Minutes-PC 1976/08/02~ ~
City Hall
An~~h~lm~ CAlif~rnl~~
Auc~ust 7_~ 1n7~,
f~F.~~UL~R NE[~f I rl~, OF THF AllAllf I M f. I TY PLl1~!tl I ~I~ Cr,Mr1 f SS I n~l
RE.GULAR -!1 regular m~e~tinr~ ~f th~ Mahcim City Plt~nnin~ f,~mmissl~n wns c~illncl tn
MEF.TIt~G order by Chalrm~n Pr~ Temp~rr. T~lar .it 1:3n ~,M. In thr_ C~~inc11 Ch~ml~er,
a ~uorum being prr.5ent.
PRESEt~T • COP1~11SS1~1~IFRS: ~arnes~ Farano~ Nerhst~ K1n~, Horley~ Tc~l~~r
AOSE~~T - C~FIh!Ii51(1MFRS: J.~hnson
I1LS0 PRFSF.tlT - Frank. l.owry
Jack Jucld
nnniki Sant~lahtl
f311i Cunnin~ham
~ni~~ FICI~.
Jay Tashiro
Patricii Scinlan
1leputy C 1 ty Att~,rncy
C1v11 [ngineerinc~ ~SSlst~int
Asslst.~nt I'l~nni~g ~(rector-l~n(n~
1lssoci~~tr, Planner
llssistant Pl~nner
~sstst~int t'l~+nner
Planninc~ C~rnMission 1ecr~t.iry
p~~n~;[ OF - Commissioner Ilerbst le~i in the Plecige of Allc9fancr, to rhe Fl~q of the
ALLEGI~PICE United States of Amc:rica.
APPROVAL OF - Commissl«ner Farano offered a motion, sec~ndecl hy Commissloner Klnn anrt
TNE NltlUTES M~TI~~I CIIRRIF~ (Commissloner Tolar ahstainin~ since he v~as n~t rre5ent
at the meeting in qu~stion; ~nd Ce~^missluner Johnsnn heing ~hsent)~ that
the minutes ~f the rr.gul~r Anaheim Clty Plannin~ Com~lssi~n meetin~ hel~i
,JU~y ]~ ~~7f~, he and hcrehy are ~pprove~l, as suhmltted.
VARIA~ICE N0. 2~1) -'"~~~TIPluEn PIIBLIC HEARIM~, Tt~E owF~~ CnMr~~~av~ 7~~ 4111shire~ Suite 53~~
~os Angeles~ Ca. ~nnt7 (~wner); HARD1~! f1LDSMf)RIIF~ 13n~ South Anaheiri
Boulc:v~rcl~ Anahelr~~ Ca. ~1~~5 ~n9Pnt); re~uPStinc~ WAIVFR f1F (A)
MAX IMUM M!1MBER ' FREE-S7l1-I~ I ~d~ S I ~NS, (P,) MAX IMI1~1 S I ~,FI l1Rf_~ ~(C) PER~~ ITTF~ LnCA71 nF~
OF FRFE-STANf?' ,i; SI ;PlS~ (D) ~11PJIMUM pISTAtlCE BET1dEFN FREE-STANnINr, SI~PIS, A~J~ (F)
MAX I MUM S I G~' ~REA W I TII I ~l THE REQIi I RFfI SETDACY,, T~ CoNSTR~1cT AN A~D I T I ~-~AL FRFF-STAPI~ ! F~~
51GM on pr~ ~~rty describe~f as a rectangularly-shaped ~arcel of land :.onsistinc~ nf
approximr ~ly 2.1 acres h~+ving a fr~nt~i~e of appr~ximately 2R~ fPet on the ~:15t si~1e of
Anaheim ',ulevar~l~ h~vin~~ a r~aximum depth c>f a~pmximaCely 335 feet, hein~t located
ap~roxi ~tely 75~ feet south ~f the centerli~e o` 3a11 Ro~~~, and f~irther ~lescrihed as
13q(1 S~ uth An:.tieim Baulevard. Pr~~erty present?y c1~7551fied Ml. (IPI~USTRIAL, LI~117~"" ~'
Z011 E .
It was noted that the suh)ect petition was contin~~Pd from the Plannin~ Commission meetinns
of June 7 and 21~ 1q7~~ f~i• revisecl ~ians.
Two persons indicated their pres~~~ce in ~ppos~ti~n t~ suhJect ~~etition, and forthwith
waived the full reading of the Staff Report t~ the Plannin~; Cc~mmis5ion ~aterl Aunus~ 7.,
1976, on the basis that th~y had revleaie~l copies of same.
Although the Staff Report was not read at the ~u'~lic h~arin~, said re~ort is refPrreci tn
and made a part ~P the minutes.
Mr. Dennis Hardin~ representing the ~gent `cr thP ~etitlorcr, a~r~t~ar~drhnP~re't~~e P~~~make
Commission and stated that after reviewing the situation they ha~!
revisions to the proposal an~~ wished the Planning Co-nmi,.sfon t~ take an ~ction to ~ithPr
approve or disapprove said plans as submitted.
Anaheim ~;~~eared hef~~re the Plannlnq Commission
Mrs. 'lary Dinndorf~ 131 La Paz Street~ ~
and stated that shF 4;as president of the Santa An~ Cany~n Irnpr~vPment ,~SSACIaLIOn a~d
represented the oppositfon; that the Planning C~mmission ~•~as a~~are of the ~ength of time
it had taken to get a sign nrdinance through for the City ~nc~ the nrnpos~l wa5 a
suh5tantial and unnecessary deviation `~om the Co~e rer,uirements.
7h-34~i
~
~ ~
~ ~
C t ty I~~~ 1 1
I'~nah~tm~ Callfornia
I~U~USL ? ~ ~ ~~~•
RF.~IILl1R H[ET 1 N~, OF TNF. APII111F I H C I TY_ PI.AN~I I-I~~ C(1~~r1 I 55 I ~N
f~~~IILAR - l1 renular meetlne~ of the llnahelm Clty Plnnnin~ ~~~~SSI~n was c~ile~1 t~
MEF.TINf, nrder by Chairman Prr. Tempor~ Tol~r ~~k 1:3~ ~.~n. In the C~uncil Ch~~ml~er~
n quorum br.ln~ pre5ent.
PRESEN7 - C(1~1~115SI~~IFRS: f3arnP5~ Far~in~, Nerhst, Kln~~ '1~rley~ Tol~r
AaSFNT ^ f.(1N"11SSInNF.RS: Johnsan
l1LS0 PRESF.IIT - Frink t.~wry
J1c~. Juc1r1
Ann1k~ Santalahtl
f3( 1 I f.unningham
Joel ~Ic!<.
,lay 7ash i ro
^,itricia Sr.~nlan
~epiity City ~tt~rnr,y
Civll Cnginecr(nn Ass(st~~nt
Asslstint Pl~nni,~n Dlr~ct~r-l~nin~
Assc~el te Plannr.r•
Asslstant Pl.~nncr
llssistinc Pl~nner
Planning f,~rnrilssi~n Secr~tary
PL~DP,L ~F - C~mmissioner flerbst lecf in the Ple~ige of Allegla~ce to the Fl~c~ of thr.
ALLEGI~MCF. llnited States of Ameriea.
APPROV~IL OF - C~mmiss(~ner Farano offered a motlon, sec~nde-' '"/ CC1(nf't~55~~,ner Kt~~n ~n~~
TNE MI~lU1'ES M~TI('~': C/1RRIE~ (Commissioner Talar <~hstiininn >ince he Y/~5 not rres~n;
at thP meetin~ in question; and Commisslon~r Johnson heing ahsent), th~t
the ~niniites of the rec~ul~r Anahelm City Planning C~xnmission meetlnc~ hel~i
July 7, I~7f,, he ~nd herehy are a~proved, as suhmlttc~l.
vAKIA~ICE P~~. 2811 - C~NTIN!I[n PUBLIf, HEARIP;r,, THE OWF.tI CnMP~tJY~ 7n~ 4l11shire, Suit~ ~3~,
Los l~ngeles~ Ca. ~~~lj (~wner); HARDI~' nL~SM~RILf~ 13~~ South An~neim
Boulevard, Anaheim, Ca. q?.RnS (Ayent); re~ue~..`n;) WAIVER ~F (A)
Ml1XIMl1~1 PIUMBEP, OF FRFE-STA~J~IN~ 51~NS~ ~B) MAXIM11~1 51~',N I1Rf.~, (C) PER!11T7FD L~C/1T1~~1
OF FREE-STANDIN~ SIGNS~ (D) Mlhll!til~1 pISTAIICE BE'~1•JcEN FREE-ST~PlnIIJr, SI~NS, AN!~ (f)
MAX I F1UM S IGN !1R£A WITII I N THF RE~U I RFD SETBACK~ T~ CONSTRIICT AtI l1D~ IT I ~tIAL FRFF-STA~1~ 1 ~~ ~
SIGP! on ;.ra;,erty descrlbed as a rectannul~rly-shaped parcel of lan~i consisting ~f
approximately 2.1 acres havin~ a fr~nt~~e of a~pr~xlm~~tely ?~i~ feet ~n the Pasr si~e o~-
1lnaheim Boulevar~l, h~vin~ a maximum depth of approximately 335 feet~ hein~~ 'oca« ~
apnroximately 75~ feet south ~f the centerllne of Bail Road, and further descrihed as
13Q~ South Anaheim Boulev~rd. Property presently classified M1. (iNDUSTRI~L, L1~11TF~)
Z011 F .
it was noted that the suhJect petition was cont(nued from the Pl~~nninn mmission meettn~s
of June 7 ancf ?.l, 1~7(~~ f~r revisecl plans.
7w~ persons indicate~ their ~resence in oppos(tion t~ subJect petiti~n, ancl forthwith
waived the full reading of the Staff Report t~ the Plannin~ Ccxnmission ~iate~ ~1:~nust 7.,
?97F~~ on the ~~5~5 that they had revlewed copies of same.
Although the Staff Re~ort was not read at the ruhlic hearing~ sa!~1 ~e~~rt is referred t~
and rr,ade a part of the minutes.
Mr. Derinis Hardin, representing the a9ent for the netitloner~ ap~e~red hef~re the Planninh
Commission and stated that after reviewing the situatlon they h~~i ciecideci not to malce
revisions to the prop~sal and wi~hed [he Planning Cc~mmtssion to tal:e an action to eithpr
approve or dlsapprc~ve said plans as suhmitted.
Mrs. Mary Di~,ndnrf, 131 La Paz Street, Anaheim~ ap!'+earccl hefore the Planning Commission
and stated that she was president e~f the Santa Ana Canyon Imprnvement Assc~ciati~n a~d
represented the op`~sition; that `I, r'lanning Commission was ~a~are ~~f thP lengtr: of time
it had taken to get a sign c~rdinance through f~r the City anc~ the or~posal was ~
~ubstanti3l and unnecessary deviation from the Coc1e renuirements.
7h-34~
~
~ ~
7h-34~
~~irluTFS~ c~TY PLIINMIN~ C~MIIISSI~Pl~ nu~ugt z~ t~7~~
V~RI~~ICF. NQ. 7.811 ~Cont lnuc~d)
In ~~:t~uttal ~ Mr. Ilardin st.~tccl that~ in hls ~nlnlnn, thc rc•~~~i~st ~vas r~ns~n~~hle; Chit
pr.rmlts had been <>i~ta~necl fc~r the c~xistinc~ slgns on thP suh~ect ~~r~perty r~nc1 the new
sign+n~~ was for Che benefit of the c~mmunlty since thr.y amu1~1 hn t~arinq r{~~~.~n ~nr, ~f the
old signs ~inct erectlncl a new one in its pl.~ce~ incre~asing th~ sicln ~~re~ h,y only .,h~ut li
squ~re feet; an~1 th~~t s~~l~i rica~ slgn aro~ild he hettar l~nb.in~ thnn the ~1~1 ~~~•
THE PUf~L I C NE~R f tIG W115 CLnSf f).
feasihlr, to
In rc:,ponse to qu~seic~ninh bY Comr^~ssi~ncr King, 11r. Hardln stit~d ~t 4~~i n~' ~hnSLPUCC~AtI
add the Hond~ si~;n to thc existtng Ol~lsmohlle sign slnce Ir Y,~,nl~i rc uire t
of a new s(gn ancl that w:+s morc thar, they cnuld ~~. Com~~~iss~~"^r Itln~ thr.n n~tc~1 that thc
OldsmuLlle s(gn was quite c<~ns~icuous <~nd it ~~~>u~d he hcttp~~ in hls. ~n~~~~n- t~ ~'+d~~ t'~ it
rather than have sep~~r~te ~Inns for thP N~n~la ind ~1~1~m~hile ~~lsi:rihut~rships.
Commissio~, r Darnr.r, inqui~ •~I ahout hivinn the new sl~n undrr the ex(Stln~ nl~lsr~~hile sic~n~
and ~1r. Hardin st~ted th~ ~xl~;tin7 sm~~ll N~nda sign ~+.~s I~~st n~t hl~ en~unh .~n~l the mann~r
in ~~hich the new sf~n w~~s c.nr,structe~l ~•~~~,1~1 m:+l<e It an U~liLl"~~tlVr ~;I~n if ~l~ceci hene~th
thc existlnR ~ldsmuhilc sl~m.
In response to questl~nGV~d ~romCtheisubJect pr~~crty ~ncl onlyit~~~~tsignsrrem~fin1 ~~f th~
illegal signs hac1 been rem
Comm(ssioner Barnes note~i that in so many other inst~nces tl'~e Plannin9 Commission ha~f
r~,uired bUSI~r.55e5 to cnns~lidate sfgns anci the consolid~tion was always acc~mriish~,d
somehow; and that, In the suhject case, the petitioner could cons~lidate th~ signs also.
