Minutes-PC 1970/12/28+, .so ~a~~ea ioloraerrby Chairman He;rbst
,
`
u
i
'
i
a"t ~ 06 P M; a
;~ ~
~,~; q
o
um
being. present
, f f R
~
* ~
1~
~ - ':
,
.y
~r
k ~
~
,
.ESENT:: ` ~+
`,
:CHAIRMAN xHerb
~
t r .
°
,
, ~, ry
s
~
`
K
.
~
~,
'
~~
~ j : ,
,
' COMMISSIONERS
Gauer„~
F ' '
ayw~od
~
r
'
, Se~ onr
Allred
.
. . . .
, :.
'• f ', Farano ~ ,,
,
;
~ ~
.
SENT + COMMISSIONERS .. Nonet ` ~
, ~ , t
_ ;` ~ '
y
ESENT ~ Aesistant Deyelopment Services Directord Ronald Thom
;
`
~
_ ` Assistant C
ity, At'tbrney e
0'
f psoa
;': John ;<Dawaon
f
ice Engineer
i
'
~ ,
-Jay ;Titus :
2cn
ng Supervisor
i
`
`
'
' ;Charles Roberts
-
; AsBistaa
t 2
o
niag`Supervisor .1 .
Malcolm ~Ysughter
C,ommiseion $ecreta,rq -
' ` .
;Aun Rrebs~ '
i
EDGE OF Commissioner'Raywood led in the Pledge
LEGIANCE F
l
° '
' ~ o~f Al~egiance"to tlie
.
ag
-~
z ~ , , '' , ,, ' .
APPROVAL~ OF, Minutes: ot tfie meeting o`f December .14, 1970, were approved "
THE MINUTES on°muti`on b
;Co'm
i
i
i
~ ~
y
m
ss
one
Seymour,~_seconded b
;` •
Commissioaer
Y txa
a:
~
I
' '`"~
~.~~
,
yWOO
,
and'MOT
ON
L.
CARRIED, with:the foTlowing correction:
"
U ^
*
~
_ Page~
55;35, paragr,aph 9,, 'line 2, add, to end 'of `senterice,
~ "n
'
" ~ ~
'r~~
,
ext
door
.;
~: -
:
; .
, • ~
~ .
~~ . .
~ Y ;~
.
4 , _
,
,
_ `
.
J
CONDITIONAL ,US,E ,CONTINUED PIIBLIC HEARING RILROY INDUSTRIES
626
`
; ~ f
~
~`-~~
,
Wilshire
1 PERMIT NO
1215 Boulevard
Los Aa
ele
'
C
l
o
,
g
a,
,
a
if
rnia,•; Owner:, BEN~;-D KENNEY,
` ~ 'a 855 Ea
t E1
' y~
s
;Caminaor
~, , ` .~, ~ ` ~ s ~x
Real, Sunn,yvale,-~ Califiornia~; Agent,~;~
~-
reques tin
e
i
i
N
"
` ` R
~
g p
rm
ss
on to CO
STRUCT ,!A
MINI;ATURE
`:GOLF :COURSE
WITH WALUER OF
MINI "~ i
.
MU,i RFQUIRED LANDSCAPED SETBACR on.pr,operty,deacrib;e3 asb
An :irregularly`sh'aped par'cel of
ds
l
is
'
,~;
~`
r'"
_
an
cons
tin .of• a
` ` 8:' pproximately'?5 acres,'.
having a' frontage o'f
a
i
oxim
t
l
4
" -
,., uf
~~
pp
;
a
e
y 5
0 fe
e't on the south aide ~o.f Carpenter •
Street
having~ a
xi
`d ,: ~;
,
ma
mum
eptli:,of ap;proximately;:;452 feet and bein lo'cat"ed
app
roximatel
?710 fe
t
u
o
"
g `' ~`~
n
,
y.
e
so
th
f; the
centezline of La Palma Avenue
•Property
i presently classified M 1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
ZONE ` Y
,
.
; . ; ~ ~; ~ >~;
Assistan.t Zoniag Supervisor Malcolm"Slau
fitei r
ie T
g
ev
wed the locatfion.of
sub~ect,.;proper,ty, uses establi~shed;.-in close pr'oximiEy, "and: the; pr'oposal as
set f
i
h
h "
'
o
t
in}t
e Report to the,Commission,`noting tliat the petition was
con_tiaued from the previo
us'public fiearing
to all ~.
.
;
ow the Commission'.time:to
review .and fur;ther `consi'd'er- th'e proposal:: `:
~ ' ,;
; ' :
,.
~ Mr. David Quieling,s4667.'Mac Arthur Boulevard New ort Beach a
~ P , ppeared-be£ore.
the Commission~representiag the
etitione
d
n
~~
,p
r an
,..
,. ,
oted :that they liad letters
from'two.•addi*_:ional'property owners indicating their approval of_th
a
' '
~
e propos
l,
these being fr
om George:Page;'and the'1LaSa1le~Downey Company; the latter owning
pro
e
t
~-t
he
` ::.
~:
p
r
y
o t
west of Kraemer
B'~ulevard ~and La'. Palma Aveirue. Furthermore,'
a Tetter,had b.een re'ceived from Br'
an
I
duaf
s' `"-
y
.
n
rie
.who.had also-stated Ehey
were not oppos;ed to 'the propose;d facilitq.' In addition
at th
'la
~`
,
e
st public
liearing'he felt he liad misrepresented himself wherein.he touched_oa oth
u
~
er
ses 3n the area, and i't~ was hi
s. intent .to` state that Anaheim Lake was not a
o
p
or use;;rather than`it'was a'ppor use just as the proposed use would be a
good use,in that i•
'
t.would
.add•CO the total`:development of the industrial~area,
and'.that _he was available'to
ns t:
a
wer..,•any questions the Commi§sion,mi'ght`have.
Commissioner Raywood`inquired as to the lerigth of ttme it w'ould.take to: play'
one:
d
..
roun
of,-_8olf., . - ;
_.: . .. . °
-.
Mr 'QuisTing replied'that,this would"'be~a question,which the proposed operator
of the facility 'should a
s ~~~
n
wer. Howevet,,he did...wish`to state that the pro-
posed development would be
s
ed
con
truct
in two phases,.although the'secoad:
5540 i - _
'`
~ . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . ~ . ~ . i
_ _ -
i..
'_T_...,
~, ~+~._t 1j ~ n...u i?'~nw-yJ.z's'~ ~wi+~}-~:~' i vrv" r~'
.r ~ k
~
y ?
t:~ ~ ' N l `,~
}?
l ~ ~ ~ ~
. ` ^'
" . ~
c~ ~
a
~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Decemb~er 28, 1970
: 5541
~
~
, ~ :: ~ ; ~ - ~ _
CONDIT,IONAL USE 5:= hase;~would: be ma'intained with
a
~ ^
p
v `
gr
-
, ss e
en tho,ugh ao.t devel
R'
PERMIT^.NO ~".:1215 oped for the iatended u
~ s~
3
se
~ :• ,': ; ,
` ~ (Continued~)~t "~ ~ ~', .:.,a,
~ ~~'
,
"~ `~' yF' , Mr Ben Kenney, fhe proposed- opera'tor o€:•the:proje,ct,
i
d u.
c{"~
}
~
~
n
icated he was available to answer the Commission's
, } r~ ' T ~ ~
i
~
:
ques tions
~
,.~ ~
~Y
,
r s
:
= `
~`~~
Commissioner;Ka WQOQ~a ain stated her ' ,
t Y 8. , question as to the length of time it ~~
~,3~S,
would take to play a round of•golf,` wher,eupon!Mr Kenney °replie'd it would:take
` F
`*~
' about
an {hour, but if there were a°number~ of
, ._
player`s., it :could take" a~ gre~at ~
,
.. .
~
t adeal longer ;` ` ` ''
,,
., ,,
, ,.` ; ..
,
' ' ;:.
,
~ y
-
r
'
;
'
- . ,_ -
-.
„
~Commissioner;Seymour noted he`was desirous of ~clarifying,.stataments made by
~ 5~
,~.
.~rc~~
Mr Kenne at the ~last ' ~
y , public'hearing relative' to the~,p'er,centage of use from
'
u t
"~
o
tside uaers as opposed to users.from w~ithin'`the iadustiial aiea since he , '
,recalled Mr > Kenney had ~state,`d that 70X :of; the` la :in ~
P Y 8 would take place, on
~ '~
.
` T,• ,
evenings or-'.weeken'ds, and whether: os. not<.Mr. Kenneq ;:coul'd :relate ~as
"to :the ,,,
.
make up of ~.the pTayers '.= were _ they , family, ori`ented. ;
~
~
.. `'~ , : , _ ' ~
':~ :.' .~ j .: .
. . ,
Mr Kenney replied~in the affirmatiye for•both questions.. r(
:
i ' ;~
-: ?, i ' 'i
~
Commiss'ioner;Seymour then inquired whether or not in the market, analy,sis made `~'r
by Mr Kenney he had given some thought as.to what type of users t~ould be. ~;
a_ttracted to;: the course asking that an; op;iii'on be ;given_: ~F ~ ;~,F
~, Mi Renney replied; that :as an^' owner.~ of ae~eral.- courses'. of ` this type, ,as he ..
w
ld d
th
r ~
~
ou
rive past
is a
ea he ` could; visualize. it as •'a picture
: ivindow - that '
`''
.
u this wo.uld b;e a wi`de, gr~een area rather'than a~hard-surfaced parking area ':
h
"
'
'
~
w
ich
could :li
e loc
ated next Eo the_ifreeway;, that they : felt thi§;
would be ver i1
,
y
helpful in the bui3ding,';of a cours
e, and `„that;'anyone' dri.ving by:.would be Ftr~
:
_
,
, ,
` ,
~ attracted to;;the.£acility ~ `
,:.,. , .,
-
~~.x:
x
, . ,
.. ,. „
: ,
., ~ . .. ~ ~s~
Comm3ss3oner:Seymour noted that in'order:to ~ustify;.~this use, as' a.sat,ellite ~~
~use, it mus.t'be de:monstr,ated that 'the,.benefit'-of the"deveTopment
,.
should be
` ''~
.
basically
foi thex;indus:trial `usera rather than~ for ;the community at large. _~~Yi
~owever, it :was p"ossibTe the~:proposed ~operator,'was :unable': to answer. thia
u
o r~
X
q
estion which sh
uld be. answered.b;y ,the.'owner,.'of the propertyi`
~ '
Mr Keriney replied
. that'.it was theis hope that ,the induabrial employees would
~ l';
f:~
bring.their 'families to`:the
facility aince if they h,ad seen it, they;would'
` ,
`
1
ike to play on it:
, ; . _. ~.
'
'
~`
, l
Chairman,Herbst inquired;whether or not Mr: Kenney had any; other development ~; ;~
similar.-to.:~that proposed in-ofher.industrial areas.- Mr. Renney replied that fs
;„
their facility in:Garden Grove on Be~ch Boulevard was adjacenti, to some industry~,;:
Chairman Herbst indicated that his question was regarding locating~this type i
of.facility in an area primarily devoted to.industrial.uses since the Beach I
Boulevard facility_.and other,pictures•presented indicated the presence of a ;
number-of apartments which could support'this type of facil3ty. Therefore,
' ~
he
would like.to~see eviderice,presented that a:,facility,such as ~aas nropose~ j`
could.be aupported by the industrial uses which would completely surround it.
,. , ` ' ;:::;
.
.. :. .~ . ., ~
Mr Kenney replied'.that none of,their.,£acilities were in such a location.
. I
t :. ~i
;- ~:
_
Howeyer, they were primarily ~oncerned with not locating in a residential i
area; and,they tried to avoid:.auch a situation.
: _
~,
Chairman Herbat then noted that evidently'the petitioner-developer did not have ;:
a facility.located`in~a primarily industrial area.. .
Mr. Kenney-replied;`~that.'they had built eleven"or;-'twelve courses and operated
f3ve of'.these - hoF~ever;' the one nearest'industrial uses was
that on-Beach
,
Boulevard, and this was;the Swedlow.Comp`any which was industrially oriented.
¢hairman He'rbst rioted that th'ere were also apartments on one side of this
particular•miniature golf course which could support suah a use: However,
'
' ~
~
.
the
re'
appeared to be none whfch wer.e located'in an area completely set aside
`
for industzial uses. . j .
Commiss3oner Kaywo;od noted that she`:was attempting to relate this service- ~
_connected use since if it took one hour"to play the course, tlits would
eliminate employees in the area playing during their lunch hour.
, -
; .::
'
i~--~. _i
'~~ ,~,~! r"' .. ~ 4 i~.. ~ ~ r-.. ? s n--- ~
1 r '~ ~4 t~ c ~ ~~ ~ i. 1 ' ~
.~ \ ~ , r. ~ ~1 ~. 4 ~ . . ~ ~' ~y~ ~ s, 1
1
~ :nc ' ~r ~
-{W .':7 ~ . . ..-~ . ~- . ~~f
r MINUTES,Y CITY°PLANNINv COMMISSION, December 28,; 1970 `5542.; ~~
! r~.~ n' . J .i ~. , •, ~ . ;. . .. ;
. . ~,~^,>'7 t - . . ~.. '., '- s '~, y :. , ^ ~' ' ~ "..'. A~U~
CONDITTONAI, USE Mr ' Kenney replied that; it would not taka two'employees, ";,~r»~
1 ERMIT~~NOi`~~1215 ~ an houi to play ~only if th'ere were four chiLdren or four 1~~~,'~
'~~(tContinued)~~' players included would it take a full hour ~=~~
~ ~, ~1 ~ i ` { Y'' ,., ~ r ., Y ~ ~„ , , ~ . :
' ~' Commissioner~ Raywood~noted th;at she could not 'see ~taking ~~~
~~
~ children; in, the middle~ of the, day to play; because of 'sch ~1 Peither~'.could. . '~"a~,
+ sfieY~s~eerrhavin"g children ,or senior c'itizens at n"igtit bec++us.e of ,the ho;urs '`~i
, ~,
~between~~7 00 and, 10 00 being~difficult with, ch~i~ldren°having,studies arid ~ ~;°~
elderlyslipeople maintaiizing early hours ~Therefore, she could not relate this
facility as being~consi`dered a.-service connected operation':
~ . ` ~ r ~ ~~ ' ; "U .:. ; ~ i~ . 3: ; ''. ; ~
Mr, ~renney replied 'that it was', their hope'~ that 'the famil~2s of, emploqees,:of~. ~.
indus"tries in~. this area would ,use these facilit;ies' '~
. ! fi ~ ~. '. ~~ , . .' ',. ~' , .'
Commissioner Kaywood stated sh`e doulited AutoneEics' employees would uae the
fa,cility `since they, have~'; thei.r`;: own relativel ~` ~
~, y ~~~ £aciliti~es `. ,~
; Z t ~. , , , ,
Mr Kenney indicated that it was their hope,the~Autonetics employees"would '
~~
al'so us°e their faci~ltties +
Chairman Herb'st noted~"that ttie~~golf'..course at Autonetics was a pitch-and-putt.. ~?
type course,,somewhat di~fferFnt from that;proposed.
Mr,•,~Kenney indicated that it was their experience that families,used their 4~;~
' facilities a;great~`deaL,more than drag races an3 other's3milar uses.
; ,; h~t ~ .. °
Commissioner Kaywoo,d noted that it was hei feeling this type-of.faciliEy would ~
be used`~more :~in oth:er than an,~indusErial,~area,; such` as a iecreational area. -~~y
.;~ c :: ~„ ::. ~ ~~: .~ ..: , , .. ~ ..., . ~ .. o ~r'~
Mr Renney replied~that if people knew of:their location they would.avail. -
th~emaelves of'th`eir• facilities:, which tiould ensure their succes's. `a~
' ' >' . ~ ; G~~~sr~
>.
Commisaioner Farano, inquired of Mr Kenney, of .the 70X which would.play at'
night and on weekends, wtiat hours were to;be coasidered and how;many nights ~
a•;week would :this•-b'e av;silable: ' ?~
. ., ...
Mr' Kenney replied``that ~vening hours would be"from.7:,00 to 10a00 for:six' ' ~~`y`
, :.
ni'ghts a week: ° ~'
, `~ ; -: ' ; ; ,~i
Commisaioner Farano`noted this would;be a minimum of:l8.hours during week ":
nights and inquired~ what . type :of hours could be- eicp.ected. for Saturday and ~,~ ,~~:
Sunday •,
, : ~ .~~ " ~ ~;~ ':~~ ~~ . '. ~ . ~ . ~: ~ `~ r f.
: ` ~ . ~' . . Y , . :
Mr` Kenney replied that when children were not.attending school',,many families ;.;
would.be coming,around,during:'the.daytime; that:the,slack period was.from ', 1~~
5:.00 -to' 6:00 ,P M: ;.'and : that busYness; picked up 'again by 7:00 P.M. ,. ~:t' U,t
j ::
Commissi`oner Farano':inauired whether or.not it:would be a fair assumption to (
state,:that the playing.hovrs would,be from 12:D0 to 5:00 P.Df:.and frnm 7:00.
to 10:00 P:M, and fhat his main purpose in establishing these hours was to i
get an.idea as to the influx of people irito this~ area. Furthermore, how r.~any i;; ~
~ people would'.the operator. anticipate.using.these facilities on the four courses ~~'
~` when they were in operation. '' - - t ;;;
• _ . ( ..:, _::;.,=
Mr:~Kenney repl3ed that t
he hours of;operation staced by Commissioner Farano ~ =
could be assumed to be reasonably co'rreqt-, and that it was-anticipated that ;.,
25.0,000:`persons w.ould play ~he four.cour:ses in;a year: i;
~
Commissioner Farano.then noted`-,this would"average ouE to approximately.5,000 ~`~
persons per week, and then inguired how•many holes were planned;for the first ~.
phase of'~ the. o,peration, what :•the cap,acity . of the 36,-hole operetion would'-be, ~--
".and how many'~were general.ly consi.dered~in'a group. ,,
, , -. , .
Mr. Kenney replied `that the fir'st pliase'would be 36 holes, and the canaaity 4~
would-be 35.persons,.depending upon'.the number of,persons in each group - !
th`erefore; ~he.:couTd not 'state' the cagacity- of the 36 .holes:
Mri John B..Rilroy,;626 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, the petitioner,
aFpeared before the Commissiori and noted::he would like to respond to
Commissioner Kaywood's statements witli,seference to,;utilizing the facilities
~ _..
j
~ i ~. .
~'A ? J • ' r ^ ~~ t ~•: ~ ,.
:
t
t , 5 ~ r ~y~~
~
; ~
J
~ ~..
PC ~
4 ~~
,
~, ,.MINIITES, CITY PLANNING,COMMISSION, December 28, 1970 5543
:
' ~
i
~
: ,. ~ _ ~
:
'CONDZTIONAL USE = within the'industrial zone'~since this t
of
~
-
•
e V
~w-
"
:. _ , ype ;
,
S ~
ua
, aad .
~~ PERMIT .NO. • 1215 : traffic it generated ;would;be coming and going
at.;, times ~, ~
~ ~
,
,~ (Continued) ; othe"r than shif~t hours, th'at the;= Autohetics company :had ;
~~~
s ~ ~: a golf coursefw.hich was tised du,ring_.th'e off hours, and
°
~ ~'"'~
~
~
when~; he had reviewed ;;this •:,with 'NortH ~American (Autonetics)
h
` A
~
x
they stated t
ere was ver
' '
y Tittle:utilization dur3ng shiit houra
'aad most of
4 -
i"
,
the use was aftei working hours wfien employees would drive~home to~pick
up
' ~;•~
.
