PC 1984/05/30REGUL.AR ME~TING OP THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR M~E'PING The regulAC m~et~ng of the AnahEim Ctty Planning
CommieAton wA~ called to or.~er by Chatr.woman Qauaa at
10:00 e.m., May 3U, 1984, in the Council Chamber, e quor.um
being ~r.~sent And the Commisat~n r_evi.ewed pl~ns of the
itema on today's Agenda.
PRESENT
ABS~~NT
ALE~O PF2ESENT
RECESS: 1:;30 a.m.
RECONVENE: 1:35 p~m.
~hairwoman: ~oua~
Commisstonecs; Buehoce,
Commiasioneca; McBur.ney
Annika Santalahti
Jack White
Jay Judd
Paul Singer
Shiclt~y Land
Greg Hasttngn
Edith Harr.is
Pry, t~ecbst, King, La Clair.e,
Asatntant U+rector. for Zoning
Assistant City Attocney
Ctvi.l Engtneer Aaaoctate
Traffic Engtneer
Traffic Engtneer AsaociaCe
Aesistant Planner
Planning Commiasion Seccetar.y
AP1?ROVAL OF MINUTES: Commisaioner King off:ered a motior~, seconde~ by `
Co~nmiastoner. H erbat and MOTION CARRIED lCommisaioner McBur~ abaent and
Cotnmtasioner. La Claire abstaining on approval a£ tirovedYas submitted3~' that
th~e m:nutes of April 3Cth and Maf 14, 1984, be app
ITEM N0. 1. E IR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVBR 0~ CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL U S E PERMIT N0. 2446: '
_ ,
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: RICHARD C. HUNSAKER, P.O. Box 2423, Santa Ana, CA
y2707. AGENT_ REGENCY OUTDOOR AUVERTISING, IN~., 8820 Sunset Boulevacd,
Sutte F, Los Angeles, C1+ 90069. Pcoper.ty ~:eser.tbed as an ircegularly-shaped
parcel of lartd con8lsting of approximately 0.65 acr.e locr~ted at the
nc~rthwesterly tetminus of itegal Pack Drive, 27U0 Regal Park Brtve.
Tu permit a b illbo~cd ~in the ML 2one with waivexs of minimum structucal
sE~tback and maximum height.
Cuntinued fcom Febtuary 6, March 19, and Apr.i.l 16, 1984.
ACTION: Comm i~sionez King offered a motion, 8ecunded by Commissioner Pr~+ and
MC~TION CARRI E D~~mmissionec McBurney absent), that the ~bove-menttoned matter.
be wfthdrawn at the cequest of the petitioner.
84-304 5/30/~4
M11VU1'_ES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING GOMMISSION, MrY 30, 1984 84-30`~
tTEM N0. 2. EI~2 N~GATIVE UECLAR~TION, WAIVER OF COOE REaUIREMCN~' ~ND
CONDITIONAL USF. PERtlI'i NO. 2447:
PUEiLIC HEAItING. OW'~~kS: AE3J OEVELOPMENTS, 301 N. Rampar.t Str.est, Ocdnge, CA
92668. AGBN'P; REG~NCY UUTDOOR ApVER'I'I5ING, INC., 8820 S~~n~et t3oulevar.d,
5uite F, Los Angeles, CA 90069. Pr~per.ty d~accibod ar, an trregul~r.ly-shape-d
parcel of land conatAting of ap~coximately 1.1 acces, 1U10 Grove Street.
To per.mit a billboard in thp ML zono wit'i waiver ~t maximum height.
Cuntinued f.r.om Febcuary 6, r~nd Macch 19, 1984.
ACTION: c:ummissioner King oEfer.ed a tnotton, secanded by Commissioner. Fry a nd
MOTTON CARRICD (Commisaioner McSur.ney absent), thek the above-menttoned mA t ter
be withdrawn at the ceyuesC of the petittonec.
ITEM NOo 3. E:R NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT A~1D
CONDI'rIUNAL USE PERMIT NO. 2448:
PUBLIC H~AftING. OWN~RS: DOIS V. AND GARNET A. EpMUNDS, 18682 Mesa Drive,
Villa l~a[k~ CA 92667. AGBN'P: REGENCY AUTDOOR ADVERTISING iNC., 8820 SunB e t
Boulevar.d, Sui.te F, Loa AngelES, CA 90069. l~coper.ty descr.ibed ar dn
irregularly-shaped par.cel of land consisting of approxtmately 1.9 acr.ea
located at the nor.thwest co~ner of Taft Avenue and Eaton Way, 269I E. Taft
Avenue.
Z'o permit a billboar.d in the ML Zo~ie ~• ~~•~aivecs af pecmitted locatton and
maximum tiet9ht.
Continued fr.om Febcuary 6, and March 19, 1984.
ACZ~ION: Commissionec King offered a motton, seconded by Commtssionec Pry a nd
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner. McBucney ab~ent), that the above-menttoned ma t ter.
be w.ithdrawn at the request of ihe petitioner.
ITEM NU. 4. EIR NBGATIVE DBCLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMk~NT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PEA.f7IT NU. 2449:
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: E.B.B. PROPERTIES, 1274 Sunahine Way, Anahetm, CA
92806. AGENT: REGENCY OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INCe, 8820 Sun~et Boulevard, F,
Los Angeles, CA y0069. Property descri.bed as an irregularly-shaped par.cel aE
land consisttny of approximately 0.9 acre, 1281 Sunshine Way.
To per.mit a billboard in the ML zone wtth waivers of mtnimum ~tcuct•ucal
setback and maximum height.
Continued Ecom Pebr.uar.y 6, and Mar.ch 19, 1984.
ACTION: Commissioner King oE~ered a motion, seconded by Commiastoner Fry and
MOTION CARRIED (~:ommissionec McBurney absent), that the ab~ve-mentioned ma tter
be withdrawn at the request of the petitfoner.
5/30/84
MI.NUTES~ AN1-HEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Ml-Y 30, 1984 , 94-306
ITEM NO. 5. E1R NEGI-TIVE DECLARATTON ` WAIVER 0~' CUDE REpUIRBMENT AND
CONDITIONI-L USE P~RMIT N0. 2450:
PUBLIC HEARING. OWN~FtS: CONSOLI, Mc:COMBER, McCUBHIN INVE5TMENT, ~0., 1274
Sunshin e Way, Anahei.m, CA 92806. AGENT: REG~NCY OUTpOOR ADVERTISING, INC.,
8d20 S u neet Doulevacd, Suite F, Loo Angelea, CA 90069. Pr.aperty deRCr.i.bPd As
an irceg~~lar.ly-ahaped par.cel of land cont~istiny of Appcoximately 0.6 Acte,
1270 Sunahtne Wey.
'I'o per.mit a billboard in thc ML Zone with waiver.s of minimum ~tcuctur.al
setbac k and maximum helyht.
Continued f rom Pebruar.y 6, and Mar.ch 19, 1984.
ACTIO N; Commtasioncr. Ki.ny oEfer.e~ a motton, aeconded by Commis~toner. Fry and
MOTION CARRI~D (Commtsstoner McEiurney absent), ttiat thc above-menlioned mAtter
be wi*_hdr.awn at the request of the petitioner..
ITEM N O. 6. EIR NEGATIVE UECLARATIONL WAIVER OF CODE RE4UIREMF.NT AND
CONDIT ZONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2451:
PUFiLIC HEARING. UWNER5: BRISTOI~ COMPANY, 10899 Wilshire Boulevar,d, Sutte
933, Los Angeles, CA 90024. AGENT: KF,GE:NCY OUTUOQR ADV~RTISING, INC., 8820
Sunset Boulevacd, Los l~nyeles, CA 9(:069. ~r.aper.ky descr'.bed as pn
trreg u larly-ahaped parcel ot land constating of appr.oximately 660 feet on the
nozth side of La Pa1ma Avenue, and fur.ther desccibed as 2311 tc 2323 West La
Pralma Avenue.
To pe r mit two (Z) billboacds tn lh? ML Zone wtth waiver.s of mi.nimum structural
aetba c k and max~.mum height.
Continued from Fpbcuary 6, and Mar.ch 19, 1984.
ACTION: Commissionec King offered a motton, seconded by Commtsstoner Fty and
MOTION CARRIED (Commi.ssioner. McBurney absent), that the above-menttoned matter
be wit hdr.awn at the cFquest of the petltioner.
ITEM N0. 7 EIR NEGATIVE DECLA'tATION~ WAIVER OF COD~ REQUIR~MENT AND
CONDZ TIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2452:
PUHL I C NEARING. OWNERS: MAX CUKIER, ET AL, 27520 NawthornE ~oulevard, Sutte
148, Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274. AGENT: REGENCY OUTDOOR ADVERTISING,
INC., 8820 Sunset Boulevard, Suite F, Los Angeles, CA 90069. Propecty
desc r ibed as an irreyularly-shaped parcel of land consisttng of approxtmately
8.4 a etes located at the noctt~west corner of Miraloma Avenue and elue Gum
Stree t, 1311-1347 Blue Gum Street.
To p~tmit a billt,oard in the ML xone with waiver of maximum height.
Cont i nued from FebGUary 6, and Mazch 19, 1984.
ACTI ON: Commissionec King offered a r~otion, seconded by Commi.sstoner Fry and
MOT I ON CARRIED (Commissione: McBUCney absent), that the above-mentioned matter
be w i thdrawn at the request of the petitipnec.
5/30/84
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. MAY 30, ~984 84-:~07
ITEM N0. 8. EIR N~GATIVE DECLARA'i.r,ON, WAIVER OP CODB RE UQ IREMENT AND
CONDITI:,NI-L USE PGRMIT NO. 2534 ;
PUfiLIC NEARING. OWNERS: RAPT CUMYANY, 5031 fstr.ch Street, Newpoct BeACh, CA
92t~60. AGBNT: RBGBNCY OU'~DOOR ApVERTISING, INC., 8820 Sunset I3oulevard,
~ui.te F, Los Angeles, CA 900ti5. Pcopecty descr.tbed as sn ir.cegulecly sliriped
p~ccel of land coneisti.ng aE appcoxtmately 1U.6 aaces, 2430 Fast Katella
Avenue.
To permit a bi.llbopr.d tn the MI. 7one with watver of mAximum height.
Conttnued from Febcuacy 6, And March 19, 1984.
ACTION; Cotnmt~sioner. King cfier.ed a mot~an, seconded by Commiaetoner Fr.y and
MO'PION CARRIEU (Commiss toner McBurney abaent), that the above-mentioned matter
be withdrawn at the cequeL~ of the petitioner.
ITEM N0. 9. EIR NEGATIV E DECLARAmION ~,WAIVER OF CODE REQU7.REMENT AND
COt~U1TIUNAL USF. PERMIT T~O. 2535:
PUBLIC HEARING. QWNERS: WALTER 'P. EFtICKSUN, ET AL, 1850 S. Anahetm
Boulevacd, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: REGF.NCY OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC., 8820
Sunset Boulevazd, Su~te F, Los Angeles, CA 90069. Pcoper.ty deacr.ibed as an
irr.egularly-shapad Par.cel of land consiottng of appzoximately 0.5 ac.ces, 1850
South Anal•~etm Doulevar.d.
To permit a billboar.d in the ML 2one wtth watver.s of minimum atr.uctur.al
setback and maxtmum heig ht.
Contl~ued from February 6, and Macch 19, 1984.