Commissioner Nerbst noted that Mr, Hardin had heen in huslness ~t the siibJect location f~i
a lonn time and had more sic~nln~ thin I~e w~s ent~tlr.cl to~ hn~vever, Mr. f~~r`{wis n~t
re~~ ting two ciifferent camp~~~ies, h~d cle~ned u~ the lllegal signing~
t ~ i pr~vlousl en o ec~ anci,
re~~ ~in~ to increise tne sc~~iare fo~k~~e ~f s,gning which he h~~ Y 1 Y•
therefore, sh~ould not he penall-ed hec~~~se ~f ~hr. or~linancr.; in~1 th~t the difFerent
automobile ~1lstributorshins likP~1 to have dfstingi~,ishinq signincl.
f.ommissioner Y,ing noted th~~t he was concerned about Mr•. ~•1~~~te's operation which w~s a
Pontiac dealership down thr streP*_~ if the propos~l ~~as ~ranted. Commissinner f3arnes
indicated concern for the Volvo de~lership which ,•~s als~ forced t~ consoli~late their
sianing.
Commissioner Far~~no noted that tn~ t~etitioner was requesttng fivr. waivers fr~m the Co~1e
and no haraship had been shnwn; that the City should not have to conrorm to the
requirements ~f the siqn compan(es or aut~m~f~ilr. ciistrihut~rshins, etc.~ or the City
should let s~'d enterprises write the ordinance; thaC other applicanr.s hacl hc~en requireci
to consolidate their si~:1n5, including autr»ahi~e dealershi~s~ shop~incl centers with
inultiple uses~ etc.; and that the subJect petiti~ner had the benefit of the signs to tl~is
time and a hardship di~1 not exist to Justify n~;cenformance with the sl~ln reqi~irements, in
his opinion.
It ~Nas noted that the D~rector of the Planning ~epartment ~~a~1 determtned that 'he prnnc.sed
activity f~:ll wlthin the clef(nition of Sect~on 3.n1~ Class 11, of the Cl~y of Anahelm
Guidelines Xo the Requlrements for .,~ Fnvironment~l Impact Rr,porC ~~nd ~•~as~ therefare,
categor(~ally exempt' from the requirement n file an EIR,
Commissione~• }~erbst uff~rc~l a resolutlon and moved f~r its passaqe and ~icl~ption that the
Anahelm City Planning Commission d~~es hereb; ~r~nt Petition for Vari~nce No. 7_`311,
granting all of the waivers on th~~ hasis of th~ `oregofn9 findings, that thc petiti~ner
has been in business at tf~a suhJect l~cation foi• a suhstar.tlal ~'~'5~~~ Slfr~ngmhasannt
although more signing Pxiseed than was approved for the property~ 3
been detrirnental to t'~r. area; that the petitloner dsm~nstratec1 a hardship w~uld h~ crea~~~'
if said waivers ~~ere not c~ranted since two autc~mohile distr'hutorships exist~;~ on the
subJect property; and, furtherrnore~ that the petitioner haci cleaned up the lileqal sinning
on the pr~perty and w~uld not he suhstantially tncreasl~i~i `he squ~r: f~ot:~P of signin9
frorn the prevtously existing slgning.
On r~ll call, th° foregoing resolutlon failed to pass hy the f~~llhwing vote:
AYES• COMMIS510NE!?S: HERRST~ KIN~~~ M~RLEY
WOES: COMMIS~IO~IERS: BF,P,NES. FARANO~ TQ:.AR
ABSENT: CN•i~11SSlONERS: J011PISOt!
DepuCy City Attorney Frank Lnwry a:'~'sed *hat~ on the basis c" thP tle vote~ the matter
would be automatically continued to th•~ P'~nning Commission meetin~ ~` August 1(~~ 1~7~~~
for a full Commission.
~
~
MINU1'ES~ C17Y PLANNING COt1MI5SIQN~ August 2~ 1y7~~
76-3;n
JOY7.FLLE V. (RINKER) KEMRLE~
RECLASS I F I CAT I ~~~ - CONT I NUED aF.A~VF.RT I SE~ PUBL I f. HEAR I11~,.
N0. 73'7~+'y~ 2~ Carmel Day Drtvo. Corona ~~a1 Mar, Cn. 92h?.5 (~wnPr); Df1NALD ~n ent
BA I LEY ~ 19<<A North Tust I n llvenu~ , Su 1 te 1 I ~- ~ Orange ~ Ca. 926~~5 ~ 9 ~~
requesting thr.t property describec0 as ~ r~ctflngularly-shapecf parcel of
land consisting of approxlmately l.5 acr~es l~~:ated al th~ northeasl ~.orner o~` Qrnng~thorn~
Avenue and 17~~ feet on thc ~~~If: to khefCL~(COMaFRC`IAL~PI.IMITEp)c7.Q1F,~ thr. RS-~,~h3,nnn
(RESIDEN7IAL/AGRICULT~JRAL) y
It was noted thnt the subJect petitlon was cnntinued from the Plannin~ Ca~m~issi~n rneetin<1s
oF June 7 and JuIY 7, 197~~ for revlsed plans.
No ~ne indicated thelr presence In opposltion ta suhJect ~etitt~n.
Although fhf~eartnf RsaldtStaffhReportnls9rePe red,to andemacfe9aSpart of't~he minut~gread at
the publt. 9~
It was noted that at the Planning Commisslon meeting of July 7, 197f~~ the public hearin~
on the subJect item w~~~ closcd and not re-opened.
Mr. Dnn Baadenothtin atontaddr toe the,tStaff~ Reporte~slncerethee contents Cthcreof~nwere
stated he h 9
acceptabie.
Chairman Pro Tsmpore Tolar ~ioted that the petitl~ner had revised the plans in accordance
with the dis:.ussion ~i tha Planning Cortxnisslon at the ~~evious meeting an~1 it appeared
thaC ~li of the prab~ems were resolved satlsfactorily.
Commissioner K(ng offered a matlon~ seconded hy CominisS~lanr,ingrCeanmisslonTdoesCherahy
(f.ommissioner Johnso:~ being absent)~ that the Anahetm C'ty
recommend to the City Council oP th~ Clty of AnahPim ef-at the subJect prolP~t be exempt
from the requlrement to prepare an environmental tmpact report, ~~urs~~ant to the provislons
of thz Californlu Environmental Qu:+llty AcC.
Commisslon King offered Resolution No. PC76-1~-4 2nd moved for its pass~9eCou~ncll~of'the
that the Anaheim City Planning Commisslon does hereby recommend to the City
City of Ar~al~~im that P~titlon for Reclassification No. ~~betng1 developedigpreciRelySiln
No. 2) be approved, subJect to the subJect property
accordance with plans and specificatians on flle with the Clty of Anae~irecorvmend~tionst
NQ, ~(Revlsion No. 2); and subJect to the Interdepartmenta'
(See Resolution Book)
On r~Qll calf, the foregofng resolutlon was passed by the foilowtny vote:
AYES: COMMISSI~~NERS; BARNES, FARANO~ NERbST~ KING~ MORI.EY~ T~LAR
NOES: COMMISSIOt~ER~: NONE
ABSENT: COMMIS510NERS: JOHNSQN
t,dNDiTiONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. EARLBERPJARDTLECKIE~,~One'Wtlshlre~Boulevard.
rERMI~' N0. Ib31 Capistrano~ Ga. 92h75 ~~Wner);
Los Angeles, Ca. 9~0~3 and LOUIS J. SOUCHEK~ 6652 ~daho Street~ Buena
Park~ Ca. 9~hz1 (Agents); requesting permisslan to establish a PRF.-SCH~~L
NURSERY on property described as a rectangularly-shapPd parcel of land consisting ~f
approxlnacely 0.4 acre having a frontage of approximately 95 feet on th~r edst side of
Euclid Street~ having a maxlmum depth of e~proxlmataly 165 f~et~ being located gpp~oxi-
mately 396 feet north of the centerllne ofres~ntlW~~classified aCd (CC~MMF.RCIALCgOFFIf,F ANP~
205~ South Eucltd Jtreet. Property p Y
PROFESSIONAL) ZONE.
It was noted that the suyJect p~tltion was contlnued from the ylanning Ccxnnis~~on further
of July 1~ 1976, tor anal sls of revised plans~ and frc~m Jul 19~ 197h~
information.
No one indicated thelr presence !n connection with the subJect proposal.
It was notPd that. Louia J. Souchek and Fr~ances E. Souchek had subr~itted a letter request-
ing that tho subJect conditlonal use permit be terminated due to compllcatlons af ~~q~i~"
!+
~~
MINUTES, CITY Pl ~tJNING COMMISSIOPI~ Au~ust 2, 197h
7f,-3,1
CUNDITIONAI. I;SE PERMIT N0. iG31 (Continucdl
iny the ~~1lacent p-'operty and the ~bJections of th~. nel~' ~rs on 7~~nia Strer.t to havlnn
the pre-sc ~ol ~~t r.he subJect l~~catl~n.
Commissl~ner Moriey offered a motlon, ~econd~<t by Commissloner Ying ancl Mf1TI0N CARRIF~
(Ccxnmisslone~ Johnson betn~ absent), that the Anahelm Clty Planning Comm sslon do~s herehy
~,rminate all proceedings In connectlon with I'etitlon P~r Condit~onal llse Permlt Nc~. 1F~31~
as requesCed by the petitioner in the aforementi~ned leteer.
CONDITIONAL USE - RCADVERTISED PUbI.IC f1E~RIPIG. RAYf10ND G, l1Np ESTELLE K. SPEIiAR,
PERMIT N0. 1G35 913 Faloma Place~ Fullerton~ Ca. 92(~3S ~OwnGrs); FRA~~K S. NEMSTRf:HT
~" AND GEORGF. L. dEAURtAARU~ 294$ Sanc~ra Raad. Palr~ Sprirgs, Ca. ~-27.(~2
(Agents); reyuesting permisston to C~PISTRIICT A MQT'~L WITN WAIVFR OF
(A) MAXIMUM ~JUM6ER OF WALL SIr;NS~ (D) PEItMITTED SIRNING~ A~~D (C) PR~HIBITED SI~N LI~HTIN~
on property descrlbed as an lrresgularly-shaped parcel of land consistinq of approxlmately
3 acrus located southeast of the southeast corner of La Patma Avenue an~1 Imperlal Highway~
having approximate frontages o~ 176 feet on the south si~le ~f La Palm~ ~v~nue and 351 f~Pt
on rhe east side of Imperlal Nighway, and hetng located approximately 7.6~ fe~~t ensi of the
centerliiie of Imperial liighway. Property presently classlfled CL(SC) (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITF~-
SCFtJIC CORRIDOR OVERL/1'/) ZQNE.
It was noted that the sub)ect petiLion was conttnued frrnn the Flanning Lam~~I55{OC1 mr.ee(nq
of July 19~ 1976~ for revised plans and to advertise additiona) waive~~~: perralning to
free-standing signs and slgn lighting in the Scenic Corridor.
It r~as further noted th.~t no one was present to represent the petitioners when the suhJecr,
Etem was duly scheduled tc~ be h~ard. The Planning Commisslon rfelayed opening the public
hearing until later on in the meeting to see if representatlves would I~c pres~.i, an~J~ at
appr~-+xtmately 4:3~ P•m.~ the Planning Commisslon generally concurred that thc .;uh)ect ltem
bP `urt'~cr continued.
Corm~i:,sioner Morley offerecl a motion, secondecl by Commissloner Far~n~ and MQTI~~J CARRIFR
(Ccxrrnlssioner Johnson being abs~nt), that thr. Anahelm City Planning Commissl.;n dues herehy
furehEr continue the public heariny and constderatton of Petitlon for Condit~onai '.lse
Permit No. 16~5 (readvertised) to the Planning Commisslon meeting of Auyust 1(~~ 147~, for
the petltloner to be prasent.
R~CLA551FICATIOt~ - PUBLIC HEARI~~G. JOSIE CORONADO, 1926 East Romrieya Drive~ Anaheim, Ca.
N0. 76-77-6 9z8~5 and EDWARD AtJD NORMA ALBRICHT, 192~ East Rom~eya brive, Anahelm~
- Ca. 92~3~5 (O.~ners); DIANE KOIODZIEJSKI~ DYtiMLYN D~VFLOPMENT CnMPANY~
l13~0 West O1~•^pic Boulevard, Sulte 301, ~os An~7eles, Ca. 9~Q6--
(Agent); requesting reclassificat~on of property described as an irregularly-shaped
parcel of land constst~ng ~f approximately 0.7 acre having a fronca9e of anProxlmatelY
142 feet an the south side of Romneya Drlve, having a maximum depth of a~proximatel•! 31~
feet~ 5cing loc~teci approximately 185 feet west oP the centerllne of State Collc:ge
Boulevarcl~ and further described as 192~, i920~' and 1~2h E3st Romneya (?rive be reclassl-
fled from the RS-A-43,Q~0 (RESIDE~~TIAL/AGRiCULTURAL) 7.ON[ to the CL (COMP1'RCIAL~ LIMlTED)
ZONE.
No one indicateci their presence in ~~position to the sub]e~t petition.
Although the StaFf Iteport t~ the Planniny Commission dated F,ugust 2~ 1'~7~~ w~s not read at
the public hearing. said Staff Report is referred to and made a part of c~~e minutes.
Ms. Diane KolodzieJskt, che agent for the petitioner~ appea~,:d before the Planning
Commission ar~d stated that they had acquired and obtained CL zoning (Reclassification Nos.
]4-75-24 and 75~~7b-36) on the adJacent property to the south and east fr~ntinq on State
Colle~e Bnufevard and at that time they had heen unahle to acqulra the subJect ~~roperty;
however~ since that tlma, the subJect property had hecome available and they were
requesting the Cl. zoning on i*. also so that it could he added to the commerclal
development proposed on the ad)acent property.
