Minutes-PC 1975/07/210 R C 0 MICROFlI.MING SERViCE, INC.
~
~
~
~
c.tr.y iinit
Annhei.m, Calif<~rnia
:fU.ly il~ 1'd7r
RF:GUI,A1t M1.Fs'I`ING ()F '.CHE A1JFUif:TM.CITY F'I.JUaN7NC~ C'nht~tlS;~ION
l2EGULAft - A rcyular rn«iei:in~ oP t:ho Anuhc~im City Planniny C'ommiuei~n wa~n r,nlled ho
MF.f:7`It3c'~ or<1nr by Chairmnn Fbre~no ~~t: 1:30 n,m. .in the i.;ouncil Chrvnitie~r, r~ quorum
b~:i.ny pt'~~~ent.
YRI.SGN'P - CNAIRMAN: P'r~x~ano
- CUMMISSIONER~,: Dar.nas, H~7rbst., John~iun, Ki.ny, YNc~rloy, Tol+.-r
AJ3'~;EN'I' - COt•1MIS~IONrRS: None
RLSO PRFsSFt7T - Fr~1nk I:,~wi~y
Jay 'r:itus
Dun Van Dc~rZ~~
Anni.ka Santalahti
Allan L~uum
Fatric:i.a Scanlan
Deputy c:iY_y Attor.n~~y
Ofi':Lr.e I?ngineor
Ch9.e1' C,ui.ldiny Inspe~c:tor
7~onir~ct Supervi:~or
As~intant 7oning Supcervi;~or
Commission S~cretary
PLEI)'~E ~~~' - CotNnissionc~r Nerb~t led ~n the Pl.edge of Allegianco to the Flag uf the
ALL,C:G].ni~Ck: United St.~te~ of: America.
APPROVAL OF - Comm.issioner Johnsen offered u. moti~n, secanded t;y Co,nniiss.ic~ner Morley and
TFll3 MINUTGS MOTION CAF.TtTED (Commisaioner Iiex'bst abstaininy sinr.e lie was not prasen': ~.t
t1~e meet.ing in question) . to ~pprovf~ the m.tnutes c~r L•he meeting of June 23,
1975, a~ subrnitted.
CONUITIONAL USE - rUF3LIC HEARING. WILLIAM C. WJ+C+NEk, 530 Shellman, West c:ovina, Ca.
PERMIT NO. 1537 91790 (Owner); ANDEI2SON CONSTRUCTI~N COMPANY, P. 0. Box ?.26, 4range,
(R~:ADVERTISED) Ca. 92666 (Agent) j reque~tirig permiss~.on to ESTABLI:~H A MOBTLBHOME
~ ~ AND RECI2~ATIONAL VEHICLE PARK on pro~erty describad as: A rectanc~ularly-
shaped parcel of. land cansisting of approximateZy 10 acres located at
the northwest corner of Lincoln Av~,nue an3 Bel Air Street, having approximate frontages of
330 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and 300 feet on the west side of Bel. Air Street,
and havicig a maximwn depth of appzoximately 1290 feet. Pro~erty presently classified
RS-A-43,000 (RESZQENTIA7~/AGRICUI.TUR.AI~) ZONE.
Subjec;t petition was continued from the meetings of May 28 and June 23, 1975, for the
peti.tioner ta submit revised plans and f.urt.~er infos^aation concerning the soil condition.
Nc, one indi.cated t.heir presence in epposition to subjuct petition.
Although the Staff Report to the F~lannir,g Commission dated July 21, 1975, was not read at
the public tieariny, said Staff Re:part is referred to and maue a part of the minutes.
Mr. Tom Anderson, the agenk for the petitioi~car, appeared befure the ~'lanning Commissicn to
answer questions regarding the proposal.
Chairman Farano questioned whether a sails en~3ineer's report had been ~repared, as dis-
c~issed at the previous meeting w'r-en the suUjer.t maCter was 3cheduled, aiid ir,dicatFd that
uiit•il such time as specific information was available for re~~iew by the Planning Commission
regarclitig t11e stability of the soil on the subject property, since the propprty was a
former d~xmp site, the Commission w~s not in a position to make an evalua~ioii of the proposal.
hir. Anlerson replied that the proposal had been revised and no pormanent atructurea were
prunosed to be located ovor the area which was the dump sike; that they had not retainad
':he aervice~ of a soils engineer to the preaent time since they wanted to know wheth~r the
project would be approved ar disapproved prior to any addirional axpendi~ures and they
would not be opposed to the additional exoenaes, provid•~d they were asettred the project
would be approvedj howaver., they h~d retained a consulting engineer.
?5-337
~ ~ ~
M1IJU7'E:;E~~ ('I'1'Y Pi.J1NNING COMMl:.;~iT~,.i~ ~luly 21~ I')'1":~ 75-33H
CONnT'I7.ONAL_U~F. I~F:RhlI7' N0. 1~3 ~ (H1:ADVI;T2'1'TS~:I~)_ (~~~nti.nu~~d)
rhal.i~mun I~'nrano l-liun quo:it;ion<.~i iC Chu r~ei.i.;:ic~nor had ~viy duubt. in hi.r~ min~i ~a:+ tc~ whAk t:h~~
wir~hefi of t:.h~~ Planninh Caimni;asiion wor~~ ot tho m~oti.ng of May 7.8, 1.975, when a 9C~~)H onc~i•-
nr~cr':~ r~~~or.t. wrul t'equu~3ted. 'Ther~uE~c~n, Mr. Andurson rei.t~r'utr.d thut they hud not.
~~locCt~d tr~ yu tr~ the uddi;:~onral nxEx~nye %~t ~-ha prc~er.nL time, hut hnd ch~znhn.l l:h~~ ~.vurall
~~lun :~o r.hat. t:~ir.zc~ wor~e nc.~ [)fJT'111f111CI1t. ykrUCCUT't`9 to lio situ~itec; aver. lhc~ nr.oa i.hat: wnia th«
fc~rmer. dumj~ e~.ite.
c~hairman Far.;~no th~~r~ ofPr.riid to p~~ll L-hu othor Cnmmisr~ionocs for an opinion ne tu wh~t:hor
to o~~ei; t.he j~ublic: tieax•iny on '~ha subjac~: l,oti.ti.on, in view of: the .informrttion pr~~e~anti+d
obov~~, wherc.~upon, Commi3sicnc~r 'folar n<.,t~>d that it. would be dif`icult ko muke a d~rr,i.sinn
on~ wr~y or lhe uther wiL•hout lhe beneflt of the soils cnyineer.'s r.eport.t that: if t.h~3 arn~
was duttrmined by saicl xepor.t to bo unsafe ~nd simil.ar to t:he moblleh~~me park to i.ho we~ti.
of. the subject praperty, th~an he would not b~ in fz~vor of the pr.oposal; that thc~ I~1Ann.in~~
Comm.i.ssi.on was dc~sir.ou:; of having ~hc~ ~c~i.~s unginecr'~ re~~ort; th~xt thc r.rvi.~;ed p.lan3 w~~re
acc~~~~table as far as F~lans ~.n yeneral wr.ro coric~rn~~; L-hut oix~ of the ma~.n c:^~r.~.rns wae
relatr.d to ~he m~thane yas ~~roblems3 whf.ch wnre inh::rc~n~. w.ith c'unip sites ttnd, ~n.lr.nfl a
r.evort was for.Lhcominy which woulcl indicate tYu,re w~ru no ~~r.oblems cm the sit~i wit•h
mcthanc yas, etc., thei~ }~~~ wo~~ld not be :.n f.av~r of the project.
C.hairman i'arano .inquirt~c~ if. ~:he petittoner. was desirous af a further continuanc~~ of l'.t1L
3ubjc~ct public heari.ng, and h1r., Aru~erson ~:Cated tliei.r. option to purchase the property was
expiriny th18 GI3tE-'. 7'hcrcupon, Chai~•man Earano advised that in accardance with adoF>ted
procedures, the petitioner. wa:~ entitled to a decision this date and, U.llE:33 ttie ~.et:i.t..ianer.
requested a continuance, thc i'act khat the petitioner. had neqlected L•o provtde the intorma-
tion determined to bc~ necessary on which to ba~e a decision would probably wexyh heavily
in said decisioi~. Mr. Anderson ir.dicat~d that he was not interested in a continuance and
requented tliat the ~~ublic hoaring be onencd and a decision rendered at '•his meet.ing.
CHAIRMAN FARFINO OPL•'i1~D THE PUBLlC HEARING.
Mr. Anderson pr.esente~j a proposal and stated tt~e main reason they had nct marle a s~i1~~:
engineering report was that a report was made previously for. the site; that the soi.]~;
consultant tiad indicated that L•he propercy was fe3sible to ret,~in the r.c~r,essary uti s
for the proposed prujecti that if they coul.d receive approval of the pro~sal, th~ •
would proceed to obtain an up-to-date soils enginPer's report and r_o make t:he ~~ro
workable; tha'~ four or five perman~nt structures were proposed ovez~ a small port~
the dump site area, however, their engineer had advised it was possible to r.ewo~
and thereby ob~ain a favorable report that the ground would not prese:it a soils ~
preblem; thet he wa~ aware of the problems in the mobi.lehome park site to t.he ~~4 "~
subject prooerty, inclu3ino the methane yae, however, ]te was advised th3t .i.f ~~~' ~`~~
existed ~n the subject p~~perty, th~n no permanent structures should be bui? . '~
that a greenbelt be mai ,tai.ned on that portion of the property which they w~ ~-~
concur in, and if. grounrj settlir,,q accurred in the greenbelt area, it coul.d ' -- '~:'' e~
out and would not dama~3e structures; and that. the greenbelt would c.r.cat.e a~~>> ~~~ t-~~y
~~r for
for the campers ati~d recreatic~nal vehicles which woul~ occupy the property ~v~
a week or so at a time.
In respons~ t~ rn,°Gr_~;;=.n9 by C;~ai~ ^~.^. I'arano, Mr. Anderson stateG he hacl re•~ :•A-~ ~.ho
mobilehome park to the west as recently as one week ago and was awar.e of r.he ~~ ~~ ~r:.y
damage being caused by the presence of inetnane gas and settling of thE+ ~.>> oi~err ~_ ~.3 that
according to his erigineer, there was no reason to believe thut methane ~~:~s w:.~- r~ent on
the subject property.
