Minutes-PC 1972/09/06~
~
~
City Hall
Anaheim, California
September 6, 1972
A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CZTY PLANNING COMMZSSION
REGULAR - A regular meeting of the Anahei~m City Planning Commission was
MEETING called to order hy Chairman Seymour at 2:00 p.m., a quorum
being present.
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Seymour.
- COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauaz, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland.
ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Allred.
PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson
Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry
0£fice Engineer: Jay Titus
Zoning Supervisor: Charles Roberts
Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Don McDaniel
Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs
PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Gauer led in the Pledge,of Allegiance to the
ALLEGIANCE Flay.
APPROVAL OF - Commissioner Kapwood offered a motion to approve the minutes
THE MINUTF,S of the meeting of August 7, 1972, seconded by Commissioner
corrections:
llowin
f
th
g
o
e
Farano and MC~TION CARRIED, subject to
add: "and applicant understands
t line
7
l
,
as
,
pq, 72-49A, para.
City Ordinance re sound emissions."
Pg. 493, para. 3, line l: 19 persons (not 7)
since the "pre_"school
rt
i
:
nse
pq, 499, para. 6, line 2,
t
"
in effec
Pg. 510, para. 8, line 8, delete: "that would
R "in the Disneyland area"
Pg. 511, para. 7, line 2, insert: C-
had...
Pq. 512, insert para. 12: "Mr. Tom Sifferman, S& S Construction
a peared before the Commission. He said zoning
is everything in the Canyon. They are in es-
crow for $3 million for 107 acres to include
6000 square ioot homes and townhouses. The
area approved for 718 units - he's proposing
under 600. In answer to Commissioner Kaywood's
question, he said the single-family homes would
have 3. 4 or 3 bedrooms - they never ~uild more
than 5 bedrooms, and 2 and 3 car garages. Mr.
Sifferman admittad the bonus room could be con-
verted to 2 extra bedrooms. He further stated
they had developed under PC 2one in Irvine and
Mission Viejo and had never heard anything like
this before."
Pg. 514, para. 7, line 4: "bail" them out (not "deal")
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC AEARING. ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
NO. 72-73-8 DISTRZCT, Attention of C. it. Nelson, 400 Civic Center Drive,
Santa Ana, California 92701, Owner; PACIFZC AMERICAN PROPER- ~
CONDITIONAL USE TIES, INC., Attention of Bexnard Perlin, 3670 Wilshire
PERMIT NO. 1330 Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90010, Agent; property
described as: A rectanqularly-shaped parcel of land con-
VARIANCE NO. 2403 sisting of approximately 3.8 acres having a frontage of
approximately 600 £eet on the west side of Brookhurst Street,
having a maximum depth of approximately 270 feet, and beinq
located at the southwest corner of Brookhurst Street and Cresceiit Avenue.
Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, Z7NE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-l~ GENERAL COMMERCSAL~ ZONE.
72-577
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 6, 1972 ~2-5~a
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-B, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1330, VARIANCE NO. 2403
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL "JSE: ESTABLISH A CARWASH ON PORTION A.
i2EQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF
SINGLE-FAMIL: RESIDENTIAL ZONE TO CONSTRUCT THREE
OFFICE BUILDINGS ON PORTIONS B AND C.
Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of July 24, 1972, for further
study; and from the meeting of August 7, 1972, at tne request of the petitioner.
Staff advised the Planning Commission that the petitioner had requested an
additional two-week continuance to complete revised plans.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood, and
MOTION CARRIED to continue Petitions for Reclassification No. 72-73-8, Conditional
Use Permit No. 133C, and Variance No. 2403 to the meeting of September 18, 1972,
a~ requested by the petitioner.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. T. HARRISON, 2124 West Hiawatha Avenue,
PERMIT N0. 1346 Anaheim, Cali£ornia 92804, Owner; GILBERT R. GRANILLO,
317 East La PaZma Avenue, #9. Anaheim, California 92801,
Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLZSH A MOTORCYCLE
REPAIR SHOP IN AN EXISTING BUILDING on property described as: A rectangularly-
shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 45 feet on the east
side of Loara Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 170 feet, and
being located approximately 170 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue.
Property presently classified M-l, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE.
Chairman Seymour noted that there was a letter on file requesting withdrawal of
subject petition, and he would entertaiii a motion.
Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Rowland and
MOTION CARRIED, to grant the request of the petitioner to withdraw Petition for
Cor.ditional Use Permit No. 1346.
VARIANCE N0. 2384 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. PRIMUS HOLDING COMPANY~ 4889
Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California 90212, and
CONDITIONAL USE ANACLARA PROPERTIES, 1880 Century Park East, Los Angeles,
PERMIT NO. 1323 California 90067, OwnersJ JACK LOVE ASSOCIATES, INC.,
4341 Birch Street, Newport Beach, California 92660, Agent;
property described as: Parcel 1- An irregularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting oE approximately 18 acres having a frontage of approxi-
mately 860 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, having a maximum depth of
approximately 1050 feet, being located approximately 440 f.eet east of the center-
line of Kraemer Eoulevard and further described as the southwest corner of La
Palma Avenue and Shepard Street. Parcel 2- A rectangularly-shaped parceZ of
land consisting of approximately 4 acres having a frontage of approximately
286 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenne, having a maximum depth of approxi-
mately Sn5 feet, being loc•nted approximately 1165 feet east of the centerline of
Kraemer Boulevard, and further described as the southeast corner of La Palma
Avenue and Shepard Street. Progerty presently classified PARCEL 1- R-A,
AGRICULTURAL, ZONE; PARCEL 2- R-`, AGRICULTURAL AND M-1~ LIGHT INDUSTRIAL,
ZONES.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF ia) PERMITTED USES, (b) REQUIRED 6-FUOT MASONRY
WALL ENC?:~SING OUTDOOR USES, (c) PARKZNG AREA IMPROVEMENT
STANDARDS~ (d) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SIGN~ IN THE 50-FOOT
SETBACK, (e) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-STANDING SIGNS,
(f) MINIMUM HEIGHT OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS, AND (g) MINIMUM
DISTANCE OF FREE-STANDZNG SIGN FROM ABUTTING PROPERTY TO
ESTABLISH A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE SALES AND SERVICE COMPLEX.
RSQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A RESTAURANT WITH COCKTAT_L LOUNGE.
Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of July 10, 1972, to allow
time for staff to conduct a study on the effects of commercia2 uses in the
industrial area and whether the boundaries of the existing Northeast In3ustrial
Area should be amended.
~
.~
~
MINUTES, CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 6, 1972 7z-5~9
VARIANCE NO. 2384 AND CONDIT70NAL USE PERMIT N0. 1323 (Continued)
Five persons indicated their presence in opposition.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject
property, uses established in close proximity, reason for continuance ~rom the
July 10, 1972 hearing for a study regasding the Northeast Industrial Area, and
the request before the Commission to establish a recreational vehicle sales
and service complex which would exhibit, sell and service recreational vehicles,
providing an outdoor supermarket of areas designed with flexible boundaries to
satisfy the specific requirements of manufacturers, dealers, and product exhibi-
tors;that the applicants also indicate3 they hoped to attract regional attention
by providing visitors the opportunity to examine and compare products, see and
try pi ducts in a recreational park setting, furnish rental and service use
of products, and purchase the products; that the hoars of operation were intended
to be geared to the l~isure shopping time market group, mainly after working
hours and weekends; that the petitioner's intention was to provide a private,
scenic road and walkway area with general parking areas, a lakeside park, play-
ground, special display and common area for the benefit of the public and the
exhibitors; that the offices, shops and service facilities would be with
"frontier town" type exteriors to maintain the vacation and natural out-of-door
theme; that the plans indicated two primary buildings on an 18-acre site, one
being 2000 squar.=, feet for administrative and lounge and 4000 square feet of
recreational vehicle shops, while the second would be 5000-square foot recrea-
tional vehicle shops and a five-bay servi~e center; that the 4-acre site also
had two primary buildings, o:ie being the 3000-square foot restaurant and 7000
square feet of recreational vehicle shops, and the other was a 3000-square foot
dealer's office; that plans further indicated that the driveways and display
areas throughout the project would be of crushed rock chips over asphaltic
emulsion, and the parking areas would be grassed; and that a 2~i-acre park with
a lake, a children's play area, a recreational vehicle dump ~tation, and 45 of
the 51 display areas were shown on the 18-acre parcel.
Mr. McDaniel, in reviewing the evaluation, stated there was n~ specific zone
and no specific development standards established within the Anaheim Municipal
Code for this very unusual use; that the development standards of the under-
lying M-1 2one would be applied; that the first and primary question to be
considered was that of the appropriateness of this land use in this industrial
area, and while this particular area of the industrial zone had recently been
in somewhat of a state of transition with the enproval of a miniature golf course
to the ~ast and the approval of the recreational vehicle service center to the
south, there had not been established in this area a primarily retail use such
as was proposed; that the service center to the south was approved primarily on
its heavy service nature which would differ in that respect to the proposed
wholesale-retail aspects of the current proposal; ti-at the second consideration
in this appiication was that of site development standards since it would aopear
from the submitted plan that there could develop considerable problems as it
related to the proposed development, such as provision of asphaltic emulsion
with crushed,rock chips for display areas and grass parking areas, which could
create du:i and dirt for the surrounding industries, and using something less
than typical A.C. paving on the driveways could create various problems, because
the excessive wcight of the recreational vehicles and the large numbers of
anticipated cars would appear to render the proposed paving technique inadequate;
that the outdoor character of this use would require a 6-foot high masonry wall
surrounding it, but the petitioner was proposing only a 6-foot high chainlink
fence along the freeway but did not propose any Yence along Carpenter and La
Palma Avenues and Shepard Street or along the easterly boundary; that waiver
of the improvements of the parkinq areas would apply to the grass parking stalls;
that the area surrounding the restaurant and shops on the 4 acres to the east
would be paved; that waiver of the minimum siqn height was being requested
because the signs along La Palma Avenue would be only 1 foot, 6 inches from the
bottom, while Code would require 8 feet; that the conditional use permit for the
cocktail lounge in conjunction with the restaurant was proposed for the south-
east corner of La Palma Avenue and Shepard Street, which would also have to be
considered, however, the industrial area currently contained some restaurants
and cocktail lounges at similar locations; and that the Commission would wish
to determine the overall impact of this recreational vehicle sales and service
center on the entire Northeast Industrial Area. Furthermore, a copy of the
study requested by the Planning Commission on the Northeast Zndustrial Area had
been submitted along with the Report to the Commission, and if the Commission
so desired, a staff inember would review this.
~
^~^
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 6, 1972 72-580
VARIANCE N0. 2384_AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1323 (Continued)
The Commission noted that they had read the report and inquired whether inter-
ested persons had received a copy of the report; whereupon Assistant Develop-
ment Services Director Ronald Thompson noted that copies of the report had
been submitted to a number of persons, and that the report could be summed up
by reviewing the conclusions and recommendations.
Mr. Jack Love, agent for the petitioner and representing Traveland, appeared
before the Commission and stated that they had tried to come up with revise3
plans which reflected the fewest waivers from Code; that one item had been
overlooked, namely, that they had a wall along the east and south sides of the
4-acre parcel; that there would be a wall along the La Palma Avenue frontage
with parking proposed along the outside of the wall; that they were requesting
waiver of the wall where the property was adjacent to the freeway and the flood
control channel, which could be very attractively landscaped, but since the
freeway was elevated ac this area, the effect of the required wall would not
serve its intended purpose, but if the Commission reguired it, then they wauld
provide said wall.
Mr. Love then reviewed the chanqes made and the uses proposed, noting they
proposed the sale of beer only, and there were no plans at the present time
for a cocktail lounge; that the recreational vehicle accessories and service
center were required by the tenants for the other portion; that a chainlink
fence could be made very attractive, and they were attempting to retain a
natural appearance; that staff's comments rega.rding the parking area surfaces -
they would agree that this could present a problem, therefore, they would pro-
vide whatever the City Engineer or Development Services Department staff re-
quired as to the types of finishes these areas should have; that the low profile
type sign they proposed would be more attractive and in better taste than the
required 8-foot high clearance sign since they proposed a monument-type sign
which should merit some consideration; that he felt the use proposed would be
compatible, and the City could not have foreseen three, five or ten years ago
the vast increase in rec.reational vehicle business which they wanted to make
as part o£ the City of Anaheim, however, freeway exposure was necessary, and
they had tried to find other locations in the city but were unsuccessful in
finding what would be a feasible location, therefore, it was their opinion that
the proposed location and the use would be compatible to the area.
Mr. Love then noted that traffic to and fzom this proposed use would not create
any "peoole" problem since there would be no overnight patrons; that they would
be contributing to the industrial area and the City of Anaheim because they
were a form of an industrg, and if subject petitions were granted, they were
reasonably assured this would be successful - in fact, they had interests in
this project that would assure immediate occupancy and success, therefore, they
would not be leaving a variance on the land and not exercising it for some time.
Mr. Love, in conclusion, noted that he was aware of the fact that the Commission
wa~ charged with the matter of deciding on a new industry and land use, but he
had met with the Development Services Department and felt he had resolved the
problems expressed previously - with a few minor exceptions.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that subject petition had been continued
from the previous meeting to allow staff time to make a study of the industrial
area development throughout the count~y, which was summarized in a raport which
then could be reviewed by Mr. Thompson if the Commission so desired.
Mr. James Cozad, Vice President of Financial Management, North American Rockwell,
3370 Miraloma Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated
that the psoblem faced by the Commission was a very straight forward one, al-
though not simple, but it was the feeling of his company that the proposed use
would be simply an in':erim of short-term gains, which would be very minuscule
versus long-term gains of the site for industrial uses; ±hat the advantages
qained from maintaining this for industrial use from an industrial standpoint
far outweighed the short-term gains; that the tax base gain and economic advan-
tage to the City, also from the stai~dpoint o£ industry, far overshadowed the
short-term gains which would be gains for individuals rather than the City;
that his co~npany had made investments in the multi-million dollars for improve-
ments based upon the commitments made by the City that this area would be re-
tained for industrial purposes - ranging between 30 and 40 million dollars;
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Septembes 5r 197z 72-581
VARIANCE N0. 2384 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT iv0. 1323 (Coniinued)
that the proposed use of the property would create a severe traffic problem in
and around this site, not only by the proposed use but by further encroachment
into this area - and there would be a continued erosion of the industrial area
with more commercial uses, and as more and more were granted, the more one could
see a tendency to phase out industry from this area, therefore, his company would
strongly urge the Commission to retain this area for industrial pu:^poses on a
long-term range which would encourage more building of industry and, consequent-
ly, increase employment.
Mr. Robert Kottman, Chairman of the Industrial Committee of the Anaheim Chamber I
of Commerce, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated that at
their June 13, 1972 meeting, their committee voiced its opposition to the pro-
posed Zevelopment because it would not be a suppor~ in2ustry; that industries
had moved to the Northeast Industrial Area because of the protection it afforded
industryt that at the August meeting the Board of Directors of the Chamber of
Commerce also voiced their opposition in the form of a resolution which was
passed by the board, urging that this area be retained for industrial purposes,
and this was based on the industrial development during the past two years,
particularly during the past year where a vast increase had been experienced,
and if development occurred at this rate, it would mean the Northeast Industrial
Area could be completely developed in eight years; that the supply of this kind
of land was related to the industry coming into the area, and since there were
only five areas of any large amount.in Orange County, if other than industrial
uses c~•are permitted to encroach, this would mean the areas could not be replaced;
that in comparing the Northeast industrial Area to the Irvine complex, which
was near an airport, the Irvine complex had CC&R's which required development
in that area which was very attractive to industry, and another thing v:hich made
Irvine attractive was its nearness to the beach, in addition to the airport and
luxury housing which had taken some of the potential industry from Anaheim, how-
ever, most of irvine's prime sites had been taken up and the balance was located
near E1 Toro. In addition. Anaheim's Northeast Industrial Area would be in a
better position for development because of the freeway access, whxch was also
an ideal barrier between industrial and non-industrial uses; that as the repre-
sentative for the North American Rockwsll Company indicated, further erosion
of the industrial area would inhibit other potential industry from locating,
and, furthermore, from statements made regarding sales tax and employment, the
sales tax was not all gain because there would be losses for other dealers Qf
recreational vehicles in the city; that the proposed development could have a
retardant effect by slowing down the industrial zone; that statements made
regarding $300,000 of sales tax would not be all gain; that the use of this
property could be transitory because it could change to a regulation trailer
park since they were basing their sales tax income from sales, but if these sales
did not become a fact, there would be trouble, however, if this were developed
for industrial uses and the improvements were in, then this would be a fixed
use, and the income to the City would be more assured.
