Minutes-PC 1973/06/250 R C 0 MICROFILMING SERVECE, INC.
. . , ~ , . ~ . ,. . ,
. ,,, , , , , , ,
~
~J
City Hxll
l~nah~tm, Calltarnia
Jun~ ~5 , 1973
]1 RSGULIIR M1:RTIN(} OF TrEI,E AN1l1H8IM CI'~'Y PI+71NyING C~OMMI83I~N
RSCiUL11R - A repular me~ting o! the 1-nah~im City Plar~nl~ng Cammi~sf.un wd~
wEETi~C~ aa~lad to arder by Chalzmun 8~ya~our ~t 2~ OA p,~. ~ a~uoru~e
boinq ~xas~nC. '
PRBSI~N~ - GHAIRMAM, Seymour .
- COMMxSBiQNBR:~~ 1-11rec1, G~~~.ar, Horb4t, KayMUOd~ end Rowland
(whu entered *.he Caunail Ch~mb~r at 2i10 p.m~)
ADSENT - COMNISS iONERS ~ Farar,o.
PRESENT pnon
- A~ol..'tAnt Dovolapmen~ Servicae Director.: Rr
~
LoMry
ank
peputy City Attorney:
J~~, Titua
OtPice ~nginear: ~}~arl~• Roberts
Zartinq 9upexvisor~ phill.i.p sahwartn~
Aaeietant Plannere
Ann Kr~b~
Commieaion 3eoretary:
p~,~pag qg - Commia~ionax Kuywo4d led ir~ tho Plodge o! ALZA$~AI1C6~ ~o the
,
ALLEGt11NCE Flaq.
A'PPROVA~. UF - Comm.ie~ioner Kaywood dPferoEi a moti.on to approve the minuta~e
Commi~tsioner
TH~ M~NUTE$ +
of the meeting of May 14, 1973, seaonded ~y
sub~ect t~~ tha iollowing cor~.aoti.ons~
RR7LD
,
Alired and MOTYON CA
ara. 7, 11ne 3, inserte veould "be" speal:inq...
2')8
, p
pg,
Pg. 290, pAra. 2, li.ne 2, wcrding: "i! he wae, thon hm would"
"
Fg. 291, par~s. 10, line l, lnsert: 537.000 "to $41,OA0
I
pq. 302, paxa. 7. line 1~ Nrs. ~hirley (noC Mr.)
pg, 3U4, pard. 3, linP 3, 8elete: "thav had" 25t 1
1rt: be "in" con juncLl.on
pg. 305, last line, .'
"
~~
pg. 315, .last pasa.: ~hairmen pro tosn Kaywood
"
5 Coveo
Pg. 320, par~. 5, line ~s after Hore~eshoe Be~~l add
Park"
~g. 92U, paxa. 7, line 9, inaert: inven tory "5 CoveR L 52-aaze
Shorb Well~"...
para-. 3, 3.inee ~i dnd 7 ahould ~ead: "in a ricultura,
322
pg
,
,
he muat qo to a_g„resezvo~ and that land that
~rowa such fine crop~: 2~as ite hiaheet a-nd .,
best use as agriculture and shoul_ d be taxe8
at a lowar tate accord~nq: ~."
C.oumissioner KayWOOd oftered a moCion td npprove thd minutoe
of tho maeting of Muy 30, 1973, secon~ie d by Gommieeioner
Alirad and tiOTiON CARttIED, svbject to the followinq ccrrections:
pq. 324, APPROVAL Or' THE MINUT~S, ltne :i: following "aozrsc~
tions" (not "aonditic ns")
pg. 334, laat line, ~de~l~te: "nnmloQr ,~~" (repea~ed)
pg. 339, paru. 6, line 6~ insart Pirst word: "Contxol" goard...
pg. 34?, para. 4, lins 4s a"33"-foot h eight Nai~er (not "28"-
foatl -~
pg, 3d3, para. 10, line 1, insort: and "on Roarsr~e_ Strset• t~e
~, xwn
ps~. 347, 7.ast para., line 6: "infirT" p~op~.e (not "infirmed")
Pg. 348, para. ].ine 6, insesti ~a ~° a° vary
pg. 350, para. ,, lind ~+ pe~•t ~MVeral " a~Y„ are" (n t"roonths")
pq. 350~ ~~AXd. 9, lina 2: Cu~amisaioner "Ga_ u__,er" (nvt "Harbet";
pg, 355, para. 3, line 3s t~~~a. "Elizal3m, f•he ho~sokesper,"
(Qe~et~n '"wt~ekaud")
pq. 355, para~. 3, lin~ 9: Mirs. "Eli~salda" (not "E1i~ada")
Commiesianez Ksyreood offered s cautilon tia appzovs th,e ml.,auteo
of tha ~aaeti3,nq ot ~TUne lZ, 7.973, ~econd~ed by Commlaaioc•.er
Allsod and NOTI~N C~-RRIF.~, aubjsat to the folloMin~ cor~ractionss
73~390
~
~
~
,,~i*~nTF.S, CI'PY PI~ANNING COMMI89I0l1, Junn 25,~ 1973
/1~391
pg. 3g4, psra. i, ~ina 7, add~ boath, "~_o~=ev~nt int~rler.~~na~
with pd.rking area." ~
Pg. 375~ pard. 3~ ~11no at "Gene'a" ~11ot "Jeifl~~~"1
Pq. 376, para. ~, liaa 13: '„
py. 377, par~. 3~ ~ine ]., " ~ el~o add~ rsnQinq "txoim 35"
eo s2ou...
pq. 376, p~+ra. 1, line 3: U. S. "Mo~c~xs" baildinq (not U. 8.
~~Homaa" )
Pg. 378, para. ~0, lina 2~ on p~rtion "A" only (n~t "C")
rq. 387, par~. 3, lin~ l, dolsta: "Raztial"e Sn~~st~ lield
trip into "e sim ,,:le~x" ~r~a
VARIANCE N0, __75:19 - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HEARING. B~RNIIRD 11N0 VIRl37NIlA E. ONBTENK,
19350 Ward Btreet, No. 34, Huntington B~~ch, C~. 92646,
Owners~ WZI.LIAM J. MORRI3LY~ 1104 Monturs Ftond. 3an Marcop,
Ca. 92q69, Aqent~ zaquoetinq W7~iVEA OF MIN7MUN AEQUIRBD tJUM3BR QF PARKiNa SPAG~S
TO ~3TASLZSN A MtNI-WAR6HOUSE FACiLITY on propexty dapcrit,ed no: An irreqularly-
ahaped parcel o! land oonsistinq of ~+pproximAtel•l 3.1 acxos laca~LeB a~ the
northwaet corner o! 81ue Cium Wny and White Star Avaaue, havinq a trontage of
approximatell- 418 feet An the west eide of ~luo Gum Way ~nd hsvinq a frontage
af dppzoximataly 147 taet on the n~rth side of White Star Avsnue. Pr~perty
prasently alasaifind M-1, LICHT It~DUSTRIAL, xONE.
Subject petition wa~ cantinued from the June 11, 1973 meetinp !n oxdmr for the
petitioner to submit xoviaed plane.
No one appea::ed in oppoeition.
Although the Report t~ the Commisaion was not xead st tha public hea~ing, it
ia reEo•rred to and ~~~ade ~ pert of the minutes.
Mr. William Morriaey, agent f.or thc~ petitf~ner, appeared before the Commiaeion
and notecl that they pr.opaeed to acquire the property and had developed plana
which had been aubmitted wi.th the peti.tion for approval.
Commissionar Allrad noted that thm twc~ parking apaces +^dicated at. the enfl
of proposod building "1D" were baei.celJ.y inadequate :~s to providis~g in~rs~~s
and egrees, but it was also not conducive to e.~^..ca3~ng parking.
Mr. Morriaey stated that it was lndicutc~d. as such to accommodata trAah tzuck
pick~up in the beat mannsr p~eaible, permitting them ta head in and thon qoing
to the end of che hammer.head, however, if the plantera w~ro crenting an obatruc-
tion, thaee could be re2ocated immediately adjacent to the building~ that it
was poasib2e to remove theae two parking spaces to eome ott~er nrea~f that fra•
previous ex~er~enca in oth~r facilities with which h~ had been +~e~tocisted,
21 parkinq spaces would be more L•lian adequate, en~i than presented pickuz~es of
one of thA facf.litie~ which had 343 unita, and the maximum number of parking
spacea uaed was 87 that each picture vreaented ir.dlcatec] both the external and
interio•: of the buildinqa~ anc7 then in xeaponse to Commission questioninq,
noted that ~ne of the picturas was the facility thAy had in Phoenlx, and the
proposed development wovld be eimilar to thie, and that the securitX off'ce and
manager's apartment would ba on e 24-hour-a-day basie.
Commiasianor Allred obsezvod that. pe.rhaps in years to come h.he buildir.g could
be sol.d and unother uee proposed which would require more parkfr,g, therefore,
the Commission felt that this develo~ment should provide as much pnrking as
poaeib~e, and at• least two m~~«: sF~acea sh~uld be provic3~d by raducing the aizs
of the buildir~g, making the 91m~naions of bui'.dfng "D" the same as bui2dinq "A".
C~mm~.saioner Herbst noted this wouZd give a better turn-around aroa for trash
truckso
Mr. Mor.risey, in reapo. e tc further Commisaion commenta, stated that the one
space that wat~ indicated as not beinq usable had not been coun'ted in the tot~+l
number of praposed apnces, and the end parkinq spaces were not necessarily
rec;uired to be ~ha~t size, ahile the area in front wae left open for ++ccosa
puxposes if naefled.
~
~ ~
MINU~rLS, CITY PLANNIN(i COMMIBAION, ~7ur-• Z3r 1973 73-3Si1
VARIANCE N0~„ ~~19 (Con.`,inuod)
Commissionsr ~csywood inquired wh~th~r or not th~x~ aas ~0 l~~t bstNpsn ths
buil9i.nqa~ aheraupon Mr. Mcrriao,y ~tat.ed r.liat son-e of th~ Qri.ve• v-~re only
17 EQet i.n width.
Com-nl.eeionsX ~llrad notad that th• plnno balox~ th• Comm,i~s~on ~ndi.catad 2A
leet exatlpt !or ~ha perimater drive.
Commieeioner NOr1,~t inquired ahat ~he patitioner in~ended tio do ~or the Hlue
Gum Straet lrontega rinca thexe would be a 417-loot bluok v-al.l thr~t would be
the reer o! tho building locinq onto tlte otro•t dnd inquira9 sr to tha type
a! landecaping that waa propas~di whareupon Mr. Morzisoy ctetod thst ths~i
plRnnod to plant the area with oleandero and ayprasa altsrnatinqt that although
a detai?ed plan had not boen completed, the arahiteat proposed ko ehow certni.n
embsllieh:nent~ along tlie building thet would relie~re thie etark appesrence,
hawever, he wae ra7.uctant to indicato nnything on thd p1~nM, end manf of th.
de~igner•e wAnted to finesee a• muah a~ possfble, but they etill proposed soma
„r,z; 4ine tr~atment on the outaide of tha industridl building, and thin etark
appflaranca could aleo be braY.en up by ~lertiaal stri.pme of the bri~k.
Commiseionez Herbst nokad that the b~:ilding setb+~ck would ba only 5 feet fram
the proporty line and ~.nquiredi whothar this wae the exietinry ~~~~erty line or
ttie progoaed property line~ whareupoi, Zoning Superviaor Cttarlee ~tobarts notod
tht~t additiona]. right-of-way would 1,e~ required in that partic~±~ ar location
eince there was 20 fee~ on the wast eide from cen~erline, an adr.lt•ional 12
faet wnuld be r~quired ~o make it a=~-foot half-width from centerline, +rnd
the },uilding would then be eet back ~'rom the ultimate right-of-wny~ that it
woul~. be necessary Por the petition.erg to landscape the parkway portion ot thr~
-right-of-way~ en8 thet ev~n though the City Enqineer requirod eidewal.ke~ these
aidewa.iks w~:..~ :~omotimea waived if a request was preeented.
