Minutes-PC 1976/12/06~ ~
CI ty Nal 1
Anahcim. ~:al t}u~ .~la
pncembe~ 6, 197~
~'EGULAR MF.FTING pF TV1E AMl1HEIM CITY P~.A~INING CONMM~lSSIUN
REGULAR - A rogu 1 e r ~e~ t i ng of the Anahe i m C i ty P 1~nn i ng Go~nn I ss ton was ca~ i l ed
MEETING to ordcr by Chalrman Johnsun at 1:30 p.m..~ on Docc~-ber b~ 1976~ In
the Councll Chamber~ a qu~rum betng present.
PRE~EN7 - CHAIRMAN: Johnson
~ CdMIiISSIQNERS; Bernes~ Fnreno, Nerbst~ King~ Morley~ Tolar
ALSO PRESENT• Frarok Lowry
Annika Santalahti
Paul SOnge~
Jay Ti tus
Joel FYck
Chris Garlock
Petrtcla Scanla~
Assistant City Attorney
Assistant Pl~nnning Utiecto~-Zoning
Traffic Engtneer
Offlce Engineer
Assistant Plenner
Planning Aidr.
Pla~nfn5 Commls~lon Secrecary
PI.~DGE OF - Cammissioner King led In the Pledgc of Allaglance to the Flag
AILE GIANCE of the United States of America.
APPitOVAL OF - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion~ seconded by Commisstoner K!ng and
THE MIMUTES MOTION CAKRIED~ that the minutes of tho regulrr Planning Cortmission
mceting held on October 27~ 19~6~ be and here~~~ are approved~ as su6mitted.
~;ommissioner Nerbst offered a mntion~ seconded by Commtssi~ner King and
NOTI01~ CARRIED~ thaC the minutes of the r~dJourned regular mecting of the
F'lar~ning Commissian held on November 1~ 1976~ be and hereby are approved~
~s submltted.
C~rnmissioner Herbst offered a mation, seconded by Cortmissioner King and
N~!TION CAR,RlED (Commisstoner Tolar abstai~iing since he was not present at
klie me~ting (n quesCion) ~ khat the minutes of the regular Planning f,omnission
me~eting held on Nov~mbe~ 8~ t976, be and !iereby are approved~ as submitted.
Commis3ioner Ilerbst offered a motion9 seconded by CPxnntssio~e~ King and
t~OTION CqRR1ED (Comnlssi~ner Johnsrn abstalnfng since he was noz presant
at the meeting in question), that the minutes of th e adJourned regular meeting
of the Planning Commtssion held an Novemb~~ 17, 1976~ be and he~eby are
ap~Yroved~ es submitted.
REC IASSIFlCATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. JANE W. INCH~ 90I~ WLSt aay Avenue, Newport
N0. 76-77~7 Beach~ Ca, 9266e (Owner); DALE L. INGRAM~ P. 0~ @ox 5922, E1 Monte~ Ca.
9173~~ ~A9ent). P~operty described as s rectangularly-shaped parcel of
VARlANCE N0. 2831 land consisttng of approxtmately 4.7 acres having a f~orstage of appro~<I-
mately 328 feet on the north side of Oran9erros~d Avenue, havEng a
maximum depth of approxTmately 615 feet, and betng located approxl-
mat eiy 310 feet ee~ct of Che centerline of Harbor Boulevard. Property presently class~fled
RS-A-43~OC~0 (RESi~EN71AL/AGRICUL7URAL~ ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIO-i; RM-1200 (RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE-FAMII.Y) ZONE.
REQI-~STED V~RtAN:{:: WAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM FL00~ AREA AND (.9) NtIJIMUM DISTANCE i3~TWEEN
BUILDINGS. TO ~ONSTRUCT A 139-UNIT APARTNENT COMPI.EX.
It was noted that the subJect petitions were continued from the Planning Comm~ssion
rr~ec-tings of Augusti: 2, 1976~ aC the request of the pctit•iuner; f~om August 16•, 1976~ for
revlsed plar~s; anci from A~~gust 30~ 1976, at the request of Che petition~r.
No one indicated ~their pr~s~nce in apposition to the sub)ect petlttons.
75-606
~
~ ~
MINUTE:S, i.ITY PLANNING COMMISStON~ Oecember 6~ 1976
RECl,A551~IC/~TIUN N~77- ,"•ND~ Y~ARIANCC N_0__. 2g31 (Coritlnued)
76-607
nttth e~hubOlicShicAringp~said65kaffPReport9ls~refcrred ta~and~made~orparttofbtheamtnutes~ad
a P
Mr. D ale l. Ingr~m~ ngen~ for the petitloner~ appearod before thn Planning Commisslon and
revir_we.d the history o~f tlin ~ropaaAl wlth respect t~ th~ Genr.rt~l Plan Amendment~ Ptc.~ and
gt~tl.`cI t!het~ although the orig!nally lndlcated wAlvetr oF thti minimum distanc.e between
build 1-,~;is wns not really necessary far thnir proposrl ~ they ~iaJ aiaJe some revislons to tl~e
pl ans tn~ ~r~ t den the passageways betr+een th rae oP the bu i! dt ngs ; tl~a[ some h 1 gh 1 1 ghts of the
proposel Included that the trrPfic and ac:,ess wnuld be handled mainly ove~ OrAng~ewood
~1v~nue arid F1er•bor Boulcvflrd; that there would ba full on•slte circulatlon for ~very
v~hiel+e. Includtng fire and tr~~h trucks; and that two access cirlves ware propased on
~irangawoad~ ann drive sltyhcly ~ut of Allgnment wttfi Acamb but the other drlvr,wi~y aligned
with Brod,~en Street~ plus full left-turns ln and out af the sitc. He tt~nn review~~d the
proposed isumber and typ~s of units~ stating that they had included 20 bachglor-ty~pe units
for varlaty and sald untts wc~uld not be readlly discerntbin to anyone outslde the proJect
but would !~ccommadate present ~nd future residents oP A~inheim who etther could not afford
or d id not need a IArge.r unit; and that these proposed smallar unlts would alsa per'mit the
vwner of the complex to compete financlally with exlsttng apartments in the icrvnedla~te
vlci nlty, i~1r. Ingram further stated that the revised plot plens indicated a 6-foot high
meso~ry wall along 1.hrea sldes of the propased carpor~ts and a 25-P~x turning radius for
on-s tk~ ci rculatlon and parking spaces and drivewrys.
THE PUBI..IC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chat rman John~;on not~d for the record that the petitloner was subrnitting revtsed plans at
this meeting whicf~ were Identifled as a second revision, Commissloner Farano noted thac
sat d plans would be subJect to checking by the Planning Department. (NOTE: A revlew of
th e flle follae,ring the meeting revealed that the referenczd revised plans werc ~ot
submitted.)
in response to quest(nning by Chai~~man Johnson, Mr. Ingram sxated Chat Broden Street
ali gne~ ~+ith the pr~posed driveway to the subJect property as close as ~os~ible.
Comrnlssics~er Tc~lar o~fered a mation~ seconded by Commissiane~ King and NOTION CARRIED~
th a t the Anaheim City Pl~nning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council of tho
Ci t y af Ansheim that a negativc declaration from the requirement Co prepare an
an•sir~nme~tA1 impact report be approved for the ~ubJect proJect, pursu~nt to the
provlsions of th~~ California Environmenta! Q~ality Act.
Commissioner To~ar offered Resolutton No. PC76-251 a~d moved for its passage and adoption,
th at the Anahcim City Plannin•~ Commission does hereby re~.~mnend t~ the City Council of the
Ci ty of Anaheim that Petltjon for Reclassification No. 76-7~-7 be approved, subjecY to the
In terdepPrtmental Committee recortm~:nd~tions. (5ee Re~eolution Bookj
On rol! call~ th~ foregoing resolution was pa'sed by the fallaving vote:
AY E.S: GOMM1S5i0NERS; B ARNES~ FARANO, NERBSS~ KING~ MORLEY~ TOLAR, JOHNSON
NO ES: CONMISSIONER5; NONE
AB SGNT: GOMMISSIONERS; NONE
C~xmissioner Tolr~r offered Resoiution t~o. PC76-252 and moved f~r its passage and adoption,
+:h at the Anaheim Ctty Piannlryg Commissi~n does hereE~y grant, in part, Petition for
V a rlance No. 2831~ 9ranting the requested waiver of the minimum floor area on the basis
t h at the Planninq Commission haa granted sim~lar waivers previ~~usly for the development of
e fficlency-type units when said untts did nr~x exceed approximately 25~ o~ the tatal number
o f units, and wh~:n the floor area wes not less than aprroximately 450 square feee; that
th e requested walver uf the minimum dlstance between buildings was deleted by revised
p~lans (Revtsion Mo. 1); sub,ject to the stipulation3 of the petitianer that the enclosCd
Carport~~ and all af the parking and dr(vcway a~reas shall be provided in accordan`Se ith
Code standards; ~!ind subJect ta the In~e~departmental Commitxee recomm~:ndattans.
R~so 1 uC i on Book)
On roll ca11 ~ th+: Eoregoing resoiution was passed loy the followiny vote:
AYES ; COMMI S5 I dNERS: B~1RNE5. Ff1RAN0 ~ HERBST ~ KI NG, MORLEY ~ TOLAR, JOHNSON
NOES: COMMISSIOMERS: Nui::
AHSENT t COMM I SS ~~'1NERS t NQNE
~ ~
MINU'TES~ CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ De~cember G~ ig)6 76-608
VARIANCE N0. 20Z?. - CONTINUED ?UBLIG HEARiNG. LA VE'TA DOMii~O, c~o Qdra Chandler, fiUB
South Nerbor ~oulevard, Anaheim~ Ca. 92A~~ ~~Wner); W. EARL GARR~
JR.~ 1650 South 1larbor Boul~vard~ Anahelm~ Ca. g2801 (Ag~nt;;
requesting WAIVER OF (A) MINIHUM STRUCTU~AL SETBACK~ CD) MINIr1UM LANUSCAPING~ ANU (C)
MINIMUM NUM9ER OF PARKIt~G SPA~ES~ TO CON3TRUCT AN 88-UNIT MOTEL on pra~.urty described
as an Irregulerly-st~epad parcel of land ~:onsisting of approxlmatcly 1.'L ~+cres hevl~g a
frantage of approximet~ely 230 test on thi~ west side ot Herbor Boulev~rd~ having a maxlmum
depth oP approximately 3~0 f~oct~ and being located appraximately 195 foet north of' thc
centnrllno of Bell lioad. Praperty preser~tly classifl~d C-R (COMMERClAI-RECREIITION) ZOI~E.
It was noted th.:t ine subJect petitfon wa~s continued from the Planning Commission mexting
of Novcmber 4~ 1~76~ for• a parki~g study and revtsed plans.
It was further notsd that n4 ane was present in oppasit(on to tht subJett potitlon.
Although the Stafi` Report to the Planntng Commisslon deted December 6~ l97b~ was not read
at thc publlc hcartng~ said Staff Report is referr~d to and mAdc a parY of the minutes.
Mr. Earl Garr~ the agent far the pctttlon~sr~ ap{seared befc;E the rfenning Commission and
stated they f~ad r•evised thc front 5etba~k by extending it to 3S feet to bn fully
landscaped and w{ti~ no parking within salci s~tback area; that thpy had reducec~ th~ number
of units by 10 b~t I~ad not reduccd the parking spaces originayly proposed; ond ~hat thc
proposal~ as revised~ was wikhin 80~+ of t:he prrktng requirement and camp~urable to other
similar motels ir. rhe area wlth a hfyh volume of "fly in" and "taur hus" cll~entele.
TH~ PUDLIC HEAit1NG WAS CLOSF.D.
In response to questioning by Chrtrman Johnson~ Assistant Planner Joel Fick advis~ed that
th~ requested study of nbxel and hotel parking In the Commercial-Recreation area was a
part of the agenda package; that the Planning Department staff had re~rtewed some of the
bus routes and e~tlined the Town Tour Bus r•oute on a map whicti was also part ni the
Planning Commtssio~ agenda; and that there was a bus pic!c-up on the cnrner ~ahere the
sub,je.ct propased rn~t~l would bc located.
Commissla~er King offe:red a motlon, secon~ied by Commissioner Tolar and MOTION CARRIED,
that ths Anahetm Clty Pianniny Commisslo~~ does hereby recommend to the Ctty Councll of the
City af Anahcim tha~ a negattve deciaration from the requirements to prQpare an
environmental invaact report be app~'oved tor the subJect pro]ect~ pursuant to the
provisions of ¢he Californta Envi~•onmental Quality Act.
Cammissioner King uffered Resolution No. PC76-253 and moved for its passage and adoption~
ti~at the Anahe.tm City Planning Cummissian does hereby grant Petitf~n for Variance No. 2872
to construct a 78-unit motel~ granting the requested waivers of the minimum structural
setbt~ck and mir~imum landscaping c-~ the basis that the petitloner demonstratcd that a
hardshlp would be created if satd waivers were not granted~ due to the sizc and shape of
the subJect property; granting the requested waiver of the minimum number of parking
spaccs on the basis lh3t ehe Planning ~:ommtssion has grarted simllar waivers ln Che past
for motels in the Commercial-Recreation areati recogniz(ng that a certain percentage of tF~e
vlsitors t~ said area arriv~d by a transportatlon made ather than priva!e automobile;
subJect to the condition that Nitchen efficiency units with a maximum of 6-cubic foot
refrlgerators~ 2-burner stoves~ exclu~ling oven and taking facilities~ end single-
compArtment sinks may be installed~ except that the manager's unit will be ~nllowed to have
Full kitchen faciltties; and subJect to the Interdepartmental Comnittee recomnendr,tlons.
(See Res~lutton Book)
On roll call, ehe forcgoing resoluti~m was passed by the foliawtng vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ FARANO, HERBST~ KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, JOHNSON
NOES: COMMISSIONERSt NONE
ABSENTt COMMISSIONERS: NONE
~
!
MINUrE~, CITY PLANN~NG COMMISSION~ Dec~nmber 6~ 1976
7~~6~q
VARIANCE NQ. 2874 ~ CON7INU ~ PU~I.IC iiEARlNG, BERNARaO M, ANU MARG/1RET I.. 1'ORRA,
12> Soutli Claudina Street~ Anahelm~ "a. 928G5 ~~"'~~A~YNIKA.Mt+A~~~~N~
555~ Eas~ Santa Ana Canyon Road~ Anaholm~ C~. '~280%~
OE FRIES, 261~86 Veracru•~ Len Mission VIeJo~ Ca. 92b75~ e~d TNOMAS L. WOODRUFF~ 1055 Nartl~
hSain 5trcet~ Suite 1O20~ San~ An~~ Ca, 92701 (Agents); requcYtinfl WAIVER OF (A) MA"IMUH
BUII.DING 11EIGHT, (fi) PERMIT7L USES~ (C) MINIMUM BUILDING SkTBACK fROM AN LXPRESSWAY~ (D)
MINIMUM BUILUING SETBACK f'ROM AN ARTEF,IAL I~iGI~WAY~ (E) M7NIMUM LANI)SCAPED SFTKACK FRON AN
AR7E~IAl HIGHWAY~ (F) MINIMUM LANDSCAf'~D S~THACK FROM A flESIDENTIAI ZOME~ AND (G) FRONIBIT~D
SIGNlNG~ 70 CONSTRUCT SELF-S[F 'ICC GASOLIN~ PUMPS ANO AN aFFiCE "I;I~DING ~n pr~perty das~
crlbed as an (rregularly-shaped parcc'I of land cansisting af a+pproxlmataly ~.~ ~cre located
at the southeast cornsr O~ S8Ri8 Ane I:enyon Roed And Imperlal Fi!nltiway. havl~~9 ~UFraxlmates
frontagcs ~f 90 fPet on the south sid~~ n~ Sanca Anr Canyon R~ad artd 5E~0 Peet on th~n east side
of Imperia) Fllgh~way. Proherty ~>resPntly cl~ssifted ItS~A-43~QOQ(SC) (itf.S1U~N71A1l+~GRICIlLTUFtAI-
iCFNYC CORRIDOR OVERLAY) ZONL (wlih s rasoluttan of Intcnt to CL(SC)).
