to Interdepartmental Committee
tecommendations.
On roll call, the £oregoir~g resalution wAS passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST, KItJG, MC RURNEY
NOE5: NONE
ABSENT: LA CLAIRE
.Tack White er.plained the cunditions were a.ll approved, includiny the one that
the ~3rivewA,ys be closed and if the permit is to be exercised, it will be
required that the Traffic Engineer's rPcommenclati~ns be satisfied.
Jack White, A~sistant City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the
Planning Commission's decision within 22 da}~s to the City Council.
RECESS: 3:05 p.m.
RECONVENE: 3:15 p.m.
I'1'GM NU. 17. EIR NEl;ATIVE DECLARATLON AND GENERAL PLAN AMENVMENT N0. 193
PUBLIC I.;EARING. OWNERS: WCS INTERNATIONAL, ATTN: GEUR~E ~DAMS, 3200 E.
Frontera Street, Anaheim, CA 92806. Property is described as a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.8 acres
(Paccel A.) 1.9 acres (ownEr initiatedl located south of the Riverside Freeway
and 103U feet east of the centerline of Glassell ~treet; and, (Parcel B.} 0.9
acre (City initiated) located south of the Riverside Freeway and I750 feet
east of the centerline of Glassell Street.
To change the curcent General Open Space designation to General Industrial.
It is the intent of k,he property owner ta expand the existing resource
recovery and recycling center. It is the City's intention to bcing the land
use cle~ignation into conformance with the existing zoning and land use.
4/16/~4
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM:SSION, APRIL. 16, 1984, 64-210
lt w~s noted the Plannin~ ~txiE recommended c~ntinuing sut,ject petiti~~n ko Che
meeting uf A~ril 30, 1984, for ceadvertiaing.
ACTION: Commi~aioner King offer~~d a moF.ion, secanded by Commissioner Fry and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La ~laire bb8ent), that consid~ration oE the
ator~mentioned mattec be continued to the meeting of April 3~, 198A, At t.he
reque~t oE Planning ~tat'f, Eor readvertising.
ITEM N0. 1H. FIK NEGATIVE U~CI.ARATION, kECLASSIEICA7'IUN N0. 83-84-15
READVERTISEU)
pUBLIC HEARIMG. OWNERS; WC5 IN7'ERNATIONAL, ATTN: GEORGE ADAMS, 3200 E
E~'rontera Street, Anaheim, CA 92806. Property described as a
rectangularly-shaped parcel oE land concisting of approxim~tely 1.85 acres,
StreeC, t~aving a Lrontage of approximately A76 fe~t r~n the ~outh side of
Frontera Street and beiny lc~cated approximately 2,OOU feet east of the
cente[line of C~lassell Slreet.
ftS-A-43,UUU (R~~idential, Agricultural) 7,~ne t~ tt~e ML (lndustrit~l, LimitE~d)
7one lo expand % resource recovecy and recycling opecation including an
automobile diemantli.ng busineas with wh~lesale and retail sales of auto parts.
It was noted the ~lannirig staff recommended c~ntinuing subject petition to tt~e
rtieeting oE Af~ril 3U, 1984, in order to readvertise.
ACTIUN: Commissioner King ofEered a motion, secondrd by Commis~sionNC Fry .:nt9
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent), that consideration of the
afocementioned matter be continued to the cegularly-scheduled meetiny af April
30, 1984, at the request of the Planning staff, for readverlising.
I't'E;M N0. ly. EIk NEGATIVE DECLARATTON AND CGNDITIQNAL US~ PERMIT NO. 2525
SREADVERTISED) ~~
PUBLIC HEARING. QWNERS: HULLY W. DAVIUSOIJ, P.O. Box 325, '.~iualoa, HI 96725
and W~S INTERNATIONAL, 3200 E. E'rontera Street, Anaheim, CA 97.806. AGENT:
ORANGB (:OUN~.'Y STEEL/SALVI~C;E, INC., 3200 FrontPra Street, Anaheim, CA 92806 and
GEORGE ADAMS, 3200 E. Eron:.eca Street, Anaheim, CA 928C6. ~roperty described
as an icregularly-shaped parcel af land consisting of approximately 8.2 acres,
3200 East Frontera St:eet (Orange Counly Ste~~l Salvage).
ACTION: Cortunissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fr.y and
MOTION CARRIEd (Commissioner !.a Claire absent?, that consideration of the
aforementioned mattec be continued to thE regularly-scheduled meeting of April
3U, 1984, at the request of the petitioner.
IT°M NO. 20. EIR NEGATJVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2559
TtUBL2C HEARING. UWNERS: HOM~ OF THF. MINISTERING ANGEL, DORIS GIBSON SMALL,
1].1 W. 17th Street, Santa Ana, CA 92706. Proper.ty described as an
irr~gularty-s~h~aped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.3 acrea
located a~proximately 300 feet southerly of the intecsection of Arbaretum Ro~d
and 4uintana Arive, 233 Quintana Drive (Home of the Ministering Angel).
4/16/S~
MINU'I'ES1_ 1NA}1~.IH C17'Y PI.ANNING COMMISSION, APRII~ 16t 19A4, E34-211
To expand n Goarding and lodging home from 18 to 20 children.
'I'here w~~ no oiie indic~tiny their pre~ence ii- ~ppoaition Co cubject req~ec~t
And a.lthough thE stafl re~act wna not read, it is referred ko and made a~Art
of thr. minuteo.
Uaria Small, owner, was pre~ent ~nd explained they ace prUparing to increase
the occupancy of ttieir boacd and care Eacility for abused childrr_n fr~m 1a to
2U.
7'HE PUBLIC NEAftING WAS CL,OSEU.
