Minutes-PC 1975/09/030 Fl C G MICROFII.MING SERYICE, INC.
~~ ~ 4
~
~+
~ ~ry ,~'.
1 O ~
~rl,
v~
O U1
~~
~ ~
N
W
~n
r
~I
~
1
V I
I
~~
~~ I
~ ~ ~
C 1 ty I~A 1 I
Aniheim~ C:~I I f~~rnla
$.n~~Cemhr.r 3, 117~~
REGUI.nR MEfTI~IG OF TN[ At1AIlEIM CITY PI.ANi~ItJf; CQNP1iS510tJ
R[GUl.l1R - A re.q~ilar mee[Incl c,f thc~ ~niheim City FlPnninn Co~rmissi~n wa~ ca~led to
MFF.TING order ~it 1:~~ p.m• in thF Cc~unc:i l Char~her, ~~ c~u~~rum hrinn present.
PR.ESENT - Chl~l P,MAN: Far~~no
~ CnhiMISSI~NfftS: ~arncs~ Hcrh,t, •IohnS<~n, Kinq~ Morl~y, 7ol.~r
RE3SF.NT - COMMISSIh1lERS: Nonc
ALS~ PR~Sf~~T- Frank Lowry Denuty City Attorney
Jack Judci Civil Enc~ineerinq Representative
Annik~ Santal~htl l.c+r,ing Supervisor
Allan Daum llss(st~nt Zonin~l Su~ervisor
Patricla Scanlan Commfssfon Secret~~ry
PLEDC,E OF - Commissioner• Johnson led in the Pleclgc <~f 1111eglance to tfie Flag of the
ALLEGIANCE Unlted State~ of America.
APPROVAL OF - Cormiissioner Johnson offered a tnotian~ seconded by Commissioner King and
TNE MlNUTES MOTI~N CARRIED, to auprove the minutes of tlie meetincl of August b, 1975,
as submitted.
RECl.ASSIFICA'flf`H - C~NTINUED PUHLIC NEARING. N(1R'EAST PLAT.A~ L7D,~ c/o h~ark U. leff~
N0. 74-7_5'~~~ 12U E1 Camino Urive~ Suite 110~ Beverly Hills, ~Ca, 9~~212 (Owner);
- Bill Phalps, 1095 No~th Main Street, Suite S, Orange~ Ca. 926G7 (~gent).
TENTATIVE MAP OF Proparty described as: An irregularly-shaped par•cel of l~nd consisting
TRAC7 N0. 8710 of approxin~ately 16 acres located on the west side of Kfaemer Boulevard
'""'-- between Crowther Ave~ue and Orangethorpe Avcnue~ having approximate
frontages of 620 feet on the ~outh side of Crowther Avenue~ 160 feet on
the west side of Kraemer Boulevard~ and ~Fb!~ feet on the no~th side of Orangethorpe Avenue.
Property presAntly classified Cl ~COMMERCIAL~ LIP117ED) APID CH (C~1MME'RCIAL~ IiEAVY) ZONES.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: RM-120Q (RESIDENTIAI.~ MULTiPLE-FAMILY) ZONF.
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUFST: An~;NCaR~9?H~5~ bSubjec[Nprop~erty2is~pNoposed~for subdivisiont~
into 7 RM-12~0 lots.
The subJect items were continued from the meeting of July 7~ 1975~ for the petitioner to
submit an environmentat impact report and revlsed pl.~ns, and from the meeting of August ~~,
1975~ at the request of the petitioner.
No one indicated their presence in opposition to the subject items and~ thereupon,
Chairman Farano cieclared the PUBLIC HEARI~IG CLOSEO.
Mr. William Fhelps~ the age~t for the property owner, appe~~ed before the Planning
Commisslon and 5tate~ his position was awkward in that he Fiad failed to do what the
Comcnission had wanfed him to do since the initial public hearinc~, however~ the arice of
the requested environmental impact ~•epart was considered to be beyond their means, and
although there were only t~ao areas of impact which were of interest Co the Commiss(on~ an
environmen:a) impact report would probably be all inclusive; and th~t the petitioner haa
indicated a desire to withdraw the proposa' but he, as agent~ was continuing on since he
sincerely felt that the enviro~mental impact rcport was not a racessary item and would
cost approximately $5~~~~•
PC75-4o1
~ ~ ~
MINUTF.S~ CITY PLANNIWG CQM1415SI~N, Saplemhe~' ~~ 1975 ~5~~02
REf,I.ASSIFICATION N0. ~i°]5-41 !-NU TENTA~'IVE MAP QF TRI1~T N0. 871~ (Continued)
In responae [o questloning by Chalrman Fr~rano~ Mr~ Phe~ps ~tatcd [he proJecCed tra~flc
yener.7tod bY the curre~nt propos.~l (ap~roxim~~tr.ly 75~~ trfps per day) would he lass than
that o~hlch -vould be generated fror~ a commercla~ pru~osal; and that tne property ha~d br.en
prevlously zoncd for a 21-~cre. re~I~~nA1 shappinn centcr, Commiss(oncr 7olar toak
exception co Mr, Phelps' sta[~ments, notin~ th~~t the numbcr uf paople wt~o would be Ilving
In the proposecl projr.ct would rleFinitely have an (mp~ct r~n Che are~, ~nd that he was ~ot
ev~n sure Chat the prop~rty should havc~ "C" zonfn~.
In rr.spc~nse t~~ questloning by Cha{rman Far~nu~ Nr. Nhelps rec~nfirmed that he d(d not
Inkrnd to furnlsh an env(ronmental irr,aact report, since t~~c cost was b~~yond thefr mrans.
fornnissloner Herbst noted that he haci always been o~posed ta the subject ~r~perty bCing
c~~mmcrcfnl and especi~ally for a regioral shapping cenker; that tl~e p~npoS~l would separate
the large parcel into two portions, ancl he would question whether tha remaining portlon on
the corner of Or~n~etliorpe Avenue and KrAemer Boulovard should remaln far commer•c{at
developm~nt; ttiat there were no speciflc plans as to what the propo~;ed pr•oJact would
~~ctually be and only a l~~+yout had been pres~nt~d; und that the Commisslon wo~ald want to
knaw the spr.cifics. Na furthPr noted that the Commfssfor, neeciect to know what the
resulCant traffic count and the noise c~ff~ct from the adJacent railroad would ba to Che
proposed multiple-famliy development; and thaC as ftir as h~ wa~s concerneci~ the r~quested
environment~~l impact report could address only the traffic and sound and indicate I~ow the
property would be protected.
Thereupon~ Mr. Pheip~; star.ed he could provide a sounc report and a traffic report ~rhich
would not be exactly as-huilt~ but ~~ould be cl~se tc~ as-t~uilt~ and he was herewith
requesting to have a resolution of intent to the RM-1200 T.one. Cammissior,cr Herbst then
noted tt~at the Comm(ssion had made rr.zoning commitments in the past wiChout kna.~ing what
was actually going to be constructed on the property and he would want ta be able to have
[he essent(al information upon which ta base a decision as to what xoning shoulci properl~
b+e on the property~ wr~ether CL/CH, RM-1200 or ML. Mr. Phelps remindeci the Planning
Commission that the so~nd problem was not a community proJect~ bu•~ a Siate proJect, anct
the developers would have to submit a sound resume and analysis to t.he State tn compliance
with the State requirements.
Commissfoner Tolar noted that he would nat be in favor of a resolution of intent which
~aould provide some guideiines For the developers~ but wanteci to f~av~e specific plans for
his consideration. He noted some examples of proJects which indic;~ted what could happen
wiYh resolutions of Intent wh~re, because of the resolution of int~nt t~ the zone~ tl~e
developers were able to get their proJects apprnved; end he was not sure of the reguested
zaning for the subject property.
Commissione~ Johnson noted that he was inclined to agree with Commissioner Herbst and did
not wish to put the developer to the expense of the environmental impar.t report~ although
the informatfon appea~ed to be essential to a good dectsion.
Chairman Farano noted that a~ fortunate or untortunate as it might be~ he felt that with
th~e problems that were apparent with the proposal, the Commission In approving 1t might be
setting a precedent and would probably find it hard to approve othE~rs who m(ght be mors
deserving than the petitioner. Ne further noted that if an environmental impact report
was determined to be required~ said requirement could reot be weivecl and the subJect
petitioner was no better off than any others +~rho were required to provide such a dACUment;
and that the Commission was bound tc, comply h~ith the r'equirements and not send the proJ~ect
on to the City Council if an environmental impact report docurnent was needed and
outstandtng.
Commissioner King inquired whethe~ an environmental impact report would still be required
If the petitioner should elim(na[e from the proposal that portion of the property which
fronted on Crowth~r Avenu~; whereupon~ Commissioner Herbst nuted th,at would substanttally
relieve hEs own mind as far as the residential development was conc~erned; howeve~, the
circulatlon elem~:nt would still be of concern.
In response ta questioning oy Commtssioner Tolar~ Mr. Phelps confirmed that the petitioner
was the owner of the entire property to the c~rner of Orangethorpc i4venue and Kraemer
Boulevard and to Crowther AWenue. Commissioner Tolar then noted that he could envisfon a
small shopptng center on the corner property at Orangethorpe Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard
~ ~ ~
1~INUTES~ CITY Plf1NNING CONNIS~IQPl~ ;eptember 3, ~97~ 7~~~i0~
RfCLASSIFICl1TIQhi N0. 74-75-4! AN~ TI:NTA'T'IV1= MAP OF TRACT N0. 1371U (Contlnued)
anu s~id center would he abutting the prop~sed r~sfc~entl~) suhdivls(on wh(c.h n~ight be
cb.~cctlonablz.
In rr.spon~c to ryuestloninct by the Pl~nnin~ Commissi~n rec~nr~lfnc~ the racessity La have the
envlrunn-ental impict report inform~tion, Mr. Pticlps stated he was requcsting chat the
Commission c<~mc to a decision renardinq the prop~s~~l at thi~~ rne~~tln~ and thn: he dld not
wish Cca reques[ a iurthcr continu~nce slnce he dfd noC wish to pr~vlde the ndditional
in,°orrtwtion deslred by the Commis~;icin,
Comnis~loncr Fle~rbst n~r.~~d chat the petitl~ner h~ci submittc~l n~ suhstantial a<1~11tion~l
inForm~tlon ~+hich had heen requeStcJ by thc Plannine~ Commissi~n slncc thelr mce~ing of
July ?, 1975, wh~~i~ the public hearinc~ wns init(~~Ily held,
TherPUpaai, Oeputy Cfty Atc~rney Frank Lowr•y established that the subJect ~yublic hear'ing
could not bc ~urther contlnued from this meeting withaut consent af the p~titionr.r or his
~~grnt .
