Minutes-PC 1974/03/04~ R C 0 MI~ROFILMING SERVICE, INC.
. . . ~, . ~
.. . ~. ,
s ~
City Hall
Anah~im, Celifcr.nia
March 4, 19'l4
REGULAR Mi:ETING OF TttE ANANLIM CZTX PI.ANNZNG C;OMMI3SION
RE GUL71It
!"EET?NG
pRE:~FNT
APSENT
ALSO PRES~NT
PLEDGE uF
ALLEGIANCE
- A regL'..~r ~oeting of t~~~ Anahoim City Plr~nz~tng Commi~sion wda
cr~lled ta order k~y Chr+,.rman GduQr ~c 2:Od p.m. , a c~uorum being
present.
- CI~AII2MAN s Geuer.
- COMMISSIONERS c Compton, Far~no (wtio entered tk~e me~ting ak
2:05 p.m. ), Herbst, Jotinson, Ning, Morley.
•~ COMMISSIONERS: Non~.
- )~ssistant De~:~lopment
Deputy City Attorney:
Office Engineer:
Planni.ng S~~pervieor:
Zoning S~apervi9~~r:
AESistant Zoniny Su}~
Assistaiit Planner:
Planning Aide:
Planninq Air7^:
Commiasion Se~retary:
Strvices Di~~eutor :
rv:.sor:
Ronaid Thompa~n
Frank Lok~ry
Jay T1tUs
Don McDan ie 1
Charlea Roberts
Yhilli~ Schwartze
RAlpl~ Cnmpton
John Anderson
Robert Ricca
Patricia Scaal~n
C;ommisRioner Compton led in t.he Pledge of Allegiance to the
Flag of the Un~ted States ~f America.
APPROVAL OF - Co:nmi~ssioner Ki , of.fered a motion, seconded by Commisbioner
THE MINU:ES Nlor~.ey and MOT~ON CARRIED, to approve the minutes o° the
meetings of January 21 and F'~bruary 4, 1974, as submi~tod.
(Commissione= Herbst indicated k~e vras abst~ining from votir~g
on the Febr~iary 4, 1974 minutes '~.smuch as he was not
pre~ent at said meEting.)
RESOLUTIONS OF APPT•2EC'tATION TO FORMEK Y1~ANNING COM[''lISSION~RS
Cnaiimz~n Gauer noted for the Commiagian that it would ba in order tQ discuss
tre matter of sarae formal expresaion af appreciation to former Planning
CommzssionerG Allred, Rowland, and Seymour far their years of service on ~the
Planniny Commission.
Commi~sic,ner King offe::ed a motion, secondeci by Commissioner Her~st and
MiDTION GARRIFD by unanimous vote (Commissi.oner Farana being abesnt) that
Staff be and hereby is directed to prep~re appropriate r~solutions of
appreciation to farmer Planni.ng Commiasioners Lenzi Allr~d, Dan Rowland,
and John Seymour.
COMMISSICNEFt FAR7~N0 ENT~;RED THE MEET~NG AT 2:05 P.1~•
AMENDMIENTS TO TITLE 18, - CONTINf)ED PUBI,IC HEARING. INITIATRD BY THE AD],P-HEID;
Ai~AHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE Cz'"Y PT~ANNING CGMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue,
-~ - """ - An~heim, Ca. 92805j ta consider tamendm~nts to
Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter
].g.62 - Signs, Advertising Siqns and Structures, SPCtions 18.62.03c' -
Defi.nitians; 18e62.05Q - Multiple-Fami~y Reaidential Zonpa, Permitte' Signs;
18.62.090B - Fr.ee-Standing Signes and Z8.62.090J ~ Monurnent Sic;ns.
Sub -:ct amen3ments were continiaed fr~m ~he m~etings of ~ebr~aPry 4 and
February 20, 1974, for furth~r study.
No one appeared in opposition to sub ject amerdmpnts to th~ Gode.
74-116
~ ~
MINUTF,S~ !:ITX PLANNING GOMM~SSIUN, Mr~rch 4, la7h 7~~ ..1~
AMENUMENTS TO 7.`ITLE 18~AN_AHFIM 'hil1VICTPI~L_C~U~ (CatltinuEtd)
Aesi~tant Planner Ralph Comptori read the StaEf Repo.rt. to the Planning Commie-
ei~n dated March 4, 197~i, end sn~id Staff Report ia re:erred ta as if aet forth
in fu1.1 in t:he mi.nuces. Included with the~ Si:a£f R.~port w;~~ Lxhibit "A" which
t~et forth the proposAd amor~c3mente.
TI1E F~UAL'IC HLARZNG WAS CL08EA.
Comm.issiancr tierbst inquir.ed concc~rniny the size of the lighter box eigns and
Mr. Compton adviaed that the signe ~auld be 4 feet in height but us ~ong as
th~ ielr-nd or 13 feek, whi.chaver was lc~es, ar.c1 that th oign coulc~ bo decorat-
ad with c~mpany symbols, lagos, nnmoe and/or ~ett~,riny.
Comm±ssioner Herbs~ questionQd the w~rdi.ng indicating "lettering" ~inder wh .~
if allowed, tho atation ~perator could put any ki.nd of ineR~ago th~y war cc~d t~
put on the lighter box signs= that he thought the intent of these eigns was to
lignt the area Eor the employees and now they were beinn ma~te into signs wi''~
all kinde of letteri.ng.
Mr. Compton ~-dvlsed that if the lettaring was lfmited to 208 af ~he face of
the ].iyhter box sign, it would not mnke much difference whet~h~r the s~.gn had
l~ttering or. a logo, etc.; and tha~ wtth the :.~dvent uf tl~o self-~arvico
islands the sign cot~ld indicato "s~lf-ae rvice" or it could alsc:~ indicate
"no sinoking" , etc .
Commissioner Herbst ~tated he dtd not >>~~i~ve ths ser.vice ~tation operat~ra
h~ad any oartlcul~r plan; that signs wexe uaed in duplicatc~ all. the timej that
when self-service was first allower3, everX pnmp inc'licated "sc "'--sarvice" and
he did not think the public was in need of so much signing; ~~r more light
was allowed at the pump area and it wag nat intended that lettering wou~d be
other than the lo~o= that the minute the operat~>rs found they could have
lighter boxes wi.'th sign'_nq, they would certainly 3o some advertisiug on them;
t~nd that the l.~.ghter boxes were intended tn be par;: of the arc:~itectu,.a.
Planning Supervisar pon McDaniel adv.tsed that if it was the Cammisnion's
desir~, the wording co~~ld be modified to exclude the word "lettering" and,
furthsr, that i.t was not StafF's intent to have '~he liyhter box signs as
part of the ~rch9.teature ~nd `~e did not recall t;.at that was a speci.fic
condition ~ thoge that had been approved, however, if the Planning Commis-
sian so desired, the wording couli be added that the sign would also "be an
integr~l p~rt of the architec~ure of a aervice station".
Mr. McLu.~iel advised t.hat Staff l~ad antic.ipated that t~ie new ordinar,~e would
accor,unod~~e the type of ligher box signs that had been approved to date; tha`~
the only ~ign 5taff was aware of was for a ChevCOn operation and Staff would
not want to make the signs i~ legal or no::^:,nforming; tha~ the intent was to
encompass those already--approved signs and to provide latitude for otner t.han
lighting under part of the canopy.
Commissioner Herbst reviewed the changes to Exhibit "A" , as cliacuss~ed, and
i_idicated the appro~riat~~ wording far Saction 18.62.030 - Defini.tions wou,ld
be as follows: "LiShter Box Sign" :~n illuminated gign de~igned to be an
integral part nf the arahitecture of th e service station, and intended to be
placeci above the fuel pumps of a service atation for purposes of providing
light for the working area and/or commercial identification. Sai.d sign nay
be ei.ther one ox two-faced, inteznall~ lighted,. and may be decorated with
company logo~ and/or names, provided said logos and/cx names sh~ll n~t exceed
twPnty (20) percent QC tl~e total area of each face o£ sa3d sign."
Commissioner Herbst offexed Rasolution Nn PC~4-45 and moved for i.ts gasatt~e
ana adoption to recammend to the C.ity C~u,,.:~1 l adoption of amendments t~ the
Hr,aheim Munic;pal Code, T~tle 1R, Chapter 18.62, Signs, Advertising Signs and
St~ tctuxes, as set forth in Exhibit "A" with the :nodifications discussed.
(S~~ Resolution Book)
On roll call, the foregoi.ng resolution was passed by the fol~owing vo~e:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Compton, Farano, H~rbst, Johnson, King, Mor.ley, Gauer.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSZflNERS: None.
~ i
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING GUMMI~5ION, March a, 1974 74-118
~~Eg~ •- Cha~.z~mdn G~uor C1AG1dX'Ad d fiv~-r~inut~ roce~s at 2:22 p•m•
in ordar that oitioial pictur~BS could be taken of thca ~iaw
Planninq Ccr,un~.:~elonera.
FEGONVF.NE - Chaiz.ann Gauer rc~cunvAnad the mee~inq at 2:27 p.~n., all
-'"'""'"" CommissionerA beinn present.
CCINDITIONAT U5E - CONTINUED PUHLI^ HEAR1Nl:. ROi3~RT P. DUPRL AND J. RICHARD
P~RNIIT NC. 1A5~ FARLEY, 341 "A" B~ysido Driva, New~ort Heach, Ca. 92660,
"-"-'"~" -" ~wners~ PE;ARA-CH SALES ~.01~1~NX, c/n Glenn Blick, 1321 Nortti
Kraemer Baulevarcl, Ariatzeim, Ca. 92806, AgentJ requesting
por.misaion to R~1ISL QUAIL IN tV~ ~N~LOSED ~TRUCTTJRE an propertg d~ecribed a~• s
A rectangularly-ahap~d parcel o£ land cansisting of approximataly 1.5 acrE;,
having a frontagc of appresimately 175 feet an the west aide of OrangethoT~e
Park, tiavi-.~ t mAximum depth of approxfmd~ely 381 faet, and b~inq loaa~ed
appraximately 760 faet north of the centerlina af Orangetborpe Avenue. F~:~?p-
erty presently classifted M-1, LIGHT INDt)STRIAL, ZONF.
SL~l,jsct petition was continued from the meeting of February 4, 1974, f.or the
~ubmi.Raion of an Envi.ronmental Tmpa~ct Rep~rt.
It was nc.t~d tr~t the petitioner was no~t pre~ ~~ and Aasiatant Zaning Supe:.-
visor 1Phillip ~'ahwartze advised th~.t Staf.f. hacl been unable to contac~ the
peti~ioner prior to the meeting and was not sure what hia i.ntention.s were.
Commisaioner King offered a moti~n, seconded k~y Commissioner Farano and MOTION
CARRIED, to further continue consideratioi, oF Conditianal lise Peranit No. 1454
to the meetinq oi Marcti ].8, 1974, and that Staff be direct.ed to contact the
petitioner by letter.
VARIANCE NO. 2576 -~'~ONTINUr;D PUBL' IC HEARING. PI30FNIX GLUB, c/o Paul Gunnemar~,
1556 Douglas Road, Anaheim, Ca. 9Z806, ow~ier; requesting
permission to EX?AND AN ~,XI3TTNG PRIVATE CI,UB on property
descr~ibac] as: An irregularly-shaped parce~ ~~ land conei.sting o.f ap~r~ximatEly
6.0 acres, having a frontage of approximately 337 feet on the east side c,~
Douglas Road, having a;naximum depth of approxima~ely 675 f.eet, and being
located approximately 740 feet north of the centerline of ICate].la Avenue.
Property preaently classif.ied R-R, AGRICiJLTURAL AND M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL,
ZQNES.
Subject petiti.on was contin~,ied from ':he meetin,q of February 20, 1974, a~= the
petitioner's reques"..
Chairman Gauer reopened the public hearing for the purpose of hearinq the
cizanges to the plans which were considered by the Planning Commission on
February 20, 1974.
Mr. Anton Uumhart, attorney for th~ petitioner, appearEd before the Commission
and stated t'_ze nroposed change was to r~duce the eneroachment by 5 Feet, still
leavinq a 5-foot encroachmen~ into the front se~back; that when the building
w~s constructed i~~ 1965, it was in County ter.ritory and was annexed to the
Ci.ty in 1969; that the Phoenix Cluh had grown from 1000 members to its pz•zsent
membership of 5000 which was the basis for the expansion of the restaurant
area; that the property had a permanent striicture and although tYieze was a
resolution ~f intent to industrial zoning in the g?neral area, the but~.ding
was not suit~ble for industrial use and there was no likelihaod in the fore-
seeable fukuxe that it wauld be so usedi thdt the property north of the sub-
je::t proper.ty had a setback less chan that being requestedt that, a.ssth~ti-
cally, i.f the pPtii:ion was granted, the addi~kian would add ~o the appearance
of the areaj and that the petitioner had no objoction to the conditionE as
set forth in t-he Staff Report.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
C~mmissioner ~ompton noted that at the last meeting, it was brought out tha+.
the pre~ent facil.it::er~ were rented to different groups and he understood the
original intent was that the facilities would be used by th~ membera only.
~ •
MINU'~ES, C7'~Y, PLANNING G~MMISSION, Mrrch 4, 1974 74-119
VARIANC~ NO. 2576 (C~ntinued)
Iti reply, Mr. Aumhart eta'_ed that Chey Y~ad corraepond~d with Staff and -ie
b~liaved tho mat~.er. hac~ bec~n clazific~d to Staff'e satisf.action And the ixe~
w~d in compliance with the use granted by the Ctty Council in 1970t that the
portian c.~f the huf ldinq thnt wde open {.~~ the gonara.l public, a~ wae req~alrcad
under the Alcoholic Bevera,qe Control ticense, was ~he reataarunt portion ir.
the frant part of t.he facillty and th~,t the main po.rtion of the fdaility,
which was comprised of the dance hall and meeting xooma, was controlled ~nd
c~enc~~ ta membere and guests only, and that wa~ the way the original peti--
ti~n was approv~d~ that in thoir cor.re~pondence with Staff., they h~d indi-
r.ated pt:blic pt~tronsge was not encouraqQd, alth~uyll it wa:, required by the
Alcohol~.c BevE:r~agc~ Control Board t~ b~ open to the public.
Commissi.oner Farnno inquired why the fAaili.ty had a public liquor ].icense lr~
vic~w of t.he fact t'~at it wae to be a private c1ub, and Mr. Du~~'~art atated
the matter wa~ diacus~ed with the City Council in 1.970; that ~ reason the
public licenae became necr.~sary was that under a atric* ~lub iicenae, there
was a restriction againat gue$ta purchasing drinka; that if a guest came in
with A mett~er, he N~uld not be er~i.itlad to purchaso a drink under a privat~
club ].icarise and the zituation rAaultgd in vari~us pr~blema.
Assistant Zor.ing Sup~rvisor Phillip SchwKr.t.ze advised ~hat, by definitiun,
the raot~ttrant was a non~~onfozming use as it was not 25~ of the total opera-
tion; and that Staff ha~ r~~eived corre~j~oridence £ron Mr. Dumhar~ dated
March 1, 1974, which indi~:ated the Club ~aas in complianca with the previously-
approved variance and i.n compliance with their liquor licenae.
Upon queationing of Com,nissioner Her~ , Mr. Sr.hwartze advisQd that the
xestaurant had not been defined as st ; that it was d~~`tned as a private
club an~i the previously-approved vaz~i~:nce was for expan~ion ..nd on-sal~
liquor in that club.
Commis~ioner Herbst noted that because of the ]i~,uor license, the facility
had to be considered as a public restaurant by the liquor autY~ority even
though ft did not meet the Cit~ Co~e and he qu..sti~ned if i,he petitioner.
should not have come before the Planning Commissiun at that time.
Mr. Dumhart stated that was the reas~n f~r the public :iearing in 1970; that
the subject re~ue:.;. had nothing to cic with the present operation since it
was in con.,,~liance wi th the var:iancN previouslX appruved by the Ci.ty.
Commisgianer Herbst state~ that if the Club was operating as a publia r~st.au-
rant and did not meet the Code Lequirement~, h~ did not believe that was the
intent at the last hearing.
Mr. Dumhart stated he had had extensive con~~ersations wi~`~ the late City
ti._tarney Mr. Geisler, at which time n~ definition fi.t the Club exactly sii~ce
it was not a public restaurant or a puhlic dance h~ll; that the conclixsion
reachPd by Mr. Geisler was that the Club was a public dance hall even ~h~ugh
i~ wae not one; that i:hey presently wanted to enlarge tilE restaurant uut not
because of ~Y~e public patronage; th~t about 1~ of the grnss sal~s would b~.
attributed to tha general public; and the reason for the expansion was duE
to the increased C'lub membershi.~.
Zoning Supervisor Charle3 Roberts advised that by petition for Variance No.
2259, the petitioner requested to permit a dance hall and on-sale liquor ta
the public in an ex~.sting private club and apparently ~here was 3iscussion
of th~ fact that there would be on-sale liquor in connection with the restau-
rant operation ~t ~ne Club.