Office Encineez Jny Titus noted that the owner o~ the property had an aption
to reques+: wuivgr of the aide~walk and ~.n lieu ther~of to ontirely piant the
area, and this wae quito oPtc~n waived hy the City Engineer.
Mr. Moirisey, iu re~ponse to ~'ommi.esion ~ueationirig, noted that the Cyclone
fence prop~b~d woul.d be+ el.etk~d, and tt~at they woulsl like to exercise tha
opt~on of. landscaping t~eing provided in lieu af eidewalks.
Chairmsn 54vmour inquired whether *.he petitioner wo•.d object to a requiremont
that detaile~ landscape plans be submitr.~d to ~:ie velopment Serv~aes l~c~part°
ment, and if no agreQment wa~ reeche3 botwoen the 3velopment Servicee L~eoart-
ment, then theae pians could be braught to the Planninq Commisaion for e~pprovalr
where~upon Mr. Morrisey s~ipu'latefl to aubmiseion of landscape plans.
THE HEARII3G WA3 (:LOSED.
Commisaioner Kaywood offared a motion, sec~nded by Commianioner Herbst and
MOTTON CAkRTED, that the Planning Commiseion, in connection with ~^ ;cemption
deciaratlon atn~ue reque~t, fiiids and determinea that the propoaal ~'~ 'e
no si;:ificant environmer.tal im~aat and, therefo~e, r6cowmenda to the C;
Council that no Environm~•~:~tal impacC Statement is necessary.
c:ommissioner Allred ogfered FASOlution Ne. PC73-139 and moved for its passaqe
and adoption to qrant ~etition for Vari+~nce No. 2519~ ~ouldcbatdetetedtinulr~-
tion of tha petitioner that a portlon of building D
order tA prov~.d~s two additiunal purhing epaces and that a land~cage pla~n would
bQ submitted ta the Davelopment Servicea Department, indicating lanapc~-pln9
proposed in lieu of tlia eid9walk requ~remente, far approval, And eubier.t t:,
conditiana. (See ResoZution B~ok)
On zoll call the foreqoinq reecluti.on was pasaed ~y the lollowing vot~~
AYSS: COMMISSIONER3~ Allred, Gauer, Herbet, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMM?SSIO*i:RB: None.
ABSENT: COMkISSIONEA9a Fareno, Rowland.
_ _ --- ~
, ~ ~ ~
MINUT~S, CITY QLANNSNG COMMI3SION, June 25~ ~973 73-393
RECLA99IFICATLON - RR/-QV~RTISED 1tt18LI~ HEARING. JAMES ANA ~^A111J11 OI~SON 11ND
N0. 72-73-46 JOSICPH ANU BFTTE K. D1-VID90N, 414 Norl:h 9ta~• Ca~.leqa
~ eoul~vArd, Anat.eim, C~. 9Z806, Ownersr J11M83 OLAON, 875
CONDxTiONAL USE 9outh Hilda Strs~t, Anshaim, Ca. 92806, Aqont~ prop~rty
pERMIT N0. 1396 de~azi,k+~d a• ~ A raata.nqularly-uhap~d p+~rasl o! land
'"'-"'~'~-~W~ located et tho southMOSt corn~x oi Stst• Goll~qe eoul~vard
enQ Sev~ay Avsnue oonoiating of ~ppzoximate~y .75 scro,
ha~ving trantegye ~f npproxlmet~ly 127 Eoet on the wASt ~id~ c+P BtiAt~ College
Boulev~nrd And 84 test on thc oau~h eide o! Snv~y Avanae. Prop~zty pre~~ntl,y
claseiti~d R^1, ONE-FAMILX RESIDENTIA~o ZONE.
REQUF.~TEfl CLASf3IFICATION a C-4 , COMMERCIAL OFFICE , ZON~ .
itB;QUE9TED CONDITION~L USL~ ESTAFl~.ISH R COMMERGIAL CiFFICE CQMPLRX xN 9`WO
3INGLE-FAM] LY 3TRUC'T[3RES, PIAIVING (A) '.CYpEB OF
9IGN8 PERNItTED, (B) [MINIMUM SITE AREA, lC)
REQIII.RED SETHACK AREA 11I~QNG 3ITE DOUNDIIRY LINP:
N0~' ABUTTING A STRE~T qFt HIGHWAY, AIvU (Q) M7IXTMUM
DUILDING HE7GFIT WITHYIN :100 FEET ~~F A SI"'•^-La.-
FAMILY RESTDENCE.
Commieeioner AoNland entszed tha CAUr..cil Chember at 2:10 p.m.
Seven pers~ne indicated iheir presence' in cpposition.
Aasistant Plann4r Phillio Schwartze r~viewed the ZdQdt~QTl of ~ub~eat property,
usea eatablimhed in clase proximi.ty, an~t the requeat, noting sub~ect petition
had bz~n originally conaidered by t~ y Planninq Commiaeion o~ May 14r 1973, r~t
wY-ich tine the Coromise~ion Ild~ xecov ~ded donial to thc Cit,y Council, howevar,
aubeequent to sa~d publ~.a hedring, the petit'~~er hsd submit~e~i revised plans
Nhich were taken ko the Planni~ig Commiasian on May 30, 1973, hawevor, the
Commiasion was of che opinion t•hat the reviaed plan; shou].d be xe-heard ek
a pu~lic heaxingr that farmerly the plans indicated se~~se~ wai.vers from the
site development standaxds of the Anahei.m Municipa:l ^o~d worp being zequef,ted,
and the revi.sed plans now had reduued these waiver~ to four~ that th~ peti.-
tionors proposed tn corevert ~wo eingle-family residenc~s into an ofri.c~ complex
tho tctal land
contsining approximataly 2630 square fp~~. ~f grosa floar a:ea,
area~ compriaing approximately 13,OOU ~querE feeL-, rrhereas c:.ode would rraquire
2q,000 square feet~ that extarior modifications tu the exi~~tin!~ atructurea
wauld inc~ude canstruction ~f a common masonry ti1E: roof ~oj.t.h ~, remodeled
facada of atuaco, and the exieting garage on eubjear ~r.operty was prc~pose,d to
4~e removedt that 12 off-etreet park~ng spaces were ~r~poeed r.o the ret~r of the
site, and access ~o the praposod parking spaces w~uln be b~+ '~•.~Y ~f ~~~-geo~
alley at the west end of the pr.~pertyj that plans ic~r the '.r.ash a~ocnye araa~
were in conformance with City of Anahetm's requirESmentds that the r.•:w nlans
also i.ndicate maintt~ining ttle ~xieting atruck~~res fox .nffi ce u:.~e •~•tr~ir. S feet
of the baundary line to the south and maintaining a buil~3: ,ig heigt~ti of .rpraxi-
metaly 16 feet, whereae Code wauld :~.quire a?. s 1 ~etback or a Z~-foot hiqh
structure; that a free-standing, revutving sign ~r.as b~so P~~FCi~d, "vprisiny
an area af approximately 80 aquare fe~~t at the coi~n~r uf St-voy Av~4~,.:. anA
State College Boul~•~qrd, i,4vilg a maxi~n~im t:eiqht o. approximately 1G foee;
that the C-~ a~tc~ .ievel~pment sL•andar~s requi:re that comnierri.~l st.rua+:.v.tes be
Aocated a minimum of 1Q feet from boundary linea not abu~.tir.g a e~~.~e~+t or
highwav and limiting the bui.4 ~~.~ig haighY. within 3Q0 feet of. any si!:yie-fxmily
structure to one-hai.f the dir.:!;;~1cz between the st.:ructure nnd the zone boundaryt
tltnt the C-O Zone site d~:velopment standards did not permit free-etanslinq oz'
revolving siqns~ thnt at th~ original P].unniny Cc+mmission hbasing, ~he Commis-
sion expxesaed concexn th+st the proposal w~uld hz~v~ a tende:~cy t~~ deteriarate
~the adjacent neighborhaod, and the propoaed comw~srcial use would coristitute
spot zon~ng and woulcY adveraely affec:L th,a adjoininq land ubes and the growth
and development of the eurrounding areat end tha•t. the Commi~eion exprasse3
furthez conaern that the existir_q atreet: alignmar~t of Savoy Avenua and State
Collgge ~aulevar$ rrould pzagen~ hazardoue traffic: cond~.tions for ~ommercial
tre~ffic entesing aubject property.
Chairman saymouz requoatad that th~ petitioner cunfine his remarks ~o '~he
changes in the plans and Any new evi•3ance.
~ ~
MiNUTEB, GxTX PLANNiNG COMt~tY88I0N~ Juno 2S, 1A73 73-394
RECLASgIFICl1xxON N0. 7'2-73-46 AND COND~TIAN7-L USE PICRMIT N0. 1398 (Continued)
Mr. ,70~ Dsvidaon, Z7'7s Eaet standi~h 1-v~nu~, on~ ei th~ p~tl.t~onerm, app~axed
balora th~ Commi~rion and ^tAted ~hat booaus• o! th~ oppo~~t,l.an, he l~lt hae
~hould •xplain oomn o! ehe prablsm~ pre~~nt~~! pr~viouely, no~cinq that hs had
lived in ~-nah~i.m !nr ~ittemn ysar^ and had uonduct~d a roa1, ewt:ata bu~in~s^
on Stste Colldgs eoulavard !ar the pa~t t~n yoar^ and haA watah~d the oh~ng~o
oac~irzing an 8tAt• Golleg• Houleve-rd •^ a raaltor •nQ •• a t+u~sin~s~ men on
the rtzaat~ that they pz~oposaA thia fsaility tar a aambinadl r~al OOtid~O and
in~uranae oP~ic~e whi.ah Nou1d be mors oumpatibl~e with tha n~iqhbarinq R-1
pro~ertie~~ that their p.ropoeed te~ci~ity would beautity tbe ara,e ~o that tha
neiqhbora could exprsae pxide i.n tt-e davelo~m«nt- just as thoy aould ba pxouA
ta h+sve euah a development dn Lhe etr~ati that en int~rantimg thing about ~h~~a
homee in the blook betweon Savoy Avenue and 9outh Street wao thn tact *.hat none
c~t thaee homae had on-etzeat pe-rkiny, cnuuing illsqal parkinq nt vehic.Lo~ in
~he elley, or iP questo Nmr~, to viai.t the~e homes, thsy r+auld have tn park a
block swny and walk, which, in hie eatimatiun, did not p rovida ths propar
livinq envixonment for eingle-tamily ragidants~ that eiqnilicant chanqea h~d
taken pl.ace in this area einGe i968, with two tsrvics ata~ions on the eaet
eide o~ 3tete Collaqe Bouiavard aaxoss from eubjaut ~roQmrty, a rastaurent ut
tha eouthwest corner af Sou~h street an~1 3tnte College Boulevard, a sma~.l
ehopping center adjaoent to one aervic~ station ~ar~her •oukh on Stete Collega
Boulevard, and all oE theae changea, toqdther with the tAOt tha~ tha Aneheia-
Gonara~ Plan pr~jected oubject p roperky Por aommercial a!lice uaee, prampted
him to purchr~au theae humes For coiiver~~on into a busine~e affiae for himeelf
as~d the in~urance brokcrt that einca the General Plan was adopted at d Ql:b1~C
hearing, that would have bean the time when oppo,~itiun should hava been ex-
pra~aed~ that. cbjection previ.ously expre$aed reqaxding the amount oE trnfPio
was one item ho would like to respond to, na~mely, ~hat there Nou~d be between
ona to th reQ r~mployees in the real estiate offico ~urir~g ths day, whila the
tnsurance office would only have the brake~r and u eecretary, amountinq to no
mare th+sn tho traf£ic that wot-l~ be expecta6 from two homas unde~r n~rmal, candi-•
tians~ that ne had dtacuased tha problem prasen~ed by Che Commiasf.on regardinq
d traffic confllct at State College Bou].evard and Savoy Avenue with a repre-
sRntative oi the Tr.affic Enginoer's offi.ce, wk~o had etateci tha-t there ha~d never
been a problem at that cornor, and Savoy Avenue was also the access for 25 to
30 fami~.ies in a tract to the weat, and if there were any probleme, ha Nas aure
t?~at the Ci.ty Engineer would have, takan ete~pg to a~leviate the problems ~ that
when he had tir~S t-ia real estate office at 305 S~uth Stt+te College Bouleva~rd~
he ale~o hsd an alley to the rear with R-1 residenta west of the alley ear~d naver
had a problem during those four years with accidentd with childreni and that
thRir k~xnpoaed use ~vould be more compatible tihan poseibly eome other type of
use thet might lae proposed, auch aa a service station a~t that fnturaection,
which could inject considerably more traffic ~than thoy propoaed.
