Minutes-PC 1974/04/150 R C 0 MICROFILM~NG S~RVICE, INC.
...~, . ~~..
,. ,,,.. ,,. ,
CJ
~w
O
City Ha11
Amahc~im, Celifornia
April ].5, 197A
12EGULAR MEETING OP' T,. HH~ AN11IlEIM CITY ~LAI.`~NIN G COMMISSIQN
tt~~UL11R - A reqular meoting of the Anaheim City P l~nni.ng Commi.osicn was
N~ETING r,alled to order by Ghr,irman Gauer at 2:00 p.m., a quorum be~ng
prPSent.
PFt~SEr1T - CHAII~MAN : Gauer .
- COMMISSION~R5: Com; ~o;~, Far~~zo, Herbst, J~hnsun, King, Mor1eX.
A1~SENT - C ~r-iMTSSIONERS : Nona.
ALSO PRESENT - A.~siatant Aevelopmant Sorvice~' nirector: Ronald Thompson
Deruty City Attornsy: Frank Lowry
Ci~~il Engineer Asaociate: Floyd Neleon
Zhning Supervisor: Charleu Roberts
Planning Supervisor: Don MeDaniel
Assiatunt Zoning Suporvisor: Phi111p 9chwar~ze
Cammission Secretary: Patr.icia Saanlan
PLEDGE OF - Com,mtssi.cn~r King led in the Pleage of AZlegir~nce to the Flaq
I~.LLEGIANCE of th~ United States ~f Ameri.ca.
,A,PPROVA'L OF - Commissic,ner King nffered a motion, saconde~ by Commissioner
THE NIINUTL.~ Morley~ and MOTtON CARRIED, to a.pprove the minutes of th~
meeting of April 1, 1974, as sLibmitted.
CONDITIUNAL USE - Ct)NTIN(lED P' LIC HEARING. ROBERT P. DUPRE AND J. RTGHARD
PERMIT N0. 1454 FAFtLEY, 34 A" Bayside D,rive, NeH~porfi. Reach, Ca. 92660,
Owners; PH~utAOH SALES COMPANY, c/o Gl~nn Blick, 1321 North
Kraemer Houlevard, Analiei:m, Ca. 92806, Aqent= requesting
permission to RAISE QUAIL IN AN ENCLOSED STRUCTURE on property doscribed as:
A rectangularly-shaped parael of land consisting of app!-oximately 1.5 acres
having a frontage of approximately 175 feet or~ the w~st side of Orangethorpe
Park, havinq a maximum depth of approximately 3g1 fP et, and beinq loc~ted
approximately 76Q f:eet north of the centerline of Orangethorp~ Av~nue.
Progerty presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE.
Subject pet.ition was continued from the meetii~ys of February 4, '4arch 4, and
M~rch 18, 197~', in order to allow tt~e petitianer tirne to submit an Environ-
mentul Impact Report, whir.h was requested by the P].anna.ng Commisaion. At
the meeti: ,~ of Apr;l 1, 1974r the Planning C~mmission required the terminati.on
of ConBit.ional Use Permit No. 14S4 as a condi.tion of ap~roval of Condil:ional
Use Permi~t No. 1459, to establish a die~el er~gin` repair service at the sub-
ject location.
It was noted that a l.et'ter had been received from t;~e property owner reque~t-~
ing termir.ation of Cond.itionaY Use Permit Nu, 1454.
Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Cnmmi.ssioner Compton and
MOTIC~N CARI~Y~D, that all proceedings of Condition~l 'Jse Permit No. 1454 be
*.erminated, as requested by the groperty own~r.
74-203
~ ~
MINU'i'LS , C'ITY PLANNINC, CONIMIS ;ION , Apr,~.l ] 5, 1974 74-204
ENVI RONMEN'1'AL IMPACT - liequeat fox a7p~oval. ~ 1'ro~orty ].ocAtt~d bAtwaon I,n
RI:PORT NO. 119 Pu1mA Av~nue and Eeporiinza Road , a~praxitnt~tely ].-2/3
"'~"" mil.ea oast c>f tmpeY~ia1 FligYiway.
Assi.etant Zoning Supervi~or 1>hi.llip 5chwartze ~,resented tho Strxff I?.oport to
the Planning Commiaaion claL•ed A~ri.l 15, 1974, and aaid Sta~f Roport is
referrec~ to and mad~ a p~zrt of th~ minutea. M~•, Scllwart~e edviaed that on
Novdmber 20, 1973, the City Council. c~ran.,~d an exteneion of time on Tentative
Truat Nn. 7417 to expire Dacomber 21, 1.~74, aub~jc~ct to the c~ndition that an
Environmental Impuct Ropart b~ approv~d within 90 daysl that tha p~~itioner
hac.7 submltt~d a dr.aft ~IR on FebruAry 1.'l, 1~74, which had been reviewed by
the EIR R~viow Committoe at its meeting on M~rch 5, 197A, and it wae det~r-
minad to be inadeq~xah.e r~~ ar- 1nEormative docucneiit ; that• on :~arch 20, 1974,
the petitioner ha~i submittod a revisec~ draf t~IR ~oqethQr with a letter in
reply to the deficienci~s which had beQn it.emiz~d by the EIR Review Committee~
th~t the inEurm~tion contairie3 in ~he draft EIR toc~e~her with the J.etter xrom
the Committee and the reply to same migh:. 1~~: considered as meeting the r~-
quirementa nf an ~TR, e~:cept ~hat the infor.mar~t~ ; ragarding noiae levc~l~ from
the rai.iraad was i.ncomplet~ and the applicant had atated that such informatj,on
would not Ue ava'.lable tintil pa3 elevations warP known and the homes of onP ~r
two atories were: apecified.
Up~n guestioning by Chairman Gauer, Ueputy City AttarnQy Frank Lowry advi.s~d
that the r~port documer-t and the additi.Unal Xnfoz-mation appeared t~ meet the
requirement~ of ~he California Environmental Quali~y Act.
Commissioner Fi^rbst r-~ted that he was awarF of the prol;lem that Tentative
Tract No. 741'~ •~d in rel.atic;:~ to ita location near the r.ailroad ~~zid oth~~r
land probl.em~ in relati^n tu the f lood area; that he bela.eved it had been
stated in the r~part that the homes could be made livable by using sound-
attenuati.on material and that i. L should be ~tated in the ETR haw they were
pr.oposing t~ do sa.
Conunis~ioner Farano added that du::ing the di.scussion on the tr.ac~ in question,
there were never any discussion:~ conceining noise-attenuatiun i:echniques,
howevar., this typP wiscussion w~~s ver~~ thor~ughly ccrisidered in o~her tracts
directly to the west of ~ubje~~t tract; and that the souncl attenuation and the
impact of the ~resence of the railr.oaci, ef:G., should be considered.
Commissioner Farano offered a motion, 6econded by Commissioner King, that
Environmental Impact Rep~r.t tJo .].19 , having beer. considered this date ry the
City Planning Commission and wri~Lte:i e•; :..d~n^,e ~.aving been presented tu ~~'r',~lP~
ment said draft EIR No. 119, the ~lancian5 Comn.ission b~Zieves t' , sa' aft
EIR No. 119 does conform to thE City and St.ai:P Gui.c3elinas and the `~
Califarnia Envi.ronmental Quali ty Act and, k:~R.:o upon such ir "ormati~n,
liereby re~ommend to the City C:suncil ~hat thc:y c~ i_~.fy said TR ~To. 1'.9 :. ...
compliance wii:h said Envi.ronmental Quality Act, ;:ub~ect to t.~ ~- requixement
that additi.onal ini'ormation on r.oisp :~p~~e1:. f..r •~^ t;hE railro~..~ be made avail-
aD?.e subsequent ~o the completion ~f r.ough g_~~ . yng ~f thc project but. prior
to *:::~ issuance o~ bui.lding permits for th~ h~,>ines; and further that the
Planning Commission recommends that thr~ appli.cant. :;onsid~ar and include in
~a'. d EI'< the technique by which the h~~n.es were tc he prot~cted ayainst the
railroa~: ti~~ise, etc. , and that upon con~ptetiur., it is reco.~n~mpnded ttiat the
City Co}1r~r.i1 return said report to the 1~lanning Cammission For further review
and,~~r study .
Chairman Gauer read from Sect~on 2•02 nf sai.d Environmental Imp~.ct Report for
the informati.on of the Commission, which discussed ttie major. sources of noise
gc:neration to thE tract , being the rai~.road to the nartti and also th~ traffic
from La palma Avenue. He stated he understood the project was to ha•~e '!5 dBAs
inside the homes and 65 dHAs outside the homes in the tract.
The foregoing MOTION GARRIED by unariimous vote .
~ ~
MINUTES, GJTY PI.ANNING COMMIS9xON, Apri.J~ 15, 1974 74-205
V~RIANC~ HO. 2590 - PUBLIC HEARING. ~XXON CORPORATION, c/4 Markating DepArt-
""` me~nt, 1.800 Av~~nucs of tha Star.e, LoA Ar~gylc~s ,, Ca. 90067,
Ownorj ROBERT DE ~:~:[TiA, ~g096 Gillman 5treet, Irvine,
Ct~. 92664, Aaentt requeating WAIVER pt' PE1tMIT~ED USES TO E3TABLIS~1 A RETAIL
FOOq MARKET on property deacri~ed as; An irrogularly-ahape~d parcel of lr~nd
consi~tiny of approximatel.y .4 acre 1oc~ted r~;: the aouthwest corn~r of East
Street and La Pdlma Avenue. Prope rty pzo~~ntly claeelfied R-l, ONE-FAMILY
RES InENTI1s-L , ZONE .
No one appeared in oppasition to s ub3eat peti~ion.
Althouyh the S~aff Report to the P lanning Commiasio~z dated Agri.l 15, 1974,
wa~ no~ read at the publi.c hearing, it ia referred to and mede n part of the
minutea.
Chairman Gauer notc~d for th~ Commisaion that the aubjoct patiti.on was fi].~d
ae a reault of the Planninc~ Commi.ssion public hearing held Apri~ 1, 1974,
on Resclassification No. 73-74-50t that the Commission did nat favor the sub-
~ect praperty having C-1 zoning for development with any oi thc~ C-1 uses by
righ~F and that by perrni~ting the propoaed use by vari,ance proced~ire, any
future use cauld be coni:rolled.
Mr. R. Robect de Almeida, agent for the petitioner, appeared before tho
Commissian and skated he unde.rstood from th~ di.scu~aion held on April 1,
1974 during the Planninc~ Cammi~sion~s aonsideration of Reclaasification No.
73-74-50, that the houre ot operation for the proposad retail food mazket
w~uld be established by the Pl.anning Commission.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS ~LOSED,
Upon questianing by Chair.man Gaue r., Mr. de Almeida stated he would s~ipvlate
ta the houxs ~f operation being f rom 7:00 ~.m. to midnight ancl that the
property awne.r woul.d ~ome before the Commission at a£uture time shnu? c: a
change in tl:ose hours become necessary.
The Planning Commiss9.on entered into discuasion r~garding Cor~ditional Use
Permit No. 234, whiGh presently e xisted on the subject property, and Dpputy
City Attorney k':~-anlc Lowry advised that if the Planning Commission granted
subjPCt variance request, a condition could be made that said conditional
use permit be terminate3.
Mr. de Almeida stated it would be clifficult for him to speak concerning the
~ermination of Condi~•.~c~na~ Use Permit No. 234.
Commissioner Morley rei'terated his statements made during th~ April 1, 1974
public hearing an the subject p ropertyr that his objecticns to the proposal
r.emained and were based on the traffic hazards invalved.
Commi.ssioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Conmiasioner Morley and
MQTION CARRIED, that t.he Planning Commission r.•ecommends to th~ City Counci~.
that the subject property be exempt from the r.equirement to prc:pare an
Enviranmental Impact Repart purs uant to the provisions of th~ CaliforniG
Enviranmental Quality Act.
Con~missioner Herbst offered ResoZution No. PC7~3-73 anci maved .for its passage
and adnption to grant Petition ior Jarianae Na. 2590, subject to the aondi-
tion that the hours of operation for the pioposed retazl food markEt shall
be from 7:00 a.m. to mic:night, provided however that up~ n written request
from tlie petitiuner ~he Planning Commission and City CoUicil may gran~ an
extension of said hours of operation, as s~ipulated to by the petitioner;
that approval af subject variance is granted subjecti to the petitioner sub-
mitting a written request for ~e rmination of Conditional Use Per_mit No. 234;
and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book)
~Jn roll call, the foregoing resolu~ion was passed ny the follawing vote:
AYES: COMMIS~IONERS: Comp~on, Herbst, •Jnhnson, King, ~auex.
NOES: COMMISSIONEFtS: Farano, Morley.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
~ ~
MINUTES, CITX PI,~~~~N.-NG C`.OMMIS3:LON, Aprll .15, 1974 74-206
RECLASSIFICATION - CUNT'INIJ~n PUBLYC FYEARTNG. ~'XXON CORQOW~TION, c:/o t4ar.ket-
NU. 73-7A-50, ing D~partment, 1800 Avenue o£ khe Stare, Lo~ Angale~,
- Ca. 90067, Owner~ ft~ ROAERT DE ALNiEIDA~ 1H095 Gillmen
Stre~t, 7rvine, Ca. 92664, Aqentt raQuest~.ng that prop-
~rty descrihc~d as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land canafatinq of
apprnximately .4 acre located at tlie sauthwaet cornc~r af East Stteet and
La Palma Avenue be rc~cldesi.f.ied from the 12-1, ONE~FI~MILY Ft~3TAENTIAL, ZONE
to khe C-1 , GENERW~ C4NiMERCI.AL , 20NE .
Subjec.t petition wae continued from rhe meeting of Apxil 1~ 1974, to allow
the petit.~oner to filg a variance potitian in li~u of the subject peti~:ion
for Realaesi.fication No. '13- 74-50.
No ane a~peared in oppasition ta aubject petition.
Although the Staff Report to the I~-anninq Commiasion dated April 15, 1.97a,
was not read at thc~ public hearing, it ~s referre3 to ancl made a part of ttie
minute~.
Mx. Q. Robert de Almeida, agent fnr the peti.tioner, app~ar~d before the
Commis~ion and r.equested to witr,draw suhjsct. petition on the basie of the
foreg~ing Variance I~o. 2590 which was approv~d by the Planning Commission
at this meeting for the subiect pru~prty.
Commissioner Herbat offered a m~tion, secondec~ by Commissioner Cc~mpton and
M~TION CARRIE~, that the Platining Commir~aion reaommends to the Cit,y Council
that r~quest to withdraw Petition for Reclasaification Nv. 73-74-50 be
approvF•u, as requested by the peti~ianer.
AREA DEVELOPNJENT - CONTIDIUED ~ULLIC HEARING. INIT.IATED BY THE P,NAIiEIM CITY
P'LAN NO. ].14 PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 ~ar~t Lincoln Avenue, P,nahetm, Ca.
92805; t~ consider vehicular circulatian and access f.or
approximatel.y 50 acres generally boundecl by ~he northerly
extension of Grove Street to the westt Mizaloma Avenue ta the north1 Tustin
Avenue to the northeast; the Atchison, Topeka & Santu Fe Railr~ad on the
southeast; and La Palma Avenue to th~e south.
