Minutes-PC 1975/04/14C R C 0 MICROf ~ ~ MING SEitViCE, INC
~ ~ ~
City Hall
Anahelm~ Californlt~
April 14, 1975
REGULAR MEETINt~ OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN G COMMISSION
REGULRR - A rnyular meeting of the Anahr•im City Planninn Comrnissl~n was ca-l~~d to
MEETING order by Chalrman Herbst at 1:30 p.m. In the Council Cht~mber, ~ quoi•um
be 1 ng presenl.
~RESENT - CHAIRMAN; Herbst
- COMt11SSI0NC•P.S: G auer, Juhnson~ Kinr, Mor18y, 7ola~
A65ENT - COMMIS;IONERS: ~ arano
Al.SO PRESENT - Ronald Thompson
Frank l.owry
Mac S 1 augl~ter
Jay Titus
Charles Roberts
Annika Santalahti
Christian Hogenbi rk
Ron Contreras
Coulter Hooker
Patricia ScanlaR
Development Services Director
Deputy Cfty Attorney
Deputy City Attorney
Office Engineer
2onfng Supervis~r
Assistant Zoning SuN ervisar
Redevelopment Agency Assistant D?rector
Associate Planner
Assistant P'ann~r
Planning Commfss(on Secretary
PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Tol ar led in the Pledge of ~Ilegi~nce to the Flag of the
ALLEGIANCE United States of America.
APPROVAL OF - Commissioner Johnson off~•red a motion, seconde~ by Commissioner King and
TME MINUTES MOTION CARRiEO ( Commission~r Farano being abs ent), t~ approve the minutes
of the meeting o f March 31, 1975, as submitted.
EWV i RONMENTAL I MPAC i - CONT 1 N UED PUBL I C HERRI NG. OCC I QENTAL LAND, I NC. , P. 0. Box B,
REPORI' N0. 147 Newpor t Beach, Ca. 9266C (Owner) ; WALT KEUSDCR, 1691 Ketter i ng
(REVISION N0. 1) Street , Irvine, Ca. 92705 (Agent); requesting WAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM
FLOOfi AREA, (6) MlNIMUM WIDTH OF PEDESTRIAN ACCESSWAY, (C) REQUIRED
V~~RIANCE N0. 2669 ENCLOS URE OF CARPORTS AND (D) VEHiCLE ACCESS REQUIREMENTS, TO
- CONST RULT A 308-UNIT APARTMENT CnMP1.EX on prooe~ty described as:
!1n irregularly-shaped narcel of land consisting of approxlmately
12 acres located northerly of the Riverside Freeway and Miraloma Way, having a frontage uf
approximately 610 feet~ being located approximately 375 feet west of the centerllne of
Lawrence Avenue, Property presently cl~ssified ML (INDUSTRIAL, ~IMITED) ZONE.
Subject petition was c~n`inued from the meetings of Februa ry 3, F~~bruary i9 and March 3,
1975, for the petiti~ner lo submit an acceptable Environmental Impact Report; and from the
mezting of March 31, 1975, for the petitioner to submit revised plans.
Approxi~rately eight persens indicated their presence in opposition to subject petltion and
generall;• concurred to waive 'he full reading of the Staff Report.
Although the StafF Report to t t~e Planning Cammission dated April 14, 1975, was not read at
the ~ubl ic hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
r. Mel Butler, 1691 Kettering Street, Irvine, representing the agent for the petitioner,
appeared b~fore the Planning C ammission and stated the architect for the praposal, Mr.
Gared Smith~ had worked wirh t he City Staff since the last Coramission meeting and he
believed that the rcvised pla n 5 were satisfactory; :hat they had also met with khe 7raffic
Engineer and ac~reed, at thelr exper.se, to install the traffic signal at Miralnma and
Sunshine and, if some ~cher de velopment was consCructed, t hen another form of reimburse-
ment agreement would be put in to effect; and that the project had been reduced From 316 to
308 ~~~,tts.
Chairman Herbst mad9 the revi : od plans available for review by the oppos(tlon.
75-177
~
~
~ ~
MIN~JTES~ C11'Y PLAN~ING COMMiSSION, April 14, 1~75
75-178
ENVIaONMEMTAL IMPACT REPQRT Ma. 147 (REVISION NQ. 1)_ NNO VARIANCE N0. 2669 (C~ntlnucd)
As~lstant Zonlny Supa~visor Annik~ Santalahtl no~~~J `or the Planniny Caiwnisslon that the
eccoss to Wallgreon Street to the north of the ~uoJect d~valopment wes shown on the revlsecl
pldns as en emergenr_y actesq only.
hlr, Gdred Smith appear~d beiore the Planniny Commisslon and stated thc developers hed met
with ti~a Traffic Engineer, the Sanitatlon D(vl~lon~ etc,~ ond ~liscussod the access wit~i
tho consensu~ being t:hat an emerq~n~y-type entrance would b4 the satlsfactory solution Al
Wallgre~n Streot; that Chr. devolap~~~~-nt had adequate open 9pAC8 end there would probably hP
no moro money involved ane way or the c~ther to put in a Gnntr~~l-type trafflc gate far the
use of the resldents In the proposed develApment; thnt they hed been concerned about
kaepln~ pedestrlans and clilldren out of the proJact, end the Trafflc Enginoesr had i~dicated
that Mlral~m~ was adequate to handle access for thc develc.pmcnt.
Ghalrman Herbst note~l thar. sny access in addikion to tf~at on Mlraloma would ~~: helpful
wlth the dens(ty proposed; that tFiert would hava to be some acctss to Wallgreen Str•eet;
and that, although the developer might wisl~ to Isolnte the proJcct~ the people who would
roside in the development should nol be isolated.
Commissioner 7ol~r noted that he would not be in favor of having a control gate at the
Wallgreen Straet access.
Mr. Smith then stated that whan the praJect was first sterted, schematl~ solutfons to the
access situakion had been discussed with Staff~ one being to have a dedfcated street
connecting Miraloma with Wallgrean Street in Placentia, and that d(d nok appear to be a
solution that City Staff was ~nterested in. Chairman Herbst ~nqulred why such a sol~+tlon
was not acceptable~ ard Zoning Supervisor Charles Robarts noted that althougli he did not
recall the d~scusslon at that ttme the way Mr. Smith was ~elating It now~ he could confirm
tliat a number ot alternate schematlcs for cl-:ulatlon were revlewed, and a ~~dicated
street was included; that efter a number of ineetings with the Traffic Engineer, the Devel-
opment Services Staff and Mr. Smith, the street seemed to be unacceptable in order not to
have access connecting wltt~, Wallg:Pen Street on account of the quality of the develapment
to the north and the lack of the desire on the part of the developer t~ have access to and
from the property to t.~e north.
Mr. Ricfiard MontE, 4462 Paloma Lane~ Yorba Linda, appeared before the Planning Commission
in opposition, representing other property owners and residents in the subject erea.
Mr. Monte stated he owned three units ir the area; that he and the others present in
opposition at this meeting had reviewed the revisetl plans and did not see any ~ignificant
change or improvement that wouid satisfy the acce~s/tr~+ffic problem and~ ~herefore, their
petition submit`ed in oppositlon at the Planni~~g Commission meeting of March 31, 1975,
stiil held, with the main objection being the traffic congestion that would result from
the constr~ction of the subJect proposal. Mr. Monte further stated that puttin~ a liyht
on Sunshine and Sunkist even now could create a serious problem since the ramp only held
10 cars 3nd Chere would be a backup into his property; that there had been no discussion
o-• representation regarding the fact that vans and trucks us(ng the present streets in ti;e
area added to the existing problems; that the Ctty probably did not have a street parking
ordinance arnl, although each af his units had garages, very seldom did the tenants want to
go into the alley to put their cars in the garages; that the residents in the area could
not agree with the propused development that was so dense and would bring so many cars
ir~to the area and, therefore~ they would urge the Planning Commission to weigh the opposi-
tion. Mr. Monte concluded by stating that the adJacent property owr ~•s wEre not opposed
to some kind of development on the subJect property, however~ th~y h~~ld like comparabla
units to their own or industry.
In rebuttal, Mr. Butler staced that the developers sincerely thought that it was better to
have the crash gate type installation at Wallgreen Street; however~ lf it was the opinion
of the Commission that the proposal was objectionable and would be better served by elimi-
nating tl.. panic-type installatlon and apening up Wallgreen Street Into the project, th~y
would stipulate to do so; however, they would still ha/P thelr gnod reasons for wanting
the emergency access only. Regarding density~ Mr. Bu'.ler stated the p~opused density was
very modest based on tod,~y's practices; that they were providing ampta open space; that
none of the requested variances fr~xn the Municipal C~~e req~~iremenxs affected the density;
that the proJect would be beneficial ka the surrounding propertles; and that if he had
understood the Traffic Engineer correctly~ the traffic could be handled Froperly in the
manner proposed and they wou{d encourage tf~e Commission to approve lt, as subm(tted.
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLAWNING CUMMISSION, April 14, 1975
?5-119
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO._ 14~_(REVI510N N0. 1) AND VARIANCE N0. 2669 (Contlnued)
Mr. Rabort lawson, 2547 Terrace Street~ Aperr.ment A, Anaheim, appear~d boFore the Plenning
Ccmmis~lon In oppo~~tlon and statcd he waw a pr<~perty owner in tha area; th~t he had not
heerd eny commnnte regarding tlie 77 units that were being constructed along th~ Freewey 57
with that trsfflc soon to bc Imposad upon Sunshfne Way; th+,t I~ ~ppeared thore would ba
much more tratflc than the existing slre+ets could possil>>y handle; that he would suggest
oponlny u~ Wallgreen Stre9t ond taking It to La Jolla to allevi~te the problem; thHt he
agreed Ch~t there wss a lot of opon space in the praposed development and that it was not
roo donae~ but wlth more access lt would be ~ much better proJect.
THE PUBLIC HEAItiNG WAS CLOSED.
Commissionor Tolar Ind(cated thdt he had requested the developer at the last meeting to
prnpara an anelysls ~r study regardtny the potential development of the subJect property
with an RM^4000 pro)ect~ sald roquest being In connection with hls concern regarding th9
Ingress and egress and the density of the sub}ecx proJect; that~ with S0~ ta 55~ aPen
space~ a proJect reflected good planning~ however, he was nat satisfi~d that the RM-4000
potonti~l hed been fully explored for thP subJect property; thal iF any proJect should
have lesser donsity ~t would be this ane because nf the access, and hs ~id not favor the
prop~sal~ as presented. Ne further noted that the subJect parcel appeared tu be landlocked,
mare or l~ns, and Wallgreen Street should go throu9h; that the develo~ers had praJected
that the subJecl• units would sell for $40,000 ko $45,000 and from his computotion~ he
belleved that RM-4000 units could sell for approximately S8,000 less and, thereby~ provide
some low-cost housing in Anaheim whlch was needecl more badiy than the 308 unlts proposnd.
Mr. Butler Indlc.ced thar he had not been very involved (n the st~ady regardirig the RM-4000
potentia) on the subJect property. He stated he did not belleve thp price difference to
be so great~ however, he would be glad tu y<~ over those figures with the Commissioners at
a later date; that they were concerne~ about tlie approach to low-Income housing since thn
condominlum-;ype housing involved carrying the c~st of facilitfes which were very excessive
to tne purchasers and~ therefore, although the purchasers r~ay ~e able to aff~rd the house.
they could not afford the cost of the amenities and in some af their proJects of that type
tliey had experlenced disaster; and that if they could not work out somet:hing fur single-
family d~tached~ then hc felt the people of Anaheim should be satisfied with as modest
rental program a:, possible on the property.
Commissioner Tolar made ~ comparison of the property at l.a Palma Avenue and State Gollege
Boulevard which was bsing developed with an RM-4000 project in the pricP range of $40~000
to $42~000~ and noted that said property was considersd, in his opinion, to be a rnuch
better locatio^ and more expe~sive ~rom a land valuation point of view; the~efore, he
found it hard to believe i~at *he two properties were comparable in price range for sale
of units. Commissi~ner Tolar continusd by nctIn~ that if the subject property was devel-
oped RM•-4000, a two-f~ld problem could be sulved -- low-cost hc~u~ing a~~d tra~f~c congestion;
and that althougli the proposed density was lower than could be placed on the prop~rty he
was nut sat(sfied that the property was good for that type development.
Commissioner Gauer noted that he was afraid the project would later be reyuested far
conversion to a condominiurn, especiaily since it did not look like it could succeed the
way it ~ras proposed. Mr. Butler then stated lhey did not contemplate conversion of the
proposed apartment complex to condominiurns.
ChaOrman Herbst noted that the proJect was lald out as well as possible for the fourplexes
that were proposed and which the developer specialized in.
Mr, Butler then stated the proJect had bee~ analyzed on the basis of trying to build four-
plexes simllar t~ those on Orangethorpe but had found that by the time they met all the
requirements~ the sales price would be approximately $120,000; tnat some of the Pourplaxes
~,ffered for sale at that time in the area were in the $95,000 price range; that they also
felt (~ ltght of the rapidly-escalating construction and financing costs~ they would have
a~ifflcult time finding khe tenan*s to rent a project simiiar to the one on Orangethorpe
and~ therefore~ that approach was determined to be infeasible.
Commissloner Johnson no*.ed that, since the subject property was ~!lth limited access and
rigf~t-of-way through the prop~rty wQUld be required tf Waltgreen Street went through, the
Commisslon should look at the project possibly being altogetlie~ ~ifferent in that event.
o • •
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Aprll 14, 1975 75-180
ENVIROMMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 1~+7 (REVISIQN N0. 1) AND VARIANCE N0, ?.669 (Contlnued)
Mr. Butler stated chat a card/key type ga~~ did not always work because children put sluqs
In th~ recepteclos, and Commissloner King inqulred lf the dAVOlope~• wuuld be wlllfng to
opan the gate up. Thoreupon, Mr. Butler so stlpulated to cl~minate Lhc gate and any uther
obstructions at that acr,ess.
Chaliman Herbst noted that he would rather sea thc proJ~ct approved without gates and if a
problem daveloped later on, then the Commission could consldar alternntlves at that timo.
Commissloner Gauer noted that the sub,ject pr•operly was zoned RM-1200 und the devcloper
could build the type multiple-famlly housing being proposad without coming before tlie
Flanning Commisslon, as lang es there were no varlances from the Code requirements.
In response to questloning by Comm(ss(oner King, Miss Santalahtl advised th~t the developer
would partlc(pate wfth the City in ~'~c~ lnstallatlon uf the ~raffic slgnal at the inter-
sectlon of Sunshine Way and M(ralom~ Aven~e and the Engineer(ng D(visfon would work out
the approprlate proportionAte cost of same.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion, seconded by C~rrwnisslonsr King and M0710N CARRIEO
(Commissioner Farano being absent)~ that Environmenta) Impact Report No. 147 (Revis(on 1),
having been considered thls date by the City Planning Commission And evldence~ both writt~n
and oral, hav(ng been presented to supplement sai draft F.IR No. 147 (Revlsion 1), the
Planning Commission believes that sald draft EIR Nu, i47 (Hevislon 1) does conform to the
Gity and State Guidelines and the 5tate of Callfornia Environmsnta) Quality Act and, based
upon such informatlon, does hereby recommend to the City Councll that they certlfy said
EIR Nn. 147 (Revision 1) is in compliance wikh ~aid Environ •ntal Quality Act.
