Minutes-PC 1975/03/17Q R C 0 MICROFILMING SEFVICE, lNC
. ~ ~
Cit:y Flall
Maheim, California
MArcti l7, J.975
REGUI.AR MGE;'!'ING OI~ TFtF. ANAHEIM CI'fY YI~t1NNING COMMiSSlON
RF.GUI,AR •• A regular meeting of the Anahel.m C1 ty Plannin@ Comm~is~si.on wa9 cxlled ka
MLETT.NG order by Chxirmcin Prn 'I'en~pore Farano aC 1:30 p.m. in the Cou:icil. Chambex,
a qu.or.um being pre~ent.
PRESENT - CFIAIRMAN PRO TEMYO1tF;: ~~atAn~
- COP4~tISSiUNGRS: Gauer, Juhneonti King, Murley, Tolar
ABSGNT - 1.0I~tISS10NE~ : Herbst
ALSO PEtESEN~ - Deputy City Altorney: Frank. Lowry
Office Gngi.neer: .tay Titus
'l.oning Superviso~~: L'l~arlea Roberte
AseistAnC 'Loniag Supervisor: Anniku Sunt.llahti
Commic~aion SecreCary: Patricia Scanlan
PLE'DGF OF - Commiesioner Jc~hnson led i.n the Pledge of. Allegiance ro the F1t~g uf the
ALLEGIANCE ilnited SkaCes of America.
APPROV[~L UF - Commiasioner I~ing ~ffered a m~~kion, seconded hy Commiasioner Morley and
'fH~, MT.IrUTE& MOTION CARRIED (Chuirman Herbi+C being abaent), to approve the minutes
~f the meeting of February 19, 1915, a;, suUtnittpd.
Forewar.d to ~he minutes i~f March 17, 1975: T~E publ.ic he~rings for agerida items 3 ChrouEh
7 were lield out of sequence aince the petitio~iers ~rere not presetit wh~n said items were
due to be con~sidered; ho4~ever, far recard puzt~oses, said itens are enrered in the mimites
in the order given ~n the agenda for Che rneet~.ng.
VARIANCE NO. 2664 - CONTI'_~(U~U PURLIC HEAItING. TEiE ESTATE OF LILLIAN A. HINF.ICHS, c/~
Richard J. Zlaket, Executo.r, 1666 North Main Street, Santa Ana~ :.a.
92701, CITY OF ANAHEIM, c/o M. ~. SlaughtPr, Deput~; City Attorney,
P. 0. Box 3222, Anat.eim, ~a. 42803, AND STATF. OF C:ALII'ORNIA, c/o John M. Cutler~ Right-of-
Way Agent, Department ui Tranaportation, Distri.ct No. 7, P. 0. Box 2304, Los Angelea, Ca.
90054 (Gwners); R.OBGRT N. MOODEY AND JUSTUS C. GiLFILI.AN, 430G Csmpus Drive, Suite 200,
t7eaport RPach, Ca. 92660 (Agent); requeating WA.IVrR OF PERMI'PT~D US~S TO 1:STt~BLISH RETI~IL
SALES IN AN INDUSTRZAL COMPLLX on property descr.ibed as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of
land cons i 5ting of approximately 4,0 acres located at the sout~west corne.r of Kate~la
Avenue aa d Douglas ~treet, and having aprroximate frontagea of 214 feet on Che souti- si.de
of Katella Avenue and 745 feet on the we:;t side of Douglas Street. Property presently
classified A4. (TNllUSTRIAI., I.IMI'TED) ?.ON~.
Sab~ect p etition was continued from ttie meeting of January 6, 1975, at the request of the
petit3oner.
It was no L-ed that the petitio*~er was requesting a further cuntlnuance to the meeting of
April 14, 1975, in order to have additional timE: to siibmit a more specific list of commer-
cial typ e tenants in the prupoaed induatrial complex.
Commissio*ter T'olar offered a motion, seconded b)~ Commissioner Johnson and MOTION CARRIED
~Chairman Herbst being absent), to fUrther cont'.nue t2ie public hearing and conaideration
of Petition for Variai~ce No. 2664 to the meetinF; of April 1.4, 1975, as requested b} the
petitioner.
7S-1:i7
~ ~ ~
MINU'TI:3~ CITI" PLADINING (:OMMT.SSION, Mnrch 17~ 1975
75-138
COND~IIONAL U5I: - CC1N'TINULll P(,'DLI.C H~ARI:NG. R. LAW[ZGNCi3 GAG~.~GOS, 21U0 W~At ISnil KoAd,
P~,f7*'~IT N0. 151G A.inheim, Cn. 92804 (Owner); NOWARU D~LI,, 21.0U West Amll Road, AnahQim~
~ ~~ ~~ Ca. 9?.80G (AgenC); requesting permiesion to ESTAIILXSH A MAS3AGC PARI.OR
IN A STRUCTURE ORIGINALLY INTFNDEll F'OR R[:SIQF.NTIAL PURPOSI:S nn property
de:lcribed na: A rectAngularly-ehaped parcal. c~£ :lu~id c:oneiarir~g ~f Apprc~xl.mately 9420 equarQ
f.eet :located at the southo~esC corner ~f Bal.l Road and Empire Screec, having approx~mate
Erontaqes uf 60 Ec~et on t!~e sour.l~ Ri.de of ha1.I Roud nnd 15'l feet on the west ~ide af Gmpire
Street. Property presently c1aKRif ied CL (COI~4IF.RCIAI,, 1.IMI7~rn) 20NF.
SuhjecC petition wae poa[ponad fr.om the meeting of February lU, 1975~ nt the r.equest of
Che petitioner r~o that he m1ghC te represented ut tlie public hearing.
Zoning Supervi.sor Gharles Roberta nol•ed for the P1Anning Commiseion that the petitioner
h~-d submitted a letter r~queslin~ Co w:Ltl~~draw Pecition for Conditi.onal UaN :'ermit No. 1514
and indicMting thar said wl.thdrawal wov.ld termiaaCe a11 conditi.~na relattng to Vnriance
No. 2572 whi^.h wus granted, in park, by Che Planntn~ ~ommiasion on ,lanuary 7~ 1974~ to
per.mit cxpansion of an exieting noiiconfortning buildittg, u residenti~tl ~tructure in Che CL
Zone being uRed for r_ommercial purposes, aC which time the petitioner otipulnLed Co with-
drawal of a waiver Co permit a therapy ~nd massage parlor at the sub~ect locati.~n.
Chairman pro Tempor.e Farano reviewed the prevl.ous zoni;tg petitions which were conci.dPred
on the subject property and requ~~~ted ~larification of the atfect tPrminatton oi tt~e
Yetition for. Condltional Use Percait No. 1514 wou.ld have on thc property. Ther.eupon,
AsaiatanC Zon.ing Supec•visor. Annika Santalahti read the letter from the petitioner aa
follows:
"Pebruary 26, 1975
Mr. Ralph M. Compton
AssistanC Planner
Development Services Denartment
City of Analieim Zoning I)epartment
Anaheirr,, Calif .
Dear Mr. Compton:
It is hereby requested that the Conditional Use Parmit applied for, fnr 2100
and/oY 2102 W. Ball Road be hereby withdrawn permanently. The Conditional Use
Permit was for tlierapy and massage as requested by Mr. Howard Bell, owner of the
business. It ls further stipulated that Mr. Bell has withdrawn his license for
mas~ape <1nd therapy und that he has formally notified and agreed ko the termi-
nati.ot, of his lease ugreement effective Februaxy 1, 1975.
It is therefore undererood thot the withdrawal o£ C.U.P. does hereb,y terminate
all conditions relating to the variance on the propert,y set up in January ~f
1973 as a condition to snd incorporated in, the building permit fox the expan-
sion af a nonconf.orming building. It is fiirther yti.pu:lated that the original
building permit containing tt~e variance was auperseded by a second permit for
the building of. an ad~acent building to 2100 W. Ball Road - that ts 2102 W. Ball
Road. This new structure ahall meet aZl commercial r~quir.ements and is sepa-
rated from the original strucCure by a distance of 2 inchea connected by doorways
on both the lower Rnd second levels.
It is with great relief and expect~tiona that ttiis pro~ect is now in its final
~tager; of completion and it is with anticipation that I may be conaidered to
have fully cooperated in every area requeated or recommerided by the City of
Anaheim Zoning and Planning Departments.
Very truly,
s/R. L. Gall.egos"
Mr. Roberts clarified for the Planning Comsnissien thnt Varianc~ No. 2572 and Coqditional
Use Permit No. 1514 were two separate applicatiuna and Chat, in Staff's opinion, whether
Conditiona.l Use Permit No. 1514 was terminated at this tim~ would not afiect Variance No.
,`S~^ '•_L :JOU~~ etill be in eFfect on the property nnd the conditions thereto w~re still
•~quired.
• ~ ~
MINU'fL5, CITY I'1.ANNTNL' COMMISSI.UN, Mnri,h 17, 1975
CONpITI~)NAI. USL Pi:RMi1' N0. 15'l4 (Cor~tlc~ued)
75-139
ChnirmRn Pro Tsmpore Faruno noted thAt. unloss and untll r.tie petitior~er clenrly underc~Cood
that khe withdr~wal or terminntion r~J' Canditi~nal Uee Permit No. 1514 would have no effect
on the approvul uf Vur.iunce No. 257'l whic:h wne granked eUb~ect Co certain conditiona lreing
mec~ thaC. the Planning Commiesion p~~rhmp~ ehoul.d take no further acClc~n c~n che eub,~eet
mc~CCer. Thereupon~ Mr. Roherte noted that n].eCter dr~ted March 5~ 1975, had been f~x•warded
to tha petitionQr ~enentially :lndir.ating the poeture of Che City r,hnt th~~ conditione im-
posed undQr V~.tian~e No. 2572 werc etill ln fu].1 force and etfecC, und tl~nt no r~aponse Co
aaid letter hacl been rcceived £rom the petitioner.
Ueputy City Altorney ~runk Lowry advlsed tti~sC the evidence preflented by Mr. Roberts con-
etiCuted eufEic.ient notice to the peCitioner that r.he conditiona imposeo under Var~ance
No. 2572 w~.c~ prerequisite to the use uf the expanded er.ructur~e ~t Che sub~ect location.
Thereupon, Co~nmisaiuner Tolar offerecl u motion, aeconded Uy Commissioner Gauer and MOTION
CARRIGD (Ctiair.man Nerbet being absent), tlia~ ttie Planning Commisai.on does l~ere.by acknowl-
c~dEe ~he requec~t af the petitioner for wir.hdr~wal of Conditiona~ Uae Perinit No, 1514, ~nd
Che same ir~ thcre.by terminated; provided, however, thac tlie termination ~~f Conditional Use
PermiC No. 1514 ahall in no way be construed to relate to Variance No. 2:i72, s~id Variance
No. 2572 betng in fuil force ~nd effect and the condl.tionA af appruval thereta sti.ll. bein~
requirements for t:he use of the expanded Rtructure at the sttb~er_t location.
The Platining Commission entered ir~tu diacugsion regarding ttie present CL zoning ~n the
sub~er_t property and the uae3 periuit;ted by rl~l~l in said xone, durtuM which it was noted
that the property did not seem appropriately zoned, based upon the other land usea in the
sub~ect area, which tncluded a sctiool, a church. ~nultiple-residentifil, etc., and thr_refore
the Placuiing Coimui.saion indicated dow:i-zoni,ig ta CO should be studied. The Planning
Commiasi.~n further ~loted that it would be appropriate to atudy a Municipa.l Code amendment
to r.equir.e that mASaa~e and therapy p~rlure~ modeling a~encies~ photograpliy studios and
other similar uaes be procesaed through the condi.tionnl use permit procedure, rath~ar than
permiCted as a matter of right in the CL Zone. Furthermare, Che Planning Commisaion
indicated it would be appropriate to study a biunicipal ~.ode amendment to amend age pro-
visiona from 21 to 18 yeurs of Age, to allow for control through the conditional use
permit procedure of uses reqiiiring kslat an age limit be affixed, said amendment lic:ing
desirable since ~he State laws, etc., had been recently changed r~nd the Municipal Code
stating 21 years of age was adopted whc~n the adult age was 21.
Commisaioner Tolar offered a motion, seconded by Comn,issioner Gaucr and MO'.~ION CARRIED
(Chairman Hecbst being absent), that the Planning Cominiasion does iiereby rE~commend to the
Ciey Council that (a) Sta£f be directed to study the property located at 2].00 W~st ]3a11
Road and the ad~aceut area for. consi.deration for down-zoning from CL to CO (Commercial,
Office ar.d ProfzsKional) since sat.d area does not aeem appropziate for CL (Commercial.,
LimiCed) uses; (b) that an amendmeiit to the Anaheim Municipal ~ode be initiatQd to require
all applicutton.s foi massage and therapy parlore~ modelin~ agencies, ph~tography studios
and similar uses be processed ttirough the conditionaX use pezm~t procedure, rather than
permitted as a matter of right in the CL Zone; and (c) that an amendment to the Anatieim
Munir.ipal Code be iniCiuted to amend the age provisicna in sai.d Code irom 21 years ~f age
to 18 years of age, to allow for control throilgh the conditiona'. use permit pxocedure of
usea requiring that an age limit be affixed, 18 years of age being thE legal aduit age.