ACTION; C~mmissionec K ing effeced a m~tton, seconded by Comm!.sstoner Fry and
MOTION CAkRIED tCommiss ioner McBucney absent), that the above-menttoned mattec
be withdtawn at the ceguesc of the petlttonec.
dT~M N0. 10. EIR N6GATIVE ~iECLARATIAN, WAIV~R OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIQNAI. U5E PERMZT N0. 2536:
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JOHN C. AND EVELYN ADAMS, 23075 Via Santa Marta,
Mission Viejo, CA 9269 1. AGENT: REGENCY OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC., 8820
5unset Bou.levard, Suite F, ~,os Angeles, CA 90069. Pr.operty described as an
irreyularly-shaped parc el of land consisting of approximately 0.8 acr.e,
1845-1849 South Manchester Avenue.
To permit a billboard in the ML Zone with waivers ~f minimum str.uctural
setback and maximum height.
Conttnued from February 6, and March 19, 1984.
ACTTON: Commi~sioner K~ng offeced a motion, seconded by Commissionec Fry and
MOTION CAR.RIED (Comm~ssionec McBurney tabst nt), that the above-mentioned mAtter
be withdrar~n at the req~eRt cf the petitioner.
5/30/84
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS$IQN __MAY 30, 1984 8A-308
ITEM N0. 11. ~IR NEGATIVE DECI~ARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIR~MEN'f AND
CONDITIONAL U5E PERMIT N0. 2537;
~UBLIC H~ARING. OWNER5: KENNETN KEESEE, 1928 S. Anahei.m Houlevard, Anaheim,
CA 92805. AGENT; REGBNCY OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC., 8820 Sunaet Boulevard,
Suito F, Loo Angeles, CA 9UU69. Pr.oper.ty desc~ibed as an irregul~rly-8haped
parcel oP land conai~ting of approxi.mately 0.94 Acr.e, 192:-1928 South Anaheim
Boulevar.d.
To pezmit a billbaard in tl~e ML 2on~ with watvers of minimu-n ~tructur.al
~etbacks and maxlmum hei.ght.
Continued Lrom Februar.y 6, and March 19, 1984.
ACTIUN: Commisstoner. King of.fer.ed ~ motion, aeconded by Commtastoner. Fr.y and
MUTIUN CARRIBD (Commtssioner. Mc~urney ~bsent), that the above-mentioned matter
be withdrawn bt the r.eyuest of the pet.itioner.
I7'EM NU. 12. EIR NEGATIV~ DECLAItATIUN AND VARIANCE N0. 3386
PUBLIC H~ARING. OWNERS: BERNARD J. STAHL AND BILi, J. NICKEI~, 8151 Katella
Avenue, Stanton, CA 9U690. AGENT: J. WARD DAWSUN, 2808 E. Katella Avenue,
i201, Ocanye, CA 92667. Propecty described as a r.ectangular.ly-shaped par.cel
of land cansisting of appr.oxirtiately 1.0 acce, 1668 South Nutwood Slr.eet.
Wa.ivers of maxirnum structural height and minimum structucal sekback ~~
constcuct a 26-unit apartment complex.
Continued from Apr.il 2, 3U, and May 14, 1984.
AC'PION: Commissioner La Cla9.re offer.ed a motton, seconded by Commtssfonec
King and MOTION CARRIED (Commtsstoner. McBur.ney absent), that ~ons~der.ati.on of
the above-mentioned mattec be continued to the r.egularly-scheduled meeting of
~une 25, 1984, at the r.equest of the pettttoner..
ITEM N0. 13. EIR hEGATIVE AECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-23 AND
VARIANCE N0. 3334
PU~LIC HEARING. OWNERS: DON C. AND TAMIRIS DUKE, 3538 W. Savanna Stteet,
Anaheim, CA 92804 and AUANE FREDERICK ANO SALLY ANN PETERSEN, 600 S. Nutwood,
Anaheim, CA 92804. AGENT: JQHN KING, 19522 Independence, Lane, Hunt~ngton
Beach, CA 9?.646. Pcoperty is described as a r~ctangularly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of appcoxxmately 0.78 acre, 3538 W. Savanna Stceet.
RS-A-43,000 ~o the RM-1200
Waivers of: (a) maxtmum stcuctural heigt~t, (b) mintmum floor area, (c)
minfmum landr,caped setback, (d) pecmxtted enccoachme~t into front yard and (e)
permitted location of tandem park.ing spaces to constcuct a 28-unit apertment
complex.
Continued fr.om April 2, ).6 .3nd 30, 1984.
5/30/84
MINUTES. ANAMEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MAY 30. ~984 __ 84-309
ACTIUN: CommiasioneK La Clair.v offeKed a motion, seconded by Commi.saioner.
Kiny and MOTION CARRIED (Commiastoner McBur.ney dbaent), that conAtder.atton oL
the ~bove-mentione~ matter. be conttnued to the ceyularly-acheduled mee~i.ng of
June 25, 198~, at the r.eyuest of the petittonec.
ITEM N0. 14. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECI,ASSlFICATION N0. ~3-84-26 AND
VARIANCE N0. 3393
PUBLIC HkARING. OWNEKS: GARY H. HUN7'ER, E~' AL, 315 E. Nucth Street, Anaheim,
CA 92805. Propecty deaccibed a~ a cecta~gulacly-shaped p~r.cel af. land
consifittny of appr.uximately 72d0 squar.e feel, 315 East Nor.th Str.pet.
Waivers of mintmum type oE par.ktng spACes, mtn~mum side yar.d setback and
minimum wi.dth o[ pedestrion accessway to conver.t an extsting cingle-family
atructure and detached garage into a duplex.
Continued Erom Apri.l 3U, 1984
ACTIUN: Commtsatonec K~ng af~eced a motton, seconded by Commtssioner. La
Claire and MOTIUN CARRIED (Commissioner. McBurney ab~ent), that constderakion
of the above-menttoned matter be continued to the r.egularly-scheduled meeting
of June 25, 1984, at the request oE the petttioner..
I'r~M N0. 15. EIR NEGATIVE UECLAFtATION, WAIVER 0~ CUUE__HEQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2562
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: EQUITEC 80 REAL ESTATE INV£STORS, 1550 East Katella
Avenue, Anahefm, CA 928U5. AGENT: SHAWN COMMON, 18022 Cowan, 12Q4, Ir.vine,
CA 92714. Propecty descri.bed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of l~nd
consistiny of ap~rnxtmately 18.9 acrea located at the ~outhwest corner of
Pactfico Avenue and State Coltege Boulevacd, 1971 and 1979/81 South State
~ollege Boulevard (Home and austness Computer. Center and Office 2000~.
To pecmit retail sales of computecs and ofEice Eucnikuce tn the ML 2one with
waiver of minimum numbee of packing spaces.
Conttnued from May 14, 1984.
ACTION: Commissioner La Claire offered a mot~on, seconded by Commissioner
Ktng and MOTION CARRIED (Commissionec McBurney absent), ~hat consideratton of
the above-mentioned matter be conkinued to the r.egularly-scheduled meettng of
June 11, 19A4, ~t the request of the petfttoner.
:TEM N0. 16. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 12b0
(READVERTI~ED)
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNBRS: SAM AND yERA MENLO, 501 S. Fairfax, Suite 201, Los
Angeles, CA 90U36. AGENT: SHIRLEY ~. GWIN, 4720 N. Williams, ~a Ver.ne, CA
91750. Property described as an irregulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting
of approximately 13.8 acres located at the northwest and noctheast corners of
Orangethorpe Avenue and Temple Stzeet.
5/30/84
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING COMMISSION, MAY 30, 1984 84-310
Requeat for amRndmer~t to certnin conditiona of ~lanntng Cnmmisston Resoluttun
No. PC71-239 per,tAintiig to a child day cAre center per.mttted in con~unctian
with nn existing apartment complex.
ACTION: Commisstoner. La Clatre uffered a motton, seconded by CommiAaioner.
King and MOTIUN CARRIED (Commissionec McBur.ney absent), that consider.atton nC
the above-mentioned matter. b~ ~nntinued to r.he regul~cly-s~heduled meeting of
.lune 11, 1984, at the r•equest of the petlti~nec.
I1'EM N0. 17. ~IR NEGATIVE DECLAP.ATION, WAIVGR OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONI)ITIUNAL USE PERMIT N0. 2~74
PUBLIC HEAkING. UWNERS; CARLOS R. AND GEONUR CONANT, 1321 N. Mor.aga,
Anahetm, CA 92801. Pcu~er.ty described as a rectangular.~y-Ahaped par.cel af
land conaistiny of appcoximately 6479 squar.e Eeet, 1321 Nor.th M~r.,~ga Skr.eet.
~o exp~nd a day care center to permit a maximum of 12 ctiildr.en wtth waiver. of
rsquired loading and unloading area tor childr.en.
Ther.e were two peraons indtcattng thetc pcesence i.n oppositton t~ subject
re9uest and altt-ough the cCaft ceport was not r.ead, it ts r.efer.red to and made
a par.t of the minutes.
Carlos Con~nt, ownec, was ~~resent to answer, any questtons.
Jim Ltpuma, 1312 N. Moraga, Anahetm, presented a petitton contatning
app~'oximately 19 signatutea of people in oppositton to subject r.equest due to
tlie increased t~atftc in t1;e acea where young childr.en play and the
establishment of a commercial business in a restdential acea which could have
a detr.imental effect on their property values. He stated for several years
this neighborhaod has had pxkensive traffic and the neighba~s got together. and
started a Netghbor.hood Watch Program which has helped. He stated thetr
bigge~st concer.n is the safety of the chtldten, espectally with parenta
droppiny oFf the child~-en when they ace already late for work and wtll be
speeding away from the area.
John e~~ldini, 1242 N. Moraga, Anaheim, stated he has lived at thts locatton
for. 2b years and this is a nice quiet residential acea and he would ltke to
keep it that way and felt this use would create a lot of a~ditional traffic tn
the area. H~ stated he ha~ grandchildcen who play tn the area and he does not
want the extr.a traffic.
J. D. McIlhenny, 1262 N. Mor.aga, Anahe.im, stated his primacx concer.n is that
thir~ is a stngle-family, single-story residenttal area and should be kept that
way; that he under.stands the petitfaneX intends to put in a second stocy and
i:~ that i.s true, it would nnt be in keeping with the rest of the area and
would be the only two-story house in the tract.
~tr. Conant stated thece is at least one other two-story house in the tcact;
~snd that he has been thece for 7 years and there has never been a txaffic
problem and this expanston would only br,ing in about 7 or 8 vehtcles. He
stated he has ne~er. seen any of the parents drive recklessly either coming or
go:ing .
THL PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
5/30/84
MiNUTE~S, ANAHEIM CITY PLAN~ING COMMISSION, MAY 30, 1984 84-311
Reap~ndtng to Commisatonez Herbst, Mr. Conant explairied they have had thie
bueiness Enr 6 ac 7 years and it is a qutet buatness and the par.ent~ just drop
the chtldzen off and leave. Ne explained thece ts a block wall around the
property with padlocks on the yatae and ther.e ta nothing dangecoua for. the
children to play witr~. He explained he had ~ubtnitte~ 10 letter.a from
neighbors who are not opposed. H~ explained the people pceoent tn oppoattton
do not live immediaCely adjacent to his property.
