Minutes-PC 1978/05/22~, ~
C i ty Ne 1 1
Anahetm~ Caltfornin
May 22~ 197~
REGULAR M~f T I!~C OF TNE AN~4HE I M C I TV PLANtI I NG COMMI SS I ON
~_
REGULAR - The regular m~:ettng of the Anehelm C(ty Plenning Commisslon was c~lled to
MEETING order by ChAlrman Tolar at 1:30 P.m.~ -'bY 22~ 1~f7£~ tn the Cauncil
Chamber~ ~ quorum being present.
PRCSE~~T - CH/11RMI1N; Tolar
COMMISSIONERS; Davld~ Ne~bst~ ,Johnson~ King
Commissiuner Lirin srrivuJ at 3:0~ p.m,
Cormils~l~ner flarne3 +~rrived at ~-:10 p.m,
ALSO PkCSE:t~T - Jack White Qeputy City Attorney
Jay Ti[us Office Engfn~cr
Jamcs Kawemura Traffic Englneertng Assistanc
llnnike Santalahti Asststant Director for Zoning
Jay Tashlro Assuciate Plann~r
Edtth t~srris Planning Commission Secretaiy
PLEDGE OF - The Pledye of Allegiance to ttie Fiag was l~d by Commisslc~ner David.
ALLEGIANCE
ITEM N0. 4 PUOLIC t1EARIN~. ON!IERS: ROBERT A. At~D ROSEMARIE
~,G~RIGAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 SMITt~~ 13729 Rosecrans~ S~nta Fe Springs, .n 90670.
N. 3p AGENT: ANOS JOHfISTONL ~ 1 140 West 1lampshi r_~
~"- Anahetm~ CA 92302. Petttioner requests WHIVER OF
(Aj PERMITTEp LOCATI4~1 OF FREE•STANOfNG SIGN, (B)
MAXIMUN HEIGHT OF FREE-STANDII~G S1GN. AND (C) MAXIMUM AREA OF I~REE-5'f,~N01NG SIGN. TO
CONSTRUCT A FREE-SYANUI~IG SIGN on pr4perty deecr(bed as ~ rectangul~rly-shaped ~arcel of
land consisting of approximately 4.2 acres having approximate frontages of 317 feet on
the souCh slde of Winston Q~ad and 155 feet o~ the w~3t side of Sunkist Street. Prope~ty
presently class~f(ed ML (It~DUSTRIAL, LIMITEp) ZONE.
it r+as noted the petitioner has reyuested thfs item be continued for two w~eeks In order to
reduce the ~umber of waivers and to submit revised plans.
ACTION: Go+nmissioner King ~ffered a motton~ seconded by Cortimissioner David and MOTIOy
~t EO (Commissioners Ba~nes and Linn being absent), that constderation of Variance No.
3013 be continued Co the regular n~eeting of the Flanning Commission on June 5, 1975, at
the ~equest of the petitioner.
18-374 5/22/78
' ~~
~
; .
?
MIl~UTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISS ION~ MAY 22~ 19]B
78-375
ITEt1 N0. 1 REAUVERTISEu PUBLIC NEARING. 04R~ER: F~~LRATED
~~A'r •~.~RICAL EXEMPT~OtI-CLASS ` UEPARTMCNT STOAC5 ~ INC. ~ P. 0. Box S~i14~, Los
_ ON . - y~ Angeles, CA 70Ari~. AGE11T: C. J. QUCYREI, P. 0.
Box ~66n~ Anal~eim~ CA 92803. Potitlonor requests
ap~~rovel of altarnate commerciol uses on property
described as an Irreyulorly-sl~oped p~rcel of land Gonsistfng af ap~raxtn.~tely 4,0 acres
locsted at the soutliwest cornor of l.tncoln Avenue and Su~ktst Str~et~ having approximete
f ro~tac~es of 630 feet on the south s t de of L) nco I n Avonue and 220 feet on the west s I dc
of Sunkis~ Street. Property presontly classlfled CL (LUMMEaCIAI.~ LIMITED) ZONE.
Thare were two pers~ns indicatiny their prosence in upposition to subJect reque~t~ and
althougl~ the staff report to tl~e Planning Cammisslon datcd Msy 22. 1~78 was not read at
th~ publlc heariny~ I[ (s raferr~d to a~J maJr. a parl uf ~i~e n-ir~utes.
Ga) Qucyr~l~ llnacal Enginccring~ representing Rslph's Ma,-kets~ was ~resent to answer any
quostions _
Pet blumb~ry~ 21+;3 East Pavl~etan Street, inJicated she ciid not understan<i why Federated
Qepartmenz Stores~ Inc. fecls it Is necessa~y to add on a grou~ of unneeded and out-of-
ploce sto~os. She reod a quotc from the m(nutes of tfie origtnat request as follows: "In
Additfon to che supermarket~ tl~ey were proposinq enott~er separ~t~ hutlciing near the
northeast corner of the property whlch .+ould be for a finAncial i~stitutton; that they
were not requcsting approval of tI~P corncr bu(ldinq to be use~l for shops or food take-out~
but strietly for a banking fac(lity; that tl~e locat~on ~~f the banking facility he(ng close
to a ma~or intersection was to ~ore co~vei~iently scrvlce the residents in tlie area." She
pointed out th~+t kraff(c at ti~fs r.orner has trtpled sincc Ralph's Market opened, She
s tated that ` ruck de 1 i very was supposed to be 1 1 mi ted to L i nco I n Avenue ~ but that those
entrar•~•_~ ;,a ~ ~-'n are almost imrossibie to yet (nto wtthout backtng up trafflc, so the
Sunkist 5 treet e:. • rance is used for truck del ivcries and by cusiomers~ and that the noi se
level and conge~tian are terrible at the present ttme.
She dld not feel t~~ere would be adequate parking spaces Co accommodate thts type of
shc~pp3ng eenter. She ~o(nted out ct-ere are a lot of centers i~ the area that are dying
aut and f~lt there was no Justifitation for these addltianol stores. She esked if thts
would re~ulre additional lighting; that at the present tlme the 1 ights remain on unti 1
12:30 a.m. and th~ store closos at 10:U0 p.m.; that sl~c had written to the manager of the
Ralph's Market concerning the 1 ighting. but had not received a reply,
She i r,d i eated she was concerned about the poss 1 b i I i ty of hav 1 ng a record or tape s tore and
wondere~ ~hy it was needed since tf~ere arr. others in tfie area. She indicated she had
heard thi s particular shop sells p~raphernal ia for using and stnring drugs and was
concer~ed that (t woulJ attract this type ~f customer, and wauld be only 92 feet from her
property and she cannat affnrd ta move. She felt thls proJect would cause a decrease in
the value of hen c~,use and thls p~operty owner w~uld be making money while her house value
was dropp i ng.
Sfie fe 1 t because of the cons I de rab 1 e t raf f i c and noi ~e i mpact ~ and s i nce these shops a fe
unnecessary~ these five additional busincsses should be eliminated from the plans. She
referred to vartous businesse: in the area~ such as antique shops~ real estate offices,
record end tape shops~ lnsurance ayencies~ palnt and walipaper stores~ barbsr shops. etc..
which would indica~e these proposed shops are not needed in the area.
5/22/ i 8
~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMM1 SSION~ MAY 22~ 1978 78-376
E I a CATEGOR I CAL EXEMPT I ON-CLASS 5 AND AECLASS I F ICATI ON N0. 74- 75-26 (cont 1 nued)
~..- -
She presented plcturos to the Plaiinin~ Cornmisslon of the entra~ncss off Lincoln Avenue~
shawing the trefflc backsd up,and pictures ~f tt;e property to be used And the parktng lot~
and aiso e picture of ha~ fn~ this p ~oJect would be from her b ack wall. She polnted out
agai~ that since traffic off Lincoln Is Imposstble~ ~eople us~ Sunkist~ which is right
b~hind her house.
Bob Carter~ 2433 East L(nc~ln Avenue, Anahelm~ indtcated he 1 ives across the street to the
nortl~ and stated averytl~ing the prcvious speakcr hed said was true; that the traffic Is
terrible. Ne Indicated he had brought plcf.ures takon from the roof of lils h~use of the
parking lot whlch (s el ready ful I wi thout ony addi tlonal struetures . Ne polnted out that
truck deliveries are beiny made at the hours as ind(cated by Mrs. Blumberg; tl~at he had
gotten dressed many times before tt~e s~n c~me up and had g~ne acros~ the strQet to
complain; and th~~t even tt~ough the manor~er of Ralph~s had indicecc~d this would be taknn
care of~ the next day anather truck would be coming tn. tie polnted out the traffic off
l l o~col n Avenue somet t mes backs up th rae or four cars deep and he ha d photographs to sliow
thls. Ha indlcated these plctures werc not taken on any special day. Ile pointed out if
tha policc records ars revi~wve~J~ they wlll show there is an aecident every day on th(S
corner and that (t is Impossible ta get out of Ralph's parking lot anto Lincoln without
waiting.
Ne i ndl cated hr 1 1 v~s 1 n a 17~0-sq ua re foot res i den t i a 1 hcuse and these ere n i ce houses ~
and that Ralph's was opened to benef it tha area~ wt~ich wAS nF ee since [hey da need a place
ta buy food~ l~ut that thcy cb no~ t~avc to listen to records and tapes al) day and pointed
out therG would be a lot of young people In and out af the arca w( th a record or tape
shop. Ilc s tated he was not aga i ns t bus I ness and be 1 I eved bus i nes se s shou 1 d have r i ghts .
but not when those rigfits infringe on lils rights; ttiat the residPntial area was therN
ftrst~ and askcJ the Plannin~ Commisslon not to d~stroy the whote arca anyrnc~re by allawing
furthsr devclop~nent on this cc~rncr.
Mr. Queyrel stated the lady's concerns regarding a food outlet stvre was unfou~ded s(n~e
there are none listed as proposed uses. Concer~ing the parki ng whi ch was mentioned as a
problem~ he lndicoted par{:ing is prov(d~d according to code and that additional parking
will be provided for the additional 9100 square fcet, and they W@fC not asking for a
variance for perking. He pointed out there is a 2~-foot landscaped strip between the
parking and her property line w(th heavy shrubbery~ and he di d not belleve she would be
able to see the bu( lding from her house. Concerning the noi se level , he indicated that
regardl~:ss of what goes into thls property there wi l l be an i ncrease in traffic~ but he
felt the overzll Increase caused by this developme+-~t ...,mpared w(th the overall traffic on
lincoln and ~unkist would be minlmal.
Regarding the concern of the record and tap~ shop~ he i~dicated he would have tiu
authority to delete that from the p~oposed uses; that there are a lot of good record
shaps and thl s one wou 1 d nc~t be re i ated to drug uses . He po i nted out there are 12
proposed uses~ but that only five would go into the center. He indicated they would have
edequate parkiny and landscaping and that this would be a nice bui iding; that he did no;
heve the plans~ but he did have some plctures of the center across from Anahetm Niqh
School and it wou1~1 be similar to that and would be compa~tible with anythtng (n the arsa.
Ne indicated they had tried for two years to generate som~: i~terest in a ftnancial
institution on this corner. but that so far there has been ~o interest because of the
proximity to Fullerton Savings end loan.
TI~E PUDLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
si22i~a
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY P LANNING COMMISSION, Ml1Y 22, 197$ 78~377
EIR CATCGORI~AL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 74-7i-26 (continued)
Chelrman Toler puinted out thax wl~en the Planniny Commission had itrst looked at these
plans there was apprel~ension bacause of the traffic and congoation at Sunkist dnd I.incoln.
Ne pointed out the pro,ject had been approvnd wlth the understanding there would be a 4000-
square foot buliding on tlie nnrtheast corner~ whlch would he for one uso only~ and now
thuy sro asking for several shops In sdditlon to the ffnancial Institut(o~ end he did not
feel fuur or flvo ahops ~vould help to entlce a bank to the erea.
Mr. Queyre) indlcated the li~t tncludes several alternatives~ one of which (s stll) a
flnancial tnstltutlon~ and there Is afso hope they could 9et a prescriptton drugstore at
thts location.
Chai~man Tolar palnted out he recoynixed someth(ng would have to be bu(It on this co~ne~~
but tha~t he wes concerned about the traffic and he did nnt think he would go along with an
Increase (n square footage frvm the orlginal rec~uest; in fact. he was thtnking maybe th~e
square footage should b e reduced. No indlcated the Plann(ngCommission can see the
mistakes they make and~ unfortunate~y. he felt they had impa~cced thls co r~er as heavtly ss
it could be Impacted and tie would question the need far more shops In this area slnce
there is alr~ady a tr~n~end~us amr.~unt of c~nxnerc.lal development (n thls area.
Commissioner Johns~n in dicated he agrecd witt~ Chalrman Tolar and thcre was one more fact
he felt the Conrnlssion should conside~, that tlie market people felt they had mtscalculated
when they thought they cauld put a financial insrltution (n this lotAtion, a~~d that Is th~
way it was brought to the Planning Commission~ and n~ they have determined they
cannot get any tenants For it and it is unfair to put the burden of thelr error on the
neighbors. He Ind(cated he dld not feel he would want to expand [he proJect. but if they
wanted to reduce the size nf the building or redesign it~ he would be happy to go along
with that. Ile indicated he realised you cannot stop progress, but he did not remember a
prescription drugstore beiny In the original proposal.
Chairman Tolar pc~(nted out he remembered r.he original proposal was specifically for e
savings and loan or a b ank.
Mr. Queyrel pointed out the petitioner had been back to the Planning Commission about a
year a~d a half ago with a list of uses and was asked to come back wlch more specific
uses .
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Direct~r for Zoning~ pointed out the Planning Comm(ssion had
felt a public I~earing would be required in order for alternate uses to be considered.
Commissioner Herbst as ked for ~larificatian regardl~g the zaning for commercial uses and
asked if the Planning Commission couid tie specific uses to thls zone an d what power did
they have to control specific uses.
Jack White~ Deputy City Attorney, pointed aut this reclessific3tlon was originally
approved with Gercain ~estrlctions on the uses as stipulated to by tne applicant and was
approved on that basts; thet generally the f,ity does not have the power to limit uses and
once the proper:y is rezoned~ the uses for that particular zone are allowed~ but that thls
appltcation was represented as being for certain uses and the reclassification was
approved based on those uses. He indicated he was not saying this was a misreprese~~tation
and was probably don~ in good faith~ but tirr~s had dictated somethina ~lse.
Chairman Tolar indicated he had supported Kalph's Market going into this loeatian and the
additionai building an d he wss setisfted there would nat be that much traffic with a
5/22/78
MINUTES. ANAIiEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 22~ 1978 7~~371
EIR CATEGORICAL EX~MPTION-CLAS~ 5 ANn RECLASSIFICATION N0. 74-75-26 (cnntinued)
Chairman Toler polnted out tlia when the Planniny Comrrtisslon had first lookcd at thesa
plans ther~ wes apprehonsion beceuse of the treffic and congastlon at Sunklst and lincoln.
He polnted out the proJect hed been approved with the understending there would be a 40Q0-
square foot building on tl~e northeast corner~ which would t~e for one use on1Y~ and now
they are askin~ for several shops in additlon to the financi~l tnst(tution and he dfd not
feel four or five shops would help to entice a bank to the area.
Mr. Queyrel tndicatc:d the 1(st i~cludes several elternativ~s~ one of which is stlll a
financial tnstitution~ and tt~ere is also hope they could get ~ prescrtption dru~store at
tt~is locetion.
Chalrman Tolar po(nt~d out he recoynizPd something would have to ~ie bu(lt on this corner~
but thet he was concerned about the trairic and he dtd not think he would go along wtth aii
increr+se in square footege frum the ortginal request; tn fact~ he was tliinkiny meybe the
square footage should be redur;cd. tie indicated the Planning Commisslon can see the
mtstakes they make and~ unfortunately~ he fslt they had impacted thls corne~ as heavtly as
it could bc ImpacteJ and tie wauld question the need for more shops tn this area since
there i~ already a tren~endous amo.~nt of commercial devrlopmenL in this area.
Commissloner Johnson tndicated he ayreed with Chetrman Tolar and there was one mor~ fect
he felt tlie Cornmtsslon should consider~ that tlie market people felt they had miscalculated
when they thought they could put a ftnancial institutt~n in th(s location~ and that Is the
way it was brought to the Planntng Commission, and ~~ they have determined they
tennot get any tenants for it and it is unfair to put the burden of their e~ror on the
naighbvrs. He indicated he d(d not feel he aioulJ want to expand the proJect, but if they
wanted to reduce thF size of the building or redesign (t. he would be happy to ~o along
with that. Ife indicated he rcalized you cannot stop pragress, but he did not remember a
prescr(ption drugstore being in thr, ar(yinal propasal.
Chalrman Tolar polnted out he remembcred the orlginal proposal was spcclfically for a
savings and loan or a benk.
Mr. Queyrel pointed out the petittoner had been back t~~ the Plan~ing Comnisslon about a
year and a half ago with a list of us~es and was esked to come back with more specific
uses .
Annika Santalohti, Assistant Director for 2ontng~ potnted out the PlanRing Comnission iiad
felt a publi~ f~eariny would be ~equired in arder for alternete uses to be cansidered.
Ccxnmtssioner Herbst asked for clarification regarding the zonin9 for commerctal uses and
asked if the Planr,ing Gommission could tle specific uses to this zane and what powe~ did
they have to control specific uses.
