Minutes-PC 1974/09/040 R C 0 MICROfILMING SERVICE, IliC.
• ~
City l1q11
Anaheim, Califc~rnia
Sepiomber 4~ 19~4
RN;~UI.AR MFGTING OF_ THF. ANAkIETK CTTY PLANNING C~11~iISSION
RLGUl,AR - A regulAr meeti.nR of the Maheim City Planni.ng C:,rnm~aeion wae called tn
MGE'TLN. order by Chai.ru~nn HerhAt ~t. 2:00 p.m. i.n ~he Cousicil Chamber. a quorum
bning presant.
l'ItESL+NT - ~.HAIRMAN; Harbet
- CJAII~tZSSICNI:RS: Faruno, Gausr, Juhneon, King, M~r1ey, Tolnr
ABSFNT - CObIMISSiONFRS: None
AI.30 ^:GSZN'P - ~eputy City Attoxney: Frank Lowry
Office f:ngineer: Jay Titus
2onin~, S~.ipervi sc,r • (;harles Ro?~erts
AsetAtanC ZonLng Supervisor: I-nnika SantalahCi
Comm•lasion Secr.etary: I'atricia 5canl~sn
PLEAGE OF Comtn:lRSioner Faran~~ ~ eci in the Pledge of Allegiance tu tha Flag of rhe
ALLEGIANCI: Uni.ted States uf America.
APP1tOVAL - Co~mnisc~i.~i~.er. Johnaon offered e. motion~ scconded by Commiseioner Tolar
~F MINUT~S and MOT;.UN CAeiRIED, to approve ~he mintit~:a of ttae °lann•ing Comm~iadion
meeticig of P.uguet 5, ]974, aa aubmitted.
RECLASSZ~ICATIUN N0. 74-75-~1 - PURLIC HEARING
NARIANCE N0. 2621
It wae nuted Chat the p~tit:oner was not preaent, and khe Plaaning Coum-isainn generally
concurred to postpone the public hearing and considera*_ion of the subject petitions to
later on in the meetin~, (see later on in the minutea).
ENVIRONMENTAT, iMPACT - PUBI,IC HF' ~:ING. BRT.GtiA,M YOUNG UNIVER~ITY, SQ East South Temple,
REPORT N0. 134` 5alt I~ake City, Utah Sk111 (Owner); MATREYEK H~JMES, INC., P. 0•
Ilox 711, Upland, Ca. 91786 (Agent). Property dPSCribed as: An
VARIANCE N0. 2635 irregularly-shaped parcel of land cons i ating of approximately 137
~+ acres located norths.eaterly of the int eraectiun ox La Pa1ma Avenue
TENTATIVE MAP OF and Euclid Street, having approximate frontages of 510 fcet on t.he
TRACT N0. 8775 I,a~PalmaeAvenue,~andsbeing locatedOapproxiuatelyn1660 feet north
and east of the•centerlines of La Palm~ Avenue and Euclid Strect.
Property preaently classified R-A (AC:RICULTURAL) ZONE.
REQUES'TED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (A) MAXIMUM STRUCTllRAL HEIGHT, (B) MAXIMUM SIGN AREA~
ANU (C) PROHI$ITGD S'iGNS, TO CONSTRUCT A THEME TOWER AND 'PWO
FREE-STANDING SIGN£
TSNTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: ENGINEEk: WILI.AAN AS50CIATES, 125 South Claudina Street,
Anaheim, Ca. 92805. Sub~ect proper ty ie proposed for sub-
division into 328 R-2 zoned lats (oa 33 acree).
Deputy City Atto+-ney Frank Lowry advised the Co~~asion ehat the petitionez was requeating
a two-week continuat-ce 4n Variance No. ^.635 which wauld ~lso be auaceptible to an Environ-
roental Impact Tteuort Negative Declaration, ho~aever, EIR No. 134 and Tent~tive Mr~p of Tract
No. 8775 were before the Planning Commiasion at this tima and couid be considered.
No ane indlcated their Fresence in opp~aiCion to subject p~t ition.
Although the Stgff RepotC to the Planning Commission dated S eptember 4, 1914 wae not read
at the public hearing, it ia referred to and made a part of zhe min+ites.
i4-419
~ ~
74-420
MINUTES~ CTTY PLANNING C~MMISS[~N, SPpt~mbc~r 4. 1~7G
GNVIRONMEN'fAl. IMPACT RLPO1tT N0, 134 ~ VA1tTANC~ N0. 2635 AND T2NTATIV~ MAP OF TRACE N0. 8775
~C .°~tt.. i~C iied„~ ,._._.___._-__. - - - -'~'
Mr, Ga~nc~ Heieh~ rPprasenting Wulter. Richar.denn Aeeoci~tus , tha archi.Cect for the deve',oper~
appearod before the Commiseion and expl.Ainad Che propoeal. to cnnstruct a theme tower, with
a mastc+r cumrounity telavi.~ion antenna eystem, near tho ma3or recreation centor of tlie
planned reeidar~Cial devalopment:; th~t the tower would b~ a mnximum of 70 fnet liigh and
would coneiet of several polc+e wiCh iour bannere; thaC, addiClonally, two m~>nument-type
eigns were prc~poeod to he locnted at Ch~s norther.ly and eae~tQrly cornere of. tha interRection
of F~l.mouth Avanue and tho souCherly extEneion of Romnuy~ Driva~ reapectively, Ar~xima`t~l.
eigns wauld have a die~~ lay area uf apnroximate? y 35 equnr~ fAet an3 w~~uld be app Y
5[eet, 8 lnches higt~~ tla continued by stnting their ~u~tification for the signe wue r.hac
tho y were a~C violoting the intent of Che ordinance on ttte haight restricti~n fur tlte
slgn; Chak due to the lucation of. the theme tower, t hey d i d n o t f e e l t h a y w e r e i.n vi.oint lon
nf: ch~~ ~surrounding propexty owners' righta; that the theme L•owei would not ba occupiod;
theC tlie .lf.ne~of-eight of Che eurrounding aingle-family reAidences wao far bolow Xh~ ttieme
atrucCure; that~ in thair opinion, the intent ot r.lie 91gn Ordinanca wae to n~xke surP th~3t
ttie ~;ize uf the Aigne wus compatib.le with the scale of Ct~e reepective devPlopment; thnt
the project caneisted of a five-acre PRD and the Rigne sh~uld be in scale Co ehat; and
thnt Ch~ theme rower wae for identification purpoaes for the development.
THE FUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSLD~
In responee to yuestioning by Commisaioner Gauer., Mr. Hsieh stated the thema tower w~u.l.d
be approximntely 1U00 feet nwuy from residcntial atructures and thoAe houeer+ ~~~~uld be
within the nubJ~ct pr~~ect. Cormnisaioner Gauez Chen noted tha.t the developer ehou2d have
the aame coneideruCion for the h~~~lses wi.thin the subject development ns thoae outeide of
it.
In responae to queaCionin6 by Commisaioner Morley~ Mr~ Hsiela stated that the ].owest Cele-
vieion antenna they could get by with would Ue ut 40 feet, bu-: that they were interested
to have the bam~ers at 70 f~:ee to aer~e as a landmark for Cl~e developmenC, as well as ior
the mASter r.elevision antenna sysCem.
Ch.airman Herbst noted that approval of the aub~ect requ~st would probably FermiT. on~ of
the g~8atest precedeiit-setting slgna in the CiCy of. 4nah~im; thaL, in easence, Che polea
with bannere were a sign since they would identify the project; that regarding the two
rec~~ested entry aigns, if t:~e Cominission followed the tYzeory be.ing preaented by Che devel-
oper, the amaller pro ject ahould get a smal.l~r sign, and he did not agree wikh that theory;
that if the poles ~nd banner~ were app~oved, it wovld follow that every apartment pro~ect
in the area would also want to fty flaga; that, in hia opinion, a pro~ect the scale of
Anaheiai Shore~ did not need this type aign for identlficaCi.on, since the hbnn~rs would
only help to sell the unite, and for that purpoae Che peticioneY' could apply for apecial
permi s sion to f ly f laga.
Mr. .Jim Chriatlansen, representing the reCitioner, appe$red before the Connniasian an
etated what Chairman Het~Lst wao saying was baeically txue, however, if thQy wnie coming in
for aR advertiaing gimmick it would be diffArent; that the main purpose of the theme tower
was to have the master televi~ion ai~tenns syatem so that i:herc could be a closed circuit
television system within the project with the need for 'l.ndividual antennas being elim~inaied;
that their hope would be that the people would see tha tower and identify wiLh it ~sin:.e it
would be part of the prciect; eha::, since the aurrounding area to the project did not lend
itself to the kind of prc.ject being developed, the developer had plann~d for a:~ho1e
communit; and the identity w~sld be wi.th the beauCiful recreation center and f_r,be that
would be flowing within the project itself; that Anaheim Nilla ha3 a liuge eign for their
Fro~ect and Anaheim Shores needed one jset as much as Anahei.m Hilly; that the tower would
be well within tt~e pro~ecC itself at the recreatlon center and at the lake whare it w~.uld
identify the pro~ect aa a"high class" de~elopn-ent; ai«: that the tower could not be com-
pPrauseither~ wnarnoeotheriproperty lefthingthe City forudevelopment~that waa thersizeeof
b _c
Anahe im Shorea.
