Minutes-PC 1974/10/300 R C 0 MICROF+tMING SERVICE. INC.
, . ,,
~
~
~
CiCy Na11
Anaheim~ Cu11E~rnlu
Octob~~~ :30, 1974
Ri?,GUL,AR DirETING OF TNE ANAHF.IM CI'tY PLANNINC COt~1ISSI0N
RECUI,AR - A regular meer.inq of the Annheim (;ity Plnnnl,ig CommiAeion w~e r_alled tu
MEETING ox'der Uy Chxirmnn Herhet at 2:00 p.m, in the Counci.l. C'tiamher, x q~~orum
being presenr.
PRisSENT - CHATRMAN: Flerb~;t
- COF41I55IONL~.It5: l~rrano, Gauer (who entered the meeting At 2:45 p.m.),
King, Morley~ Tolr~r.
ABStiNT - COt~44ISSI0NGR5: Johneon
AL50 PRESENT - Parlcs and Recreatlon Director: John Col.ller
Deputy Gi.ty AtCOrney: l~rank I.owry
Office Bngineer: Jay Titus
Zoniug Supervisor: Chnrles Roberts
Asei~}tniit `l.oning Supervisor: Aalnika Santalahti
Commiaeion Spcretary: Patricia Scanlun
PLCDGt OI' - Comiuisaionc:r lting led i.n !'he Ple%ge of Al.legiance to the F1sg of the
ALLEGIANCc United SCates of M~erica.
APPROVAL OF - Approval of the minutes of October J.4, 1974, wae deferred to the mc~eting
fHE MINUTES of Nove.mber 1~, 1974,
CONDITI~NA:. USE ° CONTINUED YUBLIC HFARINC. LA PALMA STORAGE PARTNERS, LTC., 2223
PERMIT N0. 1493 Avenida De La Playa, La Jolla, Ca. 92037 (Owner); PUBLIC STO1tAGE, INC.,
(READV~RTISED) 3415 Fletcher Avenue, Sufte 2, E1 Monte, Ca. 91731 (Agent); requeating
permi~sion to ESTABLISN OUTDOQR 1t~CREA'CIONAL VEHICL~ STORAGE WI'i'H
WAIV~R OF (A) REQUIKED FNCLOSURE OF OUTST.DE U:iGS, (B) M1:NIMUM OFF-STRELT
PARKING, AND (C) MINIMLJM SETBACK ON A FREEWAY FF.ONTAGE ROAD on propert.y described ns: Ar-
irregular.ly-shaped parcel of land conaieting of approxic~at~ly 3.2 ncres locaced at the
suutherly tetmi.nus of Armando Strep~, having a frontage af appraxlmacely 85 feet on the
south side of Armr~ndo Street, having a maximum depth of approx•lmately 51.3 feet and b~~ing
located approximatel.y 580 feet 3uuth of the centerline of ].:.a Palma Avenue, and further
described as 1U50 Armando Street, Propc~rty presently claseif.ied M-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL)
ZONE.
Subject petitlon was cont~.nued from the tneet:ings of September 16 and 30, 1974, to re-
adverti:~e for additional waiver an.3 for revised plans~ respectively.
It was noted that the pPtitioner, Dwight C. Harper, Vice President of Public Storage,
:nc., was requeating ar. additional two-week contin~ance in or.der that tt~ey would have Gime
to f.urther r.eview their proposal fn light of the Commisei~n's suggestiona.
Commisaioner KiTig offered a moCion, seconded by Commissiener Mor.ley and MOTION CARRIEll
(Corumissioners Gauer and Johnaon be~.ng absent), t:o fiiYt[ier continue the public hearing atld
conaideration of Conditional Use Yerrnit No. 1493 to the me~ting of N~vember 11, 1974, as
requested by the petitioner.
~ONAITIONAL USE - CONTINUEU YUBT.IC HEARING. JAM'ES AND ANGEI.A M. PLUU, 214 N~rth Graiid
PERMIT N0. 1496 Avenue, ;.naheim, (:a. 92801 AND .I. A. AND FRANCES HUNTSMAN, i09 Souih
~ Wasco Road, Pnahe'.m, Ca. 9280I (Owners); request~-ng permis~+ion to
EXPAND AN E1:ISTING MOBILEHOME PAItK WITH WAIVFR OF (A) MAX?MUM WALL
HEIGHT AND (B) MT.NiMUM FRONT YAItD SETBACK on property deacribed as: Aa irregularl~~-sha~ed
percel oi land cons~sting of approximutely 11 acret~ having frontagea of approximateiy 570
feet oa the east ~ide of Grand Avenue and approximately 373 feet on tt~e north eide of
Lincoln Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately $22 feet and hein~ located north
and east of the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Grand Avenue. Property ~.resently
~laesi.fied C-3 (HEAVY COI~iFRCIAL) AND R-A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONES.
Sub~ect petition,~•~a continuE~ frum the meeti~ng of qctober U~~ 1~74, for revis~~J plans.
74-492
.-,
~ ~
MINUTRS~ CJTY k'LANNIN(; C(~fISSiON, Octob~r 30~ 197h 7h-493
CONI)TTIUNAL USE PF.RMT'f N0. 1k96 (Continucd)
No one lndicatad t:heir preNOnc~ in oppoeition co .uih~~ct petitirn~.
Al~hough the 5te~ff ltep~~rt to the Planning Comm~teaton dated Octobur 30, 1974 wna noC rasd
at th~ puUl.lc ii~~nring. lt is reforred to und mnda a pert of the minuteH.
t1r. Jamcs Plou~ khe p~eitioner~ appuared bnfore tha CoauniASion and indicated he hnd sub-
mltted e Mrlt~~en responae to the queationn raiR~d by ehe P1Anning Commiaeion et the mcc~tin~
of Octuher 14, 1.974, und Chat revi:+ed p1anH had bcrn e~ibmitted A~HO.
TNE PURI iC HCAItING WAS CI.~SL"U.
Tn reaponse to queotioriing by Cheirman Harbet. Mr. P1ou E,xplained the char~qeR ~~ubmitt~d ~.ti
the reviaed plane and atnted lhot tlie setbac;• for the mobilQhomes was nc~w 35 feet from tha
pruperCy line; Chat thay had interpreted Che Code to mean th~t the 35-f.oot aetbac.c wae for
ciie structure: ~nd not for lhe pr~perty itseif; and ttiut the eubmitted plana indicated the
wl.ir.h of the mobiLehomee.
In re~~onAe to E~ •ther queati.oni.ng by Chnirmnn Herbe4, 7.oning Supervisor Char.lo~ Roberts
noted thaC tlie cor~cern regarding Che tr~ah etorage area had been anciefied and hhat Che
mobility for clrcul.arion thi~ugh the pro~ect wue adequate to aatisfy the rir.e DppnrtmenC.
Commieaioner To1ar offered a motion~ seconded by Coromiseionsr Ki.ng and MOTION CAItRIFD
(Coma-is~eionera GEUer arid Johnaon beinq abaent), Chat the Planning CommLs~ion re~ommenda to
the City Council thal• the aubject pro,ject be exempt f~um the reyuirement to prepare an
Gnvironmental Impact Repurt purauanr. t~ the provi.siona of. khe CN11£ornia Environmental
Quality Act.
Commiasioner Tolar. offered Resolution No. PC74-207 and moved for its passage and adoption
to grant petition fcr Conditionnl Use Permit No. 1496 on the hesia of the foreg~ing find-
ing~ and the infoYmation r_ontnined in the letr_er from tlie petitioner dated October ~1,
1974; subjeck to ,~~nditlons. (See Resalucion Bookj
Un ro:~l ca]]., the foregoing reaoluCfon was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FARANU, K:.NG, MORL,F.Y, TOLAR, HERBST
NOES: COr4tISSIONE}tS: NONE
ABSENT: CQI~AIISSIONERS: GAUER, J(?HNSON
GNVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - CONTI~TI;.:D PUBLIC HE~1ftING. MART_II3A Y. PELANCONI, c/o Carl Newtun.
REPORT N0. 13~ 649 SouCh Olive, Suite 1000, Los Mgeles, Ca. 9Q014 (Owner~;
CARL NE4,TTON, 649 South Olive, Suite 1000, Lns AngeleA. Ca. 90014
VART.ANCE N0. 264G (Agent). Praperty described as: An irregularly-ahc~p~d parcel of
' land ronsisting of approximately 52 acres located aoutheaat of the
TENTATIVE MAY OF intersection flf Santa Ann Canyon Road and Royal. Qak Road, hav~rg a
TRACT N0. 8783 frontage of approximaCely 45G feet on the south side of Santa Ma
~ ~ Canyon Road and a frontage of app~oximately 1100 faet on the eaRt
eide of Royal. Oak Road and having a m~ximum depth af approximately
17G0 feet. Property preaently claesified R-A (AGRIGULTURAL) ZONE.
REQUESTI:D VARIANCE: WA?VEP. UF RFQUIREMFNT THAT SINGLE-FAMILY ItESIDENCES REAR ~N
ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS.
TEN'~ATIV~ TRACT REQUE:ST: DFVELOPElt: PItESLEY OF SOUTtiERAi CALT.FORNIA, 4600 Campua Drive,
Newport Beach. Cu. 92664. ENGINL~ER: VTN CONSULIDAiEA, INC.,
2301 Campua D:ive, Irvine, Ca. 92664. Subject propexty is
proposed for aubdivision into 140 R-H-lO,OQQ lots.
Subject petition was conti.nued from the meeting of October 14, 1974 ior submission of a
grading plan.
No one indicated their presence in oppoaitlon to aubject Neti.tion.
Altho~+gh the Staff Repori to the Planr.ii.g C~~r,:mir~alon dated C;,~.,ver 30~ 1974 was nnt read
rat the public h°aring~ it ie referred L•o and made a part of the minutes.
~ ~
MINI-1'[sS, C'f'I'Y YLANNTNC COMMTStiLUN, Uctober 3U~ 1y74 74-494
I:NVIRONMGN'fAL 1MPAC'C l~YORT NQ. .L'35~ VARIANCH: N0. 2644~ AND TEN'PAT1.vr t~n~ or me.nc'f NQ. 8783
~Conti~nu~dZ _ _~________,_ ____ _-. _ ______....._.._ ._._--
Mr. Robrrt Flukao~ Ch~ I'roJect Coc~rdln~kor Por Praeley af 3outharn Californi+i, thn devnlopnr,
appen^ud U~~foru the Commiseion and preeented croae-section mapA including ePVCrnl rukon at
Che oo~,ndurios uf the trc~ct, a~c., to anawer quPStione regArding grading for th~ prop~~sed
pr.o,~act. He ~Catecf tliay were .tn Agreement with r-11 c~f lli~ cundi.tions sc~t forr.h in th~~
5laff ReporC wltti ttie excepeiori of tlie rQquiromont for a blor.k wall on Sanr.a Ana Canyun
Rond aincc, 1n I~iH or inion, NAi~I wnll nnd Che berm mighC he offer.tive fr.om A D~)UAd^
~ltanuatlon ~tnndpoi~it, tiow~~ver~ noC from r-n aesttietic standpainc sinc~ they would be
sel.ling vie~ l~~tR in tlie pxo,~ect; that Chey had compl.ted with eJ.l khe exiaking or.dinnnces
wir.h reHpect to grUding and also with the Subdivleion Mup Act, and hc requa~[eQ thf~t the
City aUide by the ruleo that w~ce preaently exieting aleo,
Assierant ?.oning Supervisor Anni.k~ Sanr~tlahti read u letter of concarn Hubmitted by the
i~umeow-nerK reyiding on Ornnaa Hill Lane and Spring Hill Lane, as we+ll na L•hose re~iding
west of. Royul Uak on Huneywooci~ Gatewood~ Eveniiig View and Fern Haven, et~id .letter cuntain-
ing 18 aignAtures indicating concern with tY~e propoaed development.
