Minutes-PC 1973/07/230 R C 0 MICit~~ILMING S~RVICE, Iti(°.
. , ~~, . ~,..
,.,~,, ,
~
~ ~
Ctty Hell
An+~heim, Ca].i.~orni.~
.i uly '1.3. 1973
11 R~CiUT.11R MB~TIN~ OZ' THE ANi~ti~IM CITY PI,ANNINCi COMMI88ION
R~r,ULAR - A reqular meat4ng o! the Anahoim Cit y Planninq Commieeion ws.~
K~ETxt~a os~llod to ozddr by Chsixma-n Gau~r •t 1:00 p.m., a quorum baing
pras~nt.
pFtEy81N~' - CHATRR~:AN: Gn~•~er.
- COMMI9SIONER5: Allre4, K~~:g, Rov~~and~ Seymour (who ~ntcrad
tha Cr,uncfl Chamb~er a~t 2~0~ p.m.) •
ABaENT - COMMI98ZO1~IERS s F+~xano, HrrhRt.
PRES:;NT - Deputy Clty At~oxney: Franlc Lohry
Office Engineer. R~pre~ent~skive~ Viotor ~tollinger
2oning Suporviaor: Chsrles Rober*e
)18sistanti, ple~nners Phillip Schw+~x~tza
Aaais~tant Plann~er: G. All~n D~ium
rlanninq Tachnician: ,~ahn Andereo:l
Commisa~ion 8ecxetary: Ann Kreb~
LuGP: OF - Commisaianer Kiny lad' i.n tha Pledge of All ~gianoe to th~
.LLGCiIANC$ F1ag.
APPRUVAL OF - Cammisaioner Rowland offered a moti an, eeconded by C:~mta~~aioner
TH~ MINUTE3 Ktnct and MO~PION CARRIED, to npproue the minutes ~f the ~aeetinq
of Jul~ 9, 1973, as submitted.
Lr'NVl'RONMENTAL IMY.ACT - CON'P'[NUED PUBLIC iiEARING. p1NAEILIM HILLS, INC. AND
~
REPORT ta0. 96 TA'XACO VENTUR~S, INC., ~80 Anahaim Hillg Road, Ana~+mim,
i t IESTA~I I` H A
Ca. 92846, Owner; rer;ueeting permiee ~n o -~..
CONDIxIONAL tiSE PRIVATE TENNiS CY,UB on pr~pexty deArribod ~g: I1n
PER~tIT NO. ].406 irreyulnrly-~haped paroel of land r.dn~sisting uf a~ppx~xi.-
~~r mately 13.2 acrea , havi ng a ~uaximum ~lrpth of approxi-
mately 320 fnet, havinq a lrontage oF approxi.matcly
2540 feet an the west side o= AnAheim Hilla Rand, ttnd being located a~ tt!e
northwest c~rner of ~+naheim H111s and Noh~ Ranch Roads. Proparty preadnt.ly
C18se1lisd R-A, AGR~CUL~'URAY,, ZONE.
Chairman Gauer nnte~: that ataff was in receipt of a letter from the Fe~itioner
roquesY.fng further continunnce of sub~ect pekitian and EIR in order to rogolve
some probleme~ .
C~mmieeioner Al~red offez'ed a motion, ae+conded by Commiasion~r Rowlan.~ and
MOT10N CARR~FD, to continue conr,ide~ation of Environmantal Iwpact Report Mo.
~6 and C~nditional Usa P~rmit No. 140G to the meetinq o~ Auguat 6, L973, ds
requeeted by the petitioner.
AREA DL~'VELOaM~NT - FU~ .l" HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANN7NG
PL71N N0. 96 COMMISSION, 204 East Lincol.n Avenue, to reaansider alterna-
'" "~~ tivea fo~ secon3ary circulation for properties on the wsat
side of statn College Boulavard between Savey Avenue anci
South 5tireet and on the north ~i~ie of South Stireet between
~tate ColZ~qe Boulevard and Dover Stzeet.
RECLA55IFICATION - COt~TThit.;u R~ADVERTISFD PUBLIC HEARING. JAME~ ANG ERANA
N0. 72-?3-46 OLSON AND JOSEPH AND bi:'i"Y'E K. DAVIDSON ~ 914 NOZ'fih Ste~te
~r C 11ege Boulevard, AnAheim, Ca. 92806, Ownert~t JAMES OLSON,
GONDSTIONA~ USE 875 South tlildo Streek, Anaheia, Ca. 92806, Aqer.t~ pxogerty
PERMTT ti0. 1398 deecribed as: F1 rectanqularly-ahap~d parcel of 1~nnd
located at the aouthvroa~ aornpr of S~ate Colleqe Boulevard
and St-voy Avenue consiating o~ a~pproximately .25 aure~,
having frontaqee c~f appzoxima,tely 1?.'l feet nn tt~e west 3~l]6 0~ State Co].lsgo
F3oulevard and ~34 feet on the eouth eidg of Savoy Avanue. Property prs~mnily
olaesifl6d R-l, ONE-FAMILY 1ZESID$NTIAL Zi)NEo
73-405
~
~
~
NSINUTES~ CITX PLANNING COMMI33IUP1, July 23, 1973 ?3-410
AREA DEV~LOPMENT PI~Atv N0. 98, RE(:L~1837FICATION N0. 72-73-46, AND CQNDITIONAL
U8$ PERMiT N0. 1398 iContinu~a) _
1~EQ~UEST~D CLAS8IFICATIONt C-Or COMMERCYAL OFFICI:e ZUNE.
PF.Q'JE3T~D CUNDITIONAL USE: ~BTAI~LISH A COMM$RCIAL OFFIC~ COM~Y~SX IN TWO
BING',$-Fl1MILY STRUCT-JRaB, WAIVINC (11) TYPFS OF
SIGNS PSRMITTED, (B) MINIMUM SIT1E ]1RE11, (C 1
RFQUIREA $E'1'BACK AREA I~LQ*~r SITE AOUNDRHY LINE
NOT AE~UTTIN(3 l~ S'~REE'~ OR .GNWAY~ AND (D) M~IXIMUM
BUILDING HETGHT WTZ'HI~1 300 E'~:FT UF I- SINGLF-
FAMILY ItE&IUFNC~.
3ubject patition~ weze conkinued from the June 25, 1973 P1e~nninq Com ~cion
meeting to a~llow tim~ lfor at+aif to reedvertiH~ Ar.•oa~ DovelopmAnt plan No. 7b.
Ten ~.araono indiantad Ct-eir presen~m to '~eAr Arer- Do~rel~pment Plan NA. 9E~.
Aes+ietdnt Planner Phillip Schwnrtxe raviewed previoue a~t~on by the ~lnrnlny
Commiaston un Are~ Deve~lopment Plan No. 98 in ],968, es wexl a~s Gv~ner.al ~lan
Ame.^.dmant No. 104 an8 F~claeei~ication Nn. 6d-69~~ and the moet roc~nt requc~~t
b~ the Planr. ~nq Commis:~ion to readver.:ise and preoent nlte~:r.~tiv~3 oxh k~iL•e as
a result o! zequaet for raclasai.ficat~on for twa parcels in the oriyinal study
area, ann i:hen notdd that A9siatar-t Pl~~ner C. Allen I1aum wo~.•~ ~ pre._ ~nt the
technical repo:t on &taff's tindinge and the exi~il~it.
CommiePioner Seymour e~n*.ared the Counr.il Chacnrier ac 2:05 p.r,~.
Mr. Daum xeviewed the l~car.ion of the pron~rty of which :-rea Devalopment PZan
No. 99 wae cotnpriaed, notinq th~+~e were all aingle-famiip :eaidencesj ~hac
the adjoining land usea to the north and aaut•h wera ~inqle-~am~ly, to the Eouth
acr~ss 9outh Street a combin+stion of C-~1 aAi~ R-1 ieea, and to the e~+at acrass
Sta~e College BoulAvArd C-1 ,srd R-1 uses.
Mr. Daum then revi~h~d the ~~mcunt o£ traffic State College ~oulevard presently
had nnd the prois+ctiona :•~-'cnin ten ~years, as well ae the preser~t and projected
tra~ff.tc enunt :.or Snuth. Street. The primary vehiculax circulatio~, a 20-fo~r.
wido alley to tho west, was also xeviewed for tl-oae aevc~n ~azcela fronicing n
State College Boulevard, and *`~e four parcels ~n Sauth Straet which prE~~ntly
had direct aac.oss to the sout.h and to Dover S~reet.
Mr., Daum aleo reviewAd tt-P al~ernate soluti.on to Area Development ~lan IJo a8,
known ~e Exhibic "B", •ahich proposed a 20-faat secandary accees for the i>ur
pbrcela ~n the north sido o£ south s~reet and five of the seven parceJ.a front-
ing on State Cn].~egc E~ottlevard, as we,ll as tho two r.ema:lning parcels on 5tate
Colleqe Boul~vard whi,ch wauld have acc~ss on~y to a proposed standard 5~-foot
w~.~e radius return, off-»Qt, cul-de-sac at *_he east•erly ~nd of Savoy A~~en,~n,
and ~.he e~condAry accoas b~ing stubbed juPC beyond the fifth most northPrly
parcel betweon Savoy Aver.ue and South Sireet~ that the ~ropoe~ed cul-de-sac
would alleviate trsffic back-up on St~te Collagn Boc~2e~ard waiting to qain
+sccer~a to Savoy Avenuet that the 'rraffic ~ngineer recommend~d no mare than ~~ne
necondaz'y ac:ceae to State College Soulevard, snd the raason £o:. salectinq the
proposed location was bQCaise it was locaC~,d directly c~nO8it9 the South Str~et
intersect.ion where a traffic signal was in c~peraticn, t~owever, this would also
encouraga commexcial d~sv~lopment for the iota nurth of "avoy Avenue.
Mr. Dr.um then noted tha~t if. secondazy access ~rare p~:cpoaed for tho~se l.ote nn
South Streot, khia would further reduce the 8ept11 of the lots ta 77.b feet and
would raquire removal of the existing primary and accesaory ~tructuzes £or
coamercial development o~ the prr,partieor thaL• if the~se 1ot:s wer~ developed
under C-0 zoninq• the add~tional requirement af rea= parking would iurth~:
reSuc~a the ueable lot ares, thereby liml.tinq ::ommescirl development of theae
propertiee, ~harefore, atagf would recammend ~hat secondary 9CC~88 not be
required Por these foux Iate.
Mx. Daum further noted that ~f Exhibit "H" were App~oved snd t:~e secondary
accesp and aul-d~-sac adopted, this would aleo preclude C-0 deve~cpmen~. ~ra-~
posed under Caaditiona-1 Use Permit No. 1398, cuxrently ~andi.ng betore ~he
~ ~
M]:NUTE5~ C!'.Y PLl1NNZNG COhtMISt~ION, July 23, 197~ 73-411
ARF.A D4~VELOPMENT PY,AN NO. 99, R~CLA83ID'ICATION NU, 72-'13~46~ ANU CQNDITx(1NAI,
UER YERMIT N0. 13hH (Coiitinuec~)
Planninq Cammissian, however, it w~uld pravida !or oumra~rcl.al qevalapca~n~ aL
the prnpertisa if th~ exie~tiny prim~ry wnd e+~aondYr,y etructar~~ M~xe r.am~ved~
thdt in viaw o!' ti~e prsdamine-ntly reaidential Ctiaxe-ot~r ot th• nMiqhbarhuoda
tc~ tlte west and north or tl~u et~idy arua, tha pro~+o4~Q •saondery aac~ua wauld
appeaz to be more aompatibl.e with protesaionel oftica typ~o u~~s i!' tho •tudy
area pro~sztiee were to be developsd tor cummesvtal u~awt and thit Chd pxo-
~oaed cul-r~e-Kac wou19 lurthbr limi~ vommeroiRl tza!li.c Prom state Callec~a
poul~vard and e~erve, to aeparate tha roa.~dentisl neighborhooc! trOm cun-maroia3,
un es .
Mr. c;eorqe Rochford, 705 Dover 5t~eet, e~ppeered bQXare Ghy Commi,eeion, atat~ing
tnet he wna the spokecman for th~s noieone prqaent who w~re e~djoining pxoperty
own9ru, howeves, thexe mlght be a gew aho ~~u7.d dle~ like to pr~aent thel.r
viewpo~nta~ that tt-e exhibit preaented by eteff. waa aumething ditEerent than
had beon d~ecussoft ln ttae ~nat, an~l Cl:e oppoc~iti.<~n would h8•ve Co ravioe aoma
of thoir commur~tej l:lldt 95t o! the ~,roperty owner.a 1n th~o uroa had signed a
~eti tiori ~f conaarn whi.ch he r~es prcre~nting, which had ~:he requiramente of
the reei.dQnte in the event the Y3anning Commi~4ion detexminad commercial usm
~aa~ ap~ropriaY.e for theee px.~pertioy, an~ this would be requirlny x 6-~oot
maeonry wall to be aonstXUCted ext~nding fiom thcs aoiith eido of Chm alley
PSCY068 5avo,y Avo~~ue to prevent motoriata ~ram ~nt~ring SaovaX Avenue~ thnt on1X
thoae lote fronting on 5t~te C~~17.eqe B~ulevard ~hould bo coneiclazed for re~-
zor~ir~g, howevor, tf tt-e alley wc~i:o extendQd tn tha narth eide at SdVO~ Avenue,
t.hon tho~se two rem.iining lots on the north gida of Savoy Avenue eh~uld slsc- ba
cona:derod for commorcial ueoev that the al).ey ee propoead by stn~f Would eti.ll
sub~ect tha residente to the west to noise+a ar~d odar.e from traffic to t.heee
commerr.~al lote, and althaugh tF.e ~et:.tio;ier indicated there wou7.d be very ~ew
paaple _n these aommercial fecilitl9A, taio did no~t prer.lade more intsnee u9a
of the property with the accompanying increaao ln l•raff~Lc, creating an undes~.iz-
able l.iving environment for these h~mea, th~3re~ore, he wauld requcset that the
alley llave dn B-foot wr~ll on the west aide extenc~ing to and acrosa Snvoy Avenu~
to cut off anX commflrcial :~se of the residentiel. strHet for tlie heslth and
sa£ety of the re~idents~ and that 'there waiald be nc~ need for fire accesa ai.nca
there was a PirepZug a~ the corner ~f Dor•er Stred~ And Saray Avenue to adequate-
ly serve this rasidential area.
Chai.rtnan Gauer. stated he would like to hsar from Lhe petitioner.~a o~ Reclneai.-
fication No. 7~~73-46 since t~air requeat waa the start of tho axea dQVQlopment
plan and the potition had been considered at loast twic;~ l~y the Planning
Commission at previous meetinqa.
Mr. Joe Davidsan, 414 :Vo~th State CollQge Boulevard, ona of the geti.ti~ner~a,
appee~red before the Cor~mission and ~-tmt9d that Exhibi.t "B" ~~ preaent~d by
ataff would out their property to ribbons since ~ho~ had planne~ to convert
the two 6xieting homes~ thaC ml~hough Exhibit "B" might be ~caeptabZe to the
City, it wuuld cree-te a heavy financial buxden on him nnd y~ie partner becauee
the properties were heavily encumbered with loane, wliich ~hauld be n concern
of the ~ity since if Exhibit "B" were adoptad, it would meun lpsi.ng one-third
ot their oroperty because of the cul-de-~sac and the alleq roturn, ..~wevex,
they would be agreeablb to Alternate "A" pravious considered beceuse it wou).3
mean t~iey could utillze their axieting ~t:ructurae an•~ ~hey would lose onl.,y a
posLion of the eouthaziy property, hut with aome sevieion to the plans, they
c~.uld cse the majority of their secondary structure~ for office s~pacQ, ~h~r~-
fore, this wouZd bd a mcre fea~ible plani ~hat iP e siqnel liqh t were placed
at Sav4y Avenue, thie would Qresent the same ur,dc,sirable traffic situation
that preeently existed nt casnta Ana S~ reet aad State College BuuJ.evardr thdt
_he exis~inq eiqnrl Zight ~Ad teeken care of o ooneidera~ble ttmount of traffic
probldma Chat exiatad previou+~ly, but he felti t:~e cul-de~-saa, as pzopos~d on
Exhibit "B", was not leaaible, neither w~o building A walt extending Prom th~
al~ey to the north side o~ Savo~ Avenue, therefEore, he would Buqgeat cht~L tit~e
Commiseicn qiva lurther conuiderat.ion to i~veatiqt-ting tho origlnal proposal.
Mr. James Alaon, oi-s of the petitionera, appeared be~ar~ the Cummieaion and
~tatad tl~at th~ix proposal would be a ver.y attractive aommcraial laci.ll~,y in
which hE wuu~Q be uaing cne portion for. hi~ insuranoa businoes, while Mr.
David~on wauZd be u~~nc~ th~ bslanae fox hie real eatate a~fioe~ that he felt
~
~
~
M.T.NU'~'F.S, CITY E'T,ANNING COMMTS3ION, Ju~.y 23, 1973 73-412
AR'c:!- DEVELOPM~NT PI,AN NO. 98, REC~.ABSIIrT.G:ATTONI NO. 72-73-45, AND CONDITxOtlHL
p8~ ~ERMIT NU. 7.~98.~,(C~ntiinu~dZ____~_ ,_„~
Lxhi.bit "A" wauld be mor• A~CA~L'1~b10 eince it would extis~y th~ Tralfic Bnqi~•
neor anA aeparAte th• comm~raia~ Lram t,he reai.3unt~c~ u~ei thet h~ wa~ aure
th,1t tho woman to the w~it of the ellay on the aouth R. d• o! S~vuy Avanie
wauld nat ,yi.ve up an}+ of her landscnping for. the cul-da-sac, how~ver, thay
had nyr~ad to prav~di.nq tha wel.l in accordAnce with her r~ri~heet ~h~t CAey had
been having tenant prob~am~ wi.~h thair homea, thwrof.ore, lelt liqh~ com:nercial
uAe o~C the pro~~rty ~-duld be u-or~+ accdptabl.4 and a batCsr aolution to thl~a
ihan~ ne Mr. R.~ohtor.d ~uyqe~tad, a weli heiny placed acroee Savoy ~vtnue to
separnt~ the txalP~a Plow, ~inc• :he Traff~.c Engln~ex statad that qoiny narti:i
and weat on S~voy Avanue w~~-ld s~tiefy thia~ that i! Fxhibit "A" were aoneid~erecl,
they would no~t have r~ulficient propart.y to nllow fo.r parking required beceuee
khey would not onZy 1o9e 'l0 foeC aa ona end, bu.t onA-third o! the px•operty an
the or~uth~ ~haL• they laad p+aid a YzAmium priao far the proparty booauso it was
potential commercial~ ttidt they had rev~ewed thc~ propos~e)o by etaffi and ~ound
1.t would be +sn extrmn~ely d1.Pficult eituationt that: ~ne thinq t-ad been overlooked
by ttie Trt~ffi.c Enqineer in that khere wore fivo h~mer~ betw~en khe propor~ed ~.lley
r~turn and Snuth 9troet end eince a~l the~a lota wc+ze onlyo 65x98 tmet. if these
lota wero dAV~lo~ed in the ~uture with fihe requiz-ement of Pour parking ~~acos
per lOGO squar.e Eaet uE building, it woulci bo ext.remaly di~fic~slt tio devalop
the .lota ir~dividnally, and land aseembly w~uld have to b• acaou~pliohed~ and that
parking and aceose ~^equired would cont the c'iLy a considarebl~ emount of money
to asaure service for theso businesse~, and perhapo with having aeconda~ry accesa,
on.Ly 25 vohtcles pax dr~,y exitinc~ to State College Eo~alevar.d a~ the trafPia liqht,
cauld oreate the eame p.rat~].em ~.liich the City thouqht they had re~olvod ~ith the,
aigaal light.. Fuzthormore, th~~ did not vrnnt to lona theix proper~y nnd thv~y
also did not want ~:o cre~-te a smsll freeway a~i Daver Streat since the,y etill
wantect the best for the r,d~r~ining pxoper*_y awn~rs but wentAd ta eontie-ue kith
tho Qlmn they had oriqinally presented aince they had incurr.c~d coneidereblA
oxpense.
Mrs. LoSI Cox~ 2926 East Snvoy Avenu~, appeared h ~fore the Commiasion, notiny
her pruperty i.mmediatAly adjoi.tied the alloyt that: ehe was oppasod tn Exhi.bit
"D" end would agre~ with Mr. 01aon th~t what had be~:n worked cut with Mr.
Davidaon would bo more agreeable, and the City should all.ow Me~ers. Ua~ifleon
and Olaon to go aheed wi.th thei.r development sa that ~he adjoininq properti~d
wuuld not be hurtt ~hat if Exhibit "B" wer~ adopted, they wAUld requaet d
portion of haar lot a~n3 thera wauld be no adequate dXivaway, and by ao dolztgr
would deprec:iake the valu~ of her properY.y i.n th e even~ ~ha decided to aell it.
Mr. t~eal MaLean, ].916 Eaet aover place, appea~red befoxe the Cotnmiaeion, noting
he was the oragina] ownez of hie proportys that h~ was concerned reg3rding the
a11e,y pr:~crposal si~nce there already was ra proble~ With young people creatinq a
drag strip from the pizza parlor r~+rough Dover into the alley~ that the lots
were l00 Feet deap, and that he was oppo~ed to tha area d9v41opment plan ba-
cauae it would affact his raar yasd living environment because people C~rLd
look ov~r the fence, whicka ha did not feel w.ss fair or juar.~ that he would
recommend complete removal of thc+ alley aince ~he exiKti.ng alley was like e
junk yardj that he had driven down an all.ey between commercial a~nd reeidantial
uses also on State Col:ege Boul.evard earlf~er in the d~y, and thi~ wes a ximalar
aituation - a junbc yard, the•rs£orA, he wou].d Y~e willing ta accept an 8-foot
wal.l in khe event th.ia praposa.l was approved.