~,
their families aad~return to play; that; the,daytime usejwould:be of
f ahift
` ,
`A
~~
.
personnel,;
.,that Ehere:would~.be little tiaffic since people from tHe;industri
l '~
a
.
,~~ =,plants could, walk to aad from their places ~of employ.menE, aad that •.th'e
` ~
;~•
'
Autonetics .'faciliYy was availablei' only ;:to ,their .employees, ,whereas ',this :
£
i ,
,
~ `,. ~
acil
ty would be for s;the industries.:in the~ area': ` Furtliermore, the Fox Hills
d
o ~,-
°
evel
pmeaE; in Culver .¢ity was ans example of `h'ow two s'ep:arate' uses couTd- b~e -ur:
~~*~~
compatible,'_ that:'the statements made:by, two.Commiasionera regarding
~the per- ~
;
icentage of,persons "coming f;om the iridustrial area'to,play would be`difficult ~
~'
.:to determine since the majoiity o:f tHe.,buildings 'surrounding sub•je
ct:property
~
~ tiY~
_
were
owned .or leased.
by Autonetic§ ,who''.had' their";owa~ recreational'faciltties
fi
a
' in~
n
nced by; their employee
s,', recreation'fund; and ;ttiat fie also 'was'': availab3a ~'
to answer ques:ttons ° ;. ' '•:
,~ ~ i '
,' ' .
~ ~
.
Commi'ssioner Gauer,inquired.why Mr .Kilroy had changed his mind since in`the h.1'
.`:past.he had been~:oppoaed to•;,any,intrusion into-the industrial area:other than
'
h
fa
i .s:,:
`~
~
:t
e
ct tl
at he was now the petitioneri...
~.
:Mr ,Rilroy_.replied that the;use proposed was. a very compatible.use, and_this ,~~v
was,.iecited in a~ letter submitted`.'by Mr`. 'George P.age,. who w
as 'also
a sub- '~~
,
.
; stantial iridustrial' property_ owner, in th'e cit
y, tli`at. tfi`e: northeast
'corne
of ~'~~
.,
r.
`:Ball 'Road and East Street ;ad~acen't ~.to -the Philco-Ford Company.;was 'also ch'anged •
;from;industrial _to ieaidential except for"the frontage along Ball Road; that
h ,~fi
4
:
e felt this was :accep;table,_sinceiEast:Street: acted' as a divid'er beEween the ~
*:
:two usea; even Ehough .400.;000'squ'are feet of':indus:trial buildinga
were in '` 7~
.
close~:~proximity';to- the resi`denti'al use,•".that~=he would not be in opposition "~
~?to:.siaything in an area"~where' .the:;use :was~ considered .compatible' - 'however, this ~ ~
°.,was .c~n,e thiag, the Commiasion;,-would have'" to~determine, namely, 'compatibility of ~ ''
ithe io os,ed use`:with the industrial;u'se.
P, ` P j {,
~. ; :
~
C
is
i
r
a
~ ,~
-
omm
s
one;
Far
no ,then
inqnired,.how Mr Kilroy d
determined what made a use ~
.
,:compatible ox incompatible. ` j
~
~ , X,,,
Mr Rilroy .'replied Ehat, the ?primary test "was the negative effect to an. area;
~
~ f v
that'
they h'ad
coriducLed tests arid"'made-.research ia other areas where the
~
.
negat~ve ef:fect was
.indic"ated; that s"taff had'indicated Lhis .use could en-
"^
'courage oth~er~inqompatible`uses, such`as a.~notor'speedway, and he found it "~"~
difficult to appear before the Co'mmission and find there was-a comparative ,
~ `~
thing'such.:as staff presented to the Commission siace h'e was sure the `
Commission would not approve,a motor speedway in~the Northeset Industrial Area ; ~
.
However,,the:proposed use was a supporting use and would provide a great
'
`
beac
on to
attract more :business::to the; industrial area, such as was drawn to
~ ~
:
the.Fox:Hills area, and this would be a charactPristic pattern where employees ~
-in.the industrial area would bring ,their fa~ailie's back to work and play, and
that sufficient proof was.presented because North American had provided a r
recreational area within their complex. ,
~Commissioner Farano noted that the proposed facilities could be used during ~ 1
buainess hours and would encourage other less-compatible uses to'locate in the ~ .
,
area - therefore, where wouTd the.breakdowniof the industrial area stop -
evea a shopping center could.be proposed having full, complementary, backup ~ '.'
uses in this shopping center: ,
Mr. Kilroy.indicated he would be in favor of'a•sYaopping center since this ~
`would.provide the employees, particularly the women employees,,a place to shop f
so,that they would not.have.to use their luach hours to do their urgent errandsi
an~ :this could be ]ikened to the Los Angeles mall""which he considered good ~ ,
planning., Finally, he,'commended Autonetics for providing their recreational '
facilities.; and he would re uest a~similar a !
9. pproval of the,use:before the
Commissiori.so that other industries.not:as large as Autonetics would have a
recreational facility also.
Commissioner Seymour inquired of'Mr. Kilroy.regarding the Autonetics faci].ity
what the.green fees were since_.this could be a major factor since if outside
employees had to travel some'distance to play the course proposed with a high ;
_
. ,
~ ~ ' ' ,__ . : -~ ~. ~.. . . .. . . . . .. . ~ . , . . . ~ ~ ~. . . . !Nt-` ~ . 4 ~::
t ~ ~
] ~CJ '~~~ N,C' 'c, . '
.:r -~ ~~'. '. { .~" ~ .
~ ~ _
r ~MINUTES;, CITY.' PLANNING COMMISSION, De.cemb,er 28,' 1970:. 5544,
~ CONDITIONAL U„SE fee', he doubted very muct2 if- these::emploqees would be coming .
PERMIT=~',NO. ~`1215 back' and play at,;their;-place~ 'of b,usiness;,',such as the
.. ;. , , . . .
' ;; (Continued). :Autonetics "employee"s ,who had'~ ~almost free; use of that
i ;fttcility
i ;- ~ , ' , ~: . , ' ..
;, >. .
~
Mr Ril~ioy responded that if the~aioney which Autonetics.employees paid were
r,edisCr3bute'd,.'there would .be coris~iderable funds, and this': could apply to >
reducti'on in :sales :;since. the ven'din;g mach;ines' profits were pay.ing for
operatioa of ~the %Autonet'ics 'facility
,, , .
,
Commissioner'Seymour noted that Mi. Rilroy!s•philosophy-:was thaf instead-of
Having;:a wasfeland,':,area,:some':supporting_;phas:ing be:,provided -<,fiowever, he
was h'aving a~,'d3ffi'cult,time.''in determining whefher or not this.was a compati-.
b'le or":a sup.porting,..,sate113te use:~.., Insfead',Mi. Kilroy was Ealking about a
negative and~p~si"tive u§,e' and-:just now 'stated'``h"e considered a siiopping center
a`~compatib,le:.use why':couldn''t this be taken:a step further and'>permit
resideritial.,:uaes -::but:what h.e,was'attempting'to.do was structure:the proposal.
Mr Kilroy noted that planners had been doing this for a long time and likened
the uses to"that'of the'Joha:;Haacock-Buil'ding:in.Chicago where'iesidential
uses, o'ffice~, s,tores,_etc.,"were all~wtthin oae'building - howevar, they were
`not ge:tting.~'the'return'they were antictpating even Ehough they,did have many
.
tenants: However;,`,if.,the Commission were-talking:;ab.ouE a ph3losophy o,f plan-
ning, .'then ';th'ere should,be sometHiag, foi;`:Orange ~ Couaty: and Anaheim in: parti-
~.cular,;.!andsth:e or.diaance of the City of;:Anaheim did,,permit other.compatible
uses th'=ough_the conditional use permit:which:would::permit satellite uses,
makiug sthis~`a"well-rounded area. Fuithermore, he`was`as,ked his opinion
"re'gardi'ag a,ma~or,iegional.shopping,,center ia th-is-area; however, he was sure
-:they' would:.nb`t locate' in the area even.'tho~ugh.,.industry: might like to eneble
their~secretaries .fo•ahop during their lunch'hours -"it.was like haviag.a
successful.opeiation.but losing the patient. 'Therefoxe-,_he felt the proposed
use would be:~.'a help,to the industri'al area by,proviZiag a recreational use
~for present~'and~future 3ndustries:in this:area.:since'a ma3or industriaL uaer
in the':area~.had,:provided recreationaL facilities for. their.employees.
Commiss3cner S,eymour, iaguired'whether or,not Mr. Kilroy would agree that the
que`sti'on•.was "used by;.whom?"... .
Mr Kilroy~responded,'stating that'a substantial`part would be that, but not
altogether; sYnce~.a-gzeat number.of ~isitors_to;North American,.along'with-
"the emp:loy,ees, could be using their facilities; so.one must draw all sorts
of'.analyses, but:he would submit that the proposed use was based on the test
of negativ,ism and`it passed; that a test of positivi"sm was also made and
rprovided-other benefits thab were in no way detrimental to the area, and,
again, this'was`substantially reiterated by those who had put a great deal of
money,.in Anaheim; and then in response to Commissioner Gauer's-questioning,
noted°that.'they must use their profeasional judgment to go along ia following
the, theory of compatibility.. Furthermore, they had a great deal of tests in
the market by.the tremendous number of people with whom they negotiated over
a'.long period of time as to what they were really looking for, and..in this
regard there had to be somewhat of a distinction of responding to their
particular criteria, as well.
Mr. Curtis Young of Coldwell''Banker, 2333 North Broadway, Santa"Ana, appeared
befoxe the~Commisston in favor of,sub3ect petition and aoted that it might be
well :to 'comment as-to a usage of a golf course similar to the Fax Hills 6olf
Course on Slauson Avenue near Sepulveda.ia Culver City; that he had ~erved on
the bo:ard of directors of.the-Ladera Heights Civic Association and found that
'many;of tHe industries:in Culver City: and West Los Angeles along,Slauson
;Avenue whose executives''aad/or'employees after`work at 3:00 or 3:30 P.M. would
~'play nine holes.of golf, which:would be similar in time to 'the time needed to
play a miniature golf course - although the Fox Hi11s Golf Course was two full
18-hole golf courses`before"the great apartment house developmeat being
erected by Home Savings &'Loan was started on a portion of the second golf
course; that.there were leagues and,groups which pTayed, and he certainly felt
confident that the same thing would happen on the proposed miniature golf
course..with the i'ndustrial people in this area;- that one further thought he .
would like-to`mention, which Mr. Kilroy touched upon or which the Commission
was-aware"of, and this was:over a period of.time he contemplated there were
going,to be different industrial firms entering.that area; that several of the
buildings,now occupied by North American (Autonetics) would be occupied by
f.
2 ./,- .t' ~ h, .'.' tl '--r~.~:.
r ~ r T f' r _
~
~
~
~
4
~~
~
' - ~ ~
~ .X
t
..T .~. '. I
. ' t
, ~
~ `~,t}i
V .
ti •MINUT ~
, ES, CI~Y pLANN2NG-COMMISSIOV` Decemb
` 7*~~i
~
er 2
8 1970
~ . , ~, E ~5545
~ ~CONDITIONALs USE v : ' ` : '~ '~
~ e~r industrial f
m
~
~~,~~,
h~`
~
ir
s, and all ,of ttieae b
uildings were
~PERMI,T NO 1215 " of aub ~T
r:
,
srtantial size, .not le'ss than 129"`600 : square?:feet '_
,, (~Continued) so `th
t ` ,
-~€~
S
a
as,, othex firms ,became a part of the?'a*ea, ;:they.,;
- wo`ul~~e
b ~'~
.
~
e looking; for:;the benefits'. whi'ch North American :•had
~~ ' ~' ` for-~fh
3-
~e
~
~ ~~
e
r
mployees, ~but he: felt
~;that
employees of~ North
American would
-
ls
~ ~`~
~
.
a
o use
this course, as;there were:many who liked variety.-
"and di"d not'. like :pl'ayirig the;'same ~cou
e r
~
rs
over; and over ragain, `and that "ctiildren
'were in the same 'catego4ry so
that :th
' : ,~.~,;`
,
ere
would>be a:`compatibili'ty of;•use which
;would bre bene4ficial to .:the area ' "
~~~
'"
`
~ ~r~r~°
r
,..
.j .,;.
. ,,:
: J Y . ~ : .. ,
.+ ~
_ t : .
` ~
;,
~ylY~,
,Commis`sioner S
eymour`inquired whether he felt;it
` s~y~ :
was analogous;to compare
Fox
Hills, which was, a;regulation golf course; witfi`-a miniatu=e golf
cou
s
~
~
Y ~,;
~
.
r
e.
. ..
~ . : ~% ~' , .:
~~ A.~
~.. ~. . . ~ . . .
Mr Young stated,'that-h'ia only comparison wa
`
i
fa
a
~ i~r*. „~
J~~
s:
.
nso
r
s:the amount ;of time
~;used~to play a 9 hole regulation.golf course,and an:
18-hole
ini
'
e
r
` ~
.
;m
atur
E
~~'cou
se
golf
even ch~ldren~;at Fo,x H311§ were~ playing with their
parents "- dad
' would co
h ~
,
,.
me
ome fiom work to;.,pick'::up,`his son >and then pl~ay nine
holes
~ since,~there
and ~
.
,
;was no comp,arable facility =.in tha£ area; this. proposed.-use. could '
be ,use,d in a similar fashi
:
' ~
~~
=
on
.
; , ; .: , ,
Commissioner: Farano noted that Mr Young?had stated;"this.was a;
b
or
d ,
4~;
n''
supp
ut u
ting use,
in
z ~ 8 g~.from~.his most recent..,comment
it
wo
ld_
r- .,
,
:
u
appea
over..a.:period of a
reasonable exten'sYon pf- time;`when~;people interested` in playing: had';'
la
course~
`a
ed:~
h
'ff
en
' ~
'
p
~ .
y
.
t
su
e
ici
t number.of,
time,s, ~.th~ey woul'd lose interest
;"
rid-
e
i
i
i
~
,
a
p
s
t
t
nce the .
:oner s
tated'this ;was a supporting~;use,`if ~the''industri
l
le ;
a
peop
los.t
;interest and.wezt.elsewhere;.,busiaess would dr.op"off and thea
in
ord
'm
i
tai
' S~~
«
,_
.
a
n
er to
n the
. facility,. _they would ~have to draw people- f,rom outaide th'e
industrial area °' ~~
'
` , ''
~
~
Mr Young replied.?that•this was his own,statement, that p"eople liked variety
but he did not
a
e
' '
,~
'
'"~
,
me
n th
y would be
leaving the:_area'.after.playing.se'veral :.
times = the i n f er`ence h'e
ei ~k.~~~x
mad
was ,everi the varietq.; of choosing'; betw,een two
places;:when you played:this could
.lie.don'e
'
~ - ~ ',`. ~
s~
.
. ~ , ,. ' . .. .
:, • - .. . . ~ ~3~
_ : ~ , .
Commissioner.:Rowland inQuired'whetfier o
• ,r
r
not Mr Young represented Coldwell
- Bsnker •in this pe
tition •and whether
,
o
o ~'~
,
_
,
r n
t th:ey reco:mmended approval of. this
use .;:: _ , . :
,. ,
- ".;
i
,
Mr Young replied;that.he was.only a salesman for. Coldwell ~Banker, and Rilroy
' Industries`was their
cli
t
`
~ ~
~
.
en
-~
however;
he was :speaking only from.his own
experience,at a similar t
ype of situation fo +
~
z
r a given time. ~
Mr. Kenney appeared again before the Commission and.noted the question of one
of the(Commiasion
r i r ~~
~ `'~
e
s._regarding the repeat,play -'they would not stay in
business if people did
not
o
ac
~~
f ~
.
c
me b
k, maybe aot every day but at least once a
, month. '',
~
_
Mr. Richard Lytle, Manager of Public Relations, North Amer3can Rockwell,
Autonetics Division
a
d i
~.
,
ppeare
,before the Commission and noted that they had (
not appeared at the last public hearin
xe
d
u
!
g
gar
in s
b ect
S, ~ petition, not i
because they were not interested but because they had
n
t
o ~
.
o
c
ncluded discuss-
iag their views, and he was not.sure after he'concluded his pr
t
esentation
today there would be any views on their:gart. However, they.had discuss
d
hi
te
e
t
s mat
r,about as much as,any except..their•decltne in head count and` '
increasing their sales; that
h
ul
:
e wo
d like to:seflect the views of their ;
people - for, against, and no;.opinion; that th'e
e
w `
r
ason he
as present was to ~
let the.Commission know'that xhey`were discussing this'matt
~
er;_that they felt
in good conscience that .they could'.not be.opposed to this r
1
equest, and.there
was, iideed, an Anaheim Lake.where they-could see the,fishe
men f
t
~
`
r
rom
he
window-.
of the administ.rative building; ,that their own private recreational f
facilities:had been
f
~
up
or discussion, and it,was:germane as a recreational '
ac*_ivity that they:were not opposing unless
of co
'
,
urse, the
figure of 250,000, j
people"playing a year was accurate, but they 'could see
o i
n
mmediate threat in ~:
terms of traffic since the first.shift was of£~3:30 P
"~d
M:~6P
'
a
.
from
6:00 P.ri. ~
on, their-seco:nd shift was too small to create.any traffic confusion unles
~ `
s
500 or_600 cars a day were going to.use'thi~_:~ead-end cul-de=sac street; that ~';
while they could not o
he :
ppose t
use, they.d3d:not like to see what could be i
the starE of the dismemberment of Ehe industrial
a
e
w
._
r
a.in
hich it'.was.proposed !
to be"located since they for some time had.argued against this golf course
b
~
ecause they felt that if the walls.were let down once, the City would hav
t
e
o
F do it again, and the Commission would !-,ave to make that decision on a case-by
c
~
ase basis - however, this request would make them '
, quite frankly
ver _. _
,
y ;
f
;,-
;.e-~.. ;:i
r ~ . J -. ~. :. ~ ~~~
! ~
7
. _ ~ . , ..~. ; ~ . • .
ti F ~ ~ +. lVx
~~
m
: : ~. k ~, .. _ . :, ~ -
MINUTES; CITY' PLANNING COMMISSION
D
` . 4 ~
~`~
a
ecember 28,
- 1970 . 5546 ,
. .
: ~. . . ,
., .., . ~ .~
~
~ i
~C
.
,
,
. .- .. . .
, . .. ., ~
~
` CONDITIONAL USE~ nervous, especYally when one.considered"their,one-half
e ~ xy,~1
~
~ PERMIT NO 1215 billion dollar business-.together wi:th their,13,000
fo ',
-~~~
.
(Continued)_: 14,OOOipersona employed by tfi'em,.,as well,: as a.`more _than" -
` 29
i
' ~
'~;~
~
0 ac
e si~t
e F;urthermore, .'.their,'company had>been.:for . n"`~
' ` good planning on b;oth a:city and county wide,~tiasis, ;and
th
uld h
t
'
' ,
.,~~~
ey wo
a
e to `
see
ari affi:rmative decision :which
would:estab'lish a t~
,
precedent, th;at they were ful,ly awar;e of the-need fo
i services
for the a
a ~~
,
.
re;
,
especially peraonal; thi`nga which wcmen needed,. but .their, major.•.concera con-
tinued to b
th
i
'
'
'
b ~
'~w~
e.
e
r:opposi
tion
to res
iden
ial intrusion into'this area; that
j ,
at'lthe same time,s they
felt tliey cou'ld no,t deny~ an in,'dividual`~the right to
~
~
~
use his
property for an indefinite period:',of 'time;.and that although he"did ~
not have any formal;commitment-`from;his company; he 3ust wanted'the"Commis- ;
~~
sion to -.be aware of the 'fact that th'ey had discussed. thia in great deEsil
'
~ ~
`'.;F~
,
,
with some of 'them feeling it•was a
good.idea; others;'feeling it was not a
ood id'e
d
e ;
,
r'
~
g
a, an
oth
rs feeling.:it was>not the:company''s.business'to interfere.