Chairman Herbat clarified for Mr. Chrietianaen that tt~e eign at ths entrance to Anaheim
Hills was located in County territory and the City had no control whataoevet of it; and
that the Mttlieim Hills planned community located in ttie Gity had no signs.
Mr. ~hriatianAen queslioned whether the Planni.ng Commiaeion felt thE pro~ect needed
identity and, thereupon, discussion pursued during wt~ich Chairmnn Herbst relterated his
previous coma-ente regarding tk~e propos~l and that the 70-f.oot tower could pr.obably be aeen
1r!
0
~
•
MTNU'fL~3, CI1'Y PLANNING COI~AII9SION~ Se!ptembar 4~ 1974 74-~~2~'
~NVIRGNMEN'CAI. IMPACT REf~RT N0. 134, VARIANC~ N0. 2635 AND TENTATIVk MAP OF TFtACT N0. 8'175
(Contii~ued) _._. ~ - -- -"~~
PXOm cl~e freeway. Mr. ChcleLlanaen then etaled Lhat they would want tha tower to be noesn
and id~ntif ic~d with ae eom~stl~ing di.etinct from the normal ho~eing community~ and Cheirman
Herb~t noted tiiat the propoeal wc~uld certainly sat a procedent.
Cotamiesfoner Johngon noted th~t he agraed wi~ch Chairmn~~ 1~• rbet regarding the si.zo of the
entrance signs and that tha CummiReiun should enforce thc reQ,u'lat~lone controlling signs,
nnd he did s~sot agrea C11At h8CALL88 tha pro~ect wae bt~~er ~hnt it ehould have ~ blggor
eign; that tegarding thp tc~wor. in hi.e opinion, the ~~ro~a~ . had the right to uxpoye to ite
own residente if: eaid towox was nat being exposed t~~ r.csidantial areas out~ida c the
pro,i ec t .
Chairman HerbeC than noted that once ChQ p.o,jec:t wnH ~old~ it would bQCOme individu~l
property atzd at thaC polnt t;he pr~posal would be er.~~osure ~uet aa it would ba to casidenta
of a Cown; snd it would be aetti~-g A precedent:.
Commiseioner Morley noted tYint the tower wouLd be conetrur. ted before the people purchased
tha homes nnd thay w~~ul.d b~: awaro of it prior t~ buying; and Chairman Herbst noted that
hie remurks were clirected lo Eut.ure deve].opments that would want the same righte that the
sublecc. developmenC would he en~oying.
Mr, Chriatiansen etated Chxt the Planning Commission had a tremandous ability to fe~cree
out potenCiul problems wiCh proposals which it conaidered and that oar_h proposaX wae
uaually coneidered on ite own weri.t; Chat he could only state that the propoeal was not
for advertising p~irposes; ond that five to ten yeaca :ter~ce whenever there wae cuble t~:le-
vieion availeblQ to the r~aidents, it would be plugged in at no further cost to thF.
res ider.ts .
Chairman Herbst .~uestionad what good the banners w~uld do with reapect to tha televisiun
antenna, to wh'_ch Mr. Chr!etiansen atat~d it would zat have to bp bannera, but juek some-
thing to sY~ow life rather Chan juat eomething sticking up in the air; and that t}~e ;~eople
in t}lP' project w~re Che only one~ r.hFt would see it and he believed they would enjoy it.
Chairman Herbst Cook exception to Mr. Chriatiansen's sCatement that the banners could only
be seen within the pro~ect, since he felt thaC they could b~ seen from the freeway, etc.,
and would draw people from other areas, and Mz. Christiensen then etated he hoped that was
true si~ ^~ they wantad to identify with the ban~iers.
Chair.man HE. . reiterated that if the proposal was approved. it woul.d be difficult fur
the Commisaion to deny others the sgme rtght regardlesa of the size of the pruject; that
the Commission had turned down f3.ude all over town; that apeciai pe.rmission to fly flags
or l~anners c~uld be obtained for ehort periods of time.
Mr. Chris tianaen then stated thak the~ could disguiae Che proposal aince they wculd not
have to f ly battners, as such.
In response t~ queationing by Commissioner King, Mr. Chri.sCiansen atated that the banners
at South Coast Plaza were approximately 75 feec high, and Commisaioner King added that he
would agree with Commissioner Johnson' a Lhinking regarding the proposal.
Cammissioner Mor•ley noted Chat hE would go along with the proposad tower, not e:, ~~uch from
the standpuint of idenCification, t,ut from the standpoint that the developer would '~e
giving tYse people the benefit of the televisiun antenna '~n the future.
Tn reaponse to questioning by Commissioner Gauer, Mr. Chriatians~n stated that the poles ~t
South Cosat Plaza would be a good example regarding the sesthetics of ti~e proposal; and
that it was a matker of necesaity to ~~ taguise the antenna syatem in the moat pleaning
mant~er poAafble.
In resp~ase Co queationing by Commissioner Tolar, :~1r. H31eh explained the oole arrangement
for the theme tower and discuese.d Che size in .~lationship to its eff.ectivenesa as an
antenna in the subject area; and Co~unisaioner Tolar n~ted that it was not tt,e City's
policy to allow 70-foot untennas becauae of a bad receiving zone.
Commiasiuner Herbst notad thaC he was not opposed to the antennr~ for te] evi»ion serials,
however , he was oppoaed to it as a ti~eme and for advertisir~, purposec.
~ •
MINU'fFS. CITY PY.MTNING COMMISSTON, SeptemU~r 4~ ]974 ~4~G2Z
ENVTRONMENTAL IMPACf RCYORT N0~ 13G~ VARIAIJCI: N0. 2635 AND TBN'TATIVE hSAP OF TRACT N0. 8775
iContinued~ _ ~_ - _ '"'. '~..-'
In reaponet~ tu quoetioning by Cummiae~iunar ~arAno~ Mr. Chrietianean further deecribed tha
aQethetice af the thumA tower~ boi.ng thar. by liaving the several polea iC bocamQ a etruc-
ture and khe antenna would not look like a toothpick. Mr. Chriati.aneen further etated
ehat the te,levielo-~ nntennR eyetem would be uCilized when tlie fireC raeidonte mov$d into
the pra~ect; Chat all. of the wi.rea would be underg-•ound and ther~ would be no p~le in r.ha
middle going up; that the height of the polo wuuld be dc~peadent upan where Che aignala
could be picked up; and that tt~are would be one prang from aech pol.e to the canter thot
would act~ially be t4ie ent~,enna and the center would Cranamit to th~ main atrucCur•~.
Chairman Herbst notod tl~at to hie knowledge t1+e eub~ecC area wr~~: l•he Esest receivtng nrea
in th~ Clty and he did not ucidaratAnrl why a 70-foot antenna t.uuld be ne~ded~ and ~lr.
Christianaeri c~tated th~-C th~y had bac:n advl.sed by experte r~~gt~rding the mntter and ttiut
the height was c.omputed in relationship to Mt. Wilaon; th+-c the exper te had advised that
down low at Ctie sub~ect location thei•~. wns a receiving problem and thaC tha developer wae
teking their word for it; ttic.t, in hie c~pinton~ rhe theme etructure could be q~iite beauti-
f~il since it would be in ttie center ~f the development witti the control room being in tl~P
recreatinn center where t:he mA,j~~r lines would be going out to the houaes.
Commiasioner John~~~~~ then noted that although ha was symPathetic with khe identification
aepects of the propos~-1, tie wap dF~eply conce~rned about being at variance with the long-
Cime members of the Planning Cn~mniesion; Chat he was concerned ragArd ing the precedent
that would be set making it di£ficulC to live with. tle questioned Lhe need for identi-
fication after the development wao completely oold and Mr. Chrietian s en explained that the
propo~ul related to thr~ entire project since they wera aAl.ling a iif e etyle at thc aub~ect
location with which the people could idenCif,y and be proud of downst ream; thgt the pro-
posal. would provide a oervice in addition to being a focal point that could b~ seen through-
out t~le community; and that the life sCy1e wou~.d be centered around the recre~ticn center.
Conemiesioner Gauer questioned Che manner in which the cust af the televiai.on ankenna
system would be paid in relationship to the homeownera aesociation, and if it w~~uld be
handled the same es mal.neennnce aese~amenta, and Mr. Christianaen st ated that the matt:er
had not been clenred by the Reat Estatp Commisaion to date, however, it would be discussed
thoroughly with rhe ho~neowners who would be buying in the developmen t.
