Minutes-PC 1975/10/29U R C 0 MICROFILMING SERVICE, INt;.
~ ~ ~
City Hall
Anaheim~ Cal(forniA
QciohE~r 2~, 1975
RECL'LI1R MEET I N~ OF TNE AHANE I M C I TY PLIINN 1 tIG Cl1MMl SS I ~M
RFGUI.~R - A re~ul.~r mect(ng of thc Anahc~m Clty Planninct Commisslon was called to
MEETiN~ order hy f,h~lrman Pr~ Temporc Morlcy ot 1:3~ p.m. In the Councll Chamber~
a ~u~rum beinq present.
PRC.SFNT - CH/11 RM~-J PR~I TEMP~RE : Mor I ey
- CnMMI~SI~~![RS: 9arnes~ Ilerhst~ Johnson~ King, TolAr (who Icft the mecting
at 3:2~ p.m.)
ARSF.MT - C~MM I 55 I ~r~F.RS : Fa ranc~
AI.S~ PRF.SE~IT~ Frank Lowry
Haul Sinaer
blck Kamphefner
Jay T(tus
Annika Cant;lahtt
Allan Daum
Patric~a .°c:anlan
Deputy Clty Attorney
Tr~ffic ~ngineer
Park Super(ntenclenC
Office EngineFr
Zoning Supervlsor
Assistant Zanin~ Supervisor
Planning Commisslon S~cret~ry
PLEDGE OF - Commissiener Johnson lecl in the Pledge of Alleyiance t~ the Flac1 af the
ALLEGIANCE Unltcd States of amerir.a.
APPRQVAL OF - Commissioner Kinc~ offered a motlon~ s~conded by Commissioner Tolar and
THE MIFIIlTFS MQTI~H C/1RRIEb, that tt,e minutes of tlie re~ular meetin~s of the Planning
Commissi~n hel~l on Sertemher 29 and Octoher 13~ 1475, and the minutes of
the ad~nurned re~ular meetinn held on October G, 1h75, be ~nd hereby are
approvecl, as submitted.
ENVIRQPIMEI•lTI1L IMPACT - C~NTINI~E~ PURLIC HEARIIIG. RAYMOND SPEHAR~ 913 Paloma Place~
RFPOR7 N~. 15~ Fullerton, Ca. 92fi35 (Uwner); WILLIAM C. F1C ~ULL~CH~~SCr~ibedmasg
~' Drive, Newport Beach, Ca. 926fiQ (Ayent). Property
RECLASSIFICATI~~I F1n trregul<~rly-shaped parcel of iand consistinn of aQproximately
N~. ~y_~(,_z ,1.1 acr•es located at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue
an~1 Irnperl~) Hfghway, having approximate frontages ~f ~08 i'eet
VARIANf~ N0. z733 on the north sicle Qf La Palma Avenue and 365 'eet on the east
side nf Imper(ai Highway, having a maximum depth of approximztely
7~3 feet. Property presently classiffeci RS-A--i3,~»0(SC)
RESIDFIJTIAI_/AGRICULTUFAL - SCEPIIC CORRID~R OVFRLAY) ZONE.
RE2~ESTED CLASSIFICl1T1~~i: CL(SC) (C0~1MF~CIAI.~ LIMI7ED - SCE~~IC C~RRIDOR OVERLAY) ZOfJE
REQUESTED VARIArlCF~ SfTBACY.~FAlD)(C)RPR~HIB!TEO~R~OFSMOU~TFD EQu1PMF!ITRfTnBCONSTRUCI'
A COMMF.Rf, i AI. SNOPP I~IG CENTER.
The subJec:t ltems were continuc~d from the meetinq of September 3, 1975, for the submission
of additiona~ envfronmental impact Informatlon; from the meetinq of September 29~ 1975~ at
the request of tfie petitioner; and fr~m the meetina of Qctober 13, 1~75, to be considered
in conJuncti~n with EIR No. 15h which was submltted on Octoher 2~ 1975.
No one Indicated their presence in ~ppnsition t~ the suL]sct Iter+s.
Although Clie St~ff Repart t~ the Plannine~ Commisslon dated October 29, 1975~ was not read
at the public hearln~, sald Staff Report is reFerred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Raymond Spehar~ the petitloner~ appearcd before the Planninq Commission and stated the
additlonal environmental impact fnfarmat!on hAd been filed for consicieration at this
meettng~ and he was available t~ answer que~stians regarcl(ng the proposal.
75-~9a
~ ~ o
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ October 7.9~ Ig15
75-~+99
ENVIRQNMCNTAL 1~1P11CT REPORT N0: 1,_,_~6~RECLASSIFICATION NO,~'~ 76-2. VARIANC~ N0. 2733 (Cn~t.)
THE PUBLI C HE11R I NG W11S CI.OS[D.
Coim-Isslonar Johnson inquirecl concern(n~ the pr~pose~l enclosure of the roof-m~unted
equlpment~ notiny th~~t a box-type enclosure of sald equlpment would not be satisfactory.
In respanse, -~~. W~111nm C. McCulloch~ the actent for th~ pelltloner, statecl the roof-
mountod equlpment would he alr-conditloning unitR; that a slatted waodcn gcrean would be
Nrovidc~~ over the ~qulpment to fully screen It from ovsrl~ead and siclc virw(ng; Ch~t the
slats would also provlcle a means ta clrculAte alr ar~~und the equlpn~ent; ~ncl that there
wauld be a number of nlr-conditioning units slncc ther~• were scveral buildtngs proposed.
Commissloner Nerhst note~l thak, although the Plannlncl Commissinn rr.co~nlxed thar. the
{.•roposed scrroninc~ was the chea{,est way of enclosing thr roof-mountecl equlpment~ the
normal requlrement was that the e~uipment be In the roof As p~3rt of the structure and not
Just. screened; that, with anly a slatked ericlosure, he c~~ild foresee prnblems In the very
near future witVi simllnr requests; and that lie was desirous of seeing some plans of the
proposed enclosure~ (nasmuch as none were avaflahle for Commission revlew at thl~ time.
Ther~eupon~ Mr. McCulloch stlpulated to submittal of the proposed ~nclosure of thr. roof~
mc~unted equlpment~ sald plans t~ be submltted t~ the Planning Department for rev(ew and
approval prlor to the issu~+nce of a butiding permit.
In response to que:st(onin~ by Commisslorer 7olar. Mr, Spehar state~l his Intentia+~s for the
development of tlie entire three acres of property immadiatcly south on La Palma and zoned
CL was for a motel; that they had no intentions af developing said property uthF~rwise;
that the eight acres of property Immedlately to the north was presentiy in escrow and the
developer of that property was avallable for questioning (f deemed approprlate.
Thereup~n~ Cormnissloner Herbst reminded the r~presentatives present (n connection with rhe
above-m~ntioned pr~perty to tl~e north wh(ch was adJacent to the Atchison~ Topeka b Santa
Fe Railroad~ that the design for development of the proper•ty should very carefully take
into consideratlon the railroad and the noise th~refrom.
Cortmissioner Tolar not~d that Commisslone:r Herbst had expressed aome concern in the past
that perhaps the subJect locatiun was not appropriate for a ma,~or shopp(ng center~ such as
the one being proposed; whereupon, Commissioner Herbst not~d that atr.hough there possibly
was r+o~ a need for a shoppinq center at the sub,ject loation~ he had analyzed the Froperty
and formulated the opinlon that it was probably a better location than the ather shopoing
centers tn the generAl area, since the subjecr. property was more acc~shebwasasatlsfiednin
k,~ping with the growth desired along La Palma Avenue and~ therefo~e~
his own mind that the shn~piny center was appropriate; and that, hawever, he did have some
concerns about the proposed signing in the Scenic Corridor,
Comm~ssioner Tolar mdde an observatio~ that the areposed plans tndicated the signing on
the indlviduai stores erould be in conform~~nc~ with the Code stand~rds and, other than the
proposed monument-type sign~ with two d(splay surfaces, no other signing was proposed;
that he highly favored the propased signing and would consider changing the Code to permit
monurrent-type signirg with twa display surfaces in the Scenic Corridor, since he did not
like to see so many requests for watvers of the Stgn Ot'dinance. Commissioner King noted
that he concurred.
The Planning Commission entered into further discussinn concernino the required enclosure
of roof-maunted equipment, during which it w~s generally agreed that since the property
was located in the Scenic Carridor~ although there were no buildin~s s~tuated ahove it~
ths ~nclo.ure of said equipment was mandatory; that the petitioner• could submit tlie
precise plans for revlew and apprnval of the Planning Department staff; however, if there
were an•/ problems w(th approvina said precise plans administratively, then the matter
could be ref~erred to the Planning Commission for review, etc,
Commlssioner Barnes q~~estione~ the sound buffering proposed alo^q the west side of Street
"A" adJacent to the existing mobilehome park; and Mr, McCulloch st~ted that the
landscaping along tlie street would be vcry dense or the same as that proposed along the
north property Itne.
Commissloner Johnson offered a motion, ~conded by Cnmmissioner iCi~ig and MOTION CARR~ne~n
(Commissioner Farano beine~ atssent)~ that Environmental Impact Report No. 156, havin~
consldered this date by the Anaheim City Pl~nnin~ Commisslon and evldence~ both written
and ora{~ having been presented to supplement said draft Elfi No. 15E~, the Planning
Commission belSeves thet sald draft EtR No. 15~ does conform to the City and State
Guldeilnes and the Statr, of Ca11Fornia Environmental Quality Act and, b~s~d upon such~
~ ~ •
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMI5SION, October 29~ 1975 75-500
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO _ iSE~~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 75"7~'z~ VARIANCE N0. 27~3 ~Cont.)
Informatlon~ d~es hoi•csby r~sr.ommend o the Clty Council that tl~ey certlfy s~id EIR Is In
compllance wlth sald Fnvir~nmental Qunlity Act,
Commissloner Johnson ~ffered Rbsoluel~m 1~lc~. PC75-?.13 and moved fo~ ics pASS++9Q and
edoptlon~ that the Plannln~l Commisslon does her~hy recommenci to the Clty CQUncil thet
Pstition for• Reclassificrt~on No. 75-7h~2 b~ npprov~d an the basis thAt~ althoug'2;he
Anahetm General Plan (as ~msnrlecl ln connectian wlth Genera) Plan Amr.nclment No,
des 1 yna te~s sub j ec t Froperty for 1 ow-med I um dens i ty res i dent i a 1 uses ~ tl~e pr~pc~sed z~ii ~^g
Is deemed to be approprlate at tho gub)ect focaClon~ and approprtate actlo~ w111 be taken
to reflec*. the change ln the I~nd use pnlicy of the Anahelm Generel Plan; subJNCt to
Interdepartment~l Committee recommendAtlons, (See Resolution Book)
On roll call, the foregoing rasolution was passed by the fol'owing vote;
AYES : C(1MMI 5S I(1NERS : BARN~S ~ HERBST ~ JQIINSON ~ K f NG ~ 70LAR, MORLCY
NQES: CQMMIS5IQNERS: NONF
ABSE:N1': COMM I SS I O~IE'RS : Fl1RAt~f1
Comnissloner Johnson offered Resolutlon No. PC75-21~~ and moved for lts passt+gG and
adopt•ion~ that PPtition for Varlance No. 2733 be ancl hereby Is granted, granting the
requested walver of the ~ermtttecl display surface of a shop{~tng center identlficatlan sign
to permlt a monument-typ~ sign with two display surfaces. which is hereby deerand
approprlate in the Scenic Corridor Ovcrlay Zonc; that the requestecl walver of the minim~~m
bu'lding setback h~s been determined to be unneczssary; granting the requested waiver of
t~,e prohibited roof-mounted equipment on the hasis thGt tl~e petitloner stlpulAted to
pr~vldin~ adequate ~ci•eentng (from the SICIP.S and from above) of the proposed ro~f-mounted
equlpment~ sald screenin~ to be v'.sually a part of the root structur~~, and further
stlpulated to submitting precise plans of sai~ screening to the Plann3ng Department for
reviea~ and approval prlor to the issuance of a buil~ltng permit; and suhJect to
Interdepartmental Comm'ttee recommendations. (Se~ Resolution Book)
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: f,OMFIISSIONERS: ~ARNES~ HERBST, JOHNSON~ KING, TOLAR, MORLEY
NOES: COMMlSSIO~IERS: NONE
ABSEMT: COMMISSIONFRS: FARANO
RECI.pSSIFICATION - READVER7ISED PUBLIC HEARING. EDWARD R. MERGER, ET AL~ 1282 East
N0. 75-7f~"~ Santa Ana Street~ Anaheim, Ca. 92a0~+ ((~wner); E. J. CPMP(3ELL b
COMPAtJY~ 72~~ South Euclid Street~ Suite 9, ~+naheim~ Ca. 92804 (Agent).
VARIANCE N0. 2739 Property describeci as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consist-
In~ of approximately 1.~ acre having a frontage of approximately 162
feet on the south side of Ora!~ge Ave~ue~ havin~ a maxtmum depth of
~pproximately 29~ feet~ beinc~ locateci approximately 113 feet e~st of the centerline of
V~lley Street, and further described as 212~ West Orange Avenue. Property presenLly
classifled RS-A-43,Q00 {RESlDEN1'IAL/AGR!CULTURAL) ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFIC~TIOhl: RS-720~ (RESID[NTIAL~ S~P~GLF-FAMILY) ZONE.
REQUESTED V~!RIANCE: WAIVER OF (~) REQUIREIIENT TNAT AI.L LOTS ABUT A PUBI.IC STREET~
(8) MINIMUM L.OT WIUTFI. A~ID (C) RF.QU~REMENT THAT SINGLE-fAMILY
R[SIDFtJCFS REAR ON ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS, TO FSTABLISH FOUR L~7S.
The sub]ect petltions were ccnti~ued frum the planning Commission meetin~ ~f Oct~ber i3,
1975, for the petitl~ner to neg~tiate for purchase of a contiguous strip ot land ori RAndom
Driv~.
One person indicated his prssence in opposiCien to subJect petition and i~dicaxed he had
read the Staff Report and~ therefore~ would watve the full reaciing or sarr~.
Althou9h the Staff Report to Che Planr,in~ Conxnission dated October 2~9 19i5, was not read
at the public hearinc~~ said Staff Report ls referred to and macle o part of thr. minutes.
zrcd before the Planning
Mr. Richard l.utz~ re~resanting the agent Por the petitloner~ apNc•..
Commtsslon and st~te~1 no nagottatlons haci occ~arred tn connection with the N~titloner'~
possible purchase of the aclJacent strip of land owned by Mr. Archie Klndrat; however~ a
~
•
M~NIITES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSI~N, Qctobor 'l9~ 1975
RECI.ASS I F 1 f,ATION N0. 75~7~+_F, q~~al ANCE N0, 2~, (Cont i nued)
75-501
letter had l,een r~celva~l Frc~m Mr, Kin~lrnt's nt~~rr~ey; that the undarstanding of the
petltioner was that the Planning Commisslon w~shed Mr, iClncl~nt tci enter Inta neclatlatlons
wich the suhJect prop~rty owner; ancl thot Mr. Lut~.' cllont dld not desire to ;iave the
eddltlonnl land.
r.cmxnlsslaner Nerhsl notcrl , the sllvcr of lan~ owned by Mr. Klndr+-t would oe
met~ningless unless It w~+s added to the ~ubJ~ct pr~perty and taken c~-rc~ of In thot
develapment; that hc wnuld n~t v~te in fnvor of the pr~posed ~levclopmant untll tho prt-blem
wAS resolved; ard th~i It wns Incumhent ~i~~n both prc,perty owners to t~~y +~nd resolve khe
problem.
Mr. Archla ~:Incirat~ 21~i2 Et~st Athens Avenue~ Oranqe, avner of the siivn,• of land In
~que~tlo~~ ~ppcare~l hefore the Plonning Commiss(on and stated he wa., w1111ng to nogntiate
wlth the subJect petitioner ragarding the sliver of land, In responsc. to yuestloning by
Commiss(on~r Totar, Mr. Kinrlrat. skated that whlle checking the rer,ords at the County~ he
ran across the pro~crty In questlon And, subsequently. purchased it in 19~5• Chairmnn Pro
Tempure Morley inq.Irecl whac Mr, Klndrat's intentlons werc for ure of the smal) sliver ~f
land; whei'cupon~ Mr. Kin~lrat stited he h.~d been holcling it f~r the possibllity that
someone would want to purcht~se It in thc future to add to the largcr parcel; and that he
had felt it was in the besc tnterest of the p~rtles for the subJect petitloner to contect
hln~ to negotlate.
Commisstone.r Tolar rec,alled +chat the sales pr(cr_ mentioned at ",^ meeting of October 1'i~
1q]5~ was $l0,OQ0 for the slivcr of lancl and, In his opinlon. ~~at was tao much money for
the land. Mr. Kindrat sr.ated he had heen approached by Mr. L.urz In the pas* regarding the
sale of the sma11 ~mentinne,'~$1Q~)Q~; h~wevcre nadoffersrl ere madeGSO heWCOUId neltharfor
1 t and hc may have
accept nor reJect an offer.
