Minutes-PC 1973/10/150 R C 0 MICROf ILMING SERVIC~, INC.
. . ~, , .. ~ , ~. ,~ ~
,, , ,,,,, ,, , , ,, ,
L~
~
LJ
City Nall
1-nah~im, Calil'urr~ia
Ootober 15, 1973
A R~OULIIR M~BT~'NG OP' THE ANAHSIM CITY ?I.1-~1Nl~N(i COMMY88=ON
R~GULIIR - 1~ re~ular meer.ing af ths 1-nah~~.~n Ci~y Pl~nninq rommia~ion wes
ME~4'I~10 anllad ~o ordax by ~hairme-e~ GAUer e~~ 2~00 p.m., a quorum being
prasent.
pRESE~YT - CHJITRMI-N e Gaues.
- COMMI88ION~RS: Farnno, Hex~bet, King, Rowland (who ~ntered tha
C~~uncil Chacaber ot 2 s03 p.m. ), SAymoux.
l~BS$NT - CUMN-I89IONE~B: Allred.
PRESE~iT - l~asietant Gavelopmen~ Sorviaas Dir.cto~cs Rona1Q ThomZ~ean
Dspu*y City Attorney~ Frank Lowry
Ol~i.cp Engineez~ Jay Tit.ua
Pla~nning Supcrvisore Dnn MaDaniel
Zoning Supervieor: Cha~rl~ea Robexte
Aweociate Planner: Gena+ "Bt.ll" Young
1\seis~nnt Planner~ Phillip SchMartze
A.•ai~tant Planna~i llnniku 9antelashti
CommiA~~on Secretary~ Ann Krebe
PLEDGE UF ~ Com~~iReione~: Kinq .led ~.n the Pladge of All.aqianoe ~.o rhe
!-T,LEGTANCE Flaq,.
APPROVAL UF - Commiasioner Herbat rffered n mution, seaonded by Commisuioner
THE MINUTFS Soymour and MOTI~N CARRIED, to approve the minutee of. th~
meetiny of SeptambAr 17, 1973, as submitked.
CONDITTONAL USE - CONTTNUED FUBLTG I~iEAitING. •'CNURMAta A. Rbl`K AND I~ARRX
PEkMtT :IO. )~na THOMP:~ON, 2950 East La Jolla~ Street, Anaheim, Ca. 97.806,
"`~ ~ Ownars+ requesting l~asmiseion to E5TABL2SH A CQNTI2ACTOR'a
STORAG~ YAItD, WAIV7NG (A) MIN~MUM I~ANA5C71P~D FRONT SE':bACK~
(B) REQUIRED 6-FC)OT :IIGH SGLID S~tASOl7RY WAI~L EKCLOSIL7G .OUT~JOOR 3TORAGE AREJ~, AND
(C) MINTMUM NUEIBER OF PARKiNG SPACES on property dA~cribed a-s: A rectanqularly-
shaped parcel of land consiet?.ng of approximately 4.4 acres h~ving a frontaga o~
r~pproximar~ly 298 feet ~n the south ei.de of La Jolla Street, havinq a maximum
depth ot approxi.mutel,y 640 feet, an~ baing lor.a~ed at the southeaot aoXnez of
La 9clla Street and Red Gum Str.eet. Property presantly classifi~d M-1, LTGH:
xNi5U8'~ RIAL , ZON~ .
Subject _~etition was aontinuPd from ttas meeting oc August 6, 1973, for the
petitioner to be present and from the meetings ~f Septbmber 5 and October l,
1973, at the requ~et of the petitio.:er.
No one appeared in oppas~.tion.
Althouqh the Report to tra Con~mission w'as not read at tho public hdaring, it
i.e r~ferred to and made a part of the min.utea.
~Mr. Max Garrl.ck, attoriiey repreAenting the petitioners- appeared befare the
Cammieaion and stated that the ~roperty under consideza~ion waa pr.apnsed to
be aold to Dunn Propdrtieb ~r a ioint v0ntti~re with a sevinqs a-nd loan aasscia-
t~.on for indu~trial buildiage, therefore, h~3 would requ~sat that subject geti:ian
be continued ~or 60 days until these negoti~tiana h+~d been resolved, and at the
end of that time if the adle h±+~ not besn ooneummated, they would compl.y with
all re~uirementa of the M-1 Zone for subject ~,etition.
THE HL"ARING WAS CLOSED.
Commiesioner Fazaho note?l that su~ject petition was l~led t-~ the r.eeult of a
zoning violation, and the Commiasion would have r.o opposition to con~inuing
aubject petition if the zoning violation aou~.d be sosolved by the end of the
continuance.
73-•611
~ o
/tZ1JU'T'dy, GxTX P1~ANNING CnMMISg~[ON, OctobAZ 15, 107~ 73-612
CONDITIONAL U~R PERMIT N0. 1403 (Continuod)
Cou~mip~~.on~r 9o~~nour suggssted tltat pmrhap• the Commi~eiori cauld tn3~e act.lon
to bri~ng t~h~ proc~ssi.ng o! t1~e E~etition alanq, e-nd inquired h~w lo~iy the
petitionar vroula hav~ Lo mmbt conditians oP e~ppzov~~l i! thm Pl~nning Cammi.swion
took ~avoxxv~~ aot:lon thia dat•e ~ whereupon Depuky Ci.ty J-ttorn.-y !"rank Lowry
a~dvi.~eQ ths Cow~aiooion that th~e use proporimd we-~ aot pcraai'cted by rig~,t i.a the~
M^1 ~one and would r~quize ap~~roval ot a annditiansl uve pezmiC.
C'~nimiseionor So}mour khen ~tuLec~ hie re:~eor~ !or tryinq to take ac*ion would be
to h+s~ten th• tl.ma •leman+t ai~ice ttie attor~~oy indicatad Chmy w~uld rneolve
thelr Frobloma eithe.r by d•~ve:lopn-snt in aceordanae with the M-1 gte~ndards P.or
an i~duetriAl buildinq or moo~tinq Coda requlremente !or th~ ex:leting uee a*_ the
er~d o! ths 6Q dey~, and ky ta~lcing nctic,n, this aould alimi.nat~ lurthex~ cor~eid-
c~ration by th~ P1Anninq ~ommii~eion at e ls•r.er date, sinne i.t a~uld makd i~o
d~~t~r~+nce hov- tt~• prop~rty w+se de~velr,ped ao lonq es i S: Haa wiFhin Code require-
monCe, ard tha on].y quostian before the Commiesion wne ~h~ mezter of the u~e
;~ropoaed~ whioh raquirec! m conditionr~l use permit.
t;ommisA~ionar Farar~o then notecf therca r_ould be a diPferent uee propoeed ir- GO
d4ye ~or tha pro~erty, whic.Yi, aQain, nii.ght; rer{uire r~ waivez lrom Codo oP ~
epecilic uea appxov~d, and the+ pr~cess could stert a11 ~ver again.
Commid~uioner 9aym~ur st~.ted Ctxat the exietinq vlolation would be cantinuacl fur
GO days mnd !.f approved, then the petitioner atill. woald havg 1t~0 daye in which
t~~ complete canditiona, therefore, by taking acti~~n this date, thie wou'ld re-
duce the time eloment to f.our month~ iz-etead of aix moathe.
Mr. Lowry advi~~d the Commieaion that subject petition ehoul~ be~ conttnued to
s date cortain, i.~ not a~.ted u;~on thia da~t~, in or.der that t.ha City could re-
ta~~n ~ur~sdictlon uver tne matcer beaauae o! the axiating zoning vi~l.ation.
41x. Gr,r7cick tbnr~ etated he wou:,'.d prefer coatin~iance of subject petition.
Comml.ssioner Soymour o£fered a mot+~n, eaconde:d by Comraiesioner Ring and MU~TUN
CAR~tIED, to rpopen the heazing and continu~e cuneidexat'on of Petition £or
Gundi,t~onal. Use Permit No. 1403 to the meatin~q of Decembez 10, 1973, r~s re-
queated by the ~ttorn~y foz the patitiona•r, ~o res~2vo eale of the property or
compliaz~ce w~.th Code r~qvir.emen ts ~
CONDxTTONAL U8E - PUBLIC' HEARING. CF.RLSE.U~G FINAI3(:IAL COP.PORATIONr 1801
PERMI~ N0. 1426 Century Park West~ Loa Angele~s, Ca. 90067, Ownerr PHILLIP
! ~. Kr70W'LTON, 1521 Tmporial H.iqhwny, Annheim, Ca~. 92d~~.
Aqert~ requeating nexriiasion to ESTAaLISH A S~MI-ENCLOSED
RESTAURANT WILTH ON-SALE BEER, WA]:VxNG MINIMUM HEIGHT OF A F12EE-STANDING STGN
on prope~rty desGribod as~ A rect•.nngular].y-shaped parael af l.and coneiating
of approximatoly .S ac.r~, having a trontaqe of appzaximetely ~30 fest on khe
east side of Euclid Stxeet, havinq a maximum depth of approximately 175 feet,
an6 being located app•roximately 1.i0 feet Eouth of the, ceretar].3.ne of Catalpa
Drive. Property presentiy clasaii'ied C-1, GENLRAL COMMLRCIAT,, ZONE.
One person a~ppeared in op~A9ltion.
Asa~.stant 1Plannaz Fhillip SchwaxtzE~ r~viewed the locatiion af subjec: property,
uas~ eatabl~,ehed in cl.ose pz~ximity, prQVious zor.inq acti~n on the property,
and the request tc~ ea~pand an exiatinc; vaodnt restauran~ building into a semi-
enclosecl restaurant asrving beerJ th~at the proposed res~aurant would ~ontain
appxoximatbly 3056 aquara feete wi.tY, a 1764-square foot encl~aed dining a.nd
kitchen area nnd u 1292-gquare foot autdaor d~ninq patio~ that thE tot~l seat-
~.ng a~paoity of the pxopoeed xeatauranL• ~rould be 128 seata, wtth 56 Eesta i.n
the enclosed din,~nq area ~nd 72 aea.ta in the outdoor pntia aredi that apgroxi-
mately 610 ~que-~:e feet, or 35i, of tha encl~sed restaurant area wae util~.zod
fox preoarat~oa of food and sexvice counter, Which mec Code requ~zementst that
tk~e pet~tionar ~ropooed to anclose~ th4 outdoor p~tio ar~a with e 4-foot higF~,
brick dnd nrnamental iron plantArJ tlaat ~hc+ ~xfetinq buildinq on the eite war~
conatructed aith a fac~de of xed cedsr shi.nc~les and brown volcanic etone
veneer with orenqa-color~d aluminum rnof shinclest that the petitioner algo
pxoposed to ~.netall d 12~x6-faot, lreo-etnndinq, morument s~.gn at ~he wcst
end of the property ad~a~a~,nti to Suclid Streett tihnt the proPosed moriument siqn
Frou~d contala a 4x10~foot copy e~rea and wou.id be conetruat~d rtith a etucCO end
p].exiqlms exterioz with interio~c illumination~ that the plane eleo indicated
40 9x19-foot opan Qazking spacea with tw~ 26~-foot sn~ranae and exit dzivoways.
~ ~
MINUT~S, C~1'Y PLANNxN~i COMM'(98ION, OCtnbsx 15, ~973 73-fi13
COND1'fiGNAI. U98 PERMIT N0. 1426 (C~ntinuud)
Mr. Sohwartite, in revi~wing tha ovalua4:ion, eote(! the-t th• pstitiiAner propo~sd
to i~~eta-11 a ar.onumpne eiqn r+hiah would roquire vraivor a~ Co4e r~qutzmm~nCo
~3nas th~ min~.mum heiqht o! s lraa~rtandin4 sl.gn woulei b~ ~=a~t irom ~:he
qzaund~ tha-~ cimilar Nai.v~z~s had be~n gxnnt~d ia ~h~ pa~t !or monum~nt ~iqndt
1 th Trs!!io L+'nginaer had not reviawed th.~ propoasl a~ it pertsinwd to
end t iat s
~aosible 41qht prnblamr~.
Mr. philli~ xnow~tqn, +-qont !or the
ennwer quaatiano, netinq that thie
eetaDliahod i and +~rounQ th• City
petitinnex, indicated hi~ preeenoe t~~
would be qimilar tu L•heir othor r~ete~~.~rant~
ot An ah~lm.
Mr. E6ward B~aker, ].~SS Catdlna Drive, nppeared botora the Commi.e~idn, notir,q
thdt h~s Yrop~xt~- w~e to thA east o! sub~eot propoxtY and that he winhe~ to
knoM the helqh~ o! th• propaeat, eiqn a~~d wh~ther or nok it would be a llaehia~~
aign~ whex~upon Mz. Schwar.tze ~Gated it wuuld be a S-loot hiqh nig~ mnd would
not be ;'luahing.
Mr. Heckex wi.thdrew hir~ oppo~iti.an.
TH~ WEA}tING WAS CY,09ED.
Cammiaeioi~ar 8eymour ofPered a mo~ion, seconded by Coma~icsianer Farano and
MOTION CARRiED, that tho Plnr~ning Commisaiun, in aan:ieotion wi~h aa exempti.on
declerntion a~atue reque~t, Pinde and deter.mines thnt ths pr~poeal would hdvo
rio aignlficant environmental impACt ~nd, ~herefore, reoomme~n~l~ to the City
Council the~~ no Envir~nmental impacL• 9tatement is n~aee~ary.
Commi~Aioner S~eymaur ~ffered Roaolution No. PC73~229 nnci m~vod for .it^ pasea9e
and a-~iopt~.on to qXnnt Petition for Conditional Uee P~rmi.t No, 1426, wai~-ing
the re~uired ~ninimum height of a~ Prea-standinq eiqn to permit the monument
el.gn s~.nca aimilar aiqning had been granted in tho pe-st~ and eub jeat to condi-
tions. (See Reeolutlon Aook)
On rol.l call ~he foreq~ir.q _esoluticn wae paseed by th• following votr::
l~xES: CONIMISSIONER3s Fnrrzno, Gauer, Horbst, King, RowlanA, 3eymour.
NGE3: COMMISSIONERS: Nons.
