Minutes-PC 1975/12/220 ft C 0 MICROfIIMING SERVICE, INC
.
~
~
~
C~:li;y Ila:l.l.
Ati, l~olm, Cn].'lf'ornia
DOClj111LU1' LZ ~ 1•`~~75 .
It1Ll'~UI,l1H 14i,I~'PINC} ~.~. '1'1D~, nr~n~u~ITA CI`.CY 1'I.~ANNItJG CUDMAI,3,~TQN
.,.,ti}t1IJSR - A roN~ilnr meot,inN of i,Fio Aiiahoi.in Cii~y Plaru~irig C~~uunteze;i.uri w~,:} oa:L:Lad tc~
P,S~ETItJC3 ot~ctui~ t~;/ ~ha1~•m~~n l~ni~ai~u u1 1:~U p.ai, in tl~o Ccnuiuil c'hc~~ber, ~ c~uoi~uin
Vfl'~.IIEj ~)I'b:lO:ll.
~E~;,~;rrr - CIlAIl11vU~,i: i~~-~~oi~~,
COb4~tI;'~•llUlf~'~~;1: Uni'no;~ , 11eri~:;'~ , John:~uti, Kin~3i Mor~lr~y ,'l'o1nr~ (wtio untored
1;t10 (;u~n,~~.).1 ~hn(Jlf)0t' t~.t l:a> [~-
~ss~rrr - co~a~i;,:~zc~rn;ri;,: ~~~,~~o
A T ~5~ PFtFt;;36~P1'[' -
It~~na:ld 'Ph~~mpuon
F'renk I,<-rvr~•Y
Jrsy 'Pit~u:
I'eul 31n~o-•
Annika : Rnl,nlahti
n1~.311 ~9VIT1
Patrioir~ Saonlnn
I':l.ut~nit,g Dupuri;mont Uiroctur
Doputy City I1tt,ornuy
Ufiicu L,ngir~oer
Tr~aff tc 1!,ngineer
Zoni.ng ;uporvi.,oi•
AJ3~3~9~[1'~; 'Loning JUp6T'V~uOI'
Planning Uommis~iun .,oarotary
P1~1;DC3E OF' - Cor,unis~ioner King led in 1;he Plodge of Allegianae t~ thv I'la~r of the
ALIEC32ANCE Un~.ted State~ of Amerioa.
qPPROVAL OF - Comutis3loner King offered a motion, seconcled by Cortwzis :i~mer HerUst, and
MINUTI~S MOTION CARRTEP (Commissioner Tolar bein~r aUsent) i;hat th~ minutos of the
reguler mpeting of tho Planning Commission '~1d oil I1o~~c...,dr• 1.0, 1975, be
ond hereby are epproved , as submi.i~.i;ed.
Commi~sionar King of£ered a motiori, ~eoonaed by Commissloner Morloy~ and
MOTIOtJ CAfIRI~D (Coauni~sionsr• Tohnson abste,iriing einoo he wa~ not preseiit
at the meeting in question; and Co~u:~i~sioner TolRr~ being abserit ), thet
the minutes of the regular• moe~ting of ~the P.lcir~riing Commission lield Deoember• 8,
1975 , Le and hereby aro approved , as submii,ted.
COidDTTIONAL USE CON'.C:LNUFJD PU$L,IC I~ARING. PJES"i AN~I1v1 CONdui[JNITY HOSPZTAL, 3033 ','Vest
p~;NMrP N0. 157"1 Orange Aven~.ie, Anaheim, Ca. 928(~1 (Owner•) and At~RICAN t,~DICORP, INC.,
"'"'-" Attn: Steven Demoter, 5429 ~AcConnell Avenue, Los Angeles, Ca. 9U066
(Agent), re~uest:Lng permission i;o CUNSTRUCT A HOSPITAL ADDITION on
prop;;~•~v desorited as an ~rreg~.~larly-shaped parcel of lar~d congisting of ~+pproximetely 5.U5
aores ,~:~ •ing a fror.tage of t,;~proximately 465 feot on i;he north side of Ot~ango Avbnue ~ having
a maximum c,apth of apnroximat,~:ly 623 fee~, UEing looated approximately 19U feet, west of the
~nterlino c' Beaoh Boulavard, and further descrlbed as 3033 West Orange Avenue. Proporty
presently z~ ned CL (COh4+~RCIAL, LI~~IITED) ZONE.
."~ubject petition was continued from the ~ieeting of October 29, 1975, pendirg ~ppY~oval of the
Orange Count• Health Planning Counail for oxpansion of the ho~pital facilities.
No c,ne 1nd~.ae.`~ed thuie• ~roser~ce i.n oi~positi.on 1,o subject Fet,ition.
Although the Stafi Kap~rt to the Planr.ing Commi~sion dal;ed DecemUer 22, 1~75, ~~,e^ not raad
at tho pllblia her~z•ing, 3aid Stafi Repoi•t is refer•red to snd made a part of the R~inutos.
Ddr. Ch~rles Ashley ~:epi osenting West Anc: oim Community HusE,,.. ~1, tl~e ~`,il;ioner, appasred
before the Pla.ining Comuiisaior, and de3ct•ibed tha pronosal whioYi was to .. ~~n sddition to an
existing hospita:l.. He reviewed the hi.stot~y of tho proposr~l, notin~ that sinoe the Planning
Commission me~Ling oa Uatobor 'L9, ~975, the petii;io-~~ar had obt~,ined tlle approval of' the
Oi•ange Counl;v Health Planning Couno•il for tho addition of beds at the st~b ject husp].ta1; that
the inoreased number of beds at the si~;,~iact hosoita~ would nct inorease thv total number of
beds ln ~~range County si.noe appropriatE transfers oi unused beds would be made from another
hospital; an~' ~hat e oopy of the letter from the Fieelth Plannin~ Counoil had beeri suUmittad
to the City PlanninZ Departmont.
THE; PUBL~IC I-~ARTIJC3 ~AS CLOSED.
75-58>
~ ~ ~
MT.T 'I'FC; ~ CI'1'Y l'LAM'J.l'NC~ COIull~AI~iION ~ L)oc.~e~tnb~t• l.'l. ~].'175
7~;_, ~~ESG
Ct_~NDI'PI(1NAI~ 1C361 PF~[~Ml'I' N0. ~.57'l.. (Con~bitn~vd )
In ru:i~,nn:~~ ~u ~~~.i~:jti.oiii.n~; by Coin~nis;~i.c~IlC)C~ King, Qe~,~ti,y City Atl,ornF~y l~rc~nk Lov~~r•y road t,ho
cd'orem~jntlouod .~.t,~,t,r~~•, ~;3 1o11u~~~:a:
~~ OE~NGI~I COUIJJ'Y HFAI1~}i FLJ1NiJ i'G COUNCIL
Ui~oemt,er 1.2, 1`.~75
C~R'PII'TL~`D bMll, Dlo. 7.'~4E361
~Ir, ChRrlos Ahhloy , 1ldministrator
West AnahAim Comm~ulity Ho~Pita].
3~33 W93t Orange Avoii~.ie
Anah~~im, Califor~nia '~~E~U4 Ito: Applicntioi~ OR-556
Desr ~v~r•. Ayhloy:
'I'hi~ :3 your officj.a.l noi;ice tl~at unde~~ ~eot~,on 437 eti s~a9ult~,~i ~&'1:~~~&tian
}' ~h and Safety Code (Cht~p~-~t• 1~51, ].'J6> State Si;atutes ) y I P
~~ an additional 26 acuto c~i•3 beds, whinh are to be addo<1 to your exi:~ting
aoility rsnd whioh inv~'ves ~,lio transfor a~icl deliconsing of 'l~ ao~.ita care
beds at ~tatii;on Coaunuriity Eiospital, wa:3 ~ppI'oved hy the Boara of Direat~>r,~
of the Ore~,r~ge County He~lth Flo,zining Counoil ~L their public me~tirig h~~.Ld
Dooc~mbar `.~, 1y75.
The f.'inding~ <~f taot upun which ~Lhis deaision was bt~.sed ar~ a~~ i'ollow:~:
1. Tho ti•an ~for of 7_G acate care beds from St~nton CommunlLy '' ' pital
to We. '!naYioim Communii;y Hospil;al ti~.~ not yot takFn p].ac~.
2, ~r~c~rigo Go~.trity and HSA 1(:'7 ?. ar•e oversupplied with acui;e o~,r~e YlO8P1tfLL
b~ds for thc~ b~sio and secondary c~,re and 3~dnLE1~.l'LaCl services.
3. Prcj~c%ti.ons '~idiaato thai; HSA 1U12 v~il]. not :~chieve a balunce oi
cur•rotil: sup~l,y of hospital beds t~nd i:he ser~•ice nde~ls of the popu-
lation for ~t .l~ast the next 25 yec:~•s.
4, Approval o£ appliaR~ion Of-556 would not resul~ in ariy increase in
the ~scute hospi'tal beds ii::~entory in HSA 1U12 or in Orange Coucity.
5. 1h~ proposed transfar of 26 acuto oai~c~ beds from Stanton Cominun3ty
Hospita]. to We~t Anaheim Cou~munity Hospital will i.ncroase th~~
ICU~CG_ bod ir.ven'tory in the Orange C~unty area and NSA 10i~.
6, Tho present Wa~t Anahe3m Community Hospitr~l four-•bsd ZCU~CCU unit
ir; utiliz~,d at 9a~ of its pi•~sent capaoity. increased uti.lizgi:ion
i~ restrictsd b,y the lack cf avai].able becis.
7, 'I'he ~,resen+ phy:~iac~1 plan for ICU~CCU beds at We~t, ~lnaheiin Community
Hospital is ].ftcking in adeyuatA apaoe and does nut a11ow for the
oifioier~t deliver•y of quality medical care.
8. The calaula~tiun of the applicent's deb~r ser•vi co covar•age ratio
9.ndicated suf~ir,ient funds ar•e qvailc~blo to meet ttie io~ig-term
debi; fiiiancing requirement.
9. The proNosed transfer uf 26 acute care heds from Ste~nton Community
Hospital to West Anaheim C~mmunit~ Hospital ao~il.r.{ rest~lt in 9.nor~~r~°ed
iixed costs at West Anaheini Cor.ununity Hospital. No data is provided
by the espplicant that a simulteneous ~' •rease in fixecl aost woul~.
ocour ~t Si;anton Commuciity Hospital. `1'his incr~gse in fixed cost
could result in additio.zal third-pa~•tv reimbursement costs uiiimately
borne by the heelth cr~r~ aonsumer.
Pleese be i.nformed that e.n agpoe7. of i;hxs decision can be e.ubmi#,ted within
30 d~ys of December y, 1y75, as outlinod in the Orarige Counl;e~Hea~tfiledl,,~ir.g
Counoil Fa~ilitios Projeat and 3eview Guide. If suoh an ~pp
final det_: mina.tion of this proposal will be withb. 1~~~.', ~ 1 the appeals
body reaches its dooision.
~ ~ s
Deoembr~i• :l !'-~~i]
-uIINU'i'L~; S~ C:['I'Y' PI,11NP11TlC} C10?MAT; ~' r r~r ;~ ?' , 1'J 15
CONDTTT.ON~L~ U;>1~ PPRMTT Pl~!. 157~' (C~~r,i•,ii<<.i~~d)
T.1' ~ddi~tl.c~na1 infor~:~fti,iori or a^:iir~,~noo t;:~ roy~~trod, p.Leaso oorrtaot, tli~r
~~iii.oe 1.mmedi.at~ly.
31no~ ~~~~ ^ ,
~;~~ 1~'~ ~Lnk W. Arm~trc>ug
Pr~nk W. Arm:;trong
Di.r•vutor of I'aoilitio~ Ctciviow"
TY~e P]r.,,-iiiig C;c~~rui~ls:,toii 1;her eritored lr~i•o cti.~aus~ion ro~ardic~g the I,~.tR: numbor of bed,}
U~~'~nE; req~,~o.3~~ed foi~ 1;ho 311U,~9C~ tl~~.~~~ital, d~~~~1.ng whioh it wa:3 dei;ermiriod tli~ti; i;he nutnUer
~1' beds r~~nroved by thia Uody 3I1OL11<I oorro3pc~nd with +he numb~r of Ueds outlinod in 1~he
foregc~ing .Letter from ~tho I~iealth Plantiing Counai.l. Mr. P ul.oy oxE>lairiE~d i;he~t a porl~ion of
the praposal was tu inarsa~o tlie diot•ary se~,tion of tho ~~o:'~,ita7., ar~d ~Lha,L tho i;otal t~umbe:
of bods woutd noi; s~aeod '171 for i:tiie We ~t Ariahelm Communii;y Ho:~pital, ~inoe {,hey would be
liaonsod for 1'/1.
Commis~ioner• Kin~ o~'forod a motion, soaunded by Cor...:.ssionor Her•bs~;, and ~' ~'1'ION CARRITD
(Comintssioner Tolai~ bein~ csb:~~nt ), tha'; the Anrzheim Cii;y Planning Cor^mis ..on does h~roby
reoommend i;o the City Councll of i;h~ Ci~;y of Anaheim that the ~ub,iecti p~ ~ ject bo exompt
from i;hc~ reyuirem~nt to T~~•oE,are Rn environmenLe,l imt;aat ropori;, pursuan+ to i;he ,,rovi.~ions
o~ the CRl.ifo~~ni~ ~nvi.r ~~umont~l Quali.ty .~ut.
Commi~ssioner King offered Resolution No. YC 1'~-~f~~ ~nd mo:~od for ii,~ pa~sage and ~dopl;lon,
thai; Petition for Conditiona.l Use I'~rmi~~~ No. ].57?_ bc~ and h~reby is ~r~nted , increa~in~
ths total numb~r of beds at 'the We3t Anaheiia Commun3.ty Hospite~l to 177 , on the Uasis thai;
offiaial notif'ication was received from the Orange Couni~y Flealth l.is,~nirg Counoil dated
DecFmber ].2, 1975, apprwi: g the ~,pplioation for 26 aout~ •.are b~~: to be added to tho
uxistint, facility; : tUjeot ~~o tY~e Intc,,depertmental Com~u.. ~o r~ecommendatiori,3. (:ee
Ro ;ol<<tion Eook)
On r•oll oaJ.~l, the toi~er;oin~; ~•o~ol.ution was pa~sed b;; tho followin~; ~ote:
AiES: CONIIv1ISSI0NFRS: BAtWES, F-IERBS`P, JUHNSON, ]CI~,~G~ ~dURL~EY ~ I'AFtANi~
NOE3: UOPAulISSIONERS: NON'.+~
ABSENT: COMMI:~SIUNERS: TOLAR
COMMISSIONER TOLAft ENrERED TI~ COUNCIL CHAIv43ER AT 7.:45 P.M.
