Minutes-PC 1973/11/260 R C 0 Mi1CROFILMING SE.RYICE, INC.
. . . .,. , . ,. . ~
~
~
L~
Gity tlall
AnnhAim, Ca1l~ornia
Nov~mber 26, 1973
A REGUI.I~1R MF.ETING 0~' THE Ai3AHETM CTTX PLANNTNa COMMISSION
ItE~ULAR - A requlaz me~:t:ing of tha Anaheim Cit~y Planning Commisei.an wrx~
MEEmINC called to ordar by Chdirman Gauer a~ 2:00 p.m., a guorum
~ieing preaont.
PRE~ENT - CEIAYRMAN: Gauer.
- COMMI55IONERS: A11re~d, N'arano, Herk~st, tCingo Rowland (wh~
e,ntered the Council Cht~mber a~ 2:15 p.m. ),
Sc~ymour.
ABSENT - C:ONltdTSSIONERS: None.
PRESENT - Deptity Ci.ty Attarn~}~: Fr.ank L~wcy
OfficH Engi.neer: Jay Titus
Zoni.ng Supervisor: Char_1es Roberta
11sr~istant Zoninc~ ~uperviaar: Phi] 1±.~ Schwartze
~lanning Superv_:..~rs 1DOn McUanie.l
Commisaion Secr.~tary: Ann Kzebs
Commi~gi.on Secretary pra tem: Patrl~.z.a Scanl&n
PLEDGE OF - Comfri.ssi~ner Al.lred 1c~d in the Pledge of Allegianr.e to the
1L'LEGIANCE F1ag.
AI'!?ROVAa ~ ~- Apprnval of the minutes of the Novembe.r 12, 1973, Planning
THE MiNUTE5 Commission m~etirig was deferred to Decem}aer 10, 1973
ENVZR~NAiEN'1'AL IMPACT - CONTTNLTEP ~L'HLIC HEARJ.I~G. ANAHEIM HILLS, INC./TEXACU
F2EPUi'T NO. 105 VENTURES, Il~~~. , 380 Ana2ieim fIills Road, Anaineim, Ca.
-~~ 9?807, Owners; V`rDi CONSOLIllATED, IN~., 2~01 ~ainpus
CONDI'i ~ONAT~ USE Urive, Ir.vixz~, Ca. 92664, Agent. Pr~perty descri.bed
PERMIT N0. 1430 a3: An irregularly-~ohaped parc~l of land aon~is ting
'- - -'- af approximatply 33.8 acrea, 1-,avinq a frontage of
'~FNTATIVE MF1P OF approximate].y 362 feet ~~ thE r,orth side of Serrano
TRACT NOS. 8513, Avenue, havi.ng a n,~xim depth of approximately 1020
t3514, BS1S, AND feet, and being locat northwes~erly of the inter-
8516 secti~n of Serrano Avenue 3nd Hi.dden Canyon Rc:~d.
Proper~y presently classified R•~A, .~GRICUL~i 3RAL, ZONE.
REQUES~ED CONDITIONAI, USE: ESTABLISH A 157-I,OT PLANNED RESIUENTIAL DFVELOP-
MENT IN FOUR 'rRACT.S, WAIVT;~G (A) REQUZRED FRONTAGE
OF LOTS ON 1~, DEDICATFD STREET, (B) MIPIIMUM Bt1II~D-
ING :iIT~ AREA, (C) MINIMUM 9UII~DYrIG SIT~ WIDTH,
(U) MAXIMUM BUiLDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 F~ET OF A
RESIDENTIAL ZONE, (F;) MINIMUM STnE YARD SETBACI.C,
(F) R~:QU:LRED MASONRY WALL ABUTTING A SINGLE-FAI.KILY
.tESIDENTIAL 70NE BOUN"ARY, AND (G) MYNIMUM SIGN
AREA.
TENTATIVE TRF~~T REQiJFSTS: DEVELOPER: STR DEVELOPNIENT COMPRNY, 11933 BsdGh
Boulevard, 5tanton, Ca. 90680. ENGINEER~ VTN
CONSOLIDATED, INC., 2301 Campus Urive, Irvin~, ~a.
92664. Subject tract~, consisting of appzoximately
33.8 acres located northwest~rl.y of tt~e Serxarno
Avenue and Hidden ~anyon R~ad intexsPat~on, ax'e
propos~d for sub~i~ision as fallows:
Tr~ct No. 8513 - 9.4 acres - 32 R-2 zoned lots;
Tra~~ No. 8~14 - 10.6 aczes - 41 R-2 zor~ed lo•ts;
Tract No. 85].5 - 7.1 acres - AO R-2 zoned ~ots=
Tract No. 8516 - 6.7 acre~ - 37 R-2 z~ned laks.
73-677
~ ~ ~
MINUTI:3, CITY PLANNTNG CnMMIS~TON, NovQntber 26, 1~73 73~-678
ENVIRONMENTII]L IMPACT It~:PQRT 11Q. 105, CON[~IT:[ON1~L USE PERM~T P~O. 1430, ANa
TENTATIVE_MAP OI' TFtACT NOS. 8513, 851J N515, AND 8~16 (Continued)
8ubjaat patiti.on was continLed from the meeting of Novemtaer 12, 1973, in order
to al].ow the d~volopor ti.me t~ pr~eenC an altornate mgthod ot their propoael,
am well ds to a1~.ow the Commiaaion tirn~a to vi~w other developmnnta havinq
similar cz'_teria.
AsAistant Zoning Sup~r.visor Phil:lip 3ahwax~t~:e r~~~ad fc,r 4h~ ~omm~seian ~h~t
the pQtitioner wae rQque~ting an r~ddit,ional t:wo-weok contir~uAn~ae in order to
al.low time to prapr~ro ~dditional exk~ibits.
Commiusioner Farano offered a motinn, eoaondad by Cammi.s~.i.aner. Ailred and
MU'~ION CAR1tIED , to further continut; publlc hearing ancl consideration of C~r di-
CionAl Use Permit N~. I430 and Ten~atiu~ Mr~p af Txacl• Nos. 8513, 8514, 8515
and 051G t~ the meeting ~f De~cembez 10, 1973, in order ta al].ow the deveLoQer
time tu prepare ~dditional eachibit~.
CONllITIOf1nT~ USE - COI~TINUED PUIILIC HEARTNG. AN~NETM HILL,, INC./TEXACO
PERMIT N0. 143] VLNTURES, INC.~ 380 Anaheim Hille Foad, Anaheim, Ca.
92807~ Owncr;, VTN C~N30LIDATED, INC:. , 23A1 Cam~us Drive,
~rvine~ Ca. 92664, Agontj requestxng permission td
ES~'ABLxSH A 5-UNIT PLANNED RESID~NTIAi., DEV~LOPMENT TO BE USED AS A NI~bEL
CON~L~X WITH SALES OFFICE, WAIVING MRXIMUM SIGN AAEA nn propnrty described
as: 1!.n irregularly-shapesi parcel of land consi.sting of appxaximataly 2.8
aores iocated northwesi;e~.ty ~f i he intereection uf Serrano Avdnue ar~d H9.dden
Canyon Road. Pror~e*rty present]~ classi£ied R-A, AGR:CCULTU~+AL, ZONE.
Subject petition was contir-ix~d from the .,e~sting of November 12, 1973, in ozder.
to be tieazd as part of Con~iitj.onal Use Permit N^. 1430 (wl~i.rb wa~s conti.nued in
urder to allow ttie dc~velopc:r time t~ present an a.' ~:prnate~ mc~tkiod of their
proposal, .~s well, as t.o allow the Commission tiile r.o view othc~r development:~
ltbvi.ng aimilar cr.iteria) .
Assis~ant Zoning Super~isar Philli~.~ Schwartz~ not:Fd f~r. LhG Commisaian that
the petiti.oner waa reguesting a two-week continuanr.e in or.cl~r.• to ailow the
devel.oper time to prepare additional exhibi.t:s.
Comn~issioner King offer.ed a n-oti~on, secondeci by Conu~nis~a.~n~:x A1].r~c~ and MOTTON
CARRIEU, to further continu~ publi.c hearing an~! cox~sider~t:i~i~ of. C•anditi.onal
Use Permit tI~ . 1431 L•o the r.tpeting of D~cer.~h~r 10, 1973, i~re order •~.o allow the
~?eveioper timF ta pr~pare additional exhibits .
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT -
REPORT NO. 10 8
CONDITIONAL liSE
PERMTT NO. 14 36
TFIQTATI'.~. MAr Gr'
TRACT NOS. 84 5~
AND D456
PUBLYC HEA1tING. ANAHEIN). HiLT,S .. TNC./~l~l .F~C2 VEN'CURES,
ING. , 380 Anaheim Hills Etuad, ~~~laheim, c:a. 9~i;07,
Owx~ers; t{1•'ERICAN HOUSING GUI?~D - LCS ANCELF.S, 409
Westerly P~ace, No. lu S, N~wp~rt B~~~ar.h, • 9266~,
Agent. prooerty described ~s: An izreg.~lar.l}•-shaged
pai~cel of l~nd consi~ting of ~pprax.imatF~ly 29 ac:res ,
ha~•iz~g f~-ar:tag~s of appro~cimat~ly 44~~ fe~t r,z~ t;~~ n~rth
s-:.-3.c? and 9 37 f.e~t on the south s? de o£ ^anv~n Rim Ro;3d,
h~~,~'.r,y a maximum depth. of approximai.~~.,~ 889 feet, and
b~iw;; loaated approximate~y 12C0 feet ~~ast af. the
centerli.ne of Nohl. R~nch Road. Propert~ pi:esently
Classifxed R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZOrIE.
REQUESTFD C:OI~TDITIQNAL USE: E57'ABLISH A 122-LTNS'P, ONE AI3U TWO-STORY PLA~iNED
RESID~;NTIAT, DEVELOpMENT, TiiA,:VING (A) REQUIRFA LOT
FRONTAGE, (B) MINIMUM BUILDING STTE AREA, (C)
MINIMUM BUZLDING SITE WIDTH ,(D) MINIMUM DISTANCE
BETWEEN OUJLDIYJGS ,(E) MTNIMUh' YARD Al~'U BUILPING
SETBACIC, (F) REQUIRED 6-FOOT MASONRY WALL ABUTTING
R-A ZONE, Y~1ND (G) MAXIMUM BUILDING HETGHT S~TITHTN
150 FFET CF A SINGLE-FAMTLY RESTDENTIAL ZdNE
BnUNJ%ARY .
~I
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMIS3ION, Novamb~r 7.6, 1973 73'6~9
ENVIRiUNMENT~ IMPACT REPORT N0. 108, ~ONATTI:ONAL USE PE1tMTT N0. ] 436, AND
T.CNTATIVE MAP QF TRA~:T N08. 8955 AND 8456 (Contir-ued) _-
--------------- . __-
7'ENTATIVE TRACT REQULSTRs DEII~LOPISRs AM':RICAN HbU&~NG GTIILD, 409 Westor~.y
Y~aca, No. ].05, Newpox~ Aea~h, c:a~. 92660.
ENGINEER: W~:I,LDAN ENGTN~FRJ:NG ~wSOCTAT~S, 125
South ~C3.aadina Str~et, An~stis~.m, ~a. 92805. Sut~-
~oct tract~s, conai3tiiig o~ a~aprc~xima~tc~.ly 29 acres
located on tha n~rtli und sot~th aides of C~nyon Rim
Roa~d, approximately 12d0 Lc~et e.ast of Nohl Raneh
Road, are proposed for sub3i~ri.aion as fc~llowe:
Tract No. 84~5 - 15.6 acres - 73 P.~2 zoiied lotat
Tract No. 8456 - 13.1 acrea -~9 R-2 zoned lota.
