Minutes-PC 1976/02/02~ ~
Clty Hall
M ahelm~ Celifornla
Feb ru:~ry 2 ~ 1976
REGUTAR MEET'ING OF THE AMAkEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI:~SION
REGULAR - A renular meeting o~ the Anahelm Ctty Planning Comnisslc:n was called to
MEETING order by Chalrmnn Pra Tarnpo~e hbrley at 1:3~ P•m, ln the Councll Chamber~
a quorum belnq prasent.
PRESFPIT - CHAIFi~V1~1 PRO TE~OP[: Morley
- COMMISSIONERS: Herbst~ Johnson~ Ktn~, Tolar ,
ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS. Barnes~ Fara~~
A~.SO PRESE'VT - Ron Tnomp~on
Frank Lowry
Jay T(tus
Paui Sinya~~
Annika Santalahti
Allan Daum
Patrlcla Scanlan
Plannin~ Uapartment Directar
Deputy Clty Attorney
Office Englneer
Trafftc EnglnwPr
Zoning Supervisor
Assistant 7.oning Supervisor
Planning Commtssion Sncretary
PLE~GE OF - Co~~miyai~~~~:i ,tohrs~n ted In the Pledge of Allegtbnce to the rlag of the
ALLEGIANCE Unitad States of Amerlca,
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTI"IUED PUBLIC H'caRING. HERMAN WEHN~ 912 North "cuclld Stre~t~
PERMIT N0. ~595 Fullerton. Ca, 97b3z (Owner); W11P,REN R. SIMMONS, 3~40 East
Coronado Avenue, Anahelm~ Ca. 928~6 (Agent); requesting permisston
to ES7ABLISH A D(iR AND CAT KENNE'I_ on property descr(bed as a
rect~ngularly-5hapecl parcel of land cnnsisting of approximately .q2 acre, havl~g a
frantage of approximately 1T.9 feat on the south stde of Caronado 5treet~ having a
maximum depth of approximately 310 feet~ being located apprnxtmately 660 fzet west of
the centerline of Kraemer 8oulevard~ and further descrlbsd as 3~~0 Ea~t Cor~nado
Street. Property presently classified RS-R-43~000 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) T.ONE.
The subJect petitton was continued from the meeting of January 5, 197b~ R^nding ~esults of
an Cra~~e Caunty maratorium on dog and cat kennels.
No one Indicated their presence In opposition to subJect oetition.
Although the Staff Report to the Pla~ning Commission dated February 2~ 1976, was not read
at the public hear(ng~ satd Staff Report is referred to and made a part af the minutes.
Mr. Warren R. Simmons. the agent for the petitlaner~ appeared before the Pla~ning
Commission and stated they were ~nti~Sp~*_!~g a mar.im~r~~ of 130 animals, however~ due to t!~e
size requlremenis ~f the runs in relationship to che ~ize of the dogs, etc., they would
like to request that an undetermined number of animals he approved.
YHE P~JBLIC HEARING WP,S CLOSCD.
!n resp~nse to questtoning by Ccmmissioner King~ Mr. Simmons st!pulated that the number of
animals whtch they wou:d be ablc to care for on the premises wauld dtFend on the Orange
Caunty antmal fa~ility rules and regu?atians which rhey would be cumpeiled to comply with;
th~t, regardtng groomtn~, they would stipulate to a r~.axtmum of eight antmals por day per
groomer in compllance with the Qrange County animal facil!ty rules and reg~ilatlons; that
they dtd intend to breed animals on a limited scale ln accordance with thc Orange Co~nty
animae Taciiiiy ru~a~ az~ regulatlons ~nd that he did not intend to bre^d Just to be
breedir.g; and that Mr. R. A. liudson, Senior Animal Corotrol Officer for the Orange County
Nealth Depar~tment~ had indicated that thg proposed kennet specificaiiy met the standards
set forth in the present resolution of the Orange County Board of Supervisors pertaining
to ~nlmal faciilties (Resc~utlan No. 75-645).
In response to questioning by Mr. Simmons~ Cffice Engineer Jay Titus advlsed rec~arding
ur~dergrounding ef all utilities that the water and sewers wera always undergrovnd.
76-44
~
~
~
MINI;TES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ February 2~ 1976
CONDITICNAL USE PERMIT N0. ly'~~, (Gontlnued)
76-45
howaver, if there wes existinq clectrical so~vice ta thd subJect proparty~ the appllcunt
ehoulcl check with the Utlllties Dlvtslon to ~ee If sald ol~ctrical ser~~icn would be
allowed to remnin or be chnnged and~ In any ceae~ all of tha utlitties would hc+ve ".o
confor~n to the ~equtre~nenta of the Utilt;less Dlvlslan.
In respanse to questlonlne~ by Commisslc,rer Tolar~ Mr. 7~tus advised that the patLern for
utllttles in the aro~ wa~ tu place them all underground; that it wns not probabla that all
of thc utllltles for tha separflte F7d1(,CZS !~~ th~ arca woul~ he put undnrqround at any one
time and the pattern w~a to require the unde~groundinc~ t+t the time of ne-v cor~struction.
Commissioner Ktn~ noterl that there would be very ttttle new Gonsr.ruct(on tnvolved in the
subJect applicatlon; whereupon~ h1r. Sinxr~ns stipulated that they would have no obJectlons
to ~~itting the utilltles un~lerground at the time the street Improvemc:nts were made.
in ir:~:~r;a tc~ quectlonin~ by Commissioner Tolar~ Deputy Clty Attorney Frgnk Lowry ddvis~d
thot the Planning Commisslon had cont(nued the subJecx pubiic he.3ri~-~y to soe if Orangt
County's resolutlon pertalning to animal facilities woiald be resolved in the near future;
that rhe County had not. to this date~ res~lved tl~e matter ~nd the Anahelm City Planning
Cammtssion was only co~cerned about lancl use; and that the applicant would be requlred to
comply wfth tr~e Orange County animal facility rules and regulations as they presentty
exlsted and (f they were changed.
Commissionsr Johnson inqulred if the applicant woulc~ be bound by the proposal for a
maxlmum of 136 animals~ if the County controls allowed more than thaC; whereupon~ Mr.
SOmmons stated *.hey woulcl be able to have na more anlmals than the County reguiations
would allow. Mr. Lowry advised that the Plann!ng Commission could restrlct the number
under the subJect con!iitionai u~e permit, if s~ desired. Mr. Simmons further stated lf
they were h~:ld to 13~ ~og~ they may have some dlfF(c lty staying wiehin the llm(tatton If
a cllent~ for instance~ came in with a grQUp of several dogs anc, wanted them to all share
the same run; however, they would comply with the Orange County regulations in the matter.
Commissloner John3on tl~en recomrr~nded that due to the fect there was room for ad~itional
facllitles~ the number of dogs should be limited in accordance with the Orange Cuunty
animal faGilil•y rules and regulations.
In response to questi~ning by Commissioner Herbst~ Mr. Simmons stlpulated that thc hours
of operati~n would be fr~m 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Mr. Simmons further stated that he
recognized that tf the subJect request was approved~ they could begin butl~inQ but if xhe
faciltties dld not meet the requirements af the County, they would not be abie to use
them.
Commtsstoner Johnson offered a motion~ seconded by Conxnissioner Kfng and MOTIflN CARRIEU
(Commissioners Barnes and Farano being abse~t)~ that the Anaheim City Planni~g Commisslon
does hereby racommend to the Ctcy Cauncil of the Ctty of Anahelm that the subJect praJect
be exempt from the requtrement to prepare an envir~nmental impact report~ pursuant to th~
provlsions of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Com,~~issioner Johnson off~:red Resolution No. PC76-18 and moved for its passage and
adoptlon~ that the Anaheim Clty Plam~ing Corrmis~ion does hereby grant ~etition for
Condltional Use Parmit No, 1595 for a time ltmltatton of five years, subJeck to review and
consideration for an cxtension of tir~? by the f'lanning G~mmission and/or City Ccuncil,
upon wrltten request by thc petitioner, satd kime limitation being ta determ(ne whether
tht use has be~n detrimental to the surrounding area; sub,ject to the sttpulations of the
petitianer and subject to the Interdepartmental Cemmittee recorrmendations. (See
Resolution Boc';)
On rol! cail~ the foreyoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NERBST~ JOHN~ON, KING. TOLAR~ MORLEY
NOES: CQMMISSIbNERS: NO~~E
ABSENT: COMt11SSI0NERS: BARNES~ FARANO
~
~
~
FIINU7ES~ ~IrY PLANNING CQMMISSION~ F~bruary 2~ 1976
76•46
RECLASSIFIC~~TION - REAt1VERTISED PUBLIC HkAkIN~~. MARIE A, ANDROUS~ 1A23 Falrway Drive~
N0. 5-7f~~~£~ Orangn~ Ca. 926G6 (Owner); JACK S. DAVIS~ 13~+i Norih Grand Avenue~
Santa AnA, Ga. 92701 (Agant). Property described as a re~.tanyularly-
VAFIA~lf,E Nn. ?.7j7 shap~d p~~rcel of lancl c~mp~iseci nF two portlons separated by a
prlvete drlve, cr.nslsting uf approxlmate~ly .7~ acrc~ each having a
frontage of appraximatcly 106 Peet on the ~south side of Lincoln
belnq laca[cJ a roximetely
Avenue~ having mAxlmum depths of appruximately 16Q feet~ PP
730 feet west of the ~enterilne of Dale Avenue~ and further described at 2850 and 2~60
West Linc~ln .Avenu~- Proper~Y presently classlfled CL (CAMMERCIAL~ LIMIT[D) ZONE:.
f~F01-ESTED CI.ASS I F t CATI ON : RM-120Q ( k'~ I DF.NTI /1L, MULT I Pl.E-FAMI LY) Z~NE
REQUFSTED VARIANf.E: WAIVFR OF (A) REQ~iREMEN7 'f1111T ALL L075 ABUT A PUHl.IC STREET~
(D) MINIMUM FRON1' SETBACK~ AND (C) REQUIREU SCREENING~ TO
CONSTRIICT A 16-UNIT APARTMEPJT COMPLEX.
