PC 1984/07/09~EGULAR MEETING UF 'PHE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSTOti
RE~ULAR MEETING The regular meeting of the Anaheim Ci'cy Pl~~~ning
Comm.'saion waA ~~~led to or.der by Ch~~irwoman eou~a ~t
10:00 a.m., July 9, 1984, in the Council Chamber, a quocum
being present and the Commisaion ceviewed plana of the
itema on today'R agenda.
RECESS: 11:30 a.m.
RECONVENE: 1:30 p.ni.
PRESENT ChAirwoman; BouA~
Commissionecs: Bushoce,
McBurney
AHSBNT: Commissioners: None
Fry, [ie~bat, King, La Claire,
ALSO pRESENT Annika Santalahti
Jac~ White
Jay Tfku;~
Paul Sinyer
Greg Hastings
Edith Harris
Aseistant Director :or 2oning
Assistant City Attorney
Office Gngineer
Traftic Engineer
AssiFtant Planner
Planning Commission Secretary
ELECTTOM OF 1984-85 PLANNING COMMISSION_C_HAIkMAN, CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE AND
SEGRETARY
It was noted the terms of affice for the Chairman, Chairman Pru Tempore and
Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission expired June 30, 1984, P;~'
therefore, it aas in ocder to elect said officece.
CHAIRMAN ~ Commissi~ner King offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner La
Claire and MOTION CARRIED, that Commissioner Hecbst secve a9 Chairman f`or the
Planning Commission for the year 1984-85.
CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPOR~ - Commisaioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Flerbst and MOTION CARR]ED, that Ct~arlene La Clai:e serve as
Chairmar~ Pro Tempoce for the P~aening Cammiasion fur the year 1984-85.
SECRETARY - Commisaioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Herbst and MOTION CARRIED, that Editih Harris secve as Secretary for the
Anaheim City Planning Commission for the 1984-85 year.
Chairwoman Bouas commended l•he Zoning Divisian stafP and thanked tr~em for
making her job as Chairwoman For the past year easier.
Chairman Herbst assumPd the chair and congratulated Mary Bouas for her year as
Chairwoman nE the Planning Commission.
89-425
7/9/84
_ , ..._..._....~~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PI,A1:tt:l~G CQMMIS810N, JUGY 9, 19A4„_, 8d-426
TTEM NO. 1. EIR NEGATIV~: DE;CLARATIQN ANb VARIANCE N0. 3386
PUBLIC H~ARING. OWNF.RS: AERNARp J. STAHI. AND B?LL J. NICKEL, 8151 Katella
Aver~ue, Stanton, CA 90680. AGENT: J. WARD DAWSON, 2808 E. Katella Avenue,
U201, Orange, CA 926G7. Prol~erty described as a rectangulerly-ahaped ~arcel
of l~~nd ennsisting of approximately 1.0 acre, 1668 South Nutwood Street.
Waivera o£ maximum structucal hefgl:t and minimum ~tructural ~etbar.k tn
constcuct a 26-unit Aparttnent complex.
Continued from Apri1 2, 30, May 14, 30, June 11 and 25, 1984.
ACTION; Commissionec Bouas offered s moti~n, seconded by Commissioner
Mc~urnev end MOTION CARRIED~ that aubject petition be withdrawn at the
peGitioner's re~uest.
ITEM NO. 2. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSTPICATIQN N0. 83-84-23 AND
VARIANCE N0. 3384
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: DOI~ C. AND TPMIRIS DUKE, 3538 W. Savanna Stceet,
Anaheim, CA 9Z804 and DUP.NE FREDERICK AND SALLY ANN PETERSEN, GOU S. Nutwood,
Ahaheim, CH 92804. AGENT; JOHN KING, 19522 Independence, Lane, Huntington
8each, CA 92646. Prop~;rty is described as a ractangularly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of approximal•ely 0.78 acre, 3539 W. Savanna Stceet.
RS-A-43,000 to the RM-1200
Waivers oE; (a) maximum atructural height, {b) min.imum Eloor area, (c)
minimum landscaped setback, (d) permitted encroachment into front yard and (e)
permitted location of tandem parking spaces to co~stri~et a 28-unit apartmpnt
complex.
Continued fcom April 2, 16 and 30, 1984, and May 14, 30, June 11 25, 1984.
ACTION; Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by ~ommissioner
McBurney and MO'rION CARRIED, tha~ considera~ion of the above-mentioned matter
b~ continued to the regularly-~cheduled meeting of July 23, 1984, in orcier for
the applicant tc subrtiit revised plans.
IiEM NO. 3. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2551
PUBLIC HEARINv. OWt:ERS: KAROLn K. AND KAREN L. OERTLE, c/o Capit~l
Industrial Prnperties, 310 W. Orangethorpe, Placentia, CA 92670. AGi;NT: JEFF
JILKA, 244 Briardale, Orange, CA 92665. Property described as a
rectangularly-shaped parcel o` land consisting of approximately 0.62 acres
located at the nnrthwest cornec of La Cresta Avenue and Red Gum Street~ anc~
further described as 1251 North Red Gum Street ("Mild Ta Wi1d')a
Request to tetain an automobile customizing shop in the ML (Industriai,
Limit~d) Zone with wai.ver of minimum number of parising spaces.
Continued from the meetings of April 30, June 11 and '15, 1984.
7/9/~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, ~ULY,9, 1984 ,_ _ 84-427
ACTION: Commiaciioner Bouas offeced A motion, aeconded by Commiseioner
McBurney and MOTION CARRIEU, lhat conaideration of the afocementioned matter
be continued to t:,e regulatly-acheduled mQeting of July 23, 1984, in or~er for
the conditional uae pezmit to be readvertised to include addit~onal automobile
repair relaCed bueineasea.
ITEM N0. 4. EIR NE~ATIVE DECLARA:ION. RECLASS U~ICATION N0. 83-84-28 AND
VAR1~ ANCE NO_,3397 READVERTTSED)
pUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: RTCHARD JAMES AND KATHLEFN DIANNE BELIAKOEF, 3216 W.
Orange Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804 and WALTER K. AND ETH~L M. BOWMAN, 792F
Cerritos Avenue, Stanton, CA 90680. AGENT: STGRI.ING K. CARLSON, 447 E. 17th
Street, C~ata Mesa, CA 92627. Froperty describe~3 as an irregularl.y-ehaped
parcel of land consisting ot approximately 0.62 eicr~~ 3208 and 3216 West
Orange Avenus.
N.S-A-43,000 to the RM-1200.
Waiver of maximum strucL•ural height and maximum °~~nce height t~ construct a
22-unit apartment complex.
Con~inued from the meeting~ oE May 3Q and June 25, 198a.
There was no one indicati.ng theic presence in o~pofiition to subject requeRt
and although the staff report was not read, it is ceferre~ to and made a part
of the minutes.
Sterling K. Carlson, agent, was present to answec aray questi~ons.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commiosioner Bushore ascertained that the lady who had opposed the project at
the previous hear.ing had seen the new plans and was na J.onger opp~sed. Mr.
Carlson explained she h~d seen the plans and is present today at the meeting
and is not opposed.
ACTION: Commissioner La Clair~ offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
King and MOTION CARRIED, that tI~E Anaheim City Planning Commission has
reviewed the prop~sal to reclassify subj~ct property from the RS-A-43,000
(Residential, Agcicultural) Z~na to the RM-1200 (Multiple-Family) Zone t~
cansttuct a 21-unit apartment cortiplex with waiver of maximum structural height
and maximum fence height on an irrQgularly-shaped parcel of land consxsting of
approximately 0.62 acre, having a fcontage of approximately 160 feet on the
south side oE Orange Avenue and further described as 3208 and 3216 W. Orange
Avenue; and doe~ hereby appcove the Negative Declaration upon f{nding that it
has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received
during the public review process and fucther finding on th~e basis of the
Initial Study and any comments received that there is n~ substantiFl evidence
that the project will have a aigni£icant effect on the environment.
Commissioner La Claire o.ffered Resolution No. PC64-134 and moved far its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commier~ion does hereby
grant Reclassification iVo. 83--84-28 subject to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations:
7/9/25
~
MINUTES~ ANAH~IM CITY pLJ1NNING COMMI&SION. JULY 9, 1984 84-428
Greg Hastinge, pointed out the str~tf would rec~mmend amending Condition No. 17
to include Condition No. 15 and Conditio,i 18 should include Condition No. 16.
Mr. c:arlson indicated he hns no problem with thoee changee and Commiseioner La
Claicp indicated she would include that in the reaolution.
On ro11 call, the foregoing r95olution w3a pAesed by khe foll~wir~g vate;
AXES: BUUAS, BUSHOR~~ Fk~l, HERBST~ KING~ LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNBY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Commissioner La Claire ofteced Resolution No. PC84-135 and moved f~r its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning C:ommission does hereby
grdnt Variance No. 3397 on the basis that there Are special circumstances
applicable to L•he pro~er~y euch as size, shape, topography, loaation and
surroundings whi.ch c3o not apply to other identically zoned prop~:ty in the
same vicinitys and that otrict application of the Zoning Code deprives the
property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in thE identical zone and
clt~ssificarion in the vicinity and subject to interdepartmental Committee
recommendations.
Jack White pointed out the previous amendments to the condition~ sl~ould have
been made with the variance reaolution rather than the ceclassification
resolution.
On ro.'.1 call, the foregoing resolution w~s pasaed by the fol]~wing vote:
AYES: BOUAS, HUSHnRE, FRY, HERBST~ KING~ LA CLAIRE, MC BURN~Y
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Jack Wh:~e, Assirtant City Attorney, present~d the written right to appeal the
Piannfng Commission's decision within 2?. days to the Ciky Council.
ITEM N0. 5. EIR NEGATIVE AECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL U5E PERMIT NU. 2577.