CommisAioner King referred to paragraph 11 on page 2-c of the Staff Report Co the Planning
Commission, and it was ~.lari'ied that a 75-foot high theme tower eimilar to the one being
presented was approved by thp Planning Commisaion and City Council t o be located in a
proposed commercial development at Che northwea[ corner of La Palma and Magnolia Avenue,
and that said tower was not in w resideneial area.
Commissioner Morley noted thz~t o:~ the basis of a need for the tel~v ision antenna system,
he wuuld go along with waiver of maximum strucCural height for the tower and deninl of
waivera of Che mflximum sign area and prohibited signs.
In response t~ questionin6 by Chairmau Herbs~, Mr. ChriaLiansen sta ted that the real.need
for the 70-foot high antenna was based on tihe fact that it would be scrving approximately
S00 residencea.
Comu~iasioner Farano uoted ttiat it appeared '.hut material information regarding the need
and hardship was laclcing in the preaen[ation and khat he did not feel Mr~ CF~risttansen wae
capable of explaining the details af the technical aspecta in leyman's language so that
rhe Commiseion might be convinced of the nePd for a 70-foot high towel.
Mr. Lowry advised that the f,ity had aclence advisora who c~u1d probably provide input Co
thP Commisaion regarding the subject matter.
Tt-e Planning Commisaion entered into discussion with the representa tives for the petitioner
and generally concurred that there was need for morP technical info rmation regar.ding the
proposal.
Mr. Christ~.ansen then stated that he did feel there was a hardship in connectior~ wlth the
request ~nd that he agreed that additional in£ormation wae n~cessary to enable tiie Planning
Cou~iasion to fully evaluate the proposal.
Commisaioner Tolar offered a motiun, Reconded by Commiaeioner Merl ey and MOTION CARRIED,
to reopen the publi.c hearing and continue consideration of Variance No, 2G35 ko the meet-
ing of September 16, 1974.
The Planning Connnission generally concurred to continue consider~stion of Envirorimental
Impact Report No. 134 and Tentative Map oi Tract No. 8775 to the meeting of September 16,
~974, aa reauested by the petitioner.
•
0
MINUTF.S, CITY PI.ANNINC COMMIS~ION~ SepCembex' G, 1974
PRESGNTATION AY AN:IHFIM HILLS. INC~
74-G23
Mr. Jahn Milli.ck~ Vico I'r~~eident af Anaheim tlille~ Inc.~ apPexred beforc~ tha Co~maleAion
and praeantad a plaquo to the Commieaion which wa~e to ehare with the City the Ca1d Nugget
Grand Awnrd graneed to Anahoim Hills~ Inc. by Cho Nntlr~nal ~i~mebuilc~ecs Aseociatto~- at tha
recent Pacific Coaet Builclers Conferance. Ha ataCed that Anaheim Hill.s was eal.acted out
of uvar 100 communittes ns the b~at planned community and he thanked xh~ Planning Cor.~miesion
and City SCaff for thair holp and input to tt~c devel~pment of Anaheim Hills~ He furthor.
etated thar it was an honor r.o hnve the City share i.n khe uward.
Chairman Herbst received tha nw~rd on bshal.f of the Ci.Cy Planning Commiesion and Stnff.
ENVIRONMENTAL 1MPACT - YUBLTC ttF:ARINC. ANAH~IM HIGIi SCNUOL DISTRICT~ 501 North Crer~~•ent
R~PORT N0. 133 Wny~ Anaheim~ Ce. 92801 (Owner); C. MICHAEL~ IN~., 8501 Bal.sa
Avenue, Midway Ci.ty, Ca. 92655 (A~ent). Property dQecribed a~:
R3CLASSIFI:CATION A rectangularly-shaped parcel of lend coneiating of appr~ximataly
N0. 74-75-9 2G acres located at the aoutheast corner of East Street nnd Vermont
~ Avenue, having approximate f.rontages of 700 f~et on the eouth aide
'CEN'CATIV~ MAP OC Vermont Aven.ue and 1160 feet on the eaet sida of Eaet Street.
TRACT N0. 8758 Yroper.ty preAently claesifi.ed R-A (AGRICULTUML) ZOt1S.
~ REQU~STrD CLAS,~'iIF'£CATION: RM-4000 (MULTIPLE-FANILY RESIDF.NTIAL)
~ONE.
T~NTATIVE TRACT REQIJEST: ENGINEER: RAAA & F30YER ENG7NEERING COM?ANY, 14402 Beach
Roulev~rd~ Weatminater, Ca, 92683. Sub~ect propertq is
propoaed for subdivision into 157 RM-4000 lots.
No one indicated thelr preaence in opoosil~on to ~~~b~ecC petitlons.
Cortnuisaioner Fazar~o notEd that aince he an~d the other Planning Cowniasioners dld not
receive cflpies of tl~e rlub~ect ~nvironmenr,al Impact Report document in their agenda material,
he would not be able to vote on the eubject petitions. He further noted t;:-+t the City
Council waR pHying r_Lose attentian to Environmental Impact Reporta and relied to a great
extent on the Planning Commisaion's acti~n.
Thereupon. Deputy City Attocney Frank Lowry adviaed that until the Planning Commission
could Cske an acti~n regarding the subject EIR, any action taken on the petitiona could
not be considered at City Council level.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Raberts advised the Planning Comrnisaion that failure to include
the FIR document in the agenda material was an overaight, and he inquired if the planning
Commis~sion would wish to conal.d~~r the deaign aspects of the propased project in relation-
ahip to the surrounding developments with the underatanding that the matter would be
continued [o the nexC c~eeting and, if there were any questione regarding tl-.e Ellt, thoae
pointa r_ould be discussed at that meeting, and the Planning Commic~sion generally concurred
that hearing the peCiti~na in that :nanner would be awkward.
Upon concurrenca wiCh the representative f~r the developer, Commiasioner King offered a
motion, seconded by Commiseioner Morley and MOTION CARRIED, to postpone the public hearing
and canaideration uf E1R No. 1.33, Reclaseificatior. No. 74-75-9 snd Tentative Map uf TrACt
No. 8758 to the meetin$ of September 16, 1974.
CONDITIONAL US~ - PUBLIC HEARING~ TORG DEVELOPME~IT CO., INC., 24422 Rockfield, ~1 Taro,
PERMIT_N0. 1489 Ca. 92630 (Owner); NELSON, PETERSflN & ASSOCIATES, 5(~ California Street,
San Francisco, Ca. 94111 ~Agent); requeatir~g permisaion to ESTABLISH
OU'tD00R STORAGE OF AUTOMOBILES WITH WAIVER 0~ MINIMUM NUMBER OF
PARKING SPACES on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land conaisting
of approximately 9 acreo locatad northeast of the inr.ersection of Ls Jolla Street and the
Fut~ure extenaion of Red Gum Stree~, having approximate frontagea of 628 feet on th~ norCh
side of Ls Jolia Street and 628 feet on the east side of Red Gum Street. Pr~perty preaently
cYasaified M-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAI.) ?ONE.
Ona peraon ind icated hie presence in oppos±tion to aub~ect petition.
Asaistant Zoning Supe:viaor Mnika Santalahti read Che Staff 'Report zo the Planning
Commisaion dated SepCember 4~ 1974, nnd eaid Staff Repork is referred to ae i:f aet forth
in full in th$ minutea.
~ ~
MINUTES, CI'PY PI.~WN7.NG C01~4~tISSION, September 4. 1974
74-424
CONDIxTQNAL U31: PL+W`1iT N0, l.~-89 (ConCi.nuad)
rlr. Victor NelHOn, reprc~senting ChQ agent for the paCitioner. appearod beforo the Conmiiseian
and explained Che proposal~ eta[!ng rhnt tha eub~ect fe-cility wes being relocatc~d fram
Lewip Struek; that they had met wiCt~ CYie Firo Dep~rtment regarding Che propoeal; that tl~ey
wer4 pxopor~ing r~ Ahield khe uee wlth lc~ndecaping and a ma~-anry ~all set back 20 teoC;
thut tha e[orage y~rd would bc~ fncing the rear of ct~r aub~~~ct proporty; Chat an upproxi-
mately 3 ncres nl• the southeaet c~rner of sub~ecC proporty would not be ~~tiliyed for the
propoNOd ~iE•~e; tliat in addiCian ta providi.ng th~e l.andacaping and the wall~ thoy had obtainad
n petition eigned by 8 of Che r-d~acent property ownsrs in favar ot the propoeal; and that
he had providecl photographe oE the BrRintr.ea~ MaAeachusette faciliCy for tho Planning
Commieslon'e review~
Mr. Douglas Page upp~ared before Che Commisaion in oppoeitian to aub~ect petition and
etat~sd he owned pz'operty on La Jo11a 5Creet approximate:.y 300 fe6t west ~f the eub~ect
property; that he wad not famillar wiCh r.he prop~sal b~~t he was cancarned r.egarding lh~
parking waiv~r. aince i1e did not want Co see on-HCreet parking in the areo; thuC Chera was
a problem with runofC watera in the area; and that tie would like to review the plane
befoce he actually regietered any oppoeition.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLUSED.
