Minutes-PC 1974/11/110 R C t; MICROFII.MING SER~ICE, INC.
~J
~
~ity Hull
Mnheim, Californie
Novumber 11, 1974
RECl11.AN MIsETINC_OF THF AN/""'TM CITY F1.ANNING COI~4~IISSII~~i
RBGULAR - A regulur me~~Ing of the Anuhei.m City Plunning Commtsaion ~rae cnlled [o
MEF:TING oruer l~v Chnirmrin Flerbr: at 2:00 p.m. in the Counct l. Chamher~ a quorum
bcLi.g :~ent.
nRF,SENT - CIIAIItMAN: }i~rbat
•• COMMISSIONERS; Farnno, ~ wer, King, Morley
ABSEN'P - COI~PIISSIONGItS: Johnaon, Tol.ar
ALSO YRLSENT - Ueputy (;ity Attorn~y: F'rnnk Lowr.y
Office Eng[noer: Jay Titus
Zoning Supervisor: C}~arles R.oberts
A~eiotla[ Goning Supervis~r: Annika Santalahti.
A~soclate Planner: 3111 Yoting
Aaeistant Planner: G. A11an Daum
Commiaeion Secretr~ry: Patricia Scanlan
YLGDGE Or' - Commissloner Fart~no led 1n the P].edge of Allegiance to thN Flag uf tl~e
ALLEGIMiCE United Stales of America.
APPROVAL OF - Commi:+sioner King offered s motion, seconded by Commiasioner Morley and
T:?F. MINU'fES MO"'ION CARRItiD (Commissionera 3ohnson and Tolar being absent), to App.ove
the mi.nutas of the meeting of October 14, 1974, as oubmitted.
ENVIRONMF.NTAL IMPACT - JOHN U. I.iJSK & SON, Y.O. Box 2140, Newport geach, Ca. 92653
R~POFT N0. 132 (Uevelaper ); i{OPEN ~ HI.DLUND t~ I~~".RBY, INC. , 3030 West Main Street,
~' Alhambra, Ca. 91801 ('ngineer). Sub~ect property, r_onainting of
TENTATIVE MAP OF approximately 87 acres having a frantage ~f approxfmately 3209
TRACT NOS. 8G].8 fe~t on the north aide of Nohl Ranch Road, having a~~~aximum depth
AND 4647 of approximately 1800 feet, and being located approximately 1810
feet east of the c~+nterline of Nohl Ranch Road. is prop~sed far
subdivislon as foJ.lows:
Tract No. 8418 - 40.6 ac~ea - 104 R~H-10,000 lota; and
Txact No. 8647 - 46 aci _- 9/ R-H-10,000 ?~ts.
Subject peti[ions were continued from the meetin~s of r.igust 19, September 30, and
October 14, 1974, fur r.eviaed plans.
It was not~~d that the developer was requesting an additl~nal two-week con[inuance.
Commissi.or-er iCinq of fered ;t mot ion , seconded by Comuisai_, ner Farano and MOTION L'ARRIED
(Commisaionera J hnson and Tolar ~ein; absent), to furthFr cuntinue congideration of
Environwental Impac", Repurt No. 132 and Tentative Man of 'rac[ Nos. 8418 and 8647 to the
meeting of Ivove:nber 25, 1974, as requeEtted by the petitione_
CONDT.TIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC :iEARING. LA PAL,N,A STORAGE PARTtiERS, LTA., 2223
PERMIT N0. 1<<9z Avenida Ae La Playa, La .:~lla, Ca. ~ZQ37 (Owner); PUBLIC STORAGE, i1vC..,
34i5 Fletchei Av~^ue~ Suite 2, ~1 Monte, Ca. 91731 (Agent); r°questing
persission to ~STArSLISN f1UTD00R RF.CPrEATIONAI, VEHICLE STOItAGE WITH
WAIVEk ~~ (A) REC~UIRED ENCZ,OSURE OP UUTSIDE USES, (B) MINIMi1M OFr-STREET PARKING, AND (C)
MINIMUM S~TBACK ~N A FR?RWAY Fh.ONTA~;E ROAD on property described gs: An irre~ularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of appr~xi~nately 3,? acres localed at the southerly terml,_~s of
Armando Street, havi.ng a fr•ntt~:~ge of appxoximat•ely 85 feet on the south side of qr~raiulo
Str,.at~ having a maximum dapth of approxim~tely 513 feet and being lacsted appz~xir~ateiy
580 feet 9uuth of the centerline of La Pal~aa Avenue~ and furthEr descr~bed as 105~ Armando
Streer. Proverty pz~~ently c:laeaified M-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) Z~NE.
Subject pPt:* n was contin.red from the meetinga of Septembe-' 1~ and :i0, and October 30,
1974, tn ad~ :ide for addi[ional waiver and for re~~ibed nlans, as requeated by the
petiti.rer.
7 ~:-511
..~
~
~
~
M1NiJ'f1.S, CITY PI,ANNING CON4IISSION ~ Novembr_r 'L:l. 19%b
CONL~ITTONAL USG PEItMIT N0. 14y:i (Cont~nurd)
74-512
No one lndicated eheir pr~senc:o in ~ppoeition tc, pub,~e~~t petiticn.
Alkhough the 5taf:t NaporC to the Flanning ~'nmmiealon datad Novembor 11~ 1974, wae not. r.e<,~
nC the publ.ic hear.ing~ it i~ referred to a~u mndc+ a part of th~~ miuutwa.
Mr. Ihalghk C. Nari~~~r~ representing r.l~e ngent for r.he ~~r_titiuner, appe,-+red bt~fore tlte
Commissi~~n nnd st~~t~~d thay hnd ~:ubmiCtPd a.~vised pru~>v~~nl to try to reaolv~ some of th~
Cc~mmieeion's ob~ectio~ to their or(ginal ptopoeal; Chat Chey had warked with the Ci~y
SCnff t~ come ax cloec aa po~~Niblc to the atand~rc3s of the City; thnt ih~ir bope ws3 tc~
prnvlde a s~~rvice to the c:itize~~+ ln the area, roinforced Ly the fact thnt the Polic:~
llepart~nent limit4d conet~iuous on-c~treet pnrking to 72 houre which creeted probAems for ~he
reeidenti.al communiry; ~I~nt they wuuld ;~nve onc employee ~m-•aite, who wauld adrve ae
managc~r. and wculd providE~ kh~ service in a well-~controlled And guarded man«ar; khal• there
would 'oe no outdoor atoraq. ~lflng the £racaway frontaga; that they were propoetng c~n 8-foot
high fence al.ong tn~s rorcl~ nnd wer~t pxop~srty linee~ and ncither 5ta~f. nor the petitioner
could nrrive nt u betl•er ~olutJon to the fence locuted in the requlred sethack along the
freeway; that folding qatea werca not auccese~~~~ iii their projects of this type; that r.he
gxteA at the aoutherly I~oundary of the sul,•~r property would be for emergency aacees only
and would remain locked durin~ the day to ~vide yecurity for the pruject since the
traffic entering from Armando Street woul be via+.bJ.e to lhe managcr; thut if the gutes at
the southerl.y boundAry of the pro~ect w~ placed at t}:e buildin~ line~ they would have Co
be open during Cl~e d~y to provide on-~ ~.e circulation which, in turn, would A1l.ow atiyon,
to walk into the pro~ect; that they ~~~ferred to hnve open meali gates with landscaping;
and tl~at the trash aternge area wo~~ ~ be constructed according to the City requirements
and enclused by a 6-fooC mason~'y ~~~ ~1 with gate.
THE PUBL~IC HI;ARING WAS CI.OSCD.
Commisaiuner Morley yuestioned whethe~ ~t would be bPtt~~r to have Che 6-foot fence along
the freeway interwoven with Alats, in addition to the 8-:. ~ fence, and the petiCioner
indicated that that poseibility hnd been dlncussed witli Stuff. Z~ning Supervisor Char.leo
RoberCS noCed thut thera would prnbabl.y be less impar.t Prom a visual atandpuint if the
6-f.oot fence wae unobscured ~nd ot}ierwisc: it would be a rather prominent feature, however,
if said 6-toot tence was slatted~ the use would be less visibl~; and that the gates at thc
southerly b~~<«id~ry were proposed to be unalatted also.
Chairman HerbaC noted thn~ the past ordinance required a block. wnll. for auch a u9e si~~l
that the presenC ordinance required chainlink £ences to be interwoven wft}i redwood or
cedar slats and landscaping to be provided, and that he would encourage eiifo,-cement of the
new requirement.
Mr. Roberte then noted that the proposed ~-foot chainlink fence alon6 the oLtdoor atcrage
area would be slatted, and that no outdoor storage would be vigible from the freewuy or La
Mesa Street.
Chalrmati Herbs~ raised the poasibility that if the proposed use was not successful, wikh
some of the buildings being designed for i.nduetrial uae, other uses might be cr~de of said
buildings creating ocs-site parking shortagea and also any manufacturing uae would require
that the praperty be obscured and the fences would probably have to be interwoven with
redwood or cednr slats.
Mr. Roberl•s n~ted the Lhr.ee -ltern~~:ive ways of acreening outduor storage, one being A
chainlink fe*~cc~ with eJ.ats and landacaping. He further noted that eince a p~rt af tha
s~ibject propetty would have outdoor storage, with the majority not being outdo~r storage,
the Comu~ission might wiah tu consider landsr_aping to be inside the fence along the south-
erly boundary of the property and that a landscaping plan be ~ubmitted for appr.ovr.?.
Mr. Harpe° then describeci khe pr.opoaed la«dscaping, stating that said .landscaping would be
dense and Zot juat low ground cover, a.id that treea were proposed.
Commiasioner Morley note~, that it was the desire of the Planning Commission ta hRVe the
fence and the propoaed facilities obacured from view.
The Planning Commission entered into discusaion with Staff regarding the reyuired en-
cloaure af ourdoor use~, during which Commiss'.oner Morley notcd that the fence and gate
alor.g the nortrerly property line should be s'atted, and Mr. Roberts clarified that on the
basis of the Commission diecuasion, the waiver uf. this requirement would apply only to t~te
proposed gate at the southwest cornc~- of the sub~ect property.
~ ~
M1.NUTES~ CLTY P1.ANNJ.NC COI~4fISSION, Ncvemb~•r 1], 1914 74-513
CUNDITLUNAI. USE PL'FLMI'T N~. 1493 (Conkinued)
It wug iioted thut tlic~ Dire.cCor uf U~velopment Servi~~c9 hud delermin<<l Chr~C the propoHed
nc~t.lvity Eell. witnin th~~ ~leflnlti~n of 5ecCion ~.U1, C~.tiys l. of L•he Clty of Muh~ ~m Cuide-
linee to th~ Ruqulrem~nts f~~r t~n Envir~ninentnl ]m~>acr. Reporr and wus. therefore, ~nt~,,ori-
call.y exempt fr.nm thc reyui.rement ~~ P i le aii 1:IIt.
