Minutes-PC 1978/04/24~~
Clty fiall
AnAheim~ Califarnia
Apri l 2~~~ I~~J~i
REGULAK MEET I Nr, OF TNE N~AiiE I M C I TY PLP-NN I NG COMM I SS I ON
REGUTAR - The rcyYiar meeting ~f tha Anat~o;rn Ctty Piin2~ngl~~m~~n'theWCounct~ed to
~MECTiNG order b Chairrnnn Tolar at 1:3n ,~.m.~ ~p ~ ~
Chamber~ a quorum being present.
PK;'.SEIiT - CIIAIRNA;~: Tolar
COMMISSIONERS: Eiarnes~ Davld~ 1lerbst~ King
Cornmisslunr.r Llnn arr(ved at 3:~~ P•m.
ADSFN" • COMMISSIONERS: Johnson
AISQ PRESENT - Jac~ White Deputy Clty Attorney
Jay Titus Offlce Enyineer
Annika Santalahti Assistant Ulrector f~r Zontny
Ron Smith Associate Planner
Jay Tashiro Associate Planner
Edith f~arris Plsnning Commis~lon Sec~cta ry
PLLOf,E OF - The Pled~e af Alleyiancc [o the Flay was led by Commissloner Barnes.
ALL~GIAIJCE
ITEN N0. 2 CO~JTINUl.D PUkiLIC IiEARING. OWI~Eft: J. P. EDMQIJDS01~
E R . k OR~„AL EXEMPTION-CLA55 1 PROPERTIES~ 800 Nllshirc Boulevard~ Los Angeles. CA ;
~'~ ~a'~'pt~'~L USE ERMiT N0. 1~52+ 90017. P.titl~ner requ~sts permisslon to ESTABLISiS ~
Atl AUTOMO(31 LC REN7AL AGCNLY W I TN WNI VFR QF MI f~ i MUtI ;
WAIV-~ ER Of CUOE REt~UIREMENT
FRO;~T SE70ACK on property described as a rectangularl~-
shaped parcel of land consisting of approximatsly (,.5Y
acre located at the southc;asc corner of Manchester Avenue and flarbor Boulevard. having >
appr•aximate front~ges of 15~ feet on the south side of Mancl~ester Avenue and 150 fe;et on the~
east s(de of Harbor Bouievard, and furtt~er described as }t~~0 South Narbor Boulevard.
Property presently classified RS-A-43~~~0 (RESIDEtITIAL/AGRiCULTURAL) ZONE.
Ci~al rrnan Tolar poi nt~d out trie pet 1 t ioner had requested tt~at Condi t iona1 Use Permt t Na.
1824 be withdrawn.
ACTION: Commissioner Nerbst offered e motion. se~unded by Comnissloner Eiarnes and MOTION
t~R ED (Commissioners Johnson and Linn being absent). that the Anaheim Clty Planning
Cortxnission does hereby withdraw Petitton far C~nditional Uge Permit No. 1824 at the
request of the petitioner.
78-284 ti/2u/78
r~
~~
MINUTES, ANAIIEIM CITY PLANMING COMMISSION, APRIL 24~ 19)8 78-285
ITEM N0. 1 CONTI~~uF..n Pu~LIC N~ARINr,, oaMERS: EI_r~ER C. ANn
I R NE A I VE DECLARAT I ON EL I~Ai3ET11 8. DREWS anJ GE.NTRIIL BAPT I ST CNUaCN OF
REC~ LT15S FICA ON N~. 77-]8-~0 ORANGE COIjNTY~ 227 Nartl~ Megnol la Avenue~ Anaheim~
1~~~. 2 CA ~2aQ1~ and ROl11ND J. JENSEN~ 1010 East Chestnut
Strcet, Sant~ Ana~ CA 927~1. AGENT: BORIS ELIEFF~
2006 North Droadwsy~ Santa Ana~ CA 9z7~G. P~operty
desc.ribed as a rectangularly-si~a~ped parcel uf land conslstfng of approxfrt~tely 7.7 acres
having a frontage of approx(mately 551 feet on the west side of Magnolla Avenue~ hAVing a
max~mum depth of approxlmately 60y feet~ and beiny located approx(mately 325 feet north of
the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. P~aperty presently classlflecf RS-A-4~~00~ (RESIf~ENTIAL/
Ar,RICULTURAL) ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: RM-4t)00 (FIESIUENTIAL~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZOI~E.
REQUEST~G VANII~N~k.: NAIVkk UF (Aj MINIMUM bU1l.U111~, SITE AREA~ (isj MINIMUM REAR SET811CK.
(C) MINIMUM DISTANCE tiET1dEEN BUILDII~GS~ (0) TYPE OF PARKIfI~, SPACES~
ANU (E) REQUIREU SGREENING OF PARKING FACILITY~ TO CONSTR,UCT A
146-Ut~1T~ Rh1-~~OQ~ GOf~D0111NIUM COM('LEX.
Sub}ect petition was continued from the meeting of March 13~ 197b at the request of Che
petttioner~ end from the mcetin5s of Ma~:,l~ 27 ~nd Aprl) 1t1, 197b for thc submission of
rcviscd plans.
There were three persons tndicating thelr presence in rrpposition to subject request~ and
although the staff report to the Piannfng Commission dated April 24~ 1978 was nat re~d at
the public hearin9i It is refcrred to and made a pa~t of thc minutcs.
Jay Tashiro~ Ass~ciate Planner~ polnted o~t a correctlon t~ the sCaff report~ waiver (a),
minimum building site per dwelling unit~ should read 2511 square fe~t proposed rather than
22,ri0 squere feet pro~osed.
Jim Chri~tenscn~ 3i~2? Campus Drive~ Newport Beach~ agent~ stated ~his project 1~ unique
and not simllar to any other development in M aheim; that there ts a proJctt similar Co
this one in West Covina which is succes~ful and that the uni~ueness of the pro)ect lies ln
the fact that there will be no cars or streets on-site throu~hout the proJect and the area
is safe for pedestrian traffic. Me stated that nne of the main concerns af the Commission
wauld be that this pro,ject (s not meeting the square fo~tage as requlred by the present
ordinances~ but that this type development does allow for more open space because there
are no streets~ and they feit tliis was an outstandln~ feature af the proJPCt.
Ne stated the density in Anahetm for RM-4000 is lower than in other clties in the area.
He pointed out this is a difficult piece of prpperty to develop; that they do have
permission from the Fload C~nt~ol Oistrict to cover the Carbon Creek Channel and that the
cost of bullding c,ver tt~is channsl will be great. Ne potnted out some of the ne(ghbors
have expressed concern about the fire access; that these are beauttful~ well-kept homes;
thet the petltioner wuuld prefe~ that there not be any through traffic~ but that the Fire
Dcpa~tment is requesttng it for emergency purposes. Fle stated if the Commission feels
this fi~e acc~ss t5 not necessa ry~ they would t~e willing to ~ot provide it; that the
people do not want it and it wnuld be better f~r the proJcct to continuc with the bloek
wall.
He steted recreattonal-vehicle storage spaces are provided and the proJect will not have
any twa-story units within 150 feet of singl~.-±amily residences. He stated the residants
4/24178 ;~
~~
1
MIt~UTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSI4N~ APRIL 14~ 1q78 7$-28G
EIR NEGIITIVE DECI.l1MTION. RECLASSIFICATION 1~0. 77-78-5~ AND VARIANCE N0. 2~98 (continucd)
would ltke to conttnue the 8-foot wall acrass the enttre wcst property 1(ne; tliat a 6-foot
wall (s glx~wn bec~us~ that Is the cucle reyuiren~n[~ but tha[ they wau1J stipulate ta
provlding en 8-f~ot wall.
Ile polntod ~ut the p~rking situatl~n (s unique tn this complex but hias a e~ood concept and
will work, Ne stated the Code requireR that every unit have two enclosed parking spaces,
but f~eople usually anly park ~ne of thelr vehlcles in a space and fill thr other one w(th
Junk. Ne polntcd out the proposed subterronean parkinq wlll el(min~te the unsic~htly cers
pa~ked in front of the units and [hat restdents only will be allowed to enter the
subterranean parking area. He pointed out the guest parking sraces with two accesses. Ile
stated storaqe spaces, as necessary, A~e provlded for each untt; chat this type parktnq
structure with entrunce t~ residents only provides better security and will elimin~te the
uns(c~htliness of open yarage doors. He indlcateJ they were proud af tl~is concept; that it
i~ more cxpensivc with subterrane~n parkln~~ but felt this is c~olnq to bc happenfng
in a lot of proJects in xhe future and they felt it (s necessary in order to develop th(s
property to its best and t~iqhest use.
David Taravella, 2ti~3 Yale, Anaheim, inJlcated he had met with tt~c develope~s and they had
worked out an agrecment that an t~-fcxat high~ solid concrete block wall would be provtded
to shleld thelr properiy from trespassers. Ne indicate.d they were concerned abou[ the
fire access g~te and felt som~one woul~l break it dawn, He referred lo e~lsti~g apartment
complexes wi[h cars parkeci al! over tl~e streets witf~ empty ~arking stalls; that he had
drlven by a number of tl~em today on hls way to the mecting and that parktng is a problem.
He felt sure sorr~one would break through the ~~ate in order to park their car on the
residential streets and Cfiey wcre asking [i~at no gate be allowed. 11e indicated he had
telked with the Fire Uepartment and tl~ey had indicated this was thc bcst way to give
protection to tf-e property; tl~at tie h~c1 asked them why~ and they could not give him an
answer. Ile indicated he fiad asked the Fire Departn~ent to ~ive him statistics concern(ny
steel and concrrte structures. He ~ointed out the fire hydrant locntions on the plan and
indlcated he dld not feel the Fire Departmenr would 9ain any more protection from the
gate; that thc Fi~e Department t~ad stated if the Santa Ana winds are blawing, a ftre could
darrk ge Che adJacent properties. He indicated he thought this gate would destray ths
integrity af their property.
Mr. Taravella indicated thPy w~uld prefer to see single-family dwellings on this property~
but realized with the st~apc of the property and property values~ that wc~uld not happen~
and that something worse than this couid be developcd on the property. He stated he would
like for the petiti~ner to prove there would be no damage to the flood control in the
area. He indicated he felt the Planning Comnlssion should maintain and ~nhance the
residential environment snd he did not feel this project would enhance the enviro~ment,
but that they would 11ke to have it maintained,
Walter Heinm~n, 2649 Yale Avenue~ Anahe(m~ stated hc had lived in ltils area since 1959 and
felt this location was an ideal location ~ecause it had cottage-type houses and no two-
story structures in the neighborhood; that It is understandable that tirne and progress do
change things. t1e indicated concern that the residents of this proJect wou{d be able to
see into their houses. Ne pointed out they have retalned an excellent street and he was
conce~ned that the value of their property would be decreased. He stated they want to
retain the otmos~here they have had f~r some~ time and painted out they did want an 8-foot
high wal) on the west property Ilne. feeiing it wr-uld be a deterrent for people to park on
Yale Avenue. He indicated he had pictures of the existing 6-foot high wall which has been
torn down three times and replaced by the Baptist Church. He indieated if it is necessary
to have a fire access gate~ they would want it to be constructed of a material you could
not see through.
4/24/78
~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSiON~ APRIL 24~ 1978 78-287
EIR_NEGATIV_E DECLARATION. RECLASSIFICATION k0. 77-,Z8~~ AND VARI~NCE N0. 2~8 (contlnucd)
Mr. Chrlste~aen indicated he understood the concerns of the res~d~nts; that they have
logical complaints and the petitioncr would cooperate in any wey he could, H~ Indlcated
they have provfded a setback of 15q feet from the stngle-fomily ciwellings. He referred to
dem~ge to the exlsting wall and polnted out this could i~e because the prop~erty has been
vacant. and th~t the new proJcct wlll provide a closed uxm~unity and he felt some of those
problems would be allev(ated. Ne indicaecd tha[ for this pronerty r~t thls partlcule~
tlme~ this was the ~nly logical wey they could provide benefits and Amenities and felt
taking ct~rs off the sCreet would fAr outweigh the negative effects.
Ti1E PUBLI C HEARI t~G WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Barnes indicatecl when this item hed been contf~ued she hnd requPSted thet
lnforrtiation be obtafned fr~m ~he F'lood Control Ulstrict concerning thr, floodinq conditlons
of this property. She stat~~d shc woulcl like to bP ossured there is not ~~in~ to he a
pr~blern~ but tl~at she had not seen any information from the Flood Control Olstr(ct.
Mr. Chr(stensen po(nted out filie flood control char~ncl must meec the Corps of Englneers
standards to meet a y0-year storm~ an~ it was his understanding this channel would have a
cepacity for a 50-year storm.
Commissloner t3arnes Indicated sf~e would haNe a real problem with approvinc~ Cl~is project
because slie had asked that someone submit a report so that she cauld see for heraelf wh~l
ti~e Flood Contro! District hes said.
Mr. Christensen replled that he was nut aware of Chat request. Ne polnted oui the City of
Anaheim has une of che finest engineering departments he has seen and that If they say
this project provides ec'equate dralnaye~ he felt that was all that should be necessary;
that one nf the conditions for approval is that they mr.et alt the conditions as set forth
by the City Engineer. He pointed out they would only be responsible for that port(on of
the channel thruugn their property.
Jay Titus, Office Rngineer~ point~d ou[ the channel is a County flood control channel and
the City has no jurisdlction over it; that the Ctty's c~ncern is with on-site dr~tnage or
with drainage origin:~tiny on this site and how ti~at affects th~ capacity of the channel.
Ne indicated it was I~is understanrling thac these channeis are desi~ned for a 50-year flood
when fuily fn~+roved~ and that he does not think th(s channcl had been fully improved at
this tlme and the F~ood Control Olstrict would require that it be tmproved through this
property, but ~s far as ~yuaranteeing tliere would be no flooding (n that channel, that
would have to came from C~~unty Fiood Control Oistrict.
Chalrman Tolar indicat~d he did not feel a repor[ from the County would help him to
understand how floading problems would be mitigated. He feit the main thing was that the
requlrements ~f the State, County~ or City woul~± ba met and would be sufficlent ln
relationship tn the drainage.
Comm{ssioner Barnes indicated she is sensitive to Lhis problem 5ecause governmental bodie~
havc apprnved proJects that are not safe; that she would like to see some~thin9 in wrtting
and that was why she wanted thc rrport from the County.
Commissioner King polnted ~ut Mr. Christensen has stipulated to bring the channel up to
the engtneering requirements and ~ndicated he felt that with the width of 6~ feet. the
channel would be at~le to handle the drainagc.
4/24~18
;~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Af'Rll 24~ 197~ 78-28~
EIa NEGATIVE DECLA M TION. RECLA5SIFICATION N0. 77"78•50 AND VARIANCE N0. 2998 (tontinued)
Mr. Chrlstensan replled that he understood the concerns re9arding the chann~l, especlally
(n light Uf what has happcned during the recent rains. Ne {~ointed out tha; in spite of
thc: things that man can do~ rlvers w(Il overflow end that this is a legttimate cancern.
Ile pointed out khey would bc requi~ed by State law to impr~ve their sectlon of the
chennel. He pointed out they could not do much about what happens ta the channel ups~ream
or downstream fram thelr property.
Commissionr_r flerbst indicated he would ifke to see thls section of thc ditch covere~i
because of the safety of the cl~ildren lnvolved. Ne pointed out children d~ get inta these
ditches with the(r rafts~ etc.~ to play and there have been some accidents recently, and
he fe1L as lonq as thc dcvcloper mects the Flood Control Qlstrict requtrements, the Ctty
sho~.~l~f nnt bs r,nn~prn~d.
Commissioner Uavid asked wF~o would maintain the fire gate if it is damagcd and what would
happen if sameone does break tl~e lock and open it~ and Mr. Christensen repl(ed It would be
up to the homeowr~ers assoclatlon to malntain tl~e property~ and thc gate would be part of
the wal) t~nd they would have to repair it. He indicated hc felt there is adequate
circuiatlon ~or fire access and that all units are within 35Q feet of a fire hydrant~ ~~~~t
that the gate~ is an extra prec.aution by the Fire Oepartment and that he does share tt-e
Fire Department concern~; but does not want the flre access gate.
Chairman 1'ola~~ asked wl~at type gate is proposed for thls fire access~ and Mr. Christensen
replied that it would be whatever the City would requi~e; Chat normally a chalnltnk, gste
with slats would be required,
Commissioner King as6;ed if the wall would have to be r~:built~ and Mr. Christensen replied
that It would be rebuilt because anything over G feet high becomes a structure and ihat
footings would !iave to be much deeper.
Chalrman Tolar indicated the RM-44Q0 Zone study has nat been completed; that he liked this
proJect because lt Is new and different and he felt the CtCy is going to have to look at
different guldelines. Fle felt the RM-4~Q~ Zone has not done for this City what the
Planni~g Commission had hoped it weuld do and, for that reason, he coufd support thfs
project with the stipulations of che petitioner; tliat he hoped they were not making more
misCakes than they have made in the past; that he could ap~reciace the Fire Department's
insistance on having the crash gate but frlt with the accessibllity of this pro,ject
th~ough the two driveways~ he would agree the fire protection is adequate without the
gate, and because of the type of construction there would be less likelih~od of a ftre.
He ind(cated he felt this is a much b~tter project than could be developed under the
multiple-family zone.
Comnissioner Davld asked why the screentng waiver was necessa ry~ and Mr. Christensen
pointed out che landscaped areas and open space areas on the plan.
Jay Tashiro potnted out the v~miver of screening is necessary for that area adJace~t to
Magnolia Avenuc shawn for guest parkiny, and that some sort of block wall or fencing would
have to be provtded at that location.
Mr. Christansen indicated it was the petitloner's feeling that a fence along Magnolia
Avenue Nould block the view of the open space ar~ and ehat without any automobiles tn
sight~ d(d not feel the screening would be necessary. Chairman Tolar suggested that a 3-
foot~ landscaped berm be provided. .
4/24/'78
MINUTES~ AI~AIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 24~ 1~78
78-289
EIR NFGATIVE DEC~ARATION. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-78'S0 ANQ VARIANCE_N0. 2998 (continued)
Commissi~~cr King indicated hc had alweys frawned on trASh ~Ates~ and Comnissloner David
eske~ wl~~at the regulations of the Flre Depertm~nt ware concernin~ the crash qntQ.
J~~K White~ Deputy City Att~rney~ indicate~ it was hls understanding that the Fire
Uepartment would prefer t4 havc this ac~oss.