AC7~IUN: Commissioner King oEEered A motion, cecunded by CommisASonet Herb~t
and MO't'ION CARRIED (Cc~mmissioner l.a Claire absent), that khe Anaheim City
Planning Cominis~ion has reviewed the pr~poaal tc~ expancl a boarding and lodying
home from 18 to 20 chi]dcen on an irregularly-shaped parcel ot land conaieting
oE approximuLely 4.3 acrec~ located approximately 3U0 feet soukherly oE the
interaectian of Arbaretum R~~~d and (~uintan~a Driv~ and further described as 233
Quintana Arive; and dr~et; t~er~by aE~prove the Negative Declr~ratian upon finding
tt~at it has considered the Negative Decl~r~tior~ together with any commenta
ceceived during l•he pu~.lic review process and further finding nri the bacfs of
Che Initial Study and any commentr ceceived that there is no substantial
evidence tht~t ttie pruject ~ill hav~~ a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner King offered Resolution Ma. PC84-65 nnd moved for its pa~saye and
adoptior~ that ttie Anat~eim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Conditional Uve Permit No. 2559, pur~~iant to AnAheim Municipal Code Sections
18.03.U30.030 ktirough 18.U3.03U.035, and subject to Interdepartmenkal
Committee recommendations.
Un roll call, the foregoing resolution was pAS~;ed ~y th~ following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, HER9ST, KING, MC F3URtvBY
NUES: NONE
ABSENT: LA CLAIk~
ITEM N0. 21. BIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANb CUNDITIONAL USG PERMIT N0. 2553
PUBLIC HEARING. GWNE~tS: EDWI~TtD E. MATTHF?;S c/o EAR WEST SAVINGS & LOAN
ASSOCIATION, 4U01 MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Eleach, CA 92660. AGENT: FAR
WEST SAVINGS AND t~UAN A~SUC., ATTN: D. KEN'P DAHLKE, 4001 MacArtt~ur Blvd.,
Newport Beach, CA 92660 and JO ANN ZWANZIGER, 23?."s Golden Meadow Drive,
Duarte, CA 91U10. Property described as ~n irregularly-shaped parcel of land
consistin9 ~f approxima~ely 0.68 acre, and further described as 4581
Eisenhower Gircle.
To permit an indoor baseball academy in the ML(SC) Zone with 30 parking spaces.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
And although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
4/16/44
IARI . ~
MINUTE51 ANANBIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON~PRIL 16~__19_f34, 84-212
Jo Ann 7.wanziyec, 2330 Galden Meadow, Ouacte, C~li~ornie, agent, stAked they
are proposing a baseball/saEtball tacademy with 5 Aukornuted cages and 4
teaching cage~, warm-up area, two uffices, n conference room, a counter with
small enack bar and a~ro :~h~E~ whcre they will ae11 bptt:ing gloves snd bats.
She stated All l~saons will be by uppointment witti wAlk-in traffic ueing the 5
aut~mated cagE~s.
E3rian T~nnFr, 4563 Ei~enhower Circle, ~naheim, stated the comments he has just
heard about the ac~demy confirms his worst fears; that theirs is a publishing
company next door on the east ~f subject propecty arid he thouyht the propoaed
usE would cre~te a lot of' problerns. He stated they pub.lish aoupon bonks ~~nd
some ot their clien~s are amu~ement centers where they do have :~atting cage~s
and he knows they do cr.eate a tremendous amuunt of traf.fic and it is primarily
young ~eo~~le. Ne stated he does nat ~nnw what their hourH of opertation will
be, but with a snacE: bac and walk-in traff.ic, it wiil definitely be a problem.
Commissioncr Pry asked why he thaught there wauld be a problem. Mr. Tanner
recponded this is a buaineso park and tt~eir facility is used for a warphou~e
and office space ai~d noted they already have a lot r~f prot~lerns r~yarding the
value of the ~:rop~~cty beeause ~he develuper went bankcupt and left a lot of
unresolved problems; that the addiCion of a batting cage in ~ light ind~ustrial
area is actually a recreational ,:acilitx with wa1M:-in traffic; that the
traffic situation iri the area now is totally unacceptabl~: that thcee of the
businesses in l•his ar.ea ure their packi.ng aots fo[ sl-orage af theit products
or eyuipmen~ and are parkiny an the street and t~e thougtit a recreational
facility would just ac3d to the parkir-g F~roblem and the use is unacceptable
because af khe ~.raPfic, trash, hours of oF~Aration, etc.
Ms. 2wanziger stated this i~ not an arcade, that it is an educational type
academy with Xouc ourstanding people in charge. SF~e noted there wi.ll be no
trash outside and ttie only snacks will be soft drinks or maybe candy bars and
the pro &hop will only h~ndle tt~ings like batting gloves, bats and maybe
helmet~ whict~ will be used in the cages. She explafned only one person can be
in an autamated cage at one time with one person waiting, so the maximum
number ot people will be 18 with 4 inst::uctors so they will need 22 parking
s~.aces and tiave 30. She stated it is set ~p for students from age 6 and older.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Respanding to Chairwoman IIouas, Ms. 'Lwanziger stated the hours of operati.on
would be af~er school irom rnaybe 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and on k~eekends it
would be oQen From noan until 10:00 p.m.
Commission~r Bushore stated he sees no problem with the haurs of operation,
but was concerned because of the problems experienced with the expansion of
the C:amelot Golf course and amusemP;~t center in an inaustria.l area wi.th
parking and vandalism due to their hours of operation. He refec[ed to an
article in the ne~+spaper statiny this use anticipates 30q students per day and
felt that woulc] c~eate a prablem. He usked if thPy plan to have teams in for
teaching. Ms. Zwan2iger replie8 they do nut intend to have 300 students per
day.
4/16/84
MlNUTES, ANAhE1M CI'~Y PLANNING COMMISSIUN. APRIL_ 15. 1984_,~,_,_,_ __BA-213
C~mmissi.oner Bushore stated he aees no real problem with khis iisei that one
wae just allowed on ?ast Street in an induatrial area and thece is one on
Ar.~okhurst and it wa~ noted by Commissiuner King that lesaona will be given by
appointment only. Cammissioner BuAhore ntated if it does bec^me a problem,
the Commission can review it. Ne painted out to Mr. xanner t~:~t he can reporC
the neighbor~ who ace using the Parking areAr~ fac storage to the City's Code
EnEnrcQment O[ficer nnd thAt cfln be Ck'BA1VHd.