(« ;.;W; ,-,v~eci chat the subJer_t pstltion was cont(nued from the ptannl~g Comml~slor~ me~ting
of ~dovember 8~ 197~~ for revised plnns.
Two persons lndl~•ated tlicir presence in oppositt~n to tha aubJHCt petltlnn.
Mlthough the Statf ke{~oi~ajd°StaffPRer>urt~isomeferred tote^dD^-+ade~~rPa~t1af~th~~minutes~A~
at the pu'alic hearfnn~ 1
Mr. Thiomas L. Woodruff~ one of the a~~ents for tho petitloner~ eppear~d befor~ thc Planning
Cummission and stated th~at a maJor clisnge had been made in the proposdl, delating xhe
service station facilllies, adding an office building~ and Inerensing tFie lendsc~+ping a~nd
setbrcks; :hat the traffic problems h~d bean addres~ad in the revised p1Ana wlth respact
ta curb cuts located south of S~nta Ana Canyon Road and th~ one driveway proposed would be
located aaproximately 3~)~~ feet ~outli of the curb line of Santa Ana Canyon Road for about
390 feet south of said ~street; that, in his opinion~ the setback adJacent ta Santa llna
Ca+~yon Road not only mct the minimum recorm-endations by tha Planning Cortnisslon and Staff
but also served a good ~~urpose; that th~ exlstiny left-turn packet 1n ImpFriai Nlghway was
proposed to be ellminated to alla~i far a full-length median adJecent to thr. prop~rty
frontage; that~ regarding the building heighx and setback adJacent to the resldentiol
zone, he felt there was a qulrk in the Z~ning Cude tn that respec t s in ce s~id ad Jacent
property was developed wtth a schooi with several hundred yards af open fleld irrmedlately
abutting the subJect property; that khe revised plans deietcd t.he necesslty f~r the wa{ve,r
of the minimum landscaped setback from an arterlal highvr~y; Chat they had reduced the
builc~ing on the corner by ?.5$ in sg~a~e footage, from 4000 to 3000 square feet; thmt the
gubJect property tapered to "Lero" at the south; that they were proposing a monument sign
and, although they were aware of tne Scenlc Corridor reaulrem~nts~ tt~ey were opposed to
putting a sign in the air or on the face of the bullding; tl~at the proposed sign would be
phystcally incorporated into the proposPd berm and would b~ i`ar m~re aesthetically
plea~ina than a sign attached to the building; that there would be no vehicular in~ress or
egress io the subJect property at or near the corner af Santa Ana Canyon Road; that Che
proposed layout and design wauld blend in with the nat~r~) design of the schoal property;
and that no patrons in the propased proJect ~i~ould have to walk an excessive dtstance to
thelr vehicle parking space.
Mrse Mary Dinndorf~ 131 La Paz. Anaheim, President of the Santa ARa Canyar~ Improvement
Association~ Inc., appeared befor•e the Planning Camnission tn oppos(tion and stated~ {n
summary~ that they were opposed on the basis af incompatibility of the praposed proJect
with the exlsting lsnd use in the area and~ additionally~ that approval of the requested
waivers wuuld set a dangerous precedent for future development in the ar~a; that the 5ize
of the property was not adsquate fo~ the pt'oposed density; that the addltional trafflc
generated by the propasal would constitute.a health and s~fety hazard to the school
children in the area; that the traffic situatlon shnuld have been giyen htghe~ prlarity
consideration; and that there wa~ no need for the services prapo~ed by this development.
She further stated that her organization was not rnti-development but felt Chat compatible
development could be an asset to the commun(ty; that strip cairmcrcial was a blight and
abuse of an endangerad resource ~- land; that professlonal oFfice bulldln~s existed in the
Anahetm Hills area and she did n~ot feel that the sub)ect property was the place Lo add
another.
Mrs. Jan Hall, 545 Tumbleweed Rc~ad~ Anaheim, P~esident of the Westr~dge Homaowners
Assoeiation~ appeared before the: Ptanning Gommission in opposition and i~dicated
concurrence with tF~e o6Jectic~ns voiced by Mrs. Dinndorf. She further s:ated that heP
~~
('~ ~ ~
MltaUTESe CIfY PLANNING GQMMISSION~ December 6~ 191~ 1~' ~~~
VARIANCE N~). 2874 (Conttnued)
...,......_..._.~ •
organizAtlon wa~ opp~sel to any walvers of sotbacks ln tl~e Scer~ic Corrldo~ and signing;
chat no a gns should be rp~roved untll the monument sign questi~n was resolvAd; end thet
thcre Hera rlready tral`fic and o:hcr Nroblems getting in and out of thc market In the are~
and nothinq further should be added on the subJect ce~rne+r.
In rebutcal~ ~ir, Woad;uff st~ted that thn subJact property had been zoned commarcial fur a
fong pcrlod of tlme; thac thc: property was compatible wlth th~ s~!rrounding lsnd use~ whic.h
lnclu~+er, a ban~.~ a commerclal slzopping centar~ atc,,; thnt the proposed hulldtnc~ wout~ ba
set bi~c'c furtf.er from Santa Ana Ganyon Road than the Flank af America bu)lding und wc~uld hc
lowK:r in ~~rafile than said building ~nd thc adJacr.n7 tennis courts; thak the ball f'teld
and ternls court~ would probably remafn at thelr lr~cation for a long perlod of time; that
the prr~pose:d pro,)ect would contlnue ko havc~ a sp+~ciuus app~arence ir~u~ w~~a«'.u~ ~;~~~-?e•^•
the pe~ple wer~a approachlnc~; that wiChaut a walve~• they Nould ~nly be atile to construct a
kower an the r;ut~Ject praporty; that he disagree~.i that the ty~e of services tu be p~ovlded
were ~iot necessary, since they wc~uld hflve an accauntant~ doetor, etc.; that the propasa)
would not generate hlgh volumC C~afftc and cars would remain on the pr~perty for about an
hour at a time; ti~at te label the propUSed pr~,Ject as strtp commerclal would be inc~rrect
and it would not be a blial~t; that the subject locatlon wae the entrance ~o Anahe(m Ntlis
and wes qulto canpntiblo for the uses proposr.d; that there would not be a taco stand type
use on the property. and n~ hiryh-speed traFflc; and that they wPre not propostng a great
derl ~f c,ffice spacn .
THE PUBII C HEAf`.I IJG WAS CLOSEU,
fn response to qUestloning by Cha~rman Jo~inson~ Traffic Engineer Pr~ui Singer advised that
the traFfic volumo g~nereied by the propc~sed use would avcragc approximately 132 cars per
day, per 1Q~000 Yquare feet of Ploor are~~ but not on a 2-~-hour• basis~ so the traffic
impact would probably n~t bo very greatr, that he would ltke to point out that the
Qetltioner wne raquestinq a mcdlan cut in Imperlal Hlghway which Traffic Engineering dld
not favor stncee there worr, quite a Pew median cuts already in the im~ned~ate area; thAt~
hoM~evsr~ 7reffic Englneer(ng would prefer a U-turn fram ~in existtng med~nn cut~ s~nce the
vo~urnr woul~i hr. vary ~c~w nnd another r,~edian cut was unnec;essary.
I~n response to further qucstio~ing by Chairman Johnson, Assistant Pla~ner Joel Fick
t,dvlsad thas the subJoct property cc~nsisted of approximately .8 acre of land, and
Ccmmissione~ Nerbst noted that the buiidings would occupy approximately one-third of the
parcel.
Cammissioner Nerbst then noted th~t the P1Anninct Commission was skeptic:ai about the wo~d
"ciocte,r" since the Craffic count would increase consicierably wiCh that type of office use.
Ther~~upan~ Mr. WoodruFf Stated t'~at the buil~ings were not designed to be medical offlces~
and his reference to dector was in terms of an optumetrist~ etc,; and that the corner
b~stldi~g would bc: a real ~state office for his client.
In response ko questloning by s:ommissioner Farano~ Mr. Woodruff stated that tlie subJect
site would be an acceptable l:c~+tion for an H s R Block (income tax a~d accountants)
office and that khere would te an increase in traffic from about April 1 to April 15
annually; thAt~ in hls aa!nl:~n~ medicai o~fices were traditionally bad wit~~ respect co
traffic; tha~t thcy would agiee rtght from the outset of the proJect that it would not 5e
developed for mr.dicai arts use~ and that any ~elated use would requi~e a conditianal use
permit; ~nd that he couid r,ot im~gine a medtcally-oriented use af the property except for
a laboratory or an OpL011fCLfISt~ perhaps.
Commissioner Forana then noted that an aptomekrtst use would prabably net 6e g4od at the
subJect lacation and ali medically-oriented use~, Including laboratories~ should be
speciflcally excluded si~~ce t~r.y would not be in the best (n}:ere.st of the a~ea; however,
he fav4red the zoning or~ the property. We further ~oted that there was a resolutlon of
intent to commercial zo~,iing on the property 8nd~ when pr•oyed up, the petitioner wo~ald not
need Planning Commissian approva! for many uses, as long as no waivers were neces~,ary; and
thet it appeared the pettCioner was trying to dev~lop too much on the subJect property.
In rtsponse to further question:ng regarding the future tenants of the p~oposed affEce
buildings, Mr, Woodruff stipulated that the use wili ue sole!y for buslness oTfices and
would exclude eny medical offices, medical laborat~ries c~r related uses, and also exclude
anv comnerclal-reteil uses or other cortrnercial uses having pa~•king requirements in excess
of the spaces provlde,d for Che proposed office buildings.
~
u
111NUTE5~ CIT'~ PLANN~NG COMMISSION~ Dcccmbcr 6~ 1976
V11RiANGE NO,w 2f,74 (Cantlnued)
7(,»G 1 1
ChAI rm~n Johnson questl~nncl whetner the sub.j~.ct pr'operkY could be developecl in e manner
mc~re consi stent wi th the Code raqui ran~ents; ~+hereupon, P1r. Jim Sl~lmazon~~ the archi tec:;
appearcd befurc thc Cnmmission and stnt~d khat if a sCrucCurr. were bu11C In the mlddle ot
the sitn~ :`:- !+~rk(ng lot would be spllc an! parking wou?~1 br. too close to 5anta Ana
Canyon itoad; thac thc ccntC~ cR nc~ stte was the grr.r~tcst ~n wldth and ti~nt was whore they
wish~ed t.o maximl~r. the parkin~ ~rea; thaC ~.i~a re~~~~ tycrrticm of the property co~ild not be
utlllxcd; and that .~ hu(Iding in tt~c cent~r of thc~ sltc: wc~uiu hc Ynry small.
!n resp~~nse eo quc:stlonin~ by Commissione~ Fereno~ 11r, Fick stalcd thflt kh~e eank of
Amertcr, bul Id(ng in thc at-~~;~ rras snt back from ~anta Ana ~anyon fwad appro.xlmately 2~
feot,
In responsc Lo question~uy ur Ca~ria~!~>npr RArnes. Mr. NoodruFf stated they were propo~;i~g
to provide thc 44 requi~•~d parking spaces. Com+nisslonsr Barnee thPn noce~i t~-a~ ~hc !tt.Nd
the {dea of the office buildings sincc such a use wauld yonerate lr.~s traPPlc 'h3n mo!.t
other uses; that her mafn c~~ncPrn was che setback ad)flcent co the c:xpressw~y and she was
i~-te~cSCed ~o knuw if th~: bullding could b~ mov~d Farther nway from Santr Ana Canyon Road,
In response. Mr, Shimr.,r.ono stateci the suggested relocatlon ~f thc building would result in
thc loss of some parking spaces; tha4 thc praperty in the rear uf the site was vlrCually
useless; that only lands~a~sing wAS p~'oposed on the southerly purtion of the site; that
there was approxinotely 45 F~et of s~,~ace from the pr•op~rty Itne to thc hutldii~g ad]acent
to Santa Anr. ~~anyon Road And Ize douk,ted that sidewslk~ wnuld ba requlred along sald
ex~ressway. Mr. Woodruff addcd tha': tha~ petitioner w~s a~~renable to maintri~isig the
landscaping in the right-~~f-way, st.~ce it wos obvious that they would be lanusr.api~g rtgl~t
to the curb line, and tl~+:y would cr,ordlnate the landsc~ping.
Commissioner Farano questioned the. type of sign proposc:d~ nut.ing that it dld not ~ppear to
be a mor~ument s~r~n~ per se. since there appeared to be a structure beneath said sign~
being a brick base. In - ~onse~ Mr. Woodruff stated that sald sign was about one and
one~hatr feet :~bove the r. .m~ structurally; howeve~, they were ~iot pro~~asin~ ~ ~ost-typ~
stgn. Commissioncr Herbst noted Chat he would not favor any kind of free-s ing stgn in
the ,,tiJect area; that the monument-type sign wos presently being sCudied i~r the area
and in the near future~ such a sign might be permitted by right and wlthuut a varlance;
~,~~ _har the signin,y should wait for sald new sign ordinance. Thereupon~ Mr. Woodruff
~ rew '~~~e reauested waiver of prohibited si9ning and stated tSiey would rnther have
- sicin as a matter uf right~ and would provide slgning in P.ccordance with Code
,:, i -eim~nt5.
r-~~r~~~~se to questioning by Commissioner Farano~ Mr. Singer advised that six medlan cuts
~~f~~ ~ existed in Imperial Highway betwe~n Santa Ana Canyon Road and Nohl Ranch Road~
~~ ,~: addittonal median cut wa~ proposed about one-haif mile from tl~-e sub}ect site to
:~ -. the new grade school and library i~ the area. Mr. Singer pointed out that the
~~*-,~.an cut proposed in connection with the sub.ject site was not conslstent with City
'~unc.il polic•y. Following considerable discussion r~garding the use of a med0an cut to
-~~c~, the subJect property and also the proposed dri~ieway, Mr. Sing~r advised that the
=a~est means of access wouid be the modification of ::he median cut located in Imperial
+~vhway near the southern bounda~y of the subJect prc~pe~ty and constr~~ction .~f a ne~
n~jian cut as shown on the submitted plans to align ~~ith the proposed clriveway on the
subJect property and the existing drtveway on the we:cterly slde ef Impertal liighway;
whereupon~ Commissioner Farano c.oncurred~ nottng that. the exist~ng median Gut dld not
sarve a useful purpose.
Chairman ~hnson revtewed the status of the requestee' waivers, i~ ~inc with the foregoing
dlscussT n~ and noted that he believed the petitlaners had hardships which were not of
thei~ awn making; and that the proJect would be screened with landscaping and. with a f~ww
modifica~tions, he favored It.