Commienioner Morlcy ufGer~ci Rr~•ulut'<~n No. PC74-219 und moved for ita p4eaage And ndoption
to grant petition fur Conditl~~nc-1 Usc Permit No. 1493~ granting wniver of the r~quired
encloaure o~ aul•door ~aes in part, axid wai.ver to apply only to the prnposed el.iding gate
at the southwe~t corner c~f tlie dub~ect property 1n cloae proxlmity to the outd~ atc~rngr_
area oP tr~t propuaed development; g~•4nt~.t-g wUtver of tlie mini.mun- ofti-street purking fc~r
the proposed ueF only, and !n t.lu~ event the use of the aub~ect property chui~~es, purking
apaces ehal.l be provided in ac~~~~t~~ance wirly th~~ off-atreet parki.ng requirement~ of Che rt-].
(Light Indlaatrial) Zonc~; however, if the ,~et of aub,ject property changes and n parktng
waiver contin~~.es Co be neceasary, the requircd pArkitig apacea shall be review~d by thc
Planning Commisaion and/or c:ity Council.; grantin~ waiver of the mi.nimum etructural seCUack
ad~acenL to fre~way frontuge roa~l on the baeis that a 6-fovt high chainlink fenre aC the
].Q-fovt setbacti: line was ahown ~~n ~1pproved plane submitted for ~ building p~:rn-it and
furthermore, t,~mt pl.acement uf the fence nt the 25-foot Aetbar_k would hinder the u~~ af
the exietirig driveway and tt~at approva]. is granted ~~ub1ecr to dense londscaping compr.ised
of trees and shruba to screen sa:.d fence be:ing prav.lded in eaid 10-foot setback., auid
landacaping to be sub~ect tu approval by tlie Development Services Dep~rCment; and et~b3ect
to cor~ditions. (See Reaoi:tition nuok)
On r~11 ca11, the faregoing resolution was passed by the fol].awing vor.e:
AYI~.S: COI~IISSIONER5: FM.ANO, GAUGR, KING, MORLEY, N~RAST
NOES: COFII~tISSIONGRS: NONE
AI3SENT: C064tISSIONERS: JOHNSON, TOLAR
VARIANCE N0. 2647 - CONTINUED PU3LTC IIEARING. TDA ANA P(ARION 1~ANNOW, '.~15 Sauth l:uclic+
Street, Anaheim, Ca. 928Q2 (Owners); requestin~5 WAIVER OF (A) MINIrNM
PARKINC DIMENSIONS, (R) P~RMIT'fED USES, AND (C) MINIM*JM FRONT YA1tD
SETBACK, TO AI.LOW AN EXISTING CUriM~RCIAL PRODUCG MARK~T on property described as: A
rectangularly-shapad parcel of land cunsisting of approximately 14.5 acres located nt the
southwest carner of Cerritos Avenue and Euclid Street, having approximate fronr,ages of 954
t~~et on the south side of Cerritos Avenue and 615 feet on ~he west side of Euclid ~treet.
Prot~ ~~y presently clas3lfied R-A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE.
Sub~ect petl~(on was contlnued from :he meeting of October 30, 1~74, ~t the request of the
petitioner.
Four persons indicated their pre~enc~~ in opposttion to sub~ect petition.
Aasistant 'l.oning Supervisor Anni~ca Santalahti read the Staff Report to ~he Plann~ng
Comwission dated NovembPr 1~, 1914, and sald Staff R~~ort is referred Co as if set forth
in full jn the minutes,
t4r. Scott ceaymond, the attrrney for the petiti~ner, appeared before the Commi.ssion and
stipulated that t~e petitioner would comply with the suggeated condirtons of approval as
set forth in the Staif Report, with tl~e exceptian of any seT.back r•.~ctir~ment, and he
cautioned regardin~ the r:quirement for a 6-foot masonry wall ulong the southez y pronerty
line which might cau~~ :~ small, haZardous aZley between the southerly property line and an
exi.5~ing wooden fence situated ~n the adjacent property to the south. He seated that the~~
were opposed to any setback requirem ~t primari.ly because the establiahment was so small
thut enforcement of that requiremenC would be suggesting that the p:titioner go out of
Uusineas; and that the cost of complying with thc~ setback requirement was remely high
eapecially since they would only be i.n business ~or another 36-munth perio~
Mrs. Al.ma Croswhite~ 1695 Crie Avenu~~, appeared before the Conunission in opposition to
subject petition and stat.ed she had l~~ed dirc,~~tly acruss tt-P street from the subject
properCy since before the subjec:t produ~~ atand wene inCo business; that she had c.ontaeted
her ;leiv,hbore and gathered a consensus of opinion that canc•urred ~rith 'her own, that the
traffic situation was ttie only objecCion; that no one wanted Mr. *!ax'gulieux to _enve, but
that the trafiic situatic+n ~au~ed by lack of sufficiert setback from the ~•treet 3hould be
controlled, and on that basis the reques:ed vaziance should be d~n~-ecl.
•
~
e
MINUTES, CITY PGANNINC COMMISSTON, Nuvember l.l, .197'~
VAEtIANC[? N~. '1.G47 ,~ontinued)
7G-514
Mra. klurcn~~~~ Mrinkc~, 1666 Crts Avetwe, app~fl~'Nd b~~~~~~'~ th~ ('~~~~~mi9t~lon in oppoaltion to
aubject petitiun and sCut~d her ob~ecti.one ~aer.e chnt v,irlca~~es for the produce atand h~d
Junt slid hy t'~r a number of: yeure; chn~ eve~; thougl~ t ~~~~r~~ l~nd been eomc improv~mentc+ on
rh~ pruperly~ 1t wae still a b~d aituation; that Chey a1'nwed c~rtona, b~~x~~R und trnHh tu
uccumulate on the bnck of the properr.y whi.ch created a flre hazard to the reAidences on
Cris Avenue; that the t:raf'fic wae an c:xtreme probZea; that there wcre i-o aidewalks, on r.he
ear;r aiue of Eucl.id Street f~~r the achool chil.dren ta pase in front ~f the NuLject pruperty;
thut. the prr~uce et.and not on I y c~ccupicd pnrt uf thc~ s~rc~et r~.ghC-of-wny, but at t i.mes
produce w~s etncked uut i.n fronr. of the st~nd; +~nd thnc the stAnd w~-e nnC nttr~ctive ur
c~nducive to good he.~lth atandarda for rhe comanunlty.
In rebuc:tul, Mr. R~ymond gtuted the own~ra of rh~~ r+uo,ec'~ pru~erty h~d been there fos' 92
yeare, that the frult s*_anJ had been in exi~:~~nce for 25 years, und thnc Mr. Margulieux
t,ad been rher.e for 7 ye~re; that .:he traffic prcblem hud alwayH been a conai.der.at:ton of
al.l prior conelder~tions by the Planning Commisaion 1.1 Ci.ty Ct~uncil; rmd thak to hiR
knowl~dge the~.'e had never been e truffic accident at the eu5.jecr. locatian or by reason ot
the produce stand. Ltegarding the fire hazard menCioned by Idr.R. Manke, ~~e s~ated ther.e had
never Uee.i r. report ~f. ~ny kind uf fire hazurd and the property hAd beer~ ~xamincd regularly.
He co~itlnued by aCaCing rhne nl th~ corner of i:uclid und ~errltoe ther~• had been many
ucciuente du~ to inudequ.lte lighting or traffic c~~ntrol systeme, however~ the subJect
property owner had dedic~~ted land necessary for insr.al.l~tion ot the ligh~ing sy~tem and
the si.tuutiou was corre~ked; and that tie wc~1d agree ehat th~rF wae a lo~ ~~f traffic on
Eu~:lid which would probaUly in~rcase.
T~~l~ PUBLIC HEARING ~1AS C1.GSED.
Commie,sioner. Gauer tioted the.t altha,~gh traff!c accidPnts hud not occurr.ed, they ini~ht and
~tlso fires could occur if ~her.e was a lot of kraeh, ~-s me-iLloned; and that the City had
been promised many things Uy thc~ petitioner in the puet ',iat had never taken pZace•
In response to questioning by Commiesioner King, Mr, Raymond t'urther atipulated thrt they
would cc~mply witt~ any requirements except to set the huildirtg bn.ek f~~m the street.
Chuirman Herbst reviewed [he hiat~~ry of the impruvei. nts on the Kub~ect propercy and noCed
that the peki.tioner had neglected Co apply f.or builc:.ng permits on many occastons prior to
construction of additions to the produce stand; that the variancF before the Commission
was a repeat of som~thing that could h~ve been avotded; that the petltioner should conform
to tl:e requirements that apply to everyone i~, the Ci.ty; that, in l~is opinion, the pett-
tioner was acting as though he did not have Co come to rhe Ci~y Hall Co comp].y with the
requirement3; that many ci.tations had been iseued regarding thc Sipn Code, when othet•
busiue~ses in the Cily w~re conforming; th~t during the Halloween 'nolidays, the produce
stand could nut tc seen because of the pumpkin~ that were placed cut in the rignt-of-way;
and that the Code indicated vegeeable stand was allowed only if *_he prod~~ce was gf'own in
conjunction with it,
tr. Raymond stated that th•^~'e were t4 acres of farm land in con~urction with the produce
3tand and he did not know what percentage of rne pruduce was giown on that land.
Chn~rman Herbst nul-ed c,iat the petitioner had procee~ed to oper..^t~ an~. consCruct additions
~o ~.he sub~ect atand with complete abandonment ~f the City C,ode~; that arQroximatPly £our
years ago the petLtioner »romise;; to comply wit:1 the getbacka b:~3 prer~er.tly h4 wea re-
auesting to have the :°-tbacks waived since i.r_ was too expenRive as chey would be in ~pera-
tion for only Cl~ree more yeara; and that if thP petiticner had cumplied four years ago he
would have had seven years over which to spread tha ex}.anse.
In respunse Co questioning by Commiaeioner Farr•t. C~~r•r~a~YA1~ea~stnat~ainc~htheeprecious~tt
of the setbacks, Chey would provide. whate~-er y 4 -
zoning acti~n, ma~~y improvements had been ma~: :.n compliance with the Buil~:ing ('~~ie, i. e. ,
addi.tion of bathrooms, and electrical Hnd stru~:tural improvements; that he wa.s not nware
of any current Bui]dir; Code violatiaab however, if there were any he would abree to
comply; und that tuey had r~•moved the tr.diler that was erecCe~ on thf_ property sincE it
appeared to be contr~ry t~~ he Code.