CONDITIONAL US~ - PUI3LIC HEARING. ORANGE UNIFIGD SCHOOL DISTR:[CT, 370 North Glassell,
PEItMIT N0. 15Y6 Orat,ge, Ca. °2666 (C'wner); IiARRY H. PLATT, Bus~ness Manager, 370 North
~ Glassell, Orange, Cz. 92666 (Agenr.); requeating permission to ESTABLISH
A PRIVATE SCHOOL on pxopert•• described as: An irrEgularly-ahaped parcel
of la~d conaial-ing, of approximately 11 acres located between Sunta Ana Canyc~n Road re.id
peralta Hills Arive, having approxtmate frontages of 900 feet ~n the south side of Santa
Ana Canyon Road ancl 600 feet on the nurth sl.de of P~ralta Hilla Road, having a u-aximum depth
of appx'oximately ':~0 fret, and being located approximritely 4T0 feet east of the center.line
of Peralta Hills Brivc. Property presentlv clageified RS-HS-G3,000 (RESIDENTIf~I., SINGLE~
FAMILY HII,LSIDE) Z,UNE.
Approximately trree persona indicated theiz presence in oppoeition to aub~ect petition,
some of whom were renreaenti:~g homeowners groups in the sub~ect area. It was furthei
noted that two lettero were received from property owners in the c+ubject area in oppeaition
~o sub~ect petition.
Aeaietant Zoning S~~pervieor Annika 5antaluhti read the Staff Repor.t ta the Plenaing
Commisaion dated Marcli 17~ 1975~ and anid Staff Report is referred to as if aet Eorth i.n
full in Che miiiutes.
~ ~ ~
M~NUTES~ CT'CY PLANNINC COMMI.SSION, March ].~, 1975 %5-]4U
GONDITTUNAL USIs PE[tMIT NC. 151.6 (Continuect)
Mr. Ceargo Roddu~ Jr. ~ Attorney-at-Law, repreaent.ing B~~r ~ n Cliriet ian School ~ tti~ dcveloper,
appeor~d before the Plr-nning Conunisaion and etaced~ base~' ~n tho opporsltion~ Ghnt they
would reepecCful.ly requesl to with~iraw thc~ I'etit~un fox l.• ndition~l LI-~e ?'ermic No. ;516.
since although aub~ect pxoFerty was tndicf~ted on the Anah~lm CcineYri~ YZan f~r a school
eiC~, Ch~ developers dlct not wish to force the dEVel.opment on Che homr..ot+n~~x'e in the nren
if Chey di.d nol wanC iC.
Commieaioner King uffured a mntion, aec~nded by Cammiseioner GnuE~r and MOTION ~AItkIEll
(Chairman Fierbet being abeent:l, ..hat tne Flanning Commie~ton doee heraby ar.knnwledqe the
petltior.er' a request f.or wiChdrawnl of Pet:lCi.c~n f~r ~onditi..nal UHe Permit Nu. .L516 und
the erime ie thPreby terminated, as requeeCed by thc: petitiotiu~r.
CONDITIONA.L USE - PUBLIC li1:AP.INC. KOLL INCOME PROPEftTI~S ~ P. U. Iiox 50U0, Irviue, Cn.
PERMI'f N0. 1521 92Ei64 ((2wner); RGN~ STAPI~'IsR, Rene's Sandwich P1ACe~ 14G0 Soutti St.nte
College Iloulevard, Anaheim, Ca. 92806 (Agent); reqtiesr.i.ng permia3ton
to ES:ARLISH THE P,ETAIL SALE OF SANDWiCHES IN AN EXiSI'LNG TNDUSTRIAL
COMPLEX on properCy desarLUed as: A recCgn~ularly-sh+~ped p~ecel of land coneisCi.ng of
approximately f~.6 acres located r~t the northeas4 corner of Cerr.itos Avenue ~ind State
College Boul~vard, having approximate frontages af 570 feet an the iiorth ~l.d~ of Cerritos
Avenue und 655 feet on thF east aide of Stat~ ('ollege Baul.e~~r~rd. P•coperC~ prs~ent].y
c~aesified ML (INDUSTRIAL, LIMITF.D) 7.ONE.
No one indicated their preaence in oppoai.tion Co subjecr petition.
Although the Staff Report to the Pluuning Commissio« dated March 1"l, ].975, wc~s not. remd at
I:he public tiearing, ir. ia referred to and mride a part of the minutca.
Mr. ~tene Stapfer, the agent fnr tt.e pro~crty owner, flppear.ed befor~~ c.he Pl.Finning Con~miaFion
and staCed that the proposal was to sel.l sundwich~s ~r. ~r. exiatin~, induar.Ytal compiex as a
convenience to the people; and that the neighbors certainly approved oI the use.
THE PIIBLIC 4iEARINt~ WAS CLOSED.
In reaponae to questi.oning by Commtssioner Tolar, Mr. StnQfer c~tal:ed thA4: the in[ent was
to serve the induetrial comFlex and ttie present hours of oper,3tio~1 were from 9:00 a.m. to
3:00 p.m.; and £urther, that tl~e faod items would be served cold.
It was noted that the Director of Devel.opnent Services ha~ determined ths~t the propoaed
activity fall within the definition of. Section 3.01, Class 1 of Che City of Anahe~im
Guidelines tu tt-e Requirements for an Environmental Impa~:t Report and wa~, therp.f.or.~,
categorically exempt from the requirement to ffle. an EIR.
Commissioner. Tolar offered Resolution No. PC75-56 and moved for. itE pas3age and adoption
that Petition for Conditior~al U~e Permit No. 1521 be aitd herpby is granted, aub~PCt to
conditions. (See Resolution Book)
On roll. call, the foregoing resolution was paseed by the followin,~ vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: GAUER, JOHNSON~ KING, MORLEX, TOLAR, FARANO
NOBS: COhINIISSIONERS: NONE
ASS~c:NT: COMhIISSI4hERS: HERBST
CONDITIG~~~.:: USE - PUALIC HEARING. RQGERS A. AND aAR~3MRALA•CAhtPBELLN~23045 Mxple Street,
P~RMI_T_ N0. 1522 Corona Del Mar, Ca. 92625 (Owner); - P
Torrance, Ca. 90501 (Agent); r.equeati,~g permiseian to ESTABLIS:i A
itESTAURANT IN AN ~;XISTING INDUSTRTAI. COI~'LEX WITH WAIVE:t OF MINIMUM
I:ITCNEN AREA on property deacribed as: An irregularly-ahaped paxcPl uf land c~nsisting
of approximately 2.9 acres located at the northeast corner of WhiCestar Avenue and Blue
Gwa Street~ liaving approximate frontages of 570 feet ~n the north ai~e of l:'t-~iteatar
Avenue and 320 feet an the east side of Rlue Gum Street. ?roperty preaentl.y claeaified
M1~ (INDUSTRIAL~ LIMIT~A) 20I3E.
No one indicated their presence in npposiCion to sub~ecl petitiur~.
Although the StafP Report to the I'lanning Commiesion dated D~xrch 1%, 1975~ wae not resd at
the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of tl:e mintiitea.
~ ~ ~
MINU7'I:`~, Ci'('Y 1'I,ANNINC (:~MMTSSION, rlarch 1.7~ 1~75 75-141
C.OND'iTIUNAI.. U5L i'G[tMIT N0. 1522 (Con':inued)
Mr, M. T~. Cam~belJ., tho agene. for the propErt} ~~wner~ apper,red hefore the Flanninf; Commission
ru-d ~tat•rd Chc~ proposnl wan t~~ hav~ c~, Nandwich shop to ~crve col.d aandwiches~ thxee soupe
and salads from r~ oalud bar; that r.h ~ estahlts}uneht wou].d bc~ w:ltbi~~ nn indueC~'ial area and
wc~uld be for th~: conveni~:nce und f.-dvantage uE the ~:eopl.e in l•he nret-; thnt t:here. would bc
no r..U~~king on tlee Fx'~mlgeA except tc warm ChN soupe; nnd thnC the subject locuti.on wnA
enslly ucceaeib.le ~nd woul.d provide a~er.vlce to the areu.
TH'r I'U1lLI:C III;ARINC WAS CLOSED.
In response to queetian~.ng by Cortunta~;tonex King, Mr. Cumphall 6CAC0d th~y inr_endad L•o
~U'rCIIQHE'. re~tdy-mnde soupa and wnra~ them on thr. ~+ub~ect premiees.
C~13LL111A11 ]'ro Tempore Farnno noted he wus aoncerned th~t the peti.~ioner was rec;uesting tu
t~r.ovide only 9X instead af 25~ of the gross fl~~or ure~ for Icitchen AYf'A~ a~.~d thFt the
est:aUlishmen[ would b~ referred r:o ae a reataurant, 'Chere~~ ~~, Aasic~tant 7.on1nE Supervi.dor
Annikf~ Santalahti noted tha~ the per.itioner was propoaing ta have eerxting +~nc: StAf.f,
therefore, interpr.ef.ed l'he uae r~.s n restxurant. She f.ur*_hcr noted that t.he use was not
fot a rc~ul.ax reataurant, ainc~ rherca would b~ takc-out an~l ~;it-down ~er~vice.
Com~.iseioner :totinson nat~d thn : he waa concerned tliat if approval wae gc'anted for a restnu-
rant, Chen there wuuld be nor.hing to precl.ude a full-fledged regtauran~: fram being devel.oped
at the r~~lb~i~ct locaCior-. Y.e ~urther noted that 1f approval was granted it ehould n~~t be in
~ manner that wo~~ld rPqi±iT•e policing by the City.
In response tn questi.oning by the 1'lanning Conuuission, Che peCi.tione': stipulated thut the
proposal was for u take-ouC, siC-down, convenience••type restauxr~nt F•rimarily to serve ttie
ind~latrial complex at thc~ subject lucation. ar.d ~rilY sandwiches, hoc soup and salad food
irems woul.d be servr_d and/or pre}~ared on the premisea; nnd th~t rh~:re would be no couking
other th~c- for heaCing soup, nor would uny ulcaho:l.ic beverageb be ~o1d or conaumed on tlie
premise.s. TY~e pPtitianer furt}~er indicated th~-t the ho+~rc~ of opr..i:arion would he from 9:OU
a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
It ~JRS noted that the Director of Devel~~pmer.•: ServiceA hAd dzt:ermined that the propoe~d
acr.ivity fel.1 wi-:hin the defini.ti.an of Sectioii 3.01, C.l.rsas 1 of the City of Anahei~a
Gui.deltnes to the Aequi.rements for an I:nvlranmental Im~>ect Repurt and was, therefore,
categorically exempt from Che requti~emert r.u Fil.e an F.J.R.
Commissioner :Johneon offered Resolution No. YC75-57 and movec for LCa paseage and adoption
Chat Petition tor Conditiar.~l Use Permt~ No, l522 be and her~=by is granted f~ m take-~ut,
sit-down, roittenience-tyi~e rests~uranC, and only aandwiches, hot soup and salad food items
shall be Gerved and/or prepared on the pr.emises; and there •hall be no cooking other than
for heati.ng soup, n~r shall any alcoholic beverages be sol~. or conaumed on the premises,
a1.1 as stipulated to ny ttie petitioner; and sub~ect to cor,,',iti~ne. (See Resolution Book)
Or. roll call, the foregoing resoluCion war~ passed by the ~''oJ.lewing vote:
AYES: COMMISS'LONERS: GAUGR~ JOHNSON, KING, MORI.EY, ^~3LAR, FARANO
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONB
ABSENT: C~Z4fISSI.ONERS: HEkBST
CONDITIONAI~ USL - PUSLIC HEARiNG. THE SALVATION AR1~1X, ].i9 East Cypreas Street. An~heim~
PERMIT N0. 1524 Ca. 92805 ~~erl; LEROY ROSE &!',SSOCIATES, 14/i0 South State College
Rnulevard, Anaheim, Ca. 92806 (Agent); requesting permission Co
CONSTRUCT SALVATION AKMY CHURCH FACIiTTIES WITH WAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM
NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES AND (B) MINIMUM FRONT SETB.ACK on property deacribed na: A
rectangularly-shaped parcel of ].and consiating of approximately 0.9 acre locx[ed between
Claadina Street and Emi1;~ Skreet on the north ~ide of Cypresa Street, having npproximate
frontages of 158 feet ~n tE~e eaet aide of Claudina Street nnd on t;~e west eide of Emily
Street, and 240 £~et on the north side of Cyprese Streeta Praperty preaenCly classified
CG (COI~MERCIAL, GENGRAL) AND PD-C (PARKING DISTRICT-COMMERCIAL) ZONES.