Comnissioner Gauer off~ered Resolution No. PC75°70 and movad for its passage and adoption
that Petition for Variance P~u. 266g be and hereby is yrontc,~d~ in part~ granting waiver• of
the minimum floor area for 499 square feet, as proposed~ on tha hasis that thp Plannfng
Commission has previously yranted said wai~~~r for bechelar-type units, not to exceed 25~
of the total number of ~partment un~ts; granting walver of the required enclosure of
carports to permlt '~ carport ~paces to be en<;losed by two walis only for visibility
through said carport: ~liminating the request for walver of the minimum width of pedes-
trlan access~•~ays and a~cess requirements between covered parking spaces and dwelliny
units, on the b~sis of the r•esubmitted plans; subject to the condition that a traffic
signal shall be installed at the intersection of Sunshine Way and Mirloma Avenue and that
subJect property owner(s) shall pay a proportionate share af the cost of said installation,
as stipulated to by the petitioner~ said propartionate share to be as determined by the
City Engineer; subject to clear access being provided to the subject property from Wallgreen
Street to the nortli, said access to have no gates, e:ontr~ls or other obstru:tion~ which
would limit the access~ as stipulated to by the petitioner; and subJect to conditions.
(See Resolution Book)
Commissioner Johnson acknowledged those personx present in opposition and noted that he
did not wish the cppositi~n to feel that the(r petitions were being ignored; that the
sub}ect developers were building fairly close to the requirements of the zoning on tr~P
property and the only reason they were before the Ca-m-issien was witt~ respect to tr,~
slight variations from the Code requirements being requested; and that the Commi~;ion was
following close to their previous actians on similar requests.
Commissioner Tolar noted that even though the density uf the proposal was less thar, [he
intent of the zoning on the property~ he sti11 felt that the traff(c hazar~ls which would
be created would be a seri~us problem and the developers had not exploited the potential
for RM-4Q00 development to his satisfaction, which would have a lesser number of units.
On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: GAUER~ JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, HERBST
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLAR
ABSENT: COMMISSlONEFtS: FAItANO
~ ~ •
MINUTE5~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ April 14~ 1915 i5•181
ENVlRONMEN7AL IMPACT - CONTI~UED PUBLIC HEAaINC. ANAHEIM HILLS, INC./TEXACO VENTURES,
REPORT N0. 111 INC,, c/o Norst J, ~cFior, 380 Anohaim Nllls Road, Anaheim~ Ce.
' ~ 92807 (4amer). Pruperty describ~d as: An irregularly-shaped
RECLASSIFICATION parcel of lAnd consisting of approximately 22 Acres haviitg
-28
4
N0. 73-7 approximate fronlages of 830 feet on the east slde of Hidden
_
_ Canyon Road and 1880 feet on the north slde of Aven(da De
VpR1ANCE N0. 2566 Santi+igo~ and bcing locatad approxlmately 500 feet s~utheasterly
of the IntersacCion of Sqrrano Avanue and H(dden C;~nyon Road.
TENTATIVE MAP UF Pr•operty presently classified RS-A-43,000 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRiCULTURAL)
TRACT N0, 8520 ZONE nND COUNTY OF OItANGE Al (GENERAL AfRICUl.Ti1R,~i.) DISTRICT.
ttLQUESTED CLASS'Fi~1TI0N: R5-HS-22,OOQ (RESIDENTIAL~ SINGLE-
FAMILY HILLSIDE} ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF REQUIREMEt~T THAT SINGLE~FAMILY RESIDEN7IAL STItUCTURES
REAR ~N ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS.
TEN7A1'IVE 7RACT REQU EST: ENGINEER: WILLDAN ASSOCIATES, 125 South Claudina Street,
Anahelm, Ca. 928U5. SubJect propErty Is proposed for
subdivision inta 17 RS-HS-21,000 lots.
SubJec:t petitions were continued from !he meetings of December 10~ 1973, Ja~iuary 7,
March 18~ April 29 and June 24~ 1°74, at the request of the petitioner; from AugusC 5,
19'7~+, for readvertisement to ~nclua~ additional property; and from September 16 and 30,
1g74, and Februar•~+ 3, 1915~ at the request of the petitioner.
It wa~ noted that the petitloner was requescing a further continuance for sir, weeks In
order to resolve problems associated wil•h the proposed developrnent of the site.
Commissioner Tolar offered a motion~ seconded by Commissianer King and MOTION CARRIED
(Commfssianer Farano being absent), to further continue the public hearing and cons(dera-
tion of t.he subJect petitions to the meeting of May ~8, 1975, as requested by the petitloner.
VARIANCE NA. 2664 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. THE ESTATE OF LfI.LIAN A. HINRICHS, c/o
Richard J. Zlaket~ Executar~ 1666 North Main Street, Santa Ana~ Ca.
92701, CITY OF A.NAHEIM, c/o M. E. Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney,
P. 0. Box 37?Z, Anaheim, Ca. 9Z$03, AND STATE OF CALIFORNIA, c/o John M. Cutler~ Right-of-
Way Ayent, Dep~rtment of TransportatiUn, District No. 7, P• 0. 6ox 2304, Los Angeles, Ga.
y0054 (~wners); ROBERT P1. MOODEY AND JUSTUS C. GILFILLPN, 43~0 Campus Drive, Suite 200,
Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 (Agent); requesting WAIVER OF PERMITTED USES TO ESTABLISH RETAIL
SALES IN AN INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of approximately 4.0 acres locared at the sauthwest corner of Katella
Avenue and Douglas Street, and having approximate fronCages of 214 feet on the south side
of Katella Avenue and 745 feet ~n the west sidP of Douglas Street. Pr•operty presently
classified ML (INDUSTRIAL, LIMITED) ZONE.
Subject petition was continued from the meetings of January 6 and March 17, 1975, at thr
request of the petitioner.
It was noted that the petirioner was requesting a furtSier continuance to the meeting of
May 12, 1975, in order that the necessary information relative to the commercial-type
tenants in the proposed industrial complex cou~d be coltected.
Commissioner Tolar offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner King and M(2TION CARRIED
(Commissioner Farano being absent), to further continue the public hearing and considera-
tion of Petition for Variance No. 2664 to the meeting of May 12, 1975, as requested by the
petitioner.
~
~ ~ ~
MINU'fES~ fITY PLANNIMG f.Ut1MIS510N, Aprll 14~ 1975 75-182
RECl.AS51FICATION - CONTINiIED PUBLIC FIEARING. RI1Y G. ANO ALICE E. 51MPSC~~, 154t9 Cool
N0. 74••75-29 Valley Road~ Valley Centar, San Dlego, Cb. 92082 (Owner); DEL PROPERI'IES/
"-"-~ FRF.D WALTERS, 730 South~ Cyprnss Street, La Habra~ Ca. 90631 (Age~t).
CQNUITIONAL USE Property descrfbsd as: An irregularly-shaped parce) of lend cansisting
i'FRMIT N0. 1526 of opproxlmately 3.2 r~cre+s having a frontage of appruximately ?.95 Ftc:t
"-"'- on the northeast aide of Anaheim Boulevard~ having a maximum dapth of
VARIANCE N0. 2689 approximalely 510 feet, and being IocaCed oppraxfmately 140 foet north
of tho centerllne of Katella Avenue. Property presRntly clas~lfled
CH (COMMERCIAL, HEAVY) ZONE.
RF4,UES'fED CLASSIFICATION: ML (INDUS7RIAL, LIMITED) ZONE.
REQU~STED CONOITIONRL USE: PERMIT A BILLBOARD WITH WAIV~R OF (A) PFRMI'fT[D LOCATION
AND (B) MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK.
REQUESTED V~fiIANCE: WAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES~ (~) I~INIMUM
FRONT SETBACK AND (C) MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT, 1'0 CONSTKUCT A
MINI-WAkEHPUSE.
The sub;ect peCitions were continu~d from the meetir~g uf March 31, 1~75, for the petitioner
to submit revised plans.
Three persons indlcated their presence in opposition to subJect petition and gPneraliy
concurred to waive khe full reading of the Staff Report.
Although the Staff Repor•t to the Planning Commissio, dated April ~4, 1975, was not read at
the public hearirig, (~ is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Annika Santalahti reviewed the revisions to the plans since
the last meeting, as outllned ln the Staff Report.
Mr. Fred Walters,. repressnting the agent for the property owner, a~pea~•ed before the
Planning Commiss~on anu stated regarding the proposed billboard that he understood the
proposed location would still require: a variance, however, he would be glad *_o move it to
conform to the Code and so that it could only be viewed from Katella Avenue and not from
the freeway at all; that he would request some time to locate said billboard pr~cisely,
however, he did not wish the biliboard to jeopardize the chances of having the mini-
warehouses approved at the subJect lucation, since that was the most important item; that
they had taken two days to revise tlieir plans, following the last Planntny Commission
meeting, and did not have time to put in all of the room divisions on the plans, etc.;
that the revised ~lans indicated the increased dimension of ttie a+sles, the configuration
of the buildinys, the landscaping setbacks, etc., which were important featui•es of the
developent; that the project had been improved upo~ and he appreciatec' the criticism
offered by the Planning Commission at their last meeting; that regarding possible conver-
sion at a later date~ more parking spaces, larger streets and ;arger buildings were being
proposed that would be conducive to other uses; that the landscaping and setbacks had been
increased; that any view from the freeway ramp down onto the development would not have a
sterile look; thai ail of thc originall•~-requested varizncPS had been eliminat~d with the
r.ception of the waiver from the Darking requirement; that presently they werP reyuesting
to provide ~~4~ of the reyuired parking spaces and the analysis of previous similar proJects
appr'oved by the Commission indicated that the proposed parking was more than was previously
granted; that, in his opinion, the proposed parking vtas more than would t needed for the
proposed use and would also give adequate r^.a!'k~lig in case of conversion; ,~at originally
they had planned that the structures would be constru~ted of concrete block on the first
flAOrs and steel on the second floors, however, they had been contacted bv steel erectors
who were capable of ~roducing a very good-looking building that from a distance one could
not distinguish from stucco and he was, herewith~ requesting to have the fiex~bility of
using the all-steel construr.tion that would be finished with "TexCoat"; and that if in the
future the subject property would be better served by a higher use, then the buildings
could be virtually taken duwn and transported to anotltier sitP.
Mr. Forest Hammond, 1730 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim~ appeared before the Planning
Commission in opposition and reiterated his comments made at the Planning Commission
meeting of March 31, 1975. Fie stated they were still strongly opposed to downgrdding the
zoning classification of the subJect property which he felt would reflect directly on the
zoning of his property which was immediately adjacent; that the freeway overpass was
utilized as a corridor to Disneyland, the Conven~ion Center, and the Stadium, and a tremend-
ous amount of traffic `rom all over the United Stat~s would be looking directiy down on
~
•
~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Apri! 14, 1975
~s-ia3
RECLASSIFICATION NO_. ~4-75'29. COND1710NAL USE PERMIT N0. 152b AND VARIANCE N0. 2689 (Cont.)
tho subJect property; and khat the proposed d~velopmont wauid ho deter•iorating to the
subJect area and he would urge tha Planning Commisslon ta cilsapprove the request for
downzoning.
Mr. John Zlmmerm3n~ P real esCate hrr,kor, appeared before the Planning Commfssion and
stated he represented the ssllnr and ~urchaser of the subJecC property; that he was aware
ut thC velua ~f the propei-ty which~ i~ his opinlon. was correctly zoned and was not prime
commerc(al properky any longer; that i~ the last few years the land generally ln thn
Disnayland ~rea had decr•ea~ed in valua; that he had not had a sinyle offer from a commcr°
clal user for the subJect property In two years and it had been exposed to industrlal
developers and lurned down becauSe of th~ hi9her land value and the odd shape of thF
parcel; tl~at a mint-warehouse, because of its nature, had h(yher rent and rental than an
indusC~ial proJecC and, fn his opiniQn~ the proposed proJect was the best use for the
property.
hfr. Walters stated tl~at with the nin~ bulldings pr~posed they would be able to live with
khe s(ze and shape c~f the subJect pr~perCy, whereas, others might have a difficult t(me
bu(lding anythii~g on it; that because the property could be viewed from the overpass~
etc.~ they had laid out the landscaping on tne revised plans around each building and~
although so much landscaplny was not required by the City~ they wanted ta have ~ good-
look(ny proJect; and that he failed to sea tt~e unattractiveness of the development that
Mr. Hammond thought it was.
Commissloner Kiny noted that he favored the "Tex Coat" finlsh for the two-story structures
a~nd ha qucstioned ti•+hat the roof wauld be like. Mr. Mlalters stated that the roof would be
the same as was used on another similar project ln the City of Orange ~etting low off the
Garden Grove and Newport Beach Freeways; and that generally must indu~trial buildings had
the roof-mounted equipment but tt~e proposal would not have any of that type structures or
protrusions on the r•oof.
Commissioner Johnson requested that the petitioner speak to the maXte~ of devaluation uf
adjacent properties, a5 mentioned by the opposition; anc] Mr. 1•lalters stated that immediately
to tha north of the subJect property was a tilt-up, ML building which was taller than the
proposed building; that to the east was State property which was part af the freeway; that
Mr. Hammond's property was lacated to the west and devel~ped with one two-s±ory ar approxi-
mately 14-foor high buildi~g and with minimum landscapin9, and he did not see how the
subject develupment would devalue that property; and r.hat another parcel to the west was
vacant praperty, a~d the freeway was lucated to the south.
In response to questianing by Commissioner Tolar~ Mr. Waiters stated they were taking a
60-year lease on the subject property.
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advtsed the petitioner that he regretted that the pr~hi-
bitions outlined in the Staff Report regarding the billboard were not called out at the
beg?nning of the hearing since the Co~!e prohibited billboards wiiich could be vlewed from a
freeway.
In ~esaonse to questioning by Commissioner Tolar, Mr. Walters stated that they wauld
stipulate to ut~lizir.q only ane side of the billboard and that it could not be seen from
the freeway; that the sign would be used to advertise a houseboat resort on Lakc Shasta;
~nd that although the advertising had been promised, he also wished to comply withi the
wishes of the Ctty. Mr. Lowry then advised that although the Planning Commissic+n had the
power to grant the waiver, the property owner could be prosecuted for violation of Title 4
of the Anahelm Mur~icipal Code.
Chairman Herbst noted that I;e was opposed to the subJect project on the basis of the
zonirtg; that although the adjacent p~operties we:re develop.:d ML, ~ recognized that Anaheim
Boulevard was commercial property and zoned far that type devel~Nment with some adjace~t
properties already developed and some ready for expansion; that the commercial development
in the area was intended to grow and probatly the reason it fiad not grown was because of
the property values; that minl-warehous~s were permitted in ML Zones under certain condi-
tions~ although they generally were not dttractive; that the pro}ect would have exposure
from Anahe(m Boulevard and the freeway overpass; and that, in his opinion~ the commercial
zoning on the sub~j~ct property shoutd remain since that was the ~irst area seen when
entering tl~e City down Anaheim Boulevard.