Mr. Davidnon then prasented pictures to il.luetrate hie content~.on that there
had been changea in the area with considerably more commercial useg in the
area~ no~i~g that from evidence ae submitted from tho title ineurance comgany,
the homes bac~Ci.nq onto commerrial uses on St~te Collega Bou~ovard had inereased
in val~ae ovex the past five yeara~ thak in ad~lition to the evidence from the
title insur~nce company and tlne pi~tures, thare w~ere also letters from home-
owrers in the area indicatinq thoy had no oppoaition ~o tihe proposed use.
Mr. Davidson fuzther note,d it was hia desire ~o ram,si.n in bueineas on State
Colleas Bouleva~dr that he had no intention of downqzAding the neiqhbozhaad~
that he did not feA1 that they wouid be i.njecting ~.hat much commeraial traffic
i,nto the axeas that theix facility would not be visibl~s be~ause o£ ths wall
they propoaed~ that other.s in the srea had ~imildr si~gning ae he proposed,
namely, a revolving signi and that he telt their propasal would bo euperior
to anyth i:~q thak could be pzoposed in ~he araa.
Mr. Geoxge Rochford, 705 Dover Street, ap~eared belore the ~ommise_on in opgoei-
tion and stated that the Coa~mieeion appesxed to be a~g~sin coneiderfng sn item
which they had denied at the previoue public hosrinqt that he had Walked a:lang
State College Bo~:levaxd from 3ants Ana SLree+t to South 3txeex an3 tr~e commer-
vial uses phfah hacl been eetablis:~ed th~re appear~ed to hava bt~en flpen only a
~ew ~hort montha, and the o~ost rocant cloaura of A businers rtag a aervice
atation at S~znta Ana Street end State Collsqe aoal~evarc9~ that there appeAred
to be cor+~~ ~.lrrnble apat zoning in the ar~a, Mhich he felt was crentir~g probleme ~
~
~1~1
~
MINUTffiS, CYTY PLANNING COMMIBSIQN, .7un~ Z5, 1973 73-•395
Q~L113i6I~'IG71'1'IQN N0. 72-73-46 AND COND7TIONAL UB~ PLRMIT NO. 1390 (Continu~d)
th~L wh.n tho x~~!.dent~ o! their traut firet purcha~sd th~+ir homaao t~~y r~ooq-
nis~A th• w::i~ting aommexciai uses but ~i~1 not expaat addiClonsl comm~roi~l
u~~~ to b• ~ppzov~dt thal. thAre were many areaa in Qowntawn Anxhsim Mhiah war~
vaaant ~nd whioh would b~ adm~uaks !or 1:he propoood ueei thst rh• City o!
Anah~i~n h~d ~nor• than anouqh ol~iaA QpaCS available~ thnt the aoaamsnt mads by
Mr. navid~or. x~qsrQing the appr~oi.stion of property val.uee edjsoene ta aamwAr-
oial p~cop~rti.~a could b~ chneidexea tho r~oult of ir~tlati~n, hot a~ppr•o1A~ioni
thati th~ xosiflonta wara inters~tod in pratecting their p'.~Zgle-family r~sid~n••
ti~l ~nvironm~nk and theiz lita ~avinge ii~vastment oi~G.1 t;hey ep+n~ mosa tl.m•
1n ~h~ir ho~n~• than snywhere elee~ dnd tha-t he aould reg~aeat ~he Commi~nion to
yiv~ du~ ~udqme~nt that thie hed beer- a xesidontial areA !ar a~ numbor o! y~arr
and thae ehay wnnt~d tn retain it ae euch.
Mr. A1 H~rman~on, 1908 8a~vay Avenue, Appeuzed bef~re the C~~mmiesian in oppoel.-
tion and ~Cat~!! he hnd 2ived nt this addreoa for eixteen ~- seven±eon y~ar~~
that they had Nanted t~ ke~+p the drea in its single-fRmily ca`.~acory lrom 8t~te
Collt~q~ Bouleve~rd weetr that the vehiales thet would'be patronizing thio o~m-
msrciel lsoility would be ux~a-lsle to hnve acceas fsom Stete Colla9~ B~uleva-xd
nn8 v+ou1Q have to use the allev, thu~ injecting commerc:ial traft~.c into a
rssidsntial areat thRt even though the getitl,~oner might be providin~ edequate
parki~nq, the bmployees ~+ould park on 3avoy Avenuet and thnt althou~h mam~on~
rkatod thio would be a good uae of su~ject proporty, he would aqxae wi.th
~ommiaoioner Horbdt Lhat it woulfl be dif£icult to CJAfIl ~r~tranae into tha ar~A,
anci ht~ wanted to diacournge any m~re tra~ffic into thig r~si.dential area.
The Cotumigsion 5earetnry noted that Mrs. Rhendra Gceai, owner of. tha home ak
715 8outh State College BoulAVard. h~d telophoned, indicati,ng tha~ ahe wasr 1.n
l~vor oP the pzopoeed recl~saification aad uee.
Mr. Dsvl.dron, in rebuttal, atated that the adjoin•ing propez~y owndre hAd indi.-
aatbd th~y were in favo.r or th~s propoaal; thnt comments were tt~ade ~h3t thia
propoeal wou~!! AfPect L•he property owners to the weat of the alley by thu in-
cresso in traFfic, however, there would ~e ho morn vet~icles than mi.ght b~ ox-
poctad if th~se homes were used f.o x einqla-~ami~y uuea, }srticulArly when mast
home+s had ~t leaat two cars, and some even more, while thare wauld be r~o mare
tha~n threo aezs at a time ~t the real eatatie office 3nd no more than two at
th~ iasurance olficej that L•he ingrese and egsasa would ba no prnblem einaA
they hsd taated khe propert}- to detern:ine if a traffic conflict rould reeult,
howaver, sinae the tra~ffi~: signal had been installed at that intoraection, thie
had eosr~ewha~t alleviated pedeatrian/traffic conflicts~ and that khe resean h~
Ksntecl Ca eetaL•lish at thia location wae because he wanted to own thA pxaperty
in Nhich he wee doing business, although he had b~an rent.~ng up u~.til that tiime.
THE HEARING WAS CY.,OSED.
Mz. Davidaonr ~n responae to Comniisaion questioning, stated the ingreae-egreea
shown on the plans was a v~alkway only, sinre no ~riveway waa permitted from
State College Bouievard, and acceea would be from the all~ey and aome ~ram
Savoy Avonue, which would mean driving pADt two hom~~s to the parking ar~a.
Comml.esioner A1].red inquized whether or not there was a 6-foot masonry wall
ad3a~~ant t~ the alleyt whereupor. Mx. DavidAen ~tated thera was a wall.
fi lady in the audience adviaed the Commission that ther~ was no waYl a~djaaent
to the ailex at her property lin~, which was appooit~ sub~ecc prope~rty.
ChAirmen Soymour was of the opiniox~ t.hat aome buifering should be provided
alon~ tha alle~• whezeupon Mr. DllVidA~+r+ ~ ~«cfld that all of ttze proye~tteg wera
t~aoed excmp~ . the lady who had just apoken, and thP az~ea adjacen.. to the
parktnq spacoe wss not protected by a wal]. because this ~vas the front saCba~ck
and it waa completely opgn ad jace•.~t to the a11e,y.
Furthsr diacuesion was held by tt:~ Commissioa. reqarding r.equiring a wa-11
seperating the ~ommeroial and resic:ential uses, particularly whexe the sesiclan-
tial uee wa. adjacent to a parkinq brea~ that 2:hg residential propertx ownera
Mould hatva to give consent to constxuction of thia wz-11 on their property an8
~ ~
MINUTIEB, C1TY PLANNIN(i COMMISl3ION, Jur~e 1S, 1973 73-39G
R1~CI~ASSZP'IC71~SOt~ NO. 72-73-46 ANp CONDI'~'ION1~L U88 kICRMIT N0. 1390 (~onti.nueud)
inquirecS wh~th~r the petitioner would px~vid• thi~ Wall i! ~ha nal.qhbor aon-
^anted~ whsroupan Mr. Davi.d~on ~tet~d h• Moull9 do wh+~t~ver tho Pla:,ning
Commi~~ion and tiha n~iQhbor d~oiQod, hovr~vsr~ ~he rear oP th~ir buildinq
would be very attraativu, evnn a~ m~iah As the lron~ laasda.
The Commiesion noCed tha~ tha wall. aou'ld be neceeeary to provi~e bufEering
be~.ween a~utomobiloe and noioe and odor• Prna~ the reaidentia2 ua~, rtot ne+coe~-
eezily the building.
Zoninq 3uparvisor Charlee ~toberta adviaaQ th~, CommisFion khak thie w~el7.
requir~ment hRd baon made in simiJler situations in tha ~aak, par~ti.cular.ly the
one an the eeaT. siAe of State College Sasl~vazd north o! Bauth 9treet Whare
tha alley wee propo~ed to be used for aaoess, and tha Commis~ion ~od req~irs~~1
the wall be inatalled by the commeraia2, propezty owner upon canee+nt boinS1 yiva~n
by rhe a8jnaent R-1 property ownar, an9 if this oonsenC waa not given, tl~i.~,
then, would abeolve them from t}~is requiremen~.
Chttirman 9eymour wa~s of t:he opinion that ~heoe homes were nat 9e,ei.rt~t~3a~ ~o.r
rusidentiAl UAlB, but i~ the City decided th• homes ahould noL b~, khexe, 1:k-~n
perlnape the leugt incensc~ uee as to ~raxlio nnd df~ruption o~ the exJ.sting
residential anvizonmant t:o the weat should ba con~ideredj th+~t p~~+~fl~ly t:h~
Commieeion couxd conside~~ samathinq rimilsr tA that which had bo~en ~.pproved
along the wa,~t eide of Eiicti.d Stx~eet betwe~n 8roadWny and Oranqe Avpnao, t~e-
c~uee thle was a similar bituatiant th~t ptrhapa tbb axea dev~lopmnnt plan
pre~vi.~ualy considered eh<~uld be zeaotivat~G~ vrhiah miqht propo~r~ hA~ving two
acc:essways betw~sen the a:lley end 9tak~ Co31oQe Bouleuard, and gezh~p~ even
cloeinq ofF Savoy Avenue.
Commisai.oner Gauer notc~d ~hat i! ths Gity +-:lowed more strip cummercial i~~es+,
thie would defeat any p~ane for dovrntown Anah~im and high-riae offi.cc~ +~-nc~
residential buildings far th~t aren bocause i~ aould dilute commc~r~:ia~ ~Zeeds,
and existing downtown bufidings wer~ already vacent becau~v af thc~~ ro.~rin~iod
strip c~~mmerc_' al uses beinq ap> >vad in ~lnaheim.
Chalrman Seymour no~ed that the proposee developmer~t cou].d not be ~.C]il~~.~z ~~ed
architecturally with the st~rip commArciul ueee long establiah~d atorAg Ar:~aokhuret
Straet batween Li.ncoln an3 Creecent Av~nuee~ that the residerit:ial eriva.xUrmsnt
along Sta;.e Callege Boule~~ard was undasirable, and he wauld not car~: t.o resar
g fami].~ on tha•t stxeet, a].~hough he could und~srstand the c~;~cr:rn of th~
eine~le-fami.ly reaiclente woet of theBe lots fror~ting on SGate (`~~11e~~e '~~ulevard
b~caLSe of tha possibte removal oP their naturel buffer fram th~e nois~Qs uf
traffic alony State Gol:leg~ Bc+ul~vard.
Commiesior.cr A.i' r.ed axpreased ihe opinion that the answrer t~a ttxF:ae pxubleme
would be lnnd a~aembly af the single-fnmil~- lot•s and develar~ment-. •ritlz segular
uommercial use structuse~ develop~d in accordance ~vith the s,~'_te de~;elo~ment
standardo - even thoug~ this wess a atart of land ass~:mbly, it on1,y ~aaverad two
lots in this binak.