The sui~~ect petition for reclassiflcation was conttnued from the n~eetiny of Januaiy 13-
1976~ for advertisement of the ~ubJect varlance.
One person (ndlcated his presence in opposition t~ the subJect petitions; and~ forthwith~
waived tlia full readin~l of the Staff Report a~ tt~t basis that he ha~1 read said Staff
Report.
Although the 5taff Report to the Planning Commissl~n dated Fc+bruary 2~ 1976~ was not roed
at the public hGaring~ sald Staff P,eporfi ts referred to and rnada a part of the minutes.
Mr. Johr Irwln ~f Irw(n and Panzarella Realtors~ 9252 Garden Grove Boulevard~ Garden
Grove~ appeared before the Planning Commisslon and statpd thaC he had been thc regltor for
the ~ubJect property for the past two years; that "for sate" signs had been p~sted and
advertis~menCS run in the newspapers to sell the property with no offers during that
period; and that Mr. Davis was pr~posing ta purchase and Jevelop the sub,~ect propcrty.
Mr. Jack Davis~ the developer~ appeared before !he Fianning Commission and ~tated *.hey
wlshed to withdraw the plans indicating less than a 35-foot fron[ setback along Lincoin
Avenve si„ce they had founc: they would have problams with sound attenuation otherwtse;
Lhat they would also wtthdraw th~ requested waiver of tfie requ(r~d recreational area
screening stnce they wouid need a wall alung Lincoln Avenue to meet ~he sound attenuation
~equtrements.
Chairman Prn Ternporc Morley made an observatlon that it appeared the Planning Camnisslon
did not have plan~ tndicating the change~ in the prnJect and that It might not be
appropriate to proceed with the public h~aring under those circumstances; whereupon. Mr.
Wtlllam S. Phelps~ the architectura] consultant for the d~veloper, appeared before the
Planning Commisston and reviewed the project from the initial public hearing date of
.lanuary 19~ 1976~ stat(ng that the reclassification had been continuecl from that date In
order for the petitianer to submit revised plans and to advertise the necessary watvers;
th~t Staff had indicated in conWersations thaC the 35-foot setback was exGeptionaily
larae; that he had faund that since originally the 35-foot setback alor~g Lincoln Avenue
was a State requirement and no longer appllcable~ that he might `~e able to develop with a
20-foot ~Pthar.k aiong that °treet; that they were advised by Sta•~ that si~~ce they were
already advertlsing the requested walver of the requiremcnt that ali lots abux a public
street, any a~ditional requests could also be gdvertised at the sam~ *.ime and, therefore~
tl~ey had pursued the ~vaiver of the minimum front setback and the ~equtred screening; that
by withdrawing two of the requested watvers, they were now only propostny a walver of the
requlrert~nt that all lots ~but a public street and~ P~anninrPCommisslonimeetingnindicated
would have been considered at ti~e Janua ry 19~ 1976~ 9
thelr prosent intentio~~s r'or devClopmenC; that sound-attar.uation measures would be
incorporated in the construction of each of th~ propased untts; and that he wished t~ have
furtt~er clarlflcatton regarding the required screening.
Chalrman Pro 7ampore Morley reiterated his concern as to whother ther~ were plans for
revlew at thts meeting in~iicating the current destres of the peti'!~ner to develop the
subJe~t property; whereupan, toning Supervisor Annika Sa~talahti advlsed Lha± the
petltioner had requested a continuance of the publlc hearing originatly scheduled for
January 19, 197~~ prior to Staff analysis of the plans and also prior to preparation of a
~__,, ~_,,. ,.,...o ~„hmitte~i indicating the
Staff Repart and~ consequently~ when cne ir~~~.... ;.,..•... ••-
walvers, etc., the original se*. of plans was iestroyed; and that there was no ofgici~,i
~
~
NINUTES~ f,ITY PLANNINC CQMMISSION, Febr~.sry 2~ 197b
CO`IDITIONAL USE PEMIIT N0. 1577 (Continued)
76-48
Mr. Kobert Doty~ 222~ E~st Ltncoln Ave~ur.~ representing the petit{cmer~ appeared Geforn
the Planning CommlsYlhn end stated the propol.cc! structures were design~d to be comp~tible
with tne surrounding ~re~; that parking was the prime ab,iectlan of the City SLaff~ however~
It waa felt that the people wha would be lnhabitfnc~ ±he facilitles would not be driving
cars And needinc pto tho arerev~r~lch~wasppartlallyeundevelopod Atathe'presenthtime ject
would ba an ass t
Mr. Mike Reetz~ 2776 Yale Avdnue~ Anat~aln~~ aFPcared b~f~re th~ Planning Commisslor~ in
opposixion and stated I~Is propcr y was the third house from the corne~ of ~ele and Dmie
Av~nues and bordered th., subJect property on the north; that scme of thn resider~ts in the
area felt the properCy valusa would dro~~ if the proposed development ware constructed un
the subJect propsrty since tho proposed bullding was so hlyh and tlie occupAnts would be
looking down into thelr back yards; that the three-stary bullding was propoaed to be 30
f~et from th~ north prepPrty 11ne anJ w~uld creatP a~~ inv~sion of privncy for the adJacent
residert• that a threc-story bulld'ng ++ould als~ ampiify thc noise in thetr back yards
and in tI~Clr hou~es; that they also obJected to tha requested waiver of the parking
requir~ments since~ although fewer people ~n the proJect wo~ld be driving, there would be
A need ~For visitor parkin~ spACes to prevent them from parking on t•ha adJacent
nelhhborhood streets; that the trafflc problems at :he intarsection of Dale and Linc~ln
Avenues would probably be increased by the subJett development during bot'r~ ~laylight and
ni~ht hours since a signal did not exlst at ehat intersection; that the area had
expertencc~d problert~s with rodents and fleld mico, ctc.~ from the subject undeveloped
~rop~erty and he would like some assurance that the developer would take measures to klll
said pests other than t~ use polson which mfg~~t harm the household pcts di thc adJacent
residents.
Mr. Baucom~ 212 North Dale Avenue, Anaheim~ appeared before the Planning Commission in
oppoaitlon and stated hc was oFp~sed to the waiver of the parking requlrement since
presently it was almost tmpossi~le for him to back out of his driver+ay due to the prescnt
use of the street for parking; chat the proposed development would probably decrease the
value of hls property; that alre~dy the Fire 6cpartment. the school bus~ and the street
sweepers had a dlfficult time getting through on Dale Avenue; that the sr.hool bus had to
stop in the mlddle of the sCreet to let the childre~ off; and that he fclt the proposai
would depreciate his property inore than anyone else's in the nelghborh~od since he lived
on the corner.
Mr. Roger Enfield~ 2766 Yaie Avenue, Anaheim, appeared before ths Planning Commission and
stated he owned the garden-type apartr-~ent complex adJacent to the northeast corner of the
subJect property; that at the time his complex was constructed~ he would have prefer~ed ~o
have a two-story building; that the pro~osal would block off the sunllght in his complex
!n the afternaon and two of his tenants had alreacly indlcated they would move if the
proposal was constructed ~n Che subJect property. Mr. Enfteld furth~r stated his propert~
bordered the northerly one-third of the subJect property's e~sterly~ boundary; that an
alley separatad hls property from the multiple-family unit to the east; and that there w~s
qutte a distance between his apartment building and the two-story structures o~ tfi e
prope rty to the east.
Mr. Ulrich, 163~ South Sunkist Street~ Anaheim, representing the developar, appeared
before the Planning Commission ~nd stated with respect to property valuations In rhe area~
that the proposed praject had an evaluation In excess of $?. million and s;hould appreciate
the adlacent prope~ty values; that he would ~oncur that there would be a nolse problem
during the construction stages for the subJect pro,ject hut~ following that period~ history
indicdted that the elderly people of the communlty were the least nolsy of the entire
spPctr~ of the population; that regarding an increase ln trafftc~ it was expectad that
e(ght to ten automobiles would be on the premises since the residents would be araund 75
~~ars of age or older, said data having been acquired from the elderly population of the
County; that at the time they initially proposed the 39 Rarking ~Ytces~ •_he ~rnnnaA~ was
to have 116 units and, subseque~tly, the number of units was reduced to 97 and the number
of parking spece5 was not reduced accordii~gly; that they would h~ve very few employees on
the premises needinn parkin~ spaces; that they would have two mini-buses to transport the
people in the proJect; that the proposed type of use should bring about a substantial
reduction in traffic compared to whst a commercial drvelopment on the property would
generate; that they would be happy ko take any measures necess~ry to control the rodents,
ett., that mTght be drlven from the property during constructioe~; that they ware not
asking for a waiver of the setback requirement and it appr.ared that they were providing a
substantially larup~ settoack adJacent to the north p~operty 91ne thAn was requlred by thc
Code, and the re~sc,n for the larger setback area was to also prov~de e green space
~
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLAHNI~lG COMMISSIOPI~ FebruAry 2~ 1976
CqNDITIONAL USE PCRMIT N0. 1577 (Continumd)
7~°i~9
nnvlronment with recreattonal octivilies wlthin the proJect so that the peapl~~ would not
have to leave the property to find an ~rea t~ spend the d,~y; tliat he did not seo how the
prop~sed structure coulci cast a sl~ed~v+ as far north ~s the prc~perty l ine pnd eh~•.~ had been
verv careful to avoid such a h+~ppcning; tM~t~ ~egarding th~ vlsual lntruslon af the thlyd
s!nry loekin~ down int~ the back ~Arcis or thc edJacent resldences~ he would r~eam (t almost
Impussible to loo~ Into the adJacent hack yards becAUSe of the ex~ra wide setback araa
being provlded; thit the property to the cast had yaraqes alnng the ~dJeccnt properiy
lina; th~t ihc ma(n reason for th~ thircl story wes thnt almost ;~11 of the elderly peopla
preferred the thlyd story to any ather floor for ancurity rcasons; an~~ that the propoaed
typa o~ factlity would have no impact on schaols in ths c~mmunlty and wos affillated with
rasldentlal develup~ent.