AC'r10N: c:ommissionec King offered a motiun, seconded by Commissiuner Mct3urney
(Comminsioner L~ Claice absent), that the Annheim City Planning Commiasion haa
reviewed the proposal ta f>ermit an indoor bASeball academy in khe ML(SC)
(Industrial, Limited Scenic Corridar Overlay) 2one with 30 parking apacea an a
irreyulacly-shapec~ pACCel ot land consiHting af appcoximately 0.68 acre,
haviny a front.age of approximately 214 feet on the south side of. Eiaenhower
Circle, having a maximum dr.plh of appcoximate:ly 158 feet and EurCher describ~d
as 4581 Eisenhower Circle; and does hereby approve the Hegative De~laration
upon Linding L•hat it has consldered the N~gative DeclarAtion together with any
comments received ~lucing the public review process arid further finding on the
bt~sis of ttie znitial. 5tudy anci any conunent~ ceeeived thak thece is no
substankial evidence thaL• the pr~ject will have a significant eff~~ct on the
er-vi ronnient .
Cortunissioner King c~ffeced Resulution No. PC~~i-66 and moved Cor its passeg~ ~~~+:
adoptic~n that the Anaheim City P].anning Comma.s~ion does heceby grant
Co~-ditional Use Pe~mit No. 2553 subject tc, InGerdepactmental Committee
recommendAtions.
Comtaissioner Herbst stated he would vote for approval oE th~s requesf `~~
understanding that everything wi.ll be conducted inaide the facilit.y ~+ ~~
the understanding that the applicant thoroughly underGtands that lf ~:
condi.tions are nah maintained, this conditional use per.mit could be w..: ~~~'~~~~~•
On roll ~all, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vs+~
AYES: BUU~4S, BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST, KING, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT; LA CLAIkE
ITEM N0. 22. EIR NE;GATIVE UECLARATION AND CUNDZTI~~NAL USE PERMIT I~C~. ::~`2
PUBLIC HEARING. ~WNERS: N. AkETTA hfERKET, ET hL, 3430 W. Brady ~4ven~:~„
Anaheim, cA 92804. 'Propecty described as a rectangularly-ahaped ~~Cr_e~ of
land consisting of apptoximately 742ti square feeL- and fur.th~r de$:ric~e3 as
343~1 West Brady Aven4~.
To convert an exi~ting accessery stcuctuce tc a second-family (~,ranny) unit.
Thece w~s no one indicating their p[esence i~ appositior. to subject request
and although the staff report was not read, it is referred t~ and marle a part
of the minutes.
Kathy Merket, 3430 W. Br~dy, was present to answec any quc:stionc.
4/16/84
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CI~'Y PLANNING COMMTSSI~~~PRIU 16,_1984, _ 84-21A
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSGD.
Commisafoner King aokcd if the pe.'-itiuner h~,~ tAl.ked to the neighbor.s with Ms.
Merket reaponding her mother-in-laa~ had discusaed it wit;h the neighbors and
there was no oppoaitian ar Cr~r Fis s--c, knew,
Jack White rPCUmmended a chAnr,e l.n t~.E~~* QCa:ff report, Page 21-a changing the
authnrity to Government ~ode Sec:~i<,n 65~`>2.I instead oF Anaheim MunicipAl Code
5ectinn 18.U3.03U.UlU and or, P~ye 2~-c, ~:~ndition No. 2 modifying the
condition to ehow the agc ae cY~4~nge~ t~~ 60 ko r.onf:orm to Government Code
Section 65852.1 and tha-_ t.he conditton should be worded, "That the ownero of
subject pr.operty shall ccstric~t Lhe occupancy of the granny unit ~0 1 or 2
persone, both of whom ~r.e~ 60 years oE age and older and shall record a
covenant ayainst the ~~aopecty .3r~ reri:rictiny the occupancy of. aaid unit, and
thut said c~venanl- sh~~ll be autrni:rt~d to th~ Pl~,nniny Depr~rtment for
tcansmitral Co the C:ity Aktorney'a Uffice E~r approva.l ~nd CPV~@W prtor to
cecordation."
ACTIUN: C'ommissioner iCin~ uffered a mution, seconded by Commissioner Fry and
MOTION CARRTEU (Commissiun~r La t=l.aire absent}, that l•he Anaheim City E~lanning
c:ommission haG review~d tt~~ pco,~oF~al to convert an existing accessory
stcucture to a second-~aonily l9[a~ny) unit on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of
land con,sisting of appruxiniaCely 7425 square feet, having a irontage of
aFproximately 55 ~eet on tt~ie south side of Brady Avenue and further described
a~ 3430 West E3rady Avenue; ~nd dc~er hereby ap~rove the Negative Decl~ration
u~on finding that it hac ccansicie~cd the Negative Decla~ation together with any
com~nents received durin9 the ~>ublic review process ~n~ further finding on the
br~sfs uf the Initial Study and any commentR ceceived that tt;ere is no
substantial evidEnce that the project will have a~ignificant eEfect on the
enviconment.
Commiasioner Kiny ofter.ed Resolul•ion No. PC84-67 and moved for ils passage and
adoption that the Atiaheim City Planning Commissian do~s hereby granC
Conditional Use Permit No. 2552 pursuant to Govecnment Code 5ection 65852.1
and subject to Interdepartmental Comm.tttee recommendations as modified by Jack
Whi.ke.