Commisa~.oner Herbst was oE tha opiniar_ that if r.hl.s proposal weie approved, lt
would open another area for strip cammercial uaes bath to the nortl~ and aouth.
Commissianar. Gxuex noted that tho Cna~miasion ht~d ~p~~x•oved w,~ll r iri the fxont
aetback when "A Stud;~ o£ ResSdential xomes Fronting can Arteri~~ Hi<ThwaX~" wax
c;onsidered several year.s agoJ that th~ wr~ll ~ou1d pr.nvi.fl~ ~ox a f~ont ya.r~.9
patio and li.vinq area, screening Aut the r~oise and c~ur~2: i`rom this arteriax.
and atill havrs a.ccass to the pxoperty from the al].ey~ for veY~icu7.ar purpo~;c:~ ~
and that once thla p~all cons~ruc~fon wae startec~ as a mQtliod of reducinq noise
and auat, he was asre others would ~olluw suic.
Office Enyineer Jay Tf tus, f.n reoponae ~o Comm+.s~tion queetioninq, etated that
the dai].x traffa c coun~ on 5tate Colleqe Bqu.levarc~ dt this l~ca~i.on wa~ 3].,000
vehiclas t wh:~reuPon Chair:~a~n S~eyc+our ateted he diii not ~hink a wsll wou18 blac}c
out the noise from that ma~ny vehicloa.
~
~
~
MINUT~S, CITY PL,ANNING CQMMI89ION, Jut-e 15~ 1P7.". 73'~q~
RLCLASSZFICATION N0. 72-73-46 ANU CONDITIQNI-L UC1E pERM2T N0. 139E~ (Continuod)
Cammioeionex Herbet inq~iir~d why th~ Ci~.y wao a11~Winq •par~mento to b• built
only 13 ~eat froa~ tha riqh~-ol-Mayt that tihe apertment dsv~lopmant e~ Romn~ya~
Dri.ve and 8tate Colloqe eoulevard wae r~nted b~lora it w~-s oompla~nd, and ik
remsinad filled ev~n thouqh anly 1S la~~ lrom the riqht~-o~'-MAYi +~nA thor~ in-
quixed whe-t tho tratfic r.ount was at thak loaation~ aher~upon Mr. Ti.tu~ st+tt~d
Che tratYic count was 25,000 voh~al~~ pwr day in thet are+x.
Comrleeioner Hnrbot notHd that nllowiny aommezaial u~e• ~nto shis arps wou1G
h~g n~ha bremkdown of the aren, ancY ~here asz• •om• homee th+~~ Mould be
efte+~:~ed a:l.onq Savoy Avwnu~ if commerai.el use~ wsre p~rmittmd~ that this
izter~~e+r_tio~1 of Savoy Avenue and State Collaqe Bouleve~d vrae a r.ather di,fgloulk
angl.e inter.+eation, ina'king i< .loae 1:tian deoiz~+abl• for commerci~l usea boesu~•
~hoi~ only nC099l~ to the groperti.~,s would be from th~~ ~.llay f.rom at~hsr 8avoy
Avenue .:x 9atxth a^tx'eot.
Mr. U~videan, in reepanee to Commi~rlari question~.ngr ett~~ed that o! the aeven
:;~mE~~ there wero four that were renxala aad thrse had the awn~re rsaidinq in
t:he~m, and Ghat ong ~f the ownere had eubmitt~d a lott~r. appraving the nropoe~-1.
Mr. Roberte advis~cl t11e Commiee~on that. when tlte aran devalapment plan +-nd
rcc~aneiEic~tion wero conraidered for this block of homa~ elonq 8ta.te Calloge
e~uuleverd duzi.ng the ttme t'~e Front~On Study hAd ~aen aon~ides~d, it wa~
determicied that th9.s would be an appropriate aro~n for conversion, however• at
ch~t t.imm th~: proporty ~wners wero noC intereated i.n canveri inq to commmroial
u~aen ox Qa~ablishin,q A:reflolut.ion ot intent bmcauAe it would have meant their
t.ax r.e~te woul~i have t7«±dn increased cons~.dorably, thQretore, the City Council
~iet~rminc~d that it would be better to have these geople coma in nn an individuaY
b+~si» whon they decided to chanqe tlne use ot ~heir property~ mnd th~ti Nhen tha
Analieim General Plan Wxe updatad in 1963, the frontage alo~ng State Cullege
Aoulevrs.rd was i,.ciicated for commercial oftice land uae.
Chairman Sdymour i.nqui.red what Area Aevelopmc+nt Plan No. 98 propoded at that
tii.me for ~econdary circulationf whereupon Mr. Robertr~ etated that the alley
was propoaed to be ~sed as the primaxy saurce of secondary acceas, and the
exhibit indicated thst two alley returns werP propoaed ta be developed betwaen
Ghg alley and State Colleqe B~ulevardp however, when one tnl,kc~d about e11ey
re•t.urr~s, in order to obtain allqyn a 20-foot width woul3 be ~he minimum to be
consiclered adeq+~ato, and some of thaee reaiden~:ial structures Would have to
bc~ demaliahod n~1d commercial buildinqe erect~d in order to provi8e tY~eae alley
Yeturris.
Chair.man Seymour wae of tho opinior that perhapo the Commiseion ahould again
revl.ew the area development plan for thia pArticular block on State Colleqe
BoulQUard eince it ~a closely resembled the Euclid Street fron.tage, althouqh
h~ was not sure that the re~aining Cammisaion members would ba inte~~sted in
"dustir-q aff" Area Cevelopment P2an No. 99 conaidered in 1.968, and inc~u~red
~rhethar Mr. Dsvidnon would be aqreeable to another continusnce For a review
~f this area development plan.
Mr. Davidaon atated that theae alley returna would indicate ingres~ and eqrega,
hawever, wl.th the siqr.al light near that intersecrion, ~t would be difficult
with only two pxopRrties on the cornc~s to have accesa to and from theae proper-
tiea on State Colleqe Boulevard.
Chairman Seymour nc.tied that thia was ona reason for looking at the aree de+vel-
apment pian, and maybe :.he property srould~be developed in anather faehion
ainc:e it was hi.s opinion that the~e homes aere Yiot deairablo for rearinq
families, noL• on.Iy the petiti.oners' lots but the balance of the ainqle-family
homes between Savoy Avenue and Sauth Streat to determina what typas of uaes
should be allo~ved, haaever, he did not NAAt to see a gar s~r~tion at nnother
corner, and the residente west of aubject propertv miqht fael better if they
knea~ what type of asea aould be l~ag intense and what would aifect t:~ea- the
leaet.
....~
~
~
•
MINUTEB, CITX pI.ANNxNG COMMIBgiON, Jun• 15, 1973 73••398
RECLA35IFICATION N0. 71-13-46 AND CqINDITI0N11L OS~ PEItMIT N0. 1348 (Continued)
Mr. ~avidson otat~d th~t ~inom th~y avrn.d only two o! the lotr, tnd ~v~n thouyh
one ~! the Commis~icn had Atuted th~re waz~ many other ot~ice~ emp~y in 1Anah~im,
he pret~rred to remain on State Colleqs Bnulovera, r~oE nsceaqarily b~inq loca~sd
dov-ntown.
Comt~iaaionsr Gauer notad that ehe City o! Anaheim hed a Re~levelopment Plan for
the redeve].o~+ment. oP the doNntown srea Nhich would nat be aaoompli~h~d it th•
City a1loMed ev~ry atrdct hnviny 'heavy traEfir, to devslop for a~rip camm~roial
us• ~ how oould +~he City encouxage high-deneity R-3 on tihe ~mri~hery o~ th•
doWntoMn if thore wt-s no dawntow~ buaineaa.
Mr. Davideon notad that pr.operty cwners having proper~.ieA on Gld~tl atreet~ o!
tho oity had a dift'~c~ilt time unloadi.:s~ their pxoperty a»d khere wao nothing
thst could be done, thera~ore, he le:t tt~e City was impoeing a hnrdahip on
these pr.operty ownere.
Chairman 3~+ymour inquired whetk:~r nr not Mr. Davidaon would be aqraaable to
conaidcring another continuancet whareupon Mr. Davidaon statdd Lhat they
would be willir~ to qo along with tli~ C~minio~ian on *.hie continuancA, bu~ he
felt tliare w~uld be no problem ir~ deve2oping his propurty.
Commiesioner Kaywood inquired whather or not the petitianer wao preoently
renting the two homga~ ~vhereupon Mr. Da~-idson atAtod L•hdt they weze rentsd,
howover, tha income from thi~ p:'operty wao insufffci9nt to meRt hie mortgng~
paymente, and a].though the properties were rented, thie did not necee~ari.ly
mean they Wer~ suitable tdnatcts.
Mr. Dean Lackey, 719 South Sta~e Collega Baulevard, appeered bo~ore the
Commiseion, noting tl~at he was in tha middle of the block, being two houses
aWay from the prnposed development, and iiad lived there f.or nine years; th~nr
it was a discomf~rt t~ live in the home, pe+rti.cul3rly when the Windows wAre
open, one aould not hoar anyone tai.ki that it was a misexable plac9 to live
ar to noiaet ~ha~ he had talked with evexy homeawn~r on the t~tock, ~and none
w~rR in disagreement ta the propoaed zoni.nqi thet until recently on].y two
peraor~s lived thore who owned thair pruperty - now the man ad~acent to State
Col2eqe Boulevard nn3 South Street had purchasAd this proportyt and that he
would 11ke to aee thia go commercial becauae his family did not ].ike the
noises. Furthermore, e~erybody on that etreat hacl been approached many times
ainco the atadium ~rent in, and although he had a businea9 of his own, he
could not locate thsre.
Mra. Audrey Morris. 1391 Savoy Avenue, appFared before the Commission, noting
that sne lived across the atr~et from the alley of the proposed use, and they
already had a traffic and pa.rkinq pxoblem on the streett that they need~d
their parking in L•ront uf thoir hou~es, parti.cularly in her inatance, s~.nce
thep had two cars, a camper and a truck~ that she was sure people from this
commercial facility woul& be parking on the streett and then in response to
queationing by the Commission, atated she would n~t raise hei ~amily on
State Col.leqe Boulevard if they had a home there.
Chairman Se~mour noted that at tho nex~ public hearing the Commiesion would
discuas the aren devolopment p].an regardinq the development ~f the entire
block, specific usea tihat couid be de~veloped and uses that would be mor•e
comp;.ti~le as to noiae, traffic, etc.
Comm~ssionex Seymour offered a motion, secondad by Commissioner Gauer and
MOTION CAttRiED, to soopen the hearing and coritinue consideration oE Petitiona
for Reclaen#.fication taQ. 72-73-~~6 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1398 to the
meeting of July z3, 1973, in o:•Ses to a8vertiso Area Development plan No. 98
ax~d for staff to do adSitional e~udy regar8lnq circulation and u~es tlhat
miqht be permitted i.n thiD area.
s
~
MINUTEa, CITY PLANNINO COMMIS820N, June 2~, 1973
73-399
RBCLA83SFIC1ITIAN - PUHLIC H~11R=NC3. 11RTHUR N. P'xR~D, 176Z1. 17th Stze~t,
N0. 7Z-73^yg l~pt. 31-g, Tustin, Ca. 9~690, OMn~ri 7-. K. CHiLD, 7- ~ C
'-' Commeraial propext~~~~~ ~041 3auth ~uean, 9anta Anm, Ga.
9Z704, ~-gant~ reque~tinq th~-t prop~rtg d+~er~bed aoe A
trianqularly-shaped parool o! lend aon~istinq o! •pFroximatsly .~ sero, havinq
~ lrontia-ga o! a~proximetel;~ 270 l~et on tha nozth sille o! ttivordale Av~nuN,
hevinq a maximum d~pth of app:oximat~ly S6 l~~t and bping looated approxim~tMly
450 lest vre~t of the aentsrline o! Tu~ ;in 1lvoau~, b• s•oalasnifie~d tzom th~
R-A, RQRI~ULTU :~AL, ZONE t0 th~ C-~. ~ O~NSlt11L COMMERCIAL, 2UN3~.