Mr. Dumrart reitera~ed that tY~~~ restaurant had existed sincarancerin 1.970ucr
ture was built in 1965; that the anly reas~n for their. app_
was that they were requesting to change a private club lYq~~or licer.ae to a
publi.c liqucr licer~s~; that thzre was no criange in the na~ure o£ the operation
at that time and no changes wer~ being requested at this time.
~
~
~
MTNUTES, CTTX PLANNING COMMISSI~N, March 4, 1974 74-120
VrRIAN~`E t~0. 2576 (Continuedl
Chairman Gauer inqui.zed if the petitioner would meet tlie 20-foot s~tbaek
requi.rFment n~nd Mr. Diunhart indicuted in the dfPirmative~ that thQ structure
was presently ar~t back 50 feet from the propErty line a~nd they wore reqcaeat-
ing permission fer. a 20-foat s~tba.rk.
Commiesi.oner Kinq reiter~ted ~that ainco thore waca amp].e room to the aouth,
north and ~ast of the exietittg structure, why ~:ouldn'~ Che exp~+naion ba
extendc~d in one of thoae dir.ect~ ~ona.
Mr. Dwnhart oxplained that because ~f thQ w~ay the building v+as candtructed,
lt was nearly an im~-or ~ibili.ty to ~xpand .it in those dixec*.ions suggeated by
Commissi~^er Kinyt ~hat ua~ to the tocation of the presc~nt kitchen f.arili-
tie~, ex~ansion in a direction oL•her tl that ~roposed would aimp.ly no~ be
feasi.ble due to tht~ +°,rchiteature and pronibitive coste.
In reply to que~,tioning by Chairman Gauer, Mr. Gunneman stated the setback of
the adjacent mobilehome park w;~s 23 feet from thQ curb and then a 7-fo~t side-
walk, and tliat the proposaJ. would meet +:hat setback.
In reply to guestioninq of Chairnian Gauer, Ueputy City Attorney Frank Lowry
advised that County requir~mPnts hacl no relationship to the ~ity requirements;
and that there was no legal renson t: ~t the City would be bound by the set-
back requirements uf th~ County.
Mr. Roberts r,larif~.ed th~zt the setback ~c~r the adjacent mobilehome parl~ was
15 feet from the proper.ty line to the bl~~ck wal].t and that nn permanent
structure was l~catsd withi.n 50 feet af the property line with the exception
of that block wall.
Upon questiuning o~ Commissioner Mor'.~, 14r. D~u,~-hart stated that expanding
the facili~ty to the south would create acc~ss problems to the park~ng lot in
the rear of the building.
Commissioner Herbst stated that if ~he restaurant was to be expanded and
would serve the public, it should be brought up to Code standards Rnd Mr.
Dumhart stated that whether th~ petitione~ would accept c~~ re~ect fihe uondi-
tiuns that would bring the facility up to Code would depend on a rPView of
those condit~ -ns.
Commissioner Herbst noted that the petitioner had not demonstrated a hardship
existed other than those built in by himself ~xnce there was ample land on
which to expand the faci].ities.
Commissioner Compton offerea a motion, seconded by Commiss~ioner Morley and
MOTION CARKIED, that the P].anning Commission recommend to the City C~uncil
that the s~abject project be exempted f.rom the requirement to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California
Envir~nr^,Pntal Quality Act.
Commissioner Herbst offer~:d Resolution No. PC'14-46 and moved for its passage
and adop~ion to deny Petition for Variance No. 2576, ~n th~ basis that tlie
use would be an exoansion o~ an exi.stiny restaura~it which presently did not
mt-*. the development standards of the City, that the p~titioner di.d n~t
demor~strate that a haxdship would be crea~ed if the waiver was not granted
and that the subject pzope.rty had ample lar~d to accommodate expansion within
the reqiiired development standards of ~-he City. ("~.-~ Resolution Book)
On ro~l call, the foregoing resolution wds pas~~d by the followi.ng vote:
AYES: COMMISS~ON~RS: Compto~~, Faxana• Herbst, Johnson, Kingp Morley, Gauer.
NOES: COMMI55IONERSs None.
ADSENT : COMNiISS ION~;cS : N~ne .
L,J
~
•
M:NU'i'L~S~ Cr'rY. PLANNTNG COMMT5S70N, March 4, 1974 74-121
CENL~RAL PLAN AMENDMENT - CON':YNUED PUIILIC H~ARING. INZTI11TE1) BX THE ANAIiEIM
NO. 131 ~ CITY PLa-xVNING CUN1M~:~SION, 2~4 Eaat Lincaln Avenue,
""" Anaheim, C~. 92805t to conaicler ohanging tY-e land
use deoignation t`rom industr~.ial to m~diam-daneity
resi.~if_ntial for ~he area ge,ncr.ally located bntweon tha easterly city limiz.r~
eind the Santa Ana Kiver., ancl B~:l.l Road and Cerritos Avenue.
ENVTRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT N0. 114 ~
RECLASS~FICATIC~N
N0. 73-74-39
VARIANC:E N0. 2~81
- CuNTiNUED PUBLIC FIEARLNG. ADOLPH J. SCHUTTE AND
~LIZARETH ANDERSON, 42~ Norl:ln Loard, anaheim, Ca.
9280~ Ownezst NFLSON DEVELOP~:iJT COhIPANY, ING.,
:~. 0. sox 10262, Santa Ana, Ca. 92711, Agent.
Prop~rty described ac,: An i.zreqularly-ahaped parce'.
of land canaisting o£ approxi.aatr~ly 21.5 acrQs
located at the southeast carner of Sunkist Streei:
and Ball Road. Pr.operty presently clasaified R-A,
AGRICULTURAI,,, ZC~NE .
REQUE5TED CLASSIFICATION: R-3~ MULTIPI~E-P'AMILY RESIDENTI~IL ~1ND M~-1, LIGH'r
TNDUSTI2I}1I~, ZONES.
REQUESTED VARZANC~: Wl#IVER OF (A) MINIMUM DISTANCE B~~'WEEN BUIT~DINGS A1~D
(A ) MA}CIMUM BY7ILDING HEIGHT .
Chairman Gauer noted tY.~t the public hearing w~s being reopened to consider
new evidence.
Mr. Harry Knis~ly, attorney for thP petitioner, appeared before the Commission
and presented a petition stgned by the eight properY.y owners between Hall Road
and Ger.rito~ in the subject area, inc~icattng they were i.n fr~vor of ~he peti-
tion for reclassification. He stated tl~:, there wac~ no opposition to the
petition and that the Southern Pacific _.dilroad reprc~sentative would have
appe~red if the petition was out of. line. Mr. Knisely read a portion of a
letter dated June 22, 1970, from the Southern Pacif~c Land Company which
indicated "an,y program for R-:~ etc. between Ball Road a~nd Winston R~ad would
certain'ly not be opposed by Southern Pacific." He continued by stating the
Aziahe.im General Plan was 12 tn 14 years o13 and with zeference ta the rail-
x•oad~ and insurance ~~ompanies, the Genexal Pl.an was :. guidelin~ and did not
represent zoning; that the app:ication was not to rezone from M-1 to R-3 but
rather from aqricultural to R-3; that ragarding the investment of the indus-
trialists and the tax structure, the propasal would rt~na~-Y' a much better rate
to the City than industrial.; that Xegarding Sunkist Street, it clated back to
1906 and wh~n it ~~as before the Board o~ Supervisora, it was ~~iT~ted out that
the road wauld be for reaidential or industrial but for na particul.~r usage;
that he submi~ted that the proposal was ir the ~est interest of the City,
what the adjacent propertf owners wanted, and there was no objection to it
other than that of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce. He con.c].uded by stating
~hey were ready wil.ling and ~ble to proceed with the develapment af the
proposal.
Mr. Gerald Kenciedy, Chairman of the Industriai Committee of the Anaheim
Chamber of Commerce, appeared before t:~~ Commission and stated that ~ince the
previous Planning Commission hearing on this matter, the c;hamk~er of Commerce
had met and made the positior, of the Industrial Committee that of the entire
Chamber of Connnerce. There~pon, M,r. Kennedy re~d a letter dared Fabruary 28,
].974, stating the position of the Chamber of Commerce and he presented said
letter to the Plai:ni.ng Commf ssion. He further stated ~cha~t he assumed thE
property owners who h~d signed the petition i.n favor of the proposal were th~:
agricultural land owner3, ar~d he dir~ not t;~xink they rerresente~ a large number
of the citizens oi Ar.aheim; that there was an i.ndustrial investment in the
area and he was certain the compared inve3~tment would be at least at the 1eve1
of the proposal, and in 3ddition there would be jobs created; that there was
industry that wanted to •.ome into the ~unject area at this t~-..a; that he did
not think ~outherr Paciiic waa as i.nter.ested i.n the proposal as they were in
industrial use of the p•operty; and th~t the propoaed deveiopmenti would be a
sArious bl.~w to the tr~~fic flow in the area.
~ ~
r~triUTES, C1TY PLANNING COMbiIS5I0N, March 4~ 1974 74-122
GE;NEttAi. PI~AN AMENDMENT N0. 131, Eh JIR(1NMENTIIL IMPACT RI~.~'~~I2T N0. 114 ,
RECL~ASSIFJCA'PION NO 73-7a-j9~ 1~ND VARII~CE NO. 2581_ Cuiitinued)~_
Mx . A' an Tr~lt, 1375 S*_. August. San Mari.no, appeared betore tt~e Cc~n,mi.ssion
and atated Aetna ?n:.urance had pro~osed an inclual..~~ial dovelo~mPn~. somewhat
west of t;h~ r~ub, ~~~f proper.ty and di..actly~ adlaaent to an a~ art-nE:nl. l~c~~~se
which he owned; ~~ow~.:ver, Ae~na had Nropo~ed that he Yut up ~he land and
they would put u~ the buildingt and that n~ne .~ the 1F~.id wa~ C~AVRZc)PG'C~
with.in a congid~rab].e distance ~f the suh;QCt property.
THE PUBLIC HEARI:NG WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Ht .~st expreaser~ h3a opinion that yome of :he facte in the
Sotithern Pac.ific letter d~Ling back to 1970 were qomek;~ c di~torted and if
the sub~ect ~~roperty went back to their praperty lina ~hey would have a
different feeling on th~ mAtter as he bolieva~7 thp Southern Pacific L~nd
Company was ho7.dir-g th~_~r proper~y tor industrial useat that he had not
cltanged his feeling concaYning the propoRal and it was a pour proper.ty for
a g~od living enviro~ment and there was no i~idication in the Environmental
Impact Repart as to how prot.action would be given Erom th~ freeway; that if
protection c:ould be provided, it wuul~' be at a very higr coat to the build-
erT that wlien ~he ,.reeway was 5 to 1' feet above the properky ].evel, it
would be verX difficult t~ buffE~:: t1 ~ peoplej that there was no ~.cab4 that
the proposal would er~danger the gro ~i:!~ of. t:he rest of the ir.duafirial proper.ty
in the area; that the I'.-3 traffic w~~uld block off tk~e area as r.r~r as thP
zndustrial traffic wa~ concer.ned~ that ~vhen thp fre~;way was~ compl~ted ~here
would be two off-ramps, at Ka~,~l.la ~nd at Ball Road, and the traffic to the
indu~trial ar.ea would k~~ via cunkist Sti`eet and State College Bouievard and
the trur_kers would usP the st:arter route which was Sunkist Stre~t whi:h was
provided as the circulaL•ion eler+~nt for that particula~ area; that he would
question that apartment house were the highest and bes~ use for the subject
~roperty and mainly du~ to the ~,nde~ir~ble livinq ~r~ironmer.t next to the
freewu;~; that the h~.gh~:~t and best use for the property was industrial by
desigr. for y~a.rs and the present prepex•ty awner once voted that ir shaulel be
induatrial pz~perty= that the City was getting their share of industrial
gr~wth a.nd primariJ.y because i:he property owners were willing to retease the
property for sale; that the larqe campani.es that v.ere coming to Aiiaheim had
surveyed the subject area and the C:ity c~ula not release any more industrial
property to residential u~age; that the City had thou~ands of acres of re~i-
dential property avail~bin for re~id~ntial expansion; ttlat the industrial
property was decreasinq und the City wuuld n~t be getting any more industrial
land; that the subject area would help service the c.;mmunity by giving job5
and b~:'ancing L-hat which Ai,a:~eim was noted far; that Anah~im was prabably
~he best balar~ced community in Orange Cvunty or in Southern California because
of its industrial l~alances, the recreational facilities, etc. and v~~as second
to none; thaL- the City had cortu-~itted the lan3 from Omega Street back for
industrial purpose.., many people had invested inoney in ~hat area, and he be-
li.eved t:ze promises should be kept to those people.
Cc~mmi~:~ioner Farano note3 r.egarciing the letter from the S~uthern Pacific Land
Company dated June 22, 1y70, thai: the letter was intendc~~' o refer to the
property immecliatelx to the west of the property in qu ion which w~E at
that t~.me beEore the Planning Commission for R-3 zoni~ in Reclassification
No. ,v-71-57; that in ordet to pievent any misunderstanding a'~aut the concept
c.~f the lztter, ~e thought it would be appropriate to read sa~.d Ietter into
the r~cord, aa follows:
"SOUTHERrI PRCIFIC LP.ND COMPANY DD4 13513 Anaheim - zoning
JunE 22, 1970
Mr. ~. n R. Talt
Suite 806
615 So. Flower St.
Los Angeles, Calif. 9~017
Dear Mr. Talt,
Referring to y~our ie~..ter Junr~ 1, 1970, and Mr. Daggett's lette.r
June ~1, acknowledging yours , relative t,; your desire to have
yo~r property in Anaheim zaned R-3:
~
~
~
c-1iNUmES, C7:TX PLANNING COMMISSION, March 4, 19~''l ~4'123
GE;NF.R1~L F'?.AN AMENDMENT N0. .l~l, ENVIRONMJENTAL IMPc.':P REkORT NO. 114,
~~t,AS:~IFIc~ATiON NO._73-74~39~, AND 'JAR_IANCE N0. 25d1 (C~ntinued)
~1ou m~y rest asaured that our past ~ppoeit,ton to ~ny
chunc~e of zon~.ng ir thia area was not ar.bitrar.y in nutare
bur what. we felt to be qood planning f~.r ~~se of pr~perty,
but. more '•~n~Ytant, to prot~c~ thase induetii.ea that had
Already locaLec~ there.
However there have been many changea made in this area by
tl~e Planning Commi:~sion and the City ~ouncil oE Anahe~m
that now makE~s our pust poaition an untenablo Oi1F3. Accord-
ingly, any pragram Lar R-3, otc. between Ball Road ~nd
Wi.nsto~~ Road w~~uld aertainly n~t be uppo~ed by 3ou~thprn
Pacific.
We hope that you wi.ll be succe~sful wtt.h your zaning and
thF projec*_ which you contAmplate on thE property.
Respectfully yours,
(si~~ned) R. McClelland
cc: ~9r. D. T. Daggett
M~~+nager of Industrial Development
;;otithern Pacific Land Cu.
1 Market St.
San Franci~c~, ~alif."
r.,ommissioner Farano continued by statiing that as ~aYt of the ahowings that
,;ere neces~ary to justify recla:~sification of ~ny propgrty, the petition~r
must show tnat there had been, in fa.ct, a change in the character ar in the
use of the property; that it was clear from the con±~:~t oF the letter from
t-.he Southern P~cific ~and c'ompany and tt~e statemenre of '9r. Kna.sely and
Mr. Talt-, that it was pri~r.ar.ily thp ^hange in the zoning rr. the Froperty
immediately to the wes1. W~nich broL_.~c ~bou~. tY~e change in the charscter and
~he City Council had tha+~ in mind wheri it acted upon the apolication for
Reclassification No. 70-71-57 and, to presPrve tho.;e finding° in the reclas-
sification of that ~roperty so as to zot set a precedent, the Cit:v foresaw
the potential of exactly wha~ was happeningj ~hat tre Cit~r had ~ried to pre-
venL• another 3imilar rec~assificatio:. in the are~. by stating that Omeqa Street
was to act as a buffer in an o~iter perimeter beyond which the R-3 woul~i not
g~; that usinq the petiti~n2r_'? evidencP, it was cl~~r to him that there had
been no charige in the ch~racter and any change in ract~x was r~stricted to
a ve~~} specific ~i.ece ot land, h~:.th khe very stro~ nten~:ior~ of th~ ~ommis-
sion and the Council to prp~c>~ve ~he indust.rial c-~aracter of the remaining
parcE~ls; th<<t there had been no change in character other than what the peti-
tion`r 1:ad bxou~ht upon him4a'_f; and that it would t,e his opinion that t:~e
su:~~ect petition should not be a1~proved by the City Plannii:g Commission.
Commissioner Farano ~ffer.ed a motion,that the Pl.anning Commission recommend
that the City ~:ouncil certify to ha~~ing reviewed and considered the infurma-
tian contained in Environmental Impact Report i~o. 114 and tl-~t~ the firaal EIR
iia:: been c~mpleteu in complianae with the California Environment~l Quality
Act ard thz Srate gvidzlines.