On cvll call, the foregoirag resolution was passpd by the following vote:
AYES: BUUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST, KING, MC BURNEY
NO£S: NONE
ABSENT: LA CLAIRE
ITEM NO 23 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIRzMENT AND
CONUITIOhAL USE PERMIT N0. 2558
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JAMF.'S KENNETH AND MARION EVELYN DEMP~TER, 2121 Nyon
Place, Anaheim, ~CA 92806. Pruperty described as an irregularly-shaped parcel
of land consisting o£ apprAximately 7850 square Yeet and further described as
2121 Nyo:. Place.
Ta construct a second-farnily (granny) unit with waiver of mi~fmum rear yard
setback.
4/16/84
MINU7'ES. ANAH~IM_CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN. APkIG 16, ~984,. 84-215
There was no one indicating their preaence in opposition to subject cequest
and although the st~ff repart. was not reAd, it ia ce£ecred to ~nd made a pArt
of the minutea~
Ken Dempster, ownec- W38 present to answer Any que~kiona.
THk; PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLpSEU.
Jack White recommended Che same two chanqes to the sL•aff r.e~ort as in Item No.
7.2; one ~eing the autl~ority changed to Gavernment C~de Section 6585'l.l and
amending Condition No. 2.
Commissioner Herbst asked if the petitioner had talked to his neiqhbors with
Mr. Uempster responding he had talk~~d to the neighbors closest to the
~esidence ttnd they are all in Eavor.
!~~TION: Commissioner hiny offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fcy and
MU'1'ION CARRI~U (Commissioner La Claire ab~ent), tF~at the Anaheim City Planning
Commis~ion has reviewed the propasal to construct a second family (granny)
unit witt~ waiver of minimum rear yard setback on ~n ircegularly-shaped ~accel
ot land consisting aE ~-pproxim~~tely 7850 ~quare feet, havinc~ a fruntage of
approximately 48 Leet ~n the northeast side of Nyun E~.lace and (urther
described as 2121 Nyon F'lac.e; and does hereby ap~~ruve the Negative Declaration
upon ffnding that it t~as conaidered the Negative Ger.laratian together with any
CORl1fIP.IItS received ~ur.ing the public review process and further finding on the
basis ~f the Initial Study and any commenl•s receiv~~ that there is no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant eEf'ect on the
environment.
Commissioner KinU offerFd a mc~ticn, secunci«~d by Commissionec Fry and MOTION
CARRIED (Commissioner La Claice absent), khak ci~e Anahe,'tm City Planning
Commission does hereby grant waiver ~f Code requirement on the basis that
there are r~pecial circumstances applicable tu the pr~perty auch as size,
shape, topoyraphy, location and surroundingE whir.h do not apply to ~ther
identically zoned pr~perty in the same vicinity; and that strict application
af the 2oning ~ode deprives the praperty of priv::eges enjoyed by other
propertiss in the identical zone and classification in ~t~e vicinity and
subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations.
Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC84-68 and moved for its passage and
adoption that ttie Anaheim City Planning Cammission doe~ hereby grant
Conditional Use Permit Na. 2558 pursuant to Government Code Ser,tion 65852.1
and aubject to Interdepartmpntal Committee recommendati~ns including
modif~^ation to Condition No. 2 to read: That the owners af sub~ect property
shall cestrict occupan~y oF the granny uni~ to Z or 2 per3ons, both of whom
are 60 years of age ~r older, and shall cecord a covenant against the property
so cestricting the occupancy of said unit, and khat said covenant shall be
submitted ~o the Planniny Department Department for trensmittal to the City
Attorney's Clffice for approval and review prior to recordation.
On coll call, the foreyoing reaolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHQAE, pRY, HERBST, KING, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: L.9 CLAIRE
9/16/84
~ ~ ~
MINUTES. ANAN~IM CI'f_Y__~~ANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 1G, 1984. 84-216
ITEM N0. 24. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIQN, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL I',iE P~RMIT N0. 2556
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS; BRXAN INOU5'PRIAL PROPERTIBS, 1NC., 3340 OceAn PArk
Dlvd., ~Anta Monica- CA 9U405. Property deacribed ae a rectnngulArly-shaped
parcel of lAnd consisting of approximately 1.A acres, and further described ~s
2541 West -.a P~lma Avenue.
To permit retail sales and r~ntal of Eurnikure in tt~e ML 2one with waiver of
minimum number of pACking s~acea.
There was no one iridicating their pcesence in opposition ta ~ubject request
and although the staft rekort was not cr_ad, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Jim Graham, reptesentiny Budget Furniture Rental~, was present to anawer any
quest.ions .
THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS C~05ED.
ACTION: Commiasioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commiasioner McE3urney
and ~4UTION CARRIBD (Commissioner La Claire absent), that the Anaheim ~ity
Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit retail sales ~nd
rental of furniture in the ML zone with w~iver ~f minimum number of parking
spaces on a rectan9ularly-st~aped parcel of l~nd cunsisting of approximately
1.4 acres, having a frontage of approximately 195 ieQt on th~ north side of La
Palma Avenue and furLher described as 2541 West La Palma Avenue; and does
hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered
the Negative Declaration tnqether with any comments received during the public
review process and further tinditig on the basis of the Initial Stu~y and any
comments ceceived Chat there is no substantial evidence that the pr~ject will
have a significant etfect on the environment.
Commissioner King offered a mation, seconded by Commissiuner McBurney and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent}, that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby grant waiv~r af Code requirement on the basis khat the
parkfnc~ waiver wi11 not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the
xmmediar.e vi.cinity n~r adversely affect. any adjoining land uses and granting
of the parking waiver ~~nder the conditions imposed, if any, will not be
detriment~.al to the peace, health, safety and general welface of the citizens
oP the City of Anaheim.
Commissioner King oLfered Resolution Nc~. PC84-69 and moved fot its passage and
adoption that the An~~heim Cit~ Planning Commission does hereby grant
Conditional Use P?rmit No. 2556 pursuant. to Anaheim Municipal Code 5ection
18.~3.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 subject to Interdepactmental Committee
recommendation~.