Comm~astonez Bushore stated thia t~ the third stmilar r.equest i.n the pASt two
meet~nga because of: cecent Code changes by the State which now per.mits 12
childcen with spproval by the City, wheceas tn the past, 6 chi.idcen were
per.mitted and 5tate laws preempted ci.ty or.dinances. He stAted apparently
thece have been no problems in the netghbAr.hood with only 6 ahildr.en becaus~
immediate neighbors have si.gned petittonfi khat they ~r.e not oppoaed ta the
reque~t; however, his concer.n is khat with 12 chtldren tnstead of 6, the
no~se, tr.affic and o~her problems would be dou~led. He stated he would
consider 6 ctiildren tn a single-famtly residence as a pa3stve residential-type
use because many familtea have 6 children, but that he woi~ld not consider 12
chtldcen as a passive environment. He stated he would look at this use with
12 children as a comm~rcial ventur.e and did not thi.nk it Ls riyht to impoae
thts on the netqhbors. tie stated one of the netghbozs could reyuest the ~i.ght
to work un motorcycles in thei~ garage and ther~~ co~ld be motorcycles uP and
dawn the str.eet. Ne stated he would cantinue to oppose the~e requests, and
stated the othe~ uses were granted Eor a one-year. period wh~ch meana the other
Commissioner.s a1Ra tiave cUncerns. tlP ~tated i~ this is approved, tt wi11 mean
there arQ three appcovals and soon there could be many mor.e and iE they ace
all in the same area, ther.e could be problems.
Mr. Conant stated his neighbor who spoke in oppositton r.uns a constructton in
his home and there are always tcucks coming in and out. Comm{ssioner. Bushore
stated that is not a part of thfs hearing and could be investigated by Code
Enf orcem~nt.
ACTION: Commissionec Ki.ng offeced a motion, seconded by Commisstoner. Her.bst
anr9 MOTION CAkRIED (CommfssLoner. McBur.ney absent), that the Anaheim City
Planning Commisston has reviewed the progosal to expand a day-care center. to
permit a maximum of 12 children with waiver of r.equire~ loading and unloadtng
acea fc,r childrEn on a cectangularly-shaped par.cel of land cansisting of
approximately 6479 square feet, t~av.tng a frontage of appr.oxtmately 62 feet on
the west s~de of Moraga Street and further described as 1321 North Moraga; and
c3oes her.eby approv~ the Negdttve Declar.•ation upon finding that it has
considered the Negative Declaratfon togethec witY~ any comments ceceived durtng
the public ceview pcoeeas and further Einding on the basi~ of the Initial
5tudy and any comments cecetved tt~at there is no substanttal evid~nce that the
projer,t wtll have a sign~tiaant effect on the environment.
Commissioner King offeced a motton, seconded by Commissionet Fry and MOTION
CARRIED (Commissioner McUucney abr~ent and Commissi~RZr Bouas voting no), that
the Anaheim City Planning Commission does t~ereby grant waivex of Code
requirement on the basis that the parki.ng waivec will not cause an increase in
traffic congestton in the immediate vicinity, nor adversely affect any
adjoining land uses and granz:ing o£ the parking waiver under the conditian~
imposed, :~f any, will not be detcimental to the peace, heaith, safety and
genetal welfare af the cttizens of the City of Anahetm.
5/30/84
'' 1
8' 4-312
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION M1~Y 30 1984
Jack White potnted out thecu is An ecKO~ in the atAff cepoct i~ thAt the
waiver paragcaph t.ncocrectly callc~ out the sCandard findings foc waiver.s end
it ahould be based on the findinga as ~et for.th in Sectton 18.06.080 af the
Cude celating to requir~d purking.
Cortuniasioner Kinq offered Reaolukion No. U4-98 and moved Cor ita passa9e and
Adoption thet lhe Anaheim City Planntng Commiseton doea her.eby gr.ant
Cond~tionaCode~SectionsN18,03?0300030 through~18o03.030L035"andasubjectntoetm
Muntcipal
Interdepuctmental Committee recommendations.
Un coll call, ~he for.Pyoing cesolulion wac passed by the follnwing vate:
AYES: FRYr HERBST~ KING, LA CLAIRE
NOES: UOUAS~ BUSHORE
ABSEN'P: MC ~URNEY
Jack White, Assistant Ctty Attorney, prewented the written right to appeal the
P.lanni.ny Commissian's deciston wiChin 22 daye to the Clty Counctl.
Commi~stoner. La C1airP poi~iled out she hAd voted in fa~or of thio pr.oject
becauae iC is tor a one-yeed~Pe~~edpecmitfcan be rev ked,complatnts or. tr.affic
pcoblems ducing that one y
ITEM N0. 18. EIIt N~ A_ T,I4E DECLARATION ,WAIVER OE CODB REQUIREMENT AND
CpNDITIONAL USE PERMIZ' N0. 25$3
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ROYALE GUEST HUME OF AhAHEIM, c/o Goldr.tch, iCest and
Associates, i5233 Ventur.a soulevard, ~816, 5hecman Oaku, CA 91403, ATTN; Sol
Kest. Koximatelydls351acress 525eWest9L~aPalmahAvenuea(La1PalmaaRoyaleBGuest9
ox aPP
Home).
To expand an existing senior.a~king~sFacesLandr~minfmum~landscapedtsetback.
minimum numbec and tyge of p
The~althounh the staffareporthwas notscead,tit~is~ceferred~touandcmade a~part
and 9
of the minutes.
Robect Hirsch, partner, 15233 Ventura Boulevard, t816, Sherman Oaks,
Caltfornia, explained for the past several ye~rs the factlity has bEen runntng
at full cap~:.ity with a waiting list and they would ltke to ebean~d~~h~heresent
facilities to add 36 r.ooms and the expansion would basical.ly
parking area.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairwoman Bouas stated she thought this looks like an excellent pcoject.
AC_ TION: Commisstoner Ktng offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner. Fry and
MOTION CARRIED (Cammissionec MeBucney absent), that the Anahetm City Planntn9
Commission h~s reviewed the proposal tA expand a sentor ci~tizens retirement
5/30/84
MINUTES,__ANAHBIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN MAY 3U 1984 ~4•-313
facility w~th waivec of minimum number and type of r~arktng apace8 and minlmum
lAndacaped setback on e rectangularly-sha~ed par.cel of land conatating of
appr.oxima~ely 1.35 acres, having a fcontage of appcoximately 310 Eeet on the
north stde of Le FAlma Avenue and fucther de~cr.tbed as 525 West La Pa1mA
Avenue (La Pa1ma Royale Guest Home)t and doea hereby approve the Negative
Decl~ration upon finding that it ha~ conaideced the Negative Declacakion
together with any commenta r.ar.eived during the publ~c r.oview procoas And
further finding on the basis o£ the Initial Study and any comment» recetved
that ther.e ia no aubstanttal evidQnce tl~at the project will have a atgnt£tc~nk
e~fect on the envir.onment.
Comm.i~aioner. King offered a motion, aeconded by Commisstoner. Fr.y and MOTION
GARRIED (Commiseiuner McBur.ney absent), that tF~e Anaheim Ctty Planning
Commisaion does hereby gcunt waiver (a) on the basis that the parking waiver.
wi11 not cause an incr.ease tn tcaffic conyeation ~n the immediate vtcintty noc
adver.aely affect any adjotning land uses and granting of the par.ktng waiver.
under the conditiona impo~ed, if any, will not be detr.tmental to the peace,
health, safety and gener.al welfare of the citizens af the City of Anahetmt and
granCing waiver. (b) on the basis that there ace special circumetances
applicable to the propert.y such as size, ahape, topogr.aphy, location and
sucroundings whtch do not apply ta othec identically a.oned proper.ty tn the
same vicinity; and that strict applicatton of the Zon~nq Code deprtves the
property oE pKivileges enjoyed by other proper.tie~ :n the identical zane and
claesi.ficati.an in the vicinity and subject to Inker.departmental Committee
zecommendattons and alao on the basls thak the adjacent pr.o~~~'ty has a
~esolution of intent to ~L.
Commissioner King ofteced Resolution No. PC84-99 and moved for tts passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commi.saton does hereby grant
Conditional Use Permft No. 25~3 pursuant to Anahetm Mur~ici~al Code Secttons
18.03.030.U30 tt~rou~h 18.U3.030.035 subject to Interdepa~tmental Committee
tecommendattons.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the follow~ng voke:
AXES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE
NO~S: NONE
ABSEN7': MC BURNEY
ITEM N0. 19. EIR NEGRTIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2581
pUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ARTHUR F. PRESSEI~, TRUSTEE 0~ THE PRESSGL FAMILY
Z~RUST, 516 Sourh D~ckel StcEet, Anaheim, CA 92805 and LARRY W. AND ~tULiA ANNA
KROUSE, 60U W. Lincoln Aven~e, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGEl~T: NAUGLES, INC., 2932
E. Nutwood Avenue, Fulterton, CA 92639. Pcopecty described as a
rectangular.ly-shaped pazcel of land consisttng of approximately 0.6 acres,
539-6U2 West Lincoln Avenue.
To permit a semi-enclosed drive-through restaucant.
Z'here wece two persons indicating their presence in oppos~ti~n to subject
request and although the staff report waa not cead, it ts referred to and,made
a pact of the minutes.
5/30/84
MINUT~5. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, M~Y 30, 1984 84-3_l4
Margaret Watkina, representiny Nauglea, was pcasent to answ~c any queations.
Jack White Fxplatned th~r.e ~ho~ild be a cocrectton to khe ota£C r.eport Pege
19-~, Condition No. 11 which should sead "That vehtculnr. access to the
proper.ty shbll be r.eatrtcted to the drivc-through l.Ane between Che hours of
midnig~t and 6:UU a.m. on ~~ny day".
Abe Kader, owner. of property at 52a and 528-1;2 West Ltncoln, Anaheim, stated
he has no r.eal obj~eti.ori t.o the cestaucant, but does object to the heavy
trafEic along Lincoln whtch is backed up when the llght is ce~ on i~arbor.. He
atated they have difficulty getting out of their dr.iveway now and he was
concer.ned abouC rhe addttional traffic fKOm the condomintums that are being
built. He refecred to a letter, sent to ~he Commtssion and photographs and an
acctdent whtch oecur,red Friday ntght. He skated there are smoll acci9ents
there Er.equently and he thought adding a r.estaurant would add to that problert~.
Ed Fischle, 577 N. Brentwood Avenue, Lake Arr.owhead, CAliforni~, stated he
owns the property to ttie west of aubject property and was not sure he had any
objectton to the re~raur.ank, but did have questions and was wor.ried about hts
tenants in a 3-coom apartment because of noiRe and li~hts. He stated he
understanda thece would be a 3-fuot wide landscaped area next to the wall and
car.s will be parking tn that acea and he wanted t~ be suce there wo-~ld be
something there to stop vet~icles to ~revent damage to the propecty because tn
the past ther.e have been problems with peoPle driving Lhr.ough the property.
He stated he is concecned with tr.afftc and makiny left turns into the
proFerty. He stated he tt~ought a block wall going past thetr butldtn9 will
prevent people fcom cutttng through.
Margaret Watktns staked they do have sufFictent stacking lane as requtred by
the City Codes and there is coun for ntne vehicles to stack. She stated ahe
thought the condomi.ntum pr.oje~t has access on anattier sl•r.eet and not on
Lincoln. She stated they wi.ll work with the neighbots concer.ning the liqhts
and noise, etc. and potr-ted out tliis is pcimar.i.ly a commerctal r.etghborhood
and this use ~hould fit in.
