Minutes-PC 1976/03/15~ ~ ~
City Hell
Anahefm, Califarnle
Ma rch i S~ 1976
RF.GUI.AR MEETING QF THE At~AHEIM C~7Y PLANNI~IG COMMIS510N
~.______-- "~
Rf 'LAR - A regular meeting of the Anahetm City Plunninn Cc~n+missio~ was ~allcd to
MEL~'f~G order L•y Chairmaii Farano at 1:30 p.m. in the C~uncSl Chamber~ a quorum
bcsing present,
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Faranc+
COMMiSSI~NERS: B~rnes~ Nerbst~ Johnsun~ Kinq~ Morley, Tolar
AE~SF.NT - COMMI SS I~NERS : Nonc
ALSQ PRES[PIT - Frank Lowry
Pau) Singer
Jay Tlxus
Annika Santalahti
Allan Daum
Joel Ftck
Patricta Scnnlan
Deputy Clt/ Att~~ney
Traff-c fnglnecsr
Officc Enc~tne~r
Zoning Supcrvlsor
Assistant 2oning Supervisor
AsstsCart Planner
Planning Con~misslon Secrr.tary
PLEDGE OF - Cammissioner Tolar led in the Pledge of Ailegiai~ce t~ thc Flao of the
A!LECIANCE United States oF ~,martca,
APPaOVAL OF - Cortmissioner King offerect a motion~ secor~le:d by Commissloner Mor~ey and
THE MINUTES MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner 7olar being absent)~ tha trthe minutes of
the Joint An~he(rn C(ty Flanning Commisston and Comm~ni , Redevelopment
Cammission Work S~ssion held on February 18, 197~~ be dPproved a~ a
summary~ only, of' the items dlscussed anci not as actual minutes of the
me~t(ng since thE~ Planning Commissien discussion was not indicat~d In
sa~id minutes.
(NQTF• Th{; t;:.m was cun~:id°rw~{ ~,r thP ~nd o~ the meeting.~
Commisstoner Y.ing off~ered a~notfo~. seconded by Comnissian~r• Morley and
i10T10N CARRIED (Commissioner .lohnson abstaining sin ce h~ was not present
at the rneeting in question)~ that the minut~s of the AdJ~urned Regular
Meeting of the Pla;~ning Commission held on February 24, i916~ be and
hereby are approved~ as submitted.
Commissioner Nerbs~ ~ffered a motion~ seconded by Commissloner Juhnson
and MOTI~t~ CAftRIED~ thar the minut~s nf the Regula r planning C~mmission
Meeting held on March 1~ 1976, be and hereby are ~pproved~ as submitted.
VARIANCE N~. 27t~5 - CQNTIt~UEU PUBLIC IiEARING~ EVAN A. JOIiPlSON~ JR. ~ et at ~ c/o „ack J.
R?mel~ +055 North Main~ SuitP 406~ Santa Ana, Ca. 927~1 ~~+ner);
R. 9. STOCh'4JEl.L. Community Bank~ 2955 Fletcher Drive~ Los Ang~les,
Ca. 9~~65 (Agent); ~'equesting WpIVER OF PEi~MITTED USES~ TO CON~TRUC T A SAYK on property
described as an irregularly-shaped parcel o~ land cnnsisting of app roximately 1,5 aGres
having a frontage of approxlmately 225 feet on the east side of 5 ta te College 9oulev~rdr
havirsg a maxirr~~m depth of anproximately 325 feet, and be1^9resentld classtf edeML ~1~
fect narth of tF:e centerline of Katella Avenue. Prop~rt/ p Y
(INDUSTRIAL, LIMI7ED) ZONC.
The subJect petition was continued f~om the Planninc~ Commissio~. meeting of Decemb~r 22.
1975~ for readvertisrment to include additional property and for ~c vised plans.
It wa~ noted that the petitfoner wa:; req~e~ting an additto.~,~1 two-wec~. contlnuance and had
indlcated he was currently neaotiatir~g with the Engtneering staff ~egarding s(te
davelopment problem3.
Commtssio~er King offnrecl a cn~tion, seconded by Commissio~e~ 9arnes and MOTION CARRIED,
that the Anahcim ~ity Planning Commission ~!nes hereby continue th e pu~lic hearing and
consideration of Petitlan for Variance Nu. '=765 to the Pianning Commissiors meeting of
March 29. 19'1G, as requested by the petttioner.
76-110
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PI.ANNINf; COMMISSION. March 15, 1~76
76-111
VARIANCE N0. 277~ - C~NTINIIF.n PUBLiC tiEARING. NICKLOS URSINI~ 1334 Nnrth Fadonla Avenue~
4lhlttlcr, Ca. 9~~~3 ~~ner); PEGGY NUFFMAN, 110E3 Fast Cherry 5tre::t~
Sante Ane~ Ca. 927~1 (Agent); requesting W111VER OF PERMIT7ED USES~ 70
ESTABLISN A M/1SSP,G~~ S~UNl1 AMD HCALTH CLUB on propnrky described ~s a rectrn~ulerlY-
sha~cd pArcel of `and consisting of epprax!matel~~ one ecro having a f~ontage of approxl-
mately 15q feet ~n the n~rth slde of Katella Avenuo~ h~ving a maxlmum depth of approxl-
mately iQ~ fnet, heln~ locete~l appr~ximately 83~~ feet ~ast ot the cnnterlln~ o~ Fiarbnr
Buulevard~ and furrher deacrlbed ns 40) West Katella Avenuc. Property presently classi-
fle<) R5-A-43~00~ (RESIDF.~~Tl.4t /At;RIf,UI.TURAI.) ZONk.
The sub]ect petition was continuod from the Planning Commisslon meeting of February 2~
1976. at tha ~~ayuest af the potitlasier and in order for the pet~tlor.er's attornry to be
prese~t.
No one Indicated thelr presence ln opposition to s~bJect petltlon.
Although the Staff Report to the Planning Commtssion date~ h~arch 15~ 1976~ wos nat r~ad at
the publlc hearing~ said Staff Report Is ~efcrred to and mede a part of the minutes.
Mr. Robe~~t W. Briggs~ 55~ ~ast Cliapman~ Orange~ repr~senting *he ~gent far the pet(t~aner~
appearad before the Planning Comnlssion and stated the Oriental sauna snd mASSage had heen
in operatlon at the subJe~t locatlon for approximately 11 years and had a gc~od reputatlon
In thc community; that tl~e recent legel problem at the subJect establishment was resolved
iii favor of th~ dNners and no other lcgal action was pending; that resolution oF the
recent leclal acticm arcave~i the go~d reputatfon of the establlshment; thet hacl the subJ~:.t
varlance haen appllecl for prlor to sald legal actlon. he dld n~t feel [I~Fra would havo
been any qucstlon regArding the ,.:,~utatton of the os:abll~hment; and that the peLStlan~+r
was agreeable tca the condiYions requiring installatlon of street lightlnc~~ atc., as set
forl•I~ tn the 5taff R:port. hSr, arlggs reiteT•atad that since the business was allawed to
~ontinue slnce 1^~~5 as an oversight•. and witl~~>ut any problems wha~~~::ver arising~ tha* It
would only be equltable tor the Pla~ining C~mmission to granC the sub.ject varlance.
T-{~ pURL~C HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairman Farano noted [hat ln orc!~.r fur thr, Planning Cammission to grant a varlance,
certaln findinqs were required to be made, being 1) that there are exceptional or
extraordinary circu ;~s~es o~ ~onditlon~ applicable Co the property involved or tu the
intonded use of the Nioperty that do not appiY generally to the propsrty or class of use
in the same vicintty :.nd zone~ 7.) that the requeP~~d ~;qhann SsessedGbssothsr~pro1~erty (n
preservatlon and en,joyment oT a sut_~antlal -p• Y y
the samc vicintty and zone and denied to the ~roperty in ~, ~stlon~ and ~) tnat the
reo,uesta. variance will not be materlally detrimental to the publtc welfare or inJuri~us
tn the property or improvements In such vicinity and zone in wh(Gh the property is
located.
In re~ponse, Mr. Brlqgs stated there we re approxlmately 48 other r-~ssage parlors in the
county and a number o` them were in Rnahaim. He relterated his previous stat~~ments
regarding th~ reputati~n .3nd existence of the establishrtwnt during the past 11 years.
Chairman Farano Inqui~•ed if the prtitioner was ~aware of any other maasage parlars in the
`ity withtn the C-R Zone and enJoying a similar variance. Hc noted that the Flanning
Comntsston could not make r_omparison with establishmcnts located autside of the City of
Anahetm. Mr. Briggs responded that he did not have the kind of infarn~atic being
referrad to uy Chairman F~rano~ and stated he would provide such information if he were
given some time to gather it.
Chairman Farano noted that a profile h~d been provicled to the Planning Ccmnission by the
poltca Daparcment in~.ilcating approximately six complaint items agai~st the esCabllshment
durl~g the pas~ two and one-half yea~s~ that satd campiaints raised some qup~tions as to
whether or not the establishmer, enJayed a good reputatfon; I~owever~ the Planning
~ortnni3slon wes concerned with the issue of land use and the ability to make the required
findings for t`~e g~~nttng of the variance; and that~ ln his own ml~d~ there were some
qu~stions as to whether or not the subJect use was proper at the sub,ject location.
peputy Ctty Attorney Frank Lowry actvised that the .oning c~irrently on r.he land was
agricultural an~ at the C-R zoni y had never been compieted.
Commissioner iolar noted tliat th~ approval of Variance f~o. 1314 0~ the sub)ect pro;~erty
hEd been verv braa~F affertn~ a wide ~.artety nf uses~ and he would questlon the need for
addiiiarai uses in order xhat the cwmer mlg~t enJoy benefits from use of the property.
~
1~
~
MI NU7ES ~ C I'iY PL11NN1 NG COMMI SS I ON ~ Merch 15 r 1976 )G•• 1 12
VARIANCE N0. ~73 (Gontlnuod)
Mr. Prl~gs stated that the applicant~ Mr~. Huffm~n~ was not the owner of Cha property but
was the awner of the masse~e p++rlor i,usinese anci ~qulprnent; thAt thn maes++qe buslne~s was
the only nwde Mrs. Nuffman had for ~ier support and that of her chilciren; that the ~wner
could probably loaae tl'~~ prnperty ~s ar, ORF~:.c b~!11dtn~ and wnulc! not suffe~ e hardshlp;
howover. a hHrclship woulcl b~ created for the appli:anr. who had an established business at
thls locaelon.
