Minutes-PC 1976/09/27~
~
LJ
Clty Nall
Anahelm~ Californla
5eptember 27~ 1976
RFGULAR MEETINf Or THE ANAHEIM CITY ~LAN~iIMG COMMISSION
REGUTAR - A regular meeting of thc Anaheim City P anning Cortmisslon was called
MF.ETING to order by Chalrnu+n Johnson at 1:30 p.m. on September 27, l976~
in tha Council Chamber~ a quorum being present.
P{tES[NT - CHAIRMAN: Johns~n
COMMISSI~~~f•.RS: ~'nes, ~arano, Herbst, King, Morley
ABSENT - COMMISSIONEkS: Tolar
ALSO PRFSENI' - Ronald Thompson
Frank Low ry
Jay Tltus
B111 Stracker
Joel Fick
Patricla Scanlan
Planning DlrecCOr
Deputy Clty Attorney
Office Fnc~ineer
Ass(stant Trafftc Engineer
Assistant Planner
Planning Commtssion Secrctary
PLFDGE OF - Commissioner Nerbst led In the Fledge of Ailegiance to the Flt-.~
ALLEGIANCE of the Unfted States of Am,ertca,
APPROVAL OF - Comm(ssioncr K(ng affered a motion~ seconded by Comm(ssioner kerbst
TI~E MINUTES and MOTION CARRIEU (Commissioner Morley ab~tatning sinc~ he was
not present at the meeting In questian; and Commissloner Tolar betng absent)~
Lhat the min~~tes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held August
30, t976, be and hereby ara approved~ as submittsd.
ENVIRONMENTAL iMPACT - CON7INUED READVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING. ESTATE OF ADOLPH J. SCHU7TE~
REPORT NC, 178 c/o Alan Talt, 615 South Flc~wer Street~ Suite 806, Los M geles, Ca.
- - 90017 (Owner); THE WARMINGTON COMPANY~ c/o Walter Coursen, 17880
RECLASSIFICATIGN Sky Park Circle, Suite 205~ Irvlne, Ca. 92707 (Agent). Property
k0, 76-77'2 described as an Irreyularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
appr~ximately 17 ~~res located southeast of the sautheast cor~er
VARIANCE N0. 2814 or Rall Road and Sunkist Street, having approximate frontages ~f
-' 170 feet on thP south ~ide of Ball Road and 1200 feet on the east
side ~f Sunkist Street~ and having a maximum depth of approximately
900 Fect. Pr~perty presently ctassified RS-A-~;~000 (RESIDENTIAL/
AGRICULTURAL) ZOia~.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: RM-~~000 (RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE-FAMILY) 7_ONE.
RGQUESTED VRRIANCF.: WP.IVER OF (A) MINIMUM RUII.DING SITE AREA PER DWELLING UNIT~ (B)
MAXIMUM RUILDING HEIGHT~ (C) MAXIMUM WALL HEIG1tT~ AND (D) MINIMUM
NUMBER OF ENCLOSED PARKING SPACES, TO CONSTRUCT 2t2 CONDOMINOUM
DWELLINCS.
It was noted that the ~ubJect petition for reclassification was continued from the
Planning Cummtssion rr,ea.ing ~f July 7~ 1976, at the request of th~ petitloner and in ~rder
for a variance to be advertised; and from the Planning Commission meetings of July 1q,
August 16~ and August 3~~ ~976~ at the rcquest of the petitioner. it was also notcd that
the petitioner was requesttng a furYhzr continuance to the Planntng Commission meeting af
Qctober 'l7~ 1976, for the submission of revised plans.
Corunissioner Farano offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Marley and MOTION CARRIED
fCr,mmissi;,7er Tolar being absent}, that the M aheim Ctty P~anning Commisslon does hereby
further conttnue the publlc hearin and consideration of Envlronmental tmpact Report No.
178~ Recl~ssification No. 76-77'2 ~readvertlsed)~ and Varlance No. 2814, to the Pian~i~a
Commissl~n meeting of October 27. 1976, as requested by the petitioner; and that if the
petitloner is unable to come forth at the Uctober 27th meeting,the Items shall be taken
e~f the agenda far readvertise^~ent at the petitioner's cxpense.
7b~454
~
~
•
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 27~ 1976 74~~+55
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - CONTINUED PUBLIC fIEl1RING, JAMF.S S. GRFGG~ RAYMOP7D G. SIMPSON~
REPOItT N0. 179 JOI~N S. I'LUOa~ ANI) RQHERT D, SPURGEON~ c/o CPci l C, Wrlght,
^ 60 P1~-a Square, Orange~ Ca. 9z666 (Owners); DEL PRADO COMPANY~
CONDITIQNAI USE 12$61 West Strect~ Garden Grove, Ca, 926h0 and f.ECil C. WRIGHT,
PERMIT N0. 1632 6Q Plar.a Square~ Orangc~ Ca. 92666 (Aaents); requesting permission
to establish a 209'SPACE M(1BIi.EHOME PARM, WITN WAIVER OF MINIMUM
STRUCTURAL SETBACK on property ~ies~r(~ed as an Irregularly-shap~d
parcel of land conatsting of approximately 32.2 acres located norXhaasterly of the
Intersectton af Cerritos Avenue and Sunkist 5treet~ having a frontage uf approxtmatcly gb~
fcet on the caxt side of Sunkist Street~ and havl~g s maxtmum depth of approximately 1335
feet. Property presently classir"led RS-A-43~000 (RESIDENTIAi./AGRICUL7URAL) ZONG.
It was noted thae the sub_)ect Items were continued from the Plnnning Commlsslo~i me~tings
of ~~uly 1~ ~uly 19~ and Auqust 1fi~ 197~, ~t the request of the petttloner; and from thc
me~elnq of llugust 30, 1976~ for circulntion study~ sound-Attr.nuation study, and f~r•
prc:clse landscaping plans,
No ane Ind{cated their presence In oppositlon to the su6}ect petlLion.
Although the Staf' Report to Yhe Plann(ng Commiss(an datcd Seutember 27~ 1976, wAS noC
read at tiie publ(c hearincl. said Staff Report (s referred to and made e part u~ the
minutes,
Mr. Henry Nastings~ representing the agent `or the petitloner~ appeared before the
Plannlnq Commission and sr.ated they had completed the sound-attenuatlon studles and
modtfied the plans in that respect~ as well as gubm(tttng prectse landscaping plans for
the proposed proJect~ and they were requesting favorable cons(deration of the proposal.
TNE PUBLIC HEARING -JAS CLOSED.
In response to questioning by Commissioner Herbst, Mr. Hastings staCed the space outside
the saund barrler was for recreational v~hicle storage and could be reached by the service
ro.,,i. Commissioner Herbst also noted tliat self-closing doors mlght be installed at 50-
foot intervals in the barrler to reach the storag~ spaces; that the ~lan appcared to
Indicar.e no blockage af the sound tomir~y down the peripheral roadway and It apr~eared that
the sound barr(er should be on tl~e reverse side of satd roadway. Dlscussion pursued with
Mr. Hastings concerning the locatlon af the barrier and the door openings, during wltich
F1r. Ha~tfngs noted that the wall design tndicatecl was in error sir~ce sald wall was to be
cont~nuous. Mr. Hastings st(pulated that they would w~rk wtth Staff to revise the plans
to reSocate the sound-attenuation wall from the west side to the east side of the
peripheral road and to show the wall as betn~ eontinuous~ etc.
Chairman Johnson noted that having the sound-attenuation wall too close to a hill wnuld
remove whatever sound-attenuation effects were Intended. Commtssioner Herbst added that
having a very thtck wall would also not srrve a purpose if the sound ;~as trsveling over
the top of it.
Commtssio~e~ Faran~ noted that the periphera) road should probably be widened.
In respunse to questionin~ by the Planning Commission, Assistant Trafflc Engineer Bill
Stra:ker noted that the Traffic Engineer was suggesting tha*_ the petitioner pay one-fourth
of the traffic signalizatlon c~sts at Sunkist Street and Cerrritos ^~ ~e~ altho~gh sald
recommendr~tton was not included in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission; and that
the petttioner's share would be app.•oximately $10,000 to $15,000 based on the estlmated
total cost~ of $40~000 to $60~000.
Mr. Hastings indicated that he was aware of som~ discussion regarding the traffic signal
but had not known the specifics.
Commissionar Herbst ~ffered a motion~ seconded by Commissloner King and MOTION CARRIED
(,Commissioner Tolar being absent)~ that EnvEronmental Impact Report No. 17y, havtng been
considered this date by the A~aheim Ctty Planning Commission an~i evidence, both wrttten
~
~..4.
~
MINUTES, CITY PL~INNING COMMISSION~ Septembnr 27~ 1 76
cNVIRO~JMENTAL IMPA~T REPORT N0. 179 APID CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1632 (Continued)
76-li 56
and oral~ havin~ been presented to supplemenc said draft EIR No, 179~ thn Pla~ning
Cummission believes thAt sald draft EIR No. 179 does conform to the C,ity And ~~~t~
Guldeltnes and the State of Callfornia Envl~onmantal Qua{Ity Act and~ b~sed upur~ surh
informatlan~ does hereby recammend ta the City f.ouncll thAt they r.~rt(fy satd EIR No. 179
Is In compll~ance w(th s~iici Envlronmental Qualtty Act.
Conrr'~sloner Herbst offered Resolulion No. PC76-193 and movccl for Its pdssage and
aAopr.~on~ that tfie Anah~im City P1Annln9 Commisslon does hernby grant Petitlon for
Con~itlonal Use Permit No. 1632~ granting tlic requested walver of the minlmum structural
s~tbr,ck on the hasis that the petltioner is proposing to constr~act a minimum 3-foot high
esarthen herm~ t~pped by a 6-foot hiqh decoratlve masonr•y wall In sald setba4k area, 20
feeC from Sunkist Streec~ as lncilcaCed on the revised plans; subJect to the conditlon that
revlsed plans shall be submitted for Planning Commiss(on approval Indicatirg the
rel~catt~n of the proposed soun~l-attenuatlon w~~! to the east side oP thc on-site
per(pheral skrb~t ad.jacent ta the Oranga Freew~;. sald wall to be continuous wlth no
openlnqs~ as stiputatecf to by the petitloner; chat th~ ciwr~ers of the subJect property
shall participate ln the costs of furnlshing an~l Installing trAfFic sfynal-7ation at Che
inte~sectlon of Sunklst Street and Cerritos Avenue, sald parlicip&tfon to bc one-fourth of
the total c~sts~ as recommended by the Clty Traff{c Engineer's Offlce; and subJ~•ct to the
fnterdep~~rtmental Committee recommc~ndations, (See Resolution Book)
On rol) call~ the foregoing resolution w~s p~ssed bU the following vote:
AYES: COMHISSIONERS: BAftNES~ FARANO, HERBST~ KING~ MORLEY~ JOHNSON
NOES: i.uNi~ii ~S iONERS : NONE
ADSENT: COMMI~SlONERS: TOLAR
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBIIC HEAP,ING. BANK OF AMERICA~ NTESA~ 555 Scuth Flower 5~reet. Los
PERMIT N0, 1649 Angeles~ ,.a. 90071 l~+ner); ROBERT p. JOIINSTON, 300 North Rampart Street~
N13, Grange~ Ca. 92G68 (Agsnt); requesttng permission to ESTABLISH A
~ANCE HALL on property descrlbed as an irreaulsrly-shaped parcel of land
conslsting oF approx(mately 6.3 acres located nn the sou[h and west sides of Sequ~la Avenue,
having approximate frontages of 525 feet on the south sid~e and 403 feet on the west side uf
Sequala Avenue, and further described a~ 2208 Sequota Avenue, Proper±y presently classified
CL (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITED) ZONE.
It was noted that the subJect petition was continued from the Planning Cortmissiun rcseting
of September 13, 1976~ for the petitioner to bc present; and that~ subsequently~ the
petitloner had subm(tted a written request to terminate the subJect petition on tr~e basfs
that they were pursuirsg a different location for the proposed use.
Commissioner Marley offered a motion, seconded by Commissianer Farano and MOTION CARRIED
(Commiss(oner Tolar being absent), that tf~e A~aheim City Planning ~ommission does hereby
termtnate ail proceedings in c~innection with Conditionai Use Permtt No. 1649~ as requested
by the petttioner and based on the foregoing findinqs,
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC !iEARING. CENTURY PROP@RTIES, 16200 Ventura Boulevard~
PERMIT N0, 1651 Suite ?O1, Encino~ Ca. 91316 (Owner); ARMAPID WANG~ £3011 Loufse Lane,
La Palma~ Ca, 90623 ~Agent); requesting permission to ESTABLISN A 41-UM17
MOTEL on property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately Q.7 acre having a frontage of approx!rr.~tely 102 feet on the east
side af Beach Boutevard, having a maximum depth of approximately ~02 feet, being located
approximately 1135 f~et north of the centerline oi l.incoln Avenue~ and further described as
32.8 North Beach 6os~levard. Property presently classified CL (COMMERCIAL, IIMITED)
ZONE.
It was noted that the subJect petition was continued from the Plannino Commission meeting
of September 13, 1976~ at the request of the petitloner for possible revtsed plans.
No one indicated tF~eir presence in opposition to the subJect petitlon.
Although the Staff Report to the Planning Commtssion dated Septcmber 27~ 1976~ was not
~ead at the public hearing~ said Staff Report is ~eferred to and made a part of the
mtnutes.
•
~...
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING i.OMMISSION~ Septembor 27~ 1976
CONUITIONAL USF. PERMIT N0. 165i (Continued)
)6-457
Mr. Armand Wan~~ the agent for tha petitloncr~ appeared bofore thc Planning Commiss(an ond
tndicated they hnd revised thoir plans based o~~ the use of the oasements on the subJect
property.