In response to questioning by Ccmmissioner Morley~ Commissioner Farano agreed that the
petitioners should pa~y for the modificati~n/co~struction of the medtan cuts ~inc~e the
access was to serve the subJect property and, therefore, wauld not be ~+n unreasonable
request., Mr. Woodruff ihen sttpulated that the petitiuners would bear the costs for said
modific~9tion/constr~ction of ~redia~ cuts in Imperial Highway.
Commissioner Farano noted that. by ~pproving thc drYve~•~ay and median cue near the south
end of the property~ the Planning Commiss(on was essent~al{y recommending that the ~ity
Council waive their pnltcles pertalning to the dtstance fram Santa Ana tianyon Raad.
~ ~ ~
7~,_612
MINUTl:S~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN~ Uecsmber G, 197G
VAn1ANCE N0. ~874 (Contlnued)
Commissioncr HorGst no~nd that a p~•~icedent hsd beon s~l by tne I~1~~lccr development for
setbacks adJpcenC to Senta llna Canyon Roed In the imnecllate vic.tnfty~ And Mr. kink~r had
also agrc~ed to perpet~ially malntt~in the lt~ndsceping (n the puhltc~ rfght~of-way adJacent to
sdld street,
Commi ssloner Kf ng agre;e~ wl th Corrmi ss ioner Barn~s and the pct t t ic~ner~ tliet the subJ ect
slte was Idoal for th~e proposal slnce iC was s~~~~rounded by comrne~••clal d~valopment and that
salci proposal would c.reatr. less trAffic thAn ariy ocher cammercla) usc af th~ Nroporty.
In re~F;~t:~~~ to questtoning by Commissione~ lierr~sc~ Mr. Woc~druff sktpulatAd to the
perpetual mRlntenan~e ~~ :hp public rlylit-of-wt!y ad)acent t~ the suhJect prnpdrty~ and
that precise landsc.aping plans would be sabmitt.ed for Planning Canml~~ion revlew and
approval.
Cammtssloner Tolar noxuU t`at he would not ~~ote in fav~~r of the pro{»sed proJect on the
basis that~ In h!s opinlon~ the subJect property wc+~ ~~:.: t!~lt~ble for cnmm~rcial~offtce
development; and th~t the density af the development could be reduced~ ther•eby i'cduc!r.g
the trafPic pro~~lems and eliminattng the need f~r nrst of the M~alvers.
Commissioner Farano ~oted that he would not sup~~ort the proposed pro,Ject on the basfs that
there should I,e one-story constructio, only~ since the two-~;to~^y constructlon intensifled
the land use~ and that. with the other commercial uses ln ~:he area~ development oF the
subJect property should br kept minimal.
Commfssionf:r Morley of~Pred a motlon~ seconded by ~ommissfo~er King and MOTIAN CARRIED,
that the A.naheim Clty Flannin,q Commission does he~reby recommend to the City Council of th~e
City of Anaheim that a neyative declaration from the requirements ta prepare an
environm~~ntal impact repo't be approved for the subJect pro)ect~ pursuant to the
provist~ms of tlie Calffarnia ~nvironmental Quality Act.
Comnissioner Morley offered Resolutlon No. PC76-254 and movec~ for its passage anc3
adoption, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does here:by grant Petitton for
Vari;in:.•e No. 2374, in par~t, granting the requested waiver of the maximum building hei9said
on the basis that, although the adJacent property to the eas't is zoned residenttally~
property is developed with a public school tn the Ra-A-43,00~ Zone; that the requested
wafver of the permitt~d uses is no longer necessary since revised plans were submitted
d~~leting the servict~ statlon from the proposed develr~pme~t•, granting the requested wrtvers
uf the minimum butlding setbacks adJaeent to an expreessway ~~nd an arterial highway on the
basis that tnp pel•itioner demonstrated that a hardship vxwlcl be creatFd if said walvers
were not granted~ due to the ~ize and shape of the suf~Ject ~>roperty and~ furthermore,
another deve.lopment ln the immediate area was grariteJ a s~m'(lar' sctbaek adJ~cent to Santa
Ana C~nyon Ro~d; that the requested waiver of the minimum l~~ndscaped setbac.k f~om an
arterial highway is no longer necessary on the basis tliat revised plans were submitted
indicating landsc:apeJ setbacks adJacent to public streets in compilance with said Code
requirement; grAnting the request~ed walver of the minimurn landscaped setback from a
residentlal zone c+n the basis that~ although the adJacetit ~~roperty to the east is zoned
residentially~ said property is deveioped with a pubiic scFioo) in the RS-A-43,0~0 Zone;
that the requested waiver of prohibited signing was withdr~~wn by the petitioner with the
stipul~tion to comply with all signiny requirements of th+e Scenic Corridar Zone - ~ve~lay;
subJect to the stipulations of the pettttoners to pPrpetually malntalii the l~ndscaping in
the public right-of-way adJacent to Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway and to
submitting a writ:en agreement for said perpetual maintenance to tt~e City Attorney's
Office for ~.ipproval and to be filed and recorded in the Of`ice of the Orange County
Recorder; subJect to the stipulation nf the petitioner to submit precise landscap(ng pian3
for Pian~in~ Commiss~on review and approval; that the use of the proposed structures will
be solely for busine~:es offices and will exclude any medic~il offices, medical laboPatorl~s,
or related uses, and alsa shall exclud~ any commercial-rP~:ail uses or other cammerclal
uses fiaving parkir,g ~•equirements exceedirig the number of t,pac~s prov~ded for the pruposed
office bulldings, as stipulatecl to by the petitioner; tha~t the petitioners shall modify
the median cut located In Imperial Nlghway near the south~:rn baund~ry of the subJect
property and construct a new median cut~ as shown on the submitted plans, to align wtth
tha p~oposed drivewa~y on tne subJect property and the exi;:ting driveway on the westerly
side of Imp~rial Hlg~~way~ the cost of which is to be borne entir~~ly by the petlttonea-s~
said modiflcation/const~ucti~n to be reviewed and approved by the Traffic EngtnePr; and
;~b.je~: t~ the Intercfeparemental Committ~e recommendations. (See Res~lution Book)
On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the ioZloa!ng vote:
~ ~
7b-61 ~
MINU'fF:S, ClTY PLANNING COMMIS510N~ December 6~ 1976
VIIRIANCE NU. 287N (Contin~aed}
AYES; CONMtSS10NERS: SiERBST' KING~ MORLEY~ JONNSOt~
NOES; COMMISSIQNERS: BAF~NES, FARANO~ TOLAR
ABSENT: COMMISSIQNERS: NONE
ENVIR,ONNEiviNl {MP.ACT - CONTINUED PUBI.IC IiEARING. ESTATE OF ADOI.PH J. SCHUTTE, c/a Alan
Las Angelts. Ca. y0017~
Sutte 8Q6
S
kEPORT N0. 178
" ~ ,
treet~
7alt~ 615 South Flower
and ZETA VANGE EATON AND ~LIZABETH JkAN CONLIN~ BE.P. 940 Papeete~
RECI,ASS I F I CAT I Ot2 Tah 1 t I (Own~rs) ; ROBERT P. WARMI NG'~ON COMPANY ~ 17880 SkYdescrl be,d
ent). PropertY
C
9~71G 1A
NQ. 6- 7-2
'~" 9
a.
Circlc, Suitc ~US~ irvine~
an lrragularly-st~aped parcel o!' land conslsting ot a~~proxlmately
a
TEMTATIVE MAP OF s
17 ~cres located at the southeast corner of Ball Road and Sunkist
fi 170 feet on the south sid~
TRACT NU. 44z5
'- - Street~ having a;:;+roximace fronkages o
ll iload and 1215 feet an the east slde of Sunktst Street~ and
B
a
of
~aving o maximum depth of approximetciy 1Q25 fect. Property
00 (RESIDENI'IAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZO~IE.
4
3~0
presently classlft~d RS-A-
REQUESTED CLASSIFICAT I4N: RS-500Q (RESIDENTIAL~ SINGLC-FAMILY) Z~~+~.
TENTATIVF. TRACT REQU~ST: ENGINEER: KAUPP. LAWLER 6 ASSOCIATES, 3001 Redhill~ Building 5~
SI11TE 102~ Costa Mesa~ Ca. 92626, Subject property is proposed
for subdlvislon into 105~ RS-;000 lots.
RECLASSIFICATiQt~ - PUBLI~ HCARING. INITIATED 4Y THE ANAHEIM C17Y PIANNING COMMISSION~
N0. 76-17~29 2~4 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 928~5; propasing re~:lassiflzatlon
~ or property described as an Irregularly-shaped parcel of lend consist-
ing of approximately one-half acre located at the sautheasL corner af
Ball Road and Sunkist Street, having appraxtmate frontages of 160 feet on thc+ souih side
of BaULl'URAL apISTR/CTeto thotCiTYaOF ANAHEIM RSn5Q00 (RESIDE~TQAL~hSiNGLETFAMILY)EZONE~.
AGRIC )
It was nuted that Envlronmental Impact Report Nu. 178. Reclasslflcatlon No. 76-77•2 and
Tentative Map of Tr~ct No. 9425 w<:re contin~~ed from the Plenninfo O°"'~classiflcation (see
November 22, 197~, to advertise additlonal coi~tiguous prop rty
Reclassificatlon No. 76-77-2:~).
It was further noted that Comnissioner Herbst had filed a Conflict of Inte~~est DeclaratlAn
at the Plannin; ~~^~+ission meeting of November 22, 1976, in connectton with the proposal
and, thereupan, COMMISSIONER HERBST LEFT TIiE COUNCIL CNAMBER TEMPURARILY AT 2:55 P•M•
No one indicated their ~resence in opposition to the subJect itemg.
Althoeghublicshearingp~said Staff~Report~is~efer'rtd totandD'madebarpart~o~(~theaminutP.;ead
at th p
THE PUBLIC N:ARING WAS CLOSED.
~ •
~6_G 14
MI NU1'l~ S~ ~ I1'Y PLANN I NG COM,M 1 SS I ON ~ Uacember 6~ 1976
EPIVIRUhMENTAI. IMPIICT Rk:POR7 NG. 178~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 76-77-2~ TENYATIVE MA.P OF TRACT
Nw0~942i; AiJb RECLASSIFIGATION NO ~6-77~29 (Contl~uod) , -
Commisslaner Bernes o1'fe~~~d a matlo~~ seconded by Commissloncr King ~nd MOTION CARRIED
(Comnl~sl,~ner Herbst b~ing tompordrily abeent)~ that tho Anahelm City Plonning Commission
doas hr.reby recommend to the Clty Councll of the Clty of Anflheim that a negatlve
docl~~etlo~ fram khe ~equlrernent to prapara an enviromm~ntal lmpact rep~rt be grantad for
the ~roJe;ct Idontlflr.d in Patttlon for Raclassiflcatlon No. ~6-71~29- pursuanC lo the
provision~ of the Callfornla Cnvironmental Qual~ty A-t,
C~mmissfrmer Barnas affered Res~~lutlon No. PC76~25fi and moved 1`or its passage and
adoption, Chat the hnahelm Clty °lanning Commisslon does hereby recammcnd to the Clty
Councll ~f the Cfty of Anehelm thst Petltion for Reclassiflcexlon Nu. 76-77-2y be approvnd
un l•he basls that the sub]ect property consists ~f a small corner pa~cel whlch nas
restrlctad e.:cess ta ddJacent arterlal highwAys and Is contiguoua to e iarger parcel to
the east and south upon which a sinSle-famlly developmont has baon prcposed and~
therefnre~ the subJect property sho~ld appropr~atrly ba devnloped with slmilar single-
family residences; ti~at the developmcrt of subJect property shnll be In accordance with
Gouncll Policy No, 542 perta~ning to sc~und-rttenuatlon For resident{al uses; thak, In the
svcnt the subJer,L property is to be dlv!ded for the purpcse of sale~ lease or financing~ a
pa~rcel map to record the approved dlvisian of aubJect property shal) be submitted to and
approvc~d by xhe City of Anahelm and then be recorded tn the Offica ef the Orango County
Rec~rder; and subJect to the Interdepartm~ental Commlttee recon~mendatlons. (See Resolutlor~
Dook)
Discusston of ths Foregotng resolu:tnn follawed~ during whtch C~mmissioner Farano noted
that althnugh h~ agrced with arr,~ app;ehenslons oP the other Commissi~ners that this tand
mlght not be the greatest f~r RS-5000 deve!opment~ ~T t~Ze p-'oposal on the contiguous
parcel to xhe s~utri anc~ east was acted ~ipan favurably~ R5-~OQO would be the only land use
appropriato for the sub,j~ect smat! parcel; that tl~ere w+~s nothing to preclud.~ the owner of
the small parce! from reque~ting another zo~e cha~ge In iha future~ hawever~ the owne~
should be place~ on nottc~ th~t ln the ~omn;lssion oplnion~ the small pa~rcei sho~~ld have
been Incl~ded w(th the largar parcel; tliat t:h~ property might, in th~ minds o~ otl~er~~ be
cansidered e typical service station site, h.~-ever~ tt was not and he would not vote for
such a use of sat~t land in the future; a~d that, f~aa a land use standpoint, *he small
parce) cnu1J only be eppiopriat•e for incorpc~ratio~ lnt;~ the development of the contlguous
lAnd to the south and east,
Commissloner 7olar too'~c exc~ption tu the resolutlon~ noting that this rezoning action,
excluding the small p~rce! from tha praposed development af the contiguous ~8!'CeI, was
po;slbly landlacking th.; small parcei, cre~ting a hardghip fnr access~ and he would not
support access either on Sunkist or Ball Rord in the future for said parcei.
in response tc quest!oning by Commissioner Farano, Mr. Jlm Ch~•istensen a~peared before the
Planning Comenission and stated that the owner(s) of the small ~~arc~l had bcen sent a
~slegram Prom the Warmir~gton Company apprising them oE the pcndTng reclassification ~f thc
smAll parc~l and the re~ponse had been as prPVi~usly Indicated -•• that they were not in
fa~~c~r of rezoning the sma11 parcel.
Dep~~ty City Attorney Frank Lo+rry read a letter dated May 3, 1976~ from Alan !t. Talt~ as
follows:
~~May ~~ 197~
The Warmtngton Company
17880 Sky Park Ci~cle~ Suite 20;
Irvine~ California 92707
Attentlon: Mr. Walt~r I:ursen
Gentlemen:
This letter cnnfirms that you are authorized to apply to the
Clty of Anahelm for a zone cha~ge and annexatlon oP the redl
property situated sauth oP BAl1 Road and east of Sunktst Street
in county of Orange, which real property Is presently being
administered in the estate o~ A. J. Schutte.
Annexatlon is nc+t to be consummated prior to ~~cN time that
~
~
MINUTES~ C17Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ December 6~ 1976
~6_615
ENVIRONMENTI~I IMPACT R'~PQRT N0. 178~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 7G-~77-2~ TENTATIVE MAP OF 1'RAC7'
N0,~42! ~ ANI) RECLASSIFICATION N0. 76-77-29 ~Contlnued~M,
the requested zone change is granted by Che C-~~.y of Anahe~m and
bc.come: flnal. In the evont sAld zone ch~mc~e (s not ao qranted~
said apRllcetton Por annaxetlon Is to be withd~rawn.