Annika Santalahtl~ Assistant Director for zoning, pointed out the Fire D~partment
recortmends all uniks be within 200 feet of an ~cc~ss of sor-e type. Sho indlcated that tlie
plans presentcd to the Fire Department did not includc the loop situation pointed ouC
earller by the petltloner.
Mr. Ghristensen polnted out they would provide fire access with a loop situation by
puttln~ (n decor~tlve wnikways which could be used for an access, if necessary.
ACTION: Cornmissioner tierbst offered a motion~ scconded by Cortmissioncr King and MATI(1tJ
CA-R EU (Commtssioners Johnson a~d linn being absent)~ t~~at the Anahcim City Planning
Commisslon has reviewed the pruposal to reclassify the r.oning from RS-A-43~OA0
(Residenttal/Agricuitural) to RM-4000 (Residential~ Multiple-Family) ta tonstruct a 132-
unit condominlum complex wlth waiver of minimum building site per dwelling unit~ minimum
rear setback~ minimun distence between buildings, type of park~ng spaces, and required
screening of parklny facilities~ on a rectangularly-shap~d parcel of la~~d conslsting of
approximately 7•1 acres having a frontage of approximately 551 feet on the west side of
Magnolfa Avenue~ f~avlny a maximum depth of G05 feet, and betng located approximately 325
fcet north of the centerline of Lincoln ~venue; and does herehy approve the Negatlve
Declaratlon from the requtrement to prepare an environmental impact re~r; on the basis
that th~re would be n~ significant indtvidual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
due to the approval of this Negative Declaration since :he Anaheim G~neral Plan designates
the subject property for a oaroct~fa) sciiool site/medium density residential land uses
comrr~enSUrate with the provosal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in
the proposal; that ttie Initial St~<!y subm(tted bq the petltioner indicates no significant
(ndivid~aal or cumulative adverse environmental im,~acts; and that the Negbtive Declaratlon
substantlating the foregoing findings is on file in the City of Anaheim Pla~ning
Department.
Commissioner flerbst asked whether or not the stipulation concerning tfie fire acccess
should be a part of the reclassification~ wfth Annika Santalahti pointiny out it wouid be
i~~cluded in both the reclassification and variance resolutions.
Commissioner Hsrbst offered Resolution No. PC7a•77 and rnoved for iis passage and adoption,
that che Anaheim City Planning Cornmission does hereby g~ant Petition for Reclassificatton
No. 77~7~•50~ subJecc to the petitioner's stipulations to p~ovide an 8-foot high wall
alony the west prope~ty line and to provide on-51Ce circulation as approved by the Fire
Departr~ent, and sub,ject to In;erdepartmental Lommittee recomrr~ndatinns. Thc followin,q
vote was premature~ with Commissioncr Nerbst adding a stipulation after the vote was
taken.
AYCS: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ DAViO~ NERBST, KING~ TOLAR
NOE5: CQMMI'SSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JONNSON, LINN
Cha(rman Tolar aske,d Commissioner Ilerbst to remake his motion.
4/24/78
~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMNISSION, APRIL 2Q~ 1978 78'290
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ RE~IASSIfICATION N0. 77-78-5~ AND VARIANCE_N0. 2998 (cor-tlnu~d)
Cummissioner 1lorbst IndicateJ he would like to edd the ~tipuletlon that thc Fire
Department would hav~ the opt(on of requlrtng e cresh qate tf th~ ravised circulatlon plan
presentcsd does not mcet tl~eir r~quirements~ in ordcr thet the proJQCt would not have to
cnme beck bcfore the Plannin,y Commission for mppraval.
Conn-issloner Barncs end Chairman Tolar indicoted they did not ~q~e~e wlth that sii~ulatton,
with Chelrman Tolar ~,ainting out he felt an Interlor circulation pattern c~uld be provided
and thls is a standard Fire Qa~artment recommendation fc~r ell proJects~ but thAt this type
stoel and concrete structure has never buen utilized in Anaheim and he felt thnt sl~ould be
considared and that some type turniny raclius could b~ pr~videJ f~,r en~crycnc,y vehlcles;
~I~at I~~ wuut J ~~ut 1 1 ke tu sec tlie yate rcqul rcd.
Commiss loner tlerbat painted out cl~at I f the F1 re Dopartmcnt cloes not approve the
ctrculatlon plan as submitted~ the r~~ur,st w~uld he back befo~c the Planning Ca~mission,
which would Jelay the devcloper even further, and he fclt if the Fire Oepertment does have
the optlon and the developer cannot provl~fc the requlred turning radlus~ etc.~ the Fire
Department should be able to require that an emeryency gate be provided.
Annika Santal~hti Indicated slie did not believe thc Firc Department had revleweci the on-
site c(rculation as presPnted; that It never had been discussed~ at least not ir, hsr
presence. She po(nted out norrnally lhe Fire Department will accept this kind of a~len
unless the drfveway is too narrow ~r the landscariny is provided so that it w~uld prevent
vehicles from having a clear ac~ess.
Gammissloner King Indicated he felt Comm(ssi~~i~er Ilerbst's idea was a qc~od one.
Commissioner Nerhst rc-offered R~solutlon No. PC78-77 and mnv~ed for its passage ~nd
adoptlon, that the Anahelm Ctty Planning t.,mmission d~,es hcreby yrant Petitton for
Reclasslficatic,n No. 77-78-50~ subject to thc stipulation thAt thP pctltioner providG an
8-foot hlgli~ concrete b1UCk wall on the west property line and that the cfrculatlon
element as proposed by the developer must be appruved by the Fire pepartrncnt~ and that if
the ctrculatic+n does nol provide adequate circulation~ the Fire Department wi1) have the
option of requiring an access gate be provided~ an~i subject to interdeparlmental Commlttee
recommendatlans.
On roll call~ the foregoing resolutian was passed by th~ following vote:
AYES: COMNISSIONERS: BARNES, DAVID~ NERQST~ KING~ TOLAR
NCkS: CONMIS~IONERS: NOt~E
ABiENT: COMMISSIONERS: JONNSON~ LINN
Commissioner Herf~~t offered Resolution No. PC7a-78 and moved for its passage and ~dopttan~
that the Anahein ,.ity Plannir~g Commission does hereby ~rant Petition for Variance No.
2998~ in part, granting waiver ,a) on the basis tt~at tt,e petitioner demonstrated a
hardshia exists and this type of steel and concrete construction extending across the
Carbon Creek Channel and having subte~ranean parking with controlled entry to the
devclopment is uniQue in the City of Anaheim~ that more open space is provided, and that
the pote~ntlally unsightly open drtveways and parkiny areas are substantially ellminated,
thereby a safer and healthier living environment is provi~ad; that waivers (b) and (c) are
denled on the basis *hat revised plans were submitted an~ have eliminated the need for
subject watvers; that waiver l,d) is granted on the bas~is that enclosed parking spaces for
eath unit are provided in a cor.mon, subterranean parkl~g garage heving controlled access
to the tenants and, cherefore, enclosed parking is provided in a manner; that walver (e)
~/24/78
.~
~
r
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING GOMMISSION~ APRIL 24~ 1978
78-291
E I R NEGAYIVE DECLARATI ON, RECLASS 1 FI CAT ION N0. 77~18-~~ AND VARIANCE N0. 2~8 (co~t Inued)
is denled on the basis that tt~e petitioner stlpulate~d at the publ lc hearing t~ provide a
3-fcx~t high~ landscaped ea~then berm on that portia~ of the oast prape~ty lino to sc~een
the guest parking aroA from Magnolta Avanue; and subject to Interdepnrtmcntal Conxnittee
racommandations.
On roll call. the foregoing resolutian was prssad by the fc,llowing v~te:
AYES: COMMlSSIOt1Ea5~ BARNES~
Np S: CON~MISSIONf:RS: NONE
AB~Et~T = COMP11 SS IO~+ERS; JOHNS4N ~
0l1VID~ HERBST, KING~ TQLAR
L I I~N
A ge~tlemen from the audicnce asked that If a gate is to b e required by th~ Fire
Department. that the Planreing Gommission requlre tfiet it be somett~iny oth~. iha~ a
chalnlink fence and thAt It bQ 8 feet hiqh.
ITEM t~0. 3 PUaIIC NEARINf,. 01aNER; ROBERT M. LAW~ 132~2 Remona
EIR EN~GA7IVE DECIARATIO~~ Orive~ Gerden Grov~, cn ~26~+0. AGEI~T: PIIILIP BQRSIJK~
~ _~;~55 62~+ Tigertai l Roav ~ Los Angeles~ CA 90049. Property
v N ~ ~_~p ~""`"-""-' doscribed as an i r~egula~ly-shapesd parcel ^f land
con~isting of appr oximately 1.0 acre having a frontage
of appr~aximately 2~+9 fcet on ttie east side of Beach
Bo~~levard, huving a maximum depth of approximately 2~SQ feet, baing located dpproximat~ly 10$5
feet north of the centerline of Orrnge Avenue~ and furthe r descrlbed as 4Q8 South Beach
Bouleverd. Property presently classified RS-A-43~~OQ (RESI~~I~TIAL/AGRICULTUML) ZOt~E.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIO~~: GL (COMMERCIAL~ LIhSITED) ZUNE.
REQUESTEU VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIREU PARKING. TU CONSiRUCT A RETA:L CARPET STOR~:.
There was no one fndicating thr.ir presence in oppositlon to subJect ~equest. and although
the staff report ta the Planning C~mmission dated April 24, 197~ was not read at the
public hearl~y, It Is referred to and made a part of thC min~tes.
Phillp Borsuk, agent~ ind(caCed he is propos(ng to const ruct a 20,000 square foot buil~ing
with an all-glass front faci~g onto Beach Saulevard and pointed out on the north side of
the prnperty is a mobilehane park and that they have proposed a 6-foot h(gh block wall on
tlie north property line. I~e indicated the Traffic ~ngin Ger has said he would approva the
access to the driveway, providing the petitioner could y et epp~oval from CalTrans to cut
the island nose by 2A fePt so that people traveling south could enter the driveway. Ne
i~dicated the bui ld~ng would be simi lar to an Rki Furni tu~e bui lding, wtth a mansard roof,
and would be approximately 200 fCet in length with 1~ f e et of landscaping In xhe front~
back and sides. F1e indicat~d a carpet store does not ge nerate as much trafflc as an
average retall outlet; that they have approximately t~ t o ly customera per day and are
proposing 46 parking spaces; and that they have a total of 12 employees at this iocation.
THE PUDLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner King askad Mr. Barsuk if he had gotten permisslon from CalTrans to cut the
island nose, and Mr. 8orsuk replied that he had w ritten a letter and had discussed it with
them on the telephone, and it was inditated ther~ would be no problem.
4/24/7$
. .. _. .. . _ ,..~..v»~~,.~.~. _ .
MINUTES~ AIUINEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOt~~ APRIL 2u~ 1978 78~292
EIR NEGATlVE DECLA M TION~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-78-55 AND VARIANCE N0. 3006 (cantlnued ~
Chetrman Toler aaked if CalTrens did not givc tholr permission~ would thcy stllt yo ehes d
with tha praJoct ovon though they did nat have access from the so~~th. and Mr. Uorsuk
replled that they would.
Chalrmon Tolar indicatoJ he wss concerned about the vecant pirce ~f property adJacent to
tha subJect property and askc~ tf (t would be landl~cked~ and Jay Tashiro~ Assoclnte
Ptannor~ polnted out that property hes fron~.aye on a public alley which is permitted by
Code.
Commissianer Nerbst Indicated he wes cunc~rned a~out the mobilehome park to the west wir.h
no buffer xonc~ and Mr. Borsuk pointed out that ~~ (~-f~nt wall is proposed and he did no t
thlnk landsceping would be se±n.
C~mmissloner Ilerhst in~icAterl he was thlnkinc~ of tha space. ~ie pointed out these
~,aoi iehom~:s are Just on the other side of the wal l M and asked what haurs of operation ara
proposed~ and Mr. E3orsuk replled they would bo open fr~rn 9:0~ a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Commissianer Herbst (ndtcated he was concerned aboul: the people l iving In the mobi lehorr~s;
th~t this would be allowlny a cortKnercial use adJacent to them withaut a buffer zone and
they are ent.itle~ to tlie samc burfcr required far resldentlal homes.
Corrnissioner King indlcated h~e fclt a 6-foot high weil would be sufficient~ dnd
Commissioner Harbst polnted out there woul~ be c:ars parktng right uf, next to the wall ar~d
with tha mobilehomes about 20 feet ar+ay from thc wall~ it would be the same size as a b ack
yard and he falt no cor-sideraticm hAS been givF to this situation wl~atsoever~ and if t his
were a stngle-family residential a~e~~ the Cfl~ sslon would requtre a 20-foc~t buffer zora.
Ne dId not fee) cAmme~~iel actlvikies from ~:Ou a.m. to 9:00 p.m. should be allowed
withou~ sorn~ type of buffer zone.
Commissioner King askPd Commissioner I~erbst If ~e wauld be satisfied with trees next to
thc wall~ and Commissioner Nerbst indicated there Is almost no space to plant trees.
Nr. Borsuk pointed out the owner of the rrabilehome park had been nattfied of this heari ~g
and that he obvlously di<1 not obJect since he was not present.
G~rtmissioner Barnes pointed out the owner may havQ been notified but that the people
llving in the rrbbilehomes had not been notified~ and the Planning Commission has insis t eJ
in the past that a buffPr zone be provided between commercial and resldential.
Annike Santalehti. Assistant Di~ector for Zoning. po(nted out that a tree buffer h~as not
requt~ed in this tnstance because the property is under the General Plan desic!c~ation o f
conune rc i a 1.
Commissioner Nerbst tndtcated that tf mobilehame parks ore going to be allowed~ they
should be considered as resldential use and deserve the same consideration. He felt js.ist
because this property is diff(cult to develop, that the limitatians should not be farc~d
up~n the residential development next door.
Cortimissioner Barnes felt this is an entirely diffcrcnt situatlo~ since thc property is
zoned commercial.
ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner David and MOTIQN
CARRIEI? (Commissloner Herbst voting nu and Commissioners linn and Johnson being absen t),
4/24/78
~
..~
MINUTkS, ANAHEIl1 GITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 24~ 1978 78-293
EIR NEGATIVE DECIARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 7 7-78- 55 ANU VAaIANCE N0. 3006 (continued)
that the Anahelm Clty Planning Commisslon haa revfewnd the propos~l ~o rezone the prap~rty
from RS-A-43~ono (Resldesntlel/Agrieultural) to CL (Commerelal~ Limited) to construct a
carpet storo wfth walv~r of minimum requtred pnrking spac~s on en I~reqularly•shaped
parcal of lend conststinq of approxlmetely 1.0 acre having a fr~ntAge of approximately 249
feet ~n the eaat side of Oeach ~3aulevard~ ~ovtng a ma~cimum depth of appraximetely 260
feet~ beln9 located approximately 1~b5 feet north of the centr.rllne of Orange Avenue; and
does hereby spprove th~ Negative Declaration from the ~equirement to preparc e~
environrnentel (mpact r~purt on the basis that there would be no sign(ficant indtvldua) or
cumulative adverse environme~tol impact due to the approval of this Negetive Decluretlon
si~~e tl~~ Anal~elm General Plan designates the suhJect property for general cc~mmercia~ ldnd
uses commens~~rnt~ with thc prnposal; that no sensitivic env(ronmentt~l impacts are invclved
in the proposal; that the Ini~ial Study submicted by the petltio~er indicates na
signlficant lnd(vldual or cur lative adverse envirunmr.ntal impacts; and that the! Negative
D~sel~ratlon substantiatiny t,., forego(nq findings IS o~ file in tt~e City of Anaheim
Pla~ning pepartmont.
Commlxs(~ner Kin,y offered Resolution N~. PC7~-i9 ~~~~d moved for its passac~e ana adopti~n,
that the Anahe(m City Planning G~mmiss(on does `~er~:by grant Petition for Reclassificatlon
No. 17-78-55. subJect to Interdepartmental Commitiee reconenendatlons.
On roll call~ the for~goinq reso~~~;cm was passed by the follnwinq vote:
AYES: CUMMISSIONERS: aARNES~ DAVID~ Y.IHG~ TOI.AP
NOES : GOMMI SS IONERS : 11ERBST
Al3SCNT : COIdt115S1 ONERS : JOHNSQ~t ~ L I t~ll
Commissioner King offered Resolut(o~ No. PG7d~$~ ~~d ~~~a~~a for irs passa~P and edop*~^n~
that the Anahelm City Plannii~g Commisslon does hGrPby grant f'etii~c,n for Varianc~^ No. 3^'~
on the bas i s th~t the proposed use docs not generate suE4 i~~ ~ent L~ af f f c to requl''E as ma~r~
parkiny speces as the City of Anaheim code requires~ :~~•~d subJe~ t tc, '•terdPaartr ~tal
Cortani ttee recornmendat i ons .
On rol l cal l~ the for~egoing res~~lution was passed by the fal ivr:~ ,:, votc~
Av" ; C;~IiM15~, I ONERS • BARI~ES, DAVI U, KI NG. TOLAR
:d0E5: GOMMISS'.ONER:, ~ NERCsS?
AE3SENT: COMMISSIOtlERa; JCFiN501~. LIN-1
4
ITEM N0 PUl3LIC ItEARING. OWNERS: NALaERT I. NICKMAN, lOQO
.
E I R ~~ tEGATI VE DECLARAT ION f~ortli Lomi ta Street ~ Anahei m, CA 92~~5 and AC~;i~'F.R
RECLASSI ICAY101~ N0. 77-7~-56 BUIIDING COItPOW1T101~, 5519 Centinela Avenue~ l.os
V ANCE N0. 300 Angeles~ CA 9~~2~• AGENT: JOHN D. ROSE, 770 Sout-,
Brea Boulevard~ Brea~ CA g2621. Property describe~
as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land cons(sting
of aAproxtmatety 1.2 acres located at the southerly terminus of Lomita Street~ having a
frontage of approxEmately 156 feet on the south and east sides of Lomlta Street~ having a
maximum depth of app~oximateYy 293 feet~ being located app~oxlmately 7.40 feet s~uth of the
tenterline of Claredge Drive~ and further described as 1000 North l.omita Street. Property
presently classlficd RS-i0,('~0 (RE SIDENTIAL~ SINGLE-FAMILY) 20NE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R5~•7200 (RESIUENTIAL~ SINGLE-FAMI:Y) ZONE.
