Minutes-PC 1976/01/05C_ ~
1~1
~
Clty Nall
P.nahr.im~ CA) I ~ornla
JAnuary 5, 1976
RF. CULAR MEET I NG OF THE ~NA'-1[ I M ~ TY PLANN f NG COM~11 ~S I ON
REGULAR - A reguler moctin9 of the Hnahr.lm City Pla~nning Commissl~n was called ta
MEE.7ING order by Chairman Pro Tem~~orc Morlcy at 1:30 p.rn. in tho Council Chamber~
a quorum bcinc~ present.
PRESENT - CIIAIRh1AN: Farano (who enter~d the rr~etl~g at 1t45 p~m.)
- COMMISSIONCRS: Darnc~s~ lierbst~ Jnhnson (wlio entered the rrx~~r.ing at
1:~~0 p.m.)~ King Morley~ Tolar
ABSENT - COMI'I SS I ONERS : NOP~E
ALSO PRESL'N~ - Frank Lawry peputy City AtturnPy
Jay T~tus Offlco Engineer
I'au) Singar Traffic Englneer
Annika Sartalahti 7.oning ~upervisor
Ailan Daum Assl~tar~t Zoning Sup~rvlsor
Patricia Scanlan Planning Commission Secr~tary
PLEDGE OF - Commisstoner Herbst led in rhe Pledge of Allegian~e to the Flag of the
ALI.EGIANCE United States oF America.
V~IRIANCE N0. ~- PUBl.IC HEARING. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FiRS~ NATIONAL DAWK, P. 0. Box 13~1
San Dieoa. Ca. 9?11?_ (Owner); VERSA'fILE EQUIPMC.?!T CO.~ INC., 9252
Garden Grove Blvd., 1119~ Garden Grove~ C~. 92644 (Ayc^C); requesting
a WAIV~R OF (A) PERMITTED OUTDOOR USES D,ND (D) MAXIMUM FENr.~ HEIGI~T, TO PERMiT OUTDOOR
fONS'fRUCTION EQUIPMENT SALES on property descrlbec+ az: An (rreqularty-shaped parcei of
land conslsting of appr~xlmately 2.6 acres located a': the northeast corner of Riverdale
Avenue and Tustln A.venue. having Hpproximate fron*.age,s uf G90 feet an the north side af
R(verdale Aven~e and 200 feet on tfie east side of Tu~~i:ln Avenue. Property presently
classifted CL (COMMEaCIAL~ LIMITED) ZONE.
The subJect petitio~ was eontinue~i from the meetings of tdovember 10 and 24 and December 8
and 2?., 1y75~ at the request of the petitinner.
No one in~'^et~d their p-'esenca in opposition to subJect petitlon.
Although t~ *aff Report to the Plannlnc~ Comr:iss~on dated January 5- 197b~ was not
read at Ch.:.. '~?'~ hearing~ said Staff Report Is referred to anJ made a part of the
min~tes.
Mr. Richard Walker, President of Versa*_ile Equipment Company. tnc.~ appeared before the
Planning Commission and stated they were in the pracess of purchasf-~q the subJect property
from the SouYhern Ca~iforr~ia First National 9ar.k; that they had been work{ng wi:h the
Planning Department and had redra.,~n their plans many t(i~ies; that they had been involved
with the sub_ject property for about two years; that the subJect property had been sold
a total of *.hree times for c:evelopmert and it was their feeltng that the subJect de~
velopment far heavy equipment sales would benefit tt~e Clty from a tax revenue stand-
p~int and as an improvement to the properr.y with appropriate And proper landscaping and
~encing.
ThE PUBLIC HEARINC, WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner King qu~stioned thc amou~t of fill dirt that woulu be necde.d for the
development of the property~ and Mr. Walker stated the frant of the property wouici be
brouqht up to street level and would c:rain to the lmprovements on 1usCln Avenue; and
that thQ back ot the pruNCi'~r :.^~!d -+asically remati at its presont elevotiun.
In response to questicning by Commiss~oner Herbst. Mr. ~~falksr stattd they were pro-
posing to have heavy equipment sale~ and rentats at the subJect locatlon; end that
they wo~~ld score~ service and do minar repairs tc che equipment.
76-1
'^-~T
~ ~
M! NUTES , C I'TY PIA~IN I NG C~MI11 SS I ON ~ J~~nu~ry S~ I ~7(~ 16"Z
VARIAPICE N0. 1.~~+7 (r~ntlriuc<Ij
Commis;loner Herbst noterl tltint trees should be plar~ted to ~st IcASt p~~rtlally screen
the view of the ey~'p~nent f•om thc Rlv~rslcle Frr.ewiy. Mr. Walker then •tited that If
a wal 1 waa c~~nst ruc ted occr,rd I ne~ to C~ ty requl rFments ~ the trees or othe r I ands~ap I ng
wc+ul~l he on the in+lrle of thn property; that a block wall would probably become de-
feced with p{cture~ nnd wrl~ing by peopic traversi ~y Zi~u yr~unbuit al~i~y t1~~ ~a3r.
of tho wall nnd, the~efnrr., iAnd~~capinn consisting ~f uleandcrs ~r som~ other type of
troes, In Ileu ~f n block w,~ll, would be hetZnr although the landscupinq wc~uld not
rncet the Cc;de requlraments uf a wnll, Commfssloncr Tolar ri~ted that he aqrr_ed the
lancl~r.apln~~ m(e~ht be prefrrred over the block wall at the suh)ect locatfon; and
Commissioner Klnq n~trcl thnt thc tre~rs would retain the sandy loani embankmer,t of the
property.
Commissloner Rarnes noted that the problem conccrnlnq screeriing stenxn~J from t~e far,t
that the area surroundfr,c~ the subJec!: property was so much higher ihan the sub.ject
,,ra~~erty, and (t, was ~lifficult Lu completely screen the use from vlslbility. Mr. Walker
stated heavy landscaping with bushes and flowers would be the best answer.
f,orrmilssfoncr Nerbst quc~stloned wheth~r an additlonal walver trom the Code requirements
would be necessary and lf a delr~y in the Planning Commisslon's decision of the matter
would be dcfrlmental t~ the development. Mr. Walker stated thcy were ~resently located
on 30 acres of Str~ndard 0( 1 pr•opc~rty in the Ci ty of Ful lerton and khat for about two
ycars they h~d been asked ta move to another locatl~n~ and they were looking forward
to moving as soun a~ possib!e. Mr, Walker further stated they would be willing Co
construct r~ wall If the Planning Commission so desired, hu~ not along the frePway
side of the propQrty; hrnvever, the~~ would abide by the Code ir~ every respect~ if ab-
solucely necessary.
Commissloner Bornes noted that althaugh a block wall may be necessary, she would
want some landsce:;~~~q also. Mr. Walkar addQd that the County of Orange was planting
tne ~reenbclt arua ~~,~iJacont to the property and any additton~l landscaping atong the
s~bjecf. property II~~• may be a doubling up.
Commissloncr Johnson inq~ired lf any of the equipment w.~uld be seen from thP adjacent
freeway; whereupon~ Mr. Wa~ker stated some of the equipment was in exce;s uf 10 fPet
high and cauld not help but `~e seen from the fra~way; and that the colors of thie
equipment would be intermingird with the trees~ etc.~ but w4uld still be visible from
the f~eeway. Commissloner fbr!~y note~l tliat th~ Commis~ion would not want the tra~fic
on Riverdale Avenue ~nd the fre~~way to be dist:racted by the bright colors of the
equlpment.
Mr. Walker stated that there was ~~ particular problem with respect ta constructing a
wa~l along Riverdale Avenue. due to the slope of~the land; that a wall would have to
be designed and co~structed withln a couple oi fee:t next to the sidewalk or at the
b~ttom of the slope; that tliey needed to keep the children and loca! residents off
the a!o~P wlth thelr bicycles~ etc., and if a block wall ~.ras canstructed next to
the sidewalG: at the top of the slope~ tnere ~•,~uld be r^ rcam for landscaping an the
outside of Che wall; however~ if a chainlink fence wa~ installed, there wauld be
room for the~ land!~cap(ng on the outslde of the fence. ~:hich he felt was essentlal.
f.ommissioner• 7olar noted that~ in his opinion. ~:!:~i^','.:;!: fcnce wikh ~a~~dsc~aing
would accompllsh rnore a~ ~ scresn than a block wal l. erd would also be better for
the area. fhalrma~n Farano noted that if a deviatlon from the screening requirements
were to be r~ermitt:ed at t.he subject lucatlon~ then some cr•iteria should be established
for such an approval since the Planning Commission w~uld not wish to set a precedent
in that matter. I'or clarification~ Zoning Supervis or Annika Santalahti advised that
the screening af Rhe rroposed outdoor use was not requlred to be a block wall, but
could consist of +;he pr~posed chai~link ~ence and the landscaping discussed 5y ths
Plarniny Commiss6t~~,, ~s long as the use was effectively screened,
Discussion pursued concerning the requested walver of the maximum fence heigfit in
the setback area~ during which the Planning Lommission generallv concurred that a
sIx-foot I~igh fe~ce ~~as necessary for secur?ty Nurp~ses and was suitably located
due to the irregular topography of the site. In response to yuestioning by the
Plann(ng Commissi~n, Hr. Walker stipulat~d that the proposed s!x-foot cha~inlir~k fence
encl~sing the outdoor use along the north~ south a nd east proper;y lines wauid be
sla[~ed with red~r~od or ced~r slats.
u
~..~.