. - '
. , ... . .:_ , .
•
. .., ~
...
-
'
~
.. , .
.
.
,
~ ..
.
: .. ~.~
~ ' '
Mr. Lytle, in'conclusion," stated th'at no','guests=;were allowed in the re;crea-
~
` cL7
~,;,
tional facili:ty
tt was'onTy _
for employees. and. their. families - and if any
.
' ~
,
,
ontsideis came in,.it
was"by."sneaking in'F; and even:.other`employees:from - ~
subsidiaries,:iaere not permitted; that the~rrecreational facility'was open from
lunch on and ,open only.-to empToyees`during lunch (11:00 A.M. to 1:00`P.M:);
'
`
and during tfi
e summer the
swimming pool'was hesyily us,ed.by families of the
~employees, and"that. the,principal use of the recreational park was after '
woxking;houra.- however;;he;,did not'know the extent of the use patters and
~ ~
w8ether:employees used it after work or went:home first to;pick up their '
'
" "`~
families, '
.
<. j ~
Mr.L Ca1::Queyr.el.; Ariacal`,_Engineering,, 222 East Lincola Avenue, appeared before
th`e Comm
ion i
fa ~~
iss
n
vor of sub~ect petition and,noted that;he had.served on
the Anah'eim Cliamber
of Commerce Pl
ni
" a
d Z
n `°a'~"
'~
~
.
an
ng
n
o
ing Committee during the past
'
' "
h
ye'ar, al
though.he was:sp;eaking,oriTy
for himself and did aot represent the
Cha
`
b
o
e
"
~
1~
m
er.
;:
f Comm
rce; ; that
one : of
the main ' concerns of: their .committee was the r~~
east Anaheim<industrial,,area's slow rate of development and its immediate ~l
appearance, tlfat th'ey.had thought.of..maay;avenues of improv
_:
ing,it, but each ~~
,
time tha cost;.invol;ved wa's a major factor, such as s`Ereet,improvements
, land-
' a
'~:
.
ac
aping,;etc ~; since~the:area had:li.ttle`to be "desired from an;appearance
' '~?t
st
andpoYat,,,;and it';would `;appear to him that the. proposed use 'might ,be the -
answer. to improving;;the,"appearance o£ the area;.and-at the same time break up ~
~ the sea,•of asphalt,along;the;freeway;by adding:a green-belt area which would }
greatly:add to the appearance of'the'industrial'area;;'that he`did not think
' ~
tke
Commiasiori should be concerned with the poasibility of establiahing a E "
precedent since the~:use could be appYoved, citing_a number of`reasons whq the "
Y
us.e would be compaEib3e, suCh as p'roviding a green belt; and that.the appear-
` '
ance of:the.friage;:area of the
Northeast:'Industrial Area should be vastly ~ i`.
improved in its. overall. appearance.
: .
i-
Ayresolution from the Anaheim Chamber of_Commerce in opposition to the pro- j
posed use was read to the Commission by Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts.
Mr.. Kilroy, in rebuttal, sCated that they were aware of the resolution -
however, at.no time was:Mr. Kenney or Kilroy Industries given an opportunicy
' ~
to preseat any of
the data which the Commission had reviewed when the Indus- ''
trial Commit:tee of the Chamber of Commerce prepared the resolution, even
though they;would have:liked:to present these'arguments to them also. :
C .. ;:
THE $EARING WAS CI:OSED.'.
Commissioner
Farano'noted that the Commission had hoped to obtain some help
~ ~'
fsom Autoaetics regarding the proposal, but evidently`they also were faced
with the same:probTem that the Commission.was faced svith in making any ~
deniston - since.there were-so many "'pluses" on both sides, it was extremely
" '
difficul't to
make a,good'decision - however,.without being super-technical
' ~
about
it, the code requised that the;.petitioner e§tablish certain showings, ~
and although he did''not:want'to rely,on that Yn the strictest sense of the '
word, the Commission still did not;:have enou h to 0 on to su
8 g pport this use ~
~
when~one was ~considering this concept could be the beginning of a.change in
the industrial zoning and without having_a basis for:establish3ng a criteria - ~
which,both he!and Commissioner Seymour.had been.attempting to grasp - until
these,values and concep.ts on.industrial complexes were reviewed and re-
affirmed or changed, the only clear course of action by the Commission was to
reject sub3ect proposal"- however,,this did not mean the proposal was a bad
proposal, but 3n the absence of any clear showing, not only from the stand-
point of this:particular piece of.property but also from the standpoint of
i
'
i.
.~~ 4;
~ C ' '" 1 .~ ~
~
C~ ~ [7
N.
'
y~A fa{ 1
~
v~. ~
~
M
~.
,.~tnL
` .
:
h
~,
~~ i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION;, December~ 28
1970
~.
~ M , ,
5547
' i ; ~. - , .
E ~
~
`~~,~ , CONDITIONAL USE . re examining the entire concept of~the industrial area
PERMIT NO `1215 °
ot is
.~
~' pr
ectioa and..what constituted.its su
pport; that the °
(Continued) Commisaion had=b
,c ~
~~'~ een
anducting themse.lves in a~certain'
~ ` way; obvi;ously ;to
'rot
n
~NI
,
p
ect ,
ot only , the indus,trial .'area
'~"~ ` • _; but`;.commercial ~and residential
ar
s w ~ '
~ ,
eas a
ell, and:.if it
appeared tliat the Comiuission had:not done this.and
tHe val
e ~`+
~
'~
~e .
u
e had changed
r since this',criteria had been established," then'tNe; Commi'ssion should re-
,examine them to~d
m ,;
~~
.
eter
iae,what and how:.things should be;'done, what:changes
~'~t had •t'aken place
' and =wh
t
w'a
ea
r
t~~t~ ,
a
.
s r
ll
, y~.expected from'the„zoning:code because
if tlie Commisaion coul'd notl;deli:ver the
l
e
~
~~ va
u
which the.zoniag code.'required
":aad provided the,protection.:~for
the variou's~p
r :,~
.
rope
,ty.owners, the Commission
'would not be serping.their,~purpo:se Furthermore,`Mr. Ktlroy-did an excelle
t
b and h
' ~m
jo
n
ad subs;tantially
contributed'toward necessitating a`need fo
e=
n "
"~
r r
examinatio
of this criteria for.this needed industrial.protection. ~
.
~Commi'ssioner~Farano o£fered.Resolution,No. P,C70-227 and moved`for its pasaage
'and adoption to
;;den
Pet
ti
f
r~
3~
~,
.
y.
i
o,n;
o
Conditional,Use.Permit Noi.1215;oa the
-basis; that;:the:proposed use,`wo
1
s
` ~1~
u
3 e
tablish,
a precedent in the breakdown of
~the~industrial~zoning 'coacepts, thereby
being detrimental to'
E
,
,
he industrial
area; that=;the proposed use was commercial in,nature and should be es
tablished
;in co
mercial' i
e
'
` .~:
.
m
on
s; tha
t
xHe petYtioner had not'' submitted substantiating
~ evidence to war
rant fa
orabl
n
d
a .;
.
v
e co
si
er
tion of sub~edt,petition as.an;acces-
sory`br"`satellite use; and.:that unde
i~'zoning code:r
l
o
` ''
,
egu
ati
ris this could lead
to a breakdown of the.indus;trial area.. (See Resolution Book)-
+
~Pri,or:'to roll call, each Commissioner gave his reason.for votin
';as..followsi` g, summarized ~'
~.Commissioaer ATlred - that although he'formerly appeared to be
in favor of
th
pr
o
a
' ~;
~
.
~
e
op
s
l, he cons,idered:the
additional evidence piesented, aad it,was his
opinion that
.the:`:ind
st
i
l
~
' "~
,
u
r
a
„
integrity should.be
retained and 'not bioken down,
which: could place the';City'',.ia,dire,trouble t~~~
.
Commissionei Gauer -~that'the other recreational uses had not harmed.the
industri
l
:';
`
a
: area,
such, as
Anaheim Lake and ttie' Autonetics. recreational
=:facility -therefore
he felt this
se w
,;
~
,
.u
ould not harm or deteriorate the
:;industrial`aiea.' . -
`, _ ' `'
, '
t
,
Commisaioner Herbst that h.e, as one Commissioner, liad been a"watchdog"
:for~the~indus
trial
a
us ~
Y
r f
.
, are
beca
e tfie-industrial area was.one.of the life--
"gi.ving face;ts of :Anaheim - since it
ve
~
a
8 jobs, encouraged development of the
area,:and gave tfie.City a better,.tax base: Furthermore`
althou
h th
a
`
' ( 1;
'"
,
g
e.s
me
atatement.h
ad been made,approximately,;eighteen.months ago about the Southeast
Industrial'Area
it~wo
ld b ~
~
,.
u
e diff3cult-to find a worthwhile parcel for indus-
trial;development in Ehat ar
ea beca
' ~ `~:~
.
use the City
s policy of retaining the ~
~'area had been reaffirmed, which gave the developers the ass ~ ,;;
urance of retain-
ing the sife deyelopment standards and criteria for,the Southeast Industrial
°Area
thai al
hou ~
'
;
t
gh the petitioner likened'this s3tuation to that of Fox
Hi11s in Culver-Citq
there was
i
r
,
no s
mila
iCy, and although Autonetics had
provided a recreational area for.their
employees
a
ro
al
.
,
pp
v
of subject petition
would break"down the industrial area, and that the freeway e
poa
d
x
ure su
esir-
able from the standpoint of`the:petitioner was equally as desirable fro
th
s
a
m
e
t
ndppint of a future industrial developer.
~ Commissioner Kaywood - that Mr. Kilroy convinced her that it would be desir-
able to h
s
v
ave
er
ice facilities_in the Northeast Industrial Area - howevEr,
by no atretch of the imagination co
ld
`
u
she.consider the proposed use as a
service-oriented use in the industrial`
a; "'
are
Commissioner Rowland noted that the Commission should look at this petition
from another view
oin
i
ce
'
h ,
~
p
t s
n
,
,t
e.qommission viewed this at the last publLc
'hearing as,a recreational use
and thi
als
e
~
' ,
s
o was
vident.when the Commissio~
allowed a portion of the Southe
ast
Industrial Area to be conv
t
.
.
er
ed into
commercial-recreation uses: Ho~vever, thts use should be considered
.,.
an amuse-
ment facility more closely linked with swimming pools, etc. rather than
I
-a
recreational facility such as Autonetics;provided for their~employees, and
the expensiye landsqaping which that com
ha ~
pany_
d as part of their recreational
`facility - therefore this use should be mo ,
re ro erl laced in the commer-
cial-recreation-area.and re uested l•hat this be a findin i '
~
n the denial of
subiecE pet.itiont Furthermore, the Commission never considered approval of
or disapprova7
"of A
aH
m
.
n
ei
Lake since this was established by the Orange County
Water Distr3.ct to ut3lize existing water
spreading facilities.
Commissioner Seymour -.that the petitioner had establish
d
i e
an idea with the
Commission that tke industrial area needed'support and satellite uses
but th
r
sa
i ,
e
g
opo
l was much wider ia scope than code permi.tted - unless other evidence
was submitted, there wa
s no indicatYon this could fall within the criteria of
~ _ , ;:',.
, '' J .r f. ,,
~
!
t ~ L.
~
~+ .
~ t ~ ~
,
~
ri ,
}
}
.MINUTES, CI;TY PLANNTNG COMMISSION
, December 28
1970 5548 ~~~
,
, ;>~• .
`COhDI-TIONAL~ USE = a satelli;te or :suppor;t use~since•;it was not: establ3shed `'r'^
~~';'P.ERMIT NO ;::1215 ~~; that" the : rimar~ users of.-fhe facil3t
, P Y
y;: would be'•
within
: the ~~~
y,
r_,
,
.
(Continued) '. industrial: area:; that;_ the ~proposal h'ad; someEhing';good going . {',~~,
-~ ~
': for ~;it, b'ut as ~a general `guideliae,:.i't would ~be necese,ary •:
'
. ,
''''~
•
~: to b'roaderi the ~code in order :to 'permif this "use,:.but .f:rom
'
i
i
'
~ w y.:..`
his v
ewpo
nt and statements madeiby tli;e,.prop
osed operator,
the percencage of ~~~-
'`uaers,,would come;from outside of,;the industrial• area since thYs
was:a freeway-'
~ r~~
,
oriented p,ro~ect: ;'-
, ..,
.
..
. ~.
~
~
~ ~ -z..
,~ ~,,;
,
,
,
, .. .
. ,.
..
.. .
w
'On ro31 call the;foregoing resolution was.passed by the,,following,vote: .~~w
< Au
`_AYES ' COMMISSIONERS': Allred, Farano, Herb~st, Kaywood, Rowlan3;:Seymour. ``~~~
, ,
. ,.
~,,, .NOES .,: 'COMMISSTONERS;. Gauer ' "
, , .....
.. ..
:~4. •
..: _, ;
, ~ .. ~ . . :~. , ~ ~
•;".ABSENT COMMISS,IONERS: None `° :,-
~
,
Nr+c,
~.: -..
. ,. : ,.
. - ~ . . :: . . ... . ~ . . ~
DIRECTIVE - Commissioner Farano•directed staff to.analyze the~permitted usea . T.~h'p~~
`and accessory uses in,the"M=T Zone to~determine whether%or not the ~
existing protecti~e measures should bes,=etained, amended,
.etc. "~`
.
and wkiat other typea of complimeatar},:uses should,be consi'dered in ~;
`said;;zone:!; Commissioner Seymour seconded th:'e motion. MOTION f.
- CARRIED:'
,, ; , , ,,;,^;;
'
•CONDI,TIONAL'USE - CONTINIIED".,PUBLIC HEARING. .MODULAR TECHNOLOGY, INC., 1104 .
*:~
~
BERMIT N0.-1214 .' East';17th Street, San;ta Ana, California, Owrier,;requeating >
- - - . ..
' ' ~~
~
permiasion to:,CONSTRUCT :A' CONDOMINIUM=APARTMENT- `DEVELOPMENT ?'"~
` `. WITA;WAIVER OF- (1) MINIMUM;:NUMB_ER OF REQUIRED;.PARRING~ SPACES
~ F~?
AND (2) REQUIRED
:SEPARATE UTILITIES FOR,:EACH.DWELLING UNIT on:property.des- '~~-
,
~cribed as An irr~gul:srly shaped parcel of land conaisting of appioximately
' ;~~
25 ac
res located,at th'e south"east corne'r of=Rio Vi'sta;~and Froatera:Streets, ~~;,
.
having appr:oximate frontages;of 1`;000 feet on'Rio Vista Street and.'1,360.feet.
<oa Fiontera St;eet ProperCy 'presently:. classified':,R-A,~ AGRICULTURAL, 20NE.
' '~s;
;~
: - .
~ " • ~
~,
Sub~ect petitioa'was continued from the meeting of December 14, 19,70, to allow ~;~
9the p;etitioner time to submit ~revised plans. js~%
;Assistant Zoning:Superyisor'Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject
• , .. ,,
~
` ,~~.
property, uses established in cl
ose proximity
, and.:'the proposal to ea
tablish a ~
~...:
,
-condo'minium°developmen:t on•subject property with waiver of maximum permitted ` ,'_
wall height and "minimum iequired:l"andscaped setback for one lot; that the ~ y"
~. pro~ect proposed either triplex or~fourplex condominium units on each'lot;
'
~ ~'~
that~ -the. Erip
lex ;units were' located .along Rio V'ista Street in order~ to avoid ~ -
violating the single-s.tory.height'limitation within 150 feet'of the R-1. , "
-prop.erty,on.the west•side of:Rio Vist,a Street; that the:project design in=
`
corporat
ed a pribate.recreation park for residents within the development, ~
having.green belts throughout~the'pro~ect,and meandering public sidewalks :
;`
rather tlian the-conventionaT,tyue; and that the petitioner was proposing 8 ~ .
;parking spaces.for each four units, whereas under the urgency ordinance 2'~
parking spaces.would be.requi,red -:therefore, there would be a deficiency of ~
i
2 parking spacea`per lot, and the Commission`would have to determine whether i
the proposed parking would appear to be.adequate.
Mr. Harry Tancredi, proposed developer of the project,-appeared before the
Commission and noted that they had originally presented plans for fouxplexes
with a recreational area within the development, and afte.r numerous meetings ~ -
with .staff and'a revision of.plans,.they had`come to'a common understanding
and.had completely redrawn the,plans;..that the staff inembers had visited other
s:
similar deve.lo ments in order.to
p gain knowledge:of what-was proposed; and that' ~
he was avsilable to answer `ques tions,,but it was his #eeling that they had met
the .requirements of the urgency.ordinance.'
No one appeared'in opposition to subject petition. ~
~ .-THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Rowland noted that 'the proposed:_coacept was entirely different ~
from:that formerly'presented to the'Commission; in which they had solved most
'of the.,problems the Commission found objectionable from the standpoint of ~
community values, although ih one sense it was a step more in the.direction
of an: R-3:sub,division, this,,proposal,would be developed and was well, thought r
out except,for two things,.namely, parking which was solved by the public
stre'eEs,which would be.used primarily by residents in the area and the i
= required"separate-uEilities which would have to be handled at staff level, ~
and this in.all likelihood could,be worked out through.the CC&Rs as to ~ ''-
maintenance where multiple-ownership was involyed; that the minimum required
landscaped setback for only one lot was well handled and would not be detri-
- mental to the pro~ert since there were several hundsed lineal feet of land-
scaping.that.would.of,fset it;.and that the waiver of the maximum required ----
~..:.
~
~
1 ~.
~~ ~ t ~ ~_ ~to--r _ , -
~ "e ` . -r } ~ Y
~
~
~ ~ ~,e?~
'~~'~+
~ ~
': ~ _
i s ~
r . . . ~ ,. : ~ ~~~
,
~ 'M
lS
'
Y ~~~
INUTE
,
CIT
PLANNING COMMISSION, :December ,28, 1970
~5549 ~~~
.
.
~ ti - ~ _ . _
, , 4, :
CONDITIONAL
USE ~w
h
, ~~
,
~
.
all
eight;in the frorit setback had b'een deemed deairable.
P~ERMIT'~NO. r1214 '
.:after'numeious
studie
; and;with•th
th '~~
t~ ~
~
.
s
at
ough,t"in mind, he
~,(Continued) would offer
a~motio
to
r ,~?
:
n
app
ove aubject.petition
~ , ~^*~;
4
.
, .
~ ~~~ ,Commisaione'= Seymaur~inquired whether Commi
si
r R
d
Lt
~~
?
s
one
owlan
, would includenin tiis motion i,in refeien.ce to;.~landsca in
~ P g: of the one !.lot; ~.
s~"'
` ~
r~''~
.
where it abu
tted o en
p parktng;~ that some` form.-of -heavy screen -landscaping' ' °;~
sbe provided for Eh'at one}lot other ;than 'Ehe low tam ;junipers that no,rmally
were found'~ ~
'
~ „
s
"~~~
~,
, ~
... .; '
. ' .,
: :
. . . ,
d .
.
~
: , a
3 T' '
,
~.
;
,+
.,
. l l. '
~
~ ~ ; ' ~~ . . , ; .. .