Gommi~sloner Tol~r thon noted Chat the subJe se was establishe~: on the property
illegally through A lease anci~ the~refore~ the lessee and lessor hno crrsatad the ~roblem;
th~+t tha appllcant might have ~ome roc~ur~se a~alns+: the propertti~ ~wn ~• w1r.h respect tn thR
use which was not permitted under the va-•lance that presently exlsted ori the property;
that he woul~i not vote to expand the scapc of the uses presen,'~ permttted on the
pro~erty; and •'~ he felt ~tranglY that r.he reputntlon oP the busine~s was lmmaterial to
the grantl~~q o~ ns s~lh~ect pcstition,
~4r. Briggs stateci that the appllcant hrct obtalned her business licen~~ from the Clty of
Anahelm over a nrrtod of 11 years gnd had been aYlowed to remain tn bus~ness durlno that
tlrne; whereupon, ~•ir. Lowry ~dvlsed th~t the business ltcense was for rcvenue to th~ City
and did not spnctfy or apprnve la~~d use~ and was not a regulatory Pu~ction for land use.
Commissloner Tal~r made an observat(~n that since the a•nlicant had been In b~.~sin~ss for ~
sizable pcriad of time~ it ~r~, ld ~ppe~r that perhaps the equlty would be balenced.
Mr. Brtggs reiterated th3t ~r~ce t-ie business hacf been allowed to rem3lr. In the Clty and
had a good reputation~ it should be allowe~ :~ conttnue.
Conxnlssloner Morley noted !hat ~pproval of the subjac! aetition woul~ seY an undesirable
precedent fc~r future similar reryuests In the C-K Z~ne. Commissi~^ar Herbst concurred~
nating that he would not want to advance the subject type use into the C-R Zone and~
espocial~y~ arounc: the Cisneyland ~rca.
~; wa; noteci Cliat the DlrPCtor of the Planning Dep~rtment had determined that the proposad
activ!ty ~e11 'r~ithin the definition nf Sect(oi~ 3.Q1~ Ciass 1~ of the City of An~helm
Guidelines to the Requtrements Pr~r an ~~vironmental Impact Qeport ana w~S, ther•efore~
catee+orically exempt from the requirement to fils ars EiR.
Commissionar Herbst offered Resolutlon Nc~a PC76-45 and moved for its passage and adoption,
that the Anaheim City Pianning Canmission does hereby deny Petition for Varlance Nn. 2773~
on the basi~ th-:t thc use was tlle9ally established In the G-R Influ~nced area anu' should
not be ptrmtt:ed Co contlnue slnce the variance for the use w~Uld run wOc~~~ the land a:~d
would set an undesirable precedent for future simila~ requests In the C-R Zone; that ~ho
uses grante<1 for the sub]ect prop~rty under Vart~rsce No. 131~ were broad en~ugh to proviut
ad~ant:.~eous use of the property and were broader than those generatly per^~itted ln the
surrounding area. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call~ Lhe foreg~ing resolutton was p~ssed by the failowing vote:
P,YES: ~OMMISSIQ ERS: BARNES~ HERSST~ JOHN50N~ KING~ MORLE`!~ TOLRF~ FARANO
NOES: COMMI ~SI~)NERS: NONE
ABSEPiT~ ~CAMMISSi7NER.S: N~ME
yqR~qNCE N0. 27R1 - CONTI~lUED PUBIIC HEARING. WILLIS b1ALKER~ 41~- North PF:ladelphie
Straet~ Analieim~ fa. 92aQ5 (Owne~); C. M. WiLKS~ 513 Par4wood
Street~ Anaheim, Ca. 92a~1 (Agent); requesting WAIVEP~ bF (A)
MINIMUM FLOOR AREA, (B) MINIMUFI YARD DEPTH AND (C) MINIMUM Rk~U1RED FARKING~ TO
CONSTRUCT A THREE-UNIT A?ARTMENT BUILDING on prope~~•y described as a rectangularly-
shaped pa~:el af iand co+~sisting of approximately U.l acre ha~ing a frontage of
approxiMatety 45 feet on the east side of Philadelphia Str~at~ having a maxlmum depth
or approximately 120 feet. bein4 located approxirtwtely 135 feet south oi the c~nter-
~ine of 5Ycamors Streety and further descrlbed as 418 Nor+h philadelphia Street.
PraNa;:y presently ~lassifted P,l~-120Q (RESIDENTIAL~ MULTIPLE~FAMILY) ZONE.
1~86gufor~theesubmittalsAf revised pl~+ns,hand,fromnthe~ eetingnofeMarch lf 1976u~at the
request of the petstioner.
Three persons indicated their presence tn opp~+sition to the subJect Qatition.
It was notad th~t the petit~oner ha<; submitted a written request for withd~awal o'F the
subJeet variance.
Commissioner King offered a r;^tio~~ seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTIQN CARROED~
that the Anahelm CicY Planntnn Commtsston does hernby tE~minate all proceedtngs in
co~nection wi*.h Petietun for V+~rtance No. 2791~ as requested by the petit!oner.
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION~ Mar~h 15~ ly%6
76-113
ENVIRANMEI~TAI. IM!'ACT - PUDLIC NLIIRING. ANAHEIM HILLS~ INC.~ 3~~ Anahn~m tillls Ror.d~
THE 91~L0411N COMf'ANY'~ 16811 Hble
f~~er)
~?~
o~nnnT ~;n. 1(,~
'~`-" ;
7
i11~NMVl~, Ca. ^:
I~vine~ Ca. ~27t15 (Agent). rrapercy du~~~tb~~ =`- An
Avenue
REClASS1FiCAT11N ,
irre~ularly-shnped parcal af land conststing of appr~aximately
rai:imar~~y 1l)'15 fect on the
f a
f
N~). 7. •7G-27. ~ pp
rontagcs o
9z acres having a
suuth and wogt stdcs of Nohl aanch Rot+d~ and befnc~ located
VARIANCF. N~~. 2779 ~pproximately one-I~alf m'le aasterly oP the centerlina of
rescntly classiflnd RS-A-43~OOQ(SC)
er:
P
d
y p
r: ~
.
AnahAim N~lis Roa
TI;R L-SCEt1) C CORRI D~R VERLAY) ZUNE.
I! i ~ AL/AGRI CU.
(RFS I DF
CONDIT Ior~AL usE .
.
PE~ R111T Nf1. I6!12
"""
REQUESTEb CLASSIFICATIG~l: PQRTIUN 11 - R5~5~~h(SC) (RESIDENTIA~.~
C CORRIDOR ov~RLAY)
SINGLE-FAMILY-SCENI
TE~ITATIVE MAP OF
TRACT N~S. 9~12~ ZONE.
g?.13 ~ 9z ~ u n~+~
9~15
REQUESTED UARIANCF.: PORTIONS 11 AND B~• w'f,iV[R OF (A} MINIMUM
GLE-
- i.OT NIDTN ANp (9) REQUIRFMENT THAT SIN
FAMILY LOTS REAR-ON ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS. TO
RS-~000(SC1
T
~
ESTABLISH A 214-1OT~ 21A-UNI
SUBDIVISIQ~I.
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: PQRTIO~~S A AND 8- PERP1!T A 6••':41T MODEL HOME COMPLEX.
TENTATtVE '~RACT RE.QUE~'TS~
uisiproposedifor
r
'''
t
`FR
D
L
l
l
ty
ct ~~
Pe
SubJe
9110a
Ca
no~
Mar
San
subdtvlsion fl5 fol'~ws:
Tract N~. 9212 - 5~ RS-5000(SC) lots
Tract No. 9a13 -~t~ RS-500Q(SCj l~ts
Tract No. 921+i - 46 RS-5b00(~C} lots
Tract Ne. 9215 ~ 50 flS-50Q0(SC) lots
Mr, James Baldwin~ represr.nting the agent for Lhe petitioner~ appeared bef`ore thc Planning
Commisslon to present the proposal.
Cha~rme,n Farano noted that same time ago the City ~:ouncil, Pianning Commission and repre-
sentatives of Anahelm Hills. Inc.~ had discussed tt~e feasibillty of areparing topographlc
modals for development which requlred a substantla' amount of grading, the moc~els being to
deplct the form of the land following grading; tha+. Mr. Jo`~n Mtllick~ representing Anaheim
Hills, inc.. had indtcated the model~ were a good tdea ana were th ~ best means of
deptcting t~ ';he Planning Comm~ssion and ~~thers concerned wlLh the developmer! the ov~rall
effect -:n the land fra~n grading; that the: ~rading for the p~oposed cracts was in excess ~rt
one million cubic yards and the sketches and cross-aections shown in the environmental
impact r~eport document did not adequately portray the overall effect from the grading;
that Mr. Millick h~ presented three-dlmen~to;~ model~ tor examples of what generally could
be prepare~~ :o show the grading effects and had indicated the models were not too
expensive and tha*_ they would be willing to p~~epare them for future praJects; that it
appeared m~st of the appl{cations presented si~~ce the discussion o~as held co~~cerning Che
models tnvolved minimal am~unts of grading, h~ ~ever~ the Planning ~ommission had ~at
forgotten that models were considered desira~le by all concerned; that the Planning
Comnission wa~ted to revlew madels showing the ~lrvations of the land befo~e and after the
gradiny and to a scale whiGh would show the rearrangement of the d:rt.
Commissioner Tolar noted hat he did n~t wish to maFe a decisioi~ on the subJect proJe~t
until he could review the topographic models; however, if he were Co rtsake a decision
presGntly it would be nenative since he would not know the effects of grading; and that
this pro]ect involved more gra~:t~~ rhan 3ny other proJect in Che subJect area.
Commissioner Garnes ~oted that th~ topographic m~dels were at tha suggestion of Mr,
Milllck (n the splric of cooperarion with the Canyon Area General P1annOr~g Task Force to
indtcate any substantial removal of dlrt.
Thereupon, Mr. i3aldwtn stated rhPy ~-+ere purchasi~g the subJect property fram Anaheim
Hills~ Inc., for develc~pment and they had not been apprised cf the need for topographic
models; naw~.ver, the t~rtative maps hod contour lines which may be difficult ~o~ rovide
Planning Commission te understanu In depth and he would~ therefora, be happy p
the models; .ind that ~he propos~d gra~~ing would be at about one-half tt~e rate of the
grading that had besn conducted for the exlsting developments in i'~e Anahe(m f1111s area.
He °urth~r stated they would respectfutly req~sst a two-week continuance in order to
provide the modeis as dtscussed.
~ ~
MINlITES~ CITY pLANNING COnMISS10N~ March I5~ 1976 76w~~y
Et~VIRONMENTAI IMPACT REPORT N0. 166~ RECL~~SIFIf.A~iION N0. 75'76-22, V1IRIANCF. N0. 2779~
CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1602 AND T~NT'ATIVE MAP 0~' TRACT NOS. 9212_ . 921~. 9z1~i AND_9215
Chalrman Farano note~l thAt lhere had been somn deg~en nf dtssatjsfactlon with thn grading
thak hAd aireAdy taken N~.;c~ ir thc h1 ~i nn~i ce~~yun area.