Sincerely.
s/Alan R. 7elt"
Chr 1 s te~~sen on beha 1 f af r.h~
Hr. Lc.wry than indicated *.n the Planning Commisslon ti~at M~. ~
'~larmington Cumpany~ was authorized to act as tF~e acent for tl~~ ~rner of tt~m small parcel
of land under dlsGUS~lan. Mr, lowry furth~r tndicatcd that c~ emall par~el was an
ilicgal l~t. A copy aP the foregoing let~rr w~s submitted f+~r ti~e Ctty record.
Cummissioner Farsno notcd ch~+t tha Planning Commtssicn~ ln re:zoning the subject small
parcgl of land~ was not imposing lnverse condemnatlon on the property~ since th~ land
would not be undevelapable or deprlv~~l of same Iclnd of builda~b~e us~; that public notlce
had baen givan tA the propcrty owner w~o had no. chosen c~ ba present at this publlr.
heartny to discuss the mattsr and~ the-'F~fore~ as a Pl~nning Commisslan~r~ he did naC frel
there was any unfatrness~ e.spaclally sinc~ the Warmington CQmpany had testlfled thr~t they
had att~mpt~d t~o purchase this small parcel f~r inclusion in the orppased devel~prr~ent of
the conttguous property whtch was owned by ti~e same p~:op~e.
Comrnissioner Tular inqutred what cu~~ld be developed on the smsil ;riajcWeSgnoteMLL itharpt
an RS-5~~~~ lot; whereupon~ Mr. Lowry adv.sed that sald 1ot or ~
for that matt~r.
~ommissioner'~oler clarified that he was only interested 1n an~~ hardshlp wt~ich the c~wn~r
of the sm~ll parcel mtght cla~m in tne future when a development proFos~1 wati made.
in response ta questloning by the Planning Commisslon, Mr. Lowry advised thax the small
parc~l was illegal in every respect and was leyally still a part of the property which was
the subJe~t of Reclassificatio~~ No. 76-77-2 and for which M~. Ch~lsrensen~ on behali' of
the Warmington Company~ was the agent. Tt~eteupon~ Mr. Cf~riszen!~en volced r,o obJactlons ta
the proposed recl~ssification of the small parcel.
On roll ca1l, the forec~oing resolution was passed by the foilowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIOt~ERS: BAaP~ES, FARANO~ KING, MORLEY, TOLAR~ JOhNSON
NOES : COMMI SSI ONERS : N(1NE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; HERBST
in response to questioninc~ by the Planning Commisslon, Mr. Ghristensen appeared and
revlewed the revisiuns ~o the propc~sal being that the bicycle tralls had be~n elimineted
alon9 Sunkist Street; that tha easement For access to 2he southeas•~: purtior- of the small
parcel to the northwest of subJect property had been increased from l0 feet to 30 ~eet;
that they were capable of ineetlr-g the City Councll policy reyarding r~ound attenuation; and
that they had applted for annexation, followin9 Wnfirmatlon from the Planning Department
ehat annexation h~d not been prsviously applied fQr on the subJect property.
Commissioner To1ar noted same concer'n about the proposed rezoning r,ction since ehe recent
General Plan amendment dlscusslon included that some recreatt~nal faclliCies would be
provided for both tt~e mobilehome proJect to the south and the pro~osed development; th~,t
there were no pmrks in the area basically because th~e subJect property was previously part
of an industrial ~ren and, therefare~ parks and recreatlonal faciiities are nat available
(n the vicinity '1or us~ by the residents in the prnposed single-'famt~y residential
proJe~'t; that, therefore~ he would like to see the incorporation of some recreatlonal
spacerl~ the pro)ect~ i.e.~ access to the riding gnd htking tra~ls tn the area or a mi~i-
park ~~n the corncr parcel. etc.. prior to City Caun:.il revlew of the proJect; and that, in
his opinlan, tHere should deftnitely be some recreational facilities in this developmer~t.
Cortmisstoner Tolar noted that recreatlonal factlities had been proposeci tn the !n~bilehome
park development.
Commiss!oner Ktng noted that the tiee 1 complatnt from the t~vmmissl ner Tolareaddedxthat
and parks couid not be built without adding to the taxes.
if the City h~d lossked to the devPlopers in the past, tl~e park shartage sttuation would
probabiy not exi3t today.
~ ~
~g_616
MINUTES, C17Y PLANNING CdMMISSI0r1~ December 6~ 1976
EN'aIRONM[:NTAL IMPACT REPOR'~ NQ. 17~. RECIA:+SIFICATICN M0~ 7~`77'2, TENTA7IVE MAP OF TMCT
N0. 942~ND i~ECLAS5IFICATION N0. 7b-77^29 Contlnund ,~ -_ --
Commissloner Farano note~:~ Chet CoRmissloner 7~lar'~ comnx.+nts mtqht bn construed as
suggesting tliat the ~1evt~laperx of siny~e-family tracts beyin provlding re~crRatlonal space
1n the proJacts end sueh ~ su~gestion mtght chuse many problems; and tliat the Ga~nmission's
Go-rm~nts pnrta~inln9 to rncreatiansl spaco rnighC appropriately be lncilcated in the
recomn~endatlon regarding Env~ronmPntsii Impact Report No, 178.
Commissloner Fa~ano oifercd a mot~~n~ seconde~i by Commisslorn~r fCing ard MOTION CAl:RIED
(ConmisslAner 11~rbst betng tmmpurarlly ~haent), that Environrne~tal Impact Repo~t ~lo. 17g~
having been considercd thls date by the IOnahaim Cl:y Planning Commis~lon and evidenr.e~
bot`~ wri tten and orol ~ ht~ving been presented to supplement s~l~f drst`t EIR No. 178~ does
conPorm to thc Clty and 5tata GuidelEnos and thc Stat~ oP Callfor~ta Environm~ntal Quality
Act; ~rovided~ however~ that the Plannlnc~ Comnission dnes furtt~er rec.nmmesnd that said Elft
include some considerat~on ~or recreattonal space in tha projec•, I.e.~ a~cess to th~
riding and hlking trt~ilp in the area or park space~ etc,~ '~~Id recommendation t~efn~ mada
on the basis that. tF,e s~~bJect proparty was prevt~usly indlcated rs an (ndustr(al a~~ea on
the ~ercral Plan and~ ~:I~rough the rezoning of [hl~~ pr~pert~~ parks and recreattonal
facilitles ~re n~t necessarllv ay+~ilable In Fhe: vicl~ity for use by the resldcnts i~ :he
p~'opqgerl ~ingte-fami ly resic~entlal proJecC.
Commissioner Farano oPFerec~ Resnlution Pdo. FC7~-255 and maved for !ts pnssage ~nd
ad~ptlon, th~t tF~e Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby rec.amniEnd to the City
Councii o~ che ~.ty of Anahelm that Per.itton for RPClassificatlon Wa. 7F-77~2 ~e ~PProved,
gub)ect to the conditfon that the developrnent shall be In acc~~rdance wlth Counc(1 Folicy
No. y4'~ pertatning to sound attenuation for residential developments; and subJect to thP
stipulations of the patttionrr and the Interdepartmental Comnittee recurtmendatlons. (See
Resolutlon Book)
On roll call~ the foregoing resolutton was p~assed i~y the following vote:
AYES: GOMh~ISSlOr "RS: BARNES, FARANO~ KlNG, MORLEY~ TOLAR~ J~!!~!NS~N
NOES : COM~11 SS I Ut:EnS t NONE
A~SENT: CaMMISSIONERS: IIF4tsST
Gommissioner Frrano offpred a motion~ sec~mde~ by Commiss(oner Morley and MOT10~~ CARRIED
(Commisstoner Herbst bPing temporarily absent). that the Anahelm City Planning Commission
dces here~y find that the proposed sulsdivision, togett~e~ with its design and improvement~
ls cansistent with the City of Anahelm G~neral Pla~n~ pursuant to Government Cr~de Sectlon
66k73.5; and~ therefore, does approve 7entattve Map of Tract No. 9425 for 106 RS-50Q0
lots, subJect to th- follewina condltions:
1. That the approval af Tentative Map o~ Tract No. 5k25 is grante~ subJect to the
approval of Reclasslficatio~ No. 76~)7_2.
2. That should this subdivision be developed as morP than one ~-..dtvislon~ each
subdtviston thereof shall be submitted in tentattve form fo~ approvalo
3. 'Chat in accordanc~ with City Gouncil po11Gy~ a 6-foot masonry wall shall be
canstructed on the west property line separ~ting lot Nos. 46 thrr,~gh 65 from
Sunkist Street. keasonable l~ndscaping, including irrigation faci11t1GS. sh~1'
be i~stalled in the uncemcnted purtifln of the arterial high~.+~~y parkw~y the fu~ll
distance of sald wAll; plans fer sald lar.dscaping to be submttted ta and suble~t
to the soproval of the Superintendent of Parkway Malntenance. F~llowing
installatton and acceptance~ the City of Rnah~im shall rssume the responsibility
for mbintcnance of said landscaping.
4. Thet all lots within this tract shail be served by undergrour~d utiltttes.
5. That P flnal tract irtap of subJect property shall be submitted to ar~d approve~ by
the City f.ouncll a+nd then ba ~ecorded in the Office af the Or~enge Caunty
Recorder.
6. That any p~'~posed c~vanants~ conditians~ and restric:tiens shall be submitted to
end approved by the City Ptto~ney~s Offlce prlor to Ctty Ccuncil approyal of tho
finsl tract map and, f~rthar~ that tt~e approved c~venants~ conditlons~ and
restrtctlons shal) be recorded concurrently with the f:r,al tract map.
~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Decembe~ h~ 1976 7b~~~
E~IVIRONMENTAL INPA~T REPORT N0. 17H~ RECI.ASStFICATION N0. 76-77-2~ TENTA'TIVE MAP OF TRACT
N(i. 94_ 2~ AND RECLASSIFICATIOW N0. ]6-7 -2 Continued) ~___,__~, ~._.
~ 7, Thnt street namo~ ~hal! be epproved by the Clty Planntng Department prlor to
appr•oval of a~~nal tract map.
9, Th~t the ~~ncr~s) of suh~Ject property shall pay to the City of A~eheim the
a~proprtsta park ~nd recrertlo~ In-lleu tees as det~rmined to be approprfate by
tho Clty Council~ sald fees to be psld at the tlma the buliding permit Is issued.
9, Thnt drAlnage of subJect property sha 1 bc cltsposed ~f In a menner tha~i Is
attsfectory to tho City Engineer. This shall In~lud~ ~ st•arm draln to be
constructed In Sunktsc Straet from Cerritos Avanue northarly ta subJect tract as
requlrod l•y the Clty Enylneer.
10. That these reclasslficetlan proceedings are granted subJect to completi~n of
annexetlon of iubJect property ta the City oP Anahalm.
11. That the Clty Councii reserves the righr, to deletc nr a~mend the assumptlon of
landscopc malntena~ce (n thn nvent Counctl poltcy changrs.
12. If permencnt srrart namc signs hAVe not beeR Installed, temporary street name
stgns shall be tnatalled prior to ony occupancy.
13. 7hat fire hydrants shall be installed and chargea as requlred end determined to
be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Oepartment pi'lor to comnencement of
structural frAmtng.
1k. That t~e ~~roperty owner(s) shal! gr'ant a mtr~lmum 3d~•f~t wide ingress ~nd eqrn~s
easement to the aoutheast p rtlon oF the p~rcel at the snuthaast corner of Ball
Robd and Su~kist Street and said easement shali be revicwed and approvad by the
Cliy Att~~ney and then be recorded concurrantly wtth the final tract mep.
15. 7hat development of subJect prop~rty shal~ bP In accordance with Cuunc:ll Pollcy
No, 5~2 pertalning to sound attenuatlon for raslde~tial praJeGts.
RECESS - At 3:~0 p.m.~ ~hairman Johnson declared a recess.
RECONV~NE - At 3:34 p.m.~ Chair~nan Je~hn~on r~convened the meeting
~` with ali Plani~ing Cammnissioners being present.
.~...
~
~......
~r
MlNUTES~ C1TY PLA,NNING COMMISSION~ Dacember G~ 1976
,~~~~
REClA5SiFICA7~ON - PUDLIC HEARING. JOSEPN P. AND GLAUYS F. GLEAS ON, 340~ West 8~11 Rood~
N0. 76-77-1.7 Anahetm~ Ce. 928QN (Ownerx); ARCHIT[CTURE WEST, INC.~ 7A7 41est KAtella
- Avenuc, ~102, Orenge~ Ca, 92667 (Agant). Property descrlbed as an
VARIANCF. N. 2841 irregularly-shaped pe~cel of land ~onslsting o}epp~oximately 2.6
""""~'~~ acres having a trontage oP epproximately 5~ fe~t on the south sidc~ of
Ball R~ad~ having a mp.:tmum Jepkh of approxlmetely H12 Fect~ bei nglocated approxirtxately
845 feet east of the cr.nterl tne of Knott Streat~ and furtl~er deserlbed es 3~+00 West Bal l
Road, F'ropcrty presently classifted CL (COMMF.RCIAL. L1141TLD) .'.UNE,
R~QUESTED CLASSIFICAYION: RM-1200 (RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE-FAMILY ) ZONr..
REQU~:STED VARtANCE: WAIVER ~F (A) MI~IMUM BUILDING SI'fE NtD'fH~ (D) MINIMUM SIUEYARU
SETBACK~ AND (C) REQUiRED ENCI.OSURE: OF ~ARPORTS, TO CQNSTRUCT A
60-UNIT AF'ARTMF.NT COMPL[X.
ApproxlmAtely seven persons indlcat~d their presence tn nppasiti on to tha subJect
peli ti~ns, and forthwl th wai.+ed thc ful l rct~ding of the Staff Rtport to th~ Plrnning
Corn~t~?ian dated Cncemher 6~ 197~• Although the Staff Feport we~s nut read at the puhltc
hearing~ it is referred to and mede a part of the minutes.
~~r. John Waters ~ represen ti ng the agent ('or the pc t 1 t i oner ~ eppG ared b~efore the P 1 ann i ng
Cammission and scated thet the mottvation for chang(~~g the land us~~was Chat RM-1200
zoniny would hava a gre+ater tendency for dcvelopment on the l~~nd ; that Che proposed
multiple-family development could serve as a buFfer between the hospltai and th4
comnercial development; that tfioy were propo~ing as many amenltt es as passible on the
stte; a~id thnt they did not feel there was a problem w(Ch the panhandle-type enti~y
proposed~ which they felt wr~uld be advantageous t~ .he proposed apartment pro)ect.
Mr. Edwir. A. Rhinenart~ 1313 South O~ekhaven Drive~ Anaheim. appearad before the Planniny
Commission~ representing sevcral restdents orv Qakheven Drive ln oppositlon to the subJ~ct
petition. He stated that the residents were apposed to the cor~~trur.tion o~~ 60 units n~+
the subJect pfoperty which~ in many Instances~ wer~ small unit.s which later on generally
turned out to be slum ar-eas; and that the developer wAS mainly requesting exempttons from
the Code. NP reviewed the proposrd weivers~ stattng that it ap neared that the automobiles
would exten~i past the edges of the carporCs; that tl~e land~ perh~aps, was la~ndluckcd but
that was the fault of the previous property a+ner(s); that the usP of the panhandle
drivew~y would create a dtsturbance to the adJacent hospital an d there were gener'ally
problems with tt s type driveway since the polics would gsnerai 1y not be a~le ta do
anything about situations on private propcrty; that the noise level would increase
considerably~ particul:• ly with small units of this natur~; th a t the sub)ect property
llnes would be directly paraltel to the hospital and the subJe~ t developars would probably
want to build more untts here in the future. Thereupon~ Mr. Rt~inehart presented a
petition signed by approxlmately a3 residents and properCy a:ne rsin the imm~edtate area in
opposition. He cancluded by statiny that the commui~ty its~lf was very destrabie~ but the
proposed units were very undesirable~ and he felt confidant th a t nane of the Planning
Commissioners w~uld want to live in an area near thts type apa ~ tment units.