,Commiss.ioner~Rowland concurred in thia recommendatioa
~ ~~ ~
~
~?~
~ ; : ,: -
;
Commissioner,_Rowland offered Resolution •No PC~70 228 and moved for ~it -~ x,
''
+~
s, paseage
and adoption~;to grant Petition for'Conditional':Use P`ermit'No
1214
aub ect
~ r
i`
.
,.
to coad,itions as s'et foi.th by':,the ICPS&GW., adding to„ the• requirement;,of
land-
"s
t _~
"caping tha
some `form ~of hesyier landsdapin~ ~"to screen the-~parking: ;area
sh
r °_
ould be requi
ed; for .:fhe one Tot';where :,p:ark'ing ,was' prop.osed'.in : ord`er to
c
a
s
' 'a',
s_
ree
;
aic~ parking from, view
>`from:,the street,:_;and sai~d. landaca in
p g°`to be
co
id
bl
h
'
f '"
.,
ns
e_ra
y
ighe
r
,
than. low tam 3unipers riormally .found
(See Re
l
tion ~
^'
. ,
ao
u
_ ~ •
Book) `f ' ,. "
.
~
'
'
'
Y.
~
.
. ._. .~ ... '
~ :,1 ii.. " ~
.
'.: .'
:
. ' ~' - . .
.~ ~.. : .' . . ". " . '. ~ .~.~.;..~ . . ~ .
~
2oaing`~Supervisor.Chailes Rob'erts asked the Pl;anning Co~imtssion<whether they
wi
h
d_
n ?;
,
s
e
to co
sider`;the..additional condition se.t forth in ttie June TS,, 1970,
staff report dealiag wiEh requirements of'CC&Rs in the tract proposals;
` whereupon Commiss3oner~Rowland concurred',this.condition shbuld be~a part
of '
.
his motion
" ~~,~
. ,.
; .- . , , . ` : ~
On roll'call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
; •
, ~ . ~
x~~
~z'
,
AYES COMMISSIONERS.`. Allred '
, , Farano, Gauer, Herbst,,Kaywood, Rowland,
' ,
"~~'
~~
::' -
': Seymo,ur ~"s
NOES COMMISSIONERS:' ~: None': - y~
,.~~
~ ABSENT a COMMISSIONERS : ` None;`: ~iz
,;
CONDITI,ONAL USE ,~PUBLIC.:HEARING. DONALD:.H, YODER, 1729T-.Irvine, Suite 107 r~~
,
PERMIT..NO. 1218 ',Tustin-' California Owner•.re ues:tin `
_ ~ • .. q g permission to ESTAB
~ " _
~
~
r
, ; LISH%RETAIL`'.'AND:'.,SERVICE` BUSINESS:EIRMS,P;RIMARILY. SERVING
"" ~ ~
> i .:
COMMERCE.AND INDIISTRY WITH ONLY INCIDENTAL SERVICE TO THE ~ ,~~
GENERAL=PUBLIC IN:AN'.EXISTING`INDUSTRIAL<COMPLEX on property described as:: '
A rectangulailq=shaped parcel:of land consisting of approximately l0 acres '
:
at the northw,est corner of Rraemer Boulevard and La Jolla Street, having a ;
~
froatage of approximately 607_:feet::on the'north aide of La 7o11a Street and
' {'
approximately,
628:':feet on the west side of Kraemer Boulevard, and further ~
described as-1401-1515 North Kraerner Boulevard. Property presently classi- '
fied,rl=1,,LIGHT:.INDUSTRIAL,,.ZONE. ;
~
r
Assis.tant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter noted for the Commission that :
the,petitioner had submitted a letter requesting a two-week continuance
to ~
,
the Jaatiary';11, 1971, meeting due to the fact that he would be out of town ~
for tY,-s hearing. I
Commiss oner: Allred offered a motion to continue consideration .of Conditional
Use Permit No: 1218 to the meetiag of January 11, 1971,' at the request of the `
petitioner. . Commissioner Seymour seconded the;motion, MOTION CARRIED. ~`
CONDI.TIONAL`USE - PUBLIC HEARING. ALFONSO J. ETTLIN, 452 East Orangethorpe
~ '
. PERMIT N0. 1219 Avenue; Placentia, CalYfornia, Owner;-JAMES B. WIMBERLY, ~
202 South Alive Street, Anahe3m,;California, Agent; request- j
ing permission to HAVE OUTDOOR AUTOMOBILE DISMANTLING WITH !
WAIVER AF THE REQUIRED_6=FOOT:MASONRY WALL on property'described as: An
irregularly-shaped'.parcel of land located approximately 660 feet-north of the ~'
centerTine of.La`Jo11a Street and beiag ad~acent to the east side of the •`
northerly prolongation of Red:Gum Street. Property.presently classified
M-1,:LIGHT INDUSTRIAL;,ZONE..
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter.reviewed the location af subject
pioperty, uses estabiislied in close proximity, and the proposal to establish a
portion o£ subjert_prope.rty:as an outdoor automobile~dismantling
yard and to
,
rebuild dune buggies and race cars; that the petitioner indicated portable
~ - ;
~~~ . , ,
r. ,
.~~~~ ':' '~..~1 '' ~ _~ ~ ~.~~ .
MINUTES, ~CITY :PLANNING COMMISSION; ;De'cember:'28,, T970 . 5550
, . ,~ . ,. • , ,
-• CONDITIONAL USE; .welding ,equipment wo;uld be used; and;an 8-foot:high, '
PERMIT;~NO':-.1219'; solid wood fence, was; propo'sed~ around the periphery. o:f .the
, . . . , ,_ :
;: (Continued) ;, propertq;,'whereas Code re;quired'a minimum,6-fo.ot high. ~
. ._
masonry ,,wall to sc
„... area Therefo-ie reen :an'y~ ouCdoor use i,n ;the; industrial -
, tHe.:qu:estion before.the Cominissiori,:was
` wheEher or not `the p"ropos'ed use wouTd~.,be 'approprtate and wh'ethe'r,"or not '
waiver of:.the 'required 6-foot masonry `;wa1~1 ':should' be considere"d. . ,:'
Mr -Alfonso Ettlin,'fhe petitioner, appea'red~~before the Commission,and noted `.
the ~ ~
' , pioposed~'us;e ;aas compat3.ole~.with automobile:repair rather than in'Ehe >
~ aens`e of~'a 3unk'yard for s`torage` o€ rags. and.paper;.,that the Report to the
Commiasion indicated'that'the:'proposed-use:would''be a junk yard use, but'this
was not so, 'that the, grapestake` fence'.depi.cted in: the,.pictures.'presented :wae
not his properiy;. tfiat~ the use~w:ould :be the ,dismantling of cars ia.order to
make, dune ;bugg"ies and; race" cars,_ and _*_he.parts, that-would not be used would
be';tiatile;d 'away;:.~that rno" retail .use was proposed, ori the.,property.;, that; the use
proposed:;would`.be only fo:r a small,p~ortiori: of the property'locat.ed in the
app"roximate center;?.ttiat'plaris,';,indicated the use:abutted,the flood control
cHannel,.bnt there should-be a.20-foot access.easement between the.flood
control cliannel fenre' and this prope=ty to allow fire.trucks to gain access
- since there waa>a 2=inch fire hydrant; and`if 'the prop,erty were built up to
the prope.rty',line, tfiere would not be sufficient~room for 360''degiee access
fort,:fire control purposes;;. that auto:'repair. and metal. working was permitted
under the.M-1 Zone"but re;quired a.conditioaal use'permit, and associated
outdoor storage.was 'also,permitted although iepair'work wa's_.not a permitted
use:in~the outdo'or.area;` that the reason for proposing;an $-foot.fence;
' ad3acent,to the floo'd control channel` was.berause tHe berm was 2 feet higher
~ than the;,prop~er.ty,.an.d they hade had .vandalism upoa the.property`with, people
coming down'the;flood`control channel a=:ea, vtewing the property and dispos-
ing by..breakage or removal of'items that they saw sxored on sub3ect:property;
that sub~'ect property was:not,fully-developed, and it was not intended to
`.have.a ~unk.yard, ,that a maximum:,of-20 to'25 cars would be on the property at
any`.`given'`time;'and.the purpose was only,to obtain parts`for the manufacture
of : the 'dune b,uggiea .and race cars .
Commiasioner~Rowland inqui'red how the'petiEioner.would obtain access to the
prop:erty'since`this:;was somewhat.of ~a lan.dlocked parcel; whe,reupon Mr. Ettlin
' sta"ed,that they had a~15=foot•access,easement which exited-north to Orange-
thorpe Avenue across the'flood control channel brtdge; that this easement
came thro'ugh "in tHe middle half of the property and served a l'~-acre parcel
(No_:".2) as.well as-subject property,.and a-driveway,also:served his purposes;
that they were'developing the rear portion of the'property pending the exten-
aion of Red C.um Street to Ehe flood control channel.
Commissioner Rowland'then inquired whether or not the use propoaed would be
considered for more than three years; wliereupon Mr. Ettlin stated that if it
were successful, they intended:to remain for some time.
Commissioner Allred then inquired of Office Engineer Jay Titus what the
future plans of the extension of Red Gum Street northerly were in the street
improvement plans of the Engineering Department.
Mr. Titus stated that if the Commission were referring to the possibility of
Red Gum.:Street extending across the flood-control channel, this was unlikely,
and the future possibility of developing and extending Red Gum St.reet north-
erly to the §outherly portion of the flood control channel was dependent upon
development of the property in this area. ,
Mr. Ettlin 3ndicated t~ the Commission that the froritage of his property
already had an irrevocable offer of dedication for Red Gum Street, and an
improvement bond was`posted for the improqements at such time as Red Gum
Street was extended northerly from La Jolla.
Mr. Titus advised the:Commission that.Mr. Ettlin's statement was correct -
that tHe City did hold said irrevocable offer of dedication and a bond.
Commissi.oner.Allred noted that his main concern was the fact that a 10-foot
wide easement to serve sub3ect property might create a"headache" if it were
to be considered for any length of time.
Mr. Ettlin noted that the 10-foot easement went through his property and
wou13 become nuTl and void at such time as Red Gum Street was extended
\
~ kti' ' ~ " l ; 5~
~~ L - s 1 +. 1 ~ ~ ~ i ~ :
~
~
~
~
~
, r x
~]i1a
`. ~
~ i ~~ ~
• ~
f . i .~
~ ~
. -
~
N
'
'
` ~ ~~
%
5
MI
UTES, CITY
~PLANNIN& COMMISS
ION, December 28, ~1970 '
5551' ~~
.. ; 1 ~,. ` : t L ~ .~~ ~ -, : .. , ~~ ~
CONDITIONAL USE ao
th
l
f
o
L`
J
ll
~ ~
fh
~
.. ,
~
~
r
r
er
y
r
m Y
a
o
a
> Fur
ermore, the plot plaa: befor
e
' ~'
~
PERMIT,.NO 1219 the Commissioa ind
3cate~`'z~d~~f woul`d be adjaceat to ' i3
~
.
(Continued) ttie flood coa:trol channel~ however;N if the 20 :feet were
~~ ` kep
t between the; flood control
ch
n
l
n3
h
~ p~
~
~ .
~
,
an
e
a
t
e
uae, this
~ ~
,,~ ~ ~ wsould ~give al'l
the~' access nece8sarq; and ne planned on
'e
entuall
d
el
i~n
he
t
i
h
r`
"
o
' `
~
~
,
q
v
e~
op
g t
? proper
y w
t
~ a
drive
al
ng ~the s.outh s'ide, and
` ,~
with ;the
exist'ing one'~along the~ nortti aidej this: would give
;: adequ
ate rircu
~ `~"~=
.
.
lation' for`
fire trucks, that at
the time the pl`aas be`fore .;the Commiasion
had;.
r .:;
,
~
.. ._ .
been dsaw`nA 'he had riota iven an thou ht~to the-ineed ,for ''this fi~re pro:tection .
,,, ~ , ,, ,S ~ Y 8
~E
therefore, thts stipulation tha't the':development' wouTd e'xtead 20 :feet farther
.: ,
south `.'~ -< < . +
~
~
Y":' S f 'r~
Commi`asianer Seymour inquired whether or not the`.petitiioner'.was proposing t;o• . s 4
rebuild the ~vehicles on the site, and 3.f ~he pefitioner was`-happy;rwith?'the
locationtA20 fe~et
outh
ly
well
s
%
at
d ~~
t1 a:J
a
er
as
a
the
loc
ion in
icated oa the plan,
~ x;~
would he stipulate
:to thi's ~
, : • ~: ;
• ~ . ~ . ~ ~ ~
,.~ -: ; ,,,~~~
~
"; M i
~
~
Mr. Ettlin stated~that it'`:was fhieir intent„to rebuild the duae buggiea`and ~.
1~x{~
race car§ on the property:; and<: that >he would s,tipulaee that the~,-.1'ocation -, y
of 'the propose'd use;'would be as; pro~ected '~on the.-.plan ~excep
t ~th'aE it w
ould-
~ ;`~~ ;
.
,
be'.relocated 20 fee;t
farther eouth in order to provide for a 20 E,oot access• ~
aTong~ tlie no"r:th property;a j"~`~
Commissioner S~eymour then~noted that;the M-1 ordinance required a masonry t'~
~
.. . .
wa31 to ,enclose any . outdoor use; o£ ,s:torage; and ~inquired whether' or n~~t:: there ,
'~}
wae aay ;reason oth'er than;' econo'mics 'for his ~proposal'of a wooden';fence.; ,~~
°
whereupon Mr Ettlin replied negatively . ,;
, ~
~ ~h
~
y
~
Commissioner~ Gauer
inquired of ,"the petitioaer how he intended to d3spose of `~
th'e excess material; whereupon~'Mr Ettlin stated.that'they:would;be hauling-
` ~>~
t1Ye
excess'material'
'to
San Pedro
.
/ ;,!
~
.
,
_.~ ~'~ ~': . _~ '~t.
~ '~ . ~~ ' . i. , .
~; ~~ ~ ,
' '~ ~1 '
,
Commissioner Allred`then inquired whether or not this`~excess material would_
" ~~ ~{
:
be":atore
d for a period of:several months until a suff,icient= load :could~be w,K
;, ?~~
accumulated to;haul''away,;to wh:ich.Mr Ettlin replied;`in the affirmatiye '` `'•
: ;: : , ; ;: ~
Commissioner Gauer then noted thaL other sutomobYle~wreckirig yard's
had tires
' ~,~
~;
,
s toredr on th
em; aad, piled highar" than th~e; „walls .'', •
-
~
' ,
.~;::
: . ..
, . . .
.
: .
Mr ~ Ettlin stated.tliat he,'would' be recepti:ve to,requi~ring ,storage of any ,
~ 1. ~,
" r~
equipment no h'igher';than the height of the':ferice T
Chairmari:.Herlist was of the opinion that the proposed use, if approved, should 1`
'` ,'- h
'
i maximum three-year time l~.~i~.tation with option to review and
n ; ,a
terminate
it
f the uae were not co'mpatible. ;:
:'
; . , ~.
~; -
,;
Mr.,ECtlin advised the Commi"ssion~that the'City tzasli service did not service ;
their',:property - that they,had their own private trash pick-dp; and that the ;
bridge had a capac'ity for haadling any load.legal on any highway: !~
i:
Four letteis'of opposition were read.to the Commission. '
;:;
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. i 1..., r
Chair~aan:Herbs't noted that since the:petitioner was;proposing to manufacture ~
: ;;
dune huggies.and-race~cars,.thi,s might be,considered..a manufacturing.use ,
,
rather than a,3unk qard.' ~
Commissioner Seymour.noted that if the recipients of the,notification of the ~
pub,l'3.c. hearing .had urideratood the .prop,oaed use ;'as aet` forth. by,
Mr.
Ettlin, j, `~
.
,
~in..alL likelihood they Would not be'oppose;d to.;,it. However; at the.same time, i. '
it was-his"feeling that`the masonry wall;should'be made a ieguirement even '
though the Commission.recently.had been giving way in?an attempt to assisE in •
the development:of:this area. ,However, he felt tha[ if the Commission were ~
,~go3ng to. do :away, with .requiring .th,e"6-foot masonry,-.c:all, 'th'en it should be ; '
made a part of the ordinance,,but he'.felt:`that-since the petitioner was'pro- ;`
'posing to dismantle vehicles.as:well.as rebuild<them, the.masonry wall should
be:a requirement for thts.particular: use.
Chairman Aerbst noted.that tha;petitioner was proposing to construct an 8-foot
wooden.fenqe; wheieupon Commissioner Seymour,stated that he was:not opposed to
the fence but did not'want to'trade a 6-foot masonry wall for an 8-foot wooden --
_
, ,..
~:
~a.:.
~ ., : . ~ ~'t'
'
'
F 'h'b-m ~ Yt - ~~~. , . "~
~
. w+~'a'
~'
!MINUTES, CITY PI,ANNING: COMMISSION; December 2.,, 19Z0 `-'S552`
` U'fi
4
`.
' ; ~ : ~.~,,
CONDITIONAL USE `. fence since stoxage was proposed; and if thi's stacking ~~~
x"~
~:
`PERMIT NO `1219 ; were;conatdered; o be:as high as;8 fee.t, then the'masonzy ~
4`r ~
' ~ (Continued) wa11= shoul`d ber 'constructed ';`to ari ;'8 ~foot height
aad i£ ' ~ ~"`4~
,
' ,` . , ;„ storage were considered to 'be. less ..:than ~ th"at; .then .the>: `
r'~ ~";
, ~ 6 foot masonry wall would be required.; .
, ?
- 4,~,?~'~fi
i
~~ , ,
,
;
, ~r~,
-Commiss3oner Allred in,quired
of ttie pet'i.tioner whether Ehis .operation isould ,;~
'~be conducte'd entirely ;.out of, doors, to ';which Pir Ettlin- replied. that" it was,
. . ,. F{
~t '
:and then Commiss:ioner,a~ red`stated that this would be.more reason::for f~F'~. i~
~
requiiing °the ~6 foot maaoar~+ wall: ~' ' ~d~'
' .' ~ :_' .• ~ . ... .~ ~,:• . '. ~ '" ~
~
;^~Commisai~one'r Seymour o`fiered Resolutiori;; No: .PC70.=229 and' moved :for ,its N
Y-
~,~a
'°;pass,:age and` adopfion to grant Petition ,'for ~Conditional Use P'ermit No. 1219
~ ~~~`'
.
jin•p.art,~ denying;;the waiver.`;of tti:e 6 foot masonry•.wall b'ut,permittiag the. .
' ~}::
outdoor sut
omobi.le dismantling,~.requiring that any.;;sEacking of> parCs shaTl ~3-
be no;;;hi hei than the:`hei ht of,the' ro' osed_wall
8 8 P p ,,;;whether •it be '6"feet or
'
' "`~
z t-:
8 fee:t, that the
~use shall be granted ;for a period -of 18 month's with review
: ~~'
.
~and f.urther` continued:use b'eing granted• upon.;approval~ by, the~:Commission; ;: TM;
and`, that ~the location, of the: buildings shall ;be sub ject , to approval:.by
_ . ,,
th'e
~ ~
.
~Devel;opment` Service§ De artment ` `
' ' "
.,_ , p , .,., . , i ~See :Res'olution;:Book).
;:.. ,:.. ,.
.
,..
.. .: _.: . .
~~~
~
• "
:
~ ~ 'i~
i...
.
,
. ..,. .-... .. .,.,. .
~. ,. ...., ,.. - . .
. .
~:::'.
.
r
~'Mr ' Roberts inguiied, :of. the ;petitioner whetlier he would sti•puLate: to no
'~
re£si`l seryice'on the'property,,whereupon Mr.. Ettlin :replied that he would ~
x
,stinulate..to that. 'i ~ ~ . '., .
