Minutes-PC 1976/11/08~
~...
~
City Mal)
A~ahelm~ Cr ifornia~
Novembar 8~ 1975
!t[GULl1R MEETING OF THE ANAHEIN rITY PLANNING COMMtSSIO~t
R~GUt,AR - A rmpuler mecting of the 11n~he~m G(ty Planntng Commtas(on w~~ ~alled
MEETING to ordor by Chatrman Johnson at 1t3~ p.m.~ a~ November 8~ 1976~ t~-
Che Counct) Ch~,mber~ a quorurn betng present.
PRESEPIT - CHAIRMAW: Johnsan
COMMISSIQNERS: Barnes~ F~rano~ Narbst~ Ktng, Ma~ley
ABSENT - COM~IISSiONERS; Tolar
A1~0 PRESENT- Ronald Thanpsa~
F~Or4 LOw1'y
Ann~kn Santalahti
Paul Singer
Jack Judd
~Joel Flck
Pakricla Scanlari
Plannin,q Dtractor
Asststant Cft~y Attornay
Assistant Planning ~~rector-Zaning
7reP1'(c Engineer
Civll E~glnecr~ng Asslstant
Assistant Plannor
Planning Ccxnmisston Sacretary
PLEDGE OF - Commlssloner Morley led in the P2edge of Allegtance to the i'lag
ALLEGIANCE of the Untted States of Amerlca.
ilARIANCE N0. 28t,6 - PUBLIC NEARING. FREU B. ANO NORMA N. WALI.S, 114 Soutlt Ha~dtng Drfve,
~ AnAhelm~ Ca, 92804~ FRANK E. AND TH~LMA J. MG MAWUS~ 116 5outh Hardl~g
Drive~ Anaheim~ f,a. 92804~ and HILMER N, aND MABEL HEITMAN~ 30£33 Bal)
Itoad~ Anahetm, Ce, 9z8~N ~Owner3); TECHNOLOGICAL ENGINEERING CORP.~ P. 0. Box 337o Pico
fiivere~ Ca. 90660 (Agent); requesiing WAIyER OF MiNIMUM LOT AREA~ TO ESTABLISIi A SIX-LOT,
RS-7200 5U9DIVISIQN on property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of lerd consist-
tng of approxtmately i.Q a~re having approximate Pron..gea of 150 feet on the east std~ ~f
Harding Dr~ve and 150 feet on the west stde of Gren•i Avenue~ betng located approxtmately
22Q feet sovth of the centertine ~f Lincoln Avenue~ and further desc;•ibed as 114~ 116 and
118 South Fi~rding Drlve. Property presentlY classtfied RS-7200 (Resldenttal, Singie-
Famtly) tone,
~lo o~se indicated their presence in oppositton to the subJect pet~tion.
Although the Staff Report to the Planning Cammtssion dated November 8~ 1976~ was nnt ~ead
at th~ oublic hearing, said Staff Repart is referred to and made a part ~f the minutes.
Mr. Carlos Ugalde~ rcpreeentl~ig the agent for the petitlaner~ appeared bc.fore the Planntng
Comnisston and stated that the subJ„ct proparty wes presently dnveloped h~ith two houses
and not three as fndicated tn the S+taff Report. He questtoned Khether the existing shed
which extend~d aver the proposed properr~~ line should be cornpletety remaved.
7HE F'UULIC HEARING WA~ CLOSED.
Assi~~tent Planr,er Joel Fick advised that ehe petitloner would have to comply with the
Buil~iir~g and Fir~ ~odes (n connection with the locatton oi` the exlsting shed adJacent to
the pr~~p~rty 1 tne.
In re:~ponse to questloning by Comnisstoner Farano~ Mr. Ugalde stated the owner of the
prope:"rty facing on Hardtng Drtve would awn the existtng shed and he unde~stood tF:at the
po~tla~ 04 the bulldtng extandl~g over the property line would have to be: ~cmovzd~ and
that anly one drlvaway w~ould ba permitted to the public street f~om ~ach lot.
Mr. l'~galde inquired if the underg~ound uttlities would ba requi~cd for orily the houses
that would be built and not the existing houses, and Staff Indicated in the~ afftrmative.
76- 550
~
~~
MINUTES~ CITY PIAANING COMMISSION, I~ovembe~ (1~ 1~76
VARIANCE NQ. 2866 (Contlnued)
76-551
Comnisstcner Herbst ~~ffe~~ci e motion~ ser,~ ~dad by Commtssinner King and M01'tON CARRIEU
(Commissloner Tol~r batng absbnt). i; ~~~r Anahelm Cicy Plannl~g Commitston does hereby
r~cortmend ta the City f,ouncll ef the i.i ty of Anaholm th~t a negAtlve decl~ratlpn from the
raqulrement to prepare a~ envlranmer,tAl lmprct report be approvod for the subJr.ct proJoct~
pursuant to the provislon~ v' ~h~ ~ol t fornla Environmental Q~al lty Act.
Commissioner Hnrbst offered Resolutlon No. PC7f~-22~~ and moved for its paasrge mnd
ado{~tlun, Chat thn Anahclm City Planning Curtmisslon does hereby grant Pecitlan for
Variance No. 2f~66~ granting t,,.: rcques ted watver of the minlmum lot erea on the basla tha~
th~ proposcd lot slzes arr r,~m~erabla to exlsttng lots tn the sua]ect a~oo; subJr,ct ta the
stipulation of the petttloner to removiny, reloc~ting or reconstructing the c~xtsting shed
whi ch is adJacent to the southeast praperty I lne an Lot No, 8, In compl (enca wi th the
setbock requirerr~nts of the underlylnq zAne and further t~ constructing o~ly one drlveway
to the, p~blic stree.t frar, eath lot; and subJect to the intordepartmenta) CommitCee
rocomiwnJakions, (See Ren~lutlen U^•if~)
Or, rcl' call ~ tho fure,going resotutior: was passfJ by the fol lowli-g vote:
AYES; COMMISSI~NCRS: BARNES~ FARANO~ HERBST~ KING~ MORLEY. JOHNSON
NOES: COMMISSIONERSt NONE
ABSENTz COMMlSSIONERS: TOLAR
VARtANCE N0. 'L86a - PUDLIC HEARING. RONAID L. AND YVONNE G. BIPp~ 203 Shakespeare Street~
Anaheim~ Ca. ~28~5 (Owners); NELSON-DYE CONSTRUCTION~ INto, 1664 West
Broadway~ ~'B"~ Anahelm~ Ga. 92402 (Agent); requestlr~g WAIVER OF ;~.~
PERHITTED ENCROACHMENTS INTO REQUIRED YARDS AND (B) MINIMUM SIDEYARD SETBACK TO COt~STRUCT
A ROOM ADUITION on pr~perty descrlbed as a rectangularlyshaped parcel of lt~~d congisting
oP approxtmetely 8000 square feet loca ted at the northwest corner of Seville Avenue and
Shakespeare Street~ having approxlmat~ frontages of 1~0 feet on tho north side of Saville
Avenue and 80 feet on the west si~e of Shakespeare St~cet, and furth~ descrit,cd as
203 Shakespeare: Street. Property presently classified RS-J200 (RES{QENIIRL, SINGL~••FAMIIY)
ZONE.
No one tndicated their ~,~RS~~~ce tn opposition to subJect petitian.
Although the ~taff Report to the Planntng Commission dated November 8~ tg76~ was not read
at t~+~ publtc hearing~ said Staf~ Report is referred to and mode a part of the minutes.
Mr. Ken Dye, representing the agent for ~he petitioner~ appear~ed bcfore the P'anning
Ca~xnission and described the proposaZ , stating that the eave proJectton could be reduced
From §2 inches to ~0 inches ~f so ~' stred.
TNE PU4LIC HEARING WS CLOSEQ.
In response to c~uestiontng by Commiss toner Mor•ley~ Mr. Dye stated tfiat the redur.t~ion in
the eave proJection would still provi de for a gable er~d; that in the reer elevaL?on there
would be g~bls wfndows and a coupla of wEndows below, and the room addl .ton would meet the
Fire Code requlremcnts.
Chairman J~hnson inqulrGd !f thera was er,y correspondence from the adJacent proper+ty owner
to the north regard;:~g the proposal and Assistant Planner Joel Fick read a letter from
William L. Ossiginac~ 209 Shakespear~ , Anaheim, indicating no obJections to the proposal;
and satd lettPr is rePcrrad to as iF set forth in full In the mEnutas.
Carenlssioner Herbst noted that hn hed some reservations rega~'ding +the proposed sideya~d
setback~ h~wever~ the proposal did sha,~ an offset to the adJacent house so that it was not
quite so close.
Mr. Dye stated that the a~ditlon would be 12 feet high wlth a cathedral-type celling and
would nnt be r r~•o-stary structure ~ince it would not have a secand floor o~ cieck~ etc.;
And that witl~c~~t the setback waiv~ ~. they would nat be able to make the ro~om adc+icion
sinc~ the ad;ustmerrt of the locat(o~ ~ould create a long haliway effect lnsidn the home.
~
~w
~
MINU7ES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Navomber S~ 1376
VARIANCE NC~. 286k3 (Contlctued)
7b-552
Canmissloner Nerbst noted that thm Planntng Commisslon very saldom permitted encroachments
lnko tha required sideyard setbacks~ and the c) rculatlor- around the houses o~ khe subJect
property would bc v~ry ltmltcd.
Commissloner K1ng noted that h~ favored the praposal on the brsis that the neiqhbor to the
nor~h hed no ob~Jecttons.
CumnlsstonPr Johnson noted tha t lie would vute against the proposal stnce approval would
b reak cfown thc CodA requ I rerrKn t s and wou 1 d a 1 1 ow Chc su6) ect s 1 to to be overbu P 1 t.
It was noted that the: Dfrector of the planniny Dcp+ertment had determtned tf~~t the p~oposad
activf ty fel l wi thtn tl~c defin i tlon o{` Sectlon 3.01. Cless 5~ of thc Clty uf Anahei~~~
Gut~~ilncs to the Requir~ments for an Envlronmental Impact I~eport and was, th~refore~
catr.yorically exempt from th~^ requtrcment to file an EIR.
Commfssioncr Morley affer~d Resolution No. FC.7~-~25 end ma~~^d for its pASSage and
adoptton~ that the AnAheim City Planning Commisslon doas hereby grant Prtttlon fnr
VartAnce No. 2868~ in part~ g r~nting the requosted walver of permttted nncr~achmonts into
requlred yards in part~ on th e basis that th.: petittoner stlpulated to reducing the eavc
proJectton from ~-?. inches to 30 Inches ~ qranting tl;~ requested w~lver of the minimum
sideyard setback on the bas~s th~t similar walv~rs ',.~ve been previously grant~d ~y the
Planntng Commiszion in the subJect area end~ t~.~rtliermore~ there ~•~ere no obJectl~ns from
the adJacent propei~ty owner to the north; and subJect to the Interde~artmental Committae
r~commendations. (~ce Resotu tion Book)
On rol l cal l~ ttie foregoing r~solution was passed by tlie following votP:
AYES: CQMMISSIONERS: BARN ES~ FARANO~ KING~ MORLEY
NOES: CAMMIS~IONERS: HERB 57~ JOHNSON
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; T~Li.'?
VRn.IANCE N0. 2870 - PU6LIC HEARfNG. DELBERT 6 VIVIAtJ ~CINNEY~ 1306 Ortol~ ~trect~ Anahctm,
Ca. 92804 (Owners); JOSEPH B. E3WAR~S~ 620 South Euclic! Stre~et~ Anahelm,
Ca. 92802 (Age~t); requesting WAIVER OF (A) MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT AND
(B) MAXI MUM WA~I HE I GF17 ~ TO CON~TRUCT AN 8-FOOT H I GH WAI.~ on property deacr i bed as a
rectangularly-shaped parcel ot laid consisting of approximately 7500 squ~re feet~ having
a maximum depth of approxima tely 100 feet~ being located approximateiy 107 feet north of
the centsrl ine of M~~ra Avenue, ar~d fu~•ther descrtbed as 1306 Oriole Street. Property
presently classified RS~)200 (RESII~ENTIAL, SiNGLE-FAMILY) ZONE.
Ons person indlcated his pres enca in opposttton, and forthwlth waived the f ull reading of
the Staff Report to the Planning i,ommtssion d* ~d November 8~ 1976. Although the S;aff
Report was not read at the p v bilc heartng, i~ ~ referred to and made a part of the
minutes.
Mr. Joseph Edwards~ the agen t for the per(tloner, appeared before the Planning Cammission
and ~eviewed the proposa) sta ting that the pr~posed fence wnuld be adjacent to the l,pollo
Jr. Htgh School and tennis court; that the tennls balls came over the rear fence of the
p~operties adJacent to the s choal and consnquently the school child~en hopped the fence to
get the balls; that the petitioners wa-e also requesttng to have a chainlink fence tn the
front yard whtch w~uld be 4~ Inches rather than 42 I~ches high for the reason that they
owned a couple of dogs and th ere was an unusual amaunt of foot traffic from the school
children on the street and ddwn the side of the subJecx praperty and the high~r fence
wauld keep tt~e :hildren ~•,t of the yard and aiso kp~p tfiem from reaching over tnto the
yard to pet the dogs and pos sibly yetttng btttcn; and that he had photographs of the area
which indicated tha other simliar va~iances were probably granted in *_he area for hlgher
f~nces.
M~. William Laster, 1302 Ortoie Street~ Anaheim~ appcared before the Planning Commtssion
in opposition and stated tha t h ~ propertY also backed up to the Jr. High S;.nool property
and he had no problems with the tennis balls slncG children generally knocked on the front
door for him to get thc balls; thai mast of the front fences tn the area wtr- ~rlthin the
4~-inch height itmit except for a faw whfch probabiy we~~e erected withou: usnefit of a
building permit; that the rear fence of the subJect property was appro~:imately 7 feet high
and tf an 3-foot fence were ~pproved. the property awner would probably a13o put an 8-foot
~ ~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING CONMI5SION, November 8~ 1y76 76-553
VARI4NCE N0. 2870 (Contin ued)
higf- fence down the side of the property; that he d(d not fee~) it was too much ouc of llno
to go ~ut and help the children gat *.ha tannis balls; end that ho tifmsel! Fiad a G-foot
wall ~nd a Gearman ~hephcrd could Jump over it.
Chatrman Johnson noted th at he did not feel that o 48-(nch hlgh 4ence evould Impede
any ono's vlew and would bc no rtare unslghtly than a 42-inGh hlgh Pence; and th~t.
furthermore~ the pctitlon er wnuld lika Co have Che dogs in the frorit yard occaslonally.
Mr. La~stor further ~tated that the 40-Inch hlgh fence had be~n started withoux a permit
and lied a sharp~ Jrggod top which was d~ngeraus for the thildren who mighk fall on It.
Mr. Edwerds stated that th e top edge~ of the cltialr,l(nk fence could be alter•ed and he dld
not fecl that the sharp e dges should ~e on any ferce.
THE PUBLIC HEl1RING Wi~S CLOSED,
In response to qucstionin g by Commissloner Herbst~ Mr. Edcwards statr,d ttie only advantage
of increasinq the hQight of the rea ~ F~nce would be t~ dlscourage the children from going
over tt after the tennts b alls. Comml~sioner Herbst not~d that the photogrephs indicated
the walls had been climbed on and he questtoned whethcr the petitioner realixed that a~ 8-
f~at wall would have tn be a structural wall with e,•tra fooXing, etc.+ a~d it -:as possible
that the extsting wa11 may need to be r,orn down t+nd replaced t~ a structural manner. Mr.
EdHards Tndtcated thae he was sure hi3 client was aware of thosa requlrements and
sttpulated to the structu ral wall requtrement,
In res~~onse to f~~rth~r questl~n~ng by Commf,sione~ Her~st~ Mr, fr~wa~ds sttpulated to take
care of the sharp edges a~ protrusions frorn the top of the propos~ed 48-inch high chainlink
fence to reduce the possibiltty of any inJuries tu children~ etc.~ tn the neighbo~hood.
Mr. Edewards further stat ed that th e additional 6 inchts for the chainlink fence, making
It a total of 48 Inches high~ wou'c cont+~in the dogs were mEdium sixe and n~t small.
Commissioner M~rley noted that he ~,.1 not approve of dogs in the front yard sinc~ they
~hould be kept tn the baci. yard. Mr. Edwards rebutted that the dogs would be in the
front ymrd only occasionally; and that there was a lo+: ,~f foot traffic in the area and ~hcs
fen~e would ba to everyune's advantage,
Commlssioner Herbst noted that 6 inches u~as not a signif~~n~t increase over the fence
height rcqulrement~ and C ormilssioner Kiny recalled that the Comnission had turned down a
simtlar proposal ta have a fence in the F~ont yard to c:ontain a dog.
In response to questioning hy Comnission~r darnes. Mr. E:dwa~da ~tated r.hat the chdlnltnk
fence was already partially erected. Chairman Johnson r~oted thmt he Would rpprove of :he
proposal ~o increase the height of the rear wall slncr. it wautd not hurt the neighbors ar
Ghe school; and thal• if the per.itioner was willinn to construct an 8-fo~t structural wall.
they must want the wall pretty bad; hawever~ he did nat appr~ve ~` t`~° 4P- in~h htgh fence
(n the front yard, Commissioners King and Horley concurred.
Commisstoner Bar~GS tnyuired if the pPtitioner was fu~ly Awa~~ that thL :~ail mav have to
be compl etely removed and rECOnstructec to meet the sr. ruct:.~ra ~ requi remrr. _s ~ ~~~1 Mr.
E~wards reiterated that he was su~P his client was aware that t4 have an 8-f~o; high wall,
the existing wal) would at least h~v~• to bc rein'~rrced. CWT1rtiISS3A.^„~ 6ar,••< then
Indlcated that the Buildi~g Code should be strictly enforced if the 8~f~c .~al) r:ere
approved s 1 nce s'~e d i d n.±* Approve of ;:1 t i ze.ns t ry t ng to b+~ i 1 d on wal l s cl-at we re not
sound enc::gh •
Ca-rnissio~ner Herbst nated r~~at plans for the structural des(gn o~~ the 8•~f:.t,x Hall should
Le submitted to the Builciir~a Qivision for approvat prlor to the issua~r.e of s butlding
permd t.