Commissloner Hnrbst no~dd th~t he wou1J l ike to sac ~omc Ir~teqratton up~vrrde fr~~n thn ft5-
S(1(10 to thc RS-1~~AQA Zone devrlopment • tanciards for th~r ~~lect ~racts.
Commissloner Tolr~r offerecl a motlon~ ~c~on~ecl by Commtssionor Johnaon And MOT10~~ CARRIED~
that thrs Ansheim Gtty Planning Commi ~s(or~ :.'~es herehy r,ontinue tha publtc heArir~g and
consl~leration of the subJect it~~ms r~~ the Planninq ~.ommission meeting df March 29~ 197b~
p~ursuent to the foregotng .Ilscusal~- •
Chflirman Far~no suggested tha; a wrttCen policy be prepared setting forth the req~~lremenC
for the to~~ngr^~hic models (three^dimensior~ dlsplays) to be tendered as pbet~ f~~stedbofg
for proposa'.4 ~Ivliig extensive grAding; and that ~\nahelm Hllls, Inc.~ pp
sald policy.
Discusslan pursued ciurin~ which Deputy City Attorney Frank l.owry advisecl that Lhe Grsding
Ordtnance provtded that the Planning Commtssion may ~equfre other dtsplays as nesded to
portray the proposals an~l he noted that the subject propo;al was probably more extensive
than ather proJects encountered in the ~~~~~G Mmanual foruPlanningVCommlssion~he City
st~+ff was ln the process of preparing a p y
conslderatton and approvai.
Commissloner Tolar noted that he dld not feel It was the intent of the Planntng Commission
to requlre a topographic modcl for small parc~~ls. He suggested that the nadasls be
rnquired where 25~ cubic yar~s or more of dirt was betnc~ movcd and Commissioner Iferbst
sugges~~^~I th-.~t the 25~ cubic yards be applled tu an area of approximately three acr•es.
Mr. Lowry auvised tl~at the City sr.aff would study the amc~unt of grading vs. acreage
involved for ~ policy ~n the m~tter which would be submltted for Planning Commission
consider~tlon an~i approval.
VARIANC~ NC. 2785 - PUBLIC IIEARING. JOHN F. SEYMOUR, JR., 1205 South Euclld ~treeC~
Anaheim, Ca. 92~~1 (~ner); G. J. GRO55~~ 1205 South Euclid Street,
Anahetm, Ca, 92Rb1 (~gent); requestin; WAIVER OF MINIMUM SIDE YRftD
SETBACK~ 70 PERMIT AN U~ILAWFUI.LY°CONSTRUCTED Rt70Fi ADD!"flQN ~n property descr?bed as a
rectanguiarly-shaped parcel of lan.~ consisting of approximately 0.2 acre having a
frontage of approxlmately I~ feet on the north side of Mlnerva Avenue~ having a maxlmum
death of appruximately 125 feet~ being located approxirnately 70 feet east of the cPnter-
line of [n~pir~ Strect~ anci further described as 20~-3 F~inerva Avenue. Property presently
classified R~-7200 (RESID~t~TIAL~ SINGLF-FAMILY) ZONE.
No one lndlcated their presence ln opposttion to sub)ect petitio,;
Although the Staff Repart to the Planning Commtssion dated March 15~ 197~~ was nox read at
the public hearing, said Staff Report Is referr~d to ar~d made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Gerald Grossc.~ the agent for the petitioner~ appeared before the 'lanning Commission
and stated he had purchased the subJect properry for Seymour Realty F~om people who were
teaving to go ta Oregon; that prior to purchasi~g the property he had looked it over and
dlscussed the room additton wit;: tne City Buildi~g 0lvision who ~ot°:d ~hat s~i~' addition
had al) of the necessary ingredfents~ however, it wa~ constructe~ too c1o~, t~ the east
prop~rty line; that the property, as construcr.ed, was not det~•tn~ental to the ~~eighbonc~od;
that Lhe Seymour Realty prssently had a purchaser for the prope.rty ano befcrre the escrow
cauld close a varlance was needad to make the room addition legal.
Commlex9a~e~• Tolar inquired if Tolar Rea1*_y wa~ the s~iling broker for +.he subJect
property~ and Mr. f,raaso replied in tihe affirmative. Thereupon, Commis~ioner Tolar noted
that he had a confltct of interest c~s defined by the Anaheim Municipal Code Section
1~1.40'1 anc~ Gove~nment Code Se:tion 36~25, et ~~q.. in that he was the selling broker far
the subJect property; that pursuant to the pr<,~isions of t~~e above ref~renced codes~ he
w~s nereby declertng to the Chatrman thac Il~• WH3 Nithdr~rtng from YfIP hearina !n
connectlon wi'h Httition far Variance '+o. 2785 (Item t~o, 5 of the Plann~ng Commission
agenda) and would not take part !n ~ither th~ discussion or the voting there~r~; and that
he ~iad not d[scussed the matt.:r witl~ any rxmber of the Pl~nning Commtssion. THEREUP4N~
CAMNI SS IONER TOLAR LEFT Ti+' ~qUt~C I L CHAr"3ER AT 2:05 P.M.
TNF PUBIIC HEARING "AS ~=' ~~•
~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ March 15, 1~16 7E->>>
4'ARIRNCE N0. 2785 (:onttnued)
;;; ~:.~~nse to ~uestlonin,y by Commisslonrr Joh~nson, Mr, Grasso stated that thc prevlous
pr~perty amer had purchasec~ cnC N+'c;.~rtY ~~ Its rxlsting conditlon and had lived there
'hl'4E yeAr4.
Commissloner Klnq notad that ha un~lerstood tha City ~ad recelved r~~, complAlnts 1~ the pn4t
in cornectlon with the subje~t room additlon r,nd a hardship wc~uld bc ~.reatnd if the
veriance were not g-'anted.
In responsE to quast~oninQ by Commtasloner . rbst~ Deputy City Attorney Frank lowry
advlsed that the subJeGt roc~m additlon may have been constructed prior to annexatio~~
hewever, Staff had no defintt~ ~~n~wer In that renard: and that the raom addiclon was
probably constructecl to County bulldiny and sfte developmant standarJs at that tlme.
Commissloner Morley not:ed that the raom addition was for family usc and nnt for busfnesss
purpnse.~ .
It was noted that the Director of the Planning Department had determined that the proposed
activity fell withln the definltion of Section 3.01~ Class 1~ of th~• City of Anahelm
Gutdelinzs to the Requlrements for an Environmentel Impact Rep~rr ~d was~ therefore~
cate9orically exempt from the requlrement to flle an EIR.
Commissloner Kln!q offered Resolution No. PC7f>-~~6 and moved f; Its passage a~d adoptlon~
that tha Anaheim Clty Planning Commission dces hereby granr etition for Variance No.
2785 on the basis of the foregoing findings~ subject tu tl~ condition that plans shall be
submltted to ch~ Butlding Oivision showi~sg compllance wi ~ the minimum standards of the
City of AnAhetm, includinn the Uniform Builc~iny~ Plumbi i~ Elec:trical~ Housiny, Mechanical
and Flre Codes, as adopted by the City of Anaheim, witF the appropriate permlts to bs
obtatn~~1 fc,r any necessary work; and that the subJect property shall be developed
suhsc~,ntlaliy ir accordance with plans and sp~cificalions or~ file wtth the Cirv of Anaheim
marked Exhibit ~lo. 1. (Sec Resolution gook}
On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIQNERS: BARNE.S, HERHST~ .IUHNSt~N. KIt~G~ MORLEY~ FARANO
NQES : COMtd15S I ONERS : NOi~E
AASFMT: COMNiI5SI0NER5: TQLA~
COMMISSIO~lER TOLAR RETURNED TO 7HE COUNCIL CHAMBER AT 2:15 P.M.
1fARIANCE N0. 27~i6 - PU9l.lC HEARING. WILLIAM V. BOUl.7ER~ 75~-) ~ast Paseo Laredo~ Anaheim~
""""'"-'-'-- Ca. 92807 (Owner); requesting WAiVER OF MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT, TO
CONSTRIICT A BLOCK WALL on property described as an irregularly-shaped
parcel of tand consEsting of approxiniately 0.2 acre located at the nortt~east corner of
Pasec Laredo and Avenida Rio Bravo, having app~oximate frortages of 102 fect un the ~ast
side of Avenida Rlo Bravo and 55 feet nn the north side of Paseo Laredo~ and furthnr
described as ?5~+~ ~ast Pgseo LarPdo. Property presently classified RS-72~~ (RE5IDENTiAL,
SINGLE-FAr~ILY) zorfE.
No one indicace~ their presence in opposition to subJect patitlon.
Although the Staff Report to the ?l~~~ning Co~rmission dated 4arch 15, 1976- was not read at
thP public hearing, said Staff Report is referred to and made a par~ ~f the minutes.
Mrs. Kert "uulter~ the petitioner~ app~ared before the Plan~,ing Commission anc~ stated the
prupo~ ~i block wall was to keep her children and pet inside her yard; and that th~ey were
not advised a~ the ttme of pur4hasing their home that ttiey wouid n!t be able to have a 6-
foot wall to e~close their side yard from the street.
TNE PU6LIC HEARINr, WAS CLOSED.
!n response to quest~oning by Commissioner Barnes~ Mrs. Bo~lter stated her neighbors ware
in favor of ihe aaal! for the protection of the children. Mrs. Boulter further statod she
had Cwo-year-old twins and was expec*in9 another addition to the family in the ver•.~ near
future.