:. ~:'~ ,~,r~.
.
._.
. • ; ~ ,
~ 5.<?;
.
;'"On rdll call the'foregoing ;esolution was passed~by the following vote:
:
•
: ~
,
,,
;, ; :
,~ ,
_ ,. __ >
-. ~a,~
AYES:.? COMMISSIONERS:~ "Allred, .:Earano'~; Gsuer., .Herbs,t, Raywood, Row ~:nd,,
'
r Y" s;~•
,
,Seymour. ' 3~_
NOES:' COMMISSIONERS: No,ne. ;,u
~
ABSENT COMMISSIONERS':~ None `, ~
_
, :. . ,.
, _ ~ ,_. . ,_
s
-:
', RBCESS = Commissioner Rom,lan,;,., :: ffered a motiJII tO ~ rECESS thE :~: s,
~} rr
y
`.meeting.,'.Commis.sioner Allsed s'econded,the'motion:: ;
,g;;
,: ~MOTION, CARRIED: ~; .The .meetin'g. recessed et 3:55 P.M. `~ ?
RECONVENE - Chairman Herlist;reconvened the meeting at 4:10 P.M.,
~ ~
j ~:
;y~
Commissioner Farano
being ab"sent. ~
f
,
,
VARIANCE N0. 2223 - PUBLIC HEARING. CHESTER<C. KARSON; 2251 Coronet Avenue, i ~i
Anaheim, CaTifor.nia, Owner; requesting permission to
' '
WAIVE THE REQUIR~D
MINIMUri SIDE YARD T0 PERMIT A
'SWIMMING POOL on propeity described as:` A rectangularly-shaped parcel of ~
land.having a frontage of approximately 60 feet on the,north side of ,
Coronet Avenue, hcving a maximum depth of approximately 102 feet,,and being
located approximately 230 feet west of. the centerline of Groton Street, and i
further des:cribed as 2251 Coronet-Avenue. Property presently classified '
R-1, ONE-FAMILY..RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.' '
Assistant Zoning Supervisor:Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the,location of
~
:subject.property,.,uses tstablished in close'psoximity:, and the,request to ~
waive.tha minimum required side yard setback to permit construction of.a s ~~
swimming pool within 2 feef 'of the side lot.l.ine;:that the City Attorney
had interpreted a swimming.pool,tc be a structure.withiri:the meaning of the
Zoning Ordinance, and as,;such,.it:would not.be permitted within the 5-foot ~
required side yard.area; that the.Building,Division had indicated that many ;
complaints had.been'received iri reference to splashing and seepage of water ~
from'swimming pools onto ad~.oining propertiss, and the chlorine in the water ~
fr,om the swimming pool i~ould kill vegetation.- therefare, Yf the Planning ~
Commission determined that the variance should be granted, they might wish ,
~to condition approv,al upon the applicants providing means to prerlude water
from draining,onto adjoining psoperEy.
*1r. Chester Karson, the petitioner, appeared before,Che Commission and stated ,
he_was,at'tempting to`improve his property tahich he had purchased thir.teen
years ago.when no Riverside Freeway was 'adjacent Eo hia ~roperty. ,
The Commisston noted that the pool was proposed so cluse to the `er..e that
seepage oE water from splashing would affect the'adjoining property and
~ ;.
~
f .i t; .~
~ ~t
~ ~~.~1
.
~
4 ~
,',
~
~
l ~
f
~•
t
' ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNINGaCOMMISSxON
;D
emb
2 a
,
ec
er
8;:1970. 5;553
. : ~ ~~~~
~
'
' ~
~
;
~-~
' ~'
. ,.,
.. .._
,
.
:
.
. .
: ;,
VARIANCE NO .'.2223.= inquiYed cohether or not the fooEing could.be built i. ~ ~"r
Jxj
(Continued:) ~ higli enou`gh rso°;,that ;'the water :would not ~drain onto the ~
:ad~;acent,p=oper;ty because.the Commission was coricerned:: ~~
with ^thzs cdra{I.nage
- , " _ ~ ;;
_
. ~ . .~ +
i y
ti
,x .
, ~
.,, ~ . - ~' ~~ ly
"'1
,~, Tfr Rarson replied~; that ;the pool builder ,,would:. put , the drainage: at
hatever
~ Sk
'~'~
w
depth
fo drain off>~this'.watei;; and;:it would floia into the:;:stree
t. Further- " ,F~
.
mcre, the po,ol wou"ld be`,:~used ,by adults only siace Ehey .had no"'children
` *-'~~
.
~
.' f ~( { ' ,. ; . ~.- '~I.
No oae,:appeared in>opposition`to`sub3ect
_petYEion }S ~
~~
,
; „ '
THE HEARING
WAS
O sF ~~
°
~
,
CL
SED
.• . r, ~. :,. . ~
.
r
. ; ~~ . r~ ... . .:: ~. . : ;
~ ... .. . : . .~. _ . . ! . . ~. . ~ ~~ . . ~ '~";
Commiss,ioner ?A11red offe,red Resolut'ion .No/ . PC70 230 .and moved for its "~~
passage:and adoption to'grant,;Petifion for Variance:~No 2223 subject to
' ~
conditions, with the add
ed condition that adequate drainage~shall be
;~
.
p~tovided to preveii;t splash.seepage'.,from~draining onto~the adjoining property.
(
See Re
l
i
o
-,
,
so
ut
on~3b
k)
On roll ca11.`the foregoing re'solution was.pass.ed by_.the following vote:"
AYES COMMISSIONERS '` Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowl~and, Seymour.
NOES
'
COMMISSIONER$ .None:
, ` - ,:
,.
. . `
COMMISSI
ABSENT ` ONERa: ` Farano ,~
- .'
.; :;
, ` *`~
VARIANCE NO .2224 - PUBLIC HEARING.~ SAGA,DEVELOPMENT CO.,`INC., P. 0. Box ~+~~
ti 340;~, Yorba Lind;a', Californf.a,. Owner;; EDWIN LASTER; 856
" d~
' ~~No
rth Pine Street., Anaheim; California`, Agent; requeat-
~
~ '
.
irig WAI.VERS
OF (1)s MINIMUM REQUI
RED:. SIDE ;YARD SETBACK,~ ,(2)' MINIMUM ;REQUIRED.. ~
RONT S `~ '
F
ETBACK., AND,.;(3). PERMITTED WALL.i;OCATION:.TO PERMIT:-;SEVEN.SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL UNITS b ~'
n property:desciibed as; Seven single=family lot§ having
a'
f
a
' "
~
ront,
ge of, approxima[
ely. 5b6 feet on the .south side of, North `Street, '
havi
'
a
i'm !~ r:
ng
'
max
um,depth of appioximately 120 feet; and being locat
,
ed
approxi-
.
.
mately 563 feet .ea.st of ;:the 'centerline' of;'Loara Street~. :.P_roperty, presently
cla
ifi
d R=O
E
` r-
sa
e
, pN
FAMI
LY SUB,URBAN, ZONE: j;
~ . . `„
Asaiatant 2oning Supervisor Malcolm;'_Slaughter.'reviet~ied the location of
~ ~~
sub
ject;,property,?,usea''establ'i'shed;.in close proximify, and the,,proposal as
se`t f
t
h
-
i
e '~~
o
t
in;
tl
e :R
port ;,to the Commission, noting that .tha petitioner. was
pro
n
`e
'
b !
posi
g tu
st
a
liah.single-family residential homes,
having floor areas ~
,,
of app=oximately 2300 square.feet - however; 6-foot.side yards were proposed
fo
the
ai
r,
;main',p
t of the atructurea, and that the garages would be located
ori the,;property line
th
h
vi '
,
us
a
ng a zero setBack, whereas under Code an
8,:2-foot side qard would be requtred; and that the petitioner
s p
n '
;=
wa
roposi
g
to erect the structures-25 feet,behind the front property
line, whereas Code ~
;
would require 30 feet. Additionally,_the petitioner was proposing a 6'~-foot
wall 5.,feet behind the.front property line, with a 5-foot'planter being
provided in,front of this masonry wall. Therefore, the Commission would
have to.determine whether or-not the proposed masonry wall would improve the
environment in light of ;the.p,roximity of the residences to the tra>ffic on '
North Street,and to the multiple-family'units across the,street and whether
;
the Commission would wish to consider the,.treatment of the proposed wall. ~'. `
Mr. Edwin Laster, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission '
and noted that sub.~ect propesty was on North'Street,.which was very heavil,
traveled due;to the fact tliat both the.regional'shop,ping` center and the post
office,were located on Loara:Street, and that they:were proposing to have a
Spaniah-type courtyard`-to min'imize`the noise from the street.
The Commission noted that they were fullg~ aware of what the petitioner was ;`
attempting-.to do -'however,-they: were:~•,sirous.of knowing the type of
constructio,n of the wa11 that was beiag planned. I:
Mr. Laster stated,that his contractor had proposed several types, including I
wood, but,no.decision had been made.
No one 'appeared in opposition to sub~ect.petition.
THE'HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~! _ ~~ ~ `
~a/y~ _ j - ,
... ~1. i v iV~! Y~~ ~:+:h-n tu ~, ...
~ ;:, ., _, ;
~, . ,
; ., ,-
~~~
r;~;
~;
~:
~ , ~ ~
; t..
~
'
`MINUTES, CITY PL'ANNING;COMMISSION; Decembei 28, 19.70 5554
„
, >. ~
'
x. , , , .
~ ,,;
~ ,.VARTANCE• N0~ ~~2224 Commiss"ioner:'Rowland noted tfiat prior to .any considera-
' v,
(Continued)
'tion.of.,,the,.Interdepartmental Committee rec~mmendat•ions, ` '
several:iprobl:em areas would have.to-be."riipped.in the. ~~
y ' ,° bud", and these dealt with the~z,ero:setback proposed;'
'
I~
~
y that~.some;communities•,have h
ad di'fficulty,wiEh.thi's'problem wall on the
~ , ~"
__ ,
'property line aince, it' really infringed;.ori the .adjacent neighbor rather~,~than
~' r
=~
, the o,wner;on which theiwall~was located,-and in some comu~uniti'es they allowed
`the.person~on the ad~oining'property line-
to
t
t:
h
wa
' „
.
:
rea
t
e
ll as
th,ough. it
belonged to him = however, he wouPd not'~propose this for the.City of Anaheim
~
n ~,~'i
~;;
+ ,
and s'i
ce this could lead to` hard :feelings 'aniong.neighbors, as` a condition
~
f
'
' . ~
o
ap
proval`. the Commi
s§ion:should `request and,insdst the ,property line wall
'be constructed of
at
'
n
'
' ~~,
y~
a n
ural.
fi
ish and;that
:
the developer in his
CC&Ra
' :j
,
`shoul
d preclude any re=finish th'at~ the owner:of the.wall.might des'tre, and
th
`i
b
:a
"
'
at
t
e
requiremeat
of: _the
owner of the; wall on whose property- it was
;located 'to
"mai"
tain
the
l i
:
e
` ~:-
.
n
:
.wal
n
:p
rp,etuity; if. needed.. ,
Chairman,Herbst'then.inquired whefher the~age;nt for the
petitioner was
aware ''
,
.
'of..tlie pot,ential_:prob.lem which Commissioner,Rowland was attempting"to
~
~res
olve.
'Mr Laster .';then 'requested ,that this dis`cussion be. repeated.
Commi,ssioner Rowland n'oted that what,he'was attempting,to do`was require a
'
'
apeci
fic .
type of finieh on the wal°l,'.this being ; the>wall on'
the
`
zero' side
.
,
.
'yard area,.;and if the homes were constructed and so
ldhav.ing a red finish
'
.
where-:,the co
rner met, "and the owner of 'said wall de'cided: he wanted" to change
-
h
`c
f
' ~
t
e
olor.o
~the wall=xo black,.the ad
3oining property owner would be ~•
affected by:-said,,change, and, tHerefore, th'is.wall should_be of a:permanent
f ~`;'~
"
inish,, such.as masonry of:natural color,.maintained in,perpetuity; and thus
' t~
3t wo;uld not; need: to b.e finished; that the material. used; should not
be ~
:
last
abuttered oa .that where a wa11 was propo,sed for the interior where Ehe. gsrage
ed the:
pro
ert
li
thi
w'a11
'
.
,
p
y
ne,.
s
sh
ould be of permanent finish;.'brick,
slumps_tone,:,,block, or,such similar:material<which would:preclude--refinish
'by anyoite:living,:on either s3de of said wall, an'd,the n'atural-coloY would
'
,be tlie most effective to preclude-thisirefinishing'of the wall.
;: :.
;.
";Commis'sioner, RowTand:offered Resolution..No. PC70-231 and moved for its
" i
passage and;adopEion to grant Petition'for Variance No.'2224, provided ~ `
,
howevei, that any wail.propqsed along tne-zero side lot line shall be of
'
" '
a-
natural finish,':said wall'to be'maintained in perpetuity by the owner
`
on whose prop,erty
it was located to preclude any possibility oi changing
t
He color to the detriment of the adjoining property owner. (See Resolution
Book)
On roll call the`foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~
AYES:: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kays~ood, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
RECLASSIFICATION - pUBLIC HEARING. LENORE N. KOEBRICH, 2130 East Seuth
N0. 70-71-20 Street, Anaheim, California., Owner; EARL E. CLAYTON, ,
2909 South Halladay Street,,Santa Ana, California,
~gent;.requesting tha:t property described as: A
rectangularly-shaped parcel:of land consisting of approximately 2,3 acres
having a frontage of approximately,165 feet on ,the south side of South
Str,eet; having.a maximum depth:of approximately.620 feex, and being located
-approximately 665 feet east of the centerline of State College Boulevard, ,
. and 'further described a's 2130`East South Street,.be seclassified from the
R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of ~
sub3ect property, uses established in'close proximity, and the proposal '
to establish a 40-unit, single-story apartmenE complex meeting,all require-
ments of the R-3 Zone site-developmenC standards.
Mr. Slaughter then reviewed past Planning Commission and City Council action
on sub~ect property, noting that they had denied a reqcizst for R-2 zoning
the latter part of 1969 in which the Commission stated the proposed reclassi-
fication was not in conformance with the General Plan or land uses estab-
lished in the area, and that the reclassification did not properly relate ~~-~
; ~-:'
~/.~ }.,y, _ ~~~~'-r
~~
fi ~ ~ \.
r`
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING',COMMISSION,' December 2'8, 1970 5555'
~
~:RECLASS3FICATION ~ to.:'the zone and permitted uses <locally establiahed in w`~'~-~
-.N0..70 71=20 ;close proximity; .and that' in May., 19.70, ttie Planning'.:
(Continued) Co,mmiasi;on approvedsthe establishment.of~a ,qhurch on '
s.ub jec't,,property -~ther'efore;- the. only ques.tion' before
~ the.Commissioa was~wheth~er or not the prop:osed:land uae
of subject.property was appropriate
Mr Lee Web;b, representingcthe petitioner as:.her real estate'agent and the
'agent;'for ;the petitioner, "appeared ~before the':Commission'. aad;::stated`that.
the plans preaented".met all;.the•requirements of.the R-3',Zone;',that'the
;property was.a~difficult.one to develop'`and':lie, personally;.had attempted
~'ito .induce a deveToper~;'to develop "'this ~,proper.ty for' :.the. past five years, ,but'
' it.~was not>'ur.til ~Orange Coas't Construction'Company;:.proposed:'the plans before
the Commis~sion, tihat it; became po's;sible,'
`Mr. Webb then read a petitYon signed~by.'approximately,90K'of the pro"perty
owners within 300 .feet of sub.~eqt_property, indicating.no`-opposi'tion.to,the
proposed',develdpuieat~,:.claiming this would'be an:improvement of the.properEy;
aad:that three-Anaheim,developers'~had signed-a statement indicating they
'considered;sub3ect property not suitable for development"for single-family
,:homes;. Furthermore; that "although` a church. had been approved for,.subject
property, an additional church.in this,:area_would create more:~traffic
problems~"than if':subjeet. pr,operty"`were developed.as prop.osed;.:,that .even:if
°a 'reqpiiement 'of dediration °of :land were provided free rof charge, 'fkere were
still;-off-site;improvement considerations that did not make~developmerit.of
subject`property'for,single-family`use'feasible; that.the'Commission'was well
:aware;of 'the fact that aub~ect pioperty.was difficult t.o'develop:and was '
:auffering`from,the.aormal.growth`of Li~is area of the City; that`developing
sub~ect pr:operty:'for:single-family homes wouid su3,~ect prospective residenEs,
: to.facin,g~.Ehe rear,yards of the R-1 homes.to the west or the church to'the
east;; that'.:lending institutions would not approve.a'loan on'this prapertq for
siagle-family homes, and no'one would purchase a home that..was so situation -
-.tlierefore, subject property.was hot suitable for single=.family homes; that a
>~number .o£,peopTe; had expressed their ;opposi'tion to the development of .another
°'.church in-:this area and preferred apartments .to another church; that a church
large:.enough ;to ,occupy:this'p,roperty would';br.ing,in 200 to 300 sutomobiles
two to three times a week;.that a church had been.appraved'<:for sub3ent property
together with,permissionsto hold`suctions`and bazaars - a commercial use -
'.whereas the proposal.would establ'ish a residential use at a greater density
than.;presently.existed:-in the'area.
Mr. Webb also noted that the City had previously zoned 30 to 40 parcei.s for
multiple-#amily zoning in the center :of:R-1 uses, and most parcels did nr~t
have development problems that sub~ect property had and gave as an ~xam~le
one at Santa Ana Canyon Road and Tustin Avenue, the one at Palm Lane sad
Ba11 Road, sud at Loara Street and Broadway - however, this was not outside
` the realm of'good planning since it was still a residential use. ~'urthermore,
there was,a humane reason for requesting the zontng in that the petitioner
was a widow who had been trying for some years to get some relief since she
was no.t in a position to pay the taxes on the property.
Mr. Webb, in conclusion, noted that the p,roposal would be single-story and
would b e limited to,adults only - therefore, wou2d not affect the school
system or create noises which single-family subdivisons had, and that the
number;of sutoaobiles which would be added to the traffic siow would be a
maximum of 60 vehicles.
Chairman Herbst inquired as to how many,of the residents wno signed the
petition.of approval backed.up to subject property; whereupan Mr. Webb
replied all but three homes.•
Mrs. Frank Brown, 2240 East South Street, appeared before the Commission in
opposition and stated that she rsceiqed a legal notice also but nad not been
approached by the petitioner-agent in reggrd to this; that th.ey also had a
very large home and also paid considerable taxes for improvad property,
whereas the pe,titioner'R.property:was not_improved and thus could not be
paying the same rate of taxes; that she had three children attending paro-
chial schools and was not benefiting from the taxes assessed for the public
schools' educational program which was good, but for religious reasons they
-r. ~
,
'~
l
,. .. ~ '.,' , ~, - ~.