Subject Area Development Plan was continue3 from the meeting of .+pril 20,
1974 L•or further inQut fr.om the affected property owners, and subsequently
continued from the meetings of March 4, March 18, and Apzil 1, 1974, in oi-der
for Staff to obtain additi~nal informatiar. regarding the l.egal status of
portions of property in the area affected by the Plan.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts no~ed for the Commission that problems in
connecticn with the subject P:lan had not yet been resolved, and that 5taff
was requ~estinc an additional two-week conti.nuance on the. matter.
Commissioner King offered a mo~ion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and.
MnTION CARRIED, to further continue the pub].ic hearing and consideration of
Az~ea Devel~pment Plan No. 1].4 to ttie meeting o£ April 29, 1974, as xequested
by Staff .
VARI.ANCE NO. 2585 - PUBLIC H~ARING. PAUL KATZ, 231 5outh Gain Street, Anaheim,
Ca. 92804, Jwner; NELSON-DYE CONSTRUCTION, INC., i664 W~:st
B~oadway, Anaheim, Ca. 92802, Agent; requ~sting WAIVER OF
MAXIMUM L~T Cn~~Er..~-GL TO PERMI`P CONSTRUCTION ~F' A ROOM ADDTTION TO AN EXISTING
SINGLE-FAMT.LY RESIDENCE on property describeu as: A rect.angularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately .1 acre haviz~q ~t frontage of ap-
proximate~y 50 feet on the west side of Gain Street~ having a maximum depth of
approxima '.y 100 feet, and being located approximately 96 f.eet north of the
centerlin~~ ~f Broadway. Property pres~z~tly classified R-2-SOOU, ONE-FAMILY,
ZONE .
No ane appeared in opposition to subje~~ petition.
Although t~e Staff Report to the Planning Commis~ion dated April 15, 1974,
waa not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a~art of the
minutps.
~
~
~
MIN(JTES, CITY PLr1NPitNG COMMTS.riIUPI ~ Ap~"~.]. 15~ 1.974 74-2~~
VARZANCE N0. 2585 (C~nti.nued)
Mr. R. I~. Dye, 16G4 W~st Broadway, Anahei.m, ager~t for thc~ ~~4tition~r, ~p~Qared
before the C~mmiseion and stat~d ha hacl nothir-g ~urthor to add to t~~e infcrmn-
tion conta~.ned in the Sta~f: Ro~ort, howover, ho was ava~lable to dna~aor any
question~ ~~aised by the Planniny C~mmissinn.
TH~ F~UHLI; HEARING VJAS CLOSRU.
Cortunisaioner Compton n4ted for the C'ommigsian ~lza~ h~ cr~uld a~ae nv abje~ti.onR
to the room being added to s'„b j~ct propexty sir~~~e i.mmediately t~ ~hQ n~rth u
simil~r roam addition had bc~en al.lowed.
Commigeioner King noted tha•t he hacl viewed thQ gub~e~ct: pr~oper.~y in the ~ielc:
and could sec~ r~o ob;ection~ to appr~ving tha rr.quest.
Upon quQStioning by Commisssioner Farano, AssietAnt Zon~.ng Supervit,~r Phi :l.ip
Sc;hwartze advir~ed that the pe~ition~r wa~~ not propoRl.ng Lo ~dd n Y,edxoom,
that the Code .required na adSitional ].c~L• arE:a fc>r. fAmily L~om addi~iUnss nnd
that if the additional room was to b~ ~a bE:droom Ct~E~ pEatitioner would als~
have requestad a waiver of minimum lot si.ze.
The Planning Commiasi.on anterod intn di:yGU~3ian with Mr., bye ~onc~xni.r.g rh.e
desic~n of the roof stx•ucture far. the propo~e;i roUm adcii ci.:~n riuri.ng wh~.<,h
Coxnmigsioner Herbst sugges~~d. that thc~ dasi~7n c~4` ~ai.d ro~f. !-~e ticd in cviLh
th9 ariginal 'building design so as nut t~ t~e dei:rimen~al. i:~; the nc~.iqhborhoud
and that the ad3ition would not be A len.n~i:o ty~c~ structure. Mr. Dye at~~ed
the foregoi~ng ~uqgesti.on by Commis~sianer Flc~rbst ~.~ul.c~ change tI~E: appl.i.~cati~n
an~ th.e planat ~i~4*. he underetaad th~ thau~hts ~f the P1ann;Lna Commxas.ion,
haw~ver, the proposal was not for a lcan--ta typE~ I'UOT~ it was ~ f1a~-•~ypF3,
gravel roof wh?ch would be compatibl~ w•ltk~ tha comrn~rcial pr.c~perty ad;ioin.i.ng
subjeet prop~z•ty to the west= •that the prc~~oi-al. wo~a].d. not be dei.:imental tc~
the ne' ~hborhood at all and to change thf: p1.a.~~ ta make a r.oof oF the same
a•rchi~~ .:tural type as trie houae woulcl pras;tlc:~lly double the cost a£ the
project and lte did not bel.ieve the owrae.r r,ar~~<i t:n put that mucl~ m~nPy inkc~
his home.
Commissioner Herbst notec3 that the re:~~~3on tar hi:~c sugge~tion ~:oncerning the
roof nf the proposed structure was that in ~~, t:r.a~:t of homes what•ever design
was used shauld not be an add-on de:~~.gn bu~c :~liauld be compatibJ.e witi~ the
existing architecture ar d~ne ac~ur<~ing *o q~od buildirg stan~'~arc~~.
Cammi~si~ner Compton noted ~hat L-he pr~sF~nt existing structure had a heavy
shake ruof and the petitioner was l~roposing a f7.at rock roof; ar~d that ~hc~
petitioner was interpreting Commis:>iunf.r l~~zbs~' suqc7esY.ian ta a~nstrucr a
similar roof t~ that presently exi~atinr..
Commissioner Herk~st c:larified thai: he was n~~t sugqesting ~haL- ~the petitioner
could not construct a roof sta:ucture ~~ ~r.oposed.
Jt was noted that the Director uf :~velopment Services ha~ iieterm:in~acl +~hat
the propased activity fel]. wi~'~in t.he definition of: Secti~n 3.U], C~.~~s 1,
of the City of Anaheim Gui.d~la.nes to the Reqixirements for an Envi.ronmental
impaet Repor~ and is , the~efor~~, ea:~:c, rically exempt froan ~b.c: rc,quiremenc
~o file an EIR.
Cammissioner Morley afferea R~sol.ution N~. PC74-74 and move~l fc~x its passa~r
and adopti~n to grant Peti.ti.on ~E~r Var.iance No. 25~5 su}a~ect to cnnditicns.
(5ee Resolution Book)
On roll ca11, the f.oregoing reao~ution wae pas~eci by ~h.s follaw~ng vot~:
AYES: COMMISSIQN~RS s COIiij~tpri~ I'arano, Herbat, J~~hnson. King, b!orley, (:auer.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None•
ABSENT: COMMISSIONFRS: None.
~
~
s
MINU'rEB, CITY PLANNiIv~.~ CQMAIISSION, April ].~, 1974 74-208
CONDITTUNAL USc: - PU}~LIC HEARTNG. W:ILLIAM ~i. WHTTLA, 1501. Ettet La Palma
PERMIT N0. 7.461 Avc~nuA, Anahsim, CA, 92805~ Owneri ~,EqNA1~D SMITH, 12a-n
""-" '~ Soutti Claudina Str.aot, Anaheim, Ca. ~"2805„ Agent= re-
questing pertnieai~n Lor ON-SAL~ BEER AND W]:N~ IN AN
~XLSTING RESTAUItAN1' on proporty descr.ibdd as: A r.ectr~nqularly-ahaped gar.aQ].
uf .Land aanaist:ing oF appr~ximataly 1.2 moroa lncated ot the nartheas~ cornsr
of La Aa~lml Avenue and AcaciA St.r.e~at, having approximate fror~tage~ of 299 iPet
on th~ nort.h aide oF La l~alma Av~nua ~nd ~.69 feet on the east aide of Ac~cia
5traQt. Pr~~,orty prea~ntly cl~eeifi.Rd C-1, GENERAL COMP4~RCIAL, ZONE.
A~p~•oxlmatoly eiyht pFr.sana i.itdic~ted their presanao .ln oppoeitian to sub jc~ct
pc~titi.on.
Assiatunt Zoning aupervisor Fhilli~ Sct~war.tze road the ~taff Report ta i:he
Plannin~ Commiesion d.ated A~ri~ 15, 197A, and said 5taff Report ia referr~d
to as if set f~xt.h in Futl ia the minutea.
Mr, Leunard Smith, 125-D South Glaudina Stra~t, Anal-~ui;~~, ~~-?ont £or trie peti-
tion~r, appeared before the Commisei.o~~ Rnd etAtecl tho subject application was
for a beer a~Yd winc: li.cense within an establisl~ed restuurant.t that there wauld
be no bar, as such, and besr ~nd wine wau~d ~e served wi~h meals at the tables;
and ~hat hc. would be available to snewer any question~ .raised by th~ Planniny
ConaniRSion.
Fr~ther James Nash, Pastor of St. Anthony Clar.et Ch.urch, a~ qeared beforo the
Conunission and stated he had receivec~ notice of rhe pro~osed restaurant in
:~~nr~eGtion with sub~ect Conditional Use Per.mit No. 1461, however, he dic~ not
r.eceive notice concezning Conditional Use Permit Ne. 1466 which was to be
heard following this public hearing; that there were approximately 2500 fami-
lies withi.n the churah which was locat~d adjacent ~a the subject praperty;
that there were some 600 children in the church schoo.l aiid another 1.500 pe~ple
came to the church and sctiool for religioua instruction; that ha had a peti-
tion containing over 1000 signatur in opposition to anything of the nature
proposed at the subject location~ ~t there was already a problem in the area
with the off-sale liquor establi:.~,~u~nta ti,at the opposition strenu~u~ly op-
pu~ed the granting of the variance to the petitioner since tha petit.ioner was
presentl}~f enjaying th~ only premises permitted ta sea.Z alcoholic beverages in
tihe entire nsighborhood and had no compet:ition either i.n off-premises sales
or on-premises sales of alcoholic beverages; that there we.re two e.lementary
schools, a junior high school, and two churches directly across the street
from 'che subject property and the ~mall shopping area was campletely surround-
ed by residenLial properties; tnat the petitioner had s~renuously objected to
a previous variance for a proposed on-sale liquor establishment i.n the same
shopping c~nter based ~n the objecti.ons of the opposition at this time; that
the opposita.on respectfully urged the Zoning Ordinances be ~3hezed to and no
variance be granted; that with reference to Municipal Cade Sec~iun 18~ he
thought their opposition could be auacessfully made on two g~c~:~ds, one being
tt-e adver~e effect on the land use in the area.
Father Nash read a letter frc,m the principal of Thcmas A. Edison Schaol in
opposition to subject petition. Saia ieLLer and the aforementioned petition
in opposition wer.e presented to +~he Commission Secretary.
Mr. Schwartze read a letter received from the Anaheim High Scl~~uol District in
opposition to subject petition.
I;~ rebutcal, Mr. Smith stated he could not speak for the petitionPr concern~
ing Condit.ional Use P~rmit No. 1~166 whiclz w~s to be considered later in the
meeting. He further s~ated thaL- the proposal under Petition for (:onditional
Use Pe~nit No. 1461 was far a Family-type rsstaurant and there had been many
requesta by th~ patrons for the serviae of beer and wine with their food;
that Mr. Cazza, the operator of the restaurant, had another rest.aurant on
West Ball Road wi.th a bser, wine and ].iquor license at that location; thut
they were proposing n~ signing at the subject location on the bui].ding wha~-
soevert and that he personally did not aee how the proposal would be detri-
mental to anyane in the area.
THF P(7:'LI~ HEARING WAS C~OSED.
~
~
~
MINUTFS,, CITY PLANNIN~ COMM~SSIAN, April 15, 1974
CONDITIAP~AL USE PERMI'~ NO. 1461 (Can t.~nu~d)
74-209
CoTronias~ondr Herbst. statod that the subject area wae surrounded by schoole
o~nd churches prohak,ly marc~ so th~nn any ~the.r area ir. the Ci~y t~.hat in 1971
an r~pplica~tion had be+en d~nied for on-sale beer anfl winA in a bi111arA parl.or
at the aubjpet loc.ationj tl~at if the subieat pdtition wao c~ranted, ~her9 wi~e
another npplicati.o~n ta be onnsidered at this meeting for a similar applica-
ti.on .in tha san-e ar~sr~, which would be almoat impoasible to deny; that thera
waa a gathering almast Avery avening at the liquor atore loc~tQd in khd area
dnd t.here was an attraction thereJ that *.h~ eubject laamtion was probably
the paoreRt location in the City for Uear and wine becauae o~ the achoola and
chur.chee anrl the numbers af children l•hat tranaversed the streots in all
diractior.s at all hours including kindergarten chil;lrent anc' that he did not
b~lieve the conditions in the area had boan changod sinr.e 1~71.
In reply ~c~ questianing by Commisei~ner Farana, Fathex. Nash atatc~d if the
subject petition wa3 granted it w~uld be impossible to atop the ~eri.ous
~robl~:ms that could develop; and that once there was no forbiclding, there
w~uld be no qtopping.
Commi~s~aner Farano inquired if Father Nash would have the same apprehensions
if the Commission acted f.avarnbly on the subjeck petition k~ut i:nposed condi-
tions auch as no advertis~ment of beer and wine for sale, that aoer and wind
would be aerved only on the premises ~nc~ in cannecti.on with the conaumpt•ion
af food~ and Father Nash stated such an act.ion would not be within the in-
tent of thc 100U siynaturea in opposttionr that he would have to appose the
applications and wouid c~o so no matter how far he had to go1 that he was
aware af how the problems got started, step by step, an~ if the subject
petition w~o yranted, another one would be gzanted also at this meeting.
Co~~ur.issioner Farano stated he was not surs that i.f the proprietor of the
restaurant was allowed to serve beer and wine with mea].s that it wou7.d create
the atmosphere that Father Nash was apprehensive about.
Father Nash stated the first traged~ in the drea was the small comme~~cial
ceni;er surrounded by residential propertiea; that to be profitable, only
certain types of businesses could survive there, lzo~vever, as far as he was
cancerned, in order to suivi.ve they had to be reputable busin~sses.
Commissi.oner. Johnson inqu.ired conaerning the radius covexed by the residents
who signed the pe~ition in opposition to the subjeat conditional use parmit
and F~,ther Nash stated the area was ~'rom Orangethni-pe on the north, Orange-
wood on the south, the rai.lroad tracks on th~ west, and the Santa Ana River
on the east to Kraemer; that althoiigh this w~s a very large area, it was
local to the subject property alao. Father Nash contir,ued by stating if ~
petition consisti;~g of loaal signa~ures only was desirable, he could ~btain
such a. petition in opposition.
Commissioner Morley noted that he agreed with Cammissioner Herbst's remarks,
that the aubjec~ application would re infringing on the schools and chu.rcheg
in the area and that there was plenty of area for this type estab:.ishment
in other locations in the City.