TNE PUDLIC HEAR;NG WAS CLOSED.
The Planning Gommission ysneraliy ayi'~~d th~t the pro~+~~Pd development would increase the
amount nf traffic into the area very minima!!y.
Commission~r Johnson noted that the parking spacas being provicted wer~ prcbably edequaee
besed on the parking survey which was conducted in connectio~ wl;h another similar pro~ect
proposrd in the City; however~ the propoged proJect was substantially larger than the
other proJect.
The Plannin9 Commisston enterect into dlstussion with Mr. Ulrtch regarding the size of the
units and the accommodations to be provided. during which Commissioner Herbst noted that
the unitc were su'»tantial in size~ ranging from ~~16 and footagea~f aenarmalBfaltllltyefor
feet each~ whtch he felt was far in excess of the square
the e1dEr!y; anci that alChough he did not opp~se the size of the units~ lie was concern~d
about whether the proJect might be prnposed for conversior~ to an apartment proJect in the
future. Mr. Uirtch then stated that ;hz proposal was in conformance wlth the requlrements
of the government program and the dictates of the praspective tenants; tti~t tt wPs
difficult to finrl a facility for the elderly wh~r~ two people could share a two-bedroam
untt~ even iF they could at`ford ir.; that ther~ wa~ a safety factor In havi~g two people
share a unit and there was 3 market place for the facility~ as proposed.
Chairman Pro Tempore hbrley quest(onPd whether tl~e prop~ssd struceure could he moved to
the south~ closer to the commerclal property and farther away from the residPnCial
properties to the north~ with thc possibility that the parkinS area be moved to the ~orth
end of th~ proJect~ also. Mr. Ulrich stated all of the parking cnuld be moved to thn
north, if desirable, ha•iever, he could not speak for the englneer; that presently thc
proposal u~as to have the recreational area located so that the residen:s wnuld not ha~e
fa~ to walk from their residences, however, if the piacement of the structure farther to
ths s~uth and relocating the parking w~uld satlsfy tl~e concerns of the Pianniny
Commisslon, they wovld aqree to do so.
Commissioner Herbst noted that although~ technically. the property was zoned commerclal~ a
camnerclal p~-oject was not proposed~ and the property was located adjacent to rasidential
development; that tt apneared Lhe use proposad was very light with respect to Che amount
of traffic that would be generated, however, adequate buffer zone.s were necessary to
protect the adJacent residential properties. Mr. Ulrich stated that the Planning
Commission might want to take inta consideration that by moving the proJect closer ta the
commsrctal property to the south~ the residents flf the subJect development woujd be
subJected Co the nolse from the commerctal prop~rty.
Conmissioner Tolar noted that he would not like to see the sub}ect property develaped wl:h
a multtplQ-family use which would have more problems than the proposal; and that, ln hls
optnion, the subJect proposal was an exczllent use of the property and wc+uld be compatlbl~
with the adJacent resi~Santt:.' ~~se , Commissioner Tolar added that tf the subje~t property
was developed with commerclal use there would be generally more noise w(th the trdf`t:, and
with trash areas~ atleys~ etc.; and tf it was dcveloped with a multiple-famlly use~ there
would be children~ etc., in addition to more traffic.
Commissioner ,lohnson inquired if it wAUld be possible for the developer to revlse the
structure to eliminate the third floor on tlie north side adJacent tn the single••famtly
ho~nes, etc.~ and then move the buildtng some distance to the south. also. Commisstoner
Herbst added that there appeared to be approximately four patios at the third-story icvel
wEch a line-of-slght directly into the b3ck yards of rhe single-famtly homes~ which
constituted an invasian of prlvacy.
~
~w•
~
MINUTES,C'YY I'LANNING COMMISSION, F~bruary 1.~ i97~~
7G- 50
COPJDITIONAI. USE PERMIT ~IO. 1517 ~C~ntinued)
Chalrm Pro Tempnrc Morlcy sugycsted that .~ny wind~ws be climin~ted from the narth si<fe
of the buil~llnq~ to solve s~i~~ of the obJectfc,ns tn the prolect; whereupon, Mr. Ulrlch
indlcated that ~i11 of the units were structured arouncl ~ centr~~l clev~~tor and corridor~
and he would prefer t~ movc the entire hullding r~ther th~n r~nke the ch~n~ie, bein~
discussc~i; ~~nd th~it they cnuld ilso distrihukc the p~~r;.~ ri~~ ~.c~ ~-nth en~is ~~~ thc proJec:t.
Commissloner Tolar n~te~l thit the m~nner !n which r.he landscapin~ was pr~videct at the
north encl of tl~e subject propr.rty ~•!a~ ~iery Impnrtant, ancl Commissi~ner IClnn nated that
hi~h trer.s on the northe~st prnperty line woul~l tend t~ shade the ~idJacenc ~~c~identlal
devel~7pment.
Commiss(oner Klnct further n~tecl th~t the acccss po(nt t.o the subJect property from D~le
llvenue shnulcl be worked out ~Ith the City Tr~ffic Enc~ineer, when the revisecl plans we~'e
drawn.
Commissl~ner Johns~n n~,ted thaC, in his opinion~ ti,e subJect publfc h~arinq should be
continued s~ th~t the p~~citioner coi.ild revlse the pl.ins for Plannin~~ Commission
consfderation since thc ch~nges beln~i sugqesteJ ~~t fhis meetin~ were ma,jor ones.
advised
In respon~e to questi~nin~ by Commissi~ner iCing, Deputy C(ty Attorney Frank Lowry
In Itne with the discus~,~~~~~ that the Planning Commission could ~ct on the m~itter at thls
me~ting~ if so desire~l, with the ~ppropriate conditlon regar~ling movement of the prc~p~sed
bulid(nc~ to approxim~~ely 3~ ~Eet south~ etc.. and suhi~~ct t~ precise plans being approved
by the Plannfn~ Commissl~n pri~r to the issuance of building permits.
Mr. Ulrich stated they were tryin~7 to meet ~~i~r~~~ schediile in c~nnection with~ an HUD
appllc~tl~n dnd funcling, ctc., and th~~t a continuonce would b~ detriment<~1 to thelr
program; that rhey woulcf be a~le to accomplish all of the chanc~es bein~ suggested by the
Planning Commission in revised plans that wa~~1d be submilted as requesteci; and that they
«~.,, ~.
would work with the Planning Departmenr_ SCaff to revi~a ,.,,.. ,-?~'-rs wtthfn the p~irameters o~
sald dis..~sslon.
Commissloncr Tolar offer•ed a motion~ seconded by Comm(ssioner King and MOTION CARRIED
(CommisslonE:rs B~rnes and Farano heine~ absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
~~es hereby recommend to the City Coun:il of Llie Clty cf l:nahelm that the subJect project
be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report~ pursuant to the
provfsic±r~s of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Commissloner Tolar offerecl Resolution Plo. PC7G-19 and moved for its passage and adoptlon~
that the Anaheim City Plannin~ Commission does hereby grant Petition fcr Conditional Use
Permit No. 1~77, in concept, for an aparCment camplex for the elclerly, su5ject to the
stlpulation of the petiti~ner to s~bmitting revised plans increasinn the setback between
the propose~l resiclentlal strucl•ure and the adjacent sin~le-family and multiple-famlly
developments to the north ~nc1 northeast and~ also, providin~ a lan~iscapecl buffer ln said
setback to screan the proposed us~ from said acijacent single-famiiy and multiple-family
uses; sa~c1 revision to ind(cate a relncati~n ~f the proposed residential siructure
approxl^~ately ~0 fPet to the south *_o lessen the impact of a three~story building ~n the
ad.jacent residenti.~l uses and an adjustment of the parkin!~ area locations~ as needed; and,
furthermore, safd revised pian~ shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review
and approval arior to the issuance of a building permit; gr~nting the reques~.:ed walver of
the nin-mum number af parkinct sp~ces on the b~sis th~it tf~e Plannin~ Commissior, h~s granted
simitar waivers previously for apartment co~Fslexes for the elderly because it has been
knc~wn that such housing compleu.^s do not generate as mary vehicles ~s typical apartment
complexes, and the petitioner indicated there is adeg~ate open sp~ce on tfie 5ubject
prop~rty for expansion of the parkinn areas if a need arises; and subject :~ the
Intcrdepartmental Committec recommendations. (See Resolution Book)
On ro11 call~ the forecloir,c~ resolution was pasyC~{ ~'r th~ f~?!"Wi^n vote:
AYG~: COMMISSiOtIERS: NERBST~
NOES : Cfit11•1i SS I(1t~[ RS : ~lO~IE
ABSE~IT: C~Mf1155IOt1ERS: BARNES,
JOIiNSON, KIt~G, TO;.AR~ MORLEY
Fl1Rn~l0
Cortmissioner Ilet•bst requested that the petitioner also submit a landsciping plan for
Pla~ntnc~ Commissi~n approval showin~ the screenin~ proposed for the 4~-foot huffer area
that would be created at ttie n~rth end of tl,e proJect.