Mr. Richerd @oynton, representing the Anaheim General Hospital , appaured before the
P1anning Commission in opposition and stated they were opposed on the basls of noise and
prlvacy; that the prcposal for the 10-foot deep side yard and a G-foot high wa11 would
cr•eate a continuous lack of privacy and a lot cF noise. to the hospltal and the hospital
was concerne~ with the care and tr~atment of patients; that :he y falt tha access to the
proposed units was t~adeyuate and~ being contiguous to the hos pltal access~ sever~ and
detrimental cangestion would be created leading te acctdents to pat(ents of the hospital,
as well as ~heir employees and the tenants of the proposed apa rtments; that the s~lected
locar.ion was somewhat unfair~ tn his opin(on~ to the future ter~ants of the apartments and
the land itsElf could probably be better utilized as a ca~merCial use because qf iis
iucation ~etwe~i Che hospital and the conmercia) center; and t ha;he would urge the
Planning Comm'ss~on to deny the proposal.
In rebuttal~ ~ir. Waters stated they were not attempting to bui ld bu(ldtngs on property 50
feet wide~ however, the 5Q-foot frontage was purely tor access purposes; that they could
comply with the mintmum requirement for the sideyard setback~ butthe proposal had been a
matter of choice in the design of the patio areas; that the ex istence of the adjacent
liospitel and the ambulance sirens wh~ch were generally "kilied•' as suo~ ~+s pra~cttcable~
would not take away from the apartments at all; thae~ if the a d)acer+t property owner
(hospital) was in agreement. they would heighten thr proposed wall; that his client was an
•
~
MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN~ Uacemb~r 6~ 1976
REC_I,ASSiFICl1TION N0, y~~27 ANU VARIANCE N0. 2881 (Cantlnund)
~h_619
indlvidual who wanted to ~c~ evoryxhtng he could tn provlJ~ what the nelghbars wanCed; that
his cllent was in the business and watched hla de~a~opments v~ry carefully~ trying to make
them at afPo~•dable as p~sstble; ti~at~ eltliough tha propose~l apdrtmer~t units dId not exceed
tho minimum rcqulrements, they were uery desirable with lnts of stoi•ag~e; that they c~id not
feal they were askin.~ for a great many waivers a~d~ if thuy canplled wlth the Code
raqulrements~ It would not be for the benePit of the proJect~; that the carports were
standard stza for the City; Chat most of tha carports attachod to thc u~lts were only two
car~ wide a~nd with inadequ~+te vislbiit~y~ however, they c~uld comply wtt.h the Gode
rdquirement tP nccessary; that All alternAttva uses of thc subJact propcrr.y had been
cor~sidered. basically because the property was nrexently zonod commerc(al; that an
apartment pro~ect dl~ not need frontage on a pul~lic street; th~+t the:y wesre providing mare
thar adequate parktng snd haped to provlde morc; and that they were provfding ~menitias to
keep the ten~nts In the pr~)RCt.
TIIE PUBLIf, HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissloner Morley noted that the propose~~ use r~ould generate less traffic ti~dn a
commnrclal use .P the pr~perty; that khe noise Impect nn the hospital fran the ~pa~tments
would not be a problem~ tn hts opinion~ but the concern shc~uld be the noise tmpact on the
+epa~tments Pr~om the hospltal.
In response r.o questtoning by Commisstoner H~rbst~ Mr. Waters stated ;.~,-y vrauld prefer to
see the well along the ~ast p~operty llne ralsed to 8 feet for sound-At~::~uatian and
posgibly h~v~s ciouble-paned glass (n the windows f~cing that dtrectl~n; anc~ that they werG
proposing to have fully-(nsulatcd walls.
CAmnlsstoner lierbst noted that he dtsagrecd witli the oppasitiAn~ slnce he did nnt Pee~
thet all tena~ts in apartments were second~cless citize~s; that the subJect develaper
could have asked for 25~ bscheloC or efficlency unit~ in the proJect; thai he did not feel
that th~ property would ever develop with s commercial use9 tliat ihc proposal would not in
any wey involve the n~arby residentlal propertie~; that any development on ttie property
would lncrease Lhe traffic in the area ~t least some, wath apartments hav(ng about the
least amount of traffic; that~ ho+,rever, he would fir~vor a 20~fa,t wlde buFfer zone with
somP la~'~ascaping~ i;icluding tr~es and/oP the 8-fwt high wall prevlously menttoned~
adJ~cent to the east property Iine, to satisfy ehs notse Impacts f~om both the apartments
and the hospttal; ai~d that a wa11 might cr~ate a shac!e problem~ hoviever.
(n resp~onse to questioning by C~mnlssloner Nerbst~ N~. Waters stated they would only be
able co provlde about s 15-f~ buffer zone; that he did ~ot agree that ther~: would be a
nolse probl~m; however~ he ~ id stipulatc to a 15-f~t buffer zone and the 8-foot wall~
but could possibly provide a 2Q-foot wlde buffer ~+rea, lf nece~sary.
Mr. zoynton then stated that ar S-foot htgh wall would have no effect on the hospital.
In response to quest~oni~ig by Commissioner Ferano pertaining to the 20-foot wide~ fully
landscaped buffer zone usually required for slmilar proposals~ it was pointed out that the
prnperty was abutttng thc hospital on the easi and an alley on the west which extended
tnto a very largP delivery area for the adJacent markct.
deslene~nfortstouriner etc.tiandn9!tat thmmihad~not giventtoormuchtthoughttCo signingrfar~s
g PP 9~
ths proJ~ct.
Gomnissioner King note~i that he agreed th~t apartments were needed In the sub)ect location
f~r young couples. He read from an article in News World which indict~ted that only about
15$ of the population could afford to purchase a~~. Comm~ssloner Ktng further noted
that he lived :lose to apartments and was nat complaining because they were kept up aa
well as his d~n home.
In response ta que~tioning by Conm+issi~ner Barnes~ Mr. !:~cers stated they were lntending
to instali a hose bib And not sprlnklers in the indtviduai patto areas whtch would be
about 5 feet by 10 fieet in stze; and that approximAtGly 6-faot wide sliding doors would bc
provlded from the pAtios into the units.
Commissioner Barnes noted that she did nnt see a nced for the 15~foot wide buffer area;
that I~ eppeared ehat the more grass area there was the more difflcult lt was for the
tenants to caro for thetr patios.
~
~
n
~~
MINUTES~ CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION. D~cember 6, 191b 76'~i2~
RECI.ASS I F I CAT I QN N0._ ] 6~ ~7~27 AND VARI ANCC N0 . 2881 (Con: i nued)
Cammlxslonor Fla~bst notnd th~t hn was tn fAVar oP the 15-foot wide landscaped buffor zonn,
wtth the tre~~ to brei+k up the epproximately 812-foot long wall. Thareupon~ Mr. Waters
inqui red i f the subJoct d~svelo~nent could takc a!ivantAge~ of the 5 to 7-toot wide
lendscap~~ strip on tho othnr ~Ide aP the w+al 1 ta :.omply wt th the requl rement,
Commissloner FAreno Indicated in thn nec~att~~e. noc,tng chat onvironmant was bning discussed
imd that spnclfic lendsc~ptng plo~s would be ~equfrod for Plenning Commisslon approval;
that the pro)oct was be,gtnning tr~ give him an ~incamfartnblm feeling since quality to mako
it succeed apptared ta be mis~ing; and thet the landscaped bufl'ers would drass up the
proJect eomewhat.
Mr. Waters then stat^.d Chat thelr tatal empha~.ts had b~en on the recreaklonal areas for
Ch~ tenents in thc F~roJect; wliereupon~ Commissioner Fer~no noted thot only a pool was
shawn in th~~~ recreat~nnai ar~a, and tha na r_honging roams wera -ndtcated; thmt hc would
support the rec I Ass 1 f 1 ca t 1 on oP zon 1 ng but not the va~ I ance; end th~+t the carports looked
only half complr.ted. Mr. Wntors staeed {~e would ga along wlth open carpo~ts wl±h slats~
etc. ~ es hIs Rreference; and that storage a~eas were N~~..p~sed In the c~~aorts.
Commi sstoner Herhs ~ noted that, because of the nature of the p~oposed praduct, he was
concn~ned~ alnng ~ilch tlie npposftlon, that the proJoct would be undesirable; thAt only
with lar~dscsping ~nd beauty would the praJect su:,ceed and the t~nants stay; and that the
proJect appeared to be vcry minlmal.
Mr. WAtere slatad chey wcre provTding as mueh apen spacc a~s possibl~e by fronktng all or
the units nnto t`~e recreatlonal ar~a.
Commlssioner Ne t n~ted that perhaps tt~e number af unlts shauld be reduced; anJ that he
dld not think the ladies w~ ld like to have Chelr laundry rooms in the recreational area.
Cairmis~tuner F~rano added th~t the -'ecreational area would probably be~ ltke a dust bowl.
In response to questtoning, Mr. W~t°rs str~ted he felt comfortable that If tt~.s property
were reclassified~ he would be abls :o prepare a set of drawings that would satisfy the
Planning Gommission.
Commissloner Farano ;~oted that the vuriance for the cterpo~ts should be deleted tn the
revised plans; and that the ravised pians shouid bs very conclusive~ as opposed to the
plans being reviewed at this meeting. Commis5turier Herbst suggested that some greenery br.
incorporated wi th th~ ca~ports, etc.
In respanse to questioning by M~•. Watcrs. Chalrman Jchnsan tn~icAted that the Commission
woul d be unab i e to ~ende r a dec i s i on ori tt,P r<<,1 ass i f t~ at ton of zon I ng w1 tho~~ t the ~ ~~
the appltc~tion at this time,
Corrom~ssioncr Herbst offe~ed a moti~n, secc~r~j~d by 4u •~1*,siairer Morley : d MOTION Cr,..
that the Anahetm Clty Ptanning Conimissic+n ~~aes he~ehy r~opc~~ the publi. - aring ar~.i
cuntinue cons(derc~eion of Petietona for Reclnaslfl:~ti~n ~~a. 76-??-27 ~~~'~~a VAriance No.
28$1 ta the Plann(~g Corxn(ssion meeting af Januar'y 3, ~~7~ for revised plans.
~ •
MINU'I'ICB~ AN(~}1;IM ~2I'i'Y PLJINNIN(i OOt~AulI3:~IQN~ Dooembe,r G, 197G ~~~2)
f~I~CIJ133Ib'IOAT~ODI - NUAL+IO E~ARINCi. 1~R&IN ~ JOHN AND HOWAAD LUIQCN3 ~ 15111 Pipelina , Ohino ,
NU. 7G-77-28 Oa. 91710 end M.~.H. INVICSTI~Ni'S~ 1517.1 Pipeline, Ohino~ Oa. 91710
~ ~ (Ownarc~); DAVID B~aK, 3723 airoh ~1~reot, ~23, Newport Beaoh, Oa. 92660
VARIANO~ N0. 28H?_ (Agen,t). Property dosoribed aa an irregulerly-c~hnped pe~roel ot lesnd
ooneisting of e-ppraxirmtely 1.7 acz•ee liaving ~ frrnte~e oP approxi-
mai;oly 178 feet on the narth nide of Ba11 Road, having a ma:imum dopth
~~f approxtm~sto'].y 4y3 feet, and bei.ng ~ooated appc•oxi.a~toly 945 feet west of the oer-1,erlin~
of 1Cnott Street. Pi•operty pi•eHently olaesifi~d R3-A-~l3,UUU (RID3IDEN'1'IAL+/ACiRTUUT.[PURAL) and
CJ~ (OUtdb~RUTAI~, LSMI'L'~D) Z~13.
REqlT~3TEA CI~A.SSIF'IOATION: Rt~l-1200 (RICSID~?~T~:CAL~ tdUTJPIPIF-FAItiIILY) ZONE.
fil~qlTFS"~C~ VAHIANO~: WAN~R OF (A) ~dARIMIiM BUIl~DIIJC~ EiF'TC~HT AND (B; tdINIMUM ~ISTANCE;
HH1TWBiH~'Id DUSi~i'i:[I1(3S, TO CONS'i'Ri1C'S ~l ' 1-UN:IT APARTt~QCNT QOb1FIk~X.
No orie i-idioatod tliatr prasenoa in oppoeition to 1;h4 :~ubjbct petitioti~.
Althc~ugh the Staff Report to +,he Planning Oommission de~i~ed Deoembri• 6, 1~~76, was not c•ead ~1~
the publio hearing, said sta~f report is referr~d to and awde a psrt of the+ minu~to:~.
Mr. Dt-vi.d Deak, t~he 9g9Ilt for the petit'Lonor, appearod bepore i,he Plonning C'~uunissi.on and
denoribed the pr•oposed 2%-unii; apartment oomplex , stating thore would be two-oe~r attsohed
gt~rages wJ.th ~utoma..io door oponer~, patios and ba7.oonies fcc• eaoh unit, £ii•eplaces, barbeque~,
mi.orowe~ve avens, autometio dishwash~rs, air-oonditioning, etc. I•Ie furth~c• .>Lated that tlie
unit,s would be fu11y insuleted, inolu~in~ the aommon walls.
TE~ PUBLIC ~ARING WAS CLOSEA.
Comnissi.oner Tolar took exoeption •tu thc~ proposed 25-~oot wide ~aved Qr~.veway for iiita. i~r
airoulatioYi whioh Fnolrr~led ono of ~the prog~~eR buildings, noting tliat ev~+n wlth the 9lactrio
doar openers the^e vrould be problems.
Commis3loner F~rano suggestod ttiat the petiti.oner i;ako ttie ~'.ouble trac~t~ enoloaure out c.f t: e
reoreational at•ea, espeoially beoause uf the tieavy wookend. usage.
Chairman Johnson noted that llE~ did nat under~tand how three rowa of buildings oould bo pro_
posed on the ~ub,jeoi; property. Commi.asioner Toler noted ~that there appeared to be too many
unite ou the pruperty, oi•eatirig additional problems. Commissioiisr Farano e-dded thst the only
landsoaping shown on i:he p1an~ was a few smatl lswne, and ~dr. Beok rosponded that the land-
scaping plan5 had not been prapared for pre4?ntation at thia time.
Commias~oner Barne~ noted that the apartocent9 did appear `ao be quolity type.
('ommissioner Tolar added that, in his opinion, th~ propo~~ed z•eolassifioation would be in order~,
howover, the design of the project was not in -the best interost of the ten~.nts or tho surround-
ing area~.
Thereupon, Mr. Beck requested a oontinuanoe, atating that a 6-week ~elay would :,~t pose any
pertiaulQr problems for 'he developers.
Clonimissi~nor Farano offered a motion, seooiidod by Comaii3sioner Morley, and ~OTION OARRIED,
i;hat the Anaheim City Planning Commiseion does hei•eby reopen t',e publio hesring and oontinue
oonsideration of petitions for ReolassiYioation No. 76-77-28 Bnd Variqnae DTO. 2882 to the
'?l+~nning Co¢~ission meeting of January 17 , 1977 , Qa requested by tre petition9r.
