Minutes-PC 1974/04/01~7 R(; 0 MfCROFII.MING SERUICE, ItiC.
, . ,,~. ~
.. „ . .. .,
e
City Ha11
Anahei.m, California
~pril l, 1974
TtEGULAR MEETING QF THE ANAHEIM G.ITY PLANNINC GOMMI33ION
Rr;GULAF ~ A re~; ilur meoting of the tir:~t~.~im City Plr~,nniny Commission was
MrETTNG call~..,~ to order by Chairm+an c:nuer. at :'.:00 p.m., a quoruin beinq
pres~nr,
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: "auPx.
~ C~NlI~tISSION~I.o: Compton, ~'arano, HerUat, Jotinson, King, M~~z].ey.
ABSENT - CQMPiTSSIONEFLS: P:one.
ALSO ~RESr,NT - Assistan;: Development Services Director: Ronald Thompeon
Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry
Offiae Engineer: Ja,y T:tus
Zoning 5upervisor: Charles Rohorta
As~istant Zoning SuPervisor: Phillip Schwartze
Associate Planner: Bill Young
Commiasion Secretary: Patric.ia Scanlan
YLE~Gr OF - Commissioner ,7ohnson lad in the Pledge of Allegianc~ to tha
ALLEGIANCE I'lag of the United States of 1~-merica.
APPRUVFw CF - Co^~:a; r.cic:.;;:: t:~,~~y ~It:~~eu a mnti.on, seconded by Comm~~ssioner
THE MINUTES Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Farano abstaintny),
to ~pprove the minutes o.f. the meeting of March 18, 1974, as
sui,mitted.
ARER I1~VELOPMFNT - CONTINUEL PUBLIC _I}:•:ARING. INITIAxED BY THE ,ANAHEII~ CITY
PLAN N0. 114 PLANNING COMMI5SION, 204 F:as~t Lir.coln Avenue, An~heim, Ca.
92805= to consider vehicular circulation and aacess for
approximately 50 acres generally bounded by the northerly
extension of Grov~ St,r.eet to the west; Miraloma Avenue to the north; Tustin
Avenue to the northeast= the At~chison, 'ropeka & Santa Fe Railroad on the
southeast; and La Palma 1~venu~ to the s~uth.
Su~ject Area Development Pla~ was conti.nuad from the meeting o~ February 20,
1.97~, for f:urther input from the affected property o~~r~ers, and subsequently
continued Trom th~ meetings of March 4 and March I8, 1574, in order for Staff
to abtain additional .information regarding the legal status ~f porti~ns of
p.roperty in the area affected by the Plan.
Assi~tant Zaning Supervisor Phillip Sch~~ar~ze noted for the Commission that
5taff was requesting a:~ additional two-week conti.nuance.
Commissioner King offared a motion, seconded by Commissi.oner Herbst and MOTION
CARRIED, to rurther. continue the public hearing and consideratioxs of Area
Development Plan No. 114. to tr . meeting o~ Apri1 15, 1974, as requested by
Staff.
ENVIRONMENZ'AL IMFA;T - Request for i.~~rminatior- - Property consisting of
RE~ORT NO. 121 approxima~ely 119 acres located in ~he no thcentral
portion of Anaheim Hills, extending for approximately
one mile along ths sc,utherly side or Nohl Ran~h Road
from Imperial Highway to one-fourth mile east of Anaheim Hills Road, with a
clepth of approx?.mately 17~30 feet.
Aasistant Zoninc.~ Supervisor Philla.p Schwartze noted for the ~'ommigsiun that
the subject Environmental Zmpact Report discussed p_roperty which was part af
the area co~~ered in Lnvironmenta'1 ~m~act Report No. 115 which was submitted
to the Planning Commission on March 18, 1974, in conjunction with Reclassi-
fication No. 73-74-4E ~nd General Plan Amendment I3o. 1238; azd ttiat ~he
petitioner, ~herafore, was requestinq tha~ all proceedingw in connection witti
Enviranm~:ntal Iiapact Report P;.;. 121 be tPrminated.
Commisai~ner King oft~red a motion, seconded by Commissioner Morley and MOTION
G4RRIED, to terminat.e a11 proceedinqs of Environmeretal Imr.act Report No. 1'll,
as requested by the petit~onero
74-].84
r ~ --~ -r~.
~ •
M~NUTES, CITY PLANI~YNG COMMISSION, April 1, 1974 74-185
RESO~,[iTIQNS OF APPRECIATIUN TO F'nRMER P.LAN~NIN~G C:~MMISSIONERS
l:hairman GauPr cAlled fo.rmer Plannir~g Commips~.onera .7~hn F. Sc~ymour, Jr. , Uan
Rowldncl, and Lenzi A1.1r~d forwdr~ and prosanted Res~lutiona of Apprec~ation.
~.,id res~lutiona dre sst forth i.n full ag fol~ows:
I~SOL~"rION OF ~~PPRECIATI~N
WHEREAS , Jr~hn F. ,eymour. , Jr . na~a sei ved ~he Citizona nE
the City of An~heim as a memk~er of the City Fl~nning Comn~ib~ion
from Marc:h 1970 thr.ough January 1974f and
WHEREA~ , his m~•mb~r.ship on the Cit~~~ '~lanrin,J Commiasion
c~ ~lemented thi.s b~dy of laymen in th~ ~r~rfoxmanca o~ thc~ir
d~atiea: and
WHEREAS, John F. Seymour, Jr. fai~thftilly fulfilled his
duties as a member. of sa9.:3 Planning Commis~ian ~nd ~ndeavored
to repres~n: and servo the intere:ets of ~he people of the CiL•y
of Anaheim at all. ~tme~ i nnd
WHEREAS, the City P~~nning Commissior, rpgre~r, the ~eparture
of .7~...z F. Seymour., J•r. as a member of the Conunission !~ecavr~e he
was a valued member anr. gave freely of his spacial Z•nowledge and
talonts in the many de~i~iona made k,y thia bo~yj
NOW, TH~REr^ORE, BF. IT' RESOLVED that ths Anaheim Ci.ty
Ptanning Commiss.~_~~n dops hexeby exprese tiieir appreciation for
his four years oi aervice which John F. Seymour, Jr., as a
member of tl~e AnaheiM Ci•':y Planning Commiasion, gave in r.h~
interesic of the Cit~ ze:~s af the City.
BE IT ^UR'I'tiL• i~ 1tESOLVEP THAT th:~~ R~, ulution shaZl be made
a matter u,. r~cord in ~'.he official minutes of the Anaheim Cit,y
Planning Cammi:csion and that a copy shall be preaent~d to
John F. ~eymaur, Jr. in appreciation af his servic;es as a
Commissioner of the Anaheim City Planning Com~nission, and
£urther expreas thPir best wishes Eor his gooa health anc~.
continued success in all his future e*~deavors.
TI:E IOR~GOING RESOLUTION is hereby signed this lst day of
April, 1974.
ANAHEiM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
(signed) Melbourne A. Gauer
N~L~OURNE A. GAUER, CHAIRMAN
(si ned~ Lawis I~erbst
LEWIS HERBST, CHAIRMAN PRO TENiPORE
( s i ned} Ga len B. ".,~~tan
GAYLEN B. CO TON _UMMISSIONER
( g l,c~ned) I'loYd Farano
FLOYD FAPANO, ~:OMMIS~IO2:LR
( sicined) G~i:n L . Johnaon
GLEN L. JOHNSON,~GOMMISSI~NER
(sicjned) Paul Kin.g
PAL'L Y.IIVG, COMMISSIONER
(siqned) Richard Morley
F2ICHARD MORLEY, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
is' ned) Patricia B. Scanlan
SE .`'Te~RY ANAHE.IM CITY ?LANNING COMMISSICN
MINUTEB, CYTY PLANNZNG COMMI9SIUN, A~ril , 1974 74-186
RESQLLITIONE O~' APPRECIATI~N TU rORN~R PLANN3i?~3 COMMISSIONERS (Continued)
RE'30LUTTON C~r APPRECIATION
WHEREAS, Dett Rowland has eerv~d L•he Cit,i.zenA or khe G~ty
of Anahaim ae a mamber of th3 City Pla~nning Commiesi.on from
May 1963 tnrc~ugh Dacember 1973j and
WKEREAS, his mernberahip on tho Gity F~lanni.ng Commiasion
comp~.emented thie bod1- pf lr~ymen in th9 performance of their
duties ~ r~nd
WHEREAS, Dan Rowland faithfully fulfilled his du~ies as a
membex of said Planning Comir.iseion and. endeuvored ~a repr~~~nt
and aarve the interests of the people of the City af Anaheim +~t
all timeet and
Wt?ER~AS, the .^.ity Planning Comr~iseioz~ ragrets the dspar+:ure
of Dan Rowland ~as a~~~emkiex of the Cc~~nmis~sion bacaus~ hE~ was a
v+~lued mQmber and gav~ f.reely of his specia] knowledgA a„'
talents in the many cl~cieions made by L•hia bodyt
NUW, THFRE:FORE, BE IT RESOLV?D that the Anuheim City
Planning Commission doe~ hereby ~:xpacesa Yk~eir appxocia~tion fox
l~is ten and c~ne-half year^ c+f serviee whirh Dan Rowland, as a
men~er of the Anaheim City klanning ^ommiasi~no aave in th~
interest of the Citizens of the City.
BE IT FURTHER RESCILVED that +~tti~ Resolution ahall be r~ade
a matter of recor~ in the officia?. minu~.Pa of the Anaheim City
Planning Commisei~n and ttlat a copy shall be presented to
Dan Itowland in appreciation af ;iis ser.~•i..:es as a Commis~f.oner
of the Anaheim City P].anning Commission, ar..: ~lrther Hx~ress
their bes~k wishe~ for h'_a good :iealtn and continued success in
a].1 hia ft: ~ure endea~,•, s.
TH~ FOREGOZNG RESOLU'PIO~J is hPr~al:y sign.ed ':'~..ta lst day o~
April, 1974.