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: LA JOLLA ASSOCIATES, 1A36 N. Hundley Street,
Anaheim, CA 92806. AGENT: AUTOMOTIVE PERFORMANGE SYSTEMS, INC., ATTN:
GAREZ'H W. NEUMAN, 620 S. Flower Street, Burbank, CA 91502. Property
described as an irregular.ly-shaped parcel of land consisting oF approximately
Q.31 acre, having a frontaoe of approximately 70 feet on the west side of
Hundley Streetr and further deacribed as 1464 N~rth Hundley Street.
Request t;o permit ~~n automobile repair facility with incidenkal retail sales
of automobile parts and acce~ssoriea with waivec af minimum numher af parking
spaces.
ACTION: Commission~r B~uas offered a motion, ~econded by Cammissioner Bouas
ofEered a m~tion, srconded by Commissioaer McHUrney and MOTION CARRIED, that
consideration of the aforementioned matter b~ wi.thdrawn at the petitioner's
request.
7/9/25
MINUTES, ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JULY 9, 1984 84-429
ITEM N0. 6. FIR NEGATIVE D~CLARA7'ION ANb CONDITIONAL U3~ P~RMIT N0. 2589
~READV~RTISED)
PU~LIC HEARING. OWNLRS: ROY D. TAYLOR, 711 Weat Imperial Highway, Brea, CA
92621. AGENT; GLENWOOD HOUSE, INC., 913 East WAlnut, Fullerton, C~ 92631,
ATTN: PATRICIA A. T~LLEY. Property described as a rectengularly-ahap~d
parcel oE land conaisti.ng of approximately 0.34 acre, 523 West Victor Avenue.
To permit a 15-bed residential alcohol detoxification center in an existing
single-fAmily residence.
mhece was one pecson indicating his presence in oppoaition to Rubject re~uest
and ewo peraons indicating their preaence in favor of subject request and
alkheugh the atatf ceport was not read, it is refecred to and made a part of
the minutes.
Robert Husted, director, etatad he thouglit the facili.ty would add to the
~ommunity and the center wil.l aerve tt,ose people of lower incames who cannot
afEord the more expenaive places for detoxiEication. He explained the progrem
is funded thcough Orange County an~ the State and is licenoed by the State and
is a reputable buaineas.
Ron Webb, Or~nge Co~inty Alcotiol Program, stated this is one of the programs
they fund locally in Ocange CounY.y to provide the services Go low-income
residents and they have contracted with this pr~vider f~c approximately 7
years and they have done an excellent job and they do upgrade faciliti~s and
they have a large impact on the individuals who are sxperiencin~ alcoholic
abuse probl~ms. tie stated they have a very high recovery rate and that theic
office does support L•f~is application.
Jay Reynoso, 516 W. Victor, stated he did not think this is the ric,:,t place to
detoxicate these persons because he has hie family there.
Mr. Husted stated this is a three to five-day detoxification program and nnne
of the cesidents go outside the facility and there is no impact ko the
community whatsoever. He stated he has been doinq thio for 8 years with no
problems and they try to do everything to aecure everyone's well-being in the
community.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Buahore asked if this facility will have both male and female
residents and Mr. Husted replied they will have both and generally operate
three beds out of 15 for females.
It was noted there are generally three staff inembecs on duty at all times ar~d
thQy ace leasing the property for three yesrs.
Commissioner Huahore asked if the Patrick Henry Neighborhood Council was
noti£ied of this hearing and Greg Hastings responded the~~ were notifi~d and he
was not aware aE any response. Mr. Husted stated he had had some disc~ssions
with some of the neighbors.
7/9/~~~
MINUTES, AN~HEZ M CITX PLANNING COMMIS6i0N. JULY 9, 1984 84-430
Commiesionec Bu ~hore pointed out tho Central Cit,y is dividAd int o f~ve
neighborhood c o uncilg and are funded thcough the Comrnunity elock Grant Eunda~
and thet hc wa s curinus whether or nok they had been notified t~n d apparently
they were ~ot concerned since there was no tesponsc~.
Commisr~ioner La CLaice +atated the property is zoned commercially and is
surrounded by c ommerciel usNS, except acroas tiie al•reet. She at ated she is
familiar with t his type progrAm and felt it would be a good use f or tt71a
property becaus e the anly qther uae would be for many famil.ies ~ o move into
khat houae and that would impACt the neigh5orhood more greatly s ince this
operation will be well aupervised.
Commissioner Buahore atated tie ttiought the permit should be limited to a 2 or
3 year period.
ACTION: Commis sioner La Claice offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
McBurney and MOTION CARRIFD, that the An~heim City Planning C~rrtm iasinn has
reviewed the p ropoaal to permit a 15-~ed residentia~. alcoholic d etoxification
facility on a r Ect~ngularly-shaped paccel of land consisting of appcoximately
0.34 F~~.re having a Erontaye of approximately 119 feet on the north side of
Vict~c Avenue and f.urther described as 523 West Victor Avenue; a nd does hereby
apFrov~ the Negative Declaration upon finding that it ha~ consid ered the
Negative Decla r a~ion together with any comments received during the public
review process and Euxther tinding un the basiR of the Initial S tudy and any
comments recei ved that there is no aubatantial evidence that th E project will
t~ave a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner La Claire offered Reaolution No. PC84-136 and move d for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Comrt;ission d~ea hereby
grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2589 for a period of three yea r s p~rsuant to
Anaheim Munici pal Cade Sections 18.03.930,030 through 18.03.030.035 and
auDject to int erdepartmental Committee recommendations.
Greg Ha~l•ings pointed out that aA required by the Zuning Coder t he Planning
Director has detexmined that ttse ~erking spaces proposed ara: s.afficfent to
meet the needs of th~ proposed far,ility..
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the follow i ng vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST~ KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNE Y
I~OES: NOtrE
ABSENT: NONE
JacV. White, Assic;tant City Attorney, presented the written tiqht to appeal ~he
Planning Commi sston's decision within 22 days to the City Coun~ i 1.
ITEM NO. 7. E IR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AldD CONDITIONAL USE PERMI T NUe 2594
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: STANDARD OIL CnMPANY OF CAI~IEORNIAr 1201 S. :3etiCh
eoulevard, La Habra, CA 90631. Pcoperty described as a reatangu larly-shaped
parcel of land conaisting of approximately 0.42 acre, located a t the southeast
corner of Lincv~n Avenue and Knott Street, 3450 West Linaoln Avenue (Chevron
Service Stati on).
7/9/35
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING_ COMMISSION. JULY 9. 1984 8A-431
To permit e convenience mnrket with gasoline seles and off-aele beer end wine.
There wae o~e peraon ~ndiceting his preaence in oppoaition to au~ject requeat
end although the steff rep~rt was not cead, it ~$ referred to and made a patt
of the ininutee.
R. J. 511baugh, rd~tPAenting Chevcon~ stated thoy wish to remove the ~xiating
service staCion at Nnott And I.incoln, including the outdoor advecl.iaing signs,
and r.eplacing it ~~ith A gasoline only Eacility and a mini-mArtr that they met
with the traffic engineer and feel they can mQet moat of his recommend~tiAnR.
tle atated h~ r.ecognizes it will b~ an uphill battl.e to qet approval of the
sale of beer and wine at this location. He asked why the Commiseion oppoaes
t' sale of ~^:: and wine, explaining the same party cran pull into b l~.quor
e,cor~ and purcha,~e the s~me thing and he has nevec oeen any consumed on the
premiaes.
Chaicman Nerbst otated alcohol and gasoline }ust 3on't mix and a person could
consume the alcohol as they dr.ive away. He stz-ted he will not change his mind
and noted law enforcernent officere are yaying we havp trouble witF~ drunk
drivers on ouc roada and thie just makes it a convenience for them and that
impulse buyinq is something the public is used to and they will purchase Che
six-pack if ir i~ convenient.
C~mmissionec Bouas atatPd the problem is the 'impulbp buying". Chttirman
Herbst s~ate~ everyone is trying ta stop people Er~m driving while drunk and
it is a problem all ovec the country. Mr. Silbaugh sl•ated he respects the
Commisaian's opfnion.
Commissioner Bouas stated this makes it easier for minocs to purchase beer
als~. Mc. Silbaugh stated minors are reatricted Erom purchasing the beer and
wine and the oper?tors would be subje^t to losing their licenae and have to
pay a stiff fine.
Commiosioner La Claice stated she has done '~er own private poll and haa talked
to some teenagers and asked them where they got the beer and a major portion
told her they purchased it st the mini-marts and she thdught a lot of these
places have young people working in them and they don't check I.D.'s. She
added she has been in the A.M. P.M. markets and they are not checki~g the
I.D's and in n liquor store where the whole busineas is liquor, they wo~ld
check the I.D.'s more closely.
Mr. Silbaugh stated he is suzprised to hear what Commissioner La C:aire is
saying because the operators are running a chance of loosing their ABC
license. He stated the aale of beer and wine does normally determine the
diffecence whether or not the operator is succeasful.
Mr. Silbauqh referred to Condition No. 2 and stated they do not like to give
ug drivewaysr however, it has been explained extensively. He stated he would
like to close both of th~se driveways on Linco~n and place one in the middle
which would be about 80 feet from the corner. He stat~:d it would involve
maving a utilfty pole and fire hydra~'~, -~ut they could live with that.
7/9/25
MINUTES, ANAHBIM CITY PLATrNZNG COMMI:iSION, JULY 9, 1984 84-432
Peul Singer, TrafEtc Engine~r, auggeated th~t if the Plenning Commieeion
wiahes to approva khis request, they should liave it atipulated that the
location of thQ d~Lveway oR Lincoln could be mutually worked ouk, subject to
npprovr 1 of the Traff ic Eng ineor. Mr. Si:baugh repl ied they would have no
problem with Cha~ stipulati on. He ateted he would close the one on Knott
cight n ext ro the turning r adius and close both on Lincoln, but put one
b~tween Che two.