Assistdnt Zor~ing Supervisor Philli~ Schwartz~~ noted for ~.he Cammi3slan that
the petiti.aner was requoetir-g a four~w~ek con~inunnce in arder tc~ submit
rovised pJ.ana.
Gommi~aianQr A].lred oEfarPd a moti~n, seconded by Commissioner. P'arano and
MOTION CARRrED, to ~antinue public hearing on ~nvj.ronmentul Impact Report Na.
1.08, Condit~.onal Use F~rmit No. 1436, and Ten+tativ~e Nisp of Tract Noe. 5455
and 8456 ~o the meeting of December 27, 1973, as requestc~d by the ~etitioner
in order to submit revised. plans,
RECLR.SSIT'ICATION - P~JBLI:C ~zEARING. ORANG~ COUN'iY FLOQD CONTROL DISTRTCT,
NO, 73-7~1-26 ~00 Ctvic Center Drive We~t, :~anL-a Ana, Ca. 92701, O~aner;
""""-'~ DAVID STONE, 1095 Norkh Main Street, OrangE, Ca. 92667,
Aqent; requesting that ~roperty describQd as: A triangu~
].arly-~haped parcal of land consisting of approximately 20G0 square feet,
httuing a width of approxin,ately 131 fee~, having a maxi;num depth of approxi-
mately ~.57 feet, and b~ting loca~eZON~:gto theSR-3~uMULTIPLE-F}1MILY~ RESID~D~TIALi
Eied from the R-A, AGRICULTURAT,,
'LOt~E .
Assistant Zoning Supervtsor Phil.llp Schwzrtxe noted f~r. the Commxssian L•hat the
p~titioner was requesting a six--week continuance in ord~:r that a public aucti~n
to det•erma.ne the future ownership af subject property could be held.
Commxssioner King oL-fered a moti~rl, seconded by G~mmisr~ioner Farano and I~'JTIOr1
CAktRI~D, to continue public hearinq an Rer,.lassification No. 73-74-26 to the
meFting cf January 7, 1973, as requested by the pet~.tioner in order that a
publ ic auction to determine the future ownerstiip of sub ject ~prop~rty could be
held.
La~er in the meeting, 'Loning Supetvisor Charles Roberts advis~d the Cammission
that Staff misunderstood t2?e agent's request f.ar cnntinuance and that a two-
weeY. cantinuance would b~ suffici~nt; therefore, he wauld recommend that the
Commission ccnsider amending the motion for the six-week continuance.
Thereu~on, the Planning Commission rescinded tne notion for a six-week continu--
ance, an3 ComanissionPr Ring ~ffered a new motion, seconded by Gommissioner
Allred and MOTION CA~tRI~D, tio continue puY~lic hearing on iteclassification No.
73-74-26 to the meeting of December 10, 1973, as requ~sted by ttx~ agent £or
the petitioner.
CONDZTIONAL USE - YUBLIC HEARING. CHARLES AND PATSY CUNDIFr, 314 East
PERMIT N~. 143~ Hoove r, Orange, Ca. 92667, Owners; LARRY A. F3IVENS, 1329
~ East Chapman Avenue, Orange, Ca. 92666, Agent; requesting
pe.rmission to ESTABLISH A REC:tEATIONAL ~~F:HICLE STORArE YA1tD
AND CARETAK~R'S MOBILEEiONiE, WAIVING (A) PERMITTEll BUILDINGS, STRUGTURES AND
iJSES AND (B) PARKII3G FOR OLTrD00R USES on property described as: A r.~ctangular-
l,y-shaped ~arcel of land cansisting of approximate].y 3.E acres, having • front-
age of approximately 218 feet on the west side of Lakeview Avenue, having a
maximum depth of approxima~tely 717 feet, and being located .Zp~roxima~ely 1~0
fe~et north af the centerline of La Palma Avenue. Property p~'esen~ly classified
COUNTY M1 with a reso].ution of intent to CITY OF ANAHEIM M-1 ~1ND THE SCEI~IC
CIaRRIDOR (SC) OVErZLAY ~ONE,
No ane appeaxed in opposition.
~ltho~agh th~ Report to the Commi.ssion was not read a~ the gub7.ic heRring, it
ia ~; ~ r:er.red to and made a part of the minutea .
~ ~
M7NIJ'i'LS, GITY PLANNING COt~iMI5SI0N, Ncrvember 2fi, 1973 73-6f30
CUNAITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1434 (Continued)
t~lr. Chartes Cundif~, the pet'tioner, app~ared b~+fare ~the Commieaion ~-nd stated
he would havo nothing further to add than what wm~ preeented in the Sta~f
Report, other than tha~ aince there would be litt].n n~ed for parking spaces,
~he 63 epaces being re~ui.r~d was not fair. He advi~ed hie agc+n~ wae not present
bu1; would Ue coming late to the public: he~ring.
THE PUBLIC HEARINC WAS CLOSED.
Upon quosti~ning by the Comm1a31onr Aaeiatant Zoniny 3uperv~.sor Phi111p
Schwartze advieod r:he Code raquirec~ al]~. outdocr uees to provide+ o~f~street
park~ng sF~acer~ baa~d upon one s~ace per 2500 aqur~re Pe~t of lot ~r'e~= that the
Cqde c~id not prohibit subject uae in the I~-1, L•ight Industrial, Zone~ however,
the proponecl use w~~u1d be ~rohibit~cl i.n the 3eer~ic C~rridor (SC) Overlay Zona.
Mr. Schwartize read £rom Coc',e Sectian 18.59.U51 - Parmitted Building~ ~nd UaeA,
whicl~~ atated Autu or truck etorage (new or uaed) and mobilehome parks or travel
trai.ler parks were i-at pez~mitted.
~hairman Gauer made an obsorva*i~n thut the proFased use w~,u.ld be similar ~o a
mobil9homo park anc~ it it ~vQre permitted, it would be dlfficult to aeny futurA
si.milar reque~ts.
Atr. Cundiff ~ta~ed, .in r~bu~tal, that the ~ropoePd use would not be the same
as a mabilehome park in that there would l:~e no ~n2 living on the property other
than the caretaker; that ttier~ was a simi:lnr use south of L~ Palma Avenue i.n
the ar.~a, but tha~_ the ~:roposa.l before the C~mmissio~n wauld be fenced and puved.
Chairman Gauer nated for the Cammins3.on t.h3t ~f t.he praposed p1an~ were carried
out, the establishment w~u1d have a nice a~.>peart~ncQ.
Upon queationing of Mr. Sctiwartze, Mr. Ci~ndiff stated he was not s~ir~ h~ could
difEerentiate the pr.a~osed us~ from that ~f storage of trucks.
C~imnissioner A1].red noted for the Commission that the praposed use would
prohab.ly accommodate an~ vehicle with a cab truck, and Mx. Cundiff stated t~i.s
would be true in or@er to ge;t that type vehi~le of~ the streets.
Commissioner Rowland entered the C~uncil Ghambez at 2:15 pam.
Cor.unissioner Allred n~t.ed that the c:ommission, as a body, h<~d not heretofore
agproved arly pet.itions simi~.ar to the propos~c~ use in the Scenic Corridor (SC)
OvPrlay Zcne.
In reply to qupatior. af Commissioner Herbst, Zoning Supervisor Charl~s Rober!:s
advised the similar use referred to by Mr. Ctiandiff was a mobilehome manufacturer
and was located in the Scenic ~orrid~r, but ~that tha.t u~e ~xisted pr.ior to
adoption of the Scenic Corrid.or (SC) averlay ~onE, and they stored the product
they manufacture.
Conunis~ic~nAr F~rac~o nota3 for the Commission that, ii agproved, the proposed
use wou:.d establish a precedent in the Scenic Ca~ridor (SC) Overlay Zone.
Commissior~er Seymour. offered a motion, sevonded by Commis~foner Allred and
MOTION CARRIED, that the Planning Commission, in connection with an e:cemption
declaratior. s~tatus request, f_indL and determines that the prc~posal wduld hav~
no si~nificant environmental impact and, therefaYe, recommends to the City
Council tha~ n~ Environmental Impact St~aL•ement was nECessary.
Cammiasioner Seym~~ur offered Resolution No. ~C73-•249 and moved for its passa~e
and adoption to ~]eny '?etition for Conditic~nal Use PPrmit No. 1434 on ~tie basis
that the proposed use w~uld be contr~ry to the intent and projecti~na as estab-
liahed in t2ie Scenic Corridor (SC? Overlay Zone, which orohibits mobilehome
parks ancl auto and truck storage; t.hat the proposed uae: woulci establish a
tlangerous precedent for similar requesta or usea in th~ sub~eat zcne; and tk~at
both tl~e County of Orange and the Stt~te of Califnrnia have established the
Scenic C~ "~~.dor (SC) Overlay Zore ro~,-.aaries as delineateu ~.n +-h~ City of
Anahe~.m :~ic C~rridor (SC) av~rlay Zone for Santa Ana Canyon, and any d~:via-
tion by ti~e City wou].d ~ot b~~ ari act of go~d faith c~rit:h the other jurisdf.ctions.
(See Resolution Book)
Commissioner Herbst no~e3 f~ ~ the ~v;~;miasian that L•he ~ab;eot type use had
:~,aen considered and enco~+r~y~d as an a nterim uae ~.n the M-1 2one; that in his
ap~nion~ no nrA:=::~:tYC wou1~ be estab3.ishea if the entire use was screcned b~
an 8-~oot masonry wali and posaibly tr.Q petitioner would do this to make the
use compatible; that there was a comparabla use already in the 5cenic Corridoz
and the Commission would be d~anying *_his petxtioner a right beinq enjcye~ by
anotherj ~hat unleas screening and this type use w~re permitted, then i,~dustry
~
~
•
MINU'CEB, CTTY PLANNING COMMI~SION, NAV~-nbc~r ib, 1973 73-6E1
CONDITIONAI. USE PERMxT NO. 1434 (~'ontinued)
would not takH advAn~:aqe o~ this zone t i.hat where the gxounda or una~~~kt~ :J.n~ss
of the aite wauld no~ be exposed, the use would be cornpattbl~; th.at if thero
waa a w~y to meet the rer~u~romonte af the ordinance, the pxopoes3 us~~iahould
be a].lowed as it was need9c9 in the aulajeat area. He suqgesteli that a l•ima
limit aould ba pl~c~d on the uso s~.nc~e it wou13 be a nwnber of ye~ra before
the industrial area was rea~dy f~r ultimate dnvelapment.
Commiesi~nAr Saymour stated in hiH opi:iion the ~rapaaed usa waa compr~tible
with industrial zonin~ and not totally incompatible wtth t~he Scenic C~xri.cinr
Ordinr~nce, but tha~ serioa~s coneideration sk-ould be given to allowi~rig eczeon-
ing oF ar- unacc~ptah.le use in ordez to permit it.
Camm~ssioner k~arann noted for the Commiesion that the Scenic Corridor (SC)
Overlay Zone was drawn up ta place, ~he develo~Qrs ~i~d proper~y ownesrs nn noCicg
as to what de~r~lopmont wart or wae not expecte~l for thosP arenaj that i.,E t;i•~is
body c~id not give credance to tho ordin~nce, it would ba inef.ic~c:tive.
xhereupon, Mr. 8chwartze reHd from t.hQ 5cenic Carridox• Or.~i.nanc~, C:c~de Sectian
18.59.010 - nescriptxon and Fur~aa~e,, for th~ informatian c~f the Comaniae.ion.
Mr. Herk,ert Korton, 178~1 En~st Y,r~ Palma Avenue~ Anaheirn, Cal~.£~rn.ia, appc~ar~d
before ~he Commiaaton in Eavor o~ gubject petttion and tttatec9 i~-P ~J~~ ~.h~~ ow»e~
~f progerty adjatning aubjecL- property, and questianecl whether sal.ci prc-~aext,y
was in County territory. Staff of~~zed Exhib~ts which ind3.c•~ted eaubjer,t
p•roperty wao presen*ly in the County and advised that the petiti.onox ttrt~t
initiated annexation proceedings ta thc City.