It wes noted that the Director of the Planntng Departrnent had determined that the proposed
activity fell ~tthtn tlie deflnttio n of ~ectio~ 3~01. Class 3~ nf the City of R~aheim
Gutdelines tu the Raquii~ements fo r an Environmental Impact Repart and ~;as. therefora.
categoricall~y axempt from the req uirement to ftle an EIR.
Cc~mmissioner Mo~ley offered Resoiutton Na. PC76-226 anc- ,~oved for its pass~ge end
ad~ption~ that the Anaheim City Plar.ning Cammission cioes hereby grant Petition for
Variance No. 2H70~ 1~ pa rt~ denying the requested waiver of the maximum wall height tv
~
~~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION~ November 8, 197fi
VAR1~ ANCE N0~ 28 0(Contl~ued)
76-554
construcl• a 1i8~Oncl~ high chatnlink fenr.e In tl~es required f~onC yard on tha baais that
approval would set an undestrable precedent for future ~Imilar raquests and~ furlhermore~
the front yard was not an approprl~te l~c~tlon for the keepiny ofi ::o;~g: granting the
requnsted waivor of the maximum weli helght to permit en 8-foot hl~h well in the re~a~
yard, only~ on the besls th~at the petikioner demonatrated that a hardshtp would bn creatod
by the ad]acent echool Ghtldren coming aver the ex!sting 6-foot hiqh w+~il, and ~ubJect to
the stipular.lon af thc pot(tloner that the 8-foot high wall wlll meet the Bu(Iding Code
requiremonts for a jtruetural wall and will submie structurat design plans fo~ sald wall
to the Bullding Utvtsion for approval prior to the tasuance Af a bu~ld(ng permit; and
suhJnct to the Intnrdepartme~tal Commftte~ recomnendattons. (See Resolutlon Hook)
Ther~up~n~ Mr. Edwards ~tatcd ha would like to request a contl~uance oP the subJect
petttlon in order to discuss the proposal wtth the neighbor to the narth and to
Inv~stigate the prabinms with the wall betng structural. The Plannin~ Commisston
generally concurred thet such en actlo~ would probably not 91ter the decislon of the
Commission an tho matter~ since adequate Information pertal~ing to the proposal had been
provtded. Thereupon~ Mr. Edward~ wtthdrew hls request for a conCinuance,
On roll call~ the foregoing resolutton was passed by tlu following vote:
AYES; COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ FARANO~ HERBST~ KING~ MORLEY. JONNSON
'~OES; COMMISSiONERSt NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: T'OLAR
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLlC NEARiNG. JOtiN PRIEM~ 832 South Knote Strect~ Anaheim~ Ca. gx804
PERrlIT N0. 1662 (Ownar); PATRICK F. GAILUP~ 1724 West Catalpa N120, Anahelm~ Ca. 92804
(Agent); reguest(ng QN-SALE LIQUOR IN A LOOGE on ps~operty described es
a rectangularly-shaped parcel of lanei consistino af appr~xtm~tely 0.9
acre located at the youtheast co~ner of Colchester Drive and Color.y Street~ ha~ving approxi-
mate frontages of 120 feet or. th~e south side of Colchester Drlve ~~nd 310 feet on thc; ~ast
slde o•f Colony Street~ and further descrtbed as 821 South Brookhurst Strcct. Property
presentDy classified CL (COMMERCIAL, LIMITE~) zONE.
No one indicated their presence in opposition ta subJect petitlon.
Although the StafF Report to the Planning Commiss6on dated Novasmber 8~ 1976~ was not r~ead
at th~ p~dbltc hearing~ sald Staff Report is ~eferrcu to and made a part of the ~ninutes.
Hr. Patrick Gallup. the agent for the petitioner and secretary of the West Anahelm Moose
Lodge~ appePred before the Pianning Commission a~id stated that~ being a fraternal
organization, they would like to have a social club and be able to serve alcoholic
beverages; that the organization had exemption stat~~s fram the Franchise Tax Roerd; and
that the club would be for members and th~ir guests oniy and would b~ operated under the
rutes and reyulatlons of th~ Royal drder of the Mc~ose,
THE PUBLIC HEARlNG WAS CLOSED,
In response to questloning by Commissloner King, Asslstant Planne~ Joel Fick advlsed that
no 1eCters were on reco~d opposing the proposal.
Camilssioner Farano questianed the ~xistence of any illagal signing on the subJect
p~operty and Mr. Gallup stated that the signs in question were not located on the subJeGt
property but were at the corn~r of Colchester and Braokhurst; and that they did not intend
to have a sign on their building presently but would probably request one in the future.
Assl~;;ant City Attorncy Fra~nk Lowry advlsed that the owner of tho subJect prope~ty t~ad
reguested the subJect canditional us~e parmit and, therefore, wduid have to remove any
illegal signing on the prnperty prior to commenceneent of the use being requested,
Staff indicated that they would lnvesttgate tt~e signing on the subJoct property f~rther.
(t was noted that the Dir~ector of the Planntng Department had determined that the propased
aetlvtty foll withtn the definltlon of Section 3.~~~ Class S~ of the City of Anaheim
Guidelines to the Requlrements for an Environme~tal Impact Repurt and Nas~ therefore~
categortcally exempt from the requlrement tu fOIP an EIR.
~ ~
MINUTES~ C17Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ Novnmber 8~ 1976 76~555
CONDI710NA1 US~ PEKMIT N0. 1662 (Continued)
..._
Commissloner Fa~rano offered Roeolutlon No. PC76~?.27and moved fur lts passeqe and adoption,
that the Anahelm f,ity Planning Commisslon d~es hereby grant Petitlon for Conditlonal Use
Pcrmit No. 1662~ subJoct to any illeqal slgninc~ on tha property being removad (n full
compllence w(~h the sl,yning requirements of tho CL 7.onn; and subJect to the attpulatlons
of the petftioner and the Interdap~rtmental fom,~itten recomnend~tlona. (Sen Resolutlan
B~nk)
Q~i roll call~ thc faregoing resolutlon was passnd by the folloMring vote:
AYf:S: COMMISSION[RS: BARNES. FAMNO. HERBST. KING~ MORLEY~ JONNSON
NOE5t CONMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TULAR
VARIANCE N0. 2$54 - PUEiLIC NEAR.ING. EARL L. SINGLETON AND JAMES CI.AYTON PEACOCK. 1600
Eest Mayfalr Avenue. Oran~e~ Cm. 92~~7 (Co-Trustees); GENERAI.
MA~NTENANCE, ING.~ P. 0. Bax 233. Stanton~ Ca. 9~~~0 (Agcnt); raque~ting
WAIVER UF (A) MAXIMUM ~~UMBER OF SIGNS: (B) MINI~IUM DISTANCE BEIWEEN 51GN5~ A~a (C) MAXIMUH
WALL SIGN AREA~ TO PcRh{IT EXISTiNG IILEGAI SIGNS on prcaperty described as an irregul~rly-
shaped parcel of land cansisttng of approximrtely 0.5 acre located at Che southwest corner
o~ Broadvray and Euclid Street~ having approximato frontages of 150 Pee~t on the south slde
of Broadway and 150 f~eet on the wast stde of Eucl(d Street~ and further descri6ed as 301
South Euclid Street. Property presently classifie~' CL (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITED) ZONE.
Mo one tndlcated thel~ presenc~e in opposttion to the subJect petition.
Although the Staff Report to the Pl~+nntng Commissian dated November 8~ 1916~ was not read
at the public hearing~ said Staff Report (s referred to and made e part of the minutes.
Mr. Donald Fink, rcpresenting the agent Por the petittoner~ appeared before the Planning
Commisslon and steted thnt the decals undarnenth the canopizs had been painted out and
there were no longer any free-standing slgns on the propcrxy~ eltminattng the need f~r two
of the requested walvers; and that they Nere only askiny for the varlance to allow the
wall sign.
THE PUOLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissloner Farano questic,ned the termi~nology "pa(nted out"~ and Assistant Ctty Attorney
Fr~nk lawry advlsed that if the signs were repainted, the petitloner wauld be subJect ta
cltatton by the Zaning Enforcement OfPicer.
In r~sponse to questioning by the Pl~nning Cam~(sston, Mr. Flnk statcd the max~mum ~~all
sign area pertained to a hanging sign from the canapy and a sign diretting the pe~pla to
the cashier~ satd stgn having two sidcs; and thal• since eliminattng the free-standing
signs~ they would be only 4~ over the wall sign requirements and i~ would be expensiv~. to
re~iuce the slgn area.
~;~ •°ssfoner Ilerbst inquired why the petitloner had not checked the Code requirsments
4Pr~or to havtng the signs painted~ noting Chat the Planning Commission had turiied down ~
recent request for additional stgn area for a motel !n the canyon area; and that the
service statlon people were very aware of ehe Sign Ordinance but violaLed it th~e most.
Mr. Fink took exception~ stattng that he dld not feel that all oIi companies should be
categartzed Into one grou~~ but~ as a planning Gody, the Commission should Gonsider each
case on its own meriC; and that the Arco Company had made an effort to stay withln the
Styn Ordinar~~e by lowering the frerstanding pole sign over 50~, combining th~ price
-1gns~ etc., on the pale sign in con~ormanca wlth the Code; that they were presently
~iminating `he illegal free-standing signs; and that the Planning Commission had granted
ivers In the past for additional sign area.
In response to questloning by Commissioner Barnes~ yr. Fink stated the cashler slgns were
tlluminated.
CommisslonGr Farano made an observation that th~: actual request was Por a 20~ lncreA~e In
the sign area. an~ not 4$.
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ November 8~ 197~ 7b-55F
VARIANCF N0. 2854 (Continued)
Assistant Planner Joel Fick clarified chat es l~i~g as a slgn was pbrallel co the bulldtng
wali, and did not extend m~re then 16 inches away frc~m the wall~ It was consldered to be a
wall sign and the stgns tn question were thcn cansidered to bA wall signs.
In response to questloning by Camntssloner Fr~rano~ Mr. Fink strted that he believed the
subJect servlce st:eClon wAS salery-oper+~ted and, therefo~e. the expense of the stgntng
chnngp would be khe responstbility of the oi) cc~m~any. CarMnissioner Farano nated that
tliere were applicants who caRe before the Planning Commisston i~ cnnnection ~alth honest
mist.ekes, but thc ~Il comp~nies had some of the most capable people handling these type
matters and knew wh~t th~y were doinge
Commissioner King mad^_ an ubservation that the signs tr+ qucstlan wero not obnoxlous~ did
not overwhelm the service statlor+ stte~ and were attractlve and neat.
Cc~nvnlssianer Morley noted that~ tf approved~ he felt conftdent tl~at a stgr~ificant number
of othrr servlce statiuns tn ~he City would aiso reyuest to have t~ 20~ In~.regse In thetr
signing.
(n response to questiontng by Fink, Mr. Fick advlsed that the signs in questton did not
fit the d~finitton of a dlrectional sign and~ if so~ therc would be a~nother questio~
pertaining to number of free-standtng signs.
It was noted that the Direc¢or of the Plannlnq Department had determ(ned that the proposed
aGtivity fell within the deflnitton of Section 3.01~ Class 11~ of the Ctty of Anaheim
Guidelines to the Requirements for an Environm~nlai Impact Report and was~ thc~eforc~
categortcally exempt from the requirement to file en EIR.
Commtssloner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC76-228 and moved for• tts pessage and
adaptton, that the Anahe~m City Planning Commi~sion does hereby deny Petition for V~rlance
No. 285~+ on the basis of the foregoing findings~ ~rith no hardship being shov~n. (See
Resolutlon Bnak)
On r~ll ~all~ the foregaing resolution was passed by tha follaving vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ f'ARANQ~ HERBST, KINC~ M~RL~Y~ JOHNSON
Nf1ES: C~MMISSION[RS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLAR
VARIANCE N0. 2872 - PUBI.IC HEARING, LA VETA DOMINO~ c/o Odra Chandler, 608 Sauth Narbor
Boule~~ard~ Ana-~eim, Ca, 92805 ~~wnor); W. EARL 6ARR, JR., 1650 South
Harbor Boulevard~ Anaheim, Ca. 92802 (Agent); requesting WAIyER OF
(A) MINIMUM STRUCTURAL SETBACK~ (B} MINIMUPI LANDSCAPING~ qND (C) MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING
SPACES~ TO CONSTRUCT AN 88-UNIT MOTEL on ~roperty described as an Irregularly-shaped
parcel oP land conslsting of approximately 1.2 acres having a Pr'ontage ~f approximatply
230 feet on the west stde of Harbor Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximateiy 300
f~et, and being located approximately 195 feet ~orth of the centerllne of Ball Road.
Property presently classified C-R (COMMERCIAL-RECREATOQN) ZONF..
No one indicated their presence in opposition to the subJect petition.
Although the Staff Report to the Planntng Commissi~n dated November 8, 1976~ was not r;;:~
at the public hearing~ said Staff Report is referred to and made a part af the minute~.
Mr, Earl Garr~ the agent for the petitioner, appeared b~fore the Planning Cnmrnission an~1
stated that for the past three y~ars he had been the master lessee of the Saga Motel ~Nhic.~
was located across the street from the main entrance to Dtsneyland, and he was also the
agent fcr Ms. Domino; and tha*. he had an opt(on to purchase the SubJect prop~:rty.
Mr. Garr reviewed the proposal and stated regarding parking that~ based on 2helr studies
and acords~ 43$ of the clientele came to the Saga Motel by way of other tha~ Fayse~ger
cars~ t.e., Amtrak Fuilerton~ ai~craft~ buses~ etc.; that they participa:ed in and
produced tour packages; and that the expense of operating passenger cars was inr.reasing
a~out 8$ per year,
THE PUBLIC HEARINr, WAS CLOSED.
~
~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Novembcr 8~ 197~+
VARINNCF. N0. ?£372 (Contiriued)
/6-557
In respo~se r.o questior,ing by Chairman Johns~n~ Assistant Pla~~inr Jo~) Fick advised thet
khe dato compiled by Mr. Garr would ba beneficiAl to City staff In cunnectl~~ wtth the
parking analysts~ and P1r. Ga~rr statad that he r+ould be glad to provide a copy oP sa(d data
to the Gtty; that he had also been the owner of the Gaslight Motel in the arca an,d could~
thureby~ verlfy that the farther aw~y from Disneyland the morc auYanabtle traffic the
mo~al nat; that stncn May~ 197~, he had turned away ln excess of 100Q rnom ntghts to two
tour produccrs Prom Canada, a~id tF,ey were yenerally unable to handle wholesalers who
brought (n ~roups because thcy dld noC hevc thc cap+~ctty for them; ond that thG p~oposed
~-?an was designcd to accommadate the largr.st C~ur bus on the property.
Mr. Garr r,dcfressed the r•.quested waiver of the minimum srr~cxural ~etback~ stating that
they were not awa~e of +~he SQ-fout requlrement~ basically because they could see no way
for prapertl~s north oQ~' !ermont Ca be developed wtth such a widc setback. orea~ and tI~P
setbacks °or existing dev~,l~pmcnt along Narbor Boulevard ln the area werc All about 25
feet.
Ccmmisstoner King natect that the Shakey's Rest~ura~t to the north of subJect property was
dave' )r:d W1t~: a 35-foot se•tback which w~s fully landscaped. Mr. Gerr further stated that
Topp,., C~~rrc,ws~ Sandman~ etc.~ were all developed with less than 25`foot setbacks; and
tl~nt the p;oposed 2r-fo~t setback would make o fairly nlce Frontage for the motel.
Mr. Garr stated h~ ~Sd nol' under,tand khe min(mum landscaping waiv~r indlcated In the
Staff Report. In reSpnnse, Commissior;er Morley noted that tha petltloner was proposing to
h~ve 2 p~rking spacrs in thc~ required 15~f~t iandscaped setbock area. Mr. Fick fu~ther
clarlflea for the petltione~ that the Code offered an alternatlve~ betng a 5Q-foot s~tback
with an a~eraqe of 2U feet but not less than 15 fPet of landscapfng, or a 25-faot setback
fully 18~.ds~bperJ.
Comm~ssior~er Klnn noted that by ellrninating t{ie 2 parktng spaces in the requtred setback
aren~ the land~sc~ping reyuiren~nt cnuld be met, nnd Mr. Garr so stlpulated.
In respons~ to q~~estioning by Commissio~er Morley, Mr. Garr stated that they had 9S units
at the Saga Motel and appro~.imately 1~' parking spaces~ and durtng the hea~t of thn season
they had plenty of parking; however, part af his leasefiold belonged to The l.ancers for
parkin~ ~nd he woS not sure how much of it was for his use.
Discussion {?ursued regarding the location of Che. subJect property in relr~tionship to
Disneyla~~d and the fact that only 3G~ of the required parktng was proposed~ during whlch
Cortmissio~er Herbst noted that the subJFCt property was not -~ithin walking distance of
Disn~eylAnd in al~ rca~lty, and the tourists wouid have rental cars; and that simila~
propossis were approved w:tF~in walking distance of Oisneyland only.
Mr, Carr then sCa~~~ that the Ivanhoe and Lamplighter had parking equivalent to the
propus~l, beinG 2 parking spaces to 3 units; end that they were proposing to provide
transportat~or froa~ the moteis to the Disneyland area by cosch or by Fun Bus.
Conrn~ssloner Herbst then questtoned what would happen tf 3k~ nf the rooms were unrented
.m d t:he parking tot was a11 filled up. Mr. Garr stated that there was no way they c~uid
cont~mplate such a ha~pening but were bastng thetr prnposal on the fact that the need for
parking space had decrebseJ pvery year for the Saga; that, with the energy crls~s, buses
rrere becoml~g a bett~r way to travel and~ although he did not know when a plateau would be
reached~ they dtd not conter~plate an increase in the nePd for parking spaces; and that fie
could always prav~de some parking at thP Saga for the proposed motel clients.