Upon questionir~g by Commissioner Farano, Commigsianer Morl.ey stated wi.th the
existence oE the off-sale liquor ~srabliahment in the ar~a, the subject
petition would be compounding the problem; that he agreed concerning the
prop~sed use that it wa~ not as d~trimenta.l aA o£f-sale liquor; Yiowever, his
und~rstandinq was that the Alcoholic HBVersge Contro]. Board had a limi.t of
approximately 600 feet from a school or church with~n wh:ch liquor could be
served.
Deputx City Attorney Frank Lowry advised ~hat he was not familiar with such
a limitation requirement, however~ at one time the~e was a~imitation af one
mile within a college and certain other usest that if ~hEre was such a.
J.imitatton, when the application was submitted to the A~.coholic Beverage
Control Fioard, it would not be app.roved by them.
Mr. ~mith stated if there wer~ any distance limitmtions in connection :iith
schools, churches, etc., he was not awar.e of fihem and that the Alcoholic
SE~erage Contr~l Boa~d had acc.rptsd the application sabject to the City's
requirements.
~
~ S
MINiTI'ES, CITY PLANNING GAMMISSION, A~ri1 15, 1974 '74-210
CONDITrONAL USF PERMIT NU. 1461 (Con~:inued)
Commi~~ioner Herbat further note~ tild~: h~ did not feel the prapos~d ruatau-
rant along with thA otf-sale liq~l~x ost,~bliehment wae gui~a~~.e for ~he
aubject ar.ea and if there w~s ;~ust one c~hild inv~].vad in ~n acoi~ent, he
would feel badly that the p~titiona we~~ granted.
Commissioner Compton commented tr.at the~ra wdre m~ny areas around the Ci~y
where t.here we~rc~ reAtaurants of the type bQing propasec~ near ~ahaotst that
theee were family-type r.estaurants and altr~cugh he did nnt ddvoar-te the sale
of ~lcohol in sr~y way, there were numerous :~eatt~uranta that did eerve beer and
wine anCl generally to f.amilie~; that he had not noted in thia type rer~tdurant
a great abundance of drunk~ or. peop].r, drinktxtg heavily, drivinq reckleesly,
etc., and he juet did not believe tha~ i.t would be the type si~uation that~
would p.rev~.il ~+t th~+ subj~ct locationJ ~nd tha~t he was 3.n~erested to know
if tha petitionQr would be willing to go along with certain canditi.ons for
approval of the ~ubject petiti~n.
Mr. Smith statied that the petitiUn~r would be willing to ~tipulate to condi-
tions af approvt~lt that no sic~ns were k~einc~ proposed for adv~rtising pur-
poses, there wa~~1d be no bar built into the e~tablishment, service would
only be with me~ls at the ~ables, and many people liked a gl~ss of wine or
beez wikh their fo~d and partlcularl,y with Italian or Mexiaan foods.
Chaii•man Gauer no~ed for tY-e C~n~miasion that thE Alcoholic Beverage Control
Board issued one liauor license °or every 2000 popuLatian, including children;
that if the 6Q0-fooi: ].imitation from school.s, etc. h.ad been ruled out, he was
not Rware of the change; aiid that he was ori.ginall,y against the C-1 zoning of
the subject properL-y.
Commisaioner Compton further noted that he woulc~ be opposed to the application
if it wa4 for a bar-type nperation; that he could no1~ visualize that this
wotxld be a druz~k~n bar ~ituation; and that it appe~red to be a very normal
pracess to serve a glass of. beer or wine with Mexican or Italian food.
Co~unissioner Farano noted that the Commission did not want to create a situa-
tion that would be detrimenta~ to the neighbarhood, howevex, i.f restrictions
could be placed upon the use that would prevent it from later becoming un-
desira.tl~, he wo-~ld be so inclined. He further inquired if Father Nash knew
the attit.ude of the people in the neighbarhood a.f the subject application was
appro~cct with the restrir.tians previously discussed, and Father Nash repli~d
that he knew their attitude v~ry well. and that was why he waa not backing
down; that the peaple intended co carry the matter fu.rther, if necessary, and
as far as he was concerned the uye was not going to be; and that they were
basing their case oxi the Code an~l their pre~ence :ras possibly the ini.ti.al
step of the necessaxy action on their part.
Upon further questioni.~g by Commissioner Farano, Father IJash stated there
were at least 2000 children pas~in3 the subject property within a week ~•::~o
were going to the St. Anthony Claret School and there were many also from ..l~e
other two schools in the neighborr.ood.
Commissioner I~erbst mac~e an observation t.hat probably 5000 children passed
the subject property within a week.
tt was noted that the Director of Development Services had determined that
the praposed activity fell within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1,
o.f the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the Requirements for an Environmen~al
Tmpact Report and is, therefoi•e, categoriaally exempt from the reguirement
to fi].e an EIR.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution '~oa PG74-7~ and moved for i.ts passage
and adoption to deny Petition for Condit.ional Use Permit No. 1461 baaed on
tk~e foregoing findings. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call, the forec,c~.ng resolution was pasaed bx the follr~wing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst, Jolznson, King, Morley, Gauer.
NOES: CAMMISSIONER~: Compton, Farano.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Apr~.l 15, 1974 74-211
VARIANCE N0. 25,a9 - PUBLIC Ha~'ARING. S. V. HUNSAKER, JR., P. 0. F3vx 128,
San Juan Capiatrano, Ca. 92677, Owaerl DOMZNTCK TALLARIDA,
7a4 South Knot~., ni~t. S-3, Anaheim, Ca. 92804, Ag~nt;
x'equeetittg WAIVE;R nF PEttMITTED USES Ti~ ESTAAI~TSH A 3ANDWICH SIIOP AIVn DEI~ICA-
TLSSEN WITH ON-SAL~ HEER AND WIN~ IN AN EXISTING INDU~TRIAI, COMPLLX on prop~rty
descri~ied As: l~n ir.roqularly-~ehaped parcel of land located at thF: southwe~t
corner uf Oz~engeth~rpe Avenue And Flacentia Avenue conaisti.ng ot r~pproximately
4.1 a~roe, having approximA~e ~rontsa~~s of 605 foet or~ the eouth side ~f
4ranget.ha~pe Avenue And 3'lS f.eet on thc~ wQat aide c~f Placentia Avenuo.
propc~z~ty pzesontly alaae~.fied M-1, LIGHT INUUSTRIAL, ZONE.
N~ one appc~sred in oppASition L•o subject peti~ion.
Although the Staff Fteport to the Planning C~mmissiun dated April 15, 157~4,
was not road at the p~iblic hearing, it is refer.ied to and made a part of tlle
minutes.
bir. pomi.nick Tallarida, agent for the pdtiti.oner, appear.ed b~fora the Commis-
sion and advised h~ waa available to answer any questiona of the Plannin.~
Cortnni ss ian .
THE PU~3LIC HEARING WAS CLO5EA.
Conunissioner Farano notad that the proposal had all of the poten~;lals of An
undasirable ~establishment and, thereupon, of.fered a resolution to deny sub-
ject Pekition for Variance No. 2589.
In reply to questior-ing by Chairn.3n Gauer, ~ir. Tal~arida stated the area of
the building was tao large ta utilize completely at the present time and the
propoeal was to serve beer and sandwiches.
Commiasiuner Herbst: noted that there probably was a need for a restaurant-
type operation f~r the indtistrial. peop]^ in the area but he could not see
the naed for just a beer bar.
Mr. '!'alluridn stated he would go to a.restaurant later on7 that the reason
he was no~ proposing a restaurar~t currently was that it would cost him too
much maney if he did not know whether the Planniny Commission would allow
him to have a restaurant to start with; that he had talked. with the owner
who sugyQ$ted that it wc~uld be better to start oLt with a beer barj that with
the sale of beer only, he could have minors come i.n; that the establishment
would be upen from tibout 9:Q0 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and closed on Sundays.
Commissioner Farano explained that hF: had probably made a hasty motion; tiow-
ever, the proposal had none of the a•.nenities of a r~staurantt further, tha*
the proposal v~as not a cocktail bar either= that- there was an indicatir~n
that pool tablss wou~d hrobably be gaaced in the establishment in the future
and the petitioner war promotii~q an es~ablishment that could be chiefly for
i-.he seraing of alcohc ?.?.c beverages t that the proposal had all of the earmarks
of developm~nt down t~e road into one ~f those undesirab].e places; that if
the ~etitioner wanted to propose a legitim~ts restaurant that conformed to
the C'ed~ requireMents a~-d to be conducted in SL1Ct1 a manner, the sub ject
location would Yre a good place far that.
In reply tc questi.oning bl Commissioner King, Mr. Tallarida indicated without
the sale of beer or w:.ne, he did not feel the busyness would be profitable t~
him and that he had thr room for a kitchen.
Commissioner Herbs~ noted that the concern of the Commission was purely land
use; th~t they wF•re not desirous of a plain beer k.a: ac ~he subject location;
and that if the petitioner wanted tio propose a res~aurant, that weuid be a
more favorable appli,:ation,
Mr. Tallarida indicated he would ~e willing to accept a continuance on ~he
sub~ec~ request for a~~ari.ance in order to submit plans f~r a restaurant
propoaal.
Assietant Zaning Supervisor Phillip Schwartze noted for the Commission that
the requeat bei;~g Fresent~d Nas for a variance to waive permitted uses and
there had be~n no request for a restaurantt that a proposal for a restaurant
would need to be processed thrpugh a conditional use permit; and that the
natter would ha~e to b~ r~advertised and plans submitted showing the 258
groae ~laor urea for the kitchen.
~ ~
MiNCrr~~, CTTX PLIINNTT~G c~t~u~txSSx~N, ~px~~ ~.5, 7.974 74~27,2
VARZANCE NO. Z589 (Conti.nue~)
Commiesionar Faranu noted that i.E the petitioner w+~e wil'ling tc~ fiurn tl~e
propoeal. into H reataurant t~nd actt',+~lly did sa, it would be ri.ne~ and that
if rearaurant plane were aubmitted, a beer bar wou:id n~t bQ permittecl.
Ueputy City Attorney Frank Lowry entered in~o di.scueaion with Development
Servicea Staff concerni.ng pos~j.ble coT~ver.sion of the aubject variance appli-
o~+tion to a eunditional us~: parmit applicaL-i~n, fallowi.ng which he advisacl that
by teking a coni:inugncQ, Staff could take the app]ication back to the Develop-
ment Servicos Dop~srtment ~nd put it inta a canditional use permit farmT that
eome of the administrat.ive woz'k had already baen accompliahed and the coat
would be approximately one-half of the ~oe m~.rettdy paid by the pet~tioners
that the potiti,or~er woul.d be requirvd to subm~.t a~et o.f pJ.ane far a~u7.1
rea~tauxanti that the procQssing of ~he condztional tise permit would take from
four to six weekst however, if i:he petftioner w~n agreeabl~ and understo~d the
situation, it wauld be cheaper to uae the continuanc~ procedura as outlined
than to be denied and then apply fox a conditional use pe=-:,-it.
Mr. Tallarida ind;icated he woulrl be wi.lling to procaed on t.he basis outlined
by Mr. L'owry and, thereupan, requested a cont~.nuctr-ce.
Cammiseioner Farano withdrew hls motion to d~~riy subject petition.
Commissioner Farano notf~d that Staff should m~3ke aure the petitioner under-
atood the Code requirements in connecti.on with the inclus~on of a bar in a
reataurant operatioii.
Th~reupon, Commissioner F~rano of.tered a motion, secorided by Commisaioner
Herbst and MOTION CARRIED, to reopen th~ public hearing and contir~ae con-
sicleratior, of V'ariance Na. ~589 to the meE~ing of May 29 ,~974 ~~.n orde~
that the petitioner might apply for a conditional use permit to ~stablish
a rest.~urant witlz oz~-~sale be~r and win~ at th~ aubject lacation, that th~
fee for readvertisement sha11 be one-ha].f of the appr.opriatP fili.ng fee and
the ~etiitioner ~hall ~ubmit plans for a fu].1 reetaurant with said eanditional
tse permi.t application.
COND:CTION~'~L USE - PUBLIC HEARING. ROAERT M. LF•AVERTON, 16721 Hale Avenue,
PERMIT N4. 1464 P. O. Box 4930, Irvine, Ca. 92664, Ownerl MARTIN F.
- RQSTUN, P. O. Box 2013, OrangE, Ca. 92669, Agent;
requesting permission to ESTABLISH A NON-INDUST~LAL
TRAIN~NG CENT~R TN ANI EXISTING BUILDING WITH WAISIER OF MINTMUM NUMBE;Ft OF
REQUIRED PARKING SPACES on property described as: An irregularly-ahaged
parcel of land consisting of approximatel~- .8 acre having a frantage of
ap~roximately 151 feet on the southwester]y side of ManchQSter Ave:-~ae, ha~;ing
a maximum depth of approximately ~18 feet, and being located approximately
1395 feet south of the cente.rline of Katella Way. Pro~erty pr.esently classi-
fied M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZON~,.
No one appeared in cpposition to subject petition.
Although t.he Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated April 15, 1974,
was not read at the public h~aring, it is referred to and made a part of ~he
minutes.
Mr. Martin Roston, agent for the peti.tioner, appeared before the Commission
and stated the proposal was to establish a training center for Montessori
School teaahers, in an existing building; L,lat presently they had several
Roston Montessori Schools in Orange County; ~hat Mrs. Ros~tan was very well
known fox Montessori; that tney had outgr~wn their present training center
which was located in Orange and the demand for what they wanted ~o do was
tremPndous; and that they hoped the propos~d site in 1~naheim would become
natianally famous and something that Anaheim could be proud ot.
THE PU$LIC Fi~ARING 47A5 CLOSED.
Commissioner King noted Eor the Commisaion that ho and Co~~~~.onex Morley
had viewed the subject property in the Ei~1~1 and could see no pzoblems
concerning the parking for the propn~sed use.
l~I
~
~
MINUTES, CITY' PLi'~NNIN~ COMMISSiON, April 15, 197~ 74-213
CONDiT7.ONAL USE PERMZT Nq. 1464 (C~n~inized)
Tn repl~r to questioning by Ghatrman Gauor, Mr. Raston aL•at~d the te~cher
training proyrRm was For a poriod of one yeart that there wauld ba a maxim~ar,-
of 35 teachers on the prQmieee at ona time with thore prabdbly bei.iiy r~ morn~~
ing and an evening s~ssiQn ~r two groupe a day in training.
It ~vas nate3 that the Uirector of Development Services r.r,~d cletermi.ned that
the proposed ac~i.vity fell within tt;~ deP.~.r~ition ~f Section 3.01, Claag 1,
of the City of I~naheim Guic~elines to the Requirementg for an Envi~onmontal
zm~act Repart snd was, therefore, cateqorical].y c~xempt from the requirement
to file ai1 RIR.
Commisaioner King off~red 12esolution No. PC/4-77 and moved ~or its paseage
and adoption to gr.ant Petit~ion f~r Conditi~nal Uae P~rmit No. 14b4, gran;;ing
waa.ver ot the minimum numbe.r of ze~quired parking spaces on t~e baeis ~hat
thP request was minimal for the proposQd usej and sub~ec~ to condit:lons.
(See Resolut.ion Book)
On roll call~ tlie tor~yoing rpsolution wa3 passed by the following vote:
AYE~: COMMTSSIONERS: Campton, Farano, He.rbst, Jnhnson, King, MArley, Gauer.