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMTSSION
(signed) Melbo~~r.ne 1+ . Gauer
-.-_-- - - -
MELAOURNE A~ JER, CHAIRM~+N
(signed) Lewla Herbst
LEWIS HERAS'~, CHAIItMAiv PRO TEN@ORE
(si ned) Ga len B~. Coi~»ton
GAYLEN . COMPTON, COMMI55IONER ~
(signed) Floyd Farana
I'LOYD FARANO, COMMISSI~ NER
(signed) Clen L. Johnson
GLEN L. JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER
(signed Paul Kin~
PAiJL KiNG, COMMISSION~R
(siyned) Richar+~ Morle•
RICIIARD MORI~E',C, CO ISSIONER
ATT~ST:
{si, ned) Patricia 8. Scs~nlan
SE RETARY AIVAHEIM CITY PT.IINNING COMMTSSIQN
~
-_,.,
.
MINUT~S, CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION, April l, 1y7A
7a-:~s~
RESOI:,tJTIONS OF APPRFCIAT r0 FORMER PLANNING COMMIS3ION~:RS (Continued)
- - - - • - --~---
RE3pLUTION O~' APP.R~CIAT'..ON
WFIEREA3, Lenzi nllred has served the Citizena o~ the City
nf Ai~aheim AA a member of the City Plannir~y Cc~mml.asion f,rom
act~bor 1957 through QecemL•~r 19731 and
WHER~A3, hie memberehip on tho Ci.ty Planning Commiaeion
camFlem~n~ed tt-i$ bod~ of l~ymen in the perfoxmar~c~ of their
dutias; and
WHEKEAS, I,enzi Allred faithfulZy fulfiiZed his dutiea as a
member of said Planning Commissian and ee~deavoxed ~o represen~
and serve tha interests af the people of ~he Cir,y of Anaheim at
aT.l times~ and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commi.ast~n regr.ets the departure
of Lenzi Allred as a membex oi the Commi,ssion bqCdU6A he was a
vr~lued member and gave fr~ealy of h~.s •~pecial knowledge and
txlents in the many decisions made by this bodXr
NoW, 'x`HEREFORE r DE TT RESOLVED that the Anr~heim City
Planning Commisston do^s h~reby e~c»rer~a their apprecia~ion for
hig sixteen years af service whicn i.enzi Allred, as a memUer of
the Anaheim Clty Planning Commiasian, gave ~.n the interest c~f
the Citizdns of the City.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Reoolution ahal]. be made
a znatter o£ record in thE offic~.al minutes of the ~naheim City
Planning Cai~unission and that a c~oy sha].1 be presented to
Lenzi A17.refl in appreciation ~f hi.s services ae a Commissior~~x
of the Ana~ietm City Flanning Commission, a:~~d further expx~e~~
their best wishes for hia good health and con~i»ued succQSa in
all his future e~ndeavors.
THE P'OREGOING RESOI,UTION is hereby siqned this lat day of
April, 1974.
ANAHEIM CITY PI,ANNING COHM7;Sx0y
(si ned) Melbourne A. ~auer
MEL'BOURNE A. GAUEK~ HAI
(si ned) Lewis Herbst
LEWTS HERBST, CHAIRMAN PRO TEN~ORE
( s iqned) Gay len B.. ComF~ tori _
GAYLFN B. GOMPTON, CQMMISSIONE:2
( s igned) Fl.avd Farano
FLOYD FARANO, COMM?SSIONE;R r
(:-~ed) Gl~n L. Johnaon ~
GLEN L. JOHNSON, COM.MxSSIQNER
(si~ qned) Paul Ki,n~, _
PAUL ~GING, COMMISS ONF.R
(si ned) Richard Marle
RICHARD MORLEY, COMMI SIONE
P~TTES T s
(si ned) Patri.cic~ g. Scanlan
3EC T Y ANAHE ITY PLRNNZNG CON4~IISSION
~ ~
MINUTES, CI'.CY PLANNING CUMMISSION, April ], 197a 74-'.89
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. ~XXON CORPORII~~ON, Attn: Marketing Uapart-
N0. 73-74-50 m~nt, I80~ Avenue oP the ;~tr~~s, Los Angeles, Ca. 900G7,
~ owner~ R. RpHER'r DE ALh1~ID~., ].8096 Gillman Street, Irvine,
Ca. 9266~, Agontt reques~ic~g tllat property des~cri};ed as:
~ri irregular.ly-shaped parcF~l of land con~+istinq of appr~ximately .4 ac;r.e
locat~d at the sou~hwest curner of Enat Street and LA Falr~~m Avenue be reclassi-
. ied from the R-1, ONE-I'AMIL`' RESIDEN~IAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAT. COMN,~;.^.CS11L,
ZC`NF .
Nc~ one appearQ~' i.i~ op~osition to subjsct r~eti.tton.
Althaugh the StaEf Ra~or.t to the Planr.ing c;omrais::ion dated Ap.ril 1 1~7~, was
not rc~ad at the pub].ic hearing, it is r.ef~rred to nnd macle •, par.t F thP
minutes.
M:. R. Robert de Alrn~i~3a, aqent for khe petitioner, appeared before the Commis-
sion and sta~ed he had submitted a letter to thg Nlunning Commi~ctan containirig
information which conetituted his ~resentation if sufficient; that, ;.n ~dditi.on,
he al.so had photograpY-ic alides ~f the subj~ct prop~~rty an~ their other. similar
raailitiesf and h~ F~.esented a site development pl~n and r~nderi.;~g ~f the pro-
pot~PC~. str~•.cture.
TIiE P[,"FiI,IC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
In reply to questioning by Chairman Gauer~ Mr. da r\lmeida stated he did not '-«~~w
the iiumber of 7-Elev~n Markets presently "loca*_ed in i:he City ot' Anaheim; that
Southland Cnrporat~~n had an interest in the s~ibject property, however, h~ hua
~e~n retained by the ~xxan Corporati~n to represerit t.~,emt and that S~uthlancl
owned clairies, etc.
In reply to q~ie~ti~ning by tt-e Planning C~mmis: i~r:, A3s~ stant 7,oning Super.visor
Phillip Schwartze advised t~iat no mail haa beei~ recaive~3 either in favor o~ in
oppo~ition to subjert petition.
Commissionex H~rbat noteci tha~ h: had not read the letter refer.rPd to by Mr. de
Almeiaa; that he would be opposed to spot z~~nir~g the sub;ject property tc :-1
which would then~ entitle the propei+ty to the full range of C-1 uses; ~hai since
the property was presently zoned R-1 and adjoined R-1 zoned p.~~perty, sF~cifi,c
canditions shnuld be laid down for the use of th~ subject Nro~.erty whic'~ could
only be done through a variance pi~ocedure; that although he was not par~icularly
fo~d o.f variances, a market such as was being pz-oposed needed to have ~~te hours
of uperation controilad for the pr.otection of thE~ surr~unding sin~le--f~mily
homes; that r~e did not understand why the petitioner had selacted this part•i-
cular ~ocation fo:: a food market since several other marketa wer.e 5.ocated in
the ircm~~:diate vicinity and t;~e proposed u~e would nct appear to be tl~.~ best
use for the area for that reason; however, his main concern was that the pro-
possd zoning would havE the fu11 range of uses permittecl in C-1 Zones and spot
2Ghl;1cJ should not be entitled to that.
Commissioner TCing inquired if there would ~e noise oenerated bY ~the proposed
use i.n addition ta that noi.se from the traffic on L~. Palma Avenue, Narth Street
and East Street.
Cummissioner Herbst noted that in his opi.nion ther.e wou.ld be addit~.~nal r_aise
qener.ated from t~he traific in and out of the inarket at all houra; that the
dist-.urbing noi8es were those which were emitted arter midnight and this had
been the type complaint x~eceived in connection with food markets; ~nd th~t th~
single-family residential properties were entitle8 to protection.
Commissioner Morley nozed th~t thexe had been several deaths at the adjacar~t
intersection; and that `~.he ingress and egre~s to the subje~t property was
rather dif.ficul~ and would create further traf.fic haz3rds at thst intersectior,.
Commissioner Comptcn noted that since Stiat~ was ~~cnmme~ding a Negative llecla-
r~3tion in canne^tion with the environmental im~~:~~t they did n~t seem to be ~
conceriied wit'_ the noise c,~hi.ch would be genErat:.ed Erom ths propased deve].opment.
Mr. de Almei3a explain~d that it was proposed to abandon three of the fiv~ exist-
ing driveway entrsnce~ ko the subject prope:cty; that ch~y hgd submitted i:hree
studie$ and the Traff.ir. Engineer had selected the entranc~ points that would
beat fit the pr.operty~ that ther_e would be two curb b~-eakst anc~ th~~ the ~.r.o-
pased landscapin~ woulc, softer. the use.
~ ~
MINUTES, C:~T~ 1'LANDIING CONSM].S~IQN, ApXtl 1, 197A ~a"~gg
REGT,ASSIT~'ICAT7UN N0. 73-7A-50 (C:ontinued)
In reply t;o qus~ti~ning by (:ommiasioner King, Mr. do nlmeida stated that a lawn
waA Ueing proposed ~i.nce t:hexe wae an abe~nce c~f a m~i.ntenan^Q ~rr~ram ar_c~ by
having a ground cover ruther than oxdinary lanci~caping, they wouli! be :~~rc:e~d
t~ have ~ mui.ntonance progrn~m~ and thnt the lawn would keep autotnobiles out of
cer.tain areas. Mr. de Almeida further atat~ed that the air.-cond.itior.ing anci/ar
refriger. a~icn equipmant wbe proposed t~ b~ luca.ted to thE PYGtlt ~P the bui ld-
ing so thett it woul.d n~t. k+oth~r the reai8enta in tlle homes to the weat of
c~ubjoct px'op~rty; t.har sound trav~l.ad upwards, howe~~er, it could b9 baffled or
xedf.x~ctadt tliat all .,,~ the autc~mobilP r.rAffic would be on the e~et si~le oE
the ~Yopertyr and ~hat the d~ve].opsrs t~ad made every ~osaible ~ffort on ~ha
ei.te to .~aka i+: more compatible ta the eu.rrounding ar~a.
