Minutes-PC 1975/11/10U R C 0 i~ICROf It.MING SERVICE, IiiC.
~
~
~
~
l:i ty Hal l
11n~helm~ Cal i forni.i
tlnvember 1Q, 1`)75
RLGULAR MEF7) tIG (lf THF I1PlAHC I M C I TY P_.__. LI1N~! ~ N'~ COMMI SS I Ot~
RffUlllR - A rr•c~ul~ir meetlnh ot the Anahefm City Pl~nnlr~~ Cart~nilsslan was callec' t~~
MEETING ~r r bv Ch~i r~~n F'~ra~ia at 1:3~ p,m, fn thc Counci l Chamber~ ~ qu.7rum
b~~in~ present.
PRESENT - CNAIRMhN: Faran~
- CQPIMISSIONERS: f~arnes~ Flerbst~ Kirc~, Morley, Tolar
P,BSEtlT - COMMIS~I~NFRS: Johnson
l1LS0 PRFSENT ~ Ronalc'. 7hompson
Frank I.owry
Malc~lm Slat~qhtrr
Ja~ iitus
AnnEl<:~ Santal~hti
A11an Daum
Patricla Scanlan
Planning DepartmenP. Director
Deputy City Attorney
De~uty Cit;~ Attorney
Offtce Engin~ar
Zo~~~l~g Supervis~r
Assistant T.oning Supervisor
Planning Comm(ssion Secretary
PLFUfE C'r - Commissioner Tolar led in ihe Pledge of Allegi~ince zc. the Fla~ of the
ALLEGIANCE United States nf America.
C~NDITIUNAL USE - PU4LIC HEAR.IPIG. V. E. RFNNER E M. K. SCIIUMACHER~ c/o LE~~IARD
PERMIT N0, 1573 SMITH, 125-n South Claudina~ Anaheim, Ca. 928Q5 (Own~rs); ~F.ONARD
(READVERTISE~7) SMITH, 125^D South C13udina~ ,'~alielm~ Ca.~ `~28~5 (Agent),
requestinq permissEon to COP~SIRUCT A MOTEL A"ID RECREATIONAL VEHICLE
PARK, 1J17H 4iAI VERS ~" (I`) MAXI MUM BUI LDI NG HE I GHT, (D) MI P!i MUM
BUIIDING SFTBACK, aND (C) REQUIREb SITE SCRLF~~ING, o~ property described as an irregiilarly
shaped parcel of land con+isting of approximately 9.~ acres lo~ated at the northtast
corner of Dall Road and Palm Street~ `~~aving approxinate frontages of approximateiy 7~~5
feet on the north side c+f Ball f<oad and a fronYaqe of l~45 f~et on the east side of Palm
StrePt, having a maxirt~um depCh of approximately F?.5 feet, and further descrtbed as
400 Iles~ Dall Road, Property presently znned RS-~-A3,UOQ (RESIDE!lTIAL/AGRICULTURAL)
ZONE.
Commissioner Morley noted that he had a corFiict of interest as defined by the Anaheim
Municipal Code Section i.1.~+0(1 and Government Code Sectlon 3625~ et sec,,, in that he w~s
related to the petitioner~ V. E. Renr,er~ by marriage; that pursuant to the pr~vlsion~, of
the above Codes, he was hereby declaring t~ r.ne Chairm~~n that he was wlthdrawing from the
hearing i~ connection with ItPm P~o. 1(Conditional Use Permit Mo. 1573)cn the Planninq
Commisslon agenda and w~uld not take par: in cither the discusslon or the ~ioting thereon;
an~i that he had not discu4sed the matter 4~ith any memher of the Planning Commissior.
Thereupon, C~~MMISSIQ~dFR MORLEY' LEFT THF C~~JPICIL CfiAMBER AT 1:37 P.M.
Three persons indicated their presence in oppusltion to subJect petition,
Ass(stant Zonfng Supervis~r Allan Daum r~ad the Staff Report to the Planning Commisslon
daCed November 10~ 1975~ and said Staff Report is referred to as 1'F set forth in full in
the minutes.
Traffic Engineer Paul Sin~er revlewed a traffic study whlch ~uas submitted in connection
wi th the proposal , not ing i'hereoacame~lai~on thet an area be set as i de for the pai ki n~ of
recreational vehicles in tha park while ragistering~ that the park wou1~1 yenerate appraxl-
mately 1~000 trips per day when fully occu•ied~ that full occupancy w~s anticipated
during the summ~r month~s, that Ball Road ~resently carried 29~000 vehicles per day,e~nd that
the expected peak hours of traffic woulc~ b~e between the hours of 10:~0 a.m. and 1:0~ p.m.
and would not crnflict with other traffic in the area. Mr, Sinaer advised that the Palm
Street location had alway~ been a problem because of the of'.'-set i~itersectton wh~ch was
near probably the r~ st bus)~ intersectlon in the City (Ba1) Road and Harbor °aulevard) and
he would concur ir the traffic s~udy recommendati~n that if the development, as proposed,
w~s apFroved .ind constructeu~ that Palm Street be abandoned. He further noted frum the
study that the 80 feet or" continuuus left turn l~ne~ as ~resently proposed~ was n~t ade-
quate and t:'~e westernmost driveway should be rclocated to approximately 50 to 64 fee~
east of its proposed ~ocatinn.
75-520
~ ~
1
J
MINUTES, CITY ~'Lr~hN~NG COMMISSIO~I, ~lovemhcr I~~ 1975 ~5-52~
C~ND!TION/1L :1SE PEkMI'f N0. 1571 CA~ DVERTIS[U) (Continuecl)
In response to questioning by Ch~(rm~~n F~rano, (leputy City Attorncy Fran4. Lawry advlsed
rhac the peClti~ner could inlClate an ab.tin~or,ment procecding In c~nnectlon wit!• P~Im
Street, and the matter would he con~ldered nt ~~ public hearinc~ hefore the City Councll;
however~ the Planning Comrr:isslon could not prop.:rly c~.yncfitlon lts approval of the subJect
appli~ation upon abandonment oF the street; hut tfiat tr~~ Pl~nnin~ f.~~m~nisslon could ~onditlon
Its appraval u~un the peti' er n~king applic~ition for ~~bandonment of sa~~ stre.et.
Discusslon pursued con;,e~-ning .,~+- abancinnmr~nt of ~nlm Srreet And khr ~ccess ta the subJect
~roperty from 6a11 Ra~~d~ durinc~ wh(ch it was noted t'~~ai a~-titio~, hnd becn submitted t~
by t~~e prope~'ty owners ~n the w~ st s! ~,1e of P;~1 ~~ St reot i n i`avor of a!~andonment; that ~
Palm Strect were abanc!oner'~ It wouid he in~por .t t~ dPtermtne wh(r.h prapert~i owners made
the ariginal dedl.;atlnn for said strePx; and that ~erhy~.~s the mt+tter should t,e r,~ntinued
untll some of th~ pr•ublems related t~ traffic ~nd aCCe53 coulcl be resolved. Commissioner•
7olar noCed that he was oppcsecl to two entra~ice~ or acc:es5es to tne subJect property from
Ball Road; hewever, he would be receptive to •, vrider entrance at ane locatfon w(th perhaps
a divider or planter to separate th~ (rgress and ~gress; that he q,~~stionecl left tu~ns onto
Ball Road; and Chat he was def(nitely in favor of c:losing Palm Sti'~et.
In resNonse to questioning by the Piannlny C~,am~ission pcrtalninc~ [o the abandonment of
Palm St-'eet, Mr. Leonarc~ 5mith, the A~ent for th~ Petitloner appeared and stated that
abandonn~en~ of sald ctreEt was prevf.,~sly cor,lderzd by the City ~ouncll~ at which tlme
althc,ugh the prcperty owners ~n the west s~de were ln favor of the abandonment~ the owner af
thP corner ~arcel opposed t~~e abandenmunr, rnd the Clty ~our~~~i hcnored the uppos{tlon;
that the subject property owner had alterecl his origlnat d~•~~-~lopment plans For the property
and would have no naed for Palm Street; hawever~ the prope~ly owner w~, not ln a positlon
to abandon the street,
Commissioner King offered a motio~i~ se~onded 'ay Commissioner He.rbst and MOTiON CARRIED
(Commission~•r Farano v~t~ng "nn" and Comnlss~oners Johnson and Morfey heing absent) to
ho~d Lhe publ'c rea~inc, on Petition for Conditfonal Use Permit No. 157~ rh~` date. There-
upon, Chairma~ F~rano opcned th~ public hearing.
M~. i.eonard Smitn appeared befnrA the Ptanning Commiss(on and stated the development plans,
as submitted~ had ueen given much considtratlon~ both from the interior and the. exterior;
that considerat~on ~iad been given to prov~ding wlder rriveways with dividers, however, in
their review of other simil~r proJects ~t was found ~~~satisfactory; that right turns only
onto Ba11 a~as recommended by the Trafflc EnginPer ari they were agreeable to ~.he right
turns only restriction and to consolidaking the dri eways and making them wider; eFiat the
location of the westerly drivew~y was setup to hanc' e the motel and the aaste-'y driveway was
for the. benefit of the restaurart facility and for ~ecreational vehicles of any size; that
in rearranging the drive situation, they had chan~ed the parlcinc~ for the building near
the street in order to provide the proper radius for turnin~; that the requested waivers
wera a11 te.chnica) in nature since the property t~ tiie north was ow~~ed by the Coun2y of
Oranqe aod discuss?on was under way to expand the existing agrlcultural laharatory and
possibly adding 'v hospital or heaith department bu~ldinys.
Mr. Harold Got.ts~ 1113 South C~~bridge Street, Anahcim, appeared before the Planning
Commission and presented a p?t tion sf~ned by approximately 55 Property owners in Yhe sub-
jPCt area who were in oppos'ti~n to tfie proposed reclassficatlon of the subject property
to commercial} but were i~ fa~.c~r• of the property being developed as a:ity park; that the
closest City pnrk for use by the residents ln the s~~bject area was e1th~~r do4:~town or on
F.asl• Vermont; that he persorally felt that i~ the proposal was ap~roved the least he co~~ld
accept wauld be a 25-fout buffer strip betwePn the suh.ject property and the adjacent
residential trar.t~ however, he would not l~ke to have a 25-foot wide greenbelt sultable for
playina football, etc., next to fiis rear yard. but s~me type of landscaping which wo~ld
deter people fror~i using tl~e 25-'~~t strip for recreational purposes would be racommended.
Mr. Gatts reviewed the vacancy factors presently existing in the f,ity for tnotels and
recreaticnal vehicle parks, noting tt~ere were approximately 29 s~.+ch parks in the City
and there ware presently 1400 plus vacancies in the 11 parks he contacted, and that
according to a brochure there were 7000 rooms available fn the G'ty.
Ms. Irene Weltman, 1024 Cambricfc~e StrPet~ A;~aheim, aapeared before the Planning Cammission
and stated that she obJec'ed to the recra~tion~l vehicle park for severa) reasons~ heing
tF~at sn~ ~~idl,eothometwouidrdet~Peciatelherhpropertyk chatnshesdidynothbeliece there~was~ant
a 1] ace
~ ~ ~
~'f
MINUTES, C11'Y PLIINNIPI~~ COMMISSI~N, Novc~mher 1~~ 1~]S J5~~1
C~NDI1'IONAI. USC PFRMiI' N0. ~,~3 hFno~'[:R1'ISLD) (Contlnucd) i
shortaqe ~f recrcatlonal vehiGlc~ parks~ espccl~lly In thc Olsneyl+nd .~rea; thpC du~lnq thr.
~A9I ~ummer some of hei• frlcnds werc ~ble to f In~i t~ space for [hei r recre~itl~nal vehlcic
In thc evei~lnq hour5~ which would h~+vc been Impasslhlc If there was a~~hortagc; thait sh~
had ~bserved alonr~ E~a) l ftofld th~t other sueh pArk~ werc experlenc(~~ F~'~h~~mg W~ th th~~
kr~sh .~ncf r~arhAqe containcrs, with tho I~da being lel't off and a~tractln~ flies, rrts, etc.;
[hat sucti ~ f oc I 1( ty d I d not adrl t~ the beauty of the C, I ty , wl t h pr.op 1 c hnn~ i n~ ou t the ~ r
clothes and puttinq all klnds of trA:hy artlcles outslde their vehlcles. Hrs. Wel tman
statccl she wa, nnt ol~jectin~l t~ tht proposed motel,
Mr•. Ben Bay~ 214t3 West Grayson, An~~hefm~ gppCa~cc1 beforc the Pl~nnl~~~ Cammissioi~ Ancf stntad
he was presen[ to obtiln inform.~tlon And not necessarlly t~ ~f~P~~ge ~hc prnp~s~~l; that It
appeared the nroposal was m~~rc for a CR Ton~ use ihan a CL lone use, and hc~ wns quCStlonin~
the rr- ~ninn for the requested zoning when, In his oP~nlon, more ap~rc~printe r.onin~
desi~n~ilons wcre avai l~ til^; ond that h~ w~s alsn quesCloning how suc~i A propasnl Irnnx~dlntely
ad}acr.nl tn a residential develc;pme~~t couid be consiciere~l wlthout thc bene,fit of a complete
envirnnmental impact rcpo~'t.
hir, Mark Shlpkey, 47.Q Wesf Lincoln~ Anahefm~ appeared before the Pt~r^~~~y ~~~~~~~iss ion nnd
stoted he awned prop~rt•; to the west of the subJecC property and favored t~handonm~nt uf
°alm Street; that Mr. Ke[tler~ who als~ cwmed property to the west of thP subJect prnperly.
was in ravor of s~id abandonment; that they were all in f~~+vor of the abandonment because,
in their opinfon, it would bc good i~or the arca; thAt. aithough Mr. fotts opp~sPd hav(ng
children playln9 next to his property, such a s(tu~tion could be no w~rse than wh a; presently
existed on the prop~rty; that the tr~sli situation w~uld be c~ntrolled by the County fle~ltt~
Departmen[; that Ball Road was heavlly travelled and for tht~t reason he did not ftie) that
sin~le-faml'y homcs would be sultable for the property; that as far as office uses, he dld
not feel that doctor and dentist offices were reecled In the area; t~iat th~ property should
not be lett undeveloped s~~~ce It was a tax burden to the property owner; thaC as far as
there beincl na iieed for add(t(onal recreational vehicle parks thc same could be sald
abou; grncery stores~ service stAtlons~ etc,; that, In his optnion~ a property andrthat
the right to cF~oose~ within reasor~~ o~h~t he w~nted t~ do wfth hls own property;
since travel traller parks could be consldered temp~rary type uses, after about 10 years
in operation, the property c~~~ner may decide to construct b~iildings on the property whfch
would be of a per~nanent nature.