Mr. Bill Miller, President and General Manager of McCoy Ford Company. 1600 West
Lincoln Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated that he
had been in thp business of selling cars, trucks, and recreational vehicles for
a number of years, and he did not feel the Commission would allow him to have
new and used car sales in this industrial area; that the sales figures presented
were greatly exaggerated on this project; that when he developed his company he
was required to be located in a given zone, and to approve subject petition
would be establishing an undesirable precedent for other commercial uses in this
area; that a project of this size, projecting sales of 4000 vehicles per year,
could mean 2000 trade-ins per year, and this would be one of the largest used
car lots, which he was sure the Commission woulc3 not approve of.
Mr. Charles Srady, representing Bryan Industries, appeared before the Commission
stating he wanted to go on record as being opposed to the proposed use of the
property in the industrial area, particularly since they had a number of indus-
trial buildings located in this general area.
Mr. Joseph Kuntz, representative of the recreational vehiclearedVbeforenthe
approved by the Planning Commission se~-^ral months ago, app
Commission in opposition, noting he ha~ submitted a letter earlier indicating
they were in opposition to the proposed development for various reasons, some
of which had been covered already, therefore, he would direct hisarkimentslfo
those that would be of specific concern to his company, namely, p 4
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 6, 1972 ~2-5s2
VARIANCE NO. 2384 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1323 (Continued)
the developer would agree to cooperate with the City, was he talking about A.C.
paving or the asphalt which might be acceptable during the summer, but it would
not be acceptable when the rains came; that the agent had indicated there would
be a car full of 2300 vehicles weekly - then the question became obvious - how
long would the grass hold up with that volume of ::.rs, and being a neighbor
facility with plans being :ormulated for construction, this wouZd be of great
concern to them; that the agent indicated they proposed to retain the orange
trees, but that would be difficult bacause of a mal.ntenance problem; that crushed
rock would not hold up with the heavy vehicles, which would then create dust;
that test driving would be done or. La Palma Avenue and the Riverside Freeway,
which would be a traffic problem to this area and create traffic hazards; that
Shepard Street was being used by the miniature golf course, and the traffic
qenerated by this operation and the proposed operat~on would add to the traffic
problems; that Shepard Street was an industrial street which meant there were
no sidewalks on either side, therefore, he would suggest that if subject peti-
tions were approved, then the width of Shepard Street should be increased to a
secondary highway to take care of the added traffic. Furthermore, in the special
report prepared by staff at the request of the Planning Commission, this indicat-
ed Variance No. 2361 proposed retail sales and service, which was in error, since
he had stipulated that in no way would they have any new cars, trucks, or motor-
ized recreational vehiales on the property for sale.
Mr. Don Yoder, 1729i Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, appeared before the Commission in
favor of subject petitions, noting his industrial development was located at
Kraemer Boulevard and La Jolla Street to the north of the proposed use, and he
felt the proposed use of the property would be creating a good neighbor.
Mr. Robert Leavitt, representing Fredson's, °15 North Harbor Boulevard, Santa Ana,
appeared before the Commission in favor, stating that he had been approached by
Traveland to participate their function with the installation and service of
recreational vehicles; ,~ he had been at the Santa Ana location for ten years,
performing the same service; that ten years aqo no one could have dreamed of the
success of recreational vehicles business, but it was success£ul, and the pro-
posed facility would be the showplace in Anaheim, although it would be a very
unusual type of land use; that tk:e sales tax base in his type o£ use with acces-
sories and service would be exceptional; that comments made as to the used car
concept, most of the lots would not deal in used vehicles because they would
not be that large in order to become a used car lot, but they would put their
best foot forward in equipment, and no vehicle would be warehoused there; that
he could not understand why the recreational vehicle service center would be
opposed to the proposal since they would be getting repair work from this opera-
tion; that opposition was also expressed because of test driving of vehicles,
but he could assure the Commission there would be very little test driving that
would create problems for this service centez; that there already were more
commercial uses established thereby establishing a precedent; that this would
be developing a r.ather odd-shaped parcel of land for commercial uses, but ik
would also bring an exceptionally good development to Anaheim, and ::e wouYri be
willing to participate in the pzoposed development which would provide an attrac-
tive facility in Anaheim and would bring business to the city.
Mr. John Kilroy. Jr., representing Kilroy Industrial Developments, appeared
before the Commission in favor, stating they had reviewed the proposal by Travel-
and since they owned two facilities to the east of the 4-acre parcel of this
proposed development which had an investment of 5 million dollars in the area,
he difi not want to do anything that would be detrimental to the industries there;
that North American Rockwell was opposed to the miniature golf course last year
where it was proposed next to the freeway, and said pruperty did not have access
far industrial developments, therefore, with these considerations in mind, he
had asked to have more information presented to him about the proposed development
whereupon renderinqs had been submitted for his perusal; that he had followed
this very closely an@ did not find it an objectionable use to their facilities
because it appeareQ to confoXm to the area, and, in addition, it was not similar
to the Butler Housinq development at Kraemer and Orangethorpe on which his company
had presented opposition because of the fa~t that residential use was oroposed
which would not be compatible. However, the proposed development would be com-
patible to industrial uses.
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON, September 6, 1972 72-583
VARIANCE N0. 2384_AND CONDITIONAL USE pERMIT NO. 1323 (Continued)
Mr. Love, in rebuttal, stated he felt that they would be good neighbors to the
existing industries and would also be compatiblej that the proposed development
would bring in 52 new businesses to Anaheim; that used vehicles would be re-
~aoved after a given length of time, and together with the size of the lots, there
would be very little space left for the display of ne+~ vehicles if used vehicles
were to remain on these lots, therefore, the used vehicles would be relocated
to a second site; that in the matter of ecology, they were propocing to maintain
the grassy parking stall area with a sprinkler system, and if this did not work
out, then they wou13 remove the grass and replace the greenery with asphalt;
that they were spending considerable money for landscaping in the manner that
they proposed, with a lake in the park and play areasJ that they would have a
common lounge for use by any group in the cityj tkiat they had budgeted $140,000
for landscaping and trees; and that they wese trying to preserve some of the
orange trees, but they also planned other types of trees because they knew it
would be difficult to maintain the orange tree^.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairman Seymour noted that staff had prepared the report requested by the
Commission on the Northeast Industrial Area and inquired whether the Commission
was desirous of having this report presented; whereupon the Commission determined
that a short report should be presented.
Mr. Thompson noted that a short report could be summed up by the conclusions and
recommendations, namely, that there were three alternatives: 1) preserve the
integrity of the Northeast Industrial Area by permitting only industrial uses
and industrially-related cnmmercial services, such as banks, regional offices,
restaurants, and the like, which did not generate additional traffic but rather
complemented and supported existing industryi ~) revise the existing boundaries
of the Northeast Industrial Area to reduce the size of the area and permit non-
industrial uses on the perimeter of the area; or 3) eliminate the Northeast
Industrial Area as such and permit a wide range of mixed land uses according to
the immediate demands by individual properties. However, staff would suqge~t
that the first alternative be considered as beiag the most appz'opriate choice
for the long-range benefit of the community.
Mr. Thompson further noted that the development of the industrial district
required a long-term outlook; that the Northeast Industrial Area was the largest
single industrial district in Northern Orange County and contained almost 40$ of
the vacant industrial land in the area, an area which presently housed approxi-
mately one-half million po~ulation and was projected to ultimately house over
one million at saturation; that reservation of industrial parks for the exclu-
sive use of industry was vital to meet the expanding needs and anticipated
growth and development of Anaheim and Northern Orange County; `.hat to date
Anaheim's firm commitment to industry had contributed towar3 keeping land prices
and taxes in the area relatively low, thereby discouraging land speculation
which might result in reassessment of the area for "higher" uses and substan-
tially increase taxes, which, in turn, would increase pressure to utilize the
land for non-industrial uses; that industrialists had made substantial capital
investment in the Northeast Industrial Area with current esCimates placing the
net assessed valuation of the district at over 37.5 million dollars - this
investment was largely predicated on being able to locate in the planned indus-
trial community offering protection from encroachment of non-industrial uses
which might reduce their operational efficiency.
Mr. Thompson then stated tha!: in addition, development of a broad industrial
base expanded the local economy, stabilized employment, and generated tax
monies which helped support municipal services; that Anaheim had long maintained
a successful partnership with industry since it was to the mutual advantage of
both to continue this partnership; that all oE the presently proposed commercial
uses would be considered valuable assets anfl would undoubtedly enhance the
commercial base of the community, however, they should be located within appro-
priate commercial areas of the city, such as the C-R Zone where over 330 acres
were still available for developments of this nature, and if located within a
plar~ned industrial development, these commercial uses could, at best, be viewed
as a short-range solution to satisfy the desires of a few individual property
owners and developers.
~
.w
~
MINUTES, CZTY PLANNING COMNiISSION, September 6, 1972 72-584
VARIANCE NO. 2384 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1323 (Continued)
Commissioner Herbst observed that the agent for the petitioner indicated that
the traffic patt~:~~' '~rom the proposed development,would not generate traffic
at the same ti~^•:: ,~ -~~ustry, and then inquired as to the hours of operation
of this facil3~_~. -- ''r~4 the service center, and would the service center
bring in busi;~: .• _~.er than vehicles sold on the property - would the
use generate :• • ~*rom the service during the dayt whereupon Mr. Love
stated their ':'. >',~r^-tion would be from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. - this
included the ~-• ..^`ec - but :f the service center was unusually busy,
they would remr•~r~ •' ~til midnight; that business coming from retired people
would be during eli2 d3ytime, while others, such as husband and wife, would be
shopping after working hours, generally from 4:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. and on
Friday, Saturday, and Sunday; and that there would be five vehicles in the
service bay with five vehicles waiting to be servic~d, howevez, they could not
deal in mass volume of these types of vehicles - these being primarily campers,
motorhomes, trailers, and boats, but r..o mobilehomes.
Commissioner Farano inquired as to the number of units that was anticipated to
be sold on this property per year; whereupon Mr. Love stated that they could
sell only what people asked for - that could mean selling a camper shell which
would be taken off of the premises, never to be seen again, or people purchas-
ing $32,000 motorhomes, and to relate this in the volume of business was dif.fi-
cult based on the available lot size which could hold from ten to fifteen
vehicles on 10,000 square feet.
Commissioner Farano then stated that the agent must have some rouqh idea as
to the number of new units, ii' he knew how much the tax base from these 52 lats
would be; whereupon Mr. Love stvted that the figure quoted was very conserva-
tive with 30 million dollars i: ~ales from which tax would be collected from
the 52 lots, but they could no±• ielate this figure to volume.
Commissioner Farano then inquired how many visitors were expected at this
facility during one month; whereupon Mr. Love stated that they anticipated
hopefully to have 2,000 cars pzr month, or 500 per week, with 75+k of that
total anticipated on weekends and the balance of 25$ during the week.
Commissioner Herbst noted that he had always been an ardent supporter and
watch dog of the industrial area; that this would be a tremendous switch in
policy for the City of Anaheim to allow a commercial development to be estab-
lished at the main entrance to the Northeast Industrial Area from the freewap;
that 50$ of the people entering the area would be coming at this entrance, and
they would be looking at this commercial property and determine automatically
that the area would be unsuitable for industrial use for their compar.y; that
statements made that the freeway exposure and a~i.sssibility from La Palma
Avenue made the property suitable for industrial use appeared to be somewhat
of a contradictory statemant; that long-range development of the property for
industry along freeways was generally known, and to permit commercial develop-
ment would be contrary to what could be viewed fror~ the Santa Ana Freeway
between Buena Park and Los Angeles, and subject property could be developed
in the same manner, but if the City allowed this use to be established, it
would erode the industrial area since the City had allowed the miniature golf
course to go in, which represented a switch to break down the industrial area
which might be taken as establishing a precedent, but it would still be con-
sidered the start of erosion of the area, all the way down La Palma Avenue
by creating further demands for commercial zoning or uses, however, the City
did have commitments to industry that the industrial boundaries of the North-
east Industrial Area would be between the freeway and Orangethorpe Avenue -
that boundary was necessary to separate industrial and non-industrial uses; that
the area was completely isolated from other development, and if the City per-
mitted any further breakdown of the Northeast Industrial Asea, this would be
the first major step in deterioration of the industrial zone in the City of
Anaheim.
Commissioner Gauer referred to the second alternative and suggested that this
recommendation be debated since it would appear that this area could support
the proposed use, and he would like to debate this since he was sure the City
Council would look at that recommendation because this might be a different
situation due to the fact that it was sliqhtly removed from the major industrial
area, lyinq along the peximeter of the ii:d~istrial area.
~
r'~I
u
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 6, 1972 72-585
VARIANCE NO. 2384 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 13'L3 (Continued)
Commiscioner Herbst stated that the best protection from people, both residen-
tial and commercial, was space, and to allow the area between the freeway and
La Palma Avenue to become commercial, then the ir,dustrial area, because this
was the main entrance, would appear to be less attractive to potential industry;
that the existing industries moved into this area because they had been crowded
out oF their old areas with encroachment of residential and commercial uses,
and the City of Anaheim needed this industrial area based in Anaheim because
this area employed 4Q$ of the working people in Orange County; that the City
was planning thousands of acres for rea-idential use in the Santa Ana Canyon,
and the industrial area was necessary to provide jobs for these residents;
that there was substantial commercial land set aside for commercial uses, and
the manner in which Anaheim was projected for development on the General Plan
indicated that the City had the best balanced community in Southern California;
that he would also like to see the proposed use become a part of Anaheim, but
it was proposed in the wrong area since it was not a supporting use to industry
but was strictly a commercial use, and the City would not allow new and used
car sales in this area, and recreational vehicles were of the same category.
Commissioner Gauer noted that the Commission had heard from both industry and
industrial developments for and against this proposal, however, he felt it
would be to the beiiefit of the City of Anaheim to retain this area for iadus-
trial uses, but he wanted to make sure the Commission reviewed all of the
alternatives in making their decision since the City could not just consider
the person selling his property in this area but the properties that had
already been developed there, and it was possible this area might remain :;cant
indefinitely.
Commissioner Rowland noted that when the Commissicn asked for the study rega.rd-
ing the possibility of revising the boundaries of the Northeast Industrial A:rea,
this had been brought up on several previous occasions - the first time being
when the miniature golf course was considered - to determine if it would be a
nonconforming use, and at the time the study was requested, Mr. Kilroy stated
it was very difficult for industry to maintain the high level of employment in
the secretarial pools because af insufficient time for these employees to
purchase sundries duriag their lunch hour, and at that time he had stated there
might be a time in the future where industry could be a thing of the past and
there would be only service-oriented uses, but from the study preaented, and
from evidence presented by persons representing industry in the area this was
not so, since these representatives stated there would be conflicts which they
felt would be problems, such as traffic patterns, volumes of vehicles which were
definitely not desirable as indicated by both North ~american Rockwell and Bryan
Industries, while developers of the property (Yoder and Kilroy) in t:~e area
indicated this would not be an incompatible use and might be welcomed; that as
basis for re-evaluating the area, one could not establish a new use area by
establishing La Palma Avenue as a boundary because what would be acceptable for
the south side of La Pa.lma Avenue would also be acceptable for the north side
of La Palma Avenue, and although it might be considered a barrier, it was only
an arterial highway; that by the same inference, the amusement park opened the
door for recreation-oriented land uses, and if Anaheim had not had aver 400 acres
of virtually vacant commercial-recreation land, then the Commission might wish
to look at this request on that basis, however, if one wanted to re-evaluate
the Northeast industrial Area, it should not be done on the physical boundaries
of La Palma Avenue but had to be done on the basis of land use, and if industry
was changing its profile, this would be the basis upon which to re-evaluate the
area -not upon its ability to support recreational land uses.
Commissioner Farano stated he thought this was the premise to which the Commission
should address themselves, and according to the report prepared by staff on
page 3, from those statistics, it did not appear that the Northeast Industrial
Area had come to a standstill - and then read portions of the report, comment-
ing afterwards that this report did not indicate to him, as Commissioner Gauer
suggested, that there was a qucstion as to whether or not the Northeast Industrial
Area would remain vacant, but it appeared to him that maybe the amount of permit
valuation may have decreased, bnt the amount of total construction occurring
in the Northeast Industrial Area in the last three years had substantially in-
cseased-it was not a situation where this land would develop for some other use
or not at all; that in one of his ideas discussed a long time ago, he had stated
that this was to be encroachment oE support industries or businesses, but he
could not see that the proposed use could not be construed as a support industry
in the industrial area, and if the City was going to permit encroachment with
non-support industries, it would appear to him that rather than allowing an
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 6, 1972 72-586
VARIANCE N0. 2384 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1323 (Continued)
encroachment, it should be done in a scientific manner, and perhaps along the
land use basis as outlined, gradually decreasing the amount of land in the
Northeast Industrial Area rather than allowing an encroachment -why not do it
by desiqn rather than by accident. However, he could not see that this route
was warranted.