In rebutt~l, btr. Hukee responded th~t it wae their underekanding from the Ueilitier~ Depart~
ment thut the coyt of plncing the util.ities underground would be prohibiCive~ ~nd that Che
ayetcm propoaed •.~auld meet the requirements of the City; thaC they would be aLle to provide
the wr.uught irun fencc along Sanka Ana Canyon Road ae requeated by the ad~acent property
owners~ se raell aA replace some of the eucalpytus trees along the utllity e~~ement bo•rder-
ing Trsct No. 5999 with the 15-gallon conifera auggeated by the adjacenC proFerty ownera;
that the fill on l.ota 137 nnd 138 wa.s due to deaign; and.that mainrenance of the Rlopea
was incl~sded .in the auggested Int~rdepartmental Committee reco~ar.dRtionR ns a condition
of appr~~va?..
THE YJBLIC HEAR;.N(~ WAS CLOSED.
Commisstoner I'F~rann noted that there were aevere a].opeR pr.opo:~ed in the sub,ject develo~-
ment and expressed concern w±.th the finiahed grades in reletionehip to the sur.rounding
propertics, He entered into discussion witl~ Mr. Hukee re~rarding the alopes that wo~ild be
created and the gulley thak would be left on the property, anJ Mr. Hukee Atatecl ~..:c tl,ere
was an exJ.sting RFiB line which precluded any cut ~r fill to the gulley.
Mr. Jlm McCarthy, repreaer.ting the engineer for the developer, appeared hefore the Co~mnie-
sion and stated that the exieting grade of Royal Oak Road restraineJ Che grade of the
propoaed project; thnt the locution of Lot No. 7 was ut the edge of the canyon and they
were trying to have the grade ae higli ae poasible in that area; tliat on Spring Hil.l 1.ane
easr. of Royal Qak where r.he ~treet curved around to Street D, there were two banks w~._ch~
added togethar, wou3.d crcate an ~pproxi.mately 75-foot bank from Spring Hill Lane to the
Cop of Lot No. 104.
Commieaioner Farano then neted that according to the ava_lable aerial topograptiir.al map of
the azea, it appeared the northweat secCion of the land was preaently fairl.y flat and that
t~pe 7:~f~~ot slope was being r.reated by the proposed pro,Jrr•~•.
Mr. 'Hukee added that they were generally trying tu ~:reate an earth balance whereby the
fill wouid e~ual the r_ut, eliminat'_ng the need to i~port or expor.t soi].; and that the
sewer lines operated by gravity and determined the atreet o,rade.
Commiasioner Farana noted that it was diffic~lt to aak intelligent queaCi.ony regarding the
propased grading 31ncc an ex~lanatian of exactly whst was proposed was not availab.le; that
t.he submitted exhibita were excellent and helpful, however, they had not been reviewed and
evaluate~ by the Engineering Division. He requested to know wher.e the cut and fill woi~ld
be and, th~reupon, Mr. Hukee preaented a cut and fi~.l map whi.ch indicaCed in re3 ~ahere cut
would be ani in green where fill would be, ai.d also indicated the volume in cubic yards in
each case equal~n~ a total of. 488,000 cubic yards of dirl.
In reaponae to queationing by Commiasioner Farano, Mr. McCar.thy stated they were filling
t~ r_reate pads and ncroes the canyon; and that the 75~-foot bunk was being ~reated f~r
accesa purposes.
Co~misaioner TolAr i;iquired if the densfr_y was not for 14p 1ota, would there still be a
need for so much cut and fill which created the undesirable h311s, and Mr. McCarrhy etated
that ~he total a~ount of earth work would be easentially the same; and that the eartt~•aork
for the proposed pro~ec:t was approximately 9,400 cubic yarda ~er acre, however, many other
developmenta in the area had approximntely 12,000 cubic yards of earth work per acre.
• ~
MINU'CI:S~ (;ITIt PI.I~NNINC CUMMISSTUN, l~ctobor 30~ 1974 74-495
ENVI.RONMCNTAI. TMAACI' RF.POAT Np. J.35y VARIANCr N0. 2644~ ANU T~NTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 8783
SContinucd .~.._,.~ -- --------_r.~. .____.~.~------ -- _.
CUMMISSLONrK CAUE;R ENT~[1F.D 'l'HE COUNCII. CtIAMBER AT 2;45 ('.~t.
Chiiirman H~rbet nutQd that the Commie~iun had rer.eived a loC of criCirlsm for aU.owing thw
hillc~ to be cu[ up without coneiderAkion beln~ given to the ad~uc~nC prnperties; thuC the
vlews ot tho devolopod ~roperticc+ we~re bei.ng blocked ofF urid w~th neew hille being manu~-
Eucturud~ tt-~ ~,nvironmunt wnA bcing affected; that an in-depth etWdy of the Grading
Ordinnnca waa pr~eently .-nderwAy~ and the change in the l.ocetion :~f th~ e7.opeN~ etc., waR
oC deep concern to the Cowniesion.
Mr, klukc~e re~ponJAd Chut thn propoRed pro1ect would -io~ bc blocking off anyone'~a view and
he submitted thut th~ CiCy Cngineer could a~ verify; [hat Chey had respandad to the ad~t~cent
prop~rty ownere' concerne und~ in hi.s opinion, thoNe ad~acent proparty ownere iad~ected
the proposed prnjocC; thnt the generAl configuration of the land following the earth moving
Aa proposed would hap{3en regnrdlesp of Clie developmettt eincc e~u-e of the hills woul.d ba
cut and val.leys filled; :hat Chey underatood the impxet of the dev~lopa~ont, h~~wever~ the
manufACtured hille woul~ be much saEer than Che exieting ground; and that Che dPveloper'a
poei.tion wus tt~at~. wiCh 15 years' growth~ the pruposed pYO~ect w~uld be as good, if not
better than what presently exiered ln Ch~ canyon.
Chair.man Herbet inquirE~d wl~at ttie denai.ty would be if the lend was developed in its preaent
atate, and the maney not expen:led for the maseive cearth moying~ noting thrit the Cormnissio~n
wae aware tlist econoroice had to be considered aomewhat. Mr. Hukee responded that the
density coulc remain ~t 140 homes, however, that would be the Laguna beacti type homes
canstruc•~~nd on stllta and money would be expended for the foundr~Ci~n work. Mr. Hukee
further atated that if the land way recontoured far flat pade, thay could produce homes
more qui.ckJ~y.
Commigsionec Guuer noted that the Lusic development ic~ t}~e sub~ect Area was b~lilt nexr. to
slopes t:hat were already exieting, and Chairr~ar- Herbat noted thYt existing homes in Che
area would see the propoaed 15-foot alope, if they simply l.ooked tawArd the proposed
pro~ecC. Chairm~n Herbal further noted tr,at the Cammisaion rzcogni.ze:d that alopea had
been manufactured in the past a d had not been conai.dered in good taete becauee of the
slipping und mainteciance~ etc. ,.:~~d that was why the City was presently ett~dying ti~e slope
requir.em<:nta.
Co~misaioner Morley noted that there was probably a medium between ::00,000 cubic yards and
"0" cubic yardb ~f cut and fill and that the neighburs did not want the manufactured
nlopea, and Mr. Hukee responded 'hn the cluatering concept could rEduce the density,
how~ver, tt~. public did not want that type home but the private type home with side yards,
etr_.
Mr, fiukee Chen reiteruted that their propor~al was in accordance with the existing ordinancea
of the City and the.y were comply~ng with the apirit an~' lntent of aame; and that if the
ordinances were indeed changed, the conaiderationa could be. dif.f.erent, however, the exiating
otdin:~nces should be adhered to at this point in t~me.
Chairmati Herbst noted that the Planning Commission was abiding by the rules (ordinances)
by coneideriiig all aspecta, ir.cluding that the Environmental Impact keporC requirements
did not au~.horiZe the moving of 500,000 ct~bic yards of earth; and thaC the proposal wou.id
change the environment ~hat presently exlsted.
In reapon~e to queationing by CommisaionPr Farano, Deputy City AtCOrney Frank Lowry advised
that the criteria for determining whether a new development Ahauld be permitted to proceed
following a change in the ordinances was establiahed in a City Council oolicy.
In response to questioning by Commisaioner Far.ano, Uffice Eng~.neer J~ Tituo advised that
if the de~•eloper installed the drainage, the grading could cou~ence ~~ any time, and
Commiaeioner Farano then nuted that if a r~ew Grading Oxdinance was adopted within the next
30 to 60 deys, the developer could find himself with a change in the slope requArements.
Mr. Hukee aignified that he was aware of the possibilit~ea being diacuesed, and Mr. Lowry
then advised that s new Grading Ordinance would ttot affect the px'oposed pro~ect iE the
building pPrmit had ~iready b~en iosued.
Commiaeioner Tolar not~d that, in hia opinion, the sub~ect property aas no~. appropriate
for R-H-10,00U develo~~men'. if 500,000 cubic yarda of cut and fill was required; thst he
m~intained the propo3r;d denaity was too high; that if the denaity wus lowered he felt the
Rraduai alopes could ue retained and the product wo:~ld be much more ealabl.e; and that he
undc~estood there was a canynn that muat be fille~_' in but that tt~ere would be betCer qunlity
hots~s with the gradual slopes than with the cut and fill.
~...
~
~
•
DIINUTES ~ CL'tY l'LANNING COMMI5510N, Oceuber. 30, 1974 7G-G96
ENVIKONMBNTAL IMl'AC'f RF.PQR1' N0. l35 ~ VARIANCG NU. 26G4 ~ AND TENTATIV~ MAP Or TRACT N0. 81A3
Cuntirtu~d} ~_~ _._.____ ---- --~.._ .. _ _.
Tn reb~Ctal, Mr. Hukee eCat~~d their maxket t-nalysia did not agreo with Commi.akioner 'P~lar's
rn~nark~; that th~ir average l~t eize in Yorba l.ind~ wae ~-pproxlmatc~l.y 13,000 ~quare f~et.
the proposed average lot o.tze wu~ 13~500 e~~uare fe~t. nnd (:rnnmieeianer Tolar wae ~aking
foc 20.000 squnrr~ Ceet~
Mr. Bernr~rdo M. 1'~~rbc~ np~enred be[ore the Commiasion in behulf of the dev~loper, to expluiii
the nat~u-e o1' c~xieting ~Lopee~ on aub~ect prr.,perty and stated thc 75-EooC elope oi concern
was very precipitous and not n uaturnl terrain; tht~C Che property liad benn terraced and
used f~~r orcl~nrcla for y~r~rs; that with n:xlurul. exoeion ther~ hnd baen sevare r_anyor~s
f~rmcci wh.lch w~~uld require till; that Che slope to Spring Bil1 Drlv~ wae mostly nutural
~-butt in~ ••he exieting liomes~ however~ some oC it was cut whe^ RoyAl Uak P~ad wae put
through; tl~ut the eub~eck property would be imposeible ta b~.~ild ~~~~on wit~,,,ut Nome cut and
fill and he did no~ want to es~~ the area changed rinymore thnn necae~siiry; Chat, in his
opinion, tt~e propoeal. would not obstruct the views in tlie are~; lhat the exiating t~omes to
the south were baeically brlow Che su~,~ect development; thr~t due to the ccinstrucl-ion of
the Four Cocners Pipe Llne~ t1~e elevutions were set and they would hnvc tu live with them;
an~l ttiat the pr.opoeal was making it pas~ible for newcomere in the nrea Co en~oy an area of
their own; and chnt paople already in the aren wou.ld hnve to move aver nnd make room f.or ~
fr_w more.
I.n respunae tc~ questioning by Commi.ssioner Tolar, Mr. liukee stipulaCed Chat the maintenance
of rhe slopes would be mandatory thraugh the homeowners association; that only volunteer-
rype i-~omeownera ueauciut~lone hnd been known to fdil, ei.nce they were usually formed to
handle controveralnl matters.
Chairman Herbst noCed Ct~at the T'lAnning Commiasion was meeting in joint ~~ork session with
the CiCy Council in ap{~r~ximately a week and would be recommending 2:1 slopes which might
be adopted within the nexC two to three weeka, and i.f the subject propoeal was approved,
it would probably be made suU~ect r.u a 2;1 slope requirement; that the gulley in the areu
was previously indicated fot u nature park or some kind of recre~tional facility, and
being that Lhe aubject property was involved in the or~:;inal conception of saic! park, he
was in~erested tu know if an~ consideration was being given to that with the aubje~c
proposal.