CoaKniss~cner Farano took cr,ception to the requested parking walver~ noting that the
studies researched by Mr. Garr should be corroborated by Staff; that he dld not feel that
taurtsts C~me to the Anaheim ~rea Just to see Disneylartd; that it was not likely that the
clientele w~u1d change motels and~ further~tiore~ th~ Fun Bus may not take the tourists ro
all o` the ~laCas they wanted to go,
in ;espunse, N~r. Garr sta~ed that tours were gen~rally pre-planned fram the departure time
to the return time; Chat tours accaunted ~o~` 22~ of the business at the Sags; that the
tdur pAC:koges us~~ally included trips to Knott's Berry Farm~ Llo~ Country Safari, etc.;
that packag~s were arranged thruugh Gr~y Ltne or the Orange ~County Tour Company, and there
was no reason why anyone should miss out on an attraction for lack of transportation.
~-
C~
MIIJUTF.S~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Novcmber 8~ 1976
VARIANCE N0. 2872 (ContinuerJ)
~6-558
Canmissloner Farano tndic~ted Lhat tourists could generally do ~hat they pleased if th~y
so dostrad; that lf the Plannfng Coirvntsston acted on the Informa~lon provlded by Mr. Ga~r
and it t.urned out to be at~sotutely tncorrect~ r very sertaus problem -vould be creeted.
stn~e there simply wauld b~ no place to add parking on the subJect property withtn re~son.
Chalrm~n Johnson noted that althnugh traveling he~bits werr chang(ng all over~ eapaclally
tn a~reas of attractlons~ and the prosent CodPS we~e de~igned f~r motals located adJac~nt
to fre~ways and entr~nces and exits to cltles~ he w~es not in favor oP a devlatlon from tl~e
parking requirements e~ great as that propased; a~d that he was even more concernad about
tlie setback proposed so that some at~ space Nould be ~vatlable around the building.
Commissloner Kir,g notpd that he would app~ov4 the setbacks ~,~tth the addition of
landscaping and the nltmination of the 2 parking spaces. Canmissioner Morley dlsagreed,
nottng that others had beon required ta provide 35-foot setbacks end hc could sea no
hard~htp for the subJect prope~ty stnce it would h~ve overbuilding and underparking.
Commtsstoner Herbst further revlewed the htstory of the parking requ(rements for motels
and re~~llcd ~hat the firsc study was presented wtth the same ar•gument regarding tours~
etc.; that a daveloper tn the heart of the Dtsneyland area was required to document the
informatton Supporting thelr proposed parking~ and the subJect prape~ty was different tn
that tt I~ad freeway access a~nd wes distant to Disncyland; that he wouid ltke further study
with rogard to parking peresntages for motels located this distance from Disneyland~ end
that the survay should be updated by the Clty to sea lf a Code ma6ification was tlmely.
Commissloner Barnes noted thaC If the subJect praperty were to ba sold in thc future,
additlonal problems could be creatr:d; that, Although the petit(oner might be right ab~out
the parking~ the proposal was qutte a reduction. She qudstloned whether the petitioner
was propostng to have rental cars et the subJeGt location, and Mr. Garr stated that there
was a car leasing agcncy at the 5aga.
Mr. Garr further stated that he did not teel the Code should he changed~ since not,els
catering to weekly or monthly clientele would deflnitely need to have 1:1 parking or more
because they v-ere semi~permanent residences; however~ he did not ~eel that the sa~ne
requirements were ~pproprlate for the Disneyland area with tour packages, etc.
Chairman Johnsun and Commisstoner Morley generally agreed that they dld not approve either
of the waivers~ stnce campliance would result in less units on the properey and
conseqtently mor~ parking.
Commissioner Farana noted that he could not accapt the ~tatements of the petitioner
without F~aving any research on the part of the City~ however~ he had na desire to
overburden the pet(tfAner with unneeded pa~king spaces; and that the plans should be
re~vts~d and StafP should ~onduct And updete the parking survey to corroborate the
petltloner's statements.
Mr. Garr then stated he was willing to compromise so thaC he would noc have to take a
c4ntinuance~ and Commisstoner Nerbst indicatnd that the revised plans would be required
for the Planning Commiss(on's consideration of tl~e zontng petiti~n.
Thereupono Mr. Garr requesced a ~wo-week continuance sa that revlsed plans could be
su5mi tted, etc.
/~ssistant Planning Dlrector-Zoning Annika SantaiahCl advised xhat the updating of the
parking survey would require more than two wee.ks a~d~ therefore, a four•week conttnuance
should be constdertd.
Chairman Johnson naied that the Planning Conmission'S action on the sub)ect petition could
be precedent-setttng and it was lmpdrtant t~a have sufficient and up-to-date information
upon which to base th~ir decislnn~
Assistar~t City Attorney Frank Lowry suggested that Nr. Swtnt. the engineer for the
proposal, could probably Assist Staff in c~btaintng the inFormatton needed for the updating
of the parkQng ~urvey as it would apply tu 1ncACions simila~ te the subJect prope~ty i~
relattonahlp to Disneyland.
Commissioner h!o~ley offered a motion~ seconded by Commissfoner Fareno end MOTIQN CARRIED
(Commissioner 7olar being absent)~ thpt t.he Anahelm City Plannfng Canmission does hereby
-- ~.1
~
~
~
MINU'~ES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Novnmber 8~ 1976
VARIANCE N0. 28 2 (Contlr~ued)
76-559
reopen the public hearing and continua conalderatlon of Petilton for Vartenco Nr. 2872 to
the Planniny Commisslan meeting of December 6~ 1~76, for the petitloner to submlt revlsed
plens and Por City stafP to update the ,,ark(ng study~ as d(scussed.
VARIANCE N0. 2Q75 ' PUBI,IC NEARING. LOUIS F. l1ND PHYLI.IS A. SELI.~ 37 Monarch Bay~ Laguna
~Ilguel, C~. 92677 (Owners); TERRY BERZENYE, 1075 Narth Harbar
Boulevard~ Anahetm~ C~. 92801 (Agent); rcquesting WAIVER '~F PERMITTED
USES TO EST49LISH AUTOMOTtVE REPAIR INCI.UDING ENGINF OVERHAUL o~ property descrfbed as a
rectanyularly-sheped parcel of land constst~ng of approxlmately 0.7 acre hbving ~ frontage
aP ~ppr~xtm3tely 90 feet on the west slde of Ha~rbor Boulevard~ having a maximum deplh of
approximatcly 330 feet~ being locat~J approximately 65 Peet ~outh of the cnntP~ltnP of
Anaheim Boulcvar~~ and further described as 1075 North Herbar Boulav~rd. Property
presently classffied CG (COMMERCIA~., GENERAL) 70NE,
One person indicated her presence in oppositi~~n~ arid forthwith walved the full reading of
the Staff Rep~rt to the Planning Commiss(on dated Novembar 8~ 1g76. Although thc Sr,Aff
Report was not read at the p~ablic hearing~ It is referred to end ma~de ~ part of the
mtnutes.
Mr. Terry Besrzenye, thr, ayent for the aetltloner~ appea~^ed before the Planntng Comniss(on
and stated he restored older cars with newer enyines~ etc., and also fnstalled speclal
equtpment and controls for crlppled drivers~ as well as completely overhauled the oldsr
ca rs .
Mrs. Margaret Zwiener~ 512 West Vlctor Street, Ana~~elm~ appeared before the Planning
Car~nisslo~ in opposition and presented a{~etition signed by approximately seven persons in
opposttian to the pr^~nsal. She stated that autam~btles were blready being disma~tled on
the subJect property; that young people were allowed to bring cars ta the subJect property
and sture them; that she was questioning why an environmental (inpact report was not
required in connection with the proposal due to the noise~ smog ancl hours of uperaeion;
that the petittoners were presently engaged in mot~r overhauling~ tune-ups~ transmfssion
repalr and valve gri~iding~ with complete "street rud" repairs; that she had checked wlth
the Pollce Department and found that stnce September of this year theft was u~ 7~ and guto
thefts alone were up 16$; that she was also questtoning whcther Che proposed varlance was a
cover-up for a business that was fllegal in the ftrst place~ noting that there was no date
on the ~ity records for the originel zontng of thA property; that~ in discussing the
surrounding uses~ no mention had been made of the single-famtly homes on the south and
west sldes of the building~ but ~eference had been made to multiple-fainily which was
dtstant on Vtctor• Street, in addit~on to the commerctal uses tn ths area; that the
proposed use had nothing to do with a car agency~ ta her knowledge~ and was directly
acrass the strect from the single-family homes; that the maJority ~f the persons who
sigieed the petition in favor were misinformed slnce she did not believ~ they were advised
of the eng(ne overhauling and, furthermore, niany of th~ stgners in appasttion did not live
in the area but only worked there and did not hPar the night notses; that some type of
buffer between the proposed ~usiness and the homes faciny north an Victor Street should be
pravtded stnce the subJect property was only a few feet away; that she had been a resident
of the area tor approximately 25 years~ her home was paid (ar~ and she was not about to
move to l~t someone come in with a business and satisfy hls liying desires. Mrs. Zwiener
further stated that she lived three houses off Harbor Boulevard, a~d she presented
photographs of the exlsting conditfons at the subJect location.
In rebuttal~ Mr, k3erzenye stated that there was room between his property and the single-
family homes to place another business; that with regard to the dlsmantltn9 of cars, there
were cars parked outside th~ b~ilding in dismantied stages and he had called the Pollce
Department to have them hauied away; that the customers have brought the ca~s in for
estlmates and for reasons such as the estimates being too high and not worth fixing, etc~,
ttie customers would samettmes ieave the cars; that he had painted and cleaned up the
premises on his own and spent his life earnings setting up the bus(ness; and that he was
in the garage from approxtmately 7;011 a.m. to midnight working ~end had never bothered h(s
neighbors to his knowledge.
THc PUB'.IC NEARIIJG WAS CLOS[D.
In response to questtoning by Chairmgn Joh~so~~ F;rs. Zwlener Indicatcd that the
photographs presented were t~ken this d~~ . Ch~,Irman Johnson then noted he wa3 hoptng to
~ ~ ~
MI ~lUTCS, l: ITY PLANN I ~I~ COMM! SS I ON ~ NovemGer 8~ 1976 7h-56~
Vi1RIANCE Na. 287$ (Continuad)
apprnve the prnposal but ha had some reservations regarding tha nolae end ~ixtent of the
work being done.
In rebuttal~ Mr. derzenyn stat~:d he had asked the people on occrslon If thn operatlon w+~s
too notsy at nlght and had (ndicated it it w~a f~~ would shut the t~usiness down; and that a
wall presently sxtsted against the rnsidentfal s(Je of tho proporty to scr'ee~ Prom 'Vittor
Street.
Comml~sloner Herbst noted that a cumplalnt had becn ftled by a ccximerelal tenant with the+
Zontng EnPorcement Officar regarding the use; and he questloned whethesr tho renant had
vacated the area because af the noi:,e. Mr. Berzenye responde~ in the negatlve~ stating
th~t the referenced business was closed down becauso no license had bedn Issued.
Coa~missioner Morley nor.ed Chat hc was sympathetic with the~ opposltion~ however~ those in
opposition ~~ere locatQC! farkher away than those who had sig~ad the petltlon tn fsvor of
the .proposal.
Commisstoner tlerbst (nquired if thn petilioner f.ad a permit for the Cwo outdoor holsts,
and Mr. derzenye r~sponded that tl~e buflding had been in extstcnce for about 10 or 15
years. Assistant City Attorney Frank Lowry adv(sed that the Pl~nning Comml~slon had been
somewhat divided over the outdoor hoist issue~ when they were out of publfc
uiew, the Comnission had gone along with them occasionally but when they were In full
vtew, the Comm(ssion had asked them to be removed or that a bufldtng be built over th~m,
Chatrman Johnson noted that Oran~e C~unty Tlre was prevlously tn buslnnss at the sub,ject
IocAtion, to his best ~ecollection.
In response to questionln~ by Commission~r Farano~ Mr. Berzenye statnd that~ in th~e past~
he had worked on championship racing carsr however, he wouid nat be engaged in the
bu(lding ~f rail or race cars; th~t the cars he w4uli build would be for s~~ow and not for
speed; and that he hed done a littie work on boats for special customors.
In responsc to further questloning by the Planning Commission, Mr. Lowry advised that an
Inoperative Vehicle Ordinance permitting the impounding of vehlcles wes enforceable
through the Palice Department ond als~ th~ough the Zontng Enforcement Office;.
In response to furt.hcr questioning by Commissioner Farano~ Mr. eerzenye stipuleted that
ail of the work would be done inside with a limi'ation of tha hours and testtng of large
vehicles. Mr. Berzenye further stated that none of the cars would have e loud exha~.~st.
Commtssioner Farano noted that th~ outdoor storage of veF~tcles should etther 6e eltminated
or screened. ,Ir. Berzenye stated that ~ wall presently existed from his garagn to Victor
Street.
Commissioner Barnes noCed that walls mtght act as a sound corridor if not properly locatr.d
and that a well between Mrs. Zwiener's property and the subJect property mlght help to
allevt~te the sound traveling in that direction. In response~ Mr. Btrzenye statcd that
was the reasnn he had moved his atr compressor from the one side of hls property to the
other at a cost of approximatel, $300 and since that etme he had no complafnts regarding
noise from the neighbors; and that a huilding existed right behind his property~ And the
Planning Comrnission appeare~' to wt~nt a wa11 the~e also.
Mr. Berzenye clartfieci for the Planning Corm~ission that there was na storage or parkir~g of
cars in the alley, and Lhe photographs taken by Mrs. Zwiener were of the subJect property
oppastte Victor Street.
Mr. serzenye responded to further questlontng by stating~ regarding ~ envlronmente)
imp~ct rrport document~ that the garage had existed for a lo~g t(me, Ne sttpulaoed that:
hours of operatton would be between 8:00 a.m. and 5:Q0 p.~n. and Commisstaner Farano
indtcAted that ~:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. would meet ~is approval under certaln condttlor~s.
Thereupo~~~ Mr. eerza~ye further sttpulated that he would not engege In the butlding ofi
vehicles ropuiarly referred to as "rail" or race cars.
Comm~sstoner Farano noted that cus~omizing was mare of an art than an enginenr(ng fent
since it involved beauty and not performanca and~ as long as the testtng prc-cedures and
hours were regulated, he could see n4 problems. Mr. Berzenye then stated he had been iN
business et the subJect location for approximately one a~d one-half years,
- ~ r ~--~^--
~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Nove~mbe~ 8~ 1976 76-561
VAitiAh:CE N0. 2875 (Cnntinutl~)
It was notad that the Directar of the Planning Department had deter-nlned that the proposed
e~tlvtty fell with'n the definltton ot Sectfon 3.~1~ Class 1. of tha City af AnAhAtm
Guldelines to the Requlrements P~~r an Envl~onmenta) Impact Rnport a~nd was~ chcrefore~
categortcnlly exempt from the raqulremer~t to fil~ an EIR.
Commissioner Farano offered Resolutton No. PC76-229 end moved for lts passage and
adoptton~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby gra~t Prtition far
Vertance No. 2d75 fnr r~ perlod of one year~ sub,Jecx to revfcw ancl consl~'eratl~n by thr,
Pldnnfng Commisslon for p4ssible oxtensic,ns af timc upon wrttten request by tha
pestitloner; sub]ect to Che sttpulntion of the petitlone~ that the hours of operat(a~ with
the doors npen will be b'twoen 8t00 a.m. and 6;00 p,m., and no testtng or mechanicel
repat~ work will be pe;foimr.d bcfore ar nfter smid I~ours of flpe~etlon; that thcre shall be
no outdoor starac~e whatsoeve~ permilted on the subJr.ct property and the automobtles or
bodies thereof whlch are pres~ntly stared or perked outside on the premtses sF~all be
removed Immedlately; subJect to thc stlpulation uf tF~e petitioner not to engage In tha
bulldtng of vehicles popularly refarred eo as "rall" or r~ce cars; and subJnct to the
Interdep~rtment~3) Tommittrc rncommendntions. (See RGSOlution Book)
On r~ll call~ the foregoing resolu4iun was passed by t•he followtng vote:
AYES; COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ FARANO~ HER85T~ KING~ MORI,EY~ JOHNSON
NOES: COMMISSIONEP,:; NONE
ABSENT; COMN~ISSIONERS: TOLAR
Ctialrman Jchnson reminded the petttioner to live up tn the good netghbar policy with
respect to L•he subJect bustness operatton,
RECESS - At 3:35 p.m.~ Ch~airman Johnson declared a recess.
RECONVEt~E - At 3:45 p.m.~ Chafrman Johnsan reco~ver~ed the meeting wlth
Commission~r Tolar being absent.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. DOUGLAS ANNEX~ f650 South Dougiass Poad~ An~helm~ Ca.
PERM17 N0. 1664 92806 (Qwner); ROY H. B~NNETT, ;617 West MacA~thur ~`510~ Santa Ana~ Ca.
~ 92704 (Agent); requesting permis~ton tu ESTABLISH AN AUTb REPAfR SHQP
on property dascrlbed as an (i-regularl~-shaped parcel of land consist-
Ing of approximattly 0.9 acre having a frantage of approximately 20 feet on the sast side
of Douglass Road~ having a maximum depth of bpproximately 39$ feet, and being located
approx(mately 220 feet north of the centerline nf KatPlla AvenuG. Property presently
classified Mi. (INDUSTRIAL~ I.IMITED) ZONE.
No one tndtcated their presence in oppositton to the subJect petttion.
Although the Staff Report to the Pianning Ccxnm;ssion dated Novembe~ 8~ 1976, was not rea~
at the publlc hear!ng~ said StAff R~port is referred to and made a part of the minutes~
Mr. Roy B~nnett~ the agent for the p~tttioner~ appeared before the Planning Commlsslon and
stated the propo~al was for au~to repAir an~ dtesel truck repatr.
TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOS~D.
In response ta guest~oning by Commissioner King, Mr. Bennett stipulated that all of the
repair work would be perfarmed tndoors and the autortrobiles and trucks would not be stored
on the sublAct property unless a storagc area was provtded in accordance with th~e Code
requirements.
Commisstoner ~King offered a metion~ ssconded by Cammissioner Herbst and MOTiON CARRIED
(Comnissloner Tolar being abser~t), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission do~s hereby
recomrr,end to the City Council af' the Clty of Anaheim that a negative declaration from the
requlremnnt to prepx~re an envtronmental report be approved for the subJect proJect~
pursuant to the provisions of the California Envir~nmental Quality Act.