~ommissione~ Iierbst noted for the Coinmissi~~n that the EIk did nat meet the
requirement in that there was :inadequate discussion regardinq the effect the
proposal. would have on the M-1 Zone; axid that there was no discussion regard-
ing the prote~:iior- fr.om sound that would be provided to the Aeople who would
live in ~ne deve].opn~ent.
Commis~ioner Fa,~ano in~icat~d that '.e discussic~ ~ias a matter of degree;
that little or no mention af tha im~act upon the sur.rounding M~1 ~operty had
been made in the EIF:, ~owever, in the last f~w pages of the report, as an
a:..terna~ive, it cle~rly stated that the use as industria:, land woul~d be
de:rimentul to the biological, physical, and hu~man ~nvironment; tha': it ~as
a m~~ter of opinion anc~ the burden hac3 been met by ~~t least stating it; that,
in his opinion, the petitioner met his r~:rden by tl,~ mere fact that they
deal~ wii:h it, whether or not it +aas agreeable tc. ~ne Planniag c,ominission.
~ e
Mii1U'rES, CxTY PLANNTNG COMMIgSIUN, Marek~ 4, 1974 74-].24
GLNERAL PL11N AMENUMENT ~~ 131, ~"`~1FONMk:NTAL IMPIICT REPORT N0. 114,
RECLA33xFIC1~TI0N No. 73-74-39~ VAkIANC~ 2581 (Contl~nued) r,
Commieaioner Hei-t~at atated tha ~nviranmente~l im~ac~ on the M-1 Zon~ should
havs been diacussed in ddp~+•h, snd Co~-umisaianer Farano alarified that tho EIR
was ob~~iously calcu].ate~1 to ~how that any dev~lop;a9n~ othdr than that which
wr~s pr~posed would be detrim~ntal, nat only t:o ~.he M-1 but to tha eurrcund-
irtg area ae we'ilj that, i.n h.te opinion, as long as the ~.~~~fi:itionc~r mek the
criteria and dpscribod the imp~+o~ i.n r.he EIR which they, a.n their own mi.nde,
believed would be created, or w~uld be caueed by th~ c1~ ~lnpmont, whether. it
was tavorakil.e or unfavorable to the Commis~ian, was mc~eting their burden.
Cht-irman Gauer nokad fUr the Commis~sion regard3ng the ~?R that, ralativo to
th~ sc,ools, whez the echool aites were dc~cided upon, it was takAn into c.on-
3ideration whoro the families wero gaing to live and ha was aartain that
when the Jumrez School si'~~ and the park were purchased, tile line of demarca-
tion Por tt~~ residential area was Ba1l. Roadl that Juarez would be the closes~.
elementary school; th~st the schoole did not anticipata thj.s azea :~aing dovol-
oped R--.3J thar he had sat through all thP discuesian ragAr~ing tYie area and
he was 8ur~ that the Cit,y had x~ever considered having any~htng but industxial
below Winston Roudt that Omega Street wud ahsolu'tely a compromiae and i:he
Scuthern Pacifi.c Railroad matter was the rea3an +•.hHt par~~icular E~.taa~ion
was reaolvec~ i.n the manner it wass that the proposa~ for R-3 zoiiing was going
againG1- ~v~~-ythinq that had ever bsen disc~.zesed previous7.y by `he Planning
~ « and he wa~ n~ot convinced of any changes in the charac~er of the
1~
U~on inquiry of Commissi.aner Morley, Commissioner Herbst explained that tk~~~
Commission must make a 1Ftermination that th~ petitioner had adequatQly dis-
cussed each of the aix requi:-~ments of the EIR as ~~quired by law; and th~t
the Staff had made the recamme7dation that the requirements had been met..
Commissioner ,lohnson ~eco:~~ed ~che for~going motion concerning EIR No. 114 and
the NiQTION c;ARRI~D. (Commisaion~r HerbS~ VOtaC: "110" .)
The P~.anning Cemmig3ion entered into brief discussion regarding the four
al~ern~tes, as presented in the Staff Report in connection with Ge--era1 Plan
Amendment Na. 13].
Commi3sioner Farano offPrecl Resolution No. PC74-47 and moved for a.ts passage
and adoption to recommend to the City Couiicil that General Plan Amendment No.
131 be approved, adogting P..1tE:z-n~te "A" ::o retain the existing ind.ustrial
land designa.ti.on on the en~ -ra 14~-acre area. (See Resolutian Boc,;c)
Mr. Schwartze advised that Alternate "A" would ~rovid~ for ir~dustxial devtl-
opment as indicated on t;ie current Anahelm General Plan, utilizing exi~ting
and pr.opcsed arterial highways for access and circulation.
Dep-ity City Attorney Frank Low•ry advised that the City was not bound by
County zening; and t11at it was a fact to be considered but more pertinent
was th~ canaideration of the General P1an.
Commisgioner Herbst noted for ~h~~ Cos~mission that th~ General Plan would not
'e so genPral in t.hat the new law requira.d that the Genera]. Plan must change
as ~oning is changed.
Commissioner Compton stated that he realized the hearing was continued for
the bc~ne£it of the new C~mm~:~sxoners and, speaking for himaelf stra.ctly as
a realtor, he could see nothing wron5 with building units ~n the subject prop-
erty; tliat his statements were on clie premise tr.at there was a lot of infor-
mation and material conc;erning this mat~er and not a lot of time provided ~o
get into the backgr~ounfl of i;, however, he haa studied the Aaaheim General
Piar~ and alth~ugh ~:he Plan co~~ld be amended, if the 21-acre parcel was oper,~d
up fo.r R-:~ dev~clqgment, it would 1.ogically follow that other property owners
in the ~r~a wou~d also want R-3 zoning.
~)p~n questioning of Commiasianer Jolanson, Mr. Roberts advised `~hat t•he purpose
of th~ varioua exhibits and/or alternat~s was to explnr~ the possible implica-
ti.ans tkxat the reclassitict~tion of the pe".ition before the ~ommi.ssior. would
ha~~e on the area~ that if R-3 was approved on ~he subject 21 acres, what o±her
~
MINUTES, CZ7,'X ~'I~ANNZNG COMIdISSIQN, Mar~h 4, 1974 74--125
G~NERAL Pr~AN AMFNDMENT NC . 131, ENVYTtONMENTI~L IMI'ACT RE~ORT NO. 1~.4,
~tEGL~AaSIFICATTON NO. 7~-74-39, AND VARtANCE 1V0. 25b1 (C_o11~t~.nUE~~)____.
propertias in the urea could '.ike].y ha affact.ed b,y such ap~roval a~nd there
eeemed to be ak least three indicidual areas that aou].d bep that one altazne~-
ti~j~+ woul.d Le ta extan:i the k-3 de~ignation to Gc:rritos r the a~e~ lying on
the east eidQ of ~ulYkiat Stree~, which wauld app3ax to be a logical axteneion
of the ~+9tition before the Cammisr~ionj that it waa a]so poe~sible thai: the
pr~pert~.es ~r. the ea~t ei.da of the Orange FreAway would also zequest kh~ aam.e
type of zoning? and that extpnaing the line fur~her, it w~~td be fairly
laqica~ to a~sume th~~ proper~ies on tho we~t side of Sur..is~ wauld appl.y for
R-3 :.~nin . Hc~ furthe~ adviead ihat General Plan Amendmc~nt rio. 131 was Pn
a~vertised public het~ring.
In r.eply ~o ~urthc:r questioni,:q by Conuniasioner C~mpi;on, N1r. Lowry advis~
that ~he thrae public hearings, p~rtaining to Gen~:sral Plan Amendrnent No. 131•
Reclas~iF;.d_ion Nol. 13-74-19 and Varianc~ Nc~. ?581, were consolidated for
ease of naaring since they all con~9rned ~h~ ~ame surrounding greaf that two
oE the petitions ~ertai.ned to a small 21-ac.re parcei ~nd tY.e General Flt ~
Amendment pertained to a lar~ger acreage.
sa~oner Johnson stateC his Axper~ence tc this paint or~ the C~mmiee~on
Conuni
.
had b~;An re~3pons.~ve to the wishes of the citixena of Anhheim, ~.nu the 3v3.°
denoe presentied at tho subj~ct hearin,q was nil; however, i.n view cf the
ev~de~nce furnished by Staff he would be in '.'avor of G~ncral Plan :Laandmr .c
AlternatQ "A", as presented.
t.
Commissianer Morley'notec~ thal. the sub~ect propexty was industrial
and that i.f
~the ~ammiseion pasaed or ~:ze subject petition fo: R-3 zoning, the next bufPer
zone would become Cc~rrito:: Avenue ancl wauld com~~lete~y elimii-ate the rem~tin-
ing induatrial area.
On ro11 call, the F~regoing x'esolutian (Re~ol.uti~n No. ?C74-4?! was paBSed
by the followi.nct vote:
AYES: COMMISSIGNERS: Compton, Farano, Herbst, Jchnson, King, Mor.ley, Gauer.
NOE;: COIMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSEN~: COM:~iISSIONERS: None.
Co~nnissioner T'arano offered Resolution N0. PC74-48 ~nd moved for it~ pass~g~
~-~nd adoption to recommend ta the Ci ty Gounail that Petitian for Iteclt~ss~.~i^
catioi~ No. 73-74-39 be disappxoved an the basis of the fozegoing findinc;s.
(5ee T'.?oolution B~ok?
nn roll call, the foregoing resolut;ion was passed by the fUll~wing vote:
AXES: COMMI35IONERS: Compton, Farano, Herbst, Johnaon, King, Morley, Cacar.
NO~:S : COMMISSIONERS : ~Ione •
A3SEIvT : COMMISSIONERS : None .
Commissior.~r Faranc offered Resolution No. PC74~49 and moved for its passage
and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2581 on the basis that. since
the Pl.unning Commission recommended disapprov~a]. of the reriassification of
subject property, t'1e prr~g~osed dpvelopment could nar be accc•niplished witl,zin
the site develo~men~c standards of the present xoning on suk~'lect ~roperty,
On .rall call, the foregoing resolution was passed by ~tie Fallowing vote:
~,yES ; COMMISSION~RS: Compton, I'arano, Herbst, Jahnsan, Ki.ng, Morley, Gauer.
NOES: COMMISSION~RS: Nones
:~BS~NT~ CQMMISSIQNERSs None.
~Z~,.~ESS - Chairman Gauer 3eclared ~ fa.ve-minute rece3s at 3:44 p.m.
~tECONVEN~ - ~,:hairman Gauer reco:-vened the meeting at 3:45 p.m., all
"-'- Cummissionera being present.
_ . ~ _____
~ ~
MINiU7'r:;, CT'r~' PLl1i~NING COMM:CSS7.C)N~ Mttrch 4, 1974 74••~26
kFCLASS]:F'ICATIUN ~ C'~N'.~'TNUr~ YU}3LIG [IFA1tING. Cn~A EMP~;RADCR, I~TD. , c~o
NO. 73-74-44 Itub~rt Ros~natoil, ~T. K. LaasPr Co., ~.080 ~c~nt~arY Pnrk
-` `~~~ I.ast, Lc~ Angeles, Ca. 90067, Ownarj R11~NBOW PACIFIC,
TENTAT~VE MAT~ O~ lyC., P. 0. Box 111'1S, Santa Ana, Cr~. 92701, ~gei~tt
TRACT N0. 8340 raqueating that property ~l~ecribed a~ : A r.•octang~z].ariy-
' `~r'~ ahaped parcQi o~ land consieting nf a~,prox.imately 13.8
acres, having a frontage of uppro.r.imately 469 :'eot c~n
the nnrth si.de of Katcslla Avonue, ha~ing a mreximum de~th of u~prox3mately
1?SQ feet, and being located appraxlmately 48~ feek wer~t of the conterline
nf Nutwoad Street be re~lassitl~d from the k-A, AGRI.CULTUTtA~,, 20NE t•o the
R-2, MULTIPX~T'-FAMILY RE;STDENTIAL, ZONE.
TEIJTATIV~ 'i'R11CT Ftt;QUESTs ENG~NFER: L1INDER ENGINEERING, 412p Bi.rch Stre^t,
Suite 1U9, N~wport Beach, Ca. 92660. SuUject
property is propo,~ed for eubdiviaion inta ;'S R-2
zoned lota (74 units).
Stibjact petition wa~ coritinued from the me~tin~ af February 20, ].974, fo~
zevise~.~ plane.
Mr. Gar,y Casain, rePr~senting th~e agent fur ~he petitloner, appeaxed before
the Commission and :.ated they h~d reviQwed the situation and were aware
that the pr.opoeal was the firat cunver.sion ever L-o b~ conyidered by L-ne
Planniiig ~onuni~sions that the ~roposal was one of the beot a!:d the de~nsity
was 5.8 unit~ ~er acre; and that no other co.ndomin:luin in Or~~nae or Los
Anqeles Counties had densi~y as 1ow as that being proposed. He compa•~d
the Nroposal wit•h o ~t~er condAminiums and meritioned such items as n~ open
space, 13 units per acre, and 25-faot drivsways were oart of those pro~ecta.
He further stated that they had viPwed the subject property on a rainy day
and determined ~hat if curb and o,utter was instr~lled o~ the outside oE the
interior s~~r~:et, it wou13 creais a problem with drainage since the runoff
was ~oward the outside of tre atreet; that by having tih~ low density there
wou1~3 be a limited use oi the private street and they would be willing ta
install "no parkinq" aigns on both sides of the atxeet az~d have one-•way
traffic, wi.th Planniny Commiss.ion approval; t:~at the streFt would nat be
dedicated to the City unless the association so desir.ed and, at preaQnt, the
associatian wanted the private street; that 47 parking spaces had been added
£ar recreational vehicl~s anc~ the residonts would 'ri~ve everythitig ~hey could
hr~pe for .
Mr. Leroy Rose, the engi;~eer for thA petitioner, ap~eared bef.are tYie Commis-
sicn and stated the pr.oject was origin~lly cor,structed on ].eased land with
single-stnry units and 30-foot road. widtha; tiiat in essence there were two
streets and only un~ was required; that *_he entryway was quite ].ar.ge; that
the streets ~~ere presently under-maintained and the association had indicated
trey would fix them ~xp and lay another t~JO inches of ~~~halt; tha~ if they
needed to dedicate more property ta u3d more frontage to the street, they
would hava problems ~vith the util.i~y lines ~n the project and this would also
~akF: away from the existing patios on thc~ side wl•,ere the fences were located;
~:lat tt~ey were requesting to have ane-way traffic with curb and gutter on one
sid~ only; that they would pUt additional pavi.ng on top of the street; and
tliat they w~re alao concerned about the e:conomics of making too many changes
to the project.
THE PUB7~I(' HEARING WAS CLOSED,
In reply to questioning bv Conunissioner Elerbst, Office Engineer Jay Titus
adviseci that the City wau'ld tiave no way af controlling whether the street was
one~way or two-way, and he would have no abjection :.o the request; however,
the City d~d have design standards for private str~ets which were approved by
ttze Planning Commission an.d City Council.
Commi.ssioner King inquired if the a3ditiarzal two inches c£ paving would be
satisfactary, a;d following sume discussion Mr. Titus advised that the Code
required •that pri.vate streets have two and o~ne-half inches of asphalt on
faur inches of P.~~ and Commis~ioner Herbst stated it would behoo~-~ the
petitioner ~o bzinq the streets up to tYap City st:.ndards. Mr. Titus fsrther
advised that he was recommendi.ng that a one-way stxeet wauld take care of
the width question and he was a1:.~ suggesting ;:hat ^urbs be installed on
both sicle~ of the street and t~~at a crown section be used in the upgrading
of the ~treet. He expl~ined that the crown section al~.owed for the center-
line to he highE than the gutter; that with ••r~ter draining on rhe asphalt,
th~2 asphalt would break up rather qui.ck~.y and the development would have
c4nsiderable maintenance p~-oblems very soon= that ths four-inch strips which
•
-.r•-
~
MINU'rE5, rTTY PL1~NN;r,Na COMM~S~~UN~ Maxch 4~ ~,974
?4~127
~u~• ~ i~~15SIrICATZON N~. 73-71-44 11NA TENTAN, TIV~; MAP OF TRACT NU. 8340 (Continued)
wpre pr~vid~d i~ tt-~ middJ.~ of alleyway~ di.d not prevant ~he Aephalt from
breakin,q u~; :+nd tr~At upgra~ing of tho EltYE0t9 was t~ he expaat•efl in the
converaion ot an exa.ating pr~ject:.
Commigsionerr+ King and Dlorley ind~cated thay had vieited th~ projea~ on a
rainy day and thore was lit.~lo stanC+ng water i:~ the project.
Discuesion pur~ued rogAr.ding the streete and the parking ther~on, during
wh~ch N,r. Road 8tatec~ he would lik~3 to havc+ the on~-~way st._~ot with no park-
ing on the ineiflo curh.
