Minutes-PC 1973/12/100~ C 0 MICROFILMIN~G SERVICE, IN~.
. , ,.~,, ,. ' {,.~i
s
~
e
C~~X ~d~~
Anahe~tn, Ca~ifornia
Deeeml~ex L0, 1973
A REGULAR N~ETING AF TPIE ANAH~IM CITY PL~NNING CQMMISSION
REGUI~AR - A regula~ meati.ng of ~he Anaheim City ~ldi~ning Commiesion w~s
ME$TING ca~led t~ order by Chai~man Gr~uer at 2:00 p.m., a quorum
being presen~.
PRE&ENT - CHAIFtMAN: Gauer.
- COMMISSIONERS: Al.lred, Farano (who eatc~red the Council Chamher
at 2:10 p.m.), Hezbst, King, Seymour.
ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
PRESENT - Rssistant pev~l.opment Servicee Diroctor: R~nttld Thompean
Deputy City AttarneX: Frank L~+wry
O~f~.ae En~~.r~eer: Jay Titius
Planning SupQrv3sor: Don McDaniel
Zoning ~upervisor: Charles Roberts
Aesistant Zaning Supervisar.: Phillip Schw~rtze
P].anning AldQ: Robert RelleX
Commiasion Secretrxry~ Ann Krebe
Canunissicn 8ecretary pro tem: Patricia Scarilan
PLEDGE OF - Commi.ss+oner Seymour Xed in the Pledge of• Allegiance to the
ALLEGIANCE Flag.
AFPROVAI~ OF - Commissioner Kir-g offerecl z~ mocior., r~econded by Commisaionsr
Titr•. MTNUTES Seymour and MiDTION CARRIED, tA a~prove the minutes of tho
meeting Q~ November 12, 1973~ as submittec~. The min~~tea of
~he meeting of November 26, 1973, we~re deferred to Uaceinber 27,
1473.
CONAITYONAL UaE ~ CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. THURA9AN A. FtOCIC AND LARRX
PERMIT NO. 1403 THOMPSOI3, 2950 Fast La Jolla Str~et, Anaheim, Ca. 92806,
Ownprs; '~equesting permisaion to ESTABLISH 1~ CQNT~tACTOR'S
STORAGE YARU, WAxVING (A) MINIMUM LANDSCAPEIi FRONT SETBAGK,
(H) REQUIRED 6-~OOT HIGH, SOLID MASONRY WAL~, ENCL05ING OUTDOOR STORF~GE AREA,
ANil SG) MINYMUM NtIt~IDEF OF FARKING SPACES on property described as: A rectangu-
larl~--shaped parc~l ~f land consisting of app~oximately 4.4 acres ha~~ing a
frontage of approximately 298 £~et on the scut.h side of La Jolla StrOet, having
a maximum dep~h a~ approximately 640 feet, and bainq located at the southeast
corn~r of La Jolla Street and Red Gum Stre~t. Proper.ty preaently clasaified
M-'l, LIGH'r INDU~TR.TAL, ZONE .
Subject petitian was cc~ntinued frocn the nieeting of August 6, 1973, for the
pe~~tioner ti~ be present and grom the meetingR of Septemb~r 5, Octtiber 1, and
O~tober 15, ~.9~3, at the raquest af the petitioner.
Aasistant Zoning Supervisor Phil.lip Schwartze nated fcr the Commiss~.on ~hat he
had been ii~ contact with the petitioner'~ agent, Mx~. Max Garxick, Attorney°at-
Law, and was ~+dvis~:d subject property had been sold and, therefore, ~.h~ peti-
tionez wae requ~sting to withdraw subject petitinn.
Comaniasinner Allr~d offered a motion, seconded by Commi8s3.oner King and MOTION
CARRIED, tY:at the requeat fnr withdrawal of Pstition for Conditional Uae 1~ermit
No. 1403 be g.ranted, as r~quested by, the petitioner.
73-695
~
w
i
MINUTES, C~xX FLANNING C019MI5SION, December 10, 1973
73-696
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - CnNTINUEA Pi)BLIC HEARING. FDNA G., JACK M. AND HEItNARW
REPOItT N0. 1.04 M. YORBA, 544Q Eaet Sante Aua Canyon Roa~, Anaheirn, Ct~.
92807i DONALD L. BREN COMPANY, 15233 Ventura aouleverd,
RECLASSIFxCATION Sherr~~an Odics, Ca. 91403t AYVU SANTA ANA VALI.EY tRRIGATION
NO. 7~-74-25 COMPANX, 154 North Glassel7., Or~nge, Ce. 92GC6o Owner~~
"'""-"""'" -- AERNARll M. i~ORBA, 125 G~u*_h Claudxnn Street, Anaheim,
VARI~NO. 2563 92805, Ag~nt. Prop~rty 8escribed as: An irregularly-
"-' '-' sh'ped parcel of land consiati.ng of approximately 5 acrae
at the northwe~t corne~ of ~anta Ana Canyort Ro~d and
Imperis] Highway, having approxima~e ~rontagea of 520 feet on the~ narth side of
Eanta ~ia Canyon R~ad and 750 faat on tlze west sid.e oE Imperial I~ighw~.y.
Property preoently claesiEied R-A, AGRICULTUItAL, ZONE.
RLQUES^-:;D CLAiSIFICA'I,'ION: C-1, GENERAL COMM~RCZAL, ZONE.
ItEQUESTED VARIANCE ~ WAIVER FROtd THL DFV~LUPNiEN~ S'~`AI`DARUS OF SCENIC CORR~DQR
(SC) qVERL+AY ZONE OF (A) BUII.DING SETBACK FROM EXPRE$QWAY,
(B) BUILDTNG SETBACK ~':::+•a i~u~.JOR AR.'1'EFtIAL HYGHWAY~ AND (C)
LAN~SCArED SETBACK TO ESTABLZSH A PL.F,NNED C~MMERCiAL
SFiQPPING CENTER AND NI~TE~'~.
Sub~ect petitions were conti.nuecl from the meet:.ny of Novemk~er 12, ].973, at the
pe~titioner's request.
Aasistant Zoning 3upervisor Phillip ~chw~srtze notec~ .for the Commission that the
petitioner was requdsting a two-~week continuance in order to allow add.itional
f.ime tor the preparation of pl.ans and detailed infc~rmation.
Commissioner Allrerl off~red a motion, seconded by Coznmissioner King and MOTIUN
CARRTED, to reopen the hearing anc~ further continue subject petitions to the
meeting of Uecember 27, 1973, as reques~ed ~y the pet~.tioner.
~NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - PUBLIC HEARTNG. AN1~-HEZM HILLS, INC:. AND TEXACO VENTUfL~S,
REPORT NO. 1].1 INC., c/a Horst J. Schor, 380 Anaheim Hilla Road,
- d ibed as• An
RECLAS S I F I CA`!' I ON
N0. 73-74-28
VARIANCE N0. ~566
TENTATTVE MA~' OF
TR~1CT N0. 8520
sec ion o 5errano
COtJI3T1' A1, GENF.RAL
~ Anaheim, Ca. 92807, Owner. kroperty escr •
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appr.~xi-
m~~tely 24 acres, having frontages of approxim~tely 830
feet on thE east sicle of Hidden Cr~nyon Raad and approxi-
mately ~630 feet ~n the north side of Avena.da de Santi.ago,
having a maximum depth of approxima~ely 403 feet and being
located app.r~ximately 500 feet sou~heasterly of tlle inter-
Avenue and Hidden Canyon Road. ~'r.opexty Preeently classified
AGRICUL~URAL, DISTRT~T.
REQUESTED CLASSIFIC~TION: R-H-22,Q00, SINGLE-FAMILY (ONE-HALF ACR~) 'LONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCF: WAIVE REQUIREMENT OF S.T_NGLE-FAMILY LOTS FRONTING ON AN
ARTERIAL HIGHWAY TO DEV~LOP A 21-•LO'!', Ft-t~-22-U00 ZONED
SUBDIVI~ION.
pssista:~~ Z~nin~ Supervisor Phillip Schwartze noted for the Commission that the
geti*_ioner wa3 regu~sting a four-wepk aontinuance of subject pstitxons in order
to submii. revised plans.
Commissioner Allred off~red a motion, seconded by Commissioner King and MOTION
CARRIED, to continue subject petitians to the meeting of January 7, ~97~- as
re~uested by the petiti.oner.
~ • -
M:LNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMIS3ION, Dscemk,ar 10, 1973 ?3~697
ENVIRONI~NTAL I1~ACT - PUBLIC HEAR:[NG. ANAHEIM HIL~S ~ IA1C, AND '1'Ea{ACO VENTL~R~S~
11A
REPORT NO ,LNC. , a/o J'amea L. Rarieie, 38Q Anahe~.m Hi7.1e Ror-d,
.
" '" Anr~heim, Ca~. 928~7, Owner. Property desaribed ass An
RECLA3SIFICATIO~I irregularly-ehaped pdreel ot land conaigting o~ +~pproxi-
proximate].y
e oP a
t
f
N0. 73-74-31
-'- p
ag
ron
mately 65 acrAS, having d
2475 tc~et on th,e south si.de o~ Canyon Rim Road, having e+
2569
RIANCE N0
VA maximum cYepth of approxi:,~ntely 1800 ~oet, and boing
.
. locntad appruximately one mi~e nor.theast of the corlter-
TENTATIVE MAP OF line of Nohl Rdnch Roa . i?roperty presAntly olt~s~ified
TRACT NOS. 8463, R~A~ AGRICU~,TURAL, Z013E,
8464, 8465 A1VD
8466
R~QUE3TFq CI.ASSIFICATION: R-H-10,00b, RESIDFNTTI~.L~ HILL~
- S~DE, LOW D~NSITY, 3INGLE-
FAMIZY~ ZON~.
REQUESTED VARIANC~s WAIVE (Ay SINGLE-FAMILY STRUC'P(7RES RF.ARING ONTQ AN
AY AND (B) MINZMUM PRIVATE ACCESSWAY
ARTERIW~ HIC~iW
WIDTH TO ESTABI,IS~i F'OUR TRACTS ZONED H.-H-L0,000
CONTAINTNG A TO'rAL OF 163 L(~TS .
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUESTS: ~NGINEER: w'ILLDAN ASSOCIA'.C~~, 125 Soutki Claudina
92605. Subjec~t pmperty is
Ca
m
Anahei
t
.,
.
,
,
Stree
propoaed ~or subdivisinn as fallowR:
Tract No. 8463 - 40 R-H-10,000 zoned lots;
Tract No. 8454 - 42 R-H-10,000 zoned lo~s;
Txact No. 8465 - 45 R-H-10,000 zcned lots=
'~rACt No. 8466 - 36 R-Ii-10,000 zon~d lote.
Assistant Zoning Super.risor Ph111fp SchwaXtze noted for thg Cottunission that
~hP p~titioner tiad submi.Lted a letter reques~inq a fou~-week continuance on
subjecti petitiuns.
Cummisaioner A11red offered a m~tion, aeconded by Commis~sioner King and MGxzON
CARRIE~, to continue suhject petitions to rhe meeting of Janua~cy 21, 1974, as
requested by the potitioner.
CQMMISSTONER FARANO ENT~R~D THE COUNCIL CHAMBER A~ 2:.10 P.M.
ENVIRONMEN7'AL IN~ACT - CUNTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ANA;rIEIM HIY,IaS, INC. i~ND
REPORT N0. 105 TE~XACO VENTURES, INC. , 360 Anahei.m Hills rJdC~I~ Anaheim,
-' Ca. 92PQ7, Ownert VTN GONSOLTDA'rED, ?:~~:. , 2~01 Campue
CONDITIO"IAI, USE Drive, Trvine, Ca. 92664, P.gent. k~rogerty describ~:d
PERIrlIT N0. 1430 as: An i.rr~qularly-•shap~8 pA=ce1 of land con~isting
"'""' --- of approximat~ly 3~ e 8 acr~~, havinc~ a frai~tage of
~ENTA'i'I~T.~: MAP dF approx3.mate].y 362 feet on the noxth side of Serrano
TRACT NOS. 8513, Avenue, having a maximum depth of app~nxima~ely 1020
9514, 8515, AND feet, and being located nor~hwestsrly ot the inter.-
8516 section of Serrano Avenue and Hidden Canyon Road.
- Pr~perty pXesently classified R-A, AGRICULTlir.AL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CUNDITIONA~ USE: E~T2~LISH A 157-LOT PLANN~D R~SIDENTIA:L DEVELOP-
MENT 7N FOUR TP.ACTS, WAIVING (A) REQUTRED FRONTAG~
OF LOTS ON A QEDICATFD STREET, (B) MZNIMUM BUILD-
ZNG SITE AREA, (C,) MINIMUM BUILDxNG SITE WIDTH,
(D) MAXIMUM BUILAIHG HIEIGHT WxTHIN 150 F~ET OF A
RFSIDENTIAL 70NE, (Ei MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACIt,
(F) RFQUIRED MASONRY WALL ABUTTING A SINGLE°F21MII~Y
RESIDENTIAL 7,ONE BOUNAARY, AND (G) MTNIMUM SICN
A.ItEA .