Commissionez Gauer noted that he felt the Commission should review the report
and any of its implications - this was necessary because of another petition
that would be considered later which was located west of the proposed use, and
because this aspect had not been studied befcre when both the miniature golf
course and the movie studio were considered (both of which were denied by the
Planning Commission); that he was not against retaining the ar.ea for industrial
uses. but the Commission should debate the entire matter to look at all of the
elements involved.
Commissioner Farano noted that Mr. McKeun, a prior applicant for the travel
trailer sales and service facility adjacent to sub~ect property, had been told
very strongly by the Commission their feelings as to retail sales, and as a
result, after the Commission had asked him on two different occasions, he had
stipulated there would be no motorized vehicles that would be sold except for
travel trailers, and if subject petition were approved, then he could foresee
Mr. z'cKeun returning to the Commission, asking for the same permission, and
there would be no way the Commission could refuse the request since a precedent
was being established. In addition, Fredson's representative stated tl;ere would
be no used vehicles on the property because of the lack of adequate space,
however, Mr. Love was not quite as clear, but he indicated there would be used
vehicles but maybe for a short period of time, but it was clear there was a
possibility there could be used vehicles on the lot.
Mr. Love advised the Commission that he did not mean there would not be any
used vehic2es initially, however, if a man traded in a camper-pickup for a
larger vehicle, according to their regulations, the trade-in vehicle could not
remain more than 48 hours on the premises, whether sold the next day or moved,
however, he could not see any dealer giving up valuable space, having only
10,000 square foot £acilities, for used vehicles because he was paying rent to
sell new vehicles.
Commissioner Farano noted that he understood it in that way, but his point was
the necessity of business and any change in the atmosphere of purchasing and
re-purchasinq of the vehicles could dictate a rather substantial reversal in
the policy of Traveland so that he could not see where the Commissic~n could
escape the fact for one minute that there would not be used vehiale sales,
particularly if a"like new" vehicle came in which could very well end •:o on
the sales lot, whether Mr. Love wanted it that way or not that would be the
situation - be:cause tenants had to make some kind of business decisions them-
selves; tha*_ another fact to consider was the traffic that would be created
by repair of recreational vehicles - unlike the recreation vehicle purchasers.
the repairs from his experience were done primarily during the daytime; that
he ha3 visited the facility in Santa Ana on more than one occasion when he had
had his own recreational vehicle repaired, and there was a traffic problem,
there£ore, he could foresee an increase in traffic problems from the repair
facilities because there were not many of those in Orange County, and if this
was to have any kind of success, as Mr. Love indicated, this would be a very
desirable facility where people could bring their recreational vehicles to be
repaired, therefore, there would not only be traffic from the sales of the
vehicles, but some rather substantial traffic from other purchasers for just
parts, accessories, and repairs, which would all be done during the daytime.
Chairman Seymour asked the Commission to review with him past positions of the
City: 1) from one that upheld very tightly the ~:-`egrity of the industrial
area by adhering to the Code; 2) a position where the City had now adopted the
belief and philosoptiy_.of support industries that would be welcomed into the
area, and in that va`i~~ he had asked Mr. Kilroy at a previous hearing his feel-
ings and concept of support industries that should be encouraged; 3) now the
City had moved from support industries, not withstanding the fact that the
Commission denied the movie studio and the miniature golf course to a reqeest
that could not be considered a support use but a commercial-reczeation use; that
it was his personal feeling that the Commission should deny subject petitions,
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 6, 1972 72-587
VARIANCE NO. 2384 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1323 (Continued)
and if the City Council decided to overrule the C~mmission's action, then the
Commission should have a work session with the City Council to determine what
of the three alternatives submitted by staff should be considered, and he
would recommend that staff present this study to the City Conncil for their
review and consideration.
Commissior.er Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-227 and moved for its passage
and adoption to deny Petition Por Variance No. 2384 on the basis that approval
of subject petition would be tantamount to a substantial deviation from the
Planning Commission's policy to retain the area for industrial uses; that the
current lonq-range industrial development policy is in the best interest for
the City and the area in general; that the City had made commitments to industry
established and being established in this general area to retain the industrial
integri.ty of the area; that the best buffer between industrial and non-industrial
uses was tlie Riverside Freeway, which served as the Northeast Industrial Area
southerly boundary; that approval of subject getition would encouraae the
deterioration of the industrial zone; that the City c.f Anaheim was planning to
increase its residential areas, and the industrial areas already established
should be preserved in order to provide employment and tax base for the resi-
dents of these areas; that the City of Anaheim should maintain its present
policy and preserve the current boundaries of the Northeast Industrial Area;
that the industrial development was now increasing in Anaheim rathex than de-
creasing in the Northeast Industrial Area, which could be developed to satura-
tion within twenty years at its present growth rate; that traffic created by
the repair business proposed in this area would be detrimental to the industrial
area by creation of many traffic hazards; and that the proposed use could only
be considered a commercial-recreation use and not a support industry. (SeE
Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland. Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred.
Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. ?C72-228 and movad for its passage
and adoption to deny Petition for Condition .1 Use Permit No. 1323 on the basis
that the proposed use would adversely affecl: the adjoininq land uses and the
growth and development of the area in which it was proposed to be located;
that the proposed restaurant was an integral part of the recreational vehicle
sales and service center, and since the variance for that use was denied, the
restaurant could not be approved separately. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSZONERS: Allred.
The Commission advised the representatives of the industrial development in
the Northeast Industrial Area that if they wanted their wishes known as was
presented to the Planning Commission, then i£ these petitions were to be
considered by the City Council, they should appear at the City Council public
hearing.
Commissioner Kaywood then noted that in the long run, it was her feelinq that
Mr. Kilroy would be grateful that the City of Anaheim ~~aintained the integrity
of the Northeast Industrial Area.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 6, 1972 ~Z-588
VARIANCE NO. 2385 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. GILBERT U. KRAEMER~ JR., P. O.
~ Box 274, Placentia, California 92670, Ownerj JOHN G.
VALENTINE, 635 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, Cali£ornia
92666, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF (a) PERMITTED USES, (b) REQUZRED SOLID
MASONRY WALI~ ALONG RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY, (c) REQUIRED SOLID MASONRY WALL
AROUND OUTDOOR USE, AND (d) PERMITTED SIGNS TO ESTABLISH AN AUTO RACE TRACK
WITH VEHICLE SALES AND SERVICE AND RESTAURANT on property described as: An
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 6.4 acres having
a frontage of approximately 526 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue,
having a maximum depth of approximately 690 feet and being located approxi-
mately 2800 feet west of the centerline of Kraemer Boulevard. Property
presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE.
Suliject petition was continued from the meeting of July 10, 1972, to allow
time for staff to conduct a study on the effects of commercial uses in the
industrial area and whether the boundaries of the existing Northeast Industrial'
Area should be amended.
Three persons indicated their presence in opposition.
Mr. John Valentine, agent for the petitioner, advised the Commission that
since they had met with the planning staff who had indicated the proposed use
might be feasible, and since the City of Anaheim had 330 acres of commercial-
recreation land, he would request a two-week continuance iii order to investi-
gate the feasibility of developing this proposed use in the C-R area.
Commissioner Farano offered a motion to continue consideratien of Petition for
Variance No. 2385 to the meeting of September 18, 1972, as ra;nested bg the
petitioner, to allow time to view other properties as to its feasibility for
the proposed use. Commissiuner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
VARIANCE N0. 2430 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. UNION OIL COMPANY. 461 South
Boylston, Los Angeles, California 90017, Owner; ARNE C.
BELSBY, Mini-Warehouse Corp., 5600 Orangethorpe Avenue,
N704, La Palma, California 90620, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF THE MINIMUM
NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING STALLS TO ESTABLISH A STORAGE WAREHOUSE on property
described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately
5 acres having a frontage of approximately 592 feet on the north side of La
Palma Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 520 feet, and beinq
located at the northeast corner of La Palma and Tustin Avenues. Property
presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE.
No one appeared in opposition.
Although the Rep?rt to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is
referred to and t~a~~e a part of the minutes.
Mr. Arne Belsby, a~e:~t for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and
noted that the proposeu warehouse was a new type of facility which had not as
yet arrived in California; that this would be a 5-acre site en which they
planned to develop, with half of the site plans being proposed for individual
basis with monthly rentals or annual leases for larger areas; that lessees
would have their own lock and key, and there would be 24-hour-a-day accessi-
bility to these lockers; that they provided security at nightj and that the
area would be well lit for protection,
Mr. Belsby then noted that the Report to the Commission indicated additional
landscaping should be provided, to which he did not object, however, he felt
the area would have more security if no 6-foot wall were required - this would
alleviate lessees having to go in and park their cars in unpsotected areas on
the site.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst noted that his concept of this proposal was they were
extra large lockers of permanent type, similar to garage„ and inquired if
this was a fact; whereupon Mr. Belsby stated that these buildings would be
10 feet, 20 feet, or 30 feet deep, with the garage door openings on either
end; that these depths could be partitioned off in 10-foot segments with metal
partitions, such as was used in service stations, and would be the movable
type partition.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Se~tember 6, 1972 ~Z-589
VARIANCE NO. 2430 (Continued)
Commi~sioner Gauer noted that the plans indicated only 3 parking spaces, and
if the pronosed use did not succeed, then the war^house fzci:"lity would have
only 3 parking spaces for a more intense use of the property; whereupon Mr.
Belsby stated that thia facility would have to hc•ve'a driveway to gain entrance
to the original spaces, and no permanent parking was needed since they would
drive to the area, store or pick up their goods, and then leave; and that the
3 parking spaces were for office use only. Furthermore, this idea originated
in Austin, Texas, where the use had developed quite fast, and that his plans uf
dovelopment were obtained from the most successful development in Texas, such
as Hoiiday Inns had.
Coma~issioner Rowland noted that he was familiar with those facilities, however,
they have live-in caretakers because of the presence of crime in the area, and
by placinq people permanently on the site, this made these facilities more
operable.
Mr. Belsby stated that if a permanent resident manager was permitted, this
would be to their advantage.
Commissioner Rowland inquired how the petitioner hoped to guarantee the un-
breakability of these lockers since people could be placing their boats in
these facilities or establishing a workshop with considerable valuable equip-
ment stored tiiere - this may be the reason for such an appeal for this type
of facility, hut how safe would the facility be.
Mr. Belsby scated that he had asked the same question in Texas, and they had
informed him they had no problem - maybe this was becanse most of the items
that were stored had sentimental value and was not a desirable thing to steal,
and perhaps the burglars were not interested in second-hand goods eitherj then
in response to a question by Commi3sioner Seymour, stated that some operations
required attendants on duty because these were a 24-hour service, however,
they proposed to be an answering service for night hours of operation, although
there would b~ flexible hours, it was intended to be open until 8:00 or 9:00
p.m. with accessibility to these facilities on a 24-hour basis; and that they
would have the protection of a security patrol which he would provide.
Chairman Seymour noted that there was a further problem as to paxking - if this
operation were not successful, would the petitioner have any objection to
establishing a time limit as to how lonq this would be allowed, with a review
of the parking problem at the end of that time limitation; whereupon Mr. IIelsby
stated that he would have no objection to that, nor was he opposed to providing
additional landsr,ape screening.
Commissioner Herbst inquireA whether the industria] zone permitted li.ve-in
caretakers; whereupon Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the Code
did permit a caretaker to live on the premises.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired about the visibility of these structures from
I~a Palma and Tustin Avenue~ since they would be viewed to a certain degree -
clid the petitioner have any plans for a more attractive building; wher~upon
Mr. Belsby stated that the plans for the office progosed a French colonial-
type building which would be attractive, and the balance of the buildings
would be painted a light color with trim.
The Cemmission then inquired whether ox not renderings of what had just been
statea were available; whereupon Mr. Belsby stated that they had plans only
for the office.
The Commission then inquired whether it was a requirement to have plans sub-
~ritted in the approval or £iling of a variance; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated
that plans had been submitted by the petitioner which gave a partial e~evation
of what the storage buildings would look like, but no plans were given for the
office building, and the plans iadicated both walls would have cubicles with
doors, and in this connection inquired if the doors proposed were to be of
aluminum; whereupon Mr. Belsby stat~d they woulc: be metal.
Mr. Roberts noted that the storage building on the southerly portion of the
property would have all three doors facing La Palma Avenue, and there was no
wall treatment or landscaping proposed, therefore, thi., would give~ the appear-
ance oE the rear of regular industrial buildings rather than the front of an
industrial building.
~
~
~
MINUTES, CI':' PLANNING COMMISSION, September 6, 1972 72-590
VARIANCE i~0. 2430 (Continued)
Commissi.oner Rowland noted that in view of the impact of this particular project
to the area at this intersection to the rear of a service station, if the
Commission required plans to be submitted with the petition, these should be
before the Commission in complete detail before any action was taken.
Commissioner Gauer noted that the Commission should also take into considera-
tion that if.this operation did not succeed, these var.ious structures could be
rented in part with small industrial complexes, v:hich would have insufficient
parking.
Mr. Roberts noted that this particular use was ratiier unique, and the variance
was strict]y for the parking waiver since these would be classified as build-
ings and the use intended was for storage warehouses, and that was a permitted
use.
Chairman Seymour noted that then the only protection the City would have would
be a time limitation on the use or a denial of the petition.
Commissioner Rowland noted that if the conversion factor was of great concern
to the Commission, there woald be more problems than parking since this was a
single-purpose land plan, and there would be no way to use it except for
marginal activity - either this went on or nothing went into the structure.
In addition, there was no specific lighting other than bare light bulbs;
whereupon Mr. Belsby stated that there would Le only one light and electrical
light outlets for power, and there would be very few restroom facilities if
conversion were considered, therefore, this would present quite a problem and
in all likelihood the building would have to be started from scratch.
Commissioner Herbst noted that a variance granted would run with the land, and
if the building were torn down, this petition should be brought up for review
since he did not want any industry to go in there, tear down the building, and
still be able to have limited or insufficient parking.
Chai.rman Seymour inquired whether or not the variance would be lost if the
building were torn Zown; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated that if approval were
tied in with plans, then specific plans of development would have to be pre-
sented to the Commission, at which time any parking would have to be considered.
Commissioner Kaywood observed that since the Commission had a very long agenda
and since the Commission also had determined that unless staff had reviewed the
plans first, they could not be considered by the Planning Commission, therefore,
she would suggest that subject petition be continued in order to allow staff
time to review the plans and present findings.
Mr. Roberts inquired of Commissioner Kaywood as to her comments regarding the
view of theee buildings from La Palma Avenue, since staff had recommended that
the Commission's thinking along these lines should be expressed, and that this
particular elevation now being submitted would not be viewed from the street.
Chairman Seymour noted that this was a straiqht-forward situation and could
be handled very simply.
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry noted that the variance request for a ware-
house was for waiver of the required parking for warehouse use.
Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to reopen the hearing and conti.nue
consideration of Petition for Variance No. 2430 to the meeting of September 18,
1972, in order to allow time to review plans submitted and for the petitioner
to submit no later than Friday of this week (September 8) elevations and plot
plans of the proposed office building and elevations of the proposed warehouse
building. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTTON CARRIED.
(Commissioner Seymour voted "no")
REC£SS - Chairman Seymour moved for a ten-minute recess.
Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 3:50 p.m.
RECONVENE - Chairman Seymour reconvened the meeting at 4:05 p.m.,
Commissioners Allred and Rowland being absent.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 6, 1972 72-591
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. DAGOOD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
PERMIT N0. 1328 1322 East Edinger, Santa Ana, California 92705, Owner;
HERBERT A. :%~OSS, 888 North Main, Suite 700, Santa Ana,
VAkIANCE NO. 2435 California 92701, Aqent; property described as: An
irregularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of
spproximately 280 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue,
having a maximum depth of approximately 384 feet, being located at the northwest
corner of Katella Avenue and Claudina Way, and Further described as 1759
South Claudina Way. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, 2CNE.
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: HAVE ON~SALE BEER IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ENCLOSED
RESTAURANT WITH WAIVER OF REQUIRED KITCHEN AREA.
REQliESTED VARIANCE: PERMIT A BEER BAR IN AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING.
Subject conditional use permit was continued from the meeting of August 7,
1972, to allow time for the petitioner to readvertise subject property as a
beer bar.
No one appeared in opposition.
Althaugh the Report to the Commission was not read at the pLblic hearing, it is
referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Herb~tTMoss, agent for the petitioner, appeazed before the Commission and
noted that the variance had been filed since the Commission did not feel the
conditional use permit was the proper vehicle; that there was a need for this
use in the area; and that their hours of operation would be from 11:00 a.m. to
11:00 p.m.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission inquired whether any hard liquor was proposed to be sold; where-
upon Mr. Moss stated that he would stipulate there would be no hard liquor sold,
nor would there be any ad.ult-only entertainment proposed; and that he would
stipulate to the hours of operation from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. .
Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC72-229 and moved for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2435, subject to conditions,
and the stipulation by the petitioner that the nours of operation would be
from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.; that no hard liquor would be served; and that
no adult-only entertainment was being proposed. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer~.
ABSENT: COMMISSZONERS: Allred, Rowland.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that action on the
conditional use permit could be made by either terminating or by the petitioner
requesting withdrawal; whereupon Mr. Moss requested that Conditional Use Permit
No. 1328 be withdrawn.
Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gauer and
MOTION CARRIED, to grant the request of the petitioner to withdraw Petition
for Conditional Use Permit No. 1328. (Commissioners Allred and Rowland were
absent.)
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC AEARING. HAROLD M. WILLIAMS, MARTIN S.
NO. 71-72-53 ROBERTS, AND FRED M. KAY, c/o Fred M. Kay, 220 Laguna
Road, Fullerton, California 92632, Owners; BUTLER HOUSl'NG
TENTATIVE MAP OF CORP.r z283 West Linccln Avenue, Anaheim, California 92801,
TRACT N0. 6733 Agent; property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel
of land consisting of approximately 10.5 acres hai..ng a
frontage of approximately 785 feet and being located approxi-
mately 330 feet east- of the centerline of Lakeview Avenue.
RECLASSIFICATION REQUEST: COUNTY A1 TO CITY OF ANAHEIM RS-5000 ZONE.
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 6, 1972 ~z'S92
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-53 AND TENTATIVE MHr OF TRACT NO. 6733 (Continued)
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: BUTLER HOUSING CORP.. 2283 West Lincoln .
Ayenue, Anaheim, California 92801. ENGINEER: ~,
Jennings, Halderman, Hood, 2001 East Fourth Street,
Suite 200, Santa Ana, California 92705; proposing
to subdivide s~:bject property into 52 RS-5000 zoned
lots.
Subject petition was continued from the meetings of June 26 and July 24, 1972,
for the submission of revised planat and from the meetinq of August 7, 1972,
at the request of the petitioner ~o allow time to submit a tract map.
Commissioner Herbst noted that since there was a possible conflict of interest,
he woul.d not participate in any discussion or action on subject petition and
tract; whereupon he left the Council Chamber at 4:10 p.m.
No one appeared in opposition.
Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is
referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Douglas Kuesder, representing Butler Housing Corp., the agent and developer
of the project, appeared before the Commission and noted that staff and the
engineers had been working together; that they had an excellent design and
planned to have t'r.ree and four-bedroom homes ranging from 1225 square feet in
building area on up.
The Commission reviewed the plans and then asiced that if subject petition aad
tract were approved, wculd the developer agree to present a set of housing
plans to the Commission so that the Commission could see haw the homes would
be located on khe lot and as to the number of bedrooms within each floor plan.
Mr. Kuesder stated he would object to it basically on the fact that government
seemed to want to develop the property, and he felt they had a well-dtsigned
set of plans for homes that would be most desirable for the area, and because
they must eell these homes, it was their prerogative to design in the manner
in which they wanted them to appear, and he did not feel the Commission should
establish an architectural committee since they would abide by all of the zone
regulations.
Commissioner Farano noted that he had no intent to maintain architectural
control, but as a Commissioner, since this was the first development prop:~aed
under the new RS-5000 regalations, he wanted to see what this would look like,
and that there would be no delay nor a public hearing since these plans cou:!d
be presented as a report and recommendation any time they would be made avail-
able.
Mr. Kuesder then stated he would be happy to display the pla.ns and that he would
assure thy Commission they would comply with the RS-5000 regulations, adding
850 square feet where four-bedroom homes were proposed; that they would have the
required setback; that he did not want the company placed in the position that
they be delayed as to possible colors and materials that might be used; where-
upon Commissioner Farano inquired whether the developer had ever experienced a
delay as to architecture within the City of Anaheim and received a negative
answer.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired as to the setbacks that were being proposed;
wnereupon Mr. Kuesder stated they would have 25-foot setbacks wherever possible;
that he could not guarantee all would be 25-foot setbacks since they might want
to take advantage of some of the ordinance regulations.
Mr. Kuesder then inquired of Deputq City Attorney Frank Lowry what would happen
to the reclassification; whereupon Mr. Lowry stated that because this was a
realassification, it would automatically go to the City Council since the
Planning Commission only recommended approval or disapproval; and that the
Council would then hear at a public hearing the reclassification petition with
the tract map to be considered in conjunction, therefore, all the Commission
was requesting was the ~ubmission of house plans.
~
~J
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 6, 1972 72-593
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-53 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 6733 (Continued)
Chairman Seymour then noted that he would like to have a condition of approval
attached that the plans of development be submitted to the Planning Commissian
and City Council for approvalj whereupon Zoning Supervisor Charle~ Roberts
noted that this wae not uncommon since most o£ the requests before the City in
the canyon had a condition of approval requiring final plans to be submitted
to the Planning Commission and City Council for approval prior to the introduc-
tion of an ordinance.
Mr. Lowry thea noted that an ordinance for the reclassification would be read
when the conditions were met, but the City Council would have to act on the
reclassification petition first.
TAE HEARING WAS CLOSEP.
Commissioner Farano o£fered Resolution No. PC72-230 and moved for its passaqe
and adoption to recommend to the City Council approval of Petition for Reclassi-
fication No. 71-72-53, subject to conditions, and the added condition that
final house plans be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council for
approval prior to the reading of the ordinance, as stipulated to by the peti-
tioner. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AiES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst, Rowland.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Farano and bIOTION
CARRIED (Commissioners Allred, Herb~t, and Rowland being absent), to approve
Tentative Map of Tract No. 6733, subject to the followinq conditions:
(1) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6733 is granted
subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 71-72-53.
(2) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub-
division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative
form for approval.
(3) That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall
shall be constructed on the ~outh property line separating lot
Nos. 1 through 10 and Orangethorpe Avenue, said wall to be con-
structed along the west line of lot No. 1 except in the front
setback area. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation
facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the
arterial highway parkway the full distance of said wall, plans
for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval
of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installa-
tion and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsi-
bilYty for maintenance of said landscaping.
(4) That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground
utilities.
(5) That a final tract map of subject prop~:rty shall be submitted to
and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the
office of the Orange Coui,ty Recorder.
(61 That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior
to approval of a final tract map.
(7) That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of
Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as
determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to
be paid at the time the builciing permi.t is issued.
(8) That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a
manner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer.
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY YLANNING COMMISSION, September 6, 1972 72-594
RECLASSZFICATION NO. 71-72-53 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 6733 (Continued)
(9) That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley
openings, to Orangethorpe Avenue shall be dedicated to the City
of Anaheim.
(10) That a predetermined price for Lots A and B shall be caiculated
and an offer of dedication of Lots A and B shall be made by
the developer and submitted to and approved by th: City of
Anaheim prior to approval of the final tract map, said of£er of
dedication to be recorded concurrently with the final tract map.
The r.ost of Lots A and B shall include land and a proportion-
ate share of the underground utilities and street improvements.
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ANAHEIM HILLS/TEXACO VENTURES~
NO. 'J2-73-11 Attention of James Barisic, Vice President, 380 Anaheim
Hills Road, Anaheim, California 92806, Owners; pzoperty
CONDITIONAL USE described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land con-
PERMIT N0. 1332 sisting of approximately 30 acres, having a frontage of
approximately 742 feet on the east side of Nohl Ranch Road,
TENTATIVE MAP OF having a maximum depth of approxi~ately 1700 feet, and
TRACT NO. 7929, being located approximately one-half mile north of the
REVISION N0. 1 centerline of Serrano Avenue. Property presently classi-
fied R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZGNE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFIC:~TION: R-2. MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE.
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A 162-UNIT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP-
MENT, WAIVING (a) REQUIREMENT THAT LOTS ABUT A
PUBLIC STREET~ (b) MINIMUM BUILDING SITE AREA~
AND (c) MINIMUM BUILDING SITE WIDTH.
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: ANAHEIM HILLS/TEXACO VENTURES, 380
Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim, California 92806;
ENGINEER: VTN, 2301 Campus Drive, Irvine,
California 92664; proposing to subdivide 30 acres
into 162 R-2 zoned lots.
Subject petitions were continued from the meetings of July 24 and August 7,
1972, at the request of the petitioner.
Commissioner Herbst returned to the Council Chamber at 4:23 p.m.
No one appeared in opposition.
Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is
referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Ron Dickerson, representing Grant Corp. and the developer, 1665 South
Brookhurst Street, appeared before the Commission and stated that this would
be a townhouse development, and he had site plans available, and then presented
said site plans and reviewed them for the Commission.
The Commission~noted that the public stseets appeared to be asphalt paving;
~rhereupon Mr. Dickerson stated these would be textured concrete; that they had
been investigating paving in other areas and determined that they would like
the textured effect in conjunction with the asphalt.
The Commission inquired as to the price range for these units; whereupon Mr.
Dickerson stated he did not know, but thought they would be in the upper
$20,000 range - Tom Martin, another representative of the developer, indicated
these townhouses would range in price from $30,000 to $35,000.
Commissioner Kaywood observed that the location haa one of the best views on
the ranch; whereupon Mr. Dickerson stated this was correct, and tl:ese units
would be overlooking the golf course, and thus they wanted quality units.
Commissioner Farano noted that while there might be an ample amount of guest
parkinq spaces, they were not weZl dispersed; whereupon Mr. Dickerson stated
that the street would be a public street where parking would be permitted,
and there were about 50 guest parking stalls in addition.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOPi, September 6, 1972 72-595
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-~3-11, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1332, AND TENTATIVE
MAP OF TRACT NO. 7929. REVISION NO. 1(Continued)
Commissioner Farano suggested that these guest parking stalls be more conveni-
ently located rather than being grouped near only a few of the units.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired as to the type of garage space that was proposed;
whereupon Mr. Dickerson stated these would be two-car garages, 20x20 feet with
an additional utility area.
Mr. Martin then reviewed the site plan for the Commission, noting that he had
one quest parking space for each two units.
Commissioner Farano then reviewed the dispari::y of ~he guest parking as proposed
for each two units.
Mr. Martin, in reply to a question by Commissioner Kaywood regarding insulation,
stated there would be double-double walls with sound insulation which should
prevent any noises from reaching the adjoining unitst and then reviewed the
manner in which the walls would be constructed.
Mr. Martin, in reply to concern expressed by Commissi~ner Farano regardinq the
guest parking, stated that because one side of the pad was sloped vertically
about 50 feet, there would be parking on one side only on some streets, while
other public streets would have two driving and two parking lanes, with some
stzeets having only one parking lane and two driving lanes.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired how the developer proposed to limit parking to
only one side; whereupon Mr. Martin stated that the street would be posted with
"no parking" signs on the side where parking was not permitted.
Mr. Dickerson noted that instead of having private streets, ti-ey went to public
street standards permitted in the hillside zone, and then in response to further
questioning by Commissioner Kaywood, stated that they did not anticipate bicycle
paths, but that they had not gone to designing the tract yetj and that he was
sure these streets would be wide enough to take care of bicycle paths.
Commissioner Kaywood stated that this should be kept in mind in order that it
would not be necessary for each 16-year-old needing an automobile to qet
around.
Office F.ngineer Jay Titus noted that the hillside street standards required two
12-foot travel lanes with 7-foot parkways on either side, and the total right-
of-way would be 45 feet.
Mr. Msrtin then reviewed where the common trash areas were proposed to be
located for the four-unit buildings on either side. ~oting that there was
adequate turn-around for other units, but that there were only 10 of the I62
units that would be affected, and that this would be within the clusters.
Commissioner Farano noted that Mr. Titus had reviewed the standards for hill-
side streets, but this did not justify waiving parking requirements.
Commissioner Seymour noted that in the R-1 developments in the city, the City
did not require off-street parking, and the density of this development was
similar to R-1 with a density of approximately 6.7 units per acre, while the
typical PRD would be almost twice that density.
Commissioner Kaywood then noted that these units were proposed in the hills
and undevelopable areas, which brought the density down, and one could not
compare this density with flat land requirements.
Commissioner Seymour stated it was his personal opinion that there was some-
thing to consider other than pa:•king, and the Commission must look at this
project and desiqn on its own ~ntrits.
Commissioner Farano then observed from his calculations it would appear that
there would be at least 50 cars parked on the street from this development;
whereupon Mr. Dickerson stated there was parking available on one side of
Walnut Canyon Road.
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 6, 1972 72-596
RECLASSIFICATION N0. 72-73-11~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1332,. AND TENTATIVE '
MAP OF TRACT NO. 7929. REVISION NO. 1(Continued)
Mr. Mz~tin noted that they proposed 30 to 35 four-bedroom units and 100 three-
bedroom units; that they were markeL•ing some of their four-bedroom plans as an
optional retr.eat which wor.ld be located adjacent to the master bedroom.
Commissioner Kaywood then noted that if these were four-bedroom units, then more
parking would be needed; whereupon Mr..Martin stated this was the reason for
marketing these four-bedroom units as optional retreats.
Commissioner Farano noted that there were 324 garage spaces with 480 bedrooms,
and i.f cred:tt were given for some of tlie optioaal retreat rooms, then the
number could be reduced to 460 bedrooms, but it would appear there would be at
least 400 automobiles.
Commissioner Seymour stated he could not see why the Commission should equatE
the number of bedrooms with the number of parking spacesi whereupon Commissioner
Farano inquired whether the Commission wanted to see on-street parking in the
hill area.
Commissioner Seymour then stated that this problem should be corrected through
an ordinance.
Commissioner Farano noted that the ordinance required at least an additional
30 spaces for guest parking, since this was a planned residential development
request.
Mr. Tony Al1en, President of Grant Corp., appeared before the Commission and
stated that a typical planned unit develoNment would be fine in most cities if
there were no public streets traversing the properties, but along the perimeter
one could not have parking on a public street, but in other instances there
would be parking on both sides of the major street and on one side of the cul-
de-sac, therefore, if one added up these parking spaces, there would be parking
in excess of the requirement, putting together the private, off-site parking
available and public street parking, and it would appear there was discussion
reqarding public versus private parking. ,
Commissioner Kaywood inquired if additional off-street guest parking were
required, would this mean breaking into the open spaces; whereupon Mr. Allen
stat:d that this additional parking would take away from the green area.
Commissioner Herbst observed that the residents of the apartment units could
also take up some of the guest parkinq.
Commissioner Farano.stated that having on-street parking would be deviating the
purpose of having open space.
Commissioner Seymour observed that in a typical PRD with private streets, these
streets would be only 31 feet wide from curb to curb, while the hillside street
standards required 45 feet.
Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commission
that if the public streets were termed "private streets" but developed to public
street standards, then the developer would be allowed to count the parking on
those streets as part of their required parking.
Commissioner Kaywood noted that it would be extremely difficult to clean the
streets because of too much on-street parking, and she wondered if street park-
ing would be guest parking or ovezflow parking of the apartments themselves.
Mr. Dickerson noted that it was their experience from other PRD's that each unit
would have two cars for up to four-bedroom units, but the only nroblem they had
in their other PRD's were the people w3~o parked on the street for short periods
of time; and then in response to questioning by Commissioner Kaywood, stated
that the aarage setbacks would have varying distances - that he did not antici-
pate providing automatic garage door openers, but where double clusters were
proposed, they planned to install the automatic garage duor openers.
Commissioner Kaywood noted that there mas a two-way view of these units - from
the golf course looking up and from the units looking down, therefore, quality
development should be proposed, particularly with the 4 million dollar golf
course investment by the City of. Anahe+_m, the view for all taxpayers should be
an attractive one.
+e.~fsynr ~-
Mr. Dickerson stated that only t;ze/natural slopes would be seen, and no build-
ings would be seen from the gol.: course since the buildings would be located
about 50 feet above the fairways.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 6, 1972 72-597
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-11~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1332~ AND TENTATIVE
MAP OF TRACT N0. 7929, REVISION NO. 1(Continued)
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Gauer o£fered Resolution No. PC72-231 and moved for its passage
and adoption to recou~mend to the City Council approval of Petition for Reclas-
sification No. 72-73-11, subject to conditions. !~ee Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolutio.. was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: CQMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland.
Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution NO. PC72-232 and moved for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1332, subject to
conditions. (See Resolution BooY.)
Continued dis~:lssian was held by the Commission, summarized as follows: 1) the
possibility that ':ne existing parking requirements in the ordinance were in-
adequate; 2) whether on-street parkinq should be included in the calculations
of the parkiac requirements for PUD's and PRD'st 3) guest parkinq should be
conveniently located for all units-not grouped together in one area since this
would encourage on-street parking; 4) need to have a work session to discuss
parking standards and the possible solution; 5) if public streets were changed
to private streets, then parking would be more than adequate; 6) the Commis-
sion's reaction to situations rather than acting, and s better solution to these
situations should be found rather than walking away from them or ignoring them;
7) a need to qet recreational vehicles off of the street and parked on-site
behind barriers foz a more attractive street appearance; 8) consideration given
to bicycle paths in the hill and canyon area.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, HeXbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Allred and Rowland being absent), to approve
Tentative Map of Tract No. 7929, Revision No. 1, subject to the following
conditions:
(1) That the approval o£ Tentative Map of Tract No. 7929, Revision No. 1,
is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 72-73-11
and Conditional Use Permit No. 1332.
