Minutes-PC 1974/01/07~ ~
NOTBs At tims of filming it ie
noted eha~ ~ainyt~r of both April 29,1974 ~nd
1~l,~y 24 ~ Y974 ~Car~ with 74~232 .
epcil 29 t4~axing 74-23~~74-2~i2„
Mey 29 mee-tiag ~4•2'2•74-259.
•
~
~
City Hall
Anaheim, Califo~: nla
J~nuar.y 7, 1974
REGUI~AR Ni~FTING OF THE 7~1AIiElM CITY PLAN~IING 40MMISSIpN
IrEGt7LAR - A regulur m~eting of the Anahsim City Planning Commisa ion ~r~Ar~
MEETING ca11.~d to or~]er by Chaicman Gauer at 2:00 p.m., A quorum beirxg
present .
t RF5ENT - CHAI RMAN : GauHr .
- COM~1tSSI0NERS: FArAr.o, Kar~at, Ki.ng, Seymour.
APSENT - CAMMISS IONERS : None .
AI~SO QRESENT - City Attorney: Alan Wat~s
Office Enginee.r: Ja,y Ti.i.us
Zoning S~xpervisox': Charles R~bezts
Assistant Zoning 3upervisor: Phillip Sahwart2e
Conunigsi.on S~crPtury: Patricia Scanlan
PLEDGE UF - Commissioner King led in the P].edge oF Allegiance to the r•lag
ALJ~EGIANC~ of. thp Unitod States af America.
~LECTION aF - Chairmaci Gauer o~~ened nominatione t~ elect a Chairman pro tempore
CHAIRMAN of th~ Anahoim Cj.~y Planning Commisaion, due tn the recent
PRO 'PEN~ORE xesignai;ion of. Cc~mmi saianer Lenzi Al].red.
Commissionex Seym~ur affered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
King and MOTION CRRRIED by unanimoua vote, that Commissioner
Herbst be and hereby is elected Ch~irman pra tem~ore oE the
Ar~aheim City P1.anning Commissfon, sffect~ive immediately .
EAIVIRGN2~NTAL IMPACT - PUBLIC EiFARING. ROBERT H. GRANT CORS~., 221 'V~7est Dyer
PEAI~SON AND
L
E
REPORT NO. 10 9 .
.
Road, S~nta Ana, Ca . 9 2707 , Qwner ;
ASSnCTA7'ES, 3955 Airch Street, Newport Be~ch, Ca. 92660,
RECLASSIFICATION F,gent, Pr~perty described as: An ix~regu'lar2y-shapPd
I30. 73-74-3Q parcel uf. land cons.isting of ap~roximately 2 3, 3 acres
th sidea of Nohl Ranch koad,
d
CANDITIOtJAL USE sou
locatQd on the noxth an
westerly of ths i.ntersection of TmperiaJ. Highway and
PERMI?' *'.Oe 1439 Nohl Ranch Road. property preasntly classifzeci COUNTX
- - A1, G~NERAL AGRICULTURAL, DJSTRICT.
TENTATIVE MAP OF
TRACT NO. 8533
R~QUE5TEG CLASSIF'ICATION : ~
I~Y
~,E
Zb E
SIDENTIAL
REQUES~ED CONDITION~I.L USE; ESTABLISH .~ 149-t1A'IT PLANNED R~SIDr^.NTTAI, DEVELOP^
~N A
MENT, WAIV~NG (A) REC~UIRED FRONTAGE OF IATS
DEDICATED S:^REET, (B) MINIMUM BUILDING SYTE AREA,
(C) b1II~IMUM LIUILDING SITE W~DTI-I, (D) MA7{TMUM
BUILDING HEI~HT WITHIN 150 FFET QF A GI13~I.~-
FAMILY RESZDENTIAL 30NE AND (E) REQUIFtED BLOCK
WALL 1~BUTTING r'~ SINGI,E-P'AMILX RESIAET;T=AL~ ZUNE.
'~~N'1'ATTVE TRACT EtEQUEST: 151 R-2 ZONED ~OTS .
Subject petitions were cnntinued from 'the meeting o~ December 10, 1973, in order
to allow the develop~r time to provide additional. ir-formation as requested by
the Conunission and to resolve the matter of ~he illegal l~t split.
~ne peraon inc~icated hi.s preaence in op~position to subject petitions,
74-1
~
~
~
MINU'1`ES, CI7'X ~'I,ANNZNG C~~4MISSJON, JKnuary 7, 1974 ~~~~
~;NVIRONNI~NTAL IMPAC'P R~PORT N0. 109, '.RECLAS~~FICATTON N0. 73^''4--30, C.O:JDITIONAL
USF PERMiT N0. 1439~ 1~ND TENTATIVE MAP O~' xRACT Nf1. 8533 (Continu~d)
Assistant Zaning Suporvi eor Phillip Sahwartz~ nc~ted for ~he Plannir.g Coumii eaian
that tha petition~r was iequesting a Eurther c~ntinuanca of this mattax~ ~~ ~hat
the pet~ltiona could be readvert•ised to include additiolaa]. acreago und unite.
Commiasloner FxrAr.o of.fexed a moti~n, eeconc3ed by Commi9sionor Herbst attd MQTION
CARRIED, to r.eo~en thP public hea~~a.ng and cantinua r,oneideration nf Environ-
msntal Tmpact fteport Nc. 109, itoclassification No. 73-7A-30, Condi~.ional Use
Parmit No. ~.439, and Tentai:ive Ma~p of Tract No. 8533 to the Planning Commiesian
m9eting af January 21, 1974, ln order that sub ject petitinns could be r.eadvQr-
tised to i.nclude additional acrenge and units, as requested by the peL•itianer.
~NVII:()NMENTAL 1MPACT -
REPORT N0. 111
REGLAS S I I't CAT TON
NO. ?3-74-28
VARxANCE N0. 2566
TENTATI V~ MAP OI'
TR~1C'r NO. 8520 _
PUBLIC HEARING. AIVRHEIM HZLLS ~ INC. AND TEXACO VE;NTURFS,
INC., c/~ Eiorst J. Schor, 380 An.aheim Hills Road,
Anaheim, Cr~. ~2807, Ownox. Property described a~: An
irreyularly-shaped parcel of J.and consi~ ting o~ ap~r~xi-
mately 24 ac.res, hav•ing front~ges af approximat~ly 830
feet on the east side o£ Hidden Cany~n Raad an~l appraxi-
matel.,y 2E3U Eeet ~n th~ n~rtl~ aide of Avenida de Santiago,
raving a maximum depth of ap~,roximately 403 f.ee~ and being
loaated approximately 50Q feet ruutheastarly o~ th~ inter-
sectien of serrano Avenue and iiidclen Canyon Road. Prop-
erty preaently class.ified COUNTY A1, GEN~RAL AGRICULTURAL,
DISTR'tCT.
REQi.TESTED CLA5SIFICAT7nN: R-H~22,000, SING.LE-FAMILY (ONE-HALF ACFtE) ZONE.
REQU~STED VARIANCE: WAIV'E RFQUIR~;NIENT OF SINGLE-FAMIIaX IATS FRQNTING ON AN
A22TE,'tI AL H T GHWAX .
TENTATIV~ TRACT REQUEST: c~-H-22, OC~ ZC:L~EA I~OTS.
Subject pet.i.tiar-s were r~liti.'U~C~ from the me~ting ~f DecemUer 10, 1973, at th~
request of the petitianer ir, ~rder to submit revised plans.
It wa9 nAtc~d that the petitioner was requ~stina an additic~nal four-~,aeek con-
tinuance by his letter dated :Januar}r 3, I974.
CommiSsioner Seymaur• offer~•d a motion, seconded by Comraission~x k'arana and
MOTION CARRIED, i:o fur~her eontinue ~ublic hea.ring for aub~ect ~etitians to
t.he meeting of March 18, 19"4, as requested by the petitioner.
ENVIRQNMENTAL IMPACT - PUBLIC I~EAItING. ANANETM HILLS, INC./TEXACO VENTUEtE~S,
REPORT N0. 108 INC. , 380 Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim, Ca. 92807,
~ Owner; AMERICAN HOUSING GUILU - LOS ANGELES ,~09
CONDITIONAZ USE Westexly Place, N4. 105~ Newport A~ach , Ca. 92660,
PF.RMIT NO. a.436 Agent. Propezty described as: An ir.r~gularly-shap~ed
parcel of land consisting nf approximately 29 acres,
TEN'rATIVE MAP OF having frontages of appr~•.lmately 444 f~et on the north
TRACT NOS . 8455 s tde ~nd 9 37 feet on the south s ide of Canyon Rim R~~aa,
AND 8456 having a maximum depth °£ approximately 889 Eeet, a~ad
bei.ng located approxim~ ely 1200 feet east of the
centerline af Noh~. Ra~~ch Road . Property presently
c2~ssified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQU~STLD COAIDITIONAL U; E: ESTAB~,iSH A 122-UNIT, ONE AND `PWO-STORY PLANNEI~
RESIDEI3TIA-L DEVELOPMENT, :~N+''VI.iG (A) JttEQUIRED :LOT
FRONTAGE, (B) MINIMUM IIUILDING S~TE A~tE1#, (C)
.MINIMUM BUILDING ST.TE WIDTH ~(D) MINIMUM DTS~AWCE
BETWEEN BUILQINGS, (E) MINIMUM YARD AIvD BUILDI~V~
SE~BA~K~ (F) REQUIRED 6-FOOT MASONRY WALL ABUT'PING
R-A ZONE, AND (G) MAXIMUM BUILDINC; HEIGHT WITHIN
150 FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMII~Y ~2ESIDENTIAL 20NE
BOUNDRRY.
~ ~
MTNUTI.S, CxTY PI,ANNTNG CC)MMISSI~N, Janur~ry 7, 1974 ~4-3
EN~~IRONNIGN'1'AL IMPACT It~PORT NO. 108, CONDITTONAL USE P~RMIT N0. lA3G, AND
TEt'PA'TIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 8455 ANn 8456 (ContimYed) !
'PENTATIVF. TR~CT REQUE:aTS: GEVELOPERs AMEkICAN E~OUSIN~ G'UILD, 409 Westezly
P1eCe, No. 105, Newport Boach, Ca. 9266Q.
~:NGINLFR: WYLLGJ~N ENGINEERIIVG a1.~"SOCIATES , 125
South Claudina Street, Anahei.m, Ca. 92P05.
Sub~ec~ tracto are~ pro~,oAC~d for aubdivisic~n as
follawa:
Tract No. 8455 - 15.6 acrQe - 73 R-2 zonE~d lot~~i s
Tr.act No. d956 - 13.1 acrc~s - 49 R-2 xaned lots.
5ub~ect p~ti~.ions wer.e conti.nuQ~ from the meetinga o£ Novon~Uer 26 and Dece~n-ber
27. 1973, in order for fihe potittdner to submit revised p].ans.
It was noted that t:~e patiti.on~r was rc~quesLing a furth~r continuancE t~ the
mQOting of J~nuary 21, 1974, in or.der to submit the revis~sd plans.
Commissionei• Kinc~ offered a motion, secon~ied by CommisatonQr I'arano and MOTION
CARRI~D (Commi~s ionez 5eymour abstainaci) to fur•ther continue gublic ~zearing
and consideration af ~nvir~nmezztal Impact Repart No. 108, C~r~ditianal Use
Perrr~it No. 1936, and Tentativo Mr~p of ~'ract Nos. 8455 ana eaF,6 to the meeting
of January 21., 1974, ac~ reqvested by the p~titioner.
Commissioner Seymour ~ta.tcd he was abstaining from voting on ~.:hs sub ject pati-
ti~ns becau~e he had had business doalings in tkie past and current business
deallz~gs 4~ith Mr . Roqers of Westfiald DEValopmc~nt Company, thE. devel~per, and
that he was also the licensed saZes agent for i:he new si.ngle-x amily homes being
developed adjacent ~o subject-. projects.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLI(; HEARING. INZTIATED BX THE ANAfiE]:M C:ITY PL~INNING
:VO. 73-74-35 CO!rSMISSION, 20~9 ~ast Lincoln Avenue, Anahei.m, Ca. 92805J
~ro~.:~aing that pro~erty described as : An "L" shaped parcel
of ~and consisting of appraximately 1~7 ~cres, having
approximate frontages of 510 feet on the west aide of Euclid St:•eet and approxi-
mately ?.000 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenuo, and bein~; located approxi--
malely 330 feet west of Lhe centerline of Onondaga Street, be rr+classified from
the COUNTY R4, SUBURBAN RESIDENTI.RLP DISTRICT and CITY R-A, AGR::CULTURA.L, 7,ONE
to the CITY OF .z1TAHEIM R-A, AGRICU'LTURAL, ZONE.
