Minutes-PC 1976/10/11e ~-
c, ty f,ai i
An~helm~ Csliforni~
Octabe~ 11, 197b
REGtILAR MEETING 0(' 'fflF AN,INEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISwS1i1N
REGUInR - A renular rneeCin~, of ch~ Anahcim Cit~ Planning Commissio~ was called
to order by Chairman Johnson ~C 1t30 p.m,~ on October 11, 197~>~ in the
Cauncll Ch~mber, a q~wrum befn~ present
PRESENT - CNAIk~M~I: Johnson
COMMISSIq~lERS: Barnes, Herbst~ King~ Morley, Tular
AaSENT - f.OMMISSIONERS: Farano
ALSO P1tGSENT- Ronald Thompson
M.nowltan Fernald
Frank Lowry
Paul Sinncr
Jack Judd
Coulter Nookcr
Joel F1 cl:
Patricia Scanlin
Plannin~~ Ulrect~r
Community Development Dcpartment Direr.tor
Deputy CiCy Attorney
Traffi~ Engincer
Civll C•ngineerlna Assistant
Nssis'.ant Pl~nner
Assistant Planner
Planring C~mmisstun Secretary
NLF.DGE OF - Commfssioner Tolar led in the Pledge of Alleglance to the Flag
ALLEGIANCF oF the Unired 5tates of America.
APPROVAI. OF ° f,,~-nmissio~er Nbrley offered a mation~ secondc~d by Gonmissfoner
TH[ MINUTES ~~~ng and MOTION CARRICD (Commissioner Herbst abstaining slnce he
~as not present at tlie meeting in questlon; and Commissioner Fara~o
~ein~ ~b~ent), that the minutes of the Planning Commisslon meeting held
~n 5~~~r.embe r 1:, 1976 ~ be ancl h~reby are apprc~v~d, as submf tted.
RECLASS ~~'• CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. TOM T. AND CHERRY HIOE, 133Q East Gates
N0. 76- ~treet~ Anaheim~ Ca. 92~i~1 (Owners); S7ATE-WIOE INVESTORS, INC.,
~~311 East 17th Street~ Long Beach, Ca. 90804 (Agent). Property
vN~,;-•~ 4... , descrihed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land conslsting of
" ~y ~~ appraximately 1.0 acre, h~vtng a frantage of approximately lig f~et
on the north side of Savanna Srreet~ a maximum depth of approx~-
~,•~_ '~~, ••f~• ~ being lacated approximately 546 feet west of ihe centerl ine of Knott
Srr~,. ~~• `~,.~tner descrlbed as 3535 ~avanna Street. Property presently classified
rt~ -~~_ ~ 'RESIDENTIAI./A~CRICULTUftAL) ZONE,
,~~q,,..,-~ !.A5SIFICATION: RM-1200 (RESlDENTIAL, MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE.
REQ.:.~''• ~'/ARIANCE: WAIVER OF (A) MAXIMUM 41!ILDIPIG HEIGHT, (B) MINIMUM DIS7ANCE
B£TWEEN BU I LD 1 P~GS /1ND (~) fiEQU I RED S I7E SCREE~11 NG, TO CONSTRUCT
A 28-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX.
!t Na ;~~ted that ne subject petitions were continued from the Planning Comm(ssion
neet~ s of July ~9~ 1976~ for r~are information concerning the environnental +mpact of the
pro~r:;~ and from August 16, 1976, for revised plans~ at the request of the petltioner.
it ~~~.is further notcd that the petitloner was req~~esting an addit~onal continuance to the
P~~~~ing Commisslon meeting of October 27. 19i~, In order to submit tne revised plans.
Commissioner Morley ofEered a motion, seconded hy Commissioner OCin9 and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissloner Farano being absent), that the Anahelm City Planning Cammission does hereby
further continue the public t~earing and consideration of Pe[ittons fior Reciassifica~lon
No. 76-77°~~~ and Variance No. 2813 to the Plarning Commission mceting of October 27, 1g76~
as requested by t~e petitioner.
76-478
~
~
..~
~
MINUtES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October I1~ 1976
~
~
7'6-4~9
VARIANCE N0. 28~~8 - COIJTINUED PUnLIC HEARING. EXXON GOMPANY USA, P. 0. Box 2180~ Nouator~~
r Texas 170J1 (Ownar); CONROY GROUP 11~ 1052~~ West Pico Boulevard~
Los Rng~lee. Ca. 9006~~ (Agent); re~que~ting WAIVER OF (A) PERMITTED
ENCROACNM~NTS iNTa REQUVR~.U YARDS~ (B) MINIMUM 5TRUCTIIRAI. .°~ETBP.CK~ AMID (C) PERHIT7ED USES~
TO CONSTRUCT A FIOW~R SHOP on prope~ty described aa ari irregularly-shaped parcal of land
~:onsisting of approximately Q.6 ac~e locatesd at the northwest Lorner of Lineoln Avenue
and Euclid Stre;et~ hbvinq approximate frontages of 150 feet on the north stde of Lir-cal~
Avanue and 150 feet on the west stdc of Euclid ~trc.et. Property presently classlfled
CG (~COMMERCiAL~ GENERAL) ZONE.
It waa noted that the subJect petltlon wa~ con'tinued i~~•om the Planning Commisslon rtwnting
of Septe~ber 27~ 1976, for a fuil Commfsston since the: resalutlon to approve received a
tte vote,
M~ one indlcated their presence in oppositlon to the subJect peC(tlor~; however. Assistant
Planner Joel Fick acknowledged ~eceipt of a Ietter in oppositian dated October 1~ 1976~
fr~m eill Miller~ F'resldent of NcCuy Ford, 1b~0 W~st Lincoln Avenue~ sald letter urging
reJectlon of thP proposal on the basis that, a4 a high-density, problem-plaguad aree, an
"in~ ulsive p~rchase" type of drive-in buslness wauid o~nly e~dd to the congeYtion.
!t w~s noted that the petltioner was not pPC.crnt ~nd, iapon quostloning by Ch~irman
Johnson~ Oeputy Clty Attorney Frank lowry advised that If the Planning Commiss(on so
desirnd~ the pendinq actton could be taken at thls meetinc~ ina~smuch ss the public h~artng
had becn held and was closed on Se:ptember 27~ 197b~ end that a vote was all that was
requl red,
Although the Staff R~port to the Planning Comrnission dated October O1~ 1976~ w~s not ~ead~
satd Staff Report is r~sferr~ed to and made a part of the ~~,lnut4:,
Cummissioner Herbst noted that he felt it wuuld be detrtmental to the City to t~ave the
proposed building right up to the property line nn the ~~bJect corner; that the proposal
would e~courage imQulse purchases from tfie, passing v~hicular krafflc and~ since the
swbjact p-•operty is located on a cor~ner of a heavily-trave+led Intersectiono it was not
deemed appropriat~ for such ~ use since it was anticipated that the type of traffic
generated would i~crease the number of t~affic accid~nts tn the vicinlty of said
intersectton.
In response to questloning by ~hairman Johnson~ Cammisslune~' Tola~ noted that, although he
had ~ot been present at the pu'blic hearin~ on the ~ubJect petition~ he had read the
m3nutes and was aware of the presentation of the petitiosier ~~nd the discussfon in
connectlan therewith, and that he was prrpared to vote; howe~+er, he cauld not support the
proposal.
Commtsstoner King noted that~ although he had voted in favor cf the propasal on Septnmber
27, 1976~ the Traffic Enginecr had supplied additic+nal information upo~ which he would
basc a vate lr. opposition.
Commi~sloner Morley noted that he still favored the proJect on the basis that (t would not
generate as much traffic as othe~ uses which could be m~de of tFre property.
(See *.hc mtnutes of Sc}~tember 27~ 19?6, for the actlan of the Pla~n~iing Commission
re:commending a neyative environmental impact declaratlon.)
Com,~nissioner Ne~bst affered ~esolutlon No. PC76-192 and movesd for ies passage and
adoption~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby dGrtiy Petltion for Variance
No. ?.8k8 on the basis of the forego;ng findings in oppasition. (See Resolutlon Boe~k)
On roil call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the followtng vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BAI;NES, HERBST~ KING~ TOI.AR~ JOHNSON
NOES : COIiMI SS f ONERS ; hiOftLEY
A85ENT; COMMISSiONERS; FAItANO
~ • ~
MINU7ES~ CITY PLFW NING COMMISSION~ October II~ 1976 76~~~80
Rf:CLP,SSIFI~CAl'ION - READVERTISF.D PUpLIC ~IEARING, ROYAL C, ANU I.OI~ISE H. MARTEN~ dll Suuth
N0. 76-77-11 Western Avenue~ M Ahetm~ Ca, 92a0-~ (Owncrs); JAMES L. BARISIC 4a4$
-" Lakevicw~ Sulte IQ1~ Yarba Linda~ Ca. 9z6~h ~~9ent). Property des-
VARIANC[ N0. 2f~3~~ crlbed as a rectangularly-shapad parcel of land consisttng of +~pproxl-
mately 1,1 ac.ras locAted at tl~e n~rthwe,t carner of 7eran(mar Drlve
VARlANCE ~JO. 2f353 and Western Avenuc, having approximate frontages oP 115 feet on tha
~ nortl~ sldc of TeranimAr Urivc and ~~G5 feet un thc wo~t side of WRStern
Avtnue~ and further de~cribed a~ dll South Western Avenue. Property
presently classiflecl RS-A-43~OQ0 (RESIDENIIAL/AGRICULTURAL} ZONE.
REQUESTEU CLASSIFICATIO~d: RS-5~~~ (RC•SIDGNTIAL~ SfNGI.C^FAMlI.Y) ZONE.
VARIAtICE N0, z33~+ Rf0.UE57: WAIV[R OF (A) PIINIMUM B~II.DING SITE WIDT(i~ (B) MI~~IMUM
SIDEYARD SET~ACKo ANp (C) MAXIMUM NALL HEIGN'i~ TO CONSTRUC7
FOUR DUPLF.Xf.S. (P[TI7iQP~F.R REQUESTS TERMINATION)
VIIRIAIJCE. N0, 2`1i3 fiEQUEST: WAIVER OF REQUI(tEHEP~I' Tr~AT AL.L SItIGLE-FAMII.Y STRUC7URES
REAR-OW AP~ ARTER I AL H I rfIWAY ~ TO CONSTRUC'f A'-LQT ~~--UN I T~
RS-500Q SUBDIVISIO~l,
It was noted tfiat the subJect Pet(tlons for Reclassit`Ication No, 76-77-11 and Varlance No.
2f334 were continued from the Planni~g Commission meetings of Aug~~st 16~ 1976~ for the
pc:tit(oner xo meet wit•h area residents and pr~perty owners~ and from August 30, 19i6, at
the request of the petitioner.
No one indicated their presenc:e in opposltlon to the subJect petitlons.
Althou~h the StaPf Report to the Plannli~g Conmission dated October 11~ 1976~ was not read
at the public hearing~ s~(d 5taff Report ts rePerred Co and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Jlm Barfsic~ the agent for the petitloner~ a~pe~~ed before the Plann:ng Commisslon and
statei that Inttlally a number af homeowners in the area were opposed to anything but
single-famtly ciwellings on the subJect property and, aftcr numerous meeCings and further
analyzation of the site, it was found that it wo~ld be feaslble to develop the property
with single-family dwellings; that they were. propusing to canstruct four dwellir~gs at the
present time on lots which were 6900 square feet in size; thaz three oF the lots (Nos. 5,
6 and 7) were not prop~sed to be devel~ped at this time: that they had requcsted RS-5000
zoning, rather than RS-72.00~ so that they would not havP to rcquest the several wa(ver5
that wo~~ld have resulteci; that the homes wAUld have four bedrocims~ two baths~ and be very
nice~ selling in the ~70~OQ~ ptice range; that~ to mitiaate the negattve factor af
fronting the home:s onto Western Avenue, they were prflposlny ~ 7-1;2 foot righ, decorative
masonry wall along said street since they felt the acoiastical engineer would request it
for sc~und attenuation; that said decorae(ve v~ali, with landscaping, would create a vlsual
and pleastny separattc~n of the homes from Western Avenue and, ~ddition~lly, they were
proposing to set the houses as far back from said street as possible and still maintain
25-fflot deep re~ir yards; and that~ tn response to the Traffic E~g(neer's concern with the
homes factng onto Western Avenue, they could design hammerheWd drlveways~ if requlred to
do so.
TfIE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Cammissioner Herbst noted thaC he could see n~ problems with the proposed tract, as
designed, especially since the Planning Commtssion had been lookiny for this type pro~?osal
with a higher wall adJacent to arterlal highv~ays to provide visual and sound b~ffering
from that type street; and that t~y observing this tract, Che concept of the higher wafl
could be proved or disproved as a good solut(on to sound-atkenuation prablems adJacent to
arterlal highways.
l.~mmissloner Herbst offerad a motion~ seconded by Commissioner King and ;10TION CARRIED
!Commissioner Farano betng absent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission d~es hereby
recommend to the City Council of the City of Anahetm tha± a negative de~laration from th~
requirement to prepare an environmental in~pact report be appraved for ths subJect pro;ect,
pursuant to the provisions of the Califa~~la Environmental Quality Act.
Commissioner Nerbst offered Resolut3an Plo. PC7G-~93 and moved for its passage and
adoption, that the Anaheim City Planning Corrmtssion doe~ hereby recommend to the Clty
Council of the City of Anaheim that Petitfon for Reclassification No. 76-77-11 be
approved, subJect to the Interdepartmental Committee recomrnendations. (See Resolution
Bookj
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PIANMING COMMI~SION~ October 11. 197G ~b"~~~
REGLII~SIFIC~~TION N0. 76-77-I1. V,ARIANCE N0. 28~4 AND VARIl1NC[ N0, 2$53 (Cantinued)
On roll crll~ the foragofng resolutlon was passocl by the f`ollowinq vote:
AYES; CQMMISSIONERS: RARNES~ HERBST, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, JONNSON
NOES: CUMMISSIONERS; NpNE
ABSENT; COt1MISSIANERS: FARANO
Gommissloner Ilerhst oFfered a motlon. s~~conded by Commissloncr i'olar and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissloner Farano being absent)~ t~~at the Anahelm Cicy Plaiin(ng Commiss(on docs hereby
termin~te all ~roceedin,rys in connectton with Pecitiov~ fo~ Variance No. 2a3A on the basis
that r.he petitloncr submltteci a new propoyal and sald var(ancc (s no langer applicabla to
the subJect property, and as requested by the petitloner.
Commissioner Herbst affered Resolution N;~. Pi:7G-19~+ and moved for its passage a,id
adoptlon~ that the Anahetm Clty Plan~lnc~ Corc~misslon does hereby grant Petition i'or
Varla~nce Wo, ?853~ 9ranting the requcsted waivrr ~f thc requiremtnt that all singlc-family
structures rear-on arterlal highways c,,~ the basis that an approxlmately 7.5-foot hlgh,
decorative masonry wall and landscaping are prop~~sed to buffer the propos~d lots from the
visual and noise Impact from Western ~•venue and~ a~ddlt(onally, the homes w(1) be set back
35 feet from the front property lines; and subJecC to the Interde~artmentai Commtttee
recommandations. (Sea Resolut(on Book)
On roll call~ tf~e foregofng resolution was passed by the following vute:
AYFS: COMMISSIONERS: HARNES~ HL•RBST, KINC, MORLEY~ TOLAR~ JOHNSON
NOES: COMMISSIONCRS: NONE
ABS[NT: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO
RECI.ASSIFICATION - PUB~IC I~FARING. @ERNARDO M. AND MARGARET L. YORBA~ 125 South Claudi,,a,
N0, 76-77-16 Anahelm~ Cr„ 92803 (Owners); SGPA PLANPlING E ARCHITECTURE, P. 0. Box
33326, San Die~o. Ca, 92103 (Agent). Propcrty described as an
CONDITIONAL USG irregularly-sfzaped parcel of land consistin~ oY approximately 6.7
PERMIT N0. 165~i acres having approximate frontsye~ of 38$ feet ~n the west side of
Imperial Highway and 335 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue.
Property presently classified RS°A~43~600(SC) (I~,ESIQENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL-
SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY) ZONE.
RFQIIESTED CLASSIFICA710N; CL(SC) (COMMF.RCIAL~ LIMITED-SCEP~IC CORRIDQ:'t OVERLAY) ZONE.
REQUESTED CONDITIOPJAL USF: TO PERMl7 A DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURAN7 WiTN WAIVER OF
PERMITTFD SIGNING.
Two p~rsons indicated their presence +n opposition to subJect petition and forthwith
waived the full reading nf the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated October 11~
1976. A1*.hough the Staff Report was not read~ it Is referred to and made a i~art of the
mi nutes .