ChaSrman F'ro Temp~re Morley suggeafcd that perhaps tF~e matter ca~ld be resolved presently
outside the Council Chamher between Massrs. Klndrat and Lutz anci the subJect petitians
brought back to the Plannln~ Commisslon thls ciate for a final determinationo Mr. Lutz
then stated tie would be unahle to negntiate for purchase of the ad]acent pMoperty without
consulting with his clle~~t and that he would accept a two-week conCinuance of the subJect
petit:• ~s.
Comnissloner Herost offered a motion, seconded by Commissinner Barnes and MOTION CARRIED
(Comnissloner Farano being absent)~ that t~-e public hearino and conside~atlon of petitions
for Reclassification No. "'-i~~'6 an~1 Varlanc~ No. 2739 be and hereby are contlnued to t'~e
Planning Commission meetinc of Hovembpr 10~ 1975•
RECLAS~IFiCATI(`N - PUDLiC NEARING. ROLl1f1D T, REYNOLDS~ 5~5 South Sunkist Strcet.
92~~h ~~-~er); ANACAL ~NGiNEERIFIG COMPA~IY~ 222 Es~t
C
(
N0. 15-7~'~~
- a.
m~
Anahe
Anaheim~ Ca. 92803 (Agent), Property ~es~rlbed
~incnin A~renue
VARIANCE Nt1. 7.i43 ,
as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consist(ng of approxi-
proximately 570 feet sn
f a
f
--'-"'"'-" p
rontage o
mately 9•7 acres having a
havin a maximum depth of
ide of Sunkist Str ., S
~
TE~~TATIV~ ~:~ ~~
89}0
TRACT N0 acst s
ehe
approrimately 6~~1 feet~ being located approximately 810 feet
~bed
. south of the centerline of Llncoln Avenu~esentlfuclassiffedr
ert
Y
P
y p
rop
as 505 South Sunkist St~eet.
RS-A~-43.00~ (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZoNE.
REi,IASSIFICATIOPJ RE~UEST: RS-720f1 (RESIDE~ITI,QL~ SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONE.
VARIANCE REOUEST: WAIVErt OF REQUIRFMENT THAT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDFNCES RE/1R-ON
ARTERIAL HIGHbIAYS.
~06LOTSESTMIIISTER AVENUE
T[~ITATIVE 7RACT REO,UEST:
R
G
N
-P
Ap
~E
P
RS
72
3
39
926
CA
GROVE
GARDfN
No nne Indicated their presence Ir~ app~sltion to subJect peticlons.
Although the StafP Report to the Plenning Commission dAted October 29~ 1975, was not read
at the public hearin~, said Staff Report is ~eferred to ancl made a rart of the minutss.
• • ~
MINUTFS~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 29~ ~975 75~~~~
RECLASSIFICAT~Q~I NO 75-76~~OLVARIANCE NQ. 27~~3.~TA~~~~~F 7RACT N~~.,891~ (Contlnued)
Mr. Cal Queyrel, reprnsentinc~ rhe Aclrnt for the petitioner, nppGArcd before tfic Plenning
Comml~slon and explalned the pr~posed setbecks along Sunklst Strer.t an~1 [he two slcie-on
lots~ ateting thet most of the property elong Sunkist Street wns dcveloped with setbacks
almllar to those proposr,d. Mr. Quayret further stated they h~~d destgned nt le~s~ 12
differenc la~,.>uts of the subJect prnpercy to c~rtx~ up wlth the best possible plan; that
they ware propnsing 3~ lots which wos a little less than four lots per acre; that the
developer was ~~resent to .nsv~er qucgtlons concornln~~ f~~e houses themselves; and thnt the
proposed homes w~>uld sell in the prlce r~~nne oP 5~5~~~'~ to S75,n~~,
THE PtIBIIC IIEARINf, WAS CLOSCO.
Comnle•!~ner NerbsC questtoned what snunci-nttenu~tlon measure3 would be taken for the
proposed :-•velopment~ natln~ tnat bullcling permlts would not be issued lf the sound !eve{
lnslde the beclrooms with the cioors r+nd wlnctc~ws cl~sed exceedPd ~~5 dbA ~nd the level
outslde the homes 1n the back yards exccnd~d h5 dbA. Mr. Queyrcl replted that the
encroachment Into tF~e roquired setbacks would not have any affect on the nolge lr_vel~
slnce the average back yarci sstback MlAS 37 feet; th~t there w~uld be sound attenu~ti~n for
the homes themselves~ howcver~ he did not knaw whAt the sound level would be tn the back
yards. Commissioner Nerbst further noted that the new requir~~ments p~rtalnln~ to the
Callfornta 1'rlnr envlronment could not he overlooked ancf the cieveloper would he requlred
to proviae `or the permitterl sound levels; whereupon~ Mr, Queyr~~l sttpulated thcy were
aware of t~.A sound-atter~uatior~ requirements for pr~pertiex ad,Jacent ta ar~erial hlghw~iys
and that they -~u~ have to construct A 6 t~ 9'foot wall, etc., to mitig~te the sound~ and
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Allan Oaum advlsed th~t the deve.loper w~uld b~ requtred to
meeL the Uniform E~uilcilnc~ Code stanJards ancl sald req~irement would become a conditlon (f
the sub}ect petitions were approved. Cortxnissioner Herbst then suggested that the
dcveloper have front-on garages to get the bedrooms away from the ~~0-fcx~t setbacks~ or
that the garages ancl drivPways be handled In some othe.r manner to make it easier for the
developer to meet the sound-attenuatlon requircments; whereupon~ Commissioner Johnson
quastlqned moving the driveways and garages close~ to Sunkist Street.
Commissloner Tolar offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner King ancl MOTI(1N CARRI[D
(Comnlssloner Farano bein9 absenti, that thc Planning Commissi~n does hereby recorcene~d to
the Clty Gouncil that the subJu~$uant,t~tthe provpslonsmofhthee9aliforniatEnvironmental
environmental impact report~ p
Quallty Act.
Comm(ssloner Tolar offered Resolut~or~ No. PC75'215 and mo~~ed for 1ts passage and adoptlon~
that the Planntng Commission does hereby recnmmend to the City C~u~cll that Patition for
Reclassiflcatlon No. 75~76~10 be approved~ subJect to the Interdepartmental Committee
recommandatlons, (See Resolution Book)
On roll call~ the foreguing resoluticn was passed by the following vote:
AYE.S; COMMI5SIQNERS: BARNES, HERgST. JOHNSOPI~ KING, TOL~R~ MORLEY
NOESo COMMISSIONERS: NOPI[
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO
Commissloner Tolar offered Resolution No. PC75-~16 and moved for its passage and adoption,
that PCtltlon tor Variance No. 2743 be ~nd hereby is granted~ granting waiver of thc
requtremenC that single-family residences rcar-on artPrial highways on the basis that
there are existing r~sidential lots whic:h slde-on Sunk(st Street in the subJect area;
subJect to the stipulati~n of the petltitoner that they are aware of the sound-atitenuation
requirements for properties located adJacent to arterial highways~ etc., anci Cfiat sald
requirnments must be comolled with and sub)ect to the Interdepartmental Comm'.:tae
recommendatlons; and that the Planning Commisslan does further r.:commend to tna City
Councl) that Clty Council Pollcy No. 5'~~ requiririg a 40-fc~ot minimum setback adJacent to
arterlal highways be watved~ t~ permit setbacks ranging from 25 to 3h fe~t along Sunkist
Street on the basis that other pr^oerties are ~ieveloped wlth stmilar setbacks in the
subJect area. (See Resolutton Pook)
Qn rnll call~ the foregotng resolution was passed by the followin~ vote:
AYES : CC~~s; I SS I ~NERS : aAI;NES ~ HERBST, JntINSC~rI, KI NG ~ i uIAR ~ MORLEY
NOES: CONMI5S10~lER5: NONE
ABSENT: CQMMISSIONERS: FARAHO
~
i ~
MINIITES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. Oc:t'~ber 29, 19'15
75-5~3
aECLASSIFICATION N0. 75-16`{0, VAitIANCE N0. 2 A~ 7ENTATIVE MU1P OF_ TRA~T N0. 091~ (Contlnued)
Conmissloner Toler offc recl n motf~n~ a~condr.cf by Commissioner Johnson and Mh?i0'. Cl~RRIED
(Commisslonor Farano bc in~ ab,ent)~ that th~e Pl~nning Cornmisslon doos herel,y npArove
Tentat ( ve Map of 7rnct y~, A9~n on the haa 1 s tl~nl thc prnposecf subcll vl s lon ~ toc~ether wl th
Ita dosiqn +~nd Improvement, Is consistent wlth tl~e Anahalm General Pl~n; ~ubJect to rha
etipul~tlon thr,t the p~titi~ncr Is r+ware of the so~ind-ottenuation requlremer~ts for
residentlal devel~prtx:nt ~ praposad ad.j~~cent to ar•terlal highw, /s~ etc. ~ and thnt ae~d
requlrements mti3t be complled wlth; end subJrct to thc following conditions:
1, That the approv~~) of Tentativ~ Map oF '!'~•act Nn. ~91(1 (s granted sub,ject to the
approval pf Reclasgiflcitlon No, 75-16-10 and Varlancn No. 7.7~f3.
2. That should ~t~is subdivislon be dave~oped as more than one subdivisian. each
subdivlslon thereoP shal) be submitte~i in tentative form for approval,
3. That al l lots wlthln th(s tr•~~ct slibl l br, served by uncfergroun~l utf l ities,
h, That a fi°ial t ~act map of subJect property shall be submttted to anc' approved by
the City Counci) and ther~ he recor•ded i~ the Offlce of the Orange County Recorder.
5. That street n~ rnes sh~~ll be approved by khe City of Anahsim prior to approva) of a
final tract map,
G, 1'hat the owner (s) of subJect property sliall pay to the Ctty of An~helm the
appropriate park and recreatlon in-lleu fee5' as cleterminecl to be approprlate by the Clty
Coun~il~ sild fees to ha p~id at the timc thc buil~~i~~,y permit is issued.
7, That drainage of subJect property shall he disposed of in a manner that is
satisfactory to the C i ty Englneer.
8, That, in acco rdancc wlth City Councll palicy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be
constructe<1 on the ea st property line separating Lot Nos. ~ through 12 and Nos. 26 and 27,
and SunkEst Strset, except that for corner lots No. 26 and '27, said wall sh~~ll be stepped
dawn tc+ a hetght or tF~irty (3~) inches in the requlred front yard setback,
9, That the City Councll reserves the right to delete or amend the assumption of
iandscape meintenance In the event Council policy changes.
10. That if perma nent street name signs have not been installed~ temporary street name
sivns shall be instal led prior to any occupancy.
CO~IDITIONAL USE - PU9LIC HEARItlG. GOLDFPI WEST EQUITY PROPERTIES, IMC. ~;93~ MacArthur
PERNIT N(1. 1;~~1 Boulev~rd, Suite 1~4~ Newport Beach~ Ca. 9z6G0 (Owner); TAYLOR RUbD~
5t~pg East l.u °alma Avenue~ Anaheim, Ca. 928QE~ (Agent); requesting
pe rmi s5 ~ on to ESTARL! SH AUTOt108 I LE REPAI R AND FORKL 1 FT MA I NTENANCE
on property described as; A rectar~_,ularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxl-
mately 12.1 acres havinn a frontige of a~proxirrately 475 feet an the north side of La
Palma Avenue~ havtng a ma~imum depth of approximately 1345 feet, betn9 located approxi-
mately 1~3~-5 feet west of the centerline of imperial Nighway~ and further described as
5~~0~ East La Palma Avenue. Prcpcrty presently classified ML(SC) (IN~USTRIAL~ L!MITED -
SCEf~IC CORRIDAR OVERi..AY) ZONF.,
It was nnted tha t no ohe was present to represent the petitionet or in oppositlon
and~ thereupon~ Comm issloner King offerecl a motion, secondad by Commissioner Johnson and
MOTION CARRIf_~ (Comm issioner Farano being absent)~ that the public hearing and
~onsidtratlon of °a t ition For CnnditiQnal Use Perm(t No, 156~ be and herebv is continued
to the Plannincl Co,misslon meettng of Novemher 1~~ 1975~ for the ~+tttio~~er to be present.
~
~ ~
MINUTFS~ CITY PLAN~JING COMMISSIt1N, October 29, 1975
75-504
COND I T I O~If1L USF - PURL I f. N F~1R1 N~, AIn~R~Dn PRnPERTI ES ~ c/o Al f i sl~mrn ~ 27.2 Fnsf~ i on
pFR~N~7 N0. 1~70 lenQ~ Su1 to 1~1(•~ Tititin~ Ca, 9~~~'1~ (Owncr); GENE S~~1FRV1Ll.F/~ONAIb
bIR~ ASSr-C111TF~~ 17~~9 Irvtnr poulevnrcl, Tust(n~ Ca, q7.G~1(1 (flgent);
requ~sttn~ perr~issi~~ii t~ ESTAt-LIS-I A BUS TFRMIN~I.~ WITfI WAIVEII OF
P[:RMITTF~ SIGt! LncnTln~i nn ~+r~pcrty ~tcscrif~e~l ~es An Irrenularly-sh.~ped p~~rcel oP
land conslstfncl ~f ~,n~roxlm~tcly I,~1~ eeres hovln~ fl fronta~c oP approxlmately 3n feat
on the north sld~ ~~f Linr.~ln Av~nun~ hnvinq t+ mnxirium Jepth of a~proxlm~~tely 2.9~i feet~
and bcinn locnte~l nppraxlm~tcly 7.11 fect wust ~~P the centcrllnc~ c~f Magnolla Avenue.
Propnrty presently ciASSificd Cr~ (CnM~IfRf,IAI ~ GC.I~CRN.) T~tlC.
Cortxnissloner Tolar ncte~l th.~t hc ha~1 a cnnfilct oF interest as defined ~'Y 1I~°thatl~hemwas
Munlcipa) Code Section 1.1.~+~~ An~l Govormm~n[ CoJe Secti~~n 3E~2;, ~:t seq,,
the broker far tha sul~iect d~velnn~~r; thn°. pursunnl to *_hr prnvisfons ol' the aUovc Code~
hc was herehy cleclnrin~ tc+ Chc Chairman Pro Tamporc that he w~s witl~cirawinn From thc
hearing In connectlon with Concflt(onal U~a i'ermit No, 1a7~ ~~~~ would not takc part in
elther the discusslon or the votinq thercon; an~1 that he had not discussed thc rnalter with
any member of the Planninq Commisstc~n, Tlies~•eupon, Cf1MMISSI0t1ER TOLIIR LFFT TI1E COUt~CiL
CHANDER AT 2;1> P.M.
One person Incl~cate~i her presence in opposition to subJect petitlon.
Asslstant Zonl-~g Suprrvisor Allan Daum reacl the Staff Report to the Planning Commiss(on
dated October 29, 1Q75~ anci sai~l Staff Report Is rPPerred to and macle a part oF the
minutcs.
Mr. A1 Flshman~ the pet~tf oner~ appenrecl before thc Pla~ning Commission and statecf t.he
sub.~ect pro~erty was a un ic~ue percel In that I k was approximately one acre In the rear of
two already-developed cortxnerclal propertics, with a driveway leadinc~ into the subJect
pruperty from Lincoln Aven~~e; thnG the subJeGt property faced the back of tlie exlsting
devel~pment In the are<~ an~i requlred a un(que use such as the pr•oposeci hus t~rm(nal; that
the proposal was not for a bus st~tion; tt~at eigl~t buses would be dispatched, serviced and
parked at the subJect site and u~ed for ctiartcr service where people ~iould not be coming
to the terrnlnAl but the busns wou1~1 be qc~ln!1 to the people; that the buses would leave
early in the mornln~~ approxlmalely 6 to (~;3~ a,m,~ and return at approxin~ately 7 or 7s30
p,m.; thal the~~ wer~ two access polnts to the subJect property, one on lincoln Avenue and
the other bein~. ~ 20-fdo't wide e~isement to Magnulia Avenue; that Lincoln Avenue was
divided with ~ medlan Ai tl~at access point~ making it diffi~~~lt for Che buses to make a
left turn c~ut of the drlv~w~~y on Lincoln; hawever~ the buses could use `he Magnol ia access
point to enable them t~ gn east without much dtfffculty; that they were p;oposing to use a
60-foot offlce tra(ier on a temporary hasis pending the construction of permanent office
facilitles; ttt~t Ch~y wer~ proposin~ t~ construct a 5~-foot by S~-foot servic:e bullding
and install ~ lf 1Q-~1a11on d(esel fuel tank and pump; that the pro~.~erty haci been prevlously
rented to a landscapinh business an<1~ consequently, there was a great deal of landscaptng
arounci the perimeter af tF~e property; that C(ty Staff had recommen~ied that slaes be
installed in the exlsttnq chainlink fence t~ screen the proposed use, however, since the
property was alre~dy well hidden 5y the surroundiny cortxnPrcial builclinqs, they would like
to plant add(tiona) trees, such as Cyp ess trees r.'-ther th~n provide the slatted Fence for
scr~ening; that trees would provide better screening and make the project better-looking;
tf~at he would stiFuiate to vrith~!raw the requested waiver of permitted si~n ~ocation slnce
he had dlscuss~~~1 the sign s with the bus company which ~elt the signs were not needed at
tlils particular time, hcwvever~ iP at some future time a sign was desired, a seoarate
appllcation would be ma~le for same; that the pro(>osed de~elopment would ~n no way be
detrtmental to tlie cltize ns of khe Clty, hut would be environmentally good fcr the
community slnce the bus service would reduce the automobi le traf`ic by providing
transporation for t~erospaee wnrkers, t~urs ~ etc.