In reply, Mr. Yorba stated thAt the CiL•y sometime ago requested a total plan for the land
use ~Ln the sub~ect acea; khat they had been faced with the lack of positive attitudes in
che Santa Ana Canyon for eome time; that his family and the Calprop C~r.poration were pre-
pared to give to the City of Anahelm the 15-acre piece of property in question which was
far irom being ~ust a gullt _Snce wildlife found cover there; that th2 Rqb~:t Grant and
Presley of California companies were prepared to comm•it ta certain improvementa in the
csnyon and to molce the park function; that he had long wanted l•u have the area preserved
as a natural patk and had requeated the City to etudy it and make a proposal for i.ts
deveZopment other tht~n for a golf course or other linil•ed uae pro~ect; and that ite devel-
opment should be for a valuable learning place for young people. Mr. Yorba ~urther ex-
plained the environmental, ecolugical and educational value of developln~t the gullPy area
as a nature park and stated that he had engaged the services of a young m.an who had pre-
viously wo-•ked at the 'Tucker Wildlife Sanctuary in Modjeaka Canyon and who had developed n
preliroinary plun for the park pro~ect; that the pro~ect would n~ed a watering syatem to
redevelop some of the old plant growth, however, a full plan of planting haa not yet be~n
developed; that if the City took over the pro~ect, they co~ild work hnnd-in-hand with the
California State Universil-y, Fullerton, in tl-e development of a curriculum pro~ect; and
that i.t had been determincd that aesistanc.e could be obtained from the Forestry Associat'_on,
etc. Mr. Yorba then read fr.om ,lettera received from George C. Turner, Cha3rman, Uepartm~nt
of Science and Mathematics Education, California Sta[e Univeraity~ Fu2lerton; David L.
Walkin~cton, Yh.D. Professor of Iiiology and Acti.ng AasociaCe Dean, Califocnia State Univeroity,
Fullerton; Vergil L. Hettick~ Di.strict Department Chairman, Science an~l Health, Orunge
Lnif ied School DiaCrict; and Nathaniel Lamm, Coordinat~r, Mathematlcs ..ad Science, County
of Orange~ Department of ~ducation -- all of said lettera being in fuvor ol' the development
uf a nuture stud; area on tl~e aubject aite.
Mr. Yarba stated that thay had been w~orking on plans far the dev~lopment of the park for
several montha and had aought Che interest of the developers in Che coimnunity who would be
gen~rous in their support of tlie pro~ect and he would leave it to them to make thei.r owzt
commitme~td; that the California State U.ii• .rsity, Ful.lerton ~oundation t~ad also indicated
an intereat in the project; ~nd that he hoped [he City would accept the offer in the
spirit it ~~ras being made because he wae deeply interested in tlie wildlife and ecology of
the area, h~wever, if ths City cnuld not conaider acceptance uf the park to maintain and
s~cure it, then the ui ivereity would.
w
~
~~
~
MIllUTC5~ CITY PI.ANNING COI~4IISSION, Octobar 30, 197b 74-49T
~NVIRONMGNTAL IMPACT R~PUR1' N0. 135, VARIANCF. N0. 2644~ AND 'C6N'fATIVE MAI' dF TRACT NQ. A783
Cont~nued „_, .~..f_.___.._ - ----
Ln reaponae to qucaetloning by Ciiairman Hsrbst. Mr. Yorbu etated that Chey w~~uld muct~
rati~er the CiCy I~ave the l~nd ae a community ~ro~act~ thnn Ch~ univaxglty~ and that he had
tctlked t}iN pro~ect over with Parka and Recreation Directo: John Col.lier und tliuy had al.s~~
vl.aited the elte.
ParkR rind Recroatian Dirdctor John Collier rn~ted for the Nlanniag Commiseion that he had
traveled all over khe park ar~a wi.th Mr. Yorba and lookc-l at it carefully; thnt before the
City wauld want to commit itseli it ahould elt dow~n with the represenCativee from r.he
univcr~i[y to eea whnC th~y had in mind; tliat the City wae presently working on a 53-ecre
campqiCQ witli tlie Meh~im School Dietrict; that if enuugh aseietance cau].d bo obtained
Er~m ~-he varloue organlzed grnupe, then tt~e City might wieh Co procee~d togethar on an
orgunlzed baels; thAt the project miRht hnve Count~-wide ai~nificance; that. before the
C1Cy could commit icsQ].f in terme oE permnnent maintenance, a toCal loolc at thin area
would Ue neceesary; thal- presently [here appeared to be a great control pr.oblecu in terme
of vandaliem. etc.; and that the Ci.ty would welcome an opportunity to sit down with the
other. interee~te3 organizationa.
Mr. 'Yorba stated thAt hta fsmily and the CAlpr.op Carporcttion were publicly cooauitting and
pl.edging thc~ 1~-acre aite for a natura~ park; r.:~at the affer was open to ttie Cir.y and n~
atatemenC or coaunitment hnd been made regarding uny impruvements; and th~t the univaratty
wss anxious to make the pArk part uf itr~ curr.i.culwm.
Mra. Jean Morris~ 400 Torrey Pinea CircZe, appaa.red before the Comu-i iion and atated she
J.ive3 in the tract ad~acent to tt~e aubJect property and stated there was an easement in
her tract which wag planted with pepper treea, eCc., and was a natural place for the wild-
life, bir.ds, etc.~ and ehe wondered lf tne subject development could also be required to
hAVe un eaeEmenr. at 1ea~t as wide ns the one in her tract for the ~ame purpose; and thut
the gulley area was a very ateep slope and waa not typical for wildlife. She continued by
etating that the area should be able to be developed without completely changing the
topogxaphy; that some of the figures in the Environmental Impact Report were inaccurate;
thar the informal•ion pr~vided in the EIR regarding pollce and fire protection was not
backed up by documen[ation :rom the City; that she haped the City wouJ.d adupt 2:1 elope
requirements; that the subJect area was not appropriate for the high dens•lty proposed; and
that, in her opinion, the developer would proUably make more money by not r~~ving so much
dirt.
In response to questioning by Chairman Herbst, Mr. Hukee stated the propased project was
probably leas dense tha;~ the pro~ect ir- which Mrs. Morris lived; And that they would be
required to replace the trees along the aCreeta in the sub~ect tract.
In response to questioning by ChRirman Herbst, Zoning Supervieor Charles Roberts noted
that the proposed d~velopmenc was totatly in the Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zotie, and
Chairman Herbat then ~:~tPd khat historica ype treea ahould be retained.
Mr. Flukee then que~tianed whether the City would i'ke to have clu~ter homea on the sub~ect
property, and Commissioner Tolar noted that he wa; not in favor of that type development
either.
Commisxlonez' l;auer noted tl~at the aub~ect property had been zoned R-H-l0,U00 far some
time; that the grading was c~n engineering problem and was up to the ~ngineering Department
te resolve, in hia opinion; that the hills were going to be developed one way or another;
that he did not particularly like houaes built on aCilt foundations; that the developer
had worked in accordance wiCh the exiating ordinances of the City and he did not agr.ee
that the new criteria sh~uld be used to conaider the proposal; that, in his opi.nion, the
developer had done a pretty good ;~ob; that trees grew very rapidly ~n Southern California
if they were watered properly; that the Cammiasion ahould not ~udge the proposal from an
engineer's standpoirt; ~nd that the sub~ect property was aurrounded by properties zoned
R-H-10,000 and he did not know why the develuper wa~s being held up at this time.
Chairman Herbat noted that perhApe the zoning wae proper but the problem was the manner in
which the development was proposed; that at the time the property was zoned R-H-10~000,
the City did not have plane thaC indicated so much uf the hills would have to be moved;
that t.e did not feel that moving 500,000 cubic yards of dirt was necessary to develop the
property with an RH-1.0~000 develooment; that flat land standarda o£ development in the
hills was cauaing a problem; that, in his opinion, there was a better way to develop the
property than was being propoaed and the deveioper ehould try to find it ai.nce one oc er
tract had found lhe way.
u
~
~
MINUTES~ CTTY PLANNINC C01~1ISSION~ Octobet 30. 1974
74-G~)H
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPA;JT REPORT N0. 1.35, VARIANC~ N0. 26G4~ ANU ~'ENTATIV~ MAP Ur TMCT N0. 8783
(Cunti.nued~__ _ ._._____ - -- • - -
Commic~sloner Fnrano noCad that~ in hiA opinion~ one of Che reusono fur the proposed grading
wae thnt the developor wae trying Cu get R••ti-1U,000 on t:he whole property; nnd ha euggeated
tl~ut ttie developer Rtudy okher poaeibilitiae far developmenC ~~ lha proporty.
Tliereupon~ Mr. Hukee explai~tad t.hat they did noC linve unlimited raeuurces~ und that while
the Code lndicaCed th~ minimum lot sizcs wna 10,000 equar~ Leet, the Commiasion wantsd a
minimum pad area of 10.000 aquAre foct~
Chairman Herbc~t noted that although thare ware minimum ].ot sizae, ther.e were no maximum
lot size requiremanta.
In respr~nse to qt~.eationi.ng by Commieaioner Farnno, Mr. Hukee ~tated the cast of n~ ~ing a
maesive amount of dirt would be epproxitnatel.y 75C per cubia foot, o.nd Commi.aeioner FaraY~o
Chen noCed thRt for that kind of money it might be worCh finding out what cauld be done
withour. having to mava tha dirt.
Mr. Huk~e nole3 for the Commiseion th~C the County of Los Angeles had a 10,000 square foot
minimwn zone and a percenCag~ of tti~ loto in a tr.act could be as Amal.1 as 8000 oquare
feet, and thRt if the City of Anaheim had euch c~ zone there would be more vereatili.[y for
development.
Commiagi.oner Furano then noCed that there should be fewer lota, in his opinion. and thak
every foot of the subject property ~as not meant to he developed R-H-Y0,000 although there
was a resolution of •lntent to that zoning.
Ctiairman Herbst made nn observation ttiat if the developer waa r.omparing the Anaheim Code
to the Los Angeles Code~ the proposed 59U0-square £oot lot wus taking advanCage of c~ll
poaeible flexibility. Ne furrher noted that the ET.R dacument di~l not state in ite entir~ty
what Che environmental impact of moving Che 500,000 cubic yards of dirt would be.
Commiasioner Farano requeated th&L' if the Commisaion acted an the ~.. document, that the
cut and fill map be made a supplea-ent there:~~, and i~llowing diacusaion by the Pl.anning
Commission, Mr, Lowry c-dvised that the Commiesion could recommend to the City Council thak
the requiremente for EIR's be amended to include information oimilar to that pr~vided by
this developer.
Commiesioner Morley noted thak he could not vote in favor of the sub~ect project because
he dicl not feel that all of the posaibilities had been exhausted; that he concurred w{tli
Com.missioner Far~no that the project coutd be changed to still have good coverage of the
property.
Commisaioner Farano noCed that whether the Commisaicn agreed or not concern•ing the
R-H-10,000 zoning was somewhat moot; thut there wna some difficulty in detexming whether
the developer had fully explored ell poasibilities for development with all reasonable
diligence, depPnding upon his available reaources to develop to the R-H-10,000 without
maeaive grading; *Y~at Chere ai~ould be ~ome kind of showing required in rhe urd•lnance for
when a developer wanted and saught to do as much grading as that prorosed whicli would
physically change the land in the Hill and Canyon Area, such as f.illing in the barancas,
etc., to get R~H-10~000 lots uut of every square foot o£ land; that the Comc~ission was not
anxious to hold back the developer but if Chere was not to be the rowhouses in the area,
then the showi~~ga should be mad2; that if the developer further e:~plored posaibilities f.or
develapment~ he might atill. have ta come back and say it could not be done anoCtier way,
without chopping it up; however, Che Planning Commiasion had a deeper prnblem becauae the
property waa prezoned and he hoped the developer would agree to a re-examination of the
property for development.
Mr. Hukee atated they had been wor~Cing on the proposal for approxima~ely four monthe at
the tentative map stage; that they had expended a l~t of funds and were liv~ng within the
existing Code r~quirements and, in his opinion~ had done a good ~ob; that he did not fecl
the complexities of development in the hilla area could be resolved by writing more
ordinances; that they had fulfilled the traffic requirements, grading, etc., and he wished
they had the financial reaourcea to make all of the atudies that the Commiasion wae sug-
gesting, however, ir. took unlimlted reaources to make those ~tudiea and, ae a profit-
making company~ they could not afford tu make any more changea tc~ the proposal.
