Minutes-PC 1971/01/11, Jh ,,,, ~ ~-~ ~ ~~. h~reguiar meet~~ag~~qa~'r ~he+ Anaheim City: Plana
r~' t ~ r~ t' .r u ~{.,"~ tw y~
ing Commiasi
~
-- ~
.
, f
c
on
, ~ n { was:called to order b
`~ Y ChaY~rman Ferbet at 2- 03 P'M '
'' '
'~'~'~~`' ~`~
'~ ~ u
i
,,
n
o
um; ein
'~ ~~, `}x~,~ ~~ ,~~ , , Q ~ b g preaent: ';,~' ' ' F ' a`
}
7
7
~
~4
~
"1 c
.
i t ;
.
r
~r
1
}-
, ,(~
'. 9 r~ ~ .; t ` ~.
~.RBSENT;
~
CHAIRMA
i -
° 4'
~ -;
,
,
N
,~ ; ~F ~ c
~
Herbst } ~
~~,~~~y,wrr t ~ ~. ~Y ~ r - z "
.
R
`~'
n
fi
~
~~ ~` `J COMMISSZONERS ~
~~~~° it . . ~
,{ ~
`ak
~
y3a
Gauer
,,~. .4 r ^f r j ~~ , xr~- ~ KS WOOd
`- ' y . Sey`mour, ;Allred
r
~°`~
` '
~
a
,
,
?,~~
+ ~
J
~ , Far
,
no
~
~ ~ ~ ry ~ 4 ~
,
1
~~
~
~
'
S J
~
~
. ~' ~ . ~
i
~
i1
} ~:''9BSENT~~ rkj ~~ ~COMMISSIO.IERS ~ ";~ ~
j~
~ ~ 3as:} ~ ~ None
x :-~ .i~
z :' " ~.,
~
*
~
J': PRESENT 3e r: r k T ,'n '
,
~j~ ~
+~ ~;.= Asslata~r Development Service
Dir
J
~~F
~
ector
~{ ~ Ass3aian~~t ty `" "~" Ronsld Thouipson
~ ~ ~ ;~
~,
,~ ~ ~ Attorpey
;~
,
Y y ~ , c ~
John Dawafln
,t .
~~ ~ ,
Office, E
ngiaee; ~
~
~
~
JaY Titus :
` ;
Y~ ~
2oni:ngnSt~peivisor ^
`
~a
N
N
~,~
, ~
~Charl,~s Roberts
r
y
A~aistan`t?~Zoaing
~'y ` '= SSu er
i
~
*
~
r
S p
v
sa~
Malcolm Slsughter
'Aasoc3ateL2'
lanne
~ ` ~
'~sx.
~~ ` ~ '
`
~
r
DoA McDan{ el •~
~` z
~ ~~," ' ~~ Commiesion''Y'~ecretary-~ -~ j'`` ~
3
~ ~Ann Krebs
~
'~~
~
' ` , : :
~,' 11 ,~; r ~' af~
s ;=PL`EDGE~OF , ,~r "`t
' ,
6auer led
Fi$missioaer
in
the Pled
e
'f
~
e
F
A
E
'''
~
f
,
~
g
o
j ALIr
Ali
GI
NC
f;
g3ance to the
;;
`~ '~r k
` g
~`
~~
` ~
~ `
~ s
,
~' ~s
~
z ~
~
; APPROVAL~
O
~ y
~
`;
F
Minutes,~of ;,thet meetin' °o~° December 28, 1970; were~
~ THE MINIITEo lr~
defer~
d
o
g'
,
re
,
t
~the meet3n ~of
r y 8F Januaiy r25 , 19 71
c,
~ ~?Y. ~, 4~ .
'x k-~ x''~
ad...s ~~ ~~ i
'
~`
r +
c
.
'
.
~
1
-
t
T
~-~~ a -nw ~~ -~K.~ ? ~ ~ ~.i ~~~ v ~ y~ ~, c ; ' ~ ~ ."
r . ~~'s , r-~
~a t.~s ~
- ;;
' ~ ~ •
,
1
r ,~
a`^;AMENDMENT4~T0 TITLE 18
T=S CONT
INIIED jPUBL
C
' ~~
T
,
T
HEARING +
~ '~ANAHEIMx~tIINICS~P~AlL'~CODE
CITY :
`
i '
'
, PL
~:
ANNING.;COMMISSION ",204 Eamt
LincolnBA
~
~
' `
` ~
a
venue
~ r r
`
~ ~ tr
s> ,ra~t Aaah
eim„ ~Cal°i.fo~icaia, ;to ,eQnaider, the addi'tion 7~
f ' ~
o
~ ~ Chap`ter 18 59, ;Sceni.c Coriidor Overlay'
(SC) ;Z
~
' ~
.
oae .