Nr. Eugene Geritz~ representing the aoent for the pezitioner and the developer of the
proposed proJect, aFPeared before the Planniny Commis5lon and reviewed the proposal~
statin~ that the Planning Commission wouid recali that the subject property was l~cluded
as cammercial in a General Plan amendment which was pror.essed earlier in the year and che
requested zoning reclassification was in accordance with said General P1an amendment; that
the site was generally bounded by Imper(a) Highway~ La Palma Avenue, an existing Te~caco
servtce statton and restaurant~ ~nd the Santa Ana River channr.l; that dedication was in
process for enlargement of the river channel; thet the proposed commercial shopping center
would have a combinatio~~ of specialty retali uses~ financial in~titutions and foad
servfce; that access was proposed from La Palma Avenue by way of a left-turn pocket in ~.~
left-turn medlan; that there would 5e direct cirGUl~tlon into a rather r,asual grouping oF
bulldings on the inter(or of the property; that~ in additton to the zoning applicatlon~
they were requesting a conditional use permit to atlow the construction of a drive-up
restaurant facility; tha2 the existing industr!al parking was to the north and they were
concerned about getti.ig a location with more than adequate stacktng ~oom for a drive-up
restaurant ~acility so that the stac'~cing arza wauld not interfere with on-site traffic
patterns~ that, essenttally, the pr~posal was a low-scale development utilizing wood
siding~ board ancf batten walls~ shingles~ and boardwalks, arcades~ etc.~ for contrasted
interests; that the same architectural treatment would be uSed al) around the site becaust
• ~
MINUTES, CITY PLNNNiNG COMMISSION~ Octnbet~ 11, 1976 ~~'"~8~
RECLA551FICATIQN N0, 76-77-16 IW D COND~710NAL USE PERMIT N0,_1654 (Contln~+ed)
the total site had ~xposure wlth no rear side; that they hACi in~:lude.i In the basl~
sUl,mltta) the criterla for signing whlch would be part of all of che leeses~ and gald
siclns wculd be of the wood-cArved type with Intertar Illuminat(on; that t.hey h~d Initlally
requosted t~ have e monument-typa sl9n since~ at the tlme oP mek(ng the request~ there was
a pass(ble ordinnnce revislon underway to ~llaw that type of slgn far the subJect type
complax !n the Scen(c Carrldor; however~ they would requost 2o wlthdraw the monument ~Ign
at thls time; that~ additlonally~ tfierc were exist(ng billboards on the subject property
r.ind they werG requesting that said billboards bc allowecl to ramaln for a perlad of one
year follaw(ng approval of the sub)act pro_J~ct; tliat they hsd no specli'ic abJe~ctlons to
removing the bitlbuards buk therc was a question as to whather tliey could ~emove th~m
within Che one-year parlod since the blllbuards wera prnsenr.ly leaseci a- there Wd!i a
l~gal d~Cerminatlun to be r,iade ln the matter.
Mrs. Mary DlnndorP~ 131 La Paz~ President of the Santa E1na Canyon Impr~ver~~ent A~soeibtlon~
appeared beforc the Planning Commission in ~pposltion and reviewed a sct of plans whicii
the developer had Sent ta th~: Assoclatlon earl~pr. She s`ated she had referred the plans
to n consultanr. who had made certain womments pe~*.alninc~ thereto. Mrs, Uinndurf revlewed
the comments Indlcated on the plans which noted that the trash enclosurt areas woulcl not
work~ the 1~-P'oot sidew~lks wer~ ver~• narrow and 15 feet was the minimum~ Inadequate
numher of trash areas~ no ineerior storagc~ reversc parking suggested~ narking was minlmal
for thc proposed heavy use~ landsca~c buffer to servl~e areas s~~ggested~ problematl~
access~ equiprsent m~st be witliln roofs~ roofs to~ lo~+~ siqns should he no more than 5 to 6
feet high and no mcm ument signa. Mrs. Dinndcrf further noted that a drivc-~~r restaurant
was not nc~eded in the Scenlc Corridor, even if rnore strip commerclal was ~pproved In the
area; and the Assoc(atton certainly desired the petltloner to adhere to the Sign
Ordinance.
In rebuttal. Mr, Geritz stated that in the cours~e of various meetings wit:h City staff~
they ht+d revlsed thelr plans to provide acceptable trastti enclosure areas; that the
sidewalks were presently ~~ rtilnimum of 12 feat wide and varled to 15 and 20 feet In the
arcade and colonnade areas; that they ware aware of the City ordtnance and there woul~i be
no externally-mounted equipment or, the roofs~ but said equ(pment would be contained o+•
enclosed; that they were trying to keep the scale of the buildings down and that was why
they were using the arcades Interconner.ting to variuus buildings; that the parking was
ccncentrated in the heavily-used areas and the parlcing h~d b~er~ reviewed b;i City staff;
that the proposed parking was presently in excess of the ordinance; that tl~e locatl~n af
ti~e drive-up restaurant had baen brought near ane end of the stte and because of the in-
and-out type of traffic~ the proposed rocation could more easily separate the two types of
traff(c that wouid be on the tota~ site and not interfere ~r~ith the circulat~on patterns;
and that the restaurant location, with gond buffaring and landscaptng, would not (nterfere
with the properties adJoining the site.
Mrs. Jan Nall~ 545 Tumbleweed Roa~~ Fresident of the Westridge Homeowners As:;ociation~
appeared before the Planning Commission and Inqulrcd a6out the hours of operati~n far the
proposed restaurant. Mr. Geritz replied thAt the hours of operatlon had not yet been
established.
Mrs. Hall further statecf that the homeowners were concerned that anyone operating in the
Scenic Corridor should adhere td certaln hours af operati~n and lightiny requirements~
etc. H~. Garitz stated that Che~~ would adhe~e to the c~rdinance.
THE PUBLiC HEARING WAS CI.OSED.
Commfssioner Morley questioned the reasoning for saturating the subject area with so many
restau~ants, In reply~ Mr. Gerltz stated therE had been interest from a tenancy
~tandpoint; that the site plan was tha result of studies of the area and (nterest obtained
on a preliminary basts fram a specific tenant. 7hereupon~ Commissioner Marley noted that
the public demand would decide whether all of the restaurants could be sur.~essful at this
lecation or noi.
Conrnissianar Nerbst noted that it was not realisttc *.o expect the surrou-~ding industrlal
area to suppart thc subJect shopping center. In response, Mr. Ger(tz stated he believed
the rest~urant would survlve because the developer was ndt in the speculative bustness af
holding {a~d for development by someone p14e; but they were shopping center developers
completing 20 to 30 centers p~r year in the States of California and Arizona; and that
both the developer and the tcnant felt that the subJect locat!on was viable for the
shopping cbr+ter~ or tihey would not have brought the request to the Planning Commissian.
~
~
~
MINUTES~ f,iTY PLANNING COMMISSIQN~ Octoorr 11~ 1976
7G-483
RECLASSIFICATION N0. 76~77~1G AND CONDITIONAL ~J5E F'I:RMIT N0. 165~+ (Contlnued)
Commisslon~r Nerbst compared the subJect proposa) tc~ tr~e proposat on Mbgnalla and La Palma
A~enue~, whtch was a corrxnr.rcia) antity In ar~ tndustr•tal zone and which had a dlPflcult
time+ getting off the ~round wlth llralted ac~ess~ elc.
In response to questionl~g by Comm(sslon~r herbst~ Tr~ff(c Cngineer Paul :,inger advised he
was recommendtng thu~ a medlan island he r,Anstructnd ln La Palma Avenuw~ Icaving e single
access polnt with lefC-kurn5; khat the propos~~i shop~in~ center conne~.ted wFth che
ad)ace~t se~vicr statton rirtvewry ~nd, in essonce~ provldnd another access tu the subJect
property; and that the propn~ed access appeareci to be aclequate for the sub~ect area.
Comm(ss foner flerbst Inqui reci i f the drlve-u~+ re:sta~arant trafflc would haWC An adverse
effcct an l.e Palma Avenue. Mr, Si-iqer advlsed that therc woulu obvlrusly be a hlgher
volume of trafflc In the are.a fn!lowing construction of the praposed proJ~ct and the
traffic would te able tn make l~ft-turns in and out of the onc median ~~ck~t on La Palma
Avenue.
In rPsponse to questlonin~n by Comanissloner King~ Mr. L.:rfC: stated thc existing dralnaae
structur~ was locatecl aiong the property llne and tla~ere had bcs~en a request~ w(th
acqulsition neAriy c~smple*°.d~ to (ncrease the size of safcl chonnel; that the submttted
plans dic~ nrC Include the property that wauld become parC of the channelc and that they
had met witt~ the Flood Co~arol District regardin~ the channel approach to drainaye for the
subJer.t prcperty with no bNparent problems. 7hereupon, Mr. Geritz stipulated to work
closely with the Englneering Dlvisian pertatning to the clrainage of the property into the
East Richficld Drainage Easement,
Chatrman Johnson Ir.quired if there were plans to butld the proposal. In re~ly, Mr. Gc:ritz
stated one of the reas~ns for the rultiple restaurants was that, !n effect~ the proposal
was a program to have shops and restaurants~ and not one without the otfier; thax the plan
was to build the complex (n ahases with some of the bu(ldings being constructed aftPr
others~ however•~ the shop cor~iex would be constructed prlur to the drlve-up restaurant
facility; that the on-Site ir.~provemen+t for the tota) slte would be canstructed wit;i the
intttal construction phase; and that they had designed the proJect as a total c~mplex
which would not operate suc~~ssfully or financially unless lt was completely b~ilt out.
Chairman Johns~n then noted that he would have an aversion t~ putting a restaurant on a
carner and then waiting a long time for the rest of the propertY to develop.
In response to questiontng by Commissioner Tolar~ Mr, Geritz stated they had proposed a
lovr-level rrbnurtx~rit sign but i: now appeared to be an inapproprlate request sl~ce tl~e
Plan~ing Comm(ssion had not proceeded with a change in the ordinance for stgntng in the
Scenic Corridor.
In response to questloning by Commissinner King~ Mr. Geritz stated that tne signing would
be in accard~nce with the Sign Ord(nance p~esently and in the future~ in the ev~nt there
were changes to said ordinance to allow the monument-type s(gn.
Chairman Johnson reviewed the stlpulat(ons of the petittoner perralning to the hours of
operation~ lighting~ dralnage, ano signing and noted that the rnatter of the billboards had
not been resolved.
Deputy City Attorney rrank lok ry advlged thaC~ although t~ie pettttoner was rcquesting to
retain the btl~boards for one year~ the Planning Commtssion could requlre that satd
billboards be removed, as a condition~ ~rior to the time of final butlding inspectlons~
F.tc.
In r~sponse to questioning by Cammission~r Barnes~ Mr. Geritz stated they ha~ been unaware
of the condition regarding the blllboar~ls until this date and had been unable Co contact
the lessr.e.
Thereupon~ Mr. Phlllip Bettencourt~ repres~nting Anahelm Hilis. (nc.~ appeared bcfare the
Pianning Commission and stated they were the sub-lessee of the billboards in questivn a;~~
th~e lease would run tn J~~uary 1, 1978; that the billbaards were utiltzed as a marketing
aid at a time when Anaheim Hills was difficult to identtfiy and reach~ however~ sincr thgt
time they had ~onstructed additiona) signs at Impcrlal Highway and~ on that basts, and as
far as they were concerned, the billboards could be remaved tomorrow; and that u~der the
terms of the lease they w~re obilyated to u5~ the bllibo~rds for a specified period of
time.
~ ~
7G-484
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Ocf.ober 11~ 19)6
R[CI.ASSIFICATION NU. 76-77'lu ANP CONDITIOI:vL USE PERMIT NO. 16y4 (Contlnued)
In res~+anse to queetloning canc~r'ninq tfie trASh sto~ag~.erers, Assistant Flanner Joel Flck
advl~ecl thnt the Sanitntlon Givislon was recomnrndln~ tf~aC addltlonal tra~!.li storage aroos
b~ provi~leri on the sitc. Thereupon~ Mr. ferltz stipuleted to complying wlth the
requlren~ents per•talninq to sald trash Storegc +~reas, over and beyond those shown on t hc
submitte<1 plans,
In rAgP ~ma Avenuesto~cortrol ltftftuMn~rrr~vem~ntstiwithconetmecilan~openingnaCGthe~en t rance
In L
to the sho~ping center.
Comml~slo~er Tolr~r noted t1»t there was <z resolutlor of Intent ku commercial zoning ~n the
subJect property.
Comm~ssi~ner Herbst noted tn~t I~e cuulct n~t support th~ proposed proJect although he
recognfzeci that there was a resolutlon of intent tn commerciAl zaning on lhn propert y;
that he h~id o deep feeling that the suhject pr~perty wds not commerclal and~ furthe rmore,
that the proposal was a"fislilnq expeslit(on" since there werc only sketclies ~f the
proJect; and tha't tl~cre would probably be real probiems <levelop when the developers trled
Co get l~ssees for the complex since the area ~•rould rsot suprort the type d~velapmen t
proposed wiCh thrce restaurants, In addit~on ta the existing restaurant on the co~n ~ r,
Cemmissic~ner Tolar took exceptlon~ nnt' ~y~ut~rathcratondeterminetwhc:thernthe p opose<I~land
determine the ecanomics c~f the property,
use was a viable commerclal or industrlal property.
Commiss.oner Herbst nated that~ at least, he wanted the developer [o be aware of his
comment.: since the property was very limited for commercial devulopment; that the
development would be strlp conmercial zoning; and that the plot plan dld not suppu r t the
cl~ange in zonlnq.
Commissloner King noted that an~t~nQt~theePlannin9~Commisslona11Y 5uccessful~ that ~u1d be
the concern ~f the developer
Discusslon pursued regard(ng the length of time the billboards should be allowed a~ d,
based upon thesSion determin~:d thatgsald^hillboards sh~uld beZ~emovednpriorStottheh ~~' the
Pla~ning Comml
issuance uf building permits.
Commissioner King otfered a motion, Seconded by Cnmmissioner Morley and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissioner F~., •ano being absent) ~ tha~ the ^~aheim Clty i'lanning Commission does hereby
recomncnd to the City Councll of the City of Anahelm that a negative declarat-on f rom th~
requirement to prepare an envlranmental impact r~por: be approved for the su~Ject proJect,
pu~suant to the prov(sions of the California Env(ronmental Q~ality Act.
Comnissioner King offered Resolutior. No. PC76-195 and moved for its passage a~d adopt(on~
that the Anaheim City Planning Corm~lssion does hereby recommend .o thQroved C~ubJe ct tothe
City of Anaheim that Petitlon for Reclassification No. 76-77°16 be app ~
the stipulatlons of the pet!tloner and subject t~ the Interdepa~tn+ental Committee
recommandations. (Sec kesoluClon Book)
OR roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYtS: COMMISSIONERS: ~3ARNES~ KING, MORLEY, TOLAR~ JOHNSON
N0~5: COMMISSION~RS: h"RBST
ABSEMT: COMMI551 ~~"'"•`- ~ ! %~KnN~
Cornmtssioner King offered Resolu~.un No. PC76-196 and movec for iLS passage and a doption,
that the Anahefm Cfty Fiannln.y Commission .iaes hereby grant Patition for Conditional Use
Fermit No. 16;~,. :~• ,•~::, :~~Y+n~ tne requested waiver cf the permitted signing °in~the
basis that the pet+cioner stipulated to comply~ with the requlrements for slgning
Scenic Corridor; sub)ect to the further st1P~~~SeenResoluti°negook)ner and sub}a et to the
Interdepartmental C~mmlttse recomnxndations.
On roll call, the foragolnq r~:solutian was passed by the following vote;
AYES: COMMISSIQNERS: BARNES~ K.ING, MORLEY~ TOLAR~ J0~'N50N
NOES; COMMISSIONERSt NERBST
ABSENT: COMMISSION~RS: FARANO
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PI.ANNIt~G COMMISSION, Oct.ob:r I1. 1~i7~
76-485
VARIANC~ N0. 2855 - PUBLIC IIEIIRIIJG. DR[N I)EVELOPMFN7 COMPA~IY, SANTA ANA VALLEY
IRRIGIITION COMPANY~ F.~NA~ E3f:RN~RUO AND ~ACK YORBA~ I1.,"~ South
Clauclina~ Anah~im~ Ca. 2a0S (Owners); SGPA PLANNING F l1RCHITECTURE~
P, 0, Box 3337.6, San Dir.go~ Ca. 9Z~o3 (AQ-~nt); requestirig WAIVER OF (A) PERMITTED SIGN-
ING, (E~) BUILDIt~G SETBACK FROM EXPRESSWIIY~ (f,) [3UILUIt'~ SETBAfK FROM LOCAL STREET~ I~ND
(q) REQIIIRED LlWDSCAPING on property d~scrlbed as an lrr~~g~ilarly-shapnd parce) of land
c~n91sting of ~pproximatcly 5.0 acres loc~ted at the northwcst ~orner• r~f Santa Ana
CAnyon Rond and tmperfal Nighaiay, I~oving Hpproxi~nate frontAgee of G55 fect, on the nnrth
slde of Santa Ana Canyon Ro~d and 3~~ feet an the west side of imprrla) Highw~y.
Nroperty presesntly classified RS-A••4~~000 (RESfQFNTIl1L/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE (wlth a
rasc~!ution of (ntent to CL(SC).
Approxlmately nine persons indicated thelr presence in opposltion to the sub'ect p~titlon.
Asslsta6t andnsaldlStaff'ReportdishrefcrredRto~as if set forth,in fulltinithc~minutestoher
It~ 197 ~
Mr. Eugene Geritr., representinq tlie agent for th~: peti[ioner and the cleveloper oP ths
proposed F~roJect~ appeared hefore the Planni~~ncl dinS'theaCltycof~Anahelmf the Oranqens
with the subJect property was its c~wnershlp~ 9
County Flaod Control Distrtct, etc.~ that a 6-foot high block wall c.urrently exlsted along
Old Santa Ana Canyon koad; that Lhe proposed uses included a United California Bank~ which
had filed for its charter~ and they were negotiating for a rnstau~ant and a savings and
loan at the sub,lect location; and that the plan ha d been complicated because of the
conflyuration of the land, Mr, Geritx revlewed the shape and slze of the subJect
property~ stating that the required setback line wauld run through the prope~ty ar ~reat
depCh and they were trying to devclop the property to the benefit of the dcvelop~ <~nc1
provide for unity in *_~rms of utilization and logis tics; that the shoppin9 tenand would b@
located next to the eucalyptus trees at the a~uthwest corner of the property,
that the
cause the remaval of two trees which were in the w ay of thep~aposed driveway; Y
were endeavo~ing to tie the devplopment of the property together; that they would like to
withdraw the requested waiver pertaining to signing and also the requested walver
pertalning to landscaping adJacent to Santa Ana Can yon Ro~id on the basis that they were
proposi~g tu provide a rninimum lA feet of lan:lsca~iny with a bermMraSGeritzathen~p~esented
the full 20 feet of landscaping at one portian of the pro~erty.
a renderfng o~ the proposal which I~e indicated was a low-scale proJect, wiCh wood-carved
signs that ware front-illuminated with cut-out et Cers, and satd rendering also indlcated
the vlsual exposure of the proJect `rom al~ s1~es.
Mt'. Flck clarifled that the waiver of the require~ landscapin g would still be required
adJacent to Old SanLa Ana Canyon Road.