Commissi.oner Herbst mada an observation that L•he petitioner was proposiny t~~ =~- approxi-
mately s.ix moUilehome sikes located over the dump site ar~a; wher.•eupon, Nt~ anc~ar.son
atated he had discussed the six ir.obilehome site3 with ~he Chief Rui].dinq insj•.:tor and waa
proposing to completely excavate the apglicable are~s to E~~_~t i;l solid fill ma~erials so
there wuuld be no c~anger to the structuzes lucated therc. ~ur,~R~is~ioner Her.:st then noted
that he did not presently have a quarrel with the proposed us~ in rhe swbject a.roa, however,
it was difficult to consider this particular site f~r residentiaJ. purposes, especially
after havinq viewed the mobilehom~ park to the wes:: on this datr_~ and seeing the 2 to 3-
foot land settlement which was r,ausing the mob3.let..,mes to literally f,111 apar~, and the
gases were cletrimental to the health of the indiv!.~~ials r.esid_iig on ~he property.
~ ~ ~
r t
M' NLITLS ~ C:TTY PiJ~ivi~INl; CUMPIISS lC)td ~ July 21 ~ ~ 97'_'i ~ ~~ {~ ~
( U;~DI'CION7II. U:.:t: PT:EtMT~J'_ Nq. 1537 (liI:AUVLRTiSED). (Contlnued)
Mr. Jnm~e~ at:~~nnan, Lh~ c~nytn~~or tor thu propoc+al, aF'~(~cnred l~c:fore thc, Pl.~nni.ng C:omm~.sr~ion
and e,tatud the yix moLileh~7me !a1tQa would bo cont~GiucC~d on com~let~Iy z:xb~o yround
matoc~ial.
Chnirr~ .~ [ar.anc~ iiohod th~at he did noL• knuw anynn~i who would wiint. to .live ovc+r esn area that
wae known to h~~vo met.hane qas E~roblemat thnt, in viaw of. kho Cact that thc potiLi.or~c~r wa[~
w.U.tlny Co ~,i.iraue th~~ matLer, ho wou:ld aek if ~.ho petir.i.onar was wi.l~in~ tu ~ut up col.-
l.~tar,~l. tl~ar, woixld .insur.e the 1.if:~, ~ufat.y e~nd genera.l wc~lfac~e of th~ fut:uro r'c~bid~nt:~ ~xt
Che s~il.~jocC ~!~cut..i.an; whereupon, Mr. 8runnati ~+tah~d thc~y would bca wil]..ing to put ~ogether
n clocn:m~nt ~iqr~cmr_nt: for t.r:c~ mai.nt:~nnnce of. cha prc~;j~ct. C'h~ixm,ip Farano f:urtiic~r notu~l
ti:at; tho darn~yes ir~ the adjacent mc,biluhnmci parY. wc:re a.lmost. overwholminyt *h.;t the r~si-
dentss o£ t}ae ~djac~en~: [>ar.k aould not do anyL•hing fluauc: t.hoir situation without complete
f..~nant:ial chaos for th~~ms~lvegt thc~t Gho r,c~titiono,•, frum th:~ ~videnco pre~entecl, was
seeking approval. t.c~ c.r.ear.~ ~ncthe~- :~itut-t.ion that might result in exactly what was oxist-
ing in the acljar,on~. mab~.lchomo parlc, sir.cc L•he petitioner d:id not want to providc inf~rma-
tion that wou'ld gi.v~ thn Planning Commi.saion a w;~y to detormine whether. , indeec~, L•he
subject oropr.~rt.y m.ight bc~ sr.~fe.
Mr. Bxennan thc:n st3ted that i.f Ghc: proposul was upproved they wc~uld not proceed to conStruct
anythinq on the pr.oporty until thc~ City was sat.tefied t.hat the soils work was done and
mticl~: safe fo~ ~-he project. Chairm.an Farano took exception, notinq that th~ petitioner had
n~t s4an iit, to-date, L-o sati.afy thE~ desires of the Planning Commission nnd, theref.ore,
there was some d.o~bt ~zs to ~he eiitcerity of the intentions beiny presc~nted at this public
hea~: i.ny .
TttE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commisr~ioner Mor.ley cffcred a moti.on, seconded by Commissioner Tolar an~3 MOTION CAItRIED,
that the Planiiing Ccnunission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the subject
project be exempt: from the requirdment to prepare an Envi.ronmen~.al Impact Report, puz3uant
to the provisions of t-ic ~alif.ornia Envi.ronmental Quality Act.
Commissioner Morley offered Resalution No. PC75-158 and moved for i.ts passage and adoption,
that Petition for c.onditional Use Permit No. 1537 (readvertised) be and hereby is iienied
on the basis tt~at. the pr•:titioner demanded a decision by the Planni.ng Commissi~~n without
the Conunis~ion having the benefit of adequate information (i.e., a soils engineer's report,
as requested) on which to make a knowledgeabZe decision regarding ~he proposal.
Chairman Farano requested to amend th~ foregoing resolution to include a fiiiding thati,
pursuant to Municipal Ccx~e Section 18.03.03Q.035, a showing could not be made that the
grat-ting of this con~litiona 1 use peri^it under thc c;~~nditions set forth in the Staff Report
to the Planning Commission will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general
welfare of the citizens of. the City of Anaheim; and that the Planning Commission has
reason to believe the subj~ct prnr,erty, being a former dum~ site, may have problems related
to extensive ground settlin-.~ dI:~.: methane .,.as, etc. , simillr to t:l~c exi.sting mobilehame
site located to the immediate west of the subject property, sai.ci existing mobilehome park
presently e:~per.iencing obvious property damages frrom said earth settling.
Commissianer Morley amended the foregoin~ rpsoluY.ion to include the additiona7. finding.
(See Resolution Book)
Chairman Farano again offered to hotior a req~iast for continuance of the subject matter
in order £or the petitioner to provide tYee soil~ engineer's report, as requested, on which
t.he Planning Commission coi~ld rely in making their decision. Mr. Ander~on declined the
offer.
On roll call, the forequing resoJ.ution was passec~ by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BA.RNES, HERBu'P, JOHNSON, KING, MQR.•..EY, TQLAR, FARANO
NOES: COMMISSIONER.~: NONE
AASENT: COMMI~SIONERS: NOIJF,
~ ~
MIt~UTES, CI'PY f.'LANNTNG CUMNiTSSION. .Tuly 2.1.~ 1y75
~
~
75-'40
F1El;LASSI@'ICA'I'ION - PU,3L'f.C IfLARING. INITIATED AY THI: ANAHEIM CITY PT.ANNING CUMMIS3IUN,
N0. 73-74-3G 7.04 C:ast Lincoln Avonue, Anahel.m, Ca. 92A05r TO CONSIQCA D~LETION OF
(R1aAU~/ERTISLD) C:ONDiTI0N5 REQUIRING PTkPF.TUAL M1IINTGNAt~CE A~~tEEMENT ANA A PARKWAY
~ ! MATN'PI:NANCL. ASSESSMENZ' DISTR7fCT on propar.ty described as ~ )-n
COIVDITIONAL USG irr~qular.ly-ahaped parcel of la~d consiating of approxi.mete+ly 14'l acrae
pG'.HMTZ' N0. 1130 locnt~x] northwestarly ~f th~ cornor nf I,~x Pal.ma Avc~nuu nnd ~uclicl St:ro~j~
( R:LADV£R'P I5 FD )
No cmo indicnted th~iz' presenc~ in opposi.ti.on to subjecL• roadvertiead publ.ic hoaririyx.
Dc~~~uty City Attornoy T'r.ank L,owry revi.owod the Staff Repurt to th~ Plenntng Cammisnion
c'.a~tad July 21, 1975, and said SL•arf. ReporC is raferra; tn and madc~ a part af tha minutea.
Mr., Lowry n~ted that tho Uir.ector of the Publ.ic Works Departmont was requosting delekion
of a cot,di4~.i~n of. a~pr.oval uf Roclassi.fication No. 73-74-36 and Conditional Usa Porm~t; No.
11:30, eai3 aonditions portaininq ta a perpetual maintenance agreart~ent and i:ho astablieh-
mertt af a purkway maintenanco aasc~samQnt district, reapec;tivelyt and that snid requet~t gor
delotioc~ was bascad on l-.he fact that Romneya Drive waa being developed a~ rs four-lana,
secondary-type arter.tal street, and tlie Cit•y'~ current policy was t•o muintr,in a.ll arterial
nt:.reets and highways in the City.
THE PUBLIC HrARING WAS CLOS~D.
Commi.saioner King offered Reyolution No. PC75-159 and moved for its passage and ~doption,
that the P1Anni.ng Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council of tF~r~ City of
Anahoim that City Council Reaolution No. 74R-235 approving Recla.~~ification No. 73-74-:?5
U~: vnended tu delete the foll.owiny condit{on ther~from, on the bas'9 of the foreyoing
findi.ngs: (See Resolution Bouk)
"11. That a perpetual maintenacice agreement, acceptable to the CiY.y Attorney's
Office, foc the malntenance of th~ Romneya Drive median ].andscaping, shal.l be
filed and recordad."
Un rol]. call, l-he foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SARNES, HERBST, JOHNSON, ICING, MORLEY, TOLAR, FARANO
NUES: CUMMISSION~R.S: NONE
ABSEN'P: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Commissioner King ~ffered Resolui;ion No. PC75-160 ar.d move3 for its passage and adoption,
t.hat the Planning Cammission does hereby amend Ttesolutian No. PC69-173 approving Conditianal
Use Permit No. 1130, by deleting the fol.lnwing condition tYieref.rom, on the basi.s of the
foregoing f.indings: (See F.esolution Sook)
"5. That a parkway maintenance assessmenti distriot to pravide for perpetual
maintenance of the median planter proposed in Ramneya Drive shall be
established in accordance with City Council Palicy No. 532."