TNE PUBLIC FIEARING WAS CLOSED.
~ ~
MI~~UTES~ CITY PIANNINr, CnMMISStON~ August 2~ 1~7b 76-35~
RECLASSI~IC~TION N0. 7G-77~~ ~Continued)
In response to question~ng by Chalrman Pro Tempore Tolar~ Ms. Kolodzie]skl replied thnt
shc had not attempce:d to acqulre any ~ddltlonAl prop~rty nlong Romneya Drive to the west
since she did not. sce any reason to add to hcr praprrty any Purther nnd that, so far~ the
pronorty haJ been exhorblt++ntly high-priccsd.
In rr.sponse to yusstl~-~ing by Cummission~r Fara.n~ Asslstant Planner Joel Fick advtsed
r.haC an addltional 2Q0~ u~rc foot butiding was Proposed on the AdJacenC property at the
northwest corner of ~noya Drive and State ~ollege Boulevarcl ln connectlon witl~
Rer.lasslflcstlon N~. 7i'7~~-3~. and the subJect property would he uso.+ pxclusively f~r
parking to serve sald aclriitlonal buildino; that City staff h~d r:~tewed t4ie entire
con-mercial cleve~opment propos~a) at the subJect locatlon~ lncluding the ad)acent oarcels tu
thA snuth and east, and found that no walvers of the por!<in~ rr.qulrernents wpre necr;5ary.
in response t~ further questloning by ChairmF~n P m Tempore 1'nlar~ Civll Engineering
Assistant Jack Judd advised that tf~ere were future plc~ns for the wld~ninc~ of Romneya Drive
to ~? ~WOUldfbemsotwlderedtlnlconnectio~twithgthe,~ubfect,proposalt ab~~tting the suhJect
property
Ms. KolodzleJskl theri state~f that the suhJect property~ combined with tl~c ad~acent
prop~rtics to the east and south~ would be developed as one shopping center and the
parking lot nroposed oi~ the sub]ect property wnuld he kept to~ether as par*_ of tlie
_f;opping cen , witli recipror.a) parking a~reements.
Commissioner Nerhst nobedc~hshotflin~~cen'_erloCVelupn~ntf~~ oeld bc llosingbthtirprcomnerct~l
not included in the su Je pH
value.
~omniisstoner Nerbst offerec! a n,.~tion~ seconded by Commissloner King ancl MOTIQ~J CARRIF.fi
(Commissioner Johnson baing at~sent), that the Anaheim City Planning C~mmisslon does herehy
recomrr:nd tc the City Council af the City of An~heim that the sub~ect pr~)ect be exempt
from the r~quirement to prepar.: an ervironmental impact report~ pursuant to tf~e provisions
of the Californta Environraental Q~~ality Act.
Commissioner Herbst offered R.:~oluti~n tlo. PC7F~-1~F> and moved far its passa!~e and
adoptlon~ ttiat the Anahei,n City Planning Commisslon does hereby reccrn~e~'_6the approveiy
Council ci' the City c` 'lnaheir rliat Petttion for Reclass(fication No.
on thE b.~sis that the proposeo zoning is deemed to ~e appropriate. at the subJect locatlon,
subJect to ~he Interdepar*mpntal CommittPe rP~~mmendatlGns. ;See Resolution Book)
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was i~a~,sed by the following vote:
AYES: COM~9ISSIONFRS: BARNES~ FARANO~ NER.BST~ KING, MORLEY~ TOLAR
NOES : ::OP1M I SS I ONERS : NONE
A^SENT: COMMIS5IUNERS: JOHNSOtJ
(~~~'i't~ The foregoing ltem was considered lmmediately following the recess at 3:~~ P•m•~
RECLASSIFICATIO!J - PUBLIC NEARiNG. JA~C W. INCH~ 9~8 ~'est Bay AvPnue~ Newport Beach~ Ca.
N0. 7G-77-7 92GGo (Owner~; [~ALE '. INGRAr~~ P. 0. E~ox 592?_. E1 Monte~ Ca. ~173~+
(Agent). Prop°rty ~+escribed as a rectargularly-shaped parcel of land
VARIANCE t10e 2831 consis,'.ing of appr~:cimately 4.7 acres having a frontage af approxi-
matPly 32~ feet on the north side of Orangewood Avenue, hevln9roxl-
maximum aepth of :pproxlmately 615 feet, and being lor.ated app
mately 3~~ fieet east of the centerli~e of Harbor Boulevard. Property presently classifled
RS-A-~+3~000 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURE•.) ZQNF.
REQUESTED CLA~SIFICATION: RM-12~0 (RESIDENI'1/ ., h1ULTIPLE-fAMILY) ZO~dE.
REQUESTEO VARIAlJCE: BUILDINGS~`TO CONSTRUCTLA 139RUFITNAPAP,TMENTICOMPLEXTANCE BETWEEN
It was noted tl~at the peti2loner was requesti~g a two-~leek continuance ln order to revise
the proposed ;~l.ins.
~ommisslo~~er Ki~~g offered a motion~ seconded by Commisslor~er Barnes and MO'+ ION C~,RRIE~
(Co~nmissioner .;oh~son being ahsent)~ that the Anatielm Clty Planning Cammisslon does hereby
~~
~
MINl1TES~ CITY PLIINIJIN~ CQMMISSION~ Auoust 7.~ 1~7~ ~f,~~~~
RECLASS I F I CI1T I ON PJO. 7~-77-7 AND VAR 1 ANCE Mfl. 2(~31 (f.ont 1 nu~d )
~~_._._---~ ~
conCir~ue r'.: public lieariny ancf co~s;derotlon o} Petlflons for Qeclr~ssfPicatfon N~, 7~~•77-
7 and Varlance No. 1.133~ to th4 Plann tn~7 Commisslon m~etins~ of llugust if,~ 19?F~~ as
raquested hy the petfticmer.
COND1710t~~1. USE - PII~LIC NEARIiIG. NARJORIE B. (~ILLF.) SMITH~ h(?7 Archer Str~et, AnHheim~
PEfir~ll No, 1639 C.a. ~2}3~4 (Owner); KARL P. KOCEK, 13~9 S~~ith Drookliurst Street. Anahelm~
"""~'-`"i - f,a, 92~inta (Ac~ent); requesting permiss l~n to ES7ADLISII A pRE-SC110f1L
NUZSERY ~n property des~ 'hed as an t rregularly-shap~d ~~arcel of lan~i
co~~sistlny of apprc~xim~~tely Q,~ a~re Fiaving a frontage of ap~rox(mat~ly 1~~ feet on the
west side ~f Rrookl~urst 5treet, hs~ving a maxlmum depth of appro~;(myte~y 11S feet, betng
locate~l appr~xlmately 70A fect south of the centerline c~f f3a11 oaci, and further describe~i
as 1241 South Urnokh~~rst Street, Prcoerty presen:iy r.lasslfled CL (CQMM[RCIAL~ IIMITFD)
ZONE,
N~ one Indicated their presence in opPosltlon to the sui~)Er.t petitlan.
Altnough the Staff t'.eport to the Plan~ing Commission d~~ted August 2~ 1q7h~ was nat read ~t
t'~e public hea~ring. said Staff Report Is ref~rred to an~ made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Karl Kocek. the a9ent tor the oetltionei~~ appeare~l hefare the ^Isnniny Commissian and
st~ted that the subJect property was presently de~ieloped wi th a single-fami ly residencc
and hein9 used as a r~frl~erator repai. ;hr,~; th~t t~c was interested in purch~~slnc~ the
p~•oparty for a pr~-,cheo~ fcr approxirnateiy .'.!; childre~~; that 'ie operated an ~exlsting
school on [irook~~~rst 5, ~'eet two properti~ :~way and w~uld l ike to expand that schc,ol anci
be able to separate the ~lder chi ldren from the youngF;r nnes; and that. in hls opinl~r~,
there was adeq~ate space for the proposed operatlon on the subJect ~roperty siitice about
2~b of the property was pr•oposed to be uti l ized for bui ldings.
1'HE PUSLIC f1EARI~JG WAS CLOSf.D,
In response to questloning by Commissloner Kin~, Mr, I:ocek stipulated to wi~iening the
propose~ circular drivew~y from 1!~ f~et to 2Q feet.
~ommis~loner Farano inquired if ttiere was any rECOrd of any problems~ incl~iding traf'ic
problems~ in connection wi th the exT stirg pr~e-school owned by Mr. KoCek~ and noted tfiat
there was a slight questlon in his ow;~ mind as to wl~ether• tlie sub)ect property was
appru~riate for the use. In resp~nse, As~istant Planner Joel Fick advised that there was
no record uf ccmplafnts recelved in connection with the existing operations ef Mr. Kocek.
In response to qu~°stioning by Chairman Pru TPmpore Tolar, Mr. Flck advised tl~at stnce the
property was zoned "L and abutted other CL property t~ the nortli and south~ there were no
setb~ck requ~rements alonn tho5e property lines.
Commissi~ner King offered a mot i on. seconded by Ccxm~iissloner Farano and MOTIQPI CARRIF.D
(Commissioner Johnson being absent) , that che Anahelm Clty Planning Commisston does hereby
reconHnend to the City Council of the Ci ; of Anaheim that th~c subJrct proJect be exem~t
from the requirement to prepare an environmenta) impact report~ pursuant to the provislo~~s
of the Ca 1 i forn i a Env i runmental Q~a 1 1 ty Act .
Commissioner King offered Resolufi on No. PC76-146 and moved for its passage and adoption~
that the Anaheim City Planning C~~ramission does hereby granL Petitlon for Condition~l Use
Permit No. 1639~ subJect to the st pulation of the ,~etitloner to wtden the proposed
circular driveway to 2Q feet; and subJect to the Interdepartmental ConxnttteP
recommendations. (See Resolution 6ook)
On roll call~ the foreqoing resolut ion was passea by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: aARNES~ FARAIJO. HERBST~ KIPlG~ M~RLEY~ Tf1LAR
NOES: COMM!SSIONERS: NONC
ABSENT: C~~1M I SS I ONERS : JOfiNSO~!
~
~
MIIJUTFS~ CITY fLA1JNING COMMISSI01., Aug~~st 2. 197~~
7~-35h
CO~~D I T I ONA1. USE - PUf1L I C NEAR I Nf,. ORAN(;ETHORPE nI.AZA ~ LTD. ~ 7.152 Dupont Dr 1 vc ~ 1 rv 1 nr.,
PERMIT N0. 1640 Ca. 92715 nnd HOPKINS DEVEI.QPNENT CQMPANY, 13~3 Avocad~, Sulle 2%~,
Nnwport Beach~ Ca. 9266~ (Owners)~ ~e~ue~r.tnq permission f~r QN-SALF.
BEEa AND WINE on property describ~d r+s ~n lrrcgulr~rly-shaped parce'
of ~:~nd r,onsi stinc~ nf appro :lms~tely 1.~3 acres loc.-,tee, at khe northwest corncr ~f ~~ranga-
thorpe Avenue and Kcilogc~ Drlve~ having bpnroxim~tr. front:ages of 3~~5 feee on the north
side ~f Orangethorpe Avenue and 210 feet on the west sldc~ of Y.ellon~ Drive~ ancl further
descrlbed as 5031 East Orangethorpe Avenue. Proper'[y presently classlfled C~ (C~MMFRCI ~.~
LIMITGD) Z4NE.
No one indtcated thelr pres~nce in ~ppositlon to thc~ suhJect ~~etitlon.
Although thc~ Staff Report io the Planning Ccmmisslon dated Au9u5t ?~ 1~7f,, ~va~ not reacl Hi
the public hearing, sald Staff Report ls referred to and macle a part of the minutes.
Nr, Bob Exel, reE~resent(ng Hopk(ns Developme~t Company, one of the o~•m ers, anpenre~l heforc~
the Planning Commisslon anci stated they wrre ~•~questing to he ahle t~ serve br.er• ancl wine
~n a prnposed restaur~nt which would h~ve approximately 25~~ square feet within ~~n
approximately 1~~5~~-square foot commerclal bullcltng at the subJect l~cation; that tliP
subJect building was part ~f a commerelal s~~opping center which also had a supermarkety ~+
llquor store, and approxlmately nine retail sl~ops; that Che ~roposed rest~urant would be
family orlcr,ted with no bar or c~cktall lounge; and that the sale of beer and wine woul~~
be in conJun~:tton ,vith the serving of ineal. only.
TNE PUDLIC HEARIPir, WAS CLQSED.
It was noted that th~ Director of the Planning De~artment had determined that the proposed
activity fell withln the deftnition of Sectlon 3.~1, Class 1~ of the City of Anaheim
Guldellnes to the Requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and was, t.herefore~
categorically exempt Prom the requlrement to file an EIR.
Commissioner Fareno offPred Resolutlon No. PC7(-147 and moved for its passage and ado~-
tion~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does liereby grant Petitlun Por Concfitlonil
Use Permit Plo. 1640~ subJect to the stlpulatio~ of the petiCioner that the on-sal~ be~r
and wine will be in conJunction with the serving of ineals only; and sub)ect to the Inter-
departmental Commlttee recommendations. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call, the for~gaing resolution was passed by the following vote:
A.YES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ FARANO~ HERBST~ KIIJG~ N~ORLEY~ TOI.AR
NOES : C0~1M I SS I OPJERS : NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JQHI~S~N
VARIANCE NO. 2827 - PuBLIC HEARINr,, EUr,ENE~ ANN AND P~ORbON I.FNTZNER~ 23n1 willow~ Si~nal
Hill. Ca, gn8o6 (Owners); FAMILY HEALTN PROPRAM~ 2925 North Pajo Verde~
Long Beach~ Ca. 9~~15 ~Agent); requestin~ WAIVER UF PERt11TTED USES~
TQ COWSTRUCT A MEDICAL/DEN7AL nFFICE COMPLEX on property described as a rectangularly-
shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.8 acres having a frontage of approxi-
mately 353 feet on the east side of Magnolla Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximat~~y
34o fcet~ and being located approximately 1229 feet north of the centPrlinc of La Palma
Avenue. Pr~perty presently classifted ML (INCUSTRIAL~ LIMITED) ZONE.