~
~
MiNUTES~ (.ITY PLANNING COMMISSIOt~~ Novamber 8, 1g76
CO~IDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1664 (Cont(nued)
_.~-
~
76-562
Conwnl~si~ner King offored Resolutlon No. PC7~~•23Q anci moved far Its paasage and adoptlon~
that the 1lnaholm Glty Planning Conmi~sl~n daes hereby grant Pet(tton for Conditlonal Usa
Permit No. 166h to permit automol•iv~s and dlesol truck repalr~ subJnct xo C~de requlrements
and stipuletlon by the pctitlonnr~ thet all of the ropalr work shall be performed
I~slde the building; subJect to tho c~ndttlon thht any outdaor storage shall bt
pruperiy and completely scrennad In accordanc.e with Code atandards as stlpuiated tn by the
petttloner; and subJect to the Inte~departmencal Committe~e recommendatlons, (See
Resoluttan ~ook)
On roll call~ the foregoing resolutian wes pe^~sed by the followtng voCa:
AYES : COM~11 SS 1 QNERS : BARNES ~ FARANO ~-IE,RI3ST ~ KI NG ~ MORLEY ~ JONNSON
NOES: COMMISSIONERS; NONE
ABS[NT; COMMISSIONERS: ~ui.AR
l;QN01TI0NAL US~ - PUBLIC NEAaING. DUNh PRAPk:RT1E5 CORP.~ 2~ 9rookhollow Drive~ Santa An~~
PERMIT NQ. Ib65 Ca, 927Q2 (Owner); MARTIN P. LOEW/CARMAN P. SFERRAZZA~ 940 Wast Orangc~
~~ thorpe Avenue, Fullcrton, Ca. 92632 (Agents); requesting perm(sslon to
ESTABLISfi A SANDWlCH SHOf~ an property described as an irr~gularly-
shaped parcel of land consisting of spprnxlm~tely 5.a acres located north di the inter-
sectlon of Knollwood Circle and Woodland Drive~ havtng approximate frontages of S33 feet
on the northeast side oP Knoliwood C(rcle and 449 feet on the northwest slde of Waodland
Drtve~ and further described as 2643 Woodland Drlve. Property ~resently classifled ML
(INOUSTRIAL~ LIMITED) ZONE.
No one lnditated th~Ir presence In opposition to thn subJect petition.
Although the Staff Report ta tF~e Planning Commission datad November 8~ 1976~ was not read
at the public fiearing~ said Staff Report ls referred to and made a part of Lhe mtnuC~s.
Commissianer Y.ing noted that he had a tonFltct of lnterest as deftned by Anaheim City
Planning Commission Resolutton No. PC7~i-157 adopting a Conflict of inte~est Code for the
Planntng Commission and Government Code Sect-on 3~2;~ et seq.~ in that he awned canmon
sCock tn Pactfic Lighting Corporation nnd Dunn Prope~~ties was associat~d with sdtd
torpo~ation; that, pursuant to the pravisions of the above cod~s~ he was declart~g to the
Chalrman that he was w(khdrawing from ~he hearing In con~ectton with Item 9 of the
Planning Commission agenda and would not takc part In etther the discusston or the voting
th~reon; ar,d that he had not dtscussed thls mstter wlth any mEmb~r of the Planntng
Cammisston. TFIEREUPON~ COMMISSIONER KING LEFT TNE COUNCIL CHAMBER AT 3:Sb P.M.
Mr. Garn~n Sferrazza~ the agent for ttie petitior,er, appeared before the Planning
Commission to answer questions regarding the proposal.
TIiE PUBLIC NEARIIJG WAS CLOSED.
In respanse to questloning by the Planning Canmission~ Mr. Sferrazza stated he would be
the aperator of the proposed restaurant; that serting for approximately 12 pers~ns ~t
tabtes was proposed; that over 25$ of the floor ~pace was designated for kttchen are~;
thet the hours of operation would be from aFproximately 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; that the
17 parking spaces indicated would be for the use of the restaurant; that he had never been
in bu:,iness tn an industrial area but felt that the business would be 50~ take-out; that
beer and wine were not contemplated at tf~e present time; and that the referencG was not to
a restaurant but to a sandwich shop.
Assistant Planner Joel Fick read a letter from Dunn P~operties regarding the altotted
parking in the indus~r(al complex for the proposed use~ as follows:
"October 11, 1976
SUB.lEC7: Proposed Leose on Premis~s Known As
2643 Woodiand Orive~ Anaheimi Californi~ 92801
-
Dunn Bustness Parks has advised the proposed Lessee of subJeck
premises~ Phil b CaPm's Nouse of Subs~ that the~e will be avail-
~ ~iv ~
MINU7E.S~ CI1'Y PLANNING COMMISSiON, Novembor S~ 1976 7b^5~3
CONOlTIONAL USF PERMiT M0, 1665 (Conttnued)
r~blc a t.otal of 17 Fark.ln~ spaces ln cann+on with other ter~anCs
occupylny this bullding.
s/Terry Barr(n,yc~r - As~t. Secy."
Mr. Fick furtheN stnted that ~ta~`f had analyzed the pmrkir~g In relationship to the sub~ect
butiding and found it was tn compliance with the requlre+ment.
Dtscusslo~ pursued regardtng the proposed sandwich shop versus a resteurnnc, ~luring wh(ch
Staff advised that tha proposnl had been revlewad as ~ restaurant requirtng rhat a minimum
of 252 of the floor sp~ce be for kitchen or faod ~~eparetion area and that. th~ p~oposal
exceeded the 2$~G req~.~( rement.
Uiscusston puraue~i regardlny the parking spaces availbbie In the over all industr(al
complex for thn propased use an~i okher uses at this locatlon~ during whtch Mr. Fick
advistd thaC (n analyzing the parking~ StAff had not cnnsidered the enti~e complex but ~-ad
considered thc parktng dosignated for the subJect building unit only~ a~d that the
proposed u~e requlred ~3 parking spaces per 1000 squarp feet of floor area or 17 gpaces.
Assistant Planntng Dlrector-zaning Annika Santalahtl IndtcatQd that althc-ugh she was not
famlllar with ths total parking space, provtded on tha subJect slte~ tt was possible that
there was excess ~arktng; and that if the praposal was considered favorably by tF~e
Planning Commission~ she would recomnerid tliat Addltional exhlbits or plans indi~ating the
ailotmant of the parking spaces in tl~e xota) comolex be required; and ttiat it appeared
there were about ~-2 spaces set aside for the use of the subJect butldtng,
Commisstoner Farano noted that unless an actount of the parki~g spaces assigned to-date
was not kept on the subJect industri~l complex~ tt was possible that some commercial ar
quasl-r~tail uses might be approved which would creatn a shortage of parking in satd
cort-plex. Commissioner Herbst suggested that~ if the proposal were approved~ the
petitioner (Uunn Propertfes, Inc.) be required ta submtt a detatled parktng plan
commttting cerCain spaCes to the proposFd use.
Assistant City Att~rney Frank Lowry advised that, legally~ the parking spar_es had to be
provided within 3n~ feet of the building.
Commissioner Farano made an observation that approxlmately 25 parking spaces out of the 42
indlcated for the sub,)ect building would rematn fur the use of ths Qther seven units in
the building.
It was noted that the Qfrector of the Planning Dep~rtment had determined that the proposed
activity fell within the definition o~f Section 3.01~ Cla~s 1~ of the City af Anaheim
Guidelir~es to the Requirements for an Envtranmental Impact Report and wa~~ therefor~~
categorically exempt from the r•equirement to file an EIR.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resalu:ion No. PC7f,-231 and moved for its passage and
adoption~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition for
Co~dttlonat Use Permit No. 1655 for a restaurant use on ths basts that slmilar requests
have becn previously granted fior restaurants witl~ sit-dawn and tak~-out factlittes in
Industrta) complexes where the use was primarily to serve the tndustrtal tenants~ subJect
to the stipulation ~f the aetitioner that the hours o1~ oper•atton would be between 8:Uu
a.m. and 5:00 p.m.; that a mtnimum af 25~ of the floor area sh~ll be designated as food
preparatlon area; that seating for a maximum of 12 petrons shall be provlded inside the
restsurant; that the petit(oner shall subr~it to Che Pl~nning Department fnr appr~val a
plan oP exhlbtts tndtcating the assignment of parking spaces for the existina and propased
uses on the subJect property,including a written commitment for 14 spaces reserved for the
proposed restaurant use as reGuired by Code and prior to th~ (ssuance of a building
permit; and aubject to the Interdepartmental Can~nitt~e recommendations. (See Reso~ution
Book1
On roll call~ the foregoi~g resolutton was pASSed by the followln~ ~ute:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: flARNES, HERBST~ MORLE'f~ JOHNSON
NOES: COMMISSIONERS; FARANO
AgS~N7: COMMiSS10NER5: KING, TOLAR
Commisstorter Far~no indicated that his "no" vote was based on the leck of tnfo~mation
pertatning to parking for the entire industrial compl~sx.
COMMi55i0NEP, KING RETURNED TO THE GOUNClL CHAM;+~R F~? 4:05 P.M.
~
w
~
MINUTES, (:ITY PIANNING COMMiSSI01i, Novembur $, 1976
76-5~k
VARIANCE N0. 2AK9 ~ PUBLIC HEARINC. k'iLLIAH 11NU JUUITH BROQKER~ 1441 Red Gum Street~
An~helm~ Ca. 920Q6 (Own~rs); STEVE CURCIE~ 59 71 Ea~t Marsha Circle~
Anahr.im, Ct~. 9~"06 (Agent); requeating WAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM FRONT
SETBAC K AND ( D) M f N I~sUM I.ANDSCAP I NG ~ TO CONS1'RUCT AM 1 NOUSTR I AL BU I LD 1 Nf on proper ty
dcscribed ~s an Irrc~~ularly-shrped parcel of la~nd conslstl~g of a pproxlmat.ely 0.5 acro
Iecatad et the nortl~west corn~r of Mlraloma Avenue end JePferso~ Street, havlnfl approxi-
matc frontaqes oF 125 feet on the north stde of Miralom~ Rvenue .~nd 415 feet on the~west
slde of Jefferson Street. Froperty prosently classlFled RS-A-43.000 (RESIDENTIAL/
AARICULTURAL.) ZQNF.. (wtth e resolutlon oF tntent to ML).
No one lndicated thetr presence in oppnsltion to tho subJect petTtlo~.
AltPiough tho StaPf Report to khe Pl~nntng Commission da~ed November 8, 1976, wo~ not rcad
ae the public hearir.g, sa(d StrFf Rnport Is r~eferrad to end made a pert of the minutos.
Mr, Stcve Curcte~ the agent f~r the petltioner~ appeared before the Planning Commissl~n
and stated he was purcha3ing the subJect praperty ar+d the triang uler shapa would make it
dlfflcult to use; that~ 1~ t~ie 50-fool setbeck requtr~ment were provtded~ thc property
w~uld be cut almost in half and no building wir.h pi•actica) use eauld be constructnd on It
and~ th~refo~e~ they were pr~posinq a 25-foot setback, ad)acent to Jafferson Str~et; that,
since the property to tlie r•~ar was bordered by the ratlroad trac k, tha proposed bullding
would not block any view; thai 2h~s flrst property on Mlr~lom+i ot~ the west and an the same
stde of the strect had a bulldtng scxbacK of '25 feet a7though tt was an older building and
he had not reseArched its exact age; that the requested varlanc ~ from the 10-foot
landscaping requtrement was to provide more room for backing up from the parking spaces;
and that th~ ~rea In fro~t of the bullding would be fully lands e aped excepx for the
walkway r.o the fr~nt entrance.
TN[ PUdLIC HEARI~IG WAS CI.OSE.D.
In resp~nsc to questiontng by Comnissloner Hcrbst~ Mr. Curcie s tatcd there ware no
sld~walics tn the area and he would apply for r~aiver ot sidcwalks on that basls.
Commissioner Herbst noted tha~t 5'~eet of iandscop~ng coujd be p rovide~ edJacent to
Miraloma Avenue in the evenC that sldewalks wnre required in th ~ future. Thcreupon~ Mr.
Curcle sa stipulated.
Gommissioncr Barnes inquir~d about th~ future use af the propos Ed lndustrlal butiding and
Mr. Curcin stated he was a s:;immtng pool contractor and would b ~ stortng equlpment' In
,bout on~-third of the bullding, and would lease out the rest of it; and !hat depending
up~~ hls tenant~ the other u~e +,~ould probsbly be light equlprne~t or something of that
natu;e.
Chai~~man Jol~nson questtoned the possibillty of outdoor storaga at thts locatlon, and Mr.
Curc~e stated he was requesting ta fiave ~s chainlink f~ence scree ~ed w(th rcdwoud s1Ats in
the area next ta the trash sto~•egn area and~ if there was a ne~ d fo r outdoor storage~ ~t
~rould be (n sa(d screened area.
Comnissloner F~rano rioted thiat the petitloner was on notics that only one hards'itp on the
sub.lect pro~erty wauld ba allowed and ihat he should be careful not to create a~y further
hardshtp on f.is own; and that, from his observation, the prape ~ty was very Ilmtted with
respect to p~rking.
Asststant Plrnning Dtrector-Zontng An~fka Santalahti advlsed tF~at any outdoor storage
should be far ltems such as lawnmowers and not vehicle~~~ and nothlRg over 6 feet in
height. Mr. ~urciF stated he was thinking rt-ore in the ?ine of the storaqe nf steel.
Commissioner Farano offered a motion, secanded by Cam~tssioncr Herbst and MOTION CARRIED
(Commtssioner TAlar being absent)~ that the Anahaim Clty Ptanning Comnisston does hereby
recommend to the City Council of the Ci:y of Anahelm that a neg etive declaratlon fram the
~equirement ta prepare an anvtroninental impact report be approved for the subJect proJect,
pursuant to ihe provisions of the Caltfornia Environm~ntal ~ua 11Cy Act.
_~
s
~t
MINUTES, CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION, November 8~ 197~
VARIANCE N0. 2869 (Continuod)
76- 56 5
Commlssloner N~rbst offered Resolutinn No. PC76-232 and maved f or Its p+~staga snd
aduptlon~ thet the 1lnahelm Clty Planning Cummisalon does hereby grant Petttion for
Varlancc No. ?.t~69~ ~n pe+rt~ granting tha requeate<i walver of the min(mum front setback to
permit n mtnimum 25-foot b~~ilding ~etback +~dJecent to Jeffarson Street o~ th+t b~sl~ that s
hardshlp exists due to the Irrogular shape and sizn of tho subJ ect propnrty And~
furthermore, adJacent p~operty Is developed wlth d similer setba~ck; granting the rmquosted
walvdr of the minimum landscaping~ In pert~ o~ thG b asls thet t he pdtttloner stloulated to
praviding an addlt(ont~l 5 fact of l~ndscarying ed,jAC:ant to Miraloma Avenun; thst any
Autdoor ~torae~e shall be completely x~reened from publlc vle.wv and locsted outslde the
required setback areas ~~nd In completa compliance with the Code st~ndards; snd 3ubJect to
thc Ir~tnrdepartmenkal Committec recommendetions. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call~ the foregoing resolutton wo~ Rassed by the following vot~~
AYES: CAMMISSlONERS: DARNES~ FARANO~ NERBST. KING~ MOIILEY~ JOHNSON
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
A85ENT: COMMISSIONERS; TOLAR
VARIANCE N0. 2373 - PUBI.IC HEARING. FAMILY HEALTH P ROGRRM~ IN C.~ 2925 ('alo Vcrde~ Long
Bct~ch~ Ca. 90815 (Owner); requesting WAIVER ^~ PERMITTED USES TO
F.XPAND A ~1EUICAI. CEtiTER on property doscribed as an Irragularly-
shaped Rorcel 01' lanu consisting of approximaitcly 1.5 acres located north end cast of the
intcrsectlon of LA Palma and Magnolta Avenues, having approximate fronteges oF 147 fcet
on the ~orth side of La Palma Avenuc and 1~7 feet on the east stJe of Magnolla Avenuc~
and ~urther d~scribr.d as 2571 West La Palma Aven~~e. PrAperty presentlY cl~gsified ML
~ ~NUU5iK111L, IIMIT[n) 7~-I~ ..
NO O^^ inc:icar^.(1 I:~ICif ~•,°~ence in nf~!~pS(f.~(lf1 fn t~'Ie RUh~P.Ct DGi~ i ii'~I~.
Althaugh the Staff Report to the Plannlny Commissto~ deted Nov~mmber 8~ 1976~ wa~ not reod
at the publ(c hcaring~ sai~ Staff R~port is ref~~red tu and made a part of the mi~~ites.
Mr. Ness~ representing the petttioner~ appe~red before the Planning Camilssion and
desr,rlbed th~ Family Health Program~ stating that ~he reason they grevi so rapidly was
Fecause the plan was a prepatd s;~stem and they grew proportion atcly with thelr enrollmnnt.
numbe~ of patfents an~i numioer of doctors needed; that the-r program also included an
indemnity insurance plan; and that the proposal would provldc 350o square fent of
additlonzl space for growth in the Anaheim area.
TFiE PU9L1 C HEAR I NG WAS C1.05ED.
the ttme
~o!nmisslone~ ~arano inquir•ed t~hv khr. subJect lt~m was being reheerd o~~wCb~ ,~ ~~~~ u.~~ . s
;;•!,! ~?'y permitted~ ii wbs understood that (t wouid be expanding; and he noted that no
add; ~,~nat ~~r~lvcrs ti+crc~ beiny rr:quested, In response, Assistant City Attorney Frank Lowry
ad~fsed that a variance cou~d nut us expanded uNon without the beneftt of additional
publtc hea~ing~ since *.he original vartanc~ was fo r speciffc b uildl~gs and subJect to
preclse plans submitted at that tfine~ etc.
Commissioner King not~d that the letCer submitted by Mr. Rpse erans ln bsh~alf af the
patltioner~ describing thE proposal~ etc.~ convincP~! hIm that the prAposal was
appropriate.
7he Planning Commission entered into disGUSSion with Staff an d the petiti.cner regarding
parking spaces existing and proposed~ and made sn observatian ihat tf~e propo~al was to add
approximately 35~0 square fcei• of office space but to elimiriate 8 of the existtng 89
parking spdces. Mr, Ness stated that f31 parktr~~ s paces~~ould exist foliowing th~ new
construction; that a ne.+ factllty conslsting of app roximately 24,000 square feet was
approved to the north of the subJect property and the subJect propoSal for an additlon
would tide them over until the new facllities were completed; and that one doctor wa~s
~t.affed per 1000 enr~llees and they had 400G new e~~rollees this fali.