Upon in.~uiry of Commiaeioner ,7ohnson, Mr. de Alme~da statec7 therQ wae ar~ c~xist-
ing 6-foot high block wa11 along th~: westerly proper~y li.nQ which would s~rve aa
a bufEer in con~uncti~n with the planti.ng of 5~0 10-qal]o.iz trees.
(:ominissioner King nated thut the C~,mm,iR~ion would rer~uQSt tI1A.t the exiafing
k,lock wa11 be 6 fePt abave final grade and Mr. Schwar.tze udvi~ed that ehould
thP graae change, the requir.ement wo.zld be that t1i~ wall b~ 6 L•~et Abovr~ tho
final grade.
Nlr. de iAlmeid~~ statPd that the sub ject property had been usccl f..oz commercial
developinent since 19~2.
Chairman Gauer noted for.• Lhe c;ummission that the proposed type markets did not
maintai:z their facilitiea very well and they were a great attractican for young
peopl~ wh~ would he throwi.ng thrir pop cans, etc., on ttie property sinr,e ~hey
did not use the traah containers.
Mx. de Almt :da acknuwledged Chairm~n Gauer' ~ statements an3 stated that was the
case laecause of the wr~y the sites were usually dc~~elopedi that orie of the
r.easons he had~'Crac+:ec~ to plan the sub ject development was to eliini;~ate ~ome
of ttie Gulpr.its of st.t~ development.
In reply to que~tioning by Chairman Gauer, Mr. de Almeida s~tatad Southland
Corporat~on managed the.ir awn stor.c-.s- that there had been same c~ifficulty in
tY:e past and tY~ey were tryi~g to create a nE~w image j and rha~ tYeeir new s tore
in L~guna Nis~uel projected tha~ new imaye, taking care of the noise and trash
~xoblems.
Ccmmissione~ Herbst noteci that r:e p.:oposal was a fine project; tliat he had no
objection to thz particular use as proposed. however, he was concerned t2-sat
the C-1 zoning would permi~t any C-1 use withou~. further consultation witYz tiie
Planning Co~nmissior-= that the zoning would be f=ne for the propaaal. but the use
GOU~.Gl chai~gp in a,yeur ar two.
In reply to q~iestioning by the Planning Cummission, Mr. Sctiwa.rtze advised that
the propo3ed use was a permitted u~e in ~he C-1 Zone, ho'wever, the only wa,y ~t.
could be cantrolled would be thr.ough a use variance; and tk~at i.f the petitior.er
was to file far a vr~•-iance, it would have to be advertised.
Chairman Gauer ~ted for the Commissio~ tYiat a variance was not intended to be
ussd in the sugy~ated manne.r, and he read the list af uses from the Code which
were alla;aed in C-L Zones by rig}~. c.
ComznissionPr Herbs reite.rated his concern with the particular parc 1 havi~~g a
wide rang~ of ~commercial usea with no control.
Mr. de 1:lmeida suggested that th~ Planning ~dmmission condifiion the reclassi-
fication to inclL;de that if any other use was appliea, that an Environmenta].
Impact Report woul.d be requir~ad.
In ieply to questioninq by Co..unisai~ner Campton, Mr. Schwaxtze acivised 2-ie did
not b~lieve the City ao~ild initiate g variance and the filing fee for tYze
~~ci~ioner would be $250 plus $20 an ~Gre, or a~otal. of $270 for the s ubject
pro~~ert•j .
~ ~
MINUT~S C'ITX I~LIWNING CONiMTSSII~N, April 1, 1.974 74-19~
FtECI~A~~S]^ICATION N0. 7~-74-5U (Conti.nuecl!
Commiisei.aner Campton inquired i.i thera wera other similar area~ in the City and
if d'a~tiit1C11E'.~ cuuld be advieed i.n BC~Va[1CE1 by tho 5t+aff thr~t ~hay Knouia apply
for a varia:~ce or a conditional use permit rather ~han a r~cla~asi.fic~tion in a
situati.an au~;h as wus pr~s~ntly boing canaldored.
Cammisaioner King lnq..irc~d how Mr. lo A1mFida felt- abotit the suggaetion that a
n~w ~~~:tition be fl.led and Mr. do A1mc~i.da statsd ha.s pos ition was that he was
open ~o sugyestions.
Commic;sione: King in~3uired ~.f Mr. de Almeida realized there co~.~ld b~ a control
placeu on Y.hF h~uxa of operation Epr th~ propoaed u~e, and Mr . de Al.meicia statc~d
that that miqht nat be a bad ldaa and L•hat h9 waxs willing to pr~ceed with a
variance ap~licAi:iun.
In reply to quest;ioning by Chainr-an Gauer, Mr. de Almeida stated the hours at
aome of their stor.~es was trom C:00 or 7:00 a.m. ta 11:00 oz 12:U0 p.m.; ttiat
in high-traffic areas ar locntions near recreational facilities, the S~Ux@S
might be open until 2:00 a.m, or for 24 hours a day, however., tt~ose storea were
usually in areas where the community tound the h~ur~ ta be suitable; and that
the pQOple in a community were wha~ made a~~oject a succegs. Mr. dF Alzneida
then stipulated th~t he would submi~ his cl~ent to the houra which ttie Pla~ning
Commissinn migY~t sue~gest ar-d stated h~ h~ped said ~ours would bE reasonable.
He further stated that it was hls opinion tha~ the Planning Cummission, who
represented the c~mmunity, shoua.d set the hours ot oper~tion and i£ a chang~
was needed, i;he petitioner could comp back before i:he Commisston for a chang~;
and that it was tiaY:d to know what would happen ten yeara from the present time.
Mr. de Almeida reques~ed that the wa.iting period for the public hear.•ing on the
variance application, which he would file, be shortened if possible.
peputy City Attorney Frank I~owry advi~ed that a two-week continuance of the
subj~ct petii:ion would b e in order and that during that time the variance
petition could be advertised for pub].ic hearing.
Cummissioner Compton of fPred a motion, seconded by Commissioner ICing and MOTION
CARRIED, to reopEn the puk~lic hearing ar~d contir-ue c.onsider.atiun of Reclassifi-
cation No. 73-7~-50 to the meeting a£ Apr.il 1.5, 1974, in order to allow time iar
the petitioner to file an application for a variance on the subject pr.operty.
VARIANCE NO. 2584 - PUB LIC HEARTNG. LANDMARK ASSOCIATES, 1901 Avenue of tha
-- Star.s, Suite 19~15, Los Angeles, Ca. 90067, Owner; request-
ing kATVER OF (R) MINZMUM RE~UIRED SETBACK -~A) MINIMUM
NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES, AND (~ ~ 1KAYIMUM SIGN HEIGHT, TO ESTABI,ISH A
LIGHT MANUFACTURING AND "MINI-WARFHOUSE" r'AC:CLITY on proper~y described as:
An ir.regularly-shaped p arcel ~f land consisting of- approxima~ely 7.7 acr~s
having a frontage af approximately 60 ~eet on the south side af Via B~arton
Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 468 feet, and be~ng located
approximately 385 !°eet eas~ o£ the ceriterline of 8tate Coltege ~oulEVard.
Prcperty pxesently clas s ified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE.
One person indicated his preser~r.e in opposition to sui~ject petition.
Assistant Zoning SLtpervisor Phillip Schwartze read the Staff Report to the
Planning Commission date d April 1, 1974, and sai.d Staff Report iE referred to
as if set forth in full in the minutes.
Mr. ftobert A. Snow, Jr. , General P~rtner with Landmark As4ociates, appeared
before the Ccmmissi~n and stated they were rer~uPStinq that the par;cing for
~torage units be permit ted in frant of the units themselves; that there would
be no storage of flammab le mater~als~ as restricted by the lease, no repair
or manuf~cturing, affices or living in the units and the units ~rauld be totally
for s~nrage; that t.hey had conducted a survey ir. the Los Angeles-Orange County
area of similar fac~ilities and the daily vehi.cular traffia count was from 7
to lp veh~cles per hour or ae high as 15 per hour during weekends; ax~d there
was relatively little vehicular ~raffic per sr~uare faot of anit space; that
the duration of vis~its 'to the unzts was from ~5 minuten to one hour and that
in other cities paz•king had been allowed in front of the units. Mr. Snow
~ ~ v
M:CNU7.'b.S, CITY. PL1~idNING C:OMI~tI5SI0N, Apr~l 1, 1974 ~q'~y~
VARIANC~ 1J0~ 2584 (Continuad)
dlsplayed pi.ctures af raimi.lar fmcilities i.n other ait~.~~e c9epi.eting th~ n~nnncr
in whfch tho parking ha~ been ~ermitte~• He continuc~a by qtating that b~r.uu~e
the location of the pr~posed signe w~~o witYiin 300 Eeet oP the res{.dc~nt~.ial
communil:y, the Ca~e required tha~ tho si.gn~ not excsefl 2S tept in heiyht;
that based on some photoa of a replir.a of the pr~poHed siqnra wlllch w~as elavatec~
at the prop~sad lacation, tha ~oliage alonc~ thc~ freeway woulcl b1ock vision of
the aignst that lighting of the aigna would be law intanaity to 8U0 n~xla ampaj
that ths signc~ would Ue aolored burnt gold and blue and would nat bo obtrueiv~
to th~ area~ and that khe fli.gns would b~ pylan type which woul.d r~ot be nack-
lightod~ ttiat the signs would bo 8 to 10 feet below !:he freeway grade and wero
senaible in terms of lighting circumstance~. Rrgar.ding the se~tback vr~rianc~,
hc~ stnted they were requesl:.ing to plac.e the propoaed fac~.~it,y 16 to 2U £egt in
fr~nt of Lhe presently-established f.ront setback on th~ basis that there wae
no accees from the sub ject property to Placentia Avenue ai~3 that aama area wAa
a~proximatcly 15 feet bclow the treeway ramp; tha~ the pr.esent owners of the
subjoct pr~perty werr, nat allowed to uae Placentia Avenue since the previ~uc~
property owners deeded that property to the State far the ramp f and tt-ar the
area along Plac~ntia was very t~eAVily landscaped.