Ms. E3etty Pagel ~ 21~i5 Wcs t Hiaw~t-ia Avenue, Anaheim~ appeared before the Planning
Commisston and incllcated she h~d m(stakenly thought the subJect property was on the south
side ~f Lincoln Avanue and, therefore~ she was not i^ opFosition to the proposal; however,
she wanted to voice her o~lnlon that the dubJect ty{: development should be thought about
twlce by the concerne~l pa rtles since tt might someday, without some restrictions being
placed upon lt, turn into a very lArc~e depot wfth cars parl:ing everywhere in the area;
that consideratlon should be qlven to the homes in the area and whether the malntenance
aspect of the opnritlor~ ml~ht turn Into a garage, Ms. Pagel concluded by stat(ng that the
subJect proposal dlcl not affect her ctlen['s property at ~his particular time and,
therefore~ she r~ould aii thdrnvr her ohJecti~ns.
~ ~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSIQN~ October 29~ 1y75
COl~DITIO~IAL IISE PFRMIT N0, 1;7~ (Conttnucd)
THE PIIRLIC NFARING ~d11S CL~S~I),
75-~5a5
Commissl~ner King noeucl thnt tl~e use oP the office trail~~r should not he granted for mor~
then cx~a yenr; whareupc,n~ Mr. Flslimnn stAtr.~1 tl,c~ permAnent offic~ structure cauld probably
ba completed within ~ne year~ h~wever, In casn of any delays wlt:h bulldin~l Parntts~ etc.~
he was ra~~+ectfully rc.que~ting 1~ months Ror the usc of ,:he traller; thnt the intent was
tn ytr+rf con!structlon Immedint~ly on the m~int~~nr~nce bulldln~ and then pursue the oPfice
structure; anci tha+t hy hnvin~ An I~-montt~ time llmit~tion~ the nr,~~l for r time exten~~nn
In the futu~e woutd probnhly not bc reces,ary. Cor~missloner Herbst noted that tempor~ry
offlce trellers were usunlly ~?I'provecl for perloJs nol exceodln~ one yet~r ~t a tlme~ w(th
tho pnstilblllty nf renew~~l.
In response ta questionlnct !~y Commissioner King, '~Ir. Fishmr~r~ atecl the fuel tanks would
be unclcrground.
Mr. Flehm~n revlewed the plecement of exlstlr~g yucca trees on the subJect property whlch
presently served t~ parttelly screen the property~ noting that he was stipulating to
plantlne~ trdes along the property lines of the ~ubJect property to create an effecttvs
tree ocreen Anc1 fully enclase the propc,sed use~ said additional trees to be Cypress trees
of ~n slze whlch woulcl provtclc the desirecl scrcentny within ,a ~eriod not to exceed two (2)
years~ s~~id tree screening to be subJect to tliE: review and approval of the Plannlnc~
De~artmont. On the bnsis of the f~~regoing, the Plannin~ Commisston determined thnt the
trea-ecreeninct~ as o~atllne~l~ would he adequate in lieu of the six-foot chatnl{nk fence
with reci~iood ar cedar slats typically requireci Co screen an outdoor use~ however~ the
existing Pour-fooe chatnltnk fence woulci remain,
Commisslonor Jahnson questioned the existence of the 2~-foot easement to Magn~lle Avenue;
whereupon~ Mr, Allan 9aum ~dvlsed that the easement in question was an Edlson easement.
Commissloner Ilerbst Inq~ ire~i (f the property would he cleaned up; whereup~n~ 11r. Fishmen
stated the lanrlsc.ap(ng business tliat was presently occupying the property was on e month-
to-manth lease and, as soon as the b~~s t~rmi al took over the property~ it would be
cleaned up ~nd, further~ th~t he would talk to the existing tenants re~ardlnel clet,ninc~ up
the property ri~ht away.
Commissloner Kinn offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Barnes and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissioner•s Tol~r and Farano being absent)~ that the Planning Commtssion does hereby
recommend to the City Cauncil that the suL,ect proJect be exempt Fro~ the requir~ment to
prepare an envlronmental impact repor•t~ pursuant lo the provisions of the California
F.nvlronmental Q~ .ty Act.
Commissloner Y.ing offered Resolution No. PC75-217 an<1 r,~oved for its passage and adoption~
that Petitlon for Con~litional Use Permit No. 1~7~ be and hereby is granted~ in part~ since
the petitioner withdrew the requested watver of the permitte~l sl~n locatton with the
stipulatlon to provlde siyning in conformance with the CG Zone Code st~~ndards; grAnting
the use of the le~nporary office trailer for a time limitation of one year, subJect to
review and consideration for an extension of time by the Plannsn~ Commtssion and/or Clty
Councll~ upon wrltten request by the petitioner; sub}ect to the further stlpulattons of
the petltloner; and subJect to the Interdepartmental Committee recom~rendatlons. ~Ser
Resolutian E3ook)
On roli eall~ the foregoing resolut~on was passed by the following vote;
AYES: COMMISSl~1NERS: BARNES, HGRBST~ JOHNSAN~ KING~ MORLEY~
N(;FS: COMMISSIONERS: N~MC
AgSENT: CQMMISSI~PlER~: TQLAR~ FARANU
COMMISSIQNER TOLAR RFTURNEQ TO THE MEETIN~~ AT 2:45 P,~i.
~ • ~
MINUTFS, CITY Pl.l1~lNINr, COMMISSION~ October 2~3~ 1975 7~•-~0~
CONDITION~L USC•. - PURLIC HEARIHG, J~M~S P. AND PflYl.l.IS J. CRAblFQRI)~ 1141 East
PFRt11T N~. 1571 La Palmt~ Avenue, Anahclm, Cu, ~2~~5 (~wners); D~NALO B, RRf1WN,
~ WMTII~R LEISURE~ IMC.~ 27~ North Can~n Drive, Beverly Nllls~ Ca,
9~?.In (11~ent); r~q~~r.stln~~ permisslon to ESTA~LISII AN OUTDOOR
TFNNIS Fl1CILITY ANI~ PRIV~I'f. CL'J(1 WITH ON-SI1LE IIcZU~R or, propcrCy dcscrlbed ast A
re:ctangularly-shape~l parcel ~f ~anc1 cnns(stincl ~f approxlnk~tely ~1.7. acres hnving a
fronta~e of t~pnroxlmat~ly G(~1. fce[ cm the e.~st sicle oP WAlnuc Strcet~ having a
maximum drpt:h of .~pproxlm~t~:1y Gn~~ fec~~ and heing locate~l approximatcly 6~5 ,°cet
south of the centc:rllne of eall Ro.~~f. Prnperty presently classifled RS-M~3,~~~
( R~S I DENTI ~L/AGRI CULTIJRAI_) 7(1PIC.
Two persuns Indlc~tecl kfieir presence In ~pp~sltl~n to subJect petltlon, an~1 Ass(stant
Zon(ng Supervlsor Allan Qaurn re~d a p~:tttion c~ntalnine~ ipproximatelv :~ s(~natures In
oppos(tion to subJect pe[ition.
Mr, i~ium read the Staff Report t~ the f'l~nning Commission clated October 79~ 1975~ and 5ald
St~f~ Repcrt is referred to and m.~de a pirt of the minute~,
Mr. Donald Brown~ the ae~ent for thr. petftioner~ appeare<I before lhe I'lanninc~ Cornnisslon
and staCed the oppositlon mainly dealt wfth the outclo~~r noise aspects of lhe: proposal;
that there was a huffer consisttng of approximately 30(1 feet cf dlstance between the
praposed structurec and the neirest adJacent ~esidence~ anr.i the subJec.t property was
buffered on the other three sides by uncleveloped pr~perty; th~t c~ittinq down tl~e nolse and
Iighting woulci he less eff~ct(ve~ in his opini~n~ than a dist~nce buffer; th:~t~ regarding
on-sale llquor~ they Intendeci to initl~lly sell only beer and not in a cocktail lounge
enviro~ment; tt~at as thelr plans pro~resse<i and if they decidecl to go (nto a private club
expanslon, they wnuld w~nt to h~ve a c~eneral on-sale Iiquor license; that tliey would be
willin~ to withdraw their re~~uest for on-sale liqu~r at this time, f nccessary~ since it
was not an inteqral part of the subJect proposal; that the developm~r~t would be a first-
cla~s recreatlon (tennts) facility which was in tremendous demand; ancl that the
development would not only be enJ~yed by the citi(zenry of Anaheim~ but the citizenry would
be proud of it also.
Mrs. Betty Ranconi, 12~i1 South Walnut Strect, An~helm, appeared hefore tfie Planning
Commisslon in opposition anct stated the main concern of the adJacent residents was the
nl~ht noise; that the daytime noise would not bother them; ancl that~ regarding distance as
a buffer~ Disneyiand was a good dist~r~ce away and the residents still were bathered by the
nolse, especlally at night during the surr~er months. Mrs, Rar~coni quest(oned whether on-
streeC parkin~ wouid be alluo~ed along Walnut Street for the patron~ of the proposed tennis
courts, if the parki ] lot overflowed and 4;hat were the proposed hours of operatic~n,
'tHE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED.
In rebuttal~ Mr, Brown ~'tated they had nnt established tnein c~~urs of operation, haweve~n
they did not expect to be open pasr lO;OQ p~m, anct they mighc open at about ~:3o a.rr.
response to q~aestion(:~~ by Chairman Pro Tempore Morley~ Mr. Brr~wn stated they did not have
any dlrect expe~'!e;~ce with tennls facilities, however~ he had learnecl Chat people liked to
play at any hours when the weather anci lighting were right anci he had hoped to be able to
keep the faclli~(es opPn; hc~we~~er~ he did not anticipate any opposition from the
neighbors. P9r. Brown continucd by stating that ~ th 9 courts an<i a maximum of 3G playPrs
at any one time~ the use would have to go a lon~ way to compare with Disneyland. Mr.
Brown r~quested to open at daybreak or 7:00 a. . and remain open until 10:00 p.m.;
wf~ereupon, Chairrnan Pro Tempore Morley noted that said hours seemed to be fairly ideal at
the present t(me and, in the future~ if no problems were involved, the petitloner could
request an increase tn sald heurs. Deputy Ctty Attorney Frank Lowry advisecl that such a
request to increase the hours of operation cotild be considered under the "Reports and
Recommendations" sectlon of the Planntng Commission agenda with~ut che necessity of a
public hearing. Thc: Planning Comm(ssion noted th~t if i pr(vate ciub with o~-sale liquor
was proposed in the future, such a proposal would requ+re a public heartng process.
Comnisstaner Herbst noted that a landscaped berm on the outstde of the proposed wall along
Walnut Street would be more aesthetic and better serve to protect the inte4rity of the
adJacent residential properties and the subJect property had enough land to provtde tl~e
berm; and that a landscapecl berm had been requtred fur other propo~als to develop the
subJect property.
• e
~
~
r r
MI NU7f 5~ C I tY PL111JN I ~!G CQMM I SS I ON , dc tober 29 ~ 1975 1'' '~
COND1710NAL USE PLRMIT Nb, 1>71 (Contlnued)
Mr. !. Y.. Weber~ the .grchltecC for the devel~per, appeared before the Plann{ng Ccmmiss[un
in response to questlonin~ by Cammf~sioncr Tol~~r z~nd st~~ted the drainan~~ was dffflcult for
the s~+bJecc sfte; that one ~P the purposes of the pr~posecl bluck wa~l ~~long Walnut Streat
was ko retain A qrAde, ~n thc inside of the propr.rty t~ dr~tn L.he caurt~,; that, whil~ hc
proferred to h~.~vc anly a herm, he c~uld not accomplish the ~iralnage 1~, chat manner; ancl
that he would stlpul~tc to provicling A five-fo~t hlgh earthen berm (n the front setback
along thc west property line~ outside (to the w~st) of the propos~~~J five-Foot high block
wall~ sald berm to he heavlly l~~ndscapecl to providQ screening xn~l sou~d attsnuatlon oP the
propase<I use~ an~i safd v~all br_ing fivc feet high as rrn•asured from the highest Pinished
gradc leval at the basc ~f thc wiil.
Mr. Randy Johns, ~+25 Vine Skreet, Anaheim, appe~rc~i beforc~ the Planning Camm(~sion ln
opposition ta the subJect petltton, and inquired c~~~cerniny the parkln~ spaces which were
proposec~~ stating that the petftl~ncr miy find that 3~ spaces were not adequate ta
accommod:-te the facilities~ since many pl~yers woul<1 come early and walt to play tennis
a~hlle others were still playin~.
In response~ Commiss(oner Tolar noteci that tlie operallon would sufPer if there was a lack
of p~rking spaces. Commisslon~r King r~sponded th~t parkin~ woulcl prohably be allowed un
Walnut Street also~ and Walnut Street would be widened as part of the p~oposed
development~ making it a very wlde street, Commissinner Johnson added that quite often
two tennts players ~:o,~ld come in one car,
~n r~spUnse to further questioning by Mr. Johns. Commissioner Tolar n~tecl that he was
opposed t~ a cocktail lounge at the subJect locatton; however, as long as the on-sale beer
and w(ne was provided durin~~ the appr~ved hours of opera~i~n~ and the pet(tfoner fully
controlled the hours oF flper~tion~ he ci(d not obJect to on-sale beer and wine only.
7hereupc,n~ Mr. Brown so stipulated,
Comntssioner Herbst offereci a motion, seconcled by Commissioner Jphnson and 110TION CARRIE~
(Commissioner Fa~'ano beinc~ absentj~ that tl~e Planninc~ Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Co~ancil that the subJect proJect be exempt from the requirement ro prepare an
environmental impact report, pursuant to the pr~visions of the Californi~, •,vironmental
Quality Act.
Commissloner fierbst offere~l Resolution No, PC75-218 ancl mo~~ecl for its passage and
adoption, that Petil(on for Conditional Use Permit No, 1571 be ancl hereby is granted~ in
part~ to permlt an outdoor tennis facility and private club with on-sale beer and wine
only; subJect to the stipulations by tfie petitioner that the hours of ~peration shall be
from 7:00 a.m, to 10:0~ p.m. with the provision that upon writtpn request by the
petitioner, said hours of operation shall be reviewed For a determination as to whether
the hours of operation should be extencied; that the on-sale beer and wine act~vity shall
occur only durin~ the appro~~ed hours of operatien; that any exterior lighting shall be
down-lignted ancl directecl away from the adJacent property li~es to protect the residential
integrity of ttie area; that the five-foot high berm and block wall sh~ll be provlded along
the west property line as st(pulaled; and suhJect to the Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations, t5ee Resolution Book)
On roll call~ the forego(ng res~lution was passed by 2he following vote;
AYES: COMMISSI~NFRS: BARNES~ HEREST~ JONNSOP~~ KING~ TQLAR~ MORLEY
NOES : COMPt l SS I OPlERS : NONE
ABSEPIT: COMMISSI~NE"S: FARAFIQ
CONDITIONAL U5E - PUBLiC f1E~RING. WEST ANAt1Eit•i COMMUNITY HUSPiTAL, 3033 West Orange
PERMl7 N0. 157~ Avenue~ Anaheim~ Ca. ~280~1 (Owne.^); AMERICIIN MEDIC~RP, INC.~ c/o
Steven Deme~er, 51+?9 McCon~ell Avenue~ Los Angeles, Ca, 9U066 (Agent);
requesting permission to C0~lSTRUCT A HOSPITl1L ADD(TIOPI on property
described as: A~ irr~,gularly-shaped parcel of land consisting oF approximately 5.~5
~cres having a frontage o~ approximatcly 4f,5 feet ~n the na~th side of Or~nge Avenue~
havin~ a Maximum depth of approxim~tely 623 feet~ being located approximately 1~Q feet
west of the c~nterltne of Bsach Boulevard~ and further described as 3033 West Orange
Avenue. Property presentiy classlfted CL (COMMERCtAL~ LIMITED) ZONE.
No one tndicated their presence tn opposition to sub.~ect petition.
~ ~ ~
MINUTES~ f,ITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Octobcr 1.9~ 1975
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 15?2 (Cnntlnucd)
75-500
Althnugh the St~ff Re~port t~ thc Pianning Cortxnlvsfon dated Octohcr 7.~1, 19%~~, wi~ ~~~t ~'e~"~~
sald Staff Repnrt ls referred t~ ancl mAC1c a parr •~1' Clic m(nutes.
Mr, Druce K~brttz~ r~~prescntlnq the petltioncr~ appearc~t hcPorc thc P1Annin~ Commission to
answer quescions rr,~nrdin~~ the rr~pc~sa~.
The Plenninq f.ommisslon expressed c:nncerns that permission ha~1 nat been granced by the
Qrange County Com~rchr.nslve Hc:alth Pl~~nning Council F~r additional ho~p(tal beds at the
subJect hospit.~l; khat since a hospital presently exlsteel at tl~e subJect 1~~ itlon, there
was not much doul~t at~out the z~ninq heln7 nppropri~te; that recent news coverage ancl
conversations in the community inclicated there wr~s a surplus of hospita) heds and if the
Nealth Pl~nning Council dld not ~pprove the ;~dciltiona) beds, xhen th~ Anahe.im Pl~~ning
C~mmission publlc henrinq on thie matter would be Futll~; ai~d, furthermore~ approval ~f the
request ~t this time by thc Planning C~mmission may serve as some kind oP Justiflcatlon
upon whlch the Health Plannin~ Council could base thelr approval of ti~e request and that
would not be the intent ~f the Planning Commission.