(2) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one
subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in
tentative form for approval.
(3) That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground
utilities.
(4) That the covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be sub-
mitted to and aparoved by the City Attorney's Office grior to
City Council approval of the final tract map, and, further, that
the approved covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be
recorded concurrently with the final tract map.
(5) That prior to filing the final tract map, the applicant shall
submit to the City Attorney for approval or denial a complete
synopsis of the proposed functioning of the operating corporation,
including but not limited to the articles of incorporation bylaws,
proposed methods of management, bonding to insure maintenance of
common property and buildings, and such other information as the
City Attorney may desire to protect the City, its citizens, and
the purchasers of the project.
~
~
72-598
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Septecnber 6, 1972
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-11, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1332~ AND TENTATIVE
MAP OF TRACT NO. 7929, REVISION NO. 1(Continued)
(6) That the street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim
prior to approval of a final tract map.
(7) That drainage of said property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer and shall include construction
of drainage facilities of a size and type sufficient to carry
runoff waters originating from higher properties south of Santa
Ana Canyon Road through said property to ultimate disposal as
approved by the City Engineer. Reimbursement agreemon~their be
made available to the developers of said property up
request.
(8) That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley
openings, to Nohl Ranch Road and Walnut Canyon Road shall be
dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
(9) That public utility easements to serve the tract shall be dedicated
to the City of Anaheim as •required by the Director of Public
Utilities.
VARIANCE N0. 2432 - PUBLIC HEARING. FRANK A. KLAUS, P. 0. Box 898. Marina Del
Ray. California 90291, Owner; INVESTORS DEVELOPMENT CORP..
INC., 1345 North Grand Avenue, Santa Ana, California 92701,
Agent; requesting WAIVER OF REQUIREMENT THAT CARPORTS BE ENCLOSED TO PERMIT
CONSTRUCTION OF OPEN CARPORTS on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of appxoximately 9 acres, having a frontage of approxi-
mately 628 feet on the west side of State College Boulevard, having a maximum
depth of approximately 609 feet, and being located at the northwest corner of
State College Boulevard and Romneya Drive. Property presently classified R-3,
MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE.
No one appeared in opposition.
Although the Report to the Commission was not rea at the public hearing, it is
referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Jack Davis, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the
Commission and stated they were requesting waiver of the rear wa].l of one of the
carports where they had a 20-foot landscape setbackJ that it would be much better
to view the landscaping than the rear o£ the carport and to provide better pro-
tection if someone was hiding in that area.
THE HEARII"vG WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not the storage cabinets would be
accessible;whereupon Commissioner xerbst noted tYOtogalhwouldsbeeprovidingaaand
found the storage cabinets accessible, and the p P
better aesthetic view for residents of this apartment complex, however, all of
the landscaping that had been planted was quite small and it would take some
time for it to grow, hut that he wauld say the development was one of the finest
developments he had ever seen which provided the propez protection for the
adjacent R-1 properties.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-233 and moved for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2~32, subject to conditions.
(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood. Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland.
~J
~
~
72-599
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 6, 1972
VARIANCE NO. 2433 - PUBLIC HEARING. ALFRED B. LIPPITT, TRUSTEE, c/o Charles
Lippitt, 14328 Victory Boulevard, Van Nuys, California
91401; ENVIRONMENTAL LEISURE CORP.. 126 North Euclid Avenue.
Fullerton, California 92632, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF PERMITTED LOCATION OF A
FREE-STANDING SIGN ABUTTING ADJACEN~ PROPERTY TO ERECT A FREE-STANDING SIGN on
property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage
of approximately 154 feet on the south side of Via Buzton Street, having a maxi-
mum depth of approximately 293 feet, and being located approximately 237 feet
east of the centerline of State College Boulevard. Property presently classi-
fied M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE.
No one appeared in opposition.
Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is
referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Dirck Meengs, 11692 Wilding Road, Santa Ana, appeared before the Commission
and noted he had been retained as a full-time consultant by Environmental Leisure
Corporation; that he had discussed with the owners of the 10-acre parcel to the
south, which was landlecked and had no access from Via Burton Street or Placentia
Avenue since the freeway closed off access to the south, and Environmental
Leisure Corp. had sold a 60-foot strip along the easterly boundary to the prop-
erty owners of this 10-acre parcel for easement purposes to the soutn; that this
easement had been discussed with the planning staff and a letter had been
received from staff that the City woulc~. accept the 60-foot street for purposes
of providing this access; that they planned to place a 4-foot landscape strip
between the motel property and the 60-foot access strip, which was not ordinarily
required, but since this would be a strip of land that would be used in the futur
for street purposes, they had agreed to the landscaping; that the location of
their sign adjacent to the building had been determined to be a traffic hazard,
and recognizing the fact that the 60-foot strip was intended for a street, they
were requesting permission to place the sign on that street frontage. and at
such time as the street became a public, dedicated street, then the sign loca-
tion would be in accordance with Code; that the sign would be located within the
landscape strip; that there would be no reduction in the required parking; that
the relocation of the sign would increase the safety factor of vehicles in the
driveway; and that since the R-A 2one on the property, which was the 60-foot
wide strip, only permitted a sign that was a distance equal to 40$ of the width
or length of the parcel, meaning no sign may be located at a greater distance
than 120 feet, and they were prcposing 152 feet, it was his opinion that the
requested sign location would be in conformance with Code at such time as the
street developed.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired why the sign had to be viewed from the freeway;
whereupon Mr. Meengs stated that a 52-foot high sign would be needed, howevPr,
because the adjoining buildings along State College Boulevard as well as the
gas station had signing that would obliterate their signs, it was necessary
to have the sign 52~ ieet high.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired what her position would be since she had voted
agai.nst the motel when it was first considered; whereupon Deputy City Attorney
Frank Lowry advised Commissioner Kaywood that since this was a new petition,
any previous action would not affect consideration of subject petition.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC72-234 and moved for its passage
and adoption to ~rant Petition for Variance No. 2433, subject to conditions,
and the added conditian that "provided the sign shall be located at such a
location t}~at vrill be in confarmance with Code when L•he property to the east
was developed for street.purposes", on the basis that the 60-£oot wide R-A
strip to the east was projected for use as a future public street, and the sign-
ing, as approved, would then be in conformance with Code. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call 'the foreqoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NQES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSZONERS: Allred, Rowland.
0
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 6, 1972 72-600
VARIANCE NO. 2434 - PUBLIC HEARING. CARL G. HAYS, ET AL, 1000 North Oakdale,
Fullerton, California 92631, Owners; GENERAL MAZNTENAYCE,
11372 Western Avenue, Stanton. California 90680, Agent;
requesting WAIVER OF (a) MaXIMUM NUMSER OF FREE-STANDING SZGNS, (b) MINIMUM
DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-STANDING SIGKS, AND (c) MINIMUM HEIGHT OF FREE-STANDING
SZGNS TO ALLOW TWO PRICE SIGNS AND SELF-SERVE SIGNS IN ADDITIOId TO THE EXISTING
FREE-STANDING IDENTIFICATION SIGN on property described as: A rectangularly-
shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 125 feet on the south
side of Ball Road, having a maximum depth of approximately 125 feet, and being
located at the southwest corner of Ball Road and Harbor Boulevard. Property
presently zoned R-A (Resolution of Intent to C-R), AGRICULTURAL, 20NE.
No one appeared in opposition.
Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is
referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Don Fink, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the
Commission and stated that the Commission had considered a similar application
at another location, however, the Commission had denied said petitiun, and in
reviewing the City Council minutes, it would appear. that all three waivers
requested had been granted, and that although the evaluation in the Report to
the Commission indicated two wa~vers were not granted, this was in error.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the action taken by the City
Council in their resolution did not reflect granting all three waivers, however,
it was the intent of the City Council, and the resolution would have to be
amended.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether the agent for the petitioner had anything
to do with che signing of the service station at Anaheim soulevard and S~'_1
Road; whereupon Mr. Fink stated that he represented General Maintenance, and
it was possible they may have installed the sign there.
Commissioner Kaywood then reviewed Lhe number of signs that were located on
that property in addition to the signing that had been approved.
Mr. Fink stated that they were removing the large freeway sign that was
located on that Froperty.
Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson noted that the proposed
signing would substantially upgrade the service station site with the removal
of the large sign, but he wondered whether Mobil Oil Company had considered
incorporating these signs with the reqular Mobil sign as they did in other
cities; whereupon Mr. Fink replied that where there was full self-service. they
planned to place the signing on the Mobil sign.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-235 and moved for its passage
and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2434 on the basis that the
Ylanning Commission had consistently denied requests for excessive signing of
other service stations, therefore, since there had been no change in the
Commission's thinking, subject petition must be denied; that the major oil
companies helped formulate the Sign Ordinance and subsequent to its adoption
had been the most flagrant violatorst that the oil companies should police
their facilities to more closely comply with the Sign Ordinance; and that
there were no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property
that did no*_ apply generally to the property or class of use in the same
vicinity and zone. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland.
Commissioner Farano, in voting "no", stated that he would agree with the
Commission, however, since the City Council had voted for the self-serve
signs, a precedent had already been established.
~
I
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 6, 1972 72-601
REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 1
RECOMMENDATIONS Reconsideration of undergrounding 12 KV lines -
Santa Ana Canyon, all new areas of the city, and
where street widening proposed.
Commissioner Kaywoad noted that on August 23, 1972, Commissioner Gauer and
she attended the qroundbreaking for the Yorba Shopping Center at Imperial
Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road. It was obvious that the ugliness of the
assorted poles. wires, and transformers was entirely out of place in the
Canyon setting, and did not meet either the intent of the Scenic Corridor
2one or the Scenic Highway designation. Zt would be an incredible sight at
completion of development in the Canyon to have 60 to 70 miles of 12 KV
electrical and telephone lines offending one's vision.
Mayor Dutton's public assurance to Bernardo Yorba and the invited guests that
the "City Council had made an error and will put it underground where it
belongs" was greeted by cheers and applause of the assembled audience.
Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gauer and
MOTION CARRIED, to urge the City Council to reccnsider undergrounding 12 KV
electrical utilities lines in the Canyon, in all new areas of the city, and
wherever street widening is proposed as a joint effort of the City and County,
or wherever a property owner dedicates and improves fox street widening as
required by the Circulation Element of the General Plan - said property owner
to have the choice of requesting that the electrical lines be relocated under-
ground or that the poles and wires be relocated aboveground.
ITEEI N0. 2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY - SEISMIC ELEMENT.
Chairman Seymour noted that at the last meeting of the Environmental Impact
Study of Anaheim Hills there were a number of questions brought up, and he would
suggest in the future these questions be submitted in writing, which could then
be submitted to Anaheim Hills, Inc. (Grant Corporation). In addition, further
serious consideration should be given to recommending that a Seismic Element be
added to the General Plan because there were a number of discrepancies in the
impact stiady by Grant Corporation regarding slopes and their make-up, faults,
and earthquakes, therefore, staff should do some research regarding a Seismic
Element which should be presented to the Commission at a future meeting.
Commissioner Farano inquired whether or not this was a requirement of the State
that such a study be made; whereupon Assistant Development Services Director
Ronald. Thompson statzd this was a requirement for a general city, while Anaheic:
was a charter city; that the County of Orange and staff felti. that this study
should be done on a regional basis, and the County Planning Department was now
conducting seismic studies, with several presentations having been given at the
Planning Directors' meetingsi that perhaps they would not make specific recom-
mendations regarding the City of Anaheim, but the Development Services Department
did not have staff enough to take care of this basic data; that the data being
prepared by the County went far beyond the city's boundaries, and they might be
able to come up with a basic study of the entire area, but it would be up to the
individual cities as to what they wanted to know or glean from this information.
Discussion was held by the Commission and staff regarding: 1) if a seismic study
had been made of the San Fernando Valley where buildings were erected over faults,
then the unfortunate loss of property and lives could have been minimized; 2)
cost of the study by the County where the City of Anaheim was paying 108 of the
cost of operating the Planning Department, while 909 of the planning was done
for unincorporated areas; 3) that the Planning Commission recommend to the City
Council implementation of said study - would it take three or four years - if so,
then houses would already be built in the canyon; 4) legislators who had dra£ted
the law requiring the seismic study did not have the criteria previonsly, but
this was now being established as to what should be incorporated in the seismic
study; 5) the Commissior may wish to take the position that the seismic study
should be approved in the same manner as open space studies; 6) i£ construction
were done directly with proper support beams, etc., the property damage and loss
of life would be considerably less; 7) that there were areas in the canyon where
known faults were located, and a Seismic Element should indicat=ohibitin~ebuild-
similar to that which the City had for the flood plain areas, p 4
ing on the known faults; B) it was a function of the Planning Commission to make
a better living environment.
~ ~
~ tenlb.ex ~~ 1R72 72-602
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMM=SaZON, Sep
ITEM NO. 2 (COntinued)
Comm er Seymour offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and
MO'CION CARRIED, to recommend to the City Council that the Council take offiuial
action asking for cooperation of the County of Orange to pursue a Seismic Study
in the same manner as open space studies were done.
ITEM N0. 3-a
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - Hrookhurst Street
from Lincoln Avenue to Ball Road (A.H.F.P. #590)
Mr. Victor Rollinger, representing the Environmental Studies Section of the
Enqineering Division, presented an Environmental Impact Statementon°file)ok-
hurst Street widening between Lincoln Avenue and Ball Road (copy
and reviewed its contents.
on~saidlstreetacould beqtransplanted orewouldeitlbegnecessarytthatrtheylbeated
destroyed.
Mr. Rollinger noted that the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance stated that
these trees referred to would not survive if transplanted; and that each tree
that would be located in the ultimate right-of-way had been revieweu very care-
fully, and if any tree had a 50-50 chanclookinuratVantreetjustlwhat itsnchancesd
since Parkway Maintenance could tell ~y 4
were for survival..
Commissioner Herbst ofTOVedEnvironmentalcImpactbStatement1forrBrookhurstnStreet
MOTION CARRIED, to app
from Lincoln Avenue to Ball Road (A.H.F.P. #590) based on the fact that t ere
would be no substantial adverse environmental impact and there WOrovidedn~how-
adverse, irreversible changes involved in the proposed project, p
ever, that any poles or wires which must be relocated shall be placed under-
ground.
ITEM N0. 3-b
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - Old Santa Ana
Canyon Road from 165.5 feet east of to Maude Lane.
Mr. Victor Rollinger, representing the Environmental Studies Section of the
Engineering Division, presented an Environmental Impact Statement for Old
Santa Ana Canyon Road proposing to complete street improvements and correct
a drainage deficiency (copy on file) and reviewed its contents.
Commissioner Farano ofTOVedEnvironmentalcImpactbStatement1forrOlduSantadAna
MOTION CARRIED, to app
Canyon Road from 165.5 feet east of to Maude Lane, based on the fact t a
there would be no substantial adverse environmental iesedtprodecterProvidedbe
no adverse, irreveroleseorhwires thatlmustlbetrelocated shall]be olaced
however, that any p
underground.
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 6, 1972 72-603
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Continued)
ITEM NO. 4
CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO PARKING REQUIREMENTS
IN THE VARIOUS RESIDENTIAL 20NES.
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the numerous times the
Commission had been discussing the deficiency in parking in the various resi-
dential areas; whereupon Chairman Saymour noted that he felt a work session
should be held by the Commission to thoroughly analyze this problem, and per-
haps at a later meeting with the City Council the parking problem, as wel.l as
the items left over from the previous fiscal year, such as the siqn amortization
program along Harbor BoLlevard and maintaining the Northeast Industrial Area for
industrial purposes or permission of encroachment of non-industrial uses, should
be considered.
Commissioner Herbst noted that iE the Commission was going to consider a parking
study, staEf should be given ample time for preparation because of the fact that
the Commission had been talking about possibly requiring parking in accordanc~
with the number of bedrooms since larger homes and larger apartments were now
being designed and built.
Commissioner Gauer suggested that perhaps it would be a good idea for the
Commission to take a trip to view the units that were developed along the lines
discussed by the Commission, both during-the-day investigation as well as a
night or week-end investigation, to determine the severity oi the street parking
problem.
