Minutes-PC 1976/03/29~
~
Gity Hall
An~fielm. GallforniA
~lar ~ti 29 ~ 197~
REGUI.AR MFET I N~~ OF THE ANAHF 1 M C I'TY PLANN I NG f,UNM I SS I~1N
RI:GULAI~ - A rectular meeting of the Anaheim f,ity Plnnning I:onxnisa~on ~ras called to
MEE7I~IG order by Chdlrm~n Fsren~ at 1:3Q P.m. in the Cauncll Chamber~ ~ quorum
beln~ proscnt.
pRESENT - CHAIRMAN: FarAno
COMMISSIONI:RS: Barn~s, Nerbst~ Johnson. King~ Moriey~ Tolar
ABSEN7 ~ COMMISSIONkRS: None.
ALSO PRE:SEN1' • Frank Lowry
P~ul Singer
Jay Tltus
Annika Santalahtt
Joel Flck
Patricia Scanlan
D~puty City Atturney
Traffic Enginecr
Office EnglnPer
Zor~ 1 nq Supervi so-~
Assistan[ Pl~nner
Planniny Commisslon SPCretary
PLEDGE OF - Conmtssioner Herbst led in the Plpdge of Allegtance to ~he Flag of the
ALL£GIANCE Untted S~ates ~f America.
APPROVAL OF - Commtsstoner King offered a matian, seconded by Commissioner Jahnson and
1'HE MINUTES MOTIOP! CARRIED~ that theqminubesand hercby9er~rapprovedq asmsubmttLed.
meettng held March 15~ 1.76~
INC,. ;QO West
CONDITIONAL USE - CON7INUED PI.~f3LIC NEARING. RICEMAN I~dTEFNATIONAI.~
PFRMIT N0. 160~+ Katella Avenue~ Anahelm, Ca. 9'~~~2 ~~+ner);CaAY~~~~2H~ngen,ts)DAVIO
FON LEE~ 3~~ West Katella Avenue~ Anaheim~
requesting permission to EXPAND A M081LEHOME PARK TO INCLUDE A
RECREATIONAL-VEHICLE PARK on property d~scribed as an irregularly-shapecl parcel of
land consisting of approxlmately 23•7 acres having approximate frontage~ of 900
feet c.K+i the south side of Katella Avenue gnd 387 feeC on the west side uf Haster
Street~ having a maximum depth of approxlmately 595 feet~ and further de~scribed as
3Q0 West KatGlla Avenue. Property presently classifted RS-A-43.000 (RESIDENTIAI.!
AGRiCIlLTURAL) ZOME.
The subJect petition was continued from th+: Plannli~g Commissi~n meettng of March 1~ 1976~
at the request of the petitloner.
rlo one indicated their presence in oppositi~~n.
~t ~~-~-~ ~~ the Planning Commission uated March 2g~ 1976, was not ~ead at
Aitho~agh the ~i~~ ~...r... - -. ~F rhN minutes.
the publlc hearing, said Staff Report is reTerreu i:v d~~~ IIIdUC a Y~~.
Mr. Fred K. Wong~ representing the petit(aner, appeared before the Planning Cor-mission and
stated regarding the Staff Report th~t the Inte~departmental Committee recommendations
perta(ning to street ded(catl~n and improvements and the payment of fees for street
Iighting (Con~iitlon Nos. 1~ 2~ 3~ u and 10) werc nat acteptable at this time; that the
petitloner would 11ke to s~ibmit the pro]ect as uroposed for tl~e Planning Commission's
consideratton; and ~~~t he wouldr~otGhaveuthenauthoritytto sttpulateetotprovidingethose
and lrt,provaments~ e ~
items.
TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commisstoner Tolar noted that tha Trafftc E7gineer had ~as a through~stre!t~ntine Street
be aligned and constructed thraugh the subject property
In respon3~ to cuestloning by Commissior~er Herbst, Mr. Wong stipulated that the peYitioner
would be happy to a1Sgn the entrance to the proposcd proJect with the Nroposed allgnment
ot Clemant~he viewed the proposedrrecreationalpvehiclesparktas a~mzparatecbusiness from
noted that
76-127
~ ~
MI NU7FS ~ C I TY RLAMtI I NG C4MM I SS I Olr' . M~ rch 2~ ~ 191~ ~~'~ ~ 2~
CONLIITIQNAI. U~„S,E PF.RM17 N(1. 1604 (Continued)
the exlating mobllehome park to the south. and~ as such~ should have its own r~c~H~ntlonal
a~e~~ leundry rc~oms~ etc., since the exlst'ng mo~,l lahono pn~k rrby not be able ta ~~tthstand
aarvicing the addi tlonal uni ts propc~scd and mf+y over•la+~d sald er.isttng faci l(ty.
Mr. Wonc~ st~ted tha~ altl~ough the travel ~ralle~- paop~a were not generally welcome In
mobilehane pnrks, the: swimmin!~ pc~ol t~t the mobilehome pArk cauld bo ucillzcd during
separute hours by thA two groups of peopie.
Commtssionsr Herbsx notecl that tht mabilehame park tE.nants moved there with the idna that
it was an adult park with no chlldren. Thereupon~ M~•. Wony scat~d Ci~e pet(tloner's fiv~~
thouc~ht was that the proposal would be an Interim usr., fur a perlod of approxtmate~y
to ten years nnd pcrh~ps ahout ten years from thfs tim,~, the petiiioner ma;+ br. :v!!?Inq to
make the dedication ~For streets, etc.
Comnisstaner Nerbst noted th~t the Planning f.ommiq~,tn~ r.~cagr~ixed the pra{x~sa1 as an
tnte~'~n usc; hc~wever. since the propPrtv was in th~ C-R Zone influenced area~ ard the use
m~y rernaln ancl be so1J as a separate business, the amenitics not necessarily includtng a
swimming poo) Uut lau!idry Facilitles and some typ~: of recreational area should bP pi'nvtdasl
in the proJecC. Theraupon, Mr, Won~ clarif~ed that the proposal was to include a 1200-
square~ foot office huilding which was to house a launciry area with e(gh,~ washing machi~e5
ancl elght dryers; and if said laundry facillkles were n~ic lndicated on tha submltted plan~
l•hey would respectfullY amend sald pla~,
Chalrman Farano r+oted that tl~e number of recreatlona) vehicle spaces propased appearrd ~;a
bn ovarbearin~~ and may not ~G in the best int~rest e¢ the exi~ting tenants af the
mobllehome park. Ti~ereupon~ Mr. Wang stated the petitioner needed some relief fr•am the
tax hurden of the four-acre~ undevelaped porCion of the property f~+cing Katella Avenuc;;
that although the exlstinc~ tenants of the mobllehome park favored the four acres beir.g
plarted In grass an~l used as a park, sald tenants would not be art-enab~e to having thr:
taxes far satd four aGres dlvidr_d among them. In r~sponse to questl~nin~ by the Planning
Commisston, Nr. Wong stated that at one time the mobilehome park was rated as ~"ft~~e
s,tar" park; howe~'er~ the recrea~tional vshicle park would never have ~"flve star" rating
without separate recreational facilities, that they would probably get a"three s*..~r"
rating which the petitioner Nould ~~~: happy wtth. Chatrman Farano inqulred how the: present
tenants of the mobilehome park ~~ould f~el about a"threa star" r•atlnq, and Mr. Wong stated
there had to be a ltttle "give and tal<e."
In response to yuest!oni~g by Ch~irman Farano~ Mr. Wong stated he had been in t.~auch with
the home office af the petitirner who incilcated that t~~e widening of Haster Street was
Gontingent upon fundlnq; however~ if the sub}ecC proposal was grantecl subJect to the
decSlcation alang Haster Street~ he felt the petttloner could live with such a condit(on.
7he archite~:t for the proJ~ct presented an expanr~ed set of plans for the Pla;ning
Corxnlssion'~ con:~~deration anc~ following rev~ew of same~ Conmissioner Morle~ made an
ob5ervat'on tl~at the only Item of concern that appeared to be missing from chs plans was
the re~reational sF?~~e Comrnissioner Herbst noted that sirce the eXiSti~'g ~nobilehome park
was a high-class f~C~ I iLYe C~~~::. ~c~r~=*.t„-,a1 vehicle park should be complet::ly sepa-•ate
from it and h~ave its own entrance ~nd recreatlonal facility, etc., and th~:n It would b~e
standing on its own and could be 3old off any time. Commissioner Tolar n;ide an
obsEryatlon that~ althou;'~ the peCitioner na~ned all of the pruperty in q~~estlon and was
apparently not think'~~g about selling off any portion of it at this tlme, many prublems
would be create~a if the fc+ur acres were developed as proposed and then ;.old off. Mr. Wong
then state.! r~,at the Planntng ~ommissto~ coulcl cQndition approval of the subJect propexai
upo~ the 1,.ems mentl~i~d, if desired.
The P'~annt~g Commisston generally agreed that recreational fac.illties were desired to be
in:~uded in the proposal; whereupon~ Mr. W~ny stated it ap~eared that since the subJect
pr~posal was located only four blocks from the worid'S greatest recrr~ational facility,
people woutd b~ attracted to the a;~a to go to Dis~pyland and noC tc, stay o~~ernight in the
arta ~f Narbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue. Chatrrnan Farano noted that the sub}ect
pruposal would tr'emendously Increase the amount of traffic in the subJect area and weuld
seriously aftect the 1lving environment of the existing mobilehome park tenants wno were
perma~ent residents of the area.
Mr. Wong st~ted that recreational venicle parks in conJunction with mobiiehome parks
existesd cliroughout the western Unlced States~ although it was not necessarily correct to
do s~; and tltat he was epen Co ~uggesti~ns for recreational fac!'.!tles ln the rec~eatloreal
vehicle park.
~ ~
~1~NUTES~ C11Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ March 29~ 1g76 ~~'~129
CONDIT10NI1L USE PEItMIT N0. 160~- (ConCtnued)
Chalrman Farano notcd thnt the subJer.t proposal would essonttAlly ~dd epproxlmately ~~0~ t.o
~QQ peaple to the sub.Ject pr~p~srty +~n~i the~e were alrn+~cty 296 permannnt residnnes in the
mobilehum~+ park. Mr, Wonq rnapondod ttiat peo~le whu travnled in trailarq did not mtnd
claustrophubl~ h~cause th~y uauelly atd a~d slapt in c~nflned qu~rtars and that usually
when thc tratlera wera unhookcd et recre~atlo~al vehicle parks~ the peopl~ went (nc~ town
or w~nt ftshir.c~~ hnr5~.~~~Gk r(dinn~ atc.. and dld not ~tr~y ln thc Immedlate erea oP the
trailers. Mr. 1~~ng further stntad thaC thc rvPnin9 or night n~lnc~ would not bc vary great
since th~ park would be fr~mlly-orlented and the chllclren would bo tn bed it~~rly ea~ly,
Cammtssioner drrnes fndlcated that~ in ha~ opinion~ th~ ndu'its tEre~1 out (n the cvening
but children would he sclll active and would be using tf~e poo~ and whatever othcr
recreatlonal faclltCles were pravided in the afternoon and ~vening; a~•~i tha~t the perrnanent
;eetdents of the mobilehome park wuuld hav~ ~ome real ob,ldctions t~ thc nal!-n in thc:
evuniny hours.
Mr. Wong state~i tl~c esxlsting pool was appQoximape~ f thef poc~l~by~theerecrent~lonalAVeht~j~in
sl~e and that a curfew h~~~r cai{~~ be snl ~o~ ...
park ten~~nts an~ thc gates would be cio~ed.
ComMissianer Johns~~ notad Yh~t he wAUld recomnend a separAta recreationalh~QV~forh~lie
recreational vetilcle pArk so that it couid be completely nelf-sustaining~
could not recommend wl»t al) should be Inciuded in sald r~creat(~m al area,
The a~'chlCect for the petitloner bdvised that the average age of t~eeainaa~d thathab~ut
mobllehome park was 6y.5 years; that the turnover in the pArk wAs
25~OOt1 square feet of recre~axtonal facillCies existed fn rhr. mobilehom~ pork w~'iich was not
be 1 ng usecl.
Commissianer Herhst noted that whatever tl~e petittoner decicled on for the recreaCtonal
area In the preprse~i r~creatlunal veshlcle park was his own ~usiness as long as snld park
was self-s~staining; that the dedicaxlon fnr the `~LurA Pxtension of Clementine Streex
should be made ansi tFie antrance to the rer,reattc7^~1 v~hicle park should aiign wieh
Clementine Street which would mean the r~arr~n~ ~~a af the spaces in the proposed
recreatlonal vehicle park; and thet if the fe--•.~~?n~ items were taken care oP~ he wuuld
have no obJectt~n r,o the proposal whtch he `- ~ould b~ a good use of the land which was
wtthln walking distance to Gisneyla~~.
Comrtiissioner aarnes noted that in other a~~•• ~i~"~ ~Greationa! vehicle parks were
approved c:lose to permanent r~sidential c~v. !~me*:;~ the Planning Cormisslon had required
a 25-fo~t buffer strip along thr. properr, ~,-Rm n some cases up ta GO feet.
Commissi~ner Herst recommended that th ..~.>+. ~etitiun be continued in order that
revised plans could be subm(tted, wher•r_ ~•~~ "r w~n~ stated that Mr. Lee {the agent r"ar
the prtitioner) was present and had ~ur~~- .~N~ n~n to enter into stipulations on behalf of
the petitioner. Pir. Wo-~y stipulated t- •~~e ~>pi~~g the property substantially in
aecordance with the submitked plans ~+-~ ... :~•° nlans for the realignment of tfie entrance
•~~~ rhe Traffic En Ineer ior a~~r:..~? ; a^~ he
wlth Clem<:ntlne Str'aet would be suhmi: --~. 9
stated the pet~ttoner wanted actlo,: *-~ ~_ ~~~+~~=~, on the application at this meeti~g.
Chairman Farano r~oted that in the ~>::st a~~~~ ~cants h~~ come before the P1Enning Cortrnissian
t~ geC whatever they c:ould approve~.i ~nci -~e went befure the City Counctl in whatever
fashion they wished; however. the Planr,.r~: ~omnis~ion ~' d not Favor that manner of
procadure and wantPd ta see the prn~e t° yood condf ~on prfar to voting on it and
pas s i ng i t on to thie C i ty Counr., i 1.
Mr. Wong stated he had sat on plan~n~~c cammissions in the past as a representative o~ a
city atkc iey's offlce an~i he was not r~ying totsuggest that th~ functlon of the Planntng
Comrnissic be "sandbagae~l"; however~ hc was ~~ {..•, o get thP sugaestions of xhe Planning
Cortmissie~~ and to work ~~it~ the Ptanr~ng Cortmission on the matters of concern. Thereu~,uri,
Mr. Wong respectfully requcated a continuance tc- the meeting of Aprii 26~ 1976, In order
to s~timl t re~: i seci pl ans as cl t scu~ sed,
Gommissic~ne 8~rnes no.te~i th~t she would be laoking to see the racreational area provided
~s far ~s ~assib-e awa~~ from the permanent residents in the r+cbtlehome park and also far
some playrynound M uipmen4 Co keep the child~'en out ~f the mobilehome pa~k.
C~onrnissioner Y.ing offered ~ n~otlon. seconded by Gommissioner Morley and MOTION CA-'.RIED, to
reopen the public hearing and continue consid~ration ef Petltton for Condis,ional Use
Permtt Na. 16~4 to the Planning Commisslon meeting of Aprll 2fi, i9j~~ ~t the requcst of
the petitloner for th~ submission of revisad p1~ns.