`lARIANCE DIO. 274b - CONTINUED °UF3L•Tr IIEARING. WII,LIAM L. D.AVI~S, 4U1 Nort,h Chantilly,
Anaheim, Ca. 52806 ~Ovmer ), reyuesting waiver of MII~iIIvIUM PIUMBER OI'
~NCLOSED PARIS2NG SPACLS TO PFJP.MIT AN EX:CSTING GAF~IGE COtJV~RSION on
i roPnrty described e~s a roctanguiarl.y-shaped parcel of land oonsis~'•ing of' ~p~i ximtzi,~ly 0.25
JLare, hav~.ng a fr~ntage of approxi:cxj,tely 1:L2 feet o~ i~,he wesi~ side of Chan'till}~ Si;z•eet,
~s~:ing a maxi.mum depth of approxin~ately 102. fAOt, being looatod approxima~Lely 620 faa1; south
~f the aenterline of La Pa1niR Avc~nue. Property cle~~sifiod RS-72UC (RESTDFNTIAL, SINGLE-
FAMILY) ZONG.
No one indicated their presence in opi~osition to subject petition.
Although tl~o Staff Report ta the F-'•:~~~ning Com.mission datod December ?~. 1975, was not road
e,t the publiu hearing, s~id St~.ff Repor~'~ is .ref ^red •to and made u pari; o!' the minut~s.
~Iir. VJilliam Davies, the poti~tioner, appeared before tho P~~.nning Commission anci expla. ad
ttiat :~~hen he purchased the ~ubjeat proporty appr~ximately oiio and one-half years ago, tho
housE was listed as a four-bedr~oom house; that recently, a City inspector came ou1; ar.d
questioned the lehality of ttie fourth Ued~~ ~ on the front of the housa , aiid dete•'~~ined tl~at
th9 previous ow:~rs had not ob~tained the ~: ~priate building permil;G to make the com~ersion;
t~,at he was aavi5ail that ho ~hould ~.pply fo~• a varianoe to make tha conv~rsion legal; that
regarding parlcinE~ s~aces, there wero four on-street spe.ods, three spaces ir~ fr•ont oi the
gara~, , one :,~~oe inside th~ gara~e, and rootn for additional parking behind the dotzble-swinging
gates ~..~the property; esnd that he could provide nina parking specec wi.thout tha second g&rage.
.T.I~' PU$LIC HE~1FtT 'r'r WA.^.~ CIiOS'ED •
In response +o qaestioning by t~~e Plar.nin~ Commission, Mr. De.vies s~,ated ~ne cpace ',~ida the
swinging gates cou~~ actually '~e ueed ::.r parking vehicl.es; and t.hat there had been no ac •
plaiiit~ from the r.aighbors oonceruine ~the garage conversion.
~ ~ •
MfrN`I'IL;~~ CI'PY PI,(!NN~!TI(~ COMMI;i"Tc1N, I~uoomber 2. ,:L~17`i 7'~-~~~
VAti.lANCN7 N0. 274N (Cottt.tn idd )
It, wa;i n~~~~~~1 thet t;ho Di~•ooL•or c~i' t.lie I'~.ar~:~.lii~ Dep~~~•taiont li~d determ:l-iod that the nropa;~ed
eativity f'Hll wii,}~in i}1P ~~~~ir~ition ~~C 3e •~,i.oii 3.u'1 , C1a:iei 1, of tlie City c~t Anahei.m Ctuide-
11nar3 i,o tlio Reyulremen~, ~ r ~sn T~'~~~ ii~ucunontai .Lmprt,:l, [~e~or~t nnd was, therofore, cc~bsgor~ioally
exompi; froin the roquireuiunt ~o f'1Ie an 1rICt.
Comni:;aionor Hert~.~t oifored No..olution l~o. I'0/~-1Crt und moved for it:s pa:~^nge ond adoption,
that Petiti~~ri ior Varia-ice No. ~'748 be and ho,•aby i~ ~ranted to nb. ni.t an exi~l;ing gttI'a~?~
oonver~~ion oi: the buai:i of' tlie f~~~•n~;oin~ iindinga etnd slnce tihe po1~i'~ionor demon:~trated
t~l~c~L a hac•d:~hlp wou:~.d i~o o~~oal;ad lf :3~sid vari.a-;cc, were nut granted; :~tibJc~ot ~to Ltie Irif,c~r•-
deptirtmenl~al Conunitt~e roco~nmandation. (Soe Resolu•tioiz Doolc)
0-i ro].1 osll, tY,o forogoing re~olui;i~n was pas~a.l by tlic~ ro].lowing voi,e;
AYGS; CONQ~lI ~'~ZU1dL[~: ; B~l~,.'JI~,S, HL1ZD:~r~ JOI-:NSOPd, KINC•~ MOEtI3L^l. ~ 7'ULAR~ PAItAIdO
NOI~5; CONAAl:SI0NIERS; IQOp~F;
ADSENT: CONmEI5SI0IvPRS; PIUNC:
VARTANCE N0. 27h7 - CONTINUI+)D FUBLI~~ HI~AR7T1(3. SOUPI-IL~IZN CAI.SFORNIA .lst NATIONAL NAN}C~
P. p. Dox 1311, San Di.eg~ , Ca. 92112 (Owner); VERSATII~? EWUTI'MENT
~r~~~ rN~. '~25J Carden G~~uvo Doul~vard, I~19, Garden Grove, Ca. 926~4
(Agen ~), reque~tin~; wai~~ni• o~ (A ) PFRt~t~`~'TED 0~77'~UOR USUS A~ID (Fi ) MAXIMLIM I'LNCP fIEIGEIT `r0
PERMIT OUiDUOR C~NSTRUCn`ION LQUIPNlENl' SAI.,E5, ~~ri property desoribed a~ an irr•egul.arly-^i~~~~:~'~1
~arcel of land consisting of approxin~ately '2.6 aoi•as locftted ai; the northeasi; cornor of
River.~ale Avenuo n.n~i Tus~Lln Avonuo , liaving approxlma~;e frontagas of 49U fi'eet; on tl, , nor•';,li
side of Riverdale Avenuo and "LOU iee+ on ttie e~~l, ~iQe of Tu~tin Av~nua. Pr~~~~•ty cle.s~ifiod
CL (CONM~EKCIAL~ LIMITEA ) ZOPJE;.
Subjoci; pEtJ.i;ion waa coni;itiued fror• tYio Ple~nning Commission meetings of r~~~vr~mber 1G ar~d 24,
~.iid Decembor ~, 1975, ftt the re' ~est of the petitioner~.
It was not.ed that tl-.e petitior,er was roq~~esting ~n addil;ionr~l i.wc-weok oontinuanco for• ~tie
~uUmission of revi~ed pl.an,; c~nd that no ono ~Nas prc~sent in the auuidn~•e in conneci,i.on "+ith
the propo:~al.
Commissio,ier MorleS offere a moti.on, seconded by C~mmis~ai^ner Her•bsi;, and NOTION CARftI~D
(Commissioner Tolar be~ng .bsont), that the subject petii;iozi for Vari.anoe No. 2741 be and
hereby is aonti.iiued to the Planning Ccmcnission meeting of January 5, 1976, a~ requesi;ed by
t',t16 P0"tl'til~T1ElI'.
(T~ote: Thi~ item w~s considered a~; t;lie beginning of tho meeting. )
CONDI'rIOP:AL USE - CONTIfJUED PUBL•IC N~~~.~TNG. 8~7.'TY L. McLEOD~ ET AT,. `~5.`•7 Paradi~e Viow
PE;.,,~TT N0. 1581 iZoad, Yucca Valley, ~a. 92?_8~ (Ownar); TI-~ I3UU~LE 6.iACHIP~'E, INC.,
c~o Jera].d Alford, ~~0~ C~.mo~,s Drivo, Newport Be~ch, Ca. '~2h60 and TI~
RUgg~ ~~Hn,~ T~(; ., c/ c'l'homas C. ihatc:ier, 44 Pdont~;omer•y Strevt ,
Suti Frar,oisco, Ca. 941Ck1 (Agents?, requestin~; permission for AN AiJ'['ONiATIC CARWASH WI`i'H
GASOLINE SALE3, wit'~ waiver of RFQUIR~+~D I,ANUSc;~,PING, on proparl;y described as a rectangularly-
:~haped ~aroel of land aansisting uf approxiu,~ tely 0.5 a~re located at ttie sout.heast cornei• of
'Ball Road ancl West Street, he~ving appc oxima~~e frontages of :140 feet on the south side of
Ball Roed and 150 fdet on ~the esst si.~~~ af WASt Street. Prope~ ty classlfied RS-A-4~,ODU
(REISIDT~;P'TIAL/AGRICUUL'URALI ~ONF.
Suti,ject petition was continued Yram tha Plannin~ Commission meetings of Novemb3i~ 24 and
December S, J~75 , at ~:ic r~eq~•est of the petiticr ~~.
It was noted that the ~~+,iti~:~ner was requesting an additionc~.l. two-wee}; oontimiance foc• the
submission of i•evis~ lans. Tr~ Planning C~,.,mts3ion seorei;ary noted that a gent7.em~n in the
audience had. reque~ ~i e~rlfer to lc~~ow whothor the suY „ee~t pe+i.tion Nould be contirnled to a
speoifin dat~ when the pubtic hearing wou?d ind:~ed be hPJ.d; whers~ipon, Doputv 'ity Attorney
Frank Lowry an ~issd that go:~. ~rally no more than three cont?.nuances waro 401'l=i~. E~I~ed r~.asonable
wt ~re no one was prosent to f~t-pi•osen'~, the application.
Cowmis~ioner Morloy offei•ed a n~ottiu;,, ~eoonde.i by Cu~uni~sioiiec• King and F~0'I'ION CARRIEU
(Commissionor Tolar beina ab:erit), the~t the subjeot petitio-i for ~onditlui~~~.1 li~e Pormit No.
1581 be and hereby is aoni;im;od *,o the Ylanning Conunissio~~ meetirig of Jencary 5, 19?6, e~s
request.ed by the ~~e~~it9.oner; ~I'uvidod, however, that n~ additional aor.tlnttar:oe.~ sha.ll. l;o
gran~Led for the p~.lblic he~srin~r on :;~ict petition.
(Note: This i.i;~m ~vss ouc,:iiaered a~; tho beginning uf the meeting. )
~
~ ~
MINUTES~ C17Y PLANNING COMMISSIO~f~ b~cember 21; 1915 75-5~9
RECLASSIF'ICATION - PUnLIC I1fARINU. JOHN P, b MIIURF[N M. Y~UNKI~~, I1~~1 G~tiR'' .~e
NU, 75-76-IS Lanc, Sant+~ Ana, CA ~27~5 ~~Wner); I,P.S, - Attnt Ron •~',
P,O. R~x 63~~~~ OrAnqe~ CA 92669 (~9ent), Property desc~~bed as
VARIANCE Nd__:__2757 an Irre~lularly-shnped iarcel of land c~nslstinq o~ .~pproximntely
4,(1 acrc~s, havinq a frontm9e of approxlmaCcly h6~1 fcet on tha
south side of Frontera 5treer.~ having A m~~xfmum depth c~f
approximately 3~~6 feet~ and being located approxima~ely 942 feet east of thr. center-
lir~ of Park Vist~7 Street, Propcrt presenCly classified RS-A-h~,n~n(o) (RF.SIDENTIAL/
PGRIC~iLTURAL-111L PRn~tl~Tln~1 ~VCRI./1Y~ znrir.
ftEQU[STE' CI.ASSIFICATION: RM-1200(~) (Rl'SIDEtdTllll., MULTIPLE-Fl1MILY-OIL PRODUCTIQN
OVERLAY) 7.~NE
R~~2UESTED VARIANCE~ ~NDV(C)~ftEQUIREDxSITE SCR~L~J'ING~,70C~CON(7RUCT"~r1112FUNIT APART-
MC•NT COMhLf X.
N~ one indicated their presence (n oppositlon to subjr_ct petitions.
Rlth~u~~h thc Staff RPpart to the flanninc~ Commission da~ed December 22~ 1975 was not
read at the public hearing, sald Staff Report is referred t~ and made a part of the
mi nut.es.
Mr. Uavid Stone~ represent(n~~ I,P.S., the Agent for thc Petitioner, appeared bPfore
the P l ann i ng Commi ss i o~i and s ta ted the I'fl t ~ r'' ~~ ~~~~ i t i anertand he`waseava i l ab l c
set forth in the staff report were eccep
to an~wer questions conc.ernin~l the propos,
TNE PUdLI C 11Eh~RI~~^ k'A~ ri nSf'D.
Ccmriissioner HerUst noted that the parl;ln~ area for tne proposed use, beln~ across
Jackson llvenue,was irregular but probably a ~ecessity sin~e the parce) appeared to
be separated by Jackson Avenue; th~t the parkin9 area would be good for parkinn
recreational vehicles; that I~e agreed witl~ the Traffi, F.nhineer 5 recortmendation
that the a~cess points alon~ Jackson Avenue should ali9n w!th one another, that
the pr~posal ~~as for a very high ciensity considering the amount of property involved;
and that he did not feel a need ior granting the requested waiver of the requlred
site screening.
Mr. Stone responcied that ~lthough the proposed project was high in density, it was
perhaps not as hi~h as it app~ared to be; that they feit the circulatlon was
efficient and acceptable. an~1 the proper~y to the east was developeci with the same
circulation pattern and w:s a well-acc^.pted plot plan; and that t'~ey di~1 pian to screen
the proposed development ~~m the ~+djacent oil wells. Thereupon, 'r1r. SC~~~e stipulated
to providing tne required SiCe. :,crePning of the southerl~~ portlon of subject property.