Mr. T.homas P. Wt3lker, ~855 ~ast Coast IIighway, Corona De1 Mar, appearpd befare
the Commissian i.n oppoRitlon to sub ject petii:i.on anci stated Y-e owned four or
fiv~ pie~es of property nort.h o£ the subje~t property~ and i:wo buildings which
were imm~diately north of subject property; that he also ownecl the Denny'rti
Restaurant in the vicinity of aubject prop~rty; that the ~ubject property wr~s
fins industrial t~roperty and he was concernefl aboui: the reduction of the mi.ni-
mum requireci parking spaces; that the other developments in the area had ~11
rnet or exceeded tYie minimum park~ng requir.ementst that there wera many drive-
way cuta along Sta~e College Boulevard that would prohibit parking along that
street L•ar the subject pLOperty and also there wer.e a lot of trucks and trailers
that presPntly pa.rked alor~g State College Boulevard; that, in h is opinion, the
projected use of the area many ,years ago hzd not been arlequately cansidered;
ttiat he had experie.nced some difficuli:y locating plants wi.tY~ en~ugh parkinq
and th~ propnsal did r.ot mean tt~e bLlilc~~:'~g would be continuously used for mini-
warehouses; that emplo,yees might even+:ually need parking spaces ; and that he
would not object to the height of the signs becaus~ of the adjacent freeway
ancl Placeni:ia Avenue being at different elev~tions than the su~ ject property.
In rebuttal, Mr. Snok• state:d that th~ parking f.or the portion of the ~roperty
proposed to k,e developed w~ th Enterpri~e Park exceeded the Code r.equirements
and •tha~ for the mini-ware:iouse t.hey were proposing one space per 1000 square
feet whicr met the Code r.-~quirement and they would actua].ly have 219 spaces
with anly 190 spaces required.
TI~E PUBLIC HEARING WAS CI~OSED.
I~n reply to question~nc~ by Commis: ioner Herbst, Mr. Snow stated th~ P'ire
Department had iridicated they wosild require an emergency access from Ylacentia
Avenue at th~ nartheast corner of their property and that subsequently they
would lose a certain amount of building square iootage.
Commissianer Herbst noted that he was inclined to agree with tYze opposition
concerning +_he f~ct that times da.d change and there were more and more mini-
warehouses being constructed; that although parking was being provided, said
parking spaces did not meet the requirements of the Code .
In reply to questioning by Commissianer Herb~t, Mr. Snow stated the building3
werz constructed of pre-cast concrete.
Comm.issioner Herb:~t r~oted tha~. aside from the elpctrical and sewage connectinns,
there was a possibility of conversian at a future time; that Yie would questiun
what the low star~dard parking would da to the commLnity i.f there was conve-_-st.on;
that 20-foot buildings were nat suitable £or industrial use and a larger bui.l.d--
? ng would be more suitable, however, with the electrical and s ewage conz~ecti~~ns
being not much of a problem and with some modificatiQn of the construction t~a
change the use be~ng quite easy, the City could end up with a subat~ndard
industrial park .
~
~
~
MINUTES , CI'i'Y PLANI3I~lG GOMMISSTON , April 1, 19 7A
VARIANCE N0~ 2584 (Continued)
_..._...._..._~. - -
74-19'l
Mr.. Sr-ow eta~.ed in the ~vent empl.oyees wer~ to hava ~arkiti;- on ~he ai,te, it
would be necnseax~~ £or tlie develup~r ar owne,r of the proporty t~ prov.lAe ~hose
parktng spacoe in comfar.manco with the r~quir~smen~a, even to tha point of
r.aziny one or more ~f the buildin~7s to provide the parkinq spa~eet and that i.f
thexe wae any kind of m~nufac~urit~y or more intens~- ur~e than mir.i-warehouseR
ir~ the buildingg ~ it would t~ot make sPZ~s~ Y.o use the parking as propc~sed.
Cammissi.aner Herb~t inc~uired what ~:ontrol c.,~lcl be, placed an the sub;ject parcel
in the evAnt ~~f a change of ownerahi~~ ~r in ttee event of a change in the u~e,
and iE it wnuld be poasible at tha1: i:ir~ie to r~~quire th~t the pzopertY wauld bP
brouqht up to M-1 developmer~t standards.
Deputy Ctty Attorney Fr~tnk Lc~wry adv:Laed that the varian~e could be gran~ed on
a time frame so t~hat it cou].d be rPViewed by the Planning Commiasicn p~riadiaaZly.
Zor-ing Supexvieor Charles Fcoberta advised that as ho undcreto~d the aiscussi.on,
the Planniny Commisaion did not. abjer.t to the paxking waivQr in conjunction
with th~ warehousing operation, and x.e would suqgest a condition that wr~uld
atipulate that the parking wa~.ver aF~~lied only to the mi.ni-wttrehouse portian
of the propased development and would have no effect an tize influstrial portion
Zo~ated on the westerly half of the s ubject property. He contir.ued by stati.ng
that the parkinc~ requirement for manu:°actur{.ng was difEerent from that of a
mini-warehouse and a business li.cense ahould not be isaued unless adequa~te
paxking existed.
In reply to questianing by Mr•. Lowry, :Mr.. Snow sta~.ed he represented th~ peti-
tioner in the ca~acity of being a part of the gPneral partnership that awned
the sub j~ct prnperty and woul d be deve~'.oQing it .
Mr. Lowry inquired if Mr. Snow wo~ild be wa.lZing to stipulttte that Waiver b~
pertaininq to parking, wouid be applied to the mini~war~ah~uae portion of the
development only, and Mr. Snow so stipu:.ated,
Commissioner Herbs~. pointed aut that al.. of the parking shown for the mini~
warehouse stalls k-as illegal a:~d that tY~e design of that parking was net suit-
able for any other us~.
Thereupon, Mr. Lowry inquired if the petitionez would be wil:Ling to stipulate
that in the event ::ne mini-wareriouse faciliti.es changad to some other u.ae,
the parallel parking would be abandor~ed ~nr3 ~~egal parking provided elsewhere
within the developmen.t for the new use, ;~nd Mr. Snow so stipulated.
Commissioner Herbst noted that normally when uses changed, no alternatives were
avai~able to set further conditions; that: the propo:aed use was not entit].ed to
freeway signing, although servic~ statior~s sPrved a£reew~y need and were en-
~iti~a to freeway signing.
Mr. Snow stated regarding the proposed si.gning that the elongated shape of the
property was a handic;ap; and that there would be very limited exposur~ to
State Collsge Boulevard.
Commissioner Herbst noted that if the s igns wer~ c~ropped to 25 feet, the adja-
cent mobilehome park w~uld nnt be expo3ed to the signing and thg proposed use
would pr.obably have adequate signing for !~oth the Placentia and tYie S~a.te
~ollege accesses, elimi.nating the freeway accesst that the petitioner was aim-
ing £or freeway si.gning and if the petitis~ner was allowedl to have th~ freeway
exposure for the M-1 industrial buildiriqs, a precedent would be set for other
similar signing; that al.though the subjec•t property was at a lo~~ grade, M-1
builciings di3 not necessarxly need f reewa;~ e x~osure since they w ere local and
obtained their business l~ocally.
Mr. Snow stated that the pl ac:ement of the mir.i-warahouse sign •.~ould allaw very
little light to cross the freeway to the mobi5.ehame park; that while the type
of busines~ cvas an M-1 zoned activity, it would have certain characteristics
similar to retailing, in tha~~: it was a re~ail service-type operation; that y.ti
would be a handicap not to bc; properly in~iicated •to the public and with the
~m,aunt of vehiGUlar traffic on the Rivers:ide Fre~way, this wc,uld be a very
important factor.
~
~
~
MT.NUT~S, CITX ~?IaANNING COhiMTSSION, April l., 1~:174
VAR:CANCF NU. 2584 (Con~inued)
74-•193
Commiasioner Morlay ~tated, in his opiriion, thai: the mi.ni-~v~rehou~e sign shaula
~a high for udv~srtising p~~rpasea duo ta the approximr~te 10-fout dif£arence in
elevation~ .
In .repl~~ t.o queationtng by C~~mmissionc~r Mortey, Mr. Snow sta~a3 thv indust;rial.
park sign woulc~ nat have th~ attme rnRgnit~ude ax~ tre mint-wArehouse sign and wauld
n~t need to ba 35 feet high, as zequest~sd.
Discusaican puraued reg~rding oth~r sign heights in the immediate vicinity,
during which Cammisaionar tler.h<at atal:od thut the precedent would re+late to
other indastrial L1ESP.A which e..~~~].d also wanC freeway ex~osure.
xn reply i:o queationing by ~.he Commiasi.on, Mr. St~ow stated khat under the cir••
cumstances, the petitioner would conaider retaining the 39-foot height far the
mini-wa.rehouse si.gn and wc~uld be wi].ling to have the i.ndustri.al park ~ign with-•
in the 25-foot Code requirement.
Thereupon, th~ ~;~etitioner stipul.~ted that th~ 39-foot signing .fc~r the mini-
warehouse uae was Loz' that u~e unl.y and should thp use change, the signtng
would be required to meet khe Code requirements.
The petitioner further stipulat.ed ta pr~vidi.ne~ a 20-taot wide emergency zccess
drive for fire vehicles fr.om Placentia Avenue at the northeas~ corner of subject
property, resulting in deletion af portions of Buildinc~s 7 and 10 and relocation
of a water n-eter? and that the access wiclth from Via Burton Street would be i.n-
creaged to accommodate the maneuv~erability af tr~sh collec~ki.on vehir.les into
the site.
Commissioner Herbst of£ered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Morley and 2+SOTION
CARRIED, that the Planninc~ Commission rAcommends to the CiL•y Cauncil that the
subjert pr~ject be exempt from the requirement to pr.erar~ an k:nvironmc~ntal
Impact Ftepart pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act.