'VARIANCE N0, ?879 - PUBLIC H~ARING. TI'~I.~ INSURANOE ~ TF~UST COMPANY, 8U0 North Main Street,
Santa Ana, Ce. 92702 (Owner); CONROY'S GROUP II, 10:~'.4 West Pioo Boulev~rd,
T.os Angeles, Ca. yU064 l'Agent); reqixes~L'~ng P~AN~R OE (A) PERMI'I'T~D
~NCROAOE~NTS INTO RFFqUIRED YARDS, (A) itEqUIRE~PIT THAT a?,L 'USES BE CONUUCIT~D WHOLLY WI'.CHIN A
BUILI:IlQG, AND (C ) MINiMU64 STRUG"rUftAL SH~TBAOK, TO OONSTP.UCT 4 FIANTR SHOP on property desaribed
e-s s reotengularly-shaped paroel oY land oonaiating of epproximately 0.4 aore located at tha
northeast oorner of I{e~tells Avenue and Euolid Streat, having approximate ~rontages of 135 feet
on the north side of ~tella Avenue and 140 feat on ~the ea5t side of Euolid S~treet, snd further
desoribed es 1691 Wa3t Katella Avenue, Property presan+ly cl~ssit'ied ~L (OCD~RGIAL~ ISDdTT~D)
'LOIV~ .
No one indio~tod thbi.r presenae in oppoai.tion to ths gubjeot petitiun.
A1•,hough ~l~e Staff Repo:•t to the Planning Commiesiu:~ dated Deoember 6, 1976, was not read at
the publia hearing, ssid, eta~~ report :ts rePArred to and mr~de a part of the minutea.
~
~lo~e
~
b1Il3U.1'~3~ ANAEI}~IM (lI*PY PLANNI'Nl3 OU64+dI35I0N~ Deoembor 6, 7.~a76 76.~22
VARIANC~ N0. ?.P79 (oontinued)
Mr. Chriqtophar Oonroy, the e-gont for the peti.ti~~ner, Rppeerad before t.he Planr-ing Co-nni:;ciori
end atated they would ~tipula~e to loaating the proposed drivewaya e minimum ~F ].lU foet fr~m
i,he ultironte ourb prolongatioca Rt the i.nturseoi;lon ~~f Ketelle Avenue and ICuolid Street and
alno to provlde a 35-foot ourb roturn at eaid iriterc~eotion; Lhn+ they would a].so oti.pulat,e to
dedioating for tha wi.dening o~ IGe~talla Avenue und l~uolld Streei;, 31.nae 1f thuy did not dedioata
they oould no+ us9 the rlght-of-way fui• atorage ot• diaple-y; Lhat~ they had Rd,~uated the plana
to indi oate the building to pro,}eot only 2 feet 4 inoho~ int~ i;he lU-rooi, oetbaa): ar•ea e~d,i~oent
i;o ICuulid Street; and tha~t ~hdy would nat pro,jeot into the 3 Eeet o~ dedioal;ion on ~uolid na
1;tiey hAd e,t.temptdd to do, but would move the building baok..
TF1L; Yl1TiLT.O Ffii1ARINC~ ~'~A~ (JL~SED~
F~u•suanl; to C~SFlOlly.3lon, it was pointed out thet tl'~a :~ubjoot proporty we~3 a f.ormer oerviov
:; tal;ion dite whioh was c~u;^rently vr~oant land.
Commisoioner King iri~~~xirec! why the ~~etitioner did not ju~t move the building A li.ttlo ferther
to tlie north e~nd for•get e,l~out the requosted walvei•~. Mr. donroy raplied that tho proposed
operation needed to be alose to the stree~t for opore~tion~]. rea:~ons; and, furth9rmore, that the
Ci~ty would not, b3 tRlci.ng i:he dedi.oation presently a~id t;hey oould uae i t.
OYfioe ~ngineer ?ay T~.tus advised that one of th~ Ini;erdepartmental Comrni.tteo reoouwnc~ndetions
was Por the prupari;y owner (s )'to dedioate snd , although tho ourb snd gu'tter pr•ose~itly existdd
at tho ultimete wi.dth uf the :~i;roet, the atreet was nat improved; and i;hat. tho adjaoent
properttos had madc~ dodioetion also.
CoaIDnissioner Nfor•ley made an observation thQt the proposod looation wae worso than the proposal.
at the oorner of L+'uol.id 3treot and Linooln Avenue, ~inoe there were no street dividers.
Mr. Conroy si;ated tha•t he ~Nas aworo that~ approvel of ttie raque3ted sai;baoke would yet a
preoedent, howover, a eond;l~tion ox.isted to allow for a shallo~v setbeok without adv~r~el.y
e~f9ating the araa traffia,
Commis~ioner Farano not,ed i;hat he was inolined to bel.ie~ t;hat, with the kind of tr~ffio on
Euolid Street o•nd the builc;ing being too olos~ to 'the property line, prvb.lems might be created
on the oorner. Thereupon, ~r. Conroy stated that thoy would be wi7.li.ng to give tip the 4 feei~
if the Planning Corcimission would appr~ve the oa;~opy ovorh~ng tu 7 feet. Commissionor t~orley
+,hen noted that i;he oailopy was high enough that it would no~ oausa problems related to the
etreet traffio.
In reaponse to que~tioning ay Commisaior.er Tolar, Mr. Conroy stated that tho prooosed f].ower
shop was the laa~t one they ~voul.d be oonstruoting in Anaheim snd tha~ they would be moving
south with Puture proposals.
Cougnissioner Toln: noted the.t ho oould not support the proposal in r~elationyhlp to sny walvers
other than the use itsolf; ~~hat he was ooncerned about the outdoor aspect of the proposal
sinoe it might oreate a few trafP'c pr•oblems; and that he ooul.d not support the proposed over-
hang sinoe no tiardship oxisted.
Mr. Oonroy responde~ thet some ol;her type business nould build on tho subjeat property and
not need the ovurhang, but tliey vitelly needed to hav~ the oanopy and be a:lose to the str~eet.
Commisaioner Farano noted thE~t automobiies wero permitted to park ~n setbaok areas, and
Oommisslur~c~r Tolar noted +.hat automobiles would not obstruot the view of traffi~.
Mr. Conroy sl,ated tha1; by hevit-g the osnopy they wou~.d not need aii•-oondttioni.ng, whioh
normally aonsumed a lot of en9rGYi and th.t the ahade pro~~ided by ths osnopy we~s needad to
prote,' `heir dieplays.
In re.ponse to questioning by Ooumisaioner Morley, Mr. C~nroy stipulated that thero would be
x~o display of ineruhandise un!~r the buildine aanopies beyond the walls or projeoted wall 11nes
as deline~ted by imaginary :.• ight linea oonneoting th~ 4 oorner posts oi the struoture.
Deputy City Attorney Frsnk Low~•y advised that if there was any nisplay in the right~of-wcsy ar•
setbaak area they would be 111~3i;s1; whereupon, fulr. Oonroy steted they did not wish to do any-
thing illegal.
In response to queationing by (lommissioner EIerb~t, Mr. Conroy stated that this partioular
st.ore would not be franohisad aut but would be held by ~•he Oorporation; and that if it wea
sold in +.he futur~o 1~hey weuld t~e oompe7.led to advise the pur~hasere of the ~ondition3 of
ap~rnva]., and 5~ ^ i'ailed tc dn so the purohesar~s aauld in turn write to the Oommis~ion~r
of Corporatior~~. n~y wuuld then lo~e their right to be in business.
n
~
~
MItJUr~5, ANI~-IfCIM C"1'Y PLANNiN(~ OOWDul29SION~ Dooemvur• C>, L<~~~ ~~-~~3
VARIANO~ NU. 287y (oontinued)
Dis~oussion purF~tied r~garditig ttio setbaoks , during whioh tYie F'ldnning Cc>nuniseic~ii determined
that ~thore waFl ample room ori the suU,~eoi; praperi,y to set tho atr~~~oturo Uauk to modt thc; Code
rAauirement3 and ,~hoi•ef oru , na hardahipa oxinted; and Id.~. Oonroy ~i;i~~ulated to oomp].y wii;h
tho Oode re~uir•~¢iuntc~ i'or setbaok~, hcwevei•, he r~equosted tu bo gt•entod tho r~equor~ted, waiver
of the ~andooapin3 i~i the fr~ont aetbe~ok aroa.
Commisstaner Tular o.ie-ri.flod th~t if ttie use wsn grantod it would noi, be~ a~ r~n outdoc,r• u~~e,
E~er• ae , t~nd Oommi.uolon~r Hurbst noted that ttie 3.ni;ent would be to not a11ow an outdoc~r uae
on t~ny portion o?: the pi~operty.
Commi3aionar HorbeL offered 8 motion, ~ooonded by Comm~.ssionor Farano, a~~d td0'1'ION QAARTb1D,
t~hat t.ho An~hel.rr. City P.lanning Oommission does l~oraLy ~~acomm~nd to i;l,~ Olty Co~.~n~il of i;h~
City of At~aheim that ~t negative deolaration fr•om i;he requiremenl;H •to pi•flpar•o an em~ir~~nmHn~~a:
lmp~ot i•9port bo ~pproved for the sub,jeot projeot, pureuani; to the provioi.ony of i;h~ CallYorn~a
I~nvironmeni:al qua].ity Aot.
Comu;~99j.011~t~ Herbat uf~ered Reaolution No. P076-257 and moved for 1l,sa ~~a~nr~ge ~nd adupt-ir>n,
that thv Anat-~i.m Ctty Planning Commisaion does hax~aby ESrsni, Yetition for 'de.rianoe Pfo. 2~3%`.~,
in part, denying the roqueated wsiver of permitted enoroaohmeni;.~ into requ~.rod yctir;in on thd
Uasis that no ~~ardship wae demanetrt~tad by~ the petitioner and t~ie patltioner~ sti_pula~;~d 1:c.
oomply with asid Code req,uirement; granting the roqueoted waivor of: tho r~q~i3i~eweiit the.t,
8'll u~es be ac~idu~ted wholly wi.thin a building, :~ub,jeot to the stipuJ.ation of L•he peti'6loner
that ~chere wi7.1 bo nu outdoor displey of nerohandl.so under the btiilding cie~nupies boyond the,
walls or pro,j~~ated we,ll lines, as dellneai;ed by imaginary ].ines oonneatiiig ttiri iour curnc~r
posts of the ~~truoture ; denying the requested waiver of the mini mum 3truuture:l setb~-clc lS11C~
ye~rd requirements on the hssia that the petitioner did not damon3trate tl~at ~. r,a:,dst~~~.r ,o~x1d
be oreai;ed if eaid waivor was not grantod; suh~oot to the stipulation by the pc,t:it:ionei• t•hoi,
the propo~ed driveways on Katell.a Avenue and Euo11a Street will bc~ looated ~ r~inimum oi.' 1:1.G
!'eet f.r~om 1;hei ultimate ourb prologation at the interseotlon and, furt,hermora, th~~L r~ :35-°c~o~;
aurb roi;urn ~Nii.l ba provided ~t the intei•seotion; and subjeot to tlio Intoi•departm~ntal
Coaunittee ~•eoommendations. (See Resolutiun Tiook)
On roll oalJ., the .forego3ng resol~ation was passed by tt~o following vot~;
AYES ; CO~AISSIOI~RS : BAPNES ~ I'AHANO ~ I-P~;ftBST ~ ICa1G, MORL~Y ~ TOLAR ~ J~.)?iN:?~OPI
NOFS: OO~dI3ST02V~RS; NONE
ABSEI~fr: CO~dISSION~R~: NO1J~
I1~ wss r~ote~d that the foregoing eation o~ the Planning Commission vraa 1>ased upori ~tho rlans
whiah were suUmittod prior to the pz•eparation of tho sta.ff report an tha sut~joot ito,t-.
CONDITTONAL USE - PUBL10 I-~ARING. SOUTHERN PAC~'IC LAND COMYANY ~ b1c: Soutil tasi~i S ~reet ,
FERMIT N0. 1669 Los Angelos, Ca. 90014 gnd ARMO OORP.~ 5.12 East Ve~mont Avetiua, Anaheim,
Ca. 92805 (Ownez•s ); T.C. R. CORP. , 14349 Victory I3o'.ilevar~9 ,.~ui~t~ 10 l,
Vsn IJuys, Qa. 91401 (Agent); raquesti.ng per:nisesion to e:~to,Ulish a
LUD~ER YA'ftD WITH 'NAIVER OF (A ) MAXZMU~d FENCE HEIGIiT ~(B )~QUII~FD FNCI,CISUFtP~ OF OU'SDOOR USES
AND (C) MINTMUM MJt,~ER OF PARIC'~ SPACES on. pi•operty descri.bed as an it•regular~ly-shcped
parael of' lanc~ oonsisting of approximately 15.4 aores having ^ frontage of approximatel5
915 feet on the south side of Ball Road, having a maximum de~~th ~Y ap~roxi.m~st~ly 795 feei;,
and beinl; looat.ed approaiu~ately 745 fesi oas't of the oentarli.ne ni Lswi.s Stre~t. Property
presentl~~r olasaified ML (INDUSTRIAL, Iu'~7:'.CED) 7,ONE.
No ens indioa',ed their proaenoe in opposition to the sub~eot pNtltiia''i.
Althougl~~ the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated DHCambor G, 1'~76, wa:: not r~:»d at
the pub'lio hoaring, said 4tafY report is referred to and ~.~de a par~t of th~ tninutes.
Mr. Jea~es Thompsor, representing Ganahl Lumber Company, the agent f.or ~he peiitioner, a%peai•ed
before the Planning Commission and stated tliat the lumb,r compeny wes an old line company,
f oundeci in 1904 , whloh had grown oonsiderably with rresent ac~r~ual f;ro:;s revenues of $ 76 mi111on
and a 51,600,OU0 aniiual payroll; that, presently, the lunbc~r oompany Y~ed four sites in +kke
area end the management had m~d9 a deoision to aonsolidat~ Oll the gub~iaot site; .hat ~;}i~r~e
would be a term indebtedness of approzimately $~.~ million ir~vulvfad lci the propo~~d relooetion
and oonsolldation and the wrong deoision ooulsi be disastraus; that, he neoognized tha1: for years I
tt~is •cype faoility was regatded as a oessy and run-down appearing op~ro#~i.on, howover, aonditior~;
had o'hanged over the yosrs in keeping with oity ordi.nanoae, lnsurr~n,oe underwri:~ng, ~nd fir~o
oodes, a3 K~e11 as aontrolled ~ateri8l handling; thr~t they required outdoor ~tora~ge ftnd would
maini,ain geometrio patterns for oontrol, etu.; the~t they were proposing to ereot a 1.2-:foot
high ohainlink fenae ad,jaoent to Ball Road, and s8,id fet~o9 would be interwoven with redwood.