It ~ras noted tYiat City Staff wt~s reque~ting a con~a.nuance to the maetiilg of
January 21, 1974, in order that subjec~ petition could be heard with Reclasai-
ficati~n No. 73-74-36, whicY. was being readvertised f.or public hearing on
January 21, 197 4 .
Commissioner Farano offered a motion, seconded b,y Commissioner K~Lng a.nd MOTION
CARRIED, to continue gublic hearing and conr~ideration of Reclass:lficatian No.
73-74-35 to the meeting of January 21, 1974, in order tc~ be hearci with
Eteclassification No. 73-74-36.
GENERAI. PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CI7'Y PI,ANNING
92805;
Ca
Anaheim
e
A
l
AMENDN~NT N0. 130 .
,
,
venu
n
COMMISSION, 204 F:ast Linco
to consider updating tl-ie Anaheim General Plan re.lating to
the area general.ly located between La Palma Avenue and the
Riverside Freeway and Euclid Street and Brookhurst Street.
FNVI ~NN~NTAL S NIl~ACT - PUBLIC HEARING. BRI GHAM YOiJNG UNIVERS TTY , a U~ah nozi-
rofit corporation, 50 East South Temple, Salt Lake City,
113
REPURT NO. p
Utah 84111, Owner j MP.TREYEK HOMES , I2dC ., P. O. Box 711 ,
.AT~ON
RECLASSiFT; Upland, Ca. 91786, Agent; requestiny that property dea-
,
73-74-sb
N0 cribed as: An "L" ahaped parcel of land consisting of
.
-` approximately 137 acrea, having approximate frontaqes of
510 feet on the west side of ~uclid Stzeet and 2000 feet
on t}~le north s ide of La Palma Avenue, and being located approxi.mat~ly 3:l0 f~et
west of ~he c~nter line of Onondaga Street, be recla~sified from the R-A,
AGRICULTURAYr, 70NE to the PC, PLA.NNLD ^.OM.MUNITY, ZONE.
~
w
~
MINUTk~S, (:ITY E~LANNING COI~IMTSSTON, ,7anu~ir.y 7, 1~74 74-4
GENFRAL PLAN F~MENDMENT NO. t30, ENVIRONMENTFIL IMPAC'.l' R~PCRT N0. 113, AND
REL(r,ASriIFICATIOIV NO. 73-•74-36 (Cantinued)._ - - - _
It was izot.od that City 5taff waa re~uesting a cnntinur~nca to the meeting of
January ?1, 1974, in o~~der the~t suh~~ct ~e~titi.one cou.ld be zeadvertised.
Commissi.oner Farano oifererl u mo~ion, 8ecor~c3ed by ~:ommiasioner King nnd MUTI~N
CARRTED, to continu~ ~ubject petitj.onn tn the m~e~ing of January 21, 1~74, aa
roq~xested by Ci~y St~aff.
CONDITIONAL USE; - PUBLIC FIEARING. FkANK LUNETTA, 1201 Garret•son Avenu~,
PERMIT N0. 1438 Corona, Ca. 9].720, Ownart FP.ANK ST~PHAN, Paciftc Coast
Ad~usters, P. 0. Box 6034, Anahei.m, Ca. 928UG, Agent;
requesting permiseion to EST~LISH THE OUTDOOR STORAGE
OF REPOSSE: SED VEHJCLES WA~VING (A) MTNIMUM REQUIREA LANDSCAPING IN I'RONT
SETHACK, (B) REQUIRED G-FOOT MASOi1RY WALL ENCLOSING OUTDQnR USF ANQ (C)
MINIMUM REQUIRED NUMT~ER OF PARKING SPACES on propezty descrik~ed as : A
rectangularl.y-shaped par.cel of land coneietinc~ of approximately .53 acre,
haviiig a frontage of approximately 8U feet on the west side of Nart21 Leman
Stxeet, having a maxi.mum depth of approximately 290 feet, and bei.ng locatc:d
approximately 340 feet north of the centerline of Rmm~eya Drive. Propexty
presently classified M-1., LIGHT INDUSTRIAI.,, ZOLJE.
~ubiect p~titior. ;~as conti.nued from i;he DQCembEr .i.0, 1973 meetina in order
~.hat th~ petitioner cauld be pr~sent.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petiti.on.
Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it
i3 referred to and made a part af tha minutes.
Mr. Frank Stephan, 861 Stone Circle, Anaheim, agen~ for the property owner,
anpeared before the Commissian and stated he was owne•r of Pacific C~~ast
Adju~ters, a licen~ed rep~ssession agency in the State of C~liforniaj that
h~ praposed to use subject pro~>erty for tho ~torage ot reposses~ed automobiles;
and that his petition far conditional use permit waR self-explanatory.
T~iE PUI3LIC HEARING WAS CLO5ED.
Upon inquiry of Commissioner Seymour regarding the requested waivers, Mr.
Stephan replied they proposed to have 7 park~ ng spaces fox use by the customers,
hawever, th~ Code required ~; that c~ncerning landscaping, they were looking to
the Planning Com~~i.ssion for whatpver was re~uired and they WOLl~.~ bP wi~.ling to
provide same; that since they did not own the property, they did not a~ant to
improve it until they knew exactly what they had to da; and that the owners
had filed the petition in thei. ~ behalf .
Upon iriquiry of C~mmissioner Eierbst, Mr. Stephan stated they pre~entl.y had a
five-yea.r lease or~ subjPCt pr.operty and that he would stipttlate to withdrawing
the request far waiver of the minimum front ~etback ~.andscaping ,3d~aaent to a
secondary arterial highway and would provide the 10 f.Pet of 1anf,s j aping tha~
was requir~d.
Regarc~ing the encloaure of. the use, Mr. Stephan statea a p~rtion of the north
property line and the rear ot the pxoperty presently had a bloc'c ~uall; tha~
they had discuased full enclosure of the property with the Police Department
~nd if the property was compl~tely enclosed it wou].d present a problezn as far
as security was concerned; and Lhat none of the sto•red vehicles would be visible
from ~he street or any ather p~int oi vision .
Upon queationing of Commission~r T'arAno, Mr. Stephan a~ated preaently their
vehicles that weze disablod~ were being 6tored at Anaheim-rullerton Au~omobile
iRlreckers, across the strpet from aubject praperty= that basically aI1 of the
r~possese~d vehicles were being stored for. banks in the srea; ~.hst the vehic].es
they storea wexe not disabled c~r wrecked ard were strictly runable automobiles;
ihat because o~ the size of sub~ect praperty they wers unable to store auto-
mobil.es which c~uld not be movec about= that he would stipul.at~ to atoring any
one automobil9 for a maximum af 30 d~y~ and that only automabile~ wii.h the
ability to be driven in and out c,~ the atarage yard would bp stiored at the
suLjact location.
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PI~J~NNING COMMISSIAN, January 7, ].97~4 74-5
CONDITIONl+L USE PEItMTT NO. 14~8 (Continuod)
Commissioner. Farano nutac~ that thc~ro h.~d beer- otha~ r~corage yards sc~,ch as the
one being propoead, which begr.n by etorinc~ rc~poseessed autamc~biles a,nd ended
up with ~unked a<<ton~obiles.
Upon questionir~q by Commissioner King concorning landscaping, Mr. Ste~han
stated he would work with the City and pruvidc~ the r_eq~aired landscap~ng aub3e,et
t.o the approval of the City.
In reply to qu~~tioning a~ Gommisaioner Farann, Mr. Stephan stated tl~e tool
shed on the property would bQ ua~d for atar.ing personr~a. effQCta take~t fram
automobiles and placed in small boxas.
Aasistant Zoni.ng Supervisor Phillip Schw~rtza clarifiod far C~m~niaeioner. King
that the Code would normally r~quire any outdn~r ueP be screened by ~- 6-~oct
masonry wallj h~w~ver, along the nurth proper4:y line which abuta somE~ vacant
M-1 Qroperty, he would have t2ie option of a block wa11. or a chainlink: Eence
with slats. It was further. no~ed that fencing wxs na* required from l:ho face
of the building out to the si:reet.
Commissioner. Seymour offerpd a mation, soconc~ed. by Cammissioner King arid MO~ION
CARRIED, tha~t the Planni.ng Comm~ssi.on, in connection wi.th an Axemption declar.a-
tion stat~~s request, finds and determines that ~the propos-~1 would hav~e no
significant environmental impact and, therefore, reaommends to the Ci.ty Council
that no Environmental ImPact Staten-ent i~ neces~ary.
Cammissioner Seymour o£fered Rdsalution No. FC74-1 and moved far its passage
and adoption to grant Conditiona.l Uae Permit tJo. 1~38, in part, since the
petitioner s•tipulated ta witY.dr.awal ~f Waiv9r a; that Waiver b is l~er~sby granted
in part ~ince ti.he ~~etitioner stipulated that all 6~•foot chainlink fenc~ing pro-
posed in ~onjunction with the existing 6~foot inasonry L•encing fia fu11y screen
subject ixse would be interw~ven. w~.th rodwood slats; that Waiver r. is gr~nted
on the basis that th~ request. is mini.mal for subject use; and that the pc~ti-
tioner stipulated to the coniiitians that he would limi.t the use •to atorage of
operable vehicles ~nd that no vchicles would be storecl .'.n Exces3 of 3U (thirty~
daya; ancl subject to canditions. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoi.ng r.esnlution was pas~ed by the Following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Herbst, King, SeymoLr, Gauer.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: GOMMISSIONERS: None.
Upon inquiry of Mr. Stephan, Mr. Schwartxe advised hA should conta~t 5taff in
the Zoning Divi3ion £or direction as to the required landsca~ing.
CONnITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. J. D. AND ST~LLA NORTON, 1217 South N~atwood
PERMIT N~. 1440 Street, Anaheim, Ca. 92864, Awners; G~RALD A. DUCOT, 3~A0
Malibu 'Vista Drive, M~libu, Ca. 90265, Agent; rec~uesting
permission to ESTAF3LISH A YRE~-S~HOQl, THR~JUGH FIRST GRADE
SCHOOL WAIVII~G (A) MAXIMUM BUILDING IiEIGHT, (B) MINIr1UM SIDE Y11RD SE?'i3ACK,
(C) MINIMUM SIDE SETBAGK FnR ~CHOO:.,. AI~D (Q) MAXIMUM FENC~ ~~T~~CeiN f~~landND
REAR YARDS on property described ~$. A rectangular~.y-~haped ~
consisting of approximat~ely .8 ~cre, having a f..~ntage of approximately 168
feet on the so~xth side of Aall R~7ad, having a m~ximum depth af r~pgraximately
197 feet, and beirlg located at the sc~uthwest corner of Ball Raad and Nutwood
Street, and furkher deacribed as ~900 Wcast B~I.1 Rcad. Property ~resPntly
classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
Na one appeared it ogposition re subject pezition-
Although the Repart to the Cc~mmissaan was not r~aad at the public hAarir~g, ft
i.e referred to and macle a gart cf the minuto~.
Mr. Gerald Ducot, agent for ~hE ~roperty owner, appettred before the Commission
and stated t~:e neighbors on bott~ sides of aubjoct property w~re in favor o~
the propoeed use and wAre aware Uf the lac}~ af setback; that tho reason for
~ ~
MINUT~S, C~'I'X PI,ANNING COMMTSSION, ~anuazy 7, 1974 74-1i
COND]:mIONAL USF PEI~MIT NU. :1440 ~ont3.nueci)
khe r~qucated 8-f.oot fencc~ heiyht ~a~ duE to the f:act thr~t they wauld hav~ a
l~t ai playgraund ~qu~pm9nt whi.oh wA~ un att.ractivp luisan~:e and h~: wae nat
so r.Uncernod about the little ehi.ld.ren qetting out ; he wa~ the childr.er~ an
the outeidc~ ge~.ting i.n and the 8-fr~ot ~c~nc~ wou:~d p, ~v~de proCecti.on t.o tt~,e
ahildren ~n t}ie outaide over the weekends.