.
r ~ ~ ~ } - ~~ rh , , ~l~ -
v
MINUTES,;CITY!PLANNING COMMISSION, De.cember 28, 1970., 5556
r
>. RECLASSZFICATION had chosen:to place their children-in.~parochial schools.. ~'~
NO :70-71=20 ~ • Furthermore;; if ~ahy of;the Commiss~ioners had,;ever driven
(Continued);.:> on Sou:th •Street~; ;they_woul'd ~have ~~rioticed it had'b.ecome a
,; •;speedw:ay, and even 40.additional cars.was too'much
> ' becaus'e within the last tiaelve montha there .w:ere two
in,j`ury accidents,,both to'.'chil~dren -_one•,quiEe •serious; ,that a•juaior.hYgh'
_ sch`ool was ' located ~;fu~ ther• east, and.:`even ~though ,children' of, that age,;were not
supposed;to .drive sutomoliiles acco'rding to;:law; 'fheie.`.still;.'was "an increase in
tra"ffic, ;and a.;number of':'older.`people?-picked up Elie ~unior..high school -
students;, that:`she 33d not think 40'iinits could be placed on sub3ect~property
success£ully ,and th`at wh'e,a she;;had appeared before oxi previous multiple-family
~sidenti.al zoning before.;the Commission and Citl Council,,"an alternafe-plan
was:presented;by th'e:.staff whieh indicated'`single-family homes could,6e.placed
on~. the p.ioperty,, and ttiis:<would', be. what; they would nrefer. -
Mr:~;iJoseph,Szewezwk, 2235.East'`South 'Street, app:eared:before the Commission
in'opposition;and noted~tHat:his property,was across_the~street`from:0akstone
Aueaue;::that,Fris wtfe was present'at the last public hearing, and:he did not
lie'ar of~sub3ect pro;posal until:'yesterday -'howevpr;:he was opposed to the
redeyelopment.of sub'ject proper,ty in the-manner. proposed for several zeasons,
one.,;being tliat when th_ey purchased their home:it.was because of.the.schools "
in, the area, and the:'schools now had'to build more temporary school facili-
ties and`:>,.additions for bo'th elementary and ~unior high school,`and the
present_:high:school just'recently built was also too;small ` thus.all'the
,schools were overwhelmed by students;;that more apartments were being''.
consEructed on B all`Road;.and all of-these.students.would have.to'.attend '`-
sctiools>in;this area; that since he:"moved;into`'his home, h3s taxes had,goae
- .
" -.
- up considerab:ly which he did aot proEest.§ince his family'used the schools - -
~`there'fo.re,. he"shoulii be..paying;.taxes; that `haviag heard the` Commission-.'
discuss~the.previous:,petit3on.wherein a;good point was brought but as to
aspects~.of changing a neighborhood, and since this entire area was developed
for.:single-family homes and churches'with the neErest'apartments being
lo.cated.at Sunkist Streef::and;Lincolri Avenue,.he would request that`subject
, petition be.:denied so thaf.the area-migh.t`retain.its low-densitv character.
; . . ' ~
-_Chairmari.;Herbat noted that;studies made by staff and the Commission indicated ~
that apartments did',not generaEe as many children as'singl'e-family homes. ~
Mr. Szewezwk noted that subject property:was close to Plymouth Place and not '
too distant fzom State College;Boulevard -`therefore,:there already was a
con§iderable amount of residential traffic'using South Street; and it was
extiemely,heavy ~ust before school hours.and immediately after school hours.
Furthermore,,it was his understanding from information he had been given
that the`petitioner had'an opportunity to sell her property to the developer i, ~
of the property along Plymouth Place.
Mr. Josepfi Smedley, Y109 East South Street, appea~ed before the Commission
in opposition and noted that prior to purchasing his home he had inquired
about Ehe integrity of the Planning Commission snd City Council regarding
zoning.and had been told that they could depend upon this area remaining
R-1 - therefore, this was one reason he was opposed to sub~ect petition
since it was his opinion that the area should be retsined for single-family
residential use, a policy which the City had maintained on a:l vacant
property in this general area; that there.would be an in~rease in traffic -
since statistics by the Traffic Engineer indicated for every,home or apart- ~
ment there,were ten trips per day, or 400 trips per day for this project if
subject petition were approved - this iacluded both in and out traffic from
the property; that traffic hazards presently existing on South Street would
be greatly increased if subject petition were approved, ailowing residents
in 40 additional units to have access to the street.
M.r. Webb, in rebuttal, noted that it was a proven fact that single-family
homes generated more children in schools than apartments, and that since the
developer proposed to rent to adults with no children between the ages of
18 months and.18 yeais, this would eliminate this argument; and that 10 trips '
per day per unit ~aould appear to be rather high - therefore, consideration
could also be given to the amount of increased traffic if subject property
were 3eveloped for church purposes.
Mr. Earl Clayton, the proposed developer of th> property, appeared befort
the Commission and noted that the opposition did not appear to be in re~:i.
opposition to the pro~ect; '_hac his main concern when plans iacre formulated
;,
__ ... _.. 'S~
. C i .rr r r ~ ~ v _ .. --
w ~, ~
~,~,
V' :
kf~
.,.. . .. ! ! .~ .. _ ~ . .. , • .~r ,.`. .. . . .
~ 4 ,
.w~+
~
i ~
M T ~ ~"
'
~
~ ~
~
~~~ . .
; . ': ,
~, 1 i :
. .
MINUTES, ,CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,, December 28
Y9
7
0 ~ ~ ~~
~ ,
.
.
5S5?.
.~ ~: ~f : ~ ~
~. '
.
: :.
' ~~
~
~ ..,
;
;~
.
.: ' . ~ '
RECLASSIFICATION ~ was the.fact that the progerty ;owneris Eo
th
NO
~
s
O ~ ~~
~~
~~ ,.
e
ea
Z
t would
71 20 haye some reserdations an'd concern -.:-`therefore
(Con~tinued)
'in ttie
l~ ~'~"$'
1~
~~.
~ ,
p
ans he`.attempte~d -.to~ min~imizev<~,the,.,:problems.which mi~ght• ,
- cause tfiese single fam
ly
'h
e ~ ~~,~:;~;?
i
.
om
otoners;';problems: by-,placin
*~ ~: ' the pool_'.in the cenfer 'of-the pro~ect;~.~and' that -tliere'~ g
appeared to -be no
+ ~
'~~
, oppos
tion. from :the res'idenEs in rclose'?proximity ~who would
~` be imaiediately affected
bv tfi
o` ~`+~
'
, .
.
e pr
posed "use:
. ;
y
Y ~
,
~-5,,~~
Mrs Lenore :Robrich
' ~
~#~ „ ,,[he netitioner advised the Commission that she'had
•.never had an opportunity t
s
ll
' ~,'~
o
e
-her property to th
e builder as one of the
t~ o osition 'Had s
~ P P
tated: ;`; `' ` -:
,
;
;
%~"
.
,
,
: ; ,.
,
, ..
.. -
, ,, .
_ :
. ~ ; - , „. .
,.::; , ,,., . . :
.
- THE HEARING::WAS CLOS
ED:' - ~
.
, : , . ' ~ '.: , : ' -
' ~' ~
Commissione~-Sevmour iriquired o# sEaff as ~
y
to the total amount'of land cover-
age pr;oposed'bq this d~velopment
,.
.
, ..iahereupon~ staff 'st
'~` n5
.
ated
.
,
this would have a
50X land coverage::
,..
,
, .
; •'
_
.
, ., .
.. .
_ , .
,5.,
}
Commissione,r Seymour th'en ,noted that if sub eat ' -
rope
t
R
3 ~
r
P
~,
y were developed for
2 5000 zoning wherein onlp 40%
,covera e
e `:
_
indicated on;,the.;alternative bq sta'ff which
had~
$
a
t
was ;~
been
pzesented
at
the
,
previous consideration,':for R=2 zoning
.
, . ,..
, , ,.
..
;
Zoning``Super~isor',~,Charles Rob`erts advise;d.•.the'Commis,sion that when subject,
p.roperty was'previously:considered
f
" ~,
:
or:multinl
e-fami;ly,xesi3entYal zoning,
s'taff had'piesente.d alternatives for
both
' ~~
-
R-l and R-'2
-.5000 lots.
Commissioner.,`Allred noted he.would,'dislike to:den the
~ y petitioner the right
to dedelop her uro
t °
` iRY
'~"~
er
but
he was not in favor'of`R=3,but would consider
: :'R-2=5000 ;.
,.. ..P Y, _ _?;~i
_~
Commissioner..Rowland indicated the ;plan was quite~an' intriguinb. one which
developed the kind of density
os ;,~,~~r~'
.prop
ed on a difficult piece of property -
However, that•.density was not.i
consistent
with
th
e ,w:~
.
:
;
e d
v.elopment in the area,
~and the developer:'s reas;on foi~not developing,for si:ngle=family
of the
homes because
de~elonment
''
'
t;~~
.
.
c.ost
wouitl
'not be totally able to supp;ort i;tself; that
h'e would like to s'ee`~this property'developed und t'
~
er a planned unit development
i:oniag.;so that access to single-family. developments c
ld b )
`~
ou
e other than
standard street sections;, permitting this to b:e developed'~with 13
et hav
i '
~~~
y
un
ts and
e~some ,of the, lower deveTopuient costs that planned unit developments
r,ould allow;
that`if thi
4
,
s type of zoning`could be placed`on the property,
it Gould save the City`and the petitioner a lo ~
t of time in pursuing this;
and th,at he would'not ~ote for medium density. in an
d i
'
area
eye7:oped £eY
single-family residential uses since there had been no'l
d '
an
use change in
the area since the Planning,Commi§aion last considered multi.ple-family
xesidential zonin
to w
g
arrant favorable consideration. ~
Commissioner Rowland then inquired,of staff whether or not this planned unit
development zonia
w
b '
g
as possi
le. ~
?.r. Roberts advised tha Commission thai the Commission could recommend a
lesser zoaing - however, a
l I
!
n
anned unit development would require filing
and approval;of.a conditional
se
e ' ~
u
p
rmit.
:
,
Commissione=`Rowland noted that this would not relieve the developer of
dedication but would alloiv the developer to avail himself of another means
of development.
Mr. Robeits noted for the Commission that if they were desirous of allowing
development of subject property,wi'th,something other than R-1 or R-2-5000
~having a pl'anned unit development, then he would suggest continuance of
subject petition to allow time,for readvertisement and subatission of develop-
ment plans.
Mr. Claytori advised the Commission that developing under R-2-5000 with only
13 units would make this a substandard development, and they could not accept
just a 13-unit development siL~ce street access would still be a problem.
Dis~nssion was held'by the Commission relative to the manner in which sub3ect
pet. .vn should be approved and ~ahe=her or ~ot a las_ar zoning ~hoald bz
the ~~zr zonineL' in vietr of~ :he de~~eloo<erf~ cemments regarding ??-2-5000,
g, perhags, should not be considered.
j: ;~ 1
i
~:
~
3k.~' r
a. „.
~=?.:: ,
. ~ _. .. ~,~~~fr:'
~3 ~"~~- ..'. .. '.~.; ~ .-: . ~:
x i r i _ ~i ~s~t0. ~•
~~-:
~ ~ ` r C !. ~ ' ~
;
~ ' ~
~0 ~
,
~
y 1 ,. 1 ' ~ .. ~ . .
r
~
~
MTNUTES,'~ CITY?PLANNING "CIDMMISS30N, December 28,; 1970 •~- 5558
' ~
~~;
a `` , L , `
'`
r
.
:
: . ` ~
RECLASSIBICATION Commiss3onex Seymour offered;:Resolution;No. PC70-232
'
~
~ : ; ;
~
~
N0
x70
Z1 20 ~ - and moved for its passage and adoption: to recommend to
(ContinuPd) rhe City Council;
that ?Petiti
fo
R
c
' ~
~`'
~s ~
,
on
r
e
l
asaification No.
` :~~
~
, c
i0 7'1 20 be disapproved on =the bzsis
Efiat no. land':use ~
~,
'~r-~
~
,
' • ~ } change,had.occur;red in this~'area since:`pzevious denial
of
a
t
t
t ,.
;'s-~~;
~
,
re,ques
,
o es
ablish R 2 zoning, on,~th`e property .;and,.,therefore', ";thia
deaial should`not b,e overturned
tha't sub3e
t
pr
w
o
' ~~ ~
~~
,
,
c
operty
as n
t in
confoim-
ance with the land uses already established in'~the srea;or as depicted on
the Gene'ral Plan
and that subyect pio
erE'
o «
~}'~r7~
'~
,
p
y was surr
unded `on tfiree aidea
~t ~
`~'
~
3wi
h single family .homes:; and';that,:to inject multipl'e-famil residential uses
Y ~
~
into a primarily single ,family ;residential arearwould; be s'ettting" an un-
desirable
t
d ;,
~~
pre
e
ent' for-similar requests througfiout th'e ctty ~.(See ~
~~*~'
'
Re§olution Book) ,
~
~
~
~
~
~ f~,,,.~'~
,~
..,
. .',
' ' . '
, :. _,
;,
; . .
. ., . '
: .. 4 ti
~
:
On'zoll;call the foregoirig resolution iaas. passed by tfie following:vote:
.. , . , .... := ~: ' , , ~
AY.ES COMMISSIO*IERS '~Gauer, Herb'st, Kaywood, Rowland; Seymour.
. . h~.
NOES,, ~OMMISSIONERS•, Allred. =
~ - ,,:x
AB'SENT~: ' ~COMMISSIO:IERS::'.'Farano. ~
RECLAS$IFICATZON --`READVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY..THE,CITY
NO`. 70
'
,
71 23
" PLANNING.COMMISSIdN,."204 East Lincoln Avenue,,Anaheim,
~
:: Oaliforsiia; proposing'.that"property des.cribed as.; An :~~
.. irrngularly sfi.aped parcel of land consisting;,of approxi-
3
a r+„~`
,~
maiely 3
1
cres of::land,: having a frontage of.approximately 9,458 feet on. .
ttie
tih
ide ~
-~ti
~
sou
s
of Esperanza Road, having a;max'imum depth'of approximately
2;214 fe`et
and being located a
roxi
tel
2
,8
e ~
,
pp
ma
y
:
00 fe
t east oF the ceater-
lirie of 'tIm
erial Hi"
h'
a
d fu
h
e
`
p
g
way ;
n
rt
er; d
scribed es the .Esperanza
=Faizmont,,
Es
h
' ~
peranz,a Rot
, and~; Esper:~snza'=,Carrill
o Annezati"ons be' reclassifi"ed from ;the
County A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL'DISTRICT to.the R-A,.AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.' ,~
M1
2oriing Supervi,sor Charles,.Robe~rts reviewed the location of:sub~ect property
` ~;
~'
.
and uses;:estab
lished in close 'proximity., noting`;that=approximately 330 acres i
'
of': land .were;proposed fo=.` recl'assification to the R--A 2one for property ri
`
nnder annexat.i'on f.iom the County of Orange to ~th'e City of Anaheim
and-the ,
,
=zoning would~,establ3sh zoning on the property upon annexaEion to the City.
No:one appeare,d in opposi:tion to subject petition.
,. ,
i
THE,"HEARING WAS.CLOSED. i
~• ;
::.
• -
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC70-233 and moved for its .
passage snd adoption to.recommend to,the City Council'that Petition for
assification No: 70=71-23'be app.roved unconditional;y. (See Resolution ;
Book
) ~
i
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
i.
~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: :Allred, Gauer,,Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
' '
~
I NOES.o.
. COMMI$S:IONERS: .,None. ' : -.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. IIVITIATED'BY THE ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL ' i
,
N0. 70-71-25 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; to consider ~
reclassifying property described as: An irregularly-
shaped parcel of larid consisting of approximately 242
acres of land having a frontage of approximately 6,088 feet on the south side'
"
~ of
Esperanza Road;,having a maximum'depth of approximately 2,215 feet, and ~
being located approximately 4,977 feet east of the centerline of Imperial
High~aay, and further described;as the Esperanza-Carrillo Annexation, from
the COUNTY A1; GENERAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICr to the R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ~
_ _.ZONE .
_ _ ~
, °
Zoning Superdisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of sub~ect property,
uses established in close_proximity, and noted the proposal covered 242 acres
of the property previously considered b~~ the Planning Commission for R-A
zoning under Reclassification No. 70-71-23 and consisted of the eas~er].y
portion of the property; that this zoning.was initiutnd by the City Council
because the property on the westerly portion already had a petition pending
for R-2-5000 zoning, and tahich the ?lanning Commission had continued to the ---
V
`L
+.a~ ~ r . ,-... ~ ~ -
~ ~ ~~~
4~
r ~ ~ :;
. .
~ ~ ~ ~ e~A
,
'
,~
y MINUTES, CITY PLANNING;.COMMI~SSION; December 28, 1970 "
~ , '
5559
F~.
.
~`
~ . ,~
~
~RECLASSIFI~ATION meeting of January ll, 1971, and bas.ed upon this
the:
~NO 70 7 ^~Y.
'~
F;
~
~~ ,
1 25 Commission mi'ght wi:sh t~o,<coasider continving •subject
Continued) petition to be heard in con unction with~b'oth th
~ ,
°~
~
e ,
k -
Scenic Corridor and l~ th'e~ieclassificiition. of' the property
~' to the west'
~ ;; :,k
t' ~~~'
(
.
~ ~Cona-tssioaei Gauer i
ui
d wh ~yl;;
G ~.
~ nq
re
} the City Council ~vas conaiderin ~,.reclas '
, _ 8 sify-
_ing the~property;when.they
~h'ad not e
tabli _?~
~
~
` .
s
shed deasi~ies.and liad continued
`;the denaity~study n~il February
..
'
.
' .
" l~
.
r~ .
. , .
.
_.
_ . :. . , ,
~
Y~;~,
~`~ Mr , Roberts;Jad~ised the Commission that ..the City Council had ind
i'cated they
`wo
ld`
a
a ~
~A
M
,
u
not t
ke
ction.ron the.densi:ty study:nntil after,the report'from.the.
Corps of Engineers
s
e
` ~^''~~
,
~~a
rec
ibed,;b,u~ at
;the xequest of one of`the-property
owners, the;Ci.ty.Council determined they would~
i
iti ,
~,`
~
T ;
n
ste:R-2,-5000 zoning
~based; on the fact that the City ~
Co~unci~l, in ':Eheiz r
e
a ~
.
ecomm
nd
t3on on the
prope.ity to!,the,Orange County Planning;Commissioa~for:RS=5,000; had indicated
~ ~ ~
they felt the RS-S,OOO,.;zoning was;approp,riate:.if the propeity were•not
develo
ed f
r
' !
4
, p
or a
egional
park ttierefore, since they had made this commitment,
it should !be.honored. '
,. . I ~
_,,
,Mr James L,iberio;; 1720 West La Palma Avenue,.appeared.before the Commisaion
~`and n
otedr'he
h ~ .~
.
was;one,of. t
e property owners,.and he would agree with Ehe
City ~;Counci-1 that:: the ''zoning. should be
chan
d
that h
f '~
` ,
ge
;
e
elt the Scenic
Corri'dor Overlay ,Zone was an imposition'_'on the ~property owners`; and: then in
o
y
resp
nse to;Commission`ques.tioning., atated that the_ Oveilay Zone would nave
no aff
t
p
Eh
' .
~
~~;
,
ec
u
on
e zoning
since the'Oveilay Zone would.affect>this regard-
.
les's
of
th
=
'
° ,
;
.
e
;
: 8 .. , _ ,
zonin ~ *+~:-
', . ; ,
Chairman He'rbst noted that..He could not see how the Commission:could take
' ; t~
~~
• action on sub~ect petition~since th,ey had continued the".petition for the
r
~ '•
prope
ty to the west..un
til the January `,11 mee`ting ,to be heard~ in con~unction
with
'the
Scenic Cor
id
r
or ~~
• ,
,
r
or - the
ef
e,.to aot continue sub~ect.petition to.
;the -next ,~rieetin~g .would ~:be granting the".petitioner or
the
ro
e
n ~
~
j
.