..~
~
~
0
MLNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSiON~ October 30~ 1974 74-G99
BNVIR(1NMGN'fAL It~4'ACT REPOR'f N0. 135 ~ VARIANCE N0. 2644 ~ ANA TBNTATIVE MAP UF TRACT N0. 8783
'~ContinuedZ ~ -
Coumiissionur Fnrano noted that he agreed with Mr. Hukee's etatemenC that he had donc+ a
good ,~ob~ however, he c~uld not agree with tha gr.~ding proposed.
Commieaioner Gauer offerod a mol•ion, c~econdnd by CommiRaioner Narano and MOTION (;AitRIED
(ComtalAeion~~x Johnson being abyant)~ that Environment~ll ImpacC Report No. 135, having baen
c:o~eiderec~ thie dare by the Planning Comcniseion ar~d evidence~ both wri.tten gnd oral includ-
ing a cut and fill map, hnving been presQnted to supplement said draft of EIR No. 135, the
CiCy Planning Com~niaeion balieves that enid draft of L~l'R No. .13' does conforro to th~ CiCy
nnd 5tate Guide].ines nnd the State of Callfornis ~nvironmenCal Quality Act, anu ~d ~pon
Huch inform4tion does hcraby recormnend to the City Council that they cerCify ar~Lci ~[R ie
in complianca with said Environmental Quality hct; provide.d, howevet~ that a copy of sald
cut and fill. mnp ae a aupplement tu qaid EIR No. 135 ahall be eubmitted for the racor~l
prior to City Council review.
CUrt1ID~.851~O11C[ Farano offered a motion~ aeconded by Commissioner 'Pu1ar and MOTIUN C.ARltIED
(GooRni.aeioner Cauer vol•ing "no" end Comml.seioner Johnson being abaunt), to zPCOmmend to
the Clty Council that Tentative Map Af Trece No. 8783 be denied on the baxie Chat although
Fnvironmental Impect Repuxr. No. 135 daes maet the Stare of Californi.a requir~mente~ it has
nct been made clear r.hae el.e s~~bJc:ct develapmenr. would be fn Che best interest ~f main-
taining the e.nvir.onment of ti~e aub~ect arca; and thaC Che Planning Cammib.fon do9s not
feel thn~ the developer haR explored deeply anougli the manner in which the property cuuld
be developed to its higheet and beet. uae an3 i.n keeping with a reHeonable limitation of
grading ao to do.
Commisaioner Farano ~~ffered Resolutian Na. PC74-208 and moved for iCa passage and adoption
to deny petition f, ~ 6'aric~nce No. 26~~~~ on the baeis that since the Planning Commiealon ha~
recommended denial of Tentative Map of 'CracC No. 878~, the subject vati.ance would be
ineffectua?. (See Resolution Book)
Un roll call, the foregoing reao.lution was pasaed by the following vote:
aYES: COI~[ISSIONF.RS: FARANQ, KING~ MORLEY, TOLAR, HERAST
NOES: GOMMISSIONERS: GAUER
ABSENT: COMrlISSIONERS: JOHNSON
RECESS - At 4:10 p.m., Chairman Herbst cleclared a recese.
RECONVENE - Chairman Herbst reconvened the meeting at 4:15 p.m. wiCh Commiesiocier
Johnsan being abaent.
K[iCLASSIFICATION - PUBI.IC HEAR.ING. SHOICHI KUBO, 721 South Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, Ca.
N0. 14-75_-16 9280G (Owner); OSTRANQER ANA KISHIYAMA, 2212 DuPonk DrivP, Suite F,
-~- Irvine~ Ca. 92664 (Agente). Property deacribed as: A rectangulecly-
,.~NDITIONAL USE shaped parce]. of land conaieting of approximately 2.9 acres having a
PERMIT N0. 1498 fr~ntage of approxim~tely 200 feet ~n Ch~ weat aide of Beach Boulevard,
having a maxitnum depth of approximately 622 feet, and being lACated
appxoximately 990 feet south of Che centerline of Orange Avenue.
Property presently clnasified R-A (hGRICULTU1tAL) 20NE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1 (GENERAL COA49ERCIAL) ZOKE
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: YERMIT THE CON'~INUED USE AND EXFANSION OF AN EXISTING PLANT
NURSERY WITH WAIVERS OF (A) PEFvITTED DRIVBSJAY WIDTH, (B)
MAXIMUM BUILDING H~IGHT, ANP (C) REQUIRLD BLOCK WALL ADJACENT
TO R-A ZONING.
No une indlcated their preaence in oppoeition to aubject petiti~ns.
A1Chough the SCaff Report to the Planning Commiasion dated October 30, 1974 wae stot rQad at
the public hearing, it is referred to and made a par~ of thQ minutes.
• ~
MINUiLS, CYTY PLANNING COMriISSION~ OcCober 30~ 197~- 74-'+UO
RGCI.ASSIFICATION N0. 7/+-75-16 ANll CONDZTTONAI. USE YFitMIf N0. 1498 (Continueci)
Mr. Peter. Uetrander~ agent for t.he putttlot~cr~ ~ppear.ed befare the CommieNion und eCated
Chey concurred with all of Y.he cunditf.ona of npproval as set fo-'::h in the 5Coff it~porl-;
tliet their. inlent was ta raplace the existing sig~i i.n accurdancF witti tl~e S1gn Ordinance~
howevcr, s~~ld sign wae no[ yet. designed and he wn~ suggeating thal• it be coneidered under
~ sepn~•;~te zoning petition. Regarding Candition No, 1~ Mr. Uytrander el•ated the property
o••~er wuy ~uure. than a~ill ing to mePt tlir. additional dedication for Huyward Straet when~vor
the ~'{t.y decido~~ +r wae neces~~ry; and that the property owner wae willing to me~ke tha
dedi~ t.l~m ~~~uu~di.c~tely~ even thu~~gh said dedicaki~n wauld go through a etructure und he
was ~~. qulte rc~t~dy Co movc that eCructure.
'PHG PUAI.IC IIF,ARING WAS CLOSED.
In response to quer~tioni.ng by Chairmnn Herbat, Uffice Englneer Jay Titue ndviaed that Che
fltructure would not t-ave to be moved until the atreet was needed by tkie Ci[y. which would
depend on the needs of the area for the streek ulso.
CommiASioner Morley questioned the ne~d for the waiver of the raquir~d block wall adjc~cent
Co R-A zoning to the nor~' and west, eince esnid ad~ncent property was developed ea a base-
hall range and vacant ;~uperty and he atated the wal.ls Chere ahould not be required;
tiowever, if the ~aeaterly porlion ~f the aub,ject praperty wae developed reaidential~ the
ptioperty owner of the nurNery woulci be reyuired to put in the 6-foot block W71~1 Co separate
the Cwo uaes of the oubject pruperty at that lime.
Cocamiasioner King noted in connection with waiver of. tlte permlCtad driveway width~ that it
would appear that Che 35-foot width, rattier Lhun the 30-foot width, would Uetter serve to
gct the traffic on a~d off Che bu~y etreet.
Th~ Planning Commiasion _utered lnro diacuaeion with Staff regarding development of the
entire parcel, dur.ing which the peti.Cioner indicated the westerly portion was not propused
for development at the present time; l•hat they originally intended to leave that portion
zoned R-A; that due to a time al.ement involving the coming holidays, they would prefex to
exclude the weaterly portion of the aub~ect properCy from the sub~ect zoning requeat~
rather than wait f~r readvertisement to includ~ a separate zon-ing .for said weoterly por.tion.
Dlscusaion puraued regarding the size of th~ westarly porti.on of subject property which
would probably become isolated by tt~e future exteneion of Hayward Street, and it was the
general conaensus that oince the weaterly portion might be somew~~at short of being an acre
in eize~ thet the parcel map to record the division of the property ehould separate the
property along the easterly si.de of the Hayward Street right-of-way. Thereupon, Zoning
Supervisor Gliarles Roberts notPd that a revised legal description of the pro~erty propoaEd
for rezoning at this time would be neceasary.
lt wa~. noted that the Director of DevelopmenC Servicee had determined that the proposed
activity fell within the definition o£ Section 3.01, Clasa 1 of the City of Anaheim Guide-
Iines to the Requirementa for an Environmental Impect Report and was, therer'ore, categori-
cally exempt from the requirement to file an EIR.
Commiasioner Morley offered Resolution No. PC74-209 and moved for ita passage and adoption
to recommend to the City Council approval, in part, of petition foz Recl~saification No.
74-75-1b since the petitioner requested that the weaterly a~:pruximatel.y 220-foot portion
of aub~ect property originally included in the rezoning requeat be excluded since said
weaterly portion was not propoaed for development at the presenC time; sub~ect to the
condition that the owner(s) shall remov~ the existing dwel.linE which, in its preaent
location, would obstruc.t the future exteneion ~f Nayward Street, said removal being condi-
tioned upon rhe need for the etreet and demand by the City, ae stipulated to by the peti-
tioner; subJect to the condition that a parcel map to record the approved diviaion of
sub~ect property shall be submitted to and approved by the C•lty of Anaheim and then be
recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder; and subject to conditione. (See
Resolution Rook)
On rnll c~-11. the foregoing resolution waR passed by the following vote:
AYGS: COI~tISSICNERS: FARANO, GAUER, KING, MOkLEY, 'COLAR, HERBST
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMNISSIONERS: JOHNSON
..~.
•
~
~
MINUTES~ Gi't'Y PLANNING COt~IISSION~ OcCober 30, 1974 74-SU1
RECLAS5IFICATION NQ. 74-75-16 ANI) CGNUITIOI~AU JSE PFRMIT N0. 1498 (Continued)
Comml.ssloner Morlcy o£fered Resolution Na. PC74-210 and movad for ita paseage and adoptlon
ko grant petitton for CondiCiunul UsN Perml.t N~. 1498~ granting waivers af tho permiCted
driveway widtli and roaxlmum buildi~g height on the beais that tho driveway and building arc,
c~xieti.ng and clo not it~r.erf4r:~ ~aith tt~e nulghUoring area; granti.ng waivar of the required
block wull ad j~cent Co R-A r.oning ~n the bneis that t~~e ~~~i~acent R-A znned pruperti.es ure
davel.opnd with n baect~;ill r~nge a-~d vacant; Nub~ect to co. litlone. (S~e Resolution Dook)
On rull cnll, nc~ foreguLng r~solutiun wae paeaed by Che fullowing vote:
AY~S: COP4~II5SIONERS: i'ARANO~ CAUFR~ KiNG~ MORLEY~ 'L'OLAK~ HL~RflS'f
NUES: COMMISSIONE[t5: NONG
AIiSFN'1': COPtMT.SS10P1ERS: Jt"tNSON
VARIANCF: N0. 26G7 - PUALIC }1GAEtING, IpA AND tdARION RANNOW~ 1515 SnuCh I:ucl.id Street~
~ Anaheim, C~. 9'1802 (Ownere); requesting WAIVF.R OP (A) MINIM[1M I'AKKING
DIM~NSIONS, (B) PERMITTED US~S~ AND (C) MINIMUht FRONT YARD SETBACK, TO
ALI.UW AN rXISTING COt~41F,'RCIAL YRODUCE MARK~T un property deecribed As: A rectniigalarly-
shaped parcel of Land conaisting of approximately 14.5 acxes l.ocnted at the southwest
corner of Cerritoa Avenue and Euclfd Street, having approximaCe frontasea of 954 feet on
the south aide ot Cerritos Avenue and 615 feet on the weat aide of' Euc11d 3tre~~.
l~roperty presently classified R-A (AGRICULTUItAL) ZONE.
'Two perRO:1 indicated their preaence in oppoaitian to aub~ect petition.
It was noted that a~~,ritten requeat had been tiled by the attotney for. the petitioner
indicrsting t}iey coulcl not be pr.e:Kent at thQ euhiect public hearing on thie date ancl, 3f
additional infor.mation was needed, then a continuance to the next meeting would be in
order.