Commissioner Bustioce stated he t~as nathinq againflt competition, but there are
cectain things that juat dca not mix well together i~ retail salea and he waa
sure if every liyuor store in town came in and want~d to sell gasoline, it
would b e upsetting to the g aeoline companies. He e~tated ~or a long time the
Commis sion opposed convenie nce markers with the aale of gasoline and not juat
the sa 1 e of beer and wine. Ne statdd running A gas station and repaicing
automobiles haa nokhing to da with kt~e sale of food and he thought maybe the
Commis s ion should go bi~ck t o that idea hecause it is not a convenience f or the
operator, but i~ a conveni~nce foc the oil cnmpaniea because the margins are
r~o low foc the aelling of g asoline, they have come around to this so the
operat or can exist on a lo~wer margin for sclling gasoline And make it up on
the f oo d sales ~nd beer an d wine sales. He stated .tn the long run, in the
free c ompetition syatem, ttYe one wh~ auffera is the public who goes In and
Pays the inEl.ated prices for gasnline. He stated he will oppose the whole
thing i n general.
Mr. Sil baugh stated there ace no automobile repairs. He referred tu Condition
No. 12 and asked if givin4 u~ t;hose var.iances will affect anything aubmitted
here toclay.
Greg Ha atinga cesponded I:h~ variances pertain to a roof aign and that would be
r.emove d since the buildin~ will be torn down and the other variance ref ers to
Ereestandir~g signs which wcre not included in the cite plans submitted.
Annika Santalahti clarif•ied those particular variances were appcaved in
connec tion with specific e xhibits and once the property is no langer developed
in rha t manner, they have n~ variancea.
John Le ceEerred tn liquor stores a~d othec markets in the orca w:io sell beer
and wine and atated he is apposed to thie request
Responding to Commissinner King, Mr. Silbaugh ~tat~~:d he will be williny en
delet e the ceguest for th e sale of beer and wine.
ACTION: Commiseionec King offered a motion, seGOnded by Commissioner McBurney
end MOTION CARRIEA, that t he Anaheim City Planning Commis~ion has reviewed the
propos al to permit a conve nience market with qasoline sales and off sale beer
and wi ne on a rectangularl y-shaped parcel of land consistinq o~ approximately
0.42 a cre located at the s outheast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Knott Stceet
and f u rther deacribed as 3 450 West Lincoln Avenuet and does hereby approve the
t~egat i ve Declazation upon finding that it has conoider~d the t7egative
Decla r ation together wi.th an~ comments received during the public review
proce s s and further findirsg on the basis of the Ii~itial Study and any camments
ceceiv ed that thece is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
signi ~icant effect on the environment.
7/9/25
MINUx~S ~NANBIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 9 i9aq Q4-433
Comrnissioner King offered Resolution No. PC84-137 a nd moved for ite passage
and adoption that the A~aheim City Planning Commission doos hereby grAnh
Conditione]. Uae Permit No. 2594, in part, purauant to Aneheim Municipal Cade
Sections 18.03.030.030 thcough 18.03.030.035 prohibiring the ofE-aal~ beer and
wine and subjeck to Interdepertment~l Committoe recommenddtions.
Jack White noted there ahould be a condition ndded indicating there ehould be
no eale of alcoholic beverrges on the premises and also that Condition No. 2
should be modifled to show that the dciveway would be relor.ated on Lincoln
Avenue subject to the approval of the City TraEfic Enginedr.
CommiasionPr Hecbst atated he will support the motfon b~cause he feel thira
will be quite an improvement for the area which is rebuildin~~s Ghat normally
he would not support a canvenience market with gasoline salea~ but wouid
s~;ppoct this request because this pArtieulac corne s would be completely
refurbished And will be an improvement for the area.
Un roli call, the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ pUSIIORE~ FRY~ H~RDST~ KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NO~S; NONE
ABSENT; NUNE
Commiesianer La Claire thanked the petitianer for coo~erating with the
Planning Commi~sion.
ITEM N0. 8. EIR NEGATIVE_ DECLARA'1.4N, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL UGE PERN'~ °v. 2599
PUBLIC HEARING. ~~' .~ ~OMMONWEALTH PINANCIAI~ CORPORATYON~ P. 0. BOX 764'18,
LOS Arige ~, CA 9007a -'.~: UNITED SUITES OF AMERICA, INC., AT'PN: ROBERT
F. FULLE}., ~50 New~~oct Centec Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660. Property
des~:[ibe~! as an icregularly~shaped parcel of land consisting ~f approximately
6.34 acres located at the southeast cocnec of [~rontera Street and Glassell
Stxeet.
To permit a 7-atory, 212-room hotel complex and reataurants with on-sale of
alcoholic beverages with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces and
maximum structural height adjacent to single-family zoning.
ACTION: Commisaioner Bouas offered a motion, secoi~ded by Commisafoner
McBurney and MOTIUN CARRIBD, khat consideratior~ of the above-mentioned matter.
be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of July 23, ]984, in order for
the applicant to submi.t revised plans.
ITEM NO 9. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CQDE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2586
PUBLIC HEARING. OWI~ERS: N. BRUCE ASHWILL & BARBARA E. ASHWILL, 5150 E.
Pacific Coast Hi.ghway, Long Bench, CA 90804. AG ENT; THOMAS A. PHILLIPS b
STEPH~N T. CONLEX, 1061 N. Grove Street, Anaheim, CA 92806. Property
described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximatel~y
0.5 acre located at 1061 North Grave Street.
7/9/,2'S $~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY_PLANNING C0~ MMISSION1 JULY 9, 1964 __ _ 04-434
To retain an automobile end boat repair and restoration/upholetery fecility
with waiver of minimu-n number o~ parking apacea.
There wae no one indicating their presence in oppoai.tion to aub~ect requeat
and although the ataff r.eport was not read, it is referred to and made a part
of the i~~inutes.
Thomas Phillips, agent, wa~ prenent to anaweK any yuoations and expleined he
had been wocking closely wi.th Ruth McDonald, Code EnforcemenC Officer, and the
City Tratfic Engineer foc about A months.
THE PUElLIC HFARING WAS CLOSED.
Res~onding to Commisaioner Buahare, Mr. Phillips stated they could n~t get a
busineas license until they went through this process and have been operating
4 months without th~ license. tie atated they originally started to do
services For L•he boat company down the atceet, but they are now trying tu
sever that relationship. Responding to Commissioner Bu~ahACe as to where he
gets his wock from, Mr~ Phillips etated they d~ advertioiny and by word-of
mouth. He explained th~re are three different businesaes in the uame
building: au~omotive repair, reupt~olstery work, and bo~t cepair.
Commistzioner eushore poinLed out the parking demand study prepared by Justin
T. Farmer Tranaportakfon Engineers, was aubmitted with several
recommendations. Mc. Ph.illips respunded he has bepn working with the TraEfic
Engineer and will comply with thoae cecommendations. He explained ~hey had an
unusual etart in their busines~ and had more auto-robiles and boats than they
t~ad anticipated and had no pl~ce to atore them, but they have worked out a
schedule and will be having the vehicles picked up after they are cepeired and
wi~.l be charging a daily atorage fee yo that people wi.ll pick them up in a
hurry.
He pointed out there ar.e other peopl~- ~:p and down the street who are abusing
the atreet parking ~uch as Morley Trucks and Elimin~tor Boat Company.
ACTION: Commissioner King cffered a mation, seconded by Commissioner MeBucney
and MOTION CARR7ED, that the Anaheim City Plannir~g Commission has ceviewed the
p,~oposal to retain an automobile and boat repoir and cestoration upholstery
facility with waiver of minimum number of par+cing spaces on a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of. ~' consieting of approximately 0.5 ~cre,
having a fcontage of approxima ~i !45 feet on the west side of Grove ~tceet
and .`urther desccibed as 1061 Nu:;.t~ Grove Street= and does hereby approve the
Negat..ve Declaration upon finding that it has consideced the Negative
Decleration together with any comments ceceived during t`~~ public review
process and furkher finding on the basis of the Initial _;.:~dy and any comments
rece~ved that there is no substantial evidence that the project will hav~ a
significant effect on the environment.
Commiseioner King offered a motion, se~onded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION
CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver of
Code requirement oz~ the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an
increase in traffic conges~ion in the immediate vicinity nor adveruely affect
any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the
• - _ ~25
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNTNG COMMISS20N, JULX 9. 1984__ 94-435
conditiana imposad, if any, will ~ot be detrimentdl to the peece, health,
safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Annheim And subject
to the p~titioner's etipulatian to comply wikh the recomrtiendationa of the
Traffic Engineer concerning parking.
Commiaeionec King offe[ed Reoolution No. PC84-139 and moved for its pAasage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commiesion does hereby ~rant
Conditionel Use Permit No. 2586 pursuant to Anahe~m M~nicipal Code Sectiony
18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 sub~ect to interdepactmental Committee
recommendatlons.
CommiRSionQr Hetbak askad the length of the lea~e with Mr. Phil].ips responding
he has a two-year lease. Commissioner Nerbet indicated he would vote for
appr~val of this request it it is tied to the lease. Commissioner King
indicated he would include that in his ceaolution and it was noted the
conditional use ~ermi.t should expire the same time the leaae expire~ which
would be May 1, 1986.
CommissionPr Buahore ankpd how boat repair secvices are permitted in tr-is area
since it is Canyon Industrial Area. Annika Santalahti E~ointed uut boat repair
is allowed in the Canyon Industrial Area.
On roll call, the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY~ kf~RaST, KING~ LA CLAIRE, MC BURNBY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Jack White, Assistant City Atkocney, painted out an additiuRal condition
should be included thak the conditional use permit will expire on May 1, 1986.
ITEM N0. 10 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONUITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2585
PUHLIC HEARING. OWNER5: RIDER INVESTORS, LTD., 18552 MacArthur Boulevard,
Irvine, CA 92715, ATxN: DAVID MADRIGAL. AGENT: R. V. MORSE, 1287 'A' North
Jefferson, Anaheim, CA 92807. Propecty des~ribed as an irregularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.8? acre located at the southeast
corner of Miraloma Avenue and Jefferson Street, 1287 'A' North Jefferson
Street (Mocse Brothers R.V.).