Commissloner Kinq n~ted that he dlcl not ae~ree that the subJec.t request should be del~yPd.
Mr. Y.obritz stateci they were schecluled t~ have puhlic hearing hefore the Orarrge County
Comprehens(ve Health Planning Council on ~dovember 2~~ 1~75~ and w<~ulci rece(ve a fina~
determinati~n on OecPmber 9~ 1~75; that they harl been ~~dvised ta comply with the local and
State requlraments and were before the Planning Commissl~~n as i natural consequence of the
logfcal steps thaC wers involved in the request,
Commissioner Herbst clarified rh~~t prior to Planning Commission action on the subJect type
request~ it was procedural to ind out if the hospit~l beds were needed and that tha
Plannlrig Commission could not make that cleterminaciun.
Com~~issioner Herbst offerecl a moti~n~ seconded by Commissioner Tolar and MOTIOtI CARRIED
(Commissioner King votinc~ "no~" and Commissioner Farano being absent), that the public
hearing and consicieratlon of Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1572 be and hereby is
continued to the Planning Commission maeting of December 22~ 1975~ to t~wait the flnal
determinatian by the Orange County Comprehensive Nealth Planning Council as to whether or
not the pet(tioner's request for adciitional beds is apprnved; and~ until said Health
Planning Cnuncil has made such a determinatiun~ the Anaheim Plannin~ Comm(ssion does not
feel it is apprapriate to hold the subJect public hearing ta consider the request.
It was noted that the i'lanning ~ommission minutes of this meetfng would be made available
to the petitioner as soan as possible.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUl3LIC FIEAP,IN(;~ V~ E. REPIMER AND M. K, SCIWMqCHER, c/o Leonard Smith~
~'ERMIT N~. I'73 125-D South Claudina 5treet, Anaheim, Ca. 92~'~S (Owners); LEONARD
~^ SMITH, 125-D South Claudina Str~et, Anaheim, Ca. 92805 (Agent);
requesting permission to ESTA(iLISI~ A MOTEL A~dD RECRE~TIQNAL VEHICLE
P/1RK, WIT11 WAIVERS OF (A) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT AND (B) MINIMUM BUILDI~lG SETBACK on
property ues,;rlbed as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately
g,0 acrec located at the nortFieast corner of aall Road and Palm 5treet, having approxi-
mate frontages of 745 feet on the north side ~f Ball Road and 445 fePt on the east side
of Palm Sireet. havinc~ a maximum depth of approximately 625 feet~ and further described
as 4C0 West ~all Road, Property presently classified RS-A-43,000 (RESIDFNTIAL/
AGRI CULTI;f~AL) 20NE.
It was noted that the petitioner was requestin~ a co~tinuance of the subJect petition to
the meettng of November 1Q, 1~75~ to submit revised plan5 and for advertisement of an
additlonal waiver.
Mrs. Willlam J. Eckles~ 1117 South Cambridge Street~ Anaheim, appe~red before the Planning
Commisslon in oppositiori to the subJect petition and stated she was concerned about the
traffic that would be generated by the proposed use. She questtoned whether a trafflc
analysis would be made; whereupon~ Assistant Zoninn Supervtsor Allan Daum advised that the
traffic data would be due by the time of the No~ember l~th meeting.
Commissioner Tolar notecf that many of the adJacent residents were pres~nt for the public
hearing on the subJect petltt~n and he questioned why the request for continu~nce was not
made Qublic. Mr. Daum exp!ained that one week was not enouah time to give nottce to ttie
residents r+ithin 3~0 feet ~f the property. Thc eupon, Cortm,(ssioner Johnson apologized to
those presen; who had heen inconvenienced by the subJect requE•st for a continuan~e.
~ ~ ~
MIt~UTfS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Or.tobcr 29, 1`?15
CQNb1710NAL USE F:FRMIT N~. 1573 (Continund)
7 ~">- 5o!~f
Commisslnner Johnson ni'fr.red a rmtlon' secnndecl hy C~~mnissi~ner King r~nr1 NOTI~~i CARRIED
(Ccxnm(ssloner F'nranc~ bcinq ahsenC) ~ tc~ continue the. puhl ic. he:~rln~ an~l co~sideroklon of
Petltio~~ for Con~litl~n,il Usc Pcrrn(t No, 1573 to thc Pl~iimin!~ Comm(SS(nn rnectin9 of
Plovember 10, 1~75, as requeste,l by the pr~ti tii3ner.
~~~E~,g ~t 3:?.0 ~~, Chairn~,~n Pro Temp~~re Morlcy decl~rr_ct i recess.
RECOIIVF.NE i1t ?: 30 p,r~~, , Chai rmnn Pi ~~ Tempore Morley rec:onvrned the
- - mectln~~, witf~ f,ommissloners 1'olar an~l Faran~ heln~ absent.
COtID I T I 0-!AL USF - PURI. I f, Nf AR I NG, e RI GIIAM YOU~~G Un I Vf RS I T~ ~ c/o Mat rcyek ilomes ~ I nc .,
PGRMIT N0, 157~~ P. ~• dnx 711, Upland~ Ca. 9~7~~~ ~~^-ner); JIM CHR157FtISF.~:, Matreyek
^ Homes, Inc., P. ~. Box 711, Upland, Ca. ~17~~ (~9en[); requesting
permissi~n to ESTIIRLIS~1 A MORILC{10M[ FARK~ WITfI 4JAIV[RS OF (A) h1AXIMUM
FEMCE HF.IGNT, (R) Pf.RMITTfD L~C~TIOM OF TRACT SIGtl, (C) MAXIMU~t Alt[A OF TRACT SIG~~, (C)
MAXIMt1M AREA OF TRAC7 SIGtI~ (D~ MAXIMUt1 HF"'~IT OF TRACT SIGP~~ AI~D (E) MIPlIh1UM F~oNT
SETBACK on praperty descrihed as: An 1~~ ~:yularly-shape<1 parcel of land consisting of
approximately 35 acres locat~c! south of the Riverside Freeway~ havin~~ a frontage of
approximately G~~i feet c~n the n.~rth sfde o~' Medical ~e~ter Drivc~ having a maximum
depth af approximately 75"~ ~ect~ ancl bein~i located approximately ~~~~~~P~RESID[tlTIA~/`
centerline of Euclid Street. Property presently clas.,ifieci RS^A-u3~
AGRICULTURAL) Z~NE.
Two persons Indicated thelr prese~~ce in apposition to subJect petltlon, and indtcated they
would waive the full re~dinc~ of tlie Staff Report.
Althou~h the Staff Report to the Planninn Commission dated October 29~ 1975~ was not read
at the publlc hearing~ said Staff Report is referred to anci made a p~rt of the minute~.
Commissioner Herbst noted that he haci a conflict of interest~ ~s defined by the Anaheim
Munlcipal Code Section 1.1.~+Ob anrl Government Code Sectton 3625~ et seq., 1n that he may
be doing busines~ witl~ the rlevel~per; that, pursuint to the provisions o~ the above Codes~
he was hereby declaring to tiie Chairman Pro Tempore that he was withdraw(ng from the
hearing in connect(on with Conditionai Use Permit No. 157~- on the ?lanning Cortmission
agenda and would not tak~e part ln either the discussion or the voting thereon; and that he
had not dlscussed the matter with any member of the Planning Commissicn. Thereupon~
COMMISSIOMER HERBST LEFT THE C~U~dCIL CHAMBER AT 3:35 P.M•
Mr. James L. Christensen~ the a~ent for the petitioner~ appearecl before the Planning
Commisston and stated the proposal was part af a pl~nned cnmmunity development at the
subject locatlon; that they hacl orfginally proJected 290 rnc~bilehomes at the site and were
now proposing to have 2~3; th~t~ reqardinc~ the proposed sign, the City~a Siqn Ordinance
permltted 96 square feet of si7n a~ea for each tract; that four of their tracts had
already been aprrov~~l and there were faur tracts yet to be approvcd which would be
entitled to 3R~+ s4~~~'e feet of additi~nal signing; that rather than having signing for
each of the tracts~ they needed signing on the freea~ay slnce they werc located out in the
middle of a fleld and av~ay from commercial and other traffic exposure and~ therefore, they
alere requestinn to have a 4~-foot high~ 25~-square f~ot sivn,
Mr. James Arnerich, representin~ Forest Lawn~ appeared bPfore the Planning Commission and
stated they awned property withln 30~ feet of the subJect praperty. Mr, Arnerich took
exceptlon to the E1R document relating to the traffic impact which the proposai would have
on the existtne~ strects in the subject area~ stating that the Martln Luther Hospital was
plArtning some ~dditions to its facilities, including 1n0 beds~ which would increase the
traffic ln the area ar~d the EIR iqnored the existina use of the streets in the area; that
further study should be macle and facts obtafneci regardtng the traffic generation and flow,
etc. Mr. Arnerich reviewed prevlo~is ccnditions which the City had lmposec+ on the subJect
property for the planned c~mmunity developme~t, stating that a traffic signal was tu be
instailed at La Palma Avenue and Romneya Drive and he was suc~c~esting that an additional
conditlon be Impos~d~ that street improvements be made fr~m the proposed rnc,bllehome park
to La Palma Avenue to ellminate any of the traffic taking shortcuts thraue~h the hospital
pr~perty~ cre~ting problems for patients which could be sertaus.
Mr. Ben Bay, 2149 West GrAyson, Anaheim, ~~pearecl 6efore the Plannlnc~ Commission to speak
in favor of thc subJect petltl~n~ st~tin9 that he. hacl been dc~~lln~ wltl~ the development of
the subJect pl~snn~d community develc+pment for appr~ximatcly two ye~rs~ representtng
approxlmately 570 resldents In the area who were in opp~sitlon; that he had also sided
with Mr. Arnerich agafnst the proposal~ and kicked the tra}'ffc problems around; hawever.
tht developer switcheci t~ townhomes ancl brought the over all donsity down t~ a.~~ from the
~ ~ ~
75-!il~
MI~IUTf.~~ CIIY FLl1N~IIN~ ~;OPIMISS10~1, (lcr.oh~r L`.)~ 1~7.`~
COND11'I~NAI. USF P[RMIT N0, 157u (Contlnu~~d)
orlclln,illy-nroJcr.ted 7.^ ~iwr.illne~s per ncrc; th~~t tfic.rc o~~s nev~r any opposltlon to tf-e
mobiie{~cme •~spect ~f the dr.vrl~pment since the clensity wa~ m~.iqhly 7,~~ units per acre;
that unles5 thr.re wer~~: sr,me ~Ir:~stic chnnc~es in the trnffic estim:+tes~ he did n~t PeNI thnt
the tr~~ff1C should bc nny ~1lffrr~~r~t than vihen it was ori~~i~~i~ly estfm~~ted in the EIR
dor,ument; that, however~ h~ r1f~1 rn7c n~pmv~ ~f ~ill thc finnrFr, usr.~l In a~~y F.IR; t-n~l that
the extens I on ~~f (t~~rnncya Dr I vn [~~ l.A Pe 1 mn 1lvenur. was to be f n thc sec~ncl or th I r~1 ,h~se
of thc: planned community dcv~lnpment.
Mr. }:hristensen st~ted thcre werc fnur :ricts tn the dr_velopment ~lre~~y r~>proved nnd the
mobllehnmes miqht be consi~icre~l th~ fifth phtise; wher~upon~ Mr, l3ay gcited onc ef the
condlClons of apprnval of the propo~a) wt+s that thc trafFlc s(gnal at the Intergection of
La Palm~ Avenue ~+n~i itomncy~ Drivc shAli he lnst~lled prior to the eonxnenccr,enC of any
that said tr++Yfic sl~nal w~uld be
~rading operatlons In thc An~heim Shores dcvc+lo~men~,
IrstallecJ wlth one-half of the cnsts Incurred to be paid by the City and one-half by the
developer, as prevlously stlpul~ted to hy the developer and concurreci in by the Clty; that
all the adJaceiit properCy owners c~ thc wcst presumeci that the traff(c signal wautd bc
lnstalled tha minute the strcet Imhmvements were in or simultincously with the rest of
the cievalopment; ancl that no gr~cllnn would he a1loHied untll Che t~tal drain~ge plan wt~5
s~.ibmitted and approve~i by the City Cauncil in a public meetin~, Mr. Bay concluded by
statln~ that if the tot~l dens!ty fo~ the planned community development was nn hlgher than
orlc~inal ly approve~~, then the a~IJ~cent reslclents to the west ~f the c1e~~elopn~ent would have
no obJectic,ns at this tim~.
In rehuttat to the comments m~~~e by MP. Arn~rich~ Mr. Chrlstensen stated thereawo~'n Front
traffic generated from thc pr~~nsed ;ievelopment xhrough the hos~ital pr~perty
of lt; however, if the hospit,il would widen tl~e street, he WOIIIC~ hP hr~ppy to continue to
accept ~11 nf the water from the hospit.~~ propcrty~ etc,; that the planned communlty
development was clo~ng t~ a lot ~f expense to put the watei from the area under the
freeway; that re~~r~iin~ tr~~ff~c cc~unts~ the Traffic En~ineer could probably brirsg that up
to dat~; that the whole hnspltal complex was presently for sale ancl the new permlt was for
one hospital. and zll of thc b~ecis quoted would nox be use~l at the same time; that the
traffic on Roinneya Drive Viaci been taken into account in tlie oric~in~l EIR d~cumenl; that
they appreclated the cooperntion of the people in the area an~l, if the developers had
listened to the people two ~;ears aqo, they would not have had to wait so lon~ to ~et
approval of the pr~Ject.
THE PUdLIC HEARING WI1S CLOSED.
Traffic En9ineer Paul Singer inqufred what the status for completi~n of the ~mprovements
to Romneya Drlve was in relationship to the mohl~e~~Councll~conditlon~of~approval~ fin the
median that was ori~inally recommended in the City
response~ Mr. Christensen stated it was their plan presently to use Medical Center Drive
for the development; that all of the
to trensport bullding materiils and supplles, etc.,
streets in the planned community developr~er.t would be installed at one tirne, however~ no
~lGCP.SS would be taken until the traffic sfctnal was installeu+ at Romneya Drive and La Palma
Aven~~e; that Medical Center Dr(ve would be the last street where improva.~ients would be
made; ehat the requirement for the m~dian strlp on Euclid Street was being held in
abeyanc~ by t.l~e Ct[y Council~ until it was dAtermined when it should be installed~ and
that the Clty Council had not done away with the requlrement, that the Trafflc Engineer
would indicate wher. it was time for sald installation and, furtherm~re~ tl~at said
install~tion was st(11 a con~lltion as originally worded, Mr. Christensen further stated
that unless they were permittecf to Install the traffic siynal in c:on]unctton with the
first phase oP development~ rather than prior to any gr~dinq~ thcy may have to walt
approximately 9~ days for the completion of the sign~lizacion since there Waone~halfeof to
put the slgr i on; that they would uphold their previous tiFulaiion to pay
the costs ?ncurrecl for sald traffic signAl; and that the Interdepartmental Cortxntttee
r~commecdnfllctswlth~the conditlonAlnposeorbyptheaCity9Council insa~previous~publi~ gi~nal
wes in o
hearing for development of sub~ect property.
Commissioner Johnson questloned thc necd for the huge ~ign; wherEUpon~ Mr. Chr(stensen
stated thax e.veryone they had talked to inclic~ted they were usina the best approach~
rather than having a'ot af sl~ns all over the property; that zhe clevelopment needed
identlty from the freeway; that thcY hA:f prevlously been granted a varlance for a slgn
that was 70 feet h(gh ln con,lunctlo~ with the themc: tower and the proposed slgn would be
~
~ ~
MINUTCS, Liii PLANNING COMMISSION, October 29~ ~975
CONDITIONAL USE P[RMIT N0, 15~~+ (Cuntinued)
75-511
even less c~~nsplcuous to the rc~s{cients but would give the necessary Identlty; and thot
they had glven up the proposal to have the theme tower slgn.
Chalrman Pro Tempnre Mor~iey n~ted Chat If tha pr~posecl sl~ninci wAS approved, the Planning
Commisslvn wauld reyuest l'~~t the ~etltl~ner o~lthdr~ar the thcmc• kc~wcr sinn; whcreupon, Mr.
Chrlstr,nsen so stlpulatecf.
In response to questfoninq by Commissloner Barnes, Mr, Christensen state<I ihey would ha~~e
one sign on E:ucliri Street and one o~ La Palma Avenue which were dlrectlonal slgns ~n the
cummerclal portlon of the planned cammunlty de~elopment; Chat they were entitled to have
elght off-site tract signs totallin9 7~`~ squarc fr.et of sl~n area~ however, they were
r~quegting to have only onc sign H~ith a tota) of 250 s~~~are feet; that thc proposed sign
would be neede~i unt~l the tracts were sold out which ~ ild take no longer than three
years. Chalrman Pro Tempore Morley noted that the pr~pased 250-squ.~re fool' slgn~ in Ifeu
of eighC s(gns totalling '~~ squ~re feet~ appe~red to he a r'cisonahle tride-off.