In tespoase tc queet!oning Uy Commisaioner King~ Mr. Raywond Ftated that to place Lhe
b~iilding back eo comply with the Zoning Cod.c would be demolition of the build~_ng.
~
~
~
i4INUT[:S, CTTY PI.ANNiNC GUP9~1ISSI.ON~ NovamUer U., 1974
VART.ANCF. N0. '1b47 (Con~inued)
74-~ ~
Commiesioner. Morley nu~ed ~~~~tt li~ had raaervati~~ns thnt the etcucture on lhe eub~oct pruperty
would me~4 the Ilu.lldinq Cud~ rrsauirement~; und Mr. Raymond then otated that the buildingN
were old end frum tim!• t.o timc had b~en piecad together tu mQet the Cade.
Chairman Herbst then n~~cE~ thut tt~a CiCy Council had Morked with thc petiCioner ovar tlie
yeur~ and after th~ thr~~~-yerr varinnce run uut~ th~ (,ity Council ullowed a one°year
exttnaAon an thn ~ remir;~+ ~ho,t ~i~a petiCionez wxs going to •~hase the bullding oue at the
end o£ ti~ -t t~ime; tllur ~ h~ subject v~riance request appear~ ~ to b~ for e~ c.onti.nuence of
sometht.n~; that probabl~~ Hhould not hove been ti~er.e in the fir~l plac~~; that if the peti-
tioner hud ~ppl.;.~d for b~~ll.ding permika. the City would have h~lped h,u put up the atand
cucreetly; jliid l•hat tho ~~reBer~t situation wae not £uir ta the :est oE the people in ~he
City.
Coc~mtasioner Farano ~fferr.d o motion~ secended by Commi.ssi~~ner Gauer and MOT:ON CARRIGD
(Commiaeionere Jot~nsun unJ 'I'~~l~ir hei.ng absent.), that Che Planning ~;ommiseiun r,-comm-endb to
the City Cout~cil. that tiie suhje~~ pruJect be exempt from the requirement to prepare an
Gnvironment~~.l ,~npsct Report pureuant to the providiona of the Cnlifornia Env:lx~n~ental
Qitn Lity Act .
Commiesioner Farano ~~ffered Resolution No. YC74-220 and moved E~r ir~z n~-•~,n~~,~ r~nd adoption
to deny petition for Vnriunce No. 2647 on lhe basis of th~ foll .1nRe: (See
Reciolution Book)
(1) Tl~at on February 24, 1970~ the City Coun~il @ranted temporary uec of the produce
ciarket for a period of Chree yr~ard 9nd, yubs~~quenely a one-year exteneion of time w~s
granted; and that B~T~~C the t~mporery use was gr~nted, additional ~oning vio?aCl.ons have
occurred, givtnE tlie I~Lan~ing Cammiseiori no reason to believe that the petition;~r intendo
to re~tify an extr.em~ely dangeroue situation.
(2) :hat tne continued conduc:t of the aub~ect nea~, is not purauant tu Che best
ir~terest of. the community, innemucti as it vi~~' Lhe c~ramunil•y health~ safety and
gener.al welfare conditiona.
(_~) Thnt_ the sub~ect pr.oduce market has continued to uperace for the paet aeveral years
!.n com}~lete disregard~ neglect and abandonment of the Codea~ draP.ite =apented requeets and
demands by the City co bring the ~.Cructures up to C~de.
(G) That the pr~rking i.tuation ar. the auU~ect e~tablishmc.it posr~eases a potentially
dangerous circumatance in relaT.ionship to ingrea: and ~~gr gs from Euclid Street.
(5) That if the peCitioner does not i.ntend to ~~ing th~ property and attuctures into
atrict compliance with the Code and without approval of a var-lance, rhen it is recommended
that said produc. markeC cease and deaist Co operat~ on the subject propErtv; h~wever, if
t-he petitioner is deairous of ineeting the requirements of tt~e Code to c~ntinue the use,
then a written proposal reci.tin~ Apecifically how they w~uld comply is r.equested, and no
verbal i•epresentationa as inadz at the 1'lanning Commisaion public hearin~ will be acceF~~ed.
Or roll call, the foregoing ~'esolutiun was passed by the f.ollowi.ng vote:
AYF,S: CUP4~SIS`'T.ONERS; Fi.:.ANO, GAUER, KING, I/tURLEY, HERBST
NOES: CONQYIISSION,^:RS: NONs:
AASCNT: COh4SISSION~RS: JOI~ISON, TOLAk
VARIANCE N0. 2641 - Pi'13LIC HEARING. ALUOR CO1tPORATION, 363 South Msin Stc~et, Suite 108,
Orange, Ca. 92668 ((?4mer); KENNETH L. PAYNE, 1115 Diane Avenue,
Placent~a, Cc+. 92670 (Agent); reqLestiag WAI~IER 0~ (A) PF.ItMITT~D USES,
(B) P~RAtITTED OUTDOOR USE5, (C) MINTttUM FRONT SETBACK, A. (D) PERML'TTFll SIGNING, TO
ESTABLIS .1 TRUCK AND TRAILER R~NTAL AND REPAIR PACrLITY on pro_erty deacr•ibed ~as: A
rectangularly-shaped patcel of land consisting o` a~~~roximately 0.5 ~-cre iocated at ehe
southweat corner of Miraloma Avenue and Kraemer 3oul~~ard, having frontages of approxi-
mately 150 feet on the south side of Miraloma Avenue and approximately 14Q feet on tt~e
west side of Kraemer Boulevard. Property presently claseified M--1 (T.Tt~HT YNDUSTRIAL)
ZONE.
~la one indicated their preaence in oppoaition to sub~e~t petitiun.
Although th~ Staff Report Co the Planuing Commisrsion dated November 11, 1974, was not read
at the public tiearing, it is referred to and made a part ofr the minute~.
\~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY Fi.ANIJLNG COMMISSION, NovemUrr 11, 1974
VARIANCf: N0. 26~~1 (~:~ntL,ued)
74--51.6
Mr. Jack Rogere of Arl Pryor Rc~ulty~ reprexentli~g the agent for the petitioner, uppearc~d
before the COpI(pI.PB~On and etat~~~l the subjecc property had b~en vaeul~~ lor a long tlme ~nd
was an eyesore; thnt they wuuld ytipulate to providing t;rash etors-ge nre~,e in nccordnnce
wli1~ Cl[y requiremenko; r.hnt r.egurcting r.he removal. of two of the tour exietinR drlvE~weys,
tl~at would b~~ very expendlv~ and~ the.r.e~nre, tiiey were propoei.n~ to t~nvc ~xick-like
pillurs, npproxin-ntely 2 feet htgti, nt t:h~~ edges of the drivewAya witL heavy che.n dr~rping
n~rose, in Additicn to plnnterN, blocking tt;e drivewnya; thA't reqArdi.ig the dlepoeil.ion of
the gaso2lne tanke, thc uwncr of the. property had agreect to do whatc~~ Y th~ City required
ul.though they ur.deretood lhaC there wna u puseibillty that sgid tanke cou'u br_ tilled
inytead of remaved, but i[ ttiey were no~ allowed to fill them for nny reneon they would
r~movu them.
Dsputy CiCV Attorney Frank Lowry udviaed thn~ the Fire Code w~uld perniit gAr~~~, " ne tunke to
be f~lled, however, the fill. wuuld Ue a mixture of sund and cemenC uc~d it ,ould be im-
pos~ibl.e ta E~ver use the tankK ur to remove them ]uter.
t•ir. Rogere ~hen atipu]aCed thut all of the ,umps woald be removed ~nd atated their ir~tent
wc~a to remove the small can~~py nnd island off Miraloma Avenue but Lo retnin '.he canopy off
Kraemer Bou.levara; Chat the aCr.uctural eupporCe for Che cuncpy off Kr.aemer werc ~~r~~hin the
setbacl~ rPyuirr~ment buC the overhang was not; Chat: the canopy was not a solid obsr.ruction
thrst would detract fcom the lundscaping aud the canopy woul.d be uf valne for ~+h~ded areA
to diaplay the rental equipment; however, if rhe Commisoion decided to have ull ~f the
cnnopiea removed, tliev would cerr.sinly do su, tie continued by etaCing ttiat sin =c thc~
corner lot had m~ny ~tringent requirrments~ incl.uding all of the BeCbacka, they wauld J.ike
to cumprumiae regar.cling the setback requirements if posaible; that preaenkly the ~roperty
wna a definite liabi.lity to the property owner and, wiC~ the sub~ccC dev~l.o~ment, it wouid
b~ an asset to the City; an~ thaC the proposal would proviae a servlce to the induetri.e&
in the area for minor repai.rg and servicina atid for tenta] facilities.
AaeisCant 7.oninE Sup~rvisor Annika Santalahti read a letter recpived fr~m Rnn E. Luc.ero
e~cpressing concern regarding tF~e propoeal. and requesting that [he park'.ng areus be confined
to the sub~~~ct corner since the previous busincss used his propeYty for parking.
In rebuttal, Mr. R~gers stated Chey would be fenr_ing aff the ad;jacent prop~rt} ta the
wes t .
THE PUBLIC HEARING WA~ CL~OSisn.
In re~ponse: to questionind by Commiaeloner Ki.ng, Mr.. Rogers sttpulate~l that the sign could
be placed on tha bu:ldi,.g sl.nce tliey did not particul~rly need ro h~v~~ a roof-mounted
si.gn, thereby eliminating the need for waiver of permitted eignin~,.
Commissionsr Morley not~d that C.he Code prohibited outdool• display within tlie 5J•-foot
setbaclc and, oii that >>~isis, the petiC.ioner would not need the canopy bei.ng discusaed; that
the Planning Commissi~~n apPreciated that the petitioner was tryins to improve and beautify
the s::te and, in that reapect, removal of the pump islands and canopies would improve it.
Chairman Herbst noted that tt-e ~ervice station site had enJ~~; d certain Building Code
restrictions and the exCra curba cute and the minimu:n setbacka, in order to aervice the
pump areas; that the Commiseion had *_o move with caution in ttieir conr~iderations of
converting such a site to another uae since in any ~tl~er area the property woiild have to
abide by the required aetbaclcs~ etc.; and that ~lthough the 50-fooC setbscks were tough ~o
abide by, r.he siCe had to cor.form to the atandards of any other busineas, if not to be
used for a service station And, on that basis, rhe Commissiun was inalating ti~at 4he pump
islands and canopies be removed.