Mr. John Krajacic~ 1677 West Beacon Avenue, An~helm. appeared beforc the Plannln~ Commission
In connection with the suhject propo~a? and sto"ed he had operated the Anaheim J unctlon for
approximetely six months and lt was the nicest such p~rk anywhere; Chat the Heal th Department
allowed thc park operators only two violations of the regulatians perta(ninct to the trash
receptacles, etc., and for a third v3olatien th~ey would takA away the license to operate;
that the vacancy faGtors for m~tels. hotels and recreatlonal vehicle parks cite d at this
meeting by Mr. Gotts were not relevant since the present time of year was noi t ravelling
sea~on; that the Cou~ty was in favor of the praJact; and that the rlevelcpers would like
to proceed wi2h the project since~ if they could nat open by June 1 to June 15, 197~,
they would lose approximately $100~000 in revenues.
Mr, Smith furt`~er stated that the buffer proposed bPtween the park anci the resi dent~ahowever,
t~act would consi~t of 25"feet of landscaping to include grass, trees and shrub bery,
~o speciFic lan~scaping plans had yet been prepared; and that any questions re1 atlny to
traffic ln the area should be referred to the traffic enc~ineering stiadies.
THE PUHLIC HEARING WAS CLQSED.
lr response to qu~stioninc~ hy Commiss1..ner T~lar, Mr. Sing°r advised that the proposal had
been discussed in length with the develape;:eandFhe wes[erlteariveway~moved~attieast 5~-'~eet
re'~ting to a~cess would have tu be made~ ,
eastward to accomraodatc ieft turns in and o it of the ~roposed facil i ~Y~ since tlie left
thrt a~storagesarea be,pr vided on~theesubJectspropertytfor vehiclesnwhile~waiting to5~
ta
register at the oar;:.
Commissioner Tolar then suggested that the westerly drivcway be moved 200 to 300 feet
eastw~rd and that said driveway b~c enl~irged; whereupon~ Mr. Singer advised ~h a t s~~ch a
modific~tion would handle the tra'Fflc faster than a normal driveway.
Commissioner Herbst noted that the drives inside the E";°ct did not appear ~ d cquate
for maneuvering the lar~er recreational vehicles and that some vehlcle spaces should
probably he eliminated t~ improve the circutat:on.
~ ~ ~
MINUTF.S, CITY PLANNING GOMMISSI~N, ~lovember 10, 1~75 %5-5?9
CQNQ171~t~AL USF Pf.RMlT PIO. 157;~ R~`~DVCRTtS[D) (Cont Inued)
In resp~nse to Gucstionincl hy Coimil~sioner King. Mr. Smlt.h gtipulate~d ln behAlf ~f thc
paCit{oner to provld(n!~ nddlti~nal trasF~ enclosur~s In thc easterly half of che pro~osed
r~ecrc+atlonal vehicle park.
Co~nmisyluner Ifarncs noted that the orie~inal appraval in connect~~n wlth Cl. xoning
on th~ sub)oct p~~pr,rcy was conditlon~d upon a 5~~fnot minlm~~m buffar strip belnn pro-
vlded next c~ che resldentiAlly zonr.cl pr~pertles,and th~t the {~rop~sel was f~r a 25-foat
buffer strip, In response~ Mr. Smlth stAtad the ori~ina+l pr•oposol~ t~ his knowledge~ was
for An apartment pro_ject; howeve~~ the proposal woul' noc have trafflc within 6-Feet of tr~++
bourrdary tence nnd 25-fe~t of la~dscapinn w~uld be ;.rovided, f,oRanissloner King r,ot.ad
rhat~ with trees, any fc~oiball playinq in thc landsc~nrd area would be prevented,
GhalrmAn ~orano nated from his ~wrn persanA) ebservatlan that the prapogal was not a~Pro-•
prlate at the suhJect locitiun ~nd would be bn Inva~lon to the prlvycy oF every prope~'tY
c~wnnr on Cambrid9e Strect if nnly a 25-foat buffcr strlp was provided; that he was famillrr
with retreational vehicle parks and would not iikc to have campinn within 25-feet of hls
own property Iine; and that he wauld recommend the 50-fcx~t buffer strip be providr,d~
huweve~, hc would prefcr a 100~foot buffcr strip.
Commissloner Harnes noted for the oppositlan thaL' the Clty dlcl not presently have funds
for additlonal park land acqulsit(on,
Commissloncr Ilerbst noted that the subJect property Could be rleveloped as a very usable
mobile-hame park which would provlde more protectlon which the ad}acent property owners
deserved; and that the circ~ilation wlthfn the pro)eGC~ as propos~d~ would create very
serious problems ar+d more consideration should be given to that aspect~ wfth wider spaces
and bettcr turning radius being provided.
Cnmmissionzr Tolar noted that althouc~h he was neither In favor nor against the pruposal,
and apartments or other multiple-family dwcllings w~uld be as desirable, he felt the
interior circu~ation was a problern, as well as the access paints; that if lie were pressed
to r.ake ~ction on the proposal at this meeting~ he would not vote in favor of it~ especially
in vlew of the proposed access. Thereupon~ he r~canmende~l a continuance for modifications
to the propasal, Conxnissioner Herbst added that r~any vehicle parking spaces in the
proJect appeared to be inaccessible, Chairman Farano reiterated that he would not favor
less ti~an a 50-foot b•~ffer strip ad)acent to the residential properties since he cou?d not
irt~aos~ the proiect~ as proposed~ upon ttie property owners iii good consc:ience. In ~-6~Ycnsc
to questioning by Commissioner Herbst, Chalrman Farano indicated the buffer strip c~uid
include the street~ as long as there were nu recreatlonal vehlcles parked within 50°feet
of tihe adJacent residences.
Commissio~er Tolar then questioned H~hy an environmental impact report was not prepared ir.
cannectlon with the subJect proposal, noting that the Commission wa: not necessariiy con-
ce:•ned abuui Che flora or fauna and that the Commisslon had not reviewed the traffic impact
st~~dy wh(ch was racommended by tne Traffir. Engineering Division as a condition of develooment.
Zoning Supervlsor Annfka Santalahti noted that the traffic tmpact study could be considered
as an informational documen: in connection with the subJect petition and n~t as a part(al
EIR document; since~ if any of the elements of the EIR were considered necessary~ then a
full EIR would be appropriate. Commissioner Tolar noted that he did not wish to impr.sP
the expense of a('ull EIR document upon che developer~ slnce the traffic informatlon ~~as
the imp~rtant factor.
Thereupon~ Mr. Sm(th requested a twu-week continuance for corsideratlan of the subJect:
proposal~ in order to make modtfications to the plans as discussed and su~gested by the
Plannin~ Commissian.
Commissloner Herbst offered a motion~ seconded by Coim~lssioner Barnes~ and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissioners Johnson and Morley being absent)~ that consideration of Petitlon for
Conditlonal Use Permit No. ~S~foberevisedrplanss asnstlpulatedtto byathenpetitloner~n
meeting of November 2~, 1975~
THEFiEUPON~ COMMISSIONER MORLEY RETURNEO TO THE COUNCIL CHANBFR AT 2:45 P.M.
U
~ ~
MI NUTES , C I TY PI.ANNI NG COMMI SS I OPI ~ November 10 ~ 1975
75-S3a
COPiDI'TIONAL USC - PU6LIC HEAaING. G~LbEN WEST EQUITY PROPERTIES, INC. ~ 3931 MacArthur
PERMIT N0. 15b9 Blvd,~ Suite 10~~, Nawp~rt Beach~ f,A ~266Q (owner): TIIYLOR f',U~U,
5t~~~ E. l.o Palma Ave., Anah~lm~ CA 928Q6 (Agent); requestlnq permission
to dA AUTOMOE3IL[ REPAIR AND FORKLIFT MhINTENIINCE on F~rop~rty describe~ as
hav i ~g a
a reccangularly-sha~ad parcd) of land conststin~ of approximately 12.1 acres.
frnncage of appro>~Imately ~~75 fhet on the north side of La Pa~ma Avenue. having a n-nxlmum
depth of approximately 13~~5 feet~ belnc~ located approximataly 1A45 feet west of the cantor-
line of Imporlal Nighway. and fiurthar described as 5~-~~ E• ~.APelma Av~enue. Prope~ty
pr•esently classf ied Ml(SC) (INDUSTRIl1L, LIMIT~~-SCErIIC C~tla1D11R) 7.ONE.
The subJect peti tion w:~s zont.lnu~d from the meeting of Octolser 2~~ 1975~ for the petlt~~ner
to bc prescnt.
No one Indlcated thel r presence In opposlLion to subJect petitlan.
Although the Staff Report to the~ Planring Commisslon d~ted November 10~ 1975~ W~s not reod
ac the public h~ari~g, sald StaPf Report is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Taylor Rudd, the Agent for the Petitioner, appeared before thc Plannir~g f,ommission to
answer questions ragardin~ th~ proposal.
THE PUBLI C HEAR i Nf, WAS CLOSED.
C~mmissioner Ki ng n~ted that Commissioner Morley and he h<~d cher_ked the subJect property I~
the fleld and found that, on thP basis that the pettttoner had Indlcated to City Staff that
there woul d be a max i rnum of s i x employees at the subJect s i te ~ ampi e~ark i nc1 wou 1 d be pro-
vided; that the pe:itiorisr had Indic~ted to Staff that there a~ould be no outdoor storag~:
or repair at the subJect slte and, since there w~s inadequate roorr for outdoor storage, no
problem in that respect was entlr.lpated; that the petitloner had also indicated to Staff
t'~at the proposed hours of operrt(on were from 8:Q0 a.m. to 7c00 p.m. and no problems
were anticipat~d in that respect; that the subJect slte was an ideal location f~r tfie pro-
pased use; and that the property owner c.oulc~ be complimented for keepl~g up the property
i n good cond i t i on,
!t was noted that the Directar of the Plannirig Department had determined that the proposed
a:tivity fell wlthin the definition uf Section 3.~1~ f.lass 1~ of the City of Anafieim
Guidlines to the Requlremcnts for an Environmental Impact Report and was~ therefore~
cateaor(cally exempt from thr requlrement to file an [IR.
Commissioner K in9 offercd Resolution Na. PC75'124 and maved for its passage and adoptlon,
that Petition f~r Conditional Use Permit No. 1569 be and hereby is gr~nted, subject to the
foregoing findings and subJect to the Interdepartmental Committee rec~mmendation, (SEe
Resolutlon dook)
On rol l cal l~ thc foreqoing rr.solution was passed by the fo114wing vo'te:
A.YES COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, NFRBST, KiNr,, MORLEY~ TQLAR~ FARANO
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MOhlE
ABSENT: C~~tMISS1~JNERS: JOHNSON
(Note: The p~~itioner or his ac~ent w~s not p:esent at the duly scheduled time for the
foregoing publ Ic F~earinq and~ therefore~ this item was considered out of sequ~nte fcllowing
Item 7 on the llgend~ - Reclasstficat(on No. 75-76-11 and Variance No. 2751•)
VARIANCE N0. 2745 - PUDIiC HEARItIG. HAROLD SEWEII~ P. 0. Box 4729. Anaheim, CA 920b3
N316 Encino,
(READVERTI SED) (Owner) ; HERBERT PlADEL b AS50C. , 16250 Ventura Blvd. ~ ,
CA 913W6 (Agent); requesting WAIVER OF MINIf1LIM DIMENSIONS OF PARf;ING
SPACES 70 CONSTRUCT A BANK on property des~ribed as a rectanguiarly-
sha ed parcel of land consisting of app~oximately 1.18 acres loca~ted at the ~orthwest
P
rorner of Carbon CrGCk Chann~l a~d Eucl id Street. having a fronte~ge of approximate y
lA6 f~et an the west slde of Euclid S'creet~ having a maximurn dept:h of approximately 277
feet and bei ng located approxlmately 230 feet south of theresentl 1 Iclassif ied CLS (CONMERCIAI,
and furthe~ descrtbed as 721 N. ~uclld Street. Property p Y
LIMITED) ZONE.
The sub ject pet i t 1 on wa~ con t 1 nued f rom the meet I Rg of Octobe r 2~~ ~ 1975 ~ fo r readvert 1 sement.
No one lndiea:ed their presence In oppositlon to sub)ect petiLlon.
~ ~ ~
VARIANCE N0. 7.745 IaEADVEkTISEU) (Continucd) 75-531
Althuuc~h the StAff Report to the Planning Commisslon dateci November 10~ 1975- was not
re ad at the public hnr-ring. ~eld Staff Report f~ rcferred to and made a part of the
min~ates.
Mr, Nerbert Nadel, representtnq th~ Aqent for the Petitlaner~ ~ppQAred bcfore the Plenning
Commiss(on and revlewed the proposAl to ostablish Approxlmately 13 automohile parkinn
spacas wh(ch wPre reduc~d in alzn to sccommodate compack cars~ s;ating that the sole pur^
pose of th~ request wes t;a^I~c~w ~~~c ~r~st~new~carsewereWCOmpacCsc inrkeepin~twlthrthe~~e1
presented a landscapin9 P
r;at (on~,l clasol ine shortage.
1~NE PUBLiC NEARING WAS CL~SEO.
Commissioner Ilerbst notod that a Pacer automobl~e was not a compact car In width; ttiat he
woul:l consider the biy problem to be control oP tlie use of the substandard sp~ces; that ne
a~greed that parking spaces f~r compacc cnrs were r.eeded, however~ such spaces should n~t
be intermingled with spaces pravldnd for larger cars; and that the smaller spaces would h~~ve
ta be clearly fdentificd. or the stalls eliminated altogether so as not to havc problems.
Mr. Nadel stated the proposed bank buitding woulcl have speculative offices and they needed
the parking spaces as requested, and that he would stipulate that each of the 13 substendard
or compact car spaces would be elearl~/ markecl to lndicate said spaces wrre for compact cars
only and not for standard or lar~cr sized cars.
It was noted that the Trr+ffic F.nglc~eering Oivision was recommending that vehicular access to
the drive-through bank windows shoulcl be from the west with cars exiting directly ta Cuclid
Street to eliminate the posslb:ity of waiting vehicl=:s backing into Euclid Street.
It was noted ttiat the Dlrector of the Planning Department had determined that the proposed
activity fell wlthin the definitlon of Secticm 3.~1~ Class 11, of the City of Anaheim
G~~idelines to the R~quirements for an Envtronmental Impact Report and was, !herefore~
categori~ally exempt from the requtrement tn file an ~IR.
r,ommissioner Tolar offered Resolution No. PC75~z?5 anii moved for its passage and adopti~n
that Petiti~n fir"~at~onseof~the7petitlonerh~andysub]ectntodtheulnterdepartmentalgCommittee
findings and st p
r~:commendation. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call~ the forecioing resolution was passed by tie following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONER~; dAR~dES~ HERE157~ KING~ MORLEY, TOLAR, FARANO
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: P~ONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JOIINSON
RECLASSIFICATION - PUDLIC HEARIPIG. EQblARD R. MEGER, E~ AL, 1282 East Santa Ana ~treet~
N0. 75-76-6 Anahelm~ Ca. 92804 (Owner); E. J. CA~iPBELL b COMPA~~Y~ 720 South
Euclid SCreet, Suite 9~ An~hel.m~ CA. 92804 (Agent). Property
VARIANCE N0. 2739 described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
READVERTISED approx(mately 1.0 acre~ having a frontage of approx!mately 162 feet
on ti~e south side of Orange Avenue~ f~aving a maximum depth of
approximately 29~ feet~ being locateu approximately 113 feet east of
the centerline of Valiey Street~ and further described tis 2120 West Orange Avenu~.