Comnissioner Faran~ di,cussed the possibility of limiting the number of enralle~es sin~e
there appeared to be a~i unlimited capsctty for the program~ especial~y if .*.here wbs a
high-powered sales program. N~r. Ness stateci that Zhey could ~ot over-enroll or they wo~~ld
get a bad reputation; that the business was seasdnal and flu c zuated; and that thuy
~
~..~
~
M1NU~ES, CITY PLANNINC COMMISS~ON~ November 8~ 1976
76-5GG
VARIANCE NU. 7.873 (Contlnued)
scheduled thelr speGielists an certaln de,Y end~ In thet respect, had same control ~f the
usage of tho faclllties.
In ~esponee to questioniny by Cammissfoner lierhet~ Mr. N~ns steted that when Lha nev~
faci l l tles to the north were carnpletod thay wcwld probably maint~in the subJer,t fa~°~~ i(tles
fnr ewhi le for a portton of thet r servlces. Cc,~simis~ta~er Nerbat then notad thet ti~e
~:+bJect propos~l would be o good test wtth respece te perkinp requlreme~ts nnd couid br_
checked by StaPf periodically.
C~rrmissloner King offcred a motlon. Snr.nn~in~l ~,y C:;,~nmtss{onUr M~~ley and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissl~oner 1'olar being absent). that the Anahelm City Plznntng C~^issl~~~ ~ac~ !:cr~hy
recommend to th~ Clty Council af the City of Anahetm that a nagatlve declaratlon from tho
requlrsment to prep~re an env(ronmenta) impact report be appraved for the sub]ect proJect,
pursuant to the provlslons of thF C llfornla Envtronmentel Qualtty Act.
Commissioner King oPfered Resol~~rior No, PC76-233 and moved for lts passt+g~e end adoption~
that thc Anr~helm City Plannin~: ~omm, slan does heroby grant Petltion for Varla~nce No. 2873
ta permit th~a expansion of a n~<•~Il~ol and dentel offlce on "~e hASis that thc use ~rasently
exlsts ar,d has not been detrlme~~tal tc~ the erea; ~nd subJc .. to the Intc;departmental
Cammlttee rec~mmendations. ( ~ec Rr.solution dook)
On rol l cal l~ the f~regoing ~•~~~snlut Ton wes passed by khe follow(ng vote:
AYES; COMMISSIONERS: BARN~S~ FARANU~ HERBST. KING~ MORLEY; ~'~Hn"ON
i;"'•5: i.dHHtS~ i~!N~ PS : NuNE
",~SLN7~ C4h{i•i!SSlONtn~: Tot_"..^,
REF'ORTS AND - I TEM A
RECOMMENDATIONS ~'FIONAL USE PERNIT N0. ~585 - Requast for extension
of time - Property consisting of approxlmatnly 5•75 ecres
located on the ~orth side of La Palma Avenue~ approximateiy
2a0 feet west of the cente~i tne of Imperie) Hlghway.
It was noted that Co~~litional Use Permit Na. 15a5~ to establish a lumberyard~ was approved
by the Flanning Cammission on December 8, 1975, subJect to completton of conditions within
a pertod of one year; that the cnndition requiring the posting of a bond for the
Inste~lat~on of street ltghting faciltties r~long La Palma Avenue had been ca~iplied with;
khat the applica~t~ Anthon~~ D'Arcy af Co~dweil Danker~ agant For the Sutherland Bullding
Mater(al~ ~A~+ ~•ubmitted a written req~iest for a one-year extension of time in arder to
curn~iete the condition!s of approval; and that no prevlous extensions of tlme had been
requested.
Commissioner Morley offersd a motion, seconded by Commisslonar Farana and MOTION CARRIED
(Canmtssioner Tolar being absentj , that the AneFielm Cixy Planning Commiss(on does hereby
grant a one-year ~xtension of time fot tf~e completion of conditlons in connectian with
Condttional Use Permit No, 1585, said time extension to expire December 8~ 1977~ as
requested by ;ie appltcant.
iTEM B
~+t~ANCE N0. 237~ - Request for terminatio~ - Property conslsting
of approxtmately 0.3 acre located ory the west stde of Eucltd Streee.
It was noted that Varianc~ No. 23 70~ to convert an axtsttng residence to a commerc{al use
with weivers o'F requir~d parking, required masonry ws11~ and maximum sign area~ was
approved on the sub)ect property; that~ subsequently. Var~:+nce No. 2735~ to construct an
office bulldiny with waivers of minlmum number of oark?;,g space.~. maximum butiding height~
and minlmum building setback, was apNroved; and~ therefore, the epplicant {R. D. Lutz,
Prealdent of Group Realty Service s, Inc.) was requesting termination of Varlanca No. 2370.
Cammissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Cammissloner Fara~no and MOTION CARRIED
(Conmiastoner Tolar betng absent) , that the Anahetm Ctty Planning Commission does hereby
recom~~nd to the Ci~y CounGtl of the City of Anaheim that Vartance No. 2370 be terminated~
as re.yues ted by ti~e app 1 t cant .
~ ~ ~
M 1 NUTCS ~ C 17Y PI.ANN I NG CO`1M ( SS I ON ~ November 8~ 1976 76~5~~
ITEM C
~NCE N0. 2750 - Requ~st for extanslon oF time - Proporty
con~lsttnc~ of appraxlmet~:ly 1.65 t~cres locatod northwnsterly uf
the inter~octlon of Llncoln hvenue and Draokhurst Str~ect~ and
developed with a car wash (2219 'West Llncoi~ Avenue~.
It was noted that Varlence No, 275~~ to wAlve the maximun numbe~ af signa ond minimum
d! ~;~;icr ::~:rween s tgns to asvert lee auta pol (shing in connectlan w) th n c.er wash~ was
gren~ed on November 10~ 1975. for a period of one year~ subJect to revlew nnd
Gonstderation for an extenslon of tima~ ctc.; th~t the walvers ware granced on the besfs
of flnanciel hardshtp and the pr•oposed tndefl~itn extension of time is req uASted for the
sar~re r~~sons.
Dis uasslon pursu~d rRgrrding Cha p~•opasal~ during which the Plsnning Commissla~r generally
agreed that tl~e signtng was not attractivP~ and that the yartenr.e should terminatc at the
end of one more yc~r~ with no addtti~nal time extensfons pusslbie.
Commissloner Ktng offerad a motion~ seconded by Commtssi~ner Herbst and MOTION CARRIE D
(Commisston~r Tolar being absnnt) ~ that the Anaheim Ctty Planniny Cc~milssion do.±s her~by
grant a one-year extension of ttme f~r Varian~e No, 2750, sald time extnnslon to expt~e un
November 1Q~ 19J7. at which tt^~e Varlance No. 2~50 shall be terminacnd,
COMMISSIANER HERBST I.EFT Tf1E COUNC~L CHAMBER AT 4:40 P.M.
ITEM D
.., AN~°~ w~~ 2805 - Request for app~oval of revised stte
r:::nz - prnrPrr.v ~,.~~~~trir-g of approximately 0.4 acres located
at the northwest corner of Katella Avenuo and Haster S treet.
It was noted that Vartance No. 2$O5. to establish a convr.nience merket wtth waiver of
pr.rmitted uses in the C-R Zone, was granted subJect to conditlons, including modific~tlons
to driveways and ~evlsed plans thereon; and that the appltcant (Arthur Adams of Bixby land
Company) had submltted revised site plans tncorporattng the modificatian3 ~or approval,
sald p1Ans having been already npNroved b~ chc Trafr"ic Engtnee~~ as requl~ed.
Commissioner Ktng offered a motto~~ seconded by Commission~r Morley and MOTION CARRIE D
(Commtssioners Herbst and Tolar being absent)~ that the Anaheim Ctty Planntng Comnlsston
does hereby approve the revised site plan as satisfying Cnndition No. 9 of Varianc~ No.
ZSOS, as requested by the applicant.
ITEM E
'~NO. 3463 ~REVISION NQ. 1) - Request for approval oP
revlsed wall plans - Property ~onsis ting of approximately
16.6 acres located on thr, south side of Canyon Rim Road~
a~~proximately one mile northeast of Noh) Ranch Road.
It was noted that the subJect tract was approved, sub~ect to a condttlon (No. 10)
requtrtng a 6-foot hlgh, decorative~ openwork wall along the tup of the slope adJace nt to
Canyon Rim Ro•d qn certatn lots' with the exception that the hetght may be reduced to 42
inches in the front portions of the lots, plans for said a~al'i to be suhJect to approval of
the Planniny Cammission or Clty Council prior to appi•oval of the final tract map; and that
thc plans fo~ the wall had been submitted fo~ Planning Comnission approval.
The Planning Convnission reviewed the suh~nir.tPd plans and indicated that the proposed
ornamentai slumpstone wall met the re~ulrements of Condit~on No. 10 far the subJect tract;
that the wall was not necessarily being approved ns a sound barrier to meet th~ required
dbA sound lcvel; and that the required scund level wlthin ihe homes would also have to be
met.
Commissioner K?ng offered a motion, seconded by Comnissioner Morley and MOTIOh CARRIED
(Commissfoners Nerbst and Solar botng absent)~ khat the Anahe(m C(ty Planning Commisslan
doas hereby approve the wall pla~s submitted for Tract No. 8453 (Revision No. 1) as
satisfyinq ConditYon Na. 10 of the conditions af approval of satd tract.
' T 1. ~-^^T .~~~
~ ~ ~
M I~ ~UTES ~ C I TY ~'LANN I NG CUMM ( SS I ON ~ Novembar 8~ 1976 7~-'.~G3
ITEM F
R QU~ FOR F.IR NEGATIVE OECLARATION - For a parcel map
(No. 598) at 333 North Euclld Straek,
It ar~s not~.; i~~t an appifcetian had been flled for a parcel me p to divide an
approximately ::'-acre parcel Into ttiree percels~ es an Induatrtal st~eet oxtenslon of
P~nhall Way~ at ~:~~ sub)ect location; tliat a~ evaluatlon of Che envlronmental ImpacC ~f
parcel meps was requtred und<sr the provtsions of th Callforn~a Environmental Qu~llty Act
and the State EIR Guldeltnas; and that +~ study af the proposed mAp by thc Planning
Department and tiie Engtnwertnc~ Otvision indlcate~d i:~et thare woul~ be no signtflcant
envi ronm~antal tmpact.
Cammissfoner Farano offared a mott~n~ seconded by Commissloner King and M0710N CARRIED
(Commissionars Ner6,t and Tular being ~bsonl•)~ thAt the Anaheim Clty Planning Commtssion
does i~~reby recommand to the ~Clty Council of the City of Anahestm that e negative
derlaretlon from the rsquirement to preparr an env~ronmental im pact reporr bc approved for
the subJect pro.ject~ pursuant to the provistons of the Caltfornia Envtronmentai Quality
Act.
RCCESS - At ~~:45 p.m., Chatrman Johnson rer.es~ •~' the meetiny to 7:30 ~.m
R[GONVEtlE - At 7: 3n p. m. , Cha i rman Johnsvn recom ~~ed the mee't ng wi th
Comm(s~toner Toitrr being absFnt.
~+
~.
~
~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLAN~'ING COMMISSION~ NovcmbAr 8, 1976
76-569
RECI.ASSIFICA'fION - REl1GVCRTISED PUBLIC IIEAltllrf,, ANAHCIM PLIIZA LIMIT~D~ 505 North Euc) id
N0. fi8-6~-100 Street~ Anahefm~ Ca. 9'1801 (Owner); r~:q~e~ttng pe~mission to GEI.ETE A
- REQUIRED 9LOCK WALL on prop~+rty descrlbed ea a rectangularly-shaped
p~orcel uf land conststtng of approximately G.7 acr•~s heving a frontage
of approx(makaly 3~'i feet nn tha east sidc of F'alrhaven Street, !iaving a mas;lmum depth
of approxlmatoly lOG feet, and being located approxima~ely 9~ feet north of the center-
lin~ oP Westmont Drlve. Property presently classiflcd CO (CQMHERCIAL~ OFFICE ANQ
PROF~SSIONAL.) ZONE.
Approximatol~ 11 persons ind(c~ted thelr presence in ~ppt,sitlon to the subJect pe~.itlon.
Assistant Plariner Joel Fick r~ad thn Staff Report ko the Planning Camilssion datad
November 8~ 197b, and ,aid StafF Report Is referred to and made a part of the rninutea.
Mr. Ron Sheets~ Maintenrnc~ Supervisor for the Anahelm Plaza 8uilding and agent for the
petitloner~ appeareci before the Plann(ng Ccmmission and stated ha ~nanagcd the bulldtng a~~
property in quas:lon; that they fe~t that an opentng in thes ~aqutred b~foot h.igh mason~y
wall along Falrhaven Street was necessary in order to ka~p down thG vacancies in the
building ; that turning off EuClid Street to get into the park(ng ',at was a hazard; thet
although parking was provided for 2~~9 cars~ it was nox sufficient and ~hey needed to have
the on-street parktng on Fairhoven Street; th~t there would bn no on-street parking on
weekends; that the wall was self-sustained and people cauld get around it anyway on both
rnds; and that~ mast of all~ they would feel a loss of revcm~G in the~r operatlons tf the
on-stre~t parking was not al,owed during tha daylight hour! or 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Mr. Peter Nozero, 5~7 North Feirliaven Street, Anahe(m, appeared before thP Planning
Commission ln oppositinn and stated that the existing opentng (n the required wall was
arbitrarlly cut about seven months ago; that, present2y, he could hardly get fn And o~~t oF
hls drtveway with al) oF thp cars narked on xhe street; that he had ask.:d the petltloners
to close up lhe wall severai months aga and had reviewed the files, tryin~ to get the
opening closed and (t ha~d been seven months of frustration; ttiat the Planning Qepartment
had found a code permi:tiny 3~~ 1es. parking for liighrise and adopted it; that the only
time any gardenirig was done on khe subJect property was when the nclghbors complalned to
the Zoning Enforcement Offtcer; thaC since the City had cooperated with the builder, thC
buildings should ltve with the parking provided~ and the netghbors sho~l~j not have to p~~"
up wlth the inconvenience; that~ if addttlanal park(ng was needed, h~ would suggest multl-
story parking and the City should have seen ko it that m~re parking spac:es were providcd
in the beginning; that there were four different k3nds of fence matetials use~ at
different hetghts tn the wAll~ etc.~ and tt looked terrible; th~t the petitfoner had
indicated in the petttion that he had tried to buy some addt:ional land for porking space
but he did n~t know to whom the petitianer spoke; that he wouid urge the Planning
Commission to deny the subJect request f~or access to Fai~haven Street wtth some reasona5le
time established for gardeni~g to be done since he was ttred of looktng at the weeds~
etc.~ as wall es t~e hole in the wall,
Mr. R. C. Evar,s, ~~ner of property at 507 Fairhaven Street~ Anaheim, appeared be'Fo~e the
Planniny Commission i~ opposltton and stated he was Interested in a fafr hear!ng on the
proposal and~ in his opinion~ apprnvai would be unfatr to the tenants of the buildin,q as
well as the procerty owners in th8 area; that access was provtded to the praperty from
Euclid Street at Westmont Drive and at Crescent Avenue~ and he described the safety of the
access w(th traffic :.ignals at botl~ intersections; that he would like to point out that
directly across Euclid Street from the subJect property was a mintmum of S50 unoccupled
parking spares; and tl~at he was puzzled why any man nr woman~ dressed up, ~vould ~o over a
fence and ruin their tlothing sincE it was only a few feet around ~he wal' and around to
Westmont,
Mr. Frank Pullmar~ 513 Falrhaven Street~ Anaheim~ appeared before the Planning Comnission
and noted that there was no excu,e for not having a good-looking lawn at the su~Ject
location since he had observed that Keystone Savings and Loan had the same problems but
had a n(c~ landscapeJ yarci~ etc.
In rebuttal~ Mr. 5heets presented photographs of the existtng block wall and opentng,
stattng that the wal) was good-looking ar.d the opening was for the use of their tena~ts
and matntp~ance people; that the wall was free~standing and a person cou?~i go around it;
-._J
~
~
MII~UTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ No~~embar 8~ 197G 7G-51~
RE~LASSIFICATION N0. 60~G9~100 (Conttnu~d)
and that he was suthorizad to tay that, lf thc we~l wss abJec4fonable~ e gAte would bo
tnstallea in ehe opentng and kept locked cluri~i~ off-business haurs and on weekends.
1'HE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Cormnissloner Morlcy noted that he f~lt the pttitloner was mtssing the polnc~ since the
propcrty awners did nat fecl thaC the use oP tho property was coropatlhle with the
neigl~bonc~~~d ~nd thc o~cring tn the wall shnuld n~ver have been made; and that,
apparently~ more parktng shauld havQ bean provided when the property was dsveloped
inltf~lly.
ComntsSlonsr Herbst recalled that, at the orlyinal public hearing for the usc of the
property~ there wers vcry adamant people in oppoaltlon~ however~ the ground rules werP set
w(th Falrhaven to be left as A restdential strcet; that the wall should br. cl~sed
immediately and the 3 feet of lAndscaping malntalned; chat~ in his apinian~ tl~e comnercial
use; of the subJecC praperty should not be imposeJ on the restdentia) nelghborhood and tha~t
it was up to the City to see that tlie original conditions of epproval were complied with;
that, if he had known the petitloner would not livc up ta Che condltlons of approval~ he
would never have voted in favor o!` the complex orlgtnally; that the tntegrlty of the
resid~ntl~l area must be protectecl from the commer•c(al InCrusion and the petltloner sh~uld
make all haste in puttiny the wall 6ack tn canformance to the canditlons of approval~ as
well as the landscaping.
Commission~r King inqulred if the petitloner had contacted the Broadway Shopping Center
across the street to use some of their parktng~ and Mr. Sheets tndtcated that he did not
believe so~ but that It rt~ignt be a good solutlon to the Nroblem.