In re~ponse to qesCioning by Chairman Herbet, Mr. Nelson atipulated ior the petitioner
that there would be no mHchanical., repair or painting work done on the sub~ect property.
Mr. Del I3aumbach, Vice PresidenC of Firemsn's Fund Aa-erican Inaurance Compani~se appeared
before the Comm-ission tu anc~wer que~Cionu regarding the propoeal and, in response to
questioning by Commiasi.oner Farano. he sCated that Che propoRed operation wae in connec-
tlon wlth their mettiod of centralizing the administrative handling of claims activities to
lower the ccst of inaurance premiuma; that they were preparing to centralize their claima
ealaage and the proposed warehouse wouLd have bin~ to contain the recovered salvage, such
as merchandise that waa k~ater damaged, etc., and rhey would uae farklifts to maneuver ~aid
bine; a:id that cleani.ng of inerchandise would be done at the aite of origin. He explaine~
the use of the "Marquette Streas Relief Unit" which would be noiaelesa and would u11ow
sutomobi].es to be aCretched or decompacted in order that the bidders could view tlie vehlcle
Eor usable parts sinca the bids would be reFtricted to the merchandise that could be aeen.
Commissioner King inquir.ed concern~ng diEpositlon of thP portion of ~ubjecr property which
was not to be developed with the propoaed use, ana if the petiti.oner was propoaing to
landseape that portion concurrently With the conatruction of the proposed facility, and
Mr. Nalson stated it was not their iti~ention to provide the landscapingroterte pandean
time Rince they were looking for a"build to suit" or erould sell Chat p p Y~ Y
landsca~ing might reatrict the future use of it, however, they would be glad to do what-
ever the Commisaion instru~cted. He further noted that the street dedication would be made
as part of the proposal.
Deputy (:iCy Attorney Frank Lowry adviaed the Commission that a parcel map to record che
approved subdivision of the sub~ect praperty would be required as a condition af approval.
Following his review of the plana, Mr. Page appeared before the Commisaion and stated he
had no further comment and wished r~~ withdraw his ob,jections.
It was noted Chat ttie Director of Development Services nad determined r.hat the propoaed
activity fell w~ir.hin the def inition of Section 3.01, Clasa 5 of the City of Anaheim
Guidelines to the R~quirements for an Envlronmental Impact Report s~nd was, therefore,
categorically exempt from ttie r.equirement to file an EIR.
Commisaioner Gauer oifered Rer~olution No. PC74-185 and moved for its passage and adoption
t~ grant petition for Conditional Uae Permit No. 1489, granting the waiver of the minimum
number of required parking spacea on the basis that the propoaed parking apac?s is d~~med
to be adequate for the anticipated number of employeea and cuatomers at this facil:lty and
the 120-space requirement would be sufficient for both the proposed offi..e and shop area,
as well as the vast outdoor stozage area and it is not anticipated that the outdoor
storage area will generate any actus~ demand for parking spaces in thia instance as the
Zoning Cade suggea:s; sub~ect tu Che condition that Chere shall be no mechanical', repair
or pair-ting work done at the sub,ject location provided, however, that a noiaelesa
"Marquer.te Str~ss Relief UniC" will be employed in khe proposed operation to increase
visibility for inspection purpoaer~ of selecL-ed non--operable automobiles, as stipulgted to
~
~
~
MINUTES~ (:I1'Y PLANNTNG COMMTSSIUN. SaptE~mher 4, 1574
CONDITLONAL US1~ PGRMIT N0. 1,48y (C~~nclnuad)
74-G25
by the petitionar; tliat a parcal map to record khe approvad divleion of ~ub~ect property
et~all be submitted to and approved by the c:3ty of Anuheim and then be recorded in the
office of the Ornnge Counry Rec~rdQr; and oub~ect to condiCion~. ~Sad Iteaolution Aook)
~n roll cal?~ Che foregoing resoluCion wus passed by the following vote:
AYES: COt~lI5S~ON6RS: FARAN'0~ GAU~R, JOHNSON~ KING~ MORLF' , TOLAIt~ HERBST
NOFS : COP4~tYSSIONERS : NONG
ABSF.NT: COtM1ISSI0NI:RS: NONE
777 Silver S ur Road,
CONDITIONAI. USE - PUBL7:C HEARTNG. NIWGEN 1)EVELOFt~NT COMPANY, P
PE1tMI1' N0. 1Gg1 Ro111ng Hi11e Er~CnCes, Ca. 90274 (Owner); ROCIO LADFJ~U, 766 West
CypresA~ Covina, C~. 91.722 (Agent); requesting pet~a-ission to ~STAIiLISH
ON-SALG 3E~R AND WINE TN CONJUNCT'i0N WI'fH A EtESTAURAN7' on properCy
deACribed as: An irregularly-ehaped pbrcel cf land coneieking of approximately 10.6 acres
located at the NouChweak corner of Santa Ana Canyon koad at~d Imperial fi3ghway, havtng
tipproximata frontugea of 750 teet on the south eide of Santa Ana Canyon R~ad and 760 feet
on the weeC eide of Imperial Highway~ and furttier describad ae 5~1G Snntu Ana Canyon ~toad.
Property presently clnssified C-1 (GENERAL COr4fERC]:AI~) 20NE.
No on~ indicated their preaen~e in opposition to subject petition.
~lthough the Staff Report to the P:lar.ning Commis~lcn dated September 4, 1974 wae not read
at the public henr•ing, it i.a referred to and made a part of Che minuteA.
Mr.. Eugene Wtlklnaon. reprPseriting the ag~:nt for t}ie property owner, appeared before ihe
Commiasion and explained the proposal, being for a Mexican reataurant wit}i on-saJ.e beer
and wine.
mHE PllBLIC HEARING ~iJAS CLOSED.
In responae to questioning by Commissioner. Gauer, Mr. Wilkinson etipul.ated that on-gHZe
beer ansl wine wouZd be in con~unction with the sale of food only and that no bar was
proposed to be a part of the operation.
It was noted that the Director of Devel.opment Services had detez'wined that the propoaed
activity fell within Che definir.ion of Section 3.01, Clasa 1 of the City uf Anah~'tm
Guidelines to the Requi~rements for an Environmental lmpact Report and was, therefore,
categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR.
Cammisaioner King offered Reso].ution No. PC74-186 and moved for i.ta paseage and adoption
to grant petition for Conditional Use Permit I~o. 1491 on the basis that a nimilar use was
previously approved in the sub~ect area, subject to the ~tip~~latione of the peCitioner and
sub~ect to canditione. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call, ths f.oregoing reaolution was passed by Che following vote:
AyF;$: COI~AIISSIONERS: FARAN(1, GAi1ER, JGFIId50N, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, HEKBST
N~ES: COPtMISSIONERS: NONF.
ABSENT: COMMISSIOI3ER5: NONE
'JARIANCE N0. 2631 - PUBLIC HEARING. OBIE T. MOORE, 14371 Acacia D•rive, TusCin, Ca. 92680
(Owner); AItNOLD Bh:RNSTEiN, 300 Sauth Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, Ca.
92805 AND AND1 T. r1ADISON, 600 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, Ca.
`dUNBGR OF PARKINC SPACES TO ESTABLISH P. LAW
92805 (Agents); requesting WAIVER OF MIN IIY[UM .
SCHOOL IN AN EXISTING BUILDIivG ~u property descr3bed as: A rectangularly-ahaped parcel
of land conaiating of app~oximaCely 0.55 acre located a~ the corners of Oak St:eet, Lemou
Stre~t and Chestnut Street, having approximnCe frontages of 159 feet on th~ south side
of Oak Street, 150 feet on the weat aide of Lemon Street, and 159 feet on the north side
of Chestnut Street, and further described as 135 Sauth Lemon Street. Property presently
classified C-2 (CENERAL COI~tERCIAI.) ZONE.
One peraon indicated his presence in oppositton to subject petition.