No one indicated thelr presence in opposition to ths sub)ect petition.
Aithough the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated August 2~ 197~~ Was not read at
the public hearir.g, sald Staff Report is referred to and made a part of the: minutes.
Mr. Bill aose~~rans, representing the agent for tlie petitloner~ appeared before t~~e
Piannin~ Commission and stated that their exlsting facilities locatecl to the south c~f
subJect property were btcoming overcrow~ed due to the lncrease in the number of enrollees
in the graup health plans which they offere~ and they were requestin9 tn he ahle to build
lasger facilities on the subJect property; and that the Family Health Program was a nan-
profit organizatlon providing prepaid medical care.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLt~SF.D.
In r~sponse to questioning by the P1~ ninc~ Commission~ Mr. Rosecrans stated the pr~pai~l
msdical plan was open tio any employee group ana the facllitle~; were contracted for in
advance; .hat It was possibie that they weuld retaln the exlsting fatilities for t!~'
~
~P1^
~
MINU7L"S, CITY PLANIJING COMMi ~510N~ August 2, 197~i ~~'r3~~'
VARI~INCE ~JQ. 2112] (f,ontinuad)
dental clinic portlon of the program; that tl~ey owned the existing facllitl•.s and if th~y
were to closc the rro9ram there~ they would m~ c thc hulldlnns oPf the proper ty; thnt tha.
only way thcy co~~ld c~xp~'~nr1 In the suhJect area wl ~hout tnlcing A large "hunk." of Inrlustrl.il
prc~pcrty would bc t~, c1o to ~~ multl-story stru..ture for ~~erking slnc:e that w~s th~ maln
pr~blem.
C~nunlssloner H~erbst notcd thnt the pro~osed use wa5 not a c~r~pn~:ll>le in~lustrlr~l USP.
b~c~use of the traff ic pattern~ Imolved; that the suhJect nr~~er~y w~~s r i c~ht in the
mlddle of une of the Clty's Industrlal ar~as and thc use would he wrong ther~ an~nf'fnth~t
opinion, a L-etrer locatton and atmosphere could be Fo~ancl elsewhere in the Ctty;
anly those commPrcial uses which were compatlble with Industrfa) uses ~houl~l he allowed tn
this area.
Mr. Rasecrans stated that the subJect pr~perty was loc~ted ~n close proximlty to thei r
existing tocatlon; that pr~sently thcy w~:re serving a~proxlmately 9~~n people an~l
antlcipated th~~t the new faclllties would be ablr. to take c~re of appr~ximately ?.5~~~n
people; Chat he doubted any confllct in trafflc ~atterns hetween the prnposeci u3r, and the
Industrial uses In the area; that most of the traPfic generated hy the sub.ject USP woul~
bE during the day I~ours and~ to his knowledge~ tl~ey had not cre.ited a traffic problem with
thelr present facllity.
Commissioner flerbst then noted that the sub]ect area hau changPCi s~mewhat ln naturr, partly
because of the er.isting Family Ne~ith Program faeilities and also becouse of the uses
across the street from those facilities~ however. the propos~l would be to go (nto thP
middle of the industrlal area with commerGial which he dld not favor.
In response to questloning by Commissioner King, Mr. Rosecrans staterl the fac!littes woul~;
not be JusC for administrative offices~ hut would provide on-site medical and dental
services to ihe enroll~es.
Commissioner Farano concurred wlth Commissioner Herbst that the proposed commercifil use
woGld !~e right in Che midcile of an indu.trial area,
Commissloner Morley noted that, to his knowledge~ Wickes Furniture store to the north of
the subJect property was strictly a retall operatlon.
I~ response to ~uestloning by the Planning Commission~ Trafflc Engineer Paul Stng~r
advised that by a Joint use agreement of tF.A drTveway access to the property~ t he
driveways would be able to llne tip with those aeross the street at Delco Remy.
In response to questioning by Commissioner KTng, Mr. Rosecrans stipulated to comply wi tli
the rPqui rements of the Ci ty pertalntng to trash encl ~sure areas.
In response to f~.+rther questioning by Commissiarer Herhst~ Mr. Rosecrans stated that
although they would hav~ approxlmately 25~~~n ~eoplr enr>lled in tlie Famlly Health
Program~ the uti l izatton oF the faci l i ttes would be f,~r less than tnat on a dal ly bas i s;
that they c11d n~t e~rAct the trafPlc per duy to ex~:eed iQ00 cars; that tqe~n axmec~o ~•~~
have a~~proximately 75 ~mployees and the hours of cperatton would f~e frcxn .
p,m. Commissioner f~erbst inqulred if Mr. Rosecrans had ever observed the t~afftc at Delco
Remy. Mr. Rosecrans replie~f in the negative, and Commissioner Ilerbst advised that the
traffic came out of the pelco Remy facillties e~i masse Frcxn 3:3~ p.m. ~n. f,ommisstoner
Herbst further noted that the industrial ~lants (n the area had spent their money,
probatly severa~ mlllions of dollars, to develoQ their property and, ln his opinion~ the
Ci ty had a certai~ ~'esponsibi l i ty to protect the (ntegri ty ot the inclustri a 1 area.
Chairman Pro TemFore T~lar noted that whenever the Dunn Properties development was
comple"_ed at the corner ~f La Pa1.ma and Magn~l ia Avenues~ the traffl~ in the area would be
even heavier with trucks and tractors ail day long.
In response to further questioning by Commissloner King~ Mr. Rosecrans stated thelr
facllities ~•auld not be equipped to handle an emergency accident in the industria! area~
hov~ever~ they would be abie to offer temporary assistance in minor sltuations unti 1 the
victims were abie to be moved to a hospltal.
Mr. Rosecrans 1`ur•ther stated thelr program was probahy the largest of tts type in thP
County and that they had s'x other facilltles , the largest of whlch was located in
Fountaln Valley w(th 10,~~~ cnrollees to care fnr, and no co~flicting traffic pattern
~
~
MI~~U7E5~ CITY F~LANNINr, COMMtSS10~~, August 2. 197~
/G-35~~
VARIl11~CE t~Q, 2a27 (Continucd)
exlstod Ch~re; ~nd th~t If It. was ontlcipAted thAt there would be a prohlem wlth thp
trafflc, the neighbnrc. would h~ at the S~i,.)ect puhllc hearing s~ in~llcatin~.
Cc7mmisslon~r Farano noked that the criterlA for a hardship had not heen estahllshe~l, In
his uplnlon~ ~~n~i thc Planning Coin~nisslon was conccrned ahout the lntegrlty oP the
lndu~trlal area. He f~irther noted that thr. ~roposa) was essentjally a maJor roecllc.~l
center.
Chalrman Pro Tempore Tolar noted that the Famtly Nealth Program was not taking a st~~p In
tlie rlght directlon by attempting to go Into an lncorrect zone for the commPrcial offlce
use and there were many commorclal areas in t.he City which would welcome thN tyre
developmant proposed; and that~ althc~ugh he would l ike to s~e thc~ ~rope~sed cievelopmr.nt
w(thin the City. he wo~ald not llke to sea lt in th~: industrial zone.
In responae to questioning by Commissl~ner Klny, Mr. Rosc:crans st~ted they owne~d the
property at their present locatlon but hact not yet pur•ch~3sed e.he suhJect property; and
that he Fiad been unable to loc~~te sultahle property for the proposed use, CommfsslonFr
King noted that the Chamher of Commerce might be ahle to asslst the developer ln fln~iing
approprlate property ln the Cily.
~ommissioner Farano noted that generally lndustrial property was less expenstve th~n
commerclal property~ making the Indust.rlal propprty more sought after, Mr. Rosecrans
responded that the Family flealth Program was a non-~rofit organlzation and n,'~t a
speculator of property.
Commiss(oner Herbst noted that a recent study of the traffic in the area Incllcated that
Che existing industrial traffic would not mlx with the commercial traffic proposed; anci~
furtFiermore~ the industrlal traffic generatad frorri industrial development of the s~n~~:ct
property would more than llkely not be 100Q cars per day.
Ccxrnntsstoner Morley noted that, although he agreed with upholding the integrity of the
industr(a) zone, the existence oF the retall furniture store to the north was making his
decision on the matte difficult.
Ccxnmissfoner Farano noCed that he felt the app+'oval of the furniture store use ta tiie
north was more of an accommodation than anything else, w'th the property being locatE~cl
adJacent to the freeway and al• tf~e end af the lnd~~ =: ~al area. Commissioner Herl~st adde~~t
that, to his knowtedge~ s~id furniture store was proposed to be more of a wholesale
operation tt~an retai 1.
Commissioner Barnes noted that~ in her oplnia~, a hardship did not exist in connectio~
with the subJect proposal; and tliat the applicant could probably locate comm~rclal
praperty suitable for the proposal without very much d(fciculty.
Cortxnissioner Farano offered a motlon, seconded b~ Commissloner Kiny and M~TIQN CARRIF.f~
(Canxnissloner Johnson being ahsent), that the Anaheim Clty Planning Ccxnmission does herehy
recommend to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that the subJect pro)ect be exempt.
from the requirement to prepare an environmenLal i~npact report~ pursuant to the pr'ovtsions
of thc; Cal i fornia Envl ronmental Qual i ty Act.
Commissioner Faran~o uffered Resolution No. i'C7~-1~~~ and mo~~ed for its K~assage an~1
adoption~ that Yhe Anaheim Clty Planning Commtssion does heret~y deny Petition for Varlance
No. 2a27 on the basis that the petltioner dtd not demonstrate that a harclsl~ip woul~i t~e
created lf the requested waiver of the permitted uses to establish a commercial use in an
industrlal area was not granted; that the traffic from the use proposeci would conflict
with the Industrial 'trafftc in the area and~ therefore~ wi l l be incompatible wi th the
surroundtng lndustr'lal area; and~ furthermore, that the proposed use is nor, prirnarily to
serve the industrial c.ommunlty, but is for the medical and dental care of approximately
25~000 persons who will be enrolled in group plans for service at the suhJect locatton.
(See Resol ut i on Book)
On rot l cal l, the fore9nin~ resolution was passe~ by the fol lo-aing vote:
AYES: COMM15590NERS: BARNES~ FARANO, NERRST, KING~ MORI.EY, TOLAft
NOES: COMMISSlONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMNISSIONERS: JOyP~SQN
Cort~missioner King noted for the recnrd tha2 he was voting in favor of the foregoinn
resolution on the basis thaC the applicant had ~ot yet purchased the property.
• ~
MI~~UT[S~ CI ~Y PLIINNIP~G COMMlSSION~ August 2~ 197~~ 7~^357
VAitIA~~CE '~0. 2$2~l - PUBL1~ HEARIWG. TIIFQOf1RF ,hND DF.A~IN~ T~D~RnFF~ ~2S North Anahelm
` ~~'~ Boulevard~ Anahcim~ Ca~. ~?.t30~ ((lwnersl; Arlr! T. MMISON~ f~On South
Ilarbor t~oulcvard, Anahalm~ Ca. ~12~1~5 (Agentl; requesting WAIvCR
oF PFRM ITTED .~Cf,ESSORY USES ~ T~ I.EGALLY ESTII9L I SH Tt~J ~UTDnnR ,1uTnM~N I LF. I1~ I STS on
pra~erty dascrlb~d as an Irregularly-BI1A~P.c~ parcel af lnnd conslstlnc~ of approxlmntely
720Q square feet loc~ted at the southwest c~rner of LA Palmr Avenu~ an~i Anahcim eoulevar~l~
h~ving approxlmAr,c frontages of 3~~ feet on thr. south sld~ of L~+ Palmfl Avenue an~1 129 feeC
on Lhe wcst ~ide of Anahelm Houlevard~ and further cicscrlhe~i ~ss 4?.~l ~lorth llnahelm
Boulevard, Pro~erty presently classified CG (f.ffMMFRCll1l~ REIJERIIL) ZQNE.
~~o one Indicated thmir pr~sence ln opposition to subJect petltlon.
Althouyh the Staff Report to the Pl<~nn~ng Commissic~n dated August 2, 1~7f,~ N-as nut ren~l at
the publ(c hearing~ sald Staff Report (s r~ferred to a~nd made a~art of the minutes.
Ms, A~n Madison, thr, ~gent for the petittoner~ arpe~~red hafore ih~ Planning Commtssion :~n~f
stateci that due to an unfortunate mtsunderstandinq~ Mr, ~nd Mrs. Tocloroff hycf understood
the builcling inspector to say that the two outdoor h~ists a~ould not requlre a buil~iing
permit; that foll~~wing installatic~n of the e~utdoor ho(sts~ they were now i~i v(olation nf
Variance No. 2(.8$ an<1 needed an additfonal varlance on thP property~ Varlance Plo. 2~~3~i
having been previously approved for the transmisslon and Automotive repair facility at th~
subJect site; that~ tn order to be competitive~ it was necessary to have the out~la~r
hoists for larger recreattonal vehicles and trucks; that two other sltes in tlie are~~
enJoyecl the use of out~loor hoists; that the suhJect hoists were alreaciy lnstalled; tl~at
they had found that the proposed outdoor use would he ccnnp~tihle with other outdoor uses
in the 2rea~ especlaliy s(nce Anaheim Boulevard was well known a~ the automohlle center ~f
Anaheim; that no appreciable amount of outdoor nolse would be ~enerated from the use af
the subJect hoisCs; that the size of the subJect property would easily acc~~mmodite the
proposed use~ as well as the prirnary use; and that the proposed use would be compatible
with the overall general plan for the area.