Jack Whita~ qeputy City Attorney, pointed out this reclassification was originally
appr~ved with certain restrictions on the uses as stipulated to by the applicant and was
approved on that basis; that generally th~e City does not hav~ the power to ltmit uses and
once the property is rezoned~ the uses fnr thar, particular zone are allowed~ but that this
epplication was represented as being for certain uses end the reciassification was
approved basad an those uses. He indicated he was not saying ttiis was a misrepresentation
and wa:, probably done in good faithr but ttmes had dictated something else.
Chairman Tolar indicated he had supported Ralph's M~rket going into this location and the
additional building and he was satisfied there would not be that much t•°ftc with a
5/22/78
~
~
MINU7ES~ MIAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 22~ 1978 78-37II
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS S AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 7~f-75-26 (continued)
financi~l institutlon~ but that this propozal var(es a great deal from tl~e orlginal
proposal. Ha did not fee) tha Planning Commtssion should burden the area further with an
Additlonal 5A00 squaro feet of addltiona) shop space.
Mr. Quoyre) ~sked lf a traffic report had been submitted from the T-•afflc ~epartment and
lndicated if they had re~ltzed there was a problem concerning tlie traffic~ they would hAVe
furnished thelr own traffic stetistlcs.
Jlm Kawamura~ Assistant Trafflc Engineer~ polnted out thetr stuJles are limited in this
a~ea~ but that these types of small shops riould n~[ creatc a tremendous amount of traffic
in terms of vehtcle trips per day; that mose of the trAfflc is yener~ted by the extsting
supermarket, He s[ated the averaye for a~uperm~r~:ct Is 125 vn_fiiclc trips per average
weekday per 1000 gross square feek~ but that he suspected in tl~i~ case It w~s much higher
than that. lic po(nte~ ~uc Llnc.oli~ Av~nue at this intersection in 1976 carried
approxlmately 26~04~ vahiclcs per day and that Sunkist carried appraxirn~-tely 1~~000
vehicles per day or a total of 45~QA0 vehicles per d~~y at that one intersection~ which is
considorabiy higher than the typlcal area where residenti~l and cammerclal uses are mlxed.
He polnted out a financlal instftution would generate ~+b0 vehlcle trlps per day and e
drugstorc would yencratc 6-4 vehlcle trips per day per 1400 square feec. N~ pointad out
the signai contral at this Intersectlon ls somewhat obsolete and would be modified~ but (t
could be two or three years away. He pointed out that tr~fflc gencrated from many other
uses~ such as drive-In restaurants, small medical offices~ etc.~ would probably be heavier
then the smaller shops as nroposeJ.
Commisstoner King indlcatcsd lie felt fram lc~oking at the list thaL these prop~sed uses
would not yenerate the type of traffic which Nauld cause a l~ig tncrease.
Commissioner Herbst Indicated he felt thc Commission was looking primarily at the increase
In the amount af square footage Involved over the original uses In the reclassification.
He felt that if the petitioner had presented this devel~pment with the shops ~n the corner
he would not have voted for the project; hc d(d not feel the property should be expanded
because of the Impact on the corner and on the restdences behind the area,
Commissioner I~erbst painted out that every time there is a public heartng on this
particular piece ~f p~operty~ the neighbors complain about the noise~ truck d~eliveries~
hours of lighting, and cleaning of the parking lot. He felt the Cammisslon should make
Ralph's llve up to the conditions of the original permit and felt Ralph's was not being
fsi~ to the people who live there.
Comnissione~r King indicated it was probably difficult for trucks to get into the loading
ramp and that was probably the reason why they were using the south snd f~r unlouding.
Commissioner Ilerbst felt if that is the problem~ then it would be up to Ralph's to correct
the problem.
Commissioner King pointed out he felt if Anaheim is to grow, obviously there will be an
increase in trafflc and that ta stop the traffic wou~d be stopping the growtti of Anahetm.
Chairman Tolar pointed out the matn obJectlve nf the Planning Commission is to look at the
land uses, and he felt this use would impact an alre~dy bad situation and is not needed in
this area at this time. He felt Federated Qepartment Stores, In~. should t~y to establish
a better relationship with the neighbo~s by adh~ring to tlieir suggestions regarding
5/22/78
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQhWISSION~ Mp-Y 2?.r 1~7a 7a~379
EIR CATCGORICl1l EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 At~O RECLASSIFICATION NQ. 74-7S~z6 (co~ti~ued)
xraffic and nolse~ and he could not support impactt~g :he a~ee anymare than It ls alreeciy
Impected.
Mr. CArta~ pointed out the traffic probl~ms were startod when tho City widened lincoln
Avenue and tha employees had started psrking on Lincoln; that after he hed complained~
R~Iph's had requested them to perk on thoir lot~ but th~t he felt more commercia)
development in thc area wauld ceuse employee~ and customars to per~k an the street and felt
overcrewding that corner across the st~cet wauld only add to tho pa~kiny situat(on.
Commissioner lierbst indlcaced I~e wes not in favor of expanding the square footage~ but
tl~at he would be In favor o~ allowiny cartaln uses In the origina) 40~0 square feet~ and
asked Jack White tt the Planning Cortmisslon could speCify uses that rould be Allow~d In
tiie orlginal 4000 square feet.
Jack Whltp painted out th~ Planning Cortxnissl~n could llmit them to the use of the 400~
square feet. but If they wentPd to be specific on the uses~ the petitloner would have to
raapply.
Chalrman Tol~r askeJ Mr. Queyrel if he had any speclflc user's~ ~nd Mr. Queyrel repl(ed he
would have to confcr with the pet(tioner in order to give any answer and would ltke to
have a four-week contlnuanGe. He (ndicated he would have to confer with Ralph's about the
orlginal 4Q00 ~quare feet.
Chairman Tolar potnted out he would lik.e Mr. Queyrel to discuss the uses fo~ the orlglnal
4oo~~square fooC structure proposed witt~ Ralph's representatives and he would ilke him to
speak with them abaut the complal~ts r~ceived concerning truck deliveries and nalses.
ACTION: Commissloner King offered a motion~ seconcied by Commissloner Johnson and MOTI011
ARRIEO (Commissloners aarnes and Llnn being absent). that conslderation of the
aforementlonad item be continued to thc reguiar meetinc~ of the Anaheirt~ Gity Planning
Commission of June 19~ 1973 (n order for the petitianer to present a revised proposal.
Chairnnan Tolar pointed out to thosa persons present in opposition that there w~uld be no
further notice of the Junc 19th meeting.
17EM t10. 2 PUBLIC I~EARING. OWNER: MAURICE PINTO. P. 0. Box
EIR~NEGiAYIVE UECLARATIOII 3~+21. Anaheim~ CA 92803. AGENT: GREGORY L. PARKIN~
N . -78-5~ 250~ West Orangethorpe Avenue~ Suite U. Fullerton~
CA 92633• Petittoner requests reclassificatiort oF
property described as a rectangulariy-sha~ed parcel
of land consisting of approximat~ly 0.4 acre having a frontage of approximately 75 feet Qn
the south side of Vermont Street~ having a maximum depth of approximately 218 faet~ bein~
located approximetety 162 feet east of the ce~terl(ne of Harbor Boulevard, and further
described as 410 WGSt Vermont Strcet, from the RS-7200 (RESIDENTIAL~ SINGLE-FAMIIY) ZONc
to the CL (COMMERCIAL, LIMITED) ZONE.
There was no one indicating their presence in opp~sition to subject request. and although
the staff report to the Planning Commission dated May 22, 1978 was not read at the publlc
heartng, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
5/22/78
~~ : ~
MII~UTES ~ At~Af1E! M CI TY PLANNI NG COMMI SS IOH ~ MAY 22 ~ 1978 1~'3~~
€IFt NEGATIVE DECLARA710N I1ND RECLA5SIFICATION N0. 77-78-59 (continued)
Gregory L. Parkin~ agent. polnted out approximetely 7; feet of sut~,je+ct ~roperty borders
Narbor tloulnvard and is zoned cnmmercial and Farms an "L" shape~ wlth che other pert of
the property borderiny on Vermont 5treet zoned residential. I~e pointed out the proparty
borders a servtce station on the cornAr of Vormont and Narbor and essentlally the change
to the charecter of the nelghborhood woutd be removrl of tha exi~ting building and making
e parking lot contalniny 4A spaces. He Indicated one spot had been deleted and the trash
contalnera moved and uso of the property would be a rt-ettress displey and sales facility
and also f(replace and outdoor barbecue displays. He tndiceted th~ present parkfng
situation Is dltficult and I~azerdous; that ther~: is a 2~-foot driveway on the south s(de
of the building with the parkiny area in the back~ enJ thot the parking Is inadequete. Ile
indlceted he had telked wlth Mr, Potts~ thP g~ntlPmAn wlu, IivPs directly across the
street~ and hed explained lhe plans to him fior ramovel of the old house and the parktnc~
lot constructlon. lie stated Nr. Potts had (ndtcAttd he woulr, have no obJectl~ns to the
plans.
T11E PUBLIC ~IEARING WAS CL05ED.
Choirmen Tc~lar indicated he ciid not feel this use would be detrimental to the resldentiai
area~ but was concerned that Vermont is only 5G feet wide and the~e Is a lot of
residantial trafftc on Vermont and wondered tf the proJect would be Just as good without
the drivESway a~ Verrta~t.
Mr. Parkin indlcated the trash trucks would have to t~ack out onto Narbor~ which would be
dangerous. He stated tliey were trying to cure e lot of pr~blems and the trash trucks and
othcr vehictes would not really pass In front of any resi~Sential area except Mr. Pott's
r~sldence.
Cortimissloner tlerbst asked if the Traffic Engineer had any pr~blems with the t~afftc
dumping o~to Vermont~ and Jay Tashiro~ Associate Planncr' pointed out there dld not seem
to be any problem about Lhe access on Vermoni.
Commissioner Kino asked about the wall on the south property line and potnted out ttiere is
greenery pla~ted there end a ch~inlink fence~ and asked why a 6-foat high wall would be
necessary.
Jay Tast~iro replied it i5 one of the requirem~nts for corm~ercial property adJstent to
restdential.
Jack White, Deputy City Attorney~ pointed out the wall is e code requlrement and to delete
the wali would re~uire a variance, lie pointed out the applicant could request that the
rondition be deleted ot a latar date.
ACTION: Commissioner Ktng offered a motion, seconded by Comnissioner David and MOTION
CARRIED (Comnfssioners Barnes end L(nn being absent), tl~at the Anaheim City Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposal to retlassify the zoning from RS-7200 ~Residentlal~
Si~g~e-Family) to CL (Commercial~ !imited) on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximAtely 0.4 acre having a frontage of approximately 75 ~eet on the
south side of Ve rn~ont Street~ having ~ maximum depth c~f approximately 218 feet~ beEng
located approximately 162 feet east ~f the cente~line of Harbor Boulevard; and does hereby
approve ~~~~ Neyative Declaratton from the requiremen~ to prepare an enviranmental tmpact
report on he basis that there wnuld be no sig~ificant individual or cumulative adverse
environmentel impact due to the approval of this Negative Ueclaration since the An~heim
General Plan designates the subJect propPrty far commercial profess(onal lend uses
5/22/78
~~
MINUTES~ ANAFIEIM CITY PLANNIt~G GOMMISSION~ M{1Y 22~ 1g78 78-35)
EIR NEGA7IVE DECLARATION AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-)8-y9 (continued)
tommensurate with the proposal; thae no sensitlv~~ envl~onmental impecte are Invalved In
tlie propoaal; that the Initlal Study aubmlCted ~y th~ petitloner indicates no signlficent
indivtdual ar cumulative adverse environmental (mpacts; and that the Negatlve Oeclaratlon
substantlattng the foregoing findtngs is on filc in the Gity of Aneheim Ptanning
Uepartment.
Commisstoner King offered Res~~lutlon Na. PC79-105 and maved for tts pass+~ge and adoptic~n~
that thcs Anahelm C(ty Planning Commisslo~ does hereby grsnt Petitlor~ for P.eclesstflcatian
No. 77-78-5`.), subjcct to the stipulation that thr property shal) be developed
substantlell}~ in acco~dance with the plans as submitted~ end subJect to Iniordepartrn~ntal
Commtttoe recommendations.
On roll call~ the foregning rese~lution wes passed by the follc~wing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS; DAVIU~ HERIiST~ KING~ JOFINSON~ TOLAR
NQES: CONMISSIOI~EaS: NQt~E
AIlSENT: COMMISSIONERS: dARNES, LINN
ITCM NU. 3 PUDLIC I~E/1RING. UWNERS: JEROME A. STEWART~ ET AL,
EIR NCGA IVE DECLARATIUN 715Q Fenwtck Lanc~ Westminster~ CA 92~~3. AGENT:
C t. S. E. ELLIS~ i3~ll McY.inley Clrcle. Westminster~
CA 92Gt33. Petit(vner requesks ~IAIVER OF (A) REQUIRED
STftUCTURAL SETHACK AND (B) MINIMUM LANUSC~IPING
AOJAC~NT TO AN ARTERIAL STREET~ TO CONSYRUCT AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDIWG on property describ~d as
an irregulerly-shaped parcel of land consisttng of approximately 1.1 acres located north of
the intersectfan of Tustin Avenue anJ Jefferson Street~ having approx(rnnte frontages of 383
feet on the northeast side of Tustln Avenue and 2~~7 feot on the west side of Jeffer~on
Street, and further described as 1180 North Tustin Avenue. Property presently classifie~
RS-A-43~000 (RESIDENTIAI./AGRIGULTURAL) ZONE wlth a resolution of intent to the Ml.
(INOUSTRIAL~ LINITEO) ZONE.
There was one prrson indicating their presence in opposition to subJect request, and
although the steff r~port to thc Planniny Commisslo~ dated May 22, 1978 was not read at
the public he~ring~ it is referred to and made a part of the minuees.
Jay Tashiro, Associate Planner, pointed out one letter had been received indicating
oppositlon~ and subJect letter Is on flle in the Planning ~epartment.
Jay Tashiro polnted out a condition should be added requtring the owne~ to finaltze znning
to commerclal; that it is aresently zoned residential/ugrtcultural with s reso'utfon of
intent to industrial.
Sherman Ellis~ 1331 McKlnley~ Westmt~ster~ agent~ showed an elevation af the proposed
office•type build(ng fronting on Tustln Avenue, He indicated that (n 1974 Mr. Stewart had
givan an easenxnt to the City of Anaheim to realign Jefferson Scrcet and to widen Tustln
Avenue and wound up with a trisngular-shaped ptece of property surrounded on three sides
by streets. He Indicated the curbs and yutters are in and tliat it is hfs u~derstanding
tlie streets are .ieveloped to their ultimate aidth. He pointed aut the property is
approximately ~ feet from the curb; that there will be a maximum amount of greenbelt~
assuming no sidewelks arc requir~d; that thsre are no sidewalks no,•th~ east or west of
thi:. prop~rty and f~lt it seemed re~sonable to assume no sidewalks would be rr.qulred. He
5/22/78
3
~
HINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNINf, COMMISSION~ MAY 22, 1978 78-3H2
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 011 (continued)
polnted out they would be huppy to landscape that area and that tf sldewalks were
roquired~ It would stlll leevc about 4 or y feet of ~rea that cauld be landscaped.
He indicated the pr~blem is that the building has ~o be canstructed with stralght lines
and Is not very adaptsble to the shape of the propcrty~ and the best thet could be
acc<xnplished would bes 17~Q~0 square feet on 1.1 acre, whlch still makes a 3y$ utllizatlon~
whRreas a normal industrial butlding would be in the vic(nity of 4;2 utilizatton. I~e
indicated the bulldiny would be a high-class. ttlt-up concrete bu(Iding, He polnted out
Mr. Stewart had butlt the De) Giorglo building across the street and the Century Fiberglas
bullding which is just north of thts property. Ne stated thare la a resolutlan of intent
an thls property to industrial and it was Just a m~i,;Cr of processing the paperwnrk which
hag not bern completed. Ne pc~(nted aut tfiis fs an industrlai use nnd would be conslste~t
with the IntenJed land uses fnr this property.
Conterning the trash location~ he indicated they were unable to contact the Sanitation
Cnglneer because of the strtke~ but that the trash locntion could be relocated as
necessary; that It had been placed at tf~is location on the basis there would be no
exposure to a stre~t and It would be a low-prnfile type~ landscaped erea. He polnted ouc
Che crltical dimension is 30 feet from the right-of-way line rather than 5q feet and thai
to put the building at a ~0-foot setback would eliminate part oF the bullding. He polnted
out there Is a y0-foot setback alony Tustin Avenue. tic referred to the plan and the
landscap(ng proposed,
Mr. Cllis read a letter from Mr. Stewart dated May 19~ 1~73~ indlcatlnq h~ ~v~uld n~t be
present at [he meeting duc to prior camnitments; that wt~en he had ar!ytnally dedicated the
lar~d to the City of Anaheim fc~r the widenin,y of Jefferson and 7ustin, wtitch affetted this
property along the easterly, southerly and westerly bnundartes ~ i t was hls underst~nding
that the City would be leniert with regard to the ;0-foot setback and landscaping
requlrements al~ny those two streets.
Dianne Anders~n~ Communlty Relations Administrator for Rockwell International in Orange
Caunty~ stated she had nermiss(on from Michael 5anders, Manager~ Public Relatlons b
Advertlsing~ to read his letter to tl~e Planning Commisslon dated M~y 18. 1978~ as follows:
"Concerning Variance No. 3012~ Rockweii International strongly urges that it
be disallaweu.
