Minutes-PC 1975/06/230 R C(1 MICRCFILMINf SERVICE, INC
~ ~ .
CiCy Nell
nnaheim, Cnlitarnia
June 2:1, 1975
i2EGU:,AR MEETING O~ '~'FIE ANAHEIM CITY PT.AAiNTNG COMMIS ,ION
W:GULAR - A regular moetiug of the~ Anaheim City Planning Commiasion was uelled to
MEETING order by Chafrmen Pra Tempore F'erano at 1:30 p.m. in khe Council Ch+~mber,
a quor.um beirig pr~sot~t.
Pltr:SENT - G1iAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: Farano
- COMMISSIONFRS: Gauer, Johnxon, Kinq, Morley, Tolax.
AII5~NT - CUMMISSIONERS: Elerbat
ALSO PitE~ENT - Ronald Thompson
Franlc Lowry
Charlea Rr~berts
~~y Titus
Annika Santalahti
Al1an Daum
Patricia Scanlan
DeveloFnnent Serviaes Uirector
Ueputy Cj.ty Attornoy
Aseistant Develu~[nent ~arvices Pi.rc+ctor-Zoninq
Office Enginaer
Aasistant 2oning Supcrvieor
Aseociate Planner
Comm3.saion Sscretary
PLEpGE UF - Cvmmissioner Gauer 1Qd ir~ the Pledqe of Alleyiance to the Flag of the
ALLEGIANCE ilnited States of America.
ANNOUNCEMENT - Chainnan Pz•o Tempore Farano announced that Commissioner Gauer was re~tirinq
from the Anaheim City Planniny Commission ePfective July 1, i~75T and, on
behalf af the Ylanning Commission, he expressed appreciatton for Commissioner
Gauor's taithful and dedicated service totaling 41 years on the Commission
and, further, expressed best wish9s for his q~od health and a lang and happy
retirement.
AL• the suggestiun of Chainnan Pro Tempore Farano, the audience, Staff and
Planni.ny ~ammission members rose to applaud Com-nissioner Gauer on tt-e
occasion of his retirement and in appreciatian of his 41 yesrs of service.
APPROVAL OF - Commissioner Tolar offered a motion, secondQd by Commissioner Morley and
THE MINUTF.S MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst being absent and Commissioner Johnson
abstaining since he wa~ not present at the meeting on May 28, 1975), to
approve the minutes of the meeting of May 28, 1975, as submitte3.
Commissioner Tolar offered a motion, seconded by C~mr.ii.ssioner Morley and
MOTION CARRIED (Commi.ssioner Herbst being absent), to apprcve the minutes
of the meetinq of June 9, 1975, as submitted.
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC IiEARING. WILLIAFI C. WAGNER, 530 Sh~llman, West
PERMI'r NO. 1537 Covina, Ca. 91"790 (Owner); ANUERSON CON3TRUCTION COMPANY, P. 0. Box
226, Orange, Ca. 92666 (Agent); requesting permission to ESTABLISH A
MUBII,EHOME PARK WITH WAIVER QF REQUIREMEINT THAT ALL PARCEIS HAVE
FROI6TAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET on property described ae: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of
land consisting o~ appr.oximately 6.1 acres located north and west of the corner oE Linculn
Avenue and Bel Air Street, having a maximum width of approxii.iately S30 feet and a maximum
depth of approximately 800 feet, and being loca~ed approximately 530 fset north of the
centerline of Lincoln Avenue. Property preaently clasaified RS-A-43,000 (RESIDFNTIAL/
AGRICULTURAL) ZONE.
The subject peti.tion was continued from the Planninq Commission m~eting of May 28, 1975,
in order f~r the petitionez to obtaix~ the appropriate soils tests relatlve to development
of the subject property which was previously an uncontrolled dump site. and i.n order that
revised plans could be submitted.
75-296
• ~ •
MINU'!'ti5, CITY PLANNING COMMIS3ION, June 23, 1975
GQND:(TIONAI~ USE PERMIT Nn, 153"7 (Continued)
75-297
Tt wus uoted thnL• the peCiCi~n~r wae zoqueeking e~~ additional four-week continuance in
order ta euhmit +~ rovieed develo~m~nti propc~0a1 to include property to the immediate aouth
at the northwcrt ~orner of I,i.ncoln Avonus and Bol Air Street~ and hat the reviaod propoeel
would nonaoeitata the roadvortiaoment of thie conditionnl uee pa:mit to incXasae the
amount u! proporty invol.ved and to revieo the raqu~rt.
Ona p~raon indiceted their g~eaonce in the a~+clience in conneation v-tth the aubject petition
and indicated ~:hay were interested to know what was planned~ whereupo~, Chairman Pzo
':.~m~ore Feranc~ bxiAf~y ~xplained the propasal end noted thnt in view of the requoet of tho
pAtitioner. thQ mattar would probably b~ ~uzther cnntinuod.
Commiesioner Tolar offered a motion, seconded by Cammieaioner Johnson and M(YfIUN CARF;IED
(CommieRioner tierbat being abcent) , t2ia* the puhlic henrinc, and ~onaideratiur~ nf Conditiona~l
Use PAruiit Na. 1537 bc~ and hereby ia continued to the meeti.n9 of July 21, 1975, ~n tho
baeie ot the Faregoing findings.
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINt1ED PUBLIC HFARING. AMF,RICAN BAPTIST CHURCHES OF TFIE PACIFYC
PERMIT NU. 612 SOUTHWEST, 816 South Fiqueroa, Loa Anqeles, Ca. 90017 (t?wner}; REVERENP
(REApVERTIS~,D) 2~. MORENO, 1715 Weat Crone Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92804 (Agent)t requec~t-
in~ penni.ssinn to CONSTRUCT A CHURCH 3ANCTUARY AND CLASSROOMS WITH
WAIVER OF (A) MTNIMUM SIDEYARD SETBACK, (B) PERMITTED ENCROAC[iMENTS
IIJTO FRONT YARD, (C) MAXIMUM BUILDING NEIGHT, AND (n) MA):IMUM SIGN AREA on property dae-
cribed aa: A roctangularly-shapQd parcel of land conaiatinq of approximately 0.9 a:re
havinq a frontaqo of approximatel.y 99 fept on the north sida of Orange Avenue, having a
msximum depth of approxima*oly 413 feeL•, being located approximately 660 feet west of the
cer.terllne of EucZid 5treet, and further deacribed as 1749 West Orange Avanue. Property
preaently alassified RS-A-43,UQ0 (RESIDENTIAI,/AGRICULTURA~.) ZOTIE.
The eubject petition was continued from the meeting of Junn 9, 1975, tor City Cotinci]. revieW
rogarding relocation assistance, acquisition of the subjact property for park land, etc.
Approximately 20 persons indicated their presence in oppositlon to sub~ect pe*.iti.on.
Assistant 2or~inq Supervisor Aruiika Santalahti read the Staff Report to the Planning
Comma.ssion datpd .7une 23, 1975, and said Staff Report is referred to as if set forth in
full in the minutes.
Tt wus noted that the plans being submitted by the peti~4.orte~ at this meeting had not been
reviewed by Staff in ti.me f~r cominent in 4:he Staff Aepor~t.
Reverend Pedro More.~io, Pastar af the First Mexican Bupt~at Church, representing the
petitioner, appeared before the Planning Commissi.on and atated the plans aubmitted June 9,
1975, had been revised from a seatinq capacity of 268 to ].96, and the square footaqe had
been revised from 7328 to 4836.
In responae to questioninq by Chairm3n Pro TgmporE Farano, Reverencl Moreno stated he had
not discus~:ed the new plans with ariy of the neighbora in opposition. Miss Santalahti
noted that. she had reviewed the plan revisioris with the architect this ~ate and it was
determined tr~.~t the reviefon would delete the need for the waiver of the minimum sideyard
setback and the permitted encroaah~ent into front yard. RevQrend Moreno then stated hhey
did not wish to request the waiver of the a~aximum sign area, if that was against the Code
requlations, since they were desir~us of camplyinq with all of the rules and regulationsJ
and, furthor, that they were only proposinq Co have one-atory con~truction.
5ince the oppoaition had. not viewed the revised plans, Ghairman Pro Tempore Farano invited
those peraona to take a copy of said revised plane and to step into the hall to review and
discuas same.
I.VOTE: AT THIS POINT IN TFiE MEETING, ITEM NO, 3 OF THE AGENDA - RECLASSIFICATION NO.
74-75-34 WAS CONSID~.rZED.)
'1'he public hnarinq for Conditiona3 Uae Permit Nc,. 612 (readvertised) was resumed and
t~1r. Bill Ehrle, 2211 East Romneya Drive, Anah9im, appeared bef.ore the Planninq Commisaian
represent~.nc~ the homeowner~ in opposition to tha subject petit~ion. Mr. Ehrle presented a
potition eigned by approximately aixty parsons in opposition, who were unable to attend
~
~ ~
MINUT~S, CITY PLANNING c':~MMISSJON, June 23, 1975
CONDZ4'IC~NAI, U3E FERMIT N0. fi12 (I2EADV5R'PI~F,D) (Cc~ntinuod)
~s-2gs
the ~ublic hoaring. He atet~d the homoowners in thd aroa wexe not appoeod to tha ahur~~h,
but wero concnrnad abc~~st youd planning For L•ho area~ thnt the City Cuuncil liad gc~no on
rocord indicating thay wantod the eubject property de,veloped accorcling to thQ original
plane~ that ho wa~ .:urioue why the plane had alreedy been roviseQ tw.i.cp and also wl~y tbe
patitioner wes actively pur.suing the davalopment ao r,loAe to tha exp~ration data ~f tho
ngreement w~.th the City~ tl~at if tho goals o~ 'tho church had changed, Chen ttie City's
goals mi.g11C noed a review aloo with rc+apect to tha beat utiliza~ion of the eub~ect land~
that, in hia opinion, the matter of purchasiny ' mea e-djacent to thd church'8 fr~•iliCy o~i
Patt StrQet had not baen pursued, whereby the lancl could be u~ed to increase the cliurch
ait3 at that locationJ that presently it was difPicult f~r paople wiehing to uso Chaparral
Par.k to park on Sundays which was whon tha park end the church wera buaiest~ that the
rc~commendation of the homQOw;iers in the area would ba that thn propoaed plahx be deniod oi.
the baais that said plans were not the same aA originally adopted und ths~ by denyinq the
plane, both L•ha applicunt and the Ci.ty would be onabled to make the a.ppropriate docision
at the City Council lev~l.
in rabuttal, Reverend Moreno reviewed the reasona why the chu.rc;i was unsble to proceed
with consttuction of a church prior to this time, being mostly dua to flnancia]. circum-
stances. He: etatod he did not understand why Lher.~ waa so murh op~si.tion to the church,
especially sinc,: thoy were agreeable to c;omply with the ru].ea and requlutions of the
zoning.
THF PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
i;ommissioner Gauar noted ttiat Chaparral Park had another parkinq lot, other that~ the one
adjacenL• to the church property, and he had obaerved the prsrk ~n Saturdays ~nd there were
k~ardly any peogle utilizing it; that it appeared always there waa oppooition to churches,
evPn though the pr.oposals turned out to be boautiful devel~pments and erihanced the neigh-
borhoods; and that the ch~trch was tryiny to comp]y with their original intent and were
beiny penalized due to some competition which developed between the City and t}ie church.
Chairman Pro Tempore Farana requeated comment f.rom the opposition regarding tne r.evi3ed
plaiis, opposed to tho origir~ally-submitted plans. Mr. Ehrle r.eplied that he would agree
that- the proposed reduction in the :~ea~ing was better in relationuhip to the use of the
avai~able lar-d; however, some comments macle by the others present in oppositi~n was that
poz-haps tha drawings being presented ai: this meeting were not to scale with the land and
they would like to see more than just two rectangularly-shape6 squares designating Lhe
proposal, and would like to see some landscaping or adjoining buffering, etc. He further
stated that the people w~:re sincerely not opposed to a church in the subject 3Y'E'.d~ but
the:r main concern was for the planning potential of the available land; that the church
had every right to develop and had been very cc~operative; however, if the ch~irch needed to
expand five yPars from now, they would have to qo elsewhere ar expand again at the subject
location and, furthermoL•e, the larid would not be usable for a park at that time. In
c;onciusion, he questioned that every eff~>rt had been exhausted to help find a new site
for the church.
In response tv questioning by Commissi~ner King, Miss Santalahti noted that by deletiag
some parking spaces, the problem concerning acce:~sibi'li.ty f~~r the proposed trash enclosu.re
area could be resolved.
Chairman Pro iempore Faras~o then noted that all uf the waivers had been eliminated either
by the revised plane or by stipulation, with Che exception of the maximwn building height;
that the chur•^h wae, therefore, required ta observe all the site development standards;
and that any dsviation reqarding landscaping, etc., at a later da~e would require Planning
Cnmmission action. Commieaioner Tolar noted that, in his opinion, it would bP difficult
for the Planning Commisaion to deny thp proposal, and aqreed that the deciaions regarding
the park and relocation for the church were not up to the Flanninq Commisaion but were up
to the City Councfl. Commissioner ~ohnson indicated he would also support the proposal
beiag presentedJ however, he agreed with the opposition that the plans were very sketchy
and not complete. Commissioner To3ar then indicated that a one-year extension in connec-
tion with the agreoment between the City and the church might provida an opportunity for
the prablem to ba resolved, and Commiasioner Johnsor~ noted that if the church was rushir_g
into hheir plana to meet the present deadline, an extension should be conaidered. DePuty
City Attornay Frank Lowry a3vised that an extension of tiR~e could be affected only if i.t
was agreer'•le to both partiea, i.e., the City and the ~outhern California Baptist Convention.