Mr. iiarton continued, he was aware of ~the ather similar use .iri th~ subj~ct
area which was also being used £ot storage of bi~ildi.ng mcttieri.alfs; that h~ w~a
not opposed to tha subject a~pllcMtinn provided ~ere would b~: a~3.ec~uaL•~ ~:encing
between the sub~ec:t property and th2 sur.rounding propex•tie~ devcla~~c1 w a.t:h
residence3. tie :Inqu,ired if there waa an .~rdinance which req~uireci ~1 f.ence i,n
this par.ticular appl.ication, and further stated he was x~ot ~war~ af. ~:~ ~~'a~'~'
hook-up f~r this ~~rc,perty.
Gommissioner ,~llred noted fa'r Mr. Harton that if sub ject pet•=+.r.ic:~n ~a~re gr<zzAted-
the petitioner woulc3 be requ:. .ed to have a tenable situa~iori wki:ich woul.d in-
~lude sewPr hook-up and paving of the gropQrty.
Mr. Larry Biv~z~s, a~3ent and architect for the petitioner, a.ppf~~l.z-ed l:~rafarc~ the
~ommission and statecl he understaod f.r~m ~alkinq witP~ the c)x: ~~nc~~~ c~o~zn~.t7~ L~lan-
ning Aepartment, they were presea~tly considering changinq r:he ~~ez:ni~t•t:a~r~ uses
for ~hP subjectc property to include storage wi~hout a condi;..~onal u.se ~ermit;
that subject property was presently in annexati.on proceeli~:~,3s to t.h~: Cxt'y of_
Anaheim; tliat suY~ject property was within a block of aa n:.isti~-g :si.rnz.l~ir use;
ar~d that unde.r the pre3ent zoni.ng, subject property c~u~d b~: dr~v~.~:t.~:r,~ed as a
re^r.eational starage yard in tt~e County.
The Con~missxon ente:red inta discus~ion con~:erniny estab~i.:~lvn~r~t: af Yhe Sceni~:
Corridc~r (SC) ~v~r].ay Zone, and Staf~ advise~. the Caunty ~ad ~.~axt.ic:ipatPd in
the formulation of said zone requirements, and that~ t.he f~C Zan~ ~~r~~.~= adoYr~~c~ by
the Couni;y and ~lsc~ approvecl by the State of Cali.fc:.rnit~.
Commissi.oner Faranc mac~e an observation that, on itr, ~wn me~ i~_, the Comma.ssion
woulr~ probably agree witY~ t:~e proposa].; that unl~gq a tirn+:: ~i,;iit: could be
imposed, this use might interfere with the timely kpcc~nomic deve?opment af the
area.
In repJ.y to questi.on by Commis~ionex All.rea, Mr. 'd:iv~~ns aa;-i~ed `~e was n.~•~
sure +~hat p~riod af time wuuld be appropr.iate fc~r limit~i_nq ~he }~roposc~ uK~;.~
however, he would feel that less than ten yearg wc~uld b~~ de~irable ber.~~.~.~se
tYie property value: woul.d dictate an industria]. u~~~,
On rol~ ca11, the foregoing resolution was pa~s~ed by the follow~ng vc~~t~~:
AYE~: .^.UMb1ISSTC)t3ERS: Allr~d, Farana, Gauer, K:i.ng, S~ymour.
NOES: COMMISSI~~I~ERS: Herbst.
.AB5ENT: COt~.nIS5I0NERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONER~: Rowland.
~
~...
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNIN~ C~MM~f3SIUN, t~ovomber ?6, 1979
73~682
C4NGTTIOIvAL U8~ - PUBI,IC HEARTNG. H• W. AI.~I) MARC~I,LA V. WATTEf.iS, ~Lie
p~RMIT NO. 1435 Highland, Newport Beech, C~. 92ti60, Ownexaj KNtJDSAN/MIL~9,
'""""' ' 17731 Irvinc+ Boutevard, ~ui•t4 103, Tustin, Ca. 92680,
Agentr reque~ting parm~.ssion to ESTABLI3H I~1N OUTDOOR
RECREATIONAL FACTI~Iti'Y INCLUDING BATTING GAGES AND T12AI~.'OI.TN~~ on property
described as: A r~sctangularly-ahr~p~d pdreel og land aon~~.sting o! agproxi-
m~tely .9 acre, heving a frontage o! approxima~e].y 124 feet on the south aid~
of Colchester Driva, having a maximum d~pth of dppro~in-d~e?y 259 teet, and
b~ing locatecl apgxoximately 275 ~eet weat of L•he cer~terline o! Bzookhurat
;- ~.reet. propg~ty prenently CLAg9~P~.9Q C-1, GENERAL CflMMk:RCIAL, ZOIaE.
A;~3iatant Zoning Supervi.~sor Phillip 9ahwar.tze reviewed tk~e loaation of ~ubject
pr~~pert.y, previoua zoniny actiox~ on ~.he rroperty and th~ r~quest to establi.sh
an outdo~x reaxeationdl tacll.ityi that submitte3 plana indic:ated the f.acility
w~uld cont~in ~2 batting cr~g~~ an8 mmchinea encloeed by 10 to 15-Poot high,
~~°~ain].i.nk fencing covered over by nylon netting auepended tr~m a 45-foot high,
kight.ed au~port pole locatQd in the aoutl~ea8t corner o:' the propoaed bat~ing
ur~a, and other 25-•Eoot high structural sup~ortsl and thak three 20-foot hiqh
~~-~a ].ight~ would bQ located around ~he parimQl:er of the batting cage area.
He cunt~nued that the pxo~osed tramgoline area would ccn~Ain eixteen 8x14-foot
i:r~m~~lines and wou].d be enclospd by 5-fpot high, chai~z~ink fencing with thz'ee
25--foot high ~~~:ea .liqh~s ro be located on the perimeter of the txampoline area
adjacent to che parking 1~~ to the nartherly end of the ai*e~ that the txampo-
l.in~ are~ would Ua separated from the adjacant paxkinq area by a 3-f~ot wi.de
}~lanter of tress and shrubs; and i:hat the ~etitioner also propoeed to instt~ll
ni.ne pink~all mach.ines anc~ three skill gam~s wi•thin the proposer~ 1.820-aquare
f.ac~t buildiny area.
Mr. ~ chwar.tze point~d out that a tot~il of 32 parking space:e were progo~aodl
however, cu.rzent Code stasidards did not speci~fy a parking requiremeizt for the
gr~Jaosed use. Further, that the Commiseion mi.ght wish to determine if ~.he
outdr~ar recr~.~~tional facility woul.d be compar.able to a miniature golf aour9e
and, it so~ the petitic~ne.:'s proposal would be in conEormance with that ~tand-
arcl; and tha~ ~uch a deter.minztion wauld li.ksly becom~ a precedent for further
si.mi].ar pr.oposal.s.
Mr. D~rre.ll Knud~on, agent for the petitif~ei~i~nP~nd~statedrthatethe~~.affon
and p~:esented ren~erings ~~ the proposec~ Y
Report, as outla.ne3 by Mr. ScYiwartze, was correct.
Up~n quegtioninq by the Commission, Mr. Knucison stated they did not hav~ a
~imi].a.: faci.Iity e:l:~ewhere; that in hze opin.ion the reason trampolir~e £acili-
t:ies h~d nofi been guccessful in the past was mainly due to insurance factors;
rhat the ~~r<~posed facility was rice and would attract enough patrons; that
they had laoked a~ o~her facilities, i.e., ttie batting cage locat~d on Seach
Ii~iilevard, and although it was sti].1 being used, experience-wiae he did not
place that facility in the same categor.y as the ~ne being p~aposed.
Mrs. Thelma Fergusc~n of the Co].any Apartments, located near the progosed
£aci;.ity to L-he west, appeared before the Coznmission in upposit:ton to subject
pet~tion anc~ questioned the n~.~mber of parking spaces b~ing pr.oposed and stated
t:~ere was barely adequate parking on Colony S~reet for her tenants' use.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Ther.eapcn, Mr. Schwartze reit~erated for the Commissinn t.hai: the petitioner
was pr~r~osi^n 3:. pa~.king spa~es but that Staff was not ~.~lvising the Commission
this was either ade~uate or inadequate; that there were no Cade gtandards or
requirements for t:-e proposed use, althaugh it cou.ld possi,bly k~e determined
to be similar to a mini.a,tu.re golf course, for which the applicable require~
ment cvould be 20 parking spaces; but that any determination rested with the
plann.ii~.g Commis~i.on.
Upan questioiiing by the Commission, Mrs. Fe:.guson stated tho apartment coriplex
provided one garage £or each apartment and same of the tenants k~ad as many as
three carg and that the ext.ra cars parkad ~n Colony Stree~F further, that when
t-hP apartments were canstri?a~e~i approximately t~elve yea~~ ago, they met the
Ctty'~ reyuiremen~s.
~ ~
MINU7'ES, CTTY PI~ANNTNG COMMI~BxON, NpVembez' 26 ~ 1973 '~3~b83
CQN~ITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1a35 (Continued)
Mr. Knudson atated khe~ ~lid not ~e~l they need~d more ~han 32 parking spaaes~
tha~t Mr. MileR, his Rsaooiate, I1dQ lived in this vicin~.L•y Por meny yeare, nnd
he also beliaved the~ proposec9 parking enacAe would be, emple.
CommissionQr Seymour note~d for the Commiegion that the facilitiea loadte~d on
Beaah Baulovard and at Lincoln anc~ Magnolie- hdQ eunple purking, but ~htat ~te d~d
not know how many spaceat that fr~m hiA ~xperience in patroni~ing thia tyQe
tacility, thero was no ovex~loading p~rkiny problem becauaa the yaung~tera ~r-d
teonagere rode their bi~Xcle~.
Mr. Schwr~rtze advised the Commission, 3taff oou~.d r~view thc~s0 eimil+~r P.Aail~-
ties mentioned for parkinc~ pzovided and report back to the Comomtssian. He
lurthpr atated there wafl a mixture af uees iri the surrounding devnlo~ment,
and that if tlie Commiseion detc~rmined the proposal to be a~compatible uee, ~ia
waivars would be necessar,y.
Co~r,miss~~ners questloned the neceseity for ~he 45-faat high pol~ ~r-d light,
and Mr. Knudson indicatad if this were lowerad, it wou.ld not be satittfactoryi
th~t the light centered on the batting caqe and pravided area lighting equiva-
lent to ~hat in the Council Chamboz't that ii: lighted only a gma11 drea and
wou].d not ahins off i.nto the residential arpa, and he so stipulated to dire~t-
ing all lighting downward so as to min~.mixe an} undoairalale lighti.ng eff~ats
~n surrouncli.ng reaid~ntial development$.
In reply to additionul questioninq, Mr. Knudson stated the netting woixld be
made of nylon, which must be replaaed approximately ~nca g y'ear due tio rottinqt
that they had ahosen the subject ~ite becauae fi~ere seemed t~ b~ a n~e3 in the,
area for this type facility.
Commissiener SeXmour stated tie was sure ther~ was a need in that area £or the
proposed use and noted f.or the Ccmml~sion that the batting cage p~esently
being uaed by tihe Little 7~~ague on Lincoln Avenue was s~heduled to be xemoved
soon.
Commissiorier A].lred offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner 5eymoL~r and
MOTION CARRZED, that the Planning Commission, in connection with tan exemption
declaration status re..luest, finds and detarmines that the proposal would have
no signifi.cant environmental a.mpact a~nd, therefore, recommend~ to the City
Council that no Ez~vironmental Impact St~atement was necessary.