On roll call, the foregoiny resolution was passe3 by~ the fol].owing vute:
AYES: COMM"I.SSION~RS: BARNES, HERBST, JOHNSON, KING, MORLFY, TOLAR, FARANO
NOCS: (;OMMISSIONE;RS: NOP~E
ABSENT: COMMI;;SIONE:RS: NONE
~
~ ~ ~
MINUTLS, CITX hiJ1NNIt~G CUMMT55lAN, July 21. 1975 75-341
FNVIRONM[~,17Z'AI. IMPACT - t~liI3I,2C IILARTNG. ElRIGIU~M YOUNG iINI'JLRSI7'Y, 50 L~ast South Tumple
RI:PORT NOS. 134 AN~ 9Creot, S~lt L.akn C'ity, [ltah 84111 (Own~r); MI~TRGYLK IiOMI:S, INC.,
136 I-, O. Box 1410, UF~lnnd, Ca. 91786 (Aqcnt). Propor.ty do:~cribod ~~s:
--'~ N' ~ An irrogulerly~nhe~{~od parcal of land consistiny of approxlmatc~ly
VARIANC'fs IJ~. 27:~4 137 ncrun lac~atod north u-~d woat af the int~ers~ction of La Palmu
~~~' Avonuo an~1 F:ucllcl SLT'R(lt~ having approximatc~ frontaycs of 2000 fc~~t
9'1:NTATIVi; MAYS un l•h~'~ north nido o~ I,a Pn~.lmx Avanue and 510 f.oet on the west sirlo
OI' TRAC'P:S NAS. oC l:uclid 5froot. T~roporty preyently classified R~3-•A-43,O~G
fl~75~ E~~~)3~ (RI.STQi~.NTIAI,/ACRICUT~TURIIL) 'LONL' (wzmn A Ri:SOI~UTION UF INTI;NT 't0
8795 ANU 6796 RM-2d00).
(REVlS!ONS NO5. 1)
VARIANCI: W'sQUES'I'~ WAIV~:It U1' (A) kF:QUIRSMEN'I' THAT ALL LCYi'S I'RONT UN A PUBLIC STFti;L•"1' ANl)
(T3) MINIMIJM .riIDE YARD SETDACK, TO CONSTRUCT A 224-LOT, MUL'CIPLL~-
F1IMILY kP;SIDE:N'I'IAI~ DEVELOPMEti'I'.
TGNTA~PIVE TItAC'P RH:9UF.STSc ENGINGER: WII,Y,DAN F:NGINfsERING ASSOCIATES, 125 South Claudina
Streot, Anaheim, Ca. 92805. Suhject property is pr~poaed f.or
subdivision as follows:
'i'Ft11CT NO. 8775 (REVISION NO. 1) - 40 RM-'140U TA'PS - 37 UNI'PS
TR1~CT NO. 8793 (R~VISION N0. 1) - 66 RM-2400 LOTS - 62 UNITS
TRT~C'P NO. H795 (RF.VISION NO. 1) - 75 RM-2~300 IAT~ - 7.l UNITS
TRAC'P NQ. 879G (kZEVISION NO. 1) - 43 RM-2400 IATS - 4i tJNT'PS
No ono indictstod their. ~~ro~ence in opposition Y.o subject petition.
A].though the 5L-af f. Rc~port to t}ie Planning Commission dated ,7uly 21, 1975, was not read .xt
the public hearitiq, said Staf.f Report: is referred to arid made a part of tt~e minutes.
Mr. James Christenaen, reprosenting the agent f.or the petitioner, appeared bef~re the
Planni:~g Commission and statod bocauRO of the changes in the economy, they wcre unable to
finance the project as or~qinally propne~d and, therefore, were seek.iny to revise their
tract maps and obtain two waivers from the Code requirements; that Chey were pro.posing to
~hanqe the cdncnpt from conc~ominiums to a single-family concept which was more in keeping
with the public demand, as well as the datnand of the savings 1nd loan institutians; that
the ,roject was originally approved °or approximately 11 units per gross acr.e and they
were proposing 6.3 units per groas acret that th~y would have single-family homes, whi.ch
were multiple-family units with yards or patios; and that since t.here was no opposition
present at this meetirtg, it appeared the project was what the rieighbors and others in the
area ~~ranted .
Mr. Chri.stenson then took exception to khe recommended r.ondition of approval requiring
certa~.n gublic street improvements ~o be made with 1:he first ~~hase of construcrion of the
tracts, not~ing ~.hat it appeared all the street ir..rovements connected with the planned
community were required prior to the selling of any of tYie homes. Deputy City Attorney
Frank Lowry advised that the developer wou]•d be requi.r~:d to install the lake and the
?ublic street improvementis within the trac~s, as well as install the traffic signal at La
Palma Avenue and Romney~. Drive, concurrently with the first phase of the development while
di.ligently pursuing the other public street improvemer~ts and the drainage under tYie free-
way, etc. Mr. I.owr.y further. advised that a letter or agreement had been prepared by tl~e
Cou~lty Counsel and Orange CounCy Water District which had rnet the approval of the Anaheim
City Attorney and City Engineer, and was reacly for presentation to the City Council for
anproval, said aqreement being in connection with the hole or tunnel which was required
t}u'ough (under} the Riverside Freeway to dut7p thc~ waters from the subject property into
the Fullerton drainage ditch.
Following further clarification by Office Engineer Jay Titus, Mr. Christensen withdrew his
objections to khe foregoiny conditional approval, on the basis that hP had misunderstood
said conditian which excluded, rathar than inc].uded, the improvements to Medical Center
Drive and othAr improvements o~itside the tract.
Commissioner Herb3t noted tha',: the pr.oposal. was to put a single-family concept in a multiple-
`amily zon~: and was an ef[ort to utilize the best cF both; however, the pr.oject would end
up as an R-1 t~act with 28-£o~~t wide streets, 6 to 10-foot setbacks with no automatic
garage doors, vc~ry small ~,arde and very 1lttle open space. Mr. Christensen concurred and
stated that by takinq khe best ~~f the two zones, they would have a much better project
than was appruvod proviously, with more open space than ~efor.e which would be owned in
common by the reaidonts.
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, C'ITY PL~ANNTNG c.:OMMIS5I(7N, July 21, 1975 7F-342
P;NVIRONMFNTAL TMI~ACT RlsPUK'P NO~, 134 AND 13G, VARIANCE NU. 2724~ l1ND TrNTATIVC MAP c~r T1tACT
NOS~. fi775, fi793, 8795 ANU 8796 (REVISICNS N~S. 1) (C:onkinuoc3) ~._ _,___,_~.~^_ ._
In raepoi~NO to quoet•ionin,y by Commi.s9ionor H~rbal•, Mr. Chr~iet:enauri atat~~l tha closent
recrnsCional facility Lo ~ha furtll~~at h~tne wns about 300 foQ~t that althou9h tha l.ota
w~~uld ~~ E~rive-i.uly own~cl, r.tmre wot-]d b~ a strip of. l.and xlongside oac:h lot thut would bo
c~~mnonly ownod by tho }:omoown~rR uesociationJ that th~ car~ would bo pur.kad iii opor~ prsrk-
~nq ypaeos Chr~uyho~.~t Che entiro pr~ject, over and abova the two-~ur. gaz'clcJea for c~ar.h
hc~mci~ tharau,x~oi, Commir~einn~r. llorbst not•ed that 1:hc~ r~creational ar.eas and parkin9 werc~
inconvnninnt t:o a lory~ numbor of the homeq. Mr. Christensen stated ir. would appear that
tho Planniny C'ommiseion woul.ci rather eee the~ previuus proposal devolope~l on the pr.o~~orty,
wharouE~on,~ c:ommiyaie~n~!r florbsL• noted tl~at the present prop~sal was for a substandarcl R-1
tr~YCt, how~v~r, hu wuuld pr~abably ].ike t}~e propo:aal. botter. if it did not tiave the 2H-foot
wlda atroete. Mr. Chr'.~tunt~on then stat~d some of the str.eet3 were 36 fcet. wide next Lu
tho nr.teri~lxr that th~~ro would t~e cu.rbs and qutters anc~ not rolliny curbsJ that FHA
w~ntod x4-foot. wido etrc>nta~ that the projer.C was improv~d about 90~ by cutting down the
doneity end hy r.otaini:;y L•h,~ condominium amenitie3= that the impaat w~uld be leasened for
tho echooln a-id s~tceeta in the area; that all of tho lots would bo a minim~un of. 400~
equaro Poot, as ~..^. tho Rt4-40()0 2one; howover, they were only required to ttave 2400-square
Fuot lotc~ alncc: t.Y~oy nad RM-24~U zaning on thr~ pz'opertyt ~~1~ that there would be m~ich lnss
cor. s in 'ctte pro j~.~r.~ with tho reduc~d density.
Comm.iesioner H~rbet uddod that h~~ did not agrec that. the developez' should use tY~e R-1
^oncopt Rinco Che propoyed lot sizes wer~~ about 3000 square feet less than the requiremant:
f~r singlo-faimily dotached homes.
Diecusai.on puxsuod r.egarding the concept beinq ~~roposed, includinq the siae of tho lots,
ownc~rahip of the land, dwellin.ns and upen space, the accessibility of tlie opan spuc~ t~
Fach lot, number and lo~atiot~ oi parking spaces per dwelling, l•he width o£ the propasod
streets whiah we:ra private, etc.; and Chairman Farlno noted that the project waR appar.sntly
to be called sinqle-family detach~d, while in reality it, was something elser thaY the
pc~titio:~er. was not doing the Planning Commission ar L-he City a favnr by creati.nq r.hie type
of situac.ion which ~.~ sure to be duplicated by other developers if approved. Thnreupon,
Mr. Chr.isc:er_sen st, there were connecting paths to the cr~mmon ar.eas and ha likc~ned the
subjrct proposai !~.ln S.I.R. development in Anaheim Hi11s Hhich he stated was approved by
the City Planning Commission and the City Council; whereupon, the Commission clar.ified
that the aubiect proposa]. was r.ot similar to ::he S.I.R. developmeni:, with raspoct to the
parking, recr~aational-~eisure area:, open space, e~c. Chair.man Farano notc~d that the
subject project apoeared to be more of an RM-4000 development than a single-family
detached; hawever, if it was to ba single-family detached, then no wa.ivers would be
required.
Mz. Christensen erplained that if the F•roposed revisions were not approve~3, then thoy
would develop the groperty according to the p.revious proposal; nowever, they wer~ nut
propoaing to reduce or incr.ease the parking tY-at was previously appraved, only to reduce
the density of the dwelling units; that they had nat felt they cou19 receive adequate
finanring for the devE~lopment, as previously proposed, and .it was not finan~ially feasible
to develop the proPerty ro rhe single-family req~aiYements, since the homas woul.d become
too expensive; and that if the Commission fnlt the propo3al shoulcl bp referred to a~ a
multiple-family developm~~nt, then he was agreeable to that.
Commissioner Tolar noted that, although ha agreed that many people did not want big yards,
and the subject project was not particularly bad, he disagreed that the proposal was a
single-family subdivisinr~.
Conunission~r Hc~rbst noted that the Fropusal should be reviewed and revised by the developer
to indicate connecting pathways to the common areas. Chairman Farano also noted concern
that the c:ommon areas were not immediatel.y accessible to the dwellings, but were in some
cases a quaa:tFr of a mile away with no pathways. Mr. Chzistensen clarified thar, the
separating walls or fences were otily 2 feet hiyh so as not to disturb the view oi the
lake, and the CCbRs would stop the ~eop~.e from puttinq up high walls and, furthar, the
developer had been working on this project for about two years and was hurting financially.
Chairman Far.ano took exception, noting that the developer was giving the impression that
the Commission was placirig a stone ar-~und his neck if the proposal was not approved.