T'iF~ PUfiI.,IC H~ARING WA8 CLOSED.
Cammissi.oner Herbst n~ted that it aE~pearQd the proposa? had a drastic pr.~blem
as i~. relr~ted i.o the tr~£fic on Bal.l Road and egress and ingress to th~ dut~3ect
property; that the drivewuy was with!.n 2~ f.e~.t of the intersECtion ot Nv~wood
Street ar.d Ball Road and also there was no ti~i•n-around once tt~r. carg onterod
the property~
Mr. Ducot atat;.ed in x~buttal that thPf had provided mor~: parking thr~n ::equired;
however, thei.r experience had been that bec~xuse of the time 1ap~e ov~r which
ahildz~en werc~ dropp~d o.ff, the numb~r of ~~arking spaces a.Lway~s waf~ minimalj
that sin~e the paren+s oL• the childran would be required to park their c:~rs and
take their children inside to be c3~ecked prior L•o leaving them, no turr-P~ound
was n`cQs~st:,ry .
The Planning Commission generr~lly concurred that the traEt-ic problem b~i.rig
cre~ted ~y tkie proposal was serious anci ~h~.t the plans shau.id be .reviaed.
ilpon inquiry of Chairman Gauer, Mr. Ducot indicated a contlnuancE~~ to thF
meeting of F~ebruaxy 4, 1974, would be satisfactcry to him.
Commissioner Seymour o~fered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fax•ano and
MOTION GARkIED, to reopen the public ltearing and continue cong:Lderation of
Conditiona?_ Use Permit No. 1440 to the metating of February 4, 197a~ in ordei-
f~r the petitioner to submit revised p:lana.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBL]'G HEARING. CLIFFORD H. HEMMERLING, c/~ Jack 1\ndereon,
PERMIT NO. 1447 2333 North Broadway, Santa An.~, Ca. 97.706, Owner; S. F.
- " SCHOLL, 1574 Ganeah Place, Pomona, ra. 91768, Agent;
requesting pe~tniasion to ESTABLISH 1~J AU?OMOBILE SALES
RGENCX AND SERVICE FACILITIE~ WAIVING (A) MINIMUM NUNII3ER ~F OFFwSTREET PARKING
SPAC~S, (B) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGN~, ('C) MINIMUM DI5TANCE HE`.I'WEEN
FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (L~) MINIMUM SIGN HETGHT, (E) MAXIMUM SIGN HEIGHT, (F)
PERMZTTED LOCATION OF F'REE-STANDING SIGNS AND (G) MINIMUM Rk~QUIRED PARKxNG AREA
I.AND5CAPING on property descr~.bed as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of J.and
cunsisting of approximat~.l.y 6 acres, having a frontagE of a~proxianately 428
feet on the we3t side of Euclid Street, having a maximum depth of approximately
609 feet, arid being located appzoximately 411 feet south of the centc:rline af
Lincoln Avenue. Prope.rty presently cZassifiad C•-1, GENERAL~ COM~:RC"tAL, ZONE.
No one appeared in opposiL-ion to subject petitic+n.
Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the publi~~ hearing, it
is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Rudc,lpho Montejana, attorney, 1210 Nor~h Broadway, San~a ~1na, represpnting
Vern Trider Chevrolet, appeared beEore the Commis3i.on and advised tha'L• Mr. Vern
Tri3er, Mr. Jack Ande~:son of Co].dwell, Banker & C.ampany, and Mr. Kno:il Tomberlan~~
representing ~he contractor, were all oresent at this public hearing to answer
any yuestions~ regarding subject petition.
THE PTJBT~IC HEARING WAS CLOS~D .
Upon queationinq of Commissioner Farano, Mr. Anderson stated regarding r.ustomer
~arking that the z~eed for parking at thQ automobile d~alership wae no morn than
80 spaces, which tihey were allowing in addition to ¢he H8 pazktng spaces for
new and u~~d car display, and that their baei.c plan was to us~ the southexly
porti.on o£ subj~ct propPrty for new car storage. Commissioner Farano noted
that one problem with new car agancies was that the parking SI]AC~' allotted E~r
customers ende3 u~ as new car storage and with the current c:nergy cris~.s. s~ame~
u
~^1I~
~
MzNU'P~.a, C.i'1'Y PI~ANNIp1G COMMTSSICN, Jat~uary 7, 1974
CUNUI'I'TON1tLML'SE Prl'~MIT N~~. 1447 (Cont:I.nuQd)
o.f tha automoUila dealer.sl~ipa H~er~ anding u~~ w.ith
autamobi 1Pe ; and chAt the c:or+m:.saion wauld .l1.ke t.o
to cus tom~~r park inc~ .
^I Q'7
a cor~siderable invFntory of
have a specific commitmer~~
Cc~mmissione~r tiorb:~t nntecl cunrerninc~ wa~ver of tha required minirntun number of
~.~rf.--stre~k pnrk' ng n~~~'~r.ea, thr~t he di.~3 not see a need for the wxi.ver se thero
was amplr~ roam to be utili.zed for t:h.ia purFaee; and that he did nut want euc:h
n:l.ar~,~e propQrty to t-ave a cnnmi*ment o~ 80 parking sr~aces whan i.t sh~,i.ld have
1.34 .
A:~bistant Zoning Supe• visor '~'hil.li.~ 5chwartze advi.sed, upon quer3tioning rrf
c:ummi~aio:~nr Seymour, that the St~ff Repc-rt to the Comm{ gsion indicated a
gx~t~t d~a1 of discuasic~n rec~arding the amaunt of parkin,q spacesi that wou].d
n~rm~lly bc requirwd and th+xt several options wore pr.•eaented for Commissior-
conaidera~i~~n; ~nd that the tru~ requiremsnt could v~ry frona r~s high as 1:~4
spncc~e, to as low as 90 spar~s depending upon the formul.a.
Mr. AndeXSan 3tat~d regarding the proposed signs that one F•ould be an identi-
ficat.ion sign .far thG dealerahip, one would indicate "Used Car~" and ~hP other
would be a directional sic~n indicatinq "Servic~ Entrance."
C~mrn:~ssi~ner Seymour noted ttiat the requesrod ~~a.tvers of m?.ni:~.um and rnaximum
stqri height seemed to be small variancea and inquired what ju:~tifiication
caul~ be given. Upon further dxscussion or these items, Dlr. F-nder~an stipu-
].ated they would yo back tc~ tYxe aign peo~le and try ta meet those r.equiremonts
anci, ~thei~~fare, they were withdrawiny said Waivers "c1" and "e" .
M.r. Schw,:~rt•ze advised concerning permitted ~.acation of free-standing aigna,
I:t~i~ rel:it~d to the nurmal requirement that the sign~ b~~ located f~ar inatance
i~i the cc+:lker 2U$ of the pr.oporty and that the petitioner was trying tu sepa-
rate thc~ signa actoss tYie fr.ontaq~e, thus tiecasai.tating the waiver.
Mr. Schwar~ze noted r~r the Conuni~aiori tYiat• a typographi.cal error exiated in
thE;: Staff Report, page 7-a, paray~api~ (2)g, "208 of parking area required"
should be changed to read "2$ o£ parking area requirE:d." H~ clarified that
tha Code normallS~ requi.r.•ed 2~ of ou~.door visible parking space be landscaped.
Further., the comrlent in ~the Staff Repart an paga 7-Y.~, paragraph 13, referred
to a Plr~nni.ng Cornmission policy which w~s not a Cade requirament, and the
poli4y wa~ to require a 20--foo~ landr~cag~d buffer •:o separate commercialLy
zuned propr-.rty f.rom, in this instance, multiple-i'a~nily and sinq~a-family
resicleiitial azeas, which were 1~ca+~ed to the west oi subject property; that the
pe~:itioner wa~ seeking a waiver ot eaic, poli~y an~.~, tharefore, it was nat
~isted as a requesLed Code waiverf that no lar_dacaping was proposed for the
wc.s~terr. portion of aubject~ property which the pe `~.iti~ne.r_ was now indica~ing
Eor storaqe of aut,omobiles and pa~~ed. Thereupor;.~ Mr. xr.ider app~ared befoxe
tihe Commi~sion ~nd stipulat~d to withdrawal of "aiver "g" and further gtipu-
lat.~d to provi.din5 a 20-faot wide landscaped strip alang the. Enti.rn westerly
property line adjacent ta resi~iential uaes.
Commia5ioner F'aranc~ entered into diaeussion w.th Mr. Anciers~n. regarding the
aggr.egate sign ~ar.ea ~nd Mr. Anderson indicale i they would pref~i• to have tt~e
three signs si.nce there was a defin~.te requirement for them an~: tha.t th~y
would stipulate tn wi~thdrawing W~ivar "h" in thia regard.
Commiaeioner Seymcur notc~cl that for same tirae tha interseetiorl ~f Linc:oin
Avenue and ~uclic3 3t.r~et had beer, considered a k~azardous int•erseatiu~: and t~ad
been unc3er discussion by the City And the L-opartment of Highways ta find a
solutic~n to corx•er.t5.ng the mituationt that one af the alternatives had b~c~n
disc~uesion of an ot~ezpass over Li~nco].n Avenuet that although he wa8 not up to
date on t!~c~ matter, he wanted tc know if t4r. Tridar was aware that thi~ matter
wa~ bQinc~ cons:~deredF fi.hat there was a ve~ry realistxc ~ossibil.ity the~t ~-t some
iime~ in th.e nc~r~r future the Stiate of California might be propoainq, al~ng with
tha City, ta buil.d an ov~rpass over Lincoln 7~venue running Euclid Str.eet ovar
Lin~oln A~venu~r that: if ~'uc11d St:reet overpaguec9 Li;icoln Avenue, it had t~
come down and hu waF not sure at what grade it would comr dawn, and this mtght
paa~ibly move the ingress and egrese poin~ on Euclid for the propos~d projac~.
Mr. Tridqr itacii~at~d he had r,a farmor kna~lQBge of ;.he~ rorego~ng infarmr~rion,
preec~ntEd by r~ommissioner Seymour.
~ 1
~
~
~
MINUTF.S, CTTY PLANNZNG COM1~1~:5SI~N, ,7ur~uary 7r 1974 74~-8
CONAITIONAL USE PF~RMIT NO._1447 (~an~inued)
Upon inr~u•lry ot Conanis~ioner F'nrsno, Mr. Monte;~Ano s~~oka in bc~half oE Mr. Trider,
nnd at.ated thoy wrn~ld like t~ oni~in tha a~~pxoval of. th~ coxtdit~.ona1 uae g~xmit
in tarm~ of the conditi~ns aga-~~ed u~on at th:lc~ meet~ny and sub~~ect to Mz .'I'Xide~r
beiiig +~-k~le ~o ait down a~~d re~~iew tha conditioiia r~n~l th~ ~ropo~ed p.lunning with
the Ctty wit.h regaxd ~o *.hc~ .1.n~ersec~.ion o.f I,incoln Avenu~3 and Fuclid S~.rcet,
tp seo if adju3tments mig`~t be requixed ka t}ie act~:,~l p:lans and apaciYi.catiur.~
of the proposed pr.o;je,ct.
Gommisaianer ~arano statad the reaanr~ thia tnforrt~e.tion was bt.~.ng brought out at
this meeting concerning the intersec~tion w~s in a'.1 fairneso c~ Mr. MontejAno's
client, as the Cam~nission did not want Mr. Trider to onE day ~incl a 10-foot;
grade in front of h~.~ place o.f bu~ineae ar.d, further, ti-~: Commxs~c~ion di~ not
want to see som~~~ne bua.lcl ir- a!~Urdship whieh th~. c.iL•y waulc~ also have ~o ].ive
with i.n terms of furtlier variances,
Commi~sioner Farana of fel-ed a motipn, aeconded k~y Cummi.ssi.onar Se;~rnour ttnd
MOTIC)N CAItRIIED, that tkze Pla:~n~.nc~ Commission, i~~ c~nn~ctian wiL-h an ex~m~tion
decl.ar.ation status request, fincis ~nd determine~~ thAt the proposal wauld have
no si.gnificani: environmental impact and, theref`arc~, recommends to the City
Council that no Cnvir~nmental Impact St~*.emc.nt is neceasar~-.
