Minutes-PC 1972/10/18~
City Hall
Anaheim, California
October 18, 1972
A REGUI,AR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was
MEETING called to order by Chairman Seymour at 2:52 p.m., a quorum
being present.
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Seymour.
- COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Faranor Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland.
ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Nane.
PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thonipson
Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry
Office Engineer: Jay Titus
Zoning Supervisor: Charles Roberts
Assistant Zoning Supervisar: Don McDaniel
Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs
PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Farano led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the
ALLEGIANCE Flag.
APPROVAL OF - Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to approve the minutes
THE MINUTES of the meeting of September 6, 1972, seconded by Commissioner
Herbst, and MOTION CARRIEDr subject to the following corrections:
pq, 72-580, para. 6, line 3: count (not country)
Pg. 586, para. 6, line 5: vein (not vane)
Pg. 591, para. 7, line 1: Mr. Hezbert (not Herbst)
Pg. 592, para. 10, line 2: assure "the" (nut thy)
"
....
Pg. 596, para. 16, line 1, insert: only the "rooftoP,s and
Pg. 605, last para., line 2, rewrite as fol'_ows: "Commissioner
Kaywood stated that these were very attractive homes,
but she was appalled at the parking situation. The
two-car garages which had their doors open showed some
of them with two cars in the garage, others had none,
13 cars were parked in the driveways, another had three
bicycles and one car in the driveway. in addition t~
two cars in the garaqet still others had various stor-
age items in the
Pg. 606, first para.,continue: garage; and that she had counted
38 cars, trucks and station wagons parked in garages,
driveways and in the street, while there were only 17
homes. They were parked bumper-to-bumper, even com-
pletely blocking driveways, and not all the homes were
occupied. That included parking along the undeveloped
~
side of the street."
Pg. 6?3, para. 10, line 3, insert: "argumentative, irritable,
impatient"
Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to approve the minutes of
the meeting of September 18, 1972, seconded by Commissioner
Allred and MOTION CARRIED, subject to the following corrections:
Pg. 642, para. 5, line 4: Dale and "Katella" (not Ball Road)
Pg. 646, para. 2, line 5, insert: slatted "immediately"
Pg. 647, para. "8b, line/~', insert: plant "15 gallon" eucalyptus
Pg. 652, insert: "The meeting ad~'ourned at 6:40 p.m•"
Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to approve the minutes o£
the meeting of October 2, 1972, seconded by Commissioner Allred
and MOTION CARRIED, snbject to the following corrections:
Pg. 655, para. 10, line 2: September "6" (not 5)
Pg. 656, para. 11: Commissioner Seymour ~bstained.
Pg. 659, para. 6, line 4: "Roof supports" (not units)
pg. 659, para. 9r lines 10 & 11, insert: "roof line" - delete:
"housinq units....thru word roof"....
72-661
~
r"1
~~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1972 72-662
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS
Chairman Seymour noted that all public hearing items except Nos. 10, 15, 16,
and 17 would need Environmental Impact Reports in accordance with a recent
California Supreme Court ruling and requested Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry
to explain it.
Mr. Lowry noted that because of a recent California Supreme Court decision on
the Friends of Mammoth vs. Mono County, the City was now requiring that an
Environmental Impact Report be submitted before the Planning Commission could
consider a petition on properties under the City's jurisdiction.
Mr. Lowry further noted that~the guidelines had been established by the Devel-
opment Services Department, and anyone interested in what was being required
could obtain a copy in that department as to what had to be submitted before
the Commission could consider a petition.
Chairman Seymour noted this was addztional "red tape" created by the State
Suprene Court, but if anyone was not aware of how it would affect them, the
Commission would be happy to answer any questions, if there were any.
Mr. Glen Marshall, representing Shell Oil Company, agent for item Nos. 3
through 8, requested that rather than continue these items for f.our to six
weeks as suggested by stafE, he would request that these be scheduled for the
October 30, 1972 meeting since it was their intent to submit Environmental
impact Reports on these items before the end of this week.
Mr. Henry Chuba, representing the agent for the petitioner on item No. 13,
Variance No. 2453, requested that said variance also be scheduled for the
October 30, 1972 meeting since he would have the report ready for the staff
before the end of this week.
An interested person in the Council Chamber inquired what was proposed for
Conditional Use Permit No. 1344; whereupon Mr. Lowry noted that the agent for
the petitioner had conxacted him just prior to the meeting and had advised him
tha*. a four to six-week continuance was acceptable to them.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts indicated that he could see no reason for
delaying the scheduling of the Shell Oil Company signs for the next meeting,
nor could he see any reason for delaying Variance No. 2453, which was also a
sign request; and that the City Council had continued a number of items
scheduled before them since ihey ~acked an Environmental Impact Report, snd
that some of these would be presented to the Planning Commission at future
meetings for a report and recommendation to the City Council.
Commissioner Kaywood noted that there would not be a full Planning Commission
for the November 13, 1972 meeting; there£ore, she would suggest that those
items proposed for a four-week continuance be scheduled instead for November~
27, 1972, for a full Commission.
~
MINDTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October lA, 1972 72-663
VARIANCE NO. 2442 - PUBLIC HEARING. STAFAC, INC., 120 Broadway. New York,
New York 10005, Owner; SHELL OI~. COMPANY, P. O. Hox 4090,
Anaheim, California 92803, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF
(a) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (b) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-
STANDING SZGNS, AND (c) MINIMUM HEIGHT OF FREE-STANDING SIGN TO ALLOW A"SELF-
SERVE" SIGN IN ADDITION TO TWO EXISTING FREE^STANDING SIGNS on property des-
cribed as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approxi-
mately 150 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue, having a maximum depth of
approximately 150 feet, and being lucated at the northwest corner of La Falma
Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL~ ZONE.
Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and
MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration of Petition for Variance No. 2442
to the meeting of October 30, 1972, to allow time for the submission of an
Environmental Impact Report.
VARIANCE NO. 2443 - PUBLIC HEARING. EDWARD W. BONKOSKY, TRUSTEE. 60Q West
Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California 92805, Ownerj SAELL
pII, COMPANY, P. O. Box 4090, Anaheim, California 92803,
Agent; requesting WAIVER OF (a) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (b)
MINIMUM DZSTANCE BETWEEN FREE-STANDING SIGNS~ (C) MINIMUM HEIGHT OF FREE-
STANDING SIGN, AND ~d) MINIMUM DISTANCE OF FREE-STANDING SIGN FROid ABUTTINC
PROPERTY TO ALLOW A"SELF-SERVE" SIGN IN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING FREE-STANDING
SIGN on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land havinq a
frontage of approximately 140 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, havinq
a maximum depth of approximately 139 feet, and being located at the souiheast
corner of Lincoln Avenue and Euclid Street. Property presently classified
C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL~ ZONE.
Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and
MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration o£ Petition for Variance No. 2443
to the meeting of October 30, 19?2, to allow time for the submission of an
Envirozmental Impact Report.
VARIANCE NO. 2444 - PUBLIC HEARING. SHELL OIL COMPANY, P. O. Box 4090. Anaheim,
Cali£ornia 92803, Owner; requesting WAIVER OF (a) MAXIMUM
NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (b) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN
FREE-S'.PANDING SIGNS, AND (c) MINIMUM DISTANCE OF FREE-STANDING SIGN FROM ABUT-
TING PROPERTY TO ALLOW A"SELF-SERVE" SIGN IN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING FREE-
STANDING SIGN on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
having a frontage of approximately 135 feet on the west si.c~e of Euclid Street,
having a maximum depth of approximately 150 feet, and being located at the
southwest corner of Euclid Street and Glenoaks Avenue. Property presently
classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and
MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration of Petition for Variance No. 2444
to the meeting of October 30, 1972, to allow time for the submission of an
Environmental Impact Report.
VARIANCE NO. 2445 - PUBLIC fIEARING. EDWIN J. ERICKSEN, 800 Pine Ridge K.:oll,
Fullerton, California 92632, Owner; SHELL OIL COMPANY,
P. O. Box 4090, Anaheim, California 92803, Agent; request-
ing WAIVER OF (a) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (b) MINIMiTM DISTANCE
BETWEY~N FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (c) MINIMUM HEIGHT OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN, AND
(d) MINIMUM DISTANCE OF FREE-STANDING SI3N TO ABUTTING PROPERTY TO ALLOW A
"SELF-SERVE" SIGN IN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING FREE-STANDING SIGN on property
described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of
approximately 125 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue, having a maximum
depth of approximately 125 feet, and being located at the northwest corner of
Katella Avenue and Brookhurst Street. Property presently classified C-1,
GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NE.
Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and
MOTION CARRIED, to continue considerati.on of Petition for Variance No. 2445
to the meeting of. October 30. 1972, to allow time for the submission of an
Environmental Impact Report.
• . -. e
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1972 72-664
VARIANCE NO. 2446 - PUBLIC HEARING. HELEN H. GR7FFES, 2810 Seaview Avenue,
Corons Del Mar, California 92625, Owner; SHELL OIL COMPANY,
P. O. Box 4090, Anaheim, California 92803, Agent; sequest-
ing WAIVER OF (a) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS AND (b) MINIMUM DISTANCE
SETWEEN FREE-STANDING SIGNS TO ALLOW A"SELF-SERVE" SIGN IN ADDITION TO AN
EXISTING FREE-STANDING SIGN on property desrribed as: A rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 146 feet on the east side of
Euclid Street, havinq a maximum depth of approximately 150 feet, and being
located at the northeast corner of zuclid Street and Romneya Drive. Property
presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
Commissioner Kaywood offered a a~otion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and
MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration of Petition for Variance No. 2446
to the meeting of October 30, 1972, to allow time for the submission of an
Environmental Impact Report.
VARIANCE NO. 2497 - PUBLIC HEARING. SHELL OIL COMPANY, P. O. Bos 4090, Anaheim,
California 92803, Owner~ requesting WAIVER OF (a) MAXZASUM
NUMHER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS~ (b) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN
FREE-STANDING SIGNS, AND (c) MINIMUM HEIGHT OF FREE-STANDING SIGN TO ALLOW A
"SELF-SERVE" SIGN IN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING FREE-STANDING SIGN on property
described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of
approximately 160 feet on the north side of Ozangethorpe Avenue, having a
maximum depth of appoximately 150 feet, and being located at the northeast
corner of Orangethorp~= Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard. Property presently
classified C-1, GEtvERe1L COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and
MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration of Petition for Variance No. 2447
to the meeting of October 30. 1972, to aYlow time for the submission of an
Environmental Impact Report.
VARIANCE NO. 2453 - PUBLZC HEARING. INCOME EQUITY LTD. OR INTERNATIONAL 6,
INC., 901 Dover Drive, Suite 102, Newport Beach, California
92660, Owner; J& E SIGh COMPANY, Attention of Henry Chuba,
7582 Acacia Avenue, Garden Grove, California 92641, Agent; requesting WAIVER
OF MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A I'REE-STANDING SI~N TO ERECT A 50-FOOT HIGH, FREE-STANDING
SIGN on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land having a
frontage of approxima.tely 225 feet on the south side of Ball Road, having a
maximum depth of approximately 210 feet, and being located approximately 123
feet east of Palm Street. Property presently classified C-0, COMMERCIAL OFFICE,
20NE.
Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and
MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration of Petition for Variance No. 2453
to the meeting of October 30, 1972, to allow time for the submission of an
Environmental Impact Report.