~
~~a^
~
MINIITES~ CITY PL.ANNIN6 COMMISSIAN, March 29. 1976
76-13fl
V~aIANCE N0. 276; •• RC"~C:~ERTISEb PUBIiG NEARING~ CVAN A. JOHNSON. JR. ~ F.T' AL, c/o Jeck
,I. Rimai~ 1055 North Meln~ Sulta ~~06~ Santa An~~ Ca. g27n1 (O~ner);
R. 'f. STQCKWELL~ Communlty Hank~ 2~55 ~letche~ Orive~ los Angelea~
Ca. hQQ65 (Agentj; roquestinc~ WAIVER OF PERMIT7ED UScS~ 70 GONSTRUCI' A BANK on property
do~cribed as an lrregulerly-shap~sd pnrcel of la~~d conststing of epproxlmntely 7.7 acreY
locoted at the northeait corner nf Kate{le Avenua and State College Boulevbrd~ having
epproximnke frunta~es nf 369 feet on the north slde of Katella Avenua and 76~ feot csn
the east side of Stata College Boulavard. Proparty presently classifled Ml. (INDUSTRIAL~
LIMITEO) x01~E.
'fhe sub~ecY p~titton was contlnued from thc Plannlnq Commisslon me~tinq of Decentber 2?.~
1475~ fer xhe submitlrl ~f r~~rlsad plans~ ~:md fram the meeting of March I,~i~ 1976, at tho
request ~~f the pctltloncr,
N~ one Indicated thdir prasenca In opposltian.
Although the St~ff Rep~rt to thc Plannir!g Cammission dated March 29, 197b- wa~ not rend aL
Rhe public hcAring. sald Staff Rc~port ls rei~erred to and mpdc a part of the minutes.
Mr. Arthur Jansen~ represe~nttng the ag~!nt for the peCltioner~ appearod before the Planntng
r~JfM1IS4~~R and stated the r~vt4ed plans r$~~ected thnse items cifscu~sed at the P1Rnntng
~ammissian mceting of December 22. 1975•
THF. PUBI I c HEAR1 ~!r WAS CLOSED.
fommissioner HRrbst r~oted tha*. the road shown on the plans to the north o` the servlce
station stte created a i~anconforming servic~ station stte by approximately 5 feet. 9I~C8
the site was shown ~n the plans as approxlmately 14~ fe~t by 150 feet and a conforming
service station site would be 15~ fect. Thareupon~ Mr. Jensen stlpulPted that satd
service statlon site would meet the minimum site development standards of the City of
A~~ahe I m.
It was noted that the ptCttloner ttad if-c~1GAt~d at the meeting of ~ecember 22~ 1975. that a
maJor ~artlon of the bank's bU5IRC54 would be with the small tndustrial establishments in
the area.
Commisstoner Herbst nffered a motlon, sec:onded by Commissloner Tola~ and MOTION CARRIED~
that the Anahelm City Planning Commissian does hereby recommend to the City Councll of the
City of Anaheim that 'the subject proJe~ct be e xempt from the requirement to prepare an
envtronmental impact report.
Commissfoner Herbst off~red Resolution No. P~76-51 and rbved for its passage and adoption.
that Petition f~r Vartance No. 2765 (readvertised) be and hereby is granted~ subJctt to
the sttpulat(ons of the petltloner and subJect to the Interdepartmenta! C~ommlttee
recomrrpndations. (See Resolutio~ gook)
On ro~' call, the fo~egotng resolution was passed by the foilawing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONEitS: BARNES. HERBST, JQNNSON, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR~ FARANO
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
41BSFNT: C~MNi1SS10NERS: NONE
~ ~
MiPiU7ES~ CITY PLANNING COM:tISSIQ~I~ Mbrch 29~ 1976 ~6~~3~
ENVIRONMENT'~L IMPACT - CONTINUED PU9LIC HFARING. A~lAl1El~1 FIILLS, INC., 3~0 Anahelm
REPIRT N0. 166 ~1111!' RUAd~ 1lnahelm, Ca. 92~~~7 (~W~er); TII~ BALp~JIN COMPANY~
~ 1GQ11 Hale Avenue~ Irvlne~ C~. 9Z7~~5 t~9c~~I• Property
RE.CLASSIFIG~TInN doscribad aS ar. IrraqulArly-shaped parcel nf l~nd consisCing
N~, ~~_ ~..?2 _ ef approximat~ly 3x acres havtng a frontn~e oP appr~ximat~ly
""'""' 30~15 fe-~t on the south oncl west sldes af Nohl Ranch Road, and
Vi.RIANC[ N0. 2779 botng locatr.d appr~ximately one-half mile cast~~rly of the
""""""'"" ~'--`~' cPnterline ~f Anaheim Hills Rc-ed. f'roperty presently classi-
CO~aDITI~PIAL USF fied RS-A-43~OQ0(SC) (R~SIDENTIAL/AGRICUL?URAL-SCENIC CARRIDOR
PERMIT N(1, 1602 OVERLAY) ZONE.
TF.~ITATfVE MAP OF
TRACT ~~~S. ~212,
9213 ~ ~T.1 ~~ AND
9215 (REVISIQNS
N~. I
REQJESTED CLASSIFICIITION~
PoRT I ON A° R:~-~5~~~ ~ SC) ( RES ~ DEN71 AL ~
SINGLF-FAMII.Y-SCf.NIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY)
ZONE.
R~QUE.STF.D VARIANCE: PORTIONS A AND a- WAIVER ~F (A) P1IMIMUM
LOT WIDTIi APID (B) RGO.UlRE11ENT TNAT SINGL~-
FAM I L.Y LOTS REAR-ON ARTERI AL li I GNWAYS ~ 7Q
EST~BLISH A 214-1OT~ t1n-UNIT, RS-5oQ0(SC)
SUElDIVISION.
RF.QUFSTED CONDITIQNAI USE: PQRTIONS A AND D- PF.RMIT A 6-UNIT MODEL HOME COMPLEX.
TENTATIVE TRAf,T REQUESTS: SeGIMarlno~LCao 91108LE~SuhJe'ct•propertyuisiproposedifor
suhdivislon as follows:
Tra:.t `~o. 9212 - 50 RS-SQQ~(SC) lots (49 units)
Tract No, 9213 -~fl RS-500~(SC) l~ts (67 units)
Tract N~. 92~~ -~~G RS-5~~~~SC) lots (4G untts}
Tract ~lo. 9215 - 5~ RS-500~(5C) lots (4R !!nf+S)
The subject ltems were continued frorn the Planning Commissi~n meeting of March 15~ 197b-
for the petttioner to submit *_~~+~gravhic dlsplays.
Mr, Willlam McDonalcl~ 6501 Paseo E1 3reco, Anaheim~ indicated his presence in opposltion
to the subJect petitlons and watved the full reaciing of the Staff Report r.o the Pla~ning
Camm(ssion datecl March 29, 1976, since he had revtewed a copy of same.
Although the Staff Report to the Planning Commission was not read at the public hParing~
said Staff Report is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
it was noted that one person was pre~ent in favor of subject petitlon arsd that one letter
had been receiveci iri opposition ta sub,ject Nc*ftion.
Mr. James Baldwin~ representing the agent for the petitloner, appeared before the F1anning
Commisston and presented a topographic dtsplay, stating that he had met with the property
owners tn the area ancl the questions which were ralsed pertalning to the speed of traffic
on one of the streets in the proposed proJect could be easily resolved by the placement of
stop siqns at the intersection; that Che property was in escrow ancf The Balciwin Company
,., -._ -... ~..••..i..,,Ar• that the design of tl~e road was to ~+dd interest to the proJect and
'r~vu~u uc i.~~~ ~.~-•~-r_. ; ~ ,.T1,1... `{~~t thov n~annn~ tn
would be graded along the natural Gontours as mu~~~ as pos.•..~...~ , ~~-
contour and round out Serrano Drive to a more natural look than was shown on the
topographic display; that T.6 acres open space which the County of Orange had agreed to
malnta~n~ that the proposed 210 dwelling units would be selling in the price range of
$~ip,0(!~ an<i $9~~00~ or• under $100~Q~~; that all o'F the roofs would be cor.structed of
concrete tile~ ~tre^retardant material; that the gracling would average about 6000 yards
per un t t; howeve r, h~ ~; :'~: !:^~:1 h~ much of the cirad 1 n~ was for roads on 1 y. Mr.
Baldwin explained the sprinkler syste.m which would be installed to integrate the natural
ptant life in the area with the new landscaping to eliminate a ssparation line; and he
stated they were proposing to have two tennis courCS and a swimming poo? which would be
prtvate for the development. Mr. Baldwin further explained that his company had built
devel~pment~ in the cities of La Mirada, Montebello, San DiPao, etc., and was Just
startina a ver~y large development in Lake Forest~ however~ they fiad not b~ailt in Anaheim
yet.
Mr. W1111am 11. McDonald appeared before the Plonning Comnission in oppositlon and stated
he was concernecl about how much ~f the hillslde would be leveled for the con~tructlon of
the subJec.t proJect.
The ft~liowing letter of opposition was re~d lnto the recor~ by the Planning Commtssian
$ecretary:
~ ~
MIIJUTES. Ci1Y PLANN'NG COMMIS5i0N~ rlarch 29, 1976
/6-132
E~R N4. 166, RECLASSIF~CATION N0. 75-7~-22~ VARIANCE N0. 2779~ CON1.~1710Ni~L USE PERMIT N0.
1602 ANO TENTATIVE MAP AI~ TRAC7 NOS, 9212. gz13~ 921W AND ~921 aEV~SIpNS NO _ 1 Cortt.
..~_
~'March 15~ ~97b
Mr. Floyd Faran~~ Chetrman
Clty Plannin~ Commisslon of the
City of Anahalm
P,e: VsrlHnce No. 277q
Thn Board of plrectors of the Qak Knoll Homeownnrs Axsoc(atlon herer+ith
resolve to dlsnpprove Va~l~nce No. 2779 submitted to thn City Plenning
Commission if consideration has not been given to odditlonal aducntlon
fec:illt{es. Currenr.ly schools in this distrlct are requlred, due to
studr.~t population, t~ attend year-round schools,
If educat(on facil(t19s are not +~vaiiabie anci operetin,y on a nosm3l
nine rrar~th school schedule the aak Knoll Board uf Directors on behalr'
of the Oak Knotl Nomeowners disapprovP tl~is varianca or any new F using
deveiopments and wnuld encouregn khe f.lty P1an~ing Commiss(on of
Anahctrn to do the aame.
Oak Knoll Homeawners Assoclatl~on
s/Chuck Hoppe~ Prosident
s/Jack Woolsey~ Vice Prr.sident
s/Georgta Gallaghcr~ Sec. 'ireas.
s/Bill Rousc~ At Large"
Mrs. Mary Dtnndorf~ 131 I.a Paz~ appeared before the Planning Commission in favor nf the
subJect p~•~Ject an~i st~ted that members ~f the Westridge~ htohler priv~~ Broadmoor~
Woodcrest~ and Canyo~~ Acres developmenr~ ~~i met l•o go over th~e plans f~r tl~e sub,Ject
development with a qrading cantraccor .~ yualified engir.eers and it appeared that the
developer was trying to do a good job and have less density than an RM-24b0 pro,ject; ando
theref~re~ the group atte~dinc~ the meeting were all 1~ favor ~f the proposal.
THE PUBLIC HEARItJG WA5 CLOSED.
Commis~,ioner Johnson made a~ observatian that• several o" the cut areds on the topographic
display were scvere and should be minimized~ especially in the areas where the cut was 50
feet or greater. so that said areas would look more ltke normal hillside. Mr. Baldwin
acknuwiedged that appraxlmately five of the cu:s shown on the t~(x~graphic display would be
more rounde~l or contoured.
In response t~ que~tionfng by '~ommissioner Johnson, Mrs. Qlnndorf tndicated that the group
of haneowrers were aware that the proposed zontng was RS-5~~~~ ~lthough the msJority af
the iots were larger than 5nno square feet~ an~ iurther, that tha property owners were in
favor of that aspect of thP proposa!.
Cammissioner Herbst questioned the number of homes proposed an a cul°de-sac and Mr.
Baldwin stated that the maJority of the ho~res would have three-car garages; that the
"flag" lots woutd have a very large drive and wauld be considered exclusive or premium
sites; ~nri that only the "flag" lots would be less thdn the requlred 25~fac~t lot r:idth
adJacent to the itr~et on the cui-da°sacs.
In response to questioning by Chalrman Farano~ Mr. Oaldwin describPd the topog~•aphic
dlgplay nating the location of the cut areas ver~us the ffil areas; ~nd that along Nnhl
Ranch Road where the land was presently flat, they were proposing to add fill to Create a
bank which woutd be iandscaped as a buffer between the proJect and Nohl Ranch Road.
Commissionar Tolar made an observation the it appeared the developer would not be moving
anv of the dirt away from the giee but was )ust ~earranging it.
Commissioner Morley thanked Mr. Baldwin for his cooperation in spending th~ time needed on
the project to adequately portray the proposal to Che Planning Commisslon. Mr. Baldwin
respondhd that thls was the first time he had ever used a topographic display in
connection with a proposal and he had spent approxlmately SZ,On~ to have it preparcd by
another firm.
Commt~sioner Barnes noted regarding the nppositlon pertalning to sGhoul~ ln the area that
a letter was tncluded in the EIR duGUment from the Orange UniTiGd School D'st~ict whtch
~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING CAMMISSION~ March 29. 197E 7h-133
EIR N0.166. RELI.ASSIFICATION lJO. 15-76'22~ VARIANCE ~10. 2779. CONDITIONAL U5E I~ERMIT N0.
1G02 ANO TEN7ATIVE MAP OF TRACT N,AS. y?i2, 921~~ 921~ p'~~ 9215 ~RE<<~S~ONS N0. 1 Conl~
intllcbted that the prapused dovelopment would n~t advr.r~ely effect the school~ ln thr.
subJect area.
Commisslonar H~i•bst aff~rect a motion~ seconded by Commissiondr King and MOTION CARRIED.
that Envtrcrnnent.i) Impact Report No. 1G6~ having bean consldered thls datn t~y tt~e Anahelm
Clty Plannlnc~ Commisslon and ovidonce. bath ~~ritten end oral~ having been presented to
supplem~nt sald draFt ~f EIR No. 16G~ ~he Planning Comnis~lon belleves thrt said clraft of
EIR No. 166 does conform to tho Clty and Stato Guldall~as and the State af CallforrriA
Envlronmental Quality Act ~nd, base:l upan such InformatlAn~ doas hr,reby recommend to thu
City Councll of the Clty of Anahelm thut they cnrtlfy said EIR 19 in c~mpllancn with sald
Envfronmontal Quality 11ct.
Commtssioner Herbst offered Resolutlon N~. PC7~-52 A~d moved f~r Its passeyn and adoptlan~
that thn Anaheim Clty Plrnning Commisslon does hereby recommencl to the Clty Counci) of the
City of Anaheim that Petltion for Raclasslfl~atlon No. 75-76-2?. be approved subJect to the
Interdepartmental Committee recomnendatlons. (Sen Rhsalutlon Book)
On rall cnll~ the feregoing rrsolutlon was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIO~IERS: BARNES~ f"ERf3ST~ JOfINSON~ KING~ MORLEY~ TOLAR~ FARANO
NOES: CONM!SSIONF.RS; NONE
ABSENT: COMNISSIQ~IERS: NONE
Commissinner Nerbst offared Resolutlon No. PC76°53 and moved for its passage nnd adoptlo~~,
thAt tl~e Anaheim City Planning Comm~ssion does hereby grant Petitlon for Var(ance No.