C~mmisstoner Fa.zana offered R~s~lution No. PC"~4~2 ~nd maved for its passr~ge
and adoptian to grant Petition fo.r Candit~nna: Use Pezmit No. 1447, in part,
since the petirionF~r stipulated to rvith~rawal of Wai.tr~.r.s a, ~, e, g, and h;
th~t Waiver b ~s grant~d on thc baeie tkaat tr~o af ~he free-stanc~ing signs were
directional and determi.ned tc, bc essential f~r the pr.ogosed u~e; that Waiv~rs
c and f are granted on the basis that a har~ship would be irnposed i.f these
waive.ra wer~ not c~rantPd; rh«t a 20-fo~t vri~le ~.andscap~d strip a].ong the entire
wesrezly pr~~~erty ]ine ~djac~~nt to resident~.al uses shall be providad as stipu-
lated L•o by the peti~~oner; that the westerl~ portion of surject prop~:r~y
pro~osed to bP pavEC' ~hall be userl for sL•orage of new automobilas, as stipulated
ta k~y the prtiti.~r~~ ; ~'.':at the p~ti'tiorer was present with c~unsel at said
publi.c hearing ar~ ~coqni.zed that future harrlships might be cr~~ted by an over-
pass a~ I~incoln ue and Euclid Street, wliich had beer_ under discusaion by
City officzals _hE c•alif~rn.ia State Divi~fon of Higtiways, and th~.t approval
of. the r.ondi.tic z~=e~ r~ermit is made sub~ject to the~.r investigation and de~er~
minatian o.f ar• ~r~ti~~=~ planning of the California State Division of Highways
for said over^~.~ •-,~ .~` if c~nstructed mi.ght nec~esitate changes to the aub-
mitted plans te~-~~rgment of subject propertyt and subject to c~nditions.
(See RQ~oiu~- ~..>
4n roll ca1 ~. ~~going resolutian was passed by the follawing vate:
AYES: Cc~N:~ ~>•"~`'~~-hS: Farano, Herbat, King, Seymour, Gauer.
NO~S: ~owu~~t ~=t . 7riE~5 : None.
ABSENT: :npt^ . ~~ ~ ~)NERS : None .
CONDITIONA~. ~:~:: - READVERTISED PUBLIC I~EARING. W. R. AND PATRICIA MILLEfi,
pER1yIT t~0, ~1~-~. c/o H. R. Plu~nke~~ Attorney at Law, 808 Western, Glendale,
~ c'a. 91201, Owners= requeating permisaion far BUS STORAGE
ADiD T+''PAIR FACILITIFS AND THE INCIDENT'[AT, RENTAL OF AUTO-
MDBILES Qn z~r.,:,~arty de~ .ibed as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land con~
sistir~g ar ar •= _oximate ,.y . 40 acre, having a fronta3e oi appro:simately 72 feei:
on the ~~utt~ ,ide of Katella Way, having a maxtmum depth of approximately 240
Peut, an~i be..zg located approximately 250 feet weat of the centerline of
Mountain ~:iew- P-venue, ar.d furth~r ~lescribed ae 304 E~ast Katella Way. Property
presently c:.as~ified C-2, GENERr+L COMMERCZAL, ZONE.
A.ssist.aait ~oning Supervisor Phil~ip ~chwartze noted for the Commisaion that
sr,ff had contacted the petitioner by telephone and tihe petitionr~r was request-
ing a two-wePk continu~ncQ in order that he might be present.
Commissioner Seymour offered a motion, secanded l~y Commiasioner King and MOTION
(;ARR2EQ, to continue publia hesring and c~nsiaeration of Conditional Use Permit
No. 1166 to the meeting of Janunry 21, 1974, in ~order for the peti~ianer. to be
pr.~aeent.
~
~
MTNU'CES, CTTY FLANNING ~OMMISSION, ~Tanue.ry~ 7, 1.974
74 -9
CONaITION~-L USE - PUBI'~IC HF.HR.iNG. AI+FRED L,. CARU~O, M.D., 1~191 ~ast La Pal.tna
PFRMZT NO. 1~+48 .Avc~nue, An~heim, Cs. 92805~ Uwnert 80B OVERMAN, ?.227 5auth
'"'- Bri.atol Stree•t, Sr~nta A~na, Ca. 927U4, l.gent; rAqu~sting
pe~.~nission to F~TAHLl'~H AN ANIBULANCP; SERVIC~ IN AN EXYSTING
MEpICI~L BUILDING on property described as: A~-ectaiu,~ularly-shapAd parasl oi
land conaietiny of app.rc~ximately .65 acre,, havi.ng a fron~age af ap~roximate,ly
123 f~ot an t.he north side oi I,a Palmd Avenue, 1Yaving u frontaye of ~ppr'~ximately
232 feet on the west aide of Acaaia Strc~et, anci furthQr described as 1491 ~ast
L,a ~a1.ma Avenue. Prcrorty pxesent,ly classi£ied C-]., G~iJERAi~ COMMERCIAL, ZUNE.
Approximately eight neraons indicated thoir prFasenoe in opFosttion to subje~ct
petition.
Assistant Zoning Stxpervisor Phillip Schwartzc~ x•ead the Staff R~port to the
Commi.seion dated January 7, 1.974, az~d aaid Staf'f R~port is rAferred to as if set
forth in full in ttie minutes. Mr. Schwar.tze Eurther noted that the petitlondr.
had fiZed a letter signed by 19 area resic~ents indicating they endoxsod i:he
proposed 24-hour ambulance servir.e, and ~h.at one letter had been r.ecei.ved
opposinc3 the propased use and citing the disturbance th~ ambulance sirens coulc~
cauae in a residen~.ial nr~~,.
Mr. Bob Ovsrman, the petitioriar~ appeared befar~ the Commission and sta~~d he
was the ma.nager af Schaefer Ambulance Service, Oranc~e Caunty Division; that they
were a contr~ct ambulance ser~ic;e fo.r the Acaaia M~dical Center which was headed
by Dr. Alfred Caruso; that tl~e medical center was a State li.censed hPalth main-
tenance oiganizai:ion, a prepaid health plan which ae~med to be tha current trend
of ineurance pragxams catering ~o Medicare pa~ients= that at the pr.esent time
the Acacia Medir,al Center was servi.ng a~proximately 110U patients and they ex-
pected to be serving approximately 4000 in April and progressing to 5000 patient
capacity i.n the months to f~llow; that khe medica:l centex also served as an
induatrial m~dical facility for the industxies in Anaheim and surrounding areas.
Mr. Uverman eontinued thaL- their clasest ambulance facility pres~nt].y was
located in Santa Ana and that. it i;ool: time to coine from Santa Ana to the Anaheim
area to pick up pati.ents at ~~h~ Acacia Medical Center with whom they were con-
tracted; that those who suffered from the long rpi;gonse time were the patienta;
~hat the present response time was below their can,pany standards and, in his
opinion, was inadequate for those tY~ey servedt th-.t in addition to serving the
Ac~cia Medical. Center, they al~o were contracted with Kaiser Foundation and
Ross Loos Me3ical Group; khat they were not asking f~r locat;on in the City of
Anaheim to pase a hardship on other ambulance servicE~a that might be sexvicing
the City as far an. the Police Depaztment and emergen~i2s were concerned but
that they wer~ a~:king f~r locati.on in the City in ord~er to pruvide theix can-
tract patients with the service they de~erved.
Fat}~er James Nash, Pastor of St, Anthony ~hurch, 1441 East La Palma Avenue,
ar,peared bef~re the Comznission and stated the Church a:lso had a school for
approximately 600 children, that ~ince receiving the n~tice of publi.c hearing
on the petition, they liad circu~ated a petitian and gathered approximatelX 36
signatures from the local residents and hundr.eds of sigiyatuxes of che parent~
who had children in the school, all in opposition. Father Nash read the first
page of the petitions in oppositian which noted the purpose of t};e opposition
being 1) that thEre were tkiree :iCY10018 dnd two churches i.n ~he imme~iate prox-
imity to the subject loca.tion and that from a~io~~se standpoint, the ambulance
aervice would be hiahly d~.sturbing to the schools during the classroom Yiours,
to the r.hurches durinq ser~~~ices, and to the many residents of the community;
2) that the inters~.ction ~7f La Palma .~venuP anci Acacia Strc~~~ was immediately
adjacen~ to th~ pr~poaed Loca~ion and saicl intersection was arossed by hundreds
af small children going to and fxom achool daily and, in hi~ opinion, an a.mbu-
lance aervice operatsd un3er emergency conditions certainly would increase the
danger to the ~mall chi.~.dren; 3) that at the prasent time thE~ community was
being serviced by South].and Ambulance Service, located at State College Boule-
var.d arid Placentta Avenue, whi.ch was within one mile of the prn~osed location;
that in view of the foregfling reasons, thQ Commiasion wae resoectfully requeated
~o ap~os~ approval of the petition for ConditionaZ Use P~rmit No. 1448. E'ather
Nash continued by atating he did not know for aure but he had an idea that
additional praperty had b~3en purchased with the intent to increase the area
for the new facilityj that.~ in hi.s o~in~,on, 3,t wae a jake ~:hat a.mbul,ance dxivezs
would no~ blow their horn until they were out nf the imme~iate a~ea; that. he
^~~
~ ~
MINUTES, CZ'~X QI.~AtiI3ING CC~MMISSIUN, JanuarX 7, 1~74 ~a~1Q
CpNpITTONAL USE P~RMI'P NO., 1.4~38 (Continued)
l~vod ten year.e in downtown Taas Ang~le~ on the xauto b~~weon CenLral Rec~i~~ing
Hospital and ~ho Ca~~nty Ha~pi~,al and he knew what it m~ant nJ.~ht after. ni.y~tit ta
bE int•.Errupted ~n hio slee~~ that although the use would not advc~~.~sely nf~'ec~
land usos in the araa, it wou].d affect thc t~enlth enc7 w~lfare, and be disturb-~
ing to the community: anc9 tha'. he w~as apeaking for i.hc residents and othets ~r
opposltion to sub jecL• get~.tion. F~kha~' NA8~1 preRCent~,~ the peatition cot,taining
approxima~ely 38 siynaturea oi: local rev~denta.
Mr.•. Rudy Valenxu~la, 1.:~15 Cozy Tezcaae, Anaheim, app~+areci be~ore the Cc~mmi3ofon
in ap~o~ i.ti.on to sub ject petil:ion r~nd $tntod he w~a a~ar.ent oP ~ne ot the
chi.ldren attendiz~g ~t . Anthony Clar~+t F:l~montn~-y Sahool F that he wanted to re-
emphaeizF what I'ather Nash had statec! concerning the noiue ds it H'~~ul.d be detr~.~
m~ntal tn t.he ch~.:.dren's studiea ~nc~ ttia~: wae why so me~ny Aignatur.•es wei9
garherec~ ~rom th~ pari.ehionera ana ~arente uf sc:hool Children. Ther~s~.pon,
Mr. Valenzuela ~resent~d peki•t.i~~rls contai.ning ~pprcximately 1400 signai:ures.
Mra.. Olga 'Valeiizuela, 1315 C~zy Texrace, Anahei.m, appc~~red be~orQ the Commiasion
and stat~±c~ the pskiti.~~is in oppositlon whi.ch ware being pres~-i+.:ed represented
only a small portion At all the residents that raEre opgosed tc~ t~hc. ambutance
~e.rvice.
Mr. George O'IIrien, 1401 East Santa nna S~reet, Anaheim, ap~~ared. befcrF the
Cc~mmis~ian and stated he had lived a': hi.: pre~ent addreas fr~x• 22 years= t.h~t
he would think ~r.e school3 and churches shou:.d be remembered as they wc~re
deserving of :'~pec.i.a1 c.onsideration; that the schools had siow trz~~ic zane~
and liquor st.ures were not. allowed to be 1JCA~Ad v~ithin sc;hool xo:zesl tna~ the
childrex± were the future of Amer~•c~t tha,~. if thE aml~ulancN aervice was al.lc:w~d
it would be very disruptivH to the schocls, t.he charches, and co the community'n,
wuy of Life; that ~he recoras woul.d proba~ly show that t:YiE~re ha3 boen a~ew
fatalitics at that particular inter~ec:ti~~1 ovQ~ the pa5t COl1~lE oi years, ana
under no circumstances shoiild an ambulancE~ ser.vl~e be a1lowEd aiihit~ tlzE sub ject
area.