TIIF PUBLIC Hf•.I~RING WI1S CLOSf.D,
Assistant Planner Joel Flck noted that cl~e proposed turn-nrauncl space for the sanitatlon
vehlclcs would be unsatisractory; that the loss oP any of the parklnn S~nCES to provlde
adequate turn-araund space would cause a vArlance frnm the parking requlr~ments; and that
the revised plans had been submitted too late for the Sanitation Dlvlslon to review and
approve the lucation of the t-'ash ~nclosure area.
In resp~nse to questloning by the Planning Commission~ Mr. Wnng stipulated he would cortq~ly
with the requlrcn~ents ~f the Santtat(~n Dlvislon pertaining to the trash enclosurd areas
and tiie locarlon thereof anci that. furthermore, they would comply wlth the ordinance
pertoli7ing to signinc~.
Commissloner K~ng offer:~~{ a rr,~tlon~ sec~nded hy Commissloner Morley and MOTION CARRIf.R
(Co~nmissloner Talar being abs~nt)~ that the Anaheim Clty Planning Commisslon does hereby
reconme:nd to the Clty Councll of the City of Anaheim that i neg~tive declaratton from the
requlrement to prepare an environment~l impact. report be approved for the subJect proJect,
pursuant to the provisions of the Callfornia Environmental Quality Act.
Commisslonr.r King offered Rcsolutlon No, PC7fi-184 and rtx~ved for lts passage and adoptlon~
that the Anahelm Ctty Planning Commisslon duas hereby grant Petttion for Conditio~ai Use
Permlt No. 1651~ subJecr, to the conditlon that the trash storage area shal) be provided in
accordance wlth a~proved pl~ns on file in the afFice of the Dtrector of Public Works and
that revised pians Incllcating compliance shall 6e submitted to the City fo~ appraval~ as
stlpulated to by the petlt(oner; that the signing for the pr~posed use shall be in
uonformance w(th the sitc development standards of the CI_ Zone~ as st(E~ulatud to by the
petiCioner; and subJect to the Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. (See
Resolution Book)
On roll call, the forsgoing resolut(on was passed ~y tf~e following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIQNERS: BARNES, FARAWO~ NER9S1'~ KING~ MORLEY~ JUHNSOPI
NOES; COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COt1MiSSIONERS: TOLAR
VARIANCE N0. 2840 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. EUGENE AND NORMA E. blNITCOM~, 2714 East
~ f,arnival Avenue~ Anaheim, Ca. 92806 (Owners); WILLIAM D. EHRLE,
838 South State Collene Boulevard~ Anaheim~ Ca. 929Q6 (Agent);
requestiny WAIVER OF PERMITTEO ENCROACNHFNTS INTO REQUIRED YARDS~ 'f0 CONSTRUCT AN
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE on property ~escr(bed as ~n irreguiarly-shaped parcel of land
consist(ng of approximately 0,2 acre having a frontage ~f approximately 68 feet on the
south s(de o~' Carnival Avenue~ having a maximum d~pth of approximately 134 feet~ being
locate~l apFroximately 276 feet west of the centerline of Rlo Vista Street, and further
described as 2714 East Carnival Avenue, Prrperty presently classified RS-72Q0
(RESIDENTIAL~ SINGLE-~AMiLY' 'ONE.
It was noted that th~ subJect petition was continued from Che Rlanntng Commission meetfng
of September 13~ 19'~~ at the request of the peti;:ioner.
One person was present in opposition to the sub}ect petitinn and watved the full reading
of the Staff Rep~rt to ~he Planninq Commission dated September 27~ 1976, on the bas(s that
saicl report had been reviewed.
Although the Staff Report was not ~ead at the public hearing~ said report Is referred t~
and mad~ a part of the minutes.
Mr. Willtam D. Ehrle~ the agent for the petitioner~ appeared befare the Planning
Commisslon and stateci that the petit(oner was requesting the proposed struct~•re for the
purpose of stortng items such as lawnmowers and related equipment; that the petitianer had
been a qualified individual in th~e cAnstructton business for a number ot years; that fie
did not want to purchase a utlltty bu{Iding such as was sold by flontgomery Ward~ etc.~ but
wanted a more permanent structure; th~t no matter where the structure was to !~e located on
~
~
s
MINUTLS~ GITY PLANNING CQMMISSIUN~ 5~ptembcr 2%, 197G
VARIANCE W0. 2840 (Continued)
76_~~~;z~
the property~ it would (nfringe ori somecrne becdusr, of the unusual ~hape of the property;
that he would hr. ~Ilcxved hy f.odo to construct a 1Q0-squarc foot~ ut(llty-type bullding In
r,he reAr yard buc ther~ wAS some questlon aho~at wh~t was cansfderecl the petitio~~er's beck
y~ird; thAt he was propos ing a 128-square fcxtit. bul Idi no, 8 feet by 16 reek ~ and the re:~~;o~
for the slze was for convenlence tu the petitloner ana his f~mlly; thrat a permannnt
strurCure would prov(de more securlty, would br, nbre eye-appealin~ to him and his
ne ( ~hbors ~ ancl woul ~1 be cons I s tent wi th ~~ther ~ t ~uctures i n th~ rear yards af the
nel~hborhood; thAt the proposed locat(nn oP tF~e structure would pcrmit maximum use of the
back yflrd and open spnce; th~t the f~nce wAS aver 6Q ('~~et long on tF-Is slde o~ the
propr.rt.y and the peti;loner hAd wanted to make the nelghbors happy by n~t bulldlnq a
sup~r-h~~c~e s~ r~icturr.; that the fence ebuttin~ the proposad struct~ire was t+u~ l t by xhe
petltfoner witliout any agsistAncr. fram tlie nelghbors; that the propased structure
conformed to the Cad~ with the except(on of the sl:e; and tiiat khe rooP line of thr
struc:ure w~s consistunt o~ith th~ arca~ b~ln~ of the appearancr. ot ~n outdoor grhenh~~use
~nd would nor, give the ap{~earancc of A SLOrAge ~rc~a.
Mr, ChesCer Kuls~ 7.713 Mardis ~ras A~enuc, Anahelm. appearc~ bef~re th~e Planning
Commission (n opposltlon ~+nd atnted the pef(cloner had begun bullding the subiect shed
dir~ctly beh~incl the area of hts pntl~ and without applying for a bulldinc~ pErmft nt all;
th~~t he had ca?led Che C~ty t~ find out if a pcrm~t had bcen appiied for; that he had
Caken pic*.ure~ of the building In Its present stat° of ~~nstructlon~ 3ho.~ing tliat the
struc!ure was epproxlmately 30 inches hlgher• than the extsting concrete block wall and
appro~:tmately lf3 fr.et long. and sai<i structure was abaut 2~~ feet: f~om hls house; that the
2~~-foot a~sa was the only area in hls back yarci whPre hie could relax an~1 he would have t~
look at tl~e sub]ect shed whlcli was a bad vlew and m(yht, In Che future~ affcct tP~e resalc
value of his hcme; that the Duliciing Inspector~ Mr. Fred ~trelsky~ had stated ~hts was ar~
Illeg~! structure ~halnst the block a~all and Senlor duilding '~pector~ Mr. Walt K(rkhart~
had state~i he would advise the Plannin<. Commiss(on agalnst appruving the skructure; that
If the Planning Commissi~ 'iould approve the st.ructure, he would want a wrlt2er~
explanat(nn ~f the rea~: ~hat the shed could be used for r.ormiercl~l purp~ses sinca the
pet~tloner was a contractor; that the peCltion.r should have known that s bulldlny ~~rRit
was re~uired in the flrst pl~ce; and that alr•eady che retit(oncr nad made nolses v~it~~ hit,
constructlon equlpment (n the vary ~early morr.'n,y hours. including the power cutting of
concrete blocks~ uec,
~n rebuttal~ Mr, Ehrle state<1 that as Mr. Kuls' photographs (nci!cate~f~ the wall fo- the
structure was alre~d~~ constructed and I* was Che petit~oner's inte„~ieo purpose tu add
vertical slats to give the ~ppearance ot a greenhouse; ~'.,at tne petition~r had tried to
contact Mr. Kuls sever~l times and !1r, Kuls had also broke~i an ~:!+polntment wtth hlm~ as
the agen~ for the petltioner; thaC (t was thc fseling of hlmself and the petttlaner that
they had do~e r~lt: a blt t~ try to ba nelghborly and congen~al wirh thelr neighhors so
that rhe structure would not be unsightiy; that because cf the shap,: of ~he property~ all
oF the lot lines were cor~sicfere..: s,?de yardc and the struccurF cauld no~ ue built any other
place; that the petitloner vrouid llk.r to work with the neigh~~rsto try to resol~~e the
problems in a connenlal manner; and that fie understood Mr. W~;itcome was ~ntltled to have a
utllitv b~:ildino and ehat his professlon as a contract~r I~ad nothir~g t~ do with (t.
THE PUBLIC HEIIRING WAS CLOSID.
In response to qaestioning by C~rnlssioner Farano. Mr. Whltcome appeared before the
Planning Cammission and std'ed hF w~nte~1 to store lawnmowers, equipment, and anything else
that was presently stored in his garagc~ (ncludfng bicycles~ lawn edger, insecticides~
camping gpar~ e.tc, Commissioner farar,o lnqulred specifically if Mr. Whttcomc would be
using the structure to store any equipment of a commerclal natu;e or having to :'~~ with hls
cont~ructlon ~uSlness. and Mr, Whitceme stipulated in khe negattve,
In response to furthe~ questioniny by Cumnissioner Farane~ Mr. WhEtcome sc~~ted that 3 3U-
inch ¢i~a wall in tFie form of a parapec would be required for the propos~d structure,
accor~iing to the Fi re Code.
Ceputy City Attorney Franlc Lawry advised that the i:~ty did not have che pow~~r to w~lv~ the
Fire Code.
In response to quest(oning by Commissfoner Morley~ Mr. Whitcome stlpulated :hat no
utllitles would be provided to t~~e proposed utllity structure.
~
~...
~
MINUTES~ CI7Y PLANNING CQMMISSION~ Septcmber 27, 197G
VAHIANCF. N0, 2440 (Cantinued)
In response to questlonlny by Commisstonar Herbst~
would have ta be moved Awey from the propsrty Ilne
for e f) re wal I; thnt i f a garnc,e was b ui I t wl thln
was el~o required and the particulars partrlning t
workcd out wtth tht Bullciin~ Inspect~r and wds not
Planning Commisslo~ ta make,
76-459
P1r. Lowry advised that tf~e bul {Jing
5 faet In ~rder to alirt~lneta the nenci
1 foot of a property llna~ a flre wall
o the bullding enci Fire Cade should he
an appropr•late declslon for the
Mr. Whitcome then statecl he [hought th e skructure wae legal before hA began bullding It.
Commissioner Barnes suqe~ested that thc propos~d structure be bullt ~n the west side of thn
house in the 20-foot arpa in back of t h~ qate, In response~ Mr, Whitcome stated that his
yard and p~Llo area were located on tl~~ west side of the hause. Commissloner Barnes then
quostioned how th~ peCltioner wauld feel If the nelghhor on the west stde nf the housa
wante~ to construct a simllar structur e a~rln~t the propfrty Ilne. Mr. Whitcome replled
that his nelghbor on Che west already had a simllar bull~ling but not with a parapet. and
ttiat was why he thought h i s nwn s t ruct ure was lega 1.
Chatrmen Johnson reviewed the proposal anci noted that because the subj~ct property was
iocated on a cul-de-sac~ the definition of yards w~~s d(fferent and alth~~u~h the pztltioner
was bulldtng on a side yard, it was re ally the baek yard ~f khe yut,ject property and
shou 1 d bc co,is f de recl as such,
In responsa: to quest I~ning by Comm) ss i oner Morley ~ Mr. Kuls st•:~tc~~l that a structure 7 feet
hlgh would nc.t be obJect(un~ble if it was no higher than his livingr<~um. Mr. Whitco~
stA~ted that he only cared that the str ucture would be high enough th~t he could yet into
it without hitting his h~ad; howev~r~ his property was higher than Mr. Kuls' property and
that was why the propose<I structure lcoked so liigh.
Chairman .lohnson noted that :he parap et seemed to be the problem~ and Mr, Low ry advised
thaC there were :.lternates that could be warked out with the Bullding Divislon in that
respect.
~omrr.t~sioner Faranu notPd that he had no ~~bJecr.lons to the structure ( ts ~1 f ar,d, In
l~oking over the plot pla~, it would a ppear that s~me space was avallable on the west sldc
of the property nPar ~.~e reciwaod gate area, hx~~ever~ the west s(de was not large enough
for a bulldiny the size proposed; ana th~~t he ,~ou;d obJect to the para~et wall and the
petlCioner should pursue Che alternat Ps an.i i.e•;p the he(qht of the building even with the
fence tiinc.
Oisc~ssior pursued regarding the heig ht of the structure versus the hefght of the abutting
masonry wall at the r~:,p~rty 1(ne~ and it was pointed out th~t sinc~e the subj~_ct property
w~s higr.er than the adJacent property owned by Mr. Kuls~ (t was posslble that the fence
was not quire 6 feet (n helght on th e petitioner's side. Commissiorer Faranu noted that
the lesser~ of the two (the proposed s tructure or a higher fence) would be a higher fence.
Mr, Kuls stated he would be opposPd t o a wall h(gher than the existing fence.
Chairman Johr.son note~.i that he diu~ not particularly llke the looks of the building~ as
indicaCed on the photooraph; and tha t he wou'.d agree ~ac the petitioner must h~ve known
that a perml t was reyui red for the s t ructure.
