Minutes-PC 1976/04/26~
~
~
Clty Hall
Anaheim~ Callf~rnla
April 2~, 1~7~~
REGUI.AR MEE:1 1 tJ~ OF TIIE ANIIHE IM C I TY PLl1NM I NG COMM I SS I ON
REGULAR - Il rngular meeting of the llnahelm Cl~y Flanniny C~mm(sslon was c311~d to
Mf.'TING order by Chalrman For~no at 1:'~~ p.m. In rhe ~o~m cil Chambcr, a qu~rum
being present.
PkESENT - CHAIRMA~d: F'arano
COMMISSIONEftS: Barnes, Herhst~ King~ Morl~y
.4oSEN7 - COMMISSIOIJERS: Johnso„~ Tolar
ALSO PRESENT - Frank Lowry Deputy City Attorney
Paul Sln~er Traffic Englnecr
Jay Titus offlce Enqinecr
Ar~n(ka Santalahtl Zoning Supervlsor
Joel F(ck Assistant Planner
Fatricla Scanlan Ptanniny Commission Secreiary
PLE~GE OF - Commissloner King led in the PlPdge af Allegiance to the Flag o'F the
ALLEGIANCE United States oF America,
APPROVAL OF - Commiss(on~r Iting offered a motion~ seconded by C~:rxnissioner Mor~ey and
TFIE MINUTES P10TION CARRIED (CommissYoners Johnson and Talar heing ?bsent), that :he
minutes o~ the reguiar Planning Commission mFeting held March 7.9~ 1~7~:
be and hereby are apQroved~ as submitted,
CONDITIOF~AL USE - CCiI'~NUED PUBLIi, tiEARING. RIC[MAN INTERNATIONAL, INC.~ 3~~ West
PERMIT N0, 16Q4 Katella Avenue~ Anaheim~ Ca. g2602 (OwnPr); RAY W. 5HIRK AND DAV1~
FON LEE~ 3~0 West Katella Avenu~~ Anahetm~ Ca. 92802 (Agents);
requesting permission to EXPAND A MOBIL~fiOME PARK TO INCLU~E A
RECREATIOIJAL VEf11CLE PARK ~n property descrlbed as an irregularly-shaped parcel oF
land consisting of approximately 23.7 acres having approximate frontages of 9~Q feet
on the south side of KatElla Avenue ~~~d 387 feet on the west sicle of Has~er Street.
having a m,ximum depth of approximately 5?~ feet, and further described as 3~~ West
Katella Avenue. Froperty presently classified R5-A-43~000 (RESIDENTIAL/A~RICIILTI!RAL)
ZO~~E.
It was noted that the subject petition was conti~,~,•~~ "rom the Plan~ing Gommisslon
meetings uf March 1 and 2g, 1976~ at the requcst of t~~~~ petitioner~ for the submission
af revised plans.
One person indfcated his presenc~ in opposition to the subJect petition and indicated
he was al~o presenk at the meetirig of March 29, 197~~ when the subJect item was
considsred.
Although the Staff Report t~ the Planning ~ommisston daCed April 26, 1~7F+~ was not
read, sald Staff Rep~rt is referred to and made a part of the minutes,
Mr. ~red K. Wong~ repr•esenting the p~titioner~ appeared before the Plar,ning Commisston
and stated revis~d plans had been submitted. Mr. Wony r~~~tewed the revisions, noting
that epproximately 68Q~ square fset of recreational area was proposed; tl~at the
entranc~: to the park was a'igned with Clemer,ifne Street~ as requested by the Planning
Commission; and that approximately 1200 square feet was being added to the office
bullding inasmuch as they were proposinc~ to have a convenience market on the premises
for econrmic benefit to the owner.
Chairmars Farano made an observation that the olans did not indicate a convenience
ma~ ~~t, and he inqulred tf the plans which would be s~~hmitted for City Council review
would be di;ierent fro~~ the plans presently before the Commission; whereupon~ rtr. Wong
~
~
~
M1NUT[S. CITY PLANNINC, C~MNISSIdt,~ ~pri l?.6~ 197fi
CO~~b1710t~111. USE Pf.RMIT N0. 160~~ (Continued)
7G-101
stated they were willing to rrquest a further contt~iuance ln order to f~irCher revise
thc plnns.
Corm~(asl~nnr tlerbst noted th~it: if the cr,nv~,~~terce marN.~:t was to be open ~n~{ ~GCessible
to the ~~dJacent mob(lelu~m~.>. ~arl~, thc+n an undesl-~ble precedant mi~ht bc set Fnr future
similar request~; howeve;, if the proposed recreatlonal vehicle ~rk was comple~~~ly
sepArat~d frorr the +~K~bilchnn~e p~~rb•, ~is a sclf-contaln~d unit~ It wouid be different.
Mr. Wonq ras~onde' that ther~ woul~J be a comrn~n ~lr~~v~~ny and they ~~ould not patrol the
convenience market ~^:'• `~~ 1 the te~~~nts <~f the mobi lehume i~.~r•!: rhat they could not buy
there; and that there was ciefln(tely some ec:onomlc value ar~d Lenefit to be derlved from
the convenlence markcl. Chalrman rarano nocc~i th~t, undouhteJly, a tenant of the
mobilehome park wauld r~thcr wa~u. ~nn feet fur milk, etc.~ than ~o to a rogular market
farther ~way, Commiss~oner Nerbst clarlfled that the subJect proposal for a
~c+nvenlance market was a new concept slnr,e tt was ~'~pFarently prorosed to serve other
than ..h~ recre~tlonal vGhiclc park~ and he was n~t implyinq that it was partfcularly
bad.
Comm(ssioner Barncs noted, In her opinio~i, that the worst part of the proposal for the
con enience market was that it would take away some of the area whlch should 'oe Por a
~'.,y area; that, adJitlonally~ she wss concerned that no buffering was proposed
adjacent to the rtx~bilehome park; that it appeared the proposai airca.iy surFa:sed ~~~y
~tlier slmllar recreational vehicle park adJacent to resiclential are~s which had baen
revleweci by the PlanninQ Cammissian; that sh^_ alsu did not favor the plan~ especlally
as revi,~d~ since t~~re were no pull-through snaccs far pe~ple who mic~ht wish to lseve
their cars attache to *.heir trailers.
In response to qu~~stloninc; 6y Chairman Farano~ Mr. Wong stated they were stiil
contemplat~ng the split (shared) usag~ of the exlstin~ swimming pool in the mobilehome
park, stnrr the manager of the mobiiehome parl< ha~i tndlcated the swimming pool was
prescntly very ~eldom useci, CommissionF:r Morley noted that the proposal shoi~ld eithc:r
Include a swirnmin~i ~r,o) or have nunc ~vailable.
Commisst~n~~r ~~arbst inqulred if any thouc~ht had been given to the pe~ple who woul~ be
pulling h: trailers ancl blor.king th~ circulati~n during unhookinq and hooking,
es ;iaily since everyone usu~lly ho~~ke~ up t~ leave ln the mornin~ hours; v~hereupon~
Mr. Wong stated tliat~ From his personal experler~ce with trailering people, they werp by
ind iary~ rather versatile ancf forgiving people, Cammissiuner Herbs*, further not~d
that ma~y pecple would want to park tlieir vehicles and walk to Disneyland, ett.; and
also there would be somz people with health problems who would be unable to disconnect
thelr~ trallers frem their transportatiun vehicles and approximately 1Q~15~ ~~ the
proposed stalls should be the pull-througti type; and that tf the center row ~.~ar all
ruli-throughs there woulcl be adequate spacr_ for tlie discannects~ e'tc. Mr. Wong stated
that '~y conformino to the primary request of the Planning Commission to realign the
entranc~ witl~ Clementlne Street~ they had to eliminatP the fnur rriginally praposed
pull-through sp~ices.
Commissinner Herbst noted that the ~ffice structure was indicated on the plans as
encroaching into the 9~-foot requlre!1 rlght-of-way f~r the future expansi~n of
Cl~mentine Street; and that the plans indlcated only 60 feet of the right-of-way was
unobstr~cted.
Discussion pu;s~~ed rectardina the many changes which may or may not be made to the plans
prtor to City Council review, and the plannin~ Commission generally co~curred that
several chan~es to the plans would be re~ :cJ and that they did not wish to take
action a~hich would be subJect to said ch ~~~s.
Chairman Farano fur*.her noted that, in his c.~pinion~ the proJect was substantially loo
dense; hnwever~ ~f a minor p~r*.~on o` the ;.roJect ~ras to bE part r~f the existir.g
mobilehome park~ lie might favor 'r.
Th~reupon, 11r. Wong respectfully requested a four-week contir;~,:ance in order to revise
the ~~lans ir. accordar~ce with the fnregoing discussion.
Commissioner King oxferecl a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Horley an-i MOTION CARRIED
(Ccr~~Tissioners Johnson and 7olar being absent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning
Commtss(on does hereby furt~ier continue the public heartng and constderation of
•.,~ ,c~i. .,, «tie clAnninn Com~nission meeting of M, ~
ret i[ i on To~ i.ond i t i ona i u3c ~ r: ~~~i ~~• • ~•• .- -- -
2'~~ 197F. as rEquested by t.he petitioner~ for submtssion of revlsad plans.
~
U
~..~.
~
M, I~U7[S ~ C I TY PLANN ( NG COHM I S~S 10~I ~ Apr i 1 2G ~ 1976
76.~ 102
VAR I A~~~E NQ. 2794 - CONT I ~lUE~ ~" ~[3L I C HC•.AR I PJi,. C I'fY OF FULLCRTO~~ ~ c/o ~. W. R rens ~ 3~3 Wes c
~ Conrnonwealci~, F~~ilPrton~ Ca. ~2f,37. (~w~ei'); E. J. CAMPBELL b ~4MPA~IY~
72~ South Euclid Street~ Anaheim~ Ca. 92Af12 (llgent); requesting WAIVER
OF (!1) M I N I ~4UM NUMDER OF PAR KI ~~(; °~ACF S~ ( B j MAX I MUM BU I Lfl i IJr Ilf. I GIIT ~(C ) M I PI 1 ~1Uh9 tlU I LD I P1G
S[7RACK AND (D) REQUIRCD M!'.SONRu 'dALL~ TO C~NSTRUCT A CONMERCIAL CENTE-t on rrr,perty des-
crlt~ed as an irregul~rly-sfiaped par•cel of land consisting of approximately .75 a~re havlnh
~ fr~nlage of appraximataly 183 feet on the wcst sicle of Narhor Boi~l~vard, i:~ving a maximum
depth of ap~roximately ~b2 feet~ and bcing lnrarrcf approxtmately 25n fPet north o~ the
conter•ltne uf La Palma llvonue. Property presently classlfi.:d RS-A••~~3~~n0 (RESIDEt~TiAL/
AGRICl1LTU'tAl) ZONC.
It was noted that the sub,Ject peti';lon r~as continued from the Planning Commisslon
meeting of March 29~ 1g76~ for revised plans showing means of le~..ser~ing the 'm~act of
commercial development on the ad)ar.ene residPntial propertles co the „orth.
Mr, Earl degner~ 1415 West North 5treet~ fndicated `~ts preser,ce in ~ppositi~n in behalf
of Magdolena Jakob~ 4i2 West Julfanna Avenue. whose property was locared d(rectly to
the north of subJect property.
Altho;~gh t!~4 ~taff Rr.port to ~he Pl~nninn Commis5lon da~ed April 2G~ 1~~7fi. was not rr.ad
at the publlc hear~ng, said Staff Rep~rt is refc:rred to and made ~ ~ar~: of the minutes.
Assistant Planner Joel Fick noted for tha Planniny Commiss~~~ that~ on thc basis of the
revised plans indicatii7g conformance with all stte deve:',~prnent standards of the Cl
Zone~ the petltloner was request'ng to withdra~,l the subJact variance; however~ the
petitioner was further request~ng that the revised plans be accepted as being
substant(ally in conformance w'th the plans origin~lly approved in connectlon with
Reciassificatlon No. 71-72-2~~ on the subJact property.
Mr. Richard Lutz, i~epresenting the agent for the pctitioner~ ap~~~~ared before the
Planning Conxnisslon and stated they were proposing co nave a 6-foot b1ocK wall alon,
the north property line~ with a ir.rdscaped area and tree Screen to f~uffer• the north
property linc,
Mr. degner appeared before tne Plannin5 Commisslon and stated he underst~o.1 that a 2~-
foot b~ffer zone was required to sei~arate ~_~~m~,:rcial devrlopment from res!dential.
TNL PUBLIC IIEARi . ~JAS CLbSED.
'n response~ Chairman Farano c1~riFicd that a?.f!-foot buffer zune was not a Code
requirement~ but a policy imposed only when there was commercial development relatively
close to resideniial structures.
Mr. Begner ~tat~d they woulu like to see *_he buffer zone and trees planted far enough
away fr~m t~e wall so that the root sv~tem w~uld not disturh the wall in the future.
Disc~ssion p~~:~ed concerning the F r strip o~-iginally aE~proved by the City Council
in conne%.t'o~i with Reclassificatio~~ No. 71-72-21+~ and the Planning Commi;slon noteu
that the maximum landscaped area prcposed along the north property line was ~~ feet~
with narr:.w~r intarmittent landscap~d areas. Mr, lutz stated the narrowed-dow,i
landscaped areas (or gaps in the landscaping) ,~er~ to provide for a.tomobile backing up
from the parkin.3 spaces. In resoonse to questloning by Commisstoner Herhst~ Zoning
Su~ervisor Annika Santalahti advised t~ai the park(ng lot a9sles were required to be 25
feet wide with 90-c'egree spaces. The Planning Cortxnission gencrally concurred that a
10-foot wide landscaped bu~fer strip adJacent t~ the north ~>roperty 1lne~ in addition
to the 6-foot high block wall~ would provide an adequate buffer for ihe residential
properties to the north.
ThA Planning Commis~ion disc~ssed the possibility that the additional landscaped area
wo~~ld redur..e the amount of parkir.g spaces; whPreupon~ Mr. lutz stip~leted to comply
with the parking space requirements and alsa provide the 1~-foot landscaped buffer,
with the trees to be planted a reasonable distance away from the wall to prevent damage
to the wall in the future from the root system of sa!~' trees~ all as discussed,
Commissicner King ~`fered a motion~ seconded by Commission~r Morley and MOTION CARRtED
(Cummissionerc .loh~son and Tolar be(ng absent), that ..: Anahelm City Planning
Commi ss ion VOCS hereby termi nate Y8C f i I Ofl TO~ Var i an~e idO. i: j'~i ~ a5 ~ ~y::i+::.~ ~y ~~+~
peti tlc.ner.
