Minutes-PC 1977/11/07C i ty I~al 1
Anahelm~ CAlifo~nla
Novembo r 7, 1`.l J 7
REGULAP, MLETING OF TNE ANAfIEIM CITY PLANNING COMNI551011
REGULAa - The regular meeting of the Anahelm f.ity Planniny Crxmitsslon was called to
MCk.TING order by Cl~alrman Tolar at 1:35 p•m., November 7, 1~+77, tn the Council
Chamber, a q~orum be(ny present.
PRESC~IT - CNAIRM/1N: T~~ ~-'
COMMISS~ONERS: Davi~f, Nerbst~ Johnson~ Kinq
CommiSSloc~er Linn arr{veJ at 3:~~ P•m~
ABS~N7 - COMh115Si011EKS: Darnes
ALSO - Jack White
PRESENT Annika Santalal~ti
Jay Titus
Paul Singer
J, J. Tasl~ i ra
Edith tlarris
Deputy Clty Attorney
Assistant Director for toning
Office Enyinetr
Traf f i c En~,~ i neer
Assistant Flanne~
Planninq Commission Secre*_ary
PLEU~;E OF - The Pledge of Allegiance to tt~e Flag of the United States of America was
ALLEGIANCE led by Commissione~ David.
CONTINUED ITtMS
Motions were made to continu~ It~ms 3 ~nd 11 ~L the reyuest ~f tiie petit(oners.
IT~Ii N0. 1 CONTIyUEU PU4LIC HEARIt~G. OuNER: WRATHER INt~S~ It~C.,
E R EG RI GAL E?(EMF'T 101~-CLASS ti
VARIANCE N0. 29 2 135~ South Harbor ~oulevarcl~ Anaheim, CA 92802.
- AGEtJT: ANUREW SCHWEgEL, 11;0 West ~errltos, Anaheim~
GA 9'2802. Petitioner reques[s WAIVEP, OF MINIMUM
STRUCTURAL SET6AC~: TO CO~~STRUCT THREE PARKING TlCK~7 BOOTHS on pro~erty described as a
rectangularly-shaped parce) of land consisting cf approximately ~~•~aXir;ate,frontages ofe
northwe5t corner of Convention Way ~nd tlarbor Boulevard~ haviny app
600 feet on t~'~~u°tf~crsdesc~lbednasnlts~5 SouthnHarbor~~Joulevard~. WProPertY ~resently
8oulsvard, and
classifled C-R (CCM11EfZCIAi.-RECREATIOtI) ZONC.
5ubJect pstition was continued from the nieeting of Ottobe~ 10, 1917, for revised plans and
from the meeting af Octuber 26, 19JJ~ at the request of tt~~: p-etitioner.
There was no one indicating their preser.e in oppositton to sub~~7twasQnottread~at1theugh
the staff report to the Planniny Cor.xniss~un dated November J~
public hea~inq~ it is referred tc and made a part of the rni~utes.
77-725 11/7/77
MItlUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ N~~vember 7~ 1977 ~~"~~~
EIK CATLGORICAL EXE~4PTION-CLASS 5 AND VARIAN~E N0._2~52 (continued)
~.~ --
J. J. Tastiiro~ Assistant Pla~ner~ noted there wer~ two correctlons to brs mAde In the staff
report: Ite~n G~ Development Proposei~ ~i~ird s~nt~ ~~ shc~uld read~ "Submttted plans
Indtcate *f~at tl-e ticket bootti IocatQd to [he north (staff report indl..~t~d east) ~f the
•irive appr~ach fram Nerbor Boulevard would have a stack-up arFa for five outomobiles and
wo~~d provide access t~ the hc~G_:l r~~~rl:ic~y lot; the tlcket booth to the south (staff report
indicb;~d west) of said ~riveway woul~l be aperablc dur(ng restaurant liours only."
Andrew Sc:hweb~l, ar~ent for ti~c. petitioncr~ was present t~~ answer any questions.
THE PUE3i.tC tiCARI~~G WAS CL~ISCU.
Chairman Tolar asked about thc exit ~nly bnotl~ on Nark,or poulevard on the extreme northern
side of" ~lie property a~ indic.iteci }~e was concer~~~:c1 tl~at traffic woul~l still enter and
create a stackin~~ pr~t ,~ as discussed at ~h~. p~'c~vlous mectinn.
Mr. 5chwe~~el replled that siyns would be posted indicatinq "exit oniv~ hotcl entrance next
~Ight."
Chairman lolar :tated he felt curt,s should be t~,rovidec; to prohibit entrance~ and
Commissioner Nert,st suyyested tht exic c:u~bs be an9led sliyhtly~ forc(nc~ vehicles to
continue past t'~is access point.
Mf. Schwebel stipulated to providin~; anc~led curb at this location and a~ked if there would
be any obJection to having a{~ortable curb in order tl~at it could ~^ move~i for emerge~cy
vehicles~ and Paul 5inyer, Traffi: Enyineer, incficated there would be no problem for
emergency vehicles with t-~c curb beinc~ stationary.
It was noted th~t the D(rector of the Plann'nc, Department has determined that the proposed
actlvity falls within tiie definition of Section 3.01, Class 5~ of the City ~f Anahtlm
Gutdelines to the Requircrncnts f~r an Environmencal Im~~act Re~ort anJ is~ therefore~
categoric~lly exempt from the requircment to fil~ an EIR.
A1:T10lJ: Gommissioner Herbst offered Resolutlon No. P1;77-7~+0 and moved for its passage and
a~cupt~o~, that the Anahe(m Gity Planning Comnisslun does here~y yran[ P~tition for
Var(ance I~o. 2962 on the basis that t~~is is an ~xcremely large, fully develop~d parcel of
land witli existi~g drivew~ys~ and past history indicatcs uncontrolled use of t;~e Rarking
lot due to its proximity to the Anaheim Conventiun Genter an~ ticket booths are necessary
to permit beneficial use of tl~e uruperty by the petitioner and due to the smatl size ~f
the tlcket booths would not be a visual obstruction in the setback; and subject [o
petltioner's stipulation to provide anylEd curbina adjacent to tl~e no~thern ticket booth,
prot~Ibitiny entrance to tf~e sitc at tl~at loc;ation; and subject to I~terdepartmental
Ca~Mni ttee recorrnnenJations.
On roll call~ ~i~e forcyoin~ resolution was passe~ by the folla~inq vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: IIERBST, UAVID~ JONtJS0:7~ KING~ TOLAR
NUES: COMMISSIONERS: NONC.
AdSE~iT: CaHhiSSiOi~tiRS: tsAR~~CS. L!!!!:
tt/7/17
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISS~ON, Naver~~bor 1~ 1977 7%-727
ITEN ~~U. 2
E R~NfG~A-71Vf. DECIARATIUN READVERTISED PUBLIC FIEARI~IG, OWIIER: EASTER
CL ~ . ,-77-6 1 S4AN0~ l.tD. ~ 2935 Esst V f ne Straec ~~IC ~ Orenye ~
~~Nt3.~~iL~~ GA 9?.GG9. AG~NT: JAME5 KI NCIINNON, 3931 MacArthur
WAIVER OF COUNCIL P~LICY N0. 535 Doulevard~ N20fi, Newport Beach~ tA 9zG6o. SubJect
property is an (rre~~ulsrly-sheped parccl of lend
consisting of apprnximaccly l.f; acres lo:.ated At
tnc northeast corner o~ Santa Ana Canyon Road and Pinney Drive~ heving approximete front
ayes of 777 feet on thc north sidc of Santa Ana Canyon Road and 92 feet or- the east side•
of Pinney Drivc. Property presently classifled kS-A-~3,~q0(SC) (RESIUENTIAL/AGRICULTI!~'~L-
SCENIC CORRIUOR OVCRLAY) ZO~JE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R;-y?.00(SC) (RE.SIDkNTIAL, SINGLE-Fl1MILY-SCENIC CORRIUOR
OJERLAY) ZUNk~.
ftEQUESTEU VARIANLE: WAIVER OF RCQUIRENEtIT THAT ALL LOTS REAR-ON ARTERIAL STREE'S~ TO
ESTl1HLISN A G-' ~T, RS-72O0(SC) SU(iDIVISION.
Subject pet(tfc~n was continued from the meeCin~s of July ~~ and August 2^~ 1977, at the
request of the petitloncr and from tl~s meetiny of October 10~ 1~)7I~ for revised plans.
Ttiere was one person indicatiny oF~position to subject req~iest, and although the staff
report to the Planniny Comrnission dated November 7, 1917 was not read at the public
hearfng~ it (s referred to ~3nd ma~~ a par[ uf the rn(nutes.
It was note~ the Hill and Canyon Muntcipal Advis~ry Committcc (IIA(.Ml1C) rev(ewcd the above
project at tt~etr meeting of Septenber 27~ 1y77~ and with I1 rnembcrs present voted
unanlmously to recomnren~ denial of Reclassification Na. 7F-77-63 Hnci Variance No. 2946.
Their reasons for reconunendiny denial were tliat tt~e t-omes riould be too close to Santa Ana
Canyon Road with little or nu sound attenuation pro~osed; tl~at thc private street being
maintained by 51x ha»eowners would be a burden and double tax~[i~~n; an~l due to the
proximity of tt~e homes to the developrnent to the north, and residents in thosc homes are
oppased to this proj~ct.
JaReS Ki~~ca~non~ architect and agent fe:r tl~e petiti~~ner, was present to answer any
yueztfons and pointed out the relocation of ti~e private street and reoricntation of the
ham~s to the front off the p~ivate street.
Ma ry Dinndarf~ 13i La Pax~ Anaheim. PresiJent af Santa Ana Canyun Hom~owners Irrpravement
Assuciation~ inJicated there were specimen trees on the site, prohably seven Calif~rnia
peppcr trees~ a black walnut~ a walnut~ ,~ rose 6ush~ a few fruit trees, etc.
She nlso indicated concern regarding ~t~e 22-foat setback ad~ecent [o Santa Ana Ca~yon P~ad
and polnted out the requireme:nt is 5~ feet. Re~ar.iing sound attenuation~ she asked if any
sound studies had bePn coi~ducted and pointed vut she had observed a number of construction
vehicles o~ Santa Ana Lanyon Road and ~lid not fecl the private street being reiocated to
the front of the pro.ject would alleviate that problem. She also indicated concern
reyt~rding increase~ traffic. She stated she ~ealized this is a hardship parc~l of land
anU would ltke to see some~hin4 developed wliich would nat increase traffic. She felt the
d~velopment, as proposed~ woulci be creating a problem.
Ms. Dinndorf indlcated she had actendeJ wark sessions reyardtng the Circulation Element
for ti~e A~aheim I~ills area and that an increase to six lanes for the freeway and thc
77
NINUT~S, APIANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ November 7~ 1~77 77-728
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 7b-77-~3~ VARI~NCE NQ. 2946 AMQ WAIVER OF
~OUI~CIL PULICY N0. 53K (cantlnucd) _
possibillty of widening S~nta Ana Canyon RoAd to throe or four lanes to h~ndle developme:~~t
through 15~5 has been discussr,~l. She stated she was c~nce~ned ab~ut the legal
rAmificatlons of residents havii~g to malntatn the prtvato stre~t a~ proFa;ed.
Mr. Kincannon stated tl~r. lanJscape erct~itect had reported there were specimen trecs cn the
slte. two Callfornifl pepper trees (whlch were rottin9 at thc base and may be (n danger of
falling), a plum Crce, and a Califarnia black walnut tree. He ind(c~teJ the petitloner Is
not oppose•' to s~ving the trees but would like a recommendati~n from the City's Porks and
Recreatlon Olv(sion concerning the trecs.
Concerniny tFie private ~tr~e~, h1r. {;lncannnn InJ(cated a homcawnera ~ssocfation will be
farmed for the sir, homes t~ maintoln th~ ~tr~~i~ simil~r t~ rnaintaining a clubhouse,
qreenbelt arsa~ etc.. wit~i a ~~~ ••tl~ly fce of appruxin~tcly 535.00. tic did not feel thls
would be a problem.
Regarding sour~d attenuation~ hc p~inted ~ut Lhat due to thc terrain of the land~ the
building pad elevatian f~r Lot No. G would be r; feet belr~w stree[ level with a 6-foot wal~
and felt there would not be a sounu attenuation NroGlem.
TI~E PUDL~C NCARING WAS CLOSEU.
Comn•.issiuner Johnson s[ated it would be the pec+tioner's rF~spnnsibility tu meet all the
sound at tenuat 1 on requ 1 rements of [he G i ty of Anaf~c i ~~i.
Commtssi.~ner Kinc~ referrecl to FiACM/1C's cor~ents rrc~arding upp~s(tion of the property
ovme~s north uf the subjeGt sitc and asked if those property or~ncrs had been not(fied of
this heariny, and tt was re~lie~1 that they were. Mr. King pointed out there was no one
indicating their opposition to subject request.
Commission~r Johnson asked Ms. Dinndorf if she was rep~esentiny HAGMAC, and she replied
that sf~e was not~ but tFiat tttie homeowners associatfon she represented includad members of
the Celestlal Tract to the nortt~ of subJect site.
CommissfonPr Johnsun poinctd out that ihe tiA(,h1AC recamnendat ans were writtc~n prior to
subr~i,siun of the new plans.
Commissioner David i~iquired if NA~HAC had reviewed the new plans~ and J. J, Tashiro~
Assistant Planner~ indicated the plans ~~ad not been reviewed by IiACMAC.
Cha(rman 7olar indicated hc was concerned about some of thc same problems Ms. Dinndor~ had
referred to. but after reviewiny the property again and from looking at the plan which had
been reverse~i and wi:h the wall~ coulcl not think of a better use for this property.
Commissioner ~ierbst agreed wi th Chairrran Tolar and inciicate~7 the property is prtvately
owned and de erves some sort oF access and regar•dless of what is developed~ includinc~ o
mini-park~ would stili have :o flave access. He reported that according to the Trafflc
Enyineer the proposed access location is about the only nlace tcs service the site and that
the developer has done what Che Commission requested~ and that I~e is aware of requirements
of the Counc(1 ~olicy regarding so~n~i attenuation and has agreed tn comply with them.