Property presently classified RS-A-43~~d0 (RESIDENTIAL/~GRICULTURAl.1 7_OME,
REQUESTED CLAS51FiCATION: RS-72Qb (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAFIILY) ZQ~~E
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (A) REQUIREMEPIT TNAT ALl L~TS ABUT A PUBLIC STREET,
RESIDENCESr,RCAR ON7ARTERIALr,HIGN41AYS2TORESTABLISHTFOURCLO?SA~~LY
The subJect petiiions were conti~u~d from the meetings cf October 1'i and 29~ 1975, for
the petitioner to negotiate for purcliasE ~f the contigueuc strip of land on Random Drive.
Orss person lndicated his presnnce in opposition to subJe.ct petit~nn.
attthe9hub11c5hearing,~said~StAffPReport9ls~rcferred totandr,madebarpa~rt of7theWminu~tesread
P
e ~ •
M) NU7ES, C 1 TY PLANN 1 NG C(1MM ( SS i b~l ~ Novembe r 10 ~ 1975 75' S32
RECLASSIFICAT90N N0. 75-7~~'6 ANp VIIRIANCE N0. 2739 (Contlnucd)
Mr. Richard ~ utz~ representing the Agent for the Pe[itloner~ appeered before the Planning
Commission ~nd stated an offer of S3~~ h~~ h~en n~ade to Mr. Archle Klndrat for the con-
tlguoue strip of land~ although it was not the deslro of the subJect petitloner to own
seld strlp of land; that a caunter offar af S3~750 h,~d been received f~om Mr. KlndraC
during the pest wackend; and that no purchase agreement had been cntercd into between tlie
parties,
TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CIOSED.
In ras~onse to questioning by Commissio~er Tolar~ Mr. Kindrat stated hc did not know tF~e
ossessed valuation ef the contiguous str•fp of land; whereupon, Commissioner Tolar inquired
how the sal~s price of $3~750 was arrived at. Mr. Kind~•aC did not reply t~ the questioning.
howevcr, he stated he tiad insttkuted th~ calls in an ~ittempt to sell his property to the
petltloner; that Mr. M~er had {ndicated he was absolutely noC interested ln purchasing
the property, a~drM~rer~ampbM~) Y.Indrat' further~stated thatvther~propertyttaxes~furtthenstrip
purchase of the p p Y
of land were $8 (pius) per yoar. !, , ~ / ~, , , ,, : .,' ~ • , :
The Planning Commisslon generally concurrehetsale,ofWthe contiguousest~lphof landetapAddYto
had negoti~ted in yood faith concerning t
the subJect property~ and that the f.ity o~ Anahelm or County of (3range would end up wlth
a sliver of land which would be probl~emattc, when it coul~~halrr~ianPFarano notedhthatb(tcwould
property and developed in the best interest of the C(ty.
be the res ponsibility of the awncr af the sliver of land to maintaln it. Commissloner Tolar
r.oted that it was the responsibility of ehe Planning Commisslon to aid in the development of
property by zoning it for the best use and~ In his opinlon~ the developer had presented a
good plan for development of the subject property; tt~at,although neitfier of the partles
concerned in negotlating for the sale/purchase of the contiguous strip of land tiad given
the way they probably shouid have~ he could not see penallzing the subJect property owner
because of it.
Commissloner Morley offered a motion, seconded by Commissloner King~ and MO1'ION CARRIED
(Commfssioner Johnson being absent)~ th~t th~e Planning Commi~slon does hereby recommend
to the City Council 'hat the sub.ursuant toctheeprovislons~ofktherCalifornia Environmental
dn envicmnmental impact report, p
Quallty Act.
Commissio ner hbrley offered Resolution No. PC75°226 and moved fo r Its passagE and ad~ptlon,
that the Planning Cammission does hereby recomm~end to Che Cfty Council that Petition for
Reclassiflcation No. 75-76-6 be approved, subject t~ the Interde partmental Commtttee
recommendatlons. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call, the foregoing resolu+:lon was passed by the following vote:
AYESt C~M"115SIONERS: KING~ MORLEY~ TOLAR, FARANG
NOES: C~MMISSIONERS: BARNES~ HERB5T
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JONNSON ,
Commissloner Morley uffered Resolution No. PC75-'27 and moved for its passage and adoptlon~
that Petition for Variance No. 2739 be and hereby ls granted, in part~ granting the requested
wc.iver of the requirement that al) lots abur. a public street on the basis that the Planning
Commission has previously granted similar waivers when a private street is provided and de-
veloped in accord~nce with City standards; denying the requested waiver of the minimum lot
width on the basis that if the subJect property !s developed as proposed~ said waiver would
not be necessary; granxing the requested waivar of the requirement that single-family
residences rear on arterial highways on the basis af hardshfp d ue to the shape of the subJect
property and on the b~s(s that many other parcels in the area h ave been developed to both
front-an and side-on Orange Avenue; sub}ect to the condition th at in the event the subJect
prnperty is to be divided for the purpose of sale~ leasc, or flnancing~ a parcel map to
record the approved division of subJect prAperty shall be submitted to and approved by the
Ctty of Anaheim and then br, recorded ln the Office of the Orange County Recorder~ prior t~
the commencement of the activity authorized under thts resolution or prior to the time that
the buildlnq permit is i~sued; and sub_ject to the Interd~parl:me ntal Committee recnmmendatians.
(See Resolutlon Book)
~~
~ ~ ~
r r
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNIHG COMMISSIQN~ tlovembcr 10- 197~ ~~~~3!
RF.CLASSIFICA710N NQ, 75'7~^6 AND VARIl1NCE ~10. 27 9(Contlnucd)
On rol) cnll~ the foregoing resolution wns passcd by tho following vnte:
AYES: COMNISS1f1NERS; KING~ M~RLEY~ TOt,l1R~ FARANO
NOES COMMISSIONERS; BARNCS~ NFRBST
ABSENT: CQMMISSIONfRS: JONNS~N
VAR I ANCE t~Q~274ti - PUE3L I C HEI1R I NG. JnFI~! R I1'7FR Ai~D MARY M, fIf10VER ~ akn MARY M. PARR I S11 ~
-""~' 1919 Alsuna Lane~ Nunttngton Beach~ Ch. 92648 ((h~ners); requestinc~
W111~lER OF PF.RNITTED USES TO ESTABLISN AN 11UTf1MORILE DIAGIVOSTIC AND
SERVICE CENTER on property descrfbed ~s a rectangularty-sht~ped parcel of lan~i consistin
of appr~ximatelv .~~3 acre~ located at the northwest corner of5~~e pnf"laAPelma Avenue~and11rst
Str•eet~ having approximate frontages of 39 feec on the north
150 fePt on the west sidc of Brookhurst Street~ aRd further described as 11~;' N. Brookhurst
Strcet. Property presently classtfled CG (COMMERCIAL~ ~EN~RAL) 2QNE.
7he subje~t petitlon ~oas continued from the meeting of October 2~1~ 19I5~ at the request of
the petitioner.
It was noted that l'he petftloner had submitted a ietter indicating a des(re to wiChdraw
the subJect petition sinGe she was undecided as to the future direction the property should
take.
C~mmissf~ner King offered a mot(on~ seconded by Commissioner Morley and MOTI01~~ CARRIED
1'a~tanceiNoer2746nbenandlhsrebyeare~terminatedpraserequested bynthetpetitiofnelretikfon for
RECLASSIFICATIODI - PU81_IC HEARIN(;. CLARENf.E M, MC NEES~ 1752 S. Haster Street, Anaheim~ Ca.
N0. 66-67-61 9z~d2 ~Q.~ner); MARJORIE MIZE LE GAYE (MIZE, IARSH~ M17_F~ AND HUBBARD),
(READVERTISED) 1666 N. Main Street~ Suite 3~0, Santa Ani~ Ca. 9~7~1 and R. A. MC NEES,
11301 Euclid Street~ N91. Garden Grove, Ca. 9z640 (Agents). proposing
AN bMFND'1ENT T~ C01lDITION N0. 1 OF CITY C~~~:CIL RESOLUTIOM N0. 67R-310
REL~TING TO DEDICATION FOR STREET-411DENING PURPOSES~ on praperty described as an Irreqularly-
shaped parcel of land conststing of approxim,ately 5 acres tocated on the north side of
Katella Avenue between Haster Street and Manchester Avenue having approximate fronta,yas
~f G85 feet o~ the north side of Katella Avenue~ and 64~ feet on the east side of Haster
Street~ and 615 feet on thc southwest stde of Manchestcr Avenue. Property presently
classified as RS-A-43,000 (RFSIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL)7.ONE.
Ms. Mar~orie Mize Le Gaye~ Attorney~ representing the agents for• the petitioner~ appeared
before thP Plarsninq Commission ta answer questions regarding the proposal.
Plo one indicated their presence in opposition to subJect petition.
Zoning Supervisor Annika Santalahti explained the Staff Report to the Planning Commiasion
dated Plovember 10, 1975, and said Staff Report is referred to as it set forth in full in
the minutes. She noted that the petitioner was propostnct to make partial dedication for
street widening purposes to achievc a~EO-f~ot half width along HasCer Street ~s a prir~wry
arterlal highway~ rather than to make full dedication f~r a 53'foot half-width along said
street prior to the adoption of an ordinance rezoning the property~ and tnat the remaining
dedication be made at Lhe time of redevefopment of subJect property,
Ms. Le Gaye stated thae at such time as the suhJect property was praposed for develop~nent
in excess of 50 perGe~t of the total area nr 7S p~rcent of the buildable area~ then all of
the site dee~elopment staridards would he met; and that at the present time the petitloner
wished to dedicate on the easterly side af Haster Street to rnatch the westerly side of
said street.
Chairman Farano noted from the Staff Report Chat tha requested amendment to the City Councll's
orig(nal conditions of appro~al of R~classlfication No. 66-67-61 would obvlate the necessity
of annual review of the cond(tians; that one of the reasons for the annual revierr was
because af the property which was somewhat prablematic; that his oplnion was that the City
should hold on to t~e condition requiring review to insure the proper site development
in relationihlp to the streets tn the area.
Thereupon~ Ms. Le Gaye stated that if need be thcy would go back to the Superiar Court
concern(ng the matter which may result in further dAmaqes to the Clty.
~ ~ ~
r y
MiNUTF.S, CITY PLANIJING CQMMISSIQ~I~ Novembcr 10, 1y75 7.~"53
RECLASSIFI('ATIO~~ N~ 66-67-h) (REAOV~RTISEO) (Contlnued}
7HE PUBl.IC N[ARING WAS CL~SFO.
In response to question~nq by Chalrmt+n Farano, Deputy Ctty Akto~~~y Malcolm Slau~lhter
advised that the Superlor Court had deleted the r~yulrement im~~;~d`p~ditlanUbeing arrequtrertx~n
at the tirrt9 af the most recent rec~ucst for extensi~n af tlme.
to dedicatP for the liaster Street ~verpnss~ etc. ~
Ms, Le Gaye furthe~r stated that the petitfoner was not dcslraus t further develop or re-
develop the subJec:t property at the pregent time; however, at thc time of re~evelopment,
of4tletsuhject propertyll~adtnotechancedcfromnthertimePit wasEinnCounty tcr~riturydtopnow~e~t
Dlscussion pursue~i regarding the verious zoning r~pplicatlors (ane reclassification an~l Four
conditional use permiks) which were on the subJect property and it was suggested that the
application~ be combined for ease In connectin^ with the annual review of the property.
Commissioner Herbst noted that he tnouqnt the reason why the various cunditional use permits
on the property were restricted to tlme pertods was becA~ise the uses were pr~F,ably m»rginal~
or we~re not suitable permanent uses of the property and~ therPfore, were approved on a
temporary basls; that he still favc~red the annual review until the petitioner was ready t~
redevelo~ the property; however~ 44 feet for half-width along Haster Street may be appropriar.e
at this t';me. Chalrman Farana noCed that in order not to im~ose a hardship for the ~etitiuner
with respect to different expirations and revlew pericids, Staff ml~ht determine one
review period for all the zoning applications on the r~roperty and revlew them ~1) at one
time,
Commissioner Herbst called for a stipulatf~~n from the petitioner to make dedicatlon alonq
Haster Street for a 44-foot ha~f thet4~-if ot~dedtcatlon,wasthccentablerto,theSpetllioner,C~
whereupon~ Ms. I.e Gaye stated
they would proceed ln that manncr.
pFfice Englneer Jay Tftus advisecl that hy having A5 feet of dedicated right-of-wny for the
h~lf-width of Haster Street pri~r to the adoption or' the ordlnance res:oning the Froperty,
if Haster Street should later be classified as a secondary hlghway~ tlie appropriate dedica-
tion would have been satisfled.
It was ~oteci that the Directcr of the Planning Department had determined that tlie proposed
actfviey fell within the definitlon of Section 3.o~, Class 1, of the I;ity of A~aheim
Guidelines Yo the ReGuirements for an Environmental Impact Report and was, 'her•efore~
categorically exempt from the require~:nt to file an EIR.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC75-2z8 ond moved for its passage and adoption
that the Pla~ning Commi,sion does hereby recommend to the City Coi.incil tFiat Resoluti~n
No. 67R-310 approving Reclasslficat(on No. fib-67-61 be amended~ deleting Condition No. 1
and adding Condttion Nos. l~a and 1-b, as follows: (See Rwsolution Book)
"1-a. That dedication shall be made to the City of Anaheim on all street~ereinhefore
area ~xcept Naster Street hetween Manchester Avenue and Kate11A Avenue),
described according to the Circulatlon Element of the feneral Plan - Nighway Rlghts-of-
Way, prior to the adoption nf the ordinance rezonin~ the property."
"1-b, Tha: the owner~s) of property alon9 HaSter Strept bei.ween Manchester Avenue
and Katella Avenue shall deed to the City of Anaheim a strEp of land forty-Five (~i5)
feet '~n width from the centerltne of the street along flaster Street for st~eet
widening purpose5, ~r'tor to the adoption of the ordtnance rezoning the property; and
that dedlcation to the ult(mate width acGarding to the Circulatio~ Element of the
~eneral Plen - F~(9hw~y Rights-4f-Way~ shall be m~de at the tlme the propcrty is
redeveloped."
On r~11 call~ the foregoing resolutinn w~s p~ssed by the following vc~ts:
~;G;; C~MMIS510NERS: 4ARNES~ f1ER8ST~ KING, MORLEY, T~IAR, FARA~10
PIOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONF.