~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PI,ANNING CON.ieISSInN, ,Tune 23, 1975 75-299
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Nc~. 67.2 (READV~.RTISED) (Continued)
Commise~ioner Juhnaon o1'Perod a mutioR, ~econdod by C'ammieatoner King a~~d DtOTION CARRIFD
(Comml~nianer Fturb~st Yxrinq absent) , that tkie P7.annir~g C~rtnt-ivsion recommends to the City
Cnuncil that the eub~ect pL~oject ba c~xeu~~t fr~m l:hn ruqui.rement to proper~ an Environ-
inental Impact Rep~rt, purauent to the pravl~aions ~f the Calilornia Envirorunentnl Quali.t:y
Act,
Commisetoner Johnson offered Raaolution No. PC75-125 and moved for ite paesage and 4dop-
tion, that Poti.tion for Cond~tional Usa Permit No, ~512 (readvertisad) ho and horoby is
gran~~d, granting the waivor of tlie maximum buildi.n~3 height on the baeis that slthouc~li khe
adJacent property to tho weet ie zoned rosl.denti.all,y, eaid propg.rty ie developed wi+:h a
church and church Hchcwl; that the waivers of the m:lnimum aidoyard setback and the per-
~nitted oncroachment into £ront yard are ellminated by the redubmittal o.f plana (Exhib.it
Nos. 1 and 2- R~vision Nos. 1) and, therefore, withdrawn by the petitlonert that the
waiver of the maximum sign area w~s withdrawn by th~ petitiane,r with the etlpulation to
comply with the maximum permitted sign area~ that the subject property ahall be doveloped
subatantially in accordanae with plans and spacifications oi- file with tho City of 31nah~im
marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 'l (Revi~ion Nos. 1), pro~~ided, howevar, t1Yat dQVelopment ahall
be in confozmanc~ with all a1tA development and zoniny standard~ of the underlyiny zone,
with thA excc~ptiion of the maximum t,uildiny height ~ir~ permitted hereint subjc~ct ta precise
plans beiny submitt«~d to the Planning Commiasion Zrid/or City Cou:~cll for approva'l, ~rior
to the issuance of building permits~ ancl suk>ject tn the Interdepartmental Committee
Lecommendations, (Sae Resolution Bonk)
On ro11 call, the foreyoit~g resolt~tton was passesd by the following vote:
F.YES: COMMISStOI~ERS: GAUER, JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, FARANO
NOES: CUMMISSI~~NERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMIS~~ONERS: FIERBST
C~mmissioner Johnson offered a motion, seconded by Commissione.r :olar and MOTION CAR.R.IED
(Commiasioner Hc bst being abaent), that the Planning Commi.ssion d~es hereby recommend to
the City Council that a one-year extension of time be c;onsidered and grante8 in connection
with the agreement between tho City of Anaheim and the Southern Ca].ifornia Baptist Con-
vention (the subject petitioner), said extensicn of time to be for the purpose of giving
Che petitior-er more time to try and resolve problems rel~ited to t:he needs of the church
versus the inadequacies of th~ subject pr~perty in meeting their needs.
Mr. F.hrle thanked the Planning Commission for their efforts and stated the homeowner.s
group were offering the'r assistance to the church i.n finding another location which would
be more suitable for the purposes of the church.
RECLASSIFICATIO:~ - CONTTNUED PUBLIC HEARING. KENNETH A. AND BFTTY J. NELSON, 1651 East
N0. 74-75-34 Fourth Street, Santa Ana, Ca. 92701 and ARNEL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,
Att: Georqe 1.. Argyzos, 1651 East rourth S~reet, Sant:~ Ana, Ca. 92701
(Owners)= POMCNA FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, P. C. 9ox
27Eie, Pomona, Ca. 91766 (Agent); requestiiiig recl~ssification of pruperty described as: An
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consi3tiiig of approximately 0.75 acre located at the
southwest corner of Almont Avenue and State College Boulevard and havi.nq approximate front-
ages of 137 feet on the south side of AUnont Avenue and 245 feet on tha west side of StatP
College Boulevard from t.he RM-1200 (RESIDENTIW~, MULTTPLE-FAMILY) SONE *~ the CJ~ (COMMERCIAL,
LTMITED) ZONE.
Subject petition was continued from the maeting of ;June 9, 1975, for the petitioner to
submit revised plans.
No one indicated 'their presence in opposition to subject petition.
Although the Sta:f Report to the Plannir~g Commission dated Jeuie 23, 1975, was not read at
the public hearinq, said Staff Report is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr.. Everett L. TaZier, ~he architect for the proposal, appeared before thQ Ylanninq
Commission and stlted the~ were proposinq approximately 2g00 square f.eet of floor area and
not 2314 which was indicated in the Staff Report; that in connectfon with Condition No. 7
in the Staff Report, there was a 6-foot wall presently exiating on the adjacent pr.operty
abuttiny the westerly boundary of the aubject prorerty and they did not wish to construct
an additional wall there= and that he was interested to know when the street liqhting fees
should be ?~aid.
•
~
MINUTES, CI'I'Y ?LANNING COMMISSION, June 23, 1975
RECLA38IF'ICATION N~. 74-75-34 (Continued)
TFl~ PUBLIC H~~,RING WAS CIASED.
~
~
75-300
Uepuky City Attorney Frank L,owry e~~vieed tt-at ineemuch Ae zoning waa being eatablished for
devola~nent oF thA proporty, ~ho r,treot l.ighting fees wore payablo prior to the firat
reading by the City Council of an ordinance for tho zoniny~ ancl that if thera was dn
existiny 6-fooL• ma~onry well along ,1-e westarly propor.ty lino, although eaid wnll miqht be
on the sdjacent pioperty, an addit{.,~~nal wall would nat be required. Reqardfng the peti-
tioner'A requeet for tw~ yAars to .omply witih tha conditione of approval for the zoning,
Mr. Lowry adviaed that the Code s,~fllled out a maximum of one yoar and thero wae a poexi-
bility that at the ond of ~hat ti..;~ an ex~onsion of ane year could be grA~ted by tha City
Council.
Mr. Stan Rec~d, Vice Preaidant of Po.hona Savi.ngs and I,onn, the agent for the petitioner,
nppeared befoze the Planninq Commisai~n and reviewed ~.he reasone f.or the roquosted two
ye+~rg Por the completian oL the conditions, being thgt their brench was a"l.imited £aci.lity"
and, therefore, could not make capital improvementa for the bzanch in excesa of a certain
amount until the ].imitationa wexe removed~ that b~ing a limite3 facility they had to prove
they were, in fact, su!:aes~ful in the community as a savings and ].oan facility, following
wh~.ch they aould aN~,1y fo~ remaval of the capital limitations~ thereupon, Chl~irman ~ro
Tompore Farano r,atA3 that if ~ho aubject reclasaifi.cation waa apF~roved and tha petitloner.
proce~ded to construct the pr.o~al, consideration for an extensi.on of i:ime would be based
on tho petitinner's demonatratad progreas towar.d completing the condit.ions of approval.
In reaponse to queationing by Commieaioner King, the petitiaiier stipulated to terminatinq
Reclassification No. 69-70-5 which wns neve.r concluded upon at a public; hearing and was,
therefoce, considerecl expired.
Commissioner. Kiny o£Fered a motion, soaonde3 by Commissioner Talar and MOTION CRRRIED
(Commi sioner Herbat being absent), that the Planning Commission recommAnds to the City
Council tha~ the subject project be exempt from the requlrement to prepare an Environ-
meiital Impact Report, purauant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act.
Commisaioner King offared Resolution No. PC75-126 and moved ~or lts passac~e an~ adoption,
that tho Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council Lhat Petition for
Reclaesificati.on N~. 74-75-34 be approved, subject to the for~going findings and subject
to the Interdepartmental Comm{.ttee recommendatlons. (5ee Resolution Book)
On roll call, tha foregoinq resolution was passecl by the follawing vate:
AYES: COI+II~'IISSIONERS: GAUFR, JOHNSON, KINC;, MORI.EY, TOLAR, FARANO
NOES : CONQiIS3IONERS : NONF
I~BSENT: COMMIS5IONERS: H~RSS'P
Commissioner Kinq ~~ffered a motiori, secoreded lay Commissioner Tr,lar and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissioner Herbst being absent), that •tha Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition for Reclassifiaation No. 69-70~5 be terminated, as requested
by the petitioner.
RECLASSIFICATtON - CONTINUED PUBLIC FIEARIA]G. INITIATEC BV T~iE ANAHEIM CITY Pl.AriNING
N0, 74-75-35 COM1~lISSION, 204 East Lincoln F~venue, Anaheim, ~a. 92d05; propoeing
that property deacribed ass An irregularly-shaped parcel of land
consistinq of approxi.mately 1.0 acre located at the southeast corner
of Frontera Stree~ and Park Vist~ Str~et and having approximate frontages of 240 feet an
the south side of Frontera Street and 160 feet on the east side of Park Vista Street be
reclaesif.ied from thA C()UNTY OF ORANGE AR(0) (AGRICULTURAL RESTDEIVTIAL-OIL OVERLAY)
DISTRICT to the RS-A-43,000(O) (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL-OIL PRODUCTION OVERLAY) 20NE.
Subject petition was cont'_nued from the meetinq of .7une 9, 1975, to bs readvertiaed to
.orrectly inclicate the zoning designation on the subject property.
No ona indicated their preaence in oppoaition to aubject potition.
A.tthough the Stafg Report to the Planninq Commiesion dated June 23, 1975, wua not read at
tha public hearing, said 5ta~ff Report ~s referred to and made a part of the minutea.
THE YUBLIC HEARxNG WAS CLOSED.
~
.....
~
MINUT~S, CITX PLANNING COMMISS~ON, June 23, 1975
RECLASSTFIC:I~TxON NO. 74-75-35 (Continued)
~
~
•r~-3oi
It waa noced thet tho Director ot the Devoloptnent 3orvicea -.~partmont hed detarmined that
the proposad activity te11 within tho dofinitian of Section 3.01, Clase 1, ag the City of
Anahein~ Guidel.in~R to the Raquiramente for an Environmental ImpacC Fteport dnd waa, thera-
foro, r,rtagoricaily dxempt Prom the roquiremeh~ to file etn EIR.
Commi.ssionc~r King off.ored Reaolution No. Pc75-127 3nd movod for fts passago and adoption,
that L•ho Planniny Commieaion d~oa har~by rer,ommencl to the City Counail Y.hat Petition for
Reclasaifica*.ion No. 74-75-35 b~3 approvad, subject to Interdepartmental Com~ittao recom-
mondationa. (Soe Re3solution Book)
On roll c~ll, the foroyoing reaolution waa passed by the followinq vatet
AYES: CUMMISSIONERS: GAUER, JUHNSON, KING, MORI.EY, TOLAR, ['ARANO
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
AB5CNTs COMMISSION~FS: HERDST
RECLASSIFICA'i'lON - CUNTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. JOS~PH ~. HUARTE, 1464 J:aBt La Palma AV~enUO,
NO. 74-75-36 Anahaim, Ca. 92805 (Ownex•)j JOHN G, HUARTk:, 1464 East La Palma. Avenua,
Anaheim, Ca. 92805 (Agent). Property dQSCribed as: An lrregularly-
VARI:~NCE NO. 2706 shaped parcal of land consisting of approximately 2.4 acres located
between Frontera Street and Jackson Avenue on the dast side of Park
V~.ai:a Stz•eet, havinq approximate frontagea oP 240 feet on the soutY~
side of Frontera Str~e~t, 355 feet on thc~ east side ~* Park Viata Street, and 570 feet on
the r~orth side of Jacke~an Avenue. PropQrty presen~ly classif.ied RS-A-43,000(O)
(RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL-OIL PRUDUCTION OV~RLAY) ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: IZM-1200(0) (RESIDENTIAL, MTJLTIPLE-FAMILY - OIL PRODLICTION OVERLAY
ZONE.
REQUESTFp VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (A) 4WCIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, (S) MINIMUM DISTANCE BE'PW~:EN
BUILDINGS, (C) MTNIMUDf PEDESTRITIN ACCESSWAY WIDTH, (D) MZNIMUM iVIJMBER
OF PARKING SPt1:ES, AND (E) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN OIL [`;.ILL SITF
AND DWELZINGS, TO CONSTRUCT A 54-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLE7t.
The suk,jeat pAtitions were continued Er.om the meeting of June 9, 1.975, to be readvertised
to carractly indicate the zoning desiqnation on the subject property, and for the petitioner
to submit revised plans.
No one i,ndicated their presence in oppo~ition to aubject: petitians.
Although the Staff Report to the Planning Commisaion dated June 23, 7975, was not read at
the puLi~,ic hearing, said Staff Report is reEerred to and mgde a part of the minutes.
Mr. John ttuarte, the agent fox th~ property awner, appear.ed kaQfore the Planninq Commission
to anawer questions regarding the proposaZ, and stated the plans were revised and they
were presently proposinq to ranstruct 54 apartment unita instead cf 56.
mHE PUBLIC EIEAFING WAS CLOSED.
Chairman Pro Tenipore Far~.no noted that on ttie basis of the revi~ed plans, it appearPd that
three of the waivers (minimum distance between bui~.dinga, minimum p~destrian accessway
width, and minimum diatance between oil drill sfte and dwellings) were eliminatad and,
therafore, only two waivers (minimum building height within 150 feet of an aqr.icultural
zone and minimum number of eaclosed parl:inq spacas) were beinq rpquested at this time.
Commieaioner Tolar inqsiired reqarding the sound-attenuatfon measures planned for the
development along the Fsontera Street f.rontage, whereupon, Mr. Ronald D. McMahon, the
architect for the propoeal, appeared before the Planninq Conunission and stated the plans
were to have ~.he k:edzooma of the eight units alonq Frontera Street away from said atreetj
that the project would be subject to noise and heat atandards, which ~hey would adhere ta
and if they were required to meat a cortain eound level, then they would proraL~ly do a
study to test the normal dbA on the pro~erty lines, etc.