VARIANCE N0. 2438 - READVERTISED. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. RICARDO DURAN,
301 North Sluerock, Anaheim, California 92806, Owner;
requesting WAIVER OF (a) MINIMUM FLOOR AREA, (b) MINIMUM
SIDE SETBACK. ~C) MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES, AND (d) MINIMUM DISTANCE
BETWEEN BUILDINGS TO CONSTRUCT A 3-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING IN CONJUNCTION WITH
AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING on property described as: A rectangularly-
shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 47 feet on the sonth
side of Sycamore Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 171 £eet, and
being located approximately 74 feet west of the centerline of Sabina Street.
Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTZAL, 20NE.
Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Rowland and
MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration of Petition for Variance No. 2438
to the meeting of November 27, 1972, to allow tiu~e for the submi3sion of an
En'•:ironmental Impact Report and for a full Commission.
~
~..
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18. 197~ 72-665
VARIANCE NO. 2441 - PUBLIC HEARING. ARTIE P. J~L•7ETT, JR., 1835 South Lewis
Street, Anaheim, California 92805, Owner; JESS JEWETT,
1835 South Lewis Street, Anaheim, Californi+ 92805, Agent;
requestinq WAIVER OF (a) PERMITTED OUTDOOR USES AND (b) REQUZP.ED MASONRY WALL
FOR SCREENING UUTDOOR USE TO ERECT A CHAINLINK FENCE AROUND AN OUTDOOR INDUS-
TRIAL USE AND STORAGE AREA on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 117 feet on the west side of
Lewis Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 209 feet, and being
located approximately 515 feet south of the centerline of Katella Avenue.
Property presently classifted M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE.
Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Rowland and
MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration of Pe+:ition for Variance No. 2441
to the meeting of November 27, 1972, to allow time for tne submission of an
Environmental Impact Report and foz a full Commission.
VARIANCE NO. 2448 - PUBLIC HEARING. R. C. JEWETT ANP DIXIE STEPHENS, 1111
East Commonwealth Avenue. Fullerton, California 92631,
Owners; 30MAINE CORP., Attention of Louis Mann, 2121 South
Bundy Drive, Los Angeles, California 90064, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF PER-
tdITTED USES TO ESTABLISH A CAR CARE CENTER on property described as: An
irregularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximateiy 134 feet
on the south side of Katella Avenue, havinq a maximum depth of approximately
150 feet, and being located approximately 196 feet east of the centerline of
State College Boulevard. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL,
ZONE.
Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Rowland and
MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration of Petition for Variaace No. 2448
to the meeting of November 2'i, 1972, to allow time for the submission of an
Environmental Impact Report and for a full Commission.
VARIANCE N0. 2450 - PUBLIC HEARING. STEPAN CHEMICAL COMPANY, 1211 North Olive
Street, Anaheimr California 92801, Owner; INDUSTRIAL PALLET
COMPANY, P- O. Box 2291, Westminster, California 92683,
Agent; requesting WAIVER OF (a) PERMITTED USES, (b) PERMITTED OUTDOOR ACTIVI-
TIES, (c) MINIMUM LANDSCAPED SETBACK FROM SECONDARY HIGHWAY, (d) MINIMUM LAND-•
SCAPED SETBACK FROM LOCAi, ST?tEET, (e) REQUIRED SOLID MASONRY WALL AROUND OUT-
DOOR USES~ ANA (f) REQUIREMENT TFIAT PARKING AREA BE IMPROVED TO ALLOW OUTDOOR
INDUSTRIAL USE AND STORAGE AREA on property described as: A rectangularly-
shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.6 acres, having a frontage
of approximately 250 feet on the west side of Olive Street, having a maximum
depth of approximately 455 feet, and being located approximately 660 feet nozth
of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. Property presently classified M-2, HEAVY
INDUSTRIAL~ ZONE.
Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Cammissioner Rowland and
MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration of Petition for Variance No. 2450
to the meeting of November 27, 1972, to allow time for the submission of an
Environmental Impact Report and for a full Commission.
VARIANCE NO. 2452 - PUBLIC HEARING. RUSSELL AND HETTIE TUCKER, 822 North
Anaheim Soulevard, Anaheim, California 92805, Owner;
HERMAN AND DOROTHY GALLARDO. 17272 Meadowview Drive, Yarba
Linda, California 92686, Agents; requesting WAIVER OF (a) PERMITTED USES AND
(b) MINIMUM PARKING AREA TO ESTABLISH AN AUTO SERVICE GARAG~ on property des-
cribed as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontaqe of aaprcxi-
mately 50 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard, having a maximum depth of '
approximately 152 feet, and being located at the southeast corner of Anaheim
Boulevard and Mills Drive. Property presently classified C-2, GENERAL COMMER-
CIAL~ ZONE.
Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, secoiided by Commissioner Rowland and
MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration of Petition for Variance No. 2452
to the meeting of November 27, 1972, to allow time for the submission of an
Environmental Impact Report and for a full Commission.
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1972 72-666
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. COLUMBUS AND MARIE WALLS, 601 ?vorth Lemon
PERMIT NO. 1344 Street, Anaheim, California 92805, Owners; HARRY KNISELY,
1741 South Euclid Street. Suite B, Anaheim, California
92802, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A BOARDING
HOUSE FOR SIX SENIOR CITI2ENS on properry described as: A rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land having a frontage o£ approximately 60 feet on the west side of
Lemon Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 151 feet, and being
located at the northwest corner of Lemon Street and Alberta Street. Property
presen*_ly classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Rowland and
MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration of Petition for Conditional Use
Permit No. 1344 to the meeting of November 27, 1972, to allow time for the
submission of an Environmental Impact Report and for a full Commission.
VARIANCE N0. 2451 - PUBLIC HEARING. ANAHEIM HZLLS, INC. AND TEXACO VENTURES,
INC., 380 Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim, California 92806,
TENTATIVE MAP OF Owners. ENGINEER: Willdan Engin ~ing Associates, 125
TRACT NO. 8075 South Claudina :~treet, Anaheim, Ca~~. rnia 92805; request-
ing WAIVER OF (a) REQUIREMENT THAT SINGLE-FAMILY STRUCTURES
REAR ON ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS, (b) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, AND (c)
MINIMUM LOT AREA TO ESTABLISH A 184-UNIT, SINGLE-FAMILY TRACT on property des-
cribed as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consistina ~f approximately
62 acres, having a frontage of approximately 2,600 feet on both sides of
Serrano Avenue and being located approximately one mile northeast of Nehl Ranch
Road. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Rowlanci and
MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration of Petition for Var:_ance No. 2451
and Tentative Map of Tract No. 8075 to the m~eting of November 27, 1972, to
allow time for the submission of an Environmental Impact Report and for a
full Commission.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - PUBLIC HF.ARING. LONDON, WEIL & COMPANY. 87?.7 West Third
REPORT NO. 6 Street, Los Angeles, California 90048, Owner; DOROTHY
HASENPLAUGH, 1731 South Euclid Street, Suite C, Anaheim,
VARIANCE N0. 2449 California 92802, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF MINIMUM
FLOOR AREA TO MUVE ON AN EXISTING DWELLING on property
descrihed as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
having a frontage of approximately 81 feet on the south side of North Street,
having a maximum depth of approximately 142 feet, and being located approxi-
mately 100 feet west of the centerline of West Street. Property presently
classifie3 R-O, ONE-FAMILY SUBURBAN, ZONE.
Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 3:05 p.m.
Two persons indicated their presence in opposition.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject
property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to relocate
a sinqle-family residential structure from 1105 North La Palma Circle to sub-
ject property; that the structure proposed to be located on the site was to
meet the site development standards of the R-0 Zone, however, the R-O Zone
requirec a minimum 2000-square foot ground floor living area for each residen-
tia= structure, whereas the move-on structure would contain only 1415 square
feet; that the applicant indicated this particular area of the R-0 2one con-
tained some single-family residential structures with less than the minimum
2000 square feet of living area; and that the Commission would wish to deter-
mine the effects of allowing this 1415-square foot home at this location in the
R-0 Zone.
Mr. McDaniel then reviewed the Environiaental Impact Report (EIR), noting that
althouqh the report submitted did not follow precisely the temporary guidelines
established for evaluatinq the EIR's. it would appear that it had covered the
pertinent points, namely, the advantage of moving the existing home from its
present location; the physical environmental improvements to the existing
vacant lot that would result from the proposal; the utility demandj and the
effects on the wild life. ~herefore, the Commission would wish to make the
determination as to whether or not the submitted EIR had sufficiently coverE'
the primary concerns in determining the appzonriateness of relocating the
single-family structure from one area oP Anaheim to another with less than the
required minimum floor area.
s
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMZSSION, October 18, 1972 72-667
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 6 AND VARIANCE NO. 2449 (Continued)
Mr. John Krajacic, representing the agent for tl~e petitioner, appeared before
the Commission and noted that the home proposed to be relocated on the property
had been inspected by the Building Division and appeared to be in a sound
conditiont that an 80-year old person living in the home to the west had stated
she would be glad to see this vacant lot developed with a home; that due to the
fact that the taxes were $400 a year on the vacant lot, developing the property
with a home was important; and that the home proposed to be moved on would not
be "junk" but would meet the Building Code requirements.
Mrs. Audrey Tuttle, 637 Lancer Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposi-
tion, presenting a petition in opposition and noting that she also owned a
home across the street; that the owner of the home at 1119 West North Street
was presently renovating the home and had rooms added to the home and was one
of the persois sigaing the petition in opposition on which there were signatures
of 10 homeowners in opposition to the proposed move-on; that the homes in this
area aere in the $50,000 price range; that the petitioner had presented pictures
of the homes on either side of subject property, with one home being in conform-
ance with Code requirement of 2000 square feet, while the other home was a sub-
standard home which had been there for a number of years; that the residents of
the area would not be oppased to a move-on provided ic. met the Code require-
ments; that the petitioner was aware of the fact when the lot was purchased
that a home of a minimum of 2000 square feet would have to be placed on the
property; and that the home to the east was a$65,000 home, and said property
owner also had signed the petition of opposition.
Mrs. William B. Pritchard, 757 North West Street. appeared before the Commission
in opposition, stating she resided immediately to the east of subject property;
that her home was also a"move-on ; that she was not opposed to a move-on of a
home on the lot to the west so long as it met the requirements of the area and
comparable to homes built in the area; that the pictures of homes presented by
the agent for the petitioner were not indicative of the $47,000 homes on West
Street which had been built recently; that the opposition strongly urged the
Planning Commission to require a home proposed for subject property be in con-
formance with Code requirements; that one could not compare the home immediately
to the west as typical of the homes in the area, particularly where this was a
rather old h~me or where other older homes had been built for a number of years;
that those now being built in the area were considerably larger than homes
built forty to fifty years ago; and that when they had moved into their home,
there was no opposition from the neighbors, and she had urged her neighbors to
check and verify ~che type of home thep proposed to move on, and the many neigh-
bors had indicated their approval of the move-on of their home - in addition,
she had presented artist's renderings and sketches which she had prepared for
the neighbors to view and all had indicated they were happy with the home they
had planned for the property at 757 North West Street. Furthermore, they had
received many compliments on their home; that she would recommend that any home
proposed for the area be something that would upgrade the area; and that even
if the petitioner added a room to the structure, the type of home proposed
would not fit into this area, which was one of the things asked by the City
when they proposed their move-on home.
yr. Krajacic, in rebuttal, stated he had pictures of the Tuttle and Pritchard
homes if the Commission wished to view them; that for the Commission's infor.ma-
tion, Mrs. Tuttle's husband wanted to purchase subject property and also move
on a house; that he had purchased this property in August; that the property
across the street had an old, wrecked, partially-disman~led car; and that
Mrs. Tuttle gave the wrong price of the homes in that area.