TENTATTVE TRACT REQUESTSs DEV~;LOPER: SIR DE~IELOPA'~NT CONIpANY, 11933 Beach
Boulevard, Stanton, Ca. 906a0~ ENGYNEER: VTN
CONSOI~IDAT~D, INC., 23U1 Campus Dxive, Irvine, Ca.
92669. SubjeCt propexty is ;~roposed for subdivision
as Sal~ows:
Tract Ko. 8513 -~.4 acres - 32 R-2 zone@ lats;
~ract No. 8514 - 1U.6 acrea - 41 R-2 zoned lots;
Tract No. SS15 ~- 7.1 acrea - 40 R•-2 zon~d lets;
Tract No. 8516 ~ 6.7 acrss - 37 R-~ zoned lots.
...~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING C~MMiSSTON, Dace[nY.er 10, 1973 73-fi98
~NVIROIJMENTAL IN~'AC'~ REP~RT N0. 105, CUNDITIONAL USE PEF'MIT N0. ~430, ANU
TENTATI~; TRACT NOS ! 8513, 8514, 8515 AND 8516 (Con~.inued)
S~ublect patitionA we.r~ continued from the rnee,tinge oP Novamber 12, 1973, f~r
furthez atudy and N~vember 26, 1973, far the preparation af exhi.bits.
Sevdral perdons indicated their presonce in oppasition to subject patitiona.
Aaeista~nt Zaning Supervisar P1~.3.llip Schwartzo agr~ln reviewed the ~taYf Report
ta the Commiss~~n as set forth in the Commigsiun minu~es oY November 12, 1973.
Mr. John Millick, repreaenting ~1nAhsim Hi1~e, Inc., the petitioner, appeared
before the Commiesion and statec3 th~t the developer wa~i propnaing 150 unit~,
which w~as 65 unt~s or 30$ 1NS:3 denqity than th~at allowed undax the resoluti.~n
o~ intent pr~sontly on. the subject prapert.yt Ck~at the groas units pr~posed per
t~cxQ was 4.4 ~ and that in connect;ton with the Commiss.ion's concern regarcLi.ng
the p~'opo~ed product, thPy had ask~d their mar.keting consultant, Nlr. Bill
Mitchell af Market Pxofiles, to be presant at this meeti~ng to make a preser.ta-
~ion and di.scusa the data ~ertr~ining to the marketing analysis made on aubjea~
property.
Mr. Bill Mitchell, Market Protiles, 12871 BubbZing W~11 Raad, Santa Ana,
~ppeared before the Commissiori and atated his firm was retained by land aavel-
opere and bullderR to survey the market place both a8 it related tc~ dernographics
and economics and consumer preferencea, for specific product r~commendations
an@ market feasibilit.y for s.i.tes; that they speaialized in housing ~nd d{d not
perform inclustr~.a~i. or aommercia]. analyaes; that when SIR retained th~ir firm,
they had been an~lyzing the north Orange County housing market each quarter
for Uze last thr~e years, and their company had interviPwed every deve.lopmen~
in Oranye County for their publication "R3sidential Trends", which analyzeci
single-family detached and attach~d housing and monitored th~ ~uccesses and
failures in the marketplace; that in looking °.c Anaheim Hills a}x~u~t t.wo and
a half years ago at another. pl~n, they were ex~r~mely optim~stic aboat the
potent.ial and demanci that existed for a planned r.esidentia~ communitX with~n
north Orange County; that the buyers were looking for a"reAiflential communi.ty",
a planned residenti.al environm~nt that gave some kind of ~ssurance in t~eir
minds ~hat theX were not buying just anoi:he~ scattered lot kind af subdivision
but something that had long-ra.nge planning and woul~ fur.thez insure what kiad
of usage woulcl dev~lop next door ~e pro~ect the value ar~d investment. of their.
property; that in looking at Anah~im Hills~ the; had ~aken into cansideration
sxpen~ive .,ousing- shelter-type c-ousing and discretionary-type hcusing that
might best suit the rnarket; that it was th~ir ~ndeavor to guide a client into
a consumer-orie.nted derelopmenti as opposed to a product-oriented development;
that he had f_ound a lot of people who live in Anat~eim, ancl who l:ike Anah~im,
war.t Lo remain in Anaheim, and cannot a£forc~ to go outside of Anaheim in some
cases to find ttie kind of ~.ife sty~e they are ~~oking for; that one uf the
products they found waa missing in north Orange County which had h~d a great
deal of success throughcut Southern Calif_ornia, Northerix California and the
other ~tates was the garden home or the zero lot line home, and the reason for
the success w~as based pr~marily on the i•ac:t that thi3 type home gave the buyzrs
the be~t c~t two worlds - it offered the benefit of attached hou3ing where main-
tenance was minimal and ,~rovided freedom to get away, and on tre other hand,
offez'ed the benefit of having tll~ir own plot of ground and a singie-fatr,ily type
detached home; that thi:; type ~evelo~ment projects ~ rather progr.essive lixe
style ana oftentimes was as expensive as the n-ost exp~nsive single-fam~l.y
detachsd home bu~ generally as expensive as the discretionaxy townhous~; tk~at
in looking at ti.e subject property, thPy felt it would be a m~.3use of prop~rty
ta reconunend the sheltered townhouse package even thouc7h they felt their client
could probably achieve that kind oF product simply becau~e ttie marketplace in
ner~h Qrange County had a great deal of activity in ~e~ms of attachecl housing,
both propnsed and existing; that they classified ~he ~roposed ~ype housiny ag
the c'.~minant housing force tk.rougheut Orange County, with north Orange County
no~v le~.ding in t~xma nf activity.
Mr. ~litchell continued vy stating that thev ~~d determined it was advisable to
develo~ a product s~}le that allpwed full ~dvantage af the views around ttie
site, however, a luxury community wau13 require some proprietary benefits;
that if thez'e was an amenity similar to a p~.~blic golE COLlXSE? J they hac~ found
~
~I
~
MTNUTES, CIxX PLANNxNG COMMISSION, DAGamTaer 10, 1973 73-6y~
ENVIRiONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 105, CONAITrONAL U3E ~'ERMTm ~10. 1430, AND
TENTATiVE MAP ~F TRACT NOB. 8513, QS14~ 8515 AND_ 8516~(Con~inued) w„
they~ could generete strong premiums and build larger hom~a an(i market t}~6m
succesefally~ that at the au2 `ect site tiney Ytad analyzec3 the ePfec~e of the
v~ator reservoi r~nd what they could i.mply ta tt~e buyere from a rnr~rketing
atandpo~.ntj that basicdlly it woul.d mean a view or ~ qoad neighbor, but not
thA kind ~f eimenity thaL• a luxury community needed to project exclu~lvity~
and that the propo8ed projeat ~ffered a quallty reoidan~ial pnvironmer.t.
Mr. Mitchell then gave a siide prQaentation on the propoeed project, duzing
which he ~ointed aut thai: one of the advant~ges o! thA pra~ect was its ;~r.ox-
imity to Aak Park and the bike und hikinq tr~xilst and further, that the
ra~tionale utilized following their very exha~uetive analyeis was baeed an their.
awareness nf the haueing within An~heim Hills And an ~ffort to develop a
product the noxth OrAnge County resider~t could buyE that the}~ did not f~e~. th~
site should be excluded fvr the ver.y rich, but that it was impoxtant that dis-
cxetionary a~nd moc~erate price housing should b~ availala],R in rorcmtunities like
this.
Mr. Milliak again a~peare@ before the Commis~ion and presented ~~clditiona7.
exhib~.ts showing the getbaaks being roqu~sted and the distance of the vrop~ged
proiect from the pr~pased adjacent single-~'amily devolopmen~= tha~ th4 required
wa11 at the property Line would n.ot serve an,y particular function because of
the natural tapography; that there was a pad elevation differentia]. of appr.oxi--
mately 39 f.eet, however, tney were on1.y a few feet short af the requar~d ~50-
foot s~tback; thai: according to th~ Cade, a wa11. ~~oula also be zequired at the
faot ~.f the elope ad~acent to L-h~ Metropolltan Water Diatrict easeinent, and
th-a;~ proposed to have ~pen space into th~t ~rea< Iie explained ~he devcl~pment
~n Serranc Avenua at Hidden Ct~nyon Rc~ac~ would ;~e a Ci.t} watex treatment facil3.ty
on one side and a wal:er pumping a~t.ation an the other sid~.
Mr. ltoger Wi.l3on, repzeser~ting the Oranga Unified School D~stri.ci:, ai peared
before the Commission and nnted that a letter h~ad been submitted ~.n oppositian
from th~ school distriat and tha~ he had been directed by ~he achool. district
to read the letter to the ^lannir.g Commission at this time. Thereupon, Mr.
Wils~n reac~ r~aid letter dat~d December 10, 1973, an~ presented Sume to the
Planning Commission Secretary for filing purposes.
Commissioner Herbst inquired it the school. district W:ou'ld ae allowiny the City
of Orar~ge to continue with de~-elopment of new ~tracts~ and Mx. Wilson replied
tha•1: that city would be allowed to conti.nue with conatruction of developmen*.
tha~ had been glanned or proposed, basecs on ~.he fact that the schools in ~hat
city presently were nat overcrov~~ded and ttie school district ci~.d not; see an
immediate need for a new elementary school; and tha~, if there was a need, tlie
school district~ would be opposisig that deveZa~ment also.
Chairman Gauer stateci {.he pr~posed dev~lopment w~uld probably not he coznplated
until the fal'1 of 1974, ar.d Mr. Wil~on a.flvised the problem the school district
faced was funds which vr~uld h~ve to be apNroved fi.hrougr~ a bond election which
could be held in Marah, 1974, anc: voted on by tre people who lived in the
district, f~~llowing which it wou1~3 take eighteen ~t~ twenty-four months t~ plan
and construct the achools.
Upon inquiry ~f Commissian~r King, Mr. 4ailson advis~d the sc.Y~ools operated on
a regul.ar ten-mnnth ack~o~l year basis wa.th som~ summ~r sessions.
Beputy City Attorney Frank Lcwry stated he understooa that tY~e objection from
the school di~trict was *_o the tentative tracts and ii~quired if ~the school
district had any specific ~uestion~ as to the Environmental Im~.~act Report ~nd
its efficiency or ineff~c~ency as an informative document.
Mr. Wilson aavised that the cistrict had not been reques~~d to ~ominent on the
EIR, but that he had receiv~d a capy a few da~~a prior to t*~is meeting and would
provicie written comrnent if i;hey w~re gi~•en son~e time to do so. He furthez
stated that the distric~ w~s a1: thi~ meeting oFpoeing the four tentative tractr~
to subject development.
~
MINUTES, CITX kLA~VNING COMMIS~IO~I, L~gc.eml~~er 10, 1973 73-700
FNVIRONNI~NTAL IMPACT RErORT N0. 105, CONDITIONIIL USE PERMTT' N0, 1430, AND
TE~'TATIVL MAf' O~' ^ItACT NOS. 8513, 85~.4, 8515 ANn 85_16~ (Con~tinuryd) ~,~
- ~
C~mmisai~nor Allr~•~8 etatad it waa unPortunat~ thet the sahoo:l distr~.ct ~ould
not "count" tho k~z•opooed de~o~opment i.n terme ~f provi~i:.g Punds un~Ci~ t:~o
pra j~c~ was aomgleted, and ~h~t ha c~u].d recall t:hat t11e City hAd qone tl~ roucah
thio pr~blem bef.orc ~nd it wae not r«~ally unique ;~uat to the Ur,ango Unif.i~d
School DisCrict.
Mr. Wi~.son att~ted ~he curront probl.em was unique in that the att~ndanc:e boundary
r~f the school didtric~ prera$n~ly took in the majority o~ votQre ~rom the City
of Orange ~nd other ax•e~s ath~r tYtan east Anaheim, but ~hat eAet AnAheim wae
where :nost oF the gzowth and taxes would be for the bond Alection; th~ref~re,
~h~re would ao muoh difPiculty passir,~s ~.h~ school bond.
Upon inqui.ry of Commiesianer Seymour, Mr. Lawxy advise~l that the Ciry's post-
ti.on with regard to the school district was unchan~god in view of cn,. fact that
tlie sch~ol distric~ was a eepara~e antity and with ita elected officials wae
charged with thA responaibility for providing facilities nnd education far thQ
students ~n the, re$pecti~-e districts. Furtl-er~ that the ~1ty of Anahoim had
no juriadir.tion, power, or authorit°~ to act on behalf nf any schc~ol distriat
in ttle area.