On roll call, the foregoing•resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FR'(, HERBST~ KING~ MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ASSENT: LA CLAIRE
4/16/84
MINUT~S, ANANGI_M__CITY PLANNJNG CUMMISSION, APRIL 16, 1984. 54-217
ITEM NU. 25. EIR NEGATIVE DECI,ARATION, WAIVER OF C~DE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2555
PUBLIC H~ARING. OWNERS: ~AI.IE'OkNIA/ORANGE ENTEkPRIS~S~ INC., 2914~ 350-5th
Avenue, 5.W., Calgary, Alberta, Canads T280L4. AGENT: DAVE CAkLSON, P.O. Box
819, Anaheim, CA 92805. Prope~L•y desc~ibed a~ an irregulArly-shaped parcel oi
land consisting of a~proximately 17.11 acres l~c~ted at the aouthPast carner
of Li~coln Avenue ~nd Scute College aouleva[d, and further descri.bed as 2004
Eaet Lincoln Avenue (BasG Anahe~im Center.).
To permit a drive-ti~rou9h re$taurant with waiver ~f minimum number of parking
apaces.
There was no one indicating their presence in oppocitl~n ta sub~ecC request
and althougt~ the st.afc rpport was not read, it is referred to and made a pnrL-
of the minutPs.
Carl Medder., Construckion Manager, Stewart Gceen Assuciates, 2316 E. Lincoln
~venue, Anaheim, was pcesent to answer anY questions.
l3ob Merriam, Car~son UeUign, P.O. Box 819~ Anaheim, agent, stai:ed they are
representing Kentucky i'ried Chicken, thP appl.icant, and explained they have
read all the conditions oE a~+pcoval and ha~~e questions regarding the
requicement for a parcel map and explained this is a"build-to-suit' by the
landlord and Kentucky E'ried Chick~n would be leasing the space only and they
understood a parcel map ~~auld not be needed. He referred to the requireme~t
Lor a traffic signal asser-~ment [ee and asked for deCails.
.1ack White, As~istant City Attorney, explained whekher or not a parcel map is
required depends uNon whether or not it is a lease only oE the space wi~hin
the building or wl~el•her or not il ig a lease of the land around the building
and he was not sure which it is; however, if i.t is only a lease of the
building with an undivided right to thP parking lot, a parcel map would not be
requiced.
Nir. Merriam staked the lease is for the sp~ce only and all the packing in the
center is common parking. He e:cplained they have a copy of the lease
available but the person with it has not arriyed at the meeting yet.
Jack Wh~.te suggested leaving the condikion in and if it is as represented a
lease of s~ace only within the building, it would not cequire a parcel map and
the condition would be deemed satiafied.
Paul Singer, TrafEic Engineer, star.ed the traffic signal assessment fees are
based on an orclinance that relates to all fees to be paid based on ti~e syuare
fnotage oE any new building that is constructed in the City of. Anaheim and
since this is a new building,it is ~ubject to signal asaessment fees per
ordinanc:e and he did not know the exact figure, but thoUght the fees ~re in
the neighborhood of ~230 per 1000 squace feet of gross flaor area.
Mr. Merriam stated that would be agreeable.
THE PUk3LIC HEARII.VG WAS CLOSED.
4/16/84
_ ......_...,<, 1
MIDlUT~B~ ANAH~IM CI'i'Y PLANNING COMMISSJUNI AP-2IL 16. 1984, 84-218
c:ommisBioner Bunhore reEerced to the traffic demand study, Pa~,ea 6 and 7, und
asked if Choae were incorpocated and Paul Singer rec~ponded the etudy cvncerns
itselt with parking and parking is,oo far,adequ~r,e at the ceri~er and he did
nat Lar~~Aee any ~rc~blems at Chi~ time.
Cummi~aaioner Her.bat asked aboul signing. Mr. Merriam re~poncled the ~xcerior
elPvation plans ahow 2 signa mounted on the building, but there would not be a
~~big bucket" becaus~: Kentucky Eried Ctiicken in cl~anging their image.
Commi~eionE~• Herbst statecl as long Aa the signing meeta the ocdinancer~ and
there ace no variances rr_•queated, he would have no E~rublem with thls uRe.
ACTIUN: c:ammis$ioner King otfereci r~ mation, seconded by Commisaianer t~'ry and
MUTIUN CARRI~U (C~~mrnissioner. La Clbire abaent), that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposal tu permit a drive-through restaurant wi.th
wr~fver of minimum number ot parkiny spaces on an irreyularly-shaped ~arcel of
land consi~ting of a~pcoximAtely 27.11 acren located at the aoutheASr. carner
af Lincoln Avenue ar~d State College E3oulevard and further deacribed aa 2008 E.
Lincoln Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding
tt~at it has consideced the Negative Ueclaration together with any commenks
receiveci during the public review proceas ancl further finding on the basic of
the Initial ,5tudy an~ any commentf~ received tt~at there is no sub~tantial
evidence tt~at L•he project• will have a~ignificant effect on the environment.
Commissionec King offered a motion, seconded by Commisaionec Fry and MOTION
CARRIEO (Commissioner La Claire absent), that the Anaheim Ci*y Planning
C~mmis~ion dae~ hereby gcant: waiver uf Code reyuirement on the basis that the
park.inq waiver will not cause an increaae in traffic congestion in the
imm~diate vicinity nor a~vPrsely affece any adjoininy land uses and gra~ting
of the park.ing waiver una~r the condicions impo~eed, if any, will not be
detrimental t~ the peace, health, safety and general welfarE of the c?tizens
of the City of Anahein~.
Cummis~ionet King off.ered Resalutioii No. PC84-70 and moved for its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim Cfty Planning Comn~ission does hereby grant
C~nditional Use Permit Na. 2555 pucsuant to Anaheim Municipal. Code Sections
18.03.03U.03U through 18.(~3.030.035 subject tu Inl•erdepartmental Committep
recommendations.
Un ro.ll call, ttie focegoiny re~~lution was passed by the follawiny vol•e:
AYES: BUUAS, AUSHQRE, FR~', HERBST, KING, MC DURNEY
NUES: NONE
A65~NT: LA CLAIRE
Chair»~~man Bouas usked when the struc~urea will be completed wi~P~ Mr, Medder
replying !:hey hav~ every intention of having a major portion finished by
November ~4.