~ ~
MI t~U7ES ~ C I TY PLI11~N I ~l~, COMMI SS ION~ F~brua ry 2, 197~ ~6~'~
CONbiTI~NAL USF - PU~LIC HEARI~lG. ALLFIJ A. EQ110~15~1~l, 13`~I Narth Miller Street,
PCRMII' ~IO. 1~~97 Anahclm, f,a. `128~~~ ((hvner); DON J, CAR~Otl~ Ifl?1?. Rninier Drive,
Santi An~~ CA, 92705 (~gent); requ~stinct permission t~ ESTADLISH
A C01lTR1CT~R S STORAGE Y~RD WITfI W~IVER OF (P~) MI~JIMU~1 R~!1UfRGD
SF7EtACl'. AIID (8} REQUIRFn ~.A~dpSCllPI~iR on property describe~l as n rectane~ul,irly-shaped
parcel ~P lan~l consisting of apF>roximatcly 1.1 acre~ hav~nc~ .~ frontanc: of approxl-
mat+:ly 1G~ fFet un the we~t sirle ot Mlller Street~ having a mixlmum depth of a~~~rnxf-
m,~tely 2~h fcet ~ h~+in~~ located approxlmr~tely 13!;~) feeL so~~th of the r.enterl Ine of
Oranqethorpe Avenuc, in~l further dr.scribed as 1'i`~1 North Ml ller Strcet. Pr~perty
prescrtly cl~ssifiecl RS-A-~~3,~~~ (RESIQEtJTIAI../AGRICULTiIRAL) ZOrIE,
No one (nclicate~l their prrsence In np~osition to subJect petitlon.
Although the Staff Report tc, thc Plannin~l Commission dated February 7.~ 197G~ was not read
at the public he~~rin~~ saicl Staff Report is r~forred ta and madc a part c~f the minutes.
Mr. Uon C.arsu~~~ ~he .,nc~L FC'' the petiri~ner. appe~~red before the Plannin~ Commtssion to
answer questi~ns ren~irdin~ the proposal.
THE PUE3LIf, NE~RING WAS CI~SED.
Commissi,~ner King noted that a ne~•~ ~.halnilnk fencc had been installed along the south
~~rope~ty line an~{ there was a solid wal) on the no~th property line,
Comm(ssloner K!n~ notecl re~~ardirn the requestecf waiver of the 50-foot fr~nt setback, that
when ne~N bulldimis were constructed~ they would be requ(red to meet sa(d setback; and that
he w~uld not vote in f~ivor of the pro,:~sal unless it was for a temporary use of the
property.
In response tn c~uesti~nin~ by Chairman Pro Tempore Morley, Mr. Carson stlpulated that the
chalnlink fencr enclosin~ the ~~se would he inr.erwoveri wlth redwood siats.
Corm+ilssioner Kin~ offered a mc~ti~~n, s~conded by Cor~imissioner Johnson ~n~1 MO'f14M Cl~RRIED
(Commissioners Barnes an~1 F'arano bein~ ahsentl th~' thQ An~heir~ C!t;r P!-nning Cnrnm(.l.llc.+~
does tierehy recommerid tn the City Counci! of the City uf Anahelm that the sub,ject proJect
be exempt from the requirFr~ent to prep~ire an c~~vironmental impact report, pursuant to the
provSslons of the Califo~nla Environmental Quality Act.
Commissioner Kln~ ~ffcrecl Resolution No. PC76-?0 and moved for Its passage ar~~i adoFticn.
that tlie Anaheim City Plannlnc~ Commission does hereb~• gr;int Petltlon for Conditional Use
Permlt No, i597 fc+r a time limitntion of two years. subject to review ancl consicieratiori
for an extension of time upon written request by the petitioner, said time llmltation
being to determine wheth~r other properties in th~ arca develop with ~~~•fout sethacks and
whether~ at such t1me, it woiald be appropriate that the subject property be ~~developed
with a,~-foot front setback; subJect to the stipulation of the pe.titloner and subject to
the Interdepartmental Committee recommenda~ions. (See Resoluti~n Boc~k)
On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYk~: CQM~1ISSIOMEP.S: FIERBST, JQHNSON, K!Nf,, TOLAR~ MORLEY
Nf1F5: ~~t1MIS51~l1[RS: N~PlE
ABS[hIT : CQMM I S~ I ~PICRS : E3ARtJFS ~ FAR~I10
COt!` ;~'10~1AL USE - PUf3LIC NEARING. LE'~ FREFOM/1~J, 46R South Roxbury Drive~ 9everly
PERr~~T' F!(1. 159`3 N111s~ Ca. 9~217 (Owner); STEPHE~I ELLIS~ P. 0. Box 90899 A~rport
Station~ Los Angeles, Ca. 90!109 (Agent); requestin~ perml~slon
to EST~BLISH A HELISTOP on property des~rlbed as ~n irregularly-
sh~ped parcel of lancl consisting of approximately 8.7 acres loc~tecl at the southea~t
c~rn~r :~f Harbor Boulevard and Freedman way, nav~~~~~ uNF^•~QY.imate fronl.ages of 1~69 feet
on the east side of liarbor Boulevard and 51~ feet on the south sicie c~f Freedman Way~
and f~rther described as 17'1~ South Narhor Boulevarci, Property presentiy ciassif!eJ
CR (C~NMF.RCIP,L RF.CP,fATI~~I) ZO~IE.
It ~-~~s nntecl thit the petitioner was rec~uestin~~ a two-weel: contini~ance for t~}~_ p~blic
hearinq nn the sub.ject petitien; and that one person was present as an interested citizen
in connectton with the pr~p~sal.
~
,~..-
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING I.OMMISSI~N, FQbrunry ?~ 197G
~:QNDITIONIIL USE NERM17 ~~0, l;y° (Contlnucd)
76-,z
f.~mmlSS(nner Kln~~ ~fferecl n motion~ secon~{ed hy f.c~nmisslc-ner Tolar and MOTIOH C/1RRIED
(Commissinn~rs ^arnes ~nd Far~no beinc~ obsent)~ thaC thc ~>.~blic, henring and conslderatian
of Gondiclonal Use Pcrmit No. 159F, bn And her~by (s contin~~,.a to th~ P!t~nning Commisslon
meetin~ of ~~hruary Ifl~ 1~17~,, as reyuested by the pr.titloncr.
COMDITI~NAL US[ - FUI;LIC HEl1RINT, N(1RTHK~L~U Kk~~,IV CQRPOICnil~~~l~ 1'~ti~iii~ ii~)L'ui~+G
PERMI T N0. 1~99 ~(1MPl1NY , TRUSTF.f S~ 9an~ SouCl~ Sr~n t~i Mon I cA Boul evnrd, Bever 1 y
" ~~t ~ ~ g, Ca, 900(~7 (Owner) ; CARI. KI1RC', =R Et~7ERPlii ~ES ~ c/o Dave
~arr i son ~ 1?.~~ North Ilarbor Boul cvard~ Anahel m~ Ca. 92803 !Agcnt) ;
r.~questlnq perml~sion to ESTARLISII A DRIVF.-TNR~U(~li RFSTIIURA~IT on properCy describrd
As an lrregul~rly-sniped p.~,rcel of ibnd conalsting of approxlrtwtely 1,07 acres l~~cated
at the south~~st cornor of La Natma Avonue end Krae~~~cr Eiaulcv~rd~ h3~!ing appra~c~mAte
frontages of 2`1 feet on the south sfde ~f La Palma Avcn~e an~ 7iti feet on tl~e cast
slde of Kr~emer Boulev~~rd. Property presently classifl~~d ML (INDUSTRIl1L~ IIM~TED)
z~~~r.
No ona ~ncltcatecl thelr presence in nppnsftion to suhject petition.
Although the Stoff Rep~rt to tf~e Flanning Cammfsslon datcr F~bruary ?., 1~~76, was not read
at the nublic. he~irinq~ said Staff Report is rc~f~rred to and ma~ie a r~art of the m(nutcs.
Mr. Davice Garrlson, representinq th~• aqent f~r the Fetitioncr~ appearad before th~e Planning
Cammisslou r+nd requeslad th3t the ~qulrement for a parcel map on the subJect property be
watved~ ~ince the subJect ^r~perty wou;d be malntaln~:d as one lot fcr ti~e subJect i•roJect.
THE PUBLIC HEARING IJAS CLOSED.
In response tc quesCloning by O1'fice En9lneer Jay 71t~is, Mr. Garrison statecl t~~ey had rio
control over the trlangular ptece of ~roperty t~ the sour.n which belonged ta the O~ange
Cotmty Flood Control District.
Dep~aty City Attorney Frank Lowry advised that there a~ ?ared to be ~r~ illeyai ~ubdfvlsinn
of land involved. Mr. Titus ~larified tl.at although t`~e assessor's map may have Indicated
a subdtvlsion uf the prope~~ty, someLimes ~t happened tiat a deed wes recc~rded witfiout the
processing of a parcel map• howev~r~ a parcel ma~ ta legalize the subdivision was requlrsd
acGOrding to *_I~e Staie Map Ac " ana the subJect property was~ in fact, not legaily
subulvidad. Mr. Garrison then sttpuiate~'. to submltting a parcel map to the City of
Anahelm for approvsl, as require~'.
In response to questioning by Commissioner ~nson, ~1r. Garrison statec~ t'hey would not be
constructing a building across the property line.
Mr. i.awry indlcated concern as to wheth=r the *riangular parce! of land to the south ~~ould
qualify as ~ legal parcel haviny a minim~i~n of one-third acre ~f ti~nd, since ;tie Sca:f law
prohibited any utilities, I.e.~ water~ e~ectrlcity and s~•.iers~ being provl<ie~i to ~e::s th~n
a legal parcel.
Reg~rciing the possibility of a secund ustr of the subject property~ Mr. Garri~~r; stated
they uld not. know whether they would actually have a sFCOnd user; however~ in the event
they did, said use would have to be comp~tible with the propused restaurant~ espacially
with respect to parl:in9. Mr. Garrison stipul~t~d tl;,~t any further use of the subJect
property would be ~ubJect to approval by the Plannir, Commissiun.