It was noted that slnce Environm~ntal Impact Report No. 113 was certified by tlie Anaheim
City Councll ~n December 31~ 1973- and included i~formatlon relAtive to the development of
the proposed mobilehame park and~ since mociifications to salcl report reflect a r~ductton
(n denslty and, therefore, a lessening of the environmenta) impact, khe Planning
Commission d~es hereby determine t`~at ~~ddttlonal action pertaining to sald report Is
deertxsd unnecessary.
Commissloner King o~fered Resolution No. PC75~x19 and moved fo~ its passage And adoptlon~
that Petition for Conditional Use Permit No, 157~- br and hereby is gr~nted~ ~ranttng the
requested watver of the maximum fence helght on the basls thar the propo~ed fence helghts~
in conJunctlon with the proposPd term~ will provide addltional sound bufferi~g protection
for the subJect property and adJacent property~ sald protection being deenzed approprlate
at the subJect location; grantiny the requested walvers of permitte~i location of t.ract
sign~ maximum area of tracr, sign and maxtmum height of tract siyn for a period of one
yoar~ said tirt-e 1lmttation for the proposed temporary tract sign being subJect to revlew
and consideration for~ extension of time by thie Plann~n,y Commission and/or City Council~
upon written request by the petitionsr~ approval of said waivers bein~ granted on the
basis that the petitloner stipulated to withdrawing the subsequent request to construct
thP theme tower which was appre.ded in connection with Variance No. 7.635~ ~nd the furth~er
stipulatton by the petitioner that no addltiona! off-site tract signs will be requested
for the development of the Anaheim Shores Planned Community; granting waiver of the
minimum front setbeck on the basis that the request is minimal, as proposed; subJect to
the further stipulations of the pPtltioner~ and sub)ect to the Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations. (See Resolutlon Book)
On roll call~ the foreg~ing resolutlon vras passed by the following vote:
AYFS: CQMMISSIONERS: BARNES, J041NSON~ KING~ MORLEY
NOES: C~MMISSIO~lERS: N~NE
ABSENT: CbMMISSIONERS: ~iERBST~ TOLAR~ FARAPIQ
CONiMISS1UNER NERBST RETUR~IED TU TIiE COU~ICIL CHAMB~R AT 4:15 P.M.
~
~
~
MINUTCS~ CITY PI,~NNING COMMISSIO~J~ Octobcr 29. 1975
75-512
C~N~ITI(1M/tl. USF - Pti!~Llf. NF.AR111G. R~RER1' M. C~X~ I1~ Sout.h Sunkist ~tre~t, An,ihelm,
PERf11T N~. 1!;J; Ca. ~2"~~~ (fh~ncr); MARIEN[ TAYLOR, -+~6 Fernhill Lane, Anah~im, ~a.
~ ~?f;07 (Agent); rr.quesCin~ perrclssicm t~ ESTABLlSII A SQRORITY HOUS[
on pr~perty descrlbed as: A rectnngularly-sr„~e~i parcel of land
conslsting of approxlmat~ly 0,11 acre locatec.l at the n~r[ha~est corncr of Sunkfst
Street and Ward Terr~ce, and f~n'ther c;escrihed as 12~, South Sunkist Street. Prorerty
presontly class(flecl 9S-720~ (RfSIDE~JTI~I.~ SINGLE-FAMILY) ZO~JE,
As•;~stant T.oning Supervis~r Allan Daum rcaci letters of opposftlon submitted by adjacent
property owners Lols B. l3afer anrJ Sol SIlva, and a petltlon sub~nlttecl fn opposltlon whlch
contalned ap~~~~xfmately 70 sl9natures of ncighUarhood resi~ents. (t was noted that
several persons were pr~scnt in oppos(tion to subJect petit(ui~,
Mr. Daum read the Staff Report to the Pl~~nninc~ Commisslon d~ted October 2~, 1975, and sald
Staff Report Is referred t~~ as If sr.C forth in full In the m{nutes.
Mr. Ro6ert M. Cox~ tiie petirioner, appe~r~d before the Pl~nning Commiss(on ancl stated It
appeared thc opposili~n was malnly dtrectcd at the trafffc congestfon wh(ch mighk relate
to ttie proposed use of thc subJec.t property; that therc r~crc apparently five women
presently 1(ving at the subJer.t properCy; that thcr~~ was no traff(c dur(ng the daytime
s(nce the young women went ta schc~ol; that recently they had held their '~rush week"
acCivlties ancl there was a pr•ohlem since the women had not explalnrd their plans to the
nefghbors ahead of tlme and no courtesles werP extendeci t~ the nelghbors; that the
~eighbors had talked to the visitors who did not relate the messactes to the owner or
tenants of the subJect property or atherwise the problems wou~~l have been taken care of.
Mlss Janica Mullen~ Presiclent, lota Upsilon Chapter of Delta Zeta Sorority~ appeared
before the Planninc~ Cummission ~~nd explained the reasons for selectin~ the subject
property for a sororlty house, stating tliat tl~e house was bigger than their previous
residence and they were desir~us of havinc~ five girls live at the house; that they were
concerned about tne security and privacy for their memtership and the house was perfectly
suited for them in those respects; that thelr re9~~lar membership meetings were held at a
local bank and there were no functions at the house unl.:ss a small group yathered for a
wedding shower~ etc,; that during their recent "rush week" there was some negli~.nce on
the sororlty's part not to advlse the neighhors, however~ such a~i activity only occurred
once a year; that following the event, th~y had talked to some of the neighbors who
expressed that they co~ild tolerate "rush week" If it was only once a year; that a house
manager resided on the premises ancl took care of the busines$ of the house; that there was
a full time gardener •ind the house was wel) taken care of; that all of the gir!s went to
sct~ool and there was seldom anyone at the house durtng the daytin~c~ except for the
manager; that to get the parking sltuation under control they had asked all of thelr glrls
to park thelr cars across the street since there were only two parking spac.es in the
drivaway; tliat California State Un(versity at Fullerton was a cortmuter college and there
was very little in the way of sc~cial acttvitles within the co~lege; and tfiat the sororlty
fulfilled tha social needs of the girls in relation to their college life.
Mr.4larren Bratcher appeared before the Planning Commission~ ~nd statecl he had beEn a
res(dent at 101fiQrmandyCourt, Anaheim, for approximately 11 years; that his obJectlons to
the proposal had nothine~ to do with the girls' sorority or other Greek letter
organizations, but with the integrity of the subJect neighborhood; that som~e zoning
cancessions had been mac{e fn the neighborhood with assurances from the City that the area
would ma(nta(n single-family residenti~l integrity; that the parking situatian at the
subJsct house was not under control; that he resented t•he attitude of khe subJect pron~~
owner that it was encumbent upon the adjacerst residents to contact him about the parking
sltuat(on; that he would respectfully request that thF Planning C~mmission deny t~~
subJect request for exemption from the Code or~ the basis that such an exemption w~.uld not
uphold the lntearity of the r.eighborhood and would not be in the best (nterest of the
ciilzens of the City of Anahelm.
Mr. Wayne Lemons appearecl before thc; Planniny Commisslon and statecl he had been a resident
at 2~~2G Ward Terrace, Anaheim. far appr~ximately eight years; that (he Pxplalned) there
was an orderly way of doing t!:!^~t= th~~r~ wi~h no personal affront to the young lad(es who
were making the s~bJect request, the majority of the persons present at thls public
hearing were past the wonderful ~ige of 1~3 Ca ~2 ye:ars but could all reminisce abaut th+~t
~~onderfu) time in their 1{ves when they were very active socially; that tliere was a tlme
and place for every~hinc~ -- tl~at; for the g(rls, the tirt~e was ric~ht for activity, but the
place was wrong; that the subJect locatlon was a family-type neir~hborhood and investments
~ ~
MIIJUTr5~ f,ITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Uctobar 29, 1975
COIJDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0, 1575 (~ontinued)
~
~
75-513
were lnvoived; that he ~Iis~~r~e~l th~~t there were ~~ny misundcrstnn~llne~s~ becnuse the
nelyhuorhood h~d knrn+led~~blc r~sldent~ and were not antl-sorority; that the residents
hnve to speculete on future behavl~ur and hellevf~d th~:re would be f~irther problema
Inv~lved lf the prop~sed use was ap~+rovr.~l; and that~ In cor~cluslon, the subJecr. locatfon
wAS the wronc~ place for n sor~rlty.
Mr. Dill [hrle~ 2'~11 East Romneya Drlve~ Anaheim, a~~pearecl bePore tfie Plannin~ Commission
and stat~sd he was ~~fff l Iated with COAI. anci IC~DCRG and coiild spenk Pr~m a homeowner's
polnt of vlew~ is i p~rt of IcEnEa~~ and as an individu~~l part(cipant in the ncighborhood;
th.at he knew some of the sorarlty sisters fr~m their hic~h sch~ol clays when he t~+uhht them
at Loara 111gh Schon) and they werc of thc hlghest Integrity; tl:at ha Felt lhe problem w~s
one of lack of communication; Chat i~~e would assumf~ tl»t tlie subJect house could
accomm~date a famlly of f(ve to efgf~t persons~ wfth three or four heinc~ children; that it
was possible to h~ve ~ vcry llvely famlly llvinn at the hr,use with four or ffve children
much like h~vln~ the sAme n~unber ~f 4orarity sisters living ther-• and befn9 referred to as
a sorority house rather than where flve ladies lived; that he dlr. believe there had been a
problem in that the ~irls hacl nnt communlcaCed in the minner th~~y should have; that the
n~eet~nc~s of the organizatlon shuuld be held at other f~~cilities; that any residence was a
home and there sliould be ~art(es, but in the numhers relar.eci to a norrn~~l residence; that
perhaps the problems could be rsolveJ by apprav(ng the subJ~ct ar~~llcatlon f~r a tfine
perlocl af slx to ntne monCl~~ to see if tlie girls c~uld conform to the neighborhood
requirements and improve their public relattons; that at the e~id of the trial pcriod~ the
decisian would be easler to make; ancl he would encourage a six-manth testing periocl.
Mrs, Pat Chevaller~ 2.~~7.~ War~i Terrace, Anaheim~ appeared before ttie Planninn Commission
and taok except.ion to Mr, F.hrle's st~~tements~ scating that his argument sliould noY carry
any we(ght in the matter• since he d(d not have an invest~nent and would not stand to see
his prope~ty decrease in ~•alue if the proposal was approved; th~t one Sunday morning w!ien
her family was leaving for• church~ sh~ had counted approximately 27_ cars parked on Sunkist
Street and Ward Terrace; that she had seen groups ~eavincl the subject properCy carrying
sleeping bags on Hieekdays; that on Sund~y aft rnoons thc:re haci been standiny room only on
the lawn nf the subJect property; that she did n~t think the sorori:y would have a problem
flr~liny a t~rge house close to the college campus; that a family would be a better
solution for use of the subJect pr~perty; rhat~ tn talking with otliers in the
nelghborhood, she had found only one persc~n a,iio was not opposed t~ the proposed use; that
if the propo~CU use was permitteci in the s~~bject area, people would yo elsewhere to huy
tf~elr homes and, if tlie exlstin9 property ovmers needed to sell their homes, they would
probably have to drop the pr(ces considerahly; an~ that tf~e residents wfshed the sororitY
we11 but ln another neie~hborhood,
Mr, Richard Robinson~ 124 Normindy Court~ Anaheim~ appeared befare the Planninq Commission
and stated no one was chillengin~ the intP~rity of the s~rority giris; that the five girls
currently livin~ at the subject house were not the five th~t would br_ living there in *_he
future anci there woulci be a c~nst~nt turn over with potentially more and new problems;
thai.~ during "rush week" the tr~ffic situ~tion in the neighborhood was really tough; that
some of tha: nelghbors were unable to get fnto their driveways; that since the applica:ior.
for the use had been filed~ the giris had toned thelr activities down; that if the
proposal was ~pprov~d, the ho~ise could be used by other sarorittes in the future and that
klnd of turnnver also bothered tfie residents; and that he would not Ilke to see a
prececlent set by approving the use,
Ms. Ramona Tempkin appeared before the Ptannin~ Commission in behalf of the petitioner and
stated she was a mernber of ihe House Corporation which actecl as ~ landlord to the soror~ty
chapters and provi~led suitable housing; that the ~ororities took great pride in thelr
houses; that the lota Upsil~n Chapter of Oelta 'Leta Sororlty had mo~~ed frnr~ t~~+o other
locations and ha~i good recommendations; that r.he owner of tfie subJect property 11ved
immecliately next door; that she had a letter From a former neighbor~ Donald and Earlene
Walker of ~rea~ who Favored the group. ?hereupon~ Ms. Tempkin read the letter fr~m the
Walkers. Ms. TempL.in continu~d by stating th.,t two or more advisors we-e present at each
meetinc~ held by the sorority and the meetin~s were presently being held at a savings and
loan bullcling; that there were house rules to cor.trol the conciuct of inembers and gu~sts;
that nn alcoholic oeverages were ~llowed ~n the premises; tf~at once a year the sororities
held Pantiellenic r~ush for new members; and that the sorority was prepared t~ be goo~
tenants and good netghbors.
Mr. Barry Woodward, Assistant Dean at Caltf~rn~a State Univcrsity at Fullerton~ appeared
before the Planning Commission ~~nd~ ln rebutt~l to some ~f the comments of the opposltion
~
~ ~
MI~~U7E.ri~ C17Y PLANtJING COMMISSION~ October 29~ 1975
CONDiTIONAL USE PCRMIT N~. 157~ (Conti~ued)
75-5~~+
regardin~ traffi~ pr•oblems~ speculaticm about the conduct of the ~irls In the future~ ond
th~ ~ielclht ~f soclal actlvlty~ etc.~ he stAted the sorority ciirls had a 3,1 gpA~ opposed
to ~n over All university 2.~ 9Pa and~ therhfore, werr. ~hove-evcragu students; tha~ the
glrls were Involae~l~ IaSt year, in ~ever~~l c<~mmun(ty service eff~~rts and thelr servlces
needed to b~ tak~n Into cr,nsi~ler~~ti~~n; and th~~t, alth~uc~h hr. W15 not a residcsnt in the
sub.je~t nelghhorhood~ thls was Che kincl of activity he woulci Iike t~ have ~oing on in hls
own neiqhborhood.
Mr, E3ob Fit~gerald, ~~~ Normandy Court, AnAheim~ appe~red bcfore thc Plannfng Cornmisslon
and stated if h~ had kn~wn lhere was z sorority In the neighborhoocl, he would not h~ve
paid as much for his home ~~s hc did; th~t he wou1d not Ilke to se~ the property values
dropped by $3~~~~ t~ $5~~~~~; th~t ~ppro~~al of the rec~uest might seC a precadent for other
similar organl~atlons if they wante:ct t~ come Int~ the neigf~bor~~oc>d; th~t~ rectard(nc~ the
testinc7 perlod sug~este~l earlier~ the sorority ha~1 already been ttiere two months and that
was sufffclent testin~ timc, In his c~pinion; and that th~re wer~ approximately 7~
si~~natures on the petition In protest to approval of the proposal,
In rehuttal~ Mr. Co~c st~ted the {~roperty was fr~ntirn on a main h~qhway and hr: had
problems keeping tenants9 havincl had Pour ten~nts durine~ the past year; th~t the. traffic
problems had urset the neighhorhooci~ hovrever, lf the residents ha~l contacteci hlm as the
property owner~ or the House Corporation, the problems would have been correctc:d
Immedlately; that he did n~t understand how the proposed use cnulcl lower the value of the
prnperty ln the nPighborh~od to the extent previously mentinned, particularly since
Sunkist Street was ~ Jor highway; that the subJect property v~as across the streeC fr'om
some apartments; and that the ~orority wa~ plannin~ to lower thP activ(tles at the house
~nd move sald activities tc~ the banking facility.
TI~IE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
In respnnse to questloning by Commissioner 8arnes~ Mr. Cox stated his Farents owned the
property next door to the sub}ect pr~perty and~ tl~erefor~, there would be some control if
problems came up ~nci the owners made aware,
Commissloner Barnes then n~ted that she had vlsited L'he area late Sunday evenin~ and there
appeared to ne a traffic problem since she counted about 21+ cars spread out in the
neighborhood from the subject property; thai the City dld h~ve a ger~eral plan which cali~d
for lew denslty tn particular areas and she be~ieved~ in this case, that the proparty
val~ies would probably go down; that the subJect property was a good dtst~r~ce from the
university campus anci she was opposed to 9rantin~ the subJect conditio~al use permit.
Chafrman Pro 7empore Morl?y notecl that he sympathized with the sorority anc' he could see
why the girls wantecl to stay in the nice neighborhood~ not only from the standpoint of
security; tliat he could a~so symp~thiye with the neighboi•s wh~ ~veci to the neighborhaod
wlth the ldea that it was single-family and they could reise their families there; arid
that the traffic ^roblem~ were apparent.