Chairman Gauer no*.ed there were two proposals s ubmitted by sttsff under Ar~a
Development ^lan t~a. 98 betore tho Planning Com~misaion to conoider, whi.ln
Mz. Roahford indi::ated troQe he re~resented wented a wall to extend troui ;`~e
a).1.ey acroea Savoy Avenus.
Commiesioner Seymous inquired wha~t Nould happen tu the ~wo lots re-aaining out-
side of the cul-~ce-sac ~n Savoy Avenue adjacdnt to State ~ollege Buul.evard es
3.t pertaine8 to traeh and fire equipment if a wall w~re approvesl.
Mr. Schwartze advisad the Commission that the ~-all woul~ czeate an unteaahle
:itua~ion, lea-vinq n etub otroek adjacont to th a auggeeted cul-8e-sac, and
that the cul-de-sac wae recomm~nded to allow fo x tre.sh vehiolee to have a
turn-~around area.
~ ~
MIt~llT~B, CITY ~J.ANNING r_OMMi93I0N, July 23, 1.973 73-413
AREA nEVNLUPDtENT PLAN NO. 98, RBCLII~SI~'IGATTON N~. 72-73-46, AND CONDZTIONAL
t1SE PERMIT NO.~ 1398 ConkinuaQ) ,,,,,,.,_.,r, ..._._ •••
Co~-midAi~ner 9ry~na~ar. than inqui.xed nhether tliore was any "middle ~of tha roalt"
s~lution, auch a-~ ~ ma31lied aul-de-sac, wh.ioh would r~quire laaa lsncl *.lian
propas0~ on the sxh~bit.
Mr. Olaon notod tha~t tha Allay oauld rem+~in and could be the turn-aruutid eroe.
Commieefo~er Seymour noted~ that by~ mxitinq to Sdvoy AVe1lU6e one na~alcl ruh i,nto
thc~ black wxll, and ha Wae conc~ernad abou~ Chd ea~ety and qen~+ral weltnre
whil~+ et±ll prc~viding City servioo~, and L•he etub ~t.r.eet thAt would b~+ created
wauld be e problem iP the wal~, ns prapc~eed, ware adopte~d ae a plan.
hlz. Ed Neff, repree~nting tho Sanitmtion Diviei~n, e~dvised the Cc~a~~aieeion khnt
they wauld prefer aome type of e cu~-de-sAC beceuee it none waro pxovide~l, i.t
aould mean the~ tacaeh truv-ke would have to ba~ak a consider~nble diatanae, and
then in resoor~~e to Coramtesion queetioning, Atated they could xive with a
parti.al cul-de-wac iF n~ parking woro p9rmitted.
Mr. schwartze nc+ted thst pezhapra d sr.udy wae needed to determi-~A whek Cy~e of
modifi.cation could be providod, auch as a hammerhe+sd.
Commiugioner Soymaur atsted he would c~ncur with Mr. Rochfca-d zand tha raeidants
oP. khe aresa that C-0 utsee be eetablisheci alony State ColZegc~ Houlev~cd~ an~
that iP the cul-de-aac oould be modif3e~d so that Mesero. Davidsan and Ulsun
neee~ not t~ear d~wn the,ir oxistinq buildii~gB~ then perhaps m~et of tha problem~
would be xesolvod.
'Loning sup~rvisor Charles Robertm noted thz-t if a lalock wall wera conbtruated
acxoea Savoy Avenue as Mx. Roc.hfara suggeRtacl, tt~is w<auld reault in a atub
street, and althougk~ hhe City had stub atr~e4e into other prop~xties, this wae
unly until th~ adjaining property developed, and generally ehese stub streetr
were only 100 feer, in lenqth, while this would be alm~st 500 f~et ~ongr that
access somatimes cou].d be t++kan to a s tuk, qtreet i E i t were not too loiiq ~ that
if s modified cul-dc~-suc wexe conei.dered on Savoy Avenu~, the totnl width
curb-to-curb w~u1d be 36 to 4p feet, and the present atreot was a 27--foat half--
w:.dth, and he would asaumo that the curb was at J.8 f~-et from cent9ryi.t~e, whilE
~he tota]. dinmeter of the r.ul-de-saG ahould be 150 feot= that ame~:d.iny these
requiremonts could cre~.te probleme for trash and fire accessibility because a
tzash truck w~uld hc-ve to enter and back out thia diatance of almoat 500 faet
or use someone' s driveway to tucn e-round~ that ona of the a3.ternatfvee was to
leave the access as it preaently exi~ted, but the Traffic Enqineer Xecommended
against this bscauae nf the t.raffic canflict at 5avoy Avenue and 54ate College
Boulevard, and canversion of all lots betwaan Savoy Ave~nue and South Street on
the west side of State College Boulev~rd wou].d compound the prablam - that is,
of course, if tho Plunr~ina Commisgion ana Ci~y Counci]. determinad ccmmereial
uses woxe appra~ria~e - thiu, of course, would mean 1@3V.~11S~ the diley as it
presently existed, and tho eingle-family h~msowners did n~~t l~.ke that becauae
oE the combination of reAldentidl and commerci.al trafEic c~n th~ alleyt and
that another alternatiwe would be to leava a11 of the hom~~s ~n Sta-te Colleqe
Boulovard as residentia2 and uso the technique approved ux~der the Fronk-On
Study, such as a block wall and ahrubbery in the front setbackA.
Mr. Roberts, fn respnnee to Commisa~ion queatior.ing, noted that the exhibit
indicated a 50-foot diameter cul-de-sac with a curb radiue of 38 feet.
Commisaione.r Seym~ur i.nquired ~+hdt aould happen if the c:ul-fle-eac eize wer.o
reduced and wha* "~' 1 happey~ ~~ith t~ 27-foat cul-de-eacr whereupon Mr. Rob6rte
atat~,d that t~.t exist_ ^ riqht-og-k~ay en Sevoy Avanu~ with 54 feet was 19 feet
from curb t~ the c:ante:_. y~ o~ the etreet, which wc~ld re~ake the centor radiua
only 1J ~eet zAthsr ~ha~r ~-.• 38 fo~t requiredi a.nd thr~t the Fire DepaztmenL•
ap~.enred to he satia:'.ier •aith r.: 27-Foot rndius return, but thfc w-r.s ineulfi-
.ient for trrasY: v~hicln~~.
Commiasioner Rowlen~ otrearvad that ths 2.ength o~ the cul-de-eac wa~ only half
tl~e problem - was an ~equnlly import~r~c thing juet as a traftic problem would
ba was enclosing the enti:e accwee point at Si:a~te College Boulevard with curb
ar.d gut~er clasedt wheraupon Mr. Roberte notied thdt the curb line would be
aloaed.
~
:~
~^
~
MINliTL~B, l".xTX PI~ANNING COMMIBSION, July 23~ 1973 ~3"414
ARhA QEVL~LOPMll'NT PLI~N N0. 98, It~CLAS9TFICI-TIUN N0. 72-73-46, AtiD CONDI'i`IQNAL
UStC P~RMYT NA. .1399 (ContiniaeA~ r______~ -- -
psputy Ci.ty A~torney Frt~nk Lowzy nated thati i! 3avoy hv~nuo wers olos~d at
Stat~ College Doul~vazd a,nd ab~ndonad, the •tzs~t adjoininy wou1A be ~-aquired
by CF~e adjoininq pr~purty ownare a• p~rt ~! thei.r own 2ota.
Commiss~.oner Rawland eleo notsd tha-t Mr. Ds~vidaon ~tated that una ao].ution
propoeed woul8 be lesa axpenaive to the City o! Anaheim then •nother, howovez,
ha woa.ld likA to corr~ot thet aaoumptian rina. any expen~e wauld ba borne by
th• deve.l~par of the L~roparCi~e baoauao thie~ was a rACldusi~iaation ot the
property for kha b~t~ar:nent of the pxoperty owned by Mesere. Davl.daan and
Ol.don an0 s~~ou13 not cree~a an undue burden on the halanco af Ch• vomonuniey
ei.nao i aignal light would coet rst leasx $30,OOQ, cominq from the Gity'~
Genc+ral Fund, and as a t~-xpayoz ot A~ah~im, he did noC we~nt to p~y for th~
betterm9nt nf this particule.r property nt the ~.ntoraection of Se~vay 1~venuP
and ste~:e college Bo~ilevard, and this would include any comrnorcf.al pot9ntia]
prop~rtiest ~hat ha woulli aqroe that the nacne typa~ of double eiqnel xt thtn
inkeraertiarx was located at Sa~nta l-na Street, WAetport ariva anA St~t~+
Col.leoo Duulevard which wae e minox dieaater i.n the community, hsving made that
in~araec`:.ioz~ six timea duxing the paet heek between th~c houre af 5 r00 artd ?:0~
p.m., the~ intereacL•ion became a Eun and gamea aituation~ tha~ th~s t~entati.va
~aolutionm pxoposed reqr~rdinq tha cu].~de-eac, straightoning au~. of tho stseet~
etc., would help alleviate prablems of aome of t:ha propezty owncre 813DjACCBfj
to the commercial tr~+Efic and would also help htesero. Aavidnon and Ole~oti, but
thoee on ;:uuth street with the a'llay would ak311 have all of the commercie~].
traffic uc;ing the alley t~ South Strest adjace,nt to the residenti.al propo~rty,
nnd th~re ~ras no way that he could voto for that as commerci.al p.roperty.
Commission3r Aiir~a ~baerved that perhaps Qreparati4n of ~noth~er exhiblt miqht
be~ the ans~ae.r, and he wanted to know, wfth all dua re$pect t~ evezyone in the
aret+, what could be 3one wit}- the, propert,y since the propercy in its preeent
ata~e coulcl not be ranted for a home, but he wou'ld hate further encouxagemen~
of commercial usea all over t*~e cityt that ha had known af a n»nhQr of hom~nr,
whi.ch had b~en, converted and had not oresenCed any problemt~, howevar, he did
not know whether r.hi~ would be tha same with eubject prope rty.
Commissione:< Seymour noted thttt there was a solutian to thia problem but it
might n~~t bi: thP ideal solutionj th at if the propexties alonq South Street
were eliminz~ted, deadending the allay to the kest anc~ tryinq to minimize
commercial traffi.c using Savoy Avenus -:l.f that cou7d be accompliahed - then
he felt that most of the pr.oblsma would be reaolved, and thon inquired what
woulcl happen ii the wall were relt:ated from ths weat side of the a~loy ~o
the east slde of the alley - woulcl coma~ercial use At~.ll qo to Savoy Av~:nue
and bove.r Street - this miqht not b e fer~sible, but City servicea etill would
be~ provided •to thoae pro~+erties.
Mr. Olson inctuirad what would be required i.n terms af l~nd i£ a modified cul-
dn-sac were ~-dopted - what were the mir~f.mum z~quirementa =~hereupon Mr. Roha~xta
atated he was not aure there was an answer, but etaff knew that fire tr.ucks
could n~sgoti.ate with a 27-foot turr.-around radi.u~, however, trash trucko could
not. ne5otiate with ZED~ tha~n 38 Eeet, and since trash truckg would be ~ieing
this street weekly, much more so thax~ fi.re trucka, ~hi~ shauld be a considera-
tior~r and that commercisl traffic would use Savoy Avenue and L~over Str:eet evcn
th~ugll the wall. were placed on the enet side of the alley.
Conmieaioner e2o;~rland observod that ifi it were poasible to m~dif,y the cul-de-
eac s-n~l leave the 8-foot wa].1 on the wea~ side,, then one would have to take
this to thc alley to within A few fe~C fzom 'the intersection in or3er to pro-
vide grivacy ~of the interaectiun, and d poztion ot the alley wou7.d heve t~~ ba
aban~lonec~ in ~~rder that all commezcinl ~raffic would exit onto State Cullege
9oulevard.
Mr. Roberta n~~ted the~ tlzerd appeared to bm a number of itAS~s of concern which
he f.elt the '~raffic Engineer shoulc3 xeply to, therefore, hs woul~6 s~:ggegt a
two-w+eek coat:lnuanae.
~
•
MxNUT~A, CITY PL'11NNING C0~6MIaBION, :Tu.ly 13~ 1973 73-415
AR1~7- D~VBLOpMLNT PI~11N N0. 98, RECI.11S8IP'ZCl1TxON N0. 72-7:9-46~ ANO CONDITION7IL
q8___}C PERMIT N0. 139d (Con~in~iod ..-
Commir~ioner Rowland otl~red a motion. ~econdad by Commisei.onox ~symour and
MOTZON C71RRI8D, Lo oonCinu• aon~id~rakioa o! Aroa Da~v~lopm~nt Pl+~n No. 98 to
tha meeting o! Auguot Z0, 1973, in order ta allow time for stdf! to pzopsr•
lurth~r •xhibitv or elt~rnaCiv~s !uz oonridlaratior- to lleeoxmin• wh~th~r a
madilisd cul-Qs-ssa would bM +~aaoQkabl~ to t,h• 8~nit+~tion Div1al.nnt to oLuAy
what o~hor menn~ th~rs wer• to protaot tk-• recidan~~ ad~+~cant to thv all~y~
~~ wall Qntermine horv th• .LatA lxonli.n~ an 8tak~ Coll~qa Houl~vard +~nd tha
tvrn on saWOy Avanuo mn,y 1~e u~i~.is~d Mithout •cguirinq too much le~nd, m~kinq
ure o! them lmy~oesib~e.
Atcer furthor di~cu~eion with ths oppoeitiion ~nd raeidente ir~ tha •rR~, Ar~a
Dova~opment Plan No. 98 was continuaA tn ~ho mestiryq aP l~uquot 6, 1973.
Mr. Davidaon reqaeetad thnt both the azes Qevelopment plan and hie r~nlas~i-
liaatior~ and conditional use permit petition~ bn continued to 11uqu~t Z0~ 197~,
sinc~ he wanted to be pr.esont, hawever, he had alres~ay sr.hadule~ ltis vaaeetion.
Commieaion~r s.~ymour ofP~red a motl.on, seaanded by Commiaeioner Rowland and
MpTION CAkFcIEp, to continue consideration o! Petitione for Reolaesili.ce~tian
Na. 72-73-46 end. Conditlonal Use Permit No. 1398 to the meetinq af Auguet 20,
1973, rur further etudy and as requee:ed by ~he p~~i~.ioner.
Mre. Cox adviaed the Commiseion that subjec;t petitions ehould be continuad
until september einc~ alie dnd hor huRband wnul8 be on vaaation dti~ring the
month of Auqt~~t, and they wmre primdrily a!lncked by bo~h the area davelopment
plan and th~ reclasnifica~~ian.
ENVIItOt1MENTAL ~MA. ACT - CQNTINUED PUBI~~C HE,AR;~NG. THE MC CDIRTHY COMPANY,
ItEPORT N0. 93 a~tenti~n of Eugane k. Ful]ler, 2535 Weat L~ Palma
w~ Hvenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92801, nnd HENRY F. AND SxHEL C.
RECLA3SIFICATZON DEL GIORGIO, 21191 Mohler Drive~ Aneheim, ~a. 92806,
NO. '12-73-39 Owners. ~NGINEER: ,7ennings E~-ginsdring Company,
4419 Van Nuys aoulevezd, Sherman Oake, Ca. 914U3.
VARI,ANCE NU. 2492 Pr~perty deacribed ass An irreqularly-~haped parce]
^ of land consisting of approximately 35 mcree, having
TEN'"ATZVE MAP OF a frontaqu of appzoximdtely 687 fee~t ~n the aouth aide
TRACT NO. 4777, of. Sants Ana Cgnyon Road, havitig a maximum dypth of
REVISION NU. 1 approximetely 1500 feet, and beinq lr,cated approximateJ.y
" " 3070 feet eaet of the centerlin~ of Az,aheim Hille Roa~i.
YroQerty pzan~ntly classified R-A, AGRICULTi)RAL, ZONE.
RFQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-1, ONE-F~MJLY RESIDEt1TIAL, ZONE.
;4EQUES'~ED VARIAa~C:E: WAIVER UF (A) MINI[di)M FRQNT SETHACK, (3) MINIMUM LOT
WIDTH OIV A CUL-DE-~AC~ ~C) MINIMUM LOT WTf~TH, AND ~DI
REQUIREMEN~ THAT ~TNG~E-F~-MILY RESIDEN'TTAL STRUCTURES
REAR ON ARTERIAI~ HTGHWAXS TO ESTABLISH A 135-LOT, R-1
SUBDIVISZON.
Suk~ject ~etitions and tract were continued from the meetinga af April 16,
May 14 and '-0, June 11, and July 9, 1973, to allow timo tor the subniieaion
of ievisr~d p1an~.
Ase~stant Plc~nner P::illip Schwar~ze advi.sEd the Commi~sion that thp revised
plana had not been aubmitt~d and that the peti*.ionoz had not aubn~itted a
letter nsking for furthas continuance. However, the ~etitioner had b~en
advised that if r~vised plana were rot pxeaented £or considoratian to the
Pla-nning Commiasion P~s thi$ hearir.g, :he ite~n~ would be xeQ~ov9d £roen the
agenda and zescheduled at guch time ms t~e petitioner cauld eubmit reviaed
P1ans, svhject ta rQadvartisi.ng of the pet!.ti.on at the~ psYitiox~er'A expenae.
Commisoionex Allred offer~d a motion, s9c~andAn by Commi~sicner Kinrt and
M~TZON CAR~tIED (Commiaui~~ner Rowland ~-betaininq) to r.emove Envirorsman~al
impaat Report No. 93. R@C~368~~~.Cdt~011 "t~o. 73~73-39, Varianae No. 2492, ared
Tentative ~iap of Traat Nc. 1777, Itevision No. 1, from th~ agenda nnd tn be
rasch~aduled at auch time ad the roviaed ~1ana are eubmitted, coe~ o~ ra~d^
~ertiaing of the sforementioned patitioas to be born~~ by the petitioner.
~
~
MINUTdS, CYTY pI.ANNING COMMY9f3I0N, Jul,y 23, 1973 7~-41b
CONOITIANAL UfliE - CONTINUED PUBLIC NEAAINGi. THE MG CARTRY C0:1P11NX,
PSRNIT N0. 1386 atton~ion a! Luq~n• R. Fullar, 2535 Wort I~• Palma Av~nuo.
~ Anaheim, Ca. 92AQ1, Owneri r~~ueo~l.na p~rmie~ios~ to
L3T11HLI8H A 4-UNIT PLANN$U RRl3TAEN't'I11L q~SVBT,~~PNiBNT '1'0 8~
U8ffiD A8 11 MObEL HON~;~ GOMFLEX P1ITH SALE9 OFFICF. an pxoperty descxi.bsd a^ i An
irraqul.arly-shag~d pArcel o! land aonaisting o! mpproximata~y one aaru a~pr~xt-
mat~ly 6:iQ leet nou+thsrly ot Santa Ana Canyon Road, h«ving a m~xi.mum d~pth o!
eppraximat~ly 170 f~eat, end b~ing locat.~ti e~proxim~tely 144 l~~t weet oi th•
aankrrlin~ of M~hler Dzive. Propexty ~reaentiy c1a~~si~ioA 1?~1-, AC~RiCULTURAL,
zONE ~
Subject p~tition v+ae c~ntinued from ~tie mee~ti.nqa o! 1-pril 16, May 14 an~l 30,
~urt• 11, and July 9, 1973, to a].low time, for the sub~niasi.on at plana.
Aesi6i:+-n~ Pl~nnor Phi111p schwartze +~dvi~+eQ the COTOAI~B6~.Of1 th+at ths r~vi~ad
plane had ~-ot baen eubmittod, and that ~he petit.l.oner had not eubtaitt~d a
l~tter au'Y..lhq for furth~z cantinuanr,e. Huwevex, tha p~Citiansr had been
adv~aed that if .ravi,e~d Qlane were n~t ~s~eee~-ted for aanaiderstian to the
Plenning Commi~rion tor khie hoaring, the itame woulll be removad Prom the
agenda and re~chadul~~d at nuah timr~ AA the petitioner cquld eubmit re,viael!
plane subject Go red~iverti.si.nq ~f the petition at tho peCitioner'e expeneo.
Cc-mmiasioner Allzed c+ffersd a mo~:lon, seconded by Commi~$ioner Kinq anCl MOTION
CARRIED (Commisaioner Rowland alaetr~ining) ta remove Cond'.tion~l Uea Permit
No. 138fi fzom the agenda and ~o be r~sahedul.ed at ~uch time n~ ~he xevised
paans ar~ aubmitted, c~st oE z•eadvertising c+E uubject petition to be barne by
tho petiti.onar.
CONDITIONAL USE -- C~~NTINUED PUaI,IC i~EARXNG. TTC 'I'OC SYBT~M3, INC. , 1431
PERMIT T10. 140~ V.illago Wa~/r Santa Ana, l:n, 927U5, Cwner~ REV. bARHARA M.
S~.rRAUSS, 53S Hampshire, No. 9, Anaheim, Ca. 928U5, Aqonti
z~aqueatl.ng pe~xmission tn L'3TABLISH A CHOItCH WAIVZNG
MINTMUM NUMBER OF PEQIJIRED PAIiKING SP21CE~ an prnparty aeecribed as ~ F~
roctnngularly-shaped F>arcel of lai~d locatad ~t the noztheest corner of Euat
StrA~t and Syaemore Street, ha•vinq frontagea of approximately 22G fFet on the
eaet side c•,f East SL•reet and 235 feot c~n the north side of ~ycamorQ Stzeet.