In rebuttal, hir. Overman stated he did not f~el the am:~iilanae service in the
subject area would b~ d:i.srup~:i~~~ to t;h` way of 1ife;, that as ane opponent had
statecl, there was an ambt:lance service within nx~e mile fr~m the ~ropased loca-
tion; that the pecple mi~ar.de.rstoc~d what un ambula~ice serv~.ae was and they saw
an ambulance goinc~ down the s treet, the first thir,q thsy would thinY. ~f. ;aaula
be liqhts and szr.ens; that it the people had n~ver lived c3ose ~u an ambulance
servic~, then they couad n~t knc~w '~ow an ambulz:n~:e left its station; thai;,
in hi~ ~pinian, the penNle were not sgeaking with th~: kn~wledge they shou~.d
have bef.~re ~hey could state the ambular.ce r~~rvice would dierupt tt:eir lives;
however, it w+~s his company's p~licy to ~ry to leavA thP immedaate area witr~.:ut
th~ red light and sir~n; and that L•ne signal e.t the inte~se:tion of StatP
College Boulevard and Acacia Stx~:et would govern the traffic and would give
the ambulance pler.ty o~ time to mov~ with i:hut traffic.
Dr. Alfred Caruso, ownpr ~f suh;ect Frc~perty, «ppeared before the Commi3si~n
and stated he was the owne~ of tiie Acacia Medical Conter; that he had r.eguested
the condi'~ional use permit; ti~at the medical center primarily ~~.rved thE loc~l
community anc~ the citizens of Anaheim; that they also served ~iZe~ Northeas+.
Industrial Complex in that area and as of July, thay had enter~d inta a contraat
with the State of California to suppiy toi:al medical services to appxaximately
8000 Medicare recipient•s; that mainly because of tha Medicare partic~patiott
they had become involved in a moderate amour~t of emergencies, moving patien~s
from hospitals to nursing homes or from hame~ ta hoapitals, etc.; that their
intent oias not to disrupt the neighborhood in any form but solely to provide
exoellence ef ined.ical care to tl~eir patier.ts; and that Y,e did no•U think they
wnuld be using sirens in and around the medical center.
THE PUBLI(: HEARING tiVAS CLOSED.
Upr,n ir.-~ui-ry of Comm;lssioner Seymour, Dr. Caruso confirme~ that he was one of
the original group of doctors H*ho formed the Acaci~ Medical Center, ~nd Commis-
eioner Seymaur noted that in that case, Dr. Caruso should be familiar with the
in~ent of that approval being strictly for prafess~.onal offices and certainly
not an ambuXance service, to wh~.ch Dr. Caruso confirmed that that was correct,
however, he ataked that. was ten years ago. Gnmrt-isaionex~ ~eymour fur~her noted
^~~
~ ~
MIt~uTrs; cl:x ~I,1~NN~NG cuMM]:flSTCN, J'anua~'~" 7~ ~,974 74~].1
L'Or:i:T`xIONA~~ U.ZE :1~::~.IT N„O 144E (Cc:ntinuec~)
_ „_,,._..._.._.... .._... ..,....._._,_ .. _.. r...
thr~r e~t ~.,la~ time the are+~ wne a tetally reaident~al reighbrrhood an~3 the
dpp~~avbi o~ cbs ~ral~ct was bsae~ ~n the Fac* that i.t wr~e qo.inc~ to b^ l~w~xe;~
~rufee~iona~l typc~ officas.
C~mi!~~,ssionc~r Farnnc+ inQaired i~ ~li~ aml~,ulanae nervice wauld reapond if he c~:.led
to bfl talcan ta ~, hc~spital, to ~~h~.ch Dr.. C~rueo indicatad ~.he ecc~xvicF wou~i!
zaspond. Upnn furtf•ier questionir-g by Cocncr+~ esione: Ft~raric, pz. Ct~LUSO ~.x~~lcated
rhe ~+mbul~encE ~ervic,~ wab prop~sed r,t tho sub~cacr l~va~i~ar, to grovid~ rxmbul+~ncE~
for theix pregr~m wi~h Yhe State af~ well a~s ta aerve thc~ generai publi~; tln~t
tnere was no i.n-patier,t car~ at ~he moSxca~l csnter and that he ~ic~ ~o+. kr~flw how
many ainbulanee triPe would be ne~.yr~sa~;~ or. a~.eily bas~.s.
Tn response t~~ ;uest~.oning of Commisei~n~r Faza:~~, Mr. . Ovexman .i r.r~ia~t~~ they
had ta run a minimun oE ;:ive c~nlls a day in order to maa.r.~ain ~heir vehicl9s
and r~ot lose money on the~1= t}.ar. t}te five calle would proUably conaiat ~£
transfars and ~mnr,ency w~.rkt ~p clari£ie~cl thczt a'.1 of tlioix whxk 1id not c;on-
si~t of red--?.~.~ht and emergenay-type warkj tt~ut the.',.r n4a~•esL facility wa~
~xesently near Dr~: toJ. ~3nd T<<$rner in Santa Ana and a.noth~sr faci lity •s~s loca~Ad
at 1.28 Cabritlo, Coata Mese~1 ~:ha~. th~y avsragect appxoximatel~ 40 r..~llq ~ day
inc'_u~~ir:g the Anaheim ca~.ls, .3na auntrr.cts for the Ss~r,ta Ana Mediaal Group which
had offire3 i.n Santa Ana, Cost.~ Mesa, and Garden Grove, ar,cl fnr thP Ka.iser-
P~rman~:nte Insurancu ~'c~ar.~la~i~n whiah had cuatnmers al'. ov~:: the Gounty.
Commiss?oner Farano madF, an obse~~vation ttsai; ~he petitionPr had L-o have sat
down and mad~ aome ki.nd of ~etcrtr..ln~tion aa ta what kinu ~~ volumc~ ~f busiizeas
~o expect fzom the Rubject arQa, riot includi-ig the businesa tha~t wuuld coan~
~rom pr. Carueo'b faci.li~y: and that by h~vi.ng the ambutunr,e aervice aloser.,
ttiey wauld h~ Rble to aPrve Andrei.m ~:ven b~=t~:~r.
Mr. Overman state~ ~:u~nmissionar Farano's statements were ccr.~ect, however, thPy
had not a~ivsrtised or conducted any promotions f.n the City of Anttheim because
t:~cy wexe not atle ~.o provide a seivice to d:~te; that at the presen~. time L-hey
wc~ra r~-~n.inq tha~c~: ar four ^alls in Anaheim ana with some public re7.atians work
and talking to dretors, n4rse~, convales~^.e.nt homea az~d hospitals, call.s would
i.iicrear~e .
Commissioner Farano noted that wi.t:~ three or fiour calls a day frcm the City snd
perhaps two ox three calls a day fr~:~m Dr. Car.uso's facility, all without adv~r-
tis~ment~ the busin~ss could reaaona.bly be expected ~o build to from 12 to 20
calls pPr day.
In response to a question of Commissioner Herb:zt, City Attorney Alan Watts
stated ~he rnatter that was rece~tl;~ before the ~^.i.i.y Coun~il involved an ambu-
lance company requesting that the City direct th~ Police Departzne;it to refer
ca11s to them and it was the partiaular kind of business so to speak rather
than a rsquest far a perma.tj an3 th~t the ambulanc.e sexvicE was in no dif~erent
eituation as iar as requestin~ a pennit than any o;h~r law£ul f~rm desiring
to do busxness ii: thF City.
Commi.ssioner Herbst noted that the Commission was aware :f ambulance services
in the Ci~y and the pzoblems tney cause3j that the Commi+sion had been inva].ved
in qui.te a few hearir-gs for ambulancP serviae where ver.~y s~rious ~roblzm~ had
been created in the residentia:l areas and on~, particulqrly, was a s:lmilar re--
quest to that being proposed and waa in a resideritial az•ea, very neaz a schoo].,
et~,; and that ambulance servicea definite'.y caused probiems. He further com-
mer-ted ~hat ~.f an ambulazice left the medica.t center and a red light at ths
inter: ection was aqainst him, `~he c~ri.ver wo~~.1d u~e the sir~~n to g~t through the
intersection in a hurryj tY~at, in his opinicn, the sulzject locatian was jus~ not
a good ane for the proposed use; that he raas not sure ~hat Dr. Carusa wou1~1 not;
have hia operation ouk of ca:~tex~. w3th the C-1 aeea restrict~.ons on the property
if 500~ patiez~ts were proposed ~o be served there= and that there w~s a possi-
bility Dr. Caruso wo~~ld inc*:ease his business tn tihe p~int whe:e he Nould have
to move out .
Cornmissioner Seymo~ur noted the deed restrictions applied to the subject property
when the medical cen~ter was oriqinally approved, a~lled fQx pr~f~ssional and
business ~ffices as we~l:~ as a pharmacy, ~nd the Comtttigs~on was QrE~sently hei.ng
reques~ed to detarmine whether an ambulance service would fall wittlir~ the int~nt
of tho~e d~e3 r~striations. Commiseianer ~eymo~.~x fur~her stated that quite
honest~y ho did not beli~v~ the propoeal w+ae w3thin that intgnt..
~ ~
MxNU'1'ES, CI~Y FLANNrN(+ COMMISSIpN, J+~nuary 7, 1974 74-12
CONDIxZONI~ USE PLRMIZ' N0, 1~148 {Co~ntinuecl)
Commiesi.oner Soy:n~ur of.tered RF~bnlution No. P~'74-3 and moved inr. its ptze~sag~
and adopl:ian to deny Petiti~n f.or Conditi.on~.l Use Permic No. J.448 on the basis
thst the pr.oposed location was in close proximity ta achoo).a, r,hurches, and
immPdiately a~djacent to a e.i.nglo-family resid~ntit~l n~ighborhQ~d= that the
subject use was Proposed ~o be loca.ted near a dangeroug intor~taction and tho
use of airen5 woul.d creata a h:lgh degree af noioe: and disturbance, aa we].1 aa
a tra~fic haz~rdJ that a aimilax se~vice existed within one rni].e of the pro-
posdd .loca~i.onj that tha minimum c:alls the ambulance service could wel]. bc~
expeate~3 ta aver.age was nn.o call pex hour on a 24-hou.r basia1 uncl that the
proposec3 use would be ~r~tonsi~tent with the intent of the or.~.yinal recorded
C--l. deed xostr.i~ti.ons on aub ject property. (See Resoluti~ri Book)
On rall. cal.l th~: foregoing rosolution was passed by tho fallowin~ vote:
AYES: CQMMI~S:[Otv~RS s Farano, Herbst, King, Seymour, Gauar.
rro~s ; I:OMMI5S.TONERS : Nat1e .
A~~ENT: CUMMISSIONERS: None.
IL was noted that denia]. nf Con~iitior~al Us~ Per.mit Nc~. 144E! was deemed as
diaapproval of the Requast for Expmp::ion to tt-ie Filing of an Environmental
Tmpact Report.
VARIANCE NO. 2571 - PUBLZC HEARING. i~'IICi'~IEL AP~D GER:4LDINE FARNADY, 6872 Via
Sol.a Circle, Buen~~. Pa.rk, Ca. 90620, Ow.iezs; requesting
WAIVER OF (A) PER!~4ITTED USES~ (.li) MZNIMUM LOT AREA, (C)
MINI:MUM LUT WIDTH, (D) MAXIMUM ~3UILDIDfG HEIGHT, (~) R~QUiRED SICE YARX7 SETBc~CK,
~1NA (F) REQUIREU OI'F-STREET L~ARKIPJV ~rC~ PERMIT A MOT3ILEHOME IN CUN~'UNCTION WIZ'H
AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDLNCE on propexty described as: A rect.angularly-
s2iaped parce~l ot land consisting ~f ap.proximatPly .1 acre, having a width of
approximatel.y 33.6 feet an the south s.ide of Via Sola Circle~ having a maximum
depth ~~f approximatPly 134 feet, and bcaing locate;d approxinately 530 feet east
of t,~e centerline of Via Vista Drive. Property prPsently classxfied R-A,
.AGFICULTURAL, 7,ONE.
Three persons indicated ttieir presence .in oppps il.ion o
Assistant Zc-ning Supervisor Phillip 5ch~~artze read the S~aff Report to the
Commi.ssion d~ted ~anuary ?, 1974, and s~id St~ff Report is referred t~ ~s xf
~et forth in full in the minutes. He fu.rther noted that a tetter had been
received £rom the City of Buena Park in c~pposition.
