Minutes-PC 1973/10/290 R C 0 MICROfiI~{IN~ SERVICE, IMC.
,. ~~, . ,„
, . ,~,, , _ . „ ,
C~
~
~
City Hnll
Anah~' ~n~ Califarnia
~et~ber 29, 19?3
71 RBOOL~-R ML~BTING nF TH$ ANAHEIM C2TY PLA[JNYNG COMMI8nI0N
RFGULAR -~- re,;~uler me•t~ng ot the Anaho~.m ~ity Planninq Caami~~ic,n wse
M~ETING call~~~ to arder by ChAirmun Ga~aer at Z~QO p.m.; a quorum
baing ~~rsrant..
PRE~ENT - CHAIRM~N~ Gauar.
~ COMMIS&IONbRS: ~'arr~no (entered ths Council Chamb~r At 1~07 p.m.),
Harbsi, King, ~3owlendr Seym~ur.
ABA~NT - COMMI88IONERS~ A1=rad.
FAES~;NT - A~r-ietent D~ivalcpment Servicas Diractors Rnnald Thompson
De+puCy c:ity AtL•oi:n iyi Wil.li.nm Hapkine
Ofliae l:nginoel Jay '~iL•ue
Zoninq ~upNrvi:~~:.•~r i Charles Rot,erts
Ar~sistant Zoni.n~ 8upervisor: '_'!:lll~p Schwarkze
Commieeion Secxetnry, Ann Krebe
Commission Bec.retnry ;~ro tem: Patricia Scanlan
PY,~GG~: OF - Commiesioner Xtowland led in the Pledqe of .\l~egianaa L•o the
ALLEGIANCE r].ag.
APPROV 1L OF - Commi~eioner King offerod d motion, aecondec~ by Commiseioner
THE MiNUTES Herbat an8 MUTION CARRIEA, to approve the minu~c~~ of ti-o
meating of Oatober 1, 1973, with the foll~winq correc~tianss
Pg. 73-587, para. 3, line l: delete "KaywnocY" dnd subatitu*.~
"Ki.ng" .
Pg. 73~'98, t~st para., lnat line: the namc is "Marcus South".
REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 1- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1268 AND
RECOMMENDATZONS ITEM NO. 2- CONDiTIONAL USE PEF,MIT NO. 1369 were
considered prior to r•ublic hearing by the Planning
Commission. See page 73-6tiQ for complete rninutes,
Commisaioner Farano ent4red the Council Chamber at 2:07 p.m.
~;ARIANCE PJO. 2521 ~ CONTINUF.D PUT+LIC HFARING. MULLF.R HOLDING E INVESTMEN~ CO.,
b363 Sunsst Boulevard, 5uite ?00~ Hollywood, Ca. 90028,
Ownert ADVANCED EQUIPMENT C~RP., 241 Crescen~ Way, Anahpim,
Ca. 928J1, Agentt requestinq WAZVER OP THE R~QUIRED 6-FOOT MASONRY WALL AROUND
AN OUTDOOR USE 2'O PERMIT A CHAINLINK FENCE an p.roperty described as: A
reatangu~ar].y-shaped parcel of lan3 coneic~ting of ,.pprc,ximately 1.3 aares,
having a fzontrsge of approximate'y 160 feet on tho west eide of Creacen~oMiy,
havinq a maximum degtl~ of approximately 354 faet, and being located a-pp
mataly °j15 feet :~ortl~ of the center7.3ne of Lincoln Avenue. ~roporty preaently
alass~.fied :1-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. ZONE.
Subject petition was cont.inued from the m~etings of July 9, August ~, nnd
September 5, 1973, at the requeat af the petitionpr.
No one appedre~d ta r~present the patitianer.
Aseiete~nt 2oning Supervisor Fhillip Sch~artze notod for the Comu~isaion that
at the ldst conaideratian o~ subiect petition when a repreaentative of the
petitioner requeated furLher cantinuance, the Gommiseion haci adviaed the
repxeaenta~ive that if gurther contfnuance was requeated, aubject pQtition
wauld be removec~ from the aqenda and only reconaidered after readvertieinq
the petition at tl~e expense of the petitioner.
Commisa~.oner. Fareno in~uired whot~her th~.e itc~m was the zeault ef m zoning
violation aa~6 not~.~e to comgly is~-ued by the ~'oni~ng knforcemen~ O!licer, and
iP so, wo~ld remaval of the itam f'roa- the ~genda negate ~ny posefAle enforce•~
ment~ whereupon Mr. Schwartze atatea that rQmoval grom tk~e nqend+~ would have
no effect upon enforcemdnt o! the viol+~tion.
73-634
~
~
~
MINUTLB, C7hY PI,ANNxNci COMMI~SxON~ OakobaX 29, 1973 73-63~~
VMRIAGiC~ N0. 2521 (Cuntinued)
Commisoinncr H~rb~k oflared e motion, eeoanded by Cam:~~ealotter Rov-lnnd and
MOTION CARRiLD, to r~move conil,dar~tian of petltion far Variance No. Z5Z1
lrom the agar~dd a~nd ~o be re~~dverti.~4d ~or anather public haari.ng at ti~ti
~xpon~• ~f tha pekitioner whwn th~ potitioreex had resalvwd problems r~~ax~ding
ootnplying with the r.ecommended condi~io.1~.
VARIANCE N0. 2560 - pUBLiC H~ARING. TU3TZN VIL~AGF., iNC., P• 0. Draw~r "~",
~ Hunting*.oa Haach, Ca. 92648, Ownari requedting WA]tVEYt OF
THE NIINIMUM REQUIR6D GARA(3~ SETBACK '^0 CONS~RUC'~ ~A 41-LOT
11ND A 44~LOT SUBD7VISION un pro~erky ~l~~crib~d ns~ An .irreqular.lx-ohApad
parcel of land aoneieCing of dpproxi~mately 17.2 aorss, havinq a frontage o!
upproximetely 480 teet on the north eide of 8enta Ana Cenyon Road, hnvi.ng a
maximum depth of apF:•oximately 1350 feat, u;~d be.tng locat~d approximataly 236
Eeet northwent of ~he cent~rl~.ne of Mo'»1or Drivcs. Property pra~on~ly classi-
Eied R-l, ONE-FAMILY RESID~NTI}1I,, 20NE.
No ona appe~red :ln oppoaitian.
Althouqh the Report to Yha Comminaion wae not ze~ad at tbe public hearinq, it
~e r.elarred to and maAe a part oP tihe minut0~.
Mr. Michael Sager, repre~entiug the Fetitioner and the develo~,er, indioatec!
hls presenae to e.nawer questione.
I~89~8tArit 2oning Superviaor Phill~.p 3ahwertxe noted fo~ the Cummiaeion that
the item befare the Commisaio.n was the ::.a41t of glane havin3 beon aubmitted
which indi.cated a particu?ar garaqe configuration which w~a not in accor4ance
with Coc~e requirement of a 25-Eoot building setbackt that the lote unaer .en-
si.deration in the two tracts would ha-ve hammer.head drivee which w~uld not
alJl~w for etrai.qht-in dzivewny ai~proACh to the garages, and the rQquost would
be for a!: avesage of 15-foot aet~ack, however, some of theae setbacka woutd
b~ 12 Feet, 3 inchea, with all livinq areas having th~ roquired 25-foot set-
Aeck from the frc,it proporty line.
Mr. Jage.r notod thdt their pr.oposal with khe v~ar!ation in setbacks far Trnct
Nos. 7617 and 7'136 wa» to proviQe a dif£erent residontial setback pattern than
was found i~ othez subdivisi.ons~ that they had the aame configuration in thair
development at Orangethorpe and Crowthex Avenuf.s whi.ch wero permi~ted by riqht
since they were conatructed l~~rior to the recent change in garage setbacks~ and
thAt with this pro~osal 1t was their in+'cent tio get vehicles off the straet by
providi:~g p~rkirig on-sito for at least three ~vehicler~ wtth no overhang into
khe public riqht-of-~way.