In response to ~uestioning ~,y Commissi.~ne~ Kir,o, Traffic Engineer Paul Sinyer• advised
that~ in his upinion, the subJect proposal f~r a Carl's Restaur~nt was -,r bctter
proposal than the one on La Ralma Avenue an;. Imperia) Fifghway; that, in ~iis opinian, the
proposai wouid not c~eatc ;:.^.~ ;r~~,r eraffic problem; and that~ eventually~ a median on
hraem~r uroul~i be dasirable as rart af a ~ity pro}ect.
in response to questionir.g by Commissioner Tolar~ Mr. Garrisan stipulated that the siyr,ing
for the p~oposecl restaurant would be in conformance with the Zoning Cod~ regulatlons for
~ermitteci signs in inciustrial zones.
pssistant Zoning Supervit~~•r Allan aaum n~ted for the Planning Comrnission that the Inter-
d~partmental Co~nmi~tae recommendatt~n No. 2 shauld correctly tiF ~n with t"onditlon No. 8,
"to be complted with prior tc+ final bullcling and zoning lnspectlon.''
~1
~
~
LJ
MItJUTES~CITY PLA~~NING COhiMISSION, Februt~rv 2~ 1976
CON^ CITIONAL ~SE FF.RMIT N0. 17 (Cantinued)
76-53
Crmmisslaner lierbst ofierecl ~ mot(~n~ seconded by Commissloner Kiny ard MOT'1(1N CARRIED
(Commisslon~rs Oarncs ancf Farano being Ahsent). that the Anahe~im f' y Plnnning Commisslar~
doe~s herahy recommend tn the Clty Councll of the G~ty of A~~helci ~ t the sub,Ject proJect
be oxempt from the reyuirement to prepare ar anvironn~enr,,~1 impact ~r,purt, pursi~ent to the
requfrements of the Calif~rnla ~nvlronment~l Qunlity Act.
Commissloner Herbst offered Resc,lutlon No. PC7G-21 end mo~~ed for (ts pa~sage and Adoptlon~
~-„~ rhr Anaheim f,ity Plnnning Cornmissfon does herohy gr~nt Pet(tion far Condltional Use
Permit Na. 1599 sub.ject to the stipulations of the petitioner anci ~uujCC~ t~ ii~r
Interdepnrtmesntal Comm(ttQe rec.c>mn~~nd~tions. (See Resalutfon Book)
On rol) call~ tnr. f~re~oing resoluklon was passed by the follawing vote:
AYES: C~MMISSIO~IERS: F'.ERPST, J~IINSON~ KIPIG~ TOLAR, MORLEY
Nnrg; i:QMMiSSlf~t:ERS:. t•~Oifc
AG~I:NT: COMNISSIQNFRS: BARNES, f M~~O
VARIIINCF. Nb. 2773 - P~JRI.IC IiEARIrd~;. NICKLOS URSINf, 133~ North Padonta Aven~~e,
Whittier, Ca. ~06~3 (Ownar); PF.GGY HUFFMAN~ 110~3 Easc Cherry Street~
Senta Ana~ Ca. 92701 (Agent); requesting WAIVER OF PFRMITT~D USF.S~
TQ ESTABLISf~ A M~SSAGE~ SAUNA AND 11G~I.TN CLUB on property descrlbed as a rectangular~y-
shaped pAr~el of land consisttn<~ of apnrox(mately 1.0 acre hoving a frontage of approxl-
mately 15~ feet on lf~C narih ~tde of Ksr.ella Avpnue, having a maximum cirpth of ~~pproxi-
mately 3Q~ feet, belnq located approx!mately 834 feet east ot the cei~ter!!ne of H~rbor
Bdulevard~ and further descrlbed as ~i01 4icst Kat^lla Avenue. Proparty pre,ently
classifled RS-A-~i3,0~0 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE.
It was nuted that thA petEtioner was requesting a stx-w~ek cont~nuance for lhe subJect
pu511c hearin~ to the Planning Commission meeting of March 15, 1976; and that two
intrrested cltizens were present in the ?uciience.
Commi~sloner Johrs~~n offered a motion, seconded by Commiss(oner King and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissioners ~'irnes andFarano bei~g absent), that the public hear•ing and consl.7~erst(on
of Petlr.io:, fa~• Variarice No. 2773 be and hereby i~ continued to the Nlanntng Commisslon
mer.tin~ of Ma~ci~ ',~, 1976, as requested by the petiCioner.
(NOTE: This item was ^onsidered at the beginning of the meeting.)
RECESS - At 3~2~ P•m.~ Chairman Pro Tempore h~orley declareJ a recess.
RECONVENE - At 3~4~ p.m.~ Chairman Pro Tempore Morley reconvened the meeting with
°~ Commissioners Barnes and Farano being absent.
~
~w
~
MINU7ES~ CITY PLANNINf, COMMI~SOON. Fehruary 2~ 19~b 76-47
RECLASSIFICATI_ON NO~J ~5 7G~18 AND ~_ ~_AR~A°~CE N0. 2 7 (ConClnuP~)
StAff analysis Avaliable for Che o r igln al plnns whlch the dcsvclopr.r wra ~~questlnq to bc
con3ldored at thl~ time.
Mr. Cllfford Shtnn~ 60n1 Seashore Drive~ Newporc 6ea~:i~, ~,:;:a~rPd tipf~rc th~ Plenninct
Comn~sslun In oppositl^n end stated tl~at he own~d the ~+6 unfts to tha s~•~th of subJect
property; thet a 4Q-feot wide p~ve d easr,n~ent ~~xlsteJ through thr sub)cct property~ and not
a 6~J-foot wlcle eASCment, as Indf cated on the petlttoner's ~lans; that t~e had a c~pY of his
/II~Al~ w~rh him which 1n~11cated the 4Q-foot wlde ~asement which was for use by the a~aners
and occuplers of his de~~eloprrK~nt; thst he wauid be o~F~uneJ .:c Lr~.~!~4 ^r An+~rtment dwellers
parking on rtie easernent; th~t the easAment may Movr, h~d a tlme I lmltatlon on it which lio was
not awere of; th~t ho obJected to t hn reclassificati~n uf the proper•ty fram commercla) to
high denslky beciuse of thc impact it might have on his developmant which had bee~ 'n
esxistence stnce i9G7; ind thbt the easement was the only access to hts propcrtti~ and +ny
obstructlon would be detrimental to his devAlopmnnt.
Deputy City ~tto~ncy Frank Lowry advised ii~~t ty.. prtitloner had submlttc~l a title
insur:~nce pol icy which In~itcated ~ f,p-foot wide nasement.
Mr. Si~inn continucd by stating th a t he was r~onsible for the repair and malntenance of
the easenwnt and for the taxe!:; and that t ity u~f P,nahelR had re~fused io accept the
easement s~s a publlc street; whereupon~ Offtce Enyi:,eer .lay Titus <,lvtsed that the
eas~ment served one devslopment an d n~t thc general pul>lic.
Commissioner King lnqulred •~hat Mr. Shinn would suggest to be devcloped on the subJe~t
proporty th~t would not be obJe~tionable to hi~r; whereupon, Mr. Shinn st~ted that b,
struct~~rtn~ its development with i ts cxrn parking .ind with access on l.incoln, the proJect
would be less obJectlonable; that the only exposure far his own proJect was hic sign and
the easemen~ raadw.~y and~ therefor~e, lie Mtoul~ pr~efer that the subject development have as
much front seeback as po~atble so that his sign would be vtsible; and th~t It wauld appear
that hfs obJectiuns were from an ~:onomtcal st~ndpolnt,
Mr. Lowry reviewed the two tttle ~eports~ being one for the subJect rrnpcrty and one for
M~, Sh~nn's property, an~1 he advised Lhbc the rnatter of controversy r~gard!nn thc
Gasement wuuld have to he resalv~ d between the two parties~ and not the City of Anahelm.
Mr. Shinn further st~ted his de v~ ~apment di~ not have 'wc garages per unit and that some
of the r•esidents parked on the e a s ement rc.adway; and that if the ~ubJect development also
u5ed the aasement there would be a hassle for parkina, although It would probably be on a
first-come tirst-serve basis.
Thereupon, Mr. Davis concurred th at the public hearing should be contin~d for two weeks in
or~:er for S:aff to an:'yze the re~~ised plans a~hich were applicable to the proposal.
Comc~~lsslor~er King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Johnson an; MOTION CARRIED
(Commtsstoners B~rnes and Farano beiny absenti~ khat the public hearing and consideratlon
or' Reclassiflcatian No. 75-7~-~~ and Uariance No. 2?77 be and hereby are c~ntinued to the
Planning Commission me~t~ng of Fe bruary 18~ 1~7~, es reauested hy the petitloner.
~ONDITIO~AL USE - PUBLIC NEARING. MR. AND i~RS. AAROM SWAIN, P. 0, Box 937~ Anahe~m~
PERM17 N0. 1577 Ca. 92$03 (Ow ners): FR~INCES W. NEVILLE, P. 0. Box 937~ Anahelm~ Ca.
_.._ ~_.~._._
92803 (Agent) ; requesting permission 'to ESTADLISH AN APARTMEPI
CQ~IPLEX FOR T!-IE EIDERLY WI1?~ WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING
SPACES on property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land canslsting Af
approximately ?..8 acres having a frontage of approximately 434 feet on the east slde
of Dale Avenue~ havtng a maximum depth of approximately 2R5 feet, and being located
approxlmately 24~ feet narth of thc centerlinc of Lincoln Avenue. Property presently
cl~sstfteci CL (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITEU) iuNE.
Three persor.s indicated their p r esence 1~ oppos~tfon to subJect petition.
Assistant Zon(ng Suparvisor A'la n ~aum read the Staff Re~ort to the Planning Camnissi~n
dated February 2~ 1976~ and said Staft ReporY ls referre~l *.o as if set forth In full in
the minutes.