:-, i- to : Title 18, Zoning,,, of the Aaaheim~; Munici
al-
Cod
~
' ~~
p
.
e,
> cove:ring.propeity lo'cated;in tHe`•general vicinity~
, ` of the Santa Ana C
i i
' ~~
anp
;n area in easi Anaheim
>Associate Planner po
ald
' ~~
n
McDaniel
appeared bsfore the Commission aa~'aoted
;that as`an`introduction the T1Lblic Informati
n Off `~
~
o
ice would .present a.£ilm.
'~v~ich,described;;the background 'and.'histor
oE th ~~
y
e ~cenic corrtdor to.lend
~..apport to the fact that tke, prbpose8
zone wa
i
~
,;
s no
something that wras
conjured up"'bq..the City but had been desi
nated b
* ;~;
g
y ,
_he State as s~ potential
:scenic corridor,-.aa~d.the.,propos.ed 'zone would~impleme
t th
'
~ ~,,;_
n
is
th
syaCem;.that
e green',area o,n the"map indicated the~
en ~~;
pot
tial scenic area; that.the
sceni'c,corridor„was,,also adopted b
th~ C
nt
~
y,
ou
y Baard of.:Superyisora, and `
'because boEh .the_,County aad`City>of Anaheim had ado
ted
thi
` Y.~~
p
.
s a§ a potential
scenic corridor,
-the State felt tfiis,.in time
would d
e ~:
,
ev
l~p as_such;:thet ..
the corridt~r did -not ~ only iaclude rthat °a
'.
rea 'imiuediatel _ ;
?
~
o~
Riverside Freewa _ Y
d3acent to the .
y, but was.extended fr
the ridgeron the
t
,
nor
h to Ehe ridge
oa the south, encompassing,both the Riversiut Freeway
and S
~
R
ta
'
" ~
,
an
.
Rna
Caayon
oad frem;the Newport,Freewaq to.the Ordage-Riverside Count
th
li
h ;'
y
e
nes;, that
illsides weie the;primary.are~s:.vis3ble~:xr~m the,'free
~
t
' :;~
~~`
s
way; and
hat
the
enic corridor was something which~,the'City of Anaheim h
d
f
e ^~
a
be
n studying .
or almost a year:
~
~
~ `
.;. :~ :i. ~-~ , . ~. .',~ . ~.,
.: ~~
~ h' "~
After,the slide~ ~ ~ . '
preseatatioa, Mr .McDaniel.aoted-that the slides contaiaed
,~a great dea3 of
what
the Ci ~ :
~~
.
,
tq was attempting in the:canyon,- therefore.;,,he
woul~ ~13ke to get~ into.,more:_specifics as' the
`;
e
fai
' {'~ .
' `
q
p
r
ned to the~
ordinance,
and then read th'e description and
p
o "-
.
~arp
se of Chapter 18.59, i'
lir McDaniel noted that there~were~th'iee element
o
o
s t
c
nsider; namely, the ~
c.river;:the hills;;and..the trees
.
.aad if
one h
d
,
;,
,;
a
driven through::the,canyoa
and reslly looked,at.the'wiridbreaks, these were what
e
,mad
;the canyon'a
scenic;°area';.- ,therefore; without:the tiees._this area would b
h
l
e
ike.any other
illside•area, th'at s"ome of~th;e windhre&ks would be impossible
b;ecaus
'to~ret
f't
,
e o
ain
he Aeed to•,provide st;eets and utilitie's; that where large
w
ere
ro
o
ed
ea
.
, p
p
ar
s
s
to be developed;as planue3:unit developaients
it w
p
i
,
as,
oss
ble
; <•` ; '
~ ~ ~~ 1
,
; y`
5 .. ` ; f ~ ~ ~~~ .
l 1 I
~ ~
• .~
~ a
~~'~
,~,
F ~ _ ` ,•Y K ~ ~y ~.
y.f'r ~, _ ~ .-~
, _ . .:~ µ
~
~
~'
~4
:~~
~
"
'
.
'
~
~ +u a
~ ~,~s rr
,
..,1hc.t.
, .
. . '^,.E~.3.'i~'fiirX4t.`"
. F-.v.~•v~A.. _.... . . ....._ _..
~ ~ r `+~ r ~t, r~nz '~+ir . ~, ~.,- ,1~ { , ° ti
1 ~ S
1 ' L ~.,,,, ~ 5r { 1 _.
A. (r
_ _..! L ,Y _ j{F Y~~' „~ <.