2779~ granting the requested waiver of the mtnimum lot width on tl~e besls that ~imilar
waivers have been granted previously in other subdivis~o~~s ~or the development of "flag"
lots; g~anting tt~e reguested waiver of the requirement that single-famlly lots rear-on
arterla) highways on the basis that onc tot is prnposed to sida-~n an art~rlal highway an~
sald lat w111 ~ot be detrtment~l to the area and, furthermore~ similar wnivers have been
granted prevlously; subJect to the Intprdepartmenta) Cummittee recommendatlans. (See
Resolutton Book)
On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the f~llowing vote:
AYFS: COMMiSSIONERS: BARNES, HERBST~ JOHNSON, KIN6~ MORI.EY~ 1'OLAR~ FARANO
NOES: COMMISSIOt~ERS: NONE
M SENT: COMMISSlONERS: NONE
Conmissloner Herbsx offered Resolutior. No. PC7b-54 and moved for its passage and adoption.
that the Anaheim City Plannieg Commissto~ doomehcomplex~asubPecttto~therlnterdepartmental
Permit No, 1602 to permlt a ix-unit model ~
Comn~ittee recommendatiohs. (See Resolutlnn Bo~k)
On ro11 call~ the foregotn~ resolutlon was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMIS~i~NERS: BARt:CS, NEP.RST; JONNSON~ KING~ MORLEY, TOl.RR9 FARANO
NOES: COMMISSIQNERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMM~SSIOMERS: NONE
Coinmtssi~rier Johnson noted that, alChough he was o~posed to FS-5~~~ hillside developnent~
he wos vottng in f~vor of the subJect tracts on the basis that many of th~ pro(~osed lats
were larger than typical RS-5~nQ !~t$. Hz further noted that approval of the sub)ect
tracts should not be construed to indlcate tt~et the Planning Cc~rnlssion was endarsing
other RS-y000 development tn hfllside areas.
Commission~er Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner hbrley and MOTION CARkIEU,
that thc Anaheim ~~t pla~ninq Commis~lon doss hereby find that the prc+poaed Tract No.
g212 (Revtsion No. 1~, together wtth its design and improvement, is consistent with th~
CitY's General Plan~ pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5; and the Plann(ng
Commtssion does, therefore, apprave Tentativa Map of YrscL No. 9212 tReviston No. 1) for a
5q••lot. RS-;OnO(SC) subdivislone ~ubJect to tl~e following condition~:
~
~
MINUTES~ CI1'`f PLi\NNING COMMISSION~ Mar~,l~ 29~ 19~~
76-13~+
EIR N0. 166~ RECLASSiFICA710N N0. 7~'~16'22• VARiANCC ~0. 2779~ CONbITIONAI. USE PERMIT NO•
921_3._921W AND 2ti (REVISIONS WA. 1) (Cont.
1602 AND TEN7ATIVE HAP OF TRA~'T N05. 9~12. ,~._..~ ____--
1. 'fhat the i~pqroval of T~ntative Map of Tract ~Jo. 921? (fievlslon i3o. 1) Is granted
s~+bJect tc the approva) oP Reclcs4~ficatlon N~. 75-7~'21 encf Variance No. 2779~
2. Thet oach of the l~cs in the propos~ed tract sholl be In r.onformance with the
minimum ~ltn r~qulrernnnts of tt~e RS~Sn~~ zone ~~ertalning to the numbnr of bedroams
proposed on th~ ~Ites~ and plot plens tndicating sAld conformlty shall be submitted for
approvat prlar to Clty Councti approval of tl~e flnal tract map.
3. That all lo*,s within thls tract shall be served by undergr~und utllities.
4. 7hat a ftn~l tract map of subJect property shall be ~ubmlteed ~o and approvzd by
the City Councll and then be reGOrdad In the Office of tlie Orange CaunCy Recorder.
That the covenants~ conclttlons~ A~d restrlctiona shall be submitted to ar,d
5.
approved bY +the City Attorney's Offlc:e prior to City Cuuncil approval of the flna tract
map and~ further~ that xhe approved covenants, cUnc!{lio~'~s~ and rnsLri~:tlot~s sh31! br.
recorded cn~currently wlth the final krac.t map.
b~ That prlor t~ fliing the final tract map, the appllcant shal` submit to the City
Attorney f~r approual or den(al o complete synopsis of the proposed tuncttoning of the
oparatinq cerporation includtn~~ but not limtted to, the article:s af tnco~poratlon~
bylaws~ propesed methods of management~ bonding tu Insure malntenance of conmon property
and ~ui1din~s~ and such other lnformatldn as the Clty Attorney may Ue31re to protect the
City, ita citizens~ and the purchase~s of tli~ project,
], Th.3r street names shall be approved by the Clcy Engineer prlor to approval of a
f ina) trac:t map.
S. That the owner• of subJect property shall p2y to the Clty of Anaheim the
appr~~prlaLe park an~i recreation in-lleu fees as determinecl to be approprlate by th~ City
Councfl~ said fees to be patd at the time the building permit is issu~d.
9, That dralnage of subJect ~roperry ~hail be disposed of in a man~er satisfacLOry
to the City Engincer. If~ in the prep~ratton of the site, suffic(ent gradin~ is requlred
to necessitate a grading permit~ nu work on gradlny will be permttted between October 15th
ar~d April ~5th unless al) requireci off-site drainage 1`acillties have bce~ installed and
are uperat(vc. Positive assurance shall be provided the City that such drainAge
t'acllities will be completed priur to October 15th. Necessary right~ef-way for off^site
dratnage facilities shal) be dedicated to the City~ or the City Cou•cil shall ha~~e
initiAted cnndemnation proceedings th~refor (the costs ~f which st~a~; be borne by the
developer) prlor to the commenGert~nt ~f grading oper~tions. The requtred drainage
facilitles shall be of a size and type suf~iclerit to carry runaff waters ariginating from
higher properties through subJect property to ultimate disposal as approved by the CiCy
EngSneer. Sald ciralnage facilitles shall ~e the first item of constructi~~ns and shall be
completed and be functional throughout the tract and from the downs'~~'E~m 5a~~^dary of the
property to the ultimate poinr of disposal prior to tlie issuance or any final builbl~nm~~e
inspections or occupancy permits. Dralnage districC reimbursement agreements may
ovatiahle to the davelopers of subject properCy upon their request.
10. That grad~ng, excavation, and all other censtruction activittes shail be
conduct~d C~ hein~lacarrled intos~he S~antaiRnatRive~sby~storm wateryori9inatin,rynfrom9orr~
this proJe t
Plowing thr~ugh this proJect.
ii. That the alignment and terminal point of storm drains shown on this tantative
tract map shall not be considered flnal. These drains shall be subJect to precise design
conslderations and approval of the City Engineer.
12. If permanant street name signs have nat been installed, temporary street name
signs shail be installed prlor to any occupancy.
13. 7hat "L" Street and "M" Str~et north and west of the interseGtion with "L" Street
shall be stand~rd 54-foot wide streets.
S4. That all gradirg shall be in accordance with the requlrements of the City of
A~ahetm Hillside Grading Ordtnence.
i5. That the roofs of a{1 structures shall be constructed of non-combustible: materlal
a~ approved by the City of Anah~im Fire D~epa~tment.
i6. Tht~t a`~~~ b~cak shall b~ established around the perimPCer of the trect as
approved by th^. Ctty of An~,heim Fire Department.
97. Th~t a parcel map shall be approved and recorded prlor to approval ot t,he final
t r8~ t 'I~uY •
Commissloner Herbst offered a motion~ seconded by ~~~^find thatµth~eproposedTTractA~io!ED.
that the Anahelm City Plannino Commlsston does hereby
9213 IRevision No. 1)~ to~~ther with its design and Improvement, is cansistent with the
C1ty's General Pla~. purs~. nt to Government Code Scctlon 6G473.5; and thc Planning
Commlsslon does, therefore~ approve Tentative h1a~p of Z'ract No. 9213 (Revision No. 1) for a
6$-!ot. RS-5~00(SC) subdivtsion~ subJect to tl~e foilowing condittons:
•
~
MINIITCS, CI'1'7 PI.ANt~ING CO~~P~ISSI~rI~ March 2~)~ Ig76
~
)6-135
EIR N0. 166~ RE~CLASSIFICbTION N0. 75-%6-?.2~ VARIANCE N0. 2779~ C0~101Ti0NAl. USIE PERMI7 NC.
1G0?. 11ND 1EN7ATIV~ MAP QF' TRACT NQS. 9212. y2i3, 921'~ A~It~ 9715 (REVISIONS NU. ! Cont.
1, That the ~ippr~v;r) of Yentatlv.~ Map a} T~act No. 9213 (Revistun Fio. 1; ts granted
suL,;nct to thu appr~val af ~leclassiflcation No, 7y-;~G-22 and Vartance Flo. 277'~•
[. Thdt e~ch ~f Yhe lcts in the proposed trACt shAll be In conf~rmar~ce with tho
m~nimum slte requlr~ments of the RS°SOC~ Zane pcrtaln{nq t~ the number oP bedrooms
pr•oposad un thn sttes. ond plot plan~s Indtcating sald conPormlty shr') bc au.,mitted for
approval prior to Clty Councll approvrl of the final tract map.
?. That In ectcrdance wtth City C~~~ncll ~licy~ a 6-foot mar~onry wall '1fti~Ii ba
conatructed on che enst end north property Ilnes snparatinc~ lol Nas. 16 through 31 and
Nahl RHnGh Raod.
`~. That ~11 lots r+ithln this trect shall bc scrved by underground utllttlcs.
5. That a ftnal tract map of subJec:r. propcrty shall be submitted co ond approved by
the Ctty Counstl t-nd then be recorded ln thn Offlce ot the Oranya C~unty ReGOrcler.
6, That thd covenar~ts~ condttions, r~nd restrtctlons shall b~ submltted to and
approveci by the City Attorney's Office prtor to Clty Council approvnl of the ftnn) trrct
map and~ further, th~~t the approved c~venants~ condltlonso and restrictlons shall be
recorded concurrently with the fina) tract m~p.
7. That prlor to flllnq the final tract map~ thN applicant shall submit to the Ctty
AttcrnQy for ~+pprova) or denla) a complete synopsls af Chc proposcd functfoning of the
operating corporation Including, hut nat limited to~ the articles of tncorporatton~
bylaws~ proposed meth~ds of management~ bondOng to insure maintenance of common property
and butldings~ anci such other information as the Clty Attorney mAy destre to protect the
City~ its citlzens, and the purchasers of the project.
8. That street name~ shall be approved by the City Engtneer prior to approval of a
final tract ma~.
9. That the ewner of subJcsct propcrty shall pay to the City of Anahelm the
appraprtate park and recreatlon ir,-lteu fees as determined Lo be appropriate by the Clty
Counctl~ satd fees to be pald at the timc the buildirtg permlt Is issued.
1Q. Thnt dratna~e of subJect property shall bc dis~sed of in a manner ~~tisfactory
to the Ctty Enginecr. if~ in the preparatton of the site~ suff~clent grad(n~ Is requtred
to necessitate a grading permit, no work on grading will be permttted betwee~ Ocxober 15th
and April 1Sth unless all requtred off-~ite dratnage factlitles have been installed and
are operative, Posftive assurance sliall be p~~ovlded the Cfty thTt such dra(nage
facillties will be complete.d prlor to October 15th. Necessary rfght-of-way for oTf-site
drainage facllitles shalt bc dedicated tn the Ctty~ or the City Council a~:.!1 l~a~~e
initlAted condemnatlon proceeJings therefor (the costs of which s'~A11 :,e b-.rne by the
develURer) prior to the commencement of grading c+perations. The requ(re: drainage
factlfttes shall be of a size and type sufficlent to carry ru~off waters origtnating `rum
h(gher properrics througli subJact property to ultimate disposal as approvGd by the City
Engineer. Said dralnage faclltties shali be the first ftem of canstructlons and shall be
completec. ~n~i be funct(onal xhroughout the tract and t~am tF~e downstream boundary of the
pr~perty to the ultirr~te point of disposal priaP to the issuance ~f any final buildtng
inspecttons or occupancy perm(ts. Draina~e dtstrict reimbursement agreements may be m~de
available to the developer~ of subJect property ~ipon th~'r request.
11. That gradin~~ excavation, and all other construction zctdvities shall be
conducxed in suc:h a manner so as to mintmize the possfbility o+ any stlt origtnating from
this proJect beinc~ carrled into Lhe ~anta Ana Itl~rer by storm water originaeing from or
iicrivin~j t~~rc,~gh t ~ts proJect.
12. 7hat thc alignment and terr~inal point of storm drains shown on thts tentative
~ract map shall not be considered final, TheSe drains shall hP subJect to precise dest~n
consideratians and approva) of the City Engfneer.
13. If permanent stre~t name signs have not been lnstalled~ tempor~ry ~°treet name
signs shall bc installed pr!or to a~y occupancy.
ih. That "E" Street ~t thb intersect(~n of "A" Street shall be a standard 54-fc~ot
wida street.
15. Tiiat ~{) gradinc~ shall be ~n accordance with the requtrements of the (.ity af
Anaheim Htlls'de Gracling Ordinance~
1h, ih~t the roofs of all structures shall b~ canstructed of non-combustlble material
as approved by the City of Anahei~ Ffre Department.
17. That a flre break s' 1 b~ established around the perimeter of the tract as
approved by the City of Anah~~m Flre Departm•.,t,
1~. That a parcel map shall he npproved and recordecl prior to approval 01` thP final
tract map.
Connnissioner Nerbst offered g rnotton~ seconded by Commissloner Morley and MpTION CARRIED~
*.hat ti~e Anahaim Clty Planning Commission docs hereby ftnd that ehe proposed Tract No.
921~+ (Revision No. 1)~ together with its Isaign and Improvement~ ls conststant wi~h xhe
City's General Plan~ pursuant to Governman~ Gnde SRCtion 66473.,~; and thr Planning
Commiss(on dees~ therefnre~ approve :entative Map of Tract Nc. 9214 ;Revision No. 1) for a
46-Zot~ RS-5~~0(SC) subdivlsion, subject to tha fa!!r:~tng condltlans:
~ ~
MII~J7~ ^, CITY PLANNINf COMMISSION, Mrrch 2q~ 1975
7f~13~
EIR NO. 166~ RE:CLASSIFICATION N0. 75•76'12~ VARIANCF N0. 27?9. ~~NDITIONIIL USF PERMIT N0.
lfi0~ ANA TENTAI'IVE tU1P bF TRACT NOS. ~~~~ Q213~ yZ14 AND 921~ (RFVISfONS NA. 1 Cont.
~_
~ 1. That 'ths appruval of Tsntativo Map of Tract No. 921-+ (R~vision No. 1) Is yranted
~ub,Jeset to the ~pprovel of Recl a~s 1 f I cat ~on N~. 75~7~~• ~2 And Var I ance No. 2779 •
2. ThaL e++ch of the lots In the proposed trFCt snal l be In cor~•ormrnce wl th the
m{nlmum sltc requlrement~ af thc RS•540h T.one perCei~~iny to tr,Q ~~~mt~r ~` b~~~ ~m~
proposert c,n tha sites, ~n~~ plot p1~ns indicatin~ sa'd conforinity ~h~li be submitted for
ap~rovnl prtor to Ciry Counci I approvat ~~f the fin~~t tract map.
3. Thrt in accardance wlth City Council policy, a 6-foot m++sanry wa',1 shall be
co~s[ ructad on the eask prc~perty t lne se~arating Lot No~. 33 tl~~•~u9h 'i? and Nohl Ranch
Road.
4. Th~t all lotswithin this tract shall be xerved by under~rourid uCilitl~sroved by
5. That a fln~~l trar,t m~p ef ~ubJcct property shall be submlttecl ta end app
Lha G Ity Councfl ancf than bs rccorAad in the Office of the Orange Caunty Reco~der.
G, That the covonants~ conditlons~ t+ncl restrlction~ shal ~ hs submittecl t~~ a~~d
approved by thc City Attorney's Office prlor to Cfty Council approval of the final tract
map r~nd, further~ th~t the A~~ro~•.+d coven~^:s, condltlonso and r~:strictlons shall be
reco~ded c~~•~currently with th~ finnl tract map.