~ ~
MTP1U!'fll~, ANAI[N1XM 07'1'Y PL,ANN'1't1Ci 00luY~ATS3TON~ 1)eoemh~r~ 6, ].~.1"l~i 76-6ZW
COI~p:CI':~~NAL USB) lnf;RMIT N0. :166~1 ( oonti.nued )
:~lat;~ rsiid lo~~~ted about 15 Pec~t from i~tie propei•i;y l.ine; thai; an earthan bvrm wae propo~ed
between tho p~ihlio r•lght-oP-w+~y arid +,he Pen^e; L•licst; ~;he l~or•m would 1~0 landaoopad and irrigoted
with an autumc+tio c~~~rinkler syatem~ tre ].Rnduoaping to iriolude evergreen trees end pnrme~nent
ground oovar whioh wo~ild ma'ture within 5 or fi y~ar.~ i;o c~ or 7 feot in hoight to soreen tha
hsryhnes,3 of tho foiioa; thaL tl~e luwber ~taoked outdoory wuuld bo nbout Gi) foet Yrun~ the
propot•ty line and thay had te~ted to dr,tor•mirie the~t; ~~he l~imbor oould not poaei.bly be sean
over t~ ,~ fNnoa by ti•af.ii.o Q1ong Bs7.~. Road; tl~at thoy wAre oogniaocit of ~the intont of Lhv
~~i~dinr,;~oe pei•taining to the enolosure of outdoor uses and, alth~u~Y: a few thousesnd doller~
~~ould .~~: cnake unauh differ~c+nne in ttie pro~eoi; ttii~ ~ize , i;hey did lieve to guard ooata.
7'h.ereup~~n, Mr. 7'hompson pre~anted photogr~phs of thc~ ea~t and south peripherie~ of the site,
ste~t;ing hai; th~ n~lghh~•i~ to the Y193$ had noi; oponed theii• rail dooro for ~~vez• a year; that
the~y wc~~ ~., reyuesting +~he waiver o1 the ar.olosur~ requlren~ente in the, i.ntereat o.f fine~nuiel
ae~ving~ Qnd diri nut realistioally f'ee7. ~ nood f~~r r~ t1i~3her fenoe oi• to soreeti from tho oe~~t,
west a~,d ~outh; that, r~garding tha pt~rking spaoe3, they rooagnizod tY:at the stundards ~nust
apply; tha~ i;hoy ~:ould paint parking apaoes in tho yai•d arAa bu1; t,hat would ba us9~.09'3 :;inco
tho.y , rAfe.rrad to keep R11 of the publio and c~mplo,yeo pnrlcing out of tho yard as a sa.iety
Pao cur~; thc~t the,y had yueriod ~Lhe tn~napoment uf i;he lun~Uor oompany end were pi•esentinQ e.ii
' nos~ plar oi' 1;hei.r roquiremant~ based on tho un~.que operation; i;hnt tho 3 sl;orage arot~~ oi
str,:ct,~..r~~ would Ue ased for ihe air drying I~rooos~ r+,nd would bo aervod by a total of 2
a~,piovoes; i;hab~ additicnally, 'they would h~zv~ 10 t,r•~3tor oper~l~ors and tho proposed parking
ypacw~~ wArc not unr~c~aoonab:le; that i~he Traffio Engl.noer• hnd reooaqnendad that a 3U-Poot
long votiia7.e storagc~ ai•ea be provided in tha we~ter:Ly dri.veway~ti•uak Antry to rasolve the
problums w9.th ~-snpea~; to ~t-ining ontr~noe to the sl ~~ , and the oleotronia~lly-uperated gQta
wovld be lcopt o~eii during the businesa hours; th~t tltey had inoorporatod into tha plsns the
25~fout curb r•a~llus wYtare tho tr~_~oka would bo entet•icig i;hc~ property; ar.d that they had also
inc~~rpur~~ted trQSli sturage aros~ i.n the plan:s ~c: City etandards.
t~,ix•. Thonin:3ori reviEwad the Intvrdepartmental Co~~itteo reaoromei~dation3 oont~.inbd in the staff
r~eport ~rid ~tal;ed th:.' thore were no ~idewalks on either sid4 of Ball Restl ad~aaent to this
3~tH and thoy would, therefore, requsnt a wa+_vor of snid requiroment. Thereupon, Chairman
7'ohn~on notad that the Plenning Oommission had no ,jurisdiation over t.he sidewalk requirements,
ti~owev~r, a lettc~i• c;ou:ld be direoted to the City Engineer i•equss'tittg R temporary waiver~ until
suoY~ time ea tho 9ldowalk3 were dei:ermined to be neoessary.,
THf+~ PUf3Lu.C Ei,~ARING WAS CI,~S~D.
2n res~oa~e to questioning by Commissioner Morley, Mr. Thompson stated 1~hey wculd have
approximately 9U bmg'loyeeg on the sub~eot oite.
Disaus:;ion pursiied regarding the parking apaoes whioh were sotue~ll~ needed Ror the propo~ed
operAi;iori, during whioh Commiesioner Morley rioted thet, in his o~inion, the 2U3 proposed
parkirig spaaes would be adoquste.
Tn rospot~se '~c questioning by Co~c^~L.esioner King, Mr. Thompson stated tt~et alJ. of the proposed
btiildi.ngs wo~~1d haae solid v~Qlls whioh would pi~ovide some 3oreening of the outcioor st,orage;
an;i th~t he wou1~~ stipulate 1;o the oondition r~quiring the payment of i~ree planting feos,
In respori~y to questioning by Commissioner Horbsi;, Mr. Thompson stipulated to planting trees
and grot:nd aover in the proposed berm ad,jaoent to Ball Road and stated that the insurenoe
oarrier -•eqtiir•ed 3 strands o~ baz•bed wire o~~et• the f.enoe ai,ound the proper~ty for seou.rity
pU2'~036y.
Coauniss:tor~er I-Ierbst noted that he wou].d not require that, the staaked lumber be saroe~led °.rom
1;he r~ailruad ~t;~aok to the sou:h; that the p"lans, hov;evor, were very vague and he wr~nted to
tnsure tha't the sorsening alon~; Bull Road was ~ntir~l,y effeotive. The~~oupon, Mr. Thomp~on
u-t:-~ulat~d that the stacked lumber would not be visible to either the eastbound or westbound
traffio glong Ball Road.
Tn reeponsa to queationing by Co~niasioner Farano, Mr. Thompson stated that the middle drlvowsy
would be for retail oustomers atid the truoks would onter on tho west and leave on the eas't.
Mr. Thompson thon desoribed tne operation ez~d movement of tho truaks on the property, as wel].
as the orde~ makeup area, stating tha~t the interior drive we-~ 60 feet wide.
~l'liu T'1.onning Commissicn generally agreed tbat the interi~r oiroula~tion within the lumber ye~rd
was an ooer•r~ti.c,nal item and the manc-gement thereof would work it out in the bost intarest of
the bizsiness.
COB~ISSIONER BARNL~S ~FT Tf~ COUNOIL CHAtu~FR 2'EMPOPARILY AZ' 5:30 P.'~.
~
~^w
~
MINL'':il~S~ ANA1~ifBIM C:1'i'7f PLANNZIJC} OO~RuQ:S3I0N, Deoembt~r (i, 1~76 7G-b25
CONllITIONAL USA; P}ERMT.7.' N0. 1G69 (oontinued )
Comni~3lonor Herbsb ufPered e motion, aeoonded by Commi3:31oner Kin~, and MCY1'IQN UARRTPD
(CURLLII.L93~pI19(~ Barries be~.ng temporarily ab~er~t), 1,lxat 1,ho Arlaha:tm 09.ty P1eiL71ng Oommicuion
doe:~ h~i~eby r~eoommend to the City Counoil of the Ci1;y of Anakiei.m thKi; a negativa~ deo7.e~i•a~tion
from ~tt.iP requiromei~to to prepare an envir~nmontal. impe.ot ropoY~t be appruved for the subjoot
projeol;, pur3uant to the pr•ovisions of the Ca7.ifornir+ B~tivirancnental Quellty Aot.
Couunissi.oner Herbst offered Rc~solutiun No. ['C7G-25E3 and movod for it:~ passago r~nd adoption,
that ttie Anahoi~n Ciby Plann:i.ng Commi.ayion dab~ hereby g~•ont Pytii;ion Yor Corldii~i.onal U~o
Perm'l1; No. .16G~~, gr•eni,ing the r•ecluo3'tOQ wai.vor of the mt-x.imum Senoe hoighi; on thA ba41e i;liat
i;ho petition~9r stipule-ted the-t the propoaed 6-foot high earthen berm Uotweorl the pr~oposed
fonoe ancl the publiu right-of-way along ae11 Ftoad w:ll'1 be p1an+,od W1t+I'1 'tiI~ees end ground
covei~ to effsctivoly ~areon tho pr•oposed fe-ioa froai Aa1:L Road t~nd, theraforo, said weiver
wi11 iiut be dei,rimantal to the aroa; grsnting tlie requos~tea wai_ver~ of ~:he rqr,~ired onoloaure
of oui;dooi• usr~~ on the baeis that the ete-oked lumbor wi1J. noi: ba vislb:~o to o~~thar i;he oa~t-
bourid or wostbour~d traffio along Ball Roed, ~ stipulat•od to by 1~he pe-titionar; gra~zting tY~o
reque~ted w~ivoi~ ~-t ~the minimum number of parking spr~oos on tho ba5i.s that ttie ~•oquost 1A
m9.nlma7. for the us~ ; as proposnd , and re~'leots futur o ulttn~ato deve:l.opinent o:~ sub~eo t
Property and, ~~.tr~;he; , that the petitiuner ~.ndioai;ed that ad.ditionc~l parking oou:ld be
providod un th~ ~ubj~ot property ss tho ne~d may ariso; subleat i;o ttie ccndttion that tho
elecl;r'OI114ti~..L,y-O~OratE~d gate at the we~ternmo~h. drivowa,y sha'll be kopt opan dur'~IIFj UU9~ri633
hour~ ~Lo aooommodate t^uok3 c~ntering the aite, aa s~ipti~.ateci •to Uy the petitioror; c-nd suU,}eot
to the :Intordepertmentb•,1 Co[nmiti;ee reoommendaticr.~. (:iee R~3solutiori Book)
On r•oll aall, the foreg~~ing re~olution waa paa~ed by the iollowing vote:
AYES : COtuQdISSION~RS ; T'AYJ1N0 ~ H~RBST , KM(~ ~ MORI~X ~ TOLAR, J'OEWSc)N
NUES: COMMI.SJ1ONHil~,J: NONE
Aas~rrr : r,or,~ezsszot~x;, : sAKrr~s
COtvQuffSSLONEft AARNh'~S EiETU:iNP1D TO ~ COUNCIL CHANSiER AT 5:35 P.id.
CONDTTTONAL USE - PUBLIC HB'~AEiING. WARRICN W. AND NANCY J. JAYCOX, P. O..Box 4468, Anaheim,
PERNQT N0. 1670 CN., 92803 (Qwners); PAUL RAIv3Eli, P. 0. Box ~468, Anaheim, Ca. 9"L903 (Agent);
Fiequ9sting permissian to establish a'.CRUOKIN(~ ~Rad1NAl~ ANA TRUCK R~PAIR
WTTH WAIIT~R OF RPpU~A ~NCIASUR~ 0~' OUTDOOR USES on ~roperty desaribed
e,s an irregularly-shaped paroel of land aoilsisting of approxia~ately 3.7 aores having g froni~age
of approximately ?31 feei; on the 3outh si.de of Kate~le Avenue, having a maximum depth of
approximately 595 foet, being looated approximately 428 feet eeat of the oenterline oi I,ewis
Si;reet, and fur+,her desoribed ay 1016 ~ast K~tella Avc~nue. Property presently olassifiad
ML (IM USTRIP.L ~ L~ZMl'1'ED ) ZON:~.
No one indioa•ted their presenoo in opposi~tion to the subjaot potition.
A.lthough the St~ff Eieport to the Plsniiing Coromisslon dated Deoomber 6, 1976, wes not read at
the publio hearing, said staff report is r•eferred to and mado a part of the minutc~s.
cu,. Ray Wade, representing the petitiouAr, appeered befor.a the Planning Oomm~seion and atated
they agteed with the Interdepartmental Committee reoommendstion~, with the exoepti.on thet
they would not want to install fire hydrsnts until they were neoassary.
THE PUBLIC H~AARING WAS CLA~D.
Ueputy City Attorne~ Frank Lowry advis~d thai~ if the I'ire Departm~~nt required the fire
hydran'ts , the petitioner wov.ld have to j.nstall them.
In reeponse to question3ng by Commissioner King, Mr. VC~de stated that the proposod ohainZink
fonoe would bo interwoven with redwood slats; however, they wero ro•; proposing to sla1; the
feiloe ad~jaoent to the east properiy line.
Commiasionai• King que3tioned why the truoks wer~ atored w~th their• be~ds up high in the air.
b~r. Wado :splied that the trucks were normall~ storeti in the 22-foot high garsges but were
autdoors wi~th •the beds up during maintenanoe prooedurea.
In reaponse to questioning by Commissionc~i• T~lar, llssiatant Planner Joel Fiok advised that tha
sub,jeot f~soilities were on tho property as en exiating non-oonforming u;~e to the best of
3tafY'a knowled~e.
~
~~
MINUI'H;S ~ ANAIiFTM UITIf PI,ANN~1(3 COIdDAI99TON ~ Deoember (>, 1~~76 7C,_626
~OND:[TIUNAL U5I~ P~RGAZ'r N0. 1670 (aortinumd)
In -~espon~e to questioning Uy OommiASi.oner Hez~bet, blr•. Thompaun si,iptilated to plantir~g
15-gnllon mi.nlmiin~ :~ize treea on :'J-foot oonl;er•:- bei,weon tho pt~oporied fdnoe and i;ho ptibliu
riqht-of-way to offeotively aoreen i;he outdoor uaa Prom vi.gi.bi.lity alonfs Iiall Ror~d.
Coaar~tsaionor Mor7.e~y offered a moi.ion, aooonded by Ucuuni~siuner~ Fareno, and MO~T(lT~! UAHRIIDD~
',;r~at tlie Anaheim Ott;y Planning Ooromio~ion does hereby reoomme~r~d to the Cl+,y ~ounoil of i;he
City of Anaheim that, a z~ogative dealaration fr•om t21d t~equireroe~nty i;o preparo ar, environmental
iuipaot ropor~t; be e.pproved for ~hA bubjoot pr~,;eot, pureuant ta the prov~.eiuns uf the
C~li.farni~ ~nvir•vruaorital. Qualit~ Aot,
Commi.asionor Morley or.fered Reaolution No. F'C76-~5y ~nd movod for its pa3;~e.g~ ~nd adoption,
that the Angheim Clty Pl.anning Oommiseion does hei•eby grar.t potition for Condit:lonal Uae
Per~mit No. 1G7U, graTiting the requented waivor of the required onolosur•e ~f out~ioor uaa:~
on tho l~ayie that 1;ho pet'ltioner stipula~ted to plan~tinP 1.5-p;ellon minimum size troos on
2Q-foot oenters between the pr•opo~ed fenoe and the puLlio rip;ht-of-viay to efPeat.tv~ly sareen
the oui;door use fr~om visi.bility slong Ba11 Road; and aub~oot to the Interdepartmerrtal
~ommittee reoommendatians. (See Resolution Book)
On r•o11 call, th~ foregoing z~esolution waa passed by the fol:Lowing J~~'t9:
AYLS: CO~fISSION~RS: AARNF~S~ FARANO, HPuEi~ST, TCIN(3, MORI.iI,'Y, T~LAI~~ JOHNSON
N~S: COtuA~tISSI0NI~RS: NONE
AflSENT: CON@A:CSSIOIJFRS; NONE
UONDITIONAL USI~ - PUALIO I~AR1TiG. WILL?AM R. ANll BARDARA L. WHI'.CLA ~ fiouto 4, Box A-27 ,
PERMI.'1' NU. 1671 Greensburg, Ia• 70441 (Ownere;; JOAN BI(~~AD~ 851-1~2 South Stete Co.llego
~ Boulevard , Anaheim, Oa. J2805 ;A~ent ); roqus~ting ON-SAI,F~ BH;ER AN17 WINE
IN AN ER.ISTING RESTHURANT on ~roperty desoribed ~s a reotan~xlRrly-she~ped
paroel of land oonniei,ing oP approximRtely ]..1 aores loustod at the northeayt oorner of
La Pelma A~,~enuo and Aoaaia Streot, having approximsto frontagos of 292 Yeet on the nor•th side
of I,a Palma Avenue and 169 feet on the east sido of Aoaoia Streei,, and further •~escribed as
1527 H;ast I.~a Palm~ Avenue. Propei•ty pre3eni,ly ole~salfied CL (COI+~QERCIAL~ LL1dI'JTD) ZON1C.
No one i~dioeted thoir prosenoe in opposition to the sub,jent ~etition.
