Minutes-PC 1973/09/050 R C 0 M6CROFILMING SERVICE, IPIC.
,, ., ~.~_,,
. „ . ~ ~ ,
~
~
~
City Hall
rnah~im, CalilarniR
S~ptombax Sr Y973
A R~GiUL11R NS~'TItiG OC T11S AN11ki~IN GrTY PLANNIN~ COMMIBSION,
it1&ctU~.AR - A regular me~tinp o: tha 1lnais~im City planning Gommiosio» w~~
MEfi7'TNG callo4 to order. by Cha~zmen Oauar at 1:00 p.m., a quorum boing
pre~ent.
P R~ ~ E!' T - C:i ]-- ~tMJ1N c G a u~ r.
• COMMZ14:~1CNk~1t8~ Frsnno (entared ths Counotl Ch++mb~r at 2~03 p.m.) r
H~rbst~ xing~ RowlanQ, Soymour (entsred the
Caunail ChamL~sr. at 2~10 p.m.).
i,88~hT - GQMMISSIONERS ~ Al] red.
PRPB:..:P - Aasistant pev~l~pme~nt ~ervicFA Diractc~r: Ronald ThompAan
D~apu~y City !-ttor.r~ey~ Fra~n;c I,awry
OPf.l.ce~ I:ngin~er~ .1ey Ti.tua
~'lann~nq Supez~vi.eori Don MrPe~A~,el
Zoninq SuperviAOr: CI1dX'~H9 Rohsrts
Aasistant Planner: p~-illi.p 9chaart~ce
~ommieaion 5~cretary: Ann Kreb~
PLEDGF OF - Commiasior.er Harbst led in the PleGge of Allaqiance to the
ALI.BGIANCE fl.~g.
AJtPROV~IL ~F - Minut~ae of Lhe a~eetxnq oa~ Tugu~t 6, 1973, were approved ag
~T.iE MINU'1'~:S submitted on motion by Commiseioner Herbst, aecondec: by Commie-
nionar RoNland, and MATICN CAF.RIED.
YrRIANCE NO. '1521 - COt3TINUED PUALIC F#F.ARINu. t!UI.LER HOLD7NG & INVESTMF.t:'" CO. ,•
~ 63b3 Sunaat Bo~levArd, Si~9.te 700, ilollywood, Ca. y0028,
AWnar~ ADV]1DiCED EQUIYMENT CORP., 241 Cre~cent Wny~ An+ahe'.T,
~:n. 92d~1, Aqeatl raQue~ting WAIVL"R OF T:lE REQUIREb 6~F00'C t~1ASONRY WALL A~tOUNU
J~I~ OUxD~OTt VSE TO p~RMI~ A CHAINI,ZNK F'ENCE on prophrty de~cribed ns: A
xectnngular~y-ahaped parc~+l of lax~d cansisting c~f apprcxin-ately ~.3 acree,
.*,avinq r frontaqe o! approxi~~tbl.y 160 feet on tt~e west aide of Cresc~nt Way,
h~.~ir~q a maximpm depth of a~proximr~roly 354 fc~et, c~ncl be~.ng located epproxi-
mately 915 fpet north of the canterline of Lincoin Rvenue. PruF,erty prNaent~.y
C1a4~1fia~ M~1, LIGHT INAUSTP.TAL, 20Nr.
SuD~ec~ ~~tl.tion was c.on*.inued from the meuti.ngs of 7uly 9 a~id August 6, 1973,
at t~e requaet of tho pati~ioner.
A•;an~.t~man lnu name given) re~zegentinq the aqent for *he ~~etitioner mdvieed
th~ Comcieaion that they h$d bnen unabla to c~ntact representativee of *ho
p~*.i~fonor to resolve ooncdrns expressed z~eqaxding ~he recor~mended conditi~_~s,
~ia~ce 1t wae tiis un3arstandi~~g tha-t the Mullar HolQing e investme:~t Co~apany, ?~
trumt, haA been di~eolved i~n the ear.LY 1960' a~ and thaT. Mr. Mu].ler had pas~ed
a~a;• :.i. t:te pae`• Yaar. Thar~fore, tk-e; wez~a iequee`.iiiy aci~itional continuan~e
pt a', le ^t one m~ncn t~ xeealve ~heae conaerns, and then agreed tc a cantinu-
anc~a tc, October 24. 1973.
Commigaioner Rowland aff~xa~ a motion, eecondod bf C:~mmi.ss~oner Harbst ~nd
0!0?ZON CARRI~L (Commisgione~ce Allred, l~arano and Sepmour being abssnti ,~~
vontiniig conaidararion o! Petlt~on tor Vari~ance No. 2521 t~ the meetinq o£
Oc~ober :9, 1973, at the rcques~ ot the petitioner.
C~NBZTIOtiAL USE - CONTTN:JL~D PUBLIC H~ARING. THURMAN A. ROC1C ANL LARItY
PERMIT IiO. 1903 THOMPSON, 245Q EAat Ln J~i.l~ Stree~, Anaheim. Ca. S`280E~,
^ Oxner~t roqu~ostinf ~erm3e~siAn Co ESTABLI;H A C.`NTRAC'POR'S
STGRAGE YRICD WaR2V2 .3 ') MIIi1MUM T~ATIDSCAPA.D FRCNT SETBA(.K,
(8) R~QUIRSD 6~~OOT I~IGH 30LID MASbPIRY ~~ALL ENCLOSTNG OUTDOOR STOR~~3E AREA,
J-NA (C) MTN~2lUi~ NUMBFR 0~' PARICING SPACSS on prc,perty described as: 1~ reGtassgu-
lar~ly-aheped parcel ofi tand canesietiaq a= appr.oxfmatalx 4.4 acras havi«g a
irantaqe of aFproxiaately x98 ~eet un tha aruth si3e of La Jol~a 3treot, ha~inc~
a mesximum <iepth of apptoximat~l,y b40 fv~st, and being located at tt~~ southaaet
~o•rner of '.a Jolla and _ted Gum SCx~wta. Propmr~ty pxos~ntly claecilied M-I,
LIGNT INDU'.TFIAL, ZONE.
73~'S2~
~
~
~
MINUTIls, CiTX PLANNiNa COMMi~8i0N, A~ptombrr 5, 1973 73-516
~ONDxTiANAL U88 P6RM1T NO. 1403 (Cont,lnu~d)
Subj~vt patition aa~ aontinu~8 lrom th• m~~ti.r-q o! ~luqu~t S, 1973, to •lluw
time lo,r th~ p~tit ioner ta b~ pr~~~nt ta enawer qu~s tLonr .
Th~ C~m~i~wion 8ac rst~ry advi~~d tha Chairmen th~~ a~~tter h~Q bien hanll
deliv~red e~rlier iti tha dsy tram th• attorney~ i~r *.h• patltioner~ x«que~tinp
a~our-we~+lc aontin udnae in ordor fio allaw them tim~ 'n ravi,aw ~h• rsc;ua~t +~nd
pra~~nt logicel e-rgnme~~t• reqarding the roqueet.
Coma-il,~ionor Rowl~anQ ailered a moti.on~ ~~onnd~d by Com~ni~~ioner Harbst and
MOTiON C1~RRTE~, to oontinuo coneideratlon o! Pet~itian !or Cnndit~ion~l Uea
Parmit No. 1.403 to the maetinq o! botober 1, 1973, a~ x~qnort~d !+y tha
•ttarn~y~ !or the petl.kionox.
RECLI-PSt!'xC~T10N - PUALZC HEI~RINC~. ]~LFREC J. AND "~7-RJORIL !~ SHJ1W, 1GS5 South
N0. 73~7q-17 ~uc1 id Str~ot, Ana~h~~m, .'a. 92804, ~~nerwi MR. AND MRS.
~ WILLIAM B. HARPER~ 1609 Maripoaa- Drive, Corona, (:n. y1720,
VARIDINC~ N0. 2547 Agents~ praper.ty deecribed er+ ~ A raaL•en ,~.ile-rly~ahaped
pnrce7. o~ ~and oon~istinq a~ appzoxirae~te~y .51 aore hsving
n PronCage ~f approximately 1.~~ loot on ~ho wo~t s.ide of
~uoli.d 3t:•~e~, having a ma.ximum doQth of approxin~at~ly 177 t~et, and beinq
looated approximately ,155 te9t north of the centerline ot 5a111• Lene. Fraperty
preeAntly claeeif ~ed R-A, AGRiCULTURAL, ~ONE.
RF:QUESTED CLASSIF'ICATION; C-l, G~tiERAL CnMMFRCIRI., ZONE,
REQilE~TEP YARIANC:': WAIVER Ok' (N) M7NIMUM BU LAING :3ETEHCK FROM A RESIDBNTIAL
7,ONR, ;B) MAXINlUM vUILDING NBIGtIT WITH:LN 150 FL~ET QF A
RESTb~NTI]-L 7.ONE, (~~ MINIMUM ~2~QU"Ft~D NUMBER OF P7IRKINC
BPACES, (D) WAJ.L AAJACENT TO A Al',SYDENTIAL ZONB, ~-ND (E)
REQUIItED STA:IUARA RE~'USL~ STOR?~GE AP.~r , TQ ESTABLIS~i A
QTFT SHOP IN CGN.TUNCTION WITH AN EXTB'.'xNG SIhGLL~-FAM?LY
RF.SIn~Nt`E.
The CommiPe~.~n S~ cr.etnry .idvised tha Chr~izman that ah~ hed reaeived e telaphonic
request from the agenta for tt.e peti~ioner requea*in? a tao~-week ccntinua~nce to
r:~solve t1.c^ probl~,me arising Pzam the recom~ner~ded condiCiona of a~provel.
Commise~3anez Ft~wldnd offerod a Qotion, sec.onded bg C~mmise~oner Herba~ and
MOTlOh cAk :IFt~ (C~mmise ionera Al.lxed, Fasano .snd Seyraour abaent) , to continue
cone~ideration af Petitians foz ReclaesificAtfon Na. 73-74-17 and Variance Na.
2547 ~ the meetinq of Septe~nber 17, 1973, as requeet:ed by the peti~ioner/agent.
VARIANC~ N0. 254 3^ COI3TINUED PU~3T.IC HFAR3NV. SH~EI,U3 KRUTZ3CH AND KL.JNETH ROSS,
-" 1230 Somerset L~na, Nceapoxt Seach, Ca. 9i6fi0, Ownersf
SHIELBS K~tUTZSCH, 12(~8 South Br-y Frcnt, Halbna Islanri, Ca.
926G2~ Aqantr reques4•ing WA~V~R OF MINIMLM NTJ2dBER c~T' ~AkicINC SPd1CES TO ESTAALISH
A MIN~~WRAEHOUS]: oa praperty deecribod na i A recta~~yularly--ehaped parcel of
nd conaiatinu of approximataly 1.3 acres havin.? ai f.rantage of approximately
'l92 ~eet on the r3outti sida of Via Burton Street, ha~viny a mmx~.mum depth a€
approxi.mately 29 3 feet and being lor.ate~ +~ppro~~mately 355 feet wast of ~he
centerline of ~]. acenkia Avonue. ~'roperty pres:.~~tly cla~ss:f~qd M•-1, LIGHT
ZIVDUSTRIAL, ZONE .
Sub~ect pctition wae con~inued ir~m the meot~inq af Auc~uet 20, 1973, fax the
eubm±.saion of revised plana.
t;o one mppmszed in oppositi~n.
Al~kaougn the R~spozt to tho Cowmis;~ion wa~ not rerQ ~t tho puhiic lzearing, tt is
reforzed tc+ and ~sade 3 pnrt of the m:i~utea.
Commissfoner Fesz ano antezed tre Council Cl '~mber a ~ 2:0~ p.m.
Zon:.ng SapArvisor Ch~rl~~s Roberta nated Lhat subject prtiikion was Continued
Prnm the ~reviova public hearin~ bdcaua~ t.he petitior~ar Illfll dAG~.d~d tio change
~:~~, requeet, and e~~ff ~hen h~d to ze-~vnluate tihe rAViesd ~'+ers to i:etermine
~ ~
MIN~T~B~ CXTY IT~ANNxNR CUMMI9gI0N, SoptAmuor 5, 1973 ~~•'g~~
V11RI11NCi N0. ~543 (Continued)
v-h~~h~r ad~qu~t~ p~rkinq was propoe~d unde~r. th~ new plan~, nnd r.hat khe ~l.an~
indiaaE~d more p~rkinq wa~ boi»g pro•~1avd ainc•~ aome of the mini-wt+rshoue•
modul~• Nar~ Q~l~t~d and th~ msnuPscturing operation wuuld be ].ncnts9 on tT~~
V.ia ~urtan SCr~oE frankapo Nh~re th• majorlty of tha perkin,y nesda would bo
•xp~r1 er~o~a. l~urth~rmor~, the p~raentago of ne~rking apacee hed inarea~ad
rliqh i/ asoator kh~n oziyinally propaeed.
Mr. 9hi~ld~ Krutseah, eqan~: !ar the Aetitioner, indice~i~ hia px~aencm to
anaw~x qu~~e.ions,
THE W~11RIti(1 WAS CL08EA,
Commis~ion9r H~rbst inquired ee to the type of uee~ propoaed for the front
buildinq~~ w;~~er~upan Mr. KrutTech xepli.ed theao kULl1C~ be for ~mnll indue~ 1
ulea 4nd that thay hAd ariginal'ly ple~nned a mini-warahouse and officee, bu.
this wa^ now ahAnqed snd more p~irking ha3 been ~rovided.
Cnmmi~~ion~z H~rb~et then inquired why the potiti~nnr co~ald noC meet Coc~-
requixad perking~ whereupon Mr. Kr~~tzoch replie3 thet he ~el~ tf~a rear portion
o! Chs pro~~erty ao~r)d ba moro desira~,le Yox the mini-wdrehouse opere~tian and
aould nok nead e~ ~nany parking stalla ae required by Gode, particalaxly ~~c
thaee typea a! atoraye fucilitiea, si.nce rentery uf the fe~cilitie~ would not
ba ar::ivinq +~i~cl staying Lhe eiitire day ae could be expec~.ed where r~gulwr
wax~haus~ ~'~eilities required men to operato the faci.litiea in storiny and
moving merahandi~e.
C~mmiadion~r He~.bst then inquired wh~.t wao propoaed in tho form of ttivlders
t'or Che wa~~houe~ laci7.i.tyi whereupon Mr. Krut•zach atated that they had not
prepmred !ir-al ~{evalopment pla~le so that he wr~a uneble t~ giv~a a dc~fini.ti.ve
anower.
Comtnin~i~ner Harb:~t ob~erved that ~s on:ly panels were pro~~~sed for aerarAtion
op *.he variaus ~tnitx o! the mini-warehouae, ~the petitioner could have any t.ype
o~ warehouoinq or ma.~ufncturinq, which could mean a conaidsrably qrenter de-
ticiency ir. r~quirdd parking, whereaa the mini-warehousns previously proposod
betora t}an Comml.asion aid not hav~> othEr. industria? oi waroliousir.q us~s propobed.
Cotnmisa~~onhr Rowland obaerved that Commi3sionez Herbs~'a o~~servatiana were very
r-~11 tak~n, and the pxoposal was a very uriusual facility, pc~rticulerly sinc~
smost mini~wnreh~uees the ~ommissian had pre~entE~d to tS~em i~ the pa~t did n~t
ttave~ the llexibility ahich thie facility prop~sedJ thRt this proposal was a
marveloue .~ix" for mn inveatment, with both typee of us~~s, both service and
etor~qe, ar~c. b9caue~ of that divez~iffcation, he ~e1t the Commiasion should not
cxant waiv~r ~f tY~h require,d parking..
c;~mmiasioner Rowlr.~d further obaexveZ that upon making a field triP rarli.e.r in
the ddy ia~to tl~e S~,utheast Tnduetrial Area, it appEared that the grc~ater nurnber
o! bu~.ldinys heing construct~d werE providing more than garkir~g require~ente of
the Citx, priinaxily be^ause ~noy were beiiiq renzed for a commercial office type
uare whicY~ rrould b~ serving busi;~esg and indust:y, whic.h was otr~or. than what the
M-1 Zone wa~ deei9ued for.
Commisoionex 1*arer.o inquire~ aa to the number of. storage areas the oetitionez
planned tor Buildi.nge 9, C, e~~d Dr whereupon Mr. Krutzsch ~eplied that he
thought there a+er.e batween 9C and 100, and it was their intent to :itay within
Carla rpquirements aince they wanted a r,oad praject and planned to keesp it for
an invevtrnent.
Cosnmia~.toner RoNland no~ed that - wl.tbin tt•,e fra~mework of the community vsluda
as xef.lacte~ by the City'~ z~ning ozdinancea - he f.elt Che ba»i~ £or a va~iance
ditl nat sstit+t~ vthereupor. Mr. Krutrsch statad the Cc>mmission wruuld agree rhat
~~qrage ~acilitaes did not requir.e as many psx~cl.ng t~pacea ss a~ induetriu]. use.
Cowml~uionar ROM~Af1t1 etated t.hnt the s:lte development sr.andnr~s o* the M-7. 'Lone
x~ooqnized t1m tact that atcr~ge facilitieg did not require as many paskinr~
~psees, saci thet wa~ ref.lecr. d in the ~omputat' ~n made by staff ae tc the
zmquir~d psrkinq.
~ ~.
MINUT~S, CITX PLAl1NyNO COMMI88ION, S~pt~mbar 5 ~ 1973
V1IRIANC~ ,~0. 2~43 (Continuedl
7J-~28
Commi.~sioner I~areno nat~d thab h• haa attempted to aount tha number ot atorsg•
az~aa propoe.d antl could lind only 6~ - that; wws, o! couroe, i.~ i~ch ~quar.•
india~tea on the plnns reprosenteQ a reoraqe are+~ to b~ ront~d in area~p B, C,
•nd 0- h~ws~rer, tt~e petitinn~r had rtatwd ~~~~re w~r• batween 9~ and 1.00 and
inquir~d ~~haro the balAr-ce o! th~ etoraq~ units wnze pr~pouecl to be la~Rt~dr
wh~reupon Mz. Krutzech atwted that the ba.lKnca would be in the southweat corner
of the pruparty, end it wes v~ry dilticult t~ tind these beaauee of the looation,
110MYVlr, it wes poostb7.e that the number quot~d ot 90 to 100 may .~ovs bo~n bslore
th• planv~ wsre amended.
C~mmieeione:r Seymour entared Ch~ Coitnail Chamber et 2~10 p.m.
~ommiseianar Harhat obe~rv~d that iE the p~citioner would prov+~le aight addl.tion~
•1 pdrkinq a~acee, the waiv~r betare t.he Commioaion would not ba n~cFSeery, how-
ev~r~ i~ocause of th~ f).exibi.li*.y snd demiqn aP Che buildinqe, it wou:d app~e~r.
this c.ould eeaily be aonverted into an industrial building which aou:d require~
mora pnrring than a war~hc~u~3~. snd Ainc~ qrantinq o. vdx~.ance went wlth tt~a ue~e
o! the land, the patl t.ioner would :imve t~ prav~s a hardahip exieted.
Mr. Krutzech repliecl that thie would mean reducinq tha ~oquare lootage oL' the
buildinqe in ordar ta meet thie requiremPnt.
Commissioner Farano inquired ox et~tff whether parki~g wap baeec9 on the proposnl
for lockar-type facilitieat whe.re~ipon Mr. Rouerx~ etntod tht-t the D1~~ Zone
xaquired one parking apace for eech 100n squar• foet ot buil~ nq area tor ware-
houeing puzpasas.