Commiasioner King offered a wati.on, seconded ~y Commieoioner Tolar. and MUTION CARk..T.~D
(Commi~aior.era Gauer and Johnson being abaent), to paF pone the public hearing fnr
petition for Variance No. 2647 to the meeting uf. November 11, 1974, at the request of the
petitioner.
(NOTE: This matter was considered at the bNginring of the meeting.)
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING, ROBF.RT W. AND DOPINA HOSTETT~R, 2129 Vi.ctoria Avenue,
PEFtMIT N0. 1494 Anaheim, Ca. 92804 (Owners); LEOIvARU MAZZE, 3817 5outh Sycamore,
-~ Santa Ana, Ca. 927U7 (Agent); requesting permission to ESTAALISH A
COCK'I'AIL LOUNGE IN AN EXISTINC SHOPPING CRNTER WIT:I WAIV~R OF (A)
MINIMUM SETBACK ARr^.A ?~ANI)SCAPING, (B) MINIMUM SETBACK ADJACENT TO R-A ZONING, (C) ~4INIMUM
PARKING AREA LANDSCAPING, (~) MAXIriUM DUILDING HEIGhT. AND (E) REQUIRED BLOCK WAI.~,
ADJACGNT TO R-A ZONING on property deocribed as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
conaisting of approximately 0.56 acre having a frontage of appr~x:lmately 70 feee on the
weot Aide of Broukh~lrst Street, having a maximu~ depth of approximately 351 feet, and
being located approximately 543 feet south of the r.enterline of Broadway. Property
preaently clasaified R-A (AGRTCULTURAL) 20NE.
No one indicar_ed thei.. presence in opposition to sub~ecl• petiCion.
Although the Staff Report to Che Planning Commiesion dated October 30, 1974, was not read
at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Robert W. Hostetter, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission an3 indicated they
would aompl.y with the conditions of appraval r~s uutlined in ~he ~taff ReFort, iacludi~<t
the condition pertaining to the inaCallation of new sidewalks; and Chat the property w~uld
be develuped in conformance to the C-1 site development standarda, eliminaCing the need
for waivers of the minimum seCback arta lendscaping and minimum pazking area la*~dacaping.
'fFIE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Zoning Supervisor Char?ea Roberts noted that if the sub~ect petiition was approved, it
wou1J be a~propriate to aet a time limiC for compliance with the conditions of approval
and, tttereupon, the petitioner atipulat~d to compliance with said conditions within a
period of eixty ~60) days.
~
~
~
~
MINUTLS~ CITY PI.ANNING C01~4`1'iSSI~N, Uctober 30, 1974
CONDITIONAL USE PERMI'T N0. 1G9G (Contlnued)
7k--502
Tt was nated that tho Dlrector of Development ServicAe had determined that the proposed
activity fc:ll within the definition of Section 3.01, Cl.aes 1 of the City of Anah~im Gui.de-
lines to the Roqu.i.r.ements for an L~nvironme•ntbl 'Lmt~ac* Repnrt and was~ therefore, catCe~olri-
cally exempt from the requirement tc file an F.IR.
Conrtniaetoner Tolar offared Resolution No. I'i'74-211 ancl muved Eor its paesage and adoption,
to grant petition for (:ondit•lonal Use Permit No. 149G, in part, einca waivera af tho
mini.mum aetba~..: area landacaping and mini~aum parking area l+andecaping were wiChdrawn by
the petJ.tioner wiCh the ati.pulatioti thnt the p:operey would be devploped to cunf~rm to the
C-1 'l.one alte devalupment et$ndarde; granting waivece of the minimum eetbeck adjacent to
R-A zoning and mcix~.mum building height on the baeie thar the building i.s ~~xisting and does
not interfere witl~ t' neighboring area; granting waiver of the required Ulock wall ad~a-
cent to R-A zon~ng ~- ~he busis that said ~d~acent property is developed with comru~rcial
usea; and aubj~ct Co conditiona~ said conditione to be complied with within a period of
sixty (60) daya. (S~e Resolutton Book)
On coll c~1:L~ Che foregoing re~olution was paseed by the following vote:
AYGS: COMMISSLONERS: FARANO~ GAU~R, KING~ MORLEY~ TOLAR, }iERBST
NUES: COMMISSIONGRS: NONE
ABSEN7': COb4fISSIONCYtS: JOHNSON
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC IiEARING. MASAO AND HIROSHI FUJLSHIGEy 1844 Margie Lane, AnBheim,
PERMIT N0. 1497 Ca. 9?.802 (O~anere); reryuesting perwission to GSTAI3LI3H THREB MOBILE-
! HOMES on ~+roperty described ae: An irregularly--~haped parcel o.f land
consiating of npproximate].y 46 acres having a frontage of approximately
119U feet cn the ea~t aide of Harbor IIoulevard, havi.ng a maximum depth of approximatcly
1922 fept~ and Ueing located approximateJ.y 776 fpet sauth af the ~enterline of Katella
Avenue. Property preaenCly classified R-A (AGkICULTURAI,) ZONE.
No one indicated their presence in opposition to aubject petition.
Alt.hough the Staff Report Co the Ylr~nning Commisaion dated October 30, 1974, was not read
at the public hearing, it is referred to and mada a part of the minuCea.
Mr. Masao Fu~ishige, the petitionar, appeared before the Commission to anawer queaCions
regsrding the proposal.
THE PUBLIC EiEARIIJG WAS CLOSED.
In re~ponse to quPSttoning by the Planning Co~niasioil, Mr. Fujishige stated that t~he
mobilehomes had been in ~1ace £oz uppruximaCely one and one-half. months; that the sewer
lines and facilitieg were already installed; and that he was ugreeable to the terminetion
of Conditional Use Permit No. 13); and w~uld preaent a leCter requesCing said termination.
It was noted Chat the Director of Development Services hnd determined that the proFoaed
activity fell within the definition of S~ction 3.01, CZass 2 of the City of Anal~eim Cuide-
lines to the Requirements for an Environmental Impact Report And was, ther.efore, categori.-•
cally exc~mpt from the requirement to file an FIR.
Commissiuner Farano offered Resolution No. PC74-212 and moved £or its passage and adoption
to gran.t pettrion for Conditional Use Permit No. 1k97 sub,ject to the petitioner submitCing
a written reyuest to termir..~te Conditional Uae Permit Nn. 1377, ao 3tipulated Co by the
petitioner; and aub~ect ~o conditions. (See Resolutton Book)
On roll ~:a11, the foregoing .reaolution was paesed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIJN~RS: FARANO, GAUER, KING, MORLEY, TOY.e1R, HE~BST
NOES: COMMISSION~RS: NONE
ABS~NT: COr41IS5I0NERS; JOHIISUN
~J
~
~
MINUTI:S~ CI7'Y P1.ANNING COP4IISSION~ Uctober 3U~ 1974
74-SU3
CO'.dT)ITTONAI. USE - I'UIiLIC H~.ARING, AMHCRST CONSOI.IUATED ENT[sRPRISL~S~ 188Q Cent~ry Yurk
PERMIT N0. 1.4y9 [:set, Suite 80U~ 1.oe AngeleA~ Ca. 900fi7 ((lwner); requcsti.ng permiseion
! tu CONTINUG THE US~ ANI1 EXPAND A PRIVATE SCNOOL WI'fH WAIVCR OF (A)
'qINIMUM SIOE YARD SETBACK, (B) PERMIT'tED USCS IN R1:QUIRGU SETBACKS,
ANU (C) MAXIMUM EUILDING HEICHT on property deecrib~d ae: An irregu.lnrly-ehnped parcel
of lHnd congiating of approximatoly 4.4 acrea having a frontaga of uppr.uximntely 2b4 feeC
on the nor.eh r~1da of Orange Avenue and a maximum depth of epproximately 634 feet~ and
being locatad ~p{~roxim~tely 1Q8S f~et woek o[ ths centerline of Rru«khur~t ,",rrect. Prop-
erky preaently clnesifisd COUNTY OI~' OItANGR R1 (SINGLE-NAMILY RG~IDCNCF.) DISTRIG'T.
No one indi~~uted their presence iii opposition to subject petitlon.
Although the StafE Report to the Planning Commiseion dated October 30. 1.9i4~ wus not read
at the public hearing, it is referr.ed to and made a purt of thc~ minuces.
A~sietnnt Zoning Supervisc,r Annika SanCalahti reAd a ietter received in oppaeition to
~ubject petition containing ap{~roximaCely 18 aignaturea.
Mr. I~red Packard~ ttie petitianer~ appeared before the Commiseion and stuted he was eiir-
priaed :it all of the signaturea in oppoeition to Fii.s petition eir~ce tlie only complaint he
w~s aware uf was Lrom the next-duor neighbor; thAt they op~rr~ted the echool witn c~ "closed
cRmpus and were very atrict, with no noise and there was no Czaffic congeation in th~
area; thnt ttiey had been at the suU~ect location aince 1960 und were presenCly iti annexu-
t;ion proceedi~gs to khe ~ity; and that they had cumplied with the liet of iteme preseiited
to them by the Clty for correcti.on.
THE PUBLIC HtiARING WAS CLOSED.
Cl~a].rman Herbst noted that expansion of the aub~ect facilities was turned down by the
Ozange Coucity Planning Cummiasion and the Orange County Dcard of. Superviaors, and Mr.
Packard stated tt~ey were turned down due to the lack of polic.e and fire protertiun, sincE
they were an unincorpo~ated island.
Ir- response to questioning by Commisaioner King, Mr. Yuc.kard ~taCPd they preRently had 60
students and would have approximately 110 studente next year; and that lhey would ulti-
mately have 200 to 250 etudente.
in reaponse to questioning by ~~mmi.saioner Morley, Mr. Packar.d stAted he would have no
objection to moving the building over to eli.minate the need for waiver of the minimum side
yazd aetback, and would also move the play area to eliminat~ the need for waiver of thP
permiCted uses in required aetbacks.
The Plunning Commieaion entered into discussion regarding waiver oi the ma.cimum building
hetght~ during which Chairman Herbs~ noted that since the adiacent property to the west
wae developed with a school, s~id waiver cauld be granted.
Discussion pursued regarding the wa11s encloaing the sub,ject property during which thP
petitioner atipulacc~d that the existing 7-foot high kooden fence a~.ong ehe northerly
pruperty line was in ver~+ good conditlon.
It was no~ed that the Direct.or af Development Services had determined thah. tt. propuaed
activity fell withln the: definition of Section 3.01, Cla~s L of the City of ..,naheim Cuide-
linea to the Requirements f~r au Envirunmental Impact ReporC and was, therefore, categori.-
cally exempC from the requ~.rement t.o file an EIR.
Commisaioner Morl.ey offered Resolution No. PC74-2i" and moved for iCa pasaaga and adoption
to granC p~Cition for Conditional Uae Permit No. 1~99, in part, ~ince the petitioner
stipulated that the proposed structures woul~i conform to the setback requirements, thereby
elim:i.~ating the need f.or waiver of the mfnii.~m eide yard setback and permitted uses in
required setbacks; granting waiver oc the maximum building height on che basis that the
adjacent property to the west '_~s developed with a achool, thaC the petitioner stipulated
thnt the aub~ect private ~:.:nool ia operated with a"closed campus" concept, chereby uver-
ruling the ma~ority ~° ob~ectiona from t~earby property uwnera; aub~ect to the stipulation
that ~he existing 7--foot high wood~n fence along the northerly property line ia in very
g~oA ~cndition and the Planning Commtssion, therefore, determines that the existing fencea
enclosing the aubject uae are adequate; and subiect to cond:itiona. (See Resolution Book)
On roll ca13., thP foregoing reaolution was pat~eed by Che fallowing vote:
AYE5: CON~IIS5IONERS: F~RANO, CAUER, KTNG, MQkLEY, TOLAR, HEItBST
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COhD~tISSIONERS: 30HNSON
~
s
~
~
MINUTrS. CITY PLANNING ~'I~MMISSiUN, Qctober 30, 1974 74-504
VAfZIANCE N0~ 2643 - YUBLIC NEARINC. TIMOTHY W. WALLACF.~ c/o ~eonard Smith koal F.state,
~ 125-D Soulh Claudina Stract~ Anaheim~ Ca. 92805 (Owner); LEO'NARD SMITH~
125•-D South Clr~udina Street~ Anaheim~ Ca. 92805 (Agent); reque9ting
WAIVGR UF (A) PERMi'CTED USES AND (B) MIiVIKUM OFr-STRT;F' t'ARKING, TO Tr.STABLtSH THE OUTUOOR
STORACE Or USGD AUTOMOiiILF. 51fP1'LIES ANp PAR'PS on ~~;~~~F rt,y ~9~aecribed nh: An irr~abularly-
ehaped pnrcel uf land con~jati~~g oE approximal~ly 0.4 a.:re locuted at the notthenat corner
of Cent~r Street and Manche;ater Avenuc~ having fronlugea Af approxs.mately 45 feet on tho
north eidc ut Center Street und anpTOxi.mutely 150 Eeet an ths nast eide oE Mar~chestar
Avenue~ hnving a m~ximum depth uf approximc-tely 16U i'ee.t. PropertY p~~~nntly classified
C-2 (GENEML COMMERCIAL) 7.ON~.