It wa3 ~oted *.hat the Oirector af the Planning Oepartment had determl~ed that the proposed
aci~vl~y feil wir.hin the definition of Sectlon 3•d~~ ~~gss 3. of the Ci'~ tif Anahelm
Gutd~llnes to the Require~ncnts f~+r an Er~vironmental im~act Report and was. therefore~
cat~agorlcaily exempt from thc requirement to file ar ~•
~
~
~11NUTES. LITY PLANNING COMM~SSION~ March 15~ 197b
76-liG
VARlANCE Nq. 2786 (Continued)
~_~
Cammlsstoner Morley offere~! Resolut(on No. PC76~47 ^snd^rrbvc~~Aritinn forgVarlenceeN~pt~7A6
that the Anohelm City Planning Cumr~ission .~..~:, ~•...~,, y~-~
on the basis thr+t the petltloner demonstrate~- t~iat n hardshlp would be createcl if said
verlance werc not granted~ Che hardshlp being thc detrlment tn the peACC~ health, safety
and qeneral welfHre ~f che cltizens of the Clty oP Anahelm; •~b]ect to the
InCerdepartmental Committee recortmendat~ons. (Sae itesolution liaok)
On roll call~ the `oregoing resolutlon was pasged by the following vote:
AYCS : COM~1) SS I oNEa~ : BARNES ~ NERBST, JoNNSON ~ KI MG~ MORLf.Y. ToLAR ~ FARA~lQ
NOES: CAMMiSSIONF.RS: NONE
AH5ENT: f.OMMISSIQNERS: NONE
VARIANCE N0. 27~7 ~ PUBLIC ~~EARING. FRANK W. ~~ORENO~ 1408 East Burton Strcet~ Anahelin~
Ca~ 9z~~5 ~f1~+~er); PAUL A. WArCR~AN~ 2942 East Chapman i~venue~
Orange, Ca. 92b69 (Agert); rcquesking WAIVER 0~ (A) M~NIMUM SIDE
YARD SE7BACK I1ND (B) MINIMUM REAR YARD SETHACK~ TO f.ONSTRtiCT .A BFDR~OM ADGITION ON
property describec.i as a rectangularly-shaped parc~el of land co~sisting of approximat~ly
8A6G square fePt having ~~ frontage of approxlmately 7~i feet on thc south side nf Burton
Strect~ h~vinr, a maxtmum depth of approximately 115 feet~ bctng located approxlmatcly
815 feet wcst of the centerline of i+ca4ia ~tr~~t. and further des~rtbe~ a; 1~i0R East
Hurton Strset. Property present~y classiFi~d RS-A~<<;,OJO (kESIDENTIAL/AGRI!:t1LTURAL)
ZONE.
No ~nP 'sndicateci their presence in opposition to subJect petitioi~.
AItF~~ugh the Staff Rspo~ts~°ffhReportnis~referredito andemaderahp~+rt of7theWminutesread at
the public hearlnc~,
Mr. Paul A. 4laterman~ the agent for the petltioner~ appeared before the Planning
Commission and stated the watver was being requesteci in order to make the subJect property
equal to the neighboring properties; th~~t they harl not had much time. to r~view tl~e
Interdepartmental Committee recummendations wh(ch requir~d strect ltghts~ trees~ etc.;
that the aubJect property was one of the last of a serles of R-1 (RS-720Q) lots on the
street; that the 7-foot, 6-inch sidP yard polnte~ o~it in the Staff Report was the original
sldc yard of the property and they had not been aware that It was not in confarmance with
Code standa~ds; that Burton St.reet was a well-rr~aint:~tned residential street with rural
charact~ristics and no street liy~~ts (which wag the destre of the neigl~borhood); that if
parkway trees werc required, the exiscing landscaping up and dowr. the street would have t~
be donc: away with; that there were no sidewalks in the area with the exception of a garden
apartmcnti complex dtrectly across the street from the subJect proper*_y; that they were
requesting that the requiren~ents for street llghts, parkway trees and sidewalks be waived
since it wauld create an undue hardship on his client from a cost standpoint, if noth(ng
else.
THE PUBLIC HE/141NG WA5 CLOSED.
Gommissioner Herbst made an observat' m that there were several lots along Burton Street
whlch were still under the RS-~-!{3~04~ 2one; that the subject propos~l would probably meet
all of the standards of the RS-7x0U Zor.e a~d fo~ that reason the Pianning Commissfon
should consider denial of th~ subJect variance and initiate a rezoning for the property;
and ~hat the Planning Cortmsissi~n could in~ti~te the rezoning and~ therefor~~ not incur
additlona) ~~°r^~~ fr.r the subJect petitioner.
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry clarified that the requirement_ for street lighting,
~arkoiaY trees, sidewalks, etc., could not be waived by the Planning Cbmmission~ however, a
recnmtnendation couid be madP for a waiver to the City Council, if desired. Office
Engineer .lay Titus added that wheth°r the petitfon were for a variance or a
reclassifiicatton~ the conditians for 3idewalks, etc., would st111 be appro~riate; however,
if zanditlons warrantPd~ the petitioner couid write a IetCer to the City Engineer far a
waivar. The Planning Commission generally concurred that the ge~,•ral requirements
pertaining to the street )ic;nts, parkway trees a~id sidewalks, e~c., would be applicable to
the subJec~ prop::rty evPn though ~ reclaystflcation of zoning mav be approved.
Mr. Waterman stated his cltent may want tn reta(n the present zoning on the prop:rty~ but
it appesrec! that in ~ny case he, would still be required to provide thc general
requlrrments if he ~~~shed to expand the use of his property and woul~~ therefore, I~ave
nothing to gatn from a reclassi~icaCton of the z~ninq.
Conmisstoner T~lar noted that he wauld not votc: ~n favor of the subJect variance when
there ~•~as a rnethod of imprAVing ~hr property under a nare app~opria*_e procedure.
~
~
MINlJTES~ CI'fY PLANNING COMMISSI~N~ March !5~ 197~ ~G~~~~
VNRIAN~ N~• ?7~ (Continued)
Comm~ssloner Herhst noted that the current. z~nli~g on tl~ subJnct prupe~~y was tha City's
;,~;~;;,g ~~n~~ ~n~ [he u.^ ~~~ ^ ~,rt~^~^ ~rnceJure to cnnble ~he expanslon c~l' thc uac ot the
praparly ~aa an improper taol.
It was noted that tNe Girector c+f the Planning Uepar~ment had dete~mined thAt the propo~ed
actlvity fell within the dnflnitlon of Section 3.01~ Class 5~ of the Clty of Anaheim
Guidelines to r.he Requlrements for ar~ Environment~l Impact ~eporl oncl was. th~refore~
categorlcally axempt from the requlrement to flle an EIR.
Wnm~ssionor fierhst offorGd Rasolution t~o. PC7G-Ga 3nd moved f~r Its pa~sage and adoption~
thaC thC Anahalm City Planntng Commisslon dues hereby cleny Petftlon for Varlance No. 27a7
on the basis that rhe walvers ~aould nat be necessary If Che prop~:rky wera properly zan~•~l~
and pursu~,nt :o the ~or~goiny ~(ndings. (See Resolutlon Book)
On roll call~ the foregoiny resol~tion was p~ssnci by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BAR~~E~~ NERBST~ ,IOf1NS0~1~ KIt~G~ MORLEY~ TOLAR~ FARANO
NOES : C~~">11 SS I ON[RS : NONE
ADSENT: ~JMMISSIGMER~: NONE
Commissi~n~r Flerhst offered a motion~ se:conJe~ by Commissioner King and M0710N CARRIEO,
that thc Anaheim City Planning Commissio~~ does hNreby inltiate ~ zening reclasslftcation
of tl~e s;~bJect property and adJacant properties along Burtan Street from the RS-A°43~a00
~...n~~ to the RS-7200 Zone.
~ RIANCE_~0. 27t~8 - FUBLIC NEAP,ING. EVERET7 H. AND ~I.MA M. MILLER~ 270 Roycroft~ Long
' ~each~ Ca 9~803 (~ners); SHEIL OIL C011PAN~~ c/o J• B. Holland,
113~ North Brookhurst Street, Anaheim~ Ca. 92~3~3 (Ayent); rec,uesting
WAIVER OF PERM177ED USES, TO PERMIT AN UNLAWFIILLY-ESTABLISHED PIIOTO K~OSK ON A SERVICE
STATION SITE on property descrihed as a rectangularl~~-shaped parc.el of !and consisting
of approxima*ely .47 acre located at the northeast corner of 8~11 Road and Brookhurst
Street~ haviny approximat•.; frontages nf 140 feet on the north side of Ball Road and
147 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street~ and further descr~~eJ as °,5E South
Bronkhurst Street. Property presently cfassifled CL (CQIIMERCIAL, LINITED) ZONE.
IJo one tndic.ated thsir presence in opposition to subJect petitlon.
Atthough the Staff Report to the P~anning Commission dated March 15, 1976~ was n.~t read at
the public hearOn4~ sald Staff Report is referred to and mgde a part of the minut~~s.
Mr. Jeff Holla;~d~ !-epresenting the agent f~r the petitioner~ appeared before the Pl:nning
Cortmission and stated the subJect varfance would permit the continued use of a kiosk-type
remote building to collect payment for the qasolfne and for furt' ~r uttlizatlon as a film
de~~elopinr and accessary sales, retail-tyFe booth; that it was not the intention of the
Sheil O11~Ccmpany to purpos~ly violate any of the zoning conditions for the property~
however, durtng the past co~~ple ~F ~:ars the film business had I~ecome directly related to
the motoring public and servicF ~t(ons and carwashes, etc.; that thousands of these type
booths were existing througho~ Orange County; that regarding the unlawful construction of
the Al~sk, it was constructed as a pay booth for tihe gasol'~~e and had been ln existence
slnce 1973 ~-hen the self-service gas station was constructed; that the primary use af the
propPrty was stlll far ~he dispe.~~sing of gasoline to the motoring pu:.lic; that he felt ~t
was important to dist~,~yulsh somewn~t between the self-se~v(ce concept, and a full
conventional service station~ ueing that self-service stations offered only gasoline and
accassory sales lines In contrast to the conventional service station which offered ~ far
greater line of accessory sales and includEd labor and ser~ic:e$; that, essCntially, t~i~i
were ask~ng far ihe phota sales in lleu of some of the conventional type service s•..;ton
sales of accessories and repairs~ labor, etc.; and that they were not proposing a~
structural changes to tt~e kiosk but weFe proposing t~ retain the addittonal sign for
Identiflcation of the f!lm service.
7!~E PUBL I C HEAR~ N~ WAS CLOSED.
In resr~~nse to questlon~nc~ by Commtssioner Mo~ley, Mr, Nolland stated that presently the
film stap salcs am~~:~ted to approxlmately fcur or fiv~ percent of the~t~o~a1 ~roxlmate~es at
the serv(~e station site; :hat the f{lm stop sales had baen underway PP y
four months; tnat they r~ad not observed that the film stop was detractin~ from th° smeoth
Flow of gasoll~e cu~tomers on the site or creating other trafflc prhblems; and that they
also sold cigaretteg from t'~e kic~k,
~
~
~
MINU'ffS, CITY PLANNlNG CQ~IMISSIOtJ~ ht~rch 15~ 1976
76-118
VARIANCE N0. 27aa (Conr,in,~ed)
In rs~ponse to queskion(ny by C~mmissianer King, Mr. Holland stat~rl thay did n~t sell auto
paits or accessorles at tne subJect site, but did sell fllm~ fiash UUIb3~ batterlns for
camoras~ etc.