In our view it Is imperative to uphold the set back and land regulations of
the Zoning Code. Only by standing firm on this point can the appearance of
the Northeast Industrial Ofstrict be rrwde attractive Co future tenartts and
to the ciients of the present tenants."
Mr. Ellis indicated he ~vas quite surprised with this opposttion since Autanetics is
located quit~ a distance from thts particular locAtion, lie pointed out they had been
quite sensit(ve to the location of the buildings due to the curvature af the land and
this will be an attractive building. He Rointed out the front is a high-cless.
office-type front. He stated part of the problem is that at the time of dedication
the owner had the understanding the City would be lenEent toward these requtrements,
and it would be a substantial burden on the property owner to have to abide ~•~ith the
requirements.
Tl~E PUBLI C NEARI NG WAS CLOSED.
5/22/7$
yR'
{
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ M~Y 22~ 1978 78-383
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3012 (continued)
Chelrmen Tolar asked if an adJitlanal 9 feet would be landsc~ped if thc sidewelks werc
wsived. 118 asked what purp~sA the sidewalks would servc in this area stnce they would be
go(ng nowhe~o.
Jay Titus~ Office Englnecr~ pointed out tliat If a temporary sidewalk waiver Is granted~
one of thu cond(tions Is tl~at the parlavay would be l~ndscepeci~ and po(nted out It is up to
the City Engtneer to make the decislon whether ar not the sldewalks sh~uld be we(vcsd and
the petitloner should contact h1m rey~rding this.
Commissioncr tlerbst askcd whst uscs wcrc belny plan~cd for this complex slnce th~ units
are qulte small and tl~is (s an industr(al area~ anci asked if thc partltions were flexibis.
Mr. E11(s polntc,S out this (s a norrnal, industrial-typc installatian.
Commissioner Herbst ask~d what a"normal" Installation refers to~ and Mr. E11(s replie~l it
would be planncd for small businesses and stated there are rcStrictions an the ectlvltles
which preclud~ this from beiny commerciel; that (t would be a normal use ln an Industrlal
zone.
Corrmissioner hlerbst felt the a~pearance indicated commercial property. He polnted out
when thts size building is constructed in an Indu~trial zone~ tt tends to go corm~erclal.
He polnted out mach(ne shops wo;~ld be alla~ed in an Industrla) zane and thai there are no
yard areas proposed for cl~ese units for outdoor storage. and (ndicated if a load of steel
was brought In to the business, therc would be no place to put tt or no way for ~arqe
dellvery trucks to get t~ the property. 11e indicated the trasl~ storage area fs lacated
too far eway from the butidings for industrial use, and he visws thts as a maximum amount
of buli~ing space with a minimum amount of usable ysrd area in an industrial area, and
when the actual uses are put on the property it wtil not sattsfy those nceds.
Mr. Ellis pointed out that no use is intended for this area that is not consistent with
the zoning requlrements for industri~l uses.
Chairman Tolar stated thac with the excepcion of the on~ small building at the south end
and the sidewalk walvc~s, this woulo ba an ML p(ece of property and the o~ly reason the
Pianning 4ommission is reviewing It Is becausP of the ~wo waivcrs requesCed.
Commissioner Herbst pointed out that if the sidewalk walver is not granted~ there would be
no landscaping at all proposed on this praperty.
Mr. Ellis potnted out there would be some landscaping whicli would vary from 3 feet to 5
feat, up tn a dimension of about 100 feet; that the problem is the property Is not square.
Concerning the sidewalks, there are no stdewalks (n tlie ~ntire area and there is no way
sidewalks could be constructed on the property in the foreseeable future.
Commissioner Herbst polnted out there is a problem in Anaheim for these small buildings
whtch turn out to be wholssale/commercial for public use; that the uscrs twist the
industrial uses around so that they become wholesale/c%mmercial and ih~s ty~~ of building
lends Itself to that kind of use.
Mr. Eilis indicated he appreciated Commissianer Hrrbst's concerns~ but there wa~ no
intention to use the structures for an~ything not consistent with i~dustrial; that there
are small companies and those small companies of today a~e the large companies of tomorrow
and they would hetp the City grow.
5/22/78
MINUTES~ qNAHE1M CITY PLANNING C~MMISSION~ MAY 22, 197d 78-384
~Ia NEGATIVE DECLARAT~_ ON AND VARIANCE N0. 3~12 ~contlnucd)
Commlysl~ner F'arbsi indicated that concept Is flna as long as tliR proJect turns out that
way .
Commlssioner Johnson asked the petitioner to clarify tha trash locatlon situntlon~ and Mr.
Ellis rnplled they would be happy to relocate It.
Chalrrr~n Tolar polnted out in practic~lly every industrla~l park in !-nahelm there are 15$
to 2~~ commerclal uses~ and Commissloner -lerbst indiceted he wanted it an the r~cord that
one of hts toncerns was regarding canmerclal users In industrlal r.~nes.
Commlasioner Johnson indicetnd this was a ve ry dtfficult~ t~iangular piccc of property and
that slnce assurances were glven the City would be lenient with thr requlremcnts~ he felt
thc use should be ~r~nted.
ACTI~N: Commissioner p~vid offere~i a motlon~ SCCQndCd by Cormiss(vner King and NOTInN
CARRlED (Commissioners Barn~es and Llnn belny absent)~ that the AnAl~~im City Planning
Commisslon has rovicwod thc pr~~posal tc~ cunstruct an industrial bulldlny wtth w~{ver of
minin,um structural setback and minimu-n landscaping ad.jacen( to an .arterial street on an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximalely ~•~ ~oximateCfronta~eshoff
the intersectlon of Tustin Avenuc and Jeffcrson Strect~ havinq app a
3~3 feet on ti~e northeast slde of Tustin Avenue and 2~~7 teet on the west side af Jefferson
Streat; and does hereby approve the Negativc Oeclaration from the requtrcment to prepare
an envlronmenta) impoct r~port on the besis that there woul<i be no slgnificant ind(vidual
or cumulatlve adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this Negative
Declaraelon since tl~e Anahe~m General Plan designates the subject property for general
tndustrial land uses sommensurate with thc+ proposal; that na sensitive environrnental
impacts are involved in tf~e propasal; that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner
ind(cates no significant individual or cu~nulativ~ adverse environmental irnpacts; and that
the Neyative Detlaration substantiating the foreyoing findings is on flle 1n the City of
Anaheim Planning Department.
Cpmmissioner Uavld offercd Resolution No. PC78-1Q6 and moved for Its passage and adoption,
that the Anahe(m City Pla~ning Commission does hereby granc Petition for Variance ~~o. 3012
on the basis that a hards~+ip exists due to the trianyular shape of the property and the
reduttlon (n the size of the property caused by street widentng and realigmm~ow~pendj~ct
to the additio~~l condition of cpmpletion of Reclassification No. 51-G2-69~ 9,
and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recanmendati~ns.
Or. ~~11 calt, the foregaing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: UAVID, HEitEfST~ KING, JOtIN50Il~ TaIAR
NOES: COMMl55IOrIERS: NONE
ABSENT: GOMMI SS IOtJERS ; BARNES ~ L I NM
COhMISSIONER LINN ARRIVED AT 3:00 P.M.
5/22i'78
~-
~-
MINUTES~ ANANEiM C11'/ PLAI'NING COMMIS510N~ MAY 22~ 197$ 78-385
ITEM N0. y REAUY~RTISEU PUdLIC IIEARING. OWI~ERS: JAMES P.
CIR CA G RICAI EXEMPTION-C~ASS 1 ANU PIIYLLIS J. CRAWFORp~ 1~~41 East La Patn~,
. Avenue. Anahetm~ GA 32A05, AGENT: DONALD d.
I~RUWN~ 2y0 North Cenon Qrive, Beverly Hills~ C11
90210~ Petitfoner requcsts AMENDMENT OF CONDITIQNS
OF APPROVAL on property describad as a rectangula~ly-sh~ped p~rcel af lAnd consistiny of
approximntaly 9.2 acres having a frontaye af epproximately 6G2 fcet on th~ east side of
Wslnut Street~ hr,vlny a nwxlmum depth of epproximetely 601~ feet~ being located appraxl-
mately 6y5 feet south of the centerl(ne of Ball Road~ and fu~ther descrihad as 133Q South
Mlelnut Street. Property presently cl8sstfled C-R (COMMERCIAL-RECREATIQN) 20NE..
There was no one (ndlcatfng thelr presence in oppnsitlon tn subJ~cc request, and although
the staff report to thc Planntng Commtssion datcd May 2~~ 1~?78 ~ti~a, iiot read at the publi~
hearing, it (s referred to end madc a part of the minutes.
Ron M(Il(ken~ 603 North Chtppewa~ Anaheim~ representlnc~ Wrath~e~ Leisure~ inc.~ ~+ointed aut
thc request is to extcnd the opnrating hours from 7:00 a.m. ta 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 A.m. to
11:00 p.m.~ the baslc rcason being that they serve two dlfferent groups, the membership
and hntci guests. Ne potn;ad aut thc ma.jority of thc hotcl gucsts are tn town on
conventlons end their convention scliedulcs dictdte that they play tennls in the earlv
morning haurs or late tn the evening~ and that members havc indicated e d~slre to play
prlor to going to work ln the mo~~iny and also to have evening activities.
TNC PUDLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEO.
Jay Tashtro, Associate f'lanner~ pointed out na letters have been received in opposition.
Comnis~toner Johnson indicated that when the permit was criginally granted, there had been
qulte a bit of opp~sition fram the citizens concerning the ope~atinc~ hc~urs~ wtth the
opposition feel(ng ttic petitioner w ould be requesting lo~ge~ hours~ whlch ts the case.
Cammiss(onPr Nerbst pointed ~~~t that at the last n~eeting cc~ncerning the tent facility~
there had been no opposit(on co Tennisland,
Commissiuner King indicated he had been to tl~e faclllty o~ a Sunday morning and stood in
front of the facility, and the noise wa~ caused by the traffic and not the players.
Jack White, Deputy City Attorney~ pointed out the conditioral uSe permtt could be brought
back for Commission review (f the condition ~vas added for e limited time, or If the use
proved to be detrimental ta thc health of the citix~ns ~f Anaheim.
It was noted the Plan~ing Director or his authortzed representative has determined the
proposed proJect falls wtthi~~ the definition of Categorical Exemptions~ Class 1~ as
deftned in paragraph 2 of the City of Anaheim Environme~tal Impact Report Gutdelines and
is~ therefore~ categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR.
AC710N: Commtssioner Ktng offer$d Resolutian No. PCJ$-107 and moved for its passage and
a~~on, that the tinaheim City Plan~tng Commission daes hereby recortrnend to the ~ity
Council that the request for amendment of conditlons pertaining to o~erating hours in
connectio~ with CQnditional Use Pcrmit No. 1571 be approved, allaaing the operating hours
to be from 6:0(! a.m. to 11:00 p.m.~ as stipul ted to by the petitioner.
On rall call, the foregoiny resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: DAVIU, NERBST, !OHNSON~ KING~ LINN, TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: IdONE
ABSENT: COMNI SS IONERS : EO,.~ ~~
5/22/78
MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 22~ 1978 78-386
ITEM N0. 6 REAOVCRTIS".~ PUBLIC HEAaING. OWNERS; KENNETN ~. AND
EIR A GORICAL EXEMPTI~-N-CLASS 1 LOUIE 8. CLAUSEN, 2795 West Linc~ln Avenue~ MF~
. ,, Anshelm. CA ~2801. AGENT; CLAUDINE Y.. LEVINS~
~' 1832~~ AlexAnd~r~ Ce~ritos~ CA 90701. Petitlone~
requests MODIFICI1T101~ OF CONpIT'IONIIL US~ PERMIT on
property described as a rectA~~yularly-aheped percel of lAnd consisti~c~ of ap~-roximatoly
0,9 ^cre located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avesnue and Empire Street~ havin~ epproxl-
mate fro~tages of 2G~i feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue end 1~0 faet on the erst stde
of ~mplre Street~ and furtf~er descrtbed as 2060 West Linc~ln Avenuc. Propercy presently
~lassifled Gl (COMMERCIAL~ LIMIT~U) ZOt1E.
There was na one tndicatin~ tli~ir prasence In opposition to subJect ~equest~ and althouc~h
the staff roport to the Plenntng Commisslon ~~~d May 22, 1978 was r.o~ reAd at the public
he~ring~ it is raferred tr~ enJ m~Jc a pdr'~ uf il~e ininutes.
Andrew flimrnel ~ t~5~i~+ Mulholland Or(ve~ Los Anycles~ Agent~ potnted out the ariginel
eond(tlonal use permit w~s for wonxen ~nly and that mcn elso havc an ob~sity problem and
h(S cllent wantS to promc~tr. the use of the body wrap (whlch is applled to the body to
brcak down tl~e body fat and fs sup~osecl to be a slimminc~ frct~r). Ne polnted out his
c) ient had requests from wl ves who havc t+~ken thi s trcatment for tl~el r husbands to take
It. therefore, thc revu~st Is to modify the condltional use permit to allow massage ard
body wrap treatments for men as well as women.
THE PUaLIC NEARING WAS CLOSEO.
Comnlssloner King pointed ouc tl~e staff reporr indicates the facility would be used by men
and women on alternate days~ wlth Mr. Nlmr~~cl pointinq ~ut there would be spectfir.d times
for men and women.
Cnmmissioner Johnscx~ asked the petitioner to explain the layout ~f the facility and
whether or not eve rybody is requlrGd to toke the body wrap treatment.
Mr. liimmel pointed out they have a sauna bath and after the sauna ~he body w~ap (s applied
to the bady, which (s su~+posed to break down tl~e body fat, and a person could take a sauna
bath only or a massaye~ ~r all in conJunctlon; that hts client is promoting the body w rap
Necauss he undQrstood no ather facilixy in Anahelm nff~;rs th(s treatment.
Comnissi~ner Johnson asked what th~ hpu~s of operation wouid be~ and Mr. Hirmiel repiied
the facil(ty would open about g:OQ a.m. and close about 10:00 p.m.
Jay Tashiro pointed out the Poiice Department had been cnntacted and they reported they
had observed patrons entering the facil~ty aftEr 10:00 p.m., and Mr. Nimmel repited it was
thelr Inte~tion to not allaw anyone in after hours.
Ch~irman Tolar asked if the facil(ty closes at 10:00 p.m. now, who is seen entering after
10:00 p.m, and Mr. Nimmel repl ied that would prc~bably be the clean-up crew.
Claudine Levfns Cook, operator of the ou~iness. was present~ end Chairman 7olar asked her
to explain who gaes to the buslness after 10:00 p,m. and she replied a few people were
cleaning af~er 10:00 p.m. and they had been staying same evenings to do painting and
cleaning.
5/22/78
MIf~UTES. ANANEIM CITY PLANNING CAMMISSiON~ W1Y 22~ 1978
~a-387
~,~R CATEGORICAL EXFMPTION-CLASS 1 ANU CONDITIONAL USE PEaMIT N0, 175~ ~contlnuad)
Commissloner King esked if the hours c~f opereclon were posted an the door~ ~nd M~. Cook
repltad they were not p~stRd.
~tialrman Tolar Indicated he was bother~d in rel~tionslitp to massar~e parlors because there
havn been prablems with some of tho ex(sting facilitie~ in thr, past; thst most of them are
still In the County but they do hAVe A bad reputation. He indicated he reell~eci thts Is a
salon for exr.rciae and weight reduction and that men d~ nee~t this type tre~tment, as weil
as women, but that he was concerned about allowing thls dual usc.
Ms. Cook pofnted out khis typc facllity Is regulated by certoin l~ws and if thesc ~ules
arc b ~oken~ her busincss would be clas~d. Sha indicated shc realtzed thc good buslnesses
must pay for the rcputatlon of a bad business~ but sl~e would 11kC a cl~ance to prove thls
is a good business and she would not be breakiny eny iaws whatsoever. Shc lndlcated this
business hes bcen in existence for about ninc yeors and she f~as bcen in it since the first
of the ycar. She p~inted out men have tloe same welqht problems as women and a lot of the
ladles have wanted to bring their husbands in~ and she was not awarc this was nat allowcd
and has haJ to ma{~e changes .
Commisstoner Johnsan asked {f th(s could be tled to a time limlt, and Jock White~ Deputy
City attorney, polntod out tne Commisslon could cither add a condit(on that wouid
automatlcally bring it back for review in e year or two. or lf the operation has problems
and causes a nu) sance to tl~e genera 1 hea 1 th, peace ai~d Safety of the ci t i zens ~{ t cou 1 d be
reviewed on that basis.
Chafrman Tolar indtcated he would like to see this approvcd wlth rn autanatic review at
the end of nne ye~r~ and he dtd not [hink a time limit would have an ill effer_t on the
business s(nce they would not be making any changes in their operation.
It was noted that the Planning Director or his authorized ~r.nresentative has deiermined
ttiat the proposed proJect falls within the definiclon of Cate9orical Exemptlons~ Class 1,
as de1`ined in paragraph Z of the CSty of Anahcim Environmi:ntal Impact Report Guidelines
and is~ therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an Cla.