4/24/78
MINUTES~ ANAH EIM CITY PLANNING GQMMISSION~ APRIL 24~ 197~ 78-294
EIR NEGATIVE OECIARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 7 7-7~• 56 AND VARIA~ICE N0~ 3008 (continued)
R~QUESTEU VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM I.OT pEPTH AND (li) MINIMUM LOT WIUTIi~ TO
ESTABLISIi A FOUR-LOT. RS-120Q SUBDIVISION.
There wss on e person indicating thelr presence In oppositlon to subJect request, and
elthough the staff rapart to the Pla~ning Comnisslon dated Apri I 2~i. l~ltl wes nat read et
the publtc h a aring~ It is raferred to and madc a part of th~ minutes.
John D. Rose. agent~ Indfcated tt~is is actually four parcels of land under one ownershlp
whlch Is irr e yularly-sheped because a flo~d contral channel passes throu~h th~ property,
and that the owner would like to be Abl~ to consolldote this into n parcel that could be
divfded Into four separate lots~ wEtFi the minlmum sizc lot being 95~0 square fcec. He
lndicatad th~ varfance is required because of the lot depth whict~ is c~usc~ l,y a
combinatlon of the flood control cl~annel and the shellc~w lot width. Ile polnted out thero
la an extstir~q residence which ts s ubstandard. He stated because tliis land is
irregularly- s haped~ he relt it would be e substantfal harcJship to nut allow the four unlts
and that the proposed lots will be lar9er than n+~st in the nelghborhood.
Jey Tashiro. Associntc Planner, s*.a[cJ a lettcr in o~positl~~n fiacl bce~ recalv~d.
druce Selby. 1014 North Lomtta, Anahoim, indicated ho had pUrchased his home about six
months ago a t a cnnsiderable financi+~l l~urden to him and that h~ was concerned about Any
developments In the neighborhoc~d. Ne indic~ted fiis m~in concern was whether or not the
current sta~ dords Af the neiyhborhoact would Ge malntalned. t1e was elso concerned about
the extario r appearance of the building~ the type of consxruction and size of the
bulldings. He was concerned about Increased noise and parking problems thaC mlght result
from the cui-de•sac wfth this many dwellings. Ile stAted he was also concerned the flocd
con~rol channel coulci overFlow; th~at d~~ring the last ra1nS Che water level had been qutte
high.
Hr. Rose pQi nt~d out this proJect wouid be beneficial t~ the nelyhbnrhood because these
homes will b e flrst-q~eal(ty cunstruciton and of very good desi~n and would be equal to or
larger then the homes in thc area. Ne pointed out~ at present~ this is an attraccEve
nuisance bPCause the land is vac~nt. Ne stated the City of A-~ahelm renuires a minimum of
five parkin g spaces~some being off-street) for each ciwelll~q, but that they have m(tigated
the parking prublem by having an-site par~.ing spaces. He pointed aut there will not be a
substantial increase in traffic because thay are only adding three new hort~es; that one
home (s alr~ ady existing. He pointed out only two of the new hames wtll be seen from the
street~ tfiat one is in the rear, and this w(ll be a Qeneral upgrading and cleaning up of
thc area.
Chait~rnan Tol ar asked Mr. S~eiby to take a look at ttie plans and asked Mr. Ros• to explatn
the lots to Mr. Selby~ which he dtd.
THE PUBL I C N EAftl NG WAS C 145E D.
Chalrman To lar painted nut that only th rte houses are to be built, two on the cul-de-sac
street with a flag lot going to the back and indicated to Mr. Selby th~t he did not feel
this type o f p~oject would detract from the neighborhood, b~t would enhance it; that the
average lot size is much larger than the other houses in the neighborhood. He stated he
a~c~rectate d Mr. Selby's concerns regardinq the values. but he felt it would enhance the
v~:'~,~e of the p~anerty.
4/24/78
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRi4 24~ 1978 78-2A5
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION. RECLASSIFiCATION N0. 17-7~~5E AND VAR,IAN~~~NQ1..,~9Q$ (conttnued)
Commisslo~er 8arnes polnted out tf~e perking is adequate and thls c~rl-de-sac wll! be bettor
then 99~ of the cul-de-sacs in the City of Anaheim. She ;~ointed out that normally fivo
lots s~e ~llowed on a cul-de-sac. She tndicatod she did not feel people would be perking
on the street wlth the on-sito parking that Is going ta be ~rovtded.
Commissloner David asked abauL. the lat on the southwest. end Jay Tashlra polnted out th~t
lot belongs to the City of Anaheim.
There was a resp~nse from the audlence that that parce) of land was desicanated for a pa~~k
i n 1956.
ACTION; Gommisstoner King offered a motlon~ seconded by Commissloner David and MOTIaN
CARRIEU (Gommtssloners Johnson and Linn being absent)~ thot the AneliClm Clty Plannfng
Commissfon has revlewed the proposel t~ reclasslfy the zoning from RS-10~00~ (aes1dnntlal~
Stngle•Family) to RS-7200 (Restdentlal~ Single-Family) to esteblish a four-lot, RS-7200
subdlvlsion with waiver of minimum lot dept~~ and minimum lut width on an Irrcgularly-
shaped par~el of land consfstln~ of apprc~ximately 1.2 ~cres located a[ the southerly
te~minus af Lom(te St~eet~haviny a frontac~e of approxim~+tely 156 feet on the south and
easC sides of lomita Streec~ havtng a maximum Jepth of approximately 293 feet~ being
located opproximately 2N0 feet south of the centerline, of Claredge Dr~va; and doeS hereby
approve the Ne9ativ~s Oeclaration from t.he requlrcment to prepare an cnvi~onmental impect
report on the basis that there would be no slqnt~icant individual or cu~nulatlve aciverse
environmental impact due to the apprav~l of th~is Nega[ive Oeclaration since the Anahelm
Ge~eral Plan dest<~nates the subject property for lc,w density residential land usas
commensurate with the proposal; that na sensltive environrr~ntal Impacts are involved fn
the proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the pettt(oner indicates no slgniffcant
individual or cumulative adverse e;~vironmental imnacts; and that ~he Neyetive Declaration
substantiatiny t'~e f~regoing f;ndings is on f(le in thc City of Anaheim Planning
Ocpartmcnt.
Commissloner King offered Re~olution Na. PC73-81 and moved for its nassage and .idoption,
that the Anaheim City Planniny Commission does lie~el~y grant Petition for Reclassificatlon
No. 77-7b-~6~ subject to Incerdepartmental Commiccee recorm~endations.
On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the followiny vote:
AYES: COI~fNISS1QNERS: ~ARNES~ OAVID~ IIERf~ST~ KING~ 1'OL~1R
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
AI~SENT: CONMISStONERS; JO~INSO-~, L1~1rJ
Commissioner King offered Resolution No. ~C78-82 and moved fur its passage and adoption~
that the Anaheirn City Pianning Commi~~ion does hereby grant Petition for Variance No. 3008
on the -~- 's that the property is irregularly-shaped Jue to the floo~.' control channPl to
tfie sou~,;~:~st, and sub,ject [o Interdepartmentai Committee recommendations.
On roll call, the foregoing r~~~=~lutifln was passed by the follc~wing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: 6ARNES, DAVID~ HERE~ST~ KING, TOLAR
NOES: COMMfSSIOHERS: NQN~E
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JONNSON, LINtI
4/24/78
«M
~ J
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSION~ APRIL 24~ 1978 78-296
iTEM N0. 5 PUkiLi C NEARI NC. OWNER: PI\LtIAI.L PROPERT I E5. I ~~C. ~
t~'~E'~RICAL EXCMPTI~N-CLA5S ~ 1200 West ~roadwey, Anaheln~ CA 9280;. Petltioncr
VARIAN- CE N0. 300~7 requests w'AIVER OF MIIIIMUM FRONT SCTBACK TA
CONSTRUCT A LIQUOa STOaE on property describr.d as
an irregularly-shapcd parcel of land consistlny of
approximstoly one acre t~aving s frontage of approximatcly 436 feet on tl~~ e~st side of
Harbor Boulevard~ having e maximum deptf~ of approxima~tely 2~~3 feet, being located appr~ ~cl-
mately 185 feet north of the centerline af Nai~ Road~ and further rJescribed as 10~~0 S~uth
Harbor Boulevard. Property presently classified CN (COMMERCIAL. HEAVY} AND CG (GOMME~CIAL,
GENERAL) ZONES.
There was no one Indicating thelr presance (n op~ositfon to ~;ubject request~ and although
the staff report t~ Lhe Planning Commisslon dateJ April 2~, 197:; was not read at the
public hearing~ it is referred to and made ~ part of the rninutes.
Art Shipkey. owner~ asked if the Interc~epartmental Committee recor~nerdation that
undorground utllities be provided referred to tl~e new builrii~g on1y.
Annika Santalahti~ Assistant Oirector for Zo~ing~ pointed out the Electr{cal Divisian's
policy is thAt when there Is an exlsting pale on the property that can s~°rvice a ~ew
buildl~g~ they wlll grant e r'vor of that item, Rnd that he can wark th~t prr~t,lem out
directl~r with the Electrical ulvision. She stated they do not l~ook at th~e° property and
calculate where the polc is located relative to where the new I~uilding ~~ c~oing to be~ and
Just Automatlcally assume thare are no poles that can service the b~aildi~g and the
condition Is always added; that if he er.platns the sttuati~~ t^~ t.hr.n, th~-y can work it
out.
Mr. Shipkoy indicated the conditlons call for sidewmlks on 1larbor dc-ulevard and indicated
tk~ere are sldewalks at the present time.
Jay Titus~ Offfce Engineer~ explainad the field inspection rr.~port ind1cates there are no
sidewalks in the area of the rrqped shap and that (t ts a staiedard conditlon that sidrwalks
will be requlred wherc there are no exlsting sidewalks; thet the Clty w~ill replace
exlsting sidewalks If t~~e street is widened~ but that [he coc~ditican refcrs to areas Nhere
there are no si de.walks~ as requi red by the CI ty Engineer.
Mr. Shipkey referrad to the driveway access and indtcated there was e disagreement the•c;
that bec~use of thc way the parking is set up nn the plan, ttiey do need the er.isting
driveways; that they were eliminating one driveway by elimina[`~g Lhe moped shop and they
were trying tu create more parking spaces. He indtcate~ he thaught it was ttie Traffic
Engin~er's concern that traffic wuuld be gaing back out ontU Harbor Boulevard~ but he d~d
not think that wuuld happen.
THE PUBLIC HEARIt~G WAS CLOSEU.
Chairman Tolar ind(cated,concerning the parking and r.he driveways~ that anytime there is
development on any property~ the Planning Commi~sion tries to get intertor circu{atir~n
rather than main thoroughfare circulation; that they recognize ti~is Is an unusual pEece of
property i~ size and shape and th~re are some rroblems in developing it and that they
wauld be ienient towards this type of development. but hc did not fe~l all t'he driveways
were nece~sa~y; that therr. is enough room on the p~operty for int~rior ci~culatfon so that
the traffic Is not out on Narbor Boulevard~ which is already bad e~ough. Ne felt by
elimi~ating one of the parking spaces on-site~ they could eliminate two of the driveways
4/24/78
~: .
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CtTY PUINNING COMMISSION~ APall 24~ 1978 7~'297
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 AN~ VARIANCE N0. 30A7.(continued)
and mske the two remelning driveways wider. He stated it did not rt-eke any Sens~ to him
thet therQ should be four driveways nnto Harbor Boulevard at this location.
CQMMISSIONCR LINI~ ARPtIVED AT 3:00 P.M.
Commissione~ Nerbst painted out there is a caunterflow of traffic on tho plan as shawn~
and Mr. Shipkey asked if the Comm{sslon would allow two driveways and polnted out he Is
putting 1~ a nr:w ltquor store and It does not concern the rest of the property at all. and
evo~tuelly he plans to develop the rest of the property and dld not like to disturb it at
thls tlme. Ne felt the cirtveways miqht Interfere witl~ I~aw the rest of the prope~ty Is
developed.
Chalrn-sn Tolar indicatPd I~c liked what th~ petitloner is trying to do~ bu[ it is very
difflcult for him to support thc proj.:ct with tl~ese driveways; that this is a vory br~d
corner and he felt the circulation would have to be on tl~e property itself befc~re he could
support ~ t.
Nr. Shipkey Indicated thot when that street is wl~lened~ It w111 make a considerable
dlfference; lhet tt is being discussed at tho present time to wlden it by 13 feet~ but he
did not knaw when this would happen,
Canmissloner Kin~ lndlcated he also felt thet circulatlan would have to be provided on the
property ttself.
Ghairtnan 7olar indicated he cauld support the use if the circulation plan as approved by
tt~e Trafflc Engineer cou1J be brougl~t back for re~rtew by the Planning Gommission.
It was noted the Planniny Director or hls authorized representative has determined that
khe proposed project falis within the Je+finition of Catcgorical Extmpttons~ Class 5, as
deflned in par~grapl~ 2 of the City of Anahetm Envir~~nmental Impact Report Guldelines and
is~ the~efore. categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR.
ACTION: Commissi:,ner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC78-83 and moved for its passaye and
ad ~~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission daes hereby g~anc Petition for
Variance No. 3007 on the basis that the applicant has stipulated t~ pravide on-site
circulation with two driveways to service the entire ~roperty. as approved by the Trafftc
tngineer~ and any modificatlons to said ctrculation plan shall be reviewed by the P~anning
Commission~ and sub~ject to Interdepartrnental Committee recommendations.
On roll call, t~ie foregoing resolution was passed by the followin9 vote:
AYES: COMMISSIGNERS: BARNES. OAVIU, NERUST~ KII~G~ TALAR
NOES: COM1115SIONERS: NONE
AI35EN?: COMMISSIONERS: JOHNSO~~
AD5TAIN: CaNMISSI0NER5: LINN (not having been present for entire hearing)
4/24/78
~, ~.
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CI?Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 24~ 197H 78-295
I TEM N0. 6 PUBLIC HEAR I t~G. OWI~ER: TH~ EUCL I p-ROMNEYti COMPAt~Y ~
EIR'~ CA-` 7EGORICAL EXEMNTION~CLASS 1 50$ North Tustln Avenuc~ M219~ Santa Ane~ CA g2705,
. AGENT: S.W.N. CORPORATION~ 17231 17t~~ Str~~t~
Tustln~ CA 926~i0. Petltioner request~ ON-SALE 9EER
ANU WINE IN A PROPQSED RESTAURAI~T on prape~ty described
as a rectanyul~rly-shapec~ parce) of lend cansisting of approximately 2.U acres located north
and east of the northeast corner of Romneya Drlve and Euclid Streer~ tiaving approximate front-
ages of 75 feet on the north stde of Romneye Orlve and ~~SS feet on the aast slde of Euclid
Stroat~ being loceted spproximately 15Q feet east of the centerline of Cuclid Street~ 150 feet
north of the centerllne of Romneya Drtve. and further d~scribed as 12bQ North Euclici Street.
Pro~erty presently ~laselfied CL (COMMERCIAL. LINIT~D) 7.O~~E.
There wos no nne indicating their presence in opposixlon to subJect rr.quest, and elthough
the staff report to the Planning Commisslon daked Aprll 24, 197~ was n~t rra~f at the
publtc hearing~ it is referrPd to and made a part ~f the minutes.
Tnm Sims~ 4718 Plasldia. North Nollywood~ representing S.W.l1. CorpcratVo~, agent~
Endiceted the plans are to build a 4200 squa~e foot coffee shop with a French motif and
they would llke to have permiss(on for on-sale baer and w(ne~ ~~prr.sr,nting 3~ of their
buslness~ with 97$ of Cheir bustness as foc~d service; and tha~ tt~Gy woulcf be open 24 hours
a day.
THE PUI3LIC I~EARING WAS CLOSEU.
it was noted che Planniny pirector or his a~~thor(zed rec~rescntative has determined th~t
the proposed p~oJecc falls w(thin tho deflnitian uf Gateqorica) Excmpt(ons. Cless 1~ as
defined in paragraph 2 of the City of An~hetm Enviranmental tmpact keport Guldellnes and
is~ tharef4re~ categarically exempt From the ~equirernent tra preparr. an EIR.
ACTION: Commissioner David offered Resolucion -~u. PGjB-~+ and moved far (ts passage and
adoptTon~ that the Anaheim C(ty planning Comm+ssion c!ocs hereby grant Petition for
ConditlanAl Use Permit Na. 1820~ subject to Inte~rck par~mental Committee recomnendatlons.
On roll call~ the foregoing resolutio~ was passed b~; the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: E3ARNES~ DAVID~ HERf35T~ KIIiG, IINN, TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIOt~ERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMIS510NER5: JOHNSOFI
RECESS There was a fifteen-minute recess at 3:05 p.m.
RECU~~VENE The meeting was retonvened at 3~~~ p.m., all Commissioners being present
except Johnsoh.
ai2ai~a
MINUTE5~ ANh1iEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOf~~ APRIL 24~ 1~78 ~8'299
ITEM N0. ' PUItLIC NEARING. OWNCRS: MARCUS A. ANO KAREII S.
~l~t i~ VC UECLARATION G1IRTNER~ 215 Nortl~ Scote Coi lec~e Boulevard~ AnehclM,
I USE C M 0. 1~22 CA 923~)6. AGkt~T: P. F. STIINGER~ Ia433 Amiscad~
Fountain Valley~ CA ~270f{. Petltioner requosts
pcrmisston to ESTAfil.1511 A DRIVC-TtIR0UG11 RES7AUkANT
on property described os ~~ rectangularly-shoped parcel of land c~nslsting of epproxlmately
0.7 ecr~ t~aving a frantage of approximately 100 fr.et on tl~e west side of State College
aaulevard~ having a maximum Jepth af approximately 35a feet~ and bcin~ located approxlmately
4U2 f~et north of the centerline of Center Street, Prorerty presently classlfled CL
(COMM~RCIAI~ LINITLU) ZONk:.
There w~s no one indicatinc~ their rresence (n oprostcion to subject request~ and alt~~ough
the steff report to the Planniny Connn(ssion dated Apri 1 7.i~, 1~7`S was nat reod at the
public hearin~~~ it is rFrfr.rrPJ ta ar~d m~~de a port of the minu[es.