Commiasioner Farano then observAd that 20 +:0 25 0! th~~e locker-type facilitioe
c~uld be located in one cornmz of this ~3evelopinent in lees aqu+~re footagc than
regulation wa::~hnueing ar mar-ufaoturing an~t would raquire no more tha:~ ~ne park-
~ng s~~ace, and thie could amaunt Co a groater n~ed than 35 par.king spacee, which
he did not. feel wa~ald be adequaCe, therefo~d, a~ 1or~g as the use was deems3
appropriate in the M-1 Zone, the Commi.eaion m~~st require n~rkinq at a minir.~um of
ona s-+ace par 1000 square ~~dt since thie propo~e~ opera~ ~n could be extr.emdly
succQssful, which cou].d then create tt serioue parkinq shortage euch ae hac~ been
ex~erienc:ed f.n eacceseful reataura~-t opezations, however, the City had very
little ex:~erience in mini-~warehause operAtian~ or e- mixture of uges as was bei.ng
p.r ~,osed.
Ca:,miesioner HArbet offered a motl.on, seconded by Comm~esioner Kf.ng and MOTION
r_ARR.IED, that the Planning Commiesian, in conn~ction with an exe:.,~>tion declara-
tion statua zequebt, fizds and deternines that ~hA pZ'OQOEdY would t-~ve no
eigni'icant envir.on~rental ii,~pa:.t. and, thoreforP, reaommena~ to the City Council
tha~: nn F~nvironmental Tmpact Statement ia necasa~ry.
Comm9.ss~oner Rawland offered Resolution No. PC73-195 end moved for its passaqe
and adop~ion to dany Petition for Variar.ce No. 2543 on the bASis ~hat the pesti-
tioner did iiot prove a hard3nip wnL'.d rer~ult i P sub ject petition were not
qrante~i, e~:capt that. which would be of his own making~ that the Cit;y has, in the
past, graiitQd waiver ~f tne requi.red parkiny whero only a mini~war~houae was
propoaed, and bQcause of the mixture of usos propoaed for the$e atx•uctures, t.T~e
atructures ceuld easily be convarted to othor permitt~d NI-1 u5es, thereb~~ creat-
inq po:• ' ible addit'.onal parking problems ~ and that the uae cauld not be deemed
as being a mini-warehouse apera~ion, theroFore, granting waiver of the req~iired
parking would be inap~ro~riate. (See Reaolutlon Book)
On roll cal'1 the foregoing reaolution was passed by the followinq v~te
RY.~Ss COMMISSIONERS: FaraiYO, Gauer, Hsrr~t, King, Rowlana.
NUES s COMMTSSIONRRS : *?~ne .
ABSENT: COMMTSSTONEItS: Allred.
ABSTATN: COMMiSSIONF:RS: S@ymotir.
Cummi: sioner Seymovr stated he abs~.Ainsd fram voting because he ~~aas not presen*.
to hear al.l of the evidance.
~
~
~
MINUT~IS, CIT~ PI~ANNiNG COMMI88ION, SspC~mb~r 5, 1973 ~3~g~g
ffiNViA0NM8NTAY. TMPACT - CONTTNUbD PUBLIC HlS11ZIN~. Rl1LPH E~ AlSO VTO~A ~I. FOH,
97
R~PORT NO. ~0396 Santa llna C~nyon RAad, Anah~im, Ca. 92806 ~ND
_
~ 11N7~HEIM HIY~LB ~ INC. 11tiD T~XI1C0 VENT[1~8, INC ,, 3bA
It1tCL119SIFIGxTION An~h~im Hills R~~ad, 11nah~im, Ca. 92806, Oanerey 80UTHpffiST
N0, 73~74~11 PRUPERTxEB, TNC., o~o Timot~-y ~InQ~r, P. 0. Hox 5387,
-~ Ozanq~, Cs. 92669, l-qant~ property do~azibed a•~ An
C0~?DITIONAL u:~~: irrequlerly-~hap~d parcri c! land ~onci~tiag o! npproxi-
P~RMiT N0. 1415 mstoly 14 aor~aa 2:~ving a frontuge o! ~-pproximati~ly 814
~~~ feet on t'he oaet eide o! Anahaim Hil1A Road, havinq ~
TaNTATIVE MAp ~F inaxi.mum ~lepth of approx3mkt~ly 975 Peat, and bsing
TRACT N0. 8409 :acatsd approximetely 210 lo~t aouth of the centarline
- o! Saenta l~na- Cenyo:~ Road. Property presen~ly olns~ilied
It-A, ACiRICULTUP.AL, 20NE.
REQiIESTEU CLASSIFIf:ATI0r1: R-2, MULTIPLE-FI~MILY RESTbRNTIAG, ZONE.
REQUESTED CONDI~IONAL U9E: ESTABLISH 7~ lly-UNIT PLF.NN':[1 R882AENTIAL DEVI:LOP-
ML~NT, hAtVING (A) MINIMUM BUxLUING ~ITF. AREA, (B)
MIN7i.l1M BUILDTNG 9ITE WIUTH ~(C) R~QUTR~D FPONTA.^sE
ON A DEpIC11TED 9TRLET, AND (D) R;:QUIREA MASONkY
WJ~LL ABU~'TING A SiNGL;~-FAMIILY RLStDENTxAL 20NE
HOUNDARY,
TENTATIVE TRAC'P ~iEQUEBT: DEVELOPF.Rs SOUT:iWE5T PROPERTIES, INC. , C/o Timothy
Unyer, P. ~. Box 5:~87, Ordnge. C:a. 92669. LNCINEF.R:
Ervin Fn~~.neering, 729 3outh Fark Viaw 3treet, Los
.4nqelee, Ca. 900571 Q rop~sinq to eubdivide su~jact
property into 119 R-2 plenned xe:eidential devf~o~ment
l~~ts. '
Sub~ect patttione and tract ware oontinueli trom the meetinq of Auqust 6, ].973~
to readvertiee an additional waiverJ and from ~ha Auqunt 20, 1973 m~etf.nq to
allow time fos etaff to resea.rch the City Counci] minutee to detern-ine the
atatus of r.he roclaseifiaetion to C-1 E~s a po rtion of subject property.
Thxee ,ersons indicatac3 their pre~ence in opposition.
Coa~mier~loner Farano noted that subipot petitione h~d been continuAd from the
previoua meQting beoauge there aFpedred Lu be seme questian on Portion No. 1
havl,~g a resolution of 3nt~ ~t to C~l, ~u ~stafF hnd ~uggeaCsd that they would
check with ttte City Counail, and that ~..~e hoarinq har] been cloaed at the leat
public hearing.
Zoz~ing Supervis~r Charl.ea Roberts a~•~se3 tite Comrofesion that he had mst with
Daputy C~.ty Attorney Frank I,owry to reaear.;h L-he file regardinq any official
~etion by thd City Council on the resolution af intent, howeve,r, they had been
un able to ftnd sn anawer in the filea, theXefo re, staff had pased thia ~ueetion
t~ the Ci::y Counci'l, and at tho Auqus•t ~8, 1513 meeting, Mr. Bazieic was alea
pzesent nt said meetii~~g and s:tated to the City Council they would abide with
Any etip~ilation by an officia7. of their aompan,y, and thon requested that
Re cla~sification No. 67-68-29 be termi.natedi and that the City ~ouncf]. then
te xminatad said reaolutian of intent for C-1 in resolution No. 73R~35~.
Cnair.man Gauez then ru~ed that the hearin9 should be re-opened for any addi-
tionnl information
M.r, James Sarisic, representing Anahefm FIills, appeared Y~efore the Commiesion
and statod tha~ because the City Counci.l had rescinded the retsolu~r:..on of .in~ent
for C-l, he felt that sdditional inFormation shoulc~. b~ prea¢nt.ed to the Comwis-
sion, and that; t.,ey wo~ld a.'.so like to preaent eight r~lidea a:.ich they felt were
very lmportant reqarding this prapoaed proJect. Furthermore, the propo~ed deve3-
opment would be as goocY ~r better than other projecta approved for ~.t~e ~nnyon,
and they would do nothing to affect the Scer~ic Corridor detrimentally.
Commissioner F'arano indfcated il_hough there was a very long an! pr~lonqe3 h~ar-
ing ~snd discussion t the previous public hearinq, in his opinion nvthinq was
p sos~nted ~.hat inaicated a auificient showinq by the pA~itionax to juatify the
zequested reclassi fici~t9.on -~ince Code required a Bhowinr~ such as ahanga in the
AzeA, therefore, he wo~:ld l.ike to have Mr.. Barisic preaent ~tn*.ements r~sqarding
that concern.
• ~
HINUTES, CITY PLANNINC: COMMT38ION, 8opt~mb~r 5, 1973 73-530
~NVIRGNMEN'PA,L IMPA~CT RISPORT NO. 97, RECL1189IFICATrON N0. 73-74-11, CONpITtONAL
U8~ PERKi„_,_T N~• 1a15j AND T~NTATtV~ MAP O1~ TR11C2 N0. 8409 Continu~d
Mr. Barisia then .~stad thst th ~y would lik• C~ •how eiqne o! hardahi.p, ~-nd tha
only walvers beinQ s~~que~ ced wore tho~~a normsily requarte~ with a plann~d rsei-
dantial dev~lopment; 'hat alter e~tudyiny thie propoaa~l for ~~veral w~eks, h~
did nut leol it wou: ~ve any ~~t~ot on th• q~ality ~t th~+ eahool~ bocsuee ~.h~
dsnsity, althoug~ p~ ~ yad at ].0 unit^ per sora com~e~r~ud with 4 pnr o~:r~, !ar
sinqle-lamily homee - bscauae they wer9 nropo~ing thie es en Adu!; commu~~_~y~
tlie~r• would be fewei chil3renj ~hat :~e~ s.~lt. ~,hie woulA uggrade and preeerva th~
Santa Ana Ca~nyon ~res which was expe.riencinq r.~pid growth i~z the laet eever.al
yeara~ that up to th~ prea~nt time, about 130A ~~nite had baen approved outeide
of 1~natiaim Hi11e end 1000 in Anehaim Hilln, +~nd ~:qrhape ona uauld ~etimate that
up to 2500 un•lts would be built autside o! Anshoim Hille~ and tha~k outside o!
the Yorba property, either RS-5Q00 or R-]. he~d be~en apprcved, mnd the idea aY
preearving thu rural atmosphere of 9anta nn~ ~;:nyon, he lplt that with al]. the
unit~ approveA, this rural dtmoepteore WaB no longmr applic+-blyt end that trom an
aQ~th~~tic viewpoiiit it would not make senae to project one t~fter another pzoj~ct
aP th~+ Qame etandar~ wall tregtment, and they were now propaeing to break up
thia pattaxn and dev~lop a land uee thet hna a more logical mnrk~t.
S11deH ~•~^re ~h~n yhown by Mr. 'Pim Unger, Project Engine+ar !ox the Qev~lopor,
Southw~ ~. rrop~rti.es, Inc. ~ Orat-ge, to the C~mmiesl.on which were eimi.lm.r in
appner •~ce Lc those preaentgd at the last purllt~ hearing~ indioatinq the daj~in-
ing single~-fem:.ly fcracta to the weat and Aubject property, ae weil as a similas
propoARl.
Mr. Un~er noted that the devel.~pment at Newpart Creet, p~atures of which wera
shoNn at the laat public liearing, had A deneity of 11.~1 units per acre, while
aulb;ect development would be 10.2 units per +screi that there would be coneider-
nbl~~ tr~ffic creaced at th~+ interaecti.on ~f Ana-hAim Hilla and Santa Ana Canyon
Road_~, and the proposed usa would act as a buff.er to the lower-denaity deve7.op-
ments proposec~ to the ea~t and south of subject p~~~porty dince people livinq
in dper.~m~~i~ d~•. :lopments objact~d loea t.~ txaffi.c noises than iingle-F~mily
homeownerss and that thia should be a major conai.@eration from a p:.anninq
standpoint.
Mrs. Mary Dinndorf, 131 La Paz, appAazed before the Commission representinq t-~e
Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Asaor_iation, noting that she had F~reviously pra-
sented a petition in which ~e~ of tho homeownaxs in the tracL•e to the west
depicted on the slides were all in oppositiu*i to the p~apoaed developmentt tha.t
she wonderc:d how mar,y peaple haa actually secn Newport Crest to actually view
the phyaica'_ development Xtsther than seeinq cclored broch•,iresj that in viewing
the drainage of the Newport Crest facility, it ap~sared ~hey were very sma11,
just a little larger than a sewar drain and :+maller thai~ a manh~le, and if a
simi.lar type drainage were p~oposeA far this prujecC, the drainaqe system would
be unable t.o handle the draina~e fr~m the hill anC alape areas during the rai.ny
seaaon; that theae units h~id an attractiva apperrance fram the ou~sid~, but
prssented a paeud~~-like appe~rance of barrack.s; that the density ap?eazed to
be mora like 13 unit-a per acre, and maybe they wer.e pri.cinc~ thes~ units .from
$b0,000 to $90,000, but theX r.aally were n~t that luxurious in app~arancs;
that• ahe had overheard one s:..leaman telling a man at the Newport Cz'est develo~-
ment- that they planned L•o c~nsZru~t a similar facil.ity at Anaheim H111s and
~anta Ana Canyon Roads an3 wondesed whother they knew somethinq that was not
appArent to the re~sid~nt~~ of the area; that she might be naive as to planning
aiatters, but she couli noj ~inderstand how commerclal developments were approvad
unle~s consider.ed at pu~i.LC h~aring by both the Planning Commiseion and City
Council+ and that these might he preaented ae tow~ihouses, but to her ttsey wexe
mor.e like Eastern-~type rowhouaes. Fur~hermore, ehe was not an elzvironmentalist,
but ahe was a concernsd resident af the area and w~-nted aome of the amenities o£
the c~nnyon ':o be preserved.
Mrs. DinndorE cor.cluded by ctgting sh~ was a littlQ tired of presenting the same
story at each publia hearing becauae it wa~ very expen~ive for her sfnae ehe had
to take time off from wotk to appeas without any remuneratl.on, and then in ro-
sponrto CA Chai.rman Gauer's quet~tior~, stated slio was one o£ the ) eaders in a
pro~osal to de-•annex the Santa Ana Canyan trar_t8 and form their own ci.ty.
~
~
11INUTEB, CZTY PLANNI.. ~ CQMMY93It~N, 3~pt~mber S, 1A73
73-~5~1
ENVIRONM8NT~1L TlIP" 1' REPORT NO. 97~ P~~CL719fiIF~C~TIO.. N0. 73-74-11, GdNDIT~QNIIL
USE PBRMIT N0. 14 _. ~ AND TRtiTATYV~ M7-P O! TRIl,CT N0. 8409 ,~Gontinu~8~„ _
Mls. Jam~nr 8tr~op, 412'l 9~~ik ~treet, H~]~1, Calilorr~ia, •pp~~x~fl belora the
Commi~sion i.n opp~~~ition and etated thn~ he oNaeA tha propsrty about 800 taat
txom A~:b jaaC prop~-rt,y farther eaet on 8anta ~-na Canyon Ro~d~ thak in or.daY to
~ain aoo~oe to thair prop~r.ty, tihey woullt hxv• to u~• th• one prupo~sR~ accoar-
aay whicl~ ha l~~t wou].d b~o detr~mAntal, hav~ng to lace 'S00 v~hialAa tzying tio
gair~ aco~sa to and .Crom tha propertyr tt~a~ thsra M~re al~a •~ver+al otk~er prop-
erty o~~n~re Who ao ~ld have to have +~oosse through this propased duvelopmont~
th~~ t:d N~Q al~a ~~posed tn ~ha dctisity whiah Ma~ b~inq prapoe~d and wonder~d
Khath~r the d~vel~ p~rs we~•e pzepazed to make 8an' a Ana Canyon Raad ta havo the
sdme appearacice aa the atreats af New Yerk, but ~inas thi• +vas •uppoamd ~o be
ttie 8cenic c:orridor, he did nat feel that it wa~ nat tha intent af the ~C 2anu
to hav~ rovrs ot buildinqe, therators, hn would rear~mm~nll th~t this xype ~t
Qen.~ty be ~toppad fn order ta retain thc Sosnio Corr~dor ~h• r~ay it wa• ink~nd~Q
to be usod, c~n~lderebly 1rNSi uen~ity th~n pro~,cred~ thst othar buildir~g in
tha area wae an in~jicatian oi ahat woulcl happAn in the aanyon, s~d ha dia no~
~aat hi;her density ko enttlr in~o the canyon, Which would udd to the ~woy ~nd
txalfia~ that at a prdvioue meetiag the Commiqoion oonridered a 15-uni~L oomplwx,
at Mhioh time thd sanitati~n UivieAon had beaa oppoe;d to havinq leea than ~a
75ri!oOt turn-azound urea ~<ar trash trucks~ nnd that on~~ oou].d compara theea
r~thAr narrow et.rs~te ~~ a aimilar problem becaue~a the trucke oould not~ c~o Aown
end turn around, and ur,cerss v~auld be v~~ry limite8 beaause only one Atr~net wr~s
pro~oeed.
Mx. Roger Wilson, acepzo~en~. ., r.he Orango Unified School Dlatirict, appeared
bef.ore t ~ Commission and r~-q,~~.;~.ed that the letter fzom '.:he Bueinees Manager
bo sead in iul]. inta the minutes:
"The Orange Un~fied 8chool Distriat ie apposed to e~pprovinq tentntiive act
number 8409 until suffici.ent achoul faci7.itie9 are avsiJ.able to e0rve the
atiudents qeneratgd fxom the develapm9nt. The 5chool District ie provir~inq
this l~atter f~r your cansider.aticn, we liops the f~llowinq informatioa wi.l.l be
helpful co you:
1. Child Factor:
The 119 propoaed R-2 zo.ied lots will approximately qenora~c: the followi~sg
stu3cnts i
K~6 school 59.5 aL•udEnts
7-9 achaol 29.75 s~udante
10-12 echool 29.75 e•tadPnt~
To~al ll9 new atudents
2. Im~act:
Th$ IC-6 studc t~ are in the Cr~scent 1Elementary School. attendance boundar-
ias. The Atsd9nts will 1~e one mile walking diatance to the sahorl, no
busing aill be provided. The enrollment capacity there i.s 56Q ~rtudents.
As ot June 19, 1973, the schoo.l enrollment was 448 atudents. Thts echool
1s xapic7~y neuring capacity, and it will be overcr.awded bY xhe t.~nie tract
94a9 ie completed. So, unleys achool funda bec.ome evnilaY~le to builc~
another e~ementary school prior tr~ con~truction of tract 8449, tha stu8ente
living in tihis txact wil~ either be plac:ed o~i doubie seesione at Crescent
Y;2eaten~ary ar 2~e buea~d to a aahoul aome ~liatance from Santa Ana Canyon
Where claasroom apace ia available. Housinq units already unrler conatruC-
tic~ will ~c~re than fill the adjacent 9chools.
The 7~9 students ar~ in the Viata Del Ria Junioz Hi.gh 3chool atteadrnce
boundariea. Thez achool ia 1-1/2 -nilos walking C~~.lIL'A11CJ fzon the propoaed
trsct .'409, no lbuaing will be provi.dsd. The enzoll~ent cdpaci~y there is
900 studente, an3 already the ~une 14, 1973 9:-rol'l~aent r~porf: indieeked
that ths schoo]. ie operating over capacity (91~A students). The Orense
i;n;;,fi~nd School Dietrict Magter Plan, dated Jun~o 1973, shoKS a projectad
ate~Mar.~ enrallment qain in this Jun~,os ttigh attendnnc~ boun~ezY o~ 324
etudenze in achoo~ year 1973-'3 alane. Aqain, tha eahoal di~trict oppases
re~ider.ti~l develapment to be comp].~tad prior t~ th• aohool diatrict'a
capacity ~o Aui~c3 ~chouls .^.acossaXy to Frevida a qudlity education.