CommissionPr Herbst offered Resolui.ion No. PG74-GS and moved far its passage
granting Waiver a
in part
2584
t~
i
,
,
~.
ance
and adoption ta grant P~tition f.or Var
that a heavily-landsGape3 buffsr exi:+ts along the
i
b property line
s
as
o.~ the
abutting Placentia A~veriue and the freeway and that the subject propzrty ia
ce
i
suYsstantially below tihe gra3p af said f r~eway; granting Waiver n
b, in part, s
the petitioner stipulated that the parking waiver would apply
th to the mini-
t in the e~vent
a
warehouse portion of the development on 1y, provided however
ng requir.ement for the M-1 Zone ~~~ou1d apply wherein
arki
the
.
p
the use changes,
the parallel pa*-king spaces would be abandoned and tr-e M•-1 Zone parking stand-
el-
d
h
ards adhered to, with parking spaces to be provided elsewhere
since
t
i ev
e
within ~
he petitioner
t
n par
,
opment for the nPw use; and granting Waiver c,
h t waiver would app].y ~o
n heic
si
i .
the mini~-wdrehouse
~
g
mum
stipulated t.hat the max
aign only, provided however that in th e event the use changes
b
t the requirements
etitioner and
h
e p
y
of the Sign (,:ode would apply; subject to the stipulations
subject to canditions. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call~ the for~going resolution was passed by the foll.owing vote:
AYES; COMMISSION~ RS: Compton, Herb st, Johnson, King~ Morley, Gauer.
NUES: COMMISSIOtdERS: Farano.
ABS~NT: GOMMISSIONE RS: None.
Commisaioner Farano clari£ied that his "no" v~otP applied tc the approval of
Wai~rer c only, as he did not believe the petitioner should be permitted to have
the extra height for either of the proposed signs.
a ~
MINUT~5, CITY PI.'~NN.CNG CUMM'~SSION, April J., 1974 ~~"~-~~
CONDZTIONAL USE - YUD1,T(: HF~ARl'~G. GF.ORGE C. PAGE, 730 Sark~onne Road, ~on
PE~tM:[T NO. ].460 Ang~:1Pa, Ca. 90024, Own~r.J JOHN F. SWINT, 707 WQe~. North
`-""`"'~` StrQet, Anaheim, Cu. 9;~805, Agentf requesting permi~eion
to ESTAAI,ISFi 11IV UUTDOOR S'r4RAGF Y~RD FOR NEW MOTOR HGMES
ANp TRAIL~RS WITII WAIVEFtS GP' lA) MINIMUM FRO'VT SETBACK ~(I3) MINIMUM FRONT
:~ETBACK LANDSCAPING, (C) MTNIMLIM SZ'UR11GE ARr~A LAND.~iCAPING, AND (U) REQt1IRED
~:NCLOSURE OF UUTDOUR USES on pro~erty deaaril~ed as: An irr.egu].ar1y-shaped
parcel aF land consisting of app~oximataly 1~) acres havi;,a a frontaqe of
appr~xianate~y 136 feet on ~he eaAt eide of Aitahetm Boulevard, having ~ mnximum
depth of approxim~tely 850 f~et, and being lacated approximately 280 t~ot
north of 1:he ccntezline of c~rangawoud Avenue, Prap~r~ty pressntly cl~saifi~:d
M--1, LIGFiT INDUSTRIAT~, ZON~ .
No one appeared in appoai~ti~ri to sub~ect petition.
Although the Staff Report to the P].anniny Comm'_saion datQd Apri'1 ]., 1974, was
I10~ read at the public hear.ing, it is referrec7 to and made a part of tr~e
miiiutes .
Mr. .7ohn Swint, agent f.or the pf~titianer, app~c~~red before the Commiseton and
stated he had nothing to add t~ the Staff Re~~~rt; however, he w~s available
to anawer any questions the Planning Commiasic~n might have concorning th~
subject petition.
TH~ PUBLIC HEARING WA~ CLOSED.
Cammissioner Herbst questioned why the peti.tioner was requesting thQ setback
waiver with all of the land availabl~ on the ~ubje.:t site, and Mr. Swi.nt stated
the requesk had been made by the property owner, Mr. Page. Mr. Swint Eurther
~tated that the petitioner's claim to hards?Zi~ for the requested wai.ver was
due to the fact that the use wouYc~ be on a mon~.:Ya-to-month basis.
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised that ~ portion o; subject prnp~rty
was included in Conditional Use Permit No. 1~65 and he inquired if the peti-
tioner's agent intEnded to request termination of all the proceedings ln
connection with said condi.tional u~c permit.
Mr. Swint stated tl~e petiti^-~er did not intend to terminate Conditional Use
Permit No. 1065, and Mr. L~:~ry aavi.sQd that it w~uld not be possible to obtain
another conditional us~ permit for the s~rne property; that the use which was
previously approved ~o~ a national trade center conflicted with the pxopased
use and a conclitional use permit, contrary to a variance or reclassification,
was a speci.al permit of• the City CounGil to conduct a type of business which
would be illegal ir. the zone in which the property existed and. therefore,
nn~ use at a time could be permitted on a given property. Mr. Lowry further
advised that Canditional. U:~e Pern,it No. 1065 took in a very large parcel which
inc~uded the subject pro~c:rty.
f4r. 5wint stated that Conditional Use Permit No. 1065 had not been brought up
in his discussions with Staf.f and, therefore, he had not requested t~ kz~ow
N.r. Page's feelings in the matter.
Mr. Lowry advised the Commission that approval of subject petition could bz
made su~ject to termination of. Conditiox~al Use Permit No. 1d65 to the extent
that it applied to the subjec~ property, and the agent for the pet.itioner
stipulated to accept suc}. a condition to the approval of Conditional Use Pe,rmit
No. 1460. .
Assistant Zoning Supervisar Phillip Schwartze noted £or the Commission that
Condition No. 4, as set f~rth in the Staff Repr~rt, should be amended to delete
the words "...prior to commencement of structural £raming.
It w~s noted that the Director of Development Services had determined that the
prapused activity f.ell with~n the dEfini~ion of Section 3.01, Clasa 4, of the
City of ,~naheim Guidelines to the Requiremer~ts for an Envi.ronmental Impact
Report and ig, therefare, categorically exempt from the requirement to file
an EIR.
•
~
~
[NxNUTES,, C~x`1 NLANNING CO~~IMISSION, Apri.l l, 1974
CONDITIONAL US~ PLRMxT N0._1~ (~ontinuod)
74-195
Cummi~sioner Farano offezed Reeolut.:.on Nc~. PC74-!i9 and maved for its paeaAq~
and adoptio~i to qrAnt Peti • ion for c°~~nditional. Ude Perm:lt No. 1d60, in part,
danying Waiveca a throu~h , on the baais thmt t;ha ~~r.itioner did not demongtra~~
that a hardahi.p w~iild be c.. ~a~ed if ~aid waive~:s weie not gr2~nted, and, fur~he~,
that said waiv~rs would be axtremely de~ri~nenta]. ho t;•ie sut~.f ec;: arQa and to the
City of Anaheim? subject to the etipula"_ion by the pati.t.9_rnc~r that approval ox
thia conditional use permit i.s g~an~ed sub~ect ~.o L•he pe~it.i~ner re~uesting
termination of Condii:ional U~e Pe.rmit No. 1065, to the Qxt:ent that it applir.~~
to the sub~ect pr.oper~.y; and sub jACt to concl:itions. (S~:e Rqsulul•ion Dook)
On roll call, the foregoiitg ::eso].ution was paased by the following vo~e:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gomp~on, Farano, Her.•bst, Johnson, Kir~g, Mor14y, ~auer.
NOE~: COMMISSIONERS: Non~.
ABSENT: CONIMISSIONERS: None.
RFCES5 - Chairman G~uer declared ~ r~ceas at 3:35 o.m.
RECONVEN~ - Chairman Cauer recon.vet~ed thE meeting ~1: 3: 40 p.m. ,
with all Commi.~sion~r~ preazn~.
~ONDTTIONAL USF - PUBLIC HEARING. AF.NO H. STOVAT~L, JR., '1475 SantA Margarita,
PERMIT N0. 1458 Fallbrook, Ca. 97.02Fl, Owners J. K~NT BEWLEY, 6217 Hill
Avenue, Whittier., Ca. ~ 06~~1, Agent; reques~i.ng permiaeion
to ESTABLISH A C1#RWASH AND DRIVE-•TN DAIRY WITH WAIVERS OF
(A) REQUIREQ LAr1DSCAPING ADJACEI~T Td R-A ZONE AND (F~) NIAXTMUM ntTILDING HEIGFiT
WITHZN 150 FFET OF R-A ZONE on praper~y deacribecl as: A rectanqularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of appraximate].y ~.87 acre Yiaving a frontage raf
appr~ximately 129 feet on the west sicle oP Wester7 Rvenue, having a ma~imum
depth of approximately ?.95 feet, anc3 k~eing l~catPd appr~ximately 201. feet south
of the centerline of Lincoln A~/enue. Pxoperty present].y classi.fic~d C-1,
GENERAL COMNIERCIAL, ZON'~.
No one appeared. in opposition to subjec~t petita.on.
Although ~che St;aff Report to the Planning Commission dated Apri1 1, 1974, was
not read at thE: publia hearing~ it is raferrec~ to and made a part of the
minu~es.
riir. Aon Barker, 13524 Sycamore, WYsittzer, architect. for the petitioner, appeared
before the Conunission and st~ted h~ would like to change the requ~~st ta delete
the pr~posed d:rive-in dairyt and that khe ~rr~posed carvrash would 1:~e located on
the rear of th~~ subj~ct progerty.
Assistant 'Loniiig Supervisor Phillip Schwartze noted for the Comrni~sion that the
requested chanqe in the request would c~elete the drive-in dairy for which a
conditional us~: permit was authori~ed b,y Code Section 18.64.020(5) , howe~~er,
the requested waivers would remain.
THE PUBLIC HEAFtTNG WAS CL05E~J.
Upon inquiry o!: Conunission~r Marley, iKr. Barker stated the ~xi4tin,g carwash
building would be remodelecl or dsmolighed a~rid said praperty wouxd be I~:asQd
out; however, i:hey were abandoning the existing carwash usf.
Upon inqui~y oi` Commissioner Hexbst, Mr. Barker atated i;here would ~ie nc gas
pump~ in conjuri~tion with the pr.opoasd cazwash u:~e and the carwash would be
coin-operated.
In reply to que~stioning by Commissic~n~x• Et~rbst regarding accesg to the proposed
carw~sh faciZit:y, Mr. Barker stated thA ac:.asc~ would be t.hrough an easement
from the McDc~n~ild's res~taurant anr~ also trere was a 20-foot public alley.