~
MINUTE:S~ CITv ''L~~~NING C~MMISSI~N~ .lanuary :i~ 197G
VARI!-NCF N0. 1N~7 (con[inued)
7G- 3
Comm~ssinner Barnes notod that tho petltlo~er could woric with the Plinning Depnrtmc-nt
staff concerning the se!ect(on of trees~ aid she suggested thera were approximately
30 varleties of eur,alyptus~ somc of which dld not dr~p lc~ves at nll wh!le others
droppe:d leovas he~vlly and were unsightly. Commissioner Morlcy added that the Lrecs
to be planted should reach a hefght of approximately j0 f~et wlthin two Years fallowing
planting, ~nd should bc plnnted on anproximately 15-f~~ot centar~ to attain tFie
deslred vtsual buffer; whereupon~ Mr. Walkcr so stipulatrd.
Mr. Walker re(terated that he~ would b~ wiliing to construct Pfther a 151ock wall or [he
proposed chainlink fence wfth ~~ats; however, he fclt the I~nuscapinc~ would be of the
greatest benefit ta the City; ancl he stipulated to per;nanently maintair,inc~ the l~nd-
sr.aping,
Commisslori~r Tolar offered a motion~ seconded by Commiss(oner K(ng~ and MOTiON CARRIED~
that the~ Anahelm City Nlanning Commisslon does hereby rec;ommend to the City Counci!
of the Ciky of Anaheim that tha subJect pr~Ject be exempt from the rcqulrement t~
prep~re an env(ronmental Impact report, pursuant to the prov(sions of the Californla
Envi~onmental Quality act.
Comm(ssiuner 7olar offered Res~lution No. PC76-1 and moved for its passage and ad~ption~
that Petition for Variance tJo. 2747 be and hcreby is~ granted, granting thc reyuested
walv~r of the permitted outdoor• uses to permit outdoor constructian equipment sales
on the basis that the petitioner demonstrated that a hardship would be created if
said waiver were not granted~ due to khe unusual shape, location and topography of
the sitc; 9ranting the requested wsiver of the maximum fence helght in the required
satback area on the basis that said fence is determined to be necessary for security
purposes and is sultably locat~d due to the irregular topography of tl~e ~Ite; subJect
to the stipulation of the petitlon~:r that the proposed six-foot high cha(nlink fence
enclosing the outdoor use along the north~ sauth and east propcrtY lines wlll b~
slatced wlth redwood or cedar slats; sub)ect to the stlpulatinn of the petittoner to
planting trees on 15-foot centcrs and other landscaptng on thc~ outside of the proposed
cha(nlink fence along tf~e north~ south ~nd east propPrty lines, said trees and land-
scapiiig to provide an eff~ectlve v(sual screen within two years following plan[ing~ and
adequate irrigation facil(*_les shall be provided, subJect to the epproval of the Planninq
Deparkinent~ and said landscaping to be permanently malntained by the petitioner; and
subJect to the Interdepartmental Committee recommendatlons. (See Resolution Book)
On rol! call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, HERBST, JOHNSQN~ KING~ MORLEY, T~Ll~R' FARANO
NOES: ~OMMISSIONEF~: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIGNERS: NONE
(iVbTE: The foreg~ing item was considered following the publtc hearing on Condltiona)
Use Permit No. 15a1•)
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTlNUED PUBLfC HEARING. BETT1" L. McLEOD~ ET Al., 5557 Paradf-e View
PERMIT N0. 158i Road, Yucca Valley, CA 92284 (Owner); TIIE BUBBLE MACHINE, INC,~.
-~~ c/o Jerald Alford~ 4500 Campus Orive~ Newport t3each~ CA 92660 and~
TNE g~BBLE MACHI~~E~ INC., c/o Thomas C. Thatcher~ 44 Mx:~itgonwry
Street~ San Franciscu~ GA 94'~4 (Agents), requestinc~ permtssion fo~ AN AUTIMATIf. CAR-
WASN WI?H GASOLINE SALES~ with waiver of REQUIRED LANO~CAPiNG~ on property described
as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approx(mat~lY 0.5 acre located
at the southeast corner of Dall Road and West Street, having approximate frontages of
ltiq feet ~n the south SIdE of Ball Road and 150 feet on the east side of West Street.
Property classified RS-A-43~000 (RESIDEN7IAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE.
tt was noted that the sub)ect petition was contin~+ed from the Planning Comnissian
meetings of Navember 24~ Deceinber 8 and December 22. 1y75, at the requcst of the ~
petitioner.
;.;;, ;;y;;;,y ;,~~, ??1~ South 4Jest Street~ Anah~im~ indic:ated hi5 presence in c•;~pos=tion
~ r t C. . t~~t~~~`„ :v~ ~c ~~ou
to subJect petittun; and~ upon qu~stioniny uy ..~a~~•„~~~~~ ~a~~„~. ~~~~' ``~~ ' J
read the Staff Report to the Planning Commlsslon dated Jariuary S. i~%'~, and would,
thereforc, waive the full reading of said Staff Repoi•t. -
~~.
Alchaugh the Staff Repor*. to the PSanning Commiss) "~~e~~ January 5~ 197~. was r.ot
~paa at the public heariny~ said Staff Rea~~= ~r refr,rred to and mada a pari of the
minutps.
,. .
~
111~^~
•
MINU7CS, CITY PLANNING C0,IMISSIO~J, January 5~ 197b
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0, 1!a91 (continued)
76-4
Mr. ThomAS C. Thatcher~ raprc:s~ntln~ thc Rgent for th~ Pet'tioner~ appeared t,~fore
the Plannlr.g Commis~slo~~ and c!~gcrlbed the proposal ~ statlny they were proposing to
have a c:srwash and gas~line sAles `t+clltty at the s~:bJect lucatlon; Chat the plans were
somewhat dl frerc:nl from the pldns submi ttr:J approx(mately thrc+e ye~rs ayo far the
samc type of f~cllity on the pruparty and same of the chan~es wauld probably answcs~
the concerns of the ~~lanning f,ommisslon and npponents at ~ti~at timH; that one of the
main concerns w(th the orlg(nal prnposal wAS the effects or Impact on the property
Imnedla~ely t~ ~he sou~h wl~lch w~~s davcloped wi th a mot~) . howcver, the new plans
indlcated an increased dlstance between the property Ilne end therhp~o~Se cantrolPand
had been workirig with their other similar facili[les to lncrease
felt tlie proposal would be satisfa~ctory tn that regprd; that~ althauqh tney had pre°
vlously been able to meet thc nolse level requtrements for developmcnt of tl~e sub,Ject
praNerty~ the project had been denied; that they were reducing the liorsepcwr.r of the
blawers ancl were placing s~~me af t~~e noisy equlpment inside an equlpment room attached
to the carwasli site; that the biffles propc~~ed woul~~ also help to adcquately co~trol
any nolse Pmiss(on from tl~e car~aash to the adJacent motel; that they had another carwash
located at Bro~khurst Street and La Palma Avenue~ end some of the cancerns of bath the
Planning Commisslon and thc City Co~~nctl, othor than nalse~ could bc obscr~ccf ~t that
locatfon; that lhey o^erated at 11 l~catlons in Southern Californi~ ana i~o.. on awards
for some of them; that they believeci the proposal would upgrade the area and, for ~~;.t
reason, they were requestlnq to be pe+rmitted to ;~roceed.
Mr. Lee appeared before the Planning Commlssio~ I~~ opposition and stated he owned ~he
motel adJacent to the subJect prot~ert~~; that hls ma(n obJ~ctions pertained to lrafflc
and nofse impacts; that. in his ~~plnl~~n, there was no way to stop the noise that would
be generated from the proposed use; that Dlsneyland traffic hindered the abll(ty of
~is t~~ants to get in and out of his property until about 9:00 p.m. most of the time;
that there had been a fatality on West Street r•ecently; and that the prop~sed facility
would be very noisy.
C~)MMISSIONER JOHNSON ENTERED THL COUPJCiL CHAMBE.R AT 1:A0 P.M.
In rebuttal, Mr. Thatchc~r stated the ty~~e of ope.ration proposed dld not have inherent
traffic probl~ms~ as evidenced by their facility at Brookhursk Street and La Palma
;~venue which h~d at least one-half again as much area traffic; pnd that they knew of ~:,
accidents which wer~ a resuit of autortxibilss entering or leaving th~ir facilitiP~.
since they were not~typi~ally, tliat busy.