Zoning Supervisor Charles ~2oberts, in response to Commission questioning,
stated that a house move-on request went directly to the City Council i£ it
met the Code requirements of the zone in which it was proposed, however, a
similar public hearing was held on the house move-on, and there was no opposi-
tion at that time.
Mrs. Dorothy Hasenplaugh, agent for the petitioner and real estate agent selling
the property to Mr. Krajacic, appeared before the Commission and noted there
were many homes in the area that might be worth $45,000 to $47,000, but from
information obtained from a record which real estate agents referred to and
according to the IRS stamps on the homes, the home at lOlU West North Street
•
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1972 72-668
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 6 AND VARIANCE NO. 2449 (Continued)
sold for $27,000 on March 31, 1972; a~:other at 1211 West North Street sold for
$29,500 on May 31, 1972; that one at 1119 West North Street sold for approxi-
mately 523,000 on March 1, 1972; and the one at 1014~West North Street sold
for SZBr500 on November 5, 1971 - these figures would indicate that although
Mr. Krajacic may be placing a cheaper priced home on the property, it would
be similar in price to what was already in the neighborhood.
Mr. Krajacic'3 daughter (no name given) indicated to the Commission that nothing
her father had done i_n the city before was "junky" but had been for the better-
ment of the city; that the lot was presently vacant; and that he would develop
this property in a very acceptable manner.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairman Seymour noted that the request before the Commission was not a ba~tle
of values or whether the home would be junk, or whether rubbish was in the
area or who got the first idea to develop the property, but whether any justi-
fication had been presented for the Commission to consider waiver of the zone
requirement of the minimum 2000-square foot homes to move on a 1415-squaxe foot
home; that the Commission was not concerned with where and what tyoe of home
was proposed to be moved on, therefore, he would request that the petitioner
give some evidence as to hardship. Furthermore, the Commission was fully aware
of the size of the homes that were in the area, particularly the small ones,
but these were homes that had been constructed prior to zoning this area R-O,
and since the R-O Zone was established, there had been no homes of less than
Zppp square feet built, to his knowledge.
Mr. Krajacic noted that he had purchased this home for $27.000, and he also
owned the lot; that he could convert the garage into a family room, although
he did not want to do that; and that the Pritchards had requested that he pave
his driveway, even though they had not paved theirs.
The Commission discussed at length the request of Mr. Krajacic and his offer
to bring the house to the minimum 2000 square feet; that the City Council made
the decision as to move-ons, and the Commission must decide whether evidence
was presented that would grant favorable consideration of the waiver requested,
and upon its conclusion, the Cominission determined that the petitioner had not
submitted evidence to grant favorable consideration of waiver £or 30~ of the
sauare footage of the required 2000 square feet; and that since the petitioner
had indicated he could meet the 2000-square foot minimum, the Commission would
recommend that he submit plans to the Development Services Department in order
that these changes met the requirements as to setbacks, square footage, etc.,
of the zone rather than have the Commission consider them at a public hearing.
~ommissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-250 and mowed for its passage
and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2449 on the basis that the
petitioner had not demonstrated a hardship existed by the size and shape of
the parcel or that he was being denied a privilege enjoyed by other properties
in the vicinity and zone; furthermore, by the petitioner's own statement, the
proposed structure could be brought up to Code requirement by converting the
garage into a family room. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the fo].lowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72•-251 and moved for its passage
and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Environmental Impact Report
No. 6 would have no adverse impact on the environment if a home were constructed
on subject property, erovided, however, that it was constructed to meet Code
requirements. (See Resolution sook)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herhat, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
AgSENT: COMMISSIONEI2S: Rowland.
~ • ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNZNG COMMISSION, October 18, 1972 72-669
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - PUBLIC HEARING. ANAHEIM HILLS, INC. AND TEXACO VENTURES~
REPORT N0. 2 INC., 330 Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim, California 92806,
Owners; property described as: An irregularly-shaped
CONDITIONAL USE pazcel of land consisting of approximately 25 acres,
PERMIT NO. 1350 having a frontage of approximately 1046 feet on the sou`h
side of Serrano Avenue, having a maximum depth of approxi-
TENTATIVE MAP OF inately 1,000 faet, and being located at the southeast
TRACT NO. 8101 corner of Serrano Avenue and Nohl Ranch Road. Property
presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A 122-UNIT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP-
MENT WITH WAIVER OF (a) MINIMUM LOT AREA, (~)
MINIMUM LQT WIDTH, (c) REQUIREMENT THAT LOTS FRONT
ON A PUBLIC STREET~ AND (d) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT
WITHIN 150 FEET OF R-A Zone.
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUES T: ENGINEERS: Willdan Engineering Associates, 125
South Claudina Str.eet, Anaheim, California 92805;
proposing to subdivide a 25-acre parcel into 122
R-2 (PC) zoned lots.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - PUBLIC HEARING. ANAHEIM HILLS~ INC. AND TEXACO VEI~TURES~
REPORT NO. 9 INC.. 380 Anaheim Hills Road. Anaheim, California 92806,
Owners; property described as: An irregularly-shaped
CONDITIONAL USE parcel o£ land consisting of approximately 36 acres,
PERMIT N0. 1348 having a frontage of approximately 1,670 feet on the
south side of Serrano Avenue, having a maximum depth o£
TENTATIVE MAP OF approximately i,100 f2et, and being located approximately
TRACT NO. 7915, 1,235 feet east of the centerline of Nohl Ranch Road.
REVISION N0. 1 Property presently classi£ied R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A 220-UNIT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP-
MENT WT':FI WAIVER OF (a) MINIMUM LOT AREA, (b)
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, (c) REQUIREMENT THAT LOTS FRONT
ON A PUBLIC STREET, AND (d) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT
WITIiIN 150 FEET OF R-A ZONE.
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: ENGINEERS: Willdan Engineering Associates. 125
South Claudina Street, Anaheim, California 92805;
proposing to subdivide a 36-acre parcel into 220
R-2 (PC) zoned lots.
Commissioner Rowland returned to the Council Chamber at 3:34 p.m.
No one appeared in opposition.
A letter from the City of Orange, requesting the continuance of all projects
within Anaheim Hills until the next Planning Commission meeting pending the
result of the joint meeting of the Orange Unified School District and the City
of Orange City Council, was read by the Chairman of the Commission.
Chairman Seymour then requested clarification as to the meaning of this request.
Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson noted that the Orange
Unified School District had requested to meet with the Anaheim City Council,
and a tentative date was set for October 24, but because of a conflict of ineet-
ing dates since the Planning Commission was scheduled to have a work session
with the City Council, this date would be decided by the City Council on
October 24.
Chairman Seymour stated that the Commission needed pertinent information as to
why subject petitions should be continued•based on the request from the Orange
City Council.
Mr. James Barisic, Vice President of Anaheim Hills, appeared before the
Commission and stated that he had spoken with the Orange Unified School District
Business Manager, Harry Platt, just this date, and he was unaware of the letter
be£ore the Planning Commission - at least he made no mention in the conversation;
that the information they had exchanged might preclude the continuance request;
that they had been working very closely with the Orange Unified School District
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1972 72-670
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 2, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1350, TENTATIVE
MAP OF TRACT N0. 8101 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 4~ CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 1348, TENTITIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7915 REVISION NO. 1(Continued)
on all types of data, such as the projected school population, p7.ans in the
process of being approved and which had been approved by the City of Anaheim,
and Mr. Plant had not indicated any kind of a continuance; that the meetiny
they would be having on October 28 when they would review the school require-
ments in Anaheim Hills was based on tract maps approved and being processed,
and Mr. Platc indicated they would be able to handle the school requirements~
and that he had indicated where school sites would be placed, and Mr. Platt did
not feel there would be any problem.
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry noted that the request before the Planning
Conmission was from the Orange City Council and not from the Orange Unified
School District.
Mr. Thompson noted that the request for a meeting with the Anaheim City Council
was for the purpose of being updated on wh='. Anaheim proposed for this area,
and if there was a school problem, it may have been £rom the Orange Ci.ty
Council.
Commissioner Herbst observed that he could see no reason for continuance since
the Orange Unified School District was well aware of the plans for that area
for the past two years; that now that the projects were being proposed for
development, it would appear the school district was becoming a little per-
turbed; and that he did not feel this was sufficient reason for a continuance.
Chairman Seymour concurred with Commissioner Herbst's statement, noting that
the joint meeting would be held before subject petitions w~uld be considered
by the Anaheim City Council, and any additional information could be made at
that time.
Commissioner Kaywood noted that a continuance until the next meeting would not
be two weeks, and the Planning Commission might be doing the school district
a disservice if subject petitions were not continued, and then inquired as to
the number of school sites proposed.
Mr. Barisic noted there would be three elementary schools and one junior high
school site; and then in further response to questioning by Commissioner
Kaywood, stated this would encompass the latest densities as approved and would
also reflect the reduction in density for a planned community.
Chairman Seymour inquired as to the number of ineetings w~:ich Anaheim Hills had
held with the Orange Unified School District; whereupon Mr. Barisic stated that
since he had been with the company, four meetings had been held, and that he
had given Mr. Platt the projected densities about a month ago.
Mr. Thompson noted that staff had met with the school district and had gone
over and discussed the development proposals of Anaheim Hills w~ith the Orange
Unified School District Board.
Commissioner Farano then stated that he would move that the Commission proceed
with the public hearing of these petitions on the basis that even though he
appreciated the fact that the Orange Unified School District and the City of
Orange had a lot at stake, since their meeting would be prior to the Anaheim
City Council consideration of subject petitions, any additional information
could be incorporated for City Council consideration. Commissioner Herbst
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (Commissioner Kaywood voted "no")
Mr. Barisic then noted that they had reviewed the Report to the Commission and
found it very good, however, he would like to preface his comments to both items
15 and 17 since the developer was the same company, Hallcraft Homes - whereupon
the Commission indicated this would be acceptable.
Mr. Barisic stated that in accordance with the statement made by Commissioner
Herbst, Anaheim Hills had been planninq for two years to effectuate a planned
community in the Santa Ana Canyon area, and it was no'secret because the
Planning Commission had expended more time and Anaheim Hills had expended a
lot of money to determine what should be developed and the quality of the
development in the area; that it was master planned originally and refined
~
.~.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1972 72-671
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1350, TENTATIVE
MAP OF TRACT NO. 8101 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 4, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 1348, TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 7915. REVISION NO. 1(Continued)
with the plans being finalized five months ago when Anaheim Hills-Texaco
Ventures established the PC 2one and the first real community zone in the
Anaheim Hills. However, later there appeared to be some problem regarding
the underlying zone, with several persons being unhappy, however, they knew
the development would have to go ahead, and after numerous meetings and dis-
cussions, as well as hearings, they were now at a point where the City of
Anaheim PC Zone and Anaheim Hills would have an opportunity to bring this to
a culmination, making a development on the hills a reality; and that their
presence today was to review specific projects for development, and the
Environmental Impact Report supplements were made to the original EIR sub-
mitted some time ago for ttie entire ranch,which had been submitted in suffi-
cient time for consideration.