~ ~
MYNUT~S, CTTY PLANNING COMMI89ION, 3optembAZ 5, 1973 73~-532
BNVIRON:::.NTAL~ IMPACT REPGRT N0. 97, RICCLA88I~'IC1-TIUN N0. 73-T4 •llr CONDITZO`~IAI~
USE FERKIT NO. 14~,5, AND TENTATIV~ Id11P OF TRACT N0. 8409 Continued)
Tt~~ 10-12 a~uclent,s are in the Canyon Hiqh 9ahool att~naance area when
oon~truction i• oompl.eted. The problam ratult: lrom the ourrwnt stude~it
ovarloAd at V111w Park High gah~al wherb ~h~y azo r~oeiving the studento
.;r~m Sants Ana C° ~~on on e duuble se~~ion sohAdulu. Thie si~uation will
c~ ~tinua b~caut .nyon Hiqh will nat ba r~~cly for lull. operati.on until
s~.t~ool yeer 1974-7fi. So, the school dist~iot xould like to heve the Ci~y
o! Anahoim's aoogorstion in caardinating thi~ re~i~len~i~l develnpment with
aahool devel~pment to moet the growing ~tuAeat ~duvati npc n ia sa~~ta
Ana Genyun.
Tlte diatr.iot is hopelul that ~he City of ~neh~im will ~ ~a7•iate ten~ative tract
840'~ qiv~nq !u].1 r~gard to a-11 aspecke oP `he l:nvirn:~me~~+ al Impa~ct Repor
ino.l.~dinq th• ~bi?ity ef the dietriat to provida eahoo'.s.
1-exy truly youra,
(aiqned)
Harx,y H. Platt
Buainesa Manager"
THL~ HL~AItING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner He~rbet inquired whether the Ordnqo Unitied S'iovl Distriat would
hnve the er~ma ob~ections if Hubj9ct property werc develoged for sinqle-family
homesa whereupon Mr. W~18on otated the anewer would be the gr~me until the~ wpre
able to provide sohool faci~if.ies.
ti:ommisoicaner Iiorbc+t then inquired whether it would be Pair to say the property
ownars of eub~ect property would h~ve the right to go to the BoarB of Sup~:^-
visr~rs and state they would ciot pay for taxea bacause there was no sc:...ul ~~vail-
ak,le, paxticula~zly since the schocl district had beer~ well aware of the pro-
jected development in the canyon, i,t having been projected on the Anaheim
General Plnn einc~ 1965 but now suddenly the echool d~stzict was very concernRd,
hottever, ncthinq wa~e said when the awnere of these properties had bc:en paying
aChool taxes all a! thea~e yea•'~.
Mr. Wilson replied tliat the school dintrict did aot have funds available to
build mor.e schAOla at the presont time.
Commiesianer Seymour inquired whether any menti~n was A+ade in the ~nvironmental
Impact Roport regarding the echaol impactf whoreupon Mr. Unger etated raference
was made to ~hat fact, }. owever, tt~eir propoaed developmeni: would be an all-adult
community.
Commissionar Hez~bst obaer~~+~: that the aqen~ referred to this facility as baing
an ad~:.lk~anly pro~ect and incs, ired haw it was propot~ed to contral this; where~
upon Mr. Unger atated that the ~ would lim~.t thi~ to per~ons no younger than
16 years ot age, and one could aleo limit the sge of the householci through tihe
CC&R's, and gave for an examplE aii inatance when a divarced pezsan had to tak~
back hia children and beo~cuse t`-ey weie under the r.ge set forth in the CC&R's,
the owner of the candominiu:n ha3 ~o relocate the cnildren.
Commisei~ne: Harbst then inqutr~d what steps would be taken if the children were
reaiding in one nf these unit:;; 'ahezdupoa Mr. Unger stAted that they could be
xen~oved ~y a civil law euit if som~~ne purchased a can~iominium and did not indi-
cato tl~ey Y:.~d ahildren.
Commiesioner f'•..ra~no no~ad thut these units ~rera pzopoae~! to be aold, therefere,
how ~ould these regu~ations be aniorcadi whereuFan Mr. !~ngRt atated th the
hon,eowner^ aaenniation would have rather atrinqent r.egulatione governinq the
minl~rum aqs of ciiildren, and that thia w~a done in ~ta~omoor whe~r~in the~- Zimited
the aaa a! ad~ulte to no yaunger than 50 ye~xs~ anQ ae was sure thr.t limitr,*.ion
h~nd been u~alleaqed i.n aaurt and had been itpheld.
Arputy City Att~rney Fr~nk Lowry n~vised the Cammirai~n that in the Sea1 Beach
Lei~ura Wcrld pro~~~at n aulk x~sachecY ~the courto, btxt :hia wae a ytock ownsxahi.~
whera+.n peopls awnad atook in *.~~e compaay, which could nut be compazed with the
sale a! a~anit on a poatmqe-atemp IQt.
~J
~
~
MINJTES, CITY PI, tiNING COMMISSxON, Septembsr 5, 197~ 73-533
~NVIRONMENTAL IMPJICT RL~PORT N0. 97, :tItCL~.SBYFICA'PION N0. 73-74-11, CANOITIONAL
U&~ PfiRMII' N0. 141°+. AT3u TEN'~'HTiVE MAP _~F TRACT N0. 8409 (Continuec~~ _
Commiaeiur~er Fareno notsd tliat it hnd bean halQ unoonstitu~i~nal to limit tenwn~:r
or uNnar~hipa ~f prorexty beaeua~ of r:.co, croed ~nQ color, wheroupon Mr. i,owry
eta+ted tha~ ;.hts r~~c llmitntion had bebn upheld by thu cou ~: whorein stock ealo
o! an oxqa~t! zation waN involvad, iri whi~:lx air ~pecr~ wes eo1 d but not land.
Chairmen t:auar oba~rved that a xesoluti~n ot int~nt ta tha R^H-22,000 2one wsa
on a portion o! the pzoperty nven though it we~ otill zoned it-A tharcfore, if
H-_ wae conoldsrad !ur a poxtinn oF tho property, the lote ehou_ bo no 19es
th~+n ?200 square lseC.
Commiasioner Seymour noCed ~hax oomA of the remarks made were pertinent ~nd
ehould bs avaluatecY - ona, ir~ partir;ular, med• by Mr~ Hari.eic in which ha atatod
thet ~om~ reli~f shauld be givdn becAUae ot th~ vset amount o~ development in
,Ae r.~.•a~ bottom, how~ver, he could not eaaept that n6 n reASOn eine~ Anehoim
Hl11~ wes 6ntiroly dittnrent from property loaatad in the r.ive~r bottom and
edjaaent t~ tl~e treewey, therefore, he lelt ths primsry queetion bet'ore tho
CQntm~.eeion, xegardles of the fact that tt~t~ propoAed p~anned zaeidentin]. ~evel-
~pment wne an oute' -,ing tt~velopment, and he co~~1 .~. aae~ume thn~ higher income-
typcs people would 31de in this dsveJ.opment, he did not feel th~e ehou7.d
justi.fy aa inorea• in the denaity n~•~r that oriqinnlly proposed an the lAnahoim
Hille rener~l Pl >> thet he hdd stated at the laet public hearing that the
denaity ehould -~ma~.n within that eatablished in the ~enera7. Plan in that area,
nnd if t::is oF ~tion were allowr~d to break this donsity, ~hen durinq the rnmain-
iny seven-ye~ projec~tion f~r Anahei.m Hi.lle thi~ denaity w~uld further deterior.-
ate~ and t'ha cor.ditions had not changed to any great dQgree to juatify viewing
this parcel ln e di;ff~rent• liyht than the Commiseion h~.d cona:dered ik two yeara
dqo.
CommiASioner Herbst noted that t~~e uv~erall General F1an £or Anaheim Hi11s ~ro-
jocte3 3.4 dwelling units per net acrR, and wih.h thia particulnz site the Commie-
eion had been aware that ~here miyht have to be a trbde-off wi.tl~ some orar~a hav-
ing higher c~ensity ao that more open space could be pravided in othez e-rdas,
and Kh~le the Commieaion at the last gublic het~rinq had approved RS-50~J0 instead
of R-2 oriqinally approved as ~et forth on the Plan, tY~ie wou7d affect the
denaity to some degree and inquire~ whnt it would do t~. the over•11 plan to
maintain the density within the overall denaity adopted by the Ar_aheia~ Hilis
~eneral Plan Amendment N~. "?a~ wh~reuoon Mr. ?oberte stated that ataff wuuld
have to ,qa ba~ok ~o rhe Land ilea and Doncity Ele:;~ent ad~.pted under GPA No. 123A
nnd mak9 cotnparieon~ with wha~ was actual.ly apgroved to arrive at a given fiqure.
Commisaioner Fierbst then noted that the Commission had all.ow~d higher densiti.es
in some areas, while reducinq the d~neity in othere~ wherei~pon Mr. Roberta
atated Lhat for all the projects approvQd thus far for the Ansheim Hilis Com-
munity~ tho numbes of dv~elling tinits had not totaled the n~imber that had been
pexmitted by tha adoptian o° Ger-eral Plan Amgn3me.dt No. 1.23k1 becausa they had
been averaqinq 2esa on the ground, at-d there woulc~ be a alight o~f :t factor.
even ~hc+ugh a pYOject might come in rep7.acinq different zones in the ~Zeighbor-
tlood.
Mr. Dax_eie alvi~ed ~he Commission tY-ere were twc reasonr~ for zedtiction in the
total number of an~.ts, one being r.he physical limitxt~on of ~:he propertyj that
they could hav~ largaz-type unit~s on the propexty but not a m~re expensive-tgpe
unit for eelect taitantai that ene asea containinq E70 acre$ had been apgroved
u:~der ~PA Noo 123A ~or 3667 uniScs, but townhouse devsiopment snd tract maps
approved or reoorded anc: approwed aike plans ir.dicstec] there would be no more
than 2430 unf~a, or a r~duction of 34tJ that when the orig:.nal pla;~ned community
plan was placed on the pzoperty, averyune knew there would have to be eome tr.ade-
off ~so thst t~s cvera~.l deneity would be cona~.aten~~ and because a~ this and
because they ~roposed to placo larye acrcaqQ astat~~ an t' 7~illa in the future,
from the originxlly-approved density of 15~000 dwelling units, this wae conaist-
ently movinq doxnNaxd a-nd would be ASOl1Ald 10,G00 unite for the 4?:.0-acre sitR.
Commiss~.oner Rowland wt-t~ of the o~i.i~on that the donaity propoaed for ~ubject
ptopexty Naa Frouably not ae high na ttae paxcel wouid warrant based an hie
attit+ide z~gardinq th~a hill and ra•-yca asea a~nce he hed pursued the idea as
aonalAtently ~s Nosoirle th~:t higY~er density shou2d be permitte8 or. pro~erty
that qooqraphically aould •:commodate the density, and it wa~~ in those areao
which v-ere r~ographically unauftuble eitna triet should be de~aloped wi~h the
~ ~
MiNUTES, CITY PLANNINd COMMxSSION, ~~ptamber 5, 7~973 T3-534
ENVIP.ON!!1lNTAL IMPACT AFPORT N0. ~i7, RFr,~,AS3T~ICATION N0. 73-74 •11, CON[1'LTIONAL
USE PS1lNI~ 1V0. 1415~ AND T6NT11TIV1; M7-P OF TRACT N0. 8409 (Continund~____,_,~,_
leset denoity pc.eAible trom an ae~thotio p~>int of ~iea, providing ~erviae• ta
Lhe moro x~mote areaa woulQ be dittiau~.t :-c-d ex.per~uive, th~zef~zo, he would re
i.n tavor o! *he propo~ed Proiect in the manner in wh'~h it wse pr~aentec. bscaua•
he telt it wae • qo~d ~lavelopment~ buk he did not ag.~e +ith tha propar~ent'a
~tahamsnt~ th *_ htgha= deneity ~hould be placed Ae a bufter ta no~sa sinae he
di.d not foel tt wae ZOCJ:LCbIl to plao• more paopl~ th~ra bscauee they would be
uaed ~o noi~e, ~towaver, hs did hsve soms a~'i.tioiem o! thi~ plen - even Chouyh
t~~o telt tt v-aa a goad plan -Chera b~i.ng only one acuese to the entire doveloNe~ent
prc~,oeed and it wae located tao !ar to tho nurth, and aome provision ehould bd
mAde to extend the medinn which pzsolude~: left turn in th+xt ~.r.•e~n b~cauee the
lett t,urn should ~~~me o!P the medlari break at L~ Paz, which he falt w~u!d make
even more tsa!'!ic eenAe evc-~i tl.ough one muet canc:iSer Anaheim :~ills Roe~d ae on~
o~ the lony~A L• cul-de-sace in the world, ~+nd thdra wou~ c! b• times~ when ane~ aauld
not get in or out o. Lhe develoyment becsuse of the numbdr. ~,_ people i.Y~ the
AnehAim Nilla ereui thdt the deneity, in hi,a astimatior,, a:.d c;uite moc]eraco,
and if the Ci~y nid not p~rmit loaaLing this type uf d~veloE~mont in the areas
that were eaay to devolo8, thore would be more problemb fnr pe~ple who wou1Q
be pz~ejected to 31va in the more dif.fi,cul~ aro~e of the development.
Cot,miseion~r Seymour o~ated that trom the outset ho F.ad aqreed v~ith C~~mm' ioioner
Rowland's cor~cept of d~velopment !or Anz~h9lm H~.11s to heve highor cloiiait .ea wh~sa
moxe eaaily developable araae wera nva~i].eblo and raperve the be~lence for open
space~ `~owever, when hQ vi.e~ced ~ tie eita, the Santa Ana c;anyon ar.ea, anu saw
what was actiuall.y transpiring, he azrived nt a very negative 8ttt'~,dA.
Commiasianer Rowlaad observ~d that if tha Com~:ls~i.on cid not take advahtt~~e oP
the opportunit•y Aa :lt presente3 itself, p3rticulazly since "horse trading" did
not tl.t in witti the rc~aponsibtlit.ie~ of the planninq Commieoi.on, w' i..a w~s a norz-
polltical body, but if the Commissioii could justify ite mov~~ wit.k ~m~tlainq
ag~set, auch as plana. howevrr, tho Gommiseion had no way c nro~ectinq what it
would llka ultimately f~r thie area, and i~ could ba developed with a ia.r mare
intenso use than thE Commieaion propoaed~ th3t he .+aa loo .ing at thi~+ davelop-
r~~nt from the s~:andpoint of the gzac5lr,q perf~rm~+d in Annh~im Hills, t-nd one
aou].a not believe the ch.angea ir~ topograPhy and the incredible achi.evemeiito c~f
bulk movemont of oarth, and he had looked at on~y 8d of the areat thst the land
da~eZovers wuu~d not be with the City~ ~o~ many yeare, and the rosidents of theae
a~eas would tault the Commisei.on if there were problemsr rnd thast at the seme
time he felt a grettt dnal more work woul~ have ta be done ~n +.his area.
Comm~.saSoner Fa-rano ~bsRrved that if only 8$ of the lazid had been procesaed and
the vast amount of ezrth move,d, ane eould no~, measUr.e anyL•hing by parcentaqes
but only in terms ~f tlie end prodnc:t anc~ wliat ita ePfect would be on the e*-tire
livin~ areai that he, too, subscribed to the theory of developing the more su'~-
able areas fc:r higher density, but Zhexe ahould ba some limita~ion to how faz'
one could gp to convert an area that was capeule of higher development since
the developere had taken eome axeac~ and changed ~.hem more than they sh.ould hav9
been.
Chairman Gauer observed that there waa R-fi-Z2,OU0 sus•rounding subject p'rope'rty,
wi~h R-:~ acroae Anaheim Hilla Road, therefore, iL the former C-1 portion were
considered for develop~ent, particularly a ong Santa Ana Canyon Road, than the
balance could be deve~oped for R•-1i-22,000 ~ir~~e thi^ R-1 deWelopment would be
the continuation of what had been atsrted along the entire lenrth of Srnta Ana
Canyon Ro~-d.
Commiseioner Sey.~ur offered ~ motion, ~ecan8ad by Commiaei~nex King and MOTI~N
CA~tRxED, that the Plsnninq Cou-rsiasion, 3n conne~'ion with tho filinq of Environ-
mental Impact Report Na. ~'1, fin8e and determin that the EIR Reviek Committee
determined that th,e zeport ie ad0quate as an inf~rmative do~umerit and tollowe
the City's establi.ahed qu'_delinee a~nd t~dt there wauld be n~ significan*, atlverse
envaronmental fm~act, a~~~1, therefor«~, ~h~ Planninq Commiealon recommende to the
City ~ouncil that -aid ~oport be adopted a~a t.h~ CounQil's Environmental Impact
Statement.
~
~
MIN(ZT~B, ~"ITY PLANNING COMMi8SI0N, tla~tember 5, 1973
73-535
~NVIROI~MTrNTAL 1MPACT RkPORT Nu. 97, REGLA83IFYCATTON N0. 73-74-11, CONDITI~NAL
UST' PERMIT N0. 14~5 AND TENTATIVS MI-P Or T1RA~'T NO. 8409 (C~ntinuod)
r.. . 1 ...............~.~~_._...__ .
Cummisel.oner Seymour afPereii F.osolutiaa No. Pc73-1~~7 and moveEl f.or ito pmn~aq~
and nlloption t~ reoommand to tt,u City Counoil ~iiesp~~roval o! P~titian tor
R~ncla,rui.Plnati~n No. 73-•74-11. on the ba~io that the propoaed recl+-~aification
Wuu1Q not ba i~ contorma~noa witli the cien~ral Pl,+n Pox 1-na,heim HillA ae eatab-
lished in the density of Genaral Pian Ara~ndment No. 123l-i thae i! ~pproved, the
propooed reclnesificntion would eatabli~h en ur~d~oir~ble preoont to tt+rtha:
br.~r.k dyWi~ the ~stabllshed denaitie~ +~pproved Por 1lnnhei~- Hil.~.s anll this gAllsrel
Rzea, wh~ch shnul!! bs rigorou~ly enloxoedt that the auYrouncling propertins to
the ar~~t and oouth had e resolution ot int~nt to the R-H-2Z,000 Zone, while th•
prapertie~ ~o t:he west and further to i:ha naet along 15au~A Ana Canyon Ruad ha4
been deve].opod ox approve~d for R-1 d~volopment, and thw amall commerc.tal-
de~9.~naCed por.tion - Percal 1~ cou1~ be Qewe].aped for R-1 ai.ng.le~family uee~,
tiher.~+by providtng a buffrr for th~ R-NM22,000 propexties lzom tx~a~fic along
Santa Ann Cany~n RQdCI. (see Recolut.ion Hoak?
On ro11 call the foregoing reoo~ution was paa~'~od l~y the t.sllowinq vote :
AYES~ COMMISSIONER3: Farano, Ga~~er, Kiny, S^ymaur.
NOFS: COMMISSIONE RS: E~~xbet, Rnwland.
ABBENT: COMMi8SI0NFR5e A11red.
Commissioner Se~ymour offered Resolution Na. PC73-~].98 and movel~ Por its paesaga
and adoption fiu deny Petition~ ~ox CondiL•ional Usr~ ~'ezmit No. 1C15 on the ba:.'F
that ai,nce ta,e Commisc+ion recommer.ded dipapproval of the re^laseification of
eubject pzoperty, the prQposed devd~opa~ent cou~d not be accompl+.shed within tne
eite dpvelopment atandards of the zane on the prop~rtyf and th~t tha propoaed
use w~uld a8versely afrect the ad~olning land u~ee and c~rowth anc~ development
of the area in w1 i.ch i.t w~as proposod _o be located. (See Reao~.ution BaokS
On roli. ca11 ~hA faregoina ret~al~~ .~or- was passed by the fallovtfnq vote:
AY~S c COMMIS9IONERS: Farano, G+~uer, Ki.ng. ~eymotiir.
NUES: COMMTSSIONERS~ Herbst.
ABS£[~T: COMMISSIONERS: Allt~~ .
ABSTAIN: COMMIS:IONERS: Rowla 9.
Comm~saioner Seymoux offared a motion, seconc3ed by Coromisei.oner Farano and
-NOTIGN CARRIED (4omm~.ss~oners Allred absent, :iarbst voted "~.o", and ROK1,8I1~
abatained) , ko deny Tente-tive Map oi Tract rlo. 0409 on t.he bn~is th: t the
C:omml.ssion haS recqmmendec: that thP reclaesification peti*.3on k-e d.i..approved,
and s;:~diviaion of sub ject prop~rty could ,iot be accompliahed withi.n the oxisi:-
ing zoning on 'thn property.