Chairma~ Tolar ~keci Jay Titus~ Office Engineer, to indicate to Mr. Kincannon on the plans
hts recommendatfon regarding the cu~b cut further taack for more vehicular storaye an the
private street.
11/1/77
,:
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM GITY PLqNNING COMMISSIQN, I~ovon~ber 7, 1~7%
7l-729
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATI~N~ RECLASSIFICATION r10, 76-71-63~ VARIANCE N~. 2q4G AND WAIVER OF
COUI~CIL POLICY N0. 53~ (eontinued)
- ---- ..~.~_.
Mr. Tikus p~~inte~i out: that he wauld r~c~mrn~nd a lony~r anc~led approach ~~r~d the street
reallgned to ~.r~vidc vchlcular storaye of ;6 feet fr~m tl~e curb line ~f Plnnr.y Urlv~, and
Mr. Klnconnon eqree~i to ~1~~ this.
Ch~irrnan Tolar potnteJ o~t h~•. would not want t~ see mary of thr. lo[ sizes reduced to less
than 7~~~ square feet~ ~nd tr, Kincannon rcplicd th~t hn. wc~u'.d ;tay within the 7200-square
foot llmitation.
Commissioner Johiisc~n state~ thzt two of IIAC~I~,C's concerns had b~ecn answered with the
rev(sed plans~ but w-~~~te~l the petitloner to sti~~ulate that if any specimen tr~es must be
destroyaJ~ th,:y would be re~laeeJ with a c~~un,~rat,ic trce. Mr. Kincannon asked what was
cons i derecl ~ r.~m~-ar,h 1 A tr~~ ~n~+ I na i cated therc ~•~~, one t rce h^ fec t h i yh ,
Commiss(oncr Kin~~ s~ •~~stec) tiiat Mr. Kinc~nnon stipulatc to wark with the City Parks ~nd
Recreatfon D~ ~sian reyarding replacement of ai,y spc~cime~ tre~~s~ which hc di~.i,
A4TION: Cvmm(ssioner tierbst offered a rru~tio~~ seconded by Commissioner DaviJ and MOTION
CARRIEQ (C~mmissioners barnes an~J linn bein,y abs~nt), that the llnaheim City Plannin,q
Commisslon has rr_viewed the subj~:ct propusa? ta reclassffy the zoning from RS-A-4z,~00(SC)
(Residen:ial/Agric:ultural-Scc:nic Corridor OvPriay) tc~ the RS-7200(5C) (P.esi~iential~
Sinyle-Famlly-Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone on prc~ erty consistiny c~f approximately 1.8
acres locatPCl at tt~e northeast corner of Senta Ana Cenyon Road and Pinney Urive~ having
approximate fro~.ta~es of 777 f~et on the narth siJe of Santa llna Canyon Road and 92 feet
on the east side of Pinney Drive~ w(th w~ivcr uf requirement that all lcats rear onto an
arterial hiyhway. i~ order to e5tablish a six-lot subdivision; and does hereby approve the
Negatlve Declaration from the reyuirement to prep~re an envirunmental impact report on the
basis th~t there woul~ bc no siyn+fic~rit individual or cumu;ative adverse envtr~nmental
impact J~e to ttie apprdval of this Neyative Declaration since the Ana-ieim General Plan
deslgnat~s the subJect property for hillside, law-density residen(i~~l land uses
commer~surate with the propusat; tt~at no sensitive environmenCal imp~~cts are tnvolved in
the propasal; that [he Initia~ Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no signifi~ant
ind(vidual or cumu!ative adverse erit~ironr+~ental imr, ;; an~ tha[ tlie Negative Declaratton
substantlating the foregoiny findings is on file ~ tl~e City cf Anal~eim Planning
D~parCment.
ACTIO'!; Comriissioner Herbc~ offered ResoluCion tJo. f~C77-2~+1 ancl m~~ed for iCS p~ssa~,e and
a~~on, that th~ Anaheirn City Planniny C~rt~ission does hereby grant Petition for
Reclasstfication No. 76-77-63~ subject to ~nter.iecarKmenta) Committee recomme~dattons.
An rall call~ the foreyofny resolution was passed by thc followiny vo[P;
A~._~: COMMISSIOtIERS: D~>V~J, HcRBST~ JONN50t1~ KING, ?OLAR
NOES: CONMI~~~IONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIGNERS: DAFNES~ LINi~
Commissioner Herbst ~ffcred Resolution No. PC77-242 ~nd maved for its passaye ~~n.1
adaptt~~n~ that the Anaheirn (.ity Pl~nniny Commission does hereby grant Pet:tion tor
Varianc:. No, 2946 on the basis that s~bject property is irregularly-shaped~ be(ng long and
narrow with a maximum width of ~2 ~eet~ ~nd i~~ therefore~ difficult to devPlop with 7000-
square foot, residential lot~; and s~ibjuct ta the pet.~tior.er's stipulation that the
buliding pad elevati~n for Lot No. 6 will be 8 f~:et below st~eet grade and, with a 6-foot
higt~vrall, sound will be attenuated fron~Santa Ana Canyai Road; subJect to the
petitione~'s s[ipula'ion to meet atl requirement~ of Council Policy No. 542 for sound
11/7/77
i ~:!
MINUTES, IINAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ November 7~ 1977 77-730
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASS-F'ICATION N0, 76-77-63, VARIANE~ NQ. 294( AND WAIVER OF
COUNCIL POLICY ~10. 538 (co~tlnued)
attenuatl~n; subJect to the petitioner's stipulation to reali~~n streets in accordance with
Traff(c Cngineer's recorrunendatl~n at ~~n anyle ta providc a lonc~er ar~rot~cf~ to accommodate
at least 56 feet of vefiicular storage from the cu~b line of Pinney Dr•iv~~; and subJect to
Interdcpartmenta) Committee racommendacions,
Un roll call~ the foreqoin~; resulutlon was passecJ by ehe follawin., vote.
AYE:S: C0~1M155101~ERS; tIERUST~ JUII~~SUN~ DAVIU~ KING~ TOLAR
IJOCS: COMMISSI01lERS: NONE
AIiSLNT: COMMISSIONERS; tsARNC~~ LIN1~
Commissi~ncr iicrbst vffcrc~l ~ irn~cic~n~ sccnndcd by Corrni;,foncr Y.iny an.: MOTIOCi cnr~r,lED
(Cominissi~ners fia~•nes anJ linn bPiny absent), that the An~~hPi~n f.i[y Plannin~~ C~mr~latl~n
does hereby re~ommend to the Ci[y Council ~~f the C(ty of Anahei~ that Council Policy Ilo.
53~~ which specifies rh~c the lot clepth requirament establlshed by the Su:~division
Ordlnance under Sectic,n 1J.~3.3;2(A) may be: reJuced or modified wf~ere a spec(fic plan ts
approve~! by the Clty th~t reduCes all buildi~,~~ ,etbac~s on lots aJJacent to freewa~s and
expressways have a mIn(mur~ Jepth of >0 fect~ be waive~ far lots ~- and 6 of subject proJect
as approved by fteclass(f~1c~t~•~n No. 76-77-63 an~ Var:ac~c~: Na. 29~~G to provide a 27.-foot
setback al~n7 Santa Ana Ca.,~on Road.
Chairman To~ar indic~ited c~ncerr~ t~~at this aa~ticular situat~~n not becorne a precedent-
setting situat(on reyardin~ the setbaGk. He stated he woul~i not suppc~rt another req~iest
for waiver of Council Policy `3~~ unless ~ simllar harclship exists. Ne stated he was
concerned abaut a particular E~rc~percy dc~wn the stteet fror~ ,ubject pr~perty.
ITEM NO. 3
._.._...~..
ENVIRO.'MEI~T4L 1,1PACT RE~~n~T N0, "L~5 CONT ..~ PUDLIC ~iEARI~~G. OWNER: ANANEIM HILLS~
VARIAMCE N0. 2~ ~~ INC,, 3~0 Anaheim Hills Road, Anahefm~ CA 92~307.
~TC.r~TATIVE MI1P OF TRACT N0. ~on32 AGENT; JRMES fl. QERRY~ 1$~~1. Sky Park South~
Irvinc:, CA ~)2711~. Subjr.ct prapcr[y is an
irre~ularly-shaped parce! of land Gonsisting
of approximately 12.~ acres locateJ approximately 300 feet south of the intersectlon
of Nohl Ranch Road ancl lii t lcrest Lane~ haviny a maximurn ~ieptl~ uf ~pproximately Bi;O
feet. anJ beiny locaced approximately ~~~ feet sauthwes~crly of thc ~enterline of
Anaheim ~~ills Roacl. Property presc:ntly classified RS-A-43~()00(SC) (RE.SIGENTiAL/
AGRICULTURAL-SCENIC CORRIDOF OVERLAY) Z~NE.
VARIANCE RCC:UEST: WAIVER OF ;A) RE[~UIZENEP~T THAT ALL L'JTS AUUT A PUBLIC STREET~
([3) MININUM 6UILUING PAD AREA~ ANG (C) MINIMUM BUILDING SITE
1J I UTIi.
T~NTkTIVE TRACT REQUL'ST: ~~1-LOT~ 38-UIJIT, RS-;000(SC) S~~D14!SIUIJ.
SubJec~_ petition was continu~ . from the meeting of Octot~er 10, t_?77~ for revised p~ar.s.
lt was noted tfiat the petitioner requesCs this item be continued for an additional four
weeks~ to the Planning Cor~mission rnceting of Decernber 5~ 1977.
ACTlON: Cortxnissioner King ~ffereJ a rrlOti011~ s~conded by Commissioner Johnson and NOTIOtJ
t~D (Commissioners Barnes and Lin~ being absant), that consideration of Environmenta)
Impact Report No. 20~~ Varianr.e No. 2q69, and Tentative liap of Tract No. 10032 be
continued to the regular meetir.g af the Anaheim City Planning Conmission of December 5,
1977. (THE FOREGAING MOTION WAS MAGE A7 THE BEGINIi1NG OF THE MEETING.)
1~/7/77
~4
s
MINUTES~ ANAtiEIM CITY PLANNING f~MMISSION~ November 7~ 1977 77~73~
ITEM N0. 4
~IR CA EGORIGAL EXEMPTIU-J-CLr1SS S PUHLIC HEARING. or1NERS; ROB[(zT J. ANq KATNARINE
p~ I. FORRf.STER~ 477 Country tli I1 Road~ Anaheim~ C11
92807. Petitloner requests WAIVER OF MINIMUH RCAR
YARD SfTBACK TO CONSTRUCT A S!NGLE-FAMILY STRUCTURE
on prop~rty described as an Irreyularly-sl~apeJ parccl of land consisting of approximately
0.5 acre haviny a frontaye uf appr~ximately (,5 fcet on tiie soutli side of Country N111 Roed~
having a maxtmum depth of approxtmatcly 1f37 fc~t, ~jnd heiny located approximately ~~~~0 feci
east of the centerliri~ of Vi,~ Vista Street. Pr~perty presently classified RS-A-~+3~~00(SC)
(RCSIOENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL~SCttlIC CURRID~R UVk:RI.l1Y) 20NE.
here wos one person lndicatin,y ~~~pos(tion to suLject petition~ an~ althcuyti the stAff
re!tiort to the P1annln~~ Commisslon JateJ Novu;~be:~• ), 1977 was n~,t rea~l at tf,e publ ic
hearing~ it is referred t~~ an~i ~~iade a part of the minut.es.
It was note~l the 11111 an~, ~anyon Municipal Advisory Cnmmitcce (IIl1CMl1C) had reviewed the
proposal at their October Z~, 1977 meet(ng and~ with 12 c~embers E~resent, nine members
voted to recomrtx;nd Jeniat of Variance No. 2')77 anJ three cor~xnittee mem5ers indicated
d~nial of the projc~ct as pr~posed but inJtca~:eci a desire to see alternate plans.
Robcrt Forrester. the petitioner~ in~Jicatcd hc I~ad talked wlth hls neiyhbors since the
plans we;re submitted and thcy had indic~ted thcir dr,sirc that he provide. a 13-foot setbaek
on the south/southeast propercy 1 inc which would nc:cessi tatc clevclopinq a smal ler F~ouse~
which he has agrecd to du.
Ftery Dlnndorf, 131 La Paz~ Anaheim, representiny NACMIIC~ indicated Che commlttee had
discussed this pru}ect .~t length anJ that thc ~etitioncr had stat~d the exiscing neighbors
had not object~d but sir~~c this is a tra~sienc ~opulation~ evcn thouqh ex(stinr, ne{qhbors
may not ~~bjec[, it woul~i set a precc~d~~nt for the future. She indicated the ~._titioner had
stated that when he purchased thc. property he was aware of the casement and utility llnes
and the hardship on [his lot. She sue~yest~d that the Commission go alon~~ with the
considerations of tIACMAC because the petitiuner was aware of the problems whPn he bougt~t
thc prnperty. She indicated the conmittee liad asked if h~c was buildin~~ this home for
himself anJ hc replied hc w.~s buildiny +t fc~r salc.
Mr. Forrester statau th~t •veryone knows chis is a hardship parcel br_cause of th^_ wires,
that they have always becn li~ere. Ne stated there r~ust have been a misunderstanding
reyarding hi~r~ moving intc~ khe hv~~s~~ that f~c plar~ned to move +nt~ it. Ile felt it would
detraet from the neiyl,borhood [<, ~~u[ a`,ma11~r housi: on the ~ot.
THC PUE3LIG ilEAi11;JG '~IA~ CLOSE.L1.
Commtssioner t;iny askecl Mr. For~.~ster if the thrce neiyhbor, ~Uu[ting his pro~erty had
siyned a pt:tition endorsin~~ tl~e proposal. Mr. ~orrester ~r~:licated he owned the lots on
thc north, west anu cast, nnd cl~at Mr. ana Mrs. Alongi avicd tf~e properties ~n the south
and were present at the hearin~~.