CHAI RMAN FARAP~O ENTERED TNE COUNCI L CIIAMI~ER AT i:45 P.M. p,.
r
TNE PUDLIC HEARING WA5 CLOSED.
Mr. ~.:° touk exception to Mr. Thatcher's ~:omments• ~tatiny that the traffic generatsd
at the c~~~~ng of Disneyland each day could r,o: be c.ompared wlth the traffic at
Brookhurst 5it. ^Pt and La Palma Avenue. Ps~~^.._~a l ly s ince approximat~ely 11 ,000 c:ars
generally e~,~kiea ,~~t of the Disnevf-:,,, p~ Cking ~ot all at one time.
In response to questinning by Commissioner King, P1r. Thatc.her stated that their
normal hours af operation wauld be from 7:00 a.m, to 10:u3 ;~.~.~ and that he v+ould
stipulate to thcsc hours.
Commissioner Morle.y noted that he did not Feel the petitloner should be penalized for
the Disneyland traffic; and tF~at the propo~aal would have very few additional problems than
tlie axisting service station use af the subject property.
In response to questioning by Commissioner Nerbst~ P1r. Thatcher indicated he did nat
have a report to verify so~!~d level readincls on the carwash equipment which would be
installed at the sub}ect l~cation.
~om,,,;,; ; ~;,~ - ~~o rhs t not~d that sound 1 svel read i ngs to i nd i cate that +:he p~ oposed
equip~nent w~uld not be deirime~~ta', to the adJacent motel were neceseary upon whtch
to base a decision. Mr. Thatcher stated that prev?ously they had thelr snunci con-
sultant attend the public hearing and stip~late~ to meeting the Code requirem~nts
pertaining to sound; that the motel owner .:: 2hat time was r~ot in total disagreement
about the equipment, but was concern~d about the noise; that their c~rrent proposa) was
to reduce thp size uf the blo~~P:s and place sald equipment lnside an equipment room and~
addltionally~ they were !"~vlding baffles similar to their Brookhurct Street and
La Palma Avenue `~~~ilty. Comrissloner Nerbst noted thar, there were dtffsrent types
~
~
111NUif.S, CITY PLANNINf C~MP11 ;SION, .lanuory 5~ ~~7~ 7~^5
CON01 "i I Q~~I1L U5E Pi:RM~ T'l0~1 5~1 (cont i nued)
of hydrau~ic mor.c,rs r~nc some werc nctually nols~:lass, whilc ntiiers were qult^ naisy;
and thr~t ~~~~n~! levcl r•fOC~~n,y5 af the equlpmcnr to bn Installed was an lmpurtflnt con-
slderation since sald ieadin~s would provide proof thbt the p~titionr.r could cortiP~Y
wi th the sound attenuat,lon requ{ remenks.
Commissioner Ilerbst then Inqulred if It wc~ulci be nrce~sa-'y for the can~ash tn operate
after 8:00 p.m,; whereupon, Mr. Thntcher stated tliey wo~ld l ike to servlce tl,e
cus[omcrs until 10:U0 p.m. Commissioncr Herbst noted Chat he was conccrneJ that the
, if the tenants desired
adJacent motel m~Uht be affeGted by [he hours of peratlon~
to slecp betwer,i~ tl~e liours af S:QQ anc~ IQ:00 p.m., and the Planning Commis5lon wr,s
desirous of finding a way to approve the propost~l without dam~~ging the adJacer~r motel
business; that tlie traffic prnblems mentloned by Mr, Lea werc apparently unsolvablc
at the present tlme; nnd that if the petitloner would agree to thc B:QQ p.n~, closirg
time for the carwash for a trEal periad to detarmine whetl~er thc noise w~s detrimentel
to the adJacer~t mc~tel business~ and would agree ~.o provlcie so~nd level readings to
certi Yy that che nui~r 1e.~.1 ~::oul:f be tn rnmpl I~nCP wi r1- the Ci ty's requi rements~
~' he would be in f7vor ~f the proposal sinc~ the location waa appropriat~,.
D1sGUSSIon pursued concerning the driveways which were existln,y at tl~e>>uoJect locatinn
which was a serv(ca statlon sitc:~ during which C~mmissloner Totar discussed the possibility
of requirtng some of the exisLing dr-veways to be elosecl off and/or combined~ cspeclally
alang West Street~ and 1lmiting the egress and Ingress alon~ West Street to right turns
only. Mr. Thatcher expialned that if a car was washed ever•/ 40 seconds~ th~it woulri be
maxi~num potential use of tha facilities~ however~ they did not anticipate that the pro-
posed carwash woulu ever have tfiat much busin~ss; that hP did not agree that any of
the driv~ways should be comi~ined or eliminated; that he concurred wlth the Tr- «;~
Englneer°s sucl~estion that the northerly driveway on West Streer ~•~ „Nved further souch
from tha intersection and also that r'(qht turn in~~~~'^•'= ~e provlded alony that s~reet;
that there h~,d been no problems wlth rhp ^-,,,.;~~t driveways for the service statlon and
it was 1~~~^~~ `"-_ •,~,~~~ ~~~~ a~Jacent streets were buf~lest~ with people going home,
ur ~n a hurry, etc., that was the slackest period of business for the subJect type of
operation.
Gommissioner Tolar then indicated that the existing ser•vice stacion business~ compar~:d
ta the propnsed dual use of the property, was not a valid argument that the traff?c
would be subs:anti~lly the saine; and that he would not be satisfied with signing as
a control factor for riyht turns unly.
In response to questionirg by Commissianer 7oiar, Traffic Englneer Paul Singer advised
that aeveral meetings had been held Co discuss the d~ivewaY~ and t~affic control for
the proposal; that it was his opinion that by h~~ving only one ~riveway on West Street
there would be a conflic;t in trafftc since that driveway would be for both ingress
and egress; and tha[ he was recommendi~g that a median be canstructed in '~Jest Street to
preven: any left Curns ir. or out of the property along said street. In response to
further questioning by Commissioner Toler, Office Engineer Jay Titus advised tha*_ a
four-foot wide, unlandscapecl medlan constructed in We:t Street from the corner of the
property ab;~tting Ball Road to the southerly b~undary of the property~ or about
150 feet. w~u~d cost a~proximately $2~0~^. Mr. Sinqer thcn advised that ttie median
was the only waY to prevent the left turns into and out of the subJect property, in
hi~ opinlon.
Ms. Betty McLeod, tha propcrty owner, appeared before the Planning Commiss3on and
however,
stateci she had not expECted to be asked to construct a median in West Street.
5he would be willing to share in the cost; that they were tryfng to devPlop the property
and n~ake it desirahle to the City and also increase the Income from it; and that the
use of the property hac' not changed for a~proximately 20 years, in response to
further inquiry from Commissioner Tolar~ F1s. McLeod stipulated to providing the four-
fo~t k~ide, unlandscaped r~edian in West Street, as discussed.
P1r. Singer added that he would not iike to see the driveways on the sub}acY pr~perty
combined under any conditions~ since any cl~ange mig`~t create more problems than it
would solve; however~ eliminating the left ti~rns into the property would heln the situa-
tion. Commissioner Tolar noted that the medien w~uld handle the Crafftc situation on
We~t Strcet to his sa:isfaction.
~
~
~
MINUTES~ CI1'Y FLAMNIMG COMMIS510P~~ Janu.~ry 5~ 1~76
CONDITIONAL USE f'ERMIT No. 1~81 ~GOntinu~ecl)
7G-6
I~ response to questic,ninq by Comm~ssioner Nei•hst~ Mr. Thatcher !~tipulatecl that the
hours of operatlans bc frnm 7:00 a.m. to 4:~~ p•m. for a~rlal Fr.riod of six months~
since he felt that a det~rminution could be nsade (ri less time th;~n one year os to
whether the nolse was detrlmental to th~ ~d)acsnt motel businc~s. M~. Thatcher f~rther
stipulated to comply ~ilth the City's requiremcnts pertofning to sound at the prope~t~
Ilnes and to submit proof uf sarr~e prior to tF~e lssuance of bulldin9 permits; however~
r~s did nat fr.el th~t the owner of the ad)~cen~C mot~l operaxlon shnuld rn~~kc thc ~ecision
As to whether the nofs^, complled witl~ the requirements. Cnmmfssi~ner l~erbst clarifled
thac the petitionrr would havP to satlsfy tlie neighboring motel with respect to the
noisy operat(on pr~posed; and that the praof of the sound level c~~u~ci consisi of a
report from a similar aperation ~ait:h the same typ~ of equiprrMn~ f~~r thc City'° c~n~
sf~eration,
In response to questioning by Commissiuner Tolar~ Mr. Thatcher st~ited they were propoxing
to have pyracantha plants in the I~ndscapin~i, however~ they were willing to w~rk
with Clty ;taff concerning landscapfng p1Ar^.