CONDITIUNAT. USE - PUBLIC HEAItING. LEnG~.R '~'. AND GI,AbYS K. SMZT'~; 151 Mi=d-
PERMIT N0. 1424 monte Dr~.va, Fullerton, Ca. 926=2, Ownerat requestinq that
propertY ~escribed ass An irragularly•-al~aped purcel of
land .:~nsisti.ng of approximatels~ 5.48 acres havi.izg a~proxi-
ma~e fron~aqea of 417 feet an the norihwest s'.de of Katella Avenue and 273 fQ9t
on the southwest side of HowEll Street and ha~•ing a ma:•iznum cle~th of apprcxi-
ma*_ely 425 febt be e8tab138hed ~OY an F~:TOM0;3~L~ SALES AND SERVY~E AGEI~CY WITH
WAIVERS JF (A) MINIMUM BUILUI~'G SE^HACK, (T~~ hflhIA'lGM LANDSCAPEL 5LTBACYC, (C)
t~INIMUM VERTIGAL CLEA1tAPIC$ FOR PRIVAl : DR?•~E, (D) MAXIMUM NUMBER QF PERMITTED
FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (E) AEQUIRED E;NCLOSURE OF O"TDOOR USE WITH 6-FOOT HIGH
MA50NRY' 'r'ALL AND (F~ :lINIMli:1 NUMFER OF REQUIRF:D T,RKI"-G SPACEB. Froperty
pieaentl~r classified M-l, I 3H~r INAUBT~tIALr ~ONE.
No one appeazed in opposi :n.
Although the Raport to tha Commieeior~ wae not read at the public Yeaxing it ia
ref-~r: ed to nad made a paxt of the minutee.
Mr. ~~arry .:nisely, attoxr~ey for the ge~~'~ innor, appaareci before ~he Commieeioa
and nuted that this waa one of ~the f~w times ha }~ed appeared before t.he Ir.dua-
tr~al Committee of the Chamber of ~omm~~rce to presen~t a zoninq proposs'.~ tha!:
ebout 2~ mcmbexe were ~.n at:tgndt~nce+, and all ~ppe~nred to be in favor o: tihe
• ~
MINUTRS, CITX PLANNING COMMI3SION, Septeml:er 5, 1973 73-•536
CONDITIONAL USE PLRM7.T N0. 1424 (Cantinued)
propoaal~ that th~ propoeal for naw and ueed d~elerehip wes pr~pored :~.i.
McClur.e, who he~d bean in bu4lneae on South Anah~im eoulevard for lZ y~as.'~-
alao ir~ eha M-?. Zono, however with bn inoxdase in buoineds, it waA nwoe~~ary
to expand hia ta~oilitieA, and u~~n v~.ewinq sub~eot propeCty der.ermine~t C1~1•
was an ideal laca~ion and si.noo this, too, wa~ M-1~ he would be+ mo°~lnq tho eama
ty~pe~ o°. b»sine~s ~rom ~ae area to anothec~ an~ thst L•ha totel gr~pexty Ma~
s~proxim~tely 9 dcxoe +~nd npproximately 5~crea would bo uned for the Qenler-
ehip, ~Hi'~h the bdle~nco developad tor industrial u~sA it subjact petitian wern
a~rroved.
Mr, icni:~oly furthez not~ed that ther~- rppee-rad t:o be a qudation o!. intarpret -
~•ion r~gard•ing Finding No. 21 of t'he Report t~ the Commi~eion~ that the dtato-
mont wae made thnt thie would be strictly a coa~mercial-reteil aativiCy, hoWever,
repa~ir and adxvice buainaeses ware Eaund in industxial er~as~ thdxetore, this
could not. be claesified ae primrr~.:ly commarcial ~inao the conditionnl uae permi~
oect•I~n c~P tho M~1 Zona wt~uld permit itt that if r~ul~~eat ~ropozty wer~ zoned
C-3~ t:~e~~- would be no noe~t to Appear beP.oze the Commi~tai~n or ask for dny
waivers regar~~i i~y giqninc~~ and tht-t he Pelt that tha required eetbdcke ahould
' ava b0er~ reconeidsred since the oxdi.na:ico dld nut defiiie setbacka in any othor
z~ne excepC tha M~1 7one, and the R-~h 'Lone rsguized ~ percontaqe uf the eide
yard for a eetback, therefAre, th~ Cammiosion ehould detAruine wt~ethc~r or not
thia should be coneidered a c~ide ynrd or a fronl- y~rd eetbnck.
Commiesiondr Rar~lAna inq~aired whother th or~er would h,ave th~ ~ontiquaue
pro~~F!2LY to L•he co:ners whc+reupon Mr. Kni: ~ated that Che Shell 011 Campnny
had a serWice etation at tii3t interaection, ~:.~d tHe propfleed devalo~ment would
bound the servica station on two aides.
Zonin~, Sslparviaor Charlos Rnberts, in reaponse t~ Commisaion queatio„ing, et~xted
the eatbeck waiver wae £rom Howell Street
Commiseioner Farano inquixed whether this wouZd be ~~rie east end of the body shopr
whereupon Mr. Rc•berts stated thnt would be both the body shop P~d the wall.
Deputy City ACtorney Frank Lowry inquir~d t~hether Mr. Kn3sely was rgferring to
thA 3efinition of tho word "ee~back"t wher.eupon Mr. Knisely repl.ied negativaly.
Mr. Lowry then read tl~e definitinn of the aetback requirema~nt, and ~sp~n its
conclusion, Mr. Knisely stated that the width of the propert•y wae the key w~xS,
whil.e he had considezed this tha sidy yard and not the ~ront yard.
Commisaianer Herbst ~tated t~ t:lE rtr. Knisely consid~red this the side yard
along Howoll Street, w~t~at wo:l.d happbn tio the zear portion which w~a slso being
consir3ero~ a~ a side yard anc~ w:aat would it Eront on~ whereupon Mr. Knisoly
statad that the property w~aLld f.r.ont on Hotwell S~reet.
Commisaioner Herbst inquired wY:ether tlne petitioner proposed to chanqe tlie
climens~ions of the propc~rty and whe',:her all ~r just a pa~ct o'' the pzoperty wz~a
pr~,poeed t~ be dsvFloped~ rshereupon Mr. Knisely stated that 3f the ad~acent
pxoparty - the balance o~ the 9-acre pazceZ - wa~e ~eveloped for induetrial
purpases, they prop~sed to construct a chainlink fonce whicli should b<~~3equate
t>poauc~e th's wae an industrial areA. In ac~d~.tion, with reference mad~ to par.k-
xnq agaces, he felt that ~hs garking p_oposed would be adequatet ~hat they ~vou?.d
As peXmitted a 350-squaz•e fooC ign~ and they Wera propoaing only 22~ equ~re
feet, thus the area was far bE ~w that permitted= ~hat they coul~ no~ ~t*3ch
aay aiqning to ~ne sign t~tnce Ford Motor Company owned the one siqn and would
no~ allow that mtich gign cluttert and that they propnaed the additionaY aign
cloaer to the intereoction because of the conliquration of Katella Avenu~ ~+nore
it was depressed below th~ rmilresad tLAC~C3.
Mr. Roberta n~ted that tn tha 350-square fo~t aic~n arga m~at3oned by Mr. Knieoly,
thie wou].d b~ permitted in the ~ammercial zonm, however, eubject property wae
zon~d M-1, ah;.ch pezmitted only a 100-squnre foot siqn or Lhe siqn ~+ould have to
be located bAhind the required eatbauk, and to parmit eiqning as etnted by Mr.
Kniaely wou~.d mean pl.acinq eigning beh~n~ the required eetback.
'A`HE HEYIRING WAS Ci+ASLD.
~ ~
MINU'PE3, CxTY YLAt~NINC CONIMI83IGN, Saptcmber 5, 1973 73-537
CCJNASTIONAL USL~•PRMST N0. 1a24 (Continued)
Commio5ioner ~eymous noted *ha~ Mr. Kniaely had aot diocuased kho I.rndacaping
Mal.~~er~ whereupon Mr. Xnieea.y ebatad thdt becauso Kntolla 1~venu4 hsd an embank-
ment whiah ;vae dadiaat~d to the Cl.ty c+t Anahe~m, it vrda ~olt t.he eatbACk pxo~
Q~~ed alanc~ Katella Avenuo would be adequa~a~ and th~at the weiver !~x 3 faet
spplied cniy to K+sr.elia l-VOIlUH, whilee th~ zer~ eeCbdok wa~ proposed dlOil~ Hoae11
3txeet and no eilev-alks Wt~ro p~apoaed along the Katelle Avenue Yrontnga bs~ause
at the embankmenk.
Commiesion~r Hexbot not~+d thet khe aetback nloay Huwell Straet wikh th.+ proper
cles±yn oE the pr~~oct could have~ ample xaom ~. r n 0-Eoot eetb••.ck, whilt~ A
parCian of the ac+tbaak aould be uee3 for automobilc parking a! nmployee~ which
~rould still Qoimit tha rec~uixed 10 Peet oP landecaping, t~n8 the employ9ao ~ould
~ark in Pront oP tha wa) 1 rathex' than behi~Ad ~he wnll.
t~r. ~1. Juck McClure, 1354 Soufih Anahein- BoulevArd, ai peere~ beiore tt,e ~ominiasion
and atnted thst th~ bloak wall wae placed i:z the ~.rapoead locatian to hide rny
mechanical or old, wr.ecked care that miqht bo visibla fzom tho straetj that when
h~ livad in Anaheim ho had e wall ori the prnperty end his wif~ ha-d plantad a
vine which wee yze~n all year long, ~has ho propoaed to p].n~~ thia s~mc type of
vine on tY~•~ wa11 baca~ase i.t would add a aocordti :-e fet~cA t thet hd d' d not want
hi.s employe~a to paxk t~eir matorcyclee nn8 campara ln ti.a eatbdck araa becauee
t:h.at v~auld be an eya~aara ~o hi~ bueineset thnt the City h~d approvecl tha B~t~S19
he had on South Anaheim Bouluvard, end tho siqx~s propoaed Por aubjeat rroparty
would be idantical, however, tho large afgn wxa the proporty af the Ford Motoz
Compa:~y, and they could na~ attaah any other. signing 1.a it, hoWever, he we~ntaci
~ome identificatiun as to the type of operatinn he hnA.
Commissioner Flerbet obaer.ved that many induatrie.s wouid like tb corietruct t.heir
walla at tl:e property line, but he, ae a Commir~eiuner, could see no juatifica-
tian for yr:ntir.q thiA waiver ginca +:ho City had r~quired a eimilar aetback
from other cl.~v~lopera of induatrial prcporty i.n th~s~ qenez'al a~Pa.
M.r. McCluro t.t.en atatad th~t they could ~ossib~y relocate the wa.ll 10 feet back
from the curb and inquired Mtiether that would be adequate.
Com:nissioner Herbat notad there were two alte::nativos as to the setL~ack: 1)
landscaping the entir~ 50-faat setback, or 2) usir~c~ a portion of ~he ~etback far
parking, with tne front 10 feet be:ng devotec~. to landscapinq, but the wa11 muot
be loc~+ted 50 :;~et £rom the ultimate property line.
The Commis~ion then reviewgc3 the requirdments ~~ith the propoaed developer. oP the
property, after which Mr. McClure aqain stated that he was concern~i with thA
appsarancn of the greenbelt eince he wante , ta have V~klQ$ gro~rir.g on the wall
rathex '.tian cievotinq it ta paxkinc~ in fzont.
c:cmmi si~nc~r Row~and obaerved that since there would be na visual av~~oaure o;~.
Katella Avenue because it was a depressed street, cheri the Fr'_mn~-y Rcceas would
have t~~ be Howe11 Srraet, anc~ he Ielt Mr. McClure w~s exploitfng the pr4perty
and not us~ing it fn tlie beet of it~ abi.li~y anci waA doing e considerable in~
justice as Wel]. as fozcing an isaue r~•~,.~rding w~iuers of a ae~tion of the
ozdinance not generally granted, therefcre~ he ~vauld e~'tertain ~~+ requeat for
con~i.nuancA so that the petitioi~er aould review h~s proposal $n~: 3atc~rmine h~w
it could properly fit the ar.ea, as well as view what tiad already boen dQV910ped
in the industrtal arc~ as it pertained to setbacke snd the mannez in which theae
aetbac~:e were utilized, particularly since the peti;:ioner could gaan very little
advertising exposure t.o Katella Avpnue.
Continued discuasion was held by ~he Ccmmiseion ana Mr. ~lc~lure regardir~g the
~etback, the advertieing exp~eure, and ~he manner in which tk~e 88~bSCIS could be
utili:nd.
Mr. Ron Nelson, 2333 wea~ r~~~.ra 5trect, Loe any~iob, appPared aePere th~ Commis-
aion ~nd atr~tad :ie we-~: ~he ~ngineer of thc~ projeatt that Mr. McClure wanted the
frontage on Katell~ Avenuo ~v`~ich h~d a l~~r~~r exposureo and tnat 2,e had des~.gned
~he plans in conformanc9 w~~h the ~:uetomer's wie~~eo-
Commissioner Herbsti. in xF^ponse t~ questinning by Mr. Nelson, eta«ed that many
of the City's indu~ ~rial plante~ fronL•ed on os.ly one atxeat, wh~.le the proposad
deveZor~ent had fro~-~aye ati two atro~ta, th~reloro, theza~ ~rae no hazA~hip provmn
to granting thig axiver.
~-'--._ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PI,ANNING COMMI89ION~ 3~pL•cmbar 5, 1~73 73~~~A
rONDITXUNA~ USE PERMIT Nd. 1424 (Gpntinuod)
Chairmsn Gauer e~dviqMd tl~e Commission thst it appasred the Commi~oion au~ hry^
iaq t~~ z~deA~gn ~he r,ro ject, and this ehoulQ Ae done by tY~a ~ngineer tor Ch~
d~v~~.ap~r, whiah ahould thsn bA r~viewed ~t a~tat! lwve~ ba~Eor.e tha CummiaNion
aqalr~ x~aanel,derod it.
Coma-iAaionez 8aymaur noted that ~he Commiesinn had no oppo0ltion to t2~e u~e
proposed f~r the pxoperty, hoaever, changed ehould be mxde to ~he p1~-ru,~~-
compas!sirig the de~iree o! tho Commidai.o~n to meet Code, and tha~t the !~~tl.t~oner
shuuXd ooneult wit'h eta~! ae Cc, ~thte directi,an.
Mx, RoAart~, in respvnse t~ queet.ioning by Mr. McClure, at~ted tl~e ~etltioner
would have k~ e~at b~ok khe Na11 oz any e~tructuree ~)5 2eot from tt-e canterlind
o! tioNe'll 3tr•oet.
Co~ i.aeioner aeymour observed tha'~ Mr. MaCluro aould a~leca u~a the-t epace to
die~2ay new aut.omobiles since Mr. tlcClurr felt hr~ wo~~ld be waot~.n~ prupoz~l:y by
cumplyi.ng witii the ~etback.
Mr. MaClure st~ted he Ne+nted to he-ve everythinq on tte in$id~ oY the wa..l be-
ca+ase af poaeible petty thefts ~ccurzing with parte oi c~utomobil.es beinq
z•omoved.
Comm:~s~ionor Herbrat eftered x motlon, 3eoonddd hy Commigsioner Seymour and
MOTZON CARRIEU, tr reopen the bgering and c~ntinuo conei~leration of Petition
~or Condir.;c~~al Uea Fermit No. 1424 to the maeting of Saptambex 17, 1y73, i.n
order. that ~he pQtitionez• might zAVise hir~ plans to r~flec~ the rocommendetfona
made by the P~annii~g Commis.sion ~ and thati the r~vised plana must be in ihe
DeveloY~ment Smxvices De~partment no later th~n SApt~mber 7, 1973.
CU~yDITZQNAL USE ~ PUBLIC IiEARII~G. DC~NALD F. PTEROTTI, 507. St. 3ohn Way,
PERM~T NO. 1a22 Placenti~, Ca. 926%aa WESLF:Y CALLIER, 1E311.1 Gast Oxango-
! th~rpe Aven~ao, Rnahoim, ~a. 9'180~~ AND DIERK D. ~'ETCRS,
500 W~~t Gxove AVenue, Orange, Ca. 92665, OwnFr.s 1 K~'LY
RAUTO, c/o Harria H. Thomson, 1i90 East 8~11 Ruad, Anaheiu~, Ca. 9280 5, h.gent~
requssting nerr.iiasion to INS~PALL ~tADIO TRANSMISSYON TAWF.kS AND TRANSMlTTBR UNIT
on pr.opar~y deHCribed as: A rectangularly-ehapad parcel of land consieting of
approximately 15 acres~ having a maximum dr.ptli of appr~ximately 570 fe~,t, and
bai~ig loaafiec~ approximatiely 690 Peet eaet ot the centerline of Lakeviow Avenue
and appxoxi.ma~telp 43p feet ~south of Oranqethorpo Avenue. Property p xosently
classified R-A, .:.GRICULTURP.L, ZONE.
Comm.lsflionar kowland stated th~t since .:here woul.d be a possible c~n iliut af
intereat, he w~u~d abs~nL• himself from the Council Chamber.
Commiasioner Rawland l~ft the C~unc17. Chamber at 3:35 p.m.
No one apgeaxed i.n op~,osition.
AlGhough the Report to the Commiaeion waa not resd at the public hearing, it
ia referrsd to and mac;e a p~srt of the minutes.
Mr. Horace Camp, realtar, 1535 Ea~t Lincolr.. Avenue, appeared before th~ Comr~is-
sion, nottnq that he was representinq the aqant far the petitioner and w+~s
availeble to answar questi.ons.
' E HEARING WT.G CLOSED.
Mr. Cnmp ~ndicated he dS.d have as~reral queatioris regarding referenc~ ma~]e to
Axes pevelopn~ant Plan Nc. 10" and 60 fc~et of dedi.catiorn; that hie aliente did
ttoC cbjeat to ~.ddica~.ing for street purpoeee but did not feel they ahould
dadicmt~+ the ~~ntire street ai.dth ~rom their Propc~rty but just tha half-wid~h
a~ the s~cr.oet, w-hile the halmncc shouJ.d be requirnd cf thd property ca the
east owned by th~ Smnta Fe Railroa3; tliet further cancern ~wae expresaed. regard-
inq poa~3ng a~ n band for in~tallatian of ~aid stceot, ~owever, sin~ce none a~E
tha propea~ky extend~ng to ~.u r°lm• !-venue v~a~ available at ttiis time !or
~
~
~
MLNUTEy, CITX ?~J,ANNIN(3 L'AMMT9fiION, Sepkemba~z ~, 1973 73-•53a
C0l3DZTI0NAi~ US~ p~RMIT N0. X4~Z (Cox~tinued)
inotal~.~ti,oa o! tt-a etreet, ha aoulci r~+qusut turl:hmr clarificaeion nn thia aondi-
tton beasuae ~.t~ would appear to bo s rsth~z s.»Qaliniti~ ~ime in Lhe ,luturs as to
wh~n t.hi~ •tr~~t v~ould .~o conetx•uct~d.
de~uty City Attnrney Fr.nnk Lowry aAwi~od tha Commi~~iun that a bond w'~a xaQu~oted
to bs posted tar the emoune n~ improvament~ oP the e~a•eet.
OPliae Fnqinaer Jay 'I'itus etntsd it w~a pose+eible whan ~hera was no d~tinite
ti.me whon ~he ~aci.l.itie~ w~uld be~ conetructed to r~quJ.re oame other lorm o!
secuzi~y, ca^_ : or d lette~r of axo9it, et~. , which oou}.d be provic~ed inotead of
the bon9,
N!x•. Ca~mp indicatQit that• the petitioner was willi.ng to dedi.cnt~ a partion o! the
property at ~hie tim9.