~
~
~
~
MI~:UTE.S~ CITY PLIINNI~~G COMMISS~O~~. February ?.~ 197~
7G-54
V~ FtI~NLE N0. 2 7~~ - PURLI C~iEAR I fJG. TNf. WARM I NGTn~I C4MPAI1~ ~ 17~i~0 Sky Park C{ rc) e~
~ulte 2~3~ Irvine, Ca, ~?.i11~ ((1Nncr1; raqucstinc~ W~IVF.R OF (l1)
M/1Y,IMUt•1 NUMBER QF ~N-SITC TRAC1' SIGNS~ (U) MAXIMUM ARfA OF TRACT
SI GNS AND (C) MAXIMl1M HEIG~IT OF TRl1CT SIG~~5~ Tn PERMf7 TWp 0~I-S17E TRACT SIGt15 on
prap~rty dcs~ribect ~s a rectangularly-s~~apnd ~~arcel of lrnd consisting of approxlmately
4. 6 acres havin~ a frontage oF approxim~tely 333 feet on the east sic~e of Magn~lia
11v~nue, havlnn o mt~xfmum depth of approxlmately G00 feet, beinn locatecl approximatFly
33 3~eet south of lhe i:enlerl inc of l.lncoln Avenue~ and further described as 13h Suuth
Ma gnoll~ ~vcnuc. Property ~res~ntly clr~~sifled RM-1200 (RFSIDEN7IAL~ MULTIPLf-Fl1FIiLY)
~~iNG.
No one Indlc:~tr.d thei r presence in op~>~~sition to subJect petition.
A1 though khe Staff Report to tha Planrir,,~ Cortxnlssion d~ited ~ehr.iary 2~ 19%~~~ w~as not read
at the public hearir~i~ ~~id StafF Repc~ r Is referred to and macic ,i part of the minutes.
Mr, Bob Brown~ representin~ thc: p~titionrr~ appeared before the Planning Commis5ion and
s tated that the f1Ans or hanne.rs wh!~~~ had been flown on the s~;bJect propc~rty to a~vertlse
tt'~e condomfnlur~ prnJect h~d been remc~~~ed; that the photo~raph indicatl~g the position of
tt'~e ex~st(n~t slc~n alsu i-~dicated th:: pr~blem of vlsibf I Ity due to its location; that ti~ey
w~re r~quesiin~ rc> have a sign in addition to the rxisting cne-sided sign and the tot:.)
s Zgnage would be equal to ore two-slded slgn; and that t~~e proposed signage would increase
tt-.e visibil ~ty af the ~~o.)ect and woulcl be removed as soon ~s the proJect was "sold out."
TN[ PUHLIC NEARIH~ WAS C~QSED.
1 ~ responsc to questioning by Comnlssioncr Kiny. Mr. Srown stated the sign would be for
t t~mporary use and the rroject should be sold out by the end of ~ six-month ~er(od.
I t was noted that t;ie Dirc~tor cf th~, Planning Department had determined that the proposed
~ct1vlty fAll within the ~~efinitiur ~~ Spction 3•~1~ Class 11, of the ~ity of Anaheim
Guldel ines t~ :he Requl rements for ~n Envi ronmental Imp~ct Report and was ~ therefore~
eatee~orlcally exempt From the requlrement to ftle an ElR.
Commisslon~r Tolar offered Resolution No, rc76••22 and moved fcr its passage and adoptlon,
~that the Anaheim City Plannin~ Commission ~oes hcreby grar~t Petition for Varlance No.
277~~, ~rantl~g the requested waivers for a time l lmttation ~f ~ix rnonths, on the basis
that the proposed sinntng consists of two s;ngle-faced signs and is for temporary
advertlsinc~ for a rieorly-establ~ 'nd condomiriium deveiopment, as stipulate~l t~ by tha
petiCloner; subJec± to the fur~~~er stipulation uf the pet(tioner to th~ li~mediate removal
of a-'v banners or flags being ~lownat the subJect locatlon a~lvertisin~ th~ subJect
developm~nt; a~d subject to the Interdepartmental Committee recommen~l;~tions. (See
fZesolutlon Rook)
On roll call~ tlie foregoing resolution was passed by the followin~ vote:
AYES: COMI4I~SIONFRS: {1ERDST~ JOHNSOtI, KING~ TOLA~,, hlORLFY
NOES: i.'viii•ii i$ ~ f`"!ER~ ~ NONE
A9SEP~T: COM~~) SS If)tlERS : HP,RIdES, FRItNi~~
VARIANCE N0. 2775 - P11B~Ir, fiEARIN~. BA~iK OF AMERICA TRUST DEPIIRT~4E~IT, a01 North Main
St reet , Santa Ana, Ca. 927~ 1(~ner) ; G b k D I STR I BUTORS ~ I NC. , c/o
~, A. Rvshkus, 68~0 W:.st Orangethorpe Avenue, Sui e C~ Buena P-rk~
Ca. 9n~2o (AgenC); requesting WAIV~R OF (1`.) MA:IMUM SIGN AREA~ (B) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF
SIG~IS, (C) MItJIMUM OISTA~~CE BE'f~IEEN SIGNS~ (D) PERMITTEfl SIGN IOCATIO!~ ANO (E) MltlIMUM
GROUWD CLEARAt~CE~ 70 PERMII' THREE FREE-STANDING SIG~~5 on property descrlbed as a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisttn9 of aporoximately .2f acre located at tl~e
southeast corner of Droadway and Anaheim Boulevard~ having approximate frontages nf g0
feet on the south aide of Broadway a~~d 1;; fcst on the east side of A-~aheim Boulevard~
an~ further described es ~~~ South An7heim Roulevard. Properiy presentiy class{fled
CG (COMNERCIAL~ GE~+ERl1L~ ZON[.
No one In~ica~ed their presenr.e in cpposition to subJcct petition.
Althou,yli the Staff Report to the Planninc~ Comniss(on d~ted February 2~ 197~, w~~s not read
at the publtc hearin~7, said St~ff Re~ort is referred to and r-~de a pari n' t~~e minutes.
~
~
MII~l1'TES ~ C17Y PI.ANNING COMMIS510PI. February 1~ 1976
UARIANCE Nc~. 2~ (Cantlnu~:d)
7h-55
Mr. Oob L~ckcs, representlncl the Agent for the petltlone~, ap~~s.~red befnre th~ Planning
Comm(s~lan a~d st.~teci thc sub,Ject property was In an arca of hfgh ~ompetitlon and thc
!subJect si~ns werc~ very simil~r tc~ what other dcalers w~r~~ displaying In Che areA; and
that tF~e intent w~e to ohtatm m~r~ visiblllty fr~m the g~nerai public by aclvertlslr.g the
prices and beinc~ more com~etitive.
It was r,ated th~t two letters were received In oppo:;illun to tF,Q subl~ct perltlon~ being
fram tF+e adiacent Tovatn dcalership n~~d frorn Mcssrs. Adolf L. Miller Anc1 Adolf F. Miiier.
TNE puHLl C HF~nIrIG WI1S CLOSED.
The P1 bnr~lnq Cominisslnn dlscusseci the subJect s~gns with Mr. Locke, noting that If walvers
from the Sign Ordlnance for service st~tions were granted~ (t was pr~uable that many other
sfmlla ~ rnquests wuulJ fo~tcaa from the nrher servics stations (n the C'ly.
In res pnnse to questic~ninq by Commissianer Ktng~ Mr. Locke staterl the m~in reason f~r the
si~~nt,:r~, as praposed, w~s hased an co~ts inv,nlved; and that th~ si~n of th~ adJacent
Texaco dealership was expens(ve and also (t did n~t have the same ~rr~iount cf square footage
tfiey were reques t i nq to havc. Thereupon ~ Mr . LocW:e s t i pul ated tha C he wou 1 d f nsta 1 1 a
slgn ~ Imil~r ta the dealer>;~slp across the strcet, bein~ ~ single~pole sign.
Upon further dlscussion of tfic~ Code requir~.ments for signing, Commissioncr King noted that
If an a~tr~ctlve sign wac inst~lle~ in conformance with Code requtrements, saic~ signing
wauld enhancn thc subJect business. Mr. Lccke st~ted that his existing signs were weldrd
to th e pole ancl that it would ta~e approximately threz to f~ur days tn have them removed.
Thereupon, «r. LoGke stlpulated to remo~ifng tti+: unlawfu) si9ns w(thtn four days from the
date tiereof,
It was note:l that tl~e Director of the Plannln~ De~~rrrn~nr had determined that tha proposed
acti v ity fell wit}iin tf~e deflnitlon of Section 3.01, Class 11~ of the City of Anaheim
Guf ~~~~ l ines to the Requir~m~~ts for an Envi ronmental Impact Report ancl was. th~ fore,
cate gorically exempt from the requirertw.nt to file an EIR.
(:ommi ss~oner Herbst offer~d Resolutlon Na. PC76-23 and moved f~~r its passa~e and adoption~
that the Anaheim City Planning Cormission does hereby <leny Petition far Varlance No. 2775~
bose d on the flndings that tFie petitioner did not clemonstrate thac a hardship would b~
crea t ed if said walve-s were not granted; that the signs were unlawfully erected; and~
furtF~ermore, that if said waivers were granted, an undesirable prscedent wauld be se* for
futu re sfmila.• requests, and, p~~rsu~int to Che stipulatlon of th~ petitt~ner, said unlawful
sign s shall be removed from the subject uroperty withi~~ four days of the d~te of this
reGo cution, (See Resolutinn Baohi
4n roll call~ the foregoing resolution was p~ssed by the followincl vote:
AYES : CnMMls~ln~lFRS: HERBST~
N~ES - COMf~iaSiclhlf.RS: N~NE
ARS[tlT: C~MMISSIhPIERS; BARtdES,
JONNSOtI s Y.I P~G ~ TULAR ~ M~RLEY
FAPJINO
(N~ T E; The fo~•egoinn itCm was considered at the end uf tr~e meetin~ since the petit(oner
was not present when the itern came up on the a9enda.)