THE IiEARING WAS ~L4SED.
Mz. Schw3rtze, 'n response to Cnt~~misalorY questioninq regarding C.ity Council
action on the l~t wi.dt.hs~ 6t3~~d that the Council had i.mposed the percentage
of 1~~ variation as aet £orth in tlle plans.
Commisa~anex Herbst offered a motion, seconded k+y Commissioner Rowland and
MOTION CAxRIED, t1~at the Pl~snninq Cnmmi.9aion, in connection with an Ex~mption
Asclaxation 5tatus Raquest, finda and determines that the propoet~l would have
no signific~nt onvironmental impact, and, therefore, recommends to the City
Council that nn Environmental impact Strtement is necesssry.
Commissioner Herbet offerad Reeolution No. PC7~-237 and moved for ita pa~aage
an~ adoption to grant Peti~.xan f~r variance No. 2560 for thoae lots with
hammerbead garuqe driveways es depiatad on planA indicat~n~ 11 late within
Tract N~. 7617 and 13 lots witk~in Tract N~. 7736, an3 aubject to conititians.
(See Regolution Buuk)
On roll ca:.l th~ foregoinq reao~.utian w~o passed by the tollowing v~ate:
AY'ES: COMMTSSIONERS: Farano, Gaues~, Harbst, King, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES~ COMMISSIONSRSs Norss.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSi Allred.
~
~
~
MTNUTEB, CITY PLANNING C~MMI38IQN, October 29, 1973 73"~~F
Vl1RZANCF N0. 2561 -~UBLx~: HS!-RINC3. PIGK RANCHFt~, 1833 South State College
~~ ~ Boulev~eXd, Anahsim, Ca. 92906, Ow-~ez~ RUSTYC HOMF~, INC.,
o/'o Mr. Yt~kar4~ 11'24 Indep~ndenoa Avenue, Mountai.n View,
Ca. 94040, Aqentl Xequeptinq WAIVER ~F {A) PEItMTTTBll UG~t3 AND (~) MINIMUM
R!lQUIRffiD PARKING 3PACE9 TO E~RTABLI3H A MODUT~AR HOME DI3PLJ-Y ]~ND RFTAZL SALEB
FACYL~TY on pxape.rty desaribmA a~~ A rAe~anguldrly-shaped pxrcel o! land
hdvinq a frontage af approximatwly 165 lc~At or, tt-e waat aidA o! Statie Co'lisqs
Soulnvard, havii~g a maximum dapth of approximntely ~03 femt, and boing loastaA
~prroximat~ly 31p reek eoutl~ o! th~ csntexline o! Katdlla Av~nue. Property
px~~~ntly c].aesifiod M~1, LitiHT INDUSTRSA.L, ZONF.
No one Appearod in oppoait3on.
Although the Report ::o the Commies±on wn~c not rna.d at the public he~ring, i.t
ie reterred to and made a part of •,;ha minutaa.
Commiesi.oner King indicateci that because oP a poseible conflict of interegt,
lie would not parti.cipete ir~ discuseion oz vote on a~ib~eot pstition.
Mr. Bruoe Pi::kard, S55 South Ra~h Street, +~qent represer~ting the petitionar,
nppmardd before the Commieei.an and e~tated that the Report to the Cammission
addqu..cely prusonted Mhat they propoeed to do~ tliat thoy ware propos;ing to
uma Aneheim as tho base for thei.r company for tha marketing ~£ theiz moc9ular
homek which they manufacturr~d irt Saoramenroi that this location was seleotod.
becsuae of dase in direc~ing their potential customern to L•he locAtion oY the
snodular homea, and L-he ~ite wae noC eel~cted for drive-in or drup-in cusL•omeret
thaC cuetomcr.s would oe viaitinq this eite by appointment nnlyt and that they
did not intend to store L•heae models outdoars.
'TFiE HE}1RING WAS CLOSEA.
Cammiesiarier Seymour noted that ata~f hed indica~ced the prop~aecl use was a
retail ealee facility, however, thA aq~nt far the petition~r hacl indicated
thi~ would permit cuatomere by appui.ntment only and inquired whether ho, as
an individual, could vieit the premioes to view these modr~lsi whereupor. Mr.
Pickard roplied that ona would h~ve to be cantacted b~- a salesman and invited
to comg in to visit thQ premises, hoF~~vex, they would be advertising in the
I,os ?lnqelea Times ar~d the Santa Ana Ragfster. In addition, it waA propoaed
~o have only an identification aign for Rusti.c Homea, and th~re would be no
Pree-standing siqn,
Chairman Gduer .inquired whether thiA type of hausinq wa~s similar to the Raaine
Yomee~ wh::r~+upon Mr. Pickard atatod that tha modular homes they sold were 95+b
complete and could be moved onto th$ eite tn put toqether in section~, w•hich
qc:nerally were twot tYiat tl-ese ~ould be both residential and vac3tion-ty~e
homea, with th~ modala being etored in the inside of the buildingi a~1d that
the structure met the ~uilding C~de requirementa.
Commissioner Sey~aour Qxpressed concern that thia use c~ul: be cor.vr~rted in*u
n more i.ntense comz~~ercial uae in the induatrial Are~ if business had a slaw-
ing period, rut he did not know how ~he use could be confined tu that which
tho Agent haci indic~tec7.
Commiasioner Farano observe~ that the aqent was propASing to conatruct theee
unita within rs buildinq, and the Co~nmiesion hr~d never had auch a usa preae:ited
to them before.
Commiaeioner Herbst further in3icatsd that the petitionar waa slso reque~~i~,g
waiver of the reguired paxkir,q nnd inquired wl-ether this would be decreas~ing
the amount of parking for .•he ottigr tenants in the industri3l co~nplexJ where-
upon Aaeistant 2oning Supervisor Phillip Schwartze a9vised the Commisaion that
tha parki,ng wns calculatecl in accoxddnce w~th the pa~king required tor rctail
uges and was the basis tor advertising the pazking waiver, sinco parking as
it exieted wan p=ovided ia accordance ~aitP~ the zequirements of the ~[-1 70~ e.
Chairmaz~ Cauer inquired as Lo tho price ornpneed for theee homeei whereupon
Hr. Pickard atated the price wa,es S17 per square ~oati or $10,000 to SZZ.~~A.
dep~tndiag upon the aize of the hom~ purchaaed, and the customer would bA
prav~iding his own lot on Nhich to move thiu tt:oduler li ~e.
~
~
MTNUT~S, CITY PLANNYI3G COMMiS8I0N, Octabar 29, :.973
VARIIINCE N0. 2561 (Continued)
73-fi37
4om~+.~~ioner Harbst inquired ~rom whom was Chie propaxtp k~einq leesod and tar
v-h~tt l~nqth o~ time we~p the lASSS drawnt whoreupon Mr. Pickaxd a~:atad that
":h~ PsoQ~rty wao being l~ea~ed lrom 7-ehwill-BUrke Co•, who had e commeroial-
incSusCri~1 r~al estate taci2.ity approved by the Commisaion, and thut thAy hnd
a ons~yoax lease an the property.