Further discu~sion pursued corcerning the sitp screening, during which Mr. Stone
stated thty were proposinc~ to h~•;a a screen wall on the south side of Jackso~ Avenue
to screen the wells, and they had authority to put tli.~ wall on the adJacent property
wh~ch would be bPtter for botVi propErties and they woulci then haveboundaryPof~subCCCt
Jackson Avenue. It was clarified that a portlon of the northerly J'•
property was already screened.
Traffi~ Eng~neer Paul Sinqer' ~dvised that the proposed angled driveways woula be probler~
atic; and t.hat he was recommending that~said driveways be aligned in order to provi~e
facilities for left turninc{. •tc.; whereupory Mr. Stone stipulated to aligninct saicl
driveways.
The Planning Commissicn entered lnto dlscusslon regardi^g the use of thc sou;herly
portion for parking for the northerly port'on~ nating that without the use of the
southerly portion, tlie parking requirements could not be met. Assist~nt Zoning
Sup~rvisor Allan Daum clariffed tha; a total of la9 parking spaces ~~rere r~quired
for the proposed use; that llfi co~:.red spaand 29dopen~spacesawereWbeingeptrovldedion~
on the nortlierly portion of *he proR~rty~
the sourherly portion of the ~roperty.
Mr. Stone stated that no problems had becn experienced with thc• slmllar development
to t~~e east of subJect property~ sald pro)ect having been cleveloped with ~~ ratio
of 1-1/2:i for parking 5~8CC5 rat!,er tha-e 2:1, as Froposed; and that they had also
designed the adjacent development to the east.
~ ~ ~
MINUTCS, CITY PI.ANfJING COMMI5S10~1, Deccmbcr 22~ 1~75 75'S9~
RECLASSIFICATION N0._75-7~°15 and VAP,I~NCE N0. ?.757 (Cont.)
In response to questloning l~y the Planning Commis~lon~ Staff c1arlFied th~t the W`,re
required covered parkln~ spaces wi[hin 2A0 feet uf the respe.ctive dwellin~ unlts
bein~ pravided and nn wa(ver in that res~~ect was heing requestPd.
C~mmissioner Tol,~r expressed concern that the praperty owner might spllt t~~e
subjact parcel and sell nff th~ portlon located south of Jackson Avenue~ rasult(nc~
in a p~rking deficiency for the proposed devel~pment; wh~~reupon, Mr, 5r.on~ statrd
they would guarantee that no lot-split t~ould tAke p1~-e through che CC b a's.
In response to questioning hy Commissloner King~ Offi~._ En~~ ~e°~ Jay Titus ?ftered an
additional condition ~or ~lie Plannlnc~ Commissior's consideration, in the event favor-
able action was rendered on the proposal, sa~d cond(tion be(ng "That th~ owner(s)
of subJect prope:rty shall prY to the City of Anahclm a proportlonate sh~rc of the
exoenses pr~vlously incurred by the City of An~iheim for tlie acqufsiCion of right-of-way
and street improvements in connection with the improvements '.~ Jackson Av~r~ue, said
proportionatc share being ?.~~.35~G ot` the total costs anci An~,unt(ng to $3,331.~~ fur
r(ght-of-way acquis(tlon and $3~94/•9~ far the street improvements, or a total of
$7~277,05 as the prnpor•tionate sharP," M~. T(tus not~d that at the time the improve-
ments to Jackson Aven~~~ were made, it was ae~ieed that as the pr~pcrtie:, alone~ sald
stre~t deve~oped, each wc.uld pay their share of the exper~~PS,
Mr. John Younkin, the propr.rty owner, ap{~eareci before thc Planning Commission an~i
sta~ed that at the time of the im~~rovements to Jackson Avenue, they f;ad grantPd an
easement over the subJect prope+'ty and there was no discussion regarding reimbursement
for the use of the prop~rty, nor for relmhursement for thr tmprw ements, and that
they were not aware at that time that the improvements would be made or what all~n-
ment t1~e street v:nuld have:. In response to questloning by Chairman Faran~. Mr. Youni.in
stated he had n~t been aware that the other property awners along Jackson Aven;~e had
paid their share t~or the improvement~ and acauisition until the matter was brought
up at r.his p~'~~ic hearinq. Commissioner T~,lar then noted thae the proposeu dEVelopment
wouid not be Nossible witliout the Jackson Avenu° improvements, and Mr. Y~unkin stated
thc; cuuld have developed tl~e subJect property toward Fronte:ra StrPet alone~ and
[hat he v+as reviewing the history of tlie improvements not as an ar~lument, and he would
stipulate to the fo~enoing condition for relmbursement to the City.
Commissic er Herbst noked that the City must have cire.ulation elements to service
each ~iarcel of property an~l, in some instances~ the property owners paid for street
improvements which were existing at the time their ~roperty was developed; and~
furthermore, the ~osts involved were less than what it would cost for the same im-
provements at today's prices.
The Pl~nning Comrrii5sion discussed the possiV>le elimir~~t'oii of some dwelling un~`.s in
order to ~rovide more par~ing spaces on the north~~~ly portion of the subJect property;
whereup~n, Mr. Younkin taok exception, 5tating tliat t-~e northerly and so~the~ly portlons
of the subject property comprised one parcel and, tf'~erefore, the propased parking
was on-site and it was appropriate to use the southerly portion for req~ired park~ng
in connection with the proposed development. Mr. Yr~unkin then stipulaCec' to eliminatin~
four dwelling units, Nos. 101~ 201, 1F~ and 21~~ in order to Peavin~ adtotalnof 10$k
inn spaces on tlie northerly Portian o, tl~e subJect property,
dwelling units in the proposed nroJect.
Commissloner Johnson noted that it appeared havinc~ the driveways across from esch
other would be more of a hazard than havinc~ them diagonal to each other; and that
aligning the driveway5 would create an intersectlon.
Commissioner ~3arnes note~ that sincc the petitioner was wil;inn to align the d-1vc-
ways~ as rec.orH^ended, anJ since the subj°ct propertv was one parcel of land, and
thers were no requested waivers of the p~'+rking requirements, it would be difflcult
to de~~ tlie subject petitions.
Com,~~iss~oner ~1~rley inauireci if tlie p~rk~~~n spaces on the southerly portion should
be included in thP pr~p~sai; wtiereupon, Commiss!oner He.rhst noted that said parking
did not meet the ~ntent ~f the ~ode for legal park~n~ space~, in his opinion.
!n response to questioning by tha P1.3n~,ir~~ Commission, Mr. Y~~unkin stipul-~ted to
terminate Conditional Use Per•mit ~lo. 1125 on tlie sublect pr~perty.
~
~ ~ ~
MIPIUTFS~ CITY PLANNINf, COM!115SION, Decembcr 27.~ 1975 ~~~~~~
RECLASSFICATI~N N0. 75-76-I!i and V1IRIANCE N0, ?.757 (Cont.)
_~--, -
Commis~sloner Herbst ofFered a motfon, seconded by Commi~sioner King an~ MOTION
CARRIED Chat the Ai~ahelm City Plannir~ Comn~i~~sl:m d~es hereby rec~rtrtnend tu CF~c Clty
Council of the f,fty of Anaheim that tne subJect pro.Icct be excmpt from the requlre-
ments to prepare an en~ironment~il Imp~~ct report~ pursu~nt *.o tns ~rovisions of the
Californla F.nviranmental Quality l1ct.
Commissloner Ncrbst offereJ Resol~~tion No. P!'75-~65 and moved for Its passagc and
adoptian tc recom~~~end to the City f.oemcll of the City of A~ahelm tl,at !'etltion !'or
ReCIa551flciti~n No, 75-76"~> bc approved~zubJec.t to thc InterdeparCmental Comm(t[ce
recommendations. (~ee ^.esalu~(on Dook)
On ro~l c', the foregolnq resolu~lon w~s pa~sed by che fullowing vote;
AYES: COMr~ISSIQNERS: B~RNf.S~ fIER~15'f, ,lOHN50N, KING~ MORI.~Y~ TOLAR, FARANO
NO[S: COMMISSIONEPS: NONE
ADSENT: C!1MM1 SS I ONERS ~ r1oNE.
Comrt~i~sioner Nerbst offe~ed Re~alution No. PC75-?G6 ~~nd moved for its passage. and
aJopCion~ that Petitlon ror Var~ance P~o, 2757 be and hPreby is granted~ in ~~rt.
tor ~: l0a-+mit apartment c:omplex, grantln~ the reyuested ~alver of thc maximum n~ildin~
liefylit on the bas~s that tl~c. acljacent property to the :,outf~ Is cleveloped with an oil
.~~-11 an~ ~il s:orage facilities ancl the adjacent property to the west~ although
zoned R~-,>-43,~OG, is d~veloE~ed with an industrlal use; granting the requestecl walver
of the min(mum floor arA~ fur a minimum fl~or arr.a of ~i$~ti syuare fe~t for 16 dv~elling
units and 50~ square f;-t~~ fo; 10 dwelling ~nits~ ~s propnsed~ on the bas'•~ that the
Planning Commission h~~; rreviously granted sald walver tor effi~lency (l'.achelor~
type units, not to excerd 'L5ry of the *otal number of apartmenC units; t.hat the re-
quested waiver of the required slte screeninc~ was withdrawn by the petitioner wl:h
thP stfpulation that tlie renuired sl*_e screenfng of the southerly portlon of subject
property will be provlded; su~Jcct to the stipulation of the petltioner to eliminate
four dwelling units in order to prnvide additlonal park~nc~ spaces on the nc~rtherly
portion nf the subject prope~ty; subJeci: to th~e stipulatl~n of the petitioner to
align the ea~terly drive cut un the souther'ly portlon of subJect proprrty ~.~ith the
cecitral drive cut ~n the north slde of Jackson Stre~t, said al~gnment ko be subj~ct
to thP approval of the City Traffic Engln~er; and sub)eet to the terminatlon of
Cond~tional Use P.rmit No. 1125 on the subject property and the Interdepartmental
Committee recomme ~dations. (See Reso',ution !;ook)
On roll cal?, t'e foregoing resolutian was passed by the following voce:
AYES : COMM ~S I OP~[RS : SARNES , t1ERB5T ~ JQHNSOP~ ~ KI NG, MORLEY, TOLAR. FAR+~,NO
NOES: COMMiSSiONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMM I SS I ~NE RS : ~IO~IE
Comrtiissioner Herbst offered an amendment to itesoluCion No. PC75-265 to add a condition
of approval, "tl~at the owner(s) of su~ject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim
a proportlonate shar~e of the expenses prevlously incurred by the City ~r M iheim for
the acquisition of right-of-way ai~d street improvemCnts ln connection with ~h~ improve-
mpnts to Jackson Avenue, said proportlon~te share beinc~ 24.35`^~ ~~f the tatal costs
ar.d arr~ounting to $3.' ~1.08 for righ.-of-way acqufsition anci S3,9~`7•97 for the sCreet
Em rovements, or a~~1a1 of $7,279 (15 as the proportlonate share. as stipu!ated to
byPthe petitioner~ prior t~ the issuance ~f a buildinq pa"mit." (See resolutlun book)
Qn roll call, the foregoing amend~enr to Resolution tlo. PC75'1f•5 passed by the follow-
in9 vote:
AYES ; COMM I SS I 6NERS : [3ARNES ~ HERBST, JOHNSQ~I, Ki'I~, MORLcY ~ TOLAR ~ F'I1RAN0
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMI SS I ONERS : I~GPJE
Commissfoner King offered Resolution P~o. PC75~267 and moved for its pa55aye and
adoptlon~ that the Anaheim City Planni~g Coaxnission does her•eby terminate all pro-
ceedings in cor.~ectlon with Condltional Use Permit No. 1125 on th subject property~ as
s=ipulated to by the petitioner. (See Resolutlon E3ook)
On roll call~ tha foreqoing resolutinn was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSI01lERS: I3ARtIGS~ 11ERBST, JOHNS~Pl, Y~it~G~ MORLEY~ TOL4R, Ff~IV~-~~
NUES : ~OMh~ I SS I OtlEP~S : tIONE
A9ScNT: GOMMI 5S I r,t1ERS : ~~~~~E
~ e ~
MINUTES, C17Y PlANN1-1G COMt11'.i`.'~ION, Decotnbcr 22, 197ri
75-~9~.
CONDITIONPL US( -^U[iLIC IIC11ftIt~G, Wll.l.lAM [. OAI.LNl1US~ 2y00 N»rhur lilvd„ Fullerton,
PERM; 7 rIQ. 15E~G CA 92fi j~~ (llwner) ; ~IFRE.~ C.. GI ESF ~ 2.13~i t~. Iic~thawAy ~ Sant~ Ana,
" CA 927~1 ancl Gl1RY M. FI1NK, 11.2~ S, Mr~gnolla, Anah~im, CA 92A~2
(Ager~ts); roqur:st(ng permisslon to PERMIT 0~~-SI1Lf: DE:ER ,~Mb WINC.
IN AN EXISTING itF.S"i~URl1NT on ~z~~~perty d~scrlbed as <~ i'ectanryulArly
sh~ped parcr.l of land conststin7 of approxlmf+tcly Q.l acr~~ having A frontagc of approxl-
mately A5 fect on the eas: side of Mognolla Avenue~ fiaving ~ maximum ~aptli of approximately
55 fee.t, beinq loc~trd ~pprox(maCnly h8G ~eet south of the centerlin~ of Dall R~ad, and
~urther de~cribed as 122$ 5, M~~gnol(~ Avenuc., Property presently clnssifled CL (f,01i-
MERCIl1L, LIMIT[D) ZONE.
No one Indicaied their presence in ~p~~osikion to subJect petitinn.
Although thQ Staff Report t~.~ th~ Pl~inniny Cunn~issiun dated December 22~ 1975 was not
read ~t the public hcarln~, sald Staff Report Is rei~errea to and made a part of the
minutes.
Mr. ~ary Funk, the n9ent ror chc Petitioner, appear~~d beforc the Planning Corrmisslon
and stateci tl~ey were req~iesting to have on-sale beer and wfne to be served with food;
and :hat there would bc no slde bar provlded to draw people for drl~king purpos~s.
THE PU~LIC NEl1Ri~lf WAS CL~SCD.
In response to questloning hy the Planr~ing Commisslon, Mr. Funk stlpulated th~yt the
hours of operat'lon would be from '3:00 a,m. to 1~:00 r,.m,~ ~even days a week.