AGTION: Commissioner Nerbst offered Resolution I~o. PC7$'10$ and moved for {ts passage and
a~t~on~ that the Anaheim City Planning Cortmission does hereby grant the request far
modiftcatlon of Conditionai Use Permit No. 17~5 to permi[ massages for men and wanen (n an
existing flgure salon, subJect to tfie stipula[io~s by the pet(tioner that the hours of
operatlon shall be from 8:OA a.m. until 10:00 p.m.; tf~at the use is granted for a one-year
perfod subject to re~ilew for possible extenslons of time upon wrlttc~ request by the
petitloner; and subject to Interdepartment~al Committe~ recammendatlons.
On roll call, the fore~oing resolution was passed by the fallowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: DAVID, NERt35T~ JOi1N50N~ KING~ LINtI~ TOLAR
NOES : COMM) SS I O~~ERS : t10NE
ABSENT: COMMiStiIONERS: BARI~ES
Ms. Gook asked about the one-year time limit, and Jay Tashlro explained the Planning
Department would send her a letter telling her she should request an extension of time at
the end of a one-y~ar perlod.
S/22/78
4
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSI01~~ MAY ?.2~ 1q78 78-388
1 TEM N0. J PUEiI I C NEARi NG. OWNEKS : CON5E:aVAT 1 VF. BAF'T 1 ST
ETI~~i~TT1lE DECLAMTIOtJ ASSOCIATION OF SOUTIIERN CALI FORIIIA~ 2~28 West La
p ON E E MI N0. 18 Palma Avenue~ Anahetrt~~ CA 9280) and GRAGE DAPTIST
A ODE RE~UIREMENTS CHURCH OF ANIINEIM~ 25~A West la Pelma Avenue~
An~+l»im~ CA 928Q1. AGENT: JAMES M. THAYER, 77
arookhollow Url•~e~ Senta Ana. CA 92705. Petltloner
requests EXPA~~SION OF Ct~URCII OFFICES WITN WAIVER OF (N) MAXIMUM STRUCTURAI IIEIGNT AND (B)
MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK on propertv descrtl,ed ns a rectangularly-shaped parcel af land
co~sisting of approximately 2.2 acres heving a frontagc of approximately 180 feet on the
south slde of La Palrtia Avenue, having a maxlmum dopth of approximatcly S33 feet, bQing loceted
approximately 66Q feet uast of the centerl ine of Magnol ta Avenue~ a~d further described as
2523 West La Palma Avenue. Property presontly classifled RS-A-43~~QQ (RESIDENTIAL/
AGRICUlTUR1lL) 20NE.
There was no one indi cat i n~ thei r aresPnce i n oppos I t lon to subJect request, and al though
the s taff report to the P I ann ing Gommi ss i on dated May 22 ~ 1~37~5 was not raad at th~ pub I I c
hearing~ it (s referred to and made a part of tf~e minuces.
Jemes M. Thayer~ ayent~ representing th~ Conservat(vc aaptist nssociation of Southern
Ca 1 i forn I a and the Grace Dapt ( s t Church of Anahe t m, owners ~ i nd i cated they are req ues t 1 ng
a condittonal use permit t~ extend the office buildin,y to within $ fcet of th~ rear lot
line and waivcrs of the he(ght Iimit~~+tir~n~ extending the same he(ght a5 Che prev(ously-
approved pcrmtt, and minimum required rear yarci setback. lie potnted out the two-story
b~ilding would be adJacent to apartment houses whlch have two stories and to a minlature
golf course. He polnted out there would be 49 feet of apen space between this bui Iding
and the church bullJing and that this Is acceptable to the church. He pointed out the
~~ours of operatlon for the two uses do not coinclde and that there was a previous
condition added that if the California Baptist Association sells this uffice building~ the
propertty wauld be reverted to the ~ urch. lie indicated the building had been designed to
be used as a classroom for the church should [he offices be moved. and pointed out this
would be a law-key operatian and not generate very much traffic and they have had no
access p~oblems. 11e felt the hetght variance would not be obj~ctionable to the adJacent
us~s and would be compatible.
THE PUBLI C HEARI NG WAS CLOSED.
Chairman Tolar indicated his concern in relationship to sellin4 the property in the
future. and Commissi~ner Linn indicated concern that if the church is sold, would the
property rc~vert to thc associatio~~ and Mr. Thayer repl fed there is a reciprocal easement,
ACTIO~s: Commissioner Johnsan offered a motion, secnnded by Comnissloner Y~ing and MOTi011
ARR EO (Commisstoner [iarnes be(ng absent), tlia~ the Anaheim Clty Planninq Commission has
reviewed the sub~ect project consisting of ars expansion of church nfflces with ~aiver of
maxlmum structural height and minimum rear ya~d setback on a rectangularly-shaped parcel
of land consistiny of approximately 2.2 acres having a frontage of approximate ly 180 feet
on thc south side of La Palma Avenue, having a maximurn depth of aQpr~x(mately 533 feet,
being located apProximately 660 feet east of the centeri ine of Magnolla Avenue ; and does
hereby approve the Negative Declaration from the requlrement to prepare an envi ronmental
lmpa~t report on the basis that there woutd be no signiftcant individual or cumulative
a~verse environmental impact due to the dpproval of this Negative Declaration since tMe
Anaheim General Pla~ designates the subJecc property for med;um density residenttal land
uses commensurete witt~ the proposal; that na sensittve environmen:al impacts a~e involved
in the proposal; thr~t the Initial Study submitted by the petitione~ I.~di;.ates no
5/12i'!8
~r
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISS tON~ MAY 22~ t978 78-389
EIR NEGATIVE OECLARATION ANq CUNDITIONAL USE PERMIT NQ. 1833 (caontinucd)
significant t ndivlduel or cumulative a dvorse onvironment~l impacts; and xhet the Ncgetlve
Doclaration subst+~ntlating th~ fare~lr,g flndinga is vn file In the Clty of Anah~im
Ple~ntng Depsrtment.
Commiss (oner Johnson nf fered Resol ut i o: . No. PC)8-109 And navad for i ts pessaqe and
edoptlon. that the Anahelm City Planni~g Gommisslon does hereby grent Petltton for
Condlttonal Use Permit No, 1833~ subjeet tc~ Interdepartmental Committee recommendatlons.
On rol) call , the foregoing resolution was passed by thc follawing vote:
AYES: COMMlSSIONERS: UAVID~ NER~ST, JOIiNSON~ I~ING~ LINN. TOLAR
NOES: GOMMISSION~RS; NONE
ABSENT: COMN.ISS IONERS ; pARNES
Commissloner Johnson offered a motion~ seconded by Comnissir~ner Davld and MOTION CARRIED
(CAmmtsstone~ Darnes beln~ absent) ~ that the Anahcim City Plr~nning Commis; to~ does hereby
grant watvers (a) and (b) on the bas ( s that the appl l c~nt's tes timony indlcates a
reciprocal easement wi I1 be recorded between the properties and there wlll be 5Q feet nf
open l andscaped area between the: two b ui l dings.
Commissl~ner lierbst asked if the walvers would be necess~ry if tl~ese two properties were
one~ and Jay TAShi ro polnted out th~e waiver regard(ng the height would sti 11 be necess~nry
because of the apartment complex on the adJacent property.
ITEM N0. 8 PU6LIC NEARING. ONN~R: J. P. EDMONOSON PRUPERTIES~
~~E ~RI CAL EXEM?TiON-CLA55 1 LTD. ~ a00 41t Ishire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 9~017.
t~D 0 L U E RM 0. 35 Petit(oner requests per-mission t~ ESTABLISH AN
AUTOMQ8ILE RENTAL AGENCY IN AN EXISTING SERVICE
STATI0~1 on property described as a rectangularly-
shaped parcei of land consisttng of approximately 0.5 acre located at the southeast corner
of Manchester Avenue and Harbo~ Qoulevard~ having approximate frontages of 150 feet on the
south side of Manchester Avenue and 150 feet on the oast side ef Harbor Boulcvard~ and
further described as 1401 So~th Harbor aoulevard. Property presently classi fied RS-A-43~O~A
(RESIDENI'IAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZOt1E.
There w~s no one tndicating their presence in oppositlon to subJect reyuest, and although
the staff report to the Plan~ing Commission dated May 22, 1978 was not read at the public
heartng, (t is ~eferred to and mede a part of thQ minutes.
David McNally~ 612 Amber prive, representiny Pate) Rent A Car. (nc.~ age~t, pointed out a
previous ~eq uest to corvert an existin g servtce station into an automobile rencal agency
was withdraw~ and they nave worked out a more compatible proposal which wtl i be in
compliance wi th the zoning codes. Ile indicated they had reduced the numbcr of vehtcles to
be stored on the property for dl5play to faur and would be operating the facllity as a
gasoline serv(ce station,
THE PUBLIG HEARiNG Wp~S CLOSED.
it was noted that the Planning ~ireccor or his authorized representative has determined
that the proposed project falls wtthirs the definftion of Categoric~l Exemptions, Class 1.
5l22/78
~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 22. t978 78-390
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-ClASS 1 ANO CONDIT_iONAI USE PERMIT N0. 1835 (cantlnued)
as daftn ed in pa~agraph 2 of the Clty of Aneheim Envtronmentsi Impact Rep~rt Guidelinea
anJ is, the.refore~ categorica'ly cxampt from tho requiremont to prepetG ~n EIR.
Cc~nmissianer Nerbst asked tlie petitioner to specify the hours of operation~ and the
petit{on er replled thay were as shown In the staff report.
ACTION: Commiss(oner King offer~d Resolutlon No. PC78-110 end moved for its passage and
a opt on (Commissl~ner Barnes boiny absent)• tliat the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does he ~eby grant Petition fo~ Conditlonal llse Perm(t ~~o. 1~35. subJect to
Interde partmental Committec rQCOmmendations.
On roil cell~ the `nregoing resolutlon waa passed by the followinc~ vote:
AYES: COMMISSIANERS: DAVIU~ IIERBST. JOIINSON, KING~ LINN, TOLAR
NOES: COMNISSIO~IERS: NONE
AUSkN7: COMMISSIONERS; BARNES
ITkM NO. 9 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: WILLIAN N. RCMLA~ID~ ET l1L~
ERt~CATEGORIC~L EXEMPTI01~-CIASS 1 63G East Chapman Aven~e. Qrange~ CA 926b6. AGENT:
ND ON L US E I N0. 3 DUNKIN DONUTS~ 3~43 Suuth Caricia Orive. Hacienda
AIVER OF ODE REQUIR, EMEt~T He(ghts~ CA 91745• Pctitioner requests permission
to ESTABLI511 A DRIVE-711ROUGtI DOt1UT SFiOP WITIi WAIVER
OF MINIMU'1 NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES an property
describ ed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of la~d consisting of approxlmately O.~i acre
locate d at the no~theast corner• af Orange Avenue and Oeach Boulevard~ having app~oxtmaCe
frontages of 135 feet on the north s(de of Qrange Avenue and 125 fee[ on th~ east side of
Beach Boulevard~ ard further de~~~ribed as 528 So~th Beach Boulevard. P~ope~ty t~resently
classi fied CL (COMMERCIAL, LIMtTED) ZOt~E.
There was a one indicating their presence in opposition to subJect request~ and although
the s t aff report to the Planning Commisslo~ dated May 22~ 1978 was not read at the public
hearin g~ lt iS referred to and made a part of the mtnutes.
Ed 7e u ton~ ayent~ indicateJ ttiey wish to construct a doughn ut storc and were requesting
walve ~ nf th e parking requirements in order to have a drive-through w(ndow. Ne pointed
out th at 22 spaces would be adequate for this type of use; that 50~ of their business
would be take-out business and it was thel; opinion the drive-through window woul ' not
requi re more parking.
THE PUDLiC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
It was noted that the Planning Dlrec[or or his authorized representative has detcrm(ned
that the proposed proJect falls within the definition of C ategorical Exemptions, Class 1,
as de f{ned in paragraph 2 of the City of Anaheim Environmental impact Qeport Guldeline5
and i s~ therefore~ cate~~orically exempt from the requtrement to prep~~e an EtR.
ACT10 N; Commissioner King offered Resolution No. ~'C7a-111 and ^p~antfPetitl naforye end
a~pi o~ n~ that the Anahelm City Planning Conmission does hereby g
Condi tional Use Permit PJo. ta35, subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations.
0~ roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: DAVID. HERBST. JOHNSON, KING, LINN, TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIOtiERS: NONE
AE35ENT: COMMI SS IONEaS: BARN~S 5~22~~8
,~
~
~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY NLANNING COMMISSIOk~ MAY 22~ 1978 78~391
~,IR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1a36 (contlnued)
Commisstoner King offered a mation~ seconded by Commissloner Davld and MOTION CARRICp
(Can~nisslonor tie~nas belny absent) ~ that the request for weiver of wdc roqui r~menc for
minlmum nu~er of parking spaces bo granted on the basls that with thr. sir.e of the
property end the type of use~ it Is nut feaslble to provide the number of parking spaces
rnqulred~ and deniel would be e deniel of the use grented t~ ochers in the area.
RECESS There wes a 15~minute recess ai 3:20 p.m.
FIECONVENE The rn~eting wds reconvened at 3:35 p.m., Cort~missioner Oarnes belnq abstnt.
..~..~_.
ITEM N0. 10 PUE3LIC HEARING. OWNCRS: DALE E. AND SARAH ANN
EIR CATEGOaICAL EXEMPTION•CLASS 1 FOWLCR~ 3176 East la Palma 1lvenue~ AnAheim~ CA 92~OG.
COND) IOf1AL USE PERMIT N0. 37 AGENT: CREVIER IMPORTS, 1061-H Shepard Street~
Anaheim~ CA 92806. Petitloner requ~sts permissinn
ta ESTABLISII AN AUTQMODILE REPAIR AND RESTORATION
SERVICE FACILITY on property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting
of approxtmately a.2 acres located at the southwegt corner of L~ Palma Avenue and Shepard
Street~ having appraximate frantages of 440 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue and
510 feet on the west sidc of Shepard StrePt~ a~d further descr(bed as l~~il Shepard Strcet.
Unit N. Property preaently classifled ML (INDUSTRIAL~ LIMlTED) ZO~IE.
There was no one i~dicating their presence in opposlt(on to s~bJect request~ and although
tl~e staff report to th~ Planning Commission da:ed May 22~ 1978 was not read at the public
hearing~ it is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Joseph Crevier, agent~ indicated he is requ~sting the conditionAl use permit to repair and
restore vehicles at the location he is presently using.
THE PUBLI C'~EARING WAS CLOSED.
Comrnissi~~ner Nerbst asked for clarification regardinq the "repair of vehicles," and Mr.
Crevier polnted out they do maJor tuna-ups~ overhauling~ and d(smantling far restoration
of vehiclos and that a car could be dismantled al) the way tn the frame and rebuilt; that
~ach car is differenc and it covers a wide ~ange. Ile painted out they do not do any
painting or body work at this location and al) work Is done inside and there ls no outdoor
storage~ and they work primariiy on Ferraris and Maseratis.
Comnissioner Nerbst asked if tu~e-up work was done on ordinary ca~s or }ust these special
cars~ and Mr. Crevier replied that tt~ey only work on foreign cars~ specializing in
Ferraris. classics~ and vintage-type ca~s.
Commisslo~er David asked what type of advertisfng was done to attract customers, and Mr.
Crevitr repiied their business is by wo~d of mouth, that they do ~ot advertise, and this
is a very select type of busine~s.
Comnissioner Herbst asked tf thiere would be any signing~ and Mr. Crevier replied there
would be e smatl sign acroxs the front of the building.
5/22/78
~^ f,
MINUTES~ ANANEIM GITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 22~ 197$ 7$'392
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 ANU CONDITIONAL US~ PERMIT N0. 1837 ~continued)
_.___~ - --
ChalRnon Tolar askod if a time ltmit should be considered for approval of thla condition~l
use pc~mit slnGe It i~ tn the industrlal area and sometlmes thesc usos are not conduclvc
to an industrlal araa.
Mr. Crevler potnted out the landlord has offered him e lnrger unit and he might be
consider(ng moving Into a differe~t unit at the same complex, buC there would be no
modlficatians or alteratlons to the bu(ld(ng.
Jack White, Deputy Glty Attorncy, poi~ted out the sub'^ct application was for Unit N and
If the business Is moved, it would hove to be readvertised for anothcr public hearing.
Mr. Crevier pointed out a canditlon had been included requiring the sidewalks be installed
along La Palrna Avenue and Shepard Street and not~d there are n~ sidewalks in the nntire
nelghburhood, and hc was sure the landlord would not be w1111ng to pay for the sidewalk.
Jay Titus, Offlce Enginee ~ polnked out the praperty owner could request a sidewalk
wa(ver.
The s(gnal assessment fee was discussed, with Jay Tltus polntl~g out the signa)
assessement fec would be based on the square footage of the area being utilized~ and if
the C~mmtsslon ag~ee~ with the condltion~ the fec would be based on the area he was using.
Con~r-Issionor Davld clarified this gignal assessment fee was being imposed because it would
be a cort-mcrctal use in a~ tndustrial area, and Jay Titus point~d aut if the Planning
Cammissio~ felt this was more of an industrial use than a comnercial use, they could
delete that conclitian.
Commissioner Nerbst felt the re.toration and rebuilJing of automobiles was a borderline
case and would lean more tawards Industrial than comnercia:.
Commissioner Linn Indicated he felt this should be fndustrial rath~r than commerc(al, and
Commissioner David pointed out it would be a limited type of servite offered to vcry fev~
peop le .