~, ThAt prlor to filing the final tract map~ the applicant shall submlt to the Ctty
Attor-ney for ~pprov~~l ~r dental a complete synnFsis of the proposnd functioning of the
operating corporatfon includtr.g~ but not llmlted to~ the articles of Incorporatlon~
bylaws, propos~d methods ~f m~nagemsnt~ bonding to insure maintenance of common property
3nd bulldings~ and such other inform~tlon as Lhe Clty Attorney may desire to protect the
C i ty , i ts cl t i ze~s, an~i the purcli~sers af tha proJ ect .
8, That street narties Rhzll be approved by the Clty Enalneer prlor t~ ~pproval of a
fina 1 tract map.
9, That the avner of subJect property shall pay to the ~it.y ~f Anaheim th~
appr~priate park and recreation in-lleu fees as dttermined to be approprlate ~'~ the Gity
Counci~ ~ said fees to be paid at the !Im~ the building permit is issue~l.
10. That c~.ralroge of subJect prape~ty shall be dispose~ of in a manner satisfacto~y
to the City Engincer, If, in the preparation oP the sitn~ suffictent grading is required
to necessitate .~ gradi~g permtt, no work ~n qrading wlll be permltted betwPF~ Qctober 15th
and April i;th unless all required oif-site dralnage facflltfes fiav~ been in stalled and
are operative. Posltive assurance shall be provided the City that such drainage
factlitles will be completed prior to Oct~be- 15th. Necessary right:-ef-o,ay for off-sitP
drainage facilities shall be dedicated to Cha Clty~ or the City Council sha) l have
ini ~Clated condemnation procee~ings therefor (the costs of which shall be bor~e by Che
dev~loper) prior to tha commencement of grading operatlo~s The c-equired dialnagg^^ Frnen
fac illt(es shall be uf a size and type sufficrent to c~rry runoff waters os. gi......,,,
higt~er prapcrties through subJect property to ultimate disposal as approved by the City
Eng ineer. Safd dralnage facil ities shall be the first item of conss:ructions and shal l be
cort-pleted and be functional throughout thc tract and from the downstreamfbna~dbutldinthe
property to the ultlmate permitsf dUraina, Pdistricttreimbursementf agreements may bo made
tnspections or occ~ipancy p 9"
avallable to the developers of subject property upon their request.
11. That grading, excavation, and al i other construet(on activities shall be
~onducted ln such a manner so as to mintmize the possibility of anyvs;lt originatiny from
this proJect being carried into the Sant~ Ana Rlver by storm watcr ginating from or
flowtng through this proJec*..
12. That the altgnment and terminal point of storm drains shown on this tentative
tract map shall not be considered final. These drains shall be subJect tn precise dssign
consi~ierations and approvsl of the City Engineer.
13. If permanont street name signs have net been installed~ temporary street name
~ci c~ns shall b~ installed prior to any occupancy.
14. That al) yradlne~ shall be don:: In accordance with the requl~ements af the City of
Anaheim Htllside Grading Ardinance.
15. That the roofs of all struct~; ~s shall be ~onstructed of non-co~nbustible materlal
as approved by tha City of Anaheim 'ri:e Oepartment. ~~ie perlmeter of the tract as
16. Tliat a flre break shal l ba es.abl ished araund
approved by the Clty of Anaheim Fire D~partment.
1%. i~ac a N~rc:-' ~;,ar ~hal; ~e ;~Nrroved and recarded prlor to approval of the final
t c~act map•
Commissioner Herbst offered a motton~ seconded by Con:~~~sstoner Morley and MOTION CARRIED~
tl~at the Anahetm Clty Plannin~ Comnission does hereby find th~t the proposed Tract No.
gZ~S (Ravtston ~lo, '), together with I:s design and improvementc i~n~°tiheSPlanningh `he
C itY's General Pla~~, ~~~arsuant to Government Code Sect ton 66 ~73. ~;
Gemmission_doe~~'SCMesubdivision~~subJectaCoVtheefollowingtconditlon~(Revision No. 1) for a
S~-1ot, RS 5~ ( ~
~ ~
MINU7fS, CITY P~A~I;~ING COMMIaSION~ Merch 29~ 197~
76-137
EIR N~ _ 166, RECLASSIFICATION tv0. 75-7~-~2- V~RIANf.E N0. 2779~ CONDITIONAL USC NERMIT PIO.
1) ~C~on t )
160r 2 AND TENTAT 1 VE MAP OF TR 4CT NOS. 92 ~ z~`1z ~ 2 ~ N ANp -A215 REV t S I ONS N0. ~
1. ThAt the npprovr-i of Tentativo Map of 7ract No. 9215 (Revt~lon No. 1) is yranCed
subJec t co the approvel of Reclrssific~tion No. 75-16-22 and ~'ariancc No. 2179.
2. Tl~at each of the lats in th~ pr~~posnJ t~act shall bc In conformance with thc
minimun slte requlramunts of the RS^S~00 Zono pertalning to the number of bcdrooms
proposed on the sitoy, a~~i P1~t P1ans IndicAtlnc~ sAld conformity sl~all be submft:ed for
appruval prlor to Clty Councll apa~~val of tl~e ftn~l tract map.
3. 1'hat tn occord~+nce with Clty Council pollcy~ a 6-foot nwsonry wal l shall be
const~ucted on tl~e oaet propGr ty 1 ine separating Lot No. 1 and Nohl Rrnch Road.
4_ That ~~11 lota within tl~is trace shall bc ~e~ved by underground utllltfes~oved by
5_ That a finel tract map of subJect property shall be submitreci to and app
the C i ty Counci 1 nnd then be recordcd tn the Ofr"lce of the Orange County Recorder.
K,. Thr~t the covonantx, conditlons, ~nr1 r~5trictions sha~l be ~ubmitted to nnd
approveJ by the C 1 ty Attorney' s 0 f f i ce pr 1 or to C 1 ty Counc i 1 ~pprova 1 of the f 1 na 1 tract
,nap a~d~ further~ th~t ~he approv~d covenants~ conditions~ and reatrl.:tlo~~ shall he
recorded concurrencly wi th the final rract map.
Atto~ney fortr+pproval~~ridenl~lha complete~synopsistaf thelproposnd~funst~loning ofhehC~ity
operating co~par~tlon Including~ but not limited to~ tf~ articlts of incorporatfon~
bylaws, pr~posed methocls af management~ bonding to Insure maintennn~r of comnon pr~~pcrty~
and b~~l lclfngs . and euch othar lnformation as the C) ty Attorney mt~y des t r~ to prot~:ct thc
Ci ty, Its ci ti zens, ancl the purchasers of the proJec r•
~. That street nAmes qhall be approved by the Gity E~gineer prlor to app~oval of a
fina 1 tract map.
g, 1'~iat the owner of subJect property shpll pay to the City of Anaheim the
appr=~rl~~te park and recrcation in-l ieu feea as de:ter~nined to be appropr t ate by the Clty
Cauneil~ saTd '^.es to be pald at the time the butlding permit ls lssued.
10, That oralnnge of subJsct property shalt be disposed nf in a manner settsfactory
to tt-~e Clty Englneer~ If, Ir~ the preparation af the site, sufflcicnt grading ls requlred
to n~cassltate a grad!ng permit, no work o~ gradi~g ~alll be permitted betwcen October 1Sth
and Apri) 15th unles~~ a11 requlred off-site drainage factlities have b~e~ instAlled and
are eperattve. Po5l:lve assurance shall be provided the City that such ~ralnage
fact llties wi { 1 be completed prior to October 15th. Nec-ssary right-of-~vrey for off-site
drai nege foci 1 ities .=hall be dedtcated to the Clty~ or th~: Cit.y Councl l shall Iiave
init inted condemnatlan proceedtngs therefor (the costs of which shall be borne by the
developor) prior to th° cornm~ncement of gra~ing operations. 'ine required drainage
faci 1(tles shall be of a size an~i t:y~pe sufficient to carry runoff waters originattng from
higher properties through subJect property to ultimatp disposal as aFprovcci by thc City
Eng i naer~ Sa i d dralnage faci 1 i tles shal l b~ the f t rst i tem of construcr ions and shal l be
campieted and be functtonal throughout the tract and fr~m the downstr~ -~ boundary of the
property to the ultimate p~tnt of disposal prlor to the issuance of flnal building
inspectlons a.r occupancy permits. Drainage district reimbursement ay~ eements may be made
available to the deveiopers of subJect pr~operty upon their request.
11. That grading, excavation, and all other construction acr.Ivittes shall be
conducted in such ~ manner so as to minlmize the posslbi 1 tty of any s! 1 t origlnating from
this proJect being carrled into the 5anta Ana River by storm water originating frnm or
flawing th~ouch this proJect.
11.. Th~~t the alignment and terminal point of storm drains shown on this tentatlve
tract map shall nul be considered final. These drains sh~ll be sutject to precise design
co~ s fderat i ons and approval of the C( Cy Eng 1 nee r,
~3, f f permanent str~et name sign~ have not been instal led, tempo~ary street name
sic~~s sha11 be Installed prtor to any cccupancy.
1~+, Tha*_ al l grading shal t be done 1n accordance wi th the requi rements nf the C) ~y of
Anaheim Ni 1 1 side Gr~din9 Cr~inance.
15, That the roofs ar aii structures shall be ~onstructed of nar~-eombustible material
as approved by the f,( ty of Anaheim Fi re Department.
16, That a flre break shal l be establ ished around the perimeter of the tract as
approved by the CI ty of Anahei m Fi re Dapartrt-ent.
17, That a parcel map shall be app-'~ved and recorded prior to approval of thp final
tract map.
~ ~
MINUirS~ CIlY P LANNI~SG ~~MMISSION~ Mr~rch 2~~ 1976
7~`13R
C~~l~ITI~~~~L USE - CQNTINUFn PURLIC HEARINf. PRQVIDENT MUTIiAL LiFE IPISURAN(:E COMPANY~
PF.RMIT Nf1. 1 F~~i c/o Ph I I 1 I ps Pet ~ol eum Compar,y ~ 1~5 sovet Road ~ Siat tc ~~Gn ~ San Mntoo.
~ Ga, 9~+~~~2 ~~wner)i F~ODMIIKER~ INf..~ A833 Frult~and Avenue~ Vernon~
Ca. 9~~5~ ~A9~~t~ ~~'~9uast(n~ perm~sslon to cSTABI.ISl1 A QRIVf-
T11RQUf~II R~STAt1RA-!"f WITII WAIVf.R OF (11) MI~~IHUM NUMBER QF PIIRKING SPACES AND (8) MAXlMUM
ACCFSS ORIVE WIDTN on py perty Aescribed as a r~ctangularly-shaped porcel oA land con^
slsttn~ of approxtmatel .~ acrc loceted ot the southeast r,orner of Center Stirent and
St.aLe Coller~e t3oulcvArci~ hnvl~~ apProxtmatr fro~tagas ofi 140 feet on the south side of
Ce~ter Stre~t ancl 13~1 feet on thc east side O~ S~AtC Coll~ge Boulev~rd~ a~tl further
~+~s~.ribed as 2~Q~ fest Center Street. Properxy Presently cla~ssifle~l CL (COMMERCIAL~
IINITEp) ?.OtlE.
Thc gubJect pctitlon was continuod from the Planni~g Commtsslon mdeting of Mareh 15, 1976~
for revised plans.
No one incllcate~l th~lr pr~sence ln oppositl~n to subJect petitlon.
Although th~ Staff Raport to the Planning Commtssion dated March 29~ 197~, W~g not rcad a~.
lhe publ fc hearing, srlcl ~LafP Report is referred to and made a part nf the ~ntnutns.
Mr. John McLachlan~ represanttn~~ the agr.nt for the petitioner~ appe:~red before the
Planning Corxnisst~n nnd st~te~i th~it in response to the Planning Commissi~n discusston field
on Narch 1~. 1976~ revise~i plans had been submltted t~~dicating a reduccion in thn s(ze of
the proposed bulldin~ fron- 2n36 squar~ feat to approximately 177~ sc~uare fcet, thereby
reducing the seating capacll•y Inside Che bui lding andf"rtherr~ore ttheplanJgcaped2areascand
or approxtmatcly 31$ of th~ roqulrcd 36 space.,, and, ~
traffic circulatlon were increasecl across the front of the proposed buildinc~.
TItE PUBLIC NE~kINR W/1S CLOSEp.
Comm!s5loner Herbst reviewed the trafflc clrculstion patitern of a slmilar restaurt-~t in
the C i ty of 121 vers t de where he founci i t di ff i cul t to exl t frum the property dut ta the
locatione~fhadechanc~edethe~ctrculatlo~,pattern Fornthe.dpropased restaurant~ ttiat ths
petition
Commissloner hbrley offer~<1 a motton~ seconded by Commiss~~ner Tolar and MOTIOt! CARRIFp~
that t:~a Anaheim Gity Flanning CommissiAn daes hereby recommtn~' _o the City Councll oP the
City of Anaheim that the subJecc proJect he axempt from the requirement to prepare an
environ~~Pntal impar.t r~port. pursuant to the provisions of the Californt3 EnYironment~sl
Quality ,1ct.
~ ond moved for lts pass~ge and adopcl,m~
Commissin~er Mortcy offered Resoluiton No. PC76-~5
that the Anafieim City Planning Commission cioes hereby grant F'etition for Condltional Us,~
Permit No. 16Q~~, granting tl~e requested waiver af the minimum number of parking space~ on
the basis that sir~ilar walvers have been granted previously in conJunction with ~rlve^
thruugh restaurants havi~~ sit-down Facillttes and~ furtherrrore~rantinr~thee~:q~~ktF~
spaces are ~etorm(ne~i to b~ adequnte for the subJect proposal; g 9
' the Planntng Canml~sion, 1n
walver of the maxlmum access drive width on the basis tho;
concert with the City Traffic En~inee~, determined that the proposecl 35-f~t w!de dsubject
wi 11 be appropriate since i~ wi 11 provl~le a SafFr means of a:cess to the prop~rty;
to :h~ Intzrdepartrr~ntal CQnxnittoe rec~~mmen~,~~vn~. (See aes'~luti~m Book)
On ro11 cal l~ the faragoln~~ resolut'un was ~~asse~+ hy the fol lowing voCe;
AYES: CANMICSIOtlERS: BARPIE.S~ 4iERBS~. JOHNSO~i, !'~.l~~G, MOkLEY, TOLAR. FAMNO
NOES : CO!Ni~' I S5) QNCRS : NQ~I~
RSSENT: COMMISSIt1NERS: ~»~~~
Garden Grove~
RECLA~SIFiCATION - PU~LIC HEARIN~. LOVfELL W. HI~UCK, 9252 ~mperial Av~nue~
N0. 75-%6-24 ~e• 926u~~ ~Owner). Property described as a rectangularly-shapeci
parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.2 acre located at the
VARIA~ICE N0. 2791 northeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Nlobe Avenue~ havirg
approxtmate frontages of 106 feet on the eASt side of B~ookhursC
Street and 75 feet on th~esentl gclassifNedbRSA7200 (RESIDENTIAL~
descrlbed as 2i83 Nlob~ Avanue. Property p Y
S INrLE-F.1M I LY) ZO~IE.
ti
REQUESTED CLASS I F 1 CAT I Otl : CL ( COMMERf.I AL . L I MI TED) 'LONI~.
~ ~ .
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 29~ 1975 ~~~13~
RCCL~SSIFICATION Nt?, 7~-76~2~~ AND VARInNCE N0. 27~ (f.ontinued)
~-------
aF.Q~!ESTED UARIANCF : WAIV~R 1)F (A; NINI NUN SIDF.YIIRD SETPACK~ (B) MINIMUM BUILf11~IG
SETBIICK~ (C) REQUI RCD TREE SCRECtJ AND (D) REQUIRF.D MASONRY WALL~
T4 ~STI1t+LI5l~ A C~MMEaC1AL OFFtCE.