Ccmmissioner Allred offered Reaolutien t1o. PC73-250 and moved for its passage
~nsi adoption to grant Peti.tion for Cor,ai~ional U~e Permit No. 1435 subject to
all lighting being directed downward so as to minimize the unc~esirable light-
ing effects on sur:ounding residential dev~elopmeni:s, ~:nd subject t~ condi~ion~.
Conunissioner Herbs't stated he would like to see a tizne limi~k imposed on this
parti.cula.r use since i.t was proposed in a shQppinq center, ther.eby giving the
Planning Commission an oppoztunity to xeview it lat.~r on, and if the ptoposed
use was tcrminated, the condi.tional use permit would also be terr.~inated.
~n re~ponse to questioniug by the Commission, bir. KnudaQn stated the,y wou].c~
stipulate to a five-year time limit, if reque3ted ta ~o so, althoucrh they were
constructing a buildinq and did not feel the sugge~ted five-year limi~tation
wauld be feasible.
Deputy City Aticorney Fran)c T~owry advised if the use were terminat~d, the bui].c~-
ing could conceivably be used while the remainder of the £acili.ties were ra-
maved; that the Code provi-led where a use was not utila.zed for a pexi~c] nf six
m~nths, it would be consia.Pr.ed aY~andoned.
Commissioners anc~ Staff entere~ into discussion concerning ~he prdposed u~e and
possible ~:ventuaL c7a.scontinuaiics, during whj.ch it ~was painted out that the use,
if limited, did not run wi~h the land~ and iE disccntinued, there would be no
further ~ondi~ional uae put on the subject Froperty unless another conditional
use permit was granted.
Zoning Supprvisor Chai es Ftoberts clarifi~d that Mr, Rnudson understovd tne
time l~mitat.ion being dir~aussed and the earlies atipulation thezetoj tl~at if
the use was detezmined at a later date to be detrimental or incompatible to
s
~
MINti1TE8, CITY PLAI~NTN~ COMMTSSION, Novambe+r 26~ 19~3
CONDITIONAL US~ P~RMIT N0. 1435 (Cohtin~ied)
73-b84
th9 area, it could be dleconti7uad by the P].anninq Cammiseion. :~hereupon,
Mr. Knudson atatdd although h~ underatood, he~ was not gure at the e~nd of ~iv~
yomro th.ey would bo able ta aome out ~aonnmioally.
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowr~r notefl tox tihe Commi.esion that Code Section
18.64.050 limited nppxoval of the uee to ~ha plaite ~dnd apeai~icakions, an
~ubmitted, and thAt there were fivo qroun~e nn which the use aould b~ termi~
nax~+d .
Upon ~further questinning by the Commiesion, Mr. Knuda~n stated althouqh tennie
maahinea wore being developed and may ba desirable at th~.a lacation~ he wns
not r~qu~+etinq tha~ at thia time.
Commiasionere adv~ sed N~r. ICnudaon that if thig use were not incluc~ed at th~.s
time, he wauld need to rQapply at euch time as he wished to i.nclude itr ~rhere-
upon Mr. Knuclson indica.teci he would like that uae i.ncluded in the subjec~
poti~ion. Further, that he did not anticipnte eerving ~eer and wine now or in
~he Eukur.e at this locai:ion~ that all eigning would be as submitted in th~
planst that garticu].arly durinq the baaeb~ll eeason they wauld want to be open
until 10:U0 p.m., and atipu.Lated to tlie canditi.on the facility would clase nnt
later than 10:00 p.m. on a yedx-round basi$.
Thereupon Commissioner .Allred amencled hie mot~.ori and ofierec~ Re~olution No.
pC73-250 und moved ~~r its passage and adorit~on to grant Pet:ition for Condi-
tiona~. t~~F Permit No. 14~5 subiect to the conditipn that any signinq prop~sed
for subject~ proper~y shall be in conformance with the Sign Ard~.nttnc~; tl~at
tha houra of operati~n ~hall not ~xtend to bAyond 10:00 p.m., as stipulatad
~o by thc~ petitionert that all proposc~d ligl~ting shal.l be directed downward
eo as to minimize the undesira~ble liqhting eftects ora surxounc7ing resident.ial
developmen~, aa stipulat~d to by the petitianeri that the pruposeol. use may be
expai~ded to include tennis machxnos, as requested by the petitione.r; and
subjoct to cor.ditions eet forth i:~ th~ Staf~ Report. iSee Resolut:lon Book)
On ~oll call. the for.egoing resolution was passed by ~he fcllowing vote:
AXES: COMMISSIQNERS: Allred, Farario~ Gauar, Herbst, iCi.ng, Rowlar~d, Seymour.
NOES : COMMISSIONF~FtS : None.
ABS~'NT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ENVIRUNMENTAL IMPACT
~tEPORT NO. 107
FtECLA5SIFrCATION
N0. 73-74-27
VARIANCE NO. 2555
TENTATIVE MA.P OF
TRAGT N0. 8511
of the inters~ction
pre~ently classified
- PiT~3LIC HEARING. STATE OF CALIFCi..~1IA, UEPARTI~L•'NT OF
TRANSPORTATION, nistrict 7, P. O. Box 2304, LoES Ange].e~,
Ca. 90054 and PRUUEIYGI~ E. 'YORBA, c/o Albert Yarba,
20911 Esperinza Road, Anaheim, Ca. 92805, o4ra~r~s;
WILY,IAM F. LYON COA~ANY, 366 San Miguel Drive, ~;uite
201., Newport aeach, Ca. 9266~, Ayent; TOUPS ENi~7.'rIE~;RTNG,
INC., ].010 North Main Sz,reef, Santa Ana, Ca. 92701,
Eng~neer. Property described as: ~1n irregt.l.ar•ly~shaped
oarcel c~ :.w^~? ^_onsi~ting o~ approximately 23.7 acres,
having a f.rantaqe of apgraximately 720 f.eet on the south
side of xmperial Hiqhwa~y, having a maximum dep::h of
approximately 640 feet, arsd being located northwe~tarl;~
of Orangethorpe Avenue and Imperial ~iighway. Propexty
COUNTY A1~ AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT.
REQUES~E~ CLASSIFICATIOtJ: R-?, MULTrPLE-FAMLLY RESTllENTIAL, ZQNE.
REQUESTED VAR2Ah'CE: WAIVERS OF (A) MRXINfiUM PERM~TTEA HEIGIi'!' WITHTN 1S0 FEET
OF AN R-A ~ONE AND (B) REQUIRED MASC~NRY WAL.L ABUTTTNG A
SINGLE-FAMILY RE~STDENTtAL ZONE, to ESTABLTSH A 248-UNIT
TiULTTPLE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPDIEIdT.
'.1'ENTF""IVE TRACT REQUEST~ SUBUIVIDE 23.7 Ai.:aES IN'PO Ft7UR R-2 ZONr;D LOTS.
ApT~roximats~l~ fifteen persons indicated their presanre ~n o?position to ~ubject
p: ,.itiong.
L~
~
MZNUTE3, CITX PI~ANNING COMMI5~ION- Nov~mbar 26, 1973 73-685
E~IVIRONMEHTAI~ IMF`ACT ~PQRT NO. 10'7, RECLAS3IFICATION N0. 73~74~27, VARIANCE
N0. 2565 AND TENT~ZTTVE MAk oF TRACT N0. 8511 (con~~ ea) ~, _
A~~istant Zoning 3uporv~.eor Phfllip Sahwdztxe reviewed ~he lacat.ion af ~ubjeat
pxopertX and atated 1:he nurroundinq l~nd uo~e inaludod t~ City of 1~nakie~.m RS-5~J0
trdct and echool ~o tha narthwoat, und~valop~d R~A property to the aouthear~}
(k.untatively proposed for futiure cievolopment oP an F.-3 apaztment, pra~ect. an6 a
C-1 aommercial eite) , and R-2 ~ multipl~ xn~eic7ontial to the aouth•~reat; that the
properL•y wa~ bounded o» tho northonet and east by Tmperial Higl.way and a poxtion
of ~he Yurba Linda Gowltry C].ub Golf Coursaj that subject pr~perty wag aurrQntly
pxoposed Pnr annexation to the City of Ar«heim in conjunati~n with thL~ appli-
cation~ that submitted p!.ans indiaeta e- proposal to egtabliah a 248-unit "air-
apaao" ai:atutory connumi.niun- develapmant with a row of singl~-atoxy duplexes
ndjacant to the RS-5000 zaned property on tho nor~h, on ~aur R-2 l~tsJ *_h~t t.he
propased project, un~ler ~~ne~ tentative tract~ would be comprised of 62 aeparate
multipla-family x'eaic1en~i.a]. bui.ldinqa, four units each, f~r the total af 246
dwr~lling unit~T nnd thai: a central recrea~ion area was rropose8 ad~acent to the
wPSterly praperL•y boundary at Maple Cree~ Drive.
Mr. Schwax~xe continued by stating each of th~ 62 buildi.ng~ wou.ltl be compxised
oF two, i:wa-story unii:s anci two, one-~tory unite, three enclosc~cl ~~atio areas
which would be ~.mpY•ov~c3 by tha c~eveloQer, and five enclos9d one••car garages;
~:hat the unite would zange in prtce from Sz0,9~0 to $25,990, an~ iii ~ize from
936 ~qu~r~ f~et for a ane-~~;ory u-iit ta a maximum of 1182 square feet for the
largest ~wo-r~tox'y unit; thnt the petitio~ner prop~sed to provide ar, additional
124 opsn parlcing spaces acljacEnt t~~ the k,uildi.ngs, as well P.s 80 on-si:reet
p~rking SptiCPB ori 36-fc~ot wide~ private s~reeta, wit.h t~ccess i~~ khe garag~a
~~nd open space parking to be by ty~LCal 20-foot wide dri~•=rays; that the pro-
Fu~sed dc~ve~opment wduld have a parking ra~.io af 2.0'/ ~pu~es per unit which would
be in conformance with Code de~vclopme:~t standarde.
Mr. Schwart.z~ €ur.ther stated that caighl. of tha two-story buildings wou3.d be
w.i.thin 150 fEet af the R-A 2on~: bour~dar~t to the southeast an~l a wal.ver ~f maxi-
mum building heigh~ would he rE~quired; that the pe•l•itxoner was p:~posing a
weiiver. of the require~ six-foot ma~unry wa1Z abu' 41ng the single-fami.ly resi-
dential zones to tYie north and ~3outh; tha•t: the ~roposed distances between
buildings and setbacks betwaa.= ~~uil~ings a,nc~ propexty lines would be in cc~n~
farz~aricE~ with Code standards; that access to the pr~posed cieveiup,«~r~ ~o~~'ld be
by t~ao public streets, Ma~le Cre,st Drive ana9 Willow Woo~.s Drive, leading into
an interior 6~-foot wide public a:'~ree~ ~nd t~aa private cul-dP-sac streets in
the project.; that the petitioner proposed a net density of approximately 13.7
dwr~lling units per acre and R-2 zoninq would permit a maximum of 18 units,
however, the proposed net density w~uld be in excesa of the Commis~ion°s policy
of a maxin~um ~f. 12 dweJ.ling units per ~cre. He pointe~ out that th~ Ccmmission,
.in itg consideration of the development to the sc~uth of th~ subject prcperty,
Y..~d expressea conc_rn over a 20-fo~~t landacaped buffer prov:~ded betaeen the
singJ.e-family and multxple-family c~evelc~pments.
The Gommission noted the exhibits were too sma1.~. £or proper viewing.