ADSENT: COMMISSIONF.RS s Allrc+d.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUOLIC HEARING. BUNN PROPF.R'rxES CQ1tP., P. 0. Box 1439,
nEIiMTT N0. 1427 Santa AnA, Ca. ~2701r Ownar~ UAVID C. POWELL, A:lrector of
Engi.rleerl.nq Sezvice$, P. O. Box 1439, S~nta Ana„ Ca. 92701,
Aqent~ requeAtiinq permisaion to ESTABT~YBH TWO EI~CLOSED
RESTAURANTS WITH COCKTAIL LOUNGES, AN OF~'ICE BUZLDING AN?~ BANK ~ET~, WAIVYNG
(A) PERMITTED JSES, (B) MINYMUM LOT S72E, (C) MAXIM~~M FERMZTTEA HF.I~3HT OF l'iLOCK
FTALL It~ SRTBACK AREA, (i:) '~ERhIITTED 5IGN LOCATION, iL~) MAXIMUM SZGN AP.EA, AND
;F) MINIbtUM UTSTANCE HETWEEN SIGNS on prapeLty describe@ ~s : An irreg~2la-rly-
ahapecl parcel of land cona:;:ting of approximately 7! acses, havinq frontagea
of approxi~ataly 684 feeL on tha norttx sido of Katella Av~nue 3nd 590 feet on
the weat aidc at State Col2ege Boulevard, h!~vinq a~axiNtum depth of appraxf~
mdtely 590 feet ~nd being locatad at the northe'~st cornar of Kntella Avenue and
5tate College Eoulevard. Property presently cl. se~f.ied M-1, ILIGHT INDUSTRIAL,
ZONE.
Deput,y City Attorney Frnnk Lowr,y noted that CommisRioner King indi.cated there
coulcl be a possible conPl~ct af ir.terest becnuse of hi~ connectian wikh tl~e
awnera of the p.roperty and wanted the minutea to refl~ct that ho was withdrawinq
~xom d~.ecusaion an~ votinc~ 4n sub~ect peti•tiar,.
Commieaioner King lelt the Caur.ciZ Ghamber at 2:15 p.m.
Chairma-a Gauar noted that tihe Envircn~ental Impact Ftoport Reviow Commit:.ee had
xecnmm~~nded that Che •xem~~i~ ~`.atuv request not br~ grtented and the petltionor
be required to aubmit +~n ~IF
Aegfetant Fla~n'+er phillip Schwart~e no~.ed Por tha C~mmissi.on that ths p~titioner
had not aubmitted an EIR with aubject petition but had rsquestad that exempticn
~rom liling one ba apprnved, and it would ~e up *o the Planninq Ccm~aia4lon to
deter~ine ahethur th~y wish~d to consider subject petition ~ri~houti benstit of
ihe SzR or racommond that one ba submi~ted prior tn Gity Council~ .~on~~.eerar+.on
af sub~sct patition.
~ ~ ~
MINUTL9, CITY PLANNING COMMISATON, OcCober `.!i, 1973 73-614
CONDITiONAL US& PLRMIT NO. 1427 (Continued)
Comml~sdior~e r RoNland we~s uf ~h~ opi~-~.on khat undoz the ~IR raquiraments , th•
Commieeion hec! no choiaa bur ~a reauir~ wn B~'IR ka be pr~p+axed belora oubiact
psti.tion ca~ild be oonsiderod by thA plan~ning Commiesiun.
No ane app~ aretl in epposition.
Although tY~e Itehort to the commis~ion wan not Y~Rd at th• public heenriz~q, it
ie ref.Arred ro enQ mads a pnrt ot the m~nutse.
Mr. D~vid Poaell, syent !or the ~mtit~onsr, a~ppeAr~d be~ora ~he Cammis~ion and
etated thst the repark they hsd oubmitt~d oontained appzoxime~ely 75 paqee and
was quite axtenn~ve in evt~luatinq snd ao~e~s~.ng the ~rojnct, and that baaauoe
of thie , it aee le7.t wniver oP the requ.lrom~nt oP li.linq of an EiR wouid b• in
order. In nddiCion, upon ~alking Nikh Mr. KelioX, the reproaentativm lrom L•ha
~~evelopment Serviaee pepartment to tha EIR Fteview Committne, he hAd ndvi~od him
that bacauee oP the cumplo~•ity a:id size o1 tho projaat, they ahould ccmply with
the EIR Act by submittinq nn EIit, but ha did n~t deny ~he Eecta oet larth in
the aaeeasment proaented by them~ that he ~rc~ulci concur ~hat they would prepare
an EIR, but it wot~ld not; be completed until two to thxae weelcs Pzom now, t~nd tlie
at~me compa-ny whl.oh had provi.ded ~ha ASYQY9AI~snt would be drt~fting the E IRt and
that Mr. Kelley aleo underetood that requiri.nq an EIR could hmve bedn a contli-
tion of approvml oE the cond~tic+nxl usn permit rdther tt~an continuanc~s o£ the
petition Ln~il the report waa £ilefl and analymed.
Ghairman Gauer observed it was hi.a undnrstancllnq thnt revisefl pldns were pro-
paeed to be eubmltted~ whAreupon Mi. Powe11 etatod thera wou].d be only minox
chanyes to the exteziox pf the office bui.lding.
Chaj.rman Gnuor etated it would a~p~ar that +~ high-riee affiae building was pro-
pneed, whioh could areate ts shoztage of parkin~g spaces.
Mr. Don Clzriateeon, 2100 Edst rourth Street, Santa Ana, appeared befo re the
Commission and stal:ed he would be the developer of fihe office building, and the
only cha:~g~a they praposed woul~ be in the center of the project.t that the
or.igi.nal squarQ fookuge~ wae aa,000 aquara feet, with a net rentable areu o~
32,00~ sqvare ~eet, and now they ,propoaed ~5,000 equare foet but the net rent-
able a-rea wou3.i1 remain the same~ that tk-e ro~f of. the building wns changad
o7.ightly, and i.nnsm~ch as they wer~ i.~ excesa o: p8zkinq in the reetaurant
~zeaa, it wae ~elt this could be ~xsed £or their off.ice building.
Mr. Schwartxe ~ioted tha-t if the square f4ctage was not appzeciably modified
nnd it would nut affect th~ psrkiiig, there would be no pzoblem, but the ~lana
preaently bein~ considesred by the Commissian still indicatsd a d~sficiency of
3 epeces , and by ahanging the pxoperty lines the develapment. could be placed
in confcrmdnce with Code .
Commfssioner Rowlanci observed thaL• the developer had indicated they were in
excese of zequired parkinqt whereupon Mz. Sehwartz~ $tatecl th+~t if batY, the
restaurants end o£fice buildinq aquare footage we=e combi,ned, there would be
nn excess, but if each reetaurant became a separete pr~~erty u~der separate
ownership, then the ofti~:A buildinq wou13 be d~ficienKp OBAgw~onshare the
poir~ted out to the davoloper, he had indic~.ted they p p
reataurant pax~lcing azAa since many people neing tha roexaur+~nt weuid be cominq
f:.vm the of~ia~e building.
Commi.asioner Herbst ~hen inquirec~ what woulci happen if the of~ice bui].ding
were eold otf npart lrom the restaurante - wouldn't thie creat~ a parking
de ficien cy?
Mr. Ghriateson atated thnt tt~my ~ropoAed t~ have a perpetual eaeament in the
event of a eale of propezty heceuee it would mean crossing over ta the other
aide of the p~operty for parkiag purpo~wos.
Mr. Lowry noted that if ~nere wae a sepaxation of ownership of the ree~taurant
and office ~uilding, it would mear- the petiL•i.oner would have to come baak to
the Planninq Commisaion !oz addi.~:ionAi soning action, particu3.arly~ gor e lot
aplit as well +ae pazki.ng probl~mc~, aad th~en, at that ti~ae, it would be neces-
~ary to prdsent tha parpetudl ae-r:ement aqreement accaptabl~ to the Citiy o=
Anahe~.m and f.c~r recordation.
~ ~ ~
M~NUTE5, CITY FLANNING COMMISffION, Ootoh~r 1S~ 1973 73-61~
CONDxTiOtil~I~ UB~~I~BRMiT___N_0. 14~7 (Coatinued)
Commi~~ion~x !'er~no inquired whsth~r tih• perp~bua7. e~samoat coul~ b• w condi-
~3~on o! agpravsl o~ th• aondl.tlon~l u~s p~rmity Mher~upon Mr. Lowry stst~d that
it aould bN and ~hsr ~taxP ha~~l ~-~d~ ~ti ~- aunQitian o! epprovnl, but th~re e~ill
war • problem lao~nq tho C~mmie~ian in that th~ Commi~tion could not tak• ~atian
on th• aonditional u~~ p~rmit unCil a dsoidian v-~s mad• a• to wheth~r an IEIR
Kas r~quira4 oz ah~tha~c dn exemJ~ti.on staEu~ r~qu~~t should be qr~nted - nev~z-
t11~1s~M~ th~ act~on on the cona~.Cion~l use p~rmit by the Commi4~ion w~a linal,
#nd any lin+~l soCion regerding th~ EIR would ba taken bX th• City Counal.l.
Commiseion~x Fe-ra~no r~quo~t~d Lh~+~ eta~!! explain Nhy it wa~ rocommended ~hat
ths aiR bs rsquired~ whermupon Mz. L'awry at~t~d that h~, s~ a m~mb~r a~ the
~TR R~v~eN Commit.tee, could stat• that the Committee !~].t thet beoarsr oP the
siz• o! kha prajsct and th~e naturs of th• u~a• propo~ad, togo~ther with ~he
~C~ct that fivo af the qu~e~ions on ths qu~~~»i.onnaire had bean an~wer.•ed alf~rm-
at~,vely and +~n ~IR had bae:~ zAquirad bato~ca wh~n only nne or two quew`.1one ha~'~
bwan ans~-•r~d etfi.rmativaly, thst ~he reoommsndation waa mr~de. Fuxtharmore,
th~ question oP impaat on the ~11V~YOtIiRAri~t had not be~r~ ~ov<~rerd in the epmoial
=upuxt prepazdd e~na4 it wae felt thie davalopment would be e- ~ignilica-nt im-
p~-ct, where~sR the petitioner did not eubmit any~hing ~:or ~oriaidcratic-~ in thi.a
reque~s t.
Continued di.ec~ise~.on wae held botween the G~mmisei.on and Mr.. Lowr.v and the
petl.tioner.'s r.apr~eentative zegardiny ~~te submi~eai.on of An ~tR.
Cont~.nued diecusel~on wea held between ths Commisaion and staf't, 3„~nm~rised ae
fo],lawe ~ 1) the petitioner anewered "yoe" on Yivv oP the ~nin,AL~en queation~-
in Che exempt~on requeat, and it~ appaarad th~ae questione weY~a queati.onA of
dfecrE ton and could have been angwer~~i eithar "yea" or "no" t ux~d 2) that thA
quost~.onc+ in the axe~nntion request wr,re basad on r~quir.aments~ b~- tha .Stake,
at~d the queati~~~ regnrding whethsr a dz~,ve-in rostaurant wou] d cz•eats e traPfic
~xoblom coula have stemmed from a~ueatior~ b~y the Traffic En~~in~ex snd may have
been the rer~son for the, "feq" answer.
Mr. Powell atated ~hnt he fel~ the answer.• givea were ~ruthf~xl anAwexs aince
ha did not ~*ant to anewer queationa whioh :night ar.eate thcs vE+ry eituation
presentl~~ facing themi tha"_ he~ had anewered mc~et c+:E tho quesi:ions with the h~lp
of a conaultwnt, but a.12. queati,~ne were anewer~cl truthfully t-nd loqicr~l~y as to
traffic increaso or poRS~b].e congeation eince tha property wue presently vncant,
and it wea logical to asaume the traffic wauld incredsn when the propezty wss
develaped.
Commiaeioner Rowlend etated that even though one m3. - oonsider the queationa
anew~rad aa ~udyment queations, the fact that they were ax~sw~ered "yes" or ":-o"
did n,ot alter the fact thnt they ~ere r.evi~wed at ataff levol, but ataff wae
not empowerad by law ox Council decr~e to agr~ee ~r dieagree raith the statemente.
Comm:iaeionar Ferano observed tk-at wi~h the lenqthy r.eport aubmitted and the une
prn~oaed For the propeXty, this would aqsin bring up tk~e questian the Commiasion
~reeente~ aom~ t,ime ~-go reqarding EIR's ae to whnk w~-s the c.ri~aria for aekiny
~chaso c~ueetions .
THF HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commisaioner RoNland, in responae to Commieai4ner Faz~sx-o's atatementsr noted
~hat Commi.seionar Fa~rano was p. ~babi,y arguing the wh~Ye idea of the EIR's uae-
~ulnaas as ix perta-in@d to these repcrte in Anaheim, and the Planninq Commiss3on
dgraed thet they did n~t so'tvfl mny usefut functiun except that the ~pplication
o~ the p7coeedure dincY~arq~1 ~thu City's reaponeibilitiea in t•he 5tate law.
Commiasloner Seymour conauzred with Commisaioner Farano in t.ryinq to cut cnrouqh
the "red ~ape" by the yardatic?- which tha Commianion ueed pzeviously, and thio
was clearly poin~ad out within the raquiremente af ths EIR~ but ~be Commisaior.
had r-ever h~ard an item before withac:. a-n EIR or racommendation that exemgtion
status be gzanted.
~ ~ •
M~NUT~S, C.iTY PL7INNINd COMMI88rON, October 15, 1973 73-~1~
CONyITIONAL US~ I'L+RMIT N0. 14_Z7 ~4untlnuad)
Commie4lon~r RoMland olP~red a motiAn to roquira t~h~L• an F7~t Dd lil~ed ~inoo tha
Pl~nnl.ng Comanissi.on aid not heve the riqht tc~ o~neidar ~ potitian Mithout
•~thez an LITt or an ex~mption etatua being rsaammanded, a-nd uinos ~h~ dTFI
It~visvr Committee etr~ngly uzqed that cn EiR be xequired, *.hi~ ~rds th~ bari.s !or
hia aotian.
The ~oxeqaing moL•ion luiled for want o! A ObCOf1CI.
Mx. Lowzy adv~,aed the Cnrnmisxi.on thnt they could request. tht~t the City ~ouncil
roquire en EIR f t thoir reaommendatiun were Chnh the requeet for examption
Atatus be de~xied.
Commiaelonez Horbet was o! the opinion that the LIR would aet.nblieh a critei~ia
tha~ the ~+ropoaed uee oould be ee~abliehing spt~t ~oning by tha petiGion bstore
tlle Commiseion, projoating thia na aommsroia~l ~~ee, wharedp tha area }~~d benn
daelqnated !or y~ara ee induetrial, and ae a commc~xcial u~e, ~t would huv~, a
delinite effect un the balance oF the are~a, therelore, ha woulc auygcat that
the petitioner dddreoe any of hia remarke in the EI ~ aa to hoa •che+ rr~~ ~y~d uae
would dffect the developmar,t of the b~la;-oo oF the inc3uetrial. area eurraundi.ng
aubject ~ruperc~. Fuzthermore, ha wau.ld lfke Y.a know what. was pro{~c~eed for the
balance of the property since the petitionor ha~d etate d in hi~s report tY~ut ~he
~zoposod uee w4ul~ have an effect on ~he balanoe of th e~rog~erty.