Commissioner Herbst suggested that th c building be recessed into the ground and it was
potnte.l out that the slab floor for the building was siready ir place. r. Whitcornc
reiterated that he did not knc~r a permlt 4»s requfred since he normally did not do this
Lype of wo rk.
It was noted that the Dlrectnr of th e Pld~r+ing Department had drterminQ~ that the propose~
actlvity fell within the definitlon ~f Section 3•U1~ Glass 3~ of the City of Anaheim
Gu=delines to the REquirements for ,n Environmental Impact Report ~n~J was~ thP;er'ore,
categorlcal ly exempt from the requi ren,ent to file an EiR.
Commissio~iar F~r=,na offered Resolution No. PC76-i85 and moved for irs passaye and
adoption~ that the An2heim City Pl~n ning Commission aoes hereby grant Pet'tion for
Varlance Nn. 2$40, in part, granting tl~e req~ested ~ra(ver to pe~mit an acc~ssory struc;~•rr.
not to exceed 6 f~et i~ i~eight from graund levcl e~ the s~~bJ~ct ~roperty; ~~d thai sald
srructure shall ~e redcsigr~ed to e~i minate the parapet wal'. and shall comply wi;h all
Bulldtng and Fira Codes; subJect to the stipuletion cf th~ petittoner that no utliitles
•
^...
~
MINUTES~ CITY PI.ANNING COMMIS5IQN~ Septemb er 2y, 137~ 76-A60
VARIANCE N0, 2840 (Conttnued)
wlll be provlded to the proposed structu~~; that the property ow~ar shrl l obtaln the
approprlate bu(Iding permlt5 from the City af Annhelm; thet CI1H proposed acccssory
bullding shal) not bc used ~or storage of commerc.le) equlpment; and sub}ect to the
Int~rdepartmental Cortxnittee re!commendatlo~a. (See aesolutfnn Boc~k~
On roll call ~ the f~rr~oing resolution w~s passed by the fol lawing voCe:
AYESt COMMISSIUyGRS: 6ARNES~ FARANO~ HERBST~ KING, MORLF.Y, JOHNSQN
Nt1ES : COMMI SS I ONERS : N4Nf
A85E~1T: COMMISSIONtRS: TO U1R
VARIANCE N0. 2R41- - PUBLIC HEARING. HOWAKD AND HELEN GIIMORE, 527 North Rose Streot~
Anaheim~ Ca. 92a~5 ~ 4wiicrs) ; GENE AND DOROTHY KANNARD, 811 West
Sycamore StrceC, Anehelm, Ca, 92~~5 (Agents); requcsting WAIVER 0~'
PEItMITTEU USES, TO ESTABLISH A RA7lATOR A NU AUTO REPAiR SNOP on propcrty descr(bed as a
rectanyularly-shaptd parcel of land cons i sttng of approximately 0.~+ acre located at the
southeast corner of North Street ~nd Anahalm 9oulevard~ having approxtmate fro~iteges of
15Q feet on the south sida of Nortfi Street a,sd 10-i feet on the east side of Anolielm
Boule~~ard and further described as 760 Narth Anahelm t~oulevard. Proper• presenkly
classiflad CG (COMMERCIAL, GENERAI.) ZONE.
Commissioner K(ng noted that he had a cor.fllct of Interest as def(ned in Planning
Commisslon !tasolutlon No. PC76-157 adopt i ng a Confllct of Interest ~ode for the City
Planning Commission and l~overnrnent Code SecCion 362~ et seq. ~ In that the Daza Rrothers
nad an Interest in Che suh iect proposa) and the Daza Brathers had d~ne upkoep work on his
automobile for mo-e than a year; that pursua~t to the provisions of the Above Codes~ he was
hereby declaring tu the Chairman that he w~~s withdr~wing from the heartng in cunnectlon
wi thi Var) ance No, 7.8-+4 ( I tem No. 6 of t~ .~ P 1 ann i ng Commi ss i on agenda) and would not take
part fn etther the discussion or lhe vot:ng ichzreon; and that he had not dlscussed the
subJect matter with any member of the P1 anning G~mm(sslon. COMMI5SIONER K.ING LEFT THE
COUNCIL GNAMBER AT 2:35 P.M.
On~ perso~ was present tn oppusition to subJect petitlan and walved ~ne full reacling of
the Staff Report to the Planning Commiss ion dated September 27~ ~976, on the basis that a
copy of same had been revtewed.
Although the Staff Report was not read a t the public hearing, satd report is referred to
and made a part of the ia(nutes.
Mr. Gene Kannard~ the ager.t for the pet + tioner~ appeared before the P1 anntng Commiss (on
and stated that two of the rr~chanics whi ch were presently located at 746 North Anahelm
Boulevard deslred to mc,ve to the subJect property, thereby re~lucing the density at sald
locatton; that at tirr~s thelr present l~~catian was very cang~sted with custumers; and that
the two mechan i cs woul d do auto repa i r work and the rad I ator repa 1 r po ~t i ~n of the
appiication was to allow for himself tn move to the new locati~n If so d~~lred In the
fut~~~ e.
Mr. ~rank Mnnnig~ 5z7 SouCi~ Janss Stree~, Anaheim, appeared before the Plaryning Comrtiission
and stated he was not protesting the au to repatr shop at the proposed location but wanted
to m ke sure thai the appll~ant would not be repls~ing the two mechanics at the present
loca ion stnce there was a real traffic congestlon problem in the area with parking of
custuners ~ etc.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CI~~ED.
Commissloner Herbs*. ,iuted that the subJ~ec[ property was the subJect of the public hearing
and the Planning Commission was not considering the appl icant'a present locatlon.
In response to questioning by Chairman Joh~aon~ Nr, hbnn(q stated his property was located
to the sauth ~f the property (n question and tliat by taking away the eorner for pa-king,
all of that parking problem wou!d be back in thelr laps.
In rebuttal, Mr. Kennard strted the whole idea v~as rhat b~, moving t~e two mechanics !o the
new locatlon~ the congestlon and densi ty at thelr present location ~,rould be reduced~ that
the two mechanics were intere~ted in having better exposure to the street; that he did not
intend t~ rent the bays which were presently occupied by the two mcchanlcs to anyc.~~e else
~
~
~
~
MIN:~i~S~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Septe~ tic~ %I, 1976
VARIANCE N0, 284~i (Contlnued)
~~
76-461
st~ce it would crcate a critic+~l v~rkinn oroblem similor to that whlch prexently extsted;
an d thot It was diff(cult for onyone to flnd A pIA~l.' to rent for outstde aut:~moblle work,
unless It Nas wlthin an lndustrlal a~~ea where therc was not goad exposure for por.entia)
cu~-tomers.
~ommissluner Nerbst Inqulred if the servlce station bays at the subJect service stei(on
slte wauid be rented to addltlonal rtwchenics, ~tc.~ in the future. Mr. KAnnard re~~lled
that the mechAnics were al ready at the new locatlon; and khat the !,e~vice bA~rs would al low
the tenants at the pravlous locatlon more space to work and thn density would not be
1 ncreased.
Commissioner Herbst then noted that ln the F'lanning Commisslon's consideratlon of other
s~:rvtce statton stte cc~nversions~ the bull~~ings anJ lots were requlre:i r.o be madlfled In
~orne mannar; and rhat two driveways to the subJect property whlch werc closest ta the
intersection shoulc3 be ciosed and replaced with lands apiny~ etc. ~~ rnsponse to
qs~estiontng, Mr. Kannard statPd they were purchasing the subJect pr•operty.
Commi ss toner Farano nated th~it he was nrt en th~~s i as X i c abou; che .:~noples rema I n i ny en the
subJect property; that other service gtatlon sites had b~en requ(red to have thelr
appearancc Improved and the subJect site should be reyuired to meet some of thc building
design crlt~~ria; and that although the servi~e station itselP w4s no*_ partlcularly t8d-
1 ook i ng ~ the canap i es shou 1 d ~e removed.
In response, Mr. Kannard stated that he would 1{ke to removr the canoples however~ sald
eanopies were part of the butldtng; that, normally~ canoples were hung on the b~:lding but
the aubJect canopies wr:re buitt into the roof of ihe bullding and it would be extrcmely
difficult to remove them~ in additlon to tl~e fact ~hat it would be a maJor operati~n to
rcmodo 1 the oul 1 d i ng i f the canop i es we re removed.
Commissioner Farano then noted that the canapies were probably na~ load-bearing~ leaving
the bullding w!thout sufficiei~t support If they ~cere to be removc . although it might be
mare dtfficult ta remove them because of t~ie way thsy were constructed; thate although he
realized it might 6e an in:;onvenience to remove the canop(es, it would not be as
i nconvenient as having to rebui ld the property; an~i tha~ he w~uld oppose the usc of the
bullding unless the canoptes were removed.
Mr. ~ annard stated that he agreed with Comnissioner Farano's comrnents and that he intended
to upgrade the prope~ty, however~ lf it was left vacant there would be conttnuous
exkens i ve vandal i sm and ~ wi Lhout anyone ~n the pl ace operat 1~ i t woul d be di f f i cul t to
da anything with the property. ~
Cammissioner Farano inquired if the applican: w~uld bc willing to remove the canoFics
within si:c rreonths If the appltcation werp apnroved~ and Mr. Kannard answered tn tn~.
afftrmat~ve~ alttiouyh he preferred one year.
Chalrman Johnson noted that it appearec! the oppon~ent to the subJect ar~licatio-i hai
withdrawn his opaosition. based on the dlscusston,
It ti~,as noCec~ thzt rl~e ~irector of the Planning Depart~~~ent had determined that the proposed
activity fell wi*.nl~ th~ de~initfon of Sectlon 3.01, Class 1, of the Clty of Anahelm
Gui dcl inr:s to the Requi rements for an E.~i ronmental Impact Report and was ~ therefore~
categar(cally exempt f°om the r~equ(rrment to prepare an EIR,
Comrr~~ssioner Morley offered Re~olution No, PC76-186 an~ moved for its p~~sage and
adop.ion~ that the Anaheim City Planning Comm(ssion da~s hereby yrant Petitiun for
Yarlance No. 2841~ to establish a radiator and autortabile repalr shop at the subJect
location~ subJect to the cc~nditions that the westernmost ~riveway on Nnrth Street and the
h~rthernm~st ~ifiveway on Anahelm Boulevard shall be remaved and replaced with st~andar~i
eurb and gutter and landscaping; that the two existing Ganopies and pump islands shall be
removed within six months f~om the effe~tive date of this rosoluYion~ as stipulated to by
th~e petltioner; and subJcct to the Interdepartmenta) Cortmittee recomme~da~tons. (See
Resolutlon Book)
On roll c~ll ~ th~ fore!~oin, resolutlon was r~ass~d by the following vote:
AYE;: COMMi SS (ONERS : BARNES ~ FARA'riQ, ~~ERBST ~ MORLEY , JOI~NSQN
NOES: ~OMMISS IQtJEP,S: NQNE
ABSENT: COMMtS510NERS: KING, TOLAR
COMMISSIONER KING RETURNED 7'' THE COUNCIL CHAMBER AT 2:50 P.M.
--- -_-~-,~.
~ ~
M 1 NUTES ~ C I TY PLANN I NG COMN 1 SS I ON ~ Septambe r 27 ~ 197b 76-462
VARIANC~ N0. 2$45 - PUBIIC HEARING. sILI,Y J. AND BETTY J. KIKER~ 616 No~th Brookhurst
St~eet, A~ahelm~ C~+. 9280) (Owners); J. R. TESLER~ 504 North StatA
Collage Boulovard~ Maheim~ Ca, 92806 (Aynnc)= requasting '~AIVER
0 F MINIMUM F100R AREA~ TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE•fAMIIY OWEILING on property descrlued ss a
rect~ngularly-shaped ~arce) o~ land consisting of appraxlmaCely aQ00 square feeC hsving
a f rontage of ap~roxtmately 50 fent o~ thn north aidn oP Narth St~eet~ having a maxim~xn
deepCh of approxlrtu~t~ly 100 feet~ and being loGaCed appraximately 218 }eet east cf the
ce ~terline of West Street. Property presontly slasalflad RS-10~Q00 (RESIDEN7IAL~ SINOLE-
FAMILY) ZONE,
No one Indicatecl thetr presence in oppositton to thaa ~ubJect perttton.
Although the SCaff Report. to the Planning Commisslon dated Septembe+r 27~ 197~~ was not
re ad +~t the Nuhlie hearing~ sald Sta~ff Report Is re~arred to r~d mede a part of the
minutes.
M r. Jack Teslcr~ t'~e agent for the petitioner~ appeared bGfore the Planning Commisslo~ and
s tated he was nat the origi~al owner of the property who had split It; and that It wuuld
be Impossible to construct a 1700-square foot cirr~lling on the sub)ect property ta rneet the
rtnrn~al setback reyui rements.
THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSEU.
in re~spcnse to questioning by Commissdoner Farano, Deputy City Attornev Frank Lowry
ad vlsesd that thr lot wa~ split legally tn 1955~ prla: to the exlst(ng ~ubdivislon
r~qui rements.
!t was noted that the; Director of the F'I::n~ing aepartment had deCermtned that thr~ p~o~x+sed
aGtlvity fell within the dofinitlon of Sectlon 3.01. Clas~ 3. of the City of M ahelm
Gutdelines to the Requirc;nents for an G~vironmenta! Imprct Report and was~ therefore~
categorically zxcmp' Fr•om the rcqu(rcF• it to filc an EIR.