Commissioner Mc,rley offered a motion, secc~ndscl by f,ommissioner Tolar :~nd MOTIQN CARRIED~
that the Pl:~nning Commission does herehy recommend to the CiCy Council t.hat the
petitioner's request for ~n environment~l impact repc~rt ne~lative declar_iticn be denied and
that, pursuant Co the provisions of the: California Fnvironmental Quality /1et~ an
environmental impact report t~r>. require~i for the sub)ect development proposal~ said denfal
being base~l on thrs pe~itioner's f.~(ture to provide suffici~nt informalion, as deemed to be
requi~ed~ consistinn of an cnvironmental impact report generally related to traffic~ sound
and schools; :h~t sa(d infrrm~~tion is requeste~l in ordcr to make a propcrly informed
decislon re~arding the lan~! use.
Coirnnfssioner Morley off~rpci Resolution No. PC75`1°n and moved for iCs pass~qe and
adoption, thiat tf~e Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council tl:at
PeCitlan far Reclassif(cation No. 7~~•15-~~~ be disapprovecl, based o~ the findings that
approval of [he prc~posal +n the man~~er req~~ested~ without adequate supplemenCal
information including an environmental impact report and specific plans, might sek an
un~ies(rable precedent for future similar requests; and, additionally~ the petitioner
failed to provide information relatlve to the future development of the adJacent
commercial parcel fronting on the northwest corner of Oran~ethorpe Avenue and Kraemer
Boulevarcl; and that ttie Planning Commission does further recummend that in the event th~
City Council shoul~ look favorably on the sub~ect petition~ etc.~ that the petitioner be
required to submit specific plans fur development of the subJect property~ as well as for
the property which would be remain+ng at the northwes~ cornP~- oF Orangethorpe Avenue and
Kr~emer Eiaulev~rd~ since said property was zoned cammercial and there wa~ no request for
change af zone on th~t pro;~erty. (See Resolutiun Book.)
On ro11 call, t.he fnregoing resolution a.ss passeci by the follawina e~ote:
AYCS: COMMISSIONERS: BARP~E.S~ HERBST, JUIiNSOP~, KIN~~ MOr?I.EY, 1'OLAP,~ FAR/1N0
NAES: COMMISSIQNERS: NONE
ABSE~~T: CQMMISSIONERS: NONE
In response *_o quest(onin~ by Chairman Farano, Civil Engi~~eerin~ Assistant Jack Judd
advlsed that the Tentative Map of Tract t~o. 8710. as submitted~ compiled with the statutes
far tentatlve tracts,
Commissioner Morley off~ered a motion, second~a by Commissioner To1ar and MOTION CARRIED~
tliat the Piannin~ Commission does hereby r~r_ommend tu the Cit~ Councii that Tentative Map
of Tract No. a71U be d(sapproved on the basis that the petiCioner fatlecl to provlde
additlonal informatfon as reques'ted by the Planni~g Commission~ which included specific
plans and essentlal supplemental environmental impact informatinn related to schools~
trafFic~ and suund from the railroad, etc.~ and furthermore, tt~e Planning Cc+mmission
recommended to the City Council that the requested zo~ing of the subjact property from
the CL ~Commerciat, Limited) Zone to the R~1-1200 Zone be disapproved.
~ ~
MINUTFS~ CITY PLANNfNG COMMIS510N~ September 3~ 1975
~
~
7S-~+p~~
Vf1RIANCE NQ. 2721 - CQNTIMUf_'p PUt~LIC HFARIIJG, E. J. JOhNSON~ 171£~2 Armstrong Avenue~
'~ San[i Ann. CA. 91711 ((~-iicr); AME:RIC11t~ BAKERIES~ 7222 Eost Gegs
llvenue~ Los Angel~:s~ Ca. 9~~un (Agent); r~questing WAIVER 0'r
(A) MAXIMUM NUMHER OF SIC,~~S~ (B) PFRMITTED SIGN LOCATI~N, AND (C) MINIMUIS qISTANCC•
BETWEEN SI~NS~ T~ C~NSTRUC7 A FREE-STANbING SIGN on pr~perty deSCrfhe~ as: A
rectAngularly-shapecl p.~rce1 of IH~J consiating of approximntely l.f~ acres havln~ ~~
frontage; of approximately 2~~n feet on the west side of East Street~ h~vin~ a maxi~~um
deNth c~f approximately 32a fea[, br.inq loc~ted Approximat~ly 165 feet north of the
centerline of South Str~et~ and furthcr d~scrlbed as 'll South East Strcet,
Property presen[ly classifled Ml. (INqUSTRI~L, LIMITED} ZONE,
The sub.ject pet!t(on w~is c.ontinued from the meetings of July 21 and Auryust 4~ ~975, for
the petitloner tn submlt morc InF~rmatlon.
No one lndicated their presence ln oppas(rlon te subJect ~r~tltion.
lllthough the Staff Report to Ch,~ f'lannlnq Gommission dated Septc~~ber 3, 1975~ was not read
~7t the publ ic hearln~, sald Staff Report (s rei~erred to ancl madt ~~ part. of the: minutes.
Mr. Don Fordlanl, [he a~Pnt for the petitianer, appeared before the Plannin~7 C~mmissfon to
answer questions reqardlnci the proposal.
Chairm~n Fsrano declarecl th~; PUDLIC HFARit~f, CLOSED.
Chairman Farana inqulred if thc petitioner had g(ven any thought tu cor,s~~lidatfng the ~nci
proposeci sign with the existinn sign un the northerly porti~n of the subJe~t property,
Mr. Ford(ani stated he had conkacr.e:l the property a+~ner who had indlr.ated h~: ctid not .+~nt
to move the existl~~g sign away from the tenant. who uccupiecl the northerly porclon of the
property, and that the property owner was not considerin~ ~plittin~ thc lot,
Commissloner Tolar noteci that if the lot was split~ the property owner woul~' he e~*itled
to two signs. Chalrr~ar~ Farano added that by reason of where the existing •-~~n was
lacated, without a variance ai~d without puttin~ the City in t~7e positic~n approving the
proposed sign, the property owner could split the lut and have anothcr ° .
Cammissioner Johnson noted that the applicant was not the property o~ ~~~' c~uld not
decide on matters such as a lot split. Commissioner Herbst nnted r.h -:ann,ission
shuuld take into coi~sider~tion the fact that at the public hearing ~~ ~ ~+~ .~nce ~~o.
2G99 was approved tc. permit an expansion of a retail bakery and th, ,~-~ ~~~~ the
subject property, there was an implication by the applicant that n~ .;~~>> sign(ng
would be necessary. Chairman Farano atided that he was incline~t `~.~. the existing
sign was not locatea in a manner to properly identify the southF x ,.~~ theyhwere
prope.rty; hcwever, the Commission was concerned about others Wr , ~~inion, the
entitled to the same privileqes in the industrial zones; and tt~+ : ~:ase with the
slgn pr(v+leges should have becn defined in the terms cf the ~i~:~
aroperty owner.
Thereupon, Mr. Fordtani stated th~t althou~h the property ow~~~~i ~~~ c~ositively state
he would not cdns ider a lot s~l it, he had led him to bel ievc~ h~, ~~~•~ ~~~[.
Commissioner 7olar indicated that he was concerned since the -iue~ ~-~~ ~ight be of a moral
nature, based on th~ legality of who was res~onsible for thc ~ror~~ c~• Commissioner King
noted that the e~cisting sign r~as apprcximat~ly 90 feet n~?r:~h ~= :{ oakery sto~ and the
10-foot wi~le planter in front of the store woutd be a beautiF~~ s~ for L'he ~~n; and,
further, he felt the applicant had a hardship. Commissione~ Mor~ noted tha. he felt the
applicant h~id a definite harAship and the property owner was n~t ,terested in helping him
out.
Commissioner H~rbst noted that a variance request similar ~~ ,h:~ proposed could alsu
appty Lo shopping centers with several different rennnCs and, _herefore~ would se't an
un~esirable precedent if approved. Commissioner B~+•nes innuired why the applicant had
such a pro~lem with idenkification sir•.:.e the lar9e sign on the buildin~ front appeared to
be more than adequate; and if the ~pF~ icant would consider a small free-standing sign~
nating that the applicant probabiy w:.~id w~nt , li~hted ~i~n; and that a small sign
coupled with the wal! sinn should be enouc~h idrn;~ficat~on.
In respo-~se~ Mr. Fordiani stated he had asked the property c~wner about moving the existing
tiree-standinc~ si~r closer to the driveway so th~r it could be ~hared by the tenants of
~
^nw~~
~ ~
MINUTE.S, CITY PIANNING COMMISSIC':. September ~, 1~)75
VARIANC~ N0, 1.721 (Contlnued)
75-~~05
both porti~ns oP Chc ~ropcrty. There~i~~~n, Mr. BI11 Murrny, owner ~f thc siryn company.
o~pe~red befr~rc Lhc Plannin~ Ccxnmisslnn and st~~t~~d a low pr~flle sl~n was not sultoble
since it woulcl result in a loss of porlcfn~~ ir~*». Commissi~ner Tol~r noted thnt monument
signing was be~autiful and there would '.~c nc lotis ~f visual coiitnct fr•om the stroet, In his
opinion; th~~t he was questloninq the ,•~tnil uae in an industrl~~l are~i, sfnct~ it should be
in ~ commercinl area; ind th~~x the u•,c~ as prevlou~~ly proposed ancl ~7ranteci~ was not
purported t~ be for walk-+n ty~e tradc and no additional sign(n~ w~s t~ be requested f-~r
tFiP praperty. Commiss?oner Barnes notecl that the subJect exp~~nded retail b.~kery stor~ wa5
similar to a supermarket.
f,onunFssloner Kinct inquired if th~~ proposed sinn co~ild be consistcnt with thc McCulingh
siqn, which was very a*.tr~ctive, in his opinion; whereupon, Mr. Murrav st~ted the
Nippopat.-~mus was a chain m~rke+, and the: signs were alike as much as possible for o1) the
stores; and that Chey could put a redwo~~ cover aver the s(gn pule and have the slqn
practictilly fn tf~e center of the planter in front of [he store,
r,ommiss(oner Barnrs noted tner•e were residences located across the street from thG sub,~ect
property, and she inquired haw those people mf~ht fr.el about another li~hted si~n, sinco
lighked signs could be very disturbing. Thereupon~ Mr. Fordiani stipulated the sign would
be lie~hted no later than 9:00 p.m, or one l~our after closin~ timc i'or thc stor~,
Commissioner Jc,hnson ~oted that it appeared~ in vlew of thc negative resp~nses fram
several of the Commissioners, the subject proposal minht be turned down if votr.d on at
this meeting, and he inquirecJ if the petitioner would be inte~e.sted Co have another two-
week continuance tc, provide ttme to work with the pr~perty owner in tryinq to resolve the
problems involv~d, elther to agree to rrx~ve the existlnc~ sign or to split the property so
*.hat the waiver v+oul~l not be needed, Mr. Fordian! repliEd that he did riot fcel the
property owner would cooparate in the manner bein~ su~ryestecl.