Mrs. Mary Dinnuorf, 131 La Paz. President of Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Ass~ciatton~
appeared before the Planning Commission and inqui~ed whetl;er Old Santa Ana Canyon l.oad
wauld be closed or open for traffic. Mr. Geritz s tated sald street would be open t~
traffic which would be exitiny from the subJect p roperty at ~he cul-de-sac but with no
access for the en±ire length of said street.
Mrs. Uinndorf continued by stating that the develo pers should be made aware of the Scenic
Corridor Overlay Zone; and she took except(on to the proposed internal :raffic circulation
pattern with a drlve-through bank, noting that th e subject a rea was already badly
congested with a~~tomobile~ at all times; that cor+sideratlon sF~ould be given to the
existing traffic ana the realistic possibility that Imperlal Highway and Santa Ana Canyon
Road would be ~~idened in the future~ at which time a blkelane would be allo~ed; that no
leases had been signed in connection with the p ropo.al; that she was concerned about the
type of restaurant propos:u and the hours of operation and 1 ighting, the buffering [hat.
would be provided f~r tfe adJacent single-fam'ly residential uses, the trash c~llection
beh i r.d tl~e propcsed bui l di ngs ad] acenC to th ~ Ol d Santa Ana Canyon Road ~ and that thP
deveieper was apparently trying to get too much on the subJect land; that, to her relief,
the Planninc~ Corr,mis~ian was the determining body for thehighest and best use of the land
and not Just the e~•~nomics of ft; that there were y0~000 people in the Canyon arca,
according to the ~~. ~era) Plan, and no place had been alluwed for publlc service buildings,
i.e, ~ electri cal substations ~ 1 ibraries, fi re statlons, etc. ~ to compensate the res idents
in the area tax-wise; that if there were not eno ugh people to support all of the
commercial development~ there would be instant blight; and that the propusal ~ppeared to
be a gamble and she would ~ihadtbee~esaldtabout ~nthe Ilghting wouldrlmpactrtheaadJacent
further stated that nothing
~
^w~
~
MINUTES, CITY PI.ANNIN~ COMMISSION~ Octobe ~ 11~ 1976
VARIAMCt NQ. 2855 (Continuesd)
76-486
slnyle-family re~idences~ as well as thc trrffic; and that If khe developers wa~ted Lo
bulld the subJect proJect~ they should p urcliese mo~e iend slnce thts was too much on too
Itttle,
Mr. Ower~ (3rown, 6611 Paseo Del NUrec (Eas tridge Tract) ~ appeared before the Planning
C~mmission and stateci the resldents in t h ~ area would Iike tc- keep tho area the wey it
was; that developers w~re rcquesting va ri an~es and havlnc~ them grantcd very often; that it
would be appraciated if the quality contR-ol cxperts of the Clty would start putting thnir
foot dowri; thet the people dtd not wanC SO-fook sett~acks~ but wanted 10~-foot setbt+cks~ as
requlred~ and the dcvclopers could c~n a~ood ,~ob and comply with the ordinancea in the
baylnning rather th~n askfng for great v arlances and receiv(n~ half of what thay esked
for.
Mrs. Norma Cleme~ts~ 556~3 Edgemar~ appea~ed before the Planning Comrnission In oppc~si~ion
and stated that she llved ]ust north of tl~e Old Santa Ana Canyon Ro~d adJacent to tha
subJect property; that sald road was be~amir-g 1(k~ an alleyway; th~t she I~ad mo~'ed to the
subJect area because she did not like b e in9 r,~~~t by a tr~sh collectlon area where trucks
cAn~e 1~~ at 3~~~ a.m. and wake everyone up; that the ps•oposal would make sevrn restaurants
at the subJect intersection; that anoth~e r shopping c~enter was op~ning up in a couple of
days in the area; Chat she malnly objec r ed +~ the use of Old Santa Ana Ganyon Ruad and th~
proposed ACC~SS~ especlally in view of tt~e fact Xhat said road was t~-~e only acceas to her
neighborhood for emergency vehicles, ete ., and she did noC like to think of what might
happen lf the road was busy with natron s r,f the shopping centerduring an emergency; and
that she was also representing the othe r four residents who backed up to Oid Santa Ana
Ct~ny, ~ Roed.
Mrs. Pam 8errv, '^'2 ~a Paz~ Secre~ary oF the Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Associatlon~
appear•eci be'ore tiie P 1 ann i ng Commi ss i o~ In oppog i t i on and stated she Has concerned abouC
the police protection that -+ould be provlded to the area; that the Ctt~/ kept increasing
the commerclal de•.elopm^r~r. but nat the police protection; and that the Assoctatlon was nat
strlct~y a!ia~nst all variances and she wanted t~ thank the Planning Commtssian for
g~anting the variance ~or the Rinker de velopment bWt wan~ed to urge denlal of the subJect
proposal.
Mrs. kachel H. McManu~, 5SB1 Edgemar, a ppeared befo~e the Planning Commission in
apposition and stated that by closing o~f Old ~anta Ana Canyon Road at the proposed cul-
de-sac, she was concerned about the schaol children; that, evr,itually. the people In he~
Cract would be fenced in; that they we ~~ Just hard-worN~~g r ple, trying to protect their
investmer.t; that the proposed proJect woulcJ have an effsct thei r chl ldren being able to
walk freely o the three schools In th e area; that it al~eady took ab~~ut fivc to ten
minutes to cro_s tn~ interse~tion and~ with rr-~~e traffic~ it woulcl be more diff(cult; and
that the stores ware not really needed in the area and tne Planning Cartimission shouid take
her comments into consideration.
In r~buttal~ Mr. Geritz stated that thP closure of Old Santa Ana Canyon Road r~as
establ6shed as a condition of the zon: ~9 on the subJect property and a new street, Avenida
Margarita, was to be created to inte--s ect with Santa Ana Canyon Road; that the closure of
Lhe street ~vould cure a dtfficult sltuation which presently existed at the maJor
intersection; and that no vehicular aceess was provlded along the length of Old Santa M a
Canyon Rc~ad adJacent to the subJect prc.,.erty but there wer~ a se•'es of pedestrian paths
thr~~~yhout the pro_Iect~ and the e;cclus ion of vel~Ecular access was to protsct the adJacent
single-family development as much •..s passible. Mr. Geritz further stated that if they
adhe.red to the setback requirements~ t here would be practically no site left for
development and~ if the ~roperty was t o be developed co~nmercial~ they felt consideratton
shc~uld be given to the proposal; that. In any kind of development. mass landscaped area~
were extremely effective and the propo sed tieavy landscaping would, in effect, provide a
buffer for the visual impACt along San ta Ana Ca~yon Ftoad and the Scenic Corridor wh~rc
they could not physically place tl•,e b u ildings farther back from the property lines; that
they were alsa prop~sing to have an ae cess poi~t to the west about in the middle of th~-
new street; that, regarding lighting~ they a-ould use low-scale~ 14 to 16-foot high~ light
st~ndarJs and the ltght wouid Ue dire eted away from the resldentlal a~eas; that tha
landscaping and the ex'sting 6-foot h i gh wall~ in addltion to the approximately J-foot
gra~e differential and placing the b uildings approximately 65 feet away, would campletely
buffer the restdenccs from th~ propos ed development; that they were proposing to util(zG
Qld Santa A~~~ Canyon Road ,'or the tra sh collection vehicles to ~each the subJect property;
that the r~~ash areas would be completely enclosed a~d~ since Old Santa ~thought~thet~r Was
complet!:ly bufferad from thc adJacen t single-family residences~ they had
~ ~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PI.ANNING CQMMISSION~ Jctober 1! ~ 1~76 ~~''447
VAiil ANCE N0. 2855 (Cont i nu~ii)
proaosal for trash coZ lection was the best. Ne further stated thaC they Nere ~~questin9
15~', ~ovArege of the land~ which was a~bout the lowest coverage in tho Clty~ ond thet t~~e
landscaplnq substr~ntlally exceeded lhe buj Iding coverage c~n tha ~tite,
THE PUBLIC NF.pRING WAS CLOSEU
In rosponse t~ questioning by Commissione~ Barnes. Mr, Gnrltx stated the propose,d
re~t~eu~ant w~s mure i n the ordcr of a dtnner house, f-owever, h~+ was not prlvi le~ed to
state Nhlch resteurant It was at this potnt in tlme; and that hG ws~ not familtar with tha
Keno's rnstdurents. Thereupon~ Cammfssio~er Barnes neted that th~rt seemed to hs a great
many walk-in type rest~iurants and drive•tns along the Scenlc Gorridor and ther~ probably
v~es n ~eed Por a hlgh-classed reataurant in that area; and chat ~Ince she was noC t~war~ of
any ather prouosal for such a hic~h-class restaurant. ShC WAS Interested. Mr, Geritz
thr.n s tatecl he agreed that th~re was a neecl for a h Igh-cl assnd rest~uranC i n the arPa,
In respon~e to Mrs. McM ~us' cancerns, Chalrman .fohn4on noted that the intersectlon of
Santa Ana Canyan Raad and Imperlal Hlghway could no-. exist w(Ch a ff ~`th Icg; and,
therefore~ tt waa necessary to close Old Santa Ana ~~anyun R~ad prior to reachi~y the
i nta rsectlon,
Mrs. McManus then stated she was surprised that the Clty lot the property owne~ havG the
abo~doned portlon of Old Santa Ant~ Canyon Road; and that by abandoning the strcet the
chi Idren would have t.o go farther to get to schocl
Commisslon~r Nerbst noted that the SubJect plans developmant were an example of how
plans could change overnight after the z~~ning was obtalned; .i~at the subJect p~operty was
sultable for some type of commercial develo~ment and the previous pla,,e Indica~ed tv~+o
restaurants and a commercial bullding; that the property had some haids;~~p beeause c~f the
canfir~uration of it, howr:ver~ there was some vacant adJacent land whlch ca~,id be added to
mak~ a mare desirable developmertit; that whatever was approved and deve~np~.~ on tnc subject
pr~perCy would set a precedent for the rest ofi the undeveloped land in the are~; that, as
pla~ners, the Planning Commission dio not necessarlly ne~d to get Involved coRCar~ing the
economlcs buc shauld protect the City from the creatiun af situationa similar to the
overabundance of servlce stations in the City; that the Planning Cortmisslon haid seen n~any
^oerxnerclal propasals which included itnancf~ml instituttons but they turr,ed out to be: plans
Lo get commercial zaning; and that with the zoning, the developnrs could pux ~,rhatever they
wanted on the land as lany as it ~-et the Code. Ne then questloned th~c traffie :aunt ~t
the subJect intersection. In response, T~-affic Enginee~ Paul $Inger aclvised that the
average daiiy kraFfic count, includinc~ the last approved proJect In Lh~s area_ was 5n~~~~
S`or Impertal Highway and 3$,000 for Santa Ana Canyon Road.
Commissioner f~erbst then noted tha~t the subJect prnperty had good expnsure ~.~~ would ~ u';e
many problems i f developed as proposed; and that the subJect property sha~ld ?rob~bly be
comb i ned w t tl- add I t i ona 1 1 and to ~he wes t.
A questlon was raised pertatnln~~ to the oreviuus iten; on this meettng's agen~a which wa~.
gpproved for a conxnerci~'. de~~~~~N~~~er.c in the subJect area~ and Cortmtssione~ Trolar natec'
that sald developr ~~~t~ in ef;ect. h~d no w,,ivers froi,i the Code ~equlrements; that, in
contrasty the subJact devalopment wa~ rea«ksting waivars due to the slze of [he proper:Y
and he did not .'avnr such a pr~posal sin;:o: ~;;c~re land could 5e acquired to make a be~t::r
comm~rcial development tf it was t~ be d~vGla~ed cortxnercially; that the hardshlp was af
the property owner's own making be~a~~s~ of the proposed density: '.hat the p~~vlouslY-
approved project would n~t, impact residentlal zones or trafftc a~~d, in the case of the
subJect ~lauelopment, thEre was an impact or~ residentlal uses tn the Scentc Corr~dor; and
tt~at (f the subJect development could not stand on fts own feet as a commerci ~al cenker, he
would not vote in favor c+f it. Commissioner King noeed that he c,oncurred in Commissloner
T~ ~ a~'s ~a~~:,~nts.
Chai rman .:~hnso~ notcd that he bel ieved the appl (cant wauld have to remove a row uf trecs
to be abl~s to move the proJ~ct farther away from tho arterlal highway~ and i f they
aequlred the abandoned pertion of Old Santa Ana Canyor~ Road from the City; that most of
the setback prob lems rel ate~ to Santa Ma Canyon Ro~d ~ but he fel t the devel opers had
missed the mark in co~nectton with the use of Old Santa Ana Canyon Road sine~ satd straet
vdould become an al leyway for trash trucks when i c should he buffered; that, althaugh :he
deveiopers were propostng trees and landscaping aiong Old SantA Ana Canyon itoad, the nolse
fron~ the trash trucka and ~Char commercial trucks on that street would rende r the scund
aCtenuation and vtsuol bufter of no value to the adJecent residanttal uses; that~ althouqh
~J
~
~
F11NUTfS~ CITY PLANNING CQMMISSIUN~ Oct;ober 11 ~ 1976
76-484
VARIAt~CE N0. 2855 ~~nllnucd)
__ ~.r.._,_.___
the devalopera wern cryiny t~ do something wlth a difflcult plece of property~ ~~~ would
not be eble to suppo~t the ~~ro~osal; and that normally hc was wllli~g to work with
developers with small v~rian ces~ howover~ tne pruposal was tao much for the subJect odd~
shaped plece nf prope riy.
Commis~loner Dsrnes noted that she really iik~d Chc propoied lancfscapinq pl~n whicli was an
lmprovonxnt avc+r the 1~+ fcet that w~s on tt~e other side af Santn Ana Canyon Rot+d; Anc1 that
shc could ~ee proble m~ with the proposed (nterlor clrculatlon pian and doubted the
serio~asness~ of the proposal.
Chalrman Jahnson not~:d that additlonal landgcapiryg WAS destrable at the back of tnc
proposad restaurant t~ provido adequate pr~tection for the adJaccnt residnnces; and tli~~t~
although the proposnl had possibllltles, h~ was nol rcady to support It.
Commissloner King Inq ulred what the property avners 1n the arca would llke to see
developed on the sub}ect propcrty~ and Mr. Brc~wn stated that a{though he did not llve in
the irrmediate area, his neighb~~rs were ~oncerned about the strip commerct~l aspects of the
proposal; th~C hfs neighbors haci lived in citles ltke Hewthorne~ Redondo Seach, etc.,
which were heavlly-trafflcked areas~ and it appet~red that the hnavy can9estion
characteristic mlght be following them ta the City of Anr~heim; that there were
possibll~tles for c1e veloprt-ent ~f Che sub}ect proFerty other than the type conmerclal
proposed; that the area needed servicas; that the Westridge tracC racently had its elghth
hurglary anci the policeman who came out stated there was only one of them to handle the
entfre area; that, althnugh Che Planning Commisslon p~'obably did not like to hear about
the need for par!cs, and he wgreed that taxes could not be towered by tl~e constr-action of
parks~ the chtldren in his tract liad to play ln the streets and the 6.5'acre park site
that was supposed to be constructed in their area appeared to be going down the draln;,
that the children in hls tract were bused to school and~ therefore~ the school grounds
were a dlstance away and not evailable for recreatiunal use; that~ additionally, he would
not want hfs chlldr~~i playing at the intersection o1` Imperfal Hiqh, andoSeC~aa^aaWUUldon
Road; and that thc p eople in his tract would r~oC support the prnn p J
ao out of their way to avoid it.
Chal rman Johnson noteci for 11rs. Dinndorf that ~n tF~e ore hand she had indlcated thcre
would be an adverse traffic impact at the subJect intersection because of the 50~000 cars
that were already in the area and on the other hand she had indicated there would not be
enough ~Pople to supp~rt ~patrunize) the pro~ect.
In response, Mrs, Dlnndorf stated that she thougt~t there were enough shopping centers to
service the 5~~000 people; Chat citi~es smaller than 50~000 in p~puiatlon had a post
~ffice; that the area could use a police stati~n, litara~y, or fire statlon and the City
could giv~ Che subJect property owners a tax break with relatlonshiF tn the commercial
zoning on the prope rty; and that the property taxes had rlseri $547 for the homeowners in
the Hill and Canyon Area and they were ent(tled to a Pew services.
it was no*.ed that the Environmentai Review Committec had dEtermtned that the proposed
proJect would be substanttally in conformance with the proJec73p~4~25~~nythePsubJeCtnder
Environmental lmpact Report No. 104 and Reclassification Na.
property~ and no further Pnvironmeiital assessment was necessary.
Commissloner Morle~ oi'fered Resolution No. PC76-197 and moved for its passaye and
adoption~ that the bnaheim Cily Planning Commission doe~ hereby deny Petltion for Varlance
No. 2aS5 and the walvers requeste~ therein~ on the basis that the proposal would create
strip comrt-erclal development in th~ Scenic Corridor; 2hat the proposal would adversely
lmpact the ad]acen t residential uses to tlie north since access to the site f~r sanitatton
vehicles is proposed from Old Santa Ana Canyon Road; thar further impacts would be ir~osed
upon the adJacent residences and traffic circulation in the erea if sald waive~s were
gra~~!ed; and that, bacause of thc number of waivers necessary to develop the proposed
commerclal shoppfng center~ It appeared that said proposal is an overdeve~opment of
subJect commerclal prope rty. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call~ the foregoing resoluticn was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISS'ONERS: BARNf.S, FIERBST~ KING~ MORLEY~ 7GLAR, JOHNSQN
NOES : COMMISS I ONERS : NONE
ABSENT: C4MMISSIONERS~ f'ARANO
~
~^
~
MINUTFS~ CITY PLANNING C011MISSION~ Octt~ber I1~ 1976 ~6"W8q
RECESS - At 3:25 p.rn. ~ Cha I rrtwm Johnson d~:cl ared a recoss .