Comrtiissioncr Kiny indicated to tl~e Chairman that he had ~ possfble conf{ict of interest as
deflned by Anahcim ~ity Planniny ConN~~ission Resolution I~o. PG7f~-1~J~ adopting ~i Confiict
of Interest (:odc for tt~e Planniny Caumis,ion~ and Governrnent Code Sectian 3G2y~ et seq.,
in thet his wife is essociated witl~ K~tella Ftealty Comrany and ICetella RCalty is located
within .;U~ feet of cf~is rroJect ~ind~ pursuant to tt~e pr~visions of tf~e above codes, hc was
decla~inc~ to ti~e Lha~rm~n that he w.~s withdrawing from the he~rinq in connection witfi
Item No. ~1 and woulJ not c.~kc part in either the discussion or the votinn therenn~ and
tliat he had not dlscusse~ tf~is matter with any meml~er of the Plannin~ Commission.
TIIEREUPON, C0~1MI SS I ONER KI NG Lf f T TIIE LOUIIG I L C-iAMUCR AT 3: 2n P.M.
Pete Stanyer~ agent, representiny Wen~y's aestaurants~ referrcd to a IJendy'~ Restaurant
construcke~ on West La Palma Ave~nuc apprc~ximately on~~ yea~ ac~o a~d indic~ted this would be
a s(r.if lar type operatt~n, lie inJicated tliey were aware of •,e curb cut situatlon the
Traffic Enyineer prefers and th.~t they woulcl t,e. hAppy to cor~ply with st~ff
recortunendations. Ne indicate~i they h~id not had time to resubm(t plans~ but they did have
a plan available which would c~~mpiy wlth the Traffic En~ineer's desirr_s and sugge3ted that
the Planniny Commission approve [hc conditic~nal use permit sub.ject to the stipulAtian that
the circulation plan wc~ulJ meet with the Traffic Engineer's approval.
Chai rman Tol~r as~.eu ;1r. Stan~~e-• i f he haJ the revised plans wl th him~ and lie indicated
that he d 1 c1.
Annika Santalahti~ Assistant ~ir~cCor for Zoning, and Jay Tashiro, Associate Plt+nne~,
reviewed the plans and indica[eJ it appears the circulation element would meet with the
Traffic Englneer's approval.
TIIL PUISLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEU.
Cliairman Tolar asked if the new plans would re~iuce the amount of parking, anJ Mr, ~tanger
replied that shey da have sufficien[ spaces to n~eet code requirements.
Conx-~issioner fiarncs stated this was an unusual-shaped piece of property and did not seem
suited for a ~irive-through restaurant.
Mr. Stanc~er painted out they do have peak operating I~ours between 11;30 a.m.~1:30 p.r~.~ and
r~~at woul,i be the only ttme they could have any problem with traffic. Ne tndicat~d thsy
wouid tiave workers on ti~e site t~ help route the people through the drive-through and did
4/24/7b
d
.
MIIJUTkS~ ANAlIE1M CITY PLANNING CONMISSION~ APfill 24~ 197~ 7a-3~~
EIR NECA7IVE UECLAMTIpN AND CONUITION_AL_USL_PERMIT NO~It321 (con[Inued)
n~t anticipate any problems aff-sjte. -le palntQd out they have severAl different
configuratlons of drive-th~ough restau~ents and this was thc one best sulted for the site.
Jay Taslilro ind(ceted he believed the proposal cioes confarM to the code requirernents and
noted tl~e trash enclosure w~uld have to be relocated.
Mr. Sta~c~er indicated they ftiad sufflclent space to rclotate the trash enclosure; that thls
operAtion does not encauragc ~n-sitc cating and did not stay open past 1~:00 p.m.; that it
is not the typical fast-fuod restaurant but that everythinc~ in tl~eir opPration Is fresli;
cl-at Chey I~ave f resh bee f, ecc. ~ wli i ch f s de 1 1 vered eve ry rrx~rn i ny an~ they ~re a maver i ck
in the fast-food buslness.
ACTION: Commissicmer David offered a motion~ secc~nded by Ccx~~missioner Nerbs[ and MOTIOIJ
CARRIEU (Commissioncr Johnsr~n bei,~g absFnt)~ that tl~e Anahcim Clty Pinnning Commission has
revlewed the sub.~ect proposal to permit a drive-throuhh restaurant on a rectangularly-
shaped parcel of land consistfn~~ c~f approximotely 0.7 acre having a frontane of
approxir~ately 100 fcet on thc~ west sldc of State Coilege ~oulevard, h~vin~ a mAximum depth
of approximately 3S5 fcet~ an~i beiny lo~ated approximat~ly 4~2 feet nort~~ of the
cent~rline of Centcr Strcet; and d~.~es herehy ~pprove t'+c t~ec~ativr. Declaration from thc
rEqu(rement to prepare an envfronmcntal impact report ~n the t,asis that there wc-uld be no
siynificanc individual or cumulative ~dverse environmental impact due to tf•~e a~proval of
this Nec~ative Declaratiun since the M aheim Generol Plai- Jesignates tl~e subi~ct property
for nene~a) commercial land uses commen~urate with the pro-~osal; that no sens~t~ve
environrnental fmpacts arc inv~lved in ttie proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by
[he petitl~ner indicstes no si~anificant indiviJua) or cumulativc adverse environmentAl
1r~pacts; and tliat the Neyativc Declaration subst~~ntiatinq the fpre~oin<a findin~s (s on
flle in the City of AnAhcii~i Rlanniny Ue,~arcment.
Com~iissioner Uavid offer•eci Resolution No. PC7~-6~ and movect for its passaqe and adoption,
that the Anahei~., City Planninr~ Goinmiss(on does hereby qran[ Petition for Conditlon~) Use
Permit No. 1~22~ subject to tt~e re:viseJ plans as presenteJ t>cing apnroved by the
Sanitation U(vlsio~ and Trash Enyineer anJ any mo~ifications to the plFns should be
revieM~ed by the Planniny CommiSSion~ and sut,ject to ~nterde~artr~ental Cortrnittee
recammendations.
On roll call, the fo~egolny re,olution was passed by che foliowing vc~ce:
AY~:S: COPIMISSIt,~lk.ftS: tiAR~ItS~ UAVIU~ t1ERl~S7~ LINt~, TOLAR
N0~5: COMNISSIO~IERS: t~OrJC
A(~SENT: G011P115SIONERS: JOfiN5011
A[i5TAlr~: COI~~~ISSION[RS: KING
COMM15510t~ER KINC RCTURNED TO T11E COUNCIL CHAMBER.
4/24/78
MI~JUTES~ ~NAIiEIM CITY PLANNING GOMMISSION~ 11PRIL 24~ 1976 7a'301
(TEM N0. b PUULIC IIEARING. OWNER,: FOaEMOST-NL Y.ESSON~ IfIC. ~
'~~VC DECLARATIOtI Cr~cker Plazo. One Post Str~et, San FranclsG~, CA
NU I O~~A~ U E ERMI T N0. I J23 91~) Q4. AGENTS : CAL 1 FORN t l1 TRUGK RENTIIL C0. ~ 93~
- East Sixth Street~ Las Angeles~ C11 90021 and TIIE
SEl:LkY CUMPAIIY~ 20~1 Uusinr.ss Center Dr ive~ N 1y 0~
Irvine~ CA y271S. Petitioncr rcquests permissl~n to ESTAl3LlSli A 7RUCK ANI~ TRAIIER ftE~~Tl1L
YARU W1711 II~GIUENTAL TRUGK aEPAIR an property describeci as a~~ irre4ularly•sl~aped pflrcel
of land consistiny of approximetely 2.~~ acres h~ving ~ frontage of approximately 135 feet
on tlie soutli side of Ball Road~ h~ving a mr~ximum deptli of ap~roximatcly ~~lt~ feet~ belnc~
lacated approxtr,ately )(,0 feet we~t of thc centeriine uf Lewis Strect~ and further
descrll~ed as G20 East -~all Road, Property presently classifted ML (IN(~US7RIAL~ LIMITEO)
zc~r~c .
There was no one Indicatinq thelr presence in upposltion to subJect request, ~nd Although
thc staff report to the Planniny Commission dated April 2~+~ ll~J~ was not read at :he
public hearing~ It is referrea to a~d moue a F~~r~ ~~f thc minuLc~.
Jay Tashiro, Associate Planner~ reported that one lettr..r hz~d been received in opposition
indlcating concern rcyar~fin~~ thc scrccniny.
John k~eacli~ PresiJent of the California Truck Ren[~~ Cor~~pany~ indic~ted lt was their plan
Co convert this property into a truck and tra(ler rental anct service facility in order to
better serve thr_ custurnr.rs in ~ranyc County.
T~IL PU(3L1 G IILARII~G WAS CLOSED.
qC~ TIpN; Comm'ssioner Kinca ~ffcred a n~otion. seconded by Commissioner Uavid and MQTION
CARRItD (~o-~nissloner Jahnson being absent), that the AnaheiM GitY Planning Commission has
revlewed t',s subject proposai tu perrnit A tr~ck and trailer rental yard with incidental
repair on an irregulerly-s~~aped parcel of land conslsting of appraximatelY 2.4 acres
having a frontage of approximately 13~ feet on [he south side of aall Road, having a
maximum de~th of approxirnatcly 41~ fee[~ being located approximately 9Cp feet west of ~hc
centerllne c~f Lewis Street; and does heret~y approve ti~e Negative Decl~iration from tht
requ(rement to prepare an environmental impact report ~n tf~e basis that there would be no
slgnificant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of
thts t~eyative Declaration since Che Anaheim Genr.ral P1an designates the subject property
fcr general industr(al land uses c~mmc;nsurate with the prop~sal; that no sensltive
environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; chat thc Initiai Study submitted by
the petitianer indicates no siynificant in~iividual or cumulat(ve adverse environmental
impacts; and that tl~e Pleyative Ueclarati~n subst~ntiating the foregoing findings is on
flle in the Gity of A~aheim Planniny Department.
Commissioner Qavid offered Resolution No. PG7a~8t; an~ moved for its passage and adopt(on~
tl~at th~ Anaheim Ci[y Planning Gommissi~n does I~ereby grant Pet~tion for Conditional Use
Permit N~. 1823, subjett to Intcrdepartmental Committee recammendations.
On roll call~ the foreyoing resolution was passed by the follc~wing vote:
AYES : COt1Ml SS I O~JE RS : l3ARNl• S~ DAV I D, IIE.Rl3ST ~ Y.I I~G, L 1 N-~, TOIAR
NOES: COMMISSIONL'RS: NONE:
At~SENT: C011MIS510NERS: JOt1~~S0'~
4/24/78
MINUT~S~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNIIJG COMMISSION~ APRIL 24, t97u 7a-302
17CM N0. PUBLIC IIEARING. 041NER: R~f3ERT 11, SCIIULI.F.R IN571'fUTF
~R A VE DECLARATION FOR SUCCESSFUL Ct1URC11 LEAUERSIIIP~ 12141 lewis StreeC,
C t USC RM N0. lti2~ Gdrden Gr~ve~ CA 92G40. A~E-~T: GIIRDEN GROVE COMMUNITY
WAI+ VER OF COUE REQUIRk:MENTS GIIURCII~ 12141 Lewis Strcet~ Ga~den Grove. Cl1 '~'26~~Q.
Petltioner reques~s permPssion to ESTAEiLISII A CEMETCRY
WITt1 NAIVER OF (A) MAXIMU±~ FEI~CE IIL' IGNT~ (B) MAX111U11
5TRUCTURAL HC I G~IT ~( C) M I N( MUM FRONT YAitU 5~TI3ACt; ~ Af10 ( U) MI ~~I MUM S I DE YAR~ SETUACK on
propurty descrlbed as an irreyularly-shaped parcel c~f land consisting of Approxlmotely 3.9
acres h~ving appr~x(matc frantayes of 3G3 f~et on ttie south sidc ~f Orangewood Avenue, 437
f~et on tt~e east si~fe of Lewis Street~ Anci 23~i feet ~n thc soutl~wes~ sicJ~ of Manci~~stcr
Avenue. Property presently classified K5-A-43~00~ (RESIUE~~TIAI./AGRICULTUP,AL) Z~NE.
The;re were twn persoiis {ndic~tiny thelr presence (~~ appositi~n to Subjc:cC request~ and
althuugh the staff repurt t<~ the Planntny Camm(ssiun datc~ April Z4, 197ls was n~t read at
the publlc hearing~ ft Is referred to and madc: a part ~f thc minutes.
Ca~l Wallace, 1U1 West Chapm~~n Avenur., UrAriyc, representinq the f,arden Grovc Communlty
Church~ indlcatuJ this requ~st is for a caiiJitiunal use permit for 3,~ ~~c,reS loca[e~f at
the cnrner ~f Oranyew~o~ Avenue and Lewis 5[reet t4 be use~i ~s a cemetery. Ne inJicated
this usc woul~l l~e compa[fbl~ with the surroundinq arca and referred to the Melrose Abbey
Cemetcry abutting this ;~ropr.rty. Ne stated they propuscd 4~;(1G lar~n c~raves and 1~~J garden
crypts~ and th~t there would be a ZO-fout Jriveway yoinc~ tl~roueali, with Craffic always
c~oing in une directiun; and that the .~rca across Lewis Street ~s residential. He
inelicated the waivers rec~ueste~i were fe~r a fence hiyher ch,,n coJc ~llows and indicated an
cxlstin~~ fance is higher than ; feet w(th lhree barbed wire str~~ncls on tap of it. He
indlcateJ they felt thc sctbacks from thc frc~nt and sidc yards were unnecessary in that
the praperty will bc develaped witti landscaping and lawns.
Ne referrec! to thc Interdepartnx;ntal Committee reconmendatfon rcqui~ing tl~at the owner of
subJect property shall deed to the Cit;~ of Ana~~eim a strip of land 3; feet in widtt~ from
Lhe centerllne of the strPCt alony Lewis Strcet ~or s[reet wid~nin~~ pur~oses. He
(ndicated he belleved there was a rather largc~ strip of land dPdicateJ for wi<iening on the
east s(Je of Lewis Street~ ~u[ that chey would canforn to tliat condition. t~e referred to
Condjt(on No. ~~ which is a ~~~aJor concern and ~a~thing they were not aware of, that a
strtp ~f lanJ ;2 feet sautt~<~f tlie exiStiny centerlinc of Orangewood Avenuc be reserved
for a perio~ of eight years for future ult(r-ate rigl~t~-of~r~ay far a future Orangewood
Avenue crossing of the Santa Ana Frea~ay. ile ind~cated ha understood that has never been
decllcated. Ile felt tliis woulJ tie up a I~t of tf~e property (about 47 feet or S100~00~
wurth of property)~ and they would no[ be able to use it for eight years. fle indicated he
liad unJerstood tf~e overpass at f~arbor I~ad taken care of this need,
Uiana Sheats~ 33~ Cliffwood, indicated that several of the 1~omeawners were concerned about
the waiver of maximum builJtny heiyht and askeJ if it would be possiblP far the petitic+ner
to put anocher buildiny on a different part of the iand.
Mr. Wallace potntecf out the staff report wa~ referriny to tl~e crypts whlch are six or
seven high~ which would bc tl~e same situation as 1lelrose Abbey nn the east side of Lewis~
that they are about 16 feet hiyti, and th;~t [hese crypts wouid be abutting the present
cemetery and be no hi~her than the ones existing.
Chairman Tolar clarified that if the watver is approved, the struGcures can be constructed
to a hel9ht of only 1G feet.
4/24/78
~.._
MINUTCS~ ANAH~IM CITY PLANNIt~G COHMISSION~ APRIL 24~ 1;17g 18-303
EIR NEGATIVC DECLARATION AND CONUITIONAI. USE PERMIT N0._182~ (contlnued)
TI~E PUBLIC fiEARING WAS ClOSEp.
(.heirman Tolar explainod the City of Anahelm's position cnncerning the Orangewood
sltuetlon~ and that the reservation or stipulatlon requires the prr,perty owner would
utlllxe eve~y otl~er bit of the property first and hold that portion in abeyAncc until it
is conflrr-~ed whether or not thero wlll be en expanslon of Orengewood ac~oss the freeway.
When it is d~terinlneJ~ the City or Ca{Trans would take dedicati~~n of che land and they
would have to poy for the land that is n~~t being utilixed. Ile indicated hc would support
the pro,ject but nnt unless that conditian is included~ bect+use of what Is happening (n the
commerc(al-recre~tion arca; and that there is going ta be n lot of trAffic to the west of
this property.
Ile ind(cated an~ther prc~blem ic tf~at once chls parttcular use ts allowed~ It Is not like
s~rtie ~thor interlm uses~ tliat this ts a clifferent slcuation enCirely duc t~ thc permanency
of use.
Mr. Wallace polnted nut It was in their plans that thls piece of property woulci be used
for the men~bership of the church and i~itimeted that all of tliese lots would be sold or
taken in a period uf tw~ or three years anJ that eighC-year reservatlon would probably
stymie the whole pr~lect. ile indlcated he: would accept the City's recortnendatlons and
refer them to the ~hurch cortmltt~e to de[erinine whether or not they can us.^. it this way.
Chairman Tolar poinCed out tt~c church wauld have the rigl~t t~ appcal tl~is conditlon to the
City Council. Ne inciicate~ t~e felt it is a very serious matter and that at some time in
tiie future a determination will have to be made in rclationship to thc traffic east of
there th~t has to go west.
Mr. Wallace pointed out therc are highly residential areas un both s~des of the freeway
and that there woul~l be a great deal of oppositlon to opening up the f~•eeway access to
heavy trafflc.
Camntssioner King asked Mr. Wallace his plans concerninq the trash~ and Mr. Wallace
replied they would conform to thc Ct[y's requirements and pointed out the destgnated place
for trasti pick-up.
Commissloner Herbst indicated the Oranyewood overpass has been dlscussed for quite a few
years and that everyone has knawn thc need will arise some ttme i~ tl~e future. Ne
indicated he realizad this does throw quite a f~ardship on [he ~roperty, hut that this use
is a permanent type use unlike the average cc~nditional use permit which is granted.
Andr~.wv Calderone~ who llves across the street, indicated he was the general manager of
Melrose Abbey and that he was aware of the p-'oposal of using Orangcwoc~d for a freeway
overpass; that this Is in his back yard and he thouyht the access at Ghapman Avenue an~'
bridge to the Stadium had relieved the proposal on Orangewood, and this ls the first he
has heard of it.
Ctiairman Tolar painted out it is his understandtn~ that it is hoped the State College
over-ramp will accomplish what ne~ds to be accomplished traffic-wise~ but that a
reservation is being considered for eigl~t years so that this parcel of la~nd on the north
side of the p~oJect abutting 4rangewood will be heid until that determinatian has been
made. He indicatecl there are no iirvnediate plans to do anything there~ but there will have
to be some plans for getting ttie people aut uf the area and back to the west.