Commiesioner Taltuc the~n inquired about the poeei.bility that the petitionar miqht wish to
convert the propnsed apnrtments into condnminiwna dt a later dste and the petitioner
indicated they intended to own and operate the aperYsnentd for a number of years. Commie-
eioner Tolar noted thAt, in his opinion, the berm and wall that .~as uaually r~quirad for
~J
..~.
~
MINU'rES, c:ITY PI~ANNIN(: COMMISSION, Juna 23r 19'15
RL;CI,ASSI~'ICATIUN No, 74-75-36 AND VARIANCE N0. 2706 (Continued)
~
~
75-302
rosidantial devolopmc~nts c;l.oeo to Ezoaw~~ya w~uld bo appropr~ate for thu Aubjeet pr.ujdr:t,
eepeci~ll.y ~i.nc.cs Cha.re w~as a poasibil.tty clawnetro~.m of a convor~ior~. Mr. McMahon thart
gtarQd thdt h~ wae noL awar~ tho project wauld '.~.: rdquired to have a}~c*r.m and wall and h~
r.eviowed tho grado levc~l of tha subjack propor+_y wh~^.h was b~low thQ adjac~nt roadway, ac~
w~ll ae thoir proposal to have approximntely 5••foot par.i.o wal].s, all of which ehould F~olp
to ~sllavi~ta the sound problc~ms, c:~mmieNionor 'I"alar L•hen notod that tho pr~ ject waa
approximatNly Z00 to 120 fc~at ~r.om thc, cuntorline of the adjacont [reFlway.
In responso to quostioniny by Commisaioncr Moi•loy, Mr. McMnhon indicated berme rtnd wn).ls
ai.milar to those constructod in the E~roj~~ct to the wost of the ~ubjoct proportr would not
create a t,ardehip, except for a poseit,lo ~atback problom.
Assi~tant Dovelnpment Servicea Director-7ot~iny Charles Roberts reviewed the exteting
adjacnht d4velopmc~nts, noting that ecxne Y~ad walla and some had bPrms and walls. He noted
thut cunaistant wit:h Mr. McMahon'a r,ommonts, a cc~ndition could bo imp~sed upon the aubject
devalopment that gome mitigating mcasurce be taken to reduce the sound ~.eve7, to 45 dbA
inaido ttio unita, aad said measuros could ir-cluda inaularion, doub].~-paned wiridows, etc.j
r.hut ~t woald ap~ear tho only way the aound outaide c~uld be reduced woul.d be by sound
barri.erss and that it alno appeared tha frant yards, raLher tlisn the rear yards, of tho
oight units wou.ld front on Frontora Streot.
q~hQ Planr~iny Commission entered into discussion wit~ Mr. McMahon rogarding noise probl~ms,
during which Mr. McMahon stated h~ ful?.y agreed with r;~ducii~g the sound level witihin the
units and d~aling witll the sound be~ore i.t hit the buildings; Lhat the pad el.evation along
Frontera StreeL• was eapecial].y nica since it gave wide exposure ~o th~ project, howevor, a
high wall alung that property lin~ might hurt the exposure. Thereupon, the P~anning
Comminaion g~nerally concurred khat a condition requiring the 65 dbA outside a~id th~ 45
dbA inside tlie ~u-its would bo appropriate, however, the burden of deLermining the measures
to aacompli.sh these requirements wou].d rest wf.th t}ie petitioner. Chairman Pro Tempore
Faran~ and Commissioner Tolar indicated tliey were 3ti11 c~~ncerned about the possibility of
a request f~r conv~rsio~t of the units to condominiums at a later date, especially if ttie
~roject was ever sold. Commissioner Gauer added that landscaping and/or trE~s could
po3~ibly reduce some of the s~und, and Commisaioner Morley noted that the de~irable sound
2evels might nct be able to be accomplished without the berm and wa.l)..
Chairman Pro Tempore Farar-o then made an ohservation that the develo~,er was apparently not
aware of the sound-attenuation requirem~nts in the City of Anaheim ar-d, following some
raview of same, aoprapriate plans for sound-atteniiation could be developed; however., if
the develop~r found that some relicf from those requiremenis was desir~blp, then the
Planning Commissiofi could revi.ew any proposals in that regard. Mr• Raber~s advised thaz
if the Planning Commission was considering that the wa11 in the front setback might exceed
42 inches in height in order tc provide the proper sound buffering, then advertisement of
the waiver of the he'_qht requirement 3hould be r.~nsidered. Chairman Pro Tempore Farano
tYien noted that since the developer did not presently know what had ta be done to miti.gate
thN sound, by requiring that the suund levels not exaeed 45 dbA inside the units with the
doors and windowa c?osed and 65 dbA outside the units, there wuuld be an obj~ctive to work
toward and then if the petitiAnpr found that a very high Mall was really nec:essary to
attain th~: desirable sound levels, further. advertisement and/or consideration could be
scheduled before ~he Planning Commission.
~. Huarte stated hQ had asked the architect to 3esign the project to be ds beautiful as
possible f.rum the freeway for visual cont.,,~ct.
Commisbioner Tolar offer.ed a motion, seconded by Commissioner Morley and MOTION CARRIED
(Cammissioner Herbst being absent), that the Planning Coctanission recommends to the City
Council that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environ-
mental Impa.,t keport, pursuant to tha provisiona af :he California Envirorunental Quality
Act.
Commissi~ner Gauer of.fered R~solution No. PC75-128 and moved for ita paRSage and adoption,
that the Planning Commission does hereby r.e~ommend to the City Council that PPtition for
Reclassification No. 74-75-36 be appzo~ed, 3ubject to Interdepartmental CommittPe recom-
mendations. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call, the £oregoing ~aeolution was pa~Red by the followinq vote:
AYES: ~)MMISSTONERS: GAUER, JOHNSON, KINC, MORLEY, TOLAR, FARANO
NOES: COMMISSIONERSe NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HERBST
L~
.~...
~
~
~
MINU4'L~, CTTY PIJ~NNING COMMIS:~ION. Junc 2"s, 1~75 75-303
RECLJISS.LFICATTON NO. 74-i:,-36 AND VARIANCL NU. 2706 (Cor~ti.nuad)
Commieeioner Gnuor offered Itas~lut.ion No. PC75-129 and movad F.or it•e passage anct aduption,
that Pakition gor VArianc~ No. 2706 bo anc: hwxeby i~ granted, in pnzt, on th~ basia tha~
weivurs o~ tho minim:~m distance batwe~n buildi.n~s, minimum pedestrian acceasway w.idth n~nd
minimum distan.e botwe~n oil drili eito And 9wc+llinga wex•o ol.imina~ed by tho r.eHUbmittal
oP ~;lano~ granCing waiver of th~a maximum buil.di'ng heiqht within 1ri0 feet. of a» agrtcultcral
zone, an the uaaia thst although th~ adjacent 1~rupert.y to the erast: is curr9ritly z~ned
reaidential/agriau.l.tur.al, it is desi.gnatod I,y tho Anahei.m Ganc~ral P2.an PGr medi.um and low
density rosidential uaast granting wa.iver of Che ml.ni.mum number of er~clused park3.ng apecss
ro p~rmi~t all o~ thA S~S roquired enclosad parki.n~ apnr.es to ba par.tially encloaed on tho
rear wall to a huic~ht of. approximately 6 Eeot~ sub;ject to tho condit:ion ~hat etep~ ahull
b~ taken by khe dc~veloper t~o ir~ure thal the noi~A levc~l gonQratod by i:he adjaaent freeway
txaffi,: eha11 not exceed 65 dbA in tho privt-ta recr.oationaJ.-laisure arc~as of Che units
ad~acent tU tha freeway und ~:5 dbA,in~ido the unita with Cho windows and daors clo~~sd,
sAi.d ato~a to be i~idicated on plana aubmittecl for builr]in_~ pormitas and subject to Intor-
departmenr.al Committee rocommendations. (See Reeolution nook-
On roll call, the foregoing resolutio~ wan paaeed by the following v~~ta:
AYES: ~OMMISSIONF.RS: GAUCR, JOtiNSON, KING, MORLEY, TOIJIR, FARANO
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSL:NT: CUMMISSIONERS: HERIIST
RECLAS3Ik'ICATION - PUBLIC IiEARiNG. KATNEkINE A. CYPRI~N, 121 Nort-h Milton Street, Anaheim,
NO. 7A-%5-37 Ca. y7.806 (Owric~r) j PAUL BRUC::NER, JR. , 17341 Irv~.ne Roulevard, Suite 111,
` Tustin, Ca. 92680 (Agent). Proper~y described as: An irregularly-
VARIANCE N0. 2709 shaped paicel of land consiating of appr~ximately one acre located
between Sunl;ist Street and Miltun Street on the north ~side of Cyprien
Way, havi~,g approximate frontages of 255 feet on the east side of
Sunkist 5treet, ;00 feet on the nar~h side oi Cyprion Way, and 183 foet on the west side
of M3.lton Str.eet. Proper:y preaently alaosified R3-A-43,000 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRTCULTURAL)
ZONE.
REQUES'rED CLASSIFICATION: RS-7200 (RESID~NTYAI,, SINVLE-FAMILY) 'LON~
TtEQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (A) MIKIMUM REAR lARD AND (B) ItEQUTItEMENT Z?fAT DWELLINGS
REAR ON ARTERIAI~ EIIGtiWAYS, TO ESTABLISIi A 5-LAT. SINGLE-FAMILY
SUBnIV7SI0N.
No ans indicatod their prpsence in opposition to subject petitions.
Although the Sta£f Report to i:he Planning Commission dated ,7une 23, 1975, was not read at
the public h~aring, said Staff Report is refer:~d to and made a part of the minutes.
Mx~. Earl McBurney of Atlantic Engineering, 22'l5 West Lincoln Avenue, Anahein, the engineer
for the developer, appersr.ed before t.he Planning Commission and stated they were not awa±-e
of the City Council po).icy that all bu~.lding setbt~eks hav~ a minimum depth of 40 feet when
~ots adjar,er~ to artsrial highways wez'e leas than 120 feet minimum depth; that the subject
proposal was to have the resici.nces themaelves s~t back 40 feet from the property line,
hawever, the garages would encroa^.h •to 25 feet from the property line and, if the City
Council policy were enforced, they would have 14-foat rear yard depths; and that otherwise,
they were agreeable to the cond.itions of approval as set forth in the "ta£f Re,~ort,
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CI,OSED,
D~~puty City Attorney Frank Lowry advised that Municipal Code Secti~n 17.08.352, stated
that "Lota adjacent to......arte:-ia~ highwa~~s or railroad rights-of-way shall have a
minimum depth of 120 feet. Conditional e~ccoptiona to the regulation~ sat forth..... may
be authorized if a specific: plan ie ~pproved by *_he City far lots 3djacent to..... artsrial
hfghways ar.d rai.lroad rights-of-way :.n accordance with Ci~y Council Policy No. 538"~ that
City Cocncil Policy No. 538 atat~d ".....eaid lot depth raquiremont may be reduced if a
apecific plan is appr.ove3 by the Cit,y, gaid plar~ indicatiag that all buiidinq setbaaks
aha21 hav~ a n~inimum dep~h of 40 feet"J and that thd foregoing Code wds ac3opted June 15,
1971.
C~
~ ~
MINU'Pf.`•, (:I'fY PI~NNLNG COMMi:i:;'l:f~fJ, J~in+~ '1:~, 197~i
12EC1.,JISSIF'ICA'I'IUN Nr~. 74-"~-3'1 ANI~_VARIANCL NO._270~1 (;'ontirtuuc~)
7 ~i-'104
P.asi.stant 7~oniny Suparvir~or Ai~nikn Sanc.ilahti n~tod that the lc,ts frontinq on 5unkiat
Strc~c+t would 1w pormit:kad tu havo an B-toot wall alon~ tha ar.textal frantngo a~-d, thare-
~or1, thi~ tr.onr_ yerda of thoso lota wou]<i h~~ moro unable. Canmiaei.oner 'iblar notocl thet
tio wae moro in fnvor uC tho pro~gul tc ,nv~ 25-foot fr.ent +rotbwcke alonq the art~~rial,
crAgtiny a lar.yar beck ye~rd, xAther t.hs ~~~ •reate 17-fook backysrd dapthe to m~oC tho
~~~tOOt f3f~tbd(:It j~U1~Cy.
(:ommias~.on~r Toln~ af f.erod a natiun, geco~-~,od b,y ConUr+icasionur KJ.ny and MUTION CARRIEU
(Commisaionor lloxbnr Uoing nbsont), ~_n~t kha Clamiinq Commiasian recommende to tho City
Council that thu f+ubjoct. projer.C b~ ex~mpt ~rom t:he roqu.tromenL to Qrepere on EnviKC~n-
montel zm~esct Ropor.t, purHUant ta the ~~ravisiond of thc~ California ~nv~ronmental QualiCy
Act.