No ons app~arsd in appoeition.
Al.though the Raport to the Gommiesion wm~ not raaA at the public hsaring, it
is retexred to nnd made a part o! tho minuteo.
Mr. A. K. Child, agent for tha petitioner, npp~a~red belore th• Commii~ion,
notinq thAt he ina~A ~rro vamm~r-ts to make ragardinq the Report tio thA Commieaion,
namaly, thst he alred8y hc+d ~- le~tot lzom the City of Orange regsrding th•
engina~r.ing roquiremente for ntraet wl.daning purpnees •nd thdt ,Zn would roque~t
Maiver o! the eidewalk becausr~ thu width ot the proparty wae only 50 feet est
its m~xlmum, goinc,~ dowa t,a z~ro feet immediatsly adjacent ta the drainaqe
c.anal.
TNE NRARING WAS CLGSED.
Commiscfoner Allred indicated he w~sP familiar with the nrea, and the re~ueat
of tk~e peti.tioner to aaive the sidewalk would appear to be npprnpriete einca
there were n~ aidewalks on the o~posite sille o~ the atreet, nnd inquirod haw
muoh epace theze wae between khe levae and the etreet~ wheraupon Mr~ Child
atatod Lhat this went right to the right-of-wuy.
Office Enqineer Jay Titus, in response to Commiaeion queationing, not~sd tt~at
~here Nae a 90-foot ri~ht-of-way alonc~ Riverdale 1-venue - this woul~i provide
an area for the ~idewal.k ta be conetructa~ i! needed or in lieu thereof land-
scAp.ing miqht be pexmittrd, and in relat~on ro this pro~ect, he woulc~ reaommend
that the Commteaian require aidewalke in the same manner ae wa~s required in
the induetrial area, howevex, the petitfoner could rsquest waiver of the oide-
walk to th~ City Counail., but he must ~ustify the reason for this waiver and
prnpaee landscaping in lteu thereof.
Mr. Chi.~.rl, in responae to Commiasion questioning~ etated that they propoaed
ta utillze a portion o~ thie strip for par:cing purposes and some nf the
balance would be landsca~ed.
The Commiseion then reviewed the p).ans and upon ita concluaion, Commiasioner.
1~llred noted that the Com~aiesion h+sd in3uired what +aas pr~posod to tho west
and the petitioner had indicated he would ~3edicatb a-nd plsc~ sidew~alke or
lan3acapinq~ however., the balance of the property aould be landacaped whero
no parking ~ras pro~?oaed.
Zoning 3upervieor Charlea Roberta noted t.hat any properky that was rernaining
u~tar dedicati~n and that which was not ueed far parking would be landycaped -
~-as that the atipulstion of the petit~oner~ whe=eupon Mr.. Child sa atipulated.
Commiasioner Kaywooc3 ot'fered a motion, secondad by Commissioner. Allrad and
MOTTON CARRIED, that the Plar~ning Commiesion, in connection with an exemption
declaration status requeat, finds and determinos that the proposal wauld 'nave
no algnificant envir~nmen*»al impact and, L•heretore, recommends to the City
Council that no Environmenxal Imgact 9tatement ~e neceseary.
Commieeioner tierbst offered Resolution No. PC73-1~L0 and moved for ita passag~
and adoption ta recommend to the City Counail tha,t Petition for Reclaseifica-
tion No. 72-73-55 be approved, eub;mot to conditiions a~nc3 the etipulatiun of
the petitioz-er that landecaping would be pxovidar3 wherever the ~nruperty was
not beinq used for ded3catad xight-of^~Md~- purpoeea or parking. ~~~e
R~aeolu~i~n Book)
On rnll calz tha for~goinq resol~tion vras passed by the ~ollowing vote:
71YES: COFtMi83i021ERS: Ailzad, Gauer, Herbet, K~ywood, Rowlan~, Seymour•.
NOES: COMMI35IONE RSs Nane.
ABSBN~: COMI:ISSxON~ABs Farano.
~
~~
MINUTEB, CzTY PL~NNTNG COMMiSSIAN, Jun• Z5, 1973 73-400
~ONQiTiONA~ qSE - pUHLIC HE71RiNd. MYRTLE R. CHllPxti, 1017 Cachran llwauM,
PS1tMIT N0~1407 i~oe 1ingel~s, C~. li0017, Oan~rt dLRN ROBIN80N, 1:t84 Eadt
1"loMer Strsst, ~1nah~im, Ca. 9~805 and H. W. BENLKE, 513
We~t Hempehira, Ar-ah01m, Ca. 9Z805, l-gentsi re~ueatinq
p~ratisoion to BSTl19LI8H x CNURCH WHIViN(d MAXIt~UM 11R811 QF IDF~NTIFICI-T2oN atQN
on pzapext~~ aesaxi.bed ae~ ~ A» irraqularly-ehspefl para~l of ~and o~nsi.sting ot
approxim~tely 1.5 a~aree, h+~ving s tront~qe of +~pproximetaiy 630 Pseh o~i tha
ea~t sida o! 9unkis~ WAy~ having a maximum dapth o! approximatolp 190 leet,
end being looat~cf at the northwest oozndr o! Mixaloma AvenuR a-n!I 3unk~~ot way•
PropexCy pr~sently cldasitihd It-A, AGRICULTOtcl,L, ZONB.
TMO psr.ons i~tdicated thelr praeena• in oppasikion.
11sAi~tr~nt Planner Phillip Sohwartze revi~wed the loa+ttion o! eub~oat praperty,
uo~~ a~tablirhed i.n closa proximity, and the prsvi.oue zonin^ avtion on thm
prapezty -~-~ W~11 a~e t4-e pr.oposal to eatnblish a ahuroh with ~~aiver o~' tha
mex.lmum pexmitted aign aree Co p9rniit a 30-~equ+~re lAOt ei.gnt tt~st ~.he pr~poeAl
~ndioeted ~ 4480-equere foot chuxch to eeet 195 Fszoone, being ~tipproxlmate.ly
56 teet wide, 80 tmet I~nq, and 18 P~wt hiqh and would cover ap~~zoximately
6s of Lhe eitA~ that the churoh would be aet baak ~A raquired :5 feet from
Sunkist Way at the front and 40 feek from Miraloma 1~vonue et ch~ roars that
vehiaular nccese to thA eite would b~ provided by three, ev~nly-epxced, 25-
lo~t drivev-ays off Sunkiet Wayr that the northmrlymogt driveNay wou].d seorvd
only the northerly par'tion of ~he ai~e, And from thie dzivewAy a ane~way, 17-
foot wide drive w~u].d. ~oop around wil•.hin the northerly portion, providing
access to 3.2, 45-degree p~+rking apacea~ that the other two drivewaya wero
conn~+cted by a 2S-POQt wide clrive provid~fng acness to 34, 90-deqree parkiny
spacee~, thue provi;ii.ng 6f~ pesr.king epacea whi.le Codv would roqui.ra only 40
apaces in acaordance with one spaoe pes five eeata~ that landp-.~inq wou].d
be provi8ad by a combinakion of plantera in the parkfnq arsae a.nb qreen lawne
elner~h9re i thmt the planters typically would bo plantad with juniper, palm,
and yucc:r that the exteriar oF the churah aould bA re~ndered in :noSern Spanish
styla, che roof wouldl be red ti].e~ tho walla would be tan atucc~ with a skid
trokel textuse~ that the eaeterly progerty line ~f aub;ect property wa~• a~,p2~ratad
from MisalomA Avenue by a slope ambanl:ment varyinq in wid;:h £rom uppro~.imately
20 to 6~ foet, and the Commisaion in the pa~t hmd req~-~.red elopea tn be ]and-
ecapec] and irrigation f.aciZitics provided on other propertl,ee in the area heving
a similnr aituation~ that a 40-~oot wide MWD eaeement r~n parallel to ancl adja-
cent ~o the eaeterly property line, and a ooncxete fa..;i!ity and me~nhole wauld
b~ locatel 1n the landscapod area ai: the eouth 9nd 41 ":.a gropertys that a
chainl~nk fence prescnt.ty ~~xisted on tl.a nortlier).~ proF~er~y line edjaaent to
the Riverside Freeway, and the Commis~sio~ might wish t~~ discuas a buffer wall
with the petitionerr and that the Commission might wieh to coneid~r t~rminnting
all oE the pre~~iously-approved zoning actions on aub~act property if aubject
patition was apgroved.
Mr. G].en Robineon, agent Eor the petitioner, a~ppeared b,~fore the C4~mission
and etated tha.t he was a 56-year r.eaident of the City ot Anahei.m and was a
member of the churchr that b~cause their Qreaent facility was too sm~ll, they
~rrposed to ccnAtruct a now church with more than adequatc~ parking o.i subject
propertyt thaS; accorc3inq ~o the architect'a renderiny poetsd on the ~ast wall
of the Cou~~~{.1 Caamber, they propoaed to add an attractive structurs to tha
communihy on propert:y tl~at was somewhat ieolated from other development= as2d
that they would be a9reeabld to providing landacaping on thr: slope af Miraloma
Avenue.
l1ro. Carol Lnwe, 2058 East Romneya D~ive, appeared b~~fore the Commisaion in
oppoaikion and inqui.red wi; ahe had not been n~tiified .is to s zene chnnqe
wi~.h this pe~itiont whereupon t:hairman Seymour noted that these was no zot~ing
ckenge invalved ~ince a church was permitted in t~ny zono b,y appxoval of a
aonditicanal uue Per:m3t~ and the zoniiiq wauld semain R-A, tharefore~ the
appae~tion haa Deen notiFiad teq~ily.
Mre. LoHe then inqui.red what type of aiqninq was propoeed - was it a freo-
etanding aiqn that would be lighted and flaah~.ng ao that it would affect the
homea on the wasC aide of Sunkist F1ay~ whereupon Chairman 5eyn-our noted thaL•
the petitioner proposed a wall sign.
U
~
~
MINUTEB, CITY PLl1NNING COMMISSION, June 2S, 1973 73-401
CONDxTION1-i. USE PERCNxT NO.~ 1~ ~ (Coatinu4d)
Mrs. Lowe lurL•h~r notied that the zAaidrnt~~ o! tho drea did not want pArking
by membors o! th• churoh in their re~idontiel Atrests.
Mr. AnbinMOn aavia~d the cuu-miseion that th~ 3x9-loot •ign would be on th~
wall ~aainq 9unkirt Way dild wauld be mad~ o! ldminet~d birch, light wood
paneling snndbla~ted tc produae the l~~ter~r whioh vrauld be gil.tad nnd tlaod
lic~hts aould iliuminate tha sign +st nightt thati they prnposed 26 more pnrking
epaasa th~n requirsd by CoCn ea that in ths avent they hed a epecial event oz
more gt~eeto at n meeting Chan membarp, thesa sddit~.onal epacas would t+~ke aare
o! the ovHrtlnM parking whiah mi.ght ocour unce a yeert the~t their ~pr~aent
membersfiip v-ae 1a0, and ~here were naver more than 25 to 30 automobi.le~t thak
from knowing MIIaT• the membere ~P the churol- reeided, it would ae herdly likely
th~t the member~+ would ba uoing the xesi.dentiAl atreete to arxive at ahurah
since thay ~rould be uss.ny La palma~ Avenua end Sunkiat 3treett ana that all of
tha~e~ homee along 3unkis~. Way were proteoted by a 6~~oot mesonry wall, With
ell homee eiding on st+id stroe«.
Chaixmnn Seymauz inqui.red ag to th~ dayn the membership mat= whureupon Mr.
Robinr~on atetad thare wAre fi.ve moati.nqa per. week, all witY~ emal] yrnupe,
on Tueeday evening from 7;30 to 8:30 p.m. snd on Thursday they had double
~9ssaione from 7~00 to 9s30 p•m., wi.th ~wo meetings on Sundey, one a~ 1:00 p.n~.
and anothez ~t 3~00 n.m.