NOESs CONiMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIG~NERS : None.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. WOODH:IN~ COFt~URA'~ZON, 8383 Wi.7.:~hiXe
PERMIT N~~. 1465 Boulevard, Beverly Hills, Ca. 90211, Owner; ~LIAS JOHN
GARCIA, 0383 Wilshire Boulevard, Bet,*er7.y Hi~,~s, Ca. 90211,
Agent; requ~sting permission to ESTAHI,ISH A 6~UNTT MODEL
HOME CUMPLEX on praperty descxibe3 as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land
located appr.oximately 1600 feet northeaster].y~ of the i.ntersec~ion ~f N~h].
RP.nch Road and Serrano Avenue. Froperty present?y classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL,
ZnNE,
No one appeared in o~position to sulaject petition.
Althougri the Staff Report to the Planning Coiarni~aior~ dated Apri.l la, 1974,
was not read at the public hearinq, it is raferred to and made a part of the
minutes.
Mr. J~ohn Garcia, agent for the petitioner, appeared before khe Commir~sion and
stated the Staff R~port appeared to ~,rovide adequate inforn•~ation regarding
the pr~posal and he w~uld have nothing further to add unless the Commi~si.on
h~d questions.
TIiE PUBLIC HH:ARING WAS CLOSFD.
Commissioner Herbst noted for the Commission that there was a que~tion re_qard-
i.ng the petition to construct tne six model homes that wer~ not really tied to
anything since the tract map had not yet been recorded. E~Ie further noted that
before construction of the models, grading plans waula need tn be finalized.
Mr. Garcia state3 the tract mag had not yet bean checked; that he would stipu-
late tn the conditions outlined in the Staff Report; and that the homes woulr~
not be constructed pri.or to the signing of the plans by the Ci.ty Engineer,
Commissioner Farano inquire~3 regarding the sales office for the proposed mod~l
homes, why the sales office wa~ not included or designated ~n tr~e proposed
plans. He st~ted there was nothing includEd in thF grop~sed plans concerning
signing and that. he would not vote in favor of the gropasal until a design .for
the sales office and the proposed signin~ were submitted.
Mr. Garcia stated he was not aware i~hat the items in questi~n were required
ar~d thai: he would r~quest a continuance to the meeting af Apri~ 29, Z97A, in
order to provide the additional information.
Commissioner Farano o~fered a motion, secnnded by Commigsio~ier I~erbst and
MOTION :.ARRIED, to reApen the public hearing and continue consi@erati~:. ~£
Conditional Use Permit No. 1465 tn the meeting af April 29, 1974, as r~:su~steA
by the petitioner.
s
~
~
MINUTES, CITX PI,ANNING COMMI;~~~ON, A~zil 15, ].974
~~1~2].4
VARIANCI: ~~0. 25N7 - 1~U.BLIC HI;ARINr. ~L'TON C. SNAVk:~X, 3614 Wc~gt Ba.ll R~ad,
~"~"~` "r }lnaheim, Ca. 92004, Owner1 requesting WAIVFR Ab' (A)
PERMIT'1'Ei) USE.~.'~ ANU (A) MINIMUM I+'ROtJT SETBACK, 'I`0 ~3TABT~I8t1
A RECRE7-TInIV V~HICY.~~ STORAGE YARD on px'c~perCy dC!3Ciibed a~: A roctangularly-
ehap~d ~~arcel af l~nd conaiating of nppr.aatimdtely 3~,~;:~J ec~uare feat havi.ng ~
fronteg~: o£ approximately 239 feet o~ the eouth sic~~ of Bal.l Roa~~, huvi.ng a
ma~simum dopth af. .ipproximritoly 15~ feet, and being locaked eppr.o:Kimately 670
f~et we~t o£ thQ aenterli.no ~i Knot;t Avenue. PropQrty pregentl~ C1A98~~'~~ICj
R-A, AGRiCULTUr~~L, 7,ONF.
No one appEared in opposition Lo subject petiti.on.
Although thc~ Staff ReporL• to the Planning Gommiasion dated April 15, 1974,
was not read at the gublic hear~ng, it: is reFerXQd to and m~de a paxt of the
mitiutea .
Mr. ~,lton Snavely, che petitioner , appearacl bAfore the Commissic-n and indica~ed
he had nothtng to add ta tY,e 5taff Fte~orL•, how~~ex, h9 di~1 have some qu~estione.
'~HF. Pi]}3LIC IIEF,RING WAS GLOSED.
Mx. Snavely questioned Condikion Non. 1 and 4, as set forth i.n t.he StdfF Ftep~rt,
anc~ sta":.ec~ h~ understood fram the ~nqinoering Department tha~ tr~e s~reet ~tm-
proven~~nts would be xeqtiired when Hall Road r~ached its ~eak ,l.oa;d.
Civil Enyineer Associate F1oyG Nelson adviRed that the strde+~ wac~ to be improved
to a normal width, e.~c~pt tt-e right-of-way would be con3l.tional1 and at this
time the c~:rb and gutter woul.d b~ required anc~ the A.C. asphalt aidewalk,
r.ather th~..- concrete.
Mr.. Snavely stated he w~uld be required ~o put up a bond for the improvemsnts
and he would agrse r.~ that condi.tior~; that regar,din~ the 4-foot wide asptialt
for the walkway i.t woul~l be Liseles~ as he had 14 :eet there x:ow ttiat was paved
4nd torn up by the City when they put in four lanes there and never put back
~s wa~; that it was almost impossible to walk ~o t.he property to the east siti~e
ther ~a~re big holes in the yard , etc. ; that he would be willing to insta].1 tlie
sidewa~k oz• walkway when there ~tias a walkwaf t~~ the east of his property; and
tha1: if a bor~d wag required they would be talking ab~ut $~00 or $300.
Chairman Gaaer inquired if the petikioner was willing t~ put up a block wall
around the entire property and Mr. Snavely st.atEd he would not go far that at
all; and that the existing fence had been installed by the subdivider.
CY~airman Gauer made ar~ observati.on that the pei:itioner had created a hardship
of his ~:n making when the aubject pxoperty was he].d out from the subdi.vision.
Commissioner tierbst explained for the petitioner that during subdivision when
someune holds out a corn~.r parcel it created problems sin~~ at some point in
time it needed to be developed; that the subject parcel should have been in-
cluded in the original subdivision; that t~ have a commercial use on tr.e sub-
ject property, the ~etitioner woul.d need to do what everyone else did since
the property was abuttirig }~omeo~~ners who should enioy pr.o~.ection from cammercial
uses; that t.he subject property had created probZems ~or the wideniny of Ball
Road, as well as the property tc~ tr.e eaet~ that the only way he would vote for
the petitian would be if ~he street was widened and cert~in amenities were
provided, such as tYie block wa~.l, the setuack aiid landscapx.r.g; tha~ he did not
believe that since the pEtiti.oner created his cwn problems that the requirement
shoulc~ be deviated from; and that pr~tection shauld be gi~~en to the residential
properties since they may remain for man~~ years and were entitled to such
protection.
Mr. Snavely stated the praperty owners would no~ objpct to the existirlg redwood.
fence; that un~e proper~f owner abutted approximately 95$ of the rear i~roperty
line; that he would be doing a favor £or the people in the area; an~, thst he
had liad 10 or 15 trailers on the subject ~roperty since long before th~ City
was incorporated.
.~...
•
MINUmE3, CITY PLANNZNG COMMISSION, April 1~, 1974
VAItIANCE ,in. 2587 (Continued)
._.._._.._ - ~~....
74-?15
CommiesionQr Morley inqul.red i~ the+ pc~~ikioner charged ront for th9 etarage
of the recr9atiorial v~h~clea, an~l Mr. 5navely re+~lied t.hat he begAn charging
one year ago.
Commiseione,r Harbe~ inqui.s~ed wtiat tho petitioner'e. ultimate plana were for thA
aubjACt propc~rL•y and Mr. Snavely r.eplied that the prop~rty had begn his tiomo
aince 1937 and it was difficult to say what his ultimate pldne w~~uld be sincQ
he had nr~ spacific ~lans~ that thore wa.s raom for 34 trailers and ~1 camgnre
which would bring sbout $4,000 a year income from rental of the r~pace= and
th~1t he would charge 5100 by tit1Q year or $10 a manth on a monthly basie. Mr.
Snavely atated there had been r~ miaunclQxstanding with tho Planning Cammiesion=
that he had the property f.i,tled last year and that w:»n he file:x for a liaense
tI1P. Plann~.ng Gommisainn was saXing he coL~.ld not have onE.
Chairman Gauer nated that the pQtltioner could hsve tt~e busin~se license if
the property was improved so that it would comp~are wi~h othAr commerc~.al
development i.n the City. Mr. Snavely stated thatc the b].ock wal]. would co3t
$5,000 and w+~s not needed.
In reply t~ questioning by Chairman Gauer, Zaning 5upervi.sor Gharles Roberts
adviser~ that th~: City Attorney's Office was primariLy eoncerned with dedicatian
of the aclditinnal riglit-of-way f~r B~11 Road, and not wiLh the block wall.
In reply to question~.ng by Commisaioner Morle}~, .'~ssis:ant Zoning Supeavisor
Phillip Schwartze advised that a time limi.t could be established for the pro-
posed use if the Planning Commisai~n so desired,
In re~ly to questioning by C~mmisaioner Herbst, Mx. Schwartxe advised cvncern-
ing req~aest for waiver of the minimum front setback, that the 25 feet was the
normal requirement for setback in an R-A Zone and this was from Ball Roa~, and
that in additiQn the ~etitioner was requesting waiver of permittP3 uses in
order to permit L•he recreational vehicle st~rage yard. Mr. Schwarize further
advised Lhat Staff would l.ike to recommend additional conditions that tt~e
subject praperty shal]. be served by underground utilities, and that a block
wall sha11 be constructed along the east, west an~ south property lines.
Commissioner Herbst n~ade a:i observation that the proposal on an interim basis
would be ~.s good as ar.y other use si-nce he recagni.zed there probably vrould
never be homes built on it.
In reply to questic~ning by Commissioner King, ,~e~,uty City Attor.ney Fr~nk Lowry
ac~vised that the 53 feet fr.om the centerline for the widening of Bal.l Road
would be obtained ~hrough dedication and whe;~ the City needed it, it wauld
accept samet that tr.e City Traffic Enginesr i.ndicated hat it might be two to
f•our years before the City would need to acczp~ additi. --al dedication; however,
it migh~t only be one y~ar or it might be twc years bef~re the aGCeptancs
actually took place; that since the City~ Traffic Engi.neer was not sure Pxactly
when he would neec~. the addi~ional dedication, he recommend~d that the dedica-
tion be a candition fo~• the ultimate width so 4hat when it was needed, i~ could
be accepted at that timev
In r~ ?ly to questi.oning by Conunissioner ~Ierbst, Mr. Schwattze a3vi:~ed that a.f
the ultimate dedication to 53 feet from ~he centeiline of Ball Road w~s given,
approximately 1 foot of the porch on the existing buildinq would be taken.
Commissi.oner King noted that there were approxima~~ly £~ur homes to the east
of subject property which would be in the street alsa with ~altimate wideniny
of Ball Raad, and Commi~sioner Herbsi; stated that eventually those properties
would be coming bc.fore the Planning Commission with applications and they would
be handled i:~ the same manner as tt~e subject proposal.
:,ommissioner :;erbst inqu~re3 if Staff had lo~k~d at the existing redwood fence
to determine the conditian af it for an interim use, and Mr. Schwartze advised
h~ did not recalY any comment following the on-site investigation as tc.+ th~
condition of the fence, however, sai.d fence ~~ras approxiMately ten years old.
.w..
~
~
•
MINUTES, Cx'~X PI~ANNING COMMiSSION, April 15 , 1974 74-21.6
VART~,NC~ N0. 2587 (Conti.nued)
Commissioner Com~t-on made an obaervation that if- i:he ~troet was not widr~ned
prior to another ~.~n-yc~ar pe.riod, the fenae coulc~ k~e in preL•ty bad ahape by
then.
Comm:iseioner tlorbat stated he woulcl liice to eee tho Planning Commieaion give~
Mr. Snavely two years to canstruc~ the bloc}e we~ll f~nce, .tf ha wished ro oon-
~inue thc~ uae nt that timot thet the u~e was not changi.ng lrom what tt~e
patition~er already wae dainc~ ~t the aubject lc~cr~t~.on and he would not like to
p~ace a burdon o~7 the peti* i~~~ar. ta construct a 55,000 block wall when lz~
would only be receiving $4,0~(~ a year fram the rontalj howevor, if the use
continuod following the t•NC~~-y~ ~r period, the Planning Commiasion would r.e~viQw
the candiL•ion of the Qxis_ing ience along w 3th the uae and th~ petitioner
~h~uld plan to construct ~~ b~.uck wall at th~t tiT .
Commisaioner Farana raised the matter of th ~ zera setbaak from Ball Road ~nd
Commiasioner tierhst noted that a~ the pre~ent t~me the aLtb j~et property eets
back quite a ways irom thc~ street, however, st the time of the widening oP Ball
Road the sub~ect propErty would b~ at a zs r o sotback.
Mr. Roberts advised t~hat at t:he present time the fPnce is on the exiating
pxoperty line; and tha~ the ~etitionor wou 1 d retain ownership oi the dedicated
pr~p~rt:y until such time as the easement wa s actu~lly accegted by the City.
Thereupon, Commiasi.oner Herbst noted tlaat p erhape the waiver pertaining to
the minimum frant setback ahould be removec3 frnm the sub ject petitior~.
Commissioner Johnaon noted for the Com,miss i on that he agreed with Commissioner
Herbst's remarks ~hat the rec?uirement fcr the block wall would place an unciue
burden on the property owner and that the two~year time lim~.t seemed appropri-
ate, as suggeated.
Commissioner C~mpton noted the subiEat property line was in ].ine with the
property to tho east and he kould have no objection to the two-year time li it.
Commissioner King notPd that the existing chainlink fence alc+ng~ ~$gt~&~t~~~~he
property line hud bambao slats fc~r screeninq purposes wYiich diu no~. ~iave a
bad appeaz. ncc .
Commiasioner. Herbat noted ttiat the fence on the north property 11ne ~hould be
rnovcd back 25 feet from the existirig property line and the lan~scaping main-
tained between the fence and the street.
The Planning Commission entered inte di.scusaion with Mr. Snavelx reyar.di,ng the
location of the existing ~ence, during which btr. Schwartze adv~.sed that tk:e
legal description, as st~,bmitted by Mr. Sna~ely, indicated that ttie property
line referr~d to by Mz. Snavely was a dis tance of 30 feet from the centerline
of Ball Road, and that of that a portion was presently L11 the right-~f-way
and that the property had an easement for zight~of-way purposes ~~hich was
the City's and Mr. Snavely was probably un der the impression th3.t the l~cation
of his fence was l~l feet back from the cen terline on Ba11 Rcad, which would b~
a correct assumption.
Commission~r Harbst noted that he wanted to be stire that the Plannin~ Commission
did not grant a varia~ice writih a~ zero setback £or future development; that if
t:he f.ence was presently back 14 feet from the property 1ine, he wauld have no
objection until ~u~h time as the street was widened.
Mr. Snav~ly explained that once ~he sid~wa],k was installPd, he would lo~e
1 foot off his front porch an~ at that i:ime he wante6 to cons~x-~;.ct a block
wall ar.ound the entire property ~rontage, leaving him 5-1/2 feet between the
wa].1 and k~is front do~r.