4/16/84
MINUTES, ANANEIM CIx`Y PLANNING COMMISSION1 A~RIG 16. 19841 _84^2~y
ITEM NU. 'lb. E:zR NU. 266- KECLASaIFICATION N0. 83-84-24 AND CONDITIONAL USE
~ERMIT NU. 2550
PU~LIC HEARING. qWNEkS: PENNIMAN b CUMPANY, 5031 Bi[r.h Stceet, Newport
Beach~ ~A 926~0. A7`TN: RU5SELL S. PENNIMAN. AGBNT: P1~~HARD E. OCLESBY,
17631 Fitch, Icvine, CA 92814. Property deacribed ~a an irreyulbrly-ehaped
pacc~l af lnnd conaiating of op~ruximately 10.7 acres, and furthec de~cribed
As 140U East Kate11A Avenue.
K~CLAS5IF'ICATIUN REVU~ST; ML to C-R Zone.
COND1'1'IONAL USE REt~UF:ST: 'l~o permit f~n 8-to 14-ntory, lU4-to 205-fook high,
high-rise commercial ofCice complex.
There wac no one indicatiny thelr prer~ence in op~ocition t.c ~ubject request
and although the ataff report war nok read, it is reEerred ta nnd made a pt+r.t
of the tninutes.
Joe Walthour, tiusiness Propecties, 176:11 Fitch, Irvine, c:AliEorni.a, stated
they have ceviewed tt~e con~itions and t~ave a yuention regarding the condition
requtring the study fundiny and expl~ined they have already been r.equired to
do that on a previou~ project and are hopin9 some .lanyuage could be added to
that condition wt~ich wou.ld alleviate them from contributiny, if they hAVe
already contributed on a E~revious prnjec~.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLUSEU.
Jack WFiite, Assistant City Attorney, auygested that Cor-dition Nos. 12 and 13
which are currently propoc~ed for the c~nditi.or~al u~e permit also be added as
cunditiuns 6 and 7 to the reclassification and ttie existing proposed
Conditiuns 6 and 7 would be renumbered to Numbers 8 and 9 respectively. He
stated Condition No. 8 as renumbered should read: 'That priar to introduction
of an ordinance rezoning subject property, Condition Nos. 'l, 3, 4, 6 and 7
above-mentioned shall be completed'.
Jack White stated it is certai.nly not staff's intentiun to require a double
payment foG the funding of the study and to avoid that problem, h~ would
recommend adding wording to Condition No. 12 on Page 26-1 which will appear in
both the reclaFSification and conditional use permits at the end of line 17 as
tollows: •The cequirement contained herein relating to the funding of said
Iand use study, or Chp participation in a portion of the cost theceof, shall
not apply in the event subject property owner had f'unded said study or
p~rticipated in the cost tihereof, pursuant to a~imilar condition contained in
any other zoning action upon c;~her pcoperty als~ owned by subjeet Qroperty
ownec.' He stated that aciditional sentence would cover the situation here
ahere there are two prop~rties owned by the same property ownQC and the other
one also has this condition, so if that property develops first and the
condition is met, it would be deemed satisfied here or visa versa.
Mr. Walthour stated thPy would agree with that change.
4/iG/84
~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN, APR_I_L 1~1984. 84-220
ACTI~N; Commissioner Herbst offeced a motion, eeconded 'ay Cammisaioner King
and MUTION CARR2ED (Commissioner La C]aire abRent), that the Anaheim City
~l~nning Commiasion does hereby Cind that afrer conaldering Dr~ft
Environmental impacr Report No. 'l6G for the propoaed Katell~ Businesa Center
and reviewing evide~ce both wcitten and or~l pceaented to oupplpment Draft No.
EIR 266, the Planning Gommieaion finds that EIR No. ?.66 is in compliance wikh
the Calitornia Environmental ~ualiky Act and the City nnd Stake CEQA
Guidelines; thal• economic, social And physical cc~nsideratlon~ make it feASible
to eliminate all Che aignificant environme~itul impacts oG the project which
have been identifi.ed in ~IR Nu. 266s however, Ct:~ henefits of the project h~ve
been bal~nced Against the unavoidAble environmental lmpact and pursuanr to the
provisions of Section 15U93 oE the State CEQA Guidelinea, the occurrence of
the siynificant environmental ettect identified in EIR No. 266 as setfurth
above, may be permitted without further mi~iyatian due to the followi.ng
overriding conditions: (1? the projecl ~ill provide employment and economic
benefita to the City and to th~ citizens and t~usiness activi~y in the area,
(2) the projer.t is compaCib.le w~th bucinessea surrounding nnd propoaed land
u~es, and (3) mitigation meusures have been inco:poraCed into the project to
rcduce the ~nvironmental impact to an acceptable level; therefore, the
~lanniny Commission certities Environment~l Impacl• P.~:port No~ 266 and adopta
tt~is statement ot overriding consideration.
ACTION; Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC84-71 and rnoved fur its
pasaage ~nd adop~ior- that the Anah,eim City Planning Commission does hereby
grant Reclaseification No. 83-84-24 subject to Interdepartmental Committee
cecommendations including modifications and changes as recommended by the City
Attorney.