Cummisai~nex Herbst i.r~quired whether there were youth activitiea in addition
to thnae meetings as ~uet. stated= whereupon Mr. Robinson stated that all
church activi.ty was done aa a complete family nnd there were no oocial events
in th~ avc~ning.
Tk1E HEARING WA9 C~OSED.
Chairman Seymour thQn ~tated that tha proposgl for subj~ct property wou~d be
x~n excellent us9 rather than considering it fox aps:^tment flevelopment.
Con:misaioner Allred off~red a motion, soconded by Commit~sioner Kaywood and
MOTZON CARRIED, thnt the Ylann.ng C~mn~iasion, in connection with an ~xemption
declaratior~ atatus requeat, finds and determinea thatc the proposal wauld have
no eigni~icant environmental impact and, therefora, recommenda to the City
Council that no Environmental Impac~ Statement is r-eceseary. ~
Comn~iasi~ner Gauer offered Reaolution No. PC73-141 and nioved for its passage
and adop~ion t~ qrant Petition for Conditi.onal Use Permit No. 1407, subject
to conditions dnd the stipulation by the getitioner thxt the embankment slopes
on Dliralor.-a 1~venue would be landqcaped and irrigatian facilitips provi.ded.
(See R.es~lution Book)
On roll call the fo regoing resclution was passed by the fcllowing vatE:
AYESs COMMISSTONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, RowZand, Seymour.
NOESs COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSEN'T: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
g~~~gg - Chaisman Seymaur declared a ten-minute r~cess at 3:35 p.m.
RECONVENE - Chairman Seymour reconvenc~d l:he meeti.ng at 5:45 p.m.,
~ Commissioner Farnno bei.ng absent.
CONDITZONRL USE - TIC TOC SYSTIFMS, INC. , 143~. Villaqe Way, Santa Ana., ~a.
PERMIT N0. 1409 927U5, Ownerj ~tEVEREND BAR~ARA M. STI2AUSS, 53S Hampshire,
No. 9, 1lnaheim~ Ca. 928Q5, Agent~ requesting permisa::on
to ESTA~3LISH A CHURCH WAIVIt~~ MINIMUM NUMHER C1~ REQUIRED
PARKxNG SPACES on property described as o A r~ec'tar.gularly-stiaped parccsl of
land loca~ed ati the nort~eant cornar of Ea~et and SycamorR Streeta, hav±nq
frontgges oP approxS.ma~tely 220 feQt on the eASt nide of Eaut ?traet and 235
feet on the north sirie of 3ycamore Stree~c. proparty preeently c].aasified
C-1, GENERAY. C01~fMERCIAL, ZONB.
One person indica*ed hc~x Freaence in oppoaitian.
~
~~
~
0
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMI89ION, Jun• 25, 1973 73-40Z
COlND~TiUNAL_ U~lE PERMIT N0. 1409 (Continued)
7~eeiakant F~annor Ahillip ~ahv+artzs revi~wod tha loa~tion o! •ubj~ct property•
ueso asta~bli~hed in aloe~ proximity, pxrviou• ~onin~q +~ation on th• propsrt~,
nnd the roqaeet to establish a ohurah with wa~iv~r o! tha tainimum r~quirsd
number of pa~rking rQaceai that ths p~titioner propos~d to eskeblieh ~ ohurch
in s pc~rtion Q! en axi~ting com~n~rol.al rhopplny a~nt~r havinq epproximat~ly
],575 ec~uar.e loet at tho nor.xh~+~sti cornar oP thd c~nteact thnt tha submittad
piane :Lndicat~ tha propored ohurah spaca rrould hava no fixed eeatu and would
be pertitioned to incruds s ohapel ar~a, miniat~r's olPia~, end ~Cudy~ that
tho buildinga in which thm ohuroh, ~puld be located oanteined tHO bathcoumat
that the propoeed churc:h aativitieo~would bs aonducted primarily during ~,veninq
houra~ thdt membexehip in the nhuzch wds currently 45 p~rsons, with e pr4jeotnd
mAximum o! 75 for thi~ prCpoaed locationa that r.o extexior chen~~es were pro-
gosed to be ma~de tu tt~e exigting building~ and that a~ll eigne would be i.n c~n-
formence with City e~andarde.
Mr. S~hwdrtxe, in reviewinq the evalu~tion, not~d that the commezcia-1 ahopping
center in whioh the prapoaed church would be locnted contained 63 atripe~l park-
ing specea, however, previuue apprvval of a minimum o~ 67 park'-ng s~aces wes
grante8 under Conc~itional Use Perm~.t No. 813, which applipd to a restaurgnt
and retail eommercfal uacss on the praperty, and the petitianer did not propose
an increaae in the parkinq spacas on the site. Fuxkharmore, in view af tha
fact thRt the prapoaed church would have no fixnd eQato, the parkinq require-
mant wga baeed on ~~-R Zone ~tandarda for placoA af aseembly which required ono
parking spac:e per 35 squnre feet, or a total of 45 epaces ~or the propoeoc9
church~ dnd that the remaini~nq 12,545 aquar.e feat o~ retail storea and rerate+u-
rant would req:.iro 70 spnces baaod on G-1 ata~ndardc+, for a total of 115 spacee
being requirecl.
Rev. 13arbara Strauss, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Co~nmission
and noL•ad that they presently haci a church eeta~bliahed i.n Oranga. however, due
to the fact that ttie builc~inq was being torn down for e parking arpa, they
wRre requ~.red to mava and they had a tempcrary Fermit frc~m th~ City Council to
occupy th3.e buildiny for church purposes until action was taken ~n the condi-
tional use permit~ that all they could afford as far as a church waA concernad
wa~ the propoaed type of facility b~,~aLS~ renta of property were grohi~iti~::r
ttiat these atorea wAre vacant for a number of yeara in this commereial center,
particularly those stores thaY, wer.e on the east progerty lines ~hat they pro-
posed. to use twa cf the store uni.ts, £armerly used by a prlnter, far a chnpel
ana sntryway= that no remudelinq was anticipated far eithez the inside ar oct-
side except for the posting of sacred picturea and candl.es~ that thEy had c~ome
signatures from n~ i.ghbors whtch war.e submitted ~vith ~he con3ltional use permit
which indicared they had no objection Ca the proposed ~Re; that they had stopped
ahildren from turning on faucetF and breakfng wincZowst that thcy ~rould be add-
ing inc~me into the area and cleanir~g up the araa in generalF th.at they hoped
to purchase their ~wn glaco ir- the future~ that they had all of tbeir service~s
in the evening; that sne had not brough't any~ of her cor.gxeqatio~- because mo~'t
of. them were working peoplet tk~aC they had reliqioua classes in the evenings,
with 10 to 15 persona, and at the reqular. evening s~ervices the n:aximum they
could anticipate wae ~0 pergons in attendance, whi.ch clid not nec,~ssarily mean
40 vehic].esr and that there still wer~ many parkiag spaces in the center in tlie
evering with this acL•iv~.ty~ the Tic '1'oc Maz•:cet, and the Chiiia D~11 Restaurant.
Mrs. Forn Graupman, 603 North Elmwoocl Street, appear.e3 before th.e Commiesion
in opposition, noting xhet her kitahen faced onto the ahopping c~nter~ that
ahe h~d lived in this azea fox 19 years, and th~ F~lanning Commission had waivad
the minimum number af required parklnq spaces ~rhen the ahoppiag centnr had beeit
approved becauEe of the projected street widening of East Stre~t~ that the
China Doll Restaurant aometimes used the entire paxking area, and the Tic Toc
Mark+et was open 24 houxs a day, and lt was likQly that the overflow parking
would be uaing Elmwocd S~Creet for parking purpoaes and ~ntrance an~ exit to
this area, to which sh~ wds objecting.
Rev. 5trausa, in rebutt:al, stated that there wa~s the Alberteon's Market which
had a very large pnrkinq area acroaa ~he strest from this shop~~.n~ center
where zddit~.onA1 parkiny cou].d be had if it became neaeseary, and ehe waa gure
that they would not be uaing the residential ~treet for porking purpoeest
~
~
~
MxNUTF~i, CiTY PLANNxNG C.OMMiJ3i0N, Juns 25, 1973 73-403
CONDITIONALMUSE ~'BRMIR' NU. 1409 tC4'1Eirlued)
that i! there were 20 oaro s~owing up tor churoh in tha evening, thsy Noutd
b~a~~ne quiCe axc:ited~ that thwr• N~A oon~idornble parkinq availabla ~til], ~n
the oantmr at tha parki.ng erea~, ahioh v-a~ ra~roly us~d~ and thak they did not
plan to b~ a larqd church sn!! •xpansl.~n wduld only vcm~ wh~n peoplos' aon~
~oienaes directec: them to Q~ ea.
THF HEARING WAS CLQ9Ep.
ChaiXmen seymour noted that refarenre made by tha agant !or thp poti~ioner
xege-rQing ~ie~zkin5~ end the lact Lhs~ th• ~hurah would bo ratt~a•r. small might be
so n~w, but thia was no a~edurnnc• to th• Cammiroion that the churah would not
bo incre~-sing in me~mberehip with~n two xearr i~ tha option wes •xcraiseQ~
••~rthexmors, etafP had given aalculations cn parkinq for no~i-lixsd a~ating
,. ~aoity, which ~a~s eomewhat ditf~~:ent tham wae xoquired ~ar regvlar-typu
churches, and he felt statf ohould make additiona~7. atudi~o ot eimilar ueee in
c~ther citioe to detnzmine the axeat formula ueed for ahuchen w.it.h non-seatin~t
faci].it~.os, thareFore, he telt ~ubjact pe*_ition ehould be continted far four
wAekq for this a~udy.
Comu~lasioner. Ke,ywaod roquestad that a~ report ba mnde as to the r~eaeon why
perking was recluced because oP L•he xeatxiping Erom the permitted G7 to 63.
Commies:oner 5eymour of.Pored a motion Lo reopen the hearing a~,d continue uon-
9lderation of Petition fox C~nditinnal Use Pezmit ~10. 1409 tu thE: meetiny o!
,7uty 33, ].973, i~ order to allow time ~or atsff to prepa~ e a etudy reqardinq
the ~arking r~~uirements for non-lixod geat:ing ae wall as £ixed soating !oz
ahurches . Commiesionar Kaywo~d eecor~ded the motinn. MOTiON C:ARRIEU.
V7-RIAt3CE NO. 2517 - PUBL2C HEARING. KENNETB K~ESEE, 1922 South Anat~eim Houle-
vard, Anaheim, Ca. 92805, Ownerr requeating WAYVLR OF
MYNIMUM FRQNT SETIIACK TO CUNSTRUCT INUUS7'F.IAL BUILDINGS on
property de~ .ribe~ as: An irregularly-ahap~ed pmxce~- oF land consistiny of
apprnximate].y l.~q acrea, having a fr~ntage of appraximate3.y 260 feet an the
norY.heaet side of Anaheim Bou].evard, havinq a maacimum depth of approximata.ly
300 feet, and beinq ].ocated approximaCeiy 20U £eet north of the cer~terl:.ne af
Par_ifico Street. P;operty pres~n~.:ly almsaified M-J., LTGH'P INDUS'PRIAL, ZONE.
No one appeared in op~ositi~n.
Althouqh the Re ~rt to the Coinmiasion was nat read at :.F:o public hearing, it
is re "erred to and made a~art of thg miiaut~s.
Mr. Kenneth Keeaee, the petitioner, eppe~axed before the CommissiAn and atated
hP was attamptinq to upg.rade the azsa. and had appe~r.ed before th~ Planning
Cor!m~saion axid City Council ~ight ysars aqo, at which time hN had removed tlie
existing 30 and 40-year old homes and had conatructed industrial buil.dinge=
that now he planned to rem~ve othsr baildinge that were an eyosore and develop
x rather attract~ve commercial facility~ and then pree~ented pict~ree of the
b~xildi,ng to be de~olished, as well as an architect ~ a rendering of the pro~oned
builciinqs .
The Commission inq~iirec~ as to the location of the gas pump a~nd ite intendod
pur~oae t whereupon Mr. Keeaee noted that the gas pum~ wnuld bg lor_ated to the
exLreme rear of the parkinq area in the new c~mmercia..L faci.tity , aith key
locY.s for tenants in this facility, and t~1d~ thia aould be ~n?~r for the teneatR
ancl thexr vehicles and would be similar to what had beRn estaY,lished in ~ther
commercim:i devslo~ments.