It w~s nuted that the Di~•ector of the Planning Uepartment had determined t~hat the pro-
posed activ(ty fell wlthin the deflnition of Sect(on 3.n1, Class 1~ of tt~e City of
Anaheim Guidelin~s to the Requirements for an En~iironme.ital Impact Repor'. an~ was~ there-
fore, categorically exempt from the requireR~ent to ~Ile an Elk.
Commi,sionFr Tolar offered Resalution No. PC75-268 and moved for its passaye and adoptlon,
that Petitlon for Conditional Use Permit R~o. 15£36 be and hereby fs granted, subJe~t to
the conditions ihat the on-sale beer and wine shall be in conJunctlon with Che serving
of ineals only and the hours of nperation shall be from 9:f10 a.m, to 10:00 p.m „ seven
days a wnek, as stipulatec: to by the petitioner; and subjec~ to the Interdepartmental
Cormnittec recommendation. (See Re~olutfon Book)
On roll call, tlie :`oregoinc~ res~.lutian was passed by the following vote:
AYES : COMMi SS I OP~ERS : BARNES ~ HERE3ST, JOIINSON, K! "Jf, ~ MQaLEY ~ TOLAR ~ FARANO
~JOES : COMMI SS I OP~ERS : PlONE
ABSENT: COMMISStONERS: PlQNE
CON~iTIONAL USE - NUBLIC fIFl1RIP~G. PACIFIC 4lORLD CORP./GOLDEW 1dEST EQUITY PROPERTIcS,
PERMIT NO 1 I~JC. ~ 3`131 MacArthur poulevard~ Suite {Oh, IJewport fleach, CA 92660
(Owner) ; GOLDEPI WEST EO_UI TY PROPF.RTI ES, I ~C. ~ 3931 MacArthur Boule-
vard~ Suite IOR, Newport Beach~ CA 92660 (Agent); requestinq per-
,nission to t~UILD A~ESTAURAFJT AFID f'LAN~~ED INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX on property described as
two rP:tar,gularly-shaped parcels of land consisting of approximately 31.2 acrss with
frontages oP approximately 1022 feet alo~g thc suuth side of Y.atella Avenue and 676 feet
along the est side ot 5tate Collegc [~oulevard~ having approximate depths of 5~7 feet
from Katella and 1243 feet from State Colleg~ Doulev~ird• the Katella Avenue parcel i~
located approximately G~Q feet west of the centErline of State Colleye Bc~ulevard and
the State Co'i:ge Boulevard parcel is locatEd immedlately south ~f the centerline of the
proposed Paciflcu Avenue. Property presently ci~ssific:d ML (INDUSTRIAL, LIMIIED) 7Qt1~.
IJo one ~dir.ated their prpsence (n opposiYlon to subJect petitfon.
Although the Staff Report to Cl~e Planning Commisslon dated December 7.2~ 1975, was not
read at the pu!~lic hearinc~. said Staff Report is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mi•, Richard Ste~ton~ representing Galden West Equity Properties~ Inc.~ appeared before
the Planning Commisslon and stated they would have two separate developments on the subject
p~•operty and were purchas(ng the entire 50 ~cres; Mr. Stenton described the proposed light
manufacturing and commercial office uses and stated there was an existing electrlcal
easement across the proper[y whlch had been utilized by the City for a period of about 10
years; that they would like to request said power lines be moved by the City ta accomodate
the subject development; and tf»t the easemen[ was in the westerly 2Q~ Fect off State
College f3oulevdrd and almost through the mlddle of the property. Mr. Stenton further
~ ~ •
MINU7ES~ CITY PLANNIFJG C~MMISSION, Dor,crnbcr ?.2, 1~75 ~~ ~~3
CONDI'TIONIIL USE PfR1111' N0. _15~7 (cont.)
stated there would I,c r~o i,~orc l'raffic c~encrate<i from tlie proposal tlian from tlielr orinln~l
plan for atl industrial uses; that a dotailed trafflc stuciy was not. enc.umbcnt up~n the
subj~ct. proposal; howcvar, ~~ the City wAS wi111~~ to share the cost for such a tr~ffic
analysl~, it coiilcf bc made.
TNF. PU[iL I C NEAR I Plr, WI1S :.OSGD.
Commissioner Herhst made an observ~tlon that (f thc devclapcr was 1n the process of pur-
chasing the entire ::ubJer,t pnrcel, a m~ster plnn of clrcula';on would be very important;
that priv~~te strects werc being proposed tn an industrlal wmplex, with heavy warehousc
circulatlon, anci the problems of the Pf1CIf~ parc~l should be resolved at the beginning
of any dPVelopment•str~cted~to the~f ~il wi`dthheandrthat they had m~~deeastfiorougheanalysis~t{
to Lhe City and con
of the layout and circulation in connection with the Nropasal.
Discussion pursued regarding the I~~rcentage of tha devclopment that woulcf be f~r com+nercial
oFfice uses~ durincl which Commissi~ner Tolar noted th.~t the rent was generally lower in
an industrlal aonF: than fn a comrt~rclal zone for the r.ommercial oEfiGe ;•ses.
Chairman rarano rioted that if khc+ petitioner disagreed with City Staff's analysis of the
potential traffic problems~ then a traffic study would he necessary to rr~ke rec~mmendntions.
Upon questioning, Mr. Stenton stated that a traffic study on the subJect portion of the
pruperty had not been made. Traffic Engineer Peul Singer a~ivfsed that a partiai traffic
study was on file covering fihe remaining 10~ acres of vacant property; and, Cherefore,
the prUp~sed developmr:nt may ultimately affect future traffic in the area. Mr. Stenton
noted that there were only 22 acres which would be remainin9 for develoNment in their
plans, since they were not negottatlnc~ f~r all of the vacant property; that they had
advised the C(ty they had a number oF Inqulries and were holding out the ?2 acr~s for
"bulld to suits"; and tf~ey would have no qualms about restricting the 22 acres of interior
property for no conmercial uses.
Commissloner Herbsc. furthc:r noted that without a master plan for all oS~ the v~cant land~
it would be a tirst class mess.
Chalrman Farano noted that he was concerned about the zoning without specific uses fo.-
the property; that he would urge the petitioner to be spec:ific so that the Plannin9 Com-
mission could attach the appropriate conditions to any approval; and tliat he would also
encourage the petitioncr to have a master plan of the entire property. 'dhereupon~
Mr. Stenton state~ a~naster plan of the entire area would not be feesible~ presently~
since they did not know what would actually happen with the property. Chairman Farano
t~ieii noted that a n~ster plan for the property wou!d serve as some protection from
poientlal abuse in the future.
thenSthey~wouldtnotthaveftotbeybeforentherPlanning9Commiss onrfor,their planse whichrty~
included the circulatinn~ etc.
Commissloner Herbst inquired if it woi~ld be appr~priate to request an Are~ Development
Plan on the subJect property slnce it appeared that it woulc: develop industrial ratFier
t.han recreational as thought for a long period of tirre. He noted that an 11rea Development
Plan would determine where the roads should beo with appropriate access to Katella Avenue
and State Coliege ~oulevard for all of tlie property.
In response~ 7.oning Supervisor Annika Santalaht( advised that ar Area Developn~ent Plan
would require a minimum of 40 eiays for processing. She clarified that the camn~ercial
portion of the proposal comprised approxlmately 10.5`K of the tntal floor space.
In response to questionin~ by Commissioner ICing~ Mr. Stenton stated tf~ey did not cllsfavor
the granting of the utility easement which was presently existing; however, they did want
the utility lines moved. Chairman Farano t~en noted that the petitioner could work w(th
the City conCerninq the easen~ent.
~ ~ ~
MINUTCS~ CI'TY PLAtJtIING f,OMMISSIOFJ~ DACembcr 22~ i975 75~~'~~
CONDITIONAL US[ PERMIT N0. 15~1 (ccmt.)
Mr, Stenton stated n long delaY (n the PlAnnlnc~ Cortrnfsslon's conslderation oF thr. pro-
posal may jcopardi zu the developn~ent; whcraupon~ Ch~~i rman F~r.ino noted th~t I l' was n~t
the intent of the Plann(n~l Commfssfon ka create any problems f~r the develo~or; khat the
problems had been created by the developers to s~me ext~nt with .~ l~clc of conslderatlon
of the heavy traf f Ir, th~t al re~~+dy existed on Statc Cc~llege lloulevard and an Katcl In
Avenuc, and at the Intcrseetinn; and the trafflc stu<1Y w~ulrl r~ally he for the beneflt
of the development, Mr. Stenton state~l the commcrcial USCS o+ould all front on sither
Stats College t3oulevard or Katella Avr.nue And wauld circulaCe on anci off tho,e st~cets.
Chairman Farar~o tF~en n~terl r.hat therr, was nothinq to prevent the petltiorier from selling
the subJect property, leavin~~ no control fc,r th~ City; thiat the City sliould look ~t
the vacant land in 1 ts entlrety; that there was ~ther cnrtmercial off icc: development
across the street , Incl udi ny ~ l~ink, Insurancr. company~ etc. ~ a11 ar wli i cli created an
effect on th~ traffic; and that a proJoct of the sir.e prcposed could overburden the
traffic in tlie area Co an overwhelming degree.
In response to yuestloning by Commissloncr Johnson, Mr. Sinc~er advised th~~t the 7raffic
Uivfsion was concerned about th~ internal circular.lon of the propased developrnent, how
the circulrtlo!i would effPct the L4lO arterial streets (S[ate Coltege fioulevard and
Kaktl la Avenuej s incc the tr~ffic gFnerated from the proposal would eventually end up an
said arterials~ how the access points tc, the arterials would be cuntrol led and the impact~
what the carrying capaci ty of the int.ernal streets would be~ and whet tF~e fnterruptlons
would be for the two arteri~ls whicFi presently were uninterrupted. Mr. Singer further
advised that the arterials could probably handle the additianal traffic pr~vfded there
were no up-stream interrupt ior~s.
Commissioner Tolar noted that he would not vote favorably on the proposal unless the
commercial usPS were spel led out~ since he dfd not want carte blanche ofFlce or commercial
uses at the subject locat~on.
Mr. Stenton expl alned tttiat the subject prapasal was simi lar to the Kol 1 proJect on
Cerritos; that the subJect property was zoned ML and coul~ be deve~~ped accordingly;
and thaL there would be no sigr,ificant Impact on the lraFfic from the proposed commerclal
devF•lopment. Commissioner Tolar then noted that tlie subJect property was not a cummerclal
si ta, in hfs opi nion, and Lhe ad~acent properties would also a~ant to d~velop commercial ~
i f the ~roposal was approved.
Commissioner Hcrbst offered a moti~n~ seconded by Commissioner Morley and MOTION CARRIED,
to reopen the public hearing and continue considera[ion of Petition for Conditianal
Use Permit No. 1~~17 to the Plannin~~ Comnission meeting of January 19. 1916; and that the
Planning Department be and hereby is directed ta prepare an Area Development Plan of the
subJect area for consideratic,n at public hearing or~ .lanuary lq~ 1976. said Area Develop-
ment Plan to inc_lude an analysis of the entlre 100 acres of vacant land, constderation
of a hypothetical firm which may have 2,QQ4 employees~ and the resultant traffic impa~t
on the area.
Commissioner Herbsl furtiier no:.ed that the vacant property in the are•3 was owned by
several indiviciual property owners and they should work together in master plan~ing
deveiopment of sair^,
Cn~lDITIOrJAL J~~ - PuaLlr, HE/1RI~IG. STATE I~~DUS7RIE5~ Actn: Nick Ilai , 33~3 E. Gage
PCRMIT N0. 15ag Avenue. Iluntington Park, Cn 90255 (~Wner); reyuestinc~ permission to
havc nP~-SALF FiF.ER 11tID 4lIME on pro?erty described as an irregularly-
shapeci parcel of land consistin~ of approximately 13.0 acres located
at the southwes t corner of I.a Palma Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard~ and further described
as 1021 Kraemer Place. Property presently classif?ed as NL (INDUSTRlAL, l.IMITED) Zone.
No one indicated their presence in oppositlon to subject petition.
Although the StaFf Report to the Plani ing fommission dated Uecember 22, 1975~ was not
read at Che publlc hearing~ salcf Staff Repe>rt is referred to anci rnade a ~art of tf~e
minutes.
Mr. Joseph FI. Ooyl~~ the llgent for the Pekitioner, appeared before the Planning Cammission
and st~t~d the restaurant at the subject location was located in the club house; that
they were not proposinc~ to have a bar, per se; and that the on-sale beer and wine would
be in conj unct ion wi th tF~e serving of rneals ~ only ~ and to patrons of the tenn i s fac(1 1 ty.
~ ~ ~
MIIJUTES, CITY P~AP~NING COMMISSIQN~ Dccembar 22~ 1~75
CQNDITIOIJAL USE PERMIT h~0, 1'~HQ (co~t,)
THf. PUD1.1 C NE11R I NG WAS CI QSF.p.
75-5~5
Dis~usslon pursued conr,crnincl the ~ropased hours of operation, durinct Wh"'rovel fornthe~
C~mm(~slon dekcrmincd thAt snld 'nours should be the eame as oricllnally app
Cennis facllity. from 7:Q0 n.m, to I 1:00 p.m.; ancs Mr, Uayle stated that ~+Ithough they
hacl rer,eived requcsts t~~ play tennis during tlie tv~~nln~ hours during the summertime=, he
~ould stipulate to the foregnlnc~ hours.
Commisslaner Kin~ notecl thAt he ciicl not see how tha fncility could disturb anyone by
be{ng open afCer 11:04 p,m,
Olscusslon pursued concerning any bf Ilboards whlch rt:ay exist Qn the subJect propert.y~
during which Mr. Duyle statr.cl the big 6~llboAr~.1 was removeu at the timc construction wasr Were
begun on the tennis facility; and~ thereuron~ Mr. D~~~le sCi~ulnted that (f any btllhoard.,
still eristing on the suhJect property they woula be removed wlthin thirty days,
I t was noted that the 01 rector of the P 1 anni ng Depart~,nent had detr.rmi necl that the proposed
activity fell within the defin(tion of Section 3.01, Class 1, of the City of Anahelm
Guidel(nes to the Requirements for an Environment~l (mpact Rc~ort and a~as, therefor~~
categorically exempt from tne requirement~ to flle an EIR.