Mr. Barker furi:her stated that thRre wau13 be no mechanical equipment at the
caxwash other t:htxn the water pun~p~ and blowera and the height of the structure
was to accommodate campexs, ~t.c.
U
^~0~
~
MINUTE3, Cx'xX PL7I~NNXNG COMMxSS;~ON, ~Rx~.7~ ~, 1974
CONDI"'IONAL USE PERMIT iV0,~1~ (Continuod)
74-196
CommieRioner Morley notad from the Staff R~poxt that the ~djac~nt R-A purce~
wae ~~.asiqi~ated on t.he Anr~h: im Ganaral Plan. for commerci~l us0s.
In r~aply to gueationing by C'~mmissioner Flarbat rec~arding tha prev'lous carwaeh
at ~~bject location, Mr. BArker atated th~+t dt thc~ ti.me ~hat cax.wast~ wae aon-
strt ctod it was not populr~r.
Mr. Kent Baw].ey, tho property ownQr az~d operator, appeared bof.ore the Commiasion
at ~he r.e~uest of DQputy City Attorney Frank Lowr,y, and Mr.. Lavey calle3 his
a*_t.ention to the faci: that he would not be uble to leaag of f the CAL'WASIl and
th~it a lat spli.t cuuld not ba cansumme~tad wi~hout aacess fz~om a public streAt,
an~.~ Mr. Bew~ey indicated that he wa~ aware of those facta. Mr. Lnwry further
advised that a lee~~e on aither the, c~~~st or west portians of the propax~y wat~].d
ec~nstituta a lot ~aplit for this ournr~se and wo~:ld have to be awned and operatec3
b~,~ the pe~iticner,. ThPrEjupon, Mr~ Bewley sti.pulated that he would be the owner/
oparator of l~oth porkions uf the sub~ecL• ~roperty and understoocl the procedure
v~hich he would have to follow in the ovent a loL split was const.itu~:e~l.
Commissianer Y.ing inc~uirPd if ~he pa~rans of the carwash wou'ld bc~ forced to use
the tdcDonald's ~asement ar tl~e puY,].lc alley and Mr.. Bewley ata~ed thc;r^ wae ~
20-toot driv~way an tlze sub ject ptop~rty to the north ana that lic c>wned the
access raad from the rear of th,e McDonald property and that N1cDonatds had an
ingrosa and eqres~s right-of-wdy ~~n that access rozd also; that ~l1Q acce.3s ra~d
was not an easement; and that• a City-ownPd alley wa~ lor.a~ed to the sou~h of
subject property.
Commissioner I'arano qu~stioned tlie suitability ot the proposed carwash at the
subject lacati.on aince the Planning Cnnuniasion had previously determined that
the aelf-ser.vi.ce serviceGtati~~n would be detrimental to the surrounding area;
an~ Commiesianer King stuted that preseni:ly there were two-stor.y apartments
located iiex~ to the alley, o~~posed to single-family homes that p~'eviously were
lacated there and the ~tdjacent R-A property was designated in the .ilnaheim
GPner~1 Plan for comme~cial u:~es.
Commi.s.3ioner Compton noted from the St;aff Re~ort ~hat there had been some
indication that an R-"s c1ev~~lapment proposal might soon be su}~mitited for the
adjacent R-A pr~perty.
Comm~s~ianer Farano inqu'.red cor,~~erning the approach to ttie garagas from the
adj~~er;t apartments, and Commissioner King ~tated saa.d approach was from the
al.ley .
Chairman G3uer o£fered a mo~ion, s~econded by Commissioner King and kSOTION
GARRIED, that the P.lan~:.inr, Ccmmi3sion recommends t~~ the City Cauncil thRt the
subject px'ojeat b~ exF~upt from the requirements to prepare ari Enva.ronmental
Impact Renort pursuan~.: to the prnvisians of the Caiifornia En~vironmeni:al
Quality Act.
Commissioner Morl.ey ~affered Resolution No. PC74-70 and maved f~r ita pass.~ge
and adoption to grai,t Petition foz Conditi~nal Use Permit No. 1458, in pa.rt,
since the peti~ione~- withdrew the request to e~tablish a drive-in dairy on a
portion di the sub;act proper~y; granting Waiv~rs a and b on the basis that
~he Anaheim Genera~ Pl~n designates the adjoining R-A parcel ta the weot for
general commercial zoning, in whicl'- iristance said waivers would not be req~~ired;
subjec~ to the st~.pulation~ by the pEti~.ioner and subjsct to conditions.
(See Resolution Book)
On ro].1 call, th~.: foreg~ing resolution wr~s passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMTS~iTONERS : Compton, Farano, Her.bat, Jnhnson, ~Cing, M~rley, Gauer.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
• ~
MINUT~S, CTTY PLANNIhG COMMIScION, 11~.~ri1 l, 1974 74-197
CQND~TxO~IAL USF - 1aliBLIC HEARING. J. R7:CHAltD H'A~LEY ,AND RODFRT I' . DUPR~~ r
kERMIT NU. .145~1 341 Bay~~..de Dri.ve~ "A", Ne~wpos•t Ae~ch, Ca. 9?.66U, OwnF:re=
~' '~~~~~~ G. E. O'I)EL~L, 11-1 Diesel ReL~ai.r, 535 Sauth Atkin!son Stze~t,
Anatieim, C.a. 92805~ Agentt rQqueati.ng pcrm+~~si.on to ~STAfl-
I~ISH ,h l7IES~.L ~NGINE REPAIR SEF:VICE on praperty d~acr.ibed as: N~ectAr.gulax•ly-•
shap~d par.cel of land consi~;ting c~{ ap~roxirnataly 1.5 ar,res hr~ving a front~,c~c~
~aE agproximately ].75 f.ec~t ~-t t.ha west ~iae of. Orung~th~rge Pa,z•k, Yiuvi~.~q a maxi-
mum c~epth a£ appraxima~el~ 387 re~t, and be.ing located apprnxim~ately 920 fec:t
north of the canterline of Qrang~~~-~rpe Avenu~. PropertX ~iresantly claHSiti~d
M-1, I,TGE~T INDU~~TRTAL, ZONE.
No ~nc~ appea.red in opp~:~i~c~on to subject petition.
Alt•Y-augh t.he~ St~.r'..,: Rrpor+: t:~ i:he Plar~ni.ng Commissi.an dat~d Aprtl 1, '_974, was
not x~e~d at the _~ubli~ h~~ar.~.ng~ it is referred •ro and macla a part ~f th~ m~.nutes.
Mr. Gle.a L. 0'Dell, ager~t. for tt~e peti~tioner, appQared befor~ che Commisaion
an.d ~~ated he had nothing to ~dd to t17e in£orniatiun cont~aine,d in the Staff
Roport, hawevsr, h~ ~as ~~vail7b].e t.~ answer any questton3 whi.ch the Pla~lning
Commi~s~a.on might have.
TTiE PUBL~TC HEARI~VG WAG CLOSED.
Tn reply to quesi:iani,lg by the Commission, Mr. O'Dell stP~ted the building beinq
r~equested f.or the prc:nosed u~~e was located righi; on Or~r.getho.r~e and t.he address
was 181.5 Oxangethorpr: Park.
Commissioner King nc~ted that if approved, the ~ardposea use might require addi-
tic~ne-]. fire pz~otncti_on devices and, thereupon, tho p~~titioner stipulated to
provide such additi~~nal fire protection d~vices as ~aould be required ny ~he
Fi.r~ Department and. the Building Division.
Up~n inquiry o~ Commissioner Morley, the petitioeier gtipulated that thcre would
be no outdo~r parking of the vehicles being rep~ired and/or serviGed; thr~t all
mechanical. equa.pm~nt would be kept ir,sic~e ~he building, and that all labor and/
or servicing would be perfor,ned inside the bv.llding.
Upon questioning by Commissioner Farano, Aasistant Zoninq Superviso= Phillip
Schwa~tze advised that the peti+~ionez for Conditional Use Permit No. 1454 had
i;ndicated by telephoTie that he would withdraw said conditional u~e p~rmit which
had been fiied foz the subject property.
It was noted that the Dir~ctor of Development Services had detarmined that tl~e
nraposed activity fell within the rlefinition of Secti~n 3.01, Class 1, of the
City o£ Anaheim ~uidelines to the Requi~:ements for. an Environmental Impact
Report and is, therefore, categoric~lly eaempt from the requirement to file
an ETR.
Commissioner Compton offered R~golution No. PC74-71 and moved for its passaqe
and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Periuit No. 1459 sulaject to
the canditir~n that approvaZ of the subject aonditiAnal use permit should be
made subject to the termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 145~: and sub-
.:ct to the stipulations by the petztioner and to the plans as submirted, .3nd
subject to cor-ditions. (See Resolution Book)
On ro11 call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the f.ol].awinq vote:
1~YES: COMMISSIONERS: Compton, Farano, H~rbsk, Johnson, King, Morley, Gauer.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None,
~
~~
J
MIN[ITES, CITX PLANNING COMMrSSION, April ~l, 1974
74-198
F2EppRT; 1~ND - ITP;M N0. 1
RECOMMx:NDATIONS /~A tI CE 1J0. ?.485 - Kequest for extAris~.on of time -
- - Prapert}• l~catad ~t the northwest corner of ~he
ini:ex•section ot the OrAngs Fre~way anc~ the Rivorside
Fre~ooray .
Asais~xnt Zoni.ng Suparvisox Phillip Schwax~tze p.r~aented the StnfP ~teport to
the Plannzng Commlasion datc~d Apri1 1, 1974, ar~d stsid Skaff Raport is re~erred
to aiid ma~~ a:~art of ~.hc•~ cr.tnutes. He noted f.or tl~e ~ammta~ion that the
pet~ltlonar wa~ request~.r.g a on~-year gx~~na9.on of t~me Por compl.etion of the
subject variancej that two of ~.he conditions of appr~~val, finalization of M-1
zoninq and posting of si surety bond for strec~t imprnv~~n~ents , had ~een met anci
n~ previouH extAnsions of time ha~ been granted.