To retain a recreati~nal vehicle upholstery shop with wafvec of minimum num5ec
of parking spaces.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offe;=d a motion, seconded by Comm~ssionec
McBucney and MOTTON CARRIED, that con~ideration of the above-mentioned matter
be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of Auguat 20, 1984, in order
for the applicant to submit additional information pertaining to two okher
automobile repair related buainesses on subject property.
7/9/25
I
ITEM N0. 11. EIR NEGATIVE DBCLI~RATION WAIVER OF COpE RE UIREML~N'T AND
CQNDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2593
PUBLIC NEARING. OWNERS• DAVTD C. D'URSO & NIKKI
Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805. 4ropecty deacribe~ es
parCel of land conRiating of approximutely 7.842
Pdlma Av~enu~.
6
G. MANUELL, 1547 E. Le- Paltna
r~ rectangularly-ehaped
squ~ce feet, 1547 East Ua
Ta permit a retail plant nursery with waiver of required number of parking
s~,aces .
There was no '~n'~ gtaff$ceporthwus not~readriit~pS~Keferred~tauc~ndcmade~aep~rt
and although the
of the minutes.
David U'Ur~o, petitionec, was pce$ent ta anawec ~ny qupstion.
Z`NE PUfiLIC: HEARING WAS CLAS~;D•
ACTION: Commisr~i~ner B~shore offeced a mat~on, seconded by Commissioner King
and MOTIGN CARRIEU, th~t Che Anaheim City Planntng Commission has reviewed the
pxppo$~-1 t~ per~nit A retail pla~~t nutsery with waiver uf requiced number of
~arking spaces on a rectangularly-ahaped parcel of land cooximatel ~70 feet on
aplp[oximately 7,842 squace feet, having a front.age of app Y
the north ~ide of La Palma ~+vFnue and fucthet described aa 1547 East La Palma
Avenuet and does herebY approve Che Negative Declaration upan finding that it
h~s conaidered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received
da~ring the public review pcocer,s und fucther finding on the basis of the
Initial Study anc]Wi~i }~~~Qiea~s.ignificantteffecke n thenenviconmental evidence
t~ha~ the ~-roject
~Coinmiaeioner Buahore ~ffe~ed z~ motion,P~anning~Commiasion$doesrherebyngranta
MOTION CARRIF.D, that the A,~aheim City
waiver of Code requicement on the basis chat the parking wai~et will not cause
an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely
affect any ad~oining land uses and granting of ~he parking waiver under the
conditions imposed, if an,y~ will not be dNtrimental to the peace, health,
safety and generalsW$~iaulattonhtocP=ovide aaa~cio ~lYpackirghinmthpafuturecif
to the petitioner P
neces~aCy.
Commissioner f3u~hoce affered Resolution No. PC84-139 and moved for i~ts parsage
and a~qption that the Anaheim City Plannfng Commisston doeA hereby gr~nt
Conditional Use poumh~~e~03?030.0358usubjectAto InterdepactmentaleCommittee
18-.03.030. (330 :.hc g
cecommendations.
~ammi~sioner La Clt-ire clarified l•hat the type of planks at this nursecy will
be cactue type (aucculentss)•
7!~/25
MINUTES, ANAyEIM CYTY PL1-NNING COMMISSION~ JULY 9, 1~84 84-437
Greq Haskinga pointed out Condirion No. 9 requirea thet khe sign shell comply
with requirements of the RS-A-43,000 Zona and thet that. zone only allows a
2-squAre foot identificatio~ eign. It wae pointQd out thet any incrense in
the eizo oE aigns would require a vari~nce.
an roll call, the Eoregaing reaoluti~n was passe~ by the following vote:
AYES; DOUA5, BUSNORE~ ~R:, HERB~T~ KING~ LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY
NOES; NONE
ABSENT; NONF.
I'PEM N0. 12. EIR NEGA'PIV~ OE~LARATJON, WAIV~R OF CODE REQUIRBMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMI2 N0. 2568
PUBLiC HEARING. OWNERS: ARTHUR H. Kf.PLAN, ET AL, 6922 Holl,ywood Boulevard,
Hollywuod, ~A 90U26. AGENT; METROPOLITAN OUTUUOR ADVF.R'rISING, i01 E.
Huntington Dcive, Arcadia, CA 91006. Property deacrib~d aa an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land conRiating of appcox~maCely 0.46 acre, 2020
EASt Katella Avenue.
To permil a billboard in the ML Zone wi.th wAiver~ of permitted location and
maximum display area.
There was no one indlcating Cheic presence in oppoaition to subject request
and although the staEf rep~rt w~s not read, it ia ceferred ta and made a par~
of the minutes.
Rudolpho Mantejano, and ~JeFt Varne, agents, were present to an~wer any
questions.
N1r. Mantejano stated the ataff report indicates thia is an ~pplication for a
1200-syuare foot ei.gn, but it is really only 672 square feetj that the staff
reporl• also indicates this ie a double-faced signa however, it is a
single-face sign facing the east. He stated the applicatinn meets the Code
requirements exce~k it ia within 200 feet of Katella Avenue and exceeds the
maximum sign area Allowed. H~ stated last year an applic~tion was denied;
however, changes havp been made to accommodate tt:e City's wishea and explained
the sign has been mo~•ed bacY, to meet the 5U-foot setback and it was originally
proposed to be set back 25 fePt; that it has been moved to the west and is 108
feet from the easl• pcoperty iine and the o:iqinal application was proposed on
the eastern property line; that this is an application for a smaller square
footage sign and originally the heigril• was 50 Eeet and now is proposed for 35
feet.
A super-imposed slide showing what the sign might look like was presented
ehowing the view heading west on Katella. Mr. Mantejano explaincd the
groperty is vacant at the present time and another slide was pcesented showing
a sign which was about 700 feet eaat of subject propecty which is City-owned
property and explained that sign is 1200 square feet and aloo it has
extensions making it even larger and it is a double-faced sign. E3e explained
that sign on City property is within 20Q feet of Katella and exceeds the
maximum sign area and ie 50 feet high. He stated they feel there is
7/9/25
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, JULY 9,_1984 ____ 84-438
sufEicient precedenta eet to ~llow a conaidecably amaller sign on property
whicti is irregularly-ahaped. He otAted they have nat noticed any edvecse
impact on the surrnunding area and therQ aill be no increage on the traffic or
packing burden.
THE PUaLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
CommissionHr ~ry stated in reality ~tiis ie a billboard and not a sign.
Cummissionec McBurney ceferred to ~he Planning Commission's actions on
previaus similar requeats and ~ointed out the ataff report on Pages 2-b and c
outline th~se previous actiona. Mr. Mantejano atated he was awace oL the
prev~ous a~tion on a aimilar propoRal for a sign on this property last year
znd ~~Ated he had reviewed the ataff report.
L'~mr.~iaaioner tlechst stated cegarding the sign on the Stadium properky
pre~ented in the slides, the City Council approved that on their own and thQ
Planning Commission had nothing to do with it. tle atated that the Planning
Commigsioners are involved wiL•h land use and zoning controls and probably
would have denied that ~ign on the Stadium property because they feel the City
should live within its own Codes.
ACTION: Commissioner Pry oEfered ~ motion, seconded by Commissioner Mc9urney
and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim city Planning Cammission has reviewed the
pcoposal to permit a billboard in the ML (Industri.al, Limited) 2one with
waiver of permi~ted location and maximum display area on an irregularly-ahaped
parcel of land con~iating of approximately 0.46 acre, having a frontage of
approximately 98 feet on th~ south side of Katella Avhnue and fucther
described as 202U Gast Katella Avenue; and does hereby ~pprove the Negativp
Dec~aration upon finding that it has consideGed the Negative Declaration
together wilh any comments received duKing the public review proces~ and
further finding on the basis of t.he Initial Study and any commente recEived
that there is no oubstantial evidpnce that the project will have A sigr.ificant
efiect on the environme~t.
Commissioner Fry ofFered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney ~nd
MOTTON CARRIED, that the Anaheim CiLy Planning Commission does heceby deny
waiver of Code requirement on the basis that there are no special
circumstances applicable to the pcoperty such as size, ahape, topography,
location and aurruundings wF~ich do not apply to other identical.ly xoned
property in the same vicinity.
Commissior~er Fry offered Resolut~on No. PC84-140 and moved for its passage and
aduption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny
Conditional Use Pecmit No. 2588 on the basis that this is not the proper place
for a billboard and on the basis that other similar requests have been denied
and that the use would adversely afEect adjozning land uses and the growth and
devslopment of th~ drea and would be detrimental to the peace, health, safety
and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the f.ollowing vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE~ FRY~ HERBST, KTNG~ LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NO£S; NUNE
ABSENT: NON~
Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, preaented the written right ko appeal the
Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
MINU7'ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ~ULY 9 1984 84-439
Cliair.men H~rbat had to tempocarily leave the m~e~ing at 2:26 p.m. and
r,hairwoman Pro T~mpure Le Claire asoumed the CHAIR.
IT~M N0. 13. ~lx ~~EGATIVE U~CLARATION, WAIV~R OF COU~ REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2596
PUHLIC NEARING. OWNERS; CALIFORNIA/ORANGB ENT~RPRISES, INC.~ 2914, 35G1 - 5th
AvHnue, S.W., Galqary, Alberta, Canada T2POL4. AGENT: STEWART, GREEN AND
ASSOCIATES, ATTN; pAVE CARLSON, 2316 E. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806.
Pcopecty dePC~iu~~ fls an irregularly-~hap~d parcel of land consiating of
approximate;y 27.11 acres located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenup
and St~te Col!.ege 6aulevar~, 2156 ~ast Lincoln Avenue (East Anaheim Center).
To permit on-sale alcohol in a propoEed cestAUrant with waiver of minimum
number of park:ng spaces.