Property pre~sently c].as~i£ied C-]., GENERAL COMM~RCIAL, ZONE.
3ub ject petition was cor~tinue,d fzom Ct~e meeting of June 25, 1'373, to allow
time for staff to make ~. epecial parki.ng etudy reqardinq fiaced and non-f~.xed
seating rrranqements in a church.
One parao» indicated her presence in oppos~tion, noting ahe had been at the
previous public hearin~.
.~lthough the Report to the ~ommisaion was noC read at the pub~.ic heaz~.nq, it
is referrea to and made a parG of the minut;es.
Rev. Baxbara Strauss~ agent for the petitionor, appaarad before ths Commissic+n
and pr.seanted ~icturas of the parMing area from which waiver was ba3nq re-
qu~eted, noting that theix peak attendance was in the eeen~.ng and on sunday
night ~when there w9re many parki.ng apaces avaflablA even aft~:r. the ohuz~ch was
in ae~osion, which would negaL•e the poeaibility of using a eide atreet for
park~.ng pur.pQSUS as the opposition had ex~ressed praviouslyt that therF
preeently exist~jd a masonry wnll which wauld pr~~olude anyon~ exitir.g to the
gide etxaet~ tti~t they would be lucky 1.f they httd 20 perecns in attanda~nce at
church at any sszvir.ej that they had leaaed this pxoperty so that they would
nat incanvenience~ homeowners with the pla~yinq of th~ organ and parkinq in a
residentiel azoay tht~t. there was no churah availdble in Orange County wh~re
it wena r~ot adjacant to some t~pe af reoidential u~et that the tACil.ity was
select~d by them because it hacl b~en vaaa.nt for some tim~, ~+nd ttaey ha~d not
c;tiaaged the exteriur ap~earanca o£ tt-e rtructure, although the interi.or looked
like a churcht t;hst they had moved threu t:imes in khe laeC several months bu-
cauee of unfor~ceen circumatancea, and it was neceesary that they be locetod
i.n ona plaoa At least one yc~~~r in ordez to expect patential qroath which th~y
a-nticipated would be a maximum of 7Sr pximarx].y because this wae a~ disciplinod
churah a~~L! me~nberahip was limited becauae of the lacti that thsy ha8 as- Eaatern
philoaoghy, a].thouqh they ware a Western facil.it.y~ and thAt mar.y ~eople aid r-ot
care to a~t~end thia ~ype of churah.
~
1~^
~
M.LNUT~a, CITX PJ.?,N21~NG CAMMI,46I()N, .TU7ly 23, 1973 ~~~"4~~~
~O~IDiTI0N11L Ua8 PEAMY'~ N0. ].409 (C:ont~.nua+d)
Mre. Fern Graupman, 604 Rlmwood Avenu~, sppaarad bolorA th• Commi~uion and
not,ad th+~t aha w~s r,ot in oppositl.on ~to thi.e churah but eh+~ wae in upp~aition
to ~~aiver a! thh mini.mum ~ar.ki~nqt that th4 •xisting p+~rkinq w+~e about hal! oi
tha r.aquired parkinq, a~nd el~e did not farl that ~usr baoanea thin wx~ a ahurch
ihe• parking ehoi~ld be we,ivad bscuuee ciraumekances might chang~ ir~ aix months
and Qdrking wou'ld th~,n bwaomt~ a pr+rmium, and then in re~ponae to qa~eptionin~
by Chs.ira!an Gauer, at~?~.~8 that thn China Dc~ll Reetauxant wa~r vr~~y buay ak
ni~h~4, ao weo the I~undry, beoaune ~mony ~eople work~d duri.nq Lt~a~ day~ thnt tha
7-13. MArket had an in-and-~ut busina~sa N110k:: peohle a ~ayed onl~- u yhazt time,
hovrevsr, a churah ~nemborehip might be pArked Yor a lonq tim~, an~ this aould
~xesont e problom~ and ths~ by thm petit:ioner'e adm4.~Rion ~h~ey hac9 eign~ec~ e
r~ne-year ~ease with an option Poz a~NO-year renewel whicl~ aauld compound tha
par.kinq problem ~lnc~ the China Doll a~es open unti.l 11~00 P.m. at niqht.
Commiseion~+r 9eymour. noted thaze ep~eared to be no problvm now, but t:~axe
aould be one withi.n ona year., a~nd the Commieeion waa juet ae concotr»ed ae
Mx~e. Grsupman, thexetore, if eub}oc:t pc~tition war~ appx~w~d, t;he C4mmiasion
ehoulcl limi~ the use for one year .in tho avenk t110TA qxowt•h waQ oxperiencecl
than wa~a anticipa.ted.
Mre. Ordupman indicate~d thero should be a higher k~lack wa-11 than~ ~reeently
existed so that del~very ~ruckr. w~ul.c~ na~ be u~ing tha re~+idant.ial stzeet at
the rear of the laun~lry si.nce n}-a nad aeen tha laundry truok rlriv~rs ma~ny timeA
3ump OVA7C tha fenca an GlPnwaoci Avenu~a ancl Esatwoocl Dri.ve to c1~Xiver thinqs.
Rev. Strausra, in zat~uttr~.l, etated that aa L•he CommiKS.i~on could ~anr~ from thA
photograph, there woul~i be no problo~n a~ ~~r as parking wae concernud, and if
ane dl.d oacuk, sh~ hnd 3lscuased with tt-e owner af t'he closed ernrvic:~ station
ac:rose th~ str~et r~gardinq overf..Low parking theXe in the event i.~ ~~~se 11CQ~~C1
and received verbr~~. approvr~l, bu~: not a wr~ttcan on:^_ as of yet becaus~~ their
headqua+rte~^g fa~re ir~ I~iouston, mexas.
7~`NE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Comn-isaioner S3ymauc offarecl a motion, 3eaunc]~d by Gommisa3onEr. .King, that the
1?lonning Cammis~ion, in r.r~nnectinn witl~ an exempt.ion declaration sta~~u~s rQquee~,
Pinda and det~rmin~a that the propos~l would have no giqni..ficdnt environment+~l
impact and, L!~exPfore, recammends to the City Counc:ll that no Envi.ronment~i
Impact 5tatement is necessarX.
Commisaionex Seymour of£ered Resolut~.on No. PC73~15~1 an,d moved fo~ its passage
and adoption to qran~ Petition Par Conditional Use Pexrt~it No. 1409 for $~eriod
of one year, aubject to revisw at the end a~ ono yaar to determi.ne whf:ther ~ny
parking prdbl~me os ot•hex probleme had resulted, anc3 sv.bjec~ tc, cond~tione.
(See Resolution Buok)
On rall call the foreqoing resalutior- was passad by the fa~lowirag vote:
AYES: GOMMISS70NE RS: Allred, ~auer, Kinq, Rowland, Seymour.
NnEr: COMMIS~IONERS: ~IOna.
AHSENx: CQMMI3SIONL~tS: F'~~raea, Hsrb&t.
RECLASSIFICATION ^~ CONTINUED PUJEfLIC HEAR~NG. CHAP.LF~ ANA F'HXLLIS ~ICHI,I:R.
NO. 73-74~3 6E388 i,eilani Lgne, Cypress, Ca. 906~0, Ownerst BILL PH~.LP5,
1095 Nor.th Main Street, Oranq9, Cm. 9256?, Aqent~ propert;~
VARIANGE N0. 2529 described as: A rectang~zlarly-sha}~ed parcel of la»d havit:q
~~ a frontage of approximately 110 Ec~et o~ the e-outh s3cie of
Orange Avenue, having a maximum degth of app~'oxima~ely 204
f,~et, and boiny locatied approximat~+ly 430 feet weat oY the aenterline of Weettcrn
AVenue. Frop~zty p7ce~entlv clasei~ied R-A, AGAICULTURAZ, ZONE.
REQU~ST'EA CLAA3IP'IC;A,TION: R~3, MULTIPLE-FpMII~Y RESZDENTSAL, ZONE.
FtEQUE~TEti VARTAN~E ~ WAIVEIt QF MAXIMUM P~R~.TTTED HEIGHT WITHIIN 15U ~'A:~'T OF
R-A ZONEb PROPE~tTY TU ~STAEsLISH A 15~UNIT ApRRTM~NT
COMPLCX.
~...
~
~
~
MINUT~S~ CxTY PI,ANNING COMMI38ION~ July Z3, 1973 73-4~8
RECLASSiFxC1-TI4N N0. '13-74-3 ANA_ V_1~R ~NCE N0. Z529 (Continu~d)
Suhiect patitions wex• continued lram ths muetinq o! July 9, 1973, to r.~snivr
gire snd trxeh pzoblemr.
No ona appoared in r~ppaoitiaa.
Althc~ugh th• RwRort. to the Commi~sion Nd! not read at the publia heariag, i~
is refszr.~d eo •nd made e pert at ~h~ minutea.
Commia~ionur Rowlr~nd lsft tha Counoil Chamber at 3s].S p.m.,
Mr. Hi.ll Phelpr, agsr~~ for trie petitionor, eppeared bePoxo tho Commi.~si~n and
noted thet he hel! a revissd p1.an which hnd e~ eimple chnnge snd hed baen
sp~rovad by tho Fire Oepar~tment, and this c.l~ange wea bsoau~• o! th• ambl.quoue~
conclltion whiaT- was a requira:nant~ that he had met w~th tha Fire Marehal earlier
in the day, ar~d all that wa• requeetNd wae a slmgle turn-around area; that thc
buildi.ng wae at.i.ll in tha er~me po~ition and nuthi.nq cnore was addedr that ho had
ralacated the ~~ardge to grovide !or ~hie tuxn-arour,d, allowing !oz additional
room, ther~fore, he he,d made hie poace with the :':.ra D~pdrtmant but had not
rea-ched an agl:eement with the Devalopment Services Aepartm~nt~ and thet in the
City of Anaheim there werb mdny lota 110x~a0 °$et, whore~n the rec~uireaion~ ot
hAViny a trar,h turr~-around area a~s requeetbd by tha Sanitetion Divieton would
meaz~ taking up 70i of the widCh of the l.ot at une end.
Commioeione~c Gauer inquired whether the Commisslon wae in~exeeted in aonsidar-
l.ng sub~ect petition einae the etaEf had not had an opportunit;~ kU rovi~N tha
reviaecY pluns that were chanqo8 ear].ier in the dea~.
Commisaior~er Allred str.ted tk~at if there wde a minor change, th~ere~ might not be
a reason Eor ataff to revie~a it.
Commisnic,ner Sey-^our noted thai i£ tha Fire Marshaz had been oii vacatian and
this cielayed appzoval of the revi.sian which Mr. Pllelpe had ava~.labl~, he did
not fee]. the c3evolo~ax should be penal.ized if tk,~re wae only a minor ahange,
therc~fore, l~,e would move f~r a temparery continuanae ~f these peti.t;ions whila
etagf reviewed the revisod plans out ~.n the lobby.
Chairman Gausr nuted that xeprer~entatives of both the Sanitation Division and
the Fi.re Dep~rtment were praRent so they could review thia with staff.
2oning Supexvisor Charlea Roberta concurred that aubjeat petitions be tem~or-
arily delayed until later in the meeting to ~llow ataff to revieoi the plans
and perhaps thie matter could be disgased of later on.
Mr. Phelgs r.cted that he had not sati~fi.ed the trash people pr.eviuusly , therF
Fore, he saw no reason f~~z fur~her delay of aubject petitiona.
Co:nmi~sioner A],lred s~econded Commissianer Se,ymour's motion to delap Purthe
c~asicleration of Reclassificati~n No. 73-74-3 and Variance No. 2529 tu 1ar
i.~ tr~e meetinG. MQTION CARRIEI~. (Sen page 73-426)
~.ommissione~ Rowlund returned to the Council Chamber at 3:20 p.m.
RECLAS~IFICA'PTON - l?UBI,IC HFARYNG. NORTON AND SAFtBARA ARUILkiET, 340 F.;•~ ~
NU. 7a-74-6 ltiv~rdal.e, Orange, Ca. 92667, Owners~ DONALD FEARS, A;~
b12 Sou•th Harb~r Boalevsrd, Anaheim, Ca. 92805, Agent;
requestinc~ that property described as: An irregi~larly-
ahaped par.cel of lancl coneieting of appro:cimat~lv .3 acre, having a~ fron::aq:
of approximately 222 frret an the no.rth ~-ide af Wilshire Avenue, havin~3 ~~ :na
mum dept}: oE approximately 90 f~~•t, and beinq located approx~.ma,ta'ly 45~ f~<~~
east of the cen~cerline of Loara Street be reclaesifisd from the R-A, AG~'',: ~.~'.
TURAL, ZONE to the C-Z, GENFRAT. COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
Ao one apneared i~n opposi~tion.
Althouqh tho Rep~~rt to the Commission was not read at i:he public hearinq, ;~
is referred to and made a part of the ~sinutss.
Mr. ~~nald Feara, architec* and aqsnC £or the psti~ioner, appaarec! before the
Commiasion and notR3 that th~ applicant was ~lso oxea~nt lf the Commisaiari
reg~zfrdd anawers to questiane= that th~ Staff RF •or_t ~ndi.aated. the traah
~
~
~
MINpTEA, C7'~~f PL]INNING CONMIli8I0N~ :luly 23, 1973
R~CLAt~S3P'TCATION N0. 73_74~~6 (C~nti.ued)
73-419
•tarsqe a•r~e wa~rr inaaceisible to the Sani.kal~.ion Di~ ieion, hawevor, they ha4
wc~rksd ~hi~ out wikh Cha Sar~itatian D~v~~ion with s» +-l~~xnativo, and th•
altarn+itivv plan Kea aca~p~a!ale to the 8~ni.tetl.on Dtvl.nian~ thet ~his p~e also
dtacue~ed with th• P'ire Da~a-xtm~ent, an3 ~.hey lkolt th~y had aQequat.. ~ire prc-
tauticn a• ie pQrtai.n~s1 ta the lire hydznn~s ainaa thez• w~ra tir~ hyAran~s to
Ehx a~~~st e~t~d v-ea~ o~ aub~.ct propertyt khac Con~li.tian No. d alao required a
5-loot mseo~~ ~Y wal~., h~wsvor, ther~ e-J.r~a:iy exi r~ted a 6-taot masanry wxll along
the rarth propartX line on th• R-1 pz•oper~y, wnioh ~+r~s in excel.].en~. oandlti.on,
aaiQ wnll bminy 6 fee,t, 2Q incY~ee mbc,ve th0 1~~ve1 oY the p~operty on Wil~hir~
Avenur~, ~thile anothez one wee 7 Peet, ~ incahs.a whiah provide3 far •dsquate
heiS:ht, and xequl.r.ing a~~athar wal~. wou7.d appesr t~ he r~ther xeduncYant, o~her-
wi~~~, th~ey wera in r~greement with tho atetf's rsaornmendationa.
Con~m.i.~siane.r. Smyu-<~ur inquizecA whethe~r the petit~.onor would addresa any coaam~ents
to the f~.nding regmr.c9i~nq 1nnCtecaping ~~long Wilahiro Avenuc~ and a-lonq the north-
nzl,y px'~pert~+ lin~a whereupan Mr. Fea~:s -~tet.ed that he saw no prcbl~m si.nc~ tha
arnditian a! ~~ap.roval. requirc+d trHee in Conditior. ro. S.
Aseistant F~l~nnmr Plai.7.lip Sctiwartz~ nated faz th~ Cotn~isaion that tho trnah
:~torage areu ~ropo~ed wae not in cont«rmance With the, cir.y e~ta-ndardv, but the
.~qon~ for tl~a patition~r propoaod to have the tzash mtorage aros locstad ta~
~-ar8~a th9 lCront, anci one of the xaq~;iremente af mPproval wauld be to haul tha
tsash to the curb fox caxb-eide pick-u~, which was aco~ptatale to L•he Sanitation
Di.visi~«t that concexn exp.ressed ragszding tha tire hydrnnta - this wae a
stAnda.r.d eunditioY- o~ epproval, aad if the Fire Depaztment detexmined thero aaa
a~dequaL•e~ ~ize protect±on, then n~~ ~ire hydrant ~rnuld be necasaaryt tho~t Chu
cundition of tha 6-foot wa~ll al~~ng the north praparty line on~y u-AanL• tha~~. in
the c~vent the adioi~-ing property owner deaided ta remove the exiatinq wnll~
then i.t would be iiacumben~ up~~n Che owner of nubject property to ereot r- 6-foot
wall ta c~epaz•r+:e th~, twa uaeF , however, it did not mean they would hav$ to have
a dual 6-fAOt wall to separ~.te the usee.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commiasioner. Seymour off~red a motion, aeconded by Commlasioner mllraa arid
MOTION CARRIED, that the Planninq Cou-miesion, in GonneCtion witk~ an exemption
declaration s~atus requeat, fiade aad determines that the propoeal would have
no significant envizonmental impact ~-nd, therefore, recommenda to Lhe City
Council that na Environmental Impact Statement ia neceseary.
Cummissioner Allred offered Resol.uti~n No. PC73-25`5 +and moved foz its paesage
and adoption to recammend to tha City Council approval of Petition for R~clas-
sification No. 73-74-6, eubiPCt to conditions. (see Fteaulution Book)
On roll call. the for.ego3ng reso].ution was p~saed by tha following vote:
AYES : COMMISSION$RS : Allz'r$,
t30ES: COM~SISSIONERS: None.
AHSENT: COMMISSiONE ~S: Farana,
Gauer, . '.ng, Rowland, 5eymour.
H•..:bst.
TtECLASSIFICATION ° PUHLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY TH~ ANp-HEIM CITY PLANNING
NO. 73-74-8 COMMiSSidN, ::Q4 East Lincoln Avenue, A.nahein~, Ca. 92805,
and GARDEN PARK GENERAL HOSPITAL, 9922 G,ilbext Street,
Anaheim, Ca. 92H04, and JAMES J. AND DONNA E. GZLMORE,
9951 Mystic Lane, Anaheim, Ca. 92804, O~+n6rs~ propo~:inq to re~laseiPy property
deecribed as: An irregularly-shttpecl parcel o! lanc'. consieting of approximately
4,68 acres, havinq a frontaqe of appraximately 552 feet on the past eide of
Gilbert Street, ht~vinq a maximum depth of appraxi~-ately 460 f~et~ and being
located approxi.mately 210 feet north of ~he centerlina of Dall Roed f1:om tbe
COUNTY OF ORANGE R3, APARTASF.NT DI~TRICT (PQRTSON 1) AND COUNTY OF ORAAIGE R1,
SINGLE-FAMILX RE3IDENCE DLS`PRICT ~PORTION 2) to the CITX OF ANAHEZM lt-3,
MULTIPLE-FbMILY REwIDENTSAZ,, ZONE (~URTION 1) AI~D CITY OF ANAHEIM R~1, ONL~-
FAMILY' RESIDENTTAL, ZONE (?~ORTIQN 7) .
~ommissioner R~wlaad left the Council Chamber nt 3:25 Q.m.
~~
• ~
MINUTE6~ CZTY I'LANNINfi COMMiS8i0N, Ju~ly 23, 1973 73-420
R8CLA38IFtCATtQN N0. 73~74-0 (Continued)
T~n p~rson~ indioat~d their presanae in oppasition.
A~~i.~tant Pir~nn4r Pbilli~ Gahwert~~ not~d that thi• Ma~ a normAl proa~eura for
etCe~bllAhiag aompnrable Ciky ai 1-ndheim zoniriq on propor~y upoa bein~ ar-n~x~d
bo 1:h~ City o! ]~nahaim enll ruba~quer~t to that M9~atov~r aone they hnd ronuast~d,
howavsr, ~k~e Planninq Commisaion a~ th• previou~ public hsaring had reao-~r~~nd~d
app~~oval. to the C-0 2~ne, end the C-0 Zona would ~fi~n r~plrtoe thd propo~e~l
~ani.nr! on th• pro~erty, however, unti.l davelo~m~nt oaourred on the pro~~st~,
Cit~r aE Anahsl.m xot~ing muAt be ~n the propdrty when it wae annexed t~ the ~ity,
and that r-lthaugh normally the City ~oned the property R-A, sinoe the ~onir.q on
t~rie proparty a~zesc~y wae R-3 ancl R~1, std~P la~t the groposed ~oning would be
more upprapriate.
Mr.e. Adc+line Oeterhoudt, 9552 Vanc:ouver Drive, Appeara~9 Le+fos:e the Commi.esion
and eta~.ad tha~t the xaaid~nt~ n! Cha area d1d n7C undarstand at tho le~t meat-
ing what had txanspirod, and new fAOta hed come to *heir attantion whlch led
them to believe E:hey miqht heve to obtain an attornay and requeeted that eub~~ct
~ati~~ion be aontinuedt and tt~at the res~.dentA wor.e oppneed ta C-0 zoning but
ware not opQoeed to the haspiL•al.
Deputy cir.y Attorn~y Franle L~wry noted that in tlae case af this partiaules
reclaeeification, the Commiesion wae propoeing to roalaseiYy from the County
a~ Oranqs zone to the neareat Gitx of Anaheim wona, whici~ iz- this aaee waa R-3
nnd R-1, and thia was consistont with bringinq Any annoxr~d property ir~tu the
City c~f Anaheim ~.nto its neareek aompatible zona~ ths.t any commente made re-
galeding the reclaeaification to the C-0 'Lone were not pertinent in thi.s ~e-z-
~ic.ular inetance.