Mr. Powell stated thet he planne~ to explain thi~ ta tha Commitsaion et ~his
hearing, and it was their purpose to drvelop tho ba].ance oE the p~:operty but
thi~ 3ic1 no~ relute to the matter at hancl, however, they px'apoaed ta r~evelop
the ent.ire 14 acres- and k;iis would :.~~~ done dt one t.ima.
oner Ra~rlan~, was of tho
s~i
Commi opiniun that the Con~miesion was waeting every••
.
.
on9'e time on an itom ov8r which the Commissipn had no control becauae+ the
Commta~ion did not r.ppeax to wan t ta waive the requi~-p:nent for ~r~ EtR, and the
CommiHSion~ of cour.se, could not consider subject pAt it!.on until either an EIR
was f~led or an examptl.on status w~a granted.
Comr~,issioner 5oymour was of the opinion that *.he 14-r~cr.e parr.~,l dlcl not n~ualify
fe,s a.n Axemption from filinc, af an EIR.
Commiasioner S~ymour offered a motion to continue con s•Ldora*_ion af Pdt~.tion fer
ConaitionAl Use Permit No. 1427 to the meeti.ng of Octaaez 2g, 1973, for the
submisaion a£ an EIR.
oner RoNland noted L•hat
Commiga~ if waiver of the cequiremer~t uf an EIR were
.
gxunted, thie coul~i open up ths City wide for a clas~ a~tian R:.c? ~~er+-_ny no-
one's best inCerest.
Planning Aide Robert Kelley advised the Commiagion thnt• Yhe~ nnxt ~'tF~ ~eaiow
Committee would be October 30, and the EzR would hav~:~ tc ~~ ~ubm~.tt~~'. t~ ~ ~ater
than the fi7cst pert of Che wo~k of ~ct.ober 22 f~r s~a Ff to eva7 aate i~~. 3n3
present the evaluation to the Review C~~mmittee.
Mr. Powell noted that he 9~.a ::~t fe~l tt.sy could dra£t s comprehenaive ancl
complgte repori ~.: i~.-. ~ ti ma sta,tad in th~ motion.
Commiasioner Seymour noted tt-n r~crhaps staf£ could coogert,te becau~P ~~ this
Viab~.e prajoct ~ e1t ~~.xa* b1.uR`~ ~t was a Very favorable pzo;yect, anil mayb• the
C~.ty could cooQe~ca~ae b.~ hcwlping p~ivate entezpriae.
Mz. Keiley stated that if the EIR were nat submittec* in timt~ to evalua~:e it
and submi~ it to the EIR Review Committee, ataff cou2d still evaluata it atter
the iteview Committee met and present staf~'s findinqs, raqufl~tinq that the EIR
~teview Comm3ttee Aubmit thoir review and cammenta ir~ time ta psesent tY:em to
the Planning Com~ission.
Commissioner S~ymour then amer-ded hie motion to cantlnue subje .c n~titicn to
the meatinq of tiovember 12, 1973, for submiseion of an EIR. Commiesioner
Rowland seconded the motion. MOTiON CARRZED.
Commiesioner Kinq returned to the Cou-.cil Chaaber at 2:4fi p.m.
~ •
MINU'~EB, C:[TY PLANNTNG COMMTB~iON, Oatober 15, 19~73 73-617
VARIANCk N0. 2S5S ~ PUDLIt: H~A~YtING, DGNALD T. ANp CERALDINE M. WOOD9, 316
~~ Bayport Cirnle, Apartment A~ Anehsim, Ca. 97.901, OWn~rs~
RTGHARD t~. FING111L, 1510 Herle Pla~c~, Anshal.~, Cs. 928~Z+
Agent~ regua~tiny WAIVER OF lA) REAR YAFD SLTHl1CK ANA (B) SIAF: YARD 9~T971CK
TO CONSTRUCT A 9ING1,E-FAMILY RESID~NCE on prop~rty daoaribed a~ s An irregul.ar-
ly-~haped parael o! land conaipting o! •p~roximatsly .28 Acrw, hayiap s lront-
e~s o~ appc~~cimaLely 5b to4t on t,he south eid• o! Jama~~ Way et Jnmes plnaa ~+nd
hm~-ing a maxlmum depth ~P approximatsly 150 femt. Propezky prewontly olas~i~
lied R-0, ONF.-FAMILY 4UBURD~N 20NE.
N~ one appe~ar.ac9 in ~ppooi~inn.
~lthough the Re~ort ~o tha Cammisoion wsr~ not raad at the pul~].~c hearing, it
ir r.mf~rred to and made a~ part o! the minutee.
Mr. Pa-ul Waterman, repreeenting tho applicant nnd a~gent, appAaraA beters the
CnmmiAei~n Ae designa+r a~nd etetad the pro3ect wae n soutine requo~t !or a aul-
de-eac type conCitiont however, in hie opinion it wae a mette,r oi interpreta-
tton o! +aicle yard a~8 rear ydxd satback requi.rdmentn ae ~aet tox•t:h in tha
Aneheim Municipel Ccde.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commioeioner Rinq off.ezed n mo tion, ser.~nded by Commiaeion~r Roaldnfl, thAt
the F1nnr-inq Commiseion, in connection with an exomption declnration etstue
re~uest, ~inds and determinew tl~dt the proposAl would hsva n0 eigni~ica~nt
onvi.ronmental impact and, therelors~ recammonda L•o thd City Council thaC no
Environmental Impeat Rtntement i.A nece~sary.
Commi.seionex King 4Eferad Raooluti~n No. PC73-2J0 end movsd for its gaeaeqe
and ado~+tton to grant Petitic-i~ for Variance No. 2555, aubject ta conditions.
(See Resolution Boak)
On roll call tho foregoinq resolutian has ~assed by the followinq vot~:
AYES~ CdMMISSTONERSI FaXeno, Gauer, Herbet, Kinq, Rowland, Seymeur.
NOES: CbMt~ISSIONERSe Nane.
AHSENTt COMMI~SIONk;RS: Allre d.
VARIANCE NO. 2556 - PUBLIC HEA RING. GEI~E WISEMAN, 2218 Clifpark Way, Anaheim,
Ca, 92806, Ownerr D. W. MC FERRAN COMPANY, INC., 7590
rarden Grove ~ouleva.rd, Westminster, Ca. 92683, Agantt
Lequeating W1~IVER OF MINIMUM SIDE YARD 3ET$ACK 7'0 CONSTRUC'1' AN EPICLOSED °ATid
ADDI7'ION on propor.ty dezcri!~ad as: A roctangularly-shaped parcet of land
havinq a frontage of approximai.4l.y 50 feet on th~ sauth e~.de of Clifpar.k Wt-g,
having a maximum dapth of approximately ln8 feet an~l beinq lc+cated t-pproxf-
mataly 1300 £oet axst of 4:he center].3nr af State Colleqa Soulevard. Propertlr
present3y classified RS-S000~ One-Family~ Zone.
No one appeared in oppoai.t'on.
Although i;he Report to the~ Commission wa~+ not read a!: ~Yte public hearing, it
ia ref.e rred to and made a aart o£ the minutes.
Mr. Torry Danalos appeared b~fore the Commissiun repr~aentinq the agent for the
petitiongr a~d lndicated hie prasence to anawc~x' questions.
THE H~ARING WAS CLOSBll.
Commias~oner Seymour offt~rad a mo tion, secondea by Commiae~.oner Faxar.o and
i~lOTION CARRTED, thmt the Planning Commission, in conlaeation wlth a~n exem~tinn
dealaxation statua rec~unst, finds antt determ!nea that the propaeal would have
no aignifi.cant envir~nmental impact and, the:.fore, reconmende to the City
C;ounc'1 that no Environmental Imp aet Stntement ie neaessary.
Comm~.ssioner ~eymour otfered Reaolution No. PC73-231 ai~d moveS Par its paasa-ge
ang adoption :a grant PAtition far Vnriance No. 2556, eubjoct to conditinne,
~n tihe b+~sie that the waiver requestad was minimal i.n nnture e~nd wauld itave n~
adverae efPect on the n9joining properties. (See Reaolution B~ok)
On zoll call the foregoing rssolution was ~aseed by the .follawi.ny vote,o
AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Farano, Gaudr, Herbst, Kf.:iq, Rowland, 8eymour.
NOE5s COMMTSSIONER~s None.
ABSENTe COMMISSIONERSe Allred.
~ ~
MiNUTL9~ CImY PLANNING COMMtRStAN, October 15, 19'73 73•618
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - PUBLIC HEARING. KENNETH T. AND I:MILY H. CONNFR, 5031
R~PORT NO. 103 ~~, C.rasc~nt Drivs, P.nah~im, Cn. 9280E, Opner~t 1-N1~GA~
~ ENOINlESRxN(~, Z22 Es~t Lincoln Avenua, Anaheim, Ca.
V11RIl1NC8 NO. 3557 9Z605, Aqont~ r~qu~~ting P1AIV~R OF NAXIMUM DISTANCE ~P'
~-"-'-~ A DWELLINC3 FROM A DL~DICIITL*D STREET TO ~STA9LI9H ~I:CiHT
TENTJ-~iVE MAP OF R-E conad lots on pxoFert,y deAOrl.b~d as ~ An irr~qalszly-
TRAC~ N0. 8470 ~hap~d psrctl o! land conaistiny o! approximat~ly 9.6
^ acrsw, hs.ving a lroat~~e o! approximat~ly 824 foet an
tho north siQs of ~rescent Drive, having A maximum doQth
o! a-pproximately 781 leot, end loaate~c! appxoximately 120 fect sa~t o~ th~
cent~rlin~o of Paraltn Hills Drive. Property qreaea~tly c1sN~l.lied R-E,
RL~SID~NTIAL ESTATE, ZONE.
No onM appearecl in apposition.
Thn Commisai~n Secretary read a lettar at' oppoaition lrom a property own~er
residing on Creecent Drive.
Although the Report to tha Commisaion was n~t read at the public }aarinq, it
14 referred to and made a part of tY-e mif~utes.
Mr. CA1 ~?ueyrel, repreeentinq the developar an3 er~gineer oP the project,
appeared bofore the Ccmmiaeion in3 notod thdt the addendum roferred to in the
R~port to the Commission wae not grepered becauso lt wae a complex quaetion
based on City ~+olicy since it was fe~lt the estahliahmant o~ that policy wae
for Rubdivisians of lar~~: acreages wh~ch had a sube~antial run-off to dowr.•-
atream prape~rtie~, a~id in thie partiau~t+r ins~.ance it w~a bomewha~ different
DACOt19B the front two-thirda of the pr.operty, which the Commisa~on muet hnve
v~ewed, was plan~ed witl~ citrus cropa which had veri £ew weeds or growth except
Por the treea~ k~hat during the rairay eea~on there was a. high degrea of run-o£f
from the property, s~nd the development of this poztl.on of the pxoperty would
create same run-o£f but little i,ore tha~n preeenkly exis~ted~ that Condition
130. 5 of the xecommended tantative tract conditions required downstre~m drain-
ag.a be in bc+fore the rains, which he feJl~ wda unreasonable if onQ looked at
othsr single-~amily resi~ential dc~velo}?u.ent in thzs area - that, toc, ehould
ba reiacted 3.f dxainage was a criteriai thaC .i.f sub3ect ~roperty hud been
covere~~ wi.th heavy weeds And growth which abs.r.bed the run-off, this would be
\, ~ dlftaxent aituatlon, but the run-off ~ould be :+o greatei degx'ee witli eiqht
homeo conatructed than when aovered witb qrowth~ th~t the lots proposed woulcl
b~ re~idAntial estato acrenge ra~her Chan hillside de~,,l~pment, eetabliahinq
pad :reas wit•h lawn an~ driveway, trees, etc.r ~hat the s:'cuation in Khis
particu'_er tract wae entirely dif¢erent than a regular aubd:l~i.sion sf~lce no
atraets oz widewalks were propoaedt ar_d Chat a stor.m c~rain pro~,:+sed f~~r this
axea would nc~ come contiquous to che eite eince it would be going dawn Peralta
Hills Driva abouc t00 fe~t from the westerly propQrty 11ne and faxther east
o~ the east propercy i.inot thozafor.e, the drainaqe required under ~aid condi.-
tton wauld not be necessary to accommodate drainage from aubJact property but
oarhapa fxom propertie~ to ~.•?e south.
Cummigsioner Rowland expressed the :cinion that or.e cf the problema facing the
Cammission was the fact ~hat the EIR qG^stian had not beea resolved, and this
could ba conaidered identicat to i:tie previ~us item }~G_fo.re th~ Commissiono and
there was no way the C~n-misainn could handlQ this until this addendum had been
reR~lved unlese, o£ course, the Cummiaaion could pc~eibly recom+menc~ 4:hat the
City Cauncil not adupt ehe EIR unti.l tha addendum was +~~~b~ittod.
Deputy CiCy Attorn~y Frank Low:~ nQted that un3er subjec:t peti~lon ax- ~IR had
~,; ~ b~on aubmi.tted, ~herefore, it was an enti.rely differen~ situa+:ion in thic
,.,4, instance, and it might be thnt the intercepartmental Comm3ttee felt ths repozt
may have bec~n partially deficient according to the City Counc?.1 policy, +~n~
only the City Council had the power to chaage lc. however, since an ~IR had
boer, uubmitted• e ~ommiseion cauld ac:t on tha EIR to point out itis ?efi-
cienr.ida ar r~ _r::aend to the Cfty Council that the EIR not be adopte~l, but
action etill could ba taken an the varienco before the Commission.
Chmirman Gaumr inquire~ as to the •~nber of deficienclsa which ever~-one was
reterring tot whereupon Aesi.atant Ptanner Phill~.p Schwaz•c.ze aotcd that the
drninaqs policy adopted by the City ~^ouncil, Nu. 207, was ~ha xeae~on ~or
stisting tihat the EIR wea deticient.
~ ~
MINUTE9, CITY PLANNiNa COMMI88xON, 4otob~r l~, 1973 ~~"~'~~
~NVIRQN!!ZN'~'71L IMP)1CT REPORT N0. 103~ V~RIIINCE N0. 2SS7• ~1ND TE~T7ITI'VE N11P O~'
~,Rl-CT N0. 8~70 (Contiinu~d_~ •
Commi~~ion~r Rc+wiand i.nquireQ whekh~z ~h~ Comaaission wae dopriv~d fron- takir~q
aotian b~oau~• th~y cnul4 not ~vai.v a Ci.ty Counail polioy t Whar~apon Mr. Y,or-xy
Mk~k~d thak thi~e cou1Q b• aa~il~d to th• City Counoil'e atter-tian ~n canaidtu~~
t~GA I~x t:~1Y EIR.