The Planning Commission entered into dl»c«saion with the petitioneX regarding the actual
use of the proper.ty during which the petitioner atipulated rhat they were pro~:osing to
have recreational-type cruck~ and rscreational trailers for renC and w~uld be makiag minor
repairs and servicing rrcreational-typ~~ vehic'_eg; th~t there would be no semi-trucks ur
trailers, and na moving vans; th:, the recrer~tionsl vehiclea would not exceed 7.0 feet in
length and thare would be no more than 10 recreatio.~a.t vehicles displ~yed in the front
stru^Cural setbacks ati any ona Cime and no more than S vet~icles atored inside the fenced
r~reaVat any une time, with all out-oi-door minor repai.r ~nd servir.ing to be donP ~.naide
tt~e fenced area only. He furtl~er atared that any motnr homea t'or rent at the subject
locatiou would not ex~eed 7.0 feet i:~ iength; and that they pregenr,ty had an operution in
the City of Brea wt~ich co~l~ be reviewed by the Planning Comwi~ssic~„ if rhey so desirad.
•
~
O
MTNUT~:5~ C1'I'X PLANNING CQrtMISSION, Noven~b~~r 11, 1~74
VA1tl.ANCt: N0. 264.1 (Continued)
74-517
Mr. Luwry Advieed th~t nn Lnterdep~rr.mc~nt:il. c,ummittee recoaunendatlon h+~d been inadvarlenLly
oml tted fro-n the Stc~f f. REpoct t.~ tt~c 1'lsnninR CommJ: ai.on. "'fhut the~ exieting etrur_CUre
xhnl.l be bruugli~ up to t.h~~ minlmum etundnrde of the Clty of. Anuheim, including the Uni~urm
13uilding, Plumbing, lilectricnl~ Flou~ing~ Ftechanicnl. ~nd rir.e Codes~ c~e udo~Ged i~y ~.he City
~F Mt~hetm"; tliac tlr,e Bui].di.ng Cudc reyuir~ments could nut he waived nnd c~lthuugh the
,cieking et:uetuce may h~~~~~ ~net: the Ruilcling Cocle r.equi.remente tor a Hervl~~e station ur.~ ,
it wnuld naC neceys~irily meet the Code fl- Che proposed use. Mr. Payne, the agenr fur the
pert.tioner, then indicnt~~d :nat rliey I.~~d intended tc~ inKtall additi.onal 1lghting, palnt
the building tc: makc i~ ii~t:ncrive, nnd p~:rhnps inr~tull p~~nter3 in front of the building
1.tse.~f.
Commiasioner M~z~iey n~~ceci thak by muvli~~; the p~~~~.~nr, cir.cri hack frum Kracmc~r t3oul~~v,ird th~
congeation of thr_ site would be cleared up conaiderah]y and would ellow for better
ci.rcul.ation.
Chairroan He:r.bst note~ that there 5h~~+.ld be abeolutely no servicinR ot• repair of. equipmenC
within thc 50-fo~t ai~t'backa i~nd thut rhe CotGmisaion did not waut tlie fronc nf the aub~ect
propert;~ r~olicl wl.r.~; ~ebiclea, hnwc~ver, there ahould be a reason~ble displny area.
~;~mmissi.~^. ~r Gau~. noCeil ttinC therc hnd bepn several difierent appl.i.cntio~e duiing tl-e
year for conversi~n of existing set•v~.ce atc-L•1.on si.tes, and the suUject appllr.aCion prob-
ably viol~tec: the zone requirem~~~.~'y more than any oi` the athere; fhat th~ CommisAton
ahould watch the development of ti~e various aites to determine whether more conve~sions
aho~ld be approved; r~nd thAt h~ ~~ould vote to aFprove ths sub~ect vAriance but with Aome
res,.rvariorie.
It wae noted that the Director of Development S~rvi:.e.s had det~nnined that ttie proposed
:ictivity fell within the Jefinition of 5ection 3.01, Cls~ss 1 of. the City of Maheim
Guidelines to the Requirements for an Envir~~~mental Impact Report and WAA~ therefore,
categori.cally axempt from Che requixement to file an EIR.
c:~mmissioner ~torley offered Re~ol.ur.ion No. PC74-221 and moved for its pttssage and adoption
Co grant peti.tion for Vari:~nce No. 2641 in part, grantin~ waivers of the permitted u~ea
and permitted uutdoor. us~~ Eor recrestional truck and recreational Crai.ler rental, r~pair,
and srrvicin,^, on the ba:;i~ that thP petitioner stipulated cha~ said vehicles would not
exceed 20 feet in ien~th and there would be no more than 10 vehicles dispJ.ayeJ iii the
front structural ~et'~ack at :.ny ~ne Cime and no mare tnan 5 vehicles would be atored
inside tlie fenced area :c any une time, ~nd Chat p~:mission is granted to make minc:
rapairs out-of-doors in Lde the fenced area on1y; granting waiver of minimum front setback
abutting an arterial hiy,hway, in part, to ailow the display of a winimum of. 10 recreational
ve}~icles in the 50-foot front setbur.k with absolutely no servicing of any lcind to occur
in said setback; that waiver of p~.mite~~s signing was withdrawn by the peti[ioner with the
stipulation tl?at the sign would be attached to the face of the bnildJ.ng and not roof-
mounted; suU3ect t;o the candi.tion thst the most easterly driveway on Miraloma Avenue and
tha most iior~herly dri.veway on Kraemer Boulevard be removed a~id replaced with st.,...a~~ ~d
curb and gutCer and sidewalk, and l-hat the 10-foot wide landscaped plantera be extended
acr~ss said areas; tliat the e:xiating pumps and pump islands, including the pump islai:d
~at~opies~ snall be removed and the g4soline ~anks shall be filled or removed as required
by t:he Fire Department, as stipulated to by the petitioner; that the existing atructure
shall be brougt~t up to the minimum Duildir.g Code :.tandardc; and subJect t~ conditio~is.
(Sc:e Reso.lution Buuk;
On roll ca21, t'~e foregoing rerio.lution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COt~4ISSI0NER5: FARANU, GAUER, KINC, 'MORLEY, HERBST
NOES: CONII~IISSIONERS: NOlIE
ABSENT: COi~1ISSI0hERS: JOHNSON, TOLAR
~
~
~
MINU'1'L'S~ CI'1'Y PI.ANNING COA41iS510N, Nov~+n~bi~r 11, 19J4
14-S1.8
VAkIANC6 N0. 2(~49 ~ 1'IIBLIC N~ARINC:. WEitNGR AND JI,AN I~'RAIJZ, I S1E1 Cur~nndo, Annheim, ..n.
"~ 92806 (Own4r); HKUCE .101lirSON~ Anecul F:nglnecri.ng Compnn;, 222 F.e~~+t
[,inculu Avenuo~ Annheim, Cu. 92803 (A~enT.); reque5ting WA:VER 01~
MTNT.MUM L~'P S'i7.L~ 'CO LSTAiil,iSil FOUR R-H: [,OT5 on propecty ~jeacribed xn: Aii irregulnrly~
vhnped par:_t~l o( lund conalAting oC Approxlmetely ~.98 acree hxving n fronrugo of upprc~xi-
mately ~SU fa~~t on the nor.theaatcrly eid4 of Lakeview Avc,»ue, hnving a maximum daptli of
r1{~p~'oximncely G20 i'ect, e~Rd being lucr~ted f~pproximatety G30 frel southeaHeerly of t}~~~
c:~ntc>.rliue of Gantr 4nu C~nyo~~ Roed, f'rop~r[y p~~.~~ntly claHelfied R•-i: (RBS7UGNTIAI.
F.S1'A'CE) 'LUNL.
Four persona indicuted their presenr.e in oppoeiti.on to suU,j~ct petiti~,rt; and one .lr.tter
wua receiv~d in oppoelkion cc~ntuin.ing two algnnture~, Ueiiig Mrs. Goldis Montgcmery II[l~
Clnyborn 1., (iYAVCB.
AwsiRtant 7.ouing Supervlsor Annika SAncaluhr.i reaJ the SCafF Report to the Ylanning
Cummi3aian dnted Novcmher J.L~ 1974, nnd :i.1ICS Str~ff Report 3g refr.rred tu ns if set forth
in tull iii th~ minute:+.
Mr. John Stevenson~ repreycnt.l.ng the aqent :or the petitioner. appenred before the Commie-
sion r~nd stipul,~eFd ~o complying wi.th Ch~~ conditlonR of approval set f.~rth i~i the Staff
Report~ including tho etreet Gedi.ciiti- ., :le further ~tated thar une of the four prcpoaed
lo[e wne .98',t Mcre .ln eize, or 7A4 syuare fcet ehort of the required on~~ acre; and thnt
they did not cor,ei.der the reyuested vurl.nnce to be ma±or.
Mr. Brian Ai.ttke, 372 Perc~ltc~ Hilla Urive, repreaenting the Pcrnltu Hille Hcrmcownera
AesociaCion~ uppenred hefare the Commiasion and staCed the As.~ociation had t~,ken !he stand
that aJ.l home siCeN in the 1'erAlta H111•• arefl be ane acre minimum in size; ch~,~ the r~-
quesi:=3 vsriance waR contrary to tlie minimtun acrPage and ttiac tne proposed grur~s 3crc~age
was 3.9 ~r net ricreage was 3.3, to be d~.vided into fuur l.ots; that the Aesocietion be-
lieved that any deviztion Lr~n~ the eRtAbliahed one-acre minimum would etart the ball
rolling f.or fulure variance rc~~~uests; th,it the Aasociution liud opposed other. vuriance~ for
1e~s thAn ai~ acre und, with the street dedicstian, dr~tnage, ete., the site was consider-
iibly :le~:s than oue ~cre^ that although Chey were 9ymp~thetic wi.th thc. developer~ there was
c~ pos5ibility that tlie slte c.ould be devel.oped with larger loCs t}ian propuaed; that the
Aseo~:±~tion hoped t~ maintuin the tradition of nothing less than one-acre s.ltea ~In~ Peralt-a
Flil.la; that tl•are hud b~:en much developme..t in the arec~ and the devel.opera were meeting
tha one-acre Bite r.equtrement and they woald i~rge Che Planning Commirssion ~intsin Chat
standard in the subjNCt area.
Mics Sant:~l.ahti reaa the letCer of •~position yigned by Mrs. Goldie t4onCgamery and Clayborn
~. Graves, £c~llowing which Mr.. C.avas~ 4800 Lakeview Avenue, ~p[?eared before ttie Commisafon
atid ~tate.l he lived directly acrosa the sCreet from the eub~ect property and wished to
emphasize Che points bYOUgtit out in his letter; that he t~ad lived at hia present addreae
sii:.e ~948 r_nd since r.hat time many homes had been constructed in his a:e~; tliat ar.iginatly
ther~ :lere ciCrus groves al.l around him and Santa Ana Canyon Road was to the north of them,
ar.d ur.til recenL•ly Lliey had not been conce~'ned nt~out property lin~s; and t~:~t be had
assumed tt~aL Lakev.tew Avenua belonged to the City. He expressed concern re~arding the
taxes beLng paic for land that w~~ dedicated to public use and stnted that the petitioner
had indicaL-ed he peryonally owned Lakeview Aver~ue; that i.f said atreet be.came a four-lane
road, Cher. he woul.c! ~saume that yome of the frontage would come off of the petitioner's
property whi n would reduce the prop<>sed lote conalderahl~; that ~E there was to be a 25-
foot setback for the Scenic Corr.idor~ tlien the subJect property would be further redu~ed;
and that the reducttons being .:~nt~.oned were to happF~ in rh~ future but cieed~:d to be
considered at thie Cime.