In rr~,ponse to questioning by Commissloner King~ Mr. Thatcher stfpuia~~•'^~'~ comply
witi, che requ(~ements for trash storage ~reas in the City. >
Mr. Lee stated that he owned ~~0 rrqte) un(ts next door to the subJect prop~rty and ~n-
q~i red what guarantee he ~~o~~lci have tliat thc peti tloncr would keep the promises which
were being mAde at this meetlny. Comml~sioner Nerbst advised that if Mr. Lee found
that the use w~ss detrimental to the n~tzl bus(ness, then he should let the Planrilnc~
Commissior~ know. Commissioner K(ng assured Mr. Lee that the pet(tloner w~s compellec'
t~ meet the soun~l level req~.~irements of the Codes.
Cortrn(ssloner Herbst offered a motl~n, seconded by Commissinner Kinq~ and MOTION CARRIFD
(Commissloners Farano and Johnson abstaining, slnce they were abserit from a portion of
the subJect ~ublic he~r(ng). that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Counr,il oF the~ City of Anaheim that the subJect proJect be
exempt from the requirement to prep~rc an environmental Impact report~ pursuant to
the pr~visions of the Californla Envlronmental Quality Act.
Commissioner Nerbst offered Resolution No. PC76-2 and moved for its passage and
adoption~ that Petition for Condittonal Us~ Permit No. 1581 be and F~ereby is grantad,
granting the requested waivcr of the minimum iandscaped setback on the basls thaC th~
petitioner demonstrated that a hardship would be created if said waiver were not granted~
due to the size,of the subJect property; grant~ng the proposed use wlth hours of opera-
tion from 7:00 a.m, to 8:Q0 p.m.~ said hours bei~g for a tr(al oper~ting period of six
mor~ths~ following which time the petitioner may submit a written request '`or additinnal
hours of oreratlon which the Planning Commission may grant if it is detErmincd the ~~se
has not been detrimr.ntal tn the adjacent properties and no complaints or obJectlons
have been received from adjacent property awners; subJect tu the stipulation of the
petitianer to construct a four-foot wide~ unlandscaped median in West Street for the
full length of the subJect property~ being appr•oximately 150 fect, said med(an to be
subJect to tl-~e approval of Che City Traffic En~ineer; subJect to the ~tipulation of
the petitioner to comply w~th tlie Code standards for sound atienuation~ the sound
generated by the subject use not to exceed 65 dba at the pr~perty llc~es~ and proof
snall be submitted prior tc~ the issuanr.e of buiiding permits tliat s~id standar~s will
be met; subJect to the furthe~ st~pulatior,:, of tlie petitioner and subJect to the Inter-
departmental Committee recommendations. (See Resolution Baok)
On roll call, the foregoinq resol~~t(on was pasaed by the followir+g vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: DARNES, i;ERBST, K1NG, TOLAR~ MORLEY
NOF.S : COMMI SS I ONER.S : NONE
ABSEN'f: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ASSTAIN: C~MMISSIONERS: JOHNSON, FARANO
~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PlANy1NG COMt11SSIUN, Jsanuary 5~ 197'~
7E~° 7
ENVIR~NMEN~IIL IMPACT -
211h6 F.s~eranza Itaad,
PU[1LIC NFAf~ING, D~ROTIIY 13. TRAVIS~
CA 92807 and VIRGIN111 RICNl1RDS AN~ f.L~EN SIMHIINS~
RF.PORT N0. 162
"'- "'"'"~ Ant~heim~
~12 Towcr Street~ 5anl'd Ano~ CA 927~3~ ~~yW~afs~- W~TT[:NDERG
VARIANCE ~IQ, 277~
- - CORP.~ 60G S. Nill Street, Los lingcles, CA 9~~~1~ and MADALE
02 Sky Park Boulevard, Irvinc~ CA
17F
INC
-
TENTATIVE M~PS OF TRIICT ~
.~
I1ND ASSOCIATF.S~
9?.71t+ (A9ent3). ~ropert• described As an irregularly-
4 acres
26
FIQS. 91fi9, 91~1~~ 9171 ,
•
shaped porce'I of land consl9tinq of ap~roxima[ely
pr~ximately 2034 fect on thr, no
~f a
nNn 9t7z ._~ p
~Uxi-
I~aving a frontage
,1 cie of La Palma ~ve~ue ~'~~vi ng a mdxi mum depth of~ app
makely 2$5 fcet~ ond bcin~ locate~ approxl~~~Si~~RESIDEN71l1L/
d RS-/~-i3
fi
west of the F~roposed Wei r ,
e
Canyon Ro~id~ pr~~sently c1~ si
~GnICULTURAL. •- SCENIC COR RIDOR) 7.Q~IE.
REQII'~STEU VhRI ANCE : WAI VER O(" (A) MI N I MUM BUI L;'' R'G S I TE WI DTFI AN )(fl) ItEQUI REMkNT
TNAT SINGLE°FAMILY STRUCTl1RE5 R[AR ON ARTER;IIL NIGFIWAYS~ TG
ESTA[~LISI{ p 116-L07 R5~5A00(SC) SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION.
TE NTI1T I VE TRACT REQI~EST : T rac t No . 9169 - 3~~ WS" ~~Q~ ~~ C) LOTS
Tract No. 917U - 3b RS-500Q(SG) l.OTS
Tract No. 9171 - 27 RS°50~)0(SC) L~TS
Tract No. ~~72 - 25 RS-5000(SC) I~TS
It was n~ted tl~at. the subJer.t items were contlnued from tl~ie Planning Commission meeting
of December 22, 197~ F~r additional tin~e to review the env(ronmenial impact report
dncument~ as requested by tl~e Planning Commission.
No onc indicateci thelr presence in oppositlon t~ the sub,ject Items,.
read~aththeepublic hea~ing~~said StaffiRepo~tmissreferreddto3andrmadc a~partWOf the
minutes.
Mr. Milt t~adole, the Agent for the PetitionPr~ appeared before the Planninq Commission
and stated the propasal w~s a somewhat normal RS-~000 development.
THE PUBLIC HFARI~IG WAS CLOSEO.
Commissioner Herbst noted that, to his recoliection, the policy of t~-c Planning Commission
had been to disallow more *_han five iot~ ~n a cul-de-sac sinc~ there :~as not usually
enouqh frontage for the homes; and he inquired cor,cerning the eievation of the side-on
lot.
In response, Mr. Ftadole stated the building pad for the side-on lot was two to thrre
feet h~9her than the adJacent street; that, reyarding the cul-de°sac lots in the pro-
posed project~ thls was an RS-5000 project and due t~ othe:r restraints sucli as the
40-foat setback from t.a Palma Avenue and the 100-foot setback fram the railroa~+, ~he
pad areas and sizes were up considerably~ with tiie averaqe pad area being over 6-+0~
square feet and the average lot size being over 75~~ square feet; and that thP layout
of the proJect wds similar to the project to the west of thr. subJect property.
Commissioner Tolar noted that the devel~per had created the res,[raints for the de~elop-
mant by 9oing to the RS-S~OQ zoning. Mr. Madole stated the prc,posed homes wuuld have
five parking spaces located no farther than 200 feet away; and th~at about all of the
houses on the cul-de-sa~s would have 25 foot front setbacks. I:~mmissioner Nerb~t
noted that the Commission did not wisle to contlnue creating parking problems for the
peOP,~xi~muro clensltyho'f thetRSt5~~0 2oneti~n~drthat under~the9ftS115000bZone~Ptherety to
the ma
should be ~~o more than five homes on a cul-de-sac.
Comin4ssioner Herbst ~oted that presently approxlmately 40 trains travetled on the
adjacent rallr~~d track~ each day and that the number of trair~s would probably in~
crease to as many as 80 pzr ~ay in the next few years.
Commissioner Johnson noted that all of th~ lots on the cul-de-sacs appeared to be
huye where usually cul-de-sac lots were not so large; and that a reductlon to five
lots on a cul-de-sac would create a hardshlp For tl~e dcveloper. Commtssioner Herhst
then stated that the developer was ~slning lots ancf not losing {ots.
~
~
~
MI NI;TES ~ C I TY PLl1VN I WG COMMI SS 10~~, .~+nuary 5- 197~
/G-R
ENVI RONMENSAI. I MPIICT REPOR7 N~. 167 . V~RI ANCE N0. 277~. 'fENTATI VE MAPS OF 't?.,ACT NpS.
9169~_9~~1.._.~~.1.~ ANf1 ~172__ cont(nu~:d) - ._ .r.....
In response t~ questianln~l by f,~mmissioner h~erbst~ Mr, MadalP strtesl th~it the City
Attorney's aFtlr.e hocl made them aNare of l•he pol (zy concerning numhb~ of lats ~n a
cul-da-sac, howaver~ the <t~volc+pei was aware of t~ie trect to thc wcst wf~fcl, wa~,
dev~~lopcd ! n thc menn~r pro w~ad.
Commissl~~ner Tolar notad that by eiim(nAting one lot from coch cul-dr-s~-c~ the need
for the variance would be eliminnted. Commisslonar No~hst nuted tl~At sinc~ lho
develope~r h•~d been Aware ~f the ~'lanning C~mmisalon pollcy pr(or t~~ submitting the
subJP.ct tract nra~ps, thc rnatter !hould be ConClnuca for reviaed pl~nK..