Cha.ixm~n Gauor inqu~.znd whethex the Santa F'n Railroad }~ad any imme~iate plane
lc,z davelopment, nnd would they deii~ca~o thc~ir p~rtion of the proparty !or
atree*. p~irposr~e ain~e ha could not eee requeating the entire ntreet baing
cYadi~ated Lrocu one property.
Mr. Lowry n~ted that the conditian of ap~rovel was n condi.Cional dedicatl.on,
and i.n thR past the City had zH~uired a eimilar condit:ional dedication, requir-
inq having a ane-foot ho].dinq ~trip whiati would be F~ved, or~e-tta].f the
coet of the streot, proper.ty, An3 etre~C lmprovemonte paid when the sdioining
property propoHad to de+rel.op nnd deuixed accaas to ihe atreet; anv that in ~wo
instancae in ~he paat the apglicsnt had por~l•ed e~ cnsh bond, howeWer, the otreet
had bedn conetructod eight to ni:-a yearo 3.ntor and tha cost roae conai.derably
more than it wa~-ld havr+ been orig.lnRliy.
Mr. Camp in~icated tha~ or.e, would be hesi.tant to pasL• a cash bond recause
development miqht not ocout Eox from two to ten yeara, and wi.th tha amount of
monoy it woulcl take for ~tzaot constructiou, this would ba c~ather aonsiderable
to expend with~~xt a.ny immedir,te remuneration.
Mz. Lo~:ry noted that tne City in t2ze past had used letters of crddit, certif~-
r.ates of dapoH~t~ and corporata atock to inaure th+~t the stroet was conotructad,
but r~ lettex of credi.t in this in~etance would be acceptable.
Mr. Camp stated that the,y would then proaeed on the ba~is of th e letter cf
credit, but hia client i•~,lt that tha land for the e tree°: should be a~ually
divided between the 5anta Fe Railror~d and the property ownera to thd west side
of the propQSed s~reet., and Santa Fe reprQaentatives had agx~aed to this two to
thzee yoars ago when they were intez~astad in dev~loping L•heir property, but at
ths present time they had ^^ ~.lans for devp].opment.
Commissioner Herbst observed tha~t he had dQalinqs in tha past with the Santa
F9 Rnilr~ad, and they haS been willing to dedicate their portion of the street
but did not want i:a improve Che s~treet at khe time of. dadioa~ian, and that the
City did not permit half-etreets to be consL-ructed.
Co~n-isa~oner Seymour inquired whether Mz. Camp aould pres~nt an alternativet
whereupon Mr. Camp stated that he could see a neeci f4r the $t.reet since the
properties ii~ this are~a need.ad cizaulati.on, bu1: becst~se the pet3tioncr'e prop~-
orty was at the far end of the group of properr.iea, they would be the only onEe
really affect9c~ by circulation aince the othar ~roPartiea woul~ have e~c:ceas to
an~t:her atreet, a~nd if t:~ey dedicated for ~he ~ntize street wirl~h and hald Lat
"A", it was possible that thoy would not rRCeive aaything for theix investmo:~t
from Santa FQ :~or tpn years, and thc~ value of L-he current dollar aould be
coneiderably reducad in thar time and the xetu:rn wou~.d not be the eame For them
at the time this atreet wae developed drtex aw~it~ng a'raturn of their i.nveet-
ment. In Agdl~tion, it ~ras i:lec ~ossi.ble ~hAt •Ghey mi.ght not need acceas to the
atxeet and woul~d just erect a Lenae rathar tha~Y take access to the e~reet, and
hin cliente would r.eceive nc~ remuz~eration, particul~xl}• eince his clianta'
property representad only 2`is of the *otal propertles along this street, 3nd the
proposed ueers of the prope~:~ty, KE.:Y, wer.a int~srested only in having their
tran~mittezs on ~he land.
~
-~,
~
MINUTRB, CITY pI,11NNiNG COMMISS~ON, 8aprem~~qr 5, ].973
CONDITxON1~L UAa FRRMxT N0. 14 22 (Continued)
73-540
Comml~sion~x Seymoux inquirod wheth~r KE~,Y woulll ba willing xo dedia~t• at •uch
~ime in (~he lutur~ when tha pzop~rty own~r to tho Odet dadiaated hie land i'oz
atre~t purpo~Rr, to which Mr. C~aap r~pli~4 aflirmetively.
AeeiYt~nt pavel~pr,.ent Servi.aaa Diruotor RAna~.d •Thompaan nc,ted that Area p~vel-
ogment Pler. No. ],Qx wa~ d pr~ci~e a~igna~ent plan . andl b~tore ~h~s 9anta~ F~ ltail-
xoad could abt~i.~ a buildinq per.mlt for d~valopmont ot thair proparty, Nh~~h~r
th~y Nant~d ~a taka aauees ~a not, thay aould heve to take aare o~ Che OO~t o!
this rtre~t, ar~d quite lrenkly, h~ did not know wban b~rauAO o! ~h• inlletia~n
laet.or, +~nd ~here were about 40 ncrre~ but fr~w e deval,opment ntandpoinr, 4h~y
hmd anvision~d the~se ~xnpextiee aa he+ving aacAbs in arder that. th~ propnrtiae
oould be dev~lopad, anQ a hal.f-stzeet woulcl be e+x~ remely diPficult Prom a air-
aulatio~ otar~dpoint.
Mr. Th~~apAOn, in reepcnAe to Cummissionez'e King quue~ion rugarding whetlier or
not the Sanra Fe praperty was landl~akm~d, rep~.ie,~ ne~~ativoly a~id s~takad ~hero
Na~ not an easy solution.
Mr. LoWry etated thet althuuqh the Sante Fe Rmilro~.d propxrty was not landlocke4,
!,t could not devclop until they aompl~ed x~.~h the area d~velapmont plan •incd
thia we$ a prdciee plnn of developmant nnd the City Council would have to rn~~ind
Chel.r nation before anythiny could be done an t~-ie 5ar~ta Fe property.
Mr. Thorapaon noted l:hat Mr. Cnmp's concern ~na the poaeibili.ty thaC Sa-nta Fa
would nat pic:k up ~ha one-foof: holdinq etr.ip for n numbcsr oE years .
Mr. Camp further nofied that ather than tha tact thmt they woul.d nc~ t recei~-e pay-
mont for the lend, whan one laoked at t!~o 15-acro parcel to xequire an ddditinnal.
30-toot etri.p w~u~d subetan*_1e~Aly reduce the potexltial a~ tha pxaperty, a~nd there
toae ~o wr~y to gay for x.aw land, and that hu knew this was not a ncrmdl. require,-
ment einco undsr narmal condit3one only d Oh@-hal~ atree~ would bP re~uired.
Nir. Thompson not~d tha~ i.t was aot a normal requirement, howaver, the purchage
prico aF the helf-street and imnxovemente weuld bc. a requiremenL• of tho propextiy
Co the east if it desirr~?. development.
Commisaioner Kin,q in.quired whether or not a 30-~oot at.rip coulcl be obtainetl fro~n
a~ll of thc property ov;nexs on the west eide af the prop~sed etreet~ whereugon
Mr. 'rhompAOri stated that the City wae not ir~ f.avor of half~streets, and the lAet
half~stzeet accepted bX the City war thAt nor'th of Martin Luther fiogpita]. west
of Euclid Stree~ whiah preaent).y wae a private st=eet, and that happened in the
195Q's.
~ommieaioaer Herbc~t was of the opinion that the City ehould contact the Srsnt^ P'a
Railroal :.o acquire sai~l eledication, an~ it would reliQVe the property ownwrs on
the weat side o~ ths pro~osed street i~ dedicaX.ion were obtained ~or the Rntire
atzeot.
Mr.. CAmp noted tha.t in viewing a 7letter writter~ to on~ of tha original pzaperty
ownezs invc~lved in thia parcel at tha~t ~i.me, they ~elt thay wanted to devolop
their property hith drainaqe on Che noxth, and th~s was granted ta thc~ Cit.y of
P,na2~eim ae was noted i.n this letter to the propc~rty owner, and Sa:ita Fe wAe
willing to inatall ~he entire street, givi.nq thia man accese and payinq fux
drainaqe, althouqh he ~aas certain they wouid not do this today, but this s:hould
be more equitable.
Commiesioner seymous inquired whather or r.ot conditional dedication of ~h<~ half-
etredt could not be accomplishod sub j~ct ta Ampzc~vement at euc.h time as ~tie
eagterly property owner aqree~ to dedicati4n and improvement of the remaiiiing
ha1F-s~reet.
Mr. Comp naked that aa ~ar ~s K~ZY wae concern~d, the properties fronting on the
propoaed straet had a portion of the cul-d~-sa.c, un8 ae long as the towers were
p~rmltt~d to ba erect~+d on ~-'~at cart oP the pr.opei~ty, they were =ully a~ware they
cauld nat develo~ the ba7~.:ce o~ F.he preperCy until the property to the naet
dediaeted and aharedin ~mpzovemex~, ~P the stre~t, and 91nce they +~eze at the end
of ~he street~ they di.3 ~not h~ld any.• :e up, althouqh they would giva dedication
!or their half, nnd si.nce they wer~ at tha And nP th~ etre~t he wae aware that
buildinqs co•i'!d nct be d~velopod ~.ith a h+~l~-s tr.eet, but it wnuld not hoiu up
s.~~y of ~n~ prnperCiee to the south in 6ev~lopinq.
~
.~.
~
~
~
MINUTD:B, CtTY kLANNiNG COMMIS&ION, Boptomber 5, 1973 ~3-541
CONDIT'lON11I, USE PERMIT__NO _ 1~7~ (C~•.tl.nued)
Cnmmi~~ionar 3eym~ur a~fered a mAtion, socondaQ by Commieaionez King and M~TION
C11itRIEJ~ that Cho P3anning Commi~eion, in eonnaction wtth an exemption decla~a-
tion ~ta~u~ xequaat, linda dad Qa~tarmin~a thdt tiho propo,~al would have n~
4lgnitiaant onvironmental impact and, thAZelore, recom~nende to the C~ty C.ounail
that no Env~.ronmantel xmpact R~port ia net~e~e-ry.
C.ammieai~n~r ~aymour oPf.arad Re~olution Na. kC73-199 and moved P~r ita ~aseagu
anQ ac~op~ion to grant Pat~ttion tor Cundikional L~se Permit No. 142', with tihe
tindinq that tho ddvoloQmenL ~~ the pxoperty Lor c~.raulation anA a coaes ao
recxuiroA undar ~qrma Develapment Flan No. 102 could only be acc~mplieh~d at euch
kl.ma •~ the propertice tv th~ south and eawt wara raady !or devolopment a~r~d at
auch ti~ma ea street improvements could ba oompletea, e~nd amanding canditionN,
with Conditio~l t~la, l. requiring 7nif the most easterly 3` feat of sub~ect prop-
ozty tio the Ci.ty of Anaheim condi tiona~lly dod~cat~d i~or streut and publ.ic
utility ~urpo~ee ir~ aacorda~nae r+tth Area Dsve].opment P1an No. 102, conditiansd
upnn the ne0d for acaeas t~ thu etraat by other properti.nn in the arna and upon
demand by tha Cit:y of. AnahQim~ and thut the awn~r og the prnpexty ahall po~t a
bond ar m latter o~ cre81~ wir.h the City o~ Anaheim in an amount and lorm en'tis-
P+sctory ~o the City to guazant~e the inetalla~ion ot all engineex~ing require~-
menta e~long t~he n~i~- etreet. (see Reeolution Book)
On roll cnll the i'oreqoing ret~o.l,ution waa ~d81~ed by tho ~oilowinq vote:
AYES ~ COMMI8SI0:!IERS : Farano, cau~r., He rbet, King, Seymour.
NOES s Cd~tMIS5TOtiERS s Ncne .
ASSENT: ~OMMISSIOI~t~RS: Allred, Rowland.
RECE~S - Commiesionor Seymour moved for a ten-minute r.eaeae at
~ 4~00 p.m.
itECONVEHE ~- Chdirman Gauer reconvened the me~tinq at 4:11 p.m.,
CommiASioner A11red being abaent.
VARIANCF~ N0. 2546 -°UB~,IC IiEAR7NG. CENTRAL I.IN-BROOK HAADWARE, INC., 21.4d
~ I,lesti Lincoln AVenue, Anah~im, Ga. 92801, Owners JOSEPH H.
i~OYLE, 6800 Orangathorpe Avenue, Bua~na Park, Ca. 90620,
AqentT requesting WAIVE R OF (A) PLRIAITTED UBES, (8) MINIMUM FRONT 3LTBACK, (C)
LOCATION OF BTLLBOAAD AND (B) BILLBOARD CaNSTRUCTI0IV MATERtAL TO ESTAALISH A
STORAGE YARD FOR NEW AUTOMOSIZES AND RECREATIONAL VEt~TCI.ES RND A B?LLHOARD on
proper,ty desorlbr8 as ~ A reatanqulr~rly-ehbped pazcel of land oonsisL•inq o~
approximately .58 ~cr;s at the nurthdaAt co rnez of 8raadway and Lo ara Strset
and having approxima~e+ frontag~s of J.3fi P~e~ on the north side of Broa3way
and 149 :feet on ~the ettist side of Loara S~zQet. Prap~rty presan~.ly claselfied
M-1 , LIGEiT I2JDUSTRIAL , ZONE .
No one appearad in npposition.
Althouqh *tia Raport ~~o ~he C~mmiseion wxs nat read at the publlo hearing, it.
ia ses£erred to anc7 mad~a a part of the minuLea.
No ona wae prov~ent to i~egresent tha petitioner.
The Commisoian ruled that subject p~tition be de,ferred until lnte r in ~he hear-
inq and Far sta~f. to ccntact th~ property own~r eo that he rould bo present tca
snswsr questione. (Conti.nued on page 73-547')
GUNDXTIONAL USE - PUBLIC hEARING. KNOTT AV~NUE CHRIS~'FJ~D] CHU~.CH, 315 South
PERMIT N0. 1423 K.not*_ Avenua, Anaheim, Ca. 92804, Jwnexi WTLLIAM 3. PNELkS,
! " lOgS Noxth Main Street~ Orange, Ca. 92667, Agentr r~questir~g
p~rmiasion to EXPAND AN EXx3TING CHU~tCH FACILITX on preperty
described re s A reatangularly-shaped pazce~l of lAnd cons~.ating of ~pgroxim$tely
5.1 acres, havinq a fro:ntaqd of approacimately 486 foet ~n the west si8e of Knott
Avenun and havinc~ a max:imum depth of approximately 442 fe~t, and beiag located
approximataly ~46 feet ~torth of the centerlin~ o;E Orange Avenue. propezty
pxeaently alaasi£ied R-:l, XIGRIC1SLTliRAL, 7.~NE.
No one appea,red in oppo:aiti.on.
.,._..
~
~
~
M7.NUTEB, C1TY PLANNINu COrlMISSION, Sbptnmber. 5, 1`~''3 73-542
C:ON~?TtONAL USE PF.RMIT NO`14?~ (Cont~,nued)
nlr~augh the Raport to the Commiewion wae not resd at the public h~earing, it.
io r.tsrr~d to and made a pazt oP the minutee.
Mr. ~A1111am Phslp~, agent tor. tt~e ~e+t~tioner, appomred betoro the Commiaeion
and indiuat~d hi~ avsilabili~y to a~newRr queetiona, aince t.he cflnlitiona of
approval w~r• expzialt.
TH~ HL"ARING W~18 GLCIBED.
Mr. Phalpp, in reep~nee to queationinq by Ccammiseion~r King regarding the luture
plans !ar e dey Aohool thsough ±re fourth gradn, etated tha~t Ch~ pl~-y area wauZd
ba within th~ o~u:t and t~a ohil~rsn would ha eafe within thaC u:4a for play
purposes.
Zonir,g Supexvic~or Charlee Raberts noted that with reqnrd to ~he poesible day
school uee oY tha propexty, ttie Commidaion m.ight wish to question the petltionar
on the number of ch9.ldren plar~ned, aad *he Commiasion could de*ermine whether
enother hearinq ahould be held eince this had noC bean advertisad for today's
hensing reqardinq th~ p:ropoeed expansion of khe school +xae.
Ghairm~n Gauer notacl that tha Commisnion xn the past had conoidprable troubl.e
in the int.ezpretation o~' c~lasaroom facilitioe when tho Luthazan Cl~urch in
Nohl Ranch hed been approved, therefore, thie ehould be thoroughly re9earched
~s to whether ur not the classroom rsreea were for. Sunday achool or actua]. de-y
echool participation.
Mr. Phelpe replied that it was hts understending this would be a Christian
educational school and day pre-schnol si.nce there was no demand or detaire :Eor
any thinq elae+, howover, the Commisaion ~ould que~tion ~he ahairman of 1:he board
reqarding thi.a since he was preaent.
Mr. Robezts noted that one golnt to consider, Rlthouyh he did not know whether
it wac~ aonsietent wit.h the Planning Commission'a conaideration, and that was
not to give approval of a private school until so advertiised for.
~ommissionez Farano then inquired whether or not thie was, i.n truth, to be a
aay echool frr regular teachinc~.
Mz. Sob T. Hnoro, representing tne B~ard af Directors, appeared before the
Commi~eion e+nd noted tk~at it was their intent to have no other immediate use
thrsn Bib?e schc>ol gnd religious training far pre-schoal and nat day school into
the gradessr that the 5tate Code would govern the number of children an~3 a lEtter
was on file regarclinq the pre-~chool aepect in Phase I, however., he would be
willing •o etipulat~ to appe~tring before the Co~nmissian for eaoh staq~ of devel-
opment and ruview wi~h the Commission whaY. was prc~posed to be constructedj and
that any education~l faci.lities would meet Code requiraments to be cQrtain that
the groper araes would have what was requir.ed by Code, therefore, he would
stipulato to eubmiesion of c~.QVelopment plans at each succeasive stcge of devel-
opmenL• .
C~mmieaioner Seymouz offered a motion, second~d by Cammiasloner Herbst and
MOTT4N C~-RRI~D, that the Plannii~g Commission, in connection with an e,xemption
de claration atatus~ requesL-, fi.nds and determines that tha propo~al wauld have
no significant anvironr~ental impact and, therefora, recommetzds to the City
Co uncil that na ~nvircnmental Tmpact Stat~ment is ne+c~asary.
Commisaiuner Seymour ofEerod ~esoluti.~n No. PC73-2G1 and moved for its passage
and adoption t~ grant yetition for Conditional Uae Permit No. 1423, subject to
conditione, with thR a~ded candition that the pzopo~e~ educsttonal claearoom
facil.i~ie~ rahall be limited to Sunday achQOl ancl Bible c].asaea ~izd shall t~ot~
tnclude reqular elcsmentarx achon2 classes and that only Qra-school clasaes may
be p~rmitted. (5ec Reaalution Book?
On rall cail tt-~ fozegoinq resolution passed by t~~ follawinq votea
AYHS: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gesuer, Herbet, King, Rowland, ~eymour.
NOF~ COMI4ISSIONER5: None.
AHSi.N~'t COMFSISSION~R5: Allred.
~
~^~1
~
MINUT~~, CITY PLANNING COMMIf~SION, ~eptember 5, 1973 ~3-5a3
~~LASBIFICAR'YON - PIIBLYC: HL,ARING. MOHANLAL S. FATL~L, 2?.45 Weat ~.inaoln
NO. '13-74-16 Avenue, p~nahai~n, Ca. 92001, Ownezi requaQt.inca that pra~perty
~~~ deecribadt aai A roctangularly-ehaped parcol uP lend con-
e~i4ting a! npproximately .51 aore, hs~ving a~rontnqe o!
e~~proximately ~l leet an the north eide o! Lincoln Avenu~a, ha~ing a maacimum
depth of approxlmete~ly 246 leet~ and :einq loastAd approximatel.y 135 £eet weat:
at thts centerll.ne ot K.~thryn Drive be roclaesified rrom tho R-A, AGRZCUL'~URAL,
ZONE to the G-1, l:Et3~FtAI~ COMMERCIAL, ZONF.