~
~
~
MINIITES~ CITY PI.ANNING CQMMISSIU~I~ Apri l 2G. i97(~
~ARIANCE N0. 2794 (Continuedj
76-1A3
Comm<<:si~~ner K'r~~,~Fferod a motion~ seconded hy Commissl~nr.r Morley and M(1TION C~RRIFD
(Coiurnisslon~r iison ~nd Tolar heing ahsent), that thr AnAhelm City Pl~nnirig
Commisslon d ~~ereby reccxmnend t~> the Ctty Ca~nc~l of the City of Anahelm that the
prnposal submitted as revised pl~ns fn connecxion with Petitlon for RCCIASSIPICAI'IG~1
No. 71-72-24 be excmpt from thc requlr~ment to file an ~nvlronmental Impact report,
pursuant r.o the provlslons of thr, Californla EnvironmentAl Qufllity Act.
Commisstoner K(ny ~~ffered a mction, seconde~i by Commissloner Morlpy and M071~P1 C~RRI~D
(Commtssioners Johnson and To1ar betng absent), that xhe Anaheim Ctty Planr~ing
Commission does hereby recr~mmend to the Cir~~ Council ~f the City of Anaheim that the
revlsed plans submitted in cannectlon with Netitton for Reclassfflcation Na, 71-77-2~i
be approv~:.~ as beln~ in substantial conformance w(th the origlna~ approval of said
r~claxsification~ s~~Ject to rhe stipulations oF the peCit~oner t~~ comply with the Code
req:itrements pertalnfng t~ parking spacr.s and to provide ~ 10-foot iandscaped huffer
strir with trees planted on 20-foot c~ntprs along the north property 11ne acljacent to
the pr~posed 6-font high block wall~ satcl trecs Co be planted a reasonable d(stance
away from the walf so as t~ prevent future damaga t~ the wall by the ro~t systems.
TENTAYIVE MAP 0~' - DEVELOPER: CRUZ VARGAS~ ~839 Sauth Mountain View Avenue~ /lnaheim~
TRACT N0. 9287 Ca, 92~~2. ENGINEER: J~~!M E. STEVENSON~ 310 L~tchwood Lane~
(REVISION NQ. 1) La Habra~ Ca. 90(~3'. SubJect prnperty, consisting a° appraximate~y
1.3 3~res having a frontage of a~proximately 21~ feet on both sides
of Waverly Drive~ and being lo~ated appraxirrately 31~~ feet south of
the centcrline of Wakefield Avenue~ is pro~o~ed for ~~bdivision into
s i x RS-72~f1 1 ~r~
It was notea that lhe subJect tract map was continued from the Ptanning Commisslon
meeting af "'~rch 2S~ 197F~~ for staff to investigate any easement5 on the property and
from the me~~ing of April 12, 1':17~~, for revised ~lans indicating six RS-72n~ lots.
Although no one indic~ted their presence in opposition to the subject tra~r map~ two
concerned residents were present.
The Staff Report to the i'lanning Commission dated April 2h~ 1~76~ was ~ot read at the
meeting; however~ sai~ Staff Report is rPferred to and made a part of elie minutes.
Chairman Farano noted that the plans iridicated six RS-72~0 lots~ rather than the eiglit
RS-50Q0 lo~s previousiy proposed; and that approval of the tentative map would ba
conditioned upon the property owner submitting precise fl~or p~ans~ elevations and piot
plans to the "~anning (:ommissi~n for approva) prior to Cfty Council approvai ;,F the
fin~l tra: o- ~nap.
Mrs. Mary Ellen Williams~ 2012 Waverly Drive~ indicated her presence along with one
other ad)acent property o~~ner interested in tFte subJect tract map.
Commissioner Morley offered a motion, sec~nded by Comm~ss~oner King and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissioners Johnson and Tnlar being absent)~ that the Anaheim C'ty Planning
Commission does hereby find that the proposed subdivision~ together with its design and
improvemenL~ is consiste;~t ~~ith the City°s General Plan~ pursua~t t~> Gnvernment Code
Section 66~73.5; ando therefore, the Planning Commission does hereby aFr.rove T~ntative
Map of Tract o. 92R7 (~evision No. 1) for six RS-72~~ zoned lots, subJect to the
foll~wing conditions:
1. That the approval of 1'entative Map of 7ract No. 9287 (Revision No. 1) is
granted subJect to the completion of Reclassificatton ~lo. 75~7~-27•
?., That subJect property shali be served by underground utilities.
3. '~'hat strEet n~mes shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of a
final tract map.
4, That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Araheim the
appropriate ~:,rk and recr~axion in-i3eu fees as deterr~ined to be appropriate by the
Clty Councii~ said `~~~ tc~ be pald at the time the building permit is issued.
5. That drainag~ of ::ubJect property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory
to the City Engir.eer.
~..,
~
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING GOMNISSIbN~ April 26~ 1~76
TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 9287 (REVISiON N0. 1) (Contlnued)
~6-184
6. If p~rmanent street namP si,yns have not been installed~ temporary street n~me
signs shall be installed prlor to any nccupancy.
7, That precice floor plan.,~ clev~tlons and plot plans shall be submltted to thc
Planntng Commission for approval prl~r to City Counc(1 approval ~f the flnal tract map.
RECLASSIFICATIO~J - CONTINUE~ PUBLIC NEARING, BANK OF AMERIf.l1~ c/~ H, G, Johns~n,
PIO. 75'7b-31 555 South Flower Street, Los Angele~~ Ca. 9~07) (Ovrr~er); VERNO~J W.
MONROE~ 5z~9 Seashore Driv~~ Newport Deach~ Ca. 92~~~~ (Agent). PropPrty
CONDITIONAL USE describec! as an irreg~~larly- shaped parce.l ~f la ~~d cons(sting of approxl-
PERMIT N0, 1612 mately 6,3 acres located oi~ .e south and west sides of Sequola Avenue~
having arprnximate fronta9e:~ of ~25 feet on the south sidc and 4~3 f~et
on tfie west side of Seyuola ~~ven~~e~ and further descrih .1 as ~11 '~urth
Brookhur•st Stre~t. Property presently classifl ^d f.L (C~MMF.~',f,1111,
LIMITEf~) ZONF..
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIUN: ML (IN01);',ZIAL~ LIMITED) ZONE.
REQUESTED CONDITIOhAL USE: TO PERMlT A CHURCH ANO PLA~lNED UMIFI~D INDUS'fRIAL SERVICE
GEt~ItK WIiN W~1~UER dF (A) H!P!!!~i1-1 Nl, ;BER OF PARKIN~ SP~f,ES,
(B) MAXIMUM STRUCT~IRAL HElr,ffT, (C) MINIMUM STRUCTURAI. SFT-
BACK, (D) REQUIRED ~MPROVFME~'T OF SETBACK AREAS AND (E)
R~QUiRED SITE ~rnEE~ING.
It was noted that the subJeGt petitlon was continued from the FS ~r~ing Commisslon
mee'ting of Apri) 12~ 1376~ for more specific ini'ormation re{aled to uses.
No or.e E~dicatpd their presence in opposifion or to represent the petitioner.
it was rcted that the petitioner had suhmi*.ted a ietter requesting an additional two-
week contlnuance in order to reaclverttse th~: ~ondttional use permit to include a
revised list of c~ndltional uses in the ertstir~g cornnercial zone; and that the
petitioner had indicated they ~•ould request witf~drawai of the petition for
reclassification.
Commis~ioncr Kir,g offered a ~notion~ seconded by Commissior:er Morley ard MOTION CARRIED
(Commissioners 3ohnson and Tolar being a~sent)~ that the Anaheim City Plannir~g
Commission does hereby contlnue :he publ+c hearing and consideratton of r' ~itions for
Reclassification Plo. 75-7~~-31 and C~nditiona~ Use PPrmit No. 1612 t~ the 'lanning
~ommission meeting of May 10~ 197h, as requested by the petitioner.
CONDII'IOfv~+L USE - C01lTINUED PUBLIC NEARINf. (RENE AND CHARLES VER~IUE! EN~ 11591 Cielo
PERMlT N0. 1610 Place~ S3nta Ana. Ca, g27o5 ~Owners); CARL KAP,CHER ENTERPRISES~ c/o
~ David B. Garri,on, 12~0 t~orth Harhor Boulevard~ Anaheim~ Ca. ''~~?
(Ager.t); requesting permission to ESTABLISH A DRIVE-THROU~N RESTAIIRANT
WITH WAIVE~t OF MINIMUM t~11MBER OF PARKING SPACES on property described as an irregularly-
shaped parcei of land conststing of approximately 1.0 acre located at 2he northwest corner
of Katelta Way and Manchester Avenue~ having aF~proximate frontage:; of 450 feet on the
north side of Katella Way and 160 feet on the west side of Manchester Avenue. Property
presently clasSified CL (COt1MERCIAL~ LIMITED) ZGNE.
It was noted that tlie subJect item was contir.ued trom the Planning Commission meeting
uf Aprtl 12~ 1976~ for revised plan5; and that t;.a public hearing was closed at that
meeting.
No o~e indicated their presence in oppositlon te subjecE ~etittan.
Although the Staff ReporC to the ?lanning Comr~isslon dated April 2h~ 19jf~, was not read,
said Staff Report is refer•ed to and made ~ part of the mtnutes.
Mr. Dave Garrison~ representing the agent for the petitioner~ app~ared befc,re the
Planning Commission and reviewed the Plannirrt Commisston's discusston of April 12~
1976~ statina that he understood that the ccncerns relating to the driverray on Kateila
,` .h~ _,~.:tq~ ~c ~,.~ft~~ ~~~.t~, .h;~,j h the ~roperty hetween
Av::nuc ti•:;;; e d~ t~ ~ pcs:.: . y •, .• y. 3
Katella Avenue and Katella Way.
~
C~
MINUTES~ CITY PLl1~~NING COMMISSIQPI~ ~pri l?.(>, 197F~
I;OP~DITIONAL U"E PERMIT N0.,1G1G (Contlnucd)
7h-, t~,
Traffic [nglneer Paul S(nger ~a:IvlsPCl thnt thc Plannlne~ Commissiun had Indicated that
entranc.e-only far eastbuund tr~fflc on Y.at~lla llvenuc would he the n~pro~r•i~ite use for
the M.atella 1lvenue driv4way; and thnt the Commtssi~n co~ild requlre :he petitioner to
w~rk wfth Tr~ffic Engineerli~g to desl~n t:he driveway (n a manner ~.!:'..n would precludr.
exlting from th~ property onto KaCella Ave~ue ~~nd also pr~clud~ any westhound traffic
from entering s~id cirlvew~~Y.
A query was m~~de ~bout the u:,e of ~s~ikes across [he driveway on Katslla Avenue to
restrict its usag~; a~d Nr. Singer advised that thP splkes coutd be removeci at a~~y time
leavlne~ no control for usage of tfie drlvewuy; however, wfth ~~ s{~ecl~lly designecl
entrance-only driv~sv~y ~or tlie eastbcund traffic on Katella Avenue:, any vlol~~tions
would be c_'?ffi~;;u'
Com~nissioner K(ng otrered a motion~ s~conded hy C~~mmissic.nsr MorieY and MQTIOM LA' IED
(Commissloners Johnso~i and Tolar bcing abs~entfGUnci) of'ythe~3C(ty o~tAnaheimithat the
C<~mmission does hereby recommend to the Clly
subJect proJect be exempt fr~m the reyulrement to prepar~ an cnvironmentil impact
report, pursuant to Clie provisloris of tl~e Californla EnvironmenCal Quality Act.
Cnmmissiuner King offcred Resoluti~n ~~o. Fr,76-77 and movecl for its passae~e and
adopt(on, that the Anaheim Ci[y Planning Commissian does herrby grant Petftion for
Condit.ional Use Permlt No. 161~7, granttng the requested wa(ver oT the minlmum numher of
parking spaces on the basis tliat similar walvcrs have heen granted ,~revlously i~~
connzction with dri~e-through restaurants having sit-down facilitles; SIIh~ECL ko the
condition that the diiveway on Kacella Avenue shall be redesigned and re~onstructed for
"entrance only~" su~Ject to the appr~val of the Traffic Engtneer~ as stipula~ed t~ bY
the petit:ioner; anJ subJe~:k to the ;nterdepartmental Comm(ttee recommendaticns. !See
Resolutlon Do~k)
~n roll call~ the fore9oing resolution was passed by tlie follotving vote:
AYES : COMM I SS I ONERS : BA~tNES ~ FIERf1ST, KI NG ~ MORLEY ~ Fl1Rl1N0
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONF
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JCHPJSON, TOL11R
GOND1~10NAL USE - PUBLIC IIEARING. MRS. ADELINE THOMPSON FECfITER~ ~155 Cribari Knolls,
PERt11T NQ. 1613 San Jose, Ca. 95135 ~~Wr~er); COL4lELL RIaY HORNIICK OKINAKA~ ~r~r„~ P. 0.
Box lOG6~ Tustin~ Ca. 9?.6~0 (Agent); requesting permission to ESTA6LISH
A DRIVE-TiiROUGH RESTAURANT WITH WA~VER OF MIPIIMU~1 NUf~SFR OF PARKIN~
5PACES on property d~scribed as <i rectanyularly^shaped parcel of land canslstiny of
approxima:ely 0.5 acre locate~ at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Maqn~lia
Aven~e, havi~heaeastXS(ieeofrMagnolla~AvenuefeeProperty p~esentiyPClassifiedmCLA,(C0INERCIAL~
147 feet on t
LIr11TED) zcr~~.
No one Indicated Cheir presPnce in opposition to subJect petition.
Although the Staff Ke~ort to th•, Planning Commission dated Aprii 2h. 197~~ W~s nut read
at the public, hear+ny, saici Staff Report is referred Co and macfe a part of ~he minutes.
Mr. Duaine Duff, representing the agent for the petitioner~ appei~ed hef.~re the
Planning Commission i answer questions pertaining to the proposal, ~tating he h~d
reviewed th~ Staff Report and did not feel any clarifitation was needed.
THE PUf3LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner hiorley ~atcd that the proposal appeared to he a good project; and that the
driveways appeared adequate and loc~teo properly for the site.