On roll call, the foregoiny resalutian was ~assed by the following vote:
AYES: HOUAS~ BUSHORE, FRY~ HERdST, KING, MC BURNEY
NUGS: NONE
A9SBNT: LA CLAIK~
Comr~iiasioner Herbst offered Reaolution No. PC84-72 and moved for its passage
and adoption that tt~e Anaheim City Plan~ing Commission does hereby grant
Condit.ional Use Pecmit No. 2550 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Cude SecLions
18.03.030.030 Lhrough 18.03.030.035 and subj~ct to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations including those modifications and changes made by the City
Attocney.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was gassed by the Eollowing vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ $USNURE~ ~RY, HEPBST~ KING, MC BU~NEY
NOES: ~JpN~
ABSENT: LA CLAI~E
ITEM N0. 27. EIR N0. 223 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED)1 VARIANCE NO. 3391_AND
TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 12156
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: WARMINGT~N HOMES, 3090 Pullman Street, Costa Mesa,
CA 92b~6. AGENT: PSOMAS ~ ASSOCIATES, 150 "A' Paularino Avenue, Costa Mesa
~'A 92626, ATTN: JOHN STEVENSON. Property described as an ircegularly-shaped
paccel of land consisting of approximately 6.96 acres, having a frontage of
approximately 655 feet on khe west side of Willowbrook Lane, and being located
agproximately 255 feet north of the centerline of Chapman AvQnue.
4/16/84
MINUTE5,__ANANEIM CITY PLANNIHG COMMISSION~ APRIL 16,_1984, _, 84-221
waiver of minimum lot width to re•aubdivide ~revioualy appcoved Tract No.
10476 to eatabliah a 6-].ot, 95-uni~ RM-3000 Zone condominium subdiviaion.
It waa notec9 the ap~licant was not pr~aent.
Thece was no one indicat.ing their prQSence i.n opposition to subject requeat
and Although ttie etaff report was not read, it is referred to ~nd made a part
of the minuteF.
Greg HAStir~gs, Anai.atant Planner, pointed ou~ the ataff would like to
recommend a cevision to Cond(ticz Nus. 3 and No. 14 r.hanging them to read
'prioc to the insuance oE b~ lding ~~ermits."
Jack White clariEied the pekitioner does not hAVe lo stipulate to meeting the
conditions.
Greg Ha3tings explained the property is already undec c~nstruction and the
tcact map is just foc financing purposes and staff wo~ld recommend thAt the
tenCative tcttct porkion of the mppcoval be continued for Cwo weekn so the
matters will be heard by the City Council at the same time.
lt was noted that Environmental impact Reporl Na. 223 had been previously
approved by the Planning Commisaion on Jan~iary 29, 197y, in connection with
Reclassification N~. 78-79-26, Variance No. 3071 and Tentative TrACk 10476.
ACTION: Commisaioner Herbst oEfered R~solution No. PC84-73 ttiat tt~e Anaheim
City Planning Commission do~s hereby grant Variance No. 3391 on the baais that
there are special ciccumstances applicable to the propecty ~uch as aize,
shape~ topograph.y, location and ourroundings whic.~ do not apply to other
identically zoned property in the same vicinitp; a~~d that strict application
of the Z~ning Code deprives tl~e property of privileyes enjoyed by other
properties in tl~e identical zone and classi.fication in the vicinity an~
subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendationa.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was p~~ss~d by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ BUS'IORE, ERY, EIERBST, KING, MC aURNEY
NOES: NUNE
ABSENT: LA CLAIRE
Commissicner Herbst offered a motfon, seconded by Commissioner Mceutney and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent), that consideration of
Tentative Map of Tract No. 12156 be continued to the regularly-scheduled
meeting of April 3U, 1984, at the recommendation of the Planning Uepartment
staff so Variance No. 3391 and this tract can be heard at the same time by the
City Council.
ITEM N0. 28. GIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE NO. 3377
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: LOUIS AVERY, ET AL, 1232 W. La Palma, Anaheim, CA
92801. AGENT: ~ATHY COLLINS, 8431 La Palma Avenue, Buena Park, CA 90620.
Property described ss a rectangularly-ahaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 0.29 acre located at the southeast. corner of La Palma Avenue and
Lido Street and further described as 1232 West Palma Avenue.
4/16/64
MINUTE5, ANANEIM CImY PLANNING COMMZ85IUN, APR_IG 16. 1J84, ___84-222
Waivera of minimum lat area and minimum lot width and frontage to est.ablish ~
two-lot eubdiviaion.
Thete was no one indicating their preaence in oppositinn to suoject request
and a,lthouyh ~ho etaff reF~ort waa not read, it is referred to and made a pArt
of the minutes.
KAthy Collinn, agent, wAS present to anewc~c any queskions.
Z'HE PUkiLIC HEARING WAS CI.~7S~G.
ACTION: c:ommissioner Kiny oEferea a moti~n, seconded by Commiseioner Fry and
MO'I~IUN CARRIGD (c:ommii~sioner La Claire ubaent), that the Anaheim City Planning
Cortunio~ion has reviewed the proposal to establi~h ~ 2~lot subdivisl~n ~~rith
waivers of minimum lot width and EronCage on a rectangulArly-ahaped parcel of
land conaiating of approximaCely U.29 acres located at khe~ southeast corner nf
La Palma Avr,nue ariu Leo Street and further deacribed as 123'l W. La Pa1ma
Avenue; nnd docs hereby approvc the Negative DeclarAtion upon finding tt~at it
han con~idered the Npgative ~eclAration together with any comments received
duriny x.t~a public review prore~s and further Cinding on th~ bt~vis of the
InLtial Sludy and any comments received that there i~ no substantial evidence
that the ptoject will have a significant effect on the environment.
Commi~sioner King oftered Ite~olution No. PC84-74 and moved for its passage and
adoption that the Anaheirn City Planning Commission does hereby yrAnt Variance
No. :i377 on the bASi~~ -~at there are specic+l circumstancr.s Applicable to the
pcoperty such as aiz , shape, top~graphy, location and sucroundings which do
not apply to othec ic:entical.ly zoned property in the same vicinity; and that
stric~ a~pllcation of the Zoning Cude deprives the property of privileges
enjoyed by ott~er properties in the identical zone and classification in the
vicinity and subject ~o In~erdepar~menta.l Committee recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoiny reaolution was passed by the Ec•~.ilowing vote:
AYES: [iOUAS, DUSHORE, FRY, HERBST, KING, MC BURNEY
NUES: NONE
APSENT: LA CLAIRE
ITEM N0. 29. EIR CATEGORICAL EXBMYTION-CLASS 5 AND VA1tIANCE N0. 3388
PU9LIC HEARING. OWNERS: MELVIt7 E. ANJ JUDI'I'H L. NOWLIN, JR., 131 S. Hampton
Street, Anat~eim, CA 92804. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped
parcel oE land consisting of approximately 5000 squace feet, and fucther
described as 131 South Nampton Street.