Zo~inq Supervisax Charles Ituber.ks noted for tho Commissi4n that h~ could no~
secall ~f any~hing si~ilar to tlnat in the City of Anaheim or in neiqhbari.ng
c~.tie~a, but the M-1 Zone did permit autc~mnbile aeYVicp atations and nn raetric-
tions were eatA~liehed on them, althouah he did not know whether the Fire
Department wacld. have aome cnncern about it.
Mr. xeesee noted ~hat L•hexe was a eimilar opezr.tion in La Habra.
~
~
MiNl1TtE8, CITY PL7INNING COMMISSION, Jun• Z5, 1973
V11A2~ ~~N_C~ pp,~;,_,2817 (Cantinu~~)
'l3-404
Mr. Rnb~zt~ th~n iaquir~d o! Mr. x~as~• Mh~th~r it Wa• hi~ int~nt bo h~v• n~
oomm~rcial or an induotxi+~l d~valopm~at oinc~ he had m~n~ion~d co~rta~raial-kyp•
laoi~litie~i Mhareupon Mr. Kes~~a r~ipulat~ll xhaC tht• Mould b• ~ ~mall indlu~w
tri~l la~oility •inoe th~y did not ltave su!liaisnt p~-rYi~~q !os aom~a~raial
Aevslopm~nt~ •nd th~ro would b• nn walk-in tradet th~t tl~~ indu~tritl bui].din4•
he awa~~Q ko tt~~ •oukh h+~d aev~erRl :nduatr.i~l tirme and none had Malk-in k~~~d~.
Comm~~~ian~r Hezbst notaa bi~ pcimary conc~rn aas the lact ep~st tha N1-1 zc>ea
roquixed a SO~toat bui~ding 4etbaak, and it the ~~titiunsr oou1A meet ehia
sMtbaok, he aould not ba b~tora tha Commiasioni thn-t tho pla~ne preo+~ntoQ v~ere
very aecoptabla, but it aould look rath~r bar• eiz-ce only tMO troeu w~re j~ro-
poaed ~n the parking srea und a winimal 12-Poot lsncieaapod setbnak r~].on4 *he
lront Wnp propoAad, tl-oz~fore, ho e~auld ].ike to n~s morc lendocaping i:~ l~conk
a! the inuuo~rial buildinqe ~ha~ wauld add qzaenery to xh~,s inQuatriel aoinplex,
a!ldir~g to tha attract~veneeo oP it, einae i! tha patitioner wanted waivex of
tA• setbaok requirement, he~ sho~~ll! at~ l~aat provid~ n mor9 amenuble davel~~pmants
wheraupon Mr. Kaes~e gtatecY thmt Nas Cheir intent although .ir dicl not appear on
tha plan~.
Commi~eioner Saymour noted thd~ thd plAng only indicated two treoe, and from th~
etreat, rheee would look lika two very amn~l treea anA nothing but bui181nc~e.
Chr.irman seyn-our fnquired Whether tlte pet•ltioner vroulQ ba agreea~b~A to providing
a dekailed~ landACape p].an to statf, and if etaf! d~.d uv~ lael thie was adaqunta,
than theee plane could be preeentod ta the Gommi~si~n P~r conaidara~tion.
Mr. Lindeey ot Lihdaey Engineeri.zg, 1513 East Chapman Avenue, FulYerton,
representino, t:.e enqineer and erchi~ect~ noted th.y presentLy had an exi~ting
home Nhich waN lul~y ].and.capedt thet the peti.tiaae~r plannad the Pnll wi~lth o!
tha aetback to ba l.andscnped except for driveMays, witlr thQ sc~tback at or~e
point only to be lesa than 50 feet, while th~ setba4k nt tha home would k~u
50 feet.
Commisaioner Herbst noted that landecapinq indicated wes ~lung the e~.ree1:
frontag~ af Ana.ieim 8oul~vard, end since ~h~ City reZ~~ired a 5U-foot bui:lding
setba~k +~long Anaheim Baulevard, if this were not to be providad, then mc~re
landscaping ebould he provided in the~ ~n~eri.or n ~ nce two troes ware not i~uffi~
cient ae far ae he was coacer: p~1 to reing adeq,uAtely landscdpedj whez~aup~~n
Mr. Keesoe atipulateS co provid3t~y the landaca~e plentar ia lront of eacli one
of the buildiz~ge .
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairman Seymour obs~rvad ~hat thie prapoaecl ddvelcpc~ent xoo ed like an ideal
commercial gscility, evan khough the pstitioner. atipulated i~.. would be usod
only for M-1 uaeae
Cun~r-~.asioner Kaywood c!lersS r~ mation~ seconded by Comm~.ssionor A11red and
MOTION CARRIED, that the Planninq Commisaion, in connection with an exemption
declaration status request, flnde a~nd d~terminea that ttia pr4po.a1 ~rould have
no signiff ,snt anvironmentai impact e~nd, therefare, recosamende t~ tl~• City
Cnuncil thac no Environmental ImpacL• Statetaent ia n~c~saary.
Commissioner Horbat o£fE red Reqolution No. pC73-142 and muved !or its paaaage
and adopt.3an to grnnt Pdt~~.ion for Varlanco No. 251? on the b~Q~~ that a
aimilar setback had been qr~snted i.n the pse~ to the aouth. ar-d wubject Go
condi.tiona, pravided~ hoWever, that land~caRiaq ehall ba pxovided in the form
of plant.ers tn fror.t ot ea~h industrial building amd that a landncape plan
mhall be nubmitt~d to the Devalop~ent Servi,ce• Departm~nt Lox reviep and
approvel, a,a st~pulated to by the p~titioner. (See Aesol~tiun Book)
On ro11 call the forogoing resc+lu*_ion Was ~a~sec~ by the tollowing voto:
~~a,~-
AYEB: COMMI33IQNERBs Allred, Gauer,Ai~ yNOdd, FtoWland, Se}-~our.
Np$S : COMMI38In1~ER5: None .
AB88yT: CO[~MI33i0N8R3s Farano.
s
^^M
~
b1INUTU£, CITY PLl,NNING COMMI88TON, June 25, 197 3
73-405
Vl1AI~ Np. x~10 ~ PUBLYG HE~,RINQ. TiM W7-LL~1C8, 670 North ti~l~na etre~t,
Anari~im. Cs. 9~605, ONnax~ CJIRL a. ~i~Ja6H~ ~!ui~i Bro~her~
giqn Company, 172 9outh I 3~z~~t, 9a~n B~rnnrdl.no, Ca. 9Z~10,
~,gdT,t~ r~qu~stinq N71iVBR CD' (1-} MAXtMUM NUMB~R OF FR1EI~•8T11NDINti SIGNB, (S)
MINIMUM DT8T71NC1~ BRTNESN I'RSL'-STI-NDIN~ BION$, 1-I~ID (C) MI~XIMUK t1~Ic3HT OF A F1t~E-
STANDINCi $IaN Tb RICPLACE TNO EXISTINd 9JQN8 NITN THRaB N6N FRB1i-8T11NDINa 9IaN8
an progerty de~ox~bsd nsi An I,wehapad parvol o! l~nQ oAn~i~til~iq oi eppra~:i-
marely 5.6 ~ore~, h~einy a front~ge ~` •pproxiiasatoly k95 Paek un th~ eoutb~ sid•
ot L~inaoln Av~nue, hav~»q A maximum deptih o! approximately 630 f~~t, +anQ t~~inq
loaat~d st th~ ~outhNe~t aerner cf Lir~ooln ]lvonu~ srfd Loara 9tra~t. Proparty
preeantly o1RS~iliod C-3, HEAVX !'OMME CIAL, ZON~.
Na one npQearsd in oppoeition.
Alt)iouqh th• R~por.t tu th~ Commioqion *~ras not raac~ at tha puuli.c hearing, i.t
is roferre~ to nn~d mada :. ~az~ of khe ml.nutea.
Mr. Car~. Waleh, aqent for the ~~etitioner~ ap~e~xed betoze ~ho Commiorion and
noted that th~y propoeed ta rep:lAOa whe identi sic~tiioa eign wi~h a~tandard
Ford Motor Company identificar.ion eign, and thmt a 3x'/-laot diroational •srv~oe
depar.tment si~qii wa~ prop~oad to dizeaC custom• r~ ko the eervi.ce area~ lurther-
mor~,, there would be a~ alight ohange in the ls cution o! t~he eerv.lco •ipn oinos
the ownax a~ked that the uervi.ve aign ba i.n 1i ne with the p:oduat sic~n rt-thar
than nff toward tl~e corner.
Tk1E HEARING WAS CLOSED.
CAmmisaioner Ka-ywood oYfered ~a m~tion, aec~nlte d by Commi9siAr~er. Rowland end
MO'I~ION CARRIED, that the Planninq Commi.seion, in oonnection with hn exemption
deciAration a~a-tua request, finda nnd ~determinee that the propoeal would hava
no aiqnifi.:ant environmental impect t~nd, thera lore~ recommends to the City
Council that i,o Environmental impact Statement ia neceaeary.
~ommiasioner Allr~d offered Reaal.utioa No. PC'T3-143 end moved fdr its pa~ssaqa
and adopti~n to gr~nt Petition for Variance Nc~, 2520, eubject to aondltione,
amendinq th~ plnn to ref].ect the 1ocs~ion oE the direct.iona~ eervice si.gn to
be in lln~ vith the product eign, ~s stipulated to by tho agent for the
petitioner. (Sem Resol~~ti~n Boolc)
On roll aall the foreqoing resolution was p,~a~e8 by the following vote:
,..Eg; C~MMISSIONERB: A21r.ed~ Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood~ Rowlan8, Seycnour.
NOEB: COMMISSIO"'E~S: None.
Ab3SNT: COMMISS'tONERS: Farano.
VARtANCE N0. 3522 - PUALIC HEARING. BRADLLY D, HARKER, 1240 East ~'uri:i R.venue,
` Anaheim, Ca. 92805, Ownex~ ~ t'equaaL•inq WAZVER OF MAXIMUM
FEkMITTEp COVEYtAGE OF REQ UI RED REAR YARD TO CONSTRUCT A
RJOM ADDITION on prc-perty deasribed as: A re ctdngularly-shaped, garcel of
land havinq t- frontaqe of agproximately 60 fe ~t on the aouth side oP Turin
Avenue, having a maximum ~iepth o~ approximata ly 100 feet, and being loaated
upproximate~y 51S feet east of the centerline of Eaat St~roet. Property
presently claseifi~d R-l, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONL.
No one appeared in oppuait.ic~n.
Altnough the ~teport tn the Commiseinn was not sead at the public hearinq, it
is referrgd t~i and ma~e a pazt af the minute~.
Mra. Bra31~, Harker, representi~ q the r~eti.tioner, not~d that they pro~ased an
addition to their home to taka ~:arc+ of their t.ao ahildren.
THE HEARING WA3 CLOSEB.
t~rg. Harker, in responae to Comsnission quoat3oning, noted L•here wera two bath~
xooms, nne o!i ~he aervice pozch and anothos ogE the kitchen, and on~ Nas a
ha~lf-ba~h and one ~ras a fu~l-beth.
~
~
~
MINI7'^E5~ CITY PL7INNING COMMT98ION~ June 2'.i~ 1973 73- S06
VARI]-NC~ NO 2522 (Continued)
Commi~~ioner Ksywood atl~red a motion, 4ecand~d by Commisa~onar Al~lxed aina
HqTION CARRIEU, ~he-t tho Planninc~ Commieo~on, in oonn~ction with an ox~saption
oealaratior- etatur r~quost~ ltnd• and determi.ne• that the praporel w~ul.d have
no eignitioent onviranmental. impaat, and, there~ore, racnmmenda ro th~ City
Counail that no Envi.zonmental Impaot Sta~e~ment i~e nece~onry.
Commiseionar aau~r oPfered Rasolution No. PC73-144 und mavecY !or itr ps-~ssyo
and adoption to ~rant Patition for Vaxiancze No. ZS22, avbject to oondit.ionr.