Mr. Pickard turthnr noted that LhAee u~lits were now boiny msnufactured in
Secrna-entQ, howe~~er, i~ wa~ hoped to hava ~hQir owm m~nufacturl.ng pl~nt in
Annheim oac Southern Calitornio i~ tl.e future, hawaver, they did noc wa-n~t n
mobilehoms lot eot~~p whtch would e~~courage drive-in or welk-in treP.fia bacnuee
t~~ey wanted poople ta view thaee homes on an appaintment bneis, an8 alrhouqh
their "acillt~ea in N~rtharn C~liPornia were located behii~d n£enam Qut-af-
d~ore, *he ~otpntial custc~mer would hrve to go tfirough ~ ealee o~ficca to roach
the mo~lels~ thek thoy proposecl no m~re than aeven empl.oyees, And previ.oue
exparienca inc~icated ther~ naver would be moze than oile or. two drop-in cue-
tonezo on a weekandi that thAy anticipatad ai~:^aeven ealeemen thera. on waek-
er~de, wiCh no more than ei~hti cuetomera, wliich would mean the parking tt~ey
propoaed wou1~9 be more than ddQqu+~te, while ~he enclosure of the mode~ln wae
deaired for control purpoeds.
Cammiesioner Herba~ nateci that sincc~ a vax~.ance went with tl~e land sn3 the
pekitlonAr h~d a one-year lease, Pexhaps considerar.ion rt:ight be given i:o a
timc~ li~rtit~tion for the uae+ requegted, if t.he Coe-mi.ssion coneidAred the re-
ques~ favorahly, both frnm the s~:andpoii~t o~ determir-ing whather paxking was
adequa~d and whettier the operation a~ ei~vielonAd by tih~ ~+Yont for the peti.-
tioner met with their expectutions.
Commiseioner aeymour offered a moti.on, eecondod by Comeiia~l.oner Herbst and
MOTTON CARR7ED (Commiasioner A11red was absent• an:l Commissioner. King ab-
stainod), that the Planning Comttieaion, in connection with an Exemption
Declaxati.on Status Requeat, finds and determinas tha4 the proposal wou'ld have
no ~ignifi~ant environmental impact and, thsrrfore, ieccmmends to the City
Council that nu ~nvironmental Impact Statement ~.s ~teceasary.
C~cuniasioner Herbst ~~ffer~d Resolu~iQn No. PC73-2~R a~id moved f4r it~ passaqo
and adoption to yrx~it Petition for Variance No. 2~b1 for 3 period ~f. one
year, subject to reriewal, i.n nrder ~. . the Commiesion to detPrmino r-ow the
use would af.feet ather 1$nd use aevea.opment in tha area and whekher par}:ing
was adec~uate, as wely as gi.vinq the petitionex an opportunity to determi.n~
the feasibility of tre s1t0 for a~uc~easful busino~a, since the petiti.onr~r
st~.puaa~'ed that they had a one-year l~ase oii the property t ancl sub~ect to
coriditions and the ~tipulation by the petitioner thst ther~ would be no fzee-
atanding si~gn nor any s*_c~Ya.ge of th~se modular homea out-of-doora. (See
Reoolution Book)
On roll ~~11 the foregoing reaolutinn waa ~sesed by the fallowing vot~:
AYESs COMMISSTONERS: Farano, Gau~r, Herbst, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noz~e.
AHSE~IT: COMMISSIONERS: ~llled.
ABSTAiN: COMM.T.SSTONERSi King.
CONDImIONAL U5E - PUBLIC H~AR7NG. JOANN~ 5. HEYING, c%o Axno Heying, 2888 -
YERMTT NO• 14~8 1~6 Irir~ Avenue, San D.lego, Ca. 921~4, Owneri ANN T.
MAAISON, Madiaon Real Estate, Tnc., 600 South Harbor
Boulevard, Anaheim, Ca. 92805, Agents requesting permi.ssi~n
'to ES'Y`ABLISH AN OFFICE USE jN AN EXISTIAEG RESIDE;NCE, WAIV7I3G (A} MINII~iUDI SIDE
YARA SETBACK, (9) BUTr~DING IiEIGF[T WITHIN 300 ~'EET OP' A REStDE1~TIAL 20NF, (C)
MASdN'dX WALL ABUTTING A RE5IDENTIAZ ZONE, (D) TRASH ENCLOSURE Ae2EA, AND (E)
VEHICULAR ACCESS DEDICATION on praperty deacrib~d ~s: A Xectanqularly-shaped
parcol of land consisttng of appr~ximately 0.1 acre, havinq a fronta9maximum
approximete].y 48 feet on the affist aiSe ot Harbor Boulevard, havinq a
dep~h of approximately ).02 ~eet, and baing located appxoximately ~55 feet
south of the centorline of Wator Stxeet. Property p~ASantly claeeif.'_ed R-1,
ONE-FAMILY RE3IDENTIAI~, ZONL wi~h a~esnlution of intent to C-O.
~hree peraons inaicated theiz preaence in oppoaition.
COMMIS~lUN,
CONDTTIUN~L U9E PE RMIT_N0, 14Z0 (ConCinucd)
1-c~~ietent ~lanning suporvi~or Phillip 8ohwartz~ notad !az the Comml~~ion thdt
he h+~d spok~n with those persone+ pre~~snt in opposition to Lh~ oub~oct rsque~t~
thek no ext~rior moQiticatiane v+~xe be~inq ~ropoaed c>thor than a parking l.~t
abuttinq th~ al.leyt ~haL• wuiv~~rQ (a) and (b) w~re beinq requdetod ba~oQ an 1:h~
lact th~C thi~ we~ an ~.xi~tinq struoturat that waiv~: (c) waa baing ra~uuate~l
!.n view a! Ch~ lact tnu prcapoosd uro abutted a resident~al ~eone~ that waiv~x
(d) wea b~inq xequacceZ based on the fact ~he tr~~h encloauro area could be
modi~ted st~ttrtaa;orily without tull oomplisnae to tl~e requixAmenter that~
weivar (o) w~-M baing rnc~ueoted in order ta continue tha us~ o! the garage with
acoa~s on H+~rbor Boul~ .erdt nnd *i.et ex~m~tion trom filinq o! an Bnv.ironmental
Tmpact Report w~~ alao baing requeetell.
Mzs~. :~nn Mad~~on, agent Eor Che petitionex, a;~pe+srad bel~ra thw Commiesion
and stated t' ai it appeara~ the ~etitionor waa requeetinq numArouo r+wivdrA,
but thAt mort at then. ~rere techni,c+~lt that it w~uld only be a m~ttar of time
u~nti], the ad jac~ nt pr.apdrtie~ would bo aevelope9 Yo r commercial uee~ ~ tha~
~:~e requaet.~d waivura wexe radanna~ble to roquest~ Y.hat onl.y ane oF thc, wnivore
appe~+rad to ba partinent, that beinq ~Gh~a weiver concerni.~q treah encloouret
thati thero wauld be no objection to ~e].ocAtinq the t-.raKh encloaure t~ ':.ho
pouth eide oi' the property betwaen th~~ gax+sge and the :~ence, whiah then w~uld
ba more ua~ily accesoible for trdeh pickup and aomewhat hidden Prom view~ th~t
from experience in the oEF1ce buildinq ahe ahar.ed, one trnah bazrel would be
r~doquat.e for offic~ use, espaciall,y ainco commercirsl ae.rvica wna twice a week;
thak pexmi.eaion was bai.ng requested to uan the exta tinq ncceas from Harbor
Boulevard~ un~il the C1ty determ,in~d it was na lc~~~gez prdcttcal from ~s safety
stundpaint ox until the entire area ha~d been or was beir,g ro~evelopedi and
th~.t tho commoY•c:.xl. uqes on th? west ~i.Jg oF. Flarbor eaulev~nrd pre~ently h i
acceea.
Gauor not_d that tho Planninq Commisuion could not waiva ternp~rary
tlarbor Boulevaxd~ that the City Counc.~.l would have to Cake e-ction
requeat.
Mrs. Ma~9leon further atated tt~e existinq gt~rsge frontinq on HaXbor Bc~ulavard
woulll be £or the user' 3 own pEraor~al qarage~ ~thet i f the (:ommis~ion approved
the r~guest, she wo~:13 preeent ~ vehicular acceae riqhta requeet to the City
Counc'.1 anfl would locate the tx•aah storage bet~een ':he gerage and the fence
on t11R bouth aide of the subject properCy.