It was noted that the Planning Director or his authorized representative has determined
that tfie proposed proJect falls within the definition of Catego~ica~ ExemF+tions, Class 1,
as defincd in paragraph 'L ~f the City of Anaheim Environmr,ntal impact Report Guidel(nes
and ts, therefore~ categorically exempr from the ~equirement to prepare an EIR.
ACTION: Commissioner L(nn offered Resolutian No. PC7ii-i12 and moved for its passage and
a~coptron~ that the Anaheim City Planning Cortx~ission d~es hereby grant Petitton for
Condittonal U5e Permtt No. 1837; that Condltion Na. 2 s~e~ll be ~eleted from the
inte~depertmental Committee rec~mmendattons; that subJect use is granted for a twa-year
period~ subject to consideration for an extension of time upon wrttten request by the
petittoner; and subJect ta Interdepartmental CammitCee recomstiendations.
Oro roll call, the faregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CONMISSIONERS: DAVID~ NERBST~ JOHNSO~~, KING, LINf~~ TOLAR
NOES s COh1i~t155 f Ot1ERS : NQNE
AOSENT: COMMISSIO~~ERS: BARNES
s~z2~~a
3
MINUT~S, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MAY 22~ 1978 7a-393
ITEM N0. 11 ' PUBLIC HEAaING. BALL ROAQ 863~ liD.~ P. 0.
~'~~ICAL EXENP710f1-CLASSl:S 1 b 3 8ox 4265~ Anahelm~ CA 92E~3. AGENTt WILLIAM
011~ N L U E~ERMI'~~. ~~ A. CORN, 5162 Princeton Mvenue~ Westminster~
CA 92G83. Pat(ttuner ~equesCs permisslon ta
ESTADLISI~ A TENT CAMP FACILITY IN AN EXISTING
RECREATIONAL VEt11CLC PARK on property described es an Irregularly-shaped pr~rcel of land
consistinq of approxlmately 9•0 acres heving a frontage of apprAximately 775 feet on the
north alde af Ball Roed~ hAV(ng a rnaximum deptfi of approxlmately G--7 feec~ being located
approximately 330 feet east o~ the centerlina of Narbor E3oulevard~ and further described
as 333 and 1F75 west aa11 Road. Property presently classified CL (COMMERCIAL~ LIt~,ITED)
ZONE.
Thers was no one indicatt~~ their presence in oppositlon t~ sub,ject reguest, a~d ~{though
the staff report to the Planning Co~rnisslon dated May 22~ 1978 was not read at the public
hearing~ (t Is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Michael Duffy~ 18652 Libra Circle~ Nuntington Beach, pointed out this petition Is the
result of raquests of p~,~ential patrons relntive to tcnting facil(ttes at their existing
recreatlonal vehicle park and that the lur~~est portinn of these requests is from forelgn
students trsveling in the United States who want t~ go to Dtsneyland and need a place to
camp. Na po(nted out they are trying to maintaln the standards of thetr park and have
(soleted an Area in the interior portion of the park, whlch would place tt in the
nortl~east portlon of the park. fic pninted out they have adequate restroom facllittes~
showers~ laundry facilttles~ and a convenience st~re tn the park~ which are in excess of
code and would be adequate to service this tenting faciltty. He polnted out ehere is a
need for this type facility in Anaheim since tourism is a vital part of commercia)
enterprise in Anahelm and they hoped to answer this need w+Ch this use.
T11E PUBLI C HEARIt~G WAS CLOSED.
C~~mm(ssloner Linn questloned the dog run for those patrons who bri~g the(r pets to the
factlity, end Mr. Quffy replied they had not provided a speciftc place for the dog run.
Commiss(oner Johnson noted the staff repor; indica[ed they would be using 3~+ spaces for
the tent fac(iity and asked if tt would be confined to that number, and Mr, Duffy replied
that they would not accept any nwre than 34 users into this area.
Commissloner Johnson pointed out hc ~eallzed chere is a demand for this type of tent
camping and that maybe we are obligated by law Co provide some methad for people to cgmp,
but that he did nAt think this was a good location for this type use.
A lady In the audience potnted out her concern for the type of patrons this use would
attract.
Mr. Duffy po(nted out they wauld be charginy the same rate for tl~e tent camping facility
as they would for recreatinnal vehicle parkinc~. Ne pointed out they have~ in the past,
had people come in and read the directions for select(ng a site and registertng in the
mor~ing who have put up their tei~ts after I~ours and they have had ta remove them in the
morning and tney hoped by being able to post ths directions fo~ legttimate-type camping~
this ~ould eliminate the problem.
5/22/78
~~
MINUTE5. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 22~ 1978 78-394
EIR CATEGORICAI EXEMPTION•CLASSES 1 6 3 AND CONDITIONAL USC PERMIT N0.~8 (oontinued)
Chalrmen Talar polnted out that it appears whAn pl~cos charga the same rete for tent
cemptng as they do recreatlona) vehicles~ It allmtnates some af the problems with
u~desirabla typos of peoplc campiny.
Chalrman Toler Indicated he wauld Ilke to sao a time limit tiac~ ta thts use~ If lt is
epproved~ s~ that the Planning Commlasion would heve a handle on It.
Commissloner Llnn polnted out the provious tenting facility approved was ad,jacent to
reside~ntial and that this facility would be more desirable since it Is not. edJecent to
rasldenttal.
It wes noted that the Planning plrector o~ ~~is authorit~d representative has determined
tMot the proposed proJect falls witt~(n the definiti~n ~f Categorlcal Excmptions~ Classcs 1
and ;~ as defined in paragraph 2 of the City of Anaheim Env(ronm~ntal Impact Report
Guidalines and is, therefore~ categorically cxempt from tt~e requirement :o prepare an EIR.
ACTIOP~: Cammissi~ncr Herbst offered Kesolution Ilo. PC78-113 and mov~d for (ts passoge and
ac~nptTon~ that thc Anahoim City Planning Commisslon does hereby grant Pctitlon for
Conditiona) Use Perm(t No. 183~! for a one-year perlod~ sub,ject to review and consideration
for po~slble extonslon of time up~n written rcquest by the petltioner~ and subJect to
Interdepartmentat Committee recommGndations.
On roll c~ll, the foregoing ~esolut(on was passed by the following vate:
AYES: COMMISSInNERS: DAJIU~ H~RBST, KING, LINN. TALAR
NOES: COMMISSIOIIERS: JONNSON
AliSENT: COMMiSSIONERS: BAIiNES
Commissioner pavid asked the criteria for khe escablishment Uf a dog run~ po{nting out
that one pa~k previously approved dces p~ovtde a dog run and this park does not, and Jack
Whlte~ Deputy City Attorney~ replir.d thls wes simply a matter of choice on the part of the
petitfoncr.
5/22/78
~
MINUTES~ AMAHEIM CITY PI~NNING COMMISSION~ MAY 22~ 1978 78-3g5
I TEM N0. 1
R~I'OR AND RECOMMEI~D/1TIONS
A. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 1N7 - Requast for Initlatlon of iand use evaluatlon
or enera an Atudy.
Area I-_~.?3 acros at the southwest corner of Ninth Street and Katella Avenue.
Commissioner King noted hts c~ncern regarding the awner of the property In case there
Gould be a confltct of interest~ and Jack White~ Deputy City Ateorney~ p~inted out It
would not be a conflict of Interest since this actinn is to determine whether or not to
sst the item for public hcar(ng.
ACTION: Commissioner King offerc:d a motlon~ zeconded by Commissioner Linn and MOTION
~~U (Commisslonar aarnes being absent)~ th~t Genernl Plan amendmenl procced(ngs are
appropriate at this time for A~ea I and tliat this matter should be set for public hcertng.
Area 11 - a~ roximatc:l 1'l acres south of Miraloma Way between the Riverside ~+nd Orange
raeway s n te ~c a~.
ACTION: Commissio~er Linn offereJ a motion, sec~nded by Commissioner David ~nd MOTI0~1
A~R~ED (Commissioner Barnes being absent)~ that General Plan amendment proceedings are
appropriate et this tlme for Area II and ti~at th(s matksr should be set for public
hearl~g.
Ar~a 111 -~ roximate.~l. Y~0 acres soutli of the Riverslde Freew norkh of the Santa Ana
Rfve~ st~ us~n Avenue an east o t e ao co~tro c anne n t e v c n t o
asse treot.
ACTION: Commissioner David offered a motion, seconded by Cortmissioner Ltnn and MOTION
t ED (Comnissioner Barnes beinq absent)~ that General Plan amendment proceed{ngs are
appropriate at this time for Area III and thnt this matter should be sec for pubilc
hearing.
Area IV - a roximatel 4 acres at the northwest corner of Oran ethor e Avenue and
Imoer al Nighway.
ACTION; Commissioner Nerbst offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner David and MOTION
CARRIED (Commissioner Barnes being absent). that Gencral Plan amendr,~ent proceedings are
appropriate at this time for Area IV and tt~at this matter should be set for public
hearing.
A~nika Santelahti~ Assistant Direct~r for Zoning, noted the public hearing date for
General Plan Amendment No. 147 is July 11~ 197~.
B. VARIR.~ N0._ 696 ' Request for an extens ion of time.
Jay Tashiro, Associate Planner, presented the staff report to the Ptanning Commission
dated May 22~ 197~. explaining sub,ject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximetely 1.48 acres located approximately 300 feet from the centerli~e
of Claudina Way; that the applicant re~ues~s an extensto~ of time for the retail sale and
5/22/78
i
~.
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMI5SION~ NAY 22, 1978 78'39~
ITEM ~_(continued)
ouCdo~r storage of bullding materlals; and thet the conditlon requirin~ the plante~ a~ea
In front of the building to be replanted and malntt~tned has not bne~ met.
ACTION: Commissioner HerbsC offered a motlon~ seconded by Commissioner David and MOTION
CA RIEO (Commissinner Barnes boing ebs~nt)~ tl-ax thr request for a one-year extension ~f
tirt-e for Varia~nce No, 2Ga6~ to explre May 2R~ 1979. he <~ranted~ provided the petittoner
~eplant withln 30 days and maintatn an existing 5-foot planter~ as requl~ecf by the
cond(tlon of epproval.
It was explainod to a lady (n the audience representing the nppilcant which a~ea must be
landscaped~ and she indicnted she understood.
C. COtJDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1574 - Request for approvei of revised plans.
The staff report to tlic Planniny Commission daccd Mey 22~ 1a7G was presented~ noting
subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of lanJ consisting of approximately 35
acres locaced south of the Rtverside Freeway~ havinc~ a frontage o~ approximately 6Q4 feet
an the north side of Medica) Center Drive, having a maximum depth of approximately 758
feet, and being located 106~ feet wesz of the centerline of Euclid Street and that the
applicant, Andrew Peszynski~ Matreyek Nomes. Inc., requesCs approval of revlsed plans for
removal of a l~undry/carwash facility from the oriyinally approved exhibit.
Commfssioner Flerbst indicated he had a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim Gity
Plenr~ing Commissian Resolution No. PC16-1y7~ adopting a Canflict of InterCSt Code for che
Plannin3 Commissio~~ and Government Code Section 3G25, et seq.~ and hc was hereby
declaring to the Chaitman that he was withdrewing from the hearirg and wouid not take
part in either the discussion or the voting thereo~ and that he had not discussed this
matter with any member of the Planning Commission.
Andrew Peszynski~ agent representing Anaheim Shores Itiobile Estates~ indicated they were
requesting to eliminate the laundry building and explalned that hls letter would give the
reasons. He pointed au~ they would st(I1 have laundry fACilities in the main recreation
buildi~y and they would use this space far an ~dditional mobllehome site or they would
make a picnic area if the Planning Commisston did nnt approv~ the additional mobilahome
site.
He expla{ned that there are laundry facilities in the main recreation bullding itself in
the center of the proJect, and they would provide addit(o~al carwash facilities at the
west end of the property.
Chairman Tolar asked why they had dccided ta change che plans at this point, and ~1r.
Peszynski potnted out the original plans were drawn seven or eight yea~s ago and thelr
thinking was ve ry much tawerd the single-coach concept, but that the mobilehomes of today
are double wide and have their own laundry facilities in the units~ and Che Californta
Code requires the facilities be provided in the coaches.
and Canmissioner Nerbst abstalning)~
ACTIQN: Commissioner Kin~ offered a motio~~seconded by Commissioner Johnson and MOTION
RIED (Commissioner Bernes being absent that the Anaheim Ctty Fla~ni~g Commiss(on does
hereby recommend to the City Council that the request for ~evised plans be approvad in
connection with Cvndttlonal Use Permlt No. 1574.
COMMISSIONER BARNES ARRIVED AT 4:10 P.M.
5/22/78
MINUTES~ ANAN~IM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION~ MAY 22~ 191u 78-397
D. ABANDONMCNT N0. 77~~'?A - Requast to abandon n publlc utility easert-ent at 2953
est Devoy D~ ve.
Tho staff repurt to the Planning Commisslon d~ted May 2?.~ 197~i was presented~ notin9
subJect request ts to abandon an ex(sting public utllity easement located at 29;3 Wese
Devoy Urive~ locatud 1~ Lot 113, Trect No. 2228. to build a yaraqe to thc prnperty line~
and that thls request has b~en reviewed by all departments of the Ctty and affected
oucside ayencles and approvel of tfils request is recommende~d by the Public Works
Depertment, Enginecriny Division.
(t was noted that ths Planning Dirccte~r or hls authorized represcntotivc hns dtterminGd
Ch~t the proposed proJect fells wtthin the definition of Catagorlcal ~xernrtions~ Class ;~
as defincd in para,yrapt~ 2 of tl~c Gity of hnal~cim Environrt-Pncal Impact R~port Guidelines
a~d (s~ ther~fore~ categ~rically exempt from ti~e rcyuirement tc~ prepare an LIR.
ACTIOt~: Conunissioner David offered a motlon~ seconded by Commissioner Y.(nc~ and MpTION
CANaTD~ that khe An~heim Cicy Planning Gommiss(on does hereby recomme~nd to the City
Councll ttiat Abandanmc:nt No. 77-19A~ to abandon a public utility easement at 2~!',3 West
Devoy Urlve~ be approved.
E:. ABAI~UOI~MENT N0. 17-2~ ~ Reques t ko abandan a pu~, l i c ut i I i Cy easement at 1 ~~1
Soutl~ Kinysley Street.
The staff report to the Plannin~~ Gomnisslon ~iated Nay 22~ 197$ was presented~ n~ting the
request to abandon 3 fc:et~ 3 inches of an existing 1~)-foot public utility easement
located at l~il South Kinqsley Street~ in I.ot 1~~~ Tract No. ~+1i12, to permit installAtlon of
a swimm(ny pool~ t~as been reviewsd by all departrr-ents of tlic City and affected outside
ayencies and approval is recommen~led by the Public Works Jepartn-ent, EnGineering Divislon.
~t was noteci tt~at the Planning Directo~ or his authorized representative has deCermined
tl~at the proposed pro,ject falls within the defl~ition of Cat~eq~rical Exemptions~ Class 5~
~s defined in p~~ragraph 2 of the Clty of Anal~efm Env{ronmental impact Report Guldelincs
and is~ therefore~ categaricaliy exempt from thc rec~uireme~nt to prepare an EIP.,
ACTION: Commissioner Kin~ offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner David and MnTION
CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planniny Gommission does tiereby rccommend to the City
Counci) that Abando~~ent Mo, 77-20A~ to abandon a public utiiity easement at 141 South
Kinysley Street~ b~~ ,~ppraved.
F. CONUITIO~~AL USC PERMIT N0. itSl~ - Request from City Council for further revlew.
Annika Santalahti~ Assistant Uirector for Zoning~ expl3ined thet the Planning Commission
had granted Cond(tional Use Permit No. 1315 at their meeting of March 27. 1918~ to permit
a racquetball facil(ty, subJect tu the condition that subject property shall be d~veloped
substa~tially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim
marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2. She explained the City of Duena Park would be proviciing
services and had expressed some concerns over the fact that n~ restroom factlities were
proposcd. The pctitioner had explained to the Clty Council his desire to delete restrooms
since this will be a self-service facility and maintenance end secu~ity ~f rsstrooms would
present problems. 7he City Council has requested further ~ecommendation from the Planning
Commission.
5/22/78
,.... .~.._,.....~..,.,..~.~
~d r
!
MINUTES~ ANAIiCIM CITY PLIINNING COMHISStoN~ MAY 22~ 1978 1~"39B
ITCM F (cantinuad)
Tt~e Commlssion brf~fly discussed tt~is rnetter~ end it was tl~e consensus of opinlon th~t
since rastrooms are requtred by tfie Building Code~ they must be constructed since no
walver of code requirem~ent is poss~ble.
ACTI011: G~mmisslaner Unvid offcred a motlon~ secon~led by Comm(ssioner ~err~PS r~nd MOT~ON
CA~ Rf E D UNAIJ I MOUSLY ~ tli~ c the Anal~e i m G 1 ty P 1 ann i ny Commi ss i on does recomnend to the C 1 ty
Council that It was th~:ir orlqin~l tntent In appr~ving ttie proJect that restroom
facllities would be constructed in 3ccordance with all annit~A~~te building c~des.