N~ one appoar.ed in opposition.
Althnuyh tha Report to tho Commiseion waa not read et 1:he public hearinq, it
ie referrolf tia end mede a par~~' o! the minu~.ea.
Mr. Mohanlnl. Petel, the potit~loner, eppeared before ttae Commiasiun and etatad
he wauld like ta mak.~ morB ue~~ of hie bueinees ott:ice, a~~d accarAir-g ta ttie
KtaEf report, a trdvol aqency woald be permitteci in tt~e C-1 2one, hoaevar, khe
conditinna]. usa Pr_rmit grantit.g the mc~tol did n~~t a11ow nay okher use to be
made, aven L•hough the uad might be parmitted ae a~ mnttez of righr on t;he. prop~rty,
therefore, he would liko ta make a roqueat. that; tie be parmikted t~~ 9a'tabliah hie
existing motel office, adding the travel aqenoy budiner~~, howevor, lxe r.id not
want to have a generaZ buainess affice 911C}1 ae r~al eatate ox in~+urance.
°rHE H~ARING WnS CI.OSEO.
Commissianer Farano atate~ he ~31d not quite 1,SfI1~~13~Et11f1 PArugraph 12 of. the Report
to ttae Coinmiasion and inquirod whether the City Attorna+y rocommendpd this aa a
matter of policy of the City Council or. as a matt~r of law ttiat the Counmi~aton
could take no action on eub~eal; petition.
Deputy C.ity Attarnay Frank I.owz•y noted t:hat this was a ruling ao a mattez of
law for the canditional u~e pe:•mit.
Commissioner Far~sno then inquired whethE ~ the riotol was permit*ed under. n
conditional Ll9@ permit~ whereupon Mr. Ral~3rts cancuzred with this.
Mr. Lowry stated that the petitionar would have to hav~ not anly C-1 zan~.ng but
the condi.ti4nal uae permft would have r_a ba readvert~sed to ~ermit the c3ua1 uae;
that he kiaa hoped to preser-t an interpr~.t:.atian that would be compatible, making
this an acceasary uae or a supp.lemental uge wi~.hin tho canditione~l uae permit.
Lengthy discussio~i wa~ held bet~asen the Coenmiasion anci the Deputy City Attornoy
and staff re~ativa to the manne~~ iri which th~ petitinn rould obtain C-1 zoning,
aperate his motel and utilixo hi.s office for a S:ra~~~l asancy, and upon ite
conclusion, it was dc:termined tt~at alth,ouyh ~.he Cc~mmisaion cou18 gz'ant the
reclassificat:ion of aubjact proFerty, s ffndiny st117, must be mn~e to the City
Council that ~h~ Plann~.ng Commiasion determf.nas rhat the uae propoeed E~r a
travel agency would be compatible ~aith the motel grantea under C~nditional ilee
Permit No. 134 aince the Cammercial--Recreation Zon9 permikted by right the
combination of. motels oz hotel_s and travel a~encie~ in conjunation, however, if
any other than t,hy rr.~tel and 3ccessozy travel ag~ncy uo~ were propo~sed, even
though the property was proposed for C-1 zoning, the aforementi.oned cunditional
u~+e permit would have to be considered for any ather us~ hy tha Planniriq Commie-
s:ion at a~n ac~verti~~d public hca~ing.
Cem:nissione,z Kerbst offered a motiun, secondad by Commiosioner mou ~nd
MOTiON CAkRTED, that the Pl.anning Comrni.saion, in connection ~rith an ~tion
~.sclaration 3tatua request, find~ 3nr1 detexminea that the proposal w have
r~o siqniEicai~t envir~nmenCal impact and, thereforu, rec~inm~nds to tne. _ty
Council that no Environmental Impact Statgment is neceaeary.
Commisaioner Herbst of£erod RQSOlutior~ No. pC73~202 ar.d mave3 for ite paesnge
and adoption to reco.nmend ~o the City Counail that ~etition for Reclhssification
N~. 73-74-16 be ~prrnved, sub3ect to con~itiona and the finding that ~lthough
Conditional U~e P-.rmit Na. 134 pprmitted the eaL•mbl:Lehment of. ~~notel on eubje~:t
~.roperty, ~t is deemed ~hr~t a travel agency propc~aed in conjunckion w~th tho
motel w~~uld be a reasonab'Le dna compatible use, einca the C~mmoxaial-Rer.reat.ioiY
Zone permitte.i by right the combination of motels .~r hotole and travel rsqeacies
ia co~njuncti~r~ ~he-rewith, however, if any oth~x than ti-e motel and acc~-es~ry
travel agency use is prapor~od, even thouqh ~the pr~pezty i.s propossd for C-1
:.oning, the aforementian9d conditior.al use permit would ha~ve to be aonai~erod
for any othNr ~se by the Planning Commiesion a~t a publlc hearingr and subjeat
to cnniiitions. (See Resolution Book)
On rol'1 call the foregoing resolution was pasaed by tho fal.lowing vote:
AYEB: COMI~ISSIOtXERS: Farano, Gauer, Hexbst, King~ RoNland, 3eyms~ur.
NOES: COF~MISSIONERSs None.
ABSENT: GOMMISSIONERS: d-lire3.
~
~
MINUTE~~ C7TY FLANNtNG C~MMi~53I~N, 9eptamber. 5, 1'~73 73-g44
COND!'CIONAI, U9~ - I'ERMlTTEU J1CCI:88GRY USES WITH I'RIMARY USE9.
P~AMIT N(?. 1'34
~ Commiaeianer Horr,s*. Qt~~xdd a m~~ion, a~condad py Commip-
~ianer 8rymour anci MOT~ON Cl-RRT13D, that ~he klanning
Comminsion ~~~~erminew that m~.thouqh Conditl.onel Usa Perml.t Ne. 134 parmittad
th• astabliehmant ai a~nrt91 an oubject propQrty, ~.t is doemad t:h~C s trav~l
agenc.y propoead i.n conjunotiion witih the mot~l would bo e r•soanabl* And cam-
patibl.e uee e+nca ~hm Cun~mdrr.ial-R~cr~~at~on Z~~ne ~ermi~ted by rJ.gtaC tha com-
~ination of n~ ~ ke.ls or t-otels an8 ~:rav¢~1 ugencive in cc~n junati~n thorewith,
however, if a.• ytkt9.ng nkher thun Lh4 mot~~. a~nd a~cces~ozy travAl. egency it- pro-
pagod, ovmn ~il.~uqh the pr~perty in propvec~~l fnr C-l. zoninq, the~ efor~emn~ntioned
aonditional uee permit would hav~ ~c~ bo c~anaifAexed far another uue b.y the
Planning Comml ,sian at an adve+rtiewd publl.c hr~a-ring.
CONDITIONAL. USE ~ READI~ERTISE;A I'UBIaiC HEARINv. KENNE'1`N W. rr~n HEI.BN L. liOLT,
k~RMIT N0. 939 1557 Weet Matle Stzoat, Anahoim, Cn. 92E1~:, qwn~ar~r requeat-
~ ing permie~sion to FS~'AP,LISH AN ADDITIQN Tl7 A PR"LVATR 3CHOOL
AND RELATF.D FACILITIF~S c~n property d~scribed ne, ~-
rectanqula-rly-shaped pa~xcel of ~an8 co~sl:+tinq of appxoxim4~ely 2.a aa.ras,
having d~prnxima~e Exantnga~ of 125 f¢+ot on th~ eaet Aic9e ofE I.oara 9treet +~nd
810 feet an the south sid.e of Hable Street, and bning loaatod nppr.oxima~ely
195 feet nozth at the oentarline of Droadwny. 3?r~pei~ty pre~ent].y cleesifie~i
M~1 ~ LIGHT INDC7STRI7~L, ZONE .
Commieui~n.~r Rawland loft the Gouncil Chamboz s1t 4:35 p.m.
I~o an~ appesred in opposition, althouqh two le~texa of app~Eitio.ra wore r.E+ceived
from adjoininv induatriea.
Although the Rapaxt tc, the Commission was not rnad at the public hettr~.ng, ik
~.e referred to and made a par~. c~: tha minutes.
Mr. KenneCh Holt, one of khe nQtiti~nex~, appeared before the Gommie~ion and
no~ad that tho proposod reguest waa tha rPC~ult af Commi.~sian xecommendation
that adjoi.ning proper.ty awnnrs be advi.sed o~ tr~ propnsed ex~:~nsion, ar-d that
he Y78B availab~.e to e~nswer questione.
THE HEARTNG WAS ~LOS~A.
2oning Superviso•r Cha.rles Roberts read lhe letters af cp~~~ition frc~m in~auetry
in close proximity t~ subaact property.
Mz. Holt noted that thesr, were indusCri.al bu~.ldiny~, and ttioy had A blo~k wa1].
separating thP achool fzom the industrial u~es.
Chairman Guuer noted 1:hat theae indust:rialiete miist hdve felt thexo wr~g Aomc
kind ~f an inte~rferonce f.ram tt-e school; o~.herwise, they wouJ.d not heve ex-
pr~eaed their opposit9.on,
Commisaione:: Farano 'left th~ Counail Chambe~ at. 4:47, p.m.
Commisaion~r Seymour noted that many o£ the arig~.ii~-i1 cond.itions whlch wc~x~
appliec~ in the a~pQrova7. of ~onditional Ur~e PerA~it No. 9~9 had not besn compl.ia~
withs whereu~An Mr. Halt ~tia~ed thak at the tf.md they had recaived apprcva~l
they hr,d d~cidad not to build, however, they were nak~ moxe wi111ng tn ~or-form
with the conditions of ap~roval sin4e it w~~s ti~rair proposal ta exp~+nd the
achuol by tho move-or. of twa educetAonal cla~eroom buil8ings which thay h~d
obtainerl upon the cloeura ~f a schoa~. in 5az-tA Ana, and that the City Cuuncil
hacl granted a~proval r,f th9 mov~,-ons peridinq approyal by the 9lanni,nc~ C:arnmiesion.
Commiasioner Seymour o~~ered a motxon, aeconded by Commiaaion~z ~ierbst and
MOTI~N CA1tRIED, that the Plr~nnin~,~ C~mmiosion, in aonnection with aa~ exemption
declaration status sequ~st, finda and determines that the praposel wouid hMV~s
no signiEic~nt environmentel impar,t and, therefore, reoommende to the City
C~uncil that no $nvironmsntal Impnct Statement ie necesnary.
~
~
~
MINUTEa, CxTY FLANNSNG GOMMiS8I0N, t3~pten-bor 5, t9~'3 73~-g45
CONDITIONAL USL PERM~T NQ._939 (~ontinued)
Commiaeianer Seymou.r oPf~ered R~oulution No. pC'i'-203 r~nd maved A.or i~e pne4~qe
e-nd adoptian to qrant Petitian !or Condi~ional .,ne Permit No. 939, eub~c+ot to
coi„~itions ae etipulateQ to by ~:he psti~i.anor. (~ee Resolution Book)
On roll cal], the ~ozayoing rana7.utior- waa pasacsd by tha following votoi
AYL9~ COMMTSSTONERS~ ~muer., Herbnt, King. BeYmour.
NOESt C~MMI~SIONERS; Notte.
APISENT: COMMIS520NER,e Allrad, Farano, Rowlnnd.
RECLASSIFTCAxTON - PUBLIC HEARXNG. SpORTSMAN SYNn7CATF, 801 Ri,Cl~gecroet Drive,
N0. 73-74-18 Mont.er.ey Park, ~a. 91754, Ownert PtIIL CAS1~, Rondell HomeK,
~ 9774 We~,et Kete+lla Av9nue, Suite E, Anaheim, Ca. 928A4, Agantl
YA7RIANCE N0. 25d9 Prope.rk~- do9cxibed ae: A rectanyularly-shaped purcel oP land
aonair.ting of gpproxi.mately 2.5 acres, hbving +~ Prontaga o!
appro~ximately 330 leet an the north aido of Lir~coln Avenue~
havtnq a maximum depth ~f, approximately 330 feet, and being located approximdtely
S3S ffet eaet o~ Che cencerline o~ Duugnulia Avenue. Property pzc+sently alassi-
fi.bS R-A, AGRI~':ULTURAL, ZONE.
Commieai.oner Farano returned t~ tho Council Chambor at A:45 p.m.
KEQUR5TED CLASSIFICATI~JN: Yt~3, PtULTIPI~E-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 7.ONE.
REQUESTED VARI}INCE: 'aAIVER OF MA:~iIMUM BUILDINC HEI~•HT WITHIy 15Q I'EET 0~ A
RP'.SI.UEN'!'~i+L 'ONTs' TO E~'STABLIS:] A', ~-UNI'I' APARTMENT COMPLFX.
No one appeared in oppos:ltion.
Although the Report to the c;ammiasfon was not read at tlie pub.li.c t-,earing, it
is referred to and made a purt of the minutes.
Mr. Phillip Case, agent for the pa~iti~ner, appearECi befor.e the Commission and
noted that they ware ~resentl~ in escrow far aubject propertyj th~c thoy had
purchased the adiacent parcel to the e~st and had developed it with a 72•-uni~
project camplete~9 iTi June and awned the property farther east on which a 105-
unih building hacl been canstxucted, and Sierra Flest, which was west of Aubject
praperty, which woitild complete thia enCire area betw~en Magnolia and Gilbart
Stzest except foz a narrow, Z50 by approximately 30~ foot atrip betw~sen aub}mct
pxaper.ty and t}~e servicp statlon to the west~ that tlie elevations they preseritly
pror~ased were different than rhose previously develope3 in ordez to maintai.n a
aepazate iQen~ity rur this pxojectt that they werQ tha builder.a, ownar~~ and
operators of these apartme.~z ~iuildings, x~ot just the builder; and that they had
oor:structed :he 105-unit aparL-ment compler. ~o the east four yenrs ago and wgrr~
uti11 the oh• iers.
THE FiEARING Wk5 CLOSEL.
Mr. Case, ~~n response to Commission questioning, atatPd that they di.d not own
the narxow parcel abutting to the ~~e9tt that th~ p~rcel vas vac~nt ancl was zoned
R-A, and t hia was the reasc,n for the requested waivc+r fr.om Code, }iowev.:r, ~i-ere
wer.e two-,tory constructed apartment.s to ttie north o° said property, theiefore,
this shoi•Ld onl.y be a technicaYity.
Commiesi >ner Seymour obse:ved ~het all thes pro j~cts de~~Qloped by Rondell Homer~
were vez,~ attractiva developmanta, h~awever, in Mr. Case'st profesaional opinion,
co~~ld hE~ give the rPason why there was sa much parkir:g on ~he street bumpor-~to-
bump~r, anc7 thi.~ wa3 thg third set of plans being similarly laid out meetit~g
Code requirgmen~s z-~ to diatance betweon units and pnrking are~i that he nad
pae&ed by this prc+perty many eveninge a~nc~ weekends anc3 a2ways found vahic7 es
parked bumper-to-bumper adjasaent to ithese apaztmenta.
Mr~ C,ssg rep'lied that when khoy built ':hese pro~ecta no quest pnrking was con-
eide~r~d, but now they were ~nakir~g ampla provi.aion for parkinq for via3.tors and
eezv::ce men, however, when thea~e vt.ai~tora a.nd aerviae man wera pnrkinq a:..l ±ay
long there would be no place to p~-xk on the ait~ because they di~ no~: allow ~.he~-
to park on the site in order to ps:o~vide r.leax aocesa for ftre ar..i t.raeh t:ucY,e,
but he eeuld not anewdr Commiasi~ner Seyn-our's questfon as to w:y the.r~ appeare~
to be pdikinq of t~nante of th~se un~.ta on the street fr~nt~gc~-
~
~
~
MINCITEB, CITY PI~ANNTNG COMM:CSRIUN, 9eptamber 5, 1!a7~
FtECI~ASSIFiCATION irG, %:3-74-19 AN~ VARIANCE N0. 2549 (Cont•:lnt~ed~
73~54G
Commie~ian~x~ Seymnur obs4zvod ~ha~ perhxp• :.., •dl1A~ pas:k~ng waa nah pertai~ted
on th~n pre.nieoa, ;his waiald ~nQan tf;u ownere an,! ok,exator~ of ~.t-sa~- e~artnaent
pro~acL~ weze+ torcing th~rlr gue~t parking to the A•:rc,~ot bscaL~e~a ~h~ prop~rty
~aa posred ae to no pArking~ whoze~upon Mr. Ce~e statdd thaC ~noet aE th~m wara
pr~.niazi.ly lorr,ad to park an tho atra~t, ciot nll of them.
Cotamise~~nex• Seymaur no~ed thst iP thE "n4 parkin,q" eiqn wAS postad in such a
tasl~i~n da to d~.scouraqe quost p~irkirag, ~hnn pezha~~a thi9 moant that ~~.1 gua~t
parkinq wae ar-~c~treetF wheraupon Mr. Cao• ~te~ted ~.~1dC Ghe~~ liad more tha:ti amp~~
purki.ng, and pooplo ~vl~o rarit ~hoee spaaas dc, nnt want their ecpecee u~~,$, how-
eveY, becruee ':ha ve1 '~~'~e Aizes Natra beoominq n~~alle~z, tiiey miqht ga to 8~x16
~oot pArking s~aces, a~~d an azoe could be s«at a~id~ f~x thoe~e am~-ller v~hicl~s
by rA-eL•riping th~ parkir~, ar~a -~he txend ot theem sa.~,llez care aas evid~neod
by the flta~em~ent mnde by kha Ford Motor Compan.y that i.n Cha mnsufng yeax more
than or~e-hnl! of the vehir.les purchs~ed wosld be r,om~~4ct or eub-compnc~ oara.
~:ommieeicnez F~arano exprei~r~att conaern, and hopad he ~~as wr~nq in the r.onc~.u~ion
that t~-e City's purki.ng r9y~u.lre~mento appeared to k+A inadeqvate, even though the
-~otit.ioner di~9 not ac~ stat.a, h~wevor, the parking r.equirement~+ of tho Cl*y were
e~uppaeed to taka ce-rQ of bc~th t:~nu~t end guaet p+ar',cing, and inqui.rE~d wt~et right
the owners/~~paratars a~ ttiE~~e npart:ment unite had to forco queat pax~kinq onto
the etreet, and ~erhapa ~ome af tho developers ha.d led the Commisaion ku bclieve
thaL• thoir }~arkinq was adequr~~~, howdvsr., ~etete~renta mada by Mr. Ca.~w would
indiaate tliat thiA was not eo~ wharevpon Mr. Ca•ee stated L-hr~t. ~hey hacl triad to
a]opG~ off ull foot traffic Prom Linaoln Avenuo, and people who were not fmmilier
wtth th~ F:ropert:y preferred to par.k on the etr.o~t e~nd wa2k through tha front
door.
Commi.s~lonAr Seymaux obaerved that it would appear i.t was farther to w~lk from
tho 9tret t to the varioua ur,its than it wot•.ld be~ tp wt-lk f.rom the allotted park-
~.nq Bpaa~fl, howev~:r, L•here musi: be something wrong with the City'a orllirdnce i.f
it creates a problem of bumpez-Co-bumpor, on-stree~t parkinq, and if smaller
vehicles were qoing ta be moxa pr.evalent, maybe the Commisaion should provido
~omo 3p~~ce for thl.s in the Gad~.
Commissio~er Herbst noted that the oxr.: nance ciid not ata~e whPther there e}~ou3.d
be :l'~ or 1-3/4 gtalls per apar~:a-~n.t ~:nit, or whether guest parkina ahould be
providedt thah t:here wer~ 72 unit8 ~.siag a 330-Poot frontage, and if '72 homea
were 5ui:lt thore, there wc;uld be ~r~e or two parkinq stalla in front. of eact.
home, therefare, one could see wh~.t happenad to gueat parking.