Commissloner Nerbst made an ohservAtlon that the oll componies a:ways appearod to ovsrdn
thelr signtng and noted that the SUF~JECC klask had sl~ng all over lt; ar~d that If tha
signing had baon neatly done~ it mlght have gonG unnoticed. Ne further nuted that xhe
sub]ect sic~ning was not in good tASte. Commis:~loner King disac~re:ed tl~ac +~e slgns were
unattracilve and n~ted that the film stop was a convenience, ror the gasalli~e customers.
Comnfssloner Mc~rley added that the slte dld not app~:ar co be oucr•,igned~ ln his ~plnion;
howevar. the quesstinn was whether the film stop was an a1lr,wable secondary use and It dld
not appear to be,
Comnisstonnr Tolar noted that it was dlfficult to Justlfy a film st~~p as an accessory use
at a servic.e station; thaC recently the Plann{ng Cammissio~ had deniPCi an autorno'.ive
repair shop wlilch was totally related to gasnllne sales ~t a srrviG~~ statlon site.
howevnr~ the repblr shop was llcensed and operated separatelY from +.he 5ervice statlon
and~ as such, ccnstituted a second prlm~~ry use; that the ~ub)ect pettttoner was requestin,y
to F-ave fi lm sales in lleu of accesso~•y items for cAra; ancf khat tF~e sale of bread and
mtlk had also been p~'opose~i in tlie past as :.n acc.essory uge at a service statl~n alte.
Commissioner Murley took exc-~ption~ notin~ tl+at eacli petition snould be consldered on !ts
own merit.
Chalrman Farano n~tecl that the sale of film was no diff~rent, in his opinion~ than other
appllcations whlch had been den(~d by the Plannin~ Commission; and that If the propo:,s+l
~vere appr~ved~ then it would seem lagical that Chc petitioner wouid prvbably sce~ to ?d~'~
th~ sa~e of cameras, etc., at a later date; and that he considere~l the subJect application
to be picking away at the City's ordlnance on a piecemeal basis
Commissloner Herbst noted that th~ s~.bJer,t appllcation appeared to be a cormerctal use;
that although there were drive-up ftlm s~oi,. existing in the City, none of them wcre
oerr~~itted to ~al~ gasolj~e; and that the service stations were being protected from
encroachmento ~nd should not be allowed to enci~a~h.
Mr. Nc.lland stated it ~•~~s imp~~.r~anC to note ~.`•^.t the service station c•clinance was wrltien
primarily for the conventtonal-type service stati~n whose operator~ were permitted to sell
specifically those items outlined ss accessarles, such as tires, batteries~ etc., and to
provide se~vices needed to install tl~ose items on automobile~; and thar, seli-servlce
statlons :~id not t~a~ie the ability r.a prov!~e tho~e specific servlces or ta sell the item~
outltne~ in the ordinance.
Chalrmfln Farano noted Yhat thc~ service station was a creation of the oil coTpanies
and r,~ ur~e forced them on tt~e operatars; that if the proposal to selt film were approv~d,
the Plannii~g Comnisston would probably be deluged wlth other requests for accessory sqles;
tha*, the. City had managed to hold the line; however~ if otl~er accessory use; at service
statlons were to oe considered favorably~ it sliould be following a change in the ordinance
so that there ~~.ould be a semblance of order foi• tt.
It was ~~~~ted thut the Director of the Planning Department had determined that the proposed
activity fell within the defini~ion cf Secti,:n 3.01, Cluss 1, of the City of Anaheim
Guidellnes to the Requirements for an Environmental ~mpact Report and was~ therefore,
categorir.al~y exempt from the requirement *.o file an EIR.
Commissioc~er Tolar offered Resolution No. PC76-49 and moved for its passage and adoptlon.
that the Anaheim City Planning Commission aoes hereby deny Petition for Variance No. 2iB8
on the basis that the processing of film and the sale of film and photographic supplles~
ln additi~n to the service station use of the prooerty. constit.-te~ two primary ~:ses o~ a
service station site and would set an undes:rable ~:t~edent for future slmilar requests.
if qranted. (See Resolution Bnok)
On roll call~ the foregoing resolutton was pas~~d ~-~ the rollrn~ing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIO~IERS: g~°P~ES, HERBST, JOHNSpN, TOLAR~ FARANO
NOES: COMMISSInN[R5: KING, MORi.EY
Ia1B5ENT: COPI~IISSI~N~RS: NON[
~ ~
76-119
MINUTGS, CITY PLA~'' ~ COMMISSI0~1~ March 15~ 197b
VAnIANCE t~0. 279~• PUULIC HEARING. J. WILLIAM BIRDSALL~ 2427 East Lincoln Avcnue~ Anohcim~
Ca. 92a~6 (Owner); BAR MALLENDER~ 195~ East Llncoln Averue~ Anaheim~ Ca.
^Z!!~6 (A~ent); roquostlnq WAIV[K OF (A) PERMITTED USES~ (B)~hfI,NIMUM
~ AND (D) MINIMUM it~~~ ~
P~QUIR~I~ NI.~MPFR OF PARKING SPACES~ (C) REQUIRED GARAGE SPACE..
SfTQ11CK~ TQ PERMIT AN UNLAWFULLY-CSTAQLISH~U PP~NTING SN(1P IN A ~INGL~-FAMILY RESIUFNCE on
property d^scribed as a rectanyul~rly-stiaped ?afeet an thodno~thiside~offLlrcoln'~venue,
.17 .acre h~ving a front.~~~ of approximately 1~
having ~ maximum depth of approximat~ely 100 fc i:~ being l~cated a~proxlmately 470 feet w'st
of the centerllne of Sunk!st Street~ and further desc.ribed as 2427 East Lincoln Avenue.
Property preseiitly cias'ifieo RS-7?QO (RESIDE"ITIAL~ SINGL[-F11MILY) ZONE.
Four persons indlcated their presence in oppasition to the subJect petitlon; and~ upon
questioning by Chalrman Farann~ said perscans tndic~:ted they had recelved coplea of [he
S~aff Report and wou]<f, therefore~ waive tha full readiny thereof,
theh~ubllchhearing~~eaidtStaf~hReportnis9ref~relftu nadenaderahpart of7theWm(nutesread at
P
Mr. Bc,b Mallender~ tf,e agent for the p~titioner, appeared before the Plann~ng Corxnlsslon
and stated Mr, Heim, the buyer of the ,~roperty~ ~~rfshed to have a smal~ printing siturtion~
lncluding art work and resParch~ in the home at the subJect location; that there was plerty
~rogerty~~operatedaa largerrbusinessAthan,that,proposed5a~nd thatPthereUwaswnorp~evlhus
P {
va~lance approved on th~. property.
the subject
Mr, John Hetm~ 713 rast Chapman Avenue~ Fullerton~ the prospective b~~yer o`
proparty. appParc:d before the Flanning C~mmission and stated he was basically in~erested
in conducttn~ •aphic arZs research at the subJpct lar.ation: that he had been engaged in
tha proposed type bus!ness for a number of years and it was necessary this~cllents~;ethat
work tu be Flnancially suc.essful; that the Osmane~ Brothers were among
the proposal was ~ one-m:~i operation with captive accounts and ro walk-fns o-' customers
coming and going; that the contacts for the bustness were by telephene or pe~~onal vlsi°
tation; ~hat they picked ~~p their own supplies and had a minimum of truck deliveries;
th~t all o.` the equiprtient was basically ps~otographic equipment for sensl*.ized metal and
there would be no heavy equipment; that they would utilize a small cutter and folder and
one 10-inch by 15-in~~i ~ithographic press~ and would have an art and a camera room; an~
that~ although the basic business would be creative art work~ they would offer a reproduc-
tion service to thelr custoners.
Mrs. Jacquellne Bo~7, 2422 East Paradise Road~ appeared before the Planning Cc,r^~~sslon in
oppositfon :~~a stated the purpose of the subJect netghbarh.od was for re~idential~ single-
family ~omes; that 9ranting the subJect varlance would interfere with the residential
atmosphere of r.he neighborhood and open the door for other variances a~ung Linr.oln AvPnue;
that there was a possibility that the applicant wouid s~!1 *_he property Yo somehilitysof
who would want to continue the operatton; that ttie use weuld increase ~~~ N~~~:.
va~idalism and thefz in the r~eighborhood; that there wouid be tncreased traffic in the
alley~ presenting a safety prublem for the children in the neighborh~od; that presently
morc cars were parking in the alley since the wlaening of Lincoln Avenue, and the west end
of the atley fed anto Paradise Road, generating more traffic on Paradise Road; Chat the
nolse and vibrarions from tl~e printirg equipment was undeslrable; that, althou~h the
applicant stat'e~~ tf~ere would be no heavy equipment uxilized, she knew that reproduction
Equipment was nolsy; that~ although the appltcant was not proposiny to have walk-in
customers presently, there could be sere late~ on; and that it appeared the parking area
in back of the house was presently being used for machinery.
Mr. dob Cart~~~ 2433 East Lincoln Avenue. appeared before the Placining Cortxnission and
staCed he lived direct~; east of the subJect prope~ty; that because of the traffic ~oises
on '_incoln Avenue~ he co~ld not hear his televls;on and his floor shook in his bedroam~
etc.~ and to brtng additional noises into the nelghbArhood and cl~~se to liis back yard would
make the situ~.~ion totally unreal; that Mr. Birdsall~ the previous own~r of the subJect
property~ had printing equiprt~e~t In the rarage which was used en a part-time basis; that
the appiication for the varlance was to benefit the new owner; that,previously, the press~s
pounded in the adJacent yards and the neighbors had trted to tolerat~ it; that it wau~d be
untalr fo~ ene house in the area to have a heavy Gommercial use~ making ~t more .,fffic~lt
for the uthers to enJoy residential use of their property; that~ wlth referenr:e to dis-
cusslon in paragraph 5 of the Staff Report, iF the appll~cant was only g~ing co do creative
In hts opinion; that the adJacent
a~t work o~ the premises~ a v~riance would not be needc~t
property own~rs had nothing to say about th~ prevlously conducted prtniing business ~:hich
was permitted by the Busirye°s License D~vislon; that an 8-foot ~lock wall alon~ the
J
~ ~
;6-120
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ March 1;, ~57~~
VARIANCE NQ. 2?90 (Contlnued)
i~ ~.~_--.+ •;~~aaa,~ry by the C1 ty tu ml tigate the sound Impact
L i nco ~ n Avnnue frontacte was l:~"1! ~ Ut'~ ~~
f;,; ;!;;, rc:,idinca~ and another htgh WA11 wc~~a~d h~ requi~~~ ~~~~g the rear of th~ properry
if thc ~rtnting business was Allowed ta be continued; and tl~at the~, wesre hopefui tliat thc
subJece varla~ce would be denied ir- vlew of the fact that all o~ the propertirs in the
area a~long Lincoln Avenua were being danied commerctal zoning and the subJect vartarn:~
wo~ild ~iot help tho residenttal conditians.