Commiss'.uner King noted that he disagreed with the Chairma~'s canments~ since he could ses
nothin~ unattractive abaut the proposed proJect.
~
~
~
~
MINUT~S~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Apri) 14~ 1975 75-184
RECLASSIFICATION N0. 74-7~-z~~ CONDITIONAL USE PCRMIT N0. 1526 AND VAaIANCE N0. ''.6R9 jCont.)
Mr. Wslters staced that chey had Invasted spNroximstely flve tu six months' tlme in the
subJact property on th~ basis thax whon he inquired ax the City Planning Divisi~n~ a map
was revlewed whfch indlcatad the sub,jecc property as ML and, on the strength of that, th~y
hed Invested thc time and approximately SS~OOC on the bosis that th~ zoning wouid be
almost virtually no pr~blem at ell; and tliet~ because of the ~mbankment, only a partlon of
ths property could be viewsd from r.he Ketelle Avanuo overpasa.
~helrmen HerbsC Inqulrnd whara additional parklny could be provided (f needed, ar~d
Mr. Walters stated that some of the un(ts were ~eraqe slze and could be used for indoor
parking; and that presently they wcre provlding 44~ of the req~~ired parking spaces and the
remaining 56~' could be easlly added by using the porlmeter bu11d1ng5 for converslon to
parkl.iG spaces.
Commfsaianer Geuer noted that Che pr~posed building was similar to an ML use ond wauld not
bo obJ~r.tionable, in his oplnion.
In respanse to questioning by Commissionor Johnsan~ Mr. Walters stated that the parkfng
spaces provlded at Che end of the long corridors wer•e for easy access to the smaller
units~ and the Planning Commisslon noted that those pArtfcular spaces may not be countable
tf the develapment was converted, but were being lncluded in the 26 spaces proposed for
the subJect use. St~ff clariflsd thet any new use of the property ~~ouid require that the
pArk,ing spacns be provid~d ir- accordance with the Cnde provisfons.
Str~Ff noted that it would be appropriate far the petitioner to r~quest terminatlon of
Conditlona) Use Permit No. 162 on the ~ubJect property~ whereu{~on~ Mr. Walters sa stfpu-
lated to terminate ~ald conditional use permit.
Ccxnmissioner Tolar ~ffered a motion, seconded by Cc~n-m(ssioner King and MOTION CARRIED
(Comnissioner Farano being absent), that the Planning Commission recommends to the Clty
Counci) that the sub,ject proJect be exempt from the req~iirernent ta prepare an Environ-
mental Impar.t Report, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental ~uality
Act.
Commissioner Tolar offered Resolution No. PC75-7~ and moved for its passage and adoption,
to recommend to the Ci.ty Council approval of Petitlon for Reclassification No. 74••75-29.
subJect ta conditions. {See Resolution Boolc)
On roli call, the foregoing resolutian was passed by the following vute:
AYFS: COMMISSIONERS: GAUER, JOHNSON, KING~ MORLEY~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: HCRBST
ABS~NT: COMMISSIONERS: FAFtANO
Commissioner 'Tolar offered Resolution No. PC75"72 and moved for its passage and adoption,
thst Petition for Conditional Use Permit Mo. 15z6 be and hereby is denied. (5ee Resolution
Book)
Oi~ roll call~ the foregoirig resolution was passed by the followi~g vote:
AYES; COMMISSIONERS: GAUER, JOHNSON, KING~ MORLEY, TOLAR, HERl3ST
NOES: COMMIsSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: fARANO
Commi~sioner Tolar offered Resoiutinn Nu. RC75-73 ~nd moved for its passa~e and adoptinn,
that Petition for 'Jariance No. 2689 be and hereby is granted, in part, granting waiver of
t.he minimum number of parking spaces to allow 26 parking spaces on the basls that the
petitioner stipulated that the mini-warehouse units located along the perimeter of the
subJect property which are proposed to ba constructed with a 10-foot minimum width and a
20-foot minimum depth wi1S be converted to parktng spaces in the event the proposed m(ni-
warehouse use of the property changes to a general industrial use, said parking space
converslon to be in accordance with Code requtremen~s; that watvers of the minimum front
setback and maximum fence height were eliminated by the resubmlttal of plans and~ there-
fore~ withdrawn by the petitioner; that although the pruposal was to have masonry block
construction for `~e first floor and steel with "Tex Coat" finish for the second floor of
the proposed buildings, permission is hereby granted to construct the buildings entirely
of sti~l, in accordance with the City Council Metal Building Policy, since the petitioner
stipulatod that said alternate building mat~riai would have a"Tex Coat" finish, resembling
a stuccced wall; that if, at a future date~ a char.ge of the use of said property ts proposed,
~
i
MINU?ES~ C17Y PLA~~4lNG COMMISSION, Aprll 14, 1975
~
~
75-185
RECI.ASSIFICATION N0. 74-75-z9, CONRITIONAL U5E PERMIT N0. 152b AND VARIANCE N0. 26a9 (Cont.)
then the new proposod usa will bo subJect ta approva) by Che Planning Commisslon and/or
City Councll~ and the structuros will be requli•e+d t~ be brouyht up to the minirnurn standards
of all Codes edopted by tha City of Anahe(m; subJcct to t•he stipulation hy the peCl~loner
to terminete Conditlonal Use Permit No. 1G2 whlch was grAnted on Sapcember 18, 196t, to
astabllSh a trallc+r park. (Sce Resolutfon Book)
On roll cali~ the foregoing resolution wAS passed by che followiny votc:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: GAUER~ JOHNSON, KING, M~RLFY, TQLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: HERBST
ADSEN7: COMMlSSIONERS: FARANO
Commissioner 7c~l~~r offered Resolutlon No. PC75-74 and moved for its passage and adoptton~
that all proceedings in connecti~n wlth Condltiona) Use Permit No. 162 be and hereby are
terminated, ~s requesCed by the petltioner. (Sr.e Resoluti~n Book)
On roll call~ the foregoing resalutian was passed by the foltowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: GAIJER~ JOHNSON, KING, MORI.EY, TO~AR, HERBST
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
AB5ENT: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO
CONDITIONAL USE ~ PUBLIC HF.ARING. ROSA STEINBRINK, 506 Revere Street, Anaheim, Ca.
PERMlT N0. 1528 92805 (Awner); JANICE A. MORGAN~ 1213 East Melody Lane, Fullertoti,
~ Ca. 92631 (A~ent); requesting permission for ON-SALE BEER AND WINE
IN CANJUPJCTION WITH AN EXISTING RESTAUftANT on property described as:
An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.7 acre having a frontage
of approximatelv 184 feet on the west side of State Coilege Baulevard, having a maximum
depth of approxfmately 120 feet, and being located approximately 231 feet north of the
centerllne of Santa Ana 5treet. Property presently classified CL (COMMERCIAL, LIMITED)
ZONE.
No one indicated thei,~ presence ln opposition l'o subJect petition.
Although the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated April 1~, 1975, was not read at
the publlr, hearing~ it fs referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mrs. Janice A. Morgan~ the agent for the property owner~ appeare.d before the Planning
Commission and indicated she did n~t understand the condition set torth in the Staff
keport concern(ny pay~nent ~f tree fees; that the subJect restaurant was existing anu would
not inc.rease the traffic or otherwise bP detrimental to the surrounding area; and that the
hours of operation were from approximately 11:30 a.m. to 9:30 p m.
THE PUBLiC HEARING ~fAS CLOSED.
It was noted for the petiti~ner ihat if the tree fees had already been paid, the conditicn
~equiring ~ams would have been satisfied.
Comm;ssioner King noted that he fiad checked the subject property in the field and it
appeared to ba well maintained.
It was noted that the Director of Development Services had determined that the pruposed
activity feil within the cSefinition ~f Section 3.01~ Class 1 of the City of Anaheim Guide••
lines to the Requirements tor an Environmental Impact Report aRd was, therefore, cate-
gorically exempt frum the requirement to file an EIR.
Commissioner King offered Resol~tion No. PC7$~75 and moved for its passage and adoption,
that PetltEon f~r Conditional Use Permit No. 152~ be and hereby is granted, subject to
conditlons. (See Resolution Book)
On rull call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: C4MMISSIONERS: GAUER~ JONNSON, KIN6, MORLEY, TOLAR, HERBST
NOES: C01~1MISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIUNERS: FARANO
~
~ •
MINUT~S~ CITY PLANNfNG CQMMISSION, April lA~ 1975
75-186
GONDITIUNAL USE - PU6LIC NEARING, PAGIFIC LIGHTINr 1.E11SING COMPANY, 443 Shatto Pface~
PERMIT N0. 1529 Los Angelcs~ Ca. 90020 (Owner); JOSEPH R. MESSINA~ 5~50 East La Palma
Avanue, Anaheim, Ca. 9~806 (Ayent); roquesting Fermisslun for ON-SALE
REER ANU WINE IN AN [XISTING RESTAUR~NT on property descr;beJ as:
An irregularly°shaped porcel of land consisting of a~;~~ r+.ina~~ly 0.9 ac~<: locatad °.t the
soutl~west corner oF La Palma Avcnue and Impertol Highway, ha~ving approximate frontayes of
200 fcet on chc south slde of .La PalmA A~~onue and 200 feet un the west sfde of Imperlal
Highway. Property pry~eni~y classffl~d ML(SC) (INDUSTRIAI, LIMITED-SCENIC C~RRIDOR OVERLAY)
ZONE,
Commissloner King ~oted that he had a conflict of internst as deFin~d by tha Anaheim
Municipal Code Section 1.1.400 and Government Code Sectlon 3~25~ eC 5eq,, in that he owned
common stack in Paclfic Lighting Corporatlon, ancl Pacffic Lighting Leasing was a part of
that corporatiun; that pur~uant to the provisions of the reforenced codes, he was hereby
declaring to tf~e Chairman lhat he wa~ v~ithdrawtng from the hearing fn connectlon with
Con~iitional Use Permlt No. 1529 and would not takc part in either ~he d~scuss(on or the
voting thereon; and th.~t he had not discussed the matter with ~ny mamber of ths Planning
Commiss(on.
COMMISSIONER KING LEFT TFIE MEETING AT 3:00 P.M.
No one ind(cated the(r presence in oppositlon to subJect petition.
Althoughi the Staff Report to tha Planning C~mmission dated April 14, 1975, was not read at
the public hearing, It is referrec: to and made a part oti the minutes.
Mr. Joseph R. Messina~ the agent for the property owner, appeared bef~re the Planning
Commi~~ic~n ~o answer questions reyardtng the proposal.
THE PUgLIC HFARING WAS CLOSED.
In response to questioning by Chairman Hcrbst, Mr. Messina stated that the subJect restaurant
wa_~ ~ family-type restaurant 3nd tfie hours of ~peration were from a~+proximately 10:00 a.m,
to 9~~~ p.m. on weekdays ard to 1~:~0 p.m. on Saturday,
Staff noted for the Planring Commission that a condition set forth in the Staff Report
re.~uired a parc~l map to record the approved division of subJect property in the event it
was divided fur the purpose af sale, lease or financing, etc.
It ~aas noted that the Directar of Development Services had determined that the ~roposed
activity fell within the definltion of Section 3.01, Class 1 of the City of Anaheim
Guidelines to thP Requircments for an Environmentat Impact Report and was, therefore~
cateyorically exempt from the requirerrent to file an EIR.
Commdssioner Tolar affered Res~lution No. PC75-76 and moved for its passage and adoption,
that Petition for ConJitional Use Permit No. 1529 be and hereby is granted. subJect to
conditions. (See Resol~Cion Book)
On r~il call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: GAUER, JOHNSON, MOR'_cY, TOLRR, HERBiT
NOES: COMMI~SIQNERS: NONE
ABSENT: CQMMISSIONERS: FARANO~ K~~:G
COMMISSIONER KING RETURNED TO THE MEETING AT 3:U5 P.M.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - PUBLIC HEARING. MICHAEL ,!. CIBELLIS, E7 AL, 718 South Brookhurst
149
REPO~tT M0 Street, Anaheim, Ca. 9z8o4 (Owner); GALEY CONSTRUCTIaN CORRORATION,
, Attn: Harry Gates, P. 0. Box 147, Tustin~ Ca. 9~~80 (Agent).
2674
VARiANCE NO Property described as: !+n irregularly-shaped parcel of ',and cun-
`
- sisti~g of apwroxir~ately 5.3 acres located at the so~itheast corner
TENTA7IVE MAP OF' of Santa Ana Canyon Road ard Quintana Drive, having approximate
TRACT N0. 8873 frontages of 488 feet on the souCh side of Santa Ana Canyan Road
and 'Ly0 feet on the east side of Quintana Drive, and having a
maximum depth of approximately 691 feet. Property prese:~tly
classified RS-A-43,000(SC) (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL-SCENIC
CORRIDOR OVERLAY) ZONE, with a rea~lution of intent to RS-7200.
VARIANCE REQUEST: ~~j~M~INpMUMAREARNYARD~L~T~ GONSTitUCT)AM2MILOT,FS~INGLEEFAMILYASt1BDIVISiON.
~ ~ ~
MINU7E:S, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, April 14, 1975
75-187
ENVIRONMENTAL,IMPACT REPORT N0. 149, VARIAIJCE N0. 2674 AND TENTA7'IVF: MAP QF TRACT N0, 8873
TEN'i'AT I VE TRAC7 REQUES7: ENG I NEE R: ANACAL ENG I NEER I NG C011PANY , P. 0. Rox 3b68 ,/1i~c+he I m,
Ca. 92603• SubJect tract Is pro~oaed to be subdivided lnto
21 RS-72Q0(SC) lots.
Na ona indicbted t:helr presence tn uppo~itton to subJect p°tltion.
Although the Staff Report to thc Plonning Commisslon daled April 14~ 1975, wa~ not read at
the public fiearing, ft Is ref~rred to and m~de a part of the. minutes,
Mr. Flarry Gates, representfng the agent for thc property owner, appe~red bef~re t:ie Planning
Cortmission and stated the proposa) conforrr~d to the Sur~•ounding area; and that he had
brought the rev(secl plans wlth him to tlie meetina for approval.
Commfssioner Tolar noted that the proJoct appeared to be row housing. Mr, Gates (ndicatc~d
he did not understTnd xhe workings of the setback requirements, whureupoi~, Chairman Herbst
noted that many hours had been spent developing tfie present Code requiremPnts which ~llowed
for varled setbacks and for aver~ging of setbacks; that with an 18••`~ot drfveway, an auto-
mobile would hang over the sidewalk; that the 6 to 10-foot setbacks were allowed wlr.h
automat•ic garage door openers; that wtth 2a-foot setbacks, rhe automobiles would not hang
aver thc sidewalk; th~C tne ne~~ requ(rements gave flex(bility to the developer; tliat a 50-
f`oot seCback was required along Santa Ana Canyun Road and mosx of the iots in that area
were 120 feet deep; and that the number of houses being pro{~osed was creatin,c, a problerti
~r,d the need for the variance.