Commisgi~nel- Se~ymour raviewed iok• the Commissioi~ t•.he Oranga County Flood Gontx~ol.
problem ~~hich occurrad rs few ye~rs ago r.elatinq to a 1Q!1-yoar stax~i t. at at
that tl. : it was d~termined that if the City was subje.:t to Fload, thFa Cit,y was ,
responsibla even though i.n ~:e~lity the Orarig~ County Fload Control District was
a separate agencys that it appeared at that time the Pl~nning Comr~iission wac~
plac~d in a pnsition similar to that presEntly being presented by the school
district, and tl-iat ~.l~e schoo.l district ha~l the reaponsibilit,y for servin~ th~
people who th~ Pl.anning Commissi~n would be all~wing to mave into the a.rea if
the sub:iect petitions were granted. He a-greed thi~ waa an Orange Unified School
Distrirt problem, but at '.he same time, Yie was k~eginning tc~ wondor how iar ~he
City's r~sponsibilitv extended sincE the City ~ras somewhat cauatng the problem.
Mr. Lowry noted f~~r th~ 40lllirilS5lC~Il that the couc t w~uld have to give an answer
ac~ to whether the City 1-ad a responsibility i.n connection with the achuols~
C~iruniss~oner Seymour inquired if in Mr. Lowry's ~pinion, ~he Flanning ~ommission
shauld consider tl-~is project without any censideration being given to the school
situatyon, and Mr. Lowry advisad some .;onsideration should certainly be given to
the probleins of the school district, however, it shoul d alao be noted that tt~e
land being considered for development ha.d been in the achoal district ~or a
numb~:r af. y~ara, and ta~ es from that property had bcen L^ed to develop ~ther
schools, and now the pet.iti~n~r was requQSti.ng to develop the property.
t;t on ~.z~quiry of Commiss~!.o1er ICing as t~ whether keeping the schools open on ~
yGar-rotmd baa~.° n°~:~13 eaRe the achoal prablem~ N.r. ~~iison auygested writing a
letter. t:o t.he superintendent of the school distric~ on tha': subject. Mr. Wilson
stated it ~~as `_rue i.he responsi.bil.ity far the scY-ools was up t~ txze school
district, h~~:Tever, the eahool districL• had to ~communicaL•e their probleme to ~h~
City and solicit their co~~peratic~~1.
Mr. Millick stated they di.d not intend to .rAbut the school prablem, but would
let ~the courts reaolve that matter.
Zoning Supervi~or Ci.~~rl~e T'.oberts presented a telegx~m from Mrs~ Mary Dir~ndorf,
Presid~nt~ Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Aesociati.on, Inc., protesting Conditional
Use Permit Vo. 1430 b~cause of noi~canform3nce wi.th the Geriaral Plan, the Scenic
Corr:~dor Overl~y Zone, and the Environme~tal C~uality Act of 197~.
THE HEARING WAS CLOS~n.
In ~reply to inquiz~}• of Conunissianer S~yrncur, ~ir. Mitchell advised d~.scretionar,y
market-~ ~~ ~~ferred to the base price and due premiums, i.e., uaing a$38,000 to
S50,,;U0 base producc, the due premium would vary batween i1,50G and $5,000.
~
~
MINUTES, C];TY PI~ANNING COMMI33IAN, Deceml~o,: 10, 1973
73-701
ENVIRONNI~NmAL YMPACT REPORT NO, 105~ (:ONQTTi0R1AL US~ PERMIT N0. ~.430, ANA
TIrNTATIVE MAP OF '~ItACT N03. 857.3~ 8513, 8515 AND 8516 (Contlnued) ~
Commie:~iunc~r 4eymour otuted the acho~l aituatic~n continued to bothAr hi~ni
and i:h~t he was nat txying t~ ~ay whn w~e ri~ht or wrong but quest~oned
whetY-~z ha, ae a P1 +~nni.nq Cr^nmisaionor, wu~ xeapongirle P.ar ~he fact that
the chi].dren i.n tne c-ew trect~ would nct have ec.hools avdilable ta them.
Chairman Gauer ateted, in hig c~pinion, the argumant baing put forth was that
the ta.xe~- from the suh~~ek pro~erty he-d bQen paid into the schnol district
and usecl to pay f~r the exxeting schoolr~. ~
Mr. Lowry ad.viaea it a~p~snrad t.hat tho avtjon of the Commis:~i.an ~n Novaml~er
12, 1973, corACernin~ Environmental ImpaCt Report No. 105 w~e not conclusive.
Theroupan, Commisaioner FArano ~ff~rod a moti~n, aaconded by Commisaioner Kinq,
to re~f£irm the Plr~nning Commission action of Nov~mber 7.2, 1973, that the
Planning Commissi.on in ccnnection with the filing of EnvironmentaJ. Impact
Raport No. 105, rc~commends to the City Counci.l that said report be adopted da
the Councj.l.'s Environment~.al impact Stat~eme~t, with the specific ~inding th~~
the E1R i.s in romplete and cotal. cAmpliance with the Envir4nmentnl Quality Act
of. the Sta~e of. California~j that the re;port, in avery wsy, follows the City's
~stabli.shed GuidelinQa to the Requiremonts for the Filinc~ of an Environmontal
Impa~t Reportj and tnnt t,he Planning Commisaion had rpad, analyzed, and assimi-
lai:ed EIR Nc~. 105 and, thereFore, has made the aforementioned findin~~.
Commisai.oner S~eymaur noted far the Con¢nis~ion that he wae absent from the
hearing on November. 12, 19~3, an@ inquired ~f Comml~sioners Farano and King
whether the queation zegarding school~ had aeen satisfied in their opinion.
Commissiuner Farano stated i.n his opinicn that EIR N~. 105 daalt appropriat~ly
with t.he projectj and ~hat it met and ~;ansidered all thp neceosary crii:eria
and whether i't was goad, bad, or indi.fferent, it shr~uld be adopted.
The £oregoing moCior~ carried (Commi.ssioner Seymour voted "no'° ~nd Commissioner
Rowland was abs~nt).
Commissioner Earano and Mr.. I~owry entered into discussion roncer.ning the h~aring
date for the trial ir, connecti4n wi.th the Qrange Unified School nistrict lz-w-
suit, and Mr. Mil.lick advi~Pd h~ wo.~ld not like to sAe the subject project neld
up pending the outcome of ~.he one trial; and that ther~ woula hP many krials in
view of the f.act the 3CY1001 di:~t:rict ht~d sued individually.
Commissioner Seymour stated in hia opinion the subject pra~sat was a fine and
good oxi~, but that tkie school situation in his mind was seri~L~.s; and that if
the bond election failed, he was concerned vrh~re the schoo] dzstrict would c~~
fram t.here in providir.g the neoded facilities.
Mr. Millick st~ted, ar~ a developer, that hist~rical.iy the school d~.strict had
not been able to ;ceep up with the growth of progres~ive citie~, and the bond
Ple~tions depende~i on ~he citi~enry; t}iat the citiz~riry in the C9.ty of Orange
presently ~zad their ach~o7.s and why should they care abc~ut the childrer~ in the
canyon area; thst un~til there was citizenry in the car,yon area, a bond election
may never pass; that the peaple who would vote for a bond issue were •the people
who wo~z18. ev~ntually be af.~:cted persunally as a resul~ of their children'g
educati~r~; that historically the bond istsue~ eventually passed, mak~ny money
available; and that ai~es for ~cY-oolr~ in *h~e sub;ect area nad alr~ay:? been a.vail-
able. Ae further st~ted the Commi.ssion had idencified th~ problem.
~ommissioner Faran~ conc+~rrPd with Mx. Millick that his concluaion was ~ s~nsi-
ble one; and stated that he questioned whether the school distric~~ was takiny
any affirmative action to pravent ttie prese.zt situation. 1He sugg~sted that
there may re some re$ponsibility on ~he part af ~he developer in conne:.k3on
with sch~ol~.
Commiss:~~ner Seymour suggeet~d a recommsndation to the City ~ouncil mlght he
appropriate t'-at they adopt some type of decision or policy relating to tha
responsibility for schools.
~
~
~
MINUTES, CxTX' kJ.,ANNING COMMI95IuN, ~eaombc~r 10, 1~73
73~-702
F.N~-IRUNMENTAL IMPACT R~PORT N0. 1U5, CONDITIONAL UBE PF.~MIT NO. 1430, AND
TENTATI'VF MAP OF TRACT N~g. 8513, 9514~8515 AP~~ 8516 (Cc~ntinuHd)
Commiasionp:: '_"axano stated momewhar~ along the lino n~xcaaadent might bo Qetab-
lieh~d, a::u hope~ul~y tharo would be eome determinntion of the r~ghte and
c~k~ligationH of City government ~.o ta-ka into c~nei~c~x~ttiort the absence or
presence of achool faai.lities coith rFgard to development .
Mr. Lowry adviaed the Commios~on th~': he expeutod ~ de~ini.tive expian~.tion to
evolve ~ram one o~ the b~haal dir~tri.ct le~aauits with xespect to the protoc-
t~i~n laws af the S~tate and the Federe-1 C1ean A.i.r Act whi.ch were presentlX boing
challanqod.
Commisai~ner Fsr.ana suqg~sted if the c~urt~ did not reso].ve the priiiciZ~.l.es in
quoation reqardiny schonlK, thz-t the C~ty Council ar kh~ Statd At~orr~ey Ger-eral
wou13 b~ requeatc~d far a deto.rr~ina~ion a~ th~ Planning Cammiasi~z~ w~uld not
tiave the pr~rogativa ir~ the matCer j and tha ~. the ~ub~ect petitiona should be
Gon~~aarea fror,, a lar~d usQ p~int a~f view.
Commisa.toncrr 5eymouz ar~d Farano enterRd into dtacussion, during whicY~ it was
not~d that tY~e x'lanning Commisaion hr~d adopted a condition of a~proval pertAin-
ing to flood control meaaur~a for dove~7.opmen~ks propos~d in the 100-year fla~d
area ~L tY~e City und ~hr~t the City assumed thRt r~spons ibi.lity following a
City Cc~uncil c]e*.ermination .
Ii~ response to a que9tion frnm ~ lady in the Audi.ence, staff advised drainage
for the propogF~d devela~m ~r had b~:en discussed and was incl.ud~d in the condi-
tions set forth in the St.~...f RepoXt to the Co~~~misaion.
Tha .^.ommission entex~ed into c~igcussion with the dsve:lop~r concerninc the requeat
for waiver of the maximum sig-. r~ret~, and Mr . Millick advised thP pur.pose of the
sign waa for appeal and identifica~.ion o~ the par.ticular project and a request
far waiver of t.he size was bas~~d on the desi.7n ~f, the particula.r eiqn; howevsr,
the cleveloper had juatifieil the ~ ther re~7ues~ad waivers ~hrough il.lustrations
und the topograFhy of i:he land .
Cummissioner Seymo~ar stated the purpoae of the Sign Or:li.nanc~ w,ss to prev~nt
obstructinn o.f the vi.ew ancl he did not intend to take }arece~lc:...~setting actian;
however, the deve7.oper had justifi.ed the other requsstPd waivers.
C~mmission~r Far~.no ent-n_red into di.scussioz~ witki Mr. Millick concerninc~ the
'~pogra.phy of the site, and Mr. Millick advised the site was not pres~ntly
qrad~d ;.o it~ intended el~v~tions and that to reach the projec ~: pezson would
use Walnut Canyon Roud.
~Sr. Alber~ Paul, 5410 W~stri3ge Raad., Anaheim, appeared before i;he Commisaion
and stated he was a resident of the Westric~gE developmen~ and inquired what
effeci. the subject proposal for a multiple-fami.ly d~ve.lopment would have on his
property; and. that tr,e purchas~ price of his home was substantially higher than
the proposed uni~rs at approx~ i~~a~ely $3P, G0~3 with nd prc~pexty lines and no front
or back y~r.~s •
The Commissinn noted fc,r Mr. Paul ~.hat there c~ere mdny deve].opments of this
type presently in hia area anu that the subject; develot.-~. ment .~as f~r no more
than 4.4 uni.ts per acre.
Commissioner Seymour added that a11 types o£ units hav~ their good and bac3
developments and that he woul~ nat aL~tamatically label any deveJ.opmen~ bad;
that sQme of the finegt developments in the State and in the $200,U00 prfce
range were the typp units beiny proposed; and ~ha~ he had s~een many baa single-
tamily develo~iments.