~
~
U
MtNUTf:5~ CI7'Y PLANNINC COl~41T.CSION~ Soptamber ~~, 1974
74~•426
VARIANCTs N0. 2631 (Continued)
Aneistant 2oning Supervieor Annika Santalxht! rend the Staff Report Cu l•he Planning
(:ommiesion daked Septembor. 4, 197H, aad aaid Staft Repor[ ie raferred tn n~ 1E det forth
in full in the mitiutea
Mre. Ann Madleon. 6U0 S~utli Nnrbor BoulevairJ, uppeared be£ore the Commiselon rapreeeneing
Che peCition~r~ and r~Cated ChnC tt~e rea~~~~n for Chc xequedt wae to obtain aseuranca thut
the 40 paxking epaces whi.ch wno approveJ by the City Council could be r~nted for 28 monthe ~
or until auch ti.me eis tt~e aubjr.ct property wae redeveloped under Projact Alpha, wltli 90
daye' notica; that the C1Cy Attorney'~ Office had advisad that the parki.ng a~r~ement would
contain a 30-~day cancellation r_luuse whi.ch could poesibly deny parking al mid~term for the
propoeed lzw sahool and ehe did noC feel that was Che intent of the City Council in grant-
inR t~ermie~ion to rent the purking spacea; thaC, in har opinion, the propos~d law achaol
would serve us a catalyet to the detarlorating downtown area wiil.l.e Pru~ect Alp1~a wae
getting off. the gruund; thaC the eubjeat tacility wae previoualy occupicd by g beauty
college which apparently wae grnnted a variance witt~out adequate parking; that to her
knowledge the banke~ reta i l e tore s, e t c., w e r e n o t r e q u i r e d to provide their own parking
downtown; that the propcsed echoal would need some aseletance from the City and Che houra
of operation would be during thode l~oure when the parking lote wera not busy anyway, be~nE
9:00 A.M. to S:OG p.m. on Saturday - not ~uet mornings aa ahe had previously indicated to
Staff and from 7:00 Y.M. ~0 10:00 i~.m. Monduy through Friday; a~::: tliut tlzerr would be A
r~aximum uf 34 atudente attending said achoo.l on Saturdays and from 79 to 125 s[udenta
optimum enrollment; that the building wae more khan adequate to handle tMe stud~ut enr.ol.l-
ment, huwevex', the parking lut was inadequaCe; that the achool's auditorium seated 80
atudente; that atie had :~poken to the Chief Suil.ding Inepe~.tor and was advised that aince
there would be no chanRe in Che typa of occupancy, the building would nnt have to comF.y
w{tti new Building Code requirements and, therefore, they would requeat that C~nditioti No.
3 as set forth in the Stuff Report be deleted. She further etated that the petitiuner was
wi111ng ta comply with the Builciing Code requirementa for any new construction; chat aince
redevelopmenC was imminent. Chey would not llke ~o put additional funds into the building,
which would also add Co the ncquisition coat to the City at a later 3Ate; that regarding
Condition No. 2 of the St~ff Report~ ehe raqusated the Cormnieaion's conai.deration for.
deletion of said condition, inasmuch as the proposal was sxn interim use and the sidewalks
were not dangeroue or hazardons around the aub,~ent facility; thPt repnirs to the aidewalks
would uLsa increase the acqi~isition cost of che property to the City; nnd that the law
scho~l was permitted by right with 34 3tudents for either day or evening use withouk
repairing tha eidewalka~
Mrs. Madisor~ discussed the various on-•s:reet p8rking avallable during the evenin~ hours,
as well as the two large parking lots being located on Chestnut Street ~uet eset of Leman
an.d on the corner of Broadway and Lemon and stated that the law school therefore would be
at an ideal location, especially during the evening hours. She continued by atatir.g the
law school would have two campuses, one being at the Bs~nk of American building where thay
had been operating for t:ie past two years and the subject location on LP1non StreeC; that
the lease with the Aank of America ~•~ould expire in July 1977 and the subject lease would
expire in Der.ember 1976~ and by that time it was hopeful that the school would find other
quartera more suitable for their need or psrhapa be able to fit into tt~e overall develop-
ment of Project Alpha.
Mr. Uoug Renner appeared before the Commiasion representing the SQR stere ln the area and
atated most of tiis question.s had beec- answered; that he could see no problem with the
optimum of 125 atudents at the aubject location during the hours propoaed from 7:00 to
9:00 in the eveninge, since the hours of operation would have been hie ma{:~ concern.
Mr. Ben~amin Cutter, ?.18 West Lincoln~ appeazed before the Coa~mission and stated he was in
favor of the propoaal, however, he was concerned r.egAZding the parking; that he owned the
ad~acent reataurant, however, ehe operaCors of that restauranti were not aware of the
subject proposal; and that the parking had coat him approximately $25,000.
In reaponse to questioning by Chairman Herbst, Mr. Cutter stated r_hat his restaurant tiad a
back door which was across thE street from the parking lot in back of the subjecL pr~~perty;
that the restaurant had been in operation for 12 years and they had spent a fortune ~e-
furbishing it, including installation of new caipets and signs; tt-at he co.~ld foreaee no
problem in the daytime but in the evening they could not af.ford to give up one parking
apace far tt'~e law school's use; and thak the proposed waiver of. the parki.ng requirements
woul~ reall.y hurt the reetaur~nt operation.
~
~
MINUTES~ C1T.Y PLANNINC COMMISSION, September 4. 1974
74-G27
VARIANC~ N0. 1631 (Continuad)
Mr. Arnold BernaCein, Aeei~tant Daan of the propaeed American College ~f Law. appo~rod
bef~re the Comwiseion and ~l•utucf that he h~d 'neen in the area in the recent p~~et o~cl had
nnCed that th~ parking l~ts wera e~paclnlly vacant duritig the c~vPning houre; ttie~r,, in liie
opS.:iion the ad~acc~i~t restournnt would beneeit irom the pr.oposod law echoo2 bacn~ee tho
etudente would probably patroniza it; but if ttie owner ut' the restaurant fglt r.he ad,~uc:ent
parking l~t was of euch great. ba~afit to thnt buslclase, then perahupa he phou.ld pay gor
uee of l.t; that the law sctiool would like to be a part of nny ux'bnn renewnl pro~ect in
Mahei.m; that, in his opinlon~ tha achoul wot~ld gi.ve a booet to thegdowntuC`~gr~u"H~h~hB~
they wsre subleaeing nn exieCing leaee and would not br~ estahliehin an g
l•he former tenant had; and thnC the gubject location had been available Rt a Uurgain
Yental and that wa~ why thty werc raquosting the use.
Mr. Lnuia Dexter~ 305 Nar.th kanchitc~ SCreet, appeered before the Commineiori and el•atcsd
when he camQ into Anaheim Cu see the movie», etc., he generully never had r~ problem fictd-
i.ng adequnte parking; but after the puUlic hearing on the sub~ectrmAt=ere=~y~~'khatdhd ta
drive downtown and purk -Zear the resCaurunt ad~acent to the subje_t p op
woul.d tend to agree that there would not Ue a parking problem for the rusCaur~nt or the
school; that the restaurnnG would probabl.y gec a lot of businesn from the law echool
etudents; nnd that he had nevex seen Che pArking lote used to tl~e extent deecribed by
I~r. CutCer.
Fir. Ed Gravea of the Anaheim Chamber of Comaaerce appeared betore Che Coam-iseion and ataCed
the Chamber was located acroes the street from the sub~ect property; tl~at infrequently the
Ct~amber held meetinge in the eveninge and had never had any probieme with respect r.o park-
ing and ttiey did not foresee any probleme with the addition of the law Achoal; and L•haC
the Chamber felt the echool o~ould be a g~od addiCiun to the City ~nd th~t they would hope
any problemA from parking for any one etreet could be rc~solved.
Mr. Cutter emphasl7ed that ne wae not oppased to the school, but that xhere was a parking
problem. He ataCed that if there wa~ parking available behind Che Chamber of Couanerce
facility, then the school ehould ].easa those parking apaces; that moaC of the petrons of
the restaurant were there for. approximatPly 15 to 20 minutas and that they aleo hnd walk-
in Crade; that if there was simply no other spaces available other than the parking lot
behind the reataurant, then he could reason; that the st~dents would be perkad for aever.al
hours at a time compared to the reataux'anC park~.ng which would Ue •ln and out; and thnt
there were pr.ob:~l~ly evenings when the restaurant busineas wad not quitn as t~eavy as at
other times.
In response to questioning by Commisaioner Gat~er, Mr. Renner indicated that the SQR Land
Company did not own two parking areas in the City buC were in the procesa of disaolution;
and that the property at Lemon and Chestnut was owned by h~s family, however~ Mrs.
Schumacher owned the parking lot there.
Commissioner Gauer then explained that, to his knowledge, the parking in the City was
purchxsed by the City and the merchants through a~oint ventur.2 and although he did not
know wha.t percentage was paid by the merchants, the lote were referred to as publi.c park-
ing lots.
Chairman Herbst noted tl~ut the par.king lots were partially purchased with parking meter
funde. He further noted that !.f the Planning Commission denied the sub~ect variance, the
petitioner would h&ve Co lease the parking spacer~ khat had been prevtously appraved by the
City Council for rental to the subject law school; and thaL i:E the variance wae granted,
Lhen the schuol could use the parking lot like anyone else.
In reaponse t~ queationing by Commisaioner King as to why the school did nAt have the same
right as the adjacent restaurant for use of the parking sPacesf Commiesioner Johnson
indicated that Lhe atudents woald require more parking time than a mecchant.
~ ~. Madison explained that Mr. fiernstein would have no ob~e.ction to have Che atudents
park on Lemon and Broadway, etc., and thereupon Mr. Bernstein stipulated that the proposed
sc:hool would be using only its own parking lot on Saturdays, and Chat they would need
the addirional parking spaces only during the weekdays. He further stated that it was
unfai.r and arbitrary that some should have the use of the lot while others would not.