Chairm:~n Gauer notod that C-O zoni•~q h~11 been hee~rd two weeks ago, which we-K
to brirag the hoe~i.tal into ~k~e ultimate zone vpon ~i~velopmen~ of the hoagital
expanaion, while tha petition before the Commiagion wae anly to e-teb].ish zoning
on the ptoperty at such time as it was annexed inko the city; and that any
appositl.on to tha C-0 zoninq ahould have bnen preaentod at the last puhlic
hearinq.
Commiseloner Seymour inquired wheth~r the reclaaelEiCation had been tie~ into
plans at the last Qublic hearing when the hospital he,ci t~een approvedt whereupon
2aninq Su,oervieor Charle3 Robarta replied affirmatively.
Mre. Ostez~houdt sta~ed that they did not wanr commercial zoninq for the pro~er~y
but tchey did not oppoae the hospital per se.
Cammissioner Seymour nated that the ~nly way the f;-U zoning could be impl.emented
would be subject to the plane a.s liad ~een submitted, anQ they could no~ develop
s~hopF-ir.g ~:enter because they weze tied int~ plana that were eubmittod.
Mr. T,owry r~ite~ratod that the propoaed reclaeaiffcation wue only plac:ing the
proper City ~~f Anahei~n zone oz~ property which had eimilar zoning in thQ County •
of Orange, and if there wQre any oppasition to the previous zoning action ts.~
weelca aqo, ~hia sY;oulcl be pxeaente~ at the time the City Council hesrd the
raclassificat~.an.
Mre. Oatenc~~ud+.• th~+n atated that ~he residents cf the axea felt the proposed
uae shoulci hav~, besn requirecl to have an Environmental. Impact Report, and they
were opposed to the C-O zoning.
Commissioner Seymaur a ~e~tetl he would like t~ ai~de~atand the oppoeiti~on being
expresaed by MrR. Osterhoudt~ whereupon Mrs. Oetarhoudt stated thAt they were
upp~~ed to the CT~~ zc~z-ing, and tha petiti.onex h, uld have gone into further
~xplanat3on o~ wh+~t was proposed.
Commieaioner Seymour khen aotdd thst tha Commioeion at thm last public heaxinq
had advi~ed tho pe~~ti~~ser ~hat thFy had C••o zoning, howevar~ it was ~ub3ect
to ~he plans tnat had been submitted and approved by the ^lanninq Commiss3on
with th~ request, and if they proposed enytt:ing ditteront in that aree whezd
cene~.~.erable parking was propoeed, thc~y wotild *~ave tn presen~t their glane be-
fare thg Planning C~mmisaion and City Cauncil, and in dll likAlihood thia would
be recaneidereS aC a public }~earinq.
~ ~
MINUT~B~ ~ITY PLANNIN~ COMMI88ION, July Z3r 197~ ~~'42~
AE~LASSI~ICATION N0. 73-74-8 (ContinusQ)
Chalrman Aau~r au49~a~ad that thoee in oppo~ition pr~s~nt their opp~~~t~on ~~
the City Counoil publio henrinq.
THR HLARY~~ WA~ C~098D.
Commi~eion~r Allretl olEez~d a motfon, weannQed uy Commi~~ionsr King and MOTION
CARRIEO (Commi~oionure Row'land, ~orb9t ~nd Farano being ~beentD, tha~ ths
Planninq Commio~ion, in connaction with ~n exemptiion dsal~ratian 0tdtllE ze;u~~t,
findo and determines r.hat ~h~ propose~ would hav• no ~ignificant ~nvironme~t~i
imn~ct, end, ~h~retnrA, •-eoommend~ to the City Counoil that no Envixonm~nta~
imp~ot statement i• nace~eazy.
Commisaioner Alir~d o~fared Keeoluti~n No. rC73-156 and mav~d ~or ite ~a~aags
and x6option to reaommend to tha City Counctl appxoval og ~~tition for Real~~-
aification No. 73-74~8, eubyeat to annoxatian to the City of Anaheia•. (S~e
Raeolution Bock)
On ru11 call the foregoing reaolution wae p+~oaed by khe loliowing votae
AYEg: COMMI58IONERS~ Allred, Guuer, Kir,g, Soymaur.
NOE91 CONMIBSIONERSs Kone.
AB3ENT: COMMISQIONERS: Far.eno, Fierbat, R~wland.
VARIANCE N0. 25Z3 - PUHLIC HEARING. AUTOMATtON INDU9TRIES, Corporate Off.ica,
~ 1901 Building, Cen~uxy ~ity~ Loe anqe].ar~. Ca. 90067, Owner~
CFI MEMORIES, TNC., 305 Creacont Wa~y, Annheim, Ca. 92801,
~~ent) reque~sting WAiVER OF THE REQUTR~D 6-FOOT MASONRY W'SLI, ENCL08ING OUTDOOR
S'.'ORAGE TO SCRF.Ei~i THE EXISTING OUTDOOR USE WITH SL' ATTED Ck1AINLINK FFNCE on
pi•opezty described as: A Xectangular.ly-shaped pezcel of land consl.s~.ing of
approximately 2.04 acres, havinq a frontage of t-pproximataly 250 f.eet ~an tt~a
west gide of Crescent w~y, lzavinq a maximum depth of approximatQly 35A feet,
and being located appraximately 580 fe,et c~outh of. tho Southern PaciEic Railroad
riqht-of-way. Frooerty presently claesif~.ed M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ~.ONE.
~to one appear~d in opposition.
Alt}~ough ~he Report io L•he Comrnissi.on wns no~ road at the public heaxing, it
is referred ko and made a parL• of the minutea.
Mr. Car~. Rills, repre~sentinq the owiier. of the groperty, appeaxed bef.orR the
Cummiasian anc3 no~ed that they pxoposed slatted fencinq in tlte exiatin~ cheia-
link. fence rather than the r~quired ~-faot masonry wall to enclose ~he ou~door
atorage areaJ ar,d that a£ter having u;ade a survoy, they had besn infor~ned ~hAt
aluminum slate would be much moz:: flexibLe and wou7.d withetand more abuee than
wood slats whfch were more li.kely to break.
Chair~an Gauer. inquired whether ~he petitioner hasl received any comments from
adjoining propor*y ownerat w-hereupon Mr. Billa xepliod that the proparty had
been var.ant for faur ysare and when deveroped, the ad~olninq propert-ies had
complained raqarding the out»~.de noiae~ and they had moved this equipment in-
doars~ thst the fencir.q as prnpue~ed, of courae, would not do justice to the
apa.rtment development to the waet since the unit3 were located d~n the second
floor above the qarages.
Commissfoner King inquired whether or not the petitionar wou3.d be opposerl ta
providinq redwood alats; whereupon Mr. F3111o rep11e3 tk-at it made lfttle
c~ifgerenc;e to them, excapt that it would be mose l.abos then wouYd be neceasaz~y
for aluminum al.ata.
The Conmisaion ex~r9as~d the opinton that tr.ey would prePar redwodd sZata to
the alu~ninum slata.
THE HEmRING WA5 CLOSED.
u
~
~
MINUTEB~ CIT'' PLANNINC, COMMIB&~ON~ July 23~ .973 ~3'4Z7
VA~t~ANCE N0. Z523 (Continued)
Cc~mmioxion~r 8eyn~c~ur o!lareQ a~ motion, •ooonded by Comtai~~ioner l-ilr~d •nd
MOTION C1-RrIRD, that thc 1?lanni.riq Commi~sl~on, in aonnMOtion with an exemp~~.on
dsoi~ration ~tatue requsnE, find~ •nd a~ti~rminM~ t.hat th• prepa~al w~uld hsve
no ~igniliaant •nvirunm~nta~ impect end, therstora, ~~commande to the City
Cour-q!1 tha< no En~ironmental Im~act St~t~ment is nscssoary.
Co~nmiasion+~r Seymaur o!lored Resnlu~ion Nlo. PC73-lg7 end mov~9 tar its puesage
anA adoption to grant. Petition !~x Varienae No. 2523~ prov~.dad, however, ~k-at
xudkood •lat^ in Lhe oha±nllnk tence propooed sihs7.1 be provided s~ et~.pu'lwt,md
to by the p~tiLionar, and subjaot to conditiona. (Soe Ra~olutiax- Book)
On zoll call ttte loregoir~g reeoiution wee pnesed by th~ fallowing vote:
AYESi CUMMI88YON::R..4t A.tlred, G~uer, King, Seymour.
NOEB~ COMMI86IONERB: NonG.
?,814EN:: COMMI88TQNER3: Fare~na, HerUst, Rowl~nd.
VAR7ANC~ N0. 25Z5 - PUBLI~ HEARING. LEE C. SHJIMMIB, 94 I,ind~ T.sle, Newport
~` Beach, Ca. 92560, Ownerj JOnn D. 0'DONNELL OR xEItRY
HRZGHAM, 500 Nawport• Center. D~cive, Sui.te o4A, Ndwport
Beach, Ce. 9266p, Age+nte ~ requoating WAIVER OF 6lINIMUM YtEQUIRLD NUl1B1ER OF
Pl1RKING 3PACa3 TO EBTABLISH A WAREHOUSF. S'PORAGIE I'ACILITY on proport,y deaarib9d
ase An irragularly-eheped parc~l of land conaisting of approximaLely 4.S
acr~s, havf.ng a fr~ntaqe of ~pproximately 544 fget on tha eae~ ~ai~ie of Brook-
huret 8traet, h~vinq a maximum dapth of ~pproxima~ely 670 leet, and beinq
looate~! appreximately 670 festi noxth of t.he ca-lterline of Gramerc,y Av~nve.
Property pxeaen~iy clms~ified M-1, Y,IGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE.
One Qereun lndicate~ his ,pxeeance paseibly in opposition.
Although the Report to the Commisslon was not read at thR public heari.ng, it
is referred to and made a paxt of ~h~ miautea.
Mr. John 0'Do~~nelt, ropresenting the UMner and one of the ggente for L•he
petitioner, indicated hia preser~ce to answer questione.
Ch.qirrr,an Gauar req~i~ated ~hat further. explanation be given as tu the entranae
anc3 exit of thia ~evelopme:-t on Brookhurst Street.
Commxasloner Allred notec7 L•hat i.iiare was some recognitio:~ by ataff that the
entrance cn BroAktiurst Street si~ould be Seleted and en~rance on Valluy Stree~
be permitted.
Mr. 0'Dannell replied that they would like to have flow-throuqh traffic ef.ther
into thiz~ for total inyress and egxess baaed on a let~er sent to thg~r~ bY
Coldwell ~'~t~nker statinq they had talked witk~ ~he Traffic F,nqineer, preaen~ing
a sketch of the raadway which stated there wou7.d bA na ~~oblem to placinq a
lo~t~turn pocket into tha property, anc7 they ha-d assumed they would be ab7.e to
have the leit-turn pocket when ttiis project vrae initiatedr and an thia baois,
clevelopmsnt ~~lana praceeded accordingly, however, he aauld understand why the
~`ommiaeion di'~ not want left~turn tra£fic coming off the freewey into subject
~roperty, and if samo way coal.d be found wk-ereby :hey would have sccess to
their propezty without the left-turn so they could b~ acceptable if the Traffic
E:~qine9r deter.ma.ned it was tha best y0111L~.0II'1.
Assistant Plannes Phi,llip Schwartze advised the Comrai~sion that the letter from
Coliwell B~nnk~ar and the commenta reqardi.ng the Traftic Enqineer was another
topic H~11CA they ha~d oacuxxed in 1~/2, ar~d since 1970 the ovezcrossing of
Brookhur9t Stxe~t h,~d been projmcted, and aince ~hat time the Traffic ~Enqin~er
etated I~a lelt no tr.affic should be permitted in or out ~rom Brookhurat Street
b~t from Va11oy Street.
Commissioner Rowla~nd r~qtur:~ed to the Council Chatabe~ at 3:40 p.~n.
Mr. Schwazts~ ~urthnr aa~ed that the n-edian nead not be inetalled until ~uc-h
time rs Braokhur~t Stree~`. was complete3, but the 2ra4lie Enginter felt ~~is
ingzeee ana eqresa •hou.ld be eliminated.
~ ~ ~
MINU'r~8~ CITX PLANNING G0~lM788IJt~, July 23~ 1973 73-423
VAR1ANCb; NU. 1525 (Cpntinued)
Mr. O' Dannell no~sd tliat rar Pir~ pakrol purpa~er ~h~y waulA na~,d twc+ aaoau~es
to and trom Chair prap~rty, snd h~ ~lid noc l~el th~.s wou.ld be good plan:iing to
be requir~d to b• at tha mnd oP • o+sl-da-ee.a ns it pertai.n~~9 to traflio, there-
Pura, they w~,ntad a~econd e~caeaa.
Commissionor Seytnour inquired whother L•he potitionai wou],d b~ Mil~ing to
QroviBe thm meAian ir r:equiredt whareupon Mr. 0'Connsll etat~d chat they needed
emdrgenay +~caa~e and the~n stt-t,od ~h~y would e~ipulut~ t~ providing ttia macSi+~n
i! eo rec~uirel9.
Commi~sionez Seymaur aoted th~r~ waA anothor pxoblem xagerding tho WR].1 treat-
m~nt, eince ths C~mm.leeion in the pa~st had a~spruved similar. types o! wareh~usA
faoilitiA~ an~i had required that thay be aeothe~l.cr+lly pl~easing by ueing a
variety ~f materia~lts, colore, and of.foe+t of the buildings, howovor, the wall
for Chie propos~d davelapment did not offez anythi~-q, ther~tore, nin,oe thi.~ wae
in a very c~nopicu~,ue aren, ecmettsing should be r~uuir.ed.
Mr. 0'Donnell et~kec! that they hAd thought of ~roviding eomething theti ~eould be
attractive ta tn~toriate ooming down off of ~rookhurat Street, And thoy had
tried to mako the wall ae near].y nun-exietent ae they could until the pne.exby
would got L•o ttie point og entr~nce, aad a treatrnen~ oP. race+~s in el~va~ions
with aign leyout - the sign ps•oposal did x~ot r_onform witt~ what thmy inten~ed -
rathex tlian try;ng to cropte aomethirig thnt would be too difficult '~o createt
that everybody 'haa liis own t~ste, and Roll Const~cuctioli Company was hia gaxtner
in ~hia proposr~lt thdt he recoqnixod tha~ the ~-+~11 wss long but not ae high as
most walla were, whi.r,h ~•1ere 30 ta ~5 feeL• h~gh, end ~hey were proposinq ~ 10
to 12-foat hicfh wul1, therefore, they thouqht it ~rould be bett~er to pai.nt out,
the appea:ana~e of th~c well, givin5 it the lenst innocuous appear~nae unti~ the
motorists would zeaoh ths entrance where they planned r~ greenery det+sil and
~9~asign in thry walY wY~ore thAy had l~ve,Le and contours.
(:ommissianer. Seym~Lr not~d that this was a v~ry S.onq wa11, an~ he could not see
that it would help oince thie w~s +~ fantastic location for the uee, but he fel~
that the deveioper could improvg the eiqht ~reatment o£ the wall ira the shape
of pilaete~:s, difPerent traatreent uf material, az~d this ahnuld be worked out
w:lth ataffy that i~ they were not happy wi.~h whAt etaEf requizod,.then plnns
cuuld be brouqht to the Planning Commis3ion for aonsideratlon.
Commiseioner Seymour, in xeaponsA to questioning by N9r. Sahwartze, atated L•hat
thc~ wa11 treatmant would be typically tinat which had been approved in tha past
fo:r yi.milar warehouae operatxons.
THE' HEAkING WAS CLOSED.
Commiesion9r 3csymour offgred a motion, uecondad ~ay Cammiseionez A1~.resd and
M0~':CON CARRIED, that the Planning ~ommission, in connection with an exemption
dec],aration ata~tue z~queat, finds and ddtdrminec that the praposal would hPVe
no signifiaant unvironment,^1 i~rpact xnd, ther.efore~ xecommenda t~ the City
Counc~.l thst no Environmental Impact Statc~ment is neco~sary.
Commi.ssian~r Seymoar offered Reaolution t~o. PC73-158 and n~uved for ite puesage
and e:doption to grant Pet ~n f, Var3~nco No. 2525, sub~ect to the s~ipula-
tior~ that the petitioner wouLu idn th~ traffic me~iian alonq Hrookhurs~.
Street and to euhmitting a decc ve wa11 treatment p2.an to tY~e Devslopmsnt
Servicea nepArtmant and constru~. ~rt o£ same f~r the peripheral wa].'~.a of thQ
atr•uctures pzoposed lor subject proper~y~ ar-d aubject tn conditi~ns, with the
adc7.~sd condition ~hAt a decorative wall trea~.~nent p~.an for the periphern3. wal.la
of the structuras on eubjec.t property ehall be aubmitted to the Development
Services Departtaent ~ur xeviQw and a~proval, as stipulated by the petitioner,
prior to th~ issut~ncs of a buildinq perm~.t for Goaatxuction af said wallsf
and that ~ny deciAf.on made by the Devel.opment Servicea Da~~artment on said plan
may ~e dppea].e~! to the Planning Commiseion and/or City Councii. (~ne
P.eeoluticn AQQ~C)
On roll call the ~arogoinq ~asolution was pas~dd by the followinq vota:
P.YES: CQMMISSIOlIERS: Allred, Gauer, King, Soymour.
N~ES: COMMISSIONERS: Hond.
ABSENT: C~MMI8520NER9: Farano, Hwrbst.
AflSTAIN s COMNI98IOP1ER5: Rowlen8.
~
^1~
~
idINUTP.S, CI7CY +~LhNNING COMMI~igIdN, July ~3, 1973 '~3-424
VA~IANCE N0. 2527 - pUHT~IC HEIIRIN(i. NORM' 9 RESTnUftllNTB, INC. , 10801 1~~tlonal
'-~~ ~~ Soulsvard, Lo• Anqole~, Ca. 9Q064, Own~rr JOHN CR~~IO
NEZDLINOER, '108p1 lVatiional Houlaverd~ Los ~nyeles~ Ca.
90064, !-qent~ zeqv4~tinq WAIV?A OF (7t) MJ-XIMUM "I~N HEIOHT WITHII~ 300 ~1~ET UF
FiE~IDENTIJ-L UAB~ (8) LOCATTON uF TA~tE-8T~INDING 9I(iN~ AND ~C) 1~L1-9HINQ SIaN
FITTNIN 300 ~'E~T Q'.~' Rll9ID6NTI)1L US~ Z'O CONBTRUCT A 50-k'OOT HIGH, !'LABHY~iG~
t'RY51~-ST~-NDING iDENTiI*ICATION SION on propbrty de~crib~d a~~ 11n irraop~al~rly-•
aha~ed garc~el o! land c~nof~tiaq o! wpproximat~ly .°G nare, looae~ed approxi-
mntely 112 lebt e~+~k o! th~ osnterline oY ~/illa Fl~.o~, ~eith lsontaAea a!
m~proximataly 244 l~~t on thA south eide o! Lin~oln Av~nue snd 1Z0 Peut on thu
~i~;rth ei,de o~ G~nt~r Street. Propezty pr~eeent.ly olas~itied C-?, GENE1~l~L
CONIM~RCIAL, :ONE.
No ane ap~eared in o;~~~+oeitlon.
Althouqh the R.port to the Commia~loii wa~e nu~ read nt th• publ~c hse-ring, i.t
is raferrset to ds~1 medc a~ part o! the minutea.
Mx. Storling Dogart, re~zesan~king tl~a ~atitioner, app~ared b~fo~e th~ Commiseion
and noted that the siyn they prApoaed wae th~a loqu for Noxm'e Rest~~ursnts and
r~a~ eimilaz to xll ot tbos• thay had aatabliehed in the paett +~nd then in
re6pones tn qt~e~ti.oning by CommisalonQr Seymaur, etated ~het ~he etgn w+~o the
loq~ aince 1954 and had a total heic~ht of 22 ~~aett th~t a minimum of 8 feet
waa roquirecl betwaen the qroun8 end the Zoqn itselP by Godet that when thsy
hbd d~aigriad tha pldns for ~he restA~arant, it Wr~e det~erminecY that A 42-loot
h~.gh oign would be required nnci a recantly-appravad Norm'e Reetaurent in Gardan
Grove also had a 42-loat hiqh eign which nppe~rad to eor~ra their purpose.
THE HEARING WAS CL08ED.
Tiae Commi~sion inqnired whethex ther~ was hny reason fnr tha pro~osed h~ight
and lo~;t9.on oE ~ha eigni whereupon Mr. Bogart atated khat the sgign wou2d not
bc~ vieible becsuso of tha pxteting bui.ldi.nga in the area, an8 3~en preeanted
a colored randarinq of tha propo~dd aiqn, notinq that tlae pro~ .am they had in
ct~ztering L•}ie sign was because the manner ln ch they preferrc3d to have thd
s:lqn nearor the c+ntrance to the restaurant Qarking area.
A:asi~tant Pl~nnar Phillip Schwartze advised the Commiesion that plsna for tho
restaurant were in pl.an chack, end at the tima the plAn checker had reviewed
the plans, i~ was determined the sign they propoaed would not meet Code, and
this wae the purpoee f.or having tha varianaa.
Commisa9.onor Allred was ~f the o7in'_on that ron$id~ratian af the s9.yr~ ehould be
set aai3e until such time as plare fu~ the rea~aurant voere pres ented to tk~e
Planninr Commiaeionr whereupon M. Schwartze stnted ~.hat ae lorag as the develop-
ment of tl:e r~staurant c~nfurmed with the C-2 site development standards, there
~ras na reason for submitting the pl~ar~ to the PXanning Commiasion, and the sign
w~as the only one that seamed to be at vari.ance with the eite devalopment atand-
z-rda of the C-2 3cne.
c;ou~missioner Seymour obeezved that Norm's did nc,: have a reotauraat in Palm
:~prings becauae the,ir R:iyning would not be aoceptable there, a~nd 'that perht+pe
~the sign should be oaly 30 feet high aince Code required the aiqn ta be a
~minimun: of e feet from khe qround and the logo wae 22 feet in height. Furthor-
more, a Elashin3 s3gn was praposed in close proximity to reaidential ueve.