Flva persons InrlieaCecf their presnnce in opposition to subJect petitlon.
1lssistant P1annPr Joel Flck rend the Stt~ff Report ta L.I~e Planning Ccxnmission dated March
2~~ ~9~6~ e~cf aat ~i ;tnfF Repor; la refcrred to ancl made a part of the min~~tes.
Mr. lowol) Ilauck.~ the petittaner, appearacl heFor~+ the Planntng Commisslon and st+~ted he
had purchased the guhJect praperty wl th the plan in mtnd ta follow tha master plan of tha
City of Annhaim a~d rpz~ninq lt to cortmc~rclA1 for use as an insurance offiGe whfch dld not
req-i i re n lot of .•,al k- I n typa bus i nos~ ; that the ~.roperty was I dea 11 y nu I ted for th I s type
o° b~slnoss ancl the size of t~~e ,iouse was Exactly what they nc~eded; C~~at they had trled to
purchASe the prop~rty ns A resl~ience but no lender would loam m~ney on it as +a r~slde~ce
end~ consequently. thay had purcha~ed it as cammerciel property regulring a os~(tlonnto
pnyme~nt; and th~t under thoso circumstances they had not anticipated any opp
chnnqing tho zon i ng to comn~rciAl. M~ . Heuck concluded by stating that rhe 5taff Report
claArly inclicnted the intentions of tl~e petitioner.
Mr. Lee GlAnz~ 21 17 Niobe Avonuc~ appeared befor~ the Planning Commission and stated that
about two yenrs ago two other properties on Nlobe Avnnua were zoned to ~..o.^imerclal by the
Clty Cauncil, al th~ugh the Planning Commtssion cflsapproved the appl ication. Mr. Glanz
further staCed that the subJect petitiane~r was presently operating the insurance business
on thc sub.-ect property and he Inquired if the appllcation was a"cut ~+nd dried~'
si tuatian; tl,at he did not min~1 the prcvious two lots bcing ma<fe into a parktng ~nd'nl ht;
however, he ohjeeted to having beer cr~na an d bo t t l e s t h r o w n o n h i s p r o p e r t y d a y 9
th~~t he h~d beE-n ad~~tsed that his propPrty deprcciated $3~~~Q ~urtng the first year that
thP p~rktng lot ~as constructed; that Nlobe Avenue was a very dirty street wtth trash all
over from the Taco Bel 1 reskaurant i n the area ~ etc. ; that Ntobe A~enue was usecl as a
parkfnc~ lot, itself; that he was interested to know how many amployees the petlt(oner
;•~ould hAVe sinc~ there were ~pproxlmately e~tteWagh~~~,ssmallato provitleeparkingespacesion-
and th~at~ in hi~ opinion, tlie subJect prop Y
stte.
Mr. Boh Almond. 2177 Niobe Aven~ie~ appeared before the Planning Commission and ~tated that
eppraxlmately one-half block n~rth of the suhJect property was a shoppinc,~ center and
office cc~mplex with appr~ximat~ly 12 vacant offices and he did not understand why the
pQt i tii~x~er needed the sub; ~~r. house ~~r cortunercial usc:; that he l ived nex.t door ko L.he
subiP~~' f•~•operty a,,~1 could lmmedlately see that the parki~g prohlems in the area would
bc :onsiderably greater; that several palm treeg had ~1 ready been removed fran the
pro~ert y in preparation for a dr(veway~ prlor ta the rezoning appilcaCton being
dp ~~ ~ the property, end people had been coming and go~ng on the pr~Gcrty prepariny
~x t new use; that when he purehased his own property he,had thought the nr•ea was
g,~ing to bP res idential anci, although he was not sa interestecl in property valuatlon, ppr
se. I~e was Interested in the inherent problems flf having a business next door from the
standpoint of souncl, etc.; and that the removal of the palm trees and shrubb~ry
constituted the rertx~va) of a souncl barrier from Broakhurst Street.
In rebuttal ~ Mr. Nauck stated It was truc that in ine past few days there had been a few
cars ~n the street but uncll they could get behtnd the build(ng~ the c.ars would have to
remain on the strc•et; that being in ~he tnsurance business they could operate in a housa
provldnd they d!d not put up any sic~ns or advertise; and that their intent was to operate
as an fnsurane~ office with ;arking behind the building and, therefore, some trees and
shrubs had to ~e removed for proper access to the property.
Y-{~ pIIBI.IC HEARING WAS CL~SED.
~hatrman Farano notecl that he could understand the apprehansions oP the neighbors; that
the petitl~n~r Jid not have the propor authority to operate at the subJect locatlon and
vaas ct~u ,g tF~e p~~blems menttoned by the opponents; and that depending on the outcome of
the subJect publ ic heartng, he woul d advise the pet(tloner to cease and desist to operete
on the property,
In reeponse to ques:iontng by Commi ssloner Tolar~ Mr. Nauck stated he had recelved
parmfsslon to operate from the State pepartmc:nt of Insurance; and that he planned to use a
20-foot wide drlvewa~ ~!1 the wav ~round the building for access. Commtssioner Tolar then
frontedhon NiobeuAvenuerandaslnrh~ opinlon~wasinet~suBxableufar~ctcxrxnertialcuserorefnr
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLA,NNING COMMISSION~ Mer~h 29~ 1976
RFCLASSiFICATION N0. 7~`7~"?~+ ANp VARIANCE N0, 7791 (Cont~nund)
76-140
accosa ta Brookhurst Street. Mr. Nauck thon etAt~d thet tho opentng or driveway axisted
on Brc~okhurst at tha tlme he purchiascJ khe property.
In respcrose to qu~stianin~ by the P1Anninq Commis5lon~ M~. Glanz stated he lived to tl~e
eeat of thH sub.~act pro~crty; th~~C the parkinc~ lo~ n~xt te his prcparty ~raa light~d nc
nlght but pnople stopped th~re t~ drink and then ieave yuickly. Commisslon~er Barnes
suggestecf thot Mr. Glanz check with the c~w~ors of tl~e medical cGnter p~rking lot to see lf
it could be closed off et ntght.
In resp~-!se to qu~stloning by Commissloncr Kine~~ Mr, Ifauck state~l hes had ~Ive omploynes at
the site.
Cemmisslonnr Nerbst noked regarcllnc~ the cenvarslon of resldentlal p~operty for commerGlal
use that~ In hts opinion~ screer.lnel was requlred along wtth a buffer area adJacant to
stn~ln-famlly resldentlal properttes; t.hat problems ware created throughout the City bY
trying to convn~t houses for commorcial uses, setting prec.edents and creating spot zoning
or a lc+w-class commcrcial areA; that xhe proposal totally broke down the protcctton fo~
the adJaa:~nt sl~c~fe-Famlly nroperties; and that tha Netltioner hgd moved ahead in
purchas(n~ the property without the proper c;~nrc~nce from the City.
In response~ Mr. Flauck stated he had chocked with the City and was advlsed durin~ the
~scrow thAt the subJdct property was not r.ared for comnerctal use~ atthough hs had been
advtsed previously that the property was zon~d cortxncrciat. Chairman Fa~ano noted thst to
hts knov~ledge the petitiuner a~as activc in real estate d~alings and shoul~ have been awars
of the praper procGd~re in zoning mattGrs, wher.`~er or not he in fact was given errone~us
information by the C6ty.
Commissi~ner Juhnsor~ nat~d that hP d~d not feel It was fair to require the subJec*.
proparty to buffer oth~r propertles from the noise alang Brookhurst Stroet; anw.
therefore~ he would be in favor of approving the r~eclasstf(cation of zoning on the
pr~perty but dlsapprovtng th~ requested v~ir(ance.
Comnissioner 1'ular noted that although the subJect property may be serving as a buffer far
other residential properttes, the Planntng Commissi~n wo:ild be "be~ting around the bush"
to approve the reclassif(catlor± with no waivers since without the waivers the use would be
invalid; and that~ therefc~re~ he felt the reclasslficatlon and the variance should both be
disapproved forrhrigl~t, althou9h he would be willing to look at a new proposa) I~ the
future.
Cortxnissloner Morley noted that he concurred with Commissioner Johnson that the ~roperty
should be rezoned to commercial with no walvers so that the petttioner would have the
opportunity to modify tnz proposal,
Commtsstoner Herbst sta~t~' he was in favor af reznning provided it did not dawngrade the
res 1 den t i a 1 ne i c~hborh~,:, .
It was noted thaX the Director of the Planning Departi+ient had determined that the proposed
activity fell withln the definition of Secti~n 3•~~~ Class 1~ of the City of Anaheim
Guidellnes to the Requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and was~ therefore~
categorically exempt from the requlrement to file ~+n EIR,
Commiss!oner Tolar offer~:d Resolu*..ion No. PC76-5G ~nd mnved for its passage and adoptidn~
thflt thn Anaheim ~';t~ p~anninn Ca~nnission do~s hereby recommend to the City Council of the
City of Anaheim r.~ ~tttion for Reclasstfication No. 75-7G-24 be disapproved on the
Dasts that the s~ •;.~roperty is determined to be i~approprlate for the proposed
co~merclRl usE due :~ the de~~elopment proposal requesting substantial waivers fram the
slte development s*.andards of the cartemerclal zone and also tiie inability l•o provide an
adequate buffer adJaceni io t~e r,aighboring rn^~dentia: pr~perties. (See Resnlu~ion Book)
On rol) call, the foregoing resolutten was passed by the following w~te:
HYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNFS, HERBS7. KING. TQLAR. FARANO
NOES; CQMMI5S10lfE~tS: J~HNSON~ MORLEY
ABSEt~l': COMMISSIONF.RS: NOPIE
Commissluner Tolar offered Rasolutlon No. PC76•57 and moved for its pa:,s~ge and ado~tton,
that the Anaheim City Planning Commis~ion does herehy deny Petition fo~ Va~iance Na. 2791
on tl~e basis that the Pianning Commission la racomnending disapprova~ of th~ requested
cornMerclal xoning. (See Resolution Book)
~ ~
M!IIU7C.S~ CITY PLA~lNING CUMMISSIO~~, Marcl~ ?.~~ 1~76 7~i°l~i)
REC~~SSlFICATION N~. 75_____,7~?~'ZG ANU VARIANCE NQ, 27A1 (Continued)
On roll call~ the fc+rc~c~in~ res~lutlon was p~ssed hy the followin~ vc~.c:
~YES; C~M~IISSI~M(:RS: 13ARI~ES~ FIF:RRST~ J~IINS(1~I~ KINR, 1'OI.I1R~ FI1RAl10
Nn[5: C11M~11SSI~IICR°,: MnttLF.Y
ARSF~~IT: C~MMiSsInNfRS: N~NF
Chnirman F~r~n~ (nqulreci whether the use, he!n~ 111ega1 ~~t the present tfine, should cPase
Immcdlately as ~ result of the forec~oing der~lals; where~ipur~~ Deputy C(ty Attnrney Frank
L~wry advisecl Xh~t the Clty Council ind Planning Commissi~n policy had hr.cn that whlle A
zoninq enforcement m~tter was pEnrlinct, nu actlon would he t~~ken to slop nn operation such
as the business proposecl,
Mr. Jay Taormina nf ~,anta /1na appe<~r~d bsfore the Plannlna Commisslon an<I stated he did
not think that ~nyone prr.sent aC the mer_tinq~ Includ(nq the dissenters~ wuulcl want to llve
wlthtn six feet of t.he sub.ject propercy; that nc~ or~e covlc~ llve thert; th~~t e11 of the
parlcln~ for the proposec{ use woulcl be off the streets and controlled; ancl that he hoped
they w~uld be ~hlr_ to ha~e the proposed ~usiness at the s~ibJect locatlon.
RFCLASS~~ICIITI~M ° PUIILIC HEARI~If,. CRU7. V/1RGl15, 1f339 Sout:h Mountain Vlew Avenue,
M~. 75-7~~-27 Anahelr~, Ca. 9?.II~2 (~wner). Property dr_ycrlhed as a rectangularly-
shape~l parce.l of land consist(nc~ of ap~~rox(n~ately 1.3 acre havinq a
?r~~iATIVF Ml1P OF fronr,~e of approxim~itely 21~ feet on both sldes of 4laverly Drlve,
TRIICT N~. 9?£37 ancl bein~ locate<I ap~roximitely 31-~ ¢P~r anuth of the centerllne of
Wakefield ~venue. Property presently classifie~l RS-A-~i3~~~~
( RGS I DFrIT I11L/Ar,R I CULTURAL) 20NE.
RF.r.LASS I t' I C1171 nN RE2UEST: RS-5~0~ ( RES i DENT I AL ~ S I Nr,LE- FA~41 LY) 7.O~~E.
TE:IITATIVF. TRACT RF.QUEST; FNGINEER: J~I!-~ E. S7CVENSQ!I~ 3» Lacch4,~d Lane. La Habr~,
Ca. ~Q(~31. Suh_ject pr~prrty ls proposed for subdiviston
into F~ RS-;~0~ lots.
Approximately 2~ persons in~ilcated their presence in opposition Co subjec.t .:titlon, and~
upon questionin~ by Chalrman Farano, salci persons waived the full r•eaclirig of the Staff
kep~rt t~ the Planninn ^ommission d~'~ted March ?.9, 1~17F,~ on the basis that the.y had
reviewed said 5taff Repo~.:.
Alth~uqh ','~e Staff Report to the Planning Commisslo~ was •iot read at the public hearing,
saici Staff Rep~rt is referred to and rn~~de a part of the r~lnutes,
M~•. Jerry 4crsch, 223C Orange Avenue~ the cienera) contractor fur the petitioner~ appeared
before the Plannin~ Commission and stated he was taken aback !+;~ :he opposition.
Thereupon~ Chalrman Farano suq~ested that tne petitioner take some time to meet with the
adJacent property owners. Mr. Ilers~h re~~l ie<1 that time was of the essence; that they
wou1.1 s~end approximatEly $12~,~~1~ for curb~ ~ gutters, storm drain fees, etc. , and
presently Waverly Drive abuttecl the sub~ect property on both the north and south sides and
they were praposin~ to put the street through; and tl~at the subject development would be
str~ilar to those tracts to the north and south of the ~roperty, which were RS-5~0~.
Chairman Fara~~o note<1 that the developments Co the north and south, w~iile not zoned RS-
~0~~, WP.rO probabiy constructed with some waivers from the RS~77.0~ Zone.
Mr. Ilersch continued by stating that they were proposi~c~ heautiful two-story~ three-
bedroom homes which would be ~ b~~ asset to tl~e nei<~F~borhood; that the development would
be constructed !n a very fine manner anci the homes woul.. sell in the S6o,non to $70,000
ranqe which would fit r.he neighharhood,
Mr. Tom Wollam~ 2~15 Waver.y Drive, appeared before tha Plannin9 Commission in oppositlon
anci sCate~l he represented approxim~tely 6f~ homeowners in Che ad}acent RS-72~0 tratts to
the north and south who ~11d nat believe the subJect property shauld be considered ror
reclassification below ttie RS-72~0 Zone; that the ~raposed Lot Plos. 1 a~d f3 were
un~f~rnea;h pclwer ltnes and there a~as some question whether the petitioner ha~f taken into
consideration the easements fior said pawer 11nes; that the ad,}acent property owners felt
that if Waverly Dr1ve was m~,c1e into a throuqh street~ it would become a busy bypass street
to avoid the signal at Ninth Street and Orangewood to get to Katella Avenue and he was
recor~anendinc~ that Waverly Drlve he cul-de-saceJ; anci tliat the plan:. citcl not shnw any of
the lot sizes to the north ancl soutli of the subject property~ which were considerably
larger than 72Q~ squ~re feet. Thereupon, Mr, Wollam presented a petiCion in opposition
~,ic~ned hy approximatelY G'1 hoM~~wners in the area.