Comwlseioner Kfng noted for the Planning Coma-ission that he had a c.onflict of interest as
defined by the Anaheim Municlpel Code Section 1.1.400 and Govern~ent Code Section 3h25, et
seq.~ in that he we~s on the advieory board of The Salvation Army; that pursuant r.o che
provisions o~ tl~~ :eferenced Code~ he was declari.ng to the Chairman Pro Tempore that t,e
was withdrawing Erom the t~earing in connAccion ~aith Conditional Use Permit No. 152y and
would not take part in either the diecuesion or the voting kher~on; nnd that lie had not
diacussed the matter with any member of the Planni~q Comanission.
~ ~ ~
M1NU'PF.S~ CT'I'Y }'LhNN'ING CUh1MISSIUiV~ March 17, 1975 ~y-}~~~
CONI)ITIONN. USG PF,f~MI'1' N~. 1524 (c:onCinuod)
-------------------- ---_._.-_•-
COc~7I5SI0NFsR KINC LE:rT THG "~IEETING A'C 1 t 52 P. M.
No one indir.ated thei.r. presence~ in oppreitJ.on to eab3ecl• petition.
Althougl: the Stuff Repurt t~? tkt9 ~'l~~nning Cu~nre,iriaian dat.cd Mnrch 17, 197'!, wea nnr r~ad uc
the publ.tc henring~ it ie referr-~:d Co nnd made n p~rt of the minutes.
Mr. Larry Gunn~ rQrreeenCinp, l.eroy Roee nnd Asaociates~ tl~e arcliltecG f.ilr, l•he petiti~~ner,
uppeared befo~•e the Planning Commie~ion Ail.~ stntFd The SnlvuCion Army 4~t~F1 prop~~sing t~
creare a church st~'ucture on thF sub,~ecG proper.ty; thnc in 1g69 they w:~ra granted a cr~ndi-
Cloiial uae permit (No. 1Q22) to estab.lt.e~h the Nnme typ.~ churr_h and facility preseutly
propoeed, liowever~ the pxevLou~ ur~e permit ~~ras rsllowed to lapac r~iiice tl~cy wer4 not ablEe
to proceed with th~~ projNCt at• that Cim~~; nnd that the;~ werc~ reupplytnK w1.Ch l~asicully the
PA[[IC plans as hefore. N^ continued by etnting that Kigning wue noL '.nd.t.cait:ed an the
subml.Cted plan s~[.nc.e thE, had not y~t determined placement t.hereof, noweve~, siiid A.Lgn~Lng
would be in complianc.e k~ith Che City requir.emei~tr~; and Chat they wo~~ld sugE{eSC tha: the
bl~ck wall to be c~natructed on chs north side uP lhe. property be zequixe.d anly in thoae
Areas where the bujlding w3s not on the property line, einc~ the Uuilding was proposed to
be on the nc~rth prrperty line,
THG PUBLIC HEAR].NG WA5 CLOSGD.
cnse to queaCioning by
es
I Commlea•lone':' Johnsc~n reQarding ~rhet~har the proponed parking
p
n r
was adequate, Mr. G;ann sto.tFd kS~r~t khc I r exist ing facility in th~, area hr~cl 1.1 parking
apaces whlr_h would also be avai]aULi. eo the pr~~l~~'=~ed facillCy, in addl.tion to [he 15
propoaed spaces, and Chak the existinn facility required only 5 parking spaces with
regular us~ge and ~ass r.han ].1 aF~~ceS with he.~vy usage. Mr.. Gu~-n Eurther stated they
would preier not to provide the 3Q prirkin~ sr=~ces since they wruld then have tu remove
oome exiyting trees.
Comm~sr~ioner Gauer notEd that thr aricing ~ren on the adjacent sct~oo"1 prop~rty wauld
probubly be avai].ahle fo.r overfl-~ ~arking on weekenda.
Commissioner Gauer offered a~ ~., ~eronded by Commissioner. Morley and MOTION CARRICD
that the
[)
b
i
(Commisaioner. King bei.ag tem~ sen
,
ng a
: nb-+ent, a~~d Chairman Herbst be
o
f
Planning Commission recummes~~ r
m
cr, 'ity Council that the ~ub~ect pro~ect be exempt
t to the provisiona of
the requirement to prepare _ •i-~~~m«=~eta1 Impact Report, pursuan
th~ California Environment~~ i' : '~ t.
Commissioner Gauer of.Ee.r • -. : u~~ No, PC75-SS and moved for its passsge and adoption,
that Petition f.or c.;ondi : ~_ 'ermit No. 1524 be and hez'eby is granted, in parC,
resentations
f the re
i
granting waiver of ~he ~~~; ~~~! p
s o
~. n~~~ober ot paxking spaces on the bas
ject
k ia not requirecl; sub
tba
made by the petitioner ~~~~ ~
' .
c
~~•• '~ei of the mini~num front se
onditions. (See Resolution Book)
r nnd sub~ect to r
i
~~: -_
to the atipul.ations ot r ,
~ne
•
On roll call, the fo~ ~g~ ~::. ~°-~~~ ~ution wae passed by the following voCe:
AYES: CONII~IISSIOrIERS: ..-:'~ K, JOHN50N, MOfiLBY, TOLAR, FARANO
NOES: CU1~41ISSIONERS: r'~-~.='
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS• ':"VC~ (TEMPORARILY)~ HLRBST
COMMISSIONER KING RETUIt;1~E1' "J THL ME~T ~C AT 2:00 P.M.
VARIr1NCE NQ. 2681 - P.,6~.Z~' HEARING. PI:'TE'S ROAD SERVICC, .Ll°3 Blue Gum Street, Anahei.m,
Ca. `?_806 (Owner); requesting WAIVER OF (A) PERMITTED OIITDOOR USES,
(g) ~IIpIMUM N1JMII~R OF PARKING SPACF.S, ANi` (C) R.EQUIRED ENCLOSURE OF
oUTDQOR USGS. TO PERMii THE JUTDOOR S10[tAGE OF A ROAT IN CONJUNCTION WITH A'TRUCK TIRE
SERVICING FAC'LITY on prcperty deycribed as: A rectangularly-ahaped parcel of land
c.onRisting of approxlmately 0.5 acre lucoted at the aouthwast corner of CoronAdo SCreet
and Blue Gum Street, having appraximete frontages of 147 feet on the south eide of
Coronado Street ~~nd 13$ Peet on the wes't side of Blue Gum Street. Property prESently
clmssif! ed MI, ( INDUSTRIAL, LIMITED) '/,ONG.
Nu one indicated Cheir preaence in oppoeition to sub~ect pFtltion.
Althougt~ the Staff Report to the Plenning Co~ranieslon dated :March 17, 1975, was not read at
the T~ublic hearing, it is ref.erred to and made a part of the minutea.
~- s
MTN'JTl,S, C1TY PLANN[NG f'OpiMISSION, Marr.h 17~ 1975
VP,RIANCI: N0. 268'1 (C~~ntinued)
~
s
~5•-143
'.4r. Pets+ 1rlc~tcher, the patilionor, appeared heEore the Planning Gommiaeion end etated the
sub~ect boat balonge' Co hLm; that there were not m~ny places whero a t~oat 60 £oot Long
coul.d be parked; tl~at ho had parked it elNewhere for nwhile and it wae dtr:lppad by vandals;
thnt the Zaoing rnfor.ceme.nt Officer had adviaed him to move e~we tiras At ~:he sub~ect
i~cAtton~ eayinP nothing nbout tha boaC, end then Lnter came back with a c:~.tation for iiim
to eign Rtnting he wou.ld have tha boat move:i within seven daya; that he rould not sign the
citaCion aince he knew he could not move the boat within thaC pe~tod of tieae, whereupon~
tF~a 'Loning EnEorcement Of.ficer had ~dvised him he could apply for a variniu:e; that hF had
kept the. boa~ nt the aub,ject l.ocati.on for approximately £ive yeare; thal tt~ere were 11
pnrking apaceg marked off on hie property und he had spent approximately $<<0,000 ~ver. the
pael few yenrs improving the property; th~t Che praperty wae fenced w~th a block wa11 and~
einer_ there wera many properti~s in the area with t:ruck parking, etc., wi.tt~ no fences at
all~ he did not think the requested vnriance was u~re~aonable.
TH~ PUIiGTC HFAftING WAS CI,OSED.
Commi~eioner Kin~ noted that he und Gucmuissioner Murley h1d vi.ewed the subj~ect property in
the f.ield and i~[ looked good.
Ir~ response to queetioning by Coauniabioner Morley~ Mr.. Fletc:her. c~tated tt~at none of tllP. lY
parking spaces were kaken up by the hoaC presently. Commieaioner Morley t:hen noted that
the property was vcry attractive and thaC the type of. buslnet~~ being conducted on the
pr.emiaes was gener~ally difficti].t to k.eep u~.
T'he Planning CommiRSion entered into di.~cuesion with Mr. i~letcher regarding the location
of. the requ:.red parking epar.es, durinq which Mx. Fletaher indicated th3t thP 11 parking
apaces were available along the front oE the p:'operCy fac~ing lilue Gum Street aind that
Mr. John Anderaon of the Zoning Divis;.on had checked out smid parking apacea on the aite.
Mr. rletcher further stated that althouah he did have the boat in the water some of the
time. he had to brintt it out for renairs wliich the emnlovees at the truck r.ire aerviclnR
facilitv were able to do in their enare time; that the h..~at wa~ out of the water aa~roxi-
matelv fotir to six monthe a vear; and that normallv onlv 30•-foot lonu ~>toraQe suacea were
avr~ilable for rent and the boat wa~ annroximatelv 12 feek wide, 60 feet lang, and appr.oxi-
m~+tely 1G feet h:_gh.
In response te a requesC for clarificatton of the locati~on of the parking spaces,
Mr. r^letcher sCipulated that a mini~um o.'. 6 parking spaaes ~aould be marked off on tihe
aub~ect property at a1.1 times.
It was noted xhat the Di.rPCtor of Deve?~pment Servicea h~~d determined that the proposed
acCivity fell within the definition of Section 3.OX, Cla:~s 1 af the City of Antsheim
C~iidelines to the RequiremenCs for an Environmental Impat:t Report and was, therefore,
categorically exempt f.rom the requirement to file an EIR.
Commisaianer t4orley offered RPSOlution No. PC75-59 and moved £or its passage and adopt3on,
that Petition for Vnri.ance No. 2581 be and hereby is gratitecl, in part, granting waiver of
the permitr.ed outdoor Uaes on the basis that the peCitioi~er demonatrated that a hardship
woul~l be created if said waiver was not granted; that. wafver of the miiiimum number of
parking spaces was withdrawn by the petiti.oner with the t:tipulation that 6 marked parking
spacea will be provided on the premises at a11 times; gr+it~ting waiver of the required
encloaure of outdoor uses on the basis that the petition~ar demonstrated that a hardahip
would be created if esi~ waiver was not granted, aincc tl~e height ~f the boat to be stored
ia approximately 14 feet; aub~ect to conditiona. (See R~asolution Book)
On roll caly.~ the foregoing r~solution was pasaed by tt-e following vote:
AYES: COI~IISSIONERS: GAUGR, JOIiNSON, KING, MC~RLFY, T~)LAR, FARANO
NOES: CUP41I5SIONERS: f70NE
ABSENT: COI~IISSIONERS: HERBST
~ • ~
MINU7'E:S~ CITY Pi.ANNING COr41ISSI0N, March 17, 1975 75-144
VARI.ANCG NU, 2687 - PUBLIC H~ARING. CL]'2AAETft M. LYI'I'S, GT AL~ c/o Paul A. MeCracken,
" ~~~ 9750 Katclla Avenue, AnahQim, C~. 92804 (Ownor); BAKR.Y S'fCP:~ Sun-Cal
Investment Company~ 7.605 Nortt~ Spurgeon. SuiCe B~ Snnta Ana, CA.
92701 (Agent); xeouesting WAIVLR dF (A) Ml'NTMUM I3UILDINC SITF. AREA PF.R 1)WFI.LINC UNIT,
(D) MAXIMUM SITE COVERA(:G~ (C) MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK~ (U) MINIMUM RF.CRP,ATIONAI:•LEISURE
AREA~ (~) MINiMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BIIILDINCS~ (,F) MINIMUM WIDTiI OF P~AES'CRIAN ACCESS~JAYS,
(G) MINIMUM OFF-STRE~T' PNtKiN~, (i~) REQUIRI:U P{~RY..IPlC SPA.CF L~~ATION, ANU (I) MAXIMUM FGNCE
HFIGNT~ TO CONVERT AN EXISTIN~% 64-UNIT APARTMEN'P COMPI.CX TO CONDOMINIUMS on prnperty
described as: A rectangularly-ehaped parcel of lana ~angiRting of epproximat~ly 4.6
acres hnvinq n franCage of approximately 333 feet on the eaet ei.de ~~f Magnolia Avenue~
having n maximum depth of approximately 6QU feet, end baing located approximately 333
f~et eouth of the centerline of Lincoln Avenuo. Property prQSQntly cl.aseified RM-120~
(RESIDF?NTIAL. MULTIPLE-FAMILY) 7.ONF.