It wa9 iioted that tha ~iirector uf D~avelo~ment Sc~rvicas had ~etermined ~hak
the pr~posed ar.tivity fe1.1 wittzin tha de~finition of Seetl~n 3.Q1., Clasa 1 af
i:he ~ity o£ Anaheim Guidelina8 tc the Roquiremente f.oz an Envi.rGnmental
Impact Rapart and wr~s, thareforo, categorically exqmpt from th~ requirement
to L•ile ai~ EIR.
Commisaiot~er HerbHt ~ffered Resolutic~n Na. PC74-50 and muvecl Far lts paosaqe
and adop~kion to reco~nmend to th~ City Counail that P~titian for Reclassifica~
~ion No. 73-74-~44 be appravecl subjec~ I:o the ~ondit~.un that the interna].
vehicu]ar acr.eesway:a ehall be or~e-way throughout the devolopmont, with park-
i.ng to be ~r.ovided ati one side ~nly o£ said one-waX streets and with nu
parking in the a1l.eyways, as stipulat~d to by the potitionert and f.ux:thsr,
that the curb aectton on ~he sids away fram the ~onter med.fan oE the intFriar
streets shall be delete~ and ~he pavement of interior stre~ts shall comply
with the atructur~il secti~n requi.rements of the City Er,gineer= and subject t.o
conditians. t3ee Res~lution Book)
On roll ca11., thF. ~uregoing reaolution was passed by the foZlowing votP:
AYFS : COMMISSIONF.RS a Compt.on, Farano, Herbgt, JoY~ns~n, King, Mor1Qy, Gauer.
I~OES: COMMISSTONER5: None.
ABSFNT: COMMISSIONEl2S: None.
Commissianer H~rbst o~fered a motion, ~econded b~ Commission~er Compton and
MOTION CARR:LEP, to approve Tentative Map of Trac~ Na. $340, eubj~ct to the
following c~nditions:
(1) That the approva~. of Tantative Map oP Tract: T~n. 8340 is granted
subject i;o the a~prcval of Reclassification No. 73-74-44.
(2) That shou].d this subd~vision be dEVeloped as more than oz~e sub -
divYSion, each subdivision L•hereof' shal.l be submi.tted in tenta~ive
form for approval.
(3) That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to
and approved by the City Counci.l and then be recorded in the
office of ~he Orange Couizty Recorder.
(4) That the covenants, conditions aiid r.estrictions shall be suUr-ittecl
to and approved by the City Attorney's Office pxior to City~ Council
approval of. the final tract map, and, fur~ther~ that the approved
covenants, conditions and restrietions sha~l be r~~corded concur-
rently with the finat tract map.
(5) That the drainage of subject property shall be di:~posed of in a
manner that ia satisfactory to the City Engineer.
(6) That prior to filing the final tract map, tlle applicant shall
submit to the City Attorney for approval or denia]. a complete
synopsi~ of the pxoposed funct~.nning of the operat:ing corpora*_ion,
including but not limited to the articles o:E iz~cor.poration bylaws,
proposed methods of management, bonding to ~insure maintenance ot
common property and buildings, and such oth~~r inf~rmation as the
City Attorney may desire to protect the City, its r,itizens, and
t.he purchasers of the pxaject.
t7} That the int¢rnal ~z~~v~te vehicular accessw~-ys shall be braught up
to the zninimum standards of the CitX of Ana'Zeim far priva+~e streets
and as required by the C~ty Engineez.
~
~
~
MINUTES, CI'rX PLANNTNC. CUMMZSSION, Marah ~, 1979 74-128
AREA D~VEL~PN1ENx ~- C0~!7~INU~D 1~UBLIC HEAE2ING. TNITIATLU BX ~'fiE ANAkiEIM c_ImX
PLAN N0. 114 PLANNING COMMIS6IUN, 204 Czsot Li»coln Avenue, 1lnaheim, Ca.
-"` w"`-- 92H05= ro conai.der vahicular ciroulati.on and acceep Eor
apprax.ima~elX 50 ucras g~n~x~lly bounAc~d by khc~ nartharly
extension of Grave StreQt to ~he weet~ Mir.alo:nai Avenue to tt~e northt 'Pustin
Avenuo to the nox•theaat~ the Atchieon, Topeka s~ ganta Fe Rdilrodd on the sau~h-
~ast; and L~ l~almA Av~nue to th~ eouth.
Subject Area tievelapment P1An waa conti.nusd from tt~~ meeting o! Febri~ary 20,
1~74, f.or furthor input f~.~m tha aff~cted prop~rr.y owner~.
Mr. Sam Hurwitz, owner of P~zrcel ~, a parti.on of ~h~ AreA a~fecfed by the
~cub j~ect Plan, appeared k,Nfore tk~p Commisslaan ar~d e~ated he was uppc~ei.ng
Exhibit "8" sinc~ i~. woul~ cut his prop~rty into two par.c;els t thAt he hnd
spoken with the other L•wa property owners and thaugh~ a compromis4 aould be
worked out wharein he and Mr. Webb would each dQd~cate for roud pur.pasee at
th~ ",~.~undary line pravidad th~re was not a gr.eat daal ~~ ~xp~ne~a with a parcel
map; ~:tiat he oppo~ed th~ ,idea af the total 64 ~oet coming f.rom r.ia proper~y as
it woul.d c.xeate a pzoblem for himj that he did nat need a roRd And hnd a long
frontage on Tustin Avenia~, and aome corners hE oould ~~ot uPe1 that he would
~ventually h~ve to dedicatc~ $omQ of his propert,y in order to devolop ~.t an~ the
raquirement in Exhibi.L• "A" would in~volve gi.ving away an addition~l one-half
to three-c~uarter.s of an acre of. valuab~e landj tk~at in addition tr~ sharing
the dedication oF the 64 feet with the other pr~perty cnvner, he waulc~ ht~ve
the burden of the knuckle areae that Ci.ty Staf i wa$ r.equirJ.ng even though
the~ were no~t r~eede3 in tt-e turna c~f the roadt that~ ho would agree ta a modi-
fied form of ~xhibi~ "A" by having part af the ro$d an Farcel A~nd part ~n
Parcel B.
Commissioner Farano noted that the proper procadure nla;~t be to centinu~ the
matter for txao weeks and ask Staff to prepare a third exhibit, ~xhibit "C" ,
to reflect Mr. Huraitz'a suggestion and t•he r.ew exhiLi~ wuuld ba a modifica-
tiun af ~xhib.it "A" .
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised that it wou].d be ~+roper to modify
Exhibit ''A" by mo~ion, if tlie Planninq Commis~ion ao desired, and, th~reupon,
~ommiasioner Fr~rano offered a resolution to ac3op~ Exh:lLit "C" which waa a
modification of rxhibit "A", as sugges~ed by Mr. Hurwitz.
Mr. Hurwitz s*_ated hp was advised k~y the Plaz~ning S±~tf that an easemFnt ~o
Coronado would be abandanP3 in the event he conveyed a portior~ o~ his prap-
erty, and Mr. I,awry advised that any abandonm~nts wot~ld he in the p.rovince of
the City Council.
Mr. Dan Webb, 2640 Esot La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, appPared be.f.or.e tlze Commis-
3ian and stated he wa~; the awner of Parcel A; that the water, ~ewer;a, curba,
gutters, etc., were presently being put an his prapertyt that Mr. Hurwit~ was
asking f.or 32 teet oc hi~ propPrty for th,e street; that he had no interest in
the stre~t since he. already had his permit and street plans, e•tc.; that the
street was oz~iginall~~ proposed as Coxonado Streer but the Tratfic; Engineer
had cha:~ged the plan sinc:e th~ey could no~ go over the railroad fraalc.
Office Engineer J~ay Titus advised that Mr. Webb was presuntly insta:lling the
streeta that were calored green on the exhibit.
Commissioner Herhst st~ted he could not underatand why Mr. Webb was not
agreeable to giving 32 feet if Mr. Hurwitz was wilxi,nq to give the :;ame
amoun~; and Mr. Webb etated he had been since last Septe~~er gettinc~ a
parcel map recorded. Mr. webb further stated h~ did not want to pui: in
another street; that his sewers were xn, the streete were cut and gs-aded,
and the ccnstructic,n was beginning on his r.urbs and gutt~:rs.
Zoning Supervisnr Ch~rles Roberts adv~.sed thafi i:he rAason Staff wae recommend-
ing Exhibit "A" was thr~t sir~ce t..he esaement a].ready ex~sted alony ~tr~e sauth
partion from the westerly boundary, it seemed reasonable to ~xchange: th$ ease-
ment for wha~ever additional right-of.-way would be necessary~ to provide the
additi.onal half oF the gtreet.
~
•
--•._
s
MINUTES, CITa' ~'LANNING C:OMMISSION, March 4, 7.974 74-129
AIZEA DEVELOPMENT PL,1\N NO. 114 (Continuc~d)
Mr. Hurwitz etated Staff's tecommandnttar. sa~xndod r~asanable, howeve~r, tie had
ob'.sined a title insurance policy in Novombor 1973 which did no~ indicate i:hQ
c~~s~ment. ir~ the+ ~ity of An~heim dnd ~hore was a aerious qudetion in that
regaxd; thafi h~~ understanding wse that M~. Wabb'e~ concern was tha~t ~ince z-
parcel map had a.tready been approved, h~ mi.ght he required ta go tr additional
work arid expenae if tlo w~re ro agree r~t this point to canvey tha 32 .feat to
the City. Mr. Hurwitz s~ggastod that pezhaps fiho Ci.ty Stnff coulc~ Pi»d a wny
for Mr. ~.rebb to canvay tho lanc~ withoLit gettir.g into ~he additionr~l ePfort.
Mr. Titus advised that the referranced parcel map wae already reaorded and
dedic~ition was nut made on a p,~rc~l map; i:ha1: the only requiremant wauld ~e
to draw the deed and have the c'ity accept iti however, since it wnuld be or.
Mr. Webb's property, the~ ~~re~~ would actually be his reaponsibili~y to im-
prove it; and! furt.hermoro, it would x~ot delay Mr. Webb's development af hiA
propgrty.
Commiasioner. Farano inquired i,f Mr. Hurwitr, and the other ~ropexty owners
would be available ta meet ~vith 3taff to try to find an agr~Pable solution to
tihe l~lan, and they indicated in ~:he affirma~ive.
There~ipon, Commissioner Far~no wi.thdrew his original moti.on and ~ffered a new
motion that the public he.aring tor aonsiderution of. Aroa D~velopment Pl~n
No. 114 be further canti;~aed to tlie r~eeting of March 18, 1974. Coinmiasioner
Herbst seconded the niot.ion and ~IlE+ MOTTUN CARRIED by unanimou$ vote.
ENVIRONMEdTAL IMPACT - PUDLIC H~AR:CNG. ANAHEIM HILLS, INC./TEXACO VENTU~2ES,
REP~RT DIO. 115 ~NC. , 300 Ar~ah~sim Hi1.l.s Ro~~d, Anaheim, Ca. 92807,
Owner; HO~tS~' J. 5CHOR, 38U Anahpim Hills Road, Anaheim,
RF.CLASStFICATION Ca. 92807, Agent= requesting ttiat property described
N0. '13-79~46 ` as: Portioi~ A- An irregularly-ahaped parcel of land
consisting o:" approximately 1~9 acres located goutk~east
ot ~the i~iterk~ecti~r~ of N~hl Ranch Road and Imperial
Highway, having a frontag~ of approximately 5690 ie~t on the south ~ide of
Nohl Ranch Road and having a maximum depth of approximately 1780 feet, and
Porti~on 8- An irregularly-shaped p~.rcel of land consist:.ng of approximately
125 acres located ea~t~erly of the prc~sent terminus of Canyon Rim Roac1, having
a maximum depth of approxima.tely 567(- feet and a maximum width of apprnximately
1670 feet be reclassified from the R-?1, AGRTCULTURkL, ZONE to the PC, PLANN~D
COMMUNITY, , 'LONE .
Assistant 7oning Supervisor Phillip S~:hwartze :~ot~r~ for the Commiasion that
Staf£ wa~ requesting that. the subject petition be cox~tinued to be heard with
a propased amendment tc~ thE Genexal P;.an oF Development for Rnaheim Hi11s,
GPneral Plan Amer.drnent No. 123-8, wl-iic+h was not advertised for pub? ic }iearing
at this tirne.
Cr~mmissic~ner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Morley and MOTJUN
CARRIED, that consideratiuci o; Environinental Impact Report No. 115 and
Recla~sification No. 73-74-96 be postpc~ned to the mePting oE March 18, 1974,
in oraer to readvertise said petition t:n include the proposed amendment to the
General Plan uf Development for Anah~ir,i Hills.
ENVIRONME;NTAL TMPACT -
:'~;PORT NC). 110
RECLASS~F'ICATION
N0. 73-74-31 _
VARIANCE N0. 2569
TENTATIVE MAP dF
'PRACT NOS. 8463,
8464, 8465 AIvD
8A66
GONTINUED PUI~LTC HEARING. ANAHE;IM HILLS, INC./TEXACO
VENTURES, INC., c/o 3ames L. Barisic, 3g0 Anaheim Hills
Road, Anaheim, C~. 92807, Owner. Property described as:
An irregularly-s'.aaped parcel uf land cons is~~.ng of
approximately 65 acres having a frontage of approximately
2475 feet on the south side o.~ Canyon Rim Road, having a
maximum depth ~f approx~.mat~ly ].900 ~aek, and b$ing
located apnroximrttely one ml].e northeast of the centier-
lix~e of Nohl Ranc:h Road. Propcrty presently classified
R-A, AGRICULTURAI~, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIF'ICATION: R-H-10,000 RESIDEIVTJ:AL
HiLLSiDE, LnW D~NSiTY,
SINGLE-FAMILY, ZQNE.
~ ~
MINUTE5, CITY P~,ANNING COMMISSIGN, Mctrch d, 1974 74-130
~NVIRONNIENTAZ 1M[~e\CT REPORT N0. 110, REGI,,ASSZ~ICATION Nn. 73-74-31, VARTANC~
NO. 256~_AND x'F:NTA,TIV~ M~1P OF TR11CT ~IOS. 6463L 8464~ 8465 and 8466 (.'onti.nuad)
REQU~STFD VAkIANC~: WAIVE (A) SINGLE-F.~N1IL'Y STRUGTURES REAR;LNG ONTO Ab1
AFt7'ERTAL HIGHWAY AND (B) MxNIMUM PRZVATE ACLESSWAY
WIpTH TO ESTAALZSH FOUR TRI~-CTS ZONED I2-H-10,Q00
CUNTAINING A '~OTAL OF '.63 J~OTS.
TENTATIVE '.CRFICT FtEQUEST~ : ENG~NEEFt: WILLDAN ASSQC:~AT~S ~ 12a South Ca.auc~~ns
Streat, Anaheim, Ca. 92805. Subjact property ia
pr.oposed f.or aubc~ivision as follaws:
Tract l~o. 8~363 - 40 R-H-10,000 zoned lots=
Tract No. 8464 - 42 R-H-10,000 zoned lote;
T~act No. 8465 - 45 R-H-~10,000 .onecl lat~j
Tract No. 8466 - 36 R-H--10,a00 zoned lota.
Subjc~ct petitions wers cont.inued from the meoting ot necember 10, 1973, to thQ
1t~e0t~.!1g oE January 21, 1974, at which Cime the petitioner raquested an add:l-
tional contir~uance t~ th~ mec~ting of March A, 1974, in order to submit revlsed
pl~sr~g to be hnard in ~on junction with t~ubmi~.tal of additional r.equest for PC,
"Planned Community" 2oning.
Commlssioner Harb~t offered a niotion, seconded by Commissioner Compton and
MOTION CARRI~p, to continuc the aubject petitions tra the meeting of March 18,
1979, in order to be hear.d i.n conjunction with the f~regoing Petition f.or
R~classif:~cation No. 73-74-36 and ~~:neral Plan Amenclment No. 123-B, aa
r.~que~ted by 5taff .
R~CLASSIFZCATION - PUBLIC HFARING. JAMES EMMI, ET AL, c/o Ru3se1 A. Petk~r,
NO. 73-74-47 1520 Miramar D~ive, Fuller~on, Ca. 92631, Owners; RUSSEL
A. B~;TRER, 1520 Miramar, Fullerton, Ca. 92631, Aqent;
xequesting that property deacribeci as: A rectangularly-
shaped ~arcel of land consisti.ng ~f approximateYy 1.27 acres having a frontage
af appruxima~ely 288 feet on the south r~ide of Ball Road, having a maximtun
de~th of approximately 191 feet, and a f.rontag~ of 1.68 feet on th~ east side
of Palm Way, and being located at the southeast corner af Aall R~ad and Palm
Way be reGlassified froin the R-A, AGTtICULTURAL, ZONE to ire F-3, 2~lULTSPLE~
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
N o one agpeared in opposition to subj~ct petition.
Althoucth the St~ff Report to the Planning Commission dated M~rch 4, 1974, was
not read at the public hearinq, it is referred to and made a part of the
minutes.