Commissioner Kfn~, iaqulred why the eiqn wae so impos~ant since it was hie im-
p~easion that the auccees of e xeataurant Wne good l:ood, gQOd servico, and
pe employo0s.
.~wn>
Mr.. Eoquz replied that the former presl.dent of tho com~pany Mho had d~ed
severnl y~ara ago t~+~3 ~~ent a coneiderable a nount of money ta deeiqn an6 main-
tain th~~ legn th~y preeently had, anfl it waa tled into the Pact tha~ they ha3
spent a considerabie amAUnt of money in advextlei,ag !~n tha ne~tsparax and
televis:~on, however, they ha~3 not been in Orangs Couatyt and that tk~eir ZAgo
was v~z;~ dietinotive.
Commimsloner RoNland observed that the petitianer stil:. .,ouid t~dva his atandard
loqo, but it would re ~n differant proportiona i! this r+are s~aled doe~n sinaa
aigns ~exe ma~de on a.. individual bnsie L~eaause there were onlg 16 rest~usants
~ ~~
MiNUT~8, CiTX FLANNING CAMMi8920N, Ju17/ 93, 1973 73-4~5
VA~lANCE NU. 2527 (Cont~nued)
and w~ra no~ simil~r to the ~iqn~ whia~ 8tandard oil or oth~r laxge oil compan-
iee produced which wna en maaee riqn pr.odLativn o~ thou~and~.
Mr. Hoqszt zepliod ~ha~ thoir niqr had • 14~toct width, ~nd ~~ch letter h~d an
approximate 4-foot vertiual I~eiqht, or approximwtely ZO loat in h~igh~~ thet
he wae very econamicolly m.trici~d nnd the r~pr~aentati~-ea ot the eiqn oompany had
advi.sed him thair oiqning w~e outmodAd, evmn in 1954, and khay h~d triud to
re!luce the• cost a! uigningr ~het reduotian of the oiqn would be eaey, buk whan
one got a oign requeet to th~e archit~a~ nnd the+ ~iqn peapl~, it lost ik~ impaot.
Cha~irmnn ciauer inquir~d ahether the petitionsx CQl~lt~ accept a 3~0-~'a~t hiqh eigno
whereupon Mr. B~gart e~ated that the heiqh~ of th~ buildinq vras 35 fe,at. e-nd he
hed diecut+g~+d thi.s with the archl~tsct as to poeeib~e compromi~7.ng the ~iae ot
tho eign, and th~a arahi~uct had advise8 him th+~t ihe t~e+iglat of the aiyn should
be a mini~aum of 42 feet.
Com~ni.aeioner Allred wde of ths opinton thRt llaehing signe ware r~ot necee~+ery
to aElvertiee a~ r~atauxant, and this was one weiver he would not a~provo o~r
whereupon Mr. Bogart stated t1n+~t the laCttra turned or- individually, haweve~r,
he did not ~Cnow the brightn~ae o~ the~ sign.
Con-missioner Seymour oi•f.erefl u z~otion, second~A by Cammis~ion~r Atlred and
MOTTUN CARRIED, that the Pl~nninc~ Commiasiar~~ ~N vonneotion with un examption
declaration stat-ua requ~~at~ Pi.nds and detert~l.AlaR kha~ ~he pr~pue~l wauld have
no significant environmenta]. impact and, th~=M!l~~o. rec.om• nds to the City
Counci.l that no Environmental im~act Statemont i~ neceasa..y~
L'~•cus~ion was held by the Commission relative to th~ proposal- Commissioner
Allred be,inq of tlie opinion that the height oP the sign should be no higher
than the building.
Comminsioner Seymour notdd thaC sinca the petitioner had not demonstrated a
hardship, and any hax~dship thut might bA nrrived at would bR eAlf-impos~d,
~}~erc~foro, he felt i:h~ Commic+r~ion aliould abids by the Slqn Or3l.nance require-
menta since the logo could be eota~-llahed within the confinea of the Code
height and size o£ signa.
Commiasioner Ki.ng noted that the C~ty hA3 a number of lesdi.n re ura te which
had a good buain4ss necau~e of qaoS Y~od, good aervica, and e employees,
however, the siqning of th~ir facilities was somewhat minimal, thexofoxe, the
request for the type of sictn propnsed appeaze~. not to be ju~tf.Pied.
Commiasioner Seymouz offerc~d Resu].ution No. PC'~3-159 and mc.ved for its passage
an:i adaptiun to deny Petit~on fcr Vari~nce No. 2527 or~ ~he }a~s.is that thP
petitior~er had not presentad sub3tantiating evidence that a hardship existed
and that he was beinq deprived cf a privilega gxnn~ed to otherar th~:: any hard-
ahip tha~t might exi~t was 3elf-impASed since siqning of aubject proPerty could
be accompliahed within the requirementa of ~he Sfqn O~dl.ndncet and th+~t there
were no exceptiAnal or Qxtraordinery circumstaz~ces or conditiona applicable ta
the px'oJ~erty involved or to the lnt~nded use that did not apply qenerally ta
prapert~r or class nf use in the same vicinity and zone. (See Reeolution Book)
Un r.oll aall the far~sgoing reaolution wde paesed by the follr~wing vote:
AYE5: COM!''S3tONERS: Allred, Gauex, Y.ing, Rowland, Seymour.
:VpFS: C~MMiSS~ONERS: Nozt3.
ABS~NT; COMMi5SI0NERS: Fa:ana, Iierbet.
~ ~ ~
MYNUTEB, CtTX PI+ANNING COMMISSION, Ju1y Z3~ 1973 7]-426
RECL7-sSIFICATtON__NO. 7~-74~i TNA_VA~, R_,I1-NCE N~. Z5Z9 (ContinumQ Yro;n page 73-418)
Zor-~ng 9u~:exvi~or Chcerles 1Rob~rts ~-f9v~4~d tha Commioeian tba~ alt~r havinq ~n~t
v-ith Mr. Phslps, th• deriqnsr ot tha~ projoot, the P'fr~ D~par~mant reprea~nta-
tive, and the Sa~-nit+~tion Divi~l.or- rmpreosnt~ti•.e, it vr~r~ Qa! •rmir~.rd ~hxk a
tWO-wo~k continuanoe ohould b~ requ~wted.
Commie~ioner Rowland o~lercd a motion, ~soond~d by CQmmiaqioner ,i~ llrod and
MOTiON CAkRiFDo ko continue considaration o! P~«ltion~ f~x ksolas ~iticatiun
No. 73~74•3 and Vnrianae No. 2529 to th• m~eLinp a~ Auguat 6, 197 3, in order
to re~olve Snnitation and Fire qepartment problemo.
RECF33 - Chairman Gauer decta.xed a ten-minu~~ rer.ess e~t 4~05 p.m.
RECONVENE ~^ Chairmax~ Gauor ra~onvened the ~aestiny ~~ 4 ~ 15 p,tn. ,
Commissioners Fara~~o and Herbet being ubsent.
VARIANC~ NO. 25 30 -~'UBLIC HEARIN~, PACIN'I.C TEL~'I'HONE 6'PELF.GR?~PN, 525 "B"
~treet, Room 1311, P. Q. Box 524, 5an Dioc~o, Ca. 927.12 ~
OwnRr~ W7LLxAM .r. MITCHELL, 525 "8" Street, Roo~n 1311,
P, U. l~ox 524, San Dieg~, Cn. 92112, Agen~~ r~qaear,ing wn=v~R QF PURMZTTED
BUILOINGS, STR~IC'..~~!t~S A-ND USES TO PEI:MIT A MOBILE OFFYCE on propeYty d~eacribed
ee+: A rAatangulnrly-ehaped parcel of ldnd oonaiati.ng of approxiri-arely 1.2
acres, tiavinq a frontags of Approximatelf 1G~: .f~aet on khe nozth s~de of La
~alma Avar~ue, h avi ng n maximum depth of approximately 332 feat, an~ being
locatod approxime-tely .165 Feet woat of the centerline o! Kraemer Place.
PFOQexty preAent].y claeaified M-l, LIGHT iNDUSTRTAL, ZONE.
No ane apgeared in opposition.
Althuu~h the Report to ttze Commiaeion waa not read at. che ~ublic hear~.ng, it
13 referred to nr.d made a pai'L• af the minut~e.
Mr. Willinm Mitchell, agent for the getitioner, aRpenred bafore the Commisaion
And noted t.hat he v~ae in tho chief engineer's offiae of Pacific Tolephone in
9an Diogo ~nd was a~veila-ble to answer questione.
Cammiasioner Seymour inquired why three years were needed for the use ae pro-
posed~ whereupnn Mr. Mit.;he~.l ren'.iecl that they were pl~nning a new combi.ned
facili'ty in Anaheim and it ~••~ul r_ake Chat long to have the site prepered.
Commisstoner Rowland inqui.red wh~ther Mr. Mitchell's d~pastment was xesponai.ble
for relocating the teleptaone lines undezgroundr whezaupon Mr. Mitchell etated
thAt th~y had been told that~ aftc+r a aix-months' wc~i.t for undergraundinq they
want~d to tie in theee with the pxoposed expansion and the unde rqround~ng ae
one item.
Commissioner Seymour offered a motion, a~,condad by (:ommissioner King and MOTION
CARP.IED, that the Planninq Gommiesion, j.n connect~.on wi~h an ex.smption declara-
+tion atatus request, firade and determines that the proposal would have no
siqniticant ernvironmental impact and, thorefc~re, re~:ommends to tlie City Council
that. no Enviro_,mental Tmpact Stastem~:~t ie nece~sary.
Commisaion..r Seymou: offered Resoluti.or~ No. PC73-160 and moved tor its paesage
and adoption to ~rani: Petition for Var•lAnce No. 253~ for a periad of three
yeare, avb ject to conditions. (See Rasolution Hook)
1?~:ior to roJ.l call, Commissionez Ailred inquired whether or not eny temporar,y
landsca~pe planting wae propoaed~ whereupon Mr. Mitcnell noted thst none aee
proposed einc~ the trailer was loce-ted to ~he rear o~ the buil~ing ak~d was not
visible from the ntreet, and that the trailer would b~ +~ ~art oF thair office
~acility.
~n roll call the foroqoing resolution wt-s pss~ec~ by the f~llowinq vote:
~,YES: COMM2SSIONERS : AZlred, Gauer, King, Rowla~nd, Seymour .
NOEB: COMMZ3SIONERS: None.
ABSSt3T: CQMMZSSIONERB s Farano, Herbsti.
~
~
l.J
MINUTF.3, CTT1t PLANNING COMMIBSZON, Ju1y 7.3, 1973 73-4Z7
VARiANGh N0~2S31 - PUHI,xC NE~IRING. STANLEY C. BARTO, 120 North Hexbor
~ Boulcv~rd, Anaheim, Ca. 92802, Ownar~ roquesti~g W1-YV~R
OP' (A) P~RM7TTRA U8E3, (B) MT.NIMUM NUMHER OF REQfJ=RBD
PARKING SPACES, (C) MINIMUM 8xu6 YARU 3ETBACK, (D) MTNIMUM 3ETBACK FROM i-N
ALLEY, (R) MIIiIMUM RECREATIONAL AREA, P-ND lt^1 87?ANDARQ REFUSE 9xARAG~ AR~11
TO ESTRBLIFiH 11 COMMERCII~L BUaINE9S IN A PORTION OF AN ~XISTING RE3ID~NTIAL
3TRUCTURL on prop4rty da~ooribcd an ~ A r~ctwagulerly-shapad pnr~cel of laiid
connieting of approximate].y .16 Aoro, having t~ lronteqe o! apFroximately
46 feet on the eaot sida o! Harbor Haulevaz(1, hsving a maximum 1lepth ~f.
approximately 157 Peet, and being iccatAd ~pproximately 7p Peet eouth o! tho
centarline of. Chartzea 9traet:. Propezty presently a7.auoiPie9 P-1, AUTQMQAILB
PARKING, ZONE .
No ona nppe~red in op~,osition, although a].~tter wns raceivec9 in opp~si~ion
to waivez of the required parkinc~.
Although the Rapazt to the Commiseion wae n.~:.' 'L'E~YIf~ at thu~ publ.lc hearing, it
is reFerrod to nn~ made. a pa~rL• o: tho minut~a.
Mr. Stdnley Barto, tt.e petitioner, in~licate,d ts.is prese,nae to anower queel;ione.
r,ommiaeioner Saymoui~ note~ that in reviewl.n,q thn Report ~.n thA Commiasi.on at
the Commieai.on work seeaicn, it was cletermin~d i.f thie uee were expanded
boyond the petitionar. +snd hie daughter, a parking problem waultl be craatncl
since e~aff i.ndicet~~3 the petition~r pro~oaed to have additiona.l. employeaat
whereupon Mr.. Barto etated that after having diecu~ser~ tkii~ parking problem
with tht Chief Buii 3i:~g Taspeotor, Mr, VAn Dospe, h~ had dec:i.ded thal: onl~•
ho ancl his daught~. wou13 be operating From thj,a facility.
THE HEARING WAS ~LOSED.
;,ommiaeioner Sey:nour offer.ed a motLon, s9condad by Cnmm~.as~one~r KincJ and
MOmION CARRIED~ that tha Planning C'omr.ission, in oonnection with an examption
daclaration request~ fi.nds and detbzn,'_uea h.hat: ti.he prnposal would have no
significant e nvironmental impaet anci, therafare, recommends *o the City
Council tliat no Enviror.:°~ntal Impacl: atatcr~nec~t: i.~ necessary.
Commis~ioner Seymour offezed ReAOlutian N~~. Pc'"13-161 and movod for its pe-esage
and adoption to grant Petition for Va.rianr:,~ t~.y. 2.531 for a period nf. ea years,
subjecti to a at3.pula~tion by the p~ ~iti.oner tt~aC he woula limit tihe number of
empioyeea t~ himeelf and a memher of his imm~c2late fainl.ly, and aub ject to
conditions, aub ject to the ac3ditional cc nd'.' i.on th.:k in order to determina
whether ~ny advarae efFects will restx? t fratn the gcnnting oE trie wm' :re.
the Pianning Commiasion gran.*.a a tW0-~•enr rim~: lim'tati.on, aft~r wt-ich
c~nsideratiorc n-ay be given tc, wtiethex~ L•ha wai.~~a~.3 rt,-ou13 be exte ded ae
stipula~ed to by the petitioner- a~ d thr~' the e;n~.l..yet on subjc :: F~ro~erty
shall be ].imited L~ ox~e member of the petitionsr's iumediate fam~.p. (See
Res~].ution Book)
pn roll ~•~__'_ t'~e fore~;oinq resolution was paec~ed by the tollowing vote s
i:Y~S: COr'rtI8S20NERS: Allred, GaueY, K:n~, Ror,~}.a^.c:, veyIDOU`'.
NOES: CU~"~x.^-.3IONERS: None.
AB:~ENT: Cf;t~SM1SSXONERS: Farano, Harbs~.
VARIANCE NU. 2533 - BLIBLIC HEARIN~. RICttARD L. STNOR, 700 North Zeyn Street,
Anahelm, Ca. 92805, (~wneri LEW SZNOR, 700 North 'Lbyn Street,
Anaheim, ~a~. 92805, 4g~n~s requesting WAZVER OF (A) ~!YNTMUM
3ITE AR~A ANll (B) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FiITFiIN 300 FEET OF A SINGLE-FAF.IL~
ZONE TO ~ONSTItUCT A CdNSMERCIA~ OFFICE BUILAING on proporty desaxibed as: A
rectangularly~ehaped parcel of la.nd conai.oti:nq of approximmtely .17 acre at
the aouthweet corn~r of Lincoln Avenue and ci].bsrt Stree~, with frontagee af
approximatuly 100 ~~eet on the aouth side of Lincoln Avenue an3 85 feet on the
west side Qf Gilbert Street. Pr4perty present].y claosified R-1, ONL-FAMILY
2tE3IDENTIAL , ZONE .
No on~ appearad in opgoaitlon. A Zetter of concern Nns aubmitted by the adjoin-
inq property oanez reqarding tha proposal.
s
~
~
MINUTEB~ GT'1'Y FI+IINNING COMMISt~IC~N, July ~3~ ~973
VARIJINCE NC. 2533 (Contl,nuod)
73••478
Althouqh the Aapor~ to th• Commi~~i.on wan »ot re+~d e~t the publio hsmrinq• i,t
iR retexr.eQ tio dnd mads A part a! the minut~s.
Mz. Lew 31nor, aqent !or the p~kition~r. ap~~smsed bAlor~ the Commi~~ion and
notied th~t tha lett~c submixted by th• nd;~oining ~ro~aert.y owr-er wa~ noer
satlsfied einco he hsd pz~e~~n~ed th• plan to ~hem end indiaat~d to thom what
their ~r.opusal waw, and thsy indicetmd ~hay wero eeti.atiea with t1n• propo~al~
t~hat thexe Ka~e a r~plit rail 1Cena• bd~w~en 4ab j4at prop~rty end ths Maa=ntyr~
pxop~zty to the ~aouth~ ~that they Nex~ ~mp.loyl.ng a pxafe~+ri~nal landecapa
axahitoct to clesign and i.natall th~i la~r~denaping, Ar~d they had aqz~sd that~
hecauae of the landacaping it would b~ mor~e prec~i.cal to landsa+~pe that ar~a
than provide a 6-Yoot meeonry wall ~hiah wau'ld ~hut th.ir prop~xby ai!!, th~r~-
lar~, he would requeet permi,eeion to waive the requiremen~ o! th~ 6-P~~t asll
alonq the eouth where th~ aplit r~il lenca Nae in urder to dltord tihe Maa-
Intyre~:~ an opportunity to display their home to a prospective purahso~r, s~Q
if the new ownaxs wanted a G-loot wall, ttiey would tkien bA heQgy ta conrtruct
said wall or retein the landeaapinp if tk-e+y eo desired, howevex., they aers
attem~tinq to make thie an attractive deeigr~ becauee ot the aktrsotl~e hames
~n the area•
Dapu~y City Attorney Frank I~owry noteEl that 4~he ('ammiesion oould not wai.ve the
Gode requiremont o~ a 6-.fcdG masonxy wall einaA it had not heen advertieed ns
euch.
Commissioner 5oymour no~ed th~t th• oondition of n 6-~oot maeonry wall ooul~l
be mal.nta~nec] da a rAq,uirement, and i! tha propexty owner wantod it, thi.s
F-ouZd inv~olve only 'l0 feet ~! ~he spli.t rail fence ai.nce theze ~1reAdy was a
Hall along the balance aF it.
Commis~ioner Rowland nuted that thts wall would have to be etepped down to
42 inches in the fzont aetback, therefore, in all likelihoad the wa+].1 wou~'l
only be 42 inchea in he~qht.
Mr. Sinor, in responae ta questioning by Comanisaioner Allred, noted tha~ they
were proposing trees ak 20-foo~ inte rvala, and they propoe9d low ahade trees
beosuee of an ~xisting swimming pool on the property to ~he wesL•.
THE HEARING H1AS CLOSSD.
Cot~missiondr Allred ut~ered a motion, secon~ed by Cammissioner King and MOTTON
f;ARRIED~ ~hat the Planninq Cummiasi.cn, in connection with an exem~t3on declaia-
tion etatus request, ~inds and determines th~t the pxaPoar~l would have no
eignificant environmenta7~ impact and, there£ore, recommends to the City Couacil
tltat no Environmental Ympact Statement is necessary.
Commiseioner Allred oEfered Resolution No. PC73-162 and moved fcr i.ts paesAge
and adopt.ion to grant Fetition for Variance No. 2533, sub~ect tu cond3tions.
(See ttesolution Book)
Commiseioner Allred noted that if there was any ahange to the r~quir~ment o~
a wall, this could be presented to ~he Planning Cammisaion under Reporta a-nd
Recommondationa for coneideration.
Oa ro21 call the foregoing r.e~oluti.or- was passed by the followir~q vote:
AYESe COMM?SSIONERS: Allred, Ga~aer, King, Ror
NOE3: COMMISSIONERS: .lone.
ABSEN'f: COMMISSIONF.RS: Facano, Herbat.
~ ~
MINUTL•'S~ CITY PI~ANNINQ COMMIABION, Ju~y 23~ ~973 73'd~~
CONDTTIONAL USE - PU$T,IG HF.11R7Na. THE INTERNATlON~1~, C2fiURCH OF THE FOUR-
pRRMtT N0. 1413 9Q~ARR G49PEL, 1~15 NesC 8roadway, Anaheif~, Ca~. ~~aoa,
O~+n+rt x~qus~tinq permio~i.un to CONBTROCT AN l-DDITiON TO
AN ~"XI9'~INO CHURCH W11IVxNG (A) MINTMUM NUI~BER OF RSQCIIRBD
P1-RKING 94ACER AND ~8) MINIMUM I~RONT SFT811CK on proper~~- desorib~d as i l~n
irreqularly-ahaped psranl ~! land con~i~ting 4f eppr.oximataly .8 +ecra, havinq
a fr~7taqe o~ spproximsta~y ~00 le~t on th~ aosth aide o! er~sdWay, havl.ng ~
maximum depth nt appxox~m~tisly 190 l~~t, and being looated st ths no~cthsatt
aorner oP Broadway anQ Manche~ter l~venue. prc+perty preoantly clasriiiad C-2,
(3ENERAL CAMMERCIAL, ZON~ .
Na one a~peere8 i.n oppo~ition.