Roger Barbosa, acchitect, explained thts pcoject has been designed to
incorporate most nf what they have le.'~rned froR~ past expertence that causes
problems and they are proposing a 6-foot wall along the reac ot the ptoperty
and the dr.ive-through lane is enc~ased by a 4-foot high block wall to abate
light intcusion and noise. He pointed out the~e will be a chain put up by the
manager of the cestaurant ever.yday at midnight ancl removed at 6:00 a.m. whtch
wil.l prevent any kcaffic thcough the rear of the s~te where most of the nots~
and loiteri.ng ^ould happen. He stated the ordec boacd does ~iot face dicectly
into any adjacent buildings and has a built-in device to lower. the sound after
7:00 p.m. He stated they have only one driveway ak the center of the frontage
min~mizing points of conflict with traffic on Lincoln.
THE PUBLIC HEh,RING WAS CLGSED.
Commissioner Bushore asked if a wall was proposed on the west side of the
pcopecty. Mre Barbosa reaponded a wall was not proposed on the west or east
s~des of the pr.aperty; hawever, they have designed landscape stcips with
con~rete curbing ro act as wheel stops, It was clarified that the concrete
wheel stops will be 3 feet from the edge of the prop2cty and Coinmissioner
Bushore indicated concern a car could hang over with only a 3-foot w~de area.
5/30/84
MTNUTE5. ANAHEIM CITY_PLANNING COMMISSIO.N• MAY~30. 19b4 84-315
- "`r'
Annika S~ntalahti stated the Code requi~ement is th~t adjacent to pro~erty
li.nea, the curb st~pa be provided and set t,ack at leaat 3 feet so that no
vehicle should be hang.ing over and it was nated the concr.eL•e cur.b stopa will
be conti~uoua so a vehtcle could not fioye the ~stops.
Commissioner Bushoce asked Mr•. Bacbosa ta agr.ee to a block wA1l on the east
and west sides, which he did. Commissiot~or. F3uahoce asked that th~ trash
contutner be r.elocaCed awuy Lr.om the single-family homes.
Mc. Barbosa prPsented an alter.native plan for the locat.i.on of the tr.a~h
enclo8ures and the Commiesion and the opposttton r.eviewed the plan.
Mc. Eischle atated he was not concer.ned about A bloek wall and tt was pointed
out the petitioner hae stipulated to provide a block wall and i.*_ waa pointed
out the tcash encloaure is nut adjaceht Co Mr. Fischle'a proper.ty but ta
located on the east stde.
Commtseioner. Ner.bsti atated mos~t cara would nol pr.otrude past the 3 feet;
however, an ~lder, madEl atatton wagon backed in would protrude further.
CommiastonPr. Bushoce stated he wanted to also make ~ure any iighttng would be
down-directed. Ms. Watkins responded l•hone are all compromises that they nce
used to workiny with. She stated they would ltke ko make the block wall 2-1/2
feek high si.nce tt is simply to prevent anyone from gotng through thP
pzoperty. CoR~missioner Bu4hor.e stated he thaught. the nefghbors deserve a
6-Loot high wall to keep tca~h fr.om blowiny ovez, etc.
Shtr.ley Land, Assistant 'i'raffic Engiheer, stated the Tr.affic Depactment would
work wtth the petitianer because they would have some concer.ns with the wall
near the dciveway.
Grey Hastings su99ested amending Conditiun No. 6 to read: "That a 6-foot htgh
masonry block wall shall be constr.ucked and maintained along the south, east
and west property lines to the satisgactton af the City Tcaffic Engineer, and
also adding a condition "That any outdoor speaker devices shall be
Round-•shielded so as not to cause noise intcuston into the adjacent
r.esidential area.
ACTION: Commissione~ Ktng offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and
MOTION CARRIED (Commisstone~ McBurney absenL')r that the Anaheim City Ptanning
Commisstan has reviewed the pr.oposal to per.mit a semt-enclosed drive-through
restaucant on a re~tangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
appr.oxtmately 0.6 acrea, having a fz~ontage of approximately 135 feet on the
south side of Lincoln Avenue and further described as 536-602 West Lincoln
Avenue; and doe~ he~^by approve the Npgative Declaratton upon findtng that tt
has conside~ed the Negative Declaration together with any comments received
during the public review pcocess and fucther finding on the basis of the
Initial Study and any comments received that ther.e is no substantial evidence
that the projec~ Wi.il have a sign4ficant effect on the environment.
Commissioner King offpted Resolution No. PC84~100 and moved foc ita passaqe
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
5/30/44
MINUTES~ ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN, MAY ~0, 1984 84-316
CohdiCional Uep Per.mit No. 2581 cubje~t to the petitianer's atipulatt,~n to
prov~de a 6-foot. high n~asoncy block wall on rhe e~at and weat praperty lines
and subjecr tu InterdepaGtmenk~l CnmmittEe zPCOmmendations.
On roll cell, the Eoregoing resolutton was passed by the following vote:
AYES: ~UUAS, BUSHORE~ FRYi NERBST~ KING, LA CLA~RE
NOES: NONE
ABS~NT: MC BURNEY
Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, presented the wr.itten r.ighr_ to appeal the
Planniny Commission's docision within 22 days to the City Council.
Co~nmiss~oner Suahoce poinr_ed out to those preaent in oppositton that a
r.estaur.ant is all~wed in this zone hy rigt~t and the only reasoi~ it is before
the Planntng Commission is because of L-he dr.~ve-thr.ough lane.
ITEM NU. 20. EIK NEGATIVE DECLARATIUN AND CONDITIONAL USE P~RMIT N0. 2578
PU9LIC HEARING. OWNERS: BRYAN INDUSTRIAL PPOPERTIES, INC., 146 E.
Orangethorpe Avenue, Anahetm, CA 92801, AT~PN: JCNNIEBR HOYT. AGENT:
KENNETN STARK AND WILLIAM J. kATERINK, 13211 San Antonta Drtve, Norwalk, CA
90650. Prope~ty described as a rectangular.ly-shaped paYcel of land conststtng
of appcox.~mately 1.86 acres, 145 East Ocangethorpe Avenue.
To permit a retail furn~tture s~oce in the ML Zone.
Thece was no onE indicating thetc p~esence in opposition to sub~eck request
and altt~ough the staft cepoct was not r.ead, it is ceferred to and made a par.t
of the minutes.
Willtatn RatPrink, agent, was present to anawe~ any guestton~.
THE P~BLIC HEAFtI~G WAS CLOSED.
ACTION: Commissioner King offeced a motton, seconded by Cummisstoner Fry and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Mc~urnpy absent), that the Anaheim City Planning
Commtssion has reviewed the propasal to ~ermit a retail furntturp stoce tn the
ML (Industrial, Limited) Zone un a rectangulazly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approrimat~ly 1.86 acres, having a frontage of approximacely 295
feet on the north side of Or.angethorpe Avenue and ~ucthec descctbed as 145
East Orangethorpe Avenue= and does heceby approve the Negative Declar.ation
upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any
comments r.eceived duc~ny the public review ptocess and further Etnding on the
basis ~f the Initial Study and any comments received that thece is no
substantial evidence l•hat the pcojPct will have a significant effect on the
environment.
Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PCa4-101 and moved £or its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commtssion does hereby grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2578 pucs~ant ko Anaheim Municipal Code .;ection
10.03.030 l•hro~gh 1~.03.030.035 ar.d subject to IntArdepartm~ntal C~mmtttee
recommendations:
5/30/84
MINU_ T~S. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION_~ MAY 3U. 1984 ,_,_, 84-317
On roll call, the for.egoing reeolutto.. wae pae~ed by tho followtnq vote:
AYBS: QUUAS, BUSHORE~ FRY~ NFRBST~ KING~ I~A CLAIR~
NO£S: NONB
AL~SENT; MC BURN~Y
ITEM N0. 21. EIR NEGATIV~ DBCLARATION AND CONQITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2575
PU6LIC HEARING. OWNERS: EARL L. SINGLETON AND JAMES CLAYTUN PEACOCK, 10620
Eir.catone D~ulevar.d~ Nor.walk, (:A 90650. AGENT: ATLAN'PIC RLCFI[~'IELD CO., 300
W. Glenoaka Blvd., Glendale, CA 90201, ATTN: E. L. KEIL. Pcoper.ty descr.tbed
as tln t~cegularly-shaped paccel oi land conaisl•.tng of appr.c; mately 0.5 acr.e
located at the southwest cor.ner of Br.oadway a~d Buclid Str.eet, 301 South
F.uclid Avenue (Ar.co MP&G).
To retatn convenience cetail sales tn an existing ser.vice station.
ACT10N: Commisstoner King oEfer.ed a motton, aeconded 'uy Commiasi.oner
La Clai~e and MUTIUN CAItRI~D (CammiRSt~~n~:r Mc6ur.ney aboent), that
consideratton oE the above-menttaned mattec be continued to the
regular.ly-scheduled meer.iny of June 25, 1984, at khe cequeat of the petition~r..
ITEM N0. 17.. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIUIJ, RECLASSIPICATION N0. 83•84-28 AND
VARIANCE NU. ~397
PUBLIC IIEARING. OWNERS: RICHARD JAMRS AND KATHLEEN DIANNC: BELIAi~OFF~ 3216 W.
Orange Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804 and WALTER K. AND ETHEL M. t3QWMAN, 7926
Cerrttos Avenue, Stanton, CA 90680. AGENT: STERLING K. CARLSON, 447 E. 17th
Str.eet, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. 6`roper.ty deacri.bed a~ an icr.egular.ly-shaped
parcel of iand consisting of appr.oxtmately 0.62 acr.p, 3208 and 3216 West
Oranye Avenue.
RS-A-43,OU0 to the RM-1200.
Waiver of maxtmum sticuct~ral height to construct a 22-unit apartment comple~.
Ther.e wece fouc persons indtcating their p~esence in opposttion to subject
request and althouqh the etaff report was not r.ead, it is referred to and made
a ~art of the minutes.
Sterling Caclson, age:~t, was present to answer. any questian~.
Colleen Stephenson, sta~ed she owns a single-famtly dwellfng to the west of
subject property and she is not opposed to the ceclassificntion and that she
does realtze l•hece is a need fur apartments; however, ah~ does object to the
proposed waiver. She stated ttze proposed 6-foot htgh wall will be about 4
feet high on tier t~ide of the property and four entrys to the units with
balconies oc sliding glass dooc• ar~e laoking cight into hec bedroom, ktt~hen
and bathroom windowr~; that heK lut is only 45 feet wide and all the windows
face the east. She added ahe thought there was a lack of considecation foc
her privacy in the design of these ~nits. She clarif~ed hPcs is the only
single-family cesidence to be affected by this pxoject and her property is on
the west side. ~;30/84
MINUTBS. ANAHEIM CI'PY PLANNING COMMISSION, MAY 30, 1984 84-318
Ida Huff, stdted ahe livee dir.eatly behind auQject proper.t y A~roes the
channelt that ~nything that can be done to thia pcoperty w ill be nn
improvemRnt ovec what is exietinq ~nd th~ property has bee n a total di.saater.
and disgrece. She stat~d ehe would also like to know what ta going to be done
w~th the gaa a~arion.