Commist~ion•..r ':~,~~ur offered Ttesa..ution Nc~. PC73-255 and maved far its passage
and adoption to grant Petition for Conc~itional Use Permit Na. 1430, in part,
granting wai.vers for required frontage of lots nn a dedicated street, minimum
~uilciing site area, minimum building site wicith, maximum bui~.ding height wittiin
150 feet of a residential zone, minimum side yard setback, t~nd requxred block
~ ~
MINIJTE&, CITY PLAI~INING CAMMI88ION, Aacember 10, 1973 73-703
ENVI?T~NM~NTAI~ IMPACT ItEPORT N0. 105, COI~Dl'TIONAL USE PEFtMtT NO. 1430, AND
TENTA'~TVE MAP O~' TRACT NO~. 8513p 8514~ 8515 t+nd 8516 Gontinued)
wall ~buttinq a gir~gle-family re~id~ntinl zone boundary, subject to eonditionst
and the~ requost f.o~ waiver of maximum sign aroa be deni.od on tho be~aie that
tk~e potitianex did nc~t pz~ove R harda~hip w~u1d bQ ~r~aCoc9 if khat wai.~/er wore
I1Gt gxdnted, dnd the approval of ~ame would create a precedent for. :Euture
eimilar request~. (S~o ~teealution ~ook)
On ro11 call the foregoiny resolution wae pdasecl by t}l0 falluwing ~~ote:
AY~S~ COMM~SSIONERti: Gt~uer, H~xbst, Kirg, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONLRS: Allred, Farano.
ABSENT: COMMISSION~;RSs Rowland.
C.ommiasloner Seymour offer~~d a motion, aec^:..~F~d by Commiesioner King aiid
MQ'1'IUN CARRTFD (Comm:issianexa Allred and Faxana vot~d "na"; <<n~ Cammi~sion~r
R~w].and was ak~aent) , to approve Tentativ~e Map of Tract No. 8513, eubject to
th9 fol.lowi.ng conditions :
(1) That: the a~pr.ovr~l of Tentative Map of Traci: No. &~13 is granted
subjact ~o completion of Reclassificatian No. 71-72-44.
(2) That ~he owner(s) ai subject prarert~ shall deed to the City af
Anaheim a strip of lar.d 38 ie~t in width from the center.line of
the street al.ong Serrano Av~nue for street widenin5 p~:rposes.
(3~ subject~r.opthEVappravalnoftConditional~UsetPermit5No.~143Q~nted
(4) That snould this s~ ~~diviaior~ be developed as more ths~ one aub-
division, each stiudi~ris?on thereof shall be ~~ubmitted '.n tenta-
ti.ve form fur approval.
(5) That a=! lot~ within thia tract ah~~ll be served by underground
utilities.
(6) Ti~at a final tract map of eubject property sha~.l be subm~tted ta
~nd approved by the Ci~y Council and then be recorded in the
affiae af the Or~nge Caunty Recorder•.
(7) Th.;t the covenar-t3, conditions and restrictiona shall be sub-
mitted to and apprnved by th~ City Attorney's Uff~ce prior ta
City Council approval af the final traci: map, ~. .., further, that
t.he approved covenants, conc?itions and reskrictions shall be
recorded aoncurrently w~i.th the f inal trt~ct map .
(8) That prior to filing the fin~l tract map, the applican~ shall
submit to the City ALtornc~y for approval or denial a compl~te
synopsis of the pxoposed f:inctioning of the oFerating corpora-
tion, incluciinq 'aut not limii:ed to tl~e articlea af incor~oration
hylaws,, proposed methods of manag~:m~~t:, bonding to insure main-
tenan~e ~f common proper.t~r and Uuil4 1gs, and such ~'~her infor-
mation as tY~e City A~tarney may desire to protect the City, i.ts
citi.zen3, and th~ purchasers of khe project.
(9) That 5treet namea sha11 be approved by the City of Anaheim pri.or
to approval o£ a final tract map.
(10) That the owner(s) of subject property shall gay to the City of
Anahe im the appropriate park and recreatfon in-~.ieu f~es ae
determined to be appropriate by ~he City Council, aaid feea to
be p aid at the time the building permit ia issued.
•
~
MINtJT~3, C7TY PLANNING COMMZSSION, Deaember 10, 1973 73-704
ENV~RONMENTAL IMPACT 1ZEP~l;i' NU. LOS, CONDITIONAL US~: PEktMIT NO. 1430, AND
TENZ~ATIVF MAP OF 'PRACT NOS. 8513f 8514, 8515 ANQ 851b (Gontinued)_ ~
(11) Thdt dxaini~ge o~ said propexty shall be di~posod af in n manaer
satinxnctor}~ to the ~ity Enginear. If, in the preparntion of
th~ sita, sufficient gradin~ is xequiy:ed ta nece~ei.kc~t~ a gr~ding
p~rmit, no werk on gr~ding will b~+ permitted botween Actober 15th
and April 15th unles~a all requlred otf-site drr-i.nage facill~ties
havo heen installed nnd a~re operat~ve. Y.,ai~ive asBUrance ~hall
be providr~d th~ City thet ouch drainaga ~acilitlos wil.l be com-
pleted ~~io~ to Oa~ober 1Sth. Neceseery right-•of-w~y for off-~ite
c~rainage faciliki~:a ~hall be dedicated to the Ciky, or the City
Cnuncil shall hHVe .initi.nted aondemz~ation pruceed~ngs therefor
(~he c~sta o.~ wh:~c:h ghd~l be bur.ne bX the deve~.oper) prior ta
aommencemer-t af yradinq operat:ione. The rer~ulred dr~inage tacil.i-
t~i~a ahall bt: oF a alze and t~,ne sufficient to carzy runoff waters
originating from higher gropnrti.Qa through sRid property t~ ulti-
mate dis~~e~al as app.rov9d ~iy the ~i~.y Engineer. Said dr.ain+~ge
facilitiea sltal]. be the first item of constructian and ehall be
completed and be funr.tionar throu~hout the trrsct. and fxnm the
downatream boundary of the property to ttic~ ultimate p~~.nt a!' dis-
~08A1 prioz to the is~uanae of any final building ir.apectiona ~r
oacupancy permits. Dzainage di.s~rict reimburaement aqreements mmy
be made available t;a the developera of said ~roparty upon their
reque~t.
(12) Tnat gxading, excs~vation, and all nther construction activitiea
sha11 be ~~nducted in such a man;~or ~a a~ to minimize the posai-
bi].ity of any ~i:~ * originating from khie pzojec~ he:~ng car.ried
1.nto the Santa Ana River ay stnrm wat~r axiginating from or f1uw~
ing ~nr~ugh this pr.oject.
(1:3) That th~ vehicular acceas righta, except at atr~et and/or allsy
openir-gs, to Serr.ano I~venue shall be derlicated to the City of
Anaheim.
(14) That all private street~ shall bs dQVe'lope~d to the ~ity of
Anaheim's standards for pri.vate streets.
(1S) That a minimum of 12 fee~ of pavement ahall be constructed on the
south side of Serranc hvenue.
(16) That all drainage from subject ~rnperty shall be diverted in such
a manner as to z~ot drain into the Walnut Cany~n Reservoir (Noh1
Ranch LaY.e) and that all methods of drainaga and gzadin~ shall be
reviewed aiid approved by the ~ity W~ter Divisxon pri~~r t:o approval
by the City Fng.ineer.
(17) That apecial brochures sliall be prepared by th~ 3eveloper f~r the
purpose of instructing purchasers of thes~ homes and any landscape
mxtntenance company workin~ on aub~ect. proFerty on the proper
maintenance an3 waterir.g ef landscaped slopes, and that the~e
brochu.res shall be submitted to and ~pproved by the Engineering
Di.va.sion and Develo~mpr ~~ervices Departm~nt grior. to recordation
of ths final tract map.
(18) That fire hydrar,ts sraZi be inatalled and charged as requir~d and
3etermined to be necessazy by th~ Chief of tha Fire Department.
prior to commencement of structural f.r.FUning.
(19} Tha~ prior t~ approval af ~he finnl tract map, final specific ~1~ans
shall be su'r~.itted and appraved ir~ accordance with proviaions of
the PC, Planned Comm»nitx, Zone.
CJ
C~
MINUTES, CTTX PI,ANNING COMMiSS:[ON, Oecemb~r 10, 1973 73-7A5
ENVIRONI~NTAL I,MPACT R9:PORT N0. 1Q5~ C~'JNAITTONAL US~ PERMTT NO. ].430, ,A.ND
~'ENTATIVE MAi~ OF TRACT NUS . 8513 ~ 8514~ A1~1D 8516 (Cantinued) ,
Commissioner Seymour ofPered a motion, seaonded ~y Coauni~aioner King and
MOTxON CARRIED (Gommis~eionera Allr.ed and F'arano voteci "no" ~ and Commiosianer
Rowla,n~ wme absont), to appruv~ Ter~L-ativo Ma~ of Tznct Na• 8514, ~ubje~t to
th~ fol.lowing condi~.iona:
(1) Z'hat the appraval of Tanta~t•lve Mep oP Tract Na. fi514 is granted
subject to completion of Reclae~i~ication No. l1-72-44.
(2) That the appraval of Tentativo Ma~p oP Tr~ct Nu. 851a 1A qranted
subj~ct tA thc~ ap~roval of Condit:Lanal L'$e Permit Nu. 1430.
(:~) That shr~ulc~ this aubdiviaion be develope~d ~s t~rAr.p than one sub-
division, each subdi.visian thezeof et~a11 be eubmitted in tent~~-
tive form f_or approval.
(4) That all lot~ within thie tract ehall bo served by undergraund
utilities.
(5) That a final tract map of subj~:c~ praperty ahall be submitted to
~nd approved by the City Counoil and then bA recordad in ~he
office of the Oranc~e County Recnrdar.
(6) 'Phat the covenants, condition~ and restrictions shal]. bp 911~J-
mitted ta and appraved by k.}ia City Attorney's Office prio.r tu
Ci.ty Gouncil a~proval of ~he final tract map, and, further, ~hat
the approved covenanta, conditioiiR and restri.ction~ shall. be
recorded concurr.ently wi~h the final tract map.
(7) Ttiat pri.or to £il.ing 1:he final tract xn~p, ~.he applicant shall
submit to the City Attorne~r €or approval or denial ~~ complete
syn~p~is of the proposed funatianing of tlie operating corpora-
~ion, inclucling but not limi~ed to the r~rti.clea of incorporation
bylaws, proposed methods of managemont, bon3ing to insure main-
tenance of common property and bui].dings, and such other inEc -
mation a3 the City Attarney may desire to pr~tect the Cit~, its
citizens, and the purchasers af th~ ~r.oject.
(g} That street names shall be approved by ~he Ciry of Anaheim prior
ta approval of a final tract map.
(9) That the own~r(~) of subject pro~erty ahall pay to the Cf.ty of
Anaheim the appropr.iate park and recreation in-liPU fees as
determined to be appropxi~~te by ~he City Cc>unci.l, said fees to
be paid at the time the building permit is issued.
(lU) That drainage of said property ahall be disposed of in a n~anner
satisfactory to the City Engineer. If, in the preparation of
~.he site, sufEicient graaiyig is required to necessitate a grading
permit, no work on grading will be permi~ted between October 15th
and April 15th unleas all r~squirQd off.-si~e drainage facilitips
have been installed dnd are ~perative. poaitive aesurance ahall
be prov~.tEd thp City thaL• such drainage facilities will be com-
p1e~Ed prior to Oatok~er 15th. NeceaQary ri~ht-~f-way for off-sit~
drainage facilities shall be dedi~ated to thA City, or the City
Council sha1Z have init:iat~d conc~ems~ation proaeedi.nga tnerefor
(the costs of which shall be k~arne by the dev~loper) prior to
commencement of ~rading operationa. The required drainags facili~
tiea ehall be a~ a size and type aufficient to carry runoff waters
originating £rom highex properties through ~P.id property to ulti-
mate rlisposal as appioved k~y the City Engineer~ Said dr.ainage
faciliti.es sha11 be the fi.rst item ~f. construction and shall be
completed ar.d be functional throughout ~he tract and from the
~.ownetreaun boundary of the property to the ultimate pointc of di!a-
nosal pxioz to the issuance of any final building inspectiuns ar
oacupancr ~pi'mits. Drainag~ ciiatrict reimbursement agreements may
be made available tu ~h~ developers af ~aid property upon their
requeat.
~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISS~ON, Uecember 10, 1973 73-706
ENVIRONMENTAL IMI'ACT TtEPORT NO. 105, (".ONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 143U, AND
TENTATT~~F T_____~~~T N05______857.3, 85.14,_ SS15 AND 8516 (~ontinued) ~
(11) That qrdc~ing, excavation, and all ather ~onetruction activi.ties
ehal]. ba conducted in euah a manner so aa to minimize the posa~~-
bility of any ailt originati.n~ P.r~m this pro~ect bei.ng carr.ied
inko the Santa Ana Ri.ver by atorm watier origi.na,ting f.xom or f1.ow-
inq ~hrough this pxojec~.