• ~.
MTNUTES, CYTY PLANNI.NC COt~tI9SI0N, 3eptember 4, 1974 ~4~42a
VARIANCE N0. 2631 (Contlnued)
Mr. Adolph Miller, 230 Wo~t l.ineoln~ Meheim~ appeared before the Coma-iesia~ and ~uggeetad
ttiat ~f approved~ thn eub~~ct variance ehould bfl reviow~d after a an~-yoAr period to eQe
if it was campatible; that whlla ther~ prAbably would be no problem, perliape there would
ba a big ptoblem; r.hat the prop~~ead ecliool wae thn largeet law echool in tha 3tate of
California and could bccom~ lerge nt che uub~nct locAtion, and if tha varianca wae flagged
for review at the and oE onn year, l•t~e Planning ~ormai.seion could them m~ke s finA1 decipion
on the matter.
TNF. PUELIC H~AEtING WA.~+ Cl.~.)SE[).
Commioaionar M~~rlQy notcsd tliat lf. thu e~b~ecC schaol co~ld not afford to pay Clte S4Q por
monCh rental tor r.h~a parking spacoe, i.C wAS a prQtty ahaky buginees.
in res~unsg to queationi.ng by Coam~i~ai~:~or Johnson~ Mre. Madison s.:ated thut the ~urpose
of the variunce wae to tiave Nome a;+urance of ~ontinuec' use of che parking~ and noC ta
renege an the $40 rental fac~; thac ch~y also did not want to come in wich a 3G-day can-
cellntion clause in the rental agreQment; and that et the end of 28 montho~ the echool
lease would be up and the Pro,ject Alpha would bc well on ite way•
In respo~Ae to queatio«ing by Commisei.an Far.ano, Mr. Bernatein eti,~ulated that there would
be no library facilitiea at the ~ub~ect location. Mr. Bernetein fuct:~er stated that there
would be from 15 to 20 tota.l t;tculty and that no more than three faculty and ono admini-
strator would be at the achool on any one evening.
Couwissi.oner Fxrano then made +ui~ obeervetion that the petitioner wae reque~Cing for lees
than tialf the required parking s{~aces and although he did not believe the ad~ncent testau-
rant wae~ more enCitled to the parking ~pace than anyone else., he d:d not think the peti-
[ioner waa antitled to have lesa ehan what wae required.
Mr. Sernstein then atated that they were willing to pay the $4(l rental per month which
would be paesed on to ttie atudente, however~ the agreement w ~sat•isfactoi~y based on the
30-day cancellation clause.
Commieaioner Farano noted Chat the State. County and other cities and agencies wou~.d not
enter iiito such a contract without Che 30-da~ clause.
Mr. Lowry advised that the City Council Y~,3 gxante:d a permit for the ad~itional paricing
spaces and that the Planning C~nmisslan could not act on that mattar unlese it wae by
acting ~avorably on the aub~ect variance.
Commissioner rarano noted for the peti.tioner that if the City Council had desired to gitie
the p~rking spaces for the sub~ecr. uae, they w~uld have, and Mre. Madiso~ etated Chat at
the time the permit was granted. a time limiG was not discuased.
Mr. Lowry then advised that the agreement wae atandard format for the City and [hat relief
from samP ~aould have to be granted by Lhe City Council.
Mra. Madison then atated that Che ad~acen.t restaurant was leaning entirely on City parking,
and Comcnisaioner Gauer noted that the pnrlcing diatricta were formed by the bueinesaee in
the City. Mra. Madison further stated that ahe was sure ~hat the owner of the subject
buildi.ng must• have participated in those parking districts a1AO.
In reaponse to quesCioning t,y Chairman Herbaty Mr. Bernstein atipulated that the hours of
operation would be from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p•m. Monday through Friday and from 9:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.~. on Saturday, and that there was no intention to have a day class during the
weekdays.
Mr. Lowry adviFed that if it wa~s the deaire of the Commiasion to grant the oubject variance,
Condition No. 3 as set forth in the Staff Report could not be deYeted aince neither the
Planning Commisaion nor the City Council could grant relief from the Building Code.
It was noCed that the Director of Uevelopment Servicea had determinad that the pxopased
activity ~ell wi.thin the definition of Sectian 3.01, Class 1 of the City of An~hPim
Guidelinea to Che Requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and was, therefore,
categorically exempt from the requir~menC to file an EIR.
~ ~
MINUTES. CI'fY PI.ANNINC COMMIS5IUN, Septon~het' 4~ 1974 ~4-42g
VARIANCG N0. 2631 (Continued)
Commiseioner Morlc+y ofEarod Reeoluti~n No. PC74-187 and moved f.or its paenage und udoption
to deny petllion for Vt~riance No. 2631 on the baeis that the petitioner did not damonNCcate
a hardship would be crent~d if ea13 waiver was not gran~ed~ eince parking dpac~s wcre
available in municipe~l parking lota for n rencRl fae and said parking apnces 'have already
bgan t-pproved by the City Council tor rentRl fox the proposed uec. (Se~ Raeolutlon B~ok)
On rol.l call, the foregoing resolutior- wua passed by the fotlowinn, vota:
A.YES: COMMISSIONCRS: FARANA~ GAUER, JOKNSQN, KING~ MORL~Y, TOI.AR~ HERtiST
NOES: COMMISSIQNERS: NONE
ABSENT: COr41I.SSION~RS: NONE
RECESS - Chairman Herbst declared a recesR at 4:00 p.m•
RECONVENE - Chairman Herbet reconvene~i the meet~.ng at 4:Z0 {>.m.~ all Commissionurs
~^ being present.
VARIANCh N0. 2633 - YUBLT.C HEt~RING. SIDN~Y P. SNYDGR~ 1763 South Heatl~~r Lane, Anat-eim,
Ga. 9280~ (Owner); requesting 'r1AIVER OF MINIMUM AEAR YARD TO PERMIT
AN PJCISTING HOU5Ii MDITiON on proper[y deecribed as: A rectangulnrly-
ehaped parcel of land consisting of approxi.ma~ely 7725 square feet located aC the eouCh-
weat corner of Holgate Brive And Neather l.an:., !:evir.g approximate frontages of 103 fset
on the south eida of Holgate Drive and 75 fe~:C on the weaC side of Heather Lane~ and
further deacribed as 1763 South Her~ther Lane. Property presently claesifiad R-1 (UNE-
FAMILY RFSIDENTIAL) ZONE.
No one i.ndicated thetr. presence in opposition to subjecC pet>tiun.
Although the Srafi Report to the Planning Commiesion dated September 4, 1974 was not read
At ~he public hea.ring, it is re~erred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Sidney P. Snyder, the petitioner, uppeared before the Cammiasion and stated he had
lived at the sub,ject property for ten yeara; t.hal' a storage shed was conatructsd with the
houae in 1~50 and~ subaequently, he had attached the shed to ttie hauae by an extenaion
which was encloaed; that they had been advised that a variance was necesRary for l~aving
made the extension. Mr. Snyder then read a letter dated Avguat 23, 1974 f.rom Mr..Fred
Dudn, whose property abuCted the sub~ect propert} at the property l.ine in question~ eaid
letter indicating that there was no ob~ection to the 8~8ndgsaidblettergwaaipresentedgtoto
and becoming a part of the petitioner's main building;
the Planning Commisaion Secretsry for the record.
THE PUBLIC HEAR7ti3 WAS CLOSED.
Itt responae to questioning by Commiseioner. Tolar, Mr. Snyder st~ted he would agree that
it would have been proper to take out building permita at the beginning ~f. the building
addition, however~ the shed was deteriorating ~nd they were improving it.
Mr. Snyder £urther atated that he h~sd done the work hiwself and if tl~e variance wae granled
he wauld c~~mply with L•he Building~Code requiremenke•
In response to ques~ioning by Commiesioner Johnson~ Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry
advised that the building addition woul.d rpqu•ire an encroachment permit if the wttiver of
the rear ynrd setb~ck was granted; that the petitioner was aware of the need far eri en-
croachment permit, whlch would could granted at the discretion of the City Council but would
be cancelable at will; and that it might be exceedingly difficult to sell the property 1£
such an encroachment permit wa~ existing.
In response to questioning by Ch ~rman Herbel, AssistanC Zoning Supervisor Anniku
Santalahti conftrmed that if the ahed had not become attached to the dwelling, it would
have been legal as far as its location at the pxoperty itne, since an acceseory structure
must be a minimum of $ feet frum the main building•
C~
~
~
MINU;ES~ CITY PL,ANNINi; GON4d7.~ST.ON, Saptembet• 4~ 1974
74-/i3C
VARIANC,Is N0. 2633 (Continuod)
Commiesioner Gauor aot.ed th~t i~ wae di.£ficult tn tell Che pAtitioner that the additi~on
wou1J hava to be torn down~ inaemuch ae it w.~s not endangoring any~ne's health, eafety ar
welfarat however~ it would eot x precedent.