No one indicated their presence in oppogition to eub,ject petition.
Alth~ugh th~: 9Caff Keporc Ca the PlazininR Commiaslon dated Mnr.ch 17~ 1975~ ~/AH noC read at
the pub.tic hearir~g, it i.a reir_rred to and made a part of tl~e minutea.
Mx. Rick Baker, 23Q02 Miraleate, Lagunr- Niguel, representing the Warmington Development
Company and the upplicant, appeared before the Planning Cucmnission and otated in his
m~rketing reaearch he had loaked at approximately 1~i7 different pro~ects in Qrange County
to find a auiCable pro~ect for convarsion 1nCo condominiums that could be auld for under
$30~000; tttiat the deve~~per was aware of the density and parking requiremenCs for this
type development in Anaheim, and r~alized that converaion could be made hnphazardly,
t,owe.ver, the type untts ~nd f1o~r p~ans at the eub~ect location were very conducive Co the
condominium concepc s+.nce Chey were large and all single-etory and~ therefore~ took up a
lot of Che land space; Chat the sub~ect. property was ahout 12 yeara old and ln a at~te of
decline with a lot of deferred maintenance; kh~t the developera intended tn invest approxi-
mately $1/4 million into the pro~ect; that the aquare footage of the units ranged from
1100 to 1200 square feet and there were no units in Orange County available wlth r,hat
square footage or of similar quali.ty at the prir_p they were projecting; thnt_ the pro~ec[
would ~e giving up aome of the open space that was required for the new condominl.ur~ pro,jects;
Chat although the 5taff Report indic~ted the pro~ect would have a deneitY of 16.2 dwelling
units per neC acre, the enginee: for the developer had computed ttie de-isity to U~e 1.3.9;
that they were proposing to have 1.5 parking spaces per uniC, rather than the required 2.5
apaces per unit; that the proposed condominium project would be a boon to the City and the
property would be upgraded; that a homeowners association would be furmed to maintain the
project and they would otlpulflte to compliance with tn~ condizions of approval set forth
in the Staff Report.
Mr. Baker continued by etating the peopie in the pro~ect could utilize mass trnnsportation
which was avail~ble wi.thin a half-block away; that Maxwell Park was located about one
block away and the Anaheim Municipal Golf Course was about a block away; and that t:he
project would be a ver.y marketuble prod~ict and, in their other similar pro~ecta, people
with fewer cars bougl~t the units.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
In responae tr~ qiiestioning by Commissioner Gauer, Mr. Flaker stated the rente of ~he suh~ect
apartment unita wece very low and the vacancy factor wae practl~ally nil; that surroundinA
units had higher vacancy factors, as ev'denced by rental aiqns; and that the iiew ownere of
a pro~ect uaually rais~d the rent and perf•ormed the repalrs~ howevert rnieing the rent at
the subject location would not adequately bring the pro~ect up ta good atandards.
Commissioner Toiar noted that the propoaed conversion was in complete disregard for the
newly-adopted M1-4dQ0 2one; that althougl~ a homeowners organization was aupposed to create
a bett~er mode of living, by State statute said organizat3one could fall by Che wayaide
and, therefore~ the proiect may or may not be a better development from the maintenance
atandpoint; thut if the homeownEra decided they did not wieh to pay the fees, L•he argani-
zation could disband; and that the requcst~d waivers were excesaive and, therefore, a
finding of a hardship wa~ :;ifficulC to make. He further noted that he was in complete
sympathy with efforto to develop housing under $3Q,000; however, eliminating a good zoning
ordinance to approve a substandard pro~ect would be setting a very undesirable precedent.
In reply, Mr. Baker stated that in that case every condominium homeownera asaociation in
Anaheim cou.id disband; however, the people had a veated intetest and conclom~.nium pro~ecte
aeemed to be better maintained Chan apactment pro~ecta in Anaheim; and that :here were
probably not enough projecte in Anaheim thaC would qualify or would want to convext and
cauae a problem, if the su~•~ect pro~ect was approved.
~ ~ ~ •
MINUTGS~ CITY PLANNING CQIyQ~tISSION~ March 17, 7.975 75-145
VARIANCi: N0. 2582 (Continued)
Coaunis3loner Tolar clnritled thc~i: 1•ie wae familiar witl~ the dub;Ject unite and if the sub~ecC
pro~ect wus approved~ Chen he woe confident thnt many unqual.ified proiecl•s would ao[
hesitale to reqnest converei.on a18o. In respona~ to questioning~ Mr. Bnker QCAtAt~. CFIt'
l•larmi.ngton Oevelopmrnt Compnny wne in escrow and tl~e aal~e una conditicnad upon appr~vnl o£
r.he aub,~ect varianr_e; whereupon. Commissioner To1Fir noted that Che devc:loper would noC bcs
loAin~ nny fundA by ~tot complating the escraw. Mr, I3nlcer then ett~ted thnt payment of
taxes and debt servico~ etc.~ would nol leave enough to put money back into tl~e pro~ect ao
apartment units.
Commisaioner To~ar. Chen noted ttiaC the parking provided in thE aubJect apaxtment complex
did naC, in any tespecl'~ relate to the neede of a homeowner, as compared to nn apartment
dweller, and the lack of ndequRtu nnd ~ppY~priete ;~arlcing would tend to destray the home-
ownerehip concept whir.h the resldenCa would be entitled tc~ ~~~joy.
Mr. anker ~hen stated that by conversion~ they wer.e tniking about ~,hanging, the form o~
ownership; that the ~tructurea and tlie parki.ng were exist...ig and t.h~~ pra,~ecl• w~ould bP more
beneficial as n condominium thnn aa nn apartment complex; and that the unitH were home-
like with fireplaces~ two bath~~ twa bedroams or Cwo bedrooms with de~n, private pn~:(os nnd
heavy ahake roofs.
Commiasioner Gauer no[ed that the Wilehire Woods apartment complex had epi,lied to converr
to condnmini.um and was turnad ~9own tiy the Planning CommiAaion ~lthou~h tt;~~y did not requeat
the nucnber of varlances presently being pr~posed; however, tYie Ci.ty Coun .1 grant~d the
request to allow a htgher der-sity than permitted in Che RM-4~)00 Z<,ne gln~e that project
wae located in close proximity ro the downtown area, and the Council indir.aCNd it would be
appropriate tc develop h~gher deneities in said area. He further noted thnt the proposed
pro~ect was not located in the downtown area, nor in close proximity thereto. In responoe
to queatianing by Co~miasioner Gaue~~ Mr. Aaker stated the units would be sold at a profit
and that the conversion wae more~ or Less profit-motivured; howe-rer, they would alao be
providing a need for the people in Anaheim.
Commissioner Tolar inquired if the developer had contucred the tenants at the stib~ect
apartment complex to d~termine if there was any inter.e~t in p~ir.chasing tt~e unita if' the
couveraion was appYOVed, and what type of financing would bc offered. Mr. naker replied
that he believed some of. the people had been contacted, however, it was their policy not
to disturb k:ie t~nant~ this early in the prugram, and ample time would be al.lowed for the
tenunts to arrange to purchase the units if they so desired; and th~C the down po}nnentrs
would range froa S-1U-70%.
Mr. Boris ~lieff, President of Sun-Cal Investment Company, the agent for the property
owner, appeared before the Planning Commisr~i.on and stated he was present].y handling a
pro~ecC at La Palma Avenue and Acacia Street conaistinK of 72 uniCs whict~ was tremendc>usly
i.mproved over its previou~ con~ition followiug conversion, and the maintenance was through
a liomeownera asaociation; that most of the people did not ha•~e Cwo cara and the unita sold
for approximately $25,000; and thaC generally apartment owne.ra milked theit~ projecte and
did not puc anything back inr.o them.
Commissioner Gauer noted that thA pro~ect referred to b} Mr. Elieff waR converted priox to
:he adepr_ion af the RM-4000 Zone and aaid zor.e was set up to serve ar~ minimum gutdplines
for conversiona of apartmenr~ ro condominiums in the City of Anaheim.
It was noted that the Director. of Development Services had determined that ths prnpoaed
activ~.ty fell within the definition of SQCtion 3.01, Cluss 1 0~ the City of Maheim
Guidelines to the Requirementa for an Enviranmental Impact Report and wae, thereiore,
categorically exempt from the requirem-~nt to file an EIR.
Commisaioner Tolar offered Reaulution No. .'C75-60 and moved for ita paseage and adspcion,
that Petition for Variance No. 2682 be and hereby is denied on the unsis of the following
findings: (See Reaolution Book)
1. Tt~at there are no exc~ptlonnl or e~rtraordinary circumstancer+ or cond~.tiuns
applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of Che property that do not
apply generally to the praperty or clase of uAe in the same vicinity nnd zone.
2. That the requested variance ia not necessary for the preservation und en~oyment
of a substantial property right poeaassed by other property in the same vici.nity and zone,
acid denied to the properCy in question.
~ ~ !
MINUTES. GITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN, M~:rr.h 17, 1~)75 75-14f-
VARIANCF. N0. 2GA2 (Continued)
:3. 1'hat tlie requesCed vHriance wi11 bc materi~lly detrim~jntnl to the publir welf.nre
or J.n~urioue to the ~~ ~~per~y or imNruveme•~nte !n such vi.cinity end xone in wMch the proper.~ty
i~ locatad.
4. 'Phnt the reqt~eat~d waivera ar.e oxcoaeive and~ theref:ore. a fincling of e hardahip
i 9 diff icul.t to rt,r~ke, aspe~:ially eince approve~l ~.ould permit H eub-beandard cundou-inium
~..ujecC in compl~~tr dier~gard of the ttM-4000 Zone which aete forth tl-e minimum eite devel-
opment standarde for condomi.nlum convereiona~ tta edopted by the Plann~ng CommiASton and
cicy co~n~tz.
5• 'fhut ripproval of rhu requc~sted waiverd ta con~~ert the aparCrnent coaiplex to
condominiuma would set An undeairable precedent for futurc requesta of a aimi.lar. nature,
in dieregard of the adopted EtM-4000 Zone requiremente.
6. That, by the petit.tuue~''r~ ~wu admiaeion~ the ~ropoaed converaion Qf an existing
apurtment cumplex to coiidominiume waR being requeated for eccnomic~l reaeon3 oex.ly.
7. 'Thr.,t the parlcing provided in tho nubjecl apartment complex does ~i~~t, !n uny
reepect. rel•ale to the needs of a t~nmeownar~ ar~ compured to an apartmEnt dwell~r; and the
lack of adec~uat~ and appropriat:e parking wi11 r.end to destroy the home ownerahip con~.ept
wt~ich the residentR ure entiCled to.
8. That, although u waiver was previously granked by the City Council to allow a
higher density than permitted in Che RM-4000 Zone for converaion of an existing apartmsnt
complex to condominiuma~ said project was located ~.n clos~ proxim~ty to the downtown area
and tlie Council indicated it would be appxopriaGe to develop higher densitiea in said
area; Zud it is hereby determined that l-he flubiect pxo~ecr is not lacated in the dowzttown
araa~ nor in cloae proximity thereto.
9, Thut the Planning Conunission determi.ned thnt purchasers of. a sub-standard
condotuirtium may tend to have dlarc~gard for a maintenance program as may bc provi.ded
thro~gh ~ ~ypical homeowners association.
10. That approximatPly two-thirda of the minimum require..:snte for recrEati.onal-
leiaure area wi.ll be provided in Che sub~ect project and said requiremec~ts ,•ere adopted
for the benefit of the public health, safety and wel£are of the reaidents of ~ condominium-
type dwelling.
lI. 'fhat tYie Planning Commisaic~n determined that the subje~t apartment conversion to
condominiums will be generally detrimenta]. to the pesace, health, safety and qeneral welfare
of the owr_er~/residents thereof, and will ~uboCantially diaregard the minimum requirementa,
as aet forth 3n the adopted RM-~i000 Zone, which said owners/residents are entitled to
enjoy.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution wae passed Uy the following vote:
AYES: COh1I1ISS70NERS: GAUER, JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, TOI.AR, FARANO
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
i~BSENT: COr41TSSI0NERS: H~RBST
VARIANCE N0. 2683 - PUBI.IG H~ARING. UNI4N OII~ COMPANY OF CALIFURNIA, P, 0. Box 7600,
Los Angeles~ Ca. 40A51 (Owner); ROBERT M. HUGGINS, JR., 17981 Sky
Park Circle, 1~J, Irvine, Ca. 92707 ~Agent); requesting WAIVER OF
(A) PERMITTED USES AND (13) MAXIMUM ACCESS llRIVG WIDTH, TO F•STAB7.ISH AN AUTOMOTIVE
DIaGNO5TIC AND SGRVICE CENTER on property describe3 as: An irregularry-ehaped parcel
of tand consisting of apptoximately 0.4 acre located at the southwest cor.ner of Center
Street and State College Boulevard, haviag approximste fzontages of 124 feet on the
south aide of Cer.ter Street and 140 feet on the weat aide of State (:ollege Boulsvard,
Property presently cl.asaified CL (CON@fERCIAL~ LIMITED) ZOI~E.