TIiE PUDLIC tIEARING WAS CL~SE~.
Chalrman Pro Tempore Tolar noted that he had no qualms ahout the outdoor use; however~ the
property was approved as a transmisslon and automotive repalr facility and now automohite
mufflers and shocks were to be added to the use. Mr. Todoroff, the Qetitioner, appearecf
beTOre the Planning Gommission and explalned that the propose~ new use was a much cleaner
operation~ and ~1s. Fladison sLated th~t "automotive" covered a ~~Ide iange of uses.
Ccxnmissioner Farano noted that the use in the area was probably approprtate~ however~ the
~ubJect slte was already pretty well taken up; and that at th~ public hearing appr~~ving
Variance Na. 26l3£3 there was some discussion about tl~e proposed use at that time being an
ir~terim use of the property; and that V~riance No. 2C~88 would be u~ for review and
consiJeration for extenaton of time witf~in less than a year.
Ms. Madison stated t~at Varlante Mo. 2~>8$ was granted Por two ye~ars sutJec:t to re~iiew an~i
they had hoped that by the end of that tlme the mat~er of th~ st:eet wfdening woulrl have
been resolved; that the hoists were located to the rear uf the prope rty and would not
interfere with *he widentng of La Palma A~~enue. She reiterated that the petitioners had
received srroneaus information from the City prior to installing the hoists.
Commissloner Farano noted that~ in reviewing the minutes In cQnnettlon with Variance No.
26a8~ he had not favored using an old service stetlon site wttli no mnre than repainting~
when other requirements had been placed on otlier service st~tlon sites in the City whPn
new uses were proposed; that some questions had been ralsed regarding the widening of La
Palma Avenue and the unduc hardship of the owner in spending a lot of money improving the
property prtor Co that tlme; and that no mention was made tn the minutes pertaining to
muffler lnstalletlon; that the petitioner knew that the intent of the Plannin.~ Commis3lon
was not to allow five lift~; and that it was not right for the petitloner to pr•oceed to
have the lifts installed.
CJ
~
Mlri~il'~S~ CITY PLAN~~IW~~ C(1MMiS510N~ August 7.~ 197(i 7f~-3S~
VARIIINCG NQ. 282$ (Continued)
Canmissloner Morley Inqulred if V~rtance No. 2f>RA woulci be torminated if the suh;ect
variance were grantocl~ and Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry Advlsed that both uarl~nc~s
coulcl t-e on che pr~perty simultanec~usly undcr the clrcumst~ncr.s.
Ch~lrman Pro Tempore T~lar n~teci that generally tl~e lifts we~e lnslde the huilcling; that~
in the past~ the Planning Cammisslon had requl~ecf the cl~surc ~f drlvew~ys, tnst~llatlon
of landscapiny~ elc:.~ In connectlon wlth new uses for service statlon sites and a11 of CI1P.
repair facllities were gener~lly rr.qulred to he lnslde th., huilcl(ng; thnt~ In hi9 ~pinion,
the petltioner had vl~lated thr, trust of the P1 ~nninc~ CaTKnlssion, and r~ther than ~~
transmisslon shop~ ~~ muffler shop was in oper2tlon r~t ~.I~e suh.Ject l~catlon whi~h~ was a
typical corner servlco statlon slte; that ik was di5t~steful t~ h~ve to cnnsid~~r other
uses on the subJect sitc at thls time since the transmissl~n and aut~xnotive repnir use w~~s
approved a llttle over a ye~r ago and~ therefor~, he a+oulci not he t~o favorable tow~rd ~~n
extensiun of time for V~riancc No. 2(~$£i.
Ms. 1ladlson reassured the Planning Commtssl~n that the petltioner did n~t intend to
vlolate Variance No. 26~13. She explained that an honest rnist~7ke h~d i,een macie an~l that,
in talking w1Ch the f3uildin9 U1visl~n rerr~~sentative, It was very c1Par that the
representative thought the llfts woulcl he placed inslde Che bullding t~ Che rear, when the
intent was to install sald lifts outside the buildlr.9; ~~nd thaT. there was no tntent to
mislead the Planning Commisslon or do anything behlnd the Planning Commission's bacl:.
Cc~mmissioner King noted that thc outdoor hoists were well hildden and would not harm any of
the neighbors.
In response to questloning~ 14s. Pladlson stated the petitioner I~ad one employee at tl~e site
~nd the lifts could accommodate the recreational vehicles and truck.s~ etc.
Chair~nan Pra Tempore Talar inquired how many employees might be expected in connecti~n
wlth the new use on the property and how many parking spaces woulcl be required~ etc.
Commtssioner Morley noted that he lived -n the area of the suhJact property and drove past
it four or five times a week~ and that he had not observeci any parking prohlem to the
present time.
In response to further questloning~ Mr•. Todoroff stated the parking problems had heen
resolveci by the ~ew development on the nearby mattress factory property, and that he
anticipated no more tl~an one employee if the business incraased.
Cnmmissioner Herbst noted that the petitioner had indicated at the Plannln~ Commission
mecting of June 1.1~ 197~- some plan to s;ctend the building over the lifts in ~he future.
Mr. Todoroff stated Chat v-hen the mattar came up for review~ the lifts cou?d be enclosed
at that time. Commi~sioner lierbst noted that after the ad]acent streets were wtdened~ the
building could possibly b~ extended over the lifts i~ considered appropri~;:e by the
Planning Comrrission at that tlme.
Mr. Todoroff stated that lie was in favar of doing everythtng possible ~o im~rove thr a~ea;
that~ ln response to Commissian cemment tha~ the subJect bullding ha~l only been reFainted.
he had spent S1f3Q0 [o beauttfy the subJect building; and that he had tried to follow the
correct procedure in connection wlth the installation of the hoists but there was an
obvious misunderstanding about it.
~.nd MOT I OFi CARR I F.D
Commissioner Morlpy offered a motlon; ~PCOnded by Commissioner King '+
(Commissioner Johnson being absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Ccxn~rlssion does herehy
1~77 said
grant Petition for Varlance No. 282A~ for a time period to expire April 22, ~
expiratlon date correspond(ng witli the time limitation granted for Varlance ~lo. 2~~~ which
permitted the exlsting tr~nsmission and automoh(le repalr work facillYY at the subJect
service station site; ancl that the time limitation estahlishecl f~r tl~ls variance shall he
subJect to revlew and consicieration for extension of time has~cl upon the status at that
time of the a~idening of L~ Palma Avenue and Anaheim 8otilevard, in which event the suhiPCt
property may be requlred to bp devel~ped in conformance witf~ the site development
standards of the ;.~ Zone and the size and shape of the property may the~ ~ot be suitahle
for the proposed usc. (See Resolutl~n Book)
In response to comment hy Commissioner Ilerbst, Mr. Lowry clarifieci tha*_ the expansion ~f
the buildino to cover Che outcleor lifts would I~e an a~pro~rlate m~tter to ~1lscus~ an~l
consider at the end of the r~~vte~~ perlod (April 2~~ 1977).
•
~
MINU7ES~ CITY PLAt~NING C.OMf41SS10Pl~ August 2~ 197~~ ~~'~~5~
VAft1ANCE Nn. 282a (Contlnued)
On rol~ call~ tlie forego(ng resolutlon was passe~d hy the folto~~~ing v~tc:
AYES: CONt11SSIQNERS; BIIRNES, IIERDST, KINr,~ NQRLEY~ Tr1LAR
NOCS: f,OF1~41SS1(1NF.RS: FARAtJ(1
ABS[~JT: CQI1~11 SS I QtIERS; JOHNSn~J
VAR I A~iCE N0. ~~30 - PU(3L I C IIEAR I NG. AARO~i ~ FA~INY ~ RODf•_R7 A~JD RQ~l1L I f F~GEI.-1AN ~~~5 ~ ~~~r Ch
~ 11a(n Street~ Orangc, Cb. '11.(~G7 (Qwn~~rs); CQNTItJ~IlT11L LIMITf~ PART~lf.R-
t~{~p~ ~f}~~9 W1lshire Boulcvarcl~ :.os Anyeles~ Ca. ~~1~24 (Agent);
requesting W~IVF.R OF (A) PERFIITT[D BILLBOARD I.~CATi~N AND ([~) PROHIBITI(1~J b~ RILl.H0ARD5
NCAIt SCE"!IC IIIGHW~YS, TO I.E~ALLY ES7AALISN !11! EXIS7ING HILLP,OAR~ on ~roperty descrlhed as
a rectangularly-shapr.d parcel of land conslsting of ap~>~oximately 2.~ icres havtn~ approxi-
mate frontages ~f 317 feet on th~e west side of Narboc- f3aulevarrl ancl 37~ feet on the east
side of ~lallul Drive~ Iiaving a maximum depth of approximately 27~ feet~ and be.lny locaterl
a~proximately 13n feet north of the centerllne of Wilken Way. Property presently classl-
f 1 ed Cil (COh1~1ERC Il1L ~ H~AJY) ZONE.
Two pe~sons incllcatecl their pr~sence tn opp~sltion to suhJect petltion, ancl f~rthwith
waived the full reading of the Staff Report to the Planning Commisslon dated August 7.~
a976~ on the ba51s that they had reviewed coples of same.
Although tlie Staff Report to the Planning Commission ~~as not reacl at th~^ public hearin~l~
said report is referred to and made a part ~f the minutes.
Mr. Steve Evans~ Managing Reneral Partner of Conttnent~l Llmitecl Partnership, the ae~ent
for the petitioner~ appeared before the Planning Commisslon and sCated that~ althou~7h the
Staff Report correctly described the subJect sign~ he disagreed with the Code definitlon
of billboards as it pertalned to the subJect sign~ un th~ basis that 1) the sub)ect
directior~a) sign dici not have chan9ing advertising copy, 2) tr~at the pro~~erty heneflting
from the sign was locatccf adJacent to It, and 3) tf~e sign would be removed a~ sc,on as Che
property on which it was located was sold/developad or the owner of the pr~perty cancel7ed
the lease allowing the sign; that thelr ccxnpetitlon In the area was the Qakwoori ~arden
Apartments which had a lar~e directlonal sic~n to keep the apartments at a reasonable
vacancy factor; and th~t their own vacancy factor was higher due to the lack of exposure.
Mr. Carlo fioni, 2191 South Harhor poulevard~ appeared before the Planning i:ommCs~ton in
opposition and SL3LP.(~ he ownecl the restaurant which was lucated approxfmately 25 feet
south of the sub)ect billboard; that the blilboard v+as erected ahout four or five days
after he purchased th~ restaurant; and that for traffic traveling In a south~rly
direction~ the bilZboard obstructed 60~ to 7~~ of the northerly side of his buildtn~ which
he felt was detrimental to the restaurant operation.
Commissioner 6arnes inquired if the billboard obstructed the viea~ o~ the restaurant's
sign~ and Mr. Boni stited that it probably dld further clown the strFet ~nd if the
billboard was appr~oved, it would open the field for billhoards to he ere!:ted up and ~iown
Narbor Boulevard in the area.
Mrs. Mary DinndorF~ 131 La Paz StrCet~ Pres4dent or" the Santa Ana Canyon Improvement
Assoctation, appe~~red before the Planning Ccxnmiss~lon in opposition and state~l that one
sign woulci breed a bigger sign~ which would hreeci a bigger and hiyher stgn~ etc.; and that
the City's Sign Qrdinance should be enforcect since precedent setting was very pr~valent
and what was right for one was usually considered to be right for evcryane.
In rebuttal. t1r. Evans retterated that the subJect slgn would he t~mpnrary an~i n~t
permanenx~ and he did not want to clutier Anahe(m with signs; that his apartments had an
excessiva amount of vacancies; and that the restaurant adJacent t~ the sign t~as not
ham~ered in any way by the sign slnce sald resLaurant was on a corner and wAs ~ery ohvioiis
in all directions.
TlIE PU4L1~ IIEARING WAS CIOSED.
Ir response to questio~ing by Cortxnissloner Darnes~ Mr. Evans stated there were ?.57. apart-
ments in his complex and there were 15 ~r 1F vacancies; and that the subJect slgn h~d been
in existence for three or four months adv~ertistng the apartme~t~. Ccxnmisslancr Barnrs
noted that if the vocancy factor described was correct, then the apartments were doln~
wetl~ in her opi~~lon. Mr. Evans further stated that the Oakwood ~arden Apa~tments had +~
~
~
~
Mi~~UTCS, CITY PLl1NNINC, COMMIS~ION~ August 2, 157h
VARIAPlCE N0. 2£33~ ~~rnit f nuad)
~
~
7G-?h0
~aacanr,y factor of about 2~', and his vacrncy factor was abnut ~1;. Commissloncr BAr~es r.hen
noted that many ar'~•irtmr,nt proJects were averaqin~ a 1G~`, or more vacancy factor.
Chalrnan Pro Tompore Tnlar noted that he did not find thnt the vacancy fA,~t~r w~s a
probiem with slgning hut usually wtth management~ etc.; that he a,o~alcl finci it alarminy t~
have to resolve the vacancy factor with sfgning; that perhaps with rnore t~ offcr~ thr,
~iacancy f~ctor wr,uld t~e reducCd; that he would oppose thr. proposal on tl~e hasi ~; that he
a9reed wlth the opposiLlon that Slgns would be ~laced up and down Harbor tioulevt~rd if the
subJect proposa) were c~rantecl; that It was unfort~anate that the Slyn Qrdlnanee was s~ I~n~
1n ccxnirg to the Clty; and that, in his opinlon~ a hardshlp did not exlst ii connection
with the proposal.