In response to questioni~.q by Commissioner Herbst, Mr. Duff stated that generally no
mare than four to five cars would be stacked at oiie time; and that a maximum of six to
eight cars could be stacked before there ti•rould be any Interference with thE traffic on
Magnolia Avenue.
~I1 I"eSpOIlSC LO questior,!r.g by thC Planniny LuiinTii~Si~;i~~ "~i. ~_Ff Stt~i~~a~P~1 fn
requesting City Council terminatior of Variance No. 293~ whlch established a service
~ ~
7h-1 ~iG
M I NUTES, C I TY Pl.l1NN I NG COMM 1 SS I OW , Apr 1 I i~~ . I~7~~
COND111Ct~AL USE P[RMIT N(1~. 161'i ~Contlnued)
3tation usc on Lhe prnr~crty, said v~~rlnnce having ber.n 9r~anted hy f.he City Council :~nci
belny no longer ap~~ilca~la.
Commissloner King offered a motion, second~cl by Commissi~~ner Aarnes and MOTIOP~ CIIRRIEO
(Commissi~n~rs Johnson and Tolar heinn absenC)~ that the Anahr,im City f lannlnc~
Cotnmis5lon does heret~y rec~mmend to the Clty Counci 1P~~rch~nCenv lronmen tal~im pac~the
subJact proJ~ct b~~ .;xempt from the requirement to p.'-p
report, p~~r~t~ant to thP provisions of the C~lifnrnia Fnvironmental Quality Act.
Cammissi oner Itln~ off~red Re~olut i on No, PC76-7~ and move . for Its pas~a9e an~i
adopt!~n, thaC the Ariahelm City Planr~ing Commisslon docs h~~rehy grant Petitlon for
Condltlonal lJse P~rmlt No. 1F.,13~ gr~nting the reques;ed waiver nf the minimum numher of
parking spaces on the basis that slmilar ~+alv~rs have hecn gr~nterf prr.viously in
cannect i on wl th dr 1 ve-through res taurants h~vi ng s i t-down f aci 1 i t i es ; sub J~ct to the
Cermin~tion of Variance No. 293 which established a snrvice statlon use on the
propcrty, said variance being no longer a~plicablc and to he tcrmin~~ted pri~r to
commencement of the activity authortzed by this conditional use perr~it~ as stipulated
tn hy the p~.titi~aner; ar~d subJect to the Interdepartmenta~ Committee recommNndat.ions.
(See Resol ut i on ftook)
6n ro) l call , the foregoing rasol ution was passed by the folinwing vote:
AY[S; COMM I SS I ONERS : BARIJES ~ HERfST, Y.I N(; ~ MORLEY ~ Fl1R/1P10
NOES; C011M I SS I ONERS : NONE
ABSEMT • COMMI SS I ONFRS : JONNSON , T~LAR
Commissloner I<ing offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Morley and Mf1Tln~l CARRIFD
(Commissioners Johnson and Tolar beinq absent), that the Anahelm City Planning
Commissfon does hbeeterminated~,don~thleebasis ofUthe1forPgoln9istipulationioftthe
Varlance No. 293
petiti oner.
CONDIYIONAL USE - PUBLIC 11EARING, COMET~ INC,, 3116 Val~alia Drive, Burbank, Ca. 915~3
~ West
r
P~RP11T N0. 1615 (Owner); ROADRUNNER COFFEE requesting permissvonatoahaveYON~?SAL~ BEER
Covlna~ Ca. 91790 (Agent);
AND WINE IN AN EXISTING RESTAURANT on property descrihed as a
rectangularly-shaped parcel ef land consisting of approximately 1.7 acre having a front-
age of approximately 177 feet on the north side of Lincol n Avenue~ havtng a maximum depth
oF approxlmatel,~ 427 feet~ ar.d being located approximaCeiy 1~3 feet east of the center-
llne oT Fast S~reet. Property presently classified CL (COr~HEZCtAL~ LIFIITED) ZOME.
Ne one indicated their presence in oppo~ition to suhject petition.
Although the Staff Report to the Planning Commisslon dated Apri 1 26~ 147F, was not read
at the Fublic hearing~ said Staf~ Report 1s referred to and made a pai•t of the min~tes.
r1r, Dale Rothrock~ representing the a~ent for the petitioner, appeared before •;he
Planning Commi,sion and stated the subJect establishrnent was an above-average coffee
shop; that they would serve high quality. premium beer and wine from kegs only; that
two of their other restaurants did not serve any type ~f alcoholic beverages; and that
thei r food was un~urpassed. Mr. Rothrock then stipulated that tl~ey would lock the beer
and wine keys at 11:~0 ~.m. and cease to serve satd keverage~ past thac time; ~nd that
the beer and wine would be sold in conJunction with the s~rving of ineals only.
THE PUBL I C 1~':P,R I NG WAS C,LOSED.
It w~s noted that the Direct~t of the Planning Department had determined that the
proposed activi ty fel l within the deflni tion of Secti~n 3.G~, Class 1~ of the Ci ty af
Anaheim Guid~,~ines 2o the Requ+rf~o tthe~requlrementntonfile`an~E~RReport and was,
therefore~ categorically exemp.
Commissioner 14orley offered Resolutlon No. PC76-79 and moved for its passage and
•+.,+ ~h~ Anaheim Ci tY Plarming Comm~ssion does hereby grant Petition for
aJup[~:.~~, ..,~. - - ~ ~hfi n~.r;tinnPr, and
Condir.tonal Use Permit No. 1615, subJect to tne siip~~~i ons~'Sce Resolu*_lon t3ook)
subject to thP Interdepartmental Commi ttee recommendat i on.
o ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLAN~~ING COMMISSICN~ April 2G. 1~)76 ~~~~~~
CQNOIT~ONAL I1SE PERMIT N0. 5~~1~ (~~ntinued)
On rol) cAil, the foregolny res~lutlon w~~s ~assed 1>y tf~e f~~1 iowln<i vote:
AYES: COMM I SS I ONEfIS : DARPIFS ~ NERk357, CI ~~G, MORLEY ~ FARAt10
NOES ; C0~1M 1 SS I ONf.!~S : N~t~E
AI35ENT: COM'11 ~S IOfIERS: JOII~~SON~ TQLAR
(;OPlOITIONAL USE - PUt?LIC t1EARl~1~,. IMPfRIAI. PItOPERTIES~ 2~1 Via Quito, Newport Beach,
PERMIT N0. IG16 Ca. ~2tiE~0 (Owner); ROf~[RT ~. NAU~AARD, JR., 181 South Las Robles,
Pasadena~ C~~. ~311Q1 (ngent). Property described as an irregularly-
VAItIANCE N0. ~$Q2 shaped parcel of land conslsting of approxlmately II acres h~~ving ~'~
frontage of approximately 870 feet c~n the n~rth slde of Santa Ana
Canyon Roaci~ and h~ing 1 ot~~ted approximately ~~15 fect east of the
centerllne of Imperlal Ntghway, Property presenkly elassifie~f CL(SC) (COMMcRC1AL~
I.IhiITED-5CEMIC CORRIIIOR UVERLAY) ZQPIE,
REQUESTED COPJDIT10~~111. USC-: ESTABI.ISiI A DRIVC•-THROU~~Ii RESTAURAFIT.
REQUE:STED VARl/1NCE~ STRUCT'URAL(SETBACK'1ADJACENTRTOFANAEXPRESSWAYESTbr,CONSTRUCTITHRE(:
COMMERCIAL OUILDIPlGS.
Mrs. Mary D i nndarf ~ 1 31 South La Paz, Anaheim~ 1 n~i i cated her pre:sence i n oppos i t i on to
CommiSSiontdatedtApriln2~iWa197~i,ton the,baslsitha~fsheehalarevRewedtatc~~pyP~'f,samen~
Alth~ugh the Staff Report was not rcad at the public hearing, salcl report is referrecl
to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. liarry Rinker~ one of the property owners, appeared before the Planning Commission
and stated the proposed changes t~ the rle~eloprtient plans for the suhJecC property were
brought about by the deletion of the previously proposed servtce stati~~n and dinner
h~use r~.staurant; that they were now nroposing a savings and loan~ a hank~ and a
restaurant, all with driv~-up windows; and that the plans'1didRfnkernexplainedethe
developn~ent proposals on the remalnder of the property.
layout uf the parking, noting that the plan was to properly orient the parking to the
uses~ and much thought and consideration had been given to the pian by the architects,
engineers and otiier repre~entatives of the users~ as well as by the developers; and,
therefore~ all parties ware well satisFi~clth~t the i~est interest of everyone concerned
h?d been achieveu oy cnp plan.
Inc.~
Mrs. Mary Dinndorf~ President of the Santa Ana C.anyon Improvement 1lssociation~
a~peared before the Pla~niny C~mmisslon and reviewed thc proposed acc:ess to Santa Ana
Canyon Road~ statin~ that said street was being utillzed close to capacity and when the
developments alreac.y approved ~•~ere completed~ the street would be ~itilized to capacity.
Mrs. Dinndorf continued by stating that in October, 1972~ the first Environmental
Impact Repo~L (No. 1) was filed with the City of Anaheim and~ although the subJect
property was approved for development prior to that time~ changes were b~ing proposed
and t~~e petitioner sliould be required to file an EIR, especially since the pro~erty wa~
locatEd fn the Scenic Corridor of the Ci ty and wi~hin the State Scenic Highway
Corridor; that no documentation t-ad been submitr,ed with the proposal in connect.(on with
the traffic ~,nd noise which wauld be generated from the development of the property;
that tne reeuesL Tor w~iver of the stru ctural setba ck requirements should not t~e
granted~ nor• should the pa~l:ing space reyulrements be waived and~ in her opinicm, a
drive-throuqh restaurant wa5 not approp riate for the Scenic Corridor; and~ ti-erefore~
the Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Association~ Inc, was respectfully requesting denlal
of the proposal on tlie bas i s that the p ~oJect d i d nat meet the standards for ttie Scen i c
Cvrridor and there would be an environmental impac* from tlie traffic.
In rebuttal~ Mr. Rinker sta~ed he disag recd with most of Mrs. Dinndorf's comn,ents; that
the revision of plans to move the struc turPs about on the property certainly oid not
requi re the fi 1 ing of ar~ envi ronmental impact report since the pro~ect would n~~•.
adversely affect any environmental element; th~at the setuacks prop~sed along San~.3 Ana
Ganyon Road were considerably greater t han Lhe setback for the shopping center across
•h~ s+rept, althouqh he had not taken t he exact measurements of the setbacks across the
street; that am~le la~dscaoin9 oras oein y proposed adJacent to Santa Ana Canyan Road,
being approximately 25 feet on City property and an additional approximately 14 feet on
~ ~
7(,-1fl~?
MINU1'L5. CITY PL/1~IIJING COMMIS510~~~ Apri 1 2(>, 197E~
CONbITIUNAL USF. PERMIT N0. 1h16 AN~~ VARIANC[ N0. 'L802 (Continu~:d)
-- _..___... __.._.~------
tlie suhJect {~roperty, f~r a tot~l of approxlmate?y 3~ feet of IAndscnping; that. sEnce
the previous npprovol for develnpment ~~f the suh.ject property~ they h.~~{ increased the
landscaping wtthtn thQ center an~f same ~tkracti(~~if~r"~hchs~hJecc shopping~icentPrthaln
their landscaping budgct was approximatety S7~.~
conclusion~ 11r. Rlnker state~l the rNque:~t for a walver of the pc+rl<ing sp+~ce
requlrements wa~ rnlate~l to the ~lrive-through rest~~~rant and th~y did not feel a necd
for the 33 requlred p,~rking spaces for sald restaurant.
TI1E PUf~L I C HEAR I N~ WAS CLOSE.D.
Commis~sioner Nerbst reviewed the rr~ffic Flor~ pattern tndic~ted on ths submitted plans,
noking that It Appeured the islands or me~lians interfercd wlth tlie smooth flov~ of
traffic. Mr. Rinker respondeu thtit the mc~dian and Lrr~ffiG fl~~a pattern wcre designecf
by their tr•affir, engineer (Mr. Herman Ylmmel) and the City's traffic engineer at Chat
time (hir. Ecf Granzow). and thr, deslgn was ~>ased on the trafflG ~ro~ectlon inside the
pr~Ject whlch would be so much greater than outside the proJect on Via Cortez~ an~i that
a stop sign woulcl assist tn the control of the traffic exitincl the prolect.
In response to furtl~er qu~ stlonin<~~ Mr, Rin~Fr stated the traffic flow pattern had b~en
previnusly approved; that Via Cortez would i~e a through public street; anci that the
medians were alrea~ly inst~~lled.
Discussion pursued concerning the circulatio.~ inside the proJect~ dur(ng which Mr.
Sinyer indlcated that [he traffic for the re~taurant woulcl transit through the parking
aisles~ and the Planning Commission indtcate~~ general disapproval of the circulation
plan. Mr. Rinker stated that the circulatic+;. pattern was to provide maximum stacking
for the resCaurant and was a very efficient layout, in their opinion.
Mr. Robert Naugaard~ Jr.. the architect for the proJect~ indlcated that the stacking
area for the c~~rs which would use the savings and loan and the han~ were ahout the same
as for the restaurant~ or even less~ ancl ther~~ should not be any prohlems in *h~t
respect or with the ctrculation pattern as prc~posed.
Cha~rmai~ farano noted that he did not recall ever seeing a traffic pattern such as the
one proposed; and Mr. Singer indicated he had not cither, noting that th~o~;e~atWith
would be on private property, however, and wou'd be a private property p ~
some obvlous builk-in probisms. Commissioner ~iarnes added that s(nce a hlgh sch~ol was
located in very close proximity to the proposeci drive-through restaurant~ there woulr.l
most likely be r*,ore than eight cars stacking u~ at one time.
Mr. Rinker reiterated that ~ tremendous amount of time had been spent reviea~ing the
parking needs with the tenants and t.he boards of the savings and loan and bank, and the
proposal was within one car of what each of them needeci for thc;r operations; that the
stacking lanes were designed to eliminate the c,~ngestion which would occur in the main
dri~eways if [he cars entered directly from the main driveways to the property; and
that the aisles or lanes tn the parking lot whi~:h would be used to reath the drive-
through windows woujd not be in areas of heavy ~~arlciny utilization since said areas
would be located in an ex~,di~~sa ~~t::^en the diffc:rent facilities. Mr. Rinker reiterated
that the medians in Via Cortez were in; however,, 1f the Planning Commisslon or
Engineering Division felt that changes were warrr,nted, i.e., takii~~g out/moving the
medians, the petitio~ers wouid have an open mincl toward the situation.