Mr. Llvingston of the Wlttnnb~rg Corporation appcared bcfere the PlAnning '~ommiss(un
and stated tnat althc~ugh he h~c bpen m~~de aware of thc Planning Commissiar~ pol~cy ire
,~uestion he did not know that ~~aid r,olicy was absolute.
Mr. Livingstun inqulred whetl•~er there were any othcr problem ar~as w(th tht proposed
tract maps, noting that thc:y ~+ere pr~posinq to comply wi tl~ Counci l Po) ir:y No. 542
pertaininq to sound anJ were ~evelopln~ in accordance wlth the recamnendations of
the acoustical engineer, Dr. lifllia*d. Thereupon, Mr. Liv(ngston cons~onted to a two~
week cont i nuance for i•evi sscl p 1 ans .
Commissi~ner Herhst offcred a motian~ seconded by Commis~loner Morle~~ and MOTION
CARRIf~U. t-~ reaper. rhP publlc f~earinc~ a~d contlnue cor.~ideratii,~~ of th~ sub)ect it^!n`
t~ the Planning Commission meeting of January 19~ 1976~ for revisecl plans.
RECLASSIFICATION N0, - PUBI.IC HEARIN~,, ,)OSE BROWN~ at al ~ 9282 Vclardo, 1luntington
75-7~' ~ 7 Oeach ~ CA 9264G (0~•:ner) ; KE~i C~OPER~ 70'30 Flo) 1 ywood B1 vd. ,
Suite 111~3~ Hallywo~~d~ CA 9~n2g (~gent); pr•opos(ng tha*.
property d~scribed a~: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of
!and consisting af spProxim~tely 0,6 acre~ havi~g a frontAqe of approximately 13z feet
on ths ~ast side ot Knott 5treet~ having a n~aximtim depth af appraxlmately la9 f~et
and being I~cated approximate'y 33~ feet north of the cente~°li~~e ~f Cerritos llvenue~
and further described as 1428 S. Knott Strest, be reclassifled frum RS-A-43~OOQ
(RESIDENTIP,I/AG~ICUL7URAL) ZQNE to the RM-1200 (RESIpENT:A~~ MUITIPLE-FA111LY) ZON[.
No one indicated their presence In oppositlan to subJect petftion.
Although the Staff Repar[ to the Plannin~ Commission dat~d January 5, 197E~ Was not
read at the puh~lc hear•in9i sald Staff Repnrt is referred to ar,~i made aQart of thP
minutes.
Mr, iCen Caoper, thc Aqent f~r the Petitioner, appe~red b~:fore the Planning Commissl~n
and stated that the subject property was presently vacant ancl was surrounded on the
west~ norCh and n~rtheast by othPr apartment developmen:s,
THE PUBLiC HEARING WAS CLOSED,
In response to questl~ning hy Commis~ioner Kinct~ Mr. ;:onper indicated he was aware that
~e was requlred tc dedicate a st~ip uf land 53 feet n width from the centerllne of
the str~et along Knott Street for street widening pr~~poses.
Cammtssloner Morley offered a rrbtion, sec~ndGd by [~~mmisslone~ Tnl~r, and M~TIQ!!
CAP,kIED~ that the Anaheim CI ty Planning Commisslon does l~ereby rc+cammend to tli~:.~ Ci ty
Counci 1 of the Ci ty of Anaheim that the subJect proJect be oxxsmpC frem thr~ reqtii reme~~x
ta rre~are an environment.al impact repart~ pursua~,t to the provl~lons af thc~ California
Environmental Quality Act.
Commissioner Morley offtred R~esolution No. 76-3 and m~ved for Its passage and adoptlon~
that the Planning Commission_does hereby recomrrwnd to ~he City Counz3l that Pnt~tfon
for Fi~classificatlon No. 75~76-17 be approved~ suhject to the Int~rcir.partm~ntal
Committee recommendntlo~s, (See Rssolution Bo~~k)
Ors rcll call~ the foregoing resalutlon was pa~.;sed by the follaaing vate:
I1YES: COMMiS510NEiiS: PARt~ES, NERDST, JOHN5AN, ~::?df,~ M^"•:.EY, TOLA~, FAR-1M0
NOES: COMMISSIONERS; NONE
ABcENT: COMMIS514NER5: ~~ONE
~ ~
MINUTES, f,ITY f`LANNING COPtMISSI~N, lanunry 5~ 197~
7G-~3
f.QND11'IONAL USE - PUaLIC IIfl1RING. JACK F., Pi1.F.Y, 917 [. Pacifico A~r_nue, llnahelm~
PERMI7 N0. ~i91 CA 92.~05 ~~+ner); requesting perr,~isslcm for (1UTDQOIt RECRF.ATi0P1A~L-
" ~~~~~~~,~ yTpftAr,E WITH WAIVER OF (A) PERMI7TCU ~SE'~ l8) MINIMUM FkOW7
SETBACK AND (C) MINIMUM L1INDSCAPE.D SETBACK~ on p•operty describeA
as: A rectangularly~sh~pad p~rc~t of ~and cun~lscing of ~pproximat~lY 5.~ acr•es located
a; Che nnrtheask corner of Paciflco Avenuc ,~nd Lrw1s Street~ ha~~ing approximatc frontages
oF 2~0 feet ~n tlie north slde of Pnclfico Avr.nue and 620 feet on the east sldC of Lowis
Street. and further de~crlbed as 9~7 C. P~~Gifico Avenue, Prc~perty ~resc~ntly CId53IfIPC1
ay ML (INDUSTRIAL, 1Ir11TEQ) ZQ~~[.
No one indicated t+~Pir pr~sencr ~n c~proaikion ta sub.Ject p~tltion.
Although the Staff Report t~ thc Planninq Cc~mmisslon date~+ January 5~ 197~~, Was not
read at the public licariri~. saic+ Staff Report is referred to an~' madc a p~~rt of the
minutes.
Mr. Jack R11ey~ the petitioner~ appe~~red befarc the Planning Commi~s(o~ and ~t.ated he
purchased the subject property in 1~1'iG and had been operating a heavy equfpment can-
struction yard on the property sinc~ that tirr~e; that the n~rtherly portion of [he sun-
.ject property was present.!y vacant, fully fCllr_nt~ and paved, a!~d was proposed for outduor
recreational vehicle st~rage; th~t he was trying to retire from the construction
bus 1 ness and needed some incume f rom thr~ prop~>_~•ty untl 1 I t w:~s ready for ul t 1 mare dr-
velo~ment; that since he had used thr. E~roperty as a storage yard for a number ~~f years~
h:, ~hou~~ only he ~equ red ce cle~3n it up at this time; that. he had installec'. a 6-foot
;;ot~~.; chainllnk fence com~l~taly around the property and tne property was cleaned
up and pa(nted; that the prupased 1(ve-in type trailer wou!d be for security purposes
only; that an aur,omatic g~te wouid be utilized durtny Che ~laylight hours only~ withou~
bothering the security guarcl; ancf that they fiad serious problems with seGUrlty
during the ni3ht hours whici~ coulcl be ver'ified through thF. Artaheim Palice Qepartment.
Mr. Riley took exception to the Staff R~port rt+garding th:: 45°foot dedicat.i~n along
Lewis Stree[, stating that he I~ad made the dedication in 1970 or• 1971; end that the
trast~ starage areas ai~d fi r~ hydrar~ts we~•e existing. Mr. R) ley further stated that
the propased use w~s clear;y an interlr~~ use of the subJect property until the timtnq
was right for deve{oping it wit:h a permanPnt use.
TNE PUBL I C HEAft I NG IJAS Cl.O~F [..
Commissioner King noted ch [he subject property was immaculate and hP compllme:nted
thE petitioner i~ that "~ d•
Commissioner Tular no> >': a~r.houyh `he property was presently well-kepr and he had
no qualms about the r .I•~ us:,, he feft a tlme limit for the use would be a~propriate
since he was c~ncern .~. ~r~-~ number of recreational vehicles which might be stored
on thP subject prope " ~~, '~~ traffic which might be generated froro the ~.ise. C~m-
missioner Herbst ~~~ -~ .me limit was also desirable to limit *.he use of the
house trai ler c~n ••- ~•r ~~ ~~ Cc+mmis3loner Johnson noted that the wafver for the
10-foat setback ~ ~ longer valid when the conditianat use permlt was terminated
or not renewed.
In response to iue~- ~~ ~~; '>y Commissfoner King, Mr. Ri ley stated Yhc property would
be ~-eady for u t•m ~~~~l~pment within a r~aximum of five years and he a~ticipated
that some def' ni ~ .~~• i•~ns may h~ made regarding the development orithin the next
three ycars.
Comnissioner T~lar ,=e-ed a motlon, seconded by Cammissinner Morley, and MUTION CARRIED.
that the Anahe;m C~ 'la~ning Commisslor~ does hereby recomnend to the Citv Council of
the Citv n~ Anane t~at the subi~:t pro)ect be exempt from th~ requiremer,t to prepare
an Env i ronmenta' ~).u. ~~ ty Act.