Nancy Hollis, 1715 Nutwood, Anahotm, stated she ia her.e, h opeEully, to het~
these people r.ega~ding high-denstty developmenta wtthin ce sidenttAl ~r.eae
becauae of the crime factor and packing. She stated th~re ie a peat layec
under this property ~+nd shQ did not know if the RM-1200 z o ning takes into
considecatton the slide faclor. in earthquakes and ~~k~d ~f the bui.ldtng codea
provide s~ectA1 r.equir.emEnts for. the weat side of Anahei.m bacauae ~f that peat
layer.
Cc~mmxssioner Bushoce replied the only thing that appliea would be the Unifor.m
Building Code if that i~ a designated altde acQa of a~me t ype, but that has
nothi~g to do with what the Commt~sian is dtscussing toda y.
Ms. Hollts stated the General Plan Atlas shows thnt ~r.ea as liquefactl.on and
double magnificatton of earthquakes.
Comm~ssioner. Ery stated Lhe Planntng Commission does not hAVe the answecs or
control over, thoae questtona. Ms. ti~llis otated t.uck-under packing is
p~opased and there is no visua.l view which doea increase the ci.lme r.ake; and
that par,king and traffic also were not ceally addreased v er.y well.
Mr. C~7rlson stated regar.diny tt~e wall, they plan to lower. the yr.ade level on
their side wt~ich would cequir.e a r.etaining wall ~n their siae which would make
khe wall 6 feet high on the netyhbor's s1~de. He stated t here te 10 feet
between ~he deck and aide yacd and that 10-fo~~t area wou 1 d be landscAped and
some kcees could be provided for screentny. He stated t h er.e are only two
decks on that aide wt~tch are at the second ~story level and the other two ace
ground level patios whtch will be acreened by the block walle and the two
uppec decks could ef.Eectively be scr.eened thcough landsc a ping, Concecning
parking, he stated they will provide 2.5 spaces pec untt as reyuired by Code
with no waivers ceques~ed. He stAted the City Building Depactment does
require a sof.ls repo~t and he anttctpates no problems.
THE PUBLIC HEARIN~ WAS CLOSED.
Ftesponding to Commissionec Bushore, Mr. Carlson stated h e built a 15-unit
apartment praject at 1430 E. Lincoln just west of State College.
Com.missioner Herbet referred to the 150-foot setback requiremer~t ad jacer~t to
air~c~le-family homes and explained the City has been qutte lenienx and allowed
smaller setback3 when the pcoject did not tnfringe too m~ich on another
person's privacy and he thought the maximum was about 50 feetand this project
would be w3.thin about 15 feet. He atated he would not deviate from ~he SO
feet allowed in the past. He stated the second-atory u n its wc~uld be lookinq
c~lght into the neigh~oc's backyards and he thought ~he d enstty is too high
because it will infringe upon the neighbor's privacy and the plans should be
tevised.
5/30/84
MINUTE~, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIpN, MAY 30. 1994 84-319
Commissionez BUBhOKQ stated the ~djacent proper.ty to the west has been under. e
ce~olutton oi LntenC eince 1964-65 and the proaent owner. ~,ur.chased it since
ths~ and i.t ~A a nacr.ow 45-Foot wide lot and unlosa it i.e combined with
anathec propurty, it will r.ematn As tt i~ for e long timet however., the
belconids should be brou~ht back into the pr.opec ar.ea.
Gre~ Hasttngs r.esponded to Con!mtesioner Buahor.e that thp par.kiny tA
tuck-under, but is not more than 509 below gcade And it would be cauntdd as an
additional atory.
Commissioner La Claire ntated there te a r.eaolutton oE tntent to RM-1200 on
the adjacent proper.ty which me~na somebody in the past planned to build
apaGtments and there ar.e Apar.tmenta on the other side and this is actually the
only etngle-family cESi.dence ln the area, except on the other aide of the
channel.
Responding to Commtssioner La Claire., Ms. Stevenson atated they do not have
any plans t'or development of kheic pr,operty in the futuret thaC it is only 45
feet wide and tliece is no way to butld an a~artment. She stated she has lived
there for 8 years and tias worked hard to keep the pcopecty n{ce and feels
Eor.tunatp ko have the proper.ty and doe~ not want to move.
Mr. Carlson stated thts pcoject tnvolved acquizing two parcels and he dld
ac~uire ane small site in ocdec to eliminate the pcoblem af having a smal~
piece of pcoper.ty left that i.s not developable.
Commissioner r'ry stated he felt khe petitioner is trying to yet just a little
too much on thts site and he could not condone Che tnvasion of the
single-family ceatdence, even though thete ts on: one. ne ~tated he felt
puttiny a thr.ee-story oc two-and one-half story apar.t~ent com~lex that close
to a single-family reaidence wir_h ~he balcontes and windows Eacing into hec
home is not acceptable.
Responding to Commissioner La Clair~, Mc. Car.lson explained ther.e are two
units looking into her property and the entirP unit would be factng the west.
Commissioner La Claire clarified a two-story house could be butlt on the
pruperty withtn 5 feet af the proper.ty line, but the ruling for 150 feet from
the properky line for t:~a apactment complex ts sttll valtd. She stated ahe
would be looking for a compromi~e of 50 feet and thta pcojec~ proposes two
units at 12 tu 15 feet.
Cammissioner Herbst stated the difference is that these pattos are b~cking up
to the single-family pcoperty and if someone built a house tn the side yard,
it would not be facing her property.
it was noted the total hetgnt of the complex is 34 feet and Commisstoner.
La Clatre pointed out a two-story house could be as h.igh as 35 feet. She
stated she would agcee that the ne~ghbor to the west should be protected, but
she wasn't sure whether 50 feet was the right d~stance.
Commissionec Herbst atated that is the max~mum the Council has allc~ed and the
Commissio~~ considerEd changing the oxd~nance, but le£t it at 150 ~eet with
each project to be ceviewed individually and vaciance granted at the
5/30/84
MTNUTES ANANEIM CI7'Y PLANNING COMMIbSIQN MAY 30 19d4 84-320
disccetinn of the Commt sston o~ Council and tl~et nothing below 50 feet has
been App~oved and he d i d not think it should be changed.
Commiasioner. Buahoce atated the real isaue ir the 50 f~:et fr.om the
petl.Cioner'b~:~^st prope ~ty line and he did not think any Commissioner, had any
pr.oble~n wtth the ch+~nne 1 becauae it is AO ~eet wi.de, but the Commiesi.on wanta
the project aet back 5 O feeC ~com the weAC pcoperty :ine.
Comm~seionec tle[bat st a ted the project could be xedeaigned ko be
aingle-ator.y. Cammiss i oner King suggested t~at the westerly portion of. the
project be eingle-etot y. Mc. CatlBOn reaponded he would have to r.eetudy the
pKOject and the factoc that aomes into ~lay is the RM-1200 Zoning which ta
what this project is based on and it the project has to be r.educed ta
accompliah that zoning , he would have ltked to have known that before the land
was pucchased.
Cummiasione~ Buehore s~~ted it appears the petittonec boughk the propecty with
the .tntent of developing ~n the IiM-120U Zqne wtitch allows 36 un~.te per. acre
and he plans to get t h ose 36 uni~s and throw the r.est of the Codea out. He
atated Mr. Bowman, th e owner, was well awar.e of the 1.50-foot setback
cequicement.
~~mmissioner Herbat s u gges~~e~ the plana be cevised and asked if a continuance
is ciesired~
Mr. Caclson r.esponded he would like a 30-day continuance.
ACTION: Commiestoner Hecbst offeced a motton, secunded by Commtssioner. King
and MOTION CARRIED (Commisnionec Mcaurney absent), that consider.ation of the
aforementioned matter, be continuPd to the ~egul.arly-scheduled meettng of June
25, 1984, at the r.equ est of the petit~oner in otder to submlt cevised planr;.
Commissioner Ne--bst s ~.~geated the peti.tt~ner talk to the reighbors afte~ thp
plans ace r.evised to satisfy thetr pcoblems.
ITEM N0. 23. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECLASSIFICATION N0. 83-84-29 AND
VARII~NC~ N0. 3398
PUBLIC HEARING. OWN ERS: SA1D LAHIDGANI, ET AL, 1332 Amberwick Lane, Anahetm,
CA 92804. AGBNT: STERLING K. CARLSON, 4A7 E. 17th Skreet, Costa Mesa, CA
92627. Pronerty des c ribed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel af land consisting
of appcoximately 1.1 8 acres, 2910 and 2918 West Ball Road.
RS-A-43,OU0 to RM-1200.
Waivex~ of maximum s tructucal height an~d permitted locatton of open spaces to
consrruct a 42-unit apartment complex.
Thece wece eix pereo ns indicating their presence in opposi.tton to sutject
~cequest and althoug h the staff ceport was not r.ead, ik ts refecced to and made
a part of the ma.nutes.
Sterling Ca~lson~ ag ent, was present to answec any questions.
5/30/84
MINUmES. ANAHEIM__CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, M1AY 30. 1984 84-321
John McWhir.tec, 1219 S. Gaymont Street, Anahetm, stated he owns proper.ty ta
the south oE aubject pr.opecty and submitted ~ petitton containing
approximate~y 23 atgnatuces of pcopecty ~,wnera bor.dering subject pcopecty dnd
in the general neighborhood in opp~~aitton to thia r.eque~t. He stat~d
baeically th~y fael that what has been pr.opoeed and tt~e variances cequested
would be an invasion of their privACy becauae it la withtn 15 feet of. the
pr.operty line.
Mr. McWhirter atated they feel the sub-level l•andem parking will be a
potenti.A1 Qr.oblem with crime and fl~oding. He atated the neighbor.hood dtd a
survey and found that righ~ nvw ther.e ace 3.3 apartmenC complexes to evpcy one
singl.e-family dwelling and thia area includes the nor.th side of Ball Road and
thP east atde of Dale, sauth stde of Ceccttos and the west side of eeach
Boulevar.d and they feel density should not be increased with apar.tmenks in ~~
neighborhood that has an imbalnnce alceady. He stated they do not tnkend to
depri~~e the developer. of the right to develop tt~e pr.operty but they da intend
to aursue a compatible comprotniae that would be satiafactory to all par.ties.
He ekated they feel over.crowdtng of structures, populatton, traEftc
c~ngesl•ion, ir~cceased crime cate, invaston of privacy oc lass of pr.oper.ty
valuea ar.e issues which the communtty cannot affor.d to over.look.
Dr. Wacr.en Clark, 931 S. Gaymont, stated hi~ proper.ty is tmmediately to the
nocth and across eall Road fzom subject pr.oper.ty and he was glad something was
going to be done with that pr.operty because they hAVe had mdny pr.oblems in the
past; howevec, a development of this impact will h~ve an eFf~ct on the entice
communtty. He pointed out there ts a pcoblem with the school ccosawalk which
is in a 40-mile per hour zane and illzgally aigned and increastng the tca£ftc
by 150 novements per day would incr.ease that pcoblem. He stated they aLr.eady
ave a problem wtth inccPased ccime.
J. C. Chamber, 934 S. Gaymont, stated he lives directly ac~oss the str.eet from
this propecty and has been there for. 28 year.s and indtcated he would agzee
with khe concErn c~gacdtng the school ccossin~ with improper signs only 10
feet from the walk itself and addttional tr.affic and additional children going
to the schools would multlply the problem. He stated he was also conce~ned
about the crime rate and stated they do not have sidewalks and belteve this
will downgrade thP value of their p~opecties.