It was noted that the Director ~f the Planning Department had de.termined th~t the proposed
activity fe~l within the definition of Section 3.~1, Class 11~ of the City of Anaheim
Guidelines to the Requireme:nts for an Envirdnn~ental Impact Report and was, therefore~
categorir_ally exempt from the requirement to file an EIR.
Commissioner King offered a reso{ution and moved for its passage and adoptio~, to grant
Petition for Variance No. 2721, based on the hardship der~onstrateci by the aF~licant,
granting all of the requested walvers subJect to the Inte.rdepartmental Committee
recommendations. Commissioner Tolar noted tt.at the granti~~ of the variance should be for
the existirig bakery and thrift store use only.
Chairman Farano noted~ in terms of Jiscussion~ that the owner of the subJect praperty was
not the applicant and the owner liad the power to determine what would happen to the
property; that, in his opini~n, the owner did not have a hardship; that consotidat(on of
signs had been r~•quir,~J for a~~~~mber of other similar applic.ations; and that the Planning
Commission, in approving the subject petition~ mic~ht be putting itself ir. the posi[ion of
granting a privilege Chat had been and would be denie~ to others.
Commissioner Tolar relatecl that f~r a recent application in connection with a restaurant
at La Palma Avenue and Euclid Sree*.~ the Planning Commission had determined that since thc
property o+~m er was responsihle to make dedicition for street purposes, the applicant had a
hardship and. in his opinion, that examplc paralleled the subJect petition; that the
proposal should be granted for the existin~ specific use of the praperty only; that the
lot split possibility would n~it chenge the moral implications; however, he felt a monument
sign~ rather than the proposed s~9n~ wouid be a better sign for the property.
Chalrman ~arano then notecl that in uetermini~g these matters, the Commission should look
upan them o~Jectively and not sub.jectively. Commissioner Herbst noted that he concurred
with the Chairman; that the Comnission was dealing with the property owner and the
property itself~ and the property o~ner could solve the problems legally, a~id the same
situation existed for a number of other properties in the City, that the exist~ng retail
use of the prnperty was nor a permitCed use in the industrial zones and he, for one~ woulci
not have voted in favor c+f said use if he had k,•~own it would be a full-blown grncery store
nteding signing; that he was opposed to grant~ng a varlance of the type proposed since it
wnuld set an undesira5le precedent and~ additionaliy, the Planning Commissian had tried to
uphotd the integrity of the industrial zones for years.
• • ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING C(1MMISSION~ September 3~ 1915 75-1~06
VARIANCE N~. 2721 (Gontinued)
In response to quer~:(oninq by Commissloner Johnson, Mr. Fordlnnl stated their {~resent
lease on the propcrty would cxpire irs six more years.
Qn rnll call~ the i'Uregolnc~ resolution to grant the sub~ect varl~nce faile~l by the
fc~llowlnh vote:
AYES: COMMISSIANFRS: JQHNSOPJ~ KING~ TOLl1R
NOES: C~MMISSIQNERS: BARNES~ HERBST, Mt)RLEY~ FARANO
AftSENT: C~MMISSIONF.RS: NOP~E
Tftcreupon~ Commiss(oner Nerbst offered Resolutlon No. PC75^IE31 and moved for its passa,ge
and adoptlon~ that Petitior, for Variance No. 2721 be and herehy is denied on the basis of
the finding that the proposed commercial signing is determined to be unsultable ln the ML
(Industrial, Limited) Zone; that Che Plann(nq Commtsslon h~d appraved the expansion af the
existing retall bakery at the subJect location at a previous public heariny wheretn the
petltioner Implied that the existfng free-standing slgn woiil~ be utilized for advertising
purposes; that, furthermore~ approval of ih~.W~geparateufree~standin~esigns,forreachcof
f~r future similar reque~ts for signinn~
severa) tenants or uses on a glven parcel ~nci commercial slc~ning for nonconforming
commercial uses in tndustrial r.ones; that any hardship canceriilm} signt~9 for the existing
commerctai ~~se of the subject property is of the pet(tioner's own makinc~~ since expanaion
of the ~xisting commerclal use was approved in conne:tfon with a variance rnd since
recard~tion of a parcel map subdivldinc~ subject proper:~~ would ellminate the need for the
waivers. (See Res~lution Book)
On rnll call, tl~e fare~oing resolutian was passed by the follc~win~t vote:
AYES; COMMISSIONERS: BARNES. H[RB~T~ M~RLEY. FAR~1N~
NOES: COMMISSION[RS: J~NNSON~ KING~ TOLAR
ABSENT: COMMISISONERS: NONE
ENVIRONM~NTAI_ IMPACT - COf~TINUGD PUBLIC HEARING. C. MICHAEL, INC., P. 0. Box 278~ Mldway
RF.PORT N0. 133 __ City~ Ca. 92655 (Owner). Property d~scribed as: A rectangularly-
-' shaped parcel of land consisting of ap~roximately 1$ acres located
VARIA~JCE N0. 272t3 at the southeast corner ~f Vermant ?~venue and East Street~ having
approximate frnntages of 733 f~et on the south side of Vermont
TENTATIVt MAP OF Aven~e and 11IIA feet on the ea~~t side of East Street. Froperty
TRACT N0. t375~ presently classified RS~A-43,OQ0 (R~SIDEWTIAL/AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE.
(REVISIf:~J N(1. 1)
V{1R1 ANCE REQUEST : WAI VER OF M I PI I MUM DI STANCE BE74lEEN BU I LD I NGS TO
EST~BLISH A {19-LOT~ Rt1-4000 SUBDIVISION.
TENTAlIVE TRACT REQUEST: ENGIt•JEER: RAAB b BOYER ENG~NEERING CO., 14482 Beazh Boulevard,
Suite R~ Westminster~ Ca. 92~~3• Subject property is propo,ed
for s~ibdivision in~o 119 RM°40~0 lots.
7he subJect items were continued from the r~~~:ing of August 4, 1975, for the s~bmission of
revised plans~ and from the ~~~~~ting of August ~~+3~ 197>, at the request of the petitioner.
No one ind'cated their presence fn oppositien to subject items, and it was noted that the
petitionar was requesting an additional four-week coiitlnuance to the meetirig of September
29, ~975.
Commisslonsr Kir~g offered a motion~ seconcicd by CommiSSioner Morley and MOTION CARRI~D~
that EiR No. 13', Variance No. 272R and Tentative Map af Tract No. 875~ (Revision No. 1)
be and hereby is further continued to the meetinc~ of September 29~ 1975, as requested by
the petitlorer.
~ ~ ~
MINUTE~~ C17Y PLANNINf; COMMISSI~N, September 3, 1975 7~~1i07
V1IRIANCE N~. 2729 - COMTINUED PUBLiC NEARING. GUS MAf~~/1S, F~ODLAND MARKF'~~ 910 South
'-" Eucl id Strent~ AnaMeim~ Ce. 9^`~!'~'' ~~+~~r); J~~~~~ ~~FD NIIRRIMAi4~ 5n5
Eaxt Commonwealth~ Fullerton~ Ca, ~12F32 (Agent); rEquesting W111VER
OF (A) MAXit1UM NUMBER QF SIGNS~ (E)) PERMITTED SIGN L~Cl1TION~ AND (C) MIIIfMUM DIS7ANC[
BETWEEN 51GN5~ T~ PERMIT SEVf.I~ EXISTIN~ FREE-STANDIN~ SIGNS on property clescr{bed as;
A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consistlnn of approxlmi~tely O.n acre having a
frontage of approx(mAte.ly 1'~() fect on Che enst s(de of Euclld Street~ havln9 a maximum
depth of approxim~tely ?.6~ fect, bcinq located approxlmutely 5~-5 feet nurth of the
centnrllne of Ball Road~ and further described as 91~ South Euclld Streat. Property
presently classifled CL (CQMMERCI~L~ LIMITED) ZONE.
The sub.~ect petition was contfnued f~om the Planning Cc~mmission meeting of 1lugust 18~
1975~ for the petitloncr to consfder altern~tive signing proposals,
No one (ndicated the(r presence in oppositlon to subJect pet:ition.
Although the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated Saptember 3~ 1975~ was not read
at the public hcarinc~~ sald Staff Report is referred to and ms~de a part of the minutes.
Mr. Joseph Harbertfi~ representing the agent for the praperty c~wner~ appe~red before the
Planning Commission and stated thaC since the Planninq Commission meeting of August 18,
1975~ the suqqestions of the Commission hiad been discussed with the representatives of
Foodland Market (the applicant) anci it was their feelin~ that the requested variance was
necessary in order for them to continue their operation in the manner they felt it had to
be done; th~t the petitioner did not wish to alter their ariginal proposal; however, if
their propasa) was totally unavailable or decermined to be unreasonable~ then they would
have no alternattvc but to make changes.
THE PUBLIC HEARINf; WAS CLOSED.
In response to questioning by Commissioner Tular, Mr. Harberth stated he did not have
definite information as to whsthe:r the petitioner owned Just some or all of Che
residential properties abuttin~ the subJect property to the north~ or whether the
petitioner actually resided in one of those abutting resiclences; and that said informati~n
was not avaflable since Mr. Mandas ~as on vacation and could not be contact~:d presently.
Commissioner Flerbst noted that accordinq to the Staff Report~ the existing sign area was
approximately 92 square feet under the area allowed bv Code and~ therefore, an
apprQximately 8 r. 12 foot re~aer board could be added which wc+uld be in conformance witn
the type uf sign permitted and woulcl be far superior to the exisLirig multiple price signs.
Mr. Harberth r~lterated that the petitioner had been informed concerning the Planning
Commission's suggestions and dire~tions from the meetin~ of August lt~~ 1975, and although
he was not sure about the petitioner' exact rcasonin~, tro osedtioner had requested that
the Fetition be put before the C~mmission as originally p p
It was noted that Che Director of the Planninc~ Department had determinea that the proposed
activity fell within the definition of Section ;.01, Class 11, of the Clty of Anaheim
Guideli~es to the Requirements for an Environ;nental Impact Report and was~ therefore,
ca'tegorically exempt from the requirament to file an EIR.