Chairma7 .lohnson noted that the landscaping was an tntegral part of the approva) of kiie
complex and he fclt that the Pxisting conclitton of the landscaped area was an aff~ont on
the petittoner's part; that he would ltke to extract scme kind of promtse frrx~ the
petitioner to maintain the landscaping; that he was so disturbed by the actions of the
petitloner wlth respect to the wall and landscapinq that~ in his opi~ion~ Che petitioner
should be requlred to mov~ the wall back 25 feet from F'airhaven Street and instatl 25 feet
of landscaping as a barrler adJacent to sald residential street; and that the petftloner
had complately ignored the Intent of the resolution approvtng the complex.
Commissioner Farano noted that it appeared the actions of the petitic~ner were a blatant
Ignortng of tf~e stipulations and representattons made at the origtnal public hearing
apprnving tha complex; and that if the wall was not closed imnediately~ his first reaction
would be to haye the Zoning Enforcement Officer ~Ite the property avner.
Comnissioner Herbst agreed that a penalty should be imposed if the present conditions
persisted.
Comnisstoner Ba~r.es noted that an additi~nal praylem mlght be created if the opening in
the wall was not closed in an architecturally-tasteful manne~ and she was suggesting that
some landscaping be planted in front of it, also.
In response~ Mr. Sheets stated tliat the persons respors(hle for the rroperty were trot
present but he was sure that they would go alor~ with whatever decision was made by the
City~ however~ ha would like to request a reas mable time in which to clnse the opening,
i.e., 30 days.
It was noted that the Director of the P{anning Department had determined that the proposed
bcttvity fell wtthin the defini4ion of Sectton 3.01, Ciass 3~ of the City of Aneheim
Guidelines to khe Requireme~iLs for an Environmental Impact Repart and was, therefore~
categoricaliy exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR.
Commiss!oner Harbst offered Resolution No. PC76-234 and moved fo~ its passage and
adoption, that the Anaheim City Planning Corvni~sion due~ hereby reconmend to the City
Council of the Clty of Anaheim that the request for deletion of the condition pertalning
to a 6-foat masonry wali ad)acent to Fairhaven Street~ in connectton with Reclasstflcation
No. 68-69~i00~ be disapproved on the basis of the foregoing f~ndings; a~d that the
Planning Conr.~;ssion does hereby recommend that the existing pedestrtan opentng in the
required 6-foot h(gh masonry wal) be closed by Oecember 2~3, 1976, or that the 2oning
Enforcement Officar be directed to cite Che petttioner for violt~tton of the
raclassiftcation; that the closure of tha wall be archttecturally tasteful; tt;at the
~
~
MINUTLS~ GITY PIANNING COMMISSION, Novembar $~ 197G
RECLIISSIFICATION N0. 68-6g-100 (Cantlnucd)
~
~
76~,71
petltloiiAr be Instructad to comply with all of tlie conditlona of the ortylnal aporovai of
tho reclasslficatton o~ the property~ inclucitng the provision for 3 feet of lanciecaping
edJec~nnt to the 6-fnot high wall~ es shown on tho approved plans~ and with sstd
Iendsceping tu be permane~tly malntalnecf In e neot and ordefly manner~ as specifted by the
slte development standards of the CO 7.one. (See Rasolutton tlook)
On roll call, [he foregoing rasolution wes pa~sed by the following votc:
AYES; COMMIS~IONERS: BARN~S~ F11RAN0~ NEIidST, KINt,, MORIEY~ JONNSON
NOES: COMMISSIQNERS: NO~iE
A65EM7: COMMISSIONERS: Tt)LAR
RECLASSIf'ICA710P1 - PU(3LIC NE:ARING. WINST04 J, AND VELM;~ J. GEOGF.R, 3145 Locust Avenue~
No. 76-77-22 Long Beach~ Cs. 90807 (Owners). Property d.,_cribed as a rectan4ularly^
shaped parce! of land conslsting of approximat~ly 0.8 acrr, havtny e
VARIANCE N0. 2(367 frontage of epproximately Ilg feet on the north slde uf Savannd Stre~t,
having a mar(mum depth of approximately 299 feet, being located nppr~xl-
mately 190 fect west of the centerlin~ of Knott Street~ and f~rther
dascrlbed as 1515 Savanna Street. Property presently class(fled RS-A-43~000 (RESIDENI'IAL/
AGRICULTURAL) ZONF.
REO.UESTED CLASSIFIC,ATION: RM-1200 (RES;UENTIAL~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY) 7,UNE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF {A) MAXI~tUM BUILDiNG HEiGHT ANO (D) MINIMUM pISTANCE
BETWEEN BUILDIN~~~~ 'f0 CONS7RUCT A 20-l1NIT APARTMEN'' COMPLEX.
Two persons indicated their prPSence in oppasiti~n and forthwith walved the full reading
of the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated November 8~ 1~76. Although sald
Staff Report was not read at the public hearing, it ts refer~~d to and made t~ part of th~
minutes.
Mr. W. J. fciger~ one of the petitioner~~ mppeared b~fore the Plannir~g Commtssian and
stated that the two old hcxnes on the property~ in hIs op(nion~ had been unsafe and hts
wife had owned the property for many yenrs; that the proposed apartments ~,rould upgrade the
property; that sane of the nefghbors had tnciicated the ~roposal would be an improvement tp
the property; and that ther~ were apartments on both the east and west sides of the
property.
Mrs. Joan Todd~ 36?.0 West Savanna Street, Anahelm~ ap~eared before the Planning Comnission
and (.~d(cst~J that she represented the area resldents and property owners in oppasition.
She stated th~~t while they agreed that apartments were all tnat could be developed an the
subJect ,~roperty~ the apartmenCs next to it on Knott had gone unprotected; that the 15
tenants of the apartments on the corner put out their indtvldual trash cans~ plastic be~s,
etc.~ on Crash day~ and the dogs got into them~ and the neighborhood dtd not want to see
more of that type sit~iation develaped; that the 2;-foot turning radius for the trash
vehicles should be provided; that v!sitors' parking should be require~ on the site~ as was
required in the recent simllar proposal on Savanna Street~ in answer :o the pr~blcros r~1th
on-street parking; that she was not sure what the proposed drainage plan was~ howeve~~ she
felt scxne solution other than dratning into the street should be investigated; that~
regarding density~ they felt that 20 units were too much fo~' the subject site; that (n the
previous proposal on Savanna Street, the Tra¢fic Engineer had indicated that the present
trafflc was up to 600 trips per day~ the recenC proposal addtng about 200 trtps per daY.
with the stroet being eble to handle 2000 trips per day at capacity; that the subJect
proposal atoutd add at least another 7.00 trtps per day ancl Ch~ site rep~esented ab~ut one-
tenth of the ~.~ndeveloped property in the area~ and by the time that the 2000 trlps per day
werereached. tlie area would be only one-half developed; that~ in her opinion~ the only way
t~ cut down on the traffic was to reduce the densities being allowed; and that the street
could not be altered in the future to handie more than tts present capacity.
In rebuttal~ Mr. Geiger stated th~t trash areas~ in conformance to City stardards~ werc
proposed and thc trash would not be put out vn the st~eet unless it was permitted; that he
felt the drainage problems wouid bP taken care of by the Engineering Division; and that
the pr•oposed apartment density was in line with the existing ap~rtments on Knott Strest.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WaS CLOSED.
~
w
~
MINUTCS~ C~TY PLANNING GOMMISSION, November 8~ 19~6
RECl.AS51 F 1 CIiTION M0. 76~7-22 AND VIIRIANCE N0. 286 % (Cone I nue~)
7b-572
In rnspc~nse to quostloning by Commissloner Herbst~ Mr. Galger st~ted Chere werc plans for
Immedlate constructlon of the proposoci p~ ~act. Commisslonar Harbst the~ ~~oted Yh~t he
wos propa~red to suggest that the proFascd development be wiChheld untl) thc dralnagc
problems on Savanna Stre~t were resolvsd, Pspeclelly In ~view of the fect thac the subJect
property would draln enlirely ta the street anJ sai~ dralnage would bc considorable, that
the City was presently negoti~tin~ far the dralnage solutlon at tha west end of the
stre~t; that the proposed proJect had mertt but should be developed to carrespand wlth the
negotlations ln progress for tha right-o1'-way Por the drainage; th8t the 6-foot accessway
through the prufe+ct was not acceptable and R feet would be requtred~ necessitating revfsed
plans~ stnr.e h~e did nox feel that a hArdship existed ln connection with the devalapment (n
that respect; and that thG only vartanc.e whtch he felt c~uld be )ustiftod would be for the
two-story butld~ng hetght,
In respon5e to qucsttoning by Chatrman Johnson~ Office Engtnecr Jay Tltus advised that the
trsffic trfps per day had been calculated in the post using 8.5 trtps per day per unit but
they werc presently using 6~0 6.5 trl~,~ per d~y per unlt~ which mlght slightly modify the
previ~usly stateJ calculation.
Tr~affic Engineer !'aul S(nger advt~ed th~t tf ~ tr~ffic study was requfred~ it should be
the responslbtllty of the develaper of the subJect prop~rty~ and that presently a trafftc
flow st~~dY of Savanna Street w~s nor, avallable.
Ir~ response to questtoninq by Commissloner Farano~ Mr. Gsiger st~ted that b hammerhead
drive was propased to handle the erash collection vehlclen.
Assistant Planner Joel Fick advised that the mtnimum turning radfus wr~s 27 feet for
emergency vehicles a~d 38 feet for sanixatlon vehlcles. Thereupon~ Commtssioner Farano
noked that the petltloner shc,uld also louk at the access being discussed, ~•hen revising
the plans,
Chairman J~hnson revie.wed the existing number of apartments in the area, and C~xnissioner
Herbst noted th+at~ in view af the problems tliat appeared to be coming to light rather
for~afully with the properties on Savanna Sireet coming In one-by-one for development wlth
apartrt~ents~ he w~s becoming concerned about the circulstion element; that the cap~ctty of
Savanna Street would remalr~ and it eppeared that RM-1200 zoning was far to~ h~avy for the
area, anci about 8 units per acre might be studied. (n ~esponse~ Planning DirecCor Ronald
ThomNSOn advtsed L'hat~ in terms of density a~d clrculation~ the Planning Commission was
requ~sst~ng a General Pian amendment ~n~1 an area development ptan.
In resp~~~se to que~tloning by Commissioner Barnes, Civil Engineering Assistant Jack Judd
advised that~ assuminc~ the City had no difficulttes with the necessary right-of-way~ the
Master D~ainac~e Plan for the area should be farthcoming by the end of this year.
Cortm(ssioner Farano noted that he did not feel ix would be in the best interest of the
City to act on the subJect proposal untll the drainage problems wer~ resolved. Thereupon~
Commissioner Nerbst noted that since the petitloners had owned the property stnce 1947~ a
little m,ore time should not affect them that much. Mr. Geiger stipulated to a two-month
contlnuance~ to the Planning Cornm(ssion meeting of January 17, 1976~ for the submission of
revised plans and al;o for the area development plan and General Plan amendment sludies,
Mr. Thompson advised that the firsi General Plan amendment in 1977 was scheduled for
March.
Commissto~er Nerbst further noted that the subJect petitioners should r:alize that they
would have a problem if tne area was over-p~pulated with apartments and that it might be
that renters for the proJect would be hard ta cort~ by. Thereupon, Mr. Geiger stated he
would work w3th the ~ity on the matte~s in questian.
Commissioncr Farano uffered a motion~ secor.ded by Cortmissloner King and MO710N CARRIEU
;Comnis~toner Tolar being absent)~ that the Anahedm City Planning Cortmission does her~eby
reoF.~i the publtc hearing and canttnue consideration of Petitions for Reclassification No.
70-77~22 and Variance No. 2367 to the Planning Commission meeting of January 17. 1976, far
the reasons outltned c ove.
~ ~
MINUTkS~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, r~ovember t3, 1976 ~I(~'~j
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBIIC NEAfiING. ELBE~T E. ANU RHEA D. I.ANDES~ JR.~ 421 Mlest OrAngewood
N0, 76-77"~4 llv~nue~ Anaheim~ Ca, 97.802 (Owners); J. C. GIIINULIAS~ Nester Oovelopment
^ Company, P. 0. Box 2990~ Newport Beach, Cs. 92060 (Agent); reyuesting
that property desc~tbed ~s a;~ectHngularly-shaped percel of land consist-
Ing of approximately ~.9 acre located northeast of the tntQrsectlon of Orflngewood Avenua and
tiArbor doulevard~ approxtmatoly 505 f~~et north of the centorllne of Oranghwood Avenue and
6fiQ feet east of the cr,nterltne af HArbor Boulevard~ and furthcr describcd as 421 WesC
Orangewcwd Avenue~ be rer.lessifted from the RS-A-~+3,OOn (RESIQENTIAL/AGRICUITURAL) ZONE to
the RM-120Q (R~S~DENTIAI.~ MULTIPIE-FANILY) 'IONE.
No one (ndicate:ci their presence tn appositlon to subJect petttlon.
Although the StAff Report to the Pianniny Commtssion dated Nov~mber 8~ 1976~ was not read
at thc publlc hearing~ sald Staff Rep~rt (s referred to and madc a part ~f th~ min~tes.
Mr, Richard McMillen~ represent~ng the agent fnr the petitlaner~ appeared befure the
Planning Commiss(on to answer qu^stlons regarding the prapusai.
THk PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commfssfoner Nerbst offerad a motlon~ seconded by Commissioner King and MOTiON CARRIED
(Com~nissioner TolAr bcing absent)~ that the Anaheim City Plann~ng Commiasion docs hereby
recommend to the City founcil of the City ~f An~hetm that a negative. declaratlon from the
requirement to prepare an environmental impact report be ~pproved for the subJe~t proJect~
pursuant to the provisions of the California Env(ronmental Quality Act.
Commissioner• hierbst offered Resolutton Mo. PC76-2~5 and moved for its passage and
adoption, that thr. Anaheim City Piannin~a Ccr,~~~nisslon does hereby recortxnend to the City
Councli of the City af Anahei~ th~t Petieiors for Reciassificatlon No. 76-77-24 be approved
on the basis that~ although the Anaheim General Plan currently designed the subJecr.
property for commercial-recreatton uses~ General Plan Amendment No. 141~ pend(ng on the
property~ was recommended for appr•oval ~n Novernber 1, 1976, by the Planning Commission~
designating the prnperty for medium-density residentiai land u~e; subJect to the
Interdepartmental Comnittee rcr,c~r~rnendat(ons. (See Resalution Book)
On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES; COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ FARANO~ HERBST, KING, MORLEY~ JOHNSON
NQES; COMMISSIONF.RS: NONE
ABSEN7: COMMISSlONERS: TOLAR
VARIANCE N0. 2874 - PUBLIC HEARING. BERNARDO M. Ak4~ MARGARET L. YORBA~ 12S South Claudina
Street~ Anaheim, Ca. 9280~ (Owners); RON ALLEN~ 5556 East Santa Ana
Canyai~ Road~ Anatieim~ Ca, 9'2807, HIRAM A. DE FRIES, 26486 Veracruz
Lane, Misslo~ Vte,Jo~ Ca, 9267;~ and THOMAS L, WOODRUFF~ 1055 North Main Street, Suite 1020~
Santa Ana, Ca. 92701 (Agents); requesting WAIVER OF (A) MAXIMUM B~ILDING HEIGMT, (B)
I'ERMITTED USES, (C) MINIMUM BUIL0ING SETBACK FROM AN EXFRESSWAY, (D) MINIMUM BUILDING
SETBACK FROM AN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY~ (E) M~NIMUM I.ANDSCAPED SETBACK FROM AN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY~
(F) MiNIMUM LANDSCAPED SETBACK FRdM A RESfDENTIAI. ZONE~ AND (G) PR~NIBI7ED SIGNING, TO
CONSTRUC7 SELF-SERVICE GASOLINE PUMPS ~ND AN OFFICE BUILD;NG on property described as an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land conslsting of approximately 0.8 acre located at the
southeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road a~d Imperial Htghway~ having approximata front^
ages of 90 feet on the south side of 5anta Ana Ganyon Road and 5a0 feet on the east stde of
Imperial Nlghway. Property presentty classified RS-R-43•~00(SC) (RESIOENTIAL/AGRICULTURA,L~
SCENIC CORRIQOR OVERLAY) ZONE (wtth a resolution of intent to CL(SC)).
Approximately 35 persons indicated their presence in oppositfon to the subJect petition.
Assistant Planner Joel Fick read the Staff Report to the Plan~ing Commission dated
November 8, 1976~ and satd Staff Report is referred to as if set forth in fu'1 !n the
minutes.
Mr. Th~mas L. Woodruff, the agent for the petiCioner~ appeared before the Planntng
Commission and reviewed the unusual shap~ ~nd size oF the subJect property, stating thet
it v~as l~cated adJ~cent to tennts courts and a school but was several hundr~d yards away
~ o
MI NUTES ~ C I TY PLANN I NG CUMMI5S I ON ~ Novemb-:r 8~ 1976 ~~'' ~7~+
VARIANCE N0, 2Fi7A (Contlnued)
~r~m thn residentlal zonc; that thc zoning fur the school property should probably be
corrected to en Instltutlona) type zone rether than agricultural/resldentlal; that the
lady sltttng next to him at this meoting had Indlcated to him that the proposal wa~s
needod; that the proposal wns to exclusively dispense gasoline to the residentlel aroa;
that the propcrty w~uld not be viewed from Che freeway and would nat be a m~)c-r repslr
shup; that~ regarding the setback: elong Santa A~a Canyon Roed~ the propased ~~}flce
bullding ~~uuld be on an tdentical plane with the 0ank of America 9u(ldlr.g in the area;
that~ regardtng the buildtng he~.qht waiver~ thc proposal to butld on the proF~erty llne
would permit a"~" foat high butlding, howevcr, tf thc ad)acent property wer~a not zonad
residenilal, there would nut ba a height restriction and that varlance would not ba
necassary; Lhat he subm(tted thtat the Planning Conmisslon had not in many ye:arg consldered
a proposal for ~ service station tl~at was not on a corner; however~ thP prolaosal was not a
typlcal service statlon with s(gning anc: tnterplay at the mdJor tntersectton And, alChough
the property was located c~ a maJor roaciway, it would not dlsrupt the Canycm aree trafflc;
th~t~ i f the 1 i teral requl rements of tfie Code were crxnpl ied wi tl~~ they wou'Id heve only
about 1"`k of the tntal site to build on; thot the proposed landscaptng along Imperlal
Highway was refl~cted on the rcvisecl plan and was well over the minimum re:qulrementa; that
the southerly drlvewAy had bePn dele~ed from tlie plans~ leavtng one drlve+Nay at the
soutlierly end of the parcel; that they were proposing one stgn whfch would include the
Shell logo and the State-requ(red price slgns~ and thers would be no rool' signs or signs
in the planters; that there wauld be no roof-mounted equipment and no sign llghting~ etc.;
that they could probably live with 30-foot wide drtveways an~ any less Mbuld not be In Che
best Interest of traffic safety or design in vlew of the severe Gurve Just south of the
subJect site~ and the entering trafflc would probably make a slanted approach; that they
d1d not wish [o i'iave three or four lanes of traffic trying to u~e one cJriveway~ creating
traffic confliGts; and that they were aware af the concerns of the nearby res(denttal
area.