Mx. BohMarts• dtated that one a! the oonditian• ~! apprav~]. ww• rmquirinq Ai.~-
pos~l o! drains~q• be ~ub)e~t to approval by th~ City ffinqin~~r if the Crmm~.~~~on
con~iderad sub~ect pAkitiaii luvora2~ly, and bh~n i.t would be up to the Q~~v~lopdr
to roqu~at thi~ waiver lrom the Ciky Counoil.
THS HEARING W7~8 C~OSSD.
Comm,to,:i.o:.:: ~.y~+~ur oi~are~i! • motioa, o~oond~d Dy Commi.oaioner Herb~t ~nd
MOTiON GARRYEO, ~hat th~ Planninq Commis~ion, ia aonn~otion with the !ill.~nq o~l
Snvironm~ntal Ioapsat Raport ~io. 103, lind~ and dsterminee that th• EIR Revi.~~M
rommi.ttee detor~n~n~d that thw r~port aso adoquaCe aa an inl~asme~tiv+ 4oaum9nt
and foliowa tha City's esta~bli4had guidsllnos sxoe~t that thsr~e miqht bu a
drr~inagN problem and ~he revort had not ad~quately d~.sc~u~eed this prablam~ n~~r
were any propaaed mitiqating meaaure~ pras~r~ta~ the~ aould be tukeii to reaol.~+u
thie ~roblom, ~her~sfur~, a kuppio~nent ~hculd b~ providad the Ci.ty r,our-ai7. thnC
i.s saaeptabl~ befoxe thu City Counuil adopt~d the r0port snd ~uppl~m~en~ +~• i~.~s
~nyironmental I~pact Stntemen~.
Mz. SchWart~a, i.n resPonee to Commisaion qu~ustioniag, notecl that tlze sup~lemv~nt
to the EIR ~e reaommenaed be aubmitted waa rslative to the drairiage ei~:uati.an
af tt~e p~ogerty, the applicant waa informed ~kiat thera Wou13 be n proai: c1~+a1
of work if the tract wrs agnxovod to tal~a care~ of ~snd the drai.nag~ iY ~ch~ G:iL•y
holde to the palloy re~uiring drainaqe to go tio ultimate diapoeal waa~ the l~.e~n
the~k wne discussad in the ~IR Rev:lew Committoe.
Commiseioner Farano o£fored Reaolutiun No. PC73-232 and moved f~z it.s pnsa,egra
and a~aption to qrant Petition for Varianae No. 2557, subjoct to con~i.ti~~-r-w.
(See Reaolutia:i Book)
On roll call the f.aregoinq resolut~on was passed by ttie followin~7 vat:~:
AY'ES: COMMTSSIONFKS: Farano, Geues, Herbst, Kinq~ Rowland, ~c2y-nour.
Nd~Bi CbMMTaSIONERSs Hone.
A8~$ENT: COMMiSSIONERS: A.llzed.
Commiss~on»r Farano offered a motion~ aeconded by Commie~ioner F~e:r.toet a,n~1
MOTI0IN CARIQTED, ta approve 2~entative Map • of Tract t~o. 8470, oixb;j~ck tn r.hE~
followinq conditions:
(1) '.'h~t the approval of Tenta~ivo Map of Tr.act No. 8470 i.s c~zFSn~~el
Sublec:t to the approval of Varisnco No. 2557.
(;:) That all lote wftihin this tra~t shall he aervecz :~y ~.~ndergxauncl.
u*ili.ties .
(3) That a final tract map of subject property ahaLl be r~v~,;,+.Ltec~ to
and approved i~y ths City c:ou»ai]. un3 ~hsn be rNCC~:r.~]ed in ".he
oEPice a~ ~he c~range County R~cozder.
(4) Tha: a perpe~udl earsemen~ agreame,nt foz a otr#.~~ c~ Ianc_ tiJ t~at
wide far acceea sa raquired for acaeas to ~acla 3.ot rxhall be
aubmitted to and appravarl by the City Rttorn~y'r3 Office s~nd tinen
be Piled an;i recorde3 i.n the office of tlie ~z'~.n~q~ Co~~nty+ F~oaorder.
~ ~ w
MTNU'~~Q, CTTY PLANN~N(i COMMIB~ION, Oct~b~r 15, 7.A73 ?3~620
ENVIItOt~iMH~1TAL IMP~,CT R~PURT ~IO. 103~ YAkI11NG& Dtp, .~557, AND Tl*Nx11TIV~ MAP 0~'
TR11CT iNO. 8Q70 _~Conti»ued,~ ,~ .____.._...... -
(5) Thst llzsinaqN o~ smid prop~rt.y ~hall bs ~ioposad aP in s me-nn~r
~utl~t~ator,y ko Ch• City 8nqi.n~ax. It, in the pxepars~:~on o!
the a~te, •uPPtcienti yradinq is xaqu:red to neo~oo~tata a qxs~tn4
pezmit, no work on graQinA N~11 b~ parn~it~s6 bstween Oa~ob~r ~5th
•nd 1-pril 15th unlewa +~1~ r~quirafl o!!-~ike draine~q• faoii~.ti~~
h~va bean i~irtallod •nd are o~~sativa. pa~itivt Aa~ura~nas shall,
be pxov~.dcd kl~s Ci.ty that •uoh drainaq~ LsailitS~a will be oom-
pl~t~d priur to Octob~r 15th. NMn~~~ary righ~-of-pay ror o!E-site
dx~ineq• lacilitios ehal], tse d~dla~e~A to the City~ or th~ City
CouncAl +~3~e11 hrve in~.eiated aondemnation prouasd,inqa ther~tar
(khs aoats o! whioh ehRll b~ borne by thA d~velaper) pri~r tn
co~amuna~mant o~ greding opAxation~. Tha r~quired drai,nage faoili-
tie~ shall b~ ot e~i$e and type suPtici~at to c+arry runa.t~ W~tex~
originati.nq from highcr proper~ies throuqh said prnperty t•.o ~31ti-
mat• dis~oaa3. aa approved by the Ci.ty Engin~~r. 5nid drai~age
,f+~oiJ.l.tisn st~all be the fira~ itam o! aon~t.ruotion and ehall b~
comp~atad and be ~uncti.or~a~l through~ut tha ~raat and lrom thu
downot•renm boundary o: th~ propertX to the ultima~:e point of di~-
~oRal. pricr to ~he i.eauance o~ dny linal building ines~,ectiono ~r
occupnncy wermit.s. Drainagd dintrict rei.mburamme»:: r-greements msy
be mad~ avail~ble t~ the developarg o! eaid propAy~t.y upoii their
X~equetoC .
(6) Th+at grading, excavat.ton, and atl other conetructian aativitiea
she-17, be conetuaiced in auah a manner ~o ae to minimi.xe the p~oe~-
A~,11ty oP any silt a.riginntinq ~ram thi.r prajeat baing aarried.
~nta the Santr~ Ana River by storm water originatinq from or flow•-
ing thraugh tihi~s ~ roject.
(7) Ttx~t +:he owr,er(s) of subjeot propertX ahall pay to the ~ity oP
Anuheim the appraprixte pezk t-nd rooreation Sn-liou f.ea~ os
determii,•d t~ be agprop~-late by the City Council, said feas to
be pafd at the time the building pormit ia iseuetl.
(8) That !l~re hydranta eha-11 k~e inatalle8 and chergpd as raquired ~snd
determ~.ned to bo nece9sary by the Chi~f of the Fire Depnrtment
priox Go commencement of structuzal fc•aminq.
~9? That enould t.~ia aubdiviaion be developed ~,s more than une sub-
division, sack subdivision thereof ahall be aubmitted ~.n renta-
tive Porm R~.r appro•va1,
~;~~+$$ - ChAirman Gauar dpclared a~ive-minute recese at 3:45 p.m.
R~CQNVBPd~ ° Chairmaii Gauer reaonvendd the meeking at 3s15 p.m., all
~ Eamxnissioners except Allred ~e~.ng preaent.
~
~
MxNU~'l~8, C;ITY PL)1NNiNG C,UMMi89TON, Ootobar ~3, 1973 ~3"621
~NVITibNMBNTIIL IMPACT •• PUBLIC HEARING. V~RNIETTA M. DAR(~AT~, Z6Z4 Ptarmiqar-
REPORT N0. lOZ Drive, Ho. 4o W~lput Cr~ek, Ca. 94595, Own~rt DON J.
-" CARSON, 433~ L~~t I.e 1Palma Av~aue, ~-r~+~h~im, Ca~. 92807,
YJ1Rlf1liCS NC~ Z598 Aq~nt~ reyuoe~ing N1IIVER OF FERMITTED U8F9 IN ~HE M-1
~ ZuNE TO TS3'~'ADI~I9H 11N SI+RCTRl'C11L FOVNDRY IN THE Fl-1 ZON~
on pr.ope~rty deoorib~fl a~i An irregulariy-ahspel~ ~arc~l
of lnnd conNi~~ing o~ ay~roximataly 1.9 •or~~ havinq a lrontaqe o! epproximetoty
14q fest on the •outh ei.da of Coron-~du l~vanue, h~vinq a ma~ximum d~opth of
appxaximne~ly 600 l~~t, snd boing la~~ted •djao~r-t to th~ Rivor~ide/~ranqe
Fre•Kny inCerahange to ~he weoL•. Propsrty pros~ntly alaeeified F.-A, AaRI-
~ULTURAL~ ZONF (RL~SOLUTI~~N Ok' ZN'~ENT 'i`l) M-1) .
No ane appear~d i,n oppoei.tion.
Although th• R~part to tho ~:ommispi.on wna not read e~t the publia haari.nq, it
!.a reterr~d ta and ma~de a part of th. minutes.
Mr. Dan C+~r.son, r-prosontinq the peti~tionar, a~pesrad befora tha Commienion and
stated that a similaz facility wae prssent•ly located in Bzea in a 15,OOO~eQuera
faot buildi.nq with outdoor atiuraqa~ hawdver, the new tacility woulci ba a etan,~-
az~ induet~ial ti.lt-up buildinq with all activitiee to be confined withix~ the
struc~ure.
CommisaA~ner Rowland expreesed cancern over khe type of ohi.eldinq tk~at wea
pxo~oeed to hi~e the two dust aollection bag unite trom view and the dimensions
q~ aeme.
In reeponee to qu~etione of Commisaioneace K1nq and Itowlancl, Mr. Carsan et,~ted
the ahielding would be tho Full hei3ht oP thd building,acoAnele~wiChnl2-inchke
a aoo].iny tower, and constructed of zedwood, lauWer-typ p
wide elate with 2-inch nom•lne~l thickneo~ !or support, and in the event redwood
wae not available, cedar would be substitut9d.
Comm~.seianer King oftered a motion, secondad by Co~nmissioner Herbst and MOTION
C~RRIEU, that the Plonning Commission, in connection with the fil.ing of
Environmontal Impact Report No. 107., finds and detarmir~es thnt the report ie
adequate ae an informative document and Lollow~ the City'e est3bliah~d guide-
linea, ~nd tha~ thare would be no eignificant adverse environmental impacts
and, therePore, recommenda to the City Counoil that said rapor.t be adopted as
rhe Council'e Environmental Impact Statement~
Commisatoner 3eymour. ofEtred Resolution No. PC73-233 aad moved for its pnseage
and a8option to qrant Petition for Vai•iance No. 2558 on the basia that the
p~copoead loundry would be totally enclosed and, tberefare, woulc~ be a c~mpatlble
uae in the M-1 Zone, subject to conditiona an@ the~ fi~nding and c:ondition that
the pet~tioner etipulated that tha ahieldinq would b9 12-inch ;: ~~~nch redwood
lo~xvere, or in the Qvent redwnod was na~. nvailable, cednr could be subetituted
for the ~:wo larqe duet ~•nllectian bag unit~ located on the aouth eide of the
proposed buildinq, ~n accordance with speci.fic pluns as submitted. (See
Resolution Book)
Qn roll call the foregoing resolution was paseed by th~~ f~llowing vote:
AY~S ~ 4'OMMI~SIONERS: Farano, Ga~aex, Herbst, King, Ftowland, Sey~mour.
t~O~S: COMMLSS~aNERS: None.
t,BSENT. s CUMMZSSTONERS a Allre~3.
yARIANCE N0. 3559 - PUBLIC HFARTNG. BARCLAY'S BANK, 1025 East Ornnqethorpe
AVenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92606 and ARCHiE PREiSMAIV, 9465
Wi.ishixe Bou]evaxd, Beverly Hi1Zs, Ca. 90212, Ownurst
kiOWARD PAR6ELL, c/c+ McLean & Schultz, Cont~ulte~r.ts, 2000 East Chapman Avenue,
Fullerton, Ca. 92631, Agentt rd~~uastinq WAI'VER OF TtfE REQUtRED FRO~tT S~TSACK
TO CONSTRUCT A CAN~PY AT L~RiV~-l:^ BANK WINDOWS an pxo~+erty described as: An
~,rregularly-shaped parcal of land consisting o! appxoximr~tely 2.2 acreB having
Approximate frontages oP 422 feet on the nozth eide o! OrangeLhorpA Aveaue and
141 feet on the we8t aide of Raymond Av~nue, having a snAximum depth of apgroxi-
~nately 312 feet, and being located at. the northaest corn~r of Oranqethorpe nnd
~tnymon~ AVenuee. P7caperty preeAntly clacaitied M-1, L2GHT YNDUSTRIRL, ZONE.
~
•
MTNUT68, CxTX PI~IINNZNC3 CqMMI38I0N, Ootob~r 15, 197i 73-G~2
VARxANCL" N0. 2gS~ (Corftinaod)
~~puty r.ity 1-ttorn~y Frank Lowry advi~sd the Commiasion that Commie~ion~r H~rbst
i~iqhk ha~ve a pnt~ntial aonll.iot o! inesr~~t anQ, kh~r~lars, would b• withArawinq
t'r,c~m eny partioipation in the hear.ing.
Cummiseionar HArb~t lett th~, Counail Chamber nt 3t20 p.m.
No ane appaarsd in ~ppo4ltion.
A:.thouqh th~ R~port to the CommisAion was not r~ad at the pub~.io haaring, it
is ,~~lerr~d to •nd made a pe-rt ot the minut•es,
Mr. i~axgs Hqmbl~, r~prmsentinq the xqent and the po~ieioher, indiaated h1s
pxes~na• to anpasr qusAtione.