~/z4/78
78-304
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY pLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 24~ 197~
EIR NEGATIVE OEGLARATI011 AN~_CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 182~ (GO~tlnued)
Jny T{tus, Office Enylneer. polnted out besically thc Stete~ Colle,qe ov~rtrossing af
'iepman handl es north•s~uth trAff 1 e but nat the cast-wcst t raf f i c. Ho pa i nted out the
~rangowood situntinn lies nat baan tAkan off the lon~~-range p~ans~ but tliat the Immedlate
uryency of construc~l n~thknc~w~spec) f I cA 1 Itytwhtens 1 tt oul dhbe neededsbuti thAtt1thP) ul tir~~+tee
plsnning and I~e dl
r{yht-of-way has to be protccted~
Mr. Calderone Indicated tl~e church is concerned becnuse this represents about 510~~QA0
worth of yraves. Ile inJlcatmJ lia thou~ht tl~e consideratian for the Oranqewood off-rnmp
hod been dro~~ped; that hc felt Oran9ewooJ is handling tl~c cast••west tr~fflc to the
f reeway .
Jby Tltus pointeci uut OrMnyewood yucs we~terly t~~ Anaheli,~ Bo~lcvara and thnt It ends
there~ and that th~re is SOrAff'Icufnrthe a`rea1asmikt~evr,lopseasd aitraffichcarricforYw111
there is y~~~ig to be morc L
be nce~:~cl (n an~ out of that ar~•~.
Mr. Galdr.r~nc indicated tie iives in th~~t erea and lie has n~~t h~d any trouble getting
acrass to [I~~c area u5fn~~ tl~e afc~reinc:~tio~ed route.
Chai rman Tolar indlcatcJ ~~e diJ nut see ha"~ t~'i ro~o~al andF+4reco~nf zes tt~at~i tnl5yveryet h~e
d~ J not knc~w how i t w~ul c~ af fect the church s P ~ rn bu[ [hen ay~ i n may ~ot happen ~
d(fficult to consiJer somcihin~~ that cuul~ p~ssi5ly happ~
but i t has to bc cui~s i dc rc d.
Mr. Wallacc inriicated tt is difficult to unJerstand why an eascrn~nt I~as nevcr beCn
recorded; tt~at ^ persorti rnakes a purcliase of land and suddenly finds oui he cannot use a
portlon of ~~is p~~opr.rty for ciyt~: ye~~rs A~~~1 tha~ it is an extensive piece of the property.
Chal rma~ Talar indl catec~ ef~~~~nnotCask,someone~tordeed~P~pP~o~yot~tthei ai tyuunti 1~ there is
propused for use; that th y
A proJcct requi ring that portion of t.hc lar~d.
Jack Whit~~ Deputy Ci[y Att~~rncy~ pointed out tl~e only reasan this condition is being
considerecf is because the use is for a burial site~ and pointPd out the only reason they
would even havc to consi der lnoking at the conditi is'neededGfc~rea~f ubl icdrightuofYway~t
resul ts wl~en and i f i t i s determined the property ~
after burial crypts I~ave been i~st~lled and occupled. He indicate<i i t was his
unde~standiny that CalTrans wauld not even entertain the icle~ ~f purchasing any property
used as a cemetsry because of the extrcme Jifficulties of acquirin9 e°Qfeusc this'atives
and to relocate the graves. Ne indicated this would be the only typ r ertY.
condition would relate to andwouqd not be Piscussedonce the burialusites are tnstalled.
but i t is almost lmposs : ole to ac ui re the roper[y
Chairman To~ar indicated he IS always concerned when governmental bodies ask for
ciedi cat ions of pr i vatc 1 and wl ttwut rnonetary cons 1 derat 1 on ~ bdec i desh theCashoul dYacqui re~
talking about a very ~xtenslve piece of land and if the City Y
tt, the church would be reimhursed, and t~~at the church should take that lnt~
consideratio~.
Jack White pointed out it ls possible that at some fo~^a ~dificatione fithencondltiont~
year pertod the church wnuld be perrnitted to app y
4/24/78
r"
MINUTES~ ANI111EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 24~ 19~fi ~~"3~~
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION A1~0 CONDiTIOHAI USE PERMIT ~10. 182~ (contlnued)
that it could bo twu years~ fiv~ years~ etc,~ befare tl~e determinetlon is made wliether or
not Orany~wood will be utilized.
Jay Titus pc~intcd out tliis reservatlon is for Glty usc and not CalTrans use.
J~~ck White indlcated he wss simply pointiny out that a Stet~ ac~e~cy in the buslness of
aequlring pruporty on an extensive scale wil) not entortain ocquiring a property that Is
used far th(s purpc~sc. ~ie pointed out it woulJ b~ difflcult for the City to acquire the
property once it hR-s been approvcd for burial sitos t,ecausu of the extreme numbe~ of
re~~ulettans tli~t are placeJ on t1~is type of usa.
Chairman Tal~~r aykccJ l~c~w 11r. 4lallace had dctcrmined the volu~ of thr lan~i, ~nd Mr. Wallace
replled they ware as~ing S7~O.Q~O for the 2.'16 acres; that does not me~~n someone is going
to pay that price~ but that (s che!~' asking price. He stated tf~elr oric~InAl (ntent was to
use It for an (ntcrnatl~nol center fnr th~ rn;nistry and to ~ut a building on It~ but lt
has been the desirr uf the churc.h co have the cemetcry for thcir membcr,hip.
ACTIQN; Comrnlssioner Llnn offered ~~ motion~ sPCOnJed l,y Cammissioner Davld and MbTION
~D (~:ommissioner Johnson being ~bsent)~ thot the Anaheim City Plnnning Commiss(on has
reviewCJ the pr~p~sal to permi t a cemetery wi tli wef vers ~f nk~xi mum fencr. hel c~ht ~ maximum
struttural liclyht~ minimum fr~~r~t yerd sct~ac~:~ and minimu~+ sidc yerd setback. on an
irreyularly-shaped parcel of innd consisting of approxlrnately 3.`~ acres having ~pproxlmate
frontages of 3G; feet un tlie soutf~ ~ide ~f Orenhewoocl Avenuc~ ~~37 fcet on the east side of
Lewis Strer.t. an~ 23(~ feet on the southwest SiJe of Nanchestcr Avenue; and dcxs hereby
epprove the Neyativ_ Ucclaratlun from thc requlrement to prepare r~n environmental Impact
report on the basis that there would be no si9niflcant individual or cumulative Adverse
environme~ntai Imp.ict due to tl~e approval of this Negative DeclAration s(nce the Anaheim
Gancral Plan designates thc subJect propcrty for medium dc~~slty residcntial 1And uses
comn~ns~:rate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmentd' im~~tts are involved in
the propnsal; tl~at tiie Initlal StuJy submit[ed by the petttioncr i, dl~tes no stgnlficant
individual ~r cumulative adv~rse environmental impacts; and that the tleyatlve Declaratio~
substantiating tt~e f~regoing findinc,~s is on file in ttie City of Anahe(~n Planning
Departrnent.
Cor~unlssloner Ltnn offered Resolutinn No. PC7~-87 anc! move<i for its passage and adop:ton,
tf~at the Anaheim City Plannin~,~ Cammission dae.s hereby grant Petition for Conditional Use
Permit tJo. .ti25~ sub}ect to all Interdepartmental Committee recommenJations.
On rotl call, the foreyainy resc~lucion was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISS~ONERS: BARt~CS, I~ER~ST~ KlNG. LINN, 70LAP.
NOCS: COMMISSIONERS: QAVIU
A85Et~T: C~t1MISSI0NER5: .~ONNSQII
Commissioner Uavid indicated his no vot~ reflected his feeling that th(s property was
purchased free and clea~• and th~t the City is imposing a stipulatlon of the probability
that Gould never happen.
Conmissioner Linn polnted out the petitioner could request at any time tl~at this condition
be modifled or eliminaCed.
Commissloner Linn offered a motion, seconded by Gommissioner Nerbst and MOTIOt~ CARRIE~
(Commissioner Johnson being absent and Cammissloner Devid voting no), that the Planning
4/24/78
MINUTES~ AI~Ai~EIM CITY PLANNING C~MMIS5101+ nPai~ 24~ 19T8 78~306
EIR N~GATIVE D~CLARATION ANU CONDITIONAI, U5~ PCRMIT 110. 1825
,ntinued)
Commisalon doos h~•rhby grant walvers oP code roqulrements c,n the bas(s ~hAt the fa~ce is
existing and -~2 t~ches would not adc~~uately p~otact tha prop~rty from va~dals; grantfng
tha walver for~tructu~al he(ght on th~ basis th~t the property Is abucting a similerly-
dovaloped property and thc struci~~res are crypts and not hui ictin9s.
Commissloner Il~rbst pointed out t~~e structure iieight walver w~s qrantad for that
particular portlo~ Qf clie property abutting the temeCery to the south.
Jack White polnted out to the petitioner that hs does have thc right to appeal the
condittons of apwroval to tl~e Clty Council wi tliin 22 d~~ys if he is dissatlsfted.
ITEM N0. 10 PUULIC NkARING. OWNERS; JAMCS P. AND PNYLLIS J.
~IR N- L~GATIVL UECLAR~TIO~! CfiAWFORD~ Iti1~l East La Pelma Av.;nuo~ Anaheim~ CA
COI~UITIOf~AL SE PERMIT ~~0. 1~2n 928r~y. AGCNT: QONALI~ B. UROWN~ 1.7Q t~orth Can~n
Dr(ve, ueverly Hiils, CA 9021~. Petitlaner raquests
pcrmisslon to ESTABLI511 !, TENT CA"1P FACII.ITY 1~~ AN
EXISTING REGR(:ATIONAt. VCIiIGLE Pr1Rr~ on pra;~erty Jescrlbed as t+ rectangularly-shaped paree)
of land consisting of approximately 2.2 acres liavin,y ~ fr~ont~~ge of approximately 2G4 feet
on the cast sidc of Walnut Str~et~ havin<i a~+iaximum d~pth of ar~roximatPly 3GJ feet~ bE~iny
lucoted approxir~ately GG~ feet soutl~ o; the centerline of aall Road~ ~~nd further descrtbed
as 1343 SouthW~st Street. Pr~perty n~esently classif(ed C-R (COMMERCIAL-Rf.CREATION) tOPIE.
There werP six persons Indicatin~~ thei r pres~ncc in oppositfon t~ sub}ect request~ ancl
~~~r~i~ugh the stAff report to the Plannin~ Commisslon dated Aprfl 2h, 1~7~; yltf5 not read et
t~e pub11G he~irlny~ i~ ls refcrre~f [o and madc a part of the ~ninutes.
Donald Brown, agent~ atated the petitioncr ls E~r~posiny an inter!rn use of thc present
recreational vehicle park ~peration; that tl~ry wished tQ taks an unimproved~ unsightly
vacant lot and turn It (nko a park settirtiy; and that they are also proposing a ltmiced
number of tente in that areo. He indieated they felt there is a necd in the City of
Anahelm for tent fac(1 ities. tie nointed out there wi 11 be no structures and it wil) be a
very simple layout.
He refe~red to tha recortunendation conterniny the 3-faot high earthen berm to the west of
Che 6-foot high concrc~te block wall alongWalnut Street. lie (ndicateJ ha sympathized with
thc homcow~sars and pointed out they w~uld be providing landscaping and felt there would be
a real problemwith the 3-f~t carthen barm and felt it would create a security prohlem
based on past expertence. He indtcated it does add an expense to Lhe project which they
fee) is unnecesa~y; that they intend to (ands~ape the arca and did not feel a berm would
be 1 n the best i n te res t~>f the pa r{..
Betty Ronconi, 12b1 South Walnut Str~~et, Anaheim~ submitted a petition signed by 27 people
representlny ehe homeowners residiny on Walnut Street. She read the petition~ as follows:
"We homeow~ers ~~ Walnut Street ~~+~ect to this tent camptny facility~ picnic area and dog
run propose~ in C.U.P. 1H26. Our main reasons for ob,jacting are because of the outdoor
notse of group tent camping~ particularly at niyht and the unsightly appearance of such a
facf ltty unless properly buffered from our homes." She indicated the applicant has
already installed che landscaping and everything Is operating; that Vacattanland had !ised
the addttien to their facility without tho ~p, roval of a conditional use permit; that tt~e
area was supposed Lo be enclosed enti ~ely wi th a block wal l and that they had used tt in
violatton of the conditional use permit. She indicated the residents nbJect to the tent
4/24/78
~
MIt~UTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 2A~ 1976 78'3~7
Ellt NEGA7IVE DECLAKATI01~ ANU CONUI_TIONAL USE PERNIT 1~0. 187.6 (GOntlnued)
foctlity because they relt e conslde~•able an-ount af outdoor noise would bo created~
espectal~y ot niaht; thev felt people ret~~rn(ng from che various ettrncttons~ such ns
QisnQylan,~i, would be qultc nc~isy; tf~at the nolsc level from the RV pa~k at the present Is
quite hiyh. She indlcated they were also concerned ab~ut an open drainaqe ditcl~ which
comes from Weat Street and emptles (nto Walnut Street; that there is alweys watcr in [he
dltch which conxs from the ~x~ol ereo ond any eXCt45 wster drAlns ~ver the surfACe out anto
Walnut Streat.
She Ind(cated they dlsaqreed wlth epproval of the neget(ve declaration since they felc the
noise would be excessive and polnted out it would be a 2~+-hour-a-day op~ratlon. She
lndicated they felt It would I~e difficult to get any enfarcement from t~he City Z~ning
Enforcmment Officer if tl~ey have ~n overtlow of users in the tent area slnce It would
usually occur on a weekencl; that it would be very difficult tu Ilmlt th e number,
Sho {nJic~tc~ tl~ey were askiny that lhls reyuest be denied anJ that if it Is grnnted~ they
hoped the cond(tions would be strictly enforced because tn the past the conditiona) use
permlt has been vlolated. She stated they would likc to request tha~, instead of a 6-foot
black wall, an E's-foot block wall bQ installed. She pointed out the people dl ~ectly to tt~e
west of thQ facility would look right into thc tent area unies,s it ls very heavily
landscaped. She indicated that Tennisland is a beauttful facility, but this ~+ould be a
dtffercnt vicw.
She fndlcated the~ disayreed with the appllcant that tlie berm is not needed and felt a
bermwould discourage graffiti~ ~specially with lieavy landscaping. She referred to the
area bein~ considered for a do~ run and requested that ~ sol(d wall be ~equired ln that
area.
She indicated the homeowners were concerned about matntaining a desirable resident(a) area
under such adverse cond i t i ons ~ and d i d not wan t to be co~s i dered the b ack a I 1 ey t~
Vacat ion 1 and ar the back yard to D) sney 1 and; that they are proud of the i r homes and take
pride In ownership and liked to live in Anaheim~ but 'they fel[ this development would be
incompatlble. She poln[ed out the proposed motel in the area is scheduled to h~ve a wall
and will he nlcely landscaped. She indlcat~J they hoped they could li ve w(th the motel~
but dtd not feei the tent facility falls into that cateyory.
Ralph Surtmerlln~ 13~1 South Walnut Street~ Anaheim~ 'ndicated he had been {n numerous *.ent
cities during his ar+~y career under strict army discipline and they did gc: filthy; that
he did not wish to see d~hs caper(ng up and down in front of his house slnce it is located
dl rectly ~cross the Street and he did not wl sh to look dc~wn in th~ ten ts an~ the
accumulatlon of trash from the people in the tent faci 1 i ty. !ie felt ihe tent faci 1 Ity
would completely demoral ize Every person I iving on that side of [he st reet. He, pointed
out th~ residents have been liviny there for some time and the do9 ~un has not been there.
Mr. Perkins, 1335 Snuth WalnuC Street, Anaheim~ indicated he lfves di~ectly across from
Tennisiand and disagreecJ with the petitioner that children caused problems on the
I andscapPd berm and polnted out there have bee~ no prob lems wi Ch graf f i tl on the wal 1;
that Tenn i s 1 and i s a n i ce add i t i on to ttie ne i yhhorhood and ( f th 1 s wou 1 d be as n i ce ~ he
would t~ave no abjections.
Mr. Brown indicated he felc the big problem seems to be a misundersta~ding of what they
a~e trying ta accomplish. Concerning the cortment r~gardiny cent citi es, he indicat~J this
will be a 28-site aret~ and is a family recreatian park~ and there wili be a charge of
57.50 to 510.00 a ntght. so it would not be attracting the number of people referred to by
4/24/78
~
MIPIUTES~ ANAHE:IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN~ AF~RII 24, 197ts 7a~3~f;
EIR I~EGATIVL UECLARATION ~ND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1826 (c~ntinuad)
Mr. 5ummg~lin. He polntad out Vacationland i~ onc af the cleanest RV parki he ht~s ever
seen and they intended to carry th(s aver into tlie new ddd ition. lis polnted out there
would ba appraximately a 3~0-foot buffer zone between homes And whr.re the tents arc
proposed to be. Ile fe 1 t th i s wos ~ lower dens t ty ttian wha t cou 1 d be created on tl~e s I te.
Answering the concerns thnt they have completed thelr work , he indiceted they have
Instelled sprlnklers end (rnproved the landscaping wlt!~ g~ass, trees~ etc.~ and were not
aware a condi tlonal usa perml t wes requi red for thls octic~n. I~e polntecl ~ut they hr~ve not
built ncwv structures an~l ce~tr-inly h;~ve no~ comhlr.ted the pro.ject or done any work they
fclc wa~ not Icyal, and thot thcy had not vi.~latcd thclr conditiona) usc pcrmlt. !fc
pointQd out thr. C1 fy harl r~r:-nte~~i th~m .~ I~nr~w~ rnrlnrl nf f Irr~ tn r~nstruct thP wa) l~ An~~
they did intend t~ landscape th~ area; tl~at they inkend to p~t a w~~ll along Walnut Street;
and that they were nat in violation of Gity of Anaheim codes. Concerninn the 8-foot wall
requested~ I~e indicatccl tliey wou1J so st(pulate and would be qlad t~ tiave an ~-toc~t wall
s(rict they were concc~rneJ about security and they would be able to have better control
over their property. Concernin~~ che question reg~rdiny the err~ergency access gate~ he
indicated they would be wl ; liny to sti~ulace to fiave a sol id nate. Fle indicatec! the
proJeck th~y are plenniny to bui1J would b~ in k~Npinr~ wi th what is alrcady built and this
wlll be a first-reGe f~~;.ility. 11e stated hP did not fe~:l tt~e ccxnmc~nts about this be(ng a
tent city wcre applicablc.