Ch~airman Tolar stated tl~e Coirrnission could r~ot place restrictions on the petitioner to
occupy tlie house~ but f,e noted tt~at 3I(~~ sr~uare feet is a large hou,e, and he felt a
smaller house coulJ be built.
t 1/7>77
MIIll1TES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM15510N~ N4vember 7~ 1~77 77-732
EIR CATCGORICAL EXENPTION-CLASS y ANU Vp,RIAI,CE N0. 2977 (contlnued)
Mr. For~estPr potntr:d out that he h~~d alrea~ly s;lpulatccJ to reduce the sizr b~• 30~) squarc
feet ;~d that ~0', squar~• fect of area Is the ~,~r~gc~ leavin~~ a net rrea ~f 2~10 tu 3~0~1
sc~.are f~et.
Comrniss~oner Johnsor stat~~d hc Jisa~~rceJ ~ilth HACMAG anJ Jicf not feel A smaller house or
less c!esirabl~, hausc sFioul~i he buil[. lie statc~ tl~c pet(tion~r would either have ta bulld
t~ie house riyht up .o thc pro~erty limlt~~ leavc the land vnca~t, or huil~i a sm~ller
house. He felt that wou1J detr~~ct from the ~ntirc hillsicle area and the qencra)
nc(ghborhoocl~ and Commissior~er Kinq a~,rce~~ w(ch Conuni..si~ner Joh~~~ . n.
Commissioner Herbst inclicate~ this is .~ hardship parcel ~ncl he felt (t deserves the
veri~nc:e because of tne ease~~x:nt; that the casement Itself actu~~Ily stipulatcs where t.h~~
hou~c must bc p1a~eJ.
Chairrrwn Tol~r asked hc~w many propert(es ir thc area wc~uld ba affected by the Edtson
easenknt~ and asked ff other variances havc becn all~naed~ ancJ Mnika Santalahti~ Asslsta~t
Director for Zor~in~~~ replled t}~at shr_ wa~ ~iot ~rvare ~i any varionces. She pointc:d out
that properties to thc sauth and west ha~ be,;n cf~,ti~el^pr~J an~ the de~elopers had had to
wor'k qulte a bit bc~causc of the uasemei~t t+~ ;,rv{~erly ~~la~e the struc.ures, but that
permi ts had t~een I ss,~ed.
Mr. Forrester replied that t~erc are other ~roperties affccteJ, sortx; of them arc
developed~ but the easemenc yues diagonally across th(s parcel.
Ccxrvntssioner Johnson refcrred to the petf ti~nc~r's stipulation to reduce the size of the
dwelliny to t>rovide a 13-fout setback as requested by the nPiyhborS. He pointe~ out that
ttie nook of the struct~~re as propc~secl would be within y feet of tlie property line~ not 13
feet.
Mr. Alony( louked ~t the plans an~1 Mr, Forrester indic~ted the size of the front porticn
nf the structure coul,f Le reduced and stipulateci to recicsic~n thc structure s~ that the
ent i re s truc ture w i 1 1 be 13 feet f ~c~m the pro~,erty I i ne.
It was noted that tf~e Directur of the Planniny Oepartment ha; determineJ thac the proposed
activi[y fails within ttie definition of Section 3•~1~ Clas• 5~ of the City of Anaheim
Guideltnes to the aequfrements for an Environmental Impa~t R.:port and is~ therefore~
„ategorically exempt fror, Che requiremenl to filt: an Elit,
ACTIpH: Co~misstc~ncr King affered Resolution No. PC77-243 and moved for its passage and
adioptton, that the An~~heim Clty Plannin~.~ Co~rrnission dc~es liEreby grant Petition for
Variance No. 297/, in part~ fur a rninimum 13-foot rear yard setback on the basis tha[ a
hardsl~ip exists due to an existir~y t!;p-faot wiJc:, Soutt~ern Caltfornia Edison Company
easement running diagonally ac~oss tfie subject property~ occupyiny appror.imately 70$ to
80$ of subject proper•ty and subskantialiy reducin~i the builciable lot area; subject to the
petitioner's stipulation to mo~ify the proposed builciing pian to provide a 13-foot setback
frcxn tlie rear (sou[h/southeast) property 1 i ne.s; and sub jec:; to i nterdepartmental Commi ttee
recor,nnenda t i ons .
Qn roll call, the foreyoing resolution was passed by tl~e tc~lle~wing vote:
aYES: COMVIISSIOI~EP,S: DAVID~
NO`~S: CUM;~iSSiO-JEftS: ~~ONE
AI3S~N7: ~OMMISSIONEkS: BARNES,
J01lNS0~1 ~ I1ERE3ST, ~:I NG ~ TOL/1R
LItIN
tt/1/71
hSINUTCS~ ANAt1E,IM CITY Pl.ANNING COMMISSIOt~, November 7, 1977 77°733
(TNE PCTITIOI~ER FUR ITEM NQ. 5 WAS rIOT PRESENT~ 50 COt~SIDERATIO~! OF Tt115 ITkM WAS pEFERREO
UIITIL FOLLOWING Cd~151DERATION (1F ITEM N0. 9.)
ITEt1 N0. 6
~RiCAL EXEMPTIUII-CI.ASS 1 PUBLIC NEARift!'. 04MCRS: L()WARU M, AND JANNIE L.
G N N L USC E RM I N0. ~%u2 - Ci~UW ~ 12Q 1 Nor tl~ An,f re:a Lane ~ Anahe i m~ CA 92H07.
AGEMT: NICIIACL HORVATH~ 2b1 Wllld.~n Raed, Anahe(m~
CA ~2i;07. Pet(tioner requcsts permission ta
It~STALL SOLAR COLLECTOR P/1NELS on property described as an ir•regularly-sheped parcel of
land consisting of appr~ximately 0.3 ocre located at the southwest corner of Woodsboro
Av~nu~ and Andrea Lane~ f~aviny a frontaye of approximatel;~ 3~ feet on the southwest side
of the {•.nuckle In[ersectinn~ haviny a maxEmum de~~th of approxlrnately 19~+ feet~ and further
described as 12Q1 North Andrea Lane. f'raperty prssently classifie~l RS-5np~(SC}
(RESIUEtJTIAL~ SIlIGLE-FAMII,Y-S~~NI(; GOFtRIUOR OVF.RLAY) 7oNE.
There was no one in~iicating tlieir prese~ce in oppositfor to subject request~ and although
the staf` report to the Planning Gomr,~ission datPd November 7~ i917 w~is not read at the
publlc hearing~ it Is referred to and maJe a part of the rninutes.
It was noted khe 11111 and Canyan Nu~~icipal Advisory Committcse (f~ACMAf.) revler+ed tubject
proposal on October 25th and that with 1)_ nx~mbers present, the ccxnmittee voted unanlmously
to recummend approval c:~ Condi t~onal Use Perr~i t No. 1 J(,2,
Michael Norvath~ ayent for the peti[ioner, inclicateJ he had submitteJ drawings and
photograpt~s of the s~lar unit wi,ich will only be vlsihle from a portion of La Palntia
Avenue.
Tt9E PUBLIC 11EARIIiG Wl1S CLUSLU.
Chairman Tolar asked tl~e typc of finish of the exteric~r wood on the ~tructure enclosing
the unl ts ~ ar,d Mr. Fiorvatf~ re~l ie~i i t is n~ywo~d•
Chairman Tolar asked if f~e incended to cuver the wood in a~~iy way; thot this appeored tn be
a goo~i insta~la~ian up to tt~at ~+uint t~ut that hc felt some ty~>e of finish on thc exCerior
should be addeu, such as sliake sl,lnyles to match the roof.
Mr. Horvath indtcated ti~at this had be~n suggested by HAGMAC and that shake shingles have
been ordered.
It was noted that thc Directur of the Plan~ing Department has Jetermined that the praposed
act(vity falls within the deftr~ition of S~ctlon 3.01~ Glass !. of ti~., City of A~~ah~im
Guidelines to tl~e Requ(rements for an Enviranmental Impact Fceport ~nd is~ therefore,
categorically exempt from Che requirement to file an EIR.
ACTION: Commissioner Kin~ offcred Resolution No. PC77-245 and moved for its passage and
a~opt~~on, that the Anahetm City Planning Comn,ission does hereby grant Pet(tion for
Conditional Use Per~rlt No. 1762, subJec: to the petitione:r's stipulation to provide
stiingles to match exlsttng r~f on exterior of structure enclnsiny the sola~ coll~ctor
panels~ and subject to Interdepartmental Commitcee recarm~endations.
Prior to voting, Commfssioner Herbst pointed out that all City codes ~ust be met.
Chairman Tolar askecl how why this inatallation IiaJ been done prior to permits being
abtalned, and Mr. F~orvath ~eplied ~hat Lhis was an error on his part and that he was not
aware permits were nc:eded.
11/7/77
MINUTE5~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING C0~'MISSION~ NuMembe~ 7~ 1917
77•73N
kIR CATEGBaICAI EXEt~PTION-CI.ASS 1 AND CONDITIONl.L USE PERMIT N0. ~76z (continued)
On rol) call~ thc forago(ng resolutlon was passcd by the following v~te;
AYfS: COMMISSIONERS; UAVIU~ Ht.RBST~ JOHN50N~ KIfIG~ TULAR
NOES: CAMMISSIONERS: IiONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BIIRNES~ LINN
ITEM N0. /
~EIR GATEGURI:AL EXEMPTIl1N-GLASS 1 PJ4LIC HEARINt',. OWNERS; BILL J. ANU JUNk E.
~~ U RM N. 3 ABLftNATHY~ 1250 Walden l~n~~ An~+helm~ i,A ~1.fI07.
Petitioner reyucsts pr.rmisslon to INSTAIL SOLAR
COILk.GTOR PANELS u7 rrupcrly de~cribed as a
r~ctan~,~ularly-sl~aNc:J Nartel of tan~ con:.isting of apUroxiriaCcly ;~?Q!' square ~cet ha~~~,
a frontege of approx~m~tcly ;0 feet on thc northedst s(dc ~,f Wslden lane~ having A
maximum depth of approximately 100 fcet~ bcinc; locat~d aparoximately 237 fcet northwest
of thc centerl ine of Woodsbero AvenuP, ar~d furt~~er descrit~ed .~3 12~~ 41+~lden lane.
Property pre~ently classificd RS•y000(SC) (RISIDE:NTI~L. SItIGIE-F1IMILY-SCE~lIC CORRIDOR
OVERLAY) LONE..
ThQre was no ane indi~atirig thcir presence in oppasition to sub.)ect request~ and t~lthaugh
the staff r~port to the Pianniny Corr~misslon dated November 7, 19i7 was n~t read at the
public hearing~ it is rcferred to ~nd made a part of tf~c minutes.
It was noted that tnc Hill and Canyon Municipa) Advisory C arn+ittec (HACN,~;C) reviewcd thls
proposal on October 25~ 1977 an~~ with l;~ members present, voted unanimously to recommend
denibl of tt-e project as in~iicated on tF~e pro~~sed plnns.
fiil) Abernathy, the petitl~ner~ inclicate~l rt~ere shoulcl be a correction to the staff report
and referred to paragrapi~ (6) of Devclopment Proposal ~nd indicated the panels wauld bc
mounted en the soutt~westcrly-facing slope of the gara~e ra[I~er tt,an the westerly-facing
slupe vf the garage. Hc state~ tF~e collector system wi11 Gc dc~s1qned to fit into the
architectural scheme vf the dwelling and will ~rovide ~3j~ of the energy for the home for
heating. air-con:fitioniriy~ cluii~es dryer, etc.; that [he collector wlll not extend more
than 1 inch above the present shikes; that a pc~rtion af the present shAkes will be removed
and the collector system itself will be approximately Z inche3 thick ard will be bordered
by shakes about li; inches around the collector a~iJ will he frarned with cedar shingles the
same as the existiny shakes o~ the roof,
THE PUBLIC NEARING WA5 CLOSEU.
Chsi~man Tolar asked Mr. Abernathy ta further explain thc installaCion, Ne asked if the
In~tallation would be visible from the str~et and not obstructi~g anyone's view; how would
the pipes on the r~of br. hidden since this instel~ation aill be on th4 !~arage facing the
s4r~et in full view of the nei~h~ors; and ttiat he did not understand hc~w the proJect wtll
be hidden.
Mr. Abcrnathy explained the system has no Fipes, that it i~ an atr system; that thC ducts
will be inside the gara~e and tl~e unlr• thtn~ visible from the streat will be the painted
glass and the border or trim between thr. glass; that the glass will be 2-foo~ sections on
centers across the roof so you will s~e a 2-foot ylass strip and about a 2-lnch trim
betweei~ the panels of glass and will aFpear as a skylight. H~ explained the yi~ss is
clear and 1/2 inch behind the clear glass will be a hlack collector panel. N~ expleined
that the black bags usually seen ere absorbers rather thRn collectors. He explained that
11/7/77
MII~UYES~ A11A11E1M CITY PI.ANNING CQMNISSIQN. November 7~ 197~/ 17~73~
EIR C!-TEGUiIICAL EXkHPTION-CLA5S _ 1__ANU CONDITIO~~AL USE PCRMIT I~O. 17G3 (co~tlnued)
about 2Q4 syuare fect ~~f thr roof wlll be re~laced witi~ clcar glass wiih a border ~f
shakes eround (t; that chc sh~kes w( I1 raise~ .~bo~~e thc rcxif the s~~me hci~ht as the
col lector ancl tlien there wi I1 bc~ a nc~atly-tri~^~~~ccJ bn~JCr eruund tt~e shakes.
C~mm(ssloner Herbst Asked what ty,~t of col l~ctar syste~n wu~.~1J be provieled far storage And
wliere it wauid be locat~d. Mr, AbernHthy °e{~lie~l thal th~~rc~ will prot~ably be r~ck starage
end it woulcl ba locatr_d ln tli~ ~~arac~c.
Cc.nimisr,loner Ilerbst state~i he f~rl[ tl~is was [he type of eneryy systom th~ Gommisslon
needecl to takc ~ yoad look at; ttiat i t was on ener~y fact I i ty f~r the hc;me (nsteacl of }ust
for recreational foc) lities and that (t appeare~l to h(m Mr. Abernathy w9s makin~ (t an
integral part c~.` thu builulrti~. Hc felt this installatlon wfls a ste(~ in thc riyt~t.