0'Ffice Engineer Jay Titus reported Chat the plans for circulation were previously
appr~ved, as shown ~n the proposal.
In response to questloning by Commissioner K1ng~ Mr. Singer advised that the flow o~
traffic from Via Cortez on~o Santa Ana Canyon Rr~ad was presently beirig controlled by
stop signs. Commissioner Herbst then made an observation that it ap~eared a~raffic
sic;nal would soon be required at the intersectic*h of Via CoforT:aid siqral~izationY~and
R~ad; that he did not feel the rest of tne City should pay
that the developers should be placed on notice that they would 'oe expected to
participate in the sio~alizatl~n.
Commissioner Herbst further nnted tfiat the setback req~~irements along Santa Ana Canyon
Road had been walved for the Gonstructlon of the: Bank of America buil~tng across from
«~C ~u~~~~` Y.~~.....,, rn h:~vr. landscaoina adiacc~nr. Co said street eliminating the
~ ~
NINUTES~ CITY PLl1NNING COMMISSION~ Apri l^_,~ 197~ 7(~-1A9
CONDITIONAL USE NERPIIT N0. jG16 AND VARIANCF. N0. ?.902 (Contlnucd)
~~arking on th~t side ofi the buildtnr~, with fu11 and better access to that site; ancl
th~t to h~~ve the buil~iings set hack 1~~ feet would be t~ allow porking in s~71d setb~~ck.
~1r. Rinkar• stated tFiey wnuld cio equally as well as the Bank of 1lmerlca across the
street; and ihat they would liave full tile roofs on the i~ullclings~ no mansards~ and no
roof-mounted eyui{~ment.
Furt~ier discussion pursued conc~rning the envlronmental impact report negat!v~
declaratlon~ during which Chalrma~ Farano neted thrit to his recollectlon development of
the subject property was approved prior to the time that environm~nt~l impact reports
were required; and that the determinakicn as to the approprlateness of a negative
cleclaration was made by tlie Dlrector of thc: Planning Department suhsea,uent to the
completion of an Inicial study questionnatre. Mrs. Dtnndorf suggested mak!ng coples of
the completed initlal study questtonnaire avallablc with the staff re~~rts~ and Zonin~
Supervisor Annika Santalahti advised tnat the questionnatres were posteci in the
Planning Departmer~t fur revtew by interested persons. Chairman Farano continued by
not(ng that the development of the sub_)ect property~ in total~ wes previously
considered and the subJect prop~sal was the result of a change in the facilitles
originaliy approved; J~a~ ~-~a ossumed the enviror!mPnt~l ava'.uaticm indicated that the
proposed changes woul.i result in no si~nificant impact which did not exist at thE tlme
of the originally approve~ proposal; ancl that whetiier or not the Clty would have a
legal right to require an environmental impact report at this time would he up to the
City Attorney's Office to determine. Mrs. Dinndorf thpn stated that she had inquired
why an environmenCal impact repart was not ftled at the time nther prevlous cfianges
were made to the development af thh property; ar:c1 that she felt an environmental impacr,
report should have been filed ~rior to thi~ time.
Chairman Farano further noted that~ although there had been substantia) changes in the
project subsaquent to the original approval for development c~f the property~ there were
no significant changes tn the impact on traffic~ etc.; however, he wo~ld like the
record to reflect that the oppositlon fa~ored preparation oP ~~ro~~jatemCity'staffct
report andy therefore~ the City llttorney s Office and other app p
might wish to make a recommendation or determination thereon prior to City Council
review of the subJect proposal.
Mrs. Dinndorf indicated that a representative from the tilestridge Homeowners Associatton
was also present, for the record.
Commissioner Barnes noted thae she was c~ncerned that an envi~'onmental impact report
was not filed~ particular'.y because of the traffic and the cfesign of the drive-through
restaurant with the proposed ctrculation pattern whicii would create pr~l~lems, in her
opinion~ although she was not a traffic engineer; and that she was ol~posed t~ a drive-
through restaurant at the subJect location.
In response to questioning by the Planning Commission~ Deputy City Attorney Frank Layry
advised that the subJect proposal was to make minor internal changes in a previously
approved project; that the zor.ing on the subJect property was approved prior to the
City and State requirements to file environmental impact reports; and that Planning
Commission disapproval of the request f~r the negative declaration would indicate that
an environmental impact re~ort was being rec~mmended.
Commissioner a~rnes furthcr noted that althouyh slie would have preferred an
envtrnnmental impact report fur development of the subJect property~ she was not
suggesting that one be filzd at this time.
Commissioner Herbst offersd a motlon, secondecf by Commissioner King and MOTI~~P1 ~ARRIFD
(~ommissioners Johnson and Tolar being absent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning
Commiss~dn does hereby recorxnPnd to the City Cou~cil of the C?ty of Anaheim that the
subJect PursuanCbtoethePprovisions ~f9theeCalifo~niaeEnvironmersta1~Quality A~tact
report, p
Cornmissianer Barnes reiterated that she did nut favor the propose~v~nrthouth it~waseon~
since it would create a traffic hazard for citizens o` the City~ 9
~+rivate property.
_~...f_ -~.. or•yL_Stn ...1 ~...,,.e.1 f~r i ra naaaaclP. And
Commissioner nero~~ ~~ ~C~~~ ~•~~~~~•~~~ ••~• • - ~ '' "'- " rant Petition for
adoption, that the Anaheim City Planning Commisston does hereby g
~
• ~
~F,~ 190
MiNUTES~ CITY PLANiVIWG CUMMISSIOIi~ April 2~~~ 197~
CO~JDITIONAL USC PcRMIT__NOe 1G16 AND UARIANCC N0. 2~302 (ContinuPd)
Condltlonal Use Permlt ~lo. Ih1~i~ to permit a drivc-through restaurnnt in a planned un~t
shopping center~ walving Che requesYed walver of the mtnimum number af parking space5
on the hasis that slmilar waivers have been gra-~ted previously in connectlon with
drive-through rns~~urants havtng sit-down f~~cillties; granting the requeste.l wafver of
the~ minimum structural setback adJacent to ~~n expressway or t~ie basls that a similar
waiver was previously granted for commerciat develapmenT. in the Scenlc f,orriclor. and
adequate landscaping is provided adJ~cent to the rlght-of-way~ ther~by minimizlr~g the
potantia) impact uf the prupased structures and the maJar pArking areas on the passing
vehicles; sub)ect to the Plannli~c~ Commisslon determination that rhe properties whlch
would bP served by the trafflc signal at the intersectlon of Santa Ana Canyon Road an~1
Via f.ortez should participate in the costs for s~aid signalizatlon on :~n acreage b~sis~
ffic Engineer to hP
the total curre~t cost for same havinq been ~stlmated by the Tr.
$~i0~000~ whlch costs woulci be proportionately dis~rihuted as fo7iows far A total ~i`
approximately 3~ ~~res of land which are expected to benc;tit bY subJecl signallzation:
a. 14 acre s~~bject property (ownPr: Imper~al Properties)
35~: Sl~-~ooo
b. 8 acre parcel west of sub_ject property (o~yner: Freeway Commerc(al Pro~ert.ies~ Inc.)
21~: $ @~400 +
c. 8 acre parcel north of subJect property `~~Jflr,l': frPF+way surpl~is rlght-of-waY~
21~: $ 8,460
d. 9 acre parce) east of suhject property (owner: Hazel I. Maag)
23~: S 9~20~
and the foregning amount ($14~~Ob) shall be paid by the sub)ect property owner(s) prior
tn ~he issuance of builcliny permics; that the Planning Commisslon does further
determine that the street improvements~ and specifically the medians in Via Cortez~
shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engine~:r for possible modification to insure
smooth flow of traffic un said street~ ds acknowledged by t!ie petitioner; and suh_~ect
t~ the interdepartmental Commlttee recommendation. (See Res~~lution f~ook)
On roll call, the f~regoing resoiution was passed by thc following vote:
AYES: COM1115510NERS: NERBST~ K~NG~ MORLEY
NOES : COMM I SS I ONERS : BARP~ES ~ FIIRANO
ABSENI': COMMISSIONERS: JOHtJSON, TOI.AR
Commissloner Herbst offered Resolutioi. No. PC7(~-81 ~nd moved for its passage and
adoptton~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commissi~n does hereby qrant Petltion f.~r
Variance Ne. .^.802~ granting the requested waiver of t!~^ minimur~ structural sethack
adJacent to an expressway to construct two commercial buildings in a planned unit
shopping center tn the CL(SC) Zon^~ on the basis thai a similar waiver was previously
granted for commercial development in the Scenic Carr(dor, and adequate landscaping is
provided adJacent to the right-of-way thereby minimizing the Potenttal impa~t of the
proposed structures and tl~e maJor parking areas on the passiny yehicles; subJect to the
condition that the property ~wner(s} shall prnportionately participate~ on the basis of
acreage~ tn the costs o~ furnishing and insxalling a traffic signal at the intersection
of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Via Cortez, said aarticipaCion ta be 35~ of the total of
approximately 39 a~res of land which are expected to benefit by sul~Ject signalization,
or $14~000 which shall be paid by the subJect property o~mer(s) prior to the issuance
of building permlts; that the Planning Commission does further detiermine that the
street improvements~ and specifically the medians in Via Cortez~ shall be reviewed by
the City Traffic Engineer for possible modificatior to insure smootfi flow of traffic on
said street, as acknowledged by the petitioner; and sub)ect to the InterdeparCmental
Committee recommendation. (See Resolution Book)
pn roll call, the foregoing res~lut(on was passed by the following vote:
AYES: ~OMMISSION[RS: BARPlES, HERBST. KIN~, MORLEY
NOES: C0~1M I SS ( ONERS : FARAIJO
ABSENT: COMM~SSIONERS: JOHNSON~ TOLAR
RECESS - At 3~30 p.m., ~hairman ~arano declared a recess.
R~CONVENE - At 3~~~ P.m•~ Chatrman Farano reconvened the meeting with Commissioners
- Johnson and Tolar being absant.
\ J
~
MIP~U1'ES~ CITY PLANNING COMMIS510N~ !',pr~ 1?.(~~ 197~~
'(,-19'
VARIA~~CE N0, I!i?1 - IiEADVERTISEO PUBLI' NEARiN~,. VICKI BECKHIIM~ 1'~?.~ Wegt Ash Street~
Fullertan, Ca. 92633 (Owncr); requcsting WIIIVER QF PFRMITT(:U l1SfS,
TO ESTADLISH APJ AU~') SAI.GS LOT on pro~erty d~sc~ It,~d ~~s r-
rectangularly-shaped parce) c~f land con,~sting of approxlm~tely ~.3 acre having r~
frontage of opprnximately A4 feet c~n i:h ~ e~~st side of llnaheim Qoulavnrcl~ hnvinh ~
m~~ximum cfepth of app~oxinately I--S fcet, and furrher descril>ed as ~1~ South Anah~lm
Boulev~ard. Pr~~pcrty presently classifi~~1 R-~-12~~ (RESIDENTIAL~ WIUITIPIE-FN~ILY) ZOtIF.
P~o one indic.7tec1 their presen~e in opposi:lon to subJ~cr. petition.
Although the Staff R~port to the Planning Commission d~tcd April LG~ 1'17~~, ~~a5 nnt reAd
at the pub{ic hr.aring, satd Str~ff Report is referrcd to and madc ~a part ~f ehc ml~utr.s.
Mr. Tcxn Pearson, 709 South Knott Strect, +~t~p~'~'~red hefore ttie Ptanning Commisslon and
stated they were pro~osing to open a used car lot on tlie subJect prop~rty; that they
would uti 1 ize a trai ler for an office~ which ~•~~~ulcl be anch~recl on pi l lars and have <~
~vooden fac~de~ that the office trailer would be utllized temporarily untll it i~et~tmr
feasible to construct a perm~nent structurc; and~ Cherefore~ thiey a-ere requcsttny use
of the tr~Iler for one year.
THE PUf3LIC HEARiNG WAS CLOSED.
It was nt~ted that tne Direciu~ vi i.lie Fianninu uepartment ha~~ ~r_i~i'mi~~~d th~t thp
proposed activity fell within the clcfinition of Section 3.~1~ Class 1~ of the City of
Anaheim Guidelines to the Requirements for an Environmental imp~ct Report and wus,
therefore~ categoric311y exempt from thr, requirement to filc a~~ CIR.
Commissioner King offered Resoluti~n No. PC76-$2 and moved fr~r its passage and
adoption~ that the llnaheim City Planning Comm(ssion dnes hereby yrant Petition for
Variance No. 1521~ 9ranting the auto sales iot usr_ on the hasis that the subJ~ct
property has been utfllzed as an auto sales lot fior approximately 12 years~ the
proposed use is compatible with surrounding land uses, and no complaints are on record
against said use; and~ furthermore, grantinq tf~e temporary ~se of ar~ offlce tra(ler for
a period of one year, subJ~ect to review and consider~tion for an extension of tlm~~
said time limitation being based ~!pon petition's indlcallon that subJect trailer is tc~
be utilized f~r an of`ice temporarily untii and if it becomes feasihle to construct a
permanent building; andy subJec*_ to the Interdepartmental Commlttee recommendations.
(See Resolution ~ook)
On roll call~ the foregoing resolutian was pas~ed by tt~e following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: dARtJES~ HERBST~ KIPJu, MORLEY~ FARANO
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JOHNSON~ TQLAR
VARIANCE N0. 2799 - PU9LIC HEARING. MYER FEURBERG~ 2165 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim~
Ca. 928~1 ~~~•mer); requesting WAIVER OF (A) MINIMIIM NUMBER OF
PARY.ING SPACES, (fi) PERMITTED USES~ APlD (C) MINIMUM SIDE YAR.D
SETBACK~ TO f,~NSTRUGT A COMMEftCIAL BUILOING on property descrihed as a rectangulrrly-
shaped parcel of tand coi~sisting of approximately 0.7 acre having a frontaye of
approximately 122 feet on the south side of lincoln Avenue, having a maximum depth
of approximately 252 feet~ ai~d being located aoproximately 118~ feet east of the
ce~iC~rline of Empire Street. Property presently classified CL (C~MMERCIAL, LIMITEn)
and RS-7200 (RESIDENI'IAL, SIIJGLE-FAMIIY) 'LONES,
~pproximately 15 per~o~s indicated their presence in opposition to subject peLi'ion,
and said persons waived the full reading of the Staff Report ta the P'~nning Commission
datPd April 26~ 1976~ an the basis tha± they had reviewed a copy of same.