Mr,. 3?9ter Cchs, represanting the agE!nt for the l~etitioner, 2ppeared befor~ th~
Conar~lssion ancl tuxther reviewed the adjcin.ing l_a.iel uses and stated their origi-
nal tract, wkiich bo.rdered the subject ~roper.ty on the southeast, was approved
by ~:he Planning Commission and Ci~y t:ouncil in 1971 and was currently under
c~na~truction; t~iat subject develcpmerit was bagi.cal~.y a continuation of th~ir
project to the south~ that the pr.oposed pr.Qject was 30 pairs nf buildin~s, each
containlr.~e~ eight uni ;, and also a si.ngle row o;~ duplex lots to serve as a
buffE~x bei:ween the ~ingle-fami~y trsct: and the pzoposed condominium units; that
t.lleir ~xis~ing proj~ct was se].ling qui.te we11 and as a result of that, they h~d
tied ~~~~ additienal ad;laGent lands and prop~sed a continuation of the current
projec~t onto thos~ .taiids; that they prQpared layout stuc?iPS and met with thc:
City Staff a~nd, as a z~~sult af those discussi.ons, had changed their origir~al
pl~n t,o a more inter~sting la.youk, reducing ~he plan by 2~ units; that becausP
of the lang shape c~f tlie land it wauld be difficult to have a much d~fferent
plan for davelopment; that the typical units were condom~.nium townhouse; that
on~e-half the units had two bec~rooms and one-half had three bedrooms; that they
were appemling to two markets W the young, married buyer o~ a~irst home with
no childxen or onl,y one child, and th~ young, unmarried professional type
perceon, tired o~ living .in an apartment and ~viahiraq the amenities oi homc~ own-
ereh:Lp; however, a broad range of peo~+le found their current praject to be in
•
C.~
MINUTE3, CITX ~LANNING COMMISSION, November 26, 1~973 73-586
~NVIItONMENTAI~ IMPd+CT ~tEPO~.T Nb. 107, ItECL'11SSIFICATION N0. 7:~~7q~27, V,AItxANCE
NA. 2565 AND TENTATTVE MAP OF TFtACT N0. 851]. (Conti,nue~!) ,_.__
a compAtible price range~ that moat of thaee p~irohasers wer~ previou~ r~ai.denta
af Anaheim, just movj.lg out n little, but who wor~k~d within live or ten mil~as
of the pzo~ectt that the current nverage pric~ ~~~ 523,!500 wc~ul.d be a~pproximately
Y2~,S40 beqinninq in 1974 due tn x',ia~.ng aostsj that the proposal was lli leas
denae tY~dn the current pra;~ectt the~t the recroatiunaJ. ~aoili~t~.es wera be~eicelly
the srtmo ng the ci~rront pro~ect with swimming p~ol, aabanA buildinq and tot lotl
that ~he to~al open space was approximat~ly 12 acre~ with ralakivoly li~tle, lancl
slopeT and that th~ cc~st to the owne~s would ba up~roximately $~0 por n~onth f~r
maintenance.
Mr. Ochs axplained tiheir pr~posal with reqard to the overall plan ~or lancinq
anc. ope~n egac~ surrounding the ~ubjoat propr~rkyJ ~hdt th~y proppeed ~ block
wall periphery i;o Imperial Highway; that the Adimcent aingle-lamily develapment
already had a fence geparati.ng that property~, +and khey di.d ~t~t believe addi-
tiana~. fenci.ng wa~s necess~ry; that there was a e].ope bank a.nd thQ siz~gl~-~tami].y
development wae lower than the pro~osed project; an~~ aleo in that ,grea they were
proposing single-family duplexes; further, that they prcpoac~d a coxiti.nuati.an of
the block ~ral'l. bordering the achool property; that t•hey ~rap~sed no baxxier
where t.heix two pr,ojects adJoined since, from ~ visual standpoint, it wculd be a
mucti more attractivo preject if they appearad to be as one; that they wer~ Also
workiny wii:h ail:e plana £o~ R~3 development on the R-A property to the Qast, and
a landscaped barrier through th~t arsa would be much mors a~tructive than a
fenced or physical barrier; and thai: along the golf course tl'-ere wr~s oxisting
chainlink fencin5 tt~at they suygested remain f~r 1:he open e~fect ~na the view.
In conclusion, Mr. Ochs statzd they felt th~ir de~velopment ivas meeting a real
~,tea L~,. •,.='~Prate income housing in the communitxs that it woul.d be difficult
~o find th'_:-s ty~., uni.t elsewl~ere for the ~rice; that the exiatinq units were
very attractive in ~:ppearance and there was a~ositive reactian to thom in the
cammunity. He further stated the proposed projec~t aould be of ~aenefit to ~he
City.
Mr. M. D. Adamec, 1915 E?der Glen Circle, 1~naheim, California, appeared k~efore
ths Commission as spokesman for the residetit~ aE the si.ngle-famllYroximatelent
adjacent to the aubject property anc~ presen~..d a p~_i.tion with app Y
200 si.gnatures i~ opposition to s~zbject petiti~n. He stated when they purchased
their homes, they were given every ix~dication de~relopment. ^f tYie ~uY~ject prop-
erty would be single-family dwE:llinga; that th~.y realized the Wi.lliam F. I~yan
Company was not responsible for what they were told when ~hey gurchased their
homes, but th.e Cc~mpany was responsibla for requesting variances from existing
Code requirements; that waiver of the block wall separating the single-family
developmeat would be intolerable; that the proposal s~amed to b~ a cost-saving
device on the part of the develaper and at the exper.se of the property owners
~iri the single-family dzvelopment; that the eX~gting l:en.ce referrecZ ~o by Mr.
Ochs was a s;mple granestake fence, not of high quality, and was the minimum
requirement for VA and FHA finax~ciny, and tberef.ore inadequat~e to set aside
th.eir ar~a from the proposed development; that a mast importan~: fact was most
of the residents in the single-£ainily development had mo~ved from a multiple-
family environment and did not wish ta have the ~roposed environment imposed
upon them, and in ord~t to retain thea.r ri3hts and privacy, he rec~uested the
bloak wall restriction be enforced; Chat t:l~ey believed the purpose of th~ Code
requir~ment was to protect t.h~ir invesi:me:~t and way of lifs; and t}aat they did
not want a two-sL•ory buildi.ng er.ected immediately adjacent to their progerties.
He £urther stated they vnderstood the pr~~po3a1 would grovide accese vi~ Crest-
hill Drive~ which runs through the single-family develo~m~nt, a:nd they were
emphaticazly opposeda that i:he development would add a minimum of 3Q0 vehicles
to their ~treets and ff Cresthill Drive were a thro~~qh atx•eeC, it wou].d bc~ used
by many of the high schc,ol students traveling to anc~ from the new Esperanza
High Sahool; that their main cancern was privacy and rQlatfve safat~~ from vehic-
ular traffic; that ths homes were situated on cul-de-sacs feedin~g into Cresthill
Drive and on Cresthill Drive itself which pre~entl4 daadended= that the six~gle-
family developmenti hac~. approximatelx 130 children approximately four to fiv~
yea~s of age, and added traffic on Cres~hill Drive woulu be an unnecessary
hazard; and tha~ loqically, access through Creathill woulci be an indirect route,
at best, and he woulc3 suyqest acces~ through existing si;re~ta in the current
pro~ect for a more direct and convenient rou~e.
~
~
MxN-JTESe CITY. PLANNING COI~IMI3^aION, NoVt3mber 'l6~ 1973 73~-68'7
ENVIA~CINMENTAL 1MP]~CT RP:PORT N0. 107, RECLA5STFTCATTON N0. 73-74~-27, VARIANCE
N0. 2565 A1VD '1'ENmATI ~,: MAi' OF TRACT NO ~ 8511 (C~ntinued)
Mr~ Ademec canolud~d by etnting thefr meaning o~ invostmen.t waQ the immedi.a~te
fu~-ure enrichment og their livae and that of thoir childreni t.hnt tho future
r~~3ldenta of tha nmw davolopmant would egreH with this dePinition, but tr~at
tho Willi.am F. Lyon Compa~ny, ae a ec+rrror.t~tion, aauld nCVti~ adhore to it~ that
atter tho ddvelopment wes orected, onl~• the res.idents would remain and the
Compdny would lesve. E~o thej~ questioned tc~ whose benefit were the requ~at~d
vfir~.ancae an~. tha propoNed dCC@OS ~hrough Cresthill Drive; an~9 stated wY~il~
tt~e residents of the single-family c~evelopment der~ired R-1 dQ•~elopment on t.2ie
s~abject kroper:y, they wd~e r~asonable people trying to protf~Gt their inveat-
ment, privACy +~nd c.hildren, and i.f the Conunisaion alZowed ~he proporty to bc
deve~oped as It-2, they would requQat c~nforc:ement of the bloc:k wall requi,xement
and donin~. of. accees thxough Cresthill Drive.
Mra. Collins, 1922 E~.3er G~en Circl~, Anaheim, Cr~l.ifornia, a~.~peared beforQ th~
Comm~.t±eion in oppositxon and et.atHd her main c~bjec:ti.on to sub;ect petition was
invasion af ~arivacyt ~hat tho fence referred to bordering the s~ibject propez•ty
line was l.ocated at the bottom of the ~ill which ris~s approxima':aly Eour fe~t
above the fence, and overlooks dire~tly into tre back yaxds of thQ single-
f.tunily residences~ providing 11J protection at all; that tht new r.esidenta could
lQOk directly i.nto her master b~droom3 and that she understood Mr. Ochs did not
intend to lovel th~ praperty but would be mai.ntaining i;ho ~,reaent el~vatiuii.
Mz~. Marilyn Howser, 1926 Elder G~en Circle, ~'~nahexm, California, app~:ared be-
~ore the C7mmiesion in opposition and stated she had ~ust spent $7500 for a
swimminq pool and ather improv~ments in h~r k~ack yard, and that the hill burde.r-
~ng ~he pzopezty line abutting her groper~y was a 25 to 30-foot embankmen~, and
she did not feel ehe would have s~ny privacy.
Mr. Ochs appeared bef~re the Commis~ion in rebu'~.~a1 and stated he had appr.eci-
ated running up against reasonable upposition; ~hat his company would do ev~ry-
thing they could to ~ry to meet the legitimate complaints; that the Company
also had to meet t.heir own economic n~cessi.ties; however, regarding access,
they had att~emptec~ to all.eviate the problem on ~resthill Drive; that theX were
encouraginq ~I~e us~e of the two streets c~ainq straight through to Orangethorpe
,~nd adding the pr~vision ~hat an additiona]. public street be e~ctended ttirouyh
the prvpertY to kY-e sout.h, pxoviding a third msans of access onto Orangethorpe;
th~.t tlZe configurution of the ~roj~ct was to discourage through traf£ic as much
as poasible, axed perhaps the City c~uld provide signalizatiox~ to further. dis-
cour.a~e throunh traffici that there must be through circulation iri the project,
however, they werE: Apen to any suggest:.ons. He continued concerning the waiver
of the block wal7., that he would put the Company on record they would erect a
block wall to replace the existing wnod fence at the fooi: of the slope oi• also
pxovid~ a feiice al-, the top of the hill, whatever the Commission felt was the
beat solution to the problem b~ing Expressed; that as far as the spec~tic zaning
was concerned, th~ Ceneral Plan indicated medium density for the subject prop-
erty and the prog~osal was con~istent wi.th that zoning; that the row of. single-
stAry duplexes pz~oposed at the top of the slope would aid in the transition;
that he would compare the purch~asers of t2ie proposed units with si.ngle-family
home~wners, in t}iat they had the ~ame concerns az~d th~ samc: nee3s; that R-1
development o~n tlie subj~~t pr~perty was r~ot economically £easible; and that a
major $200,OQ0 s+torm drain must be c~nstructed before the proparty could be
developed, placir~g an added burden on the Comp~ny.