Mr. Stevan Meeks, 624 South Harbor Boul~vard, appear.ed before the C~ommiseton
~ n opposition and stated hi.a proparty was locAted dire~tly north, ~-d jacent
~o the sub~ect propezty, and right Acxoss from the antique yhop located at
025 Sauth Harbor Boulevardt that he was nct objecting to the ~ide ~ar.d set~
back, thQ i:rash enclosure, or ~he parking planned for the back, but he Wnuld
like to see the sequirnd 6-foot masonry well constructed on boCh th~ narth
and aout'i sideF ~f the subject ~,ropert--~ tha~: a 3-foot high ~~ickut fer~ce
present:.y exieted ~n the proper*.y line to tha nortY~, and a 4 or 5-foot redwood
fence to the rear property linet ~hat he thought t31e r.vocado tree ~Ln the rsar
wou1~ probably be removed for parkinqt and khat he had no objections ae ta
tho uae requcsetad, but he would Zike to have tha require~; maeonxy wall for
privacy.
Mr~. Ed~th Neil, 630 Seuth Harbor Bouldvard, a.ppear.ed before the CommiRSioi~
in oppositi.on ~o waiv~r of the requirod 'o-foot mas onry ~~dll and etatad her
residence wns directly eauth of the ~ubject property, nnd ~he nlso wauld like
to aee the wall conetructed between he+r reaidence a~d the subject property ae
thexe was prea~ntly na ~ence oti any :cinc.
Commisai~ner Seymour er~*ered in~.o lenqthy discueaion with the opposition und
aqent for the petitioner concerning loaatior~ of exis~ing wal].s and; ar fencea,
followinq which Cammiaeioner Seymaur etated he could not ~ee how the propoBed
use would ~hanqe the protect~.on a=ready exieting as thero wan alzeady ~°ieunl
and so~,~rid buffexinq, in his opir,ion.
~ ~
MINUTP:9, CITY PLAt~NTN(3 COMMI88~ON, Octob~r 29, 1973 73-63~
CONUxTxON71L OSF PERMIT NO~ 1428 (C~ntinu~d)
Mro . t4adison Purthar expluinwd th~ Meqk~ r~~id~nce was ad~ao~nt to th• a].l~y
and parkiag lott +:hat tha u~or propoaed ta retsin tho ~avooadr traet ~h~C ther•
rrae an existing rndwuod leno~ on the norL•h~ that the garsq~ on th• •outh sicl~
would ram~in and the QAlAQa o!P tha alley •rould aat ss a bui~~r to th~ narth
sid~t tl~at th• proparty lin• ws• only •baut tNO or thr~.a la~t lrom the huu~~,
wnd if n co»creta block w~ll w~r• c4natsuoted, it would or~ly be u~~d to ~hield
zamoval aY tho trwrt-i tha~t th~ ~urtom~r~ w~uld ba by wppointmai~t ohly end
aould uee *h• Pront duori snd, turther, thst it Nould not be too lonq b~lore
botF~ ot th~ adjac~nt r:~pestise Kould ba de:~elaped fc,r aommerci.al uoe, And
sha, th~r.u~ore, ~,~no roqu~a~ting a waiver of tl~~e well.
THE IIEARING WA ~ CLOSED,
Commieeianer Fiorbst atated ho woulQ ;~a~ve to vota with tho peagla e~ !ax aa the
wasll waa cuncernad si.noe, theee homee woulA b~ ueod by the property ownert !or
ma•~y y»nrs .
Mtie. Mddi~o:~ ~tnted ol~ca undarotood Comm.iaei.nner Herbat'g feelinge, ad well an
the c,p~oaitlo-~, howr~vec, she could n~t undvrstand how tho cuetomerr would
affect Mrs. Heil'd or Mr. ~5cek'a pxopertias.
Mr. JameH MdYB}ldll~ 1 52 South Tigrena, Whititier, appeared before the Commia-
aion aa i:he proposec' .3er of th~ subjack properCy, and i.n reaponee to quostiona
by Commiaeionor Sey ur, atatad that the ki~.chen and a~ utility room whir.h would
be ueed foz stnrage nnd copyir~y maahines ware lacated or~ th~ aouth aide o! the
exiatinq etructure, and that the cuetomer~ would no~ be u~inq the back daor to
thle ar~.~. Also, the windowe oti that si.de af the st.ructure were high, thsreby
providinq viaual protection to the propeXty to tt-e eauth.
Commiasioner aeymuur offerod a motiAn, eaconded Ly Commiesionar Rowlenc~ and
MOTION CAP.RIED, that the Plnnning Commiesion, ia conn~ction with an Exemption
Declaration ~tatue Requast, finda and determine~ that the propoeal would have
no aiqni.ficant onviror.mental. impact and, therefore, reconmanda to t}~e City
Council that no Lnvironmental Impact Statemant iF neceseary.
Commt~sioner Seymoux offored Resolu~ion No. PC73-239 and moved for ite paeaege
aad adoption to grant Fetition for Conditional Use pe rmit N~. 1428, eubject to
conditione, w~th waivere (a) and (b) beinq qranted or~ the basis that the pzo-
posed uae was being es~.abliehed i.n an existinq atructure and the aito develop-
ment etandards of ths C~O Zune were appl.icable to new developruentj wai.ve:' (~?
betng denieii on the basis that the praperties to the north and south of the
subjec: proposed uee ware boing u:.~~11Ted for residential purp~ses and should
be aff.orded aome privdcy znd gzotectior~ from intrusion of. commerciAl u~est
waiver (d) being denie3 on the basie thai Sani.tntion offic~.als haa. in6lcatod
al.ternate Polutiane were p~seible due ta the minimum amour.t of trash that
rvould be generated, with said altornate t;•ash ~~~closure to be 'locgted on the
s~utherly portion of ~aubject property as atipulated ~y the peti.tii~.neri thak
waivar (e) , abov~ mentianed, is hereby denied on the basi.s that vehicular
acceba rights Lo Hazbor Houlevard should be dedfcated in conformance with thc~
requested zontng an~i approved Aree development planl and that a tempo ary
waiver ~f eaid dedication roqueat may only be gr~nted by the City Council.
tSee Reaolution Book)
Ugon inqviry of Commieaioner Seyn~our, Mr. Marsh~ll ac~vised customera wot•.ld
~ralk from the rear ~P the subject prop~rty to the front via ~7,e wi~e araa to
the north of the rdeiclentit~l atructiire.
Cnmmisel.or.er Seymour not~d ~ha~.. with tlie p~r.king 1~~t being useA, the property
owner on the gouth would need the protection of a masonry wall ur the peti-
~loner would need to provide other pa~rking, ~nd, theroupon, bmended hiz motion
to provide a 6-loot masonry wall cn both sides of the property.
Commisgiones Raular-d atated ha felt i~ wae h~.e prerogati.ve ta note thnt approvnl
of eubject petition wruld be defeating the int+nt of tihe Commiasion v.hen ttir
azea Qe~~Alopment plan wan considered~ that the uea proposed wao margl.ndl on a
margi~al parcel of propertyt thmt pmrkinq wes required ~n accordance with the
~
~
~
MINUT~9, CITY PLANNINti ~:OMMIB~tION, Oatober ~9, 1973 73-640
CONDITIONI~L U~E PERMIT N0, 14a8 (Cantinu~d)
plan to th• roar o! tha prop~rtiy , hov~~v~x, ther.• app~ared t~ b• no diz~ot
aooe~r ta the k~uildinq ito~ili the.! th• p~Citioner wculd be qrante~! aao~~r
to ana Yrom Nal:bor Haulovard t~r noti only hi~ v~hiole but tcx xnyona ~1~•
Nho w~nt~d to uaa thie accd~~t t=~d~ it would appear loqioal that cuvtom~r•
would nat bs uei.ng th~ required prrkinq to th~ rear and then wRlkinq to th•
lzonl~ that th~ra •• a11 kind~r ai otlio• •paae svaileblo admi.xsbly ~uik~d
toz th~ propor,ad uc.e, a] though the C.ommi~eion waa not empowerod with aon~
~i.Q~za~ion at che eoonomi.cs oP a para~l o! proper~p~ ~nly the ~aud u~Mt and
th+~ti if' th~ petitioner chos~ to uoe th• property in the mannar p:c~~o~~a, thon
hm ehoul.d be requirod to ~onform to !-r~a Devolopment Plan No. ~4 by providii~~
ci.roulation in a normal manner.