Cammtssioner ~lorley cffered Resolution No. PC7G-187 and nk~vcd fur ii.a Ne~RA98 and
adoptl~r~~ that the Anaheim Gity Pianning Comnisslon do•~.s horeby grant Petition far
V ar!ance No. 2845, granting kh~ requested waiver of the mi~imum floor area to censtruct a
singie-fami~y dwelling w(th 1~80 square feet on an RS-10~0U0 zoned lot~ on the basl~ that
although the property 1~ zoned RS-10,000~ and is a legal lat recorded prior to June 22~
1956, tha loY is only 5000 square feet in size and a le~yer cwelltng wou0d not ment other
si:e developrt~cnt standards uf the zona; an,d subJect to the Interdepartmental Comm)ttee
recoRdnnndations. (S~e Resolutian Hook)
On ro' all, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMHISSIONERS: BARNES~ FARANO~ NERBST, KING~ MORL~Y, JONNS~N
NOES : CQMMI S51 ONEftS : NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSlONERS; TOLAR
(NQTE: THE FOREGnINt~ 17EM WAS CONSIOERE~? FOI.LOWING 7HE RECESS SiNCE THE PETITlONER
WAS hCiT PRESENT WHEN T~F 17EN WAS DUtY SL~,:.OILED TO BE HEARD. )
VARIANCE N0. 2846 - PUBLIC HEARING. PRUDEMTIAL LIF': INSURANCE, 660 Newport Center Orive,
Newport 8each~ Ca. 92660 (Owner); CFIRIS R05COE, 5~0 North Euclid
~treet, Mahelm~ Ca. 9280) (A~ent); requesting WAIVER OF MINIMUM
NLIMBER Or PARKiNG SPACES, TO CONSTRUCT AN ENCIOSED RESTAURANT on prope~ty dEacrtbed ~s an
i~regularly-shaped parcal of iand cons(sting of apnroxlmstely 43.8 acres lc;.ated ~n the
s outh side of Crescent Avenua betwesn Euclid and Loar~ Streets having approxtmdte front-
sges oS` 1250 feet on the south side of Crescent Avenue, 900 feat on the east slde of Euclid
5treet. and 1650 feet on thc west side of Loara Street, and further described as 500 North
Euclid Strent. Property presently classifled CG (COMMERCIAL~ GENERAl.) ZONE.
!t was noted that the petit(onsr had submitted sdditicnal plans delettng the ~ quested
walver ~snd~ the~efore~ was requesting that the subJect varlance be withdrawn.
~ommissl~ncr Farar~u offered a motlon~ sewnded by Commissloner King snd MOTION L. ROED
(Comml~~si<~ner Tolar bein~ absent)~ that the M+~helm City Plenni~g Commisston does hereby
terminate all proceedings tn connectlon wlth Veriance No. 2g46, as roquested by the
~etf tloner.
~
~
MINUTES~ CI' rLIINNiNG COMMISSION~ September 27~ 197b
76-~i63
VAR111NCF N0. 28~i7 - PUBLIC HEARING. KEN GEORGE AND JOAN 'T. D01~ a68t Katella~ Stanton~
Ca, go680 (Owncrs); WILLIAM R. RUSSELL~ 2275 w~sc Llncoln Avenue,
Sulte E~ Anaheim, Ca. 92301 (Agtnt); requnsting WAIVER OF PERMITTkD
USES FOR f3 PIGNIC-TYPE TABIES IN I'RONT UF AN EXISTING DELICATESSFN/CONVENI~NCE M/1RKET on
property describect as an Irrec~ularly-shaped parce) of land conslsting of approximately
1.?. acras having approximate frontoyes of 149 feet on the south side of Linc:oln Avenueo
1Q0 feet on tho west side of Laxore Stre~t~ end Ib0 fnet on the north sidr, of L;r+bassy
Avenue~ and further de~crtbed as 2960 West l.incoln Avenun, Proaerty presently clr~;elflecl
CL (COM~I~RCIAL~ LIMITCD) 7.ONE.
No one Indlcaked thelr presen~~~ ln oppositton to subJect petltion,
Althouqh tho Staf{° Repart to Plannfng Commissien dated Septembcr 27~ 197~- was not
raad at the public he~ring~ sald Staff Repnrt Is ref.:rred to and r,a~dc a part oF the
minutds,
Mr. Wlillam q. Russell~ the agent tor the petl;.i,~ner~ sppeared before the Planning
fnmmission end stated they were proposing to h~~e attractive picnlc tables In th~ front of
~ merk~t a~ the subJect location for the convenlence of the customers; that they had
~uest(oned many of the other buslnesses in the sabJect area who Indlc~ted they would llke
to have a plece to 31t' down and cAt when they brought °helr lunches; that tlic tablos would
hclp to keep the areo cleaner by giving faclilttes Cf~a~ w uld be policed~ etc,: and that
~ tables aiould be lor.ated ln the front setback area und~r the averhang and would noc
restrict thc pedestrian trafftc in the area.
TtiE PUBLfC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
it was determ! •~l that the sidewalks around the bullding were 9 feet wide~ ar~d Mr. Russpll
stated that ~'~~ maxlmum sl,~e oP the tables was 4 feec; char. the widest alsles inside a
build(ng were generally 4 fee~; and that~ additlonally~ there was about 5 fect of asphalt
ard~ therefo;•e, the cament markers could be moved back.
Commissfoner Ktng mad~ an ob~ervatlon that the tables would be on th~ north slde and not
the nast sidc of the bulldin~.
Commissioner flerbs: noted that he h~d no oblections to the use~ however~ if the table area
was to be Pncios-d it would expand the restaurant and he c~uesttoned whether such ar
expansion wc,uld reduce tt~c number of parking spaces provided and wheth~r the ~citchen area
would then be in c-~nf~)rm~~ce witll the Code standards~ etc.; and that approv~ ~iight set a
preced~n;.
Commissloner Farano noted that presently no slt-down facllltles existed in the subJect
delicates;en; that the proposal would create sit-down feclllties o~tside of the buflding;
that the success of the proposed outside facillties mtght depend on the atmosphere befng
i~ext to the parking area; and Chat It might be unfair to other restaurant owners to
approve the proposa) stnce they might want the same thtnn w(thout the r~asons for a
legitimate outside eating area,
In response~ Mr. Russell stated there were a number of resCauran~s On Anaheim wlth
ce venience seating outside anci very few had covers over them; that they were not asking
for an increase in growth any more than others would and presently the customers Just
stood around and ate their lunches; and that they we~•e located rir~ht next to a restaurant
whic' was alsa awned by the petltioner.
:.hairman Johnson nnted that the tables would probably block the sidewalk to a degree but
would not block the pedestrian traffic for the nelghb~rs or other tenants in the center;
and that he could see nothtng wrong wit-~ having seating for che custome:rs rather than
having thnm st~nd and eat.
Cornmissloner Herbst reiterated that since the proposal was an expanston ~f the exlsting
restaurant~ it wAS important to know whether Chere would be a shortage of parking and
k~tchen sp:~ce, etc.; however, !~e not~.d that if the pettttoner cauld mtet sald
reQulremen~a~ he was not npposed to the applicatton,
Commiss~oner Farano noted that the other restaurants~ t,e,, McDonrid's~ etc.~ prr~~-ided
trash receptacles, table-cteaning facilittes~ etc.~ for their outsicie tables; that the
proposal represcrtc~l an expansion of a carrY-out rzstaurant k~y adding the sit-down
~
~
MINUTES. CITY QLANNING COMMISSIQN, Septdmber 27. 1976
VARIANCE N0. 2847 (Co~tinued)
~u-4b~t
facllities and it would appear thz,t a precednnt might be set~ wlthaut the benoPtt of thc~
best sat of cfrcumstancas~ and approval mtght result In an unE:^mpt 1`~or~t area.
Chalrman Johnson made an obser ~tion that the eddtttonal kitchan and parking space~ ctc.,
would be rmqulresd if the expandod uee was to be onclosed.
Comn~tasloner Sarnes lndicated that slnce many of Che restaurants with outsldc seating had
abuut 5 tables~ she was conce~ned that 8 tables mtght be too many, In response, Mr,
~ussell stated they had maasured off the area for the tables and f~und adequate room; that
they hrd one ma~n entrance And two side entrances; and that they had trash berrels for the
area and would b~ pullcinR it av~ry 30 mfnutes.
In response to q:stloning by C~mmt3sloner King. h, Russoll Indlcated that tha nelqhbors
had slgnad the subJect petitlo~ indlcatlnc~ c.~nsent of the proposal. (NUTE; A review of
the rile indicated no ~ignatures on the petiCiun a~pltcatlon as represe~ted,)
In r~spnnse to yuestloning by the Planning Commtssi~~7~ Assistant PlAnner Joel Fick
ind~:ated r.hat ~+ maximum of 2 to 3 parkiny spaces would br, requlred fo~ the propased
out,~or seating and could b~ rr~de up anywhere in t!~e parking area ~f the complex~ end
the -e appe:ared Co be ample spac~; And that rega~ding kitchen spACe~ the requlrei~~en,t was
that 25~ c~f the gress tloor area be devoted to that purpose~ however, he had not ~cumputed
suid raqulrement9.
Cartmissioner King inqulred if t~~e t'lanniny Commissicn would constder grantiny the pet(tion
for a period of one year~ a~d Commiss+oner rarano indtcated t~~at as soon as it a~as
granted~ even though (t may be for only one year~ a precc:dent would ba s~t.
Mr. Russell then sYated that~ as the Plannin~ "~mmisslon probably noticed~ the plans
lndtcated qulte a bit of kitchF area with ,,~n for expanslon; that the buildings behlnd
the subJect bulldin~ rere vacar~t; ttiat at the end af one year~ they might be able to put
the sesating In ~n adJalning bullding if they could Justtfy the customers; and that~
presently~ the restaurant business was only a delicatessen.
Chairman Johnson noted that the petitioner should see to it that the out~oar eottng area
would net crnate any addit',ona) trash around in the complex and that tt would be a
workable thtng; and~ furtherrn~re~ the Planning Commission was trying to avaid ~etting an
unJustifled precedenti~ hencp the q!+esrioning pe~taining to the parking space and kitchen
area ~ et:.
It was noted that the Director of tl~e Planning Department had determtned thaY the pr~posed
actlv(ty fell wtrhin the definition oF Section 3.01~ Class 1~ of the Clty ot Anaheim
Guidelines to the Req~!irements for an Environmental Impact Report and was~ therefore~
categortc._ally exempt frnm *~ie requirement *.o file an EIR.
Commisstoner Barnes of~ered Resolution No. PC76-188 and moved for Its passage and
adoptton~ that the Anahetm City Planning Commtsston does hereby grant Petttlon for
Vari ~ce No. 2£~47 for 8 plcnic-type tables wlth maxlmum dtmenstons of 48 Inches outside
the b~t1ding at the sub.ject ,~cation on the basis that the ~xisting facilittas meet the
standards requtred for an enclosed re-taurani. with respect to requi~ed parktng and kitcf~en
a~ea, however. salc: use shal~ be granr.ed for a p~rl~d of one year sublect to review and
consideratlon for an extension f time~ s(nce the petttloner tndtcated the use is
transltional In nature unttl the exlsttng restaurant can be relocated; and subJec*. to the
Inte~departmenCal Corr,mittee recommendations. (Se~ Rcsolutlon Bookj
On roll ca11, the foregoing resolutlon was passed by the f~llowing vote:
AYES; CGMHISSIONERS: BARNES~ HERBST, KlNG~ MORLEY~ JOHhSON
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO
A9SFNT; r.OMM~SSIONERS: TaLAk
RECESS ° At 3:08 p.m.~ Chairman Johnson declar~d a recess.
RECONVENE - At 3;22 p.m., Ch~airman Johnson reconver,ed the meeting
wl th Comr.iisst,ner Tolar being absent.
•
~^
•
MINUTEa~ CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ Septomber 2~~ 19]6
76-465
VARIANCE NQ. 2~348 - PUBLfC HE!-RING. EXXON l,U. USA~ P. 0. Box 21a0~ Nouston~ Taxas 7700)
~((h~ner); CONROY GROUP II~ 10524 West Picn 9oulevard~ los Anyeles~ Ca.
90Ufa4 (Agent); requesting WAIVER Or (A) PERMITTED ENCttOALHMENT~ INTO
REQUIRED ~I1RU~~ (B) MINIMUM S7RUC7URl1l SETBACK~ ANO (C) PFRMITTED USES~ TO CONSTP.UCT A
FIOW[R SIIOP on prop~rty desc~ ~~~~ as an irrogularly-shapncl parcal of land canststing of
appraximately ~.6 acre locatr.d at thr. northa~est corner of Llncoln Avenue and Euclld
Street~ h~ving approxlmote frontaqes of 150 feec on the north side of Linc~ln Avenue
and 150 feet on the wcst side of Euclid Street. Propcr~y presen.ly classlfied Cf,
(COMMERCtAL~ GENERAL) ZONE.
No ~ne tndtcated their presenca in oppositl~~ ~ the sub,lect petitlon.
Althouqh tha Staff Report ~,~ the Planning Commisslon cfaced September 27, t976, was not
re+~d at thc public hcaring~ s.,l~~ StaFf Report is reFerred to Ar~d made a part af ±he
minutes.
Mr. Chris Conroy, repr~scnting the agent for tl~e petitionor. appeared befora the Plann`n•~
C~mmission and statsd thero would be no selling of flowers on the st~~~et; that photogra~h~
of thetr most recently Gonsr.rur,ted similar opsratlons had bcen submitt~~i for rev~lew; t.lia:,
In ~helr partlcular trade~ tF~ey needed t-~ be as ~lose as possible to the lntersectlon~
si .. the sale o~ flowers was an im~ulse thtnq; that the Ctty of Inglewood had resisted
thetr proposal and were touchy about whgt went Into the center of their clty~ and rlghtly
so; that the op~ration was referred to as outdonr sales since they tried to desiyn their
storos partly open so that the custamera could see the interior of the store as much as
possible; and that they had rec~fved hanorabl-: mention on the desian of their stores in
the past and felt that the operation wouid be an assGt Co the City of Anaheim.