EMVI RONMENTIIL IMPACT ItEPORT N0. l~ ~- F~r off-site ~rading in connectlon ~•:i~~~ Tract
- ~ No. II;33.
Th e Staff Report to the Planning Commissian d~ited February 2~ l97G, was pres°ntcd and made
a part of tl~e minutes.
It was noted that the applicant had a;~plled for a gracling permlt to xhe County of Orange
to excavate approximately 238~~~0 cubic yards of earth for use in the construct(or of
7ra ct ~o. 8;33 In thP Clty of Anahelm, 'ocated south ' Nohl Ranch Road, west of the
ext ersion of Imper?al Nighway; that the 5orrow sites wcre south and s~uttieast of Tract Na.
85 3 3; that a temporary access road extending approximately 1~i~0 feet would 5e const~uctea
to reath the borrow site southeast of Tract No, L'S33; and that a reutew of the subJect
en v t rori~~~ ta) impact report by the E i R Revl ew ^ommi ttee i nd i catnd tl,at sai d re~ort
con fprmed to the California tnvironmental Quality °ct and the City of Anaheim Guidelines
to the Raquirements for an Envlranmenial fmpact Report, however~ the Cortmittee recommended
~
~
MINIITES~ CITY PIANNING COMMISSIt)N~ February 2, 1976 7G-5G
ENVI RONMENTAL__I MPACT REPORT Nc~. f 65. (Cont ~ ~ued)
thAt the ~~ppltcnnt be requlre.cl to contour and reseed or reF~lant the grnded areas after
cort~pletlon of the grndlnq oper~~tion. ~t was furChnr n~trd that considcr~~tlon of the
sub)act rnvir~nment~l imp~~ct repc:r: was coiitinued from the Plannin~ Cc~mmission meeting of
Jantiary 19~ 197f~~ ~n orcier for the. City Staff and the Plannine~ Comm(sslon to revlew the
prevlo,~s mintikes and other Clty records pertalnln~ to Tract t~o. ~533~ and for the
appllcAnt lo prnvlcie <~ topo~raphic m~~~ of the prop~,ed gredinct sites for revlew.
'~r. Dill TackUorry of anuthwest En~ine~ring~ 7~i7 Wast K-~+tella Ave~ue~ Ornnge, representin~
~e Warmfngton Compiny~ the devclaper, appeared beforc thc Fl..~nl.,g Cor.~missf~n and tated
,: c~radin~ plan was b•ing pr~cessed through thP Councy of~'I~~s and he was confused about
tha concerns nf thr_ P'~nnfnc~ Commisslon In the matter.
Con~~~iisslon~r T~! ~~' notc~l that Chai rman Farano I~ad (ndlcated at the January 19~ 197h~
P1ann1~~ Carrrr's ,on meetlne~~ concerns about a pc~ssible ~~ir that would be createci from the
gradin~. Office EnginePr Jay Titus adviseci th~t~ although a greit amount of dlrt wuuld be
removesd from the sites, a pit waul~J not be created~ buC the height of an axisting ridge
would be r$duce~i. In •esponse r.o questloning by Commissloner Tol~r~ Mr. Tltus further
advlsecl ihat he •.las nn~ I ~owledgeahle as to whether the County woulci require the t,orro:~
sites to be landsc.iped, secded or plar~ta~l~ foll~w(ng the grading; th~t the flll dirt was
heing moved from the C~unty siles to the CiCy of Anaheim for TrACt No. S>'i3; and that the
gradln~ would be uncier thp contral of 'he County in connectioi~ with the bor•row sites and
the fllltnq proces~ for Tract No, $533 would be under Che control of the City of Anahelm.
Commissioner Johnson not~d that the EIP, document did not adequately addresa Itsel~ to tlie
enviro~ment~l impact of the du~t, etc., which v.~ould be generzte~ from the gradinc~
processes~ or to the pf•~ysi..al impact on the surroun~ling nelghborhood.
Mr. Richard Schmld, representing Envista~ appeared before the Planntng Commtssion to
answer questlons related to the EIR document~ st~ting that ~.he document dld recognize that
dust would be gencr~ted; that a Copographic ~nap of the borrcw+ sites located outsicie the
City of Anahein limits was lncluded in the document~ and also lnf~rmation pertalning ta
the geologtc material involved ancl a cross-section of the tract . te, before anc'. after~
was included.
In response to que~tlonin~ by Cha~rman Pro Tempore Morley~ Mr. Tackb~rry stated the
proJect ~+ou1G take approximately two monll~s to comp!el:e.
Commissloner Herbst inquired what precautions t ould be taker. to protect the nelghbors of
the site, and Mr. Tackberry stated that Tract N~. 8533 had been ap~~roved and was
~roceeding ir accordance wiCh the ordinances of the City; that a grading plan for the
tract was presently being checked by the Cit~;, that an arPa of the tract was short of
earth material and the borruw sites wer~ convenient to obtaln the needed material; that
they had an agreement with Anahelm Hills ~o work togethe.r regar~ling any fil) and/or
grading; and that the fill proJect could he acco~-~ollshed without using the particular
borrow p( t describeci.
C~mmissioner !Ctng noted that~ in his opinion, the City was fortunate to be able to obtatn
the fill fram the Co~inty territory.
Commissioner Tolar offered a motion~ seconded by Ca~~m(ssioner H~rbst and MOTIOP! CARRiFO
(Commiss(uner Johnson votin<~ "no" .~nd Commissio~ers Barnes and Fa•ano being absent), that
Environmental Impact Report No. 165, supplementing Environmental Impact Raport Nos. 80
and 109, having been considt~ed this dat~ by the Anaheim City Planning Commission and
evidence~ both written and oral, having been presented to supplemer.t s~id draft EIP. No.
165~ the Plann(ng Commission belleves that said dra`t EIR No. 165 dc~s conform to the City
ard State Guidcllnes an~i the State of Galifornia Env(ronir,~ntal Quality Act and~ based upon
sucl, information~ does hereby recommend to the City Co~nctl t~~at they certify sald EIR is
in c- ~~ipl iance LJ~ tFl said Envi ronmental ~ual t ty Act.
~
~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLP~IPIINr, COMMI~SIOFl~ Febr~~ary 2~ 197b 76-57
REPORTS AP•ID - ItEM ~~0. 1
RECIMMF.~~DI1T I QNS 1Fh~~R E I R NEGAT I VF DECI.ARAT I Ot~ - Fnr a pa rce 1 map so~~the~~s t
~ of Che intersectlcn of Country HI11 Roa~l an~l Gtst~~ Dal Sol.
~ WA9 noted that an ap!~lication for a p;.~ca~ map ha~1 heen filed to dlvide a parcel of 7.a
.res Into thrcc parcels of ~+.5, 2.6 hnd Q.7 acres; th.it the sile vras focated southe~~st of
the Interscctlon of Country 11111 Roed and Vtst~i Qel Sol; thot an av~l~~atlon of lhe
envlronmental impact of p~ircel maps was requlreci undcr the provlsl~ns of thz Californl~
Environmental Quallty llct and the State EIR Gufdelfnes; l•nat ~ stucfy of the proposecl
parce) map by tl~e Plann~nn Department and the Engir~eering Div(slon incllcit~:d that apprava)
of the Farcel map in itself wcsuld not create a signlficAnt envlr•~~nmcnta) impacl since the
parcals were compatlble with the RS-NS-7.2~QA0 x~rlnq; however~ ~~ny subsequent proposal to
f~rthsr dlvtde the propcrty or to do gr~idtr~~ would require furthcr evaluat~~n of thc
e~vlronmenta) impac~.
omm(ssioncr Kinq o rred a mot•lon~ s conded by Commissl~ner Tolar and MOTI0~1 CARRI~O
(Commtssfoners DarncS ,~nd Farano beincl ehsent)~ that the Anahe(~.• Clty Plann(n~ Comnission
does hereby recommen~l to the C(ty C~•~~ncil o~ the City of Anaheim khat the subJect pro]~.t
bc excmpt from the rc~~uir~~ment to p-'e;~are an environmental (mpact report~ pursu~nt to ~he
provlslons of thr. Callfornia ~nvironment,il Quality Act~ ~n the b7sis t~at the propoaed
parcel map would 'n~~~e no sign(ficnn+ anv(ronmen~a) Impac.t.
I TEM ~~4. 2
~ E~1(1. 2b09 - Iteq.~Pst for extensi~n of timc - Pr:~perty
consisting of approximate~; 0.3 acre~ located ~t the northwnst
eorner of Ma4nolla Avenue ana Ball Road.
It was note~~ thit Vartance No. 26C9, to waive rr~xi;num buflding heigl~t r.o construct a two-
story commerci ' bulldln~~ was approved by the ~'lanning Gommisston c~n July n~ 197~i; that
pproval of ,~ varlance w~s granted subJect to two conditions bein~ satisf0ed prinr to
th~ issuance of •~ bulldlnc~ per~it or within a perlo~i of one year~ whichever occurred
first~ being a) de~licatlon of land aclJacent to Magnolia Avenue~ ~•~hich was deleted by a
subsequent Planning Commisslon actlon~ and b) inst~llatlon of s et llghtl~ig facilities
a~ong Magnol'a llvenue and p~stln~ of a bond to guarantec said ~:allation; that no
prevlous time extensions ha~i been re~~uest~d; and th~~t the petitioner (Mr. Dr.rek Wh!te) had
indlcated that the fcre~oln-~ condit(un had not been met due tc Financial problems which
wer~: now allevlated and h~ was requesting a one-year extension of time in or~~r ta mee~.
tlir co~dition.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by CommiS.,ioner King and MO110N CARRIED
(Comrilssloners earnes anci Faranu being absent)~ that th: Anahein City Planninq Commission
does h;:reby grant an extension of time for Vsriance No. 26~9~ as requested by the
petitloner, said extension of time to be retroactive to July 8~ 1975 and to expire on July
8~ 197~•
ITEM N0. 3
COND TI~~lAI. USE PERMIT N0. 232 - Request for termination -
F'roperty consisting of approximately 0,3 acre located at
the southwest corner of uramercy Avenue and Mk~rag~ Street,
hivlnq appruxlmate frontages of 121 feet on the sauth side of
Gramercy Avenue and 74 feet on the west side of Moraga Street.