John M~~~Lloc, 128 S. Gaymonk, stated he has lived here since 1957; that
two-stor.y apact~ents would be too high for the area because the tenants could
look into their backyards from their windows and invade their privacy. He
stated the playground is r.ight on the reac of the propecty and the ehild~en
~ou~~ climb ovec the fence. He stated the pcoject would be right over. his
property ltnes and that packing is a~ainst the fence. He stated that is his
fence and he thought cazs would back agatnst it and damage tt.
John Brand, ].215 S. Gaymonk, stated he has lived thece sin~e 195 and is
oppoaed to thi~ rev,uesk L•or the same reasons as the othec opposition and
ind~cated it i~ too close to the property line and there ate too many units
and the unde~~round parking will be a problem and will increase the crime rate.
5/30/84
MINUTE5, ANAt1EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,_MAY 30, 1984 84-322
Mc. Caclson atat9d the aubject oE privacy has boen addrosasd on the stte plana
and the back units have n~ second-~tory decka fACing thetc pr.oper.ty ltne and
all are or.tented inward toward the center. oE the pro3ect. t~e atated tlie onl,y
thing adjttcenl to the property line ie some pAr.ktng atallc~ and the other is
landaeaptng and khece are aome patios that fUCe the aouth propecty linet that
there ia also a 6-foot htgt~ black wall which would contcol the invasi.on of
pcivacy. RegaXding trafftc at the school Gcoesing, he staL•ed they wer.P
instcucted by the TrAffic Div:tsion to make ttieic dr.~veway match the one acr.oas
the etreet. Concern~ng proper.ty valuea, he stated Ba11 Road t~ primaci.ly an
r~partment atreet at l•his time and within 1/2 block oE thts pr.operty, kher.e ar.e
othec apactment complpxea and hz did not think it woul.d affect anyone's
pcope~ty values in the area. He atated he dtd not address the cuncerns
regard.ing criine.
THE PUf3I.IC HEARING WAS CL05EQ.
Mr.. Carlson r.espond~d to Commissioner. La Clair.e that the units designater] on
the p.lans as "A" ar.e actually three-stor.y unita wi.th the entx~nce u~~ khe
second level and the patio that shows Cowards the ~outh pr.operty line would be
on the gr.ade level and ther.e is alao a deck on the uppe~ floor.
Commtesianer Bushore stated the devel~per has done very well in getttng 42
units on the pcopecty when the maximum theorettcally is 43 and l•his ts the
ficgt ttme the Planninq Comm9.ssi.on has seen untts with flooxs that are
actually undecgcound to get the maximum number of unita. Ne stated he can
understand the reason for that dus to the pcice of land. Mr.. Cazison ~tated
the particul.ar unit was designed as a dual maste~ bedcoom sutte with one
bedroom upstaics and one bedr.oom downstaira and wtth the entran~e on the
second flooc.
Commtsstoner Herbst referred to the Planning Commi.sston'e policy regardinr, the
20-foot landscaped bufter. adjacent to single-family pcoperty. Mr. Carlson
stated t~e did not iqnore that policy, and has intr.uded into the setbacks
slightly. Commissioner. Herbst stated the garages ace right agatnst the
property line. Mx. Ca;.lson stated the car.pocts are open on the south proper.ty
line. He stated th~-+t waa not b~ought up as a pcoblem tn his discussions with
staff. Comm~ssionec Her.bst atated the 20-foot landscaped buffer zone should
be just that and not have anything in it and he would not deviate from that
requicement where i.t abuts someone's home. He stated this project would
infringe upon six homes and even though there is a r.esoluticn of intent on the
adjacent property, it doesn't give the developer the r.tght to tn~ringe on the
neighboru. He stated a variance should not be harmful t~ the neighborhood and
he thought thia would be v~cy wrong and the netqhbochood has not been
consideKed. He stated he thought this project would be tn the wror.g place and
apartments on this property would have to be something near gacden-type
apartments td be compatib:e wi.th the neighborhood.
Mr. Carlson stated they have considered the nei~ghbors and the ~roject is
oriented .inwar.ds.
Commiasioner H~rbst stated many ypars ago he voted for one or two of these
projects wtth gacages abutting the property line, b~t after seeing them
developed, he would never vote foc anothe~ one because they do tnfringe upon
5/30/84
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, MAY 30,__1984 84-323
the neighbor,s and the neighbor.hood and that is the ceason for, ttio 20-foot
landacaped buf.fer reguixement. Ne atated he thouyht the project would have to
be comp~etely zedeaignad.
Commisato~er Bushoce stated he aeeo ~o reason to var.y at all from the 150-foot
setback height l~mitation o~ the 20-foot londecaped setba~k becauae thece are
homes sucrounding the property on two sidea and this pAr.ticular property is
not unusual in shape, ao khece would be no justificatton oc approval.
Chaicwoman 8ouas aaked tf the pettttoner. would like to cequeat a ~ontinuance
and revise his plans and suggested he should meet wlth the neiqh~ur.s. Mr.
r.ar,lson stated he had not shown khe p~anR to the neighbora and had wor.ked
primarily with staf£. Commiss~oner La Clai~e stated she would like t~ see
some landacaped buffer. because it is ad~acent to a lot oE single-family I~~;~es
which do not have a cesolution of intent.
Mr.. Carlson r.equested a conttnuunce to June 25, 1984.
ACTION: Comm~ssioner Her.bst offer.ed a motton, seconded by Commisstoner. King
and MUTION CARRIED (Commi~~loner McBurnF~v abaent), that con,ider.ation of the
afocementioned mattec be conti.nued to the ~~~etiny of June 25, 1984, aC the
request of the petittonec.
Paul Singer, Tcatfic Engineec, stated the cr.oaswalk at Gaymont and Ball Road
con£orms to CALTRANS cequirements (r.alifornia Vehtcle Code) and that two
addittonal signs are very clo~ce ~o hhe crosswalk and ther.e ace two pre-warning
nigns.
ITEM N0. 24. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIUN, RF.CLASSIFICATIQN N0. 83-84-31 AND
VARIANCE N0. 3402
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: MARJORIE S. 7'ALT AND ALAN R. TALT, 615 S. Flower
Street, ~806, Gos Angeles, CA 90017, AGENT: MARK D. CERNICH, 629 N. Matn
Stceet, Or.ange, CA 92668. Property descc{bpd as an irregularly-shaped parcel
of land consisting of appraximately 0.5 acce located at the southeast cor.ner
af Ball Road and Sunlci.st Avenue, 2500 East Ball Road.
RS-A-43,000 and RS-5Ua0 to CL.
Waiver of minimum landscaped setback to constr.uct a 2-story commer.ctal office
bui.lding.
There was one person indicat.ing his pcesence in opposition to subject cequest
and alChough the staff repoct was not read, it is r.eferred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Mark Cernich, agent, explained they aGe pr.opostny a two-story offi.ce building
that will face Sunkist and Ball Road and they have considered the adjacent two
homes and have been working with the homeowners and hoped they have cet aside
their concern~.
Wi.lliam R. Franz, 1221 Cacl Street, stated his pzoperty is adjacent just to
the south of subject propecty and he has no ~eal ~reat opposttion to the
project and had met with the deveioper's ~representatives and was present today
5/30/84
84-324
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN MAY 3Q 1984
to guarantee ths~ the things thoy had pcomieed [oved.Wnl,j'1~bAtedntheyawould
included ln the approval, tf tha project te App ~~'-
like to have ~~~aranteos that the propecty in the futuce would be matntained ae
an 8 to 6-o'clock type oper.atton.
Mr.. Cernich stated he is willing to cooperAte even mor.e wi.th the homeowneca
He expla~ned he h~d
and would work with ataf£ r.eqacdtng the lighCing, etc.
agteed to plent sortie non-deciduouo tcees in the Qlanter.s and conttnue the
existing block w~ll alon9 th~ east whece there ts an extsting wooden Eence and
that they will cemovr tl~e debria from the pr.opertY.
THE pU~I,IC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Jack White, Asststant City Attor.ney, explnined I~e had heacd one member. of the
opposltion mentton hour.s of oper.atton and war~ted to clacify this cequeat is
foc a reclassificatton and not a conditional use pecmtt, ther.efoze, the Ctty
does not have a vehicle to enfu~~ovedm~~he~CityQwould notchave therpower. toa9o
once the reclASaiLir_ation is App
beyond what is requir.ed tn the Code for that z~ne.
Commtastoner Bushore stated if thta property is ceclassifted and the vaci.ance
ts granted, there ts nothing to prohibit the constructian of ~ shopping center.
oc something ttimilac in tt~e futuce.
Commissfoner La Claire stated when the pcoj~ct Qn the adjacent proper.ty ftr.st
came tn for appr.oval, tr~e Commission tr.ied to get the ownec to include thta
section of the pcoperty in that development so the Comnisaton could protcct
the people in the area. Mc. Cecnich stated he 5elteved thts propecty was a
remnant. parcel left ove~ because the developer. was not agr.eeable to butlding
two long dciveways.
Commissioner_ La Claire stated s~e believed the developer wes leaving thts
piece of propecty in ocder to do ;ust what he t~ doing now and the Commisston
was vehement at ihe time about includtng i.t tn that development and now, hece
it is today, with a request for. an office building a~d the Comtnission still
has to protect l•he neighbors. She stated because of the traffic on Ball Road.
she did not think an off~ce building is a bad idea, especially if it will cut
off some of the tcaffic noise ~rom 6a11 Road for the r.estdents. She stated
she did not have much sympathy for the developecs and felt they should afford
the residents as much protectton as possible and she did not want to
reclassify this pcoperty unleRS it can be guaranteed to the neighbors that tt
will not be used for anything except offices.
Commissioner Herbst stated he would call reclassificatton of this property
pure 'spot zoning° and he does noL• !~ave any sympathy for. the developer
whatsoever, because this paccel was held out as a commeccial parcel without
propet zoniny, He stated the propecty could still be developed for
res~dential uses even though it backs up to Ball Road, po~nting out this would
not be different than other residential uses backing up to Ball Road now . He
stated he d~d not think this pcoperty is suitable for an offi.ce butldtng.
Mz. Cernich stated he is a new buyer and dtd not think the propecty would be
suitable for hames.
5/30/S9
MINUTFS ~NAH6IN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MA1' 30 1984 84-325
Alan Talt, ~wne~, etatod thia particuler. pcoper.ty wAa leeoed under e long-ker.m
leaae by Mr.. St~ute to Standar.d Oil Company and when the development occurred,
they had no puwer. to develop this proper.tyj however, aEter. the Eurr.ounding
pcoperl•y wae developed, the lerae was cancelled.
Cornmtesi.unet Buahoce atated the pcoperty was Leaaed without pr.oper zoning Eor
a ser.vice 8~atiun. Commissioner Fry stated he thouqht thta would be an ideal
location foc an uffice butldin9 and ta not suitable for, reaidenti.al. property.
HF ~aded, however, he wuuld unly he in favor of thts appcoval tf he could be
a~s~ired the development would bP an of~ice butldtny and nothing else. He
atated there ta "spot zoning' ncruss the ntr.eet.
Jack White stated off~cea ar.e not a condittonal use i.n ~ither oE the two zones
under which the propecty is cur.rently zoneds that ther.e ts a sect~.on tn the
Code, hawevez, that provides that the Planning Directoc cAn make a
deter.mination- pcovided he finds that t.t~e use is compatible and he thought it
would be very difficult to make khut finding.
Comm~astoner Fry suggeated a covenant be r.ecorded to make thst guar.antee.