Commissioner Ki ~g offered Resolution No. PC75-2G9 and noved for its passagc and adopCion,
Chat Petition for Conditional Usa Pcrmi t No, 15A8 be ard herel~y is granted, suhject t~
the stipulatlo~ ~F the petltioner that on-sale beer anc+ wine would be available only
during the r~gular hours of operation of the private tennis facility~ from 7:~Q a.m, to
11:00 p.m. dai ly; subJect to the stipulation of the pet~tioner tFiat the on-sale beer
and w(ne wil l be in conJunctlon wi th the serv{ng of inea's only; and subJect to tlie
stipufation of the petitioner to remove ~ny sxistinr billboards whlch may be located on
the subJect property~ sald removal to be completed within thirty days from the date
hereof; and subject eo the Interdepartmental Comm(ttee reeommendatlon, (See Reso{ution
Book)
On rol l cal l, the foregoing resol ution was passed by thc fol lowing vote:
AYES: C~MMISSI(1NERS: BARNF.S, IICRaST~ JQI~P~50~l, KING, NORLEY~ TOL/1R, FAR~tJO
N~ES: COMMISSI~NF.RS: NONf:
l1BSENT: COMMI SS I OI~ERS: ~!O~~E
(PJote: ltem No. 10 of the Agenda, Conditlonal Use Permit tdo, 15~Q, was consider~:d
s i mul taneous 1 y w i th the abo~~a Cond i t tona 1 Use Perri) t Na. ~ 5~%8 i nasmuch as the two
pet'itions pertained to the same property.)
1700 Van N~~ss Ave-
CONDITIOMAL USE - PUBLIC HEARI PdG, t3RITISH MUTf1R CAft DI ST. L,T.D. ,
PERMIT N0. 1 539 nue, San Francisco, cn 94109 '~Owner) ;~~EORGE KOTELES~ 3Z~ W. Coast
Highway~ Newport Beach~ CA 92~~63 ~A9ant); request~ng permisslon to
f3UILD AN ~>UTOMOTIVE SEP.VICE 4=ACILITY on prop~erty described as an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land c~nsisting of approximateiy 13.0 acre~x;~~eefrontages
southwest corr~er of Cerritos Avenue and P~naheim doulevard, having app
of 140 feet on the west side of Anaheim E3oulev:ard and 910 1`eet on the easterly side of
the Santa Pna Freeway, having a maximum depth~of apPesentlyeclas~sifiedcas MLd(INDUSTRIAL,
described as 1501 S. Anahelm kioulevard, Prop..rty p
LIMITED) Z~tJE.
No one indieated their presence in opposition to subJect peCitlon.
Altt~ough the Staff Report to the Plannir~g Commission dated December 22, 1975, was not
read at the publ ic hear!ng, saic! Staff Report is referred t~~ and made a part cf the
minutes.
t4r. George Koteles, the Agent for the Petitioner, ap~eare.d hefore the Planninq Commission
and stated the proposed additional servtce ~,ays would incre3se tha service capat,i 1 ities
of the existing establishment.
THE PUBLIC NEA~ING WAS CLOSED.
~ ~ ~
75~`.~9G
MINUTCS, CITY PI.ANNI~JG CQMMISSIOtI, Decembcr 22, 19'S
CONDITI~NIJ. USE PERMIT N0. 15(l9 (cant,)
, ----------------- --
In response to ~~uesr.lonln~ k~y Commissloner Mc>rley, Mr. Kotcles st~~tr.c1 that. ndequate
parking areas ~•~ere ~~vallable on the aclJolninc~ prop~~rty to thc south 4`or the proposed
use; that the ~:onstruction of the proposed service bullding wc~u1~1 n~~ce~51~uCGWm`II Irnot
al terat ions to the pl tch and putt portlon af the ~dJacenl no11' f,~ci r 1 ty,
resuil in the removal of any IlG~CS~ as shown on an exhihit submltted tn Illustrit~~ the
requi red changes t~ the gol f' f.~ci l i ty; and thnt h~ w~ulcl compl y wi th the I nterdep~rt-
ment~l Commlttse recommendatlons.
CommlSSioner Johnson offcred a rnotion, secondad by Commissf~ner 7olar~ and MOTION C11RR1[D,
that the Anahelm City Plannfng Commisslon does hereby recommend to the City Cou~,cll of
the City ~f llnah~im that the sub,ject pro)eet be exempt frrn,i the requirr,ment to preparr.
nn environmenlal (mpact r~port~ pursu~nt to the provisions of' tl~e C~~llfornia Fnviron-
mental Qu~l i ty l1ct.
Conxnissioner .lohnson offere~l Resolutlon ~Jo. PC75-~7~ ~nd n~ved for lts passage and adoption,
that Petitlon for Conditional Use Permit IJo. 15fi~ be and hereby is granted, basrd on the
foregofn~ findings; subject to the Interdepartmental Committee recommendat(ons. (Sec
Res~~lution Dook)
On rol l cal l~ the foregoing resolutlon was passed by [lie folloa~ing vote:
AYES : COMMI SS 10~lERS : Dl1RtlES, t1E:R[3ST, J~tiNS~tl, Y.I PJG ~ MQRLEY ~ T~LAR, Fl1RANQ
tJOES : C~MM I SS I ON[ RS : IIONE
A(3SENT: C~Mt11 SS I OPlERS : FlOIIE
CONDITIOPIAL USE - PUDLIC NFARINf, STATE INUUSTRIF:S, 33R3 E• Gage Avenus~ Huntlnqton
1i;32 b!. Deverl Drive,
PERMIT N0. 159~ Park~ CA 907.55 (Owner) ; JOSEf 11 li. D~YLE~ Y
Anaheim, CA ~7.fl01 {Agen[); rEquest!ng permission ior an AUTOMOE3ILF
REPAIR SIIOP on pro{~e~ty described as an irregularly-shaped parcel
of lan~J consisting of approximaCely 13.~ acres located southwesterly of the intersection
of l.a Palma Avenueresentl~eclassified~as~MLn(iNDUSTRIALeSLIMI7ED)SZONC, I~E" Kraemer
Place. Property p Y
No one indicated their preser:e in oppositlon to subject petit(on.
Althou9h the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated December 22~ 1975, was not
read a[ the public liearing~ said Staff R.eport is referred to and ma~e a part oP the minutes.
Mr. Joseph li, Doyle~ the Agent f~r the Petitioner~ appeared before the Planning Commission
and stipulated to com,~lyin~ with all Buiiding Code requirements in r.onnecCion with the
proposed autumotive repair shop, especlally those requirements relat(ng t~ the door.
THE PUI~LIC NEARING WAS CI.OSEG,
In response to questioning by Commissioner HPrbst, Mr. Doyle stated the faci 1 ity would
provide tune-ups; whereupo«, Commissloner He~osriateeforhthetusesproPosed~,iandnhefaced
La Palma Avenue and did no appear quit~e ePP P
questione~maneo erationian~l~thehrnanewe ld,hPPdoing tuneDupseforsaeople heahadhalread~sal
was a P
set-up.
Commissloner Mc~1ey n~ted tfiat the access to the facllity was not ap~ropriate since the
customer~ woulc have to come to the front and then drive completely around to the back
for the work to be performed. Ch,~irman Farano noted that the proposed fbeiincom~a[ibleP
approximately in the middle of the subject buliding and, therefore~ may P
with other uses {n said building. Commissinner Tolar notec~ that the proposal was a
commercial use in an in~ustrial area anc~ was remotely different from the other existin~ared
uses in the subJect building. Commissioner flerbst added th~t the subJect building apP
to be inappropriate for the use since said building was not properly constructed for an
automoblle repair shop.
In rebuttal, Mr. Doyle stated the subje Gt cumplex had bee~ op:n approxlmately ten months
and was not even S~'G o~cupiecl; and they had taken down some ~.,f thetr own barriers in
order to accommodate the subJect use; whereupo~, Commissionr.r Tolar nvied that it wou1~J
be difflcult for the Planninh Commission to Justify approval of the proposal.
Itsedsactivltyhfellhwit~hinGtlie defi~~itionrofnSecti~nt3ep1,f1C1asstl~mof~thehCityhopPro-
P~
` ~ ~
MINUTES, CiTY Pl.AN~~ING G~Mf11SSI0N, December ?.7.~ 1975 ~''~'~~
C~-JDITIntIAI US[ PFRMIT t10, 15`.1~ (cont.)
Anaheim Guldelines Co thc Re~~ulremenCs f~~r ~~n Enviranmentt+l Impact Rr.port ~nci was, thcre-
fore~ categorically exempt fror~ the requlrement to fi~e nn f.IR.
Commissloner Tolar o~fer'~11~i5U~ct~,~rmrl,t,NoC71~)O,ben~n~lphcrebyrlstdenled~,~based on~(theon,
that Petltlon for Condi[
f~7regoing findinqs. (Sec Resc~lutinn Ilook)
On r;~ll call~ che forcg~~f~n resolution W85 pas~ed by the followlnn vote:
AY[S: COMMISSI01lERS: ll~RtlES, VIERBST, JQIINS~11~ kitlG, MORLEY, TOI.AR~ F~RANf1
NQES : COMMI SS I ON[ RS : ~~(ltlE
ABSENT: CQMMISSI~NE~'7: -~~~~~
nusly~ 'twi~th~the abovleeConlltlonalnUse,PcamitSPlo,ei59~ Nnasmuct~i~asathe~tro~petlt(qnS~t~ne-
pertained t~ tlie same property.)
COIJDII'IONAL USE - PUDLIC IfEARINr,, ARTHUR V. ICIIUFMAN, '~~2 S. fi(ll 5treet~ Suite ~~~9~
PERMIT N0. 1592 Lo~ /lnqeles~ CA 9001h (Own~r); TNOMAS G~Ob411N, 2.600 W. Lincoln Ave.~
' '- Anahelm~ C/1 92~301 (Agent); requesCing permission to permit TRUCK AND
TRAILER RENTALS on pro{~erty described as a rectangularlY°shap~d
parcel of land corisistin~ of appraximately .35 acre loc:ated at the southwest cornsr of
Lincoln Avenue and Magnolia Avenu~~ having apprnximate frontages of 150 feet on the south
side ef Lincoln Avenue and 105 feet on Che west sicle of Magnolia Avenue~ and further described
as 2600 W. Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classificd as CL ;C011M[RCIAI.~ LIh~ITED)
ZONE.
No one indiGated their pre5ence in oppositlon ta subject petitlon.
Although the Staff Raport to the Planning Commisslon dated December 22~ 19?5~ was not
read at the public hearing, said Staff Reporr. is referred to and made a p~rt of the
minutes.
Mr. Tom Goodwin, tha~ Agent for tlie Petitioner~ appeared before the Planning Conanissfon
and stated the subject bus(ness haci been ~t this location for approximately six years~ and
he had operated it for approximately one year; thit he was try~~g to operate within the
requirements of the City of Anaheim; and that he was advised by the City Planning
Department at one time that everything was all right.
TNE PUB~IC FIEARING WAS CLOS[D.
In response to questioning by Commissioner Ilerbst, Mr. Goodwin stipulated that ;.he trucks
to be stored on the subject pr~perly would not exceed 24 feet in length. Cammissioner
Herbst indicated that the intenC was to permit nu diesel trucks to be stored on the
property.
In response to questioning by tlie Planning Commis~~ion, Mr. Gaodwin stipulatecf that no
more chan five rental trucks would be stored on the subject property at any one time and
that the storage area of said r,rucks an~' th~ rental lrallers, as a permitted accessory
use at the service station, v+ould not occupy more than 1G2, of the total site. Cummiss(oner
Morlsy noted that the petiticner woulcl probably not overload the property with the rental
vehicles ur the qasoline sales wouid he impaired,
Discussion pursued concerning a vehicle which was ~~arked at the rear of the service
station, blocl:inn circulatfon~ during wl~ich Mr. ~oodwin indicated that said vehicle was
his personal vehicle and was parked there to pr~.venC other vehicles from going over the
2-foot dro~ at the rear of the subJect property.
In response to quest~oning~ Zoning Supervisor Ar~nika Santalahti advised that there was
no record that the tree planting fees had ever been paid or billed for the subJect property;
and that a determinat(on had h~~therdthan~reqtuirinn installation1bytthe ~~operty owneo~~•i-
ate for the subJect property~
Commissiuner Barnes questioned whether the huge billboard on the sub}ect propcrty was
being leased from the subJect pronerty awner, and Mr. Goodwfn responded that ne believed
said billbaard was permitted by a condicionai use permit on thr, sub]ect properCy whicl~
had been transferred fror~ the C~unty to the City.
~ ~ ~
75-5~~1
r~l!~ures, r,ITY PI.ItiNNI~a~ cnrir~ir,slnti~ U~c:~mner zz~ 1~)75
f.~NDiTI0t1l1L USE PEftN1T PJQ. ~~^,~2 (c~nt.)
I t was noCed tliat the Di rector of thc I' 1~inn Inc1 Dr.~~irtment had racCerm( ~ed that the proposod
actl~~ity fel) withln the clcf(nitlan of Scctlon 3,b1. f,lt~ss 1, nf Lhc '~ty of Ar~~helm
f,«idelines t~~ the Requirements for an ~nvlranment~~l Irnp,ict Rr.~ort ~~nc ~•~as~ therefore,
cat~gorically exempt from tha requlremcnt to Filn an F.IR.
Commissior~e.r ilsrbst offered Rosotutlon No. ~r,75-27? and mc~vr,d for fts p~ss~ge ancl ndnptlon,
th:~t Petltilon for Condltlon~~l tlse Permlt ~~~, ~59x be ~nd hcrehy ls gra~ ;ed, sub.Jr.ct to
the forc:q~ing finciings and stl{~~~I ~t ions of tl~e petl tioner; an~f sub.Ject to the li~terciepart-
mental Cortxnittee reconm~enciatlons. (SeG Resolutlon Uook)
On roll call~ the for~eqoing resolutlon was passerl by tlie follow(ng vote,
AYES : COMMI SS I ONERS: E3ARt~F.S ~ H[R657, JQHNSOIJ . KI NG~ MORLE`I ~ TOI.AR, F1IRAPIO
NoES: COMMISSIOf~EftS: ~IAP~E
ADSENT: COMMISSIONEft; N011E.