RECONVENE ^ At. 3:35 p.m.~ Chalrman Johnson reconvencd the
~ meetlnq wlth Commissloner FArano betng absent.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUHLIC IiEARING, INI~IATED BY TNE CITY OF ANANEIM. Property described
N0, 76-77-17 t~s a re~:tangularly-~-~a~od parcel of land consisting nf approximatelY
1.5 a~cres lor.al•ed at Che ~outheast corner of Claudina Street ana
VARIANCE N0. 2A~5 Chartres Street~ havlr,g app~oximate frontages of 232 feet on tho r.est
-'" side of Claudina Street ond 293 feet on the south side af Chbrtres
St~eet. Property presently classifled CG (COMMERCIAL~ GENERAL) ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: RM-1200 (R~SIDENTIAL, M~~LTIPi.E-FAMILY) ZONE
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM BUILDIPJG SITE AREA PER DWELLING UNIT~ (B)
MhXIMUM 6UILDING HEIGHT~ (C) MINIMUM F100R AitEA, (D) MINIMUM
S'~'RUCTURAL SETBACK, (E) MINIMUM REGREATlQNAL-LEISURE AREA, (F)
MAXIMUM WALL HEIGHT~ (r,) MINIMUM NUMBER OF COVERED PARKING SP~CES~
ANO (H) MINlMUM OrF-STREET PARKING, TO CONSTRUCT A 100-UNIT
APARYMENT COMPIEX FOR TIIE F.IUERLY.
Chatrman Johnson noted that li was de.cmed approprlate at Chis tlme far the Planning
Commission Ser.reta ry to administer th~ Oath fo~ testimony before the planning Commisslon
to those persons wishing to test(fy boxh for and agalnst che sub,)ect zontng petitfons.
Approximritely five persons r~se~ raised thelr r(ghts hands and took the Oath.
Mr. Knowlton Fernala~ Community Deveiopment Department Oirector~ having taken the Oath~
r.oted that thc propnsal was ti,e first proJact to bc InitiaCed by the Anahelm Redevelopment
Agency; that the spec(fic proJect was based on an agreement with the An3helm Redevelopmesnt
~~~ency and the Anaheim Housing Authority~ etc.; that the Redevelopment Agency was the
ma~star developer for the proJect since it was the duty of the Agency to arganize the land~
acquire it~ clear it, and deed it later on to ~the actual developer~ which was Shapell
Government Housing, Inc. in this case; that Shapell was very experlenced in the
developrnent of the pro~osed type pro,lect and had been worktng with many cities in slmilar
projects which were fi~anced by FHA~ approved by NUD and, following construction~ would be
awned and operated by the developer; that the City, through itself and the A9ency, was
indicated as the applicant; that the proposal ~,rould meet some of the housing needs, as set
forth in the Community Biock Grant Program; that the Housi~3 Authorlty would have a
contraet to administrate the asststance program; and that~ as both a City and
Redeve~opment proJect~ one of Che reasons for the proposed loCation was to recognize the
opportunittes existtng in the aPea to meet the needs fn~ transpofatton~ recreation~ etc.,
for the ~elderi~~ ~~ople.
Mr. Fernald re~~~iewed sketches illustrating some of the desires of the awners and tenants
ln the arca and also what the developers felt they could constru~t and market (n thc area.
He rcvitwed the City of Anahetm rcdevelop!nent design wtth street alignments~ etc.~ and
described the possibility of a commercial conservat(on ar~ea downtown~ noting that most
everbody w~s rather fond of that idoa; that some of the present uses c~f existing
comrrx:rcinl buildings would coneinue and be rehabilitated to make them safe~ whila fat•
othrrs re~abiltrc+ttan wo 'd not be economicaily feasible; and that such a plan may develop
over a pe--' ' oF tlme. Mr. Fernald then reviewed Che four-block area surt'ounding the
proposed ~- citlzen a~,artment proJect~ noting that the Chartres Recreatlon Center was
inciuded ~ d area. and muslc recitals were held there eve ry Friday night for seniar
citize~s ta aCtend, etc.; that the subJect property vias presently partly arrned by the City
and partly prlvately-owned; that it was the ~espansibility of the Clty t~, maintaln
adequate parking in the area for the ~atning uses since part ~i :ne subJ~ct property was
presently serv(ng as a par!ctng lot; ~~ that it was the inter~t~ through tha acquisitlon
program and through planning~ to arrlve at a plan to provide any necessary pArking in the
future.
Mr. Fcrnald revlewed the E1 Csmino Bank building prope~ty an,7 noted there had been surt--
discussion with the bank's representattvas concerning rh: status and future use of said
bullding which was probably not good to continue as an office ~~tr~cture; that the bank
representattves had expressed an Interest ln working to construct a r.ew facillty for their
~
L' '
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Octob~r 1t~ 1976
RECLA~SIFICIITION N0, 7~-77-17 AND VARIANCE N0. 283y (Contlnued)
76-490
use and the City Attorney's Office which occupted the sixth fluor had beo~ requested to
look for other quartcrs ns a result ~f the Arthur Young ropo~t; that the bank bullding
could undergo substantlal rehabilit~tlon~ under Saction 8(HUU), as a sanlor cltizen
bullding; ~nd thrt each phase In the rede.vel~pment prs~gram should be standing on ita own.
Chairmar J~hnso~ Inquired if tl~e Redeveiapmei~t Agency would be providing for the parking
demands of the exlsting use~ prior to wmmencement of construction for the propoaed senlor
Gltizen proJect, Mr. Fernald advlsed that the ownars uf the property in the subJ~ct ar~a
were oager to sell; that the Agency would be detcrmining whlch of the propertins were
sulteble for parktnq use and each property would be handled on an (ndlvidual baals; that
it should bo a~pn~ent that the land dawntown was ~cxperisivs and the need to us~ it
efflcla~~tly was import~nt~ and the detatls of th~ proposal wern relatcd to the feasibillty
of what cuuld be put together; that, in terms of recreatlo~al xpace. tha proJect had benn
s~lected by HUD based strongly on the location belnq close to the Chartres Rec~eAtlon
Center~ however, wlthin tF~e prnpase.d f~clltty would be some multi-purpose rooms~ etc.;
tha~ the proposal was an important proJcGt and needed to identtfy In the Ctty; and that
the height of the proposed bullding w~s comparable to otner two and three-story structures
ln Cha aresa~.
Mr. Eillott Maltzman, Presldent of Shapell Government Housing, Inc., appeared before the
Planning Commisslon and~ having taken the Oath~ stated the subJect proJect ht~d be~n
approved for HUD~ Section S~ Financing; that the proposed apartments wauld be for 100$
occupancy by persons 62 yc:ars of age or older and 10~ of satd persons would be
handicapped; that the subJect proJect was the only one in Orange County whic:h was granted
undc~ the S~ection 8 program; that the tenants would pay 25~ of their income for rent and
there would be a maximum income that a parson could h.ave and still 11ve in the proJect;
that the building would be three stories filgh, having two elevators, and ali nf t~o un([s
would have balcr~nies designed In accordsnce with FHA standards; that a condlttonal
c~mmitment had been received from HU~ ta lnsure a mo~tgage Just under $2 mlllton r'or the
proposed pro}ecC; that the construction financing was already arranged and th~
constructlon would begtn as soen as the City gave them the site; a that a portlon of
Emlly Streset would be condemned for inclusion in the proJect.
Mr. Robert Coles, the architect for the proposal~ appeared before the Planning Commission
a~d, having tak~n the Oath, indicated he was prescnt to answer questions about the
p rOp~05 a 1 .
Mr. David Delencyy attorney fnr Stoneman Enterprises, cywn~rs of the E1 Camino Bank,
appeared befni•c the Plannirrg Commission and~ havfiig t~ken the Oath, stated that M~.
Stonert-an had informed him that he Has not opposed to the proposal~ as presented per sa~
however, the iand acquisition did not go far enough since, if the acqufsition of property
would take a portion of the bank's property for this proJect~ it should e~compass it all
and, on that basis, Mr, 5COneman was opposed; and thai there was no question that the City
had the power of condertnation~ however~ the partial loss of the bank's property wauld have
a great effect.
Mr. Gant Elchrodt~ 203 South Melrose, Anahetm~ appeared before the Pl~nning Commiasion as
a member oP ~he PrrJect Area Comnittec ar+d as an individual and, having taken the Oath,
stated he had some questions. although not necessarily in opposttton; that mat~ly he was
questloning the number of varianGes being requested to construct the proJect, especialiy
sinco this t~ould be the first proJect to be accomplished in thz redevelopment area and
would be particularly sensitive, followi~g :he redlt-ectlo~ effarts of the Agency; that the
standards set for thts proJect could be verv seriously construed to mean wh~t would be
aliowed throughout th~ downtown redevelopm:nt area; that he did not know if the senior
cltizans had been pojled as an active graup as tA how their structu~es sheuid bc built or
deva~opcd; that he did nut like the idca of using the E1 Camino Bank bullding as a multl-
story. saninr cltt.ens structurs~ as it would be a i~ll~ compact use; and that he would
question whethar the needs of tlie sesntor c(tizens were betng neglected.
Mr~, Janc Cook~ SW1 South Helena Strret, A~aheim~ member of the Downtawn Area Ta~~kforce
Association (D.A.T.A.), appeared before the Planning Commission and, having taken the
Oath, stated that the proposal would constltute substandard apartrt~ents if they were not
being tionstructed in the name of giving someone's homeless g~andmother a place to live~
slnce the units would be stightly l~rger than a two~car garage; that she would have
quest3ons such as how many senior cltlz~ns we~e asked what they needed~ were the taxpayers
getting the best value for their money~~ etc.; that S300 a month for rent was a lot ~nd the
dlfference between 25~ of the tenant's incoma and $300 would be subsidlzed or pald for by
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLIW NING COMMISSIQN~ October 11~ 1976
R~Ct,ASSIFICA710N N0. 76-77-11 AN~ VARI_ANCE NQ. 28~5 !Ccntinuad)
7b°4g1
tf~e taxpayers; that S;i00 a mc~~th would buy a Getter apa~tment someplace elsawhere which
would certo{nly be largcr than 700 sque~r~ Feet~ and tho proposal wes Indfcated as 6Q0
squara feet; khr~t it would ~pFeAr that the tr+xpa~yer wae not gntting the best ddal Yor hls
mcmoy; anci thak tha propased proJr.ct~ therePore. dld not tr+edltl~nally came up to the
quallty that D.A.T.A. would llke tu see.
In rebuttel co connw rt~ by Mr. Delanc~. Mr. Frrnald noted that the aubJect oP acqulsitlon
was a yuestlon which +.ould fall wfth~n thcs scape af busl~ess batween the Rcdevelopment
P+~ency and thn pro~prty owners; that ~ho Agoncy had Che abllity to spllt property: that
t~ie ba~k hul lding I~ao '+een ansly~ed structur~liy end w+~s found to b^ in pretty good
conditlan and should be rehabill~ated~ and khe Agency couid asuist the ownar In many ways
I,y acquiri,,g lt and selll~g it~ atc.; ~tiat thero were many options av~llable ar,d the
Agancy liad the nbillty to proceed with tl~e ownnr on any o~e~ of said optiuny; and Cfiat the
bank bullding wen ~t a mat':er to bc r~solvad in cannectlon wlth tho subJect proposal.
Mr. Fernald further not~d~ in responsc to qcx~stfoning by Mr. Elchrodt, that pr{marl~y tlie
Zoning l:odr wrs nat written for tF,e Cype proJect bcina requested or for tt ren~wAl ;~~oJect;
tiiat lt was lmparca~t to have 1~d use efflcte~ncy tn the downtuwn area ared to rolate
nrqJ~ects wetl betwce.n one another~ that~ regsrdlny seni~r citizen Input~ tho Comnunlty
4c:vclQpment staPf hao talked with nany of chem in the Ctry offices and mar~y had answered
th-e survcys; that the falr maPket r~nt for the units was $23fi per month and tl~e critlcal
factor was the lac.+t{o,~ of' Lhe pro)r_ct~ being in closa proximity to recrCation~
tra,i~port~;ion~ shiopp;ng~ c~c.
Mr. R~~k M.~tteslch~ Manager~ Housing and Neigh~arhood Pr~sGrvatlon~ Comnunlty
D~evel~pment Department~ appc:ared before the Planning Commission to pc-esent evlde~ce and
t~;e Pla~nniny ~Ammisston Secretary ac:ministered th~ qath to sald indivldual, f~liv~wing
whlch h-. Mattesich r~dviserl that he had talke~i with many senior cltizens who werc
fnteres+:ed tn the propased proJect. Ne further ad~'sed that the amen~cles of the proJeut
would ~nclude security ~nd no one had expressed oth~r than posttive feeiings about the
proJr.cr.,
I n ~•c~spansr ta quest ions r:~ i sed concern 1 ng s i ze ~f the un i ts, etc. , Mr. Mi+l txnwn stated
Ch:+t oversized apartrrr.nts could not be subxlclizod; that the average apartment units were
ti00 square feet and d(d not have b~icanies, however~ Che proposed unlts would be
awsoluteiy of first°class constructton and design.
THE ~UBL.IC HEARIN6 6lAS CI.OS~!!.
Commissioner 11orl~y natec! for P~~. Cic;r:.:f;: t~u~ ;he proposed number of waivers would not
6~ pr'~ccdenr.~setting since simiiar waivers ha~ b~en previous!V granted fos a proposa) on
Lemon Strect and~ in some tns~ances~ the lemo~i Street proJect had greater waivers.
Cammissloner ;ierbst n~ted that at the time the Lemon Street pro)ect was conside~ed, data
w~~s obtained trom s~mila~ facilities ln the Ctties of Pasadena~ Long Heach~ San Diego~
~tc.~ z~nd it was t'ound that the senior c(tizsns w~re very happy t~ small apartments, and
tel t~secure and f.C11'-tP.Sli because of the way the bui ldings werc const~ucxed, and many of
ckem harl prlv.sCe balconles; that~ as a p~int of informekion~ bachelar-tYpe apartment ~nits
wers allowed in the City of Anahaim with 425 square feet of floo~ space; that thert was
not r~ 7.oniny C~de for downtown t~naheim and the type wnstruct~on p~oposed; that through
the res~aarch in consic!ering the Lemon ~treet pro]ect~ the Ctty had found that many
proJccts had very llttle parking space and some had vast amoi~nts of parktng spaze which
Was not U~ing used; ihat the Plan~ing Coinmission had revlewsd anc! studted tt~e sttuation to
understand the ~ieeds oi th~ senior citizens and the proposa' appeared to be a gaod
structura for the intan~~ed use; and that I~e was conce~ned r.bc~ut how the proJect would be
buffered f~am Linroln F,venue if satd st~~eet were rerouted as shown on the exhibit.
In reply, Mr. ~ernald advi,ed that they reeognize~ the setback would be 5 feet or greater
nnd th~ A2-inch filgh wall should be 5 feet.
Mr. Coles further resp~nded to Commissioner Herbst's questlon by stat(ng that the bu(lding
rrould be w?ndowlASS adJacZnt tc L!n~o1n tivenue; that HUD had ~elso ralsed that qunstlon
and~ as ane af the rrquirements~ the balconles would ca~tribute toward the sound
attcnuation since th.*. balcony walis would be 4 feet high with pa~tly soltd rail~ and
partly glasx ta b~~ffer the livingroom wlndows; that the 4-foo+t hlgh balceny w~ells wauld
cut off some of the saund~ since the s~und would strika an angle up te the buflding, and
would also enhance the Feeling of security for the people wha arould ba living in the
...~
•
~
•
MINUTES~ CITY pI.ANNING COMMISSION~ October 11. 1976
RECLASSIFiCATION _N_0_.__76~'17 ~D VARIANC~ N0. Y8~5 (Continuod)
76-49z
proJnct; and that HUO re~llz~d that ~Incoln Avenue might be moved and had pa~ticipated tn
discuss(on regardlnq th~at matter.
Chalrma~~ Joh~soii took exceptlo~ to the lack of ~tr spacn for thc proposed praJecC.
Mr. Colns revlewed the slt~+ plan lndiceting the floor space end lot space~ otc.~ as well
as the parking wh(ch he fclt was mare than adequatc,
Discussion pursudd regarding the leck of parking space for the comn~erclal and other uses
In the areA following the developmant of the subJect property which had partlally served
as a parking l~t~ and Commissiane~• harbyt nated that if the s~~bJect proJect wero apR~oved,
somn provliton for parking should be made for the other uses in the area. Mr. Fernald
stated that the nHCessary parking and adequate access would have to be provtd~d for
evcrv~r~a livin~ in the adJa~cent area~ in addltt~n to the comrt-arclal uses; and that it was
obvlous tli~~ the Agnncy could not allow the bank to be out of buslness ~ven f~r one day
due to iriadequ~tA acca~s or parkin~.
Commtssioner 7ular inqulred concorning th~ effect~ of tektng away the ~arking fram th~e
bank w(th relatlonshlp to an MA~ appraisal; and noted Lhat he was very much (n favnr of
the proJect but was c~ncerned abauk the value af the bank building withouC parking space.
In response, Mr. Farnald advistd that all of the buildings In the a~ea •++ere being
appraised in terms of tha cxisting cor~ditions.
Oeputy City Atto~ney Frank Lowry advised th~t to proceed with the proJect~ as proposed,
thz Agency would have to put 4.he bank irs as good shape as It pr~sently was wlth respect to
parking before anything could ba done wlth the pr~posed proJec~.
Commissioner Tolar made an observatlUn that the bank awners would be automatically
protect~d whether a speclal condition For parking was tled to this proposa) or not.
Thereupon~ Mr. Delancy st~ted they did not want to oppoee tl~e proposal~ per se, hc,wever,
they wanted the bank building to be Included wlthin the proJect as far as acqutsition was
concerned; and that [hey did rot. want ta bec~+rne invalved in a five-year lawsult but wanted
to h~ve thelr butlding provlded for at the time that th~ praposed proJect went forward.
Cortmtsstoner Tolar fnG~~~red if Mr. Dalancy was sat~sfied with the Ciiy's interpretation of
the law~ and Mr. Delancy indtcated ln the negative~ statt~g that the bank butldtng shou~d
be acquired or other~ise by agreement between the parties before any of the project went
forward, M~. Delancy inquired as ta the feasibility of ~ent(ng out office space wlehout
adequate parking.