J1 r~ctlon,
Cammissic~ner Johnsun stateJ I~e wAS in~lin~J to ac,rce with Cunxnissfoner tlerbst end felt
this installation wuu1J f(I1 thu criterio with the neat~ y1~5s-c~vereci p.~nels whlch the
Corr~nission has been look(n~~ for,
Chalrman Tolar ~sEe~l Mr. Abernathy if hc i~ad con5ultecf with his neic~}hhors and hr. replied
that he had eons~lled with threc neiyhhors~ cwo across the strect ~nd one next door~ one
belny a renter an~l lwo uarners~ anJ th~t he i,~~~ rece{ved nn ob~{ections. Ne Indlcated~ tn
additlon to discussin~~ thc ~lans wltt~ thc nei~~hhors, that he has done a lot of study; that
hc teoches solen c~a*ing an~ studicci ir~ Col~~rado five wceks l~+st sun-r~er a~~d had seen A lot
of i~stallations and t:nuws the procluc[. Ile indicateJ I~c is willinc~ tc~ do tl~ts~ not only
fnr the b~nef i t he would yain, hut c~ shc~w hi s students that i t can be done properly.
Co~nnl ss t oner Johnsun stated that even thouyh the pane I s were n i cc 1 ook I ng, he fel t wood
shakes would t,c better for the neighborhood. He ask-d if Mr. Abernathy had perceived
using another portion of the hvuse sti 1 I faciny the sun wi th canti levered panels.
Mr. Aber•;athy replled that if hc wented t~ place the installatlon on any other slopc or
any oth~r di rectlon~ he wc~uid t~ave to f~ave a structure to slope the QAnels properly. He
i nd i cated tha t he w~u 1 d 1 1 ke t.~ z 1 ope them more and ~ as 1 t f s, he i s g i v i ng away abou t 10
degrees.
Cammlssionrsr Uavid inqulred why he tiad not attended the IIACMAC meetin~ and explained
t~iese p 1 a~s to them~ ancl lie rep I i ed ttiat th i s was thc f i rs t t i me he had even c~rrd of
HACNAC.
I t was ~otea that the Oi rect~r of the Planning Ue~artn~ent has determined tliat the proposed
proJect falls witfiin the Jefinition of Section 3.01~ Class 1, of the City of Anaheim
GuldelinPS to the Requirei~ents for an Environmental Impact i~epurt and is, tliereforea
categor i ca 1 1 y exemp t f rom the requ i rert+zn t to f i{ e an E I R.
ACTION: Commissloner Johnson offered Resoluticsn No. PG77-146 and moved for its passage
a~d a~option~ that the Anaheim City Planniny Commission does hereby grant Pctition for
Condltional Use Permit No. i7f~3 on the basis that this i~stailation wili be an integral
part of the structure and subJect to review and approval of specific plans by the Planning
Cortw~~issi~n priar to the tssuance of a bui lding permit; and subJect to interdepartmental
Committee recomrnendations.
Annika Sar,talahti, Assistant Dlrector for Zoning~ explained to Mr. Abe~nathy that when he
sceks building permfts he can bring his plans to the Planning Department or to the
11/1/77
MINUTES~ ANAl1EIM CITY FLANNING COMMISSIUN~ Novembar 7~ 1977 17-736
EIR CATEGORIGAL EXEMPTION•CLASS 1 ANO CbNbITI0N11L USE PERMIT N0. 1763 (contlnucd)
~uilding Dtvis(on~ and thet spc~clfic plans wl~; i,~ k~rought before the Planntnq Commisslon
fvr revlew and apprAVAI~ ceusiny an appraxlmate dclay of two wecks.
Chalrman Tolar steted thAt a part of his apprchension In reletionshtp to this plan had
be~n thst solar f~eatiny Is new t~ Anahelm And there are so many systems and the Commisslon
is feelfng thcir way. Ne st~~ted hc slncerely hoped th~~ w(th thc troubl~ Mr. Abernathy Is
going ta, that this installation wtll iurn u~t as nicely as t~e had indicated so the
Ccxnmisslon can polnt to tf~is instal lation. Mr. Aoernathy repl ted that this would bc a
place he could sliow. He indicetecl he wantecl to be able t~a ~how the studc~ts (~ow solar
hea[tng can be done.
On rol) eall~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the followin~ vote;
AYES: COMMISSIUNE.RS; nAVlu~ fILRaST~ Jof~~~sOrl~ K1:1G~ TOLAR
NOES: GOMMISSIUNERS: I~O~fE
ABSENT: COMHISSIONERS: DARNES. LINN
I7EM N0. ~i
~I1~'fIVE DECI.ARATIUN PI,BLIC f1EARIrIG, O~rNERS: FERDI~iAND AND MIltIANA
R CL CA I01~ N~~~3-24 FERINO~ 705 South St~~te Colleye Doulevard, Anaheim~
CA y230G. Pet!ttoncr requasts reclassification of
property described as an trregularly-shnped parce)
of land consistir~g ~f approximacely 700~ square fcet locacecl at the southwest corner of
Savoy llvenue and State Col lege Ei~ulevarJ, havi ng approxlmatc f~ontagea ~f 102 feet un the
south stde of Savoy Avenue and 97 feei on the west side of State Collegt Boulevard, a~d
further descrtbed As 7Q~ South State College Eloulevard, fro~ [he RS-7200 (RESIDENTIAL~
SINCLE-FAMILY) 'LOtJE ta the Cl (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITEU) Z~NE.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition ta suhject request, and alChough
the stbff repurt to thc Plannin~a Commission dated NOver~ber J. 197] was not read at the
public hearing~ it is refe~recl to and made a part of thc minutes.
Miriana Ferlno~ thr_ pr,titioner~ wa~ present to answer any questions,
'~Hk PUBLI C HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Gommissianer Herbst asked Mrs, Ferinu why she was applying for CL zonin, instead of CO
zoning.
Mrs. Ferino replfed that her husband's bustness is tuning pianos and musica) instruments
and that most of the wurk is donc~ in the customer's home. She indtcated a desire co heve
a s 1 gn and unders tood that the praperty wou 1 d have to be rec 1 ass i f ied.
Commtssioner Herbst indlc~ted that after studies by the Commiss3nn in 1973. it was
recommended this pruperty be zoned for c:ornmercial office use, and now thts requ~st would
be for spat zoning ~n th+~t property to c:ommercial and felt it (s ~urely a case of spot
zoni~g and i!, not consistent wi th what thc studtes shav the a~ea should be. Ne irtdlcated
the only difference under a home otcupatian us~ would be that they ars not allowed to have
a sign. He stat~d tie wos not in favor of spot zontng for one par~el when seven more homes
would be entitled to ehe same usc~ and he felt this would give Anaheim a low•gra.fe
comrnercial use in hanes. He tnJicated that he felt atong State Colleqe 8oulevard it would
not be beneficial to zone thi5 property CL. He s:ated that, at present~ the petitioner
11/7/77
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY P4ANNING COMMISSION~ November I~ 197,~ 77'737
EIR NCGATIVE DECLARATI_O~A~~D R~CLASSIFICATION N0. 7]-7II-24 (continued)
haa the rlyiit fo~ commerc(al office use but wants t~ chan~~c thc zone to allow f~~r llving
quarters and comrr~rclal use~ and in his mind it was not suitable for the devel~F~rnent on
State Colle~~e. He indicatc~l che Commission has det~rmineci this parcel sn~uld bc
ccxnn~rclal ~fflce and h~ wou1J recommend that the petltloner arrr~nye the business under a
hane occupancy use,
Chairinen Tolar askc~ Mrs. Ferinu if she understooJ cx~z:.tly what was haprening. He
explalnecl thAt if Chey were allc~wed to have a reside~~ce (n the same place ~s they wished
t~ conduct business, tliey would neeJ the CL zoninc~~ anJ if tlic~y were ap~lylny for thc CO
Zone for j ust the bus i ness and n~t a res i dencc, then they wou 1 d have no problem, ~ut
ccxnbining the two uses~ resiJen~.e ~nd businc~ss, the prohlem was not ,just thi~ property but
the six other prope:rtles whu would ~~ant to usc th~~ir reslJences fur a business. N~~:
exptatnrd tha: the stu~iy the Co~~unission had done shc~ws State Colle,ye does demAnd sc~me
business use hut not a combined use f~r resident(al and business. He suggesteJ llia~t the
petitloner shuuld probabiy be applyin~j for a home c~ccuponcy use; ttiat they could use the
dwelling for their busln~ss in additinn to thc resldence witliaut askine~ for a zone ~hange~
but could no[ havc ~ si~~n out in front~ and stronyly su~gested thr~t they check into this
poss(biltty.
Mrs. Ferino explalned her husl~and's work is actualfy Jone in the customer's homm~~ tuning
pianos~ etc, She hxplaine~ that liis business is received by telephone calls. Chairnan
Tolar askecf how much gooJ a sl~.~n would d~~ and siie state~ i t was to let people knaw ~.ihere
they are laceteJ and what he is dolny.
Chairman Tolar indicated I~e fr.lt this requtst Nas ~oing to be turned dow~ and the
petlttoner would be better off~ if she wants to maintain the existing use~ to ~io it
through the hcxne occupany use and use some otl~er form of advertis+ng~ such as telepho~ie
Gtrectory, yelluw pages, etc.
Mrs. Ferino askPd if thc~re was any other way W havc the sie~n~ an~1 Annik.a Santalahtl~
Assistant ~irector for Zaninc;~ explaineJ that under the home occupany use~ 1 squarr. fcK~t
of signi~g or less is allowed and tFiat if the pruperty was zoned ccxnn-es•c(ally~ then an~ 8-
foot sign would be aliowed. In adJition~ the other cvnxrercial zoning requirements must be
met.
Mrs. Ferino explaineci that there is sufficient parl~ing.
Annika Sa~talahti explained that under a home occupancy they would net expect to have many
custcxners and wcul~l nut have the requi ren~ent for parking,
ACTION: Commiss io~er David offered a motion, seconded by Commi,sioner King and MOTION
CARRIED (Commisslo~ers Bernes and Linn being absent)~ that the Anah~im City Planning
Gommi ss i o+~ has rev 1 ewed the sub j ect proposa I to rec 1 ass i fy the zon i ng f rom the RS-7200
(Residential~ 5ingle-Farnlly) to the CL (Commercial~ Ltmtted) Zone on approximately 740U
square feet located at the southeast corner of Savoy Avenue and State College Boulevard.
having approximate frontages of 102 feet on the south sid~ •f Savoy Avenue and q7 feet on
the west siJe of State College Baulevard; and does hereby approve the Negative O~elarat:i4n
trc~? the requi rement to ~repare an envi ronmental impact report on the bas i s that there
would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environrt+ental impact due to tf-e
appr~va 1 of th i s Neya t i ve Dec I a ra t i on s i nce the Anahe i m Gene ~a 1 P 1 an des i gnates the
subJect property for commerciai-professional land uses comrnensurate with the proposal;
that no senslt(ve environmental impacts are invalved in the propasal; that thc I~itlal
Study submitted by the Retitioner indicates no signiflcant individual or cumulative
li/7/77
~
~ I
77•13~
MINUTES~ AtaAHEI M CIYY PLANNING GOMMISSIOt~~ Novamber 7r 1977
EIR NEGATIVE DECIARATION AND RECLASSIFICA710N N0. 71-7s•2~ ~~ntinued)
~dvarse envtroninantal 1mPt~~t~'~nnthehCityhofNA~a{eim Piennin,yiDapa~tmenttiatlno the
foregoing findi n,ys Is on file
ACTION: Commissloner Uevid offercd Res~lution No. FC77-2'+7 8^~ d ~Ydp~~ition forsage end
e~cap ~on~ that the Anaheim City Piannin~, Comnissio~ does hereb~,
Reclassificati on No. 7'!•7~•z~. as thla would be consl~icred spoc zoning and the business
can continue ur~der a hc~me occupancy ~~•,° and no signs permitted.
On roll call. thc foreyoing resolution was passed by the followin9 vote:
AYES : GOMM 1 SS I OME FtS: DAV I U~ NCRdST . J011WSON ~ K1 NG ~ TOLAR
NOES : COMM 1 SS ( ONE itS : NONE
A6SENT: CUMM' SSIOtitRS: HARNES, LINN
resented Mrs. Fcrina wirt, a written right to appeal the
Jack Wh ( te ~ Deputy C i ty Attorney ~ p
Plenning Canmission's dccision within 2~ doYs•
Cheirman Tolat axked stnff jin`~~a~e,artnentsforVadv~~sen r~lationship to a home occupancy
use when he eomes to the N I a _ P
Assistant Director for Zoning. explalneci staff reviews with chem the
Ann i ka San ta 1 atit I~
things they eannat do under h4~shO1neani`[henreclassif`icationt`would~hAVehlegally atloweds
qu i te adt~man t a6ou t hav i n~ t 9
what she wan ted to do.
Chatrman Tolar indieated lie wa5 coxcertlanWOftslynMn~g•wlthi~a home accupancy('useatPPrmitan
do what she wants to do wi tti the e p
and sugge5ted that she c:heck with tlie Plannin~~ Uep~~t~ent st~~ff.
I i Elt N0. 3 pU(~L I G l1EAR I I~C . OW-~E:RS : FRAMIK H. ANU LOU I SE GERRY ~
~~VE DECLARATION Anahelm CA 9280z•
RECLASSIFICA 101~ NO 7-1r 62G South Eucl id Street, .
Petltiuncr requests reclassificatlon of ~roperCy
descrlbed as a rectangularly-shrped parcel of land
consisting of approximatcly 62~c1 square feet haviny a fronta9c ~~oximately~97'~cet~f being
on the east side uf Euci ld Street~ haviny a maximum depth of ~Pp ~nd further
located approximately 352 feet south °frumethenCOr(COMMERL~IAL,90FFICEuAND PROFESSiONAL)
descrtbed as G26 Soutl~ Eucl id Street.
ZOME to the CL ((:OMMERCIAL, LIMITEU) 20NE.