Mr. Gates then indicated that he iiad come prepared to the meeting with an alternate set of
plans, wherc:upon~ Chairman Herbst noced that a continuance seemed to be in order, sir,ce
the plans being discussed had not been revlewed by the Staff for inpuC.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Annika Santalahti noted for the Planning Commission that the
alternate plans had been discussed with the petitioner, howev~r, it was Qurely on a dis-
cussion basis and not included in the Staff Report. Mr. Gates ther, indicated that questions
had been raised ae the last rninute prior to the p~ablic hearing and he had not had the time
to have an cv?luation madc by khe Staff. ChairiTian Herbst then nated that, in his opinion,
10 houses .:t varianc~ with the Code, out of the 2l houses being proposed, was not within
rcasnn.
Miss Santalahti then rY~:~ewed the history of the subJect petition, noting lhat it had been
originally submitted in ,lanuary, 1975; thai when th~ ~~titi~n was reviewed by the Environ-
mental Impact Report Review Committee, the Negative Declaration was noC accepted and an
cnvironmental {mpa:;t Report a:as deCerrnined tc be required; and that by tlie time the report
was considered by the EIR Review Committee, the new setback ordinance had gone into effect.
Mr. Gates ther~ presented the revised plar.s, following which Chairman Herbst noted that he
did nat see enouc~h changes to elimEnate the problem; tt~at the plans did nut ~neet the
requirernents of the present ordinance and either 7.~ or b to 10-foot setbacks would have tn
be used, and nothing in between; and that alsu the area along Santa Ara Canyon Road had
gune to a block wall and a berm. Mr. GatE~ stated they were not propasing to have a;~erm,
whereupon, Chairman Herbst noted that the EIR would need to be stronger in that res~~ect,
since a berm and a wall would make sense for the proJect.. Mr. Ga~es sr •:ed the be~°,n was
reJected frum their point of view, however, they could raise their side uf the w..'', but
would need s«ne as:,istance From the City on the street side of the wall.
Commi,sioner J~hnson noted that he was in sympathy with the petitioner, although he had
not been hassled but was a victim of circumstances; that the revised pians would need to
be :viewed by Staff for irput to the Commission; that if the development came close to
tFF- requirements~ then the Planning ~ommission may be able to accommodate the developer;
and that he did not feel that he could vote on the proposal, in all fairness, without the
adc~itional Staff input.
Chairman HerbsC then noted that the developer should try to conform to what was presently
in the canyon area; tha~ although this might be a hardship parcel, the praject did nut
come close tu the site development standards in so~e respects~ that the berm and landscap-
ing should be from the freeway, and the densi±y should be revised; that, additionally, the
Planning Commission wouid like to be able to see pians of the houses that wo~~ld be constructed
~n the subject property~ since if any variances were granted from the setback requirements,
then approval would be made subject to the precise plan.
Thereupon~ Mr. Gates requested a cositinuance to the next meeting of the Plenniny Commiss'.on.
Commis=ioner Johnson offered a m~tion, seconded by Commissioner Totar and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissioner Farano being absent). that the public hearing a~nd consideration of Environ-
mentai linpact Report Na. 149, Variance No. 2674 and Tentative M,ap of Tr~ct No. 8$73 be
continued to the meeting of April 28, i975, as requested by the petitiener.
• • a
I~ ~ NU'TES , i. I TY PLANN I NG CQMM I SS I ON ~ Apr i l 1~~ ~ 1975 15-188
r,;;CESS - At 3~ 15 p.m. , Chal rman Herbst declar~J A recosa.
RCCOI~V[NE - At 3~ 3~ p.~n. , Chai rmon Herbat reconvened tho meet 1 ng w) th Cortrnl ss 1 onor
Farano bcing absent.
VARIANCE N0. 2687 - PUBLIC HEARING. ~. DAN PAUNA, 2135 West Bal) Raad~ NC~ Anahelm, Ce.
~"'" 92804 (Qwnor~; requesting WAIVER OF (A) PERMITTED 'iSF:S AND (B) MIMIMUM
NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES, TO EXPAND uNLAWFULL.Y-ES`ABLISHED A~ARTMENTS
ANU ~:OMMERCIAL nFFICES on property described as: A ractangulnrl~/-sh ~ped parcel c~f lond
cansistin~ of approxlmately U.3 acre having a fronlage of epprox~ma~.ely 118 feet on tho
north sidn uf Bell Road, having a maximum depth oP Approximataly 1~2 feet, and being
locaCed approximately 685 feot east of tfie centerifne of Brookl~urst 5[rect. Prope+rty
prasently classifi~d CL (COMMERGIhI, LIhIITEO) ZONE.
I t was notFd that the pet 1 t ioner was r~~t p~ a~wnL to rc~present the subJ~ct pet i t t on, where°
upor~ f,halrman Herbst not~ed tl~at sincc tho pet itloner was in violallon of the Code, hc shauld
be not 1 f( ed tt~at 1 f he or h i s representat i ve i s not preser~t at the next mcet 1 ng of the
Planning l:~mmission~ th~~ the matter mny be removed from the r,c~enda.
~ommissione;~ King offer~~i a motian, seconded by Commis~loner Moi ley and MUTION CARRIED
VapianceiNo~r26t~7ato ttie~meetingtof Ap~11~28or,1975~, ~~b,rhehpatit9oner tonbedpresent.~*
VAit I AN~E N0. 2b9~ - PUBL I C l1ENR I NG. EUGEt~ 1 A L. SEPKO, 3~03 Cabot Dr i ve ~ Apartment 4,
"""'- Anahelr~~ Ca. 92804 (Owner); requestinq WAIVER OF (A) MIN!MUM FLUOR
AREA AND (D) MINIMUN OF STRE~T PARKING, TO REl^,IN Ak APARTMENT IN
A COr:VERTEC GARAGE on propr:rcy descrlbed ~s A rectangularly-shape~ par•cel of land
conslstiny of a^?roximately A.2 acre locat~~~ at the northwest corner oS~ Cabot Driveand
Western A~icnue, „~ving approximate frontages of 80 fePt on ihe north slde of Cabot DrfvQ
and 118 fect on the ~f+e~~i s~de of Western Avenue. Property presently ~lassified Rt1-1200
(RESIUENTIAL~ MULTIPLE-FAMiLYj ZON[.
No one indlcated their presence i~ opposi,:io~ to subJ~.ct pntition.
Althougli the Staff aeport to th~ ianninq Commission dated Apri I 14, 1975. was i~ot read at
the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mrs. Eugenia Sepko, the petitioner, appeared befoie the Plan!~ing Commi~sic:~~ and stated the
s~~bject garage ~~,ad bee~, converted into living quarters for her mucher who was a heart
parient and could not climo ~tairs.
THE PUBLIC HEAFtING WAS CLOSEU.
Chairman Herbst noCed that it a!~';~=•~red the ecmversiu~ had been mad~~ .:ith~ut due process of
~ 5uilding permit, and Mrs. Sepko statPd that she krew a bu+lding permit was requlred but
t;iat she liad decided to chance it. '
Commissioner King questioned whether park ing was adequ~te, since when he was checking the
property in the f ield he !~ad to park acro:.s the street, and M-s. Sepko stated most of her
tenants did not us~ their ~arages, however, there was ample parking, since the property
was a corner iot.
In respons~ to ~i~rther questionir ;, Mrs. Seak~ s~ated the lau~ _ry roc+m was nat parc of the
convers i on; that the prev i ous cond i t:ona 1 use permi t on the p~operty perml tt i ng a gara~e
conversion was for the sam~ garage that was being occ~pi,d l~y her mother; and that ~~:
mother was 80 years old, was constantly in F:er caret and di~+ nat drive a car.
Chairman Herbs~ noted th~t if the reyuest was granted, then it would he un a yea:-to-year
basis and not condoned for a perma~ent apartment since it di~ not meer, the Code requ~ re-
ments, being i llegally convertad, and should be reconvertcd wtien the pet~tioner's mother•
no longer• o~cupled the premises or if the property was leased, soid or exchanged. 'ihere-
upon, the petitfoncr stip~~lated to the conditions outlined by Chairman Herbst.
In response Lo questioning by Chairman Herbst, the p~titioner stipulate~ to ~~omply(ng with
the Bui lding, Electrical, Piw,~ing, ar.d Meehanical Codes, as adupted by the Ci ty of
Anahaim, and to obtalning pernits for ar~~~ necP~sary work.
It was noted thaz the D=rector of Devel~~pRant Services ~iaJ aetermined kha;. the proposed
activlty fell within the definicion of Section 3.01: Class 1 of tf~e City of A,ial~elm
Guidel i ne> to che Requi rements for an Env i ronmental Impa~t Repor' and was, therefore,
t3tegorically exempL `rom ehe ~e~uirernent to file an EIR.
~ ~ ~
MIN UTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ P.pril 14~ 1~')5
VARIA~CE N(1, 2b90 (Continucd)
75-1Hg
Commisslonor Johnson offered Resolutlon No. PC75-77 and moved for Its passage an~ Adoption,
the t Petltlon for Var•lance N~. 2G9A be and hereby is grantec;~ granttng walver~ of the
min imum floor area and minimum eff-stroct parking for ~ tim~ 1lmitatlon of ona year~
su bJect to revlew snd consld'rat!on for extensian of time upon request by the petitloner,
said walvers betng granted on the basis that the petltloner demonstrated t~ ; a hnrdship
wo~id be croated if said walvors were not granted sinc:e the converted gar ,. housoy an
eld erly parent of the pr~perty owner; providcd, huwever, that In the even~ khat sybJect
con varted garage ceases to be occupied by tl~o elderly parent of the subJect prese~t property
own er and/or the prapert, chEnyes ownorship, then thl~ varlance shall become null and vald
an d the ga~aga shall br, reconvc~'teci to use for vehicle pa~king; subJ~cl to the: stipulatlans
of tho petl~ioner and subJ~~r to conditions. (See Resolut(on Book)
On roll call~ tF,e foregoing resalutlon was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gr1lIFR~ JOHNSON~ KING~ MORLEY, TOLAR, HERBST
NOFS: COh!~11 SS IONERS : NONf
AB SENT: COMM~SSIONERS: FARANO
VA RIANCE N0. 2691 - PUBLIC HEARING. R. S. AND JAN W. M~NNICK~ 1?.269 Sky Lanc~ Los An~eles.
' Ca. 9~Q~+9 (Owner}; K. TIMOTHY 0'BRIEN, 179~1 Sky Park C~rcle, Suite J,
Irvine~ Ca. 92707 (Agent)ti reques~ing WAIVER OF (A) PF.RMITTED USES AND
(B) MAXIMUM ACCf.5S DRIVE WIDTH, TO E5TABLISH AN AU'(OMOTIVc DiAGNOSTIC AND SERVIC~ CGNTEFt
on property described as: A re%.tangular~y•shapsd parcel uf land consisting or" approxi-
ma tely ~.5 acre located aC the southeast corner uf Ball Road and Magnolla Avenue, having
ap praxinate fronta~es of 150 feet on the south s(de of Ball Road and 150 feet on the ~ast
side ~' Magn~lia Avenue. Property pres;ntly classified C! (C01~1MF.KCIAL, LIMITcD~ ZONE.
No o~i~ ~ndicaled their presence in upposition to sub)ect petltioii.
Althou9h [he ~taff Report t~ the Planning Commission dated April 14~ 1975, was not read at
the pub;ic hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
M ~. Willia~n Clapet, 3355 Via L(do~ Newport Beach, the architect for che p~oposal, appeared
bE.fore the Planning Commi~sion and stated thc ~~:e uf the property was for a franch=se
a utomobile diagnostic and service center; and that the r_xisting service station would be
a bardoned. HF furt-~p-' stated that othPr similar uses had been approved in the Clty and he
was available t~ answer questions regardiny the proposa..
THE PUBI.IC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
i n response ~. quest:oning by Cc:mmissioner K.in~, P1r. Clapet stated they also otrned the
S tate Coliege Bouleva:-c~ ar~d Center Street location where 3 similar• use was granted.
C hairman Herbst noted that t.~o o~ the four existing drivPways should be closed off, beiny
t he two closeat to the intersect~on, since a rather dangeraus situat~on would exist.
~',. Ciapet stated that genera)ly the customers would not be leaving their ca~-s sin~e t:he
s ervice would l•ake a maximum of 40 minutes to perform; that !~r ayreed that the remaval oF
t he canopies wo~ld prov~de for better circulation on the proF~erty, al~hough pr~senlly the
eanopies were taken adve~ntage o; since t~,ey were in plare. l~i~ereupon, Mr. Glapet stipu-
i,3red to closing off the two dr•?veways closest to the intersection, and repiacin~ said
driveways with curb~ guteer and sidt~•,~alk.
Regardiny upgrading the property, Mr. Clapet s ated thPy H~ere proposir~g to p-~int the
existing s:eel structure, as an their ctt~er site, and install 'andscaping ar~und the
building rather than around the perimeter of he site.
Iri respons~ to questior~ing by Comm~~sic.+er Tolar, h1r, Clapet further stipulate.' to prov:d-
ing additiona' and continuous landscapina around the perimeter of the property where the
two dri~~ewa•,•~ were being •1e~~ted.
!n response to que:.tioning dy Chair-man Hcrbst, Mr. C!apet s~ai~d they were proposing to
i~ave a standard copyrighted ~aiS s~gn on the building ond he stipulated that any sioniny
on the property w~uld be i~ acc~rdance witli the Co~~P requirements. Mr. Clapet further
st~+r~d that they had ~sed the ar~posed signing at .,ther locations anc had not met any
~esistance thus far. ~hai~-man Herbst clarified tl-~~t tnz subject property would be allowed
to have on ~ ~.nr f r~:e-s tand i ng s i gn , to h i s Icnow i edge.
~
~ ~
MINUTES~ r,ITY PL~NNING COM~lISCION, April 14, 1975
';-19U
VARIANC~E NU~?~ (Continuad)
In raspnr~'~o to questloning by Commissioner Ktng. Mr~ Clapet stipulatec; to prnviding Crash
snclosure are~s In ~onformance wikh the City stendards.
It ~~~as noled that the Direct~r of Development Servi~es had de2ermliied that thc proposed
act~vity fell wlthin the dsFinitlon ~f Sectlon y.01~ Class 1 of the ~. y of An aheim
Guidellnes lo the Requ~rements for an Enviro~menta) Imp~cr Report and ~~s, th~ rsfore~
categor(cally exempt from cha requirement t~> file an EIP,.