Commi~sioner King nated khat the Re~port to th• Com~nireion indi.oatad th~re wa~
only a aingle Mi.ndoW with the building o•tbe~ak o! 5Z l.aotr whareupon Mr. i~umble
statsd ths~ th~ra w~~re t.wo windowe but only ono wa~ beinq ured~ that th~y- pro-
poeed to uee tha ~ame lane oP tXAPL~~C~ haw~ver, ~hay proposed un additianal
lane for tra~lio, ueinq a pneumatic tube eyetem.
Comcaissioner King inquired whother the ~xietinq la~.~dACapinq would roma~nt
ahoreupon Mr. Humble replied khat ~171 landeoaping would remain, and thay pro-
goAOB to clean up the aS3oining facility dnd p~avide addl.t~.ona~1 landecaping
and perking, ~-a wel.l Ae removing the traf~ic jam thAt ocruxs on Orangethorpe
71Venue~ during the busy time of the day, p~rt.ioular.ly on Frlday.
THE H~ARING WAS CT~OSL"D.
~1~t~istanx Pi~nr.4x Phillip Schwar~tze a3viae~d the Commis~ion ~hat under the
development pr~pos~l~ Paraqraph 7, the canopy would have a v~rtical clearnnce
~f 11 faet, howe~•~r, the Fire Depart.ment had reviewad tiha plane nnd approvod
Y.he heiqht af the c+snopy since there would ba other r~roag thet would be access-
iblo tor firo-fiqhtinq e~;uipment..
Commieaionoz' Kinq offered a motian, aecondea by Commiesioner Seymour and MOTI~N
CARRTED, that the Planninq Comm.f.seion, in connection wj.eh an exemption decla.ra-
tion statue r~quaet, Pinds a»d rleterm~nea tha~ the proposal would have no
significa~nt anvironmental ~mpact and, tharefore, r.ecommenda tn the City Council
khat no Environmental Impa~:t Statement is necexsa_y.
Cummiseionor Rowland offered Resolutton No. PC73-234 and moved for its Qa.asage
and adoption to grer:t Petitiorl fc~r Variance No. 2559, sab~ect to th~ stipula-
tiona made by the petitioner i-egarding the landacaping. fSae Re~olution Book)
On roll ca31 the foreqaing resolution wae pasaed by the fo::owing vote:
AYESs COMMI~SIONERS: Farano, Gauer, King, R~~wland, Soymour.
NOES: CO~tMISSTUNERS: None.
ABSEt~tT: COMAlTSSION~RS: Allrod, Herba~.
TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: CLASSIC DEVELOPMEN'~ CORPOFATION, 1270Q Knott
TR.ACT N0. 8423 Stzeet, Suite B, Garden Gxove, Ca~. 926~11. ENGINEER:
- Raab and soyez Enyineering Company, 14482 Hench Houlevard,
Sui.te R, Westmin3ter, Ca. 92683. Sub~eet tract, contain-
ing approximately 10.52 acrae,is located on the north eida~ of Santa Ana Canyon
Road, 1575 Eeet weet of Mohl.er Drive and is propoasd go: eubdivigion into 43
R-1 zc+ned lote .
A~siatant Planner Phillip Schwartzo r~sviewed Tenta~ive Mnp of rract No. 8~423
a~s set forth in the Report to the Commi.saion ind~axting the density praposed,
th~ numbsr. o! lots, the averuge aquaxe foatage o! each lot, and the peiaontac~e
of lote pez lot bi.ze, noting that the percentage wae in conf.or~nanae with that
approved ~y th~ City Councilunder Va-riance NQ. 2375 aa A,uqust 1, 1y72t that
the requirad building aetbacks along the propos~d precise alignment ~f ~'air-
mont Boulevard and ganta Ana Ganyon Road were oamplied wSth~ tha~t floor plana
and elevationn had not been submitt~d in conjunction Nit.h the tract mapt that
Lot Na. 5 0! the proposed tract was nct a bui~dar:.~ a~i~e uatil completian of
~ ~
MINUTES, CZTY PLIINNTN(i COMMx89I0N~ Ootobmr 1S, 1~73 73-623
T16Z1T11~I'VE M11P OR' TAACT N4 ~~413~ (Con tinuad)
Traot No. 8082 locatsd to ~he noxL•h ot subj~at traci:, ~ina~ ~Mid krsat ~ou1Q
hAVe Co bm davolopad to provide stra~i lrontaq• !cr ~ot Nm. 36~ thAt in viea
of ~.h~ ro~uired 40-loot huilding •~tback alonq i~airmont ~aul~vsxd, Lhos• lots
prapo~~li wi~h le~• than 72Q0 u~ue-r. fow~ maY x~6uir~ minimum g~rsg• •~thaok•
o! 6 le~t in ord~r to aooommodat• rs~2'd~ntial ~l,acucture~t •nd that i.n li~u
ot fii.inq of a eupp].~mental •nviranm~n~al imp~ot repnrt on eubj~at propetty•
the develoy.~r paco~porMd to pr~~~at any additiional rsqnired inlusmation •t th•
ti.ma ~he ~~ommi~rion oan~~d~red this traat~ hoM~v~r E.~.R. No. 75 had ba~n
e-do~ted in oon~unotion Mikh the reola~4itio~tion o! ~ubjeat prop~rtX.
Mr. ~7amea Chapmun, rspsaa~n:inq Cle-aaio Usvalapm~en~ Cozpo~a~tian, th~r Qovslopor,
indic~eted his presenoe to onsN~r qumations.
Commi.4lonor Horb~t rpturned to tha (:ounoil Chaa-b~r at 3:25 p.~.
Commis~ianer Rowlancl noted th+~t <t wAe obvioue th~-t aub~ect traat aoulct not
be devo].oped until Trac~ No. d082 ase cox~otructad~ wheraupo.~, Mr.. Chapman
ete~ted that it was hie understandinq that three txactg to the narth ~P ~heix
gropexty were- in praceae betore the City and that i~ would be sume time bePore
subject tract wuulcl be ready for developmant.
OPfic~e Enginoer ~ay Titue, in responee to e queet:on by th~a C~,mmisaion reqard-
~,ng the depth ot Ptll thAt was propooed Por sub~e~t propezty, ind~cated that
althouqh he did not ha~ve the pr~aise amount o~ £ill that would be raquired,
sinca Lhose tra-cte to tho north particularly adjacent to the Freaway boundar~-
had T~~oot fill, ~.t could be asaumed tha* the 7-foot fil]. would be 'tho me~xi-
mum, a].thpugh ha thouqht it would be closer ta 5 er 6 f~et nearer Santd Aa~a
Canyon Road.
2oning Supervisor Charles Roberta nat~d L•hat when ~ubject tract ~•-.e aubmitted,
he hr.d contacted tha enqineer of the t~ac~ to the north, N'~- ha~i indicata~ to
h1m that there would Ae 7 Poet oE ff11 necuesa•ry on portions af their~ praperty
Along the aouth~rly end, anci since this informat#.on was relat.ed to the propoged
ps~rk e~~td in this erea, he had contacted tho Parka and Recr~ation Gepartment,
adviaing then~ that thezo miqht be additional exn~n~e to the Ci~y to develop
the px'oposed park aite to the we+at~ and that Mr. Kamphefner then revi~oed the
s~te personnally and had ddviued him that there wou'lcl nat be that muci. of an
tAlpxov9ment coeC to the City for this 10-acre par~ s.ite.
~1r. Titus noted, in response to com~nenta made by Comm.tssioner Rowle-nd, that
there airendy was a considerable fill on the: prope~cty now, although he h~aA
not ~ure exactiy hora much of the 10 a~~res of cae park site+ that wou?d h~ve to
be ftlled.
Chairman Gauer expreased aoncern that with that much f11I there aould bR a
dnr~ger to *_he homrs proposod to be buil on the ~ill which could be f~cnd with
posaib~e aetti~.ng pr~blema in the future~ wltereupon Commisaio~ier Ruwland stated
that tk~e engineer~ w~re confident that there wauld be na problem, and he was
aure the City Engineer would not approve this depth of ftll if .it were not
eafe a£tez ~he required compaction of the iill.
Commissioi~er Saymour of~e~ed a motiono s~cotided by '~mmissioner kinq, and
MOTION CARRIED (Gommisaioner H~:rbst abstaininq t~nd (:~mmianian~r Row~.and
votinq "no") to npprove T~ntative Map of Tract No. 8ti23, sub~ect ta the
folloWinq cond.'ti~.,l,~;i
(1) That the akoroval o~ 'Pentative tdap of Tract No. 8923 ix qranted
aubject to the apgrova7. of lteclasaification No. 71.-72-30.
`~~ divi.tsionuleachisubdiv~aion~thereolvahall&beeBUbQi~tednin~tenta-
tiv~ form tor ~pflroval.
(3) Thnt in accordanc~ wi.tY- City Cou:-cil poliay, e 6-foot maaonry
wall ehell be constructed on the eAat pxoperty line oeparating
Lot Noe. 1 through 6, 36 and 38 trirough 43 and Fairmont Boulevard~
on tine ~aouth property line seQarntinq Y,ot Noe . 6 through 15 and
Santa Ana C~nYon Roadj and an th~ wes~ property lines o! Lot ~Vos.
15, 16 and 17. Reasonab2e~ landacaping, includinq ixriqation
~ ~ ~
MxNUTLA, CITY PLANNINO COMMISSION, Outober 15, 1973 73-624
TB~iTATIVE NAP UF TRACT N0. 6423 (Continuad)
Paoill.ti~a, ohall b~ in~taliell in l:ha unaemented portian o! the
a~r~e~l.~l highway parkwsy tho lull dl~tsnae ~f said wall, plsnr
tor sa~d land~oapinq to be nubmittsd to and ~ubjeot to tha
ap~roval o! ths Sup~rint~nQent o.f Parkaa}• MainC~r,~nce. i"ollovrtng
installation and aocaptanas, the City o! Anaheim eha~.I. aneume th~~
r.esponsib~lity !or maix~tenanoe oP en:ld landroapinq,
(4) That al]. ioto withi,n thi~ tra~t ehr-11 be sezved by undergr ounll
utili~:iea .
(5) That e final tr~ok onap oP aubjoct propez~y ahall bo submi:ted to
and approvad by the City Council and then b~o raaorded in th•
ot~ice of th~ Orang• County Recurder.
(6) That otrest nam~~ shall bo appzovec] by tho City of Anaheim prior
to dpprova7. o! a tinal traat ma~p.
(7) That tiha ownex(e) ot sub;~ect• property sh~ll ~ay ta tho City o!
Anahoi.m the appro~ri3ta park an~t reoreation in-1~.eu leea ao
determiae6 to be appropriate by th• City council, said feoe to
be paid at the ~ime the building permit is iemued.
(8) ThAt drainage of eaid property she11 be disposec! of in a manner
aatiielaato~rX to thA City Engineer. If, ir the prepareti~n o~
the sita, sufticient qradinc~ •le roquired t~ n.ce:iaitete +~ grading
permi.t, :-o wozk on grading will ba permi.tted between OcL•ober 15th
and Apr~,l 15th unlese al1 required off-slte draine~qe facilitiee
have bec~n inAtalled anQ ure op~rAt:f.ve. Poeitive aaeurance eha1Z
be provirled tho City ~hnt auch drainage facili~ios will. be com-
plete~ prior. t~ October 15tta. Neceaea~ry zight-of-way for off-
aite drainaqe tucilitles aYiall be ded'.cated to the City, or the
C~ty Counc~.l ahall I'IAVA initiated condemnation proceedinge there-
£or (the coets oY which aha11 ba borne by the developar) pxior t~
tlie commencement of qra~ling operatiana. The required drainaqe
facilities shall b~ oP 3~ize niiS type sufficient to carxy runo~f
watezs originating rrom higher pxopert~e~ throu.Ih said property
to ul.t.iznate di.sposal as a~-~rovcd by the Clty Engineer. Seic]
drainage tacilities ~ha.ll b~ the first itam of conetruction and
g'ha17. be compZeted and be functianal L•hroi~gr.out ~he tract anct
fzoin th~ downstream boundary of the property to +the ul~imate
point oP diepoae-1 prlor to the issuance of any final building
~nspe+etiona or occuparcy permitg. Drainage c~istrict reimburse-
memt aqreementa may be made available to the developere of oaid
pzoperty upon i:heir reguest.
(9) Tha± gradin~, excavation and all other cc+netruction activitiee
sha11 be r.onducted in such a mannar eo as to rainimi7a the. poeai-
b~.~1ty of any silt. originatiny from ~his Qro3ect being carried
~nto the Santa Ana River b,y sto•rm water oriqinating from or Plow-
;Lx~g through this pro ject.
(10) That zereonable landacaping, includinq irriqation fac~~i.tiias,
:~hall be inatalled in the unpaved portion of the no.rth side of
the Santa Ana Canyon Rnad riqht-~f-way and in ~he median in
accurdance with the requir~ments of the Superintendent o~ Parkwt~y
Maint-enance. Follawing inata].latian and acceptxncQ, the City of
,pi~eheim bha11 aeaume the r~3ponaibility for maintenance of said
],~ndR~apl.nq.
i].l) That the City Council raserves the right to dalats or amer.3 the
assumption of landecape mai:~tenance in the ovent Council poli.cy
chanqes.
(~.2) That the d~avelopeX shall obtain a fzv~rabla flood hazard letter,
accepta~ble to the City of Anaheim, ~'ram the Orange Cocnt.y Flood
Control D3utrict.
(],3? That fi.r9 hydrante eha12 be inatallec3 and chargod ae roquired
nnd detesmiaed to be neeesaary by the Chl.ef of the Fire Depart~
ment prior to cammencement of atructiural iraminq.
(i4) 2hat Lot No. 36 ehall remain undeveloped uaetil public st.reeta in
Trset No. 8082 ha~-e baen ~ladicate8 to and accepted by the City.
~ ~
MINUTEB, CIxY PLANNINCi COMMI83Z~N, botobsr 15, 1a73 73-6Z5
AMBNDMENT TO 'PITLL* 18, - PU9LIG NL~ARIN(3. :CNITIATED AX 7'F1E ANAHICIM CXTY I~LANiaT.N(~
AN11HE7M MUNZC,tPA1+CODE COMMxSSION, 204 East I~incoln Ave~ue~ AnMhsi~n, Ca.1 to
"'- c:onaid~r am~ndm~nt~ ro the Anr~heim Municipal Cod~,
Chs~pt~r 18.52, Mwl, Light Induptrisl, ~on~t SecCian
18~5Z.06U, Sitd D~velopmant St~ndaxde~ 8ubsoation (3), Fenaes and Nall~.