C~mmisslonAr Seymour noted althouph the proposa]~ kas probably not th~ ba~t
plen in t.he world, ths aree wao in a period of tranaition ar redsvelapm~nt~
and with a4untleas propexty ovrna re in this area hati•ing beEn qrant~d thi~
privilege, the Gommiseion cou~d not grant waive~- to Rar.e and not grant ka
othare, but ha wanted to insure that tt~e prope:ty uwneze who wa~re still
mninkaining r~aide~na~sr~ would be protected in evnry menner poe~iblet thu~ khe
blook walla on both eidee would be pzopar.
~ommia~atonex Fara.io m~d~ +sn obs~a~rvation ti~at thezo have been a uuniber ot thia
typo qf petit~ion n the lset yeax ar two preeented Whero theze~ waa very littl~
eflort to conver.t thc a~ppearance of t~ieme structuree to a commercial ~scadN.
Oa roll caZl the foreyoing reso lution, as a~mer-ded, wa~+ pas~ad by tha Q~lYow~.nq
vote;
AYESi C~MMISSIOt~ERSs Gauer, Herbet, King, Saymoer.
NOLB~ COM~iISSIONE1tS: P'c~ranc~ , Rowlr-nd.
A~SENT: COMMISSIONERS : A1' ~d .
RE^ORTS AND - I7'EM N0. 1
RECOMMENDAlIONS CONDITIONTL ri~E PERMIT N~. 1268 (Lynn E. Thotnsen,
et al) - Reque~:t for an extension of time ° PzoF~erty
located on the ~Ol1tI1 ei.c~e o€ S~uth Street, approxi-
mately 270 fea~ west af State College Boule~vard.
Aoeistant. 2oning Supervisor PhilJ.ip Sch~artze reviewed the location of aubject
proparty, uaea aQpravod, and the requesti of t~e petitioner for ~n extension of.
~in:e for completion of conditfone, n~tinq that staff would reco. ~end t-n extesn-
si.on of time be granted rotroactive t~ April 13, 1y73, a: d an ad3itiunaa 180-
dny ~sxtena3on of time.
Can~~ lseionez Rowland offerod a m~tion, seconded by Commiasioner Herbat and
MOT10N CAF.RIED, to qr.ant an extension of tim~ re~roactive ~o Apri 1 13, 1973,
ati~! an additional 180-day extension of ti~me, SRid time extension tc expixe
4rif1 13, '974, For complotion of con3ltiQns in connc~ction with Conditiana:.
~,1~~ Parmit No. 1268.
TTEM NC . 2
CONDITIONAL USF PERMIT' N0. 1369 (Amsrican Trar.eit
Ccrporatiion) - Reqt~eet for approval of revised aite
plan - Yrogerty locdted nt the northwast corner of
Cerritos Avenue r.nd Lew~.s Street~ having a frontaga
of approximately 284 feet cn the north side ~f
Cerritos Avenug and a maximum depth of a~proximately
1200 teet , ons ~ortion oP et~id area extending weeterly
and having u frontag~ of approximately 7.7.5 feet on the
east side of Allac Street.
Mr. Rex L. Ccons, represent~.ng the property owner, American Tranait Corparation,
appenrad befure the Commisei.an snd stn~~d he had just re~;.eived and rea~d throuqh
the staft repor.t and z~oommen~ntior• concerning his requeak for apnroval o! the
revl,med site pl~~~^ ~n Conditionel UsE Permit No. 1369~ that he wns propoafng n
~ ~ w
MINUTES, CTTY PLANNING COMMI88ION, Octol~sr 19, 197a 73-n41
ITEM N0. Z (Continu~dl
10-Poot uetbsvk ar~s !or la~ndeaaptnq in lio~~ oP tho 25 fec+t origina-lly apQr,av~d~
th~k he appar~ntly miermad tt~o approved plan on ti1e~ and if th~ spprovad plan
r~quirad 25 teet, this w~~ MI1dt th~y would provid~.
llsuist~nt 2oning Supexvi~~or Phi.ilip 8ahwaxt~o noted foz tt~e Commi~rion tha
r~quost was to ravise the si.t• pl+-n or3ginally appr~vwd un~~er Cnndi.tionsl Uao
Pexmit Nu. 1369~ that b~:-aical~y the chaage wao de~+irAd bocauo~e ot an ~a~am~nt
Mhict~ thA pAti.tion~r Pc~und durinq th~ir titla ~~arch, eai~l oAaemanC exirtiny
along the woet property line barderinq on Allec S~reett that it wes propoescl to
obtain better land u~se by dele~inq th~ 6-foot ~ence ~long L•he eouth prop~rty
line, having d lU-foot eetbnok wit`~ landecspinq iti lieu of 25 lQ9t and r.elncat-
iny the building pdrellel to nnd againt~t the axie~ing f~nce along Lewie Street.
Commissioner. Rowland noted tor ths Commi~ei.on that nub~eat requset tv18 e con-
siQereble dev.i.ation from the oriqinally dppr.ovdd r~lan and z~hould bo a varianco
ite~n arid, thore~ore, could not bo considez•ed without a public hearing.
Mr. CuonA stared he had had a mAeting v~ith City Attorney Alan Watts, AsHietant
C~ty Attor.ney J~2-n D~weon, and Oaputy C~.ty AtCOrnay Frank i,owzy, wh~ conaurre,d
with the contention that th~e eubject proporty wae no langer a corner location,
laqnlly, after the City cundemned and tonk portions ~~f. Lota 2 through 16 of
Tzact No. 4406, at which time they loet nll Pcc~s~ righi:s of their praperty to
Lewie StreetJ that the subject property wes now only one~ pe-zcel removed from
t,ewie Stxeets and that :i.t tachnir,ally fronted on Lewis Streut.
Commissionar kowland noted that Ms. Co~~na was probably right frot~~ a leqal stand-
paint, but f.'rom a p.tanning str~n~ipoint, ~he Commission wae tryin~) to accomPlieh
an aesthetically plaasing app~arance wikh the requireri ~etbdck.
Mr. Gooi~s atated he believed they had conforme~ with the intent of the aondi-
ti.onal use permit and would be provi~ting a landacaped azea f~r. :~9outlflcntion
and A f.ence or some means for ohetructing the viaw of *ho facility fr.om Lewie
Street, althauqh there w3s actuAl'ly no visibility from Lewis 5tree~ eince the
street way depre~ssed and the Ci~y had exacte~9 a 6-foot chainlink fence along
l•.he subject ~r.operty whi.ch they ~xopoaed to slat wi.tY~ redwood oz a subt~titute~,
and the CiCy t~ad landscaped thr aroa hetwoen tbe Ponce ar1 Lewie Street.
Commisaioner Seymcur noted that Mr. Coona was providing sufficignt just.if.ica-
tion for a variance ~.~p~ication~ hawsver, the Commission coulcl not sok asi.de
tho varf.ance procedure fnr Mr. Coona, +~s this would be aetting a grc~cedenk.
Mr. Coons stated if they had an ineide lot and only fr.anted on Cerr.ttus, then
by the Municipal Code they could build .riqht on their l~roperty linP, but in
this inatanc~, they did nct have p~'oPerty fronting on Lewis 5treet, and Mr.