~1lthough the !teporx t~o the Co~missian aae not remd at the ~ublia hearing, it
i4 reforzad to and made e uart o! the mi.nuteo.
I?eve~r.end U. L. Under~oocY, Pastor o! the Fauru~uarA Goepel Church, in8ice-~ed
his presenas to answur question~.
CommiseiAner Seymaur wnn o! the opinion thst ~hA parking pzopoead wae rwther
di~iEiculti elnae ~nly one aocaso vres dvaila-bleo and ~hen indicatad the spacea
that waul~l be difPioult to ga~.n aco~~m tot whereupon Revorond UnderNOOd otated
Chet i't was prapo~ed ~o havu a ree-r paxking t-rea, howevar, the contYa.ctor,
Mr. Pebley, wee pzeacnt t~o ~ntaer ~ny tschnical queati.flna. P'urthsxmore, thair
ee,xvic~s all s~axted at the ~eem~ timo, a~nd the parking hAd worked out aatie-
ldotaxi2y in thR paeL-, however, they nrsturAlly would meet any requirement th•
Commi.esion would zequest.
Commieeiane~r A11red inquired wheL•her the petitiar~er felt thie parkinc~ vrould
work satistactorilyr whereupox~ RevOxend Underwood etated that if it were
requ~.rnd to havs anothex accesa, there still would be the same r-umber of park-
inq apaces.
~hairman G~uer noted thet there would not bd a heavy nmount o.f trd!'fic or~
either Manchester Avenue or Broadwny ~n 5aturiiays or Sunc~aye when the church
would k~e primarily in use.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commieeioner Allred offered m moti.an, neconde~ by Commiasioner Saymour nnd
MO'~ION CARRIED, that the Planninq C~mmisaion, in c~nnectior~ witk: an ax~mption
daclaration statua request, t`in~ls and datormines that the propo~al wou].d have
no siqniffcant environmental impact and, therefnre, recommen@~ to the Ci~y
Counci.l that no Environmenta~ Impaat Statement is neceasary.
Commissioner Allred offered Reaols~tion No. PC73-163 and moved fox itc~ ~eeeagd
and ndoption ±o grant Petitian for Cnnditional Use Permit No. 1413, grantir.g
the waivers reques*ed on the baais tihat evi~lence was submitted that the p:roper.ty
would ade~uately serve tY~e propo3ed ua~e and wou3.d not be detrimental to the
Arem m~cl tltat the existinq eetback was only 5 fAet. Furthermore, a mors intenee
use wag presently being made of thb property, whoreas the proposed ~uae wauld be
only for one or twu days a week, nr~d aubject ta conditione. (See Resolution
Book)
On roll call the forc~going resolution wae passed by the fallowinq voCe:
AYESs COMMIS~IONERS: Allred, Gauer, Kinq, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: CQMMtSSIONEItS: 'N~ns.
~BSENT: COMMISBIONER~: Farano, Herbet,
~
~
~
MINUT~B, CITY PLANNINC CAMM~t18I01~, July 23, ].973
73-430
11Yt~J1 DL~VELOPM~NT ^ PUBLxC HEARIN(i. INTTY7ITED 9Y TNF, /-NAFiL~TM CxTY P~71NN~N~3
PZ)1N N0. 112 COMMI89lON, 204 Ens~ ~ir~coln Avonue, AnnhAim, Ca. 92805~
prop~rty d~~arib~d a~ conei~tiny of upproxfmately 30 naz~ms,
th• azea bounded qwnsr~lly by Lincal.n Avonue on the eouCh,
Catalina Avmnud anlf l.t~ wretarly exCon~ian on xhe north, Lh~ae prAperGi~•
lrontinq on Kat:hryn Drive on the wert, ~nd tho~• propeXt:iae lro~ntiny ~n Lindssy
Streat on the eaet, to s~udy rppropriato coning an~ to ~~xplore tha naed !or
~aaondary scoe.s to those properties lrontfng on Bxookh~ara* Stre~t.
Ii~CLA9SIFICAT~ON - PUBLTC HEARINL~. INITIATL~D 98 THE AtiHHL*IM CT~'Y PLANNING
NO. 73r74r~ CqMMIC3iON, Z04 E~sC Lincoln Avenu~., Anaheim, Ca. 928A5t
~+roposiny recla~dl,tiaakion aP propeuty cane,l.~tin~ a~
appr~xima".ely 20 aoree dancribed un aomprising Lhos~
r~~l~d~nt~,al prpper~iem both wost or~d eaot of 8raokt~urat stx~eat: Nhich fx~~rt ot~
Karhryn Drive~ Ra»chito Avenu~ nnd Woodley Avenue and, dluo, which ~zont on
Hixoher Street, Hilbora Road en8 Lindaay streht rrom the R-A, AGRSGULxOpAL,
ZONE to the R-`lr ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 7nNE.
3tECLASSI~'xCAT~ON - PUBLIC IiEARING. INIT:[ATEA BX THE ANJ-IiEIM :xTY pF,I-NNING
NO. 73-74-9 COMMISSION, 204 Eaet Lincoln Avenue, Axzehai.m, Ca. 923U5~
prapoaing xeclaxai~icati,on oP ctn i.rr~ocru' c~rly~-~hu-ped ar~rm
coneiat~nq of apprax.imately 7.2 acree ccmpri~~ed ot e~
total oP 27 lots fronting on both the east And weat si.de~+ of Braukhurs*. Strewt
eoutherly of Catalina Ave,nue and ite weeter.ly ~,xtens~ion from ~:.~ ~••:., AG&t-
CULTURAL, ZONE to the C-l, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ?ONk~•
1iLCLASBIFICATION - PZIALIC FiEARING. INIS['IATEA HY 7'HE .1~N~l~{~TM CITY P~.ANN~N~
Np. 73-74-10 COMMTSSION, 204 Eaet Lincoln A~~enue, nmheim, Ca. 9"sHUSt
pror~qinq rc+cle-ssifica~tion of r~n ixregular].y-ahaped p~rca]•
of lan8 ca~eieting of appzoxlmately 2.9 ucres, in~.:].uding
a 250-fooC. length of Kathryn Drive at tha noxthwest c~r:~ar uf i.lric~lr Avenue
er~d BrAOkhurst 5treet, having frontaqe~a of eppxo:cim~t.ely 220 f:eet r~n i;:4 N~et
aide of Braakhuxat Str.eet and appxoximately 6!iJ feet ~~n the north nide oP
Lincoln Avenue rom the R-~1.. AGRICULTURAL, ZC1riE ta kk-~ C-~r GENERRL GOM~IFRCIAL~
ZOt~E .
Planning Technician John Anderaon revi~wed Azera Developm<>nt P1an N~J. 112 ae
set forCh in tlie ~teport to the Commieeion (r,a}~}~ on £i.l~) , concluding by~ ~tating
thet the Commiasion a~ it pertdined to portion Na. ~, ~ould wfsh t~ coneider
the apprapriateness of land assembly involvi~.nq *hos~e r.e:~sidential prope~tios
trontinq on Bircher 5treet or Ranchito Str~nt, eapc~c~.~xl~/ if rha Commiss~i.an
felt that. G-O zoning waa most appropz'iat~, and a conr,~rn of the CammieEi.An
might be what effect this quar.etity of C-0 zonc~d px'op~ezty would hawe wh+~n adttad
to the pr.9sent invantory, since thQ rep~rt, "A ~tudy af the Prob~sm ~f Rr.eiden^
tial Homea Frontlnq on A~terit~l Hiqhways" e~ugqe~atcci thut cont'.nued r~ndau:
cos~verai.ons of front-ons to commercial us~ co~ild r~at:~sd or e.limina~o any gupparL-
!or the potentlal comaiercial office ~z~m ~rojectec9 ~ox Cente.r Ci~ys th~it t1~e
Comml.ssion, in consic~ering Fortion No. 2, migh~ wish to considF,r whethar :~n
viaw of the exia~in~~ land uaes and e~it:P featvYea of the pr~pux'r..i.r,~F~ fronting ~n
Hrockhurat Street, wheth9r C-O, C-1 or R-~A xo~:ing would be pr.aferable, ax~d ti~d
Commieston could stz~ss land aesembly~ th~t tt~e, mc~bt acceptab].e secondmz~+
acceas ahould ba unrestric~ed aacea~ ki.th remaval Q~ on-st,reet }~ark~.nq ae
xeCOmmeriBed by '~he City TraEfia Enq:inenz• ~nd th.: Commiasion could direot ataEf
to pr~epnre ssch zoning actions ae warc~ riaC8qA8"S- 't0 legalix.~ an.~- rg~ul~r~nt
noncontorming uessr that the Commiaaion, i.n c~nai.dcsring ~art.ion ~lo. 3 at Cha
nosthwest corner of i~incoln F-venue and Brookhuzet Street, miyh~ yrish to consi8r~r
the appropriatenems of C-1 or C-3 ~:oninq ~n same or all oF the ~r:oprir~:l~a, a-ad
it C-1 zoning were aelected, thc Cox~~ise•lon rlight ~ish ~.o xecon~me,nd t9Z'~1~118~~.011
c+! Reclaseifioation No. 58-59-10 and diz~c*_ etaf~ tu prepara a~zc:~ ~oninq actio~ip
as nacesea~ry to leqali~e any xe~su].t.nnt: nanconf~tming us~,~,• sur.~ a~ ~he c~alk-vp
reatiaurante, car~vash and tire sa-l.em/s~rvice, t~awever, onc of l•he a~fect.ad
property owndrs wns under th9 assuc~pti~pn that h+~ wss ra ~~utowatical:~.y z~ec~ive
C-3 coninq upon annexation ~o tha CitY of An+arieim~ and that s~af~ vac~uJ.a r~com-
mend that Exhibit °A" be adopted, appzovinq the zuninq alterr.u~ivea wri.ck~ aoul~l
raclaseify Portian No. 1 fre~n R-A ta R~-.l and Portior NaA. 2 e-nd ? from R-A to
C-1, +snd a7.so approv~ng the continiaarnce of unreetrict.e,d uccestt of~ Brookhurst
stre~t and the remov~l of ofg-~street pauking elonq said street.
~
~
MINUTLS, CxTX PL7INNING CQMMTJ:~~:ON, Suly 13~ 1973 73-431
Ag~,p p1~VELOBMENT PI,AN N0. 112, R~CL1188I1~'ICRTIQN NOS. 73~-74-1, 73-74-~. JINA
73-74-10 Continua!!) - --
Fivs par~on~ indiqatad th~i.r pres~na• Co •xpr~~s opinionp z~qaxdinq th• propo~~d
redevelopa-a~nt pLan an~i xeaoninq a! ths Kethryn-Linds~y !-nnexatian property.
Mr. Oecsr Louderback, 12201 Aurn~ Dsiv~, Gara~n Orovo, appe+armd betore tha
COMfi~0A~011~ not~ng he own~d A parC ~i' Partian 3 sinop 1954, havinq snid a!! '
~h~ bKnk and •~rvioe stntion ~~:op~r~Yi thati ha purahaaed tt-• prop~rty in 1954,
and at ths time ot purchase it M~r in the County, and he reoopnized the Paot
thak it Mould hava to be annexed to the C.ity o! llnaheim soo~ler or later, thar~~
loxe, hs dia no~ ob~ect to the improvomentp raguiraQ !or tho oarwa~en and Ch•
tire ~hon which srere inst+~lled upon reoommendation~ and meeting aonditions pet
Parkh by the Anaheim D~~ildinq Dep~rtmentt tt~a~ when they had saquired thsir
px•operty, Lincoln 7lvenue was a 60-loot wi.de t~slf-~idtri, dm wae Brookhurst
3troat~ Chet commeraiel usas had been eatab].iohad on other carners o! the
i.z~tiersection, and all other oommeroial ~oning ir~ tY~e arae wers fuily ~wara
tha-t the City of Annheim w~ould ~evontually avquize the p~operry ae part o! the
City and thia area Kould havo been part ot the Ci'~y coneiderRbly lonqrr 1Y tho
people af Txact Nfl. 1463 wer~ mora aqrseablo to joining i;he City of Anahoim~
xnd one o! tha zeaeona they now aar~e agree+~ble wae bec~uea of the i~etallation
ot Qawera in theiz~ home~ qiving tham problems which ha~ boen lna2t-lled since
1954, and these residon~e wera not will.ing to go to tho eacpe~nee of providiag
the now i.ustt~llAti.on. Furth~rmor~, he did not kno~ what else coul~ have chmnqed
thair minde to brinq tham into tha City cf Anaheim~ ~ha.t he had di.acuesed with
Mr. l-nderson tha fact that he th4uqht they ha4 C-3 zoninq~ tha~ i.~ 1957, he ha~
been trcneferz•ed by hia company e~nd had thought at the ~ine thay hdd thair
agplicat~on for pre-zoninq of the pr~portp that they would h~sve the C-3 zoning
a~pprovesd at that t:i.me, however, he did not roalize thet a oondition of approv~al
w~s meetinq the conditions set forth in the ragolution ot intent w.ithin ninety
daye, howevar, all of ti~esQ conditions had Jeen met or exceeded ~n the property,
and aa to the impzovements on Linc~ln Avenue. thay had alea inatalled lights and
sewez connRCtion, however, these were not done in the ninety daye since at thaL•
time they did not have the $5,000 to Lake oare of theae improvementss that 3n
di.scussing this prablem with employ~ea ln City Ha' 1 ~ he had been ].ed tco unSer-
st.and that when the time came Eor annexati.on to the City and ~he Planning
Commiaeion cnnni~9ered zoniny action, the action taken on the property yeara
agc wo>>7.d bocome effecti.ve, and this would mean he aou]d have C-3 z~ning.
pepvty C~.~y ~lttorney Frank '~owry adviaec~ the Commiasion and Mr. Louderback Ll,at
the ef£ective date of the reclasaification expirad nyproximatoly 13 years aqo,
and tn~r9 nppeared ta bo no way this could be br~ught back to life as to L•his
z~ning action unleas the Planning Commias~on determined that C-3 zoninq wna
appzopriate, then the reclassification wauld have to be readvartised sinr.e ~he
C~mmis~ion di.d not have the prcr.ogative to grant a more intense zoning ':l~~n
was advertised.
Mr. Louderback stated that he wanted the City ta grant him the C-3 xoning and
ther. reviewed all the types of ueeo along b~th sicYea of Brool~huret Street far
sev~ral blocks in each directioa, ae*.ting forth the var;:ous uses that he thoughk
would cequire C-3 zoninq. ,
Ghairman Gauer advised Mr. Loud~rback thAt the Commiasion was fully aware of
aI1 these different uses and was Mr. Y.ouderba~k desirous of having C-? aoningr
whereupon Mr. Louderback gtatad that eince thex9 wore tWO usos on the pruperty
which were C-3 uaee and because his partner wea back East, he did not have any
money !or 8evelopin~ ::ha property, thorefore, he haa leased the property foz•
25 ;~ aa.rs on the basis that they had C-3 xoniny.
Nlr. Lowry, in re~ponse ~o que~tioninq by the Commiaaion relative to possible
deatruction o! the exieting uses and whe~ther or r~ot the nonconforming usa could
be recoas~ructsd, etated tt-at it would depend upon the extent of the destruc-
tion - if the @xtsnt was too great, thea the nc+nconfoxminq use aould not be
rebui.lt wi~~hin the C-1 Zone that might be aftective.
Mr. Bob Burqlin, repregentinq the oporal~ore of the carw~sh buaineas at Lincoln
Avenue and ~iaokhurat Street, stated :hat thay had leased the pt~operty on the
aseumotion th~y had ~-3 zoning~ th1t thay had ~lgo sub-leas6d a portion to the
~
~
e
MINUTE3~ CITY PLANI~ING COMMISS'lON, July 23~ 1Q73
73-43Z
ARE~A DL*VELOPM~-~TT PLAN N0. 1t2, RECLASSIFICAxIUN NOS. 73-74~1, 73-74-9, AND
73-74-10 (Cantinuad~ , - ---
~ecuzity Tizo shopt '~hse khey hafl attpm~t~d t~o devalop tlxo Lalance o~ tha
property eince 196~, e-nd i! C-1 zoning were approvsd on sub~ocC proparty at
tY~~st time~ they nevor would have rs~seivad +~ny inquiriso then~ thet they
preaently had a very qoo~! relationship with all ot their n~ighborer a~nd thati
he would requeet favoxable coneider~tion oP the C-3 zoning over the C-1 ~or~inq
pxopoeed.
Mrs. Jane Aueterwa-ld, 11U91 Lt~urie ~nn Lane, ~erd0n ar,ovs, appoarad bef~re tha
Commiaeion and notefl that aha own~d a bueineAS at Z20 Narth Bro~khur~t Street,
ns woll es '~he pr~rcel to the aoutht that the~e~ lotr were zather pma)1 dnd to
requi.re an a11ey woulc9 reduc9 their e:lc~, m~kinq them too mm~ll !or any worth-
while buain~+ss~ tharelore, ehe would Pnvor tha reclaseilication o! the R-1
properties ta the rear of the Brookhuret Street fror~taq~ prop~ :ties fox parking
and nccesa purpoees.
Comroisaioner Seymour ioquired what would happen to the ~eeidenta who live8 on
the oppoaite aide of the atXaat who lived in Anaheim while Mra. Austerwald
lived in Garden Grovet whereupon Mrs. Austnrwa7.d stated that the entire area
was vary dopressed, and she haped ~ow L•hat they were in Anaheim, th~ appear~+nce
of tho area would be improved.
Mr. Rnderson noted that Mza. Aus~torwald had referred to an alley at the rear
of tho Brockhurat S*.~eet frontages, however, thia~ was no~ mei-tioned because
it would occur only if thore were land aeeembly - then ttie poseibility of an
alley could be condidered, therefore, no alterna~te wae pr~pos9d with reqard
t.u those propertiea alonq IIroakhurat Stre9t.
TH~ HEARING WA~ CLOSED.
Mr. Anderson noted that it was etaff's thinking tl-at the Commissfon could be
in a position to recommend a lesa ir-tense zrninq aA it p~rtained to thosa lots
Eronting on bot;h eides of Brookhurst Street, recl.assifyinq them to C-1 ox C-0,
howevez, Portion 3, which had been sat up for C-1 zoning~ would have to be
reAdvertised if the Cammission felt ~the C-3 zoning was more appropriate.
Mr. Lowry noted that the property could be left C-1 with. noncoaforming uses,
and staff could pror.ess condit~.onal uso pormits to legalize the C-3 uses.
Mr. Schwartze noted that the uses could conL•inue indefinitely, but only on a
change of use whl.ch wou18 require other than C-1 zoning would be the ti.me the
specific conditiuns woLld be required.
Mr. Lo,vey further noted that if 50~ oF the building wer.e destroye3, it cou].d
not be used fnr the sa-ne uee originAlly established on thg property.
Mr. Loudexba~k again appeared before the Co:;~misaion and noted that he and
Mr. Anderson had discusaed this at length previously regarc3ing the poss3bi11ty
of obtaini.ng C-3 zoning abuttinq zesidentiAl useat that he adviaed Mr. Ai~der-
son that the property to ttie north was develap~d or zoned for C-lo and if the
zoning now became C-1, there would be no reasun for adding protective mea~urea
and they would be in conformance with ad~oining pr~pexties.
~ommisaioner Sdymour o£fered Resolution No. PC73-16~1 and maved £or its paseage
end adoption tc adopt anc~ recommend to t}~e City Council a~option of Area
Developmen~ Plr.n No. 112, Exhibit "A", provided, how~ver, that Altarnat•ive
"e" shall. be e~~taalianed for circulation on Portion 2, thareby ~stabliah~.ng
the traffic c~rculstion pattexn for the area known as the Kathryn-Lindsay
Annexat~.on. l~ee Reeo3.ut~on Book)
On roll call the far~aqoing reaolution wa9 pnese8 by the following vote:
A~LES: COMMISSI~NERS: Allred, Gauer, King, Rowlancl, Seymour.
NOES: COMM7SS30NERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSiONERSs Farano, Hertst.
~ ~
MINUTL~S, CITY PL~-NNING COMMIS8In1N, July 23, 1973 73-433
AREA DEV~L~PML~NT PLAN N0. 112~ REt;LA3E3~FIGATION N08. 73-74-1, 73-74-9, AND
73-74~-10 (C~ntinued) ,_, _
Commi~sior~er Seymour o!lered a ma~io-i, ~oaond~d by Commi.~~ioner AlireQ and
~lOTIAN CARRIED, that the Planning Commiasion, in oonnaction with sn exemption
tieclaration atatus rdqueet, finde et~d de~urmir~es thet ths proposal woulll havn
no aigni.ticant nnvironmental impa~ct, and, therefore, r~comm~nde to the City
Council ~hat no Environmental zmpsct StatAment is neca+esery.
Commissioner 5eymour o4Pored Roe~lutio~ Na. FC73-lb5 and moved for its paseAge
xnd edoptian to reoommend to the~ Ci~.y Couna~il a~pproval o~ petitior~ tox
RealassiP~cal:ion No. 73-74-1, e~tablishinq tha ciry o! l-naheim tt-1, ONE-FAMILX
RESIpENTIAL, ZONL on rartion,e la ar~d lb of the Kathryn~•Lincl~ay llnnsxation,
eubiect to annoxe-tlon to the City of Anahelm. (gea Resoluti~n Book)
On roll call Lhe foregoing resolution was paes~ad by tha followinq vote~
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, King, Rowland, Seymour.
NOESs COt~MISSTONERB: None.
AB5ENT~ COMMISSIONERS: Fdrano, Herbet.