Commissioner Herbst inqulrtd if, when the bulldings in the area we re torn down after being
condemned for being structurally unsound, parl:ing were provided acrc.~s the street, would
that sattsfy the bank owners~ and Mr~ Delancy sta*_ed in the atfirmative~ that r.he intent
o~ the law would have been satisfled.
Commissloner Tolar then noted that the foregoing discussion regarding the parking
facilities should be brought to th~ attention of the Redevclopment Agency.
In response to .auestio~ing by CommiSSioner King. Mr. Maltzman scated that the medlum
i~come used in campiling thely data was fo~ the entire Otange County a~re:m and pr~sently
the 80$ average f~r a family of four was based $~3~500~ and Mr. Mattesich advised that
di~crimination was tuvolded by using the first-corne~ first-serve mathod whlch was the
recorded dste and tima of appifcation.
Asslstant Planner Joel Flck read a memorandum fram the Water Dlvislon which indicated that
the subJect property couid n~~t presently be served wate~ at a prassure bnd fluw rate
15AQ6arthepdeveloperstmayibe requlred toiinsta118ma(ns~adequate toddellve~ewater Rn~the~•
requlred amount,
Commissioner Toier then not~d that he would not oppose ~uch a condttlon~ however~ h~ felt
that HUD requir~n~entst wnre rrr~ra stringent than the City would be, with ras~ect to water
service~ sound attenuaElon. etc.
Mr. Fernalc~ nated that the~~~that HUOeineasuredydifFerently frompthe City,~G square feet
excluding the balconies,
~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN~ October I1~ 1976 7~-493
RECI.ASSIFICATION N0. 76-77-17 AN_D VARIANCE_N0. 283S (Cantinued)
~oma~issioncr Tolar offered a motlcn, seconded by Commissloner King and MOTION CARRIEp
(Gammisstone~• Farano being absent}~ that the An~h~elm City Planning Commisslon ~ioes heraby
recomrr~,nd tu the City Councll af the Clty of Anehelm that a negative declaratlun from thr.
requlrement to presparo an envlrnnrn~nta) impact report be approved Por the YubJsct proJect~
pursudnt to the provistor~s of the Californle Environme~~tal Quallty Act.
Commisston~r To'ar offered ^esoi+itlon No. PC76-196 and rt~ved for its paasage and adoption,
that the Anaheim City Plannin~; Commisslon do's hercby ~ecommend to the City Council of thc
Citv of Anahelm tha~_ Petltlon t~~ aRClassificmtlon No, 76-77-17 be approved~ sub]ect to
~dequate r~placPment p~rking b-~ing p•ovided for any naarby end fltfected commerclal uses
which were presently utilizir.,~ subJect propark~~ f~r vehYtle parktng~ pri~r tu thc issuance
af bulldlr~ permlts. ~nd Cha.: the ~'~relopers shall provide for the relocatlon or
replacement of ex{sting wat:r maine, as may be requlred by the Dlrector oP Public
lltilltles, and subJect to ,:he Interdeparkmental Commlttee r~ecommenclatlons. (See
Resolutlon Boak)
On roll call~ the i`ore,~ing resolutivn was passed by the follow(ng vote:
AYES: COM1115SION!RS: BARNCS~ HERBST~ KING~ MORLEY~ 'T~LAR~ JOHNSON
IJOES : COMMI SS I ON,'RS : NONE
ABSENTt CpMMISSIONEh": FARANO
Commissloner Tola~ offered Resolution No. PC7(~-199 and moved for its passage and adoptlon,
that the Anahel~,i City Planning Commission doPs hPreby ~rant P~±.ition for 4~rlance No.
2835~ granttng all of the requested ;~a(vers to construct apartment unlts~ each c:ontatning
576 square feet of mtnlmum floor a~ea, said walver~ betng granCed on the basts that tl~e
proposal (s spectfically to provide h~using in the Anahetm Redevelapment P~oJect Alpha for•
senior ci~izens. that ther•e is no other suitable City of Anaheim rnstdentlal zone
provfding for the orderly deveslopment of this speclftc type of housing~ that the
radev~lopment area is transitlonal and the ~ubJect use ln the pro~osed locatton would be
in close ptoximity to sultable 4rnenities Par senio~ resldents~ that the proposa) will bc
constructed in accordance witli FHA/HUD, 5ectfon 8, requlrements~ and that the Planntng
Gommtssl~n t-as granted similgr waivers in the past for the development of senlur citlzen
housing, (See Resolutlon Book)
On roll call~ the Porgoing resolut(on was passed by the ~Follawing vote:
14YES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, HERBST, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, JOHNSON
NOES: COMMISSIOMERS: NQNE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONGRS: FARANQ
VARIANCE N0. 2850 - PUBLIC HEARING. THRIFTY REALTY COMPANY~ World~vay Box 92333, Los
~ngeles~ Ca. 9~009 (O~+ner); requesting WAlVER QF (R) MINIMUM FRON'T
SETBACK~ lB) MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT~ AND ~C) REQUIRE~ ENCL05URE OF
OUTDQAR USES~ TO PERMIT ~NE OUTDOOR STORAGE OF TRA!LERS on property dascribed as an
irregularly-shaped parcel af land consisting of approximately ZQ ac~es located on the
north side af CErritos Avenue between Vernon Street and S~ate College Boulevard~ having
approximate frontages of 1240 feet nn the north side of Cerritos Avenue~ 760 feet on
the east slde aP Verno~ Street. and 530 feet on the west side of State College Boulevard~
and further descrlbed as 160i East Cerrttos Avenue. Property prese~tly classifted ML
(INDUSTRIAL~ LiMI'TED) ZONE.
Commisslone~ Morley noted that he had a conflict af (nterest as defined by Maheim CitY
Planning Commission Resolutlon No. PC76-15% adapting a Conflict of Interest Code for the
Planni~g Cortmisslon and Government Code Sectton 3625, et seq., in that he docs business
wlth tha applicant in zonnzct!on with Variance No. 285~, and that he was related to ehz
applicant in connection wlth Variance No. 2851; that pursuant to the provisions of ~he
above codes, he was declari~g to ths Chairman thaC he was wtthdrawing from the hearing in
connection with It~ms 7 and $ of the Planning Commissl~n agenda and would nst kake part in
etther the discusslen or the v~ttna thereon; and that i,,, had not disc!assed thts mattar
with any member af the Planning Commisslon. 7HERElfPON, COMNISSIONER MORLEY LEFT TH~
COUN,.IL CNAMBER AT 4:35 P.M•
No one indicated their presenc~ In opposittan to sub)ect petitton.
~
~
.
MINUTES~ CITY PI.ANNING CpMMISSION~ Octobar 11~ 197~+
V111tIANCF N0. 2850 (Continued)
16•W94
Although the St~ff Report to the Planning Commlssla~~ dat~ed Uctc~er il~ 197~~ w+~s not ~ead
:,t the pubilc hesari~g~ sa1J StaPfi Report i~ ref~arred to and mada a p~rt of the minutes.
Mr. Myron Kughner~ 1601 Wnst Cerrltos~ Anaheim~ xhc agent far the petltfonRr, appearad
befor~ the Plann(ng Commlaston anel explained the rea~on for the requasted walvesrs bning
that they had incurred numnrous thePts on their truck~~ including 16 pumps~ duting the
past yoer ~nd a half; that tt~ey wanted to pa~~k wlthln the fence Ilne; that th~e propoaal
would not preaent any envlc-onme~:al changes due to the amount of landacaping that
presently existed, co~sisting of a~proxin~tely 10-toot high olea~nde~s~ whlch would
autotnattcelly wvor tha fence line.
The Pla~ning Commission 5ect-etary read a 1etCer dated October 8, 1976~ from Donald W. Shaw
of Venture 2nd ltd. (Shaw and Talbot)~ said letter in~licating that they Pelt the prdposal
wauld be detr•lmenta) to the best Intergst of the entlre commun~tY•
THE PUBLIC NEAR~NG WAS CLOSED.
Dlsc~i~sion pursued concerning the landscaped setback area~ during whtch M~. Kushnrr steted
that the existing landscaping was 10 feet from the property ltne and 23 feet from the
curb~ to his understanding.
In rcponse to questioning by Commtssinner Ktng, Nr. Kushner stated there wes no Qroblem
with thsft in connection wlth the trucks which they parked o~ the east slde of the
bullding; and thet the fEnce w~s approximately 100 feet from th~ south side of the
building. Thereupon, Commissioner King noted that he agreed that the oleanders and other
landsca~tng would hide the trailers and fence frnm pubilc virw• Commissioner King aiso
questloned where the employees would be parking if the trailers used part of the employee
parking lot. whereupon~ Mr. Kushner stated they had abouC 400 parking spac~s and us~d 140
a~ ~;;,- ~~r ±helr 200 employees~ and that If neednd they could add more parking spaces ln
thc resr of t!~e bulld(n~.
In respo~se to yuestloning by Chal~man Johnson, Mr. Kushner state:i the trailers would bo
parked in the setback area primarily on weekends. a~d the truck~ were bbsically fo~ced to
park there; and that normally~ they wer:. able to put the tractors (nside the fence.
In response to questioning by Commissioner Herbst~ Mr. Kushn~~r stated tha~ most of the
time the requested tratler pa~king wnuld be Just on weekends. Cammissioner HerbsC further
noted that the proposa7 cnuld prvbatsly delete the availabla employee parking spaces if not
patrolled, whereupon~ Nr. ~;ushner stlpulated that the parking of trailers would be In the
frant setback only on weekends and in a manner which would maintain adequate employee
pmrking space~, far the property during normal business hours, and he furiher stated that
they owned the subjecL property.
Commissioner Herbst noted that if the p~aposAl were approved, the petlCioner would bc
resquired to move the fence back to its prnpe~ location in the event that the exlsting use
or awnership of the subJect property change.~. Mr. K:ishner so stipul~±ed.
It was noted that the OirecCor of the Planning Depa~rtment had determined that the proposc~d
activity fell within the definition of Sectlon 3001~ Class 3~ of the City of Anahelm
Guidellnes to the Requlrements for an ~nvironrreental Impact Report a~id was~ therefore~
categoY(cally exempt f~om the requirement to file an EIR.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution N~. PC76-20Q a~d moved for tts passage and
adoption~ that the Anaheim City POanning Commisston does hereby yrant Petition f~
Variance No. 2850~ granting the requested waivers for the exlsting use and current
ownership ef the subJect property or+ly; sub~ect to the stlpulation of the petiCioner that
the trallers will be parked in the front setback only on w~u~~n~dn ~alibusinessehourst
will maintaln adequate employee parking for the property 9
subJect to t~e further stipulatio~ of the petit{oner that if at any time the existing usn
o~ ownarship of subJect property changes, the ~+roposed fcnce will be relocated in
accordance with Code standards; and subJect fa the Interdepartmental CommitYer.
recanMsiendatlons. (See Resoiution Buok)
On roll cali, the foregoing resolutibr+ was passed by the following vote;
AYES: COMMISSi0NER5: BARNES~ HERBST~ KING~ TOLAR~ JdHNSON
NOES; COMMISSIONERS: NONF
ABSE.NT: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO~ MORLEY
~
~
MINU7ES~ CITY PLA~INING COMMISSION~ October II~ 1976
76-495
VARIANCE N0. 28c1 - PUBLIC HEARING. VALUOUR E. RENNER~ 72y ~rth (:lementlne Strent,
""" ' Anahelm~ Ca. 92805 (~v+ner); A!. GOLfriJ`!N ANU OLIVER RICHARf)5QN, 700
North Anahelm 8oulevard, M ahalrn~ Ca. 92f305 (Age~ts); roquesting
WAIV~R UF FERMITTED USE5~ TO ES1'ADLtSN AN AU~'GMQTIVE REPAIR SHOP on propert~ dascribed
ae a rectanc~u~erly-shaped parGa) of land can+sisting of e~pproximatelY 0.2 acre located
at the northeast cornar of AnaF~clm klouleva~d and Wilhelminp Streot~ havl~c~ approxlm~te
frontages of 100 feet on the ~orth side of Wllhnimlr~a Street and 104 feet on thc east
side of Anah~im Boulov~rd~ rnd further described as 70A North Anahr,im Koulovard.
Proparty pr~sently cfasslfled CG (COMMERCIAL~ GEt~ERAL) ZONE.
It was nntad thAt~ at the bnglnning oP the public haarlnh Ir- connoction with Varlance No.
2850 ;Item 7 on the agenda)~ Cortmisstoner Morlcy had filod e Canfltct of lnterest Form fAr
sald Itam and also in connectlon with Vartance No. 2Fi51 (Item 8 on the agend~t); that hls
confltct i~ connection with Variance No. 2a51 was thaC he wes related to the applicant;
and thAt Commissioner Morley had left the Councll Charnber At 4:35 P•m~
No one indicated th~lr pres~nce ln opposltion to the subJect pct~t~on.
atCCheQpubllcShearingp~said~StaFfPReportyis~~eferred totandamadeca partlof6theaminutcsead
Mr. Ollver Rlchard~on~ the agent for the petitloner~ appeared beForc the Planning
Commission and stated he had obtained his bustness license ancl later on was advise~i by the
Zoning Enforcen~ent Offi~er that he miyht need a chang~ of zoning~ etc.; that the previous
owner pumped gas and was doing the same type nf work he was intending to do at this
loca'~ir.n; and that he had spent a lot Qf money going through the changes of locatton,
acqui~itian of equipment~ etc.~ and had been in epcr~:ic;~ ~t ~`~ s~~~~~~ '~~a~Ion for
about three months.
THE pUBI.IC HEAFIPlG WAS CLOSE~.
CorrKnissioner King noted that the subJect area had many automotlve usas and ttiP applicant
had don~ a ~ood Job of palntinn and decorating the subJ~oximatel~e gM~t'Richardsonhstated
regarding the canopy, it was enly 3 feet by 15 feet app Y•
that the canoay was no more than 3 feet by 5 feet ln sizc and Commissioner Klny added that
the canopy was used to house the lighting for the site.
In responss to questioning by Commissioner Herbst~ Mr. Rtchardson stipulated to closing
the two driveways which were located close~t to the intersection ~f Anat~eim Bouleva~d and
Wilhelmina Street and replacing said driveways witl~ cur•b~ gutter and sidewalk.
It was noted that the Director of the Planning Department had determined that thP proposed
activity fell within the definition of Section 3.~1, Cla~.~ 1~ of the City of Anaheim
Guidelines to the Requirements fo~ an Environmental Impact Repu~t and was, therefore~
c;ategorically exempt f;om the req~irement to file an EiR.
C~mmissioi~er King offerad Rr.solution No. PC76-201 and moved fo~ its passage ~nd adoption~
that the Anaheim City Plarnin~l Cortmissi~n does hereby grant Fetitian for Variance No.
2$S1~ subJec't to the stipulation of the petftioner ~nd subJect to the Interdepartmental
r~~irr~e recommendatfons. (See Resalutlon Book)
On rol) call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMP11SS10NERS: BARNF.S,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMNISSIONERS: FARANO,
HERBST, KING, TOLAR~ JOHNSON
MORLEY
COMMISSIONER MORLEY RETUItNED TQ 1'HE COUNCIL CHAMBER AT 5:00 P.M.
~
~
~
MlI~U~TES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October I1~ 197h
76-456
`lARIANCE N0. 2a5(~ - PUHLIC HEARINC,, IaA n~ip Mnnlori RANNOW~ 1515 South E:uclid Stl'eet~
""""' An~heim~ Ce. 97.f~02 (Owners) ~ SCOTT J. ItAYNONp~ 3~8~%'- Camino CA Istran~,
San Juan Ceplstrano~ Ca. 92075 (Agcnt); requesting WAIV~R OF (~)
PEkMI'fTED USF.S AND (D) MINIMUM LQT AREA~ TO COtJSTRIICT A PRODUC~' MIIRKET on property
de5crlbed ds a ractanqularly-shaped parcel of land consistl~9 of epproximat~ly .96 acre
having a frontage of appraximately ?.~~ fe~t on the wast slde o~,~X~'matelSt46QCfeetVSOUth
m~ximum dcpth~af approxlmAte:ly 21(~ fect, and bel~~esentledclasslfird ~S~•A-43~000
04 tl~e center~lne of CerrlCos Avenua. Propr.rty p Y
(RESIDENTIAI/AGRICULTU ML) ZONF,
Chalrman Johnson noted th~t since there was pend(ng lttigAtlon on the subJ~ct property
bctween the property owners and ¢he City of M aheim, It was daemed approprlatc that tlie
Planning CommisslonSecretary should administer thG Oath for Testimony be~ore the Planning
Cammission t.o those pers~ns wishing to testffy both for and aaa(n~t ths subJect zoning
petition. Approalmately Yive persons rose~ ratsed thelr right hands and took the oath.
Three persons Indlcated th~ir presence. in oppositlon to the subJect petit(on and,
thcreupon~ Ass(stant Planncr Joel Fick rcad the SCaff Rcport to the Planning Commission
dated October 11, 197~~ and saici StaPP Report is referred to as if set f~rth in full in
the min~ates.
Mr. ~~ott Raynbnd. the c~ttorney and agent for the petitioner~ having taken the Oath,
appeared before Che Planning Commisslon and stated they had gone khrough the recommended
cond(tlons of approval autlined in the Staff Report~ whlch were vary lenqthy and included
requlrements for street improv~ments~ tree planting~ trash storaqe areas~ fire hydrants~
underg~ound ~,tilitles, drainaae, etc.~ an~ eac.h and every one of said condltions we~e
acceptablc ~to the petltfoners; that conc.erninq the request for a variance from th: minimum
lot area, they had erred in requesting the rectangular plece of property which was below
tht -a3~0~p squarc fcet requirement and could extend the property so that it was 44~440
square feet very easily~ making a possib'e, change for 'the Planning Cammisslon~s Raymond
consideratlon; and that the proposed site was 210 feet by 200 feet in size. Mr.
stated that~ although the petitioners owned mor~~ larid alang Euciid Str~et~ they should be
requirecl to mAke street improvements along only Lhat portlor ~f the property whlch was
being requested tu be used for the produc~ market~ and not along the balance c~f the fa~m
land owned by his cl ier.,:s.