There was na one inJicatin~ their E;resence in oppositian to subject petition~ and although
the staff report to th~ Planniny Conmission dated Novembcr 7, 197~1 was not re~d at the
publiG hear ing~ ~t is referrcd to ancl made a part uf the minutes.
laineJ that she was app~Yl~9 for reclassification and
Laufse Gerry, the petitloner, exp ~ store; that the property is zo~ed CO
wishes to establ i sh a weaving and spinning supp '~
presently and stie wi shes to haant~ fc~r~S 3x monthsaandhhadrbecome the obJectaoffvandal ism
yea~s and after that stood vac
and detcr t orati on a~d was i~ebah~e~=d~~anrarear that~ ( saal readyedeve lopedrwi th off i ces and
community; thai it is an ol - sho as proposecl, could only
retail stores; and that havinc~ a we~ving and spinning supp y P.
be considered an improvement for tt~e propertbe asnoisyportdisturbinghinfluenceiin~the(11
be quite ar~ attrattive shop and~ in no way.
„r~i~~
NIHUTES~ ANAI~EIM C17Y PLANNING COMMISSIOFI, Novembcr 7~ 197J 7j-73~
EIR NEGATIVE p~GLARATION At~D RELLASSIFICATION N0. 77-7t3-2,ri (r.ontlnued)
nalghborhoad. She explain~ci the eristin~~ structure wlll be ~~eint~d; th~t thls will bP an
attrective addlclon to the nelghborhaad and will be landscaped ancl well cared for. She
~esd the ltst af reasons why thcy wish~cJ to live ot their place of businc:ss and thls
informatton wbs tncluded as a part of tlie staff report.
THC PUUL I C HEAR i iJG Wl1S CI.OSEI).
Chalrman Tolar stAted [hat Mrs. Gcrry hr~J heard tfie remnrks made duriny thc last licaring,
and the only differance in thts s(tuation was the aJditiun to the siructure and that he
has a probie~~~ with this request ~~Iso unless the petittcmer can tell hin sa,~thing to
chenge li i s m t ncl i n re 1 a t i onsl~ 1 p to why she sl~ou 1 d be a I 1 owed ta 1 i ve on the prnpe r[y ~ and
that the Commissinn cannot he concr.rned with economics. He felt to allow CO zaning would
be perm(tt(nc~ spot zoning.
Mrs. Gerry expla(ned she had undcrstood the pre~vious petiti~ner Ifvecl in an all~
r~sf~lential ~-re~i will~ ~ia CO ,euniny anu that this block (s zoned all C0. She explatned she
hed talkeJ with the nelyhbors and cl~ere~ werc nu obje~.tions; that there is a retall
bus i ness nearby an~ that tfi i s 1 s a mi xcd nc i~~hburhaoci wi th boti~ cor~rncrc 1 a 1 and
resi~c~itial, ~
Commissloner Tolar explained the only d(fference is that the pravious proper*.y hos not
been rezoned but that lherc is a resoluti~n of intent on the property and subject proper[y
has a 1 ready been rezoned , Ne exp I a i ne~ tfiat nUne of [fic p( aces liave tt~e owners actua I 1 y
living on the propcrty iii the GO Zone.
Mrs. Gerry indicated there was one location Nhere ~ chiropractor livcd on the premises
where he conclucteJ his buslness. Chairman T~lar explain~~d that if anyone was ifving on
the premtses anci eJo(ny business at tfie same acldress. tt~ey were doing i c f I legal ly.
Mrs. Gerry indicated s~~e had purchasea the prop~rty with the understandi~; that there
would be no problem an~ that tl~ey haJ purChased the property from the a•~ner.
Comm(ssloner Klny suggcsteci that the Comrrission consider thc difference that thts property
is surrounded by com-nercial develapment,
Commissioner Hcrbst st~~teJ tfiis was another parce) of property that the Planniny
Commisslon hnd spent many hours af study wlth thc homeowrers and had deterrnined the best
conversion would be for comnercial officP~ and that to start strip cormkr~tal would be
detrlmental to Euclid Street. He explained that one reason fo~ allowinq the ~a~rcial
office zone ls that the petitioner tias to bring the building up to canmercial codes and Is
not allowed to us~ (t as a home~ which allows for an upgradin~ of the area for commercial
purposes. He explalned that if this proper[y is zo~ed comnercial~ there are other
;,ommercial uses which wauld be a3lowed and tt~at if the petitioner decides to seli the
prope~ty. any other cornrt-ercial use allowed in the CL ~one could go in without Planning
Comm(ssion review.
Mrs. Gerry suygested the petition be granted~ subJect to a condition fdr this use only,
and Commissioner Fierbst replied the Gommisslon co~ld not ~lace this type cond~tiori on a
reclassif(cation.
COMMISSIOt~ER IINN ENTEREU TI~~ COUNCIL CHAMBER AT 3:00 P.M.
11/7/77
MINUTES~ ANAHLIM GITY PLANNINC COMMISSION~ Novamber 7~ 1977 77-740
EIR NEGATIVE DECLAR{1710N ANp RECLASSIFICATION N0. 7l-78-25 (continued)
Mrs. Gerry ~xplalneJ ,hs had oriyinally askc~l f~r a vArtanc~ an~l wes instructed to opply
for a reclassificatlon.
Jack White~ Ueputy City Attorncy~ explaineJ that the Planninc~ Commission~ In the past~ has
b~en allc~wed to issue use: varlances but tfif~t tl~ey no lan<~er can gre+nc use variancea and
that the only way to approve this would be [hrouyh reclassification, He feit this was
what h~d happcned with the prev(ous occupant.
There was e brief discussion rcyardin~~ otf~er usr.s !n thc arca and Mrs. Gerry coulcl not
understand how they werc allowe~l~ ars~i Chairman Tolar explainr.J tli~t they dicl not livc on
the property; tho[ tlie r~ascm Mrs. Gerry was asking f~~r CL zoniny was because she wanted
to 1ivE on the property as well as run a buslness; an~ that there was nc~ problem with
hoviny a business establishm~~nt ~~n Fuclid Strcet. He statr.~ he re.~ltzed the property had
been upgrad~d and tliat hc ha~ no problem with the business~ just with tf~e dual use.
Commissloncr Johnson stated he felt Mrs. Gcrry ha~f clane a good job in stating her reasons
for her request. Ne askcJ Chairman Tolor to ~x~lain why he felt sa strongly about the
dual use.
Ct-airrnan Tolar stateJ his problem is vcry sin-~le: t~~at in many arsas he had observed in
Orange County~ wliich had nllawed dual use of a commerciol venture and res(dentlal~ tfiat
the maJo~tty of the places .~re not well !<cp[. Ite fe~t a,yood example was on aronkhurst
Street; that~ frenkly~ these busi~esses are an ~ccractive nuis~nce; an~f tl~at in some cases
the City has tried to annex some of these arc~as intu the Ciky and there has be~rn some
apprehension to annex because of the fact they woulcl have to take tf,e praperties as they
are zoned currently. Ne stated tt~is pecittone~ h~s improved tf~e property but thet once
the daor is opened for this tyne of thinq all sorts of problen~s Jevelop, end that maybe
every~ody's lde~) situatian was not as yood as Mrs. Gerry's.
Commis5lone~ Kir~g stated that he has been by tfie property and the upgraciing of the
property was tre~nen~fous and thst the peiitioncr was making a first-class piace out of the
property. Chai~man Tolar inciicated that was not the problem but it was the next proper~y
down the street.
Commissio~er Johnson ~tated he felt Che petitioner was very sincere and tt was sad to say
this type of appllcatEun~ with rare exception, does usually wind up in trouble for the
f.ity~ for the neiyhbors~ and som~times for the applicant.
Commissioner Herbst Indicate~J he felt one of the problems Es the applicant does not
understand the difference between CO zoning and CL zoning. He stated one thing the
Commtssion must be cc+ncerned with is that on major arterial streets wich many residences
that strip zoning is detrimental to ths City and that CO zoning has limited uses. limited
access and a limired amount of trade. He explained that the real problem Is when the next
doo~ neic~hbor says~ "Hc has it~ why can't I?"
Commissioner Davi~i polnted ~ut there are four parcels up the streec and two have CO zoning
and across the street there are three parcels with CO zoning~ and asked Gommissioner
Herbst why he was concerned about this parccl. Commissioner Nerbst replied it was because
this particular parcel backs up to a resielential neiyhborhooa.
Mrs. Gerry expiained ttiere is a 2U-foot alley behind her property and she never sees one
of her neighbors use the alley for ac.cess. but chey use it for their trash. Commissioner
Herbst replied that this was wt~y they allvwed this to be zoned C0~ beGause there is a
11/7/77
MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSIOf~~ ~~avember 7~ 1g77 17•7~+1
EtR NEGATIVE DECl11RATI0N AND RECLA551FICl1TION N0. 7~-18•2y (cor~tinued)
buffer zonc~ but when you start t~ alicwr CLO the traffic ~attcr~s ere heavtcr than w(th
C0.
M~s. Gerry pointed out th~~at the dentist estahlishr-ent next c-aor to her property uses the
parking in front of her hause and that when the tax businNss is tn c-perntion~ they park
al) over tl~c ~lace; thnt hNr business is small anJ th~~re wc~uld be no parkinc~ proLlems.
Commissianer Narbst in~icated tt~e Corxnissi~n has to cnnsider the cc~mmercial uses that
eould go ln in thc future; that shr. miyht ~ccidc ta move an~l that a heavier use could qo
in. Hc stated the Commission could nut wnxr~,l thc r.uninc~ tc~ tl~is porticular parcel for
th(s perticular use; th~t there is no woy to change the xone ta allow Juxt a speclfic usc;
and that I~eavier uses could go in At a later datc.
Commiss luncr Julinyun SCal4d I t i s vory Lou<~h t~a tu~n down c i t i~nna when thr.y are try I n~ to
makc ~ Iiving~ ~ut t-~~re ~rP rlnw~ wh~n an uii[enable Uuestion is put befor~: the
Gammission.
ACTION: Comnission~:r Johnson offered a mc~tior~~ seconJed by Gomc~isSi~ner King ane' MOTION
C~EQ (Gommissioncr Darnes anJ Linn being absent)~ that thc Anahcim City Planning
Gomnlsslon has reviewe~i the subJect proposal to rer.lassify the zoning from CO {f.ortmerc(al~
Offlce and Profession<~I) [o tlic: GL (Conw~~crcial, Ltmited) 7.one c~n approximately b20~~ square
feet havin~ a frontac~n of ap~~roxirnately 64 feet ~~n the east side of Eucl id Str~:ec~ heving
a maxlmum depthi af ;7 fect~ being located approxirnately 352 fr_et south of tl~e cr.nterl ine
of Oranye Avenu~:; anci Jc~s herek~y appr~~ve ttie Ne~~et,ive Ucclaration frpm tt~e r~~qulrement to
prepare an e:nv 1 ronmen [a 1 i mpac t re~ r t~ c~n [h~: bas i; tha t there wc~u 1 d be no s 1 yn i f i eant
indiviclua) car ~umulAtive adverse environrm:ntal impact ~iue t~ the ap~roval af this Neyat(ve
Uec~aratlon sincc tlir. Anat~eim Gencr~~l Ptan desiynates tt~e subJect property for commerclal-
professfonal anci low-density resldential 1ancS uses comnensur~~tc with thr. pr~posal; that no
sensitive environmental i~~ipacts are involve~ in [hc proposal; that the Ini!(al Study
subm(tted by the petiti~ncr inaic~tes no significant indivi~ual ar cumulAt;ve adverse
environmental impacts; anu ti~at the ~~eyative Oeclarat(on subscantiatin~~ t!~+e foregoing
flnding5 is on file in the City of Anat~eim Pla~niny Uepartment.
ACTION: Commissloner Johnson offered Resolution Na. PC77-24b and moved for its passage
and ~dopt(on~ that Che Anahcim Gity Plannin~ Cor~mission d~xs hereby den~ Petition for
Keclassificatlon No. jJ•73"25 dn Cf~e basis tl~at it w~ould be consldered spot zoning.
Lhairrnan Tolar indicated ti~at Mrs. Gerry has a nice project and he wl~'•ied he cauld supporc
i c but ttiere was no way to suppc~rt i t wi tf~out openiny "Pandora's box."
On roll call~ the foregoiny resolution was passed by [I~e followin~ vr;te:
AYES : CONMI SS I OI~ERS : QAV I U~ NERi3ST ~ JOi~NSON, KI I~G ~ TOLAR
NOES: ~OMMISSIOt~ERS: NONE
ADSENT: CU~IMISSIOr1ER5: BARraEs
A~STAIN: COHMISSIONERS: LIf~N (I~aving not been F>resent far the entire fiearing)
Mrs. ~erry inJicaced that slie will nave to sell the property as sl~e could not keep a place
1 i ke th i s J us t'ro r a res i cience .
Jack White~ Deputy City Attorney~ presenteci Mrs. Gerry with a-~ritten right to appeal the
P~anning Commis,ion's d~cision to the City Louncil within 2'l Jays.
11/7/77
MINUTES~ ANAHCIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ No~~embe~ 7~ 1977 77-742
ITEM N0.
~~Z~ICAL EXEMPTION•C~ASSES AND 5 PUDIIC HEARINf. OWNER: DR. RAYMONb TAKANASSiI~
V NC N0. ) 1001 North tlarbvr Boulcvar~i, p59~ La Nab~n, C!1
94631, AGENT: E.J.M. CONSTRUCTION~ 17G32
Irvtne Soulevard~ NR~ 7ustin~ GA ~2680.
Potltloner requests NIIIYER OF (A) NINIM~IM FROt~T YARD SE'fk3ACl; AND (D) MAXIMUM WAII 11EI~NT TO
CONSTRUCT A SWIMMING POOL AND BLOCK WAII on prop~rty described as an irre~,uls~rly-~haped
parcel of land consistiny of approxlmatcly J200 square feet li~viny a frontng~ of ~pproxi-
metely 13E~ feet on thc west side vf Colter Circle~ havinc~ a maximum deptl~ ~~f app~axlmately
85 feet~ beiny located epproximately iZ5 fect north of tl~e centerllne of Ar•mstrong Circle~
and further dcscribed os 7111 Colter Glrcle. Property presentl classifiecl RS-7200(SC)
(RE51 dF1~Tl AL. S I t~GLE-FAMILY RE:51 DE;t~T IAl-SCE~11 C CORR I DQR OVERLAY~ ZONE .