AB5EMT : COMM1 SS I OMERS : JOHrIS0~1
RECESS: At 3:~+~ p•m•~ Chalrman F~rano declared a recess.
REC(1NVENE: At 3~55 p.m., Chalrman Farano reconvencd the meetb~tig~ with Commissioner
Johnson betn~ absent.
~ ~~ ~
MINUTC.S~ CITY PIANNING COMMISSIO;.~ NovembCr IQ~ l975
75-5~~~
RECIASSIFICnTION - PUHLIC NEARING. ROAERT `.Tl1HOVICH, 53~5 Ct~nterhury Drive, Cypreas, Ca.
~~0, 75-76-l1 9n63~ ~~wnnr). Pr~perty des~ribed as a rectangul~rly~shnped parcel of
tand conslstincl oF apprcxim~+tely .3~ acre, having a frontagC oF approxi-
VARIANCE N0. 2751 mately 73 feet on h~ sr~uth side of ~range Avenu~, havlrg a m~ximum
depth c.~f appr~ximately '!n4 feet. and belnq located approxlmately 5~-S feet
west of tiie centerllnr, of Western Avenue. Property presently classffied
~s RS-A^43~~d~ (RFSI DFNTtAI./AGRI f.UL7URAl.) 7.ONE.
REQ.UESTED CIASSIFICATI~M: RM-1?.0~ (RESID~.NTI~L, MULTIPLE-FAMIIY) Z~NE.
RE~UF.STED VARIAMCE: WFIVF.R Of' (A) MAXIMUIi RUIL01Plf, HF:I~HT A~lD (R) RF.QUIRED S17f. SCRfGNI~IG~
70 CO~ISTRUCT A 9~UN1 f AI'ARTMEMT C~MPLF'X.
No onP indlcated thelr presence In oppo~,ltion to subJect pntitlon,
Although the Sr.~ff Report to the Planning Commis~lon dated November 10~ 1975, was not read
at khe public hearing~ sald St~ff Repo~'t ls rcferred to and mdde a port of the minules.
Mr. 4lllliam S. Phelps~ 1095 North Malr; Street~ Orange~ the A~ent for the Petitloner~ appearPd
he.fore the Planning Cammisslon and statr.d therP was apparently a mistake shown on the ~ub-
mitted plans~ since he was con~ident that the bu(lding helght within 15~ feet of the ad-
Jacent single-famlly resldential and agrlcultural zoned prupertles was in accordanc~ with
the requSrements; that they were proposing o~e-story uniks to cnmp1etEly buffer the ad,jac~nt
sfngle-family zoned propertle~; and that tha existtnn trees along the south ~~roperty line
would he retained.
THE PIidLIC HEARING WAS CLQSED.
Commiss(oner Nerbst offered a motlon, seconded by Ccmmissi~ner Florley and MOTIO~~ CARRIFD
(ComnissiUner Johnson being abs~ent), that the Plannln.~ Cammission clces hereby recommend to
the City Councll that th~ subJursuantJtotthe provpslonsmofhtheeCalifcmirniatEnvironmental
rnvironmental impact repo~C, p P
Quality Act.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolutio~ No. PC75-229 and moved for its passacJe and adoption,
tha} ssification~Nc~m75576-11~,hesappr ved~csubJect to the Inter•departmental Committeefor
Rec a
recommen4atio~s. (See Resolution Baok)
On roll :;all~ the fo-egoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIOP~ERS: BARNES, HER6S1', KIlIG, MQRLEY, TOLAP., FARI'.NO
NOES C~MM I SS 1~)NERS : N(1N E
ABSENT: COMMtSSI0NER5: JOHNSON
Commt~~sioner Herbst o'Ffered Resolutlon No. PC75^230 and moved f~~r its P`rantinanthedoptlon,
tl~at -'er.ition for Variance No. ~75~ be and hereby is granted, i~~ part, g 9
requested waiver of the maximum building height, in part, sinc~:: the 15n-Foot seCbac'c
adJacent to the RS-7200 Zone to the southwest will be maintair~~d~ as stinulated to by the
petition~ and the walver applies to the ad)acant RS-A-43~OQ0 ::oned praperties to th~ south
and west anly~ said waiver being granted on the uasis that t~~e easterly portion of the
praperty to the south is developed wtth a church and the pre;~erty to the west (s designated
on the Anahefm General Plan for medtum denslty development; gr3nting the requested waiver
of the requirpd site screening to permit the utltization of an existing six-foot hlqh
chatniink feiice alonq the ~outh property boundary sinee said fence adjoins a 76~foot wld~
flood ~on*.ro) channel sep~.rating the subJect pr~perty fram the RS-A-43~OOQ zoned p~operty
to the south. subj~ct to the stip~~lation of ti-~e petitlonei• to retaining the existing trees
along the south proper•ty boundary; that tiie Pl~n~ing Comrr+ission recommends a minlmum
5~ thetS1an~tatifonnDivlslnnbeand~subjectdtolthe ~Interdepartn~ental Comnttte~krscomm~ndatl~ons~~d
by
(See Resolutiun Daok)
On rolS call~ the foregolnn resotutlan was passed by t~~e following va~e:
AYES : COMhSI SS I ONERS : BARNES ~ FIERBST ~ K 1 PIG ~ MORLEY , Tf1LAR, FARANO
N~ES : CnMh~ I SS I ONE'~S : NONE
ABSEPI'T7 COMMISSIaNERS: „OHNS~~N
~ ~ ~
MI NUTES ~ C I TY PLANN I NG C~M111 SS I M!, Plovemher I ~~ 1975
75-53~~
RECLASSIFIC~TION - PUBLIC HE11R1Hf,. GCORGF D, GRIrFITH, 7~1 VI~,tA f)el Golf~~ Lon~ !)Aach~ Ca.
Nf1. 75"7~~"~Z 9~~~3 =~ner); J011~! C. Dl11LEY~ 111~-R E. ~rnn~efalr Lane~ 11n~~helm~ Cn,
~2Af11 (A~ent); propnsfng th~t propcrcy deaCrihed as a rect~r.tularly-
shapc.d percel of lancl cunSlstin~i of npprc~xlm~~tcly 1.5~ ~cre~ ~ havlny n
Frontage of ,9pproximAtely ~~50 feet on thc south side of Ln Rilma llvenue~ havinp e maxtmum
depth of approximately Ib7 teet and b~inct locr~ted .~rProximately 2Q3 feet west of the center~
linc of State Colle~e Boulevard~ be reclassifl~d from RS-~^43-~~~ (RF.SIDI'NTIAr../AfRIGULTURAL)
10NE to CL (CUMMERCIAL, I.IMITFD) ZQPIE.
No on~ indicated kheir presence fn opposition to subJece pet.ltion.
Although tl~e Staff Report to the Pla~nlnq Commission dAted November 1~~ 19)y, wns not re~<~
at the public hearing~ sald Staf'f Report is referred to .in~+ made a part ,nf ths miniites,
Mr. Juhn Dailey, the a9ent for the p~tikloncr, ~~ppeAred heforu the Planning f,ormiisslon Co
anawer questions regardlnn the pro~~osal.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CI,ASEO.
In response to questtonln~ by the Pl~nning Camm(~~,fon~ Mr. Dalley statec' the proposal
fnciuded the development Af the corner parcel to the east of subJect prnpercy and Involved
a io*al of three buildings wh(cli wJUlci be riesignated as ~ bank, a savina~ ~nd lo.~n, and a
professional offlce bullding.
Commissloner Tolar noted sane concern wFiether a need truly exEsted in the subJect area
for the proposed development; whereupon, Mr. Dallcy stated tt~ree bnnk°, extste~l within
three s~uare; miles of the subJect property; that the s~vincls and loar bank h~d bcen c~n-
siderin~ thP subject loc.atior, for over a year; that they would not h~.~ve to have a savings
and loan bank at the subJect locatfon. however~ th~rc~ were Cwo approisls for banks at the
subJeci location by the governmental agencies; r.ha2 it was nox unus~al to have more than
one bank at a given iocation; ttiat na new banks wo~~ld b~ approved li~ the subJecL. area
durinq tl~e first 18-month period~ at lcast~ as a•tate and federa) requirement to protect
new bank locations from competition. C~»Issioner Tolar then noted that his main conce~n
was whether the subjECt property w3s c^~rectly zoned CL; ~~nd that there were a number of
ventures c~r husinesses in the s~ib)ect -ea which had fafled or were having problems, and
he was somewhat r~luctant to add to ' situ~'ti~on.followi~nglinvpstlgatior~ofdneed~ e[c.
bank locations were approved in W~~ ~~on~ ~
Commissioner Herbst suggest~d th: ~~-rv;~l c,f the subJect reclassification be madc sub-
ject to development precisely ir `~~~`~~ yheinghdevelo,edeonpthespropertyciwhereupon~
since he was not in favor of a~~~ ''•""• P
Mr. Dailey so stlpulated.
Traffic Enqineer Paul Singer , ~~~ •~u~ the proposPd centrally-located driveway on
LaPehna st~ould be aligned w ~~ ~cway acc~ss uf the futurz commercial shopping
center to the north across ~~ '*ti `~:•n~~~; that the developer should be reyuired to install
a med(an divider (n front ~~ = ~•~ nroperty alon~ La P~ima Avenue in conformance with City
standards; and thac the tw.~ ~• ~~' ~~,,jstleulatedr`~oothe foregoinn~,condit(ons~,~~as outl ined
right-turn ~nly driveways '~ P
by the Traffic Engineer.
Commissloner Herbst offered a ~~~ ~o~.-~, seconded by C~mmissiuner King anc'~ NOTIOf! CARRIED
(Commissfoner Johnson h-~in~ ar~~~~~~~c', that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the Ci ty Counci 1'th:~c t~~e ~~~• i~+ct proJect h~ exempt from the requiremenC to prepare
an environmental impact rep~~~~c. ~vrsuant t~~ ~~e prnvfslon; of the Californla Envlronmental
Quality Act.
Commissioner Herbst o~ft~re~~ ~rso~ution No. PC75-231 and moved for its passags and
adoptlon, that *he Planntnc;.'^ rnn(ssic~n does hereby recommend to the City Council thaC
Petition for Reclassificatior Plo. 75-7h-12 be approved, subJ~ect to the stipuiatlons of
the petitioner an~i sub.ject •~ the Interdepartmental Commit:ee rec.~mmendat(ons. (See
Resolution Book)
Th- foreg~ina resolu:ion was passed by the following vote:
A~~ ~s : C~h~M~ SS I ONEt~s : BARNGS ~ HF.Ft857, KI NG ~ MORLEY, Tf1Ll1R ~ FARAN~
~~ ~ES : COMnI SS I nNERS : NONE
A[~SF.NT: C~MMISSIONERS: JOHNSQtJ
/~ _ . - ~ ~
PIINUTFS~ ':.ITY f'1.11NNING LOMMISSI(111~ Plo~ember 10~ 1975
75-5}7
,.ONUITI~iNl1l 'J5E - PUBLIC HEARING. R('~B~RT D. PERItY~ 7.`~~2.?. Via Cerrwda~ Mission 1'IeJo. ~a.
rERMIT tv0, ly7(~ 92b75 ~~~~ner); RAYMONO fURULF, 905 r. Catal inf~~ Sonta Ana~ Ci. `~27~E~
- - (Agent); rc~quQSting pcrmfsslnn ko ES7ADLISFI A~I AUTOM(~PILE F.NG~INF. A~lO
7RANSMISSfQt! REPA111 FACILI7Y on property descrlhcct as an irreyularly-
shap~~d p~rr,el ~.` ~and conslsting of appreximately 2.Q aci~es located at the nortl~west
carr~er of Cl~udina Way ancl Katelln Avcnu~~ having approximate frunt,ages af 3P,~~ Feet on
the wcst side of Cl~udlna ~fay and 280 fcet on the nnrth side uf Katella Avenue, ond
f~~rtl~er described as 17~i5 5. Claudin~ Way, Property presently classifled ML (I'4DUSTRIAL,
LIMITED) ZONE.
No one (ndlcated thelr presence ~n opposition to ~~ub,~ect petitlon,
A1Chough the Staff Report to the Planning Comm'ssion datPd Novcinber 10~ 1975- was not
read at the puhlic hear(ng~ said Staff Report is referrcd to ~nd made a part ~f the minutes.
Mr. Itaymond Gurule~ the Agent Far thc Pet(tloner~ appeared bsfur~ the Planning Commission
to answ~r questions rega~•d(ng the proposal.
TNE PUdLIC HEARINr WAS CLQSED.
In responsc to questloning by Cortmissloncr Morley~ Mr, furule stated that the .ubJect
bullding had 3z00 squarc feet of space and was adequatc for the propnsed oper~~tlon.
Mr. Gurule stipula2ed that the proposal was to rehulld engines and tr•.,~smisslons only~
and nt least 8y pc~rcent af the bustness would be on a wholesale basis to dealers.
~hairman Farano noted that the subJect location was nat appropriate for a re~all-type
business.
In response to questioni~g by Commissloner Kl,~y~ Mr. Gurule stipulated that ~11 of the
propased repair (rebuilding) work would be conducte:d inside the buildinc~.
It ~oas not.ed that the Director of the Planning
activity fell witliin the definiti~n of Section
lines to th~ Requirements for an Environmental
ex~mpt from thP requirement to file an EIR.
Department had determ(ned thit the ~roposed
g,01, Class 1~ of the Gity o~ Anahelm Guide-
Impact Repor't and was~ therefore. categorically
Commissloner I~.ing offered Resolutior No. FC75-232 and moved for its passage and adoption,
that Petltion for Conditional Use Perm(t No. 1576 be and hereby is ciranted, subJect to
Che stipulations of the psr.itioner,and subJect to the InterdepartmPntal Committee rec.ommenda-
tion. (See Resolution Baok)
On roll call, the foregoing resolutlon was pa~ssed by the following vote;
AYES: COMMISSIOHERS: 43ARNES, HERBST, ICING~ MdRLEY, T~LAR~ FARANO
IJOES : COMMI SS I ONERS : PJONE
ABSFNT: COMMISSIONERS: .~OHNS011
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARINt',, GRAtJD MARNIER C~.~ ATT~l: DUDLEY FRA~IY., 1651 E. Fourth
PERMIT N0. 1578 Street, Suite 123~ Santa Ana, Ca. 92701 (Owner); JAMES R. BREI~ISTER~
~188 "F" Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, Ca. 92G26 (Rgent); requesting per-
mission to EXPAND A DRIVE-THR~Uf,{i RESTAIlRANT WITFI WAIVFR OF MI~~IMUM ~IUMBER OF PARKING SPAf.ES
on property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel nf land consisting cf approximately
having
.30 acre~ located at the northeast corner af Tedmar Avenue and Euclid Street,
approx(mate frontages of 169 feet on the north slde af Tedmar Avenue and 70 feet on th~ east
side of Euclid Street~ and further described as ~~'i0 S, Euclid Street. Property presently
classified as CL ~COMMERCIAL~ LIMITEO) ZONE,
No one indlcated tiheir presence in oppositian to Sub_~ect petitlon.