Commfssioner Tolar ~ffered Resolutiun No. PC75-78 and movad for its passage an d adoption,
that Petitlon for Varlance No. 26g1 bs and hereby is gr•antad~ 5renting wa{ver of permitted
uses on the basis thnt the proposal wltl upgrede the slte; grant~ng waiver of the maximum
access drive wfdth to retain t~! ,f the four existing drlveways which are 35 f eet i-~
width, on the bas(s that sa(d ~eways arc existing and the petltioner stipulated to
closing o~f the two driveways closest to th~~ Intersec~;on, one being on Mdgnc~lla Avenue
and ~ne being on Ball Road, sald driv~ways tc~ ~c repl~ce~ with full•~he(ght cu rb and gutter
and sidewalk; subJect to thh conditi~n that continuo~: 'andscaping shall be p~'ovidcd frcxn
the westerly s?de of the permitted drivewzy on Ball k~~ad to the nor~~ierly s(d e of the
permitted driveway on Magnalla Avenue, as stipulated ta by th~~ petitlo~~~~r; th at trash
storage areas shall be provided in accor•dance with approved plans on file wit h the offico
af the Dir~ctor of Public Works, as stipulated to by the petiti~3ner; that any signing
shall be in accordanc~: with Code requirements; subJect tu the stipulations of the petitloner
end subJect :o conditions. (See Resolution Boak)
On roll call, thp foregoing resolution was passed by the follQwing vote:
AYES: GOMMISSIONERS: GAI:cK, JOHNSO~, KItiG, MORIEY, 70LAR, NERBST
NOES: :QMMISSIONERS: i~ONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO
VARIANCE N0. 26~? •• PUBLIC FlEARING. GEORGE D. M~ DONF~LD l I, CATHERINE E. RE I LLY AND
Ca. 5-108 (Ownc:r) •
MARGARET M. MAROND[, 1271 Adair Strent, San Marino, +
ROBCRT R. OVERDEVEST, Econo-Lube, lnc.; 5~1 Souihi St~te C•ollege
aoulevard~ Anaheim, Ca. 9?806 (Agent); requesting WAIVER OF (A) PERMITTE~ U S ES~ (B) REQUIRED
TREE SCR~''N ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIA~ ZONING AND (C) MtiXIhiUM WAL~ HEIG!i7, TO E STA[1LISH AN AUTU
LUBRICATION FACIl.IT'I on propert~• described as: A rectangularly-sfiap~d parcel of land con-
sisting of approximately 0.4 acre located :.t the northwest ~nrner of Lincoln '.~enue and
Wcstern Avenue~ F~aving approximate frontages of !18 feet on the north side ot Lincoln
Avenue anu 135 feet on the west side of Western Avenue. Property presently rlassiffed
CL (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITED) 7.ONC.
Na one (ndicatad lheir presencc• in opposition to subJect petitiori.
Although the Staff Report to the Planning CoMmisslon dated April 14~ 1975, was no~ re<~d at
the public hearing, it is referred lo and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Robert Overdevest, the agent for the property owners, appeared before t he Flanninq
Commission to answer questions regarJing the propasal.
TI~E PUBLIC HEARiNG WAS CLOSED.
Chairman Herbst noted that two of the driveways should proba~ly be elimina t ed fro• tf~e
pruposed plans. In r~:ply, Mr. Overdevest explained that the one d~•iveway located on
Lincoln furthest away from the iretersection was half on the s~b,ject proper t y and half on
_he adjoining property and thaC if the driveway was to be widened ~nere would be a telephone
poie to coritei~d with; that the mest practic~l solution would be to use tha *_ driveway the
way it was; and that he would stipulate to eliminating the driveway southe rlymost on Western.
Regarding the lane~scapiny, M~-. Overdevest stated he would rather have the iandscaping
distributed m~~4 euenly over the property than to have it blocking the acc e ssibility; and
that with a bi5 planter and limited accessibility, it would be difficult tc- get into the
;~uilding since the property was not very large, however, he would stipula t P to providing
cantinuous landscaptng Eetween the driv~~ways.
Commissioner Tolar noted that he agreed there was a valld point concer~~ing the u,~e driveway.
Commi~sioner Ki~g inquired if the proposal would be ahout the same as at SO1 South State
Cal;eyz and Mr. Overdevest stated~~that fortunately the subJeciVerapranchh P ffecteand not,have
ar~d thE~~ wer•e proposing to put a Tex Coat tinish on it o g
a service station image.
~, ~ s
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISS;ON, Apri l 14, 1975 ~~-19~
VARI ANCE N0. 2692 (Cont 1 iiuod)
Commisstoner King then I~qui~•ed if additlonal trees could be Interplr~~ted betweesn the
existing trees to bring tl~Q ~crcan up to Code requlrements~ ancl Mr. Ovordevest stated that
In view of the fact thAt tha axisting t.rces would continue to ~row an d he was already
~:uttlnc~ up app~oximately 20U llneal feet of concre;te, he. dlcl not wish !o supplement the
screen; that he was pr~po~sing to provide irrlyatlon for the landscapi ng and there was A
I imlt to whar. he could do ~~r• the propusal to be a financial possibi l itY. Regarding
nolsc Mr. Overdcv~sst str~~ed there wauld be no chn~~ging of ti~es~ mufflers, etc.~ where
impact toois would be re~~,ired, ond tl~erc would be FM music provid~d; ond that the lube
bays would not be v(s~Ulc to the prorerty owners in the area and the pro~e~nt tree screen
would be very effective
tt w~s clarified that the petltloner was requesting e va~tancc frorn the reyulred wnll
height and net from :he wall Itse1F.
Mr. Overdevest questi~ned the r.ondition requ(ring street lighting~ and Office Enginee~• Jay
Titus advised that ~he conditlon, as written, would requl~'P thr. deve laper to install
ornamenkal poles with strect ll~hts. Mr. Overdevest then stated tha t all of the adjacent
property awi~er r had 1 Ights tho same as the ones that s~r•ved h) s property present ly and ~ i f
the l i,hts were already in, why sh~uld he have to pay now and why we ~e they not pald for
when the property was devel~ped; that he was investing a great deal Zn other ~mprovements
for the property and did not feel that the stre~t lightiny condition represented a reason-
able request, havsvcr, he would be agreeab~e to paying lhe $2.00 feP In lieu of installing
lights. Assistant Zor ig Supervisor Annika Santalaht~ noted that thealternative. would be
to change thf~ cnnditic to requlre the ,ri2.00 fee.
Commissioner 'TOlar then notad that ha ayreed that it was getting to the Foint where it
might be dift ~cult for the petltiuner ta grt Into business at the subJect location, ~~id
th~e Ci~_y should do whatever lt could to help; that the petitioner had already stipulated
to closing off one of :he driveways which would cost a great deal, and he should not be
assessed For the naw st reet 1 Ights when such a 1 i ght woulc! be the on ly ~ne of i ts ki nd in
the area.
In response to questioning by the Pl~nning Commissiun, Mr. litus advised that the posting
of a bond cou ld nut be reyulred for an indefinite perio~+ of time.
fursuan: to further discussion regard' the street light requirements, Mis~ Santalahti
noted that the prevlous appllcation f~~ a similar use on this meeting's agenda was required
to pay khe `ee, and that the urnamental pole would cost about four tclmes as much for the
City ro install it.
Commission~r King noted :hat tlie petitioner had done a beautiful jc~b at 501 South State
Cot lege Bou levard, and he quest ioned the trash enclosure area. In reply, Mr. Overdevest
stated that preser.t:y the trash enclosure area was approximateiy 9 feet ~: 5 feet and the
City required an 8 feet x 6 feet area. Miss Santalahti noted that the trash storage area
m~ght :~ot be sound and on that basis the Commission may wish to retaln that cundition in a
mod i f i Pd form,
It was n~tPd that the Director of Development Ser•vices had determi ned that the proposed
activiiy fe2 ~ within the definition of Sec~ion 3•O1, Class I of the City of Anaheim
Guidelines to the Requirements for an Environmental impzct RPport and was~ therefore,
categurically exempt from tha requirem~nt to file an EIR.
Cammissioner ,iohnson offered R~solution No. PC7S-79 and moved fur 'sts p~ssage and adoption,
that petition for Variance iJo. 2b92 be and her•eby is granted~ grar~tfng waive~ of permitted
uses on the basis that the proposal would upgrade a form~r service statior, s!te; ~rantiny
wa i ver of t he requ i red t ree screen adJ acen t to res i denC i a 1 zon i ng on the bas i s that t rees
,ire existing and the petit(oner indi~ated *.hat there would be very lEttle noise emitting
rrom the proposed operation; granting waiver of ihe maximum wall he(ght o~ the basis that
said wall has been existing for a long period of time and ha~ n~~t been detrimental to the
adjoining r~sidenti~~ propertles; that the petiticner demanstr:~~ed that a ha^dshi~, wouid
be crPated i~ instaliation of street lightir,g fac?l+tie~ were ~qu ired and~ therefore, the
Planning Co~rnission hereby determines that said requirement shculd be waived; that the
must southerly drlveway on Wastern Av~nue shal ~ be removed and reR laced with standard
curb~ yutter and ~idewalk, as stlpulated tu hy the petitioner, and fu. ther that the on-
site landseaping shall be continuous along t'~e ~treet frontages batween the permitted
driveways, ~s stipulated to by the p~~titioner; that if, followinq Further investisation by
~ ~ ~
MINI;TES, C17Y HLANNING COMMISSIQN, Aprl~ 14, 1975 75"192
VARIANCE N0. 2692 (Cantlnupdj
the Strnots nnd Sanltatlon Division, the exist~ng trash storage aroas are found lo be
unsound, then trnsh storage areas shall be ~rovided In accorda~ce with appraved plans or,
file with tho office of the Director of Public Works;„sQb]kjt to thc stipulatinns of the
pAtitioner and aubJec~ eo condit(ons. (See Resolutio.,
On roil call, the f~re~,7oing rGSOlutlon was passed by the followir, vote:
AYES: COMM15510NERS: GAUER~ JOHNSON, KING~ MORLEY, 70LAR, N~RBST
NOES : COM111 SS I ONERS: NONE
A~SEN7: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO
In resp~nse to questioning by the Planning Commissi~n, Mr. Overdevest stipulata~
terminating Candittanal Use Permit No. 578~ whicn wati granCed on .June 15~ 1°~~-~, .~ estab-
lish a service station on the subJect property.
Commissioner Johnson offered Resolutf~n No. PC75-80 and rr~oved for its passage an~' loptlon,
that all proceedings in conn ction o+lth Conditlonal Use P+~rmit No. 578 be and hereby are
terminaled. (S~e Re~olutlon Dook)
Un roll r,all~ the foregoing resolulion was passed by the following votc:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: GAUER, JOHNSON~ KING~ MQRLEY, TOLAR, HERDST
NOES; CUMNISSIONERS; NONE
ABSENT: CflMMISSIONERS; FARANO
VARIANCE N0. 2b93 - PUBI.IC HEARING. ANAHEIM PLAZA BUIIDING LIM 0~ 1911 East Center
Street, Suite 203, Aneheim, Ca. 92805 (Ownc ; ANDY LYNCN, 3036
South Oak Street, 5anta Ana. Ca. 9?.707 (Agent); requcsting WAIVER OF
(A) PERMITTED LOC~~TION, (8) MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND ~;) NERMIITE~ aIGNING, TO f.ONS7RUCT A
"CHANGING COPY" ELECTRONIC SIGN on property des~.ribed as: An irregularly-shaped parcel
of land consisting of approximately 1.5 acres located at th~, nortf~west c~rner of Westmant
Drive and Euclid Street, having approximate frontages of ~' ~~t on the north side of
Westmonk Drive and 427 feet on the west sid~ ~f Euclid St~ ~, and hav:ng a maximum depth
of approximately ~05 feet. Property pressntly classified CL (COMMERCIAL, I.IMITED) ZONE.
No ~n~ indicated their presence in opposition to sub~ect petition.
Although the Star'f Report to ~~c: Planr+iny Commission dated April 14, 1975, was not read at
the public hearing, it is r~ferred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. M~rdyn Phelan~ representing Anaheim Plaza Building Limited, appeared before the
rlanning f,ommission and statsd the t~ pe of sign propossd was not a"changing capy" sign
but a"message sender." He offered to answer quesi~lons regarding the proposal.
THE PUBI.tC HEARING WAS CLOSEn.
In response to questioning by Corr~missioner Gauer, Mr. Phelan skated that the prc?osed slgn
wouid change slower chan the tim~ and temperature sign on the Cal-Fed building in the
area, which c:hanged ;bout every 10 seconds; that the Cal-Fed sign wa5 12 feet in height
opposed to Yhe 6-foot sign proposed; that ths operating hnurs ~f the sign ~~ere proposed to
be aapr•oximately 9:00 a.m, to 9:00 p.m.; and that the sign would not be a flashing siyn
but wau!d be a reader sign.
Canmissioner king inquired why the gn would be shut off at 9:00 p.m., and Mr. P'ielan
stated they did not wish to have the sign on after that time.
Commissioner 7r,lar noted :hat there werP residential properties on the west sidc: of the
subject b~~ilding and he questionad if 3~,, light from the proposed sign wau'd reflect on
those homes. In reply~ Mr. Phelan stated a reflective screen was pro~ose~ that wouid
eliminate any glare~ flashback or drop of light o~,to the homes. Commissioner Tolar then
noted that Commissioner Farano h.3d raised s~veral questions at a prPVious me,eting when the
sign type was first discussed, said questians relating to the types of m~ssages that would
be on the sign. In reply~ Mr. Phelar, stated th~t the basic reason behind the slgn was to
bring s~me type of identification to the buildinq .,nd to the Anaheim Plaza shopping center;
th~t they intended to attract ~nd stimu;ate busines~ in that area that had been failing
since 1965; thar they did not ~ntend to have a"l_as ~~egas" type sign but a tasteful sign
to stimulate and generate tenants and bus~ ~scs fo~ the buildir~g and the adjacer. shopping
~ ~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 14, 1975
VARIANCE N0. 25q3 (C~.nt'.nu~,d)
75-193
ce~iCer; that the subJect builJlr~c~ had suffered from e very high vacancy factor a~id the
~hopping center had s~ffared contlnuausly, evori wfth the development of r.he mAll; tF,At
the area did not haves identiflcation, whlch was needed desperat~ly; that tl~~y hod acqulr•ad
the subJact bulldinq aboi~t cnq year ago and had tremendous success leasin~7 it, but at the
samo time th~y had Just as m~ny of thc tcnants vacete bacause of lar.k uf 'lentification;
that they ~ilntalned the~r own offlces wi~hin ~h~~ ~~~~h)ect huflding, which was the same
h~lgh[ r~~ tt Cal-Fed b~ild(ng and tFiey deslred eo balaiice the two butldings b~ adding the
proposod Slynl~~~~; and Chat the Cal-Fed build~ng was running full with tFnants from the
subj~~t bu11d1^g.
Chairman Herbst noted ~hat. he could not ayree with aff-slte signing :3s propos~d; that tf
it was thc desira to advertise the Anaheim Plaza~ then the slgn should be fn the plaza
wliere it cou~~i advertise the wares there; that the slyn, as propose~, constituted a bi11
board s(nce ~t ,:ppea~od it wouid advertlse off-sitc business; !hat if the st5n was ta
advertise offlce space in the subJect bullding~ then it c~uld be permiCted; and that he
had serlous ~•eservations regarding the proposal slnce it w~uld open the door for off-si~e
advert(sirn~ ehroughout the Clty and the c~ntrol to c;ate had bc~en very strict.