«~~ openin~s,VtoiMorningCGloryrI.aneeeha~l~be dedicatAd ta~the Gityy
of Anaheim.
(13) Thr~t all private atroeta sl~all be dovelopQd to the City of
l~nahoim's star-dar.de Ear ~rivate atreeta.
(~4) That a11 drainag~ from subject property shal~. be div~rted in euch
a manner as to not clrain into the Walnu~ Canyon Resgrvoir (Nohl
Rnnr.h Laka) and that all methods of drainage a~nd qrac~ing shell be
reviswed and approved by the: City Water Diviefon prior to approval
by the City Enqineer.
(1''1 That apecial brochures shall ba grepared hy th~s developer f.or tha
gurpose of ins~ructing purcha~ers of tY~ese homP~ t~nd any landscape
maintenance com~~any working on sub jec~t properi;y ~n the proper
maintEZ~t~nce and wateri.ng o~ lanclr~capad slopea, and th3t these
br~ch res ahall be ~ubmitt~~d to and approved by the Engineering
Division a~nd Development 5erv~ces Department prior to recordatir~n
pf the final ~tract map.
(16) TY~at fixe hydr~nts shall be insta~led and harged as requ~red and
determi.ned to bc necessary by the Chief. ot the k'ire Depart~~~~ent
Qxior to commencemen~ o~ st.ructural framiiig.
(17) That prior to approval of rhe final tract map~ final s~ecifi~
plans ahall be submitted and approved in accordar~c:e with provisions
of the ~C, Planned Communxty, Zone.
Comrnissioner Seymour offFred a mation, secdnd~d by Comnissioner. King and MOTION
CARRIED (Commissioners Allred and Farano voted "no"; and Commisga.oner Rowland
was ar~sent), to approve Tentative Map of. Tract N~. 8515, subject to the follow-
ing candi~ions:
(1) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 857.5 is granted
~~ubject to completian of Fteclassifiaatian No. 71-72-44.
(2) That the a~proval of Ten~ative Map of Tract No. 8515 is granted
subject *_o the approval c~ ~'onditianal Use Permit No. 1430.
(3) That sh~uld this subdiv.ision be develAped as mare than one aub°
division, each ~ubdivis~on t.':lereof shall be submitted in ten~a-
tive fo~m for ~pproval.
(4) Tha~t all, lota within this tract shall be served by underground
u~i].ities.
(5) Tha~ a final tract map of r~uk-ject p.roperty ghall be submitted to
a,nd ~pproved by the City Council a..u tl~~n be xecord~d in the
office of the Orange County Recarder.
(6) That the covenants, conditiona and restrictions sna].1 be sub-
mittecl to and approved by th~ City At~oxney'a Of£ice prior to
City Council approval of the final tract map, and, ~urther, that
the approved covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be
recoxded concurrent'ly with the final trnct map.
u
•
MTNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIAN, P~acember 1Q, 1973
73-7~'7
I:NVIRONNI~NTAY~ IMFACT ItE~OnT N0. 1.05, CONDITIONAL U3E PERMIT NO. 1430, AND
TENTATIVE MAP 4F ~ttACT t~Q~. 8513, 8514, 85~.5 A1~b 8516 (Continued) ,____~
(7) ~rhat prior to filing the rinal trdct map, the appli.cant shall
aubmit to the City At~orney for approval or CZA11~A~, a oomplete
synopsir~ of t2ie proposed functi.oning of. the operating corpara-
tion, including but nat ~imited to thr~ artialQg of incorporation
bylawo, propos~d methoc~s ~f management, bondinq to insur.e main-
L•andnce of common proper~y and ~uildings, And such othar infor-
mation ae the f:ity Att•arnQy m~y d~ -ire t~ protect the City, itc~
citizons, a~-~i the purchagc~rs n,. 1-1~~A pio~ect.
( H) Tha~t atreer names ahall. be appro~ ~l by the City of Anal,~im prior
to 1'lp!''CGt/PlI o~ a final tract m;~~.
(9) 7.`hat trie own~r(s) of Aubject property ehall pay to the ~:ity of
t~naheim the appropriate park and recreation in-.lieu tees as
determined to lae appropriate by the City Council, said feee to
be pdid at th~a time tho building p~:rmit is issued.
(10) That ~lra~.nage of said prot~erty shall be dispoaed nf in a manner
satiaf.actory to the Ctty L.~gineer~ Ix, in tha pr~r~arntion of
the ai::e, sufficient gradxng is requir~d Co nec~ ,.~ate a grading
permit~ no work on grading wi.11 be p~rmitted beLween October 15th
anci Apri.l 15th unles~ al~. required off-~tite drainage faciltties
hawe been installed and are oporative. Positive assurance sha~l
be provided the City that such drainage faoilities will be com-
pleted prior to October. 15th. Neceseary right-o~-way for off-site
drainays fac~lities sha11 be dedicated to tl~e City, or the City
Council shall have initiated condemn~ztion proc.eedings thereEox
(the costs of whieh shall be borne by the deve~oper) prior to
commencement of grada.ng opErations. Th~ required drainage faci7.a.-
ties sht~ll be of a size and type suffici~nt to carry runoff watexs
originating f~om higher properties through said propert~ to ul.ti-
mate da.sposal as approvEd by ~he City Engineer. ~aid drainage
fac~ilities sha~l be the f.irst itsm of construct~on and shal], be
completad and be funct.ional throughout the traat and from tha
downstr~am boundary o~ the propexty ~:o the ultimate point of dis-
posal prior ta the lssuanc~ of anx final building inspections or
occupancy permits, Drainage district rel.mbursP.ment agreetaents may
b~ madw available to the developers o; said ~ropErty upon their
requeai:.
(11) That gradi.ng, excavation, and all other canstruct~.on activities
shall be r.onducted i.n such a manner so as to mini.mizE the possi-
bili~y of any silt originating from ~his project being carried
into the Santa Ana River by storm water or.i.ginating from or flow-
ing through this project.
(12) That all pr~-vate streets sha11 i~e developed to tY:e City of
AnaP,eim's standards for privatE :~tr.eets.
(13) That all dr~inage from subject property shall be diverted in such
a manner as to not ~lxain into the Walnut Canyoii Reservoir tNohl
itancl~ Lake) and that al? methods of drainas~e and grading shall be
xeviewed and approved by the City Water Division prior to appr~val
k~y th~ Citx Engineer.
(14) That apecial broahures shall be preparea by the develcper for the
purposo of instructing purchasers uf th~ge homes and any laz~dscape
mainten~nce company working on subject praperty on the proper
maintenance and wataring of landscaped slopes, and thut these
bzochuz•es shal~ be submittQd to and apnroved by tk~e Engineering
Division and Development Services Department prior to recordation
of the fi.nal tracL map.
(~.5) lhat fire hydrants sha11 be installec~. and char.ged as r~quirQd and
c~terznined to b<~ necessar.y by the ~hief of the Fir~ DeQartment
prior to comme1. ~ment o£ structural fraaning~
(16) That pzior to approva:L af the final tract map, final spec3fic plax~a
shall b~ submitted and approved in accordance wi~h pro~risions o~
the PC, Plmnned Community, Znnp.
•
~
MINUTES, CITX PtANNING COMMLS3ION, Deaember 10, 1973 73-708
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPA~T RFPORT N0. 105, CONDITIONAL USE PERR9IT NO. 143Q, AND
TENTATIVE MA~ OF T~tACT N0~ . N513 ~ 8514 ~ 8515 ANU 8516 (Coz~tinued)
Commisai~ner 8eymour o~~ered d motion, aecandec9 by Commiesionar King And MOTTON
CARRIEU (Commiseionera ~111red and FarAno voted "no"t r~nd Commiesioner Rdwland
was t~teent), to approve Tentative Map~ of Traat No. 8516, ~ubject ta thQ follow-
inq condi~iona:
(1) That the ~ppr~va~l af Ten4:dtive Map of Tract No. 8516 is granted
subjeat ~a completion oP RealaaelEicdtio» Na. 71-72-44.
(2) That tho approvaY of Tentati~~g t~ap of Tract uo. 8516 ie granted
subjec~ to the approval of C;ondition~+l Uae Parmit No. 1430.
(3) That sh~~~ld tha.s subdivision be d~ve~.o~ed a~ more than one sub-
division, ~ach subdf.viaion thereof shall be, s~iF,mitte~' i.:z tenta-
~ive form for. approval.
(4) That all lots within this tract ahall be sdrved by unclerground
utilitias. .
(5) That a::'lnai i:ract map of subject prope.rty sha11 be submittpd to
and approved by the City Counci~ and then be recordsd .in the
office of the orange County Recorder.
(6) That the cnvenants, cor,ditions and restrictions shall be sub-
mi.tted to and approved by tho City Attorne;y's O~fice ~rior to
City Council approval of the £inal tra~•~- map, and, Further, that
the approved cavenants, conditions and restrictions shall be
rpcorded concurrently with the final trar,t map.
(7) That prior to filing the final tract map, the applicant sha1.1
aubmit to the City Attor.ney for approva.l or denial a cnmplete
synopsis of. the proposed functioning of the opc~rating carpora-
t3nn, including but not limited tv the articlQS of incorporation
bylaws, propose~ methods of mgnagement, bonding to insure main-
tenance of common property and bL•ilding~, and such other inL•or-
mation as the City Attorney may 3esire to protect thw City, its
citizens, and the purct-aRers of i:he project.
(8) That street names 3ha11 b~ appraved by the City of Anaheim prinr
to approval of a final tract map.
(9) Tt~at the owner(s) of subject prnpertv shall pay to the City o£
Anaheim the appr•opriate park and rpcreation in-lieu fees as
dei:Prmined to be appr~priate by the City Council, said fec:s to
be pai~! at th~ time the building penmit is issued.
(10} That drain~.ge of said property shaLl be disposed of in a manner
satigfactory ~-o tY±e CitX Er_gineer. If, in the preparation of
the site, suff:cieni gradin~3 is requixed to necessi~.ate a grading
permi~~ no work ~n gr~ding will be permitted between Oat~bes 15th
and AT ~il l~th u;~less a11 required off-si.t~ drair.A3e facilities
ha~~e b~ ,n installf?d and are opera4:ive. Positive assurance ahall
be provi~led the City tt~at such drainage Facilitia~s will be com-
p'let~d pr..iar to Uctaber.~ 15th. Necessary right-of--way for off-site
c3rainage facilities shall b~ dedirated to ~he City, o.r ~he City
C~uncil shal~. have initiated conde,mnation proceedings therefar
(the costs of which .~all be borne by the developer) prior to
commencement of grading operations. Th~ requizad drainay~ zacilx-
ties shall he of a size and type sufficient t~ carry runoff waters
~riginating from higher properL•ies th.rough said gxoper.ty to ulti-
mate 3isposal as approv~d by the City ~Engineer. Said drai:zage
f~cilities shall be the first item of con~truction and sha11 be
completed ~nd be functional throughau~t the tra~t and from tihe
downstream boundary of the property to the ultimate point of dis-
posal pri~r to the a~suance of any fi.nal building inspections or
occupancy pezmita. Drai~naqe district reimbureement agreements may
be mad~ availtsble to the developers of ~aid prop~rty u~,.-, ~h~i r
request.
~ • ~
MINU~ES, CITY t?LANNING COMMISSION, December 1Q, 1973 73-709
F~VVIRONMENTAL IMPACT R~PORT NO. 105, CONDZTIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1A30, AND
TEN'PATIV~ t~9AP OF 2'RAC~~ NOS ._8513 , 8514 , 8515 ANU 8516 (ContinuHCl)
(11) That gradi,r~q, excavation~ and all ot.her. aanstruction aativities
9ha1.1 be conducted in such a mannor so As ~.o minimize the poeoi-
bllity ui any silt orjgi.natin~ from thi~ project being carried
into the Santa Ana River by storm water uriginating £rom ar flow-
ir.g through t~hie projact.
(].7) Tha~ all private strei~Le shal.l be developed to the City of
Anaheim's atandards £or private atreota.
(13) That a11 drainage ~rom su}~ject property shaZl be ~iverted in aucn
a maniier as to not drain into the Wal.nut Cany~n Reaerv~ir (Nohl
Ranc:h Lake) and that all matt~ods o£ drainage and ~r.ading aha11 be
reviewed and approved by the ~ity Water Div.tsion ~~rior to approval
by th~ City Enginaer.
(t4) That s~ecial brocbures sra17. be prepared hy the developpr for the
purg~so of. instructin~ purchaser~ of ~hdse homes and any landscape
maintenance compmny warking on subject property on ~he proper
maintenance and wa.tering of randacaped slopes, and that thesE
brochures shall be submitted to and approved by the Engineeriz~g
Aivision and Developmsr~t Services Departmenr prior to recordatian
of th~ final tzact map.