In rebuttal, Mr. tevanson stated thty were not considering net acreage aince Che Code
called for gross acreage as had alway. been the caoe; and that the lot reqiiiring a
var~+~.nce was an odd-s'aped lot and would be 2 to 3 feet ahort at the lot line on any one
of tYie aidP~, if appro~ed.
In regponae to questioning by Chairman Herbst, 7.oning Super.visor Charles Roberts noted
that although he did not ha•e a copy of ttie Pernlta Hills agreement to r~fer to, the zone
had a r.egulation denling with the minicium aize of th~: ~ots ana~ thereupan, Mr. Roberts
read Coda Section 18.18.030(3): "Minimu~r lok bise. Ti~e minimum lot size ahall be ane
scre (forty-three [housand five hundred aixty equare feet) including dedicated atreeta
End/a~ publ~: easementa for ingresa and egresa, provideu that lota of record on the
effective ~ate of this chapCer, regardlPSS uf area~ dhall be 3eemed to comply with thi~s
proviaion."
~ ~
MI'~JU'f..S, c;ITY PLANNING (,UMMI3SIUN~ Novembor ).1, 1974 7rrSl9
VARiANCk N0. 2649 (CotyGl.nucd)
Mr. KohartH f~.irther advised that the R-k: (Keeidenl•inl F?citHee) ?.on~ w~e eypeciall~ muanC
f~r the P~+rn1CU Hills ~rea.
Chairmnn Herbdt no~ed ; int the SCCCI~C Corridor would iiot tnkr +~ny Rr.ound f.rum Cl~~ pcoperty
own~~c. hut thnC th~ ~U~~.C~~I1~H were r~quirad Cn bo ect back r~ c~~rtui.n dietance, xnd Ch~ Net°
back area remoi~ied for u~e by the property owner and did nor. reducc the lot c+ixo.
Tt aae noted tt~at a p+~rcel map t~ad been uubmitt~~d~ but ~cliat nc~ Nilc p1Ans werA availnbl~
to indi.c~ke the sEetucicke, eC~=.
In r.~epuase to yuc~tloniiig by Commidsinner Farnno ragnrding grading o[ ~h~ aub,ject property.
Mr. Stevenaon H[ar.ed there would be j~at enough cut and fi11 to make level building psde ~and
~u': would be tr~ken from the hi.gil sid~ and ueeci for fill on rhe front.
In responae ko fur.•ther questioning by the Planning Commissi.on, Mr, Steveneon etipulated
Cht~C he would provide grndinq and eite plune to the Plnnning Commleslon und/or City Council
foc revi.ew and acceptance prior to ttie isauunce of buil.din~ permite.
Chairman Herbet noted ~~r the peLiCioner C}iat ~'erglta Hill.e w.s the pride and 1oy of Anaheim
and ttic Comm:lssior- hud L•r.t.ed to iiold the line with reapect to th~ ei.ze of the homes and the
prop~rti.eR; und hc~ questtorled wheCher the petitioner had given Rny thought to dividinti the
propcrty into three lota rather than four, and alao questioned what ti~e petitloner felt
was the hardahip for Che requeated variance.
In reply~ Mr. Stevenson stated the apeciEic lot requiring the variance wae short of the
requlred size by a very amall margin and, ther~=upon~ Commisaioner Farano noted tt~at it
nppeare~l the on~a 1at would be approxlmata ly 1. 75T: ehort. of tlie required number of aquare
feet.
Commissioner Morley noked that. '...a hie opinion, ttie oppor~ition was overly cri.tical regard-
ing thE: propo~ed lot siz~ .uriance, and Comminatouer Farano noted that he failed to see
any reasonaUlene~^ :.~ ttie approach U~:ing used by the opposition; that he di.d not like to
deviate either., hAwever, the ama~nt ot 6quare footage in~~olved in the subjer_t r~quest was
very emall and the devi~tian was not to a m~asurable extEnt.
Mr. L'ittke referred to both the groafl and n~r. ucreage and stated the basir, premi~e of the
zone was for one-acr.e minimum lot size and he found it di.fficult to draw a line £or an y
deviation.
In responRe to questioning by CommiRaion~r Farano, Mr. Bittke stated he was suggeating
that the sites be one and one-•third acre each as xn alternative to reque~i.yng the variance.
Commissioner Farano noted that he agreed ttiat there had to be A reasonable line drawn for
deviations from the one-acre site requirement; however, the deviation proposed app.lied to
only oiie of khe four lots and if t.he shortage was divided up among the four luts, the
amount would be a minute difference and would not ,justif.'y requiring the owner to divlde
into three lots instead of four.
Mr. BLttke then stated that the conce:n of. the Aasocintion was the precedent that would be
set, and or-ce there was a deviation. particularly in the Peraita H311s area, it wnL~d b~n-
r_ome a problem. Commissi.oner Faruno then noted that if the r.Qquest was~for a g~'eater
devlation, rhen he wauld be inclined to go aloiig with the opposition, hoo~e.er, the requ~asC
was so diminimuus that he felt it should be granted almost without reason.
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advi.Eed that the courts had ruled that there wue no
precedent set in zaning matCers~ even though tlie Commissi.on aometimes £elt t:-at precede~nts
exigted.
Commtasioner Farano then noted that the phi7.osophy of the F~lanning Commisaion was to ~udge
a request on ita own merit; that if the zoning requirements were intended to be carried
out to the letter, this body would not be needed; that lie could certainly underatand the
concerne of the Peralta Hills homeowners; thgL' the Planning Coma~issinn had made eome mis-
takea in Che past which were evi.dent to the P1Hnning Commisoion as wetl as anyone else;
but, however~ all parties concPrned needed to be r~asonable to the polnt that a diminimoua
• ~
MINUTF.'S, CI'1"Y Pi.ANNING CUMM'[SSIUN, Nove~nber. 11, 197~- ~r~~~52~
y~~;,~.NU.~, 2649 (Continuc~d)
rc~quaet could be~ rec.ognized and i.r. appenr.ed tL+it the eub~~~ct vnriance waH surh n r.~eyunat;
thnt hc could not vieuallze r~ny ai.gnf.f.l.c.nnt or matarlnl dif.fere~ncc that t~h~ nddi.kion of
tho .U18 acre to the d~aficient lot would mak~, ur othorwirae li~ would be nne ot L'he flret
to vote ngninec upproval oti enme; ehat npprc:~al ot poid vari~nce woulcl not. ndverscly
nEfect ~ny of the ud,'Joining proper.ties; +~nd thnt th~~ propoer-1 would not f-ffect ttio yunllCy
~~r the amettitieN thnC thc property would poseeHe, or detract oe de~~tilunt~ t'.he acljoining
pcop~ct.iea.
IC was noted Cl~at the lllrecCar of Developm~nt Servi.ces had determii-ed th~t Che proposed
nctivity .fell within the definition of Sectiun 3.01, Clase 5 of tha CLty ot Anuheim
Guidelin~~H tu the RequiremenCs for an ~nvironmental Impnct Iti ~~orC und was, Cheref~re~
catc:g~~riciil.ly exempt from the requirement to C1le an E~IR.
CommiKaloner Fiarano offcr~d I'ESOlution I~o. PC74-27.2 und moved for ita pnssnga ~nJ ndoption
to grant pet~tion for Varinn~e No. 2G49 on tha basie of the foregoing f'inding:~, subject to
the condi.tion that the pr.~~perty owner(s} st~all. submit gra<ling and eite pl~ns to the Plan-
ning Commisai.on nnd/ox City Counci] for review and uc.ceptance prl.or to the ~.eauttnce of Clie
building permil•:~,u~ ~atipulntecl to by tnP petitioner; und Hub~ect to condit ione. (See
Reaolutio~i Book)
On ro11 cc~ll, the for.eboing reaolution w~s pnoaed by the Lollowing vote:
AYES: COI~tISSION~RS: FARANO,
NO1:S: C:~t~'.ISSIONERS; NUNE
ABSLNT: COMMISSTQNERS: JOHNSON,
GAUER, KINC, MORLEY, HERSS'T
TOLAR
1tECESS - Ar. 4:20 p.n~., Chairman tlerbst <ieclared a recese.
RL+CUNVENC - AC 4:30 p.m. , Chairmr~n ilerbst recorivened the meeY.ing wtth Commissionere
Johnaon An~l Tolar betng absent.
VARIANCE N0. 2650 - PUBLIC HRARING. RICHARll K. ROAS, ET AL, 877 '[bulon Drlve, Pacific
Palisades, (;a. 90272 (ownEr); GILDCR'f A. THOMAS, ATTORNEY, 17621
Irv~lne Aoulevard, Suite 101, Tustin, Ca. 92680 (Agent); requeeting
WATVGR Or PGRh1ITTF.D SIGN LUCATION TO R~CONSTRUCT AN EXISTING FRGE-STANDING SIGN on
prc~perty de~cr+.h~~1 a~: A rectangular].y-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately
1.0 acre having a frontage of approximate ly 155 Feet on the east side ot Reach Boulevard,
tiaving u ma,:imum depth oF approximately 280 feet~ ar~d being located approximat2ly 615
feet north of the centerllne of Lincoln Avenue. Property presently cla~sified C-3 (HfiAVY
COFiMERCIAL) 7.ONE.
~o one indir_ated their presence in opposition to subjecC petition.
Althougli thE Staff Report to the Planning Commiasion dated November 11, 1974, was noC read
at the publi~: hearing, it i_s referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Gilbert Thomas, Attortiey, the agent for the peCitioner, appeared before the Commiseion
and stated the patitioner was prnpoaing to modernize and upgrade an existing sign and said
sign would Ue in compliance with the Code requirements with the exception of the pole on
which it would be located; and that they would stipulate to upgrading and maintaining the
landscapinF, in the planter ~t Che base uf the aign.
THE PUBLIC HGARING WAS CLOS~I).
It was noted that the Director of D~:velopment Services had determined that the proposed
actlvity fell wi.thin the definitior of Section 3.01, Clnss 1 of the City of Anaheim
C;uidelines to the Requirements for an Environmental Impect Report and was, therefore,
categorically exampt from the requiremeat to file an EIR.