Mr, und Mrs. MxchAel Farnady, 6872 Via Sola +Circle, Buena Park, appeareQ before
~k~~e Co~anission as the ~etitioners, and Mr, Farnady stateu Mrs. Farnady's mother
was presetitly living in a mobilehome park ixz the City of Whiit:er; that they
lived in a four.-bedroom home whicY- was shared by tive ind~viduals, including
three chi.ldren aqes 17, 13 an3 8; that the~r four bedrooms were all being uaed;
that th~y contemplated adaing a room buL- P~~und the expens~ af so daing was
prohibitive; that he owned a trailer and a piece of proper.ty and they were ask-
in~ the ~ity oY An~hein+ to assist them in their endeavo.r.; that the person they
contacted ~t City Hal:i seemed to think that it ~aould nat be too much of an
advezse problem to obtain a variance due to the position of the proFerty and
the surrounding area; that the only thin~~ that seemed to be aaverse was the
fact ttiat their homP was situated in the City of Buena Par;c and the property
on which they were proposing t~ place the mobilehome was in the City of Anaheim;
that as far ar~ the mobilehome being an c~batruction to the residential area, ~
suitable 2:edge or fence cauld be p~aced in front of the trailer so that it
could not be viewed from th~ cul-de-sar.t that the alternatc position for the
mobilehome wauld make it not visible a~ all f~om the atreets that their pref-
er~nce was to ha•ve the mabiletiome located 3 feet fram the north and east grop°
arty lir.es to facili~atie the utility Y'Aook-up; that the mother-in-law would
eventually be ].ivinc~ with thsm, and that th~re would be no parking involved as
sY:e did not own an automobile.
Thereup~n Mr. Schwart2e rzad ~:h e let~er of opposition from tk~e City of Auena
~z~rk and it is re€erred to a~ if set farth in full in these minutes.
~ ~ ~
MT.NUTES~ CITX 1?LAIJNING CON~MTSS~ON, ~7'~7nua:ry 7, 1974 74^~J
VARiANC~; N0. 2571 (Cantinued)
Mr. Do:1 Its~d, 6860 `Jia Sola C:lrclo, Suentt P+axlt, ap~e~sxed be~ore the Commi~o:le~t
and atated the pxoposA1 wou~d hsve an ad~exee e~~ect on the aurrounding p p Y
values; thr~t they ~i.a not receivQ a legal not.iae~ thn~ it. wAe his undc~retanding
that u varia:ice would romain with the ].and in tihe evont tYie preeent owner~
mc ~ed ou~ ~ that th~ var.ianco would be beriaficial to anyone who would want to
build Qn the property or wha.tavc~i:; ancl that ttie Anaheim Municipal Code indicated
no vari,anco should b~ grat~ted to hxve the affoct of grant~.ng a e~ecial privilege.
Mr.s. RowJea, 68G1 Via Sola Circle, Buena Pa.rk, app~ared befoza the Cortuniseion
and questicaned i:he reque~ted hei,rlit ~f the ~•':ructure ana why the of.f-atreet
parking nQe~e~] tn be wa~.ved sir~cc~ the lady c~id noi: a~an an Autnmob:.let thak the
str~et was alroady crowdod with parked cars s that ehe did not recoive a cc .~y of
the l~gal nottce through the mail and ~he underet,nod that by liv~.nq within 300
feet of tkte eub ject prop~rty sha was e:~ti.tlecl to roceive the notice= and ahe
f.urther questioned why thP no'tice was no~ publiahed in the Buana Park newspaF•
In .reply Mr. Schwartze advisefl that. the reason for the waiver of ~the parking wgs
that the Code required aff-stii•eet parking and none wae bei.ng propoaed; and ~hat
the height of thE at.rscture in retationship to the re~uired aide yard propased
an encr. .ahment onto the side yar.d.
City 1~ttorney Alan Watts advised concerning notice requirementa that the prop~rty
itself was por~tea ~nd, i:~ addition, it was c:ustomazy for thP City to publish in
a newspaper of general circulation in the City and that wa~ the Anaheim Bulletin,
and he waa nat aware of a newspaper oi general circulation in the City of Auena
Park; that the notice~ sent thr.~ugh the mail were a courtesy of the Cir,y to
accor~nodate ttie people in ~the gpneral vicinity and he defer.red t.he quc~stir~n
of why some of the residents did not receive theae notices t~ the llevelopment
Services StafP.
Mr. Schwartz~ advised a notice was sent to Mrs. Bowles at. 6861 Via Sola Circle.
Mrs. Bowles continued by si.ati.ng that the fact that the trailar was 10 feet by
40 feet seemed rather large tu be placed on this particular parcel of land that
alread,y had a four-bedroom, two-batYi homP on it; that if tlzis "lady was eldeily
perha~s sh~ ahould be put into a home and the trailer sold and the money uaed
for Expar.~ion of the home.
Mr. Farnady stated concerning the unsightliness o£ the mobi?.ehome, tha~ the
apartments adjacpnt ~o the subject property to the north hacl a parking lot
facility for recr~a~ional vehicles and t?zat campers , trailers and mot~r homes
were park.ed ther.~ f~om time to time, and he did not see hov: his trailer would
be that much of an eyesore; that they had investiqated a raom aadition L•o
ad~quately accommodate his mother-in-law and nat anly w~ulcl h~ not be able to
af ford it but he wou.ld never be ab le to realize his money back .
THE F~iBLIC ~iEARING WAS CLOSED.
Upon inquiry of Commissioner Herbst, Mr. Farnady stated as he understood it,
the subject pruper~_y was at one time proposed ae a right-of-way for a street
or something of `~hat nature which did nct come to paea, so the parc~l was aold
off and the previous owner of the pr~perty on which his home is situated cho~e
to purchase the odd parcel; that tl~e previous owner had b~en denied a r.equest
to cnns truct a s ingle-f amily dwell ing on that property aUout e ix years ago ;
that ~he subject pr.operty had been in court litigation for the past tive or
six years and he was juot receritly able to obir.ain ±it? e~.o it.
Upori inquizy of Commissioner 3eym:~ ur, Mr . Farnady stated he had no ob jection
tc~ the subject property becoming a pait of the Ci~y of auena P~ :, however, he
had ~reviously discussed thia matt~r with the cit~ies and it se~ ,~~d that the `~ao
aities could never qet together on it.
Zoning Supervisor Gharles noberts stated the pevelapment Services Staff. ha~d
discussed thia mattar with the City Managez's office thi.t~ date and was advised
that Anahei.m was in cantact with the Ci.ty of. Buena Park concerning the matter
and i.t vary well could be that something would bQ worked ouL• in terms of de-
annexing as it seeme3 loc~ical that it should be de-annexed to the City of Huena
P~rk.
~
~
e
~AI'NUTFS, CZ~'X YI,ANNING COMMI~SION , ranuary 7, 1974 74-14
VARIAI~C~ NO. 2~7t (Can~inu~d)
Upon inyuiry of Commiasi~nex~ I'~rano, Mr. FarnAdy Ntiat~d hia mother-in-law w~a
mobile, w~s in reaeonably good health, dia not have~ a dri.ver'e li.cerieo or. a
c~ar, anc~ that she presently lived approxi.mately 12 mile~ away.
Mr . Watte reviewed tho aniioxation procedure and sl:ated ttie prablem nf tim~ wae
uauelly pc~oplo-related, more 4~.han lengthy ~.egal proceedings.
Comrtttseior~ar Farano stated althouyh r-e dtd nnt wish to d~ny the petitian, it
ghould ba deniod; that he i~.uld no~ d~+ter.mina thet the peti.tioner had dem~n-
etxatod a hardship considRring fiheir px'esant facility and th~ k~arm and detri.-
ment that would com~ to the neighboz~hoodi that he could remember ona occ+aai~n
whFrQ thi.e type proposal. was allow~d L•o happen on a through etreet and on r~
very largQ lot and under n~~re ci.rcumatances= that he adm{.red the petiti.nners
fr~r thoir strong u~sire in wanting to look after their elderly parontj that he
wanted tn b~ of hFlp but nut if ~t would be detr~mental to aomAOne alae= how-
ever, if tY-e pQtitione~ wailted to present the proposal t~ t;he ~:i.ty of auena
P~rk he would be happy to r.ecammend de-~-nnexation.
M_•. Farn~dy stat~d ha wou7.d reat on th~ deci33on oE the Planning Commission
and hoped that the ~~rce1 could comfl under the Ciky of Bueria Park eo that he
could combine the twc~ paxcPls.
Comm9.ssioner Farano ~iferod Resolution N~. PC74-4 and moved for its passage and
adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2571 on the basis that i.f, approved,
aubject use would set ari undesirable pY•ecedent far future similar. requeats and
that t:he petitioner did not prove a hardshi.p would result~ that i:he ~etitioner
axpreasecl a degire fox the City of Anaheim to do~annex 3ub ject pioperty t~ the
C~ty of Huei.~ Park e,ince E xb ject pr~perty a.d joined the parcel of land ~,n which
hie resi.dence is ait.uated in the City ~~f Buena Par.k and therafore, the Anaheam
City Plar~ninq Commi:~sion doea furt.her recommend to the Anaheim City Council that
consideration be gi~en to cle-annexing subject propsrt-y. (See Resolution Baok)
On ~11 call. the foregoing r~solution wa3 passed by the following vot~:
A`!ES : COMMISSIONERS : Farano, Herbst, Ki.ng, Seymour~ Gauer.
NO~S: COMMISSIONERS: None.
AIISFNT: GOMMISSIONERS: None.
It was noted that denial of the Conditional Use Permit was deomed as disapprov~l
of tr.e request for exemption to the f.iling of an ~IR.
VARIANCE NO. 2572 - PUBLIC H~ARING, LAWRENCE GALLEGOS, 2100 Wsst Ball Road,
Anaheim, Ca. 928U4, Owneri mRF-NSAI~RICAN CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
9252 Garden GrovE: Boulevard, Garden Grove, Ca. 92644, Agent;
request:~ng (A) PERMISSI~N TU EXPAI~~D A NONCONF'ORMING BUILDING IN THE C-1 ZONE
AND (B) WAIVER OF PERMITTED USES on property flescri.bed as : A rect~ngularly-
shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately .12 acre, having a frontage
of approximately 60 feet on the south side of Aall Road, having a fr.ontage of
approximately 157 teet on the west side of Empire Street, and fiirther desc.ribed
as 210U West ~all Road. r~roperty presently classifiefl C-1~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL,
ZONE.
No one appeared in opposition to su~jec~ petition .
Although the Report to tbe Commissic,n wae not read at the public hearing, it is
ref~rred to and made a part of the niinutes .
Mr. Tom Hollaway, agent for the pro~~erty ow~er, appeare3 before the Commiasian
and stated that t:h.e exi~tinq res icle:ntial s tructure was approximate].y 50 years
old and was being brought up to Code and the buildi.ng was bp~r..= remodeled inta
offices.
THE PUBLIC HE.?,RZNG WAS CLCSED.
Upon questioning of Commissioner Seymour, Mr. Holloway •stipul~t+~ed to withdrawal
of req~Pst for v~aiver of the limii:ed commercial use of reaidential struc~ure
and further stipulated to t~erminating the exietinq nonc...nformi.ng use, i.e.,
therapy and massag~ parlor, immediat~sly upon completi.on of the ~levelopment
proposal and that ~c~e building wou~d b~ utilizod entirely for ~gQneral offices.
Commissioner S~ymour of.fered a Motion, seconded by Commissioner King x~nd MOT~ON
CARfiIED, that the Planning Commise9.c~n, in conn~ction with an exempti~n declara-
tion atatus request, finde and det~rxni.nc~s ~hat the proposal would have no signi-~
Eicant environrnent~l impact an3, therefarc~, recammenda to tho City Cauncil that
no Environmental Impact Statement :ls n~cessary.