(15) That fire hydrants 9ha11 be ~nst~l.led and c'~arged as required and
determined to be nec.essary by ~he Chief of thP Fire Bepartment
prior to commencement of al.ructural frami~~g.
(16; That ~rior t~o approvaJ. of tha final tract map, finr~l specific
plans shall be submitted and ap~roved in accordanc~ with pro-
visions of tY-e PC, Planned Community, Zone~
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED iUBI~IC IiEARING. AIVAHEIM HILLS, JNC. AND TEXACO
F~RMIT NO. 1431 VENTURES, INC., 380 Anahein- Hill.s Road, P.naheim, Ca. 92807,
Owners; VTN CONSOLIDATI~D, INC., 2301 Campus Drive, Ir.vine,
r~~, 926G4, Ac~ent; requestir:g permission t~ ESTABLISft A
FIVE-tJNIT PI,~INIJED FtESIDENTIAL llE~~LCP!~:N'P TO BE USED AS A MODEL COMPI.,EX WITH
SALES OFFIC~ WHIVING MARIbiUM SIGN AREA on properLy d°acribed as: An irregularly-
shaped pa.rcel of land consisting of approximately 2.8 acres ioc;a~~d northwesterly
c~f the intersection of Serrana Avenue and Hid3en Canyon Road. Property presentlx
cl.as~ified R-A, AGRICULTUk~I,, ZONE.
Subjert petition was continued from the meeting of November 12, 1973, in ~rder
to be heard ae part of Conditional Use P~rmit No. 143U (which was c~ntinued in
order to allow the d~veloper time ta pr~sent an alternate method of thei.r
proposal, as well a~ ta allow the Lommissi.on t~me td view ~ther developments
having similar. criteria) , and from the mee~tirig of No~iember 26, 1973, i.n order
to allow the developer time to prepare additional exhibits.
Three persons innicated their presence i.n oppos~_tion, one of whom re~resented
the Oracige Uni~ie~ School District, anc~ i.t was ~noted that one tPlegram was
r~ceived from Mrs, Mary Dinndor.f, President, Santa Ana Canyon :improvament
As~ociation, Tnc., in opposition.
Although the 12eport to the Commission was not read at the public hear.ing, it
is r.e~erred to and made a part of thQ miriut~s.
THE fiEAR~NG WAS CI:,O~ED.
Co•„ui~i~ .ion~r Selmour offerPd Resolution No. PC73~256 and moved for ita passage
ar~d ~aoption to grant Petition for Condxti.onal Use Pe•rmit No. 1431, in part,
ancl deny request for waiver of maximum sign area on thE 3aasis that the peti-
tioner da.d not- nrnqA a!:ar3c:~ip wou1~3 ue created ii• subject waiver were not
granted, and tha.t approval of. same would create a pr.ecedent for future similar
requests.
On roll call the foreyo~:ig r~solution was passed by th~ foll~wing vote:
AYFS: COMMISSIONERS: C3auer, Herbt~t, K:.ng, Seymour.
NOES: ~OMMTSSIONERS: Allrad, Fazano.
!~t3SEtvT: COMMTSSIONERS: Rowland.
~
~
MINUTES, CITX PLANNING COMMI33ION, Dacomber ~G, 1~73
73-710
RECLAaSIFICATION - CnNTTNUED PUDLIC FiEARING. URANGE COUNTY FLOOA CONTROL
Nn. 73-74-2G ~I3TRICT, 400 Civi.a Genter Urive West, Senta Ana, Ca• 92701,
Ownert UAVID STONE, 1095 North Main Stxeat, Ordnqe, Ca•
g2667, Agenty raqueatinq raclasei~iQncion o! praperty des-
cri.b~d aes A LrianRularly-~haped p~rc.el a~ land coneia~ti.ng o! approxim~etel~-
2060 square £eet, having a w~dth af approximately 131 teet, having a maxinum
dEpth af approximately 5.57 feet and being ZOCA~9Cq approximat~ly 676 ~eek east
of the center].ine of Knott Straet aZONk;~tof the Rp3rhMULTIP~E~FAMILX~RESIDENTT3Allg'~e
Avenue f`ram L•he ~t-A r AGRICUL'T. :iRAI,,
ZONE.
Sub~ect petition waa c~ntinuod f•rom the meetinq of Novamber 26, 19~3, at the
rec~uest. of th~ potiti~n~~r,
No one appeare3 ~.n op~oaition.
Althvuc~h the Repnrt ro the Commisaion was not read at the p~ablic hearing, it
is referrsd to and ma~le a~a~t of the minu~es.
Mr. William Phelps, zeprosentino the agent. f~r the petitionsz, appeared before
the Commis~ion and statac! he was havi.ng same difriculty in his propusal regard-
ing the turn3.ng radius tor the tra.ah pickup and car~ort areaj and that ~ne
Sanitation Department xequired a 39-faot turning radius.
THE HEART.NG WAS CL~OSEn.
The Cammiasion entered into diacugsion wi+~h Mr. Pl~elps regarding the require-
ment for the turning radius, and lt was pointe~ out that the tttrnxng radius
prop~sed was lnadequate. Thsreupon, Mr. Phelps atipulatecl that the City's
reauirem~nts in cc~nnection with ~he t~rning radiua in the a~xport an~ ~rash
st:orage areas would be r~solved prior to City Council review Af subjoct pe•~itian.
Commissi.oner King offerad a motion, s~con3ec~ by Commissioner Farano and MOTION
CARRIED, that the Planning Commissinn in connection v~ith an ex~mption declara-
ti~~z status request, finds and determines that the pxoposal would have no
significant environmental impact an~, there~ore, recommenda to the City Council
that no EnvironmentaL Impact Statement is necesoary.
Gommissi.oner Farano offered Resolution No. PC73-259 and moved for itz passage
dnd adoption to r.ecommend to tr.e City Council that Petition for Reclassifica-
tion No. 73-74-?.6 be approved, subject to condit~ons, and that the turning
radius :~n the carport and trash atorage areas shall be resolved prior. to review
by the City Counc.il, as si:ipulated to by the petitioner. (5ee Res~lution Book)
On roll call the foregoing reso].u~ti.on Was Qaoaed bx the f.o~.l.ow~,ng vot~ :
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allrecl, Farano, Gauer, Herbst., King, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONE RS: I~one•
ABSFNT: COMM:[S:~IONERS: Rowland.
ENVIRONMENTAL ZMPACT - PUBLIC HEARING. ROHERZ' H. GRAi~]T CORP., 221 West Dyer
REP01~'.C N0. ].09 Road, Santa Ana, Ca~ 92707, Owner; E. L. PEARSON AND
ASSOCIATES, 3955 Bi~ah Street, N~wport Beach, Ca. ~2650,
RECLASSIFICAT1oN Agent. Prapert~• described a~: An irrec~ular:Ly~shapsd
N0. ?3-74-30 parcel of land consiating of: dpproximatQly 23.3 acres
locat~d on the north and sout~h sides ~f N~hl Ranch Road,
CONDITIONAL USE westprly of thE intersection of incperial ~iiqhway and
PERMIT N0. 1439 Noh1 Ranch Road. Property presently classified COUNTY
nl, GEN~RAL ~GRICULTURAL, DISTRICT.
TENTATIVE MAP OF ~Q~STED GI~ASSTFICATION: R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY
TRACT NO. 8533 RESIDENTrAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CUND'iTIONAI~ USE: ESTABLI~:: a 149-;;-vS`1• PLI~NNED PESIDENTIAL DEVELOP~
ME~iT, WRIVING (A) REqUIRED FRONTAG~ UF LOTS ON A
DEDICATED ST~ET, (B) MIN]:MC]M BUILDING SITE AREA,
(C) :1INIMUM BUILDING SITE WIDTH, (D) MA~{IMUM
BUILDING HEIG'dT WITHIN 150 F~E'P 0~ A S~NGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND {E) REQtIIkED DLOCK
WAI,L ABUTT7NG A SIyvLE--FAMIL3t RESIC~ENTTAL ~QNE.
T~NTATIVE TRAC'r REQLTEST: 151 R-2 ZONED LO'rS.
~J
~
MINLITF~, C1TY PLANNING COMMTSSION, Dec~ambez' 10, 1973 73-711.
ENU'IRONI~NTAL IA'~ACT REPORT N0. 109, 12ECLASSTk'ICATION NU. 73-74~30, CONDYxTONAL
US~ PLRMI~' NO. ~.439 AND TENTATIVE MP-~ OF '.CRACm N0. 8.ri33 (Co~nt~n~.~~a)
_____-
Appraximtttely twelve pexeons ind.icated the~ir preaer~ce in oQposit.io:~ to subjeat
petition~.
Assietant 7,onAng Supar.visor Phillin Sahw~rtze revfewed the loaation of subject
pzo~:erty, previous ~oning dction on ttie pro~e~rty, ~-nd the requeet to eatablieh
a 149-unit plnnnecl re~idential development with waivere ss set for~~~on afesub-
Report ta the Planni~ig Camrt~is~i.or., and stated tha~ the c~eeterly po
ject property wAS currently praposed far Annexation to tha Ciry in conjunction
witk- this appl.icatian~ thAt the development woulcl be ~omprisod oF one and ~wo-
story, individual dwelli.ng unita Un separa~,e "posta~ge stamp" lote~ thst the
living unit and ~.ot wou7.d h~ve individual ownershi.p w~.th co~nmon ownerahip aY
open ~pace, central roareatinnal facil3tiea an3 common lots~ th+~t ~he indfvid-
val lots would range frc~m 1343 aquare ieet to approxima~aly 1875 equare feet=
th~t t.he qroas aareage of the proposed development wae~ a~proxi:na~:ely 23.3 acres,
or an approximate net acrea~3e of 20.7 ar.res Qxcluding ul.l ~ledicated and private
streete; that the net denaity of the p~-oject was approximately 7.2 dwa111ng
unita per acre, with a net coverage of approx:lmatQly 18i~~ thAc. the aubm.itted
plans indicated four varlaue floox pl~ns ran~ing from 894 ~quarQ feet to 1334
square feet o£ living area; that the proposed project would be devel.oped on
the north t+nd s~auth si.dea Uf Nohl Ranch Road and the individua]. units would
bF ai•ranged in groupe of i:hree to six units wir_h adjoining, encl~sed carparts
an3 a storage areat that ~ho petit~oner had n~t submitted elsvationa ox the
propcrsed carpor.ts ~nd an analyais of thF struc~ures and storage apace areas
had consequenL-l,y not been madet that 137 ~dditional apen parki.ng spaces were
pro~osed thrc~ughout the projer,t £or guest use; and that the proposed parking
ratio of 2.9 spaGe:s per dwelling unit was in conform~r~ce wlth Code development
staiidards; tha~ thN central recreation.al faciliti~s incl.uding swimmi.ng pools,
cabana and tennis cour~a were pro~~sed for. each of the two com~l~xes on either
side of Nohl Ranch Roa.d; that there would be imp~~ov~d pa~io aroas for each
~iving unit and direct access to com,.non ~peri ap~cP, that tYiE exte~rior building
£acades af the project would be conetructed of atucco with wood trim and heav,~
wood shak~ roofs; that a recreational vehicle ~t~rage area wi~h 13 parking
spaces wa~ prepused at tha northwesterly corner of tha nor.~therly complex; that
acce~s t~ c.he interiar of the develapment was p~oposed by p.rivAte 30-foot wide
drives and 28 to 4'-foot wide alleys tY~roixg::out the ~i..a; that a 20-faot wide
emergency acc~~ss ~~as proposed at the nartk~easte.rly en3 of the site, providing
a~~ceas off ~mperial Highway; that most of t.h~ units in th;~ p~oject would hav~
i:adividual trash con~ainers and trash collection would be along private drive~,
hc~wever, several unit~ a.n the projecr wou~3 utilj.ze a central trash en:;losure
because o.` inadea,uat.e circulation for individual tzash collection; and that a
Fire Department offic~al liad reviPwed ~irculation and access to the proposed
liviag units and indica~ed that adequate regular and emergency access was being
prov~i.ded t~r the f.ire protection needs of the project.