Commissioner Tolar noted that he agreed that the subJect siyn would be contrar•y to the
Sign Qrdinance; that he was not opposed to the slgn its~~lf~ if it was for rhe purpase of
advertisiny the o;ficc space of the sub]ect bullding o;,rovided advertisement for the
tenants of said L~ilding, or to advert(se an event scheduled at the Anahe(m Conventlon
Center or other public service. He questioned wl~at ti•~ould stup khe petitloner from adver-
tising brand name liquors and other merchandise~ and noked lhat he did not agree that the
subJect building wa~ tFie place for a b~ilboard si~n; and thaC he was totally in favor of
the sign If it was restricted to u:;e of +:he bu'ldiiig and noC used for off-site advertising.
Commissionar Gauer questioned wheth~er r.he sign would k,bJectionable to the Planning
Commission if it was restricted ta xhe use of thc builaing and An~heim Plaza and, in
r~sponse tQ yuestioning by Ccxnmissioner Tolar, Mr. Phelan stated Che c~st of the sign
would be approximately ~,~Q0,006 and the cost of the vacancies in the subject building were
Jus~ about as much and, from a logical standpoint, if ~oo~s heer wa~ a tenant then that
merchandise cuuld be advertised on the sign; and that they did not intend to go out of the
center to solEcit business. Commiss~~ner Tolar in:;uired if he came to the petitioner and
asked for advertising on the sion for h1s Lusiness, could he yet it +f the proposed sign
was approved~ whereupon, Mr. Phelan stated they were asking to limit the use of the ssgn
to advertise the uses of tl,e suhJect buildtng ana he believed that an agreement could be
drawn, ~nforceable by the ~itv.
Commissioner King inyuired if a letter of agreement between the petitioner ~~,d the City
could be drawn, and Deputy City ~~tt~rnay F•anic Lowry advised that by approving the proposa',
in that manner would be asking for a lawsuit. Chairman Herbst reiter~ted that the proposal
was for a type of billboard since it would be for off-site~ outdoor advertising, whereu; m,
Mr. Phelan stated that the Broadway Shopping Center had an off-site sign off the `reeway.
Chairman Herbst continued by nating that the City had an ordinance for off-site sigrs.
Mr. Phelan then clarified that they ware requesting to have the sign on tt~~ nurtn, south~
east and west elevations of the subJect buildin~ and stated that therP were approximately
30~000 cars per d2~ traveling north and south on Euclid Street past the subject building;
and that the identification wuuld be from the freeway and wovld show people into the
Anaheim Plaza.
In response to questioning by Chairman Herbst, Assistant Zoning Supervisor Ann~ka Santaiahti
noted that wall signs were p~rm~tted in *_he CO Zone and that tFie proposed sign area wou~d
probably not exceed the requirement in that resp~ct, and that each wall would be taken
in:o consideration individually.
Reyarding the request~d waiver of permitted signing to allow off-site business adverti~in~,
Commissioner Tolar noted tnat if that waiver was granted~ then the petitioner coul~ advertise
r~nything he pleased.
Commissioner King noted that by p~rmitting advertising of the shopping center, b~isiiiess
would be kept within Anaheim and the City would benefit from sales tax reveri..:,
Mr. Phelar. then stated that they were not a commercial advertisi~g firm and if they c~uld
Just pay the cost of the sign from advertising, they wou~d be delighted.
~
~ •
MINUTES, CITY 'LANNING COMMISSI';!~ April 14~ 1975
VARIANCE N0. 2693 (Cont(nued)
75-194
Commissfoner Morley noted that he did not llke billboards and wo~~ld like to sce them
completely proniblked; that the cost of the proposed siqning was vary high an~ he clicl not
thlnk It would become a probiem cn that basis; and thni Che advertlsing could b~: restricted
to Anaheim Plaza to h41p pay for Chc slgn.
Chalrman Herbst then noted that If perm(ssion were grantcd for off-site adver[Ising in
th+s mannc , tlien the outdoor advertlsing firms would be making appllcatlon for the same
ty~e readerboard; and that a~proval would be deviAtfng from the Code.
Mr~ Phelr-n stated that the ,~roposad sfgn was literally half the size of the C.-1-Fed stg~
and would or~ly be good if .n~y could get people fnto the shoppin4 center.
In re~pon5e to questioning by Cummissloner Kln~~, Mr. Phelan stfpulated that the ad~- ~tlsln9
on ti~e subJact slgn would be confined to the I'~naheim Plaza.
Comml~sloner Gauer noted that i.° was in sympathy wlth :ry(ng to hclp the Anal~-~im Plaza
~;hopping center since it was thfs City's shopping center and the City should be interested
tu see it be succeasful.
Mr. Fhelan tlien stated that advertisement of thp City-spor,sored events would ~,e of bc~refit
t~ the City also~ sfnce the sign would ac'vertisQ ftve to ten miles away; :hat the sign
wo~~l~' ' e good busin~ss and somethfng t~a~ tu be done to c~ensraxe business in thc~ sub_ject
ar.., ,and that the proposed slg~i would be seen by approxir.~ately 120,000 cars on the Santa
Ana Freeway.
Comrnissioner Gauer then noted that iti the H~aiver was c ~ted~ the petitioner shuuld only be
able to ~dvertise the uses in the subJect building an~ additionally, the A~~'ieim ~laza
shopping center, and there should be some restrictions as to what would be on the copy.
He further noted that the plaza needed identification without question.
Mr. l.owry advised Chat if the sign were viewed from the freeway, the:i it may be in viola-
tian of 71t1e 4 of the Anahetm Municipal Code. and con~titute a possitle misdemea~nor; and
that the p~titioner had assured the Planning :~~nmission previouslr that the proposed sign
coul~± noC be seen frcxn the freeway.
Mr. 4lalter Brooks~ 230'7 Benton Way, Santa Ana, At[orr~ey~ appeared before the Ptanning
Commission and revie~ d the deFinitian of "messaye senJer display" as contained in the
State Code and noted lhat said code required that such signs net b~ within 660 feet of a
freeway; that by State Code, the petirioner would be restricted to certain types uf
advertising; and that the economics of the proJ~c~ were vast and it would have to be
feasible to make the installation.
Ther'eupon~ Mr. Lowry noted that the Anaheim Municipal Cod~ secYlon applicable to billboards
did not have a fo~tage limit from the freeway, but was prohib(ted from being seen from the
freeway; tl~at if off-site advertising was not displayed, then in all probability the sign
wc~~ld not fall within the category that would be in violation of the Code; and that ofF-
site advertisfng~ designed to be seen from the freeway, would create the probiem.
Mr. I.owry further clarified that a billboard could b~: a wall sign or free-standing sign.
Canmissiuner Morley inquired if che petitioner would advertise on three s-des of the
building oniy, and Mr. Drooks stated that from tl~e economic standpoint, they would be
reaching 120,00~ people gQinq south on the Santa Ana Freeway; that the 6~foot lettering
could be seen from the Brookhiurst Street overpass; that traveling so~th on Eucli~ there
~.jould be about 16,000 traffic circulation per day; tha*. traveling north or the Santa Ana
Freeway towar~ Los Angeles, th~ tiiew of the subJect building would be blocked by tre~s,
etc.; and~ Lherefore, they would be satisfied to have ths sign on the w~sr, north and
south sides of the buildi~g; that they would have to prc~~ to the State that the sign was
not oriented to the freeway and, although the City may ailow the sign, they would still
have to get per~nission fran the State.
In response to questioning by Commissioner King, Mr. Brocks stated that in ordc- far the
sign not ta be seen from the freeway, they could only have the slyn on the north and south
sides of the subJec~ building; and that by having the sign anly on those two s(des, t~~e
ex.pense of th~ sign might be ~ustified, al~hough it was doubtful.
~
~
MINUTES, C17Y PLANNING COMMISSION, April 14, 1975
VARIANCE N0. 2693 ~~o~~Cinued)
~
~
15-195
Commissioner Tolar noteJ that ha wa~ not opposed to the sign being ~r~ all fuur s:des of
the bullding; however~ an agreement would be needed regard(ng l•he o!f••sitc edvertfsing.
Mr, phelan then stated he would be happy to meee with the City Attorney to ~rrive at an
~~ement that would be satisfactory.
Mr. Lowry furthc~r advised that Chere wAS a problPm with Lhe Penal Code, whir.h could not be
v~aived, in r~~gard to off-site advertising.
Commfssioner Tolar reyu~st~d clariflcation as to whether the slgn should be approved ~o
advertiye the use of the subJect bulldiny ~nd lhr. Anahe'm PlazA, and Mr. Lowry advise~~
that any violation would '~e prosecuted un~i~~r the Anahe.lm Munici~~l Code since, In ali
probab111itu, thie technicality concerning the location of the ~n would be approved by
the State; and the only exceptions tc, th,z Municipal Cod~ were f~r time and temperature, as
for the Cal-Fed building.
C~,nmissioner Tolar Inquired if the pet(tioner realir.ed that if Che off-site advertising
~~alver were granted, th~at citati~ns for violati~n of the Munic~pal Code may be issued if
the sign advertlsed anything fn thc Anaheim Plaza shopping center. Mr. Phelan stated they
would advertise only after consultation with the City Attorney's Office,
In response to que5tioning by Commissioner King, Mr. Lowry advised that he would be glad
to discuss the advertising messages with the ~etitioner, how~ver, he did not have the
power to waive t.he Code regarding off-site adver~tising.
Mr. Brooks stated he did not feel that the petitioner would want to violat~ th~ law; that
it was conceivable that someone h~uld set up an advertis(ng firm in tfiis building and they
realized they could do on-site advertising. Commissioner Tolar noted that, in that case,
tfie business could be adverticed, but not the business they wer~ sellin~.
Mr. Lowry advised that thP Planning Commission may make a rec~~mmendatlon to the (.ity
Council to amend the Municipal Code to provide for ttie type of sign proposed, ~f it was
felt desirable.
It was not~~1 thaC tl~e Directar of Devclopment Servi~;es had determined tl~at the proposed
activity fell within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 11 of the City of Anaheim
Guidelines to the Reyuirements for an Environmental Impact Report and was, therefore,
categorically exempt from t'ie ~quirement to file an EIR.
Commissioner Tolar otfered Res~lution No. PC75-$1 and moved for its passage and adu~tion,
tha~ Petition for Variance No. 2693 be and hereby is granted, in part, qranting waiver of
the ~ermitt~:d location, t~~ permit a changing copy (or massage sender) t;~pe si~n on t:ie
norti~, ~~utti, east and west ~ides of the office huilding structure at the subject locatior~,
as pr~poa:•'~ said waiver beiny granted on the basis that said sign would not be objection-
able at lhe subject location; granting waiver of the maximum height on the basis that tlie
petitioner :emonstr•ated that ~ hardship would be created if said waiver were not granted,
since the h~:ight of the sign is for identification purposes; that waiver of permitted
signing is h~reby de~ied ~n thP bas9s that off-site business advertising would sF:t an
undesirable ~,,•ecedent for future similar requests; said petition being c~ranted to permit
signing to acvertise on-site business only; subj~ct to conditions. (See Resoiu;i~m Book)
On roll cail, •he foregoing resoluticn vras ~assed by the following vote:
AYE~: COMMISSIONERS: GAiJER~ JOHNSON~ KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, HERBST
NOES: COMMISSIONERS; NONE
^.BSENT: COM~11 SS 1 ONERS : FARANO
~ ~ ~
M~NUTES~ C17Y PLANNINI: COMMISSION, April 14, 1915 75-196
PRAJECT BETA - To considcr Redevelopmant ProJect Area "Spta," an
exp~nslon of Redevelopment Proicct Area "Alpha"
Th~~ sub;e~t proposal ~va~ contlnued from the meetings of Mrrch 17 end 31~ 1975, fur furthcr
study -~nd Lo cleve~lop alternat(ve plans, respnctivel•; and a Work Se.sslon was held on
April 9, -975, to do so.
COMMISSIONER GAUEft LEFT TNE MEETING AT 5:37 P.M.
~edevelopment Agency Assistart Director Chris Hogenblrk not~ that at tl~e PlAnniny
Commissfon meeling of March 31, 1975~ thc Commission considered and discussed the recom-
mendatlons~ Includ{ng "Exhibit 1," approved by the Community Redevelopment Commission
proposing erpans(on of thc redeveio~ment pro,ject area; that thc planning Commisslon
schedule~f a Work Session ~~r April 9, ~`~75, to further disGUSS the proposai and Co develop
alternatives for consideralion at thP regular Planning Commission meeting this date; that
at th~ Work Sessiun "Exhibit 1" was expanded upan by the Planning C~mmisslon tn include a
Sub Area E whfch would provide a transportatlon corrldor Co Freeway 57. and lhe Redevelap-
ment SCaff was directed to further break down the Sub Areas A through D for possible
smaller Las whlch could be d~±leted from the ProJect Area "Beta~" thus reducing the size
of tl, utal redevelopment projecr area; [hat following the Work 5ession, ~taff had
revi~ .d the Sub Areas and revis.:d "Exhibit 1" to indicate Sub Areas A1, A2, B1, B2, B3,
84, -y, C, Q and E; that St.."f ~as recommending thac the order of importance for inclusion
i~ ~'roJect "Beta" was Sub Area B1, B2, B3, g4, BS and A2, with A?, being the least important:.
'. Hoyenbirk oresenCed an analysls dated April I1, 1975, of the selected sub ar•eas in
~erms of deficiencies and cpportunities and the sam~ was ~aade a part of the ~'eco;d.
Chairman Herbst noted that some of the bl(ghted areas might b~ iivable and, in his opinlon,
it was a matter of ownership prEde in any cases; and that ''Beta" was nEeded to interJect
th~ intermodal syst~~m or provide tra~sportati~n corridors for "Alpha." questioned the
cost of an intermod4 ~.ystem to service the downtown araa and noted th~c :;uch costs were
probably astronomical and some cities thaC had started such a program were wishing they
had never starteci, even w(r.h the help ,~f the U.S. Government.
Mr. Hogenbirk noted that the Staff had in mind undertakiny a study to determ~ne the local,
state, federal, and priva±~ sources of financing a system and the information regarding
that study would be provided to the Planning Commisslon ~c a later date. 'n response r~
furthPr questioning by Chairman Nerbst, Mr. Hoger~birk noted hat the creation of "Beta"
would not pr•ovide fund~ for the study mentinned, however, if "Beta" was created there
would be a more r.omfortable feeling tow~~rd a system sinte the Planning Commission would
have set the boundaries and all of that type information would be incjuded in the Prelimi-
nary Plan for "Alpha" and "Beta•"
Deputy City Attorney Mac Slaughter noted that tne financial magnitude u` ~~~, intermodal
system would be ~ reeson to keep "Beta" as large as p~ssible. He further noted that in
order for "Alpha" to be succ~ssful or effective~ "Deta" was needed.