Mseoci+~ta Plann~r Hi,ll Yu~~~q ravi~wad ths pro~oeed a:nendment to the ~iCe dmvel-
opm~nt ~tandexde o! the M-1, Liqht indu~ctrial, zone pertsininq to Panoar and
Ns11e, notinq thet beaduae o! r~e~nt xoninq actions, a trend wae revealed ta-
MAld a~pprova+l o! varimnue eppllca~Eions to permit the enclaeure o! OLLtdGOI'
atoraqa ereae ~ln l.nduetrial zonoo by memn• of a ahainlink fence in liau ot tha
solid maeonry wall, and s*.af.! prooa~4ad to atudy the pc~dsibility oE amending
tha Aneheim Municipal Coda in o~:Q»r tia el..iml.nete conti.nued v+~rience eppll.cationa~
that i.n rovi.~wing the variour applicationa conaiQezed, in generel, vuriancse
t-aze cienied and solid masonry Walls xequireA only when the storage axea wau
adjac~9nt to a etreet froratag~e or any reridantiel zone boundaxy exeepti-~q un~
davelopAd R-A zoned propertiss havinp a r.e~nalution of intent to a nar~-ret-iden-
tia~l uae or induatrial operatio~io, auch a• ~dbrtaa.ti.on, aeaembly, eta., ware
,requoeted in addi.ticn to the storsge oP pxoducCa and/or thd materials~ thst
tlhero ~;pproval oE a cha.inlink fance was mada, eonditione wexe uuually attaahed
in lieu of thQ maaonry well requ~ring ~!nterweaving of rodwnuc~ elets !.n ths
chainlink fence to ~zovide mn eftactive slqht ecreen for adjoining propertiau.
the exclueton of industrial usea other thAn etoraye from ereas encloeed only
by the chainlink fence, and landacnp3.ng being raquirad in con'~~xnation with th~
cha~n].ink fence to aid in tha bufferinq from adjoininq propertieat that ~ha
pxoposed amen~imc~nt would redef.ine Se~ation 18.52.0~~0(3) pertainir~g to eite
enclosure and acreening ruquiren~snta inatead of lencea and walls as aet ~orCh
in the Report to the Commieaion, aa1~1 three altsrnatives were proposod: 1)
cha~tnlink fenc:e (slatted) pe+rmitted to enclose only etoraye azeas and nat
permitted adjacen* to streetey 2) chainZink fc~nce ~nclosing ar~y autdoor uee
gxcept where adjacent to a etxeet frontage~ and 3j ~pen chai:~link fence to
enolose any o4tc2oor uso exoep~ing that said fence would be re~uired to be
acreen~d aither by interw~eaving of redwood or cedar elnta and/or landsaaptnq
when edjarent to- or vieiblo frani, any street frontaQe.
Nc one appaared in oppo3itl.on.
THE HEA~2NG WAS CLOSED.
Cocnmieatonex Herbst ober~rved that dlthough three r.lternativos were pregented,
the prcperty owner ehc~ild be a~forued the right to choose whether a ahainlink
fence with slats and/or lar~~scapinq ehould be provided ein~cp a 6-foot mauonry
wall, although providing L•he screening, di3 not affarc~ tho industrial pr.operty
uwner the secu.rity tQ which he was entl~led~ that ths proparties could be
~tdec~uately acY~eened with a slatted obainlink fence, togethez with landscapix~q,
which present~d a better appenrance than a pla3n block wall whil.e still provid-
ing the securwty needed foz outdoor starage of larqe pieces of equi~mwntf that
he did not fe~l t`~ere should be any ~hanqe wheres industrial usea weze adjacent
to zeaidantial U9e8 because a 6-fo~t wall provided be~ter so~and bufferingr and
thnt in the induetrial complex in Trvine, on prac~ically all of their major
etree~s Chey had a lax-dscaped satback and alatted chainlink fence.
Commiats~oner Farano atated *_hat the proposed amendment would, in effect, reduae
the number of variance petitions requ~sting raaiver of the blook wall aince it
had been ~he policy of tho Commisaion td qrant mang requeste permitting the
slatted chainlink fencea, Chereby estubliehing theae waiver requeets ae a right
wl.thin the Code .
Commiasior-~r Herbet c+:ated he was much more in~erestod in security of the i.ndus~
trial plants since a 6-foot wall couYd be easily scal.ed, whereao a chainlink
fence geaerally had barbe3 wizs on the tap, and it wc-s more difficutt to gein
a footing in the chainlink fence, nnd he did not think the Irvine co~plex hnd
t~ ma~eonry wa11 requirement, and their site ~evelopment st+~ndariis wcars muoh more
sts~l.nqer.t than the City of Anahel.m had.
Commisaioner Herbst, in :-eaponae to quAStioning by Commissioner Kinq, etated
that where chainlink fencee wexe propased at~utting strests, he wou2d like ta
have the property owner have a choice of a c2:aia].in~C fonce with sldte and heavy
lai~dsce~pinq or the 6-~~ot maeonry wall alons~ the stredt frontage, thereby
~ ~
MINUT6S, CITY PLANI~zNG CU;4MTSSI~N, OoCor~ez 1S, 1973 73-670
AM8NpM6NT TO TITL~ t9LAh.~~7.N~i9AL CODL - F~NC~f3 AND V111~La (Con~.inu4cS)
rMmoving se meny varisnas~ t~s po~~ible, buc, oP couroe, whbre •um~pnv Ma•
~rla~niny outdoor a-cCiviki~• n~ p~ll~ then acraen~nq ^h~uld b~ a b-fuot m~~onry
~,~al. !or ths lront and ela~t~4 chai.nlink l~nce Around the balxno• o! ~he prop-
•rky linoa to !u].ly eoreen ~n~~e outdoor activitiwa.
Continued diec~a~Nion was h~ld by th+ Coma~i.selon and eta!! ~e to the variout
ahang~e propo~rd, end at ite Lor~c],u~ior~ it was de~armined thAt tho amandmenk
ehould require r~:reei~inq adjavank to resi.deatial and commercisl zone bound~ziat
ss t~t lorth irt ~e~~tio~n 18.52,060(3) (~) , with the titld ot Section (~) ~ein9
chanqad ta roa~i, "Sike Encla,ur• •nd 8crs~ning Ra~uirements" in~tead o! "F~nco•
~nd Wa~ll~" ae e~e~: furth in r,.he koport~ ~,a tha Com~r~issi~n under the propoead
~men~lm~nt~~ that ra~ragzapti (b) o! )1).ternativa No. 2 should inalude crrly the
lixet p~regrnph, with th~~ eddition, "p=c~v.lded, howover, that ad~ecent t~ eny
stze~L• lzontage, eny outdoor uos~ anolosed by a chalnlink fence, inaluding accrae
qat~e, `~a:.l bo view~acroanen from •uch etraek by four raaommendod ecreerting
deviaod ae indiceted u-ider A~tornati~e r~o. 3i end t•hat the metoria.l may be
eikher redwood oi• r.~Aai elAte.
Comm~esioner Ii~rbet afPe.red Reeolut:ion No. PC%3-235 mrid movecl ~or i4:o pas~aqa
end adaption to ado~t• ana rocommend to th~ Ciky Counc:il aQoption of A~en9msnt
to 'Pitle lA, 2oning, Chapter 1A.52, M-l, Light Induatzinl, 'Lorio, Section
1t3.52.060, Si~o Dev~~opment Standerds, Subeection (3) amended to ba da~ined a~
"51t~ Enclosure aiid Sczeening Requ{~remente" , Sub-subaections (al nnd (b) aq
depicted on Exhibit "A" and rePerred Y.o ae tbouqh set forth in full. (See
Resalution Book)
On ro~l call the forego_.,~g rPa~lution r~ag pde=.ed by the follo~i.nq v~utei
AXES: COFIMISST.ONEKSs Farano, Gauer, Harbst, King, Rowland, Seym~ui.
NOESe C(7MMTSSIONERS: Nonb.
ABSFNT: COMMISSIONERS: A].lYed.
AMENDIdEt!T ~0 TITLF ' 8, - FUBLZC HEARYNG. ZNITIATED AY TIiE ANAtiEIM CITY P:~l1ltNING
ANAHF.IM MUNxCIFAL ~O~E COMMI~ +iON, 204 Eaask I,in.:oln Av~nue, Anabeim, Ca. 1 to
"'-""'~"~` considax amendment tc~ Chapter 18.28, R-l, Multi.ple-
I'an~ily Residential, Zone= Section 18.28.050, Site
Devalopment Standardat Subsectioti (10), O~P-StreeL• Perking Requiremente.
Aasistant Plannar Annika Santalahti reviewed the results of tne pmrking quee~ion-
nalre formulated by the Devalopment Services Depa,rtment end mailed t~ apactment
coc~~piexes completed af*er Decembez :,1, 1969 •- the last time th9 parking etand-
ard$ were amended - ti.:ouqii January of 1973, when 7942 apartment unite Wore
constructed, ~tnd 3b$ of these unfts aere deemed L•o be suitable L•or tt~e parkinq
survey aince the other 64$ did not qudlify because they were either developdd
undez old pa-rkinq ~tandards, had parking waivers qrantad, or were plann•9
reside~ntial developments, ~-nd thu aonsene+ie of the survey would indicatid tlaat
there was adequate tenant parkinq bt+t inadequa~te guest parkinq~ that further
review af the survey indicated that whero bachelor, one or two-bedraom units
comprioed the majority af the units, thera appea.red to b~ a greater demand fox
tenant ~arking, while tilYr~9-bedroam unito appe~red LO naed less parking than
Cec1e rnquired~ az~d thr.t cased upon the fix~dings as r~et f<,rth in tho Rep~r~ to
tt~e Cammission, it was ataff's recommendatian that the parking ete~ndarda be
amendmd to requixe 1.6 parkinq epaces for bachelor, one or two-bedroom unite
end 1.9 parkinq apaces for three~~edroom unita - thie, then, woi~ld pznvfdo more
nazk~.nq tar CJl:99t.B.
Commisaianer Her~At obeerv~d tha~C he rocogaiged the need for additl.onal queAt
pazk~ng, and the recommen8ations made ~y ataff aould incraase parkinq requiro-
meats which might aolve the queat pnrking, how~var, waa there r-ny way tihat
apecixic paskinq anaces could be Qes+~nated Lor gnest parking onlyt whereupt+n
City ]lttorn~y Frank Lowxy adviaed tho Commiaeion that e~aff Wa~e presently atudy-
inq an amendment to the Code that miqh= tako care of that cancern, and thcy
~oul6 tak~ aaother look ir.to thie pzoblsm whfah could be c+n addition to that
pre~sently propoaed.
~
~
~
Mt~U7'ES, CITY PIGANNxN~ COMMxSSxON, Ootob~r 15, 19'l3 ~3°62~
AMENQMtCNT TO TITLE__l_B~ANI~FlRIM MUNiCIPAL COOE -~PARKINa R$~UiREMENT3 (Cont'd
Commi~~ioner RoN~.and obo~rv~d thst ~h~r• N+~~ no way ~t ma~nCsininq a~woitic
~r~a~ !or quq~c parkinq which ~ould be •ntorc~a bea+~u~e tls~ gue~t~ ooul~l drl,va
~n and ~l,nd th• qus~t parkinq till~d, •nd ~ven thouqh it waa ol~oarly msrkecY
~ox quart p~rkinq, who was to wny Ch~~ th~s• Wer~ ~~1 quoste pArkinq in the
de~~qnat~d •paces.
Commi.s~ioner Herbet concurred Chat this miqht be c:orroat, but thare was too
muoh an-stz~~t parkinq end th~r• could ba~ a metho~ o! dotarmining whet,h~r ~heee
on-strs~t park~d cera were que~t parking or tertant parkinA, however, he would
•lso xiK• ko avoid tha problem prasanted to tt-e Commieeion balors - that tha
prop~rty owner of tha~~ units wa• cherging a- tae tor paz)cinq spaceA !or thosa
p~reon~ in ons un~t having more v~i~~clea than spacee bal.ng provided !or tha
unit~ tAaraby obtdinir.q n!ee !oz gue~t par.kinq.
Coa-mioeioner Rowl.end then atatAd there was on).y ono eure wmy of removing the
on-s~reet pdrking, end th~at wae to post "no on-stxeot parking" tor thoe~a •treeto
that could not ~upport on-street pnrkinq~ otherw~.ss there would be multiple-
lamily rexidentiel parkiny on etxeets in single-f~mi].y eubdivieions where it
wa~ most cor-v~aiont for the ep+~rtment r~ti.dente.
Commieair,ner Saymoiir obaervs8 that aonvonisnae h~-d evazything to do with whnre
a per.~on parked, and e~,qnin~ waulcl not aflsat whare peoplA w~uld park - the law
o! supp3y anc9 de~mand woulc. prevail, and whera th~re wae n 1~arge domand~ for
parkinq oFaas, signinq of ~~ueet parkinq would not be effectivR, whil.e "nn
parking" eiqninq would ba the anly effer.tive method, and the most effecti~e way
to discouraqa on-etreet parkinq would rio the writir.g of tickota by tha pulico,
thereky lorainq the tena7L• to domand that mose ofP-Rtreet pe+rking bn providcd
without chargu.
Commieeioner Herbsc ~qain et+~r.ed that Lhe City's gueet p~rkinq requl.r.ements
wara not adoquete, and pozt~aps the Code ehou?.d bc writtan so that there would
b~ ov~r and Above a given number of required ~paces to provide for quasC pn~rki.ng.
Fldnninq Supezvisor pon McDanieJ. noted th at th~ R~~ort to the Commi.aeion, Paq~
11-q, indicnted tha-t one apartment compl~ex had 137 units and 20~ p~rki~ng apacea
wsre uead by the tenant.s, thoreby Yee-ving on]..y 3 apa~~as for yuest parkinq,
aince Co~le roquired oaly 212 spacaa, whi.le tha propased at~r,darda for the same
aumb~r ot unita woul3 require 239.6 ~arkinq apaaee, or a~n i.nczease of I.Oes or
one apace per tea untts for ~ueat pa~king, or 30 ~dditionnl parkin~a arnaes over
thoee used by tenaats.
Cnmml.esioner Herbat noted that tlhe av~rage sinqle-famil.y home had a tv~o••aar
garaqe with space ~vailable ~or two cara in the dr,iveway and a~t leaet ona
3pace on-street, while an apartment unit ha-d only one covered parking space
assiq:-~d, aad if there were nore than ten quest care, thia woul~ cr~ate a traf-•
!ic jam a~ouud Chis comp].ax, bo'th in the paxk.inq 3rea anc~ on-stree, .
Chairman Gauer inquired how Commisaioner Nerbst propased that ths recommandation
bs amendad~ whereupon Commiesioner Herbet ~tated thak even with 'the pruposed
changae rhere atill wculd not be aufficient ~uset par;cing.