Mr. Jim 5oules, 1.015 Chapman Avenue, Fullerton, represent.ing the agent far the
petitior-er, appeared before the Commission and stated t.he surrounding area waa
developed with apartments; that the propasal would be an a11-adu].t comp~ex;
that he questioned Condition No. 2 as set f~rth in the ~taft Report concernix~g
improvements on Ball Road; that he had a letter from the rity Right-of-Way
Section indic~ting tha.t the City accepted an easement and, in exchange for ~t.he
dedication of a porti~n of Ball Road, the City ~~greed to .install those i.mprove-
ments mentioned in said Condition No. 2 at no cost to the praperty owner; and
that he woulc~ be agreeable to the a~her conditions of approval.
THE PUBLIC I~~ARING WAS GLOSED.
Commissioner Morley stateci since the subject propPrty was completely surrounded
by twa-story apartments, the proposal would be a compatible project.
Commission~x Morley ~ffer•ed a moti~n, seconded by Commissioner Kiz~g and MOTION
CAR~tIED, that the Planning Commission xecommends to the City C~uncil that the
subject project be e~cempted From the requirement to prepare an Environmental
Impact R~port pursuant to the prov~.sions of the Californa.a Environmental Quality
Act.
c~ommissioner Morley offered R~solution Na. PC'l~1-51 and moved fox its pas~age
and adoption to recommend to the Ci.ty Council that Petitian for Reclasaifica-
tion No. 73-74-47 be approved subject to all conditions set forth in the
Staff Report. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYFS: mMMISSI0INERS : Comptan, Farano, Herbst, Johnson, King, Morley, Gau~sr.
N~ES: COMI~ISSTONEI2S: N~ne.
ABS~NT: COMMIS5IGi~ERS: None.
~
MINUTES, CzTY PI,ANNINC COi~"iMI,^+SIQN, MttZ'Ch 4,, J.`~74 74~-131
V}1RTANCE N0. 2583 ^ PUAJ,IC iJ~ARING. PL~TL H7:7.TSCH~R, 918 Weat Romneya ~rive,
Anah~irno Ce~. 9280w, Own~r~ PO'tTS-BRUCKNER GORP., 17341
trvlnF Boulevard, wu.t:e 111, Tuetin, Ca. 92680 AND JOHN
~. COWLES~ JR., 1A5~6 l~exch 9oulov~xcl, Suitc~ 2~,4, Huntington Beeeh, Ca. 92468,
AgentR= reque~ti.ng WAI:VER OF (A) MAXIMUM F~:NCE FiEIGHT, (8) MAXIM~UM BUILDING
NEIGHT WITHIN 150 Ff;f:T OF R-A ZON~, (C) MINIMUM FRONT XARD 3E~'BACK, AND (D)
MINIMUM DISTANCE AI:TWEFN ACJTLnINGS TO CONST:~QUCT A 25-UNST ~-P. ARt'MENT COMPLEX o~
property deacr.ik~ecl Aa: An irreguZarly-ahap~ad p~trcel of land conaiating of
approximatc~ly 0.88 ~acreH, located bet,weon Rc~mneya Drive and Lodgc~ Avenue,
having f.rontagea o.f ap~~roximatoly 163 feet an Che aouth e~.de of Romney~ Drive
and 1.79 feet on i:he north side aF Lodge Aver~.ue and beinc~ lqcated appro~:imatel}~
365 feet east of tne centerlino of WQSt Street. Fropertiy presently clasaified
R-A~ AGRICUwTiIRA~, ?ONE.
No ona appearo3 in oppositiori ta subject pAtit-ion.
Although the Sta~f Report to the Planning Cammiesion dated March 4, 1974, wao
not read ~t the public hearing, it is rePerr~~d to and macls n part or the
minut~s.
Mr. John Cowles, agent ~ox' the peti,~~.onex,. a~~~ear.ed b~fore the Commi.sgion and
stated tr~e F~roposal was tc construct a 25-ixnit apartment ~roject Facing on
Romneya Drive and Lodge AvenueJ that the proposed e1e~+ations miqht ahange ta
acoommodate some of the buyer5 of the project wha had i,ndicated an inter~at
to have a Spanish ~tyle and that presently the elevations were Englian style.
THE PU$'LIC HEARTNG WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst inquired concerning the rE~quested waivers of the eetbacks
and whsther the project den~ity was too much f'or the pr~perty and Mr. Cowles
stated the raquest was based on the irregul.ar shape o£ the lot.
Commissioner Herbst noted that because of the sha~e of the subject property,
there was a yain of land, and thaL- a hardahip ~~id :zot exist.
Commissioner Morley stated that an argument iz~ favc+r of the proposal was that
the adjajent property was 15 feet froni the pro~~erty line.
Assist~.~t Zoning Supervisor Phillip ~chwartze noted for th~ Commissioi~ that R
resolution af intent to R-3 zoning nad been pending since 1957 on the subject
prAperty.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that a:.~ part af the Commission's
action the applicant could be requested to bring tnt~.reaoluti.on o~ intenti on
the subject property ug-t~-•d ;~:e a::~x that Staff could prepare a list of condi-
ti:~ns tihich wauld be apr;.icable at this dat~.
Commissioner Morley offered a motic,n, seconc.~.i by Commissioner Kxng and MOTION
GARRIED, ~hat the Planning Commis~ion recommends to ±ha Gity Counc3l that the
subject property bE exempted from the requi.remen~ ta p-:epare an Environmental
Impact Repart ~ursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act.
Conunissioner Harbst offered Resolution No. PC74-52 and moved for its passage
and adoption tc grant P~titian for Variance No. 2583 subject ~o completion
of Reclassification No. 55-56-46, now pendirig, and subject to conditions,
(See Resalution Boak)
On rall call, the foregoing resolutioz~ wa;3 passed by the followirig vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS; Compton, Fa.~ano, Herbst, Johnson, King, Morley, Gauer.
NOE~: COMMISSION~RS: N~ne.
AEISENT: COMt~ISSIONERS: None.
GOMMISSZONER HERBST LEF`P THE N[EETII~G ~,T 4:45 P.M.
~
~
~
MIN~iTLB, CITY ~I,ANNING CUMMTSSION, March 4, 1974 74-1.32
VI~RIANCG NO. '1582 - Pi)aLIC EiEARING. WIL~,IAM P. VJSS~Ro 701 W~s~ 'L,incoln
W Avenue, AnahQim, Ca. 92805, OwnerJ r.equoqtar.~ WAT~R OF
(1~} M7NIMUM NUMB~;R UF OFF-uTREET PnRKIIV~ hPACES ANiI (a)
PERMITTED USES TO ESTALiI,ISH A CUMM~RCIIIL GI~E'NHOUSE on
pro~arty dQSCribed as: A rectangu].~rl.y•-sht~.ped parcel of land cc~n~i3~~ing of
approxi.mdte+ly 0.14 acres !, ~~ving a frantaao of approximai:e~.X SO fe~t ~n the
north side of I,inc~ln Avenue, having a m~ximum depth of approximate~y 124
faet, And beiny located apFro~c.imAtPl; J.37 f..eet west ~P the± c~nter7.i.rie oi'
Reah Stroet. F.rope+rty pr~F .ntl.y cla:,sifiod C-2, GENE~t~1L COMMERCTJA:[,, ZONE.
No nnQ a~p~are~ in oppuaiti.~ ~ to 3ub;ject ~~e~itiot~.
Althauyh the Skaff Report ~o the Planning Comm:~9sinn datGd Mt~xch 4, 1974, wae
not read at the publi~ heari. q, .tt is ref.err.~d ta ~nd mddt~ a~art of. the
minutes.
Mr. W~.lliarn Visser, the ~Ptitioner, app~a.red bE~fore thQ Commis~ion and statad
the propoaed gre~ntiou~e woul~ have ~ glas~ roof and would hav~ the ~ame type
windawt~ ~nd a~erhang as the present flower sho~.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairman Gauer noted that the Commissic~n did not realize the ~acade of the
prop~s~d greenh~use would be the same as thP stare bui.ldi.ng and inquir<ad a.x
Mr~ Visser was prnposing to have a glass facar~e on Lincoln Avenue.
Mr. Visser BtatRd a gla4s facade on Lincoln Avenu~~ was desirablP; thr~t there
v~ae no parking problem and the proposal was to inc:lude sevexi aclditional pr~rk-
ing spaces for uae by the total opexation, and they werc in t;he proceso af
obtaining additional land to provide parking, hawever, it migh~ b~ about n~ne
m~n~hs befare the land was obtained. In aonclusian, Mr. Visser stated hF.~ did
not want to Cr~ate another "dawntown".
Ass~stant 2aning Supervisax Phillip Schwartze noted for the Commission ~kha~
the Building Division Stai'f had indicated tttiai: tlze proposed struc~ure woulcj
abut the preraent west property line witY~ a vaall containing windows and this
wa~ not permi.tted by the 13ui13ing Code, and the petitioner may wish to modify
the wes~ elevation to conform to Duilding Code by building a solid bl.ock wa.Ll
ar filing a parael map to delete the west pruperty linp and have subj~ct
property be~ome part of the prooerty to ~he west which is also ov~ned by the
pFtitioner~ and that k~y deleting the west property line the petition~r would
be able to construct the project i.n the mann~r proposed.
Mx. Visser indicatec~ he would work out th~ prablems being discussed.
Commissicner ~7ohnson offered a motion~ seconded by Cornmission~r King and MOTION
CARRIED (C:omir~isr~ioner Herbst b~ing absent) , tha~ the ~lanninq Commission recom-
mends to j:he City Council that the subject projecL- b~ exempted fXOm t.he require-
ment to prepare an Enviranmental Impact Repor.~ pursuant to the provision~ of
~he Ca].ifornia Envir~nmental Qu~lity Act.
Co~niseic~n~r Campton ofPered Resolu~.ion l~o. PC74-53 and move~ Por it~ passage
and adop~tion to grant Petition for Vaz~i.ance N~. 2582. granting Waiver a on the
basis tha~t the petitioner indicated he was negotiating fo.r additional land to
~roviae park.ing for the progosed business and the adjoining business which
the petitioner now operated and which had no parking problem; anc~ granting
Waiv~r b on the basis tnat the proposed grepnhouse wouZd be a complimentary
use with the existing florist shap; subject to the c~ndition t~at the west
e].ovation sha11 be mo3ified tn conform to the Building C~de, or that the
petitianEar shall file a parcel map to delete the west pro~erty 1in~ ar,d have
~ubject property beconle part of the property to the west; aiid subjECt to
conditions. (See Re~soluti~n Book)
On ~oll ca11, the foregoinr resolutzon was passed by the followi.ng vote:
AYES : COMMISSIONER~ : Compton, Farano, Johr~son, King, Mor~ ~y, Ga~.ier.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
P-BSENT: ~COMMISSIONERS: Herbst.
~
--~
~
MINU'~I:~•, CTTY P1.ANNING COMMiSSIQN, March 4, 1974
74••1]3
ItECLAS ~TFICATION - PUIILIC HEAR~:NG. ~'ItErWAY COMMEFtCIA~ PROPERTZES, ZNC. ,
NO. 73-~4-4g Attn: Nele M. O~trQm, 900 Wilahire ~oulevard, Lo~ Ange,leg,
'~ Ca, 900].7, Ownerj CARL It.ARCHER ~NTERPNT~'F~, TNC., Attn;
CONDI^.~IONAL U5E B, Karcher a.n3/or f), Ga.rrison, 120U No~ .:h Harbor Aoulevard,
PERMI" NU. 1456 Ansheim, Cae 928b3, Agents. Prap~rty deacribe3 as: An
` ~ ix~ragularly-e~tiaped parc:al eE lt~nd ec~nsi~ti:~q of appr.oxi-
n,atr~Z.y 1.3 ac~reg having f.roritagES of approxim~tely 4G0
fnet on the n~rth si.de af Katella W~,y and a~proximately 190 ft~et on tl~a west
aid~ of Manal:ost.er Avenue, havi.ng u maximwn dopt.h of approximat~Yy 185 fo~t,
and '~eing loc~~.ed at the northwest corn~~r. cf Katella Way and Manchpster Avc,nue,
Proparty presently classifi~d R-A, AGRIGULTURAL, ZONI;.
REQiiESTEQ CLASSIFICA'PxON: C-1, GENFRAL CODlN~CRCIAL~ ZONE.
F~QCJESTLU CONDITIONl~i, USE: PEl2MIT A DTtIVE--THR~J AND FIALK-UP RESTAUTtANT WITH
WATV~RS Ot' ~A) MINIMUM J,ANDSCAYED AREA, (B)
MAXIMUM N~7NB~R Ob' FREE-S'I~ANllING SIGN~ ,(C)
MRXIMUM H1c~IGFiT UF FREE-STANDING STGN ~( D) I~OCATION
OF FREE-cTANDTNG SIGN, AI~ll (E) MINIMUM DI~TANCE
&~~TWEEN `i IGNS .
O~ie person indir.ated hi.s presence ir~ oppasition to aubject petition.
C:ommissioner Farano noted for tt~e x.ecord that. he wae vQry acquain~ed w~.t.h t:he
i3ubject property since he at one t:im~ represented a corporatian ~hat .lpasecl
it from the St4`e of California; howevQr, sincc~ that time h~ ha3 na l:nowledge
of th~ property and the proposal `~or its develo~mer~k.
Nlr. ll. Garrison, representing thE: ag~nt £or t!~!~ pPtit~.oner, appeared before
the Commission and presented co.l.~red photugx~phe of th~ r~rototype building,
alcng with a brochure concerninc; tlle propoeed operttt~.on. tie stated that the
landscaping requirements had be~~n c:x~eedodj that the proposal was the maximum
and best us~ of the property becau~e of the unu~ual cor.Pigur.ation af the land;
~hat an area of concern was th~a p~rkinc~ are+a on the n~oFt northerZy portiori
f.acing Manchester Avenixe ,~h~r.e said prsrking c~ncroached inta the 3-fo~~t ].and-
sca~ed area and on Kate11~~ Wa~r, 160 feet of L•he frontage would have no land-
scaping;that they were proposiny a 70-foot high sign in the ueiitermost 20~ of
the property, a.-id the purpos~: of '~he sign was to draw customers from the free-
wa;~ and from Max~ahesLer; th~.t i.f the sign was requir.ed to be plac~d farther
away frnm ~~i~ Manchc~ster ctnterline it would not be advantageoua to the purp~se
of the sign; that he was re~~uesting that thQ Commission consi.der th~ entire
plot plan for the dEVelopme:nt af the par.celt that there would be two other usars
which would be cumpat~ible ~"ast-food operations; that Phase II of tYie development
which inc:ltadE~d the two add.itiona~. operations was not finalized; that:, the parkiny
requirements in Anahei.m w are somewhat more stringen*_ than other cit.i.es where
the~• 7perated, and ~5 to 40 parking stulls wou].d be adequate for the Carl's
op~rati.on ar±d a total of 60 to 70 stalls would be necessary f.or the ~•~ntire
conw ined development to .;urvive.
Deputy City Atto.rney Fr.~~.nk Low.ry advised that the advertise3 public hearing
was for one walk-up, dl.ive-in restaurant at the subject location; that a
wai~~e~- af parking was • ot callec3 out in the publir, hearing notice and could
not be c~nsi.de.red at t'ais time.
Crmmissioner Farano s~ggested since Staf.r seemed to anticipate some parking
problems with the fu'.1 development of the parcel, thlt the plans be amended
to include the full ievelopment so that the Planning Conurni~sian could consider
it all at one time.
Mr. Garri.son stated t_he negotiatians had not been f.zrmed up and, therefore,
~hey were not prep«red to come befoxe the Commission with Phase II.
Upon questianing by C~mmissioner F'arano~ Mr. Garrison stated Phase I7. of the
devexopm~nt would be fast-food operatians and that~ Phase I consiste:~ of the
Carl's fast-food restaurantj and that i~. war hi~ understanding tha~c Pha~E II
would also have to come under a conditianal use pea-mit application, ;~oweve;,
in the interest ~~f t~me, they cauld not continue the subject public hearinc~
in order t~ con~ider Phase II at the sam~ tima.
Upan inquiry af Commissio-ler P'arano, Mr. Garrison stated the pxoposed siani.ng
took into consideratiori the signing for Phage II; that t;1ey were not askirr~
for waiver of square footage; that. ane of the siqns was perpendicular to thP
~
T
~
MtNU'rFS, ('.iTX Px.J~IvNING COMMI55ION, M~rctt 4, 197~ 74-?.34
RECI,ASSIFICATION N~. 73-74~48 AND NDI~'IONAL U6E P~RM'~T _N0. 1455 (Canti.nvad)
f.reewa,y; that the waiver to p:r.mi.t the thix~ci ~13n was tn accomn~adate th~ r~Qn~i
board fcr tho dr.ive-thru opex~tiont that •kne hig~heat partion ~f. the aign on
thf~ corner waL~'lc~ re a Carl'R ~i.gn e~nd tha lower p~rfi~n would bc~ ~or the athar
u~ers.