VAR ( ANCE NQ. 2~40 - PUD~. I C HEAR I NG : E3lAND NUFFMA~! , I 15G L 1 r~cla V I s ta , Orange , CA ~126(~ J
SuiCe 101 Tustin,
' ~ (Owner); GiLBERT ~. T}iOMAS~ 17671 Irvine Dlvd., -
CA 9268~ ~~9ent); requesting a WAIUER OF (11) REO.UIf~EME~~T THAT LOTS
FRONT QN A PUBLIC STREET AND (B) MINIM'JM NUMBER QF' P~RKIN~ SPIICES TO ESTAEfLiSN !1N A-LOT
MULTIPL[-FAMIIY SUBDIVISION on propErty descr?bed as a rectangularly°shaped parcr.t of
land consisting of approxiRately 1.7a acres~ having a frontage of approximately 176 feet
on th~ west sidc of Knott Avenue~ havin9 a maximum depth of approximately ~~42 fcet and
being located approximately fi5f1 feet north of the centerl~ne of Qrange Avent~e~ and
further described as ~+01 S. Y.nott Street. Property presently classified: RM-120~
(FESI DENT111L, MULTI Pl.E-FAMI I.Y) ZONE.
No one indicatecl their presence In opposltion to subject petitiori.
Althou~h the 5taff Report to the Planning Commission dated Der.ember 22~ 1975~ was not
read at the public hearing, s~id Staff keport is referr'ed to and made a part: of thc minutes,
Mr. Gilbert Thamas, the A9ent ~'or the i'etltioner~ appeared before t~iE Planning Commission
and questioned what changes ~~ere necessary to the exist+n~ trash stora~e areas in order to
comply with the rP.quirements.
THE PU4LIC FfEAFING ~IAS CLOSF.D,
!n resp~nse to the forec~oi~9 questlon~ Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised that
clearance from the Sanitation Division concerning the trash storage areas woulcl be
required.
~1r, Lowry expiained that the pr~perty was apparentlY developed legally witl7 the appropri-
ate building nermits, etc.; however, prior to the subject pstitioner acquir•ing the property
thr~ugl~ a foreclosure action~ the property had been lllegally split into se:parate lots~
and therein lay th~ reason for the subject variance request which would r~ake the lot
splits legal.
In response to questioninc~ by Cnmmissioners I;ing and Morley, Mr. Thomzs st~~ted they were
aware of the re~a~iirement.s concern(ng easements with Joint agreements for private util(tf~~s
and that a finai tract map was requlred to be recc,rded. In response to questioning by
r;ommissioner Jol,nson~ Mr. ~ooclw(n stated that althou~h the. lots were spiit illegally,
they liked the idea of the indiviriual lots and the income to be derived~ and wouid not wish
to keep the property as one larc~e parcel.
In response to further questio~inc~ by Chairman Farano, Assistant 7oninq Supervis~r Altan
Daum advis~d thac the size of the lot5 woul~ be in conforman~e with the Rh1-1200 Zo~e
standards, with the exception of the two requested waivers relating to puhlic street
frontage and number of parkinc~ spaces.
Commissioner Morley offered a matfon~ seconded by Commis,loner Barnes and Mt1TI~J~i CARRIED~
that the Anahe~m City Planninc~ Cammissi~n does hercby rECOmmend to the Clty Council of
the City of Anaheim that the subJect proJect Ue exempt from Lhe r~quirement to prepare an
e~vironmental impact report~ pursuant to the provislons of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
~ ~ ~
r~INUT[S, cii'v ~~.ni~Nii~c C~MMl~iSI~N, n~c~~~,-,~r z2, '~~75
VARIANCE N~), 7.7~~h (cont.}
.~._...,_._..._._._-
•~ r ~ .,. ~ c~ ~)
C<~~m!ssloner Mnrley offr_rF~d ItesoluClon Nr,. rc75~7.13 and moved for Its passaq~~ an~1 ;~doptlon,
that Petltinn ~or V~riancc Ilo. 171~~ ~i<' ~i~i~t here>y is clr~nted, c~r~~nCinq thc re~~~ucst~~d
w~iivcrs on thc basi~ t`iat kli~~ pctitiuner dcmon~,tratecl thnt a hardship would Gc crr.~~tcd
if s,~icf walvors wr,re nok c~ranted; th~~t tha suhicr.C p-'opr~rty hns becn unlr~wFully suh-
dividud into clght. lots .~ri~l ;~ppr~~v~~l of this v~rlance ~nd sat(sf~ac.tion of all the c~ndit~c-~s
thereof, will brin~ thc devel~r+ment Into conformance with Che Code requirements; sub.)ect
t<~ thc Inrordr.pnrcmental f,ommiCCce rec~~mmen~lntions. (See Resolutfon Dook)
fln r•nll c~till~ the Forec~oinq resolutlon was p.~ssecf I~y t~ie rollowinc~ v~t~~:
AYCS: f,~MMISSI~Mf•.RS: f~AItIIES, IIERBST. K?N~,~ 110RLCY, TOLAR~ F11(tl1NQ
'dUl'S: COMMISSIQNCRS: ,1011PIS(1P~
AEfSE~iT: CQMf105SI0PJF.RS: I~Otlf.
Vl1itIANCE N0. 2JG5 - PUaI.~C FIEAfiINC, EV1111 P. JOHNSON~ JR.~ et al, c/~ Jick J, Rimel~
~' 1055 h, Il~~in, Suitc h~i~~ Santa Ann~ Cl1 92701 (Owncr); R. E-. STOCK~!('LL,
Coirmwn(ty [3ank, 2~fS5 Fletcher Drlve, Los ~nc~eles, cn 7~c~G5 (Ac~ent);
rcquestin~ a WAIVE~ OF PERMIT7Fb USFS TO f.6tlSTftUCT A BAIlK on ~rcpertv described as an
lrre~ularly^shaped parc.el of land conalstln~ ~f approxfm~tely 1.5 acres, havfng a frontage
of approximately 225 f~:et on the e~st si~e of St:ate College Bo~_ilevard~ hav(nq a mriximum
c1e~,th oti approximately 325 feet, anr.i bcinn located approximately 'l7'~ feet north ef 't~he
centerl(ne of Katella Avenue. Property preseni.ly classified ;+s 11i. (INUUSTfs111L, ~_IMITFDi
7.~NE.
Plo nne indicated their presence in opposition to subJect pctition.
Althaugh Che Staff Report tc~ the Plannin~ Commissian dated December 27.~ 197~i, was not
rEad at th~ puhlic hearing, said Staff Repor: is :eferred to ancl m~de a p..irt of the minutes.
14r. A. R. .'ensen, representincl Community E3~~n~•, the Agent f~r thc~ Petitioner, appeared
before the Plannin~ Commission and stated they a~ere prc~posing to iiave f.heir re~ional
office at thc subject location; thar. tne:y were oresently localed In an indi~strial area
and serviced primarily smal) industrlal and commercial businesses; and that [I~e usual
regul~tory ap~roval had been obtained for the bank.
THr". PUDL I C HEAR I NG IJAS CLOSEU.
In respons: to c~uestioning by Chairrnan Farand, 11r. JPi~sen stated that "'1:~ of ~~heir funds
were l.naned to small industrial and c•.oinnercial busnfesses and that ~i0 ~.o G5v uf their
deposit~rs were also From the business commurilty.
The Plannir~~ Commission expressed concern regardinc~ the status of the surrounding properties
for develupmenk, notinn that the subject property was right in the m~~dle of a l,~rgc
piecc of w~c~~nt lend; that a narrcw strip af land woulcl he created :~etwcen the subject
parccl and the service station pioperty to the sauth; and that the :'uture street would
create a further hardship for the narro~v strip or land.
Mr, Howard Lapham, the ~rchitect~ appeared before the Planning Cormission ta answer
qur.stlons concerning the design of tlie proposal. The Planning Ccr~mission inquired why
the en[ire developmen*. could not be rmved to immediately adjacen'. to the service s[ation
ta "he south~ and Mr. Lz+pham stared the proposal was moved north in order ta create a
lar~er parcel for the servicP statior. site (n the future; Cliairrian Farano noted that an
extrerr~ly smal~ piece of pro~erty wouid be left wliich would ha~e a buflt-in hardship for
dev..lopment 1n the future.
Mr. LaFham stareci that in the event tlie railroad ~mderpass co the narth was canstructed
10 to 15 Years from the pre~e~t time. thie lot to the north would probably have ta be
aband~lne~; whereupon, Cortimissioncr Talar noted that moving rhia subJect deve~opment to
the south would not tnierfere with the railroad underpass, Mr. Lapham further s~ated the
enLire property~ includinq the service s~ati~n stte~ was prFSently in ~.-scrow pencliny the
outcome of the subject variance request.
Mr. Jim Stanley~ the real estate broker for the subject property, appeared before the
Planninh Commission a~d stateci the service station slte was presently under lease to
Union Oil Company and as of June '.~76 the owners had the ftght to move the lessees out
of the property; howevPr~ the naw prope~~ty owners could not bulid on the carner for
another five years,
~ ~ ~
MINUTF.S, CITY PLAI~NIIIf, COMMISSIUP~~ Uecember 21.~ 1')75 7!i-60D
Vl1RIANCE NQ. 2~G5 (cont.)
Commi ss I oner Ilerbs e noted th~~ t[he proposed pr i vaCe r~~~id wo~i1 d c~:ase t~~ exl s t i n the even t
the rallroau undr.rpas~, wns constructccl; Chat the sub,jec[ pro~.~erky s;houid be pl~tinne~.t ~iith
a ci~•culatfon cl~mr.nt to re~olve the prohlerTr prlor to constructing ,any biallJinc~s; ~nd
that. hc did no[ f~vor a priv~~te streot in thc developmr.nt sincc .i cormx:rci~~) strect w~~~
needed to h;~nrtle thc. hc~~vy truck tr,tfflc for th~~ fnturc Indiiskrlal n~~rk.
Conmfssion~r Tolar inquirr.d if the hank plann~~d to rele~ise to thc scrvice s[atlan in 197~~;
and Mr. .lensen stc~ted they cfld not !<now at the pr'esent timc. Commissioner folar ~hen
noted thaC 3fnce the bank would be loc~ited In an industrial z~~ne, many af thC ~ca:ss problems
could be eliminated if It was construct~d on the c~rner; r,n~1 that ~~e woulci nnt. icte in
Eavo+• of Chc plan {yropo5ed.
Commissi~ner i3arncs Indlcated c~ncern that Ir oortions of th~ properly frontin~ on Statc.
Col leqe Ooulev~~r<i were sold off in che Futu~•c~ thc pr~~,posed ~ui ldin~~ wauld set ~I~scr to
that s[rect '.han w~uld probably be allowed in th~ future for other portions of the property;
whereupon~ Mr, L~pham stated the suG.je:ct building would still be 57 to GO-feet from the
street, huwever, therr would hc a hypothetical propr.rty llne.
Chairman Farino noted that the general cuncensus of the Plannin~~ i.ommi~sion was that the
proposecl ~l~ns were not accept~~~~le dile to the lacation nf the bank and the ns~,rrow strip
of land that would be created. Ile indicated thar. precise ~lans were a~so de~slrable.
CcmmiSSioner Johnson noted r.hat he did not necessarlty ac~rec that the Uank t.ad to be
built on the corner if ttie other shortcomin~~s of thr pro)ect~ as dlscussed, could be
resolved.
Commissioner Herhst noted th~i~: if the suhJect m~+t.r.ers wa> contfnued for revised plans,
the entire pro~erty~ includin<i the service szatian siCe, should be readvertised to me~t
the requirem~nts wl~ich may be necessary to rs~c.h a deci ion on the bank l~.~cation,
Office Engineer Jay Tikus advised th~t the p~~'~tioners should be made aware that no
access was permicted to State College E3oulev •d within GQG ~eet o~ ti~e railroad.
Commissioner 7olar offered a motion~ sec~
ta reope~ the public hearing ancl contin~
to the Planning Commission meetinq of .
the service station site, and for rev~
'lARIANCE NQ, 7.?G8 - PU4LIC IIF.ARI!IG
-- (Owr~er) ; requ.
S I GN I NG TO ES'~ '~
shaped parcel of land consistinn ~~
of Viking Avenue and 5tate Colle~,~~ '~
the east s(de of State College H~~u •~
and further described as ~338 S. St ~
as fiS-7200 (RF51 DENTI AL, S I NGL( -Fru•~ .
t, Cc~mmissioner I'.inc~~ and MOTIQtI CARRIED~
Y
•, ;ider~,tion of Petition for Variance Plo. ?.765.
~ ;, '9]6y for readvertisement to include
- ,•-
,;~it~.~, 2211 E. Romneya~ Anaheim~ CA 9zao6
~~ '1FR OF (A) PE.RMITI"FD USES AND (8) PERMITTED
~ iFFlCE on property described as a rectangularly-
-~~~a`ely 0.15 acre located at the southeast corner
~~. -~i h~ving approximate frontages of 60 feet on
~nd 10~ feet on the snuth side of Viking Avenue,
'~~ ienc Boulevard. Property presently classified
'~'~E.
No one indicated their presence in ~~,~.~~~i~_ion to subJect petition.
Although the Staff ReporC to the "1~,~•i^g Commissi~~• da[ed December 22, 1975~ was not
read at the publiG hearing, s:,id ~r,.f~ ZeporC is ~ rerred to and made a part of the min~~tes.
Hr. William Ehrle, the propere> own~ . appeared before the Planning Commisslon and stated
the house Qn thc s~~b_ject properf•~ .~a= approximately 2~ years old; that he needed space for
his consultiny ~nd puhlic rela: or:~ luslness and was seeking to use the entire subject
property for t-~e research and o~fi<~ spaee; and ~hat he ran campai~ns for political
offices, etc.
THE PUBLIC 11[JIRIPIG'~JAS ~Q~ED.
Chairma~ ~arano inquired if the petitioner was ~ware that the Ci~y had conducted a front-
on st~.~c1~. (n 1468 r~ determine whether a piece of property was sultable for convers(on from
a r~siccntia' to a commercial use,and the designated properties were earmarked by the
Planning Commission anci approvsd by the Clty Counc({; that the designated ~~ropertiic~d~on
not incl~cie the sut>ject propcrty; that he was hesitant to approve the sub.}ect app
since it would surely ~et a precedent for the area since it was locaP.ed on a corner; tl~at
he could not say that the f(ndings of the Commission In 196R were stlll valid, howevero
~ ~ ~
7S-bnl
MINUTES, CITY ~'~.~tl~litl~~ ~~M~~~S`~li1~l, 11cr.:crihcr '1'l., 197~~ "~
VAR.' ^',~E NQ. ;'.?6!~ ~cc~rit.) I
l'he r~~tionale i'c~r~ ctrantin<i "i~. ,ul~)ec.t varlanr.c coulcl not ba hased upon `i:-rdsh~,~, sln~'e
therc were .~ther pf~I~CftIeS in the City which were sultable for Che proposdd use.