It was noted that on May 16~ 1962, Condttlonal Use Permit No. 232 was granted by the
Anaheim City Plar~ning Commission to establish a recreationai area on the subJect property;
that said condttional use permit wa3 c7rante~ subsequent ro Re~lassification No. 56-57-82
(RS~7204 to RM-126~!) which was approvPd by the City Council on Nov~~er 12~ i957, on the
s~bject property and was nn: a cor~dition of approval or requirement of sald
reclassification; that the applicant (Douglas E. P~tty~ Petty Enterprises, Inc.) had
submitted a request .~ term~nate satd conditianal use permit in order tc develop subJecC
property with apartments tn accordance wfth Code stan~arclS.
Commis~toner Herbst offerecl Resolution No. ?C7G-[4 and mr~ved for ~ts p~ssage and adoptton~
*.hat the Anaheim C!ty Plan~in~ Commissi~n does hei•eby t~rminate a?1 proceedin~s In
cornectio~i with Condltiona~ 'Jse Permi': No. 232~ on the tasis of the foregoing findi~gs~
as requested by the applica-it. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call, the foregoir,g resolutlon was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIO~~ER5: HERBST~
NOES: COMMI5SIONERS; NCNE
ABSEtJT: COMMISSIONE^S: F3ARNE5~
JOHNSON~ KING~ TOLAR, MdRLEY
FARANO
....
~ ~
M I MUTF S~ C I TY "LIIt~N I tiG CON~M i SS 10~1 ~ Fob rua ry 2~ 19'J(~ ~6 '8
i Tr~~ r~n, h
E~,UF.~~R E i R NEG~T I V~ Df:CLAftllTl ~~I - For a ~rac1 f nq pcrmi t
ot 1.7.; Calle Dan~ (Per~~lta 1ltlls).
it was notQ~1 thnt ~an aprlfcatl~n f~r a ~rAdln~~ permit to construct a single-family
re~l~iencc ot tl~c sul,jer.t a~idress hA~l been Plled; thal an evAl~atlon of the r.nvironmentat
impact af aracfin~ at th(s l~catlon was rec~ulred u;er the prcv(slong ~f the CAlifornla
Environr~entrl Qu~llty Act And the Stnte EIR Gu(delines sfnce the pmJect was located in
tF~e Scenic Cor 'rlor; and that ~i stud~ ~f t1~e prc,~oseci gr~~ing hy the En~inee:rin~ Divisi~n
~,nd the Plar Det~artmcnt indtcated th~t it wauld have no s(9nlfic.int cnvfronmental
(mpact.
CamMlssl ~ner King offerc~l a mution, s~CC~~det1 by Comm(ss~inner Herb~ and Mf1Ti~N C~IRRIED
(Corr~lssi~>ners dsrnes and Faran~ being ~b5ent) ~ that the Anaheiri City Plannin~i Cortmisslon
daes herehy recommenrl to thc City Councll of the C(ty of An~helm th~t the suhJect proJect
~~ exempt from the requfrement to pr~pare ~~n environmen~nl impact re~~ort~ pursuant ta the
pr~visi~ns of ~he fnvironmental QualiCy Aet.
ITEM N0. 5
Et~Vi ft~Pl~tEtIT~L 111PACT RFPORT N0. 16~1 - For lc~se ~f land In
connectlon with a Multl-Modal Trans(~ort~tion Center and
~ssoci~~~ed c~mmerciAl faeilities.
Deputy City Att~rney Franl: Lowry presented the Staff Repcrt to the Plann'nc~ Commission
date~ February ?~ 197G, and sa(d St~~ff Report is referred to and made a ~art of the
minutes. Mr. Lowry clarified that the subJect EIR concerr ~i lease of the land and ~
temporary rallroad platform ancl a temporary branch bank only and did not covr.r thc Mult(-
Modal Transportation Centcr as such; and that seF>arate or supplement~l enviro mental
impact reports woulcl be prepared tn connectior witti thr, prolect lYSe~f.
1lssistant Planner Robert Y.elley notecl that EIR ~lo. 169 discussed the lea°_•e of the
property~ a temporary railroaci platform and a temporary branch bank; that prio~• to
approval of ~ny suhsequent facil~ty, ft would be necessary to prepare a draft Ei° for the
entire proJect area in order to assess the overall environment;~l impact ancl si~pplements tc
the ki~~~~~ay then he prepareci for individual facilities as the various ~hases ef the
proJect pr~ceeded; that althouyn ine leas~~~g of the p~aperty, in itself, dld not create an
environmental inpact, it was assi~me:f that the granting of the lease would result in
subsequent de~~~lopment wiich would have a sic~nificant environmental impact, althouyh the
extent of the impact coulcl not be ~uantiflect until specific proJects were proposed; and
that a revlew of the report hy the EIR Review Committce indicated tl~ere may be minor
errors in the draft EIR as a result uf insul +cient information about. the propoSed
far.(lities it the I:ime ~f preparati~n; hc~wever~ the informaticn was adequate within the
limltations clescr'becl herein anc1, consequently~ the draft EIR tonether with the attachment
cor~formed to the re~uirements of the State EIR Guf~ielines anci the California Environmental
Quality Act.
Commissioner Y,in~ o`fer~' a moti~n, sec~nded by Comm(ssi~~ner Herbst and MQTI~N CARRIEb
(Commissioners Barnes ar+r1 Farano heinct absent)~ that Environmental Impact Report No. 169,
~iavlnc~ been considered tF s datc hy the Anaheim City Planninq Commission and evidence~
both written and or~l, ha~(nn been presented to supplPment said draft EIR No. 169, the
Plannir,q Commissim believ~s th~t ~afu draft EIR No. 16~ does ccmform co City ~nd 5tate
Gui~felines and the State r,' California Environmental Quality Act and, base~l upon such
(nf~rmation, d~es hereby r~commend to the C(ty Counci) that they certify said EIR No. r69
Is in c~nformance with saic~ ~nvir~n~~nental Qu~lity Act.
~ ~
MINUTFS~ CITY PLANNt"If, C(1MMISSInN~ Februal'y 2~ 197~ 7U'S9
ITFM N~, 6
~1'RAf,T NOS. ~hltl AND f~G-~7 ~ RequesL fnr approval of
i~l~ns tor E,~foot hi~h decorative~ opcnwork wAll ad)acent to
t~ohl Ranch Road - Property located approximntely Ifll~ fPet
enst of the centerline of Nohi Rrnch RoAd~ havlnn a frontane
of approx(mrtaly 32~~ fe~t on thc nortl~ sicle of Noh) Ranch RAad.
It was noted thnt CI~~~ subJect tent~~t(ve tr,~~ts ware approved by tI, ~ Plannfng ~Commission on
Fehruary 3, 1`~75~ an~l hy the Clty Co~~n~il c,n Fehruary 25: 1q75~ suh.ject to cnnefltlons~ one
of the conrl i t{ uns be i nn t~~ re~~~~ 1 re a b- fuot h i gh dncor~ t 1 ve ~ openwc~rl: wal 1 tu be
constructed ,-t the tup of the Slo~c adiacent t~ Nohl Ranch Road a~d plan~ for the wall to
be approve~l by both thc Plannlncl Commisslon ~ne~ Clty Couneil prior [o ap~ v~) of the
final lract map; and that the develoPc~ ~Lusk Curporatiur~) ha~J suhr~ittecf iians whlch
proposed a combinatlan t~n slumpstone and wraught iron fence~ sal~l fence being a repllGa
of tl~e fCnce alonc~ Nohl R$nch Ro~d on Tract ~lo. ~153 develapPd by Lusl: Corporation and
abuttin~ the westerly bounclary of Tract No. (3G1~7•
Mr. ^~n Stephenson~ representinq the Lusk Corporatlon, aopeared before the Planning
Commissfon ko ans~•1cr que~tinns regarding the propos~l and st~ted th~t they wr.re tryln9 to
yive as much of an oper~ feeling as possible +~lang Nohl Ra~ch Road for tlieir tract.
Cortmissioner King ~f~ ,;d a moti~n, secondeJ by Commissloner Johr~son ar~d MOTI~W CARRIED
(Commissioner Rarn~ and Farano beinc~ ahsent), that the Anaheim City Planntn~ Gommission
does hcreby appro~- the suhject L-foot high ti~all~ as proposed.
qD,I~URPIMEtIT, - There bein~ na further business tn discuss~ Commissioner Herbst
offered a moCion~ seconded by CommissionPr Johnson an-.1 MOTIOP~ CAkRIED
(f.ommissioners Barnes and Farano heing absent), that the meeting be
adjourned io Fehruary ~+, l~f7h, a?:3(~ p.m., in the Disasker Servi-•ai
Mana~emei~t Co~rr~l Center (11~~ South Glaudina) for a Jotnt City C~w~cii/
P!anning Commis. ~~n Work Sessian in connectton wi:h the Second Year
Community DPVeloFment Block Grant Application.
The raeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitteci, ~
.
OG~~~'l''(.~/ ~. ~~ ~
patr~cia B. Scanlan~ Secretary
Anaheim C(ty Planning Commission
P(3S : hm
~~ R r, 0 h1iCkOFiIMI~G ~CRVICE~ IMr,