Commi~sioner Saymour ~ffered a motion, aeconded by Commiesioner Allred and
MOTION CARRIED~ that the Planning Commisoion, in connection with an exemption
declaration statua requeat~ finds and cietermi.nes thnt the proposal would hava
na significanx onvlronmental impact, and, there~ore, rec:ommends ta the City
~:ouncil thAt no Environmental ImrdcX Stntement ie necessary.
Commissioner Seymour offe~cmd Ftesolution No, PC73-166 and moved Par its pasoage
anct adoption to recommend ~.o tho City Council approval of Petition for
Recl~saification No. 73-74-9, estahlishinq C-0 zoning on both aides of
Erookhurst. Street (Portion 2), subject to conditions. (See Resolution Sook)
On roll call the foreqoing resolution wae pasaed by the following vote:
AYES: COMM'lSSIONERSs Allred~ Gauer, Kinq, Rowland, Seymour~
NOES: COMMTSSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMNSISSTONERS: Farano, Herbet.
Commiasioner Seymour was af the opinion that aince Mr. Louderback, owner of
the majar portion oP Portion 3, had some type of a commitment from the City uf
Anaheim for C°3 zoning, that Reclr.ssification No. 73-74~10 should be continusd
to be readvertised since although the prcperty could ba rer.lasaified to the
C-1 2one and the nonconforming uses cpuld be continuad, in tne event improve-
ments were proposed for the ~roperty, this asaumed C-3 ~oning wauld nat be
applicable to the property.
Mr. Anderson noted thzt in view ot the Planning Commission's r.QCOmmendinq
approval of C-O zoning ~n both side~ of. Brookhurst SL•reet ~nd aince tbese lots
we~•e not 20,000-aquare foot lots, nor would there be eecondarx access, then
there would be unrestricted access, however, no parking would then be permitted
on either sido of Brookhurst StreetT whereupan the Commiesi.on atatec~ this was
their intent.
Commissioner Sey~our of£ered a motiion to renpen the hearing and continue
conaideration of Reclassi£ication No. 73-74-10 to tha m4eting of Auguat 6,
1973, in order to allow ti.me for staff to reaclver~iae the pro~+erty in order
to posaibly permit C-3 zoning to bA coneidered by the Commisaion and c'.ouncil.
~
~
s
MINUTL~S, CXTY P~.ANNIIJG COMMISSION, Julyr 23, 1973 73--434
REPORTS ANU - ITEM N0. 1
RECOMMENpATI0N8 CON~ITIONAL Ua~ PEItMIT N0. 1127 (Diano~-lnnd Hotal) -
YroRerty louated at L•he nortnwc+e~ corner of We~t
9treet end Csrrito^ Avenue - Rc+qu~st !or an exten~ian
of time ta porml.t outdoox har.yuet lacili.tiea un
aubject property.
A~si.stant Planner Phillip Schwartze rav~leHed ths location of subjacti proporty,
u~e~ estabtished in clou~ ~raximity, and previoua zoning action by the Plan-
ning Cammiaeion, nating thnt t.hra• extensions of time had been grentad on
Conditional uae PermiL t~o. 1127, tho latest expiring July 27, 1973t that no
oomplainte hed been :^eceivPd in the Development Sarvices Departm~nt rsqarding
thea• outlioor banqu~et lacilltioei and that tho etd!! would recnmmend a one-
year axtansion ot time b~a gr.dnted L~r canti~nuA~ion af the outdoor banquet
Pscilitiey, said time limitation to expire July Zi. 1974.
~ommiaeioner Seym~ur offezed a motion, aeconded by Commiasioner Allzed, and
MOTiON CARRIED, L•o grant a onu-year ext~ne~ion of ti.me, permitting outdoor
bdnque~ Pacilitios approvad under Conditionai Use Permit No. 1127, enid time
exteneion to c~xpire July 27, 197A.
ITEM N0. 2
CONDITIUNAL USE PERMIT N0. ].312 (California Lutheran
Bible School) ~- Req~eet for en sxtension of time for
completion uf conditiona - Property loaate'~+ on the
weat sidQ of Western Avenve. :~proximately 3845 feet
aouth of Oranqe Avenue
Assietant Planner. Phi.llip schwartze reviewed the location ot. ~ub3ect property,
uAes estak~lighed in c:luae proxi.mit;y, and previoud zoning actiun on the prop~
erty, noting that on ,7une lZ, 1972, in Planning Consmission Ros~lution No.
PC72~125, n private educdtion ineitution with dormit~~ries, a gymnasium,
libxary, c].asarooms, and un athletic £iel.d were App- .~ved in conjunction w~,th
a cl~ur.ch facility and day care nurs..ry approved under Coiiditl~nal Uae Permit
No. 1009; that no street light or :~treet tree feee had been paid, however,
the street t;ae fees had been amended, inareasinq ~hem from 15C to 60C effec-
tive July 1, 197z~ *ha.t the petitioner was requeating a two-year extenaion uf
time in or.der to comp].y with the conditions of a~:provalt and that staff woul~i
recammend a ona-year extengian of k3me be grunted, tc~ expire June 12, ].974,
to allow time for the petitiox~er i:o complete ccnditinna, howaver, Condition
Na. 1 ahould be amended to require payment of 60C par front foot foY street
tree fees in accordaa~~ with the new fee achedule adopted by the City Couricil.
Commiasi.oner Seymour of£ered a motion, sdconded by Commissioner Allrpd and
MUTIO.~ CARRIED, to grant a one-year extens3on of tir~e for. the compleCion of
cunditions under Conditional Use Permit No. 1312, said time extenaion t~
expire June 12, 1974, h~wevAr, C~ndition No. 1 shall be amende3 t~ zequire
60C per front foot for street tree feas in accordanoP with the nAw fee sched-
ule adupted by the City Council.
7TEM N0. 3
TNTERPRL"TATI~*' PEItTAINING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF GAME ARCADES.
Assis•ta ~ Planner Phillip Sck~wartzb reviewed for the Commission a reqv~est by
staff i`or. an interpretation of thg commercial zoning re~ulatione pertaining to
the estAblishment of gaa~e arcades as set f.orth in tne Report to the ~omniission.
Deputy City Attorney ~'rank Lowry noted that in ~he case of t.:nbiquity ~f the
Anaheim Municipal Code because of the manner in which it was written, And
becauae of the various policiea established by both the Commiasion and Council,
ataff wa~a reque~ting an interpretati~n of how they should intsrpret game arcadea.
~
4
~
MINUTEH, CITY PLI~NNING COMMTSS'tON, Ju1y 23, 1973
ITSM N0. 3 (Continued)
._..._--
73-435
Chaizman Gr-ue.r i.nquireN whether theo• axoades would ~e+nd to a conaadereble
dmuunt c,! gemblinq~ whereupon Mr. Lowxy etatdd thet Sectton 3.3G.5 of the :Itate
Code controlled the use of qamUl.lnq devicsa, and the Anahaim ~c~11co Uepa~rtmant
talt thia wae ~mple to aeaur~+ thdt thoss g~ms eresdeo are not turriedl int~
gambllny dens.
Cheirmnn Gauer wes nf Cha opinion that a publia haaring ahould be held becau~e
ther.o mi ght be nthor people who would l.iko to oacpresa their opini.ona regarding
th•ee gdming devices.
Mr. Lowry noted that perhaps the Commiesiun could direct etaff to etudy this
ruquest Por canai.derati.on by both the Commiesian and Council, however, ataf!
w~s hopeful that the Commiasi.c7n could e~tabli.sh a pc+licX stetement at thia
meeting aince Lhore had been a numbez' of these araades pxesented rAaently, a:id
it could become a c~ncarn ~f the aommunity - tha City had a lenqthy oinbdl2
ordinancg, ?~ut tha Poliae G~par*.ment felt that the~ City ordinance wna pre-emp~eQ
by the State Code pasaeS aevera~. yeere ~go.
(;ommissioner Rowland observed that if tho use ia~ rocagniz9d in the cammunity,
then it was a matter of placing it in the ri~ht ~ona - it w~a n~t a reaidential
us~, but it could Le permitted i~~ the C-R or aome othQx' "C" 'Lones, since he knew
thPy were in the Uisneyland area and at miniature golf cosreae and var.iouw alub~.
C~mmissioner Seymour noted thdt tha doubt he had was }uat how far and what was
included lri qaming devio9s - how much fuxther would it yo ~ get the dofinition
down to so~nething the Commisaion could undoretand.
Mr. Lowry noted that the Code section wao very long and qui.te invalvedj that tho
State Penal Code was also very lengthy, wi~h one-half paqe on pinball machines
dlone, and ane of the State requirements was that the pinball machines must
x'eceive a State l~.cense and be appruved by tt~e S~ate, which was the basis upon
which the Police DepartmEnt stat~s these machinea were not gambling devicea
pursuant to Section 3.30.5, but sta£f was in quite a quandary.
Commiseioner Seymour inquired whet.her he could put up a dart• board 3nd ~ne aould
pop balloons if he had C-]. zoning~ whereup4n Mr. Lowry statod that wa~ a qamo of
,:tiance and was prohibited by the Code, but ao lonq as the element of chance was
eliminated or receiv.ing o~ a motietary re~urn was removed, then it became a qame
of akill.
Commieaioner Seymour offered a motion, aeconde+d by CQmmissioner Kiny and MOTInN
CARRI~D, that the Planning Commission interpzeta that gam~ arcadea are aimilar
to other commercial amusements, such as bowling alleys or billiard halls, and
may be established in the C-1, C-2, a:. C-3 Zones, however, sincs the C-R Zone
requiras that snch uses b~ established by ~onditional uoe permlt, it would atill
ba necessary to file a condxtional use permit if such an arcade was prop~aed in
the C-R Zone.
Zoning Supervisor Charlea ROa)P.Kt.S noted that since the Planr~ing Commiseion had
determined ttrese to be similar to bowling alleys, billiard halls~ etc., then he
would assuma that these gamp arcades would bg permitted by right in thQ C-1, C-2,
and C-3 Zones, tiowever, th~y would be r~quired to Eile a condit~onal use permit
if pXOposed to be in the C-R Zone, and that auch uses would be excluded From l•he
C-H and C-0 Zones.
Commissioner Seymour then amended his motion to eatablinh game arcade~s in the
C-1, C-2, and C-3 Zones by right, by conditionnl use permit in the C-R 2one, and
r.hat arcades would not be pnrmitted in the C-0 or C-H Zones.
. ~
DiTNUTES, CITY PI,ANNINC COMMIBSION, July 23, 1y73 73~436
ITEM NO_.~,4
VARIANCE N0. 22~4 (David Aloni - 1520 ~1.D./Raz~mat~xL)
~roperty locatec: an the wast eido ~! He~~h Iloulovard,
appruxi~nately ).000 laat narth of a+~ll Road - Request
for approval o! axpeneion of uue.
Aaeiatant Planner Fhi].1ip Schwartze reviewed thh lor,aGian o~ subject pruperty,
u~es establiahad in closa p.r.oxlmity, anfl the r~que4t by the pXOperty owner. t.o
t~pprave the expaneio:~ of tt~~i uee oriqinAlly approved ainca a buflding permit
wae spplied for to internelly modity thrae former motal rooms for use in aon-
junction with an exiating reetauxa~ntt that a petiCion to aAl1 osa-ea'le baer
~nd wine, whtch woul~l be art inr,idantal udo to tl~e pr.imery use oE the, a~.le of
food, wae approvo~ under. Variance No. 2234 ~n March 4, 1971i and thaL• upon
thA recommondation of staff, the ownor had submitted pl~ns ~dhich would modify
the site to cotnply with or exceed the mini.mum site developmanC et~ndards, such
a8 d~letion of eix exis~ing ~Arki.ng atalls immedi~toly a~d3acf~nt L•a the fro~it
property line, addition o£ a plsntar strip witih en averaqe ds~th of 7~i fset
an~l to install R permanent irx~~gation eystem, whore none existed, modificati.oci
ot the parking plan to incroasP the n~imbe~ of park~.ng stalls t~ 90r se•~en more
than was zequired tte e. condition ~f approval for this usa, and provisi~n of
tzaeh atorage areas w'~ere non~ exie~ocl.
Mr. Schwartze i~oted ~ha~ the Planning Commimsion woul.d wish to det•armine
whethez' the r.evieed plans w:.re 3ubstnntially in confnrmance with thf~ intent ~f
the Commissi.on's approval of V~.riance No. 2234, l:eeping i.n mind that the ax-
paneion o.f the rea~aurant facility would not incxease the seating capac~.ty of
the reataurant but would increage only L•h~ acea devoted to f.ood pre,paration,
storagP, etc.
Mr. navid Aloni., the property owner, advisad the Commisoi~n that h~ was only
taking one room to expand the kitcl~en, placing their col~l atoragc area intc~
this axpansion, ~nd that th° other expansi~n had been approved by tha t;ity
].ong time ago .
7onirg Supervi.sor Charles Roberts noted that the past history on the property
in~icated a motel and c~ffe~ sh~p had been approved in 1960, however, ha did
nat know how the floor plang relate~l to the 1520 A.D. nf.qht club since a~.~proval
wns granted on.ly ~n the cofEee 9hop with ox~-sale beer in 1971.
Commissiar~er Seymour noted that this was too different antitias, a motel as a
separate item from the 1520 A.D. night club reataurant and the mate:t which
had beer. approved with an adjoi.n~ng coffee shop~ that when Variance No. 2234
had been approved previouslY, thero appeared to be a parking problemr and that
although ther.e mic*ht not be any mora uge or 3eating capacity propose3, there
was a definite shortage oF parking when he had viaited the place.
Mr. Aloni stated that there would not be any chanqe in use.
Commissionex' Seymour was of the opinion that Mr. Aio~i. had pulled the greate~t
hcax on the Planning Commissior. when he stated under this petition that he was
requeating only on~aale beer and wine in oon~unction ~atth the caffee ahop which
was in c.~njunction with the motel.
Mr. Aloni noteci that they had prevfoualy taken threa room~ from the inotal and
made them int~ a kitchen ar~d had been in operation for the past 12 months= that
they had a show in tho restaurant buti did not have a cocktail bar and served
only beer and wine.
Mr. Roberte note~ that the rQquast was for approval of revised planaj thttt the
use had been approved, but now the pet~tioner was planninq to convert a motel
roora as part of the restaurant; t+nd that the Commisaion had a choice of either
approvinq the plans before them or detarmining whethar it shoul3 be set for
public hearing, howovez, he was not aware that the converaion of the other
three roons had been a~proved by the City.
Mr. Alvni noted that they Proposed a new restaurant which they had leasedr
and the new leHSees want~d expa.nsion of the colrl storage area.
U
~
•
M7~UTES, CITY P1.ANNING COMMIS£ION, July 23, 1973 73-4?7
1T'E M N0. 4 (Contirtued)
Con,miwsion~r Seymour noted he waa not oppoAed to tho use but tu what ~he
potikioner had i~np].ir.atied when he requeaCod on-uale~ beaz and wino in n coff~e
shi~~~, whi.l~ this wnm a reyuldr ni,yht club o~er.~tiun, not e cof.fee ehop~roved~
he mncio it t~ palnt t~ visit the ft~cilitiea which the Commi.e.io~i hdd aPP
to determino how Cl.ey wer.e opernting.
Mr, Alani re,pli.od thst thay ha.d bedn opezating the 1520 A.n. facility ror one
ye~r, and a11 h~ wantad to do wt~a incrense tha coZQ etorsge area. Furthermore,
th~0y hdd im~+roved theix perki.ng nvor that ariqinelly approvnn.
~o~nmi.ndionex Seymour noted thet upon vi.~iting thie tacil.!.ty he P'olt the so-
cal.lc~.i "+~how" was a very bawdy tyk~e ahow and inquired what the Ftezcmntazz
Reataurnnt wnb to depict~ wher~eupon Mr. Aloni etatied that thiq Mrould be ~he
192U er.a.
ConmisEioner Allrad inquired whether the Commiesion was interest:ed iri approving
thj plane ur settinq thle for public haarinq.
Chairman GauQr notod that he had di,scuesed thle situution with «taff in ~ho
paat; that he d1d not want reviead plane such na w~are being pre~~entod to the
Commir~eion tc, be b~:ought undez Rep~-'ta ~ncl Recomment.ation~ but. to ba set for
public heazing~ whereupon Mr. Roberts stated thnt he fe~lt it we:~ the Commis-
sion wtio should determin~ whethor it should be eot for public h~nring.
CcmmiASioner Seymour offFrod a motion to set for public hci~ring condidcration
o; V~riance No. 2234. Commissfonor 7~llred seconded the motion.
F~:iar tc roll call, further diacuasion was held by tha Commaeaion regazding
t_Fe ~otian to set it for puAlic hearinc;, Commiseioner Seyxnour noking that all
but Commi3aioner King were on tn~ Commission, and Lba entire Commiasfon were
lc~d to believe tl~at this was a cof.fee ahop type operatian ln conjunction wiLh
tl~,e motc:i, howe~~er, afrer tney hp3 ::o~~;~~ieced th~s usa an3 ha had vis.ited khe
p].ace, he found it i.o be nathing lil:e ~.vhAt tha Commisaion had approved b~c:ause
i1; wa~ a night club, and tha only Giffer^r~t thing was that they did not serve
liguor, ther~fore, he was offez•ing this m~tion so that all evidencc~ could be
bxough t to light for a puhlic hearing.
M:r. AZoni. note3 that it the CommisRi~~n did not appraved the plana, then he
wuuld have to cloae tihe operatian becaue~* the Buildinq Divisfon had sent a
l~etter to tne Alcor~olic Beverage ControJ. Buard not to grant the t:ansfer of
license un*.il the improve,ment was completed, and he aould not comple~.e theae
improvements until the Cit~ had given him approval of the expaneion.
Commissfoner Seymour noted he war.ted to know what type of operat~on was being
proposed; w2iat tyge of parking w~s being proQ~^ed - that parking should be
checke3 out= an~l whether or not there was a polir_e prabl~m.
Commissi.onsr Allred nuted that according to staff's report, there w~re seven
additional parking ~paces over ancl above ttiat requirecl originally.
Chairman G~uer noted that this was a good example of time expcnded and nothing
had been aettled as yet.
Mr. Roberts noted that i£ ~taff had initiated the public hearing, ~the Commis-
s1or~ might have taken the same poaition, and etaff had attamgted to handle
th~~se matt~xs in a most expeditious mannex, brins~ them to the Planning Commis-
si~n for conai.deration as to whetlz~r rhey were substantially in coti~formance
with the original glans approvzd, and if the Commigsion wanted the staff' ~o
set all of these t:~ings for pubiic hearing, they would da eo.
Commiasion~.c Rowland re~uested tl~at skaff continue bringing evezything poseible
under Reports an3 Reaommend~+ta.ons so that the Commiseion could det6rmine whether
a public haaring was necessary i~ order to resolve probl*herefore,ehe~wouldu8
I manner, which ~rould be lgsa expangive ~o the taxpayere,
~ suqgest this be referred back to the staff for 3nvestigation and n report under
~ M
MINUTES, CITY FLANNIDIG COMMI'38IAN, .Tuly 23, 19'73 73-4J8
ZTEM N0. 4 (Continue~d)
peporta and RsaommenClati.nns in two wa~~ke, and L•hen i! th~ Commiueion detern~ined
Lhnt d publia tiearin5i was still neo~~~rary, it c:ould then b~ sol~edu.ted !or the
muoticig of Auguet Z0, and i! the problem aould be r~~olv~d in two waeks under
Reporte anQ Rec~mmenilations, then nuthi.ng woul~i be loet~ wh~r~upon Commiasion~r
Seymaur ~tat~d thet t~o would conaui with tha~t .reoomwi~ndation and daley oan-
e~idaration o# hie motion !or pu~lic hearing un~il tho ]-uguot 5, 197:~ meati~g.
Gammiaeioner Rowlund noted thAt he wns ~were of the typ~ ot op~r.ation, A;-d if
Lhe hi~tory ~s rep.reiaented in the media waa r~rrect, Raxtmatatz would ba sn
uphflat of ~he 1520 A. U. - what you see io witiat you arA qoing Co qet.
Cammi.ssioner l~llrod itoted that p~r.hapd the originul and the aubsequent uao h~+d
upgra3ed the oporatiun , howevez, the er.i~tin~ fa,oility coul.d not b~ con~i~?ered
a r.eataurant aA incidental to the mutel use as oxiqinally +~pproved, anA the
Cammisaion would ala~~ have t;o determina whothor the ~,atitioner wes entitled to
thin without a publ.i~~ hearinq.
Commisaioner Seymour noteQ thaz'a was only ane diPferer~ce befiwden thie oporatioti
and any regular niyht ~lub and that wac~ they clid not ~erve liquor but did serva
be~.r and wine, and if it had boon pr~+sentnd to tho Planninq ~~mmiaeion in the
mannez in which it devc~loped, h~ wae sure the Commiasion woi~ld hava turned it.
down.
Mr. Roberts r.atod r.here ~pp~ared to 1-~e two concerne af the Commiesion - adequate
parkinq a-nd wlraether th is wae being uperated as ~Y reatauxanti th~t tha plane
submitted indiaated mo xe parkinq ~han ~he C-~ Zone would requixe einae 81
epacea were requirHd and 90 spacae were proposecl, hoWever, with the higtily
succesoiul reateurant, maybe mare pazking epac:ee would be rQquir.rd, howevex,
this was what Cod~ set farth.
Commissioner Seymour then direct~;d staff to aubmit a report to tlio Planning
Commission on Avgust 6, 1973, indicatinq the staff's findi.nqs regardlnq park-
ing, thc~ type of use be.iny made of th~ property, and a repor.t fxom the Police
Aepartment regarding any police probl~ms~ and i~ sufficient dvider.ce wae not
submftted at that t~me, then the petit.loii would be advertiaed f_or public neur-
ir.g. Commiss ioner ailred seaondod the motion. MQTIAN CARRIED.