Carnnissioner King Inquired lf the Planning Commission would entertain granting a 3~ or F~~-
day period for the slgn to help the apartment prolect. Chairman Pro Tempare T~lar
indicated in the negatlve. Commissioner tlc~rley noted thrt he dld not feel che petltion~:r
a~as entitled to any tlme f~r the siyn since ik was erected lllegally and~ furthermore. th~
adJacent restauranr. was bein~ hurt by sald sign.
C~mmissianer Nerbst Inquired (f oC;~er modes were being used Yo advr.rtise the apartments.
Mr. Evans stateci that they a~lvertised in the Apartment li<~use Dlrectory an.i in newspapers,
rr.c.; and that they were striving for a zera v~cancy factor tn ~~rrl~r to keep the rents
dnwn. Commissioner Nerbst noted that other mo~les of advertising shoiald nerhaps be used to
reach the apartment seekers sinc~ thr.rr. was a sho-'tage of anartments in Anahelm.
It was noted tliat Che Director oF the Planning Department had determined tliat the proposP~i
activity fell within the definition of Section 3.~1~ Class 3, ~f the City of Anahelm
Guldelines to the Requirements far an Environmental I~»pact Re~ort and was~ therefore,
categorir_ally exempt From tlie requirement to file an FIR.
Commissioner Barnes offered Resolutlon No. PC7f~-~150 and moved for its passage and
adoption~ that the Anahefm Ciiy Planning Commission d~es herehy deny Petition for Variance
No, 283~ on the basis that apnroval of Che proposal would set an undestr•ah~e precedent for
future similar requests for hiliboar~s on 1larbor f3ouievard; that the petitioner dtd not
demonstrate that a hardship would 5e createa If sai~ watvers were not grant~d; anc1,
furthermore, that satd billhoard is detrimental to the adJacent property and the owner of
said property obJected to the proposal. (See Resolution Book)
In response to questionin~ by Chairman pro Tempore Tol~r~ Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry
reviewed the 22-day appeal perlod proceciure nc~ting that the Planning Commission ~iccision
on the subject petition cauld he a~pealed ~uri~~g that time and that saicl declsion hecame
final if not appeal~d within thc~ 2?.-day perlou. Mr. Evans then stated that they dld not
inkend to appeal the Planning Commiss(on's d~cislc,:~ in any c~se.
On roll call~ th~ foregoing resolutlon was passed by the following vote:
AYES; COMMISSIb~~FR5: BARNES~ FARANO, HERBST~ KING~ MORLFY~ TOLP,R
NOES: COPIMISSIONFRS: NONE
ABSEt~7: COMMISSIOMERS: JOHN50N
RECESS - nt 3:~0 ~.m.~ Chairi~ian Pro T~mpore Tolar declareci a recess.
RECONVEi~E - At 3:10 p.m., Chairman Pro ~'empore 7olar reconvened the meetinS
w[th Commissioner Johnson being absent.
~ ~
MINUTL'S~ CITY PLANt~I~IG CQPIHISSIQN, l~ugust 2~ 1976 ~~~~3~~
EtIV I rt~tlMf NTl1~ I'1P11C7 PUfiL 1 C IIC.11R ( tJ~ , To cons i r1e r~i<1~1 I nc~ a t r,~ ( 1 s F 1 em~~nt ,~qur.5 t r f,in
REf~RT IIQ. 11~~ _ ~n~i Hikinc~ Tr~~ils f.omponenk, to tl,e Anaheim ~~eneral Plan.
A~lP~NE IN ~EN[RAL r~nri -
TRl11l.S f.L~MCNT _
Approxlmately 2ti persons inalcated tl~elr presence ln favor oP t:he sul~ject Tr.alls f.lemr.,it.
No one indicated their pr~sence in opposition. It was noted fihat Ir.tters 1`avortn~t th~~
~,ropos~l were rr.cetvrd from Mr. Sam f;aylord~ President of the Santa ~1na Canyon PropertY
Owners Assoclntlan, Mr. Stewart f~. M~ss~ ancl Mr. E. J. derger~ 'aordinator of the ~anti
Ana i~lver/Santiac~o Creek Greenl~elt f,ommission.
Assoclate Planner HI11 Cunningham ~resented the Sta~f Report to the Plannln~ Commissinn
d~ted August 2~ 1~7(~, ~~~~ said staff report Is referred to as IP s~t forth in full in chF
minutes,
Mr. Cunningham noted that~ in accordance with direction of the Canyon Area General
Planning Task Forcc~ the Trails Committee developed a plan identifyin~~ trail rnutes and
said plan was endorsed by the Task Force; tl~at on f1~~rch 23~ 1~7(~. tfie plan w~~s appr~vecl in
principle by the City Counctl; that the plan was draftecl by tl~e Parks and Recrc~tinn
Canmissior, and the Trails Commlttee whtch was establlsheri by tlie Canyon Area ~ener~l
Planning 7ask Force; that the ~-'o~05^.d 7ratls Element cons(sted oP equ~strlan and hikinn
tra~ls made u~ of three classes, belny (1) Reglonal Trails of County-wide and regfo(zj
interest funded for acquisiti~n, rievelopment and malnCenance by the County of Oran~~e~
Backbone Tratls - maJor local trails provided for users tliroughoui the community with
fundin9 bein9 the responsibility of the Clty and (3) Feeder Tralls - localixed trails
prov(ding access within given ne~ghborhouds to hackbune tralls wi~h `unding being the
responsibllity of the City; that there ~~rould be ~pproxir~ately 3~+ mtles of regiona~ tralls,
18 mlles of backbone trails~ anci 1Q miles of feedsr trails; that the feeder tr~ils werr
found mainly in equestrian or(ented neighborhoods; and that a letter had beP- recelved
from the Greenbelt Commisslon endursing the plan ard expressin.3 its compatihil y~aith the
Gr~enbelt Plan for Orange County.
Mr Principal
Dick Kerwin of Canyon High School, appeared before the P1; •~ ~:omn,~ssion
.
and ,
stated that the school favorc~t the propesal for several reasons~ bel *f,~Y f~a~
two cross-country teams an d the trails would assist in keeping the youn 1~F~nr,=~-s out
of the streets during their workouts~ (2) the school was instttuting a h= ,~,~.•v
the
(3) the trails area would be tdeal 'For the htology students t~, ~
` e
"
side
nat ural habitat~ etc.; and that~ in his opinion, it was wonderful tn a
•
tFie trails for development at this time.
Ch~irman Pro 'fempore Tolar noted that it v~as his understandin~~
'~ ~••~~ould be a
t
problQm mixing horse tralls with bicycle erails~ etc. Mr. Cunnin~i,~~~
•~ -.le;
and th~t
tentative plan was not to mix the horses wlth cycte
hich was speciftcally s or any mot
for bicyle~. '~~~7 ,
~~ oner Farano
the City had an oCher program w
noted that the sub)ect tralls were mainly for horses~ hikers, anc~ )o-_~~~c ~
Mr. Don Fe.ars, representing the Cltizens Greenbelt Commlttee 1n .Ana~~r• ~~ ~f~peared hefore
the Plann(ng Cmunission in favor of the proposal and Stated the r~rnmit ~`•ad heen wo+ke1g
on the subJect plan for aprroximately five y~ars; that rh~>y ~~r -,'ty felt in
investigatlon that most of the people wQre ln favor of the plan, hcrn,~.-ve the oidr an~1
inactlve generation appeared to be not in favor; an~: that the "~ ;-s Committ- . voted
unanimously in favnr of the proposal,
Mrs. Dion~ Hesketh~ 23~ ~. Timken Road, appea~-e~l hef->rr~ the Plarni~~ ~ommisslon in favor
of thls ~roposal and stated that she was a Trall~ Committee member of the homeowner's
assoclation and was available to answer questions the "la~ninq C^-m~ission might have of
the C~xruni ttee. Sh^_ further sta*.ed tl~at ther~ we-e aprror. matelv ~'~~) horses in the Canyon
area, Chat (t was becoming very~ dangernus t~, ride t,~;rsc~s lii the area because of the
hzavier traffic along Santa Ana Canyon Roa~'; that thP »roposed trails had been well
thought out an~i would be an easements or arivate ~~oP~r'ty; dnd that the Grails would not
only be of benefit to the equestrians huz 'or b~y scn~~s and c~irl scouts~ etc.
Mrs. Mltzi Ozakl, 31~~ T(mken Rnad, appeared heTere thES Planning Cortimission in favor of ihe
proposal and indicated that althaugh there may not be funding to develop the tralls
presently~ the land should be set asids while it was stll) available.
~ ~
MI~~UTCS~ CIT7 PLANtJING COMMISSION, Augusf. 2, 1~?~> ~~'"~~'~
ENVIRONMGN7AL IMPl1CT REPORT Nn. 18Q A~~n A~IAIIF.I'1 ~ENEaAL PLAN TRAILS CLFME~~T (Continued)
11rs. Car~l Kramer~ (~I(1 Peralta Hills Qr)ve, appcArcd hefc~r~ thc Pl~nnin,ry Commtss~~on ~n
favor oF [I~e pr~pos~l and took cucr.pttnn to tF~e st~~ff rr.port. notln~ ChAt rathc~r th~n
l0~QQ0 horses In Orange County~ she hPd ~iara indicating Chat there wPre anywher~ frnm
:.';,Q00 tci ZS~O~~ hnrses; th.~t the data Indfc~ited t`)~~n~ horses w~srP vacclnatr_d recently
wlth an esttmatr.d number bPtng misse.l; that shr, anci Ilelen Curtis werc m~mhers of the
Equ~strian Tralls Committee ~~ncl had s~ok~:n to many resople in Che ~are~~ who wcr~ all
enthusiastlc ibout tiie Master Plan for Rl~fing an~l Hik;ng Tr,~lls; that the r,ralls were
needed for safety and for propr.rty val~,ation, etc.; tl~at mor~ cunstructi~n wns takin~
place tn che ar~a ancl traffic was getting hcavier; th~~t ~~ ~ti-II pragram ha~1 heen estahlishe~i
in tlic area; anrl that many F~milies were seen ustn~ tlic exlsting t~a(ls on weeken~is.
THE Pl1RL I C HCAR I~J~ WAS CLOSEf),
Ccxmnissioner Farano noted that ~ie was in favor of the Trai ls Pl~~n~ hrn•~ever~ he ho~ed the
City would not hc~ in a position ~~f having t~ spc~d ~ vast amount of money to malntatn tl~c
trails. Comm(ssloner FaranQ questioned the proJect.ed usage ~F the trails~ and ~1r.
Cunningham referred to <iata on 5outhern Callfornia which inciic~ted that other than f~r
sw(mrr~ing and other wa~er-ortented recreatlon, cquestrian and hlkinc~ rated extremely high
am~ng uscrs.
Mr. Horst Schor, represer~tln~ Anahelm Ilills, appeared heforr. the Planning Commissi~m an~1
stated that for ~ver•y hor~,e (n the Clty~ an average of three people wero using It; that
there had been scxne question as to whether the Ctty ~•+ould get into the trail or horse
buslness ancl~ stnce the C(ty was involved to the extPnt that the sidewalks an~i streets
were ~resently bein~ usecf for the equestrians and hikers~ it woul~n('heth~~tei~tothPve ;~n
Trails Plan in operatior. to get the horse., ~ff the street~ etc.; R
ben~fitted the chilc'ren of thP cammunity, that should he the basls for ap~roving it.
Discusslon pursued regardir.g the ratio of park iand per thousand rop~al~tion In the hill
and canyon area, durtng which Mr. Cunningham advtsed that said area averaged t~~o acres of
rark iand per thousand populatlon which was about thc Ctty standard excluding regianal
parks and inciuding local parks, and that the rest of M~aheim had approximatel~ 1.5 acres
per th~usand populatian. Commissloner Barnes questloned the ratio for improved or usah,le
parks~ noting that the people in the are~ might prefer to have the trails ir~proved rather
than to have the parks which had been allocated,
Commis:ioner }~erbst noted that Yorba Reglonal Park was under constructio~; and ~chat
Featherly Park was compieted and doing a land office business and H~ould probahly like to
be cannected witfi the proposed trails system. ~Ir. Cunningham indicated that the
possibSlity of connecting the trails witli Feath~r'y Park was betny tnvestigatPd. Mrs.
Hesketh s~ggested that provisions be made for overnight equestrian use Co tie in with the
regional parks system.
Commissioner I~erbst noCed that while. the trails ar~~i overnight faclliYies would be
provided~ it was important to understand that a taxing systen~ wouid be necessary; and it
was important to the youth of the cammunity that the trails be estabtished presently since
it a~ould be the activity of the future, even though it would cost the City money, and (f
the land was not set aside now~ it would be difficult~ if not impossihle~ to ohtain it ~t
a later date; that it was great to see the E3oy Scc,uts, etc.~ mak?rsg use of Feathrrty Park;
and that it was important that all of the recreatlonal facilitir:s be tied together.
Chairman Pro Tempore Tolar noted that pursuant to somf: discussion by the Parks anri
Recreation Commisslon~ he felt the concept of the proposed 7ral~s Plan was gooci hut shoulci
be a concept only at thts time; that the 197F-77 budget was rouqhly S35~,oon shor: af
satisfying the priortties for the current fiscal year; that regarding acquisltion costs,
the City had the opportunity of getttng most of the land for the c:questrian tralls fr~m
the developers; that regarding maintenance, it had heen sugge~ted that the cosC would be
$15Q0 to $2000 pcr mtle or approxlmately $4!3~OQQ per' year to maintain the trails; th~it
there were argurr,ents that the cost for maintaining the trails was incorrect; that tl~e
Parks and Recreation Commission did not feel that the costs emhraced a concept and he
agreed that the monetary aspects should be removed ~rO1"~ouncpl~could resolve tneefinanci~l
that the membec•s of the cammunity wiih the City
aspects of tl~e system.