Comcnissioner tr~.rbst noted that the street widening wot+ld be creatinr~ a hard-
shir fnr Mr. Snavely as far as his exi3ting house was concerned, and that until
suc~~ time as the house w s h~ir.,q used for some pur,aose other than residential,
the property owner ahoul~ be allowed to keep it '.ike it was; that he was con-
cerned about the tra-~~r storage area that th~~ p~~titioner was using as a
bu~iness and collectiiig money on, which stzould abide by the ordinances of the
City; and that as f~r as the house was concer.ne3, the street wou].d ~e widened
right up ta his front steps.
•
~
~
NaINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN, Aprll 15, 1~74 '~4-21~
V'ARIANCE N0. 2587 (Cont.inuad)
Mr. Sctiwartiz~ advised that presently the p~~itioner would not be zaquirecl to
dadicate tha Pull diatance for tho widonino of Ball Roed, thRt he would be
~'ale to work a~ituation ouF wiL•h tho City Attorr~oy an~ woulcl be installing an
A.C. asphuxt aid~walk As ~;~No~ed to tiha normal requ•lremen~ for concrer_h and
would not be putking in fula. imr~r.ovements f.or t'rie full width from the cc~nter.-
ltne of Bdll Roa~ of 53 faeL•t that the 1 Pook wauld come off the front of the
housc~ if end when th~ street wae ultimately widened, how~ver, the aotback
wuuld be frem whmt the City Engineor wou7 d be requir. inq immediately.
C~mmiasioner Morlt~y quQEtioned whether tho existing fenae aould ba 1a~t in its
prosent location for the two-year t;ime limit= and notec! that the bsmboo cover-
ing For the full width of th~e f~:nce would certainly bc~ dea~rablg.
Ther~upon, Mr. Sn~ve ly atipul.ated that he would b~ willing to fully screen
the existing chr~in].ink fence alany the north property line with bamboo slats,
similar ta that portion alroady sLxeaned.
Mr. Sn~vely atated tk~at he would not have submitted a petition f.or a variance
excPpt the Enginaeri 7g Depax~mQnt had worked out that h~ could u~a tk~e pxop-
erty "as is" until ~the etreet was ready to be widened~ Mr. Snavely stipulated
that r~e would put ttze improvementa in within foux years iY and when the prop-
ei-ty to the Qast was developsd.
Commissioner Herbat sta~ed he could see no problem in approving the use and
the waiver.a for a periad of two years, at which time the matter wouJ.d come up
for review by the P lannirig Commission; that a variance ran wi~h the land and
the Planning C~mmission cvas very concerned about future dPVe~.opment with a
zero astback= und that there would be a two-~year moratorium on th~ existinq
fence around the prapPrty.
C~mmissioner Harbst offered a motion, seconde3 by Commissioner King and MOTION
c:ARRIED, that the P lanning Comm•ission rec.omrnends to the Ci.ty Cauncil ~:hai:
sub ject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report ~ursuant to t;ie provi.sions of the Californi.a Ei~vironn~ental
~uality Act.
Commissioner Comptor~ ~ffered Resolution No. PC74-78 and moved for its passage
and adopti~n to grant Petition foz Variance No. 2587, granta.ng Waivers a and
b on the basis that the proposal i3 an interim use, being granted for a~eriod
of two ye;ars, after which time upon written request by khe petitioner, an e:c-
tension af time m~y be grante3 upon approval by the Pianni.ng Co~nission and/or
City Counci.l; pr~vi ded, however, that an extensian of time, if granted, should
be conditione3 upor~ construction of a 6-foot high masanry wall along the east,
wes ~ an~ south property lines; that Waiver b~.s hereby granted far the exist-
ing fence only; sub ject to the condition that the subject property shall be
served by underground u~ilities; subject to the condition that the exis~ting
chainlink fence lo^_ated alang the north property line shall be completely
screened with bamboo slats, as stipulated to by the petition~ri and subject
ta conditions. (See Resolutic~n Book)
Commisaioner Faraiio noted that the Planning Conimission was effectively granting
a zero setback f.or the subject property= that vari.ances ~equired that hardship
be shown ar~d that he did not feel an,y hardship had been shown and approval
would be giving the pet;tioner what ~thers di.d not enjo~r; that the petitioner
h~d reserved the subject property out from the subdivision and thereby createc~
a hardship for him~elfj that he would question aborting the develapment stand-
ards because the petitioner did not anticipate the widening of the stre~t; and
that hP was not in favor of the use but would be willing to c~o along with it
fox two years.
On r~ll call, the ~oregoing resolution was pass~d by th..: following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONEI~.,: Compton, Herbst, Jahnson, iting, Morley, Gauer.
N0~5: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
~w.~~
~ ~
MINU:'ES ~ GT,TX PLANNING COMMISSION ~ April. 15, 1974 74-'l18
CONDITTONAL U3E - PUE3LIC HEARII~G. WILLZAM R. WHiTLJ#, 1501 ~ast La Palma
PLRM.IT NO. lAb6 Avenue, ~lnahai.m, Ca. 92805, Ownert requesting pdrmission
""" ~or ON-SRLE BFER I~ND WINE IN A PROPOSEA RP:STAURANT c~n
property ueeeribed aar A rectangular~y~ehape~ parcel ot
lAnd coneiatiny a£ approximat.ely 1.2 aaree~ located at the northeaet corner of
La Palma Avonue ancl Acncia S~roet, having appraximate frontagea of 29~ ~e~~c
on the north aide of La Palma Avenua and 169 ~eet, on the eaat side of Acacia
Street. Prope~rty presently claeaifidd C-l, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
Approximately eight persons indicA~ed thoir preser~ce in oppoait~.on to subjact
petitian.
The reading of the Staff Report ~o the Plannlnq C~mmi~sion da~ted April 15~
19~4, was waived, however, said Staff Report is rFFerred to ttnd made a part
of the minutes.
Mr. William R. Whitla, the petitioner, appeared befAre t11e Comm~.ssion and
stated i:he px~nposed Mexicari restaurant would be operated by Mr. Reuben Alo~~zo;
that the proposed restaurant would be an Alco'~...~ic Beverage Cantrol, 13Aard
licens~d, bo~na fide eating establishment, with S08 ki.tchen arPa anl~ na dancing
or girls would be tolerated; that beer and wine woul~i be aexved an the promisea
and the propos~l wa s a family°type re~taurant.
Father Jamea Nash, Pastor of. St. l~nthony Claret Church, appeared before tihe
Commi.sainn represen ting approximate].y sevQn other persons present in opposition
to subjec~~. petition and 4tated h~ wish~d to rei~er~te his objections as pre••
v'iously stated gt this meeting duri~ng consideration af Petitiar. for. Cond~.tional
Use Permit No. 1461t that ~lthough Mr. ~lonzo would be operating the subject
restaurant initiallyr no one knew who wauld b~ ~pera~ing it in the future; and
that ~he reasons t~x opposition were detinitely stated earlier in th~e miniai:es.
(See Plannin~g Cammisa:.u:~ minutes pages 74-208 through 74-210)
Chairman Gauer noted for the petitionex~ that a petiti.on aigned by approxi~mately
1000 resiclAn~ts and two letters, al~ in opp~~ition had been filed in connection
with the subject petition and also in conn~.:.tion with Petition for Variance
Na. 1461 considered earlier in this meeting.
It was noteci that the Director uf Development Services had deter.mined that the
proposed ~ctivity fel.l within the definition of Sectian 3.01, Class 1, of the
City of Anaheim Guidelines to the Requirements for an Environmentr~l Impact
Report anci was, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to ~ile
an EIR.
Conuniasioner Herbst offered Resolutio.n No. PC74-7G an3 moved fox its passage
and ad~ption to deny Petition for Variarice No. ],466 based on the findings that
the proposed use would be in close proximitl to thrpe schools and :-.wo churchea
and for this reason vaculd aet an undesixable ~zecedent at the subject loc~tion,
and further, that a large number of childxen would be pass~.ng ~he 3ubject
establishment on their way ta and fr~m schoo~; t.hat thz Planning Commission had
previously dpnied a simil~r conditional use permit applicatiun in the subject
area; and that. an off-sale liquor establishment ~resently Exists in the subject
area. (See Resol~utior Book)
Commi~sioner Compton noted that he did not feel the pr~posed use was totally
unwarranted in the area~ that he agreed th.ere was heavy traffic in the area
but this situation exisi:ed in other places in the City, and on State College
Boulevard, La Pa7.ma A~venue and on Eaa~ Street; that a bar situation would be
undesirable, however, he did not sPe anything wrong with serving ~e~r and wi.ne
ii~. a small Mexican rest~urant such as was b~ing proposed.
In reply ~o r~uestionirig by C~mmissioner Faran.o, Mr. Whit.la stated that the
proposed restaurant would be open Thursdays through Sundays only; that the
restaurant would s~peaialize in menudo on Friday and Saturday mornings and
woulc~ be a tamale factoryt and that th~ sale of beer wauld be a sidelirie.
~ommissivner Farano inquired if given the opportunity tc- -''~ulate that there
would be no advertisement that beer and wine were be~.n~ 3 on the premiaes
and if beer and wine would only be ~exved i.nside the pi and in cnnjunc-
i tion with the sale of food, would the petitioner accept t.. ~ conditions.
~
~
•
MINUTES~ C~TY PLANNTNG CQMMTSSSON, AprJ.l 15, 1974
CONDZTIQNAL U3E PERMIT N0. 1466 (Continuod)
74-219
Mr. Whitla so ettpulat~d to the conditions as outlined by Coxnmiaelaner Fardno
and further indicat;ed that an additional cond.i~ion a4uld be c~dded that in the
event 4~he eatabli.shmont was sc~ld, thak it nould not have cocktail waitresseR.
On roll ca11, tl~o i.oreq~~ing r~eolution wr~a pasa~d by the following vote:
AYES: COMMiSSIONERS: Herbst, Johnson, Kinq, Morley, Gatier.
NOE~S: COMMISSIONERS: Compton, F'arano.
AB5~NT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
t/AR:[ANCE N0. 2588 - PUBLIC HEARING. DARRFLL AND RUSE ANN AMENT, 1414 Glen
Dr±va, Anaheim, Ca. 92801, Ownersl requestinq WAY'VER OF
REQUIREMENT THAT TWO ~ARKING BPAf:ES BE PROV;LDEU IN A
GARAGE TO CON~TRUCT A TWO~CAR CARPORT on property deacribed as: An irregularly-
shaped parcel of land having a.frontage of approximately 57 feet on the sou~h
side of Glen Drive, having a maximum depth of apQroximately 100 feet, and being
located approxiinately 135 ieet east of the cen~erline of Arbor Str•eet, Praper~y
~,res~ntly cl~ssified Ft-1, ~iNE-F}1MILY RESIDENTIAL, ZUNE. .
No one appeared in opposition ~o subject petiti~n.
Although the Staff Report to the Planniny C~mmission ~3ated April 15, 1974o was
not read at the public hearing, i* is raferred to and mad~ a part of the
minutea.
Mr, Darrell Ament, the petitioner, appeared before the Commissior~ and stated
ha concurred in the :Information as set forth i.n the Staff Report and was avail-
able ta auiswer questions of the Planning Commiasi~ri.
THE FUBLIC HEARIIVG WAS CLOSED.
Commissianex Mo~lpy inquired what the structure in the rear of the sul~ject
property was used for, and Mr. Ament stated at the present time it was being
usca ar~ a bedroom and a poc~l table was also in ttie room; that it was not a
rental unit an~ was occupied by one of his childr~n and an exchange stud~nt;
that thc~y purchased their home in 1967 and the structure in question existed
at tYiat time; and that buildiny permits had been issued for construction of
t..e structure .
Commissioner King inquired why the petitioner wae adv~rse to building a garage
rather than a carport, and Mr. Ament stated that rahen the homes were construct-
ed in the tract, the homeowners had the option of ei~.her kepping or having re-
moved the large avocada trees nn the property and those on his prope.rty had
been ret.ained; that unless he completely eliminated his patio he would not have
the space to construct a garagE; and that the only other way he would have room
to canstruct a garage would be by removing the avocado ~rees.
In reg-y to questioning by Commissione.r Morley, Mr. Ament stated that a gate
presently exist.ed on the rear of the property f~r accessing boats, etc.
In reply to questioninq by Chairman Gauer, Assistant Zoning Supervisor Fhillip
Schwartze advised th.at no res~onse had been received in oppasiti.on to subject
petition.
In reply to further questioning by C~mmissioner Morley, Mr, Ament stated he
had discussed the proposed plans with his neiqhbars and h~ coulc~ have had
i:heir names on the bottom of his patition but did nat reallze he ;~ad that
option until at the last minute; and that he had lived in the neigr.borhood for
~bout six years and knew moat of his neighbors.
In reply to questianing by Commissioner King, Mr. Ament stated he had discussed
his plans with the neighbors to the weat of his proper.ty, 3lthaugh they were
renting with an optian to pu.rchase that property; and that he had not talked
to the owner of that property.
~
~
i
MINUTES, CITY P;,1INNING C~MMISSION, Apri7. 1S, 19'74
VARIANCF N0. 2588 (Continued)
.__..._._..r._ .___.___._.r..._
~a-22o
Commi~aioner King noted ~hdt the c~r.di.nAnce provided that there should be e~ two-
cax gar.dqe and zeac~ily r~ccesaible, and that thH pr.~peaed 1Ox40-foot carport
would anl,y have one space readily aaceseiblo1 and that the carpott Gould ae
enclosed latex on~ therefore, the pr.opusal would bA etri~t].y non~onforming.
Mr. Sehwartze ac~vised that Commissionor Herba~ was reforrinq ~o Municipal C~r~e
5ection 18.24.030(5) and th~ khe p.ropoeal wae ~~ have t~ndem parking.
Commisaioner Compton
field and that there
on the west ~roport-,r
any changea to those
of the branches woul
to ~.he west.
noted that he had reviewc~d the e~ubject prop~rty in the
wexe two big, beauti.~ul avocado trees located approximately
line~ rzncl he questioned iz the petitionar wa~ proposinq
tre~s which might possibly harm ~hem1 and if any cutti»,g
3 be done on the side overhanqinq the ~d;~~intng pr~perty
Mr. Amcnt stated the tr~es wers on his propert:y and he war~ p~oposing t.o have
about an 8-foot portivn ~f one of the branches remnved which would nat harm
the tr~e since it would be done profesaiona].ly.
Commissioner Her.bst noted th~t Y:e could not underetand why the peti.~ioner could
not build a standard carport- and aometim~ later on it could bs anal.osed; and
that the prop~sal was getting completely away from the OrdinRnce and h~ could
nat see where a l~iardship existed.
Mr. Ament stated that ori.ginally in his discussion with Sta~£ he had proposec~
two other carporta but ~the Ordinance prohibited him from shutting aPf windows
to a bedroom which he would have had to do unless he could have provided air-
~onditioning for his home and this he could not afford to dol th~t his family
had grown in quantity ~and size; that he was looking for a way to stay in his
neighb~rhoodt and that hir~ proposal was the only way to accomplish his needa.