Lowry was of Che opinion tJhere would be na pr.oblec~, although it would be a
change fron the plan as ariqinally approvACi~ and that this particuldr aituation
had never come up before.
Commiseion~r Farano tndicated he had u patential conflict of interest with
regard to the item being diecuseec~ since hie employer had p.roperty immodi.ately
'to the nozthr and that he wau].d b6 aba:.aining from any fiirther discuasion or
voting on this ma~tter arid left the Council Chambor at 1:50 ~~.m.
Commisaioner King inquired if the east aall of the buildiny would be aqal»et
the fence ex'ectPd by the City~ whereugon Mr. Co~*•~ replie8 affirmatively.
Chairman Gauer Qxpresaed concern tha': tlnis was cantrary to Code reqs~ir.~ment o~
a 56-9ooc setback and ~h~t mighc happen when aomeona else came in with a aimilar
reques*, if subject request were grnnted.
The Comm:lsaioners and sta.ff ontured into discuasion concerninc; pravi~us ruqueste
of thiA nature, that the bui.ldinq Would be viaible above the eletted Pence ff
bvilt ut the proper~y line end the vas•iation of tha revisad plan to that oriqf-
nttlly app=ovad.
~ ~
MINUTFF3 ~ C I~ANN~I~(3 COMMI,SBI,QN ~ Octob~z 29 ~ 1973 73-642
x~~M N0. 2 (Continuud)
In rerpon~e to qudatl~ninq by tho Comml.osionera, Mr. Coorie a~dvised the prop~rty
lino ws• on a elnnt alonq L~wi~ etra~t~ that ths bu~.l~itig wauld b• e- peinted
aonar~te otructurer and that i! th• Commierion wea auqgeating Aettinq the bul.ld-
inq baok away ~ram the tonc~, h.~ w~~ula hav~ nothing ~L~rthHr ta s+~y - that the~
L~nce alonq ~he south properr; lino alode t~ the bui.lAi.ny would be or~atinq a
~ra~h cA7.lection situatl.on.
Commiaeioner Harbet n~~~od t.or tt~.e Commipaion the purpoee of tt~a ordinahca NR~
ta cre+~te a better eczvironmenC by heving traes Rnd lendecapiny in the ee~tbACk,
nnd t;~e Commiaeio~- origi~ially mpproved lanG~ce~pinq ~o ttie xear of Lhe concx~Co
wt-11 propused, thezefore, he w~uld auggeet st ledeC a row of cy~r.ese treee Co
replr-ce eaid wall.
Upon quext~oning by Cammisaioner King, Mr. Coons advised thoy had hopod n~t to
be requizr.~ to apply Yor a var~.ae~ce bocauee of the time dl.emenu, anG ~hat +-L•
the time the plan~ werc+ original).y ~ppr.oved, the fence recontl.r erect~+d by t.he
City did not exi.Kt.
^~:,,~aiasioner. tierbet reiterntad Che Commissian's intf~nt wae tfl allow gome land-
acapinq with treas on 20-Poa~ cen~ere,
Mr. Coons stakod the underpae• waa juet in the atagoR of be•ing ple~nned when ttie
p1Ane for f.ho subiec t uso were approved, and thoze wa~ no knowledge on the part
of the staff that th e City wou1Q be fencing the right-of-way, nnd ~he Uuilding
was ~,oaitioned as ghown on the or.iginal plnns~ +:.hat in comparinq the pl+snc+ with
L•he conditions which presently exis~e3, they found there would be a lendscapad
area in Y.h4 triangula.r por~ton of the eubject r~roperty £ronting to the west
that would sorve no pur.poae and would collect traeh~ that it was being proposed
to relocale the buildinq to the ea~ct property line ancl ellmfr-ato the fence on
the north of Lhe builcling adjmc~nt to the ea-s~sment~ and that in thefr opinion,
the subjoct pr~party wae technically ~nside or.d nut a corner locatton.
Commissioner HerUst stated the Ci.ty owned right-of-way all thraugh the city,
i.e., sidewalks, and many tracta had no acr,~se to art;erial streots wh9.ch had
been dedicated anc: co~ild also be inei3e lotf~ in that respect.
Mr. Coons reiterate d the subject proporty did not• have uccess zights ta Lewie
S~treet, and if it was a matter of aetting t.he bu3ldiny away from the City'e
fenae a diatanc~ of 5 or 10 feet and putting in c~ome type of planting to hide
the wal]. and give atmospher.e, they could d~~ that, and he sugqested cypreEs
treea be planted, h owever, this Would or~aatc a potential trash and debria area
Nith the wind blowiny objecta against the exiating fence.
Commidsfoner Rowlan d noted that dedicated acceas rights was a tool used by ti-e
Plannii,g Cammiseion and City Council £cr many yedrs to prc..note land aasembly,
and the City Attorney's Offic~ had been m~~et vocal in assuring that all proper-
ties were treatod in the same ma:~nerj that what M.r. C~ons presente@ was sds~q»~te
for this par~el, however, the same aryument would hold for Harbor Boulevard; and
L•hat it would have to be h~nd?.ed as a variance to set thi~ proper~y as:de be-
cause of iks size and location in the commuriity.
Cammisaioner Herbst suggested Chat Conditional Use Permit Nc.• 13G9 be readv4r-
tiae~ en~' tihe request considex'ed at the November 12, 3.973 meeting.
Coiamiesioner Seymour offered a motion, secor~ded by Commissioner Rowland and
MaTION CARRIED (Commissioners Allred an~ Farnno abaent and Commiseionor Herbst
votirig "no"), to readvertise Canditional Use Permit No. 136~ with the waivez•
concerning requir.e d setback for c~nai'~ration at the Nov~ember 12, 3.973 meeting.
Gommissiorser Herbat stated he voted "no" to the motion because ttae prapa~e~
1an~~caping clid nnt meet the intent o~ th~ ardin8r~ce.
ThereupAZ~ Mr. Coc~na adviasd +.;he Commf saion he wras withdrawi»g the requeAt for
a~pproval tif ~he revised a~te 'plan and ~tipulated they woiild conf~srm t~~ ChP sita
plxn !or Candltion al Use Pe~mit No. L369 as oziginal3.y approved.
~
~
~
MINUTER~ CI~PY PLANNING C~MMIt'SIJN, Octiobex 29, 1973 ~3'b43
ITEM NO. 3
VAR'tANC~ N0, Z480 (K. Kre!!~c/D. Mltahell/Calitornia
Martgage 5ervice) - R~qu~.t tor exteneion oY tim•
!or oomplation o! conditions o! approval - i~roperty
located at 840 NorEh C1*mentine 3treet.
l-~aietant Znning Su~ezviaor Philli.p Sahwartza prd~ant~d th• rAquest !or a 90-
day extsneion oP time, raLraactive, to expirs Januazy 27, 1974~ for aomplst~.on
o! cond~.tion~ legalizing tha uMa o! an extating a-GO~~~ory bui18l.ng se ~at
torth in tha aeport to the Commi~~i~on.
Comm~~aionar Seymour of~ered e motion, u,~conded by Commisseioner tiorbst and
MOTTON CARRIED, to qrant nn oxte+nsion o! t~m~ xatroaotive Co March 27, 1973,
ar-d extendinq to Jentia~y 27, 1974, for thu oompletion of conc3ltions of Resdlu-
tion No. PC73~-45 dated March 5, 1973, grant~ng Variance No. 2480.
Y'PLM N0. 4
CONQiTIONAI~ iJSE PERMIT NQ. 1350 AND TENTATIVE lr1AP
OF TRACT N0. 8101 (Anaheim Hillg/Taxaco Vonturee) -
Re~uest for ext~ension ot ~ime for completion of
conditione - t'roparL•y lacatod on the gouth~east
cor.npr cf Sozrano Avenue and Nuhl Ranch Road.