Commissloner Jol~nson notec! that one of the first actions of tf~e sorority should be to f~t
into a cortmunity smoother than th~y had during the p~st two months; that commenrs had been
received from idealists anrl also from people wf~o 1ivFd ln the ar~a who were d~a'ing ~~Ith
the facts anci H~hat was act~ially goin~ an; that he resented tt~e notation in the leCter from
Mr. Sol Sflva ~hat "1 sincerely hope you ~eclin~ :his house as a sornrity house, and have
t!~em rent It to a wholesome fami ly insteacf"; tF;- _, in his own opinion~ tlie sororlty girls
were wholesume, however, he a:ould encourage them to find a house r.loser to the university
campus.
Cummlssloner Herbst noted that some ot tf~e property rn~mers (n the area had xheir life
lnvestments ln thelr homes :~nci the reclings were different for those peoplP who cou~d move
anytirt+e they wanted to; that the sorority had lntruclecf into the neighbonc~~od; that he was
very aware of sorority and fratcrnity ltfe and evsn under the best controls, there would
always be n lot ~f trrffic bec~use friends Just came un~nvited; that~ because the area was
residentlal~ the proposa' would be an intrusion upon the charicter of the neigh6orhood and
an Intrusion wltki th~ pr<:blems th~t surro4nded a sorority or frnternity uncler the best
conditions; and the ri~hts oP the neiclhhorhood shouicl come first.
It was noted that the Director c~f the Planntng Department had determined that the propased
activity fell wtthtn the ~lefinitl~n of Section 3.n1~ Class 1, of thc Clty of Anahelm
... ~~w
~ ~ ~
MINlITES, CITY PLANNING CQMMI~SION~ O~tobar 29~ 1975 75•515
CONUI'~IONAL US[: PERM_____.IT NQ. 1575 ~L~~~~clnund)
Guicle,lin~s to the kequlrements fnr on E~virunmentnl Imprct Repcirt an~1 wes, therefore~
categorlcally exempt from the re~~ulrrrtx~nt to P(Ic ~~n EIR,
Commissi~ner Morla~f offered Resolutlon No. PC75-27~ and mc~ved for its pnssage er,d
aaoptio~~, th.it P~tltian f~r Can~litlonal Use Permit No. 1575 ba ond hcroby (a dc~led an the
basls th:+t the proposed use would be cilfPfc~~1[ t~~ control at the subJoct locatlon with
respec. tc. piirklnc~ ancl nolse Impact ~1~'nerated 6y tho use; Ancl~ [herefore, would be an
undesirabla {ntruslon t~ l!~e estnhl(sh~~ resld~ntial ~:hflracr.~,r ~f the neighborhood. (Seo
Resolutl~ri Boak)
Qn roll call, the Foregoln~. resolutlon wAS pi~~5ed by the followin~ vote:
AYES: G~"1M1`~IU~~f.RS: BARPIES~
NOES: COMMISSI~''fRS; NOtIE
ABSEI~T: CnMMISSIf1N[RS: '1'OL,\R~
HER(1ST~ JOIINSOtI~ KfM~, MORI,EY
FARAl10
VAR I/1NCF Nn. 7.7h1 - PUBI I C HEAR I Nf,, ANT~N J, NI~U MAR I ETT/1 M. RUPP~~IER ~ I uhF, Lory
Avenuo~ Anaheim~ Ca. 92~,(17. (Owners); reque.ting WAIVER OF
FIAXIMIIM L~T CnVf.RA~E T~ CoNSTRUC'f A H~USE ADDITIn~~ ~n property
described as; A rectangularly~•shaped p:~rcel of land consistinc~ of approx(mately ~'.1)
acre having a frontacle of <~~proximatcly 7~S feet on the south sidc oP Lory Avenue~
approximately 1`il feet northwcst of Klama ~treet, and further de,cribed as 144G Lory
Avenue. Proper~y presenl•ly classified kS-5no~ (P.ESIDEfJT1/11., SI~~GIE-F1IMILY) ZO~~F,
No one fndica~ed thair presence In oppositlon to ~uhJect petitior.
Although thc Staf~ Rep~rt to the Plann(n~ Commisslon ~'~t~d October 29~ 1y75~ w~5 not read
at the public hearin~~ said Staff Report ls referred to and ~,~~de a part of the mtnutes.
Mrs. Mariett~ Ruppaner, the petitioner, appe~red before the Planninn Commissfon ~~nd stated
t-ie subJect property consistt;~ of ipproxlmately 50~o square feet ar i$ uf the l~t w~s
presently covered; Lhat the ~roposat riould acld approx(rtiately 5~ lat coverage toward the
rear of the propert-y for a kitch~n add(tlon; that thelr present k?tchen was approximately
9 feet by (0 feet in si~e with a'~~~ut 3 feet of counter space; that the size of her {`amily
had increased since she purcha5ed the home ancl they neede•1 mcre space; that the room
edditlon w~~utd serve as a family ro~,n which wou1J not be visibl~ from the front oF t~e
house and saSd addition would be in I<eepin~~ wlth the present ~rchitPCture and design of
the house.
TH~ PUI3LIC HFARING WAS i.LQSED
Commissic~ner Nerhst noted that tl~e suhJec: dwelling was constructed under Cade
requ(rement~ spec(fying h~$ lot caveraae ar,d~ on that basis~ the request cou~.i be
considered minimal.
In i•esprn~se to questlorlnc~ by Commissi~ner Herhst, Mrs. Ruppaner incl?c:ated that the
neighbars dl~ not c~ppose the proposal, but were in favor o~ it. Mrs Ruppancr ~'urther
staced that she ha~i :aken I~er plans to a builder who suc~~e:,ted increasin~ the room :Ize by
an addliional approxlmately 2 Feet in one di;~;c:tion fcr interior decoratinc~ putRoses and~
therefore~ she was reauest(ng to add approximately :!33 square feet -•at1~~r than 209 square
fc:et ta the home.
It was noted that tha D(rector of the Planninq Department had cieterminc~i xh~t the proposed
activlCy feli w?thin the dpffnition of Section 3.~1, Class 1, oF the Cit•y of Anaheim
G~~Idelines to the Requlrements for ~n Environmental Impact Report and was, thercfare~
cateqorlc~lly exempt fror~ the requirement to file an EIR,
Commissione. He st offered Resolution No. PC75-221 and .naved for 1[s passage and
adoption~ that Petition for b'ariance N~. 27~~1 be and hereby is g~~a~ted fo~ a house
additlon not to exce~,d 233 sc~uare feet or ~~2~ maximum lot covPraye~ sald approval being
granted on thc: basis that~ althouyh the present Code specif;es that the maximum lut
co~~erage 1 n the RS-5~~1~, Zane sna? 1 not exceeci 3;$ of tn~ 1 ot, area f~r dwe 1: ~ ng un i ts w I th
three bedrooms or less, the sunJect dwelli~~ was constructed uncler Code requirements
speclfying u0~ iot cov~ra~e ~nd, therefore~ the re4uest fs cie'cermin,.l to be minimal; rnd,
furthPrmure~ that similar r~qucsts have previously been gr~nted by the Planning
•
• ~
MI~~UTES~ CIYY PLIINNING COMMISSIAN~ actober 29~ 1A75
VARiA~ICE NQ. 27~) (Cont~nued)
Commissl~n; eAld Appr~vnl hoin~ grnntecl subJoct t~ the InterderartmentAl Commlttr_e
recommanclati~ns. (See Resolutfon Bo~~)
On roll cbll~ the foreqoinn resolution was pnssecl hy tfie foll~wing v~~tc:
AYES; CQMNIS51(1NERS: dARNfS,
Nf)F.S: CQMMISSIO~ltPS: NOtl[
ABSfNT: COM~11SS1~~ltRS; T~LAR~
H~RDS'~ JnH~ISnI~~ KII~G~ MORLFY
FARI~IlO
75~5~
VARIAl1CE I~O. 27~+2 w PUf~~.IC HEARING. V1ILCNCIA BANK. c/o [dwarcl E. Schmldl~ 123~ North
~ 1{arbor Boulevard, Full~rkon~ Ca. 92f~~2 (Owner); r~~qucsting W~IVCR
OF M~X I MUM S I G~! 11REl1, TO CON57Rl1CT A FREF•STAND I ~IG S I GN :,n
property descr(bed as: An Irregularly-shaped parcel ~f lan~i cunslst(ng of approxl-
makely 1.3 acres located at the northeask cor~~~~r of La Palma Avenue and KraemPr Place~
havlncl approxtmatc front~~es ~f 22-~ fcet on the north slde. ~f La Pal~rw avenue and
2fin feet on the east side of Kraemer Place~ and further descrfhed as 30Ei1 EasC
La Palma Avenue, Pr~~pcrty pr~sently class(flecl ML (INDUSTRI~I., LIMITEII) Z0~lE,
Nu one Indlcated thPl; presence in oppositlon to suhJect pet(tion,
Although the Staff Feport to the Plannine~ Commission dat~:d October 29~ 1975~ was not reod
at the pubilc hearfn~, said Staff Report is refcrred t•o and macle a part of the minutes.
Mr. Edward E, Sclim'-1t, the pc^titionei~ a~~~e~red before the Planninq Canmisslon and statsd
thc b~nk w~s i.~~t(tloninct `or an Increa;~, in signing to 20~ square feet Par each side or a
two-faceci siyn; th~t the requeste~~ v;,r;ance was basecf on severai factors beinq that the
vicinity of the use was prlmarlly l~ia~:c_rial and the builciings* in qeneral, were large;
th~t the si~r~inn was needed to di ffer~.~ciate the b~nk from other bul l~finc~s in the area;
that the subj~ct bank was the only bank t:~ the ~~rea and neede~l adeqiiake iclentificatt~n;
thdt a servicr statlon ~:~as situated on the corner and, along with other bu ldings~
hinclernd the o~,er all visibility of the subJect hank; and other buildir~ys in the area had
si~nilar largEr sigrs.
THE PUaLIC fiEARirIG 41~S CLOSED.
rCommissioner lierhst questi~ned how f~r tl~e petitioner felt the vehicul~r tr~ffic should be
able to see their si~n ar.d/or why it sl~ould be so large; a~hereupon~ Mr. Schmidt stated tha
bank was in a lieavy in~lustrial araa with no commercial traffic and the identtflc4tton was
desirable. Mr. Schmldt further stateci i:hey w~ 'd be ~llowed to have the siyn if i~ w~ere
located to the rear of the setback adJacen* tu La Palma Avenue.
Comn(ssioner Herbsl noted thax banks were allowed in an industrlal arta providing they
serviced tfie ind~strial area; whereupon, Mr. Sc,hmidt stated the i rent was to adeyuately
identify the bank since the aver~~~ builcling helght in the area was 2~ feet, C~anmissioner
Nerbst then noted tliat he had cion~ l,usiness in ~~i inclustrial area for 25 years ~nd had
never done busi~ess with a bar{: because of their signing; that once someone kneh where a
bank was loc~ted, the stgning was super•tluo~as, providiric~ the ban~ ciicl its part witti
banking servtces; that the s~.b)ect use should adhere to the Sign Ordin~nce~ since he did
not feel that the bank shou'~ have signinc~ visible f~•~m tha adJacert freeway, or have
billboard-type signin~; a~c1 th~t the banking servicPs pre~ided at th~~ banl< should draw ths
appropriate bustness at *_he subJect loc.atlon.
Mr, Schmld; steted lif5 Job with the bank was ma-ketinc~ and he felt that the pr~>pos^d sign~
werP ~~ot out ~'` the ~uestlon sii~ce tha bank was in operation in the area; that ~ qArclay's
Bank had a sign iarner, uncle~r some I<ind of ^.ircumetance~~ than th~ ^ropu~e; signs; that
the ad~jacent ShPll servlce ~tation sign was in excess cf 6~ feet hiqh; a~;d that t'~ev were
request~ng to have a sign that wo~il~i be visib~e fram Le Palma Avenue for traffic
traversing in a west~rly direction.
Chalrman Pro TemporP h~~rley noted that by rnoving tF~e sign bac': 5~ feet Pram the propert;~
21ne~ It would be per~ritted by Code.
In respanse t~ questioring by Commiss(uner Kinn~ Mr, Schmidt sta~ed a 25~-sG.are foot ~r
140-square foot monument type ~i~n woul~l be fire~ ae~ttiettcal~y speaking, but wou1~1 not
promate the bank In *,.he area sin:e a 5-foc~ ~h sign was not really visible untll the
traff ic, w:,s upon it, Cor,: ?ssi~nc:r King than nc,~ .cl that th~e re~,utation of the bank should
~
l.~J
MINUTES~ CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION, October 29~ 1975
VARIANCE N0. ?~4? (Contlnued)
~
~
75-517
draw business ~~nrl that he ~11ci not understan~l hc~w r~ lar~e sign would cr~atc nny addltlonal
business.
Commiseloner Johnson n~ted that he aqreE~l wlth Commiss(oner Herhst that the Slqn Ordinnnco
sh~~uld b~ adhered to sinco there wer~ ~ app~rent qo~d reasons to gr~nt ~~n exceptlon to
the requlr~mon~s. Commisgionr.r Herhst .~dded that nn hardshtp hnd been demcrostrated by the
petltloner; thot the bankinn lnclustry r~~prese~~tr,d the r.llte ficld ~f ~n area and if the
Slqn OrdtnAnce was nhere~l t~ and a good ;ob was done with the bankin~ servlces ~~rov~ded~
the need for the sl~n w~i~l~1 ~,r~h~~hly be non-existenC, Mr. Schm(dt then st~tad the bank
was a servlce o~eratlnn an~l nnt an in~lustrlnlly-~riented operaClon,
(C was noted that the Direct~~r of the Flnnnlrg De~artmerit had det~rmineJ ;hat the nropoeed
actlvlty fall withln thc definitl~m ~f Socti~n 3.~1~ Class 11~ of Cfty of Anahelm
Guldelines to the Requirements For ~n Environmental Impact Report .. I w~~-s, thcrefore,
categorically cxempt fram the requirement t~ fllc: an EIR.
Commissioner Johnson ~ffered Resolutlon ~Jo. PC7~-227. ancl moved for its Fassage and
adoptl~n. that Petit(on for V~riance No. 2~h7. be and herehy is denled, denyinct the request
fc+r walvcr of the maxi~~~um slgn area on thc bas(s that the proposed slyn fs fr~tended to
advertise a bank which was permitted in c~nnectfon wlth a prnv(ous zonin~ action (Varlanco
p1o, 27q2)~ at whlcl~ time it was indicated th~it the size of the future free-standfng sfgn
would be In conformance with indusLrial code standards; :hat the bank at the subJect
industrlal locatlon ls Intended, ~s approved~ t~. pr(marily sErve commerce and industry
and~ therefore~ a sign wtiicli is larger tlia~ pcrmltted In ,~n Industrial zone would tend to
generate buslness with Lhe gener~i) public; that tlie proposed si~n w~uld be permissible lf
relocated to the rear of Yhe parking-landscape setback; an~l tiia[ the petitianer did not
demonstrate that a hardship woulcl he created if said waiver were not granted, (See
Resolutlon Book)
On roll call. the foreg~ing resolution was pissed by the follo~~ing v~te:
AYES : C~F1M I S~ I QNEitS : B11ktIFS ~
NQ~S : Cf1MM I SS I O~IERS : N~PJE
AASFriT: cnM~~issic~rirr,s: TOLAR~
HERf~ST~ J~II~JSOPI, M,ItJG~ MORLCY
FI1RII~J(1
VARlA~ICE N0. 271i1+ - PURLIC 11fARl~lG, M/1Ri ItJ ROfISQPl, 21(~ N~rth Manchester Avenue,
Anaheim~ Ca, 92~'.Ol (Owne~•); requesting WAIVER OF PER111TTED USE5~
TO ESTAdLISfI A DRAPERY MANUF/~C1'URING FACILITY on property described
as: An irregularly-shapecf parcel of land c~nsisting of approximately .(~1 acre ~~aving a
fronta3e of approximately `~0 feet on the east side of Manchester Avenue, having a maxi°
mum depth c.f approximately 1~+0 (ect, being located approximately 2f~ feet north of the
centerline of Lincoln Avenue, anJ further• descrihed as 216 P!~rth Manchester Avenue.
Property presently classifiecl CG (COMMERCIAL~ GENERAL) ZO-IE,
No one Indicated their presence in opposition to subJect petiti~n.
Mr. Martin Ron~~n~ the petiti~ner~ appeared before Yhe Planning Cammisslon and stated he
had recefved ~ ~otice that he was in diolar.ion of the Code and he wa~ not aware prior to
that ttme that he was nut in compliance with the Code; th~t the subJect c!rape.ry
manufacturing facility was opprated on a very low-key hasis with no signing or
ad~~ertising; that he had haen (n operaCion at the sub,ject location for seven or eight
years; that :'ecently one of his lenants w~s moved out by ,e~~l means and the :;ubJect
petition v~as a tesult of one of that tenant's r.omplaints; and that the subject use ~,~as not
~own-grading to the neighborhood.
TIIE PURL I C HCAR i ~JG 'vlA5 CLOSF.D.
In respo~sc to questloninc~ by Chairman Pro 7empore Morley~ Mr. Ronson stated he had three
ernployees at the sitP; and that, reryirding fire hazards, the f~cilitles were checkecl
regularly by ir,vestigaturs in connec~ion with his fire ins~r~nce policy. Mr. Ronson
further stated that since the tenant was removed legally~ the subJect establishment had
been audlted several times but there hacl never bPen any probleMS in rhat respect.