Assistant Development Services Director Rona].d Thompson noted that the Commis-
sion's concern regarding parking was in three dif£erent,areas of land use; that
a field trip could be taken to look at developments in the city which had com-
plied with the newer standards, as well as viewing other ci.~ies' parkinq problems
to make a comparison, however, during the summer the City had an intern working
on an apartment survey, and one of the questions asked was the parkin~ in the
various apartment units, however, this work was not completed as yet, and the
report would be submitted to the Commission upon its completion.
Commissioner Kaywood noted that it might not be necessary to have three and
four-car garages - that perhaps the size for each parking space could be in-
creased, which would give people sufficient place to have work areas and still
park their cars in the garages.
Commissioner Gauer noted that at Srvine where he had visited people living in
apartments, where four units were together, each unit had a two-car garage,
and he had never seen any cars parked on the street, even on Sundays when he
had visited there.
'ITEM NO. 5
SERVICE STATION ORDINANCE.
Commissioner Kaywood inqv.ired whether or not the Commission should discuss the
Service Station Ordinance; whereupon Assistant Development Services Director
Ronald Thompson noted that the Service Station Ordinance would take one work
session alone, and staff was working with the City Attorney regarding this.
TEMPORARY ADJOTJRNMENT - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by
FOR DINNER Commissioner FaYano and M~TION CARRIED, to adjourn for
dinner at 5:55 p.m.
RECONVENE - Chairman Seymour reconvened '~he meeting at 7:40 p•m•.
Commissioners Allred and Rowland being absent.
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 6, 1972 72-604
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ANAHEIM MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ASSOCI-
NO. 72-73-14 ATION, 1111 West La Palma Avenue. Anaheim, California 92801,
Owners; JAMES W. MC ALVIN, 111 West La Palma Avenue,
CONDITIONAL USE Anaheim, California 92801, Agent; property described as:
PERMIT NO. 1334 An irregularly-ahaped parcel of land consisting of approxi-
mately 10 acres having a frontage of approximately 870 feet
on the north side of La Palma Avenue, having a depth of
approximately 715 feet, being located approximately 50 feet north of the center-
line of La Falma Avenue, and further described as the northwest corner of La
Palma Avenue and West Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL,
20NE (PARCEL A) AND R-1~ ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE (PARC~L B).
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: PARCELS A AND B: C-0, COMMERCIAL OFFICE~ ZONE.
REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: PERMIT TH& EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING HOSPZTAL~
WAIVING (a) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIIV 300
FEET OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 20NE AND (b)
PERMITTED STGNS.
Chairman Seymour noted that a letter was on file from the petitioners requesting
withdrawal of subject petitions.
Commissioner Farano of£ered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood and
MOTION CARRIED, to permit withdrawal of Petitions for Reclassification No.
72-73-14 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1334.
VARIANCE NO. 2405 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ALBERT S. TQUSSAU, 3851 East
Howe, Piru, California 93040, Owner= SUNBURST DEVELOPMENT,
TENTATZVE MAP OF INI:., 9502 Greenwich Street. Anaheim, California 92804,
TRACT NO. 6931, Agent; property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel
REVISION NO. 3 0£ land consisting of approximately 7.8 acres having a
frontage of approximately 504 feet on the east side of
Sunkist Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 678
feet, and being located approximately 205 feet north of the centarline of Ball
Road. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVE (a) MINIMUM LOT AREA, (b) MINIMUM FLOOR AREA,
(c) MAXIDfUM LOT COVERAGE, AND (d) FRONT SETBACK TO
A GARAGE TO ESTABLISH A 40-LOT~ RS-5000 SllBDIVISION.
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: ENGINEER: Anacal Engineering Company, 222 East
Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim. California 92805; proposing
to subdivide 7.8 acres into 40 RS-5000 zoned lots.
Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of Augu~,t 7, 1972, for the
submission of revised plans.
One person indicated his presence in opposition.
Assistant Zoning Supervisox Don McDaniel reviewed the location of subject
property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning actions on the
property, and the Area Development Plan extending Hiida Street ~rom its present
terminus west to Sunkist Street, tog~ther with the proposal, noting that the
applicant was propo~ing to have the ordinance read under which the City Council
had established RS-5000 zoning in order to subdivide the property into 40 lots;
that the tract map submitted indicated extension of Hilda Street through the
property to .ti'unkist Street in addition to a cul-de-sac street near the northerly
boundary of the property; and that 26, or 658, of the lots would be developed in
strict canformance with the RS-5000 standards.
Mr. McDaniel, in reviewing the evaluation, noted that the primary consideration
before the Commfssion was the requested waivers since zoning had already been
established by the Council; that waiver ~f the minimum lot area was requested
because the applicant groposed four-bedroom homes on lots ranaing in size from
5670 square feet to 5780 sqnare feet in five instancest that waiver of the
maximum lot coverage was being requested on one lot only wh=re the applicant
was proposing 36$ coverage ratner than the maximum 35$ permittedj that waiver
of the front setback requirement to a garage was requested because the appli-
cant was proposing homes within 10 feet of the front property line in certain
cul-de-sac situations wherein the minimum dimension to the garage would be
"-;••r
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 6, 1972 72-605
VARIANCE NO. 2405 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 6931, REVISION_N0. 3(Continued)
10 feet, but the maximum dimension would equal approximately 13 feet, and this
13 feet would be between the 10-foot maximum and the 25-foot minimum that has
been established in the RS-5000 Zone - this situation occurred on 4 of the 40
lots; that the minimum floor area was being requested because the applicant was
proposing a 1427-square £oot home on 6 0£ the 40 lots, whereas 1525 square feet
was the minimum floor area in this particular area of Anaheim; and that in most
instances it would appear that the applicant Y~ad attempted to conform to the
requirements of the RS-5000 Zone, therefore, the Commission might wish to con-
sider the required extension of Hilda Street and the odd width of this property
as being sufficient justi£ication for deviation from Code requirements.
Mr. Kit Kenyon, representing the developer and agent, appearpd before the
Commission and stated they felt they had done as good a job as possible within
the RS-5000 2one; that he thought only 5 or 6 lots did not conform, unless the
driveway approaches were considered; and that development of this parcel would
remove an eyesore in this area of the city with a reasonable development for
the property.
Mr. Walter Gintner, 1180 Hilda Street, appeared before the Commission in opposi-
tion and stated his property adjoined subject property along the east and southt
that his concern was regarding the drainage ditch alongside his property and
inquired what was planned for that strip of property which presently had a
cement cover, because he would.like to retain this on his property if the build-
er would agree to place a concrete wall on his side of the property.
Office Engineez Jay Titus advised the Commission that this was a dedicated City
drainage easement, and as such, the City retained the liability of. the drainage
structure and the easement - tliis was the reason for the Interdepartmental
Committee recommendation that the developer remove the concrete drainage struc-
ture because of this liability - of course, that would be required unless the
City Attorney could state that there would be no liability to the City if it
remained.
As:;i:;tant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson inquired whether the
drai•aage was proposed to go to Hilda Street extended; whereupon Mr. Titus
stated that the drainage would go to Hilda Street and then to Sunkist Street,
and this was the reason why the drainage easement could be abandoned - perhaps
the man could then use the easement after it was abandoned.
Mr. Gintner stated that he would like to retain thc concrete strip which was
a 7-£oot wide section for the storage of his boat, etc., and without it, these
would have to be stored elsewhere.
Mr. Titus then asked Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry whether or not the struc-
ture had to be removed after abandonment of the easement if the underlying fee
belonged to Mr. Gintner - was it necessary to return the property to its origin3l
state when first dedicated if the underlying fee owner wanted to retain the
existing improvements.
Mr. Lowry stated that if Mr. Gintner was willing to accept this condition, the
City Attorney wou2d give this information to the City Council, however, he felt
he would be buying trouble, and if he were Mr. Gintner's attorney, he would
advise against this, but, of course, that would depend upon what Mr. Gintner
and the City decided. .
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired as to the size of the lots of a previous develop-
ment along Wakefield; whereupon Mz. Kanyon stit~d that these lots ranged in
width from 51 feet at,the fsont to 64 f~et width at the back, and those on which
the waiver wao grantad Mere 57 l~~t Midth lots_along the back, th• park boundary
,...being •51 feet^ - : -: .~ _. , .L.....u.:-..,_ . :.~._ ,. :_: ,,:.. :... ...._.~.._ .
. _..
_ .....
_,....~,K , .~ .,_,_ ., ..,.._..,..._ ,.._ _
Com~aissioner Kaywood statad thase ~+ere .very attractive homea, but she was
ippalle'd at th'e parking situation; the two-car garages which had their doors
in the garage, others had none, 13 cars were parking in the driveways, another
had 3 bicycles and 1 car in the dr.iveway, in addition to 2 cars in the garage;
still others had various storage items in the araaes, drivewayssandhin thenstreet,
38 cars, trucks and station wagons parked in g 9
while there were only 17 homes. They were parke8 b~mper-tobumper. even completely
,
; ,
s~-. __..._. _.. _.._,_ _ _...,.....,.. _.__... ,_........
~,..~,-. ~,...~- .,~ ~. a
....- y,.l.,.,,~, - ~r . . . ..
.~,._._.._ ...___ .. .
_....~.,--.._.., .... . ,~~ .. , . . ... ..ic«.ti ..~. . ... _ _w . •.., , ..J
_-:n' .~.~.,,.y, . . ,. ,. . _..
~
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Septembex 6, 1972 72-606
V11R3711ICE-•BO.._.24Q5 11ND TBNTATIVB Ml-? OP ~RACT NO. 6931,_RSVIS.ION 110. 3(Coatinued)
blocking, ;driveways, and not all the homi~s:, were occupie;c~. That inclu~ed ~arking
along the undeveloped side of the streei.
:.v~,. _~.,,... _---•---. -,,~„~......, °--__._._...._.._.__...._-,.__..____....~._..._._.__.__-,___.._.__ _~._._.__..._..__. ,_.,
Mr. Kenyon stated that lnwa cauld .b• dra~'it~d to s~quire tMO-car qaraqes; DuY"°"'°~ ^'
there was no law as ye4. that would requir~ parking the vehicles in the garage,
and all sorts of items were stored in garaqe~_-
Commissioner Kaywood observed that these automobiles were parked bumper to
bumper, and there were more automobiles than garage space, and if a developer
planned only 10-foot driveways on the proposed tract, this would eliminate any
parking in the driveway and would provide very little parking in the street
since these were 50-foot wide lots at maximum.
Mr. Kenyon observed that the intent of the Code was for people to park in their
garage; whereupon Commissioner Kaywood noted that the intent of the Code was
correct but there was less space on the front of the lots on the proposed tract
than there was on Wakefield Avenue, and no cars could be parked in the front
such as was noted on Wakefield.
Mr. Kenyon noted that there appeared to be some problem with cul-de-sac lotsj
that it would appear that lot Nos. 2, 3 and 5 were sufficiently wide to permit
parking in the street.
Commissioner Kaywood noted that the ~ars on cul-de-sacs would stick out, making
it impossible to turn around, and the problems of parking on cul-de-sacs had
been discussed before.
Mr. Kenyon then stated these parking problems were a fact of life; that he did
not know how to handle it, whether by larger garage space or wider drives.
Commissioner Kaywood observed that perhaps a wider garage might be the answer
so that people could have room for their washers, driers and work benches -
some people even used the garage for a playroom.
Mr. Kenyon reviewed the lots where garages would project the cars into the
street; whereupon Commissioner Kaywood noted most of the cars would be protrud-
ing into the street with only a 10-£oot setback, thereby creating a"Franken-
stein" which could not be sol~ed even with a 25-foot setback, much less with a
setback as proposed..
The Commission continued discussion with the developer regarding the manner in
which some i~omes could be set back adequately so that Code could be met where
more space could be provided for guest parking; the living environment shorld
be improved by providing the proper amenities, which included adequate guest
parking; the fact that the Commission was opposed to a 10-fcot s~tback because
they felt it was necessary to remove the cars from the street, however, the
City Council ruled otherwise and felt people would park in their garages if
automatic door openers were provided and excess cars could be parked along the
curb; that the Commission was of the opinion that only a given percentage should
be allowed with the 10-foot garage setback, but from the appearance of this tract
map, it would appear that the developer was proposing one-half of the garages
with a 10-foot setback; that the developer was not aware there was a limit as
to how many lots he could have at a 10-foot setback and felt that this tool wac
given to the developer as an alternative method of development; that no matter
what leeway was given to developers, it would appear they tried to obtain more
waivers from Code; that developers presented different stories to the Commission,
one stating people no longer wanted large yard areas to maintain. while this
developer indicated people wanted large yards; that large rear yards were neede3
for outdoor recreational purposes, such as a swimming pool, patio, etc., there-
fore, 30-foot rear yards were more practical, although 25-foot rear yards were
acceptable and many developers placed pools in rear yards with only an 18-foot
setback; that staff had not warned the developer regarding the Commission's
feelings regarding garage setbacks, and this should have been indicated when
preliminary plans were pre~ented; and that rather than homes where waivers were
requested from Code, it miqht be a pleasant thing to see developers providing
more than minimum Code requirements which could be accomplished in this tract
by reducing the lot yield.
~..
~
~..
s
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMt4ISSION, September 6, 1972 72-607
VARIANCE NO. 2405 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 6931, REVISION NO. 3(Continued)
Commissioner Kaywood then read from a letter submitted by the developer with
the variance request, justifying his reasons for a variance (copy on file) and
asked the developer to explain how he proposed to park these vehicles; whereupon
Mr. Kenyon noted that even if cam~ers and trucks were pulled to the inside of
the wall, they still would bP visible from the street, and i£ placed in the rear
yard, then the campers and trucks would be subject to being Geen by the neigh-
borsj and that the campers and trucks, or boats, could be pulled off the street,
but it was impossible to hide them even in the side yards.
Mr. Kenyon, in response to questioning by the Commission, stated the widths of
the lots were a minimum of 52 feet to a maximum of 60 feet.
Lengthy discussion was held by the Commission regarding the manner in which the
developer could redesign the tract to reduce the number of 10-foot garage set-
backst percentaqe the Commission felt was appropriate, said percentage having ,
been recommended to the City Council, however, the City Attorney ruled this
would be discriminatory, and the City Council then did not adopt the Commission's
recommendation but stated that when development plans were presented, then th~
number of lots with 10-foot garage setbacks could be limited; that the intent of
the ordinance was to provide some flexibility to a developer with a dii•ficult
parcel to develop or with other land problemst that some people always parked in
their garages, while others never parked in the garage but in the d~:iveway or on
the street; and that the proposal was creating serious problems for emergency
vehiclPS and trash pickup, particularly in cul-de-sac streets where it would be
difficult for any turn-around area.
Upon the conclusion of discussion. Chairman Seymour noted that the develoFer
was fully aware of what the Commission wanted, and rather than continue subject
petition, he would suggest that.the developers meet in the hall and try to re-
solve some of the aroblems presented, and after the next item in the public
hearing the Commission would then review what was to be proposed in lieu of the
pre:~ent plans.
Zoninq Supervisor Charles Roberts noted he would like to clarify staff's position
regarding the statement wherein Mr. Kenyon alluded that staff did not advise the
developer of the Commissirn's feelings regarding the maximum allowable 10-foot
setbacks, however, staff could not do anything but interpret the Code, which was
very specific, and there were no provisions contained in the ordinance regarding
the percentage of lots since the Commission recommended the percentage, however,
the City Council did not adopt this after the City Attorney's comments reqarding
establishing a given precedent for 6 to 10-foot setbacks would be discriminatory
and unenforceable.
Mr. Kenyon stated that he did not intend to infer that staff misrepresented what
the Commission's feelings were, but if staff knew the Commission's feelings,
this could have been relayed to them and they would have attempted to present
more acceptable designs.
Chairman Seymour then stated the Commission would consider alternatives later.
(See page 72-613)
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. MR. AND MRS. C. W. WINGERT~ JR., P. O. Box
NO. 72-73-21 24, Vida, Oregon, 97488. Owners; J. W. KLUG DEVELOPMENT CO.,
INC., 4540 Campus Drive, Newport Beach. California 92660,
VARIANCE NO. 2436 Agent; property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel
of land consisting of approximately 12.7 acres, having a
TENTATIVE MI+P OF frontage of approximately 475 feet on the east side of
TRACT N0. 6569, Sunkist Street, havinq a maximum depth o£ approximately
REVISION NO. 1 1190 feet and being located approximately 715 feet north of
the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. Property presently
classified R-A, AGRT_CULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 6, 1972
72-608
RECLASSIFICATION N0. 72-73-i1, VARIANCE NO. 2436, AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT
NO. 6565, REVISION N0. 1(Continued)
REQUESTED VARIAN~E: WAIVER OF (a) MINIMUM LOT AREA, (t) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH,
(c) MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK, AND (d) MINIMUM LOT
WIDTH ON A CUL-DE-SAC TO ESTABLISH A 58-LOT, SINGLE-
FAMILY SUBDZVISION.