Aseietant zoninq Supprvisor Phillip achwartze review~d th~ ~'equoe~~ af the
petirionera for a one-yoar extension of time Eor the complotion of drainaqe
facil_ities and recordation of a final truct map nnd noted tlnat eubsequent ko
e~ppxoval of the conditiona]. u~e germi.t dnd i:entative tracL, the City C~uncil
ndapted new requiremonts for the diepo~nl ot water and the construction of
drainage facilitiesi tharefo.re, the Ccmmiseion may wi~h to modi.fy Condition
No. 6 approvinq 'Pract No. 8101 t~ rAflect the new poltcy requirement as set
fnrth in the Repar.t t~ the Commisaion.
Mr. James Barislc, repreaenting P.naheim Hills, indicated 1ii~ p~.~eaonce to
an~wer questions, and he would concur wi.~h the recommendaticn by the ataff
that Conditinn No. 6 of Tract Na. 8101 be amended to reflect tho reviaed
requirement for dra:l~-uge disposa.l~ however, if thar.e were ar~y question~ which
the Commisoion might have, Mr. Oleori of l3allcraft Corparation, devplopere of
the property, was presen~. t~ answer q~iA~tions.
Commissioner Farar~o offer;.d a motion, seconded by Commissio~i~r Rowland nnd
MOTI~ti CARRIED, to grant a one-year extansian of time for the comp.letion of
conditione uf Conditional Ur~e Permit No. 135Q and Tentative Map of T.ract No.
8101, to expire October 18, 1974, sub~ec`r to the ~ollowiny amer.dment to
Cor.dition No. 6 of the approval of Tract No. 8101:
"That drainage of said proper.ty shal] be disposed of in a manrier
satisfactor,• to the City Engi.neer. If, in the preparation of
the s.it~, su`ficient gradinq is r~quired to nQCeasiLate a grading
pezmit, no wc-k on gradir-g will be Ynrmitted betwean October 15th
and April 1.5t, unleas all required off-eit~ drainaqe facilities
have been installed und are ~~erat~ve, Positive assurance ahnll
be provided the City that such drain~ge facilltiea will be com-
pleted ~xior to Octobez 15th. Necossary right-•of-way For off-aite
drainaqe facilities shall be 3edi~ated to the City, or the City
Councll ahall have initiated condemnation proceedings therefor
(the coat•s of which shall be borne by the developer) prior to
commP:~cement of gradliig oporations. The required drainage fA.cili-
tie~ ahsll be of a alze a.nd type sufficient to carry runoff watere
oriqinating from higher propertiea th:ough said property to ulti-
maCe disposal as appruved by the City Enyineer. Sai@ drainag~
Pncilities shall be the first item oE conatruction and shall be
complo~ed dnd b~ Eunctional thraughout ~he tract and from the
downatream boundary of the property to tho ultimate point of die-
posal prior to thQ iasuancg of wny final bui].ding inspections or
occupancy permits. t-rainaqe ~istrict reimbursement agreements may
be made ava~.lable to the d~volopers o£ said property upnn their
request."
~ •
MINU'P~:9, CxTY r:.ANNING CuriMI3SI0N, Oatob~r Z9, 1973 73-544
I?G:' N0. 5
:ONDITx:."~AI, USE PERMTT N0. 1348 ANO TENTATIVE MAP
QF TRACT No. 7915 tAnaheim Hille/Texaco V~nturas) -
Requeat for exta~:rion of tiime !or compl~tl.on o!
conditions - Property ~c~oated an tha ~ottth ~ida ot
serrano Avenue, a~proximata?..Y 1235 faet aa~t of
Nc~hl Ra~iah Roed.
AaAist:~nt Zo~ninq Supervi~or Phil].ip Schwaxtze reviawsd th~ rwqudat o! the
~eticionax~ Loz~ a twa-year extenai.on of time Por the campl~~tion a! drsinaq~
lacili.tios and reaordation ot e final treat mnp end r-oted the~t subusqumnt Co
anprovsl o! the conditiunnl uRe permit snd tentativo Cr~ct, tha City Counci~.
adoptad n~w requirementa fer L•iie ~9iap:~ea1 of we-ter And the~ aanatruction ot
drs+inaqe feailiCias~ t.herefore, the Commiaeion may wleh to modify Condit.ion
No, fi npp~:ovf.nq Tract No. 791y to rellect tha new po~.icy requiremont ae eek
forth in the lteport. to tha Commiesion.
Mx. ~'ames Bariaic, r.eproAent~ng Anaheim Hills, .Lndicated hie preaence to
answer queetions, ~xnd he would concux wiLh tho r.ocommendation by Lhe etaff
that Condit:on NQ. 6 uf Tract No. 7915 be amer~ded to reflect the revio~,d
requirAm~nt for drr4lnage dieposals howavex, if there were any ques~ioria which
t'~~ Commiseion migl~t have, Mr. Olson of Hellcra~t Corpozation, developers of
t~~o ~+r~perty, wtes preesent to nnewer queatione.
Mr. Olaon, roprasienting the doveloper, a~ppoaxed bAfore ths Commisaion and
atated that L•hei.r rsason for requASting a. two-year extenainn of time YIAS
berauso Tract N~. 7415 would be developed aubsequent. to Tract No. 8101.
The Commil-si i ncted that they could only grant t+ one-year extension of time
since the tin:3 1i.mitatian originally est•abliahed in the resolution for the
aonditioi~al ur~e I~ermit was one~ year~ therefare, if ?-he developQr diu not
inY.er~d tu develo!a for another two years, if tha ~xtensioi~ of time for. on~±
year were yrantad, h wou.ld have to again aPpear and request an addiC.ional
year at tt~e expir.ation of the ~irst year.
Commies.'~oner Far.s.no offered a motion, secunded by Cammisai~~~•~:r Rowland and
MOTION CARRSED, to grant a one-year extansion of time fc,;: hE completi~n ~-~
condit~~na of Conditional L~se Permit No. 1348 and Tontative Map of Trac1: N~~.
7915, to expire October 18, 1974, subject to the fo'llowinq amendment tu
Candition No. 6 of the approval of Tract No. 7915:
"That drairage ~f said pzopexty shall be disposed of in g manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer. If, in the pxegaration of
the sit~, sufficient grading is requi.red to necessitate a grading
permit, nu work on 5rading will be p4rmittsd between Oc*ober 15th
and April 15th unless all r~quired off-site drainage facillties
Y~ave been installed and a•re operative. Po.,it:.ve assurance shall
be pruvided the City that such drainage facilities will be com-
pleted nrior to Octobez 15th. Necessar~• right-of-way for o£f-ai.te
cirainage faci.lities shall be dzdicated to the City, or the City
Council sha].1 have a.nitizted conciernnation proceedinga therefor
(the costa of whf.ch shall be borne by I:he developer) prior to
commencemen~ of grading operations. The requixed drair~aqe facfli-
ties ahall h~ o~ a size and type ;.~•~icient to carry runoff waters
originating from higher prop~rt:~s through said pr.operty to ulti•-
tnate disposal as approved by t.1t~ Cit~ Enyineer. Said drainage
facilities shall be the rirst item c~~ construction and ahall be
completed atid be f.unctional throug~.~ut the txact• and fram the
downstream boundary ~f the propr~ty to the ultimate point of dis-
posal prior to ttie issuancE of any final building inspectiona cr
occupancy permits. DrainagN distr~ct r~imbuzsem~nt agreemenLs may
be made a~;ailable to the developera of said ~rogerty upon their
Xequast."