Althaugh the Staff Report to the Planning Commtssion dated Navember 10~ 1975~ was not
read at the public hearing~ said Staff Repart ls ref~:rred to anc~ made a part of the minutes.
Mr. James Brewster~ the Agent for the Petitioner, ap~~eared before the Planning Lommisston
to answer questions regarding the pr~aposal.
THE PUBL.iC HEARING WAS CIOSED,
~
~ ~ ~
MINUTES~ f.ITY PIANNING CQMM15510N. Plovembar 10, 1975
75-53a
CONDITIt1NAL U!'~E PERMIT Nfi, 157~ ~Cantinued)
The Plannin~ Commisslon entered Into discusslon wlth Mr. E~rewster rcqarding the prnpas~d
parking spaces, during which Deputy Clty Attorney Malcolm Slaughtcr advi~ed that. since thc
~~ctltioner controlled thie property to the north~ a porkinq r.greement coulci be executed for
Il off-sfte parkincl spACes in urder to meet the Code requirement for the expanslon of tlie
drlva-thr~ restaurant, as proposed, The~eupon~ Mr. flrewster stipulated to submltting ~
parkin~ agreement• to the Off(ce of thc City Attornny for approval~ sald parkinc~ agreemr.nt
co be for the purpose of provlciing I1 off-slte parking spACes for the proposed use; and
said parklnn aqreement~ as approved hy the Officr. ~f the Ciry Attorney~ t~~ be recorded
in xhe Office of the Oranqe County Itecorder and e copy thereof filed with the Pl~nning
Department~ prlor to the fssua~,^e of a bullding p~~rmlt.
~urther discussion pursued during whlch some of tl~e Commissioners expressed cencern r.hat
takinc~ par•kin9 spaces from the praperty to the north may llmit thc use of sald property.
Mr. Drewster Indicated tt~at they could provide a tc+ta) of 27 parking sp~ices on the sub}ect
property. making a yhortage of only two spaces.
It wa~ noted that tht Director of the Planning hepartmPnt had detcrmired that the pr~tiposed
acCivity fel~ within th.: def(nltion ofi Sect(on 3•~~- ~~agg ~~ of the City of Anaheiin
Gulddines to the R~qulrements Por an Envlronment~+l Impact Repart and wa~,~ thereforeo
categorically exempt from the requi~•emant to file an EtR.
Commissloner King offerecl a resolutlon and moved for its passage and adoption that Petition
for Conditional Use Permit No. 157~ be granted, granting the requ~stic~d walve~ to perm(t
27 -:arking sPaces~ rather than the required 29 space~~ for the proposed use~ and sub)ect
tu the Interdep~rtmental Commtttee recommendati~ns.
On roll call~ the foregoing resolution fa(led by the following vote:
AYES: COMM!SSION[RS: KING, 7QLl1R
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, HERBST, MORLEY, FARAtJO
ABSGNT: COMMISSIONERS: J~HNS"N
1n r~spense to further d(scusslon hy the Planning Cammisston, Mr. i~rewster indtcated hs was
awari ementshforspa~kingethe~eontand~that thetllWparkingpspaces~could not,beyusedmtotmeet
requ r
said requirements.
Commission~r Tolar offered Resolution No. PC75-233 a~~ ~ved for its passage and adoption~
that Petitlon for Conditional Use Permit No, 15~8 be and her~by ~rantedtsub eGt~to~the
denying the requested waiver; said conditlonal use permit being 9 j
property owner(s) submitting a parking agree~rent~ as stipulated to; and sub~ect to the
Interde~+artmenC~l Committee recommendations. (See Resolutton Book)
On roll call~ the foreooln~ resolution was passed by the ~ollowing vote:
AYES : COMPI I SS I ONERS : BARNES ~ HFRBST, KI fIG, M4RLEY ~ TOLAR, FARA~10
NdES: COMMISSIONERS: N~NE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JOHPJSQt!
VARIA~~CE NO. 27~+7 - PUeLiC HEARfNC;. SOUTHERN CALIF(1RNIA FIRST NATICINAL BArlY.~ P. ~~5~ox 1311~
5an Die~o, Ca. 92112 (Owner); VERSIITILE EQUlPMEtJT CO., INC.~
Garden Crove Ellvd,~ N19~ G~rden Grove, Ca. 92644 (Ager~t); requesting
a W~IVER QF (A) PERMITTED OUTDO~R USES APID (B) MAXIMUM FENCE HE{GHT,TO PERMIT OUTDOOR
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT SALES on property described as: An lrregularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approx(mately 2oti acres located at the northeast corner of Riverdale avenue
and 7ustin Avenue, having approximate frontages of 490 feet on th~resentlyiclassif~edrda!e
Avenue and 2b0 feet on the east side of Tustin Avenue. Property p
CL (COMMERCIAL, LIMIIED~ ZONE.
No one indlcated their presence either to represent the petitioner or in oppositlon to
the subJect petition.
was ~nquesting a two-week pestpanert-znt of
It was noted that the petitioner
the sub,ject publlc hearing in order to submit revised plans.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Camn-issloner King and MOYION CRRRiF.O
(Cortenissioner Johnson beina absent)~e~cacontinued~to therPlanningcG rtmission~meetingt~p~on
for Variance No. 27y7 ~ and hereby
November 24, 1975~ as r~quested by the petitton~r.
~ ~ ~
MINJ'iES, CITY PL~NNIf:f; Cf1MMISSI~N, November I~~ 1`)75
7;-53~
VARIl1NCE N(1, 27h8 - PU9LIC NEIIRING. WILII<~M l.. DAVIESp '~Q1 N, Ch~int( l ly, An~~h~im~ Ca.
~ 92RQG (Awnerl; requr.sting a WAIVF..R ~f MI'~IMUM NUMHCR OF FNCLOSF.D
PARKIMG SPACES,'TO PERMIT AP! EXIS1'ING G~RAGF C~NVE•.RSION on propcrty
describcd as: A rectangularly-shaped p~rcel of lr-nd cnnst~sting of opproximatcly 0.25
acre~ t~aving a fr•ontage Af approximatcly 112 Pe~t on the west sfde ot Chanti',ly Street~
having b maximum dehth of approx(matcly IQ2 feet, belnq located <~pproxlm-~tcly 67.0 feet
south of the centerllne uf La P~lma Avenue. Propr.rty pre~~ently ciasaifled RS-77.04
(RES I DF.NTI I1L ~ S I NGLE-FAMI LY) 7.(1PIE .
No one indicAted their presence either t~ rep~esent the petltlon or in opposltlon to th~
subJcct ~etitlori.
It was nated that the petltloner wa: requesting a postponement uf the subJect public
hearing to the Planning Commisslon meet(nn of Recr.mbcr 22, 197:.
Coirxnissioner King offered a motlon~ seconced by Commissloncr Mpr!ey~ and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissioncr ,lohnson beine~ absenti~ that the public hearing ~nd constderatlon of Petition
fo~ Var i ance Plu, 2748 be a~id hereby a re cont i nu~~d to the P 1 anni ng C~~mmi ss f on meet Ing of
Decemher 71.~ 1975, as requasted hy the petltton~r.
2749 - PUBLIC HEARIPlG. W11_I,IAM E. P~W~RS~ 1779 Norfolk
VARIANCE N0 Lsne, An~~heim~ CA 926Q2
'
.
- (Owner); rir.t.sor~-DYE COWSTRUCTION~ I~IC,, /1TTM: K.E iN NELS~N~ .
NPIE
1Fib4 1J, Broadway~ Suite "B"~ Anahe~lm~ Ca. 9~R~z (Ager~t); requestincl
a IdA1VER OF MINIMUM FRONT SET[~~CY. T~ CONSTRUCT 11 GARAGE I1Q~171~t1 on property described as:
An (rregulary-shaped parcel of land con~isting of approx~mately .17
of Norfolk Lane
id acre~ having a
havlnc~ a maximum depth
,
e
fr~nta9e of approximately 99 feet on the west s
of appraxtmately 115 feet, bein~ located approximately 2~5 feet south of the centerline of
flolgate Drlve, and further described as 1779 Norfulk Lane. Pr~perty presently classlf(ed
as RS-7200 (RESIDFNTIAL~ SINGLE-FAMILY) 7.~NE.
No one indicated their presence in opposition to subJ~ct pet~tton.
Althougli the Staff Report to the Planning Commi~sion dated Novemb~r 10, 1975~ W~s not rGad
i
utes
f th
at the •public hsaring, said Staff Report is refc:rred to ancf rt~ade a .
e m
n
part o
Mr. Ken Dye~ representing the ~gent for the Petitlo~er~ appeared be fore the Planning
Commission to a~swer questlons c~ncerning the proposal.
THE FUBLiC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commiss(oner King noted that Commissioner• Morley and ~e had checked the subJect properiy
In Ch~ field; and that t.here were no obJections from thc~ neighbors to the south.
It was noted that the Director of the Planning Department h~d determined that the proposed
activity fell within the deflnition of SECtion 3.01, Class 1~ of the City of Anaheim
Guidelines to the Requirements for an Fnvirnnmental impact Reaort and was, therefore,
categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR,
Commissioner 1lerbst offered Resol~tlon No. PC75-234 and moved for its passage and adoption~
that Petition fc~r Variance No. 274a be ~nd herehy is granted on the basis that the proposed
garage will be located a similar distance fr~m the street as tf~e ex(stinq garage which !s
proposed to be canverted to iiving area~ said existing garage having been constructed when
a setback of 15 feet was permissible; subJect tn the interdeaartment~l Committee r•econmenda-
tlon. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call~ thc foregoing resolutlon was passed by the follow(ng vote:
AYES: ~GMMISSIONERS: ~ARNES~ HERBST~ KIPlG, MORLEY~ 70LAR~ FARANO
NOES: COMFIISSIQNERS; NONF
ABSENT: COMMISSIQNERS: JOHNSAt!
~
~ ~
MIf~UT~S, CITY F'LANNING CnMMISS111N~ November 10~ 1~75
75-5~+~~
VP.I~IANCE N~ 2~- PUBLIC IIEIIRI~IG. OSCAR L~UDEREIACK, 11.2~1 Iiurn~ ;)rive, Garden Grovc,
~~, ~261y0 (Owner}; NOB fIURGLiN, 7.219 W. I.~ncoln llvenue, An~3hc~im~
Ca. 92Rn1 (Agent); reyuesting WAIVER (1F (A) MIIXIMIIM NUMRFR (1F `~IGNS
AND (B) MI N 1 MUII 01 STANCE RF.TWEFTI S I GFIS, TO C~NSTRUCT /~ 51 G~J on property descr 1 be~~t ~,s :
An Irrr.gularly-shaped parcel uf lnnd c~nsistlnct of ap(+rnKlm~~tely 1,65 ncres~ havfng
~pproxlmnte fro~ta~es of i91 feet on the nortfi sldc oF Llncc,ln 11v~nue and 1~~1 feet un
the west sidc of Brc~okhurst StrePt, havin~ ~ mnxlmum depth of approxlmately 257 feeL,
bein9 locaCeu ac~proxirn~tely 19A feet west of tl~c cr.nterl in~ of Rraokh~irst Strect, <sncl
furtf~er descrlbed as 2219 '~• I.Incoln Avenue. Pr~perty pr•esently clr~ssl Fled as RS-~••~+3,~~~~
(RESIb"NTIAL/A('~RICIILTURAI~) 7.~1lF,
No one indicated their ~resence in opposftlor~ to subiect. petltlun,
Alth~~u~h thc Staff Repor•t to the Plannln~ C~mmisslan d~ted flnvc~mber 1~~ 1975, w~ss not
read at the public hearing~ said Staff Report is referred to nncl m~de ~~ part of thc minutes.
Nr. Bob E3ur'~11n~ the llgent for the Petitioner~ appeared before thc Pl~~nning Commission
and took exceptlcm to the Interdepartmental Committee recommendation requl!'~~il camplet!on
of Reclasslficatlon No. ~3-7u-1~ Prior ta the subJect variance becoming effeccive, sinca
none af the conditions imposed on the zoning had been met.
Mr. Oscar Lauderback, the Petitfoner~ appeared before the Pl~nring Comml~slon and reviewed
the history of *.he property, noting that he had owned the subJect property since 1953; t~at
the property had baen ~nnexed to the Clty of Anaheim in 195+~ and the homts were then on
septic tanks; that ehey were ha(~py to be annexed for the protection and services that
wnuld be provfded by the City; that their ~pp~ication for the C-3 aonln~ In 1973 was approved
subject to compltance with 11 conditions~ tJos. 2 and 3 be~(ng required to bc completed
withtn one year; that he had contacted the C(ty regardinc~ the street frontage lnvolved Co
calculete Che amaunt to be paid to satisfy Condition Nc~.2 and 3 and,fallowing a period
of time from March 18, i974 to May 17~ 1.974~ he was advised 35~^feet and had suhsequently
sent a check to the City in the amount of $910; that on Nov~mber 5~ 1974 he received a
refund of $700.00 from the City and~ in a conversatlon with the City Attorney's Offlce
he was advised t~iat he wnuld have to install the street Ilghting himself in accordance
with a new ordinance; that it appeared to him that ~f the Clty quoted the amount for the
street lighting~ the money should be accepted~ althouqh a new ordinance had been adopted
ln the meantime; that Mr, Burglin was in need of the requested slgning and should not be
delayed; that his p~rtner was In the procPSS of turning his share of the subJect property
over to~ttions alsoheanlathattperhaps,he~shouldYbe~talking directitonthe CftyPCouncilfrea^
Cion c
garding the matter.
Chairman Farano ackrsawledged the conr,erns of Mr, LauderbaGk ar.d nor.ed that ttie matter of
the conditions of the zoning should be pursued with the City Attarney's Office and the City
Council. Zoning Supervlsor Annika Santa~ahti further noted that thr. m~ttcr should be
discussed with the Director of P~n~ic Utllitles.
Mr. Burglir. further stated that business hed heen very poor at the Lincoln and Brookhurst
locat(on; that he was unable to borrow money fc~r his type of buslness; that the Simoniz
program had been very successful for him; that he was presently getting 17 to 30 Simontz
Jobs a month, but with signs at thetr other location, they were getting 25Q to 300 jobs
a month; and that the proposed signs woutd hav~ ~ po(nt-of-(mpact impression.
THE PUBLI C FiEARI NG 41AS CLOSED.
Burglin stated they presently were using
In response to questi~ning by Chairman Farano~ Mr,
signs at the subJect location; whereupon, Chairman Farano noted that the Planning Com-
mission was n~t receptive to additional signing except under dire circumstances. Chalrman
Farano suggested a consoildation of signing in relationship to the frontage of the property.