No one indicated Cheir presence in oppoeition to sub~ecC petition.
Alth~ugh the Staff Report to the Plar.ning Gommiaeion dated March 17, 1975, was nat read at
the public hesring, •l~ is referred to and m+nde a purt of the minutee.
~
~ ~
htiNlPiF:3~ CI'fY PLANNTNG COPIldISSTON, MKrch 17~ 1975
VARIANCG N0. 2683 (Continucd)
75-147
Mr. William Clupet, 3355 Vi.o I.ido~ Newpor.t 6each~ the nrctiitect for Lhe petitioner.
appeared ~efora lhe Plnnning Comm.iaeion and etatad the pr.npoac~l wae to provide a atorage
aren, ottic~ c~rea and waitf.ng room in con~unction witt~ twa earvice~ baya for an ~~~'~a-Tune
opera,ior~ :It Lttl S:IU;~CCC ].ocnt:ian; tllIIt a~!nim~!~s Of ldL~Y'~; ~!QUZf~ t)t rr~~~iirpA fn convert C~le
exiNting eorvice etaeion dite for the propoPed ua~, eaid ude being a qaod wAy to utilixo
Che unused bulldinge which wer.e atCracti•~e nuir~ancea ttecougl~out tl~e City; that the pro-
posed uae would be u localized aativity and woulcl not bring tr.affic and cungeation to the
~reu, sli~ce ite euc.r.ese wc+uld depend upon the people living within the genoral vicinity;
khat they wcre prol~oeing that ~he building be painted~ thet parking apaces be pr.ovideci as
shown on th~ aubmiCted plans~ tha~ r.ecess~ry tx'aeh et~ragN nrene be prc,vided ae requiced,
and that landacaping woul,d be provided as raquired aa well ae r~ny other amenity that w~u1J
be determined to be necesasry by Che CiCy.
TIiE PUBLLC FIF,AhING WAS Cl.OSGll.
The Planning Conmiiseion entered int~ diacussion with Mr. Clapet regurd~inp, th<~ 1c~nd~cnping
for the project, durLng whict~ Chairman Pro Tem~pore Farano noGed that Ct-e ' indecHping sl~~uld
be brought up tu the CI, 7.one standarda, whereupon Mr. Clapet ytipu]ate~ that 4he lar.dacap-
ing would conform to the requiremente of tha ~L Zone, said lend9capinl; to ~~on~,lec ~f 3-foot
wide landscaped planterr~ ad,jacent to the aCreet righta-of-way and the interi~z• property
linea; anci tiiut lAndecapii~g plana would be eubmitted to the ~evelopment Service~ Depar~ment
for revlcaw and appr~val prior to CiCy Council review of the aubject petition. Mr. Clapet
atated thaC parkways would be brought up to the currer~t Corle requlremenLs and suggested
that some landacaping could be develop~d alonB the alope area adjacent to the back property
1ine; and thak the intent of the petitioner was to have the propc:rty ae aCtractive as
posaible.
Commissic.ner King noted that the exiating 40-foot drive widt:h was appropriate for. the use
since the customers would I~e uble to get into the property and off the Uusy atreeC in an
ca~ia~ niid tascer ~uu~«<ar and, furthennore, the (,'ty Engineer had indicated no concern if
the exisCing drive width was retained for the prc,poaed use. He further questioned whether
the pumps and lslands would be removed and Mr. Clapet indicated in the affirraative.
Chairman Pro 'Pempore Farano noted that the bui?ding did not have en~u~h rooin for tearing
down the engines. whereupon, ~1r. Clapet stipulated that the diagnoskic work and/or dervicing
of. sutomoUiles to be performed at the sub~ect locati.on would consist of electronic cllagnosis
and minor Cune-up ad~ustments only and there wauld be no major engine work performed.
Mr. Clapet clarified that the proposed use was n franchiae activity which wou:id limit the
type of work performed, also.
Chairmun Pro Tempore Farano noted thdr_ the sub~ect area was popular ~nc3 if the sub~ect
application ~aEa approved, it would not be the Planning Commassion's intent to accept the
submi.tted plans as a r.oncept or idea, but apprava~. would be made sub~ect to the property
being developed exactly as ahown on said plans; and that aince no activity was shown on
the northerly portion of the property along Center Stx'set. he would suggest th~C. some
l.andscaping be provided in ttiat area between the huilding and the right-of-way, w~-ereupun,
Mr. Clapet so stipulated.
During further discuasi.on regarding the ?andscapi.ng o!: the property, Mr. Clapet stated
thal• there would not be ~nough activity at the sub~ecc location to require subs~antial
acreen planting; and that they 'nad taken ~reat care to provide adequate park3ng, however,
the us~ was for a qu-ck in-and-out service--type operation. He further stated they would
go to any extent to satisfy the needs and requirements for the uae.
Commissioner TAlar clarified that the landsca~ing for the CL Zone would include ?.~ of the
property to be landscaped ad~acent to the interior boundari.ea of Che property.
In reRponae to queationicig by Cowmissioner Johnaon, Mr. C].apet stated that no one wou3.d be
able to walk into this faci.llty and purchase a bag of parts and, thezefore, he would
stipulate that there would be no over-the-counter retail salee oP parts at the aubject
lc+cation. Mr. Clapet clarified for Commiss:toner Johnson that there was no intent to
up}•rade rhe facade af the existing huilding, except that it would be painCed.
In response ta questionin}~ by the PYanning Com~io~ion, Mr. Clapet atipulated that all of
the dia ~stic work and/ar servicing would be conducted inaide the building; and fartiher
~tipulated that there wauld be no overnight storage of automotive vehiclee on the subject
property.
~
~
MINU'PES, CI'I'Y PI.ANNT.NG ~OMMISSION, March 1%~ 1975
VARIANCB NU. 2683 (Continued)
~~
~
75~148
In rc~aponec to queeCf.oning by C'ommi.esiuner J.~hneon, Mr. C.lapet lndicated that Che eublecc
proposal wae not a pilnt pro~ect since there ~~ere others locatec~ in other cit lee, whera-
upon~ Commiaeionur. Johneon noCed that h~ would be in favor of the. pro~QCt un the baeid
Chat the pci•i~~cnc: u~^ not ~x~czic»cnting and i:h~: Rubject a~~;2:catlan was an ~pportunity
ta upqrado en axiet.ing abnndoned Aervic:e etation site ancl aleu tie did not fee3 it would be+
unrex~onable tu axpect thnc the pctition~r woul.d try to upgrade the facade of the etriacture;
however, he would not nec~eaarilY favor. another atmi.l~r applicatiott.
GommlRelonQr Morley noted that each locatiun st~oui.d be congi.dered on ite own ~nerit and not
canaidered blanketly [~~r abandone~~ yervi.ce otakion r~it~•s.
Chairman Pro Tompore Furano ~su[e~l that there had Ueen soms g~od conversione o f abundoned
service stution eil:es~ and rhe fact Chat Che petitioner was noe proposing to ctiange the
Pacade of the. structurc wae di~turbing since it may become an eyeaore.
Following discusaion~ the Planning Caami~slon concurr~~ thnr if appraved~ th~ use ehould
bc granted for a tiwe limitaCiun of two yeara, suU~ect eo revlew~. Mr. Clape t eta~ed that
a CJ.me limitntion would nc~t interfere witfi the leaoe on the property.
It waa not.ed that the Direckor of Aevelopment Services h~cl deeermined that tt~~, proposed
activity f:ell within kl~e definition of Secti.on 3.01, Class 1 of the City of Anaheitu
Cuidelinea to the Requirements f.or an Enviro~unental Impacl• Report r~r-d was~ tl-aerefare,
categorically exempk frum the requirement to fl:~e an F.IR.
Commiasioner Morley offered ReAOlutian No. YC1S-6~ i~nd moved for its paseage and adoption,
thur Petition for Variance No. 2683 be and hereby is granted, gr.anting wai.ver of permitted
uses for a time limitnrion of twu yeax~s, subJect to review and conaid r~tion for an exten-
sion uf time~ up~n request by the petitioner; granting waivec of [he maxfmum ac.cees drive
width on the bagis that the City Engineer indicated no concern if thN exieting drive width
J~s retained for the praposad use and, uddit~.onally~ [hat the PlanninA Commia slon de rmines
that the wider access driv~3 are mure appr~priate for Che propoaed use; sub~ ect to ~~e
stipulat'_onn o£ the peti,ti.ot~er and sub~ec:t to conditiona. (Seo Resolution Book)
On roll cull, the foxegoing resolution wae paased by the fol.lowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIANERS: GAU~R, JOHNSON, ICING, MORLRY, TOL,AR, FARANO
NC~ES : COt~IIYlISSION~;RS : NONE
P.BSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HERRST
RECI:SS - At ~:10 p.m,~ Chairman Pro Tempore Farano declared n rec eas.
RECONVENE - Ar ?:2U p.m.~ Chairman Pro Tempore ~arano reconv~ned the meeting
wtth Cliairman Herbat being absent.
ENVIRONM~:N'PAL IMPACT - PllBLIC HEARING. IiERW00D CGRPORATION, ET AL, F. 0. Box 3064,
REYORT N0. 137 l+rcadia, Ca. 91U06 (Owner); NEI,SON/COVTNGTON COMPANY n P. 0. Box
^ 10262, Santa Ana~ Ca. 92711 (Agent); requesting WAIVER OF (A)
VAZIANCE N0. 2684 I~X1MlTM B(IILDING HEICHT, (B) MItiIMUM FLOOR AREA, (C) MINIMUM
~ FRONT SETBACK, (D) MINIMl1M UISTF.NCE ~ETWEEIv SUILBINGS, AND (~)
REQUIFtEA ENCLOSURE Or CARPORTS, TO CONSTRUCT A 390-UNIT APARTMEh'T
COMPLGX on property deacribed as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consiating of
approximately 17 acrFa locate:: at the southeast corner of Broadway and Loar s Street and
havin~ approximate frontagea of 1050 fPet on the south eide of Btoadway and 619 feet on
the east side of Loara 5treet. Property presently clasaified RS-A,-43,000 ( RESIDENTIALf
AGRICULTURAL) ZONE wit~ a Resolution of Intent to RM-1200.
No one indicated the:~r presence 3n o:,~asition to subiect petit_on.
Although the Staff Report [o the Planning Commisaion dated March 17, 1975, iaas n~~t read o!:
the public hear.ing, it ie reterred to and made a part of tfie minutes.
Mr. Kermit Aorius of Y~riait Doriua and Associatee, hrchitecte, re_~reaenting ''~e developer,
ap~eared befor~ the Planning ~ommisaion and xeviewed the past zoning aGtione involving the
aubject property. He stated the current pr~poeal waa to construct a 390-unit apartment
~ ~
~
MI.NUTES, CITY NLANNiNG COh~tiSSION~ Mer.ch 17, 1975 75'~~Gg
ENVIRONMf~,NTAL I:MFACT RF.PORT_tJ0~1,37 AND VAR1l1PICF N0. 2644 (Cuntl.nued)
comples on th~ ~aub~ect propRrty, wl~lct~ weo J•~e intcr~pa thnn the pteviously-propoeed 420-
unit complex; th= c. tho interior of Chn pro~~.~ct w~ould have thr~e lnko/gr~enbe.it uroar~ which
dwf.ndled Co st.ream3 in cerCain areae~ und t:he unftd wou~d generally [ace the lakE+; that to
the soutl~ thny wQr~ propoqing to have singla-story unite withln tho .190-ioot setback area
adlecenC l•o the property deslgnated [or tt:i-72U0 development; thnt l•he etr~et front aren
w~uld be developed with maattdoci.ng sid~walke, berme ~nd wr~ll. trantmenC to aeparate the
cara from the greenbelt ao thut it would become an atCructlve project in relationshlp ta
the streetACape xnd would IILAO be protective for Che uriits in ralationehip to noise from
the etrent trnf f ic; that they woul.d be taki.ng maximum advantngc~ of tlie greenbel.t arects in
relaCionehlp to tho units; ~tnd that the automobile circulatinn wae arrnnged to mintmize
the dist~nca from the unite to tl~e parking~ and for acceasibiliCy for f.ira protection~
traeh pic.kup, er.c,
R~gardtng the varianceP, Mr. Dori~~a staCed Che maxim~nn buil.ding lioight waiver wac~ requeated
aA it WOIIl(I apply t~ the ad~~cent properCy to the northPast which was presenkly developed
wiCh an old hause U~it war~ Jesig~iated un the Ana}ieim Genernl. Pl.un for multiple•-family
devNlopment; that the ~nini.mum floor are~ waiver was to allow `or 10X of the unita t~ be
juni~r one-bedroom, with 518 square feet, eaid ur.+.r.s being adequote and acceptable Eor
single people; thaC Chey had revined their. plana to eliminate the requested wniver of
min:imum front aetback; that the requeat for waiver of the winimwn distance between buildinge
wrs5 to allow foz approximatel,y 14 insCancee where the can£igural•:Lon waa interpreted as a
stairwell ~~r un acceasway and, therefoce, not technically in violation of the Code require-
ment; however, €or the remainder of tnstat~cea where the distances between the builditiga
might be in~erpreled to be in vi.ol.ation, r.hey would reviae the plans ii necessary sr ' hat.
they woiild canform to Code since t}iey did not intend to request further waivers frc.. t}~e
Code requirementa in that reapect; rhat there appeared to Ue. a iai.sunderatanding regarding
Clie encloaure of the carporta, yince ttiey wFre proposing that the walls on the si.de3 and
the rear were about 50-7UX ~f the length nf the building; that closed storage un~lta would
be available, however ~ thc: cnrports would be partiall.y opan to al'low for vieibility through
the i.nterior landacaping of che pro~ect.