Chairman Gauer inquired if by taki.ng in the ex~han~e a~udents th~ p~±:itioner
was increzsing the quantity and size ~if his family, and Mr. Ament stated that
was partially the reason and he was proposing to enlarge his home in ordPr to
provide a good environment for the children to have their friends in by con-
verting ttie gar~g~ and addin~ onto the garage so that a fami].X ronm wou~d be
at~ached to the hc~me.
Commissioner Herbst made an abszrvation that perhapa the pei:itioner should
leave the garage the way it was and add a fan~ily room.
Mr. Ament stated Commissianer Horbst's suggestion would bP an al~ernative,
however, the cne he was proposing was the one he wouZd 11ke to use.
Commissioner Herbst. added that the proposal was a drastic diversion from the
Municipal CodP and he coulcl not justify a va.riance because there was no hard-
ship demanstrated; that if there w~:re other wayr tu incrPas~ the size of the
home without deviating from the Municipal Code, the Code having certain reasons
and purposes behind it to give gooc3 living environment a.nd a'lso if the property
was to be snld later ~n, the ~roposed p].an might hurt the chancps of selling
the home since it vro uld not conform.
Commissioner. I'arano made an observation that by builc~ing a full garage, tlie
yard would be divided up severely.
Commissioner Herbst noted •that a variance from the Code would not be justifie3
on the basis that a treP was in the way, although evezyone t~nded to be en-
vironmentally inclined; and tliat the petitioner could grow anotr~er txee which
would be fruit-bearing in about five ta ~even years.
Mr. Rment atated thz avocadn trees ~n hia property were 50 years cld and his
san had picked about 1500 t~voca3os from them.
CQmmissioner Herbst questioned the lot coverage if the progosed pl.n were
constructecl, and Mr. Schwartze advised that the pro~erty would no~ be in viola-
tion of 'the Code .
~
~
~
MINUTE~, CITX PLANNING COMMISSION, Apr.il ~.5, 1974
VARIANCE N0. 25H8 (Continued)
74-221
C~mr.~iasioner Farano noted that the size anr~ aha~~~e of the subi~ct ~ropexty wou].d
n~t aid a batter plan.
I~t was not`~1 that the Director of Develupm~nt Servicee h~id determined that the
pxopose~ activity foll within the deEinition oP. Section 3.01, C1a~e 1, oP the
City of Anaheim Guidelinea to the Requirement~ ~or an ~nvirontnental Impaat
Report and w~s, therefore, categori.cally exempt from ~h~ r~quirem~nt to file
an EIR.
Comir,issinner Compton offered R~solution No. P~74-79 and moved for ita passage
and adoption to grant Petition for ~lariance No. 25~8, on the b~~is of the
unusual eize and. ehapP of tihe aubject pro~erty ayid since most of the homea in
the 9Ubj@C't. tract had g~rages on the al.leys, however, the subject home was
lo~ated ~n a cul-de-saa ~nd that garaga was built on the front of the Y~omej
subject to conditiona. (See Rdaolution Book)
On roll call, the Eoreqoing resolution was pa~aed by the Follow.ing votes
AYES: COMMi~SIONERS: Comr~on. Farano, Johnson, King, Morley, Gauer..
NOES: COMM135ION~RS: Herbst.
ABSENT: CUMMISSIONERSs None.
CONDITIONAL USE •- PUBLIu HEARING. WILSnN & HAMpTON P~IINTING CaNTRACTQRS,
PERMIT N0. 1463 Attn: Rarert ll. HFUnpton, 1524 West Ma~b1e Street, Anaheim,
` Ca. 92802, Owner= RGaERT D. HAMPTON, ].524 West Mable
Street, Anaheim, Ca. 92802, Agent; requestiz~g permiasion
for the CONTINUATTON AND EXPANSION OF AN EXISTIN~ NONCONFURMTNG ~ON~RACTOR'S
STORAGE YARD WI'i'H WAIVERS OF (A) MINIMUM STRUCTLiRAL SETIIACK, (B) MAXIMUM E'ENCE
HET~HT, .AND (C) REQUIRED FENCING NlATERIAL on property described as: An
irregularly-shaped parcel o£ land consis~ing of ~ppr.oximate~.y .8 acre, having
appLOximatp frontages of 1Q8 feet on ~he south sicie of Mab1e Street and 60
feet on the no.rth side o£ Broadway, havinq a maximum depth of approximately
299 £eet, and being located approximately 840 feet east af the centerline of
Loara Street. Property presently cZassiffed M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRTAL, Z~NE.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petiti.on.
Alth~ugh the Staff Report to the Plan;~ing Comm3.ssion dated April 15, 1974, was
not read at the public hearing, iti is referred to and made a part of the
minutes.
Mr. Robert Hampton, a~ent for the petitionez, appeared before the COI'IlIil~.3310I1
and stated he hac~ some qu~stions regarding Condition Nos. 3 and 4 contained in
the Staff Report; that he ~elievea he had already paid the $2.00 per front
foot along Mable Street for street lighting and 50~ pex front foot alang Mable
Street for tree planting.
Assistant Zoninq Supervisor Phillip ~chwartze advised that the Develapment
Services Department rECOrds did not necessarily reflect that payment had ~een
made but that if Mr. Hampton had receiptg or if the records could bE checked
to that effect, that portion of the ccndition~ would have been met.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WA~ CLOSEA.
Commisaion~r Herbst noted that he was concerneu 4bout the setback from Broadway;
that all af the buildi.ngs for severa]. b1oC?~y west on Broadway were set ba~k 50
feet and he coul.d not visualize buildir.y~ with a storage yard coming ou~ into
that se~bacY.; that landscaping in the front and realizing as much of th~ prop-
erty as poasible was desirable but sir,^.e the ne~g:~bors had 5~-foot setbacks,
the subject property should also have a 50-foot sctback with landr~caping.
Mr. Hampton stated that subject propertiy was a 160-foot ].,':; and that t.hey
wanted secur~tv with a fenc~.
~
^~
~
MIIJUTF.S ~ CITY PJ~ANNING COMMIaSION r April ].5 ~ 1974
CONDI~IONAL USE PE~2MIT NA. 1463 (Continued)
74-222
Commissioner Hei-bst natod that tha p~titioner could have em~loyee,cust.omer
parking wlthin the 50-~oot aet~~ack area, and Mr. Hnmpton e~a~ed ttie sub3~c~
o~9ration would not. have customor or employee pdrking, per se, sincR their
work was dono in the fielc3.
Commi.saioner Herbst inquir.ed if the pet.iti.oner wo~~ld be abtaininq a railroad
right-of-way which would be in th~ ~etback on Mab1e Streaty and Mr. Hamptan
statad that Q11 January 2~, 1974, he began neg~tietions with the Southern
Pacific Land Company to r~nt the 25-foot buffer strip that ran betwQen the
sukajec:t pxopert~y and Mable S~reett that it would be at least anothc~z three
weeka before those negotiatione werQ complestod, howc~ver, aince Lhey were in
n~ed of the space ~hey wera trying ta get atarted wi~h the pxopoeal~ and that
with the aciditional land th~y would have two more driveways on Mab1e Street.
Commissioner Herbat nat•ed tha•~ the Ordinance raquixed redwuod or cec9ar slats
in chainlink fencing and queationed if the ~etiti~ner ;~;~uld have any objection
to pravi.ding such rath~r than vtnyl, as propASed, and the petitioner atated
the £~nce ~would be concrete block with the excoption uf the gat~.
Mr. Schwartze advised that the screening was applicable to the ga~.e only and,
thereupon, the ~etitioner withdrew the request for wai.var of Code S~ctiun
36.52.060(3-b) and stated he would provide scxgenirig m~ter.i.al. aa reqt~ired in
the gate .
Chai.rman Gauer inquired cancerning the Sani.tation Division's requirement~,
and Dir. Hamptc~n stipulated that he would relaca~e parkinq space No. 6 to
just oast of the office building as suggesLed by the Sanitation Division;
that a dumpster woul~ be provided; that the Sanitatiion Division had convey~d
that they only needed anc: trash station; that at the present time it was im-
possible to enter ParceZ B and exit Parcel A, and that iE tr~ey entered either
of the parcels the,y would have to back out but by openi:zg up the propert,y to
Broadway, that matter would be resolved.
Commissic~ner Herbst inquired what thE pptitioner would be us~.ng the property
abutting Hr~adway for, and the petitioner atipulated tl~ey owned one, two anci
one-half-ton truck and about three, ans^i.on truaks and the rest ^f the equip-
ment was three-quarter-ton pir.k-up trucks and vans; Rnd thai; their five-ton
truck was being sold.
Commisaioner ~iex~bst noted that along Broaslway the City had perrnitted a storage
yard faz• Linbrook, r,owever, nothing could be stored which would be visible
above the height of the fence.
Mr. Hampton stated ~hey were proposing to store drun~s, generators, etc., on
Parcel C.
Upon questioning by Chairm~n Gauer, Mr. Schwartze advised that the proFosed
wall along Dlable Street would be in closer proximity to the cez~terline of
Mable Street than the setback for the other properties, and that the fence
along Broadway would be en.;roaching more into the setback than the other
propert9.es .
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the recreational vehicle storage
yard loca~ed at the northweat c~rner of Loara and Broadway was aet back only
10 feet.
Commission~r King noted that the exist3.ng sPtbacks in ~he subject area migh~
be a poiizt of conter.tion as to whether the proposed stnrage yard shoulc~ have
a 50-faot setback or be equal to the other propertias with 10-foot setUacks,
and ~hairman Gauex• concurred.
Cammissioner Herbst noted that by having a 1.0-fnot setback for the sub~ect
property, the setbacka al.ong the street wotild be s~aggered.
Cammissioner Kxng notrsd fnr the petitioner that the 50-£oot setback alonq
Broadway cocld be used for parking, and Mr. Hampton etated it would r.ot be
practical for his operation to uae the setback area for parking s3.nce they
wanted a fence around the praperty for security purposes; that they had about
~
~
O
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMI~SION, April 15, 1974
~ONDITIONAL US~: PERMIT NO. 1463 ((.:ontinued)
74-7.23
9 or 10 emploYees and present].y they parked tn ~.he etre~etJ that with the pro-
posal they wc~uld have 17 parking spaces~ and that th~ trucks and ec~uipment
were out during the hours when tha employeee woul.d be us 1.ng the par.•king spacee~ .
Commi~aion~r king noted thar he haa vi~wed the ~ubject pro~erty ~n the Eield
and that ~he atorage yard was ~ n~at and clean o~era~ion; and that alonq the
east property 11nQ there would be a concre~e wa11 and t.he pres~nt fence was in
a dilapidated condition.
Commias-oner Herba~ noted for the Commiaeion that praetical7.y all of ~he prop-
ertios alo:~y Broadway t;o the west had 50-toot setbacks and thore w~uld b~ na
rQason wh~~ the other property owa~ors c~ulcl not come in and request the same
10-~oe' setback being requ~~tec1 k~y tt~Q petitioner at this timo.
Commissioner xinq no~ed for the C~mmission that the two bi~ildings i*~-modiately
east o£ Loara on the north ~ide of Broadwr~y were not back 50 faet, nowever.
the rest of the area could be deieloped with 50-foot setbacko and t`~e adjoin-
ing property immediately we~t of subjact property was set back 50 leet.
Conunissioner Compton requested Stsff interpretation as to whether the petitioner
c~uld put a structure within the 1)-foot setback if the s~hjec~ petition were
granted, as proposed, and Mr. Roberts advised that he assumed that, i~ granted,
the Commission would be tying i:he canditional use permit ta ths plana as }~re-
s~ntedt that the waiver would allow a structure 10 ~eet from the proper~y line,
however, the Development Services Department would not i.ssue a bui].ding permit
for auch a:~tructure until a request was reviewed by the Planning Commission
for appzoval.
Commissioner Compton noted thst the propc~sed project would beauti£y the urea
if the setbacks could be resolved; that l~e was satisfied wi+~h Mr. Roberts'
explanation concerning a p~ssible structtare wittlzn 10 feet of the property
line; that if approved it would be f.or the fence and •they could not hsve a
building witt~in 10 feet of the property line withaut a building permit and
review by the Planning Commission.
Commission~r Elerbst noted that the buildinqs had been beautiiPied along Broadway
and loaked very nice. He questioned if the petitioner would stipul..te that
nothing would be s~ored above the height af the fez~ce on the subject property,
i.e., a diesel rig or other heavy equipment, and the petiti.oner so stipulated.
In reply to questioning by Commissioner Farano, Deputy City Attorney Fxank
Lowry advised that t-.he subject petition was for a conditional use permit and
the petiti~ner would have to build to ttie plans and not vary; t;~at if the
conditional use permit were tied to the precise plans there would be no dif£i-
culty in defending the interit of the Planning Commission shouZd a building be
requested in th~ setback later on; that the waiver being granted was f.or a
struature, being a fence, in the setback and the Code dxd not differenti~te
between structures; however, the Planning Commission was granting a new defi-~
nition to the word structure by tying the pronoaal t.o the plans.
Comn-issioner King inquired if Commissioner Herbst would go along with a 25~toot
setback if the petitioner would so stipulate, and Commissioner Herbst s~ated
with the old ~uilding set right next to the subject property and out to the
property line, if the use could be controlled so that it would not be detri-
mental to the pxoperty owner to the ~aest, he would have no objection; that the
subject propertcy was a very odd-shaped parcel and the petition~r was trying to
~leve~op it for usef and that the old building next door might be thers far
another ten years or so.
Mr. Lowry suggested if it was the Commission's c~esire to grant the subject
petition, tha*_ the waiver be granted for a 6-foo~ fence instead of for a
structural setback.
In reply to questioning by Commissionsr Herbst, Mr. H~mpton stipulated he
would plant cypress c~r simi.lar trees on 5-foot centers inside ~he proposed
block wall along ~he s~uthwe~t property line abutting Broadway.
~
~
i
MINiTrES, CIT.Y, F'LANNING CUMMI ~SION, April 15, 1974
CONDITIONAL USE P~RMIT NO. 1A63 (C~ntinued)
~a-zza
It was noted that the Director o~ Develo~ment Servic~s had detdrmined that tho
propn~ad activity fell w;.thin ~he dsf.inition of Soction ~.Ol, Clee~ 1, of the
Ci.ty of Anah~i.r~ Guidelinea to the Roquirementa for an Envixonmental Im~aot
Report ~nd was, tharefore, categorically axempt fr.nm tl~e requirement ta file
!ln EII:.
Con~nisaioner Herbst ~ffered Reeolution No. PC74-80 ~ar~d moved :~or ite paeeage
and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional UsQ Permit No. 1463 oubiect to
the foregoing ~inding~ and t~he stipulations by the pei:itionar7 ~nd sub~ACt to
~condi.tions. (Seo ttesolutian Book)
Mr. Ham~ton requestdci pe nnission to cnnatruct the wall aurroundfng ~he eubjec~
proper.~ty to the heiyht of two druma which migtit be 6 f~et, 4 inchge, ar~d
Commisaioner. Elerb~t stated ha would have no object~.on pxovided that the wal].
was c~netructed accor.ding to the Code which required more ateel.
Commissioner Compt.on inquir.sd concerning the reference in the StaPE RepArt~
that the pe~.itioner would propose tu move the ~lock wal.l to the property l~.ne
adjacent to Mable Str~et when an agreement had baen rQmched fo•r ths atrip of
land owned by the Southern Pacific Railroad, and the petitioner statad at the
time an agreament w~s reached he wauld i•i.le another petition to so move ~he
wa11 as mentioned.