Mr„ Schwartze continued, subject ~.~roperty was designated in t:~e Anaheim General
P14n for Iow density residential deve?opment, one to seven unitg per acr~; that
t.!~.e requested R-2 z~ning would permit a maxi.mum density of 18 dwell.ing unit~
per. acre on subject prc~perty, whi.ch would be low-medium denaity, and the pro-
p~sed d~;n:~ity of 7.2 dw~ll~.ng units per acre would conForm ta R-2 zoni:ng
standards; that the request~d waivers of required frontage on a dedicated
street, minimum building site area, anci minimum build.ing ~ite width wer~ waa.vers
from the multipie residznt~.al Code st~.ndards ~;ypi~:al:ly proposed in conjunction
with a planned residenti~l development; th~at: th,e ~etitioner was pr.oposi.ng to
develop the g-roject without the required F-foot masonry wall along the westerly
and souther~y property baundaries abutt?n.g ringle-family residential zones;
tha~ 20 of 4he proposed twa-story units woui3 be lacated with~.n ].50 f~~et of
acliacent sinqle-fatr~a.ly Yesidential zones ~ta the west and sauth, however, ttie
subjeci. ~roperty grade waa from 25 fee•t tQ 130 i•eet below the ad~oining s;nglp-
family residential propertyt and that I1 of tr~ twa-story units would be within
150 feet of adjoining Couat.y A1 propexty to the east, which was also dPsignated
i~n the Anaheim Gen~ral Plan for ~ow density residential det~elopment; that a.
portion ~f the sub,ec~ pr.operty was lacated within the Scenic Corridor !SC) Zone
and submitted ~lans were in ca~form~nce with the SC Zone r~qulation~ for multi-
ple residential uses r.elative to building setback ancl landscaping.
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COh1MI~5TON, Decen~er 10, 1973 73-71.2
ENVIFONMFNTAL IMPAC'r REPORT Nn. 1,09~ RECLASSTFICATION NO. 73-7R~-30, CONDITIUNAL
U5E P~RMI'~ N0. 1439_ .AND T~NTATIVE MAP Ol~ TRACT NO. 8533 Continued) ~.
Mr. Schwartze noted f~r the Comm~~~fon that if the propAaed development was
approved under current pro~er.ty bounc~nriea, the two adjoini~ig parcela at ~he
northwest r~nd eouthwe+st. corr~ers of Nohl Ranch Road and tmparial tifqhw~iy wou? ~
effoctivaly becomc~ feadible only for futura commercia]. devQlopmentj ~that the
Anaheim ~ene~ral Plan deaignated theae purce].s ae euitabla f~r law daneity
residan~ial devolopm~ntt and thot thQ Cammiaaion minht wish to r.onc~ider whpt.her
~.he aommorcially--oriented par~els would be aompa~tiblc~ with ~urr~unding reei.dan-
tial property. FurL•tier, theae twa carn~r prnperties wero axeated aome t~.me ago
when the Grant C~mpan}• purr.hased the property from Anaheim H111s, Inc., ~nd that
th~y wer.~ not~ croaeed by a pa~cel map which was raquixed by t;he Clty. Tn
c~nnecticn with the Lines o~ th~ subject proparty being loaated alang the face
oL some of the slope aroas, the pQtiti~ner woulcl be requirad t~ obtrin City
Council approval for exceptiari to Code Sectiona 17.06.1.10 and 1?.06.120 in orcier
to ra~tain thc: olopea in their presently proposed locat~.an.
Chairman Gauer noted far the information of the audience t11at developer~ we.r~~
required to preaent an Envir~nme~tal T.mpact ReporL• to the C~ty. Ha ~xplained
the contiarits af such a ropoxt and tll~reupon preaenteci a copy of. ETR No. '109
to the sudienca for t;~sir roview. He rurther stat-ed ~hat copi~a of EIR's were
r~vail.able in the Planning Department fo.r ~:ub].ia viewing prior to Cammission
hQari.ngs .
t~r. Dan Fredrickson, regresenting the property owner, appeared be£or.e the
Commission and stated th~ Grant Corporation was prouci al the praposed plan;
that it was corig{ tent with the General Plan; that they referred to the pro-
posed plun as a cotal community concept; that• ttie dwelling units were ariented
t~ front on par.l:-like, common qrQen are~ls with recreational faciliti.es, which
would i.n~lude swimming pools and tennis courts; that the units would have their
own pr~vate yard araa locatcci batween the £ull.y-enclesed trao-car garsg~ and
tY~e townhouse, whiah would be tinishod on twa sides; tha~ all. ext~rior buildir~g
maintenance including repa~.r, painting, and landscaping, would be profession-
ally ~erfoxmed by meanE of the Community Association, thus assuring that tt ~
project would be maintainsd in goad condii:ion; that access to the project would
be by means of private s+~xeeta f~om 'imperial Highway and Nohl Ranch P.oad; that
accPss from t}xe private streets to the dwellin~ units, the common gresn arel and
the recreational facilities would be b~ means of an extenr~iv~ private walk
sy~tem, and access to the pxivate g~-ages would be by mean~ of a private alley
syst~m; that in the~.r opinion, the proposed concept provides a muct~ more attrac-
tivQ appearance tl~,an the townlzou3e with garage access from thc fxont which left
li.ttle room far green axea; that architecturall.y, the propa$ed Luildings would
be compatible witta the Westridge ~~velopmentt to the west; ~haL the px'ogns~d
parking ratio of 2.95 parking spaces per unit was exceptional in that this
exc~aPded Lhe required rat~io of 2.50; that 131 guest Qarki.ng space~ wsre px'o-
posed; that they had con+puted the gross units per acre i.o be 6.4, however, City
staff had used a different method i_r~ computing den~ity and thei~: computation was
7.2 units per acr~; that the proposal was a sma11 lot subdi~ision in i:ha~ each
~wner would own thp townhouse, the ground h~neath his garage and his pra.vate
yard area.
Mr. rred.rickson then cQntinued by stati.ng tnat tne varianc~r~ being requested
concerning lot wid~h and area were consider~d standard for this typz develop-
m~r-t; that in aonnectian with thetr r.ec esi: for ~ariance from the Code requir-
ing the two--story units to b~ set back ~50 feet £rom adjo.inirig R-1 aoned pzop-
erties, he ~andPrstoa3 ~hat rogulation was to prevent occupants of a second
fluor of an apartment-type de~~elopment f.rom looking down into the rear yards
and dwel~.ings of an Ft-1 d~velopr:~n~; that the proposed praject was located 23
fePt t~ 130 feet b~•:low ~he adj~scent R-•1 devel.opment, ana that tiie ,~ecc~n~l floor
of the units woulc~ be vory similar in use to those found or~ a t~econd floor. of
a typical R-1 developmon~; anc~ ~hat in •their opinion the required block wall
would serve no purpose as it would be loca~ed along the tap of the ~lope and
would probably not abstruct views of the homeawners of the adjacent R-1 devel-
opment. He clarified Lhat they were proposing fully-er~cl~sed tiwo-car garages;
tl~.at in connection itl~ the two corner$ at the intersection nf Nohl Ranch Road
and Imperial Highway, presen~.ly o~~ned by Anaheim H~.].ls, Inc. , he haa an
assessor'3 map showing these properties and he. did not know why thase parcals
shauld be nf concarn ~n c~nsideration of tne aub~ect patitions as 'they were
before the Commission, with a groposal to develop tlieir own propPrty.
~J
~
~
I~qINUTICS r CYTY PLI~NNING COMMI~SYON ~ D0C~t11beL' 10 ~ 1973 ~ 3'~~3
E[~VTF,ON~!'ENTAL IN~}1CT REPQRT N0, 10~, RF.CLa1S5IFICATION NO. 73~74-30, CONAITIUNAL
~)rE PEitMIT NO. 1434 l4NA TEN'~'ATIVL MAP OF TRAC1' NA. 0533 ( C011tinUP~d) ___
C~mmissionor Saymour clarifie~. fnx Mr. Frr~drick3on the re~AOn for the aoncarn
o~ the Planning Commisaion wu~ that the two corn r parG~Is appanred id~+al. fox
dQVOlopment with e ga~s etation r~n~~i a-~eighbachood Ahopping Ceni:erj and further,
if. that was thE: intent for the duvelo.~ment of i~' o~e two cornr~re, the Planninq
Commission cauld not cunr.ur.
Mr. Fredr.ickeon ~tsted his c~mpt~ny di.d not own ttie two co= iier pAroelrs in
Cf L1E"•, t ian .
Depul•.y City Att~rney Frank Lowry adviaed th~t tho Lot s~:lit croatinc~ tha ~wo
c~rner pai~cc~ls was an illegal lot sp~it wherei.n ~ne curl:oration bought tha
land ar~d sold it to a wholly-owneci 9ubaidiar;~ coxpornti.on , each boinq oniY
respc~nsihlo for ike own actsJ and further, tha~. this w~s an illeqal lut s~J.it
under the Stat~ Gubdiv~.s3.~n Map Act.
Upon inquiry of C:onunissianor 'r.'arano, Mr. .Lowry aavis~d he bo].iQVed tha two
_•Ar parcQls wex•e ~~wned by a who11~-owned sub~idiary ~f the o.eveloper.
i~tr. FrodricKoan et~ted the Gran~t Company of Cali.fori~ia ownad khe sub jaat
p.roperty prasentJ.y proposed for develapment, ~~d t~he twa car-_er parcele in
qucstion werQ awn~d by Anaheim Hi1].s, Inc. , whiclz did not i.nvolve t.hc Grant
Cotnpany and T~xaco.
Mr.. L~~ary furth~r advised to con~titute a legaZ lui: Aplit , a parcel m~p had ta
bE on file w~ith lche asses~or, including ttie ~.wn corne: ~ p~ rceX~; that he did not
feel the ~'ity'a Rubdivi3i~n Section ~ ould ~tppr.ave ~f separat'_ng off ~noae two
corner parcelg.
Cammiesi~ner ~t~~mour noted in hia opinian if. the ]oi: spli± was illegal, t~he
pQtitioner snould nat ~e before t.1~ie Conun.ission at t2ii:: time.
O~£ice Enqinaer Jay Titus ad~isec~ that the Stat~ Subdivis.;on Map Act. req~tired
a parcel to be subdivide~.t ~ ~ithEi a parcel rnap or a tract map; that ~.hoae
parc~l~ evidently were crea,.ed and deeds were writt~~n, solcl snci record~~d on
the assessor's maps bllt. thi~ did nat constitute a le~al ~ot split accorcli.ng
to the State S~~b~livision Map Act as the required procec:ure wa~ not followed.
HP noted Eor ~.he C~mm'z~sion tha~. subject p~riti.uns coiaid be a~~roved subj~ct
to the map :,eing fil.ed.
Mr. Lowz}- concuired in Mr.. Titus' :~tar~ment~ and further ~dvised ~hat one of
th~ corner parcels w;~s less t•har. one ~cre xr size; theze- re, it could n~t be
_e~arated, according t~ r.hc. st~.te Subd~vision Map Act, and if the subject
pc:titions w~re approved subjec:t ta compli ~,nce witt~ the S tate ~u~,division Map
Act, one of the c~zners would re~nai.n wii.h 4:h~ ~.rijoir~.ng 1ar~d.
Commissioner. F'arano made an c,bservat.ion tttat it dicl not seem r~easonable for
Mr.. Fxedrir.kson to be requesti.ng approval of. s~~b;jec~ ~~tltions sub~ect to
ler,alizing an illegalitY; an~l Lhat a.n :~ia opinion ~h~ ma tter o.f the i1.l.egal
1.ot spli.t shaald be resol.vE~< and then tn~:: proposal . ~r. d~v~lo~mr~nt pre~entQd
to the Flanning i:omr,-i.ssion.
C.c+mmissioner ~e,ym~ur noted he would want to know t-'~e i.nte~ntinns Eor d~velop-
ment af t~he t~ao c~rner parcels in queation pr.ior to any ac~i~n by ~khe Planning
Cpmiai s s ion .
Mr. Fredr.ickson stated he did noL• knaw wha~t ~h~ propasec'. use. ~cas f~r the two
corner pa~celaf h~wever, i.z wae conceivable t:zat they could be develo~ea R-1.
~ommissiun~x Allred note3 .for Mr. Frecirick3c,,i tha~ from uhat MA~• ~~eing pointed
out, the Commissitn cou~C not proceed, ar.d inqu~rPd if Mr. Fredxickso.a could
resolve the ma~tter of thE~ two corn•~r par.cels, br.ing t"-e pr.oposal u~ to date,
and then present same *o the Commisai.~n f~r co. ~:.deratir~n~
tir. : redr. ick34n stated that recor. ing o~: tl:~ subdivisioaz map fa~ th~ e~:~ajecc
propertY~ would cure nny defects.
- :~~e~~o~~r.~
~ ~ ~
MTNUTP:S, CITX PLANNING COMMI3SION, Dec:~m.a lU , 1~73 73-714
L+'~1VIRpNMEWTAL It~G?ACT REPORT N0. 109, I2ECLASSIFICATION N0. 7;i-74--3~, COI~DITIONl~,
US~ PERMIT N0. 1439 AND TENTATiVE MAP OF TRAC'T N0. 8533 (Conrinae!!)