Asaistant Zoning Supervisrr Alyan Daum noted f.or the Planning Commission that the: Building
Division was desirous of adding a condit`.ion of approval to those set forth in the Staff
Report as follows: That all residentia:l lot lines, except those abutting a c:ommon lat,
shall be a minimum of 3 feet from tt-e proposed residential structuras."
~ ~ ~
MINUTRS, CI'1'Y P:LJINNIPIC; C'OMMI:~5IQN i Ju.] y 2]• r 197 •`~
75-343
t:NVIRONMENTAL ]'.F1PA~'T REPORT NOS, ]34 ANU 13G, VAItIANCF Nr~, '1724, AND T~N'CATTVE MAP Or 'PFtI~CT
NOS, f3775, A79+, R795 AND_N796 (RI:VISI:ONS NOS._ ].) (Cotlti.r.Ued; ~ -
Chi.c~f Rui~.ding Inspcct;or. Dan Vr-n Dorpo not4d L•hat tha Buil.ding Divieiun preParred a 3-foot
d~L-back to c~lim.inatc Euturc enf.orcemont ~~rc~b]ems; rhu~ ~vith z~~r.o ].ot l.inas, khey wor.e ru-
quir.ed to enforcc the CC&Ry, howe~vor, with l:hc': :i-foot setback ttioy Wo~,La jU~t enfarce lhe~
C~do r.eyuiremonts wi.thouC b~~o~virig involv~d with thr. CC&R:~r that tho tontative tract ma~~
di.c,l n~,t show kho lor.aLion uf tho pr.o~orty lin~s~ aitd that no buildinq~t would bc r.equirE,cl
to be removed, but t:he lot linns ehould k~e a minimum of 3 fc~et f.rom tha build.ings.
Mr. Christenson to~~k excep~ion tu the sug~c,~ted additiona.l condition of a~pLOVal, stating
khat sucli a requirement v~ould raff.ect t.he project• quite a bit, especially on L-he cul-rio-
sacs whcro there were shor.t drivoway~ und thc ~lriveway could not be clos~r than one f~ot I
frum the side Prop~rty li.nc, whicil might precludc having a drivoway on the cul-de-sac;
that the5~ wou.ld be willing ko co,~struct 3 five-hour ii.:e wal.l .in the ceilinys of tha
dwo111ny ~1111US~ i.n lieu of the suagested conditian. Mr.. Christensen £urt.her stated the
r.esidents and h~~ wauld prefer to have t'ne 10 to ].2 feet bet:~veen bui.ldings, ruther thnn the
6 feet• suggestr_c9 by the Bui.lding ~ivision. M.r. Van Dorpc~ then clarii•ied thak the air-
cond? ti~ning wa:; requirod to bo an additionaX 5 feet from tl~e dwelling, or a toL•al of fi
feat fzom the property line Co the dwr:llinq.
Mr. Chrie~en~en 3tipul~ted to complyiny witt~ the for.egoirig conditions of ~pproval and
stated t'iat aIL-hcugh the streets were private th~~ had aqreed to construct them to Cit:y
standarde.
Chair.man Farano alazifiod that in Trac~ N~. A~O1 in the Santa Ana Canyoa, ~ach lot had a
substanti~zl amour..t of commanly owned pro~erty immediately adjoini~g it with the entrance~
being from the street, with opon space in the back yard and open-apace parkinc~ throughout
t.he project; and thaL• the referericed tract, i~i hi.s opinion, was ir~ ttie tr.ue spir.it offer.•-
iny a lot of comm~~n ar.ea and the resid.:nts did not have to go through srn~ieone else's
properL•y to get to the open spa~~t.
Commissiot~er Hezbst noted that the development would have chi.ldren residents and would
need t11e ope-i s~ac~; thai: the lake area was not usabl.e open space; and that, in his opinion,
the density was la~a because t11e iake was part of the gross land area being considered.
Commissioner Tolar. noted that peaple with chi.ldren probably would not buy in the subject
development; whureupon, Commisrioner llerbst differed, nating that L-he people would get
"st~ick"; however, if the project was to be a planned community development, then it should
have the pathways an3 the contiguous open space; that if the project- was RM-4000 i.t would
have three-car garac;es anci automatic gara~e d~cr apeners and, for those reasons, he pre-
ferred the projec~ that was p:-eviously approved oi~ the property versus the current proposal.
Chairman Farano CLOSI:U THL PLIBLIC ItEARING ar~d terminate~l the discussion between ihe
petitioner and the Ccmmission and, thereupon, rPquested to know the Commission's desi.res
on the subject matter, r_ommisaioner Herbst noted that he was oppo~ed to the proposal in
its present form sinc~~ it would be setting an undesiz'able precederit; however, hc would
like to see the petitiorier revise the tract maps to clearly show the chan9es suggested an3
discussed by the Planning ~ommission at this mc~eting, since tentative tract maps became a
reality in most cases ~-nd the amenities wsre simply not shown or. the present ma~.s.
In response to questic,aing by Commissioner Morley, Mr. Christ.ensen stated he would not
like a continuance but would like a decision at this meeting, whereupon, Cummissioner
Herbst noted that the. developer had been working on this project for app.r.,ximately two
years, by his own adrnission, and the Commission had the proposal before them for only a
few days, and since t.here were some i.morovements being su9gested, he cuuld not understand
the attitude of the developer.
~ommissioner Herbst. offered a n~otion, secon3ed by Commissioner Barnes and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissioner :Johnson voting "no"), that ronsideration of Envi.rorunental Impact Report No.
134, Addendum No. 3, EIR No. 136, Variar,;e Nu. 2724, and Tentative Map of Tract Nos. 8775
(Revision No. 1), 6793 (Revisi~n No. ~1, 8%95 (Revision No. 1) and 8796 (Revi;;ion No. 1)
be and hereby are continued te the meeting of ALgust 4, 1975, for revised ~,lans, a~ recuested
by the Planning C:ommissior~.
~ ~ ~
75-34A
MINUTL.S, CI'PY Pi,ANNING COMMISSICN, .luly 21, 1975
CUNDtR'TONAI.~ USL' - PUL~LIC HEARING. 1tONA~D S. MUCY.ENTNALE:R, ~90 McAulay Placo, I~quna
NF:RMIT Nn. 1552 A~ach, Ca, 926">1 (Own~r) y ORVILLL: EMEIiSON, ~R„ 22362 Savona Str~et,
` Lugurin fiills, c:a. 92G!i3 (Ag~nt) t r.Qquc~eting ppr•miasion to E5T1\ALI3ti Rril
AUTOMOl+tI~[: R~PriIR FAC:[L['PY WITN WAIVCR OF MININIUM BUILDTNG SETnACK on
proporty 4oecr.lUed as: A ractrsngular.ly-shapAd parcel of land conq:Latiny of approximataly
U.5 ~tcre .lor.atod at tt'-n norL•I~e~et cornor ~~f MirAloma Avenue and Mi11oI Stroet, having
approximuto t'rorit.e-ges ~ti 1SU f.cot on t:~o nortti eide of Mlrnloma Avonue anci 150 foet or~ thd
oaet aido af Millrr Stroot, atid furthor ~~:~9cribed as 3375 blirrsloma Av~nue. Proporty
pres~~ntly cl.aseiL'i~d ML (TND[1STRIAL, L.M1'CF.D) ZUNE.
One N~.rson indir.ated thoir proaencc in oppositian to oubjoct p~tition.
Aeaishant r^.on.iny Supervisor Allan Daum ro+id tha Staff Report to tt-e !'lanning Coimniagion
dnL•ad July 21, 1975, and sui3 Sta!'f Report is referred to as iP sot forth in full i.n tlie
minutc~.
Mr, Orvilln Etnerson, Jr., tha agant for the~ potitioner, appeared before th~ Planning
CommiaHion and stat•ed the s~~bject praperty was prosantly u vncant servico statio~i Rite and
tho proposal wac- to havt an automotive rQpair eenters that a signific:ant aunount af land-
ycaping was plaiined £or tho site; and that the develope~ wou].d moot tho Code requiromonts
whera p~ssible f~~r the ncw uso.
Nic. Melville McLean, 834 5outh Diana Pluce, Anaheim, appeazed bafoxe the l~lanning Commiasi.un
i.n oppusition to sub7ect potition and sL•ated he owned proporty acroas r_he stre~t f.rom tho
subject rronerty and wou.ld like to h~v~ some assura~tce tha~ the subject pr~perty would not
hecome a storage placc for used aut~~mobiles.
.ner.eupon, Mz. IInerson stipulatod that the subject prapezty would not become a storage
place for used autom~biles and, if necessary, he w~uld have his attorney draw up nn agree-
ment to tha.t effect. '
TEiE PUF3LIC ~IFARING WA:i CLOSED.
The Planniny Commigsion entered into discussion with Mr. E~nerson regarding the canopies
and pump islands, d~~ring which Mr. F~nerson indicated the rea~ans for not proposi.ng the
removal of the canopies and pump islands was due to cost of sai.d removal and, fur.ther.more,
the areas could presently be used for plants. The Planninq CommYSSion indicated that if
the u~e was changing, then the property should not resemble a,service station in any way;
wtierespan, Mr. Emerson stipulated to removing *_he exi~ting canopies and pump islands and
withdrawing the requested waiver.
Ir- response to questioning by the Planning Commission, Mr. E~~rson stipul.ated to relocatin
the existing trash storage area to allnw adequate access for tr:~.sh t.rucks, said area to be
in accordance with approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works;
and further stipul~ted rhat the vacant surrounding l~r.operty would not be useci for parking
for the subiect use.
It was noted that the Dir.ector of the Dev~lopment Services Department had detern,in~d that
the proposed activity fell. within the definition of Section 3.01, C:Lass 1, of the City ef
Anaheim Guidelines to the Requir.emei~ts for an ~nvir.onmental Impact ReporY. and was, there-
fore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR.