~ ~
MTNUTL~S, CITX Pr~AP1NJ:N(; COMMISSION, Jai1uF-ry 7~ 1974 74-15
VAR.T.ANCE N0. 2572 (C~ntinued)
Commiesj.oner Seym~ur offexed R.ASOlutit~n Nn. PC7g-5 and mc~ved for ita gaesage
and. adoptlan ro grant Petiti~~~ :Eor Var~.anco No. 2572, in part, eince the pet3.-
tioner stipulated t~ withclrawal of Wai.ver "b" dnd subjeat ti~ tha conditiun
that the axiating noncon£~rming us~ would bc termi.nateci iir~n-e~di~toly upon Qom-
pletion of the davelopment praposal, ~+s stipulA~.ed to by the petitiuneri and
that eaid builc~ing would be ut.ili.zed on~'irely for general busineds offices
thereafter, aa etipu.tated to by the petitionerj a~nd eub~oct to canditians.
(Seo Rer~olution Baok)
On r.oll calY the foregoix~g resolution wae pasaed by the following vot~:
AYE5 s CQMMTSSIONERS: Faran.o, H~:rbsk, King, Seymour, Gauar.
NO~S : COMMZSS:ION~RS s Nonc~ •
ABSFNT: CC)MMISSIONERS: None.
RECES~ - Chairrnan Gauer declarad a tan-minute recess at 3:55 p.m.
REC~NVENE - Chairman Gauer reconvened the me~ting at 4:~5 p.m. wii~h
-- all Commissionera being present.
RECLA5SIF'ICATION - PCJBI~IC HEARING. ~7EP'FERSOiJ IN'/E5TI~NT AFI'TI,TATES , 201 Wzst
"0. ?3-74-37 Ayer Roa~, Suite ~, Santa Ana, C~. 92707 r Ow~ner; LEROY ROSE
""' & ASSOCYATES, 1440 South State College Bouievar3, Anahoim,
CODIDITIONAL USF. Ca. 92806, Agent Praperty describe3 as : An irregulazly-
PERMIT NO. 1445 shaped parcel of _.and c~nsisting of approximately 7 acrea
~ocated at the nor~.heast corner of McKinnon Drive and
CONDITIONAL USE Lake~~ie~i Avenue, :iavinq dp~ioxi.mt~te frantages of 720 fee~
PERMIT NO. 1446 northesidetof~McKif non'~Dri e.AVProperta presently~cl esified
R-A, AGRICULTUIt~1L, Z~D F .
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENFR?~L CO.`~INiERCIAL, ZONE.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EST.~FiL~SH A FACILT-^-'Y FOR THE TREATME~+T AND EDUCATION
NO. 1445 REQUEST: and east~ofC~heYnortheastpcarn~rSofnMcKinnon~Drive}~
and Lakeview Avenue.
CONllITTO'NAL USE PERMIT PFRMIT AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION WITHTN 75 FEET
u0. 144G REQLJEST: OF A RESIDFNTIAL 'LONE WAIVING REQUIRED r~OCATION AT
THE INTERSECTION aF TWO AR'1'ERI.~L HIGHWF-XS on .6 acre
at tYie northeaat corner of McKinnon Urive and
Lakeview Avenus.
No one appeared in opposi~ion to suliject petitions.
Although the Report to the Commission was not r.ead at the public hearing, it
i.s referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Leroy Rose, ~gent for the propertiy owner, appeared bEfore tne Commission
and stat~d the hospita'1 s ite waa c~urrently under construc cion; th.~ a previous
proposal Ysad been considered a~t the nortk~west corner af Riverdale and Lakeview
and appr~ved bX the Gity Council for a sk~oppinc~ center ttnd a_ervice station,
and that Dr. Ninb~xrg had p~irchased that property and was now propoaing ~o place
a sezvi~:e station on a~orner of tt~e subject r.ropertyt and that the proposal was
to give the City and the i.ievelopment what they needed.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Mr. Rose commentad in regaxd to Item 25 on pasge i3-b of thz Staff Report; that
the two parcels referred to which were not divided on the plan might have been
to be developed int~ two parcels far financinq purposes, however, they were
w~.ll~.ng to comply with the rer~uir.ement that ~he sho ~ping center anc~ the service
station be developsd togA~her.
Upon inquiry af ChAixman Gauer, Mr. Rose stat~d tr.e service statior~ was n~ces-
sary because of what they were daveloping in the drea and that ft would be
integrated with the shoppin,q center.
• ~
MINUTFS~ CITY PLnNNING COMMISSION, Jnnuazy 7, 1974 74-16
RECL71:~9I~ICATTAN NU._73-74-37. CONUITIONAL USL YERM~IT_NO~. 14a5 1AN~7 14~6 (Cont'8.)
Cc~mr,~~.seioner Farana noted tha*. he wa~ aware, that a eervice etakion t~ad been
approved for the adjacont prnparty, how~ver, Planning Commi.ssi~n act.iAn wae to
den,y that petitiant ~hat thora wae an abundanco af sarvice station~ i~n ~ha
City e+nd thay were having ac•onomic~l groblema, anc9 Mr. Rose questioned whore
w9ra the servicc~ stetiens in the sub~act area. Cammieaioner 5eymour indicnt~ed
thoro N'Ag a servtco station at Tuetin and Rivardalo, approximately 1-1/8 mile
away .
Mr. R088 further stated tYiat the,y were propoeing a~ total d~vQlo~,merit; that a
valid aervice stai:3.on and shoppinq center had b~en apprnv~d for tho pr.oporty
across the strePt and ~hat they were conatructii~g a parking lot at that pre-
vious locati.on .
Chairmar. Gr~uer noted that the reversal of the plan might holp the eit;uation
a~~d thnt there WO'11C~ L~P. a certain amount o.f. outsido cu$tomers stopping at tho
service atati~n .
Commiesioiier Farano atated with All th~ yrc t idea~ for deve].opment, waan't
th~re something elae k~esides a serv3.ce statian that could be dAv~~.uped at thi~
l.ocati~n .
Mr. Ruse stated he understood what the Commission waa pointing c-ut, how~ver,
the proposal was in conformance with the Scen•lc Cc~rridor Overlay Zone which
ullowed only one serviae station for four corners t that he ~elt tY~~ pr~poaal
was an integral design and a service s:at.ian wAy also :~saessary ~'~~r the neigh-
borhood and residPnts ~~ould not want to drive o~it of t;he area fo their needs.
Commissioner Farano pointed uut that the xesidents did not want the previ~as
pro~osal which wa s presented ~or the s ervic~ station . I
The Planning Commission entered into discixssion concerning thc~ residAnts and
their oppcsition to the previous proposal f_or a service station in this area
and it was noted that since the servica station was gran~ed previously, the ~
residenta might feel it would be approved agafn, and th~t might b~ thP re~son
why ~here was no one p.-esen~ in opposition r~t this meet.ing. Assa.stant Zoning
Supervisor Plzillip Schr~artze advised that although the property was postecl and
a notice wa.~ pub~ished '.n the newspaper, the residents did not receive a notice
in tr,e m~il.
The Planning Commission entered into discuasi.on regardi.ng the Scenic Corridor
~verlay Zone in relationship to a service r~t.at~on use and it was noted that
the requirement was that a service station must be at the intersection of two
highways and that subject proposal was at the intersection of a highway and a
local street, beinq McKinnon 1Drive. Commi.s~ioner Farano stated he would not
rest on a technicality except that the sub jecic location was alsn within 75 feet
af residential uses t~ the soutti and southwest.
Commissioner Seymour questioned Variance No. 2311 on thP »arcel acrc.~~s the
street to the sout'r- and 'Zoning Supervisor c'~:~.ri.~. noparts advised that in 1971
one of the u~~ companies filed an appl: ~•ation £or a zPClac ~ifica~ion and
variance at that corner and prior ~o t~.~e matter being near~. in public hearing,
the petiti.ons were withd•rawn.
M•r. Rose stai:ed the property line for the p~operty pr~ooaed to be davelopPd
with the service station was within 118 feet of the adjacent residential prop-
erty line and 1Kr. Schwartze noted that it was not StaEf's intent to use techni-
calities but that they were calling out !,'ode waivers.
Mr. Rose further stated that concerning Item 27 on page 13-e of the Staff Report,
that thex were pl~cing equipment on the roof but it would nat be coveredl that
he understood this was allowed as long as it was completely covered, however,
they were proposing i:o drop the equipment into a c~eep well; that tY-ere were two
views, one fr~m the hoapital and one ~rom ths mountaina and they were intending
to aet the equi.pmont down into the well ao that it could be left o;~en aince
the compressor had to have a l~t af aiz.
Camomigsioner Herbat entered into diac~aesion with Mr. Rase concerning the pnliay
to provide 20 feet of land~caping abutting the R-1 reeidential h~~mea and Mr.
Rose indicated ~h~ey were progoeing a 6-foot wall and tandscaping which, in his
~
~
~
MINUTES, CiTX ~J.1INNTNG CUMMISS~ON, 3anuaxy 7~ 7.974
74~7,7
RECLII.SSIFTCAT'[ON N0. 73-74-37~ COrIAJTIONAL USE PERMI~` N4S. 1,445 ANA ~,44(i (Conk'd
opini.on, waa suf.£ici.ent. Commiesianc~r Norbet not.ed thar tho CommisNion's Penl-
inq in th.a matter was that tk~er~~ peop].e bought theix homc~~ an~ if the prapoea].
wea tc~ abuL• theix property with commaraial, they were enti~led to pr.otectioni
~nd that he could also envision trucke ~oing thxough the parki.ng arr~a.
nx. Daniel Ninburg, 1208 Rubor.ta Street, Anahaim, appedreil b~fore ttic~ Commiasion.
and atated th~t a recreatianal facility for childar~n wae propoaed between the
~-arking aroa and the adjua~nt residenaes~ how~ver, tYiey wore willing t~ be c,`on-
aervative and would a].low more area between the pla,yqr.o~and and the residencea.
Commisaioner Herbst made an observation that approxi.mately 50 cars would be
parking againat khe 10-foot strip th~t was propoe~ed bet~~ueen the devolopment
and adj~~°.cent homea to tlie ~~at; that it woulcl take a~ leaAt five years Eor tt-o
lar-dsadp~.ng ~o dc~velnp into anything tt~at would really aerve a~ a buff.er; that~
spece wt~s the bESt thincJ to have b~twe~n c~re and homes as far as intrusi.an
from autotnabile traffir,; that khe trASh atorage And accesa waa also lacated
~long the east pro~~erty line at the rear o~ the ad~acen*. homea, as well as
employee parking f.or the centFr.
Upon queationing by Commi~~ianer Farano, N1r. Roe~ indicatod if the setbacks were
altered, from an ecoriomical stand~oint they would lose approxi.mately 40 parking
spacea.
Commissioner. Eierbst atated if the devela~,ment coul.d not give protection to tha
adjacent tiom~~s, perhaps tne property shauld rema~.n residential.
Mr. Rase coimnentQd that he was warking Lar a client and ~vas uncler dixection;
however, t.hey could cut duwn on the c~ensity to muke the proposal a better
project bu~ i~ would r-ot be economically aound.
Commis~ioner Farano indicated he would like ~o see the 20-foot buffer aX~ng ~he
Fast pr.operty line and sugg~sted that the iieveloper could pos~sibl.y rearrange
the pr.ojpct to minimize the loss of parking spacPS, and he questioized if the
ad.ditional landscape setback wauld cost the whole ecoriom,ical health af the
project.
Commis5ioner King entered into discussioii with Dr.Ninburg ooncerning reloca~ion
of the t-raRh r:~cep~acleG in addi.tion tn providing thF 20-fo~t landscap~ strip,
during wtiich l:~x. iVinbur indicated that ~he shopping center was laid out like a
plaz%- ~nd fi' they cau~d possibly crowd thP buiZdings together to shorten the
space ~n ' ddln which was provi8ed for a mall effect and thereby gain aame
s~~ace .
C: .~issi_ot~=r rierbst notec~ tnat shopping aentera abut~ing residential areas did
r~c~ provide enouyh p~o*_ection to the property owners and unless a develaper
could provide such protec~ion, he would recommend denial and that the prop~rty
remain residential; that it was the Commission's duty to nrotPCt tnose people
from the intrusion of a shopping center.
Commissianer Farano stated that although the proposed shopping center with a
yank and restaurant would not have the same impact as a shopping ceni:er with a
at+pexinarket, it was still very distracting to a person°~; home.
The Planr~ing Cammission enterec~ into discussion with Mr. Rose regarding the
trash ~torage bins located near the esst property line and Dr.Ninburg stipu-
lated to :noving that trash atorage to allow an addf.tiont~l 5 feet and that th~y
wnuld alsc ~lant laryer trees.