Commissioner Tolar nated tf~at the Planniny Commission was probably in total agreement in
wanting to see t.he downtown area (Alpha) and the City grow; th~.: he ~~ould like to see the
boundaries depicted on "Exhibil 1" (Re~rision 1) recommended to the Agency for approval;
that the Agency would have an insig~it into the need for the additiona~ proJ~ct area and if
they did not agree with the proposal, they wauld either t~~rn it down or revise it, in
which case the rnatter would be referred beck to the Pianning Commission; and it appeared
~liat, without "Beta," "Alpha" may not get off the ground.
Cha?rman lierbst noted that it apoeared "Beta~' was needed to support "Alpha," however, he
would want to see plans as to "Alpha's" progrr:ss before expenditures were made on "Beta."
He r.'.arlfied that his major concern wa~ the expense involved in getting the intermodal
s~stem anJ the corridor•s developed, since 3lthouqh that might be the tool, it was necess,~ry
to view it un a"cold cash" basis.
Commissioner Toler noted that the boundaries were ryr 'iminary; that he was still as con-
cPrned ~r~ he ever was regarding the property owners and their apprehensions about being
within a project arEa; and that if property owners 'n opposition expressed themselves at
the public hearing before the Agenc~,~, then the addi.ional area may be curned down. There-
upon~ Co~amissioner Tolar noted thar., ne would recommend that the Project Area "Beta," with
the Sub Areas A through E be sPnt on to the Agency for public hearing; and that, in his
opinion~ the alternatives ~hich would delete portions of the proJect area, as presented by
ctie RedevelopmPnt Staff, would destroy the concept.
, A •
MINUTES~ CITY f'LANNING ~OhtMISSION, April 14~ 1y75
PRUJCCT 4~TA (Continuad)
75-197
Commissionor Johnson noCed that he w~ ~ld not support d r~c~mmendatlan for ~pproval of the
proJacC area "Beta" since he had many questions whlrh had nat recelved sarist'actory answers;
th~t~ in h(s op(nlon, "Beta'' was premature and wa ~~~ ~ffort tc (nclude scxne undevel~~ped
pror.erty pri~r to its development.
C~xnmissloner Tnlar noc~~i that "Bcta" could be viewed as a stepp(ng stone and Comr,issloner
John~an theri noted thot ordinarily he would be inclined to agree on that basi~:, but he dict
noc wish to support the proposal at this time.
In rasponse to questluning by Chalrman Herbst~ M~ Hagenblrk noted th t Sub Areas B4 and
P~ wo~la not do much for the redevelopme,ic ~~f the downtown area.
Mr. Slaugh ~r advised that the praperty witl~in the prGJect ~reas would not be remaved from
the tax rolls a5 such, but the level of texation wou'd be ~ruzen. Chafrman Nerbst th~en
noted that the City should proceed with caution s(nce tf the ,dd(tlonal areas were not
enkirely necessary r.o ~upport "Alpha," then they should probably not be taken. Chairman
Nerbst inyuired about tFie possibility oF d~leting Sub Area B4 from the boundariPS and
Mr. Noc~enbirk advised that the vacanl land in Sub Are~ B4 reprps~~ted 17$ ~.f Sub Area B
vacant land and sfnce it would ev~ntually be n~eded ic would have to be ad~ud later on and
the pracess of changing the boundaries would be repeated at that tlme. M~. Slaughter
added that the State laws regarding redevelopmen*. may have been changed b; ~he timc addl-
tional area could be conslclered In a year from now.
!n response to queslioning b~~ Commissioner Tolar, Mr. Hogenbir•k ad~i~:ed that the line
between Sub Areas B3 and 84 was the centerline of S*.ate College Boulevar~, whereupon,
Mr. 5laughter advised that the City Att~rney's Office wo~~id recommend that ~.he boundary of
one of the sub areas include the full improved right-of-way on Stare ''oliege Boulevard.
Commissioner King inquired if the Planning Comrnissinn fel' he subje~t natter should be
subJect to a ballot v~~te ~f the affecte~! property owners, ar~ci Commissio~•er Tolar noted
that th~ public hearing before the Aganc~i would give the peoole an opportunity to (ndicate
their support or opposition to the propo:al; that there would be r_ertain problems with a
popular vote on the matter~ since many people would probably not understand the ramifica-
tions~ purpose, etc.,of the proposal; that the people deserved to have commun(c-~tion with
t:he City to know what was going to happen with their property; and that it ~ppeared that
the Redevelooment AgencY had noC dane the public relations and co~ununications job that the
pu6lic could understand with respect to the redevelopment pro~ram.
Mr. Slaughter then advised that the communi~-.ations problem would probably ~e lessened by
the formation of the Project Area Cann,'ttee which would serve a- a mechanism for communi-
cation which was not formed or utilized in Project ArFa "Alpha."
Co~nmissioner King cammented further Lhat he felt the r.itizens should have the riyht to
vole on the subject boundaries since there was a lot .~f money Envolved. Commiss+oner
To;ar noted that although he agreed that the citizans dese;rved any right they could get,
the averaye citizen wc~ld not be able to vote un the matter loy?call; with .he information
available~ and he did no. believe the mannner in which the matter was being handled was
ignoring the rights of tlie citizens involved.
In response to Commissioner Kiny's con~-ern, Mr. Slaughter advised that one of the programs
available under the Redevelopment L~•. an~ as part of the CI[y's partic~l;jr program would
be owner participation agreements where tne propc..ty owners w~uld be able to enter irto an
agreement to particlpate ir a successful pro_ject, etc.; and that each property would be
handled individually.
Chairma~i Nerbst. entered into discussion concerning the tax Increment, bonding, and revenue
for spec(fic projects and he inqu(red to kn~ ~ho ~~ould be ubligated fo-- the bonds if the
City Council poli~:y changed after the Agency ,s committed to some bond:;. Developrent
Services Direct~r Ronald Thompson advised that in that case the Agency would probably buy
off the bonds. Chairman fierbst further inq~ired what would happen to a project that was
starteu such as the transporration system~ but was noc finished, and Mr. Slaughter
advised ti~ot the Agency woi~ld be cor,trac~ually oblig~ted.
Chairman ilerhst noted that he would consider "Be.a" only in respect to providing corridors
for Alpha~ and if the t,x increm~~' Hras used for other improvert~ents that Nauld be defe?t-
ing the purpnse. Oep~ty Clty Attc~rn~y FranK Lowry then advised that the determinatioi~ of
how and where ihe f~~nds would be spen~ woulc~ be up t~ the A3ency.
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMI°~SIUN, Aprll 14, l~'15
PROJECT BEIn (Contlnuod)
7 ,..198
Mr. lioc~enbl rk nate~ th+,i_ ~~ ~ t ~~f the m~:~r~et ing scr~~~cyy for the total redevelopmer-t area
was to provid.. attractlvc corridors, including at :hc fr~ewaY InCer~:hanges~ And it was the
cansen~us that this ~~nuld d~~ m~~~•e chan anything else Co attrac~ Che developers t:o the
area.
Chafrman lierbst discussed the Irnpact af thP burden ~f improving the pour areAS as part of
"Beta" and noted that hc wfshed to clarify that in votiny for the propasal, It would be
wltti the understAnd(ng that all fuiids der(ved from "Be~_d" would be spent only on corriclors~
wfilch was the purpose of creating PraJect Area "Beta." Mr. H~genbirk advised that such a
sCtpulation would be dlfficult to make at the present tlme, and Mr. Slauqhter advised that
a preliminary plan was yet t:o be consfder•ed by th~ Planning Commisslon; that a flnal
redevelapment plan for thn er.:ire area would be developed for consideratlon and~ prior to
that time, it would I~• p~•emature to determine where Che funds would be spent. Ch~irman
Herbst relterated that the only reasun he would vote for the proposal would be to provide
corrtdors to ProJect Area "Alr'~a" unttl ,~ plan ~+as developed.
Chairman Nerbst uffered Resc~lutlon !+o. PC75-82 and rnoved for its passage and adoptinn to
establish boundaries for ProJect Ar~aa "ae~a" ~~s ~•'~own on Exhibit 1(ftevision 1) on file
in ii~e uiiic:~ of the Secretary af the ~lanning C~~mmission, sald boundaries to be for t.he
soie purpose uf praviding corrldors ta support ProJect Area "Alplia," and any funds realized
from "Beta" shall be spent on corr~dors on~y; and, further, that tlie Planning Commission
recommends tnat a s+udy be in(tiated by the City r~9irding the F_onomic feaslblll~y. (See.
Resolution Book)
Commissioner Johnson noted that f~e was opposed to tt~e foregoing resn',utinn because of tF~e
~mbiguousnes~ of the proposal which led hlm Co believe that the proposai was premat~~re.
On roll call, the foregoing resol~~r.io~~ was passed by the following vote:
AYES~ COMMISSIONERS: KING, ~~ -itLEY, TOl.AR, HERBST
NOf.S: COMMISSIONERS: JOHNSON
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO, GAUER
Commissloner King offered ~~tion that the Planning Co.nmission recommends that when the
plans are fully developed, a: the City Council is ready to move ahead, then the peop~e
ahould be informed what the Nro~ect means to Anaheim and then the property owners asked to
vote on the praposal at the ballot box.
The Planning Conw~iissioi, entered into discussion regarding the foregaing m.tion, du~~ing
which Comm(ssioner King clarified that he was speaki7g of the property ~~w.:~rs both !nside
ond ~utside the project are~s. Mr. Lowry a~Jvised that a ballot qupstion could not be for
the v~te of a selected yroup but would apply to everyon;, !n tne City who w,.+~ eligible to
vote. Mr, Hogenbir•k added that uiider the law, the City was requ~red '.~~ .:~nd a registered
letter to each and every or.e of the property owners inside the proJect area, said letter
~eing from the Chairman of the Agency advi,~ny the people ~f their rlgf,t:, in terms of
eminent domain, what the project was, and where it was located, etc. lt was clarified by
Staff that the procedur~ to ~iotify adjac~ent properties within s00 feet, as in zoning
matters, did not appl} to the r•edevc!::prnent program. Chairman Nerbst indicated that, in
'iis op(nion, i~ woul~ be diff~cult to inform cF.~ residents at-large in t~~e City :egarding
thP program, whereas, the people within ~~he project area r.'ould be called in to discuss the
pr~gram; :.~d that the property owners within c;~e project area might reJect the program and
convince the City Council/Agency ~o turn it ~own.
Commissioner Tolar noted th~t he cou16 not secend _he foregoiny mation, since he felt it
w~s up to the e:acted oft„ ~~ls to make the determ ,atic:~ regarding the ~allot question
and, furthermore~ he did ot feel that the City Council would take an action that wnuld be
a~lverse to the resr, of ~' . Gity of Anaheim.
'iH[ FOREGOiNG MOTION O~ED FQR LACK OF A SECOND.
(Not~: Yhis iten~ was consldere-i at thP end o~ the meeting.)
U
`_~
MINUT~S, CITY PLANNlNG COMMISSION, April 14, 1975
ENVIRONMCNTAL IM,PACT - Qne Milliui~ ~ellon Rescrvolr - ProJect
ItEPORT N0. 148 matoly lhree acres located immedlatcly
~ betwoen Walnut Cenyon an~i Weir Canyon,
Serrano Avenue and Nidden Canyon Road,
portlon of Urbnge County immr_diately s
I1miCs.
~!
~
75-~5~
si~e canslsting c .roxl-
south of kh~ rldy ,ne
near the lntersectlan of
beiny in an un',ncorpoi•at~d
outh of the Anahelm City
Althouhn tha 5r.aff Report to the Plannfng Comrniss.lon dated Apr(1 11f, 1975~ was not road a~
th~~ m~~eting, ifi is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
It wa• noCed that the proposed proJe~t wa:, lntended to provi~e adequatc damestir water
servl~e and flrs flow rates to the exlstiny and pro~~~~sed davelopments primarily In Anahr.~m
Hills; c:hat the ~~roposed reservalr was one portion ~ the Master Piai~ of the high elcvatlon
water syslem that was being implcrosnted a~ development occurred in Anahalm Hills; that th~e
subJect En~~ironmental Impact Report was revlFwed by ~he EIR Review Cc~nmittee at ils meeting
an Aprll 1~ ~975, and it was fndicated that th~e document r.~~nformed to the City of Anahelm
anc: the State of Californla ~uidellnes to the Requirements for an Environmental Impact
Reporl• and w~s completc a~ ~n lnformative document.
Canmi~sioner King offered a mation, ~econded by Comr.iisslor,er Morley and MOTION CARRIED
(Carnniss(oner Farano b~Sng absent), that Envircnmenta) Irnpact Report No. 148, having been
r.onsidered Chis dete by the Anaheim City Planning Conxnission and evidence having been
presented to supplement said draft of EIR No. 14$, th~, n!.~~~ning Commission believes that
said draft c~f EIR No. 148 does conform to the ~tate Guidelines and the State af
Cilifornia Environment~l Qualit;~ Act an~, base~ ~ch information, does hereby recom-
m~~~d to the City Council th~~r thay certify said ~ s~n compliance with said Environ-
mental Quality Act.
EIR NEG,~TIVE DECLARATION •• Inre a yrading permit for a single°family home slCe at
~ 436 South Country niii Road.
It was n~ted that an applicat(on for a grading permit had been filed for the subJect
locatiur~ and the applieant was propasir~g to construct a single-family res;dence; that an
evaluation of the environrt~ental impact of grading at the subJer.t location w~~s required
under the ~rovisions of the California Environm~ntal Qual~ty ~ct and the State EIR Guide-
lines since the project was lacated in the Scenic Corridor; ~nd that a study of th~
proposed grading by the Engineering Division and the Development Services Department
tndicated that said grading would have no significant Pnvironmental impact.
Ccxnmissioner Iling offered a mot~on, seco,ded by Commissioner Morley and MOTIQN GNKk~ED
(Cc~mmissioner Farano being abse~t), tha+ the Planning Commission recammends i.. '.he City
Council that the subject projec~_ be exempt irom the req:~irement to nrepa:•e an Environ-
mental Impact Report, pursuant co tne provisi.nns cf the California Environmental Quaiity
Act.
EIR I~~GATIVE DFCLARATION - Inre construction of a storm drain at the intersection of
`"'-"-`""'- Miraloma Avenue and Blue Gum Street.
It was noted that the Pubiic Works Uepartment was proposing to install a storm driin at
the subj~ct locati~,~~ said storm drain to cunsist of appi'oximately 1600 feet of ~~::inforced
concrete f,ipe with diameters from 2~+ ta 66 inches, and the intent was to relieve flooding
in the area; and that a study of the proposed pr~ject by the Engir.eering Divfsion indicated
that it would have no significant ~ivironmental impact.
Cortmissioner King offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner P~lorley and MOTlON CARRfED
(Cor~~nissioner Farano being absent), that the Planning Congr-ission recommends to the City
Co~ncil that the subject project be exempt from the requirement t~ prepare an Environ-
mental Impact Report, pursuant to the provisions of the Calitornia ~nvironmantal Quality
Act.