Commissioner Herb~t offered Resolution No. PC75-161 u~id move..-~ for its passage and adoption,
t~iat Petition for Cot~ditional Use Pex'mit No. 1552 be and hereby is grani.ed, in part, on
tne basis ihat the petitioner withdrew the requ~steci waiver of the mi.nimum building setback,
subject tr~ the stipulations of the petitianer and subject to Tnt:erdepartmental Committ.ee
recommendaLions. (See Resolution Bo~k)
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the followlny vote:
AYE5: COMMISSIUNERS: DARNE5, HERBST, JOHNSON, KINV, MORLEY, TOL.AR, FARANO
NOGS: COMMISSIONERS: IvONE
AASENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
~
• ~
MINUTES, C:'L'I'Y PWNNYNG (:OMMIS5TON, July 21~ 197ri
75-J45
C(~NDITIONAL USF - PIJBLIC H~ARING. C]:TY UF FULI,G:R'fON, c/u Mz'. Edmund Gxono, D.ir.ector. oi
PERMIT NO. 1553 Finc-ncc~, 303 Woet Commonwoslth Avenue. Fullorton, Cai. 9~G32 (Chanor; i
'- ROYALE GUGS'P HQM~: OF ANAtfF.IM, 15233 V~:ntur~ Aoulovcu•d, Suitc RLG,
Sherman Oeka, Ca. 91403 (Agent) t requob~inq pormissi.~ii t~ ESTAtsLTS1i A
GUEST tIOML; W7'CH WAIVER OF (A) M1~?fIMUM BUII~AING HL;IGH7` AND (1~) NEQUlFt~a EtLOCK WALL on pr.operty
dear.ribod nx~ A rc~ctangularly-ahapod ptarcc~l ~f land consiaking of .nl~proximaCAl~~ ]..-0 acr.es
havinq t~ f.rontaye of an~zoxi.mstely 310 feet on ~ha nc~rth side of La Palma Avenue, t~aving u
maximum dapth o£ aF~proxin~ataly ~.~0 feot, ~nd being located approxlmatol~~ 250 feet wd~t of. thc
cenl:erliti~ oP tiarbor Baulevard. Propc~rty prasently r.lnas~fied CL (COMMI:RCIAL~ LIMITLD) ?~ONE.
No ono indicutad ~hoir pros~nco in oppositi~n to aubject potition.
Althouyh thc. Staf E ltuport t.o tho Plan:~ing Cammiseion dated July 21, 197!~, w~s not read ut
thc~ public hearing, t~ai.d Staff Report is reEarrod to and mnde a~art of. tha minute~.
Mr. Robert kiirsch, represonting the agent for the property owner, rtppC'isz'~~d before tho
Plnnning Commission and ytatod they werE the ownera and operators of eic~ht othpr yimilar
L•acilitias in C~iifor.nla; t_t-at the facility would be f.or honlthy And amk~ulatory pa~ients~
that there would bc no train~:d nursing personnelj that thay wauld bo licensed by the State
of Californiai that they would have fire sprinklers, a commercia.l kitcha~n for the propara-
tion uf specia~ diets aiid othcr meals for the patientia, and comrt+~n recr~jaticma] roomst and
tha~ thero would b~ oxtensi~re use of the graunds arn9 they were proposin~~ to r.etain tho
oxistiny chainlink fence along the north pr.operty li.n~ so L•hat tlie line•-of-eight ta the
ad;jacent wator dopat could be maintained.
'PHE PUBLIC HL:°.RING WAS CLOSGD
CommisRioner Morley notea that thore wcrv watc:r pipes on L•he property to thc north wh~ch
could be seen thruugh thF existing chainlink fence and, additiot~ally, he felt screening of
so~ • kind was appropriate to give tha people pr.ivacy. Mr, Hirsc;h replied that he wa~
aw e of. the pipQS, however, +.he chainlink fence gave a faeli.ng of open space similar to a
park.
Mr. Nirsch then questioned the Ini~rdepart•mental Committeo reconunendatic~n regarding a
Parcel rnap, and Deputy Cit~ Attorney Frank Lowry advised that al.though a parcel map for
the subject pr~perty rad been filed arid recorded, the City did riot have a copy on file and
the referencad reconunendation was to assure that said parr,el map would be r.ece9.ved and
filed at the City.
Discussion pursued regazding tt~~~ proposed f.ences or walls anii the adjacent uses, durinq
which Mr. Hirach stated the plan was to provide a block wall along the easterly prupert~y
line adjacent to the carwash with only the fence along the northerly property line to be
open type. The Planninq Commission generallx concurred that the proposal to retain Y,he
existing chainlink f.ence along the northerly p.roperty line was not satisfacYory arid the
petitioner, thereupon, st9.pulated to Yroviding landscapinq and a 6-foot high, open,
decorati.ve-t~~pe wall along said property line, with plans far the wall ari3 landscaping to
be submitted to the Development Services Department for approval..
Cnmmissi.oner Morley offered a mo~iori, seconded by Commissioner King and MOTION CARRIED,
that the Planning Commission xecomr.~ends to the City Council that the subject project be
exempt £rom thc requizement to prepare an Environmental Impact Report, pursuant to the
provisions of the California Environt^.~atal Quality Act.
Commissioner Morley offered Resulution No. PC75-162 and movecl for it3 passage and adoption,
that Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1553 be and hereby i3 granted, granting
waiver. of the maxjmiun building height on the basis that althouyh the ar~t-;:ing property ta
the north is zoned residentially, said property is currentl5~ develope~i ~rith a water storagF
reservoir and has been approved for developm~nt in the CL (Co~uaercial, Lir.~ited) Zone;
granting wa~.ve-r af the required bloclc wall on the basis that the petit:iUner stipulated t.o
provi.ding landscapinq and a 6-foot high, open, decor~tive-type wail al~ng the north property
line, ~nd to submitking plans Eor said wall and landscaping to t'- Developme*~t Service~
Departlnent for appro~•al; subject to Znterdepar.tmental Committee _>commendations. (See
~tesolution Hook)
On roll cal.l, the £oreguing resolution was paased by the foll~wing vote:
AYES: COMMISStONERS: BARNES~ HFRBST, JOHNSON, KTNG, MOE2I,EY, TOI+AR, FARANO
NOES: COMMI5SIONERS: NONE
1~SEI3T: CQMNIISSIUNERS: NONE:
• s
~
~
MTNUT~S, CITY PLANNTNG C()MMISSIUN, July 21, ]975 ~~`-''~a~'
~~~g~ - At 3,20 p.m., Chuinnan Tazano dacl.arud n rocaaa.
RECONVENE - At 3:3U p.m., Chnir.men Farano reconven«d the me~otinq with nll
'~~ ~ Planning Commiaelonera pxosont.
VARIANCE NU. 2720 - F OBI,7~ IIL•'ARING. JO,EPH M. 1~NTON, 1016 Weet Pionodr 1)rivo, AnRheim, Ca.
~~~ 92905 (Owner) ~ requestinq WAIVER OF (A) ~'ERN'IT'I'~D ~AVG PROJEC;TIUN, (B)
MTNIMUDI NUMBBR OF PARKTNG 5PACE5, (C) MAXIMUM BUILDING 1I~IGHT, (D)
MINIMUM STRUCTURAL SGTBACK, (E) MYNIMUM STTBACK I.ANDSCAFI4IG, AND ir') REQUTRED MASONRY WA1.L,
TO CON~~TRUC9' A ~PECIALTY MARKFT on property dosc.ribed ay: A rectenyularly-sh+aped parc~l.
of land cor~aistin~~ of appr~r.lmately 0.3 acro locatiod at the southaeat corner of. La Pa.lma
Avenue and I~arbor .~o~alovard, hnviny approxlmate frantagea of 102 feet on tho soii~_h side af
La Palma Avenuo and ~.65 teet on tho oaat side of li~rbor Fsoulevard, and furth~r dascz•ibed
ae 950 Nortli Fle~rbor B~~~levnrd. Pror:r.ty presenLl.y clasaif~.c~d CI. (COMME:R~:ZAI,, LIMIT~;D) 2~017E.
No one indicatQd th~ir prosenc~ in oppositior~ to aubjec~ petition.
Although tho Staff Report to thc Planninq Commi3sion dated July 21, 1975, was not raad wt
thc; public hear.i~q, said Statf Repor.*. is refer.red to and made a part of the minutea.
Ns. Josoph Anton, the pUtitioner, appaared beL•oro tha Planni.ng Commfasion and revi~:w ~i t:ho
pr.eviaus zoning actiuns on the subject prnperty, noting that the City Council had previously
given permission for tha use of khe southerly 20~i feet of the ultimate right-of-way along
. F~alma Avenue until such time as the strer.t was widened to the ultimate widths anc~ Eh~t
th~ City Council 1-ad not wiahod to waive the -~ledication entirely since they v+ould rPCeive
other r~quests fur tha same con3idcration. ~. Anton clar.ified with SL•aff thut a Rasonz~y
wall was e:cisting on the south property line ar.d, therefore, the waiver from t.hat requi~-e-
ment was noL- necossarys and .fur~her stated that *_he hei ;:.' ~f the propoaed structure wotild
not offset any existing structures in the area; and :.hat until aur.h ti.me as La Palma
Avenue was wid~ned, he would like to be able to use that property for approximately 17
parking spaces.
THE PUnLTc HEARiNr, WAS CLOSED.
In respon3e to questioning by Commissioner ,7ol~nson, ::c. Anton 3tipulated to making the
conditional dedication for the widening of I~a Palma Avenue, as set forth in the Staff
Report.
In response to que3tinning by Commissioner King, Mr. Anton stipulatad to satisfyin~~ the
requirerient~ of the City pertatning to the trash storage areas, and further stated that at
oi: time tlie City Council had requested that the tree on t.}~e property be kept, however, it
would have tc be removsd with this proposal.
The Ylanning Commis~ion entered into discussion with tlie petitioner and Staff reyardir~g
the positioning of the propased structure on the subject property, and whether it was
better to f.ace Hartwr Boulevard or to face La Palr~a Avenue, as proposed, and other design-
oriented items, i.e., the reason for the 36-inch eaves, the possibili.ty of decreasing the
size of the proposed struct~ir.e which appeared to be too larga for the site, improvement of
the access ~ints which w9re determined to be hazardous, etc., and the petitioner indic~ted
he wa.s unable to pr.ovide the additional infoL-mation being requested bti~ the Planning
Commi3sion.
Staff indicated that subject f.loor plan appeared to be similaz to others (l,~.vicio's Niarket)
whi.ch were approved an~ might be a basic plan which did not fit well on the subject sit.e
and, therefore, the wai.vers were so numerous. Staff further inc3lcated L•hzt two previo~~s
conditional usa permits had been granted on the subject property in connection with the+
service station which w~s now demol.ished and, thez'efore, if the subject use were approved,
it woul.d be appropriaL•e for rhe petitioner to request termination of said conditiotial uue
permit.
The Planning Commi3aion generally cuncurred that additfonal informt-tion was required which
apparently could only be provided by the architect= whoreupon, Mr. Anton requested a
cnntinuonr.e to the meeting af ~ugust 4, ]975, to try to resolve some of the problems
disc:ussed a~t this meeting.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motiun, seconded by Cammissior.or Johnaon and MOTION CARRIED,
to reopen the public h6aring and continue considerati.on of Variance No. 2720 to the mec:ting
of August 4, 1975, aa rRquested by *.he petitioner, to revisQ the plans to try to elimi~iate
the need for the requested waivers and to submi.L- ar~ alternativR for the iluilding to face
Harbor Boulevard, dtc.