Conunisyionar. 'Polar afforo3 Reso'ution No. ~'C75-130 and moved for its p+-asugo and adapt:ion.
t r.c+c~rmnend to tha City Council that Aetition for ~e~c].aesificatio~ N~. 74-75-37 ho
approved, aubjocC ta thc~ Tnt~;-d~partmental Committes racommer~dations and, fuz*her, LhaL
th~ Planning CommlRAion recommends to the CiCy Council that City Council. l'olicy No. 53H
requiring a~ 40-f.out minimum frc~nr setback be waived to parmit 25-foot front setl~acks for
1:hosu l.ote pruposod to fr.onC an .ankiat Str~~et, on the b~aes that t.he 25-fooG fr.ont set-
backs wou.id allow for larger roar yarda whi.ch ie more cohduc:ive to a hood livi.ng c~nviron- ~
m~nt and that only Cho yarages and nui ~he~ habitablr. roomn of the resid~nce~ arn wiL•hin {<
said 40-fv~t s~tbacka. (S~o Res~lution Nook1
on ro11 call, tho Pucay~i.ng resolution wa:~ F~assed by the following vote:
AYES: CAMMISSIOh'F'R:i: GAUER, JOHNSON, KING, MORLE;Y, '1'OL1~R, FRFt}\NO
NOES: COMMTSSIONEFL;: NONE
AHSEN'r: COMMIS5IONERS: HERBST
Cwnmi.saioner Tolar offered Ti.c3soluY.ion N~. PC75-131 and moved for ita pa~saga and adoption,
that Petition for Variance No. 2709 be and hcreby is grar.had, qranting waiver of the
minimum rear yard £or or~e of the ].ots which is developed with an axiatinq residence and
equal us~b].:: opon lfviny a.rea is nrovided elsewhere on the lot= qrsnti.n~ waiver of the
requ~ramPnt that Qwellings rear cn arterial highways on the basi: that there ure existing
rasidential loks fronting on 5unkist Street ta the nortli and west of. s~ibject. propertyt
subj9ct to tha Planning Commissian's reccmmensation tu the City Council that City Council
Policy No. 538 re~ c~inq a 40-£oot minimum £ront setback be waived to permit 25-fovt front
setaac.ks for those ~.ots proposed to front on Sunl;ist 5treet, on the bases that the 25-toot
front ~etbacks would allow :.~r ~arger r.ear yarda which is more condvcive to a good living
environment and that only tlie qarages and noL• the habttable rooms of the residencea are
within said 40-foot s~tbacks; and subject ~o Interdegartment:al Comaniktee recommendatio~~s.
(See Resolution Book)
On roll cal.l, the foregoing reso'_ution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CO-"'MISSIONERS: GAUER, JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, FA22AN0
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NGNE
AASEIvT: COMMISSIONF.RS: HERBST
RECGSS - At 3:~0 p.m., Chairman Pro Tempore Farano declared a rQCeas.
12ECONVENE - Ar 4:00 p.m., Chairman Pro Tempore Farano reconve~ed the meeting with
~ommissiuner Herbst `-,ing al~aent.
L..J
~
~
~
MI.NU'?'F.S, CI'PY I~LJINNINC CUMMZSSif.)N, ,June 2!, 1975 75-305
HE(:LJ1SSIrICATIQN - PUHI.IC HEAKI~IG, WILLIMI ANf) V]'FtGINIA KUdF'h:R, 220 Uq].e 5tt'oot, C"pAtA
NO. 74-75-~8 Maes, Ca. 9~G27 (Owr-ore) ~ IJUtRY JON`::;~~V, 528 West 19th SCruet, Coste
~~~ Mboa, Ca. 91627 (Agr~nt:) , l~r~p~r~~, doecr•ibed an: A rcactanyularly-
CUNUITIONAL USE she-~ad parc~l ot land coneiating of npproximatoly 0, fi8 ucro having a
T'ERMIT N0, 1547 frontr~ge of approximat~ly 100 L'c~~t on the weat• aid~ of Hoaah Boulevard,
~~ ht~ving a~ maximum dopth oP a~proximately 298 fc~~t, boing located apprcxi-
mut:uly 1220 te+oY. north of hlt~ centar.llne uf Bal.l Rond, and eurChar
c3!~:icrlbi3d ui~ 735 5outh BE~ACh Boulovard. Pr.oparty pr.asontly c1.aRSlEiod R: -~A-43,000
(FiLS7DL-'rl'PIpG/ACitI:.UI:fURA7,) rON[:.
RGQUESTGD C1.ASSIFICA'l'ION: CL (CCIMM6RCIAL, LTMITED) 7,QNki.
}tP:QUE;STGD CUNDITIONAL i)SL: CONSTRUCP A b10T4L.
No one indicated their ~rosenoe in oppoaition to oubject petition~.
Although tlie StAf~ [toport to kh~ Planning Ccvnmisaion 3eted ,7una 23, 1975, waa not road at
che publ.ic hoaring, suid StaEf ke;port i.a rafarred ta and ma~e a part of the minute~.
Mr. Larry Johnaan, the ag~nt fcr the petltionor, appadr~d b:~fore the Planning Commiar~ion
and of fer~d to answer quoations regarding t1~e proposal, noting that hc~ quoationod eeveral
of th~ InterdeparUnental Committea recommendationa relating to a parcel map, tire hydrants,
sound bufforin,y and shioldinq of air-conc~itioning taciZic.iEy, and t}~e rdqui~~m~,nts prior
to introducti.on of the ordinanca for reconiny.
'J'HE PUBLIC HGARING WAS CIASEA.
Office ~;ngineer ,7ay Titus advis~d ~hat he uz-dorst~ad the r~ubject parcel was ~7 feet wido
and that an additional 3 feet wera being acqulred from anather parcel; and that the City
c~f Anaheim did not have a parcel map or. file indicating said division oi' praperty.
~eputy City Attorney E'zank Lowry advised that if fire hydrants were already instal].ed and
charged, a~ reqnired by the Chief of the Fire Department, then the City w~uld not inaist
upon d~~plicatea. Regarding tho air.conditioning sound bufforinq and ahielding, Mr.. Lowry
advi~ed Chat thc~ Znterdepartsnental Committee recommendation usually pertainod to roof-
mounted equipment and not. to wa11 L111~t8 ~ whor.eupon, Assistant Zoning Siipervisor Annika
5antalahti advised that if the wall units were noisy and created problems in that reape.~ct,
then tha reconunendatian wou d still apply. Mr. Lowry furthc~r a3viEed that the City Council
usually granted reaolutions of intent to rezoning and when the canaitions of approval were
met, then the ordinance for rezaning was ~chsduled for introduction, Qtc.
Cammissionor Morlay offered a motion, sec~nded by Commissioner Tolar ar.d MOTION CARRIEA
(Cammisyioner iterbst bc~ing absent) , that the l~lannit2g Commission recommends to the City
Council that the aubject ~roject be exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environ-
mental Impact Report, pursuant to L•he provisions of the California Environmental Quality
A^.t.
Commissioner Morley offered Resolution No. PC75-132 and moved for its passage and adoption,
to racomn~end to the City Council that Petition for Recla~sifi.cation No. 74-75-3f3 be approved,
subject to the Interdepartmenr.al Cnmmittee recommendations. iSpe Resolut~.on Book)
On roll call, the £oregoing resolution was passed by ~'~e following vote:
AYES: COMi+IISSIOHERS: GAUER, JOFTNSON, KLNG, MORLEY, TOLAR, FARANO
NOES : COMMIS~IONERS : NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HERHST
Commi.=,sioner Morley offPred Resolution No. PC75-133 and moved for its passage and adcption,
that Peti.tion Eor Conditional Use Permit Na. 1547 be and hereby is granted, subject to the
Interdepartmental Committee recommendatior.s. (See Resolution IIook)
On ro 11 call, the for.egning resolution was passed by tx~e followinq vote •
AYES: COMMISSTONER5: GAUER, JOHNSUN, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, FAR.ANO
NOEc a COMNIISSION~RS: I30NE
ABSENT: COMMISSTON~'.iS: iiERBST
~
•
~
~
MTNUTE~, CITY PIJINNINC COMMTS5ION, Juna 2:3, 1975 75•-.iOG
ItLCIJ1S~IFiCA.ION - I~URI.iC H[:ARING. ~JOHN I.YI.E CANN~JN, 905~ lmperial Avenuo, Gar.den Gr~ve,
N0. 74-7S-39 Cr. 9264A (Own~r) t MIlCL~ CLARK DE1lF:IAPM~NT, INC. , 33U3 Ilarbnr eoulevdrd,
~ ! :ui.te K-11, Coata Modd, Ca. 92626 (Ag~nt). Propcrty deecribad ae~ A
VARTANc:E; N0. 2712 rflcCanqu:~arly-ehrpad E~ercol af. ].and cunA.i.eting of ap~roximetol.y 1.01
acree havinq a£roritaye of approximately 175 foe~t-. on tho na: ~ h Af.do ot
Ball Road, having u mwcimum de~th of npproximatt,.ly 240 f~ot, t>~,i.ng
lor.r~tad approximate.ly f320 fo~t weot of. tt~~ cent9rline of Dal~ Str.oot;, dnd furtha. duscribed
as 28G3 Weat aall Rc+xd. PropQrty Praeontly r,lnqeified RS-A-A3,OOU (RESTDENTIAI,/AGRICULTL1ftAL)
20NC.
R~QUF..`',TEU (:IJ~SSTPIGATION: RM-1200 (FtES1DE:NTIAL, MUL,7'IPLF.-I`?~NiILY) ZONE.
R~QU~STl:U VAF27ANCL•': WA.l'VER OF (A) M11?(IMUM BIJII.bING HF.IGNT ]1ND (B) MINIMUNf ItECREA'tIUN-
I,GISURE AREA, "M ~~NS'PRUCT A 2~i-[1NIT APAR`PMENT COMPLEX.
One persun indicbtud thoiz praaF:~ce to inquiro concorning the subject petitions.
Ac~sir~tant Zoninq SupeT:visor Annika Santalahti road the Staff RoCx~rt to tho Planning
~;ommi.saion dated June 23, 1975, and said Sta.fP Report is reEQrred to as if sot forth .in
Eull in tho nrj~~~tes.
Mr.. Mikr Ctark, the devo].oper, appoared bafore the Planniny Commi~9lon and noted that the
exiAting devalopment to .:he sou~h was multipl.e-family and not sinqle-family as sut °.~rtli
in tha Staff RPport. H~ queAtion4d whether the condition requiriny that tho intorior.
aalla of the carpart3 ahould kse stuecood was a standard Building ~ode requiremQnt; where-
upon, D~puty City Attorney Frank Lowry adviaed that said conditfon was a standard raquire-
ment for the subject type development.
Mr. Clark then questioned khe requirement that Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 3 be completed
prior to the introducti~n of the or'inance ~or the zoning, whereupori, Miss Santalahti
advised that Condition No. 2 was incomplete inasmuch as a bond in an amount and form
satisfactory to L-he City shall b~~ posted with the City ta guarantee the installation of.
the enqineering requiraments al.ong Ball Road, etr..
Mr. Bpn Rodriquez, Pastor of the E1 3inai United Methudist ChuYch, located immediately to
the ~aest of subject proper.ty, appeai d befor~ the Planning Commissian to inqufre concern-
ing the proposal and, in re~pc+nse to kiis questions~ Mias Santalahti advised that ths
praposal was for a maximum ~f two-sY~ory construc*ion and the two-story structures would be
a mini.mum of 150 feet fr.om the adjacent sinq'le-:~ ^ily residential zcne t~ the northt that
the a11ey alonq the iiortherly proporty line would not be extended to the subject pxoporty
ard thc proposal was to have access from Ball Road only; and that a 6-foot masanry wall
was required to be constructed along the north and we.sr_ property lines, said wall to be 42
inches in height within the fr.ant 20-foot setback along Ball Road.
9'HE PUBLTC H~ARING WAS CLOSED.
Commisaioner Talar noted his concerns regarding tlle proposed high density of the projoct
and indicated 'ne was not fond of the plan tu ha•re buildings coithin 5 feet of the property
li.ne adjacent to resi4antial property; tnat a block wall along the northe.rly progerty line
would definitely be desirable= and that he would be inte•rested in a l.5 to 20-:oot buffer
with landscapinq between the proposed atructures and said nartherly property line. ln
response, Mr. James Roe, the designar. stated the density af the proposal was not necessarily
different from the multiple-fanily devalopment. to the east and south of the subject property,
whan figuring the square fc+otage of the land versus the square foatage of the unitat and,
further, tbat .eisure x~'~d recreational areas were proposed in confozm~nce ~vith the Code
requirementa, said areas in~luding approximately three 1~ x 21-foot indentatione along the
east aicle o£ the ~asterly unita, pxivate par.ios, and the cent:al recreatian-leisure area.
Thereupon, Conanissioner Tolar indicated he d~d not conaider the small areas as laiaure
areas. Mr. Roe then stated he understood ~he private patios off t3~e master bedrooms wero
considered leisure areaa and, if need be, they could provide patios along Che unitie st thc
front of the project adjacent to Hall Road.
Commissioner Tolnr noted regarding tne rear setback that the structures were proposed to
be 5 feet from the ~+roperty line and he would in5lat on som~a buffering there; wher9upon,
Nir. Roe stated no windows were pr~pased alon~ the northerl~f side of the buildings at that
proporty line and, theref.ore, he did not feel there would be a noise £actorj and, furthAr,
no one would be usi.nq that area for rQCxeational or leisure purposes. Further diecussion
foll~~sd regarding ~he buffering, whereLpon, Commi.saioner Tolar indicate3 that trees, in
his opinion, would be better than a higher wall, etc:.i that the proposal iesembled ano~her
O ~
MINIIT~S, Cl'TY PLANNING COMMISST.ON, ~fune 23, 1975
1u•:CLRSSIFICATION hG. 74-75-39 AND VARIANCE No. 271. .unt.inuu~!)
~
~
75-307
pxo~ect at Ska~e College Boulovnrd anc~ I.a Palmra Avonu~ ~ , had a binnd eituAtion with
nothiny Co see bur. a ~vr~11; wheroupon, Mr. Ru~ eugqeetac7 vine_ •~~ ivy t:o qrow up the wall
nnci buah out aluny thnt property lino.
Chairman Pro Tempore Farariu mado a notetion thet the undoryround parking might be an ocho
chembor for c:are with loud pipoat and Commiseioner Toler n~ted ~hat it appearoc9 the
de~eil•y might nood to bo r~d~acod to mitiqato aomo of tho problQma of th~ prop~socl
d~volopmc~nt.