It was noted that the pet(tion~r for It~m No. 5 was present. There Has no one indicating
their presence tn opposit(on t~ sub,ject rcquest~ ~nd although tfie sfaff r~port tr~ the
Plannl-^y Commission dated November 7~ 1~7J was nat rrad at the public liearing~ {t is
referred to and made a part of the m(nutes,
Ed Meyliny~ E.J.M. Cnnstruction~ agent for che peti[ioner~ was present to answer any
questlans.
THE PUBLIC ttCARING UAS CLOSED.
1t was nated Lhe Ni11 and Canyon Mun ~~ :-d~~isory Co•~nittec (IIACMAC) h~d rev(ewed the
above propos~l at their n~eetinc~ uf ~,. ~•-:~ '. 19~7 and with 12 members present~ 11
members voted co recomnend approval 'a~- ~-~..~- No. 2979, with ~ne abstent(on.
Commi ss (oner Y.i ng referred Lo th~ - -.~- u~ pub 1 1 c ut i 1 1 ty easericnt and thc requt rement
for the pctlt+oner to obtain an - ,..s~n~r,~ permit or req~~est abandanmc:nt of the essertw:nt
if sut~Ject request (s approved, ~ ~.~yling replied that he understoc~d this
requirement.
J. J. Tashlro. Assistant Pl~nnt,r. ~~~-~rr,~~ c~uc there are two waiv~-rs invoived tn thls
request~ nn~ for mintmun fron: ~~s-. ~tback and one for maximum wall hefght. Ne pointed
out there is a 15-foot front yar. ~z~;~r~a-ck required off a cul-de-sac street and that the
proposed swimming pool would ne e~.-~c~~~~ching into ihat 15-foc~t setback requtrement.
Gotnmissloner Herbst asked the acLj~~~~ size ~f the pnol in gallons~ and Mr. Neyling replied
it was approximately 29~~0t) galtcmh, calculated at an average depth of 5-1/2 feex. and
that the overall ler~yth of the ~oo ~s 40 feet and vartes in width~ w(th a total of
approximately 7n<< syuare feer..
Cortunissioner Johnson pointed ~uz r~e Co~ ~iisston has turned down seve~al requests slmi lar
to this; that there are lots of rcason~ for a 6-foot wall; and that the Cortimtssion has
aven t•arned down similar requests fc+r Rools.
Commissioner Nerbst po~nted out the Commtssion has allowad a 6-fqot fence (n connectian
with a sr~imming pool and the City ordinance requlres that the wall be 5 feex. Alio~ along
some nf ~h~ major arterial streets whe~e homes back up to the main street, 6 or 7-foot
walls harc bet,~ ~l-awed. H~ Felt the parccl would be totally unusable unless for
recreatwonal purpcn ~s.
11/1/7?
M1NU7E5~ AI~AHEIM CITY PLANNI~IG COMMl55tON~ Movember 7, 1977 77-143
E_IR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION SIASSES 3 ANO 5 AND VARIANCE N0~ (continued)
Chairman Tolar indl~Ate~ I~r_ felt this Is l~~~lly rr~re of a sidc yard rathc~ thon .~ front
yard~ and Commissloner Jolinsan inJicate~ he had caused a delay because he thouqht the
proposed poa) r,as bigger.
Cemmi ss toner L( nn i nJ i ca ted i~e fa 1 t thc gent 1 erru~n wha b. ugh t the lot knew tl~ere w~s no
room for a{~oo) without variances and that ha did not feel the Commission should allow hlm
to build a swtmrntng pool,
Mr. Mcyling (ndicated that the property aw~er had gottan a written letter from the bulider
Indtcattng thet he could build a pc~ol on the lnt.
It was notecl tliac the Director of tt~e Plann(ng Oeportmcnt has JetermineJ that the p~oposed
actlvity falls within tt,c defir~ition of Section 3.01~ CIA5SC5 3 and 5~ of the City of
Anahelm Guidelines to tFie Rayulrements for an Environmenial Im{~act Report and (s~
therefore~ cateyorically exempt from the requirement co filc an EIR.
ACTION; Corm~issioner King offercd Resolution Na. PC77-24h and r~oved for it, passage and
ad~optTon~ that the Anahel~•i City Plonniny Gort~mission doe:s I~ereby grant Petit(on for
Varlance Na. '1979~ yr,~;~tin~~ Waiver (a) due to the unusual st~apc of the property~ size of
the lot. and locacioi of the existing house~ and granting Waiver (b) on the basts that a
42-inch wall would nnt provide any protection tn the propcrty awner for liability and a 5-
foot wall is a CoJe requirement for a sw(inminy paol and a 6-foot wal) would discourage the
trespassiny of c:hildren; and subJect to Interdepartment~~l Committee recrxmr~endations.
On rol) call~ the foreyolny resolution w~s passed by the foliowin~ vote;
AYES: COMM1S510NCR5: DAVIU~ HERL~ST, J~H!~SON~ KIr~G, TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Llt~t~
AdSEf~T: COM1115510l~E:RS: 4ARME5
RECESS A ten-minute recess was called at 3:20 p.m.
REGONVENE The meeting was reconvened at 3:30 p.m.~ with flll Cormissioners
..._...-...._
present except Commissionrr Barnes beiny absent,
ITEM N0. 10
E t~l ~.~'fTVE QECIARl~TIQ~I REAUVERTISED F'UBLIC IiEARiNG. OWNE.RS: WILLIAM ANU
. 2 MAT~IILD!- EFiRLt.:~ 83~ South State College Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA ~:2806, AGENT: GERALD BUSNORE~ 91~3
West lincoln Ilvenue, Anaheim~ CA 92&Ofi. P~titioner
requests 41AIVER OF (A) PERMITTEp SIGNING~ (B) PERMIT6'EU ENCROACHMENT ikTO REO.UIREQ YARD,
ANQ (C) MINIMUM GROUIID CLEhRANCE~ TO PERMIT A FREE-S'fANDING SIGN; AND TO AMEtID CONDiTIONS
OF APPROVAL on property described as a rectangularty~shaped parcel of land consist(ng of
approxtmately 605~ square feet iocated at the southe~~st corner of Viking Avenue and Stat~e
Co11 ~ Doulevard~ having approximate frontayes of 140 feet on the south side of Viking
AvP+~uc and GO feet on the east side of State Co11Ege Boulevard, and further described as
838 Sos~th State College Baulevard, Praperty presencl~ classified RS-7200 (RESIDENTIAL~
SINGLE-FAMiLY) ZONE.
11/7/77
MINUTI:S~ ANAHEIM CITY P~ANNING COMMIS510N~ November 7~ 1~77
EIR NEGATIVE DECLAaAT10N ~iND VARIANCE N0. 2~68 (continuPd)
____._~. ..
77-744
Seven persnns Indic~icPJ tl~eir presence in ~ppnslti~n to suh,ject request~ ancl althoucih thcs
staff report to the Planning Commisst~n dsted November 7~ 1q77 was not reAd at the public
hearing~ it ls referred to ancl made a part of thc minutcs.
Gerald Bushorc~ aqent for khe petltioner~ indlcc~ted this request Is for ar~ extenglon of
time of the original variance to five years, subJect tu review of the Pldnning Commisslon
for further extensions of time~ and thet the property now be utillzed for other
professiona) aff(ces and tt~at the original stlpulation for personal office use ~nd no
partlon rented out for use by othr.rs be elim(nate:i~ anJ tl~at 5'square foot sign be
permitted. He stat~d thP intencled use wlil bestca~ly be for a rQal estate offtce for
hirtiself an~ that he is mare in a c~~nsultiny re~l estat~A line ratl~er thbn the usual walk-tn
buslness af re~~l estate (he stated he occasionally sells homes)~ but Che ~ntended office
use wil) not generate walk-in traffic. He stated f~e woul~i like tn rent a portion of the
buildtng to otl~ers~ perhaps a br~ker or an arch(tec[~ which would not generate the normal
drlves-in ar walk~in prnblems. He stated [hat he uriyinally asked fur a 5-syuarti fuu[ sign
and ind(cate~ he was willin, to take che norm~~l stl~iul~tions f4r ~~ siyn and had been
(nformed that n~ si~~nin~~ wHS allowed. tle statecl two weeks ayo he had been called by the
Plannlny staff ancl rec~uested to bring in .~ re~ditlon of hi, propo~ed sign. He (nclicatecl
he had asked what the nornal condltions wauld be ~n~l h~d been inforneci there were none~
and he ~~ad one huur to cane up wi Li~ a rendi cian or face a two-week cfelay. Fle stated he
had submitted a renJering of th~ proposeci sign but now had hCen informeJ the propvsed sign
v~rou 1 d rey u 1 re wa i vers ; tliat had lie known tti i s~ t!,e s i yn wou 1 d have been d i f f eren t. He
stated he w~~ulcJ be willin~~ to do whatever was necessary to brin~ tfie sign into focus w(th
what thc Commission woui~i 1 Ske.
J. J. Tashiro~ nssistant Planner~ rcad ttircc !etters of ~pposition: 1) a letter dated
November 3. 19lJ, fran Glen Johnson inciicating opposition due to traff(c and park.ing
ha2arus; 2) a letter dateJ Oc[c~bcr ~~ 1~)77~ from Katherine Johnson indicating a pekition
had been circulated; an~J j) a letter dated Nover,~ber 3~ 1977, from Ar-aheim Gardens
Homcowner's Association si~~ned by four board members. These letters are on file In the
Planning Derartrnent.
Commissioner Johnson aska~ that the reco~ds show the ietter in opposition was nat from
Comrnissioner Glen Johnson.
Willie Lusti. 2110 East Vermont~ Anaheirn~ pre:sented a petition contalning 120 signatures
and painted out that the variance yranted to Nr. El~rlc in 1~76 was for a period of twe
years and it was stated tiiat ~uring that time an a~ea develapment plan would be prepared
for Plenniny Commission review. He felt tfiis would be setting a precedent for otliers and
asked that the Conxnission deny tf~is request for an extension of time~ and any future
~equests.
Mary Dinndorf~ lj1 La Paz, Anaheim~ stated ic. was difficult to speak against frler.ds~ that
she had worked with Bill Ehrle 1,~ getting a new sign ordinance adopted for t~~e City of
Anaheim. She fel( any variances fo~ signs would be strictly out of line. She indtcate~!
sf~e had driven that street prior to coming to the meetin~ and it is all sinyle-family
hort~es and there are no signs~ and she felt the integrity of some of the resldential
netghborhoods shouid be maintalned.
Mr. Bushore indicate~i he had Just gotten his staff report on Satu~day and regarding the
deed restrictions referred to~ felt that should be a matter between himseif and the
homeow~ers association and there is na need to discuss it ~t the meeting. Re~ard~nQ the
parking prpblem, h~ indicated there would be 114& square feet in the residence and chat
1t/7/77
MII~UTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ November 7~ 1977
EIR NEGATIVE DECLA MTIQN AI~D VARIANCE N0. 2768 (continued)
71-745
thera were five speces for parking~ and Code calls for flve spbces for 1000 syuare feet.
He dfd not feel tl~er~ would be a trafflc problem. F1e indicated he dtd not know where the
home3owners yroup got the information tliat he proposed three offices; th~t he did not know
at the pres@nt time how much space he would be r~ntiny out. He stated he did not want
anything Chat would be datr(mr.ntal to the nelghorhood or aclcl trafflc congestion anJ e~reed
that if these problems are goin~ to be created~ he sl~ould f!~d another p1ACe.
BI11 Ehrle. 1050 Eiaxter Street~ Anal~eim' the pet~tioner~ stat~d hc could ~pprecfate what
the resldents who siyned the petitian an~l tlie yentleman were oppoa;.d to~ but th(s was the
first [irtie he had hPard they f-ad a homeowners association and he~ haci never been Invited to
one of thei r rneetinys and dicl not knvw when they met or who th~e board rr~mbers were. Ile
stated he appreciate~f thelr cancerns and hoped they appreciated the f~ct that he h~~ takPn
a great deal of tlme to upgrade the frontaye on State Colleyc BoulPVard. tle indicated h~e
had anly hacl ~wo or three clients (n his offtce In a day and no har~shlp had been forced
on the neighborhoud, t~e indicated he had allc~wed the neighl~ors ta use his parkiny spaces
on weekends and hc had h~d no bad relationsliips wlth any of thc neiyh!~ors directly around
him.
Ne pointed out that on State Colleye proper tl~erc wcre approximatcly ib hc~mes, 8 of which
are rented; that the home he had purct~ased was not in the statc that meny of these are in;
that referriny to d(scussions lield earlier regarding upgrading of the property~ he felt he
had upgraded his propcrty and presented p(ctures of the residence taken two years ago and
stated he takes prtde in the a~ca and prtde in thc ownership of the dwelling, He referred
to the study mentione-~ regarding the feasibllity ~f State College Doulevard and stated
that he felt State College has certainly changed end he was very concerned about the
resi~ents of those 14 homes frontiny on State College~ rnuch like Etrookhurst. Euclid and
maJor streets. ~Ic pointed out he ciid not livc in the home bui used it strtctly for his
office and there was little walk-in trade. -le stat~d he fFit he had upgraded the corner
tremendou~ly. Concernlrig tf~e sign~ he stated h~ did not necd a sign but felt Gerald
8ushore ls very flexible and woulci even yu alony with sometl~iny being posted on the
buildiny. Nr. Ehrle Inaicated he was a member of Anaheim Beau;iful ancJ had upgraded the
property; that he was a professional person and clipnts h,e represents were proud to do
business ax his office.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEU.
Commissioner King ~eferred to tfie deed restrictions referred to in the staff report and
askad Mr. Hushore haw lie intended to yo around those. Mr. Bushore stated CortmtssE~ner
King should ask the City Attorney that question, and Jack 4lhite~ Deputy City Attorney,
painted out that was not a City problem since the City did not intend t~ try t~ get araund
any Jeed restrictions, and any ciisputes woulcJ have to be resolved privateiy. He pointed
out the City unly laaked at the zoning aspects and does not consider deed restrictions.
Mr. Ehrle statecl that same question had been asked two years ago at the Cuunci) ?evel~ and
th~ answcr was the same - the C(ty would not consEder tl~e deed restrictions.