Commisatoner Morley offered Resolution No. PC74-22., and moved for its paesage anci adoption
to grant petitiun for Vuriance No. 2650, sub~ect to the etipulation of the petitioner and
sub~ect to conditiona. (See Resolution Boak)
Qn roll call, the forego2ng reaolution was pass~d by the follawing vote :
AY~S: COMMISSIONERS: FAP.ANO, GAUER, KING, MORLEY, HERBST
NUGS: CGP4~IISSiONERS: NoNE
ABSENT: COI~II.SSIONERS: JOHNSON, TOLAR
• •
MINUTF.S, CITY 1'I.ANNING CUMMISSIUN~ N~~vomber 11, .1974 ~h-521
VAItIANCE tr0. 2G52 - PUDLIC HLARING. WII.5NIRE WOODS, INC. ~ 92G WeaCwuod 3~ulevar.d~ L~a~-
^~ ' r~ Angelea, Cn. 90024 (Owncr?P COLOTTY KEALTY, INC,~ 14Q0 North HarGor.
TBNTATiVE MAf' QF Boulovard~ Suite 240, Fullcrl•on, Ca. 92635 (Agent). Pr~per[y d~K-
TMC? N0. 8683 cribed ~-s: An 1rr~agul.aYly-eh~ped parr.el af lnnd conNiecing of
V~ ' ~ appxoximnCel,y 3.6 t.iccea located northweetar.ly ~f. the interseckion
of. W1l.ehir.c~ Avenue ~nd Pearl Streat~ hnv~ng frnntuges oY ap~roximntely
34 fe~~t c~n the i~orth eide uf WitAhire Avanue nnd approxiaatel.y lSl feet on the wuet a.ldo
uf Pcarl Str.eet~ hr~ving a maximum depth ot approximately 61b fee~~ Flnd being locMted
approxinately 42U feet norCh o£ the center.line a£ Wilehira Avenue. ProparCy presently
claeAi£te;l R-3 (MUL'CZPLE-EAMILY ItESIUC~.N'fLAL) ZONG.
REQUGBT~D VAhI":;CC: WAIVER OF (A) MINIMi'M tiUIL~IrIC ST.TE AkEA PE~t DWI:Lt~ING lfN'LT, (Bj
MAXIMiJM BUILDING HEICHT, ((:) MAXIMUM SIT~ COVI;itA(:E, (D) MJ.NIMUM
STkIiCTURAL SETBACIC, (B) MINIMUM RECRGATIONAL-LEISURB Altl'sA, ANU
(F) MINTMUM OFF-STREI,T PAItKING ~'f0 CONVER'P AN EXISTINC 115-UNI'C
APAfI'PMENT CUMPLEX IN'i'0 COND~MI.NIUMS.
TENTATIVG TRACT REQUEST: ENCINL'ER: ItAULi, B~IN, FROS'r & A~S~CIATES, P. 0. Box 2590,
1401 Quai1 StreeC, NQw;~ort Bec~ch, L'n. 92663. ~ub,ject
property le propcsed ae a one-J.oC, 115--unit, R-3 aubciivieion.
It was noted thaC the petiCioner was requ~sating a two-week continunnce to the meering of
November 25, 1974.
C.~mmissioner Morley offered a motiun, aecond~d by Commissioner Ki~ig and MO'il0td CrtRRIED
(Commissic~:iere Johnson and Tolar being absent), to postpone khe publlc hearing and
consideru~i.on uf Variance No. 2652 and Tenta:ive. Map of Truct No. 8683 to the meeting of
November 25, 1974, as requeated by the petit:loner.
R~QUEST I'OR NEGA'TIVE DE(:LARATION FOR DEVP:LOYMGNT OF SCHWEITZGR PARK
'Lt was noted Chat the Parl:s~ Recreakion ~nd A~:ta Department was propos~ng to develop a
City park on a 7.'L--acre aite northwest of the interaeck.ion of Uaie Avenue and Broadway;
Chat the proposed site was bounded by Carbon ('reek Channel on ~he north and west,
Schweitzer ~l.ementary School on the east~ and a reaidential azea on t.tie soutt~; and that
it would appear that the development of Ltie proposed site as a City par k wuuld be com-
paCible with surrounding land uses and would have no Hdverae environmen tal impact.
Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded b!~ Commissioner Farano and MOTInN CARRIED
(Commissioners Johnson and Tolar being abaent),, thflC Che Pl.anning Commis4lon recnmmends
*_o the ~ity Council that tt~e subject project bE+ exempt from the requirement tu prepare
an ~nvironmental Impact Report pursuant Co the provisions of the Calif arnia Cnvironmental
Quality Act.
REQUFST POR N~GATIVC DECLARATION F~~R DEVGLOPML~N'T OF RIO VISTA PARK
It was noted tha[ the Parks~ Recreation and Art:3 Depxrtment was proposing to develop a
City park on a 5-acre eite lacated aouth of Rio ~listn School, eaet of Rio Vista Street
and nortt~ of Dutc.h Avenue; that the proposed eii:e was bounded on the north by Rio Vista
School and on all other sides by residential art~as; and that iC would ~ppear that the
development of this site ae a City park would be~ compatible with ~urround~n~ land uses
and would have no adverae environmen[al impact.
Commisaioner King offere~ a motion, seconded by Commissio:ter Morley and MOTION CARRIF.D
(Commiasion~rs Johnson and Tol.ar bein~ absent), that the Planning Commission recommonde
ta the City Council that the sub~ect pro~ect be exempt irom the requirement to prepare
an ~nvironmental Impact Report pursuant to tha provisiona of Che Calif or.nia Envir.onmenta.l
Quality Act.
~ •
MINU'TES~ CT1'Y 1'1.MlNI.NC CUr41ISSIUN, Novemher ll., 1974 i4-522
PU1fL1C HEARINC.
CGNERAL PLAN AMLNUMF.N'L' NU. 1.35 - To c~oneide.r e~n umendroe.nt to lho Cir.cul~i~.lon l~le~n~~nt -
` -' '-'--`~ ~~~ Hlghway Rl.ghl•s-c~f-Way And ArteriRl Str.eere snd HiqhwayH
Map of the Anr+hc:im General Plun t<~ rerslign and/or rr.-•
clnesify Gunyon ltirn Kof-d, Fair.mont 8oulevard, Serranu Avenue. Conl. Canyon Rui~d and Vl~a
[:HCOll.o rnct to deleta l:ucnl.ypl'uH Grive bet:ween Co~l Canyon Roud and Nohl kanch Kond~ and
to delete Nohl Ranc_h Itorld between Wc~~•r Canyon Road xnd SQrrr~nn Aveiiue.
It wue r.oted that du~ ko sev.:ral ch+~nges which had occurred eince Che put~llc:-Cion of the
public~ notice t~r thia mntter, r.hHt r.hc ~mendm~~nt woul.d require rendvertisemen~ of the
public Il~tti'~il~{ i~at ir.e uud therFfore ~ poatponemenf. wo~1d be in order tu t-.he meeCing of
November 25, 1974.
Commi.deioner Kinq oE[eced n motion~ seconded by Commienioner Morley and MO'fION CAItRIED
(Commiesiancrs .Johneon and Tolar being flbsenl) ~ t<~ po;3tpcne the publlc l~earing und cc~n-
aiderntlon o£ (:F~nere.l. P.lan AmendmenC No. 135 to Che meer.ing oE November 2S, 1974.
PUDI,IC HEl1RiNG.
GGNGRAL PLAN AMENbMENT N0. 1.36 - To conaider addl.ng spe~iFiu ]Angunge to Che Cen<~ral Plan
"" -` to permit agricultural ~nd open Aj~FiL'P_ uaes in the R-A
fResidtntiul Agric~iltural) 2one.
No une indicated thr.ir pr.esence in opposition Co the sub~ect ~uatter.
91 thoiigh ':he Staf f lteport: to the Planning Commission d~ted Novamher 11, :t97G ~ WAA not reud
at the public hearing, it ls reterred to aaci mxde a part of tl~e minutes.
It was noted that a verified requeyt had been received to establish an ugricu'ltural
preaerve on property locat~d aC 185k South ttarbor Boulevard; that undNr ttie current
Anaheim GNneral Pinn tliere were no apecific pravisiona for agricultural or oppn space
usea of land an~' , theref.ore , no appropriate method to implement r~r~me; Chat Che propoLaed
sgricu.ltural preserve requ~st wns referred ta the (:ity Council on September 17, 1974,
and aubsequently wne referred ta the Planning Commission for review and recommendation,
and on October 14, ].974, the Commission directed S~aff to proceed wfCh preparation of a
General. Plar~ Amendment to accommodate the proposed preserve.
Commiasioner King of.fered Resul.ution No. PC74-?2~> and moved for its pa~sage an3 adoption
t~ racoinutend to the Cil'y Council that Anaheim General Plan Amendment No. 13b be ~ppx'oved
to add the following specific language. to the text of the current Anaheim General Plan
and, in particu2ar~ to page b- Elements of the Plan - Planning Area A; and page 64 -
Planning Ar~a 13: (See Resoluti~n Buok?
"ThP City of Maheim haa a Residential Agricultural Zoiee wl~ich provides for
agrir_ultural 1nd open apace uses until propertfes are developed fur. raore
urbanized o r i.nclusive uses. It ia intended that this us~ge be allowed to
implement agriculCural preserves in the City."
On roll call, the foregoing r.esolurion was passed by the fo.llowi.ng vote:
AYES: COMMISSIQNi:RS: FARANO, CAUGR, KING, MORLEY, HERBST
;~OFS: COIYQ~IISSIONERS: A10tdE
ABSGNT: COI~Qyt?S~IONGRS: JOHNSON, 'IOLAR
PUBLIC HEARINC.
ADfENDMENT TC~ TITLE 18. - To conaider amendtnents to Title 18, Zoning Code, of the
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE Anaheim Munici.pal Code pertaining to site developMent stand-
ard9 in all one-fainily residential zones as f~ilows: (1) to
amend fro~t seCbaclc requirementa to provide for varied set-
backs and (2) to amend parking requirements to increa~e parking requirementa.
One person indicated hie preaence to ape~k cancernin~ the sub~ect matter.
Associate Planne~i Bill Young r.ead the Staff Report to the 'Plar,ning Cowmissioa dated
November 11, 1974, and said Staff Report ia ref~rred to ay if set forth in full in the
minutea. Mr. Young pointed out that the conclusiony cir.awn by Staff in preparation for
eai.d Staff. Report were conaisCent witl~ the di.scussions held with the Planning Commisaion
and City C~uncil at several work sesaions; thac ttta 1)evelopment Servicea Department
~
~
~
MINUT~S, CITY PLANNiNG CC`:~[MISSLON, November ].1, i.97<<
AMENDM~NT TO TI'CI.I:~18~ ANIWFlht MUN1.C?.PAT. CODI: (Cantlnued)
'14-52:i
Staff ha~1 dave~laped a mxthemntlc~ CiiU.le indicating the upproxic-at~ percan[age of the
potontinl nun~ber of 6-foo~ HetbnckN poeait~la st varioue average setUuck depClie on any
reeidentlt~l blc~ck and other nlternntive meana of pr.oviding far vnrleci a~cbacka und
ndequnt~~ pFtrking spncc~e in one-fnmily reai.d~ntibl zones, all oi which wne discuaeed and
reviewed by [he Fleinning Cr~nm-lsaion ~t +~ work nea~lon held October 21. 1974.