THE PUBLIC HEAR!NG WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst inquirad if the petitioner had studted the traffic prabl~ms on the
subJect corner~ and noted that it was about the worst corner property in the enttre City.
Mr. Conroy replled that they I~ad studied the traffic and would have an average of 50 sales
pc; day during the 12 I,ours they would be open, averaging four sa'les per hour or one car
for eve~y 12 to 15 mi ~ute. period.
Commissioner l~erbs. then noted that If anyone liad an impulse to turn into and out of the
subJect property between 4;00 p.m, and 5:00 p.m.~ there would b~ a serious traffic
cor.fl(ct; that even CalTrans hac! felt that the subJect corner was so bad they did not knaw
how to fix it; that he dld not want to approve anything that wauld interfere further with
the traffic on the subJect corner; and that the proposed use wouicl automat(cally be a
beeutiful addition to the subJect corner and iC would t;e a dlsaster for the traFftc to
take thelr eyes off the road to look at i*..
In response, Mr. C~nra~~ stated the tmpulse would be the fixing of an ide~ af~~r seetng the
shop from dAy~to-day and not spontaneo«s buying; ttiat there would be more a~ciuents with
the pravious use of the pro~erty than with the proposed use; and that if a fast-food
operation were placed on this property~ for instn~ice, witfi the 35-foot setback~ there
would be a far greater hazard than w1Ch Ctie propcsed ~se.
Commiss(oner Herbst noted th~it a fast-fond operatlon ~::uld not ae bul't on the subJect
corner without the benetit of a conditional use perm~t; hat the llowe~ shop could be
built. as long as it abidecl by the ordtnance~ per se; a~~u that the req~ssted var(ance was
to ancroach upan the corner.
Commisstoner Farano noted t~~at orse would yather from the lraffic Engineer's rpport tha~
the petizioner was proposing curNside sales. Thereupon, hr. Conroy stated that was
untrue. Commissicner Farano then c~ade an observation that thP phatog~aphs of the Redond~~
Beach location dld ~~~t appe~r to offer ~urbside sales~ hut the effe~.t of the store was
open with all sales bein~ conductrd inside. Mr. Conray then ~`atzd that they absolutei~~
conducted no sales outside their buildings.
C'ommisstoner King noted for the petitioner thst no pawkfng would h~ ailowed along the curb
at the subJect :ocatton. Upon questioning by Commission~r King~ Mr. C~nroy stated the/
had 12 stores and averaoed 50 salea per• day at each of them.
•
~
e
MINU1'ES~ CITY PLIINNING COMMISSION~ Septembor 27~ 197G
VARIA.NC~ N0. 26~~8 (Continued)
7G-46G
Commisslanar FarAno Indicntcsd that~ In his opiilan, the praposal wns th~ hest thln~ that
~-cauld go on the subJact corner~ If It would not crcat~ a trafflc iatnrd; and that fF any
kfnd of buslness should be closo t~ the s(dtwAlk, thc s~ihJect h~::lne~s should.
I~i responsc t~ questloninq by Commissloner King~ Mr. Conroy stated that at thc
intersecttons whora thnlr other sCores were located they were n~t eware of any ecc(dents
wh(ch had bacn caused by their opcrotic+ns.
For tha Plann(n~ Commissfon's Ir,formatfun, Mr, Conr~~y explalned that he was nat a"clty
s 1 1 cker" but was a smal 1 n~is inessman ~ and t`~at al 1 of tf,e rc~+ tape taok away from the
i nC0f1 L ~ VC ,
In re~~~~nse to questtonln~ by Chalrm~n Johnson~ Mr. Conroy stated that the customers wo~ald
ex{t on ~ucllclblay but would n~t enter on s~~ld street. Thereupon, Asslstank 1'raffic
Enginee~• Btll Stracker advis~cl ft was recommended that the exlsttng drlveway leaciing to
and from Eucli~l Street be close~t dur. to confllct of vchicular traffic wtth the heavy
traffic flow on Euc1ld Skreet ancl base~l on trafftc r~ports indicatin~ 17 acctdents wfiich
were causeci by trafflc exiting at ~atd dr(veway~ Mr. Stracker further advtsed that he had
seen cars drlve on the wrong side. of the st~eet on Euclid ta reach the opening in the
medlan whlch was 2~Q feet pas~ the driveway to yo left from subJect property.
11r, C~nroy offered to record covenants against tl~e s ~ect property requiring the owners
to malnta(n egress (n the proper rnanner as would approved by Che Clty to remove: the
C(ty from any llab(lity of trafflc liazards at the ~ubJect locatlon. Thereupon, Deputy
Ci ty Attorney Franl< l.awry advi sed tfiat he was v~ y concerned about the CI ty's 1 I ab 1 1 1 ty i f
approv~l of the pr~posal would bc permttting :.nown danger•ous condition when It would
increase the risk~ thereby increasing the kn~ ~~ hazards; and that he was also conctrned
about some personal llabilitywhich miglit b~ ncurred by the Planr.ing Conmission in
approvlna the proposal,
Commissioner Farano reiterated that the ~bJect proposal was different In that if ,iere
was an approprtate use for this corner~ the p~•~NOSaI ~aas; that ?hr_ sub)~ct slte haa been
su~Ject to a much heav(er usage in the past, the prevlous use hci, a~ervlce station; and
that he could not think of any other use for the s~~hJect sir.e, fncluding industrlal, that
would be more appropriat~ than the proo~sai.
Co;m~issioner He.rbst tl~en dlscu,sed tl~e Fossibillti~s fur use of the property If the flow~r
shop should fail at the subJect locatinn~ since the building w~utd not conform co the
setback requirements, and that he favored the use ~~ly with ths setbacks as required slnce
he had been voting for years *_o rnainl•ain the setbacks along Lincoln Avenue.
In response to questioning by Commiss{oner King, Mr. Canroy stat~d they could not ex~st if
the b,~ildinq were moved back, He further stated that they were paying cash for the
property and had been in uusiness for 17 years.
Cormiissioner darnes noted that the setbacks were so important because nf the accidents
which had occurred on this corner; and that the 35-foat sEtback weuld be a safety factor.
Mr, Conroy then stated that the Planning Comm(~sion would not be allowing the use unless
the waiver were 9ranted; and Commissioner darnes advised tha± would be the chatce of tl~n
petitloner since the use could be allo~we;l wfthout the waiver,
Mr. Gonroy discussed cheir Redondu eeach location~ stating that they h~d obta~ned a waiver
fro~n the 10-foot setback re~uirement there and liad been ~llowed ;o bulld right to the
pro~erty line.
C`~airman Johnsor; note~+ that althougli he liked the appearance of the proposed project~ hP
malntained that~ if approved~ this property could be turned into a ve~ptable stand right
on the street with no difficulty; and that he d-d not know how the pr~posal could bP
amorttzed on 50 sales per day.
Mr. Conroy stated that it appeared the Planninc. Commission would approve the project for a
35-`oot setback or ~at approve it at all.
Cortmissioner Farano noted that if the proposal was for a single-purpose bullding~ It would
be easier `or the Planning Cnrn~nlsslon to app~o~•e ite but it wES entirely possible Lhat the
us~ could be changed tn the fut~re and that would Ue bad news for the Cit~; that, however,
he would very much like to have somethin~ s!milar to the proposa) on ttiat corner ~jnd,
~
U
~
•
HINUTES, CITY PL{1NNING COMMISSIOPI~ September 27, 1976
vnKinNCC N0. 2a4$ (Continued)
7G-461
alChou~h tt wou1J be tradittonai to hAV~+ parktncl In front~ he could se<e nothin~~ wrong wIC~~
this ~r any oth~~r buslnesss having parking in the rear, Commissloner f~nrbst took
oxception~ natfng that approv~l of the walver would set a prece~ent for futuro dovel~pmAnt
up tind down l.fncoln Avenue.
In respor,se *.o questl~ming by the Pl~nning Conmission~ Assistant Planncr Joel F(ci ~dvlacd
th~~t ti~ere hid heen some walvers ~f the setbac:k requ(re:ments along lincr~ln Avr,nue, and
Commissloner 1lerbst notc~d th~i no new constructtun had been ailowed witl~ Iess than Che ~5-
foot setback. Commissinner Herbst then qucsstio~ ~d wl~y tlie propasPd use could not have
parking In Pront.
In repiy~ Mr, Conroy stated they were not d~velopinq the pruperty to ICS highest and best
use snd were not proposin~ to further dPVelop it in t~-e future; and that if for any re.ason
thP use was not successful~ they would anticto~te razing the bullding to the grc~nd and
then cleveloptng It to i~~ hlghest and best use.
Commissfoner Farano then indlcated he was givtn~7 son~e thought to whether the front
lendscapl~g was effectivP when It was lhen decorated w~_h parked automabiles; and his only
concern witl~ the proposnl was that tl~e use might chr~nge in thr future and no one would
want ko take the bulldiny down witl~ the sCa(neci glass front, usecl bricl<~ etc.
In response to further questlaning by Commis~loner 1!ing~ Mr. Conroy statcd th~t the
proposeci buildlnq would not obstruct the vlew of the traffic traveling south nn Euclid
Street.
Mr. Fick further advised that thP Clty Counc(1 had established a policy ~~I~fch ciesignated
l.incoln ~venue, west of the ~r~eway~ to '~ave 35-foat setbacks ~~or the F~urpose of future
wlde~iing of Llncoln Avenue which may or may not occur; and that since the subJect property
was zoned CG, there were no site development standards for landscapin!~.
I~ response to questloning by Comrnissioner Darnes~ Mr. Stracker reviewed t`~e proposed
plans ancl advisecl that he could see no traffic vtew obstruction caused by the rropused
placement of the building; however, there would sttll be traffic hazards caused by
customers leavin~ the sub,ject property and trying t~ get (nto the ~eft-turning lane at
Lincoln; and that the City of Rednnclo Beach had some problems with the signing of r.he
flower shops.
Commissloner Farano suggest~ci that the petitioner for~et about the signing anci put in more
stalned glass.
Cammissionei ~lorley made ~~n observatlon that generally Commissioner F'arano was negative
about setbacks~ b~~t the proposal way somewhat different.
Mr. Conroy stited that o,~ his way t~ tt~is public hear'ing he had passed a service sratlon
site on a corn~r with a plantrr in front that was nvergrown wlth awful weeds, In
response~ Commissioner Herbst noted that the Planning Commission had dlsapproved about
h~ilf o~ the ssrvice stations that presently existed in the City and abour. half of those
were nc~w closed; that he d~d nat feel the Planr~ing Cormiission should create probiems for
the 200~000 cltlzens that were re~resented in rhe City and~ unforrunately~ the subjec~
corn~r was one of the major disaster areas in the City and would probably remain so untll
the State cleared it up with some modification to the freeway ramps i the area.
Commissioner Farano inq~ red if there could be ~ coridition imposed upon the approval of
the su~Ject applicatian to release the C~ty from liability regarding [he traffic, orher
than supportive reasoning cliat i~e could not concelve of another use of the proper•, that
would not ~e at least as heavy or heavier slnce it was a business corner and wouid
probably never be anything else; that hs wouid offer further Justif~:atton that the
proposal would not be prece~ent-setting because the use to which the prope.rty was being
put was like no other use on Linc~ln Avenue and the use would, therefore~ satisfy the
ordinance; that under no other circumstances ~vauld ;_ be wllling to watve the setback
prov(sian; that the proposed butlding wauld not block the view of the adJacent traffic;
and that he would hope that witfi the reaiignment of Euclld in she future, the hazardous
traffic conditions in t;~e area would be somewhat alleviated,
CAmmissloner Barnes note:d that the Plar,ning Corrmiss~~n was t~sually wl111n9 to negotlatc~
but ln this particular case she was not willir.g to ne~~+:iate since the petitioner was not
wilfing to ofip~ a comp~omise.
~
.~wn
~
MI NUTES ~ C I TY f'LANN I NG CUMM I SS I ON, 5eptrn~e, 27 ~ 19~6
VAttIANCC N0. 7.J4H (Continucd)
76-46tf
Commi ss ta~er Farnr~n n~~tFd that the pc~.t i t laner's cles 1 re wa~ n commerc i ol one r,ither than fl
dl^Interest In wanClnn to mect th<r Pl~nning Cortimisslon h~1F-way, en~l the v,;;ue vras the
declsl~~ of the petitloner, that. fc~r some t' ~~e thc Pl,~nni~~,~ Commisslan had ~1(scussed thr.
Idea ~,f creatln~ some latitudc f<•,r (mr~gination ln ~les(gn an~~ ~~~vclap:~+ent, .:r~d It ap~~ear:~~t
th~~t the ~~rop~s~til with no s~~ti„c:k ~as more effective than a 35-fooc hln:kr~~;,~,ed setbacR
fllled with autamobttes; c+nd th,it thc ~roposal~ (n ~Sls oplnlan~ would fulifil ehe s~'rit
oF L'hc ordl~onco,
Corrm;sslaner Herbst not<<~ that the pro~osal would cauae tho traf~tc tu loalc away frem the
r~~~d and hc wnulJ not anree to thc~se conditlona; th~t the proposbi would set an
undesirable precedent far fuCure ~evel~pnx:nt alonc~ Lincoln ~:venu~ and a~proval woul~! be
granting a ric~ht to use rhe ,ubJect propcrty thnt h~~ not been grante~f ~'or othGr
prop~ertles In the surrounding area; ..~id tl~at developl~~g the property all the way to th~s
sidewalks was not a compromise,
Commis~lonsr Farano further supported the rroFosal by notfng t-iat future refe~ence to the
grunting of this pro~.~sal c~uld be reconciled on the basis uf the des'~n and the inherent
nature of the property Itself; and that in the ¢uture he would not i~~~ore the setbacl~,5 tf
there w~re no other comperisating ~~catures of a pr~posal.