Commissioner Kin~ noted that it appeared !tie su~Ject use was n~t doing anything harmful t~
the environment. Commissinncr Nerbst r~ot~.~ that tF~~ area was in a ~t~te of trar~sition
~ ~
^~
•
MINUIES, CITY PLAIJNING COMMISSION, Octc~ber 29. ~975 7'-51~
VARIANCE NU. 2~4A (Cocit Inunr.l)
with a combinatlon of in~lustrlal and comnxrcial uses, and thc~ pr~>p~se~l use appcsrad to be
a 11ght Industrlal use,
In response tQ hU°ratolib~~ theCuseinndnnertKof~tf~eir busfnesstwas~'wlthrcontrac[orseAVy
truck trafflc qene y
it was noted thAt thes Dlr~~ctor of tho Plannfng Departn~ent had dct rmined thnt the propo&ed
a:.tivlty fell within thc ~leflnlt(on of Section ? ~1~ Class 1, ~f ~he City of Anahelm
Guldclin~ss ta the Requ(rements f~r ~n Envtrur,men~~~l ImpACt Re~~ t and wrs~ cherRfo~e~
categoricAlly exempt fro~„ the requlremPnt to fi le an EIR.
Commissloner Herbst uffered Reaoluti,n No. PC75-223 and nbved for Its paseage and
adoptinn, th~t Petition for Varlance No. ?.7~+~~ he and hereby (s c~ra~t~d tn establish
wholesaling ancl manuf~~cturing of ~Irip~rtes in the CG Zone on the ba~is th~t the p~oposed
use is ~leemed to be an approprir,tr. use in the subJcct are~~ wl~erc n comhlnntlon o}
industri~~l and comme~~cta1 uses and r_ones are presently located; that the subJeet ~~sr. Is
compatlbie with surrouncling uses; ~nd, furthermc~re~ tliat the petitloner (ndtcated therG
was no fieavy truck trAffic generatecl by the use. (See Reso~ution Bookl
On roll cal l~ the fore~oinc~ resolut(on was p.+ssed by the followlne~ vate;
AYES: COMMiS510~lERS: B~RNES~ HERt3ST~ JOIINS~Il~ KING~ MORLGY
NOF.S : C~MM) SS i ~NERS : NONE
A[~SEt~T: COMMISSIONFRS: TQI.l1R, FAMtJO
VARIAPlCF N0. 27~~5 - P~IPLIC NEARING, HAROLD SEWELL~ P. 0, Box ~~77`_-~ Anaheim, ~a, 92~03
(f~ner) ; HERItEP,T NADEL 6 ASSOC I ATFS ~ 16?.5~ Ventura Boul eva rd. N31 ~~
Encino, Ca. 913~~f, (Agent) y reyue;stinn WIIIVFR OF MININ~UM DIMENSIONS
OF PARKIUG 5PACES TO ESTADI_ISfI 13 COMPACT CAR SPACES on prapcrty described as : A
rectangularly-shaped parcel oP land consistinc~ nf apprc~ximately 1,1~ acres l~eaLed at
the northwest corner of Carbon Creek Channel an~ Eucli ~treet~ having a frontage of
approxlmately 1(16 feet on tlie west side of Euclld Strcet, havin~ a maxlmum depth of
approxfmately ?.77 feet~ belncl located approximately 230 feet south of the centerllne
of Glenoaks Avenue~ and further descrloe~l as 721 North Fuclld Street, Prape~ ty
presently classifled CL (CONMf.RCiAL~ L~MITFD) Z.ONE.
It was noted that the subJect ~etition was incom{^letely advertised in the lec;al notite uP
public hEarir,^„ rhereby necessltat(ng a readvertisement.
Commissloner King o~ `ereJ a motion, seconded by Cc+mmissioner Barnes ancl i•IOTI ON CIIRRIED
fo~rtViriancerNo~r27~5bbenandbhereh~ isacontinuedlto therPlanningCCommi{ssion~meetingtofion
November 10, 1975, for re~dvertisemenk.
(NOTE: The foregoing action on Varlance No. 27~F5 was taken at che be~inning of the
meeting.)
VARIANC;' N~, 27~+6 - PUBLIC HEARING, J01~~~ R~TTER A~~D MARY M. HOOVER~ aka M~RY M.
PNRRISfi~ 1919 Alsuna Lane~ Huntington Beach~ Ca, y2~48 (Owners);
requestin9'ARIVER OF PERMI'iTED USES TO ESTABLI~N Ai~ AUT0~~10DILE
DIAGNOSTIC AND SERVICE CEN7ER on property c~escribed as: k rectanguiarly-shaped parcal
of land conslsttng of apprciximat^ly .~~3 acre located at the narthwest corner of La
Palma Avenue and Br~okfiurst Street, having approximatP front~qes o~` 3~a feet c>n the
north side of I.~e Palma Avenue and 15~ f^•ei an the wesC side of Erookhurst St~-eet, and
further described as 11~7 North Brook~wrst Street. Property presently class ifted
CG (COMMERCIAL, GtNERAL) ZONE,
No one Indicated their pres~nce in opposition to subject petitian.
Although the Staff Rep .•t to tl~e Planninq Commission dated October 29, 197~ ~ was not read
at the pu~~ l ic heartng, said Staff Report i s referred to and made a part of the rnln~~tes.
a
~
~~
~
e
MINU7ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOFI~ October 2q~ 1975 75-5~9
VARIA~ICE N0. 2746 (f.ontiniacd)
Mr. Tim 0'i3rien~ the acleni P~r the pr.tltloner~ ~~ppearcd before the Plannln~ Comnisslon tn
enswer ~uestic>ns re~tardinn the prop~sal.
TNE PUALIC 11~~RING WAS CLOSF.f~.
In ~esponse to quesli~~nln~ by Camm~s~loner King, Assistant Zonin~ Supervisor Allan beum
advieed that Ca1TrAns had appr~ved the twa exlsting clriveways along the Brookhurst Strent
fr~ntage for thc~ subi'~ct s~:rvtce st.~tion sicr.; ~ncl that the proposal wns for e use other
than e service static~n slte. Deputy City Attc~rney Frank Lowry further adv~sed that the
sub]ect property was the sub,Ject of a re<:er~t court he~rin,y ln connecti~n wlth a
condemnation actlon~ At whlch the Planninc± Conrnis~lorers haci been req~iesteci to testtfy.
Commissloner Herbst inqu-red if the potitloner would have any obJect(ons t~~ clo~ing o~f
the drlveway on Bre~okhurst Street which VlAS closest tc~ the intersectl~n; whereupon~ Mr.
Q'Brlen st~ted he was the lessee of the pr~perty and could not make thc determt~iation to
close off a c1r(veway to the property; that~ however~ rather than ~losing off the drtveway
by contlnutng the curb~ gutter~ etc.~ and bearing thes cost for same, he would suggest thaC
the drlveway remaln an~l that landsc~pln9 be lnst~lled Across the ope.nln~. Commissioner
Herbst noted that, since the use o~` tl~e pr~pr.rty woulcl be chan~eci if tlie proposal was
epproved, the Planning Commissi~n would request that CI'~e service stc~tion use be
tarminat~d; that~ (f lanciscaping was allowed to close off the drivewa/~ the remalning
apror, would be an area where cars c~u1d park~ creat3ng an undes(rahle situatlon; that by
changing the ~~• - anci with n~ ir~te~ .lon of convertincl back t~ the servlce station use~ the
drivaway should be closecl off corr•~ctly; and tl~at if a servlce station u.~ w,,~ ~roposed ln
th ~ future~ said driveway woulcl be r~quire~{ to he furtf~er away from the interspctlon.
Mr. Q'6rlen then stated that landscaping across the driveway woulcl accompiish thelr
purpase and, if the proposed use was terminated in the Future~ the landscaping could be
remove~subdecitc roperty~would p~obablyCo4qulre~thatHtheS:~rivewayrlnnquestFinn beyclost,.~se
uf th ~ P
off.
~esponse to quest~~nir~g by Commissioner King~ Mr. 0'Brien stated the improvements to
t,,.. existing buildinct woul~i be Identic~l t~ their service center on State College
6s+~~'evard~ i.e., repatnted~ reblacktopped~ roll-up doors inst~lled to replac;P the exlsting
mesh-type etc.; that tF~erP was existing brick work on the sub~ject buildinq; that the
str'uekura would mcet all ur the Bulidin :ode requlrements; th:~t the gasoline tanks would
b~e remaved; and thac they would get away from the old gas st~tion ~~pearanGe.
Nirs. Mary Hoover~ the property owner. ~ppeared before tl~e Planning Commfssion and stated
she ha~ been badly hurt by the recent cundertnation proceedings; ancl that the State fiad
pror~~lsed her the use of the two drive~.~ays on Braokhurst Street for future use. Mrs.
Heover read a letter Frepared by h~r attorney, Mr. N. H. Smedegaard~ as follows:
"Octob~r 27, 1975
Anaheim Planning Commtssion
City ~f Anaheim
Anaheim~ California 92~~?
RE : Your Var i ance Iro. 27~~~
Gentlemen:
We are ~ittorneys for Mrs. Parish who awns the property at 1107 North Brookhurst
Street.
Our cllent pre viously had this property leased to Texaco as an operating
service station. The State of Cal(~ornia condemned portions of the prop~rty
and paid our cl ient on tt~e '~aans~lthaoneh(1)rdrivewayaonn a PalmarAvenuewiand
be aliowed or the pro~erty~ y~
two (2) dri~ ~ways on Eirookhurst Street.
The second driveway on Brookl~urst Street as constructed by the State Hl~hway
Department were approved in the letter of Mr. James Maddox~ the Clty
Engineer, which is er~cl~sed with thls letter.
~ • ~
75~520
MI NUTES ,, C I TY FLANN 1 NG C~~t~i41 ~S I ON, October 29 ~ 1975
VAft1ANCE N0. 27N6 (Continued)
If the City doPS nat ~~low both cirivcw+ays t~ remaln thcn tha condemnatinn
lewsult wtll hav~ to !e reopened.
You are rospr.ctf rec~uested to approve the vArlance wlth nll drtveways
to continue as they nc~w exist, Mrs. ra lsh wi11 Pres^•nt thls letter to you
in person because I cann~~t be presenr. •~t ~he he~ring.
~h2~nk you for y~~~r cooper~~t ton,
Very truly ynurs,
RUTA~I s TUCKER
siP~. H. Sme~fegaard"
Coinmissioner Herbst noterl th.it the Stat~ pro~~ably alluwed the ~Irlveways b~cause the
proper:y was a service station site; that the loss oP the drivew~y shnulci not hurt t'ie
proposecl use ~t ~11; tli:-t acces~ fr<,m the drlveway was d;,n~er~~us; thr~t, if landscaplne~ was
perml+ted at th~ present tlme t~~ close aff thc Jriveway ln questton~ thc use of sald
ittc<1 slnc.c the driveway was s~mpiy not
drlv~~ ,,y For nnother use later on m:~y nnt he perr~
sar' •, that thc ~.Iriveway was lhere by "granc;father ri~hts" fnr thc; service statlan use
only; that old service station s(tes were a h119f~c to the community ancl there was not much
th~~t the buildtnqs could be used for; that m~ny uses would require that the buildings be
torn oc~:n; and that tl~e Plannin~ Commiss(~n woul~i he sliawlnc~ the pet(tioner prePerence if
the drlveway in question was illowecl to r~main ~pen, since said cirivew~,y was not s~fe to
the health and welPa-r. of the citizens drlving by the property.
Mrs. Muover then sta*.ecl th~t r,hrough the c~ndemn~tion proceeciings she was not g(ven e~ 3h
compensation for the toss of the driveway; and that she haci a cholce of pickincl up ano~~~er
service statl~~~ tenan*. for the pi•nperty. Corrm!ssi~ner Nerbst ~'~dded th<it when the use was
chan~~~~l, ~he F~,nning Commission would want the pronerty to c~nPorm to the re~uirements
placed on other service st:+tio,i converslons in the City. Commi~sioner Johns~n concurred
that thP Inss of the drivewiy shnuld not hurt the suhJect property,
In response to questloning hy Commissioner Herbst~ Zoning Supervlsor Annikc Santalahtl
'd that no zoning
advtsed that the service st~tion use of the subJect property was so o~
actlon was tnv~lved when it was c~nstructe~l. Mr. Lowry f~~rr.lier aciviseci that if a
nanconforming use was abandoned for a per•tod nf six rnonths~ tt,e use would be terminated.
Thereupon, ~~rs. Elo~ver requested a two-week contin~.aance to consider the asNects nf losing
the drfvev+ay on Brookhurst Street nearest the intersection, in a~c!ition t~ losing the ~ld
use of the subJect property in the event the subJect proposal was approved.
Cortmissioner Johnsan offerecl a motion, sec~nded by Commissicmer Barnes and MOTI~N CARRIED
(Commtssloners Tolar ~nd Farano being absent), to reopen the public hearing and continue
conslderation of Petition for Variance No, 2746 to the Plar~ninc7 Commission meeting of
November 10~ 1975, as requesteci by the retitioner.
~
~
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING ''"MMISSION~ Ottcher 29, 1975 75-521
REPORI'S AND - ITEM N0, 1
RECOMMENDATIONS ~~fU FEE PROPOSAL • Parks and Recreakion Commission
request for P1Anning Commlsslon revlew.
The sub.Ject (tem was continued from the Plannlnq Cammisslon m~etings of September 29 ~+n~l
October 13~ 1975~ ~or further stucly.
Park Superintenclent Dlc' Y,amphofner reviewed the suhJect proposal~ noting that in
comparls ~ with other c~tles 1~ Or~~nqe Co~~ty~ Anahelm was ln th~ upper three-quarters;
that the updatin~ of t'c (n-ileii fees was ,~Articul~r~ly impor~kant to the Recreation~ Parks
encl the Art~ Departm~n ~ slncc the Ucp~rrment ~~as ~r~~sent!y involved In researching a band
(ssik to prov "e parks (n the City; that t~~e Department's ^hopping llst of p~rk
imp~ovements ~maunted to app mximately $1:. r,(llion~ wlth a p~s~ibilfty of $15 millinn ove~•
the 10-ye~r p~~rk imprc~vemenr. program; that the proposed upd~~tlnn ~f lhe p~rk in-lieu fees
would provl<1r. npproxim~tely $1~ millt~n, based on ~ pro]ectlon of approxtmntely I5,000 new
dwe) l ings bc+inq constr~icted in the Ci ty; a~~d that through ~.he prc~posed In-l ieu fee
schedule~ the DepArCmcnl cc~uld possibly trim tlic t~ta1 amount to a mnre :^~.~1!stl~ fle~u-'e
a~hich the Clty coi~id a~f~rd and eliminatc the need far a bon~~ tssue.
In response to questionln~ hy Co~~~~~,tssloner Herhst, Mr. M:amphefner .:~lvfsecl that Anaheim was
using two acres oP p~rl~. lanci ner ~~ne thousand P~P~: whereis~ ~ther c~ties were ucing
three acres ~er th~usanci; that it was legally posstble, according to the ~tty Attorney's
Offlce~ to use four acres per tho~~,and; and that unly the park lancl which was owned or
leased by the C(ty was inclucl~d in ti,~ invent~ry~ and Yorha Regional Park ~•~as nat
included.
Deputy Clty Attorney Frank Lowry advise~ that the Leanue of Ca1lFnrnia Ctttes and some
members of the California State Eiar Association h~d (ndic:+ted f~ur a~res pe: thousand s
legal~ and the Clty of Walnut Cre~~~: held two anc' one-half or thi•c~ acres per thousand
Comml~,sioner Nerbst inqulred how much ~irk land Anaheim could atfo~d; whereupon. Mr,
Karnphefner adv(sed thaC tH.e ad<Iitional fces would essentially be generated in the areas
whPre the f~mds were to hi~. spent,
~__
Chal`rman Pro 1'emport Morle~,~ noted that the increased fees may suppress n,.:w de~~ lopr~~enc in
the City; that the home~wnErs~ pur~hasers and develnoers coulcl afford or~ly so ~r.uch
expense; and that the new Fomes were already too high. Mr. Kamphefner advised th~t v,~hen
the fees were previo~isly i~~rreaseci from $25 to $15~, the new development wati not
discouraged althoi~~ih City staff felt surely it would.