Cammissi~ner Nerbst offered Resolution No. PC75-18?. and moved for its passage and
adopt(an, that Petition for Variance No. 2729 be and hereby is denied~ on the basis th~r.
the petittoner did not demnnstr~te that a harciship would be created if said waivers were
not granted; that any hardship regarding signing on the sub.(ect Froperty could be resolved
by expanding the existing ~ree-standing sign; that, furthermore~ approval of said waivers
would set an undesirable precedent for future similar waivers; and that the Planning
f,ommission has denied similar requests in the past. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call, the foregoln~~ resolution was passed by the fallc~win~ vote:
AYES: CONMiS~iONERS: HARNES~ HERBST~ JOIiNSON~ KING~ M6RLEY~ TOLAR, FARANO
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSE~JT: COM~IISSIONERS: NONE
~J
• ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNIWG COMMIS~ION, Scptember 3~ 1975
75-4Ad
CQN~ITIONAL 115E - PUElLIC HEARING. GULF OIL C~RP~RI1TIbN~ 1f3Q1 Avenue of thr~ Stars~
PF.aMIT N0. 15hQ Los Angeles, Ca. 9~~fi~ (Owner); FOS7ER 6 KLEISER~ c/~ Robert Reld~
"' 1550 West ~lashington Boulevard~ Los An~eles~ Ca. 9oon7 (nqent);
requesting permission to CQNSTRUCT A BILlh~11RD EXCEEDING TFIG
MAXIMUM ~ISPl.AY Af~EA on prnperty describeJ as: A rect~n~ul~rly-shaped parcul of
land consisting uf approxlmatcly 0.7 ar.r~ located at the southwest corner of B~11
Roa~ and Deach Oaulevard~ having ~pproximaCe frontagns of 175 feet cn t!~c south slde
of Dal) Road ancl 175 feet on the west side of Bepch Boulevard~ and further described
as 1201 South Beacl~ ~aulevard. Property presently classifled CL (COMMERCIAI~ LIMITED)
ZONE.
No one indicatecf the~r prescnce In opposition to subJect petition.
Although the Staff Reporl to the Planning Commission dated Snptember 3~ 1975~ was not read
at the public hearing, said Staff Report Is referred to and made a part of the mi~~utes.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Allan Daum read a letter of opposition into the minutes, as
f~llows:
"August 28, 1975
DirecCor
Develaprm:nt Services
C i ty Ha 1 1
Anaheim, Califa~nla 97.~05
As propertY owners we wish to state that we strongiy op~~se the issuance o+f
Condit~onal Use 'ermit No, ~5bn~ requested by Gulf Oii Corporation as Owner,
and Foster and Kle~iser, Agent; t~ Canstruct a B121board Exceeding The Maximum
Display Area on p~'cperty located ~t !?01 S. Beach Blvd.
Approval and issuance of the above permit would not only canstitute an eyesore~
buC could be a contributinn factor to more accidents at the already accident
prons intersection of Beach and Ball Road.
s/LeGrand D. Spencer M.D.
(1771 West Romneya Orive, Suite E~ Anaheim)
s/Thelma D. Spencer
(92iF S~outh Hayward StrPet, Anahefm)
LUS/fk
CCc City Pla~ning Commission
City of An~heim
Attn: Floyd Farano, Chairman"
Mr. Robert Reid, reprasenting the agent for the property owner, appeareo before the
Planning Cornmission and stated he was (n complete agreement with the Staff Report and his
only r,omment would be concerninc~ the reference that the proposal might set a"possible
precedent"; and that in 19~8~ th~sy had received approval for five billboards, h rn+ever~
they f~ad constructed only three of them.
Cha(rman Faranu noted that he did not believe the Planr.ing Commission had granted the
referenced billbeards and~ thereupon, Mr. Reid stated that was correct. Mr, Reid
continued by stating that the referenced billboards were approved by the City Council;
that b~llboards were permitted in the City onlv under a conditional use permit and the
reason the Billboard Ordinance was set. up in the beginning was for the removal of
billboards along the freeways; that the three billboards constructed wsre to replace some
that were removed fran the freeways; that the current proposal was to remove a smaller
~illboard and replace it with a larger pa1^.ted bulletin; that the painted bulletin was
different from an ordlnary biliboard in the manner that a Cadillac and Chevrolet differed;
and that the painted bulletlns were expensive, and they did not intend to convcrt all of
the smaller biliboards ln the fut~+re.
TIiE PUBLIC HEARINf WAS :L~1!:~ED.
~ ~
MINUYES~ CiTY PLANNING COFIMISSION, Septembe; 3~ 197~
CONOITIONAL USE PER~11T N0. 1560 (Continued)
~
~
75-404
Chel~rmen FarAno note~i that b~ck in 196A, he recalied that the Planning Commtss(on
appi~~uded Fo~ter b Kl~iser on thr numher of blllboards wh(ch they r~cmnved from thc
frec~~-~ys~ how~ver, the Commisslon'r. thtnking at that time was ln terms of amortizatian and
getting away from the Foster b Kleiser type signs; that with the current pr~posal~ thc
subJect pr~perty would still have two billboard-tyPe signs~ in Addltlon to the service
station identiflcation si~n on the c~rner; tliat the proposed sign would be 672 square feet
in slze~ compared to the existing sign which was 3Q(1 square feet; ar~d he was lnterestea to
know if the remaining billbo~rd on the subJe~t property wou1.' ~e proposed far replacemcnt
by a G72-square foot bulletin in the fuCure. Mr. Reld ~eplie~ In the negativc and
explt~i~ed that the new typc si~~n was workable and the demAnd w~s fanlastic; that Irvine
bough-t the sfgns fr•om Foster 6 Kleiser and ~.~t them in other cities to advPrtise their
buslness; and that many other cittes~ i.e., Palm Springs~ San Diego~ etc., had banned
billb~ards completely, but cantinued to buy tliem and advertise fran other citles.
Commlr,sioner Herbst took excP~tlon to the proposal n~ting that one s(gn was being replacr.d
by a rn~ther sign twice as lar,qe; that if the number of signs were beiny redu~~d, as well as
the total square footage of' slgn area existing on the property, the proposal m19ht be more
viabl~; 3nd thst the angle of v4sib(Ilty oF tha p~oposa~' Si4n was r'rom aii airection~ or
traffic. Thereupon~ Mr. fteid stated the proposal was to replace a dcuble-faced sign witt~
a singte-faced sign, Cammissioner Herbst then notecl that the proposal was for too much
signing for a servlce st~etlon lot and the subJec~ property clid not warranl• that much
slgnin~~.
It was noted that the U(rector of th~ Planning Department had deeermineci that the proposed
activity fell within r.he definltton of Section 3.01, Class 3~ of the City of A~aheim
Guidelines to the Requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and was, therefore,
categor'ically exempt from the r~quirernent to file an EIR.
Commissl~~ner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC75-1B3 and moved fnr its passage and
adoption, that Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1560 be and hereby is denied on the
basis that the size nf the proposed billboard is more than twice as large as is perm(tted;
and that ~although the petit(oner is propasing to remove o~e billboard and replace it wtth
the propo:~ed oversizeci biliboard, a second billboard would ren~ain ~n subJect property.
(See R~solution ~ook)
On roll call~ the foregoing resolut(on was passed by thP followinq vote:
AYES: COMMISSIUNERS: BARNES, HERBST, JOHNSON, KING~ MORLEY, TOLAR, FARANO
NOES: CO.MMiSSIONERS: NONE
ABSFNT: CQ111115S I QNERS : NO'~E
COND1TlONAL I~SF - PUDLIC HEARING. WILLI~M SANGSTER, 2133 West Chapman Avenue, Oranye,
PFRMIT N0. 1'~(il Ca. 92668 (Owner); JOFIN E. BOU2ANEy 1019?. Hill Raad, Garden Grove~
Ca, g2640 (Agent); requesting permission for ON-SALE BEER AND WINE
IN AN EXISTING RESTAURAPIT on property described as: An irregularly-
shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately O.S acre havi;~g a frontage of appraxi-
mately 100 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard, having a maximum depth ~f
approxlmately 255 feet, being located approximately 1$0 f~et south of the ~enteriimr ~t
Orangewood Avenue~ and further described as 2112 S~uth State College Boulevard.
Property presently classifled ML (INDUSTRIAL} LIMITFD) ZONE.
No one tr~dicated their presence in opposition to subJect petition.
Although the Staff Report t; the Planninn Commission dated Septeaiber 3, 1975, was not read
at the public hearing~ satd Staff Report is referred to and made a parr of th~ minutes.
Mr. John E. Bouzane~ the agent for the praperty owner, appeared before the Plannina
Comntssion and stated he had checked with the neiqhbors and there were no obJectionti to
the on-sale beer and wine at the sub}ect location; that no structural changes were
proposed; and the additi~n ~f becr and wine woul~i be a great hslp to their buslness.
~ ~ ~
MINUTF.S~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ 5eptembcr 3~ 1975 75-A10
COMDI'ilON11L IISE PEaNIT N0. 1561 (~onti~~u~d,
TIIf PU[~LIC HI'ARl~lf, WhS Ci.~1St:D.
In responsc Ca questi~nin~ by ChalrmSn Far~n~~, Mr. Bouzanc st~ted the c~unter in the
subJeck restnur~inC w:;s use~i ~~s a fc~o~l servlce c~untcr .incl was not .~ cpcktail bar.
C~mmissioner Kinq noted th~t he ~~nd Commi~cir~ncr Marley hid checked the subJect ~roperty
in tl~c ficld ind founcl th~~t tfie bulldinn ai,~s well-kept~ with am{~le pt+-'kinn spaces, and the
fnt.crior wa3 kept clean- also.
Comm(ssioner Itinu offered Re~solutlon No. PC75-18-~ and moved for its passa~e and ~doptfo,,~
tht~t Pelltlon for Canditi~n~l Use Permit Nn. ISG1 be and hhrehy is ~ranted, sub,lect t~ [he
condition that the ~n••sale heer and wlne sh~~ll be in c~niuncti~n with the servlnry of
meals; ind s~bject to the Interdep~rtment~~l Committee rec~mmendation. (See t~esolutlon
Elook)
0~ roli call, the fore~oin,i resoluti~n w~~s passed 'oy thc followinq vote:
11YfS~ COMMISSIONERS: BARtJES~ H[RDST~ J(111NSON, KING, MQRI.FY, T(1LAR~ FARP~N~
NQES: C~MMISSI~~IERS: MONE
l~BSFNT: CQMMISSIOMFRS: N~PJE
Mr. Boua.ane lnyulrr.d if thc Planninq Commisslon could walve the 2?.-day apPeal perlod for
the c~nditional use permit t~ become final end Deputy City Attorr.oy Frank Lowry advlsed
that the applican[ ~~~~uld be required t~~ wait the specified tim~, as provided for by ti,ode,
VARIAPJCE N~. 2731 - Pl16LIC HfARltl(;, CQ~ITINE~IT~L LIMITE.D Pl1RT~lERSf11P~ IOfiA9 Wilshire
Boulevard, Suite r7~,~ Los An9eles, Ca. 9~02h (Owner); DA~! l.