On roll ca11, the foregoing resolution was passed by the ~o7.lowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSION~RS: Compton, Hexbst, ~'ohnson, King, Mor~ley, Gauer.
NGES~ COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
AASENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
CONDITIONAI, USE - PUBLIC HEARING. SAL STRAZZERI, 12137. Brookhurat Streat,
PERMIT NOa 1467 Gaxden Grove, Ca. 92640, Owner: KOULIS G~ANNAKAKOS, J.117
-- " South Verde Street, Anaheim, Ca. 92805~ Agent= requesting
permission for UN-SALE BEER AND WTNE IN AN EXISTTNG
RESTAURANT WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMBER UF R~QUIF.ED PARKTNG SPACES on property
descri.bed as: A rectai~gularly-shaped parcel of land nonsisting of ap~roxirnately
.3 acre having a fronzage of a~proximately 91 feet on ~he naxth side of Katella
Avenue, having a maximum deFth of approxima~ely 1~0 fe~:t, and beinq located
approxirr,ately 460 feet east of the cen~erline of Nu~wood Street. Property
preaently classifa.ed C-1, GENERAI~ COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
No ~ne appeared in oppasiti.on to subject petition.
Although the S~aff Report ta the Planning Commission dated April 15, 1974, was
not rpad at the public hearing, it is referred to ana made a part. ot the minu~~s.
Mr. Koulis Gi.annakakos, the petitioner, appeared befare the Plann~.ng Commission
and stated his business had bee.n slaw and he had been reques~ed by his patrona
to have beer; and that he wou~d be providing 17 paxking spaces in frunt nf the
estab~ishmen~ and 5 in the rear„ making a~otal of 22 parking spaces as
required.
THE PUBLIC HEARING V7AS CLOSED.
Commissioner Compton inquired if the food sales were mainly "take out" since
there were only three tables, or if the petiti~ner was planning to expand the
size of the room, and Mr. Giannakakos stat~d the room was large ~nough for iour
additional tables and that his bus~nes~s presently was mostly "~ake out."
Chairman Gauer made an observation that there was not enough room in the rear
of the building £or parking.
Commisaion~z Morley noted Eor the Cammission that due to the size of the shop-~
ping center and the number of parking spacea avai~able, the difference between
the r~quired 22 parking spacec and the 17 whiah the petitioner coulc~ prc~vide
wou13 not be a problem since he had never observed the ehopping cen~ter when
the parking lot was more than 10$ full at any time.
~
~
~
MIN'~TES~ CITY PI+ANNING CUNIMISSION, }#pril 15, 1974
GOND:CTIONAL USE ~ERMIT N0. 19G7 (Cor.tinued)
._.....~~....
74-225
Zoning ~uperviaor Charlea Raborts po~.nted auk that he had d~.eeusaed the eubj9ct
matter wi.th the petitioner just prior to the meeting and the r.esta~xrant had in
fact been in operati.or for about one ~rear end that City Staff had orx~d in
iseui.ng the business ~.icenae ori.ginaZ.ly without a check being nwde of Che park-
inq ~pace requirementi that when the atore buildinga in the shop~inc~ aenter
~,~ere origin~lly coizstructed, th~ parking we~ provided based un r9tai.1-~ypa
udeai h~~wevar, a reetaurant was ~pproved which ttnd a alightly gxeater parking
requirementi and khnt the aitur~tion at hand was not cre~ted by ~the petitioner
hime~lf .
Upon inquir~ of Chai.rman Gauer, Mr. Gignnakakos indicated he did na~ pregently
have an Alcoholi.c Beverage Control licenae t~~ sell beer at his ~stabllshment,
but that he wou].d bQ makinq ap~alication for ane as soon as :~is petition for
the subject conc~itionAl use permit w~s a~proved.
Commissianer TCiny re~erred tn paxag~dph ].2, page 15-b of the Staff Re~ort to
the Plarinin~ Commission and inquired concQrning ~hc Commission's juriadiction
ovcar landacaping whtch were approved ns paxt ot a z~ninq mat~er and which we.re
deleted or d.isregarded at some time following the City's ~ina1 inspection, and
CotnmtasionQr Herbst noted that ~any conditions approvad by the Pl~nning Commis~
sion ah~uld be enforceable.
As~istant Zoning Supexvysor Phillip ~ch~vartze advised that once the landscap-
ing was in and after final buildinc~ ins~ection, the Ci~y had no ~ontrol over
whettier the tr~es or other landscaping lived or died, etc.; however, when
additional petitiona were filec~ on the property, that gave the Commiasion and
StaEf another opportunity to enforce such a aondition.
Commiasioner Herbst noted for the petitioner that the properr.y owner had
allowed cPrtain cariditions rertaining to landscaping to drop of£ which were
part of the previous zoning action on L•t~e subject property and adding those
itema as a condition of approval of the sub~ect petiti~n was the Planning
Commission's only recourse.
Commissioner Farano noted that ~he Planning Commission should be able to impel
the property owner to reinstall the planters in qu~stion.
Mr. Roberts further advised t':at the Staff may not b~ in a position to require
the property own~r to replant the lanc]scaped araas if the landscaping cl~ed
of_f, however, if the Planning Commission so desireii that condition could be
impoged upor, the subject peti+~ion.
In reply to questioning b~- Chairman Gauer, Mr. Giannakakos ~tated there would
not be a bar as such in the tstablishment, and that they would have a refrig-
erator and the kitchen would probably exceed 25~ oF the floor area.
It was noted that the Director of Development Sexvices had determined that ~he
proposAd activity fell within the definition o~ Section 3.01, Class l, of tha
City of Anaheim Guidelines to the Reguirements for an Environmen.tal Impact
Repo~t and was, tY~erefore, categorically exempt from the requir~ment to file
an EIR.
Commissinner King offered Resalution No. PC74-81 and moved for its p~ssage and
adoption to grant ~etition for Conditiotia]. Use Permit No. 1467, granting the
waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces on the basis that tYie
request was minimal for the proposed use; stxbject to the con3ition that the
landscaping, as shown on the submitted plans to be existing, shall Ue upgraded
to meet City standards; that the an-sale beer and wine shall be in conj~:nction
with the sale of foodj and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book)
On rol.l call, the forecr~aing r.esolution was pass~d by the followinq vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Compton, Farano, Herbst, 3ohnson, King, Morle~, Gauer.
NOES: COMMI5SIONERS: Iaone.
ABSENZ~: COMMISSIONERS: None.
~
~
~
~
MINUTES, C?,TX PLANNING C:OMMISSION, April 15, 1974 74-226
VARTANCE N0. 2586 - PUBLIC HEARING. D1RS. uALHOtIR E. RENNER, 729 North
-""' Clome:ntine Street., Aa+~heim, Ca. 92805, C~Wnerl EARL V.
NELLESEt~, 1'he Ear1'e Plumbing, Inc., 1.533 Wasc Lincoln
Avenue, Anahoim, Ca. 92805~ Age~ntj requeating WAtVER OF (A) MAXIMUM NUMB~R OF
FREE-STAND' ~G SIGNS ,(B) MINIMi)M DISTANCE BETWEEN ~'REE-STANDING 5IGNS, (C)
MINIMUM HFIG~IT OF A FREE-STANDTNC SIGN, (D) L~CATION OF FREE-STAHDING ~IGN
IN PIIBLIC 12IGHT-OF-WAY, AND (R) L(~CATION OF FI2EE°STANAING SIGN IN MIUDLF. ~0~
OF PROPERTY TO CONTINUE USE dF AN EXISTIN~ FREE-STANOING STGN PRU:lECTING 7.NT0
THE PUB~IC RIGIiT-OF-WAY ANp ESTABLISH THREE ADDITIbNAL FREI~-STAPyaTNG SIGNa on
property described r~s: A rectangularly-shuped parcel of land consisting o~
apnroximat~ly 13,500 square feet having a fxan~age of approximately 15Q feet
on the north a~.de o£ Lir.coln Avenuc~, havi,n,q ~ maximum ~lepth of apprQximate~.y
210 feet, an~i being located approximately 460 `_°oet east oE the centerline of
Lonxa ,5treet. Property present~y c.l.asraifie3 M-1, L:[GI1T INDUSTRIAL, 7.ONE.
tvo une appeared in opposition to ~ubject petitian.
Although the Staff Report k~ the E~lanning C'.omm.tesion date~ April 15, 19'14,
was not rQad at. the public hearing, it is ~Aferred to and made a part oP the
minutes.
Commissioner Morley noteci for the ~on,mission tha~ he had a conflict of intexest
as defined by the Anaheim Municipal Co3e Sec~ion 1.1.400 and Government Code
5ection 36?.5, ~~ seq, in that Y~c was rslated ta the subject i~ropertX owner by
marriagef that pursuant to the provisions of tl~e a~orementi.oned Codes, he was
declaring to the Chairrn~n that he was withdrawing from the heaxing in connec-
tion with iter~i No. 16 oi i;he Plarning Commission agend . and would not ~ake
part in either the discussior. or the voti.ny thereon= and that he had ciot dis-
cussed the matter with ar~y member of the Planning Commis~ion. Thereupon,
Commissioner MorJ.ey left the Council Chamber at 5:25 p.m.
Mr. Earl V. Ne'liesen, the petitioner, appeared before the Commis~ion and
stated he was the owi~er of Ear.l's Plumbing and that in reviewing the Sta~f
Report his only comment would be that a 35-f~ot setback was indicated for. the
subjec~ property, and a SO-f~o~ setback was requirsd when the buil.ding was
construct~d.
Assistarit Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised that che
Lincoln ?lvenue 35-foot Speeial Setback Zone adopted under Council Resolution
No. 5453 iii 1959 took precedence.
Mr. Nelle~en continued by stating that the main sign in front of the bui.lding
had been turned several times by big t.rucks and campe.rs that had ~ome through
under it; that the sign was designed and co..struct~d so that it could be turned
and the bolt through the main 3wivel point would ~lzear if it was struck, thor~-
fore, l~s~etiing a chance of damage to the signt that by having the gign the way
it was, *hey would not have to increase the hei.ght o£ it which wauid cause loss
of sight of it unlPSS they went campletely up l.ike the si~r. next door to ~hem;
that ~he subject sign wa~ in na ~ne's way and was n~ di,fferent from the one
next door, except that it did extend over the sidewalk.
THE PUBLIC HEARiI3G WAS CLOSEU.
In reply to questiona.ng by Commissioner Herbst, Deputy City Attorney Frank
T~~wry advisEd that an encroach~r,ent germit was heing processed. hhich would
.legalize the overhang into the public righ~-of-way and the lPlanr,inc~ Comznission
was conaidering legalixing the loca~ion of the free•-standing sign whiah pro-
jscted into the public right-of-way.
Commi~si~oner Herhst noted that allowinq the s::~n ta overl~ayg into the public
right-af-way might be setting a severe precedent.
In regly t4 questioning by Commissioner Ki.i~7 c~ncerning placing a barricade or
concrete curbing around the base of the subject sign, Mr. Nellesen stated the
driv~rs backed up until they hit sometY-ing and that preaently they haii buffer
strip3 alang a planter box and a slumps~one area also= that usually a large
truck or camper would back into the sign and often at night a truck wauld make
a turn-around at the signt tliat they would not usv.ally hit the post bu~t. the
sign wh:;.ch they did not look up to see.
• •
MINUTFS ~ CITY ~'LANNIN~~ COMMISST0~1, Apr.il 15, 1974 74-227
V}1RYANCF NO. ~!~86, (Cc~ntinuc~dl
•n ,.~eply L•n q~.~estioninq by CommiEiQi~•~er Herbak, Mr. Robe,r.te Advieed thnt t.o hie
..nowleclge n~ zaning a~ti.ans had been approv~d which w~ul3 allow thc enaroach~
ment a~ a~~ilding into a setback or fnto the public ri.ght-o~-wny, and that L•hQ
buil.ding to the weat of subj~ct pr.operty was prubably a var.y old one and wi~h
tho widening of I,inculn Avanuo the ~tructur~ wae prabably on tha proper.ty l~.ne
and no encroachment ~Frmit had henn a, ~~~roved f'nr that pr.operty.
Mr. Nelldeen atated that their plumbing ahop had baen locatQd acras~ t.he etreet
for 18 yesra and until tFiey put up the sign in guostion their patrons wera
still going tn theix old mddraes across th~ stre~t,
In rc~~ly to quea~ioning hy Cnmmias loner King, r.x'. Nellesen ag.rood that he had
amplo signirig and he sti~ulatet. ~hat he woul.d remave ~;hf~ smal.~. sign on
Mrinctiestor. Avenue an~ that tt-.o oxistiny bo~~tiqua ~11oF sign on ths Gincoln
Aven~.~a Erontage would be remov~d within 90 days sina~ tY~a~t portion of tho
ope.ratic~n was being removod to anothez location in the City. Mr. Nelleeen also
etated thz~t they tried to keep a neat looking eatablishmantt that they wQro
presently sl:oring ~heir trucks at 1408 Center Streat so that 311bJ8Ct property
would not look like a truc:k atorage yar.d= ~?iat the large sign in questian
prot•ruded past th.e proper~y line 4 fcet, overhanging the 10-~foot aicYewalk and
it wa8 away from the telephana cablea;. Ntc.; that if the aign were positioned
~o ~.hat it would iiot protrude over the aic~ewa].k, i.t would h~ve tu be alevated
another 4 f~et in order to clear. any trucks; that: there was a large r.ptttting
turning sign and alsa one ~l~at ovErhung i:hc si.dewalk to 18 inahee from the curb
which had beerl permitteci 1... the immediate area and that that siqn had not been
an existing sign since it was comple}ely redesiqned and replaced, although it
did laok vPry nic~ at the present time and upgra~ied the n~ighbarhood.
Assistant Development 5ervices Direatc. Rona].cl Tltompson advised that the sign
in the area being described by Mr. N~llesen was a wall sign.
In z:~pLy to questioning by Commissioner Kinq, Mr. Nellesen gtated ':hat by in-
creaaing the height of ~he subject sign by 4 feet, the pa~rons wc~uld not be
able t~ see the readc:r sign witbout bQing ori tY-e opposite aide af Che street.
Com~n.issioner Herbst inquir.Ed what the City's liabiiity would be if a sign was
allowed to overhanq into the public right-o~-way, and Deputy City Attorney
Frank Lowry advised that t~e granting of the license to ~nc:roach placec~ all
the responsibility upon *_he owner of the license and ~ai~a since this was a
State highway, S~ate approval would be necessary; and that althaugh The Earl
of Plumbing, for instance, would be fully liable~ it would not preven~ tl:~ City
from being named in a lawsuit.
Mr. Nelles~n ,...ated he had spoken witti a repreb~ritative f.rom the State Divis.ion
of H~yhways and the telephone comgany, and no objections were in~icaLed.
In reply to questioning by Commissioner HerASt, Mr. Nellesen sti~ulated that
he was requesti.ng to retain two of the rive signs beir.g requestEd, and Mr.
Schwaztze ~dvised thak the remaining ~tlgt.s would still require waiver o£ the
minimum dista : ~ac;tween free-standtng ~igns.