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: ENGINEER: William G. Church. 3928 Campus Drive,
Newport Beach, California 92660; proposing to
subdivide a 12.7-acre parcel into 58 R-1 zoned lots.
Twelve persons indicated their presence in opposition.
A3sistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject
property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the
property, and the proposal to reclassify the property to R-1 in order to
develop a 58-lot, sinyle-family residential subdivision with waivers of mini-
mum lot area, minimum lot width, minimum front yard setback, and minimum lot
width on a cul-de-sac; that the submitted plan indicated access to the tract
being provided by means of Shakespeare Street and Milton Street, existing
streets which stubbed into the property frcm the north, and primary access
would be pravided by Street "A" which connected to Sunkist Street to the west;
that 33e, or 19 of the lots, were proposed at 6000 square feet, 27~, or 16 of
the lots, were proposed at 6000 square feet to 7200 square feet, for a total
of 60$, or 35 of the lots, at less than 7200 square feet; and that 40$, or 23
of the lots, were 7200 square feet and over.
Mr. McDaniel, in reviewing the evaluation, noted that the General Plan of the
City of Anaheim designated the area in question as being appropriate for low
density residential development, and the proposed R-1 reclassification would
then be in conformity with the General Plan; that the R-1 Zone typically
allowed approximately 4 units per acre, and the proposal was providing 4.4
units per acre; that the applicant was requesting a waiver for the minimum lot
width in order to provide lot widths ranging in dimension from 60 to 70 feet -
the majority of these lot widths providing approximately 6000 square feet of
lat area; that the request for the minimum lot area was being requested on 60~
oE the lots, or 35; that 19, or 33~ of the lots, were proposed with setbacks
of approximately 10 feet, and in light of the new RS-5000 regulations which
provide for varied setbacks, the Commission may consider this a suitable
request; that the applicant had not provided the required 150-foot lot depth
along the Orange Freeway, and a hindering factor in this regard was the exist-
ing stub street (Shakespeare Street) to the north which provided only 100 feet
of lot depth and must be extended into subject property; that where the 150-
foot. lot depth was not provided. a 50-foot rear setback was required; that 9
of the 7 lots adjacent to the freeway had a rear yard of less than 50 feet;
that the setback for these 4 houses were 16 feet, 22 feet, 35 feet, and 40
feet; that the submitted plans also indicated a 5-foot high earthen berm and
a 6-foot high, solid masonry wall along the easterly boundary adjacent to the
Orange Freeway right-of-way, however, a letter from the State indicated their
pl,~ns for a drainage ditch in the vicinity of the berm, and caution would have
to be taken in designinq the berm so as to prevent erosion of soil into the
ditch, and, furthermore, the berm would have to be located on private property
and none could be on the State property; and that the Commission would wish to
determine the appropriateness of the R-1 Zone on this property and whether or
not there was sufficient justification for the requested waivers.
Commissioner Farano noted that although there were no standa.rds in the R-1
Zone or criteria on percentage of homes that could be permitted to have 10-
foot setbacks, would it be legal and enforceat~le to establish a percentage.
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry noted that theze was nothing in a policy form;
however, there was an ordinance, a law to go by the Zoniag Ordinance, which the
Commissi.on and City Council had power to grant waivers from, and if this could
be done in the future, that would be possible, however, the Commission cculd
not no something now and apply future standards to it.
Commissioner Farano noted that the Commission had established a Commission
policy regarding kitchens in motels; whereupon Mr. Lowry stated that he had
been the City Attorney's representative when the Commission first considered
this, and the request for kitchens had been denied, however, the policy was
established later on and approved.
•
~
0
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 6, 1972 72-609
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-21, VARIANCE NO. 2436, AND TENTAT.IVE MAP OF TRACT
NO. 6569, REVISION I~O. 1(Continued)
Commissioner Farano then noted that perhaps the Commission could propose this
percentage as a policy and send it on to the City Council for consideration.
Mr. John Klug, developer and agent for the petitioner, appeared before the
Commission and noted that about a month ago they had presented an apartment
complex for subject property, but because of the concern expressed by the
Commission and the opposition expressed by the residents in the area, this was
withdrawn, and they were now submitting a sinqle-family residential development
for the property; that they had attempted to contact the residen£s to the north
of subject property, and of those they had contacted, some of them indicated
generally as being in favor; that there were 7200-square foot lots adjoining
the lots along the north property line, comparable with those to the north;
that the primary area of concern appeared to be the fact that they were propos-
ing two-story homes for those lots, but since the cost of land would be in excess
of $13,000, consequently, the homes would be much more expensive, therefore, they
needed some two-story homes with the prices of the homes ranging from $35,000
to $44,000, making them also quality homes; that opposition had been expressed
in the past in other developments, but this was because there were smaller lots
and they had built one-story homes which were not of the quality they proposed
for subject property; and that in order to make this economically feasibla, a
greater portion of the lots would have to be with two-story homes.
The Commission inquired how the developer proposed to justify granting the
variance for the undersize lots; whereupon Mr. Klug stated that the property
was at the low end of the low density designation of the General Plan, there-
fore, some latitude should be considered.
The Commission then stated that the developer was not meeting the R-1 standards;
whereupon Mr. Klug stated that subject property was closer to the Center City
area in contrast to development in the canyon, where they were also developing
homes with smaller lots, and the property was also less expensive; that about
three years ago they had developed a comparable subdivision on the east side
of the freeway property with smaller lots where the price was also lower, how-
ever, they had a quali.ty development there, and he did not feel the homes they
had built there were detrimental to the city.
Mrs. Eugene Brodie, 2556 East Seville Avenue, appeared before the Commission
in opposition and s:•ated her property was adjacent to subject property along
the north property line; that their home was 2300 square feet, and they had
made extensive changes after the Wingerts in 1967 had assured the property
owners in the area that subject property would be developed with single-family
homes when apartments were approved along Ward Terrace, because their home-
owners group did not feel it was in the best interest of their property to
have apartments built adjacent to their propertyt that the General Plan for the
city was paid for by the taxpayers who felt apartment development was not in
accordance with the General Plan; that Mr. Wingert had talked with her family
about this because her family had been friendly with him, at which time he
stated and guaranteed that there would be single-story R-1, and this was the
reason why Mr. Fredricks built one-story apartments to the south of subject
property; that she had talked with other single-family homeowners in the area
and none of them wanted two-story homes because this would be an invasion of
privacy; and that the residents and owners of the apartments indicated this
was their understanding when the apartments were developed and Furchased.
Chairman Seymour noted that the Commission had reviewed the min:t~:es of the
City Council meeting and determined that Mr. Wingert had made a statement that
subject property would be R-1.
Mrs. Brodie further noted that the residents of the area were aware of the
fact that the Planning Commission was opposed to apartments; that all of the
homeowners adjacent to subject property, because of these statements, had
spent considerable money on improving their property, constructing additions
and pools; that their lots were quite large, being about 75 x lOC feet, there-
fore, she felt that since this promise was made and because there was no two-
story either to the north or south where apartments were constructed, that
tao-story homes should not be permitted on subject property; that the home-
owners of six homes adjacent to subject property's nosth p=oPerty line had
indicated to her they had never agreed to apartments; that she £elt the
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 6, 1972 72-610
RECLASSIFICATION N0. 72-73-21, VARIANCE NO. 2436~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT
NO. 6569, REVISION NO. 1(Continued)
Wingerts had used her family and this was an af£ront to her family on a promise
that was a matter of record; that she felt that if the City had spent ~ quarter
million dollars for a master plan, the zoning laws should be adhered to, and
developers should not be allowed to "hack away" with waivers from the site
development standards of the zone; that any lots abutting the freeway should
not be permitted to be less than 7200 square feet because the distance between
the £reeway and the home was necessary with deep lots; and that the developer
had approached some of the property owners regarding their proposed develop-
ment, with some of them expressing no opinion, while most seemed to be in
opposition.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether Mrs. Srodie and he,r neighbors used their
garages to ~ark their cars; whereupon Mrs. Brodie stated that they had a van
which they could not get into the garage and had to park it in the driveway,
therefore, they had a rack for the children's bicycles as well as one car, and
that about 50$ of :.he neighbors used their garages for parking purposes or used
their driveways for parking, but then they had a 25-foot setback, and her garage
was quite wide, being 24 feet, and when they were on vacation, they parked at
least one automobile in the garage; and that other homeowners in the area had
three-car garages which they used for parking their automobiles.
Mr. Klug, in rebuttal, stated that since the Brodies appeared to be in opposi-
tion to two-story homes, they would stipulate to a one-story home adjacent to
the Brodie property.
Mrs. Brodie noted that Mr. Faust, also affected by two-story homes, was present
and stated he did not make any statement indicating no opposition to two-story,
and that two other families were not at home for Mr. Klug to have contacted.
Mr. Perry Crowther, also representing the developer, appeared before the
Commission in response to questioning by Chairman Seymour and stated that they
had contacted some of the property owners, however, none had signed the peti-
tion; that they appeared to be in favor of the development and stated they did
not want to sign, however, he could assure the Commission that they had made a
sincere effort to contact these property owners, and he could assume from the
statements made that they appeared to be in favor of the proposal.
Mr. Klug then stated he felt the proposed subdivision was a reasonable request
for this area; that it conformed to the General Plan density of the City of
Anaheim; that it would be a worthwhile improvement to the city since these
would be attractive homes, selling from $35,000 to $44,000, having wood shake
roofs and good architectural design; that the project on the east side of the
freeway was a nice project which had appreciated in value since it was built
three years ago; and that it would not be detrimental to the values of the
adjacent homes since its present appearance was as a dead and abandoned orange
grove.
THE HEARII~G WAS CLOSED.
2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted, as a point of clarification, the
stated property on the east side of the freeway had been granted smaller lots,
and the files were available for the Commission to review.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired why the developer chose to call this an R-1
subdivision since that zone would require 7200 square feet; whereupon Mr. Klug
replied that the lots averaged about 6500 square feet on the property to the
east of the freeway, and they, too, were classified R-1.
Commissioner Kaywood noted that the developer was asking for waiver of 60$ of
the lots from the 7200--square foot requirement, therefore, would the developer
consider changing the lot where the home was only 16 feet £rom the freeway,
since this problem was not a serious one to the developer but to the people
who would live in that home; whereupon Mr. Klug noted that an existing city
street dead-ended into the property, and the City felt this would be desirable
to extend it through subject property, and this was the reason for the shallow
lots - because they were meeting the required street width.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMZSSION, September 6. 1972 72-611
RECLASSIFICATION N0. i2-73-21~ VARIANCE NO. 2436~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT I
NO. 6569, REVISION NC. 1(COntinued)
Commissioner Kaywood noted the rear of the house was too close to the freeway;
whereupon Mr. Klug stated that the two homes under discussion did not have their
living area on that side.
Commissioner Kaywood stated she would assume the entire house was considered
the living area; whereupon Mr. Klug stated this problem could be solved with
extra insulation as well as trees, but the developer was £aced with an existing
street, even though it was closer to the freeway.
Chairman Seymour inquired of staff what had to be done on the property owned
by an elderly woman to the north where a drainage easement was located - would
this be handled in tne same manner as the Toussau property - would it be
abandoned and require that the property be placed in the same mar.ner as it was
originally; whereupon Office Engineer Jay Titus stated that the drainage ease-
ment was the City's responsibility since it was a dedicated easement so long
as it was under their jurisdiction, but one of the conditions of approval
recommended by the Interdepartmental Committee was requiring the developer to
remove the structure and backfill it 1:o eli..inate any danger.
Chairman Seymour then stated that eith~r the developer or the City was respon-
sible for its removal and to place it in its former condition.
The Commission inquired how many bedrooms were proposed for house plan No. 944,
and did it have a bonus room; whereupon Mr. Klug stated that the plan had four
bedrooms and was a one-story house which had an alternate dining room, den or
bedroom, but it was called a four-bedroom house with 1525 square feet, and that
plan No. 525 of which there were one-third of the total number of houses would
be one-story.
The Commission noted that there were seven homes proposed on the north property
line adjacent to one-story homes to the north - why couldn't plan No. 525 be
placed on those lots along the north side; whereupon Mr. Klug stated that plan
did not fit those lots.
Commissioner Farano then inquired whether the developer would essentially
agree that when the property to the east of the freewsy developed, it was
successful; whereupon Mr. Klug stated it was a very successful development.
Commissioner Farano then read from the Planning Commission minutes regarding
the reclassification and variance for the property on the east side of the
freeway, and upon its conclusion;~Mr. Klug stated that the end of the street
ran down one side of the lots adjacent to the property line.
Commissioner Farano noted that the Commission in the past had adopted a concept
whereby 7200-square foot lots would be required to back up to similar R-1 lots,
while some of the interior lots could be less than 7200 square feet.
Commissioner Seymour inquired whether any two-story homes had been constructed
on the subdivision east of the freeway along the north property line adjacent
to single-family homes; whereupon a woman from the audience stated that these
were model homes along that property line and were one-story.
Chairman Seymour noted that he had made his feelings ~lear the last time subject
property was considered by the Planning Comcnis5ion, but now he was having second
thoughts about the project as the Commission was viewing a more intense use of
the property with less than 7200 square feet for 608 of the lots, and then
inquired whether the developer could place one-story homes on the lots along
the north property line; whereupon Mr. Klug stated they cou2d design a home
that would fit those lots.
Chairman Seymour then noted the developer would be providing his own buffer
foz those lots to the north.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired what was proposed for the single-story apartments
along the south property line because they, too, were given the assurance that
subject property would be developed with single-story homes; whereupon Mr. Klug
stated that there was an alley and garages separating tk;e apartments from the
single-family homes.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 6, 1972 72-612
RECLASSIFICATIOI7 NO. 72-73-21~ VARIANCE NO. 2436~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT
NO. 6569 REVISION NO. 1(Continued)
Commissioner Herbst noted that the pr~mise made by the Wingerts reqasding one-
story construction was out of the hands of the Planning Commission since the
R-1 2one permitted two-story construction.
Chairman Seymour then noted this might be so, but at the same time, the City
would be granting the developer a privilege not available to him now, and this
could be considered a trade-off, therefore, he would suggest that subject
petitions be continued to September 18, 1972, tc allow the developer time to
redesign something that would satisfy the property owners to the north and
maybe take care of some of the other lots to the south, which could mean
possibly one lot being lost.
Discussion was held by the Commission regarding the 10-foot setback since 33$
were proposed; that the 15-foot setbacks along cul-de-sacs were still allowed
in the R-1 Zone, and there should nat be a"no man's land" setback between
10 and 25 feet.
The Commission then reviewed the plans to determine where the 10-foot setbacks
were proposed, indicating there was no parking available along the street
frontage; l~ts along cul-de-sacs which had 47-foot frontages and 15-foot drive-
way~ created a condition where there would be no on-street parking or parking
on either side of the driveway oEf-str:et; and that the City had allowed the
developer the flexibility to provide a better living environment but not to
propose an excessive number of 10-.foot setbacks.
Chairman Seymour noted that there still was the problem of the setback along
the freeway and inquired whether the developer would be acceptable to a
continuance; whereupon Mr. Klug stated that they could provide the necessary
one-story homes along the north property line except for one lot east of the
extension of Shakespeare Street.
The l;ommi~sion further noted one other con~ideration in the revised plans should
be given to providing adequate off-street parking and a reduction in the number
of 10-foot setbacks to less than 33+t, because that percentage was too great for
this type of tract, particularly since this 10-foot setback was only a part of
the RS-5000 Zone and was not a part of other residential zones as yet. In
addition, the developer proposed driveways and cul-de-sacs in the middle of the
lot, reducing the amount of parking area, thereby preventing on-street parking
as well as the inability to park in the driveway.
Mr. Roberts noted that on one lot with a home on the ireeway side, an inadequate
setback was proposed - this required setback could be accomplished by turning
the house plan around (sideways) or by.combining two lots to give sufficient
area for a rather large one-story home.
Commzssioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood and
MOTIOr] CARRIED, to reopen the hearing and continue Petitions for Reclassifica-
tion No. 72-73-21, Variance No. 2~336, and Tentative Map of Tract No. 6569.
Revision No. l, to the meeting of September 18, 1972, in order for the developer
to revise his plans, indicating one-story homes along the north and increasing
the setback along the lots backing the freeway property.
SPECIAL DIRECTIVE - Commissioner Farano noted that sin~.e both the previous
developer for Toussau's property and the developer for
the Wi~gert property weze present, he would like to direct
staff t~ have a rough draft form for the next public hearing reqarding a policy
which may be adopted an3 passed or, to the City Council for consideration as to
the percentage of lots that the Planning Commission would deviate from on the
width and lot area in the R-1 Zone because he did not feel these should be
called R-1 lots if 608~to 70+k of the lots were less than 7200 square feet.
The Commission should set up a policy as to the lot size, number of square feet,
percentage of driveways set back per~nitted e~ith only 10 feet.