No one indicated their presence in oppoeiCion to 3ubject potition.
A1Cliougt~ Che Statf Report to the Planning Commisaion daCed October 3U~ 197G, was noC rQad
at tlie publ.ic tiearing~ ir. ie referred to und ntade a part of the minutes.
t4r. Le~n.ard Smith~ the agent for the petitioner~ appeared before the Commiesion and ~:~ated
r.hat Che subject pr~~perty had been uk.lli2ed by thr_ ~ubieck use for approxJ.mately twa years
and Lhe property owner and tenaiiC liad no idect th~-t they were in violatian of the Code;
thc~t the properk,y w:ia encloaed on ttie street frant by A chainlink Fence covered wtth
pl}rWOOd; thaC the r~c~~r+~Re was basicRlly tor. the automohile part~ businese which lncluded
trunamiseiona~ body Pnrta, etc., and said parra were s''nred in an orderly mannc~r; and that
they had no need for the required number of off-atr~~~t. parking epar_es due t:o the nature of:
the cperation.
THE PUBLIC HRARiNG WA9 CLOSED.
In response to questioning by Commisnioner King, Mr. Smith aCaCed that the stored material,
for example, would conaist of the Eront or rear portion of an sutomobile thc+t was c~it off
to be re-uaed; that the parta were coded and were +~vailable lhrough u teletype syatem over
the Ur:lted Stakes and, Ctierefore, he could not af£ord to stack the parts and other maCeri.nls
ni~ove the height of the 6-foot fPnce; and, thereupon, he atl.pulated that all outdoor
storage would be below the neigtit of the 6-foot fe.nce and not visible from the exter{.or of
the sub~ect p~°operty.
'Che Plauning Commiseion enCereri ir~to discuasion with Mr. Smith regar.ding the off-street
parking, during witich Mr. Smith stipulated there would be no walk-in retail R81PBy and
that no sales ~,ersonnel would be availabl.e at the aub~ec.t location. Mr. Smith furCher
stated that the petitioner's lease on the subject property h3d about four and oT~e-hal.f
years remafning.
Following L'urther discussion~ the Planning Coma-issinn generally concurreci that a two-year
time limit for the sub~ect vaxiance appeared to be appropriate.
Commissioner King o~ferad a motion, seconded by Commiesioner Farano and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissioner John3on Ueing absent), thut the Planning Cort~ission recammenda to ~he City
Council that the subject pro~ect be exempt from the requi.rement to prPpare an Environ-
mec:tal Impact Report, pursuant to the proviaions of the CaJ.ifornia Environmental Q~iality
Act.
Commi~ssioner King offered Reaolution Ho. PC74-214 and moved for its passage and adoption
to grant petition for Variance Na. 2643, granting waiver of the permitted u~ea for a
period of two (2) years, sub~ect t.o review and considprat'ion for extension of timp by the
Planning Commtsaion and/or Ci.ty Council upor, requeat by Che petitJ.uner; grattting waiver of
the minimimm ~ff-street parking on Che basia that the proposed off-sr.reet parking is ade-
quate for ~he sub~ect use, sinr.e the petitioner stipulaked that there would be no walk-in
reCail sales und that no sa1e~ peraonnel would be available at the sub~ect location;
sub,Ject to the condition that all outd~or atorage would be 'oelow the height oE the 6-foot
fence and noe vislble from the ex[eriar of subjecC properCy, as atipuluted to by the
p~~titioner; and sub~ect to conditions. (See Reaolution Book)
On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AY~S: COMMISSIONERS: F~1RANa, GAUER, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, HER.BST
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COr4IIS5I0NERS: JOI~ISON
• ~
MINUTI;S, CT'f.'Y PLANNIN(~ COMMiSSION, pctober 30, 1974 74-•505
VARCANCL N0. 2645 •- FUHLLC H1,ARI.NG. L. V, EOS'CWICK, 2Q0 WeSt Midway Urive, P.nahelm, Ca.
928U5 (Owner); r.eyuoeting WAIV~R 01~ (A) PERMITTIsD U5GS, (f~) CtI;QI~t.RF.MLNT
THAT USCS Hls CONllUCTGD WITHTN A BUILUING~ (C) MrNTMUM I3UII.DING SE'PHACf:
AllJACGN'l' 1'0 R-A ZONING~ (D) MAXLMUM DU1I~DIN(: HFIC,H'l'~ (L') MINI~tIJM NUl4HI:R UF PAKK.ING SPACF,S,
ANp ((~) R'.:QUIKI:D I3LUCK WAI.L AD,(ACIsN7' 'f0 R-A 'l.ONINC, TO PLf:M?7' 'fHE CONTI.NUI:D USr. UF' AN
EXISTING TIU\ILER SAi.ES AND S[:RV1CE FACILI'1'Y oci pxupcrty deacribed r-s: An irregulf~rly-
dhaped purcel of lrind conF~leting of appruximutely 1.2 ucres locntcd c~t tt-~ norchwe~t corncr
of Midwfiy Drive and Anaheim t~oulevar.d und having ttppruximnte r".rontagea of 165 f~~+t on the
north Nlde uf Midwr,y llrive und 31.5 feet on ttie weet Ride of Annheim fioulevr~rd. Yroparty
presently clsASif ied C-1 (CGNEML COMMF.CtCIAL) ZONt~,.
No one indi~~ated Llieir ,~re~ence in oppo:iition to Aub~ect peti~lun,
Although the Stof£ Report to lhe Plr~nning Commiaeion uuted Octuber 30, 1974~ lJi1H nut rend
at ehe public henring, it is reEerreJ t~ and made ~~ pert of the minueea.
Mr. L. V. Bustwick~ Che peCiCioner, app~~+ired before the Commiseion to answer quer~tiona
regt~rding the propos~.l.
THG PUBLIC HFAKT.NG WAS CLOSED.
The Plnnniag Commiseion enr.ered I~zto diecuealon with Mr, 1.. V. Hostwick during which Mr.
t3ostwick sCated they would se11 L•t-e cargo truilers ar. thc~ BuUject location~ that the
operation acrose ttic street at 120 West Midwa,y Drivc was owned bv hls aon but was part uf
the sub~~:ct operation; thnl•, at the present tim~~ they only needed 10 guest or cuatumer
parking spaces; and tliat the tr111ers would be displa,yeci on tYie corner where the mohile-
homes were presently situate~?.
Mr. Paul. Bostwick, ].20 Weet I~tidway Driv~, xppeared before ~he Commissi.ui~ and etated he was
present at the p~xblic hesring when the subj~c:t pr.operty was r~zonedy and Chat th~re woul~'
not be as mnny cargo trailers, or commercial vuna, as when the rec.r.eational vehicle
trr.ii.ler 831H9 was there.
Commisaioner Fara:~o indicated that he was not in ~avor o£ the cargo-typ4 trailers at the
suh~ect location since that would opet th~ us~ for full semi.-lruck trailers there and
would fuither be incon~istent with the original variance which was gr.an~ed on the aubject
properCy.
In reaponse to questioning by Commis~i.oner F~rano, Mr. Paul Bustwick stat~d the display uf
merchandise for sdle ~rould be in some of the propoaed parking spaces; thxk the 89 parking
epaces required were not needel siiice the customerb would be bringing in their vehiclea
for service ~nd would not stay to use a parkinR space; that. the proposed new structur.e
would be used for the aame type buainess that they ha~1 been conducting across the street
for khe past ten yeara; Chat the floor s~ace was being increased by approximately 20,000
square feet and tliat they h~d had adequate parking to ttie preaent t.:ine; that appioximately
62~L of their business wa~ servicing mobilehomes in Or~nge County and this phase of t.he
buainess was conducted '~y the use of service trucks r.o the various parks; tha~ the oth~r
38% of business was conducted in the store or in the service portion of the estaL~].lshment;
and that ~he existing building would be used as a warehouse for the air-cotadition~r3,
heaters, awnings, etc.
CommissLoner Farano indic~ted he would like Co sec the petitiorer redraw ~'.a plans to show
a reas~nable amount of parking spaces, witl~ spaces specifically seC aside for disp2ay of
vehicles for sale, since i~ the vehicles were going to be sold they had ko be disp.layed.
Fle suggested Chat Che petitioner wor.k with C~.ty Staff to arrive at some reasonable calcu-
lati.or'regarding tl~e parking space and layout and etated that when the vehicles were
brought in for servic~ they ~hould i~ot hold up other traffic; and that Che idea of Che
petitioner was all righC but it needed to Ue identified for what it was and designed both
f.or the proprieCor and for the customers.
Chairman Herbst noCed that he might be in favor of reduci;ig the p~rk{ng requirementa fox
the subject use on a renewal basls, since if Lhe bueinesa changed hands or tha use change.d
the parking needR might also change.
The petitioner then questioned if the Planning Commiaeion would fcevest thcir money for
something and then let somebody else t•ell them what to do about the use every year, and
Chsirmrin Herbst noted that the p~titioner had been before the Planning Commission un
aeveral occaaions ~o request extensions of time to comply Gith the conditione of approval
for previous zonfng actions, and t~e did no[ want the use to go with the property.
Mr. Bostwick then stated he would not want the use to run with the land if he sold it.
~
~
•
MINUTI.S~ CLCY PI.ANNINC COMMISSi.UN, Occohar 30, 1974
VAFtiAN~F: N0. :?645 (Continu~d)
7 G- 506
Commle~iuner 'fol~r nc~t~~d Eor tho patitionar chnt tf r.oneldcrr~tion was glven r.o nppr~~val ~~f
thr dui,;ect var.lance on a rociewa.l baeie~ the~ t~ea would be permittcd nH l.ong ue thc~ peti-
r.i.orpr wuK thci~. however~ eha vnriance wuuld not go with thP Anlc oC L•ha ~..nperty.
In ruepund~ t:u qu~eticming t,y ~:omml~:9toner l~nr.RUO~ Ueputy C1ty Atturn~y rrank Lowry ~dvi~aed
ChFt 1[ would bc impoeKible ~ u~nforcu th~ r~p~cif ic 88d~&MIFAt o£ carr.ain petkinq epecae
for dinpluy purpodF~e, nnd P'~. Koetwirk added thut it wuuld be impoaeible Eor hlin nlso.
Mr. Hoatwick inquired if thc Ylanning Commiseion would approv~ the uther wutvere if +thc+
pnrktng HituaCion wos r~~eulve~, and Comml~ciloner Faruno noted Chnt he waa nat in favor of
q~~lLing othc.~ than recref•,tloiinl vet~icles r~nd he clid not fee.l the pPtit.ioner Ahould have an
open donr r.o acl.i. ~nything he WRill'E(I to w~ th~~ sub~act lncntion; thnt if tha peCitianer
waA w1111,~g to redrsw the plauc~, eome thought ehou'd be given to rewording lhc bpplication
wi.th reRpe~:t 'co tt~e proposad uae o~ tha oroperty; flnd thnt he ob~e:ted from the atandpotnt
of h+tndling the cnrgo trnilers.
Ln regponse to yuestinnln~ by Comm~.esioner King~ Mr. Lowry advised khnr truck snlea wns
nat pcrmitted in the eub1ecC zo:-c~; and Coma-ie~ioner King then compliroenCed the ~etitioner
regnrding Che ~~.neral apFe9ra~ic~ of the proparty anci aspecln.l.ly with respecC to the trees.