.,.......~,-~..
~ ~
M~IJUTCS, f.ITY PI.ANMING COMMIS510t~~ March 29, 1~)76 ~6"~~~'
RECLIISSIFICATI(1N N0. 75-7G-z~ nND T[N'TATI'.' MAP OF TRACT Nb, ~?.87 (Contliiu~~d)
Mr. Jlm lantorn~>~ ?.n1~~ Wav,:rly Orlvc, appeared bef~re lhe Plennfnc~ Comm(ssion and stated
he wns ~pposacl to the s ubJ ec:t pe t i t I on,
Mrs. 1111~ert Lamkins, 2~~~ Waverly Drlve~ appcarecl before the+ Plannin~ Lortmisslon in
~ppoeltlon ~tin<.1 st.ited the homei in her tract north of thc subJect praperty were v~ilued at
between S5~~~~~ ~n~~ SI~~~~~ and hncl no less than four bedrooms; chat the homos In thc
trect to thc. s~uth of sub]ect prope~ty h~~l four bedrooms; and that she wculd questton
g~ttln~ S7o~non For lhe propos~d hom~:s on the iot s(zes prop~ee~1.
Mr. Dan Jakle~ 15?.y Tonfa C.~urt, appe~~red bef~re thc Planntng Commfssion In oppositlon and
inq~ilred wh,~k use wo~ld be ma~~: of the abanJone~1 street and whae was the Intended square
fooca~e o` the prQpased hc-mes.
Mr. Slclney Ftatch, I;1~ Tonia Court~ appeared hefore the Planning Commission In opposition
ancl xtated hls h~ru~ ha~~ been appralsed at $f~1,OQ0 and he would, therPfar~~ dlsilke Fiavtng
s~maller homes huilt practical~y acr,~ss tlie street From hfm; that he was also afraid the
nei~hborhao~' would become a~ilci wi!h rrx~torcycleF~ automoblles anci strlpped-down cars if
W~verly were a thraugh street; that ha pur,;has~d his property approximately se~~en years
ac~o ~nd he partlcularly enJoyed the fol' ge of the approximately 200 tr~~s on the Vargas
propsrty which he cauld v(c~w from his froi~t window; and that about half of the trees would
be taken out for ~!~.~ propo~ed development~ lcavinc~ him wlth a vicw of woaden homes in
placo ~f Cf e '.rees.
In rr.buttfll~ Mr. Nersch stated the proposal would upgrade the arcr .~~d thcy would work
around the trees as much as possiblc; that Mr. Varg~s' hom~ abutted the subject property
.~°~i Chey wcuid not do anything to de9r Ie his propcrty; ~nd that bef!~;:. the~ broke ground
tor the develvprn~n! they w~~uld have approximately 5120~Q00 investea in +:he property f~r
Che IrnproveMCnts previously mentione~~.
TIIE PUpLIC N(:/~Ri"!~ WAS CLOSED.
In r~sponse te~ questic~ning by f,hairman Farano~ Office Eng~neer Joy Titus conflrmed rhat
the City of Anahe~~~ »as Jesiro~,~ of having Waverly Qrive become a through street c~ver the
subject properry.
Commissianer Tolar noted that it appeared th~t a reviston to six houses on the property~
rather than elght~ would exceed the RS-72~~ requirements a~d would alleviate the obJection
nf the adJacent property owners.
'The Planntng Conenissio~ en*.ere~ into o!s:ussion regarding the power lines in queatlono
dur!ng which Mr. Jim lantorno stated he ha~ been an electrician and he estimated that the
;~ower lines were transrnitting I~0,0~0 valta of electrlcity over the subJect propertv; that
on July 4. 1975. sald power lines had :.aught a structure underneath them on fJre and said
strucCure burneci cia,rn, Mr, lantorno stated that the variance from the RS-72~0 Zone
applied onty to the tract to thP north ~f sub}ect property; and that the petitioner could
not get eiraht homes nn the subject pr~perty without a variance.
Cha~rman F'arano note~i that the issue pertalning to the power 1(nes was crit(cal~ in his
opinion~ ard that a recess would be in order to review maps which would reveai the
location and acei~ity o~ satd liri4s.
R~CES5 - At 3:~5 p,n~,, Chairm~n Farand declared a recess.
._..._.._
RFCGNVEDIE - At 4:05 p.m.~ Chatr•man Farano reconvened the mesting with all
"-'~"~`-~~ Curtxnisstoncrs being present.
Follov:ing the revlew of maps~ Chairman Farano noted that the power line easement
~pparent~y exttnded about b fee•,: over the subject prop~rty ltne and, since the petitioner
dtd not know how ~ha e~~ement would ~ffect thc proposal, it appeared that some revis(ons
to the plans mighc ba necessary and the Plenring Commission wanted to know more about the
F~roposed haus es , e tc .
Mr, ~lersch stated tne subJect property was not tn~olved fn the Southern California Edison
Company ~asement b~ing discusseci since the power lines in question were locate~l to the
snuth of the prnperty. Mr, Titus ~c1~~iseci that the distrtct map shc~wed a 6-foot eas~ement
o~~ the southerly portto~ of the subJect prcperty and he would rec~mmend that some time be
given to fnvestigate the matter.
'fhereupon, Nr. Hersch respectfully requested a two-week continuence to the Plar.ntng
C~rm~isslhn ~7ecting of April 12~ 1976~ t~ resolve the questlons pertalntng to the power
~ ~
MIr~U'~ES~ CIT1' PLANNING COMMISSION, March 29. 1976
RE~LIISSIFICATION NO 75 6 27 ANd TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0, 92a7 (Contlnucd)
76-143
linex and nny ensrments ovcr the subJect praperty. In responsc to yur.stloning by Chalrman
Farano~ Mr•. fir.rsch stnteci he would work wltli the Plarning Department Staff and wc~uld
prasent plot ~~lons, etc, ,~rrtainlnc~ to th~ house~ :+t tl-c n~e^tinc~ of Apri 1 12 for the
Plsnnin~ Cummi~sl~n's consirl~rAtinn,
Commisslontr Nerbst ~~ted thAt ha h.id n~ qualms abaut rezonin~ tha subJect property to RS-
5~~~ on the basis that fc~r everY bedroom over three, the devclaper would h~ve to ad~ A5~
square feet of lot .'~reN~ Cherr.by controllfng Che size of thc lats t~ a 9rent d~gree; and~
therafore~ if flve-bedrex~m h~mes were proposed, tlie lots would he r~quir~d to be a minimum
of 67Q~ sqiiare fr.et.
Commissioner Merley offerecl ~ motlon. seconded by Cammissloner Johnson and M~TI~~N CARRIED,
that the 1lnahelm Cfty Plannlnn Commiss(~n docss hereby continue cunslcleratlon of Petition
for R~classiflcAtinn No, 75-7~-21 and Tentative Map of Yract No, 92~17 to the Planning
Commisslon mectin~~~~,fnllper,~~~unlessGrequesteletoedobsotforpthetpresentationh~of new ~'uhlic
hearing wi 11 nc~L b P
cvidence.
VARIANCE N0. 27(~~i - I'UffLIC NEARIIJG. CATfIERINE A. WfiITE~ lQ2 West Lo Palma Avenue.
- Anaheim~ Ca. 92~01 (Owner); requestin~ WAIVF.R OF (A) MItJIMI1M
!UMRER OF PARKlN(~ SPACES, (B) PERMITTEb USES~ (C) MI~JIMlll1 DUILDI~dG
FACILITY on
SGTBACIC APlD (D) MAXIr1UM WALL HEI(;IIT, TO EXPAND API EXISTINI; I•1AtJUFACTURIN~
property ciescribed as a rect.ingularly-shaped p.~rcel of land consisting of approximately
0.1 acre I~av(ng a frontage of approximately 5~ feet on the east sid~ of 2syn Street~
hAVing a maxlmum clepth of approxlmately 11a feet, beln~ located appraximately 150 feet
Str~et~f PropertyepresentlyLclassifiedeRP1P2400d(RESIDEIITIAL~rM~LTIPLE~FAMILY)hZQtIE~.
Two persons indicated their presence in opposition to subJect petitlon and~ upon
que~he~P~annin9CCommissionrdatedSMarche29~n197h~VOn the basisrthatntheY had reviewedpsaid
to
Staff Repert~
Although th~e Sta~ff Rtport C~ the Pianning Commission was not read at the public hearing~
sald Staff R~port is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mrs. Catherlne A. White~ the petit'ioner, appeared before the Plannlny Commission and
stated she was proposin~ to enlarge her mattress factory at the suhJect location; that she
planned to der~olish an inexpensive rental house on the property Tacing teyn Street to
prdvthatmslie hadrbui:~~the original mattressnfacility~ whichiwascanmimprovementatohtherea;
an
a,ca ~i Ct18L cime.
Mr. Ted Todoroff~ 925 Nc,rth Andheim Boulevard~ appeared before the Planring Commission (n
oppositl~n and stated altt~ough he favored tearing down the old rental house~ he w~~
complalning about r.he parking for the subJect facillty which was already a big problem;
that he owned an automobile repair shop on the corner af L~ Palma Avenue. and Anaheim
Boulevard; that the petftinner was t'equest'~c~ a Weiver oF the parking requirements, and
her door presenCly opened right onto the alley wieh trucks parking there for a half hour
aY a time and he had called the Police Uepartment on many accasions concerning the matter;
that the alley was to be 20 feet wicfe and the plans indihet~d~°not feelesheahad thehou9'it
he was sure that the pet(tione.r s intentions were good~
but the
to reduce the width of the alley; tiiat alleys were for loading and unload(ng.
petitioner was presently usinct it for ~~5 minutes at a time, which could be verified with
the Police Department; that if the ~arking space requlrements were wa1~h~~~Calthough he
petitioner's customers would be using his property aqain for parking;
had not been in business as long as the petitioner, he dId not feel she should have
squ~tter's rlghts since he also pald taxes and dld not feel he could use the alley for his
busincss.
Mrs. Cornelya Quane, 90~3 North Zeyn Street~ appeared before the Plannfng f,ommission in
opposttion and stated she lived tl~ree houses south of the subject property on the e~st
side of the street; that she hxd no obJections to the proposed expansion~ howev~er~ she was
cor.cerned about the street parking since her own property was the only one on her side of
the street with a driveway~ in addlilon to the petitl~nar's; and that she was on1Y
concerned wh.:ther the pet(tioner wnuld take up morP on-street parking spaces for tne
mattress factory ci~stomers, etc.
~
~
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLA~~NING COMMISSION, NArch 29~ 197h 7b~•14A
VARIANCE ~~C. 278~+ (Contlnued)
In reh~attal~ Mrs. White stntod tl~ot her stertllzer w~s located right acroe~ from Mr.
Todoroff's shop .~n~~ bIn companies utillzed lhe sterlllzer; that she had plenty of parking
speces for her cuskomcrs~ hrnaevcr, meny times the customers p~rked next t~~ the bulldln~
ancl rnn in wlthout se~lnc~ thc park(nq lot. althaugh shc told hcr cuatamers an the
telcsph~ne where to park; th~t Mr, Todoroff got very upset when customer~ ~to~pe~i (n the
a11ey; that sho dici not hAVe problems prlor to Mr. Todoroff openinn hls buslness in tho
nel~lhborhood~ and she w~s d~iny her bast; and th~t the stertllzer wnuld be moved into the
new portlon of the bulldin~ an~f~ therefore, farthPr down the alley which would eliminate
the problems.
TIIF. PU6LIf, HEARINr: WAS CLOSF.D.
Commissioner King Inn~~irecl If by movinq the door to the sterllizer f~rther south ~l~n~ the
alley r,he trucks wou~~ be kept nff the alleY. Mrs. Whlte responded th~t the trucks would
still unload in th~ alley since she did noC see how she could ask them to come thr~u~h the
customers' parking lot.
In response to further questloning, Mrs. Whlte st~ted she was proposing to IncreAae the
parking spaces from ~ l~ l~i s~~ices; that she ha~1 three employees; that the hours of
operatton were from ~:0~ ~i.m. t~ 5:3~ N•m. Monday through Friday anci from 9:00 a.m, to
5;0t1 p,m. on Saturday; and that the prnposed building wou l d a l ign w it h t he er. istin g
b~~lldinc~ and tl~e {>lans would be changed to re1`lect tha blley Co be 2Q feet wfde,
Offlce Englneer Jay Titus ~dvise~l that it appeared another 2} feet of dedication was
required along the a~ley ad.}acent t~ the SubJect property. In respons~ to yu~stioning 'oy
Chairman Farano~ Mrs. White stlpulated to makin~ additfonal dedicatton f~r alley-wfdening
purpnses 1~ fe~t In wldtli from ;I~e centerllne of th~ alley.
In response to questioninq hy th~ Plannln9 Cammission~ f~1rs., White stated she had one or
two customers a day aC the most who should use the Qarking lot; that she did n~~t have a
iot o~ waiK-i~~ c~:.:^!^ers; that it took about 10 or 15 minutes for a truck to unload
dependi~g on the size of the loacf; and that occasiundil•y 1`~~c had ceml trU~k dellverles,
Chalrman Farano rea~~e:;::c9 i~ icn~~w if Mrs. White did business with Global Van l.ines~ In
wh(ch case he may have a confllct of interest. Mrs. Whlte responded th~t she did n~C do
business with Global Van Lines.
Commis5ioner Johnson noted that ~lelivery trucks usually did not blor_k an alley during the
course of their business; that the subJect manufaci:uring facility was being extended
farther up Zeyn Street Into a residential area and he was symp~~thetic with the parking
prublems; and that he felt the petltione~ might be somewhat pre~:umptuo~~s to leave a
tratler or truck parked in th~ alle~ for a long period of time.
Discussion pursued concerning the usage of the alley~ during which the audience r-sponded
that they uied the alley for access and Mrs. iluane stated the truck situatlon was a
definite traffic hazard and blockin~ the alley created a fire. hazard; and that a number of
others were contrlbuting to th4 probiem along the alley.
Commissioner Fbrley noted that unf~rtunately trucks yometimes had to block alleys for the
length of t(me oF the delivery; that deliveries were gener~lly made as qulckiy as possible
and the trucks !hen went on thelr way; and that the length ef time for dellveries varled.
Commissianer Barnes noted that perhaps the use of the alley wes being abused and that some
stipulation by the petitioner pertai~in~ to same would be in ~rder, Mrs. Whlte responded
that It appeared certat~ persons felt the alley usa~e was beinn ahused; that sF~e had not
been using the ali~y to laad her tru~;.ks; however~ it would not be feaslble to have the
delivery trucks go in tlirough the front of her property.
Conmtssioner Herbst notecf that he felt tl~e additional dedlcation along the alley would
improve the situit'von, He sug~ested that the petitioner might wish to move the proposed
building addition farther away from the property line to prov(de mo~e access to satisfy
the neighhors; and that as long as there was adequate circulation, there should not be a
problem.
Mrs. White further stated that the existtng door to the sterilizer a~ould be movad to the
new building a~~~f a small door would be ir.st~lled in its place
Commtssioner Barn~s orrered a rwti:.^ s°=^^~!'~ hy Comm(ssioner Morley and M~TION CAR4t~E0,
that thn Anahetm City Pianninc~ Commission does herehy recomnend to :he City Ca~ncll ;,f =h°
City of Ana1~e1M that the subJect pro,~e~t be exempt from the requirement t~ prepare an
~ ~
MI NU'TE5 ~ C I TY PLANIJ I NG COM141 SS I QtJ ~ Marcl~ 29 - 197b
7G-145
VARIANCE N0. 2784 (Continued)
envlronmental impact report. rur•sunnt to the pr~vislons of the Callf~rnia Envlronmencnl
Quality Act.