Mr. F3urglin then stated that the sic~n in front of the establishment was abn~how~ver~thei9h
and was in bad need of r~furbishing to replace the burned out lights~ etc..
did r,~t have the finances for said refurbishing; that he was interested ln survivin9 the
winter and he felt the Simoniz program would be his way af increasinq buslness at the
sub~ect location; a~d that he had taken back the subJect establishm~nt about one year
ago and had tnvested ~il t`~e money he had at the present time.
It was noted that the Director of the Planning Uepartr~ent had determined that th~ proposed
activity fsll within the definitlan of Sectlon 3.~`lo Class 11~ of the City of Anaheim
Guldelines to the Re~ulrements for ~n Cnvironmental Impact Report and wase therefore~
categorlcally exempt from the requirement to file an EIR.
~
~ ~
MINUTFS, 1':ITY PLANPI!NG f,~1hIMISSI~)IJ, -lovum~~cr 1~, 1~-7'r
VARI ANCE N0. ?.7511 (Cc~nt 1 niied)
"15-5~+1
f.ommissloner Morley offere~l P.esnlutinn ~lo, PC75-?.35 and moved for its passt~ge and adoptlor~~
[h~t Petitlon for Vnrl~~nce No. 275(1 he nnrl licrehy Is ~ranted~ gr~n:ing xhe req~~c~st~~d waiver~
of Ciic maximum number of sl~ns for four sl~ns ~nd a min(mum dist.anc,~ between zlyns for
32 and 96 fect~ said wniver~ helnc~ ~rinted for a period of .~ne year~ sub)ect to review and
~~~nsideration for an extenslon of t.lme: by the Planning f,ornm{sslon and~c~r Clty Council~
u~~on writt.en requcst t>y the petitloner, ~nci sald wafvers being granted on the basis that
chc petitioner demonstrated thAt a hardshlp woul~i 1.>e crear~d (F suid wa(vers wr.re not
hranted; and sunJect ko the (ntardepartmental Committee r~c~nmendatlons. (See Resolutlon
R~ok)
On roll call~ the foregolnc~ resolutlon was passed hy th~ following vote:
AYES: C~)PIMISSIONERS: RARNES~ IIERBST~ KING, ~10RLEY, TOLAR~ FARANO
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: PJCNE
ABSFNT: GQMMISSIONF.RS: JOHNSOP!
VARIANCF N0. 2752 ' P~~BLIC HE~RING, J. ~fNT~ ICl~REPJ ArIN DGWLEY/JAMES W. SCHMIbT~ 6217 Hi 11
Avenue~ Whittier, Ca. 906Q1 (Owners); dRENT EPITFk~'RISF.S, INC „
iF7~1 E. Arrow Nlnhway~ Azusa, Ca. 917~2 (A9e~~); reaiu=stin<~ a
1JAIVER QF (A) PERMITTED USES n~in (B) R~(~UIRF.O SITF SCREENINC,,TQ ESTABLISIi nri nui~~MryT~~~c
DIAGPIOSTIC SHQP on proper[y dsscr(bed as: ~ rectangularly-shaped parcel c~f la-«i consistinn
of approximately .K7 ~cre~ havin~ a fronta~e of approx(mately 1?.9 feet on tf~r, ~aest 5ide
of Western Avenue, I~aving a maximum depth of approximitelY 295 fcat, beinc~ located ap{~roxi-
rnately 2Q0 Peet soutii of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue~ and further descrfbed as
117 S. Western Aven~ie. Property presently classified CL (COMHFRCIAL, LIMITED) l.U~~F.
No one Indicated their presence i~i opposition to subject pet.ition.
Althougti the Staff Report to t}ie Planning Comnisslon dated November 10, 1975~ was not
read at the public hearing, saicl Staff Report is referred to and rnade a part of the minutes.
Mr, Frank Brent, representincl the n~e~the~~ommunily1frometheGproposedbuserwauld beatl~encon-
Commission and stated the henefits
servation of natural resources; that other similar operations had been approved in the City,
that~~ea~Pandothat~~they~wcre~proposin~rto~improvecthe appearanceaof theibuildingPQboth
the ~
inside and ouCside.
THE PUBLlC HEARIN~ 1JAS CLOSED.
Discu~sior~ pursued concerning tl~e noise which may be generated by the propased use and
durin~ which the
especially by Lhe dynamometer 4~hich would be utilized in the operation,
petitioner acknow',edqed the sound level requirements at thr property lines adjacent to
residential properties and that ,~dditional mitigating measures may he required fn the
future. Comnissioner Herbst noted that the dynamome~er reached a high howling nofse during
oFeration and the petitfoner should~~niieai9i~h ~c~dh~QP~~~eY~yt~in~sermine wliether the
sound level requirements could he c~
In response to ques*_lonln~ by Commissioner flerbsi, Mr, f3rent stipulated that the hours of
operation would be from ~:~d ~•m~ t~ `~~~~ p•m'
Commissioner Morley offered a motion~ seconded by Cummissioner King and M~71(1N CARRIED
(Commissioner Johnson belnr~ absent)~ that the Planning Commission does hereby reconmend
to the City Council that the subJursuant~totthe provisiansmofhtheeCaliforniatEnyironmental
a~i environmental impact report, p
Quality Act.
Cortmissioner Morley offered Resolution Dlo. PC75-236 and moved for its p~ssage and adoption~
that Petit~on for Variance No. 2752 be and hereby (s granted. granting the requestsd use
on the basis that ~imilar walvers have been granted by the Plannir~g Commission prevlousl~/;
yranting the rfque5ted walver of the required slte screenina on the basis that a 20-foot
wide alley separates the suh.}ect praperty from the adJacent residential property which is
developed additioralmvisualsand soundmbufferingn9thatathe hoursnnf operationtshallnbe
providing
~ ~ ~
7~i-'i~~?
MI NUl'(.S ~ C I TY I'LJ1NN I Mf, CnMM I SS I f~N ~ N~vr,mhe r• i~1, 19 )!i
VARII1NCf. N(1. ??52 ;Contlnued)
f'rnm A:~Q a.m, to 9:~~ p.m. ~~+s stipulnte~i to hy tl~~ pat(t~oncr; th~t thr. proc.oscd u~e nnd
hc~urs of operatlon shall hc grant~d f~r a period of one ycar, suhJect to revlew nnd ~on-
sl~9ern~lon f~r an extenslon of time~ upon wrltten request by thc peCitlannr; nnd subject
to the Inrerd~~pac'tmcntal CommltCce rc^c~~;nmend~tions. (Sce Resolut(on I~onk)
~n roll c~ill, thc fore~i~inq ratiolutl~n was passed by the followlnq votc:
Al"FS; C~MMISSION[RS: Bl1RNF5, IIFRIIST, KINf,~ M~RLEY, TQLAR~ FARA~IO
N~F ~~ CQMM I SS i ONf:RS : P!(1N(.
~[~!,ENT : C~1MM I SS I Q~lF.RS : JnHNS(l~i
'.''R!11Nfr r~~. 1]~i3 - PUBI.IC NFARIHG. ~uil~i , -;.u;D{.k, ~~;, tJ, (i.,y t,~,nt. ba~bcn Is~~~•.:, ,a•
,.F ,, ~.~.Ir•,'~i ~., ~ ,•,, ui,r b~l~(1, }6J?) ~Int~~ .~/~1~lue~
J-~ -•----°~--- y2F,62 (Owner) ; lt~t ,.,: , ~,~n ~~~• ;•.~,~,~ , TTED USES T~
I rvlne, Ca. 92664 (/tnent ~: r~m~e5r ~~~~~
ESTAl1l.ISH C~MMERCI~L QFFICES on property descr'.~~•:d as ~ ~~ ~ eyui~~ iy-shaped parcel of
lan~i conslst~ng of approximt~tely 10.9 acres~ i~ ~•:ing a f~.,~~tage of .~pproxfmately 465 feeY
on the east side ~f Anahelm Bivd., hovin~ a maximum depth of approxfmaxely 1~h0 feet~
being lor_~~ted appro;~fmately 575 feet south of tlie centerl ine of ;'.errltos Avcnue~ and
further descrlbed as 1550 and 16~~0 5~ Miheim Boulevard. Pr~p~rty preser~tly classified as
ML (INDUSTRIAL, LlMI'~EO) 'TQPI~.
No one indicated thelr presznce (n oppositfon to sub.ject petitlon.
Althou9h tf~e Staff Report to the Planning Commisslon dated November 1Q, 1975~ was not read
ar ki~e puhlic hearinq~ said Staff Report is referred to and made a part c,f the minutes.
Mr. f~ob Leaverton, representing tl~e Agent for the P~titfoner, appcared befor~ Che Plannthai
Commission and stated his comp~ny was teasing the subJecc property on a 55-Year leass;
they had lost 3 or ~+ poteritlal tenants because said tenants ciid nat want to go through the
zanin~ processes for their specific uses; and that 25 of t~ie 3? busfnesses (n the proJect
were firms from oiit•side of Analiein~.
7HE PUBLIC H[ARING WAS CLOS~D.
In response to questioning by Chalrman Farano~ Mr. Leaverton stated he ~+~as in the construction
business, however~ none of F~is eq~ipment would be kept at thP suh}ect location, since his
off(ces for that business were located at 16721 Hale Avenue, irvine. Mr. Leaverton further
SCated they were praposing to util(ze ~nly thc two buildings which frnnted on An~heim
eoulevard ior the commercial offices.
Chairman Farano noted for the record th~t he had represented a cliPnt, Mr. Hassler~ in a
business transaction wit': Mr. Leavertun, the applicant ~n the subJect appiication, and he
inquired if said transactlon constituted a conflict of intere~t in connrction with the
subJect application; whereupon, Deputy C(t~~ Attorney Malcolm ,laughter adviscd that a con-
flict of interest did not exlst. Mr. l.eaverton signified that he wouid not disqualify
Chairman Farano from the deliberatf•~ns un the sub.ject appllcation.
C~rrxnissioner Herbsr noted that as lonq as the commercial ~F^ri~ommercialruces~,downtown; that,
oriented there was nd problem~ howr.ver, therP were areas `„
in his opinion~ the subJect r~quest was strip-r.oning; th~t , was not In favnr of per-
mltting a blanket commercial use fn an industrial area; that if tlia petitioner submitted a
Iist of the antiripated cammercial uses for approval~ then as the tenants w~re ready, the
oetttfoner co~.ild have the use reviewed by the Planninq Department; and that many businesses
were goin~ to the industrial areas because of cheaper rent.
In response to question6n~ oy Chairman Farano, Mr. Slaughter advised that as long as the
~inderlying zonin9rial andust ~mer'.lal uses;uhoweverarthere WouldabercPrtainhrEqut~ements a
mixture of indus.
of the Building Codes invalved.
Mr. Leavertan stated the commercial uses would be withaut service Co the general public~
but wouldthe bwereenot5lnterestedtinthavtngereal5estate5offlcestatjthetsubJectrlocation`~
and that Y
Commissioner B~irnes noted that the subJect varlance could be g~anted an~i strictly , nited
tu wholesale busines~es.
Nis. Koryn Barkenhagen, reoresentira the agent for the Petitioner, ~ppEared be~ar~ the
;lanning Cnmmission and statec~ theY wcre proposing to lease to businesses su~h as carpeting
~ ~
MIt~llTka, CITV PLIINNINf, COMMIS51t1N~ ~~~vemhcr 1~~ 1~75
75-5~~ 3
VAR IANCF. NQ, ?.753 (~~ntinued)
sA :,~ tn ctener•al contrelld also~lease~~to wholesalei sta*n~ne`rytbusines~nsAwherr.tin'r~t~ck would
Znree; nnd that they wo
bc keFt bn the {~1'emi5cs.
7h~ ~lanning f,ommiysion ~ntered Ineo discussl~n with tF~e petitinne~ regardiny ~ slmllAr
applicatlon on Statt Col le~cdBan1lelncorpo~r~ted' ln~,tre~resolutl~n~flppf~pvlnqhsaldna~pllcation.
1 i st of Cenonts was submi t
Qurinq st~id discusslon, Mr. Leave~unc.lltwouldtbc agreeableutogthrP{~etitlonerrand~thny~n~
Us e Perml t No, 1427 bY the ~ I ty
would submit a wrltten request tsaldcreview'heingpform~ndetcrminatlonaas topwhether each
u~ses as thc tenants v,erc ready ~
pr-opo~,ed u~~ was approl?r ir~te at the subJect locotlon~ eCC.
It was noted that the Di r~~finitf .n~lof~Sectlon 3~~l.t~assh'1~, oftthelCitytoftAnahe~moposed
a~tivity fcll withln the de
(:uldelines Lo the Aequlrements for an Envlronmental Impnct Report and.was~ tharefor~,
eategorl cal ly exempt from the requi rement to f 1 1 e an EI R.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolutlon No. PC75-7.37 and moveci for its passage ~nd ~SO~fion~
that Petltlon for Vinl~~PeM~°;one~3suhJect torthe stiPulation of thempetltionercth~[ unly
eoimnercial offices
thc two existing bull~~beln Whranted on theAb~asl;mthat1slnilarhwalversUhevefbeen~granted
offl ce uses, said us ~ 9
by the Planninq Commisslon previously; subJect to the cond(tlon thatWhtch isnin`_e~ided to
otft ce-type use pi'oposed to be establ ished ~n the subJect property~
Qua1 ify under thls vaa~~~~~order,that audCterminatfonimaynbe~made~ashto whether Dheap~oent
for review and approv
posed use would be oP~'~ateaan additionaltparkinghdemandscreatednbypsuchna useprthatein n
the property to a,.c e ~f uses, as stlpulatad
ordPr to provide guidelines for staff determin~tion, the follawing typ
to by the petitloner, TaY be permitt~d subJ~..< to ths written r'eq~~est and review procedure
outlin~~d herein:
a,
b,
c.
d,
e,
f,
9~
h.
i,
1~
k,
1,
m.
n,
o.
p~
Q~
r~
M~rLqage companies
I nvestment sc:cur i ty comp3n les
Stock bond brokers
I~surance companles - branch or home ~ffice
{nsurance agencies and brokerage firms
Real estate firrns - investment~ commercial and i~sdustrial only
7itle and excrow compantes
Attorneys
CPA's
Advertising
Englneerln~ firms - consulting
Architects
Public relations
Marketing research
Manegement consultants
Telephane r.ompany (clerical)
Accounting (clerical)
Industrial psychologist (consulting);
that if a qucstiun arisee mattertshaliCbeisubmlttedytohthe1PlanningeCommission~ateits''next
a particular request, th eal any Planning Commisslon
regular meeting for determination~ an~ the applicant may app
oecision to the City Council; and ~.ubj~ct to the Interdepartmenta) Committee recortxnendation.