Mr. Barisic noted that the two planned residential developments before the
Commission was an attempt to create a unique community with good living and
quality development; that he wanted to emphasize the fact that there was a
reduction in the density with these two tracts encompassing 61 acre~ and
proposing 342 units, making it 5.6 units per gross acre; that this was a
unique hillside development which was not new to California but in terms of
Anaheim and Anaheim Hills, they were becoming involved in hillside development
wherein they would have unique elevations, taking advantage of the view poten-
tial for residents and vicitors to the area; and that some of the slope areas
were not pleasant to look at at this time, however, later tY.ese slopes would
be green instead of brown hills. Furthermore, h~ would like to say that the
units proposed by Hallcraft Homes for these two tracts were designed specifi-
cally for Southern California; that AnahPim HiZls would be the second largest
place for this project; that he was very interested in the price range which
would be the determining factor as to the quality of the project; t},-~t he was
not qualified to make comments regarding structural design, but th .~rice
range of these townhouses would be $27,000 to $32,000 per unit, ranging in
size from 854 to 1320 square feet, which was equal to, if not larger than,
many of the units in Anaheim, Orange County, and most of Southern California;
that he had o,one to six different developments' homeowners associations for
guidance in presenting the CC&R's to the Planning Commission; that he had done
a marketing research study in terms of single-family attached townhouses
throughout Southern California and Orange County since they were interested
in top quality development for Anaheim Hills; that there were six developments
comparable to Casa Canyon in Anaheim, these were Village Green by Leavitt &
Sons having a price range of $18,000 to $22,000 for units ranging in size of
1000 to 1200 square feet with a density in excess of 12 units per acre; that
Rancho Yorba proposed units ranging in size from 940 to 1400 square feet with
a price range of $23,000 to $25,000; that Smoke Tree had units ranging from
925 to 1500 square feet and were proposed to sell fro~ $16,000 to $23,000;
that the most recent one approved but not developed was the Westfield Develop-
ment at Dale Street south of Artesia Freeway with units from 825 to 1300 square
feet and 12 units per acre, however, he could not find any developments that
were comparable to the proposed type of development with the quality as exemp-
lified by the price range because the price of their units was considerably
higher than any he could find.
Mr. Barisic then noted that although it would appear these developnents had a
density of 12 units per acre a,s calculated on the flat land area only, one
must take into account these wE+re lots in hillside development wh~re there
would be slope areas, some of which would be green and planted, while other
slopes would serve as separations of development projects; that many of the
slope areas would be readily available for passive recreational activities;
that with the densities proposed, in reviewing t:~e PC Zone, the proposed
developments would be considerably less than the number of units originally
approved wherein Tract No. 7915 proposed 360 units, while this proposal now
was for 220 units, a considerable reduction ~rom the other proposal; that the
other tract area formerly was proposed for 186 units, but they now proposed
122 units, and as they developed the site plan, they would be developing and
building quality since it was necessary to comply with what was available as
it pertained to land in that area; and that the representative of the builder/
developer would discuss the plans in detail.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1972 ~2'6~2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1350. TENTATIVE
MAP OF TRACT N0. 8101 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 4~ CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 1348, iENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7915 REVISION NO. 1(Continued)
Mr. Thomas Breene, Vice President and General Partner of Hallcraft Homes,
appeared before the Commission, noting that they would be developing subject
property, and they proposed a maximum utilization of the site for this project
in terms of view and open space as opposed to the economic factors; that they
proposed to maintain the architectural character of the structures themselves
by trying to avoid the unbroken line appearance with the extensive use of wood
to obtain the "woodsy" effect of single-family homes and was also done by means
of planting greenery, designing the entryways differently, attaching the garages
in the front so that a resident could drive into the garage and walk from there
to the unit, thereby eliminating the clusterin~ of garages, and this was done
while still meeting the demand and satisfactioa of the average working man to
have a home of his own. In addition, there were larger renderings which indi-
cated a breaking ~ip of rooflines, extensive use of wood elevations with a
design that was not typical of townhouse designing; that they planned a fairly
flat rear patio with an alley where parking could also be at the rear; that
they had no alleys or sidewalks, but the individual houses would have walks
within the greenbelt area; and then presented these larger renderings to the
Commi~sion.
After reviewing the •renderings, the Commission determined that there were dis-
crepancies between the plot plan and the renderings, therefore, they would not
view them but would rather check the plot plan submitted.
Mr. Breene then indicated that the renderings he had presented indicated what
they intended to build on subject property.
The Commission noted that the plans appeared to be a group of row houses, and
the garages were all lined up like soldiers.
Commissioner Herbst inquired as to the width of the streets proposed in this
development; whereupon Mr. Horst Shor, representing the engineer.s, advised
the Commission that there would be a 25-foot minimum width of the streets
which would not provide access to the garages, while those providing access
to the garages would be 28 feet.
Commissioner Herbst then inquired where it was proposed to have on-street park-
ing with garage setbacks of only 6 feet and the width of the streets on2y 28
feet; whereupon Mr. Horst 3chor stated that each unit would have two garages,
while t.:.are was considerable guest parking centrally located which would be
easily accessible to most of the dwelling units, and they were far in excess
of the required parking since there were 80 open parking spaces for 120 units;
and then reviewed the areas where quest parking was proposed.
Commissioner Herbst noted that with the 28-foot street and with people driving
into their garages, this gave the appearsnce cE a narrow alley, and in similar
situations people parked their vehicles on the walkways to allow other cars to
pass by; that there were 10 to 15 similar developments in the County which the
Commission had viewed wherein this situation had been noted, and it was more
noticeable where only 6-foot garage access was available. However, if the
garage setback was provided where at least one car could be parked in the
driveway, this covld resolve this problem, and the other developments they had
viewed had provided adequate guest parking, but this guest parking was not used
because it was not close enough to where they wanted to go.
Mr. Schor then noted that the only solution then would be to go to public
streets with additional right-of-way.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether the automatic garage door openers would
be standard or would they be optional; whereupon N,r. Breene stated that these
would all be standard with each unit; that they tried to keep the vehicular
traffic down to a minimum to discourage parking on the street, and they had
dispersed the guest parking so that it would be conveniently located.
Commissioner Allred observed that the Commission had visited one project where-
in people were using sidewalks for parking purposes, just as they did in Europe;
whereupon Mr. Breene stated that the only way this could be resolved where some-
one had pulled up onto a sidewalk Eor parking purposes was through the home-
owners association such as was done in other developments wherein this problem
had been met.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1972
72-673
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 2, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1350~ TENTATIVE
MAP OF TRACT NO. 8101 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 4, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 1348, TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7915 REVISION N0. 1(Continued)
Chairman Seymour noted that the developer had remarked about the architectural
renderings and the texture proposed to overcome the barracics appearance and
inquired what the effects would be on this development if a variable setback
were proposed or required rather than lining them up in a row.
Mr. B•reene replied that the streets were rather broken up, and most of the
approaches were from an angle; whereupon Chairman Seymour noted that the
developer was talking about the curvilinear space, whereas he was talking about
the structural setback.
Mr. Breene replied that they could try to vary the setback, however, they had
separate entryways, and rear yards should be fairly uniform to maximize the
greenbelt area.
Continued discussion was held between Chairman Seymour and the developer
regarding ~he structural setback, elevations, and aesthetic appearance of these
typical row houses.
Mr. Schor, in response to further Commissioa questioning, stated that the green-
belt area was not a slope but was accessible green area, and then indicated
where these green areas were located, indicating that other substantial areas
were of natural slope which would be retained for children for hiking, playing,
and picnicking, and then suggested that the Commission ot compare flat land
area density with hillside densities since there was an additional 6+ acres
available to the residents of the area for recreational purposes which would
noc be available on flat land zoning.
Mr. Schor further noted that there would be children's playgrounds and recrea-
tional areas for the larger units, and that a recreational area was proposed
for both the lower and upper areas, with a pool also proposed.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired as to the size of the swimming pool, since it
would appear with the number of people contemplated to reside in this develop-
ment - approximately 200 persons - a very large pool would be necessary.
Mr. Breene noted that the swimming pool would be similar to what they presently
provided - although he did not know the exact size, it would be much larger
than a very small, apartment-size pooJ.. however, it would accommodate the
recreational requirements.
Chairman Seymour noted that Serrano Avenue was proposed as a secondary highway,
and the plans indicated a 25-foot to 35-foot setback from the secondary high-
way traffic, and then inquired whether Mr. Breene felt this was providing a
good living environment.
Commissioner Allred observed that the Commission had visited the site earlier
in the day, and it would appear this development would be on a flat land area.
Mr. Breene noted that they planned both f.lat land and elevation units; where-
upon Chairman Seymour noted that the majority would '.~ at grade level of the
street.
Mr. Schor, in response to questioning by Commissiones Kaywood, noted that they
would be clearing the area to provide pedestrian trails to recreational areas
which would have picnic tables, etc.; whereupon Commissioner Kaywood noted
that in order to gat to soma of these recreational areas proposed, one would
have to be a mountain goat in order to traverse the area, from what she had
observed in their ~isit to the property.
Mr. Schor noted that when one was driving along the road, one could not see
the flat areas or the stand of oak trees, however, children would make use of
the area in its natural state rather than artifically developing the area,
and this environment was not available in the flat land.
Commissioner Kaywood observed that these so-called recreational areas were
available because the developer could not build on them; whereupon Mr. Schor
stated that the areas could have been graded and more intense development occur,
but they wanted to leave it in its natural environment.
•
~
e
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1972 72-674
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1350, TENTATIVE
MAP OF TRACT NO. B101 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 4~ CONDITIONAL USE
PERtiIT NO. 1348 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7915, REVISION N0. 1(Continued)
Mr. Breene noted that in some areas they planned to grade for flatter areas.
Commissioner Rowland observed that it would appear the developer was developing
pads there and was not trying to work within the framework of the hillside
development.
Commissic,ner Herbst inquired as to the density of the project if the slopes
and recreational areas were eliminated; whereupon Mr. Schor stated that this
would be 12.7 units per acre, as staff had indicated.
Chairman Seymour observed this would exclude the streets on the pads also, and
then inquired whether or not this development would be served by underground
utilities; whereupon Mr. Sreene replied affirmatively.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether the 12 KV lines were proposed to be
underground as well.
Mr. Barisic noted that they had expez~ded $70,000 along Anaheim Hills Road so
that no overhead lines would be viewed, and alonq Nohl Ranch Road from the
point of the clubhouse site on, it would be undergrounded; that in terms of
Serrano P.venue with lines into this development, they had extended the lines
overhead through Oak Canyon where the lines would not be visible from the street,
however, they had initially planned temporary overhead lines, and at ultimate
development, these lines would go underground, therefore, he could assure the
Commission that the lines along Serrano Avenue and Nohl Ranch Road would ulti-
mately be underground. Furthermore, because there was another development pro-
posed between the Hallcraft proposal and Oak Canyon, the undergrounding would
have to be decided later on when the intervening development occurred.
Mr. Barisic, in response to Commissioner Farano's questioning. stated that the
12 KV lines et the clubhouse and Nohl Ranch Road would be underground, and any-
thing proposed for Nohl Ranch Road would be underground, however, those through
Oak Canyon which were not visible from the street would be aboveground.
Commissioner Herbst obsexved that there was a new addition to the area as
observed by the Commission, that being an overhead transformer, which was not
adjacent to the ranch house, but farther ups whereupo:: Mr. Barisic stated that
apparently this was a temporary one, as he was not aware of such a transformer
being proposed.