'ChQ Plunni.ng Commiaelon enturc~d tn[u di.ecuseion with Staff reg~rding the setbcick r~ve.ragi~ig,
duri.~g whir.h Staff clurified Chr~t thc~ amendment, aR {~ropoaed. would uccomplish 25X uE all
Kar~ges in the one-£nmil.y resid~ntial r.ona5 to b~ aQt: bRr_k 6 feet from Che fronC property
].ine aub~ect to cerl•ni.n condiCione. Chairmun flerbst noted that, in hia oplnion, tiie Ket-
beck averagin~ ahould not only lae Lor the kllJ.l and c:anyan Areu, ~iit for thc entire City,
Nince tt~e flat land 9hould heive tt~e Name aL•ility.
Mr. Young further reviewed the proposed amendment an~ indicated th~.C credir. would be
availnble to developera for setbuckv in exaeae oE 30 feet; that 3 ot:f-:,!.r~iet ~c~rkiri,',
spaceH would be required for front-on g~rrsgea Iocated less than 25 feet from the fr~nt
property l.ine; that no lesa than S parkinR s~aces wou.ld be requi.red for any one-fnm•Lly
dwelling, not leas than 2 of which wou.id be inyide Ch~~ gc~rage;and that any off-siCe p~rk-
ing epncea would be reyuired to be loca~ed not morE than 200 feet fror~ tl~e dwelling l.t
wne intendecl to serve,
M:. John Mill~ck~ V:tce Pr.eaident ot AnAheitn tiil.ls, Inc., appe~red Uefore the Commissi.on
and stgted the pr.aposed umendments would appear to offei nn incentive for more variances
oriChin tructs; that the developers were seeking streetscapes from a mairket~i.ng star_dpoi:it;
chak Chey were aeking for a 309: fl~ictuaCion from th~ 25-foot Aetbncks, but would like to
have 35":; Chat he would agree philooophically with the "credit" ~is~ect f.or aetb~icks, but
Would take excepti.on to the parking SpgcP requirementa aince their ~tatistical. data
indicated 1.69 cars per dwelling unit aa the average iit Orange Gounty, exclud.ing gueet
parking which might bring the total up to 3 or 4 cara per nnit; thaC he di.d not llkc~ to
see the env:ir.~nment designed for the automohile; that, tc, his knowledge, the origi.nal
re~son fur the proposed chsnge in eetbacks w~s t~ give flexibi.J.ity to the devel.opers, and
maximum flex•lbility shuuld be given.
In response Co questianing by Commispioner Gauer, Mr. rlillirk indicated thaC the data he
was referring to for parkln~ ~paces did not differentiate b~tween aparr.aents, condominiums,
high ~r l.ow-pri.ced }iousi:,g, etc.; khat Anaheim Hi.lle was a high-priced area and tt..ose
residents coulrl pr.ob=uly a£ford to buy IIs many cars as their. households required; that,
however, ;~e did not wish to encourage ~~~ple to convert their garages into darkrooma and
ar_orage areas and hoped the Commis~ion would arrive at a good average fer u~aximum flexi-
bility. Mr. Millick then atated if 40X fluctuati.on on the setbacks would work, ther! it
should be ~-0%.
Chairms~n 3ier.bst noted that ~ cars per household would be a fi~ure that everyone c~uld
live with, as ndicated from past history; and that the Commiesion would not favor 403~
of Che ael•backs being 6 to 10 feet.
Mr.. Millick staCed they had fuund a l.or. of resistance to side-on garages because the
front yard was full of concrete and those homes did not have as good a street~cape; that
tlie rear yard was rhe must valuable portion of a lot; that the builders would have to be
hardpressed to take advantage uf the "cr.edit" aspect, c~ince the back yards could be uaed
for swimming pools, etc.; and thut he would encourage some consideratian to the 30% or
40% flucttiation.
Cor.~missioner Farano noCed that witti tlae short setback3, the large cara were generally
parlced up againsC the garage doore and stick~.ng out on the aidewalks or parked in the
streeta; that with 40% being 6 to 10-foot setbacks, the residenta wauld not be encouraged
but discouraged from parking in the garages because of the inconvenience of getting in~.o
them; that, in hi.s opiaio~z, the developers being allowed credit for the greater setbar_ks
would be advantageo~is; and that even the 30Y< fluctua*_:~n would offer a fair balance.
Mr. Millir.k then stated that the greuter sekbacka, i.e., 30 feet, etc., would probably
be more realiatic in the flat landa.
Commisaiuner Ga~er noted that h~: ~lid nok favor b to 10-foot aerbacka, generally.
..w~
~
~
~
MINUTisS~ !,1TY YI.ANPJINC (,Q~iMISSfUN~ NovemhQr ll ~ 19IG
'14-52G
AMF.NDMLNT TO TLTI.[: 18, i~NAHIsIM Ml1NIC~l'Al. CODr (Contlnu~d)
GommidHioner rarur~o uoted thut he hr~d revlewed the Callexy developu-ent :ln c.he field nnd
]iked the pru~ect vary much~ hc.,,v.~r, tha cars were pNrked aut: in the etr~cta unattendad
which wae Chc~ problem confronti S the CoounJxsion; aud tl~r-t if ther~, wt~re morfe of the b
to 10-£oot !iC'.CbAC~C9~ t:hRn there rould be even more of a prob~E~m. Mr.. Mill.ick etaked hu
r.oncurred th~t carv rnrked in fr.~nc of ~he garc+gea wr~re u problem.
Tkli: PURLIC }iEARING WAS CLOSI:O.
The Planning Cor,~miAeion general.ly c~nrurred that the 3UX fluct.uaCion n~tn~ ais~uw~~a wne
not entircly aut of. ].i.ne, howevc~r, the 2SX wa~ more d~~a:irable and would prosent leae
difficultieH.
Chairman Herhec noted that wiCh tlie: 25:, the developers woul.d nnt have Coo much of th~
eame setbacks; that they woul.d be Hble to have 25-foot setbACk~ or setb~cky cl.oner to
th~ atreet~ and these variableA could he ACCOi11p~.~AI~(fv wiChout having to apply for n
vax.iance.
CummiAaioner Gauer offered Reaol.ut:lo~ No. PC74-~25 And wove~l £or its p+.~ssage and ndo{~tion
to adopt and rec~ommend to the City Couneil ~c:option of ameudments to tF~e Anulieim M~.~nicipa{1
Cod.e, TiCle 16~ Zoning, pc~rtaining to gurage ~etbarka nnd parking stnndr~rda J.n aYie••f~mily
residontial zones, as folluwa: (See Resol.ution Book)
,A. SCTBACK RF.QUIW'sMGNTS:
Amend the ~etback requirement of all one-fami~y re~tdential
zones to permit apptaximately tw~:nty~fi.ve (25) pErcc:nt of
all "front•-on" garagee [o be ser. back bix (6) feeC fr.om the
front property line aubject to certxin ~_•onditione as iallowe:
1...."Providc~d, howevex, that tt~~ mtni.mum seCback to any
"front-on" garagP ehrill be nat less than tw~nty-five (25)
Eeet unlesa said garage i.s ec~~ul.pped with an operable
automatic vehicle acceae door oper.er. in wliich cflse ~
minimum aetbttck of not lese than six (6) feet may Ue
permitCed, subject to a1.1. o£ the followi_ng conditions:
1. That no such gaxnge shall be. set back be.~ween Che
di.stancea ol ten (10) to twenty-five (25) feet
from the fronC prope:rCy linE~.
2. That L•he minim~im a~erag+e :~etback to all front-on
garages located on the same block shall. be not
less than twenty (20) feeC, and previ.ded that in
computing aa:td r~verape no additional averugin~
credit aliall be given for any garage aetbmck any
diatance greater than thirty (30) feeC from the
front property line.
3. That not leas tl~an three (3) re~~ident9.a1 parkin~
spacea shall be provided in any front-on gc+rage
located less than twenCy-flve (25) feet from L•he
front property line.
G. "r}lIIt the sptbACk to any front-on garagn located
on the curved portion af any cul-de-sac: atreet
shall be not leas than t~renty-five (?.5) fpet.
5. That, in kePping with the inCenC of tt~is pr.ovlsion
to provide for vAried setbacka, the setbACk r.o any
ad~acent front-on ~arages permitted nt lesa than
twenty-five (25) feet ahxll be varied by nor. leas
than three (3) feet."
~NOTE: 'Phe~e proviai~ne are intended to replace existing provioions pe*tai.ning
to front-on garage iti uil one-family a:ones, with exioting provisions for sPr-
backe tu all other atru~:l•~res to continue to apply •ln accordance with tt~~.
sCandarde of the underlying zon~ dtytri.ct, i.e., 25 feet in the R-A 2one.
25 feet or 257: of the depth uf t.he lor. i^. Lhe R-0 and R-1 Zones, 15 feet in
the R-H-22,OOC, And R-E Zo~ies (i~rovide~i r+n aver.r~ge of 25 feet 1~ mr-intained
in the R-H-22,000 Zone), 1(~ Eeer_ in tt~e R-H-l0,0U0 Zune, and S fee[ (avernge
of 10 feeC) in tha RS-50~0 Zone.
~ ~
MINUT.S~ C'[TY YLANNINU CUhII~tJ.SSION, Novc~mber 11, '1974
AMEN(-MEsN'P_'PO+1'ITLE 18, AIJAH[?IM MUN1CIPl:i. CODE (C~~ntinu~~d)
B, PARKING RCQl1IRf3M~N1'S :
Amend the 1'arkt.ng SCundard~ of i~11 Une-F~mi.l,y R~'sidentici].
7.ones ae fol.l.ows:
"YAltKING Rl'sQUIREMENTS: A Co[a!. of noC 1~KS than f.l.ve (~i)
p~rking sp~c«~e shall be provldec! for any c~cie-f.amlly
dwelling, nol• .l~~s~ th+~n tw~ (;'.) ot which Rhnll be pro-
vided in an on-aiCe gnrr~ge, provided furtner, that ~ny
oi'f-~il~ parking space(e) ehra'l' bc located not mare than
two hundred (200) fec~ fr.om th~ ctwelling it iy intended
to serve."