Commissioner King offpr.ed j.~ mo~tion, seaonded by Commissioner Farano and MOTION
CAAR:[~D, to grant a one~-~ear extension uf time for Variai:ce No. 2485 to expir.e
Apxii Z, 1975.
ITEM NO. 2
VAR.LANCE N0. 2450 - Requeat for ex~ensioal of time -
Proper~y having fzontage of approximately 250 feet
on the weat side of Olive Street and the east side
of patt Streat, the s~utherlX ~roperty linE~ being
approximately 600 feet north of the centerltne o£
La Dalma Avenue.
Assiatant Zaning Supervi:~or Phillip Schwaxtxe presented the ~taff Report to
the Planning C~mmission ~,uted Apri~ l, 1974, s~nd said Staff Rep~rt is re£erred
~o an,~3 mad~ a part of the minutes. He noted far the Commission ths~t tr~e
petitloner, bir. Monte B. Arr, had made a wxitten zequest ,-:or a one-year ext.en-
sion oF time for the subjE~ct vax•iance; that subject variance w~s granterl far a
period of. one year with an opti.ori to requeet an additional one-year extension
of time in the ~vent the petitioner was n~t able to lacate a~ermanen~`. site
within o~1e year; that ~hc petitioner indicated that the subject property was
being rented on a month-to-~nonth basis and the pr.operty owner expected to ex-
pand nn tY:e prnperty in the near future; t.hat the petitioner further indicated
a new locat`.ion would be ~cqtiired prior to th~ expiratinn of the a~dditional
periodt and that ~he petitianer had complied with a7.1 the conditions of the
subject variance.
Coimni.~sioner King offered a motioz~, secanded by Commi~sioner Johnaon and MC~^ION
CARRIED, to grant a one-y~ar ax~ensi.on of. time for Variance NQ. 2450, said
extensian to be retroactive i:o December 19, 1973 and extending to December 19,
1974.
ITEM NO . 3
ENVIRONNiF,NTAL IMPACT. REPORT
Yorba Par;c access roada and
E1ood control ir.-provements.
NO. 72-63 (ORANGE COUNTY) -
a~sociated Santa Ana River
Assi~tant ~oning Supervisor Phillip Schwartze prPSente~ the Staff Report to th.e
Planning Commission dated April I., 197~:, and said Staff Re;~ort is referred to
aad made a part of the minutas. He noted for the Commission that the Orange
County k'lood Control Disti~ict an~3 the Or.ange CountX Road Depart*.nent werQ pro-
~~osing to provide a road far acaE~sa to Yorba Reyinnal Park and to cons~ruct
!'lood co~trol works along t.he Santa Axia River in the ~ici.nity of Wes.r Canyon
F~.oadj and that by letter dat.ed February 26, 1974, the Road Department was re-
questing the City of. Anaheim to revl.ew and comment concerning an Environmental
]mpact Report wY~ich was submitter~ an the subject improvements.
Cotruc~iss~ionex~ TCing offered a mo•~ion, seconded by Commissioner Morl~y an~ MOTION
CAItRtED, that the Planning Ccmmission recommends to +:he Orange County Pla.nning
Commission approval of the alterna~ive proposal of i:h~ Or.ange County Road
Department~ as set fnrth in the 1.ett.er dated February 25, I974, said proposal
providing for the consta-uctii.on of a bridge aver the Sante. Ana River so ss t4
c~nn~ct Yorba Regional Fark with t.he WAir Canyon Intexc2~~nge at~d extension of
La Palma Avenue to connect with Yoxba Park Road.
•
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISS:[ON, April 1, 19'74 74'~9~
Rk~PORTS A.ND - IT~-~ NO. 4
~MNik,'Np1~TIONS ~ NDITI~N~AI~ USE PERMIT N0. 123U - Requc+et Por
' -"~"- clarj.fication of conditiona for use - F'roporty
located ~n the west side of Beach Baulavarl~,
appz~ximately 1000 teet norGh of the centerline
af Lincoln Avonue.
Aaei~tant Zoni.ng 3upervisur Phillip Schwartze preaented the Staff Reg~rt ta
the Plunning Commissfon dated April l, 1974, anci s+~id Staff Report 18 ref~rr~d
to ancl made a part of the minutes. He ~urther ~nuted that the real astate
rapresar~tativ~: f.or the praperty owner, Mr. William M. Ouimette, had ind~.ca,tod
f.ollowi.ng his roview of the March ~2, .1~71 Plannirig C.Ammiasion minut~s and
Stai~f Report, he no longer required a c],ari.ficati.on of vetiicular c~torage and
tho recr.Pational vehicle ~ark would operate in accordance to all tl~e requi.red
condi~iona of the sub~~ct uoe. Mr. Ouimette was, therPfore, requesting ~o
wlthdr~sw th~ request for fuzthar clarificution.
Sinco staff indicated t.he mattex waa closed up~~n rec~iF : o£ t.tte reqL~est to
withdraw, the Planning Cc,mmission took no a~:tion aiid the matt~r was taken otf
the agenda.
ITEM NO. 5
V`ARI~ N~• 2267 - Fteque~t fox ser.vicing canopy -
Property located at the northwest corne.r of Midway
Dri~-e and ~1r-aheim Boulevard, and further described
as 1411 South Anaheim Baulev3rd.
Assiatant Zoning Supsrvisor Phillip Schwartze presented the Staff Report ~:o
the Planning Cor,unission dated April 1, ].974, and said Stafi• Report is re£er-
red to and made a part of the min~~tes. He not.ed Por the Commission that the
subject request was continued fr~m the meeti.nq af March 18, 1974, i.n ~rder
that the applicant could be pre~ent; and that the applicant was not present.
Commissioner King noted *hat he would be interes~ed to know ff the appl.icant
had discussed the subject matter with th~ property owner to the nox•th of
subject property.
C~nunissioner Herk,st noted that the proposed canopy would probably not meet
the intent of the Commission's original approval o£ the subject variance ~nd
that a public hearing would probably be necessary in ord.er that the surround--
ing px~opert;- owners would be aware of. it.
Commissioner Farano indicated he ha3 reviewed the subject property in the
field with Commissioner Johnson and they had observed that travel trailers
which sEemed to b~ occupied were parked in the parking lot of the property
across the street on the southeast corner of Mi.dway ai:..i Zeyn, and he ques-
tioned if the applican~ also owned that property.
'Loning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised that the ~pplicant did also own
the property in question.
Upon questioning by Gommissioner King, Mr. Raberts advise3 that ~he applicant
had not indicatEd he Yiad change~ his mind concernix~g the subject request and
that the applicant's ati.torney or repr~sentati.ve was to have been present at
this mee•ting but apparently ha~3 been detained.
Commissioner Farano added that a trailer had been parked for some time, well
over a month, at the Midwa~ 7Crai7.er Sales which w~s paint~d like a siqn and
appeared to be serving as a sign that indicated sal.es and trailer rentals;
that they were also servicinc~ motor homes at that location= and that, as he
recalled, the applicant was allowed to servxce the trailers sold only atid he
had observed at least three motor homes an the lot with two of. them being
parked in th~ service b$ys.
Commissioner King noted for the Commiasion that the travel trailer sales lot
was clean and the landscaping was kept up.
Commissioner Herbst made an observation that follawing his review of the
minutes c~ncerning the subject variance, it appeared the subject reques:: was
over and abcve what had been approved and if t2-ie applicant felt Y:e needed the
additional canopy, then he ahould make appla.catinn for a publlc hearing.
-_ J
MINUTES, CITY PLANNIt~G COMMrSSION, April 1, 1.974~ 74-200
REPORTS AND 1tECQMMENDA`rIONS; ~TEM Na. S (Continued)
Commiasioner Mozley aummented that; the a~plicant hAd nat shown up to t:~Ik to
th~ Cpmmis~ion c~ncerning rhe mattAr althot~gh he had boen r~gue~i;~a to ~iu so~
Upon lnaiiiry of Chair.man Gz~.unr, Mr. Schwartzc~ advised reac~vertiseme~~.~ of t:he
variance WOLl1C1 cost the ap~,licant $125.00.
Commissioner Con~~tor~ further n,~ted that there ahou.lci probably he some safc~ty
barr.ier conatructed sir~ce t•he ti•ailere hacked up agafi~st thF block wall on
the subject• propc~rty.
Upon questioning by C~~mmiseianer Farano, Daputy City Att.crne,y Frank Lowry
advii;e.l that the purpase at thia meeting was for the Commiesion to 3eci.cle if
the request was within the scope of th~ ~riginal Approv~slt that the Conpnission
w~~uld nesd ~o dec.ide whether Lhe applicsnt could have~ can~piQS n~xt to same-
onc~ ols~'s building ancl ulso whet.her the or,iginal appraval was to tie the u:~e
to certain pr~cise a.reas. Commissioner Farano then stated in his apinion that
,~ pLblic hFaring was nec.eqsary.
Commt:3aioner ,Tohnson mac'ts ~n observation that the new (:ommissionerg could not
.real:Ly say what the intent of the ozigina'1 approval included and since the
appl.ic:ant h.ad not appear.Pd concerning the subject request, }1e ~±ould support
the Commissi.on's requPSt far a public hesring on the matter.
Commis~ioner Herbst uftez•ed a motion, s~conded by Commissianer King and MOTION
CARRIED, to set the ~ubject request for public hearing, pending applicati.on by
the ~~ppl.icant. for a~ublic hearir~g tr~ readvert.ise Variance No. 2267, sa id re-
adver~a.semeiat to be at the expense of the applicant.
IT~M NU. 6
AMF,NDMENTS TO TI•:'LE 18 OF THE ANAHE:[DI MUN1rIPAL
CUDE pertaining ~o convereion of ex.is~ing apartment
complexes to conlaminium ownership units -- Proposed
Declaratory Stat~me~zi.