R(1WLA~lU~ 100Q West La Palma Avenue, Anah~im, Ca. 92801 (Agert);
requesting WAIVER OF (A) MIPJIMUN BUILDING SITF ARCA AD~D (9) MINIMII~1 FLObR AREA TQ
°ERMIT 12 UNLAWFULLY COPISTRUCTED APARTMEP~TS on properCy described as: !1 rectangularly-
shaped parcel ~f land consistin9 of approximately S.~ ~cres havinq a frontage of
approximately 6~~ feet on the ;outh and west side of Mallul Drive~ having a maximum
depth of approximately 660 feet, and being located approximately 37n feet west of
the centerline of Harbor Boulevard, and further described as 2175 Mallul Drive.
Property presently classified RM-12~!1 (RESIDE~lTIAL, MULTIPLF-FAMILY) ZONE.
No one indicated thelr presence in opposition to subject petition.
Although the Staff ReporC to the Planning C~r,xnission dated September 3~ ~~175~ ~yas not read
at the public hearing~ said ~taff Report is referred tn and made a part of' thP minutes.
Mr. Dan Rowland, the agent for the property owner~ appeared be~ore the Planning Gomnission
and stated a drawing was before the Commission indicating the unla~yfully eonstruct~d
apartments; that Mr. Evans, President of Continental Limiteci Partnership, was totally
unaware that the sub.ject 1: units were lllegally constructed until approximately flve days
prior to the closinq of the escrow to purchase the apartment prolect and Mr. Evans had
proceeded to close the escrow knowing thi: he had a problem; that the illegal units had
been in existence for approximately four years~ had been accepted and filled a need in the
community with a 100~ occupancy factor; that, upo~ investigatincl the matter, it was found
that the o,-iginal conditional use permit (No. II07.) granted a to~al of 24R units and,
therefore~ the 252 units which were purchase~ appeared to be only four units In exc.ess of
the approvai; that Mr. Evans had also been unaware that th~ builder had decreased the
number of units const.ructed to 2~-0; th~it both he and Mr. Evans felt that if the illegal
conditions existed for sever~l years, it would :eem reasonable to allow th~ untts to
continue as long as the requirements of the Building Division wcre mat so ~t .~o great
danger could befall the occupants of the units or the City of Anat~cir~i; thac, concerning
parkinq~ the sub.ject apartments comprised a stnc~les complex, and a parking study was made
beginning .luly 17. 1975 to indlcate thc daily use of the parkin~ from Thursdays through
Mondays and from 6:00 a.m.; that the par{<In~ study was facilitatecl through the securlty
guard on the property, and indicated clearly that no parkin~ problems e:cisted; that
~
~
v~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING CONMISSION~ Septembnr 3~ 1975
VARIANCE N0. 2731 (Continued)
~^~1
~
75"411
Mr. Evans cred 12ed pub I I c trana~r tat I~n and the use of b icyc 1 es for th~ adequt+cy of
parking; that, additlorsally~ many of thc residants ~orked in 2he lmmedlntt areo; that tho
parking~ evon with the ad~lltlonal dweliinc~ units, still met t he rcquirements of the Code;
th~t there wcre oCher p~o,)ects In the Clty af Anahelm which c c~mp.ired wlth the subaect
prnJect and the (llegally constr~ictecl units, i.e., Westward H~, llncoln Palms~ Vlll~g~s
Inn~ etc.; that the Villacie Inn advert(sc~1 ents on monthly basis; that tho ~ubJect
dcvefopmant had a much better cnvironment than a motel anci th e privilc~es b~ing requn~ted
ware bcing enJoyed by others In the comnu~nity; that. regardi~g density, tlie subJect
devclopment had undersized unlts and less land than authoriz e d, howevcr, in the Center
City S[udy Victor Gruan advocate~i or recommended A35-squAre f oot unils and the subJect
davelopment was more tt~an ad~qua[e In that respect. Mr. Rowlond contlnued hy stlpulattn~
1 n behal f of the pet i t 1 oner to ccxn~ 1 et i ng the i terns f n connee t i on wi th Tratt Mo. 7035 and
Conditlona) Usc Permit Na. 802, ~s outllned on page 7-c~ p~ir~graph 18, of Lh~ Staff
Report; and sYated~ however, that th~y did not know why the sub.iccC developmei~t sho~~id be
concern~ed with rerl,~cinq the Cwo parking lot type ltghts alo ngside the Van Ue Kamp
driveway~ althouc~h thsy wou1J be willi4,g to comply wlth sa(d condition, Mr. Rowland
further stipulated to complying with tl,e cnndltions of appro val ~i set fo~th in ~he Staff
Report~ Includlnq compllance with all of the Duilding Code requirements.
TI~C PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
In res~+onse t~ questioning by Chairman Farano, Mr. Rowlancl s tated the subJect pelition
constituted a req~~cst far walver ot two Zoning Code require ments, and w~s n~t a request
for waivers of the Unifcrm Building Code •equtr~ments.
Ihe Ptanning Commission ~ntered into discussian with Deputy Clty Attorney Frank Lowry and
Mr. Rc~wland to clarify the nature of the request slnce the proposed dwelling unlt slze was
Icss than allo pd by e{ther the Uniform Buildi~g Codc, the Gity Code or Gity poltcy~
during which ~. Lowry advlsed that the specific plans~ as submitted, wauld requirr. some
revislon pr{or ta any favorable action beinp taken by the Piannin~ Commis~sion sinc~ he
felt strongiy that the prt~pesal was in vlolation of the Unif orm Buildinq Codes and the
Commissfon could not 9rant any walvers therefrom.
RECESS - At 2.5~ I.~.m•, Chairman Farano declared a recess.
RECONVENE - At 3:03 p.m.~ Chairman Faran~ reconvened the meetfng, with all
'--"'- Plannin4 Commisaioners b~ing present.
(The dlscussion cor~cerntng Vartance No. 2731 continued at t hls point in the meeting.)
Cammissioner Tolar noted that the type praposal being pres e nted concerned him slnce it
would appear to set an undesirable precedent in the City; wl~ereupon, Mr. Ruwland assured
that there w~re only a few two-bedroom units in the subjec t devPic+pment which could
physically be changeJ since s(milar conversions would requi re approprlate autside walls to
access them.
The Planning Commfssion indicated Chey had no intention to permit any violations to the
l~n{form Building Codes and following lengthy discussion~ M r, Rawland ctarified that the
building requirements would be adhered to and the necessary changes made to brin~ the
structures into compliance with all the Duilding rodes; however, they were asking for
~aaivers from the 2oning Code to be ~ermit~ed t~ have less than the minimum huilding sitc
area per unit and less than the minimum floor area permi[t ed per unit to accommodate the
number of units that presently existed on the praperty.
Commisstoner Norley nnted that on a field inspectio~~ CommBssioner King and he nat~ced
that the sxterior of the ~ubject development was very wcll kept~ inciudin.~ the landscaping
and the trash areas; howe~•er, he had been advised that th e interior was in a dereriorated
conditi~n, Mr. Rowtand responded that he presumed the re f erenced deteriorat~•~ interior
was the public ar~as; that he had been in the development a few ~eeks prior ~~d had notcd
ev i dence of repa i n t f ng ~ pa tch i ng ~ and other repa 1 r work wh i ch new cnvne rs no~ ,..a 1 1 y became
involved with; and that the unit themselves were in norma 1 condition, i.e.~ he had
~oticed sane were w~ll kept whi ~ others were not so we11 kept, and in generai were normal
in re'~..ion to the individual tenants, etc.
• ~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION, September 3~ 1975
VARIAIJCE N0. 2731 (Contlnued)
i5-4I2
Chairmen F'ara~o nated that the Planning Commisslon had be~n throu~h scxne palnsCaking
public hea~in~a in determ)ning that mult(pla-fAmily dwellfng units should havc a certaln
amou~t of floor space with the excep:lon thet appruximntely 25~ of snid units with(n Any
given praJect minh~ have a lesser amount af flo~nr space; nnd that t.he Canmissl~~ was
pretty much unani~sbus (n their fears about pcrmlttinq kicchens In ~ven smaller unlts~
i.e.. motels~ slnco s+~l<i unlts mlght beGOme sub-standard apnrtm~nts; and th,~r If the motel
davelopment~ referred to by Mr. Rowland were lndeed belnq advertisod as epartments and
leased by fhn munth~ then the City rccords ~ppraving thc~sc developments should be
(nvestlnrted. M~. lowry canfir•med that motels were permitte~i ro advertise for da(ly and
weekly periods~ only; haaever~ the Cfty had no control over success(ve weekly perlods of
ren~al givesn to tenants or guests of thc motels.
Zoning Supdrvisor Annika Santalahtl noted for the Plannfnc~ Commission that Tract tJo. 7035
hAd been recorded and the Staff Report would stancl carrFcted In that regard.
In response to qucstloninc~ by Commissioner Herbst, Mr. Rowland stated the (llegal bachelor
aparLments could be e~sily reconverted to two-bedraom units; whereupo~i~ Commissioner
Nerbst noted that since the new ^wner was awara of the illegal units prior to purchasing
tt~em~ and slnce thcre would bc no great hardsfilp in returnin~ said unlts to two-beclroam
status~ sald un(ts should bc reconverted.
Mr. Rowland relterated that the own~r knew only approximatcly five days prior to close of
escraw that the .~bject units were illegal; that the develo~ment was a$3 million (+)
pro,Ject and the fi~e days were ~ike five seconds; that the apr~~aisal and laan were
ctructured around 25'l un(ts and Mr. Evans thounht~ up to thc~ ive days before close of
escrow~ tl~at everythin~ was perf~ctly legal. Mr. Rowland conP(rrned th~t Llie illega!
~unversions took place after the original constructlon of the proJect.
Mr. Steve [vans, one of the owners of the developrtx:r~t and the managing partner~ appeared
before the Planning Commiss(on anJ stated one of the effects of rec~nverting the units
would be the upheaval of approximately 24 tenants~ in additlon to considerable expense to
reconvert; that the small bachelor units happened to have the lowes~ vacancy factor of the
entire proJect, with the highest vecancy faclor being in the tw~-be~room u71ts; that the
reconverslon would saddle the proJect with rmre two-bedroom units; ~;;+ that they wouid
stipulate ~o satlsfying all the rec~ulrements of the Bullding Codes to be able to retain
the converted units.
r.ommissioner Farano noted *.hat his main concern was with 1:he Build(ng and Zon(ng Code
requirements, and whethrr the kind of hardship dern~nstrated by the petitioner would be
acknowledged for he rpm~lnd~~r of the City in the futu~e; that many similar requests had
been denied in the past; and that news of approval ~f such a proposal would tr~vel very
fast and there wouid be more similar proposals submitted for aoproval.
Mr. Evans requested that the Planning Commission consider the ~equest on its own merit.
with particular emphasis on the available parking spaces and recreatio~ial amenities. He
stated thcre ~iere not many singles apartments in th~ City of Anahe(m and there was a
demand for tl-is type facility; and that the proposal couid be cons(dered as a betterment
for the tenants in the subJect developrtient.