Comm~saioner FArano obsexvec~ thati even i! one-third of the 137 unita had
visitors, there ~*ill would be auffiaient parking, but if onA unit ha_ a"b]•ast",
tMen parhspa all ~f the guest parking wonld be ueed, therefore, he felt the park-
~.ng as ougqested by ataff would be, adequate aad wae conexddrably more than Code
pr~s~ntly roquired.
Continued diecuaaion wn~ held by tha Commisaion regardfnq t.he guest parkinq
raquir~menta 1 the percenta~ge of ircrea~ee proposmd by etaff i.n Yhe nmer.dment~
that one couldl not dssume that every tAnant would b9 home at the eamo tiime~
~t-8t th• Commiesian in the paet had c~mplninn~5 about the agartmaat pra~ects
d~~l.qn~d luy Mr. Phelps, even thouqh he had met CoBo, and hie projeate appeared
to be ov~xnrowd~d ~ri.th on-s~reet parkinc~ ~SUmpes-to-bumper~ end thAt the aurvey
iadlcat~d th~ere w~ns aZequate perkinq !or trndntb but not for qv.esta, and is
th~s perkinq ware inczease~ by 10~, it aould romove s cor.eiderarle amaunt of
or~.straet parking.
~
~
MINUTEB, CZTY PL~NNYNG COMMTSStON, Qotobar ],5, 1973 73-6Z8
~MBNDMENT 'f0 Ti_TLE 18, 11NAHEiM MUNiCIP71L COUE - Pl1RKiNa R~QUIRICMI:NTB (Cont' d
Mr. MaDani~l noCad that i! th~ Commie~ion M4~ still oono~rn~d rayardinq th~
an~ount o! pr-r.ki~q, tt~• paxkirq r~qul.r~m~n~ oould bs ir~creaesd Prom l.b Co 1.7
and lrom 7..9 to 2.0, which would pzovid~ !or 253 psrking epaa~a !ox a 1]7~unit
aompl~x, ur 4n inor~a~e ot 14 apso~o, but khen the Ci~.y would hav• L•o dnt~s•min•
Mh•: •tl~at Chi~ would have on th~ urabl,s op~n arsa, and thst one o! khs build-
t• ,~ dooign~re w~~ pr~e~nt in the audi~nc~ and might wieh to meka ~+oma ooma~~ne.
nr. Ni11ie-m Phalpe, 1095 North Msin Street, ~~ranqe, a~peared belors Che Cammia-
sion +-n~d ~t~tod h• want~d to thsnk sta~! tor a~cking him to be pre~enC st the
h~aring and went4d tu cc.mplement Lh~m for t1: way they handlad themoalve•
darinq the years he had bean woxkinq wi.h thdm eince he had workad with Z7 othsr
oommunitie• Rnd lalt that Anaheim had kl~~e beat etd!!t Chat th~ '~ parkinq spsaes
proviouol~- require~l N~re not ade~(uate, nnd m~st o~ hie pro jecta h+~d mora then 1~
sp~u~s, ~ome o! th~m ranqing lrom 1-3/~1 to 2 epaaae per unit, cina• mott u! his
c1~.~n~o want~d maza parkinq' th~t gu~a+t parkinq ha-d aleray^ bee11 A probinm~ that
moot p~aple knok the lirst aveileble p+-rking epdca~ ChAt stia!!'• ~urvey wae
very aCaurete in stat~ing tha1: ~nexa were moro aare fur one anfl twu~be~dream
•~artment unito than epnae was heing al.lowed, while tha tl~rea-beeroom unitt were
zequ~.rad to provida more th~-n they ua~d, sinae two-bedroom vnits could genessl•e
a~ man}~ as lour c~-re, particulaxly wi-on ~r,vernl umm~rzied parsons ahared an
apdrtment a~nd Qach perean Yiad hie o~rn carr that it wea impoesiblo tn cdlaula~e
oz even hazerd a guose, as either couXd ba right or wrongt ttidt he telt thet the
prement ardinAnCe wae adequat~, but ho lound it was neceeeary to look at pro-
joct~e evAry year to deta.r.mine whather a projoct wae having problemar that the
Rondell dev~lo~~mant which he deA~.gn~,d ~nd wherd th~ dPVeloper had roquosted that
pa~rkinq be providod on a 2al basis, thay ht+d never haii any p~rkinq prablem~ that
one of t~ia c~ncerns wae the increeoe in parkinq in a devalopment whare no park-
~.ny prablem had ever ex~.eted, ~+ince parking was adequate even though on-street
parking appearad to be prevaler~t, and ta get a better idea it waa necessary to
dzive into the~ camplex itaelf t~ determ~ne whether thare were vacsnt paxkinq
pays eince gueets d1d nat know whera they Mere c~.lov~ed to parkJ thet consideca-•
tton ah~uld be gi~en by t~e ~on,m~ssion to provi3ing parkinq spa,cea foz amaller
cars sinco 20 to 25~i c~f ~he ~;ara oMned by tQna~~ta were ttie sma~ll compact cara,
r~nd by praviding 7x14-~~ t or 7~ix16-foot cpaces, onP ~~paaa pe:r every eight ~are
ccu].d be qaindd, Luk it would appear this waA not ttie intent o1F ?:he ozdinance,
therefore, the Commission might p~rmit :ataff to have te 5 to 10~ ipeway in deter.-
mininc~ parkinq in the event someone F~lannod pnrkinq baya foz amaller cara, anu
very rnrely did onc see the large care, Ruch as a Linca~.n or Cadillac, in these
cQ• ~~.exeb; th+st one o4 i:r,o consi3exationu the Comml.ssion might, qive where more
pdi, ~~as being required wsa the fart khat hiqher denaity coul.d be proposec],
a~nd ii. ~e praject ~n Webster Street which hc~ deaiqn~d at a deneity of 18 units
per xcre, which was permi+-.ted at that tima, there was ampl~ parking since he
hai! 2:1 parkin~ spnce available because of r~sduced flensitya tk~at anoth~=s sug-
ge6t~.on he could make would be the dsnaity factor. woulc3 be establlshed on the
7ceQuired parking, and if the Commisaion wantec' the ideal parking, thir~ woul.d
mear~ mora a~phait ~or extra car~s - even though it would not affect the density,
3,t would a.fEect the ~ivinq envircnment with too muel. prved arsat and ChaC where
a parking problem exiate~, this should be a manngement problem if pe~rking wae
pxovide~l in acaordance ~rith Code require~nent$ and ahould not ba the City's
pxoblem.
THE HEA.RING WAS CL05ED.
Commiesioner. Herbat noted that one point indicated by Mr. p:~elps zegar.dinq the
fect L•hat guasts did not know where they w-ere permitted to park was very vali3
ai.nce guest parkinq gen~ra.lly was not so marked, and he felt that a given area
ahould b~ so desiqnated and marked clearly for ~uests to uae, and he still waa
o~' the opinion that instea~ af reguiring a qiven number of spacea per ee~h unit,
the Commiasion ehould requ~~~• a qi.ven numbmr of speces to be requized for quest
parkinq apeciflcr ~y~ parL•icularly aince 67s aP the persons anewerinq tihe ques-
tionnaire atata8 there was inadeq~~te luest ~arking.
Chairmsn Gauer noted khat even ~huuyh quest Farking was so ~ndicasted, this did
nat mean gueata wanted to ues the r,iloCted epaco and preferxe~i parking on-stzeet.
~
~
MINU'CE~~ C7~'Y PLAt~NING COMMIB~ION, Ootob~! la, 1973 73'F~9
.1M11KOM~NT_ TO TI~LS_1N~ANAHEIM MUN7CIFAL CO DE -~'#RKING{ RRQUZ.h1~M~NT$ (Conk' 4
Cosnm~~~ion~r RoW1anC obs~rv~d thwt tre b~pt i.ntoxmation thwt haa bAdn pr~~~nt~d
to ~hs Cciumi~eion waa t.he Yerult o~ th• qu~.tioaneire~~ that th• Gommi~~l.on haQ
tlaauql~t ~~f implementinq +~z~a4 d~~tignat,d !or em~iler oar~, bu~ Ch• Cow~mi~~ion
raquirsA t?naC the dsval,oper demonetrate thak tihare Would bo a qr~ater re~~d ~o~r
~mallar pssking rpaass #rom prov.tau~ •xp~ri~noe in a similar a3tuat~ont anQ
Chat •ithouyh th4 Commis~ian aou1Q upgrad• tl~a amc,unt o! perking, ta r~quire
more R~phalt weuid be dot~atinq L•ho llvi.ng enviranmant th• Comm.t~~ion hop~C to
aohiove.
CommieNior~~r Rowta~n4 o!lersd Fteeolution No. Pr.'13-236 ~nd n~o~vell !or ito pxe~a9e
a~id edoptian to adopt and recommend t~ the ~`~ty Counci.l adoption o! an emand-
mant to the J-nahdim Municipal Cade, Tit].e 18, Zoi~ing, Chapter 18.28, R-2,
Mulkiple-Femily Ree~identi.al 7.ona, 5ection 18.28.05~, Site Uevelapmenti Skandard~,
9ubwsot~.ozs (10), Otr-Stroet Parki.ng Raquiremente, ae depi.atad on ~xhibit "7-".
(3ee Resoluti.on Hook)
Qn xoll ca~ll tY~e loseqc~ing reaolution w+~a pt-eeed by the falloa9.ng vote i
AY'B3~ COMMIS3I~NEFtSs Faranc, Gauer, Kir.g, Rowlanil, Seymour.
NO£9 t COMMxSSIC~NCRS ~ Herb~t.
ABB~NT~ COMMISSIONERSt A~lred.
Comml,esioner Horbat, in voting "no", at~t~sd that. eome pro~-iai~on ehould be ma-de
tn recaqnize tho PdCt that smaller cars were becominq more prevala~nt and that
queat parjcing ehauld be a mujor con~ideration in draft:lnq o~ the ordi.nar-ce.
R~PORTS AND - ITEM NU. 1
12EGQMMRNDATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE LE6JIS
F+L~CTRICAL S UBSTA'PION .
l~e~l.etant P.lanner ''hillip Schwartze presant~d the Enviranmental In~pacl: Report
Lor the Lawis Elect~ical Subetation to the P7.annin~ Commie~ion, indicating
where lar~clacapiizg wes ~ropueed which wuuld ~art~ially shield the equ~.pment
trom viev~r and that the zepart subn-ittad ccnformeli to the Ct~y o£ Anaheim
Gul.delinae to the Requiremants for an Environmantal Impact Report end ~as
comple~.e aa ~n informat~.ve docuu~ent.
Cammie~icner Farano inquired why the City did not maintain landscaping on
thp~r substation aimilar to that which the Edison Company did on k.heir
properties.
Commiasioner Rowland noted that the Edison (:ompr~ny hnd done some very excell~nt
work in landscaping their facilities and hnd reaeived a~umbesr of a!ver.da.
Aseistar.t Development Sezvicea Director Ronald Thompaon noted that the Lewi~
Street S u~bsta~ion wtsa beinq updatod, hc~we~ver, Rome of tlze raew subetatl.ons which
tlie Ci~ty was ineta111ng alao }~ad e+~rth berms and landscapinq.
Commias ioner Fara~n~ auggestecl that the landscap3nq the Anaheim Municipal Code
usually requir.es of private industrg ohould a~se be prov~ded durin~ th8 remodel-
inq of any City facil~.ty.
Commias ioner Rowland suggseted that rather than usinq the ~IR as a p~saible
politicai tool to obtain aomethinq, the Cammiseion ehou~.d recommend to the
c':ty Counci2 that coneidertstiori be given to upqradinq ttae la-ndscapinq at auch
tiime ae expaneion of. ~ubetations o~ other City facilities wae contemplated.
Commiesloner Ki.nq oflered a motion, aeconded by Commisaioner Ruwland and MOTION
CA~RIED, that thA 1~laaaing Commissiun, in connecti.on with the filinq of a:~
Environmental impmct Report for the Leais 8lectriadl Subs tation, f3ndo a-nd
determin~a~ tihat the report aonfoxmed to ths City of Anaheim Guidelinea to the
Raquix'emonta for an Environmental Tmpact Report and wae vomple*e ~ne a~n ii~.fora-a-
tive Gocum~nt and that thoxe aould ke no piqnificesnt adverBe environmental
impects , tl~arefora, ths 8lnnning Commiesion rdca~-mende to t~e City Council thmt
ea~.d xeport be ~dop~ted as the Couneil'e ~nvironmmntal Impact s~:atement.
~ ~ ~
MINUT~9, CITX pLANKiNGi C~MMISgION, Oatobor 15, 1973 7~-630
I TE M t~ 0._,,,1,r~A
DEV~LOPNRNT £iTANDI~RDB ON CITX ~XPIINSI~N3.
Commioaion~r S~ymour
CARRZEA, ta r~oommend
fu~ure •xp~n~ ion o! a
a~nd wAll tr~atn+~at b~
Qmvolopment ~tand~zd~
theiz laoilitieo.
~lP~rsd a mo~ian, •~~
to ths City Council
~ub,~tation or oth~r
upgzAded to b• moxe
e~s wa~ n~t~d on the
~ond~d by Comwi~~ion~r King and NOTION
that aon,~i~A~ratian bo giv~n in any
Cl.ty taailitiws th~t th• lend~aapir~q
,tn conl~xm~enoe with tha City'~ ~it•
Edi~on Company in the dovelopment o!
ITEM NO. 2
CONDITiONAL USI~ T?~RMIT ~10. 996 - R~queat g~r
a~ppr~val oP axpansion to be in aonformanoe
with the origin~l usa permitted.
Aesiat~nt Planner Fhillip 3chwAr.tz~ review~d the axiqinel uae epproved under
Cond~tional Ua~ Fermit No. 996 on ,~anuary 15, 1968, to establieh a day 4ahanl
in an existinq reAidenc~ !or kiaderqartan thraugh r~.xth gradn end the pr.oposal
b,y the p~titionar ~o expand the exietinq facilitios by convorting the livl.ng
zoom and porch into a oleasronm, retnining the third bodroom as a eick room,
utili~ing the ki.tchen erea for A t~+acher'e lounge and lunch room and convaxt-
inq the dining room into a~n oftice, while tha present ysreye-oftio~ would be
~antiraly converted into a large olaseroomi and that the paYitioner in her
letter indica~ted the hirinq of taa addltional teacher~ would ba nacoe~ary to
han3le the increased etudent enroll:.:enti oP 50 pupils, or approxima-taly 100
pupiln contemplated.
Mre. Velva Gardner, 2181 West Midwood I,ane, iadicatad that she was the owncr/
operator oE the axpandinq lr~cility and was re~~ueetinq clarifiaation on hh~athor
o.r not tkie propoaecl expaneion would be eubatantially in oomp7.ianco wiCh thv
~.ntent og the oon8itianal uee permit aai.ginally approved.