.ommissloner Herbst t:ien noteJ that the propose<1 varfance was for the buildin,y setb:,ck and
not thc busine.ss setback and would run w'th thc land for the next 50 years or so; t'nat
approval cauld cause a great pr~~lem for khe Clty of Anah~elm; and that he weuld ~eiterate
that fee had no obJections to t~ie USe~ per se.
Commis~loncr Kin:, in~ulred lf the pet(tioner was willing to ne~~tiar.e regarding the
setbacks in any way; whereupon~ Mr. Conroy sttpulated they would set the bufldln~ hack an
additlonal 5 feet if they could obtair ur.animous approval of the proJect~ and lie further
st~ted that ev~ry foot they went back from the praperty 1(ne decreased their Notenttal.
Mr. lowry advised that if there was a hazard~us conditlon kn~wn to the yovernmental ac,ency
and sald condlt?an was increased du~. to act'ions by the agenc,es, then the members of ~ne
approving agency would be takin~ a chance with tF~eir own pocketbooks, !n reply~
Commission Farano n~ted that he w~~s adopt(ng the rationa'e that no evidenGe had ~en shown
or presented ro suhstantiate that the subJect propos~l would make the traffic conditians
more dangerous than any other deveiopment on the subJecC property, excepting that the
Assistant Traffic Engineer had pointec' out that some pec~~'e might drive down tl~e wrong
side of the st~•eet to reach the median strip ~pening to go left.
Chafrman Jahnson noted that he agreed tl,a; the a~cldent reports could he shoa~n for any
aeveloprr~nt proposed on the subJect property; however, the proposal was too far Int~ the
setb~ck area to satisfy him.
Commfssioner Y.inn Inquired if anythinc~ could b~e written ~nto the deed or, the propety wnlch
would relieve the C(ty of any liabilfty if the proposal were approved. 11r, l.owry advlsed
that a cleed restrlctian could be recorded calllnc~ for right-:urns only to be permltted fQr
exiting traffic from the subJect propety. Mr. Lowry f~~rther advised that the sub~ject
property could be determined to be a hardship parcel aue to its shape and design with
inherent ingress and egress problems; and thaL it would be approprlate to make any other
findings fo~• the grantin~ of the proposal which were normal for a land use varlance.
Conxnissloner Farano •~~d that there was virtually little or no develoN~nent :hat could be
pla.ed on the subJe~ property without creotinc~ ~ traffic ha~ard.
Commtss(oner H~rbst aQreed Lha; a~y dev.loprr,ent would crea'.e taff(c.
Chairman J~hnson i;iq~~lred about the prupe~ty to the east about 20n yards which ha~1 a
garage right nn the strcet wtth an overhang on thE siaewalk almost to the c~~rb. Mr. Luw ry
Pxplalned that the propcrty in question was gran*.pa a variancc f,,r an exist~nq cu(Iding
which would have otherwisa ~~ad io i,e :3wed off.
Mr. Stracker advised that the Clty Engi~eer's Offic~ had received a pe~ ~on from
approxlmately 2S~ employees at fbb~rtshaw~ lorated dlrectly to t!~e norti~ of sub~ect
property~ sald petitlan requesting ttiat something be donA about '~e tntersectlon of Euclid
Street and Lincoln Aveniie s(nce they had to ,:~e safd intersectlon eve~Y day. Mr. ~trac~er
furth~r advised that, regarcling other uses for ti~e s~• Ject property, the Planntng
~
~
~
MINUI;S~ CI'TY PI ~t~NIt~G COMM~SSIQN~ SeptQtnoer 27~ 197~
76-hG~
VARIA~~CE N0. 2846 ((.ont~iiucd)
Cammtsslon shoulci consldor ihc peak busin~ss h~ours wl~en thr. t~affic wnuld be most 1lkPly
on the prop~rty,
Commisslonar Fara~o ru~de an observAtlon that m~ny un'ou~dcd alle~atlons wer~ be~ng
presented and that It mlght be ln urdor to c~ntinue the subJect petltlon for two weeks tn
order that the hlsko ry of a11 the acctdents at the s~abJect corncr could bt +~~ade a part of
the record; e~nci thaL he co~ald not accept the statements being made wlthout proof.
Chairman J~hnson st~tad that in all fAlfness to thC F:~eciticner~ hc ~11d not feel that
overcominc~ the questiors pertalning ta traffic ~.ould mr';e tl~~ proJoct any m~rr. favorabl~,
and hc held that the s~tbacks were in ~~isfavor of thc pruJect.
Mr. Conroy then stated that the hullding itse~f wES pro;,osed to be set back 7 fect from
the property line~ b~C the overhang of thie bullding we~t to the praporty llne,
Mr. Ftck advised chat an awning or overhang wc?uld ne pe~•mitted [o er.rr~ach 30 tnches into
the setback area,
Commiss(aner hbrley agreeci that tlic traffic situation would i~ul be changed two weeks from
thts timee ~nd titiat any proposal wnuld creat.. rmre traffic in the area.
Commtssioner Barnec noted tl~at the saie of flower$ dId not Justlfy or make a hardship;
that she did ~,u~ want to appruve an automobile sales {ot to the sidewalk; and that
althc>ugh she would lovo to have a flower shop on the subJect cornar~ she vrould not want It
that clusc to the street.
In respo~se to questluning by Commissioner Farano~ ~1r. CA~roy stipulated that ti~~ proposal
wou1J conforn, to all ~t the laws of tl7e City nertatning to signs; and~ furt.-~ermore~ they
w~uld movc the ~roposed bulldYng 5 feet farther awP~~ from the siclewalk and f'il' In the
additional 9ro~ncl araa with reJ brick.
~ommissloner Farano ~~fered i nY.~lon, secanded by Ccmmtssioner King and MOTION CARRlED
(Commissioner ialar beincl ab~enk)~ lhat tiie Anaheim Ctty Planning Commisston does hereby
~. a,nmend to the Ctty Counctl of tNe Clty uf Anaheim that <~ negatlv~ declaratio~ from the
requirerient to prepare an envir~nmer~tal impact report be approved fur the subJect pru?ect,
pursuant to the proy(~ions of thP Califnrnla En~rironmental Quality Act.
Commissioner Farano offered a resolu:ion a~d ~+~~pd for ira p~ssage and adaptlon~ that the
Anahcim f,ity Plar~ning Commiscion does hereby grant Petition far Variance No. 23~i8,
~ranting the r•cquested walvers on the basis that the petitfoner stipulated to moving the
structure back an additiona) 5 feer. fr•om the property Ilne; that satd use ls uiique anG a
hardship exist~ due ~ !ie size an~J shape of the property a~d the inherent traf~'ic
~ondit(ons ~~r inqrP nd e9ress; subJect to the condltion thar, deed restricti. ~s shall
be rer.arded to limi~ the egress on Euclid Street to right-turns onl;r, as stipu~ated to by
tt~e petitioner; that signing shall be prnvided in ac~ordance with the Code requlrements~
as stipulateci to by the pe~itlon~r; and subJec~ to the lnterdepartmental Committee
r•ecommendations. On roll call, the foregoin~ resolu*ion rec;eived a tie vote~ as foliows:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FARAHO~ KING~ f40RL[Y
NQE° ; COMMI SS I Ot~lERS : BARNES, HER8S7, JOiiNS~i'd
ABSENI': COP!MISSIONERS: TOI.AR
Mr. Low ry advlsed that the subJe:t petit(~n w~ ld be auto„~dtic~lly continue~l
for two weeks for a full Commis~ion.
~
....
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING ~OMMISSION~ Sci~tember 27, 1)7f~
7~_ii7p
VARIANC~ N~. ?.1349 - NU[1LIG HEAI~~NG, VIC F'ELQQUIN~ 24h5 East l.a Palma Avcnue~ Anahetm~
~'~^ Ca. 92~'0(~ (Owner); CARL S, NOrFMAN ~IJD qERNARD N. GAOM~ 75q South
Rosalinel Drlve~ Orange~ Ca. 92d69 (~gents); roquest;nc~ WAIVER 0~
(A) MI ~ NUMItER OF PAP.KIN~ SPIICES A~~D (E3) PERMITTEQ USES~ T~ PERMIT THE RETAIL SALES
OF SANL'wICHFS on prorerty ~tescrlbAd AS a rectangulirly-shapod ~~r:.el of lar~d conststing
of npprax(mately Q.A acre locate~i at the nortlrKnst corner of La Palma Avenue and Founcaln
Woy~ havtng npproxlmatc rrontactes of 175 faet on the north side of LA Palma Avenuc and
150 feet on Che west siclc of Fountaln Wey~ an<1 furth~r ~es~:rtbnd as 34~~5-C Easf l.a Palma
Avenue. Property present:•; clasxifled Ml (INDUSTRIAI.~ IIMITE6) Z~NE.
Two porsans indicated thelr pr~sence in ;~ppaslklon to the subject petition, ancl Porthwlth
wal vecl the ful 1 read 1 nq of the S'..A ~~ ` ~teport to tho P1 ann ing Commi ss lon dated Septcmbar 'l7 ~
1976, on the hasis th~t khPy had rrviewed ~coples oF st~me.
Aithough thc Staff Report ~~A~ not i-~~~~I at the publ ic hcaring~ saici rrport is refe~rred t•a
and made a part uf th~ minutes.
Mr. Carl Hnffman, the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Plsnning Cortmission
and stated they were ~~roposin~ to !ocate in an erist(ng huildin~ I~ an industrial complex;
th~t they would have no sit-clown se:-vice but wn~ald be st~'ictly a take-out facility so that
they would not tir up any p~arl<ing spa~es; that they would be open frcxr, about 11:0~ a,m. co
1:30 p.m. for business and the bulk of' the trada wauld be Prom withir~ walk(ng dis~anct~
from the adJacent businesse~ and the Rc~ck~el) complex; that Sulte C of the .;~ibject
industrial complex was currantl~ vacane an~ the parking spaces (n the complex ~~~are not
being used to any ,yreat extent; that there were about 15~000 peopie workinci within ~ one-
ha1F mfle radi~.~s of the subJect p~op~rcy and wcrs pressntly beiny served bv a Carl's Jr.
and a few other sm~ll restaurants In the area; and that the Rockwell Corporetion at one
time had a foc,u counter servir~ for thelr employees but that was r~~~ longer bcing offe~•ed
sfnce It had been replaced by dispensln~ machines.
Mr. H~•~ry Leacon~ 193~+ Sherington Placa, Newport Beach~ appeared before the Planning
Cammi...lon in oppositi~n ~nd stated he owned the Ball Re:~taurant property in the area;
th~t sald restaurant was bullt in appror.imately i965 and he purchased the property in 1970
follawing the r~staurant betng closed for sevcral months. He fu~th^-~ r~viewed the: history
of the Ball Restaurant and ~tated that sev~ral of the nrevlous owner~ had gone b~oke. Mr.
Leason then stated that the subJect property was original~y a ~ilt-up buitd(ng wtth
approximately 4000 square feet of floor space for m~nuf~acturing usss~ and ha~ibeen approve.d
with 21 parking spaces; that the Fire Code staYed t~iat there could be 160 people en that
property with only 21 parking spaces; that tt appeared to him that more parkinc~ should
have been required for the subJect building and that there were already parking problems
at that locatlo~~; that his tenant at the Bali Restaurant wbs paying 5900 per mont!~ rent
ancl the lunch specials were offered at $t each; Chat the Staff Report indicated only 9
parkinc; ~;~aces would be required for the retail sale of sandwiches a~~i t~~at the applica~t
was nruposing to havp 6 employees; that when he uF:rated Che Ball Restaurant~ he had
employed 8 to 12 people and they all came in separa~e automobiles and~ therefore, he was
questioning where the employees and customers would park for tlic proposed restaurant; that
I,e had checked w~th his competEtion pertaining to the lack of parking spaces tn the area
and the increase in the number of restaurants whlch was cuitin~ down the respective
businesses by about 25~~ creating the necessity to reduce the prices from 10 ta 25`~; that
the competitlon in the area was great~ creating a propositio~ of dtminishing returns; and
that if the applicant was expecting Co run the p~oposedrr.sta~~rant at a lo~s for tax
purposes, that would be Fine~ but if they were putting thetr ~ife savings (nto it~ that
would be d(fferent.
In retauttal~ Mr. Hofifman stated he did not fesl they wou~d be ;unning the same type ~~f
business as thc Ball Restauran~~ which was primarily a bar with targer tables, etc.; that
the proposal was ta cater strictly ta the crowd seeking a lunchttm~ sandwich and coke~
etc.; that, since 1965~ the subJect area had expanded enormously and the Ball Restaurant
was the only res*.aurant of its kind a~l the waY to Tustin Avenue; that there were no small
eatiny establishments to the east oP Rockwell~ although there were many to the west and,
theref~re, th~y felt there was a markex for th~tr ~~.•~:?tt; that they projected about $175
to $250 per rfay in sales. althuugh they fe1[ the area could support more than that amount;
and th t both he and h!s pr,rtner wc~rked at Rockwell and this was rt-erely an investment for
them.
THE PUBLiC HEARINf WAS CI.OSED.
e
,..~
~
MINU'~E.S~ CITY PLANIr'ING f.OMMISSI~N~ Septembcr 17, 1976
VARIANCF N0. 7.R49 (Cuntinued)
76-~i 7 i
ChAlrman Johnson nnted th~r. it~ apF,eared th~7c the opposition waY based p~arely on
crmpotition~ althoucth he h~~d se•~ie reservatlons pertaining to the avallable parking ~paces.