S ~
~
•
MJNG'TF.ti, CITY PT.I~NNINC: COMMISSIOtd, ~Tuly 21, :.yi5 75-:{47
VARIANCE NO. 272.1 - PUBLIC HEAPtING. h,. J. JOF(NSUN, 17182 1-rmAtr~ng Avcriue, Santes Ana, Cs.
~ 9271.1 (Ownar) ~ AMERICAN I3AKERI~:S, 7222 F:IIBC Gaqe Avonua, Loo Anqnlas,
Cu. 90040 (Aqanh) t roquesting WAIVER UF' (A) M11XIl~tUM NUMI~FR Or 5IGN5,
(D) Pk:RMI7"P~D SIGN LOC.4TION, ANU (C) MINIMUM DISTANCP RETWFEN SIGNS, TO CON9TRUC'T A FREE-
9TANI~ING SIC,N an proparty doscribed ne i A rectangularl.y-shaped pnrcel af lAnd con4letinq
of approximRtely .1.8 ncr~A haviny a frontago of npproxi.mnc:aly 240 feet an the west aide of
Ga9t Skreeh, ha~~ing a mnximum d~-(~ih oP approximatoly 325 fnat, heing locatad epproximately
1B5 feQC r-orth ~f tho contorlinc~ of South Str~et, and Lurth~r clescribod ae 711 South ~ast
3traet. Prop~r.ty pres~ntly c2.asaified ML(INUUSTRIAL, LIMI'f~D) 20NI:.
No onc~ indicat•od tt~~~ir presencc~ in oppo~ition tu ~~~b~ect petiti~n.
Althouyh thQ Staf° R~p~~rL• to the Pl~nr~ing Commission duted July 21, 19'75, wae not rc~ad at
tho public heari.ng, sa.td Staff Roport is ref.QCred to 1nd made a part of tho minut~s.
Mr. Y.en H~rri, 7222 East Gd~c~, Boll GardQns, repre~enting the agent £or tha potitioner,
appoarod befara tho Planning Commisaion and stated although he was not entirely familiar
with the proposal, hc~ would try to anawer. any questions oE th~~ rlanning Commission in ~iie
absence o£ Mr. Fordiani who wda on vacation.
m}{g pUBLIC HEARING h'11S CLOuED.
Cht~irmnn rarano noted that whon tho ~~ibjoct use was approved, the petitionor had .indiaated
that th~ existinq aigning on the property would bo util.ized and no additional free-standiny
eigns wauld be required to advortiso the usQ; that the subject parcel of land also incl~.tCec9
the McCullagh businesa to the north~ and that he was interested to know if anyone had
axplured the possibility of using the Mc;Cul189h sign and ac~dino to it for ident:ificatiu~
of subject use. Commisaionez King noted that the locati.on of Y.he McCul.laqh siqn was ~ome-
what remate and did not apoear to belang with the subjoct property and, for that r•aason,
he did not feei the Mc:Cu].laqh siqn would idr_ntify the subject usQ.
h1i•. Horn indicated th~it he was unable to provide tl-e addi.tional informsti.on whic.h the
Planning Commi.seion was seoking and, thereupon, requested that the matter he continued for
two weeks.
Commiseioner Tolar of.1`ared a motion, :teconded by Conunissioner King and M(YfION CARRIED, to
reopen the pubtir~ hea~-inq and continu~. consideratian of Pe~ition for Variance No. 2721 to
the meeting o£ August 4, 197~, ae requESted by the petitioner., in ozder to explore the
possibility of combining signing for the entire par.cel and to provide other actdition~il
infonmation.
VARIANCE NQ. 2722 - PUBLIC HEARING. RAYMOND AND NORMA GURULE, 905 East Catalina, Santa AnR,
Ca. 92706 (dwners); ALBERT A. ALLINGTON, 2447 Mall Avenue, Anaheim, Ca.
528U4 (Agent); requeating WAIVER OF (A; PERMZTT~D ACCRSSORY USES AND
(B) MAXIMUM SIGN AREA, TO ESTAHLISIi A CRA..~TS CLASSROOM IN ~1N EXISTING RESIDENCE on propeL`y
described as: A rectangularly-shapod parcel of land consisting of ap~.ruximately 725U squa~e
feet having a frontage of approximately 78 feet on the west side of Dale Avenue, having a
maxiznum depth of approx~mat~ly 93 feet, being located approximatel}~ 7' c1 f~~:c south of the
centerline of Ball Road, and fur~.her described a~ 1217 S~u*_ii Dale A~,etiue, Proper':y
presently classifi.ed RS-7200 (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FPuy:CLY) ZONE.
One person indi~ated their presence in opp~~sition to subjeat petition.
A~sistant ~oning SupFrvi.~or Al.lan Daum r.ead the Staff Report to the Planniny Cummission
dai:ed J~:iy 21, 1975, and said Staff ReporC is referred to as if set forth in full in the
mim:Les .
Mr. Albert Allington, Che agent for tho p~titioner, appeared before the Planniny Commiasion
and stated he would like to purchase the subject property far a residence with one of the
rooms to be utillzed as a ceramics classroom.
Mr. Earl Yitiqet, 2804 West P.avenswood Drive, Anaheim, appeared before tha Pla.nning Cormniasion
ia ogposition and stated there wae commercial development in the area, however, thare w~re
vacancies a1soJ that ~ne of the vacant offices on the opposite side of Dale Avenue was
about the right size £or tho propoaed use~ thak a hobby and craft shor~ was previously
located to the north o£ the subject prop~rty, but moved to a locatiaii on Lincolnt that he
was opposed to the commercial zone tr~oviny into the residential area since he feared what:
it would do to the property yuidancu for. the area; that there were abaent~P Landlords in
the irunediate area and thoso propQrties were not maintained pr.oporly on thc. extoriarr and
that the neighborhood had dotorioratc~d tremendously since the co~nercial us~s began.
r~
U
~ ~
MINU'PES, CiiY PLANNING Cc~MMISSION, July 21., 1975
VARIANCE N0. 2722 (r~ntinued)
75-348
In rc~buttal, Mr. Alli.ngCon B~Ati.EC~ F1d ayr~ad that the 8ubjoct aroa was going downhill with
thc~ ~mpty c.~ommercial buildings which wer.o an uyeaore, howevAr, tt~c~ propoeed uso would
roc~uire the~t tha subjoct propArty be we~ll~maintained~ 1nd thut nltho~ayh the propoaal wae
far a smalr parcal of l~nd, they intondad to improvo iL•.
Me. Waltors, tho reul oatate reprea9ntative ~or the aub~eck property, appearod bafor~ h.h~
Planning C~,mmise.ion and a~tatad shA agra3d with thn tonc~r ~f th~ oppositior~, howovor, tho
eubjoat property had boc~r~ on tha mazk~t appraximately thro~ times avor a pariod of RhOUL'
oic3ht months, and lt was lm'•~oasiblo to Kcll ss a roAidentinl property or to obtain gooc~
C~nA:~tg becauae af the heavy traffic and the unsi.ghtlinoys of the area~ und that rhe
prapotial would be an improvement to tho pro~~ezl:y and would be w.11-mainl:ain~+d.
Tn respons~ to questioning by Comimissionor Barnes, M.r. Allinqton stated he did n~t int~nd
t:~ purchase the property if he was unable to hava thc~ r.lasarootn, as proposed.
C;onunis~iuner Tolar notud tnat, although h~ could appreciate L-h~ pu~ition of th~ roal
eatat.c~ agent an~ th~ buyor, he could not aee justification for grantinq the variance,
since iC would be set~iny an und~sirable precedent for- future similar requasta in the
subj~ct area and woul~i encourage strip comrorcial development and be det.rimental t~ thc.
rcisidontial character of the neighbo2:liood; and that more c~mmcr~•i a1 uses in the area were
unnee~asary. Commi~sionQr King concurrc~d, and Cummissioner H~rbst tiotod t.hat the subjec~
pro~erty, beinq a cornar parcel, was a key proper.ty in the neiqhbortiood and wou].d dafinitaly
encouraqe further cor,unercial. usess how~vcr, he favored letting a parson use his property
i:o the extent passibl.~ as long a~ it did ii~t affer.t ~he neighbors. Commissioner Herbst
fur.ther noL-ed thaL•, in his opin.ion, the are~ coul.d stil.l improve residentially if mare
commercial dQVelopmant were cut~tailed.
It was noted that the Dii~ctor of the Development Services Uepartment had determined that
t~he proposed activity fall wiL•hin the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1, of the Ci1:y of
Anaheim Guidelines to tho Requirements for an ~nvironmental Impact Report and was, there-
foro, categozically exempt from the requirement to pr.epare an EIR.
Cc.~mmi:~sioner Tolar offered Resolution No. PC7S-163 ~nd moved for it.:; pas~age and adopi.ion,
that Petition for Variance No. 272?. be and hereby is d~nied, on the basis of i:he foreqoing
findir~gs. (Sec keso'lutio~. Nook)
0~~ rol.l call, the foregoing resc.~lution was pas~ ~1 by the following vate:
AYF5. COMMT;=SIONERS: .'~1~PJ~'~ 3:~T~ .70fINSON~ 1CING~ MORLEY, TOLAR~ FAR]1N0
hr,v;: CON4+lI5SIONER5: NAt.
E .;;r!~j~; COMMISSION i : NON~
VA~. !CE t~IO. 2723 - PUBLIC HEARtNG. RAYMONA G. SPEHAR, 913 Pal.or.ia Place, Fullertun, Ca.
'"~ +~ 92635 (Owner); CARL KARCHER r,NTERPRISES, INC., 1200 Narth Harbor
Boulevard, Anaheim, Ca. 9280.1 (Agent); requesting WAIVER OF PERMITTED
SIGN£, 'f0 YEF2MI': E'OUR WALL SIGNS on property d~~cribed as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel
c+' lar.d consistir.q of approximately 0.9 a~:re located at the norrheast corner o£ La Palma
F.venue and Imper.iat Highway, having approximaL•e frontages of ?.50 feet on the north side of
7~a F~alma Avenue and 140 f.eet on the east side of Imperial Hiqhway, and furth~r descrihed as
5~i~)1 ~ast La Palma Av~r~ue. Propert}• present].y classified ~:L(SC) (COMMERCTAL, L7MITED-
SCGNIC CORRTDOR OVFR7~AY1 ZONE.
No one indicated their ~resence in opposition to subject petition.