In roopunee tio qu~+ationing by Commi~eioi~er. Mc~rley, Mr. Roe s~uted pr•lvat~~ pa~.ios wero
propoeed Far thu aix unite tront.i.ng on Ball Rc~ad and for tho eix units along the ~asterly
eide of r.ho projact, or a total of twelve patioR, And said patios were pr.ivat~ ~nd woul~
~orve thase apocific units.
In roeponee t.o qiiastioning by thc~ Planning Commieaion, Mr. Roa stared he l~ad diacuoAOd Che
tr~ah enclosure areA wit.h tha Screets und Sanitetion Divieion who was af.raid the bine
might have a tflndency to rol.l clown the slope and, thereEore, rc~~ommonded that the trash
encloaure urea be adjasted to align with the garageR and to fa.~e khe strRet with decc~rative
doors the full width of the sidowalk. Thereupati, Mr. Ro~ atipulnted that the trash encl.o-
surd ureas would conEorm to the recommetidatiann of the Streots and Sunitation Divi.s.lon ~
thet denae landacaping would be provid~r3 alc~n,y LI~e n~+.ttsarly property line, in addi.tion to
a G-foot masor~ry wall along the northerly and weeterly property liries; and ~hat= the minimum
dimensions of the parkiny 9PAC@S witY,in the propoaed carporta woul~i be 10 feet wide by 2G
£oaL long.
Commiseianer Gauer offerc;d a motion, aeconded by Commisaioner Morley and MUTION CARRIED
(Commissioner Herbst being absent), that the Planninq Commiseian does hereby recomme~~~l to
the City Council that *he subjc~ct project be exampt from the requi.rament to prepare xn
Enviroruuenta~. Impact P.eport, pursuant to tha provieione o£ the California Environmental
Quality Act.
Canmi.asioner Mor.ley offez•ed Resolution No. PC75-134 und moved for its passage and adoption,
that the Planning Commission coes hereby reaommend to the City Council that Peti.*_ion €or
Roclase~ification No. 74-75-39 bP approved, sub~ect to tho foregoing findings and stipula-
tiona, and subjocc to the Interdepar.ttnental Committoe recommendationa. (See Resolution
Book)
On roll call, tt;e foregoing resolution was pasaeci 1by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSZONEF~S: GAUBR, JOHNSON, hINC, MORI~EY, TOLAR, FARANO
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: liERBST
Conunissioner Morley offered Resolution No. 'C75-135 and moved for itg passage and adoption,
that Petition f~r Var.ianae No. 277.2 be and he~~~y is denied on the basis that waiver of
tlie maximum building heigh~ i.e detez'mined to ae unneceseary since the adjacent agricultux-
ally zonecl ~r.o~erty is developed w.tth a churchf that the petitioner stipulated to providing
tho minimum recreation-leisure area in ~ onfarmance with the Code requirements and, th~re-
Eore, suid waiver is eliminated; and the subjecL• pr~peity shall be developed in accordance
witl- ~hn sitQ development standards of tlZe underlying zone. (See Resolution book)
On ioll call, the foreg~ing seso].ut~.on was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONEIi~S: GAUER, JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, TOI~AR, FARANO
NOES: CUMMISSTONERS: NONE
ABSENT t COMMIS570NEI2S : HERBST
• ~ ~
MINUTE3, CITY PIJINNING CUMMISUION, Jane 23, 1975 75-3C9
PL~CLASSIk'ICA'PION -• PUBLIC HEARING. ARDEN STRAND, h'T AL, 5s~i sunmi n~ , Yorba Linda, Ca.
N0. 74-75-42 92 6~6 (Owndre)i I.P.S., ::/a Ron Gomor, 1095 North Muin StzeoL•, 3uite D,
Or.ango, Cs. 92667 (Aqont!. Proparty daecribed ant An irzagular.ly-
VM7ANCE NO. 2711 r~hapod parcel of lend canei~ting of epproxime~tely 3.0 ac~.•oe hnvinq a
PronL•aga of eppr.oximatel.y 204 feet ~n tho eout.h eide ~f Fronterr~ Streot,
having a maximum dapth of appraximately 590 feek, snd being locat~d
appraximatel.y 365 foo t west uf the c~nterline oP. Glaosoll 5trogt. Proparty prodontly
olaeaified A: ^A-43,000 (RESIDGNTIAL/AGRICUL'PUML) ~ON~.
it~QUE3T~D CLASSIFICATIQN~ RM-.200 (RESxDGNTIAL, MUL'TiPI.E-P'AKiILY) 70NI;.
kF:QUESTED V1IRTANCE: WAIVEIt UF (A) MAXiMI1M IIUIT.DING HEIrHT, (l~) MINIMUM FLOOR AREA, ANd
(C) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUII.nTNGS, TO CONSTRUCT AN 86-UNIT
APARTMENT COMPLEX.
Cl~airman Fro Tempore Farano noted f~r tho pet~.tionox (Mr. Williem S. Ptielpa, represonta-
tivo) thpt prior Co the p~~blic hearing baing huld an the subject potit.iona, th~~ Planniny
commiaRion was deairaus to have more infor.mation regarding tha ekability of the Hoil. ut
khe aubject 1ocaCion, sinco said property was previously a ciump aitas and that the Planning
Comn~isaion would consider a continuanco of :;he public hearinq t~ntil the soils report Nas
avaiiable for r.oview and analyais.
Mr, Phelps explained that the dumping on the subject property was don~ undar full. contr.ol
from the very bc~qinning~ that tha aoils report tlley prasently had encompassed the entire
site anc3 t~y were requaeting a report for tho portion of L•he pr.oper.ty which was to be
de~jelope3 with i~he subjoct proposal, however, said report was not yet availablet that the
atro,ctu.ral eny~<<uar for the pro~osal would havo to be satiafied that ~he soi] w+G stable
prior t~ any conatruc tion and would, therefore, make a detArminafion ae to whether th~
property was a aui.table building site.
Chairma.n Pro Tempore Farano then oxpressed that ~he Planning Commisaion would r.aL•her not
act under presumptions, but prc~ferred to have the soils report pr~or t~ considering the
suliject proposalr And, additionally, that an analysis of the report by Ci.ty 5taf.f was
necessary. Tn respon se to questtoninq by the Commission, oftice Engineer ,7ay Titus
advised that the Engineering Staff had not been given the benefit of the s~ils report
inf.ormation, to his kno~:ledge, and tha.t the problems woulci involve the Building Divisiun.
Thereupon, Mr. Phelps requested that the subject public hearing be continued for two weeks
in oxder tu provide the information sou~ht by tbe Planninq Cotmniasion.
Comm.issioner Kirn7 offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Morley and MOTION i:ARRIED
(Commissioner Harbst beinq absent), tha.t the public heorings and consideration of Petitions
for Rec~assi£ication No. 74-75-42 and Variance No. 2711 he and hereby are continued to the
meeting of July 7, 19 7~, on the basis of the foregoing findings.
RECLASSIFICATIO[~ - PUBLIC HEARING. TEXACO ANAHEIM HILLS, INC., 380 Atiaheim Hills Road,
NO. 74-75-40 Anaheim, Ca. 92807 (Owner); ANAHEIM HILLS, INC., 380 Anaheim Hills Road,
Anaheim, Ca. 92807 (Ag~snt); requesting that properry described as: A
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land conaistinq of approximately 2.9
acres located at the southeast cor.ner of Canyon Rim Road and ~Joh'1 Ranch Road, having approxi-
mate frontagES of 3G0 feet on ttie south side of Canyon Rim Road and 390 feet on the east
side of Nohl Ranch Road be reclassi£ied from the RS-A-43,000(SC) (RE5IDEN'PIAL/AGRICUL'PUItAL -
SCENIC CORRIDOR OV'~iti.AY) ZONE to the CO(SC) (COMMERCIA.L, OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL - SCENIC
COItkIpOR GVERLAY) ZONE.
No onQ indicated the ir pxesenoe in opposition to subject petition.
Although the Staff Report to the Planninq C'ommission dated June 23, 1975, was not read at
the publ.i.c heari~g, said Staf£ Report is referrpd to and mads a part of the minutes.
Mr. Richard C. Doyle, Vice President of. Anahaim Hil1s, Inc., appeared before thP Planning
CommissiAn ~o anawer questions regarding ~te proposal and notecl that the proposed struc-
tures would have Spanish architecture and the roofs would be Spanish tile.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
• ~ ~
MINUTCB, C1TY PIJ1NNiNG COMMISSIUN, June 23, 1975
RECLASSIF::CATIC)p7 N0. 74-75~40 (Continuod)
75-309
Cheirnan Pro Temporo Farrno quoutioned tho need for t:~o additional ^~ zoni~g in the At~bjeat
area, wheroupon, Mr. Uoyle ateted the subjeet proporty wc~uld be part of tho ori.qinally
Agraad upon 49 a.creA th~nt would bo for commercial-of.f.ice zoniny in Anahoim Hilln~ that thc
aubject property would provide an ideal atree •level location for the prnpoe~od ueo and
could bQ develop~d rathe~r rapidly~ tt~et the commerci.ally-zonecl Property acroea tho streat,
conaiatir~y of approximetely 8 acree, wae prec~ont~y hoiny conaidered !or anlo to a church,
howaver, th~y would atill like to huvo 49 acrea in Anahei.m Hills deve].oped COIlUI19L'Cj.d7~.
Chairman Pro Tempore Ferano then nated that whon tho property deeiqnatad !or cocnnercial
acros~ t.he street devolopad, the Qlanning Commission should review ~amo einco ho wna r~ot
in favor of auch a largo commarcial site a~ the subject intc~rsoction, which miqhC al.so tx~
~n vialatian of previoue commlt~nenta or deaign~tions for property usaqa in Anahaim Hille.
Concerning the 6-foot masonry wall that would normally be roquirad wl~ore a commorcial zone
t-butted a residential zone, Commiseioner Tolar noted i:hat 3ue to the £act th~zt the proporty
l.ina was at the base af an approximately 35-fc~ot slopo, tt~e r~ee~3 for sai.d wall was queation-
able. He auygeste~d that more troos be plantad alor~y t.hat property lino instoad of conatr.uct-~
in~ the wall. ThorAUpon, Mr. Doyla ntipulated to plantiny mare treen ae augqeatQd; however,
tha Flanning Commiaeion concluded tliat the patitioner wae technicnlly roquired tu fi.le a
varianco petition if waiver of the wall roquirem~nt was desired. 2onina Supervisor Charles
Roberca nuted that tne ~nCitionar miqht be desir~uQ ~f installing an approxime~.ely 3-foot
hiqh be.rm with landecaning ko attain a total haxqht of 6 feet as an alteznativo to con-
structing the wall along tha northeast property linef however, such a proposal could bn
considered when a varianca petition was filed. Clarification of rhia matter was made and
said wall would not be roquired accor~?inq to the newly-adopted ordinance pertaining to wall
requirements in commer.cial zoiic~s adjacent to residenti.al zones,, since t~aid wall would be
i.r.~practical .
Discussian followed concerning ths Traffic ~ngineer's recommendatior~ r_hat a left-turn
pocket on Nohl Ranch Roac] be provided f.or s~utheast-bound traEfic, noting that the widening
of Nohl Ranch Road would he n~~~~~~:~ t^ facilitate said left-turn pocket. Chairman Pro
Tc~mpore Farano suggested that the drainage channel be covered or bridged and Mr. Doyle
indicatad that r_ossibility t~ad k+een explored but was too costly, and that widening of Nohl
Ranch Road on tho uther side would involve an imsnenae amount of earth moving since a slope
was involved; that the devaloper did not feel it wc•::ia be wi.se ta have a lef.Y.-turn pocket,
alChough a median strip or something of that nature wuuld noC be objectionabl.e; that the
48 parkinq spacea ~ijacent to Noh]. Ranch Road were for employee parking only, and thore
would bo a maximum af 96 movements pe.r ~ay at !:hat access point. Co~nissioner Johnson
made an observation th~t left turns would also be awkward for the employee.
Office Engineer Jay Titus adviseci that an appropriate condition concerning the left-turn
pocket wo~ald bo that to f.acilltate left turns into the proposec~ employee parking lot from
Nohl Ranch Ruad, a left-turn pockat for entrance to said parking lot shall be provided in
accordance with tihe design approved by the City Engiiieer, otherwise, no left turns shall
be allowad into 3aid parking lot.
Mr. Uoy],e stated they had widened Canyon Rim Road and constructed the bridge over the
drainage culvert at a cos~ of approximately $135,000 and, furthermore, it would be im-
practical from a cost viewpoint to bridge or ccver the channel tn facilltate the widening
of Nohl Ranch Road adjacent to the proposed employee parkinq lot to a11ow for the left-
turn pocket. Thereupon, Assistant Zoning Supe.rvisor Annika Santalahti advised that the
proposed parking calr,ulated almost precisely to the requ.ireinen} and if the parking area
was reduced, then the proposal would not meet the requirement in that respect.
In response tio questioning by Chairman Yro Tempore Farano, Mr. Doyle stated that, as a
condition of the leases, the employees would be compelled t~ use the designated parking
lot.
"ommissioner Gauer offered a motion, secon3ed by Commissioner Morley and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissionor Herbst being at~sent), that t,he Planning Cor,imisaion does hc~reby recommend to
the City Council tk-at the subjact project be ex~mpt from the requiremont to prepara an
Environmental Impaet Repazt, pursuant +~o the p~•ovisions of the Calif~rnia Environmental
Quality Act.