On roll c:all, ttie f.oregoin~ -ef~oJ.utt.on wne pnHSed by th~~ followin~; vor.c:
AYES: CODIMTSSLONI:RS; FARANO, CAUER, KINC~ MORL[:Y, HrR13ST
NOES: COI~4IISSIONERS: NONC
AIISENT : COhII~tI5° IONL'RS ; JOHNSON, TOT.AR
74-525
AMLNDhff:NT 1'U TT.TLB 18, - PUBLIC HEAR'iNU. To con~id~~r :m am~~n~'.~i~enC to Tikl~ 19, Zoni.ng
ANANEIM MUNICIPAL COl)E Code, of tr.c Anriheim Municl~~ol Code to repeztl C1iuPter 18.8U
' entitled "r"loor Spuce 3tequir.ements ln SQecific AreFie" in lts
entireCy.
No one J.ndicated their presence in opp~sltiun to ~hr subJect matter.
Aesociate Planner B111 Young pres~~nted Ctie Stnf£ lteport to ~the Planning Commis~ion dated
Novemaer 11, 1974, and said Staff Report iy rr_ferred to a~ if set forth in f~~ll i.n the
minutes. He n~~tc~cl tl-aC during t':it~ rec:oclification ~i the Maheim Munic'pal Code, it becnme
upparent Chat cercair- pr.ovieion~. of Chapte: .1F~.80 of said Code aad become antiquated and
{~ossibly irriul.id and, addirlonally, that "special excepCion" areas wherein regulations
differrd from r.he Htandard, of the undcrlying zone dl3trict were legally questionable, at
best, und Further com,~l.i.cF-ted the admini:~tration of the Zoning Cude; that :[n the absence
o£ Eloor nrca eCalciards for m~~st single-family reaidential zones, and the state of d:~vel-
opmen! of t•.tie ~~pecific areus deacribed ~in Chapter 18.80, regulations for the control of
~~.oor arer.fl within these areas were c;onsidered necessary at the time of ttieir adoption in
ord~~r ~~~ aasure the c~mpatif,ility of new dw llinge with exieting dwellings wittiin theae
~~rea:~ and lr~ keepi~ng with the characCer of Faid ~reas.
Mr. Jahn '-tillick, Vice Prf3i.denC of Anaheim Hills, Inc., appeared becore the Commisaion
?nd ind'_c~C~d that the mi~..imu::i flour area requlr.ed by FHA and VA would be a significant
tactv,. to consider.
THE ?UBLIC ti~ARING WAS i'~LOSED.
Cnmmissioner Rir~g offe'ed Re~olution No. PC74-226 and moved for it~ pa9sage and adoption
to adopt and recomm~eni, to the City Council adoption of amendments r.o the Anaheim Municipal
Code, Title 1$, Zonin;, as follows:
1. Repea:~ Chapter 18.8Q "Ploor Space Requirements in Speci.fic.
Area:" in its entirety.
Z. Repe.n]. exlsting Se<:*_ion 18.20.030(.4) (d) "Iiuildings - Ground
I~loar Space" and add a new Se~Clon 18.2Q.030(4)(d) as per
the. following:
"18.20.030(4)(d) Minimum F~loor Area Yer I7~relling.
The mini~uum livabl~ ground floor area of any one-
family dwellir.g ahall be not leac than yeventeen
hundred (170G; square feet excluniv~~ ~f any garage
c~rea."
3. Add new subsectione to the elte developmene standards of
the R-H-l0,G00, I2-G, R-i ~nd RS-SOOU Zones ~a follows:
~
~
~
MINU'J".S. CTTY 1'LANNINC COMMISSLON, Navember 11, 1y74
AMkNDMtiN~ T~ ?'I'['I.E_1_d_t__:NAHFT~M_M'1T;iC1.1'A1.. CUf~F; (('onCi,~uc~d)
LonQ (:od~, Scctiun Numbc~r
R-Fl-.l0,U00 1.8.13 O:10H
It-d 18. 1H.0:10(1.U)
R-1 1A.24.030(6)
l~S-SOOU J 8. 2fi.050(4) (tt)
Smld eube~ecCic~ns ko al.l re.nd uR ful.lowR:
"Mi.nimun: kl.oor Arr.n Pc~r• t>,~~~ll.ing. Th~ minlmurn
Li.v~Ule £loor area of (lily nne-famtl,y dwell~.ng
ahr~ll be not ].r_sn than twelve hunclrcd and twenl•y-•
five ('.225) ~3yur~re fc:et exclut~ive ~f. any gurage
area."
c)~i roll cuJ.l., thE~ foregoii~g resol~~tion wiie passerl by the followi~~g vote:
AyisS; COr41ISSI(1Nk:R5: E'ARANO, GAUER., KINC~ MOR1,~Y, HERFSST
Nq3S : i::CMFIISS IONI.RS : NONE
ABSENT : COr41ZS5 tONERS : JOHNSUN, TOI.AR
RIiYnR'fS AND - IT':M N0. 1
REC~MAt1:NDA'fIONS CO~JDITIONAL LISE PF.RMIT N0. ].423 - Request for extenei.on of
-`- ~ t'.me - ProperCy cansiating of approximately 5.1 ucres having
a frontage of r~ppraximately 486 feet on the west eide of
Hnott Avenue, locfl~ad approximatel.y 84f, feet north of the
centerline of Orange Avenue, and being further 3eacribed as
315 South Kciott AvEUae (Knott Avenue Chrietian Churr_h).
71- 5'l ~,
Tt w~a noted ChaC Conditional U:~e PermiC No. 1423 was gran[ed by the Pl.anning Comntisaion
un September 5, 1973, to expand church faciliCies and construct a two-atory edur,ational
~laP•room bullding with offices and Rtorags facilities; that the petitioner indicated they
were F~ -ently in Che process of satisfying the ~hree conditions of approval which werc; to
have been c~mplied with within a period of ons yesr of Che date of approval, s~id condi-
tions being dedication along Knult Avenue, inatallation und bonding of street engineering
and 1lghcing imFrovements~ and payment of atreet tree fees. none of which have been satis-
fi~d; that no previous extensiona of time have been requesCed; and that lhe petitioner was
requesting approval of a one-year extensian of. time in order to camply with the conditiona.
Commissioner rarano offered a motion, secondeci by Commissi.cner King and MOTTON CARRIED
(C~mmisaioners Johnson and Tolar bei.ng absent), that ~~ one-year extension oi ti.me be and
hereUy is granted for Conditional Use Permit :la. ].423 in order for Che peCitioner Co
comply with the conditions of ~pproval, Raid extenaion of itme being r~t~ ,acCive to
September 5, 1974, and to expire September 5, 1475.
ITEM N0. 2
OFF-SITE TRAC'f ~JGPiS: SCENIC CORRInOR
Zoni.ng Supervisor Charles Roberts preaented the Staff Report ta the Pl.anning Corrmi.saion
dated November 11, .1974, and esi.d Staff Report is referred to and made a pAr~ of the
minutes. It was noted that in reaponse to concerna expresaed by homeownerr~ in ~he Santa
Anz Canyon that "of.f-aite" tract signa were creating a vi.sual blighe in t.he "Scenic
Corridor" area of th~ CiCy, the Ciey Council, At kheir meeting of October 29~ 1974,
directed Staff to explore metl~ods of minimizing the detrimental impt~ct of euch signa and
repor.t their findings to the Planning Commiaeion far recommendation; Chat Staff had
u
~
~
MLNUTB3~ CI'PY PI.ANNTNG COMMLSSI`?N, November 1.1, ].974
74-527
C'CEM N0. : (Continued)
f~llowed up on the mattesr and :I.t w~~i~d be in order for Lhe C.c~mnieslon to Het a du;.e for
pubJic hearing Co conel.der the np~ropriate t~mecidmeriCs to Cl~e Zoning CodQ at thls meetfng.
C~wmiseioner Mor,l.Qy off~red a mati.on, aecoi,ded by Commiqeloner Furano and MOTION CARRIEA
(Commiseion~re J~~'inean and 'to.lar heinq abA~nt) to set the dat~e ef Decembar 9, 1974~ for
publlc hearing to coneider av~endmen~a Co Chapter 18.62 "20NINc; COAE - SIGNS, ADVERTISINC:
SIGNS ANn STRU~;TURTS" perta:.ning to gen~ral. proviai.on~ for temporary real eatate eiqne
foi the :tnitlal sAle or ler~ae of c~~ntiguou:a groupinge of more Chnn one unik or lot of
real prdperty ("tract" signs), and Chnptr_r 18.59 ("(SC) - SCF.NIC CORRI!)OR OVCRLAY ?.ONE")
purtaining to oEf-premises ~dver.t9.sing signs in enid zono.
ITGM NO ;3
VARIANCr N0. 2525 - Reqi~~et for e;ctenei.on ot• time -
Propert}+ coneiati.r-g of approximataly 4.5 acren locaCed
southeaFit of Brookhuret Street and the Santa Ana
Preeway~ and zoned M-1.
It was noted tt~at Variunce Nu, 2525 was gr~ntecl by the Planning Co~ni~eion on 3uly 23,
1973, tn astabl:Lah a mi.ni-warehouae with w~alver of the minimum required number of parking
spxces; tt~at sai3 variance wa~s granted aub~ect to aeveral cor~ditlona being com~li.ed wiCh
prior to finul building atiid ~oning ir,spections and ~he 'Loning Code further epecified tt~at
the project authorized by eucli variance ahall, if no time is specified~ be begun on or
be.fota one year after the datr-~ such variance wrse approved; that the petitloner indicated
that, althougl~ bullding permi.t:o were iasueci on July 29, 19i4, ulti.mate compl~tion of the
de~elopme.nt plan» had been dela,yed and Chat an exten4lo-1 nf time was, thex•efore, being
requested in order to completQ financing arrAngements.
Commissioner Farano uffcred a motion, ceconded by Commiasioner Morley and MOTION CAR1tIED
(Commissioners Johnsor~ atid Tolar beirig ab3ent), ttiat a one-yeEr extenelo-1 of time be and
hereby is granted for Variance i1o. 2525, said extension of cime being retroacti.ve to
July 23, 1974, and to expire on July 23, 1975, as re~uested by the peCitioner.
ADJOURNMEN'T - There being no further bus~.nesa to discuss, Comm~lssioc-er Morl.ey
~~ offered a mot.lon, secunded by Commissioner Ki.ng and MOTION GARRIED
(Commieaioners Johnaon and Tolar being absent), to ad~ourn the meet-
int r.o 7:00 p.m., November 21, 1974, for a Work Sesoion.
The meeting ad~ourned at 5~35 p.m.
Respectf.ul.ly aubmitted,
~~~~~ ~
Patricia B. Seanlan, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Coauaisaion
PBS:hm