Commissioner Allred was of the opinion that setbacks of only 25 to 30 feet
from the secondary highway at grade was less than desirable.
Chairman Seymour noted that the Environmental Impact Report had a recommenda-
tion that any residences adjacent to Serrano Avenue be set back 170 feet to
minimize the sound effects; wher.eupon Mr. Barisic stated ~hat this setback was
indicated in the original report submitted to FHA, because some figure was
needed when the report was f:.led as to noise factor, and the 170 feet was con-
sidered the optimum for the ultra-conservative estimates of FHA, since they
did not have sound engineers, however, the report did not address itself to
there being a proble1., and if there was one, then a berm would be required, as
well as additional insulation of the walls facing the street, but they saw no
problem as it pertained to Serrano Avenue.
Chairman Seymour noted that perhaps the developer saw a noise problem since at
maximum there would be 12,000 vehicles per dayt whereupon Mr. Barisic stated
that if theze was a noise pollution problem, it would necessitate the creation
of a berm and a 10-foot high ~vall.
Mr. Breene advised the Commission there was the same grade level as the street,
and he would agree that additional noise-attenuating devices should be provided,
but normally they would provide a wall, however, this was a greenbelt area,
therefore, he felt adding to the sound attenuation of the building would be
more desirable since most people would agree it was the noise within a building
unit that tended to distract people; that in order to minimize these undesirable
sounds, another method for sound attenuation could be provided in addition to
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1972 72-675
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 2, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1350~ TENTATIVE
MAP OF TRACT N0. 8101 AND ENVIRONMEIQTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 4, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT N0. i348, TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7915, REVISION N0. 1(Continued)
the insulation of ti-e walls, which would be double-glass windows and patio
doors, and this could block out noise at grade level; and that they would
prefer providing sound-attenuating devices by means of adding insulation to
the walls of the buildings rather than berming.
Commissioner Kaywood noted that noises also came from within the units them-
selves, therefore, why didn't the developer plan sound-attenuating devices
for all units in~tead of those adjacent to Serrano Avenue; whereupon Mr. Breene
noted that there already were double walls proposed between the units.
Commissioner Rowland observed that there were many ways to ameliorate condi-
tions, but in reviewing the plans and knowing the type of living preferred in
Southern Culifornia where a great percentage of time was spent outdoors, and
the fact that sliding glass doors were proposed and the structures were oriented
to take advantage of the panoramic view out acroe:, the canyon, the developer was
still talking about enclosing environmental areas, :.nd the plans indicated open-
ing up the area, therefore, how was the developer proposing to reduce the sound
problems where living condition^ indicated an out3oor atmosphere, since the out-
side areas that took advantage of the view were directly on the street. but in
reviewing the EIR, it stated that in order to minimize these noises. there would
have to be walls on the individual patios separating the homes from the general
open space.
Mr. Breene noted tha*_ while they were trying to maximize the view, Commissioner
Rowland's statement was another argument for sound attenuation, and in those
terms, a 3-foot fence separating the patios from the berm could be provided
since they normally provided a 15-foot patio, and then in answer to a statement
made by Commissioner Rowland, stated that the sound might penetrate above the
fence, but it would be only a general sound.
Commissioner Rowland noted that 6-foot walls wer.e required in single-family
tracts where the homes were also required to back up to arterial highways in
arder to reduce the amount of naise.
Mr. Breene noted •that in evaluating the contents of th: impact statement, they
did have a comparable job at the time of the noise abatement requirements,
however, they cid not feel these were realistic, and engaged acoustical enqi-
neers, the same ones who had written this FHA requirement, however, they did
not agree with FHA, and FHA had pointed out that they did not have acoustical
engineers to make decibel studiesj that they had established maximums from
standard, and if the acoustical engineers made their study of subject property
which indicated potential noises, then the developer would have to study the
report.
Commissioner Herbst noted for the developer that the Rancho Yorba development
along imperial Highway proposed to provide a berm in lieu of the required
arterial setback. but when development occurred, there was no berm and very
few trees or sound-attenuating landscaping, and this could be what could happen
in the proposed project.
Mz. Sreene stated that anything they agreed to by stipulation or as required
by the Planning Commission would be done as agreed to.
Commissioner Herbst stated that the City had expected this to be the deluxe
area of A~~iheim, there£ore, the Commission would expect top quality units,
and the proposal of units only 25 feet from an arterial wheia 11,000 vehicles
~er day were anticipated, did not provide a good living er.vironnent, even
though the 12,000 vehicles per day would be the maximum development and night
be some years away.
Commissioner Herbst also noted that one must look at the overall circulation
for the canyor~ since 5errano Avenue tied in with the City of Orange and with
Santa Ana Caiiyon Road by way of Weir Canyon at the location proposed on the
General Plan, and unless somethi.ng was done to provide additional circulation,
this street would wind up as tne longest cul-de-3ac in the world, however, the
developers of Anaheim Hills should plan to provide additional access sir.ce from
present plans it appeared that Serrano Avenue would handle a considerable amount
of traffic fron any development in this canyon area.
0
~
MINUTES, CITX PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1972 72-676
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 2~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 135~~ TENTATIVE
MAP OF TRACT N0. 8101 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 4~ CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 1348, TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 7915, REVISION N0. 1(Continued}
Commissioner Rowland noted that he had no personal opposition to the plans, and
as the Commission and the developers knew, he had been fighting for freedom of
design in the hills; that he intended to continue to fight for that idea, how-
ever, from what was now being planned, it was his opinion that the land develop-
ers would have to be a little more forceful in the development standards before
he would fight for design freedom, particularly with this development with those
units fronting on Serrano Avenue where 10-unit buildings were proposed, one could
not see the 10-foot separation as a person drove down the street, and one could
see only a long line of buildings, and only single-story was proposed at each
end - this was not sufficient to break up the barracks appearance - this did
not look like a planned unit development, and it had all of the bad character-
istics of Bradford Place; that there were two concepts of developiny townhouses,
one where garages we.re together with the living units and residents could walk
in their front door, or garages separate fron the living units; that the pro-
posed development was not doing anything for the community, and the design stand-
ards being set up by this development would become the maximums, and he did not
personally believe in commenting on the professional skills as an architect and
planner, but his firm conviction was that the plans should be left up to design
concept of the architect, however, here the developer was presenting the first
element in Anaheim Hills, and he did not feel it met the design criteria en-
visioned for that area - it was just too uniform, and Anaheim Hills, Inc. was
just selling land and not designing a community.
Mr. Breene inquired whether Commissioner Rowland had reviewed the plans, and
where could he indicate there were better developments; whereupon Commissioner
Rowland noted that he had just returned from a trip to the East Coast, and a
good example of a wortk.while development was at /~eston, Virginia, but generally
speaking, there was little difference in townhouses where sizes were from 900
to 1300 square feet per unit.
Mr. Breene was of the opinion that this development was the best townhouse in
the market.
Commissioner Rowland noted that a better one that he had seen was at Lake St.
Louis.
Chairman Seymour r~oted that there was a development in Fountain Valley which
offered the va~iety of setbacks, to which Commissioner Rowland referred, and
another was in Cypress, called "Tanglewood".
Mr. Breene then stated that his reason for defendir.g the proposal before the
Commission was because they had spent a great deal of time and effort ~o do the
best possible job, and that they felt their proposal was a better product.
Chairman Seymour noted that he concurred with Commissioner Rowland's remarks
regarding variable setbacks, and i£ the developer would provide variable set-
backs, it could greatly improve this development and the two objections he
had with this project, and he hoped the developer and the Commission could do
something so that development could occur out in the hiils - these were set-
backs along Serrano Avenue where heavy traffic was anticipated and the type of
plans that was proposed to minimize these noises, as well as the external
appearance of the structures which did not appear to have the appearance of a
planned unit development but a set of row houses.
Commissioner Gauer note3 that he had also visited the two areas ~nentionen by
Commissioner Rowland, and the development in Reston, Virginia had a more
interesting circulation with curvilinear drives, and the structures were
located farther back from the streets, while the une in Columbia kas consider-
ed an elite residential area, with some tnwnhouses selling at 5125,000, while
the proposed development would not be interesting to drive through since it had
a similax• appearance as townhouses in San Francisco.
Commissioner Rowland observed that this could be resolved if the developers
wanted to, however, there was nothinq that could be done about the site plan.
Mr. Barisic stated that there was not juat one elevation on the larger padst
that the site at Serrano Avenue and Nohl Ranch Road was the site former].y
proposed as the equestrian center, which was now scheduled to be placed else-
where, and Hallcraft Homes proposed to build a quality development in Anaheim
~
~
~
MINL~TES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1972 ~2-6~~
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT P10. 1350~ TENTATIVR
MAP OF TRACT NO. 8101 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 4~ CONDITIONAL USE
PER~lIT NO. 1348, TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7915 REVISION NO. 1(Continued)
Hills because they had returned to Anaheim Hills after looking at another site;
and that there were three di£ferent developers interested in this site, which
should give the Commission some idea as to land planning.
Commissioner Rowland noted that land p:anning did not change, just development
on the land if a given number of units wa.~ planned.
Mr. Bar~sic also noted that he could not ccmment on the noise problem as it
pertaine3 to the artesials, therefore, he would suggest that the developer
answer this question.
Commissioner Farano disagreed with Mr. Barisic regarding sound problems and
stated he felt that all problems related to the property should be the concern
of Anaheim Hills since it was the 7.and use chat they proposed under the General
Plan for that area.
Comm£ssioner Gauer observed that the developers in the east had a very "woodsy"
atmosAhere, and trees were cut down L-o develop the project, however, Anaheim
Hills was almost completely harren, and many trees would have to be planted to
arrive at the same type of atmosphere as was found in the PRD's in the east.
Chairman Seymour noted that in order t., expedite matters, the Commission had
three alternatives: 1) close the hearing and take action, 2) continue con-
siderat3on for revised plans, and 3) recess for ten minutes to allow tim.: for
the developers to determine how this dilemma could be resolved.
Mr. Breene advised the Com:nission that he had no objection to providing sound-
attenuation devices for the units that were at grade level along Serrano Avenue
or re-studying the proposal regarding varied setbacks, nor would he have any
objection to providing a wall, however, the 6-foot wall would defeat what they
intended to do, since it would detract from the view; that a 30-inch wall would
retain the view but would do little for sound attenuation; and that ne would be
agreeable to one or the other, or even a combination of the two suggestions.
Chairman Seymour inquired what type of setback would be proposed if a combina-
tion of those was required, i.e., sound attenuation, setback, or wall.
Mr. Breene stated it would be very difficult to answer, but he would tiave some-
one nore knuw].edgeable as to sound distance as it related to sound who could
an~wer these questions.
RECESS - Chairmar. Seymour declared a ten-minute recess to allow time
for the davelopers to get together to resolve some of the
questions presented by the Commission. The meeting recessed
at 4:55 p.m.
RECOf:.ENE - Chairman Seymour reconvened the meeting at 5:10 p.m.,
all Commissioners being present.
Mr. Barisic noted that the acoustics engineer who had done the research on the
master Environmental Impact Report for the entire ranch would present his find-
ings to tY:e Commission.