In response ta ~uestion!ng by Commissioner Herbst~ Miss S:~nCalahti advised that the ~ity
poltcy was presently to alla~ a minimum of 425 yquare feet f~r bachelor-type units~ said
units not to axceed 25$ of the total number of units in the development. Commissioner
Herbst then noted that the subject development might end up with couples and a small
child~ etc.; a~d that as soor as other developers were aware that a variance of the
subJect nature w~S granted~ they would probably all fcel entitled to the same privilege
and rightfully so.
Mr. Evans indlcated that the rent from the illegaily converted units was approximately
Si50 per month furnishe~i; whereupon, Commissianer Tolar hypothetically noted that by
renting to a couple or a couple with a child, the r~nts could be increased accordingly;
that with a larger return to encourage such a rentat~ the City would have no control~ and
that was his greatest conce+~n with relatianship t~ the p~oposal. Mr. Evans st:•.ed their
pol(cy was not to take children into tfix development a~d that the bachetor apartments were
to be occupled by o~ly one person. Chairman Farano then noted that (f the subJect
~ ~ ~
MINUTFS~ C17Y PLANNING CO~IMISSION, September 3, 1975 7S"4~3
V~RI/1NCE N6. 2731 (Cont~nucd)
~roposal was granted~ severrl of the motels presontly being prasecute d by the City would
~equest tha same type of varlance fa r their illegal occupanci~s,
Mr. Rawlanef raquasted that tho Planning Commission conslder apl~rovlnn the sub~ect varinnce
with the conditlon that the floor space be i•eal located to make lhe i lle.~al units more
aqual in size, or to i~e (n conformance witli the approval of Conditinnal Use Permlt Na. ~()T.
which {~ermit[ed bachelor-typc apartmenks in the sublect ~leveloprnent varying fn size Prom
t~2~ to 6f~; squarc fect, and ~ubject to the petitloner satfsfyfr.r~ all af the requiraments
of the Unifurm 6uildinq Codes ~g ad a ntr,cl by the City.
(n raspons. to yucstlonfn~ hy ~omm~~sioner Morley~ Mr. Rowland st~it~d the reallucation of
the f loor space o~f the converted two-bedroom ~partme~ts to have more equ~) bachelor-type
un i ts would not be as ernens (ve as r.onvert i nn bACk to two-bed~ ~om apar tments.
'ihe Planning Commission ent~ered into discussi~n rehardinq passible revislons to the
s~.eciffc plans to shnw how the floor space of the illegal units could be r~~,1l~cated~
~~iiereupon, Mr. Rc~w~and revlsecl the plans before the Comnlssion to so indicate that there
would be~ a minimum of ~~2Q squ~re feet In each af the bachelor-type uraits~ sald revisiuns
indicatinq the closinq off of dnorways, etc. Yhe Plann(n~ Commission generally concurred
that cl~e plans, as revised at the meeting, would constitute officlal revlsion.
Mr. Lowr•y withdrew hls ob.jectl~ns to the plans on the basis of the petitloner's
stipulation to comply with tiic requ i r~ments of tt~c Building Codes.
The Plannin~ Commission entEred into discusslo~~ with Staff anci ll~e petitioner concerning
the tlme limltaCl~n for the submitt~l of p12ns sho~ing compliance with the minimum
Bu i 1 d i nc~ Code requ 1 remer.ts and the da tes fo r cc~mmencement of the co r rect I ve work and
completlon of said wc+rk, etc. ~ duri r-g wliich Mr. Rowland st(pulatecl to submitting the
plans, obtafning the necessary bui 1 din~ pern~its and commencing the corrective work within
45 days and to completing said work within 1B0 days fror~approval.
Commissioner Her~bst offered a motic~~, seconcied by Commssioner Tolar and MOTIQN CARRI[D~
that the Plannln~7 Commission does herPby ~ecommer,a to the City Cuuncil that the sub}ect
proJect be exempt From the requirement ta prepare an environmenta~ impact report, pursuant
to the provisions of the California Environmentai 2uality Act.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolut ion No. PC75-185 and moved for i ts passage and
adoption, that Petition for Variance No. 2731 be and hereby is granted~ in part~ granting
waiver of the minimum building site area per unit on the basis tl~at the original approval
of the subject apartment complex was for 248 dwelling units~ however, only 240 dwelling
units were actually r,onstructed and, with the convers(on of the I?. tw~-bedroan ~~nits to
two b~chelor-type un I ts each, there is a tota 1 of 25~ un i ts presen t 1 y exi st i ng on the
property, or four more units than oric~inal ly approved and~ therefore, the request is
determined to be minimal for the subject property; subJect to the stipulation ef the
pet i t ioner to wi thdraw the request for wa i ver of the minimum floor area and to reaS locate
the floor space of the 12 unlawful ly converted two-bedroom apartments so that each of the
24 resultant bachelor-type units w i I1 conform to the ori~fnal approval of Conditi~~nal 'J;e
Permi [ P~o. 802 which permi tted bachelor-type apartments v~~ryin4 ;n s~ ze i rom 4t0 i.o 605
square feet; subJect to tne stipul atio~ of Che petitioner that the co•~verted apartment
units will ccxnply with the minimum~ standards of the City of Anaheim as adopted in the
Ur.(f~rm tiuildi~g~ Plumbinq, Electricel~ Housincl, Mecha-!ical and fire Code~~ and tna[ th~
plans shal) be submitted. building permits obtaine~, an~ the work eortxnenced within y5 d~ys
from tlie date herenf~ ~~id that said~ork shall be completed within 180 days from the date
hereof; and subject :o conditions. (See Resolution Bonk)
Un roll call~ the foregoinq resolution was passsd by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES : COhiM i S I SONERS :
ABSENT: C~MMISSIONERS:
RECESS '
RECONVENE •
~r
BARNES ~ HERBST, JONNS~N ~ KIP~G, MORLEY, YbLAR ~ FARANO
NOPJC
NONE
AL 3:4~~ P-m,, Chairman Farano declared a recess.
At 3:5t1 P-m, , Cha i rman Farano reconvened the meet t ng, wi th
all Cortxni ssloners being present.
~
~ ~
MINUT[S, f,iTY PLANNING COMMIS510N~ September 3~ 19'/5
~NV I RONMENTAL I MP~1CT
RFPORT N(!. 17.9
TE~JTATIVE MAP OF
TRACT t~n, ~45f~
(REVISI~F~ Nf1, ++)
75°414
- DEVEL~PER: WCSTFIEI~ DEVE't.~PMf:NT C~?.~ 17~~% Skypark f.ircle, Suite IOA,
( ASS~CIA'fF.S~ 175
Irvine~ Ce. 97.7~1. EN~~ItlEER; W~Ll.Dl1t! ENG P~~f:Rlfl~
South Clnudina Street~ Anaheim~ Ca, 91fi01, Sub~cct properiy, consist-
in~ of aporoximatr.ly 1'~ acres locate~l nnrthwes~AX~mr~~~ frontayes$o}t~on
of Vla Arh~les nnd Canyon Rim Road, havinq app
q4-- feet on the n~rth ~i.fe of Canyon Rim Road and 15~~~ feet nn the west
side of Vis~ Arh~les, is pro~osed for subdivisi~n Into ~4 RS-:~OUO lots.
pcpuLy City At.t~~rn~.y Frnnk Lowry presented the Stnff Rep~rt to the Plannine~ Commisslon
d~ted Septemhcr '~~ 1975, an~ s~id Sr..aff Report is refcrred to and made a part of the
minutes. Mr. Lowry note:d thot Revl~(~n N°~ ~ ~IntconJunltloncwithtTentatlva Map ofg7raci
approved by thc C i ty Counc i 1 on ,luly 1 E~, 197 i~
No, R455 (Revislon No. ~~)~ tfie entire dcvelorment consiscin~ af 71 1ots; that Trac[ No,
f~~+55 (Revisl~n No. 4) w~s rec~rded on May 27., 1975~ h~wever, the subl~ct tract expired
because ar~ extension H~as nc~t requested fn time, accord(nn to the new Subdlvlsion Ma~ 11ct;
that the -r,~p currenrl~ hef~re the Plann(nn Commission was ~consis~tint~ofha 34liot~,SRS-
appr~ved Tcntat Ive M~~p c~f Tract No. ~4!~~~ (Revi s ir,n Na, 3) ~ ~1
5~0~~ single-family rr.r,icienti~l suhdivision havin~ a den.ity ~~f 2.~~ units per gro~s acre
(2,8 units per net acre).
In response fo questlonlna by Chairman Farano, zonin~ 5uperv~sor Ann11:a Santalahitl advlsed
that "Lot A~" which had b~en created between Lot Nos, 3~ ~+nd 31, was design~ted as an
easement reserved f~r futu~c roadwiy to thc prc~~~~rty immediately to the north from Vla
Arboles; ~~nd that sald future roadway location appeared Co ~e acceptable insofar as the
topoqraphy was concerned,
Mr. .fames P,ogers, President ~f Westfleld Oev~~lopment Company, l'he developer, appeared
before the Planninq Commission to answer q~iest(ons reqarcling thc proposal~ a~nd stated hc
had nothinh to add to the inf~,rmation conCalned in the Staff Report,
Commissi~ner Johnson offered a moti~n, seconded by Commiss(oner King and MOTI~N CARRIED,
chat the Planning Comm!4sion does hereby reaffirm its action of' June 2~+, iy7~~,
reconimending th~t the City Councll certify Environmen~al Impact Report No. 129 as In
c~nformance to thP City a-.i S.+.ate Guldelines and the State of California Environmental
Qua 1 1 ty 11c t. .
Commissioner Johnson offe~e~1 ~ motion. secanded by Commissioner Morley and MOTION CARRIED,
that 'fentatiue Map of Tract No. 8456 ~Revision No. -f) be and herehy is appr~ved, subJect
to th^_ f~ll~wing .:oncli[fons:
~, Th~at ~'~e appraval of Tentat~ve Map ^~ '' <<:t No. B~-yG (Revision No~ 4) is granted
s~b~e~ct to cam~~~tion af Reclassff~ t~~~ ~`7z-j}4•
2, fh~' °:hou ld this ~ubdi sion be de. s more than one subdivision, sach
su~division s:hereoi ~~h~ll be s''tted in te~, a,..~e form for ap{:roval.
3. That ~ tors within tnis tract shall be served by underground utillties.
~i. That a f i na! tract map of subJect property sha~i 1 be submi ttea to and approved by
t.he C i ty Counc i~ ~ nc1 then .~e recorded i n the Of f i ce of the Orange County Recorder.