Jack White replied no~mally that is what would be done, but once the pr.oject
is butlt, i.f someone want~ to change the use, he did not belteve the Ctty
could legully deprive the pr.oper.ty ownet of the rtght to use the pr.oper.ty tf
it meets the Code requtrementa.
Responding to Commissioner La Clatre, Greg Hastings explained the landscaped
setback in the CO Zone would be 10 feet. Commisstoner. La Clatre said she
wanted to afEord l•he neighbora all the protectton that can be pcovided and
suggested the reclassific~tion be to CO r.athe~ than CL.
Mr. ~canz responded to Commissionec La Clatr.e that tie had not menttoned the
itema ay~eed to between the property uwnecs and khe developer because he
assumed the Planntng Commtssionets had recetved a copy of the lettec. He
stated all he wants is a guarantee that tn the futuce the propecty will be
used for offices or some type of 8 to 5 operatton.
Commisstoners La Claire and Bushoce ~ndicated they dtd not undECStand why the
zeclassificatton was reyuested foc CL instead of CO ~tnce they only propo~ed
affice uses.
Patrick Conovec, architect, 18001 Sky Park Ctrcle, Ir.vine, stated when they
first looked at this psopect,y, they were told it was a commerctal piece of
property and they wete never told about the 20-foot landscaped buffer poltcy
of the Planning Commission, but were told about the 10-•foot setback
~equirement adjacent to cesidential pcoperty. He stated they reviewed sevezal
different plans includ~ng fast food ~es~aurants, etc. and feel a CO use is
probably thE best use for this pcoperty. He stated the property was an
eyesore for a long time and it is not feasible for someone to develup two
houses but it could be leased to someone who would serv~ce the community such
as a real estate or tnsurance office.
Jack White reEponded to the Commibsion that if they wistaed to reclasstfy the
pcoperty to C0, it would have to be readvertised. He explained tying appcoval
of CL to specif~c plans would nnt guarantee that in the fukure, the use would
5/30/84
MINUTES~ ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMI55ION, MAY 30~ 19a4 84-326
not chenge beceuee any of the usee per.mitted in ttie CL Zone would be permitted
and medical of~ices is one of thos~ useo ab long as it meeta the Code.
Greg Hastinya explatned health spas or bingo eAtablishments would alao be
pQrmitted. ~ack White clarified a bingo establishment would only be per.mitted
in conjuncGion with a related otftce use euch ac a non-pr.ofit organization
wheGN the primary acttvity would be the ofEtce use far, thAt ~r.ganization.
Commisetoner La Claire ~tated there is no wny ehe would coneidec r.ezoning this
pcoperty to CL.
Commiasioner Dushare stated he is concerned, no mattec what goes into this
propecl•y, about th~ dr,iveways on Ball Rc~ad and suggested only one driveway be
perin.ttted onto Sunkist. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer., explatned tt,ere tu a
median isYand on Ball Road and unly right turns would be permitted. Mc.
conavec ce~ponded that trash pick-up would be p problem with anly one dctveway
on 5unkist. Paul Singec stAted he thouyht the dr.iveway conftgur~tton would
wock just Etne.
Mr. Cesnich stated the only intended use of L•h.is proper.ty is of.ftce and he
would be willing to r.eatrtct the pcoperty to that type of use. Responding to
Commiesionec 8uahore, he s*_ated he would cather. have the heartng r.eadvecttsed
for Cp 2oning rather than have the request dented right now.
ACTION: Commissioner Fry o:fered a motion, seconded by Commisstoner. King and
MOTION CARItTED (Commisaioner McBucney absent), that consideration of the
above-menttoned mattec be continued to the rpgular.ly-scheduled meettng of June
25, 1984, in order that the matter, be r.eadvertise~ for reclassiftcatton to the
CO Zonp.
RECES5: 3:A2 p.m.
RECONVENB: 3:52 p.m.
ITEM N0. 25. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3403
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: LINKLETTER PROPERTIFS, 765 Baker. Stzeet, Costa Mesa,
CA 92626. AGENT; BECK-MOFFITT ASSOC., 1224 Village Way, Santa Ana, CA 92705,
AT~N: STEVE HAMILTON. Propecty described as a xectangular.ly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of approximately 2.6 acres, 1290 Nocth Lakevtew Avenue.
Wa:[ver of mi.nimum number of parking spaces to cor~str.uct a self-storage
facility.
Theze was no one indicating their presence in oppo3itio-~ to s~~bject reque~t
and although the staff ceport was not read, it is cefecred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Jxm Moffitt, 1224 Village Way, Santa Ana, agent, was present to answer any
questions.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLQSED.
5/30/84
MINUTES. ANAHCIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MAY 30 L 1984 84-327
Commiastoner Buaho~e referced to a dzcinage ptoblem wtth the pcoperty to the
north And asked if that pr.oblem could be cesolved. Mr.. MofEitt r.eaponded they
iiad a civtl engtneec study the watec pcoblems and they have recommended pumpQ
a~ they feel that would resolve the pr.oblem.
ACTION: Commisaioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commisstoner. Fry and
MOTION CARKIEU (Commisstoner. McBurney absent), that the Ahahetm Ctty Planhing
Commis~ton hae reviewed the peoposal l•o conatruct a self-atoGage Eacility on a
~ectangularly-ahsped par.cel oP land consisting of approximptely 2.6 acr.es,
having a frontage of appraximately 1~8 feet on the east aide of Lakeview
AvenuQ and fur.ther desccibed aa 129U North Lakeview Avenues and does heteby
approve the Negati~~e Decla~atton upon finding that it has consider.ed the
Negative Aeclacation together. with any comments cecetved dur.ing the public
review pcocess end Eurthec finding on the basia of the Initial Study and any
comments received that there ta no substantial evidence th~t the project wtil
have a significant effect on the environment.
Commtssioner Ktng offered Recolutton No. PC64-.102 and moved for, i.ts pASeage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does herQby gr.ant
Variance No. 3403 on the basis l•hat ther.e are apectal ctrcumstances applicable
to the pcoperty such as otze, ahApe, topogr.aphy, locatian and aucroundings
which do not apply to other idHnttcally zoned proper.ty tn the same vicinity;
and that strict applicatton of the Zoniny Code depcives the p~oper.ty of
pcivileges enjoyed by ather propecttes in the fdenttca.l zone and
classificattun tn the victnity and sub~ect to Inter.departmEntal Commitkee
r,ecommendati~ns.
On coll call, the focegoing ~esalutton was passed by thE following vote:
AYGS: aOUAS, BUSHURB, FRY, HERHST, KING, LA CLAIFE
NOES: NONE
A~SENT: MC6URN~Y
ITEM NO. 'l6. EIR NEGATIVE DECL~RATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3400
PUBLIC HFARING. OWNERS: SAN ROQUE, INC., 16902 Bolsa Chtca, ~2Q3, Huntington
Beach, CA 92649. Property descr~bed as an irr.egularly-shaped par,cel of land
cons~sting of appr.oximately I.O~ acres, b699 Avenida De Santiago.
Waivers of msxiir~~~m fence height and minimum front yard setback tu retatn a
block wall and swimming pool.
Thece were four pecsans indicating thei~ presence in opposttion to subject
reyuest and although the staff rep~rt was not read, it is rpferred to and made
a part of the minutes.
Elmec Al1en, repcesenting San Hoque, Inc., stated he has found that they did
have a permit approved in December ~nd plans were approvpd for this block wall
and swimming pool; howevec, it has been determined the permit was issued in
etror and he would like to resolve the problem. H~ stated a 3-foot fence is
permittpd; however, that woul4 be in violat~on of the requirements fo~ the
swimm~ng pool and a S-foot fence would be in violation of the setback
cequtrements.
5/30/84
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY__PuANNING CUMMISSION, MAY 30, 1984 84-32
Chatrwoman ~ouae indicated A letter of oppoRition had b~en r.ecetved end is a
pert nf the f ile.
i.ouis A. Uelmonico, 6097 Avenida de Santiago, Anaheim, 92807, ~xplained tn
addition to beir.g a homeowner in C.he orea, he is a membec of the homeowner.s'
aseociation of the Anaheim Ridge ~stdtea ~~nd their objection det~ls with the
petittoner not conEoGming with the Ar.chitectur.al Review Committee of both
Anahetm Ntlls Planned Community Asaociakion and Anahetm Rtdge Estates and also
Anahetm City Butlding CodeR. He gtated the petiCioner'e Lal.lure to comply
will tmpact the appear~ ~ce standards of this netghbnr.hood anr~ that the butlder
had an obligatton to ftrRt show the plans ko the committees and get E1P~COVA1
befor.e proreeding with constructton. Ne stated tt~e assoctatton hao requested
that a plan be subm'ltted for r.evtew, but there has been no r.ecponse to th~t
requeat. He stated the cules ace apelled out in the CC&Rs and the peti.tioner
has r.eceived and signed for a copy of the CC~Rr~. He r~ad a portton of Azttcle
10 pertaininy to the r.eview oE rhe plane and apeci.Etcattons.
Jim DeForcest, 6901 Avenida de Santiago, Anaheim; explAir.ed they had thetr
house built ab~ut 'l-1/2 year.s ago ~nd the build~ing had tn be approved by the
a~auciatton an~7 he had to go ko a gceat deal of expenae to mePt all lhe
r.equicementa and tt~e housc had to b~ cedeatyned. He stated he Chought if the
petitionez had gonP to the association. they would not have had to vtolate the
regulatton~ nnd put up a fence before it was even appr.oved. He statecl he
thought they ahould have to comply and everythtng be approved because the
homeownecs moved to that area tn c+rder to F,ave those r.estz'ictions.
Ida DeForreat stated they live next door. to subject proper.ty and thts is a
ve~y small street. She sl•a~ed a fence would not bothe~ hec except she objects
to people putting tl-~ings up before getting approval. She stated the plans on
the wall which show the house and fence do not show what has actually been
built because the fence curves out and wt~en etanding in her yar.d, you cannot
actually see the whole cul-de-sac which meana people wl~o ltve at the end oE
tt~v cul-de-sac cannot see their yarages when they cume in. She stated the
tcash trucks have a difficult time because of the nacrow stceet and tf,e fence
is cather close to the edge of the pcopert;y line. She addEd also, people use
Avenida de Santtago as a scenic route and use thetr private road and some of
them are on motorcycles and sumettmes it can be a traffi.c problem and r.eferred
to a recenl traft:lc accident on Mr. Delmonico's property.
Jack Whtte explained letters of opposttion ace accepted and put in the file;
however, are not read at the cr ~ttng if the writer is not p~esent. Chatzwoman
Bouas noted all the Commissioi~ers have cead the letter of apposttton and Jack
White explainEd the petitioner has the right to review the letter.
Jack SVhite stated while a 3-foot high solid block wall is the maximum height
permitted in the fcont yard setback, a 6-foot hi.gh wrought iron fence ar other
open type fence which is not solid would be permitted and if such a fence did
~ot t~ave ~peninga wide enough apart to allow chi.tdren access th~ough tt, it
would be sufficiQnt to meet the reguirements of the swimming pool codes.
Cornmissioner Herbst sL•ated the Planning Coinmission has na control ovec rulea
and tegulations of the CC~Rs. Jack White explained the hameowners
5/30/84
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ~ MAY 30. 1984 8A-329
asaociat~cns ar.e individual approving bodies and they contcol the right to use
the pcopecty in a mpnne~ d~fEerent from the Zontng Code and the Planning
Commission looks at the ~eque~t only from the ~tandpoint of what the CodeR And
ordinances provi.de. He stated the City doea not dnforce the CC&Ra and thoae
would be enfor.ced by the homenwnets individuallX oc thr.ough the ~naoctatton.