Cnmmissioner Klnc~ inquired what wou1~1 happen If the customers At tl~e proposc~d rest.~urant
sat In thelr cars to eaC their s,~ndwiches. Mr, Noffman stateA that wc.uld hurt thefr
operoti~n~ of course; that~ althauyn he cild not feel that the City intended for it t.o be
sa~ La Pt+lma Avenue daad-ended In frant of the pr~posPd restaurant anci proviclcd parktny
for about 4 or 5 r,ars~ a~d safcl ~~rking would noL impede any pnrk~nq on ~u Palrra Avenu~.
Ch~lrmrn Jnhnsan then noted r.hat xhe ^lanning ..ommission should prabably look clase~ to
s~sk, of the wA 1 k^ i n type sandw I ch sh~ps w;~ I ch we r~ be i ng p roposec: t:h rc~uhho~~' the C i ty ; and
that he h~~d obssrved small lines c:f people waiting for sAndwir.hes, etc., and I~~ was r~et
sure where all of th~se pc:ople ~~ould be able to park, etc.
Commissionn.r Farano noteci that the ~arki~g spaces appcared to be ilrPidyshort for the
subJect In'ustrial complex. Assista~~t Planrier Joel F(ck adviscd tha*. the requiren~ent was
2 park(n~ spaces p~r 1000 gquare feet of floor• ~rea.
Commissioner Farano then obsPrv^d tl~at the subject restaurant would iiave suba2anr.ia) flcwr
space avallabie in the rear for expanslon in the future ~~id he questicned whethr,r thc
eppl(cant• v~ould be proposiny 51t-dcw~~i facil(tles in thc. future. :i response~ Mr. Hoffman
indicated n~t (mmedlately, hawever~ they were considerin,q more ~puce for tl~e pec~plc ,~ho
would bc c,rder(~g to w~~it Insidc the build~ng.
Corrmiss(onPr Farano noted that tl~e applicants would~ in ~11 likelihood~ be coming b~ck !n
about ar,e Year for sit-drnvn far,ilities with tables aut~iJe, etc.; and that he w~~~, not surc
that th^ intentians of the applicants werF consistent with the Plan~ing Cammistiion's views
ln that ~•espect.
Mr. Hoffman stated they i,ad ch:.ngec; their p!~ns so that they would not have sit-dow~.
service. Commissionsr Farrno then n~ted rhat Lhe applicants would have app~oximately gG'~
square feet of space available, wl•icl~ was ueirig ca~led backro~m storage~ and that there
was defi(nitel~/ room for e;;pansio,~ intc~ yaid space.
There-,•~on, Mr. ~aon, the sec.ond agent for the petitloner~ appeared before the f'lanning
Commission anci stated tney had no int.entlans of hav'.ng tabl~es in the fu~ure; and that most
of their customers would b~ within wa~king distance; and that, additi~na? y~ there would
be ordering of food which would be picked up by ane p~rsun for many.
In response to questioninc~ by Commissloner King~ hlr. Gaon sYat~d tliat~ ~lthough there was
a traffic signal fer the custort~rs who might have to cr~ss the street~ most of the
customers wouid be comin9 from the side.
Cha(rman Johnr,on ~:lar~Fied that h~ was not suggesting that the propasa4 be denied~ but
that the Plannina Commissidn should watch this type proposal closely.
Mr. Paylor~, 23961 Fountain Way, operator of the Ball Hestaurarit, appeared before the
Piannin~ CommissionAnd stated it would ~ppear tF~at since the anplicants had anly 3 pa~king
spaces for tP~eir use and 6 employees wc~uld be hired~ the 20 parki~g spaces at tha Ball
Restaurant would be used by the customer•s of the proposed restaurant and he would not have
enou~h for his a~+n customers at that time.
In response to questioning by the P~anning C~~mr~is~lon~ the applicants stipulated that the
hours of operation would be fram 9:00 a.m. to 4;'~0 p.m.; that there would be no sit-down
facilitles and no faod consumed on the premises; and that there would be no cooktng of
fuod on the prem(ses.
It was noted that the Director of the Planning Department had determ~ned that the propoaed
activlty fell within the definir.ion of Sectlon 3.01~ C~~~ss 1~ of the City ~f Anahelm
Guldelines to the Requirements for an Envl~or~rt~nCal Iripact Report and was, therrforo~
categorically exempt from the requirement to file an CIR.
Commtssloner King offered Resolutlon No. PC76-189 and moved for its passage and adoption~
Lhat the Anaheim City Planninq Commission does hereuy grant Petition far Va~iance Na.
28!+9~ c~ranting the requested waiver of the minimum number of parking spaces on th~ basls
that the petitioner IndiGated that e large pe.centage of the antic~p~ted b~+siness w~l1
conslst of walk-in trade from nearby i~duatrlal u^~rs and that tele~+hone ~rdprs will be
~
~
~
NINUT[S~ CI1'Y PI.ANNIPIG COP;MI~SION~ S~ater~er 27~ ~976
7G-47z
~N^~AI~CE NQ. 2849 (Conti;~und)
ta~k~^n frarr Industrlal plants (n -i~e ar~a; qranting tho requested welver of permltted uses
on ti~:. basis that thc proposed use Is ~!'!~~~at'~ 1Y to serve ~he Industrle-1 complex In wl~lch
it Is locat~d~ ~al~s use bein~~ y~:nr~d For a one-ycar pe~rlod of time~ subJect to revlew and
con~ideration for .~n exten~(on, ur.on written request by tha pattClone:r; sub]ect to thr
st,lpulatfons of thc petlrianer; and subJect t~ the IntcrdepArtment~) Corr.mitt.ee
recummen~t~tlons. (Sec Res~lut!ar "aok)
On ;oll call, the fore~oln~ resolution was passed by the follawlnn vote:
AY[S; C011MISSlt1NC•kS; DAhP~ES, H[Rl3ST~ KING~ MORLL'Y~ JONNSQN
WOES : CbMM! SS I f1Nf:1tS ; FARANfi
Ad''r"T; COMMISSIONERS: TOL~R,
CQNDITI(1NNl. USE - PUt1LIC NEAItING. A. G. AND UQRIS RICNTER, 3Q041 Crown Valley Farkway,
PERMIT N0. 1655 La~una Nig~el, CA. 92E~77 (OHmers); ANGELO BONFR15C0~ 17351 Clagary,
-- Yorb~ Linda~ i:a, 9~~~8b {AgenC); roquesting pcrmisslon f~r ON^SAI.E
BEER I1ND WINE IN A PROPOSEU RESTIIURANT on property described as an
(rregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting uf approximately 8.9 gcres havin~ approximate
frontages of 525 ~eat on the norCh side of La Palma Aven~~e anci 461 feet on the e~st side
of State Collanr, f3oulevard~ and further descrtbcd qs 1~h0 North State Colleye Boulevard,
Property pr'esently classifie~ CL (CUMME.RCIAL, LIMITED) Z1NE.
No one irdicated their prese;~ce in Qppos:tlon to the sub)e~:t petitton.
Although the Seaff Rep~~C t~ the Planning Commisslon dated Septcmber 27~ 1976, was not
read at the public hearin~~, ~ald Stnff Report Is referrcd to and madc a part of the
minutes,
Mr. Angr..lo Bonfri sco, ~he ayent for the petitloncr~ appearecl b+~fore the Plann(ng
f.ommissi~n and stited thsy had bet:n at the sub)ect lacptlon 1'or five years.
THE PUBLIC HEARING W/1S CLOSEG
Asslstant Planner Joel F~ck ~~,ted for the Planntn~ Commis~ion that the condition outlined
in the Staff ReporC requ'ri^~_, st~eat l;ghting facilities along Strte College Boulevar~i and
La Paima was no longer nece~sary since the fe~s for sams had been paid in the pasC.
In res~onsc to questio~tn~ by the Planning Commission, Mr. donf~lsco sttpulated that the
sale of beer and wine would be in conJunction with the servfng of ineals only.
It was noted that the Director of the Planning D~partment iiac+ determined that the praposed
activiCy fell within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1~ of the City of Anahslm
Guidellnes to the Requirements for ~~n Environmental Impac~ Report and was, Cherefore,
categorically exempt from twe requirement to file an EIR.
Commissioner Far~no offered Resolution No. PC76-S90 and moved for its passage and
adoptlon. that the Anaheim City Plan~tng Cortxnission does hereby grant Petition for
Ce fitional Use Permit No. 1655~ subJect to t:he stipulation of the petitioner~ and subJect
to the InterdepartmenCal Committee recommend~~tio~.s. (SP~ Resolutlon Book)
On roil call. the foregofng resolutiori was p~~ssed by the following vote:
AYE5: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, FARANO~ NERBST, KING~ MORLEY, JOHNSON
OES: COMMISSIt'yERS: NONE
A95FMT: COMMISSIONEhS: TQLAR
~
~
~
MI NUTF.S ~(: I 7Y P~.ANNI M; COMMI SS I ~iJ ~ Septembrr ?.7 ~ ~ 97~
76-473
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARItlG. WCST ANAHEIM COMt4UNITY HOSPITIIL~ 3033 wo,c Orange
PE.RMIT N0. 165b Avenue~ Anaheim~ C~. 928Q4 (Ownar); D~~N L. ROWIAND b ASSOCIATES~
--"-w iNG.~ i00U West l.a Pa{ma Avenue, Anaheim, C~. 928~1 (A,yent);
reques ing permtsslon ta CUNSTRUCT A TNFE~-STORY HOSPITAL ADDITIOh
on properry dnscrlbod as +~n ir~ogut~rly-~hnpecl parcel oP land con~l~ting oP approxlm~tely
~),2 Acres I~cated at th~ nor¢hwnst corner of ~rangr Av~nuA a~~~ Beach BaulevArd, heving
approxln~ete frant~+ges of 9~~5~ Peet on the north side of Orr~ng~ Avenue a~d 150 fe~t on the,
wesl• side of B+~ach Oouleverd, c+nd ~`urthAr descrlbed as 3033 ~r.st Orange Avenue, P~operty
presently :.la~slfled CL {COMMERCIAL~ LIMIT~U) A;JD CO (COMMERCIAL, 01'F~CE ~N~ NROFESSlONAL)
~0!! F 5 .
N~i one Indicnted ~helr p~eecnco In oppasitlon t~ the subJect petiClc~n.
Althu~gh the Steff Rsport to khc Planning Commission ~!•~ted September 27~ 1976~ wes noc
read at the publtc hoerln~~ sald StaPF Report is re~er~ed to And m~de a part nf the
minutes.
Mr. Randy Bosch~ re~re~~enting Che aqent for thc petitfoner, appearnd h~fore the Plsnning
Commissian and stated that the 26~bed ~ddltfon to the subJee~ ha~plta) had becn ~ipprov~d
aprroxlmately onc year ago and the subJ~ct proposal Included that additlan; and that he
be~levcrl the p~oposal wauld meet ail ~f the requirement~ oP t~~e City wlth respect to
zoninc~ setbacks~ etc.
TNE f'UpI.IC NEARING NIAS CLOSED
In response to qucstloning by Commissioner King~ Mr. BosGh s~:ated thet the t~range Caunty
Health Planning Cuunctl hAd approved the 26-bed addition approxtmately one ycer agod a6cmg
with the City.
Commissicsner Kin~ offerec~ a motton, secanded by Gammissione r Fbra~o and MQTION CARRtE~
(Cnrtnnisstoner Tolar betng ahsent) ~ that the Anahelm City P1 anning Commisslorr doe~ hereby
recommend to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that a negative deciaratlo~ from the
requt rement to prepare a~ envl ronmenta) (n~act report be appr~ved for the subJect proJect,
pursuant to the provisions of the Callfornfa Envlronmental Quality Act.
~ommiss(ontr King offered Resolutlo~ No. PC76^19i and mc,ved far Its passage and adoption,
that the Anahetm City Plt+nnin,y Commiss(on does hcreby grant I'eiitlo~ for Condttlonal Use
Permit No. 1656~ subJecC to the Interdepartment+al Committee recorrmr_ndatlons, (Sep
Resolution 9ook)
On roll cal1~ the. foregolnG resolu~ton was pass~d by the ia iiowing voce:
AYES: C(~MMiSSI0NER5: BARNES~ FARANO, HER65T~ KING, MORLEY, JOHNSON
NOES: COMM15510NER5: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIQN~RS: TOLAR
~
.
MINUTLS, CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION~ September 27~ 191~
7G-474
RF.PORTS ANO - IT~M N0. 1
RECOMMENDATI~MS VARIANCE N0. 2N36 - Roquozt ~or approv++) oP preclse landscaping
- '-'~ p1anA ~ Property consisr(ng ~f epp~oxtmately 11 acres located e~t the
northwest eor~er nf ~anta Nna Cdnyo~~ Road and Via Cartc+z.
The Staff ".3port to the Planning Conmissio7 dated September 27, 197F~ w~s presented ~~d
made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Tnd S1-•kin, representing Colifornia Landscapc+ Development ~Company~ t~ppe~are6 bc~ore the
Plennirg Commission and, in r~sponse to quastlonlnq by Cha(rmen Juhns~n, stated tha~t the
densencss of the proposod IrndSCAping wo~ld bccort-~ more de~se In tlme; t~nd thst~ alkhough
Che Planni~g peparkment did not feel that tha pla~s met the I~tent perCafning Co
denscnens, sald Depart^ient dld fecl that the plans were wsry eye-appcaling.
Commissloner F~rano Indlcated that the p1Ans did n~C meset khe purposes ot' the a~pprovel
which stipulated dense landscaping (n exchange Par the required berm. In response, M~,
Slrkln ~taxed thAt if lha lendscaping was planted heavier fnr the prese~tit~ it would become
necessary to rem~ve some of the planCs and/or trces within a~horC periud oP ttmn. Mr.
Strkin further statecl that approximately ~+3 trees wbrc to be plrnted~ accordiny to the
plana.