Assistant toning ~up~rvisor Altan Daum read a let*_er dateci .iAr~uary 9, 1;~76~ from Mr, anc~
Mrs. Sylvester Shannon, 2312 East Paradise Road~ wfilr.h fevored the pr~pasal, n~ting in {~~rt
that "...We feel Mr. and Mrs. Neim. along with thelr sma11 b~.sinea~s, wlll ~• an a4set to
our neighborhaud."
Mr. Tom Maxwell~ 2~~b,y Eaat Llncoln Avenue~ t~ppeared before the Plannt~g G~mni!tgion and
stated that he had lived down tha street from the subject property for a~ hhaC thetCity
prevto~s pr;nting bustnc+ss exlsted nrd Fie he~d not evan kno~a~it was there;
had widen~d Llncaln Avenue~ creattno anoti~er lane of CraPftc closer Co the residencPS;
that~ in hls opir,ior~ the area should be retaned to commercial; th~ti he disagrecd that an
A-Foo~ ;~Igh wall sh~~ld he constructed in front of the homps; thaL If the t3-~oot wa11 w2s
construcked~ the rrea would be "stuck" forever~ and he frlt the properry awners wPre entitl~d
to rexoning privileyes.
It wa~ noted that a letter dated March 10, ly76~ was rP.c.elved from Harold A. 8astrup~
14~i Paradise Lane~ cmposing the subJect variance. Said letter ~Na~ ~nade a part nf the
record.
TNE PUBLIC 41EARING WAS CLOSFD.
~n r~esponse tu questioning by Chairman Faran~, Mr. 'I~:im r~vi~wad tfie sGOpe of the prc,posed
Frinting operation~ stating that he wou'd b~ ~peratfng presses wlth a maximum paper size
of 17 inches and a two-color pre~s; that +he prc.tises wpre about *.he size of a dining roc~m
table~ ~?proxi~~ately ?~r feet wid~e by 5 fept l~ng; and th~t ehe pres:es operaLed not unlike
a sew(ng machinc sincc tl~ey were ~~ry ~'el1catF and ~ld n~~t make the bonm1n~ pr pounding
so~mds .
Discusslon purs~~ed concerning th~ typ~ of use p~np~sed, durin~ whbu~ Iwt~ i~sbe+3r~fE~iYtaat
CLeorrML~use which was aboutntwoelevelshmore~intcnse~thanPa residential use. P
Commissioner John~nn note.d tha~ he did not favor the proposed typ~ use in the s bJect area
along Lincoln Ave~ue; that the fiomes In thP area were very fine; that ths g~ntl~~man who
s~ake tn fa~or .~f the proposal did nat live next to the subJe~t property; and that,
a1~~r.::gh L6~c~ln ltWP~~lP !~!?s h~~oming more ~nd more noisy, he did not favor piecemeal
commercial uses in the a~ao.
Commissioner Barnes inquired hov~ the property owners alon~ Lincaln Avcnue would feel about
reclassifying all of thelr properties to commercial; wherr.upon~ Mr. Cartar stated the
property owners had been before the City many times tn connect.ion with their properties
and the zoninc~~ etc.; that he had communicsted wtth the :!a~or regarding the matter. but
had received a le:cer stating it was unfortunate th~t the people were experiencing the
problems and that the Mayor was farwarding a copy of :~is letter to the Planning Depart-
ment, who ln turn had sent him a copy of the front-on stu:y involvin~ the subJect area;
thati the subJect area was caught up wlth a noisy street and with the Ralph's grocery store
whtc:h had large semi trucks in and out of their prape:-ty about five times a night, ~ans
with sirens cominr~ down Lincoln Avenue all night loncli a.id ihat he was dra~Ning up p
for a patio so that he could live in his back yard, but he was not sure he could do so
with presses operating next door.
Commisstoner Barnas then inq~ired ~f it was ur.animous among the property ownzrs that they
wlshe~l tc rr.zane their ~roperties; whereupon~ Mr. rarter stated on~ rezoning petiti~n
wou1~ be coming before the Planning Comm:ssion wlth!n a short time; tfiat if the p;operties
were multiple-family zonsd~ it woul~: be different; however~ they were just grasy"na fo;
helr• Mr. l'arter further stated tt~at parking was a problem because of the Ralph'~ m~rket
whose customars and employees were parking on the strsat; and that the resl~ents were
preaently allowed xo park In the alley behind their 6-roat high wall~ but tiie~r cars were
~ge~erally stripped, and his car was stolen once.
Cormissloner Johnson nated that F~e felt the prublems r~:lating ~o tht whole area along Lincoln
Avanue were &~s~a~ce1sueThe P1annPngnCortxnisslo~ gencrally~agre~d~thatethey9didgnotefavary
concerntng an p
~
~
~
76-1zt
MINUTES, C17Y PLAKNING C~MMISSI~N~ March 15~ 1`ilb
VARIANCE N0.~7.~~ (C~ntinued)
M~lecem~a) commarctal ~ ctc. ~ alt''~ough it appnared that som.~ day c'~e subJer.t arna rnlAht oecomn
cormu~c~~! ^~ a r^U'''8r hasls anJ ~omething fo~ Che property uwners to look furward to.
Co~nmisslonor J~hnsoii affer~c! Rasolutlon No. i'C76-50 end movec' for its passage and adoption~
that the Anahelm CitY Pla~~~!~~•7 Commisslo~ does hereby deny Petition for Vs~•lance Na. 279~
on tF.e besis tha~t t-,u ~roposed uNe would creata deleterlaus effects on t~urCharrnaro,nwould
gi~gle-family roaldentlal nelghb~rhood by lncreasing noiso levels; and~
set an undesirable precedent f~r fut~~re ~Imilar commerclal uses in the sub,ject area. ~See
Resolutlon Dook)
0~ roll call~ th~ foregoing resolutl~n was passed by l•he follawing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: l3ARtdES~ HER~ST~ JOHN50N~ KING, N'JRLEY~ T~LAR, FAR:,NO
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT; COMMISSIUIJERS: NONF.
The Plrnning Canmissl~n antered lnto dlscusston concerning th~ conditlans ~f approv~l ~f
the Ralph's market~ noting that the deilveries hau been restricted to thc hours nf 7:00
a.m. to 10:~0 p.~».~ an~ that Staff shoul~l investlgate the matter ~nd anforce khe conditlons
where approprlate, includ(ng the on-street parking situatlon.
Chairman Farai~ inqulrad if the Planning Cdnrnission w~s desirous of reopening the front-on
study for the subject area. Commisslaner Nerbst noted that he did not fcel anothe~' frnnt-
oR study wc.~uld be Justified at this Cime sincc there were sc~ many slrllar aPeas in the
City; that only so much strip coeimercial zo~~ing could be fit Intu the scheme of good plan-
r,{ng and it appearad it would he many years before the sub}ec,t praperty could dewelop
su~cassfully as cammorcial; that. in his ~p~nio„~ strip commercial t~ad more or less "seen
its day" and had started backing off; that xhe h~xnes along Llncoln Avenue woulu pr~obably
have to be torn dowri ~nd the parcels tcxr-bl~rhaodUand~also~ fferesatisfactory circulatlone
impact on tlie ad}acent res(dentiai r~e~y
for commerctal uses, etc.~ an~i jk would ba: difficult for anyone to spn~~~ t`c ~ney realiy
needed to develop the propdrty to ~,eguate Gommercial standarus.
The Planning Comnisslon genarally concurred thtlt a front-on st~•dy not be made for xhe
subject area at this rime•
RECESS - At 3~37 P•m•~ Chairnsan Farano declared a recess.
RECOPIVE~~E - At 3~~7 P•m•~ Chairman Fararo recnnvened the meeting with
----" f.orxniGsloner Tolar being absent.
COMDITIQNAL ''~E - PUBLIC NEARING. PROVIDENT MUTUA~ Li~c i:5:lPeurF r_.n,; c/o Philllps
94402 (Qwner)~
PERMIT N0. 16Q6 Petroleum Co.~ 155 Bovet Road, Suite 460~ SAn Mateo~ Ga. r
F00~`1AKER~ INC.~ 4833 Fruitland Avenue~ liarnon~ Ca. 90055 (Agent);
requ~e~tl~g permission r.o ESTAO~ISH A DRIVE-THROUGH R~STAURANT WITH
WA111ER OF (A) MIhIMUM NIIMNER OF PARiGING 5PACES AtiD (B) MAXIMUM ACCE55 DRIVE WtDTH on
property descr+bed as a rectangularly-shap~~d parccl of land consisttng of approximately
.45 acre located at the sou'ti~east corner of Center Street and State Callege Boulevard~
having approximate frontages af I~tO f~at on the south side of Ce~ter Street and Centfret
on che east side ofresentlC~c',jssifiedeCl.rtCOMMERCIALheLIMITED1bZq~ES c0„~ Eas~
Street. Property p Y
No one indiGated thelr prasence in oppositton to suu,ject petitton.
Although the Staff Report to the Planning Commissio~ dated March 15, 1976~ was not ~8ad at
the pubiic hearing~ said Staff Report 1s ~efzrred to and rrwde a part oF the minuces.
Mr. John McLachl~n~ represenling the agent f~.r the petitioner~ appeared before the P'an~ing
Commission and d4scribed thc pra~osat~ stating that they ~ere proposing to hav~ Q^1Y ~~
tables inside the resiaurant and~ therefc+re, Lhe 20 pa~king spaces proposed sho~ld bc
adequat~; tha~ c7ey would e~ree to the Interdspartmer,tal Commtttee ~•ecomteandatlon~ set
forth in the Staff ReporY pertaining to dedicati~3n~ lighting. slatting af the trasc~enclo-
sure area in acccrdance wjth appraved olans a:z file with the Ctty, etc.; and tha~
north driveway on Statc Colle~c 8oulevar~ was proposed to be clo~ed~ w(th a piant~r to be
extended across it.
7HE PUBLI~ HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~ ~
MIR~UTE5~ C17Y ~'LAN':ING ~OMNISSION. MArch 15, 197b ~6~~Z?