Ms. Barbare Simundza~ 666~ EASt Paseo Canci~n~ Anaheim, appeared before the Planning
Commission in opposit(on and inquired why the 20 feet of landscaptng could not be provided
in front of the gas station. Sh~ noted that the location of the dttvewsys was not an
adequate reason.
Mrs. Pam 8erry~ 6012 la Paz Circle~ Anaheim~ appeared before the Planning Commisslon in
apposltion and lha~ked the peCiti~ner for offering the area a gas ,tatton~ stating that
the prtce of the gas would probably be too hTgh~ anyway; that she patronized the gas
station on Tu•;tin Avenue because of their low prices; that the sei.backs approved for the
Ba~k of America Buildtng were a mistake and to approve another pr~~Ject with comparable
setbacks would be another mistake; that, contrary t~ what Mr. Wocrdruff had stated~ the
subJect property was a corner parcel; that the best cure for tral~fic s~fety (n the area
was not to increase it; that the general iocation of the site would probably attract many
customer~ with "0" on their gas gaye, especially in the morning hours when people were
hurrying to get to wotk and witl~ schoo! children walking tn the area at 7:~7r a.m.; that.
in her o-~tnion, the CraFfic would defin(tely increbsE at the ir~ters~ctioi~ and the
accidents would also increase with children possibly being killed there~ especlaliy if a
traffic signal were not installed; and thal she would hope thr~t the subJect proposal ~vould
be a Plann(ng Commisslon test case wlth relationship to traffic as well as the Scenic
Corridor Ordinance,
t1r5. Mary Dinndo~f~ 131 La Paz~ Anaheim~ President oF the Sa,~ta Ana Canyon lmprovement
Assoclation, appeared before tl~e planning Commis;ion in oppr~sit(on ard ..tated that the
petittoners should be given an award for courage and optimism, since, in her opinion~ thz
proposal was one of the mnst ridiculous propos~ls she had ~,een in the Canyon area; that,
after the area residents and property o~.~~ers had fought the plans for tt~e adjacent
shvpping center and revised plans were negAtiated and finrjlly constructed~ tha petttloners
were very happy and ;horoughly pleased with their shopping center which would otherwise
have been an impossible situation; that the petitioners ~~ere aware of the setback
requirements and should tiave proposed something very sm~ll and narrow on the subJect site~
because that was all that could legitimately qo ~~i the property; and~ furthermore~ the
petltioners knew ttiat a serv(ce station had to be integrated with a shopping cente~. Mrs.
Dinndorf then inquired if the proposal met the parking requirements.
In response, Assistant Plann(ng Director-Zonin~ Annikra Santalahti advised that the
proposed parking was in conformance with Code requlre.ments, which related to flnor area of
the office building and number of emiloyees at the service station.
~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNiNG COMMiISSION~ Navember 8~ 1y76
VARIANCE N0, 2874 (Conttnucd)
76- 57S
Ms. Merle Armento~ 4219 Balnbrldge llvenue~ Anaheim~ appear~d bcfora the Planntng
Commlsslon In favar of the proposal nn~i cook exceptfon to M~~. Berry"s statements thdt the
ge~sollne would te too htgh priced; that sha had to struggle flnancit~lly and felt that Mr.
Ue Frles' gasoline~ at 5~.9 cents~ was econ~xnlc~l; that most peopte sl~-ed down ta enter a
servl~e statlon rnJ~ therefore~ the trsf lc gennreted by the usc should not be a hazard to
the school chi~dren; thot, pr~sently, xhe had to go to the center of Anahetm to get
reasonably-prtc~d g~soline; and that she olso shupped regularly at the adJacen~ •~h~~ppl~g
center.
Chairman Johnson n~tecl that thc prlce of the gasallne was ecademlc~ slnce the Plr~nning
Commlgsion c~uld not bind the petttloner ta scll gesollne cheaply,
Mrs. Jantcn H~11~ S~5 Tumbleweed Road~ Anahcim~ President oP the Westrtdge Homeawners
Associatlon, appeared bef~re the Planning Commtssion In oppoaltion and statcd that when
Mr. Allen provlausly discussed the proposed cfevelopment he had promtsed t~ meet with tfie
homeowners and to tai:e any constructive critictsm~ offered~ however~ he d(d nat mett with
them; that there were thr•ee schools in the ar~a; that there were no "U~turn" provtslons at
the Intersectton and the gite was totelly inaccesstble~ as far as most a~cesses were
concerned; that the homeowners were opp~sed to a servlce statlon In the subJect area~
~spectally wtth the kind ~f trrffic Involved; that the proposed access was a confltcxing
pattern Por ingress and egress; and that Mr. Allen did not come net~r the hc,~neowners to try
to work out alternate solutions for development of the property.
In rebutt~l~ Mr. Woodruff ~t~ted Mr. A11en was only (nterested in the office bullding
proposed; that the prop~rty owners and ~perators o~ t.he proposed develapmP:nt were fully
aware of the fact that t~~^ subJect property was not an accesstble parcel; th~t, in tl~nir
apinion~ the propnsal was ~~ compatible use; that~ with respect to the access at the
south~r•ly end of the property, realistically, there should nat be any t;afflc conflicts;
that an oftic:e building diri not generate hic~h-volume traffic ltke a drugstore~ etc.~ and
the service statlo~ woul.t ge~~~.raCe more trafftc than the ~ffice building, how~ver~ the
service station customers .:ould be dtspersed over the site; that lt would be a pour ch4(ce
to make the property a test case; that. ~lthough he shared ma~y of the pains of the
Canyon's developTent~ the prospects of develaping the subJect proper~ty for any use was
almost nil; that the City had not offered to purcheso Che property for a park~ f~owever, it
would not be a very safe park for children to play; and that~ wixh the setbacks proposed,
being co~nparable to the 9ank oi~ America setbacks, they felt tl~e proJect would be very
presentable in the Scer~ic Corridor.
1'fiE PUBIIC HEARI~lG WAS CLOSED.
Commissloner Herbst noted that the ;~etitioner dtd not futiy know the history of the Bar~k
of Amertca set~acks; that the adJacent shopp(ng center was very flne and the proposal wa~
a terrlh;e exam,~le of what the petitioners had done in the past; that thz ~rdlnance
required that a service station must be integratPd with a shopping cPnter in the Scenic
Corridor; that two us~.s would not be permitted on the same property; that a servlce
statlon on the subject corner would be a disaster~ si~ice the trafftc entering and leaving
the propPrty would be very had; that he was opposed to the service statton and to the
proposed signing; that some low-sta~ding signs had been allowed ln shopp(ng centers a~d
the Planntng Commisslon would be considering a law, monument-type sfgn far bustnesses in
the 5cenic Corridur, however, satd provisions were not an ordinartce yet.
Mr. Woodruff explafned that the proposed signing was built right into the berm and w~s far
marc attrACtive than a sign which mtglit be 1A or 16 feet in the alr.
Comm(ssioner Ner6s~ continued ~y noting that the site could be develQpe~+ !f the developer
wa3 not trytng to aut so much on tt; that he was fnterested to know why the praperty was
not developed as part of thc schnol; and that tt was p~ss{ble that eny hardships in
connectlnn with th~ property were created by the petttionar.
In response to questior.ing by Commissioner 8~rnes~ Mlss Santal~ahtt advised that no
correspondence had been received from the Canyon Hlgh School regarding the proposal.
Commissioner Herbst noted that with nne building on the property, a variance from the
sntback res~ulrements adJacent to the residential zone wouid be tolerable; however, the
wnivers related to the Scenic Corridor requlrements could and should be met.
~
~
~
MINUTES~ GITY PLANNIN6 COMMISSION, N~vomber 8~ 1976
')6-576
VARIANCE N0, ?.87y (Contlnued)
Chelrman Johns~n not~sd that varlances were to provida for development oP hardship parr.els~
whtch the subJect propert~y appeared ta be.
C~,mmissihnar i'arano tnqutred IF the petitlone~ would consid~er e conttnurnce for a redesign
of the prapose~l; and notad ttiat although he. did not complately ag~en wlth the Chnirman~
some constderetfan wlCl~ re~pect to setbacks mtght bc in order~ atthougli the homeawners in
the area mighe obJ~ct~ aspeclally alonu Imperlal Hlghway; that the setbncks elong Senta
Ana Canyon Roed pr~bebly should be observed; and that It was not In tha best interest of
anyone cone~rned to push any kind of sign v~rlance In the 5cenlc Corricior.
Mr. Woodruff sta;ed tftiat~ under the~ circumstances and becaase of the comments perteining
to the proJect, he d!d not feel that a conttnuance would be !n order; and that, if Che
property werc devel~ped completely ln llne with the comnolnts~ it would be a ccxnpletely
dtfferent "hall game." Mr, Woodruff continued Ey stating that the sub,)ect parcel was
unique in deslgn and in the fact that it Was awned by one person; hawever. he was
representing thc owner and two developers and he had to malntaln hts ~oeltion in the
mattar.
Cummisstoner Barnes ~~~tccl that Mr. Yorba~ the property owner in quastlon~ ~~ad been in the
Canyan aroa long b~fc~re anyone else and had done some nlce thin~s~ aanettMes on his c~wn;
and th~t~ in hcr ~pinton, he had been instrumental in the resultant shopping center In the
area whl,h was extremr,ly good-look?ng.
Traffic Enc,(neer P~ul Si~ger pointed out that the praposed ~orther~y driveway of the
servlce station had an Ad~acent and contiguaus left-turn lane whlch was with no U-turns
slmply because the roadway wRS not wide enough for the U-t-!rns without windtng up in a
ditch; however~ as ~oon as the roadway was wide enuugh, ~:-turns would be provlded for. F1e
further reminded the Planning Commission concerning accesse:; wtthin 330 feet of Santa Ana
Canyon Road presenCly under study for establishment of a policy.
Commissioner Farano nated that~ in view of the 330-foot pollcy mentloned by Mr, Singer,
the proposal wnuld definitely have to be redesigned; and that he was ~n Favor of making
the 330-foot policy a formal Rolicy ot the Planning Cortanission and Clty Council.
N~r. 1Jood~ruff stated that tl~e City 7raffic Enyineer had not indlcated approval or
disappraval rega~ding tne northerly driveway; however. they realized the problems and
would not be c~ossiny tr~ffic~ since their exit would be onewway only; and that~ under the
circumstances~ they felt thP proposal woul~ not create a traffic conflict. Following
consultationwtth Mr. Yorba~ Mr. Woadruff request~d a faur-week conttnuance to revtew and
revise the propos~d development plans.
In respanse to questioniny by Commissiuner Farano~ Mr, Singer advised that a left-turn
E~~~cket existed more than 330 feet from the intersection and could serve the subJect
property.
Gommissioner Farano affered a motion~ seco~ded by Commissloner Herbst and MOTION CRR~tIED
(Cortmissioner Tolar being absent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commisslon does hereby
reopen the publ(c hearing and continue constdera_(on of Varianca No. 2874 to the Planning
C~mmission meeci^g of December G~ 1976~ as reauested by the petitioner,
COMMISSIUNER f3ARNES LEFT THE COUtJClL CHAM4ER TEMPORARILY AT 9:37 P.M.
Follawing some discussion~ Commiss?oner Far•ano offered a motioii, seconded by Commissioner
lierbst and ~tOTION CARRIED (Corrmissioners 9arnes and Tolar being absent). that the Anaheim
City Plnnn~ng Commissi~n Joes liereby d!rect Staff to prepare an overlay map of the areas
lying wlthin approxlmately 33~ feeC of Santa Ana Canyon Rcaad~ tn order for the Planning
Commi:.~tan to cor~sider the establishment of a policy in cannection with access points
withln sald 330-foot radi~~ of the Scenic Corri~~r.
RECCSS - At 9:40 pom,, Chairr~an Johnson decl+~red a recess.
RECONV~~~E - At 9:5o p.m.~ Chairman Johnson ~ecnnvened the meeting
'~ wlth Commissioner• Tolar being ahsent.
. - _. ~
s ~
MINIIT~S~ CITY PLANNING COMMI~SION~ N~vember 8~ 1976
~6_r,77
COIJDITIOPIl1L USE - PUDLIC NEARIPlG. CALVIIRY BAP1'IST CFIURCII~ 27~0 F.ast Wegner !1~•enue,
PF:RMIT N0. 1G61 An.~h~tm~ Ca. 92i~i05 (Owncr); requestlny permisslon to [STABL1SIi A
PRIVATF SCHO~L AI~D PRE:~SCNOOL on prnperty descrtbocl es t~n irrcgularly-
shapecJ p~rcel of lancl consistin9 of approximntely 1.~~ acres located at
the sauthevest corner oF Wayner Avenue anJ Rlu Vlsta Street~ havln~ appr~xlmAte frontages
of l~~ feet on thc south side uf Wayncr Avenue and 450 fect on the wese sidc oF Rio Vista
Street~ and further describec.l ns 27L'0 [asl Wagner Avenue. Property presently classlfl~d
RS~A-~+3~~0~ (R[:SIDF.PlTII1L/AGftICIII,TURAI.) ZOP~C.
Three rersons indlcate~~~ thelr pres~nce fn opNosltion t~ thC ~ubject pet(tton.
Assistant Plann~r Joel Ftc.k read tha: Str,ff Rapurt to thc Pl~nntng Carmisslon dAted
NovPmber $~ 1~76~ And sal~l StaFf Report is refcrred to ~s if s~t fnrtl~ In fi~ll in thn
minutes,
In response to qu~st(oniny hy Cummissloner Nerbst~ Assistant City Attorney Frank Lnwry
advi;ed t-iat the final declsion pertaln(ng to a permanent encroschment into the public
right-of••way for the proposecl faci l i tte:s would be wi thin the powor of th~.~. Clty Counci l~
however, the ~'lanniny Cc,~nmission coul~ make a recommendation thereon.
The Reverend Arthur Rame:y~ Postor of Calvary aaplist Church~ the petitloner~ appe:ared
before the Planning Commission and indlcatecl that the proposal ~~~as for schoo) grades
kindergarten through twelftl~~ ancl tha St~ff Report should be corr~cted in that respect.
I~e then offered to ~n~wer any questlons concerning the proposal.
Mr. Donald J. Rou~h~ ~~~~ South Ma~,jan~ Anaheim~ appeared beforc the Planning Commission in
oppositlon and stated he had livcd and workeJ in tf~e City for approxima~ely 2$ years; that
he was in favor ~f children and hfs comments should not be construed to mean he dlsliked
them; however~ he could not watch ehe Monday night football yame oi~ televtsion in his den
because of the nals~ from the subJect property; that he iiad asked the pastnr wl~y khey did
not buy liis home so that the problem would not be contlnuous and the pastor had indtcated
he did not want to listen Co the noise either; that the previous a~,~•roval for the church
and facllit~es was granted suUJect to lanclscaping being provlded along the aas; ~!~p ~f
tl~e houses in che area, and that very little landscaping was planted to abate the noise;
that at tlie ttrne of the previous expansion of the facllities~ there was Just enough
parking to meet the Zoning Code requiren~ents and he was wonderi~g (f the petitianers wauld
be permttted to use the residentlal streets i:i the neigi~borhaod for thelr parking If ~he
subJect expansion was approved~ especially on P~arJan as they presently dld on Sundays;
that his property value was presently $80~~00 and he quPStioned ~~hat effects the ~ropasal
might have on his property as well as his r,eighbors' propert~•; that he had assumed that
Rio V!s:a Street wouid be deveioped f~~rthe~ for vehicular use; that I~e sp~ke for
appraxirrateiy ten property awners whose only ingress and egress to their tract was MarJan;
and that he had not canvassed the entire trbct since hE: received the nottce ofr public
hearing on NovemE~er ~~th ancl had not had the tir~te to canvass.
in rebuttal~ the Reverend F.amey stated the children played running ar~l c(rcle games tn the
parking lot until 3;20 p.m. on Monday nights and really en,joyed them~ making iots of
rsolse; that, conkrary to what Mr, Roush had stated~ he had offered to purchase Mr. Roush's
property at one time; and that the churcli had given ke.mporary access for a pool company to
install a pool on Mr. Rouch's property.
In response, Mr. Rousli stated he did not have a pool on liis property.
Reverend Ramey contlnucd by statiny they had moved the playground from the fron*_ of the
property clue to the traffic Aa:idents ~t the corner; that there was a gate at No. 3
Buildiny and the City property so that the people hringing tt~eir chlldren would use it to
make the chi!dren and everyone else sa~f~e. He further stated that the regular s~hool hours
would be from 9:0() a,rr~. to 3:00 p,m.
T~fE PUBL~C HEARIr~G WAS CLO~ED.
In response to q~estion(ng by Commissioner Herbst~ Reverend Ramey staLed there would nut
be a large number of chil:~ren in tha prop~sed facilities a~ the the present ttm~, the
.iumber being 12 to ~+0 students, ~nless the stze of ths facil(ttes were further increased;
that~ if the City decided to take the public right~of-way~ the church would take their
buildings off it and sell the subJect property; that the church had been dlscussing
putting up a two-story educational unit where the house presently was; howevcr, tf.ey were
~ ~
M I NUTf S~ ~( TY Pll1NN I Nr COM~I I SS I ~P~ ~ Nuvemb~ ~$~ 1~76 7G-578
~ONUITIONAL USL PERMIT NQ, 1661 (Continued)
Just in the talking stan~~. 11~e presAnted, for vlowing, a picture of whAt th~y were
telki~~g nbout.