Commi~sloner -oi<~~ .,ffered Resolutton ~io. PC76-4 and moved for its nassage and adoptlon~
that Pet~tlon ~~:~- ~anditional Use Permft No. 1591 be and herehy ls gr~nted~ grantlrr.;
the w?iv~rs 'or .~ _ime limitation of three years. subJect to review and consideratlon
far an exter,sion af tlme up~n written request from the petltloner~ said waivers being
gronr~~d nn che ':asis that Cha petltloner stipulnted that the proposed use ~f the sub-
j~:ct ,~~~pert/ is an Interim use only, that th~ property ls not ready for a permanent
us~~ ~~~ be r:onstructed~ and that outdoor construction equlpment s~torage hos exlsted
on a pur:lon of sub]ect prtiperty for a number af years; and subJect to Interdcpart-
mc.ntal ~;o~nittee recommerdatlons. (See Resolution Boak)
~. r
~ ~
~iINUi[S~ CITY PLAt~NING COMMISSION~ January 5~ 1y7~ 7~>-10
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1591 (continued)
bn roil call~ trc !`oregoln~, resclutian wa~s passad by the f~llowing w~te:
AYES : COMMI SS ~ O~IEItS : E3hRNES ~ II[RAST, J~I~PISI)N ~ KI NG ~ MORI.EY ~':~I.AR ~ FARANO
~~OES; COMMISSIONERS: NONE:
a[iSf NT: CAMMI SS I oNERS : t~ONE
CONDITIQNlIi. USE - PUBLIC IIEARING. T. E. YELLIS~ c/o Lo~n~rd Smtth~ 125-D S, Claudina
PERMIT N0, ly9A Street~ An~7helm~ CA .92HQ5 (Owner); ~.EONARD SMiTy, 125°D S. Claudin~
~~ 5t~•ret~ Anahelm, Cl1 9?.805 (Ac~ent); requesiing permisslon to BUILD A
ItESTAURAt~T W17H ON-SALE LIQUOR WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM STFUCTURAL
SET4ACK~ an propr.rty describei as: An Irregulerly~•shaped ;arccl of land c:~nslsting
oP approxinately :i.~ acres lotated snu~heaste~•ly af th~ intersectl~n ~~~` f,rescent Avenua
and Brrx~khurst Stre~~t, having appraxic,:alc frontages of 1?.0 fe~t on the south sidc of
f,rescent Averiue an•~ 450 feet on the ~a~t slde of B~ookhurst StrPet~ and furtfier described
as 500 N. Brookhurst St~eet. Property presently class(flecl as CL (COM~1ERCIAI.~ LIMITE~)
ZONE.
N~ one indic~~ted their presence in oppositlon ta subJect petition.
Althou~h the Staff Repore to the P~anninn Commiss(on dated ~~nuary 5~. 1976,wa~ not read
at tl~e public hearing, s~id Staff Repor: is referred to ancl made a ptirt of thc minutes.
Mr. Lecm ard Smith~ thE Agent f~r the Petitioner~ nppeared ~ fore the Planning Commissfon
and stated that the structure fa~ which th~ waiver was advertised was a wall which was
nof located on thc gubJect pr~perty, but was In Che pub'lic right-of-way; that the
petitioner destred to kee.p the wall at Its present loc~~ion; that sald wall was can-
skructed by the property ~wner to the south to protect the ~partment proJect; ~hat the
propc.+sal w~s to construct a restaurant on the subJecL property and the wall would be
an asset both to the subJect c~mmercial prcperty and the apartment pro,ject to the south;
th3x the petitioner was propo5ing to install ar~ frrlgation system on bcith sides of khe
wall and to plant some type of climb(ng Ivy~ etc.~ to cumpletely cover the wal) as
quickly as poss(ble; that they would also repair the block wa;l; and th~^y were retpect-
1`ully requesting t~~ be pe.rmitted to retain :he wall in questlon.
?HE PU~LIC NE~IRING WAS CLOSED.
In response to questioning by the Planninc~ Commission~ Mr. Smith stipulated to Install
sldewalks along Valley Street and Crescant Avenue~ as required by tht City Engineer
and In accordance with stand~rd pians and specif(cations nn file in the Cffice of
the City Engincer.
Office En~ineer Jay Titus advised tnat the Engineering Division had ~o obJe~tions to
rhe retention of the wall in qu~s!:lon~ however~ an applicati~n should be ma~le fo~ an
encroachment permit to allow the wall to remain and, further~ that the petftioner would
be requlred to maintain the wa11 as long as it remalned. Mr, Smlth stipulated to the
foregoing.
Conm~lss(oner Tolar expres~ed concern regarding the develapment of the remaind~er of the
subject ~roperty and Mr. Sm(th stated aithough he had ne idea~ p~esently,how che
balance of tr~e property would he developed, there were no current plans for any lot
splf2s on the property.
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advlsed that Condltion No. 3 of the Interdepartmental
Committee recomrr~ndations would be r~written to reftect the foregoing discussion.
Commissloner Tolar offered a motlon~ seconded by Commissloner Barnes, and MOTION CHRRIE(~~
that the Anahelm Clty Planning Commisslon ~:foes hereby re~omme~d to the City Council of
the City of Anahelm that the subJect proje~:t be cxempt from the requlremcnt to prepare
an environmental im;~act report~ purs~__~~*. t~~ the orovisions of the California Envir~;n-
mental Qual:ty Act.
Commissloner hbrley offered Resalutlon No. rc76-5 and moved for its passage and adoption~
that P~tition for Conditional Use Pe-•mit No. 159~+ be and hereby is granted~ in part,
since the waiver of the min(mum structural setback 1~ determ~ned to be unnecessary an
the basis chAt the referenced structure is not situated ~~n the subJECt property. but
rather in the public-right-of^wfly; s~bJect to the stipul~tions of thE petltinner that
the property owncr(s) shall apply to the City of Anahelm for an encroachmcnt permit to
retain the existing block wal) on Lot A on the north side of Alameda flvenUr. In the
right-oT-way area~ th~t seid wall shall be meintalned by khe propnrty owner(s)~ khat
full sidewelks shall be constructed on the north stde of Alameda Avenue adJacene to
the subJect prop~rty~ ln accordance with standard ~.lens and speciflcatlons on file wlth
~
MINUTES, CITY
.w..
~
~'LAi~NING COMMISSIOPI, January $~ 1~?(>
~„ONDITIQNAL USE P[RMI ~ N0, 159~~ (cnntin~~ed)
7f>- I 1
th~ Off(ce of the City Engineer, and that In the event sald wal! fs rerrx~ved from the
ric~ht-of-way ~irca, the propcrty owner(s) sh~il constru:t tree wells ~imflar to those
east of Vc~lley Street; and subject to the Intercfe~artmental Committee recommendat(ons.
;See Res~>iutic~n Dook)
On roll c~~rll, the forcc~olnc~ resolut;on was passed by the fallowiiig votc:
AY[S: COMMIS5IUNERS'
NOES: COM111SSION[R5:
ADSENT: CQMMISSIONF.RS:
RECESS
RECONV[NE
Bl1R~~ES~ HCRRS7~ JOHNSOIJ~ Y.ING, M~RLf.Y, T~1L11R, FI1Rl1M0
~~O~~E
~JOrIF.
At 3:Za P.m.~ C.I~alrman Farano declared a recrss.
At 3~35 p.m., Cha(rman Faran~ reconvened Lhe meetin~ with all
Commissfoners heing presenk.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HF.l1RING. FIERMAN WEHN~ 912 ~I. Euclfd Sr.rcet~ Fullertar~, CA 97~32
°ERMIT N0. 1595 (Owner); WARRF.N R. 51NM~N5~ 30A0 E, Coronado 1lvenue, Anahelm~ cn 928aG
~ (Aqent); requestlnc~ permisslon to DUILD A Dt," AtID CAT KFNN[L~ on
property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parce! of land con-
cistinn ~F' approximately .~?. acre, h~ving a frontaqe of approximately 129 feet on the
s~uth s(de of Curon,~do Ctreet~ havin~ a maximum depth of approximately 310 feet, bzing
located approximat~ly 66Q ~eet west of the centerline of Kraemer Boulevard~ and furtlier
described as 3Ci4Q E. Coronado Street. Property prPSently classlfied as RS-A-<<3,000
(RESIDFNTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) 2UNE.
7wo persons Indicated thefr presence in oppa,ition to subJect petition.
Although the StaFf Report to the Planning Comm(ssion dated January 5- 197b was nut
read~ said Staff Report is referred to and made a part of the m!nutes.
Chairman Farano questioned the status of the Orange County Soard of Supervisor's
moratorium ~n dog and cat kennels~ noting that the County Ordinance which may event~ially
be passed may change the re~ulatlons to an extent which would make the proposed use ~n-
desirable at the sutject location.