Mr. Ben,jamin LuJan~ 17b~3 West Cris Auenue, Anaheim~ having taken the Oath, appeared befnre
the Planning Commisslon in opposition and stated he owned the second house from Euclid
Street which abutted the southern boundary of tlie subJect property; that he had oppos~d
the previous condittonal use permit application for a produce market at this lacatton~
which was denied by the Planninct Commission and su' ;equently granCed by the City Council;
that~ over tF~e years, they had a number of problems and a considerable number of accldents
or even deaths which were caused by the subJect use due to the traffi~c congestion from
customers and employePs parking in the immediate area; that he was ln opposltion to
repc•titi~n of the previous problems; that he would not oppose Lhe proan~aW~uld,prefermthat
to another part of the 1~~,52 acres oP land owned by the peti~ioners~
it be located on the corner of Euclid Street ard Cerr(tos Avenue, and not so clnse to the
residences; that they had put up with the produce stand for approx(mately el~ht years,
with literal prablems; and that ahouC one-half of the Ciiy of Anaheim was very aware of
the problems that had been created by the produce stand. Mr, LuJan presented a photograph
for the record showing the appearance of the produce stand from his baclc yard as taken 6n
197~~ and stated it I~ad been very unpleasant for the past eight y~ars; that he had many
words to use to express the previous conditions of tf~e produce stand~ that he did not
admire the City for allowin~ said prevlous conditions to exist ancl he did not admlre the
agent ~or allowing it tu happen; that if the agent had worked with the neighbors, he felt
certaln that they could have lived with the stand with no problems; that the City had
spent many hours fn disc:ussion, costing -nany dollars, and wanting to resolve this to the
best solution for everybody; that~ in the event that the proposal was granted~ he wanted
to reserve the rlght t~ appear before the Planning C~mm~ssion lat~er on in the meeting to
clarify the conditional use permlt requirements (conditions of approvai)~ i,e., trees to
tha south of the building within five years. Mr. LuJan stated he d!d nct want to wait
five years for the trees to hide the use~ since he had a~e~aWhicht~P~~ibe similar to the~
that the build(ng was proposed to be constructed of plyw
prevlous bufldinn and he had spent many hours oF anc~uish and mental torment putting ~p
ietfurtherestated thatithe'photograpl~iralsotlndicatedawhat the p~reviousxplywoodestructuee~
looked llke.
~~
U
~
~
MIHUTES~ CiTY PL-1NNING COMMISSIQN~ Qctober II, 197b
76-497
VARIANCE N0.,2856 (Continued)
In res,r,onse to questionin~ by Mr, Lu]+~n concnrniny another op-~~~rtunity during the caurso
~;~ thls publi~ hearing to be heard~ Chalrm~n Joh~ison explatned thc public hear(ng
o~•ucedures and Indlcated that there would probably be queetions r~~lsed by the Pla~nning
,ommisslon wnlch would givc Mr. LuJan such an opportunity to be h~ard,
Mrs, Elnanor Lu}an~ 17G3 Wast Cris Avenue~ Anaholm~ having Caken the Oath, appeared bafora
the Plannln~ Commission In opposltion nnd Inqulred if the street impravements would
(ncludo the streoks~ curbs, and gutters along the un~-acrc portlon of che pr~p~rty to ~e
used for the produce st~nci, She stLted that the con~tructlon of a bullding Simlla~ to the
prev~oi:s building and moving It back only a few feet would anly benefft the ~~ppllcant;
~hat durlny tlie five years requ~red For thc trees to grow large enaugh to pr~vide
protectlon to the ad)acent resfdences~ the people would have to puC up wlt'h the noisP,
Itghts~ dalivery and trash trucks. etc.; and she inqulr~d how close to the prop~rty 1(ne
would tlie use be allowad,
In respon5e~ Commissianer Herbst note,i that thc pians shawed Lhe use rlght to the proF~erty
line and that he would assure the adJarent residents~ from hls standpoint, tF~at the !~lans~
as submitted~ would nnt be appraved,
-1rs. LuJan stated that their fsnce had serv~sd as a backin~ for tlie bushes and weeds that
had been ~- to 1C feet hiyher than the fence; that she was a~so questioning whether the
applicant would be alluwed to keep th~e plywood and plastic structures up past
Christmasttme which were used for their tree sales; and whether trallers covered with
canvas ;~ould be allawed around the stand~ since the placement of the stand fu~ther back
from the street from its prevlous locat(on would put the stand dlrectly in iine with her
llving room window,
In rebut~al~ Mr, Raymond stated~ regarding the excessive traffic accldents referrEd to by
Mr, luJan~ that he had no record over the years he had represented his cli~nts of any
accidents which were caused by or connected with th~e produce stand; that the stancl was
over 400 feet away from the intersection of Euclid Street and C~rrttos Avenue where the
accidents probably occurred; that there has been an unsightly conditior, exist~o~resstwas
area ,~ust in back of the home on the suhJect property; that~ unfortunately~ p 9
gning to do more harm for the adJacent property o~wners than the harm that they had at ths
present morrsent with the produce stand since, whether the proposal w~is yranted or not~ the
petitloners would bP requesting developn~en~ of the propPrty with restdentlal uses in the
future with drtveways, garage doors which might be left open and usisjghtly, etc.; that Che
subJect property afFered an opportuniCy for the cit(zens in the Cfty to see vegeCables
growing. and also srr-~il and feel them; that~ pursuant to the recommended Cenditlon No. 11,
they would be required to put up a 6-foot high ~l~ck wall alon~ Che south property line
and he~ persona!ly, felt sorry for anyone having to look at a 6••foot wa17, however~ that
wa~ what they would be requirsd to construct; that a b~ilding had ex~sced at one t(mr on
the proper•ty which wis constructed out of plywood~ and not too long ago everything was
built with plywood, but now fruit st~nds built with plywood were bein~ac~ondemned whtch
were once ve ry honored and ~,•ery good; that, althaugh the frutt stano . yrown over the
years~ it was in existence when the LuJans purchased their homa; that the aroposed stand
would be constructeci accordinq to the Codes and would be appr~priate; that previously the
~tand was small an~7 with small operatiors the emplayees worked outdo~rs, but all of the
work done by the e.mployees of the proposed stand would be incioors, even to the point that
the loadtng and unloading of the trucks would be done indoors; that, !n effect, they
really felt they were improving the situati~n for the nelghbors in the area; that, at the
south end of thie property and just in back of the LuJan's property~ the City of Anaheim
owned a piece of property that was about 4 feet wide and was one of the real problems that
they had tried to resoive~ since this created a vacant strip of land between the LuJan's
propcrty and the subJect property; and that he did not ti~ink thar the CItY w°;inerequlre a
block wall and~ additionally~ the planting af trees along the south proQerty
tn response~ Commis5foner Herbst noted that every comnerclal development was required to
provide a 2Q-foot buffer wtth landscaping adJacent to restdential development and the
subJect property was no different than others that had been requ:red tr~ do so.
Chairman Juhnson inquired if the other end of the subJect property had be~en consldered for
the produGe stand; whereupon, Mr, Raymond stated that the owne~s had lived on thp subJect
property far approxlmately 90 years and I~ad indicated they wanted to use the property as
~~oposed and that he could not change their minds about their plans for tha balance of the
p ropc rty ~
~ ~
'76-498
MINUTf:S~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSI0~1~ Octobcr 11, 19J6
VARIANCE No. 28~6 (Cantlnued)
Mrs. Dorls llpton~ 16~2 Jerlnne StreQt~ Anahelm~ appoared befure ths Plennin<~ ~omntssin in
,pposition and was administered the Oatl~ since sho had not taken :he Onth wlilch was
adr~inlstered nt the beqinnln~ of the publlc heariny. Mrs. Upton Inqi~lred if 70 parkl~ g
~pacds w~uld be sufficinnt so that tli~ employees of the procluce stend would no longer h avP
to park on thc strcc~ts fn her ncighborhoad. Sh~ stated tliat mAny tlmes car9 had slamme d
on khalr brakes to avold cars ~nterfnq and exiting from the .tiubJect property. She further
inyuired if the prev{ous unsiyhtly sigr~s on che property alonq Euc:lfd Stre~t would be
allnwed and stnted thst sh~ was a homeowner In the are~ an~i was Interested in keepl~g up
her praperty alon~ with many others~ and none af them wanted the stgns to be permltted.
in rebutt~l. Mr, Raymond seateci that prevlausly they had 24 parkli~g spaces ancl the
proposa) was for 70 space!s~ or about 2-1/2 tlmes as many spaces than exlsted In the pa s t;
that if It was ~~ecessary or d~sired they would provide an addltlonal 10, 20 or 100 spa c es~
sln~e they intendecl to comply witli ttie urdinance. Mr. RAyrn~nd furth~r statecl, under oath~
thF ~arking for the prop~~sed use wou{d be anly on the applicable portlon oP the prope ~ty
and ~f they ~ieeded annthcr 5 c~r 1Q spaces to provide pArkin,y for the employees~ they wo uld
not allow that to becomr, a problem, even If r,hcy had to move Khc stand anothFr 5 or 10
faet back,
THE PUDLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED.
I~i response to quest(oning by Deputy CI*.y Attorney Frank Lc~wry~ Mr. Raymon~i stated that
Mra Herman Marguiteux was entering into a lease wirh the property owne~s for the
approximately one-acre portlon af che subJnct p~operty~ satd lease befr~y for a term of 20
years; and that salci lease could be amended al any tlme and this date If necessary. M r,
Lc-rry advised that a 1~ ~:e such as th~t describd woulel requ(re that a~arcei map be and
recorded separating the une dcre from the remain(ng acreage of the subJect property~
that a candttion of approval of the propo:.al involving a parcel map would (nclude tha t the
petitiorier Improve Eucl(d Strest the ful) lenyth of the. entire property in accordance with
the 1975 S~odivlslon Map Act. Mr. Low ry further advised that he wouid reaearch the
Governmer~t Cade 5ection number ancl Mr. Raymond coul~ contact the City Att~rney's~ Office to
obt~in same for his informat(on.
Mr. Raymond indi~ ~~d tl~at he thought the referenced r~equl rerrsnt for street improvements
was a'scretionary and not mandatory~ and Mr. L~wry advised that sald requlrement was mAde
mandatory by the City Councll in Lhe adoptlon of thelr ardir~anc~ pertalning thePeto; and
that i~a~e of the dcvelopers were happy about having to Frovide streei Improvements fo r
unlmproved property which was subdivided off.
In response to questioning by Commissioner King, Mr. Raymond stated they ti•~o~ld have 16
employees.
Commissioner Herbst nated that he thought everyone recognized ~.hc past problems that th~e
subJect parr_el had given the City of Anaheim and the surr•oundi~i~ nelghhorhood; that he did
not gQ along withr the feeling that this property should be obroxlous to thf: neighb~rhooc~
Just because it was agricultural and, as such~ a rarity; that~ regarding the suii,,ftte d
plot plan~ a commercial-llke atmosphere was beinq created on an agricultural ptece of land
and he recognized that the produce stand was a g~~s:.; that f~e believed the property alorg
Euciid Street wa~ appropriate for commerc~al~ but r~ecognlztng that certaln amenitles were
neceRsary to prat°ct the neighborhood; that~ regarding the block wall required to the
south~ the proposal was to abut the property line with cars and new shopping centers or
commerclal development were requ~red to provide such protectic~n as berms~ 20-foot
landscaped s~tbacks, etc.~ and the subJect proposal should comply with what the otf~e r
commercial uses in the City were required to provide; that ap~roval of Yhe proposal would
start c~ommercial along Euclid Street for the rest of the subJect property; and that he
would certatnly ask the question "why couldn't the building be reversed so t~at the truck
traffic would come in from the opposite side of the building~ rrsther than close to the
residentlal uses~"
In resFonse~ Mr. Raymond stated h.: did not feel that re~:ersin9 the butlding v.~,uld b~ a
problem.
Gommissioner fierbst noted that th~ backing up of trucks next to a residential area c ~eated
problems; thnt there was ens~ugh land to solve all the problems; that the plans could be
revised to put in landscapin~ away from the wall ta create a park-11ke sctting alon g the
w~ll~ showing an cmployee parking area~ reversing the plans s~ that the truck wells would
be on the oppostte side uf the hullding~ reflecting improv~~nents or+ Euclid Street to the
i
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY ~LANNING COMMISSION~ Oclober 11, 1976
VNk1ANCE N0. 2856 (Continueci)
~..~...~~+r
76-499
corner of Ce rrlcos Avenue sinct this ono-ac~e p~rtlon of the property created the p~oblems
that existecf In the pest along Eucl id Streec anci there wa~ no quest(on In hls mind that
thesn improvesments woul~ hav~ to t>~ macfe ~nd thoc they should be m+~de with thls pro)e~:t;
that the prevlous dedication along Cerrltos Avr.nue and Euclid StreeC should be reactlvated
wlth a nesw doed to allow far ft~rChcr widenin,y nacds If dete~mined necessary in [he future.
ssld ection to provlde for e ncw+ deed of accoss to tho City; and that If the foregoing
could be +~ccomplished anci revlscd plans submitted in occuriiance therowi~h~ the Plenning
Commisslon might be able to mc~vr. forward with thc proposal,
In re~ponse. Mr. Raymond xtated that some of tF~e unreasanAble domands of thn Clty becarne
so routlne thnk they becamc a way of ldf~; that~ As indiceted by Mr, l.awry~ the developers
were screemt ~g abou~ the riew subdtvisl~n re~uiremnnts since in som~ inst~nces they were
rQqulred to improve streets for miles wlth no benefit to them; lhat~ although the
recommend~d conciittons of approval ~utlined in the Stt~fF Report were ext~nsivC,
comprehensi ve o~d expensive to hls cllent~ they had accepteci sald condltlan~; hawever~ it
was being s uggcsted khat additional conditions ~e impnsnd and under the circum~tanGC that
he had not h ad tinxi to cnnfer w(th hts cllent about thom; that they had felt that the
conditians o utllned i~ tha Staff kepor, wc,uld ~e the grounds upon which the prasentat0~n
waul~i be ma d e and the Planning Comnisslon was adding to It, putting him In the pnsitlon
that he coul d not make a representt~tlan unti l he had cliscussed thc~ addltlanal
eirGUmstanc -s wlth hi~ cllent.
Comnissione r Herbst noted that the Staff aeport~ betng prepared by the City Staff~ did no t
includG the Planning Commission's consideratton of the matter. which was thr, pu~pose of
the ~ubilc hearin~; that the surrounding re~iclentlal ne(ghborhood cleserve~i rhe ty~n
protectlon b elna recommended and the previous produce stand operatlon had vlalated the
~rea in so many ways thac he would not vote fn Favor of the new proposal u~lass the prope~
buffcring w as provlded.
In responsP, Mr. Ray~rnnd stated he dfsagreed with Commiss(oner Hcrbst's opintons about
v0olatlons; that he would clase his statements by saying that, having reviewed the matte r
of the reec~mmendatlons made by the Interdepartmental Commlttee~ they had been of the
opinlon they were not being blaclcmailed between the pravious ~rgumenls of themselves and
the City an d had been prepared that~ following Ctty Council actlon on the new proposal~
they v-ouid bury the hatchet, so to ~peak~ with respe~t to tlie prevlous produce stand.
Commi ss icne ~ tlerbst Chen Inqui red what wc~uld make Mr, Raymond's cl tent clt fferent frorn any
ather dzveloper tn che City of Anaheim and noted that they were only being requested to
pr~vtde wh a t was asked afi evc.ry develop~r '.n the City.
Commissioner Morley noted that the Plar~ning Corrmission asked for a 20-foot landscaped
buffer fo r al) commerctal development which abutted reside~tlally-zoned or ~leveloped
property in the Clty.
Commtssion~r Herbst e~eiterated that unless the proposed build(ng coul~ be reve;~ec' a 20-
foot buffc~ provided~ and the street improved~ to put the developnxnt "i~~ the ball oark."
he w~uld ~~puse the proposal.
Thereupon. Mr. Raymond stated he could say "yes" x~ all of ±he conciitions outlined by
Commission er Herbst except for the street improvements, Ne retterated that the property
ow~ers had been on the subJe~t property for 9fl years a~d dld not want to part wl*.h any of
the trees. etc „ which surrounded their dwellings. Commissioner Flerbst clarified that his
remarks co ncern~ng str.~t improvements pertained to along Eucltd Street and not up into
the prope r ty. Mr. Raymond further stated that to go ahead in front of thc h..;.~e or
residence of the Rannows, he dtd not know that he could convince them of that.
Co-nmission er 1'olar noted that in all fairness to the applicant he 3hould tiay that hc had
never seen aR isolated crse where one acre of a 1~+-~:re parcel~ for instance~ was
permltted to go commerclal~ setttng a precedent for commercial davelopment ofi the
remalnder with no reasons bein~ given as to hardshlp, a1 in this particular case.
Commisston er King noted the possibility that this property was a transittonal area since
lt was lo cated on Euclid Straet.
Commisston er Tolar then noted that he would have no obJectlon to a praposal fo~ comrnercial
~evelopment for the enttre 14.5 acres~ but to extract onc Acre and approve tt for
~
~
Pt1~Ji17ES, CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION~ October 11~ 1976
76-5~~
VI1RIflNCE PJO, 2dSG (Continued)
carr~rclal dld not make sense; and lhat suct~ a prc~posa~ hed never bee~ permlttod (n the
City that he knew of~ even with rhe s~igg~sted chr+nges,
(n response to questfaning by tl~e Plonning Commisslon, Treffic Engineer Pau) Singer
edvlsed that commant~ pertalnlnc~ to the access dri voways had boen inadvertently omlt~ed
from the Staff Report; howover~ the plot plan sliowed threo clriveways. none of whlch were
located dlrr.ctly across from Cris Avenur_; that his recommendn~ on was that unly onn
drlvcway bc constructed and khat it be aligncd wi th Crls A~.~cnuP; thz~t snld drivcw+ay could
bc substantlal w(th a center medlan~ curb roturns ,, etc.; ~~d r~,~t he had subslantlating
documentat~on that sovaral traffic acctdents along Eucli' Stre~.: we~e dlrectly nttrlbuted
to the prevlous pradu~:c stand use of the subJect proanrty.