Deputy Clty Attorney Frank Lowry advised that the financing ~nd cost facCors were not a
valid part of a Gencral Plan Element and that said information could he removed from the
element and handled separately ln t~rl~atever manner the Planning Commission desired.
~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLAN~dINf, CONMISSION~ August 2~ 1976 ~bw~E'~
EN'J I RONMEP~TA1. I MPAC7 REPOR7 N0. 180 ANb AN~1HE I M GEN~RAL PLAN TRAI I.S_ELEI4~NT (Cont 1 nued)
Mr. Cunn'~gham advised that the fl~ian~:ing lnfurmatlon wrs provldnd far Informatian only.
Comml!~sloner Herbst offerad a motlon~ seconded by Cortimisslone~• King and me~tlan carrlPd
(Commissloner Johnson being abscnt), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does herehy
rec~rtnnend to the City Council of the Clty ot Anahelm thpt the subJect Pursuant~cto ~the
from tho requtraments to prepare an ~nvironmen;ct• Im act Report~ p
provislons c~f the Callfornla Env~ronmental Quallty
Conxnissianer Herbst offerca RR9A~~~C~Cf1 Na. PC76-151 an~ movcd for its p~ssage a~d
adoptlon~ tl7~'~t the Anahelm City Planntng Commission does fiereby adopt ~nd retommend to ~he
City CounCll of the City ot ~~ahetm adoption ~f a Tralls Element ro the Anaheim ~eneral
Plan as dcscribed ~n Exhibit A. excepting that pages 19 tlirough 2~- oP said Exhl~,lt shall
not be adopted stnce sald pages conslder tmplementatl~n an<1 financing kc:chniques. (See
Resolution Book)
On roll call the foreg~ing resolutlon was passed with the foil~+ing vote:
AYF.S: COMMISSIONERS: BARt~ES~ FARANO, HERBST~ KING, MQRLEY~ TQ~AR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABS[NT: COMMISSIONERS; JOHNSQN
Chalrman Pro Temp~re Tolar suggested tliat thz C~nyon l+rea General Planning Task Force be
.asslgned to study aryd formulate sume solutlon to the costs Involved in acqutring and
maintain a trails Cortmissi n behincluded,aasWwell basnroheeSTr~g~san~o~ittceber'nf the
Parks and Recreatlon
dtscussions and reccxnmendatlons.
CcKnmissioner Farano natad that the: tralls should be for t?~c use of the City at large since
there were a~eas be99~n9 for parks, etc.
Conrnissioner Barnes ncsLed that she agreed that the Task Force could help the Citiy Council
sal~~e the financial aspects of the Element; that private sources of financing should bP
explorad and a st~~~~Y made regarcling the overhead costs of trails ~ersus costs to support
sprinklers~ turf~ etc., in regular park situations; that consideration should be gtven to
cwner•subetopposedato af tolletax;Wan~InthaththeWTaskf Forcenshc~uldhalso study havingtae t~ai i
system versus not having a tralls system.
Commissioner Flerbst agreed with Conxnissi~ner Farano that the tralls system sh~uld be
available t~ the total puhlic.
Ccrt~nisstoner Qarnes furtl~er noted that the only r~al problem she could envislon with the
system ~~ould be that, in comparison ~~ith the total population of the City, only a few
people c»vned horses. Cominissioner Parano added that care should be taken that tl~e Element
did not yet aut of cantext.
Commissic~ner Il~rbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tolar and motlon carriad
(Com~nissi~ner ,~ohnson being abs~nt), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend ~o the City Council of t'~e Ctty of Anaheim that a committee made up af the
Canyon Area General Planning Task Force~ the Trails Committee, and a member of the Parks
aechnieuesn1i'~~r.unnectioniwith~therTrailseElement5of~thetAnaheim,General1Qlanenandito~nnake
t q
racormrrndations thereon.
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1
RECOMMENDATICNS GENE~A~ Pi.AN AMENQMENT PROCEDURE - PQLICY
The staff repart to the Planning Commission dated A!igust 2~ 1976, was presented and made a
par2 of the minutes.
Deputy C1ty Attorney Frank P~~endadvpolicytand said policyinshauldrtread ~aseC`ollows
consented to a change tn the r.
(the underlined portion being the change):
"7hat when a planning pctitlon ts pending which falis within the area of a ~enerHl
Plan Amendment, actlon by the Plannir+g Cortxntsslo~ on satd z~ning action shall not be
e •
MINIITES~ CITY PLAN~JING CQMMISSI(1N~ August 2~ 197~~ ~6-36~~
ITEM N0. 1 (Contlnuad)
._.___~--.~
considered for_ faur weeks unleas ~ lor~ er time is consente~ to_~ the a 11cAnt~ or
untll flnal actlon o^n- t~e Genera an /',mendment is tak~^n hy the City Counc 1." ~
Following discussian uf thc staff report, Gommisslc~r~:r Farano noted thet it eppeared thc
suggested pr~cedure mlght cause a substantlal tlme delay for the devolo~ers and that the
matter shauld be c~nt(nued In order f~r the Carnmissioners to s2udy lt prlor te m~king ~'~
rer,ommendation t~ the Clty Ca~ncli. Commissloner Herbs~t c~ncurred,
Discusslon was helcl concerning the i~ngth oF tlme involved ln process~n~vc~ camendments,
Amendmen4: anrl a scheduling of developmesnt pro~osnls to cotncide with app
and it was the ger~eral consensus of the Planning Commisslan that the matter be continJ~~
for two weeks~ to allow tlme for the Planning Commission to study l•he mAtter.
Commis~loner ~arano offered a motlon~ seconded by Commissior~er King and M~TIbP! CARRIE~
{Commissioner Johnson being absent)~ that the sub,ject it.em he continued to the Plar-ntng
Commi~slon meetiny of August '16~ ~97~•
IT[M N0. 2
~ONDITIONAL USE PERMI7 N0. 1537 - Request for permissi~n to
~ncrease the number of residents at a hoard and care facility-
Property consisting of approximately 2 acre located on the
east side of Vtne Streeti, approximately 35~ ~~et north of
Cypress Street, and furCher descr~bed as 3~$ North Vine Street.
The staff report to the Planning Commisslon dated August 2~ 1~7~, was presented and made a
part of the minutes.
It was noted tliat Conditlonal Use Permit No. 1;32 was granted by the Planning Commisston
on April 2$~ 1975~ ta establlsh a board and care facility for senior citizens; that the
applicant had oriqinally reguested approval for ten residents~ however~ the State w;+ul~1
only license the factlity for a m~xlmum of slx residents unless a fire sprtnkler systpm
was installed and, therefore~ the Pl~nning Commission granted the use for a maximum of six
residents with one housekeeping couple and provlding for an increase in the number of
residents to ten upon wrlttursuingUth~e installation'o`~fire asprinklers~ inplorder hto
indicated they were presently p
obtain a State license for ten residents.
Canmissioner Ktng offered a motion~ sec~nded by Ccmmissloner Morley a~d MOTIOFJ CARRIF.~
(Commissioner Johnson being absent)~ that tne Anaheim Clty Planning Commission does herehy
approve the request to increasc :~~e number nf residents to t~n (with one housekeEping
couple) tn connection wtth Conditi~nal t)se Permit No. 1532, as r~quested by the
petittoner; provided~ however~ that rhe subJect property shall be occupted solely by the
board and care facitity with no rental of untts is multiple-Pamily resid~nces and the
butlding shall comply with the ftre code as may be required for the lncreased occupant
foad.
fTEM N0. 3
RE UE R EIR HEGATIVE DECLAFATIOP! - For acquisitlon and
development of property at 400 E. Vermont Avenue for use
as a Clty Central Mechanical Maintenance Yard.
It was noted that the Clty was considering acquisitton of the appr~ximately 9-acre parc,el
at the subJect location for development a~ a new central mechanlcal maintenance yard as
recommended by the managemeni; consulting firm; that the site wrs gensrally bounded by
ind~strlal uses~ hawever~ single-family residences were located to the west separated frcxn
the subJect prnperty by railroad tracks; thax a preliminar~ nolse study by the Engtneering
Division indicated thaC the potential noise levels at the residential property line wc+uld
be Just at the maximum allowable or fi5 dbA assuming special shielding of all proposed
operations o~;er 82 dbA and conslde~ing the existing fi-Foot high block wall along the
residential propertles; and that~ in vlew of the posslble very marginai potpr:tial to
comply with the noise ordlnance, conslderatlon should be given to a more comprehensive
naise study pri~r to acquisltlon and development, with mttig~tlnn measures to possibly
~
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING C~MMIS510N, August 2~ 19)(~
76-3G5
ITEM t~0. 3 (Continu~o)
(nclude ralsing the he:i,y+~C ot ti~~~ s,c~~ling F-foot hi~h blocl: wall along Che resldential
property.
Cc.~ xnissiuner Furan~~ offered a motlon~ seconcled by Commissioncr Kfng arid MOTiON CARRI~tI
(Commfsslon~er Johnson batng absent)~ that the Anahelm Clty Planning Canmisslon does herehy
recommend to the City Councii of the City uP Anahelm that the subJect proJect br, exempt
From the requlrement t~ prcpare an EnvironmenCa) Impr.ct Report~ pur•suant to the provlslons
of the (:alifornia ~nvlronmental Quallty A~t; nnd does further flnd tliat additlonal nolse
studies should be conducted prlor to Acqulsitlon ancl development.
ITEM N0. 4
RFQI S UR GIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION - f'or a pArce! map at
1441 and 1-~~i'~ S. Manchester Avenue (P~rcel Map Mo. 57~~)
It was not~d that an application had been ftled for a parcel map divt~ling an appraxlmaCely
~.5 acr~ parcel oF land at the subJect locatlon into three parcels (.8 acre~ 2 acr~s and
2.5 acres} for additional c~xnmerclal development; that an evaluatlon of the environmental
Impact of parcel maps was requlred under the provisions of the Callfornia Envlranment~l
Quality Act and tF~e State EIR Guidelines; and that a study oF the proposed p~rcel ~~ap by
the Flanning Department and the Engineering Dlvislon indicated that therc would be no
s• ;!~~•'icant envlronment~l impac.~t.
(,ommissiuner ~arano offcre~l a motian~ seconded by Commissicner King and MQTIOP! CARRIED
(Commissicsner Johnson betnA absent) that the Anahelm Cil•y Planning C~m,nisslon does hereby
recornmend to the Clty Cuuncil of the Ci:y of Anahelm that the suhJect pro)e:ct be axempt
from the reoulrements to prepare an Enviranmental Impact Report~ pursuant to the
pr•~~visions of the Callfornia Environmentai Quality Act.
17EM NQ. 5
REQUEST FOR EIR NEGAT'IVE DECLARATION - For a parce) map
at 1651~ 1F67~ 17~1 and 1751 S. Lewis Street
(Parc°_1 Map No. 575)•
It was r,oted that an appllcatlon had been f11ed for a parcel ma~ to dtvl~ie an
approximately 12.3 a~re property at the subJect locatton into four parcels (3.2 acres, .75
acre, ?.8 acre~ and 4.5 acres) t~ allow ¢nr sale and development; th~t an evatuatlon of
the environmEntal impact of parcel map~ was required under the provislons of thP
Californla Environmental Quality Act and the State EIR Guldelines; and tha; a study of thc
proposed parcei map o~ the Planning Department and the Engineering Divislon in~llcated that
there would be n~ significant environmentnl Impact.
Commissi4ner Farano offered ; motion~ seconded by Commissioner Morley and M~TI(1~ CARRIFD
(Commisslon~er John:~on being absent), ~h~t the Anahetm City Planning Corr~isston does herehy
recU~n~~end to the City Councll of the City of Anahelm that the subJect property be exempt
¢rom the raquirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Report~ pursuant to the prov(stons
of the California Environmental Quality Act.
ITEM Nd. 6
REQUcST FOR EIR NEGATIVE DFCLARATION - For a oradtng permlt
at 360 :;. Timken Road (~~rading Permit Wo. 52?_)
It ;~as neteo thax an application had heen filed for a grading permit to construcc a
single-family residence at thc~ subJect locatlon; that an evaluation of the e~vironmental
impact of grading at thls locatlon was -equired under the pr~visions of the California
Envlronmental Quallty Act and the State EIR Guldelines since the proJect was lucated In
the Scer~ic Corridor ~nd tt~e slnpe of the land was at least 10$; and that 2 study of th~
proposed grading by the Planning Oepartment and the Engineertng Divislon lndicaterl that It
would have no significant environmental lmpact.
Commissloner Farano offered a mc~4lon~ seconded hy f,ommissioner King and MOTION GARRIF.~
(Commissloner Johnson being absent)~ khat the Anahetm Clty Planning ComMission d~es harehy
recommend to the City Councll of ttie City of Anaheim that the sub]ect pro)ect he exempt
from the rcqutrement ta prepare an Environmental Impact Report~ pursuant to the provlsi~ns
of the Californla Fnvlronmental Quality Act.
,~
~
~
MIIJUTF.S~ CITY PLANNIN~~ C~IMMISSIIN, August 7.~ 1~1i~~
7(,-;f,(,
ITEM NQ. 7
RkQI)EST F~R LIR NEr,ATIVF. pECLAR!1Tlnrl - For wlde~ing ~nd lmprovinh
Ornn~ewooc: Avenue between Euclld Str~ec an~ Nlnth Street.
1'hr, st.~ff rf:port to thc Planning Conmission dnted August ?~ 1~7~~~ ~IAS presenteci ~nd mA~1~ :~
part of tt~e mtnuteg.