;: p
p
rty ow
er a
, privilege not afforded.the pxoperty ~owners to the::west. +._
:
'
,:
Commissioner Seymour.noted that his:reason for proposing continuanze of the
Overla
Zone"wa
b
c
` ~
~
y
s:
e
ause the,
property owners in the,Santa Ana Canyon area
had"requested this~del
y
l
s
a
as
ong a
possible; ~
Mr..Liberio stated he;~ust wanted the zoning.,on the property and did not
~
t ~
~
.
wan
Eo be aeiayea on this property to c~nsider the Scenic Corridor averlay '
Zone since it:did: ;
not,have anything to do with.density.
Commissioner Rowl'and noted that in Mr: Liberio's perusal of the Overlay
Z
t
one
here was no mention of zoning, but ,the.harshness which he had indicated
as to_this density.would be difficult xo attain b ecause of the impositian of ~
O ;~
the
verlay Zone, and if Mr. Liberio proposed the R-2-5000 st,indards, the
densit
would b
fl
d
y
e re
ecte
by the Overlay Zone just as the development
standards reflect the standards of e
e ~
v
ry zone; that every piece of property
wr~s not 3n the same elevation, since the railroad and the river affected ,~
different parcels:- therefore, this would make a difference. ,:~:~
-Pir. Liberio'-indicated that his property wa5 flat, and he was interested only
in zoning for his property '
~%~
Assistant Zoning.Supervisor Dialcolm Slaughter advised the
the r,epresentative for.the petitio~er'for'the nroperty to
`Tast public haaring indicated app;roval of the Overlay Zone
tract out o:f`xhe water" because the'arterials would affect
yieTd.
. Commissioner.Seymour noted that Mr. Liberio-had stated at
hearing on thn Overlay.Zone that he c_ould see no reason fo
Overlay Zone.if the property could not be built - therefor
see tohy he was now recommending approval of the R-2-5000 Z
basis.
Commission that
the west at the
would "blow the
density and lot
the last public
r passing the
e, he could not
one on this same
Commissioner Allred noted that the density the Commission recommended was
low density,,or 7200 or ~square feet, wh31e the R-2-5000 Zone was only
a 5000-square foot lot and fell within the low-medium category.
Mr. Liberio stated that thep would not have to be.annexed into the City of ~
Anaheim since they still could get utilities from the County.
' i
, R -- ~;~.:
•
...
~ +lh't'c
~
k ~ ~ ~~~.
~ ~MINUTES, ,CITY PLANNING;~COMMISSION'" December %28 19
,
.
70 fk~:
t
,
:
, 5560 . ~ry.
~ -RECLASSIFICATION ` Commissioner Allred'~then-inquired of M
r L,iberio whether
NO 7.0..71=25 or not •he had'',seen,'the .h:omes ad3acen
t to the
Ri'ver
side ~;
::~'
.
;
.
~,.^~~ (Continued) Fr'e~way;` kno~qp as ~the Hol`stein.property;,;_and'-the effect
"` ~ - ~
he
i
`
' ~
~'
t
se l
omes li
ad on :
the
.•:a
~ . ; ~ ..
rea
!
'
"
~
t
'~ ~:
~
,
,..
i.
. .
~ ,
. .
.:
:
t ;, .,
r . ~ ~.,.i . , . . .~ . .':::.. ~...~. . .:. .
Pfr Liberio stated that he w~ould aot like to:have that type of a home b
ilt
' . • k ~
;~:.
;
"
u
.
on his piroperty either`, but `the Commiss;ion would Have ;to: make :these resfric-
tions:in a
in A
~
~'F;`~
pprov
g the~petition , ~
~ 4 1
~ Cosmissioner Se
mour not
d Eh
` ~~
y
e
at these restrict3ons-were
art of th
P e Scenic
Corridor Ov.erlay,Zone.which z~ould
be discu
ed i
'd
' N.~
~
~
.
ss
n
etail at the.next meeting,
,..
;A
3
E ~;;
'
ss
s
ant Citq Attorney John.~Daw„on adv.ised the Commission that•sub~ect
etiti
o
'
' s+{s
.
f
,:p
on c
nld b
e recommended fos.
agprov,al 'es'tablish'ing' deed; reetrictions
;on it'
-
; s
~
+
~
"
?Ch
i ,
~
„
f
`
a
rman Herbst _again _reiterated the.fact tha't the property owner to the
~ taest 'of the.~prop_erty undr_r ;consideration h8t1"~zJ2~
'Cl'
'dE18
r2C] b
caus ;
;~;
'
.
,
1
e
e the .
`Commissioa'~deteimined.;.;they did not wish:'to consider the:zonin "action until
} :'after:; th
0
'
' .
Y~.
4
e ,
yerla Zone
v
had been considered siid ob ja:~cEions presented :by. the
~ property owners~.`
' ,~
;
_ ~,
Mr Liberio: then noted-,that.he.did not feel the Commission,wou.ld ass on'the
i
Overlay Zone at:the next
t
n
`
5
,
mee
i
g;b
ecause:many of~the,,peop,le he had talked
I with had.oli~ected,to`many of tiie thin
s
in the O
er
2 ~
g
j
v
lay
one. `
. ~
'~~?
:
i '~Mr Liberio; in response to`Commission questioning, noted that they had
neve
m
-t
i ~z5~
r ,co
e
o the C
ty ;without having given ;the'iCity what they:,had asked
for
and the
st ~.t~'
~
,
re
rictions imposed;by,conditions would b.e imposing conditions
`on a few people~while~many peo
le
w
ld b ,
,~.ti
p
,
ou
.
e benefiting. ~;:i
~
Chairman Herbst.rioted that many of.the proper.ties in that area`:had been
developed
:and own
r
o y°a.
,
e
s
f that property had left the area.- therefore, the
~City was then left ~vith less than
desi
abl
e
' ~
-.
r
e d
velopment,
Assistant Development Services,Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commis-
sion that
perha
s~`he'
o
ld
w
,
p
c
u
meet
ith t3r. Liberio and some of the property
owners who-s"eemed to have obj~ectibns relati
e ~
v
to the Overlay Zone in order
to'summarize all of tkese opnositions in,ivriting and make them available t
the
o ~ ~,
o
C
mmission prior to the public hearing. t
~
Chairman Herbst advised.Mr. Liberio that Ehe Commission wished to asRnre
'him fhe
were t
i
o ~
y
ry
ng t
exuedite these•petitions as qnickly as possible. ;a
,
':Sr. Liberio then advised the Commission that although he appeared to be
somewhat hostile
it
b i.
,
.was
ecause of. tfie many delays before LAFCO, the Orange
County Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisor
h ~
s t
at made him feel
that way.
*Sr. Jeff Millet of ~Sillet King & Associates, 1303 West Valencia, Fullerton,
inquired of the Commission whethe
no `~
r or
t the property which he had been
representing for the Geraldine Er Roth:Kraemer famil
was
l
o '~
y
a
s
included
under this reclassification.
~
Assis,tant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised Mr. Millet
that the Roth-Kraemer p
d 7,
roperty c
as include~'under the reclassification
previously considered, under 70-71-23, however b
e
ecaus
there ~oas already
pending t~ reclassYficatYon to R-2-5000 zoning under Reclassification No.
b9-70-25
thi
a
o
'
~
,
s w
s n
t
included in the petition undes consideration.
;
Commissioaer,Allred offered a motion to continue considerat.ion of Petition
f or Reclassificati a
'~
on No. 70-71-25 to the meeting of January ll, 1971, to be
scfieduled immediately after the Scenic Corridor Ove
rla
Zone
d
.
y
an
Reclassi-
fication Na. 69-70-25. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion
*fOTION ~
.
CARRIED.
',~
~ . •x x ~ . w; . . t W~~ ~~~~~~~
~X ~
~ l ~
~ ~ ..~~~ ~• ~ '~~ ' .. ' "" '' .
~` rMINUTES, CI~TY PLANNING'COMMTSSION, December"28, 1970. ~ 5561
~~ : .
~t~ `% ; '; .. :
F~` •AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 '- PUB.LIC HE4RI,dG.,7' IPIITIATED':BY iHE CITY' PLANNING
~~ ANAHE;IM MUV'ICIPAL' CODE';: COrii42SSI0*1, . 204 East °:Li:icoln A~venue; ; to consider
1
,rp~. `. aa amendment• to `iitles 18=.of. .the Anahe3m Municipal
r Code- bv tki'e addition 'pf 'Chapter'18.61; Mobile Hoine
~~~, ' Parl; and ,Travel,`;,Trailer Par'c Ordi~ance..
b r+ = r
"` Chaf rman Herbst 'noted .~for iiiteres;ted oersons,, in ~ t:^:e Council Chamb"er .'that~ „
a~~° the Plannin'g Commiss3,on at , an earli ei mee~ting. had; determined rit was 'neces-
°~,~ :'.sarq ,to hav,e a work session::and .study bh the.-;oroposed as¢eadment to"`Title :18
~ •.to in'clude the Ziob;le Yom2 and Travel Trailer,' Park` Ordinance - therefore,'.
sub`~ect amendmerit, in:a1L likelihood., would b.e conf~?nued'to a.future meeting.
~.Sr Joseph.~:Bonadiman, CiviZ`:Engineer-Planner, San Bernardino,.:appeared`
be~or',e`the;;Commis'sion~and iioted they were in the;r thirtieth year.as civil
-'engineers in 'S~o~uthern~ Califo'rnia;`':that `their office 'had in this, t`ime con-
; .. ,. .. .
struc~ted or',desigried:"-35'mobile,home parks;-,that he;.had.'lectured for the
~ 'Unive~rsity'"of California in their,,extension programs on,mobile; home.`parks
~ 'on tti~e engineerin:g as;pect;, that;he had read the grooosed ordinaace as it
;;pertained to travel'tisiler.nortions.nrimarily because they had been
:~requested to look at;some,'property in Anaheim with'the intent of developing
' the.~p:roper,ty for a,travel traiZer park;..and'then discussed in defaiT the
x various` sectionsr 'of the ord'_:Iancei ,in '~ah3ch he' ~~as intere§ted," aoting that.
~ page ;1, `~relative-to fire h~~drants; relocation of same;;cvas determined. by,
'-the:conaection'to certain fixe 1'znes for fise hoses; page 4,`'under;minimum
'.lot size,'•he notec~ tltat the lo*_ s'ize for mobile hope par&s was acceptable -
~however;~ •fo`r a travel``.trailer: park, if ie2erenc.e ~aere made to a frontage: :of
`'20 feet,. ttien this ~aould be coorkable, but he iaas not desirous of having; this
<amend'ed to ~refer::..to the width ,of a' lot. ' Therefor,e, .he would secoinmend that
the 20 foo`t width'of`the lot be retained in-.order that angle:parking might
be, rovided
' ~p '` from' a street ~s3iich,~oould make it; au'ch easier fo.r;'travel trailers
: to n;ark '::On :p;age 5, ,where;maximum alloc~abl,e'.`lot coverage was„ indicated,' and
although ZSX was'somecvhat'cl;ose,:in .thg explanation notes the.reason for the
75% w:as: to:reduce the effect of.having an entirely.paved:lot'which, in-his
''estimatioa, tbas ivery ,commendable:since>;they.always.nrovided s.ome form-of open
area.:- although ~.n one of, tlie layouts"`;theq ~ad made,..where 75% coverage was
reque~te,d~, it'~va~" very di'fficult to obtain th3~ 75Y'coverage:unless one had
•a~ Targe 'lot`':and had drive~~'through fgciZities:
Zoning Supeivisor Charles Roberts inquired.whether or not Mr. Bonadiman felt
that a developer should_be able to pave more-than 75% of a travel trailer
park;:~whereupon Mr. Bonadimau stated that since travel trailer parks required
a conditional use permit,;if the plans.prESented i~dicated a good treatment,
then.,perhaps some relief from that gastion of the ordinance could be given.
rir. Bonadiman then indicated that ~iage 9, requiring 8-:oot high trees be
planted, was a good idea; that he was not opposed to it, although he could
recall in one Orange County travel trailer oark ~ahere this size tree wa.s
required an argument was presented to the Board of Superv.isors that- that.
s3ze tree had a high mortality rate.
I~r. Bonadiman~continued that page 9, referring to internai streets under
thYs section:of the,notes; he would.prefer the 25-foot road rather than the
28-foot road that was,oroposed, and where'there were one-w,ay streats, th3.s
could be a l2-#oot road, and that generally where a two-way street was
nroposed in a travel trailer,`park, an 18-foot road cvas adequate - however,
in a mobile home.park 25 feet would'be the minimum'since no parking was
nermitted on the street. Therefore, he caould urge the.~ommissYon to re-
cor_sider~the 28-foot reeui'rement since he felt this was a bit too wide, and
altROUgh 3 feex did.not avoear fo be too auch c~hen designing a large travel.,
trailer parky every foot counted a great deal in coverage. On page 10 it
caas aoted that'if the reau3rement in the third paxagraoh regarding the
mi.iaum ~oidth of concrete gutter -- this could'be stipulated if problems of
drainage w.ere to occur and a need for more gutter s~ace c~as indicated -
`~owever, this.would give potential' developers an idea of the cost and
reouiiements.
Commissioner Allred inqui.r=d what ~aidth would ~,r. Bonadiman suggest;
whereuj.on ?2r. Bonadi~ian stated that all that gutters did ~vas serve to
cellz i r.uisance ~aater, and there.~aas r.ot that nuch exceot perhaps from
aa irrigation system that ~aas having problems, and the cost as to carrying
any amount of crater was a consideration.
_ ~ ; ,-~~~;
_ - i :~
. : ,::
.. . ... ..1.:~'``}~..... ~ .. . p _ _ ~~~ .. . . ~ ..
~ . i ^•*~,s~a.v 'Ii.iN ~~ ~~ _ , 1 ~ r..~t~ -:
V . ~ F ! . -~~~
h ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ y~
.. ~: ~' ~~ .. :~ ~ ' ~ 14~`~ ~~
. ~~ i+ S _ ~: ; > . . . ` > . ~ ` ~ ~
,' MINUTES,:CITY P;lANNING COMMISSION, December,`28,:197U
;,. ~ -
5562 ;~
' AMENDMENT'TO TITLE 18.~ Commissioner Gauer no ed that a"v"~atreet.'sect~on j"
~ ~ - - ;;
ANAHEIM;MUNI~IPAL CODE could be:placefl. in.soae parks.• ~,~
-.' (Continued) - ~ >:., :` ~ ; ~;~
- Pir.' Bonac'.iman .stated'~ that= ~7 sinage was.~ fairly easy ~
'; ~ °~ ~ '` from a"=~" street, . and this. would work in both "
case§ of the nuisFnc~.~water.,and 3rrigation:.water'.='however,l;c.o,state .a.. _ ,~'l "'~
,; maximum width, fie would r~uggest no more than 18 iri~chES-`wide, and perhaps> j j'~~
the City Engineer migh~ cvan~ more,, buE . tl-is woul.~:.not carry much ~water. . ~~
~ Comm=;ssioner All'red inquir'd of Dffice'Engineer Jay Titus wha;t the:'<City's ~' ~?
; street gutter width w,as, whereupoa.Mr.':' T! Lus repl:ied ~ttiat the,. standard .;;;~
gutter on,`an A~2 ~oas.2 feet:'°and' on a B';~Lype.~it «;as 18 !`nches,, and..on ai~ ' ~"s~;
` alley it was . 4: feet" -',hawever,` he. £elt':18 inches, ,,as ~ ~`: `,3oaadiman 'ha;d ' ~~r
su ested -was a little *~~srrc~w and.2 feet would be mlch m~r~.a~ceptab3e. <~
~ g8 _ .' . ~ •.n r . , ._ ,
' Mr '~Bonaddmaa, note3 that, page .,11'.,. regard3ng vehicular a~r.~,~nq'`snd minimuai '-~'
right of-way wid°ch of'.50 feet; was soar`cvhat'd;f£ar:ent ccian C?~e;State ciould ~
permi"t c~herein a; one way ,~ereet or R rtr~et'divided by_a ~~ed':Lat• could ~be ~;;
15 =eet in! wi'dth; this would be' 20-fuot lanes s~iaarated by ~i UJ-£oot ~?
' median, ..and it t~as h~ ~, ogin+.on rhat this was adeq:uate. '~"Eio~.+airet, ke wished
to ieiterate the factr`that a1t~h~~;.gh an: inch or-a £;,ot did n~tc appear to be
any ~great,amount~in_desigaing pvrks,,they aEtemnted to keep the costs down j:'
,: and :still 3do .cahat ,~as necessary,. and th'is go:t inro sa~in;gs with theae ''
&ma11 inches which.•meant the differen~e•bet~aeen hav'ng;a reaT attrac~Yve
'. entrance, 'and b~;' re:locating. the `recz~a',. ;i~ual: home normally placed .in the `
. center of ;the ,project.~nea~rer the entrancey this. would make the entrance ~~a
less.,`attractive;, that.'the SO square teet of common~recreation'space appeared ~`
to be ade.quate, although it might' be difficult to' work out as to' its lor.a-
' tion;: and that, a' travel trailer park night be able to ~zt aloag c,ith one ~~
area ;for recreational,facilities',-but under a practical viewpiiint iE was ~~
fi;
;best`,to locate a'.smail.recreational area near where'"someona c~uld-keep an ''
eye.;"oia tlie .chtldren, ~~~sucii as aear a laundry area `and restrootr, :faciliEiea,
~.,but in commercial are;as most o,~ the guests would not be us3ng`',these
' recre;atioial areas, pait3cularZq if tiiey were near a large.secreational'
.
, faci lit ;'
- y
,:~ ~;~~ . ~ ~ ... . ~~ :. ~- ~ -;. ~ . ~ . . ~., . i~::
Mr Bonadiman, in concluding his stateraen.*,g on travel tra:~ler parks, staCed "
there',was very little'he could see c~rong with the pronosed ordinance since ~ `'?
it mas very well written. t,,;A
~ ,.
1.:
Commissioner Gauer ir,,z~q,red whethpr or not Mr. Bbnadiman sa.w tlze ma3ority ~
-of travel traile.s with their aas-caoling system c~ the r~p; whereupon
Mr. Bonadivcan replied this;was prevalent several years ago ~ however., now ~
the air condiLioning was.2i~ndled in a diffsreat m~tnner., and if a mobile '
home did not have .the propeY duct wark buil: in, chen they would have to I ;
put it on top'o~f the coach'- hawener, he would a;;ree with the ordinance
-that it wou1Z be beEt?r not i~ have the air-cooli'.ng.system showni and most ~
of the present.mobile homec ha.~ b~~en.built yritn'the air-cooling s}~stem
within the unit rather:than outside, with s~ome companies havin,g them ux~uer- ~
neath while others had them overhead.
Mr. Bonadiman then reviewed trie portion govexning ,the mobile home parks, ~
noting that the density hit:him the :irst time he,read it - howevac, :~hen
fh he read the altern$tives, this, then, would perm•Lt designers to get Che
I density back to a more practical point cf virew; trat they could, get a very ~ ~~
attracEive mobile home park with double-width mobiTe hor.~s having up to 8
an acre.; that a,great deal could be doae wiLh_o~;ly ~OX to 50X of the s~re~ts
curved,"and the apoearance of these strE:ets was`';.•om the,view of the
residents of the parlt rather than a vie+a from the sir. - howe~ier, dependixtg
upon desYgn such as the clusteriag type`areas, th.is could be proviled which
could eliminate t'ie sterile, grid-type patteru.
Assistant Develo.pment Servies Director Ronal"d ^ho•~S~~ aQVised ZSs. Bonadiman
and the Commi~cion that the City anticipated the aevelopment of mobile home '
narks in the catiy~an `area wtiere residents living in :homes on the hil.lside
would be looking doc~n on these parks - therefore, there was a need t.o ha•ve
a differe:nt,appearance than the regulaEion grid pattern, and that th= site
at the Corona Park on the Riverside Freecvay which ?~ad a number of clus~er
streets did not appear as'nice .from the v3ew from the top as it should,
and parks locat.ed in the flatland areas with a little more imaginstion
rather than the grid pattern, caould have been more attractive.