M.r. Jahn Van Hooten, representing American Acoustics Company, 278 East La Habra
Boul:vard, La Habra, appeared before the Commission and stated that in review-
ing this project he triad to obtain the traffic flow readings o£ comparable
arterials and apply the HUD criteria in its simplest form and this was applyinq
standard that a resident shuuld not Y~e subjected to more than 65 dBA's for no
more than eight hou:s during a twenty-four hour period - these eight hours ware
then reduced to peak hours of traffic in the a.m. and p.m. during the week da~s,
which were the peak hour periods that c?etermined the manner in which they est:~_~
lished these guidelines of HUD, and if a development met these guidelines, *`+°
aituation was clearly acceptable; that a very good example from an acoustics
standpoint was to get more letail which conld be done by going to two arteriuls
:iaving similar vahicle count per day and take acoustic readings such as at
Cerritos and Walnut and Walnut and Ball Road w:~ere 12,000 vehicles per day were
experienced - these figures ~Y~en could be relatad to an existing situation in
Anahe~m Hills.
~
-~
e
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMZSSION, October 18, 1972 72-678
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 2, CONDITIONAL USF PERMIT NO. 1350, TENTATIVE
MAP OF TRACT N0. 8101 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 4~ CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT N0. 1348, TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 7915. REVISIOh NO. 1(Continued)
Commissioner Farane inquired what effect did open space have if one considered
the area indicated, since there was vacant area on the east side of Walnut
Street; whereupon Mr. Van Hooten stated that they werP using the area with a
similar traffic flow situation, and this was just north of Cerritos Avenue.
Mr. Roberts noted this was just north of tY,e Disneyland Hotel and was a vacant
area.
Commissioner Gauer inquired whether. these sound measurements were taken at the
sidewalk or farther in; whereupon Mr. Van Hooten stated that they had taken
measurements at 10, 20, and 40 feet from the intersection.
Mr. Van Hooten, in response to further questioning by the Commission regarding
the heliport sounds, stated these measurements were taken on both sides of the
heliport, but particularly at Walnut and Cerritos where both sides were vacant.
Mr. Van Huoten further stated that although the sound attenuation report
indicated living units should be 170 feet from arterials, this distance could
be reduced and still be within the HUD stand,ards, since these were maximum,
not to exceed 65 dBA's per eight hours within a twenty-four hour day on the
exterior, which would inter-relate to 45 dBA's on the interior for most
structures, which the Commission was considering; that the 45 dBA interior
was quite acceptable even for sleeping quarterst that the second t_zing that
they now planned to do in making recommendations of sound attenuation for
dwelling units was to look at the sound levels of sleeping quarters to assure
that the noise did not reach above the 45 dBA's inside or 65 dBA's outside,
and they probably would recommend heavier windows or double-glass windows,
placing adequate vents at the opposite side of the roadway to keep the noise
from entering those vents and going into the homes; that the use of windows
for noise control would require £orced-air ventilation for the sleeping
quarters, which was practical and was presently being used; and that to sum
it up, it was his feeling that they could clearly show staff that the soun3
level of 45 dBA's would be within the sleeping areas of the units during the
nighttime, which was the intent of the HUD guidelines, therefore, this devel-
opment would be meeting said HUD standards which were very stringent and which
he felt should be considered by the City of Anaheim.
Chairman Seymour inquired whether Mr. Van Hooten was suggesting that the
Planning Commission adopt a standard consistent with HUD of 65 dBA's outside
and AS dIIA's inside; whereupon Mr. Van Hooten stated that this was briefly
what HUD would suggest.
Mr. Van Hooten, in furthez response to Chairman Seymour's question, stated
that this dBA reading could be obtained if barriers were found not to be
necessary, and he would prefer to require changes in windows, adding vents,
forced air ventilation, and treating the walls with materials, however, it
would be easier to iasulate the walls than the wir~dows, and thermal insulation
would be helpful, but he would like to emphasize tihat reducing sound around
windows was considerably more di£ficult than in the walls.
Chairman Seymour then noted that what the applicant and developer were propos-
ing wa~ that the Planning Commission approve these projects subject to the
maximu;- sound decibel requirements along Serrano Avenue - these would meet
HUD requirements.
Mr. Breene noted that they were familiar with the requirement of 45 dBA's,
furthermore, air-conditioning would be a skandard feature racher than an
aptional feature on these units.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Kaywood observed that the Commission had visited the fire and
trash demonstration where demonstrations were given in the movement of these
vehicles in comparable street situations, and it would appear from the proposed
plans presettted by the developer that there would be a number of units that
would be very inaccessible for fire and trash vehicles.
~
.~.
~
MINUT::S, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1972 72-679
ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1350~ TENTATIVE
MAP OF TRACT N0. 8101 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 4~ CO2dDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 1348, TENTATIVE MAP UF TRACT NO. 7915 REVISION NO. 1(Continued)
Mr. Roberts noted that the Planning Commission was quite aware of the problems
that had been encountered regarding sufficient space for vehicles to enter
certain areas, and from the demonstration it would appear that the 27-foot
radius return presently required was rather inadequate, given the type of
vehicles presently in use; that the plans presented would indicate some planter
areas near the tuzn-around areas, and it might be necessary to delete these
planter areas or require a greater tusn-around area be provided, however, if
the Conmission approved the basic idea of a planned unit development on this
property in this general configuration, then the matter of trash and fire
could bF worked out in the final specific plans staqe since these plans must
be presented to the Planning Commission and City Counci.l for approval before
an ordinance could be read on the propertyt and that there were problems, how-
ever, they would be discussed at a future work session with the Planning
Commission as to alternatives.
Mr. Roberts further noted that staff had discussed these problems with the
engineers of Anaheim Hills, as well as the designers of the project, regarding
the City standards and the areas of concern.
Commissioner Rok2and noted that most of these areas of concern would be a9apted
very easily.
Mr. Schor noted that they would be working with staff to resolve this problem.
Commissioner Rowland cautioned staff to be alert when the specific plans were
presented to the ICPS&GW regardinq trash areas and accessibility. since the
world was not built around the size of a trash truck, and the trash people
would have to keep up with the world; that thexe were many alternatives, and
the Commission wanted to see this, therefore, the Commission would appreciate
any input from the developers on what was done in orher parts of the world as
it pertained to collecting trash.
Mr. Roberts noted this was his reason fos sugge~ting that the trash and fire
problem be haiidled in the final specific plans review stage when perhaps a
policy would have been formulated.
Commissioner Gauer inquired whether these PUD's vaere proposed to be developed
in phases, because he would like to see after one phase was developed if there
were sufficient errors which the City did not like - these could then be
rectified since he did not feel the Commission should adopt a continuation of
errors for the balance of the development since this was a very large project,
and even though there were two conditional use permits, the p=ojects were
large and he did not want to see the errors compounded.
Mr. Barisic stated that all developments were phased to keep up wiih the market
in terms of doing what the Commiseion would have to approve in the final plan.
Commissioner Gauer stated he did not see why the Commission should approve an
entire development when one phase at a time could be approved.
Mr. Breene stated that the basic land plans must be established now in order
to do grading, utilities, etc., but the development would be phased and the
architecture would not be the same in terms of elevations since there would be
di£ferent exterior designs, and if a problem were encountered he was sure they
would be hearing from people who were purchasing these units.
Commissioner Gauer noted that the developer could almost complete one phase,
and by that time he could see if there were problems, and errors could then be
corrected before the second phase was approved.
Chairman Seymour noted that economics dictated how devel~nment should occur on
such a large project as thi~ as to what should be done; that during the next two
years after half of the development was completed and the developer wanted to
reduce his density, this would mean the cost of the land per unit would be
considerably more, however, it was possible that the floor plan could be changed
but not the basic land plan.
•
e
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1972
72-680
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPF,CT REPORT N0. 2~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1350, 7'ENTATIVE
MAP OF TRACT NO. 8101 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 4, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 1348, TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 7915, REVISION N0. 1(Continued)
Mr. Sreene advised the Commission that in terms of approval of this project they
were about set in the matter of how they planned to develop, and anything else
would work a hardship.
Commissioner Kaywood inquised whether the 12 KV lir~es or any telephone poles
proposed would be visible from this project; whereupon Mr. Barisi~or~,rned that
the only lines he could think that might be visible would be the~Ca~i~ornia
Edison towers.
Commissioner Allred then inquired whethe.r Mr. Barisic meant ._at lines on the
ranch would all be undergr~unded; whereupon Mr. Barisic stated that they were
undergrounding more lines than the Commission or themselves tnought would be
undergrounded because it appeared that the buyers did not like seeing the over-
head wires.
Commissioner Parano inquired whether the buyers were more willing to pay for a
house on the condition that the transnission lines were underground; whereupon
Mr. Barisic stated that the seller of the homes who purchased the land paid for
the undergrounding, not the actual purchaser of the house.
Commissioner Farano then inquired whether the seller of the homes was more
willing to purchase the property with lines underground; whereupon Mr. Barisic
stated that many prospective buyers indicated that the overhead lines might
affect the view of the units with poles, however, Anaheim Hill~ did not want
pcles along Nohl Ranch Road, and this was indicated to any prospective buyers.
Chairman Seymour noted that the Commission had a very irate buyer and resident
of Westridge complain about the overhead lines at one public hearing.
Commissioner Herbst then inquired whether it was intended to concinue this
undergrounding, even to go to Serrano Avenue; whereupon Mr. Barisic stated that
during the past week they had hired a firm of electrical engineers who had just
started a preliminary survey o£ the PC Zone area; that they had some diffirulty
because they kept changing their areas, and within a month they would know where
lines would be underground or overhead.
Commissioner Farano then inquired whether it was possirl,e that most of the area
under consideration would have undergrounding of telep:.one and electrical lines,
but farther east it night not be possible to underground the lines; whereupon
Mr. Barisic stated t'.iat he had driven down the canyon and the lines were planned
to blend in with the natural area, but they never planned to string lines in the
canyon for gri.at di=tances, however, wherever there ~aere roadways, they would
make every attemnt to put the lines underground so a:a not to destroy the view,
creating view pollution.
Chairman Seymour then inquired whether it was p3.anned to have undergrounding in
the two developments for which these two EIR's were presented; whereupon Mr.
Barisic stated initially it was planned ~~~~ have temporary overhead ]iae~ until
development took place on the opposite side of the street. ~
Lengthy discussion was held by the Commission with the developer regarding the
setbacks proposed along Serrano Avenue and steps that could be taken to alleviate
the monotonous appearance of the buildings; the need for yreater setbacks to
aohieve a cetter living environment; where units sided on arterial streets,
since Code did not require as great a setback, some sound-attenuation devices
should be employed; the 2.6~k grade over the entire site which varied from 875
feet on some pads to 940 feet on others, or a difference in elevation of 65 feet,
the individual units would be on pads but would be terraced; adequate :loping for
drainage was necessary, which would be done when it was determined the size of
the units, and a 30 to 35•~foot vertical separation b_tween qraded pads.
Mr. Schor, in response to quest~ `ng by Commissioner Kaywood, noted the eques-
trian escates should be directl ove chese proposed PRD's.
Commissioner Kaywood then :.i:3uireu whether the roofs of these projects were
proposed to be designed so that the roofs would have the appearance of individual
homes rather than row houses; whereupon Mr. Schor replied that they planned
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Octobez' 18, 1972 72-681
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REFORT N0. 2r CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1350, TENTATIVE
MAP OF TRACT NO. 8101 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 4, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NU. 1348, TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7915, REVISION N0. 1(Continued)
consid=rable landscaping on the project, together with recreation areas, which
would reduce any appearance of row houses.