Diacussion pursued ~egarding property gxades and Mr. l~ase s~ipulated to making
any n~cessary ~c ~stmen~s ta insure that the required wall abutt9.ng adjoining
residential propertiea would bP 6 feet above the high~st grade of either the
subject prooerty or the adjoining properties.
Mr. Ros~ sulamittecl that they had preaent•~d whnt they thought was the best pro~
ject; and that it was n~t the first p~.an, but a final plan following many studies.
~ ~
MI.NUTE~, CZ'i'Y PLANNTNG COMMISSION, Januu~y 7, 1974 74~18
~tECLASSIFICI,TION N0. _! ]-7~{--37, CONDI'P~ONAL U5E FERMxT 'NaS. ].445 ANn 14A6 (Can~' d
The Planning Commission die~cussod aound rendinqa, during whicti Mr. Ro~c~ stated
that aolid wal.ls piclcec3 L~p morE sound than a noxmal wall a~n~l Commisaionor fierbst
notad thur. the prapoaAl was to havQ ~ruffic within 10 feet oE th~ fenc~ at tha
rear o~ the single-facni.l.y homes.
Mr. Rose stipulatod ~hat thay would provide the 20-foat landscape str.i.p sr-d
work out the plan som~howt ttiat they did nut wiah tu bring back revi~ed pla~is
and would ;~imply cut out some of the aquare foataga of khe developmer~t.
Upon inaui.ry of Commis~ioner Herbst, Mr. Itose fur.thor atipula~ed to p•rovidinq
s~atted scrc~ening ior the roof-mounted equipment.
Commi.aRioner. Farano of.Eered a motion, seconded by Commiesionor Seymouz and
t~OTION CAItRIED, that thc~ Planni~ig Commisaion, ~.n connectian with an eMemption
declarati.an status request, finds and determines that khe proposal wou?.d have
no eignificant onvironmental impact and, therefore, r9cummonds to the City
Council that no Environmental Im~ac;t Statement is necessary.
Commissioner ~Ierbst ofrered Resolution No. PC'14-6 and mcved for its pas~age
and adoption to recamrnenc~ ta the City Council that Petitlon for Reclaseizicatian
No. 73-74-37 be approved, establiahing ^-1, Genera.l. C;ommerc~al, 7,oning on suk~j~ct
property, subjPCt to a 20-foot wide lands~ape atiip planted with ~5-gallor~ trees
on 20-foat centers being provided along the east property line abutting R-1
residentia~ prop~rties, as stipulatecl to by the petitioner; that any necessary
ad~ustments would be made to insure that the required wal] abutting adjoining
R-1 rer~ident~al properties is 6 feet above the highest grade of either the
subject property or the adjoining properties, as stipulated ta by ~he petiti.oner=
that th~ trash atorage areas for the proposed medical facility would be relocaked
awa,y ~rom ~tlie property line aUutting R-1 residential pronerties, as stipulated
to t~y th:: ~etitioner; that the roof-mounteci equipment would b~ covered with
slatted sc~~•eFning as stipulat;ed to by thE petitiUner; that the Planning Commis-
sion recommendation for C~1 zoning is made subject to submission and approval
by the Com-nission of revised precise: plans prior to the introduction of an
ordinance, sai.d revi3ed plans to indicate those items stipulated ta by the
petitioner; and subj~ct to conditiona. (See Resolution Book)
Commissioner Seymour s~ated he could nnt, with a clear co +science, vute for a
a~r~ice station at the subject location when the Commission denied one an the
opposi.te corner; that although he wa3 in favor of the plan and the developer
had indicated every willingness to protect the neiyhborhood by the 20-foot
buffer, the servic;e station was there and he could not wal.k away from it s:i.nGe
such approval wauld also invite other service stations throughout the Scenic
Corridor and the Cany~r. area and ~he Commission would have a tough time saying
r~o t~ them.
Commissioner Farano stat.ed he had mixed smotions regar~ding the oropos~l; that
with the 20-foot buffer being provided, it was a hard decision; that the
deeision would not be hard if he did not Y~ave to worry about seeir,g another
application to put a service station on an arteria'1 highway and a regidential
street; that ~the proposed service statian would have a dif.ficu]t r.ime existing
on the buainess crer~erated from tYce 400 or 500 people in a shopping center and
it would have to c:°~~~ From the area, and it was possible the shopping center
would draw from : people who stopped ati the service station incidentally.
Chairman G~uer co,,~~~•::~ted that he follow~d Commissioner Faxano's objer,tions,
howsver, the service station was orientea to the shopping center and re~ard~.ess
of either street, it w~s serving the cen+~~r; ~nd that it was doubtf~~~. that any-
one would drop into the serviae statiar. ,- service who wag rlot already in the
shopping ~enter.
Upon inquiry of Commissioner Farano regarding the poaition ~~~ing taken by the
Planning Commis~iori, Mr. Watts adviseu th~t he £elt the Coa, _asion f~ad made
suf~=.cient determination so that a problem would not arisQ u~lesa an applicant
proposed a ahopping center with aimilar circumstancesf that, tn his opini.on,
it would be difficult to find an4ther similar application.
~ ~
MINUTES, CI~'Y FL,ANNING COMMTSSTQN, ~Tanuaxy 7, 1974 ~/4~~9
RECLASSIFTCATIAN N0. 73-74~37~ CONDITTON~L USE PERMTT N09. ].445 AND 14A6 (Cont'd
Commissicaner ~'arRno further statsci tha~ he ehmr~d Commiseinnar. 89ymour'e opinton,
howaver, in view of tha City At.torney's viewpoint, he would be vot.i.ng i.n ~'avor
o£ t.he prupoeal.
On rall aall the forogoing resolut;ian was passed b~ the fullowing vot~:
RYES: COMMISSIONERSz F'ara.no, HQr.bs't, King~ Gauer.
NOES : COMMISS:[ONERS : Seymo~xr. .
11BSENT: COMMI:~~IONERS: Nonc~.
Commiasioner I~IerbEt offered Res~lixtian No. PC74-7 anii movecl for ita passage and
adoption to grant Pet:ition for. Cond;ltional Use Per~mit Nn. 1445 sub j~ct ~o the
trash storag~: area far subject use being relocated away fxom the east propexty
line abutting R-1 rc~eidential propc~rties, ae stipulated to by ~he petiti~ner,
and sub3ect to conditione. (Se~ Resolution Book)
On roll aall the foregaing resolution waa passed by tche following vote:
AY)wS: C4MMISSIUNERS: Farano, Herbst, King, ~auer.
~10'ES: CdMMISSIONERS: Seymour•.
pgS~N~~; COMMISSIONERS: None.
Cammissioner Herbet offered Resolution Na. FC74-8 and moved for its passage an~
acloption ta grant P~tition for Conditi~nal Use Permit No. 1446 on the U~sis th~t
tY~e petitiocier presented stifficient evidence to warrant glacement of an aut~-
mt~bil~ service station at the ~roposecl intersection i.n conjunction with the
p~copo9ed shopping eenter development, and that a fre~way off-ramp is lac;at~d
i~z the vicinity of the prUposed location~ and subjeat to r,onditior.~. (S~e
R~asolutior. Book)
On roll call the foregoing resoltition raas passed by the following vote:
P~YES: COMMISSTOt1EFt5: rarano, Herbst, King, Gauer.
tIOES: COMMISSIONERS: Seymour.
1~BSENT: COMMISSIaNERS: None.
REPGctTS RND - ITEM NO. 1
RECOMN~NAATIOI~~S VARIANCE NO. 2466 (L'c~Ler A. Holmes, Keily
~ Corporation) - Request for extPnsion of time
to conplete conditions - Property located on
the south side of Katella Avenue, east af
Stat° C:alley~. p~iule~~ard.
Request for a or~e-year extension of +:ime ta complete conclitiar-s of approval
for hhe es~.ab].ishment of a prc~fessic~na~. office c~mpl~x in an industrial zone
was presentecl.
Commissioner King offered a motian, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTTODI
CARRIED, to grant a ~ne-year extension of time for ~he campletian of condl-
tions under Vaziance No. 2~566, saict tim~ extension to expire January 8, 1975.
ITEM N4. 2
RECLASSIFICATION N0. 69-70-44 AND CnNllITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 1145 - WaivQr of 6-faot masonry
wa11.
Assistant Zoning Superviaor PhilLip Schwartze preaented a r~quest from the
Canyon General Hoapital for a waiver of the required 6-fr,ot masnnry wall
adjacent to the westerly and southErly property linee of the hospital p•ro~:-
erty as requir~d under Cor,ditional Use Permit No. Y145, Condition N~. 11,
and w~iver of the required 6-foot ma~onry wa'_l..,r~long the west property line
of `,he medical center prnperty as required under Rec~.assification No. 59-70-44,
Condition No. 8, saic~ property be~ng located at. the nor~hwest corner of La;ce-
view and Riverdale Avenues. He further sta~ed that due to ~he uncertain~y ae
~ ~
MINiR'ES, CITY PLANN7'NG COMMT33IUN, January 7- 1a74 ~4°x~
~7,'EM N0. 2 (Continuedl
__.._.__.~....-..--.
to k}~~ diepo~it~.an o~ tha p~ra~l to the weat of nubject proper~y, it would
app~ar that th~ r~quirsme~nt fur the 6-~oot block w+~~l ehoul3 nat be wAi.ved a~t
this timeJ howover, in nn effort ta Assigt thca h,o~pitr~l•-medical centnr oonip].e~x
ownar in remedyinq a tim~.ng problem, the intereats o~ everyan~ concerna~d coulli
be adEquately aerv~d ifE the poating of a bondl to guarantee the conetrua~ion of
the w~il was deemc,cl to b~ ,aati3fac~ory compli.ance e~ the bloak wall require-
m~,n~ p~:ndi.ng Eix1e1 1li+spoaitior~ of the ad.joinir-g propertyr that Eollowing the
P],anni.ng ~Commission meeting c c Dec~mber 10, 1973, Sta~f hc~~ fu.rther digcuese8
thQ mat;t~r with th~ :i~y Att~~ncay's o~f.ic~ and based an adQit~^naY intormatton,
b~~th tl-~at offia;~ and the D~vel~.~pmont Serviceg Department were af the ppinion
that if th~ City~ acquireci thA ad;jacar t px~c~perty aa t~ park. sitie, and i! the wall
wauld not ~~ ':: cne best inte2~~st of eithar property owner, there wae no reason
far the w~ll to be ~7onetruatodj and that the Parks an~ ~teareAtian Depart~tent
woulc1 pref~r to have an oponnusa between the properties in the event a park was
dovelope~a. Mr.. SC}1WqX'~~Q olari.fiad thut the posting of m bond would, in e~fect,
s^.tisfy tha conai::.on co~nce~ning the block wall.
Camm~.ssi.oner EIerbst offe-'~d a matiAn, sea~nded by Cammieaione~ Iting and I~TIAN
CARRIED, that a suitable baz~d for insta:llation ef tho required 6--~oot. blook wal.].
along the w~etc~rly property 1.i.no, ag subntantial complie~nce aP. tih~ block wall
recuixamontg of Nec2.a~sifica~a~on No. 69-70-44, Condi~inn No. 8~nd Co»ditional
;1ae penrt,it No. 1145, Conc~ition No. 11, pandinq diepaeit~.on of the property '~o
th4 w~st, be and hervby is accepted; ~nd ~hat axid band be held until either the
City acc~u.ire~ t:lxe propertX car the cval'l. xa instal~ed; and, further, if the City,
as anti.cipated, aaqui~: th4 adjarent property, the Cammission at that tiMe
could c:one:lder I:he requesl:wd a~nend~-er~t of the wal]. ^onditions without the need
for a publ.ic hearing.
AA70URNi•'~ENT - Theac~• L~eing nn further businese to discuss, Commiesioner
• ""~ ~eyn~~ui offered a niotiora, seconde3 by Commissionez King
and MOTION C14RRI~D, to adjourn ~he meeting.
The meetiz~g adjourned at 6:12 p.m.
Res eat:ully submi~ted,
!c~`t.[.c..c.~ ~. ~ ~..C~-~t.,~
a:cxcia n ~ Sca,~-lan, Secretary
P t
Anaheim City Plannin,q Commisaion
PBS:hm