Mr.. Allen stated he under.~tands they did get ttie acchitectur.A1 commi.ttee's
appcoval and tt was requested agatn, but the preatdent of the company said
they had already r~cetved approval and did not need to get it agatn. He
atated t~e would get copies. He stated the plan does not show the Lence
propetly and it is set back about Lour feet and it does curve to follow the
cul de sac. He referKed to the picturea submttted and explained the netghbo~s
have installed another block wall ctght to the ~dge of tt~e stree~ tch ts
about four feet closer than this. He stated the str.eet is only 20 feet wtde
and the trash trucks do have a nroblem Lucning ar.ound. He stated he dtd talk
to the ne;ghbors and the ptctures ~how that ~he gar.age doo~ can be seen over
the top of the fence and typtcslly whsn ~a gar.age dooc is opened at night, a
light goes un automatically, so they would be able to see it the door ta open.
THE PUnLIC H~ARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Flecbst asceztained tt~at the house was butlt to specif_tcations,
buC hasn't bepn sold yet. Mr. Allen stated he has an inter.ested ~uyec, but
tt~e ponl is ver.y important and he needs an answnc to thi.s pcoblem.
CommisstoneK Herbet a~ked if the fencp could be moved back. Mr. Allen skated
it would be into the pool area and a 3-faot hi.gh fence would be in violatton
of the pool fenctng requirements.
Commisaioner Bushore stated th~ pool has not been finfshed and tt could Ue
changed vecy easily and a variance would not be reqi~ired and explatned he
khought it could be rounded at thE corner.. Mr. Allen explatned that would
mean the poul would be about 12'x12' and now it is 16'x32'.
Ccnunisfiioner LaClaire referred to the commen~ that another neighbar. has
constr.ucted a wall. ~r.. Delmonico stated he di~ not think the other
neighbor's buildiny oE a wall shouid tnfluence the Planning Commission's
decision cegarding thts matter. and the people who have built that wal.l wtll be
asked to cemove it because tt wa~ butlt without approval of the Archttectura~
Review Committees. He stated ottiet members have been force~ to remove walls
or other stcuctures which were built too faK out o~ vio~ated the vfew of the
neighbors. He stated they did not submit plans to the committees for. approval
of the exterioG landscaping and improvements and stated the committee does not
think that the plans submitted on thxs subject request have received the
required approval and he would like to ask the builder to show that the plans
for the home have the stamps of the master association and the Anaheim R~dge
Estates Association.
Commissioner Fry stated that has nothing to do with this hearing.
Mr. Delmon.ico stated it is the position of the asaectation which thpy have to
hold because the buyer signs an contract when he purchases the property whtch
says that he has received, revtewed and will comply wi,th the CC&~s of that
5/30/89
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSI~N L MAY 30,_1984 04-33p
neighbochood ~nd in khis c.~se~ iC is the asaociation's position that thak was
nat done.
Chairwoman Bouas atated ahe undecstood the Ctty Attorney to aay that the
Commission has nothing to do with that end what the Asaociation does would
take precedent ovec an,ything the Commissian dtd appr.ove, an long ~A tt
r_ompliea to our codes.
Jack White slated the Aasaci.at~on may appcove aomethi.ng and tt may be denied
by the City, in whtch case it cannot be built, and that wor.ka both ways. He
stated the Gtty's reautremente and ~he A~soclation's cequitements are two
difterent sets of requtr.ementa and the Commtsaton looks to the City ~rdinances
to aee if it complte~ and if not, whether, oc not a vaciance is war,ranted.
Commisst~ner Bushoce stated he ceally could not belteve that the Asnoctation
has not approved this etnce the house is already built. Mr. Delmoni^u
ze~ponded that Cnmmissioner Bughoce t~ not cor.rect and tney did try to take an
~ction be[oGe this.
Commissionec Hecbst ask~:d i.f the var.iance ts khe onYy pcoblem and Mr.
Delmontco stated the i~sue at hand ie ~he f.ence and that is the only actton
they can puxsue at thts time; and thak certainly t•here Ar.e other objection~
they have, but they are not at issue.
Commiseioner Hecbst stated the Plxnntng Commisston ha~ to cesolve the fence
problem, and in a~ituatton like thfs whece it appears the City's Building
Division made an error in issuin~ a perm~t, he thaught it puts the Planntng
comrniasion on the spot an~ thece is probably room £cr. a compromtae. He stated
it appeacs the fence doe~ block the visw coming out of the dciveway.
N,r. Allen r.esponded he had gone into the home and the owner showed him whak
they are talking about and that th~y have ~ step-down liviny r.oom and sitting
on ~he couch, a per.~on cannot see down the stceet. Commissioner. Herbst
suggested lowering the fertce and putting wrougi.- iron on top to meet the
swimming pool requirements. He stated the fence was butlt without a per.mit
and asked what could be done to satiafy the nei.ghbocs.
Commissioner La Claice stated the pcopecty was developed at the expense of the
ne~ghbocs and now it has ~o be fixed and in her opinion, if she lived in that
house and somebody butlt a fence in front of her that was agatnst the Code and
did not have ap~roval of the committee, she would be angcy.
Commisstoner Hecbst referced to his Auggestion foc a lower fence with wzought
iron on top. Mr. Allen stated with that type fence, the occupants would not
have any pcivacy in their own yacd.
Commi~sioner LA Claire stated then maybe the house should have been butlt on a
bigger lot, ~r the house could havQ been butlt somewhat smallec or the
confi~uration of the house could have been ~ifferent, and the ownet has
created the problem. 5he stated tt is the Commission's responsibility to see
that the Code is mek for the protectfon of evecyone.
5/30/84
MINUTES~ ANANEIM c:ITY PLANNING COMMISS:ON, MAY 3U,_1984 84-331
Commiesioner. Ld Cleice c1a~iFied tha'. a 5'S' wrought iron Eence would meet ~h e
City C~des. Jack White etated t.he exteting block wall could be loweced to 3
feet with wrought iron placed above it to 5'5' ta meet the Ciky C~des. Ne
atated the Asaoctation, how~ver, c er.tainly haa not appr.oved that par.ticular.
plan, ond khe owner would otill have to yet that approval. tle ex~lained in
one area the ~wimming pool is l.ocatRd in the Eetback. Gceg Nasttngs
explained khe setbACk was calculat~~~~ ic~m the edge of the accessway and the
pco~er.~y line actually goes to the other etde oE the str.eet.
Commi~stoner Fler.bst ceviewed thc~ plana with the oppo~ition And the aqent. It
wc,a noted lhere is a'5top Work• ocder per.taining lo the pool and fer~ce on
thi~ property. Commissionec La Clair.e stated she thoughC this could he wor.ke d
out aacotding L~ City Code.s.
it was noLed the Planning Dir.ec~o ~ or hie authocized r.epresentati.ve has
deter.mined thAt the proposed pcoject falls within the definition of
Categocical Exemption~, C1aAS 5, a:~ defined in the State Envirur..nental :mpact
Repor.t GuideltnNS and ~1~, thecefur.e, categor.ically exempt from th~~ requiremen t
to pcepare an EIR.
ACTION: Commiseionex La Claire offere~ Resolution No. PC84-203 and moved f.o~
tes passage and adoption that the Anaheim CtCy P'anniny C~mmtssion ~loes her.e b y
deny Variance No. 34U0 on the basia tF~at th~ fenc~ and pool will have an
advecse effecL on the adjacent pr,oper.ty ownecs and on t,he basis that ther.e a c e
no speciAl circumstances Appltcab le to the proNertY such as ~ize, shape,
topogr.aphy, locatt~:~ and r,urroundings wh~icn d~ not apply to otheti' tdentir_el iy
zoned pcoperty in the same victntty; and that str.lct application uf the Zontng
l:ode joes not deprive the proper.ty of privileges enjoyed by other proper.ties
in the identical zone and classificatton t~~ the victntty.
Cummissioner Herbst stated t~e thought tliis would I~F a little bit har.sh because
this is partly the City's fault since the pe~mit was approved and he thought
it could be r.esolved without campletel.y tearl.ng tt out.
Commiasioner Bushore stated the pool can be ct~anged wfth no problem and the
wrole fence does not have to be removed. He stated the Commisston has to lo ok
at tl~ts as though it was nevec built.
Commissioner Herb$t stated swimming pools have been allowed in front yar~
setbacks previously.
Commissioner La Claire stated she had n~ sympathy for somecne who had
knowledge of the codes, but would have aympathy for a private individual. who
did no~, know what he was doing, but this was a apec house and the contractor
knew he had to get appr.oval.
On rol~l call, the focegoing rer.lutton was pasaed by the following vote:
AlES: BpSHORE~ FRY~ KING, LA CLAIRE
NOES: F30UA~, HERBST
ABSENT: MC BURNEY
5/30/84
MINUTES. ANAEIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMjS8I0N, MAY 30, 1984 __ 8d-332_ _
Jack White, Assiah.ant Ctty AtkocnPy, ~•~ceae~ted the wcitten cight t~ Appeel the
Planning Commieaton's decfaion within 22 days to the Ctty Council.
ITEM N0. 27.
REPORTS AND RECAMMENDAZ'.LONS
A. TENTATI~IE MAP OF T[tACT NO. g821 - Request ~com Al~:n D. Trider., for.
appcoval of r.evised f loor. plans and elevations. Pr.opecty located
apprr~x~mately 345 feet eouth of the center.line of Nohl Ranch Road,
appcoximately 675 feeC wes~ of the center.ltne~ of Solomon Drive.
AGTIUN: Commtastoner Nerbat offeced a motion, secended by Commisaion~r
Ecy and MOTiON CARRIED (Commiasionec MeBur.ney absent), that the AnAh~im
City klanning Commi.ssion does hEreby yrnnt approval ~f revised [loor
plans and elevations for Tentat~ve Map ~f Tr.act No. 9821.
[~. T~;N7'ATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 11600 (REVI:;IOt~ y0~1~ - RequeEt fr.om ~dward
~3. Norris, for an ext~nston of time to T~~ntat.-~ve Tr.act No. 11600 (Rev,
No. 1), p~oper.ty is appr.oximntety 8.3 acreo or. the east side of Henntng
Way, approximately 1,10U feet south of the cantecline of Arborcl:~;n Etoad.
Ac:TION: Commi.ssfonec Hecbst offer.ec! mor.~on, seeonded by Comml.ssioner
King r,nd MU't~IUN CARRIED ( Commissioiier. McBur.ney absent and Commt9atoner
Bushore abstaininy), that tt~e Anahetm City Planntng Commtssion does
heceby granL a i-year extension of time foc Tentative Tract No. 11600
(Rev. No. 1) to Qxpire on June ~, 1985.
ADJOURNMENT•
The~e betng no further busine~s, Commissiuner. Her. bat offeze t a motion,
seconded by Commissioner King and MC~"°IUN CARRIED (Cammisstoner McBucney
a.~sent) that khe meettng be ~idjour.ned.
The rneeting was adjourned was ad journed at 4:35 p.m.
keapectfully subm~tted,
~~~~ ~ . / ' .
~~
Edtth L. Harris, Secr.etacy
Anaheim City Plan~~ng Commisaion
ELH:lm/eh
~0097m
5/30/~~•