Commissioner Kaywood observed that the view would have to be attractive, other-
wise the equestrian estates would not be sold.
The Commission further noted that it would be necessary 4:o have additional access
for this ~,eneral area in order to take care of the increase in traffic since
there was only one access existing; that plans for this should be submitted prior
to approval of any further development in the canyon since if a catastrophe
occurred in the canyon. the residents there would be unable to leave this area,
nor wouid it be possible to get emergency equipment in in sufficient time to take
care of the catastrophe, particularly if tnere were thousands of peo~le in ~his
area trying to get out one accessway, i.e., if the dam broke, the water would
flow down to Anaheim Hills Road, which was the only access in or out; that
Anaheim Hills, Inc. would have to demonstrate to the Commission that there would
be someihing other than the lengthy cul-de-sac in the hills.
Mr. Bari=ic replied that the PC Zone and the master plan of rievelopment had a
master circulation element; that fram the latest information he had, the City
was working with the County for the extension of Imperial Highway to Nohl Ranch
Road, and this would be built in the next calendar year; that they had been work-
ing with the County on alignment studies for Serrano Avenue down to Orange and
Villa Park, and this would be about two years in the future; that the schools
also wanted a workable s~stem, and maybe this could 'Se accomplished by coming in
the back door since their next important development would be the northeast
section, and they would like a workable area, and this planniny would be in
detail next year, however, he wished to assure the Commission that they were
working on alternative acoess and were fully aware o£ its need, which was
covered in the first EIR for the ranch.
Commissioner Gauer observed that the next EIR would have to indicate what was
planned to be done with people residing there in the event of a catastrophe;
whereupon Mr. Barisic stated that in the next report they would be analyzing
the traffic situation.
Mr. Barisic, in response to Commissioner.Kaywood's comment on equestrian estates,
stated that ir. their planning stage it was their intent to buila $100,000 homes
on the equestrian estates, and it was their intent to work next year on part of
the Southern California Edison lines for recreational uses. Furthermore, it was
their intent to have more equestrian es*_ate areas, one being to the west where
larger one-acre lots were proposed, however, they were having problems with get-
ting water, sewers, etc. to that area, but it still was their hope to have the
first ~ortion ready by next year.
Chairman Seymour stated he was not satisfied with the straight appearance of the
units and the apparent unwillingness to offer variable setbacks, however, that
cauld only be his personal opinion, and if it was proposed to further design
this project, care should be given to more clustering, otherwise the development
was an attractive one; that since Serrano Avenue was a secondary highway and
the setbacks proposed, together with the explanation given as to the manner in
which the noise problem would be solved in acr.ordance with HUD's requirements,
this appeared to provide an environment with which he was not pleased, but he
did not know how this could be resolved.
Mr. Van Hooten replied that perhaps the exterior noises may be greater, but the
major intent of HUD`s standards was tc create nighttime sleeping quarters with
a maximum of 40 dBA's.
Kaywood
Chairman ~1r inquired what happened to people who had to sleep during the
day and children; whereupon Mr. Barisic noted that the interior units did not
have to worry about noises, day oa: niaht.
Commissioner Kaywood noted that she could understand ~_:,f: dBA reading for night,
but nothing was being planned for abatement of outside noises with the residents
sitting on their patios - the decibel reading could reach 90 dBA's, which was
not a livable environment, therefore, would the 3-foot berm be of any help.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October lA, i972
72-682
ENVIRONMENTA:, IMPACT REPORT N0. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1350~ TENTATIVE
MAP OF TRACT NO. 8101 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC"' REPORT NO. 4~ CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 1348, TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7915, REVISION N0. 1(Continued)
Mr. Van Hooten replied that a 3-foot berm would have no effect; that the levels
of concern by HUD were the peak hours of traffic from 7:00 a.m. to Noon and
2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. - this should be during the week days, and after thoae
hours, there would be very little traffic, nor would there be heavy traffic on
weekends.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired if the 65 decibel rPaaing was retained outdoors,
what noise-attenuation measures could be takent whezeupon Mr. Van Hooten stated
that he would have to take measurements in order to be able to answer that
question.
Commissioner Kaywood observed that there would be delic•ery trucks, motorcycles,
and moving vans using this street during the dayJ whereupon Mr. Van Hooten agreed
that the noise level increased when these vehicles used the streets, and every
attempt would have to be made to eliminate as much traffic as possible in order
to reduce the noise; and that setbacks of the structures would be one way of
alleviating that problem, however, they were now making sound measurements of
that phase.
Commissioner Kaywood then stated that she would like a two-week continuance so
that these figures could be presented to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Rowland stated that he would rather the Commission take action this
date and require that these measurement studies be made as a condition of
approval so that the complete professional study report would be available when
the final specific plans were presented to the P~anning Commission, and that the
general concept presented was acceptable, although the monotonous appearance
needed some attention.
Commissioner Herbst noted that no house in Anaheim, California or in the U.S.
would have 45 dBA's when motorcycles were using the street, but in all likeli-
hood the noise level wou~d be around 65 dBA's indoors, hewever, this n.oise
would not be constant since he was far~liliar with motorcycle noises, having quite
a n~imber of motorcycles on his street. Furthermore, it would be impractical to
require them to erect barriers.
Commissioner Kaywood stated that the setback th.:n should be greater than
proposed.
Commissioner Herbst inquired whether or not the common area would be retained
by the homeowners association; whereupon Mr. Breene replied a£firmatively.
Commissioner Gauer noted that h: had received a call from a property owner in
an Anaheim condominium, stating that the CC&R's had never been adopted by their
group, and they had parking all over the place with campers, trucks, and every-
thing and inquired o£ Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowrp whether or not the City
could make sure these CC&R's were adopted by management.
Mr. Lowry stateu that the City did not have that power - the only thing the
City could do was to approve them as to their form and context and maintain
that hold over them, but the City did not have the power to breathe life into
an association or require that the CC&R's be adopted.
Mr. Breene noted that the State real estate department required that the CC&F's
be reviewed by them, and these also were required to be reoorded. In 3ddition
to that, they proposed to include professional mar.agement for the homc-ow_i~:rs
association during their sales period and one year thereafter, after o...ich time
the board of directors of the homeowners association would take care of m~nage-
ment of the association, and it was their experience that these boards t~*:~ed
o~.~er operations and management to a profesr;ional manage:nent group.
president
Commissioner Kaywood noted she had received a telephone call from the ~~
of one of the homeowners yroups, stati.ng that people were being allowed to
erect air-c~nditioning units wiY.hout obtaining approval from the group and asked
that the issuance of building permits be stopped if no approval was given by
their board.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1972 72-683
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1350, TENTATIVE
MAP OF TAACT NO. 8101 AND ENVIRONME.+TAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 4~ CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT N0. 1348, TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7915, REVISION NO. 1(Continued)
Mr. Roberts noted that some of the air-conditioners had been placed there in
error, and the Buildin3 Department would not issue a final building inspection
of the d~velopment until the developer had made arrangements to shield from
view any air-conditioning units that had been erected without any screening,
however, the CC&R's were only enforceable by the homeowners assoaiation.
Mr. Lowry noted that in this particular instance it was completely within the
power ef the manager of the honeowners association to ask that this be stopped
by obtaining the services of an attorney, and if ihese homeowners associations
were not going to make these requlations work, there was nothing the City could
do about it.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration of Environmental
Impact Report No. 2 to the meeting of October 30, 1972. to allow time for the
Commission to review the report. Commissioner ~k*~ seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED. Allred
Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-252 and moved for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1350, subject to
recommended conditions and added conditions that final specific plans be sub-
mitted Y.o the Planning Commission for review and recommendation; that a 3-foot
high berni be provided along the Serrano Avenue frontage; that special sound
studies of potential traffic noises at ultimate development along Serrano Avenue
be submitted; that sound-attenuation devices, such as double-pane windows and
wall and ceiling insulation in the units adjacent to Serrano Avenue, be provided
in order to render a 45 dBA level inside the unit; that all units be provided
with air-conditioning equipment with condensers to be located on the ground and
no roof-mounted equipment be permitted, as stipulated to by the petitioner; and
that all garages located 6-10 feet from both public and private streets have
automatic garage door openers, as stipulated by the petitioner; and the findings
and stipulations made by the petitioner. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Kaywood.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Commissioner Seymour offered a motion. seconded by Commissioner Allred and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Kaywood voting "no"), to approve Tentative Map
of Tract No. 8101 subject to the following conditions:
(1) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. B101 is granted
subject to the approval of Conditio;:al Use Permit No. 1350.
(2) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub-
division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative
form for approval.
(3) That all lots within this tract shall be served by undergrou:zd
utilities.
(4) That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to
and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the
office of the Orange County Recorder.
(5) That any proposed covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall
be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior
to City Council approval of the final tract map, and, further,
that the approved covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall
be recorded concurrently with the final tract map.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1972 72-684
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1350~ TENTATIVE
MAP OF TRACT N0. 8101 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 4, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 1348, TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7915, REVISION NO. 1 ~Continued)
(6) That drainage of said property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer and shall include construction
of drainage facilities of a size and type sufficient to carry
runoff waters originating from higher properties south of Santa
Ana Canyon Road through said property to ultimate disposal as
approved by the City Engineer. Reimbursement agreements may be
made available to the developers of said property upon their
request.
(7) That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and
determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department
prior to commencement of structural framing.
(8) That minimum 25-£oot curb radii shall be provided at intersections
of private streets with Serrano Avenue.
(9) That the property lines shall be a minimum of c:~e foot back of
top of slopes as required in Section 17.06.110(b) of City of
Anaheim Municipal Code.
(10) That Serrano Avenue shall be 38 feet wide from centerline of
street to property line.
(11) That a minimum 28-foot wide public access easement shall be
provided from Serrano Avenue to west tract boundary over street
indicated as "28-foot access road".
Farano Rowland
Commissioner ~i offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner ~~ and
MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 4
to the meeting of October 30, 1972, to allow time for the Ccmmission to review
the report.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC72-254 and moved fo s passace
and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1348 subject to
the recommended conditions and the added conditions that final specific plans
be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation; that a
3-£oot high berm be provided along the Sarrano Avenue frontage; that special
sound studies of potential traffic noises at ultimate development along Serrano
Avenue be submitted; that sound-attenuating devi.ces, such as double-pane windows
and wall and ceiling insulation in the units adjacent to Serrano Avenue, be _
provided in order to render a 45 dBA level inside tre unit; that all units be
provided with air-conditioning equipment with condensers to be located on the,
ground and no roof-mounted equipment be permitted, as stipulated to by the
petitioner; and that all garages located 6-10 feet from both public and private
streets have automatic garage door openers, as stipulated by the petitioner;
and the findings and stipulations made by the petitioner. (S2e Resolution
Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: A~%&~P~ Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland. Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Kaywood.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ~X Allred.
Commissioner Farano offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gauer and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Kaywood voting "no"), to approve Tentative Map
of Tract No. 7Q15, Revision No. 1, subject to the following conditions:
(1) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7915, Revision
No. 1, is granted subject to the approval of Conditional Use
Permit No. ].348.
(2) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub-
division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative
form for approval.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1972 72-685 °
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMZT NO. 1350, TENTATIVE
MAP OF TRACT NO. 8101 AND ENVIRONMENTAL ZMPACT REPORT N0. 4, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO 1348, TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7915, REVISION NO. 1(Continued)
(3) That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground
utilities.
(4) That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to
and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the
office of the Orange County Recordar.