Mr. fihrle stateri that w'th tlir. ~ropcrty hr.inq ~~n a corner. the parkin~ situation ~voulcl
not be dlfFicult; that the pr~nose~l type of c~pernti~n w.~s not clencrally open t~ thc
public~ ~ut w~tis l~y ~~pE~ointmcnt only, ~nc1 tliere was a15o parkin~) available on thc promises;
and thac s I r~ce t~7e nc: i ~hl~ors d f c! nut ob Jc;ct to r.he use ~ h~ c~ul d ca 1 1 f t a res I denc.e
a~d co;iduct a bus(ne~~s ~ut of It. 11hr..reupon, Chalrr~an Farana clarific:d th~t the prop~:~s~~l
was n~~C classffied as ~ hor~x` ~ccuPatlon in which ca~e ~-u~~[omers wcrc: not pr.~~~~(ttecl tc
r,ome to the res i den~~e .
t1r. Fhrle then stated he could underst~nd the Pl~~nntncl Commisslon5 concerns since th~
s~~bJect rcyuest would rr.qulrr. ~ re-ev~ilu~tion of tti~ front-~nn study for all of the homes
in the bloc.k; however~ the subJect praperty was located close to a market and othar
auslness est3blishm~•nts in thr immediate area~ and w~s only 12Q ~eet fr'om a maJor shoppinct
center on the same side of thc street.
Chafrman Farano not.~d thal' he wnulcl favor a continuation of the subJect request slnce he
had nut looked at the Sl1h,jECC area recently in thr_ context of the current d(sc~ssion;
and that the Commissfon would be seekin~ to determine whether the circumst~~nces invo~vin~
thc subject residentla) .-~r~a had changecl slnce 19~~3.
In response to questi~ning by Comm(ssloner Tolar, hlr. Eh+'le stated he presently owned the
suhject property; that the property had been a rental for 10 years priur to him ~~urch~sinc~
it; that the praperty was now in be.tter condition than it ever• waa; snd :'~e people in the
area were hapeful that the subJect proposal wouid be approvPd.
Commissioner Herbst notsd that the re.~l impact was not ,just the hauses f~cing on State
College Roulevard~ but would involve to-~o rows of houses back fror.i said street; that an
area development plan appearecl to be appropriate for the ent~re block; that he was not
in favor of converting a house into an offir.e use ur,less It was made to look like an
office; and, further, that he was nat in favor of aJditional strip commercial zoning
along State College Boulevard unless iC was for the betterment of the City.
In response to questioning by the Planning Commiss~on~ Zoning Supervisor Annika Santalahti
advised thar, the next area development plans were scheduled to be heard in March or April~
1975 and that only three area develupment plans could be heard during a calenclar yea~r~
according to law; and~ tlierefore, a review of the 1968 front-un study would b~ app p iate
in connectlon with the subJect petition.
Commiss(oner Barnes offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Morley~ and MOTION CARRfE~,
to reopen the public hearing and continue consideration of Variance PJo. 276~J to th~ Planning
Corrxnission meeling af January !9~ 197fi~ for a review of the 19~~ front-on study as it
rE:lates to the SubJect property and block.
EMVI RONMENTAL It1PACT REPORT N0, 162 -
OOROTFIY f~. TRAVIS, 2114G Espcranza
PUBI.I C HEARING.
CA 92II07 and VIRGIPJIA RICHARDS AtJD
im
h
A
d
VARIANCE N0. 2J70
9169
MAP OF TRACT N0 ~
e
na
Roa
.
Santa Ana CA 927~3~
FLLE~a SIMMONS, 912 Tower Street~ ~
.
TENTATIVE
TENT TIVE. P1AP OF TRACT N0. 9~7~ (Owners) ; 411TTE~IBERG C~RP. ~ 606 S. Fli 11 StrFet,
CA 9001 ~~ and t1ADOLE A~1L~ ASSOC I ATES , I NC .,
Tf.NTAT I VE MAP OF TRACT NO . 9171
9T72
T N0 Los Ange 1 e~ ~
CA 9271~~ (Agentsl.
17807_ Sky Park Boulevard~ lrvine,
.
TENTATIVE MAP OF TRAC
-- - Property described as an irregularly-shaped ~arcel
r land consisting of approxima:ely 2G.~~ acres~ havinS
o
a frontage of approx'mately 2c134 feet on the north
side of La Palma Avenue, havin~ a maximum depth of
and bein~ located approximate~y
~~:t
2~~5 f
,
e
approximt~tely
30~ feet west of the propcsed 1~le i i Canyon Roac1,
presently classified RS-A-43,000(SC) (RESIOF.NTIAL/
AGRICULTURAL - SCENIC CORRIDOR) 2(1NE.
REQUESTED VAR I ANCE : WAi Vf.R OF (A) MI N I MUM EiU! LD I NG S I TF. 4/ I DTN AtdD (D) RE~U I RENEtIT
A~,1165L~7LRSF50~~~SC)RSI JGLESFAMILYOS~JBDIV~ISAON~{IGHiIAYS T4 ESTABLI511
TENTATIVF TP,ACT REQUEST: Tract No. 91~9 -
917~ -
`l 3~
3~ RS-5000(SC)
RS-500~(SC) l.(1TS
I.OTS
o.
Tract
Tract No. 9171 - 27 RS-500~(SC) I.OTS
Tract t~o, 917Z ~ 25 RS-So~o(SC) IoTS
~
~
MINUTES~ C17Y PIAIINING CQMMISSION~ December 22~ 1975
~
~
75-60?.
ENV i RQNMF.NTIIL 1 M~ACT REPn(tT ~IO. 162 ~ VAR I ANCE IJQ. 2770; TF.N7AT1 V~ ~'1I1P5 ()F 1'RACT
NoS . 9169 ~ 9170 ~ 9171 ~nr~n ~~ 1 2 r~n c.) . .---
Chalrman F,~rAno note~i th,it inesm~ich as the Plannl~g Corrwnlsslon had in~dvertently failecl
lo recelve the environmental imnAGt roport document perraining to the subJect Items in
ample time fur r~vlew, the Plannincl Gommission wes respectfully reyu~sCinn that
s8id items be continued to th~ meetin~ of ,lanuary 5~ 1`~7~>•
C~mmissioner Tolar offcred a motlon~ seconded by Commissloner King~ and MOTION CARRIF.D,
that the publi~ hearing and consid~rotien ^f th~ ~uUiect items bE cantinued t.o the
Plannlny Commisslon meeting of January 5~ 1976~ foi- furCl~er review oi' nc~ environmental
impact report doZUment.
REPORTS AND IT~M N0. 1
RECOMMEP~DATIQNS CONUIT~D~~A~ USE PERMIT t~0, 15Q~i - Requ~st for extensi,m af •.ime -
Pr~perty consistinc; o~ approxlmately 1.0 acre~ having a frontage
af ~oproximately 22! f^et on tf~e soulh s(de of La f'alma Avenue~
havin9 a marlmum depth of approxlrrwCely 197 feet~ a~d befng
located appro.cimately b50 Feet east oF the centerline of Sunkist
Street,
It was noted that the applicant (Joel C. Sockv!ell~ Vice-Presldent of Mini Skool) wAs
reques~i~g apprcval of an e~ctenston of time for Condit(onal Use Permit No. 15~~ in order
to fulfill all the requiremenCs to establish n children's day care and pre-sr.hool
facility at the subJect location; that Resoluttun No. PC74-?.4h, approved in c~nnection
with the subject C.U,P, reyuired that certain conditions of approval be met within a
period of one year~ being (a) a bond be posted with the: City to guarantee the tnsCalla-
tlon of street lighting facilitles along La Palma Avenuc~ (1~) payment af tree planting
fees, and (c) recordation of a parcel map, none of whicli had been met; and that there
had been no previous tirne extensions f~r sald C.U.P.
Commissioner Nerbst nffered a^~otlon, seconded by Commissioner Morley, and MOTIOP~ CARRIFD~
that the Pianning Commission does hereby yrant a one-year extension of tlme Por Canditio~al
Use Permit No. 15~4, as requested by the appllcants~ safd time extension to expire
December 28~ 1976.
~ ~ ~
MTIv'UTb;.,~ C7.'rY 1'T~NfIIPlG CON~,fI,~;'ION, D1~,CIuNQ3LtZ ?1, 1~17`.i
15-(~~:3
f'1CPUR7.',~ Ai~~ - ]'.'r1CM NQ. :.
EtFCCOEtFC Ivpv(L;NDA'1'IUNS E~PCLA:;SII'1'.OA'1'TOI~ PdU. 7A-'7~-3'~ - flaquo3l: for~ approval ol' r•ovi:sed
plan: - l'roporty aon~:isi;inf~ u;' App~~oximai.~~ly .L.Ua. aurea, locat~cl
on the iiuc•i;li c~i~l~ of I3~l:l fload, a{~pt~oxitnatA.ly f32U foei, wus1; ~~f i;h~
oeiii;or•lino ~f Dctlo 5't~•ee t, o,iic~ 1'ui~ tl-o~• do:~c!.~ibed a,~ lEi6:3 W~~it Lin11
ltund .
Tho Stal'f IZ~Faoi•i~ t;~ 'tlic~ ['lanning Coirunl~JlOf1 datad peuo~iil~~t' 2"l, "1'J75, vr~,cs prc~~~oritad and
made a pc~i•t of +~he min~ii~e~. ~t wa~ noted i;hr~i; tho t'iai~~1ing (;ouuulr.c:.ioi~ wou:Ld wi:ih i;o det;c~r-
mine if i;h~~ pro~uued r~vi.~ed p7•an:s wero aPpi'opriatv 1n v.f.ew of tho lunc~~cupod buffer orlglrially
approveci in connection with di~velotimoni~ oi' th~ :~~~U,}oa~ti prcporLy; t~14L '~f10 pi~ima~~y dtfforonues
bel;ween the orlgina:l.:Ly approvod plan~ ~r.d the rovi~od nlan^ uon:i~.:~ted of c~ T~od<<oL9.on lr! unit:}
from 25 'to 19, oliminr~,Lion Jf "i.ucsk-undor" p~t•kir~g, c~ ahange~ to 1~ho on-~ii~o o~lroulni;i.on
pai;tei•~i. e-nd de].ei;ior. ~f 't;ho 18.T1(~30&n:LTIf,T aoparc~ting ~ub,}oct ~;ropat~i~y and i,h~ sing:le• f:c~mily
reaidence:~ to the north,
Mr. Mike C1ark, 33U3 F'arbor• Dou:Levar~d, Co:s~l~,~s Mosu, uppe~al'od befu-~o tl~e Planning Cammi~:•ion
e,s tho develoFer ot the ~ul~,}ect pr~.pori~y t,u fan~wor yuc~sttons regardt.~g i:ho propoa~l.
Joauni~:~i.oner Harb~t notod i;hai; t;he revis~d planri indicr~tod i;he l+~ndscapod buffer ~trip
separating the sub,jeat dovelopmont from i;ho ad,jaoont RS-720C~ ~;raot w~.: being eli~ninated ~-nd
carports wotild abut 3aid adjacent propori;y; that, un].es:3 l;ho ~ub~`eo~~~eation~T toVtle aarpoai;
a written petition from tho adjacont propoc•ty owners indio~l,iri~; J
wall uacking up t<> i;ho•lr baclc yards, Y.o would not voi;e in favor of i;he ~roposal; ~;hrsi: the
oarport wall wuuld orea~t;e an ~~nfe,ir ~itu~tlon fur the pe~ple 1ivi.ng in thA ad.jaooni; RS-77_00
traat sinae said wall. would b~~ a n~inimunt of oighi; foot high and would L-1or;lc off tlielr view,
wind , eto. ; and that the residoni;ial. inl;~grit,y of the arya shuuld be pratect~d.
Cou~missioner Tolar noted that, although he recogni.zod tho dis1;[~nc~s b~tween i;hf3 adjaoen~.-
stru~i~ir•es and the property linr, , i;ha poop].o wou:Ld ~'cill. bo lookin~ ni; the brsck of th3
oarport ~vall; th~i. the buffer w~,~ vory important and 1~:~a1: w~~ why the Plannin~ Ccmmis:;ion
had spent so muah i;ime conaidering tho pruposa.l initia7.ly; that ~tk~o revised plans were coin••
pletely difforent from the originally approved p].ans ai~d he would not vo~o in favor oP said
revised plans without the mc~.tter being readvertiseci and considerea ~Lt a public hearing.
Chairman Farano noi;ed th~zt the revisod pl~ns were e uompleto dep~rture lrom the approved
p~.aYis , and he would oancur that a nublic hearir.g be r~equired.
Mr. C1ark reviewod the proposed socurity sysl~em f'or tl~e project, noting ~hat tho Anaheim
Fire Departmen~t had some i•esorvations ebout the safoLy of said system; ~.vY~ereupon, Stafi
advised the~t the Plarinin6 Conunission could not waive any i•equirements of the Fire Code.
~lir. Clark ~;hon addros~ed himse'lf' to the revisions , stai;i.ng that , in i;erms of elin~inating
or iesse~cii.ng the noiso, the rov~.sc~d plans with the wall wo~ild elim~nate more noisa 'tY18I1
le..Jsaeping would; thst the oz°iginally proposed 6-~oot wall could be poer•ed over into the
ad,jaoent single-fsmily tr•act aiid the proposed carport wall would n~ake it virtu~lly impossible
for anyone +~ look over into the adjacent back yards; that i;he Qdjaaent property cwnors were
in agreement with the r•evised p]-ans; tl:at one of the adjacent proper~;y owners was requesl,ing
~o havo a building mr~i;erial v~hich would provide conti.nuity i;o his exis+,ing t+locY. •,vall aud
t~he developers weru agreoable to so furnishing the wall; the.t the adjacAni; nroperty owners
had expre~~ed concez~n that the leaves from ~Lhe trees woula blow into their swimming pools,
e~,c. , and +,hat the i;r•ees iiitended to be ~lanted in the landsc~ped buffer would not bo as
effective a,s a wall sinae i;h~y c~ll l.iked i;hoir prlvacy; thai they wero proposing tc roduoe
the number of dwelling uriii;s in the proJeot from 25 to 19; that they were required to oi•ovide
38U0 squar~e feat of rocroational leisure aroa to meet i;he Code roquirements, and they were
pr•oposing to provide over 4600 square feet; snd that the develuper was interestod in a
quality pro,jeot end would offer a better buildin~, a:1d land use than previously approved.