Mr. Bushore stated he had asked the Ctty what were the normal conditions for a sign
bec~use he wanted tQ present a rendition in accordance and was told there were no
condltlons, tha*. the sign was not allawed~ and he did not hava tlme to consuit and would
certai~ly have come up with tf~e proper rendition of a sign.
11/7/77
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI5SION~ Novei~,nr 7, 1977 77~7~6
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANO VARIANCC N0. 2768 (continued)
Chairman Tolar Indicated regarJlny tl~e deed restrictions or anything other than zoning~ it
is the applicant's reSponsibility to find ouc wi~at Is permittcd and not up ta staff to
point thern aut to hlm.
Mr. 13ushore statsd that normally he would ask for a preliminAry title report but saw no
problern slnce the varlance haJ been used for two years.
Canmissloner Johnson polnteJ out that staff I~ad told the petiti~nc ' tl~ere r~t~s no sign
alic~wed and wonderecl how he could ask what kind of siyn would be allowed. Mr. t3ushore
statecl hc wanted some basis for preparing tlic ren~itian of thc pr~posed slyn and had asked
what type of s(gn w~uld be pleasiny t~~ everyone.
Commissianer lierbst asked Mr. Ehrle if he was selling the property~ and he rr.plicd that he
planned to sell thc property to Mr. ~ust~ore and w~uld probably s~ill n~aln[aln his off(cc.
Commissloner hlerbst stated tt~at what is happening to the propcrty at the present tlme is
exactly what he was opposeci to wt~en ll~e petition had first been presented two years ago;
that it was jusk a foot-in-the-door, and he thougl~t the or(yinal appltcatlon r~as very
expllcit ~nd that thls was the re~ison the Comnission had wanted ~a two-year time period.
Ne stated M~. Ehrle has upgraded tlie p~opcarty but he was definitely opposed to any
continuantes because of what Is happening which woulci allow more canmeficrl development
and rr~re activity~ and that is exactly wf~at ti~e residents and the Comm(ssion do not wan~.
He state~i the CommisSiun had gone alon~~ on a minirnum basis and now the petitior,er is
coming in with wliat they had anticipated. He felt thc~ residents deserved the p~otectian
of the Ccxnmission from commerclal dcvelopment; that they had allowed a foot~(n-[he-door
two years ago wiCh a use variance wtiicli they are no langer allc~wed to give, and now IC is
a differenc ballya~~~e and a variance must have a ha~dship.
Cc~mmissioner Linn indicated he agreed witii Comnissione~ Nerbst that the condltions wtre
very clear~ that it was for office use by the petiti~ne~~ and this would greatly violate
the whole concept~ even the possibility of leasing or r~ntin~~ e portion of the space t5 a
violation. He indicated that ~f fie had been on the Commission at that time ~~e would have
voted again~t [he request.
Commissi~ner Herbst pointed out the Commission had more flexibility rega~ding use
variances at that time than ihey d~ today.
Commissioner Linn referred to previous re~uests for cor.xnercial zoning on Euclid Street
which had been denied and did not see hav the Commission could possibly approve khis
request.
Chairman 7olar stated that when ths ariginal use variance had been granted for Mr. ~hrle~
it was more related to the idea that it was rnore of a hartee occupatlon use and did not
drastically chanyc Che property except to upgrade it. 11e stated there is a tremendous
amaunt qf comcr~ercial office prpperty already zoned without apening the door tc~ another
e{ght or nine pieces of property for patential coir-mercial office use. He felt it was
stra~ge that a maJorl~y of the homeowners in the area we~e opposed t,o commerciai off(ce
zoning; that usually owne~s on a busy street want ttie property commercially zoned. Ne
felt there was no reason for him to change his opinion and support this change for strip
zoning.
11/7/77
F~INUTES~ A~IAiIEIM CfTY P~ANNING C01•WISSIUN, November 7~ 1977
CIR IJLGATIVE DEGLARATION AN~ VAKIANCE N0. 2768 (tontinued)
7'7-747
Mr. E:t~rle stotad it was his impresstan that if hc we~e not sr.ilin~~ [hc p~operty and was
reques k I ng a two-year extens I on of t i n~e on the ar i g I r~a 1 use var i anr,e ~ tha ~ there rt-~iy or
may not be an extenslon at this potnt.
Cha(rman Tolar stated that was nAt the issuc before. ttie Can~missio~ and they did not intend
to c~pinionate as t~ what might I~appen. He stateJ this reyucst Nes for another comrt-ercla)
offlce use with two adcJ(tlundl tc:nants anJ that rnAkes it a~fifferent situation. Mr. Ehrle
asked if the Commissiun Jid not agree that State Colle~~e Bc~ulevard has cl~anged drasttcally
enough to warrant cAnsiderati~n for a two-ye:ar extenslon. Chairman TAlar Indfcated not on
thts particular ptece of pi_perty; that there are a lot of propert(es that have been
rezoned ar have a resolution of intent and nobody utilizes them, H~ stated that if he
felt more commerctal office space was needecf he micaht concelve same reason for approval of
this request; that the Cummission cannot consider ecc~n~~mics; anci that if someone
approached pc:op le i n the area for l:U zun i n~~ ~ then meybe some ac~reement coul d be reached
but h~ dtd not see : iy reason for potentla) strtp zoni~g c~f another eight or nlne pfeces
of propcrty.
Jack White~ Oeputy City Attor..~.,~ pointeJ out tliere arc cwo prol~lems, Ile felt, legally~
the CAmrriissian could cantinue an existiny use variance but cloes not have the power to
grant a new varlance or expand ~n existing use variance, Ile felt that modificatfon of the
existing condltiuns uf tl~c variance probably st~uld be Gc~ne by reclassif(cation ratf~er
thar~ atkempting to rnodify the existing use variance,
Chairman Talr~r asked when the existing usc v~riance would expirc~~ and it was pointed out
the da te was Ma rch 2~ 19 J~i ,
Ct~airman Tolar asked the status of tlie existfrg use variance if this request is turned
down. ancl Mr. White replied it would remain intact unttl March 2, 197u~ and before then
owner could apply for an extension of time, Chairrian Tolar stated the Comm(ssion sh~uld
discuss the rey~est before them an~ aim ttie?r questions and cc.~nversations toward that and
not towerd the existing use var(ance.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion~ seconde~~ by Commissioner K(ng and M(~TION
t~t -D (Cc-mnissi~ner Barnes being absent). thiat the Aneheim City Planning Ccx~mission has
revi~wed the subjtct p~aJect consistin~ of a free-standing s~gn with waivers of permitted
sigr,ing~ p~rmitted encroachment into required side yarcl~ and minimum ground clearance~ on
approxienately 6459 square feet located at the southeast corner of Viking Avenue and State
College Boulevard~ t~aving approximate `~•~~~ntages of 100 feet on the south side of Viking
Avenue and 60 feet on the east side r~f atate Goliege Boulevard; anJ c~oes hereby approve
the Negatlve Declaration frem the req:+ir2rnent to prepare an environmenta) impact report on
the basis that there would be no siynificant individual or cumulative adverse
e~vironme~tal impact due to the approval of this Negative Declaration since the Anaheim
General Plan designaCe~ the subject property for lorr-density residcntial land uses
commensurate with th~s ~roposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in
the proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the pecitioner indieates no significant
individual or Cur.,uiat(ve adverse environmental impacts; and that the Neyative Declaratlon
substantlatiny the forec~oing findings is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning
Oepartment.
ACTION; Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC77-249 and r,ioved for its passage and
~piTon, that the Ar~aheim City Planning Commisslon does hereby recomnend to the City
Council of the City nf Anafieim that request ror modiftcation to Variance No. 276$ be
rk nied on the basis that the neiyhborhood is not ~utted for conversiort co commercial uses.
11/7/77
M I NUTES ~ ANAIiE I M C I TY PIANN I NG COMMI SS ION, Fiovembor 7, 19 77
Elft NEGATIVE OECLARATIOId ANU VAR.~AfICE IJO. 2768 (con*,iriuod)
.~~
On roll coll, the foregoinc~ resolution was pasacd by tho following vote;
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: DAVID~ HERBST, JOtINSON, v.ING~ LIr~N~ TOLIIR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
A6SENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES
77-748
Jack White explalned th-s item autanattcally yoes to the Clty Council for public heari~g
and there is no r(ght to appeal.
IT~M N0.
E I GAL EXENPTI ON- PUBL 1 C 11~ARING~ O~1NCR: BCTII AOAMS. I.TU.. 1$45
CLAS5CS ~ 3 nr~o 11 Wt lshire I~oulev~~r~ ~ Los Anc~Plet, CA ~0~17. AGENT:
CONUI ON L USk ERMIT NA. 17F,1 PAINTINGS OF TH[ WORLD~ 5625 West Contury 9oulevard~
t , g Los A~gc l~~s ~ cn ~00~+3. Property descr 1 bed as ~+
~ecta~yularly-sh~iped parcel of land consisting af
Appraxlmately 0,~ scre located at the n~rtheest
corner af Katella Avenue and Zeyn Street. having a~proxlm~te frontages of 200 feet on the
north slde ~f Kate:lla Av~nu~ and 190 fect on the castsl~'_ of Zeyn Street~ and furthe ~
descrlbed as 131 West Kat~lla Avenue. Property presently classif(ec1 ML (INI)USTRIAI.~
LIMITED) ZONE.
REQUESTED CONDITI01~l1L USE: TO PLRMIT A RE:TAII. ART SAl.F.S FACILITY It~ TNE ML ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIA(tCE: WAIVER OF (A) PROIIIbITEU SIGNS~ (U) MAXIMUM SIGN COVERAGE,
(C) MII~~MUM ~IUMf3~R OF PARKING SPACCS ~(C) MINIMU~ti LAIJDS~APED
SETBACI:~ ANU (E) RLQUI REU SCP,EENING OF PARKING AREA.
It was nated that subsequenc to le~,~al advertisen~ent of subJect conditional u~e permit and
variance. it was ~eterml~ed by staff [hat a two-week continuance would he necessary in
order for tlie development [o be considered.
ACTION: Commissioner King ~ffer~cl a motion, sccondeJ by Commissioner Johnson and MOTION
RRIED (Comm(ssioners Barnes and l.inn being absent), ti~at consideration of Petitions for
Conditlonal Use Permit No. 17G1 and Vartance No. 2976 be continued to tt~e Planning
Commission meetiny of December ~~ 1~~77. in arder for staff to readvert(se site developmer.t
Wef VCrS~.
(THE FORECOING MOTION WA5 MADE AT ?HE E3EGIMNtNG OF TNE MEETING.)
ITEM N0. 12
IR E, ICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 PUtiLiC HEARING. OWNERS: DONG S. AND MYOUN~ AI KIM~
Otl 0 L R 1 N0. 7 S 13123 6lgclow Street~ Cerritos. CA 90701. AGENTS:
DORA DOWE AND DONNA MOTTA~ 2255 Va~couver Dri ve~ f!$~
Anaheim~ CA 92804. Petitioner rer. sts permission
to ESTAHLISII A BEER BAR on property described as a rsctanyularly-shaped p~rcel of land
consisting of approximately 1.3 acres haviny a frontaye of approximately 220 feet on the
so~~th sidp of Li~coln Avenue~ haviny a maximurn depth oF approximately 262 feet, bel~g
located approximately 440 feet east of the centerlineof Euclid Street~ and further descrlbed
as 1652 Mlest Lincoln Avenue. Property preseRtly classlf ied Ctl (COMNERCIAL~ HEAUY) ZO~~E.
There was no one indicati~y their presence in oppas(tlon to subJect request~ and although
the s taf f repor t to the ° 1 ann i ng Commi ss i on da ted November 7, 1977 -~ras not read at tho
public hearing~ it is referred to and made a part of the mtnu~es.
11/7/ 77
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ No~~nmber 7~ 1977 77-749
E 1 R CATCGORI CAL EXEMPT ION-CLASS
.`~ ..._.~..._ .... .r.~. ~ 1 ANO COND 1 T I ONI1L USE
~ _~.~_~_,.~. . P(:RM 1 T N0. 1 ~G$ (cnnt i nued)
Donna Motte~ egent f~r the ~ctitloner~ tndicated she end I~er partner w~re buyin~ EI1(e's
Place and would Ilke to ch~~nye the llcenne from a 41 to a 42, whlch woulci allow no minors
and woutd toke the em~hesls off thc meals.
J. J. Tashlra~ Assistant Plenner~ stated tl~at an enclosed rest~~ur++nt must utllfze 25i; of
thN floor space for kitchen faGtlittes and thet anything less than 25~ ts consldered a
beer bar, Ile (n~tcated that e con,Jittonal use permit perm(ts on-solc beer and w(ne (n
canJunctlon with a resta~~rant an~i thc petitlo~er is proposinc~ to reduce the cooking
fact 1 I tles,
TIIL PUfiLIC HEARING WAS CLUSED.
It was nuted tl~at the DI reccar of the Pldnning Uepartme~t lias cletermined th,ac th~ proposed
activity falls within the definitiun of Sc~liun 3.01, Class 1, of the Ciiy of Anahcln
Guldellncs to thc Requlremcnts for an Environn~ental Impacc Repor[ and (s~ therrfare.
categorlcally exempt from the requircment tu file an EIa.
ACTION: Commissloner King offerc~l Re~olutlon No. PC77-25Q and moved for Its p~s~ege and
a~~optTon, th at the Anst~eim City Plannlny Commiss(on docs hereby grnnt Peti[ion for
C~ndltlonai Use Perrnit Na. 17G5, subJcct t~ Interde~~artmcntal Commtttce recommendatlohs.
On rol) call~ the: Foreyoing resolukion was passed by the follawinq vote:
AYES : COMMI SS I OtJE:RS : UAV 1 I` ~ N ERUST ~ JOIiI~SOt~ ~ Y.I NG ~ L I NIJ ~ TOLAR
NOES: CUMMISSIONERS: h01~E
AliSf:NT: COMMISSIQNCRS: BARNCS
ITEM N0. 13
EIR CATE~ICAL F.XEMPTION-CLASS 1 PU~LIG IiEARING. OWNER: STATE COLLEGE ANAIIEIM
CONOITIONAL US ERMIT N0. 17 CENTER~ 11340 West 0lymptt Boulevard, Los lingeles.