Although the 5taff Report was r,at read at the public hear!ng~ said report is referred
to and made a part of the minutes.
~~1r. John F. Harris~ 156G North Perry [~rive~ Placentia, the ar~hitect for the
petitio~er~ appeared before the Plan•~1ng CoRRnission and stated~ concerning the proposc.~
retail commercial buil~ing, that ia would be a new location for Linbrook Shoes whtch
was presently located to the west on Ltncoln Avenue; that they we~e also propostng to
~J
~
111NUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMIS510N~ llpril 26~ I~i~~
Vl1RII1NCC N0. 2~!)9 (Continued)
7(,~ 1 ~)2
have a real e~ta[e offlce or other -c~w-key ~~p~fat(~n In conj~~~~cti:~n wlth the ShOP.
storc; that a 25-foot huffcr strlp w~s pronc~s~d AcilA~~n~ to F.mba~sy Avenue for thP
benefit of th± r~dJacent homec~wners~ hiit whlch llmitcd thr s(..e ~f the pr~,~~sed
buf Id(ng; t!~~t th%;• dl~l n«t presentlY k~irnv wh~~t t~~eir bui 1~11ng materials would cansist
of and would not knov~ wh.tit the floor pl.ins would be untli the tenants wcr~ conflrmc~l;
that Cfty St~ff had mentl~ned the possihility ~f a~rnblem concerning the~ proposecl
access; that the 1-foot setl~ack nn the east ~f thc proposed huildin9 was :+ iiecessity Irti
orc.cr to ke+~~ th~ hulidinq a proper dist~~nr.e from the +•~est pronerty line ad,)ACent ~o
Che residentl„1 property; that, in hls optnion~ the proposal wculd enhance tlie subJect
area~ althcuyh it was commerria?~ %in~i incronsce the pr~.~perty val~.ius accordingly.
Nrs. James Vo~dPrlah~ 114 Emcrald P1ace~ ~spF>e~~red bef~,re thc Plann(ng Commisslon In
oi~positlon to the subJect petitl~~n, representing apf~raxl~nately 15 person~ present in
apposition~ ancl s~ated her property abutted the snuthwest corner of the sub,Ject
property; that the neighborhnod felt that the prop~~sa) should be denied for several
reasons~ beinc~ th~it the proposecl use was n~t compatihle with tlie single-family
resident~al character of the ;dJacen't prc>perty to the south~ west rnd a portion to the
east; that the prc~nosed deveiopmsnt adJacent tu Em~assy Avenue would be an intrusion
into thc: area which was substantially built wlth single-~amily homes on higl~ly ~tablc
nr~n~~tJ: +I~at three of the familles on Emerald had lived there f~r a numl,er of years;
, ~~r n. ~rn nnn ~~.1 ..~~rn ~.~nl l-
that the homes i n the area ranged i n va i ue i r un, ~» ~ ~~~~% ~~• ~+~~- -~- ~•• ~~
mainta~ned and upgraded; khat her horr,e had fivc bedrooms and three haths Tnd her patio~
Icttchen ~nd thr•ce oF her bedrooms wouZd overlook the proposed parking 1ot; that the
deed restrictions on th~ resicientlal tract pr~;vented any u,e other tl~an sl~gle-family
residences; that the ~>roposeci development might cause e hardship for any of the
hameowners wishiny to sell their properties~ since a loan guara~tee was samewhat
dlirficult to obtain when a lot backed up to a commercial use; that tfie prop~7sa1 was to
have pede~trlan access from Embassy Avenue ~~hich would encourage parking on said
,treet; that ingress and egress from Em~a<.,s,y Avenue was also proposed far the trash
pickup; that any proposal f~r access ~rom cmbassy was unthinkable to the homernvner~ (n
the area sirece it would create hazarclous f.raffic for th~ SoSed adtecentrtohtheteast
homeowners also ob]ected to the l~i-fo~t high building p Qp .l"
property line,~~hich would constitute an invasion; that the 5-foot setback requirement
was intended for all-residential use, and a 3~~°fioot setback wuuld be required for the
propo~ed commercial use, or twice the h~:t,yht of the building; that the homenwners
obJected to the proposed 4?.-inch high fence adJacent to Embassy Aven~e~ which should be
a 6-foot h~gh bluck wall to seal off Cne re~idential area from the commercial; that the
proposed 6-foot high wall on the west vrould not protect the hor~eowners from the parking
lot intrusion and perhaps an 8-foot Hall would be more beneficial; that the hor~~eowners
feit that the northerly poi•tion c' t'~e subJect property could be developed withtn the
limits of commerclal use~ and th~ s~'utherly portion shoulcl be maintained as
residential; and that the petitione~ was asl:ing for• special privileges to dev~lop the
pro;~erty to its maximum use for ht~ ow~. benefit and not for the best use that would
benefit the entire community.
In rebuttal~ Mr, flarris stated tl•-:~t the subject development woulcf not havc the Craffic
flow ttiat a normal~ small a:~mmer:.ial development might have~ and they wcre pc^~posing
landscaping to make it more com~•atible with the neighburho~d ta the south~ north and
west~ with t:t~e easte~'ly side of the development being governed by the Carl's Jr.
restaurant; that the proposed ~tructure would be considerably more expensive than the
construction of two additional houses; that he was not sure that a loan guarantee would
be affected by the proposal; that the proposed trash picL:up from Errhassy Avenue was a
necessity; that the pedestria,i access from Embassy Ave~ue was for the convcnience of
thc~ adJacent homeowners; that, it was posstble to construct a tiiyher wall along the west
property line~ however~ such a wall would be a barrier; that it ~vas also possible to
adJust the height of the building~ but tP~e height was probably not the issue; that they
would sti~ulate 'to constructing a 6-foot hiyh fence ad;acent to [mbassy Avenue; tliat
the development of the sub?ect property was difficult since part af ~t was zoned for
cororr~ercial and the other part for residential; that he would oppose a house rnove-on
ontu the site since he felt it would not be of benefit to tfie community; that the
proposed commercial development would, in effect~ increase the surrounding property
values; that the propesal woulu ~~ot be a detriment in any way~ however, if he were ont
o~ the neighbors he might possibly oppose it also; and that he had taken maximum u~e of
the site on purpose~ but was also providing necessary and generous landscaping to meet
the r,ri teria a~i thin 1 tm~ ts.
THE PUBL I C IiEAR 1 PJG W.~5 CLOSED.
J
~ ~
PIINUT[S~ CITY PLAN~IING C~MI11~51(1~1~ A~ril 2~s, 137G 1f~~1~13
VARIA~~C[ N0.~9 lGontinued)
Commissianer Morley noted th~~t, in ~Il goc~i ;:~r~sci~nce~ he could nat Im~ose a
commerr.ia! zon~~ onr.o Ec~,bassy Avenuc and [he r~:slde.ntlal area.
Gnnxnissiener Nerbst nuled that the southerlv purtlun of the subiect prop~rty co~~lcl be
two very good bullding sites for sln~ale-~amily h~~mr.s; that the proposal indiG~ted a
commcrc;al bui lding ~ver tlie l lne se~aratin9 to~<. ,:r~rcels c~f lan~1, ~nd impose~i
cammercta~l traff~ic on a residentlal stre.r.t; that constderatt~n shnuld he 91ven to
keeping the ~~arc~:ls separated and d~vel~~pin!~ them acc.nrdin~ to the ex(sting zc~ninry; .7nd
that Che Future hUl'Chascrs of thc t~•ro hrxnesiCes would be aware th~at *_heir pronerty
~rould be backtn<~ up to thc commerclal i~arcul.
Comialssioner Nerbst of('ered a motion, sr.c~n~led by Commissioner Morlcy and MOTION
C~~RRIED (Co~nmis~ioners Johnson and Tolar being ahs~nt)~ that the Nnaheim City Planni~g
Commi ss I on d~es hereby recommr,nd tn t he C i ry Cu~mc i 1 of the C 1 ty c~f Anahe t m thac th~~
req~~est for EIR Negative ~eclaration be denled for the suhJect proJect on the bast~;
that~ if clev~aloped, said pr~Ject would hav~ an adverse environmental impar.t upAn lhe
surrounding area to the south, west., and southe~st of the suhJect property.
Commissioncr Nerhst offered Resolut~.i~n No. PC76-~33 an~l moved for its passage and
a~l~ ri~,~ rhat thA Anaheim CitY Planninc~ Commisst~n docs hereby deny Petltion for
r ~
Varlan~e No. 2799 or, the basi ~ that tht~ proposai is deCrrmineu iu u~ a com~-,~:rc(:.'
development which will generate s~,bstantial commercial traffic ar,cl noise into the
residentially developed ~eighbo~'h~ood and wauld~ tl~erefore~ he incornpatible with the
surrounaing u5es *o the sauth~ wf.st, and southeast of sub.j~ct preperty. (See
Resolut(on Dook)
0+~ roll cal~, the foregoing resr~lution was ~~ssed I.~y the following votec
AYES : C~Mt11 SS I ONERS: DARtIFS, NERaST ~ KI NG, t10RLEY v FAFtANO
NQ~S ; C011111 SS I ONERS: NO'rJE
Ar :Nl': COMMISSIONERS: J~HIJS0~1~ TOLAR
~•,IANCL NQ. 2R01 - PUBLIC HEARItJG. WILLIAM R. AND JUDY E. TN~MPSON, 19~ North Avenida
°' ^ Rio Bravo~ Anaheiin, Ca. 92$07 (Owners); reqursting WAIVER OF MAXIMl111
WALL HEIGHT, TO CONSTr~UCT A BLOCK WALL on pro;~erty described as ..
e~.~~n~iti,larly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.2 acre located at the
-~~t~ ~~..~:st corner of Camino 'fampico and Avenida Rio Bravo~ having approximate frontages
~; i' feet on the south slde of Camino Tamptco and 7? feet on the east side of Avenida
~~ 1lravo, and further described as 19~ North l~venida Rio dravo. Property presently
as~ified RS-7200 (RESIDENTlAL~ SINGLE-FAMILY) ZOPJE.
~o one indicated their presence in opposition tu subJect petition.
!although the Staff RPporC to the Planning Cornmission dated April 2~~, 1q7~. ~~~~s not rea<I
3t the public: hearing, sai~ Staff Report is referred to and msde a part ut the minu[es.
t1rs. Judy Thompson, the petitioner~ appeared before the Planning Commission to answer
questions concerning the proposal.
THE PUB' ~ HEARlNG WAS CLOSED.
Commis~toner lierbst ^oted for tfie petEtioner that if the proposed wall exceeded ~ feet
in height~ said wall would have to be constructed in conformance wlth the Uniform
Bulld(ng Code requirements pertain~ng to structural walls. In response, Mrs. Th~mpson
stipulated that th^ construction company would take care of the structural requlrements
and the cos:s, as necessary~ if a structural wall was r•equired for tl~eir purposes.
Traffic Gngtneer Paul Singer indicated that the Traffic Division was v~ithdraaring any
obJections to the locati~n of the proposed wall since lt was determined that there was
adequate sight distance for the vehicular traffic in the area.
pssistan'~ Planner Joel Fick noted that encroachment permits might be necessary if the
proposed wall extended into the easements along Camino Tampico and Avenida Rto Bravo.
Mrs. Thompson stipulated to said requirement.
~ ~
MINUTEi, CITY rLANNING ~OMMIS510N~ Aprll 2~i, 1~1,'~ti ~~'~19~~
VARIANCE. N0. 2f301 (Cont(nued)
It was noted [hat thr. Cirector of the Plnnning Department had d~termined that lhe
proposed actlvity fell within the definltlon of Snctlori 3.~1, Class 3~ of r.hie City of
Anahcim Guidelines to th~ Reyutr~ments For an Environmental Impact fteport and ~,~a5,
therefore~ categorically exempt Pr~n :h~~ requlr•ement to flle an EIR.
Conxnissfoner 1lorley offrred R~,olution '~Vo. PC7~-8~i and r~x~ved for Its DASSa9C ~nd
adaption~ that the Anah~im City Planning Commiss~on does fiereby grant Petitior~ fr,r
Varlance No. 28Q1~ waiving the maximum wall height on the basi5 that the prop~sed wall
will not generate any visibility problems 4`ar the vehicul~~r traffic in the area; that
waivers have prevlously 4een granted un~:ier sirnil~r c(rcumstances for similar walls; and
that the ~ekitioner demonsrraked that a hardship would be created iF aatd waiver were
not granted, sald har~lship being thr. detrime~t t~ the peace~ health~ safety and general
welfare: of the citizEns of the City ~f Anaheim~ since satd wall will encl~se the rear
yard and a swimming pool at thc subject lacation; said w~iver being granted subJect to
the st(p~~lations of the petitioner that (f the proposed wall exceeds ~ fest in height~
sald wall wi11 he ~onstructed in acco~d~~nce witli the Uniform duilding Code r•equirements
pertaining to structural walls~ ancl tl,at any nc:cessary encr~~achment ~ermits will be
obtained pr(or ko constructior (See Resolution Book)
On roll call~ the foregoln~a resolution was passed by the fo1lcW~ing vote:
AYES: COMMi5SI0NERS: dARNE~~ HERf35T~ KIN~~ f•1~RLEY, FARANO
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: 4JONE
ABSENI': COMMISSIONERS: JQIiNSON~ TOL~R
VARIANCE N0. 2Ii03 - PUBLIC HEARING. BILL J. RARDON, 312 East Rroadway~ Anaheim, Ca.
92A~5 (~wner); requesting WAIVER OF (A) MINIPI~IM FLl10R AREA, (F)
M I N I ~1UM STRUCTURAL SETLIACI<, (C ) M! ~J I MIJM U I STANCE BETWEEiJ PARALLEL
WALi.S~ AND (D) MINIMUM NUMBER AND TYP[ OF PARKING SPAL[S~ TO ESTABLISH Atd APARTMENT an
property described as a rectangularly-sh~aped parcel of l:~nd consisting of approximately
0.2 acre having a frontage of approximately 63 feet on the south side of Broadway~ having
a maximum depth of approximately 135 feet, b~ing located approximately 144 feet east of
the centerline of Philadelphia Street~ and further described as 31z East Droadway.
Pr~perty presently classified RN-12Q0 (RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE~FA~IILY) ZQP~E.
One person ir.dicated his presence in oppositicm to subject petition.