Cummissioner Farano obaerved that the devalopera always aopeered to tell 'the
Commiesion they had a.d~equat~e guest parking opaces, but this was not eo whon one
viaited the varioua apartment develu~ments.
Commiasioner Herbst observed th~t pexhnpa the Commisaion might coneider amendinq
~he r_o3e to requi.re one parking apace for quest parking for each unit if on-
street parkiny was going to be as preva~le~nt as it appeared iix front of theee
units.
Commiesioner King of£ered a motion, seconded by Commiss.ioner Seymour and MOTION
CARRIED, that the Planning Commi~sion, in connection with an exemption dealara-
tion atatus rEquest, f~nde and determi.nes that the proposal would have no
signif.icant environmental impact, and, c.hexefore, ~commey~ds to the City Co~.nci].
that r~o ~nvironmen.tal Impact Stat~ment .is ur.:e88a~ry.
Commis~ionex Herbst offored Re~olution Na. PC73-204 and moved for ita ~;aesage
and adc+ption to recommend tu tha City Ceunci2 appxoval of Pe~iti.on ir,r Reclagai-
ticnCion No. 73-74-18, subject to conditior~e. (See Reaolutio:i Book)
Or. zc,ll call the foreqoing resolu~ion was par~eed by the folloh!ng votet
AXES~ COMMISSIONERS~ Faxmno, Gauex, Herbat, Ki.nq, Seymour.
NOE~~ COMMISSIONERS: NQne.
AHSENTc COMMIS3IONE;RS: A].lred, Iiowland.
C~mmiBei,oner Herbs~ of#ered Resal.ution No. PC73-2q5 dnd mave~, for its paesaqe
ar-d ad~ption to grant Petition Por Variance N~. 2549 on tY~e baeis ~hat although
a si.nglo-Pamily resideace ~waa located to tha west, the scrroundi~q prapertie~
hAd developeQ with multiple-fAmily reaidaatial usee and the property to the w~ot
wae derignaked on the Genezal Pldn Tor mddiua- deneity reaidentlal lan@ neq
davolopment~ and aubjec~ to conditl.~nn. (8~e Rasolution Book)
On rall call Chd foreqoinq xeaolutior~ wae paseed by the following vote:
AYE6~ COMMIS3iONE~tS: Farano, Caper, 8arbst~ Kinq, Saymour.
N01;8 i COMMI53IONERS: Nonm~
ABSENTo COMMI5STONERB, Allred, RowlaaQ.
~
~
~
~
MINUT.~S, CITY i'LANNrNG CQMMISSxAN, SeptembAr 5, 1973 73-547
V11R.LANCE N0. 2!~46 -(Contin,ued Pxam paqa 73-541)
Mr. Jo~eph H. I)oyla, aqent t~r thm ~eCitaoner, appeare~u umtore tha Commieainn
and noted th~t they wer~ req,uecting thst Lhe preea~t u0e o! the propoi~ky be
cha~qed lrom e•to~nqe nt ~umber to the pa~xking o! raczeational vehiclew and aew
cers .
Chairmen Gauer ir~qui.red d9 to the number oE vohicles r.hat would ba pxojeoting
ahova the 4xiAtiny wall which wam approximntely 8 leet hiyh along thd Losra and
Broadway front,ngee~ wl~aroupon Mr. Doy2e atatod that whatcever t-eight the recree~
tional vehicleie would be ii' grester than H feat woulcY probably project. above
tho we'L.
C~+mmieeioner H~D~rbet inqui.r.ed why the petirioner wea proFoeing the billbaard-
type eign sinc~~ hc~ wae only plannir~g to etore these vehialee on the propexty
and not eall tliem~ whereupo~- Mr. Doyle ete+ced that the aigning wes r-eeded to
indicate where parking wds lo~:ated,
Commieeioner. He~xbat n~ted th+~t thie could be aa~ompliehed with n arr.all 3-foot
dixecCional ~ign rathF~r the~n this larye aiyn !or di.r.ectionsl purpor~os.
Comm~asionor FArano observod that tl~ere were some rathex subetAntial ditferences
i.n ~h~+ manner i.n which ~he conditional uae pezmit wa~e tulftlled, an~ aA rec~intly
ae No~~:• ~.bAr 27, 1.972, a one-~yser extensi.on og time had been yrAntc~d, but a
condition of thiit extenaion of time waa raquiring that the landacapinq be
ron~vated und the fonce be repaired as a oo~idition of this oxtension of timA,
hoadver, at a cno~t recent i.napection of the praperty, not only w~g the landacap-
inq not ma:.ntained, but the 1$ndscap~ng hao d~ter.iorated even though t1i~ peti-
tioner at that t.tme had promieed to main~ain the ~andscapinq, therefore, what
aesurancea did tt~e Commiasion liave that thi~ lan%.scaping would be upyraded if
the uee wne, cha-nr~red as propoeed.
Mr. Doyle replied that thp petjtioner~ proaoer.tlve leasee u£ the propexty,
indicated the~• hac9 an image to pxoteck t~nd wuuld maintain it in a better manner
than preaently mai.ntainad.
Commissionez Farnn~~ inquired what hardship did the pe~itioner have S:o warrant
coneiderakiuii of tk~e waivera for the vil].bo~sr.d bqing r.equestedi whereup~n Mr.
Doyle state8 thst tiie petitioner would be~ paying rent for something that~ he
wauld use for 20 years, and he falt this wa:a a hardehip.
Commisa~.~ner E"arano na•ted that thi,~ might be an economic hazdshig, but it was
not a land us~ hardship, and that of tiie five waivers requested, he could not
aonaider voting for the billboar.d waivers since he felt that the owner.s of the
propertlea who had the previous conditional use permi~ had not malnt.iined the
requiremonts in accorclar~ce wi.th their promiaes, and thP propoaed tenant could
qive a±milar assurancE~s, howe~~er, thia did not mean these would be kept.
Cotnmisaioner Seymaur ol~aerved that as he understood it, Lin-Br~ok Hardware
w+sa no lcnqer ixstezaste+d in this project, thez~Fare, Mr. McCey wauld be the
one to which they wou13 have to addresa their questione and ohtain answer.s.
Cnmmieaioner Parano ziated tchat tha Comm.ie~ion would havE ta attach con3ltiony
SCl tha-t the variance could bs revoked i! conditions wnre not meti whereupon
Mz. Doyle atated thc-t th~f.a could bs made a p~rt of ~he lease which wAS propu~oci
fox five ~+ease with an option for renewal.
Commiseionex Farano etatac that he wuuld never a~prove anything for mora than
one yenr w:ith nn option fo.r ren~w~l if all con~litions ha8 been met, becauae the
subaequent tenant miqht h~ve the same philosophy as the previ4ue one, there-
lore, he would prefer that :~oma time limiCAtion be eatablished wherein th~
Commisaion could exerci~e the riqt~t of tsrmination if cor.d:'.~i~ne ,~ere not met.
Zoning Supervisor Charlae Robarts, in responoe to Commies~~ner Herbst'r~ queatioa,
~tated that the previ.oue cond~.tiona-1 uee paxmi= ~et~tioner ha3 obtsined a wa!ver
a! tha ~p..foQ~~ setback, ~nd th+~ bui].dfnga tmmedi ately to the eaet were also
grant,od a waiver i~zam the 50-.ccot oetbark. Furth~rmor~, a-n 8-laot fenr.e had bean
conatruoted adjaaent to the a~reot to screen from view any stora5e.
~
~
•
NINUTES, CITY PLANNING CQMMT9SION, Septembor 5, 1973
73-548
VARIANC~ N0. 2546 ~Cnnti.nued)
Commiesionar Kinq noted that there wa-e a 7 to 8-loot hiQh wa1l. on both the aauth
end west property lineo, wi~~.h e- 6-fnot wall on tk~e nortl~.
Mr. l,oy1Q agein reiteratea the atetemant thnt they coula atipulate in the 1F,a0e
~ha~t the landecaping would bo maintainsd.
Commi.aeionar Herbxt. noted thdt the Commieaion could grant thr, uae for one or two
yaar~ to d~stermi.ne whether the lnndeca~ping and maintennnce conditians would be
mme.
Comm~,esionez 3eymour obeorved that ~.t appoared the bil3.bc~e-xd wap direatlnq
txar~•ic to t:-e ofticoa one bloak away and wae not aeeocit~tod wi.th thie par~icular
uoe, therelore, thie wes t.he rea~non !or eteff indicuting thi 9 wae a cil].boa,rd.
Commieeionar Herbat noted t~e would be in oppoaition to the pxopooe9 billboard
sjqn, however, he wnuld nut be opp~eed to ~he use so long aa the conditiono of
la~:nscapinq and mdintenasnce weze mainta3ned.
Commiasioner Herbst of~ezed A motion, eeconaea by Comn~issioner King And MOTION
CARRYED, that ~he P;.anning Commiseion, in connecti~n with an exeniption dec].ara-
tion atatue r.oquest, finCia and doter~ninee *:hat thd proposal would have no
ai.qnifi.cant environmental impact a:-d, thdrefore, r.e::ommende to the City Council
tha~t no Environmental ~mp3ct statement ie neco~sar~~.
Commiseioner Fierbat of.fored R~solution No. 2C73-200 and moved for its~ paesaqo
and adoption to grant Potikion for Variance~ No. 2546, in pert, denyinq waivers
of the location of a billbonrd, billboard qetback, and billb~ard support on the
basis that the uae of the property fc,r stox~a~e puxposns did riot warrant con-
siderdtion af a billboard adv~rti~ing enother locat.ion, and the petition~r had
not submi :ted subatanta.~ting evidence that wou].d indicate he would be dariied a
privilege enjoyed by other properties in the area~ that waiver of the 50-foot
Btzuctural setback ~-as granted on the bnsia that ad~a~ning propex•ties on the
north aide ot Broxdway had mll been dpvel~ped with similar front gPtbackst that
the petitiuner otipu].ntNd that in th~ event aubject petition were granted and
wae accepta~blz to the new tenant, that he W4U~.C~ request terminetion of Condi-
kional Uee Ptrmit No. 1131~ and that tlie pHtitioner stipulated to maintenance
of the landscaping ar~d i*. wuuld be made a part o.f the lease of the property.
E'urth~rr~ore, *.hat the use be gxar~ted f~r a year in ordar to determine the ndvert~R
eff~cta that ntight reault Erom grantinq subject petition, aft•er whi.ch time
co~~sidexation might be given to whethar or nut th~ waivers should be ext6nded.
(See Resolution BoQk)
On roll aall the foregoing resolution was passed by tl:c fa~lowing vote:
AYES: COMMISStONERSs Farane,
NOESs COMMiSSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: CO.IMI5SIONERS: A11red,
Gauer, Heibat, King, Seyn~ur.
Rowland.
Mr. Dayle not~d that re would prasent thA requirementa as aet for.th in the
resolution by the Commissi.on ~o MeCoy Motors ~o determine whether they wiahed
to eign ~ lease on that basis, and if so, then he would requeet term,i.nntion of
Conditional Use Permit No. 1131.
Mr. Roberta adviaed Mr. Doyle thr~t tihA City Council. woul@ review the Planninq
Cammiseion action in aprroximatPly 22 daya, n~nd durinq that time ho could
determine whether or not the propoaed tenant of the property wae agreeable to
the conditions cf approval and partia,~. t+pproval.
~.....
~
~
~
MINLITES, CI'~'Y PLANNINd COMMISSION, Septembex 5, 1973 73-544
AMEtipN~SNT TO TY'fLE 18, -~ (:QNTINUEU I'UALIC H~ARTNG. 1NTTIATE~ 9Y TH~ ,ANAHISIM C?.TY
ANAHErM MONICIpAL CODE PLANNING COMMISSIAN, 204 Eaet Lincoln Av~nua, Anaheim,
Ca. 92805~ to considmr amendmentr ta Titl• 18-Zoninq
Code, Cl~aptex 18.10, Nasidentia~l Estata, Zo:~e, Seotione
18.18.020 - Permit~od Pzimary Struoturmr and Uees~ 18.A9.021 - PazmitteQ J-oaa~sor
~truoturea ancl Land Uaee~ a-nd 18.18.93Q ~ Subeection (2)(~) Frant~On Loto.
Subject. potition was cantinued Prom the meAting ot Aequst b, 1973, to +-,llow time
!ox a~8itional intarmation to De aubmfttell by the Pernltn Hills Improvement
Aasociation (p.lI.I.P..) .
Pldnnirtq Supexvieor 'Oo~: McDaniel reviewed the proposal to amenfl '.Citle 18 of th~
Anaheim Muni,ci.pnl Code pertgfning to animal maintenance enQ houea mav4-~ann in
the R-$ Zane, noting ~113~ a~t tho City Counc.i.l meoting a! Fabruary 20, 1973, Ata£f
Na,e directed ta explore tho pogsibility of amending requiremenCS o! tha R-E,
1tes:ldei~L•ial Eatato, ?one regarc~i.ng animal deneity and hauaemaving regulatiana la-
rRaponee to a letter rer.eived from Mr. Rpldll~ F. Kruager, Soczetary of the P.H.l.A
axpregeing conce~rna a.nd sugg~ations uf trie Aesociati.on towards strengthening tw~
a~reas of the reqal+~t•ion - epeciPically, that it appeared that a property owner
unde.r thA exiating regulatior~e could estnbli,~ri a"non-commerciai animdl f~rm" or
bARXC~ an exco3~ive number o£ horsea or other "bernyai•d" type animals on ldre~n
parcelb of land in viol~stion of the "intent and purpose" ot the R--C Zone, end
~het ~lder 2iumes of. inferior quali.ty~ miyht bo moved i.nto the area, thereby re-
ducing the aeathetic enS monAtary valuea of cuetnm-built homos .in the arAa.
Mz. MaDEniel th~n noted that the Secx•~tery of tixe P.H.Y.A. hr~d met witl~ m~mbars
of the Aasociat.ton and zeviewed tho propoead smendments and offQred addltional
9ugqeations, namo,ty, a) under SacLion 18.18.021(10)(b)1, maximum numbex af poultry,
birds, rabbita and rodento be, revised to permit propartionally more than 24
ar~imalo on lots Iarqer t'~an one acr~ i.ti ar~a, pro*~ided tho maximum numb9r of
an:mals on any lot ehould not exceed a tota7. of 48 Euch anim+:ls in any combina~ian
ther.POf, a~id b) that sanie means uf permitting e lxz•ger aumber of all. epeci~a of
animxlE noted ba provided h~it•haut nocessity of ~. variance in or;ier to accommodate
the mairitenance of anima].a Eor ahort duration of aix to eight months in conjunc-
tion w•ith bona fide educatiorial projects, auch as an ~'.F.A. or a 4H project.
Mr, McDaniel then rdviewed the Report to the Commission relativc~ tu animal main-
tenanc.e tos equine animals, paultry, rabbi~s, cavios, cattle, aheop or goa.t~,
reviewing the P.H.I.A. augcrested limi.te and r.eco~mendationa, a~aff's cumments nnd
recommendatinna, notinq t.hat thr_ City Attorney'a office advisea that legally the
rela~ionsh:p must be equated to the use or' the land rather than thc number of
people on ~he land, i..e., the number o£ anlmals pormitted ~hould be the same for
land area, nat per peraon.
The puaturinq of anim~lx on unocc.i~piod parcels a~zd boarding of animals was alr~o
reviewed with P.H.I.A. suggestfons, ata~f's comments, and rec~~mmendations.
Mr. McDaniel tt-en noted that in additian ~o all of the recommendati.~nx made,
st~ff would further recommend that Section 18.18.020(lU)(d) Eacceptions to
Regu~.ations, bQ considered in order to accommodate the 4H or F.F.A. projects a~
set forth in the Rt~port to the Commisaion.
E1r. McDaniel then noted that Mr. Krueger'a letter a].so requeated the eatabli~hment
of a policy of no movr~-on houeea in the R-~ Zone without exception, however, thc~
City Attorney's office advi.sed ~hat it would be discrtmin~tory to prevent housa
mave~-ons in tho R-E 2oi~e and permit them in other s3ngle~f.amil~+ resident.ial zones.
Furthermore, "move-one" were pr~sently cont.zolled under C.I:°.~ter 15.~2 of the
Anaheim Mun~cipa~l Code whach required public hearinq by thg City Council for any
proposed move-on and apecific findinqo by the Council thAt tho house, bui181ng or
atxur.tvre ~~opoRed ta be a~oved ~.nto the city shall be comparabla ~n value, aize,
quality, dea:.gn and appoarranas of houses, buildinge ox atructures !.n the area into
wh3cli it w+~s propoaed L•o be movedi that it woubd. not be detr.imental to nor 3lmiah
the value of property in thQ arsat and that :.ees than a majority of the property
owners .~n tha area objected to Che movinq af the tiouse, building oc structure onto
the property where it was pro~~oaed to bo moved. Tr.era£oxe, staft would reoommend
that no a~dditional r~qulati~n would appear ta ba :~eoeesary at this timm in view
o! the fACt that rac~ulations skipulated in Chapt~er 15.3Z of the Aneheicn Municipa!
Code would appedr atrinqent enu~vqh to prealucle the movix~q in of aulsetandard h~uo-
ing into sny reaidenti~l area.
~
~
~
MINUT~B, CITY PLANNxNG COMMISSIUN, Swptembex 5, 1973 73-550
1~M~NDMENT ~'Q Z'2TLF 1~_ANAHF.IM MUNICI~AL COpF. (Coi~tinueQ)
Dlr. Roler.~d Kruegar., 261 Pa:xalt~ Hills ~r~.ve, SecreCary ~P tY~e Peralt~ Hilla
improvamon~ Assuciation~ appeazad be.taze thw Gommioeion a~nd notAd that his
organicat:ion was ~~ibA~+~ntiia].ly in aqreem~nt with stntf'e recommendation~ dnd
the rea~c~n !or Chie uns tha fmct thnt they wex• convertinq from an agrioultural
uea ~o a rasidenti~l une mn8 this wauld bo a co:npromiee ta retain aome o! '.he
rura~l At~aoaphaze, hawevax, thsy dicl nct w+an~ too meny animals next door ~o
varioue tiomoe, e+nd the pro~osal would be a euitablo compromiae, however, he
weuld li)ce Co make onv, or two euqqestione ~ In the t~iwcuaeion with aome peoply
~,nvolved i.n 4H and aducationa], pxajaote - if they co~id ~bta~n A tempo:+~ry
exar:~ptior~, he would pre~or. that L•hia be ct~anged to eiqht montl~s bacaus~ some or
the progi~a~md wetE lengthiax than o~hars dince eomo childxen in the P.amily miqht
b~ working on more then on~ pzojeat wh~re the children would bo working on A
moz~: lenc~thy pr~~ect.
Chairman GdUOx obaer~~ed thnt the dH proiects were a varf valuable pro9ram !~r
chi:dren.
Mr. Krueger further n~ted thr~t under Maximcm Nuniber of Permitted ~-nimals, pAra-
graph 3, he would auggest that t~ be consiet~nt {.n r~:Eerenae to bovine dnimals,
that tho term "and their immatuXe offsprina" bo added.
THE fiE;ARIIJG WAS CLOSED.
Deputy Cit.y Att.orney Frank. Lowry noted that t~a a formor member of F.F.A., theae
projects coulc~ run up tn riight monkha but it was extremely doubtful that thoy
woulc] zu:i bey..id eight montha.
Com-t-is~si.on~ar Herbat obaerved, in re~ereiice ko the house-Moving Ordinanca, ho
•~-ondered wltethor this or:dina~nce hnc~ a lienitatian as to tl~e length Af timu in
Which a hoaio muet be comploted and renovat.ed aftc~r being moved ~~nto the property,
eincQ he had obsexved a. number o~ tiouae move-one into several Areae in town rsnd
it had been many monthr; hefor-~ t:iese wr~re com~lated, aomc never having been
completed.
Mr. Lowry st:ated tha~t the ardinanc:e requirecl ~ompletioi~ within ninety dals aftez
issuance of the Y~ouse:-moving p~rmitJ whereupon Cummission~sr 1Herbst not~d that it
waa evident *_he City was not enforainq this zegulatiun.