'Che Y1.9nning Commi~yion ente~re3 lnto diecuseian wi~:"ti StnfP reg+~rding the requeeted weiver~3.
duri.ng wh:ch .".oning S~pervieor Chnrles Roberte notc~d t'~ac e~~iph:~~~J.s ehoulc3 be plac~d on the
parkir~g requiremen:s with n viek toward [he poseibil~ty of lo~king itt a lia~:dship if the
use ::h^~sld change bused osi the floor. spacc [hftC would be nv~ilable on the praperty; and
Com~~~l.asioner Far~no indi.cated t' at thut p~sKi.bili.ky wae very rea'_.istic~ hoo~ever~ ttie 89
pn: kinA epacea r.equi.red was prohabl.y more t}ian thr:. sui.~ecl usP ~•ould tteed.
Mr. Bosl'wick then indicated a co;itinuanc~~ waA ncceptahle and Mr. Lowry advisPd kha~ t~!'1~~.~gh
the subject variance would probahly nol ,1eed to be readvertiwr_rl, IiE, ;~ouid suggpat a c:~nr.+:~u-
unce lu the meeting of ~ovember 25. 1974, to allow time for ttie petitioner to ~ubmit
tevlsed plncts and £ur Stuff xevt.ew.
'Ttiereupon~ Comtnissioner 1'olar off:ered n morton, r-~c~nded by Co•.mnissiuner Farano and MOTION
CARRIED (Cortur.isaloner .lohneun being abser.t:), L-o reopen tt~e public heuring and cuntinue
ecnsideratinn of petitiar, for Var'ance Na. ?.645 Co the meeting af November 25, .1974, for
revtned plans and other inform~~i~~n reyuested by the ;.lanning Conunission.
COMMCSSIONLF GAUER LLI~T THt' MEETINC AT 5:30 P.td.
VARIANCE ~0. 2646 - PUBLIC HGARIN~. UR. ANA MRS. JOHN S. ENGLISH, 1945 West Chanticleer
R~ad, An~tiei_m, Ca. 4280G (Owners); FORCIER CONSTRU~TION COMI.\NY, AtCn:
Sal Meraz, 4I03 East Gentuz'y Drive, OranAe, Ca. 92669 (Agent); request-
iug WAIV~R OF (A) MAXIMUM EAV~ PROJF.CTION AND (D) 29INIMUM REAR YARI). TO (;ONSTI2UCT A-{OUSE
A1)DITION on prnperty described as: ~ rectangularty-shaped parcel of land consieti~;.; of
apprcxi~:ately 720G <<qt~ ~e feet. having fl frontage of approximare2y 71 feet on the nor.th
~ide of :,hsnticlear b.,d, having a maximtim depl-h of apUroxi.mntely 102 feet, and being
loc~ted approximately 670 feet weRt of the cer.terliiie of Nutwood 5treet. Prcnerty presently
claesif ied !t-t ;~NE-FMiILY RESIDEN'f?AI.) ZONE.
No one indicated their presence in opposition to sub~ect petition.
AlthouRh the Staff Report to th~. Planning Commisaion datea Oc~~ber 3Q, 1974, was not read
at the public hearinQ~ it ia reierred ,:o and made a pert of the minutea.
Mr. Sal Mexar.. representing the a~ent for tlie petiti~ner, appeared before t_t,e Planni.ng
Commiasion r~ud offered t~ anawtr q~~~y~Lons regar~ling the pr~posai.
"HE !'UBLT_.^. HEARIP''~ WAS CLOSED.
Commiasioner King noted tht~t t~ie three property ow~iero who would be mo:C xffected by the
rec;uested ~•aivera had siqned (endorsed) the 3ubjecC pQtition.
It ~+as noted chat the Director of Deve?.opment Services h~d determined that the propoaed
activ.ity fell. wi.thin `he definition of Sec''.~n 3.A1, Clnsa 3 of the City of Anaheim Guiae-
linas to the'Req~irementa for an Environmental Impact Rep~r~ and was, ther~fore, caeeguci-
cally exempt from the requirement to ti.le an EIR.
~ ~
MINIPrrs, CI'PY Pl.N1NINC CUt~Il~1I.SSiUN~ OcCober 30, 1974 ~~+''~»
VARIANCI's NU. 2646 (Continuecl)
Commler-ion~r Tolur offorad Rceu.luti.on No. PC?4-•215 nnd moved fur t.ta p~~Kerige snd nJo~,~ton
ku grant. petLtlun for Varlr~nce No. 'lb4G on the baeis of the (oregoing flndin~n; r~ubject tu
conditione. (S~~!~ ReR~lutl~n Book)
Un r~ll c:nll~ rt-e toregc~ K reHOlu~tun wAe paeeed b,y the fullowLng vole:
AY~:S : CUMMItiS fUNER5: I~AA.ANO, KLNG ~ MURI.GY ~ TULAR~ ~iGR23ST
NOES: C~)MMISSIONERS: NONE
AF3SENT: COMMISSIO\GRS: (~AUER~ JUHNSON
VARtANCE N0. 2648 - PUI3LlC HIsAKINC . LAWEtENCE A. MUCK[:NTti1~LLR, 153G Avolencia Driv~~,
~~^ T~ Fullerton, Cu. y26:35 (Uwner) ; L'IfARLES W. YOUNG~ G?.G Norr.h PoineetCia
Street, Snnta An~~ Ca. 92701 (Agent~ ; requeetin6 WAIV~R GN (A) YF.itMITTI'sD
U5~S~ (13) MINIMUM SETBACK AREA LANUSCAPING~ (C1 itINIMUM PARKING AR:A LANDSCAPTNG, AI~ (D)
P1:RMI7"PF:D PRZMARY IISF.S ON A SERVICL STATION SIT~, TO ESTABLISH AN AU'I'OMOBILE PART~ ANT~
ACCCS~URI~S SAGES ANll INSTALLATION FACILITY AT AN RXZSTING SERVICE STATION SITL on pruperky
dee~:-•lbed us: A rectF~ngu.inr.ly-sh~~ped pnreF~l of land consietiiig of approximately 0.5 ucre
lc~r.nted c-t th~: nnrthweat corncr of r,reacent Avenue and Loara Street, having npproximace
frontngeA of 150 [eet on ti~e norl•h aide of Cre~cent Avenue and 250 feet on [he west olde oE
Lc~iir<< Street. ProperCy presently claeaif ied C-1 (C}:NC1tAL COMMERCIAI.) ZONE.
No one indlcated their presence Ln oppositlon to sub~ect petition.
Alt~hou};h the Staff Report r.o the Plaiu.[ng Conuniseioa dated October 3U, 197~~, was not rend
at the public hearing, i~ ie r~~~erred ~~~ und mudc a part of the minutes.
Mr. Churl.es Young, the agent far the petitioner, a~peared before the Commissior~ to anawer
queaLlone regarding the proposal.
TNE PUBLIC HFARING WAS CLOSED.
'i'he Plunning Cornraiasion entered i.ito diac.usaion with tlr. Xourg reg:+rding the propoanl to
convert an exiatin~ servicc~ station site, durtng which Coam~iseioner Morley noted that he
did not concur ln the wording shown in the Staff Repo*t for the proposed uac~ since it
~ppeared tu be mure in line w.'th tire snlea and aeaembly ~ nnd Mr. Young then stated that
they would have aome sales of restric*_ed ar.cessoriea, however, the uae would be basicall.y
the Cire insCallation and sales and he would be doing everything that a service st.~tion
woul.d do except ~el.l gas and ~erform motc,r ru-ie-upa.
Zoning Superviear Churles Rohex't~ net~d for the Pl.anning Com~uiasion that i.£ the prupoi,ed
use was similar ~:0 2 G~~odyear o;:eration, then it would be a C-2 or C-3 'Lune use, and
Mr. Young ndded Cha 9U~ of the busineas was atrictly tire inat:allatioci, however, they
did not want to be restricted so that th y could nc~t aell batter'_es, etc.
Chairman Herbst noted for ttie petitioner that if the s~;b~ect property met the aite devel-
~pment stan~i:trds for the zone, appr~vat to permit the use of a aer.vice 3tation site for
the pr~ ~posed use woiild presen: no serious probiems.
The Planning C, ~mission entered inro di3cur~sion witti che pPtitioner regxrding che propoeed
u~e of the canopies which tie indicated was for custumer parking out nf the sut~.
Commiseioner h~orley indicated that, in hie opinion, two of the drlver+ays shuuld be ellmi-
r.ated rind tha+. the cunopies shoul.d be rPmoved, and Mr. Young etat~d that he did not under-
ytand tl~e restrictions being placed on Ii.Ln to cloee tne two drlveways since they w~re
originmlly ~lesignad to adequa,.ely bring the customera in and out. of a service station.
Corom~saioner Fur.ano then note~3 that he did not feel that t.he service station site should
be permitted t.o remain on a kind of "teeter-totter" bas ia and thAt i.n order to be allowed
to havo the pr.oposed use, the petitioner aliauld be wllling to confcrm to Che sir.e devel-
opmt:nt et~.idarda to make the si.te a commercial pln~e of buRinass; and that since there
apo~ared to be many auch anplicatione ~resentl,y coming hcfore th~ Planning Commiasion to
c~mvert existing service stations in tl-~ City, it would behoove the Commission to permit
the cor,versiona in a manner that uould rece~ve as l.ittl e criticism as possible.
• •
MINC'L'C:S~ CITY YLANNINC COMMIS,~ ~)N~ OcCOber 30, 1974 7G-50E1
VARIANCB N0. 7648 (ConCf.nuad)
Mr. Young Cl:en ind1~.+-ced thar. tl;e initinl. expen~aa for convc±raion wne high.
Chairman HRrU~+r c:oncurred that the worcting pr~s~~ntsd i.n Ch~ Staff R9por[ d~ecrlbi.ng the
propoeod ue~ w• not nppropriate; thnt lha Commienion was vitally coi~cernvd about Che
Ae:rvlc~ eCi~tiun~~ ln the ~Lty nn~l thAC perhnpe the f.a~• tl ttica ahould be t~rn down i.f they
w~~re not to be uaea Ear thelr ir-Cended purpose, +~n~t recur~Rkructed l•o meet the requiremente
oE the new ua~tH.
Comml.esiuncr t~tirano t~xplui.ned for the peti.tion~r thnt i: t was de~;lrnb.le Co uee n building
for n certnln uec~ thut wuH permittecl in unoth~~r tonP nnd !t was .te~possible to develop the
use withouc a vnr 1ia-tce, then the use ehould be. conduc i~~d in the onme mr~.uier that any other
~~pplicc-nt or proper.ty owner wuuld havm to Jo.
L, reapunAe to qtiest.toning by Mr. 'toung, Comutiseianer Morley noted thnt the Commission wt-s
x~ggeeting ChaC the 1Nlr~ncis~ including tl~e canopiea, l~r rea~oved from the sub~ect aite nnd
eh~~t two cf the drlvewaye be closed ofE. Mr . Ynung indicated chnr. the gr~c~ tanks had
nlre~dy bcon r~:..JV@~1.
Mr. l,uwry ndvlAed th~t ttiere wae eame daubt as to whether the b..llding would conform to
Che Building Code for the proposed us~~ and suggested thaC the petitioner r.eview thnt facct
of Che npplicfition with tne Building Diviaion. Mr. Ynung renponded t•hat the canopies and
lelund~ cuuld be removed, however~ he wne not eurc thAl the building, which belonged to
someune else, could be made to comply.
Thereupon, Mr. Yaung req~-ested that Che mntter be continued in ocder that the plans could
be redraw:~.
Commissioner King off.ered a motion, secondecl by ~ommie~ioner TQla~~ and MOTIOA! CARFIED
(Comr~iasionera Gauer and Johne~on being abyent), to reopen the public E~eac•ing +~nd continue
consi.deration of Ur~riance No. 2648 to the meeting o£ November 25, 197~>, ~t tlie request ot
tha petitiuner.
REF'ORTS ANU - ITEM N0. ~
RECOI4IENDAI'IONS ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRLCT - Propoeed saic
of lund to ~al.ifornia Department uf Tr.ansportati.,n.