Chairman Seymour observed that if this were established as a standard with a
given percentaqe to be permitted for deviation, the Planning Commission could
expect the developer to request an increase to 12+k the next time.
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 6, 1972 72-613
SPECIAL DIRECTIVE (Continued)
Commissioner Herbst noted that each parcel must be considered on its own merits,
and the petitioner must present proof of ~:a:dship in order to consider a r.reater
deviation from CodE, but the City already hao a Code requiremert, and if a
developer wanted to deviate from it, he must prove his hardship.
VARIANCE NO. 2405 AND TENTI~TIVE MAP OF.TRACT N0. 6931, REVISION NO. 3
(Continued from a e 72-606)
Mr. Kenyon noted that they had resolved the problem as to setbacks, whereby they
would provide in addition to the 12 lots already indicated for a 25-foot setback,
these additional lots, namely, 3, 5, 11, 16, 23, 25, 38, and 40, with house plans
on 11, 16, and 40 being flipped to provide said 25-foot setback; lots 23 an? 25
wuuld have a straight-in driveway; and lot 38 would have the four-bedroom plan
deleted, and the plan they now proposed could be moved back to provide the 25
feet.
Mr. Kenyon, in response to a question by Commissioner Kaywood, noted that there
was very little difference in the setbacks of plan Nos. 151 and 152 to provide
a detached garage located 5 feet from the rear property line, and that this
garage then wculd be infringing upon the ad~oining property rights for air, and
if some o£ the houses wece moved back, this would reduce the rear yard which,
o£ course, was considered important.
Mr. Roberts then read a letter from the State Division of Highways referrinq to
two lots along the off-ramp, one lot having its complete rear property line
abutting the off-ramp with a portion of another one, and that lot Nos. 29 and
30 were about 26 feet from this off-ramp. Furthermore, the Subdivision Ordinance
would require a 6-foot high earthen berm for those two lots, and it would appear
unr•,~sonable to require the berm; and that the Commission could require a 6-foot
ma. .:~ry wall and any additional sound attenuating devices being required.
Mr. Kenyon noted that they had considered this on these two lots original2y
when they had two-story houses and had now changed this to one-story houses,
which would be smaller houses and would not be appreciably closer to the freeway
since a long driveway could be utilized for the 25-foot setbacic.
The Commission inquired whether the developer was planning to provide some
buffering; whereupon Mr. Kenyon stated thut they had planned only a masonry
wall.
The Commission inquired whe*_her sound bufferinq was proposed on the rear of
these houses; whereupon Mr. Kenyon stated they had not considered it at this
point, but he did not think this would be a problem because the speed was
reduced to 25 miles per hour on the off-rampt whereupon Commissioner Herbst
noted that the off-ramp traffic would have considerable truck traffic for the
industrial areas of both Anaheim and Orange, and when these trucks down-
shifted, the noise would be considerab'!e.
Mr. Ksnyon stated he did not know the difference in cost between an 8-foot wall
and a 6-foot wall, nor did he know the cost of adaitioiial insulation in the
rear walls of these homes, therefore, he would request that he be afforded an
option to provide a 6-foot wall plus battin insulation.
Commissioner Kaywood ndted that the insulation wou]d be of utmost importance
in these homes since tests h ~yp~~ven ~h~r~~ s~s czeate special health problems
where people became argumen psyc~io~ic, e~c., from excessive noises; and
that since not much money was involved in extra insulation, she would suggest
that this be placed on these houses; whereupon Mr. Kenyon stated it was no
major problem as to cost for insulation if the Commission so desired it.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC 72-235 and moved for its passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2405, in part, with Waivers a,
b and d granted, Waiver c having been withdrawn by t.he petitioner who had
stipulated to providing~setbacks in conformancA with Code, and that revised
plans would be submitted reflecting said compliance; that the petitioner
stipulated to providing a 6-foot masonry wall along the south boundaries of
lot Nos. 29 and 30 and to provide battin insulation to minimize the noise from
traffic that would be emanating from the freeway off-ramp proposed to be con-
structed in 1973; and subject to conditions, with the added condition that
revised plans shall be submitted reflecting that in addition to the existinq
~
.~.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 6, 1972 72-614
VARIANCE N0. 2405 AND TENTAR'IVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 6931, REVISION NO. 3(Continued)
12 lots propose~3 with 25-foot setbacks, that lot Nos. 3, 5, 11, 16, 23, 25,
38 and 40 will have the 25-foot front setbacks as stipulated by the petitioner/
developer; and that a 6-foot masonzy wall shall be constructed along the south
boundary of lot Nos. 29 and 30, with battin iasulation being provided for homes
on said lots which abut the freeway off-ramp, as stipulated to by the petitioner.
(See Resolution Soak)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Seymour.
Commissioner Seymour stated that since he did business with the developer, he
would refrain from voting.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Farano and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Seymour abstaining; Commis~ioners Allred and
Rowland absent), to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 693]_, Revision No. 3,
subject to the following conditions:
(1) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6931, Revision
No. 3, is granted subject to the approval of Variance No. 2405.
(2) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub-
division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in.tenta-
tive form for approval.
(3) That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot ~rasonry
wall shall be constructed on the west property line separating
lot I1us. 1 throug: 4 and 39 an3 40 and Sunkist Street, said wall
to be extended along the north properfy line of lot No. 40 and
the south property line of lot Nc. 1, except in the fr.ont setback
area. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation frcilities,
shall be installed in the uncemented portion o£ the arterial high-
way parkway the full distance of said wall, plans for said land-
scaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the
Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installation
and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility
for maintenance of said landscaping.
(4) That all lots within this t.ract shall be served by underground
utilities.
(5) That a final tract map of sub'ject property shall be submitted to
and approved by th° City Council and then be recorded in the
office of' the Orange County Recorder.
(6) That street names shall be approved by the City of Anah_im prior
to approval of a final tract map.
(7) That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of
Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu f.ees as
determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to
be paid at the time the buil.ding permit is issued.
(8) That dsainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a
manner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer.
(9) That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/oY alley
openings, to Sunki.st Street shall be dedicated to the City of
Anaheim.
(10) That the developer shall ei.ther remove tne drainage structure in
the drainage easement along the east boundary of the t~act south
of Hilda Street and backfill the resulting depression, or diapo~e
of the drainage easement and structure to the satisfaction of the
City Attorney and the City Engineer.
~
.~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNZNG COMMISSION, September 6, 1972 72-615
REPOF ~ AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Continued)
ITEM N0. 6
CONDITIONAL DSE PERMIT NO. 1290 - Request for approval
of revised plans - Self-serve service station at the
~outheasE corner of Lincoln Avenue and Magnolia P.venue.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject
property, previous zoning`action on the property, and the petitioner's proposal
to change a conventional service station with no waivers from Title 18 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code to a"self-serve" station as reEa.ected an the revised
plot plan, with the applicant indicating that the revised plans represented an
improvement in the proposed facility as fol3ows: a) there would be no service
bays (no mec;iarical repaira)s b) no old cars, tires, batteries, pennants or
debris; c) no excessive noiset d) smaller buil~ing would provide better visi-
bility at this intersection; e) on-site traffic circulation wouid be improved;
and f) a more aesthFtically pleasing buil3ing.
Mr. Mike Shea, representing Mobil Oil Company, appeare3 before the Commission
and presentsd pictures of the proposed service station and related these
pictures to the signing proposed, which would be one free-standing sign incor-
porating the self-serve price sign on the pole, also the Pegasus emblem would
be on the wall and would be in accordance with Code; and.that he would sti.pu-
late to deletion of ~he isl.and message units on the pump islands.
Commissioner Kaywood expreesed concern with so many sel£-serve stations being
proposed there couid be a problem with people not having their cars checked,
and she could foresee more accidents.
Commissioner Herbst noted tiiat this set of revised olans was one of the best
designs he had seen of any Mcbil Oil Company station.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Farano uiid
MOTION '~A~HIE7 (Commissioner Kaywood ~~c~ing "no"), to approve revised plans
for Conditional Use Permit No. 1290, provided that a11 island message units
are removed from the pump islands as stipulated to by the petitioner.
ITEM NO. 7
VARIANCE NOS. 2322 AND 2194 (U. S. Factory Built
Homes) - Property located on the east si.de of
Miller Stxe2t, approximately 560 feet south of
Jranqethorpe Avenue - Requesting under Variance
No. 232i u six-month extensi_on of time to allow
proto-type model of a Factory Built home in the
required front setback and under Variance ::194
a request for a two-year extension of time to
allow outdoor storage of prefabri~ated housina
units.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the two req~~ests on the same
property, noting the previous zoning act5•n on the property with the ti~ae
extension for Variance No. 2194 expiring August 20, 1972, and Variance No. 2322
expiring Jul.y 22, 1972; that on tha latter variance the applicant had indicated
the six-month extension of time was adequate for display of this model, however.,
in grznting Variance No. 2194 for outdoor storage, wherein the Commissi~n
granted a chainlink fence in lieu oE a masonry wall for screening purposes,
provided, however, that dense landscaping be planted at a height and size that
would insure complete screening of the outdoor storage area; that the present
landscaping shrubs aves•aged about 4 feet in height and provided little or no
screening; that ground cover around the di~play area was very sparse and poorly
maintained; that decorative trees appeared to have been set in the ground in
the containers in wnich they were grown; that the applicant ind.'scated a r.ecent
change in nwnership had caused the installation o£ land^caping and irrigation
system wliich was not inst.alled by the previous owner as required as part of the
variance approval; that the applicarit indicated the area was now being matntained
properly in an effort to meet the terms of the variance; and that staff would
recommend t.hat Variance No. 219h be extended for a period of two years, at which
time and upon request by the p_titioner, an additional period c* time may be
granted by the Planning Commission.
~
~
MIttUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 6, 1972 72-616
ITEM N0. 7 (Continued)
Mr. Clark Snyder, 2805 Inverdale Drive, Riverside, appeared before the Commission
and stated he had an interest in this factory; that he representecl the three
individuals who acquired U. S. Factory Bullt Homes in February, 1972, and at
the time the model was allowed in the setback, however, the landscaping required
had not been planted, although it was their understanding that the requirement
was contingent upon approval of the model being in the setback, and it was only
recently that this landscapinq had been ~lanted and the conditions met; that
the request for a two-year extension of tin~e was necessary so that the landscapin
they had planted would completely snield from view the outdoor storage.
Discussion was held by the Commission, with Commissioner Farano noting that the
applicant had quite a job to do, and he would recommend to the Planning Commis-
sion that no action be taken until the Commission made a physical inspection
of the property.
Continued discussion was held by the Commission reyarding the existing landscap-
ing, the trees that were planted in 15-gallon buckets, which the petitioner had
indicated would be permanently planted when the model was moved from its exist-
ing location, the fact that the current property owners were fully aware of the
conditions of approval, snd upon its conclusion, Commissioner Farano offered
a motion to continue consideration of Variance Nos. 2322 and 2194 to the meeting
of September 18, 1972, to allow the Commission time to view the property during
their morning work session. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
ITEM NO. 8
TE~TATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 6734 - Request for
revision of conditions (Westfield Development Co.) -
Property comprising approximately 20 acres located
on the west side of Anaheim Hills Road approximately
1,000 feet south of Santa Ana Cangon Road.
2oning Supercisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property and
the request of the developer, Mr. James Rogers of Westfield Development Co.,
that the requirement of the 6-foot masonry wall be modified to permit construc-
tion of a chainlink Eence along the easterly tract boundary; that the proposed
fence would be constructed along the toe to the north and on the top of the graded
slope bank on each lot; that the develnper also'requested that the requirement
of landscaping, including irrigation facilities between said wall and the Anaheim
Flood Control Channel be deleted; that subject property had been approved for
subdivision into 66 lots, and the developer wa~ now proposing to develop all
66 lots under one tract number; that two extensions of time had been granted
on these tracts, with the most recent revision being approved in February, 1972,
at which time tiie landscaping requirement had been added; that 17 lots on the
northerly portion of subject tract rear or side onto the flood control channel
property, the toe of the grading slopes for these lots abutting the eastern tract
praperty line; that the pad elevations for these lots would vary from 5 to 10
feet, more or less, above the natural grade level of the flood control channel
property; that 7 additional lota on the southerly portion of the property also
rear onto the flood control channel but would be elevated 70 feet, more or less,
relative to the flood control property's natural grade; that the proposed qrading
would be relatively minor fnr these building pads, and the natural slope between
the tract property line and the building pads would be preserved; that a 6-foot
high chainlink fence constructed along *.he eastern tract property line would
be partially screened from view by the ~xisting rows of eucalyptus trees and
the landscape immediately a~ljacent to Anaheim Hills Road, however, there was
no assurance that these eucalyptus trees would be preserved; that staff felt
that in order to provide privacy, visual and sound bu£fering, future property i
owners of subject tract would construct various walls, fences or screens and
locate them at various locations ~n the slopes, and in this event, the view from
adiacent easterly properties and from the primary entrance to Anaheim Hills and
ot*.~ deeelopments to the south might be unattractive; furthermore, the Superin-
t~n&E:nt of Parkway Maintenance had advised staff that the requirement for land-
sc,+ping adjacent to the flood control channel should remain as a condition of
deu•elopment. Therefore, staff would recommend that Condition Nc. 8 be ~:mended
~o require a semi-solid, 6-foot, decorative wall on the top of the easturly
Slopes of lot Nos. 10~ 11~ 12~ 17~ 18~ 19~ 20~ 21~ 22~ 23~ 24r 25~ 26~ 27r 28r
29, 39, 40, 41, 42, 45, 46 and 47 of Final Tract Map No. 6734, said wall to be
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ..:~ptember 6, 1972 72-617
ITEM NO. 7 (Continued)
constructed so as to connect the top of the slope on lot No. 29 to the top of I
the slope on lot No. 39 along the northerly boundary line of lot'No. 39; that
the semi-solid wall, such as masonry pilasters with iron grill, or equivalent,
shall include a gate on each lot to provide access for maintenance of the slope
and would be subject to approval by the Development Sevices Department prior
to issuance of a building permits and that reasonable landscaping, including
9.rrigation facilities, be installed between the east tract boundary and the
Anaheim Flood Control Channel on all uncemented portions of said property,
landscaping plans to be submitted to and subject to approval o£ the Superintendent
of Parkway Maintenance, and following installation and acceptance, the City would
assume responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping.
Commissioner Gauer left the Council Chamber at 10:22 p.m.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel, in answer to questions by the
Commission, noted that the lots on the northerly portion had pad elevations
that varied from 5 to 1.0 feet.
Chairman Seymour noted that a representative of Westfield Devel~~pment Co. was
present and requested that he approach the podium so that the Commission could
ask questions.
Mr. Jim Rogers, 17802 Sky Park Circle, Irvine, appeared before the Comnissioa
and noted that he was requesting clarification for the requirement of the 6-
foot masonry wall and reconsideration for substitution of a vinyl-coated
chainlink fence; that although they would like to construct a wall at the
location, because of the fact that they planned to preserve t•.he eucalyptus
trees, it would be impossible to put the footings in for the wall without
destroying some of the trees; that the landscaping requirement proposed
adjacent to the flood control channel could not be seen from the lots in their
tract, nor would it be visible from Anaheim Hills; that in the original approval
the wall was required for security purposes to prevent children from having
access to the arterial (Anaheim Hills Roac~), however, this arterial alianment
had been changed so that it no longer would abut their proDerty; that the pro-
posed chainlink fence wou1Q be placed behind the eucalyptus trees and would
not be visible from Anaheim Hills Road; and that they did not agree with staff's
recommendations for a semi-solid wall since by placinq the wall at the top of
the slope at the rear of the lots at the location proposed since they were
oroposinq a rustic-type appearance on these lots, and a semi-solid wall would
not have the same effect, and he undesstood the original intent, but felt that
his company's suggescion was an acceptable alternate.
Commissioner Herbst suggested that the Commission not take action on the pro-
posed request until they had viewed the property, and since the Commission
already would be in that general area, a visual inspection of tha*_ property
would give the Commission a better idea of what could be seen from Anaheim
Hills Road, the possible effects of requiring the soliQ masonry wall or the
semi--solid masonry wall, and whether or not the landscaping required by Park-
way Maintenance would be visible.
Continued discussion was held by the Commission regarding statements made by
staff and Mr. Rogers, and upon its co~iclusion, it was determined tha± the
Commission should view the property before making any decision.
Commissioner Farano offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood and
MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6734
to the meeting of September 18, 1972, to allow time for the Commission to
visually inspeot the property before making any decision.
ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commission°r
Seymour offered a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION C,~RRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
Respectfully su mitted,
ANN~ S cretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
AK:hm
0 R C 0 MICROfILMING SERVICE, INC.
;OiG t acy l,~~e. '116~3220
tn.~lii•,in, f„~I~fc>rnia