,•
s `"*,',{a rrrlyr s ' ..
a. ~ • _
~ .. .~.,. . . ..~~ . :..'_'"5 5~...:(' .. : .
~ _ .._: X ~ r ,, .. 3
r '
~ ~~
:
~. u. . ~~ . . r . r . , ~ . . . . . ,'~~ } . . . . _ . '~°~r r .C . .
r ~ ~~N~~ ~~i
r ~, ,. L :
a ~~ t
r I rv'' , ~ s ~
~
. ' r 3 1 .. ~ ~ ~ ~
1ING COMM~SS70N; yec,~"~abex 28, 1970 ;-:556'3~
.:~ , ;
18 Cor:~missioner Seymourr ~mqu:ired oP Mr -:Bonadimar 3f
O~E he felt fhat 75X o~ r"1~ ~streets' being required ;to
have a curvilineari d't>sign,.~vas too much what would
he~~~suggest ~ f ;~~
;; ' ~t , '. , ~ `
d:that fie `cauld, visualize tohFCt ,.t,~e City was attempting,
jflexibil'z~v~i¢i des{ga'wi ~i c~urv~ed s.ti`2ets - therefore;`
~X';:to 50~ 'ofz the str:ets~`~curyr`ed; that~:~~hP "r<ason'for "n'ot
ntage of_cn~rved streets~sugf~ested was aIE ~artlq
~, -
in~resaonFie fo'a comment;=~'-F ~Ir. Thomg~on;,, stated that ,
s. oin ' .
.S .2~UD .a0"'.~lioh.,~n.. n7.~7.,wi..~-'---'-. _. . ,
.. aLLV L {.iGCQ ,-
, V iCOU :yP r~aoa=td wit~-~r,tt any di`ficultv~.and revexted back to
anotlier use
`
d
'
' ~- ` A'Kj
~
,
an
this
~
~~
: . ,1z s ta~:1y au„ Tsed~~,.era»a freeway ~5ent'
througli
"~
an -are
' ~
~`.
,
>
~ ' . .`'.. .' C . . 1 l ,y ~:~ '. . .
a
.
~~ :!x Bonadiman} notPU th~i, l~enc~ s 'were ~ivin ~ ~
~ '
g
m
t
:th~ f-?
"
R
~
g;
.
e ,
u ht~ to 'locat3on of =
m~.hail:e home parYs and~::hapefullv.they were•picking~,lacatio~zs that w
ould
peimit r
sal ~-
`~
.
e
e of;the urnperty wi~h a s:ubstantial,pYo~i~: ond-.then•the mobile
;::~ttasne ~.park .~uuld ~be ~ •
pull ~ out f
r ''
o
'a higher.:and bett~r ~u~z
.~; rc ., ~ ,, ~ ~:: ~, i .., ...
:
: :.
~
~
.
. . „
Regarding le~sin'g arrangements, Mr Bona~ man note'd, EYese Tease arYan
e-
m~
' rJ•.
g
n ~, etc: ,~+nt
ered .intc~ the conaiders*ion of lending ;aioneq';':: and ~many times
they.;could;;nct, b'or aw 'mo
' ,r
ney
to out up a structure bs theq would like to.-;
However, thr lacation
;of a travel'strail '
,
er park was.comparativ;ely simple-since-
`.tt was an anter'im use `until such :`time as the,?value of th`e pro
uert
'::b
hi
me
h :;
h
o ~
~~
.
y
eca
g
.s
t
at it wotild warrant. removal af the trar~el :traiier park,` for ;anothes nsp: `~~
,.Commissioner Row~land offered a moe~on~~to continn consideration of th
s +;
t
e
arapo
ed Mobile now~ and Trave;. '
r~ Tiailer;P~srk!;~rd3nance Eo the:meetiag og:
Januarq
25, 11971
a
:
d
u
E ~'
~u
,
,
n
:
rtn
estei!
het a._s:ork "sessio'a be h`eld :iegarding`, same
<t~n J3n 'y.-,10, 1971, aC 7 Q0
P iK.'' Gomit
ssion
er
Ali
d~ Y
~
,
,
.
.,
re
.seconded the>motion.-.
,:~M~~i,ION-. CARRIED. ;,` ,
~.
.
-
; '
. ,
, . ~ , ,.
.
~` ~„~;
~
<, ; _ ' , :
•ROJTiE 39 FREEWAY:,
~ Comriissioner Rowland`offered'a motion:to"schedule
` ~ ~~ i,
~;
a w.o:r~ .seseion' `on- th'e Route 39-Hunty n. .ton Beach
` Freewa
:•for J
nu
r
'
~
~
}
y
a
a
y'S,, 19.Z1, at
7:00
,
.M.,.;to'zeview
` the~';proposal prior ta:the'adve
ti
d`r i
r
se
ublfc hear3ng
scheduled` £oz Jant,lr}i' ], 1971. CommJ.ssioner Kaywood
ec ~
~
s
onded the mo.tion:~ i:OTION'CARRIED:; .
•;,: ,. . ,~ ' . '`
~
~
.
;:
REPORTS A2:D - - TTEM V0. 1'
RECOMM.~NDATIONL"•
' ` =
COI3DITZOVAL .USE PEP.MI'l NO.. 1140 ~~
, : , y~.
(Western Avenue:So~the,rn Baptist Churchl = (
Request for approval of revise~ ~ians -
Property locatad on tne taest side of
Western Avenue, souch of Lincoln Avenu~e
,
an:d kno~vn as 217 Sout:s iJestern A~eaue.
Assistant Zoni.~a Supervi~~~ _*a1col:n Slaughter.revietved for the Commisaioa
:;
the locat+
on of the
_
.progert;~ and the proposal to shift:, the 5-story butlding ~
to tti'e eagLCrly.:'portion. of the .site •"that ` '~
westerly propaity line,
were b`
i > parking was proposed,along the
snd essentially; the parking anc' bui3din
areas
~
e
ng rpversed.
- g
`
. - ' , ;~
:~:
Comm±sgioner Seymoux offere2'i a motidn to anp,rove revised plans marked
Exh°bit No: 4
Revi
inn ?
,
s
~i0TI0N CARRIED.
-;
Vo. l. Commiss..one~r RowYand seconded the motion.
. -
r ~
ITEtf NQ. 2
CONDITIONAL USE.PERMIT N0. 1155 ~ "'
(Questa Development Cornor~tion) - !
?'roperty`located on th? north.side of
La.Palma Avenue apuroximately 415 feet
east of Euclid Street - Reauest for an' ~
exteasion of time to`establish a 120-bed
nursing home and 150-bed._board and care
home for ' the aged, v; Ctl 4Tfliver of tre
_ maximum area of a free-standing sign.
I ~
~
~ <
~'_~ .. .1`' ~
i a'}, i" .
cZ. y 1'Y~ ' $ ~-_
-~'n- Y ;t~;J )1 . . '
_.~ ..... ~ . ~ ... . .. ~ . ... ' " ..
~~ `F ~
~ - ~• ..~. ,
,,
~,
~. /
I
MINUTES, GITY PLANNING;,COMMISSION,~December.28;~,1970 5.564
, , , ,.
` k£P;ORTS, AND~ ' . .. _
. .;: ' . _ .
>::
~ -` RECOMMEND'ATIONS -." ITEM~ NO:, 2 ~ (Cbntinued) ';
_. Assistant~;Zoning Supervisor Malco3.n Slaughter reviewed.the..location of
sub3ect,:p.roperty, ,uses estab~liali:ed in,::;close ~proximity; „urevious~ zoning .
,~ action on,..the,`pr~perty, .aAd the~'fact~~that ,the.,p'etitioner had:';not:met the
conditions-.of approval.on~either;~the r'eclassi£ica,tion,or.the`coaditioaal
r use,•permit;-..that ~he'peti,tioaer ~was requesting a 30-day -extension of time,
but since;~~the ~zoning-:action tiad :aot been coinpleted and~ an ordinance had not
: been read; it~appeared unlY~kely that;a ~30 daq extension:iaould be sufficient -
and:staff'would~ie'commend ~a loager extension o£..t~imw. '`;
. -., ..
_ ~ _
_,
„
- , . , ,, , . ,. , .
Commiasioaer Rowland:offPred na motionf:.to gr:ant a s{'x ;month e'xtension o£
time for:the completion of:;;conditions;'for:Conditi;onal,:Use~PErmit No: ?155,
retxaactive, to November 9,~'.1970,= said :time,'extens3on to' expise May .9; `1971,
and"that •Ehe ~City Co;ur~cil~:b;e; urgad to, grarit` a;similar._`extensYon of time `on
;:Reclassifi'cation No ~:'66 67=:75 ~';Commi'ss'ioner Raywood~.seconded .the motion.
MOT.ION' CAR?tIED. ` • •`;
,.:~
r,
.
ITE?~I, N0 .':i.3
PROPOSED°iSTREET NAME CHANGE -
8,unkist ;Stieet" to Miralo+na Avenue. _
~,' Assistaat-2oning Sup,ervisor~Malcolm Slaughter noted for the:Commission that
the:Traffic E~ngineer~-had.indicated th'e,ie appeared to be some difficulty in
':~ locating Miraloma Avenu~:iv.hen 'traveTiag surface:streets and:suggested thaE
perhaps•Sunkist`~Street nor.therly -from•La Pslma-Avenue;to the overcrossing
_, oE. tfie Riverside Freeway be~ reaamed ,Mi'raloma :Avenue - this r'woul'd~:enable:
signing`at'.the?break:at La'Pa1ma:Avenue;,,and since no residents'or addresses
w.oul~ be';affected on Sur,kist Stieet norih of`La`Pa1ma Avenue; this',would not
,
create a::hardahip, and~s;taff would recommend consideration:of a'pubic
tieaiing for said street name change. ' '
Commissioner Ra{~land offezed a,motion'to direct~the staff to set for public
hearing~,:considerafion of a,street name change for_ Sunkist Street northerly
:of,:La Patma,Aveaue to tha'overcorssing of:the Riverside Freeway`to Miraloma
Avenue; said,.,public tiearing schedulefl for January 25; 1971. Commissioner
Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM,NO. 4
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0..630
( . (Shawn & Company) - Property located
midway between Kraemer Boulevard and
( - B1ue Gum Street adjscent to and south
of the Orange County 51ood Control channel
i and easterly of the proposed extenaion of
~ Red Gum Street - Request for approval of
; , plans foz development of the property,
Aesistant Zoning S?upervisor *ialcolm Slaughter reviewed for the Commission
the loctstion of sub~ect property, uses es*_ablished in clase proximity, and
the.reauest for:approval-of plans, noting this was.a condition of the
resolut3on in approving the:conditional use ~ermi.t, and that the petitioner
was.groposYng to constzuct a one-story, 1730--3quare foot, wooden s2ructure
for the storage'of equipment and materials.
The Gommi.ssion reviecved tha plana as presented.
Conmissioner Rowland.offered a motion to anpr~ve development plans £or
Conditicn.al Use Permit,No. 630, Exhibit No. ].. Commissioner Seymaur
seconded.the motion.: MOTION CARRIED.
;
~
' -;'
i
i
f
~
~
,..
i
-
~I
I
~
~
~
~
,. .
,.
,..
r:::~
,,
~:'<
qi~,
: ;;'
`; .
,•:
V' ~~~i.
,.
':~
.. °>~~
, ,
r ~a~P
• II
1 ~ r
~, ~
i r =
r 4 ~ ~
~~. ;
r
, i
r ,
, ~t
~ 4 l
'Ti.~ '"~~~ t:W
_ ~ `~
~ r
.
~
t
+A
~ ...r. ....
.r ~._C. • ~.iY. ~e. .~i..
~n ~ ,
.
i l's" ~s ~ a1Yi.".y~ tt -J~~..l 1> ti ~: n4 .+nS .'t 4 1 ~~, `
ing:° ad
d~
`o
'
~
~ourne
~a}~t~
7, OO~P
M
~~~ ~5~ y':~. i ^Lt~ty.~J(,,.~~~+r+"» " ~ ~..i f - ~ ~~`' T ~ r
~
~
xrilY„l • r e
'~fr 1~r1Sj t
~~ 1µ~V.~~f$~~ip~~. C
y~~L~.~ (~1~r M1 ~
4 ~
1~~
d
,'
Y,
A
`
~
-
F
~
i~.~J
~
,
Y
~
4'F.r
~~
Y 'iIS
~~b~
~
~y
"
3'~ ~f!
li~
WA
~1
~
~'
~
'
'1}.
~n#
{
..
~ (
^ 3. I
7~
.
~t'11
~ r
,,
~tRespe
c
tfull
~ s
u mi`tte
: °
~
~
,j
~
,
y
~
,
, ,
a~
~ ~ r~t^"~~t r y ~ ~ ,
~ ys ... ~ F. ~
~~' * ~ ~~ x ~ ~
~~~'~
h
l+f
'~
S.
~
~
Z
~
f
i
i r "
~
. a
.
u
` ~
M1 \o-y ~i~l'~v Y".,~t'.3~q .. ~ ~: A r
~'~
AI
H
R~
"S
e
'
`
`t ',
~
,xa
v
t~
REBS~;
ecr
tar -
+: ,
r:'
_
Y ~
~.~
r
~
~
~`
A
j
.
~~
, ,: ~
~
3 t ~~ .t.~ .,..•
a ., %'
-F-
aah eim~ C
P
«
,
~
p~Planning Commissi '
,
,
,
s ,{3 ~
oa
ty ';
.Lf+ ~.i ~` a'~e t
ftr.a iE~S~t t•.'hY t uy.., ~
i: Mr~
S
,
'
i/J
.
i?~~ 1l4if ~. - JS > ~ .~ . 5 ) ~ + . 1 ~ ~
~1 c +t
~
'
.
:Yi. ' 6
.'tT ~~w S ~-. ~ 1
AX'`~a ~~ i ..i ,
.:
~ Yr '~L ~
zb
. .
,
.l
~ ~ •' ~ 1 F Y:~.~~t`~
L~:~ 4 1
~
C
n j~/~-: ? ~ ~~ ~ m il ~ .. . !:~ Y t
~~~ i .~rr~i S.~
L f
l 4 Y ~}\
\.~}
e y~ ( \
/
y
f
L
~
~~ ~r t ~ : ` } . .. ~
~
-. ~r~E ~ ~
r r ~ ~
~i ~„ 5 '-
~1
~ > '• r .~~i'~
~ ~~
.
v
~
l Y .. A
it
~r ~1.. Y
'
~
~ .
}_
.U
~ x ~ _ ,._ ~
~t~~~. i `~ Su
'
) ~
. !
Y ~
i
h
,,
L~ Y~ 4 I: l'~ ~ ~ ~) 1 •
1 ~ 1 {-
1
`~
;
^ '
r ~ ~ ~ l
~ ~ 1
:.
1
µ
F
.
[.
u .. (]~`; "AI ~ : t ~f C ~ ~ ,.I !
"
~ I
.
"'~ f ~.VYI S
l tl.
I ~
'
~r~
~
'Y
~
~
~ 4Y
~
~ ?
lr
.
n/
. ~
i ~
~
r
4} / ~ l~.n t 1 ~If'(~'ll(, ~ ~
'
~
`
~
4
.
7 s-
~ v~:
-~
+.~ ' - y
`
~' z"~ .:m T -~t
~~~~i 6 `~ 4y r~k n ' ~<< [ ~ ~~ < r
.
t ~
s
~ r
~
.
r
~ , ~ ~:~ `. ..+ ~ j p/
i
+
a 4 r {~q.
~ .~ 1.7(\ .~ ~.,
~ „ < ! ~Y. ,' a vR yL Lx . + a - {
~• ~ i
~
~
~
'
~
~
( y
( 1
SS ~~
f 'l 1
Y ~ ]ll ~.~ 1
Y f
f ~ 4G ~' S ~ a
L .
~ 1~~ 4 Y ", ~. t ~ AY" ~~l .~F - f J C
~'^l
h
~
~
~
~
~y1.
.:.
.'
)
f ~J"34 v.l f~~t~
)
~ ..'
~
y i
~ ~~i~~i~ 't ,'f~4 4~ tii r. / `n
t'(>a:, ~
~ ;~. r ;.:
-
. ~
7
y
r ~ ~.
~~ i
(1 4 FY \
K~ ~ 1 ~i / ~~. 1~ -1.
f
~/
~
~
N
.
~
H ~~ 'A . ~
~~ f ~
J~r. ~ Y/ ~ S~~,n~ ~ yi 'y A 4
~
.
~
~
~' i ~
5 4
.W
x`I 7T 4 l
~ '~'f~~<
~
i 1 L
- ~
~ .
!
~
..
~Ri. a ;,.: ~f7 +~.,< < r, , ~ ~ .
r
~
x
",~J ~; " J .~ frn Y~j ..,a. ' f ~
?'
~
t w
~ '` ~
"
'
~ . ~.:n Sr A
~ r
> ~
rY L ,, , ; ~ t ( .'. i
Y
~ ~
}
7,
C
C
.,4 .
i~: ~~ .~ .~ r r .'
^
~ ~ :
t <x
~ ~ W
^;
.' ~l'
, } A
:, ~
%5 °Lr i
~:
, .I
r
.
, } _,
,rv ~ . ~t
,
\
p
f 1 I„ .~ N~ u Z~.l J
a f~ ~,
~. 1. ~ ..~ si '• '
t
~ V~S 41 ~1. 1.~ :< _ .
\ I
u
4 ~~ J
J J~~~
~`
~
.
a
~1
~
Y '.'~ I :: ~ l
.: } '1 ~~\
l
. ~
j
.
~~ J ~~.: y Yt ..,
.
j n
. l ` ~ .. '
3
~
,
}
t~s i Z f J. _ r
1
n
' N,^'~
-
;~ w~ y
~
,
> x
~~ r v
'L~! l f ~~, ( \ J ..
~
,
~
'
~
. l
~ f~t ~ ~ i.: 1>
1 j
`
~
l \
' ~:
l
1 ~
.
~
.
P ~y y
~
~
~
t
~
~
l.
(
~
ty_
~
k
A
`~ ~ ~~4~ S ~~'~ 4 ~
~ ~~~1
S
] ~.ftl .rC1
N .
L~
~
Y ir7 ,.t~ ~ e :., .
o
~ ~r
. ~ ~~
;,~F
~
..~
~
~ 1 1 ~.,
i~ v.n ~~ -
~~~~
~
~
o ~. ~ ~ c z
,,
+o,~ti ~ A,, 5
: k
i
6(G ~ .. f )
f IY..
~
~ ' t '~ '• / d
' ~
V F
I
~ W:
J
Ci
,
~ t
- i
~:~
,
~ ,
~ r k
~ . .syf'
~ .
p~ ,r
!
::
, ~
.. ~.~.,_ ?~ t,
}
:~f
1:
- r `,~.
~ ' ,. ' . .. .
~^
"
, ai;
~
~ '
t^
`~
!,
y :
e~
,. •tifi
,
`
~ ~'
l
' J.
> ~
t ~..
' f
: ' . 4
~ ~
,
t
'
1 ~ ~
1 i
'
'
1 i
~ i
t l~ i :
~ f':
> , 3
'
~ ~J t
.:';
i ~
r
~ _ ;,~,
~
~,
_
- s
. s ~~~ .f;<>.
-. -
;
' y~., ~
"
-
* ~r,n^