Ass?stant Planner Joel Fick read the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated
Apri) 26~ 1976~ and said Staff Report is referred to as if set forth in f~~ll in the
minutes.
Mr. Di11 J. Rardon, the petitioner, appeared be1`ore the Planning Commission and stated
he purc:hased the subJect property about two nonths ago; that the building in question
had been vacar~t for some time, hut had been used in the past years as a building; that
he had torn out the inside of the building and ~aas planning to bring it up to Code;
that the wall which wa~ about 3~~ inches from the property line would be reconstructed
as a one-hour ~~ire wall with an 18-inch parapet; that there was room for one car in
back of the buiiding and he had not given thougl~t about the LIYQ addikional parking
spaces which were rPquired; that he was not plann~ng to have the apartment a..
permanent~ since the house on the front of the property was prcbably the last of ;he
~/ictorian houses in the area and they were planning tu restore it and have antique
furniture, etc.~ to bring it to its originai state; and then. if the City redeveloped
the adj~cent area, the subJect pr•operty would he apprupriate for a gift shop, etc.;
that he had I~auled out a lot of junk and had torn out the landscapin~ to imnrove the
property; th~it the building would requtre n~w plumbin_y and e'ectr?cal w~rin9ansnd that
they were mal:ing the property their home for the presen: until the City s p
materialized so they could turn the property into a busine~s.
Mr. J. V. A1len~ 316 East Broadway, A~aheim, appeared before the Planning Co~rxnission
and stated the building in question was 3~ inches from the prop~rty line which
s~eparated his property and the subject praperty; ttiat the buil~fing was originally
constructed as a pump and taiik house~ but haci been later converted int.o living quarters
with~ a lean-to sieeping area; that he had na obJ~ctton to a neighhnr improving F~is
-~~~~~•, h„±; hy thP ttme the building was stripped down to get it ready for
Y.:.p... -~
In~provement in accordance with the Code requirements~ there wouid be onty about ~~~~~~
wurth of bullding materials which could be utilized or left standing; that he had
~
~
~
MINUTES~ ~ITY FIANNIt~G COMMISSION~ April ?.(~. 1~7~i
VARIANC~: N0. 2Ei~3 (Ccntlnued)
~h..195
canstruct~d his t-omc approx~mately 2(1 years agn In conformance wtth all the Ctty rule~
and reg~ilat(~ns and he was opposhd to the subJect cemversion ~f an old struct~~re; that
a few years ago when the sub_~ect property w?s occupled by an r..ldcrly couple~ he had
been reFused Insurance since the building was t~o clase to thc property Iine nnd he was
out of insur~~ncs for two montlis; that the sub]ect hui?ding was subsequently condemned
and should he torn d~wn for the safety of his own tenants; that he had c~m~~l~~ined
against the subJect property because tFie new owner (th~ petitlo~er)~ a f•~w days
following clase of ~scrow~ had started t:..~r(ng out portlons of the structure and piling
it up agalnsC the fence~ and then after a couplo of days had started bringln~ ln new
building maierials, glvir,g the appearance tnat canstructlon was in progress; that the
tlealth Department had asked h(m to look for anyone try!ng to move intu thr. pro~erty
and~ after seeing the activity in progress~ he hacl cantacte:d the City Building Division
who promptly stopped the wor!c. Mr. A1len continued by stat(ng that he did not feel the
subJect buliding was safe ancl it was a fire hazard with the old dr(ed wood whlch was
bound ~.o be very flammable; that if the build(ng ev~er cauc~hl• S'ire~ his own property
would surely burn also sfnce che building was ab~ut 25 feet tall and tov~ered ovar his
two-story apartment structure; ancl that he was urgently requesting that the Planning
Commission deny the proposal.
In rebuttal~ Mr. Rardon stated tl~e construction noise was t.he hammering of nails to
support ±he sP~ond floor of the buildtng in order t~ get upstairs to s~e what was up
there; that a ~ne-hour fire wall was ~~11 ti~at was r•equired to have the building so
close to the pruperty line; that considerable work would have to be done insid~ the
bul iding~ ho~iever, he would probablv not be al lowed to construct a ne~a bui 1c11~~g in the
place where the ~ld building was situat?d on the property; howe~ier~ he could hring the
old structure up to Code in its present location~ if the requnsted waivers were
granted.
T}IE PUBLIC fIEARING WAS CLOSED.
In response to questioning by Commissioner Ile~bst~ Mr. Rardon stated the buildtng was
originally erected as a pump house, ~~eing 12 x 14 feet downstairs and 12 x l~i feet
upstairs~ and having a i0-foot lean-to room, Commissioner Fi~~~st macie an observatton
that if the building was to be used as a utility buildJng it woulct be different than
the propos~l to use it as a residence. ~ir. Rardon then stated the subJect property was
zoned for multiple-family residential use; whereupon~ Commissioner Herbst explained
that the petittoner was infringing upon tl~e adJacent property oamer's rights; that~
unfo~tunately~ the buildiny had been condemned as a restdence, and had it been intended
to be a res(cence~ it probably would not have been constructed thac ciose to the
pro~erty lir.e initially; and Lhat the required setbacks were to provide air and sight
for adjacsnt properties. Mr. Rardon then stated he had torn out a lot of trash along
the fence so that the tenants on Mr. Allen's property could have air. Commi~.,ioner
Herbst then noted CFiat the City tried to work with the property a~ners t~ create
livable situations for all parties~ but *.he subJect proposal woufd i~e difficult to
resolve to that end~ without infringing.
Mr. Rardon requested to know if he wauld be allowed to constr~+ct another building in
the same location~ if he were to tear down the old structure. Commtssioner Herbst
reiterated that the structure was too cluse to the property line and, additionally~ had
less than thE required square feet for an apartment; and that if ne~v structure werf;
dllowed~ the problems would be compounded for the City and the property ~owners. Mr.
Rardon then stated he wanted the use of the structure on a temporary basis~ with the
intent tu tear it down in the fi•`ure.
It was noted that the Director of the Pl~nning Department had determined tt~at the
proposed activity fell within the definition of Section 3.~~1~ Class 1, of *~p City of
Anaheim Guidelines to the Requirements for an Environmental Impact Renort and was~
therefo~e~ categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC7ti-85 a~id moved for its passage and
adoption~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Pe~ition for
Variance DJo. 2II03~ on the basis that the praposed conversion would expand an existing
bad situation because the ~xisting butlding propossd for converslon to an a~artment was
originally not built as a residence but as a pumphouse; because said building has an
+.-.+~ ~!-: Tin;m~,m rPnuirPd for residential buildings and~
interior setoacic c,r~a=~~-..,; . ,
additlonally~ said minimal setback is proposed ad]acent to the property line aou:~~~~~~
other restdentta) structures which were construct°d in ~omplianc~ wl:h Code
~ ~
MIPlUTES, CITY PI.ANNIPIG COMMISSI01l~ Apri l 26~ 197~~ ~~'"19~'
VARIANCE N0. 2t303 (Continuad)
requirement•=; and that the number of site deve~o~ment walvers necessitated by the
propos9d conv~rstor~ indicste an over-development ~f sub)ect site whicli v-ould be
detrlmanta) c.o the pEace~ health~ s~ifety and genera) wr.lfnre of the adJacent residents.
(Sec Resolution dook)
On rol l ctil l~ thc foregoing reso: ~tlon was passe~l I~y Che fol loaiing vot~:
,HftS: COMIqISSlONER5: EiARNF.S, NERDST~ KING, MORI,EY~ FARANO
NOES: COM111SSIONFRS: NQNE
ADSENT: COMM! SS I ODIERS : ,, ~IINSON ~ TOLIIR
TENTAT~VE Mi~P OF ^ DEVELOPER: BLANU HUFFIIAN~ 1156 Linda Vista Strect, Orange~ Ca. ~12h(.g.
TRACT N0, ~O~iG ENGINE[R: JA~1ES O~MALLEY b ~~SSOCIATES~ P. 0. Box 6235~ Analieim~ Ca.
92a0G. SubJc~ct ~~roperty, consisttng of approx(mately l.~i acres
having a fronCage of approximat+~ly 176 feet on the west slde of
Knott Avenue~ having a maximum depth ot approximately ~~-i2 feet~ being l~cated apprnxi-
mately 666 feet north of the centcrline of Or~nge Avenue~ is propas~d for subdivisi~n
inta A RM-1200 lots.
No one indlcated their presence in ~pposition to the subJect item.
Although the Staff Report to the Planntng Commission clated Aprl) 2Fi, 1976~ was not read
at the meeting~ said Staff Report is ref~rred to and made a part of th~~ minutes.
It was noted that Variance Ne.~. 274~ was yranted by thr, Planning Cammission on Decemher
2~~ 1975, sub.jecC to c~~ndttior~s~ one condition bFing th~t a final tract map of subJect
property be submitted, etc.
P1r. Michael Anderson~ represer~tir,g the engineers for the applican*_~ appeared befor~ the
Planninq Commission and stated they hacl revlewed the Staff Report and had com~lied with
mcsC of the Interdepartmental Commictee reccsmmendations se_ fortl~: therein.
Corrnnissioner Herbst offei•ed a motionr seconded by Commissioner Morle.y and MOTIOPJ
CARRIED (C~mmissioners Johnson and Tolar being absent), that the Anahe!m City Plann?ng
Commission does hereby recammend to tlie City Counci) af the City of Anaheim that the
subJect pro.ject be exempt from the requirement to preparc an envir~nr~ental impact
report, purs~ant to the pr~visions of the California Environmental R~~ality Act.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motton~ seco~ded by Commiss(oner King and MQTION CARRIED
(Commtssioners Johnson and 7olar being absent)~ that Yhe Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby rtnd that the pro~ose~ subdivision~ togetner with its design and
improvement~ is consistent with the City's General Plan~ pursuant to Government Code
Section 6G473.5; and, therefore~ the Planning Commission does he~eby arprove 7entative
Map of Tract tJo. 505b fcr eight RF1-!200 zoned lots~ subJect tc the follo~~~ing
conditions:
l. That should this subdivision be develope~i as more than or.e subdivision~ each
subdivision thereof shali be submittcd in tentative form for app~oval.
2. That a fina) tract map of subJect pru~erty ,hall be submitted to and appr•oved
b~ the Cicy Council and then be re~orded in the Offi~:e of the Orange Coun'ty Recorder.
3. That the covenants, conditions and restricttc~~~s shail he submitted to and
aporaved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City Cnuncil approvat of the final
tract map and~ furttier, that the ap~lroved covPnants~ co~ditions and restrictions shall
be recorded concurrently witl~ tlie final tract map.
4. That drainage of subJect property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory
to the City Engineer.
5. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charge~ as required and detcrminea co
be necessary by the Chief of ~he Fi;~~ Department prior to cc,mmencement of structural
f~aming.
6. That trash storage areas shall be provicied in accordar~ce ~-~ith aprroved plans on
file with the Office of the Director of Publlc Works.
~ ~
MINUTES~ CI1'Y Pi.~~INING CUPIM~SS10~1~ Apri l 2b~ 1~7f~
7~~ 1'~7
EIJVIRONNENTAL IMPAC''' - DEVLL~pER: (~UTLER If0U5111G CQRFQ~'tf1TI0t•!~ 1(~~) K~tter(ng Street~
REPORT N0. 1~3_ __ Irvlnc~ Ca. ~f2'J~S, E~~GINEER; PiILIET~ K1~lG s A~SQCIA7ES, 1~7
- West O~anc~ethorpe Avenuc~ Sulte 1~1~ Placentia~ Ca. ~2E~/17.
TC.NTATIVF. ~tAP OF S~bJect property~ consistOng of approxin~rstely 1~.~~ acres hnvinr~
TR~CT tJO. 7~~71 a frontage o'` Approxtmately 975 f~Pr on tl~e n~rth sl~ir. c~f I.a
REUISIO~J N0. 1) Palma ll~ienue~ hAVin~ a maximum ct~;,th of .~+pprc~xlmAte6y 7~~ fe~t~
and b~liig locr~ted approxtmately i(~i1^, feet n~~rtheast of ths
centerlina: oF Falrmo~t Boulevard~ is proposed for ~ubdivislon
;nto 85 RS'5~~0(SC) lots.
No one indicated their presence in ~~pposition to the sul~ject Item.
Although tne Staff Repc~rt to the Pl~~nning Commission dated ~pril 2~i~ 1~17~~~ was not read
at the meeting~ said Staff P,ep~rt l~~ referr~d to and made a part of thc minutes.
Mr. ~1erri1) Dutler~ represrr~ting thF: developcr~ appeared hefore the Pl~~nni~g Commission
and stated that khe proposed w~ll aclJacent to the ratlroad a~htcl~ would aerve as o sound
barrier wouid vary ln '~eight from !3 to 1~ fec~t inasmuch as it wuuld Join existing walls
at either end; and that he would take exception to th~ Interdepartmental Committee
i•ecommandation pertainin3 to a potenttal homeowners association Inasmuch as they ciid
r~t prcpose to form a homeown:rs association ar otl~er corpor~~tion.
in response~ D~pury Cicy Att~rney Fr~~nic Lowry advised that all developments In Planning
Area B of the Ger~er•al Plan were rec~ui ~ed to have a homerw~mers associa~io~i or
corporation as part o1` the Hillsirle f;ra~iirg Ordinance and sald rpquirement had never
been w~ived by ?.he City Countil,
Cammis~ioner Ilerbst noted that seven lots were propc+s~ed on "D" L~3ne cul-de-sac; that
the Planning Cammission palicy was to allow a maximum of five lots on a cul-de-sac t~
allow for gue5t parking spaces; th~t I.ot ~Jo. -+' appeared to be ~ubst~ndard and he
guestioned whether the developer was negotiating for• additional land to increase the
size of said lot. P1r. Butler replied that Shey were negotiating for an exchange of
property to add tc Lot Mo. ~il.
Commissioner Herbst further inquired ccm cerning the numher of hedrooms to be prap~sed~
etc.; whereupon~ Mr, Butler stated the specific house plans would depend upon the
marketing tonditions at the time of constructi~n; however, they were aa~are that they
coulci not construct homes with more than three bedrooms on lots hetween 5~~~ square
feet and 5AG0 square fe~t; th~at many of the proposed lot~ were. 5~ fPet wide and 1?.~
feet deep; that the house~~ would comply with the rules and regulatians of the City and
no variances would be reqi+ested for any of the lots, Commissioner Ilerbst noted that
some deveiopers had to realign their l~t•.s in arder to do what they wanted, and it could
happen with the proposed tract.