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING C~MMISSICN, April 14, 1975
75-7.00
PLACENTiA RE1'ARDING__BASIN AND CARBON CR~EK CHANNEL - In conformance wlth Anahelm Gen~ral Plan.
It was noted lhat the Oranye County Flood Control Oi~trlct was proposing to make certain
Improvements tu the Placenti~ Recarding Basin and Carbon Creck Channel °rom State Collegs
Bo+~levard ta Placentia Av~nue, tlio wnrk e.sspntlally cun:isting of the construcCl~n uf a
bypass channel arc,und Placent~a Hasin wlth pruvlsion t~ d(vert excess storm flows into the
t~asfn, thus increasing ~he effectivenass of the basir as a flo~d-retarding facllity; that
an emergency overflow spillway and an enlarged culvert at Sta~e Coll~ge Bo~~levard were
alsn proposad in this proJect; that~ in accordance with th~ requlrements of Sect(an 65402
ot' the Government Code~ the Flood Control Dlstrict was req~~escin.~ a:letermination as to
lhe conformfty of the pro~.osed proJect wlth the City of An~~~eim ~neral Plan; t'~.at the
District had Filed an EIR Negailve Declaratton in corrpliance with the Californi~ Environ-
mental Quality Act; and that the Englneering Divisicn had reviewed the proposed proJect
and found il to be in conformoncc with the Masler Plan of Drainage.
Commissioner Kin~ affercd itesolutlon No. PC75-83 ~nd move~t for its ^assaye and adopt(on,
that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find and •':termine that the prup~~sed
flood control and drainage impro~~ements within the City of Anahefm are in conformance witP-
the City of Anaheim's adopted Gencra~ Plan. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call~ the Toregcin~~ resolutlon was p~ssed 'oy the follow(ng vote:
qYES: COMMISS~ONERS: GAUER, JOHNSON, KING, MURLEY, TOLAR, NkRBST
NQES: COMMISSIONCRS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIQNERS: FARANC
SALE OF SURr'LUS PARCF.L. BY THE ARANGE COUNTY FLOQD CONTROL DISTRICT
ik was noted that the Oranye County Flo~d Cantrol District. was proposing to decla-e a
parcel uf land surplus and oFfer it for sale, said parcel consisting of approximate~y 0.1
acre located south of Carbon C.rPek Channel approximately 700 feet west of Knott Avenue
and known as Parce' No. 4a06.1 of the Carbon Cr-~ek Channel; that the adJacent property was
zoned RS-l~-43,000 and indicated ~~ the Anaheim General Plan as appropriate for mPdium-
density .~~sidential development; that the Flood Contr•ol Dist~~ict had filed an EIR Negattve
Declar•atiun in cornpliance with the Calif~rnia EnvironmPntal Qualir.y F,ct; ard Pha*, in
accordance with th2 provisions a` Section 65402 of t`~e Government Code, th,e Flood ~'ontrol
District was requestir,g the Anaheim City Planning Cummis~ion to deCPrmine if the proposed
sale would be in conformancE with the City of Anaheim Geneial Plan.
Commtssioner King offered Resolution No. PCiS'b4 and mo~ed for its passage and adoption,
that the Anaheim City Planniny Commission does hereby Find and determine that the proposed
ale of Parcel No. 4a06,01 by ~he Orange County Flevd Control Distr-icC is in conforman~e
with Che City ~P Anaheim's adopted General Plan. (See Resolutinn Book)
~n roll call, the Foreg~ing resolution was passed by thF Fuilowing vote:
AY~S; ~OMt~~5SI0NERS: GAl1ER~ JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, HERBST
NOES: COM~IISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: C~MM15SlONERS: FARANO
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1
RECOMMENDATIONS VARIANCE N0. 7_593 - Request for terminatian - Property located
on the north side of Rc~mneya U~ ive, ap~~roximately 265 feet east
of thP centerline of Dresden Nlace, and further described as
1507 West Romneya Drive.
!t was noted that on April 29, 1974, the Planning Commission granted Variance No. 2593 in
Resolution No. PC74-92 f~r a time limit of five years, subJect to renewal by the then
owner-occupant~ to conver•t a two-car garage into additional living area on the subJect
property, with waiver of the requirement that two park.ing spaces be provided in a garage:
and Chat~ on the basis that the garage which was converted into additional living quarters
had been recently reconverted into parking spaces for two ~~ehicles, the property owner had
submitted a l~tter dated ApYil 4, l975, requestiny termination of the subJect variance,
indicatir,~ that all requirements had bPen met to satisfy the Building Division.
Ccmmiss oner King offered Rc;oiution No. P~75-85 and rroved for its pass~ge and adoption,
that all proceedings i~~ conne•_tion with Variance N~. z593 be and hereby are terminated on
the basis of the foregoing findi~gs. (See Re~alution Book)
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES; COMMISSIONERS: ~',~'ER, JOHNS~k, KING, MORLEY, TO~AR, HFRBST
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COFIMISSIONERS: FARA1~0
~~
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLIINNING f.OMMISSION, Aprtl 14, 1975 15"2~~
REPOIt7S AND ITEM N0, 2
RFCAMMENDATIONS SCTBACK rROM Pk1UATE URIVkS - Request ror clarificatlon.
Tha Staff Report to tnc Planning Commission dated Opril 1~+, 1975, was presented and mndc R
part of the minutcs,
Deputy City Attorn~~y Frank ~nwry not~d tt~at Stat'f was seeking a clarification uf ~he
ntent of tlie Planning Comn~isclon reyard(iig certaln A~ahein Municipal Code sr,ct(ons rri~tiny
to the administrat~on of I'erice/wal' heights adJacent to pr(vate drives and strurtural
s~t~4cks from prirat.e cirive•, since nc~; ~ade was not clear as io where mc:asurements for
tl~e setbacks should be ~~,krn. ~~e fur,.her notPd that the Planring Commission was the final
arb~ trat~~r in the ~~ tters.
The Planning Commissirn ent~red Inta discussion wiCh Staff regar•diny the subJect ~equest
whQre(n it was ~enerally agre~d that mnre Inforinatlon and study was necessary For the
Planning Commission's consideratian.
Cam-issioner Johnson afi~e:red a motion, seconded by Commissioner King and MOTION CARFIED
(Commissi~~~e~ Farano be.ing absent), thac the request for ciar(fi;.atlon concerning sstbacks
fram pri;~te drive~ be continucd fo~• additinnal study.
ITCM N0. 3
TRACT NOS. 8511 (REVISI~N 3) AND 8707 (The William Lyon Company) -
Request fo~• ~~~~proval ~f final plans and elevati~ns - Propert~
consistinc~ <~f approximately 23•6 acres located or the south side
of Imparial flighway and northwesterly of the intersecrior, of
Orangethorpe Avenue and I.nperial Highway.
Assistank Zoniny Supervisor Ann'+ka Sant.a~ahti presented the Staff Report to the Pla~ning
Cqrr,;nission dated April 14, 1975, and said Staff tteport is referred to and made a part of
the iriinutes. Miss Santalahti reviewed the ~ubmitted plans and noted, in connection with
t.hc submitrpd Rlans for Tract ~~o. 8707, t.hat 5 or" the units had "front-on" garages with
setbacks not in accordance with the recently amended Code; that Code s~ecified that where
the ~arages frontiny un streets were set back less than 25 fe~:t, then a three-car garage
shal) be provided~ and a?~ of the proposed units had two-car garages; that Code specified
fhat no "fr~nt-on" s~tbac.s of less than 25 feet shall be provided on cul-de-sacs or the
curved port~on of cui-de sacs, and 3 of the "front-on" qarages had a setback of 10 feet
from the street; that t`.: Code furthe; specified that garage setbacks of less than 10 feet
shall vary by at least , feet between adJacent garages; that it appea~ed the units were
plotted with approxima~:ly 25°foot setbacks on thC plans; and Chat the orioinally subm+tted
house plans and condom'•~ium plans presently before the Planning Commission were basically
identical ~o the plans that were submitted oriqinally to t~ie Canmission and City Council.
Miss Santalahti further noted ::h~t just prior to the new Ordinance, an adjacent E•ro.ject
was developed in the manner beiny propused.
CF~airman Herbst noced thaC it. appeared L~t Nos. 26 and 35 in Tract 40. $707 cou~~~ be
a,~j~~sted accordin~ to the Ordinarce.
Mr. James Baily, representing Che developer appe~red before the Plan~.ng C~mmission and
stated that the subject develapment had beEri an on-going and drawn-c~.~r proJect and that
p~rhaps they hed erred in not getting back to the Planning CommissEon abaut the middle of
~ebruary prior t~ the new ordinance beconiny effective; anci that tlie submitted Flans were
in conformance wir.h the previous Code requirements. Thereupon, Mr. Baily read a letter
dated Rpril 14~ 1975 from the President of tfie William Lyon Company, a~ follows:
"Planning Conimisslon
City of Anaheim
20~1 East Lincaln Ave.
Anaheim, Calif. 9i8o;
S~.~bject: Tract No. 8707
uentlemen:
One of the condi.r.ions of Final Tract 11ap Approval is that the f~nal floor
nians and elevations shall be submitted to and ~pproved by the Ptanning
Cc~~nmi ssion and Ci ty Counci 1.
~ • ~
MIN~TF;, CI?Y PLANNING COMMISSIQN, Apr(1 '4~ Iy75
IfEM iVO. (Contlnued)
Upon submittal of our flnal pl~ns t.o the pldnning st~fr on April 10, we
wera infurmed much lo our surprlse and concer~ thot n new urdlnai~c~ had
recently came lnto effect ttiAt could hisve trnpact on our final plans.
At'ter r.areful rrview with the staff we found that there are flve Inst,ances
aut of e total of 42 lots, whare there is a contlict witti th~ new QI'~I118~1f,~:
relrted :~ the front-on yar~ge seto~cks. In two of the insCances l•he garages
c~i ~e set bac!~ to conForm. Nowever in three instances we find It would be
imposslble to make any ad]u~tments t~ tlie front-on garaqe setbacks.
We ask '.hen for yaur help and considerar.io~i by approving our f'Inal plan for
the following reasons:
1. Months of prepara~fon have been gone into develaping these
final plans based ,~n the then current ordlnances which we
are in c.onFormance wi r.h.
2, The firsr ph.:sa (Tract 8iiin; ha5 already been approved with
constructian undera~ay. The madels will be completed in May.
3. The orig(i~al plans ., ~~ considered by the~ commission on
July 8~ 1974 and approvecl by C(ty Council or~ Augusl 6, 1974.
The fin~l plans are in conformance to the ariginal ~lans
approved.
4, TF~e Final Tr~~ct Map is pen~ing ap~roval of City Counci~ on
April 29~ 19%ti- financial commitmc~nts have been made, First
phase sales will commence in May and any further delay would
result (n a sub~tantial hardship on this project.
Our tetal efforC will be to build fine homes thaC will sel! at a moderate
price ~ange a~d be a cred:t to the c~m~nunity.
Agair, we ask for your• apprnval so that we may proceed with develapment
immediately followEng re-.ordation of the Final Tract Map,
Very truly yours,
;JPeter ~~. Ochs
President"
75-20i
Mr. Baily then submitted the above letter for the record and stated they haa nEVer intended
that they could have three-car garages and they were so far progressed that they were
ready to start construc*.ion.
Chairman kerbst then not.ed that he was concerned about the 5 i~nits that were proposed on
the cul-de-sac areas, esQecially since 4 of the units did not have roan for a single car
to park un the street. He questioned where the guest•s would park ai~d Mr. Baily stated
th3s was s'~ardship. Chairman Herbst then noted that by elimi~heid9d~not,feelhhe~c u!d 5
would be solved; and that since the new ordinance was adnpted,
support the old ord?~•ance. Commissioner Johnson n~ted that although he agreed with the
Chairman~ tha subject o°velocment had becom~~ a viclirn of ~i time lag and should be entitled
to some rights, even though they may have be~n co~npletel~ aware of the new ordinanc~.
Miss Sar alahti noted for the Plar~ning Commission that tt,° oric~nal ~roposal was approved
approximatei> one year ago a~,d it was possible that th~ setbacks were not discussed in
depth at :~at tlme.
Commissioner Morley a5reed that it may not be proper to penalize a man who had plans
approved ariginally. as in this situation.
Chairman Herbst noteJ that the subjeci develo~~ment had been under constant change since
the originai presentation.
Mr. Baily stated City Staff had advised that `.ay could have so many yarages within 10
feet of the setback and they had p-'oceeded in gor~d faith; that if they could be able to
seil the subJect unitsearedrthat~they mi~htWbe,able toedo~sost cost new F~omes in the Clty
of Anaheim, and it app
~ • ~
MIN'~IES, C17Y PLANNING COMMISsION, April 14, 1975 75-Z03
ITl:hi N0. (Cunc I nuad)
C~r.mis~i~~er Johnson inqulrcd if there wes any wey to get threc-car garages on scxne of the
lots {n questlon, and Comrnissloner Kfng inqulred why ft was not p~sslble to eliminate one
lot In order to comply with tlie new Codo rarulrements, whereuhon. ~•ir. Be1iy stated tne
develoFment had been adjusted downwards from a tota) candomintum proJect to the present
proposal~ duc to the or.~osl[lon of lhc nelghbortng N:-opert;~ owners. Commissloner King
mede an ~bs4rvatlon that ll appearod the hardship was hased on ~conanics~ And Commissloner
Johnson noted that he vrould support the submitted plons un tlie bas15 of all the work the
developer had dona on the plans and since the developmen; had previously bnen approved by
bcth tltie Planning Canmisslon and Cit:y Council.
Chairman Herbst offerad a motion, seconded by f.ommiss;aner ,'uhnson and MOTION CARRIED
(Commisslonar Farano being ~bsent), that the ffnal t'loor plans and 3levattona in cunnectlan
wlth the apprcval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 8511 (Ftevlslon 3) be and herr.by are ~pproved,
as submitted.
Chalrman Herbst offered a motion that the finai floor pla~s and elavatlon~ (n connect(on
wit~i the approval of Tentativa Map of Tract No. 8707 be dlsapproved, on the basis ttiat a
new ordinance had beer~ ad~pted and thG requirements of the prev(ous ordlnance should not
be perpetuatad. SAID MOTIQ~; ~iED ~OR LACK OF A SEGOND.
Ca,nmis~~ioner King offered a new a~otlon, sPCOnded by Conwnfss~oner Mnrley and MOTION CNRRIED
(Ghalrman Herbst vot(ng "no" and Commissloner Farano bPing absent), tl~at the final fl~ur
p4ans and elevetions in connection with the approval ~f Tentative Map of Tract No. b107 be
and hereby are approvcd~ a~ submltted.
ADJOU~iNMENT - There being no further business to disci~ss, Conx~iissioner ~loriey
!"- effered a m~~tion, seconded by Commissioner Tolar an~i MOTION
CARRIED (Commissione!- Farano being absent), to adJourn the
meetin~.
The meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~ ~ [ ~, ,~~~„~...~
i /"
Patricia B. Scanlan, Secretary
Anah~im City Planning Commission
P@S:hm