Waivec ot maximum lc~t coverage to construct a room addition to a single-family
residence~
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject rec~uest
and although the staff ceport was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
It was noted the ap~licant was not present.
4/16/84
~..___---
MINUTES, ANAH~iM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION. AYRZL 16. 7.9841 84'223
TH~; PUBLIC NBARING WA:; CI,OSBA.
It was noted the Planning Dicector or his authorized repreAentative h~A
determined Ghat the pcopc~sed projnct falls within the definition of
CatHgocical Exemptions, ClasF3 5, es deftned in the State EnvlronmentAl Im~ack
Report Guidelinea and is, therefore, cateyocically exempt from the rec~uirement
t.o prepare An EIK.
ACTION: CommiEaioner Kir~g offer~d Re~ulution No. PC84-75 and m~ved Eor its
passaye and adoption that the Anaheim City PlAnning Commission doeR hereby
grant Vaci~nce Nu. 3388 on the b~sis thnt there are »pecial circumstancea
applicable to the property such as ai:e, ~hnpe, topagraphy, locAtion and
surr~untlings which do not aF~ply to ot.er identically zoned property in the
same vicinity; and that stcict app.licati.on of the '::oning Code deprives tt~e
property of privileges en~oyed by other praperties in the identical. zone and
clasaificdtion in the vicinity and c~ubject to Znterdepar~mental Cammittee
recommendatio~s.
Un roll call, the Eoregoing reaolutiun was pAr~aed by the followinq vote:
AYES: F3UUA5~ $USHURE, BRY, NFRDST, K7NG, MC E-URNE:Y
NUES: NUN~
ABSENT: LA CLAIRE
I'I'EM N0. 30
REPORTS ANll RECOMMF;NDATIJN;~^
A. pROPOSEU COUE AMENUME:N'i' - Rmen~rnent tu add sut~seclion .b.. t~ ~~~
18.61.U50.600 of Chap~er .18.~1 ~~f. T~r~p ]8, 2oning,
Commissioner Bushore ~eclnced a conflick oi lnterest ~, define.i hy
Anaheim City PJannin; Comraisrinr~ Re~~1L~ion No. PC7~--157 adopting a
Canflict of Interest c:odr #or the Pl..~ing Commission and Government Code
Section 3625, et seq., in tt~at he is a dues paying member of the Anaheim
~,lks Lodge 41345 and is the real estate aodes,mdeclaredetoethesChairman
pursuant to the provision~ x the abave
thati he r~as withdrawing from the hearin~~ in connection with above
mentioned Code amendment, and wo!~ld not ~ake part in eithe[ the
discussian or the voting thereon ancl had not di~cussed this matter with
any member of the Planning Commission. Thereupon Commissioner Bushore
left the Council Chamber.
There was a brieP discussion tegarding the use of the lodge and Jack
white, Assistant city Attorney, explained the proposal is to add a
aection to th~e Code that would make cor.ditional uses of not only private
clubs, but also fraeernities and sorocities. Commissioner Fry asked if
this would permit a fraternity house for residency to come into this
zone. Jack White responded that a conditional use permit wou1C be
required.
4/16/84
MINUTES, ANAH~IM CI7'Y PLANNING C:OMMISSIUN, APRIL 16, 198_4_,__ 8A-224
ACTIUN; Commiseionec McBurney oEfered A mntion, sec~nded by Commissioner
King and MOTION CARRIED (Commie~ionera Buehore And La Claire absent),
that the Anah~im City Planning Commiesion does hereby recommend to the
City Counr,il thak the proposed Code Amendment to add aubsection .613 to
Soction 18.61.050.600 of Chapter 18.G1 of 7'itle 18, 2oning, perL•aining to
private clubs, lodq~s, fraternities And sororitfes as a conditionRlly
permitted use in the Anaheim Cany~n induatrial. Area be a~proved.
Commissioner McBurney suggested this matter t~e heard by Che City Council
as aoon aa possible.
B. INCUNSI57'BNCY BETWEEN GGNCRAL PLAN AND ZONING -
An irregularly-s~aped parcel of land having an area of a~prox. 1.25 acres
located ori the cuu, weak cornez of Santa Ana Canyon Raad and Mohler Urive.
The etafL report Co the Planning Commiasian waa pre~enCed for the
~ommisEion's review And it wa~s the genecal consensus that no action
should be taken at this time, and it should be reviewed when the
ap~licant i.c ready to du 8omc~th~.ny; therefore, no action was taken.
C. WAIVER O:E 7'HE HILLSIDE GRADING QRDINANCE - Ftequest from James E. Crosby
Engineering inc., khat they be granted a waiver of the requirement oE the
City of Anaheim Hillside Ordinance as it relates to the locating of a
tract boundary (Tra~l 10980) at the top of a slope.
ACT10N: Commi~sfoner Kii;g ofEered a m~tion, seconded by CAmmissioner
Herbst anU MUTIUN CAFtRIED (COmmissioner La Claire absent), that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission dces hereby recommend to the Ciky
Council that ttie cequest for w~aiver of the requirement of the Hillside
Grading Ord±nance as it relates to the locating of a tract boundary
(Tcact 10980) at the top of a slope be approved.
ADJOURNMENT: There beiny no furthec business, Commissioner Herbst offered a
moCion, seconded by Commissionec Fry and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissioner La Claire absent), that the meeting be adjourned.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:10 ~.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~L~.-~-G.. ~ /~~~
Edith L. [iarris, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
ELH:lm
0041m
4/16/84