Commissioner flerbst pursued tht matter of thr.. number of lots proposed on a cul-de-sac;
whereupon, Mr. dutler stated they were trying to produce houses that the average
American could buy; and that the average lot siz~ was approxim~tely 55~~ square feet.
Commissioner Herbst then noted that the subJec*. property along thc ratiroad was
probably the least desirable area in Anahe~m for a home; that the developers were
causing problems by builcling next to the r~ilroads and the Planning Commission was
trying to prot~ect the people who would buy the hnmes.
In response to questioning by Chatrman Fa.rano, Mr. Butler' stated that the grade of the
adjacent railroad tracks was approximate'ly 13 to 15 feet higher than the grade of the
subJect property~ and said grade differenti~~l applied to all of the subJect property.
Chairman Farano th~:n made an observation that the Planning Commission could not waive
the City Councii policy pertaining to sound-attenuation measures and, further, that he
was not sure he was able to make a recommendation one way or tl~e ~ther in connectior~
with the propased saund-attenuatton wall adJacent to the railroad. Cortmissioner Nerhst
added that the line-of-slght~ as set by the devel~per~ wa~ the key as long ~s tt ~',~:
the policy requl~emert. Chairman Far~n~ continued by no~ir~y that the tralns travel~~1
i~ the area at a fatrly high speed and~ stnce vihrations traveled d~wc~~ rather than ~p,
the proposed homes along the tracks would get a good shaklny, and~ fnr that reason~ he
was not enthusiastlc about the homes being near the railroad tracks; and that lie was
sincerely cencurring wlth the suggestion to reduce the nunber of ints on tfie cul-de-sac
t~ a maximum of fiv~ to sanewhat relieve the tmpact from the railroad.
~
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLIIHNING COMMiSSIOM~ 11p~i1 ~", 1~7b
7fi-1~)A
E~JV I RONME~~TAL I PiPACT REI'ORT N0. 173 ANU T[NTP~ I' I VL ~ 1J1P OF TRACT N0. 7~-71 Rf1r 1 S 1 ~N N0, 1)
Contlnued ~
Nr. Du~:lcr stated the reas~n they wcra requQSting th~ wAlver ~f the Clty C~~uncll pollcy
p~rtalning to th~ hr,ight ~f the wall adJacHnt to the rellroad tracks was tn Incraase
and nr~t raduce tho helght of sald wr~ll; whareupen, ChairmAn Farano clarift~d thnt he
wus valcin9 hls ge~~~ral obJection t~ bullding h~use, so closQ to the r:~ilr•oad tracks,
and that hla renl optnlon was that n~ homes shaui~l be bullt north ~if Northfield.
Commlaslnne~ HerbSt sugge,ted a mitigAtinc~ mensure for the raliroaci soun~ ~nd
vlbratlonS~ being fil! around th~ trac~< ~reri c~nsisting ~f grA~iel.
C~mmissloner I:Ing reyuested to know what the <leveloper lntc+nded to do pertaining to the
re~luction of the numbcr of lots on thP cul-de-sac; whereupon. Mr. E3utler stated that
the t~ulldiny industry was flghting everv momant to develop housing that the average
American could buy and it w~s an aver-i~~creasing !~urden. Commissi~ner Kinc; added that
stati~stics tndlcaxed 15ti of the moderote in*_.ome fam(lles c~uld .~fford a new homE. Mr.
Butler tl~en staCed that reducing tlie numbcr of lots would not mak~ any difference tn
hirti personally~ since the co~t of tli~ two lc~ts would he split among the other "° lots,
ai~~i~ wit` ihe costs for improvements. etc,~ and such costs t,ave be~n compounded over
the years. In respon~e to further quPstion(ng by Camm'issioner King~ Mr. Butler stated
the homes on the cul-de-sac wc,uld have ?.5•~faot setbacks provicfing for ?. parkiny spaces
i~ the driv~ways plus 2 parking spaces tn the garages.
Chairman Faran~ then noted that~ at the rlsk of be(ng rude~ in his opinir~n~ thc hom~s
that were proposed ~NOUId not come within flnancial reach of $5~ of the m~~dei•ate income
American famllles; horlever, for the 15$ who would purchase the homes. khe Planning
Commission was attempting to obtaln a Iivable set of circumstanc~s which might appeal
to the 15~.
Nr. Butler then stated that if the Planning C~mmission was insisting that thc numher of
lots on the cul-de-sac be reduced to five~ he would do so in order to have rhe map
approved atthougl~ he was doing it reluctantly; and that hc had not been heretofore
aware o,` the pollcy pertaining to the number of lots permitted on a cul-de-sac.
Commissioner Ilerbst noted that dQVetoper~ complain~d at,out the policy and the
homeowners complain~d about the lack of parking spaces fo~ th~.ir guests. Commiss~oner
Darnes noted that existing tracts with more than five houses cn the cul-~~-sacs were
really havtng problems and ir was not an imagine~ thtng.
Mr. Butler suggested that the ardinance should prol~ahly be changed so that the
dcvaiopers would be more cognizant of the requirsments.
Chairman Farano stated~ in his opinion~ that the re~~ctlon in lots would be money well-
spent~ whether by tlie developer or by ttie purchaser~ ~tnce it aloutd create a better
li~oing enviranment.
Traffic Engineer Paul Sinyer note~ in connection with Envir~nme~ital Impact Report No,
173, that the capacity for La Palma Avenue was 12~5~0 cais d.ring a 24-hour volume
tiranslated int~ one-way trips or 25~Q00 cars wher, translated int~ twu-way trips; that a
63~'unit development had been approved on La Palma Avenue and~ in addition Lo the Yorba
Park, Carl's .Jr.~ the service station~ the nursery~ the m~bllehome park, and the
proJected shopping center~ the trips would ye increased to T_1~000~ not i.cluding the
multlple-family development which was scheduled in the future to the nerth of the
shoppfng center. Mr. Singer e~nphasized that the traffic or! Imperiat Highway and !.a
Palma Ave~~e was presently very close to c.~paclty; that the subJect devElopment wauld
not add a significant amount of trt~s (393) per day~ but the streets could not
accommodate fut~re develupmen~ unless Fairmont to Esperanza or Weir Canyon Road were
put through. Office Engineer Jay Titus advised that there was much ooposition to the
extension cf Wetr Canyon Road.
In response to questloni~g hy .'oning Supervisor Anntka Santalahti, Mr. Miliet
stipulated that pr(or to ~ nis;lor- of the final tract map~ Lot No. 41 would be
increased in size to h,e a~~~inimum of ~0 f~ . wide at the 10-`oot fr ~~t setback line,
either by nsgoti~~ting for additional land or by shtftir~g the surrounding lots to do so;
provlded~ however~ that the wid[hs of all the lots shal~ bc in c~nformance with Che
site development standards of the zone.
Commissloner Oarnes inqulred i~ the developer would be infarming the p'ocnective
purchasers in the tract that there was (nsufficient school capacity in the immecllate
~
r~
u
MINUT£S~ CITY PLI1t~NING COt~S~11SS10~~~ Apri) 2G~ 1~37fi
ENV~ RONMENTAL IMP~CT REPOR7 N0.
tlnue
7F-t~n
AND T~NTl1T I V[ ~SAP OF TRl1CT f~0. 74? 1 REV I S; Qtd N0~1
area. Mr. Butler ra~~liod that they wrre required tc~ InForm tl~e prospective purchasers~
and thcs renl est~tu b~~rd would he pr(ntinq that inforrtiatton in a reporl which would ho
dtst rlbuied.
In ~ esponso to questloning by Mr. Butlor, Depu*_y C1 ty N!tarney Frank Lc~wry odvlsed that
the trees~ olthaugh ln a state of der,llnr., could no t be removed without raplacing them
wlth cne of tha verleties speciflad In tl~e Trer, Preservntlon Ord(nance; and th~it the
de ve loper should cansult the Planning pepartment wi th respect to the trees,
Commissioner Herbst offered a molion, seconded by Commissi~ner King ~nd MO'~ION CAftRIED
(C ommisstoners Johnson and Tol~r being ahsent)~ th at Envlro~mental Impact Report No.
173, havlnr been considered this date by the Anaheim City Planning Commissian and
evidence, both written and oral~ having becn presented to supplement ~s~id draft EIR ~~o.
113, ttie Planning Commisston belleves that said dr~ft CIR ~lo. 173 d~,es conform to the
Cit y and State Gui~felines and the State of Caltfor nin Envtronmental ~uallty Act and.
based upon such lnfor ~ation, does hereby recommend to the: t:ity Council that they
ec~ tify said CIR t~o. 173 is in compllance with said Envtronmcntal Quality ACt.
Comrnlssluner Ilerb~t ~ffered a motlon, seconded by Commissloner King and t10TI0N CARR.IE.D
(C ammissi~ners Johnson and Tolar heln~ ahsent), th at *he Anaheim City Planning
Commisston does hereby find that the proposed subdivision~ tc~gether wtth Its dPSign and
imp ~ovement, is consistznt with tlie City of Anaheim General Plan~ pursuant to
Govcrnment Code Se~tion G6473•~; and~ therefore~ tfie Planning Commisslon do~~s hereby
approve Tentattve Map of Tract No. 7~~'/1 (Revision No. 1) for A3~ RS-5Q00(SC) lots,
sub~ject ta the following conditions;
1. That the approval of Tentative f1ap of Traet No. 7~~71 (Revls(on No, 1) is
gr a nted subJect to completion or Reclasslfication No. 7~-71-25.
2. That should thls su~division be developed as more tf~an one subdivision, each
s ub divlsion thereof shall be submitted In tentative form for approval.
3. That in accordance wtth City C~uncil poliey, a six-foot masonry wall shall be
constructed on the south p~uperty line separating Lot Nos. h7 through c~5 and La Palma
Avenue. Reasonable lancscaping~ including trrigation facilitles~ shali I~e installed in
th e uncemented portion of the arteilal highway pa rko~ay the full distance of said wall
a~ d plans for said landscaping shall be submitted to and subJect to the approval of the
Superintendent ~f Parl:way M~intenance; and following Installation and acceptance, the
Ci ty of Anaheim shall assume the resoonsibility `~r maintenance of said landscaping.
A. That all lots within this tract shal' he serve~ by underground utilities.
5. That a final trac~ map of subJect vropert y sha11 be submitted to and approved
b y the CSCy Council and then be recorded in the 0 ff'ce of the Orange County Recorder.
6. That the covenants~ conditions and restrictions shall be suhmitted to and
a p proved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City Council approval uf ths final
t ~ act map and~ further, that thz approved covenan ts~ conditians and restrictions sha'1
be recorded concurrently wlth the final tract map.
7. Thet pr(or to filing the f(nal tract map. the applicant shall submit to the
C i ty Attorney for apprnva 1 or der. i al a comp 1 ete synops 1 s nf tiip proposed funct i on i ng of
t h e operating corporation including~ but not limi ted to~ the articles of lncorporation~
bylaws, proposed m~Chods of management, bonding to insure maintenance nf commc~n
property an~! bui ; di ngs ~ and such ~ther i nfor•mat i on as the C i ty Attorney rnay des i re to
p rotect the City, its cit(zens~ and the purchase rs of the proJect.
3. That street names shall be approved by th e City of Anaheim prior to approval of
a final tc•act map.
9. 7hat the owner(s) of subJect property sh ail pay to the City of Anahejm the
a ppr~~riate park and recreation in-lieu fees as d eterm7ned to be appropriate by the
C?ty Council~ said fees to be paid at the kime t he building permit is issued.
10. That drainage of saia rraperty shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to
t he Clty Engineer. If, ir t'~e preparation of tF e site, sufficient ~rading is r~quired
t o necesSitate a grading permit, no work on gr~.ding will be permitted between October
i Sth and April 15th unless all required off-site drainage facilities have been
i nsCatled and are operecive. Positlve assurance shall be provic+ed the City that such
d rai nage faci l i ties a i l l ae complete~J prior to Octoher 1 Sth. Necessary right-of-way
f or off-sixe drainag racilities shall be dedica ted to tl~e City, or the Clty Council
s haly have initiated condemnation proceedings th erefor (the costs of whtch shall he
bnrne by the developer) prlar to the commencemen t of grading operattons. The requtred
drainage fac?lities shail bt: ot a size and type 4ufficient to carry runoff waters
orfginating from higher pro~,erties through said property to ultimat~ dlsposo) as
r
C~
MINUTI:S~ CI'~Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ Arril 2f~~ 1~7h
,h-2~~
CIJV I RONMENTAL I MPl1CT REPORT Np. 1 j3 AND '~~t~Tl1T I VE Ml1P OF TRACT Nt~. 74J1 (REV I S 1 Q~ N0, 1)
ont nuc
approved by th~ Clty Engineer. Said drainage facilitles shall bo the flrst it ~m of
co~structlon and shal) b e completed and be functional throughout the troct and fr~m the
downstream boundary of tha prc>perty to the ulttmato point of dlsp~sal p~ior to thn
iss~+ance nf uny ft~al buTlding ~napections or occupancy permits. Drnin+~ge district
relmbursernant agreements may be m~~de av~~ilahle to tho ~evelnpnrs of sald p~opc~-ty upon
thel~ request.
II. That grading, excflv~tic-n and oll ~ther constructton +ictivitios shall h~
conducted 1 n S~~Ch a manner sn as t~ mi n 1 ml xe thc poss I h I' 1 ty nf any s t 1 t or f g t nat t n~
from this project bein~ carried tnt~ the Santa Ana River hy ~storm wnter origtn ating
from or flowing throu~h this proJect.
12. That the developer sha~) obtain frc~m the Ora~nge Cuimty Flc~od Cont-ol n istrict a
favorable flood hazard letter, acceptohle to the Cley of Anahelm.
13. That the alignment and ter~ninal point of slorm dr:~ins shown on this te~t~+tive
tract map shall not be consldered final, These drains shall be sub]ect to prP clse
design cc•nsid~ra*lons a~J approva) of tl~~. Citv ~nylneer.
Z1~. If pcrmanflnt street name stgns have not been installecl, temp~rary sr.r•ee~ name
,igns shall be installed prlor to any occu~~;ncy.
1$. That Lhe ful l traveled way of Woodsborr, Avenue sl~al l-~e constructe4 wi th the
streeC (mprovnments fo r this t~act.
16. That all structures in this tract si~all be c~n~tructed In ar,~ordance with the
F i re Department ~equi rements for Fi re 2one --.