Although the 5taff Report to 'he Pi.nninq Commissi.on dated July 21, 1975, was not read a't
the public hearing, said Staff Report .i~ referred to and made a part of. the mir.utes.
Mr. David Garrison, Chief Project Adn. .,istrator for Car.l Karcher Enterpri~es, Inc.,
appeared b8fore the P~anning Commisaion and revie~ed the Planning Commission and City
Councll actions with referenap ~o Conditional Use Permit No. 1492 wherein requestod
waivers pertaining to a fzee-standing sign identifying the subject restaurant were denied.
Mr, Garrison continued by ataL•ing that ~he Scenic Corridor Ordinance did not recognize
unuaual clrcumstancea and/or unusual nonfigurations of traffic and, sirice the subjeat
property was definitely highway-oriented, it kas important to ~~~d;cess m~x'e directions of
tra£fici that the aggregate requosted wall sign area would net .^.eed the 10$ Code require-
ment for the one permitted sign, since eACh of thQ four signs >.._~gvsed represonted approxi-
mately 2.5$ of the total area of the face of tho building and, tnerstore, the waiver
~ • ~
M?NUTES, CITY PLJINNING COMNIISSIC)N, July 2]., 1.97'.;
75-349
VAItIANCE NQ. 2723 (C~ntinued)
ie~.~~tocl to numbor~ and not gquar~ fool•Aqor thaC ho would flugyeat tdkiny ~+ lc~ok ut the~ Code
whis:h addresaod yc~rvic~ etationa and highways, gince thu c+uk~ject property we-s ].ocatod at a
major int.Qrr~ecti.ons ~hnr it w~u.ld sc~~m i.nappro,priata to F1tp a r_oin ta d~termine whicl~
r.orner to placo tne uno permittad siyn which would addresu only 25+A of the kre~Efict that~
hc~ ur-dora~ood thaY.. tho subjoct property ownor was plenning to petition Eor convn~rcial
zc~niny on pr.opor.~y d.iroctly to thr~ north and, if said zoning ehould occur, the aubjoct
F>rvporty would be completely surroundod by a co-nmerciAl areet Yhat at th~ time the City
Council doni~d ttic w3ivers portaiiiing to free-standinq signo i.n connoction wit:h Condi.tional
Uae PermiC ~lo. 1492, thay had directod Staff to r~viow the Scenic Cor.ridor Urdinance
reqarding thc~ signing criterfa and, in hia opinion, i.t wr~e unfair n~t to reaognizo a
commercial ~ntity located at an interse~+:ion of tw'o major str.~-et5r that the reviaw requosted
by tho City Cottr~.r,il mi.qht have aome bearinn on tho Commission'a decieion of the subject
matter~ rhat they felt v~ry strongly that: one sign wAS no~ Rdequut~ to advertise the
subjact businoss; atia 11o would remi.nd the Planniny Commiasi.on that appz'oval of. the subje:ct
requast mi~ht determine hhe future of the subject businQSS.
TEiC P[JDLIC H.~~'ARINC. WAS CLnSED.
Commi3sioner Tolar inquirad abouL thc siyning for the Carls Jr. restaurant in Irvine on
MacArthur poulevar.d, north of the airport, and Mr. Garrison indicatad the rePerenced
1~pcation had twu buildir~g siqns and no free-standing signs, and had accesa from a common
driveway on MacArthur Boulo~~ar.d and on Main Street. Commissionor Tolar noted, in h~s
opinion, that the peti.tioner was fartunate with the subject location being at the inter-
section of two major highways and, therefore, he disagreed that a hardship would be
created af the r.equested waivers weru n~t yranted; and that in a comparison of thc~ two
].ocations, the potential. success ar r.t,e subject location would naturally have ta be better
than the location ori MacArthur Roule~~ar3.
Mr. Garrisan Lhen stated that the City li.:gineerinq Division was prooosin,y, in the near.
future, to coz~struct a raised median in T~rer.ial Highway which would give very limited
accese to the subject proper.ty from that street. Chairman Farano resporided that the
media~i was tio~ presently a consideration, sinc~ it was non-existent,
Commissioner Tolar• noted tha~t he waR not against free entez'prise, however, the si~ning
perinitted in the Scenic Corrldor was what had made the area as beautiful and a.esthetic as
it pr.esently wa~ and, in his opinion, the signing presently pex'mitted should have been
enaated year~ earlier; that, because of the ideal location and the reputation of Carla
Jr.'s restaurants, he felt the basiness would be Buccessful; however, if the signing made
a great deal of di£ference in the amotilt of busi.npss to be had, then perhaps the subject
location wa:~ wrong for said business.
Commissionez• Herbst noted that, in view uf the denial r.,f :.he four wall sigr.s for property
Zocated on the 3outh side of La Palma Avenue, east of ,~ subject property, the Planning
Commission would be inconsist.cnt if the propused waiv=~~ w~~re granted; and further, Che
Scenic Cor.r?dor ordinance appeared L~ be working and effective at the present time.
It was noted that the Directar of the Development Services Uepartment had deterrnined that
the propo3ed activity fell within the definiti.on of Section 3.01, Class 11, of the City of
Anaheim Guidelines to the Roqui.remen~s for an Environmental Impaot Report and was, there-
fore, categorically exempt from the requirement to ~i.l.e an ~'IR.
Commissioner Tolar off.ered Resolution No. PC75-1=.~ troved for its passage and adoption,
that Fetit.ion for Variance No. 2723 be and hereb: ~'.ni.ed, on tiie basis that the
petitioner did not d~-:onstrate that a hardship woul.: be created if said ~+aiver were not
granted, since the suk,ject property is a corner parcel at an exceptiorally busy inter-
sectic.~t and, further, that the proposal would se~ an undesirabl~ precedent ~" Euture
similar requests in the Scenic Corridor. (See Resolution Book)
On roll ca].1, the foregoing reaolution was pasaed by the following vute:
AY~:S: COMMTS5IONERS: BARNE5, FIERBST, JOHNSON, KING, MORL~Y, TOL~AR, FARANO
NOES: COMMISSION~RS: NONE
ABSEr:T: CONlMISSIONERS: NOt2E
~
• e
Ml'NIlT~:S, CI'CY PLANNTNC COMMa=~SI~N, July 21~ I975
75..:~,o
FROI'OSF:D PROPERTY EXCIiRNGE BEZWF;EN TtiF AW~NGP COUNTY FI,OOD CONTROL DISTRIC'I' AND AN AUJA~FNT
PRUPERTY OWN~R. i, ~.. ... .~~.~ - _"
It waH noted that tho Orange County F'lood Control Dist:ri.ct wad pro~~osing tc~ axchany~ with
an adjecent ~>roport,y uwnor cortvin land p~azcels 1-i the vicir~il•y ~f th~ DiatricL•'s Carb~n
Croek ~iversion Channol, south of r.ho Itivoreide Fr~eway in the City o! Anuheim; thnt thc~
Flood Control Distri.ct was alao proposi.nq to convey to sa:ld propert~ owner a sower easc~-
mont acroea tha Carbon Cr~ek Uivers.l.on Channel in the vicin~.ty of ~ar,kROn Stroot; ~~nd that
the Govez ~unQnt Co~]e aF. th^ Stat•e uf California, Section 65402, provi.dod itii -~art t~.ltat a
lncal ugoncy such as tl~a P1ood Control niot•rict ahall not acquirQ real pru~.oi~ty nor dispo~e
of any r~~F~l property, nor. conetruct a public buildinq or structuro i~~ any courity or. cit-y,
until tha locAtion, purpos~ und exCent of such activila had boen re~orted upo-i as to
con£armit:y with thc• adoptad Gen~ral Plan applicably thereto.
Commi.ssioner King offerad Rcsolution No. PC75-1~5 and movad for its ~,assage and adoption,
that th4 Anr,heim City Planning Commiasi~n does 'heroby find and dot_er:nine that the proposrd
exchanye of real pruperty righta and conveyance of sower ~asetnent is in conformance wi.th
tt-e City of Anaheim's adopod Genaral. Plan. (See Resolutian Book)
On roll ca11, the Corego.in9 resol.utiun wa3 ~~assed by the following votet
AYES: CUMMI5SIONER:7: FSARNES, NERAST, JOHNSON, K]:NG, MORLEY, TOL'AR, F'ARANO
N0~5: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABS~NT: CODIMISSIONERS: NONE
REQU~ST FOR EIR N~GA'PIVE DTCI~ARATION - k'or a gr.adiz~g permit for a single-family re~idAnce
at 453 South Country HiJ.l Road.
It was noted that an application for a grading permit had been filed for construc:tion of a
single-family r.esidence at the subjQCt addressj that an evaluation of the environmer~tal
impact of grading at th.ts ~ocation was required undor the proviaions of the Califorr.fa
Enviz~nmental Quality Act ar~d the State EIR Guidelines because the project was loca~ed in
the Scenic Corridor; and that a study of the proposed qrading by the ~ngineering Divis.ion
and the Developm~nt Services Uepartmerit indicated that it would have no siqni£icant
environmental impact.
C~mmissioner Herbst offered a moti.on, secor:~ed by Commissioner Johnson and MOTION CARRIED,
that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the subjec•t project bp
exemp~ from the requirement to prPpare an F.nvi::onmental impact Report, gursuant to th~
pruvisions of t3::~ California Environm~ntal Quality F.ct•
REqUEST FOR EIR NEGATIVF. DECLAR}1TION - For a grac3ing permit foz a single-fam~:.j reaic:ence
- at 352 .5outh Mohler Drive.
It wag noted that ati application for a grading permit had been f:led f~~r const•ruction of a
sitigle-family rasidence at the subject address,i that an evaluat.ion ~`~ the envir~nmen~al
impact of grading at thi.s location was requireci under the provisicns of the Califurnia
Environmental Quality Act and th~ State EII2 Guldeline.3 because the project was located in
the Scenic Corridor and the alope of the land ~+~as aL• least 10$; and that a study of the
proposed grading by the Engineering Division and the Development Services Department
indicated 4hat i~ would have no siqnifi~ant 9nvironmental impact.
Commissioner Tolar uffere~l a motion, saconded by Commis3ioner Herbst and MOTION CARRI~D,
that the Planning Commiasion recummends to the City Council that the subject property be
ex~mpt from the renuirement to prepare an Environment~l Impact Repnrt, pursuant to the
provisions of tl~e C~lifornia Environmgntal Quality Act.
, ~ I~
~ ~ ~
MINU'Ct3S ~ CI'CY PIJINNTNG (:OMMT.:•~`;T.OIJ ~ JUI.y : L~ 1~) 15 'i'_i-3!il
Et1~~NORTS AND - :ITGM NU. 1.