~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNiNG COMMI58ION, Oct~b~r 29, 1973 73-645
ITE_M N0. 6
ANAHETM ELEMENTARY 9(;ROOL DYSTRICT T'ROPOSAI, x'U
CONBTRUCT AN ADUITSON TO 11N EXIBTING HUILDING TO
PROVxD~ ADDITIONAL 9TIlDIO AND OF1~IC~ SPI-CE FOR AN
INT~RNAL 'CEL~VTSIQN $YaTEM ~- Property loa~te~i an
ths northeee~ ~art of thu 9chool DiMtxiat pxoparty
luo~ted on the eouth •ide o! Bro~dway b~tween Olive
and Malraee Streete - P,Mqusst !ur d~t~rminat:ian
thst the proposal would b• in conlusmity wi'~h tha
ci~nerel P2an.
Aeaiatent Zoninq Suparvieor Phllli.~+ echwnrtzo pre~ta~ntnd the prcipoedl of tho
An~heim Elem~nt~r,y ~chuol Diatrict to cona~.ruct an aadition to the exietinq
single-story building to pruvide ~or edditional atuaia and o!lice opnce for
khe Schoox Diatzict'~ interne~. televis9,on ayetem, a~id that the architoct had
r.equeetad tTiat the Planninq cammiaeinn firid thrt +~te pro~ect vrould be in
conf.ormanca with the Anahoirn Ger~eral Plan as itlc;uired by the ~r~rovieion of
~ocri~n 65402 of tho Govexnment Code, even thou~ ~ the S~•~~~~~~ District t-acl the
ority under the Educat.ion Coda to acquiro pT !.~~rty in any locdtion and to
~.._ ize it in any manner whiCh it chos e witho~,t. ~ he nppr.ova]. of the City.
Commiesior~er ftowlend oiPared u motion, seuor~ded by Commi~sioner Seymour and
MOTION CARRYED, tha't the Anaheim City Planning Commieaion finds and detcr-
mines thnt the proposed eddition to aii existinq interndl Celevieion syatnm
on t'tie An~hcim Elementary School Uist;cict property 3.ocaZed an thQ eouth aide
of Hr.oadwa,y beCwaen Olive anrl Melroae Stxe~ts was in confozmance with the
T,~snd Uae Elamant of the Ceneral P~ari.
ITEM NO. 7
ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT - Propo~ed
sale of yurplus land located 687 feet south of the
conterline of Ora~nge Avenu~, npproximately 675 feet
eaet of the cente:rline of Knott Street - Raquast
for detexminatio~i tbat the proposed lan3 use would
be in conformanc~a with the Land Use E].Ament o~ the
Gendral Plan and that there would be no s~gnificant
effect upon the anvironment.
Aas,lstant 2oning Supervisar Phillip Schwartze presented the Or3nge County Flood
Control Diatrict prap~sal to se].1 a portfon of Flo~d Cont~ol ~roperty locatecl
on the east side of Rnott Street, aFyproximately 687 fe~t sotith ~f the center-
line ef Qrange Avanue, noting it wa~a contiquous to a parcel of land r,ansiderec3
by the Planninq Commisaion and aprr~aved by r.he City Council fox R-3 zaning cn
Saptembor 25, 1973, with code waivera under REClasaific;ation No. 73-74-12 and
Variance No. 2544t that the property was beir-4 so7.d to L•he developer of the
aforen-eiiCionad r•~clat~ai~ication and. wavld be considered by the Planni-ig Commis-
siori under Reclassification No. 73-~74-26 on Novembdr 26, 1973, also for R-3
zoning, and the OCFCD was requesti~ig that a lettPr be direated to the County of
Orange, Aepartment of Real Propert~l Sc~rvices, tx~dicatinq that the proposed use
of the pxoper~y and sale would be i.n r.onformanco with the Land Use Element of
the General Plan end w'ould have no signi°icant effact upon the enviror~mei~t; and
that since the Commi.aeion when considering the r~~claesif~.cation of thP property
adjacent to the propertv under cor~sideration hu;i r.ecommended to the City Counci.l
that thexe would be no aign,tfican~~ environn~ental impact and that ar~ Environ-
mental Tmpact Statement was not necesaary, the~-efore, it c~uld b~ assumed the
aame statement could be applied to ~ubject prc~arty if the Coinmissioz determined
that the prr~posed use af the proFerty was appr.opriate.
Commioaioner Row].and offered a m~~tion, seconded by Commissionar King and MOTION
CARRIED, that tlie Commtssion dete~mine:~ that the proposed uee fox subject pron-
c:rty ugon its am1A by tlxe Oranqe County Flood Control Diatrict wauld be in
conformanae with the Land tlse El.ement of the Anaheim General P1an, and tiist
because the Commiaeian had recornmended t~ the City C~OVed~immediatalyvcontigu-,~I
Impack Statement wt~s nece~sary foX a similar use ap~
ous to the weet, that the proposed sale and use would have no signi.ficant
advera~ affeet on the environment.
~ ~ ~
73~646
MINUTBB, CI'~Y PLIINNINO COMMI88IUN, Ooto~i~= ~9 • 1973
IT_EM N0. 8
BNVIROt~M1CNTAL IMPACT REPORT CATa~ORtt;RI, $XllMPTxONB
A~sietant Zon~ng Aup~rvi~or Phillip 8ahwarts~ »ot~d !or the Commit~ion that
the auitleiine4 tio the R~quirnm~n~• Poz an ]~nvironm~aeal ~mD~ot R~port (~ZR)
had bean rubmitt~d to thsm !or r4tormnn~, and on page 3 un~~r S~at,lon 3.01,
oartairi aaeiviti~• could ba •x~mpt lrom li~.ing •n 8iR ar requ~stin~ an •x~mp-
kiant -:herefore, Ch~ Raport to tk-• Coa-mi~~ion in therou~i~eQwo~i~~.rb~inq~indi~~
aitun~ion wiLh th• wordiaq e~~ set forth Mith th~ app p
cated, and that khi• Nould al~o bo tha baoit !or th• tindinq by the Commieo~on
r~han r~commdnding to th~ ~h~roicueaith~.~*informakionnaasttorTinfozmationaln~
would nat be necaAaa-ry .
pur~usoa only and na~~Yed no aotion by the Cc,mmi~s.ion.
ITEM NO. 9
TBNTATIV~ MAP OF TRAC~' 'NO. 5778 (Merk TII t~~~msK)
Property loaated in Ane~heim Hil.ls - Requeat for
approve]. of model hom.e ~nd o~har unit tloor pte~nf
and olevati.on~e.
~,ssista~~t Zoning Supervieor 8hillip schwartz~ inquired whether the Commiseion
p~nnned to conei.der the pla~ne tor the maddl hems end other unit f1c ~z p1.t~ns
nnd el~vntiona !or the Mark III homes iz~ TracC Na. 5778, which was epproved
by tha Commisaion on Mt+y 3Q, 1973~ wt~eroupon Co[nmiaeionez i~erbat sugge~ted ths~t
staff ddvfae the devaloper th~t n sepaxate tract map ehoul~I be ~ilad and than
all the plan.e pr~sen~ed to the Commia~slon, with the developer being preeant to
anawe+r Commission queetions ragard~.nq thm progosal.
AD~OURNMBNT - There being na further busitieee to discues, Commisaioner
Herbet offered a motion to ddjourn ~he meatinq to a woxk
eeaeion to be held Nova~absr 8, 1973~ at 7:00 p.m., to
conaider the amondmenta to the 8~erviae Statian Standerda
previously re~ommended to th~a Cit Counci.l an~ referred
back to tha Planninq Gommiesion :Eor Purther study, a~
well as c~naidaration oi' +a propotial t~ am ~nd Chapter
1g.28 of the Ana-heim Municipal Cc~de pertairiinq ta dc?d-one
to Pour and more bedroom hom~e oz.i SOOU-squarQ foot lots.
Commissioner Rowlund secondad thc~ motion. MOTTON CARRIEq.
Respectfvlly ~ubmf.tted,
~;~~~~~ '~/
ANN KREBS, Secretary
Anaheim City P].anning ~ommis~ion
AK:hm