THE PUBLIC HEARItJG WA5 CLOuED.
Cqmmission~r Allred noted that when the Comniissianers visited the project
aurrently ur~der cona~xuction to the ~outh, they had to t*_-y seveYal times bef~re
they c~uld succeasfull.y make the right turn in arder to get a medium-sized City
automot~ile into one cf the ~arages; that bef~te he would even consider approv--
ing the subject patiti.on, the yarage door size would 'nave to be corrected; and
thato in his op:i.nion, sub~ect property was more appropriate for RS-50U0, One-
Family developm~~nt, and he w~uld vote "no" f~r an~thing other t.han that.
Commissioner Herbs~ r-oted tr.at the garage structures in the developm~nt under
constructian were to be 1Ox20 feet; however, ~.he doors were only ~ight fP~t
wida, makinq it a3.most impassible for wide tra~k ~utomobiles to ~c~~- snto the
~ !
MT.NUT~S, L'IT'Y :LANNING COMM1551~~N, Novamber 26, 1973 73~688
~NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT R~;PORT NO, ].t~7, F.LCL1~8'3IFICATxON NO. 73-74-27, VARTANCE
N0. 2565 AND T~NTATTVE MAP OF TRACT NG. 851.1 ~(C., or~ti~nued) ___
qe~rage~~ an~ in a~~ply to his c~uc~ati.oris conaerninq oft-stxeet parking, Mr, Oahe
ddvioed in ac~dition to tho qarages, there were two otl~etxeet parking spaoeg
ppr building, although ~hey ware not indioatad on the plans~ an8 that gueet
pAr.kinq was provi~~c~d un ttie strQ~t and the etr~ets wero being constructod
wider for this purpose.
^,cxnmissi~ner Herbs~ continued bx e~ating the c.urrentarki.n~cwas~~.hat~th~Vdiffer-
qr~ough parkina t that: c~rie oE his noncorna r~gardi:ig p g
ence b~etwe~en an R-2 ~nd an R-1 home wa9 that R-1 r-or.z-A7.ly provid~d For twc~ cars
in the garage, two c.ar.a on the apron ~nd then one BPACQ og on--street parking,
prnviding roughly fivs pazking ~talls ~pr 1-~ame and atill rliere were aome prob-
1e,tte p and that tl~e cordominiums did not a~pl~ parking tht~t was normal ly pra-
vi.dod in R-1 developmenta, cr~ating aevere park~nq a.nd circulation prnhlema.
Mr. AchQ stat.ed they had the abiliti~a 8I1C~ wexe willing to prc~vide addition~l
par~Cing in thQ satbacks for tt~e buildings, and al though thin would cut i~~to th~
green ap~ce, they did not feel it would be an ~dv~rse conaideratian= and that
theze ,~ere five covexed sp~ce~ ~nc~ two open epace~ por buil~ing, hcnv$vex, pgrk-
ing could ba provided at the anda of the build~nge. rurther, thny would be
wiJ.li.r-g to increase tre parking spaces if thc ConrLnissian could affer some
gu~.c~Ance .
CommXS~ioner R~wl~rid stated he seemed to be in the m3narity bat that he thought
tha product ~as a good one basically~t that as a hig'~~.y re~pected developer., he
was sure the William ~. Lyon Company was aware of tha changeb on the national
aCen~a and those changes manifested in this t~yp~ Rttviranment ell over. the
cauntryi that there were certa.in problema with t2zo prapos~al thet would huve ta
b~s re8olved before he could vote aff irmativel}~ Eor tha pro ject~ th.at t2:e pro-
pased density was at a maximum level for thi.~ type davelapment~ that most
communities had f.ound that the living• anvironmeiz t pravided i.n aondominiuma did
not en- ~nce the comr:~unitieg; ~chaL- as Commissioner Harbat pointed out, the park-
ing re._a; rem~nts placed on a sim:.lt~r type of development in Anaheim Hi.11s w~re
far gr~ater than were being proposed, and e~ven thouyh the proaen~ ordi.nance
permit~.ed tl~is densi~y, he would not sanction it, as he knew ful.l. well what the
impact woulci be in the development as well as t-.o the golf r.purse; t.hat the
future residents would be taking full advantage oi' all the open space, although
if the unita were on a rental basis they~ would hd~re a 3ifferent impa~t; that h~
was surprised the new ewner of ~.he Yorba Li.nda C~untr} ~lub was not pr~sent in
rec~~ynition of the pote.~tial i.mpac~ of the non-uaers on a golt course; that he
wo~ald not id and abet a developmer.t that wou13 noC enhanc~ the area; he sug-
ge:ited looping Cresthill Drive to solve the acc~ss ob~ections anc~. that th~
deyelo~er submit plans providing a project tY~at the enmmuni~y could live with
aa it ~+ertained to density, parking and circulation, ~ven ~.hcugh the,y had al-
ready worked with the City Staf£ and wero only re~uestinc~ 'NO waivezs. In
conclusi~n, he stated he would like to s~e the prob3er~g r~solvc~d, with less
than 10 units per acre denaity.
Mr~ Ochs stat~d 11e apgreciated the Comm.iss•lon's comments a~nd he woul.d like to
request a cantinuance; and that h.e would likF. to o~taia f~edback and a~ecif,ics
from the resldents and the City. Iie stated, concerning Cresthill Drive a3 a
through street, that gradirg and looping ~h1t s treet wo~.ld k~e an impossibili~.y;
that they had s~aen~ a great deal ~f time on tht~t access point and th~ proposal.
waa the only work~ble one in their opinioii; hawever, he was open to suggesti.ons,
especially f.rom the residents. Cozce~ning the golE courne, he stated the units
wauld be actually below the g~lf cour$e, and the chainlir~k fence would p.ra~ect
the course. He submitted that the gross proposed c3ensity wa~ 10.49, providing
f 250a00Qefordlandscaping~~f~the areas~ andathehcombination of e~,asts woul~Xmakeely
5
it very tough.
Commissioner SPymour aclvised MY. Ochs that his company should be familiar with
the rep~rts on condominiums across ~.he cour.~ry , and when the denaity surpassecl
10~ , it k~as nu longer a comfortable living environment7 that ~.he ~ity was in
t,lZe infancy stage3 of ].ear.ning the gaod t-nd bad pointe af condominiuira at the
time th~ ~urrenk develapment to the ~outh was con~ideredT and. that the develap~r
~ ~ •
MINUTFS, CTTY Y1~ANN:~NC COI•1MIS:5TON, Navembgr 26, 1973 73-689
ENVIRONNII:NTAL IN~~CT R~PART N0. 107, RE(~,A89xFICA~'I~N NO. 73-7~1-27, V~1RI1-NCF
N0. 2565 AND 'PENTATT VL MAr OF TRACT N0. 8511 (C~n~~nued) ______
might have oconumic vonaiderati.ane bu~ ti~e Commisaion w~s nofi Qonaerned about
those, al,~haugh they would ~ot like to have the devploper l~ava Che erea. Ho
painted out L•hat tYi~ deve].opar mixst cons ~.der the ob ject3.ona raiae6~ that a~tor
the proj~ct wus ~old, the property ownex.s and reeidents wauld remn~nl snd that
unlesa thce~e matters wer~ considered, the Commieaion wauld h~ve n~~ affix~mur.ive
r~c~ion .
Cnmmissic,n4r Farana made an obrs~rvation that if the Commiasi~z~ had ec~en i:he
pro}~~~~ed plans wtzen the curren~. projeat to ~he aouth wae being considared, he
would not Yiave ~~oted for that pro ject, r.~nd further stated he w~uld l.iko to vi~w
sUme new plans and effor.ts to res~lve tlie pr.oblem~ di~.^ussed.
Mr. Och:~ stated a two-weeY. canttnuance ~vould give them eno~tc~h time to prepare
new drawinga, and Mr. Schwartze advised a f.our.-wpek continuance waulCi be neces-
sary in or.der ta allow for appropriate interc3epartmental roview of reviaed
plana.
Commiasa.aner Seymour offered a mv~ion, sec~nded by Commi.asiorier Far.ano and
MOTIO:~ CARRIED, ~o r.eo~en thQ h~aring snd continue considezat~on oP Env~.xon-
mental Impact F.e~urt No. 107, Reclaesifiaat~on No. 73-74-27, Varianac~ No. 2565~
and Tentative M~p of Tr.act No. 8511 to the meeting of Deaember 27, 1973, in
order ~o AZ~.OW tim~ £or the developer to present revised plans.
r.EC~SS - Chairman Gauer declaxFd ~ rec:eas at 4:05 p.m.
~ECONVED'~ - Chairman c~auer reconvened the me~ti.ng at 4:17 p.m., a°.l
- Corunissionera being present.
VARIANCE NO. 2537 - PUBI,IC HEARING. ARTHUR B. WILMSEN, E:T .AL~ c/o Sank of
- ^ Am~rica, 801 North Main, Santa Ana, Ca. A2701, Owne~:;
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, 1786 West L' incoln Avenue,
Ana}~eim, Ca. 9280~ , Agent; requ~st~.ng WAIV~R O~' (.1) DEFT2dT2'LON OF "AUTOMUBILE
SE.kV:CCE STATION" , ( B) MA~{IMUM NUI~E~ OF FREF-ST.ANDING SIGNS, (C) M~NIMUM DIS-
TANCE HETWEEN FR~E--S'i'ANL~ING ~IGNS, ~1NA (D) MININIUM HEIGHT C~F FRFE-STANDING
SIGN TO D~ViLOP A CaMBI~VATI~IN 5ERVICE STATION 1~ND CONt7~NIENCE MARKET on prop-
erty described as : A zeGtan~ularly-shape~ pa~.•ce1 located at the northeast
corner of La Palma Avenue an~ State Cflllege Boulevarcl, having frontages o~
147 feet on both streets. Prc,perty presently claseified C-1, GENEF2AL COMMER-
CIAL, ZONE.
No ane appeared in oi~position.
Although the Repozt to the ~ommission was not read at the public hearing, it
is referred to and made a part cf the minutes.
Mr. Larry Ballard, Attorney, representing the agtnt for the petitioner,
appeared bef~re the Con~nissic n and st.ated their letter was on file with the
C~.ty, voluntarily terminai;ing the previous Variance No. 2433 for signs ~t the
subject location; that he had discussed the dokinition of service stations
with Staf£, and th~ request for sale of convenie;ice ~oods and sundriey in con-
junction with gasoline sales was not included in the Ccxie as a permitted us=,
however, the Code iadicatQd other uses were permi.tted unle:~s ~therwiee pra~
hibited; that, in general, service stationa were receiving strnnq competition
from large 3tores such as Montgumery Wards, ~. C. Penneys, et~., who buught
in larger quantiti~s and operated on a narrawer marqin than an independent
service station operator; that they had a large gas~line sales facility but
had apace ~vhic;i ~ov].d be ased to supplement that cn~aration and economically
enhance the total opera~ion; that in examining possib7.e uses fcr the corne~
loc.:tion, a convenience food market seemed to be the best of those uses; that
although the conve;iienc~ mazke~s were generaZly locatpd in clase proximity to
large markets, customers in t.he area wc~ulc~ oftsn stop at th~se snialler markets
fox it•ems such as bread and milk, eta. , to sav~ timef that 'tYie Cade stated a
service station was a facility "primarily" engagod in tY~e sa.1e of automotive
~ ~ •
MINLJTES, Cx7 '1,P":;'NG COMMI98IuN, Novemhe~c 26, ],973 73-690
VAR=ANCE NO. 2537 (~ontinuec~)
_...,.___.__~
good~ an~ thoy expeated their sales in tha~~ a~er~ would exae~ed aalee fram the
propogsd mnrket operationJ thdt they pxopoeecl a typicdl one-man, aounxar.-typo
~per~tion in th~ maxketi ~nd that the earvlca etation opoz~ation would b9 auko-
mated with no attendai~t boin~ nQCesaaxy.