Althuugh the Staff fteport to the Planning Couomisslon dated Deaembe.r 6, 1y76, wes n~,t read at
1;he publlo heari:~g, 3e.d staff report is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Ms. Joan Bighee,d, Lhe e~ent ~or the petitionar, appeared before the Planning Co~nisai~u and
stated she wus ths mr~nager of. tho shoppir.g oentoz• at the subjoot looation and was representing
one of the tenant9 of sQid cer.~ter; that the aubjeot restaurant served Idexioan food and had an
approved Aloohol!.a Beverage Cotitrol permit oontingeYit upon the aotion of tho Planning Commi~sian
regarding the propos~l; that the owne.r of the ra~taurant Hlso ownod 2 off-s~le permits
in me~rkei~s in Aneheim and Santa Ana, with no violatiens of 9e~id permits on roaord; and thRt a
previo~as o~Nner of the aubjeot restaurant had voluntarily termineted a oonditionsl use permit
whioh peraiitted on-;~elA beer and wine at tL~iis looation.
Tf~ PUtiLTC F~AHIIvYi WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner King questioned the status of i~hd :1.c~ndsosping ad,~eoent to Le~ Palma Averiue , end
1+6s. A~ghead indioated th~t the l~ndsoaped planters +~~'question would be maintained in aooord-
anoe with ~he requirements as soon as the cons~xuotion in the area coe~sed yo that they oould
get to the p~entors.
Co~issioner iierbst noted that the previo~.s similar uae of the restsurant faoilitiea wa3
~ranted sub,jeat to l.imited hours of opez•ai,ion; whereupozi, Ms. Highead stipulated that the houra
of operation would be fr~m 10:00 ~.m. to S!:OU p.m., and that the beer and wine would be sold
~nly in oonjunotion with the serving of mEials.
Cocomissloner Herbst then noted that many :.iohool ohildren in t2:e area went past tho subjeot
property d~ily. Commissi .i9r Tolar added that the ohildren slso had ~c pasP ~iie liquor etore
:.n the area and, for that rea~on, the pro;~osal aho,ald not add an iwpaot to the area. Commis-
sioner Herbst Purthei~ r~~ted that he was tliink2ng in terms of the people leaving the suoJeot
eatabliahment in view of the faot that th~~re was s Oetholio sohool and a publio grammar sohool
ii. the immediate ares. Ohairmaz~ Johnson riated that it e-ppesred the deoision reg~rding liquor
es `.eblishments in the area v~gs ~ade e. 1oni3 timo ago.
~
~
~
DA~NiP!'1~8~ ANAI~IId dZTY PLANNIN(3 CU60~~lIISSION, Deoember G, 1976 76-~62~
CONUITIUNAL US~ P'61R~r N0. 1671 (oonti~zuod )
Oomaiipaione~~ b'are-no noted bhat, in hta opinion, ~blia ohildren of today ~aere ewaro that beer
and wirta exlatAd, howevar, if the propoaed ~ale and/or ounaumptian wes restrioted to sorvioe
~i.tn rooa, no ono oould enter the restaurant to e1t• and drink; sn3 thnt if +,hs proposal
we-a for a bec~r bar, he wo~-].d be inolined tc~ agree that there wouic; be s dePinite impaot ou
t;he neighborhood.
Tt w4s noted •L•h~C the Diraot~r oP the Plenning Depsrtwent had determinad tha~ tho proppeed
aoti.vity fe1]. within tha dePinition of 5eoi:iori 3.01, Olnsa 1, oP the Oi~y o~ Ane-heim t~uide-
linea to ~the Req~iiretnente Yor an Environmon~tr~l Impaot Rnpoz•t an~ we-a , therePore , oetegorically
ezemoi; f.rom tho requirement to fi~.d an ICII~.
Oommissionor King offeHed Resolution No. PC76-26U and moved iar ite paesage and etidoption,
thst ~the Anaheim Oity Planning Commise~.cn do~s hereby gxant PetitS.on f~r Oondit~onal Use
Per~lt No. ~.671. for a period of two yee~rs ~ sub3eot to reviow aiid ooneiderot~.on for possible
time exteneione, upon vrritten request b~~ the pAtitioi~or; aub~eot to the etip~~lctitiona oY tlie
petltionar i;hat the c~ale oP beer and wirie shall be in oun,;uriotion wlth the serving ot maals
un1Y, as atipulated tu by the potitione~~; ~. th~t the houre of ~paration eha1.1 be from
10:00 g.m. ta 9:Q0 p.m. ; ac~d tha-L• t~he 1~~~b,jeot prAperty ehall be developed aubetantially in
aoaordanae with plana and speoifi.oetions on file with the Oity of Anahetro markod Fxhibit
Nos. 1 snd 2; providod, however, that the ;,andaoe,ped planters ad,jaoant to Ia Pelma Avenue
and Aoao~.a Street ah~ll be adequataly me~intairied in aoo~xdazioe with Oode requirementa.
(See Hesolution Boos)
On roll aal.l, 'the foregoing reaolution was pssaed by i;he fallowing vote:
AY~S : OOIu~dIS3I0N~A3 ; BARN~S, FARANO ~ KIDIa, MURIEY , TOLAR ~ JOHN30N
NOES: CO~EISSIONIDRS; Ii~FtBS'P
ABS~I~r: OON~dTSSIONHf~i8: NONE
~
~
MINU1'CS. CITY PLANNINC COMMISSIqN~ Decembar 6~ 1976
REPOItTS AND
RF.COMMENDATIONS
17EM A
~iB~`IONAL USE P~RMI'f N0. 1663 - Rcquest Por approval af preclae
plans - Property conslsttng oF approximately 4.2 acres located
~t the southeast corner of Santa Ana Cany,•,~ Roed and Solomon Drive.
7E-bz8
It was notod xhat Conditionsl Use Permit No. 1663~ to ~s~ablish a church and preschool on
the subJect property~ was granted by the Planning Commi~slon on November 8~ 1976~ subJect
t~ condlttons; thar. C~ndltton No, 13 of the approvil r~q~.itrecl that p~ecise plans ba
submltt~d to the Planntng Commisston Fo~ appr•ovai showing relocatlan ot the plsy yrrd to
the west of the classroom bulld{n~ and elso revtsed driveway locetions; and that the
appllcant~ Pennls V. Wehmueller~ architect And agent for Hephntha Lutheran Church~ ha~f
submittcd revlsed plans In conformance with r.he Condition No. 13 and was requesting
spproval of same.
Commissloner King offered a notlon, seconded by Commtssioncr Tolar and Mf1TIdN CARRIEQ~
that the Anaheim Clty Planning Cortmission daes hereby approve the preclse pla~~t as
submlttad for Conditlonal Use Permlt No. 1663~ S~iid Flans satisfying Gorditlon Na. 13 nf
ResolutiAn No. PC76-237 which set forth approval of sald condltional use permlt.
ITEM B
TR~ ACT' N0. 9287 (REVlSION PIO. 1) - itec~~~est for approvol of
precise plans - Property consisting of aporoximately 1.3 acres
on both sides of Wavcrly Drive~ app~oximataly 210 feet s~utF~ of
W~kefield Avenue.
The Staff Report to the Planning Commissi~n daCed Deccmber 6~ 1976~ was presented and made
a part of the minutes.
It was noted that the tentetive map of TraGt No. 92a7 (Revision No. 1)~ ta establish a E-
lot, RS-7700 subd(vision~ was approv=d by the City Counctl on May il, t976~ follorring e
recommendation for approval by the Plenning Co+nmtssion; and that approval of subJact tract
included the condition that precise floor plana~ elevations and plo~ plans be submitxed to
the Planning Commisslon for approval p~tor to City Council approvil of the flnal tract
map.
Discussion pursued regarding the ag~eement with the Edisun Campany to qultclatm thc
extsCing easement along the south slde of the subJect tract and provide a new 15~~~t wide
easement along ~aid boundary~ an~! tt wes noted that the develaper was aware thet
completion of said agreement and relocatton oP the power ltnes x~ould be necessary In
~o~Junction Htth development of the tract.
Commissioner King ofFered a rration~ seconded by Commisstoner Tolar and MUTION CARRIEO~
that the Anaheim City Planning Co;~vnisslon does hereby approve the precise plaris Por Tract
Na. 9287~ as submitted.
ITEM C ~r~val vC reYlsed
Z~6F~6T~IONAL USE PERMI7 N0. 1632 - Rzquest fo~ aYY•
plans - Property consisttng of approximately 3? acres iocaCed no~theast
of the intersectton of Cerrieos Avenue and Sunkist Street:.
The Staff Report to the Flanning Cam~isslon dated Oecember 6, 1976, is refer~red to and
n~ade ~ part of the minutes.
It was ~oted that t~e petitioner (Dan Evans of Del Prado Company) was reques~~:t~g approv~i
~~f specific plans for a mabilehome park at the su~)ect locatton in drdar to c:omply with
Conditton No. 12 of the approvai of the subJect conditional use permtt~ said condition
pertatning to sound-attenuation measures to be provided in accordance with Counctl Policy
No. 542; that a latter signed by Dr. John Htlliard~ acoustical consul:ant, an~~i a sound
attenuetion/revised plot plan ha~ bean submttted indicattng that saTd pimn mee the
specificettons ot Council Policy No. 542; hawever, the sound-attenuatlan weil was proposed
to be located an the ~vest side of the peripheral strset ~butting the O~ange F~'eeway~
instead of the east side as requlred by Conditfon No~ 12; and that City Staff r~vier+ af
the plan indicated that the effeceiveness of the b~rrier was g~eatest at thn F~roposed
• ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ December 6~ 1976 76.~29
locetlon since the aqulvalent linn-of-slght barrlar ~n the easr. eide oF the streec would
requlre a barrier 19.5 fenr htgh rath~r ehan che 13.5~foot be~rler p~opGSad. It was slto
notod that tha plan Indicatr.d an In:^ea!te In the number oP nw611ehome pada P~om 209 to
zis.
Commisslo~e~~ Herbsc uffe~ed a motlon, see~nded by Commlaslon~r Tolar and MOTION CAKRIED~
thae the Anahelm Ctty Planrtiny Commisslon does hernby approve the revl~ed plan tor the
freeway nolse barrter as being In compliance wlth Condltlnn No. 12 ot the approval aF
Condttlonal Usc f'~rm1t No. ib32 and Councll Pnlicy No. 542~ and a~lao for the Addltlon of
unlta Increasing the total num~er to 215.
1 TEM D
~D1~`IONAI US[ PERMIT Nn. 16$8 - RequesC for app~oval oP ravtsed
plans - Property cnnslsting of appraxlmataly 0.7 ezre on the north
side of Ltncoln Avenue approxtmdtcly 928 Pe~t east of Brookhurst
Street ~nd further described as 2123 WQSt Lincoln Avonue.
It was notod that the appiTca~t (Amruxal D. Pat~l) was requesCing approval oP revtsed
plans for expanslon of an existtng motel; that~ an Octabe~ 11, 1976, the Pl~nning
Conmtsston granted~ condittonally~ approval of a two-unit oxpansion to an existing 14-unlt
plus manager's unlt moCel; that there were also twa existtng single-famlly resldenc~s on
the northerly part of the property and the appltcnnt wes propostng to convert one of aeld
reside~ces into twa addltlonal motel uniks wlth kitchenettes; that approval of thn
expanslon on Octob6r 11~ 1976, was granted su~Ject to subskantial conformance wirh
submitted plans and~ therefore~ al'though the proposed plans werc tn conPormance wlth CL
Zone standard~~ it was Staff's opinion that r~vised plans should be revtewod by the
Planning Commtsston.
Mr. Gordon McMillen, the agent for the appllcant. appear~d before Che Planning Cammission
And stated that in his initlal ~resentation before the Commission he had requested -_ total
of 27. motel units~ tncludtng the manager's unit~ on the Sub)ecc property; howeve~, the
~lans subm~tted had only indicated o total of 19.
Thc Plannt~g Commisslan entered into discusslon regardtng the proposal~ durin~ Which the
9eneral cansensus was that the add(ttonal unlts w~era not co~~istznt with the Commisslon's
sctia~ on October 11, 1976, ond that an ~ddittonal publlc heartng would be requi~ed.
Gonrnissloner Morley oPfered a motion~ sncondad by Cormilssioner Farano and MOTI~N CARRIED,
that the Anahetm City Planning Comnission daes hereby determine that the add~ttonal
expansion of the subJect mot~l shall requlre a publir. hearing.
ITEM E
~C~`fRIP TO REVIEW GRADING IN ANAHEIM HILL5
Caranlgsioner Herbst noted that Commisslone~ Farano and he had met with Mr. Horst Schor of
Anahelm iillls to review the aztual grading in the Anahelm Hills area and werc very pleaszd
to see the effects of the new Grading Ordtnance; that hc had asked Mr. Schor to conduct a
field trip of all th~ Planning Ccmmisstone~s to revl~- thc grading~ and Mr. Schor
indlcated he wea willtng to do so; and~ therefore~ he was requesting that the Planning
Department conta~t Mr. Schor to schedule the field trip in the very near future slnce the
grading had Just t~ken place and w~s not disto~ted by plants or erosion from ralns.
The Planning Commisston generally concurred that the Plenning Department 5tbff scheduio
tho fteld trip wtth Mr. Schor as soon as posslble and so notify the Commissio~~crs.
AUJOU~ RNMENT - The~e being no further busineas to ~lscuss~ Commissfoner Mo~ley oPfer~c~ A
motian~ seconded by Cortmissioner Farano and MOTION CARRlED, that the ;reaCing
b~ adJourned to December 7~ 1976, at ?:00 p.ne.~ i~ th~ Management Control
Center~ ~14 South Claudina Street, Anaheim~ for the purpose of ineeting in
Joint Work Sessien with the Anahnim City Councli and the Ganyon Area
Plenntng Task Force concerntng the Hill and Canyon area.
Thc meeting adJourned at 6:15 p.m.
R6s~ctfully submltted
~~~ ,e,~~~~~
Patricia B. Seanlan~ Secretary
Anaheim C1*.y Plan~ing ~omrrisslon
PBS:hm
;, R C Q MICRQFII.MINI: SERVICE, INC