Mr.. G~rriaon fur.kher a*ated tk~F,c in connection wiYh ~he rAquir.om~:..i~ ~U inat~ll
~idewalks on Icatel].A Avenue fr~ntaqe, tha subject pra~~erty was somewhr~t ro~
n~oved from thF~m and t}iai: they were roquosting aom~3 conaideration tu wnive that
requirement ~inee it would ~nly bc~nPfit a few peoplei that they woulc'~ xaque~t
thA~. Condition No. 3 as sc': fux#:h in the Staff R~port for the reclasei~~.cr~t~4n
be st.ricken sir-ce wh~n the pr~perty was ~.~urchased, the Ci~y agreQd 'c~ thP
plac~ment of tt~e drtvew~X on Katella and they tiad no intenti.on of ~~emnving or
iebui.l~3i.ng ~t;; that regard:~ng Canc~itaon No. 7 for thc~ r.ec.laeai£icatio~, the
peap~.e woii~.d be driving o;1 the .f.reewa,y and the roof equipment wouid be impos-
si.ble to sr..r~~en from viewing.
Chalrman Guuer stat:ed th~~t: a l.attic~~-t:ype sczeen could Guver th~ air-condi~ion~-
ing eqnipmeni: an~ that it would have t~ be worked out.
M;:. '~e:.a Ustrem, repres :n~ing the prop~rty awnar, appka~-ed be1'orA the Commi.s-
sion anc~ rc~viewE~d th~ matter o~ ~he TCa~tella Avanue driveway. H~ stated that
a condi~ior~ of his purc:hase of th~ subjecfi praper.i.y wa~ tha+: he be granted
the driveway oi~ tCatell:~ Avenuej that he was b~:i.ng a~ke~ to dedic,ate back to
the City i0 feet of the property which he purchased from the City, ~lus ~ome
additional property wk.ich he had purc:hased from the State. He questioned
Conditic~n No. 4 and s!.ated he wae quat~d 154 a foot for +:.ree planting whcn he
purchased the ~,~roperty and a$7,OQ0 cash bond had been r~osted, and he hoped
ttie City would honor the ori.g:ir,al contract.
Chairm~~n Gauer noted for the petitionsr that the issv.es concerning Condition
Nos. 3 and 4 were under. the juri~3iction ~f the CitX Council.
Mr. Cl.arence N~eddock, 1544 iiast.er Stres~, 1#riaheim, appearecl before the Comm~a-
siar~ in opposition ta subject petition and his secretary read a prepared state-
ment whic;z indi~ated tiis ~bjections, bei.ng the traffic in the area, the presen~
parkyng situation, and stating there t~ore 130 re3taurants in the aXea. The
]~_:r;,C~ discussed possible changes to ~he £reewaX an and off-ramps, and a copy
-~.: said sta.tement was ~,~resented to the Commiss.ion Secretary for filing.
Mr. Ostrem stated Mr. Meddock owned the shopping center across the ~treet from
~ubject prop~rty and Fun Bus 'rours; and that the signal at Katella Way was very
important as a controlled intersectiar~. He presentsd a plan which was devel-
oped in cooperation with the City ot Anaheim ~nd the State Department of High-
ways showing the Haster Basin ov~rpass over the Santa Ana Freeway which would
not change i:h~a c:onfigur.ation of the area; and stated it was not projected tha~t
the Haster overpass would incr~ase i;he traffic prohlems in the area.
THE PUBLIC HEARINv WAS CLOSED.
In reply to q~xestioning by the Com±nissior, Mr. Garrison r`..ated the Carl's "star"
was propcsed to be placed 70 feet in the air, an9 only at 70 feet woul~i it b~
visible to both nortn and southbound traffic from the freeway and Manchester
since there was a row of telephone poies t~ c4ntend with and al~o ther~ ~aas a
r~~,~ of trEes between Katella and the Haster Street uf.f-ramps.
~;hairman Gauer noted that the Barclays Bank sign was quite visible from
Manchester trave~~ng ~outh and he did not feel the proposecl sign would bp any
les~ visible at 60 f.eet.
Mr. Garrisan further statced that the people n~.eded tu be aleri:Fd soon enough
to know to get off the freeway and that they wuuln exit at the H~ster Street
off-ramp; and that the new proposed freeway off-ram~a wouZd bring the people
right to the subject location.
Cumanissioner F~rano inc~uired i£ the Engine~:r~ng D~v~.sion had reviewed the
plans regarding the dr~veway exiting on the eaat side of tihF property and
acljacex~t ~to the overpass where I~anchester goe: urider ~Catell.a.. He stated thi~
was a dangerous laaation for a~riveway and th~t he h~c? locked at the plans
• ~
MTNCITES, CITY PLANNING C0~4MI3SION, Mt~z'~h 4, 197~ 74-13.ti
FtECLA351FICA:ION Nr,,. 73-7~1-4~ ANO CONDITIONAL, USE F,~~,MIT NO. 1456 (Continued)
and wAU1d nat vot~ fer tha~t situat.i.onr that he would euggeat that that be
ahanged a~ it was an extr~ameJ.y dnngerauo intera~ection. Ha guither a~ated
that he wae Familisr with the ~rape~rty and realized it waa a difficult ona
to dev~lap; that he underiatood ~lte ap~onant'e problem, however, ho was noti
suxe it was ae aevore os wa~~ ~.ndicated= tt~iat from the petitionex's s~andpoint
thie was an oxtrPmely dif;ticult prap~r.ty ~o develop and r.c~gardlees of Che use
the praperY.y had an i~, i*_ wou~d be a difficult oit:uation~ that. ~xom hie
kr-owledg~: of Car1's Jr. ertAbli~hments, the propoaed use would be no lieavier
th~n dny commQrcial usb Q:E any kindj thut regard~.ng parking, he was concerned
with what he could not se~a and would pr~Eex i:o oee an overall plan and if it
was reasonable fur th.e pel.itioner to submit same in the not too distant
~uturQ, perhapa that woulci be the p.r~cedure to fallawt that it waa question-
ablo to grant moare than :E~.vo waivers ~n a property, and not know~.ng speci.fi-
cA11y ~vhat Ph~se II of thE- d~velopmant would aonsir~t of ana if there would
be additional waivers, he wou]d PreEer to see Fhase II ivith Phr~se I; and that
regar.ding the 3ign, the he~ight of the Barclays sign war~ suf~iciQnt.
Commisaioner King nat.ed that there should be no exit on Manchester but inflow
qnly as he did not ~e~ how the people could drive aut at that pnint.
Mr. Garrison indic~ted the~~ aere propoaing egress and ingresr~ on Mancheatdr
Avenue .
The Planning Commissian sugqested a twa-week aontinuance in order Por the
pe~iti.oner to resolve some ~f the problems and Mr. Garrison ixidicak~d that
they could not come up w:.th anythYng cancrete in a two-week period; and that
they wauld be unable to pin down the location o~ the buildings and landscap-
ing for Phase II.
CommissionPr Farano clarifiecl that a13. of these matters were being brouqht to
the attention of the peti~ior..er and realizing that the Commission ~vas aprehen-
sive concerning t.he ability to have th~ other uses without having to contend
with the traffic problem, tha~ he would suggest the petitionex proceed care-
fully hecause he could. not be too encouraging about the f.ate of Phase II of
the dev~lopmeni:.
Commi.ssioner Farano ~~ffered a ntot~.on, secorirled by Commissioner King and MOTION
CARRIED (Cammissioner I~erbst being absent), that the ~?lanning Commission recom-
mends to the City Counci7. that 'r.he subject project be ~xempted from the require~
ment to prepare an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to th~ p.rovisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act.
Commissioner Farario offered P.esalution No. PC79-~54 and moved for its passage
and adoption to recommend to the +City Council that Petition for Reclassifica-
ti~n No. 73~74-48 be approved subject to the condition that th~ easter.ly
driveway providing access to Mar.chester Avenu~ sha11 be elir,~inated, and that
thc signing shall not exceed 60 feet in height; and subject to conditions.
(See Re~alution Book)
On roll call, the foreqoing resolution was passec~ :.y the following vote:
AYES: COMAiISSIONERS: Comptor,, Farano, Jannson, King, Niorley, Gaue.r.
NOES; COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst.
Commi;ssioner Farar.o of£ered Resolui•ion NO. PC74-55 and moved for its passage
and a~3option to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1456, ~n part,
qranting Waivers a, b and e on the basis that the pe•titioner der-on~~tr•.~ted a
lia::dship would be created if said waiver.s were not granted; granti~zg W~iver b
cn th` basis that the petitioner stipulated that the p~.~oposed signinc w~s to
ac•commodate the develoNment on the entire parcel; and granting Waiver c, in
part, on the basi~ that the Commission determined that a 60-foot sign would
adeq~i~~tely advertise the subject restaurantx that it was determi.ned tha~ the
qrant.zng nf this conditiAnal use permit i3 for the dev~lopment o~ one drive-in,
walk~up restaurant; and subject to the condition that the easterly driveway
proviciii:q access to Man:.~hest~r Avenue shall be eliminated; an~i subject to
condit:ion~. (See RPSOlution Book)
•
-----
e
I+IINUTES, CTTX PI~ANN1'NG COMMISSION, Max'Ch 4, 1979 74-136
R~CLASSIFI~ATION NO. 73-74-48 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0._145b (Continu9d)
On roll call, the foregai.ng resolution was passed by the £ollowing vote:
AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Cacr~pton, Farano~ ~ohneon, King, Morley, Gauer.
NG~:S : COMMI SS TON~RS : Notte .
ABSENT; coMMISSrONr12S : Ht~rbst.
CHAIRMAN CAUER LFF7' TH~ MEETING AT 5:45 P.M. AND COMMISSIONER FARANO ASSUMF:D
THE CHAIR.
RECLASST~'ICA'PION - PUBLTC H~;ARTNG. ELIZIIBETH HARC,ROVE, 16?.8 South Anahc~in-
N0. 7~-74-43 Boulsvard, Anahei.m, Ca. 92805, AN13 SOUTH~RN CALIFORNIA
« EAISON C:UNJ~?ANY, P. O. Hox 800, 2244 Walnut Giove Avenue,
VAR.T.ANCE N0. ~579 Roseraead, Ca. 91'170, Owners~ WILLIAM WO~IAC~TT, 420 North
"- w Grand Avenue, Santa An.a, Ca. 9~701, Agent. Praperty dea-
cribed as: An i.rregularly-shaped parr,el of land consist-
ing of appr.oy.ima~ely 3.9 acres, havf.ng a frontage ~f approximately 350 feat
on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard, having a maximum ciepth ~f appruximately
1066 foet, and being located approximately 980 feet north of th~ centerline of
Katella Avenue. Property Fresently classified C-3, H~AVY COMMERCIAL AND bl-l,
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONES.
RP;QUEBTED CLASSIFICATION: fi-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVLR OF (A) MINIMUM FRONT SETBAC::, (B) MINIMUM LAND-
SCAPED SETBACK ALONG ,~RTERIAL HIGl-~WAY „ AND (C) MINIMUM
REQUI~tED OF'F-STREET PARKING TO ESTABLISH A COMMUNITY
STORAGE FACILYTY.
I~o one appeared in oppositiun ~o subject petition,
Although the Staff Report to the Plannir~g Cornmiasion dated March 4, 1974, was
not read at the pubZic hearing, it is rPferred to ar~d made a parL- of the
minutes.
Mr. Nilliam Won~cott, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Conunission
and stated he concurred in the Staff Reportf that the mini-warehause facilif:y
was proposed to be located on the cur.ve of Anahein, Boulevard and would have a
minimum of act~vi~y; that regarding the plan, the facility would have a good
appearax~ce and the interior circulation would be functional.r that the full
plot v~as proposed to be covered with buildings, driveways, e~c., leaving no
al].owances tor other type atorage; aiid that all of the open space had been
eliminated.
Chairman gro tem Farano stated he thouqht the Commis~ion was of the mind that
the use was cons;.stent with the land use desianatior~ of the GEneral P1an and
r.equested the petitione•r to addresa himself to the waivers being raquested.
Mr. Wonacott continued hy stating that C-3 zoning would requir~ a 10-£oot set-
back, however, M-1 reyuired a 50-fnot setback and the~ were proposing a 28-
foot setk~aclc which would be as effective as SU feet'; t.hat additionally, there
we.re severat trees and landsca~ing that completely ob~cured the view around
the curve of Anaheim Boulevard; that in no way would the proposed facility
require 81 off-street ~arking spaces; ancl i:hat norm~?1y the parking was in
£ront ~f the mini-warehouse unit.
TIiE PUSLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
In reply to questioning of Commissioner Compton, Mr. Wonacott stated the
faeility, as proposed, would not project and obstruct the wedding chapel
which was lacated south af sabject praperty on Anaheim Boul~vard.
Chairman p~o *em Farano natec] that the setback of the wedding chapel was 50
f~et or morc.
~.' T_~~
~ ~
MINLfi'ES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Maroh 4~ 1974 74-137
RECLAfiSIFICA~ION_N0. .73-7a-43 ANA VIRII~NC~ N0~9 (Continucad)
Upon inquir,y of CommissionHr blerloy, 2oninq Sup~rvisor Ghar~.es Koberi:s
advi.sed that W~o3a GMC was xnned C-3 ~nd thero werc~ r~o aetback roquir~ments
for that zono.
Mr. Rob~rte tur.ther a~lvise~ thAt regarding tho 50--foot ri!-~1 satback, if the
build.tny linc~ was axtended due north j.t would tie in with tt~e parcel to the
h~rth of subjc~cti property, which wUiild be the Buzza faci.lity.
Cc~mmiasioner Johnaon noted that not enoug?~ haXBship had bgen d~monetrated to
wai:rant the 5A-faot setback waiver.
Cot~nisaioner Compton offered a motion, secunded by Commissioner King and MOTION
CARRT; D(Commiasi~nor Herbst and Ghairmt~n Gauer being absez~t) , that the Plan-
ning ~°.ommisaion rECOmmends to ~h~ City Couneil that the subject pzoject be
exe.~pt~~d from the requirement to prepar~ z~n Environmental Impact Rap~r.t pux-
suant to the provisians of the Calif~rnia Envir.onmental Quality Act.
Commissic~ner Compton o~fered Re~olation No. PC7~1-56 and moved for its p~seage
and adopt±.on to recommend i-o tnu City Gouncil th~t Petition f~r Rsclassifica-
tion No. 73-74-43 be appr.oved, subject to conditionA. (See Resolution Book)
On roll cal.1, the foregc>ing rc~solution was pasaQd by the fallowing vote:
AyES : COMM.T.SSIONER; : Comptar~,
NOES: COMMIS5IONEFtS: None.
AZ3SENT: COMMI5STONERS : Herbst~
Johnson, King, M~rley, Farano.
Gauer.
Commi~sione.r Com~~kon offered a resolui:ion a.nd moved for its p~~ssagP ~~nd adop-
ti~xi to grant Petition for Variance No. 2579 su.bject to the condition~ set
forth in the Staff Re~ort.
On r~ll call, the f~regoing resolutian failed by the following vote:
AYEc: ~OMMISSTOPJ~RS: Morley.
NOES: C.aMMTSSIONERS: C~mpton, Johngon, King, Faran~.
ABSENT: COMMISSTUNERS: Herbst, Gauer.
The Planning Commission E~ntered into di~cussio,~ regar9ing Varianc~ No. 2579
and the requested waivers,. follawing which Comc~-issi.oner Compton offercd
Resoluti.on D1o. PC74-57 and moved for its passage and adoption ta grant Peti-
tion for Variance No. 2579, in part, denying Waivers a and b an the ba~is
that the petition~r did not demonstrate that a hardsh;.p would be created if
saicl waivers were not grante.~, ar~d granting Waiver c on the basis that the
patrons of ~he proposed commu;zity storage faci.lity would generally park in
front of the storage units and the facility would require less parking than
most warehousest and subject to the c~;~ndition that the structural setback
requirement for tlie M-1 7,one shall be adhered tUf and subject to conditions.
(See Resolu¢ion Buo;c)
On roll call, tlie forPgaing resolution was passed by the ~ollowing vote:
AYES: CONII~IISSTON~RS: Compton, ;lohn3on, King, Morley, Faranu.
NOES: ~OMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSION~RS: Herbst, Gauex.
ENVIRONMENTAL I~ACT - nU.3LIC HEARING. RAYMOND SPEHAR, 913 Paloma PlacP,
REPORT N0. 118 Fu71~x~ton, Ca. 92~535, Ownerf requ~~ting WAIVER OF (A)
TYi~~ OF P~RMITTED SIGN, (B) PERMI7':'r,D C-1 USES, (C)
VARIANCE NO. 2560 RE~UIREt~1vT THAT A S~RVICE STATION BE LOCATED NOT
CLOSER THAN 75 FEF~` TO A RESIIIENTIAL ZONE, (D) T~iZNTMUM
STRUCTURAL SETBACK RL~JACENT TQ RESID~-JTIAL ZQNE, (E)
MINIMUM I.ANDSCAPED SETBACK ADJACENT TO RESII7F.NTIJ~IL ZONE, (F) REQUIREMENT THAT
A SFRVrCE STATION BE INTEGRATED WYTH A SHO~Pl:.NG CENT~R, (G) MINIMUT~I STRUCT'URAL
SETBACK ADJACENT TO ARTERIAL HIGHWAY, (H) MINIMUM LANASCAPE SETBACK A,D~TACENT
TO ARTERIJ~L HIG;iWAY, AND (I) MINIMUM SCREEN LANDSGAPII~~G AD~ACENT TO RESIDENTIAL
ZONE, TO ESTABLISH A CARWASH AND SER~IICE STATIO~V on groper.ty described as~ An
~
. -~--•.-...