THF. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
In response to quesCioning by Commissioner Gauer~ Staff clar.if.ied that the petitioner was
pxoposing to have 212 parking space~ Lhat were fu' Z.y enclo~ed on three aides; however, 178
additiunal parking spacea would be required by Coue tu be enclossd on three sides; and a
total ~f 671 parking apaces were being proposed. Mr. Uorius responded that they did not
intend to convert the propoaed pro~ect to con:lominiums at H future daCe, since the pro~ect
would be owned by the developer.
In response to quesCioning by Chairman Pro Tempore Farano, Mr. Dorius atated thaC where
tlie ca.rports were to be partially open, storage closets would be provided el.sewhere f.,r
those units.
Commiasioner Tolar note~i that alt'iiuugh he was not opp~aed to open carports, per se, and
that the ability to v~ew the landscaping would make the carports more viaibly appealing,
he wae not sure that the dev~loper might canstruct them fully open; whereupon, Chuirman
Pro Tempore Farano nuteri that previoua sim~.ls~r plans were approved and werQ developed
satisfactorily, and that to ineure that the subject carports weYe developed as represented,
a c~ndition could be impoaed that the developer ahall aubmit detailed pl~na for said csr-
ports and storage unit~ to the Development Services D~partment for review and approval
prior to the issuance of the building permit, whereupon, Mr. Dorius ~o atipulaf~ed,
Commiss•loner Gauer noted that ^~en carports miglit be more secure than fully-enclosed
carports since they could ~„~ ~~iewed from Che intP.rior of the project.
Chairman Pro Tempare I'arano noted that the pra~ect on Ball Road which was desi.gned by
Mr. Dorius could be fo] 1~wC~ ~s an example for the carporta.
In response to quest.' tng regarding the requested waiver of the minimum distance betueen
buildinRs, Mr. Dorius furthe: stated that they intended to comply with the intent of the
ordinnnce alon~ the aouth property line.
It was tioted tha: on DeccMbc: 3i, 1974, the City Council certified Environmcltal 7mpact
Report No. 137 for u~velopment of tlie sub~ect property witt- an apartment complex cunsiat-
ing of 420 units, and the subaect proposAl wae for 390 units; therefo:e, the Planning
Commiasion determined that further review of the environmental impect was not necessary.
~ ~ ~
MT.NU'CGS, CITY FL.Ai7NTNC COh4~1IS5I0N~ Alerch 1.7, ].975 75-150
F.NVIRONMLNTAL IMPACI' RE:PURT N0. 137 AND VARIAN(~G N0. 2684 (Continumd)
Cammiseioner Morley of.fer.ecl keaol.ution No. YC75-62 i~nd moved toc ite paseage nnd adopti~~n,
thkit Pctitian for Vr-ri+~uca No. 268A ba nu~ i~rrel~y le granted~ in pnrt, ~ranring waiver uf
Che maximum building I~eigh-t to permik xwo-etory dweJ.li.ngs within Che 150-f:oot Aetback frum
the RS-A-43.1lOU Zone to the nortlicaeC ot the eub,~ect property. eald waiver bein~ grnntacl on
tha basis that 1.t ie probnble an~ld adJncent proparCy will develep wlth a multip].e-family
r.eaidentiul uAr.; grenting waiver o£ the minimwa floor arcn to permit 51.8 square feet, ao
pr.oposcd, on the ~~~.:+ie that tl~p Planni.nq Commi.seion haa previously granted er~id waivor for
bnchelor-type units, not Co exceed 'l5X of the total number o£ aparCment un9.te; thut wniver
of the mini.mum front setback wu6 eliminar.ed l~y the redubmittal of plfinA and, therefore,
withdrawn by the petitio»er; granting, in part~ waJver of tho minlmum distancc b~~tweon
b~~ildinge for approximately 17 inetencea where :he ^anfigucation might be interpreted ae
n etairwel7.. nnct the petitioner etipulnted thnt ttie att~er approximately 6 inetancc~s , wl~lrh
~re primar:lly local•ed along the southerly boundHry of the Levelopment, r+hu11 bP ,:onaCr~lcted
in compliance with the requi.r.emente of the RM-1200 Zone; gr~nting •~+~iver of the req•-ired
enclosur~ of carporte Co permit 178 carport spaces to be partially enclosed un each of Chree
aides~ tc~ al.low for vieibility througt~ said carpoxts, provid~~d however, ~l~at the required
l0U cubic feet of general etor~ge epace shal~ be nvailabl.e to ench dwelling unit and the
petitioner ehall :~ubmit detailed plnnb for »aid carporte and KCorage unitf to the llevelop-
ment Servi.cea Department for revi.ew and gpptoval prior to thc isauance of building ;~ermits;
aub~cct l~ the stip~il.at~.on~ of the petiti ~ner and sub~ect to conditiu.-s. (Sea Res~luLion
Baok)
On roll call, the f.oregoing r.esolution was paesed by khe following vute:
AYr": COMMISSION~RS: GAUER, JOHNSON, KINC, MORLEY, TOLAR~ FARANO
NUE~: COMMISSION~RS: NONE
AI~SENT: COr41TSSI0hERS: HLItBST
VARIANCE tf0, 2685 - PU~LIC HEA}tING. MASAMI QGATA, 5].5 Soutli Beacti Boulevard, Anaheim,
Ca. 92804 (Uwner); STEPHEIr W. BRADTORD, P. 0. Box 368, Yorba Linda,
C,;. 926f36 (Agent); requesting WAIVER OF Ft~QUIFEMENT THA7' ALL LOTS
AIiUT A PUBLIC ~TF.FGT, 'f0 ~STABLIS'a A LOT WITNOUT FRONTAGE UN A PUBLIC S'l'REET on property
described ~5' A rectangul.arly-ahaped parcel of lai~d consiating of approximately O.8 acre
having a frontage of upproximately 132 feet on the eouth side of Rall Road, having a
maximum depth of approximatPly 777 feet, and being locaCeci approximately 397 f.eet east
of the centerline of Beach Boulevard. Property presently c1 ~~sa3fied CL ~COMMERCIAL,
LiMiTEA) ZONE.
No one indicated t.heir presenc.e in oppoaition to sub~ect petition.
Although the Staff Report Co the Planning Commissi.un dated iQsrch 17, 1975, was no t r.ead at
the publi.c hearing, i.1: i3 referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Stephen W. Bradford, [he agent for the petitioner, appeared betore the Plann ing
Commission and atated that the aubject request was based on ~ problem e~:perienced by the
petitioner in obtaining finances for the property, since it presently had two sep arate
usea; and that they were proposing ro provide acceaA co the s~~~therly portion vi a a
permanent easement frum Ball Road thruugh the northerly portion.
TFi~ PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
In response to ques[ioning by the Planning Commission, rir. Bradford stated that Dr. OgaCa
preaently owned both port3one o° the subiect properCy; that the two residences on the
~c,utherly purtion were pre~ently being rented and not occupied by the owner; tha t Dr. Ogata
lived approximately one-ha].f mile from rhe sub~ect property; that the xccess to the aoi~~n-
erly portion uf the property wo~:ld be over. a driveway we~ving through the parking asea on
the northerly portion; and that ;~he easement would be kept open for traffic in and out,
said easemenl• ta be recorded in a mariner that 3t would aerve hoth portione of the property.
Cammiegioner Tolar noted tnat he was not definitely oppoaed to the proposal, a1tY-ough the
ro ert owner had ot~iously cr.eated his own problem.
P P Y
~
• ~
M LNUTGS, C'1'fY PLANNINC C(1P41LSSTON ~ Mnrch l7, ].975
V,A~ItIANCF, N0. 2685 ((:onCinued)
7''i-1S1
Ch~irmnn Pro Tempore F+-rnno noted th~t th~.y pr~posal would crento n horrendauR Riruacto,~,
eapecinlly !f the pr~pk~rty owner tried Co seJ.1 ehc ~outherly ourtion, thnt lf the Plnnning
Cummiseton knew whnt might eventunlly be devel.apad on the eouthprly poxtiun, r.?neiderntian
of thnl• uRnge of: the property might be morn Envornblo; aad thac tho propveal. wne very
awkward, C~mmis~ionyr Gauer nddcd tFir~t if Ch~ southc~rly purtion wae xcild or devalc>ped
with e more intenee use than che two c~ingle-f~m.lly reeidencas, thcan furthcr. p~ubleme woulrl
be crenttd witl~ resp~ct to pArking und trsf£!c.
Staff noted thr~t the 7.oning Diviuir,n hfld expr~ssed c~~ncern tha~ 1f the eubJect vari~nce
was approved, thnt sn addition+~l cundition be imp~aer! ~"'fhat n percrl mnp to recard the
approved diviaion of. sub,~ecC property ah~ll be aubn~f kted Co nnd appraved by the Clty of
Anaheim and then be recorded in the Office ot thr Ur•mge County Recarder."
In reeponc~e eo questioning by Commiuaioner Totar. ~ Mr. 13r~dford stgCpd he did n~k beJ.icvc
anyone would build reeidenti~l homes on the Kautherly portion, s.ii.^_e the enCire propert,
was zoned 1Eur commercint uae~.
CommiAai.oner K.ing noted that the two reaidences a~- tfie aoutherly portion of Lhe properCy
W41'P_ very nice and he could not visu~slize anyone climinating them. Chafrman Pr~ 7'empore
Farano noked that development oL khe souther.ly portion should be coordinrit:ed and made
compatibl~~ wi.th the northcrly portion.
Commiseloner Tolar mude an obaervarioi~. that the ~wo useH o£ the property conetltuC~d
double zonir.g, whereupon, 7.oning Supervisor Chai' es Ituberta clarified thnt although the
entire proper ty wr-a zoned CL, II p~rCion of the perty could be used fc~r~ resideatial
purposes as long as it wac~ occupied by the pr~prietor or o~•^.er of. said property.
It was noted that the Directur of Devel„~.ment Services had determl.nen that the praposed
activil•y fell witl~Ln the definition of Sectioti 3.01, Class 5 of the CiLy uf Anatieim
Guidellnes to the ltequ~.rements for an Environmental tmpact Report at.~ wa: , therefor•e,
caCegorically exetapt fxom t•he requirement Co file an EIR.
Commi.seioner Johnson offered Resolution No. PC7S-63 a~-.: moved for ita pussag,e ~~nd adoption,
that Petition for Variance No. 2685 be and hereUy is denied un the b~tsis t}iat thE~ petiCioner
would be creating a hardship fur future development of th~ propoaed Yarcel ]1 ~s r;h«wn on
F.xhibit No. 1, since the proposed access to ~arcel A v3a an irregulr~r e<t.emt^nt weaving
through an exiating parkino lut located on Parcel A is improper~ aakward and undesirahle;
and Lhat ar.y existing hardship is o£ the petitioner's own makin~; that. if Parcel B ia sold
and/or developed with a more intense use than the two existing aa_ngie-Eam,.ly ~: si~l~.nce~,
then further probiems will be crested with respect to parki.ng and traffic; that, altho~~l:
thp enCire pr~perty is zoned CL and the proprieC~r is entitl.ed to occtiiQy Uhe residen~:.l
porClon, it was represented by the petitioner's agent that the two sin~l.e••`.3mily d, c' <i.ng:-~
are being rented and~ therefore, not occupied by the proprietor; that tne ;.:titionex
failed to establish that the requested weiver ib *~ece~sary for ttie preservation and enioy -
ment uf a substantial pr.opert; right posaesyad by other propert;~ in tile same •ai c ~T-ity ~~'
zone, and denied to the propeTty in questi.on, said ahowing Ue a prerec~uisite for the
granting of a variance, and r~iat t~~ grn:.ting of th~s variance would be clear.ly grantttig a
use ehat others in ti~e ~ame vicin~ty and zone are heing denied; that ther.e are no exc:eptional
or extraordlnary circumstaaces or ~ondJ..ions applicable to the property invulved or `u ~h-~
intended use of the property that do not. ~ppl}• genc~rally tu Che property or ci~.ss of. ude
in the same vicinity and zone; ttiat tl~c, r-~?uested variance wili be materia2.ly detri:aent.al
to the public welfare or in,jurious to the property or impravements in such vicinity and
zone in wtiich the property is locat~d. (See Resolution Book)
(hi roll call, rhe foregoi.ng resolution was pasaed by tiie following vote:
AY~S: COMMISSIONER5: GAUER, .IOHNSON, KING, MORLEX, TOLAR, FARANO
NO~S : ~Ol~Ih1IS5I0NERS : NOIVE
ABSGNT: COMMiSSIONERS: HERBST
~
~
~
s
MINUTES ~ CtTY PI.ANNIN(; COI~itS510N ~ Mnrch 17, 1915 75-152
a
PRUJECT AFTA - Conaiderntion of Cx~~nnHlc~n of the r.edevel~pmenC orea "I'r.u~ect A.lphi~."