(5) That any proposed covenants, conditiona, and restrictions shall
be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior
to City Council approval of the final tract map, and, further,
that the approved aovenants, conditions, and restrictions shall
be recorded concurre..tly with the final tract map.
(6) That drainage of said property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer and shall include construction
of drainage facilities of a size and type sufficient to carry
runoff waters originating from higher properties south of Santa
' Ana Canyon Road through said property to ultimate disposal as
approved by the City Engineer. Reimk~ursement agreements may be
made available to the developers of ~,aid property upon their
request.
(7) That minimu~ 25-foot radius curb returns shall be provided at
intersecti.ons of private streets with Serrano Avenue.
(8) That Serrano Avenue shall be 38 feet wide from centerline of
street to property line.
Commissioner Allred left the Council Chamber at 6:22 p.m.
~
.
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 18, 1972 72-686
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - PUBLIC HEARING. ANAHEIM HILLS, INC. AND TEXACO VENTURES~
REPORT N0. 3 INC., 380 Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim, California 92806,
Ownersj requesting permission to ESTABLISH a 252-UNIT
CONDITIONAL USE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT on property described as:
PERMIT NO. 1347 49.6 acres having a frontage of approximately 1,667 feet
on the east side of Nohl Ranch Road, having a maximum
d~:pth of approximately 1,700 feet, and being located
approximately 1,000 feet n~rth of the centerline of Serrano Avenue, with WAIVER
OF (a) MINIMUM LOT AREA, (b) M.INIMUM LOT WIDTH, (c) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN
BUILDINGS, (d) REQUIREMENT THAT LOTS ABUT A PUBLIC STREET, AND (e) MAXIMUM
BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF R-A 20NE. Property presently classified
R-A, AGRICULTU1tAL~ ZONE.
No one appeared in opposition.
Although the Report to the Commission was not read at th~ public hearing, it is
referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. James Barisic, representing Anaheim Hills, appeared before the Commissi~n
and stated that Mr. John Martin, Pre:.ident of American Housing Guild, wonld
present the discussion on this proposal.
Chairman Seymour requested that Mr. Martin present a recap of what his proposal
was rather than going into a lengthy dissertation.
Mr. Martin presented an approved corporate brochure about their company, stating
that they had built 17,000 units throughout the County; that his responsibility
was for the Los Angeles area; that he felt the Planning Commission would be
interested in what they proposed; that during his four years of work with
Mission Viejo, Marketing Division, he h~d a sincere appreciation o£ what went
into a planned community; that the proposal was a unique type of environment
where he could do a good job; that the designer with whom he worked in Mission
Viejo also worked with him on this project ard the one at Turtle Creek which
had $100,000 homes.
Mr. Martin then reviewed the propo::al, noting ~hat in their m~:rketing analysis
they found a very strong market in luxury townhousing with larger sized units;
that persons generally purchasing their units were more affluent people, 40 to
55 years of age - some were "empty nesters" and young professionals; that their
marketing consultants prepared a report that indicated the family size would
be one child; that they had a number of three-bedxoom plans and one four-bedroom
plan; that the desigr. would i~e Mediterranean or contemporary Spanish with wrought
iron along sloping streets and other measures which would make this a very unique
view in Orange County; that the d.esign •aas compa=ible, and within each unit there
was a feeling of individuality; that *_he si~e of the units would be 24 to 28
feet; that the garages were oriented toward the front, and although they had
considered garages toward the rear, this w~uld be typical for any flat land area;
that they proposed to have motor courts meandering off to Park Ridge Road; that
they were very sensitive ta the rear area which wou'.3 face out to the vistas
of the valley and the golf course, and it was impor~ant to relate units to the
rear; th>t the units as a whole were built in three to si:: units in one building,
and the variation which they would achieve in the setbacks would vary; that they
intended to cantilever some of the second floor developments in order to avoid
a straight up-and-down appearance; that the units would range in size from 1200
to 2100 square feet, which were good-size units; that they had tried to develop
in accordance with the market which they were going after, and unless this was
provided, they would not have any buyers~ that with the type of architecture
they proposed, these would sell for betwQen $30,000 and 540,000, however, they
had not made any final determination as to the price of the units; that in terms
oE land planning, what they were attempting to do by developing these areas was
as the plans they had submitted; and then Mr. t4artin reviewed these plans and
indicated the open areas proposed.
Mr. Martin further noted that one unit was planned to be only 20 feet from
Nohl Ranch Road, however, this could be relocated into the open area or the
parking bay since they had parking islands; that in most instances they were
planning one-story at the ends of each unit since the enci units shonld not be
two-story but should have a lower profile to improve the appearance and the end
unit would look like a large R-1 house; and then in response to r_ommission
questioning, stated that there would be only one unit in the end structure, but
it would be a very large one and w~uld be part of the three, four, five, and
~
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMIS5ION, October 18, 1972 ~2-68~
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REP_ORT NO. 3 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1347 (Continued)
six-unit buildings; that this arrangement ~aould give them more variety, as well
as exterior style elevations; that they would ne~ h•~./e any p'-•~Slem with units
along the local street, but they would have to rersoive thc pro'~lem on the
arterials and work witY. landscaped pa*_ios to make the rear of the bui].dings
as attractive as possible; that i*. ccr.trast wit:h aany other programs they had
ten individual pads, and this would give ti~em vertical v~x:ation to ~ive siqni-
ficant relief; that he believed he was ~s ser.sitive as anycne to aolling ho~saes
in this price range, and it was something new in ::orth Or:inge Cc;:n*_y in a
prestige area, there`ore, he did not feel th2re would be any problem in sellinq
these homes; and that the location around the golE course, he felt, would sr~pport
the type of units they praposed.
Commissioner Gauer inquir_d whether thetse roads would afford a view in':~ s.he
next development; :~hereupon Mr. Martir. s*ateC _hat the Fire Departmen=_ requised
additional acces~a, which he did not ~ant since they wanted a community idr.r.ti-
fication with as few entrances as possible, bvt they would sat~sfy the r~e.~•~xire-
ments of the Fire Department bat would not sacrifice !:he appearancet a~~d ~ha,.
they had two recreational facil3.ties, or~: ~erving tbe large area and anc.^.~~r
small one.
Commissioner Herbst noted that bec~usc. of tha gr:.de separation of almnet 15
feet, it would be very difficult '_or the lower _acility to use the large
recreational area, and each level of units should have its own in-'.ividual
recreation area, particularly with. the type of develonmea`. thac was prof,c~sed.
Commissioner Rowland noted that perhaps people purcha~~ng these units might
not wish to use the large recreational facility.
Mr. Martin replied that there would not be many young children since they were
not orienting this de•~elopment to children as svch, and that there wer= peuple
who were not desirous o~ being near a large pool area, therefore, sose of the
lots were completely oriented away from the recreational area.
Commissioner Gauer noteP that Irvine had a very large area for barbecues, etc.,
and residents of the area had to walk a long way to get there, therefore, he
did not feel this would be any problem.
Mr. Martin noted that they had not studied thi~ phaoe as ~rpsented, and some
of their research indicated that some people might want to live around a
recreational area and others might grefer not to live in such an area, and this
cou13 be a merchzndisin~ ~:~~enity, however, i:hey did not plan to have their
models near a recreational are%.; t.*.r~~ ir response to questioning by the
Commission, noted the area~ th~.c indicated thc.re 'aould be three phases of
development, and in Eurther rei>ponse to Commissior, questioning, noted thet ~f
subject petition was approved, tney o2annad to start develop*nent betor~~ ~he
end of the year.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, se:.ondFd b1 Commissioner Gauer and
MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration ~~f Envir:nmental Impact Report No.
3 tc the meeting of October 30, 1972, to al.low the Commission time to review
the report.
Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC72-253 and moved f.or its passage
and adoption to approve Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1~47, subject
to conditions, subject to stipulation by the petiti~ner that automatic garagt
door openers would be provi8ed ahere there were 6-10 foot garage setha::::sj and
that if any air-conditioning equipment was proposed, there shall be no roof-
mounted equipment, such as air-conditioning condensers. (see Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by th~ fcllowing !~ote:
1 d
A1 re
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywoo~i,, Ro~tland, Sey~nour.
NOES: COM"ISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 3B8Z&36°3~ None.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMM~SSION, October 18, 1972 ~~"688
REPORTS AND - ITEFi N0. 1
RECODIMENllATIONS COMt~•~NZTX REDEVELOPD1.i;NT COMMISSION - Bound.e.rie's
an~' p~P'iminary plan For Project Area "Aipha".
Associate Planner ":~' ~o.« ~%j.~uyhter advised the Comr.:ission that copies of *?':e
resolut.ion to che :°:::-:t~:ng Commission regarding the boundaries of the project,
hatl ~,~er. e•.:~a~.tte~ ;:~ :~- for consicleration, and if the Commission ha3 any
questions,• he wr~,)..i cry t~ ai:swer them.
Commissior.ler *.ier.?. t•. ~.ioted that it was Yii3 understanding at the joint work
session af tt,e ~1<~.;r•.ing Commission and °~development Commiss'_•^+n that th? ~~rba
Shopping Center riE the southwest c:orner o,°. Imperial Highwap and Santa Ana
Canyoa Road would Y~e included i~ Project Ar.•ea "Algha" because uf ite dollar
value.
Mr. 51et.ghter p}ated that ~erhaps this was possible si:ice c:ie.~: wer•.~ s~ u~~ny
peopie discus='~.ny the prop ~sal a;: •:.ze timc .
Cnm~nissioner Fa~cano offered Ree.~.Lution No. PC7=-255 and move~3 for ~.ts passage
anc'. adoption to recommend to the Redevelopme:it Agency (City C~~vncil) that the
susvey aree knuwn as Psoject "A]_~ha" on a map entitlec as such, dated Septem-
ber 17, 15i72, be ~>_stabliahed as the b~und~.3ries, provir.9, howeve:, that said
area s'.:=i1 ~ nrlude the Yorba ~?~:giona'1 Shopoing Center a;: the southwesi: ~~rner
of Imrntiai Highway and Santa ni;~ ..:,'~yar. Rcad. (See Reso2ution Boo!c)
On roll cali the foregoing resolution was p~~ssed bp the £ollowing vote:
AYES: COMMZSSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ASSENT: COMMISSIONF°.~~ Allred.
OCTt'iBER 24, 1972 - Chairman +eymour reqLpsted that ia a~.ditlon to the
WORK SESSION ::ecommend=_~ e~ciaadule that was submi~ted to the Y1 ining
- Commission, tt:at underground uti~ici~s ahere stre~c
widening of axistiny stre::`~ ~aas prok~o~~:d should be
ancther iteax o£ discuesicn.
ADJCu:tNMEN'f - There b~~ ~,Q further busin~~s to d.iscuss, Commissioner
~ Farano/adjoc~r..s~'i ~be r.eeti,r,q to Octaber 24, 1972, at
7:00 p.m. t:o sueet in a joint work session with the City
Council., Commissioner Ka~~wood secon3cci ~he motion.
MOTION CAQRIFB.
The meeting adjourned ar. b::;5 p.m.
Respa~tf~ally submitted,
~~vf/~~~ ~~y' "'i.•v
ANN KREBS, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commiseion
AK:k;m
0 R C 0 MICROfILMING SERVICE, INC.
:o:o ::~~ •, ;,.~ ~'r,-3:~~0
,,...,~,. ~,,. .., ,,,,~.,