ITLM Np. 12
A~TC~.'~~A~C N I LLS I DE 5 1 TE: DEVCLOPMENT STANUARQS
A. N nlmum lut area in the RS-~IS- ~3,r)~)Q Zonr..
li. Minlmum c~ntiguous lot arca in thc RS-HS-~a3,~~~~ RS-115~22~Q!1p~ and RS-HS-1~~000
Zones.
C. M(nimum l~t widtli and frontagc ~n thc RS-HS-<<3~~)~~, RS-HS-2?.~~~!)~ and RS-HS-
10~00Q Zones.
U. Mtnimum structural setback and yard requirements from prlv~tc strFets and
eccessways and eryuestrian easemencs in the Ft5-H5-43,n~)~1 and RS-HS-22~OQ0 Zones.
SECTION A
_._.__.._..
Annika Santalahti~ Assistant Dlrector for Zon(ng~ explained that Sectlon A of tl~e staff
report to the Planniny Commissi~n dated May 22, 1~7~s c~v~rs thc minimum lot are~ in the
RS-HS-43~Q()0 Zone~ prirnarily in the Peralta -iills arca; that several weeks ago staff had
brought a recummen~ation to the Commisslon thet t~~c Z~ning Code be ar.-ended to exclude
private streets and access easements~ as weil as public streets~ from the net 1ot area;
that until about one year ago the rec~uirement of ths zone stated the one acre applied to
a~ything~ including public streets; and that tf~e City Council had directed staff to amend
tl~e code to exclude public streets~ and no reference was made to exclude ~riv~te streets.
She indlcat+ed it was her feeling it had been Council's intent ta take the prlvate
streets out of the net lot area, but Commission had co~cerns over h~w ihis might impact
the rest of the area; namely~ would thcre be a number nf lots that might become
nonconforming. She stated a survey had been ~one rev~cwing all the lotg in the Pcrnlta
Nills area and it was determined that if the code were amended to state "net one acrP
excludiny private and publfc streets~" ahout 18~ of the lots wouid be nanconforming~ that
is~ a net area snaller ttian one acre in size. She stated the Nill and Canyon Municipal
Adviso ry Cort~nittee (IiAGMAG) had considered this and representatives of the Peralta Hills
areo have revtewed the matter, .~nd (t was th~ir conse~sus l'hat the ~±et lot ar~a should be
one acre~ exluding batti public an~i private streets,
Camrnissioner Linn offered a mation that the Plenning Commission reccxnmend to the City
Councl) that staff recumrtuendation (a) be adopted fo~ ttie minirnum lot area in the RS-tiS-
43,000 Zone.
Gommissioner Johnson ctarifi~d recomme~dation (a) would mean if a person has two or threc
acres and wanted to subdivide it and lacked Just a few feet~ a varianc~• would be required.
Ne stated this was contrary to the opinion and the understanding made with the City 10 ar
12 years ago when Peralta Hills had been annexed to the Ctty. H~e indicated he owned
proporty in the area~ but he did not feel he had enough of a conflict to drop out of the
discussion. He stated he was quite surprised with this report from ttie proRerty own~rs in
5/22/78
r
~
MINUTE`~~ ANAtIEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 22~ i~78 7$•399
RESID~NTIAL HILLSIUE SIT~ UEVELOPMENY STANDARD~ (continued)
the area ~nd pointed out tl~at when tl~c zaniny we~s RS-kn~OQ(1 there I~ad been no problems~
but when it was changad to RS-HS--+3~40q~ It put a lot nt peaple into a differnnt cetehory~
end that 1t~6 nonconfarminc~ lots is a pretty high number and it wnuld be very dtfflcult to
hang the rnst of the d or 10 property owncrs.
Commissloner ~3arnes esk~d, in the past yeA~ since this Council pollcy has been in effect~
how nany humes have been dwveloped~ anJ Annik~ SantalAhtl pointed aut no lots I~ad baen
ap~roved for subdivisiun that have Included ~~ ~+rivate~ rec~rded strcec witl~in the one
acre~ but Ylie did not know f~ow mery hcxnes have been develo~ed.
Comniss(~ner aarnes IndlcaC~d she saw this as a vcry simple mattcr; that this should be a
clarificotfon of the Council nalicy ancf it would be qrossly unfalr to those ~eople who
havc developeJ in accordar-ce wi :1~ th~ Counci 1 pol ic.y to chen~~e tlie stand~~r~is at this
pain~.
Commissioner Johnsc~n ~tate:: I~e was only aware of one situation wh(ch had ca~ased a loi of
concern for the property avner~ who was one of Analie:im's pi~neers, when -ie had heen
required to buy a few mare feet of property in order to subdividr_ after tl~is pollcy had
becomc effect~ve.
Ccxnmissioner Flerbsl referred ta the list of existiny property owners in the staff report
wl~o have subdiviaion potential and i~~dicaked I~e did n~~t tl~inb, it would be fair to penalize
a p roperty owner wl~o thinks he has five lots and has to put In a private street a~d e~ids
up with four lots yuite a bit lar<~er than an mc-e. f~e pointed out 1Rx af the lots er'e
nonconforminy alre~dy and this woulc9 be denying rights wt~ich have bee:n allowed.
Cl~alrm~n Tolar asked Corrnnissioner Johnson if recommendation (b)woulc~~~ closer to what was
ayrecd upon when Pcrzlta 11111s was annex~~i into tt~e City~ anJ Commissioner Johnson replied
he supposed it woula be.
Commissloner Johnson polnted ~ut thc lots had becn divided originally with the thought in
mind that they could br_ subdivided at a tater dete whe~ the zoning was for 40,OOQ square
feet and witl~ the chanye to RS-11S-43.~00 zaning~ problems have been created for certain
property owners. Ne diJ not feel forcing some~ne to live on almost two acres of land was
tl~e solution.
Canrnlssioner Linn poin[c:d out he was concerred that a property vwner with 2.9 acres would
be asking to subdivi~~ into thrce lot~, and i,r.nika SuntalahCi pointed ~ut he wauld not be
permitted ta subdivide 2.~1 acres into three lots in any case since he would atways have to
have a gross recorded lot of ~~3,5G0 square feet.
Commissioner 1lerbst pointed out tiie staff re:port indicates ttiere are quite a few existing
nonconforminy lots a~d this me~ns telling the property owners who wish to develop in the
future they cannot have the sane pivileges granted to others.
Commissioner ksarnes felt it would not be fair to those people who have had to buy more
property to allow people in the future to develop with less than the required acreage.
She felt the Planniny Commission has e~•ugh handle if they go along with Council policy to
farce the large develupers to develop the area the way it should be developed.
Cwnmissioner Herbst ind(~ated he did not think the Council had had the i~formation in
front of ther~~ when they made thls change concerning the 48 nonconformi~g lots in the a~ea.
5/22/78
MI NU7E.,~ ~~N1111C IM CITY PLANN ING COMMISS ION. MAY 22~ 197~ y8-400
RE~ I DENT I AL H I LLS l pE S I TE DEVFLOPMENT STAN OAROS (con t( nucd)
Comrnissir~ner Barnns was df sturhesd becauYe she thcuyht some of the nanc~nforminy lots were
new ~levelopmonts and wondc red how tl~ey werc approved.
Annika SanLalahCl polntc~f out that~ ~~+s far os she~ kncw~ no lots I~ad been re~c~rded as
percels duriny the last year since ti~e coda was ~mencied to state "one acre excluding
pul~llc streets" 1ns:c~:.ti~1 e.t "one acre inclu~ling publlc s~rr.ets." ShQ explAlned it wrs I~er
u~derstandl~g that the Gou~cll had intend~d the chsnge .c~ lnclude all stree~s, both puhlic
and private; tnerefore. quesGlr~ns hove ari sen fr~m developers regardlnq statf's
Inturpretatlon of tl~e code; wl~iel~ is 4j~!;E,O square feet would be ttie minimum lot size~
provided, liowever~ that publlc anJ priv~tF ~trccta m~y br. Included to thc rxtnnt thAt 1+0~
SGO is the net lot sixe,
Commissioner Johnson po(nted out that wuuld be close to the understanJing ~~ the praperty
awners i n tlie ~; Pa. He ra inted uut one ~evc loper had real ly abus~d th~ p~ icy and thet
was the rcasun thc Counci l haJ sat forth this polity~ to ~~et better devcl~prxsnt from that
one d~veloper~ anJ it ~IiJ r~ot apply to thc~se twc %~nd three-acr~. property owners.
Jan ~lal I~ r~~res~nting t~nenne, pofnted out th~rc is a Pcralt~~ ~II Ils Nomcowners /lssoclat{nn
member who has had mcetinys with the asso~iatlon and ha~i come back with an offtc(al
endorsement from the Pcral ta Ili lls flornec~wners Associatian for thr most stringent of the
recorm~cnclatirms ~[hat i s~ recommunJat ion (a) .
Commissioner Jo~inson p~~inted nut this was contr~~ry to .+hat. hc would fecl; that the
hamcawners associatinn is mndc up of inembers wha livc the-•e ~~nd wh~sc properties are
dev~loped, a~~d nut the pe~~ple w~~o ;ti I1 havc propercy to t~e developed~ and that woui;~ be
tt~e reason for the discrenancy; ard tliat input from these smal 1 prop~rty owners 1 isted
would be an enti rcly di fferent vicwr.
Jan tiall assured Cflmmi~sioner Jofinson ttiat if a variance was requr.sted~ the pcople who
1(ve there would be op~oscd to the rcques t.
Gommissionc~ Ne~bst indicated he fclt there •.~ould be a lot of requests for variances If
tt~is straic~ht 43,000 square feet is approved; that ~~e egrised with Cammissioner Johnson and
polnt~d uut l~ib of the I~ts are nonconforming, and i f som~~one cnnK~ in ~ssking for a
var(enc;c ner.t [o a 39~00~ squarc fooi lat, the Cornm~ssion would havc a hard time denying
him the same riyht; that in dlscussine~ the '~~i,0~~ v~rsus cne 43~,~~0 square foot lot~~ you
~rould not be able to tcl l tlie difference in l~t size from tlie strcet anyway.
lynn kluffingtvn~ represenclny HACMAC, aslced thc Cormisslon if they reslly felt it is a
problem to al low the nonconforming lots ttie abi I i ty to have a variance; that what is being
discussed notiv is a ch.~nge or clarification in ttie ordinance for the future development~
aRd a~y t i me you changc a~ ord i nance ~ yo~ w i I 1 1 eave some s I t uat i ons wtie re they w i 1 I have
co t~ave a variance. !le pc~lnted out tt~is cl~anc~e would affect any 43,OQ~ development in the
City and there are 14~000 acres from Anat~e6m to the Riverslde County line which will be
affected by the chanc~e. He pointed nut, again~ ttiat Mrs. P(nson from the Peral*.a -ii l ls
Hom~owners Asso ation nad inJicated the ir opinion that tl~e rrx~st stringe~t recommendat+on
bc adopted; _nd tliat ttiey -vould rather deal wlth tt~ose sltuat'ons where there is a
ha~dship on an individuai basis. I~e poi ~ted out Peralta I~I11;; seems to be developing into
the tennis cap i to) of th~ wor! d~ and you cannot do i t on Iess th~n an acre and, 1 n fact,
khe lots need to be 35 large as pcssstble.
Chairman Tolar point~d ~~et someone with a ten-acre percel Is not going to bP coming In for
a hardship; that they ca~ develup it into nine lots and there will not be any merit for a
5/~?./78
~-
~
MI~~UTES~ AI~AHEIM CITY PI,ANNINC COMMISSION~ MAY 22~ 197~3 78•40)
RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE SITE DEVELOPMEN? STANDARDS (contl~ ued)
herdship. He referred to the situetton whe~e a property ownnr wltl~ 1.9 acres I~ad had a
le.yitlmate hardshlp and thc Pereite Flllls 1lomeowners As sociativn had opposed it ond he h~d
to buy mnre land. and he felt the Peralta Illlls liom~aw ner~ Assoctation was not being
consistent. Ne (ndicated he could sup~+ort the most st-ingent reconmendati~n as long as
there t~ some room for a ho~dship.
Ccxnmisslo~er Iiarncs potntcd ~ut that in the p~st thosr prapcrty owncrs heve been ablo to
purchASe the extra property; that the 1r~nJ ts se) I iny for 51;~~~QOQ per acre and ten years
a~,~o i t s~ld for S2;~000 an acr•e; tfiet pe~ple who I~t+ve come befo~e the Commission And
Cuun41 ; have bee~ ab le t~ buy thc extr,~ acrcag~ anJ i f there is A CASQ whe!rR they cennot
buy the lend~ thc Planning Commtssion cauld yr~~nt a ve ~iance,
Commisstoner Lin~ indicated t~e sup~~~rts for tl~~: Counei 1's lntent for the future
dsvelopment; ti~at if sorr~one has 2.!3 acres and Is surrounded corr~letely and wr~nts to
develop int~ thrae lots~ then it ould be loc~keci at at thnt paint.
Cammi ss i ~ne r I~e rb s t~~s ked i f tl~:~ PP r~, l ta 11 t I 1 s Homeownc rs Assoc 1 a t i on had secn the s tudy
prepar~d by staff~ and Jan I~all repliecl they had seen thc study. It was noted the City
Counci) has nat seGn thc study.
Commissioner ~ernes polnteci out that one property she +s aware of has einht acres on
Crescent Ur(ve and lias deNeloped hts property accordinc~ to the standards~ and o;,her
developers in the area liave developr,d accnrdinq t~ the strndards. Shc Indlceted she had
received five phone calls frexn pe~ple in the Peralta Nills arra and a visit from Nrs.
Pinsan~ who had salJ s'~e liad contacted ~7 people and o~ly about four of them did not show
any interest and thc rest were very vehement about wan ting che most acrearye they could
yet.
Clialrman Tolar polnted out this ~s not ttie orviy o~,~-acre est~ite lots to be developed to
the Riversiclc County line~ ~nd Conmissfon~:r Herbst poi~trd ~ut therc is flexib(11ty on lot
sizes in ~ther ~ones. He indicated he di~.f not thln~ the G~-~nct) had these ftgures in
f ront of them when they rnade c~~ i s ~ol i cy ~ and they mi ght havc looked at i t in a d( f ferent
w~y ~ and hc fe 1 t the ord i nanc~: needs f 1 exi b i I i ty because lie di d not 11 ke to see peop 1 e
coming in `or variances if they did not have ta~ and f elt tFils would be creating pubjic
heari nys .
Gommissioner Barnes ask~J Commissfoner Nerbst wH~at fles:ibi lity f~e sew in the future in
Anaheim l1111s in the estatc zone; that the Pldnn(nq CommissioR is being Attacked becsus~
tl~ey do not have gulcielines. She felt the Planning CaKnm(sslon is in ~ F~sition to tel{
the de•ieiovers Chat tliis is what the Commission means t~y or~e acre~ 43~5n0 square feets
that these :,re the standards and unless there is a tremendous hardship, n~t to ask for
o~e. She p~intea aut that on a two-acre lot if a persun tias :nouyh acreage, then there
could tir sc+me flexibf licy allowed and ~'elt the Planning Cortmiss(c.~ should take a stand so
tl~at the developers would know what is neant by tht code.
Cartmissioner Johnson poinied out the packa~e as tt i~ w;itte.n has onr disadvantaye; that
he hsd been on tl~e Commission for a numbcr of years and i~as always fuught for larger lots;
that the only time he gets concerned is when it is contrary to the development as
original ly lald out; that he 1 ikes the bigger lats ~ but when you h~ve sc~rtiett,:ng laid out
1 ike Peral *a Ili 1 ls and the deeds are drawn up wi th the Intention of breakir,g tham into
one-acrs I~ts~ this w~uld be contrary ~~ the lntrntto~ of the develnpment that was startea
in the area~ and this aoul~ be bureau~ in fufl bloom; and that there may be people who
do nat want to subdivide and like to Iive o~~ a three- acre parcel. He indicated it is not
5/22/7g
~~
MI NUTES ~ ANAIIE IM CI TV PI.ANNI NG COMMI55 ION ~ MAY 22 ~ 1'~78 78-402
Rk:SIDENTIAL HILLSIDE SITE DEV~LOPME~~T STAf~DARUS (contlnued)
s~ easy t~ ,yran t a va r i ance beceusn Fe ra 1 ta -1 I I I s 1 s •~ays vel~emen t on va r I ances ~ cven
for one-tcnth of an (nGh~ and (t wl l) nat be so Qasy <<~ tek~ earc of 13 pe,~p1G through
approval of a varlance. He indicated t~e dtd not feel it was pr~~~~~~r ta rr.~ uire a lr~ndownor
tp purchese more property when he had owned ti~e lot for 2a or 30 years ~ t~~inking he would
bo able to subdlvldQ i t at e later dote.
Chalrman Tolar p~lnted out ttie adJacent nroperty awner can put the price prettY hlgh when
a property owner is required tn purchase that property for development.
Commtssioner linn indicate:d [hat since there w~re only about 12 probl~m propertles, ~:nd
th (s would aftect liundreds of acres left co b~ developed~ he wes more concerned about ~he
hundreds of acres left.
Chalrmen Tolar pointeJ out that a motion liad been r~dde.
AC~TI,ON: Commtssioner Llnn remade the motion,second~d by rommissioner dernes and MOTION
CARRIEU (Commissloncrs Herbst, K(ng and Jchnson vntln~~ no). tl~at the Planning Commiss(on
recomn~nd t~ thr. Ci ty Counci I that staff's recomn~cndation (a) be approved.