CON11lTIpNAL USE PERMIT N0~ 160i (Cc~tlnued)
Chalrman Farano note~l that the plo~ ~'rn for the p~oJect showe~l the westcrly drlvew~y on
E~~r CAnt~r Street to he closecl nn~~ the petltl~ne~ was atlreetn~ to also close the
nc~rtherly drivawny on Stite f.olle,ye Bo~'levard; and Mr•. McLachlan statecf that was the
Intent and tha plan tltcf i~ wltf~ thc prnposed 35'foot drivcway accoss !-incn it was t,etter
tn hoid thc d~•!ve-through traffic to thc front of the proporty; and th~t the slze of th~
alnin~ ar•a~ I~~ propc~rtl~n tn thc kitchan dicl not compnre wlth a walk-up o~ sit-down
restaurant.
Chalrmen F~rano notcd that other simllAr type rostaur•ants ln rhP City had overflowing
parning are~is durln9 peak I~ours; and khat ~'~ GompArison ~rith existing simll~r factlitles
would Indicake th~t the hl required ~arking spaces wauld he considered adcqu~t.e~ flnd not
2~~ as proposed.
Mr. NeLac~~lrn stated the.y did not ~nticlpate a larc~c ~~umber of walk-i~p traffic ,nd lt was
his op(ninn th~~t Lhe wr~lk-up customers werr. generally pulleci t~ larper sit-doNn type
r~stouran~s.
Commissionar Ilerhst note<1 that the cirtve-up cust~mers often w~nted to eat c+n the premises;
arvd th~~t It w~s hinhly 1(kely lh~~± the subJect locatlon would ~~lso pull a l~t of calleqo
stuclents slong State Colle!~e B~ulev~rd wh~ would want tn e~t on the premises.
Commissioner Morley made ~n observatlon that he could vtsu~lize the subJect propArty
an)oyln~ some on-strPet p~rking prlvllaclQS, especlally if the two drlvewnys prevlously
menttanPd were closed off; however~ there was still a par'<ing shortage `Qr the proJcct as
propoYed.
FSr. P1cLachlan stated t~at~ generally spe.~king, the proposed ratio for parking •,+as
acceptable in the business an~J they ~•~re not ~lesirous of being in the positlr,n of turning
customers away for lack of parkin~.
In response to questioning by Commissioner Herbst~ Mr.M~Lachlan st.ited they wore proposing
to hdve room t~ stack approximately six cars from the drlve-through windcwr and the cars
could b~ served at approximately -i5-second intervals; that the c1ri~~eway on State Coll~ge
Boulev~rd was beinq closed clue to the ~ecomnendatlon of the Trafflc EngineEr~ ~or safety
raasons; that rhe petitioner was suqgestinc~ signing at the exit to prevent left tur~s out;
and that the turnln~ radius on [tie prer~ises was suf,`lcient and would ~.,t be problematit.
Commissfoner Herbst noted that the prupased traffic flow p:~ttern was dangerous s(nca
trafflc would flow out of the property onto E~st Center Street near the corner at Stata
C~ilege 6oulevard. Ne s~.~ggested that the proJect be redesigned to create a more
advant:~geo~~s ex!t for the cust~mers.
Mr. Mclachlan statecl they had plntte~l the proJect facin~ different directlons to take the
best advantage of the ~-arking space and recognizecl that if the property were any smaller
they wottl d n~t have been 7b 1 e t~ s~~bmi t a proposai on tl~e s i te.
Co~.nissioner K+nq noteci that he favored having the 35-foot driveway along State C~allege
Boulevard to~get the traffilc off that stree: as qutcklYctl nssto suchWaeriznon~MrraSin9er
Engi~e~r Pa~~ Singer advised that he would have no abJ_ P
clarifted that the proposal was to enter the property from State College Boulevard and
exit on Ea5t Ce er Street. -
Upo~~ further discu~sion concerning the traffic clrculation in coniiection with the
proposal~ 11r, McLacnlan stated he wou:d provide ~~*.her alternatives f~r Mr. Singer'S revlew
and approval.
Furthor disc~ :sion pursued rega~diny the inadequacies of the proposal, during whtch
Gommissianer Harbst noted that ad~~iti~na) or alternat've plot plans should be submltted
for the prQposal since it appeareci ttiat mndificatlons were desirable. Chairman Farano
noted that he did not favor the davlatlAn from the requir•ed number of Qarking spaces~
although the ~reJect w3uld be a substantial Improvemant to the area; ancl that it was the
Pl~nning Cammission's Job to see that the City did not suffer from the inadequacles of the
site, main~y with respect to insufftclent parktng.
Thor~a~~pon~ t1r. McLachian consented to rcdesign the proJect~ stattng that the ~umber of
insido seats would probably he reduced and that the parking would reach approximately 3~
spaces. Ne respectfully request~cl that a twa-week continu~n.e be granted for preparation
~f thc ~evised plans.
~
~
~
M I ~lUTf.5 ~ C I TY ~' LANN I NG GOMM I SS I QN , M,~ r~h 15, i) 7~+
Cp~lbITIO~IAI l'S~ PERMIT N0. 1G06 (Contlnucd)
76-123
Commisyt~~ner Herhst offorad n motl~n~ sGcondcd by Commissioncr Johnsan a~nd MQTI~N t:AkRIED
(Commissinn~r 7ot,+r bi:~n~ Aha.~nt)t th~t the Anahetm Clty Planninq Commissian does l~Pr.by
reapen tho r~ublic hcorlnc~ and cun:inuc conaldcrnt~on oi Petltlnn fnr Condltinna) Use
Perm) t No. I~~~, to the P 1 ynn i n~ Comm) ssl on mc~t I nc~ of Merch 2~ ~ 197f~ ~ rs requestesd by Li~r
potitloner,
RfP~1RTS A~lI~ - I7E-1 N~. 1
RF.C~MMF~lDI1T i OHS .l~~nR E I R N[ GAT 1 VE DEGI.ARAT ! 0~1 - For ~ pArce I map on
property located on the northwest ancl soutnwest corners oP
La Palma Avenue nnd Imperial Hlghw~y.
It was notod that ,r~ appl(cation had bcen filed for a parc~sl map to dlvlcle property on lhe
north ancl s~uth siclos of La Paln~ Aveiiua ~~st of imperlal Highway fnto three parcele; tha~
thc portion of property lacatecl on tt~e north s~(de of La Palma Avenue was betng divided
into two parcels and the thircl parcel would congist of the property locat~cl on li~e: south
slde of La Palmo Avenuc; that an evaluation of the environmcntal impact of parcel maps was
requlred under t`~e provislons ~f the California Environmental Quality A~t .nd th, State
EIR Gulc:~l tnes; anci a$tuciy of tl~e proposed parcal mmp by the Planning Deparkment and the
EnglnEaring Dlvlsion Indlcatad that there would be no stgniftcant envirunmental impoct.
Commisstoncr flerbst offered a motion, se~onded ~>y Commissioner Ktng and MOTIQPI CARRIED
(Commission~r 'folar betn~ ahsent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commfsston does hereby
recc~mmend t~ th~ City Cou~cil of the Clty of Anahelm th.~+t thc subJect proJect be exempt
from the requlrament to prepare an enviranmental impact report, pursuant to the provlslo~is
of the Californla Environmental Quality Act.
( TEP1 N0. 2.
'~'~~IT~~R E I R NEGAT I VF. DECLARAT 10~! -~'or a parce 1 rnap on
property locatecf at tlie s~uthea4t corr,er of l.incoln Avenue
and Ohlo S~reet.
It was ~~oted that an ippliiation had been filed for a p~rcel map to divicie the subJect
property into two parcels; that an evaluation of thc envlronmental impact of parcel maps
was requtred unde~ the provisions of the Catifornia Envlrcyn~enta) Qualtty Act and the
State EIR Guidelines; ~n~i that a stuciy of the proposed parcel map by the Planntng
Departmen*, and the Engineerinct Division indicated that there would be ~io s~gnificant
envlronmental imp~ci.
Commtssioner Jofinson offered a motiun~ seconded by Commissio~er King anci MOTION CARRIED
(Corx^~siloner Tolar being absent)~ tl~at the Anaheim Llty Pla~ining Commission does hereby
recommend to the Clty Council of the City o~ Anahelm that the subJect proJect be exempt
from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report, pursuanr to the pravisions
of the Californla Environmerital Qualtty Act.
1TEM N0. 3
RFRUES~~FQR EIR NEGATiVE DECI.AR~,TIOM - For a parcei map on
property located east of Santa Ana Canyon R~a~ between
M~F,ler Drive and Eucalyptus L~rive.
It was noted that an applicatlon had been filed for a parcel ma~ to divide a 3.1 acre
~Sarcei at the sub}ect location into three one-acre m!nlmum sized lots; that an evaluatton
of thc environm~ntal impact of parcel maps was required under the provisions of the
California F.nvironmental Qu~~lity Act and the State cIR Guidelines; and that a study of the
proposed parcel map by the I'lanning De~artment and the Engineering 0lvtsion indicated that
Chore would be na sigriflcant environmental im~,ace.
Commissioner Johnson offereci a motion~ secondacl by Commissioner King and MOTIUN CARRIED
(Commtssioner Tolar being ~bsent)~ that the Anahelm City Planning Cnmmission does hereby
r~comm~nd t~ tfie City Council of the City of Anaheim th~t the sub.je~t pra)ect be exempt
from tho requtrement to prepare an enviro~smental IMp~~ct report~ pursuant t~ the provislons
of the California Environmental Quality Act.
~
0
,6-~2~~
MINUTF.S, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOP{~ Marc:h 15~ 197~~
ITFM Nn, ~~
R,Q FS' FOR EIR NEGA'1'IVF. O~CLA~tAi'ION - For ,a prrccl rtu+p on
property lor,ated wast of Royal Oak itoacl an~1 sovtli of f,rescent.
Qrlvo.
It was noted that an appllcatlon h~~d been fllad ta divide a pnrcel of approx imatAly ~-.3
acres lnto fnur o~4-~cre minimum sized lots; that an evaluation af ~hc envlronmental
lmpact ~f pnrccl ~neps was requlr•ed un<ier the provlslons of the Califarnta Environmental
th~e1P1anning~Departmont~indl thicuEnglneeringnDivt~inn in flcoiedtthAtrthare~would bemno bY
slc~n(flcant envlronmontAl lripact.
Commisstoner Morley offered a motion, seconded by Commissio~er King and h1QT1 ~N CARRIED
(Commis:ioner 7olar boinc~ ~~bsent)~ that tne Anah~im City Flanning Commisslo~ does hereby
recommend to the City Cauncil of the Clty of Anaheim that the subJ'cgu~p~°~oe thle~provl~lons
from the requlrement to ~+rapare an environmental impact report~ p
of the Callfornla Environm~ntal Quallty Act.