~t was not:ed that the City of linahetrr~ Puhllc Works flepartmwnt was proposing to wl~Pn nn~1
fmprove ~rangew~od Avcnue between Eucl irl StrPet an~i Nlnth StrePt; that the pr~Ject w~~ilci
(nvolve obt.alninh dedicatlon from seven ~BVL'IO~~~`•J resi~lentla1 pro~ertles~ movicig on~
rasident rearwarJ, u~d~rgrounding a well site~ the Installati~n of stc1ewalks,
r,urbslg~tters and drlve:ways; that A publ ic moetin~ was helcl ~n 1lecemher 1~ 1475. A~d t.he
pr~iperty owner Input was genernlly favorAhle wltl~ tfie antictpatecl benefit t~ inclu~~p
bettor rnovement of trafflc alnng Qra~~~ewood Avenue whlch would then function ag ~ true
t~rterla) secandary Instead of a collect~r strpet; and th.~t a st~~dy of the pr•ornseri street
widening hy the Enqineering ~lvision an~i Che Planning De~arCment Incilcated that It we~u1~1
have no signlflcant envirnnmental (mpact.
~ommis~lonei~ Morley offered a mo~.lon~ seconded ~~y Commissloner Farano~ and M~TIf1N CARRiFD
(Comm ssloner Johnson being absenC)~ that the An~helm Clty Planning Commisslon does hFrehy
reconmend tr~ the C1••; ~ouncli of t`•e Clty of Anaheim that xhe subJect proJect he exempt
from the requlrement to prepare an environmental Impact report, pursuant t~ tlie provisl~ns
of the California Fn~~ironmental Quallty Act.
i7[M NQ. 8
COIJD I ONF'~L USE PERI' 1T N0. 163(~ - Requos t for c 1 a r I f f c:st i on of
Candltlon No. 7 of Planning Corrunisslon Resolutlon ~Jo, PC7~-139
(approving two-burner drop-in Cype stoves wlth warming ovens) -
Property consisting of approximar.ely 1,5 acres loc:ated at the
northea!:t corner of Katella Aven~~e and Easy Way.
it .~as noted that Con~lltlonal Use Permit N~, 1h36~ to construc*. an R~-unit motel with
kitchen:ttes in each unit, was granted by the Flanning C~mmissfon on July 1~~ 197(~ hy th
following vote: Comml~sloners Barnes~ King and Tolar v~ting "ye~;", Commissloners Morley
and Johnson voting "no"~ and Commisslonr,rs Farano and f~erbst ahsent; that said ~pprnv~l
was granted su~tiJect to several conditions~ Cortdltlon N~. 7 re~ding as fo!lows: "Th~t
subJect pr~perty sha!1 be developec! suhstantially ir accordanc~ with plans and spect-
fications on file wSth the f,ity oF An~heim marked Fxhibit Nos. 1(Revisl~n No. 1) ard ~
througl~ 4; provlded~ h~wever, that kitchen efficlency unlts with a maximum of R-cublc font
refrlgerators~ two-hurner drop-!n type stoves with warrninq ovens, and sinc~le-comn~rtment
sinks may be inst~~lled, except that the manager's unlf wlti be allowed to Fiave full
kitchen f~cllities"; that »lthough the petitioners had stl~ulr~ted to provlding the R-cubic
foc~t refrigerators and tlie warming ovens~ the number nf l~urners were n~t orally ~peciFiecl
by either the petittoner or the Planning Commis~lon; t~~at the petttloner was making
available to the Planning Commission copies of a prud~ac' pamphlet ai:trtbut~d by the
Whirlpool Corporaslon illustrating the four-burner stove proposed. ~l~ng with a letter
from said corporation to Mr. Childs Indicating that:
~~In reply to yaur request for literature and pricing on ~ two hurnNr stove,
drop-in type with oven~ I have enciosed hrochures on our model L2~~, 7.~" wide
(See back paqe).
"Please note tl~ls is a four burner unit and not a two burner as you requested.
We ourselves do not manuf~nct~:re a two hurner stove and I know of no ether
natlonal appllance manufacturer who does at this tlme. Possihly some company
that makPS equipment for traller homes may have such ~ unit~ hut these are
mainly designed for butane gas applicatian and normally made in a slnk - range -
oven combination unit. In 18 years in tl~e appltance I~usiness I fiave never seen
such an anpllance used in a dwelling unit."
Mr. 1larry F:nisely~ representing the owner of the suh.}nct property, appeared before the
Planning Ca+~iisslon and state~l that at the puhlic hearing Mr, Tell~ the architect for tha
proposal~ had taken exceptlon co Cordition ~Jo. 7 as nresr.nt~d in the Staff Report to the
Planning Commtssion dated July 19~ 1?7~>~ hecaus~ fhe ~r~duct (maximum of 6-cuhlc fo~t
refrlgerators~ two-burner stoves~ excluding ovEn and baking facllities~ and single-
o •
7f,-3~7
MINUTES, CITY PLANNIN~; CAMMISSIf1N~ Augugt 2~ 197~>
I1'EM N0, 8 (Cont Inued) ~
compartment ~Inks) was not avallahle; that they had contacted the mrnufacturer and
datermine~f that two-burner staves wero unavallable; nnd that If they wero requlred to have
Er~o-hurner stuves, they wc~uld have a probinm.
Ch.irman Pro Tempo~e Tolnr note:l that hr had uf'f'ered RGSOlutlon No, Pf,7(,-13~ whlch granted
the subJect condlti~nrl use permlt for en 8~-unir motel wlth k.l~chenett~s In each unlt;
that the approvel of the use wAS to help develup ~ method wherehy people wou1~1 come t~ the
CSty of Anahelm on a c.emp~rary basls; that thc lntant wtis t~ set up a minlmal housrkPeping
sltuatlon wlth A C1J0-hurner stovr., whlch was descrll~~ed at the puhllc heAring ~~s fl~1rap-in
type unit; thAt 11` p ollamma ~aa~ h~ing created at thls timP~ It was bctter than having n
dilemma after the c.onstructlo~ was underway; that he now reallz~d that the Planning
Commisslan~ In approving th~ 1uhJe~t cenditinnal use permlt~ was n~proving un~ierslzP~f
apArtments; that the petittoners had testlfled thot tempnr~ry quartcrs were proposed; and
that he ~~ould take excaptlon to the letter 1'rom thc Whirlpoal Corparaticm (see Ahovc)
which stated "...~n 5~3 years in che buslness~ I hflvr. never seen such an ap~%~lancc used In
a c~ ~lling unit..." slnce the pronosal wes nat ~'or dwelltng u~lts. Mr, Knigely agreed
tl-ac the word "dwelling" was not applicable co the mc~tel use.
~omniss;onor King inquired if M~, Knlsely or the petitloners hf~rchheitd inthlocatingththe
Californla Gas Campany or the American Gas AssaclaLion~ etc.~ P
type of kitchenette unlts generally faund in motels. He further noted that khe suh~ect
developers had I~een in business since 1qSQ and I~ad simllar units from Santa Monlca to S~~n
Dlego; that Anahelm had some had experlences because they were overhullt with motels
creating vacancy problems during the wlntcrtim~; and that a pro,)ect constructed and
o~erated by the devzlopers had been In the Clty for ahout 1?. years an~i had not beer a
problem.
~ rhalrman Pro Tempure Talt+r noted that he did not wish t^ get Into the pros and c~ns of the
~~ prornse~i ~~:~tel heing a bad sltuatlon~ hut felt that the discusston shou~d ne ltmited to
t~lr -t"•.. ' ~ ~ ; ln y'~PSt~bl1.
~'" ~n ~~~"•~ e to ques:toning by Commigsloner Barnes~ Mr. iCnisely Indlcated Lhat oCher than
~ ~~ ~ t.~!~i,',•••>I Cn~po•at(on had been contacted by the developer.
Cc,mmissioner lierbst noted that although he was n~t present at the put.llc hearing f~r the
sub.ject conditlonal use permit~ he would like t~ comment that he had seen the kitchenettE
type unlts whlch included a refrigerator, stove and sink all ln one ~COt~~ate S~or
ef°ir,tency-type unlts did not constitute a kitche~s~ as such~ but were app p
motel facilities.
Chairman Pro Tempore Tolar noted that his lntent in offerinq the rr.solutt~n to 9rant the
use was to keep xhe kitchen facilities to a minimum to disr_ourage people from stayti~~ for
long periods of time.
Mr. ~imer Childs~ the develo~er~ appeared before the Planning Commission and stated he had
conta~tc~d five manufacturers of stoves~ including Whirlpool~ Tappan, General Electric~
etc., ancf al) of thelr sma1) stoves were elther ?.~ or 22 inches wlth four burners; th~t
about two to four years ago all American compantes ceased to make twc~-burner stoves and~
therefore~ no Americ:an standard models were presently avallable with twn burners.
In response to questloning by Commissloner King. Mr. Kni^ely stat~cl ch~c they would havP
to use a"h~cksaw" to make two-burner stc+ves out of thE four-burner units. Mr. Chllds
responded that he was not willing to bulld the pro!ect unless he wAS able to install an
American made standard facllity.
Chairman Pro Temnnre Tolar noted tt~at he was somewhat regretting ~e actlon he taok in
offering the resolutinn approvin~ tho use. since the petittoner ~r,~insl~y reques~^d a
little larger rctrigerator and now was requ~sting a little iar~or seove and the units
would appeal to people lookirig to stay far long periods of [ime.
htr. Childs inquirr_d tf the Pla~ning Cormilsston would wish t~ consider limltincl the square
feet df working area in the kitchen.
Conxnlssioner Barnes nated tthat she had much re~ervatlon ln voting for th~ proJect an July
19th, but had done so thinking the kitchenettes would be llmlted to such an ext•nt thnt
the use could n~t bP ~hanged to apart~-~ents; that she had beSieved the pet~tlener when it
was stated they did ~~_~i: lntend to se) l the pro)ect, however, she was nrn+ heco~+~ing
,
~
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY I'LANNINR COMHISSION~ August 2~ 197~ 7(-3~~R
ITE~~ NG. ~ (Cont~n~n~;
.-.,.._
concernecl that thero was elways a posslbillty that the proJect could bn solcl and the rity
boing ~'ec~d with yubatandrrd epertmenxa In this locetlon. Thereupon. Commissloner Pa rne~
inq~~ired li the dev~eluaer e~ould be willing ta give up the oven portinn of the st~v~ In
~rder to have the fout' burnersa In response, Mr. Childs st,atecl the proJect was a p~n~a~
situatlon and thny hr~d he~n In the bus~ness for 15 yeArs.
Ghalrman Pro Tempore Tolar agreed that there was Always fl(~nS4Ih~~~LY that t~~e pro~ect
could be sold~ alth~ugh the developer's Intentions werc goocl,
Mr. Knisely statecl theE he dld not belleve Chat a turke~~ or pie woul~i ~vc~r be cook~d in
zhe proposecl kitchen Pacilitles; however~ the customers ~~~~~eWSCoves proposed('rathert thnn
out type restaurants; and that they woulcl prefer the typ
radar type unlts~ since most peopie dlcl not know how ta opernte r~d~~r,
Commissloner Morley notrd th~t although h~ had v~ted "no" on the proJrct nrlglnAl ly, he
dld not thlnk that the numher ~f burners would dctermine whether the motet woulcl hecnmc
substandard apartments~ but the proJect lkself would make that determinatlon and h~ di~t
not l ike the proJ~sct as a matel . Commissloner Herhst naterl that the f~ur burner! woulcl~
how~ver~ make the ap~rtment much more livable; that he could see no dl~ference betweer~ th~
subJect proJect and the exlsting similar pro.)PCts In the City which ~iad heen and cont inue~i
t~ t,e very bad experlences; and that lf the number af units witli kitchenettes were
limited~ per policy~ the developer would prohably have no oh]ections frcxn the Planning
Commisslun; and ~hat he~ too~ agreed that tliere was no guarantee that the proJect would
not be sold and made 'nto suhstandard apartments at a later ttme.
Commissloner King afso 1n~11cated an interest in twu-burncr stoves without nvens.
Corixnissioncr Farano made an observation fol lowing a brlef look at the pl~ns~ that seld
plans resembled a subscandarc! apartment proJect ln abnut every respect.
Commissioner Barnes offered a motlon, seconded by CommSssloner Tolar and Mf1TI0M CARRICD
(Commissioners Faranu <~nd Herbst abstalning, since they were ~ct pres~nt at the publlc
hearing on this cond(tlona) use permlt). that thc Anahelm Clty Planning Commis~slo~ does
hereby uphold the contents of Resolution No. PC76-13Q arid, more spec(fically, does declare
that the intent 'n connectlon with the sxove was for two burners and not four.
Camni ss i oner Farano noted that ~ 1 n tt~ ~ event Cond I tlonal llse Permi t No. 1~3~ 1 s openr.d fc~i-
consideratlon at City Council level~ attentlon should he brought to the plans which
indicate bedrooms~ guest roams~ dinettes~ kitehens~ dressing rooms~ batfiroams~ etc.
ADJOURNM[NT - Thr.re bein~ no further bus:~ess to ulscuss~ Cormiissioner Morley offered
~ a motion~ seconded by Cortimi sstoner King and MOTION CARRIED (Comn~i ssloner
Johnson being absent)~ that the meeting be adJourned to August 3. 197h,
at 7:00 p.i~i. ln the Multipurpose Room of the maln Anahelm Public Llbrary~
50U West Broadway.
T~ie meeting adJourned at 5: n5 p•m•
Res ectfully suhmitted,
~ ~~L~CL~r'r.~et.~-•/
Patric(a 6. Scanlan~ Sccret,yry
~nahelm Clty Plann;~g Commisslon
PBS:hm
0 R C Q MICROf ILMING SERVICE, IPII,.