~ ~
MINUTE3, CTTY F~LANNING COMM:[SSZAN, March 4, .~974 74-138
E~iVTRONMENTAL ]:MPACT REPORZ' N0. 118 AND VARIANCF NO. 2580 (Continued?
irreqularly-eh~ipa8 parc~l. af land coneieti.ng of. ~npprox.imately 0.85 aGrea loaat~d
at ~ha north~ar~t cornar o£ La Palma Av~nu~~ and xrnporial H,tghway, hAVing a front~
ate a~ epproxitnately 248 feet an ~khe north aide of La Palma Avenue and approxi-
mate].y 140 foe~: on thE east. side o~ Tmparial Hiyhw~,y. Property presontly claesi-
fied C-1, GENLI"tAI, COMME:RCIAI~, ZUNE (~C, : CENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE) .
Na one apper~rec9 i.n oppoaition to subject petitifon.
A1thUUgh the 31:aff Reporl: to th~ Commi~ston datad Maxch 4, ?974, was noL raad
at l:he publia t~oaring, it 1.a referred tc~ and made a par~ of the minutes.
Mr.. Raymand Spe+har, the petitione+r, nppeaxed before the Commiesio» arad ~tat~d
th~ red~on for the eubjQC~ variancta was due to khe dopth of the prop~rty, being
1~0 feets that tl~e property was ar.ir~i.nally 1S0 feet deep and he had been re-
quixed to dcdicate 10 feet for thc~ wid~ning s~f L'a Pa1ma Avenu~t that du~ to thp
size3 0~ ~he property it was difficult ~o adhc~ra to the landscaping requirt.nante
on ~he north sidet th~t there k~as a~ qixesti.an~ as to whether the servica a~a~ion
site would be a1l~wed unless it was part of a ahopping center; and that• he
would be ia favur af the condirio~is as aet fazth in the Staf~ Report.
THE ]?U$LI ~ HF•ARi:NG WAa CLnSED.
Chai.rman pro tem Farano notsd tt-at th~a praposal was a non-in~tegrated service
stationt that the r~,.~uested waiver~s were record-breaking= that 1:he only factar
in thp petitio:~e:r's fa~-or was t.k~e pre3Pr~ce o~ a service stati.on across the
street which waa e~tablished prior to the enactment of the Scanic Corridor
Zoningj that i~; t:he subject pe:tition was granted, sspecially in view of the
fact that the petitionPX owne~i adjaining property which would probabl~ be
develaped into a sho~ping center, the proposal woutd set a dar~~ezou,~ prPCedent;
that he vated far the Scenic Corridor Zone ordinance and believed i~ was a
good :idea, and k~e would hav~ a problem avercoming his convictions in that
zespect; and that he would t:e more in favor af the praposal if it was part of
a shopping c~nter~
Commissioner Morle.~ noted t:hat with the industLy in the area, the heavy traffic,
and the preaence oi' two oth~r service stations in the area, the use was not
particularly bad, h.owever, the waivers were excessive in number.
Comm3.ssiox~er King n~~ted for the Commission regarding WaiWers c, d and ~, there
woul~i probably not k~e any reaic~ential develapment in th~e area, especially on
the lieavily~traveleo'. road.
The Plannin.g Commi~s.ion entered into discuasion regarding tbe requested waivers
and Mr. Spehar stateci he woula suggest some trees on ~he north property line to
sati.sfy the landscapinr requirement.
Chairman pro tem Farano inquired if the petitioner would take a continuance
ta try ~o work out sor.~e of the waivers and stated i*_ was plain that some of
the Cammissioners were in tav~r of. the use but were opposed to the r,umbrr
of waivers.
Deputy City Attorney Fra~nk T~owry advi:2d concerning the service station acrns~
the atreet that approval of said service station was grantc~d betweer~ the tim~
of the beginning of the escrow on th~: service station ar.d the adopti.on of the
Scenic Corridnr ~rd~inance and i:hat the requirement that a service station b~
ixitegrated with a shopping center was z~ot held in stxict interp;retation sin~e
that service static~n was in escrow; that the ruling had been made by the late
City Attornex Mr. Ueialer and said ruling was related ~o the effec~ive date
of the or@inance.
Mr. Spehar stat~d that ,~ithin two years he would have a row of stores adjoin-
s.. 3 the proposed use.
Chairman pro tem Farano noted fox the petitioner that his honast opinion wae
that Mr. Spehar did not want to take a continuance ~nd wo•rk with the plans as
he wanted to override the Commission in thz matter that ii the project was
~
MTNCITE3, CITY PLANNTNC~ COMMI;S310N, Maroh ~, 1974 74-139
ENV:LRONMENTAL ID~A~T RIEFORT [~0. lx9 ANp VARIANCE N0. 25A0 (Cantinued)
wartywhile for th~ uetitlon~+z and hxa neighlx~ro, and ~or the other prop9rty
that thc~ peCi.tionax owned~ he would have the right tn requ~et L•hb waiv~rp~
liowev~r, th~ propnr~gd p~~o jeot was not getting lair treatm~nt a~zd tt~e reque~t
wxs auch as to indicat~ tho petitione+r waa,~~+d tn ~vArrid~ ~hs Commiaaion.
Thereupon, Mr. 5pet~ar atated he would requaet a two-we~ok aon~inuanc:e on ~.he
aubject peti~ion.
Commie~sioner King offerec~ n motion, a~conded by Gommiasi~rier r;~M' ~.; r,~.nd MCrIaN
CAItItIEA (Cammie~A~oner Herbat and Chai.rm~n GeuPx being ~+ber~nt) , t~:at ~';e pc:b7.~.o
haaring be~ raopen~d and conei.derati.on of ~nviranm~~nkal ~rnpaot. Rep~zt No. 118
end Petition for Variance~ No. ?580 ba continued to the meeting of March 16,
1974, as reque~ated by the pAtitione.r.
ENV'lRONMENTAL IMPAC7' - Requesit far con~ider~tion as requi.red in connection.
1zEPORT N0. 119 with ~~pprovAl nf an exi:c~nei~n af tima on Tentativd
~ Tr~ct Map No. 7417. Pr~perty loca~.ed n.orth of the
futurt~ exteneion of La Palma Avenue and soutr af
Esperanza Road approximately 1-:~3 miles ~as~, of In-perix]. Highwa~y.
It wes noted that the petitloner hRd submi~fied a rwquest to poatpone eaneiderA-
ti~n of the aubject Environmental Impact Feport in connectic~n with Tentative
Tract No. 7417 to th~ meeting of Ma,rch 18, 1974.
Commissianer K:~ny offerod a moti.on, seconded by Cammissior.ar Comptan and MOTION
CARRIED (Com~i.seioner Herbst and Chairman Gauer bexng absent), that cr~nsiders-
tion of Environmental Impact Report No. 119 be pastponed to the~ m~ett;~g of
Mar~h 18, 1974, as requaeL•ed by thg ggtitione~.
. . __ -_ r____ ,,,,,,
~ ~
MT.NIJTF.S, CC'CY ~'LANNLNC C01~1~lI93i0N~ M+~rr.h 4~ 1974 74-140
REPOR'C AND - ITRM N0. , 1
~tt~COMMEN'D!-'fIONA VARIANCE r10. 24k7 - tieque~rt foc exCandiaa of. time - Property
loc~t~d on Khe eaet a~d~ of S~bino Street approMimat~ly 12a
foet ~ouCh ot tha cantarlln• of Sycnnore SCre~t.
Astlstan t Zoning Suparvi~ar Fhillip 3ctnvartt• noted for thR Go~anie~ion th~l: the
pel:itionar, Mr~. Esther. D. Munus~ had mad~ • vrittsn raquest for •n sxten~ion of
tima Ga continue opecating a beaaty salon in e•n existing stngln-F~mily ro,idanti~l
structura for ~n ind~efinita pariod or ~or ~e lonA e~ el~e wae able to work,
Coaoiia~ioner King offerad a motion~ sacondad I.y (;om~mi~sionec Johnson~ and MOTION
CAR1tIED (Commie~ioner Heriret and Ghairm~n G+~uer b~ing ~b~~nt) ko grant a ehrae-ya~r
exCanaio n of time f~r VAriance Na. 2447 to expire on Apr;.' 29, 1977,
- 1TEM N0. 2
I~ULLL~It'~ON CREEK CNANNL~L 'LMPROV1~tENT PRO,tECT - ConforsaNnca
With the Aoahaim General Plan
A~sieto nt Zoning Supervieor Phi111p Schw~rtse proeantad the Staff [teport to tht
Planning Coarr.iesion d~ted M~rch 4, 1974, and aaid Staff Reporl• ie rcferred to and
made A part of thc+ minuteo. Mx. Schwartaa nated fnr the Co~is~ion th~t the Orange
County Flood Contr~l Districk li~d requeeted ~ determination as t:o the conformir.y of
tha peopoeedl~ullerton Craek Channel ImQrovement 'Pro~act vith the City of Aneheim
General Pl~a end L•he env~.:on~antal impact. He further noted that the pr~poaol wus
to ~~ovicle inereawed flood pruter:tion by conetruction of a vertteal-walled reinforced
concret~e improvement from Harbur Boulev~rd to Chapmaa Avenue which w~s parti~lly in
tha Cit y of Aneheim ac~d partially in the City of ~ullexton.
Coa~rois~ioner King offere~d Reeolution No, PC7~~-58 and moved for i.ts pasaage and
adoption that the Planning Coneniasion finds and determ•Lnee Chat the propoeed imprave-
r~enta C o khe Fullerton Creak Ch~nnel ia in confarmance with khe Anaheim Gendral ~la n
and will h~ve no significant effect on the environme.it. (See Eiesolution: Book)
On rall ca~l, the foregoing Resolution wae paeaed by the folloWing vote:
AY~S: COI~iISSIONERS: CdM~Cdn,
NOES; COt~tISSIO~MERS; None
ABSENT: C01~4tISSIONERS; Nerbat,
Juhnaon, King, M~rlsy, Fa~:ano
Gauer
- ITEM ct0, 3
R~CLASSIFICATION N~. 72-73-39, VAkLANCE N0. 2492,
TENTATIVE TItACT N0. 4777 and CONDITIONAL iTSE PERM~T N~). 1386 -
Request for tdrminatfon - Property located goutherly of
5anta Ana L'anyon Road, appraximately 3070 feet eoet of the
centerline of Anaheim Hill• Itosd.
Assi3t a nt Zoning Supervisor Phillip Schwartae noted £or. the Commiseion that the
petiti onar w~e requeeting th~t the eubject zoning mattare an which the Plsnning
Coimnis s iun hed taken no formal actian to approve or dieapprcve, be termihated on
the sub ~ect property.
Commia s ioner King offered e mut:ion, aeconded by Chairman Yro T~n F~rano, and MOTION
CARRIED (Cc+mmiseioner lierbat a~id Chai~nnan Gauer being a~aent) to terminata all pro-
ceedinga in connacC~on witli pe~titiona for Reclasoificetlon No. 72-73-39, Variance
No, 2492, Conditional Uee PermLt No. 1386 and Tuntativa Tract No. 4777.
4'l'ITEM 1J0. 4
PROP01iED AMBULANCE SERVI~E - City of Garden Grove -~roperty
loaat~~d in the City of Garden Grove abutting Anah~im City limits.
Zoning Supervisor Charlea Rnbexte noted for ttie Commio~ion *hal• a notice had becn
receiv~d from the City of Gard~en Grove that an ambblance •ervice w~s proposed ebutt ing
Anaheiw City limite. He advfs~ed that it va~ doubtful that tfie propoaed e~ctivity would
have an edverse effect on the ar~~..
~
MxNU'CRS, CITY I'I.ANN'ING COMMISSlUN, M«rch 4, 1974
ITEM NOa 4 (Continued)
74-141
Commi~eioner K2ng notad for tha Coranieaion th~t he h~d cl~ecked r.he loca~t ion and i.t
~ppsared to be aurrounded by comnerci~l uru~ end Ch~ neeroet Aingle-f~mi ly residenti~l
sonad property in the ~ity o' Anahaim wee 1oc~ted a conaider~bla dietance e~ray.
The Pl~nning (:o~nai.a~ion gcner~lly concurrad ttiat no coament N~n detarminad to ba
neca~e~ry.
- YT~M N0, 5
EN4'TROM4~NTAL IMPACT REpORT N0, 108~ CONTITTIONAL US'E PERMtT
N0, 143b AND T~NTATIVE MAP GF TRACT NOS. 8455 AND 8456 ~
Requeat for terroination - P roperty beta~ •n ir r eaul~rly-
etieped parc~] of land conoisting of ~pproximat~ly 29 acrea~
having frontaRes of ~pproximetaly 444 feet: on t he north elde
and 947 feet on the eAUth aide of Cenyon Rim Raad~ t~aving a
m~ximum depth of approximatel.y 889 teat~ end being locaCed
~pproximately 1200 feet e~asx oE the centerlin~ oE Nuhl Rerich Roed.
2oning Supervioor C:harlee Roberts preaenCed Che Staff Report to the Ptenni.ng Commiaeion
dated March 4, ].974~ and eeid StafE P.eporC ia referrnd to ond inade a part of tha minutea.
Ho noted Chat the patitioner Woe requesti.ng terminwtion of all proceedinge tn conROCtiun
vlth the aub.ject documentA.
Comomiseioner Compton offered Renol~ition No. YC74-59 and moved for ita paneage and
adoption to terminate sll proceedinge of ~onditional Uee Pern~1t No. 1436, a~s requeeted
by the petitioner (See Reoolution Rook); And, further tliat all proce~dings in connectio~
With Environmentel Lmpact Report No, 108 and Tentet'~ve 'Pre~.r Noe. 8455 and 8456 bas and
hereby are recommended to the City Council for termination, aA rP~~~e~'-~d by the
petitioner.
On roll call, the foregoing reeol.uti.on wae p~esed by the fallowing vat _:
AYES; COMMTSSIONERS: Ca;npton, Johnson, King, Morley, Farareo
''UES: COi~4lISSIONF.RS: None
ABSENT: COA4~lISS70NERS: Herbst, Gauer
- IT_EM NO_,b
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17.30 - Requeet for clarification
of condi.tiong - Property conaieting af epprox~imetely 8 acrea
lucated on tl7e west eide of ~each Bou~levard, approxi.metely
1000 feet north of the centex~Yine of Lincoln Avenue.
Mr, Wil ~ tam M. OuimeCt~e, 17Q0 Galaxy Driva, Newp~st Beach, epF~eered b~efore the Commiesion
as the owner of Anahetm Vacation Park located et 311 North Be~ch Raulevard, Anaheim,
an.d requeated clarification and definition of the word "etorage" as it pert~ined to hie
trevel trailer perk. Mr. Ouimette r~ad a letter vhich he had written a ddresaed to the
Devel,opmert Servicea Department and dated Jauuary ?7, )'+, in Which h~ wes sesking rh~e
answer to baeic queatiane auch ae how long a unit coul ~emain unoccupied before it
Would be considered to be stored and if reduced ratas ~:or non-occupancy would b~ per-
mittsd. He continued by stating that he uc:derstood no recreatinnal v~hicle stotage
wae allowed et the eub jer.t park; that t;~ was hevin~ sume arobl.em defining for s~ministra-
tive purposee what constituted etorsge; that auU3ect park wae oper~r~d ~s a trtvel
trailer park end did not give countenance to otorage of vehicles thak ~rould be used 11ke
apartmento; thee there were situatione where the vehicle ownera w~nted to come into the
park ~nd then leave to take a vac~tion and he wanted to know tf the vehicles would be
lefk for thet period of time without being consiclered atored.
Comniiseinner Farano inqu: red if the propoaed Travel Trailer Park Ordinance eatabliehed
the number of daye Chat a trailer .~uld atay in a trav~l tra'ler perk.
Zoning S~ipervisor Charlee Fob~:te advised the City did not h~ve aii nd~pted Travel Trailer
Perk Ordinance; however, Staff did not Want to create a eit•uation ~rhere the travel trailer
parke co~ld be utitiaed in a m+~nner aimilar to mobilehrnne parka; thst the travel trailer
park ahould have a requirement which would permit the occupants to stay ~ limiked numbP~
of days; and that the trsv~el trailec p,rk ~n Wear. Streek eouth of Ball Itoa~ had berr.
w:th a Zimited etay period eimilar to motele or ~pproxiu~tely tvo weeks.