RLCOMMENDA'PIONS VARIANCF, NO. 2525 - Re~qucist. for. c~xt~anflion ut cime - Pxc~per.ty
~ ~~ coneiqting ot +~pprc~xin~atel.y 4.5 ricr~es locr.C~c1 f•ipl]C110Al3L c~f.
r+roukhuL~st StrQet cind tho Srinr.n Anr~ F'roc~wuy.
A'lthough Chu St.af.f Rc~Ex~rt to rhe~ k'lr~nnl~iy Cammi.r~ni.on dntc•d July 21., 1975, wan not r~,aci ~•~t:
the m~eting, n~~i.d :~ttiff Re~rt: J~ rc~f.~rred to and ma:9~~ a pnzl• of t:hQ minut~~.
Ir. was noted that Vari.anco No. ~ 525, t:u es,Y..ibli.r~h u m5.ni.~warQt~~uKC w.ith a wai~~ r. of. the
m.inimum rvquir.ed -~umber. of parlcinq ~p<ace'~, '~~s~ 9zanted by t.he 1>lanniriy Comm9.es+ ~~n on
July 23, 1~l73, ~ubjQCt tu condi[i~ans; :ir~d tha~: a~i~r extunsio-i c* time waE3 prc~vio~~~~1y
grantr~d, to expire on July 23, 1~i75.
Co-;miegion~r H~rbst o£fur~d a moi:ion, sF!.cc~nded by C~mtnxs9lUt~er E~arn~.:~ and MCYI'7nN C:AitItTEU,
tt~at a one-yaar exter~~ion of t.irne bo a.nc`l her.cUy is yr.z~nted Eor Var.tancc~ No. 2`. ~, to
expire on July 23, 1~7ti, us re~.~~-ieaCed by L-he ;~nlicant..
ITLM N~~ : 2
CONUITIC~NFIL US]~ I'sRM7.T IvU. 1549 - Itec~uc~st £c~r app.r~~v..i of.
~ ovf:ted plans.
A1*_houyh t.tie Staff RapoxL to thc~ Planni.,.^ c.-'~ mr~~:;si.on dated .TUI.y "J.1, ]975, wac+ not read al
the meetinq, said Staff Rc~~.~rt ir r.e[e.rre~3 to an~] msde a~a:ct af thc minut:cr,.
.Lt was noted rhat in approviny subject: conditic~na:i us~ permit, thc P1a^n.ing ~:cmunis:;ior.
requircd thal- the southerly drive~ ,y a(>pr.oac;h tr~ Knc~tL- Stze~t: b~~ combii; I with the n~r.t:h-
erly driveway approach, ar~d tha~. ~.he lrandscaping be ext~nde~3 across Sr11.Ci so;.tthcrl.y drive~
wayj that, sub9equently, whrn the applicant's enqineer revased the ~'...~ ~lan *_o accommodate
said condition, iL• was f~itnd t.h~t thE relocati.on of. the driveway apprc~ac~ wa~ x•estricted
by an exiatiny fir~ hydxant F.nc1 stc~r.m drain ~nd, ~~ a resu].t, i.t was dFtcrminecl that tne
proposed restaurant with c]ritr••up wznc~ow was lacated too close *a Knott ~~reei: ancl th~it e-n
adequate turni.ng radi.ua f'or ti~ei~icl.r,s leavin~~ the clrive-up window and txit~.ng to Knatt
Street could not be achie~-c~~; ar,d, 1:RC:refox~., the ravis~~d plai~s indi.cat~d kh<3Y. the propc~sed
drive-up r.estaurant waul~l t~ i:~~).oc~zted easterly, eliminating 3~;.~:ki.ng space., al.~~ng thc:
east property linc~. It wa~3 f~~rther noted tha± by reconsidering a. reasonable means of
determining parking needs for a combined drj.ve-up and ait-down reetaurant, 5taff ?~ad
determ~ned tlie pot~ntfal ~arkinq rtquirement coixld be 2?. spacet~, and ttir petitioner had
origir.ally propo^,ESd 27 with r..he r.evisi.on bcing f`or .'.4.
Commissioner Herb~t r~oted that the plans were in subatantial a:ordan~~ with the plan3
origina.ily approvnd by the ['lanning Commission and werf:~ r.easonable in view of the lucatt~n
of L•he £ire liydrant.
Commissioner Tolar offered a mution, seconded by Commtss:loner Herbsk and MOTION CAR~tIED
(Cl~aiti-man Farano abst-.inirig, since he was ~~o~ present 3t the public hParing for the
subject peti.tiuny, khat the f'lanning Canun9.ssion does her.eb~~ de~ermine that the proposed
revised plan~ ure ir~ suhs~anr.ial conf.ormance wi~l~ the oriqinal approval of Condi.tional Use
Permit No. 1549, i.n~.)~~ding the reduction oE the park;.nq spac:es from ~7 to 7.4 for tl:e
proposed use.
.LTEM N0. 3
„IRIANCE N0. 972 -- Rceque:st f~r termination - Property r.onsisting
of aZ:proximatFly .69 ucre and further descrfbed as 2040 South
H~rbc>r BQU:levar@.
It waa nc~ted tliat the applicant (C;azy A. Hoov~r., C,eneral Manager., Equipment Dealer Diviaion
of Anthony Ponls) had sui~mitted a letter reqae~ting terminption o~E Variance No. 972
inasmucli a:~ ~}iey had rnoved out o1: the fac.i].ities and all ftructur~~s located on the property
were removed.
Cc~mmi~~ionor fiezUst offered Reaolution Na. I~C75-166 and moved for its passae~e and adoption,
that zal.l ~x~ceedinqs in connection with Va.riancc: No. 972 be arid t~ereby are terminated, as
requested by the applicant. (5ee Rr:solution F3ook)
On roll ca1Z, the ~oregoing reaol.ution was passed by the £ollowir~g vote:
J~yESs COMMIS5IOi3RRS: HARNES, HERHST, JOHNS~N, KING, MGRLEY, TOI,F.R, FARANO
NOES: COMMIS5IONF..RS: NCNE
AbSEt~Ts CUMMISSIONERS: NONE
~ ~ ~
MINf.19'1~5, .'I'PY 1'T.AN'NING c'OMM[S:iII)N, ~7uly 'll, 1975 7.`'i-352
ITLM Nl). ~3
vna~n~~ci~'. NO. 2349 - Ri:quc~st f'or appr~oval of uoe -~ Pr'op~3rty
con~sist.iny oC .3~E~roxlmal-.ely 1.0 acro iocated ~t thn ~c>uthwc~3t
c~rnnr. ot' [3roadw~y un~J ndams S~r.ocC, anc~ Eur.t.her. doscrib~d aa
].514 Weyt Elroadway, de~v~loped wi~h thc; "Pa~~:~+r Ti'ea Fairc~. °
I~ was noted th;r. r.hr., aubj~ct requoat wa~ r~~vicwed by khc Plnnniny C:C)pYl1iE18~(lll on May 2H,
197;, at wi~ich t1.me tho Commi.saion det~~rminod that th~> px•~~sed lunchroom with th~ a~!.tdooi
s~atiny did not. fall. within th~~ scope of tho or.c7inul r~pproval of Vnrie-nce l~o. 2349 and,
the;r~_fore, ~aid pru{~osal would roquir.~ an additir:~nul. puh.lic haarinys that, sub~~eyuc~nkly,
on June "1:3, 1975, th~ appllcant (Mr. David S. Collir,si appPUx'ed befar~ t.he Planning
Commission to present furthc:r avl.dance that Lho propo3al was substantial~y the :+~ne as the
~reviously-approvod uc~e~ ot the pXOperty, und the Planning Commiseion qc~nerally ccmcurrc~d
at: th~~t meotiny that the appli.cant should Gbti.2l~R lott:crs fram ad jacc~nt propor. ty ow,~er:~
that tliey did not abject to the new proposal a~~d for City StaEf to rea~arcl~ tho recox•c1s to
de~crmine whether a aimi.lar use was prcaviously granted.
Further, tt was noted tliat a lc~tte~ datad July 1, 1'~7;, had been recaivod from the adjacent
progarty owners, as follows:
"To the members of Lho Planning Commiasiori:
The understc~ned neighbozs o£ Pe~per. Tree Fairo would li.ke you Y.o know
that we have found PeppAr Tree Fai.re to be very satisfactory as
neighbors, and have no objection to the cont•inuance of itn operation.
In particular, we found nothing objectio~~l about the ii4e of tables
on the r.~overad porch for the consumption of food which people either
purchase in tt~e food ser.vice urea or who t~ave brought their own•
Thank a~ou for youi kind consideration.
s/Palmall Properties, Inc., 1430 Wesi: Broadway
by A. H. Shipkey, President
s/Robert Teich~r, 1443 North Central Park Avenue
s!Flizabeth Schafer, 1500 West IIroadway
s/R. H. Rohrs, 1436 West Sar~ta Ana. Streei;"
In response r.o questio~~ing by Chairman Farano, 2oning Supervisor Annika S~ntalahti noted
that she understood the reason the additional public hearing war• ~iesized ~; the Commisaion
was largply due to the fac~ that at one time there was oppositiun ta the outside food
service at the 3ubjPCt location. She further noted that the neighbors were indicating
the,y were not presently concerned, provided there was no on-Sale beer, wine, or liquor on
the premises.
Commissioner Herbst. off.er.ed a mation, seconded by C~r.~missioner King and MOTIUN CFIRRIED
(Chairman Farano votfng "no"), that inasmuch as the applicant had submitted written notifi-
cation from ~-he neighbors that the pr.oposal is not detrimeatal to them~ the proposed
lunchroom with outdoor soating is hereby determined. to be in s~abstantial conformance with
the Planninq Commission's ariginal approval o£ Varisnce No. 2349, subject to the applicant
satisfying the requirements of the C:ity and Coun*.y pertaining to food standards; subject
to there being no on-sale beer, wine, or liquor on the premises; and, based on the fore-
going findings and/or conditions, a public hea.ring shall not be necessary
ITGd~i N0. 5
PENDING MATTERS
Chairman Farano notel there were several itema pen3ing and he would requeat tY-at Staff
submit a report as Co the status of same for Planni.ng Commisslon review as soori a~ possi.ble,
i.e., mobilehome park ordinance, et^..
AD,70UktNMEtiT - There being no further business to discuss, Commisaioner Morley offered
a motion, seconded by Commiaeioner King and MOTION CARRIED, to adjourn
the meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 4:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~ ~ ~~~~
Patricia B. Scanlan, Secretary
Anahoim City Planning Conanisaion
PBS:hm