ChAirman HerbaC noted Chat he wa9 concerned regnrding the poeeible ancronchmant permit for
th~; dub~ec:t per-nanent ~~ructure bei.ng thn2 i.f the petitioner eold the properry and the
City thc~n needed the en8emenC, would the new owner b~e able to live with Che fact thaC the
etructure mlght havo to ba removed; ~incl for thaC reuson he wouid vote againet the pro-
poeal..
Gommiseioner (~arano nut:ed Gtiat he wuuld vote for de-~ial. for the raason ytath~i h,y Chairman
Narbat, in addition to the fact that he found it hard to belteve thnt Mr. Snyder was not.
aware that hc~ wne required by law to have a bui181ng permit 1n order to pcoceed, sinc~ he
was in the real eatate busineas•
The Planni~lg CommisAion enkered into discuseion wi.th the petiLioner and Staff regarding
the easement ~nd iCs presen!: us~, und Misa Santalahti noted t'hc-t the Electrical Division
ha~i indicsted thIIt the,y did not wanC to abandon eafd easement.
Mr. Snyder indicated Co th~ Coromiasion tt~at there ~iere other etructurea ln the neighbor-
hood Chtik were encroaching inro the required aetbacka and/or easemente, and Co~niASiondr
King noted that he would like lo cher.k the matter in the field.
Therec~pon, Commi.aeioner King offered a moCion, seconded by Co~isaioner Tolar and h1UTJ:ON
CARRIEil~ Co reopen the publfc hearing and continue consider3tian of Variance No. 2633 to
the meeting of SepCembar 16, 1974.
VARIANCE N0. 263~- - PllBLIC HEARING. STERLING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Attn: Connie Priest,
3150 Eac+t La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92806 (Owner); BRISTOL BAKER
CORP., Attn: William L. llunn, Richard Wadworth, and J. P. Wietton,
1237 Buyeide Drive, Corona Del Mar, Ca. 92625 (Agentl; requeatina WAIVL~R OF PERMITT~D
USES TO ESTABLISH A SANDWICH SHOP on propeity descriUed as: An irregularly-ahaped parcel
of land coneisCing of approximately 10 acres located southeaRt of the Carbon Creek Channel,
having approximnte f.rontagea of 430 fec~t on the south side of La Palma Avenue and 110 feet
or. tha eaat side of Kraemer Boulevard, being lacated approximaCely 450 feet east of the
centerline cf Kr:~emer Boul.evard, and further deacribed as 3150 East La Palma ~venue.
Property presently classified N-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZONF,
No one indicated their presPncP in c~ppuciti~~n Co aubject petition
Although the SCaff Report to the Plni-ning Coc~miasion drsted Se~te~ber 4, 1974 was not read
at the public hearing, it is referr~d to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr, llick Wadworth, representing the petitioaer, appeared before the Commiasion to anewer
~;ueations regarding the proposal.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Comwissioner King noted th~t he had re.vieearedhtosbe ide~lrforrtheiproposedPSandwich ahop
Commigsioner Morley, and the location app
since it would eave a lot of time and troub:Le tor the people in the induatrial park.
In response to quea~_ioning by Commissioner Gauer, Mr. Wadworth stipulated tY;at there~wouZd
be no food consumed on the premises~ but that the establishment would have take auC food
service on1y; and thaL there wo~,ld be no alcoholic beverages sold or consumed on the
premises. Mr. Wadworth fuz~her atated thaC in view of the way thc eatablishment would be
operated, wiCh no taUlea, there should be no litter probl~ma.
Commiss:toner 'Tolar nor.ed Chat if the subjecC request was approved, it ahould be witi~ a
time limit.
Tt was noted that the Diractor of Development Servicee had determined that the proposed
tsctivity fe11 within the definition of Section 3.01, Clas~ 1 of the City of Anaheiw
Guidelines to the Requiremente for a~~ Environmental Impact Report and wae, therefore,
categorically eac~mpt from the requirement to file an EIR.
~ ~
M7Ni1T1:S, CITY PLANNING COMMI.SSION, 5epterober 4, ].974 '14-431
V~-RIANCL~ NU. ZG3G (Continued)
Commiseioner King offarE!d Iteaolution No. PC7G-188 and moved for ita paeeage and adoptfon
to grant petition for Variance No. 2634 on khe baeie of thc forogoing findinge, for a
period of twu yaars~ aubjecc. tu review and coneideration For c+xtensl~n ~f time by the
Planning Commisaion c+nd/or City Counci.l upon requeeC Uy Che petitioner; eub~ect to the
atipulatione of the petitionor and Aubj~c+~ t•o cond•ltl.one. (Soe Reac~luCi~~n Book)
~n rnll cAll., the foreguing r.esolution wne paseed by the followi.ng voCe:
AYES: COI~4~IISSLONERS: FARANO~ GAUER, JOHNSON, KING~ MORLEY, TOLAK, HERB5'T
N~E~: CONIIdISSTONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COr4[IS5TONERS: NONF.
RECI.ASSIFICA'L'ION - CUNTINUED PUALTC HEATtIyG. CRi1Z AND MADELINE VARGA5, 1839 Mountain
N0, 74-75-1U View Avenue~ Anal~oiu~, Ca. 92802 (Owners); CARLOS VARGAS, 18~9
Mc~untain View Avenue, Arsaheim, Ca. 9?.902 (Agant). Property deACribed
VARIANCE N0. 2621 as: A ractangularly-sliaped p~rcel of land c~nRisting ut approxitoately
^ ]..0 acre havin~ n fronC~ge of approximately 118 feet on Che weat Ride
of Muuntain View Avenue, having u maximum depth of up~rox•lmately 360
feet, nnd bel.ng located approximatA7.y G20 £eet south of the centerline of Katc~'.Ya Waq,
and further dQSCribed ae 1833 and 1A39 Mountai.n Vi.ew Avenue. Property presently rtaeai-
fied R-A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE.
RGQUCSTED CLASSIFICATION; C-1 (GENE1tAL COI~I~RCIAI.) ZONE
R~QUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER Or (A) MINIMUM DR'IVEWAY WIDTH, (B) PERMITTEn USE, (C) MAXIML'f~i
BUILDING HCIGHT, (D) MINIMUM rRONT YARD SETBACK, AND (F) MINIMUM SIDE
YARD SCTBACK TO PERMIT THE CONTINUED USE OF AN EXISTING T.RUCK
ST.ORAGE TERMINAI, AND ~'0 CONSTRTJCT A COMMERCIAL OFrICE BUII•DING.
No one indics~ted their presence ln oppositi.cn la suL~ect pet~itions.
Although the Staff Report to the Planning Commlgsion dsted September 4, 1974 was not read
at the public hearing, ix is referre~i to and made a part of the minutea.
Subject petition wa.~ continued fro~ tha Planniug Coam~i.saion meeting of July 22, 1974 to
allow the petitioner time to review thc submiLted plans tn eliminate aome of the waiver.s,
and to file u reclasaificstion pet~ition requestir~g a zune change from R-A to C-1.
Mr.. Carlos Vargas, reFresenting the petitioner, appeared before the Commisaion and stated
the revised plans d3d not change the ~tyle of the originally--propused building, and that
they were requesting C-1 zoning~
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
In response to queationing by Chairman Herbst~ Aseietant Zoning 5upervisor Annika
Santalahti noted that in the event the acl~acent properties were developsd (:-1, and on the
basis of the revised plans as submitt~d, the only waiver that would be. needed far the
subject proposal would be waiver of the permitted uses in the C-1 Zone.
In reaponse to questioning by Chairman Herbat~ Mr. Vargas atipulated that the proposed
atorage yard would be used excluatvely for etorage of trucks owned by the petitioner, said
trucks not to exceed two-ton capaci;,y so that there would be no diesel rigs, etc., and
that no consCruction clean-up materials would be atored on the sub~ect property. Mr.
Var~as further staCed that there wer~ no fur,'.her plana for use of ~he ~roparty in the rear
other than the sub~ect proposal.
In reaponae to questioning by the PYanning Coffiniasion, Mr. Var~as a~ate~i that in the
future the office sp~ae ml$ht be rented ouC, r~'vwever, for Che present time, it would be
for the peCitioner's use.
In response to further questioning by Commisaionet Farano, Mr. Vargas reconfirmed Chat the
stora~e yard and the rear portion ~~f the proparty wae to be for the petitione~:'s own uee
exclusively, for storage of thet.r trucks.