In reply tu questioning of Conaaieaioner Firano, Mr. Ouf.metre atated that many people
used ttieir recreationol vehi.clea se liv9.n~ unite; that tfie recreational vehi~le term
~
~
~
MINUTE9~ C~TY P1.JINNING COMMiSSION, Msrch 4~ 197/i 74-1~2
I'~~1 NU. G (CcnCinued)
cuulcl covur ~vorythinq from e eholl ovar a p•lr,kup ~ruck to the treilor ar moCOr haaw
typn at~ich could coet ~pWarde of $30,OOa ~nd could pa~ribly r~pr~~nnt ~ vohi.cla 30
E~et loag; thNt theee vehicloe were ve~ry e~n~oyable hom~a and tl~~e purchaeare ~re
currently repr~santing a group n~ people betvee~ Chef.r r~tiremenC date and vrlien they
could •~ttle down for the reet of their live~ •nd l•tie vehicle vse their home on vt~e~le
f~~r ~ pariod of up to ten ya~re perhapei that thaea peopla moved from nna rre• to
another ~t varying indeEinito Cf.mee and could etay in An~h~im fac ~ period of one
waek or fox r.wa or three months; and thet thera W+~e ~leo th~ "enaWbird" type uaer aho
migr~~bd to thia area during aold Weather eleewhera. He continuad by Atsting thak
iie Would euggast th~t a 30-d~y etay re strictinn Would not ba realieeic~ ae many paople
etay Eor pdriode lon~«r than s manth.
Cumniasianer Far~ne mdde an obeervatio~ that e publi.c hearing on this mrl•tor w~uld
be neceseary; that iE the development ~tandords for mabilehome pprks were epplied,
it ~rou].d preeuppoee the living conditione of the mabi.lehome park~; that he Wee avare
of the kind of people Mr, Ouimette wa e epeeking of •nd he did not wiah co put them
out in tha cold eomewhere, however, if the condition wee ellowed to exiet ta Eit the
subject travel trailer park, he wae esu~e there would be other parks full of the gypdy-
typa occupante •lso; that in allowing thie candieian, the Commiaeion would be m~re
or leee determining a eet of etandards for permen~ent livi~lg envir~nm~nh st Crave.l
tr~iler parks end he would h~ve to eay he did not apree with that.
Mr. Ouimette etated the m~tter of long••terni residence Was not hie pri.m~e eCimuluey
t.iat the, hed the lung-term residont who e~anted to leave their coach ~nd go away
for a whila; khat he wea mait'tly inter~asted to know if a ca~ch cuuld be~ left in place
while the owner took hie vacation and then aasume hia place in the pexk upon his
return and would this aituation be e~ermed nun-occupancy if tF~e recreationAl vehic].e
Wa~ ~eft for one day or eir. montha; and et~at einca the recraA«onal •~ehicle must be
left somewhere, tliey would like to accommodate the owner to aeeure the perk thet
that tenant would return to the par'c.
Upon inquiry of Conrhisaioner Morle. rtr. Ouimette staC~d if the tenant et~red hte
. vehicle i.n eaid per.k, l•he park may o r mey not ".oae the tenant upon hia return.
Coatiniesioner Johnaon inquired i~ storing a recre•tion8i ,~~:t,iCie where there wa~ e
ped stati.on Wauld be oaure ercpenaiva than conventionel atoxage, and Mr. Oui.mette stated
they would have a reduced rate for unoccupiad vehiclee.
Co~niasio~ae Farano made sn observetion tl~~at if the sub~ect parlc did not have e
conditian of approva! which limited the te~tgth of stay and there aaK no ordi.nance
which so limi.ted, would the Commission have the ability or the right to impose auch
a condition et this later time.
Deputy City Aktorney Frank Lowry advir~ed thet e public hearing would be nece~sary
to ~hange ttie conditiona of the aub,~ect Canditiona: Uee P~ermit; that at Che public
hearing fox sai.d Conditional Use Permit~ it was et:atNd that the~c wo~tila L•~ na exte~ded
staye or etoraEe; and thsl if the petitioner wae going ro opa_et~ contrery to h!A
representative atatementa, then e pub lic hearing would be in ord+er.
Mr. Oaimette stated they had no intentione of trying tu ope^rac;: a aubeta~lder~ pick;
and that they were only interested i:^ knrnrwhat conetituted atoragP.
Mr. Roberta noCed for the Co~-iaeion t~at there vas brief diecussion el• t.~e Qublic
hearing for subj<:~t C'~c.~~Gioial Use Per.~it r4garding the co~;aiderati~n tu al~ow people
to ate; ior c:xr:~,ded pe~iods of time, end in the reaolutiun oi appr4val theM~! w~as e
atip :lation t{:et no r.•r.reat,onal vehicle atorege would be a1law~d,
Commiesioner Fara~a nuted tr~ac in hia opfnion pertiapa coneider~Cion of the mertar
ahould be dElayed c~r r.he purpoee af obtaining a legal opinion regarding the definition
of the ward "etor~gr".
Mr. Ouimatte atated theC they did h~ve a problem ae to tha dafi.nition of ntorage and
length of 9tsy, and aleo he aould likd to raiae a question as to what~ar othar recreati4nel
vehicle parka in the City of Pnaheim hsd thi.s type o~ recreational vehicle atorega.
~- -~--
• ~
MTNUTES, CI'I'Y FI.AIJNxNG COMMISS'LON, March 4, 1974 14-143
ITEM N0. 6 (Contin~.~ad)
Comwiaeionar Farano at~led that tl~ara W~e no precadAnt in Chie matter.
Mr, Lovey advisod vic-l~tor~ heving storage of vehicles would be arrested.
Mr. Roherta clarl fied rhat tt-e reaolution oE approvel. did noC l~~ve a ceridition regarding
tl~e extended eCays or atoroge~ t~owever, the patittoner'e rRpreeacitative had ao etipulated.
C~vaaieeloner Ferano q~.ieeti.oned if r.he Pl~nning Comiuiseion could ceopen th~ public hearing
and Mr. Roberte advised thet perhApa th~ matter could be further discueaed at ~ futuxe
Cnneaia~ion meetl.,R.
Thereupon, the Plannin~ Co~malesion generelly concurred l•o reechedule. the subject
rAqueet for ~ fuCure meeting, pending further otudy.
ITF~M N0. 7
VARIANCE NO. 2283 - 5t~tue oF. eareeniriy roat~
mounted aquipmant - ProperCy looated r~~ the
aotithweet corner ot San1:e Ana Canyon Road and
Imperial Iiighway.
Planning Aide ,Tohn Andereon read the Steff Report to the P~.anning Cummisr~.ion
dated March 4, 1974, aud said Staff Report ia rQferred to at~d made a part of
the minutes. He further noted that a letter had been receiveS from ths
developez of the aubject property which outlined the prohleme in cAnnection
with the screening uf the roof-mountAd aquipment.
Mr. Cha rala Haagen, tho ~eveloper, appeared before the Com~niseion and lndicated
he wae present to reaolve the diacrepancies concerning the roof-mounted equipp-
ment.
Upon inquiry of Chairman pro tem Farano, Mr. Haagen stated they had c:langed
architects and ifi was not a fair statement thRt the information regardinq the
screeninq and placement of same was not pt~ased on ta s:he new architects that
tt-e situation was some~ahat complicated. Chairman pro tem Farano nuted that
he unde rstood that the tanants of thQ individual units were not made aware of
thE ecreening requirements prior to the time they orderec~ tha equipmenti and
Mr. Haageii in8lcated that was not a true atatemant.
Cbairman pro tem Farano in~uired why th~~ developer proceeded with the situati~n
when }ie was aware af the require~nents, A.nd Mr.. Haagen reiterated information
which was contained in his letter dated February 25, 1974, that they been
i~suPd s building permit and procepded on t~hat baa.is and were surprised to have
been told five or six weeks later by Mr. Anderson that the equipment screeninq
was inadequate. Mr. Haagen explained the de~ign of the roof ann sta~ed tne
type of. equipment and deaiqn was based upan 3aid roof 3tructure.
Chairman pro tem Farano further noted thar, iti was not his desire to be argu-
mentative, hc-wever, there was certain information that should bo brought ta
the attention of the Planning Commission auncerning the aelection of the
equipment eince it was his understanding that al.terations or 8lfferent equip-
m~nt could have been utilized in order to aonform to hhe r.equir.emonta.
Mz. Alfred Mandle, 5enior Mechanical Inapectez, advised the Flanning Commission
along the line of the information contained in the Staff Report and atated
that the developez• had provided plans that indicated proper screening at one
time, however, the aubaequent drawings did not conform.
Chairman pro tem F~arano not~d that it was clear that the plans that wexe
tendered to the Planning Commisaion and as workir~g drawinga were subatantf.ally
changed eomewhere down the line to make it r~omewhat difficult to conceal th
roof-mountod oquipraent ~sa an integral part of the building, ae intended.
Mr. Haagen stated at the public hearing that they had a concept tnd talked
about making the roof as inconspicuoue ae paseiblo, an3 it wAS left to the
archectural firm which then left the mattes somewhat out oY tha develaper°a
hands and the CommisaiAn's hands~ that the exhibita projecterl s~ome kind of
.
MINUT~S, CITY PL,ANN.iN~ COMMxSGtON, March 4, 1974
ITFM NU. 7 (Cor-tinued)
i4-144
aquare ancloeure Rnd ~:hey were c~natr.ucting a Rlntted analasurot thAt aome
madiPict~tion ha~i~b~en maAe sinca tha mstter waa brought to thair ettontion
by ehiolding uQV~+rel unita t~o blend with tho zoot. ffe lurther utetefl that
the development wa-a ona uf the moet sttraotive tihopping c~ntAre the~y had
built in the lnet 15 yearet tha+: the ooet would ba grAnt to remove ths qse
unitn pzesently inatalled and meke tlie poseible ohnngoe to the electri.oel
pnnele in the unitA.
Chairmdn pro tem F~rano noted that he did not lee:L the ~.~4tnt.lnq o! the variou~
i.ndividual units waA eufficient• to comply with the requixement~ thet there
were waya af qhieldinq the equipment fErom view end the mettiod o~ ueed would
become an int,~grnl part of the building~ that he was not i~i egreement with
the e~i.r-conditioninq unite being left out in the open •nC not oonaietar~t with
the requiren~ent ar.d what wae diecue~eds that theza wet• e~v~ral poeoibilitie~
to accumplleh the~daeired etfectt that he was not enth~a~iaetic about the
"doghouaea" or the painting thet wds propoeted, etc. kle cor.tinuo!! by etating
the eubject dev~lopment wae ~he liret of itQ kind in the Sc;eni~ Corridor and
the manner in wr,ieh the~ sereening problam wae reeo],ved would hav~ to be live~
with throughout the Ca~nyon~ thet the ordinance etat~d r thing co~ild be put on
the roof ta etart with and it was impc~r.tanf: ~o the Ciky to fallow throuqh ~n
the matteri thatr in~ his o~inion, further dr~-winqa to ahow how the devoloper
would reeolv~ the situation were necessary a~nd that paintinq would ~ot do~
that by etucc~ing or sometl-ing oP that nature ao thAt the equipmont would
appear to be part of the rc ~f, would be mor• in lj.ne with the intentt ttiat
the matter coulcl be brouqht back to the Planninq Commission at nny time under
ReporL•s and Reaammenclationa until it wae re:~alved to satisfactionfand thut
there waa no queati~:n tY-at the shoppi.ng center was very ha~tdeome.
Aseiatant Development Services Dixector Ronald Thompeon advieed ~hat the
matter was somewhat complicat.ed by communicatior. g~pst that the metter was
becoming critical and Staff wAy looking to the Planning Commisaion to indicnte
their idAaa.
Mr. Ftaagen etated that putt!.ng tile or stucco on the roof would not blend due
to the ~:ampo.sit.ion or` the :•oof.
Commiasioner Tohnson nated that the Commissioners were not deaignere ~r
archi~ecta nnd it. would be hard to to21 the developer `~ow to screen the
prnject~ that he was convinced that tha screeninq ~ouia be desiqned to be
aesthetic to the residenta on th~ billside above the project.
Mr. Anderson advised tha~ he had hoped tc see som9thing more i.nnovative than
the solutions preaented by the devaloper~ and that the developer was a man
of qood taste whom he thought would explaro eome avenue that would satisfy
everyone.
Mr. Haagen indicated that the unsatiafactory screeninq was bx•ouqht to hia
atter~tion at the time of an opening oP ane of the atores, which made thR
matter more difficult.
Chairman pro tem Farana stated Mr. Andersnn had ir~dicated that a more sophis-
ti~ated design of the acreening to reduce it eubstantially in height was
deoirable.
Mr. Mandle advised that there was no reaaon why the screening had ta he at
the 8-foot l~velt that if it waa lowerd@ to a lev~l above the condensis~g unit
by approximataly 2 feat, it would shorten up the amount af ale~ve that the
air-canditioninq peaple would use to discha~rqe the air fro~n the equipmentJ
that the concepts eubmitted hy the developer r~ero just noi, in compliance1
that he had of~ered same suggeetions but had not inatrur,ted the davelop~er ro
do anythinq apeciflct that no one was auffering from lack of ~pening *he
individual atorea because of this situr~{on= that Staff had ~ried very hard
to work wit~~ .~ 3eveloper cn th~ matter for g period of threo monchaj that
there were -_;_-res open and they had their qas ant that tihe present electricai
panels were overaized and ware ~eufficiont to hsndle the load of the electrical
heatiny in addition to electric:•~ air-conditioninys that there wae some dif-
ferenco of opinion aa to what ~H involved in the wiri.ng requirementj that the
~
MINUTES, CITY PL.ANNING COMMI33ION, Muroh 4, 1974 74-'l4a
ITEM N0. 7 (Continuec~)
problom wae not insurmountebla, hownvex, Steft was t.rying t~ resolv• L•h~
mattor before any more the pqui,pmant wao puxohaueA Por tl~e i~nits end t.o h~-va
eome laverega to rontrol Che requ,trqmen~ priar to the entir~ shopping ca~ter
being r.ompleted and occupied~ and that Stalt had no int~ntion ot cau~ir~q the
develaper to loee dny a! his tenante.
tdr. Goral.d Sta~k, epeaking for the developer, ~tated ~here was dtuch im~~~rova-
man~ to be done prior to the completion af th~ devela~ame~nt~ t.hat he wo~als]
like to have p~wer turned on in the Sprouee R~itr unit prior *_o their ~~pe~niny~
and that the develop~x wa~ ~graea~ble ta reaolviny the matter encl doing rl~puc~
thinge which were neaeeeary to me~t the City's demands.
Chairman pxo tem Farano noCed that he would not ba rgr~edble to A~.LON~.IICJ aome
of tho amaller unite or nny unit to aek out by itaelf~ tha~t tho Qe,vel.op~,r
ehoulc! prepare a new deeign for concealn~ent ~f the equipment on the r~c~t ~
that the mntter ehould be taken out oF the hnndo of the Development Se+rvicea
Staff ae it was probebly the Commission"a reaponaibility.
~Phe Planniz~g Comm~gsion informally agreed thdt Staff be dl..reatdd to coopwxate
with the deve~.~per in connection with temporary flowds- to enabl~ tt~~erti to
progress.
Chairman pro tem Fareno offered a motion, aeoanded by C~mmieaioner. Comp~on and
b1oTI0N CARRIED (Commiesioner Herbet and Chairma~n Gaucr beinq nbeen~:) , t1~a~t the
developer be instructsd to return to the Commias~ori at the earl.l.aat: poss:ibla
opportuniL•y with reviasd drawings and deaigne to enclose and cover the raaf-
mounted equipment in a satisfaatory manner, ~t which timQ the Plt~nntnc~ CammiA-
sion wi11 review the different drnwings and deeignH.
xTEM N0. 8
VARIANCE NO. 257'1 - Amandmant 4o resolution
of approval.Q nunc pro tunc.
Zoning SupPrvisor Charle+s Roberta noted for the Commission thal- tt~e c.~nd~.ti.ons
of approual of Vaziance No. 25 ' spealfically excluded a conc~.itiur~ i.mgos~;d on
the devalopment immedi~.tely to the aouth of subject property, whi.ch r.r,•:n~ai.recl
dedication of vehicular access rights to Walnut Street; hnwever, in pze,paration
of said resolution of a~proval, thQ vehicular accee~a condiician was inadv~r*_ently
included rather than bei.ng excludedj and that ce.rt:ain refexen~:~s were incorrect
by reason of clerical er.ror.
C~mmissioner ;;~ng offered Resolution No. PC74-60 and movQd foz it.s ~assnge and
adoption to amend Resolu±ion No. PC74-33, nunc pro tunc, which apprflvr•.~
Variance No.. 2577, (See Resolution Book)
On ~.~;.i call, the foregoing xasol.ution was paesed ry tbe fol.lowinq vor~e:
A;ES: ~:OMMISSIONERS: Compton, Johnson, Kinq, Morlr~y, F~irano.
NOI:S: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABoENT: COMMISSIONERSs HeL'bst, Gauex'.
ADJOUttNM~NT - Thare being r.o further business to diacuss, Commiss~one.r
Compton offered a motion, secondPd by C:~~mmiseioner Morley
and MOTION CARRIED, ta adjourn the 418P.t~R~~
The mfleting adjourned at 8:30 p.n~.
Respectfully suLmittea,
~ - ~ ~ ~~.
~
Patricia B. ccanlan, Secretary
Anaheifi City Planning Commieslon
PSS:hm