TIIL PUIfLIG Hf.ARING WAS CLUSkU.
Canmissioner Linn asked hc~w the dogs arc control Ied in che exist(nq faci I ity~ and Mr.
Brown repl ie:u thay do fiave special areas des ignated for thc dogs and a I imi ted nun~ber of
d~gs are al lowed in tlie park. 11e pointed out the pr~posed dog run area is an access road.
Ctiairman Tolar indicateJ I~e lives close to ;lie facilitY and tfiere are a lot of people who
arc walking their ~ogs nov+. Ile stated he recogntxes thc residents ~f Anal~~im are blessed,
even Chough . they cons tant I y comp 1 a i n about taxes ~ and re eaqn i xes a 1 ot of these fac i 1 i t 1 es
hclp in ~elationsl~ip to keepi~~y tax~s la~ered and Gringinc~ income (nto khe City but,
frarikly~ fie could not see expandinq the existiny recrcational vehicle facility~ es~ecially
to al low tents~ and even though a lo[ nf peuple wl~o trav~ 1 caiznot afford a motel or a
recreationel vehicle~ he could not support a tent-type d~ve~opnrent along a street that is
so closely abuttiny reside~tial homes. Ne indicated these people have indicated their
concarn about nolse and he knows that noise does carry~ and that some noises are bet~er
than others and ttiis wi 11 not be noise from vel~lcles. but that hcre you are talking
about the laughter of peop le and ti~at type of noise (s not conducive to the type of
ltfestyle tiie residents (n the area ~re liviny~ and h~e d'+d noc see expanding an ~iready
heavily con~ested area with recreational use such as tliis, Ile indicated he felt there is
need for more developmsnt similar to Tennisland and felt that had been a very good
development for people who live in this part of tl~e City .
Comnissioner 1lerbst indlcated he disagreed r~ith Chairman Tolar's statements; tliat he felt
this is a commercial-recreational arc:a and tltie plans show i t ts 191 feet from the back
portion of the fence to tiie nearest dwelling, and that the petitioner had stipulated to
construct an tS-faot hiyh block wall, which would m(tigate the noise. He indicated he
r~cognizes that the size of the parcel with limited access is a problem~ but th~t this
developrtient would create less conflict a~ith no traffic congestion and wo~ be
creating any traffic nn Walnut Street~ and with 191 feet of landscaped bu• ~a between
the tents and the liauses~ he felt this type of facilfty would be compatibl~ ~. is needed
for those peop l e who come ta the rec rea t i ona 1 area; tha t there a re peop 1 e wt~o cdnnot
affo~d hotels and motels and who would only be in tha area for one or two nights. Ne felt
4/24/7~
MINUTES~ AI~AIIEIM C1TY PLaNNING COMMISSItIN~ APRIL 24~ 1~78 78-309
EIR NEGATIVE pECLAMTION ANU CONDITIONAI. U5L PERMIT N0. 1E~26 (contlnuPd)
with heevlar landscaped areas and circulatlon aut onto West Street and with the number
limited~ iie could support the proJect. t~ut fult the doy run could be sfiortened to the 191
faet of landscaped area anJ a aolld wall on Welnut, inscced of a chAinlink fence~ should
be contlnued around the corner to block vtsib(lity fram WAlnut Street.
Mr. Urown polnte~! out a chainlink fence is re~uired and shown ,ince this ls a commercial-
r~creatlun zone~ but that a block wall fence is proposecl.
Comm(ssioner 1lcrbst IndicateJ he was cuncr_rned about [t~e vic;w from Walnut Street into the
area and thtat was the petitionc:r's responsibllity~ ~nd Felt t',e hlock wal) would help~
e~peclally with lancl~capin~;. Ne indicatecJ he f~lt 23 tents is a liyhler use an~ (f [li~
area were fully screen~,d a~el Iandsca~eJ, it wou{d giv~ anather seqmeni. of the population
an opportunlty to enje.~ the recreational arcas.
Commtssioner oavt~i aske~l the petfti~~ner tc~ explaln the doq run~ and Mr. Brown replled that
thcy do ~llow a limited nun~ er af dags into tF~e p~rk; th~~c the owners necd to have A plt+ce
to take these dogs on ~ leasFi.
Chairmar~ Tolar asked how they p ropase~l to keep this doy run area clean, and Mr. Brown
replied they would rototill thc soil As necess~7ry.
Commissioner David askecJ (f any tent patrons would be allow~d to h.ive ~ogs~ ~~nd Mr. [srown
replied tl~r.y have not set a n~iicY~ but they could limit chat area to patrons wlth no
dogs. Commissioner Davicl felt that this shoulci be: a condition since {t seemed to t~e one
of th~ mAJor conc.erns ~f the opposi tion,
The manager of VacationlanJ~ Carl Neylar~ (ndicate~i the rtiajority of the patrons In the
ttnt area would have pup tents and a~ touris~s from Europe carrying their backpacks. tle
statcd a lot of people seen walkiny tl,cir do~~s down Ball Road and Walnut Street are from
other areas besides Vacationland.
Ghairman Tolar indicated he wanted to remind tf~e Commisslon ttiat while they are talking
about the tonmerc(al-recreation zanc. other uses tfian recreatianal vehicle parks are
allowed in that zone and ref~rred to Te~nisland aa an ~xample. ~le was reminded of the
Planning Commission's ~oncern for protecting the res(dential integriry of an area and
disagreeJ that recrpat(onal vehicle parks are t~n interim use~ that they are perma~ent. Ne
felt to allow this type use further west toward the residential area would be preclud(ng
any other type faciliti~s. such as Tennisland, which would be more corr~atibie with the
resldential area. t~e indicated he had r~ot heard any argumants that would change his
tt~inkin~~ especially in allowin~~ people travFling from Eu~ope carrying pup tents~
backpacks~ etc.. ta ~til;ze this area. Fie felt the sltuation would be worse and would net
be a compatible uss.
Gortmtssioner Barnes indicated she disagreed with Chairman Talar, that the peopis who visit
from Europe ~re pretty gooc~ neighbors as opposed to some families. She ~ndicated she did
not sse the difference in nois~ from people coming bacE; [o tents and those coming back to
recr~atlonal vehicles or trailers. She indicated she was co~cerned about the drainage and
asked about thp open drainage ditch referred to earlier.
M~. (irown indicated the~e is a naturai drainage from Vacationland Park existfng ont~
the vacant, unimproved lot throuyh the tent city; that with the he.avy rains they have
allowed it to run out. He pointed aut the plens would have to be constructed with a
4/24/78
d
,,
MINU7E5~ ANAiIEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMh11SS10N~ APRIL 24~ 1~78 78-310
EIR NEGATIVC DECLARATION ANU CONDITIONAL USE PEitMIT N0. 1826 (ca~tinued)
co~crete ditch to Welnut tn accordence with appr~val of the duilding ~Ivist~n and that the
dr~inage would be taken care of,
Chsfrmen Tolar inJicate~ Ms. Ronconl had indicate~l this wt~te~ ruroff •,~as from thc pool.
Ms. Ronconi Indicat~J shc I~ad (nvestigoted the sourcc of watr.r in thr. sumner ond (t was
from the paol; that she (nqulred at the Ctty Engincerinq Ocpartrnent and therc ts a
praposed storn Jrnin, but tt has not been built yct, She tnJicat~~d this open dr~~ln~c~e
ditch ~arries ttie surface water frc~rn thp ove~flow fr~m the ~~1. She indlceted the KQA
Campground has directec~ thcir overflaw fr~M tha pc~ol into the sewer drainaqe system~ but
thet Vacat(onlan~f lias lt running frorn West Street to Nalnut Street. She statcd thcre were
a few otl~er ~hin~~s sh~ wc~ulcl like to Jisput~ sin~c tl~ey Kn~~w haw thelr facllity operates.
but tlie Gommission I~ad covcre~i them qulte wcll.
Mr. lirawn poln:e~ out the water is not from the swimr~in~a pool and that the water in tlie
ditch recently lias bccn from thc rain.
Cha(rman Tolar poln[eci c~ut thc Piannlnq Commfsslon recounites that thcre is a drainagc
problem at this locatfon.
Phillip Granados~ repr~scnting Gr.n~~e Consultants~ indicac~d they wcre thc desic~ners af
this plari anJ that currently it is true that all the drainage flow from thc facillty runs
with the cantours of thc land and tliere arc no provisions fnr t~kinc~ this water to
anyplace else, that it runs Into the street and into the storm drain system. Ne Ind(cated
they prupose co instal) a ncw gutccr system t~ stop thc surface runoff a~d (t will b~
cl~anneled inta a concretc uitcl~ unJer ~orapased aldewalks and walkways, tnt~ the strect and
(nto the storm drain system~ tfie same as all af thc pr~pertics on Walnut Street. Ile
indicated ti~ey w~re not in violation of any cocJes in ~oing it this way.
Commissioner Linn indicated h~ could not agree wlth water heing dumped onto walnut Street~
and at this polnt he could not apnrove this project; that he was concerned about dumping
water on the street, thc dog runs~ would insist that no mose cio,ys be allowed~ and pointed
out that he had been in tnese recreational vel~Icle pa~ks and knows that when there is an
overflow ti~ey find a place to put the peopie~ and that [he City has only one Zoning
Fnforcement Offlcer and tiiis woulcl invite ~n apen fiouse ta do whatever thry please. He
stated that complaints co~~e-'ning the expansion of Vacatio~land are valid ,~nd he felt
there is a need for a place like this where people can have a tent~ buc did not feel this
was the proper place.
Mr. ~ranados indicated the proposed development wr~uld not i~crease any wat~er runoff onto
the street~ and he did not feel the water spillage should be an issue; that this is a
natural course of events and tl~is is not polluted water~ just runoff wacer from the
landscapin~.
Commissioner E~arnes lndicated she was concs~nad about rototilling the dog run and stated
she did not know whether or not the Sanitation Engineer had looked i~to thls, but that she
was ~ot sure it would be healthy anci asked staff to check into this.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Uirector far Zoninc~, pointed out the County Nealth Department
gets involved when the City r~ceives complaints relative to animals; that they go out and
check the soil~ but that they tiave not been contacted in this case.
4/24/78
MINUTES, ~NAN~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 2N~ 19/8 7~-311
EIR N~GATIVE DECIARATiON ANU CQNDITIONAL USC PERMIT N0. 1~26 (continued)
Mr. 6rown stated he haci consulted with the menaqer of the pork ~nd hc had Ind(cated the
dog droppings are picked up and ~ut into reGeptacles and the Area fs occa~lonally
rotoLlllcd.
Comm(ssloncr Nerbst ~ffered a n~tlon, secondeci by Commissl~ncr Davl~ and HOTION FAILEO TO
CARRY on a 3-3 vate (Gommiss(cmcrs K(ng, Ltnn and Tolar vottng no and Commtssloner Johnson
being ebsent)~ that the -'~naheir~ City Planning Commission hes reviewed the subJe~t ~roposa)
to permit a tent camp facility in an existing ~ecreational vetilGle park on a
rectanyularly-shapeJ parccl c~f lanJ wnsisciny of approxirnaLely 2.2 acrr,s havtng a
Frantage of approxir~ately ?.1~~- feet nn thr east sl~~~ ~f W~Inut StrePt, h.iv(nn ~~ maxlmum
depth of Ap~roximately ,~67 feet, beinc~ locatec' approximatcly ti6~ fect snutt- of the
centerline of Itall Road; ~~nd does herehy approve !hc Neoetive Declaratl~~n from the
re~utrr.r~r.nt to preparc an envir~rnncrital impact report on the basts that there would be no
siqnif(cant individual or cumulative adverse envir~nrnent~il im~act due to thc approval c~f
this Neyatfve Ueclar~~tion since the An~heim Gene~r~l Flan designates the sutsject property
for commerclal-rec~eation lan~1 uses cornrnensurate w(th t-ie proposal; thac na sens(tive
environmenta) impacts Are invalved in the proposal; tti~t th~ Initial Study submitted by
the petit(oner indicates no slyniflcant individual ~r cumulative ~dversr erv(ronment~l
impacts; anJ that the Negative D~clar.~tion subst~~ntSating thr. forc~~ning flnd~ngs is on
file In the City of Anaheim Planniny Department.
Jack Nhite~ Ueputy City A[torney~ pointed out [he Planning Commisslon could not approve a
conditiona) use ~+~rmit until tfiey havc acted on the negativc declaratian~ cith~r
certifyiny the neyative declaracion or requiriny tl~at a full environmental impact report
be submittcd. Ple indicated tl~e C~mmission cauld disapprove the negative declaration and
require that 6 full enviro~mental imp~ct repurt be pr~nared, or continue the matter until
such time as there is [he seventh n~ertsber of chc Planning Gommission present to break the
[te vote.
Chalrman Tolar offered a resolution for denial of Conditi~nal Use Permit No. fi12G.
On ~oll call~ the foreyoing res~lution failed to carr•y by the following vote:
AYCS: COhlMISSIONERS: KI~JG~ LINN, TOLPR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ DAVID~ NERkiST
AE35E~~T; COMMISSIOr~ERS: JOHNSO~~
Chairman Talar indica~ted he would likc to request that tt~e i[em be continucd For four
weeks since he would not be present for the Planning Conmission meetir,q ln two weeks, and
Commissioner K3ny asked Jack White if Chairman Tolar's vote could become a part of the
record~ with Jar.k White pointing out he must be present in order to vote.
Commissloner Uavid offered a motion~ seconded by Commissloner Darnes~ that subject matter
be contlnued to the reyular n~;eting of the Planning Commission on tiay 8~ 1978~ at 1:3a
p.m.
Commissioner Linn pointeJ out he would not be available at thc May F~th meeting untt) after
3:00 p.m.
Commtssioner Herbst pointed out the developer is trying to develop this property and lt is
not his problem wh~ther or not the Gommissianers are present for the meeting.
4/24/78
MIt~UTES~ ANANCIM GIYY PLANf~iNC COMMISSION~ APRIL 14~ 1970 78-3{2
EI~ NEGATIVE OECIAltATION AHD CONDITIQNAL USE PERMIT N0. 182G (contlnu~d)
Chalrma~ TolAr indiceted he cltd nat fnel tliere would be a her~ship in thls c~s~ since the
petltioner does not h.7ve, a lot of constructton costs.
Mr. Urawn potnted out they would like to 4et thetr plan in operat(on in ttme to use it for
the surtn~r und would 1(ke it resolved slnce tl~ore is considerable construction to be done.
Commissio~er Dav(d Ind(ceted he wou1J be willin,y to rnadify his rnc~tian th~t the heering be
et ,3:0~ p,m. ~ anJ Jeck 41h ( te po i n teJ uut ~ t c~~u 1 c1 br. p I oceJ on th~ egenJa so tl~a t i t wou 1 d
not bc hc~rd prior to 3:QQ p.n.
Commissiuner ~nrnes inclicate~l she wou1~1 amencl Itier second t~ the motion~ th.~t the hearinq
be after S:qU p.rn. She fndicateJ she thauqht the Planniny Commisslon has to take these as
they cQme up and not try tc~ make sure ever~one coulJ make it at ~- cert~in tir+~e because Al)
Cammtssinners are supp~~sed tn be prescnt :+t 1:3~ p.n.
A vote wns taken on Gonwnissioncr David's moti~n~ seconded by Commissloner Barnes and
MQTI01~ CARRIEU (Commissioner Toler voting no and .lohnson belny absent)~ that the
afaremen[iuned item be continued to tlie rec~ular meecing of tlie Plannin~ Comm~ssion on May
8~ IyJ~S~ to be heard after 3:0~ p.m.
RECESS There was a five-minute recess at ~~:0;~ p.m,
RCCOIIVCt~E Thr_ n~eeting reconvened at '.,:JS p.r~.~ C~mmissioner Johnson being absent.
ITEt1 r10, 11 P~t3LIC tIEARiNr,, Ow~IERS: Jo~~N N. ANU VALERIE S.
EIR CA7LGORICALLY EXEIIPT-CU1SS 1 SCUDUER~ lt+; North Eiay Front, Balboa Island~ CA
CONUITIONAL USE i'ER!11T N0. 1~L7 92GG2. AGCN7: SOUTIIERN CALIFORNIA IIl-PER~ORMANCE~
INC., 1~;~ Soutl~ Anaheim Houlevard~ Anaheim~ CA 92f305.
P'etitioner rr.quests permission to ESTAE3LISN A RETAIL
AUTOMOTIV~ PARTS STORE on property describecl as an trregularly-shaped parcel of land conslst-
ir.y of approximately 10.9 acres haviny a frontage of app~aximately 465 fee[ on the east side
of A~ahetm ~ioulevard~ haviny a maximum depch of approximately t0f,0 feet~ being located
approximately 575 feet south of the centerline of Cerrltas Avenue~ and further descrtbed as
1550-G South Anaheim Boulevard. Property presently classified ML (INUUSTRIAL, ~IMITED) ZONE.
Ttiere was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subJect request, and althougl~
the staff report to the Planning Commissian dated April 2~+~ 197i3 was not read at the
public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of tfie minutes,
Andrew Dyky~ Vice President of Southern California Ht-P~erformance~ Inc.~ agent~ indicated
this shop is strictly for four-wheel dride and off-road vehicles and that 90~ of their
business is brand new vehicles from the dealers; that they are warehouse distributors for
four-wheel drive equipment which tncludes ttres or wheels. rollbors. and suspension parts
to make tl~e vehicie stronger and safer for off-road use. He indicated that prese~tly they
are not doing tnstallations, just sel{ing parts and accessoriss. He i~dicated they would
like to install equipment and that all work would be done inside the building~ with no
major motar work done.
TNE PUBLIC t1EARING WAS CLOSED.
4/24/78
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMM15510N~ APRIL 24~ 1978
74•313
EIR CATL'GORICAL EXEMPTION-CIASS 1 AND CONDITIONAL US~ PERMIT N0. 1821 ~contlnued)
Commissloner Kin~.a aaked (f vehiclos could bc b~ought inside the buildin~~ and Mr. Dyky
~epilod they heve s 12-fc~ot da r(n the back.
There was a discussion as to whether nr not the hearing would I~ave to be re-n~ticed if the
epplicatlon wes to pe~mlt a retail autonx~[ivc parts store~ and It was ~ointed out the
adve~tlsRment had incl~eded parts installa[ion to be t~t~ily confined lnside the Gullding.
It was notad the Planning utrect~r or hls authorized reoresantative has determined that
the proposed proJact falls wlthin the definitlon of Catcgoric~l Exemptlons~ Class 1. as
deflned in p~reyraph 2 of thc City of Anah~im Environmentol Impact Report Guldelines and
ts~ thereforr~ categortcally exempt from the requlrement to prepare ~~n EIR.