IT~M NO. 5
CONDTTIOnIAL U5E PERMIT NO. 939 (Fsirmont School) -
Request for an extenaion of time - Property located
c+n th~ eouth aide of Mable Street, having A frontaqe
o f 125 feet on the easr side of Loara Street.
Assistant planner Phillip Schwait.ze re~lew d the location of sub~ect ~roperty,
prevtaus time: extens ions granted b;~ the P1 --ning Cvmmi~+sion, the las~ request
for an extension ~f time being grantec] on June 30~ 1969, expiring November 22,
i969s and that on .TUly 10, 1973, the City Council r.aa aut:lorized the petitioner
to mo~~e on--site purchas~c~ buildinqs at hie uwn risk pending renewal ~f tho
Conditional Use Permi t.
Commisai~ner Rowlar.d offered a mot~.on, soconded bv Cummiasioner King and MOTYON
CARRI~D, to grant a one-year extension oE ti.n.e, retroactive, to oxpire July 23,
1974, for the completion of condition~ granting Conditional Uae Permit tio. 939.
zTEM rto. 6
AMENDb1ENT TO TITLE IB, '.'hAP'PEP. ~8.18, R-E ZONE.
Plunning Supervisor pon McDaniel noted the lmenc'iment to Title 1.8, Chsptez
19.18. R-E 2one~ Animal Maintena-~ce ~nd Elouse t9c~ve-One propoeal had been eub-
mitted to the Planninq Commiasi~r, for conaideration, and staff would suyqest
that it be set fcr public henring.
Commissi~ner Seymour offered n motion, aeconded by Ca~r~a~ssioner kowldnd and
MOTION CARRIED, to s et for publiG heari;~g coneideration of ~,mendmenti to Title
18, Chapter 18.18, R-E Zone, Animal Maintenance end Ho~iee Move-One Poz the
meetinq of August 6, 1973.
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNI6IG COMMIS;iION, July 23, .1973 '13--439
I TE. M N 0;,_7
kECL,ASSIFICATIQN N0. 71»73-.10 (Lu+-d~rahiN HouAing
8yrtems, Inc.) - Requaet Eor npproval n1' rrecise
plans - 8ub jsct proper~:y I~a~ving a lruntsqe of 700
feoL on the w~~t sid~, ot Wa.lnut Stroet and beinq
looated ~~proximYt~ly 660 f~eet north o! tho centar-
lino o! ~ex'ritos Ave,nue.
Aeelatant Plannax r~ illi~ 9chware.ae reviewed the loc-ation n! •ubject property,
noting that the ~~~ricioner waa requoetinq npprovel ~t pr~cise plans for. dovel-
~pu~ent of the pr-.~~orty ee requirad k,y Ci~y Cauncil Re~oluCi.on 72R-a06, and
that two of the c:on~ tiona required prior to reading of an orclinenae ware
recordc+tion ot ., ci.n+~l tx'act m~ap end e~nrove+l of prNOi~a pl.nna fur the devo].-
opment. of the p~~~perty.
Commiae~.oner R~~wlni-d noted thaC it would aEpea-r the plane wera eubatan~ially
in conRormance with plu~s oz•igi nelly aubmitted - ~.he rdclee~ification plans
which the Planning Commi.eaion h~id rocommended denial on, but the City Council
fe1.t fit to =•~~~SOV4~ tharet.or~, the iseuo before the CommiAei~n wao rathar
acddomic, na!nc~ly, were the precise plane eubstantially in conformance with the
oriqinel plans coneidored in the reclaeelEication of the property, nat s-ecee-
esrily L-he merits oP tha pro ject.
Ueputy City Attornuy Frank Lowry aonfirmec~ that the unly coneidezation beforo
the Planninc; Commiesion was whether the plans wexa eubRtantially in conform-
ance with the original p1~na.
Mr. ~obert Kendell, repzesenting Leaderahip Houeing, appeared bdfore tho
Commission nnd notod that in viow of the comment mnde by Cummissiona r Rowland,
he would only add thdt his company had worked sirice the time ttie petition was
approvpd with ita uriginal presentation to roi•ine the plane, working with the
Development Services Depart.mer.t ataff to resolve 9everal 3lfferences; that h~
felt a11 af theso d.ifferences had been resolved anci the plans taefore the Commi:;-
aion were 3ubatantially in conf~rmance ~vith the ori.qinal plana submi t~ed, howevvr,
there was one particular arFa where ac~mpromi~e had been raa~he3, ma7cing some
,_hange to the ttetback of the .interior perimetez str~+et, since variances h+~d beAn
granted ~or averaqe diataii~eaj that with the suggeation by ataff, additional
parking was pruvf.ded along tha area but where lt was als~ planned to have heavy
acreening fz~om the street and ~~lacinq additiai~al par:cing which staff £elt was
impoztant; thut the discie~anc~.es as to footage har] been wor.ked out by the staff
and the ar.chite~ct, and the aret~itact wae available to anewer quastio~s.
Mr. Bob Messe, 1523South BaYl~ese StXeet, appeared bsfore the Commis sion and
~~_ated S~e was ful~y aware o.f ttie Paat that the c~evelopment had been approved
by the City Council, but there could be a8diri~nd] variancer from Code whic~.
the developer miqht be requesCinqt that he wss not familisr with th~ changes
in the plar-s, but he 4id know there were a number of public he~rings and many
people spoke both for and againet the p.roject, and before the Comiais aion or he
could atate whether this was gubstantially in canformance v~ith the c>ziginal
plans approved, the residente of the noiqhborhoad should be given ai~ ogpor-
tun~Ly to r~:vi.ew these plana.
Mr. Sch+~art~e adviaed the Commission that the dtfference as indicated in the
Repart to the Commisaion m+~y have resul*ed because the plans had "tightaned
up" and the waivere had been e+ppravec~., however, ttie diatancas betwee~t the
buildings had been further re~:...~~ from the original pla:-s.
Mr. Messe inquixed as to the deqree of change that was bei.ng discus sed and
whether these plana would atill be substanttally in conformance witYi the
oriqinal plans - did ataff make a zecomanendai:ion on this r~nieatointed~outn
Mr. :.owry stated that staff made no recommendati~ns, they Y P
whether there were an.y changea, end the Commisaion would have to maske the
detexmination es to whether theee precise plans were subatantiall,y in
can formanc~ .
Commisaioners Seymour and Gt-uer werc~ ~f the opinion th3t the changes were rather
aubstantial and the lanSscaping seemecl to disappear with more asph~alt being
aho~n.
~ ~
MxNf,ITES, CITY P?.ANNING COMMI'~SION, July 23, 1~73 73-440
ix~M N O. 7 (ConCinued)
Mr. St ewart Woodard~ aruhitect of. the propoosd davelopm~nt, nppeared befoz~a tha
Commiaeion and otetad thoy could uonform to the roqui.rements origine~lly eotab-
lishr~d ea to setbeaks fr.om tha atrasts, howevnr, the Devolopmant Sexvicoe
De~~artmAnt ataff and members oP hi.e oomNany .telt Chera wse a naed Por a~ much
yueaC perkinq a~s po~~iblw, therefore, they had irecrar~ond gueat pnrki.nq, and
they also falt thay cauld heavily lsndecape the pe~r.king azea and lnndscape tho
curv.il inodr roAd, but thie situation aocurred in a very ema~ll area~ that with
roPerence made es to tti~e dimeneione betwaan Uuil.Qings, thie change had ha~~aned
throu~gh~ut the entire proje~tj that L•he uriqinal plane called for a minimam
waiver of 15 faet between buildinge, a-nd in eame oaeAS thia wae now zeduced to
~,9 feet., but aCaPf. lelt tt~.is was not e wexy eubstantial ~har-go and the pzoject
had Yemainad d].moet the +ame ae bafore~ thet they hed L•riad to imFrove the
dos.ign o~' the~.r davelapn~ent, but they had not tr.i.ed to change the saope of the
~eve) opment from that oriyinally epprovoc9 under the vari~ncet dnci that one foot
diffc3rence happened verX infrequently and would not be detrimental to thn
dovelopment.
Commi3oi~ner Seymour obeerved that tha peti.tioner had incraased the ~+mount o!
aspha lt and eliminated oome of the qreenezy that was neaeaeAZyt whereupon Mr.
Wo~da rd stated that if tha Commisei.on felt the landscaping ahauld remain, thia
oould be xcsolved eaeily.
Mr. S chtivartze r~oted that at tlie requeat of the rire Department a temporary
cul-de~eac w~o pr.opoaed at the end for f.ire vehicles.
The p lans thdn were poatod on the Cou»cil Chamb~r wall for intarested praperty
owners to revf.ew. ~
Mr.. Messe stated he, ~ao, did i~~t want a hoax perpetrated upon the thoueanda
of r ~3idents of the area who wero dead set agains~ thie development~ therefare,
i.t would be up to the Planning Comm~ssion tc d~scide whether thia were subatar~-
tlal.ly in conformance, bllti he personally would like ta seo this propos al not be
developed on L•he property.
Mr. Messe, 9n response to questioning by Commissioner Kinq, stated that they t-ad
made their suggestions at sevaral publi.c hearings for a lower density houainq
deve~opment, paxti.cularly since thia property was primarily aurrounded by
sing 3e-f'amily homes, an3 even thougl3 the GeneraZ Plan called for higher density
land use, hisndreds of. people packed the Counr,3.1 Chamber to protest the density,
t~ut they were ignore~ij that he kn~ew the land was very expensive, but if Leader-
ship Nousir.g had reduced their density, it might have been an acceptable land
use, but the residents Pelt the impact of 552 families on V7alt~ut Street and
Cerritos Avenue w~as too much , aiid then gave as an example that it had taken him
20 ma.nuter3 to go from IIall Roa~i to Cerzitos Avenue when the Elks Convention was
holding their parade.
Mr. xendell again appeared before the Coma~iasion and atated that he zespected
the Commi:,sion's opinion with zespect to merits of the praject, but tney had
qone through tlze ~erits at public he3ring already, and it was hia un~erstanding
tha t the precise plans had ~o be submitted to the Planninq Commiseion for
a~proval, nr.imarily becausa the residents of the area had 9.nc7.ic~.ted tneir concern
at the C~ty Council meeting that subjac* propertv could be developed with th~
zoning on the pr~perty without any reference to specific pla~ns, but they had
been agreeable to the plan, and under straight rezoning of the property, the
development pZa.ns could not havo been different than the original submitted and
approved, and the plane before the Co~mission were just proof that the~ concept
ola n originally submitte3 was what they praposed to build.
Mr. Schwartze, in respanso to questioning by Chairman Gauer, statad the plana
werc~ submitt•ed to the Planning ~ommisaion for approval because it was a condi-
tio r~ of approval by the City Council.
Commissioner Seymour offered a motian, aeccnded by Comn~issioner Allred ond
MOT SON CARRIED (Commisoioner Rowland voting "no"), that the Planninq Commie~sion
dis approves the precise plt~na of development eubmitted under Reclaseification
No. 72-73-10 as not being substantially in accordance with plana originally
~ub mitted and approved.
~ • ~
MINUTES, CITX PLAIQNING COMMI5:i.l'QN, July 23, 1973 73-A41
ITEM N~. 7 (Continued)
Commi~Aioner Rowland •tat~d his "n~" vote wse beeed cn the faaC thak ha le:lt
tha plens v+ere ~aubatantially in con#ormance with the original plans eub~Atosed.
e~ven thouqh ha wa~a not in lavor o~ the project beaauee o! tbo dMnMity p P
Mr. Woodard noted ti~a~t ho waa ouncerned with the statemnnto made reyardl.t~g
donoity of. this project because a) ha aould reduc:e the e~ao o! each untt by
]00 aquara leek, thereby x~ducing the densi.ty L•o 13 u~11te per aor.a~ b) he aou].a
eliminata tha~ peri.pheral drive a»cl th~ doneity wuuld have gone doan to 12~ u~its
per acre, but thia would have meant re~idante would heve ha~d to aroes the roAda
with Craffic ta go to the recreatian azae or to other unito~ ol rhat he would
li.ke tu p:ove, thet ooet ran~es and eize of unite o! this projeck w+a4 tha ty~e
af unit prefarrAd by paople, which dleo quverned the type oP. peoplo a~nd eizE of
familiAO - wheth~r thie wna poeitive or nP~etive, he cou2d nQt eay ae ~n erchi-
tect, but it e~pearod everyone got eo "hot" on deneity, dnd iP pdrking wera gro-
poueQ ad~acent to naah ur-it, thoxe w~ould be only 9 unita per acro, thorefoze,
denaity waa only the name of the game.
ITEM NU. E3
CLARIFICA'fION OF R~COMMENDATTON TU CITY CUUNCIL
REGARDING PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR REVISED PLANS.
Aseistant Planner Phil].ip Sohwartze reviewed Por the Ylanning Commiseion t~~eir
action taken un May 3U, 1973, recommendj.ng to the City Caunc~l thati plur~s ze-
vised after action by the Planning Comm~.ss~.on whiah had not been reviewed by
tha Fla~nniny C.ommission af.ter tl~eir a:;tion on a k~etition b~a reachedulAd for a
public hearing at the Commfasiuti level.
Mr. Schwartz~ also noted that the Coun~il, at their July 3, I973 meeting, ex-
presaed some cc,ncarn regarding the recommendntion which included the expeneR
involvsd fur addit3onal rehezr~i~'~qa and the delay to the getiti~ne~t that they
furthQr indtcated it was unclear in their undoratai-ding of the extent of chang~
wl~ich would require a new hearingi and that the Council had tabled an,y aation
pending clarification of t;~e Commisoton'r~ recommendatfon. The:'efore, in order
to take ac~ion on the Commission's recommendation, the Counc•11 would need addi-
tional information and clariffcation regarding: a) To wh3t extent did the
Commisaion wish to revlew rsvise3 plai~s~ b) at whose expenae would the hearii-g
be readvertisedJ and c) was 3.t the Commisaion's intent t•o rehear cl~anges which
affected only zoni.ng mattars.
D~scu~aion was held by the Cammission, summar.ized as followa:
a. In the event, the Planning Commission denies a proje:ct and revised plans
are submitt~d between P~anning ~on~mission eonsideratiom m~d public hear-
ing hefore the Counail, which appeared to be bettex than that cansidered
by the Commisston, the plans should be referred back to t'ho Planning
Commission before the Council conaidered them.
b. Where sigr~ifa.cant changes h~3ve taken place in the plansr Nh~ther the
petition was contested or not, these should be aubmitl:ed ta the Commis-
sion to determine whether a new public hearinq should be set.
c. Where only minor changPS occur or where thc~ petitioner hae incorporeted
changes sugqested by the Planning Con~miseion, these need not be referred
back 'to the Commission for c~nsideration.
Zonir,g Super.visor Chaacles Roberts noted that one o~ the reasona this wa3 re-
ferred back to the Commission was becauae tha Mayor had some cancern in which
the Commission's mo~ion, as presented to ttiem, could be interpreted in savezal
y~$ys, and it appeared to the Mayor that any pla-~ submitted be*_ween Planninq
Commisgion and City Council consideration should be raferzed back to tt~e
Commission tor another public heazing.
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CTTY 12LANNING COMMI~BION, July 23r 1973 ~~-a~12
ITEM N0. 8 (Continued)
Commir~ionur ~aymour olfered a motion, seconded by Conimieeion~r Rawland azid
MOTION CA~tRIED, tt-at kha Plenning CommieAion datarminee tor claritication pur-
poas~ o! their recommendation tu the City Council on May 30, 197~o n) thdt
where a signiticant change hee ta-ken plans i~i the plans, ae indir.~tad in a
repozt ta ~he City Co~.natl ry etaf! and which were not originally conoidared
by the Planninq Co~amiarion, that pr.ior to City Council ooneider~tion oP tha
petition~ e~aid petitian ~hould be r~lerred back ta the Pla~nninq Commieaiun !or
dstezminAtion ~f a new public hearing ohould bo eohedulad be~ore khe Commi9aion
or wh~thor tha Commission can maka a sepdratr judqment ahen a petition iiad not
been oppored~ b) the charfles far tt~s rehaaring ohould b~ bozns by th~ petitioner~
c) thAt khe Commiaeion wes onl.y intare-at•ed i~n conal.d~ration of r.ehearings of
chnnqea whioh Af~acted zoninq matteret and d) kh~.t f~Me Plsnnl.ng Cammieaion wae
not concerned wi~h revised plans where on7y mi~or chsnqee had occurred or where
revieione were mmdo at eugyeatione mndo by the Comm:lesion on a-pprovod itame.
Commi.ssi~ner Seymour left the C~uncil Chamber at 6:15 p.m.
T~PEM N0. 9
TENTATIVE MAP UF TRACT N0. 7470, R~VTSIOh N0. 2
(American National Houging Corporation - nevel.oaer) --
Raquest for amo~idment to Condition No. 16 0£ tract
approval.
Zaning Supervisor Charl~~s Roberrs rPVi~swed the lacation of aubject property,
nating that Condi.tior, No. 16 of the approval of Tract No. 747Q required that a
6~foot high, earthen, lnndscaned berm be providec~ to oepnrate the lote backing
onto the Riveraide Freeway, how~vez~, the developer propoaed to eubstitute a
concrote bl~ck wa11 and a 2-foot tiigh k~erm to provide an 8~foot high barrier
between the housea and the fzeewayj L•hat the developer h~d further anbmitted a
letter in support ~f his request from Dr. Hiliiard of Bio-Acou~tica]. Engineer-
tng Cozpora~tion in which it was stated that a 6-foot cement block wall was
equivalent to a 6-£oot hiyh, earthen berm since a wa11 would pravide an attanua-
tion a~~ 6 dBA and for aach foot added it w~uld increase the attonuation by 1 dBAj
and that their projection of the noise level ~or 1980 of 73 dBA would then b~
lowered to 67 dB}e by the attehua~ion of this 6-foot wall and lowered by 1 dBA for
each additional foot of height ~tithin the ber-n.
Mr. Roberts further noted that this herm was adopte3 prior to the preeently-
applied standards whi:ch r~quired both a 6~-foot bezm and a 6-goot masonry wall,
and according to the revised atatistics of Dr. Hilliar8, the 2~foot ber.m and
thE 6-foot wall would provide the maximum saund level at the Property linQ cf
65 dBA as set forth an the Subdlviaion Ozdinance establ~sned ae a rosult of
concerns expressed by the Orange County Health Department regaxdir-g noi~n
problems ad3acent to freeways, and at which time the Commissiori and Co:~ncil
adoptecl the requirement of. a 6-foat hiqh berm and a 5-foot high wall for
reaidentigl pr:~perttes adjacent to the freeway.
.~ir. Robe.rts further noted that two tracts to the east and west of subj~ct
property were requirad to provide the 6-::oot berm and ttie 6-foot wall, however,
tho roquirement the Commiseic~n establiehed for the RS-5Q00 subdivison south of
tYie Atchison, TopekA & Santa Fe Railroad north of ~he ziver had been deleted by
the Council when the enqineer of the devel.o»ment had aubmitted evidence that
there was no way to reduce this noise level adjacant to the rai'lroad track due
to the location of the lots below thd railroad track l~vel, and the wall and
berm wculd be ineffective.
Mr. J. Lynn Buffinqto:~, representing the developer, appeared before the Cammis-
sian and noted that he had ske*ch~s ~f what was required by the ordinar,ce and
akatches of his alternatives for the Cammission's conaideration~ that he felt
the 6-foot berm requi.rement would not. bs ar.~tsfactory ainco ~hers wan so::;e
concern that somE reaidents would not maintair~ the berm, particularly along the
treeway si.de of the berm, cxeating a rather andoairable appearancer that they
weras also provicling acceas Por ~-aintenaiica of the slope they propoeed; and
~ ~
MINUT~B, CITY PJ+~INNIN6 COMNI99SnN, July 19~ 1973 73-A43
ITEM N_ 0. 9 (Cont~,nuad)
thati +tooordinq to tho l~tt~r lrom Dr. Hilliard, th~ sound a~tsnuation wou10 b~
eccoaaplish~d, r~duainq tiho •ound l~val •~ th~ prap~rty lin~ to 65 dHl1 and to
the bedroom~, Mith e+indow~ and dooxs ola~Md, to 45 49~.
Commt~~9,aner Allrmd otP~xsA a mation, ~~oondMd by Coami~eion~r ICinq snd MOTiON
C1~RRISD~ bhnt th• Flanninq Commi~sion adopt and x~oommend ~-Qoprion to the city
Counoii a! an amsnQm~nt ~o Condition No. 16, requiring a 1•~QOt b~ra~ •n!f a
6-~oot d~~orativ~o r~oonry wall along the r~Ar prop~rty lin~r o! s21 lat~ edjs-
~~nt ta tha Riversiae Fx~eNay oa the baeio that kh• pr~po~~d amandmer-t would
sti11 mal~nkai.n tht dBA limitatlon ao~Ablishe~d f~r propsrtie~ ~ajaa~nt to tri.
Riveroida Fxoewsy or +~ny arberial.
ADJOURNMBNT - ThorO b~inq no Purthe+r businaqe t~ diecu.•, Qommi~si~~nas•
A11red ~lfered a met~on, a~,conded by Com~-ls~lonor RoMland
er~d Nf0'~:ION CAARIEA, to afl~ourn the m~otiaq.
The me~~ti.ng adjourned at 6s30 p.m.
~especttully eubmitted,
~i~~ /7~~ "`~/
ANN KRE88~ 8eoretary
Analieim Clty planning C~mmieeion
AK:hm