(e~o Reeolution oook)
On roll call the taregoing r~eolution was paaaed by the lolloNing vote s
AX$S t COMMIS9IONERS ~ Allred, ~auer, Hurbst, Kaywaod, RowlanA, 9eymo ut•
NOES: CpMMI89ION~kSs None.
AASFNT~ COMMI83IANF.RB: ~'aran~.
REPORT3 AND - I'!'EM N0. 1
Rk.COMMCNDATION~ CONDIT70NAI, t7S~ P~Rt~='P NO. 1052 - ProPerty locaCed
- e~t tha eouthwsst corner of Wa~lnut Street anc~
Mancheeter Avenu~.
Cammi:,aioner RUwland noted that the Plar-n: ng Commi~.sion had granxefl a cond~-
tional uas permi.t at Walnu~ ;;treet and ~lAna*-ester Avenue for a truck a toraqe
opexatton, however, thie had now turned ir~tio eomethinq else and it may bs a
prablem~ that the use wae originally a bui181ng materinl company end wae now
turned into a tawing, iv~pound, and wre~king ser.vico of ai~tomobiles whic:h were
atored immodiately od~ncnnt to the R-1 propertio~ t that althouqh the P ldnniny
Comm3aeion resolution may havo beon ao worded that it was not epocific nnd maYbe
th~ use was 1ega1 a bL1t he did no~ Pee1 th is wRS whaL• the P lanning Com~~es ion
intended when they qave approval of Conditional Use Permtt Nu. 1052 to dllow it
to turn into a v~reakiny yard at the oritxy of the ~reeway going eauth without
benefit of a wall or landsaa~~ing adjacant. to the yarda oE thase R-1 hpmeat ~snd
'kI1At if thsre was enythinq the Planninq C'ommis~ion could J.o t~ r.eviaw thie
conditiona~ use permit to dskerm:ne if tr~erQ was a violation of i~, six~ce it
was not his intent that this bP used as a~n impound yard~ and that tha Co~-mi~asion
would have hgd m.iaqivinga about tt.e uae i.f they had thought thi~ was the original
intent.
Deputy C~.t~ AL•t ~rney Frank Lowry state3 L-hat f~om his understanding ~f the
resolution, it did not distinguisti the type o£ ~ a~ili.ty that wae appro ved~
that a conditional u3e permit was revokable upon showinq a yood cause by the
City Council only, but the Planning Commission cou2.d make a recommendafiion to
the City Counci.l on those condi~ional uae pe•rmits and the Planning Comniiseion
could also rec~uE~ c that the Gity Council diraet etaff to investiyate this
m~tter to determine whether the prdperty w+~s now being used difFerentl.y than
previAUSly granted bX the Plnnning Commisoion. However, sincE he had not
reviewed the file itself, he would not make a deiinite statament.
Cominiseioner Rowl~end inc~uired whc~ther the Planniny Commission could reviaw
rnis themselves ar should this reviek• go directly to tihe City Counci: _*~ecrauae
he felt that the use now bo' nq made of the property was a poor refl.ectioii of
planning of the community.
Cammie~sionsr Rowlan@ offered a motion, saconded bv Commis~ioner Seymour, tio
requeat that the City Cuuncil direct the DaveYopment Sdrvices Department to
inveatigate and determine whethez the use originally grantec's by th~ P lanning
Commissic~n t~nder Co ]itional Use P~sxm~.t No. 1~052 was, in fact, the us e now
beinq made of the property.
Mr. Lowry then atate+i thnt after having di~scuased this matter wikh 3or,inq
Supervieor Char].ea Roborts, he would rscommend that the Planninq GommieQian
zecommend that ataff brinq thi.s item up to the Plnnninq Commiseion a.ft9r the
atafF had made an investiqation of the use originally qrAnted, and if tha use
was pe:rmitted, then thore need be no action by tha Planning Commisaion to the
C~ty Council £or tarmir~a*.inq i~t on ontl of *_he five findingA of fact needed.
Commi~aioner Rowland wathdrew his m~tion and Cammissioner Seymour his eocond.
Comtniasioner Rawland offered a motiAn to continue conaideration af Cand.itidnal
Uae Per~it No, ~052 to the meAtinq of JuZy 9, 1973, xequeeting that ~t~tt
brinq this again bafore the Planning Commi.sai~n after an inveotiqation waa
mado to SeterminA whethsr or not the use n~w bein,q made oP the prope xty wae
legal. Commiesioner Seymour se~onded tiie motion. MOTION CARRIED.
~
w
~
MINUTEti~ CiTY FLANtiINa COMMS9EION, Jun• 15~ ].973 73-407
ITSM N0. Z
1~NVIRONMENTAL IMPI~CT REPnRT taz tha Radov~~opmon~
plan !or Rodevrlopm~nt~ Projeo~ "1-lphs".
D~puty Cl.ty 7-ttarn~ry Fzsnk Lawry ac~visMd the Commi~~i.on th~t a r~~olution by
tho Planni.nq Commianion Mould b• r-~a~a~ary regardinq Lh• EIR on Fr.o jaoL
°l~ipha", ~-nd that the ETR had b~en rsvi~w~d by th• EzA R~vieM Committee, aith
aomrt~onto a~ oet lorCh in thn R~poxt to th~ Commission.
Commisoi~nsr KayNOaA ofterad RaNOlution Na. PC73-~45 and moved !or it• pa~~aq•
end adoption to r.ocommend to th~ Cicy Counail that ~r,vironmentAl xmpack R~part
!ox ~he R~-development Pl.an tor Rodevelo~want Projact "Alph+~" b• adopt~d as ths
CiLy Council'e statement •ubjeo~ ~o r~quis~iaq that xn Environm~ntxl impsot
R~poxt be submi.tted fur e aqh apacifio xrea N.ithin ths projeot ara• whiah shs11
contain euYficient detuiled lnloxm+~tior. tu permit en envir~omental i.mp~ot
Avaluati~n and may reter t~ the ptoject EIR regn~rding subjaeot m~tter whiah
pertai.n to the overall area. (Sae Resolu~ian laook)
On ro11 ca11 tha lor~eqo~.nq reaolution wds paaeed by the lollowing vo~e:
A'YES i COMMIS3IUNERS ~ Allre~d, ~auer, Herbst, Kaywaod, Roaldnc~, Seymour.
NOE3: CC~MMISEYONSRS s None .
11B3~N7C: COMMIS9ION~RS: Farano.
I7'EM N0. 3
VARIA~r NCE N0. 1372 (R. F. Williautu) - Property
loc~~Ad at 1823 South Mountain View Avenue -
F.xist.i.ng re~idence beinq ueed !or ths ostablish-
snent of nn .rffice anu out.doac stoxage ~f equip•-
ment and ~•~ahicles - Request f.ar ~xtenei~n o~ time
for the usm.
Z~n~nq Supervisor Gharl~a Robexta revi~we~i the location af subjoct proper~y,
and prev3ous zoning act~.~ns on the proparty, notiny that subsequent to tha
arigina]. approva~, s3,x axtensi.ona of time had been granted on Varie-nce No.
1372, the latesti ~o expire June 26, 1473, and the petitioner wae noN rbqu~at-
ing an addi*_ional axtension of time t~ continue the exietinq u9a oE the
prope rt.y .
Commiaeioner Seymour offere~l r motion, seconded by Commieeioner RowZand a~nd
MOTiON CARRT~D, that a vne-ye~r *imA exton.sion be qrenZed for ~he use undex
Variance No. 1372, to expire June 26, 1974.
TTEM NO. 4
VARI,ANCE NO. 1791 (Kurt A. Sinqer) - Property
locat~sd at 3164 West Tyler Avenu~e - Request for
xn extensi.on of time tio pexmit the original ~iee
far professional writer's off~ce to be continued.
Zoninq 3apex•visor Charles Rok~erts not~c2 ths* sub ject ge*ltion }iad beon grant~d
May 6, 1966, to r~se an exiotiny single-family rPSidence as a prafesaional
wx~ter's o£fi.cH for a period of two years~ th at three previous time extgnsions
had been grantec'~ by th~ Plan:-ing Commission, the most recent havina expired
May 6, 1973~ and that inasmuoh as the Dsvelopmen~ 5~rvi~es Dopaxtmen~ hed
received no com.plaintr~ x~rgarding this use, it was xecommended that a two-yeax
extenaion af ti.me be g.ranted, retroactive to May 6, 1973, ~nA to oxpire on
Msy 6, 1975. .
Commissioner Kaywo~d o~fered a motion, seconde~ bx Co~rmissior~ez %il9rbct a~nd
MOTIdh CARRxED, to qrant a two-year Exteneion pf time f~~r tha use nf proper~~r
apprAVed under Variance No. 1791 as a profeeaional •,rritas'e u~fice Por a
period of two years, eaid tao ysare to be x•etroactive and to e~tpixe an May 6,
1975.
~
~
~I
MINUT~B, CYTY PLANNxNa COMMIA~3xON~ Jt1hs 7'3• 1973 ?3-406
xTItM N0. 5
TENT1-TIVIe M:.p OF ~RaCT N0. 'I587 - Proparty loc~tsQ
in th~ Sonta J~na Canyon, approximmk~ly 1Q00 l~ot
south o!' Nelnut Canyon A~~~rvoir n~ar the aouEhMa~t,-
arly C~r~inuo o~'tRa~aut Ouayon Road - R~quo~ting
asyxaval of str~et e~ntion ~tandarCe ~na ti.ghts-o~~
way A• ,a aouAiti~n o~ aprirovai o! Tnntativ~ Map o!
Tzaot No. 7587.
Chairma:~ ~~ymour i.nquirad wh~tih~r or not thare wae eny urqenaX in ao~asiderin~
subjea~ traa~ etr0et s~o~ions ~nQ ~tanda.rds a~ th• mertiaq tnday e;lnos th•
~lannl.nq Con~mioeiun as~ propo0lnQ • wnrk •e~o~sion with 11n+-hsim Nil~~ on the
Zn!! oP ~u~y .
Mr. Hozet 9ohor, r~pra~enting l-nah~i,oa 1ii~.l~, advi.sed ttie Commia~ion that th~r•
Mas nothing urqent reqar9lnq th• traot map end that it could be aontint:~d
un+Cil thu r-ext meeting until atter Ch• Commiasian he1G. ~h4i.r wozk ~sa4lnn Mith
rspraaantatlves uf 1-r~aheim Hill~.
Comc~iBeionor Rowland ofsZaze~l s motion, ~eaonded by Commisslonar A11red and
MOTION CARRI~u, to aontinu~ oonei$erA~ian oP ~entAtlvn Map ot ~raat 'No. 7587
to th~ Mork see,~i.on o! Ju1y 2, 1g73, at the Anaheim Hille Rsnahriav.se tor !lis~
cueeion and to July 9. 197~, lc+r tinal ACt~Ox1.
TBMPc?RARY AUJOURNM~NT - Commise~.p~~~~~~~et oftered a motion to ~djourn tha
meetinq/~jCn a ~ eeasion eC the Anaheim Hills Rancls-
hot~0e, 3~0 7lnahaim Hille Road. Commieaianer. Soymnur
aeconded th~ motian. MOTION CARRIED.
WGRK SESSION - ChaiY~nan Seymov.r recc,nvened the meet~ng for a work
~ ee~sion, Commiosf~~nezs Allred and Rovolrnd being
abeenr, Commisaioner Kinq (the new Commisaionar.)
be~~~g preeant, to di~scuse drainaqe policiea an~i
implementatinn, Santiaqo Truils Eetatae prograM, achor,l sites for Oranqe
Unit.led Sahnol Distiriat, glanninq for luture projectn, ached~xle ~f oonatruc;-
tion of homee in Anaheim Hills, recreational amenitias, achedule and planning,
and to 8lscuss Ten~~ntive Map o! Tr~at No. 7587 zegat~ing street sactina
etandarde and righta-of-way.
Tho work aesaion ad~onrned at 10:00 p.m.
Reapeatfully aubmi ted,
~~~n~~
ANN K1tE8S, S~ac etar.X
Aaahaim City P1Anning Commiesion
AK:hm