Thece was no one indicating their preaence in opposition to subject request
and although the ~tafE report wa~ not read, it is referred to and mAde a~art
of the minutes.
~ob Stiles, representing Lam~ost Pizza, A85 Bluebird Canyon, Layuna eeach, was
preaent to answer any questions.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Bushore pointed out the request indicate~ thia is to permit
on-sale alcohol in a proposed restaurant and not on-sale beer and wine. Jack
White, A~sistant Ciky Attorney, asked if the petitioner propasea to ae~l beer
and wine or alcohol beverages wikh Mr. Stiles indicating they would nnly be
selling beer and wine. Greg Hasringe, Assictant Pl~nner, pointed out thp
application was actually foc the sale of beer and wine in a prop~sed
restaurant.
ACTION; Commis~ianer King offered a rnution, seconded by Cammiasioner Fry and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent), that the Anaheim City Flanning
Commission has reviewed the propnaal to permit on-sale alcohol in a proposed
restaur~nt with waivec of minimum number of patking spaces on an
irregularly-shaped parcel oF land consieting of approximately 27.11 acres
located at the southeaet corner of Lincolr~ Avenue and State College B~ulevard
and further described as 2156 East Lincoln Avenue (Eask Anaheim Center): and
d~~es hereby appcove the Negative Declaration upon finding that ik has
coneidered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received dur?~g
the public review process and further finding ~n the basis of the Initial
Study and any comments received that khere is no ~ubstantial evidence that the
project will r~ave a siqr:xficant effect on the environment.
Commiseioner King offered ~ motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTTON
CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent), that the Anaheim C:ty Planning
Commission does hereby grant waivec o~ Code r.equirement on the basis that the
parking waiver wi11 not cause an increase in traffic c~ngestion in the
immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting
of tha parkin9 waiver under the condikinns imposed, if any, will not be
detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general wel£are of the citizPns
of the City af Anaheim.
7/9~25
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 9, 1984__ ____ 84-440
Jeck white at.ated ~n additionel condition should be included tha~ no alcoholic
bevecaoas, excPpt beer and wine, ahall be aold or coneumed on khe Premises.
Commisaioner King offeced Resolution No. PC84-141 and moved for ite passage
And ad~ption that the Anaheim City Planning Commiasion does heceby grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2596 nurauant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections
18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 aubject to the restciction that no
alcoholic beverages, sxcept beer end wine, ~hall be sold or consumed An the
premis~s and sub~ect to Interdepartmental Committee cecommendations.
On roll call, the £oregoing resolution wa~ ~a~sed by the following votc:
AYES: BUUAS~ BUSHORE~ FRY~ KING~ GA CGAIRB, MC BUkNEY
NOES: NONE
AEiSENT: HBR'.ST
ITEM N0. 14. EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMATinN-CL.ASS 11 AND VA.RIANCE N0. 3412
PUBLIC HEARING. OWN~R~: CALI~ORNIA/ORANGE ENTERPRISES, INC., 2914 One
Calgary Place, 33U - 5th Avenue, S.W., Calya[y, C~nada, T2POL4. AGENT:
STEWART, G12EEN ASSOCiATES, Z316 E. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 9'1806, ATTN;
KAR1. MEADER. Propetty desccibed as an ircegularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximaGely 27.11 acres located at the sautheast corner of
Lincoln Avenue and State College 0oul~evard, 2008 East Lincoln Avenue (East
Anaheim Center).
Waiver of minimum distance between signs ~o construct ei~:~t (8) freestanding
aigns.
TheKe was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
and slthough the staff repart was not read, i~ is referred to and mgde a part
of the minutes.
Karl Meader, construction managec, Bast Anaheim Shopping Center, explained
they are willing to remove and rPlinquish their reguest for sign No. 1 wh.ich
is the roof aign on State College ~nd Lincoln which used to be the old Regis
Hairstylists and the othex signs arF well under the. sq~are footage of sign
face allowed by the Code ar~d the only vaciancP required i.s created by the fact
that they have existing signs tl,a~ have been there for quite snme time.
Respondfng to Chairwoman Pro Tempore La Claire, Mr. Meader pointed out sign
No. 1 was an existing roo~ sign on State College and Lincolns however, they
are willing ta delete that siqn; tt~at the first proposed sign is sign No. 2
located at the new driveway Prom Lincoln on the west and it will be a Ralph's
sign; siqn ~~o. 3 is a pylon sign; sign No. 4 is an existing pylon that will
face with K-Mart at the top which they propose to cemodel with a new face;
sign No. 5 is an existing roof sign on Millers OutpostJ sign No. 6 is a
proposed pylon sign= eign No. 7 is an existing sign for .Tolly Rog~r and it fs
his understanding they are going to request that sign be changed to a
monument~-type sign; sign No. B is an existing sign for Fullerton Savinqs along
with the time and tempetatuce; sign No. 9 would be on Peregrine and is a
proposed sign and he thought it would be a small sign for the Firestone store;
sign No. 10 would be on Peregrine nnd pointed out signs 9 and 10 do not really
~/9/~$~
MINUT~S. ANAHEIM CITY__PI~ANNING COMMI3SION, JULY 9, 15184 ~w ,Y 84-441
require a variencet eign No. 11 is on State College Aoulevard, northwest
cocner oF the now Relph's market ~nd it will be a Rrlph's pylon signt eign No.
12 ie a propoaed pylon sign for identiEicetion purpoaea for Fireatoner sign
No. 13 is another pylon, matching the existing No. 4= and proposed sign 14 is
a pylon located at the drive entrance north of the bank and they intend to use
that Eor identification for all the ahopa in that area.
~ommissioner Herbet cetucned to t•.he meeting and assumed the CHAIR at 2;35 p.m.
'rNE PUaLIC HEARING WAS CLQS~D.
Commissioner La Claire stated this ia a lot of signs and asked which ones
would be deleted if only 4 or 5 were granted, pointing out there seema to be a
sign propaaed at every driveway and even where the~e is nat a driveway.
Mr. Meader stated they are willing to eliminate sign No. 1 which is an
exiating sign and blao relinquish the second sign on Peregrine and the one in
the midd]e of. the planter area on State College. He stated that would get it
down to the 5 signs just mentianed. Ne stated the total square £ootage is
well wikhin the Code and actually they would be allowed to have even more
siyns. He clarified the Jolly Roger wants a monument sign because they ace
ahanging theic image to a g~rden-type r.e~taurant with a glass encloced gazebo,
etc.
Cammiasioner La Claire ~eferred to lhe Jolly RogerA plan to conve~rk to a
monuner~t sign in ocder to change their image and asked if the petitioner has
considered such a cl~ange. Mr. Meauer ~tated he has no pcoblem with monument
signs and explained they are r~ot tied ~nto any design of the aigns aa yet,
other than the Ralphs and p~ssibly Firestone. Commissioner La ~laire stated
the City has tried to promoke monument-tiype signs eapecially in the Canyon
Industcial Area. Mr. Meader atated even the repetitive monument-type signs
appear to be somewhat cluttered. Eie stated they are sincerely interested in
the over-all look of this center and khey are ~ot asking for a variance
because they want a lot of signing, but they do have specific needs Eer
specific tenants and they have some spacing problems du~ to existing signs.
He sCated eliminating sign No. 1 and sign No. 12 wi12 eliminate some of their
spacing pcoblems arid they will be well within the Code along State Col2ege
Boulevard.
Commissioner Fry stated he has no objections tu the major identification
signs, but find~ the other signs offensive and stated he sees no need for any
signing on Peregrine at this time.
Commissionec Bouas pointed out tihat Firestone could have a sign on the
building. Mr. Meader atated they want a small freestanding sign so that
people on State Colle~e Boulevard looking foc Firestone would realize where
they are located. He responded to Commissioner La Claire that it is
internally illsminated and that the size of the signs on the drawing is 150
square feet and they will stipulate to that size and he did not know whether
or nat they would have a Firestone sign on that side of the building. He
stated it was their feeling since they had to came in for a v~riance to
include all the signs and did not think th~y even needed a variance for the
signs on Peregrine.
7/9/25
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMM_I_$SION,_JULY_91_~984_ i 84-A42
Commieaionec euohore aeked if. the d~veloper hae shown Fireato~a where the
signa would be located, especially cince they ac~ atill in nggotiations and it
has not been Einalixed that tt~ey will even be a tenant in the aentec. He
atated Fireatone wants a sign on Peregrine, 5taCe College and Lincoln.
ComRisaionec Bush~re stated it would make more sanse to incorporAte that sign
on the aign on Lincoln and he could not understand why someone would want a
sign on Pereg[ine wh:ch is a residential street and the back e~trAnce to the
shopping centet.
Commisaiuner La Claire atated if the algn ie interna~ly illuminated, it could
be a problem for the people living across ttie street becauae it could
illuminate their bedro~ma and living rooms at night.
Mr. Meadec stated on one hand they ace being told there are koo many aigns on
Lincoln and State College, yet they are being told they are noC alloa~ed to
have any eiyns on Peregrine and that detinitely some signing is needed. Eje
stated he is very concerned as to what the signa will look like an~ they do
not want a large panel sign with all khe tenanta listed on them because it is
hard to read and obviously All lhe mAjor kenants would like to hAVe their own
aign and they are trying now ta make a compromise and yet the sign plan
a~proved.
Commissioner La Claire suggested incorporsting three tenants on each of the
signs which woul~ eliminate ~ne-half oE the number requested. Mr. Meader
responded tt~ey have only asked for 8 additional signe and if they eliminate
the two on Peregtine and eliminate the one on the r.oof and the one on State
College, that would be half the number r~quested and asked if that would be
acceptable.
Commissioner La Claire stated that would bp better and furlher explained she
is not opposed to some signs, but is trying to keep the signs to a suitable
number. She stated she would like to see no signa on Pecegrine simply because
it is right acro~s tha stceet from a residential neighborhood and it would be
disturbing unless they are lnw monument-type signs and nat lighted.