Mr. Warren Simmons, the Agent for the Petitioner~ appear~d before the Planning Cammission
and stated he I~ad been Invalved at several kennels which had been some of the maJor com-
plainers about the new ordinance which the County Board of Supervisors was considering;
th~t one of the big r.omplafnts seerned ta concern the s(ze of runs for caYs, since it
was not felt that lar~e runs r~ere necessdry for cats; th~t ha h~d llved an the sub~ect
property for a number of years and they would build according to the County regulations.
Deputy City Attorne; Frank Lowry advised that it would be many months before the C~unty
passed a new ordinance; haNever, the rtx~ratorium may be ralsed prior to that time; and
thai the City of Anahelm, among a number of other Qrange County citles~ had refused to
adopt che ordinance being considered bv the Board of Supervisors~ since~ in his opinion,
it was nat possible t~ live with about three-fourth5 ef said ordinance.
In resoonse to question(ng by Commissioner Morley~ Mr. L~wry advised that if the petitioner
should withdraw the subJPCt petltion at ttiis time~ a fee wouid be charged for a resub-
mittal unles: the City agreed to pay the advertising costs~ etc. at the time of the
resubmittal; however~ the Commission could continue the matter fer 40 days.
In response to questloning by Commissioner 7olar, Mr. Simmons stated if the proposal
were approved, he would enter into a highPr rental agreement for the subJect property
and for a longer rental period; and that he had good rpason to gamble on the new ordinance
becaus~ he did not fcel it would b~ changed significantly ~ver the prior ordinance.
C~mmissloner Tolar suggested that if Mr. Simmons proceedeu wiYh the new rental agree-
ment far the subJect prnp~erty~ he should do so with a contingency attachecl~ pending
City of Anaheim apF~roval and the lifting of tMe County moratorium.
The pubiic hearing having not been opened~ Commiss~oner Morley offered a motion~
seconded by Commis~loner King, and MOTION CARRiED, that Cfie Public Hearing and con-
sideration of Conditlonal Uae Permit No. 1595 be and hereby is cantinued tu the Planning
Commisslon meeting of February 2. 1976~ based on the foregofng findirigs.
~ ~
MIWUTES, CITY PLl1(~PIIfI~ COMMISSIOP~, January 5. 197G
Paqe 7fi-1?.
VARINNCE NU. ?76f) - PUf~LIG IICARI~~a. UAVIU Ar~O LILI.IAPJ DOIJ, 1R5~ NRrth Tustin. Oran~e, Ca.
" '-" S26G5 (Uwners`; ~1ARGIE ANt~ ~111RSfIltLL, 1~31~1 Wsst hvenue~ Fu'~lerton, Ca.
92G33 (Agent); requestinq 1J11IVER OF PtIf~IMUht DUILDING SETRACY. TO
CON~?RUC'( .~ FOTOt•1AT rACILITY on property descr~bed ~s: a r~ctan~ularly-shaped ,~arcel of
land cansistin~ nf anpMoximately 6.~ acres loca~`.ed soutlieast of the intersection of Linccln
Avenue and aroukhiirst Street, !~avin~~ ai~proximute fr~n~::^es of ~r,n f~at nn the ~outh sirie of
Lincoln Avenue and 4~10 ~eet on the east side of Brcokhurst Street and naving a maximum deoth
of approxlmately G10 ~eet. Property presently clas~sified CL (COMMERCIAL~ I.IMITED) ZQNE.
IJo one indicated their presence in o~position to sub~ect oetition.
Altl~ough the SCaft iteport ta the Plannin~ Commissic,~~ c!ated January 5~ 1976, was not read
at the public he~ring, said Staff Report is rPt'erred tc.~ and made a part of the minutes,
Mr. Pete Fogarty, 1590 Faye Avenue~ La Jolla~ representing the Agent for the Petitioner,
appeared before the Plar~nin9 Commission and stated the reason fnr the waiver of the set-
back requirement wa~: tn have the proposed fotoinat out ~f the way for future development
of the property.
Chairman Faranu requ~sted to ki~ow if a hardship existed, t~~her~eupon. t4r. Fred Galloway of
the Fotomat C~rpor~t?^n. appeared before the Plannin, Commission and stated the f~etitior.Pr
had owned the sub~ect property since 1955 and the fatomat w~uld ~rovi~fe some inc:ome; tl~at
the Ilouse of Suede in the area was closer to Lincolr~ than the fc~tomat would be; that they
irad never given the City any problems with street wideninc~ in th~~ area; that the sub~ect
building could be moved anytime since it was portable; and that tiie use cnuld be termed as
an interim use f~r the property for the purpose of dPfraying some ~~f the ~~st exnenses
incurred from t~~e undevelop~d property.
TftE PUBLIC HEA(2Ii~G IJAS CLOSED.
It was noted that the pirector of the Planning Dapartrr~ent l~ad determined that the ~raposed
activ'ity fell within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 3, of the Citv of Anaheim
Guidelires to the Requirements for an Env{ror~men~:al Impact Report and was, tiierefore,
categorically exempt from the requirerr,er~t ta file an EIR.
Commissioner Morley offered ResolutiAn r~o. PC76-6 and moved for its passage and a~lontion,
that P~tition for Variance No. 2769 be and hereby is yranted f~r a time limi~iation of five
years, sub~ect to review and cQnsideration for an exter,sion e~ time upo~ writt.en request
from the petitioner. said variance being granted on the basis that the structurP 9s a
portable building and will be for an interim use af the sub~ect property, as sti~~,ulated to
by the petitioner; and sub~ect to the Interde~artmental Con~nittee recommendation. (See
Resolution Book)
Qn rc~l call, the foregaing resolu*ion wa~ passed by the following vote:
AYF.S: C0~1t1ISSI0t~ERS: E3ARNES~ HrKCSSI, JGiii~SC~Z~ K?!'~G; MnRLEY; TOLAR, FARANO
f~OES: C0~1t1~SSI0f~ERS: (JONE
ABSENT: CQt1h1ISSI0P~ERS: NO~JE
REPORTS APaU - ITEM U0. 1
RECOMt4EPJDATIONS C0~ U P~ L USE PERh1IT t10. 1359 - Request for extension of
time - Property consisting of approximately fi.5 acres, located
southeasterly of the southeast c~•rner of Freedman lJay and Ilarbor
l3oulevard and further described as 1700 Soutf~flarbor Boulevard
(Ilyatt Nouse Ilotel ).
Thc Staff Report to the Plannirg Commission dated January 5, 1976 was ~resented and
made a part of the minutes.
It was noted that Conditional Use Fermit P~o. 1359, to estabiish a 1~-stary hotal t~wer
~~ith a waiver o` the minimum number of parking s~aces, was granted by the Plannir.g
Commission ~n December 27, 1972; that approval was granted sub~ect to several c~ndi*_ia~is
being satisfied prior to issuance of a building per~it or within a period af one year,
etc., said conditions beinq: completion of C-R zoning~ payment of tree planting feES
and installation of street lighting facilities and the pos,tin~ of a bond to guarantee
said installation; that ali of the aforementiQned conditions had been satisfied, however~
the pe~itioner has been unable to complete negotiations for permanent financin~ in order
to establish the use; and that two previous extensions of time had been grant~d, t~e last
one expiring Uecember 27, 1975.
~
~
~
h1INUTES~ CI fY PLA~JtIING ~O~1PIISSION, January 5~ 197G
ITFM PIUNI (Continued)
Pa~ie 7~-13
Commissioner Ilerbst offered a m~tion~ seconded by Cort~nissione-• Kine~~ and MQTIO~~
CARRIEU. that the Planning Conu~ission does hereby grant a one-year ex+ension of
timP fc,r Conditional Use Permit tlo. 1359, as requested b,y the ~etitioner, said
exterision of timr_ to be retroactive to December 27, 1975 and to er,~ire ~ec:ember 27.
1976; provided. ~~u~~l~ver~ that if an additional extensian of time is re~uested the
Planniny Commission may require that an additianal public hearin~ be held to
detern+~i ne whether t1~e use 1 s s ti l l sui tabl e due to envi ronment~l ch~~n~les ~ahi cti have
taken ~lace in the sub~ect area sinr,? the usE was originally e~ranted.
I1'CM NU. 2
COt~TT~Ib~N7CL USE PERh1I1' tJU, 1508 - Request for extension oF time -
('ro~erty consisCing of appreximately 7 acre havin~ a frontaqe of
approximately 1£37 feet on the east side of Anahcim Ilills Road and
be~ng located approximately 4µ0 feet north of the centerline of
tloiil ftanch Road.
The Stafr'{teport to the Planning Commission datEd January 50 1976~ was oresented ancl
made a~art of the minutes.
It was noted tl~~t Conclltional Use Permit P~o. 150A, to permit an autumobile s~rvice
station with waivers of permitted wall siqnin~ and ~andscapin~ ad~acent to inte~~ior
boundaries, ~~as granted in part by the Planning Commission on January 6, 1475; ~ind
tr~a*. the ~~etitioner was requesting an extension of time to establish tlie use o,i the
sub~ect property.