The Ylanning C~rmmisAior- ncknowlodged recelpt of the r~port knoc~m ae Cti~ "Drnft Pre,llminAry
P1an for AnHl~eim NedcvelopmQnt Praject Areo Data wtiich wae prepared pur~runc-r. to Cl~e
Cn1lEornla Community Redevelopment Law and presented to thu P.lenning (;~cmnlesinn w:iCli s
:ecommendatl.on of npproval from che Communlty Redevelopment Commi.seion.
The Planni.ng C~~rtnniesion i~~di.cated that thcy were not prepar4d tu take an nct.i.~7n on lhe
propoded expaneion of. the redevelopment arca for several reasona~ bei.ng that t- publ..tc.
he+arin~ should posaibly bQ held to gain publlc i.nput eince Che pro~ecC area included
appr,~ximc-tcly 2755 r~cres rind approximatcly 2000 oingle-fami.ly and multiple-fumily dwc~lling
~mit~. in addition tu commer.clal, induRtri~l iind publi.c etructuxes, and appruximately
S3,OU0 re~identc~ lived in ttie oubject ~rea; that there would be signif.icant impnct invulved
and eome explanakion .aigl~t be i.n order ct~ to why additional area w~s required at thin
point in Cime since Project Arc~a Alpha tiad noL publ.icly or obviousJ.y ahown significant
aigns of progreas; nnd that the crentton of r.edevelopraent project ~ren~ created mur_h
cuncern among the people ~aho were directly aEfec.ted. 'fhe Planning Commiseion generally
co~icurred thaC a public hearing nox t~e scl~eduled at this meeti.ng, but thnt the matCer be
continue~ to the Plunning Commi.seiun meQting of March 31, .1975, to all~~r more Cime f~r the
Conunibaion ko Qtudy the mnr.ter, und it was sugge~ted that the news med1A t,e encouraged to
publiciae the matter su tY~at tha public might pr.ovide inpuC at. suid rnEeting.
Coiamiasioner Tular o[fered a motion, seconded by Commisaiotier Morley and MQTION CARltTED
(Chairman Herbst being abaent), that considera[ion of expansion of the redevelopment
pr.oject arwa be continuad to the meeting of March 3l, 1975, for furtl~c~r etudy.
~NVIRONI~NTAI. IbIPACT RF.PORT N0. 146 - Country Hill Road 5e~wer.
Ik was noked thnt the Ciky of Anaheim Public Work~ Departwent was propo9ing to conRtruct n
sanitary sewer consisting of approximatel.y 440U feet of 8-incti clay plpe and pre-cast
concrete manhol.es~ in connection with the propoaed Cauntry llill Road aewer from Santa Ana
Canyon Road to 4100 Eeet south an~' easC o£ Sar.ta Ana Canyon Road; that the proposed aewer
would serve Tr.act No. 8713 ~.nd various homeowr.era al.ong Mohl.er Drive and Country Hill Ruad
who were presentl.y utilizing septic tanka; that a x•eview of the Environmental Impact
Report No. 1G6 by the T:IR Review CommiCtee on February 25, 1975, indicated that said
reporC conformed to the CiCy of Anaheim and th~ State of Californta Guldelines to the
Requirementa for an Environmental Impact Feport and was comp7.et~ as an infox-mative document;
howev~r, the Commlttee noted that the proposed sewer pro~ect may require rem~val of. lwo
maCure e.ucal.ypCus trees and several other dead or dying eucalyptus trees along Country
H111 Road; and r.hat removal of the two m~3ture trees may be r~quiied due to cnnstruction
excavation, wirh ~hs other treea removed for pubLic s<<fety.
Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Cownissioner. Tolar and MOTT.ON CARRI~D
(Chairman Herbst being absent), thnt Environmental Impact Report No. 146, having been
conaidered this date by the City Planning Coumiission and evidence, both written and oral,
presented to supplement said dr.aft uf EIR Nu. 146, the Ciky Planning Commfssion believas
that said draft of EIR No. 146 does conform to the City and Skate Guidelines and the Sta[e
of Caltforni.a Environmental Quality Act and, baspd tipon auch information, doea hereby
recommend to the City Counci.l that they certify said EIR ia in compliance with said
Envlronmen~al Quality Ac*.
RFPON.TS AND - ITEM N0. 1
RECOI~NDATIONS VARIANCE N0. 2082 - Requesl• for clarification of Sign
- Ordinaace - Property consisting of approximately one
ar.re located at the northwest corner of West~onk Drive
and Euclid Street, further described as 50~ N~rth
Euclid Street.
The Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated March 17, 7.975, was presented and made
a part of the minutes. It was noted that the applicant was proposing a"moving message"
electronic sign to be insCalled on the souCh and we~t sidea of the Anaheim Plaza Office
Buildtng located at the sub~ect addresa; that the measages on said sign could be shown
as cl~anging, flaehing or traveling and wea proposed to be ~.natalled at the sixth flour
1PVe1 oi the buildi.ng, with the copy aize being appraximately 39 inches and readable at
a distance of. approxia~: t~1y 2000 feet. Cocie defines a"flashir.g ai~a" as any sign which
is intermittentiy on re~.~ aff or which revolves in a m3nner to crQate the illusion ~f being
~
~
MINUT'r.S, GITY Pl.ANNTNG COMMISSION~ Mnrch ].7, 1975
1'1'N:M N0, 1 (Contf.nueci)
~
~
75-153
on nnd uff~ exccspting~ liuwever, time Rnd trmperAture eignR (Soctiun 18.05.030.030); sucti
flnahing eigne Are not permitte~i in any z~ne wh~n loc.ated wit.hin a raJi.uy of 300 fec~t of.
any dtructurQ uaud exclueively for residentinl aurpoaos (eubaect bullding ie located
withiii 300 fect. of eingle-famil.y reaidences c~~ Che oouth ertd w~Ht) nor when tt~e f.l~at~ing
porCian of suid aign exceede in height 25 feet f.rom ground level (the proposed "moving
meseage eign" would ho in exceAS of thc. rcquirement); fu~tharmure, in nu event~ ehull
flashing ei.gnv ba constructod in whl.ch any ligt~ce exceeding GO wet.ts are ~~sed (Sectlon
18.05.067). Code further specifiea L•hat nU arCifirial light used in con~unceion wiCh the
lighting of any eign shall be eo plated, nor ehal.l any mrst:erlal cepabl.r af .reflc:cting
light be ao ploc:ed~ as to resulC in dirsctfng euch sr~ificial light into any atructure
ueed exc~.ueive2y for residentiul purpoRea; no e~.gn l:ghted by uny type of indirect 11ght-
ing ehall }iave nny ~ucl~ li.ghting whlch exceeds $00 m1llinmpe rat~~d capacity nor et~all any
slgn lighted by r.~on or eimilar materials have any ouch neon or aimilnr a-~terial wnich
exceeds 300 milliamps rated capacity; ne ill.uminated si.gn eha11 hereafter be c~netructed
unles~t Che 111uminution of tlie ~iy,n is 250 foot lamberte or less as eaid foot ].smberta are
measured on any eurface. and t.h;,re snall be n statement of th~e manufacturer attached ko
the c~ign indicuting thut said si.gn does not exceed 250 l~mberts ae meaeured at any ourface;
and suc!~ measurement ehell be eatabliahed by any light .~~eaduring device approved by the
Chief Buildtng Inspect~r (Section 18.05.066).
Aeatstant 7,oning Superviaor Annika Ss~nr.alahei. uotad for the Planning Commiasion that th~
petikioner indicated the inkent was not to flaah the aign, Uut intended to use either ehe
changing message similar to what was presently be.ing used ~t the Anaheita Convention Center,
or a traveling measage; that aince it was indicated that t:he mesaage would change at
intervals of from 1 to 60 aeconda, and probably at 5 seconds~ the aign might bc considered
as an illuminated sign; tiowever, the Code did noC specity flsc~hing intervaie in terms of
aeconds.
rir. Andx'ew Lynch, repreaenting the Federc~l Sign and S~gnal Corporation, Si~n Division,
~~ppeared before the Planning Commiasion and, i« r~sponse to questianing, stated 2he
mes~aqea permitted and the intervaYs between measages would be determined througti negoCi-
ations between the client aud the City; and that [here would be no pornographic measag~s
but would h~ve co:anErcial met~sages in con~unction with public service messages, i.e.,
"Welcome to Anaheim."
Thereupon, Zoni.ng Supervisor Charles Roberts clarif.ied wiCh the petitluner Chat the pro-
posed sign might not advertise the use or product of the property on which the sign would
be located; ar~d that if the proposal was for off-eite type eigiitrig, then said sign may be
classified as a billboard.
In response to questioning by Commissioner Farano, Mr. Lynch staCed it was not the intent
~f hia client *~~ advertise liquor or car brands, ~tc., but to advertise services ar
merchandise r, ~~lable nt the ~ubject building, primArily the bank, Coaani.ssioner Farano
the:- noted th.~~ ~>ased upon the information being presented, the sign would be a changi*;g
sign board and he was not in favor ot it.
In reaponse to questioning by Commissioner Gauer, Mr. Lynch r~tated their sign at ttie
Saddleback Inn advertised time and temperature, as well as conventinns and other activities
of the inu.
In reape~s•~ *o queationtug by Commissioner K1ng, Deputy City Attorney Frank 1.owry advised
that un:~ ~ present aign ordinancey the proposed sign at the subject location could not
adverti ~ shopping center acrosa the str~et.
Commissioner Farano then noted that he w$s not enthusiastl.c about the biP,n becauae of its
proximity to single-family reaidenc~~ and he requested to knuw p-_-eci~~~y what the message
on the proposed sign would read; ws .~on, Mr. Lynch stated it was not hia intent to try
to sell the activities of his clie~« co rhe Ci.ty; thAt he was merely trying to a9cFrtdin
whether oX not the type of display could be used in the Ci~.y so they could attempt to sell
the product to prospective clients located within the CiCy Comm~.ss'_oner Farano then
indicate9 that since Chere would be other requests, more d~ _nite ana precise information
was required.
In response to further questioning by Commissioner lCing, t~r. l.ynch stated the similar aign
at the Anaheim Convention Center was a product of his company.
~
~ ~
I4~NUTES~ CITY PT.ANNINC COl~4lIS510N, Mnrch l7~ 1975
1.TisM N0, 1 (Continuod)
75-154
In rasponse to questioning by Commiaxioner Cauer, Mr. Lyach etatad the City would defi-
nitely be uble to edi.t the moseages to be used und the cllc+nt ot tha eubjecC locatton had
agr.eod to abi.d~~ Uy the City requir.pmenta in that matter; and that the prnpoanl wae a pilot
~Per.~tion.
The Planning Commienion enter.ud into discussion, during which ti~e mu~ority of kt~e C~mmie-
eioner6 inclicQeed ~hat ~he m~tter ehould be cone~idered ae a puUlic hearing under a variance
procedure~ so that public input could be made regnrding Che rpatter. Crnnmiseioner Johneon
indicated that the matCeC appeared to be far a clarif.icati.on of the Code, aince uc.cording
to the Code tl~e City did not wunt flaehing aigcia in the sub~ect arae, and he did not feel
tt~at the public would necesearily wish to provide inp~it to the mattec. Commiseioner Tolar
noC~d that if tt~ere was no uppo4ltion trom the neighborhood~ ttien he might be moxe 1'nvor•-
able towxrds the aign.
Mr. RuberCs noted that if a public hearing wae held~ As w~ns being euggeated by the Ylanning
Commiseion, tlien tlie adjacenC shopping cenCer and the residente in the area would be
notified and could provide input for consideration; thal• at Che con~lusion of a public
hearing on the matter~ if Che Planr~ing Cornml.seion dctermi.ned thaC the eign was proper,
then aome recommendatian ahould be made for future applic:atione and also wliether a variance
for one aign was al.l that wnuld be required.