Commissioner Herbat asked what signs would be allo~ed by Code. Annika
Santalahti, Assistant Dicectoc for Zoning, explained the signs have to be
located 300 feet from another freestanding sign anywhere else on the property
and the maximum height would be 25 feet because of the nearby residential
property.
Commissionet Herbst sta~ed if this sign p~an is n~t apptoved, then a tenant
could come in with a request f.os a sign as lang as ik meets all the Codes.
Annika 5antalahti stated if this property has a variance on it for a signing
program and in connpction with that signing program, Commisaion specifically
allows a certain number of signs, those are the fteestanding signs that would
be permitted and Commission can put whatever conditions they want on the
approva~.
Commissioner Herbst asked if someone else rented the b~ilding and came in
later on~ if they could get ~he permits. Annika Santalahti stated the person
checking for sign permits would pull ~~:~. file and read the resolution granting
7/9125
MINUTCS, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISS_ION~ JULY 9, 1984 84-443
the vdriance which would prohibit a s.ign above a certain hRight or tha~ there
would be no aigna pvrmitted on P~r.eqrin~ Street, e~c.
Commiasioner Buahorp stated he would be in agreement with the four eigna. Mr.
Meader clarifie~ that tloey have propoeed eight new aigns and tha Commisaion ie
naw talking about getting rid of tho exiating roof sign no thRy would be
ge~ting five new pylon signs. He stAted they wi~l be f,aking the exieting roof
aign and one pylon sign of.E State Culleg~ and L•wo off Peregrine.
Mr. Meader ~sked iE PirPSCone would be allowed to have identification aigna on
their building• Greg Hastinga sLated stoff would like clarification as to
which signs to be deleted. It wa~ noted sign No. 1 would be d~leted and sign
No. 12 would be eliminaLed and ~lso 9 and l.0 on Pec~g!~ne would be
eliminated. It wAa nnted the roof eiqn on Mi11Qrs outpoot ~~11 stny and
Commissioner La Claire suygested trying to incorpocate that sign into the
other signs. Mr. Meader responded they have n~t had any diacussions with
them, but d~ubted he c~uld convince them t~ change.
Annika Suntalahti stated they could have a w~ll atgn Am~unting t~ 208 of th~
building w~ll.
Mr. Meader stated the siyn criteria az~ required Eor thuHe people would be
similar to the enclosed malls whic~ Are basically illuminated channel letters
and none of the new tenants would be allowed to havo any canned-type aiqns;
however, Ralphs and paseibly Fir.eatone would be an exception.
lt was noted the Ylanning Directar or his autharized repreaentative has
determined that the propased project falls within tt definition ~f
Categorical Exemptions, Clasa 11, as defined in the State Envir~.nmental Impact
Report Guxdelines arid is, therefore, categorically exemPt from the requirement
to prep3ce an ~IR.
ACTION; Commisaioner Bu~hore of£ered Resolution No. PC84-142 and moved for
its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission daes hereby
grant Vaciance No. 3412, in part, on ~he basis that the petftioner has
stipulated to eliminate signs 1 and 12 and 9 and 10 on Peregrine Street and
further on the basis that there are special circumatances applicable to the
propert,y such as size, shape, topography, location and aurroundings which do
not app2y to other identicall,y zoned property in the ssme vicinity; and that
stcict application of the Zoning Cude deprives Lhe proQerty of privileges
enjoyed by other proQECties in the identical zone and clasaification in the
vicinit:y and subject to interdepart.mental Committee recommendations.
Mr. Meader atated he would like to get this set up so that someone in the
Plannina Aepartment does not isaue new sign ~>ermits without Eheir approval.
Annika Sant~lahti stated the problem is that staff can make an effort to watch
for sign permits, but that is not in the Buildin~ Divisian's cegulations.
Commissioner Bush~re skate~ a there should be a c:,ause in the lease the
developer would have with the tenants. Commissioner La Claire suggested
"flagging` certain addresses or the mapa to bciny the restriction to the
attention of the person checking for sign permits. Annika Santalahti stated
the problem is the mannec in which the sign permits are granted. She stated
7/g/25
MINUTES, AN~HBIM CITY_PLANNING COMMIS~ION JULY 9 1984 84-d44
the only handle wauld be with the pecson who checke tt~e permits, but if that
peraon is not present, there is always a chance it could be misaed. She
added, hopeFully, having a variance on the property foc a freeetanding sign
will eliminate any pogsibility oE that happening, but that would not have
anything to du with a wall sf,yn.
Commissioner Hecbst at~ted ths lecse ehould be flagged with big lettore to
give kh~m their ~wn control. Mr. Meader stAted they have told all thei~
ten~nts that havinq the signing ~rogram avoids them having to come in
individually to get pecmits.
CommisRioner Bushore staked ttie r~ason for approval of a variance would be the
trade-off of eliminating signe on Peregrine StrHet. Greg Haetinga as~ad if-
the Commission wishes to allow the existing signs to be expanded.
Commisaioner Buanare stated appraval would be ti~d to the plans as aubmitted,
except th~ge ai~r~s eliminated. Mr. Me~der stated they would like to b~~~e the
flexibility oF not having the aigns any lecgec, but being able to deaign them
to fit the area.
Jack White clarified that Condition No. 2 should be revised to read: 'That
subject property should be developed substantially in acc~rdance with, and all
fc~estanding signa on the property, including previously existing s~gns, shall
comply with planF and apecificatione on file with the City o~ Anaheim, marked
Exhibits 1 thtough 7.
On roll call, the foregoing cesolution waA pasaed by the following vnte:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE~ FRY, H~RBST~ KZNG~ GA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY
NOE5: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ITEM N0. 15. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECLASSIFICATION N0. 84-05-2 WAIVER
UF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2595
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: VISTA NOHL PLAZA, LTD., ATTN: SALVATORE F. GOTTUSOe
718 ~. Edna Place, Suite F, Covina, CA 91722. Property described as an
irregularly-ahaped parcel of I~nd consisting of approximately 2.b acres
located at the ~outhwest corner of Nohl Ra~ah Road and Villa Real Drive,
having approximate fcontages of 272 feet on the south side of Nohl Ranch Road
and 345 feet on the c~est side of Villa Real Drive.
CL-HS(SC) to CL(SC) to permit a 46-foot high commercial complex including a
semi-enclosed restaurant with on-sale aicohol with waiver of: (a) permitted
sign content, (b) maximum nu~ber of sign ~isplay surfaces, (c) required sign
placement, (d) maximum siqn area, (e) maximum building height and (f) required
site screening.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject requeat
and although the staff report ~as not read, it is ceferred to and made a part
of the minu~~s.
Craig Combs, archikect, was present to answer any questions and explained the
pcopertY is virtuallj flat and is isolated from surrounding properties and is
7/9/~~~
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMIS6ION, JULY 9, .1984 84-445
eithec ebove or ho.low surrounding pcop6rties nnd it ie ane oE two pcope r ti~e
in thie City zone~ CL-HS and that the project proposes a cetAil commecc i al
centec with office spdce and also a fine dinner houae. He st~i~ld the b ulldtng
will be 2-atorie~ built on a plaze level with parking underneath. He
presented a rendering o[ the pcaject.
Mr. Combs referred to the ataff repnrt., Candition No. 17, pertaininq to the
roof mounted equipment and explained they aro proposing a fu11 roof buil d~ng
with a$mall well through the mi~dle ~f the roof and there ia no way anyone
could see into thek well fcom anywhere around Che propecty and they wou 1 d like
to be Able to place their equipment in that well.
Greg l~astings stAted if the well ia built into the roof and cannot be s een-it
would not be consideced ~oof-mounted equipment and would r.omply wi~h th at
condition.
Mr. Combs refecred to Condition No. 24 restricting the poasibility of a
medical or den~al use and stated he woul~ like that condition amended t o resd;
'That they would have to provide adequal-e parking in order to have medi cal or
dental usea, $hould they be desired'. He explained at the presenk time thoy
are not proposing medical oc dental uses.
THE PU$LIC HEARING WA3 CLOSED.
Commisbioner Herbst pointed out gtaff has recommended eliminating Condi tion
No. 24.
Cummissioner La Claire statPd she thought the project is !~eautiful and
ascertained that this is the same developer as the one on Newport Boul e vAr~
(Pacific F~deral) and atated if this building is anything like that, it will
really be an attribute.
ACTION: Corr,missioner La Claire offered a motion, secorsded by Commissioner
King and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Ciky Planning GommissiAn has
reviewed thp proposal to reclassify subject pcoperty from the CL-HS(SC) Zone
(Commercial, Limi.ted, Hillside Scenic Corridor Overlay? Zone to CL(S~)
(Commercial, Limited, Scenic Corridoc Overlay) Zone to pecmit a 46-foo t high
commerclal complex including the aemi-enclosed restaurant wi~h oa-sale alcohol
beverages and waivecs of permitted sign content, maximum number of sign
display surfaces, required sign placement, maximum sign area, maximum b uilding
height and required eite scceening on an irregularly-shaped parcel of Z and
~.onsisting of ~pproxirnately 2.6 acrea located at the southwest corner o f Nohl
Ranch Road and Villa Real Drives and doeA heceby approve the Negative
Declaration upon finding tl~at it has conaidered th~~ Negative Dec~aratio n
tog~ther with any comments received during the puulic review process a nd
further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any commenta recei~ed
that there is no substantial evidenae that the project will have a ~i~ n.ificant
effect on the environment.
Commissioner La Claire offerad Resolutian No. PC84-143 and moved for i ts
passage and adoptian that the Anaheim City P.lanning Commission does he r eby
grant Reclassification No. 84-85-2 subject to Interdepartmental Commit tee
recommendations.