(See Resolution Book)
On rnll :,all~ the foregoing re~:•~~~'=^ ~as passed by the following vo~e:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BAR' .~ HERBST, KING~ MORLEY~ TOL~R, fAR1~N0
NOES : COMM I SS I ONERS : NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JOHNSO~J
~
~
M I ~~I.ITF.S , C I TY PLANN I NG COMM I SS I ON ~ NOVEMElER 10 ~ 1975
~
~
7S-SW3a
ENVIRQNMENTAI. IMNAf,'C - DEVELf1PER: GEORf,E HELl'ZFR~ 7~~0 Nc~rLh La Brea 9dulevard, Los
POR1' N(1, I-~)
Rf• Angeles~ Ca. 90~38. ENG1N[ER; AtJACAL kNGl~~I?ERING COMPAMY,
.
~ P, 0. Box 3~+h~~ Ana~l~efm, Ca. 92f3~!~. Subject prop~rty, Gonstst-
TFMTIITIVF MAF AF ~ng of appraximntely 31.5 acra,a l~~ceted between Romnnya Drlve
TRACT Nf1, FiRF~F, an~l La Pelma Avenue~ having aapr~-cim.~ce frantQges of Gf~7. faet
(REVISI~IJ N~. 2) on the south sl~in of Romn~ya Orlve anct I~i35 fee~ on the north
slJe of La Palma Av~nue, having n maximum dcpth ~f appr~xlaiately
TC~ITATIVF. MAP 0~ 1320 fect~ and beln~7 tocaced approximAtely NE~3 Fect west af ihe
TRAC1' N0. 9~9% c~~rcrline of State Colldge Bouleverd~ IK pr~posad for sub~-
_
"'- dlvlsion as fallc+ws:
Tent~~tivs Map nf Tract No, (1A66 (,Rev. No. 2) - 46 RS-SOOn lots
Tont~tlve Nap of Tract No. 9n~7 •~ 118 RS-5~~n lots
7ha St~iff iteport to the Planning Com+nlsslon dated November 10. 1q75~ was p~esented ancl
mAde n p~r! of tl~c minutes.
Mr. C~~ Qu~y~el~ representln~ the englneer for thc developer~ apperred befc~re tl~e Plann(ng
Commisslon ~nd stated xhe developer was desirous oF spiitting the prevlously approved
Tentatfve 7ract No, a866 (Revision No. 1) fnto two trncCs; that Trnc[ No. j~97 woul~l be
Phase 1 ort the development witfi ell of the dextcr Strtc.t extenslon to be included in Phase
I; and that there were no changes t4 tt~e approved tract~ ~xcept :.hat the developer wanted
ta have two tracts lnstead Qf one.
Chairman FArano noted th~t the appraval of Tentat(vr., 7ract No. OR66 (Re~•iSton No, 1) was
granted wlth the recommendation "that the parks :,nd recreation in-lieu fee s paid by the~
subJect devaloper be utlllzed for the sole purpose ~f makinq tmpravements to the adJacent
Sycamore Junlor High Scfiool park facllities or to Edison Perk to ellminPtp some nf the
problems re~ r.ed to p~rk deficiencies in the subJcct area and to enhance t!~e subJect
area"; that said rer.ommendatio-~ was a material part of the determin~tlon made by the
Planninn Commiss(on; ~:~~.' it now appeored that the in-lieu fees could not be channeled to
the adJacent park facllltir.s ancl the spirit ot the previaus approval could not be
accomplished. Comnlssfoner Herbst concurred that without the !n-lieu fees being spent in
the lmmediate area, the splrit ~f the Planninc~ Commis:ton's approval ~f th e development
would no longer exist. Commissioner Tolar noted th~t +f the City ciecided not to further
develop ttie adJace~~t park facilitles with the in-lleu f~~es, the developer wAS not at
fault.
Commissioner Herbst further noted that tlie subJect development would have a tremendous
tmpact on the adJacent parks; that the development would open up Edison P a rk in its
~ntire+.y far use by the 164 families that would livc in the developrtx~~~t; a ~d that the
impact on Edison Park from the subJect development would be grcater ~an ~ hat on any other
park tn the Ctty~ and for that reason the subJect development shou support that park.
Mr. Queyrel yuestioned whether the Clty Council had the power to direct t h at park tn-lieu
fee5 be used in a certain area; whereupon, Deputy Clty Attor•ney Malco;m 5 laughter advised
that the Clty Council did have such a power to the degree that the fees we re not already
committed to other parks. Chatrman Farano then noted that lt may be unfair to change his
vote based o~ the in-lieu fee usage. Commissioner Herbst noted~ howevPr. that the
develaper could keep the in-lieu money~ if he was desirous o~ doing so~ a nd dedicate park
land. Mr. Queyrel then stated that former Parks~ Recreation and the Arts Department
Uirector John ~ollier ciid noi want the land since it would consist of ~nly a small area to
add to the existing Edi~on Parl:. Con~mtssioner Flerbst further noted that the addltion of
two acres would certalnly !~elp the area, and ti,.: develaper could ga(n th~ t amount wtiich
would be aver and above the cost of improving the additionat westerly sec tion of Baxter
Street adJacent to Edlson Park.
Commissioner Morl~y noted th~t he was not present at the Plannin~ Commtss ion nieettng of
5eptember 29, 1Q75~ when Tentative Tract No. 8866 (Revlsion No. 1) was a p proved and he
questioned whether he should abstain from voting on the new proposal; whe reiipon, Mr.
Sla~~^.~tsr advised that Commi~sioner Mcrley should not abstain from votin g on that basis.
Chalrman Farano noted that he wauld agree that It would be unfalr ta cha n ge his vote based
on the disposition of the park in-lleu fees.
Mr. Queyrel further ~:a*~ed thr: by having the total development canlained In one tract
rather than two, a finanactsl hardshtp existed for the devclaper; that he would stipulate
to the full street improvemants for Baxter ~treet (Street "H"); and thet he would
emphasize~ very strongly~ that tihe in-lieu fees should be spant in the immediate area.
it was noted that on March 25, 1975o the Anaheim City Council certifled Environmental
Impact Report No. 141 for the subJect property and *.~~e comme,•c~el parcel to the east~ and
that since the subJec~ proposal to split t'~e subJect prnperty Into two t racts, rather than
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSI0~1~ NOVEMBER 10. 1975 75'SG3b
ENVIFIONMf.N7AL IMPACT RF.PORT N0. 141~ TCNTATIVE 11AP OF ~'RAC't N05._8866 (REY. 2) ANU Q (Cont.)
~_~~ _ ______
to hAVC one tract, did n~t Involve any nnw en vfronmental impo~cs~ no a~ddltlonal EIR or
actlo~ tl~creon wAS necessory at tliis tlme+.
Commissioner Tolar offered a motlon~ secondr_ci hy Crnnmiasianer Morley and MOTION CARRIED
(f,ommfssloner Nerbst votin~ "no~" and Commissioncr Johnson be~nn abs~nt)~ th~t the Ana~~elm
City Planning Comnilsslon does hereby approve Tentative Nap of 7ract No, aA6G (Revislon Na.
2)~ sub)ect to the stlpulations of the develop~r and subJect to the condltlons set forth
k~elow; anci that~ the Plannfnc~ Commission does further recomnend to the City C~uncl i thrt
the p++rks Tnd recre~ t 1 on I n- I 1 eu foes pn 1 d by tlie sub J cc t deve lapcr be ut I 1 I zed for the
sole purpose af maHfng Impr~vements to the aciJacent Sycamore Ju~i~or Hlgh School park
facllities or t~ fJison PAfIC L(~ ellminatc some of the p~ub~ems relntcd to pArlc
deficlencles in tf~e suhJecc orea ~nd to enhanc.e thP subJect r,rea:
1, That the development of this r.ract is cuntingent upon the completlon oF
ReclasslFication No. 7~~-75-Z3~ raclassifying subJe~t property to the RS-50QQ Zone.
?., 7hat ~~houl~l this sub~ivision be cievelopecl as more than one subdlv1slon~ each
subdlvlslon thc~reaf sh~~ll be submittad in tentAtivc form For a`proval.
3. That all lots withtn t'ts tract shall be served by ~mde:r~around utilitfes.
4, That flre hydraRts shall be installed ~nd charged as rc.qulreci and determined to be
necessary hy the Chlef of the Fire Oepartment prlor to eanmence:ment of structural framing.
5. That ~he owner(s) of suhJect p~-operty ~hall pay to the Clty of An~heim th~
appropriate park and recreation in-l tau fees as detcrmi ned to t,c appropriat~: by the Clty
Councily sald fees to be pald at the time tti~ bullding permit ts issued.
6. That vehtcular access rights~ except at street opening!~, to La Palma Avenue stiall
be dedfcated to the City of Anaheim.
'J, That dralnac~e of subJect propcrty shall be dispc• -d of In a mannar satlsFactrry to
the City Fngineer,
8. That Che allgnment and terminal poir.;, of storm draln3 showr. on this xentative
tract map shall not be considered final. These dra(ns shall be subJect to ~~recise deslyn
consideratfons and approval c,f the City Eng i neer.
9. That street nan~es shal l be approved by the Ci ty of Anahe(m E~rlor to app^cia) of a
final tract map.
10, That 1 f permanent strePt name s igns h~,ve not been Instal led, temporary ~treet name
signs shall be installed prior to any accupancy.
1,, That in accordance with City Council policy, a six-f.~ot masonry wall shall be
const •ucted on the south property 1 ine saparating Lot Nos. 1 through 10 frc~m l.a Palma
Avenue Reasonable landscaping, inGluding irrlgatlon facilities~ shall be installed in
the uncemented portion of the arterlal fiighway parkway the full distance ~f safs wall~
plans for sald landscaping to be submitted to and subject co the approval of th~
Superintendent of Parkway Maintenanct, an~ follawing instailatic+n and ae.ceptance, the City
of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for mainten ance of sald landsca~ing.
12. That the property owner(s) shall de dicate to the City of Anaheim an teasem~~t to
cons'.st of a five-foet strip of land along the (nside of the sidewalks in the ~ubicct
tract. except on Street "H" (Baxt,er StrPet) said easernent to be for the purpose of
excavatinq, maintenance~ etc., by the City .
13, That p-'lor to the ~pproval of the final trac t mnp, the petitloner shal) ~ubmlt
final specific floor plans and elevatlons to the City Coun~il for approval.
14. That a final tract map of subiect pr4perty shall be subm~tted to and a~sprove~i by
the City Council and then be rPCOrde~ !r :~~e office n f the O~ange Caunty Recorder.
15, That Tract No. °'-Q% shall b~ cons~~ructed m d construction of Street "H" (Baxtrr
Street) shall be ccxnplet~•d prtor t~ the oc~~~pam•r of ~ny unit in Tract No. 8866.
16. That the awn~~;s) of subJect prope rty s}~a'1 r rquest thac City Council terminate
Variance tJ~~. 2670.
C~mmts5ioner Tolar offered a motion~ geconded by Comsnissioner Morley and MOTION CARR.I~D
(Comm(ssloner Herbst voting "no~'' and Commissioner J ohnson being absent). that the Anaheim
City Planning Commiss~or, does hereby app rove Tentative Map of Tract No, go97~ subJect to
the stlpulations of the developer and sub j ect to th e condttions set forth beiow; and that
the Planning Commis:ton docs further recortxnend to th e City Council that tt~e parks ancl
recreation in-lieu fees oaid by the subJee t develope r be util(zed for the sole purpose ~f
making im~rovements to the adJacent Syc.arroQre Junior High School park facllities or to
Edisnn Park to eliminate some of the probiema relate d to park deficiencies in the subJect
area and to enhance the subJect a~ea:
1. That the devalopment of this tract Is continger.t utaon the completion of
Reclass i f icat lon No. 7~F•75~23. rGCI assi fy i nc~ subJect p~'operty to the RS-5000 Zone.
2. That sho~ld this subdlvlston be de veloped as m~'~p than one subdlvis(on~ each
subdiviston thereof shall ba submitted ti. tentat(ve form for approval.
3. That all lots within this tract sh~l) be served by undergraund utilitles.
4. That fire hydrants shall be inst alled and ch arged as required and determinfd to be
necessary by the Chlef oP the Fire Depart ment prio r t~ commensemnn~ of structural framinq.
~ ~ ~
MINUTES . CITY PLANNIMI; COMMISSION~ NOVEMBER 10~ 1975 75-543~
ENVI RONMENTAL I MPAGT REPORT N~ 0~,141 . TENTATI VE MAP OF TRACT NAS. $866 (R~1P. 2) I-Nn 909~ (Conx.)
5. Thtrt the owner(s) of ~ubJect properky ahal) pay to the City of AnAhelm the
ap~rap r1Ate prrk and recreati~m In-lieu faes ~s dat~ermined to be approp~late by the City
Council. sald fees ko be p~eid et the tlme the building pnrmit Is Issued.
6, 7hat vehiculer acc~s~ r!ghtx~ except at atreet openings~ tn La Palme Av~nue 9I1AII
be dedtcated to the City of Anahelm.
7. That dralnago 01` ~ubJect property ~hall be disposed of In a rtumnRr aatisfactory to
the City Engineor.
8. That the ~Ilgnment and terminal polnt of storm dralns shown on this i.entakfve
tract mep ~h~l) nat be considered fin.:l. These dralna shall be aubJnct to precise deslgn
conside ratlons and approval of the City Engineer.
9. Thst strect i~ames shall be appr~ved by thn Ctty of Anahelm prtor to approval of a
flnal trbct map.
10. That if permanenl : treet namr: signs heve not been insk~lled~ temporary street name
sinns shell be installed prior to any occupancy.
11. 7hat tn accordance w(th Clty Councll policy~ a six-foot masonry wall shal) be
constructed on khe south properxy l i~~e separatin~ Lot Nos. 1 througli 14 from La Patma
Avenue. Reasonable tanclscaping, including (rriqation facilities~ shall be Installed in
the un cemented portlon uf the arterfal ~~Ighway parkway the fu11 dist•ance of sald wall~
plans for satd landac.aping to be submitted to and subJect to th~ app~oval of the
Supert~tendent of P~rkway Malntenance~ and following Installation and eccoptance~ the Clty
of Anaheim shall assume tF~e responsibllity for r,ainten~nce of 3ald landscaping.
12. That the property ~wncr(s) shall dedl~cate to the Clty of Anahetm ~+n easement to
consis t of a five~f~ot strip of land along thn lnslde of the sidewalks In the subJect
tract. axcepS: on SCraet "H" (Baxter Street) sald easemenc to be for the purpose of
excavating~ malntenanca, etc.~ by the Clty.
13. That prlor to the appreval of the final tract map. the petitioner shAll submlt
fi~a) speclfic floor plans and elevatlons to the City C~uncSl for approval.
14. ?hai a final tract map of subJect property shall be submltted to and appr•oved by
the City Cauncil and then be recorded In the office of the Orange County Recorder.