THE PUHLIC HEAI~ING WA9 CL03ED.
Com~i~$ioner Farano inqui.red i~ M.- . Ba1~.~+rd was fiunilirr w~.th di.eci~esion be-
t~rsen the City and Maesrs. KP~_~ ar ' K~].inaak regarding khe aubjnct sar.vioe
att-tion ared the sign vari.ancc ~.:hex~ for, an3 further, if ~herF wae aay csontu-
ai.on aince many Agenta h~d be<~n irt~~~lved in handl.ing 'ie verianae, and atatec]
he understoud the signa wer~ t~? have been removod. 1,,; clarified hie reason-
xng £ox thie inquiry may no~ )~~~ ~~L aignif~nco, hawe~e~, thore had been so
many diHCUSSions Ai~d ~:eque~ts concer.ninq_ uses, aic~ning, eta. ,~uring thc~ pAm'~
c.oup~e c~f• yec~rg in an eff~rt ~ o impr.ove the Aervice etatian ~pera~tion' a eco-
nomi.Gal s~atua, Chat there was c~nfusian and implicr.t.ions to the future nature
of service atationa in thP Ci~y; that these mattera wer~ vdr~- tryin~ to the
City's ordinancej and that he wAS interestc~d in long-rango ple~ns for service
ytati.ons.
Mr . H111 Y.alina~k, 1756 Weat Lincoln Avenue, Anaheir~~, Cal~.fornia, appeared
before the ComOni~aion and stated D1r. 2tei1 had a~tr~ured h~,m the signa in qu~stion
1~ad been or would be rem~ved; and ~hat tr-ey haci also complied with the requesta
of the Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Mr . John Smitly, 515 Sout.h Flowe:r 3~reet, Lo~ Angele~, Californla, a~peared
b~fore t-he Coi-unission r~s Marketing Represen~tative for Atl.antic Richfield
Corn~any and stater~ he aFprecia~c:d the cozicerns of the Commission; tha~ cur~-
rently the oil business i.n gereral was in a great state af f1uYt that in the
~sat, 4evera'1 varianceg had beeti requeste~ in contiecti~n witt~ shiEking from
the Eull servi~e c~ncept to self-serviae and a combinatiox~ thereaf; that n~w
sta~ions had been dc~emed by their location tu 1~e appropriatE for e;ther full
sexvice or se] "-s~rvi.ce, but no1- a comba.nat~.<~n of b~thj and tha~c ~.he multitude
af signs wer~ c~nfusing to L-h~: c~_~stomers and the industry. He continued by
stating that t.hc: ~ropos~l wa~: not a"fly~by-night" operation arid was more
expensive than inst.alling a f.ew signs; that they antycipated an investment in
excesa of 540,000 for the reniod~].i.ng ~.n connection with the proposed usa; th~t
tlze proposPd concept had proved succ~ssful, mai.nly in the sout~wer~t and the
southeast and was no~ a new cox~cept in term~ of i.ts aaeept~bility znd feagi-
bility; and that they were p.raposing te service the segment of the community
needing su~ch a ~onveniencc~ .
Commissioner Farano r~:iterated r,is opinion that the pet~tioner was still w~rk-
~nq with experimeiital pr~grains and concepts; tl~at precedents h~~l l~een aet by
some ~f the previous requests for variancest tbat it appeared with approval of
siabject re;aest, the City would become ov~::-d~velopad wi~h these m~rkets and
s ix months latPr another propasal would be brought before the Commis~ion; anc3
that the Comm~ssi.an would not permit the ordinances to suffer un a continuing
bas is .
Chairman Gauer noted for the Commission that thF request af a Seven-Eleven
Marketi on East Street had petitianec~ to have gasolir:- s~les, and that pf~tition
was deni.ed, and the subject px'opoeal was a r~verae of that ~i.tuation; and that
the subject lo~ation was in very ~lose proximity to a majox market, and he
would t-oi;e against the subject petition.
Commissioner Allrad stated he did not understand why the petitioner pr.eferred
a conventence mar;:~t as opposed to automotive-oriented sales anc~ suygested
~a~ pc .ibly ~.he bays could be rented to customers for servicing of their awn
vehicles, and that t9res anc parts could be sald similar ~o automotive-orient•ed
sL•ores.
Mr. Smith statsd Comm,issi~ner Allred' s augqestiona Y~ad baen cansidered, howrever,
the requested use was a cleaner and more ecor.~micas use for their space within
the building. HP pointed out that over the years the service station business
had been ~ryinc~ tQ get aw4y from the shoddy appearana~ o£ their facilities, and
an ~utomoti~ve repair cenker would bE a step backwarda.
~ ~ ~
N1INfTrEB, CITY PLANNING COMMISSiON, November 26, 1g73 73-u91
V~ARIANCE NO. 2537 (f:ontinu~ed)
Canartiemiaz~ex ~terbs~ noted ~or rhe Commigeion thd~ a~tirmntive ~-ction on the
aut~iect petition would defini~ely set a mejor precsfie~nt and in view ~f the
~ac~ thors wera e~Froximately 250 servico atatione in Anaheim, tha City 'would
not want tha~t mar~y cnnvenienco mo.~ketot and that. by allowirig tlzis pr~cedent,
the s!leats would be ruinoua to the induetry, and further, that tho axisting
conveniencr~ markete would be reques~ir~g gas~line gales a.t their eatabliehments.
Up~n inqu~ry ~P Commisaiorier King, Mr. Sml,th advi~ed ho would not~ be forcod
ta close the service etai:ion if hi.a pe~.itior- wQre denisd, but wAUld be ~~r.c9~
to ].ook for other a~.ternativea.
Commisaioner Faran~ stated in hia opini~~n it wa~ not riqht foz a petitioner
t.a come b~fore tlio Commiseion wi.th untried, unproven methad~i that h~~ would
want to review the hlatory and know it the methode hr~d been mark~t t~eted.
C.ommiasioner Herbst o.fiere~i a motion, ~econded by Commiasioner Farano and
MOTION CARRIEll, rhat the Pl~nninc~ Commission, i.n connec;tian with e-n exemption
declarati~n skatus request, finds and detsrmines that fi.he pr~posal would have
no ~ignificant enviranmenta"1 impact and, the.refore, recommon~ls to the Ci'ty
Coun.-il that no Environm~ntal Impact Statement is necessary.
Commissianer Hdrbat offared Rc~solution No. PC73-251. and mov~d for its pas~age
and adoption to deny petitian for 'Jariance N~. 2537 on the bas i~ ~hat the
pei:itioner did not prove a hardahi~ would reeult if sub jsct petiticn we.re not
granted1 tk-at rsquests far aimilar typea oF usea, specif.ically gaeoline sa1Qs
in r.onjunction with canvenience ~ood ma~keta, had been d~enied at sevsra]. ol:aer
loca•tians in i:he City; khat the dual commercia.l usea proposed by the applicant
~n a service 9tatian sita woulc~ not comFly with the si~e devolapm~.it atandards
required of othEr commercial davelopmeatsj that subject petition, iP. gr~nted,
would eatablish a pre~edent for other service stations throughout the City to
requeet r~.milar uses f:or thoir facilitiea; and tha.t several ~uper and con-
venience markets exista• within c].ose pr~ximity to t}ie subject aite which
could provide the servi< e propoRed at this site. (S~e Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing ~esolution vsas passed by the following vate:
Ay.ES ; COMMIS~IONERS : Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kingo Rowlanci, Seymour o
NOES: COMMISSTGNEFtS: None.
ABS~NT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
REPOATS AND - ITEr1 NO. 1
R~COMMENDATIONS MAYSTER PLAN OF nR1~TNAGE
Assistant Zoning Su~e.rvi$or Phillip Sehwartze n~t~d for the Commission that
documzntation regarding the Master Plaz~ of Dreinaqe for the City of Anaheim
was presented to them on November 12, .1973, for review, and that it was
~ppropriate at this time to take ac~ian an same.
Commis~ioner Herbst gL-ated he had :~ot been able to thoroughly revi~w subject
doctunentation and would, therefore, ahstaa.n from voting on thQ mattar.
Commis~iorer Seymour. offered Re3olution Nc~. PC73~252 and mc~ved for its passaqe
arid ~doptian to recommend to th~ City Council adnption ~f the Master Plan cf
Drt~inage, follnwiny determination ~hat said Master Plan of Draina~e was an
acceptable document.
On ro7.1 r,all, th~ for.egaing resolutton was psssed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSTON~R~: Allred, Farann, Gauer, King, Rowl.and, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
~BSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 1Jone.
ABSTP,IN: COMIr11ISSIONERS: Herbst.
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CzTX PLANNING COMMISSION, Novomber 26, 197a ~~"b9Z
IT~M N0. .~.
~whZ~~~i'~AI, IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
WESTRIDGE PUM)?:LN~ STATION .
AasiRtant Z~~ning t3up~rvisor Phillip Soliwartz~a preaented ~he ~nvizonment,a~
Impact Report for th~ ~Vestridge Pumping St~tian and indi~ca~ed ~Y-ere vrda t~ome
3iscusst~ion amonq 1:he Commi~oionor~ at. tt~a PLanning Comm:lsaion Work Sa~eion
earliar in the dRy r.aqarding r~ Qc~asible noise pxoblem which ~r~ss not adoquat~ly
discur~sed in the report.
Commi.saioner Saymour explained thc~ Commis~ion's cpnoern that thd report indi-
cated naise mea~urements tr~kan at ~the.r pumpiny ~ta~tiona in th.e City poin~ad
to the fa~t that the ele~ctr.~i.cal pumps, which ap~rr~ted ~4 haurs a dayr, emitted
5t~ tu 5fi dAA's at tha property Zine, and tltut the $ubjeot pum~ing ~tation w~s
being ~o designed that the aound would probably be leae. Ho furl:ttor state+d
that the. experts aid not off~r an opinion as to whe~her or not ~uUject atation
would actually emit ].~sa noise, and ichat t'~e Commiss~,~n miqht wi~eh to inclu8e
an additional recammenda~ian caverliig thie point in sa~.c~ roport.
Thereupon, Commisaionar ~eymour aft•are~ a motion that tho Pldnning Cammis~ion,
i.n c.annecttan v~ith thA tilinc~ of an Environmental Tmpact Report for the wer~t-
ridge Pumping Stat:Lon, f•lnds and detezmines that the regart confoxcna ta the
City of Analaeim Guidnla.nea to the R3c~uirementa for .sn Fnvironmen~al Impact
Fteport and was complQte as an i.nformative document, provided ~hat addi~ional
i.nfarmation regarding mitigating measures be included w2iich would be t.aken to
provide ttiat in the event the noise level at ~he exterior struc~ural wall of
th~ ~djoining residenaes excee~ed 45 deaibels, then aotind-attenua~ion devices
would be install~d; and that th~re wou~.d be no sigz~lficant adverse environ-
mental imgaats, ther~foze, the Planning Commission recom-nends to +~..he City
Counc~.1 that 3aid report, a~~ r.,mended, be adapted as the Cauncil's Environ-
mentul Im~act Statement.
The Commission ente~ed irito d'_scussion regard.ing appropriat~ noi~e leve].s,
during which Comm{saion~r Herbst stated the humminq n~ise level a•t midnight
would be tne main concPrn; that~ he would auggest ti~e adc~ed recommendation to
indicate if the nois~; level exceeded 45 decibels or an~r other annoying sounds
were emitted, the.n sound~attenuati~n devices would be ins*alled. In fur.ther
di3cussion, the Commission generally concurred the noise level shauld be
measured from the property line.