Associate Planner }3i1.1 Young reacl ~he Staff Report to the Planni.ng Commi3sion
dated April 1, 1974~ and said Staff Report is r.eferred to as if set farth in
full in the mxnutes. He noted fox the Commission that or- October. 3Q, 1973,
the Cit,y Counci.l had ciirected the s~.afEs of th~ City Attorn~y's Offic~ and
the Development Serviues Department to coordi.nate in preparing an ordinance
for th~ regulation of pl.anned reside:~tial developments which would include
condominiums, townhouses, rowhouses, and other forms of attached single-
family dwellings, and to prepare a statement for Cc~uneil's oc.nsfc~eration
expressing the City's intent to distinguish between apartments and condo-
miniums and exercise regu3.ation over the conv~yance of ownership of apartmen~
projects developed f~r ren4 or lease from a single entity to multiple or
joint ownership. He further noted that the declaratory stater~ent be.ing pro-
posed was important. at tlii~ tim~ to facilitate regulati~n nf conversion of
existing apartmen~c projects tc:~ condominiun~ projecte , and that t'r-e Staff Report
set forth the f:icidings to sub:~tantiate t2i~t such unregulated con.v~rsions c~ulci
prove detrime~~.tnl tc~ tl~c~ public heslth, safety and genera.l welfa~e due to
overcrowding, inadequate recreational/leisure areas, inac~equate parking areas,
incapability of providing addition~_l amenities, and management ineffiaiencies.
Mr. Young cont~.nued b~~ stat~_ng that the p.roposed amendmen~ to Zoning Code
5ection 18.04.151 ,iealt with the City's intent concerning the sabject canver-
sians and was basi_cal~~~ drawn from the ~anta Monica City Ordinar,ce which had
t~een ~ested in the Court ~f Appeals as to legality; and that additional defi-
nitions were bPing propoged to the Z~~ning Code Chapter 18.08 which include~
the dsfinitions of "coc~nnuni~y apartment," "condominium," "condominium conver-
sion," and "~condominium proje~t."
Comani~sioner Herbst ix~quired if the proi~osed Cade amendments would satisfy the
State requirement cnncerni:.g differentiation between apartmen.t house living
and condominiums.
~
D1INU'i'ES, CI'rY F~1:,~1NNING CAMMISSION, April 1, 1974 74-201
REYORTS ~1ND_RFi:OI~MiFNL~ATIONS - ITEM ~70. 6 (Con~inuQd)
Mr. Xoung advi:~c~d fihat tk~e State Law pormi.ttPd the dat~zmination or c~ietin-
gufahment betwe~n the two ty~gs of hnusing providing the lntent war+ clear.l.y
expr~saecl in the 1QCa1 ordinance f ax-d th~.t ~he City of Santa Monic.~a's ar.dinanc~
expreasing the intent, as set for.th in tl~e StRff' ReporL•, seemc~d ~o be very
clQarlx qtated. Thereupon, Mr. Younct read thP proposecl amond.-nent ta Code
Section 18.04.151 i.n f.u1.l.
Upon queatianing of Chairman C,~-uer, bfr. Young adv:laNd that the CC & R's would
be handled thz~ough the site develapment standardE whic:i would require that
CC & R's be submitted cant~ining cer~tain informat:lon.
In reply to further questioning of Chaiz-~na.n Gauex~ De~auty City Attorne~ Fr.ank
Lowry ad~ri.sed tha~ Staff ev~xs recomm~ndiny that in the interest of time a public
hearirig nat be held by the Planning Commission but that a recommendation bE
made by the Pl~nning C~mmission to th~ City Council that the proposed C~de
AmNndment be a~~proved f~llowina pul~lic hearing by the City ~ouncil.
Commi:asioner Ki.ng o£f~red a mation, ~econded l~y C~mmigsi~nex Herbst, tY-at the
Planni.ng C'~mmission recommends to the City Council ~hat the propoaed amend-
ments to ':itl~ 18 of the Anaheim MunicipR~ CodE~ Ue approved, as fallows:
A. Acid che following seetions t:o Chapter 18.04 Zoni.nq Code - General:
S~c. 18.04.:1.50 CONDOI~INIUPLS AND COMMUNTTY_ P~PARTMENTS.
113.04.151 ~~.ntent. The Ci.ty Council f.inds and dete;~niine~ thak aaz~do-
n~:~n ums an~c ~ c;ommuni.ty apartments di f fer. frUm apartments in nunzerous
r~aspects and that su~h prajecta sYiould be ta°eated differently from
a~~artments .f.~r the benet~it oE the public, herilth, safety, and welfar~.
Tl~e City Cou~zcil, there~ore, states its exp:res~ intent to treat sucYl
p:rojects difi'.erently from ap~rtmeiits and like structures and to ad~pt
d~vclopment standards for the protection of the communi.ty ~nd the
purchasers of condominiums and community apartments.
18.04.152 Co~lversion of Existin~Structuree. Any person, firm,
~artners z~.p, c:orpor t en, association or other entity proposing to
convert an existing apartment or like structure to a condominium or
c:ommuni.ty apartment ahall first apply for and obtain from the Zoning
1)avision of th~ Development Serv,ices Department a Condominium Con-
version Permi.t.. Sur.h permit shall be i3sued only after it has been
det.eimined that: tY-e e:c? sting structure con.forms to the site devel~p-
me.nt stanc~ards tor PRD's as approved by the Cit}• Council, except as
may otherwise be pf,nnitted hy Variance in. accordance wi.th the pro-~
ced.ures and finc~ings as prescrihed ther~for, and in compliance with
the Uniform Bui].di.r.g Code as adopted by the City of Anaheim.
B, ~1dd the followinq definitions to Chapter 18.Q8 Zoning Code - Definitinns:
;~ec. 18.08.233 ''COMMUNITY 11~ARTNI~NT". A developmeni: in which an
un ivi e interest in the lan~ is coupled wi.th the ri~ht of exc].usive
c~ccupancy of an~~ ~par.tment lncated thereon.
Sec. 18.08.234 "CONDGMINIUM". An estate in ~eal property consisting
o an un ivi ec.+ inter.est in common in a portion of a parcel of real
property toget~zer with a separate interest in space in a resid~ntial,
industrial or commercial building on such ieal property such as an
apartm~nt, office or store. A condominium may include, in addition, a
separate interest ir. other portions of rea'1 propezty. Such separate
in~erest may, wi.th respect to the duration of its enjoyment, be either
(1) an e~tate of inh~ritanc~ or perpetual estate, (Z) an estate for
life, (3) an estate fo.r years, such as a leasehold or subleasehold, or
(4) a right of use. Condoxninium shall iilclude townhouse and rowhouse.
Sea. ].8.08.235 "CONDOMINYUM CONVERSION". The de/Elopment of land ~nd
attacle~ ructures ~s a condaminium project, regardless of the present
or prior ur~e of such land ana structur~s, an" regardless of whether
subatantial improvements have been made to siich structures.
• s
MINI.1'^ES~ C?TY PI~~INNING Cl.~M1~1TS5ION, Ap1['1.1 1974 ~4"2Q?
REPORTS AND 1tECaMI~.::NpATtONS „~ I,,, TEM NQ• G (Cuntinued)
Sec. 18.08.236 "CONi)OMINIUM PROJEC'P". Tha entire pazcel of rea2 pro~-
or~y, nr. u~ ng A AtI'l1QtL'ti'(-~9 t c~r.eon, aubdivided or to be suk~divided
for thQ ~urpoae of canatructi:~y or co~~verLing ~xisL•ing structuroo to
condominium units.
Z'he foregoing MOTION CARRIED by unanimo~ia vote.
ITEM N0. 7
CUNU TIOI3AL U3E PERNIIT NO. 1341 - Raqueet foz
c~,~rification of use -~ro~erty located on the
east sida oi Scate Co.l.lc~ge Boulev~rc~, approxi-
mately ~10 Paet south of. SycamoXe 5t.reet, at
400 Nor.th 5tate College Boul~vard.
fi~ssistant Zoning 5uper.viaor Philx.i~
subject request was continued ~rom
applicant was request3ng a fuxther
he mi~ht be present. He indicatec~
was necessar~,~ and that the req~ic~at
April 15, 1974 ag~nda.
~ Sctiwartze notecl :-:. the Commisaion tl~at the
tlie meet.ing ~f N.arch 18, 1974 and that the
cnntir-uance to April 1~, 1974, i,~ order that
tp th~ Planning CommiASion tha~ no ac~io»
would be xelibtod for conaicleration an tYee
ZTEM N0. f3
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 130 - Ameiidment,
nunc p.ro tunc, to resolution recomm8nding
approval.
Zoning Superviao.r Charles RabErtg notod for the Cammi~sion that in the formula-
tion of. Reaolution No. PC:74-43, r.ecommending to che Ci.ty Council that General
Plan Amendment No. 130 be app=uved, an Environmental Impact Re! rt finding was
inadvertently omitted, and Environmental Impact Report N'o. 113 ~ad been can-
sidere~ in conjunction with said GP~ and Reclassification No. 73-79-36. He
cuntinuFd by stating that the propoyed amendment would add the ~ollowing EIR
statement;
"BE I~I' FURTHFR. RESOLV~D that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does lzereby recummend that the City C~uncil asrtify to having reviewed
and considered the information cont~ined in Environmental Imgact Report
No. 113 and that the fina]. ETF kias beers completed in compliance with
the Cali£orn~_a F.nvironmental Quality Act and the Si:ate Guidelines."
Commissic,:sr Herbst offer_ed Resol.~ion No. PC74-72 and moved for ita passaqs
and aduption to amend Resolution No. PC~4-43, nunc ~ro tunc, whi.ch recommended
approval of Genera]. Plan Amendment Na. 130. (S~e Resolution Book)
on r~ll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the fol].owing vote:
AYE3: CGMMIGSIONERS: Compton, Faranoy Herbst, Johnson, Kir-g, N,orley, Gauer.
NOFS : COMN,ISSIONERS : tdone.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Non~.
AT,JOURNMENT - Ther~ being no further bus:iness to di.scuss, Cpmmissioner
- Herbst off~red a mntion, seconded k~y Commissioner ldorley
and MOTION CARRIED, ta adjourn the meeting.
The mPeting adjourned at 4:30 ~.m.
~tespectfully submitted,
, ~~
Patricia 1 . Scanlar . Sacretary
Pnaheim C:.t.y Plani~ing Commiss~.on
PBS shm