:ommtssloner Tolrr noted that~ atthough the subJect Pro~crcy could very w~ll bc a
transittonal area, If anythin~~ !he City of Ana'~e im had en~~ugh cortxne~claliy-zoned
~sroperty; that 1 f the property were zonecl comn~ere lal , I c, would be spot-~oning ar b heavy
commerclal use; and [hat slnce produc~ mArkets we rc ~asily r~located, fC appeared that the
subJect n~rket would be excell~rit in anotl~er area of the fity.
Commissionr.r Kin~ inqul rnd what type of screcning w~:s i~ropos~:d adJacent t~ the wast
properky Iine. Mr. Raymond replled that the west property ilne abu:ted the portion of the
praperty which would remaln in agr(cultural use; however, lhey w~ulcl agree to anything
that would be appropriate other thar a blank wal 1, Commissiuner K1 ~y then suggested a
s~atted chalnllnk fence; wliereupon~ Mr. LuJan inguired how hlgh sa-d fence would be~
stating he would prefer a 17.-foot high fence.
Commissloner Herbst inquired how much of the prociuce sold at thc stand was actually
produced on the property. Mr. Raymand replled tt~at they were rotating their crops
renularly on al l of the agricultural ly-useci land , which exccpted those portions occupled
by the two farml~ouses; and that about 5 ko 10$ c~f the produce sold was grown on the
premises and the remaining 90-95a was grown locally. Commissioner Flsrbst then polnted out
th~t the informatian Just provided by Mr. Raymond substantlated the fact that a commercial
atmasphere was be(ng created on the subJect property znd, therefare. the pro~osal must
tnclude the protecCion requested for tF~~ s~rrounding resldentlal uses,
Chatrman Johnson polnted out that Mr. Raymond had earlier indlcated the need to confet'
with h~s cllents concerning the easements and oLt~r.r addiCior~al requests being made by the
Planning Commisslon~ and that it would be in order for the Pl~nning Commisston to consider
a continuanc~ of the proposal.
Comm; ss loner Ki n,, .~ui red about the poss ibi 1 1 xy of movlr,g tl~e trash enclosure areas
farther to t4~e nortn, Mr, Raymond stated suGh a ch~nge wauld be acceptable and that they
wEre not definitive about that type of .tem.
Mr, LuJan inquired about the possibility oF a 4 or 5~fs~ot wide al ley or vacant strip of
land being left adJacent to I~is property in the event that the 6~foot wall was constructed
along the south boundary of the s~ibJect property, 7hereup~n, Mr. L~owry =~vised that there
had been some indication from tfie Clty Attor~ey•s Uffice that an easement strip did exist
and that during the interlm of the continuance date, sa(d matter eould be investigated.
Mr. LuJan then stated that there was always room for compromise~ however, thz proposal
woul d have to be someth i ng that woul d be 1 1 vab 1 e for hlm and h I s faml ly.
Mr. Raymond requestec+ that a two-week continuanee be granted.
Commissioner Klny offered a morion, secnnded by Ccmmissloner 1~Qrley and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissfoner Faran~ kaeing absent), that the Ar~aheim Clty Pianning Commisston does hereby
reopen the pub l i c he~ri ng and conti nue cons i de rati on of Peti t ion for Vari ance No, 2856 to
the Planning Commission meettng of Octobe~ 27, 1976~ a5 requested by the petitloner.
Assistant Plan~ing O1 rector-Zo~ ng Annika Sar~ta lahti advlsed that the comments made by the
Planning Commisston concerning the proposai would be wr tten o~:c for the convenlence of
Mr. Raymond and made avatlable immediately.
~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. Gctober 11~ 1y76 76-501
CONbITIONAI USE - PUBLIC IIGARING. AMRUTL~I. D, I1ND JASNUHIITI !1. PATEL, 2123 Wnst Lincoln
FfRMIT NQ. 165~ Avcr~ue~ An~helm, Ca, 92~n~ ~Owners); GORDON D, ~~C MILIf.N~ 1155 North
Cltran Street, N7~ Anahelm~ Co. 92801 (ng~nt)t raquesting parmisslon
for a MQTEL E xP A~~SION on proporty de~crlbed eK e rcc..~ngularly~shapnd
parcel of land cansist~ng of appro xlmatcly U.7 acre havtng r fronta~a of apprnxirt-~tely
~6 faet on the nortl- side of Lincoln Av~nue~ havinq a maximum depth oP approxlmately
312 feot~ a~d be1~4 l~cated appro ximritely 928 feet east o} the centerline of 9rookhurst
Strael~ and further d~scrlbe~ ns 2123 west Llncoln Av~riue. P~operty presently clesslfled
CL (COMMERC111L~ LIMIT~u; ZON[.
No one Indlcrted thelr presonce In flppos~tion to thc subJ~ect pctltlpn.
Although the St~ff Repurt ta thc P1aRning Conxnission dated Octobar 11~ 1y7bo W~s not read
at the publtc hearing, sald Steff ReporC is refer~ed to and madn a part uf r~~e minutes.
Mr. Gordon McMlllen~ the ag~nt fo r the petitloner, appear~ed before the Planninq Camm(ssl~n
anu stated they were propnslncl to expand the exlst+~~g rnotel to a total of 22 un(ts.
7HE PUBLI C HEARING WAS CLOS~D.
In responsP ta questloning by ~ommi~sloner Kiny, Mr. NcM111En stipula~ted that tha two
parking spaces I~cated c,losest to llnroln Avenue would be deleted to avoid trafftc backtng
out onto sald street.
Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Morley and MOTIO~ CARRIED
(Commissio~ier Farano bein~ absen t) , that the Anatieim Clty Planning Commission docs hereby
recommend to the Clty Council of the City of Anahelm that a negatlve declaratlon Prom the
requl rement. to prepare an e.nvi ro~mPntal impact report be approved for the subJect proJect~
pursuant to the provlsions of the Californla Environ mental Quality Act.
Commissioner K~n~ offcreJ Resolution No. PC76-202 and moved tor its passage snd adoption~
that the AnaheiM City Planning Cortxnisslon does I~ereby yrant Petitlon for Conditionai Use
Permit P~o. 1658, subJect t~ the s tip'aiation of the petitloner and aub~ect to the
Interdepartmental Committ~e rec~rm~endationso (See Resoliitlon 9ook)
On roll calt~ the forcgoing res~lution was passed by the followirg vote:
AYES: C0~IMISSIO~IERS: BARNES ~ HCR~ST~ K~NG~ ~10RLEY, TOLAR~ JOf~NSON
NOFS: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
A65F.tJT: COMMISSIONERS; FARANa
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - DEVtLOPE R: OAKTR[E DEVELOPMENT COMPANY~ 1151 Dove SCreet~ Sutte
REPOR7 N0. 187 205~ Newport Beach~ Ca. 9266a, ENGINEtR: TOUPS CORPURA71t1N,
- 1010 No rth Main Street~Santa Ana~ Ca. 92711. SubJect Qroperty~
TEMTATIVE MAP OF consist3ng of approximat~ly 33.8 acres loc~ted north af Vta
TRAC7 N0. 952~+ Arbol~s, approximatclv 1g50 Feet east of Anahelm Hilis Road~ is
~"~ proposed for subdi vi s ion i nto 49 RS-HS-22 ~000 (SC) lots .
Although the StaPf Report to th e Planning Commission dated Octobar 11~ 197~, was not read~
it is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Lynn Buff~~+gton~ representing the developer, appeared before th~ Plannino Cortmission
and reviewed the proposal~ noting that the utiiities were avallable; that they would
preserve as many of the avocad~ trees as possible; that there would be 49 residentlal
lots~ with at least 22,000 squa re fe~t or larger, and the avera~e lot s(ze would be about
27,000 square feet; that the de sign of the lots was to minimize the g~ading; that the
Gommunity would ba equestrian- o~tented and one approx~matcly three-fourths tlcre lot would
be set aside as a ridtng arena to be maintained by the homeov~ne~s assotlatlon; that the
homes would have a custom appea rance, being one-story and split-leve! to talce advantage of
the tarrain; and that there wo uld be na c~rbs, gutters or sidewalks~ and there ~vouid be
tree-lined drives.
in response to questloning by Commissioner Barnes, Mr. Buffington rvie~ed the t~ee
presprvatton pian and stated th at there were 399 existing alive eucalyptus trees~ of which
124 would be rnmoved~ and the re were aiso 89 ~xisting dead eucalyptus trees whlch would be
~
~
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSI~N~ October 11~ 1976
~NVIRONMFN7AL IMPACT REPORT NQ, 187 _AND_TF.NTATIVE MAP__OF 7RACT N0. Szk (Contlnued)
76-502
remuved; that following his revle~~ ot kha onvlronmental Impect report ciocumer.~~ they had
reconsidered the troe ramoval plan and, therefore~ the Staff Repnrts were incorrect in
using the cfata whlch was included In the EIR document; thAt they wouid replaco the 124
treas wfth the ~ype speciflad in thn Trr.e Preservation Or~ilnance; and that by retalning ea
many ~f thc avt+cado trees ~s RAl3IG~C~ th~y would be able to market somo of thp homes as
avocadn ranches,
In respanse to further questioninn by Commissloner OArnes~ Mr, BuPfington stated thelr
Intentlon was to grade for tha strects and wr,uld determina t~ie best house for each oP che
Ic+ts; Chat Cho gradiny program wauld be In line wtth the cor~tour-grading concept and would
involve araund 55~~00 cubic ynr~s of dirt. slnce about 50~ of Che total sltes would be
natural; rhat the maintain(ng of the natural sltes would req ulre some creative
consldcratlon of haw the property would Jraln; that some natural dralnage caursea exlated,
and that they dld not Intond to increaoe the ai+nunts of wate r atcepted by ~aid courses;
that to achieve the natural contour r.ancept, there was no wa~ that all of th^ lats would
dr~ln to the streets and~ addttionally, some af the lats would be lower than the str~et~
and th~t there wesre lagal way~ of handling kh~ ciralnage over adJacent lots and sald ways
wauld inv~lve CCbRs.
In s•nsponse to questloning by Commissioner Nnrbst~ Mr. Buffington seated they w~ere
provlding tmargency t+cce~s to the su~Ject propertY that wc-u!d tie tnto an existing prlvate
road~ wl~lch wos simllar to a small Nuhler Drive concept; and ttiaf the property to the
sauth was zoned for residentlai lots. Cc~mmfssioner Herbst then noted that the~e appeared
to be no s~lutlon ta the fire en~ergency access problem, and Mr. Bufftn~tan stated thet the
access could be from Anahetm Htils Raad~ whlch waa paved,
In response to the foregoing discussion, Deputy CBty Attorney Frank t~,~ry advtseJ that thn
City Council c~uld consider the aFproval of conditional exception <~~ thr. Nillside Grading
Ordina~ce for drainage ln their consideratt~n of the ~inal tract map for the subJect
subdivision.
Commissioner Herbst noted that the proposed proJ~ct was sometl~ing 2hat th~~ Planning
Commission had bee~ loak(nc~ forward to with raspcct to contour gradlny~ and Commissloner
Barnes noted that this was the happiest she had been about approving a proJect Sn a lang
t(me.
Commissioner Ilerbst offered a mntion~ seconded by Commissioner King And MOTION CARRIED
(Commissioner Farano betng absent), that Envlronmental impact Rcport No. 137~ having been
considered this date by the Anaheim City Planning Commissio ~ and avidence, both wrltten
and orml~ having be~n prescnted to supplemcnt said draft EIR No. 187~ the Planning
Comnission beiieves that sald draft EIR N~o. 187 does conform to the City and State
Guideltnes and the State of California Environmental Qualtty Act and~ based upon such
information, does hereby recommend to the City Council that they certify sald EIR No. 187
is in compltance with said Environmcntal Quality Act; provtded~ hawever~ that tha
developer shall submit a supplement indicattng the final determinatton cf ex(sting trees
and the tree remaval and repla~emenl actuaily propo~ed~ as presented et thts meeting.
Commisslaner Herbst offersd a motion, ie~:onded by Commissioner King and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissioner Farano bei~g abseni)~ that khe Anaheim City Plan~ing Ccmmissian does h~ereby
find that the pr~posed subdivision. together with its design and improvement~ is
consistent with the Ctty of Anshelm General Plsn~ pursuant to Government Code Sectton
66473.5; and~ thcr~fore, does approve Tentatlve Map of Tra ~t No. 9524 'or 49 RS-HS-
22~OOOZSC) lots, subJect to th~ following conditions:
1. That should this subdivlsien be developed as more than one subdiv(sion~ each
subdiviston theraof shall be submitted in tentativ~ form foP approval.
2. That subJect property sliall bc served by underground utilities.
3. That a ftnal tract map of subJect property shail be s ubmitted to and approved by
the City Council ard then be recorded in the Offize of the nrange County
Recorder.
4. 7hat any proposed cov~nants, condttlons, and restrlrtions shall be submittod to
snd approved by the C,_y Attorney's Offic^ prtor to C(ty Council approval ~f the
final tract map ard, further~ that the apprnved covenants~ condltions~ and
restric*_ions shall be recorcfed concurrently with the final tract map.
! ~- o
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Octobor 11~ 197b 76-503
ENV I RONMENTAL ! MPAf T REPOKT N0. 187 AND TENTt~TI VE M.4P OF TMCT N0. 9524 (Cont I nwd)
y, Tl~a,t prlor t~ fllinq the finol tract map~ the eppltcant shall submlt to the City
Attorney for approval or denlal a complAte sy~opsls of khe proposed functloning
c~f che opernting corpora~tlon Including, but nat llmitcd to~ the articles oP
incorporatlon~ bylaws~ praRosed methods of manaqement~ bandln.~ ta insure
mAlntenance of ccmwnon property and bulldtngs~ and such othAr inPoinwtlor: as the
City Atkorney m~y desirc to prc.:ocC the City~ Its clt(zr~ns~ and the purchasa~s of
the proj~+ct.
6. That strnet names shall be approved by the City Planning DeporLmenx prlor to
appr~val of a final tract ma,~,
7. That the owner of subJect praperty shall pay ta the Ctty of Anahelm tt~e
approprtate park and recreation in-Iteu fees as determtned to be approprlato by
the C(ty Cour~cil~ said fees eo he pald at thn time the bullding permtt is Is~suad.
8. Tnat dralnage of sald property sha~l be dlsposed of in a manner satisfactory to
the City Engineer. If~ in the preparatlon of the alte~ suffictent grading is
required to necessitate a grading permit~ no work on grading wlll be parmlttRd
between October 15th and Aprll 15th unless a~l requlred off-site drafnac~e
facilltles have been tnstalled and are oparatlve. Positive assurance sh.i) be
provided the City that such dralnage facl!tties wli) bn completNd prior to
October 15th. Necess~ry right-of-way for off-s(te ~ralraga Facilities shall be
dedicated to the Clty~ or the City Councll shall liave initiated condemnatlon
proccssdings therefor (the coats of whlch shall be -•orne by the developer) prlor
to thQ commencament of gradtng operattorys. The requlred dralnage facliltles
shall be of a size and type sufficlent to carry runoff waters orlgtnating from
higher properties through said propertY to ultimate dlspc~sr~) as approved by the
City Englneer. Sald drainac~e facllikies shall be the first item of constructloas
and shall be completed and be functional thraughout the t~ACt and from the
dawnstreem boundary oP the property to the ultimats potnt of disposal prior to
Che issuances af any final buildtng Inspectlons or occupancy ~ermits. Dt•alnage
dtstrlct reimbursement agre:ements mny be made avallable to the developers of said
prnperty upan Lhelr request.
9. That grading~ excavation~ and all other construction activlt(es shall be
conducted iR such a manner so as tU mintmize the posslbiltty of any silt
originattng from this proJect being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm
watcr orlginating from or flawing through this proJect.
10. If permanent strPeC nAme signs have not been lnstalled, tempora ry street name
sions shall be installed prior to any occupancy.
11. Thet the ownPr(s) of subJecx property shall pay appropriate drainage assessment
fees to the City ~f Anahetm as determined by the City Englneer prior to approva~l
of a final tract map.
12. That maxtmum street grade allowable shall be 1~ per cent.
13. That fire hydrants shail be installad ~nd charged ~.3 requtred ar.d dat~rmined to
be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Dcpartment prtor to commencemen: of
structural framing.
14. That all structuras in subJect development shall be constructed in accordanC~e
wlth the requlrements of Fire Zone 4 as required by the City of Anahe(m Fire
Departmnnt.
TRACT NOS. 841II ANO 8647 ~ Request for waiver of Nlllside Grad{ng Ordinance
re~uirement that !ot Ilnes ba located 2 to 3 feet
from top of stopes~.
The C1~"y Engtneer's rt+emorandum datcd October 1, ty76~ was p~ese~ted. Said memora~dum
indicated that the subJe~t require~sen2 was placed in the Hillside Grading brainance so
thet the cntire face of slopGS would be the respansibility of the owner of the lower lot
In thm belief that sald owner would be more ~pt to malntain the slope than the owner of a
lat at the top of a slopc; howcvar. in the sub)sct t~acts, nll of the slopes in questlon
would be malntatned oy a homeowners assoctation and~ thartfor~, the request fo~ waivar of
the requlrement shoutd be granted.
~
w^~
~
MINUT[S~ CITY PIANNING f.OMMISSIUN, October 11, 1976 76-504
TRAC1' NOS. 1~+18 AND 46N7 (Continuad)
Gommissluner Kl~g o1'fered a motiun~ setondad by Commissloner Morley and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissionnr Farano belnn nhscnt) ~ thak t-,C l+nahelm City Plsnning ~ommtssio~ cbe~ hareby
rocommnncl to the Clty Council of tlie C~ty of Anaheim that the requesr for walve~ af the
Hlllside Grdding Ordlndnce requlrament chae lot Ilnas be loceted 2'to 3 feet fram the top
oP slope~ t,c grAnted fur the slopcs which are contour-graded in T~act Nos. 8418 end 8b47~
a~ recorm~end4d by the Ci ty Eng~ neer.