5, ?hat any proposed covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be submitted ta and
a~proved by the ~ ity Attorney's Office prior to City Council approval af the final Yract
map and~ further, that the apprcved covenants, condltions and restrictions shall be
recorded concur~ently wi th the fi~~al tract map.
b. That street names sFiall be app!'oved by the City of Anaheim prlor to approval of a
finai tract map.
7~ 7hat prior to filing the flnal tr~ct ma~:, the applicant shall submtt to the City
Attorney for approval or denial a complete synorSis of the proposed functioning of the
operating corporation~ including but not 1 imtte ~o the a~ ticles of incorporation, bylaws~
praposed methods nf management~ boncling to ln~ure mainte~anca of commor~ property and
butldings, and such other informatlon as :he Clty Attorney may desire to protect the City,
1 ts c i t i zens znd the purchasers of the pro i ect .
8. That the owner(s) cf subJect property shal t p~y to the Clty of~ Ai ~~Pib tthe Ci ty
approprtate park and recreation in-lleu fees as determined to be app p Y
Counctl, sald fees to be pald at the time the bullding permit ls issued.
~ ~
~
~
75-~15
MINUTES, CI'TY PLl1NNING COMiliS510N, Soptemtscr 3, 1975
ENVIRONHF.NTAL IM~ACT RI'PURT ~~Q. i1.~ AND 1'ENTAI'IVf. Ml1P OF TR~C7 N0, a45G (KEVISlON N0. 4) (Cont.?
~w 9. 'I'hnt a fi-fooc hiql7, dr.c~r.z[ivc, orcnw~r•k wal i sh~ll hc cunst.ruc:~cl it thc top of
the slop~ adj~cen[ to Canyon Rlm Ro~~1 on lat Nos. I throuqh 6~nd al~ne~ thc side ~ot llnr.
of Lot No. I at Ir,as[ to chc rc~ir carncr of thc housc on s~~icl l~t. Pl.~ns for s~+id wail
shnll k~c gubmittr.~t to the P~annlnq Commfssinn an~l City Council for aG~rovnl prlar to
approva) af Chc fin~i) lr~~r.t ma(-. Rer+sun~hle l~ndsc~~plnq, Inclu~ling Irrl~ation fnclllties~
shall he inst:lled within thr. ~slnpe areis of e~ach l~t ad~acent to the rot~dw~~y and In the
uiicemen[ed partion of the arterial hi<~hw~~v ~arl:way the full cilstince of sald wall, Plans
for said fandscapfng sl~~~ll be submltte~i to and gub}ect to the approv~+~ of ehe
Superintendcnr, of 1'arkway Malntenance. Follaving inst~ill.~tlon ancl ar,ceptnnte~ the
property uwnc~r(s) shill assume respnnsihil(ty for mafn[enince of sAlcl landscAping to the
l~t l ines, ~~~d the Ci ty of Anaheim sh~l l A45llOC the respc,ns ihi l ity for ,n~intenance of the
landscaptng in the Canyon R(rn Roryd parkway,
1~, That vehlculir access ric~hts~ except ~~t street and/~r alley openfnr~,, tc, Canyon
Rim Road shall be dPdicated ta the City of Annheim,
il. 7hat dr~fna~e of said pr~perty shall be disF~oseci of in ~ manner s~tisfactory tu
the City ~nc~ineer. If, In the preparation af the s(te, sufficie~t grading is re.quired to
necessitate a hradin~ permit~ no wnrk on Gr~idinq wlll he permitted between October 1Sth
and April 15th unless all requlred off-site drainage facilities have been installed and
are operative. Positive assurance shill be provided the Clty that such drafnage facill-
ties will be completed prior to Octuber ~5cii. Necessary right-of-way for off-site
drat~age facillties shall be dedic~ted to the City, ~r the City Council shall h~ve initi-
ated condemnation proceedings therefor (:he costs of t~liich ~%~all be borne by the
developer) prlor to the comrnencement oF gradin9 operations. The required drainage facili-
tles shall be of a size and type sufflc{ent to carry runoff waters oriqinating frcxn h(gher
propertles through sald property to ultimate dispo~al is approved by the City f.ngineer.
Sald drainage facilities shall be the first item of construction and shall be cumpleted
and be functlon~l throughout the tract and from thc •fownstream buundary of the property ta
khe ultimate polnt of disposal prior to the issuance of any final building inspectio~s or
nccupancy permits. Cralnaye district reimbursemrn~ agreements may be made available to
the developers of ~aid property upon their request.
12, That gradtnq, ~xcavation~ and all other construction activities shall be conducted
in such a manner so as to minimize the {wssibility of any silt ori~inating from this
proJect being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm water oriqinating from nr flowing
throuyh this project.
13, That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as ~equired and determined to be
necessary by the Chief of the Fire Departmenr, prior to commencement of structural framing.
14. That prior to apprcval of a final tract map~ the owner(s) of subJect property
shall make irrevocable offer to dedicate an easement for riding '•. hiking trail purposes
over that port~on of subject property over which the Fc+ur Corner 'pe line Company has an
easement for pipeline and incldental r~rposes on the date of tht~ r~solution. Said offer
to dedicate shall be irrevocabla for a period of twenty (20) years and may be accepted t~y
the City of Anaheim at such time as it is determined that development of such faciliti~s
would be in the best interest of the City of Nnaheim. Said irrevocable offer to dedicate
shall be recorded concurrently with the ~inal tract map.
15, 7hat a minimum 2~-scale plot plan showing all on-site tmprovements, including eave
Qverhang and praposed locatian oF all air-cnnditioning equi-~ , shall be submitted for
building permits.
lfi. That the precise locati~n of the public access easen~ent to the property to Lhe
north of subJect tract shall be ~etermine~f and shown on the final tract map.
17. That prior to approval of the final tract map, the petitioner shall make somr
provlsian, acceptable to the City Council~ for landscapin~ and maintenance of the slopes
within and/or created by the development of this property.
18. That f~nal floor plans and elevations for each phase of development shal) be
submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council pr(or to approval of
the final tract map.
~q~ That the loc.ation uf the street (lot A) to se~ve the property ta the north of
SU~)J~G'~ tract shall be approved by th,° owner of said property.
~
~~
w^~
~
MINUTES, CiT~ PL-"~tdNING COMMISSION, Sr.ptembcr 3, 1975 75~~~~~'
R[PtyRTS APIU ~ I T[ PI N~. 1
RFCOMM[~IDIITI~NS ItFCL/15SIFICIITION NQ. 'I-79-hh(l~i) - Rcc~ucst fnr• approv~il c~f
~ ~1'CCISH pl~rs - Propcrty cc~nsi~>[Inc~ of a~~ro~ci,natcly 3 ncres
I~r.nteci nt tlTe snuthc.,ist corner of Serrnn~ Avenue ~~ncl Noh!
R,anch Road.
~t was iiotCd that thc^ *~ubJect re~~ur~st was continued fr~m thc Planrtiin~ f.ommfssian meeting
of August lA, I`175~ f~r .icidltional ',nformatic>n ~~lr-tivc to ~1CCC5'S to the subJcct prop~rty.
Znnln~7 Supzrvisor Annika Sant~~lihtl not~d that. the City Traff}c Enc~inr.er had indic~ted a
willingness to accept the ~ccess shcwrn ~~n tf~e submlt[ed rrecisc pl~ns (R2vislon No. 1)~
provicied th~t a rnccllan strip bc pl~ced in tlic pr~posed nc:c:ess clrivew~y.
Mr. Skanley Br~~t, representing thc appl(cints, ~ppe~~red hefore thr Piannine~ Comm~sslon
and stated they had elim(n.ited the originally-pr~posed eastr.rly acce~s driveway on 5errano
Avenue ~nd werc prop~~in~7 to keep Che westerly Acces~ drivew~~y; ~nd that the Traffic
Englneer's sugge~tion for thr ~nedlan strip was a good une and tliey would sr.ipulate t:~
providln~ said median.
Cammissi~ner hbrle:y offsred a motion, seconded by Comm(ssloner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED,
that the Planning Comnlssir,n does hereby recommend to [he Cfty f,ouncll that the precise
plans known as Revision No. 1~ as submttted in conriectlon with Reclassification No. 71-%?.-
44(14)~ be appraved, subJect to the condition that a median strip be placed in the
proposed access drtveway on Serrano Avenu~, as appr~ved by the Trgffic E~gineer.
ITEM N0. 2
COPIDITI~N~L 115E PERMIT N0. 612 (READVF.RTISED) - Rey~est for
appr~val of final specific plans - Property consisttng of
approximately 0,9 acre having a frontage oF approximately 98
feet on the north side of Orang• Avenue, being located approxi-
mately 660 feet west of the centerline of Euclid 'Street, and
further described as 1749 ~'est Orange Avec~uc.
It was noted that the submitted final specific plans indicated complete r,onformance with
the plans prevlously approved in connecti~n with the subject con~'tional use permit; that
the submitted plans indicated a sanctuary with 196 ~.eats and an educatiunal unit totaling
approximately 4$QO square feet; that 39 parking sp~ces were required based on one space
per flve seats, however. the plans ind(cated 3Q parking spaces plus an additional 28
spac~s whlch were available at Chaparral Park per a previous agreement~ said spaces being
providecl (n accordance with Code standards; that the landscapei setbacks conformed to the
previously~approveci plans and, although no sign was shown on the plans~ a 20-souar_ foot
sign was permissible.
Commissio~er King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tolar and MOTION "ARRIED~
that the Planning Commissian does hereby determine that the final speci`ic plans~
including the site plan, floor plans and two elevations~ submitted in cor.~ection with
Conditional Use Permit No. 612 (Readv~r~ised) are in substantial conformar~ce with the
Planning Commission's original appraval of said conditional use permit (as readvertised).
ITEM N0. 3
SANTA ANA RIVER BICYCLE TRAI1. - Requested by the
Environmenta) Management Agency of Orange County.
It was nc:ed khat the Environmenta1 Management Agency of O~ange County was proposing to
construct a bicycle trail c~ 2he north side of the Santa Ana Rtver between Imperial
Highway and Weir CBnyon Road; that in accordance with Sectlon E54~2 of the Government
Code~ ttie Agency was requesti~g the Anaheim Planning Commission to determine i~ the
proposed trail was in ascordance with the Ctty of Anaheim General Plan and, further~ was
requesting concurrence with the filing of a Negative Declaration for the proJect.
Further~ i*_ was noted that the deyel~pment of ~ xrall along the Santa Ana River was in
accordance with the Open Space and Conservation Element of the City of Anaheim General
Plan and sald proJect appeared to have no advPrse envtronmental impact.