~
• ~~7
~ ~ . • ' . ~ ~ ~ . 1
,uarq ll, 1971 71-2 ~
res°.would be left-in their natural ~
ast.,,tHe eucalypfus :trees could be.cut ~
mum.height of 2-5 feet; that trees ~
be~replaced,~~tree for tree, but not - f
th'e``same~,nlace;' that .a n.edian-~.strip
be "p;lanted, that a master plan of
would contain~e,ach~windbreak in the.
at :Lke time of'.. the adoption of :tfie
remained~woul~d b'e reca:rded:'on a,map
ady to deyelop,:'fie woul'd-be offered
to;'a heigtit of, 25 .fe'et or-remove the
hat it was'~poseible to- remove these,
time:; and:;if tliese-reguTatioas were
ction of this natural:besuty iastead
no.windbreaks ,at'-all;-=:that.in. some
L ~ _ . . - _ _ ._ ~ . _ . .. . . . . . . . . . _ _ ~ - ~
- r .... .. ~ ~ . . .
r..:8 . t o-Way w,as. proposed,` and 3means ; to replace :;these ,`trees, would be to
have a master :plan :of street trees "- makin'g? a strorig. statement :of having
specific ~treea;;rather than providing bottlebrush"or oleanders-'= these trees
should be of a;:type,'that.would`make.an impa`ct on:the.-present'street st.and-
ards by,providi`ng a~medi'an::strip; for','primary, secondary or collector streets
and,;%still; retain •the: trayel portioa at ita';;present width -'how~ever, addi~
tioaal ri'ght-of-way.would•-be retained,and:would be tHe same as on flat land
witti the %•excess~ prop'osed .for the, center and would":~'ange. in widxh .from.l4 .to
22 feet, ;sraff,ici'ently wide to `accommodate;;trees' ! rom the master plan of
stieet treea with,:possibly. using.Cali'forni'a,pepper treea in'the.major highway
right of=way.and.eucalyptus.in the lesser streets, but the main idea was to
retain the."green!'~feeliag ratfier.than expect.all windbreaks to be retained.
Another th~iag sbout which the City was concerned mas.the cut and fill_in the
hil,lside;'development, which was; in addition to the,proposed`(SC) 2one since
it would,-;be necessary to adopt new "standards.in Ehe Subdivision Ardinance
which wou~ld chaage :,the hiHside standards of cut and' fill presently permitted
to be a 1'«~ 1; whereas it.was,now proposed to have a 2:`l slope - this would
flatten the sLope'with 'a greener appearance.and,less sEark, raw land:ahowing
iafiich the;, current Subdivisi,on,.Ordinance alTowed•, 'permitting:: terracing up to
1205:and 1,50','feet, and:the,-proposed:amendment would.texrace every 30:feet
I wi'th a miaimum'width of 6:feet, and preyiously there was no limit to the
'slope; that.it was:now proposed'that the slopes.ahould not:exceed 50 feet
in heYght; that formerly no stone was':permitted for terracing purposes,
and":it was now:'proposed to have indigenous stone or paving with impermeable
materials,-using a•medium or dark earthen tone; and that lanilscaping would
be required,to be developed in accordance'with the (SC) 2one instead of the
previously-esteblished.engineeriag landscaping requirements which required
only ground cover, whereas filled slopes and cut slopes wouTd be required
to provide trees, ahrubs and ground cover.
Mr. McDaniel then.noted that.another area of great concern were the setbacks
adjacent to the freeway`and expressways where a green area should be pro-
vided; that the State usuallq provided landscaping adjacent to a right-of-
waq - however, most of this would be five to ten years in the future, and
the proposed setback would be from the right-of-way line to a residential
structure which should be 75 feet away and be entirely on private property
maintained or used by the homeowner<or in the case of multiple-family
xesidential use or mobilehome parks, this could be utilized for recreation
areas. Furthermore, where komes backed,onto the freeway,'an additional
requirement would be a landscaped area behind the right-of-way followed
by a 10-foot high, solid masonry wall - th3s would assist in reducing the
noise and'provide adequa.te visual blockage from the:freeway.:- this would
mean a 10-foot high wall and a 75-foot building setback and would necessitate
a maximum lot width of.135 feet,, x~hile the R-^-5000 Zone would permit a
considerably,less setback, and this setback would apply onl where ro ert
abutted the freetia or ex resswa y p P y
Y p y; that the tiomes in the Walnut Canyon area.
were currently developed in this manner; that a gate through the wall was
indicated which wuuld a11ow the property owner to turn oa his irrigation on
the portion outside of the wall, particularly where a slope area was indicated;
that on secondzrp and primary streets na wall or 10-foat setback would be
required - however, a wall might be xequired in a single-family subdivision
since these types of homes were not permitted to front on or side on arterials,
'but must rear on said arterials; that the build3ng setback ad~acent to a
primary or secondary highway would be.50 feet, and this setback area could
be used for lawns, swimming pools, or patios; that many of the tracts had
',c, .