Commisaioner Tolar nffered Resolution No. PC75-136 and moved for its passaqe and adoption,
that ~he Planning Commiasion does hereby recommend to the City G~uncll that Petition for
Reclassi.fication No. 74-75-40 be approved, subject to the condition that the proposed
structures shall be c~natxucted with Spaniah tile roofs, as atipulated to by the petitioner,
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSTON, Jun~ 2:f, 1975 75-310
RECLASSIFICFTION NO. 74-75-4U (C~nkinuc~d)
+~nd that no left turns ahall be a7.lowed into the proposed emplayea parking lot off Nohl
Reinch Road unlesa a lo:'t-turc~ pockut to faail.i~.ato laft ~urn~ al~all bo provi.dc~d in nccnrd-
ence wlth a dayiyn app~:oved by the City Er-qin~eri and subjACt to Intcrdepartmentnl
Committ.oa recommondations. (So~ Reeolution Book)
On roll call, tho furogoing rr.~nlution waa paseod by tho .foll.owinq votti:
AYESs COMMISSTONE~ta'': GAUEk, JOHN::Ot', 4C7N1:, MOkI,T;Y, TOLAR, FARANO
NOES: COMMISSION~RS: NONE
ABSENT: CqMMIS~IONERS: HE12A5T
CuNDITIONAL USG - PUBL]:C HEARING. ROBFRT E. GROSSE, 2a21 West Pdinyer, 5a-~ta An3, ('.t~.
NEItMIT N0. 1545 92704 AND SANFORD H. AN2EL, c/o Jamss A. Liberio, 1720 Waat La Palma
Avenue, Suite A, Anahoim, Ca. 92801 (Owners); BRUCE C. FORGE, 2006
North Broadway, 11222, Santa Ana, CA. 92705 (Agent)r .requostinq permiaeion
to CONSTRUCT A VETERINARY H0.SPiTAZ WZTH WAIVER OF (A) REQUIRED BI,OCK WALL AND (B) MlNIMUM
LANDSCAPED SL'PBACK on property dascribpd as: An irrequlazly-shaped parcel of land aon3let-
iriy of a~prar.imate.ly 4 arr~s having c~ £r~ntage of approximately 242 feet un L•he south eide
of Santa Ana Canyon Road, havinq u m~ximum dept}~ of approximaCely 771 reet, dci~3 Lning
located approximately 210 feot west of tho canterline of Fairmont Iioulevard. Property
pz'esentl'y classified ~tS-A-43,000(SC) (RE5IllENTIAL/AGRICULTU~L-SCFNIC CORRIUOR OVERLAY)
ZONE.
Na one indicated thoir presence in op~osition to subject• petition.
Althougti khe Stz-ff Report to the Pl.anning Commission dated .7une 23, 1975, was not rQad at
the public hearing, lt is referred to and made a part o.f the minutes.
Mr. Bruce Forge, the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Planning Commission and
atated he was in agreemenr with the Staff Report ar. , further, that the necessary forms
had been obtained and would be filed in connection with the abandonment of the portion of
old Santa Ma Canyon Road for said abandoned property to bs added to the subject property
and he would accept the abandonment as a condition foz i:he apF~~~oval of the subject proposal.
TFIE PUB?~IC HF.ARTNG W~1S CLOSED.
Chairman Pr.o Tempore Farano qu~~tioned the need to have another veterinary hospital in the
evbject area, since several had been approved= whereupon, Mr. Forge stated they were aware
oi• a veterinary clinic or- Imperial Highway a~~~i one other such facility in the area, however,
to their knowledge there were no other full service veterxnary hospitals propos~d or con-
structed in the Canyo~, and ~he proposal would not conflict with the veterinary clinic
mentior~ed.
Assistant DevelapmenL Gervices DirPCtor-Zoninq Charles Ruber.ts noted for che Planning
Commission that temporary access to 5anta Ar,a Canyon Road was bein~ proposed by the
petitioner until such time as an alternate means of access from Fairmont Buul~vard becamc
available; u`~at the proposea development of the site would permit a revtrsal of the facility
i~i tei-ms of frontages and ar.cess; that the Tzaffic Engineer had indicated no ac~ess from
Santa Ana Canyon Road was permitted unless located at a previously-approved a~cess point;
that Fairmont Boulevard would be located approximately 210 feet ea~t of t:~e subject property;
that if the petitioner dedicated acce3s rights to Santa Ana Canyon Road, assuming that the
~ld Sar-ta Ana Canyon Ro~,a parcel was abandoned and added to subject• property, it might be
possible for. the City Council ta grant temporary access for specified time periods until
such time as Fairmont Boulevard wa3 constructed and a new street connecting subject proE~nrty
with Fairmont Boulevard was developed; however, at the pregent time, a concrete ieCOmmen~~~-
tion regardinq :he dedication ~or tY~e new street could not be made by City Staff.
Theraupon, c:hairman Pro Tempore Farano suggested that pc:rhaps an srea devctopment plan
sYaould be formulated. in connection with the proposed developmen~ so that the matter af
access could be more definitive and, further, so that the people in the area could be
ttware= and, further, that the indefinite access and dedic:ation requirements miqhc not t~e
:[n the best interests of the petitioner, also, tdr. Forge then stated there was preEeiitly
an ac~ess to the west of the subject propertyf however, they had laid out their plan in a
manner that would allow ths property to front almost any access.
• a •
MTNUTES, CITY PIJ~NNING COMMIS3ION, ~unc~ 23, 197~
CONOtTiONAL USE FERMIT NO. 1545 (Continued)
~~-31~.
Mr. Rabc~r.t~ furthar note.d the-t it would be difficult ~.~ eay h~w ].ony it would tako to
formulato an area dovelopmont p.lan, and fuur to aix woeke mi.yht bo e poaeibilityJ that if.
tl~e timiciy requirea for an aroa devalopmont plati would cr.eate probl.4ms for tho dovelr,F>o~,
then t1~4 Planning Commiaeion miqht wish to consid~r impoeir~g a cond~tional dedication
r~rluir^mcnt ~nd, in ti~o uv~~nt tho stroot did go along some aligrmi~nt other than whut was
dedicated, thon the dedicated pzoperty could b~ tradad aacor.dingly.
Mr. Forge~ then otated thay hnd aiacusaed the genoral contoxt o£ Mr. Roberta' suggestionA
with the City Sta£f, and tha buildinga would be loc~tQd a:~ cloea ae posaible to 5anta Ac~a
Canyon Road and devalopc~cl wlth the roquiz~ed Scenic c:arridor setbacke~ and they would havA
na objectio~is to dedicatinq a proposed streot or oas9mont which would bo safisfactory to
the City. Mr. Forge furtih~r sr.i~ulAtc~d to dadicatinq all vehicular accc~as r~ghts to
Santa Ana Canyon Road to the Ci.ty of Anahefm.
Mx~. Robert~ offerod a suggested condition tliat a G4-foot wide right-of-way along an align-
menC to be detormined by th~ City Enginoer bo imposed, and that a study be ini.tiated t.o
determine the precis~ alignment. Mr. Forge stipulatQd to the sugyested conditi.on, pro-
vided that tlia oasement or r~treet did nut go through the propoaed lucation for tY-e build-
ingsj wtiereupon, deputy City Attorney Frank I,ow.r.y noted th~~ location of the propo:~ed
structuros and advisea that th petitioner co~~1d Y~~st assured that Cl~e ~lyhl.-of-way would
nat interfere with the proposed con~truction c. ~ subject property.
Office Engineer Jay '1.'itus advi.sed that the Planntng Commission might also wi5h to consider
an irrevocable offer of dedication for the 64-faot wide r.ight-of-way over the proporty for
a spacifi.ed number of feet in length; and Mr. T~wry added that the City took blanket
easements in tt~e Mohler Drive area for water .lines wlierever they fell and thc sugge~ted
manner of dedication ahould be an accepi;able procedure.
In corinection with the raquired block wal.l along the westerly property line, Chair.ntan Pro
Tempore Farano noted that said wall shauld be bonded for in the event it is required at a
f.uture date, and the petitioner so stipulated.
Commissione•r Johnson offer.ed a motion, seconded by Commissioner Morley and MuTION CARR7ED
(Commissioner Herbst being absen*_), that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that th~ subject project be exempt from the requirement L-o prepare an
Environmental Impact Report, pur3uant to •~he provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
Comcni~;sioner John~on offered Resolution No. PC75-137 and moved for its pasaage ~.nd ~doption,
that Petition far Conditional Use Permit No. 1545 be and hereby i~ qranted, granti.ng a
temForary waiver of the required 6-foot masonry wall adjacent to the east, west and south
site boundaries, subject to the stipulation by the petitioner that a Uond in an amount and
form satisfactory to the City shall be poated to guarantee the installation in the event
said wall is required by the City at a future date; granting waiver of the minimum land-
scaped setback adjacent to ~he right-of-way, subject to the petitioner requesting and
receivxng City Council approval for the abandonment of a portion of the old Santa Ana
Canyon Road to be added to the subject property and utilized to meet said landscaped
setback requirement of the CL(SC) Zone; granttng waiver of the minimum lan3scaped setback
adjacent to interior boundaxfes, on the basis that the RS-A-43,000(SC) zoned property to
the east and west have resolutions of intent to t}ie CL(SC) Zone and future development of
the property to the south is undetermined; subject to the condition that vehicular access
rignts to Santa Ana Canyon Road sha11 be dedi.cated to the City of Anaheim, as ~tipulated
to by the petitioner; aubject to the condi*.ion that the subject prorerty owner(s) shall
make an irrevocable offer to dedicate for a 64-foot wide right-of-way on the subject
praperty along an aliqnment to be determineii by the City Engineer at a futare date; and
subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. (See Resolution Buok)
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CONSMISSIONERS: GAUER, JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, F'ARANO
NOES: COMMTSuIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HEFtBST
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY ~l'.J~NNTNG C:OMMISSION, June 23, 1975
75-312
CONUITIONAL USF. - PUBL~TC tiEARING. KILROY INDUSTRIES, 5].5 South Flower Streot, Suito 23U0,
~ERMTT N0. 1546 Loa Anyelea, Ca, 90071 (Owner)~ FLUOR CORPORATION, o/o R, B. Hwnboz•~,
2500 South Atlai~tir, Houlevard, Loa Angoles, Ca. 90040 (Ag~nt)~ roqueet-
ing pormigalon to ESTAHLISH A HELISTOP on property doocribac~ e~si An
irrogularly-ahapod paraol oP lAnd conaiating of dpproximet~aly 10 acroe havinq e frontage of
appraxi.mately 379 P.get on the south side o! La Palma Avenue, having a maximum c7apth oP
approxim+~tely 1175 faet, baing located approximtttely 690 feet woe~t of tho centerlino of
Millar StrPet, and furL•h~r described Aa 3340 Feat La Palma Avenue. Yroporty prosontly
clessifiad ML (INDU:~TRIAI., LIMITG~D) ZONE.
It was noted that a lettQr had boAn roceived from tha CiCy of Orange Ylanning Commiaeion,
said lc~tter indiaating, "Upon reviawing tho qanera]. locstl.on oP the prop~sed helietoi~, tha
Commi~sion voiced qua8tiona reqardinc~ the direc~inn of traffic t~ and from the pro~,oeed
site, tho iiumbor and frequency o! Fliyhts, and poasible conflicts with the exiating l~eli-
copter l.andinq facilities already doveloped in the area. The City of Orange approciates
the upportunity to make commenta on thia matter and rgquoats your consideration of a
continuance tu a date aftPr July 7, 1975."
The Planning Commis~ion expreased their desire to honor thA r.equeat of the City of Oz~anqe
and, thergupon~ Mr. Ray Wei.ler, r~presentinq the Fluor Corporat!on, the aqent for tha
petit-i.oner, indicatod his concurrence for the continuance ~s requested.
Commissioner Johnson offc~red a motion, seconded by Conunis3ioner King and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissioner Fterbst being absent), that tha pi~blic hparing an~ considaration for Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1546 be and hereby is continued to the meeting of ~TUI.y 7, 1.975, on
the basis of the faregoing findinqa.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. WILLIAM KUGk:I, 12750 Mulho]land Drive, Bevcrly lii.lls,
PERMIT NO. 1548 Ca. 90210 (Owner)j PETER VITALIE COMPANY, c:/o Andee Mennea].y, 645 North
Euc.tid Street, Anaheim, Ca. 92801 (Agent); requesting permission for
ON-5ALG BEER IN AN EXISTING BILI.7ARD ROOM on property described as:
A rectan~ularly-shaped parcel of lt-n~ consisting ot appr~ximately 10.5 acres located at
the northwest. corner of Crescent Avenue and Euolid StrePt, having approximate frontaqes of
740 feet on the north side of Cresc~nL- Avenue anc: 620 feet on the west si.de of Euclid
StrQet, ar~d further described as 645 North Euclid Strt~t. Pr.operty presently classified
CL (COMMERCIAL, LIMITED) ZONF.
No one indicated L•hpir presence in apposition to aubject petition.
Although th~ Staff Report to the Planning Commission da~ed June 23, 1975, was not read at
the public hearinq, said 5taff Report is referred to and made a part af the minutes.
Ms. Andee Mennealy, regresenting the agent for the petitioner, appeared befare the Plan-
ning Commission to answer ques ionY regarding the proposal.
THE PUBLIC HEARTNG WAS CLO5ED.
in response to questioning by the Plarning Ccmmissi~n, Ms. Mennealy stated the operatinq
hours were normally froa~ 10:00 a.m. to midnight, however, on Fridafs and Saturdays tl~e
billiard room might stay open until 2:~0 a.m.; that she was leasing the subject property
and, in addition to the billiard room she was a partner in a billiard repair ser.vice which
was a small business wherein all of the work was done on the customer't~ premises; that the
shap ar~a was basically a closet and in i:he future they would have a wall to separate the
two uses and two separate entrances would then be providndj that they intended to serve
sai~dwiches only and, therefore, were no~ proposing a kttc:hen; ttiat there would be no
cooking and the sandwiches would be aerved ~rom the counter; that in addition to the 4800
square feet of the subiect building, they were trying to get 3000 square feet for the
ret.il billiard supply store; that they had two business licenses - one for a bi.lliard
:oom and one for a billiarci supplyj and that they were not engaged in selling small itc•ms.