Commiasianer Saymou:t offerad Resolution Nu. PC73-206 and moved for its paseaqe
nnd acloption ~co adopt znd recommend +to the City Counci.l adoption of Amendment to
Tit~e 18, Chapter 18.18, R-E Zone governing ani~~2~1 maintent~ncE as set forth an
Exhibit "A", including the addltion af Section 18.18.020(10)(~) Exceptions to
Regulationa, +a~c well r~R the inclusion of the phrase "ar.d L•heir immature of~spring''
to the aectior.~ uniier bovi;-e animals, paragraph 3. (5se Regoluti.~n Book)
On rp11 ca11 t.he foregoing resolut3.on was p+~s~ed by tlia followinq vote :
~AY'ES: COYMZSSTONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kinq, Seymour.
NOES ; COMt•tISF~IONF.Rw : None .
ABSENT: COMMIS iIOf~ER: : A11rec~, Aowland.
REPORTS F+ND - ITFM ti0. 1
RECOMMENDATTONS COr1DITI0NAL USE PERMXT NO. 922 (Servite Hiqh School) ~
' Property lo~gted on the eouth aide of La Palma Auc~nue,
Approximatealy 555 feek weat of the centerline ot
Onondaga Avenue - Reque+et for avprovai of r~vised plans
far ex~aneion of a gr~vate hiqh gchool.
'Loning Supervioor Charles Robert~ revi~wed the locatian of aut~ject property.
pzevioue zoriing action on the property, and the requeat by tlae Commiesion to
make a determination that the xevieed pldn~ were eubstr~nCisll.y in confarmance
with the plane approvod on ~tarCh 9, 1967, undar the oriqin~al Conditi.onal Use
Permit No. 922 which permikt~d ths conetruc~ion of a new gymnasium buildi~iq and
r~modeling ~.: ~he shnwer and locker soom faail~ty~ that the plane before tha
Comanisdian indicated a pzopos~al to construct a 440-yard ciraular trnck around a
lootbail f.ield, aith lighta to garmit late ditarnaon practice, anci raloc~~ing the
fbotball ~field and a luturo pool~ that the F ns indicate3 the reduction of 36
...,
~~
MINU~'d~, CIT:f PLANNING CUM:4ISSIUPI, 6~ptomber 5, 7.9T3 73'S51
TTEM N0. 1 (Conti~ ~etl)
parking apac~s, however, reuised plan~ sloo indice~tsd 3S Nr.letir~g pa:king epaoss
locatad on tho w~et aide o! the olssazoom bu~ldinq that ~aexo never indiaatsd on
thw originnl con~itional uae ~ermit p~an~ thaE th~rd wer• ~SS perkinq •pao~o
stil]. evai.lsble, and only 248 ~Facoa oriqin~lly aer• r~quired~ tihet thy r~~~i~~d
plan~ slxo indiasted exi.skinq etoxays auildinq~, and K buildJ.ng psrmit h~d pre-
viously tr~sr~ irsuad !ox +~ ~uor~oat hut te be ~movAel ~nto the eit~ locatad a~ar th•
tzxck and be~eabal] aren~ ~tid that the+ p~tik~onox w+as zequsetinq •pproval for
dnother. c~uoneet hut t~ be moved unto tha •i.k~~ Mhich would be need !ar ty~ ~taraq•
of sthletio equipment, therstore, the Pi~nttlnq Co:~mi~sl.on would wioh to QAL•~rn~in~
wh~th~r the aubmitteQ ple-ne war~ aub~tanti~lly ic~ cantnzmanaa witi~ the Commi~tion'~
original approval o! n private •duo~tion~l in~kituti.on on subjmct prop~sty.
N1e-xk J. Hepp, 4~00~ We~tezly Pleco, Su~ts ~QO, Nawpor~ H~nch, Calitornie 92660,
architoer re~re4enting the p~tikione~r~ indiaarsd thes~e wae on~ question whlch
aroec d+~ring meetinga with et~f! and that wa• ths reguired parking for echool
facilitiee.
Cheirmnn Ga~ue~x noxed that ~he Commiwe.ion had detsrmineQ there wne ddequate perkinq
einae 2~4 eipaaas were proposad.
Mr. Robertia notod it was inconaeivsblo that the eituati.on wauld be craated wher~in
more than tho rec~uireci parkinq wauld be uti.li~ed einoe the pnrking wne bnsad on.
1200 seatinq capacity in tho gymnAafum.
Diacusaion thdn was hel.d between the ~-rchitect and Mz~. Rabert0 rogarding tha re-
quired parkinq and tlie fac~ that ~ne parkian oE the parking axc~a wae beinq ueed
~oc outdoax gymnaeiuni classes ainae thAy had eev~~al cla~saea in eessian at one
time, and whan automobilse word perked on that parking aroa, oil dr~pped trom the
vohicle~, whlch wae sometim~~n brought into L•ha echool itself, which ci~eaked n
cloaning p:oblem.
Pat,her Ryan then askaa ~ather ..ecause the par~-i_nq wae bASed on e ratio of one
fox ten seatinq capac:lty ir. the gymnaaium, would i.t be necessary to use thia p3rk~
ing araa for the required parkinq or cauld it be fenced otf.
The Commiss~.on inquired wheth~r senior atuJ~nte were allow :i to park c+n the
premiFest whereupon Father Ryan atated that only tiioee aligible to dri.ve an
automobile were permitted to park their vehiclea, and the parking lot was nevor
more thsn haif full.
Commleeioner Fdrano obsarved ~hat if only the upper clsssmen were allowed to p+~rk
the~r vehicless, then there would be n~ need to cor~eider 254 epaces.
(;ommi.ssionex Herb~t was of tl:e opinien that this one psrkinq area could he aet
ar,ide mnd until auch time as a spectal eve~:~ occurred, then !.t would be up to tha
d~acrerion of the sc~ool whethez ar not *hey wanked t~ open up the apace for parDc-
ing ; urposea.
Commis~ioner Far.ano thon inqutre..Jow many parkirig sg~ncea would be lost if this
one parkinq axea Nere de].etedT wh~reupun Mr. Roberts adviaed tho Comrais~ion that
there would be 224 spacee le£t, or a loss of 30 apaoee.
Father Ryan, in reaponea to ques~ioni.ng by tl.e Commission, noted r_har. unl} thoae
juniors and seniurs and late-year sophomores in the early ~prinq would be permitte
to pazk their vehicle9, and that the present snrollment Eor juni~rs and esniors
was approximat:ely 275.
Commiasioner H~rbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kinq an~l MUTIUN
CARRIFD, tha~ tha re•:•ised plans eu~imitted for Serv3,te High Schoo]. under Conditiondl
Uee Permit Nu. 922 ~v~srA sub~tantially in accordance with plan~ origint~lly aubmitta
and thereby are approv~~l.
Comml: ona~x Farana offered a mation, reconded by ~ommiseioner :~eymour and NOTIVN
CARRIe,.:, thut thA r..ann~.nq ~ommiasion re _omm~nde to tha Ci'ty Ca+ancxl app~oval oi
tha move-on oP an addi~c~.on~l ~uonsat hut to be utilized fox storage of athletl.c
agul.pment, aub ject ~o mpakin~ enll ~ity require~mente .
~~
~
~
MINUTkB~ C.LTX VLANNI:NC. COMMISSIONr l~eptember 5, 1973 73-551
REPOftTA 11ND - TT~M N0, 2
RbCpMMIlN0~1TYON3, RECLA::SI~'ICAT=QN N0. 71-72-~~~ (V. ~. Lonqdale) - F~quart
~ toz approv~l o! madiliod p~Kns - PropArky loaat~d an th~
aouth oid~ <~! 6ro~drray, approximately 5d5 Peet ea~eC oP
tho aant~er~.:Lnw oi Maqnolie 1-v~nu~~
Zoning Su~ar.vi~or Cherlee Rober~~ revi~wdd ~ino loo~l:ion o! subjact property~
u~e~ e~t~blishad ir- close proxi miCy, sanl~nq aation on khe prapdrty to oonstruot
a 4-unit aparement c~~mplex, anQ notinQ th~t th• pstitioner ~subeoquently m~ae
applioation tor hui].dinq p~rmi t a!or co~wkruatl.on o! this anmplex with the ~ub-
mitted plens indiaating thei7~ b dfng s uh~tnntiRlly ir~ conlormano~ Ki.th tha plan•
•yprov~d ao pert ot' the reclnes itindti.on~ and that tne p~ti~tioner waa now r~-
quee~inq approv~l o! inadifie~i p len~ arhi~h inQicntod an additiona~ etructura on
the ro~r portion o! tho prop~~rty whlch th• p~ti~ioner propoaed to use Eor utor-
eqo oP vampare ~nd boeta tor the tenantn - the •truoturo bainq ].nrger than A
two-caz garnye.
Mr. Robarta in reviewing tk~e evelueti~n noted that thm euitding Diviaiun had
indieat~d thet no conQtruction plana !or this edded atructuxA had ba~n reviowed
nor hed Che owner o! the propez'tY mede epQlicntion for a bu~.lding purmit, and I
that tho struature ~rae now beir~g ueed to ^tore contxectinq equipment and s boat
helonqiug to tho owner~ that a~caase to the sCructuxe wa~ throu~h A21 apnning in
tha exiating maeonry wall uons t,ructed on tha adj~cant. properr_y to the weet, aeid
wA].l had nc-t be~n required as par~ o~ tih~ comm~rr,ial dAVelo~.n~ent, howover, it
wae laen tha-n 6 test hiqh da A-aaeuzed from the Pininhad grade level o~ bath
propert~est +-nd th~t the Commiseion wauld wi~h to determine whether the plane
pres~nted ware eubatantl.dlly i n confarmanca with plrns originally ~;~proved.
Mr. Virqil. I.ona3ale, the owner/peCitionex,appoared before the Commisaion and
etated tY~at he thought that he had building parmite Ear nveryt.hir-g which was
to be conekructed on the prope rty,
The Commieaic+n inquired as to whet Mrould happen if Statar Bzothera refused per-
miesion for ecaeas to aubject property Prom th~ir porking area, anc7 what type ot
an 3greement did the ownex ha-ve with SteteX erother~.
Mr. Lo~~nc£a1e atated thnt accese wns sti11 avai2able to the atructure within tihe
pr.operty iteelf even though the preaAnt a:csas mzyht h~ cloaedr and that he only
had a verbel agreement with ttie manager of the store.
The Commiseion then inquired 2-~~.~ ~he awner, wha wae an elect•rical cantractor,
aould jugt asaum4 he had rit- approval, sinoo in the plana ~resentQd to the
Planning Commiesion and ~o t~ie Building Diviaton there wa~ no indication of
the oxistizg structurer where upon Mr. L~naBsle sfiatnd he had assumed the addi-
ti.an ha~8 been approved by the Buildinq Department~ and tha~ he had constructed
the buildi.ng hir.-aelf.
The Commi~sion further i.nquir. ed what the owne : would do if bppr~val of the
modi.fied plans was not grante d~ whAreup~n Mr. Lonedale statod h~: would atill
have access and use tha bui: d ing fo r atozsge purposes ,.+ven though one would
have to hand-carry the items to thQ rear.
Commisaioner Herbst ob~er.ved that thie additioa could easily be converted into
an~other apartment unit which would be contrary to the denaity permitted in tho
zanfng approv~•d far the prape rty,
Mr. Robertf, in response to CommiRSion request~ prosented the Auilding Division
glans as tsubmitted by the ow raer whiah weze then raviewed by the Commiasion.
I
The Commission observed that from reviewinq the approvec! Builfling Diviaion ~lans
it wot~ld ~ppear this was a"bnotleggyd" building ana the owner could be, in vio-
latior. ~at his contrr,ctor'o licenae becauee of the electrical wiring instal2ed
into ~:t~ie "bootlegged" atructur.et that th~s wns a very clear -riolation of tha~
wiiich was permittec3 in the approval o~ ~he pla~ns far reclassit~.cation~ And that
it „wa ~~ery difficult to cunceivo Y.hnt anyone ~c~uld make such an obvioua mietdke.
~~
~
~
~
MZNUT~S, CITY PI.ANNING COMMIS9TON~ ~te~tambsx S, 1973 73~553
xTBM NO. 1 (c:ont.LnueQ?
Commiarioner Furano o~Yered e a~otinn t~ deny tha requesC for epproval o! ths
modil~~d plan~ .ubmitted for Reala~~itiortion Nn. 71-?2-20, on the bs.i~ khati
both the plwns con~idarcd at public hearinq on th~ raclassiticr~~ion o! th~
prop~rty Ann the Buildinq Divi.aion pie+na which wera ,ubmittsd at ~1~e tims t~h~
p~titioner had appliad !ur building p~rmits were subetantl~lly in conlormanae,
while theru had b~~n no perniit qrnnt~d !or the addition now retl~ctod on th~
mocllfi~d plans. Cammiasi.onsr Herbot, in seoondiny the motion, sta~tsll that th•
awner, e~e a licsns~d sleatrical aontzactnr wae very much oognlzant of tha City's
variour oode requisAmente and the City could not oundone euch ~~ violation,
par~icularly by anyone in the buildinq induatry, eir~c~ t.h~ plnn~ submitted wl.th
the zaqueet !or building permits did not reflact tho "bootleggad" etruatuza~
and th~t khera was no acaeca to tho atrncture excapt throuqh the bre+sk in tha
wnll made thrc,ugh a private eqreement with tho mnneqer of the ec7io:i-inc~ commarcial
propexty, eaid agreement being oaly verbal ~-nd not a r•~:,;.dad dgxeemant. MOTIQN
CAItRIED.
Deputy City Attornay Fra-nk L~wry advioed c;he GOIt11{1~8y~nri and Mr. I,onsdale that
he would have to make a written roqudnt to ttxe City Counci7. Enr re].iHf Prom
the P].anninq Commiaeion motion o~ ~11sApproval of ~h~ modi.fied pl~n~, ana i,f the
Citp Council concur~:ed with Che ac~ion of the Pla:~ning Coc,mieR:on, then the
building w~ uld have to be removed.
ITEM N0. 3
STANDARDS FOR P?~'.': :c~ STR~~'PS
office Frigin~~r ,7ay mitue reviawed the ~~~inearing Divieipn's proposal £or etand-
ard~ for privnte etreet~, es well as thP cnemo from tha Water Di.viai~n to tho
Public Worke t.rector regardinq standaxda f~x privato streeta (copy un file) ,
noting that the situation ae far as private atreetd wae conc~rnod had reached
a poi.nt whero ~ome deciston~would have ta be made end requ6sted that the Planning
Commisei.on coneider the pxoposal and mnke a.recommendati.on •Go the City Cou~-ci.t.
The Commiesion inquired whether ~.his was the st-me 1 roposal which ~he Englneerinq ~
Divisionltad presented previously and inquired whether there were any changes,
sinae the f:ommissiot~ had requested alCernatives.
Mr. Titus replied that the Sanitation Divieion had requestsd a 38-foot radius
xeturn
The Cr~cnmission inquired txow did t:he Enqineering Division expect ~his t~ be requlre~
e~ince i.t was anythin~ but standaxd if adoptedr whexoupon Mr. Titus atated that
this propos:l did not ad3res itsel.f: to tho turn-around area, and there still
would be the same standard 27 feet unlesa Enginaering repre~antatives could
talk the developers into p. ~idinq tt greater turn-,sroi~~d ox hammerhead or an
aliqhment of tlie atreets £or dxive-xhroLqh streFtn in order i:oc to provide a
dead-end type situation, and this wauld qive a better circulation pattern.
Assietant Davelopmont Service~ Director Ranald Thomoson noted that some developers
were providin~ thA 38-foot radiua, while uthers were providing hammerhea3s, anc]
that one desiynez, N{r.. Phelpa, indicated that they could live with hammerheads
in ordar to satiafy *.he 3anitatlon Diviaiun.
Mr. Titu~, in reapona~e to Commisalon quesfiionis-qo noted tlzat adequat4 means hsa
bn~~n worke~ out with developers - soma were beinq require~ to provide the full
36-Poot zmdius tuzn-srounA area, that the City was alao raq+iesting that the str.eet
be cor••letAly d~dic~sted ~e a public ut;lity easement in order that drainage and
watar. Pecillties cauld be aervi~e~~ and that up Lo the praeant tJ.me it had been
a privAtie street not n public utility easement.
~omml.se~or-er Harhst offered a motir,n, seconded by Com+~issionar King and MOTION
CARRTED, to edopt the Standards ~or PrivatP Stree*s and recommend to the City
Couneil adoption af eame.
~
~
~
NINUTES, CITY PLIINNING COMM75SxON, S~pt~mber S~ .973 73~554
I'i'EM ~i0. ~
YA~t~ANC~ N0. 2523 (Automatian Yndu~~ri~e) - 4rap~xty
loodted os~ tt,s wrA~k eiae o! c:r~NO~nt Wey, 580 l~er
south o! th• South~rn 8aal,lio Railroad riqht-ai-aay -
R~quast to eubatitute ths xaqulxod re~dMOOd ~latr with
aluminum a~late.
Zoninq 3»p~rvi~ar Charle~ Robarte not~d thet th• Plsnr.irsq Con-mit~lAn on July ~3,
1973, qrant~d wa~iv~x ot Ghe required 6-~oot mseonrx wall •n!l haA tihe p~tition~x
•ti~pulata Co providlnq .udwao d a 1~-ts in ths ohainli.nk fana~, hop~v~r, rubrequent
to ~+-SA publia haari:iq, the patl.eionez raturned to hia aftina und oh~oksd with
hie t~no~ company, arid ~:l~e comPany adviARd him that i~ rrould ba impnrmible to
i,n~tall tha .redv-ood s]ate in the existinq lenaa bmaau~e o! the th~okne~e o! the
~laC and th• minimel weeve o~ tho ~xi~kin7 ahalnlink lrnq~, triu~ only aluminum
platu aould b• u~od, or a lerger wedve ~ena~ wnuld havo tQ ba inetallea. 1^urthor-
more, khe City Council had r~vi.ewa~l ~hia propo4al and had x~t the v~r~.ance toz ~
pubXio heszing !or considaration c! the an~endment ka the oandltion.
Diaauaeion wms h~ld by thd Coa~m~eAion Yalative~ Lo khe waiver r~queeted, the
etipulation made ay the potitioner, and the suuatitution ot' +~lumin~:m elate now
bsi.ng requeated, toqother with tha fact that it wao gassibla that the 9xiatinq
fence would hrve to be remo~-atl in ord~r ko prnvide ~.ha xadwpod-alatte8 ohain~3.nk
tence .
Commiasioner Herbst of~~xe8 z~ motinn to aace~t th~ nubstitution o~f aluminum elato
for the ati.pula.ted redwood s lat~ un tl~e baain that a ha~rdel:ip wauld result with
having to remo`rA the ~xieting fence, since the petition~r wae unable to pro~ide
the zedwood alata iri the existing fence, howaver, apgrorn: of thia eubatltution
ehall not be daemed ad having e~+t+~bliehed ~ prscedent 3n incidenta where no farice
exid~~d and wai~-er of the 6- toat block ~a.11 wad requeated~ thA reQwooS-slat~ed
ahainlink Perce wou1~9 be requirec3 if w~~ver were granted. Commiseioner Seymour
oeconded the ~~tian. MOTION CARRIF.D. (Cammiseioner Farano voted "na")
ADJOURNME:NT - Thdre b~ii:v nc; furth~r buelneea to 91s.uee, Comm?esioner
""- ~`- seymour aE~f~~~~d a mation, geconded by Cor.-misaion~~r King and
MOTxON CA1tRIL'D, to adjourr~ thb meeting.
Tha maetin~ adjouxned at Ei:l5 p.m.
Res~ectfully sub~mitted,
r
,C'~i'~t~2~ ~
C
ANN KR~bS, 5ecre~ary
F,nsxheim C~.ty 1Ptanning Cammiesio~
AK a hm