Commissioner Tolar offered a motion, seconded by Cormiissioner Y.ing and MUTIO~d CARRIED,
that the Plannin~ Commission daes hereby grant ~ ane-year extension of time for
Conditiona'I Us~ Permit No. 150F3~ as requested by thP petitioner, 5aid extension of timP
to Pxpire on January G, 1.977.
- ITEh1 PdO. 3
~€~~.'?~1fC~CAN A~4EIdD~~1ENT PROCEDURE ~
in~`ormational item.
Deputy City 1lttorney Frank Lowry presentE~c~ a mem~randum date~ December 15, 1975,
addressed to the f'lanning Commissinn from t!~e City Attorney~'s Office and Planninq
Departiment regarding "General Plan Amendment Procedure," as follows:
"On June 29, 1973, the Goverr~or sign~d into law Senate Eiill 554. That leg9slat~ion,
among other things~ prohibited the amendment of any mandatory element of a general
plan mora thanth'ee times durinn any calendar year. Anaheim's ~osition relative
ta Senate Bill 594 i~as, in the past, been based upon the fact that the Ci~y is a
f,nar~er City. Ilence, no attempt aias made to limit the number of times the Anahelm
Gener•al R1 an coul d be amende~l.
Nowever, in the case of Lagrutta vs. Cit,y Council of the City of Storkton, ~he
Caurt held i:hat Stocktnn, a Charter City, could only amend each mandatory el~ment
of the General Plan three times a year.
In lic~iit of the f~regoing~ the City Attorney has deemed it necess~ry a~d appropriate
that the mandatory elements of che general plan be amended no more than three t9mes
ye~rly. 7o accomplish this in a re~~sonable and organized manner, it appears appro-
priate to e~tablisY~ a set of criteria for future General Plan Amendments. It is
si~nificant to note that the overall ~uiding factor is three times oer y ar f~r each
element. -- however~ witfiin each "time" sever~l items may 6e inc-Tude~ or exam~le,
the first general plan amendment of 197f may incl~de tY-o, three or even more semi-
separate arrendments which may be located througfiout the City.
With regard t~. scheduling, it is imp~rtant that the ~mer~dments be disnersed through~
out the year. While it is acknowledqed that there may be some waiting aeri~d involved,
it would be far more advantageous tc~ schedule the amendments throughout the year.
Such a procedure would ne~ate the ncssibility that the three amen~ments would be "used
up" e~rly in the year thereby requir~ing an und~aly long wait for the next calendar year.
A ~roposed procedure is t~ schedule the amendm~~ts at apprc~ximately 4-m~nth i~tervals:
tentatively, these dates wo~~ld '~all approximately durir,g the montl~s of ~4arch, ~~uly, and
(Jovember. (PaOTE: The dates proposed re~`lect the final City Council hearing date).
~
~..
~
1~1II~UTES~ CITY PU1N~~I(~G (.'UMt~ISSIl1PJ, January 5, 197G
ITEM NU, 3 (Cc~ntinu~c; j
Pagc 76-14
It is further pronosed that the nur~iberin~~ system not be rev9sed in o;,der to prevent
as much confusion and t.a ass;~re the continued accurate filin~ systeir. The first
general plan amenciment numbcr beginning next Februar,y/~1arcli w~uld b~ General Plan
1lmendment P~o. 139. S~ince it is now conceivablc Lhat that general nlan amendment
will consist of sevsral 9Lemsy e~ch item may be identified Ny a Roman Numc:ral l~stinn:
for example, General Plan Amendmpnt No. 13'1 - I, II, III, etc.
In order ta assure the sanctitY of a singl~~ ac~ion a~proving a sln~le ~eneral plan
am~ndment it will I,a r-ecessary tl~at, upi~roval be in ~he form of a sin~le resolutiori --
even tl~ough th~: singie resoliatiori m~y cor~tain a number of amendment ite~i~s."
Thereupon~ the Planning Commisston c~Pnerally concurreci ~hat the foregoinq ~rocedure be
rPCeived and filed, as presented.
ITE~4 PJO. 4
Z~,'~I~TIII~4 SURVEY 1975
informational item,
Deputy Ci ty Attor•ney Frank Lowry presehted s~ah,ject Condomi nimum Survey fur ~'1 ~nni rr
Cor~anission review.
Commissioner Ilerbst noted that the survey ap^^ar~d ~o corroborste the necessitY for
guest parking spaces in condominimum pr•o~ect~ since 3Q~ of those respon~ing to the
survey indicated guest ~arking was inadequate. Commissioner Tolar added that althou~ih
the survey may not be relevant on '.he basis that few new condominimurn pro,jects would
probably be constructed, the validitY of the suryey would paraliel conversions ~f
apar'tments to condom9niums.
Gonxniss9oner Qarnes noted from the survey that 6% of xhe condominium owners ~wned
re~reztional vehi~les and onjy slightly over one-half had a place to park the recreatir.nal
vehicle.
The Pianning Commission generally concurred tliat the foregoing survey be received and filed
as presented.
- ITEM PIO. 5
P~ N0. 1314 - Re~.~uz~t for clarification of permitted use~ -
Property designated a~ xax parcel numbPr 82-27Q~36, l~cated on
the north side of K.atella Ave~~ue approximately 622 feet west of
the centerline of Clementine Street.
Ueputy City Attorney Frank La~ry noted that the appii~anx was requesting to know whether
a dance studio was intendPd as a permitted use ir, the original approval of Variance P~o.
1314; and that Resolution No. 132, Series 196Q-G1 granting Variance ~do. 1314 indicated
the following:
"1. That the perrr~itted uses of entire sub~ect property be as follows:
business and professional (except real estate) offices, dru~ stores, ~harmacies,
restaurants and cocktail lounges (developed in accordance with floor plans sub-
mit±ed to and appr~ved by the ~ity Council), •f?Qwer shops, beauty shnps, barber
shops, retail dry cleaning - laundry agencies, tailor sho7s, telephone answerin~
ser~vices, book and stationery stores, s~ecialty gift shaps, tobacco shops, photo
shops, shoe repa9r shops, cl~thing shops, t~y shops, hobty shops, interi~r decura-
tor's studios, medical and de~tal centers, hanks, diagnostic laboratories, bakeries,
television studios ard r~adio studios, and stud9os related tn nermitted uses."
14r. Lowry fU-~the~ r~~~c:: ~h~* *he annlican': was interpreting the foreqoing as nerrnitting
any kirid of studio.
ihe Planning Commission entered into dlscussion regarding the sub~ect request, and the
general concensus of opinion was that Staff had currectly advised the anplicant that tf~e
intent or scope of the Planning Commissien's approval o~ Variance No. 131~ was not to
permit a~ance studio at the sub~e~t location; ~nd that if the a~piicant wished to pursue
the re~~~Pst further, a public hearing would tie required.
~ ~
MINUTES~ CI7Y PLANNti~G COMMISSInN, Janu~r_. 5. 1976 Pa9e 7f'1•~
- ITEM N0. 6
~;'~OhIMISS1Ut~ PQL.ICY MAP~UAL - Request for,
Commissioner ?olar noted t~~~t a Policy Manual wes deslrable for reference by the
Plannin~ Comm~sslon and Staff in reviewing Applications, said manual to contair+
writxen potictes whlch hac: been established by the Planning Commissiun over th~
past and which were being established as an on-9~~iny process; and that a writ~cn
versus nn unwrittcn policy was more valid in the eye~ of thp apnlicants an~i wouid
eliminate so~ne of th~ problems.
Comm9ssioner aarnes suggested that ;he items which the Commissi~n nnd Staff were
aware of as nolicies sh~uld be reviAwed for inc'.usi~n in the manual, if the mAtter
was ~ursued; anci that she would alsa suggest a pollcy tn req-iire that site plans
ai:Wmpdny iract maps iu-• Pionning Cor,imi~sion consideration.
Comnissioner Nerb~t noted that certain polici~s could be considered for inclusion in
the up-dating of ordinances; and Deputy City Attorney Frhnk Lowry advis~cl that was a
possibility, however, in some instanr,es it w~uld not be possible.
Comni:;sioner T~lar offer~~~i a mation. seconded by Commissionei• Morley~ and MQTIOM
CARRZEU, that the Planninc~ Co~mission does hereby direct Staff to ~iraft a written
Planning Commission Policy Manual f~~r review and acceptnnce by the Planning Commission.
s~id draft to include any policies previously established by thE Planninq Commission
and as discussed in '.he foregoing minutes of this meetir-~.
ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissiansr Johnson
offsred a motionf seconded by Comrtiissioner Morley, and MOTION
CARRIED, tl~at the meeting be ad~o~irned.
7he mcetirig ad~ourned at 4:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~GVLL.f~.t,It.~~~/•
Patricia e. Sca~lan, Secretary
Anaheim Gity Planning Commisslon
PBS:~d
Q R C 0 MICROFII.MINt; ~'tRViCE. INC