Planning Supcrvisor pon McDar,iel noted for the Comini.ssion ~.hat approval or
denial of the Environmental I:npac~ Report would onxy ~ndic~te that said report
~akes everything into consideration and has no relationshi.p to the approval or
denial of the project itsslf.
Commissioner S~ymour amended ltis motion ta read th~zc the Plan~ning Commissionr
ira connectior~ with the fili.ng of an Enviranmental Impaat Report for ~he West-
rtdge Pumpi.ng Sta~ion, finds and ~leterrninea that the re~ort conformeei to th~
City of Anaheim Guidelines to ~he Requirements for an Environm~n~al Impact
RPport and was comp.lete as an informative document~ provided tl~at additional
mitigatinq meas~~res be inclu~ed whi.ch would be taken to provide that xn thE
etrent the nois~e leve'1 at the ~roperty line exceeded 45 ~ecibels, or any other
annoying sounds were emittec~, then sound-att~nuation devices would be instiallec3;
and that theze would be no significant adverse environmental impacto, therefore,
the Planning Commission rPCOmmends •to the City Council that said report, as
amended, ~e adopted as the Council's Environmental Impact Statement.
Commissi~ner Harb~st aeco~ded ~the moti.~n. NfATION CARRIED.
ITEM N0. 3
D P AL USE PERMIT NO. 1072 (C. M. Mc~taes) -
Requ~st £ar extension of time - FroQerty located
at the southeast corner ~f Haster 5treet and
t4anchester Boulevard.
Asaistant Zon3.ny S~.~pe~visar Phillip Schwartze noted th$ loc~ti :ubjsc~
property and the requa~~t ta ea~:ablish a bua dapot in an exist~... attx~e,
which ~was granted by ~he Pl~nninq Gommission in November of 1968, 'th ~he
fin3ing that it be roviowed yer~rly tc de~termine any problemfs ~egard~ng park-
:Lng; that four previoua ~ne-year extena~.nr~s of time had been granted fn thP
past, ~he latest expiring NAVember 4, 1973; and that a fi~ld investigation
~ ~ ~
MiNUTES, CITX ~"LANNiNG COMM~a3TON, Novmmber 26, 1473 73-693
1:TEM NO. 3 (Continued)
by S~aff indicated thera wer, no upparent deleterioue effeote ~rom the exiat-
ing use on ~he propArty in the Area and parking appeared ta be ~dequatet
thAt ~r~e Lngineerinq Diviaion had indiaatad no de,dica~ion tor Hnater Street
would be needed at thH preeent time ainao tho ultimate dlignmon~ oP Hnetex~
5trbek k~ad r-ot ag yat been d~termined by tho City and t.he 8*.a~tc~ Division ot
Hiqhway~= and thet Strf~ wou~d. re::omniend a ane-year oxtoneinn oY tim~ eFfec-~
tive Novemt,er 4~ 1973, to nxpire N~~vembar 4, '1974, again eubjoct ~a r~view
by the Dovelopment Servic:AO beparcmer~~.
~Commisaianer. King offered a motian, secc~rided by Cammiseianer Farano and
[~OTIGN CARRIFD, to gran~ a one-yeAr F,~tension of time fa.r the usa grant~d
under Condit.ion~l Usa Per.m~.t No. 10%2, xetx~a~ctive ~to Novetnt~or 4, 1973 and
a~id time extaJi~~on ~o expize Novomber 4, 1974.
ITEM NA. 4
CO DITI ~L USE PFRMIT N0. 1063 (C. M. Mc~ieae) -
ltequest for extenainn o~ time - Praperty loca~e~!
on the. n~rth sidc~ r~f Katslla Avenue imm~diatcaly
wreat of i;he Kai:Plla Avenu~-Santa Ana F'reeway
ove.rcrooaing.
Assj.stant Zoziing ~uperviaor Phillip ~chwartze noted the lacation of subject
property and the request for an e~xtension ~f ~time for ~he uae of the property
a~ granted by the PS.arining ~ommir~sion on October 7, 19E8, to eatablish a hall
for variety r~howa, lecture~, meettnge , daiices, etc ., w~.th an ot~~sala liquor
est~blishment in the exlsting str~acture; that a c~ndition of the Planning
Commission's approval was that the use be revie~ved ysarlf to determine tha
~ompa~ibil.ity of the use and the aeociated parking, at which time th~ Cannnis-
sion could then de~ermine whether a publlc hearinc~ wae necea~s~ry to approve
continuation af the uses or whether tho uae could be eontinued on an extenaion
of time; that a field investigation by Staff indicat~d tllQre were no eP~p~ae~o
deleterir~us effec~ks from iche existing uae on the area and p~rking app .
be adequate; that the P~lice ~~~partment had ind.icated to the Development
Services Department that therE*. hacl }~een no police prab].ems at this locations
that fcur pr.evious ~ne-yeaz e~+~tensions of tizne had been granted in th~ past,
the latest expiring Octiober 7, 1973j ar~d that Statf would recozmnend a ~ne-year
extension of. time effective C~~::tober 7, 1973, tn expir~ October 7, 1974, again
subject i;o review by the Ueve?.~pme.nt Service~ D~partment.
Commission~r King of~~red a mation, seconded by Gommir~sioner Rowl+~nd and
MOTION CARRIED, to grant a ~ne-yetir extension of time retroactive to Uctober
7, 1.973, and said time extension to expire Octobar 7, 1974.
ITEM NO. 5
DECLARA'~'~ON COI~CERI3ING STAmE COLLEGE STORM llRP-IN
CONSTRUG"rI013 FROM SOU'~H STRE~T TO UNnERtIILL
AVENUE, CONFQRMANCE WITH ~EN~RAL PLAN.
Assistant Zoning Supervis~r Phillip Schwartze reviEwed the requ~st from ~he
Oranc~e County Flooa Control District for a resolution fXOm tY:e Plann~ng Commis-
sion that ttie p~opoeed draina~e improvements would be in conformance w~th th~
Anaheim General Flan and aii environmental impact report aould not b~ required.
Mr, Schwartze further no~ed the l~cation of. ttie storm drain beiny an e~xtension
uf the recently comp].eted stozm drain terminating a~. South Street which would
now be extended northerly on State Coll.ege Boalevard to Un3~rhi11 Avenue.
Commissioner Rowland of.£ered Resolution Na. PC73--253 and rooved for ita passage
anc~ adoption to find ~ha~c ths proposed flood control and drainage improvements
in Sta~e College Boulevard between South Street a.nd Underhill Avenu~ witl~xn
the City o£ Anaheim are in conformane~ with the adopted Anaheim General Plan
and will have no siqnifieant etfect on the environmen¢ af the Gity. (See
Fteaolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote:
AYES: c:4MMISSIONERa: Al.lxed, Faran~o, Gauer, Herbst, King, Rawland, ~eymour.
NOES: COMMTSSIONERS: None.
ABSF.NT: CnMMISSIONER5: NoZe.
~ ~ ~
MINUTFS, C~TX PI,ANNxNG GOMMIS~ION, November 26, ~.973 73-694
TTEM NO . 6
C~A'~t'1~~FION OF PERMITTED USE3 IN xHE M-1 ZOZIE.
Zoning Supervisor Charl~~:. Rc~br~rte nated for the Cammi.seion that 5tdtf h~d
r~aeived a requaet. from Growheat BakAZyregardinq relaaating their warehouee
t~r~d thrift ahap facilitiea to the industrial complex dt Ball Itoad e+nd Eu~t
8treetT that sub~ect requeat wAa Por administr~ttive eppraval, howov~x~, in
reviewing the matter cloeely and rolati.nq it to tha intent of the oidinAricw,
Staf! f4].t tiiere wae some queation ae to whekher the u~e would bh permitted
r.t the new location. In cliecussing ~~te cnat~ex, Orowheat requeated ~he-~ the
Planning C~mmission review it to detE..-mina if a publi.a hearing wee ne~ceesary.
He continu~d by atating ~hr~t the presen~ Pacilit~.ee dre ].ara~e~ adjaaent tu
fihe Anaheim Stadiiam on State Cal.lege Boulevard= thnt they wexo not presontly
baking bread ai: this facility, ndr did they intAnd to baf:e bre~d at tk~e pro-
poeed locationJ that the fa~ility was a di.stririuCian point far their bakezy
goods; that the uso, in Staff'~ ~p~.nion, wag c].ose enough to the intent of
the Code that it might be an admii,~.stra~tivc~ aecisiont that the nAw lacation
was pxese~ntly devc~l~pea with ama11 industrial uni4:s, hawover, if Qzowhar~t
was a~low~d to have the thr.ift shop, i.t waa ennce~vable there would ~ie~ similar
rec~ueats from others in the complext and that the aperation at its pres~nt
loration had presentec~ no p,rablems.
Commissioner Farr~no stated in his opiriior the subject use was not sa subtle
that ,it wa~ un.known and i.nquired if 5tafP ~elt perl~aps othPrs migh~ come in
with r4quests such as tire sales, sale of se~or~cl-h~nd goods, etG., cx if
xeque~ts for a similar use mi~ht get ~ut of hand.
Mr. Robezts advised Stafi had ilot consi.dared i.he possibility of second-hand
lines nf goods, b~it more in line wi~h something s~milar. to tire sales.
Upon i.nquizy of Commissioner Herbst, Mr. Rober~s advised that approximately
5-1(l~ o~' Or~wheat bus.i.ness wa~ through the thrif.t shUp operation.
Canunissioner Herbst continu~d by stating he would say when the procluct was
being producPC1 on the premises, ~he sales in excess of 10$ •~aould not be per-
mitted in the bl-1 Zor-e, howevPr, ~hey were warshousing and the bread was
p~rishable; that the ~hritt ahop ~aas part of. the aperation, ~.::~ #~h~y had
been in aperation for a lang time.
Commissiuner~ I'arano stated he was not aware of a bakery dtstribu*or that did
not have a thrift shop as part of the ta•kal operation.
Mr. koberts noted for the Commiasion, Staff woula approve the request admini3-
tratively if the Commission had no objection.
IT~M NO. 7
CLaRIFICATION OF PERMITTED USES I~ TF1E
M-1 (SCENIC CORRIDOR) 20NE.
Zoning Supervi~or Charles Roberts presented a r~quest scheduled before the
Orange County Zon~ng ;dministrator for. travel trail~ar ~tcsrage facilit3ea to
be loca~ed in a small island in the Nor+cheast Indusi.::ial Area. Mr. Robert~
furi:her noted that the pro~osed s~orage facility waa locat~d in the City of
F~saheim'~ Scenic ~or~idor (SC) Overlax 7.on~ and would be simil.nr in nature
to the prohibited use considered earlier in the Planning Com~missinn meeting.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion, aeconded by Commissioner Farano and.
MOTIqN CAkRIEU, that the Planning Commission recammends to the City Coun il
that ~riey urge the Count,y 7oning Adminstrat.or to deny the requ~et for travel
trailer storage facilities pr~posed in the City nf AnahEim Saenlc Corridar
(S~) Overlay Zone on the Y,asis thaL- the Ci.ty of Anaheim, the ~ounty of OrangP
and the State of Ca~ifornia have estRblished ~he Scenic Corridor Zone and ~he
propa~ed use would be incompatible a~ we3.l as being prohibited according to
the zone's regulations.
ADJOIJRNMENT - There beinq no further businesa to diacusa, Commiseio~zer
Seymour uEfer~d a motion to adjou:n th~ meet~.ng.
Commissioner Farano ~econded the neotinn. MOTT.ON CARRI~'D.
The meeting ~djourned at 5:05 p.m.
Re pectfully submitted,
. `lc,~-~,~-e....c-e~,/ ~J ~~C~x~1~c~
Patricia ~, Scanlan, Secretary Pro com
Anaheim Ci.ty Planning Commiesion
PaS:hm