In responso to qtiestioniYig by Commissioner Herbst, ivL. Clark indiaated that he oould obtain
ignify their approval of the
a potition from the adjaoent pr•operty owners to the north to s
proposa7.. Mr. Clark st~ted the proposed oarport wall would be a stuoaoed wall with 3panish
texture; whereupon, Commissior.ei, Herbst, noted that a stuoooed wall would n~t provide the
sound e.ttenuation whiah a bloak weal would and, therefore, he wou7.d insist upon a blook
we,11. Mr. C].ark auggested a drywall insulated wa11; whareupon, Commissloner Herbst noted
that a wall to satisfy the ad,jaoent propsrty cwners wes the important conaern, howevar,
frame aonstruation with ~tuoao would be too thiii and, without insulation, the noise genorated
from oars being started up in the mornings woizld be extremoly loudoved~~l~nsiunlesHethet
reiterated that he would riot vo~te to ahange the previously app P
ad,~~oent pruperty owners were agreeable.
~ ~ ~
MIbIU~i~tL;, ~ CI'I'X 1'T.,ANN:CNCi COMlJIISSTON ~ D[~CI;IvIl3Lt~ 7.1, :1.~~ 75 ~~-~~~~~
1'1'IL'M N0. ?. (oontinuod )
Chairman FarRno ~Look oxoepti.on tc~ i;he rov:ise+d ple~n:~ ~ nating i;hat s~sid plan~ signif.iaant7.y
devial;ed fram t;tie pr~evic,u:~l,y a~; ~•ovdd plan:~; and i:f i;h~, ~d,~aoent pr•operty owiior:3 wec~o in
fav~r c~f Lhe i~ovieion:3, t;hey :~hould .~u indiorstie 1;u ttio P].anning Cemmisaion Lti~msol~~,~,
C~cruni.s~ioner tdorley oonaurred that ,jomo form oi writ~ton ~ooeptc-nao rrom the ~~d,fnaont
property owners, of the -~oviyed plans, wou:l.d bs in order.
Ch~zirman I'at~tsno iio l,ed that he ~t 1d Tiot favot• the . oerport~ ad,~aoent i;o ningle•-fami.ly
residonoes and that. therA wss a moro ploasant way of developing ±he ~~operty; that approval
uf the revised p~BI13 for the ccirp~~rts ad,~aconi; t•o ta~c~ litz;;l.e-fami:~y ro::idenoc~~~ wot~ld bo
reverting back to developmen~t whioh w~s noi•, dosirable to aontinue in the City.
Co~runissioner King nol;ad i;ha'~, although ~the Planning Commiesion ~nay requiro a publio hearing
for oonsidez•ation of i;he rovir,ed plans, i;he developer should obtain a pett~Lion signed by the
adjc~oent pr~operty owtier;; that they oloc~rly understood the r:~oposal and were in .fctvor of same.
Chairman Faranu Furi:l~ur noted i~h~t if the peoplo favorod the propo~e.l, thon he ~vould ha •e no
ob,jeotions; howevei•~ 1t would Ue the first time in ;/oai•s the~t +he peopie favorod aarpor~•ts
a'l.nn~ thei r ProF,erty line , in lieu of 1e.nd ~uaping.
Coinmissionor Tolar addod that if a realtar• t~oic a client t,o viow pr~oporty whiah had o~,rport;,
backinp; up to the proporty line , tY;erb would aorta'.n].g br~ an impaot on the sale of the properi;y
CoQUrrissionor Herbst offered a mui;ion, seoondod by Commissioner Tular and MOTION CARRIED, i~hat
the Planning Commission does hereby find that th~ proposed revised p1Qns are not in sub-
ctantial conformanae with the originally approved plans for development of i;he subjoat property
undor Roalassi~ioation No. 74-75-39 Rnd, based on the fcreguing discussiun, tha Plannin~
Commi.ssion reaommends that ReolQasifiaation No. 74-75-39 bo rendvertised for a publiu hearing
i;o acnsider the revised ~1ans.
ITEr~ No. 3
E~R MEGIITIV[ DfCLARATI~tJ - Far a grading permit to construct a pr~'
fessional office bui~~linc~ on property loc~ted e~st of ttie inter-
section of Noh) Ranch Road and Canyon Rlm Road.
it was noCed that an application had been filed for a grading permit In connection with
tt~e construcrion ~f a professional office building at the subJect locatian; that an
evaluation of the environmental impact of yrad(ng at this location was required under
the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and the State EIR Guldelines
since the project was locatecl in the Scenic Corrfdor; and that a study of the proposed
qrading by tlie Engineerin~ Uivislon anci the Planning Department indicatPd that said
9rading would have no significant environmental impact.
Commissioner King offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Plorley and MOTION CARRIED,
that the Anaheim City Plannine~ Commiss(on do~s hereby recommend to the City f.ouncil of
the City of Anah~im tl~at the subJect proJect be exempt from the requirement to prepare
an environrnent~l impact report, pursuant to the pruvisions of the Callf~rnia Environmertal
Quality Act.
ITEM N0. 4
RECL- ASSIFICATION ~~0. 73-7l-'S5 - Request for revlew of specific
ptans - Property conslsting of approximatety 13.6 acres located at
the nnrthwest coa•ner o` La Palma Avenue and 1lagnolia Avenue,
Commissioner Kiny noted s'hat he had a conflict of interest, as deffned 5y the Anaheim
Municipal Code Section 1.1.~i00 and Governn~ent Code Sectlon 36Z5~ ek seq.~ in that he had
a financial interest in Paclfic Litinc~ Corporation~ and Dunn Properties (:he applicant)
w.as affiliated with Pacif(c Liting Corooratian; that, pursuant to the provislons of the
above Codes, he was hereby ciaclaring to the Chairman that he was withdrawing from the
heariny in connection with the subJect (tem on the Planr.ing Cortmisston Agenda and would not
tat:e part in efther the discusslon or the voCing thereon; and that he had not discussed
xhe subject matter wltti ~ny member of the Planning Commission. THEREUPON~ COhiMiS510PlER
KING LEFT THE COUNCiL CIIAM6Eit AT G;05 P.M,
~ ~ •
MINUTES~ CI'TY PLANNING C~MMISSIUN~ December 22, 1~75
75-hQ5
ITEM N0, 4 (c:ontinued)
Mr, Ted I_awsc>n, rcoresentinq Coldwrll 3~nker, the ~i9ent for thc appllct~nt~ appet~r~d
before the Planning Commis4~on and axplafned thai they were unablo to complete the:
prr,viously approved plans on the sub~~ct prop~rty due tn se~~are econom~c conc:itlo~s;
thAt the~~ were proposinc~ n less ambttfous and less complic~ted plan with less densit.y,
however, the k(nds of Cenants wcre stlll thc s~me; that th:~y were nearing hulld-out on one
of th~. buildincls; thaC they hrid truth('ully thought they h~~d tenants but found thcy did
not have a leasfble pro<luct; that they dld have a signed le~se for DuI1~11nq E3 which would
bc a Keno's re.taurai~t w~th E~,~~~ a~u~re feek; th~t on Lot ? thcre would he a G~f1Gfi squarc
fo~t Don Jase's restaurant; that Lat E would be developed by Dunn Praprrt(cs themselves; and
that at .~ later dat±~~ ~~ two-story hulldln~ migh*. be feasible.
In respon~e ta questionincl hy Chairman far~no~ Mr, lawson stated that, originally~ th~y
had shown 40~;)QO square feet of office sp~'+ce and a theatre; that one c~f the m{str-kes
Lhey had made was to try to ~In the wholc proJect at one t:lmc; that tl~ey werc presently
askinn to be allc~wed to proceeci with the {~ro.ject fn p~irts; anrl that some uf the future
lots would be sul~Ject to the Pl~nninq C.ommission's rsview a~ to exacC pl;rns and e?e~~~tlons.
Chalrman Farano reviewed the prevlous r.nnccrns of the Plannin~~ Comn•,isalon rel~ited to
truck r.ircul~tion on the property and off-site circulatlon, nntin.y th~at '~rom the sl!dc~
~rNSent.~t(ons oF what th~ petitioner had done prevlously the Planning C.~mmis5lon h~d
been very mucli ln favor ~~ tlie proiect; ancl that he was „ow concerned ~bout what the
final product woulcl be and wliether It w~uld su~stantlally depart frnm tl'~e arlginal
approval.
In re~;~onse to questionin9 by Commissloner NPrbst, Cit~~ Traffic En9ineer Faul Slnc~er
noted that there were curb cuts (n lhe subJect s{.ecific plans which were not on the
ori~inally approved plans anci hc envisloned problems with left turrs from the stacking
lane on La Palma appr~achinc~ tlagnolla Avenue. Comnissi~;~er 1lerbst made an observation
that there were major changes with curb cuts and traffic patterns~ different types of
buildin9s at diffe~'ent locations on tfie property and, in his opinlon, it was an entirely
new project,
Mr, Ray Chermak~ Vice-Preslcient of Dunn Properties Corporation~ appearpd beforc the
Plarining Commission and stated that,aesthetically~ the proposai would be similar to
that at the northwest corner of State College floulevarc1 anci Katella Ave~ue. except tnat
the pr~posal would be on a larger scale; that the problems previously discuss~:d in
connectiori with the Delco-Remy property were completely settled; and that the Al7state
bu?lding had been approved under a variance and was under construcCion.
Chairman Farano noted that an additional publlc hearing appeared to be necessar•y since,
although the ~ases of the buildin~s appeared to be cornpatible and reconclled +~rith each
other, the entire theme and aGpearance of the project woulci be completely different
from the c,riginal Fropesal~ being such a departur~ from the or'~ginal approval that the
revisions siiauld be made sub.iect to a publlc hearing. Commiss?aner Herbst concurred.
Commissioner Morley furthe-' noted that his main co~cern was the~ traffic plan aihlch had
b~en changecl considerably~ from the original approval.
Coinmissianer Herbst offered a rnotion, seconded by Commissioner Tolar and MOTION CARRIF.D~
that the Planning Commission does ~iereby determine that the proposed speclfic plans are
not in substantial conformance with the original approval of Rec?assific~tion ~d4. 73-7~+'S5
an~~ therefore~ the prooosed sp~cific pians shall be subJect tc~ a public hearing.
It was ncted tha~ the oublfc hearing could be scheduled for '.~ January 19, 197~ Planning
Commissl~n mer.tin!~.
CdMMIS51aIJER KING Ye-entered the Council Chambers at 6:15 p.m,
17CM N0. 5
O~dU ~d L USE PERMIT N0. 1571 - Request far approval of Landscape
Plans - Propc*.rty consistin~ of approxinat.eiy 9.Z 2cres, havinc~ a
frontage of aE~proximately 662 feet on tii+: east sidc of ~~lainut Streat,
having a maximum depth of spproximately 604 feet~ and being located
approxim~~Ceiy 655 fest south of the cenrerline of Ball Road.
Mr. Donald B. Brown, Pres(dent of Wrather Leisure~ Inc.~ th•:: appiicant, appeared before
the Pl~nning Commisslon t~ ans~uer questions concerning 2he prop~sal.
~ e s
7,-~oG
MI NUTES ~ C I TY F'l.A~;N I NG COMMI SS I flll ~ Dcsc~mbc r 22 ~ 197>
ITF.M N0, 5 (contln~~ecl)
I t waa noted that Gn D~ccsmber ~), 197~ . thn CI ty Gounci 1 h~d requcsted the submissio~~ of
frunt landscapi~ig plans n~~catndntlie speclmansnandVSpacin~l~tohba ap~r prlatet.~~ I~viaWe~
thc pro~o~ed plans and i
The: Planninci Coinmisslon nntercd into diseusslon reyt+rding the nuMba~' of trecs proposed~
tha lielght of the berm and wAl l~ tlic Q1°~~~r~n~~whl`ch Mr~.kOro~^m~stA~a~{tlth~cCl tyrCounc) l
thc adJ.~cent resldents related ta noi se~
wAS concerned about the ~lACement of the landscaping at thls point in t~me, and n.nt the
;Izc af th^ berm~ etc.
Commissloner Morley offered n motio~. secondod by Conrnlsslaner Tolar~ anc! M~TION CA(ial[Q~
that the An~heim City Pl~nnlni`,ngm`ubmitted~ln connectfon wnxithdCondlt~ionalYUseuPermit
approval of the landscaping p
No. 1'~71 •
17fM M0. 6
PROpOSED t•1U~I I C 1 PAL C~DE AMEPIDMEPIT - Publ i c tlear i ngs on Pr,t I t I ons .
Oeputy Ci ty Attorney Frank l.owry prasanted a"draft" ordinance pertalning to pub~ Ic
hearings on petitlons~ noting that sald ~:~~:..ndmeht to thc Anahelm Municipal Code was a
housekeeping-type ordlnance and woulcl not. change the prc~cedurPS presently being
followed.
Cormiissloner Tolar offered a motion , seconded by Commiss(onc~ King, and MOTION CARRIED~
that the An~heim City Planring Commisslon does hereby reGOmmend tn the City Councll of
the City of Anaheim adoptlon ~f the proposed amendment to the Anaheim Munlcipai Code,
Titie 18, Chapter 18.03 pertalning to Public Fisarinqs on Petitions.
AOJOURNMENT There belnq no further buslness to discuss, Commissloner King
-_' offered a mc~tion~ seconded by Commissioner Johnson, and MOTION
CA~.RIEO that t he meeting be adJourned.
'The meeting adJourned at 6:2.~ P•m•
Respectfully submitted,
~~~~.~ ~..J
Patricia B. Scanlan~ Secretary
ANAHE I M C I TY PLANN I ~~G COMMI SS I ON
PBS/Jd