ITEM N0. 5
t Al. U~E PtRMIT N0. 1518 - Request for extenslon of
ti~~e - Property consisting of ~pproximately 0.~- acres
located between Topanga Drlve and Harding Avenuc~ south of
Linr.oln Avenue.
ic was noted that Conditional Use Permit No. 151a was granted by the Pls~nni ng Commlssiun
an March 3~ 1975~ to permit ~~n infant day care and pre-school faciRity with walve rs of
perml ttecl u~es 1 n requ 1 rPd yards ~ maxl mum fence he i ght ~ and r,iaxl rnum S i c~n ar ea; that al 1 of
for street1wideningppurposes~hadebeenemadethanc iet hatenoiprev t1ou s e x t e n s i o n st o fe t( nethadg
been granted.
Commissioner King offered a moti~n~ sscondr.c~ by Commissioner Herbst and htOTION CARRIED
hereby
(Commisslonr;r Tnlar bein~ absent), that the Anaf~elm City Plar~ning Commission dnes
grant a one-ycar cxtension of time for Condltional ~se Permit No. 151A For completion of
the condl t tons ~f a~~roval , sai d extens ion af t i me to be retroact i ve to Ma ~ch 3~ 19 y6 ~ anci
to expire on March 3~ r977•
ITEM N~. 6
R NCG 0. 2f~92 ~ Reyuest for approval of revi sed pl ans -
Prnperty consisting of approximateiy 0.~- acre loc:ced a t the
northwest curner of Lincoln Avenue and Western Avenue, and
further descr(bed as 3201 West Llncoln Avenue,
It ~~as noted that Varlance No. 2692 was granted by the Planning Commissic n on Aa ril 14~
i975, to estatlish an ~~uto lubrlcation fac(lity with walvers of per•mitCed uses~ required
tree screen and m!nimum wall hel9ht; that, aT. the time af approval, the a p pilcant
indicated that only car lubricati~n would be performed on th~ site with no autQmobile
repair or sals of auto p~~rts or accessories; that the revised plar~s indicated that an
aciditinn consistin~ of two service bays would be construcked adJacent to the exi~*.ing
Econo-Lube buildin~; thaC subsequent to approval of the subJect variance. oth~r variances
liad been ~7rante<1 :~t vacT,ted ssrvice station sites in the ~L Zone for minor tune-up work as
well as auto lubricatir~n; ana that the Planning CommiSSion was being requCSted to
determine whether the proposed use was similar in nature and ac~reed with the int ent af the
thesprooosedeexpansion?riltGwasofurther notedethat theuprop salrconformed dwlthralljCod~for
requirements.
Mr. Robe~t Overdevest, the applicant, appeared before th~ Planning Commis slon ~nd St~ted
the ortginal proposal ltmited the scope of the L•usiness; that the subjec t slte was
suttable for a tune-up f~c{1tty; that they f~ad n~t experienced any parkin g problems; an~i
that the p~oposed addition would be very close to Lincoln Itvenue and can s eyuently there
would be no nolse adJ~tent to tiie inside property 1 ir~es.
Commissioner Herhst off~ere~t A motion~ seconded b; Comnissioner Johns~n anci MUTtO~a C/1RR1ED
ZCommissioner 1'otar betng absent). that the Anaheim Clty Planning Cormis sion da-s hereby
determine that the proposal t~ provide facilitles for autamobile tune-up s In additior~ t~
the aueo lubricatlon factlity, is n4t wlthin the scope of ths original a pproval of Varianca
Pto. 2692 on the basls that a stip~taticn in the original approval pravtd ed tha t there would
be no automab~le repalr or sale of auto parts or accessories at the s~b iect site; and~
theresfore. a public hea~ing shall be requtred for constderation af sald revisec! pta~s for
expansion.
~
~
~
MIl~UTF.S~ CITY PLANNING CnMMISSION, March 1~. 1q7~ 76~~Z~
iTEM N0. ;
VARI ICE' 10. 157.1 - Request for cl ari f f cat lr,n of permi tted
uses - Pr.~E>crty c~~slstinc~ nf approximately .28 ncre lacatecf
on the ~ASL sid~ of Rnahelm Boulevnrd c~nd furthc~r described
as ~1~ South Anah~lm aoulova~d.
Asstskant Zo~ing S u pervisar Allan Oaum revlewed thn Stnff qoport to the Planning
Conmisslon detod Ma rch 15~ '976~ nocing that the subJer,t varlance wrs granted to permit
sale~ ond ~ervice o f autam~bilos as an addition to an exixting fACility on thn adJacent
piaperty to the no ~th and sAld p~operty ta the north had since heen rezoneci t~ CL
re unsting,a deterntnatlondasetoP~h ther the proposed ~asadkcar loc wouldtbe permltted bys
Q
Vnrlanco No. 152~.
Ma. Vlekt Deckl~am. 1926 West Ash, Fullerton. the propertY owne+r, appeared befora thn
Planning Cammissio n and statod the propoxal was far a speGlalty used car lot and a
permanent tralier office~ and not for a crowded car lot; and that slie di.l not own the
property to the north wnich was dovelopocl with the conva~~lence market.
Mr. 7om Pearson~ 7 0~ Sauth lCnntt~ appe~rod before the Planning Commission ancl stated ths
trailer would not be a home-typc traller, but would serve A:~. an ~ffice~ beln~ .~nchornd on
piilars ante eso~ edta theeCtt)~eof,Anahelmt~andUtheytwerePproposinc~PtogimprovenitVandPbriny
and was y
I t up to a h I ghe r qu~+ 1 1*yo upc ra t 1 on .
Comni~sioner Y.tng notad th~t if tha propoxal w~re appraved tu include th~ traller, it
would be for a one-year perioci, subJec.t to review and conside~ration for extensions of
time, etc. Cha(r man Farano added that there could be no servicing or refurbishing of
autamoblie.x ~~n Lh e property. Mr. P~earsan agreed to a time limitatlon and stated they
would be strlctly concerned w(th sales.
Camnslssl~ner He rb st noted that~ alttiough he might have no oppnsitlan to the proposal~ it
did nat appear to be wtthin the ortglnal scope of the approveu variance on the property
and~ therefore, t he adJacent praperty awners should be entitled to a publlc he~ring in
connection w+th the change in use; and that since a trailer was invotv~d, the proposal
appca:•esd to be a~ complete departur~ from the original approval•
Cortmtssloner Barr.es noted that the subJec*_ property was considc rc:d as part uf a packag~
involving other p roperty which had subsaq~~~cants wereenotener.essarily being~deniedn
additional publ ic hearing~ the sub,ject app
anyth ing, but the proc:.~as woul d br fa ~ r to al i part i es concerned.
Commissioner He r4ast offered a mt~tlon, seconded by Comnissioner 3arnes, that the Anahelm
City P1anning Commission does hereby det~rmine that the proposal for a used car lot with
Noe 1521;~and~rt herefore~ca public heartngtshall~be requiredrfornconsideratlonf~fasaidC~
pr~posal.
On roll ca11~ th e foregoin~ motion failed by the following vote:
AYES: CQPSMISS IQNERS: BARNES~ HERBSTy KING
NOES : COMMI SS I ONERS: JOH~JSON, MQRLEY ~ FARAPIO
ABSENT: CO~IMISS 1~1NEItS: TOLAR
Commissioner Joh nsors offered a motton~ seconded by Commissioner Morley. that the Anaheim
City Planreing Conmisston does her~by determine that the praposal fnr a used car iot with
the use of a t ralter offtce is within the scope of the original :ipproval of Variance No.
1521 ; a~d. therefore~ the request is approved, grar.ting the use ~~f the traller office for
a period of on e year~ subJect to review and consideratlon for an extension of time upon
writtan requcst by the appllcant.
pn ro11 c~ll, th~ foregotng motton failed by the follo~wing ~~ote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JONNSON, MORLFY, FARIl~~O
NOES: COMMIS SIONERS: BARNES~ HER~ST, KING
A95EMT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLAR
The~eupon, in lieu of waiting two waeks for conslderation of the proposal by a full
Commtssion~ Ms. Beckham stipulated that an appltcation would be made for a publlc hearl:~g
on tha matter.
~
~
MINU7ES. CITY PLANNING COMMiSSION~ Merch 15, 197E
ITEM N0. H
, ~ N ~~TAL I MPACT REPORT N0. { 70
76-126
The Steff R~port to tha Planning Commissinn datcd t~~rch 15. 197~- WAS prescnted and made a
part of the ml~utes.
it was noted that the subJ~ct nnvlronmental impact report was beln~ submltted !n
c~nnattlon wlth the Clty of Anahelm's g~ant appllcatlon for secord-year proJects undnr the
th ree-yee r Commun 1 ty Ueve 1 opmen t P 1 an wh t ch was comnenced i n I 975 under T! t. l r. I of xhr~
Housing and Communlty Develapment Act of Iry7~~; thAt said EIR did nnt apply to the speclflc
pro)ects which would be constructed under the Community Development Flan; and that a
revlew of tha report by the E~R Ravlew CommlLtee at Its meeting on March y. 1976~
indlcdted that It conformed to the rnquiremonts of the Clty and State EIR Guldelines and
the Californla Envlronn~ental Qualtty Act.
Commissloner Morley offered a motlon~ seconded Ny Comnissioner King and ~T!~havina'been
(Commissl~nGr Tolar betng absent)~ that Environmental Impact Report No. 17~~ 9
cor.^iderod this date by the llnahelm CiCy Plannin~ Comnission and evldence. both wrttten
end ~rai~ having been presented to supplemont satd draft EIR N~. 170~ the Planning
Commission balleves thae s~id draft EIR No. 170 does confarm to the City and State
Guldollnes and the State of Callfornla Envtrnn mental Quality Act ancl, based upon such
information, does hereby recomme~d to the Clt~~ Councll that they cer~tify said EIR No. 170
is tn compliance with said Environmantal Quallty Ac:.
ITEM N0. 9
REQU"-'- EST FOR STATUS RtPqRT ON PENDING PROJECTS (Chalrman Farano)
Chairman Farano requestGd a status report on all panding projects designated by the
Planning Commisslon for Staff follow-up, etc. Zoning Supervisor Annika ~antalahr.) advisGd
that such a repart was forthcoming.
ADJOURNMENT - There being na further busine~s to discuss, Commissiorser Barnes
offered a motion~ seconded by Commi~aloner Morley and MOTION
CARRIED (Commissioner Tolar being absent), Chat the rrtPeting be
adJourned.
The meeting adJour~ed at 5:0~ p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
,~,~~.a~'.~ ' y~~~•~ ~
Patricia B. Scanlan~ S~cretary
Anahetm City Planning Commisslon
PBS:hm
(l R C 0 MICR,1f IIMING SEAVICF, INC