Commlasloner D~~rnes c.ffered a resolutlon ond rnoved for It3 pnssage and adoptlon~ that
Pntltlon for VarlancG No, 2764 hr, granted~ subJect to the stlpulations of the petitloner
and subJnct Co the Interdepirtmcnt~l Cortm~ttee recommr.nclatlons.
There+upon~ Mr. Todoroff appe<~red before the Plannlnct Cortmisslon ~-~ncl requested th~~t the
subJect public he~~r(ng be reopened for the submission of further evidence.
Commissloner ~:Ing offered ~ moticm. s~conded hy Commisaloner Johnson and MOTI~N CARRIED~
thaC THE PU(1LIC HEAh~~lf BE REAPFtJLO, Thereupon~ Cortmissioner Efarnes withdrew the
fnrngoin~ resolution.
Mr. To~loroff staCed that by movincl the large ~oor, as tndlcated by Mrs, Whitc~ *.he seml
trucks would go around the bulidincl ~ncl tear up his parkinc~ in dning so; that Che prevlous
tenants on his property w~re only loa,fng and had to put up with the problem; that the
peCttloner should be requlr+:ci to have a driveway on the south ed~e ~f her property~
although the bulldln~l would not be ~~ble to be expanded as mucr~ as proposed; that the
pet~tloner's stake truck c~eneraily remalned in the alley for lang per(~ds of time~
although tho situ~~+tton nresently was under control; and tF~at by h~ving a clriveway on the
south of her property, the petltioner could solve tl~e problems once ancl for all.
711F. PUfiLIC HEl1RItIG WA5 CLOSEU.
Commissioner hbrley n~ted that the alley was for public use of trucks for unloading~ etc.;
and that he was disappoln;ed that Mr. Todoroff was so vehement in thi~ matter sincc the
Planning Commisslon had spent a 9reat deal of tlme on his prapusal a short time ago.
Commissianer Barnes noted that the petitlon~r apparently parked the stake truck In the
alley for severat hours at a time and not just for Icading and unloadtng.
Gwnmis~loner Johnson nc,ted thax he f~ac1 t~ r~~~~~~P ~n area on his property for his trucks
to l~ad And unload at ~is place of business,
Mr. Joe Canc~ 937 Narth Claudlna~ appeared befare the Planning Commission and stated he
had aperated ~ rest~~rant in the area for approximately 26 years and there had never been
any prdhlems until the present time.
7raff~c Engineer Paul Sin~er clarified thac parking was prohiUlteci in all alleys except
for loadlnc~ an~l unloadin~, ?n which case the driver was required to be within a speclfled
distance 1'rom the truck at a11 times and ready to move the vehicle in case of an
emergency.
Mrs. Whlte stated that on occasions when her m~n had left trucks in the alley she hac!
askecl to have them moved; th~t the alley was never comp'.etely blucked so that other trucks
could not get thro~~ti; that she wouid have more room In t~~e new builcling and more parking
spaces; and that she haci a van which haci been used for storage and parked In the parking
lot and which would be moved when she completed the new ~u(lclin9.
Commissioner Herhst inquired if Mrs. White could put some directional signs ar. the
building next to the a?ley tu help resolve the prohlems with customers park~r~y- !r~ t~~C
alley~ said sign~ to direct cuytomers to the proposed parking lot and to discourage
parking in the a!ley; whereupon. Mrs. White so stipulated.
Commissioner Barnes offered Resol~:ion No. PC76-58 and moved for its passag~ and adaptfon~
that the Anaheim City Planni~g Comm;ssion does hareby grant Petition for Variance No.
~7$l~~ grai~i.~^~ the rsquested waiver of minimum numb~r of parking spaces on the bas~s Lhat
the propose~ n~mber of parkinq sasces ~s determined to be adequate for the propose~i
expanslon; granting the request°d walver of the permltted use~ on the basis th~t the
development proposal is an expa~sion of an exfsttng facility lncated on the adJacent
property to the north, and said facflit;~ has not been detrfi~ ntal ta the subject area;
granting the requested waiver of the minimum building setbac~c on the basis that the
praposed addition will align with the existing building which has a 10-foot setback from
the centerline of the alley and, `urthermore. the proposed acldition with a 0-faot setback
from the interior tot llne will be an improvemc:nt o` upgrading of the area~antinl the
property o:~ner(s) wi11 demoltsh an old building on ~he sub,ject prrperty; g
...~„~;r~~ wa~ver of the ma~imum wall heiqht on Lhe basis rhat said wall will provide a
theus~tpulatlonsrofhtheapetitionerapertilniny toSadditlonal dedicationpforealleyswbdening
~
r~
~~~~
76-14G
MI~~UTF.S, CITY PLANNING COMMISSI~N~ Marcf~ 79~ ~97F~
Vl1RIANCE N0, 2`!44 tContinued)
.._..._ -
pur~oses and to inst.-11 s(qns to dlrect cust~mnrs to the pnrking lot ancl discouragc
parking In the ~lley; ,m~1 s~ibJect to th~ InterdepArtmental Committee recommenclatlons.
(See Res~lutlon Boc~k)
Or roll call. the f~regoln~ resol~atlun was pASSeci b~y the f~~llowing vote:
AYFS ; COMM 1 SS I ~F~FRS ; BARt~FS ~ H[RF~ST. JONNS0~1 ~ KI NG ~~IQRLFY ~ TOI.AR ~ FARAtlO
NQES : C~MMI SS Ir1f1ERS ; NONC
ABSENT~ COMMISSIft~lfRS; NQIIE
VAR111~lCE NQ, 27~n ~ PIIRI.IC IIFl1R1~~~. 'dILLIAM P. VISSC.R~ 70) West Linc.oln Avenus, Anahelm,
Ga. 97~~~5 (Owner); requesting WAIVER OF (A) MINIMI~M NUMBER OF PARK-
ING SPAC~S~ (I3) P[RMITTED USES AMD (~) ENCRQpCHMEtlTS INTO RIGNT-4F-
WAY PR011101Tf~, T~ EXPAND A~1 EXISTIN~ GRFE~1fI~USE on rroperty describ~d as a rectangularly-
sliaped parcel of lan~~ conststing of approxlm.-~tely .31 acre located at the northeast
c.c,rnar c.~f Lincoln Avnnue anci Citr~n Street~ havln~ ~pproxim~te frontages af 107 feet on
f'urthertlescrlbel isn7~1r1Wa5tn~~ncoln,Avenuet ~Propert~y3pre~ently classlfledeCf;~ and
(COMMF.FtCIl1L, GFNER.AI.) ZONF.
No one indicate-l their {~resence in oppositlon to suhJect p~titlorr.
Although thr Star~ Report to the Plannin~ Comnisslon dated March 2~1, 197b~ was not read at
the public h~4r'~n~~ said Staff Report ts referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Wllliam Vlsser~ the pe[itioner~ aPpeared before the Planning Commission an~ stated he
lived above the subJact estibl!shmenC; that he wanted to build onto the present 9reenhouse
and provida p~'~ricing in the rear and on the corner; th~t he could only provtde 57 park(ng
spaces on the ~roperty. which was approximately 20 spaces more than he would he utilizing
since approximately Fi0" of his business was by teleptione; that he also had 22 parking
spac.es avallable to hi~~, on th~e street since his property extended for or.e bluck and he had
ni:ver experienced a parking problem in his business which was a first class company; that
Lne ;~d;~;; f~r ,:he lath house referred t~ in the SCaff Report was ko dr(ve in his trucks
~ s~~+1ca he had experlen~ed a lat of theft from
to unload; that withoul• the screened-i~~ ~ac~•,.
the pr~perty since there wer•e many ypung people in the neighb4rhood; and cna~ t~~G la:;:-
type structvre was also used to store his tools aut of sight in an organized manner.
TNE PUBLIC H~ARIiJG WAS CL05E0.
In responsc to questi~ning by Commissioner Kiny~ Mr. Visser stated he had contacted Mr.
Paui Singer~ the Traffic Engineer~ and was advtsed that he could not have a driveway so
many feet from the corner. Mr. Visser further state~ that the telephoneW~sms mewhat
manholes all the way around the c•.orner of his property and his property
landlocked in that resp~ct. CFrafrman Farano made an observatlon that if tlie ~urb rut was
approved~ the petiti~ner~ would be requlred to furnish the City with an agreement frcxn the
Paclfic Telephone Company regardina relocating the manl~ole whlch houses aservice box.
Depu~heCcurbAcut,netcFr~Mr.LVisserdstipulatedhtoTProvidinq9theeagreementaand tapsubmitting
for
plans in connec.tlon with the curb cut.
Zonl~i~ Supervisor Annika Santalahtl inqulred concerr,ing the status of the unlawfully-
constructEd lath house on the sub~ject property; whereupon~ Mr. Visser stated he was
w1~11ng to make the douhle payment of the permit fees in arder to retatn the lath house
structure as he needed it for a storage area. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry adviseci
that the Planning Commission r_ould require tnat the petittoner submit plans and obtain the
necessary buflding permits in connection wlth said lath strur.ture.
Commissioner King offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Morley and MOTION CARRIEb~
that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the subJect
proJect be exempt from the requirement to prepare an en~lranmental impact report~ pursuant
to the provisions of the Californla Environiner~a~ Quality Act.
Commissioner King offered Resolutlon -~o. PC76-59 and moved for it3 pTSSage and adoptlnn,
that the Anaheim Clty planning Commisston does hereby 9rant Petition for Varlance No.
27Ag, granting the reyuested walver of the minlmum number of parking spac~s on the basis
thst the proposecl n~mber of parking spaces is ~~nii~9nthetoequested~walver ofrpermitted
proposed expanslon of an existing operation; g
uses on the basis that the proposa~An~~ng thearequestedawalvertof9encroaGhmentelnCotrtght-
detrlmentay to the subject area; g
~
~
MINUTE5~ CI1'Y PIAN~~ING COMMISS~ON~ ~~larch 29, 1976
76-147
VARIANCE N0. '1739 ~Cuntlnued)
of-way un tha basis th~it tho proposed encroac,hmant consists of a~i extenslon of An exlsting
canc~py structure which presently encroaches uver the riyht-of-way to the ~~st~ and sald
exlsting oncroachmnnt h~~s n~t been detrlmerital to the are~i; s~`+IecC t~ the stfp~~~~gtlon of
the petltloner to submlt plans and oht.iln the necessary builrling permlts in r,onnectlon
wtth tho existinn unlawfully-canstruceed lath house on the subiect pr~perty; s~ibl~ct to
the sClp~ilation of the petitloner to ohtatn s writtAn a~reement with the Paclfic Tclephona
Company In connectlon with ~n r,xistinn servlce box ~~hlch may be requ{rerl to f~e rr.located
if thE prop~sed curb cut is constructed on Lincoln Avenue, a copy of sald an~'eement to bn
filed with the Clty of Anaheim prior k~ the construction of s~ld curb cut~ ~nd the
tacatinn of sAld cunc ~ut shall be Approv~ed by the Traffic Engtneer an~i~ furthermore~
revlsed plans shal) bc submitte~l to thE 2oning pivislon sl;owing the extsting lath house;
and subJect t~ the Interdepartmental Conmittee recortmendations. (See Resolutlon Boc~)
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passeci by the follow(ny vote:
AYC.S: CONMISSIONCR~: Bl1RNrS~ fIERBST, JOIiNSON~ KING~ MORLEY, TOI.AR~ FARANO
NOF.S: COMMISSI~IIERSc NONE
AaSC~J7: CGHNI`~I~tJ[RS: ~J~NE
VARIA~ICE P10. 279?. - FUBLIC HEARING. JQ BERRYh~AP! AND IMOGE~~[ M. NCLSON, 5520 Rockledge
Drlvc, Buena Park, Ca. 90621 (Owners); D. H. 4ftOSE f ASSOCIATES~
236G North Glassell Street, OrAngs, Ca. 97.G65 (Ayent); requesting
WAIVER OF (A) REQUIRF.MENT TIIAT ALI. LOTS ABUT A PUBLIC STREET AND (B) ~EQUIRE.M~I+T THAT
S I Nt~LE-FAM) LY RFS I DE~~f.FS REAR-0~~ AR7ER) AL N I GH1JIlYS ~ TQ CSTAE3L) SH TWO RS^720Q L.QTS on
property described as a rectangularly-sliaped parcel of l~nd consistinc~ of approximately
.61 acre located at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Cherry Tree I_ane~
havin~ approx(mate fronta~es of 150 feet on the s~uth side of La Palma Avenue and 178
feet on the east si~1e of Cherry Tree Lane~ and being located approxtmately a35 feet
east of the centerline of Sunkist Street. Property presently classifiecl RS-72~0
(RF510E~JTIAL, SINGLE-FAMII.Y) ZONE.
Mr. P~te Taormina, 521 Taorm(na Drive, Anaheim, irdicated his presence in oppositlon eo
the subJect petiti~n and ~aalveci the f~all reading of the SCaff Report to the Planning
Cammission dated March 29, lA7F, on the basis ehat he had reviewed said Staff Report.
Although the Staff Report to the Plannin~ Cortmission was ~~ui ~~~:'. a* rhP publEc hearing~
s~ld Staff Report is referred t~ and ~nade a parC of the minutes~
Mr. D. I3rose, representinn the agent for the petitior~er~ ap,.•sared before the Planning
Comnission and stated the suhJect pr~perty consisted of approximately 27,000 square feet
of land ~nd was zone~i kS-72f~~; that after reviewing the other developrne~t in the area they
had determined that 720Q-square foot lots were not practical because of the cvaluatlon of
the homes; tl~,~t they were proposing to upgrade the zoning by having two approximately
13,OQ~-square foc~t lots with approximately 1800-square ioot homes in conformance with
other homes in the inunecitate area.
Mr. Pe[a Taormina appearecl before the Pl,nnin~ Commission in oppositfon to subject
petitfon an~l stated all of the homes in the immediate area were custom-buitt and all of
the l~ts were one-half acre; that with the curbs and sldewalks~ the propased lots would b~:
less than one-half acre; and that he was interested to know w-iether the proposed homes
would use the water well an the property.
In rebuttal, Mr. Brose stated the new homes would have Ctty water and sewer.
THE PU9LiC HEARI~~i~ WAS CLOSED.
It was noted that the Dtrector of the Planning Department had determined that the subJect
actlvity falls within ~he Jef(nition of Section 3•nl~ Class 5, of tlie Ctty of Anaheim
Guidelines to ~he Requiremenis for an Environmental Impact Report and was~ therefore,
cateclorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR.
Commissioner Tolar offered Resolution No. PC76~•~66 and moved for its passage and adoption~
that the Anaheim City Planninc~ Commission does hereby grant Pntition for Variance No.