Commiseioner Herbet was o~ the opinion that the expanaion wouJ.d be double the
eize origir~ally t~pproved under the conai,tiunal use permit, and the adjoining
netghbure shduld be infoxme:. as to what was pxopased so that they would have~
a r.ight to present their viawpoints.
Commiasioner H~,rbst offerecl a motion, eecanded by Commisaioner King ared MOTION
CRR1iZ~Dr ta require that the petitianer, at her own ex~9aae, have Condition~l
Uae Permit No. 996 rea~dvor±ised to consider t.he oxpansion proposa8 fxom 50 to
100 stud~nts.
IT$M N0. 3
RECTASSIFICATSOlY N0. 72-•73-~45 (t~ark III Hamen, Inc.) -
Reque~t for approval of final floor plans an3 eleva4:i~ns.
As~ietant Plann9~ Phillip Schwartze noted that the pPtitioner we~e submitting
#inal L•].ooz plans and el.evations as requi.red in ~on~9ition No. 5 of Resolution
No. 73R-258 in canjunctian wikh Reclmsaifiaation No. 72-73-45, Variance IJo.
i449 and Tentativo Map of Tr~ct No. 5~78= that the variance grante~ waiv~er of
the minimum qarage setback, anS the oriqitial plans in3icat~d approximate7.y
toor dwell~ny un~ts w~uld hawe setbacka of from 11 ta 24 ~~eet, ancl r~t that
time the petitionex had also stipulxted that on Lot No. ~.9, where a 10-foot
setback was proposed, there woul~. be automdtic garage dooz openero and only n
amall, thxe~-bedroom dwelling, howave,r, in evaluatinq the final specific plans,
although *_hey were z~ot ecaled, it ~rould appear thmk the roof overhsnq might in
some caesa exceed tha maximum permit~ed ovezhanq in•to a: side yardr ~hnt~ the
number of homes proposed at athdr than th~ minis~um g~+rage aetback had increased
from four to approximately 45~ that t'h~ mix of the units hAd changed somewhat,
wh~reas previously thc~ plana iradicated only une-etary unite of which 23 woulcA
be three-bedroom, 26 four-bedroom, and an additional 26 four-bedroom Qf a~arge
equare footiagej that pre~ent plsne now indicated 20 two-e~ory, four••bedr~~m
units and rsinqle-rst4ry un~te o~ which 20 wou13 be three-bedroo~;, aith the fourth
bedroom boinq optional, 18 would bm threa-bedroom, and an addit~ondl 17 aoald
also he thrae-bodroom, but of a ama~ller square Paotaqe~ that thare appemred to
De aome diacrepanc!• between the measurecl and indicatnd eqnase footages o° ~
un~,:s - or exa-mple, on the final plnne fox Plen No. 2, the indicated eqt
~ ~
MINUTE9, f'iTi' PLANNIN(i COMM]:88TON, Oc~tobsr 15, 1-.s 73-b31
ITSM N0. 3 (Continu~d)
lootaga wa~ 1310 •quare teet, hoaMV~z, m~a~ur~m~nt o! kh• sr~a yielded a tlwell-
ir~q sr~• o! appraxima~~ly 1275 equare l~~t ~nc1 s Qaraqa ar~e~ o! Rpproxita~t:sly
400 squar~ lr~t, qivi.ng n total erea a! 1675 ~quar• lset, kfi erelore, the Commio-
~~.on vrauld have to clotormine whether or not in th• waiver qrante4 und~r Varianoa
No. 244A tha Pina~l iloor ple~ns submitt~d w~xe ^ub~k~nti~llX in accoxdanoe v+ith
thc~s• oriqin+~lly a~aproved or whath~r th~r~ w~~ ••ubrtantixl d~viation einc~
th~ p~titiones wao pro~oAing 45 ~oto vrith th• p~tb~ok ns waived, whwr~as the
ariqiaal pleno indiceted only luur lot~.
Commiepion~r Farano oftezed a motion to diroat •Ce~!! to inform the ~etit~ot~er/
developsr tha-t the proposod develapmonk und~r F.sc~~s~itication No. 72-73-45 i~
xhioh a r~Qu~~ti !or ~pproval o! tinal lloox plans and elevar.iona wa~ beinq
ro~uested was not •ubetantially in scoord~n~ce with the plans as ap~roved under
Verianoe Na. 2~3 e~nd, in elfac~., waa a eubs*sntial davi~stion Pro~n the :,riginal
plan, and ther if nny ~+pproval were gzant•acl by the Pl.anninq Commioeian, it
would have Co ba eub~ect to setting tha itam !os publ.ic heas~inq for c~ne~dare~-
tion of this ma~or deviati~n. Commt~dioner Seymouz ~econdod thm~ mokior..
MOT~ON CARRIED.
ITEM NO"_4
VARIANCE NO. 2a89 ANA ~RAC'r N0. 8220 (Richard ~. Smith,
Inc.) - Re+quest f~z dpproval. of fina-1 specific plana,
dppxoval of Fina1 'Pract Meg pt T~cac*_ No. 82?0, and fi.rgt
reading of an ordinance.
Zoning Supervisar Charles Rabert$ presontod tho tinal epecific plane far
appraval requirad under Traot No. 8220 approva-1 by the Commia~sion, reviaw~ing
the zoninq $ctiona prov:iously takea by both the ~ommie~ion and City Cuunc~.l
when Tzact Nos. 82~0, 8221, 8222 and g223 were conaiderad and nating that the
petitioner now was prflposing to d~ve7.o.p the $ntire property under one tractr
thet ur~der the Planned Communit.y 2one. sub~act pxopnrty wao deaignated f~
~t~2 zon~.ng, however, tho devel~per proposed RS-S000 zoned lote.
Mr. Roberte then reviewed the evaluation af the requeat, noting that tha floor
plans and el.evationa were identical to the arigina~ pldna and the site plan
had changed to the extent that two lats were now prop~eed as mini-parks which
would car~Cain a awimming pool, dxeRaing a.reas, showrsre, and acceesory oquip-
ment. In addition~ alth~ugh Canyon Ri~ Rond wa11 treatment would not be can-
sid~red at this tim~e, somd diecuseion fos future reference cuight be helpful~
and that s~taff woula recommend that the Planning Commission approve the "Final
Specifia Plnns" ae aubmittiQd with a recommendation to the City Gouncil that
plans for the wall treatment along Canyon Rim Road be approved by the City
Council pri.or to any housee being releaged for occupancy.
Mr. lti~hard Willi.ame, Vice President of Richard A. Sinith, Inc., appeared be-
f~re the Commission and atated t'~at the ~inal apecific plans were presented
to the Commie~ion for appr~val since fhis was a requiremen~ of the approval
of the tract map.
Mr. Roberte noted that the pr.~posed tract was .located acroes ~he highway fxom
the Westfield Devo~opmer~t Company development ~+hich war~ adjaCent ~o the golf
cour~e.
Deputy C~.ty Attorney Frank I~o,~ry noted for the Commisszan that the home~wners
aasociation bylaws and CC&R's had been submitted ta the City Attosnsy's Office
and had. been approved and forwarded to the City Clerk.
Mr. Roberts noted that *.heae weze fiaa2 apecific plenp e.cceg~ t!~at the land-
acape ~lan wae not eubmit~ed since staf~ lound it m~re rea~eonable to require
that the l~ndacape pian be submitted sepArately from tihe ~-p~roval o~ pl.ana
for the homes. Fuxthermore, the wa11 treatment nl<~ng Canfon ~tim Road, which
the Commiseion required and which was considared by tho City Council when the
var~.nnce wde cona~.dered, sequired n 6-foot high, open~wark ~onee alonq the to9
of the elopa, aad at that meeting ~ames Pariglc of Annheim Hilla had guqgcsted
that fihey b~, allowed to hava eaa,e v8:iation, howov~r, the Council did not re-
movd the co.~ditian, but +~tated they would aonaider any specifi.c wall treatment
that v+ould be preeen~ed at a later date.
•
~
e
MTNUTEA, CITY PLJ-NNINO COMMi99i0N, Ootobsr 15, 19~3
~TllM N0. __4 (Continusd)
Commi~~ion~x 1~arRno req+~es*od dir~ction as Co th• menn~r
~ion aould ~pprov• thr plan,~ and otil.l mainlain ~om~ lorm
p~rtain~d to landaoaping and Che Mall Cr~~t~~nt.
r3-63Z
in whi.oh th~ Commi~-
a! aontral ao it
Mr. Rob~rts ~tated ths~ th• Coma-iesion ooula sy~+rovt+ the lin~l Apeoilio plene
!or kh• hom~~, bu~ ~h+~~ the Nall tr~atm~nt wouid h.va to b~ z'ooolvod bolora
~n~ o! ths Aul,ldings w~ra re].es~eA !ar oaoupana~-t tha~ utat! had orig~nally
tihouqht thi~ ~hould b~ requirod prior to th• i~~ano~ o! • building permit,
how~v~~r, lrcm 001t1111lR~11 mada by the dev~lnp~r, th^y a~r• xoady t~ mnp'ly for
bul.ldinq p~z'mi'~s aiChin the next ~ew w~eka, and ..h~aall traatment aould no~
b• cer~lvad by ~ham and preeeatud to bho Gv~-mi~~io~i anC Counail foi• oonnidera~
tion Nl.th~n that time. Furthermoro, ninoa s m~mb`r ox t~h• ata!! we~m a lsnd~
acep~ archl.t~at, th~ lAndecepe plnna aould b• pr~r~nt~d to 9CAt~ '~nr reviaw
sr~d appr,aval, ~nd i~r lound not ~o be acu~ptable, thon th~X oould ba preeent~d
tc~ th• Co~mmis4ton nnd Council for aonoi8~rakion, however, thia l~andeaape plan
yc~yld h~v~~ ro b• pxesanted to etalf prioz to linsl bui.lding inspectian.
Mr. W~111au~• etiatcd that limiting the relaasp o! the et.xuctura~~ ~o requirinc~
tr~• N~il tr~atment plan to be submittsd prior to oacupanay pe~:mite grante3
wc~uld oreRtw n problem f~r their dieplay of modala, sinco tl~c,y would not• be
eble to hAVA any of thc+ ut~litiee turnad on, a,nd that they 1~-nd had thie~ prob-
1em in th• paat whan the Huilding Divisian would not make ::ina~ building
i,n,~pootion oE khe mac4els.
Cor.~tinuad diecua0lon wna held by the C~n-ml.eeiun reqarding the occupancy permita
on tha madels, and up~n it~s conclusion, it was determined that the modsle could
k~e ovcup~ed gar dioglay purp~aee but not tar actual livinq tacilities until tl~e
wal~'. tree4ment plan w~se eubmitted and Zppzoved by the CAmmi~sion an8 City
Gouncil.
Commi.eaioner Feruno offered a matiotl, secnnded bx Commiseioner Seymour and
MOT~ON CARRIED, to approve the Final Specilic ~ians far Tract No. 8220, pro-
vidad,, however, that the landacapfng Plan for the trac~ shnl.l bd submitted to
~he Davnlopmmnt Servicee Depa.rtment for approval~ and that the wall treatmant
~aquir~-d for Canyon Rim Road ahall be submitted to the Planning Commiasion and
City Council for approval prfor to occupnncy of the homn~, and furth~r, that
thc:~ home~~ propoe~+d to be uaed for ~nodel homes ehall be gr.anked tAmpozary
occupenc;r for modal homas only aad shel~ not be used f~r ~atential purchaeere
until th6 wnll ~.reatment plan as required has been approvec! by the City Counail.
7TEM N0. 5
fi,ESCHEAULINC: Or DIECEMBBR 24~ 1~73 PLAtiNING
LQMMISSION MEF•TING.
2oninq Suporvisor Charlee Raberts inquir.ea whather the Comm~.efion had conaidereA
whether or not ~hey wauld prefez sched~iling the public hee+ri.ng3 oxig3nally eet
for pecemk~er 24, 1973, which was Christmas Ev~, or whether anather date waa
beinq coneidered, and the mn~t loqical date would be Aacember 27, 1973, since
the Council wouid ye o~z holidny for Uecember 25 and woulcl normally nold their
public h9arl.ng the day after c+ holiciay.
C~nsiaerablo di.ecuse.i.on wae :~eld by the Commiasi~n xelative to ~he apprupriate
dette Chat ahauld be uae,3 or whether the Commission s~iould ac~edule the publ.ic
hearinq for the morning of December 24.
Commiasionor H~rbr~t offored a mction to cha.nqe tt~ePlan.~inc~ Commieai4n public
henrinq date oriqinally ,set fc-r December 24, 1973, to Drcesmk~ex~ 27, 1973.
Cnmmieai~ner King secand~~d the motion. MOTION CAI~RIED. (Commiaeioner Farano
votad "no".)
~
~
~
MTNVTIO~, CITY pLANNxNa COMMTSi{ION, Octpb«r 18~ 1973 '~3-b33
TTffiM ~i0. ti
~~Q~UL~SlOR CHl-~1(i~ tN T'BRlIINGLOdY 71NA ~IL~RSt11Gli
q~' ~'xNAilQQkf 11ND MOTYOt~ REdI-RbINC F~NRIRQNbBNTAL
~MPACZ' RE80RT8.
Conei4~rrabl~ di~ou~~io~+ xa• hc~.d by th• l;amm~~si.on r~lakiva to tbs ~~cittlaq l~xa
u~~d both in ~h~ R~part to ~ho Comml.~s~or •na th~ li.~nAi~~ng ot tih• Pianninq Co~aa~io~
sion i.r. r~rolstion~ r~q~ardinq th• •x~aption staCus ruqua~t~ a! ar- Envir~nmental
impaat R~p~~rt.
etAl~' indla+~t~.ed ko the Planninq Commi~sl.on th~-t n~p t't~rdaga and propo~~~~, ao
Mell a~ ~ddition• and c~Ale~~.ons !or ax~mptions, wAUld bR Aubmi.tted to tho
Plenni,nq Coau~i~~ian aa pnrt o! thoir pxaket !or ~he n~xt m~etinq.
l~D~TOURt~1~U5NT - Th~r~ bein? nc lurtt~~z businsso ta ~Al.acuaa, Commi~eioner
H~rbst olr~red R mot~an, ssaon6s~ by Comml.ba~ion~r Kinq and
N07Ci0N CARRYBU, to sd~our.n th~ wsetinq.
T?-e meating adjournNd nt 51~5 ~.m.
Reop~cttully •ubmittad,
r~~~ ~ ~~Zr~
~-t~N KRBBA, $eoreCary
Anahaim City Plannin~g Commi~~ion
11K ~ hm