CA 90064. ACENT: JONN GUTARASCIO, 6052 Saddletree
Lane, Yorba Linda~ CA 92686. Pctitioner requcstg
ON•SALE DEkR ANO NINE IN A PROPOSCU RESTAURANT WITN IJAIVER OF MI~~IMUM FJUM6ER OF PARKING
SPACES on property described ~s an irregularly-sh~ped parcel of ianc consisttng of approxi-
mately li./ acres locaCed north and west of the northwest corner of la ^alma Avenue and
Scate Colicge Boufevard~ having approximate frontayes uf 2fi4 fect on the north side of
Lm Palma Avenue an~ 783 feet on the west side of State Coliege Boulevard, and further
describ~d as lObl-C North Statc Coliege Boulevard. Proper[y presently classifled CL
(COMMERCIAL, LIMITED) ZONE.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to s~bJect petition~ and although
the staff report to the Planni~g Commtssion dated November 7~ 1977 was not read at the
public heariny. it ts referred to and made a pa~t of the minutes.
John Guiarasclo~ agent for the petitioner, indicated a plzza restaurant was being
developed anJ would be apening at 1061-C Narth State College Boulevard and the requ~st was
to add on-sale beer and wine.
THE PUBLIC HEARING wAS CLQSkD.
Commissloner Nerbst referred to the waiver of parking requirem~:nts ancl asked if this had
besn computed in conJunctian with the tota) shopping zenter.
11/7/77
l
1
MINUTES~ ANAIIEIH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ N~vember 7. 1977 77'750
EIR CATE60RICAL EXEf~710N-CLASS 1 AND LONUITIONAL USE PERMiT 110. i]64 (continued)
J. J. Teshiro~ Assista~t Planner. Indicated that a drive-thraugl~ restau~ent w~s approvcd
in Auyust 1977~ and at that time there was a parking wa iver and this increases th~a number.
He indicetecl that wi thout the drive-through restaurant they wauld meec all the perking
requ ( ramenCs .
Commtssioner Herbst asked if thore was anyo~e present representtng the shopping c~snter~
and thare was no responsc,
Commi ssloner flerbst refc rrea to t~ie extens lon of the s i te to Romneya and the oppl ica~t
responded he bol laved a Elank of Amer f ca wes p~oposed to bc deve loped et that s i te.
The Agent stetoJ the ~estaurant s~ats 3' people and wi 11 be opened whetl~er or not tl~is
reques t`s ~p~roveJ; lhet tf~is Is a faml ly-style ~~sta+~rent. And reuple wl I1 park and come
In an~ uc thcrc thc sa-ne ~~mount of t~mP f~r pizz~ nnd 7-Up~ or whatever~ as they wc~ul~ for
plzza and beer,
I t was noted thr+t thc D1 rector of chC Plann(ng Depart~.ent i~as determ) ned that the proposed
actlvi ty falls wlthin the deflnttlon of Sectic~n 3.Q1, Class 1~ of the Clty af Anahelm
Guidel (nas to tlie Requlrements for an Envtronmental Impact RQport and is, there~ore,
cateqorlcal ly ~xempt from the requlrement Co fi le ar E IR.
ACTIOt~:; Comr~issioner Uavid offered Resolut(on No. P(.77-251 and m~ved for its passage and
a~op~tTon, that the Anat~cim City Planning Corrnnission does hereby granc Petltt :n for
Condi tlonal Use Permit No. 1?64~ including waiver of req~~red p~tirkinq~ d~e to the special
~IrGUmstances In ~hat the required parl;iny relates to the total parkiny of the fac(lity,
wi~ereas tfils is a use rclated to a smal ler portion of that property and the rcqulrcments~
therefure~ are technical in n~ture and not related to this partlculat use; and subject tc.
Interdepartment~) Committce recommendations.
On roll call~ the foreyoin~ resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES : COhIMI SS (ONE RS : DAV! p~ JOIiNSON, HERDST ~ K 1 NG , L I N~~ ~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NOi~E
AUSEhT; COMhISSIONERS: E3ARNE5
11/7/77
~
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING GOMMISSION~ Idovembe~ 7~ 1971 77•1S1
ITCM NU. 14
CPQR ~II~U RE,COMMENUAT I ONS
ITEM A. TENTATIVl. MAP OF TRACT N0. 9J21 - Requcst for approva) nf spcctflc plans.
The staf f repor t~o the P 1 enn I ng Commi ss 1 on da ted Novernbar J~ 1~)7'J ws~ presented ~ not I n~
thet subJect property is an irregulerly-shaped pnrcel af inncl of a~proximately 2a.1 acres
havi~g approximate frnnteges of 1/~ feec on the norti~~sst stdc of Felrmont ~oulevard And
390 fent on tt~e s~uthwast sldc of Feirmont Uoul-vard~ I~evin,y n maxlmum depth of
approxlrnatsly 16~0 fcet ~ and locatcd approximmtr.ly 2~5q fcet s~uth of thc centcrl ine of
Snnta Ana Cenyon Road; that t1~c Appllcant requcsts approval af finAl specifie pl~x ~I~ns~
Floor plans an~ elevations for Tentative Tract No. ~1721; that suhJect tract, wfth Vartance
No. Z97.fi, to establish a~i~~-lot, 4;',-unit, RS-N~•22~n0~(SC) sub~llvislon~ was eprroved by
the Gity Counr_II on Junc 2~i~ 19J7~ follawin~~ ~~ rec.ommendati~m for approval by the i'1annlnq
Curomiysion un hlay 23, 1~3i7; en~i thr~c the varienc~ pcrtained to thr requirement th~ rll
lots reer ont~ ~n artcriil hiql,wAy; t.hit tl~e p~titir.-nrr (~r~~-~ige4 onc side-nn lot~ h~~~l
approve) of i.he sub.ject tract (ncluJed tl~c conditi~n (Conditi~~n No. 14) th~~c prfor to the
Issuance of l,ull~Ing pcrmits. thc p~:titioncr sl~all submit ftnal spccific plot, flocsr and
clevAtlon plAns to thc Planninr~ Commissiun ~~ndior CI ty C~unci i for Approval .
ACTION: CommiSS(oncr King offr.red o rhotion~ se~cc~nded by Canmissi~ncr Johnson and MOTION
CARRIED (Commission~r l3arnes being abscnt)~ t.h~it thc Anaheim Clty Plann(ne~ Commission does
hereby recortunend to thc: CI ty Cou~ci I of tl~e Ci t:y vf A~aheim that [he flnr+l s~ecific plat~
floo r ond elevation plr,ns for 7entativc Tract tlo, 9J21 be a~proved,
ITCM B, vnain~~CL N0. ?/~0 • Rcyuc~st for c:xtensir~n of timc to ollow sic~ns~
Thc staff report to thc Plannirz~~ Conm(ssion da[ed t~ovember 7, 1~)JJ~ was presented.
~ob l~urc~ 1 1 r~ ~ tl~e app 1 I can t~ i n~! i ce teJ t~ i s re~sons fo r ~~qu~s t i nq the extens i on of t 1 me for
this varlance; tliAt he owneJ t3ob's Car~ash at tl~c corner of Lincoln an~ drookhurst Street
and has 1 I ved and had a bus 1 nes s i n Anahc i m for 13 years; tl~At he had bu 1 1 t thr. 5 ta :e
Col 1 eye Carwash nncl had c~wneci the L 1 n-hrook Carwasl7 and had qotten a vari ~nee far a si nn
on thet propcrty. 11e indicate~! thc reason fur tl~c variancc on th~s sic~n is a Simc~nt:~e
ba.>th ln the front of the carwasli; :fiat tlie slyn has becn made ~ermanent ancf represe~~ts a
smal 1 area of the carwash. He presented thc Commission w(th a fi ~~nr(,i statement shaiinr~
th~: results after the si~~~ was instailed. tle inJicated ti~e numher of poltsh^s was 1,53~
whict~ woul~i indicate the people of Anaf~eim do need th,s type o~ servi~;. F;~ fndicbted
th ( s i nvol ved ~~~U ~~ai, I~ours . Ile presei~ted p i ctures ~~f tl~e s iqn of the bus i n~ ss across the
stre~t anJ felt the si~~n propose~! for tl~e carwasti is a far better sic~n. He stated the
property is in the C-3 lone an~i that he is askin~ for an~ther year's ~xtPnsion af t1n,e to
try to keep tt~e business open and do tlic best fie can. t1e sta[ed thcre had been no
comp lat~r.; ahout t~(s s ign and business, ~~d tf~e reason che Planninc~ staff had recommended
denial w~s the last extension was apprc~ved subJect [~ tt~e stlpulation that this variance
bc terminated at tlie end of tfie on~-year period,
Mr. t~urgll~~ further stated that due to [he Environme~ntal Protectinn Agency and Cal-OStiA
requirements~ etc., the price of carwashes has c~one up and~ consequently~ he is doing less
carwashes~ an~l ttiat tl~e gavernment f~as i~elped so mucl~ tiiat he cannot afford to stay (n
busi ness. Ne pointed out ttie sign woul~J be 2 feet t~y 10 feet~ about the size of one car
lengtt~ and wl I1 be next to the exit of tf~e carwash, ile presented a chart stiowing the
differences in tiic number of polisfies before and after t~~e sign.
11/7/77
,.
1
MII~UTES~ ANAt~EIM CITY PLANNING COMNISSION~ November 7~ 1~~I7 77'752
ITEN ti (contlnued)
._._.__
Commfssinner Oav(d pointeci out tl!at the carwash doe~ employ a number of unskilled peoplo
and he wAS 1 n fAVOr af gran t i n~~ th i s var 1 ance an extens i on of t t me~,
ACTI01~: Commissloner povid offcred ~~ matlon~ sec~n~led by Commissionr.r Ktn~ and MOTION
CARRIEU (Car~mtssioner aarnes boin~~ abscnt), that the Planning Cortmtsslon daes her~by grant
the request for extens(on of time f~r a one-year reriod f~r VertancP Ne, 2')~,~, to expire
November 1~~ 1!iJB.
ITEM C. TRACT N0. 3~i;(~ ~ Ap~roval of specific plans.
The staff rep~rt to thc. Planniny Gommissi~n datc~l Novemher 7~ 1~)7 w~s presented. n~tinc~
that the SubJeCt prpperty ~y an Irregularly-5ha~+ed parcel of land consistinc~ of
epproxlmateiy tj.l acres l~~catr_d n~~rthwesterly ~f th~ inlersu~tiun of Via Arboles and
Conyon Rirn Rood; th~t thc a~-pllcent, [~I11 Shin~ T. !1. Ocvclopment Corporatl~n~ requests
approva) of ~pecific fl~,or plans a~~ el~v~tions; that Tentotive Map of Tract Np. $~~SG
(Revision Nu. 4) was ap~~r~vcci by thc Ci ty Counci 1 on Septer~ber ~~ 1')J;~ consistiny of "l4
RS-~0(~0(SC) lots~ plus a I.ot !1 which wi II provfde An access roacf throu~l~ thc prnperty
north of the subJect tract; that approval ~f subJect trnct inclu~led Cl~e condition thet
final floor plans aft~ clevations for eact~ phase of development sliall be submittecJ to and
dpproved by the Plann(ng Cor-r,i(ssion anci Ci ty Counci I prlor to approva) of the f(na) traet
map; that t`~~ appllcant has subrnttted floor plans and elevat.i~n~, for custam I~omes to be
constructecl on four lots (Lots 31 through 34) ; a~~d that Envi ronmental Irr~act Report No.
1~9 was ccrti fieJ t~; thc Ci ty Cour~ci 1 on July 1G~ 1~71~.
ACT1011: Commissior~er Kiny afferecf a mc, ~on, seconded by Commissioner David and MOTION
CARRiCD (Cortrnissio~~er tiar~ ~cing absent), that thc Anaheim City Planniny Commisslon docs
her~by recommenu ~,. th~ ~ouncfl approval of specific; floor plans and elevation plans
fur Lots 31 through ~ . , •c ~lo, ii~~SE.
:TEM D. ~CT N0. ~?19~ ' waiver of lo[ line requirement of liillslde Grading
;r~iinance.
The staff report to the Plan nin~ Commisslon from the City Engineer date~l ~~ovember 7~ 1977
was presen ted. not 1 ng tl~.~ t Hopen ~ 11ed 1 und b Qarby, I nc, re4ues ts tfiat they bc g ranted a
wr~ivFr of che requfrement of the Clty of Anaheim filllside Grading Ordinance as it relates
~o the locAting of lot Ilnes at the tnp of slopes wlthin Tract No. 9732. and that the
subject tract Is located no~th af Ndh) Ranch Road~ east af the t~ewport Freeway.
ACTION: Commissianer King offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner David and MOTION
ARRICU (Commisstor;er 8arnes being absent~. that tlie Ant+heim City Planning Commisslon does
hercby recomrne~d to t~c City Council that ~equest for waiver of requirement of tt~e City of
Anaheim ~lillside Gradir~~ ~rdinance relating to Tract No. 9792 be approved.
WOR1: SESSIOt~ Chairman Tofar point~d out tliat there is a work session scheduied for the
P ann~ng Commissfon on Ncvember l~i. 1371, and Annika Santalahti~ Assistant Director for
Zoning~ passed out information relatin~~ to tt~e work session. It was noted the rw~rk
session Is not a public hearing but Is open to the public.
11/7/77
~. ,
MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PlJ1NNING COMMISSION~ November 7~ 19~7 77-753
pOJOURNMENTt Commisslo~e~ Linn offer~d a mc~tlo~, saconded by Cammlsstoner David a~d
MOTIQN CA~IRIED (Conimtasioner Sar~es being ebsent)~ that the meeting be
adJourned to the work session an November 14~ 1q77~ at 7:~0 p.m. In the
Counci 1 Chsmbar.
The n~eting was adJaurned at ~~:3y p.m.
Respectfully aubmiCted~
'~~ ~ 7~~1?/VI.t~
Edtth L. Harrt~ Secretary
Anr~heim Ctty Plenning Commi~slon
EL~1:hm
1t17/77