7/9/ 25
MINUTE3 ~NAHEIM CITY PLANN:NG COMMISSION JU~Y 9 1984 R~waa6
On roll call, the foregoing ceaol~tion wee paeeed by the Eollowing vote:
AYEB: HOUAS, BUBHpRB~ FRY~ H£RHST~ KING, LA CLA IRE, MC ~URNEX
NOES: NONE
A88ENT: NONE
Commiaeioner La Claira ofEered a motion, aeconded by CommiaPioner King an~
MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion dQOS hereby grant
waiver of Code requirement on the basis that ~here Are opecilocationmandnces
appli.cabla to th~e propecty such ae alze, shape, t opography,
euzroundinga which do not appl,y to oth~r identica 1 1y xoned property in the
same vicinityi and that atrict application af the 2oning Code deprives the
property of pcivileges enjoyed by other propertie s in the identical zone and
classification in the vicinity and auUject to Int erdepartmenttal Committee
recommendationa.
Gre~ Hastings stated stAff would recommend that Condition No. 14 ahoul~ be
deleted.
Commissioner La Claire offeced Resolution No. PC 8 4-144 and moved foT its
passage and adoption ~hat the Anaheim City P1ann i ng Commission does hereby
grant Conditional Uae Pecmit No. 2595 pursuant t a Anaheim Municipal Code
Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.Q3U.035 and subject to Interdepartmental
Committee reconunendations.
On roll call, the foregoing resolutfon was pnssed by the follnwin~ vate:
AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST, KING~ LA C LAIRE, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Responding to Commisaioner Fry, Mr. Combs estima ted they would begin
construction in 4 to 6 months.
ITEM N0. 16. EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 AND VARIANCE N0. 34(1~a
PUBLIC EIEARING. OWNERS: MICHAEL S. SAMMONS AND DE$9I6 A SAAIMONS~ 1196 E.
Radcliffe Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806. Property d escribed as an
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consiating o f approximat~ly 5,000 square
feet, 3196 T:ast Radcliffe Avenue.
waiver of maximum lot coverage to canstcuct a r oom addition to a single-family
residence.
There was one person indicating his presence in appoaition to subject request
anc~ although the staff report was not read, it is ceferred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Debbie Sammons, petitioner, was preser~t to answer any questions.
Andrew Sobienr 3200 E. Radcliffe~ stated he has livod next to subject property
c,n the east for 2-1/2 years and he would objec t to this addition b~cause of
the high wall whic;h would block hia view of the aunnet and sunrise and reduce
7J9/25
MINUTB5. ~NAHEIM_CITY PLANNING CQMMI3SION, JUGY 9. 1984 94-447
the light to his kitchen eapecisl.ly in the winter when the aun is lower and ik
would cut down th~ pcevailing bceeze end ceduce the afternoon aun in his
backyerd and bacause of theae conditions it w~uld lower the salability and
value af his property. He stated he did not want to 4tACQ at the side of an
A-frame structure and euygested they uae a lowor prafile with a roof aimilar
to the one they have now.
Mo. Sammona presenCed photogr~phs taken from the oppoaition's backyacd and
stated stcaight aheAd there is At leaRt a 35-foot high trce which is the full
width of ttie enclosed patio room they t~ave now and even if ~hey bu~lt an
addition as high as the two-~tory structure nexr door, lt atill would not
block Anykhing Uecause the tree i~ blocking the view. She stated righk now
they do have a flat roof. She presented a photogcaph of another addition ~n
Radcliffe with a pitcl~ed roof which would almosc be equal t~ the one they are
pr~posing. She stated the architect stated the pit~h tc the roof will only be
32 inches higher thAn th~ cuxrent ruof. She pointed out the tree would be
much h~gher than that. She pointed out the view he w~u1d be Aeeing of the
sunset on the phot~graph And stated she did nat think he would be seeing it
anyway.
Mr. Sobien ceviewed the photograph pr~sented with Commisaioner La Claire and
explained the locaLion of his pcoperty, etc. Commissioner L~ C].aire exp:ained
she wAnted to make sure khe photographs were taken fram the area as indicaked
by the petitioner and that this was actually the view from Mr. Sobien's
property.
Commissioner Buahore pointed out the only waiver being cequested is maximum
lot coverage and there is no waiver of h~eight or setbacks and stated if the
builder had originally builk the house f urthec b~ck on the lot, this variance
would not even be necessary. He stat~d he felt this is a reasonable request.
It wAS noted the Planning Director oc his authorixed repres~ntative has
detecmined that the proposed project fa11H wxthin the definitfon of
Categorical Exemptions, Class 5, as defined in the State Environmental impact
Repor.t Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement
to prepare an EIR.
ACTION: Commissioner Bushoce offered Reaolution No. PC84-145 and moved for
iks passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does herehy
grank Variance No. 3405 on the basie that the cequest is reasonable and also
that there are special circum~tances applicable ta the property such as size~
shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other
identically zoned property in the same vicinityt and that strict applicatian
of the 2oninq Code deprives the prope[ty of privileges er~joyed by other
properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and
subject to Interdeparkmental Committee recommendations.
Commissfoner Bushore further pointed out the petition~r would have the right
to build a'l-story stcucture. Commissioner La Claire asked if the Commissian
should have her stipulate to not gaing any hiqher than 32 inches over the
preaent roof. Jsck White stated approv::l would be based on plana as submitted
and ~f the plans have a roof 32 inches above the existing roof, there would be
7/9/25
MINUTES, ~N~NEIM CITY PLANNING_ COMMISSION,_JU_LY__9, 1964__ _ _ _ _ _ __84-448
no problem. Commiaaioner 6ushore atated he does not care about khe height of
the Fetitionor'e roof and he would not i.ncludg that as part of hie resolution.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BClUAB, BUSHORE, E'RY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURN~Y
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NON~
Jack White, Assiatant City Attorney, pcesented the written cight to a~peal the
Planning Commisai~n's decision within 22 days to the City council.
ITEM N0. 17. EIR NEGATIVE UECLARATION (pREV. CERTIPZED) A1Vll TENTATIVE MAP OF
TRACT NU. 12147:
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: TEXACO ANAHEIM NILLS, xNC., c/o The Gunston Hall
Gompany, 380 S. Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim, CA 92807. AGENT: SALKIN
ENGINEERING CORPOf2ATi0N, 17.15 E. Chapman Avenue, Qrange, CA 92660, ATTN:
George Kerns. Property dN~cribed as an irr~gularly-ahaped parcel of land
consisting oE approximately 5.4 acres, having a frontage of approxirautely 434
feet on the aouthea~t side of SecrAno Avenue, having a maximum dept.h of
appcoximately 668 Eeet and being located approximutely I25 feet northeast of
the centerline of Hidden Canyon Road.
To establish a 9-lot, 7-unit, RS-NS-1p,000(SC) (Reaidential, Single-Pamily,
Hi.llside, Scenic Cocridor Oveclay) Zone aubdivision.
1t was noted the EIR Neg~tive Declaratiun was preciously certified.
ACTION: Commisaioner King of.fered a motion, seconded by Commiseioner McBurney
and MOTION CARRIED, that. the Anaheim Ciky Plannirig Commission does hereby find
that the proposed subdiviaion, together with its design and improvement, is
consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan, pursuant to Government Code
Section 66473.5; and does, therefore, approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 12147
for a 9-lot, 7-unit single-family zone aubdivision subject to the following
conditions;
1. That prior to isauancp of a building permit, primary water main fees
shall be paid to the City of Anaheim, in an amount as determined by
the Office of the Utilities General Manager.
2. That prior to final tract map approval, appropriate park ~nd
recreation in-lieu fees Ahall be paid to the City of. Anaheim in an
amount as determined by the City Council.
3. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropri.ate traffic
stgnal asse~sment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an
amount as detecmined by the City Council for each new dwelling unit.
4. That prior to final trect map approvalj special facilities fees
shall be paid ~~ the Water Utility Division by the developer in
accordance with Rnle 15B of khe Watet Utility Rates, Rules and
Regula~ior~s.
7/9/25
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIBSION. JULY 9~ 1984 84-449
5. That all private streets ahall be developod in accordance with r.he
City of Anaheim's Standard Ueteil No. 122 for private Rtreete,
includin~ installation of etreet name signs. Plana for the privdte
street Zighting, as cequ~red by khe $tAna~ra a~taii, shall be
submitted to the Building Division for appcoval and included with
the building plana ~rior to the lesuance of building permits.
(Private streets are those which provide primary acceas and/or
cicculation within ~he project.
6. That prior ko f~nal tract map Appcoval, street namea shall be
approved by thQ City Planning Department.
7. That temporary stcuet name signs ahall be inskalled pcior to any
occupancy if permanent stre~t name aigna have not b~en installed.
8. That drainage of aubject property ahall be dispcaed of in a mannec
satisEactory to the City Engineer.
9. That ahould this subdivielon be developed as more than nne
eul~diviaion, each subdivision thereof ahal.l be suhmitted in
tentative focm f~r ap~roval.
10. That all lots within this tract shall be served by undecground
utilities.
11. That prior L•o commencement of structural fcaming, fire hydr~nts
shall be installed and charged as cequired and determined to be
necessary by the Chief of the Pire Department.
12. That all requirements of Pire 'Lone 4, otherwise identified as ~ire
Administrative Order No. 76-01, ahall be met. Such requirementg
include, but are not limited to: chimney spark arrestora, protected
attic and under floor openings, Cl.ass C or better roofing material
and one hour fir~ resistive construction of horizontal surfaces if
located within 7.00 feet of adjacent brushland.
~
1~. That fuel breaks shall be provided as dPtermined to be necessary by
the Chief of the Fire Department.
14. That native slopes adjacent to newly const~ucted homes shall be
hydroseeded with a low fuel combustible seed mix, Such slopes shall
be aprinklered and weeded as reguir~d to establish a minimum of 100
feet of separation between flammable veyetation and any structure.