17. That ~ i n accordance wl th Cnun .~ I Po) i cy No. 5~+2, sound-at tenuaC i an measures
shall be provided on all I~ts within six hundre.d (60~) feet of the railr~ad t racks to
the north nf subJect t~-act.
18. That~ arior to submission of tl,~ fitnai t-'act map, lot No. 41 51~a11 be Increased
in slze to a minimum of y0 feet widP at the 15-foot building setback. line~ an d all 1ot~
~~ the tract shal l conform to the devslopment standards ~f the RS-5~~~ T.er.e j as
stipulated to by the petltioner.
lg. T~..' removal o~ replacemenL. of any specimen trees shall be tn accorda~ce with
the Scf,nic Corridor Overlay Zone standards pertaining to Tree Preservation.
T~PITA"IVE MAP OF - DEVELOP[R; S,R.E. EtJTERPRISES~ 3931 MacArthur doulevard, Ne~aport
7RACT N0. 9336 Beach, Ca. g266o, F.NGINEER: DONA_D R. M[D4IEQEFF, P. 0. Box 402,
Silverado, Ca. 92(~76. Sub)ece property~ consisting oF ap proximately
11.2 acres liaving approximate frontages of 59~ feet on the north
side of Peralta t1111s Orive and 863 feet on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road~
having a maximum depth of approximately 712 feet~ and being located approximately 77~
feet west of the cente rline of Cerro Vista Way, ls propos~d for subdtvision inta 11
RS-HS-43,000(SC) lots.
No one indicated their presence ln oppositi~n to the suhJFSCt tract map.
Although the Staff Re port to the Planning Commissian dated April 26, 197h, w as not read
aC the meeting~ said S taff Report is referred to and made a part of the min u tes.
Mr. William Gates~ re presenting the developer~ appeared before the Planning Commisston
and stated *.hey were in agreement with the lnterdepartmentai Committee recommendations
as set forth in the S~aff Report.
~n response to questioni~g by Commissioner Barnes~ Mr, Gates~~saiddstreetub 3 ect
property was not nea r Cerro Vista ;ay, but was to the west
In response to questioning by Commissioner Nerbst~ Mr, Gates stated the deve loper was
aware of the setback requirements along rQads.
ComMissioner Morley offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner K.ing and MOT fON CARRIED
(Commissioners Johns on and Tolar beiny absent), that the Anahe:im City Plann ing
(.ortimi ss i on does her eby recommend to the C i ty Counci 1 of the C t ty ~f Anahe i m that the
subJect proJect be exempt fran the requirement ta prepare an environmental impact
report, pursuant to t he provislons of the California Environmental Quality l4ct.
Ca~rt-issioner tlorley offerad a motion~ seconded by Commission~r Herbs~ and MOT14N
CARRIED (Cc~mnissl ;ners Johnson and Tolar being absnnt). that th~ An~heim Ci ty Planning
Cortimi ss i~n does hPreby f i nd that the proposcci sut~cll ~ 1 s' on, :ogei~°-' wt th t e s des i qn and
improvements~ is consist~nt wlth the City of Anahelm General Plars~ pursuant to
Government Code Saction 66~+73.5; and~ therefore, the Planning Commission does approve
~
~
~
MINIl7E5, C17Y PLIINNING COM~11551QN. 11~r11 2G~ 197~
7(,-zn1
TENTATIVE ~1l1P OF TRACT N0. ~13)fi (Contlnued)
Tc+ntative Map of Tract No. 933~> far 11. I~S-HS-43~Qn4(SC) lots~ ~uhJect to tha follc~wing
condltions:
1. That shoulcl thls suhdivlslon be developed as more thAn ane sul,divislon~ each
subdivlsion thoreof sliall bc aubmitt9d In t^_r'^:~ve form ~°or approva~.
2. That al) I~~~s wtthln this tract shnl~ be serveci by underground utillttes.
3. That a fInA1 tract mep of sub.ject property sh~l l be submi ttec. to t~nd ~zpproved
by th~e City Council and then be recorded in thc oPfico of the Or:~~ge County RGCOrder.
4. That the covonants~ conditions~ a~d restrictlons shal) be submttted t~ and
approved by the Clty Attarney's Offtce prior to City Councll oppr~val of the flnal
trncC map and~ further, that the approved covenants~ conditions, and restrlctt~ns shall
b~ recorded concurrantly with thc final tract map.
5. Yhat prior to ftling the final tr:~ct map, the appllcant shall submtt to thP
City ~*.:orney for appiov~l or denla) a comF~lete synopsls of the prohns~sd functloning af
the operattng corporatlon tncluding, but not limtted t~~ th~ articlr.s of Incerporation~
bylaws~ proposed methods ~f manayernenx~ bonding to insure matntenance of common
property and buildin,qs~ an~l such othor lnformati~n as t!e City Attorney may desirr• to
protect the City~ its cititens~ and the purchasers of the proJec:.
6. Thr. street names shall be appro~eed by thc; City Enginear prior to approv~) of
a final tract map.
7. 7hat the owner(s) of sub;ect property shall pay to the City of An~hetm khc~
appropriate park and recreatlr~n tn-lleu fees as determined to he approprlate by the
City Coun~il~ said fees to be paid at tl~e time the butlding permit is Isaued,
8. That drainage of subJ~ct properry shall be disposed of in ~ mann~r that is
satisfactory to the Clty ~nglneer.
~. That grading, ex~avation~ an~! ali ath~r constructton activities shali he
conducted ln such a manner so as to m` ~mize the possibility of Any silt originating
from thls proJect being carried into t~~~ Santa Ana River by storm water orlginating
from or flowing through this proJect.
10. If nermarsent street name slgns have not been installed~ temporary street name
signs shall be installed prior to any occupancy.
il. That the owner(s) of subJect prorerty shall pay apprc.Nriate drainage
assessment fees to the City of Ai~aheim~ as determined by th~e City Engfneer~ prior to
issuance of a building permlt.
12. That ~treet "A" shall be constructed with a cross-section ar~prove:d by the Cit)~
Engineer.
13. That ali structures in this tract shall conf~rm to the Firr Department
requi~ements for Fire 7.one ~~.
14. That, ~ n accordance wi th Counci 1 Pol i cy ~~o. 51+2 ~ s~~u~d-attenuat i on mc:FiSU~P.S
:ha11 be provided on al l lots wtthin stx hundred (600) fe~t of San~:a flra Ca, y.:n itoad.
15. That remnval o~ replacement of
the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone standa~
! ~
MIr~uTE:s, C ITY Pl.~tat1111G COMP11 SS 10~1 ~ nPrt t z6 ~ 197f, 7~-2n2
RC:P~RTS ANI) - 17fM N0. I
RF.f.ONt1[~I ~AT I ~NS RF.~U~ C~~R E I ft Nf G~71 VC DCCLl1RAT I 0~I - For ~ p~i rce I m~~p on
pr~•~pcrty located ak 335~ West llall Road.
It w~is notecl [hat .~n ~ppll~ntlr,n fnr ~~ p~~rcel m~~ had been Flled ta ~Ilvlde Che sub]ecl
propcrly Into two parc~ls; that in r_vnlu~~tion of Lhe environmenta) irnpnct ~f p~~rcel mr~ps
was requlred undor the provisl~ns ~f the Callfornla Envtmnmentr,l Quallty Act ~in~t the
State EIR Guidell ~s; rn~l th:~t n study of the praposed parccl mnE~ by t!~c Pinniting
Departmont an~1 the En~fneerln~~ Division Indicated that there would bc no signlf(cpnt
envlronmentr+l (mpact.
Commissioner Y.Inct offered a mc~Cion, seccndecl by Cummtssioner M~rley ~-n~i M~"fIt1N CAf?Rlf•.D
(Commissioners Johnson ~in~l Toinr bein~ ~bsent)~ thet the Anahoim Clty Plnnninn Comnisslon
doos hereby recornr,en~i to the City Council of tha City of llnahelm t.hnt tt~e sut,,Ject pro~GCt
be exempt from the requlremcnt to prepare ~~n EIR~ pursuant xo the provislons ~f the
C.~1 i fr,rnia Envl ronmentil Qua) 1 ty Act.
ITF.M ~IO. 2
f:QUESr OR CIR ~JEGATIVE DECl.ARATIO~I - For a parcel map on
property loc3ted nc~rth of La Palm~ Avenue bet.w~en West Street
an~l l.e(sure Court.
It was notecl that an appl(cattan for a p~rcel m~p had been filed on the sub]ect property
to adjust tlie lot llnes; that ~n evaluation of the environment~il impact of parcel maps was
requir•e~i uncier the provlsions of the California [nvironmental QualiCy Act an~i tt~e State
E!R Gulclelines; ancl Lhat :+ study of the proposeci parcel map by the Planning Department and
the Engineerin~7 Divlsi~n inclicatecl tlicre wauld be no si~nificant environmental impact.
Commiss(oner Darnes offerecl a motion~ seconcfed by Commissioner ICIng and MOTION CARR,ED
(Commissioners Johnson an~1 Tolar beinn .'+bsent)~ that the Anahe(m City Plannin~ Commission
does hereby recomme.ncf to the City Council of the City of Anaheirn that the sub,ject proJect
be exempt from th~ requir•ement to prepare an EIR~ pursuant to the provisi~ns of the
Caiifornia Environment~! Qua!ity Act.
I TEM PIO. 3
EQ.l1.ST OR GE~JFRl1l PLAP! At1F•.P1bMFNT - Northwest corner of
Qran~ewood Avenue and Troy Street.
It was noted that the owners of the subJect property had filed a request• for ~ General
Plan amendment to channe the General Plan design•~Cion of sald property fr~m the C-R
(Commerci~l P,ec.reation) Z.one to multiple-fam~ly residential usas.
Commissioner Nerbst offered a motion~ seconded by Conmissioner Murley and MOTIOPI CARRIED
(Commissioners Johnson anci Tolar be(ng absent)~ that~the Anahelm City Planning Cortmission
does hereby r~cortxnencf to the Clty Council of the Cdty of Anahe(m that staff be instructed
to conduct a General Plan stu~ly on property located at the northwest corner of Orangewood
Avenue and 'froy Street, and that sald item be. included in the General Plan amenclmert which
is tentatively sr.heduled for public hearlnc~ in July~ 197~.
ITEh1 td0. ~-
COPlDI 0~lnL USE PER111T N0, i22~ - Request for extensioi~ of
time - Property consisting of approximately 2.3 ~~cres lacatecJ
on the south sicle of Katella Avenue immedlately east of the
Atehis~n, Topeka E Santa Fe ltailway~ and further descri~ed
as 22811 East Katella Avenue,
It was noted that Conditional Use Permit Nc. ~229 was grantc:d hy the Plannin~i Corr.~~IS5I0ii
on April 5. 1971, to estahlish ~ stor~ge facility for boats, traiters an~i recreation~l
vetiicles, said use being c~ranted fnr a period of five years subJect to review for an
extensio~ of time ancl subJect to condltions. etc.; that r~o rrevious extensions ~f ~irtxs had
~
~
~
r~t i~uTrs, c i Tv P~.nNri ~ ric co~~r~ I s~ i n~i. npr r 1 2G ~ 1 ~7G
76-2n3
I1'F.M PIO. ~i (Continued)
~---------
oeen grAnted; thnt therc was n~~ record of complnints regar~ling the uso; ~~n~l xh~it Mr.
Ch~~rles 7almnne, the owner, aias requcsting r~n extension of timr for thc use.
Commisslonor Kincl offFre~i a motl~n~ seconde~l by Commissloner hl~rley and MOTIQFI CARaICD
(Comml ,sioners JohnSOn and Tolar bcinc~ ahsent) ~ that the An~ahelm Ctty Plt~nning Lommisslun
does herehy gr~~nt a fiv4-ycar extenslon of tlnx: for Concittlonal Use Permlt ~do. 11.29~ As
re~uested by the ~roperty owncr, sald extension of time to expire on A~rtl 5~ 19(11.
I TF.M P~R. 5
~rj('~ICI. USE PfRH17 tl(1. 15G6 - Request for revlev~ -
Propcrty c.onsist~ing of approximatcly 13•7 acres~ I~aving
a fronta~e of approxim~itcly t356 feet ~n the eas+. ~lde
of Tustin Avenue, a maxlmum depth of approxim~tcly 6f3^
fPeC, and he.(ng l~catod approxim~tely 220 feet north ~f
the cen*.erllne of Mlraioma Avenuc., further descrihed as
131.~ Tustin Avenue.
It was notecf that It appe.~re~l that the conditlor~s of approval of the: subJect conditlonal
use permit were bein,y abused and that it appc:ared ap`roprlate for the ~pplicanl i.u attar~d
a Planning Commission mc~~tine7 In the ne~r future for a rsview of both the current use of
the property anci Che Planning Commission's intent tn connec.*.lon wfth their approval of the
conclltion,~1 use perm(t. The Plannin~ Commission nenerally concurre~l.
ITEN N0. 6
~(N ~Rt"~TIOt! - Discuss(un re~lardinc~ plumbtng In
party wa11s ~f mult~ple-family residential units,
Commissi~ner Ilerbst notecl that he haci met with Or. .fohn Nilliard, a we11-known
professional engineer~ regarJing sound attenuation inslde apartmc~t and condominlwn type
resi~ienti.~l developments; th~t Dr. Hililard had indicated that al~ plumbin9 not be part of
party walls and that all aspects of sound attenuation be requlred to mcet lhe Uniform
Buildin~ Code requirements, s(nce many lawsults were beinc~ Filed and Y~on~ and the walls
were beinc~ torn ~Icwdn tc, remove the plumbing, etc. ~ tihich c.~use~i the so~md problems; that
people were becoming more iware of nolses through thP walls an~1 the builders needed to be
advispd whether propose~l constr~ictlon met these standards; ~~d that the discussion held
~~ith Dr. Hilllarcl dici not extencl to single-family homes.
AQJ~UR~JMGPIT - There being no further business to discuss~ Commissioner Morley
offered a rm~tion~ secondecl by Commissioner Kin9 and MOTfO~J CARRIED~
that the meeting be adiourned.
Th~ rrMetinc~ adJourned at 5:2Q p.m•
Respectfully subm(tted,
I ~ . ~ ~Y~s~C./
Patricia B.Scanlan~ Secre~:ary
Anaheim City P~anning Commission
PDS :hm
U R C 0 MICRO~ILMING SER~'ICE iMG