In response to questioning by the Plaiining Coir.~nission, Assistant Developmenr ~ervices
Dixector-7.oning Charles Roberts advised that the Y.illiard parlor appeared to „e the
primary use of the property and the billiard supply was an accessory ussj that the requir~-
ment that 258 of the total floor area be devoted to kitchen app2led only if the uae was
classiEied as a res~aurantr and that thP Planning Commiasion had granted other appJications
in the City where sandwiches were ~old but no cooking was ~ermitted on the premises,
similar to the subjact proposal.
0
~ ~
MINUTES, CI'T1 PLANNING COMMISS'£ON, Juna 23, 1975
(:ONDITIONAL USE FERMIT NO, 1546 (Con~inued)
75-313
In ro~ponee to questioniny of tho Planning CommieAion, the petiti~ner stipulat~d that th4
primary uee of the aubjert property would bti for a bi.llirrd roocs~ nnd not e beer bar and
tiherefore, no eeating would be provided at the service counter.
It wae noted that the Girector oP the Dovoloi~men~ SArv~oe~ Depar.tm~n~, had det~rmir~ed that
the propoead activity fell within the dofinitlon of Sactinn 3.01, Claee 1, oF the City uf
Anahei.m Guidelines to the Raquirementg Por an Envirnrunental Impac~: Repc~rt nnd wae, thc~ru-
Fare, ca~eqorically exampt from the requi.roment to fila an EIIt.
Commiseionar Kinq offereci Rosr~lutian No. PC75-138 and moveu for ita paesage and adoption,
that Patition for Conditional Uaa Parmit No. 1548 be and hereby ia qrantr~d, sul~ject to tho
etipulations af the ~etitloner and subjact to ccnditions. (3ee ReAOlution Book}
On roll ~~all., the foreyoing resolution wae paesed by the following vota:
Ati'F:S s COMMIE,SIONERS; GAUER, JOHN~~ '1, KING, MORL,EY, TOLAtt, FARANO
I~OES: COMMISSION~RS~ NOtiE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs HEFtBST
V1~RIANCE NO, 27Q7 - PiJBLIC HEARTPG. GI,ENt~ M. I~,I.GER, 865 Redondo Urive Eset, Anaheim~ Ca.
92801 (Owner); reque5L3ng WAIVER OF (A) MIN'LMUM GARAGE SE'IBACK, (B)
MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES, AND (C) MINIMUM SIDEYARD SETBACK, TO
CONSTRUCT A GARI~GE on property desoribed as: An irragularly-shaped parcel of lar-d consist-
iny of approximately 0.2 acre having a f.rontage of approximatcly 118 feet on the west side
of Redondo Drive East, having a maximum depth of approxin-ately 91 feet, bein3 located
appraximately 760 f.eQ~ north ~f the centerline of IJorth Street, and further described as
865 Redondo Arive East. Property presPntly classified RS-10,000 (RI:SIDENTIAL, SINGLE-
FAMILX) ZONE.
No one indicated their presence in opposition tn subject petition.
Although the Staff Report to the Ptanning Commiasion dated Jwle 23, 1975, was not read at
the puhlic hearing, sai.d Staff Report is referred to and made a part of tlie minutes.
Mrs. Glei~n M. Allder, thp petitioner, appeared before the Planning Commission to answer
questions regarding the proposal.
THE PUBLIC HEARII3G WAS CLOSED.
In response to questioning by the Planning Comon.ission, the pPtitioner. stated ^ix of the
adjacent neighbors had endorsed th~ su~ject petition in favor, and the neighbars generally
felt ';he proposed addition would i.mprove the neighborhoc~d; and, further, that they would
stipulate to equipping the proposed garage with an operable automatic vehicle access door
opener.
It was noted that the D9.rector. of the Development Sorvices Department had determined that
the proposed ac±ivity Fell within the definition of Sectiun 3.01, Class 3, of the City of
Anaheim Guidelines to the Requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and was, there-
fure, ~ategorically exeinpt from the requirement to £ile an EIR.
Commi~sioner King offered Resolution No. PC75-139 and moved for its passage and adoption,
that Petition for Variance No. 2707 be and hQzaby is granted, subject to the stipulatior.s
of the peritioner, and s•abject to conditions. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call, the foregoing re~olution was passed l~y the followinq vote:
AY~S: COMMISSIONERS: GJIUER, JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, FARANO
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
't~f.iENT: COMMISSIUNER5: HERBST
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY YLANNING COMMISSION, June 23, 1~)75
w
~
~5-3ia
VARIANCE N0. 2708 - PUBLIC t1EARING. ANAtiEIM V.F.W. M3173, 805 Eest Sycam~re StzeAt,
Anahoim, Ce. 92805 (Owne•rl; HENRY E, Lt]CKE, 2639 North Oakmont, Se~nta
Ana, Ca. 92701 (Agent)~ requaating WAIVER OF MINIMS)M FRONT 3ETHACK, TO
EXPAND AN E;XISTING V.F.W. BUILDTNG ~n property doscribed as~ A rectengularly-ahapod pa-rcel
of land cansis~inq of apnroxima~oly 0.9 acr~ having a~rantege of npproximately 100 foet on
the north aido o~ Sycamore Street, havinq a maximum depth of' approximatoly :~97 fAO~, and
~urther doecribed as 805 raot Sycamore Street. Pzop~rty presently c1.~ssifiFC9 ML (INDUS~PRIAL,
LIMITED) ZONE.
No one indicated khei~- presencs in oppoaition to sub;-ect petition.
Although the Staff Report to the Planning Commi~elun dated June 23, 1975, was not reaa at
tha public hoaring, said Staff Report is referred ko and made a.par~ of the mi.nutea.
Mr. Henry ~. Lucke~ the aqent for the petitioner, appeared befora Gha Planniny (;ommiaeion
to anawer questiona reqardiiig tho propo:~al.
TH~ PUB[.IC HEAR7NG WAS CL0.SED.
In responae t~ questiontng by the Planning Commisaion, Mr. Luck~ ntated the proposal w~s
the best alterna~ive for the expansion, since addiny on to the e$et would reduc: the
available parkir-g.
Regardin~ ne proposed frorit setbaak, Commissioner King no~ed that CommiAaioner Morloy and
himself had checked the subject property ir. the~ fiel.d and had observed Y.liat IRdIlY of the
buildinys along Sycamore Street in the viciaity were far lesa than the required 25 fee~
and, on that basis, aa wall a~ the fact tha~ expansion to t.he east would eliminate some of
the nQecled parking spaces, the petiti~ner could justify a hardsl~ip.
Office ~ngineer Jay Titus advised that the exieting right-of-way for. Sycamore Street was
35 feet and tY-e ultimate right-of-way was 32 feet,
it was noted that the Dlrector of the Development Servicas Department nad determined ~hat
the proposed activity £ell wi.thin the definition of Section 3.01, Class 3, oF the City of
Anaheim Guidelines to t;~e Requirements f'or an Environmental Impact Report and was, there-
fore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR.
Commisaioner King offered Resolution No. PC75-140 and moved for its passage and adoption,
that Petition for Variance No. 2708 be and hereby is ~rant~=d, on the basis that the
proposal is to expana an existing building and a hardship would be created if said waiver
were not granted; aubject to conditions. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passe@ by the fo].lowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: GAUER, JOHNSOt3, KIN~, MORLEY, TOLAR, B'ARANO
NOES: COMMISSIONER~: NONE
AB.C,ENT: COMMZSSIONERS: HERBST
VARIANCG N0. 2710 - PUBLTC HEARING. BRYAN-LA PALMA INDUSTRTAL PARK, P. O. Box 3547, Anaheim,
Ca. 92803 (Owner); V~ILENCIA BANK, 500 West Chapman Avenue, Placentia~
Ca. 92670 (Agent); re~uPSting WAIVER OF' (A) PERMITTEP SIGN LOCATION ANA
(B) PERMITTED USES, TO CONSTRUCT A BANK on property described as: An irregularll~-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.3 acres located at the northeast corner of
La Palma Avenue and Kraemor Place, having approximate frontages of 224 feet on tlie north
side of La Palma Avenue and 260 feet on the east side of Kraemer Place. Property presently
classified ML (INDUSTRIAL, LIMITED) 20NE.
No one indicated their presence in apposition to subject petition.
Although the Staff Repor~ to the Planning Commiasion dated June 23, 1975, waa not rea3 at
the public hearing, said Staff Report is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Ray Smith, President of Valencia Bank, the aqent for the petitioner, appeared before
t'~e Planning Commission and inquired if the requirement that a free-standing aign be
locatgd no clos~r to an ak,u~ting property line ~han 40~ of the width of the property was
equi~able considerinq that a property might be only 100 feet wide ~ather than 224 £eet as
in the subject situationj that in relationship to the waiver. of permitted uses, they had
already satiafied themselves that there was a very definite need fox• a bank in the subject
area and their proposal was also "sold" to the State bankinq authoritiea; and that there
were no banks located in the immodiate vicinity.
e • •
MINUTCS, CITY PLANl~ING COMMISSI~N, Juna 23, 1975 75-J1S
VARIANCE NO. 2710 (Continuod)
'PNE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CL05ED.
In respanse ta queetioning by Commiraioner King, Mr. Smitl- atatod they ~~auld comply wi.th
kha City roquiraments rc~qarding the tree~li etorago areae.
Mr. Smith quodtionod tt~a re~uiremant khat fire hydrants bo in~tnllod, whereupor~, Ueputy
City Artoxney Frank Lowry advised that i.f there were fire hydranta already inetallAd and
charged t~s required and determined ~o be neaeseary by ttie Chief. of L•lu~ I'ire Uapurtment,
then the requiremQnt would bo eatisfiod.
Mr. Smith then questioned the nec~d for undarground utilitiqa, whereupon, Chairman Pro
Temporo Fr~rano noted that tha City wa~ deairous to have undergrounc~ uti]ities in tho
aubject area and ahy new conetruction was requirad to so provide itj and he illuotratfld
thie pc~int by not~nq that the bank aould probably not mnka a 6+k loun at thls time either.
CommisKioner King offersd a motion, saaonded by Commiasion~•~ Niorley and MOTION CARRILD
(C~mminsioner Flarbst beinq absent), that the P].anninq Commi.salon does hereby recommond to
thQ City Council *_hat the subject project bo exem~t from th~ requirement to prepare an
~nviru-uuenLal Impact Report, k~tareuant to the proviaions of the Californla Gnvironmental
~uality Act.
Commissioner King o£foxed RQSOlut:ion No. PC75-147. and moved for ita passaga and adoption
that Petition for Variance No. 2710 be and heroby is qran+:ed, granting wxiver of per.mitted
~ign location on tlie basis that ttie pxoposed locaticn of tha aiqn will not intorfere with
traffic visi.bil.i~y in the area and said sign wil.l not be objectionable or. of£enai.ve to the
neighbors; qranting waiver of permitted uses on the basis that the proposed u9e is de~er-•
mined to be appropriato at ~`~o subject locations anfl subject to condi.tions. (See Rosalutton
Book)
On roll call, the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CGMMISSIQr~L'RS: GAUER, JOHN50N, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, FARANO
NOES; COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT; COMMISSIUNERS; HERBST
RE~UEST FOR EIR NfiGRTIVE DECLARFITION - Far. a qrading permit for construction of a
- ~ single-family residence at 160 Cerro Vista Way.
Tt was noted that an apQlication for a qradi.ng permit was filed to construct a single-
fsmily residence at the subject addressj that an evaluation of the environmental impact of
grading at this locati~n was requir.ed under the piovisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act and the 5tate EIR Guidslines ei.nce the project was located in the Scenic
Corridorj and that a study o~ the proposed gradirig by the Engineering Division and the
Development Services Department indicates that said gr3ding would have no ai.gnificant
environmeatal impact.
Commissioner Tolar offered a motion, seconded by Co[mnissioner Morley and MOTION CARRIED
(Conunissioner Herbst be'_nq absent), that the Planni~g Commission recommends to the City
Counoil that the sub3ect project be exempt from the requirement tc~ prepare an evironmen~al
impact report, pursuant to the provisions of the Califarna.a F~ ~ronmental Quality Act.
REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 1
RECOMMENDATIONS VARIANCE N~. 2472 - Request for termination - Property consisting
of appsoximately 62a0 square feet located at the southeast corner
of Alomar Avenue and Euclid Street, and further described as
700 South Euclid Street.
It wa~ noted that on January 22, 1973, the '.~ining Commission grantefl Variance No. 2472
in Resolution No. PC72-21, to establish a beauty salon and wiy shog in an existing resi-
dential structure on the subject ~rope cys that on May 28, 1975, a public hearing was held
at which Variance No. 2703 waa granted by the planning Commission to permit a pxinting
shop on the subjoct pzoperty= and that as a condition to the qranting of the new use o£
the subject property, the petitioner stipulated to terminati.ng the previously-granted
'Variance No. 2472, and has aubsequo:~tly submitted a written requeat for said termination.