Annika Santalahtl explalned the Cl~y Attorney wauld prepare the eode amendment and It
woul~ be reviewed by HACMAC before going to City Counci I i~ approximately stx w~eks.
secrio~~ ~
_.________
Anii(ka Santalahtl explalned that Section E3 refers ta the minimum eontigunus loC ar~a ln
the R5~H5-4~,UOU~ RS-NS-22.00~1, and H5•HS-10~00~ Zancs. She stAted that several h~llside
tracts recently cansidered by the Planning Commission have included lots sp) it by publ ic
or prlvate streets ~ ar~d i t has been the consensus tliat the ~equ( red mi nimum lot area
shuuld be a r..ontiyuous parcel of land so as to providr. tl~e grcatcst possible us,~bility and
open space benefit to the future rPside~ts of the prnperty.
ACTION: C~nissioner Nerbst offered a mation~ s~canded by Cormissioner David ancf MOTION
AR ( ED UNAt~ I MOUSL~ , tha t the Anahe i m C i ty P I ann i ng Commi ss i on does h~ rcby d( rect the C i ty
Council ta Rrepare an or~inance amendin~ the RS-H5-43,400, RS-HS-22,O~f1~ and RS-HS-IO,OOQ
Zones by adding that the minimum lot area~ exclusive of pub 1(c st reets and pubitc
accessway easements~ shall consist of continuous land area wh(ch may not be dfvided lnto
two or more portions by such streets or accessways.
SEGTION C
.-.._.....r.
Anntka Santaiahtl explatncd tfiac the re~~rt prepa~~d by Anahel~n Hilis, Inc., prlmarily
perta(ned to the RS-H5~11)~~00 Zone and that the unL-mcre zoning was a recommondat(on of
rcpresentatives of the Peraita Hi I ls area made at the IIACMAC meet i~g. She briefly
discussed tho staff report and noted several corrections. She ;. ~inted out there was one
acid(tiona) point she would like tn add~ that being the way tot wi dth ~h~uld be calculatcd,
ar•d she felt it shouln t~e c~lculated at tl~e building setback Ilne and not at the street
frontac~e~ and that NACMAC felt minimum iat widtiis should be the same f~r cul-de-sac lots
and regular lots.
Commissioner Herbst refe~red to the RS-HS-43~000 lot width ~equirement and tf~e NACMAC
recc~rnnendatton that the wldtt~ be 1~+0 Feet~ allowing 5$ of 20-foot panhandle lots; that In
looking at the: one-acre developments~ the posslbi l ity of having all s~andard 140-foot lots
(n the hl l lside standards would be unusual and that some f Ie;cibi 1 ity should be a! <<,~wed,
5122/7~
~~ P
MINUTES~ ANAt1EIM CITY PLAriNING COMMISSION~ t7AY 22~ 197~ 78-4~3
RES I DENT I AL 1~ 1 LLS I UE S 1 Tf. DEVELOPMEtIT STAI~DAROS (con t i nu~d)
~ -
and sugqested thc rccammendattc-n should reari that th~ hillside standard of 14q feet lot
width down to not less than 100 fae~.
Lynn uufflnc~ton pointe d oux this recommendatlon hed come directly from the Peralt~ lillls
Nameowners Assoc~otion.
Anniks Se~telahtl pointe d out tha~~ by fer~ the maJority (ndslly ~5~) of the lots do
excaed 1l~0 feet~ and son~e of tFie ~ecent subdivisir~ns are running about 1G1+ feet.
Commissioner Herbst fel t tt~e terrAin would be far different in the tAnyon then (n the
perelta Hi l ls erQa~ and thAt I f develonm~ ~c fs tled to 1t~0-foot lots~ thcn i t wl l l bc hnrd
ta develop~ and duc to th~ stceC terrain ,1-c flexibility shauld bc allowed and sugge~tPd
It could he 1bQ-fc~o~ a verage [o not less than lOQ f~et, thcrefore~ some wauld have Co be
2i)c1 fect in ordcr to meet the 1~i0~fAQl Average.
Commtssioner ~arnes tndicated RS-i~~000 lots havc to be 10Q feet wtde, And now we are
saying one-acre si tes have to b~ 1-~0 feet wide. Sh~e inJ(cated she could see r tract that
looks Ilke an RS-!;0~0 tract l ined up along the st~eet wl th y0~0 fr.et dawn the hi 11 to rt-ake
up the one-acre sitc~ a~d felt thc f' ~Ibility would create prohlems.
Commissloner Herbst pointed out this would be an average of 14~ feet~ not less than 10f1
feet, so th~y wo~ld have [o go ove~ In some places to ma'ce up the difference.
There was a brlef dlscussfon r~garding l•he 1~-0-foot lot ~idtli~ with Cheirma~ Tolar
pointing out he felt~ disregarding Perolta lii 1!s, if ttie ~ommisslon goes to mini~num lot
frnntages~ there wi 11 be a lot more grading b~cause oT cerr~fn.
Phi ; i~ Bettencourt agreed ancl pointed out the rest of [he terr.~(n ln the canyon makes
Peraita liills look like flatland.
Lynn auffinr~ton pointeci out IiACMAC had conclucied ttiat qraciinr~ of a one-acre lot does nnt
( nc 1 ude the en t i re 1 a t; tha t you g rade J us t th e a rea fo r thc hous e and ga rage, and tha t
would not cf~ange anyway; that where City ardinances requtre every lot to drain to the
street~ problems occu~; that they have seen some subdivlsians with adcquatc dralnagc
wi thout dral ni ng ta the street and i f that were done~ you wo•~l d nat sec the I ncreased
grading~ it Is wherc~ you I~ave Cn drain all the water out to the strcet thaL a lut of
yrading is requi ~ed.
Chairn~an Tolar feltthat the drainaye could be met by allawing some flexlhility in the
ordlna~ce. ratl~er than saying you f~ave to ~rain all water to the stree[~ and Mr.
Buff ( ngton r•ep! i ed they woul d 1 i ke to se~e the f 1 exi b i 1 i Ly ~ I~ut NACM/1C woul d 1 i ke to see t t
200 feet down to lOrl fect ~attier tl~an 1~i0 feet dawn to 1A0 feet; that they fcl t the one-
acre iots need wide f:-,~ntage to create the proper effect.
Commissio~er Nerbst referred t~ rievelopments in the~ Rive~si~e and Norco areas on one-acre
sites with 1G0-foot wide loks; that they are quite decp ~nd are on reasonably t~at land,
but that the Coimnission is looking at a low-density area ~nd further out tn the canyon he
would nc~t be surprlsed to see five~~acrc lnts, but that if the developer has flexibility on
one-ac.: esxate lots~ he would be allowed to foll~r the t~rroin and eliminate some of the
grading possibilities.
Cortimissioner Barnes suggested alla~ing more Ranhandle lot~ which wauid allow dev~elopmants
that do not look ltke RS-500~ tracts.
5/22/78
rd
d
~.
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINf, CQMMIS510~1~ MAY 22. 1978 78-404
RES I UE NT Il1l H I LLS I DE S I TE: DEVELOPMENT S'1'ANDARDS ( con t I nued)
Annika Santalahtl pointed out ther~ are very few panhandln lots In the Mahle~' O~Ive
dovel~pnrents ~r~d HAGMAG had discussed a ren,ye uf ~~ tu 10$~ an~f her persona) opinio, was
that S~ is quite re~lisxtc end tt~e pr~blem would be where th~ developer has less than 10
lots; it he had only elylit lots~ he could not rt~et tl~e 5b or 1~`t, restrlction a-~d wll) ha.•-
to rnquest a vorlance.
Corr,missioner 8arncs stat~d that allaving mare panhandlc lots would allaw the doveloper to
accomplisr~ what he wonts to dr.velap and allow him to cicvelop the trsr.t In the way the
Plannlny Commisslon would Ilke t~ see it, and that the marketplace is there for the buyers
of theso panl~andle lots s(ncc they seem ta go first~ and she iid nat feel the 5~ figure
was h1 gh enou<~h.
Commissloner Linn asked Philln E3ettencourt t~is opinion of the latest rec~mmendatton of 140
,`eet averaye fr~nlaye luts with 10o panhandle lots.
Philip kiettencourt stated a dcvcloper woulJ have tu have tcn lots in order to have a
panhanJle lut an~i rnaybc thls was tt~e way the Com~ission ~~anted to go. 11e stated tl~e
property owners in both the Pcralt~ Ilills ~nd Mohler Driwe arc~+s arc In and have what they
w.int and would not want anything ta intrude r~n thcir way ~f 1(fe. Ile suggested the
limitatlons could apply to thc~se subd(visions wixh ten lots or more~ which would prateet
the Peralta Ilills area. Ne referred to a RS-HS-7.2~~4~ tract with average 1ot trontages pf
112 feet~ which contains a lat with a 31'fo~t frontage with a magnificent view which would
not have been iegal with tf~(s Ghanye; tfiat it is an unqraded lut on a knoll and to create
the type of fror agc r~quired by tl~is changc~ would havc required a lot of qrading.
Chairman Tolar indlcated Fie cSid n~t understanci why all of a sudJen the Pla~ning Commisslon
feels (t Is necessary to put frontages on these lots. I~e indic.~+ted he had looked at the
slides as pr;.:~~nted today and had driven out to thc Anaheim flills area and could not
figure out what it ls the Plannin~7 Commisston is doing so wronc~ that they need to cl,angc
the ord(nance; tt~at he thought the arca i~ very pretty.
Commissioner Barnes lndicated she felt the concern is because the tr~~rcts have been coming
in with smallPr and smaller lot frontages and the developers say chere are no standards~
that the ordinance says 2~+ feet, and that is all it says~ and they dn not want to hear the
explanatton that the 24 feet pertatns to flag lots.
Gha(rman Tolar indicated it was hts feeliny these change~ would be putting a moratorlum on
building in Lhe canyon area; that there are problems now with selltng homes in the canyon
and the ordinance should allnw flexibility in order for developers to build in this area.
Phillp Bettencourt pointed out that with the requirement for a street qrade not to exceed
12~ which is not welconed or ~~$ which Is more acceptable~ which is a fix on the
development af the land and to create pad areas under Lh~e grading ordinances~ the pad
areas adJacent to the street grade mean an enorm~us amount of grade difference and tf the
developer is going to have to have his yteld and meet the street gradc standards~ he is
going to havc to do a lot of grading.
i.ynn Buffington stated it seemed to be the general feeling of the people who itve in this
area that there is a trend tawards developers asking for smaller lots and this is what is
going to happen~ and nobddy 1s un~ealistic enough to sit and look at the General Plan map
end believe that all 14~d00 acres of that property are going to develop rs estate zoning;
that the market will dictate the chang~ and the Plannir~ C~mmt,sion will see innovative
plans for cluster housing with more open space, etc.~ and they did not feel the inflated
5/22/78
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLPNNING COMMISSION~ 1~1AY 22~ 1978 78-405
RCSIDEN7IAL NILLSIDE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANUARpS (continued)
situation in the c~nyon at tl~c pres^nt time tl~at has slowod developmcnt down is all thAt
bad. Ne stateci NAI.H~G has delved Into the sarvices end the q~i~iity ~f the services and
had talked wlth the police chlef and utilitles people. etc.. about what is happening in
the ares~ and they wauld Ilkn to sre developmQnt move olong, but tl~ey w~uld also llke to
soe services provided f~r the peo~~le there. Ile painte~ out Anahetm Nllls~ Inc. hes askeci
to lnc~e~se thi5d°ointYtobl~iappenrand~theyuAre'cJoingntoU eveftot~accept ~~d th~t I~ACMAC
belleves that ~ )
Commissloner Jnhnson r~ferred to tracts nf RS-10.n00~ RS-22~Q00~ and RS-540~ whPre they
all wind up wlth abouc t~ie same wldth lc~ts; tiiat you cannot toll from looking at the
street wl~~ther or not it was an RS-a00Q or RS-22~OA~ pic:c of property and if the markeC
so bends that RS-10~000 sites arc all that ~~re golnc~ to sell~ then th~t is whc+[ shou'd bc
bullt. ~le st+~tcd he cfld not see any problcm with puttinc~ nx~re stringent restricttons an
these bigger lots and was not concerned that it would lncrrase the nrading, and referred
t~ the fact that tt~ey have corr~letely red~ne the landsc~pe In relatlonship to the land
that was thcre thrheseehousa'~~and~R5C5~~,hous~~starcuyoin~sto~sel l,xlthen tl~ati Istwhat 'S
not a market for t
sli~uld be bui lt.
ACTION: Commissioner Ncrt,st offered a rtx~tion, seconded by Commissloner Linn and MOTI(1N
IED UNANIMOUSLY~ that thc Anahetm City Planniny Commisslon recommends to the City
Counci 1 tleat tl~e n,lnimu~ lot ~.~idtt~ and fronta~)e in the aS-NS-~+3,00~ and RS-A-22~000 zones
be amended tc~ ~~'~m ofei t1/j~G(,~~'~foot panhandler~l~c~its,be allovredut not less than 125 feet,
and that a maximu 3
Annika Santal~ihtl explaineJ thc current regul~'~tions for the RS-IIS-22~0~0 Zone is 1`, feet
wi~ich pertains to panha~~~t~an13~sfeet bceallowed nbut~allc~wing~+5ti~'O~foottparhandleelots,~f
1Q0 feet wi th none less
Commissioner Llnn offee~~essmthan^855fcetdbe allc~w diSwithe33B~~3~g,ZOhfoo[nC-anl~andle~lots
1Q0 foot lots with non
allawed.
Ly~n Buffingto~ ~inte~ out the ~~ figure for the aanhandle lots h~d been a t~ot~Y Ne
contestcd ~~ehere haverbeennsomedgross vialat Q snwith~the~nariow lotsaandeh~~did not fcel
pointcd out C
L.his 33'1/3b figure would be acceptable.
Ptiilip Bettencourt pointed out the 35'foot minimum would preclude any cul-de-sacs.
Commissioner Linn felt allowing more panhandle lots would rr~ean less cul-de-sacs. and Mr.
Getxencourt pointed o~t the 65•fo~t frontaye is an ext~o~bitant amount of frontage on a
c~l-dp-sac and referred ta the example 22,U~0 tract with an average of 112-foot lot width~
but there are 32 er~d 35•foot lat frontagcs whtch are se~viced by private cul-de-sacs~ and
this 85-foot flyure would praclude any cul-de-sacs.
Commissioner He.rbst polnted r,ut they were talking al,out the measurement from the house
line ~ather than from the property lina. Ne polnteci out less froniages are ,.~lowed on
cul-de-sacs in other a6e~~s. and ~^Widthsenn~cultdepsacsedwhichtis technically9therminlmurti.
refercnce to allowi~g foot
Commi ss loner .Johnsnn f s t reet wbutd that98Qdfeeta 1 si w1 dehwhcns ta 1 ki ng, aboutea cul f detsac.
narrow for a stralght ~
5/22/7a
~
~
~
MI~IUTLS, ANArIEIM CITY PLANNIN ~ COMMISSION~ MAY 22~ 191~ 78-40G
RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE SITE D~~.YELpPMENT STANOARQS (tcntlnued)
Ms. Santalol~tt polntad ~ut cul-de-sac lots ~.,~idcn out and calculnting nt thc l~uil 'fng
setbeck glves some advantp~7~s.
The Commission discussed whether -~r not the cul-de-sac lots sfiould be Includecl In the
calculatlons for the averages~ with ~~mm(ssloner Llnn indfcating he felt it should be
included~ wlth minlmum frontages on cul-de-soc lots of fi0 feet.
Commissioner Johnsun potnted out a pASSibility of a developcr comtnc~ In and putting ln e
cul-de-sac with scven Nanhandle lots off tlie cul-dc-sac~ and asked if that would be
pOSS Ih lr
Jack White, Deputy City Attorney~ point~d out that ~~ith a 6~-foot minlmum cul-dc-sac lot~
the developer co~~ld n~t have the penhandle lots.
Canmfssioner Iiarnes indicated sl~e felt there has to bc an averege and tti~t ctie cul-cle-sac
lots have to be included tn the av~ragc~ and felt this would allow a lot of flexibility.
Commissloner Nerbst suggested that a s[ipulation cuuld be includ~~~ that na mc~re th~n two
panha~dle lots would be allowed on any cui-de-sac.
Lynn Buffington puinted out that wlth a little bit of ima~ination a developer co~ld make a
mockery of this recommendat3on by designing ~ne-tf~ird of his houses ~n paniit~ndle lots. He
polnted out not every devcloper would take thc tlme and spend the moncy Anahcim Hills~
Inc. has to mnke a good develo~ment (n chis area~ and tha[ this would be building in too
much flexibtlity.
Annika Santalahtl referred to a development ln tiuena Park off Malvern wherF the lots are
72~0 to 10~~OQ square fcet~ and it appears from the view sidc the~/ are SO-S~; there Is a
regular l~~t with two ~anhandle: lots immediately in back of the regula~ lot~ and the vlew
driv(ng down the street ts that there are a lot of driveways and there is a lat of room
hetwecn houses~ but that you are only lnoking at the front half of the development, but
that (n this case we are talking about much lar9er lots.
Lynn Buff(ngton pointed out the maJor oroblem with cul•de~sacs is the parkl~g. and
Commissloner Barnes pointed out on panhandle lots thare Is parking on the drlveway which
would ellmi~~ate part of the street ~.+arl:ing problem.