Commisslaner Y.ing notpd that if Cc~o much landscaping Hes p~ovtdcd~ ~he coremercia) center
would not be see~ at all trom the aJJac~nt streets.
Mr. Sirkin further st~+ted thatp (n the area af the sycan~orG trPes ancl throughout the plan~
they would pl~ce some irregularly-shaped objects; that the natural barm on the prop~rty
wag a problam and they were anticfpating that Jute would have to be used to hold khe
landscaping so that it would not shtft downhill (rito the parking lot~ and Mr. Rink,er vdas
not aware of that problem.
In response ko questioning by Cnmmissioncr Barnes~ Mr. Slrkin stated that, during tlie
first year following landscaping, the comnercia) cente~ would be about Qne-third hidden
From Santa Ana Car.yon Road; durir,g the secand vear~ tt would be about two-th(rds hidden
from sa(d street; and thet in flve years they would have to begin rerr~ying s4me of the
bushes~ ~inct the owner wo~ild not wa~t Co be completely hidden from the street.
Fqllowinq some discussion, Commissioner Farano ~ot~d that if the property awners began
rar~ving the plants~ they may ~ot bc In cunformance with the Ir~tent of th~ approval af the
proJect and the plants would have to be replaced. Commissioner Barnes rpcalled th~t the
prc~perty owners in the area r+anted the commercial center to be toi~lly blocked ~ff from
the street by lAndscaping.
Thereupon, Mr. Sirkin descrtbed the additional landscaping that would be bnstiallad aro~nd
tne store Pro~ts, which was exhorhitant i~ hOs optnion~ and he stated he had very ~arely
seen so mucl~ interior landscaping in a proJect.
f,orrenissloner Mor1~y affered a rtbtion~ second~ed by Commiasioner Farano and M0710N CARRIED
(Commissiener Ta~Ar being absent)~ that the Anahe(m Clty Planntng Commtsslon cbes htreby
approve the !andscaping plan~ submitted in confarmance with Condttton No. 2 of Planntng
Commisslon Resotution No. PC76~ib3 approving Variance No. 283b.
ITEM N0. 2
COND! 11'IONAI. USE PERM6T NOS. 106~t .'~ND 1072 ° Rcquest fnr extenstons ~f
time - Property consisting AP epproxtrnately five ac:res located on tlie
north sidc of Katclla Avenue bei:ween Haster Street and Manchester Avenue.
;L was nr~tod that the applicant (Frederlck L, Jor~'~an for C. M. MGNeses) was ~equesting one-
year extensions for the subJect conditianal use permtts; that Conditional Use Permit No.
1063 was granCed by the Plenning Commisslon on October 7~ 1968, to establish a hall for
variety shows~ lectures, meetings~ dsncns~ etc., w4th on-sale liquo!' tn An exia~ting
structure at 1721 South Mar~chester nve~ue; that Condittonai Use Permit Nn. 1072 r+as
granted by the Planning Commission an Novr.mber 4, 1968~ to establish a bus depot tn nn
extsting structure at 1711 South Manchester Avenue with waiver of the maximum permltted
p roJectlon of a wrll sign; that aight prevlous er.tensions of time ~ad been granted~ the
last ones to expire on October 7~nd November 4~ 1976, ~eipectively; and that ~ccent
lnvest{getion by staff indicated that the subJect uses have had no apparent deleterious
Affects on the area and that parking appea~s to be adaquaite.
••r
~
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY F~ANNING COMMISS 1~~:~ Sc!pthmber 27~ 1976
ITEM N0. 2 (Contlnu~d)
~(~..11 ] i
C«rtxnl ss 1 one r Fa i ano of farac' a mat i ~n , secondcd hy Comnt ss Ioner K) n~ and MQT I OM CPRR I ED
(Commissloner 7olar belnry absent). ttiaC the Anahelm Clty Planning Commisslon does hereby
gr~nt on~~-year tlmn extensio~s for Canditional Use Permit Nos. 1063 And ~o7x~ aald tlrnc
extensl~ns tu expire on Octabar 7 and November 4, 19~7. re~pectively,
ITE~1 N0. j
REQUCST FOR EIR NEGATIVE DECtARATION - For a~aarcel ma~~ 3t npproxfmately
?.Q30 Vla Burton (Parcel Map No, 585) .
Commtssloner• King noted that he had a conflict of Interest as deflned by Pl~nning
".ommission Resolution No, PC76-1~7 adoptinc~ a Confl ict af Interest Code fur the Planrylnq
Commisslon and Government Cod~ Section 3G25 e~ seq. ~ In that Dunn Properties was
a~sactated wltfi Paclf~c Lightinci Corpor2tinn ~nd hc owned Pac(fic L1yhCing cc~mir~n stock;
ttiaC ~ pursuant to the prov( s i ons of the above codes ~ he was hereby declaring tn the
~hai rman that h~ was withdravving frum the dlscussion In conncction with the su6]cct itcrr
(! tem No. 14-C of the aqencia) and wau 1 d not tal•.e part i n e I the r the dl scuss lon or the
voting there~n; and Chat he hacl no: discussed the matter with any membcr of the Planning
Commissfon.
It was note~l that an ~pplication had been flled for a parcel map to dlv~ide the property at
approxlmately 203~ Via durto~ Into 10 parccls fc~r an tndustrlal park and also create a naw
local Industrlal street; that an evalu~tion of the envi~onmental Impact of parcel maps was
requtred unCer the prcvisians of the Californla "nvironmental puallty Act and the State
EIR Guldel tnes; and that a study of the proposed parcel map by the Planniny Uepartment and
the Engtneering Oivision indTcated that there woiild be no slgnificant nnvlrnnmental
lmpact.
Cammiss(nner Farano offered a moti~n~ seconded by Commissioner Morley and MQTION CARftIED
(Commissloner King abstalning and Commissinn~r Tola~ being absent) ~ that the Anahetm City
Planning Cammission does he~-eby recommend to the i:ity Councll af the City of Anahc:im that
a Negative Declaratton from the requirement to pr¢pare an envEronmenta) lmnact ~eport be
approved for the subJect proJect~ pursuant to the provlsions of the Callfornla
Environrr~ntal Q,uality Act.
I TEM N0. 4
REQUEST FOR EIR "IEGATIVE DECLARATION - For a parcel map at
461, 463 and 465 Country Ni 11 Road (Parcel Map No. 5~~7) •
IL was noted that an application had been filed for a parcel map to subdlvide a 1.58-acre
parcel into three one-half-~.cre parcels for development with single-family restdences;
that an ev,.. ~atlon af the envlronmentai impact of p•~rc~l maps was requi red under the
provislon of the California Environmental Quality Ac;t anra the State EIR Guidelines; and
that a study of the proposed p?s•ce1 map by th~e Planriiny Departme:nt and the Engineering
Dlvislon indlcated that ther~ would be no signlficar+t environmental (mpact.
~ommissi~nar Farano offered a motion~ seconded by Commis~ioner hbrley and M07fON CARRICO
(Commissioner Tolar being absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Cortmisston does hereby
recommend Yo the City Council of the City of Anaheim that a Negative Decla~atian from the
requi rement to prepare an envi ronmental Impact report be approved far the subJect proJect,
pursuant ta the provislons of the California Environmental Quality Act.
~ ~
MI NUTE5 ~ C 1 TY PLANN) NG COHMI SS ION, Soptnmbe r?7. ~ 9]6 76^~~~6
ITEM N0. 5
'~'tfE~`~~k EIR NECATIVE f~ECU1RATI0N - For a parcel map at
24S and 26$ ChrlsAlte Way . off Crescent Or~ve (Parcel Map iVo. ~88).
It was notecf that an eppltcatlon hed baen fi lod for s parcel map to subdtvide a two-acre
pa~ce) in~:o two one~acre pnreela for developm~,nt wlth single-family residencns; that an
evaluation of the envtronn~ntai Imp~+ct of p~ecel rnaps was requlred under the p~avi,rton af
thr California Envirc~nmental Quallty Act and the State EIR Guldellnos; a~nd thet a study of
the proposed parcel mrP by the Plannlr-h DapartmonC and the Englneering Dlvlsion lndicated
that there would be no signiflcani env(ronm~ntal impact.
Cnmmissloner King offered a nntlon, secondad by Commissloner Farana a,~d MOTION f",;~ttIED
(Commlesloner Tolar being abscnt)~ thet the Anahelm City Planning Commisslon does hereby
rncommend to the City f.ouncil nf the City of Arteheim that a Negative Ueclaratton from tha
requlrement to prepare arr environmantal impact report ba appr~ved for tha subJect proJert,
pursuant to the previstone of the C,al lfornl a Envl ronmental Quel lty Act.
I 1'EM N0. 6
''~~~8409 - Request to rcmova: spCCimen trces - Property c~nsisting
of approximacely 1A.2 ac res located on the east s Ide o~ Anahe im tll 11 s
Road appr~ximalely 210 fcet south of Santa Ana Canyon Rcsad.
1'he Staff Report to the Planning Commissian dated Septerrber 27, 1976~ was preser-ted and
m~de a part of the minutes.
In respon~e to questioning by the Planning Cnrtenissio~, Ueputy ~ity /~ttorney Frank Lowry
advlsnd that the wtndrow of t~ees proposed for removal was approxlmately !ti0 years old; and
that the trees w~uld be replaced by flve-gallon size eucalyptus tr~es of s dlfFerent
specles than those betng remc~ved,
Discusston followed concerning the proposat ta remove 93 trees rnd replr~ce them with ')1
trees~ in addition to planting treas an each of thc proposcd lots and on thc comnuntty
slopes in compllanr.e with site development ~t~ndards.
Commissioner 9arnes nate.d for the rec~rd t'hat until something was dont to change the Tree
Presarv~st i on Ordl nance ~ t t was on thc books and she fel t 1 t shoul d be uphel d un les~s thcre
wsre reasons not ta; and that she was suggesting tt~at the matt~r be brought before tha
Planning Cammiss(on for consideration at the next reuu~e~d andiscarnethingsneeded tohbe done
emphasized that the present ordtnance was not baing p
about it..
In response to questloning by Commissione r Farano~ Commissloner ~arnes noted that the
developers had been removing a lot of trees that were not diseased or were otherwise
unJustiTiably removed and the removal had bee~ approvcd (n mo~t cases by thr Pl~~rove the
Commisslon. Mr. Lowry fu~thcr advised th ~t th~ City Councll had the power to ~pp
removal of any tree,
Carticularefowe fstresestwasddanger useto thePpeople~intthe arcavandemighttfallhtn wcts
P
w~ather due to the age and root system.
Pursuant to further discussion, Assistant Planner Jc~el Fick advtsed that the actual number
of replacement trees wrs 7~; whereupon~ Cartmissio~~r Herbst stated he would agree ~+ith
CommissToner Ba~'nes that replacement t~e~s should be required on a 1:1 basts.
Mr. Leland Johnson of Ervin Enginee~ing, the agent for Butler Housi~y~ Inc.~ appPared
before the Planning Commission ~nd stated that the landscape architect had indicated the
proJect woulci be better-looking with less replacement trees, tn vlew of rhe additionsl
slope planting and the berm~ etc,~ none of whlch was counted ln Yhe trae replacement; t~~at
the architect had also recommended 20-~oot spacing for ehe trees; howaver, if additional
trees were required, he was sure they ca uld find a place to put them and would so
stipulate. M~. Joh~son emphasized that thc 20-foot spacing proposal was the
reeommec~datlon of the landscape architeet and not the developer.
~ ~
MINUTES~ CIIY PLANNING CQMMISSIUN~ 5aptembar 27, 197~ 76-~i77
ITEM N0. 6 (Contlnuod)
Commissioners F~rano and Herbst thcn concurr~d that 22 addition~l re~lacer~nt treea sh~utd
be plantod,
Dtscussion nf the Tree Pr~snrvatio~ ~rdinance pureued, durin~y whtch PlAnninq Dlrector
(londld Tliampson advis~d that sald ardinonce provlded a llst of trees which w~esre approved
as replacements. Mr. Low ry advlsed that the replacement lrees were types ~f trees tt~at
would reach a certain cilamater and holght wlthin a fixed perlod of tlmn and that former
Asslstant Planninc~ Dlrector-Planning Dnn McOantr:l had fe~t that flve-gallon slzed
replacement trcax from tt~e listing were epproprialcs,
Chalrmnn John~n:~ noted thrt the remava) of a b(g trec ~nd repl~ce~~t of it ~Nlth a vory
small tree was ~llfficult for him ta accept.
Conxnis~loner Barnes offered a motion~ second~d by Commissloner King and M'OTiON CARRIED
(Commissionesr 1'olar being ebsent). that the M ohelm City Planning Commisslon does hereby
determine tha: the proposed apectrn~n tree removal pian br. approved~ aubJect t.o the
stipulation of tl~e pttitloner that 93 replacem-.nc treas shall be planted for the 93 trees
thaC are prAposed to be rGmoved; and that a revlsed Cree removal plan ~hal1 be submitte:d
to tha Pla~ning Department for revl~sw and approval.
ADJOURNMENT - There bein~ n~ furth~~ buslness xo discusso Commisslonor King oFfer~d a
"-"~^ motlon~ secanded bY Commtastoncr Morley and MOT10!! CARRIED (Commissionesr
7olar betng absent)~ thAt tfi~e meeting be adJourned. '
The meettng adJourned at 5:~5 P•m•
RespecttulYy submltted,
~ ~ ~,8~~~-/
~~
Patricia B. Scanian~ Secretary
Anah^tm Cir.y Plannl~.y Commission
PBSchm
p R ~(l MICROf It MING S( RVICE INf.
O~
~~.
~~
1 ~
1
fa~1 N
~1 V1
Z
~~
~ ~
~~
~ ~
~N