2792, granting the requested waiver of the requirement that all lots abut a public strcet
on the basis that the Plannincl ~omm~ssion has previously ~ran~ed simllar waivers on
exlsting private streets; granting the requested walver of Yhe requirement that single-
fam(ly r~sidences rear-on arterial highways on the basis of liardship due to thN size and
shape of the propertyy subJect to a s~und barrier consisting of an earthen berm~ a masonry
wall~ or a combination thereof~ being provided on Lot No. 1 adjacenC to La Palma Avenue as
L ,J
~
MINUTES, CI'''~ PLANN!NG COHMISSION, Ma~ch 29~ 1~76
VARIAN~i: Nu. 2~792 (Continued)
76-lub
a soiind-attenuaClon measure In accord.inee with City Councll Policy No. 5~~2; and subJect to
the ,nlerciepartment.71 Commit[ee rec~mmendations; anu~ further~ tha' the Planning
Commtssion does horeby reconmond tu the Cit;~ Council that City C~uncl; Policy No. 53~!
requlring r~ ~~~-f~t minimum sctbac~ ~adJacent to arterlal hlghweys be walvnd Co permit a
sctt~flck of 2~1 fect on the ~ne lot al~utting La Palma Aven~e~ on the basis Chat previou~
slmllar roquests have bean ~r,~ntcd ~ind the propoaecl lot slze exceeds the RS-72U~ 7.one
stondarc's. (See Resolutlon Book)
On roll c~ll~ the fore~oing resa~uticn ras p.~ssPd by the following vote;
AYC~: COMMISSI~NCRS; F3ARNES~ HERl1ST~ JOf{NSOPI~ KING, MORLEY, TOI.AR~ FARAHQ
NOFS : C~t1M I SS 1 ~"IF.RS : NONE
ABSFtIT: C011MISSI~PlFRS: NO~JE
VAR111NCE N~. ?.79~i - PUf3LIC HEARINR. CITY OF FUI.LERTOtI~ c/o E. ~1. Grens~ 303 West
- ~ummu.~vrealth, Fullcrton~ Ca, 92G32 (Ov+ncr); E. J. CAMPDELL b
COMP~~IY, ~2A South Euclid 5treet~ Anaheim, Ca. 92£~~Z ~Agent);
requestin~ WAIVFR OF (A) MI~~IMU~4 NUMRCR OF P1IRKIN(', SPACES~ (B} MAXIMIItt BIJILDlPlr
iIEIGHT~ (C) MIN111UM BUILDING SE7f3ACIC A~ID (D) REQUIRED MASQIJRY WALL~ TO CONS"fRUCT A
COMNERCIAL CENTER on prnper•ty descrlbeci as an trregularty-shaped ~~rcel of IanJ
con~isting of approxlmately .75 ~cre having a frontage of approximately i~i3 `~et ~n
the west side ~f Harbor Boulevard~ having a maxtmum depth of ~pproximately Z02 feet,
and be(ne~ locate~{ approxlmately 25~ feet n~rth of the centes•line oP La Palma A~~enue.
Property presently classified RS•A-~~3~00~ (RESIDEt~TIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZOIvE.
Four persons indicated thefr presence in opposltion to subJect petition and waived thc
full reading of the Staff Renort to the Planning Commission dated March 29~ ~97G~ on the
basis that they hacl reviewed safd ~tafr Report.
Althouc~h the Staf~ Rcport to the Flanning Cortm(ssion was not reaci at the public hearing,
siid SCaff Report is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Rlchafd Lutx~ representinq the agent ~or the peCitioner~ appeared before the Planning
Commission and statecl they were proposin~ to construcC a sm~li commercial center on the
suhJect property; that the lights and noise would bP directed awa~ from th~: residences to
thc north; that they were r~questing a walver of the minimum requlred parking spaces on
the basis of the cy~» o` :a:a ~r.+noset~; and that, althou~h the plans did nuC clearly
•~- ri..~ nr~nPrtY to the nOt'th•
indicate it~ a soltd wall was pro~osed adJ~cent to tne -cs~~~^~•..,
Mr. Earl Begner, 1~+15 West North Street, appe~red before the Planninc~ Corr~missior in
opposition in behalf of Mac~dalena Jakob~ 512 West Julianna Avenue, and stateci Mrs. Jakob's
property was directly to the north of subJett properCy; that the obJections were mainly
due to the fact tha~ Mr5. Jakob's Froperty wa~ zoned residential and would not be zoned
for commerclal in the future; that Mrs. Jakob h~d been advised that the height of the feet
proNO:,ed bul~dinc~ would be 1Q feet and ihe Staff Report tndfcated the height ~o oe 13
adJacent to the north property line; that Mrs. Jakob depended on a garden on her property
f~r foodstuffs ancl she felt that the 13'fo~t high wall on the property line would reduce:
the sunshine available for her garden; ar.d that. although they were opposed to the
bullding being on tfie property line~ they could live with the rest of the proposal.
Mrs, t1ar~guerite Nims, 321 Avenid~ Santa D~rotea, La Fiabra, a{~peared before the P1anning
Commission and stated she purchaseci the property on the corner of Harhor Roulevard and
Julianna Avcnue in December, 1~75. and did not receive a notice of the: subject public
h~aring and~ furthermore, she was not prepared to spEak fully cn the matter in the abse:nce
of her h-lsband wh~ was ill~ except that Mr. Lutz hacl c~rne to her home approxiMately one:
week a~a to show her the plans~ incilcatinq that he t^*endeci to consLrucL a w~ll alon~ t:he
~rcperty line; that she h~d been advisecl by the City of Fullerton that: her property at
sometime in the future woulc~ be zoned commercial and they intended to keep the oropertY
until the area became more commcrcialized; ehat the house on her prop~rty was
approxlmatplY j5 YQars old anrl she seriously wanted t~ develop her proper'_y in the future
with commercial, and the wall would ~lmit or ruin the possibility of fieP property being a
good commercial lot.
Mr•. Bill Jenn(ngs~ fi09 Julianna Avenue~ a~peared b^fore the Planning Commission and stated
he was oppo~~~ to any cc~mmercial use of thc subject pr~perty presently or in the future;
that Julianna Avenue presently hac! well-appreclated apartments at ene enri of the black and
they did not v~ant any commercial clevelopment at the other end; howeverti ~ cortmercial was
permltted on the subJect Nroperty, then the whole block shoui~l hecome cormiercf~l~ and that
~ ~
MINUTES, C17Y PLANt~ING C~f~wIS~IOP~~ March Z9~ 197~~ 7G• 149
VAl11A~p~p, 2 q4 (G~ntlnued)
tie wAS lntarested to know more det~i ls Pcrt;~lnlnq cc~ tl~^ halght ~f thc prc~pose~l skl
foclllty, etc.
Mrs. Margaret Y.oerber~ 51<~ •~ullanna Avenue~ appearccl be~ore tha Planninc~ Commission an~i
stated she owned the ncxt l~r over from the subJact Nroparcy anci w~ys strlctly In favor of
a block w~~~ 1 ~lon!1 th~ pr~perty 1 tnc.
In rahuttal . Mr. Lutz st~oteci that the p lans for the subJect prop~rty sheuld not Involye
the future plans for Mrs. Nlms' prope-•ty; th~t tha prc~p~s~) woulci h~ive no effect on Mr.
J~nnln~s' property; th~t the theme of the !:ropoaed structure wnuld be ~ Sw(ss chnlet; and
that there would be a m~xlmum .~f 1(1 persons receivlnc~ lcssons et• one time, fndoors~ at tho
propnse~i establ isliment.
Mrs. Koerber clarifieci that she was in favnr of a fence along the pr~perty line from
Harbor Boulevard westerly.
THF Pl1IlLIC Flf•.Aii{'Jf !~.^,S CL~~E:D.
Commissf~ner Morley inquirecl if the rern~inder of the v~cant land at tl~~; sub,Ject. locatlon
would be l~ncilockecl hy the subJect devc.lopment; wh~s~eupc+n, Mr. Ed ~rens~ Director o'f
Flnance for tlie City of Fullerton, anpcared before the Planning Camm~ssion and stated
~c.c.ess rnads wo~.ild be provide~! ~y thr.. ~ity ~f F:s:lerr~n. Mr, Gresns further resp~nded to
quest~ontng by C~~mmissioner IlerbsC~ that thP City aF Ful lerlon owned sevcral w~tcr welle
on the adJacant oroperty and access was frem Le Palma Avcnue; rhat Fullerton had recently
solcl two~ one-half arrP parcels Immedi ately to the wesC of the carwash for elder•ly housing
an:' he rPmain~ler of the vacant property would be r~talned by tha Clty of Fullerton for
the wate~ suppl;~.
Commissianer Kfnq in~uir~c, if there wa, a passibility of movinn the Froposeci building
farther to the souti~ to alleviate sort-e o~ the complaints fror~ the property owners to t~e
north; whereupor, Mr, Lutz st~ted the only possibflity we5 to move the buildir~g more
to~!ard the cen'ter of the pr~perty an~f reversinq the driveway, etc.; ancl that the proJect
had bean planned with the aci,jace~it res(dents in min~l a~~c1 the residents would not want the
pro?~ct to be fac',ng the bac~c ot• thei r property.
Cortmissloner Herhst noteci that commercidl developmenC adJacent to rPSidential cievelopment
created very serious problems~ such as the 13-foot high wall fn back of the homes; that
the Code requlreci a landsc~ped buffer and the suhject proJect woulu cr•eate an undesirable
~+ ~« r..cidenees; Chat unless a buffer was provicled, he would not
envlronm~nt for cne ~,~~~.+cc.•. ~.,, .~~nrar~ the bulldings awa;~
vote for the proJect; that the proJeet shoule~~;nqeaecon1tlnuance to submtt revised plans.
from the property i lne; and that h~e was sugg
Comm(ssloner Johnson noted that he ac~rePd that a 13-foot h(gh wall abuttinc! the property
ilne adjacent to the residences was undesirablz. Co~~missiuner Tolar nated that he would
not wa~t to have a 13-f~r hic~h wall or building in back of his property; however~ he was
not sure Chat the adJacent pr~pert-~ owners would want the b~~~iding facing their property.
Comml~sloner Johnson noted that the propPrty ovmers did not c'eserve [a have one bad
declsion or another, but they deserved protection.
Mr. Lutz statecl that he h~ad nnt been ahle to contact Ll~e owner of the ~econd house from
Harbor Boulevard and that he had fel t sa(d owner had falrly reasonable rece~tion for the
proJect. Mr. Lutz c.oncurred with t he suygestion for ~ contl~uance to the Planniny
Commission meetinn of Apr}1 26~ 1A7~, tor revised plans.
Cummtssianer Barnes ~otcd that a mi~ imum number of parkinn spaces for a comrrercial
establishmen;: could conceivably cause parking problems on adjacent streets; that she would
be more in favor of a proJect which met the parkT.ng space req~+irements; anci that~ wlth all
pf thP ~oaivers being requested, it appeared that tl~e property might obviously be Coo sma11
for the proposal.
Commissioner Ner~st offered a rnotio~, seconded by Commissioner Morley and ~tOTI~N CAfiRiED~
to reope~i the publ ic hearing anci continue considera*_ion of Petition for Vartance No. 279i~
t~ the Plannine~ Commissi~n meeting ~f April 2G, 1976. for revisecl plans.
~ ~
MIt1U~'i:S. CITYPP!.nN~~tNG COMMI~SI~N, March 29~ 1g7G /~'~15~
RF.P~RTS A~ID - I TEP1 f~Q. 1
R~Cf1M14ENDflTiA~IS kF.QU~FST F(1R EIR NE'GA71VG f~ECLAR/1'f1011 ' ~OI' ++ gradfncl
~ permit to construr,t a sinqle-famlly resldencc ~t
69~+ South Pe~r~~lt~ Nills U~lve.
It was note:l th~t an appl Icatic;n ha~l heen fi led f~r a grACling pcrmlt t~ construet a
stng lo-FAmi ly resl~~ence r,t tho sub)er,t address; th.~t an evaluAtlon of the e:nvf ronmenta~
impact ~f gradln<~ at this location was reyulred uncler the provlslons of the Cal i fornia
Envi ronment i) (~ual 1 ty Act nnci the State E I it Gu i de 1 Ines s Ince the pro)ect wns loeated i n
the Scenic f,orrldar; and thak a study of the proposed ~rad(n~ by the Eng(neering Divlsion
artd the Plannin~~ Department indlcbted that it wauld have no slclniflcAnt environmentel
impac:t.
Conxnisaioner Herbst offere~l a mc,tlon~ seconded by Commiss(oner King and MOTI~N CARRI[D
(Cor~missioner Johnsan abstalnin~~~~ tt;~,t the Anahcim City Qlanning Commission does hereby
recommencl t~ the Clty Councll of the City of Anahelm that the subJect pro)ect be exempt
from the requirement to propare an envlronmental Impact report~ pursuant to lhe provis(ons
of thA f.il i forr.la Env) ronmental Qual t ty Act.
TEM NQ. 2
f.QU[ST FQR A GCtIERAL f'LAN ANENDNEPlT - Southcast
corner of Sunkist Street and Bal) Road.
I t wa5 noterl that Yhe Warmington Company had subn~~ltked a request far ~~ G~neral Plan
~menclment for property at the subJect locatlon; that the Anahelm General Plan currently
des iqnated the r.ubject property for gencral induskrlal uses and the appllcan: was
raquesClne~ redesignatlon tn medium densiry residentlal; and th~~t due to thc c~mplexity of
the issue. 5taff had tentatlvely sche<luled the property to be considereci with the next
schec~uled General Plan Amenclment In June/July. 197G,
Cortwnlssloner Tolar offerecl a n~otion. seconded by Commissinner Johnson and MOTI ON CARRIED,
tha t the Anaheim City Plannin9 Commisslon does h~ereby instruct City St4ff to include the
sub iecr property in the next General Plan Amendment.
ITE~1 PIO. 3
RECLASS I FI CAT I ON N0. 75-76-2 AP~D VARI A~lCE N0. 2733 - Reques t
for confirmation of prevlous Planning Commission approval.
Zonfng Supervisor Annika ~antalahti notecl that thls Item was before the Planning
Commisslon 'to conflrm their aclfon of October 29, 1975, approvin~ subJect peti tlons. whith
were subsequently considered by City Council on November 25. 1975~ at which time It was
determined that a gencral plan amendment would be appropriate; that on February ?~~~ 1915,
the Plan~:ing Commtssi~n considered Genc~~al Plan Amendment No. 13y arid approved a land us~:
deslgnation for subject property; and that the exlilhits approveci in connection with
subJect petitfons we~C can;lstent ~Nit~i the approved general plan exhibtt.
Comnlssioner Herbst noted that the original affirmative action approvinc~ cortxnerclal zoning
on sub)e~t property and retalning RM-12~~0 zoninq on the adJacent property to the no~th
b~ loa~ Csperanza Road and the AT~SF Rai lroad tracl~s was ba: ~d ~ the fact that all alony
the ral l road tracks from imperlal Highway easterly through thf mobi let~ome park and
includinc~ the single-famlly tracts on the north side of Esper~nza Etoad, sald RM-12~'!0
pa rcel n~rth of subJe~t property, is the only vacant parcel left; that th~ statP of the
art [oday (pert~inin; to sound attenuation) is more capable r~f protecting apartment houses
vs , s in~le-faml ly homes because you can put the garages~ etc., in th~se areas where sound-
attenuation is neecfed; th~t, In h!s opinion~ this can be supported by documentation that
i r the sound attenu~tion ~an he dune in a manner that can protect the homeawners~
a~. •rtment houses car~ be better protected than thQ euistinct tract housing whieh Is already
t~ere; anc1. furthermore, that RM-12Q0 uses would support `he conrnercial uses on subJect
property .
Commi ss i oner Ki ng of fered a mot ion ~ seconded by Coromt ss toner• To'. a:~ anci MOT ION CARR 1 ED,
that the Anahelm City Planninc~ ~nmmis~lon dnas hereby confirm their approval of Petitlon~
for Reclassific~tlon Ne, 75-76-2 and Variance N~. 2733.
AOJpURNMEpI_ - There being nc further business to dtscuss~ Comr+issioner King offered a
motlon, seconded by Comnissioner Tolar and MOT"ION CARRIED, that the
meeting be ad_journed,
The meetinn adJourned at 5s40 p.m.
R spectfullY submitted,
C~ . ' ~ ~---
~•Icia D. Scanlar. Secretary
Pat ~
Anahetm City Planning Commission
~EIS : hm
U R C 0 MICROFII.MI~;G SERVI~E. fNC
'~ ~
~
,::
'1 ~
~.
` ~
` 1
~
~
~
N
~
~
~
e~
~ .. wr~ . ..~.._~. .. .. .......... ..~.n...w...+~~ .. ~
' . V ~ .uranMYl~1w~.. r.... ..~..wr~w"n+.~-