Knawlton Fernald tndlcated it would be imposstble to have all panhandle lots or flag lots
eround a cul-de-sac since ydu have to have something to go around; that you could have
lots on the front and panhandle lats going back to thc lots behind those lots, but thet
you could not have more than two or three~ or possibly four, in a larger cul-de-sac. Mr.
Fe rnald felt that alla~ing flexibility would allow the developers to desiyn projects
utilizing more af the te~rain.
Lynn auffinyton indicated he was stlli concerned about the 33-1/3~ panharidle lots; that as
a developer he agrees with the filexibility~ but he thought the idea of this hearing was to
try to form mo~n ciefinite guidelines and that by creating more flexibility, It would not
provide the definlte guldeitnes needed. Ne pointed out everyane agrees on the fact that
there should ba some panhandle lots~ but they disagree on the number.
Commissioner Ba~nes pointed out the Planning Commission is trying to get RS-22,060
dcvelopments that do ~ot look like R5-5000 developments; that they want widE widths on the
,/22/ )8
i~
,
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN6 COMMI~SION~ MAY 22. 1978 78'~+07
RES I OENT I AL 111 LLS I DE S I TE: DEVELOPMEN'f ST 1NDARDS (c:ont 1 nued)
lot~~ but do not want to penallze tFc developer and cause rn~re ,yrading~ and that is why
the flexibility with the panhandle lots appeals ~o her.
Commissioner Nerbst pAlnted out that tf a develop~r has a one-acre l~t wit~i one-third
panhandle lots allvwed, then he would havc one-th~rd of ~ne acre, but If he It. devei~ping
30 acres in half-acre luts~ he wn~~id be allaved tan panhendle lots. and polnted out he
felt tt~e numbe~ of flag lots al~ w+~d should be cut dc~wn to about 15$ s~ that he would have
the same emount of flay lots or the same proportion~ but ~~t twice as many.
Commissio~er Linn felt th~ number shoui.' be cut to 207, hecaus~ of the terratn.
Lynn Buffington polnted out tfie feellny of HACMAL was that 10`$ should be allowed~ but that
scxne po i n ts had been t, ruuyh t~~p by tne P I ann 1 nq Commi s s t on th~t HACMAC had not cons i de red .
AGTION: Commisslo~~r Linn reoffered his motion, seconded by Com~~ssiuner Dav1J and MOTION
~~p UI~AI~IMOUSLY~ that tn the RS-NS-22,000 Zone I~ts aver~~~e 100 feet ~~Ith none less
than $; feet a1lc~wcd~ and tf~Pt 2!)w 2Q-fout panhandlc lots ~n a) lawed, wl [li only [wo
panhandle lots allowed ~~e:~ cul-de-sac.
Annika ~antalahti explained the RS-NS-10~Of1~ Zone wlth the Clty of Anaheim requirements
and the U.M.6A. and HACMl~C recorm~ndati~ns.
Phillp aettencourt explalnr' che Anaheim Hills. Inc. recommendation tliat lot frontaqes
must averaye 7~ feet or rnore; that no more than 1Q$ could have frnnta~P of 50 feet or
less~ not includinq the panh~~neJle and cul-de-sac lots (n the calculations. Ne lndicated
h,~ was not sure what thc Planning Commisstcaro was tryin~ to accomplish with this changc;
tt~~t this zonc formerly gave the opportunity [o have an ~i0~0-square foot lot and Chey have
had ~i;~ost 400 lots bcrorr• the Planning Corm~ission and not one of ttiem has bcen less than
10~000 a, uare feet~ but thc,y do not have that flexlbllity now anci hc wa~ concerned about
the quest on of the lot size since tl~ey were beiny plnched from both directions at the
same time since the trcnd is Coward smaller f~ousc slzcs. He pointed out that because of
[he requirsment to find a harushi~~ they t~ave lost tfiat flexibility and felt the(r
recommenda:ion was reas~nable.
Annika Santalahti pointed out that the Lusk homes below Peralta 11111s arn on 10~00~-square
fout lots a~~d that the minimum width is 6) feet and some of the cul-de-sac lots drop down
Co 20 feet. 5r~.. felt the 10$ figure was probably reasonable.
Mr. Bettencourt asked if the Planniny Gommission was discussing this because of the
density and polnted out that density had not been a pr ~em. He indi~ated Ana~~eim Nills~
Inc. undsrstood this was because the Nlanning Comm(ssion felt the ouses were too close
together since the lot frontages were too narrow~ but that if it is because the hauses are
too close together~ then they should be further apart~ and that was ihe rcason for their
setback suygestlnn. Ne pointed out that if parking is a problem~ tiien they would propose
to deal with the parking problem also.
Commissioner Linn polnted o~k t`~e footage is mea3ured from the building site and Ix could
be ~awn to .;0 feet at the street.
Mr. Buffington pointed out that anyone living in the canyon must deal with a variety of
solutions to solve the parking problems~ none af ~rhich has been ve ry successful~ and that
if you deal with pure numb~rs, with so many parking spaces per dwelling unit, tt becomes a
practlcal application as to how far wEll sameone park his car and walk and it is a
5/22/7+.
~
~...
MI~~UTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PI,ANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 22~ 1978 7a~~~a
R~SI DEI~TIAL 111 LLS I QE S ITE DEVELOPMENT STANUARDS (contt nued)
constent battie. He pointed uut HACMAC thought by increaslny tlie minlinum lat wldth on a
cul-de~sac~ this would provide a rrasonable amou~t of off-street perkinq. 7his. coupled
wtth their ~ecommendatlon concerntng khe si~e yard setback~ they thought wquld solve the
parking prnbl~m and the problem of the houses being too close toyQther~ and polnted out
m~be: the 5~ panhandle lot fiqure was conservative~ b ut these are conservative peaple.
Commissioner Herbst su93ested thst for the RS-10.Q00 2onc tl~e averege lot could bc 75
feet, nonc less than 50 feet. wlth 10~ panhandle l~ts and no morc the~ two panhandle lots
per cul-de-sac measured at thc s~thack.
Mr. Hettencourt po(nted out t~~at with the terrain possi~ilities they ~robably could not
makn the setbacks~ and Chairmen Tolar pointed out that by exciuding the cul-de-sacs in the
averaye. tl~~y could mt~ke tt~e setbACks~ and Mr. tiettencourt repl ied that they probably
could.
Jan Hall polncecl out her concerns regarding the 50-foot lots and ~a(nted out If they are
allowed~ khey wr~uld have tou ,nany of them~ and Mr. aettenc~urt replied the averag~e has to
be 75 fee~ and they could only allow 10$ of the lats 5~ feec or less.
!t was noted the ~ecomrtx:ndatton was for nonc less than 50 fcet.
ACTION: Commissloncr Ilerbst offered a rnotion~ seconded by Cammissioner King and MOTION
CAR~t~ED UNANIMOUSi.Y, that ~for tl~a RS-HS-10~~00 Zone~ lot widths should averac~~ 75 fect~
wfth none less than 50 feet~ but allowing 1f1$ 2~-foot panhandle lots. including panhandle
lots In the everage and with no mc~re than twa flag lots on a cul-de-sac.
SECTIOW D
Annika Santalahti pointed out [his sectlorr conccrns side yard setback requlrements and
pointed out a nurrd~er of projects have been built with the 5~foot setback, but with the
eave overhang It appears the buildings arc very close.
Tne Commission dlscussed the recomme:ndatiQn far a 10$ setback and pointed out sn 85-foot
lot would mE;an the setback wou~d be only 8-1/2 feet.
Commissloner Herbst felt the way t~+a recommendation is written would cover all tih~ bases
and suggegted the side yard should be 1~~ of the !ot wfdth~ with a minimum of 10 feet.
ACTION: Commissioner Barnes offered a motion, seconded by Cortmissi~ner Linn and MOTIQN
t~ED UNANIHOUSLY~ that In the RS-NS-2Z,000 Zone the side yard requiremenC be a minimum
of 10 feet.
The Commission discuased the si~e yard setback requlrements for Che RS-IIS-10,000 Zone~
with Jay Titus polnting out that drai~age . a problem and a larger setbeck would help
t!tat situation. He stated 5 feet is not a eguate because you cannot enforce the
restrictlon for no encroachments into that 5 feet.
Lynn Buffingt~n pofr,t~d oui the NACMAC recommendation in the staff report shaul.i h..ve
included that there would be no encroachment into the 5-foot setback.
Phillp Hettencourt poi~t~d out the M~~heim Fiil s~ Inc. recortmendation is for a 15-foot
side yard setback for a two-sto ry house and a 12-foot setback for a single-story ho~_~~~~
with a minimum of 5 feet on either slde.
5/22/78
,r
~
MI r1UTES, N~N1E IM C ITY PL~NN ING COMMI SS I ON, MAY 22 ~ 1978 ~~'~+~~
RES I QE~IT I AL H I LLS I DE S i TE DEVE LOPM~ ~~T STANDARI-~ (con L i nued)
Jen Hall pointod out sh~+ livr~s ln a 1Q~OpA s~u:are foot zone ~+nd the slde yard setback is
ta~ sma)) and they hevc drainage problems~ .~~,d she is agAtnst the mfr,imum ~ feet.
Joy Tltus pointed out an ti-foot satbeck woulo :.Q the minlmum requlred for proper dr~lnage~
and he would recommend that che minimum ba ~ feet.
Lynn Ouffin,yton p~lnted aut fIAC11AC ha~' suggested a 5-foot ~~:tback wl th no encroachn~nt,
which would pr~bably produce G, 7 or 2;-foot side yards. anf pointed out there have been
gross violations nf the side yard setbecks tn the canyon ~rea.
Commissloner liarnes referred to ttie side yard setbacks In Vf 1!a Park requlring lfi feet
be~waen h~uses and (ndicatcd sh~ felt this makes tt~:: I~ousPS look pretty wFll spread out.
Philip Bettencourt pointed out the Planniny Comrnisstc~n is t,~lking about a~0~ Increase ~n
establlsl~eJ sl~ie yard setback r~ui rements~ whf ch ti:~-~u'd nwke achieving the drainage
solution scxi~-het easier. but that the drainaye co; ' bP handled another way.
Commisstoner E3arnes pointed out the Anaheim tl(lls~ Inc. recommendation Is for 12 feet with
a minlmwn of 5 feet~ whlch would ~nean 7 f~et on one side~ and this discussion is only
concernin~,~ a ti-foot difference. She suc~g~estad that th~ Commissian should recommend the
dtstance batween houses should be 1G fceC~ with neither side Irss than 8 fer.t.
Mr. aettcncourt polnted ~~ut that would put ~io single-story t~ouses 16 feet apart, which
could create other problems concerning ~o.;! scoraqe, etc.
Annika Santalnhti polnted out the code curr~ncly provldes ~~ inches af encroachme~t per
required foot ~f side ya~~ sezback which~ in a 5-`c~ot setback~ allows 20 inches of
encroachment; that it woulci b~ difficulc to enforce this stipulation of no encraachment.
Cornmissioner Nerbst indicated the diff~~rence between the ~iACMAC recommendation and the
Mahelm 1lilis~ Inc. recommen:fation is ~ feet, with tir. Dettencourt Indlcating thls would
mean thc whole building site on a typical street, and he rcfcrred to the Qublic co~cern
about the cc~ t of !~o•.~s i ng and i nd i:.ated th i s was one of tf~e th 1 ngs chat dr i ves the cos t of
housing up.
Commissioner earnes suggested the requirement of a tocal of 15 feet side yard tback~
w(th neither side beina .ess than 7 feet.
Commissioncr FlPrbst disc~ssed the drainage probiems, with Mr. Titus polnting out he h~s
seen dwellings with sidewalks ~,n botl~ sides of thc house.
Annika Santalahtl poDnted out t~~is would probably not be a cractical requirPment since the
minimum lot width would be 50 t a~d with a 15~foot side yard setback, would imply a 35'
foot building.
Commissioner Nerbst suggested pinning It dovrn to a S~f~t side yard setback on the cul-de-
sac lots and 7 or 8-foot setback on other lots~ which gives the flexibillty.
Phillp 6ettencourt pointed out we ~,~ve just had the g~eatest ra!n since 1860 and that the
average rainfall is 15 inch~s a year and these h~uses are desic~ned for a 100-year storm,
and there are a number of equ~lly workabie solutions to [he rear yarc. drain~ge problem
rather than precludtng the ..~e of these lots.
sizzi7a
MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLl1NNING CGMMI5510~1~ MAY 22~ 1g78
78-~~10
R~SIDEt~TIAL HILLSIDE SITE DCVELOPMENT STANDARDS (contlnued)
Comm(s~(~~ner Johnson indicated ho would dlsagree end polnted out the querter-acre lots in
V(11~+ Park. Ne steted if we want ta bulld houses with 5-foot side yard setbacks, th~n we
shoul d b~~ 1 1 d RS-50c10 houses and not t ry to c~ 1 1 the~m RS-10 ~QQO houses .
Mr. aettencourt pointed nut that the corr~oslte effect of the loss af the apportunity for
an 6000-squere foot lot and th~ cstal,lishmont ~f minimum lot frontages and an incrcase~!
side yard setback would guaranccc the cost of housing would go up.
Cortxnissione~ Barnes askc.~ Mr. Bettencourt what kind of controls c~ul~1 bc put on the
devolopers ti~t~t prc~per dralnage wu~~IJ be provided~ and Nr. Il~ttenc~urt ~~plled [hat the
dcvclopcrs could h~nve designed individual~ permarent drains frnm thc rr,ar yard to the
street~ but there Is no yuArantr.e thcy would ';ave becn malntaineci or tl~at the homeawners
mlght not have tarr~e~red with the qrading by puttlr~g in o swimming pool~ eCc.
CommiSSloner Herbst sugyested puttiny standards af ~ feet from thc pro~erty line and then
if a devoloper wants to ya ;~ 5 feet~ he must s~tisfy che City Fnginaer requirements
regarding dralna~~~: of that parcel~ whrther it be ~n the ground, w~nent. culverts etc~, and
Mr. Dettencourt repiled tl~at would be satisfactory if it could be admin(stered.
Mr. Eiettencourt stated tha ueveloper could surface drain t. amount of water~ but the
difficulty 1~ In the final buildtng clean-up of tl~e lot w~~icl~ is very difficult to check
(n the field. and Commissioner flerbst poin~..d out tl~~re are other ~-ternatives open to ':;.c
devcloper.
Mr. B~ttencourx suggested the entroachment sh~uld be allowed simply for the ease of
administration.
Annika Sa~talahti Indicated the sugyescion by t~.e Com~i~sion would result Ir •one whn
wants ta go dawn to thc 5-foot minimutn in connecti~n with a tract map must submit plans
for dralnage at the time ~f fiiin~ the tentativc r~ap.
Nr. Eiettencou~t Indicated f~e c..uld not ,~easur~ tt~r. xetbacKS wi[hout the houses being
plotted, so it should be oone prtor to the piot plan approval.
Commissioner Nerbst suggested :hat appro•ial nf tt~e dr,~inage plan could be a~ondition oi
the trect map approval.
Jay Titu; potnced out anoth~r pr~blem is that Anahe+m Hills~ Inc. grades the area in a
rough form pretty mu~ii whcs~-e ~he pads are 9aing to be and when a developer comes in, he
declares a hard~hip since the loi. have bGen graded. Ne potnted o~t ihe drainage would
f~ve to be .~~ck~d up on the map y~di~~; plan and at Lhat time Anaheim Hills~ I~c. dnes nat
have the •~use plot plan in order to determ(ne [he dratnaye.
Mr. Bet,~ncourt pointed out they s~ll 2~uilder an apE~roved grading plan and approved
ipntative map a~d then he plots tl~e ho•~ses on the pian.
Commissioner lierbst suggested the motion should read that a minlmum 8-foot side yard
setb ack be required in ti~e RS-HS-10,000 Zone and any I~t on the cul-de-s ac areas thot are
not in the SQ°foot a,~ aboye bracket could ~,o within 5 feet ~f the side yard seLback~
subject to the Ci~y Engi~eer's approva) of drainage or any Iot tk~at encroaches within less
than 5 to 8 teet would have to have drainage satisfactory to the ~ity Engineer.
5~22:'''g
~ ~ .F
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CtTY PUINNING COMMISSION~ HAY 22~ 197f~ 7Q"~~>>
RESIDENTIAI HIlL51DE SITE DEVI:LOPMENT ~TANDARDS (cont(nued)
After further discussi~n concerning the side yard aetbsck~ Commisst~ner Linn suqc~estad
!hat dun to the lateness of the hvur~ the Plenning Commisslan c~ntinue thls matter unkll
the next meeting.
Annika Santalehtl suggestsd that It be continued for S`our weeks In arder for IIACMIIC tu
consider the matter further.
ACTI~DN: Commisstoner David offPre~1 ~ mc~tlon~ secondtd hy Commissione~ Llnn and MOTION
CA~tR~ED~ thot further c^ ion of the Residential Nlllsldp Site Development Stande~ds
be contlnued t~ the reg~ ting of the Plenning Commisstan on June 19~ 1~78.
AUJOURNMENT There betng no further business, Commiss ~ner Kfng offered A motlon~se~onded
by Commiss(oner Oav(d ond MOTION CARRIEU~ that the meeting be adJ~urned.
The meeting wss edjourned at 7:00 p.m.
Respactful ly submi tted~
~~ ~ i~~~..-,~,.-
Edith L. ilarria~ Secratary
M ahe(m Lity Planning Commisston
ELN:hm
5/22/78