In response to questioning by Chalrn.~n Herbar, DE~puty (:ity Attorney Frank Lowry advised
that the only way the Coarmiasion cauld control the use would be t`~rough a time 1~.mitaCion
and, thereupan~ Commlasi~ner. Gauer suggesteu a two-yeur time limit, aubject Co revicw.
i ~
MINI1TlsS~ C1TY PLANPIING COt+U~fISST.UN~ Septomber. 4, 1974 74-~~~2
TtECLA3SIFIC~ION NU~ 74: 7~~~ ,A~1D VAKFANCE NU. 1~.21, (Cc,ntlnued)
In r.c~ ,~nae to queytianing by Commiesianer K1nR, Mr. VnrgaR etipulated tu compllancA with
the City ntandarde for traeh ptorage areae and c~dequato cornor cut-offe would be pruvided
'~i.n the parking uroa to accoamiodate thr_ trasl~ collacCicm vehicles~ and Chat int~rwover~
~ ~roud or. cedar elata would be i.r-stnll.ed ln tha t. ~p~i~a~1 gAte acroae the ~ntranca driveway.
Commias:loner Morley oftiered a motion, eacondad by Com~insioner King nnd MOTI.UN CArtRIRU,
ttiat the Plunning Commiaeion reco~nencis to the City Council that the eub~er_l pro~oet be
exem~k from the r.equireu-ent to pr~pare an ];i~viYOnment~l Impact Report pure~iant co the
~rovioione of the Cnllfornis I:nvironmQrt~l Quality Act.
Commiesioner M~rl~~y offered Reeoluti.~n N~~. PC74-183 and moved f.or ite p..neag4 gnd adoption
r.o racommend to the City Coun~il appt'ovat uf ~~etition for Reclaeeificutian No. 74-75°7-U
aub~ect to the stipul~Ci.on~ of the petiCioner nnd sub~ect to cunditione. (See RQaolution
Book)
On ru1.1 r.a7.1, 1:he foregoi.ng resoluti.~n wae passed by L•ha fotlowing vote:
AY~S: COhQdISSTONERS: FAftANO~ CAUCR, JOHNSON~ KTNG, l.)RI~EY, TOLAR, HERBST
NOES: COt~tISSIONEKS: NONE
ABSEN'T: COI~(7SSIONERS: NONE
Cammieaioner tlorley ~ffered R.esolut •t No. PC74-184 and mov~•d £or its passage and adopCion
to ~rant peCiCion for Variance Na. ~~L1 oa tYte basis thut waivers of the minimum drlveway
width and minimum front yArd sethnclc in the R-A ':one were withdrawn by the patitionar on
^.he basis of k}~e rev:i.aed plans in confo~~mance with Code requi.remer.ta and the initfation of
•~ request foi C-1 zoning instead of reCaining the pr~pert-y in the R-A 7,one; grgnting
wniver of per.witted uses in the C-1 Zone for u period of two years subject to review and
conaideration for exteneion of time by the Plnnning Coam~iesion a~d/or City Council upor~
request by the petitioner; grunting ~+aivers of the mini~num aide yard setbc+ck and minimum
building h~ight on the baeie ChaC the trend for development in the immediate area wa.~
p~eneral. commerclal and, in the event the surroundinR parcels developed co~ercial, seid
waivere would no longer. bc~ neceosary; siib~E~~ tu th~ dCipulatione~. by tihe petitoner and
subject to condiCions. (See Resoluxion ~3oo'x)
On roll call, the foregoing r.+solution was paesed by tha following vote:
AYES: COhQ~iISSIONERS~ FARANO, GAUEd, JOHNSON, K1NG, r10RLEY, TOLAR, H~R13ST
NOF.S: COMMISSIUNERS: NONE
Py~" ~T: C0I~4IISSIUNERS: NONE
REPORTS AND - 11'EM h0. 1.
KECOI~IENI3A'f iONS GREENWICH STREET ANNE}{pTT.ON - INHABITID
It was r.oted thaC ttie hom~ownere living on Greenwich Street in CounCy territory were
requesting th~t their small subdiviaion be annexed into Che City of Anaheim; that said
aubdivieio:i consi:~~~ ^f r.ine lota c~ve.ring an area oi approximately 1.84 acres located
~n the CouCh side of .ange Avenue approximately 1,100 feet west of Brookhurat Street;
that tt~e current Co~~nty zoning wae R-1 and each lot contained a s'_ngle-family residence•,
that eurro~~nding land useA to Che weat, sou th and easx were aiugle-family resideatial;
that a private school was located to the no cth acrosa Qrange Avenue an~' Dianey ~,lemen-
t~ry School was located Co the northwest; tt~aC vehi.cular acceas to the subdivision wae
provided by Orar~ge Avenue and Greenwich Str eet; thaC electxical utilities were provided
Co said subdivieion by Southern California Edison (:ompany, water and aewer were provided
by tl-.s Ciky of Anahaim, fire protectl.on was pr.ovided under Cou~ity contract by ~he City
of Stanton, and pol.ice protertion was provided by the County ShLriff's Department; that
the Anahei~n General Plan dcsi~nated the aubject a~ea for low-density residential usea;
and that the City of Anaheim zone thaC mos t closely approximated the existing County
zoning was the R-1. One-famity Residential, Zone.
Coamis~ioner King offered a mo~ion, s~.^^~~ded by Ci~anisaioner JohnROn and MO'rION GARRIED,
~hat the Plar.ning Commission rPC~nuuui~ds to the CiCy Gouncil that thP uropoaed "Greenwich
Strpet Atinexation" (inhabtted) be apgroved; and that approprinte City of Anaheim zoning
be initiated at such time as the annexation ordinance hus been read.
~ ~
MINUTE3~ CITY PLANNING COtO~iISS'iON, Sn_ptamber ~i, 1974 7h-433
REPORTS AND - ITBM NO_,_„2
RECOt~O:NnATIONB CENB[tAT, PLAN AMI:NllM~N'P N0. 132 - Seiemic nnd S~fety
~' ~ Eloroent af the Anaheim Conern'. P1an - ELR Nogative
Ueclnrntion Request.
It wRe notcsd tlia~ on Auguet 5, 197~i. the Planning Cammineion recom~endad co the rity
Couacil adopt ion of Anaheim Cenerni P1nn Amandmmnt Na. 132 ae che Ci ty' ~ Satemic and
Safety Element of tt-e Anahelm General Plan; thet the environmental impACt raport statuA of
th~ ElemonC wae 3nad~-e~~lently owicted duri.ng P1ann•ing Comniesion considerntion uf eaid
Elemonr; and that a revlew of the F.lssrtent and an Initial Study iiid4cated thnt there would
be no sign Lf icant anvlronmuntal impact since thc~ Elem~nt did not ~.nc].ude pzopoeals for
pro)ecte or policiee whicl~ could have an adverae nffect.
ThereuvoYi~ Cummiesionar King off~red a mokion, saconded by Commissicnar Johneon and M~TION
CARRIED, that the Plan~ing Cowuiseion recommei~de to the Gity Couacil that the nub~ect
document be exempt from the requtromant t~o prepare an Environmental. Impact Report purousnt
Co tha prov3.sione of the Callfornia EnviroQ-menCal Qunlity Act.
IT~M N0. 3
~ONUITIONAi, USG PrRMIT N0. 1461 - Request for Cerminatian -
Pr.oparty locat~d at tha nortl;eaet corner of Ln Palma Avanue
nnd Ar.acia Screet and zoned C-1 (Mamma Cozza's Restauranl•).
It was note3 t,haC on Jmie .18, 1.974~ khe City Cuuncil granted Gonditional Use Yermit: No.
1461 to permit on-ssle beer and wine in an ex:let•ing restaurant at the aub~ech. location,
sub~ect to cartain conditions; thak Che applicant had submitted a letter dated A~iguKt 12,
1974, indicating tha+[ in compliance with a verbal agreement wi.th the City (:o~~nciY, tha
sub~ect can3ltional uae permit could he terminated aince the proposed restaarant had been
cloaed and the beer and wine li.cense returned to the Alcoholic Severage Go~ttcol Board for
cancellation.
Commis~ioner Gatier of£ered Resolution No. PC74-189 and moved f~r itd passage and adoption,
that all proceedinga in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 1~-61 be and hereby are
terriinated, as requested by the property owner. (See Resolutiort B~ak)
Qn roll call, the fc~regoing resolution wae passed by the fol.lowing vote:
AYES: COIY4IISSIONERS: FARANJ, GAUEk, JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, HF.RAST
NOE•"• : COMNIISSIONERS: NON~
ABSEPiT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ADJOURNMENT - There beinA no further busineas to discuss, Commiasionex Morley
offered a motion, aeconded by Commissioner. Ceuer and MOTION CARRIED,
to ad~aurn the meeting to September 11, 197~ at 5:00 p,n~. at the
People's Savings & Loan in the 'Yorba Shopping C~nter at the south-
wea;, corner of Iwperial Highway and 5anta Ana Canyon Rond.
The meetin~ adjourned at 4:5U p.m.
Respectfully submitCed~
. • ~~~G~ ~~
~
Patricia B. Scanl.an, Secretary
~+naheim Ca ty PZanning CommiasAon
PBS :3im