ACT I ON : Corruni ss) onsr Ki ng of f~reJ Resol ut lUn No. PC7S~-8f: .ind movcd for I ts passaye and
adopt~on~ that the Anaheim City Planniny Gommisslon cfoes hereby grant Petitfon for
Gonditlonal Use Pern~it No. loZ7 for a period ot two years, ~ul,Ject to rcview by the
Plenntng Commission to determine whether or not tt~e use has been detrimental to the
surrounding ~rea, and subJeGt to the appltcent's stipulatitim tl-at all work wlll be done
inslde the buildiny~ a~d subJect to In:crdepartmental Committee recommendattons.
On rol) call, the foreyolny resolution was ~asseci by tf~e followlnc~ vote:
AYES: COMMISSIQNCRS: HARI~ES, DAVIU, ~IERBST~ KING~ LINN~ TOLl1R
NUES: G~MMISSIONEHS: NQNE
AUSENT; COMMISSIONERS: JOHNSON
Chnirman Tolar indicated I~e had supported the resoluti~n but that he wanted tu be s~re and
caution the pe:titioner that he d!d not want tp see any outslde storage of vehicles
ove rn i gh t.
Mr. Oyky pointed out tlie~/ wil) c~nly bc taking in the number of trutks they will be able to
complete in ~ne day and tliat nottiing wtll be parked outside.
17E.t1 h0. 12 PUE3LIG IIEARIt~G. OWNER: ROBERT P. WARMINGTON C0.
~~~~ICAL EXEMPTIOIJ-CLASS 3 16592 Nele Avenue, Irvine, CA 9271~+. AGFNT; KIRK
VAR AMCE NU. 2999 EVANS, 165'32 Hale Avenue~ Irvine~ CA 92714.
Petitioner requests WAIVER OF MAXIFIUM WALL HEIGNT
TO RETAIN AN EXISTING SIX-F007 F11GH BLOCK WALL on
property described as a rectangulerly-shaped narcel of land consisting af approximately
59p~ square feet having approximate froneag~s uf y0 feet on the southeast side of Marengo
Drive and 109 feet on the northeast side of Marenyo Drive~ being located approximately
297 feet southwest of the centerline of PegaSUS Street~ and further described as 6528
Marengo Drive. Property presently classified RS-5000(SC) (Residentlal, Single-Family-
Scenic Corrtdor Overlay) Zone.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposttion to subJect request, and although
the staff report to the Planning Gommission dated Apri I 24, 1~17ti was not read at tt~e
public hearing, it is referrecf to and made a part of the minutes.
Kirk Evans, ag^.nt~ indicated that subject wall Is already constructed, che house has been
built and the tract Is finished, and that when tinal inspection ~as applied for~ it was
poi~ted out an encroachment permit would be neceasary and that an encroachment permit has
u~z~+/~a
~
MINUTE.S~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION~ ApRIL 24~ 1~78 78-314
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 AND VARIANCE f~0, Z999 (contlnued)
._._._..._....~ --
been applled for. tie stated this w~s a mistake o~ his bullder's part; that most cltles do
not have a 2-f~ot setback area betwecn ch~ sidewalk ond the wall. He pointed out therP
are no utllitfes In thls area; ~nd that It is strictly a public rtyht-of-way.
Conmisslon~r King point~d out thc 2-foot arca is for the public utilities.
Commissioner kier~es asked Jack White~ Urputy Clty Attorney~ wha: kincl of h~rdship must be
found in thts cas~~~ and Mr. Whlte replled tliat tl~r fact ttie fence is existing is ~ot a
hardship because i[ Ia .i self-Imposed hardsh(p an~i cannot serve as a basis for granting or
dc!nying thu yoriance. Ilc polrrtc~! out thc Plenninc~ Commission must find a hardshi~
concerning the property itsr.lf~ whethP- or not it is unusual in si..c, :hapc or topo!~~Aphy
or It would substantielly Jtny ri~~l~~ts to this pro~erty that arc enioYed by othcr
propertles in thc samc vicinity a~~l ~or~a.
Chalrman Tolar ~~sk~:~ if the bulidiny perr~ftc h~d ber.n issue~ for this wall~ an~l Mr. Evans
~eplted thak thc variance was never applicU for~ but the huildiny permits had been ISSUCd.
Comnisslnner Ilerbst in<licat~:cl he did ~ot have any obJections to the wal I; ttiat he had gone
to the site and had backed out the neighl,or's pr<~perty and this wal) did not block the
vlew. Ne indicated the encroachment ~nto the City easemenc docs bother hlm and tliat he is
concernsd because the wall was put in without the prop~~r perni[. He indicated thc
hardship wauld I~ave to be that the pruper[y owner wo~ld nc~t enjoy the priv~~cy of hls b~ck
yar~ And that if he wantecl to install a swirxniny na~l, hc would havc tc~ have a 5-foot
wall. Ile pointed ~ut the peti[ioner had ~~ained ? feet of b~cN. yarcl s~ace, and Nr. Evans
indicated he could ric~t put very much IanclscaE~In~~ (n [hat 2-fo~t arca and it wouid be~
difficult to maintain. C~nrni~sioncr Nerbst stat~~d I~c could not find a hardship and coul<i
nat understancl why it was built on City property.
Mr. Evans pointeJ out the vari~inc~~ is needed because che fence is too high; that the
builder had not un~ierstoocl tie could ~ot build in the 'l feet bctween the sidewalk and '~ne
wall~ but they dld get approval for a buildinq permit~ anci 1; was simply ~ mistake.
Commissloner Nerbst poin[ed ~ut it is not up to the City t~ survey the property.
Gommissloner Linn s[at~d t~e could not find a!~areist~ip ei[her; that the house is on a cul-
de-sac and as far as privacy is concerned~ the fence does not provide prlvacy from a two-
story structure.
Commtssioner King as1:eJ if the petitioner were forced to move Lhe wall to conform~ would
that be creating a hardship~ and Jack I~hite stated tt~e purp~se of khe variance is because
of the fence height; that after tfie varianzs has been approved~ he may or ~nay not bc able
to get the encroachment per•mit. b~ut that is not the Planning Comnisslon's decision. He
indicated a hardship must be found to allow him to maintain a 6-foot hi~h fence witnin the
5-foot setback that would othe n.~se be required~ and the fact that It is in the City
right-ofwiay is nat lmportant at this point.
Philip ~ettencourt. representing Anaheim Hills~ Inc.. indicated they have contributed
something to this di lemma; that this is an instance in wlii ch they regui red th~
homebullders to construct side walls on all exposed lot portions of the neighborhood~
particularly on reverse corner lats. In this instance~ depending upon the pece each one
mey be sold~ one neighbor can put in his own side yard and that ne(ghbor who finds that
fence in his front yard can construct th~ fence of another m~aterial, so they have asked
The Warmingto~ Gompany to conQlete the solid masonry wall aro~nd the fult perimeter so
aizai~a
MINUTES~ ANAH~IH CITY PLA~~NING COMMISSION~ ApRIL 24~ 1978 78-315
EIR CA7EC~RIGAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 ANO VARIANCE N0. 2999 (continued)
that It w(11 be of a c~mmon macer(a) becausa they are visit~le to the hcxnes across the
street. hle stated this home was canstru:ted witli a bullding permit issued by the ~utlding
Divlslon and th~t the (ssuance of the encroachrtxsnt permit ts not witl~in the Jurisdiction
af the Planning Comnlsslon. lia pointed out thcrc are hundreds of encroachment permlts for
~pecia) clrcumstances, and tf en encroachment permit is issueJ~ th~; homeowner faces tt~e
risk that if tl~o utility access is needed it would require removal of the well~ and that a
42-lnch fence for a stde yard is hardly adequace pr(vacy wttf~ fivc h~xnes lookinq across
the street. Ile pointed out it would not bc a minimum legal requirement for a swimmtng
poo) and hc thouyht this was a flaw In the Ctty of Anahelm codes; that he did feel a
hardstiip is created in thot other lots have more useful yard area. He stated it would be
a lot more ple~sant matter to Jeal wltf~ if the wall was ~ot Already inslalleJ.
Cornniss(aner tiarn~s pointed ~ut the Planninq ~ornmiss(on has denicd a s Iml lar fente and that
the City Council had granted permission to Ieavc the fencc as (t was.
Mr. Bettencourt potnted aut a swlrmiiny ~~oc~l could not be put in without n wall and puinted
out if a pool was put in wlth a!-'1_-fnch hiyh wall~ onc wall would be built inside enothcr
wa 1 1 and that f~as f~appene~l i n th i s ~rea ~ and he d i d not fee 1 tF~~i t I s wf~at the code
intends.
A~nika Santalahtl, Assistant Utrector for Zcxiing~ pointed out that when a person applies
for a pe nriit for a fence~ they are handed instructions on I~ow a fence should be bu{It and
it is the assumptian of the auilding Dlvision that thcy havic established the ~egal
propcrty lines.
Commissioner E3arnes indicated she could ayree if this was just an average run-of-the-m(1)
property owner~ but that Thc Warminytan Company is nat just Ct~e average run-of-the-mtl)
proNe~ty owncr.
Phillp tiettencourt pointed ~ut these wa~ls anJ locations are as sl-own on the initial plot
plan an ftle wiCh the City of Anaheim which lias been technica)ly approved by the Pl~nning
Commisston, althouyh they were technically not reviewed for the walls.
Ctiairman Tolar indicated hs was finding dtscomfc~rt with what Mr. aettencaurt was saying
because that in the futu~e tlie Plannin~ Commisslon is going to have to not only check the
plans for lot sizes, grades, etc., bu[ they were going to have check the plans for the
location of the fences.
Chairman Tolar indicated h~: was in favor of granting this permit tf some~ne could find a
hardsh(p~ and ~skec! Mr. Oette~court if he I~ad any suggestlons.
Mr. Bettencourt replied that he thought the balance of the 31 lots in this particular zone
en,joy greater usable yard areas than wouid be afforded this particuiar lot because of the
setback requirements imposed by setting the fence back; that if this lot could have a
sw(rtming poal, it would be denied the opportunity of a pool without reiocating the fence.
!t was noted that the Planning Directcr or his authorized representative has determined
that the pronosed project falls wlthin the definitio~ of Categorical ExempCions, Class 3~
as defined in paragraph 2 of the City vf A~aheim Envir~nmental Impact Report Gufdelines
and is~ thnrefore, categorically exempt from tl~e requirement to prepare an EIR.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered Resalution No. PC78-89 and moved for its passage and
a~option~ that the Anaheim City Plr~nning Canmission does hereby grant Pet(tion for
4/24/78
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION~ APRIL 24~ 1978 78'3~~~
EIR CATCGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 ~NU VARIANCE t10. '2y99 (continuod)
Varlancc No. 299y on the bas(s that thc pro{~crty owncr ~n tl~is corner would not bc
enJaying the securlty the ottier prop~rty awners wnuld wu sn.joyln~# and woul~l be prcv~ntPd
from installin~a a swimminq pool bec~~use ~~f the fence helght restrictlon. Ne tndicated the
wal) would be subJect to the apnrov~l of an encr~acl~m~nt perm(t from the City Enq(ncerin~
Deparcmeni ~nd that If an encroachme~t permit Is not allowed ancl h~ elects to rr,~ve th~
fence back~ the same hel~ht would be permitte~l since it dc~es not hlor.k the viewi of the~
sidewalk~ ~nd subJect t~~ interdepartmental Committee recomnendations.
Commisslnners aarn~s and Linn inJicateJ thEy did not feel this wes sufficlent herdsliip.
On rol) tall ~ th~ fc,r~~youing resolution waa passcd by the. fol lcywiny vot~~:
AYk:S: COMMISSIUNI.RS: DAVIU~ NERtiS7~ KII~G~ TOLl1R
NOLS; CUMMISSIOIJERS: UARNf.S, LINI!
AIiS~f~T: C011MISS101lERS: JOIINSO':
I TE11 N0. 13 RE51 UL~I71/1L li I LLS I UL a I TE UEVCLqPHk:~dT ST/1NUARUS
Ann(ka Santalahti ~ Assiscant U1 rectc~r :'ar Zonin~~, pointeci out the Hi 1 I and Cany~n
Munlclpal Advlsary Committce (iiACr~nC? has requested that b~fnre the Planning Commission
takes any action~ the roatter be cc~ntinued fo~ fc~ur weeks to all~w fur-.her cliscusslon and
recommendations frc~ri that cammittee. Shc lndic~ited representatlves from Anaheir~ N111s,
Inc. wer~ ~irusent and would Ii4:e to present their repart tc~ the Commissi~n at this time.
Philip Bettencourt~ renresentiny A~ahe.im flills, Inc.~ indicateJ authars wer'e present of
two reports whlch had been submitte~i to the Comrnisslcm and ~•~hi~h were prepared to test the
marketplace to de[ermine if somE: of the ideas which have been discussed could be dealt
with from a business standpoint and to find out tl~e impact ~f certain tcchnical revislons
on the market. Ile indicated this was an unusual document a~ci not the sort of thinq those.
in the planntng circles are accustomed to, and that the s[udy involves some 1~0 (r~-home
intorviews in the Santa Ana Canyon area.
Ken l~gid af Market Profiles~ Irvine, indicaeecf tnat in Oecember 1977, Anaheim Hills~ Inc.
had comn(ssioned thern to anlayzc various consumer atti tudes tc~ward the current form of
resldenttal dev~lopment of the Anaheim N{113 planned community and to determ(ne the
composition of the current resident populatton and their opinion regarding the present
developme~t concepts and their reaction to a set of ~evised alternative forms of
development. He stated the purpose of tlie study was to determine the fo~lc~wing: 1)
ciemographic composltion of the ~esident population~ includiny origin~ household
compositton. income, stotus of resldency and educ~~tion level; 2) attitudes toward the
area~ both positive and neqative; 3) attitude wit'n regard to a variety af housing mix in
the community; 4) current and future plan utiltzation of individual yard are~s; 5)
setlsfaetion with current lot size and willingness to pay for larger iots; 6) preference
rtor a lot vizw versus a larger lot; 7) improvements deemed necessary or deslrable to the
community and its residents' wlllingness to pay for such improvements; 8) desirability of
an equestrtan estate concept; :1) preference for st~•eet layout design alternatives; 10)
attitude toward private versus public streets; 11) preconccived adequacy of cu~rent street
iighting; and 12} future plans for relacation in terms of price and product. He pointed
out a questionnaire designed for in-home~ personal tnterview~s for 180 residents in the
Anaheim Hills pla~ned commun~ty was done and a randc~m sampling was condu~ted arnong 130
homes within the otficialiy-adopted Anahein: Hills Pianned Community Zonc and 50 homca in
the immedlate surrounding area. He indicated the interviews warc conducted at various
4/24/18
~INUTLi~ AN~MEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 24~ 1978 78'317
RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE SITE DEVGLOPMENT STANDAROS (cantinued)
tlmes of the day and varlous days of thn week. Ne ~evicwed several of tl~e quest(ons which
are conteinecl in tlils report~ entitled "Anaheim tillls A~ea Resident Consumer Attitudes fnr
Anaha(m Nflls~ Inc.~ March 1978." (A copy of said report (s In thc Planning Department
fllc.)
Chelrman Toler indicated this raport c~oes give hlm a little dlfferent Inaight and he
ap~recletes Anahelm Htlls~ Inc. golny to the expenso of having this report prepared and
that mayhe this polnts out that sorne~thing has been done rlght in the Anahelm Hills erea.
Mr. Agld pointed out tl~at from recently cor-~,~eted studles th~y have found that consumers
arc p~etty well satlsfled with what hes been donc~ and there Are very few ncgative
concerns,wf~tch would indtcate a good job is beinq done.
Canmissloner l3arne, I~dtc~~ted she felt this was one of the most we11 clone presenta.lo~s
she has seen. She aaked -qr. Agid to explaln the results af the questlons cancerning plens
for the next five yaara l~ purchasP an estatc-size lot of one-hnlf ar.re or mo~e and
bullding yo~~r own home.
Mr. Agid explafned that :rast cons~rners would prefer t~ have a cust~rrbullt home on a large
lot. but when they are faced wlth the reality of the higher costs~ [hty alter thetr
opinlons some,w~hat.
Commissloner Dav(d asked if tl~~e study covered l~w to mcdium tncome families, and Nr. Agid
repli~d that the medium income in the Anaheim Flills area is S35-7~~• Ne pointed out th~re
heve been nther studles wlthin th~ arc~ far G. I.. Lewls Company~ anather developer who has
been bullding tn the Anaheim Hills arca,and p~inted uut the demand is hiqher for higher-
priced housing because of the ecunom;cs and the 5atisfac[ion with the erea and people want
to trade up In the area.
Phillp Iiettencourt introduced Knowlton Fernald ancf Ker.nPth Mullins from the Oanleltan
firm~ a~d Cha'rman Tolar esked if IIACMAC had reviewed the reparts, and Mr. 9uffington
replied they had only received them last Frtday.
Mr. Fernald pointad ou[ they had some slides they would like to present in u~nnection w(th
Cneir report.
Ch~irman Toiar indicated he felt s(nce NACMAC is going to be laoking at this presentation,
he w~uld lika to see the slides and report under different circumstances and suggested the
slldes be shown ln the Planning Gommission's morning sesslon rather than in the afternoon
session.
Annika Santalahti explained the slide presentation could be scheduled for May 22, t978~ ~t
10:00 a.m.
Commissioner Barnes asked about the Peralta Hllls portion of the discussion since there
werz pe~ple present Intereated in that subject~ and Mr. Christensen polnted out he was not
aware of anything being deveit~ped in the area.
Mr. 8uffingto~ indicated the~ wo.eld like ta have more time to review the entire
presentatton before they were able to giNe any input.
There was a discussfon whether or r,ot the presentation should be Rlanned for an evening
meeting or thc mo~niryq sesston of tl~e Planning Commission rt~ceting, with Mr. Christensen
4/24/78
~
MINUTES~ M~AHEIM CITY PLANNING COAMISSION~ nrai~ 2~~, 1978 78~31g
R~SIDENTIAL t11LLSIDE 51TC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (cantinued)
polnting out that +Inco the matter will be discussud by HACMIIC~ mast p~onle wauld be able
to ctet to s~t leest that me~+ting.