Commisstoner Bornes inquired wliy it ~aas tliat the singlP-famlly reside.nces, presumably with
more land an~i area where tl~eir chilclren could pl~y, were char~~d more thin an apartment or
condominium. Mr. M..ampl~efner advised thaC the "P" (persons) val~,ie was ?.7 for ~+ si~gle-
family residence, compared to 2.~~ for a cond~miniur~ and 2,25 for an apartment; although he
understood those value~ may change in the near future when a nea~ survey was conducted,
In ;esponse to questir~ in~ b~ Commissioner Herbst~ Mr. K.amphefner advised that the present
ln-lleu fee was S3n~ pt:r sin~l~-family residence, ~nd $57~~7~~ wouid be an approxlmately
90~ !ncrease; that tne fees had n~t been updated since 19~~~ however~ it had been int~nded
to review and update the fees annually or as needed. Cemmissioner Nerbst then noted that
the value of homes and lan~i should be relevant in the fee schedule, ancl Mr. Kamphef~~~r
a~'vtsed that same study coul~l be m~de ir that respect~ however, i:he proposal as presented
w,~s formulated by ~n en~ineer ancl was valid,
Cammissioner tlarbst inqulred further re~ardincl the effects tnat ralsing fees had on the
growth <>f a ci*_y; whereupon, Zoning 5upervisor Annika Santalahti advised tha~ the fees of
other cit~°s, which were f~igher than in Anaheim, had not hindere~ the growth and the Ctty
of Huntingtor, Bea~h~ In particu~ar, hacl been the f~stest clrowin~ c(ty in Orange County
Qince 19f7 ~~ith the hlgtiest ~~~rlc In-lieu fees of any city with s~bstantial land for
residential drvelopment,
Mr, Jim Barisic, represcnting Anaheim Nills~ Inc., appe~red before the ?lanning Cortmtssion
and tndicated the "L" factor (GOSL of I~nd) concerned him since he did not feel ttiat the
value of flat i;~n~1 was the :,ame as hill and canyon land~ and that while flat ~and may cust
$50~000 an acr~~~ the v21~e of liill and c;anyon l~nd was presently ap~roximately $2~'~000 an
acre~ and appr~xim~t~ly $10~~b0-$12~000 an acre in the C4unty; th~t the malorit'~ of the
development costs were for iandscaping anc~ irrigation systems; that approxlmately 30$ more
hill and canyon lancl was required to comFarA with flat l~nd f~r usable area; that Anaheim
Hills was hopeft~l of heinc~ able to continue to prov(de the land for ~arks rather than pay
the in-lieu fP.P_5; that the prop~sed f~.e schedule ~ppeared t~ he extremc°ly high; and that
he wAS q~estior~in~ whether th~ fi~ures presentecl wer.: base:d an selecte~i areas.
~
~ ~
MI NUTES ~ C I TY PLANrI I ~~c COMMI SS 10~1 ~ Octoher 7.9, 1975
7!;- 5?.2
ITIM ~IO. I (Continucd)
_.__.__._-
Commissioner Hcrhat not~~~i thit hc was n<~t convinced th7t khe ncr,cl tn ~~~•ncralc thc ~roposed
~mnunt ~~f money was iustiflc~i. Mr. B~rislc- ~ddad th~t hc F~v~~re~l bonu iss;~cs sincc
generally more penple who would hcnefit would help carry thr burden, In response t~
yue~tlonlnq by C~mmisslon~r Nerh~ Mr. Kamphcfncr advise~l th.~t if the proposed park in-
lleu fees werc :~prnve-1~ Chen tl;,. _..~nd is~;ur v~ro~.ilc1 not be necessary~ .~nd p~rtfcularly so
if th~ fees wer~: ~~~~~r~~ved And Implemente~d fmn,~~~ilarely.
Mr, Barl:ic ~'~~teci thAt b~n~'~ 'ssuc:s were chea~er in thr. I~n~ run r~ther t~fln putt(nc~ t e
tah on the Jlvldu~~) h~mc~s; rhnt the dev~loper ~.vnul<1 p~y the $57~~,7f, pNr sln~lc-family
dwcl l ing and by the tlme the {`ec was r,~ss~d on t~ the homeow~krfortal lt'a[ o~ e~1~lme.~ uP t~
approx(matF~ly $1 ~~0~)~ and salcl ~imc~+mt mi9ht bc to~ much t~
In respon.c to qucstloninq by Commissionr.r Kln~~ Mr, Barisic stat~~1 for fl~t l~ncl
developrnent~ if the hnmes ~~ulci h~ constriicted cheaper in another city, it may make i
dlFf~rence to the developcrs; howevcr~ if the citles haci the sarne fees, the purchasers
would buy thelr home where thcy wanred t~,
Commissloner Hert,st noteci that thc othr_r cltles m~iy also bc ~ettin~ ~'cady to updaCe thoir
fees; that it was doubt:ful ~ ln I~is upinion, that ~ boncl iss~ie woulcl be passed by the
citlzens; that it appe~re~1 some increase ln the fees woulcl be ~ppropriate an•1 va11~1 and,
by payin~ for the p~~rks t'hr~uc~h the ln-1(eu fees~ the burden woul~l be placed on tl~e people
who would be coming int~ Anaheim.
Cortmissioner King not~d that people wers clamoring for modest priced homes; and that If
the City k~pt increasinq the prices, therr, would be no low-cost houstnc~ in Anaheim, and
"bi~ brother" would step ln. Commissinner Nerbst noted thzt the Clty was also mand~ted to
provlde p~+rk ~round an~i the new seciment of the population would be p~ying for the park
ground throuyh tl~e in-lleu fees.
Commissloner Johnson noted that he also disaqreed wi~h the r~~te of increase proposPd.
Commissianer Herbst sugqested that the increase be one-half of th~t proposed ancl that
31nce the Yorba Reqional Park ~n~1 F~atherly Park were within the City of An~heim's sphere
of fnfluence and avall,l~le to the citizens of Anaheim, some of that park acreage should be
counted in meeting the City's requirE;ments. Mr, Kamphefner advlsed that Featherly Park
was used to its full capacity• whe~eupon, Comm!ssioner Herbst inquired ',f a survey had
ever been conducted at said park to deiermine how meo~leFinhAnah~in whoetookhtheir ~ampers
residents~ and he notecl that he was aware of m~ny p 4
to said parlc for the weekend Just to get out os thcir homes.
Chairman Pro Tempore Morley inc~uireci if it wss the wisiies of the Planning Commission to
have the proposed park in-lieu fee schedule r~,vised with a dec:reasecl r~te; whereupon,
Commtssioner ,lohnson nated that he wo~~.: not suFport the ~ropose~~ 9~~ increase; and
Commtssloner Kin~ noted that, in his opin~~~+~ the 9~~ rate incr~ase might di•tve developers
away from the ~ity. Commissicners Herbst an~. Barnes took exceptic,n~ noting that they d(d
not feel the developers would be discouraqe~l From buil~ling in the City~ especially in the
Anaheim Hills are~. Commissi~ner Barnes furt~er noted thai she would l~ke to see a
i~eductlon in the prc~osed rate, since it was ierribly hiqh: an~l that from a voter'S or
citi~~~n's point of view, the price of the homes would definitely be atfected.
Deputy C(ty Attorney Fr~nl: ~owr•y clarified thi~'ttheP~r~nosedCcarksin~lieuUfeesato either
recomme~~dw+ton to the City ~ouncil pertaining p P
accept, reJect or modify tl,e recommendations of t:~: Parl:s, Recreation and the Arts
Department; however, the recommenditicns of bath the s~~partment and the Planning
Commisslon would go to thP Clty Cauncil for f:nal dekermin~tion.
Comr~~!ssior-er Herbst o`fere~l ~ motiun~ seconde~l by Commissioner Johnson and '~OTION CARRIED
(Co;nmissioner 5arnes votinq "nu~" and Commission~~rs Tolar and Farano b~ing absent)~ tnat
ths Planning Commisslon ~o~s herehy recommend to the City Council tF~at the proQosed ~•ate
of increase for park in-'ieu fees in the City of Anaheim he limited :o one-half or S~ti oF
the rate of i~c.rease pr~posed bY th.: Parks, Recreation ~nd the Arts Department; said
recommendatlon bein~ h:sed on the f'inding that the p~oposecl approximate~v 9~~ rate of
tncrease is excesslv~ to bc called for at ~nc time; and that the Planninc; Cortmisslon ~~oes
further recortman~~ chat the new park in•lieu fee.s be evaluated anr~u~l~y for conslderation
as to whetl~:^r sald fees sh~ulct be increased further to meet Yhe necds of the u~mmuni~y.
w ~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING CCMMISSION~ ('.,tohei' 29~ 1975 ~5'a23
17E~~ N0. 2
[IR~E~~A IVC UECIARl~,1'10~' REO.UfST - For a gr~din~ permit fur
a sin(J1r,-famllv rrslclenc~~ it ~~17~ Arhoretum RoA~I.
It wrt5 nated Ch~t an ~ppllcrition f~r ~ ~r~~dir.g permlt tn r.onstriict a~~nclle~fAmily
resldence nt khe subJ~ct ~ri~lros~ hn~l been filed; that an ev~lurit~on oP the environment.,
impaet of hrHclln~ ~~t the subJect location w~s r~~q~~1reJ u~~ lcr the ~rovisic~ns ~f the
Callfornl~ Envir~~nmentai Quality Act Ancl tl7c State i'IR fuidcllnes, sincc the pro,)ect was
iocAtecl in Che ~cen~c Corrld~r; ~~nd that A study ~f thc prnpusecl gr~dlnct by the
Enginr.c~riiiq Dtvisf~~~~ and thr. Pi~nnin~t Dapartment lndic~~ted that it would have no
s 1 gn 1 f i can t env ( ronmen t~ 1 i ~~~,~,~c t.
Comnlssloncr King off~~red a m~tion~ sec~mded by Commtssloner Herhst and M(1710N CAItRiED
(Commtssloners Tolar an~l Farano being absent)~ th~t thc Plnnnin~ Commission does hereby
recommend to the Clty Councll that the subje~-t proJect be exempC from the requlrement to
prept+re an envlr~nmentnl ;mp~~ct repo~•t, pursu~~nt to the nrovislons of the Callfornia
Environmental Quall,.Y Act.
I TC11 N0. 3
EIR NEGATIVE DECLIIRP 1~1 REQUF•.ST - For a gr~idln~ permlt for
a single-family re~ ~ence at 356 South Mol~1Pr Orive.
It was noted that an appllcatlon fr a grading permft to construct ~ slnc~le-family
residence at the sub,ject address ~~ been fi-ed; that an evalualion of the environmental
impact of gradinc~ at the subJect ~ocation was rec~uired uncfer l'he provtsions of the
Callfornta ~nvlronment~l Qualit• .qct and the SCate EiR Gufdelln~s~ since the proJect wa!;
located in the Scenlc Corr(d~r and that a study of the proposecl ,yrrding by the
Engineerln~ Divlsion and the lanning Qepartment indicatecl th~t it woutc, have no
signiflcant environmental imp~ct.
Commissioner Y.in~ offered a mc>tlon~ seconded by Commiss(oner Johnson and MOTi~P! CARRIED
(Commis~loners Tojar an~f Farano being absent)~ tl~at the Planning Commission does hareby
recmm~end to the Clty Council that the subJect praJect be exempt fram the requirement to
prepare ar~ envtronmental tmp~ct report~ pursuant to the ptov~sions of the Californta
Environm~ntal Quality Act.
I TEM N0. ~~
ENVI R~r~MEtaTAL 1 MPAC7 REPORT No. 157 -
C(ty of Anaheim's pr~posal to exten.i
Santa Ana Canyon Road south t~- Ca~nyon
extension of Canyon Itlm Raacf from its
to inr.ersect with Fairmcmt Bouievar~l~
access and circulatlon for the futur
section of Anaheim Hllls.
In connection with the
Fairmont Boulevar~ ~rom
Rim Road ~ and tiie
present eastPrly termtnus
satd extensi~ns to provide
e development of the e~stcrn
The Staff Report to the Planning Commis3ion d~ted October 2y~ 1975, Wms presented and made
~ part of ~he minutes.
Commisslon r Nerbst offer~d a motion, seconded by Commissioner King and MOTION f,ARP,lEO
(Comnissioners Tola~ and ~ara~o :~ein9 absent)~ that Environmental impact Report No. 157~
havl~g been consider~d ~his date by the Anaheim CiLy Planning Cortqnissian and written
evl~ence having heen presented to supplement said draft EIR No, 157- the Plannir~g
Cortmission believes that said draft EIR Na. 157 does conform to the City and S~.ate
~uidelines and the State of California Environmental ~uality Act and~ based upor~ such
Infc+rmation, does hereby recommend to the City Councll that they certify said EIR No, 157
is in compllance r~tth said EnvironmF:~tal Qu~lity Act.
~ ~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PI.ANNiN~ CAMHISSION~ Octobr.r ?.~, 1975 75-524
1 TE~1 NQ. S
f,OMDIT10NAl. USf PC~tMIT N~, 131-2 - ftequ~~st f~r ext~~~;icm of rlmc -
Prc~~~~rty consistinei of appr~xfmrtely Q-hl ~+cre, h, ~in~ a fron*a~e
of apprnxim~tcly 112 feck an tho s~u~h Si~le oF So~rth Street~ a~~
bPinq loc~~ted apprc~-.Imately 27~ feet west of th~~ centerl (-~r of
5tate College Bc ~levnrd,
Th~ Stttff Repart to the Plann(n,, Cor ~ission dated Octol~~r 2~1~ 1975~ wis p-'e:ggnted and made
a part uf the minutes.
nning
It was noted that Conditional Use Permlt No. 13-~2 was granted~ in p.~rt~ by the P
C~mmtsslan on Septembar lf~, 197~, to e5'.~bllsh a chlld nursery at the subJect locatlon,
wlth wnlvers of minimum front y~r~1 depth and numhcr of parkin~ spaces; that ~pproval wes
granted subJect to a11 conclitlons of appr~val being compiled with within one ye~r; that
four condlC'ons of approval remained to bc compllud wtth to clate; anci tl~at two p~evlous
extenalons of tima haci been granted~ the last one havtnn expirc~l on Octoher 10, 1975•
Commissloner Kln~ offered a motlon~ seconded by Commissioner Ncrbst an~l MO710N CARRIED
(Cumm(~sloners Tolar and Farano being ~~bsent)~ that khc P{anning Commisslon ~1oes hereby
grant a onc-year time extensic~n for Conditi~nal Use Permit No. 13~i2 to complete the
c~nditions of approval, sald time extenslon to be re.trnacr.'ve to Octoher 10~ 1975, and to
expire on October 1~~ 197f~,
(TEM N0. 6
CQNDITIOMAI USE PFRMIT NQS. 1063 ANO 1072 - Request for
extension~ of time - Property consistin~ of appri~ximat~~ly
five acre~ located on the north side of Katella Avenue
between Naster Street and Mancfiester Avenue.
The Staff Repurt to the Planning Commission dated October ?9, ~`~75~ wa~~ presented and mad~
a part of thc minutes.
It wos noted that the applicant (C. M, McNees) was requesting a three-montn extension of
tlme for the subJect condltf~nal use permits; that six previous time extensions had been
granted; that an amendmert to Reclassiflcatlon No. 6f,-67-G1 on the subJect property was
1975 s~id
sche~iuled for public hearing befare the Planninc~ Commisslon on November 1Q, ~
arrwndment to per~nit dedlc~tion along Haster Strcet in accardance wfth the Anaheim GPnera:
plan ~~+. the time of dP~~elopment of the subJect property, rather th~n prior t~ finalizatlon
of thenC-~o~is5lon~andtCityt~ouncileconsiderationnuf the~prop sed~an. ~dmentato~theimP for
Plannl g
referenced reclassification action.
Commissloner Johnson offered a m~tionr seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTtON CfRRiED
(Cortmissioners Tol~r ancl Farano heing absent), that a three5d~d extensicneotitime~to ~ be
and hereby is granted ror Condit~onal Use Parmit No. 1063~
expire on January 7, 1976.
Commtssio~~~r Juhnson offered a mot(on. seconded by C~mnissioner HerbsL and MOTION CARRIEQ
~Corcmissioners Tolar ancl Fvrano being abscnt), that a three (3) month extension of tlme be
and hereby 1~ granted far Conditional Use Pcrmit No. 1~72, said exten~ton of tim~ to
expire on ~ebruary 4~ 197~~~
ITEM N0. 7
'~'~t~'~~6'7(MENDIIE~•IT ('0 THE ANAHE 1 M MUN t C I PAL CODE -
~"ITLE 1~ - ttequest for retommerd~~tion.
Deputy Clty Attorney Frank Lowry hresented a proposed Amendment to the Anaheim Municlpal
Code~ which would repeal Sections 1`3•~1.08Q, 1P•01•130 and 1~.~3.~91 and add Sect~ons
1a.91.08Q~ 1P.01.130, 1f~•03.091 and 1" ~3.092, pertalning to zoning~ said Amendment being
t~ add certain definitfons to tltie Code a~~~i t~~ set forth a procedure and grounds in
connection w~th tedmCodeiAmendmentiisCreferred tonard,made aSPaptrofttherminutEnces. The
referenced propos
~omm~gsi(~ners,TolarfanddFarano,beinSeabsent)bythatmthetPlannHeqhCO1Vnis5Mon`doesAhereby
(Commlss
~
~
~
HlNU;E::, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Octuber 29~ 1915
~
~
75-525
i TfM N0. 1 (Cont ini~ed)
recommend to lr~~ clr.y ~oun~:il that the propose~l !\men~imc~i~. t rhr. Anahe~~n Municlp~,l Cou~•,
Tltle 1~ - l.onlnr~~ bo a~l~,pt~:u.
ADJOUR_rIMFNT - Therr. being no further business to discuss: Conn~isslo~~er Johnson
"""' offcred ~ motlon, sec~ncled by Commissioner K1~~g an~l M(1tI0N CARRIFD~
r.hat 2he meeting be ad~ourned.
The mPetlnn adtourned at ~:3~ ~.m~
Respec~:f~~ily stlbmitte~I.
~,~.~~,8 ~a.~.P~..~
Patrlcta B. S ~nlan~ Sc.retary
Anahetm Clty F'lannirg Commisston
PDS;hm