In reaponse to further. yuestioning by Commissioner Faranu, the Commiesion and Staff concluded
that the propoae.d sign wae not a moving message st.gn. Cummisaioner To.lar noted thaC the
time intervals for a measage would distingulsh whether a sign was flaahing ur changing;
and that if the time interva~.o were 30 aeconds, ehat would not be a flashing aign~
Mr. Lynch staCed the Saddleback Inn and ;.he Anaheim Convention Center signs changed about
every 5 seconds, whereupon Cummissioner Tolar noted that Che Convention Ccnter gign needed
to be slowed down so that people would have time to read it.
Mr. "Lynch further stated that where time and temperature were meusaqea, bath would be dis-
played ac the same time; that the lights were controlled by phot ~lectric cella and
indiv'idually controlled; and that there was a screen to prevent .adiation effects.
Commiseioner Mor.•ley offered a motion, seconded by Commieosioner Tolar and MOTION CARRIED
(Commis~ioner Johnson voting "n~" and Conuni.saioner H~rb~~t beinK absent), ehat the subject
equest be submitted through a var.iance petition and ad~rertised for publi.c t.earing.
ITEM N0. 2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 578 - Request for clarification
of perT{*tec; uaes - Property consiating of appraximately
0.4 acre locat^_~' at the northwest corner of Lincoln and
Westet-~ Avenues.
Asaistant Zoning Supe~'visor Annika Santalahti presented the Staff Re~ort to the Planning
Commission dated March t7, 1975, and said StAff Report is referred to and made a part of
Che minutes. She noted that the petitioner was requesting approval of a car Iubrication
center. as 3 permitted use at the sub~ec[ vacated service station site in the CL Zene; that the
petitioner had indicuted that the proposa]. was eimilar to a lubrication center previously
approved by the Planning Commission aC 501 South State College Boulevard; that no gasoline
would ba sold from the site r~ince the pumps and gasoliiie tanks w~re removed, the pump
islands and canopies would be removed, and lube pits would be installed within th~ building;
that the entire lubrication area wauld ba encloaed witl.~in the building and a planter weuld
be added to the site ad~acent to Western A~~enue; and the building would contain a wai.ting
r.oom, office and atorage area.
Nfr. Robert R. Ov•rdevest, repreaenting Econo-Lube, Inc., the agent for the property owner,
appeared Uefore the Planning Commiesion and atated they algo operated the Iubrication
center at 501 South State College Boulevard; tiiat they would renovate and stucco the
building, the use would be enclosed, the operation would be noiselr_ss, no repairA wculd be
wade, and there would be no engines l.aying around on the property; and that the car lubri-
cating would be done in an efficient and clean manner.
In reaponae to questioning by Commleaioner Mo~].ey, Mr. OverdeveRt etated the sub~ect
operation would be developed the same as the operaeion at 501 5outh State College tioulevard;
thAt the subjecl building already had a brick facade r~nd they would be addi.ng a~lumpstone
planter on the Western AvenUe aide; and that the ma~otiity of their cuetoners were women
who did not typir.ally go to a gervice atation si.nce there were no wAiting rooms.
~
~ ~
MINUTE,S~ CT'fY i`1,ANNiNG CUMMLSSiON, 4lnrch 17. 1975
1'1'EM NU. 'l ((:onllnue.J)
75-.155
Th~~ Planning Comml.e~i.on enCerad into diecuselon~ during which C1-nizmar- Prc, Tempore Fxrnno
noted thnt, ul.though t:he upplicant had r_onverted l:hE~ aervice etaCiun site on Sauth Ct~te
c;o.l.leg~~ lioulevrard in goad tnsCe~ since thnt time ~n ~r.dinance had been adopted aetting
forth ccrt+xi.n critnria rand guidclineK f.ur c+uch convereione and, therefore, Lt would bc+ in
ordc~r for th~~ npplLcanC to apply Eur tl~e nc~w une t}irouph r~ publi.c hearing proced~re an
thi.it ~ prer~dent waiilc~ nnt be catyUl i~~hed and iiisure [hnt other. convern tuna would uleo
f.ullow thc~ prucedure for ord~cly dev~lopm~nt.
Mr. Louis ti. Zc~2u~:;~, khe IIP~7]I.CRtlC~ :~~~pe~~red Ueforc Che Planriing Commisaion and statPd the.
dr~iwings raubmi.~ted wouid hnvc be~n np~~~'aved U~ i_he 13uJ.1ding Divlsion, except thAt Approvnl
of Che uae wa~ required '~y the Plnnnin,, Commideion. He indicnted conc.ern that othQr
slm•t1Ar r~pp.llcantr~ mif;ht be ~h1e to prui:~~ed without hnving the uye approved by thc Planning
(;ommiae ian.
1'h~, P7anning Conuni.sai~.~ gert+rally concurred that no ac.tion UF taken regarding Lhe s~lb~ect
re~yue~~t, since +~ pub.itc hes~ring w,te trquixed.
ITEAt NU. 3
VARIANCF. N0. 2525 - ReQUest for annrov~l of substitutton uf
buil.dlnR mnteri.al~ ~ Pro~ertv c.urisistina of annroximatelv
G.S acre~, locnt<:d sc~utheast of B:ookhurst StreeC and the
Sanla Ar~ FreNwuv, t111d zoned MI..
7.onina Su:~ervisur ChAl:le~ Roberts nc~ted f.or the P].annir.a c:omm(vsion that ehe eubiect
varianc:e waH aran~.ed bv the t;~mmiss~lon on .Julv 23. 197;i, Lo eatabliRh a mini-warehouse
witl~ kaiver of the minimtim num;~er o£ reaulrec! asrkine sulces: that the submitted alans. at
thnt ~i„»• Lndlcated that the eKteriar buildine ma.~rial would consisC of concrete tilt-ua
v~ane7.s cr c~~ncrete bJ.ock w~lls, aud the Plannlnu Commission incl.uded in their auurovAl
~~~~rditions "that subiect rr~oertv sl~al.l be develoned suba~antiallv in nccordance with
nlans and Rneci.ii.catiu;is on file wi.th the (;itv of Ariaheim and that a decerative wall
treatr.~enC Eor ktie oertnheral wa11s of the structux'es on sub9ect nrooertv shal~ be sub-
mirted to [he Develoi:ment Service3 Deuartmenr. for revlew and aovroval. nrior to the issu-
ance af a bui.ldine uermit for constructi.on of said walls. Anv decigion made bv khe Dev~.~l-
onment Servlces Dei~artmenC oi~ said nlnn mav be acaealed to the Planninz Commisaion": thaC
the CammissLon was cuncern~>.d that the development be aesthetically nleasin¢ and. in this
regard, f.or nr.evious pzopoeals l•hey t~ad required the use of a varieCy of materials, colors
and ofxset of the bui_dings tc accamplish Chat need; that the Commtssion hnd furCher noted
that the develuper of tlie subjec[ pro~ecC could improve the s:Lte treatment of the wall in
the shape c~E plla~ters, di.fFetent treatmerit of materials, and that those iteme could be
worked out uith St.aff and rhea brought to the Commiasion ior approval. He further noted
that r..he petiti-~ner had ~ubmitte.d information relative to the subject mini-warehouse
t,ui.ldings being const.ruc[ed of inetal. in whir.h ~.he entire system including partitions,
rnofs, and doc~rs would be rnade of incombustible, heavy duty galvanized aheet metal and
xinisr:ed with "Tex Coal," u aimulated stucco finish providing trouble-free, fire-ret.irdant,
high-securi.ty atorage buildings; atid that photographs showing variaus type buildings
r_onstru<:teci oE the materia]. proposed were available for review.
Mr. Preston Tee, Yresl.dent of Besteel (Design - Fabrication - ~rectlon - of Meta]. Bui.ld-
i.ngs), app~~ared be£ore ~he Planning Commission and stated the life of. the proposed "Tex
Coat" maeerial was guaranteed for 15 yeare from chipping, flaking, ar any kind of deCeri-
oration aiid the workmanship was guaranteed for twu years; that several facilities had been
constr~icted us~.ng the suUject m~terinl~ in Huntin~ton Keach and in Orange (interaection of
the Newport Beach and Garoen Grove Freeways); and that his c~mpany was the onl.y fabricator
of the Gabject tyne material in S~uthern California, alth~ugh they d2d noC have a patent
on it; that the aubject material was competitive to conventional construction or concreLQ
bincic r.onstru~cion w~th ci2t-up partltiona; and that the material, was "shot" on the metal
surfa!~e with special equipment.
In response to questioning by Commisaioner Johns~n, Mx. Lee stated the subjecC muterial
would fracture only when the aheet metal itas.lf was penetrated; however, the matErial was
repairable; that Cli~+y had many years sxperience with the sheeC meta2 pane2ing at Savanna
School in Anaheim and in the Fullerton School District, as wel? as at Camelback College,
etc.
Commissinner King noted the general appearanc~e of the sub~ect area, that there was n meCal
building in the close proximity as well as a gymnasium covered with tarpaper and. in hie
~
~ •
MINUTBS, CI'CY PLIWNING COMMIaSION, Mnrcit 17 ~ 1975
ITEM N0. 3 (ConCinuc+d)
75-15E~
aplni.on~ tha pror~sal wouJ.d re-ieo rhe etandardA oF the er~vironment in the area. He fur.ther.
noted tt~nt thcs traf.Eic from the ad,~acent Ece~way would probably be looking dawn un ll~a
roof of the proposed mi~ii-warehouse. fuciliCy.
In response to que~tionf.ng by Cammiaeioner Farano~ Mr. Itoberte no[ed r.hac r+nyone wishing
to canetruct a metal building could eubmit plans to the Bui.lding Divieion and aaid plan~
would be approved if tliey complled witl~ the (:ity Council'8 Metc~l Ruilding Po11cy~ and any
deviationb from eaid Pc~llcy would hav'e lo be conaidered by the Planning Cammiseion and/or
CiCy Council.
The Planr~~ng Commisslon entered into diecussion regarding the propased bui.lding materinl
finieli, during which it w~3s generully agreed that eaici materiul wae an appropriate alter-
nativ~ to those presently epecified in Cl-~ Ci.ty Council Metal B~ailding Policy.
Commi:~:~l~ner Tolar. off.ered a metion, seconded Uy Commiesioner King and M01'T~~N CARRIED
(ChRirma-7 Herbat being absant), lhat the Plnnning Commi.esian does hereby approve the use
of mc~CUl buildi~ig~ with "Tex Co~t" f.iniet~, as presented to the Planning Commiasior~ on
March 17, 1975~ for the constructl.on of the mini-warehouse~ appx'oved {.n connection with
Variance No. 2525, and r.he same ahall conetitute subatantial c~nfoxmance with the Planning
Commisaiun's original appr~val of s~id Vnriance; and, further, tha[ Staff be and hereby ie
directed to review the Ctty Council's Metal Building Policy and to prepar.e a recommenda-
tion fc CiCy Council approva'l, to allow the sub~ect building maCerial to be utilized as
an alternate to thoae mate.rials al.ready epecified in saici Policy.
ITEM N0, 4
R~CLASSIFICATION N0. 74-75-24 - Requeal' for bpproval of
revised p'lana - Pro~erty conslsting uf approximntely
'1 acres 1oca~ed north and west of the northwest corncr
of 'La Palma Avenue and State College Boulevard.
Zoning Supervisor Chaxle~ RobertR notad for the Planning Commission that Reclassi.f.ication
No. 74-75-24 was approved on March 3, 1.975, by the Planning Commission to conatruct a
r_ommercial shopping center at the subject lecation, said zoning being approved subject r.o
the development bel.ng constructed preciae.ly in accordance with the submitted p1anA; that
si.nce the public ~iea~'_ng, the developeY• had reconaidered some of the aspec~y of the pro-
posal and their traffic engineer had determined it was desirable to modify the parkiT~g
area to improve the circulation for the project and they also desired to h~ve a Chird
drivew~y on StatP Coll.ege Roulevard to provide for right-ouC egreEa only, with no pas~i-
bility for righr.-in or left-out turns into the trafflc on State College Boulevard at that
driveway. He _`urther stated that tlie driveway would be conatructed in such a manner to
insure the intent for use o.f said d•riveway.
Commissioner Morley offered a motion, seconded by Commiasioner Tolar a.nd MOTION ~ARRIED
(Chairnan Herbat being absent), that ths Planning Commiseion does hereby approve the
revised plana as submitted, as being in substantial conformance with Che original ~pproval
of Recl.assification No. 74-75-24.
ADJ^ pU~MFU~ - There being no further businesa to discuss, Commissioner Johnson
offered a motion, seconded by Commisaioner King and MO'fION CARRIED
(Chairman Herbst being zbsent), to ad~uurn the meeting.
Thz meeting adjourned at 5:03 p.m.
Respectfully submit*_ed,
i '
,~~ ~
, ,
~ ' ~~, ~ GZ~IC ~ (J
~ ~k. f ~_-t ~ c.~C ~ -~ CC - ~
~
Patrici~ B. Scanlan, SecreCary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
PBS:hm