C~mmi ss I ~ner Herbs t revl ewed cli.; orev (ous cc~nd i t lons of appr~ove 1 for tf~e church
fecllttles~ ctc., n~ting lhflt frirly heavy landscaplny haci bean requlrecl ndJscent to the
restdentiel propert.les; anc' that the parking lot was presently being used :+s ~e playground.
ReverenJ Romey stated thay had provldcd landsceping In eccordence with tlu; Clty's
requlrements~ and were nlayiny In the: parkln~ lot only on Mondey nlghts; and thet the high
school b~sketball courts~ etc.~ would be used only durlny the cla~ytlme. Camilssluner
Nerbst Chen noted that sumc: people llked tu have p~:aco and qulet durtng tho daytlmc as
well 8s during the ntght; and Chat it appenrnd th~t :he plens for the facillrlas were not
in context with thQ orig(nA1 proposal for use of tha property' and the existing ~~~"c,blems
sh~uld be ellevlated~ also.
Reverend Ramey st~tad thnt their growth wou~d be over a perlad of time and when they
conslc~ered they ;.~d oul'grown the sl te t~sey •,+ould probehly sel l the lond ~nd get into
another area where they could have enough l~nd fur thelr purposes; r~nd that~ wi'.h chG
present plan ~nd addition~l facilftics end utlllzing thc Clty rfght-~f-wmy propcrty~ they
would be able to have 14~ student_ on the r,roier;y.
Commis5lorer Hc~bst then ind;r,ated that il• appeared the complete plar~s of the churGh and
school ex;~ension, prr.sent and future, shnuld be prepAred for considerakion~ tncluding the
cla~:ro~ms, pt~ysical educstt~n fACiltties ancl the other rcquired factlitles a, a schaol;
and that the property was backing up to appruxtmotely nine homes and, althnugh the people
wera n~t opposed La the scho~l, there would be apparent problems involved,
In r~sponse to qucstinning by Chairman Johnson, Mr. Flck read tl~e prevfously Imposed
condltlon (August~ 1970) requlrin~ tree screeniny edJac.ent to the weste.rly property llne,
conslstlr~g of trees on 2~-foot Genters; wl~ereupon, Reverend Ramcy stated that said
requlrement had been met, Chairman Johnson then noted that although the F t~perty was not
developed with ~ cummercial center~ the subJect factllties could be more aggravating thar~
a coirmerciai activity to certain persons.
As ~~tnt of InforR~ati~n~ hir, Lowry advtsed that he was aware of a Joint study In
progress by the Parks and Recreation Department for Jolnt use of thP Orange County Water
Dlstrtct property and in the event that the proposal for Jolnt use v.ent forr~erd~ the City
wc~uld be using the full right-of~way width of Rio Vlsta Street; howevei•, ha dId not know
the current status ~~f the study.
In recponse to auestioning by Cortanissfoner King~ Reverend Rame~~ stated thet as far as he
knew~ the only utilitles hhich would be located underground for the proposed expansfon
would be waYer and not sewer,
Commisstoner HerbSt reiterated that the co~text of rhe originally prnFosed use of the
prc+perty was bein~ changed greatly; that the ~se~ as expanded, was not approprtate~
espec(tlly if the public rlght-of-way were to be huilt upon; ~nd that the pruperty was
definttaly too small for the proposed expanded use.
Reverend Ram~y explafned that the school was an accelerated Chr(stian educatlon program
and would, mare or less, be a one-room school hous~. In resN~nse to questin~(ng by
Commissioner Farano~ Reverend Ramey clarif(eci that the submitted plens d1d not show thG
total dev~lopment plans for thc stte; whereupon~ Commisstoner F:~~ano noted that the
subJect property was definitel~~ not suttable f~r the use and was~ "180~degreesoff" from the
orlginally approved use; and that 140 students was entlrely tou much for the subJect 1.4-
acre partel. R~verend Raney Pu~ther clari`ted that the ~40 students were not antlcip&ted
for a numbe r of years to cume, Commissioner Farano then stated that he dtd not favor
constructing permanent structures over the public right-of-way; and that th~ church was
,~apular and w~uld c~nt;nue to grow exceedine all expectatlans.
Chairman Johnson noted Chat he was symp~thetic on the b~sis th~t the Church daes a lot of
good for a neighborhood and par~tcularly for the chlld~e~i; that the efforts on the part of
this church ~~rere in the right ditectfon; hor~ever~ even good Intentions sometlmes ieaned
too hard~ if crytng to do more thAn the property w~~uld allow.
Mr. Tam Unternah~•er~ 1959 South Resh~ Apt. A.~ Anaheim~ appeared before the Planntng
Commisstfln in favcr of the proposal~ partly rep~esenting the church~ and stated tihey were
~
~
~
MINUTES~ C ITY PLANNI NG COMMISS ION~ Novembe+r 8~ 197d 7b'S79
CONn IT IONAL USE PERM 1 T N0, 1661 (Cont I nued)
new at scerting A p~ogram of tl~e nnture proposed and hnd felt that If th~y got to the
posltlon whero thny were too bty for the perccl~ they would have to move.
Commi ss I~mer Fare~o added thn t 1 t wou I d be ~ i ff i cu) t to make a movn f rom the property
after gettinc~ eitablished, especlally slnc~ It wuuld be expenslve to rtwva~ and lhe
buildinqs wuuld ba permanent in nature; and that the Planninc, Commisslon would be fated
with F~ardehip sl~owtngs In tl~e event that tlie matter wes further heard.
Mr. Untern++hrer requested tn be permi tted to e:cpand the Faci l i t les for a l imt ted
enrollmnnt, etc.~ and that they woufd not come before the Planning Conmisslon to raquest
an lncross~; thot~ reqArding the noise~ he resllzod that the one f~our of playing mlght be
an Inconv~~nlence~ however, they ware wl l) ing to plant some smell shrubs, etc., to further
buffer thc sound; that thern were l+~wnmaaers~ dogs, et~.~ maklr~g nolsc In the nelghborhood
during the regular cFiurch rnr.etin9s~ anci nelCher he nor th~e church was complai~ing abc+ut
that.
Comm(ssioner Ilerbst suggeste~+ th~t perhaps an envlronmcntal lmpact repurt should be
reyutred for the proposed sch.,ol; whereupon~ Reverend Ramey state~l that the proposal was
not for r, full-'~lown school, slnce they rrould nat have all that many students; th~+t ic
wauld not oe dlfficu lt for th em to limit the students~ since they Nauld only have certain
type studenls; thAt if they ~vere limiteci to 40 students at thls tfine it would glve theni
time to prepnre to move from tlie subJect locat(on; and thak tf the Planning Commission
disappruved tFie proposr,l, they would be stopping a fantastlc program before It ~ot off the
ground,
Commissloner Barnes noted that rr.gardless of what an e~vlronmentay impact report would
say, there was other property in the City which could be rented or leas~d to start the
program; Lhal the subJect prc~perty was too small~ the facllltles would be ~n City
property, and there were negotiations taking place in regards to using the publlc rlght-
of-way; and~ rherefore~ she could not vote in favor of the proposal for tliose reasans, (ii
addl tlon t~ tlie fnct that furtl~er development of tlie property woulri be detrimental to the
ad J acen t res I den t t a 1 propert t es .
Comml~sioner Herbst offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner King and MO'f10N CARRIED
(Cortr~~issloner Farano voting "no" ancf Cammissioner Tolar being absent) ~ that the Anaheim
C t Cy P 1 ann i ng Cortm i~ s i on Joes hereby recomnend ta the i.1 ty Counc 1 1 of the G 1 ty of Anahe i m
that a nr.gative declaratlon from the requirement to prP;,are an environmenta) '.mpact re~ort
be approved for the subJect proJect~ pursuant to the provisions of the California
Envi~o~mental Qusli ty Act.
Commissioner Herbst offered ResoiutEon No, PC7b-236 and moved for its passage and
adoptian~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commisslon does hereby deny Petttion for
Cond t t i ona 1 Use Pe rm! t No, t f,61 on the bas I s that the proposa 1 to expand and prov i de
educa t i ona 1 fac 1 1 t t i es for g rades k i nde rgar ten thraugh h I gh school ( twe 1 f th g rade) i s iiot
witFiln the intent of prevlo~s conciitional use permlts ~~proved for the church cn~mplex and
pre-school nursery. and alarger site wculd be more approp~late for the praposed
expansien; that tes timony was presented that the existtng u~e of the property I~as been
detrimental to the adjacenr s(nglc-family residential properttes anc~ that the proposed
elcpanston of the use would :~ubstantiall~~ increase the nois~ and other impacts; that
buffering~ in addit3on to the exlsting wall, ~hould be provided for the protection of the
adJacent single-family residential properties; that the subJect property is relntiveiy
small and na-row an d development in the manner propased to include encr4achment into the
public rt~~ht-of-way would over-develop ttie s(te, since the enrollment ot the school
facil(tte~~ would imrnediately be 12 to 4Q students~ with ant(iipateJ grawth to 140 students
in the future when the fac( 1 t tles were furttier expanded~ tncluding the addition o' a two-
sCory structure; tl~at the tota? future development plans for the property were n~t
submitted for review; ancithat the praposed further development in the public right-of-
way~ in view of a c urrentjoint study by the Pa~ks and Recreation Department and the
Orange County Wate r DistricL for use of said rlght-of-,:ay~ would not be in the best
interest of the Ci ty of Anaheim or the petitloner. (See R~s~lution Bc~ok)
Commissioner Johns o n noted that he would not support the resolution on the basls that the
petittonzr pointed out that ;.he school was not as big as ~he Commission was picturing it;
that he agreed tha t dawn the line the enrollment would be too great for the site~ but at
present denlal ~vould bc sto Qping a good work; and~ furthe~mo~e, `here were. more than 4Q
persons i n many bu i ld ~ ngs,
' '" T
MINUTFS~ CITY PL~NNING C~MMISSION, November 8~ I9)6 76-5~
CQND1710NAL USE PERMIT N0. 1661 (Contlnued) ~
On roll ca11~ the foregoln~ resolution was passed by the follo~rtng vote:
AY~S; CQMM15SIO!~f.RS: DA~NES~ FARAr10, HERBST~ KING~ MOHLEY
NOES: COMMISa10N~RS; JOHNSRN
ABSENI': COMMISSIONERS; TOLAR
CONDITIONAL USE - PUDLIG HFO'ING. SOUTNERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT LUTHERAN CNURCH-MISSOURI
PERMI'~ N0. 1663 SYNG~ "r. 0. ~~~x 6 880~ Los Angelns~ Co. 90022 (Owner); DENNIS WENMUkLLER,
~,Rr!;UR STEPI~ENS ~ ARCH I TECTS ~ INC. ~ 11718 Wes t P( co Bou 1 evard ~ Los
Anqcles, Ca. 90064 (Agents); requesting permisslon to ESTADLISH A CNURCH
ANO PRE-SCHOOL on property described as a rectanc~ularly-shaped parcel of land canslsting of
approxtmately 4,2 acres l~cated ~n th e east slcle oP Solomcm ariva betwe~n Santa Ana Canyon
Road .~nd Constantlne Road~ having app roximate frontages of 630 feet on the Qast side of
Solomon Drlve~ 305 fRet on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Roa~i, and 285 feet on the
norcn slde nf ConstantinP Road. Pro e rty presr,ntly classlfled RS-A-4~,OOU(SC) (Rk.SiDENT1AL/
AGRiCULTURAL-SCENIC CORRIDQR OVERLAY~ ZONE.
No ons indicated their prPSence in op positton to the subJect petttion; h~wever~
approxtmately 2b persons Here present in t'avor.
Although the Staff Report to the PlannTng Comnission dated November S~ 1976, was n~t rtad
at the publlc hearing~ sat~ Staff Repo rt is referrod to and made e part of the m(nutes.
Mr. Dennls WehmuPiler~ aqent for the petitioner. appeared b~fare the Planning Conmisslon
and descrtbed the church'g place In th e communtty. Ne stated that a pre-school was
Included in the proposal, but was not of a school nr~ture.
THE PUDLIC NEARING WAS CL05ED.
In response to questioning by the Plan ning Commission~ M~. Wehmuelier stated khere would
be no boarding of students and that it ~s becoming increasinglv diffic:ult for each church
to run its own school~ from an economic~, standpolnt. Mr. Wehr.,ueiler requested to be able
to mak.e the street improvements as th e pr~perty was tmprav~d and agreed to post bonds as
required, in lieu thereof. He furthe r stated that~ from a*.raffic standpoint, it was moPt
deslrable to have the propused traffic ~attern than one havtng access 330 feet fram Santa
Ana Canyon Road.
Traf~ic [:ngineer Paul Singer explained that the j30~foot policy a!ona Santa Ana Canyon
Road was to facilitate traffic movemen t and alleviate the congestion on satd street~
prlmatily concerning left turns in and out of drtveways.
In response to questloning by Comm(ssioner King~ Mr. Wehmueller stlpulated to ccxnp~ying
with the City requiremc~nes pertainin g to trash storaye aress.
Chairma~ Johnson noted that t;~e propo sal was very slmilar to the cliurch proaect just
considered on this agenda~ hcweve~, there was ~io apposition; wherPUpon~ Camiissioner
Barnf~ noted ttiat the ~htldren were no t on the property yst to complatn about. She
inyuired if thP petitloner could swit ch the posittons of the f~tu~e building In fro~it wlth
the playgraund to n~..~ve the play area away fran the property line adJacent to the
resic!pnttal propertles to prevent future problems. Th~: petitioner so stipulated.
Commissiqner Barnes then noted that th e 330-faot policy with res~ect to actess adJacent to
Santa Ana Canyon itoad was vPry approp riate for the subJect developme~t. The petitloner
reiterated khat they preferred to have the plan as submitted.
Commissioner Nertst suggested an outlet drive onto Solomon Drive, ta be cont~olled by a
center divtder; and that, otherwise~ there wouid b~ a prohlem created withtn the parking
lot 'itself.
Chalrman Johnson noted that the subJe ct proposal m(gt~t be an instance where a canpromise
to the 330-foot policy was appropria te.
Assistant Planner Joel Fick noted tha t there was a tract sign existing on the subJeCt
property and that the Planni~g Commis sion may wish to require that it ba rr.movd prior to
- ~ T-,-
~ ~
MINU'T~S~ CITY PLANNING COMNISSIOt~~ November ., }76 7b•5~~
COND1710NA1 USE PERMIT N0. 166~ (Contfnued)
;~~e tssuence of a~uilding permit~ If tli~ proposal were approved. Tha petltlonar so
st 1 puleted.
Some dtscusston was held concernfno a wlndrow of eucalyptus trens whlch would remein on
the subJect prapc~ ty.
Commisslonor Ilerbst affered a motlon~ seconded by Comnissloner King and MOTION CARRIED
(Comrnlssioner TolAr being abscnt)~ that the Anahetm Clty Planning Carmisslon cloes hereby
reccx~rnenJ to the City Councll of tl7e City of Anahelm that a negattvt declaratlon from tlie
repu 1 rement to nreparo an envl ronmental Impac~ report be approved for the~ sub)ect proJoct~
pursuant to Che ~~ravlsions of tl~e Celifor•nia ~nvironmmntal Quallty Act.
Cortxnlesloner Herbst offered Resolutlon No. PC76-237 <,nd moved for i~s passage and
adop tlon~ that the Anahefm City Planning Commission cioas hareby grant Petitian fo~
Con ditlanal Usc Permlt No. 16E3. ~ubJect to the stlpulatton of thc petttloner tu provlda a
buff~~r for the single-famlly resid~nces from the proposed play yard, er.cfiAnging locetfons
wlt h the future clas~room butiding which ts located immc3dlately west of the play yard on
the submtCt~.scl plans, snd that preci$e plans of sald rel~catlon shall be submitted ta the
F'lanning Con~misston for approval prior to the tssu~nce of a building permtt; thnt the
pla ~ nin.y Commisston does hereby determtne that preclse plans for drtveway locatlons along
So1~rAn Dri~~e shall be submttted for review and approval by the Traffic Englncer and the
Pla n ~iny Cammisston prior Co the issuance of a bullding permtt, sald plans to bc
sub starrially in conformance wfth a City policy discouraging driveway and uther vehicular
access l~cations withTn 330 fcet of Santa Ann Canyon Road; subJect ta the stipulatlon ~f
th~ petltloner to remove the ~xisting off-site tract si~n(s) f rom the subJect property.
prio r to the tssuance af a buildfng permit nnd pro~iding trash storage areas In ar,cordance
wtth approved plans on file with the Offic~e of the Director of Publlc Works; and sub,~ect
to zhe Interdepartmental Conmittee recommendations. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the foll~wing vote:
AYES; COMt11SSI0PIERS: BaRNES, Ff1RAN0, HERBST, KING, MORi,EY, JUN~~SON
NOES: CQMMiSSIONERS; NONF
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: T6LAR
~'NV 1 RONMENT.AL IhiPACT - For e General Plan for the ex~ansion of electrical uti 1 i ty
REPO RT N0. 190 substation and i`acilities in the Santa Ana Canyon/Anaheim area.
Commissioner Herbst offered a moti~~~~ seconded by CorRnis5loner Farano and MOTION CARF.~ED
(Commtssioner Tolar being ~bsent)~ that Environmental Impact Report No. 190 be referred ~o
the Canyon Area General Planntng 1'ask Force for study and formulation c~f acceptable
alternatives as to tlie location of the electric utiltty factlitles for the Santa An~
Canyon/Anaheim Hllls area,
AOJ OURNMENT - 7here being no ~~rther business to discuss~ Commissioner Farano offere d
motton, seconded by Commissioner Y.Ing and MOTION CARRIED (Commissione~ Tolar
being absent), that the meeting be ad~ourned to November 17~ 1976~ at 4:30
p.m,, in the Council Chamber~ tn consider the Second Amendment to the
Anaheim Redevelopment Plan for ProJect Alpha.
The meeting adJourned at 11:15 p.m.
RespGCtfully submitted~
. /f.~, ~ CL
Patricia 8. Scanlan~ Secretary
Anaheim Ctty Planntng Commission
P85 : hm
U R C 0 MICROFILM~'rIG SERVICE, INC