ACTION: Commisstoner Devld offerad e motlon~ seconded by C~mmissloner Herbst and M0110N
~~0 (Commissloncr Johnson being bbsent)~ tl~at consid~ratf~n of the abovc-mantioned
item bc continued tn thc Planning Commissi~n mceting of M~y ?.2~ 1'17~.
Chelrman Tnlar pnlntcd out that thc slides wnuld be prescnte~- at the 10:0~ a.m. meeting of
thc Plahniny Cornmission on Mey 22~ 197u.
M~. k3uffington p~ ~ted aut HACMAG dues ~at make any recommendatlons un~11 they have
received e lut uf I~o~n~:awner Input and tt~at in thc ncxt four week~ they w~iulrl hopn t~ hrinq
back a recommendat(on. Ne icJlcatecl thny IIkP r~ ~~ive everyone the oppo~tu~iity to express
thelr opinions And to havc their Input into tl~e mecting sincc that is one of HACMAC's
functlons.
t 1'CM N0. 1 ~~
REPORTS ANU RECOMMENDATIONS
~_.
A. PaESENTATION 9Y TNE II~DUSTkIAL COMMITTEE OF T-IE ANAHEIM CHAMDER QF COMMFRCE.
Jay Tashiro. Assc:fate PlAnner~ pointc~i out that Mr. Georye Giese, Chelrman of the
Industrlal Gomrt~ittee~ had inciicated he f~lt he h.~d expressed tl~w committee's positlon at
the last r~eting~ sc~ he haci no further comments to ma~.e.
p. A4ANDONMCNT N0. ~7-14A - Request to abandon a portio~ of an existing water line
easement with n a portiun of Tract No. 9721.
The staff report to the Planning Commissi~n dated April 24, 197~? was presented, nating
that subJect abandonment Is a purtion of an existtng watcr line easement iytr~g within a
por ~n ~f Tract No. 972l, located west of Fairmont E3oulevard and souch of Santa Ana
Canyon Road; that this reque:t has been ~eviewed by all d~pa~tments of the. City and
approval is recommended; that the subJect ~easement was required at tl~e raquest of thc
Mlater Otvision prtar xo current rapid dcvclopment ;n this area; that the develapar of said
tract has provided the Wat~r Dlvision with new easements and will instalt new water lines
and mai~s 2o replace tl~e subje~r; and that an environmental review of the subJsc« request
indicates this proposal to be cate4orically exempt from the requlrements of an
envlro~mentai impact rsport.
ACTION: Cortrr~issioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissi~ner David and MOTION
RR EO (Commissloner Johnson being Abaent), that ttie Anaheim City Planning Commisslon
does he~eb~~ recommend ta the Clty Cour~cil that Abandonment No. 77-1-~A be approved.
~-/24/78
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRII ~4~ 19]8 J8-319
C. VARIANGt N0. 21-ys - Request tor an cxtens lon c~f tlme.
Tha staff report to the Planniny Commisslon datQd Apri 1 2~i, 1978 was presented~ noting
subJect property is a rectanc~ul~rly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximotely 0.79
ecre having a f~ontage of app~oximately 114 feet on the nortF~ side of Cer~itos Avenue end
bcing locat~d approxirt-etely 4~10 feet cast of the cente~ilne of Eiiclld Street; end that the
appltcant requests en extenslon of time far Varlance No. 2495~ to permlt e mobilehome In
cnnJunctlon with an axisting single-fam(ly resiclence~ which was grantod by the Planning
Camnlsslon on Aprll 30, 1973 for a period of five yeers, subJect to annual review
thereafter~ provlded~ howcver~ that (f the use shal l ccas~ bof~re the expi ratlon of the
time limit~tion~ it sl~al l he termineted s(ncc the peti tionor stipulatcd the use would be
fo~ on agQd paront nnly.
Jay Tashir~~ Ag4~~c1ArP PIAnn~r, pointed out the recortxrx~ndAtion s~,oulci be that the P1~'~~ning
Cammissfon grent a one-ycnr extenslon of time~ to expi rc NAy 1~, 1~17~~ rather than five
years es sliown.
ACTION: Commissloner lierbst offePed a motfon~ scconded I~y CommisslonGr UavIJ ~nd MO~ION
CARRICU (Commfssloner Johns~n bcing ~bsent)~ that thc Anohcim City Planninc~ Comm(sslon
does heresby ~~rant a rmc-ye~r extcnsic~n of time fur Varfancr. ~Jo. ?.1+~5~ to expire 11Ay 10~
1)7~~ sub ject to annual review.
F. CO!1DITIOt~AL USE PERM~T N0. $~+~ - Request for approval of revised plans.
I t was noted the app 1 1 can t was presen t and tl~e Cha t rman as~ed that I tcm 1 l~-F be cons 1 de red
beforu Items D anC E.
The staff report to the Planniny Commission dated Apr il ~4, 197b was pr~senteci, notinc~
subject p~operty is a rect~~n~ularly-sh~ped parcel of land consisting of appr~xlmately 0.5
acre on the north si dc of Oranyc Avenue~ bein~ located app~oxlmately 212 f~et north of the
tenterllne of O~ange Avenue and appr~xin-ately 7>3 feet west of the centerline of Cuclid
Street; that the applicant r~quests approval of reviseci plans for a church facility; that
Cond i t ional Use Perml t No. 51+3, to create two RS-A-43 ,0'10 1 ~ts 1 ess than one acre each and
to estab 1 I sf~ a church fac i I i ty on the rear 223-fooz 1 ot, VIAS or( q 4 na I 1 y den i ed by the
Plann(ng Commission on March 1G~ 196A anci subsequ~ntl y approved by the Ci Cy Cduncl) on
J~fy 7. 1964; that sub ject property is presently deve loped wi th a church faci l i ty Incated
bet~ind two single-fami ly hanes~ ki th no frontac~e on Qranye Avenue; and that the peti tianer
proposes to eonstruct a 1d22 square foot addition to the existing el~ureh faeility,
eonsisting of a classroom with baby care fac(lities a~d restroom faciltties.
Jay Tashiro~ Associate Planner~ pointed out tl~at the maJor problem seems to be the
opposition to the original conditional use permit with 39 signatures in oppos(tion
indicating that the proposed development wou1J be a detrii~ent to the area because it would
create additional traffic probiems. t~e felt it was up to the Planning Gommission to
determine whether or not a public hearing sho~~ld be held.
Commissioner King indtcated he felt that stnce there had bee:n opposition to the or(ginal
conditionp) use permit, a public hearin~, shouid be held.
The petitioner~ Robe:rt D. t4urry, agent for the AnaheimChurch of Chrlst, statPd there has
been no opposi tion to this addition; that the opposi tion had original ly arose when thera
4/24/78
htIt1UTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 24~ 1978 78'3~~
I TEM F( wn t i nued)
had been e feeltng the membnrship would ba increased. Ne pointed out the additlnnal rooms
would be us~d for chlld care and restraoms. ~le polnted out they have sufflcient perktng.
Commissionesr King Po(ntnd oi~t he had beon by the church during Su~dey servlces end tF~e
parking lot was not crowded.
Chairmen Tolar pc~intcd out sincr. tt~era was sufficlent parking~ he did not see the need for
a publlc heartng.
~nn(kA Santal~htl~ Assistant Dlre etorfor 2oning~ pointed out there was a church whlch
~eccsntly had been bcfore the Plan ninc~Commission to tha tmmediate east thnt abutted
residuntial tiousing~ and that this cliurcl~ ts nc~t (mme~ilatefy adjacent tr~ resldentlal
housing~ and the Planning Commission sh, i~i ~etermine: whether or not the addition r~~u~rwe
a publlc liearing.
Chairman Tolar in~licateJ i~e diJ not sce this ~s a moJor additinr~.
ACTION: Commisstoner King offered ~~ m~tion~ secondcd Gy Conx~issior-er Llnn And M~TION
~D (Cammiasioner Johnson being ahsent)~ that thc~ Anat,eim City Planning Commisslan hag
detcrmined thc proposed revisi'an is substAntially (n accordancc with the previousty-
app~~ved Conditional Use Permit No, ~43 and does hr.reby recommend to the C(ty C~~uncil that
the revlsed plens be appr~ved.
D.
REPOR7 ON L041 AIdU MOUERATC__INCQME HOUSING 5EMIt~Ak ANU CURRCNT CIT~ PROGRAMS.
aon S~ni,n~ Assoc(Ate Planner~ pr esented the staff report to the Planning Commissi~n datad
Aprll 2~+~ 1`:7a and e~cplalnsd this rep~~rt is summarizing a seminar attended by Pldnning
Division staff on the opCions available to haneownershlps for lower and moderate income
famflies~ and also on discussion s on existing programs in the Cicy. He explafned this
informatton is from the Departme nt of Community Development and not frum the Planning
pepartmr:nt; that the Planr~ing Departm~:nt monitors it becau5c of the Housiny Element to the
General Plan~ but that thc info r matlon is being passed on for discussian and a
discrettonary item as to what ty pe of action the Planning Commission may wish to take. He
explalned there arc: existing prograrns in other ctties tl~at could bc applled to the City of
Mahefm if it was determined th a t was the direction they wanted to take, s~ch as a land
bank program~ and currently a v a cant land study is being d~ne end that other iterns~
such as purchasing single•family resfdences and sut>sidizlny rent paYments or reselling
them at a lower prlce than the market value~ could be expanded. He explained there are a
varlety of legal, technical things, such as coc~perative housing, which could be used to
expand the programs for law end moderate income housing. but that these are sensitlve
a~eas and a great deal of publie relations and a grea[ deal of discussion in Che community
woul d have to be done t~o expl a i n these are not yi ve-.'~way. government program~ ~ but
progrums to maintain lc~w income houslny. He explained the major thrust is the centrat
cor~ of Anaheim.
Chairman Tolar tndicated he found this information interesting, hut did not feel as a
Cortwntssioner he had adequate information to make a motion to the Councit and that it would
appear any type o` programs tha t are applicable to the City of Anahaim tn relationship to
low or moderate income huusing would be answered thrnugh the Redevelopment Agency. Ne
felt that as individual matters come up ~.on~:rning zoning. the Planning Commissiun would
get involved.
4/24/78
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CItY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 24~ 1~78 78'321
ITEM D (continued)
Commissioner Na~bst Indicated the quostlon he would have~ in relation~htp to Houslny and
Urb..n Development requi~ements on the City to supply hausing to all sagments af thn
populatlon~ is whethcr 1 t was belny done in the City of Anahelm; that the~~ ere: pl~ns
where the fede~el gove~nment can stop In and say that you are not meetlnq the
requ) rements ~ that tl~ey wi 1 1 do I t for you~ and he did not we~t to ;~ee that happen.
Ccxnmissloner David asked hoN the Sociel Element to the GenPral Plen tnteracteci wt th thls
progrem.
Ro~ Smith explained that curr~ntly tlie ~Clty of Anahaim does not have n Soclal Element~ but
that thcy are worklnc~ a~ ona throuqh th~ Community UeveloprrMnt Departr~nt.
Commissloner Ilerbst reierred to che Qlock Grant npprovel far 19~~ and asked if we werc
aiming towards meeting somc of thc stanJards that the fedcral qovcrnment is Implyin~ the
City should do.
Ron Smith ~olnled out that at the presont tli~~c tt~e City is ccxnplying with thosc
requlrements~ but the questton is whethcr o~• not the pmc~ram (s aggressive enouqh for the
C i ty of Anahc i rn.
Comnissloner DaviJ aSkecl haw does the Planning Corm~issi~n intcract w(th thr.se programs,
dnd Chalrman Tolar pointed ~~ut they would be involved as a partlcular project comes up and
felt that as redevelopment corr~s up in the futurc~ t.he Planniny DepartrrMnt would be
involved.
Commissioncr DaviJ asked if the redevelopment area is the only place for low and moderate
i~comc housing.
Comnisstoner fierb~t indicatcd he felt the ~lock Grant Proyram takin~ plac~ at the present
time is satisfyiny somc of th~~ needs, but wondered whether or not it is satlsfying the
demancS; that we arc up~,~radi ng th f s area wi th weter 1 i ncs ~ rehabi 1 1 tati ng ol der houses.
etc.~ and pointed out the vacancy rate tn Anaheim is zero~ ond he was not sure the demand
was being met. Ne s[ated there is nothing iuing started as far as Subsidized rent
programs to takc care of the young people just startiny out.
Commissfoner Linn pointed out plans are to ex-~and this program thraughout the City s~ it
i s not concentrated i nto one area.
Ren Smlth indicatcd the rent subsidy programs are tity-wide proqrams; that some of the
cons truct i on for the e 1 d~r 1 y hous i ng i s i n the redeve 1 opmen t area because the 1 and was
avallable.
Commissioner ~ernes indicated she felt It would be suitable for the Planning Commission to
off~er some directlon; that they should indlcate to the City Council that they recognize
Lhere ts a need for th i s k i nd of hous I ng. ana that they approve of what has been done and
would 1 1 ke to see more of i t done.
Chairman Tolar indicated o~ the surface he agreed with this mc~tian~ but did not want it to
be m!sconstrued to say that the Planning Commisston would like to have federa) backing to
other types of housing for this community and that he could not support that typr uf
actlon; that he would like to see these programs done with private funds and he could not
support a motion for yovernment pro)ects uocause he primarily felt they would not work;
aizaiya
MINUTES. A~~AHEIM CtTY PIANNING COMMIS510N~ APRIL 24~ 1978 1a-3Z2
ITEM_D (continued)
thet the dovelnpmcnts he has seon hsve tur~ed into c~hetto-ty~e situatlons nnd felt ~
simple rtwtion In relationshlp to wt~at we want cuulcf be misc.onstrue:d.
Commissioner Barnes indlcated she felt the dreisions should be left up to those agencle~
that know about it or those pe~~le who have been ~tudying thc situation. She felt the
Planning Commisslon should recorrxr~end tf~at the Chings wtilch havc been done should be
continued~ but that the Planniny Commisclon should at least tak~ a stend on what they
want. end she felt tl~ey all ayreed they want low income hous(n~~.
Commissioncr King (ndicatcd h c would want low income hnusing with local contral~ and
Commlssloner Davld lndicated he d(d not think it shoulci be rPStrlcted. Ne felt to
restr(ct it would only be a token motion. He pointeJ oul there; I~av~ ~cen no low or
moderate income hauses rrovtd.~d in the Anaheim Htlls nrea and It was thls type of thing
that Is causing thc federal qovernment to takc the actlons.
Ron Smlth po(nted out in Irvirie sume law to mc~derate In~ome housing had been provtded in
with certaln condominium projects~ but that IC was a meetiny of the minds in that city.
Commtssloner Kiny suggested that Ch~ Planning CommiSSton cc~uld add a stipulatl~n that
moderate t ncome hous I ng be p rovi ded i r~ a tr~ct or i t wou 1 d not be a;~proved.
Comnissioner Herbst indicate~ I~e felt thr_ Planning Commissl~n could change the codes to
allow cheaper typey of development with~ut ~~oing thr~ugh the variance process to satisfy
the needs, and sugyested that high-rise could be allowed to provide che~per houstng~ and
they need ta take a closer look at this type facility. He refcrred to the RM-4000 zoning
ordinanee and felt it Gould be re-evaluated to see if it c~uld be lowered~ which would
al~aw thc pr(vate developers to get invalved in lower (ncome housinq.
Cortmfssioner Barnes suggeste d that could be one of the recortunenclations to the City Cou~c(1
that we should look lnto high-~isc bu(ldings~ especially in the downtown area~ and look
into cha~ging the ordinance to enable the private sector to develop other parts of the
City.
Cortmisstoner tierbst suggeste d that the ordinance could be changed to allow htyh-rlse type
buildings in certain parts of town. He patnted out [hat when the city hali is completed,
the downtc~rn area wi 11 be develaped; there wi 11 be a need for office structures and for
people to live withi~ walkin g distance of the area~ d it would all be tied together; and
that there should be not only I~igh•-rlse cond~miniums but htgh-rise apartments~ also.
ACT10~~: Commisslaner Barnes offe~ed a motion~ seconded by Commisstoner Uevid and MOTION
:ARRIEU (Commissioner Johnson being absent), that the Anaheim Lity Planning Cammission
does hereby recommend to ttie City Council that they would like to see more low and
moderate incvme hnustng nf all kinds and recortmends that a study be conducted on tl~e
feasibility of high-rise development for r•entals and condomtntums~ especially in the
downtown area of the C~ty of Anatieim us ~~,g redev~lopment funds; and that an ordinance
providing for the developme nt of high-rise canplexes be reviewed to enable private
developers to develop these type of complexes in ather parts of the City to provide 1ow to
moderate income housing; and any other ~lternatives the staff may decm appropriate.
ai2ai~a
MINUTES~ ANAHEiM CITY PLAN111NG COMMISSION~ APRIt 24. 1978 7~`323
~. TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. t- Request far appraval of spec.ifir. plot plan~
oo~ p ans ana'Tatfons.
Tl~a staff report to thn P1Anning Commisslon datcd April 24~ 1~7~i wes presented~ ~otiny
subject property Ix an lrregulariy-shaped parcel of land consisting of eppr~xirtu~toly 15.2
acres loceted epprax(metely 1760 feat southwest of the inte~section of Nohl Rench Road and
Anehetm Nilla Road; that the appl(cant requests app~oval of specific plot pinn~ floor
plans and elevatlons; thst subJect tract was epproved by the City Counctl on Msy 10~ 1917.
subject to the condltion ehst prlor tn the lssuance of butlding pcrmlts. the petitloner
shall submlt flnal spectfic plot plan, floor plans end elevatlnns to ttie Planning
Commission for approv~l~ sl~r~wing canformanc~ with ell RS-115-1~~~00(SC) site development
standards .
ACTiON: Commissluner King offered e motion~ sec~nded by Commissioner David and MOTION
~D (Commissloner Jahnson bo(~~~ absent)~ that the Anaheim City Plnnning Comrnisslon
docs hereby recommand to thc Ctty Councll that iho submittecf plot plan, floor plans and
elevatlons be approved as sAtisfyinn Cand(tion No. 1~) of Tentetive Map of '~ract No. 9751-
Revlslon Nu. 1.
AUJOURNMENT There being no further ausiness. Cammissioner King offerrd a motlon~
seconded by Ccxnmissioner Davtd and t10TI0N CARRIED (Camnissiuner Johnson
betny absent). that the meeting be ad.Jaurned.
Tfie meetiny ad;ourneJ at G:3S P•m•
Respectfully submitted~
~~ o( /~l~1~t~~c.a.
Edi th L. Nar~is, Secretary
Anaheim City Planntny Commtssion
ELII :hm
4/24/78
l•'.:
..~
~