REPORTS l1ND - iTEM N0. 1
RECQMMENDATIO~~S ND NAL USE PE.RMIT N0. 13~Z ~ Rnqucst Por an extenston o!` t~me -
""-""-' Property conslstln,y of approximately 0.41 acre, having a fro~~tag~ of approx.
112 }'eet on thc south side of South Street~ and b~tng located appraximately
270 fcet west of the centerllnn of S:ate College 9oulevard.
The Staff Report to the Pl~nning Commissiun dated October 11, 1976~ was presented and r~wde
a pdrt of the minutes.
It was noted that Condit(onal Use P'ermft No. 13~~2~ to establish a child nursery with
walvers cf minimum front yard depkh and mini~num number of parktng spacAs~ w+~s app~oved In
part by the Planning Commtssion on Septei,~bor 1~, ~972; that satd approval was 9iven
subJect to severa) condlti~ns being compited with w!thin one year, of whlch one condition
had been mct; that~ typically. the rematning condittons were required to be satisFied
pr(or to final bullding inspection rather than commencer~Knt of the app~ov~d use; that
three previous extensions of time had baen granted~ the last one expiring Octaber 10~
19)6; and Chat the appllcant ~Paul Bandy) was requesting an ~ddltional one-year extension
of time in order ta complete the c4nditi~ns of approval.
Commissloner 'ie~bst offered a motton~ seconded by Commissloner King and MUTION CARRIED
(Con~missioner Farano bei~g absent)~ that the Anahelm City Planning Commission does hereby
grant an adGltlonal one-y~ar extension ~f time for Conditional Use Pe~mlt No. 1342, said
time extenslon to expire Octobe~ 10~ 1977~ as requested by the applicant,
~TEM N0. 2
GENERA P AN AMENDMENT N0. 141 - Requ~st to set for publtc hcaring.
It was noted that the third General Plan Art~endme~t for the calenda~ year 1976 had been
tentatively set for pubitc hearing o~ November 1~ 1976~ sald amendment to consist of two
items: Area I- Center City (do~antown redevelopment) and Area II - Orangewood Avenue and
Clementir~e Street; and that in response to Planning Commission directlon~ the audltorlum
of Fremont Junior Nigh School had been reserved for Novemk-er 1~ 1976~ at des~ire~totattend.
evening rneeti~g arsd sald auditorium would accommodate the people who may
Co~~xni~sioner 7olar offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Herbst rnd MOTIUN CARRIED
(Commissioner Farano bei,ig absent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Co~rnision does hereby
determine that Ganeral !'lan Amendment No. 141~ and EIR No. 188 perta'ning theretn~ be set
for public hearin,y on November i~ 1976~ at 7:30 p.m. in Fremont Junio~ Hlgh Schaol
Aud(torium,
ITEM N0. 3
7~M I~LLS~ INC. OPEN 5PACE EASEMEN?S - Request for determination
of compliancs with the City of Anaheim General Plan•
It was noted that a communication had be~n recelved from the Orange County Environmental
Management Agency ~oting the pending grant of open space eas~ments by Texa~o Anahetm
Hills, Inc.~ to the County of Orange; that said lands were located throughout Anahetm
Hills over approxlmately 100 a~res of land and were the result of the agreement to cancel
the Nohl Ranch Agricultural Prns~~ve contract; that the sub,ject 1~0 acres was the first
incrament or' a total of 5QQ acres to be eventually offered; that~ ir+ accordance with
Secit,i 65402 of the Governmant Code, the Agency was raquest~ng the Anah~im Clty Ptanning
Commlsslon ta detarmine if the propo~etePfar@an ~nvironmentalmimpacttneqative~declaratlon;
Anaheim General ~ian and was app op
~
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANIdING COMMISSIUN~ Octobnr 11~ ~976
76-505
ITEM NQ. 3 (Cnntinued)
------.-
and that the prop~sed granting of the c~pen spacn easements wa~ not In wnPll~t with the
Anal~elm f,en~ral Plan,
Commissloner King offerod fcr,7olutlon No. PG7~~~03 and moved fur Its panse9e and adoptlon,
that tha Anahrtm City Planning f.omm(sslon ck-es hereby flnd that the acceptgnce by the
County of Oranc~e oP thc grant of open srace oasemcr,ts In the locak{ons proposed (s in
conPormance with the Anahelm Genetal Plan~ and that seld proJect conforms to the
requlrement3 for the filing of a negativc declaratlon From the requircment to prepa~e an
envlronmental Impact roport~ pursuant to the provts~ons of the Callfnrnia Cnvironmcyntal
QualltY A~t. (5ee Rnsolutton Baok)
On r~ll call~ thc tor•egofng resulution was aessed by the follawtnc~ vote~
AYES: COMMISSIONE.RS: BARNES~ HE~IBST~ KING~ MORLEY, TOLAR, JQHNSON
NOES: CQMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: FARAIJO
I TEM N0. 4
~~~R EiR N[GA1'IVE DECl.ARATION - For a grading permit at
295 South Chrisalta (Grading Perm(t No. 541).
It was noted that an appllcation had been ftled for a yrAding PPrmlt at the subJect
locatlon to constru~t a sinnle-famlly residence; that an evaluatiAn of the envlronmental
impact of grading at thi~ location wss requirecl under the provisions ~of the Cal(fornia
Environmental (1,uElity Act and the State EIR G~~tdelines b~cause the proJect was located in
the Scenic Corridnr and the siope of the land was ~t lease 10$; and ihat a study of the
proposed grading by the Planning bepartment and the fngineer(ng Divislon indicated that tt
would have no significant envir~nmental impact.
Commissloner Barnes ralsed questions concerning the observatlon and contral nf the
drainage by the City~ and Civil Engineering Asslstant Jack Judd advl~ed that dratnage
plans were regulrec{ prfor to the iss~ance oF building permits.
Commisst~ner Toiar offered a mation~ seconded by Commissioner King and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissioner Farano beiny absent)~ that the Anaheim C1Ly Planning Commisslon does hereby
recommend to the City Council nf the City of Anahetm that a negative declaratlon from the
requirement to prepare an environmentai impact repc~rt be apFroved for the suh)ect proJect,
pursuant ta the provisions of th~ California Enviranme~tal Quality Act.
ITEM N0. 5
'~~,'~J~"'f"~"SR E I R NEGAT I VE DECLAkATiON - For a aradi ng p~rmi t at
125 Peralta Htlis Drive (Gradi~g Permit No. 54~)•
It was noted that an application had been filed for a gradtng permit at the subject
location to construct a single-family residenCe; that an evaluatton of the environmental
impact ofi :~rading a:~ this location was required under the provlslons of the California
Environmencal Quaitt.~ Act and the State EIR Guidelines because the proJect was located ln
the Scenic Corridor a~nd the slope of the land was at least 10~; and that a study of thQ
proposed gradlr: by tha Planning Department and the Engineering Divisio~ indicated that it
would have no signific~nt e~ivironmental inQact.
Commissioner Tolar offered a mation~ seconded by Cnmmissionar Morley a~~d MOTION CARRIED
(Commission~r Fa~rano being absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
recorranend to the Clty Council of the Clty of Anaheim that a negptive declaration fran the
requirement to p~epare an environmental impact report be approved foi the sUb,ject proJect~
pursuant to the provisions of the California Environrt-ental 2Uality Act.
i
~
~
MINUTk:5~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN~ Uctober I1, 1976 7~+~506
ITEM N0. 6
~~`f~0~t EIR NEGATIV~ OECLAH{~TIOH ^ For a gredtng permit at
773 ~~r+~lta Htlls Drlve (Grading Pcrmit Nu. 544).
It was note~' that ~n appllcatlon had becn flle<i Por a groding permlC to construct a tennis
court addttlon to a single-famlly residence at the subJe,ct locaClon; +that en eveludtlon of
tho envl~anmental Impect of gr~ding at this Incatlon was requlrnd unde~ the p~ovistons of
khe Callfor~la Environmental Quallty Act and the State E!R Guldelinea bocause thn proJect
was iocetad ln the Sconlc Corridor and t•he slope of the land was at 1r~st 10$; end tht~t a
study o1` the pruposed g~ading by tihe Plannln~ Uepa~tment end thtl Enginearing Divislon
indiceted that it would have no sigr-I~Icant environmer~tal impact.
Commissloner Toler offered a rnntlon~ seconded by Commissfoner King ~nd MOTIAN CARRIED
(CcnMn(ssloner Farano being absont)~ that the Anahatm City Planning Commistiiory does hereby
recommend to th~ f.ity~ Councll of the City of Anaheim the~t a neg~tlve declaratlon Fram the
requl!-ement to prepar~e an envl ronmental Irnp~ct report be approved fo~ Che subJ~ct proJeCt~
pursuant ta the provlsl~ns of the California Cnvironmental Quality Act.
ITEM NU. 7
~R EIR NEGATIVE UECLAitATi0P1 ~ For a grading permit at
thn northeast corne~ of Nohl Ranch Road end Serrano Avenue.
't wos notcd that an application had been flled for a grading permit to construct a
shoppin,q center ~s approved under RGr.lasslficatlon No. 71-72-4--(14) at th~ subJect
lACatlon; that an evaluation of the envlronmerst~) i~act of gradfng at this location was
requlred undEr 2he provlsions of the California Environmental Quality Act and the State
EIR Guidelines because the proJect was located in tha Scenlc Corridor and the slope of the
land was at least 10~; and that a study of thc proposed g~ading by the Planning Department
and the Engineering Divlsion indfcated that it was In compliance wlth Qrevlously approved
plans and would hav~ no slgn(ficant environmental impact.
Commisstoner King offered a motion~ seconded by Comm(ssioner Morley and MOTION CARRIEU
(Commissioner Farano being absent)~ that the Anahelm City Planning Commissfon does hereby
recommend to the City Council of the City of Anai~eim that a negative d~claration from the
r~qutrement to prepare an environmental impact report be appr~~~red for the sub;ect proJect.
pursuant to the provisi~ns of the California Environmental Qual(ty AGt.
ITEM N0. 8
EQUES OR EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION - Fqr improveme~ts to
Oak Canyon Nature Center.
It was noted that the Clty of A~aheim Parks~ Recreatlon and the Arts department was
proposing to improve Oak Canyan Nature Center~ whlch was a 5$-acre site adJacent Co Walnut
Canyon ReservoQr and the CICy Golf Course~ both to the north; that~ assuming successful
grant application, the proposed ltmited improvemGnts to the nature center would include
trrlq~tion, planting, structura) modiftcations and the additlon af a parking lot and
security fenc6ng; and that a review of the i~itial envlronmental study and plans for the
proposed stte improvement fndlcate~ that the proJect would have no signtflcant adverse
envlronmental impact.
Conrn~ssloner Tolar offered a motion~ seconded by Cortmissioner Marley and M07i0N CARRIED
(Commissioner Far~no bei~g absent)~ that the Anahelm City Plannlnq Commission does hereby
~ecommend to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that a negative declaration from the
~equirement to prepare an envif~~mental Impact report be appraved f~r the subJect proJact,
~~ursuant to the provlsions o. the Celifarnia Environmental Quallty Act.
ITEM N0. 9
EQUES OR [:IR NEGA7IVE DECLARATION - For tmprovements
to Pelanconi Park.
It was not~d that thes City of Anaheim Parks, Rescraatton and the Arts Department was
proposing to irnprove Pelanconi Park which was a 20-acre site bounded on the north by the
f~~tura alignment of Avenida Margarlta~ c'~ the east by an extsting condominium complex, on
...~
~
....
•
MINUT~S. CITY PLANNING COMMlSSION~ Octobar 11~ 197b
7b-507
ITEM N0. 9 (Contlnued)
_____.__.----
the south by single-fbmlly residences and hy Westridge Circle; that~ ass~~ming e succeasful
gr~nt ++pplieatlon~ tl~e proposed ImproYements wauld Include stresm bed (mpruvements~ a
natura tra~ll system, restrooms~ e 26-spacn p++rking loe~ and nlcpe pla~~ting and Irrigatlo~;
and that e revtew of the inltlal envlronmental study and plans incilcated that the praJe¢:t
would liave no signiPicant advcrse environmentel tmpact~
Commi ss I oner KI ng ~affered a mot ion ~ sec:onded by Co~Rnl ss loner Morley and MOTION CARRI ED
(Commissioner Ferano being absent)~ that the Anahelm City Planning Comnlsslon does hereby
recamm~nd to the City CouRCll oP the City oP Anaheim th~et a negativ~ d~claration from the
requiremont to propare an environmer-tal impact report be approved for the sub,ject proJeGt~
pursuant tu the provlsions of the Califarnla Environmantal Quality Act.
ITEM N0. 10
, TREE REMOVAL - At Santa Ana Canyon Pe~rk Slte O~e -
Plnney Drive and Ge~da Drive.
A memoran~lum Prom the Parks, Recreation and the Arts Dapartment, Parks Dlvislon~ dated
October 11~ 1976~ was presented and made a part of the minutes.
It wa4 noted that the Parks Dlvtslon was requesting permisstan to remove three Gucalyptus
trees at the Intersectld~ of Pinney And Gerda Drives in connection wlth development of the
subJect park site; that the tree removal would have neqltgible (mpact on known physical
aryd environmentat processes and a mtr~imrl l~npact on aesthetlc factors; anJ thAt tha
Division p~rsonncl c~nsnnsus of opinion was thaC aesthetlc trede•off for safety assurances
was advisablc at this tlme.
Camr,Issloner King affcred a motion~ saconded by Commfssloner Morley and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissioner Farano being absent)~ that the Anahelm City Planning Comnisslon does hereby
recommend to the City C~uncil nf the City of Anahetm that approval be granted for the
remuval of the three eucalyptus Crees ai the intersectlon of Pinney and 6erda Drives~ as
recommended.
ITEM N0. jl
R~ACrT N~k09 ( REVI S I ON N0. 2) - R~sques t for a+nendment
to Conditlon No. 14.
1~ was noted that tt was in order to correct a clerical error In connectlon with the
conditlons of approva) of 7r~ct No. 8409~ Co~ditlon No. 14 should be corr~cted as follaws:
Frnm: "14. That the completton of Reclassiftcation No. 72-73`~51 sh~ll b~ to the
RS-7200(SC) Zone.01
70: "14. That the completion of Reclassification No. 73-74-11 shall be to the
RS-72~0(SC) Zone."
Commtssioncr Hcrbst offered a motion~ seconded by Commisstoner Kiny and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissioner ~arano being absent)~ that the Anahelm City Planning Commission do~s hnreby
recomr-end to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that Condition No. 14 of the app~oval
of Tract No. 8409 be corrected~ as set forth abuve.
17EM N0. 12
K~ 00 0 E AR£A IIMITP.TIONS - Proposed ordinance amendment.
The Staff Report to the Planntng Commission dated Octobcr 71, 1976~ wos presented ~nd made
a part of the minutes.
Asststant Planning Director-Zoning M ntka Santlahti reviewed the proposal and ru~ted that
ln 1973~ the City Council had madified the wordtng of the otdinance to ciarify the intant
that the "open space" in the sub)ect zone was to be level area~ suitabin for nutdoor li•ving
and recreatlan; that the modificbtion changed the words "open space a~ea" to "building
site and building pad area"; that du~ing the recadlfication og the Mahelm Munictpal Code~
the ordtnance was tyritten tn a way whtch did not include the revised wordi•;g; and that the
IRtenY of the praposed amendment was to ref ect the intent of the Ctty Councl! to require
....~
~
MINU7E5~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSI~N, October 11~ 19~6
76-508
!1'EM N0. 12 (Continued)
an Increesn In the amount of level outdoor erea far hamea with more thrn three bedrooms ln
;he RS-5000 Zone, by 850 squar~e f~et fnr e+rch •ddltional bedraom. .
Olscusalon was hnld concerr~fng the subJect proposal~ during whir,t~ Commisstoner Herbst
noted that perliaps thn r~~~juirement should perteln to lot coverage -- noC las~ than 35~ a~
the pad b~+ expa~dAd; and that ha felt the intont ot the ordtnance was to prcvlde mo~e open
space or bigger lot and not pad area, sinca xhe lc~t covnragn with four bndrooms o~ the
c~round would be siqnificantly less than four bodroom~ in a two-story structure.
Mr. Jtm Chrlstla~sen~ representing a daveloper, appeared be1'nre~ the Planning Comnilsslon
and steted that the present ~cading af the ordinanca wes opcn for interprctatlon and he
was prc~ently involvod with a tract map which wa~ ready to record but which may or msy nAt
be In cc~mpllaroc~ wtth the ordinance being dlscussed; that hn agreed Nith Staff and also
with Commission4r Herb~t; and that he felt that tha change which had been made to thA
ordinance In 1973 ~~AS for flat land developmsnt~ to pravlde room for the familles to play.
Cammisstonar Herbst noted that if the ordlnance wex wrltten ta reflect the 35$ covarag~
sclutl~n~ Plexfbility wou'd be lost. Chairnx~n Johnson noted that the ordinance would
apply only to the RS-5000 ZUne~ and Commissloner Herb~t Incticated that more study was
necessary bnfore concludtno on the matter.
ThC Plan~(ng Cummisslon generally can~urred to conttnue consld~ratlon of the subJect ltem
to the Plsnning Comm(ssion meettng of October 27, 1976~ for further study.
ADJUURNMENT ~ 7here betng no furthe~ business ta discuss, Canmissioner Morley offered a
motion~ seconded by Cc~mmissioner He~bst and MOTOON CARRIED (Commissianer
Farano betng abscnt)~ that the meetfng be adJourned to October 2.6, 1976~ at
7:30 p.m.~ at the Anahelm Htlls Public Country Club~ for tfie pu~posa of
meeting in Joint session wlth Che City Council of the City of A~aheim and
Canyon a~ea cttizens to discuss planning conslderatians in the Hill a~d
Canyon area, including the Scenic Corrid~r Overlay Cone~ va~lances and
exceptions, tree preservation ordinance, roadway setbacks, grading, and
solutions to problams related thereto.
Tt~e meeting adjaurned at b:55 p.m.
Respectfully submltted~
~s ~e.~/~ C'~~~'~~
Patricla B. Scanlan~ Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commisstan
PBS:hm
0 R C 0 hi11CRUf ILMING SERVICE. Ir~r