-----~.-
~ ~ ~
MI:IUTES, CITY P[aANNTNG COMMISSION~ Juno 23, 1975
'L7'I:M NO. .1 (Coiitinuod)
75-316
Commiesionor King offerod Resolution No. PC75-142 and moved for ita ~~aaeage an~1 adoption,
that all pr.oca~dinga in cor~nection witli Potiti.on Por Varianco No. 2Q77. bc und herc~by ara
termfnated n~ raquestc~d by thc~ peh.itionc~r and on the baais uf the torayoiny f7.ndinqe,
(Soe Rc~soluti~n k~ook)
On roll call., thu foreyoin~, rr~solutfon was paseod by tho following vote:
AYESe COMMISSIONER5: GAUE12, JOIiNSON, KING, MA1tLEY, TOLAR, FARANO
NOESt COMMISS70NEItS: NUN~
H85ENT: COMMISSIONEILi; HERBST
ITEM N0. 2
CONDITIONAL USE; PERMIT N0. 147Q - Requoat for extenRion of time -
Property cons.tating of approxlmately 0,8 acre loca~~d oci thc~ west
side of Anaheim Bou.levard approximately 154 feet no.r4:h of the
centerlino oE Vermont Avenue, and further described as 887 SouLh
Anhheim Boulevard.
The Staf:f Report. to thc Planning Commiseion dated June ?3, 1~75, was ref~rrac7 to and made
a part of the minutos.
Chuirman Pra Tempore I'ar:~no led a discuasion regarding the subject conditiohal uso permir.
which was c~xantea on J'ut~e 10, 1974 by the Planning Commission to c~ntinue operation of a
boacd and care facilily far the treatment of alcoho].:i.cs in the CL Zone, said use being
granted for a period of two years ~~vith possible time extensiona and sLbject to condi.tione,
including bringing the existing structurc up to the minimum stanflards of the Uniform
Biiilding, Plumbing, Electrical, Housing, Mechanical and r'i~e Codes, etc. Duriny said
discussion, it was point.ed out that the ~tructure was n;~t reasonably safe for the resi-
d~nts on the premises; and the Cortunis~ion did nat wan*_ the resp~nsibi.lity f.or any risks
baing taken wi.th regard to the uae of the propErLys however, if the applicant could estab-
lish the fact that withi~i a short period of time an agreement could be reached with the
pro~.~erty owr~c.r for extending the lease to conform to the grant requirement~ of the office
of Alcoholic Program Management., the Commission might be able to grant sorne addit;ional
time f.or completion ot the condit.ions of appr~~v~l £or the use.
Thereupor, Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised that it appeared the pr.operty owner
did not wish t~ extend the lease and that the applicant would be L•orced to find another
loca~ion for ±he use, the nr~sent lease being for four years with a six-year lease being
required by the ~f£ice of Alcoholic Program Management for the government grant.
Cummissioner Gauer noted that the subject use was the best use of tY~e property at the
present time an3 it was unfor.tutiate that the propert:y owner did not see f.i~ ta extend the
lease for the six••year period. He further noted that the applicant should be e~ititled to
at least an additional two-week extension of tf.me to try to resolve the matter.
Commissioner Tolar offered a mol;zon, seconded by Commissioner Morley and MOTJ.oN CF+RRY~D
(Commissioner Gauer voCing r.o, and Commissioner HerbsY_ beiny abserit), that the Plantiing
Commission does hereby deny request for extiension of time for compliance with the condi-
LzQns of approval of Conditiona.l Use Permit No. 1470 and, further, tY~at the subject use of
the property shall terminate effective June 30, 1975, said actions being based on the
foregoing findings.
ITEM NO. 3
VARIANCE NO, 1791 - Request. for exter~sion of time - Prope~:ty
consisting of approximately 7200 square feet, having a frontage
of 63 feet on the south side o~ Tyler Avenue, beiug located
apgroximately 287 feet east of the centerline of Western Avenue,
and further described as 3164 FSes~ Tyler Avenue (zohed RS-7'l00).
The Staff Report to the Planning Commissi.on dated June 23, 1975 was presented and niade a
part of the minutes.
It was noted that the applicants (Kurt U. and Jane Sherrod Singer) were zequesti.ng a five-~
year extenaion of time for Variance No. 1791, to permit the conti~iued use of their single-
family residential structure as a writer's professi~mal offi.ce, as granted by the Planning
Commission on Ma;~ 9, 1966; that the subject variance was qranted for a two-year period,
originaJ.ly, sub~ect to review and consideratian for time extensiona, upcn written requeat
by the applicant; and that four previous extensions of time weze granted by the Planning
C:ommission, the last orie expiring May 6, 1975,
~
~ ~
MINUTES, CITY P1.ANNING COMMISSION, .7uno 23, ].975
ITEM NO. 3 (ConL•inuAd)
75-• 317
Diacueaion pureued whor•ein it wae noted thQre wAa no visible ovidence. that the~ eu~y_r.ct
property wae not juat anott-or residenco in the nnighbarhood end pc~r.n~enoncy for tt:~
variance wc~uld bo appropriata as long As tho pr~porty wae occupi3d by the presant
oc~upa~nte .
CommisAionor Mor.lay offored a moticn, seconded by Cc.nnnisflianer Kinq and MC~TTOy CA~2RIIED
(Commiaeioner Horbst b~ing absont), that the Plannfng C~mmiAaion does herebX grant a
permar.ent oxtonHion for Variar~cr. No. 1791, subject to tlie property being occupied by I:he
prasent ocuupante,
ITEM N0. 4
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1143 - Request to oxpand an existii~q
pre-school - Property consisting of apprcximately .46 acr~~,
haviny a frontage of aoproximately 73 fe~t un the east slde af
Gast Streot, being located approximately 212 feer soui:h of the
centerline of La Palma Avenue, and fur~her deacribed as
744 North Eaat Street.
Althouqh lha Staff Report to the Planninq ~ammiealur-~ datc:d .7une 2?; 1975, waw not read nt
tha mec~ting, said Staff Report is roferr.ed to arid made a part of the minutes.
The Planning Commission entered into discus~ian i~eqardinq the propo3ed expan~ion, during
w}iich it was ~ointed aut that since the use vras ~riqinally grantad under a co~iditional uso
F~Prmit, it was probably granted subject to plttns and cnrtain othar condi.tions; and~
further, in all fairneas to all p~rtles, an additi.onal publi.c hearii-g s}iould be required.
Deputv ~ity Attorney Frank Lowry advi.sed that a publ±c hear~s~g was appropriate.
Commissioner Gauer offered a moti.on, ~ec~nded by ~ommissioner Johnson and MOTION CAItRI~D
(Commis9ioner Herbst bei.ng abser~t), that the subject reques~' f~r expansion of an existing
pre-school under Conditional Use Permi.t No. 1143 shall require a public hearing.
TTEM NO. 5
RECLASSIFICATION N0. 73-74-36 AND CONDITIONAL USL rERMTT N0. 1130 -
Request for deletion of conditi.ons of approval concerning Romneya
Grive dedication 3nd maintenance.
It was not~a that a recomm~ndai:ion was received from the Direr.tor of the Public Wozks
Dep3rtment to terminate all proceedings for tlic est.b~ishment of. a maintenance district to
maintain the landscaping on Romneya Drive from Euclid Street westerly, said recommendation
being based on the current City policy to maintain all arterial 5treets and highways,
includiny landscapinq; and that Romneya Drive was being developed as a fo~~r-lane secondarf-
type artarial streetc.
Ir_ was further noted that a condition of approval of Reclassificatian No. 73-74-36, estab-
Zishing the Anaheim Shores Planned Community, required that "a pei•petual maintenancc
agreement, acceptable to the Cir.y Attorney's Uffice, for the maintenance of the Romr,eya
Drive median landscaping shall be filed and recorded"; Lhat a conditi.on of approval of
Conditional Use Permit No. 1130, to expand an exi~ting medical cen~:er (Marti~~ Luther
Hospital) required that "a parkway maintenance assessment district tu provide £or perpetual
maintenance of thP median pl.anter proposed in Romneya Urive sha~l be established in accord-
ance with Council Poli.cy No. 532"; and tnat a previous request to delete the above-mentioned
conditian af approval of Conditional Use Per.mit No. 1130 was proposed by Martin LuthE~r
Hospital, hawever, said request was denied by the Planninq Commission on 'ebruar~~ 3, 1975.
Deputy City Attorney Frank l.owry advised that since Che suhject recommenciation would
in~olve a posaible amandment to tt~e Pianning Commisaion's resolutions of agproval of the
subject potitiona, the matter should be set for public hearing.
Com~:~~sioner Gauer offer~d a moti_on, seconded by Commiasi~ner Morley and MOTION CARRIED
(Coh~c~issioner Herbst being absent), that the subject requsst for del3tion of conditions o£
approval af Rec],assification No. 73-74-36 and Conditianal Use Permit No. 1130 be and
hereby ie set for pubtic hearing on July 21, 1975.
.
~
~
~~
~
MTtJUTIs'S, CITY 1 LJINNING COMMISSIRN, Junn 'l3, 1975 75•-31 f)
IT~M 1~0. 6
CONDI'fIONAI~ USI: 1~ERMIT N~~. 6.32 - Roqueet Por tormi n~l:ion --
Pruperty lc~cntu~l at the northw~et cornor of Sycr~mor.~ StrFSAt +snd
Bt~ak 5tr~ot, and fur.thor d~scrib~d ae 501 North East: St•rc:e+t.
It wae notocl thnt on Novumber 9, 1964, tho Plmnniny c:oiamianion qzanCcd Condit- ional Uao
P~~r.m1t No. G32 to ostablieh a sorvico stetL•i.on on th~ subjact pr.nporty~ that ~>n •tune 9,
1975, a publ.lc hAnrinq war~ hold a~ which Canditional Uso Permit Na. 1538 waa qrantod ko
conHGruct a se~lF-sor.vic~ cerweah on tho oubjoct proE:erty~ and that on Juno 2s, 19'15, thn
patit.ionor's ayc~nt vorbally royu~sCod torminnt.ion of Conditic~rAl Us~~ ~ermiC No. G32.
~^ommiasion~,r Gauar. o[farad ;t~-sol~tic~n Na. PC75-l~ a nnd movod tor ite paseay~ t~nd adopCion,
that all pr.ace~dinc~s in conne~ctiun with Conditi.o~~al. Usc~ P~rmit No. f~3^_ bo and hor~hy a.re
Ccrminrtod un tho baniy of th~ forugo.ing findi.ngs, as r~yue~ted by tt~~ patitionor. (Soe
lte. ~~lutioti Book)
~?~ ~vll call, the fc~r~yoing rc~solution was passc~d by thc following votec
71YG5: .'UMI4I55IONEHB: C~AUF.R, .7U~IN50N, KING, TOLAR, FANJINO
NOC~S: COMMISSIONI;Ri: TIUNF.
AASFN`1': C.QtMtIuSIONERS: HERBST
ABSTAIN: COMMI5SIONERS: MORLEX
IT6M N0. 7
VARIANCE NO, 2:i49 - Request t.o rascind Planning Connniooion
aation of May 28, 1975 in connection with i r.~qu~~ C fnr.
oxtons.ton of timc~ and Approval of uso - k~roporty ~~onslflt iny
of a~proximately 1.0 a.cre located at the southwc~:;t cor.n~r of
Broadway and Adacns Stxeet, ~~n~l Lurth~r riescribcc? as 1514 W~9~
Broadway and devc.lopeci w~th the "Pepper Tree Faire."
Mr. David S. Collina, one of th~ applicants, appe<ir.ed before the Plannir~q c:ommission and
Lndic~t:ed altnouyh the proposed lunchroom with .fi~dour and out~oor seating at the subject
location wa~ somowhat diff~ront from the pr~viously-approvea food ~ervices, prc~viouA
ap~roval wtta given to ha~•e ou`.door eating facilities, however, no o~tdoor salQ9 w~re
permitted.
Discuasion follow~d reyarciing the previoua uses grante3 f~r the subject pi ~perty, during
which Staff and the l~lanning Commission ~elt saia us~~~ <l.~l not includF outdoor eating
facilities, i.e., outdo~r seatinq~ however, i•!r. c:ollins insiste:d tliat a onL•io or scu.lpturc~
qard~>n adjacent to the res~auran't wab part of tt~e previoug uad, and the customers were
allo~red '•0 7.eave the rostrtursnt and qo into said }~at~_o or garden to eat th~ir food an9,
therefore, the previous uae aould be interpret~d to include outdoc r seating
The Planning ~~mmissi.on entc:red into discuss? ~n reyardin? the previous obiectione ot the
nc~iqhbors r,c~ the rroposed use~ ot tha nropert y, follow?ng which the Cammiasion genorally
conr.ur. red thuL- t}i< <ppliuant should obtain letters from ad jacent property owners that they
did not object t~ th~ iiew iroposal; and furtheL, that the Staff be d~r.ected to research
through thn records to make a det:erZninatior. as to whether a use similar to the one beiri3
Proposed was gzanted pr~~iously, wiC'~ a rep~rt ~n che matter to be mado to the Planning
Commission as soan ~s possible,
ITEM NO. t3
RESOLUTION OF CONII~(ENDATION - Charles W. Rober. ts , A3siat ~~ ~tt
Dev~.loFxnent Services Director-Zoning.
Commiszioner Gauet off.ered a motion, seconded by Comr.~i~sioner Faran~ and MC•,ION CARRTED,
that Sta~f be direc~c^d to prepaLe an apr,ropriate resolution of commen9ation to Mr. Charles
W. Rober~s, on the occasi~n of hi.; :.esignation £rom employment w;.th tt~ ~ Cityo uf Anaheim
an~ in appreciation for his advianry services to the P.lanning Commission.
AR70URNMEt1T - Th~re being no furr,her business to discuss, Conanissioner King
r of £ered a matioz~, secoi: '~d by Comn~issioner Johnsan and MOTION
CARRTED (Commissioner Herbst being absent), to adjuurn the
meeting.
~Phe meecing adj~--urned at 6:40 n.m.
RespectfuJ.ly submitted,
~`,~,~,~J.~ ~~.~t.-~K.. ~
Patricia B. 5canlLn, Srcretary
Anaheim C:ity Planning Commtea~on
PBS : tun