15. That prior to final tract map approval, the original documents of
the covenants, conditions, and reatrictions, and a letter addreused
to the developer's kitle company authorizing recordation theceof,
shall be submitted to the City Attorney's Office and approved by the
City Attorney's Office and Engineering Division. Said documents, as
approved, will then be filed and recorded in the Office of the
Orange County P.ecorder.
~/9t~~1~
MINUTES~ ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 9 1984 84-450
16. That pcior to £inal trACt map approvAl~ the preciae location, grade
and dosign of the pcivdt•~ Rtreet shall be reviewed and a~proved by
the City Traffic Engineer.
17. That gates shall not be installed acrose any driveway or private
etreet in a manner which may adveraely affect vehicular traEfic in
the adjacent public stceets. instellation of any gatea within a
d~stance af forty (40) fest E~om said public Rtreet rights-of-way
ahall be s~ibject to the review and approval of the City Traf~ic
Engineer.
18. Ttiat prior to final Tract Map Approval, the vehiculac accesa rights,
except at approved acceas points, to Serrano Avenue shall be
dedicated to the Cit.y of Anat~eim.
19. Ttiat prior to final tract map approvel., the existing easement for
public road purposes over Lot 'A• shall be abandoned and Eurther,
that the existing easement for public uti.lity purposes ovec said lot
s'~a11 be reduced in width to the satiefaction of the City Weter
Division.
20. That prior to £inal tract map Approval, tha precise design and
placement of the ~ccesa dciveway to Che public ukility easement for
Lot "A" shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
21. That n~ public ar private stceet gradea shall exceed 10~ except by
prior approval of the Chief of the Fire Department and the
Enyineering Uivision.
22. That gradi.ng, excavation, ar~d all o*.her canstruction activities
shall be conducked in such a manner so as to minimize the
possibili.ty o€ any ailt originating fram this project being carried
into the Santa Ana River by s~orm water originating from or flowing
through this pcoject.
23. That prior to final tract map approval, finel specific plans shall
be submitked to the Planning Department and approved in accordanCe
with provisions of Chapter 18.85 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, the
"PC' ~lanned Community Zone.
24. That prior to final tract map approval, the owne[ of subject
groperty shall execute and record a covenant obligating the
homeowners ass~ciation ta landscape and perpetually maintain said
l~ndscaping fot Lot 'A'.
ITEM N0. 18. REPORTS ANU RECOMMENDATIONS
A. CONDITIONAL USE PEItMIT N0. 2361 - Request from Jeanne L. Blankenship for
a one-year retroactive extensior~ of time, property located at 59G0 East
Santa Ana Canyon Road (Hephatha Lutheran Church).
7/9/25
MINUT~S. AN~NEIM CITY PGANNING COMMISSION, JULY 9. 1964 84-451
Commiasioner Buehocg pointed out this conditionAl uae permit was
origfnally gcented on a temparary basis. Greg H~etings, Asslstant
Planner, aCate~ the tcallers were app~oved adminiatratively until
co~btruction takea p1ecQ wikh Annika Santalahti, Assiatant Director for
zoning, further explaining there wss n City Council Policy all~wing the
Plonninq Director to approve the trailers.
Commissi.onet Buehore stated he Eelt the Commiasion should k.now that wh~n
the conditional uae permit was originally appcoved, it wae subject to
plana and in his opinion they hAVe the right to have the trailera there
tempocarily during construction, but it bothers him they are asking Eor
an extension in order to finalize plans and Aktempt to secure pecmanent
financing and comply with th~ conditions oE approval. He state~ he would
go along with tt~e request this time, but i~ it comes back again he will
t.ake a close look at it. Annika 5antalahti stated the trailera are
approved on 6-month increments.
Commissioner Buahore stated the chucch represent~tivea sho~i~d knaw the
Commisaion is concerned and does expect them to show some progres$ and
the echool cannok exist Chere f~revec in modular trailers.
Commissioner La Claire atated aiie is concerned because when this hearing
was held before the Planniny Commiasion, there was a lot of ~pposil•ian
Erom the hotneowners and khey were concerned About the noiae and certa~n
conditions were included in the approval auch as fencing, acreeningr ete.
and she was not sure any uf this had been done. 5he ~tated the church
ha~ had the school and buaineas now for one year and she felt m~ybe the
Commissi.on should take a laok and get some representatives in to discusa
the plans.
Annika Santalahti stated tt~e staff can notify the petitioner of
Commission's decision so they are aware of the concerns.
Commissioner t.a Claire stated she would like to continue this matter in
ordzc to hav~ the owners present because she was sure the people in the
neighbarhood are not complaining because they are thinking certain things
are going to be done.
Commissioner Bushore st~ted he would lfke to hear fcom the church
representatives because he is afcaid in order to secuce their fi.nancing,
they will need to build up their enrollment to a certain point and that
could take many yeacs because of the cost of construction, etc.
ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Bouas and MOTION CARRIED, thak consideration of the afore-mentioned
mattec be continued to the meeting of July 23, 1984, in order for the
petitioner to he preaent.
B. REQUEST TO CONSIDER ELIMINAT:ON GF THE CL-HS(SC) (COHMERCIAL.
LIM2mED-HILLSIDE SCENIr CORRIDOR OVERALY) ZONE DESIGNAT20N
Property is 2.6 acres of undeveloped land ln~ated on the southwest corner
of Nohl Ranch and Villa Real; and 3 acres of neighborhood commercial
development located on the northwest corr.er of Nohl Ranch Road and
Serrano Avenue.
7/9/25
MINUTES~ AN~~EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. JULY 9. 1984 84-452
ACTION; Commission~r Buahore of£ered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
King and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion does
heroby instruct staff to prepare a~ ordinance in or~er to eliminate the
C~-HS(SC) Zone designation and initiate a reznning of the p~~perty at the
corner of Nohl Ranch and SerrAno Avenue to CL(SC).
C. CONlli7'IONAL USE PEkMIZ' N0. 2093 - Requ~st From Robert Sanchex for A
retroactive two-year extension oE time. Propacty located at 911 South
Sylvan StrQet.
Commisaionec 9uahore stated he would like to discus~ thie report because
he understands there are at least two other aviaries adjacent to the
progerty and the neighbors are not complaining becaur~e they are doing the
same thing. He stated he would like for staff to investigate the
si.tuation because he fel~ this is possibie there ia quite a commercial
operation going on to supply pet etores.
Commissioner Herbst stated the fact khat someone elae is doing something
withuut a permit has nottiing to do with this request.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant DireGtor Eor Zoning, atater] can ataff check
the site to make su;e the aviary is developed in the manner approved by
the Commiseion. Commissioner F3ushore asked that ~taff also check the
okhec homes in that area.
ACZ`ION; Commissioner eu,~hore oEfered a motion, seconded by Commisaioner
King and MOTION CARRIED, that consideration of the afore-mer~tioned matter
be continued to tt~e meeting of July 23, 1984, in order for staff to
investigate subject property to maka sure it is developed in accordance
with plans as agpcoved.
D. PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT - Amendment to Subsection .200 of Section
18.48.050 of Chapter 18.48 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code
pertainin9 to fast-food And drive-through restaurants in the CR zone.
Commissioner hScBurney declared a conflict of interest as defined by
Anaheim City Planning Commission Reaolution No. PCi6-157 adopting a
Conflict of Intereat Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code
Section 3625, et seq., in that he would have a financia.l interest in the
outcome and purguant to the provisiona of the above Codes, decl.ared to
~he Chaicman that he was withdrawing from the hearing in connection with
proposed code amendments, and would not take part in either the
discussion or the voting thereon and had nut discussed this matter with
any member of the Planniny Commiss:on.
ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney abstaining) that the Anaheim
City Planning Commis~ion doea hereby recommend to the Ciky Council that
Subsection .200 of Section 18.48.050 of Chapter 18.48 of Title 18 2oniny
be amended permitting semi-enclosed, drive-through and walk-up
restaurants as conditional uses in the CR Zone.
Commissioner La Claire clarified this amendment will simply allow those
uses in the CR Zone subject to the appzoval of conditional use permits,
so the Commission will still see the pians.
7/9/25
MINUTES, P-N~NBIM C1TY ~LANNING COMMIS3ION, JULY 9, 1984 04-A53
OTHEK DISCUSBION:
Commisaioner La Cleire deked thdt the building on thQ corner of ~dnte Ana
Canyon RoAd naxt to the Yorba Shopping Center. (the new AAA Building thet was
tecently constructed) be investigated becauao it appeara to be mur.h larger
than anyonP over thouyht it would be and it wcs her recollection khat khe
petitioner had eaid the toof line wauld be even with the lotg behind but thet
th~ roof line is wdy Abave thoae lota and a lot of people have com~lained
about the height of the building. She added ehe would like to know {E the
butlding wae conetruc.tQd in accordance with the plans that were spproved.
Commiasioner Bushore asked Eot an CXCU3Qd ~baence an August 6, 1984, and
stated he wds ju~t trying to make aure there would b~ a quorum preaent on that
day.
Commiasioner Bouas pointed ouC thAt Commiseioner Mc9urney had sent a letter
requesting excused absencea on August 6 und Uctober l~th.
Commisaioner Herbst asked if Che action on 18-9 on ~oday'~ mQeting will
eliminate the red dots in the corner at Hidden ~anyon Road. Annik~ Santalahti
stated this acl•ion will take off ~tie C1.-HS d~aignation. Commissioner Herbst
stated thnt nite should be eliminated for commercial use complekely. Greg
Hbstings explained that property ie currenkly zoned CL-HS and as of taday,
that is the only CL-tfS property in the CiLy and there has been s~me interest
in uses by ~etmit which are ullowed in thP CL Zcne.
ADJOUKNMENT: There beiny no further bu~ine~s, C~mrt~iesioner Kinq oFfered a
moL•fon, aeconded by Commisaioner La Clair~ And MOTION CARRIED
that the meeting be adjourned.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
Respectfully subm.itted,
.
~ .~ `
Edith I.. Harris, secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
ELH:lm
OU54m
7/ 9/,?~~ ~