~' ~ ~
MINU7fS~ CI'~Y PI_~NNING COMM1SS10~~. S~~pt~ember 3, 1775
I TEH N0. 3 ( Con t( nuecl)
'1;- ~~ 17
f,cxnmiss~~ncr Klnq offcrcd ~i nx~[lnn, s~~conded by Corrrni,~;ir,nrr Jc~hnson r+nd MOTltlfl C~RRI[D~
that thr: Pl:.~~niny Conmission t~OCS herehy recr~mmend to the City C~~uncil that the Rub.~ect
pro,ject '~e exempC from chr. requirement to prc,pare~ an envir<~nmr.nt:il impnct report, pursuant
to thc ;•-~.Isions of the Cnllfnrnin Environrnr:ntal l2-iAlity Act.
Commissloner Kin~ ~ffered Resc~lut~on N~. Pf.7;°IRF~ ~~nd nx~veci for iCS p~issa~Ia and ndopti n,
that thc Anahelm City Nlanninq Commission finds and dete.rminc~s that thr proposed
construction of thc afor~~mcntic~nr.d t,icycle tr~il fs in conform~ncr. ~~ith the Anahcim
Genera) Flan, (Sa~ ltes~lution is~okl
On rol) c<~Il~ the forehc~inc~ resolucinn wa~ (~.as,eC1 by the followin~i vot~~:
{1YE5: CQMMISSIONERS: Bl1RNE5~ HI:RDST~ JONNS~)N. KING~ MURLFY, T~1LAR, FARAN~1
NOES : CQMM I SS I l1NERS : ~~(1NE
ABSENT: COMMISSIQ~~ERS: NONE
i 7EF1 N0. 4
REQUEST ~!)R E I R IvF.GAT I VE D,'CI.AR!'~T I ON - ~~~r grad i nc~ permi t
at 2F+~ Peralta Way.
It was noted that an appllc~tlen for a grading permit ha~i been filed Por the sub)ESCt
locatiun and the applfcant was proposing to construct a singie-family reside:nr~; that an
evaluatton of the environmental impact af ~~rading at the su,~Ject locati~n was r~uired
under the provisions of the Ca1lfornia ~nvironmental Qualtty Act and the Stat~ EIR
Guide?ines since the project was loc~~ted in the Scenic ~~,rridor; anci that a s~~~dy of the
proposed grading by the Engi,ieering Division and the De~elopment Services Departmcnt
indicated that the proposed qraciing ~~ould have no signitFrant environmental impact.
Commissioner Nerbst offered a nntion, ,~conded by Cammissione.r Kina and MOTION CAi;RIFD,
that the Plartnin~ Commissir.,n dOCfi he:rehy rec.ommend to the City Co~ncil ;f~at the subject
proJect he exempt from the requiremene to prep~re a~ en~,lronmental impact report~ Qursuant
to the provisions of the Ca~ifornia Envlronmenta) Qua?ity Act.
I TEM N!). 5
RECl,AS51FIC11T10~1 N0. 73-7A-2 AND CONDITfONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1412 -
R~quest for approval of final specifi.: plans - Prnp rty cor~si~tiny
of apprnximately 0.'L acre havfng a Prontage of approximately 5~ feet
on th;* north side ~:,r lincoln Avenue, beinc~ locatr_d approximately
100(1 feet east of the centcrline of State C.ollege Baulevard, and
further described as 2211 East l.incoln A~e,iue.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor All3n ~Jaum noted that the submitted final development plans
indicated a revision to che ~riginal proposal~ said revision corisisting ~~f ,~n exp~ns(o~ of
the existing restdential st-~cture at the subject location to approxlmateiy 16Go square
feet~ or a~+4$ increase; ?,d ;hak a stipulati~~n by the applicant wauld Ue in order that
there would be compilance wit~ the mtnimum required setback frnm the front property line
to the structures~ in daiition to dedicat~on for ~ full 53 `~~t of rig~t-of-way `rom the
centerline of Lincoln Av~~nue, Thereupon, Mr. Wayne S. Inouyr:.~ General Mana~~er of A. L.
Qulntana Canstruction~ In~., tlie applicants~ appeared before the P7anning Corxnission and
stipulated that the decilcation of rlght-of-way from the centerline of Lincoln AvenuP would
be a full 5'3 feet ~n width~ and not 50 feet as indicated on the submitted plans, and that
the minimum required setback for the structures from the front property iin.~ would be
adhered to,
In response ;o yuestloning by Commissioner aarnes, Mr, Inouye ~r!pulated ~hat thc garage
on the p~oper'ty wouid not be used for conductinr~ buslness. Commissioner Barnes c~arified
that sald garage coulcf be used by the owner for parking his automobile~ for instance.
Commissioner (iarnes offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Morley and M0700N CARRIED~
that th~ Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the Cfty Council that the flnal
speclfic plans submi:ted in connectian aiith petitions for Reclassification No. 73-74-2 and
Condltlonal Use Permtt No. 1412 be approved as being in ss~6stantial conformance wl[t~ tlie
Pla~ntng Commission's orlgir~~ ~oproval of said petitions, subJ~ect to the stipulations ~f
the petitloner and subJect to the o;iginal ~o~~ditions of approval a~ said petitl~ns.
~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY P~ANNING COMMISSION~ Septenb~r 3- 1975
~
~
7~-h18
ITEM N0. G
'~fTTfifF,1_ US[ PERr11T No. 1177 - Roqur,,t for extens(~n of
timc - PrApcrty cnnsisting oF apprnximAtcly I? ~icres locih:~l
a[ thc nortfiwest corncr of C~rritos Avenur nnd WesC Strr.r.k,
c.urrrnt.ly zonccl RS-A-h1,0~~ wlth ~ res<>lutlon of InCenr. to CR.
It was noted Ui~~t the applic.ants, Dnnlel H. Wolff of Kaplan, Livin+~ston, Goodwin.
Berkawltz and Se~vin, Law dffices, Wr~ither [nterpr•ises~ Inc,, ancl Wr~ther Hotels~ Irc.,
were requestinq a onc-yc~r extension of time f'or Conditional Use Permit No. 1127; chnt the
use pcrmlt was ryrnnted on July 2`~~ I'1~9 t~ utillze the westerly pc~rtlon ~~f the subJect
property for ~utdo~r b~nquet fac i 1 i t i~:s ~n~J on~ of the condl t i~~ns of appr~v~l w:+s "T{iat ~a
tlme llmitatioc~ of onr. ye~r shall be yr~intecl f~r the use of subJect prop~rty, suh}r.ct to
an additlona) y~ar beinq grante~l upon request by the petitloner aftcr invrstl9ation and
approv~) by [he Planning Commission"; that five one-year extension~ ~~f time had been
granted since the oriciina~ approval of subJect use, th~ latest hr+ving ex~~ireci on July 2a,
1975; and that no complali~Cs had been receive~i (n ri,~~ P!a~~ning Qep~rtment regarding the
outdoor banyuet facllities.
Commissloner Johnson offered a motion~ seconded by Connnissioner K(ng and MOTi"N CARRIED~
that the Plr~nning Cammission does hereby granl a one-ye~,r extension of time for
f.ondltiona) Use Permit No. 11?.7, as requested hy the applicants~ sald tlrne extenslon to be
retroactive to .luly 27, 1~75 and to expire July ?.8, 1976.
IT~M N0. 7
ENTA VE MAP OF 1'RACT NOS. 7137 (REV1510N NQ. G) AND 7666
(REVISION N0. 1) AND CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1543 (Sant
Construction Canpany) - Request for approval of revfsed plans -
Property c~nsisting of approximately 30.5 acres l~cated at the
northeast cor•ner of La Palma Avenue and Fairmont Baulevard,
havin~ approximate fro~tages of 1576 feet on the north side of
La Palma Avenue and 670 feet on the east side of Fairmont
Boulevard.
It was notecf ~hnt a condition was imposed upon Tract Nos. 7137 and 7666 and Conditional
Use Permit No. 1543~ as follows:
"That the owner(s) shall obtain an irrevocable license or easement for use of
xhe property located witl~~in the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad right-
of-way Co permit a portion of the reyuired sound-axtenuation berm to be located
within sa(d right-of•~way; said license or easement to be submitted P~~r review
and approva) by the City Attorney and to be reviewed by the Planning Commission
and City Council prior to the cort+mencement of the act`~•rity authorized ,,...
It was further noted that on August l8, 1975~ the Planning Commission reviewed revised
plans far the sub.~ect tracts, showing a revision to the placement of the sound-attenuation
barrier; and also reviewed the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Company license
agreement which was submitted to satisfy the abnve-mentioned condltion of approval; and
said agreement was determined ta be unsatisfactory in meeting the intent of the condition
of approva) and certain amendmr.nts were indicated to be necessary.
Deouty City Aktorney Frank Lowry advised that Sant Construction Company~ the applicants,
had submicted an amendment to the railroad company agrr.ement which was satisfactory in the
opinion of the Ctty Attorney's Office.
Commissioner Morley effered a motion~ second*~d by Commissioner King and MQTION CARRIED~
L•hat the revised maps for the subJect tracts (Nos. 7137-Revision No. 6 and 76G6-Revision
No. i) and the condltional use permit (No. 15u3)~ affectin~ a revdsion to the sound-
attenuation barrier adJacent to the raflroad property~ in adJition to the license agr~e-
ment as amended and submltted in connection wlth the Plann~ng Commission's approval of the
subject tracts and the conditional use permit~ be and heret~y are determined to be in sub-
staritiat conformance with the Pla~nina Commisslon's original approval of said matters.
~ ~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLNNMING COMMISSIUN~ September 3, 1c75 75-419
ITEM N0. ~3
~7 ,~FI~'I~'T'0 71T1E 17 QF TtIE ANAHEIM MiJ''ICIP/IL CODF.
PF.RTII1NINf TA SUBDIVISIONS - Request to sche~lulc
pu~allc hearing date.
Dc+puty City Aktar•ney Frank Lowry advised that St was in order for the Planning Commiss(on
to sch~du~e the updated Subcflvlsions Map Ordlnance for public hearing o~ Septembar 15,
1975; and thAt sald Qrdinance woul~l constitute an em~nclment ta the Anrhelm Piunicipal Code,
Title 17 - L~rid Dcvclopment and Resources, C~~apter 17.08 - Subdlvis~ons to Inr.nrporatc thc
requlro~ents of the newly-ei5acte<i State Subdivisions Map Act.
Commissloner .lohnson offe~ed a motlon, seconded by Comrniss(oner King and MOTION GARRIEp~
tn set the subJ~ct amendmGnt to tf~e Anaheim Municipa) Code for public heAring on September
i5~ 1975.
ADJOURNMENT - There bQing no further business t~ dtscusS~ Commissioner Tolar affered a
motl~n. encondod by Comminsioner ~lerbst and MOTION CARRIED~ to acJJourn
the meeting.
The meeting adJ~urned at 4:Oa ~+.m.
Respectfully suhmttted.
,~,~,~.~,~ -~
?atrtcia B. Scanlan~ Secretary
Anahelm City Planning Commission
PBS :I~m