It was noted titat a pr~posal had been received fronn the Orange ~ounty Fload Contrcl Dietrict
to cor-vey to the Staee of. California Depaxtment of Traneportation the required real property
interests f.or construction of Che Route 57 Freewa,y acroes the SanCx Ana River Channel w}iich
wou].d require the acquisi~ [on of Orange County Flood Control Di~trict non--ope:r~ting r.i.ght-
of-way, a portion of which was located along the westerly side of the Santa A~a River ir, the
City of Anaheim; and that the G vr..rnment Code ot the State of Calif~rnia, Section 65402,
provided in part "that a loc ~l agency euch as tha Flood Conr.rol District ehall not acquire
real property nor di~pose of atty real property, n~r constru: t a public building or structure
in any county or city, unCil tne location~ purpose and exteat c~f auch activity has been
reported upon aa to confonnity •.ith the adopred general plan applicable thereto."
Commiasioner King offered ResoluCion No. PC74-216 and moved for its pass~ge and adoption,
that the Planning Commission finds and determines tl~at the proposQd conveyance of r~bl
propex~y to th~ StaCe of Ca.'.fornia Depai ~ment of Transportation by the Urange County Flood
Control Diatrict is in conformance witti the adnpted Anaheim Gsneral P1zn. (See Reaolution
Book)
On roll call, tiie foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COAL~tISSIONERS: FARANO, KING, MORLEY, TOI.AR, HERBST
NOF.S: C(~"'Q~lISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COI~tISSIONEFtS: GAUER, JOk'NSON
~ ~
MINll1'LS~ CT.TY PI,ANNINC COMMISSLON, Ocr~b~r 30, 1974 74-509
RE~'OR'f5 AN[) R~COMMGNDATIUNS (Continua~d)
ITEFI NQ. 2
'lARIANCE N0. '1a35 - RequaaC fnr oxttnAior. of tim~ -('roperty
being a roctangiilarly-shaped parcet c~,naieting uf c~p~~roximukely
1.3 ncxeH, hnvJng n frontage of upproximately 160 Ceet on
ths north eirle of ~.Incoln Avenu~~ bctnq locnted apti~roximut~ly
350 feet r~ast of the centeeline of Gaek Skre~k, nud being
furthet daecribed ae ].265 ~a~t I.incoin Avenue.
It wae noted thnt V~iriancc No. 2535, t~ permll m~~torcycle service ~nd repai.r i.n con~unc-
tfon wlth an ^_xiscing motorcycl~ enl~a nod acce•=HOries f.acility~ wHS c~ppx'oved by the
; ~+inning Commi.eaion on Au~ust 6~ .1973, for a pr~riod of ono year; that Che (:omcr~iHei.on
iwpoeed the time llmit in c~rdcr to determine whether r~ny adverse affect would result from
the granttng ut the use ~ince the petiCLoner ytipulat~~d that Che propQrty w~u1d be re-
devel.oped and iC proper zoning wus not obtained nt that: cimE~lie would relocate the motor-
cycle eules und r.epnir to a lc,cation whicli l~ad prop:~t• zoning; thnt two of the tl~ree cnndi-
tions oP approv~l Co be met within one ,yec~r had noC beeu wnt, being dedl.catiun from the
c~n[erlin~ of I.incoln Avenue and inetnl.lAtion of etreet 11g'Cing fttcilitieo or pooting of
A bond to guarantee said inatallation; and that the petitionex wna requestin~ approval of
an indefinite extensian ot time for sn~Ld variance.
Mr. GeoYge Colline 1265 F.ust Lir-coln, uppear.ed before the Plrennl~g C~mmiseion ne the
owner of Che wotorcycle aervicc; and repuir facility and stACed he had a five-year lease on
i.he spar.e which he occupied aC tt-e sub.ject loct-tion; •ind Chat the operatiun waA a clean
one.
In responsc to questionir.g by Commiasior~_.. Kin~~ Mr. Colline atated they tested motorcy:les
aroun~: the property very rarely, and Zoning Supervieor Charles Roberts indicated that no
compla~nta were on record rei,.xrding tliis facil{.ty. Mr. Co~llns r_ontinued by etating all
of ttie ~ervice and repair work would be done inaide; tlist hi.d basic business wns accese-
ories; that the property owner was liable for the lmprovements requtred in the conclitions
ot appxoval of the variance, however, he would be willing to poet the bond for the street
lighr.ing but could not make the street ded:lcation.
The Flanning Camcnisaion entered lnto disct~seion with SCaff regArding the otitstanding
conditiona, during which it ~~c~a pointed ~ut that it appeared Mr. ~oilins was being penal-
~zed because of ttie lack on r'~~~ pzoperty owner's part to follow tt~rough on said conditions;
that even though Mr. Colli.n: :i willin~ to comply, the matter of the dediCation would
r~:st p~ieiy with the properry owner fc; compliance; and that ec~nsideration ah~~uld be giv~~n
to a three to aix-month extension uf ti.mu in +~n effort to glve Mr. Collins some ].everage
to deaZ with his landlord, ti~e prop4~c,y awner.
Commissloner Farnn~ uffered a motion, seconded by Coetuaiesioner Morley, und MO'PT.ON CARRIED
(Commiasioners Cauer and Johnson bping absent) that a eix-monCh extenaion of time be and
hereb~ is granted for Variaiice No. ?.535 based on the foregoing F',-dings, said extension of
time to expire February 2~, ].975.
I'CEM N0, 3
VA~Z~ANC~ NU. 2317 - Request for termination - Property
bei.ng an i~'regul~zly-ahc-ped parcel of land consisting
of approximately 10 acres locate~i at the northeast corner
of Lewis Street and Huwell Streec, and furCher deacribed
a3 1620 South Lewls St*.'eet.
IC ~r3s noted that on Aecember 29, 1971, the Planning Commisaion granted V~riance No. 2317,
waiving permitted uses in Ctie M•-1 Zone to permi,t retail sales of po~l tables und related
equipmeut in conjunction with the existing warehousing facility, for a period of three
years; that thr retail use apnroved under said variance had not been eatabliehed on subject
property which was continuing to be u.,ed for a warehouse facili.ty; and that the petitioner
was requesting termination of ~ai.d vari~~ice since th~ owner of subject property i~o longex
desired to operate n retai]. ealea facillty at the subject location.
c' nu,~'~ssioner King offered Resolution No. PC74-21i and moved for its paesage and adoption
tha all ~~roceedings in •:onnection with Variance No. 2317 be and hereby are terminated, c~e
rec; ested by [he petition2r. (See R~~a2ut~<,n Aook)
On roll call~ the £oregoing rasolution wxa ~assed by the followi:-:g vote:
AY•.S: CJhQ~IISSIONEI:S: FARANO, KING, MORI.i:iC, fOLAR, HERBST
Ni~ES : COD4IISSIONERS : NOHE
A65ENT: CQtR~:IS.iIUNERS: GAUER, JOHNSUN
~
~
~
MT.NUT[~.S, CITY PLANNING GOb4~1tSSI0N, Octorer 30~ 19;~;
7 ~-5t0
RF.PORTS AND RI;CUt~41CNDATIOIJS ~Cantinued)
ITI:M N0. 4
~/ARIANCl: N0. 2546 - Requeet for exteneion of time -
Propr_rty being u rockangul~rly altuped parcel uf lund
coneie~.i~ig ~f ap~~roxLnxt~ ~.58 acr~ lur.utc~d ut the
northenet corner of Broa~l uld i.onrn 5treet, nnd
f urther (~C9CC1bP.(~ ad 159~ Weyt Broadwny.
C.t wnK notc_d tl~fit on Sepkember 5, L~)73~ th~ PlnnninE Commiaslon g:~~t1t~•1 Vnrlnnce No. '1546
to cetabllsh an nutomc~blle +in~i receenCion~:l vehlrl^ st:ort~ge f~cllf,y in ~hw M-i Zone wl.th
waiverF ol' permiCted uyeN nnci minimum tiront seCbc-ck; tl~c-t a on~ enr Cime 1 iml.r waH lmp~ded
in order t~~ det~ ' ne wtierh~- nny ndvcr.se r.f fecC would reRnlt f rom auid ~i»c; ti.: t u f ield
inopection wne ~ lur_t~~d by Staff indlcuting the property wae develc~ped in confori,ance
with submi.t~~d ~~lnna tuid thnC the ~etback uren l.nnddcaping had beem m~intained. ne wae
epecificull; required by the Plnnning Commission; and thar the pe[lti~ r~r w~ie requesting
flpprov~l oE a fiv~~-year exteneion of. time for »aid vuriance.
CommieHi.oner King offerr.d a mu[~.on, eeconded by Commiseioner Tolar. ~ nr~~l MO'CION CARKII:D
(Conuniseionera Gauer and Johnaon being abaent) th~t, due to Ylanning Co~amidsion'a concern
with Cl~e continued mai~itenance and upkeep of sublect properr y, a t~vo-year extc~ieion ui
time ba nnd hereby ie granted for Variancc No. 2546, reti active to Sepl•ember S, 1.97/~, r~nd
t~~ expire on September S~ 197~ ,it wkii:.!~ t.lmc conetder.ation may bc~ gi.~~en r.o n furChar timc
extension upan written reyu~~ ~ lr~~m th~~ pc~~ Ltioner.
I'1CM N~. 5
VA[tIANC;~ N0. 2609 - Reyuest Eor deletion of condition
of npE~rovul ~ Property being a rectangularly-sheped
parcel of land consLsting of upproximately 0.3 acre
locat~~d at the northweat corner ot Magnolla Avenue nnd
BAIl lc ~tid, zone~l C-1, and furth~r described ~s
2601 We::t Sall Road.
It was noted that on July 8, l~Ji4, the i' lnning Commisaion granted Varlance ;Vo. L609 sub~ect
tu certain condicions; tii~t: Condition No. 1 atated "Thnt L•he owner(s) of sub3er~ property
shall deed to the City of Anaheiu- a strip of land 53 feet in width from the centerline of
th~ screet ul.ong Magr~olia Avenue for street widening purpoaes"; that Area Development Plan
No. 56, approved by the C;.ty Counci.l. on T~ebruary 14, 1961, in con~unction with appr~val of
C-1 zoning of th~~ suUject proper.ty, specified dedication of 50 feet from the center.:~ine of
Magnolia Avenue for. street widening pur~,oses, and the property owner had d~~.llcF~ted saic:
50 feet; ti~at sa~d Area Development Plan was prepared tv aid the commerclal redevelopm~at
of the reaidential. properties f.rontinq on Che west side of Magnolie Avenue; r.hac tt-e City
Engineer'ng Department indicated that the exiating 50-foot dedication from che centerli.ne
of Magnolia Avenue was suff:iciant; and that the pet3tioner had aubmitted a writt~n request
for the deletio~- ~ said C~ndition No. 1.
In respor,;e to quer~tioning b,y Che Planning Cocnmission, Of.fice Engineer Jay Titus adviaed
that, in ~.tie foi•es~e^ble future, the 50•foot dedic:~tion as outllned would be adequate.
Commissioner Kir:y, offered Reso.lur.ian iTO. PC74-21$ and movcd for ils passage and ~dopti.on
to amend the conditions of approval for Variance No. 2609 bY deleting Condition No. 1,
contained in Planning Commission ResoluCion IGo. PC74-137, based ~n the foregoing findings.
(See hesolueion Book)
On ro11 ctslJ, the foregoin.g resolution wa~ paysed by the foll~wing vote:
AYES: CUMt4iSSIUNERS: FARANO, KiNG, MORLrY, 'I'OL~~«, HERBST
NOES: ~OMMISSIONERS: NONE
AIiSGNT: COr41ISSI0IJERS: ~ ~UER, JOHNSON
AbJOURNMENT - There being no iLrther busi~-ess to diG~~uas, Commissioner rarnna
offered a motion, seconded by Commissio~:er Morley and MUTION CAItRIED
(Commisaioners Gauer and Johnson being absent). to adjourn the
meeting to 7:G0 p.m., November 4, 1974, for u Joint City Council/
Planning Commissian Work Sesaion.
The meeting adjourned at ~i:15 ~.m.
Reapectful.ly subm~ll•ted,
/~'_'\
~/~ "^'4'' ~ _-~~A~r~~ C~-'~"ti~
~ ~ (~
Patricia B. Scanlan~ Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commisaion
PBS:hm