Commissioner Herbst clarified that by rempving t:~e boutique•sign within a 90-
day period, Waiver c, minimum height of free-standi.ng sign, wauld ~~o longer be
required.
Mr. Schwartze advised that Waiver e, lc.~atian of free-standing sign in middle
20~ of subject property, pertained to the sign lacated an the northeast corner
of thF ~ubject property on Manchester Avenue.
The Planning Commission enter~3 ~nto disc~!ssion with Staff concernina Waiver d,
location of free-stan3•sng sign in pu~iic riyrt-of-way, during which c:o,-~t-issioner
King noted that he ha3 viewed the subaecc prapzr*y in the fi~1d and by aighti.ng
the subj~ct prop~z~s a:~d ot~~er properties along Lir-r_oln Avenue from the inside
ed~e of the sid~walk at r:~~l's Plumbing, it appeared that tt~e building to the
west was approximately one foot past the sidewal.k, in aZdition ta the canopy
overhanging the sidewslk.
~
~
~
MTNUTE~ , CITX PL' ANNING COMMISS I~N, Anril 15 , 1974 ~ 4-228
VARIANCE N0. 2586 (Continued)
Cnmmiss~oner Herbat offer~d a motion, seoondod by C~nuni~ai.onez ~nhn~an and
M~TICIN CARRIED (Cummi~3ic,ner Morley being aboent) , thmt the Ple~nning Comm~ssian
L~commenda to tha City Council that thA eub~ect pzojent b~ exempt frc~m the
roquirement to prepare an Environmental Impaot Report pureuant to the pro•visians~
of tho Calif.arni.a Envir.un;~ental Qua' ii.;~ Act .
Commtsaioner Herbet offered Resa? utian No. PC74-8: and mov~id for ita paesage
and ado~tion to grnnt Peti.tion for Variance No. 2586, grenting Waiver a i.n part
aince tlie petitianer atipulated to doleting one sign immediately which wa~g
located on the Mancheetor Avenue frantage and further atipulated ~he~t the exiet-
ing ide~nti.ficatian siyn for the bouti.que shop entrance on the Lincoln Avenue
f.rontaqe would bo deleted within 90 days sinc9 tlzat ~ortion af the operation
w.~.~ beinq mpved to another locationj that Waiver b ia hgreby grar~~ad since the
peti.tian~r ati~ulated to deleting two ~f the signe and on the bdais that tho
rc~quer~t is minim~l~ that Waiver c is hereby gr.ant~d for a period of 90 days
since t:he petitioner s~~.pu]~Hted that the boutlqut shop would be moved to an-
other loc~tion within sai.d peri.od of time, thus eli.mindting the need far i:he
sign= thaL• Waiver d is he~reby granted on the basis that the aign on the Lincoln
Avenue frontage had baen in existence Eor a].ong neri.orl a~ time and, f~xrther,
that approval is gr~nted aubject to approval of ~ncroachment Perm~t No. 73-19Et
that Waivcr e is herel,y grant~d on tho basis that the sign on ~he Manch~s~er
Avenue frontaye had been in existence far a Zong period of time~ and subjECt
to conditions. (See Re3olution Book)
On roll call, the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following v~t~:
AYES: COMMTSSIONERS: Compton, Farano, Herbst, Johnaon, Ki.ng, Gau~r.
NOES : COb1MISSIONERS : None .
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Morley.
COMMISSION~R MORLEY RE-ENTEREA THE COUNCIL CHANIDER AT 5:55 k.M.
AMENDMENT TU TITLE 17 - ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE --
LANDSCAPINGl HILLSIDE AREA.S (SECTIUN X7.06.130)
Planning Supervisor pon McDani.e~ noted ~~r the Pi.anni.ng Comm~aHion +=k~at the
subject matter had not been advertised for public hear~ng bePore the Comm~ gsian
since subaequent t~~ Development ServicQS Staff's prepar~tion oP. a revi~ed Land~
scaping Code, the City Attorney requested that the propo;3~d Code be continued
until such timP as the Attorney's Office, the Engineeriny Division and the Parks
and Recreation Department could review and makc appropr.iate comments. Eie
further advised the matter sh~uld be deferred ta a future time subsequent to a
k~ork session of the City Council/Planning Commi~~ion.
There being n~ formu?. continuance required, the matt~r was taken of f~he
calendar.
•
^~1
i
MINUTES, CYTY PLANNINI'. COMMIS3IdN, Ap~'il 15, 1974
74-229
ENVIRONNI~NTAL IMPACT REPORZ' ?~Q1~ NlOHLER_ DRIVE WAT~R SYSTEM IMPROVF.MENT PROJECT
Assistant Zoninq 8upervisor Ph111iF Sohwartxo pxssenter~ the Sta.ff Raport to th~e
Plunning Commieeion datnd Apr~_' ', 1974, and eaid StePf RoNort is refQrred to
and mado d part o~ the min~:ce~.
It wa~ noted that thu subjer.t report ~-eferred to a City af Anaheim, Water
pi ~i,~ ion pro ja~ot to c~nstruct a water d,iatribution gyetom to t~exvP rin ar.oa of
approximAtely 520 ecres in thA Mohler Drive Annexation Are~.
Commis si~ner King offere8 a mation, s~conded b,y C~mmissione~ Morley and MOTTON
CARRIED, that t.he Envlronmental Impact Raport ~or th~ Mot3ler Dr~.ve Wdte r System
Improvement Pro ject, having bean consid~sred this date by ~he City lP lanr-ing
G~ ~nmis aion nnd wxitten evldanca having been preaentad to sup~lement. aa id draft:
E:R, t2~e Planning Commiasivn beliovea that said draft EIR doee conform t:o th~
Ci~y and SL•at.e Guidelinee and the 5tate of Califoxnia Environmen~al Quality
nct and., based upon seach information, c~o~s hereby recommend tu the City Council
th~t they certify said ExR is in compl.it~nce with sa:td Envir~nmental Quality
Act. .
REPORT~ AND - ITEM N0. 1
F2ECOMMENDATIONS ~N T~TON~I, USE PEFtMYT NOS. 452 ANC 552 - R@QLle9~ fox
""~ termination -- l?r.ogerty located an tha northeap t carner
of W'astern r~d Lincoln Avenues and further described
as Lot Noa. 1, 2 and 3 of Tract No. 1820.
It was noted that Condi.tional Use Permit : ~ 452 waa granted ~.n Res~lution No.
849, Series 1963-64, on Auguet 1, 1963, iri cor~junct~.on with Rc.alassif.ication
No. 6 3-~:4-9 on L~t Nos. 1 and 2 of Tract No. 1R20 to esta~liah a service
station; and Conditional Use P~rmit No. 552 was granted in Resalution Na.
lla.4, Seri~s 1963-04, on April 9, 1964, in conjunction with Reclassificat~ian
No. 63-64-98 on Lo': No. 3 of aaid tract, to establiah a service stationj and
that the petitioner, Mr. S. E. Jeppesen, was reqt~sting that the conditional
use p~rmits be terminated since the pr.aperty was ~i~ lonqer to be used for
service gtation purpoaes.
Commissioner King offered Resolutioa No. PC74-83 and moved for its passage
and adopti.on to terminate all proceedinga of ConditionRl Use Permi~t. No. ~52,
as rec~uested by the petitioner. (See Resnlution Book)
On roll cal]., the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES : COMN SSIONEI~5 : Compton, Farano, Iierbst, Johnson~ King, Marley, GauEr
NOES : COMMIBSIUNERS : None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS : Non~.
~ommissioner King offered Resolution No. PC74-84 ancl moved for its pas~age
and adaption to kerminate all proceedings of Condition~l [lse Permit No. 552,
as r~quested by the petitioner.. (See Resolution Bc,~k)
On roll call, tkie foregoix~g resolution was passed by tY-e following vote:
AYES: CODIMISSIONERS: Compton, Farano, Herbst, J~hnsone King, Morley, Gauer.
NOES : COMMISSIONERS : None .
AHSENT: COMMTSSIONERS : None .
ITEM NO. 2
VA TANCE N0. 2575 - Request for termination - Property
being an irregularly--shaped parcel consis~ing of
approxir.-ately 1.52 acres having a fronta~e of approxi-
mately 12~ =~°t on the south ~ i.de of Howell Avenue,
a~pprox~matAly 220 feet east of the cen~exl~.ne nf State
Gollege H~ulevard.
It was noted thal Varianc:e No. 2575 was gxanted in Resolu~ion No. PC74-16 on
Januarf 21, 1974, to permit tlxe can'cinued use of ~n exis'~ir.g Yauainees for the
installation aP vinyl tOPb or. sutomabil~s; and thtst the petiti~n~r had sub-
mic~ted a le~.:Ar indiaating that ne would nc t h~ve mad~s application for. subiect
~
~
•
MINUTES, CITY PL.ANNING COMMISSTON, April 15, 1974
TTEM NO. 2 (Cont.i.nuec~)
._,.,~. ._.
74-230
variuric~ if he had knawn that he would liavo to dediodte a portio~~ nf hi.s prop-
erty fo.r s~raot wideni.ng purposee and inatall sidewalke and street impr~vementt~,
and ~htit he wae ther~f~ro reqiieating to terminate suUject variAnce.
Comrnissioner K.inq of.f~red Resolution No. PC74-85 and movad fox ite paReaqe
and adoption to termina~a all ~roce ec~ings of. Varianco Nn. 2575, as requested
b,y the petitioner. (Sea Roaalution Book)
On roll call, the forQgoinq resolution was pasae~l by the followin~ vate:
AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Compton, F arano, Herbst, John3on, King, Morley, Gauar.
NOES: COMM]:SSIONERS s Nene.
A,85ENT: COMMISSIONERS s N~ne.
ITEM NO . 3
~I NMENTAL IMPA~:T REPORT NU. 122 - Property
cona.~ating of approximately 29 acres o£ land in the
Santa Ana Canyon area of eastern Anaheim betwe~en
Santa Ana Canyon Road and the xive_side Freeway,
approximatc~ly one~half mile east of Imperial Highway
at the nnrthwe st cornsr af Santa Ana Canyon Road and
Anaheim Hills Road, to k~e developed with a 159-1ot,
single~family residential aubdivisian.
Mr. Bruce Strickland, repre senting ttie TouFa Corporation, appeared before tne
Planning Cammission ar~d indicated he was avail.abl~ to answer any questioris
concerning the sub}ect Environmen tal Impact Report.
In reply to questioning by Commiss ioner Herh•:t, Mr. Strickland referred to
Bio-Acoustic~.l Enginesring Corporation's letter dated April 24, 1974, to the
American National Housing Cor.poratiox~ which addressed itself to the antici-
pated rioise lev~la and the use ~f insulation in tYie ~aalls facing the freeway
and the ~wo ~tide walls to reduce the levela to 65 dBA outside and 4~ dBA in-
side the pr.oposed dwellings which were trie subject of EIR No. 122. He furL-her
replied that it had not been dete rn~ined that the 45 dBA level inside the dwell-
ings could be reached witho ut the sound attenuati.~n in the wa].1~.
Commissianer Farano offered a mot ion, ~er.onded by Ccmmissioner Herbat and
MOTION CARRIED, that Environmenta 1 Impact Re:port No. 122, h~ving been con-
sidered this date by the C ity Planning Commission and evidence both written
and oral having been present~d to supplement said draft EIR No. 122, the
Planning Commission believes that said draft EIR No. 122 does conform to the
City and State Guidelines and the ~tate of California EnvironmAntal Quality
1~ct and, based upon such informat ian, does hereby recommend to the City
Council that they certify said EI R No. 122 is in compliance with saf.d Environ-
mental Quality Act~ and, further, that the Planning Commission recommends that
the City Council require the applicant to incl.ude in ttie final E;[R No. 122
the method and technique by ~ahich the sound attenuation f~r the project can be
accomplished to provi.de noise levels not to exceed 45 dBA i.n:~ide the dwellings
and 65 dBA outs:de the. dweilings wi.*.hin the tract.
IT ;M NO a 4
PROPOSED CONDOMINIiiM ORDINANCE ("RM-3600"
MULTIP7~E-FAMILY R~SIDENTIAL 20NE)
Associate Planner Bill Young noted fcr the Planning Commission that due to the
complexity in nature of tYie propo sal, the Commission might wisl~ to consider
setting a work seasion to explore all ramifications of ~the propo~ed ordinanc~
and the atandarda contained therein.
Commissioner Farano offerzd a motion, seconded by Comm~ssioiieX Kinq and MO'~:ON
CARRIEA iCommissioner ~ohnsan abstaining) to set a work sesr~ion far April 29,
1974, a+: 7:00 p.m, to consicier the proposed addition to the Anah~~;n Municipal
Code.
~ ~
N1INt1TES, CImY pLANNING CGMMI89ION, April 15, 1974 74-231
ITEM N0. 5
L~$~j'~3~t N'~'~AI, I78E P~~MtT N0. ~341 - RequP9t fAr
c~.arification c~f uge -~ Prop~rty looe~ed on th~
~eAet eicle o! str~te Collega Boulevard, ~pproxi-
mately 510 iee~ eauth of Syonnara Street, at
400 Narth 9tata College Bou~evard.
Aseietdnt Zoni.ng Supervieor Phi~llip Schwnxtze noted Pox thA Planntnq Commi~siot'i
that Mr. R. E. aurqlin, the appliaant, ha~d benn present earlier ln ~he ma~~ing
dnd indicafi~ed he had to ldnve in ~rder t~ clos~ his buainese ~or the dayt how-
ever, Mr. Hurglin hAd a,loo indica,ted that dt thie time he would like tio requesf
that the matt~r be removed f rom tho calendar dnd at su~h timo ae he had pro-
ape~ctive renters for the aftive epaae i.» queeti.on h~ woald aontaat trie 3t~~~
iar relistinq on the Commiea ion aqenda.
Cc niac~ioner Kiny offered a motion, seaondod by Commie~toner t~erbst and MOTInN
CAkR7ED, that aub~eat request be take~n off the calendnr, as requae~gd byr ~h~
Ppplicant .
~TEM NO • 6
(~O~l"' ~~ Ot~S - Pldnni.ng Cornmia~i~on and
Joint Ci ty Cauncil/Planning Commiesion
Commisaion~r Farano offored ~t moti~n, seconded by Commissioner King and MOTZON
CARRIED, th~t ~he varioue projQCte ~or the City of Anaheim b~a included on the
agenda for the Planning Commiaeion Work 5essio7 schedu~.ed gor April 24, ],974,
for diacuesion conaerning pr ioritiea az~d ahouid the digaussion not be completeCi
on that date, tYiat an additional Work Seagion be soheduled for May l, 1974, a~
7:00 p.m. f ar.d, f~urther, chat the date of May 15, 1974 , at 7: AO p.m. be
suggeeted to the City Counct]. for a Joint Work Sessi4n c,f the City Counail/
Planning Commf~$ion.
ADJOURNIKENT - There being no £urther bueiness to diac:u~s, Cananisaioner
ICinq of £ered a motion, seconded by Commieaianer ~arano
and MOTI ON CARRIED, to adjourn the meeting to Apri~ 24,
1979, at 7:00 ~.m.
The meet~.ng adj~urned at 6: ].0 p.m.
Rea ectfully s~.~bmit~ed,
. • /"""
Patricia B. Scar~l~n, Searetary
Anaheim City Planniny Co~nission
PBS : hm