1 5. That ai 1 engtneer t ng raqu) ren~ents of the Ct ty of Anaheim along ths ful l 61~-foot
wldth and entire length of Street "H" (Baxter Str~et) between Romneya Drive and La Palma
Avenue. including preparatlon of improvement plans and installatlon of a!1 impr.~vements
such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks. street greding nnd paving, drainage facllitles~ or
ath~ r appurtenant work, ~ hall be camplted with as required by the Glty Engineer and in
accor dance wtth stancfard plans and specifiGatlons on file in the office o+ the City
Engineer.
16. That Tract No. 9~97 shall be constructad and constructlon of Street "N" (Baxter
S;:r~e t) shall be Gompleted prior to thr. occupancy of any unit in Trmc[ No. 8~66.
t';, That he owner(s) of subJect property shall reques~ that City Council terminate
riance No, 2f~70.
• ~
!
MINUTES~ CITY PI.l1NNIN~ CQMMISSION, NQVEMBER 10~ 1975 75~5~~~~
REPOKT5 ANO ~TEM N0. 1-a
RECOMMEND~ONS E NE A IVE DECLARATIOM ftEQUEST ~ For the abandonment of Gain ~treeC
north of Chaln Ave~ue fo~ a dtstance of approximately 130 feet.
!t was noted that a petitlon had becn subm~,ttnd ta the ~(ty Counctl by 40 Anahelm ~esldents
reque3ting that Gain 5treet be closed to traffic between Chni~ Street and Liricoln Avenue
and a public hoaring tharoo~~ had been scheduled f~r November 18~ 1g75; that the closing
of a street was a dtscretlonary pro)ect whlch wes subJect to the pr~vlsions of the Callfnrnla
Enviranmental Quality Act; thet an Initlal Study of Environrnental Impact was preprred by
thc Engineoring Division and the Planning Dlvlslon; that the only effect of the street
closing would bc rerouting of 1~acA1 traffic; that the Traffic Englneer had indlcated that
the changes in traffic flow whlch would result from the street closl~g would be within tl~e
existing ca~yacity of the streets; and thAt it appeared th~t the requested st~'eet closing
would not have a~ubstantla) adverse impact on khe env(ronment a~id~ consequnntlY~ tha
preparatlon of an Environr,~enta) Impact Report was not requlred.
Ghafrman Farano noted that if Galn Street was closed~ as requested~ all of the residants
in the arra would have to exit on Broadway and he was not sure that would be best for the
community.
Mrs. Nancy Brown~ 2513 Chain Avenue~ Anahelm~ appeared befare the. Plannin9 Commission and
stated she had submitted a petitlon contalning 92 signatures In favor af closing off the
subJect street; that all af those who slgned Iived o~ the varlous streets In the area;
and that she had gone to all of the 91 homes and only recelved 9 n~gative responses to the
petitlon.
Chait~man Farano su99ested that the Planning Commisslon not take an actlon on the EIR
Negative Declaration request since any actlon should be based on the facts brought out
aC the City Councll public hearing. Commissloner Morley nated that by voting in favor
of the negat(ve cieclaratlon request~ the actinn might be construed as approving the
closure of the street. Comm(~sioner King re~iiewed the flnding in the Staff Report that
40 resi~ients signed the petitior to close Gain Str~eet. and noted that he did not favor
closiny the street since it was the only street running ~sorth :ind south between Magnolia
Avenue and Gilbert Street. Thereupon~ Deputy City Attorney Malcolm Slaughter advised
that an action on the EIR Negative Declaration would not lmply the Planning ~ommission's
s~and as to whether or not the subJect gtreet should be closed. (For clarification: the
s gnatures on the petition represented 40 residences.)
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion~ seconded by Commissloner Morley, and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissioner Farano voting "no" and Commissioner Jofmson being absent)~ that the Ptanning
Commisslon does hereby recomr-end to the City Council that the subject proJect be exempt
from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report~ pur~uant to the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act; subJect to the Finding that the Planning
Commission has not had the privilege of input from the affected residents in the ared.
~ T~M N0. 1-b
RECLASS~ IFICATION NOS. 68-69-14 ANO 74-75°22 AND TRACT N0, 6691 -
Properties located in vicl~ity of Lincoln Aven~, and Gain Street -
Review of letter concerning wall separating the shopping center
and the ad,joining res(dential properkies to the south.
Ru Decell
Chalrman Farano presented a letter which was received from the attorney for Nr. y
concerning the structural adec,.acy of the existing masonry wall separating six restdentiat
properties fr~~~ shopping center at the carner of Lincoln Avenue and Gain Str~et which
was presently ~ ~ completion. Chairman Farano noted that he had been to the subJect
property on tw .rate occasions and examined ihe wall with the: aid of a flashlight; that
the wall was apparently undercut or undermined and was sagging and crooked~ and ln his uwn
opinion was inadequaCe; and that he was requesting some directfon from City Sta~f as to
appropriate actton in the matter.
Zoning Supervisor Annika Santalahtl advi~ed that the City Counctl had ma~hc~weverertheation
that concrete blocks should be added to the wall to increase thP -+eight; ~
height should be increased in a manner satisfactory to the p~rtl~~. :oncerned in the matter.
~
~ ~
MINUTES, f,ITY PLANNING COMMiSSION~ Nf1VEMNF.R 1Q~ lg7S
ITEM N0. 1-b Continued)
75-5~~5
Mrs. Nancy Brow~~ 2513 Chaln Avenue~ Anohelm~ appearad before the Planning Commisslon and
stated she haA been advlsed by tho City that the additlort of two blocks to lncreASP the
height woulcl not make the wall safe ancl thc nelghbors were told not to sign to let the
dcveloper Just add two blocks to th~ wall; that the developer had sent out re~istered letters
to all the adJacent residents sollcitinc~ thelr support to add the two blocks tn the nxisting
wall; and that she had sent a registered letter to the d~veloper Indic~ting tl~at none of
the homeawner•s wauld let them add two blocks to the existln,y w~ll.
Chatrman Farano then noted that lils lnspcctlon of the wal) rr,vealecl that it was slnking In
spots and was not truely straiRht~ and that It was obvlous that thc damage was caused hy
soma undermininca dane by the contrac;~r for the shopping center; that he resented being
placed In the pasition of advlsing the ;leveloper es t~ the adequacy of tlie wall; that the
matter tiad been conducted in a most shoda~ mannar by the develapers In that Chey seerned t.o
be attempting to byp~ss the Builc~ing Division and the hdmeawners tnvolved; and that Mr. Decell
sh~uld be advised of the proprr channels to go throuc~h to obtaln the answer he was seeking.
Commissloner Nerbst noted that~ in hls oplnlan, the height of the subJect wal) should be
Increasr.d in accordance with the requirements af the Bullding Code and/or Butlding Dlvtslon.
Commis~loner Barnes added that the Puildtng Divislon should Cake a stand on the matter and
make the determination ~s to whether ~r r.ot the wall was unsafe. Commissloner Tolar noted
that~ in his oplnfon~ the wall shauld probably be condemned before it fell on a child ar
someone else.
Thereupon~ the Planning Commission generally concurred that Staff be directed to contact
the property owners and work toward resolutlo~ of any probl~:ms that may exlst in connectlon
wt th ti~e subJect wal l.
I TEM N0. 2
BROAOWf1Y STORM ~RAIN PROJECY - Request for determination as to
conformtty with the Anahetm General Flan and concurrence with
Elft Negatlve Oeclaratlon.
It was noted that the Orange County Environmental Management Agency ~~as proposing to imple-
ment the consCruction of a st~rm drain on Broadway from Euclid Str~et to Dale Street and
n~rth on Dale Street tc Carbon Creek Channel; that said drain would be underground and
within th^ street right-of-way; that,in accordance with the requirements af Section 65~02
of the G~vernment Code,the Agency was requesting a determinatlon as to the conformtty of
the propased proJect with the City of Anaheim aeneral Pian and~ additionally~ whether the
Planning Commissfon concurred In the issuance of an environmental impact negative declaration;
and that the Enginearing Divisic+n had reviewed the proposed project and found it to be in
conTOrmance with the I~tasker Plan of nrainage.
Commissianer I:ing offered Resolutic;~ No. PC75-238 and moved for its passage and adoption~
that the Anaheim City f'lanning Comml:•sion doc.~~ hereby find end determine that the proposed
drainage impiovements,identtfied as ~:he Broadway Storm Orain ProJect~ are in conformity
with the City of Anaheim's adop•ed ~enera) Plan~ ancf that said Commission concurs with the
issuance of ths environmental impact negative declaration in connection with said proJect.
(See Resolution Book)
On roll cal'., the foregofr~7 :PSalu:~on was passed by the following vote:
AYFS: COMMISSIONERS: dARP;FS, NER851', KING~ MORLE`(, TOLAR~ FARANO
NOCS: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMhI I SS I O~~ERS : JOHPISON
ITEM N0. 3
~~N~~NTY FLOOD COMTROL DISTRICT FACILI7Y N0. E01 (RIVERDALE
REST STOP) - Request for determinatlon as to conPormity with the
Anahelm General Plan and concurrer.ce with EIR Negative Declaration.
It was noted that the Orange County Fl~ood Control District was propnsing to construct a
recreation trails rest stop and nelghborhood mini-~ark, identifted as Orange County Flood
Control Qistrict Facility No. E01~ at the Santa Ana R!ver and Riverside Freeway; that t~e
proposed site was approximately 3 Acres In stze and In an area whlch was restdential in
character; that,in accordance with tht requirements of Section 65'~02 of the Govarnment
Code, ti~~ Orange County Enviro~mental Managernent Agtncy was requesting a determination as
to the conformity of the proposed proJect with Lhe City nf Anaheim's ad~pted Genera) Plan
and~ addltlonally~ whether~ thc Planning Commlsslon concurrect ln the Issuance of an en-
vironmental Impatt negattve declaration; and that the provlslon af trails and mini-parkq
was in a~ccordance with the objecttves of the Open Space and Conservatio~ Element of the
~ ~ o
MINIITES~ CITY PI,AFlNING CONMISSIpN, NOVEM~ER 10~ 1~75 75-546
ITEM NA. 3 (Continu~d)
Ci~y of Anehr.im's ndoptocf GencsrAl Plan.
Commiaslon~er hbrley off~red Itesolution Nfl. PC~5-239 and movcd for Its paasage and
adoptlo~~ th~t the AnAheim Clty Plenninc~ Commission dc+e' hereby 1'ind and determine that
the prop~sed rest ~top and park~ Idcnt~fl~sd as Orange ~ounty Flood Control Dtstrlct
Facility Na. E01 (Riverdale Rost Siop)~ are in conformity wlth the Clty of Anaheim's
aA~pted General Plar., ~+nd that ~ald Coimilssic ~ cencurs wtth th~ issuar.ce of thc
cnvtranmental impnct neclrtlve cieclaratlon In connectlon wlth the proJact. (Ste Resolutioe~
Book)
On roll ca11, the foregaing re~oiutton wbs pa~sed by the following vot~:
AYES: CAMMISSI~NFRS: BARNES, IiERBST, KINI;. MORLEY~ TOLAR~ FARANO
NOES: COMMISSIANEftS: NONE
ABSENT: C~`NMISSIu~~~a~: JOHr~SON
I TEM N0. 4
'~ITt~~'VE DEClARA71 ON ItEQUEST -~or r~l dpn i ng the north s i de
of L.incoln Avenue west of Sunlcla~t Street.
It was noted that the Clty oP Analieim Public Works Dnp~ertme~t was proposing to widen the
north sic9e of Li~coln Avr.nue from Sunkist StrceC to a potnt approxtmately 550 feet weat of
Sunk.is; Stract; tha[ tl~e street widc^ing was requs~ted by the adJacent resldents in order
^o provtde a parkfng IAne; tf~at a pre ous parking lanc was eliminate:+ when a center
isl~nnd was constr~:cted to provide for the orde~ly flow of traffic to Hnd from a new
shapping center on the south side o~ ~.Inculn Avenua; that: the proJect wo~~ld requtra eight
palm trecs bc removed from the cxistin~~ parkway~ MUWRV@t'~ said trees were a common ~!arlaty
and would be rel~cated to City parks wh~rever posstble; anr that a study of the proposed
street widening by ~:he Engineering Div!~ion and the Planning Departmertt ind(cated that it
wo~ild havr no stg~ilficant enyironmental lmpact.
Commissianer Nerb~t offered a mot(on~ ~~canded by Comni3sloner King and MOTION CARRIED
(Commisslonnr ,lohnson being absen[)~ that the Anahelm Clty Planntng Commission does hereby
recamnend to the Gity Councl~ of the City nf A~ahetm Chat the subJect p~oJect be exempt
from the requlrement ta prepare an envtr4nmental impact rsport, pursuaRt to th~ provislons
of the California E~vironmental Quality Act.
I TE M Nf1. 5
KI B[RLY STGRM CHANNEL RECONSTRUC'TIGN - Request for determin3tion
oF com}~liance with the Clty o1' Anahelm &enr,ral Plan and cancurc•ence
with kIR Nrgative Declae•atlon.
It was noted that th~ Arange C~unCy Envirunn~ental Management Agency was proposing to
reconstruct and enlarge ~he K~mbe.rly Starm Channe) and acquire rights-of-w~y~ from
Fullerto~ Creek Chan~~el to 700 `eet pasteriy a,° Raymond Avenue~ to provide flood rellef
for an Important industrial area which exaerienced considerable distress during even
m~oderate ~torms; thaC~ in aGCOrdanc~ w+th Section 65GA2 of thie Government Code, the Agency
wa~ requesttng the Analie(m City ?lanning Comnisslon to deCprmine tf the proposad pro,ject
~es in conformance w(th the City of Ananalm's adopted Genera.l Plan and~ additionally~
whether said Commtssion soncurred wlth the issuance of an ~nvtronmental impact negative
declarotion for the propased proJect; and that the Enginezring Division had indicatec+ that
the propo~ed proJecx was in conformmnce with Che Master Plan of Drainage and na adverse
environmental impz~ct wa~ anticlpated.
Commtssione~ King offered Ressolut.lon No. PC75-2~+0 and moved for i's passage and adoption
that the Anahe(m ~Gity Pl~.nning Commission does hereby fin~ and deterr~ne that the proposed
acquisition and drainaye lmprove~+~~ts~ tdentif(ed es the Kirnberly Storm Channel
Recor~tr~ction~ ~re in conformity with the City of Anahetm's adopted General Pian~ and
that sald Com~ntsston concurs with the Issuance uf the onvlronmental im~,act negaxive
detlaration ln cnnnection with said praJec2.
~ ~ ~
MINUTES~ C11'Y PLANNING COMMISSIONy November 10~ 1975 75'SG7
ADJOU~RN~ MENT There being no further busineas to d{scuss~ Comnissloner hhrley
offered a motlon~ secnnded by Commissloner Herbst~ and MATION
CARRIEQ (Commissloner Johnson being absenl). thet tho mceting be
adJourned.
The mneting adJourned at G:45 p.m.
Respectfully submittad~
~~~~~~~.~~
Patricla B. Scanlan~ Sec.retary
ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING C~MMISSION
PBS:Jd