Mc. A1 Po~,l.ey, 453 Wastridge Circle, Anaheim, app~.mred before tl~e Comanis~iorl
repxaeenCinq a majcrity of the prop~.rt.y ownex~~ who resi.cled noXth of Nahl Ranch
Road immedi~tel.y west ~f the proposed ~evslapmont who we~~ in oppoe.l.t~on ta
subjack p~ttti.ans, dnd ~stated they objected etrongl.y ~a the recreai:iUnal
vehicle parkinq area beinq ~OCAtBid adjacent :a thei.r back ; lyds and th~a lightA
on kho tennis courts if they w~uld i.nfr.inge on the l~ght ~y o~ ~h~in c~~mee~
that theY would 11ke t~ be aseured in writing af the~ elev<,kions bainy proposed,
dnd th~t they wpre request.ing bumpers ~o be ~laae9 in tho ekreet~ ar~und ~nd
behind the prop~aed ~~r.oject in order to slow ~he ~kraffic an8 ~revent e- raoawa-y
sitLAtic~nr that they ~aiehed ~o q~ on record btrongly opposed to Any co~nmerc.i~l
developmsnt on rl~o two cor~ier parcal~ whi.ch were bging witihhPl.d at th3 inter-
sec~ion of Nah1 ~2anch Road and Imperial Highwuyt that they did not feel the
developex had dPalt fairly with the people in the area as they haci n~~t acknowl-
edged their int:~ntions for.• tha d~velopment of the t.wn c~rner parcole, howev3r,
the Envir.onmenta: rmpact Report r~ferrad to yrzid parce.ls being develup~d
conun~~rcial; that thoir homes, l.o~ated ima-lediately ad~aeent to the s~~bject
px•oper~y, wera valued between $60,000 and $90,000, and the prc+pert:y ownars wexe
definitAly concerned. Mr. Polley furt.her stated although he was searetaY~y of
t.he homeowners association in the Rrea, their board of dirPC~oru had not had
arnple time ~ta me~t on the aiil.i jECt matte.r and thc~refor.e he could not sget~k
offic~.ally for the ae~~oci~tior.; however, tlze resic~~nts in his ndighborhoad were~
tha m~st di.r~ectl,y affected i.n the ~Xea.
M.r. Rog~r Wilson, rerresQntix~g the Urange Unif ie3 a`chool Distric~, appearpd
b~fore the Commi~si.on and ad~rieed he had been directed by the school diRtric~
t•o preaent and read a letter opposing c~tib;jec:t petiti~ne. Thereapan, Mr. Wilean
cead said let`~r 3ai:ed Decemb`r 16, 1973, and ~reaentsc: oame `_o th~e "1an~ning
`~mmissi.oi~ Secr.etaiy for f.lling purposao.
CM~~irman Gauer r~oted for the benefit of tY-e audience that the EIR took inta
c~naideration the educat-.ional ldvantages an3 disadvantagea, Y~owev~r, i` did
not indicate whe',-her scho~~ s w~ulc3 be b~iil.t.
Upon inquiry of Chairman Gauer, Mz . Wilsori advi.s~c~ the School Di stxlct had
received a copy of the EIR ~nd had prapar~~ a letter conunenting on same,
suyge~tinq corrections required t~ satisfy the Schoal Diatrict anci that they
had r.ot indicated the EIR was adequate.
Commissioner Atlred noted tha ^_ommissian was aoncerned wi~th whether the pro-
posal was a gaod l.and use and that the Commission ha~ no cantrol over any
mon^ta ~ aspects.
~n rebuttal, Mr. Fredri~kson stated in view of the energy crisis, rec:reational
vehicleg might be ~ha~- ,d out ~n~ if ths Cor.!mission ~•~ .lesire~, they c alc3
re»nove the parking area for recrc~at.ional vehiclea f~om the project; a~ that
th~y did not know whether they would be illuminating tne tennis co~lrt: aa that
wot~ld be an economical ~ecision, however, usi~:g new technology for such ~ight-
ing, t~tF lighting wculd be contained very nic- •ly withii~ a court. Regardin.g
the tw~ c~~:ner parcel:, i.n que~~tian, Mr. F•~edricksnn stated w!~atever use woulci
be pr~pas~d wculd comG bef.oYe this Cummi~~ion an~? would U~ aubject to ~heir
appr~val. Yegard~ess of tr~~ proposed uae; and thr. : t would appear these par.celg
were auit~able for comm~rcial b~t `hey would not i~ec;essaril ~ have to be ~3eve1-
oped in that manner.
Commisaioner Farano inquirecl if t~lerc: was anyc.ne preaent to represpnt the owner
of tihe twe cornr.r parc~~~ •in c;uestio:~~, to stip~ldce to the proposed usP for
sam~, ana Mr. Fredricks~r, a~-avi sed nP could not a~eak in that regard ~s he only
r~~.~~eaanted the Gra:-t. Corpc~rarion. Comr.~issioner Farano furtlier stat,ed that if
N,r. I'redricl:son ;va3 ~;iven a contiz~uance at this meeting, he should come back
be:fnre *h~ Comm.' sion p.reparad to commant or acvise wha~t tl~e inten~fons wez9
fQr iie~vela~ment ~~ tl~ese two corner par~~ls,
Commi:~si~n~r Allreu n~~ed 'ne wnuld ncL• vo.*.~ to create a parcel less than an
ac~e in size ar sven a pgres?. in ~~hi~ lacatio-~ f~r commer.cial developmentf
thdt by approving sub~ect petiti.on~ snd :.onsid~riny the proposal for c~ommer-
cial ~~~veloL~r~~ent on the two corner parcels a t a J 3ter dat~ w~uld be worseninq
th• -~ation; and that he would su,qgest resolvi.ny th~ entire mattez duxing
coriaid~.r~tion or' the subj8ct petitions.
~ ~
MINU'i`ES ~ CI'i'Y PLANNING CC~MMT~' ~TON ~ i~~cen~l~~er 10 ~~.973 73- i l~
E:VVIRONMENTII.I. Ik1PACT REPOR'f NO. L09, RECLASSIFICATxOI~ NO. 7~-7-~ -30, CONDITIONAL I
U3L PEF~tMTT NA. 1439 AND 'rFH'1~AZ'IVI3 r~r,p oi' T~2A.CT N0~ 8533 (Continuee) ____
Asaistant Developmsnt Servtces Diroctor Ronald Th~mpaon noted for khe Commis-
~ion ~hat both of the cornsr parcwle in ~uo~tfUn had aeezi chacked by the StaEf
and ~ound to be in excesa ~f onc~ ncret however, tti~see paxcals wer~a ~till in
violation of ~he St~te Subdivieion MAp Act.
Mr. Fredrickaon stated legelizinq the lct gp].it prz~x' to Enproval o~ the trr~at
would regult in a duplicati.on o~ ~ffort eince he belldv~d th~ ~ra~ct c,~ap would
faoilitate the entire maL•ter.
Zoning 9upervi8or Charles R~berte present~d a telegram frUm ~o~~~tiriy ~ond~~Cior~al
PrAeident, Santa 1~na C~anyon improvement Aaso~letion, Inc. , p 9
Use P3rr~it No. lQ` be~auso of nonconformance with the Genorat Plan, thp Sc~nic
Coxric~.ar OvorJ.ay • xe, and th~ E;ivir~~1mental Quality Act of J.970.
THE HEARING WA5 CLOSED.
Commis sioner Farano mad~ an obsarvatioii t.hat the proper.ty ownere in ~he ad ; nr..ent
k-1 devel~pmen~ wer.e not againsL a davelope~r pr~viuing a parki.ng ar.e~ for
recrQatior,al vehtcl.es bu1: wer~ nat in fa~~or af having once purchaeed thei..r
homc~s under the sunpositinn that tt~e land next to t2iem would be devotsd to a
certain u~3e now was c~oing to be a diffeXent use and the.rei.n lay the complmint
ar.a reason why p~ople opposed th~se matter.s. HE indicated he had apoken w3th
one o~' the sal~amen who was sellinq this type pro je~t in the sub ject area r;~nd
was informed that the buying nul~lia wa~ntad r~crc:ation~zl vehicl~ parking apace,
that this salved, to the extent possible, paxking c,n i:1~1P streets without con-
structing ~ garn~e f.or every car. Th~ saleaman farther in£ormed Cor~unisaione.:
Faraz~o tli~t people ob ject to hav'_.ng r.oats and campers parkEd { n their ..riveways~
an;d on ~lie st~eets. Cammissior-ei~ Farano stated he ha3 seen aome of these
vc~hicles in the N~;i1 Ranch area and suggested tha~c the pla~ement ~f the pasking
area should be so tha± t.he residents of the existincJ adjacent trac*_ did not
have ='o live with it but au that the pnople buying their homes around it were
£ull.y av~are Gf its presence and i:he fac`. t:Yiat the~y would have to Iive with it,
and not that they were gciYig to have to live with it later on without knowing
it.
Ccmmisaioner Seymour noted in his opinion the lighting of the tennis courts
would have the same effects as outlined by Commir~aioiier . arano concerning the
recr~ational vehicle parking area, that he would be int~rested to know wriether
or nc--~t the lighting would be installpd and perhsps this ;~a~ a question which
::uuld be ar.swered when the m~tter was considered at a poss~.ble continuan~~
date .
CYiairman Gauer noted som~ infonmation concerning the hours of operation r~x
the tennin courts would p.r.obably be in arder at the time of a c~ ntinu~ncE also.
Conunissioner Seymour noted he woula like aii up-to-date summa~y of tract maps
that have been approved *'~r th~ Anal~ieim Hi.lls area to indicate •vhet.her• ths
3.7 unit per acre overall density whi~h was set fortti in thE ma ~ter plan f~r
that area was b~eing followed, in addition ~o what wauld be pzo~oseci for the
two ca.rrier oarcels beir_g held out. He noted for the Cammi9sion that the m~~t~~r
pl.~n fc,r the entire 4400 acres indicet~d ar~as for towrihouse develcsQments ,
planned residential developm~nt.s, s9ngle-tamily developments and aome a.:e-
acre estates, etc.; that he was int~res~.ed in knowinq ~.f th~ t,ypes of development
were in balance with the master plan pr.ior to furth~r consideration of triese
and other trACts in the ~+~n~heim Hills area.
Thereupon, Gommissi~nez Seym~ur offered a moti.o~n, secanded by Commisaionex
I~inq and MOTION CARKI~n, ~n reop~n the public haaring and con4:inue consideration
of Errviranmzntal Impac*_ Report tvo. J.09~ Reclassificatian No. 73-74-30, Canditi~~.-
al UgA Permit No. I.939, and Tenzative Map of Tract No. 8533 to the meeting r,f
January 7, 1.974, in ord~r to al].aw~ the developer time to ~~rovide additior.al
ir.formation ~~ requested by the Commi~ssion and xesolve the matter af }kie
illegal lot spti~t.
Cc~mmi ~sioner I'arar~a noted for t31e Staff that the Commiasion'o viPws concerni; _~
the type and quality af tl~e eub~ect davQlopment should be discussed thoroughly
witYz tfie petitic~ner ao that ho would r•-ot k~ave th~ feeli.r~g he would rec~ive
approval of the proposed projeet simpl.y h,. ~omplj-iny wi1:h all the requ~s±:~
anc~/ar euggeetic~n~s o~ the CAIilIi1f.887.U11 brought out at th:s meeting
~ ~
MINUTL~, CITY ~'LANNING (;OMMISSION. DocembAr LU, 1973 73-716
RFCESS - c:b.+~irman Gauer declar~c~ a~iftee,i-minute recess nL- 4;10 p.m.
~~pp~~1; - Chairman G~uer reconvengd th~a nlaetin~a at 4:25 p.m. ,
'~- Commieaion~r Rawland riei.ng ab~ont.
CONUITTdNAL Uu : - PUBLIC EIEARING. ALEXANDER tIA.I~-GEi3 nr VELOPMENT, ?77 Silver
pERMIT ri~, 1437 apur Road, No. 224, Rc2ling Hi~3.~ E,atates, Ca. 90274,
- Owner; DR. GENE E. kIOI'ACRL~ AND DR. MICHAEL E. TUFtANO,
1407 ~os~ Drive, Placontia, Ca, 92670, Aaent.; z-equeating
pprmi~c~ ~~ii to ESTABI,zcTi A Vr;'i'k;RINARY CI,INIC on property de~cribed ~s : An
irregiilarly~ahe-ped parcel of land conafsting of approximately 10.7 acrea at
thQ ~onthwest corner of. Sat~rr~ Ana Cn~~~~on Raad and Imperirsl Highway, ha,rin~
~r~nta~tee oi app.roximately 745 feet on the s~uth side of Santa Anu Canyan Road
and ap~~rox~.mately 75U Feet on ttie ~reut sid~ of Imperial Highway. Property
presant]_y Clas~i.fied ~~-1, GENERa1L CUMM~22CIAT~, ZONE.
Na one ap~er~rc~d in appusition.
Although the Report to the Commission was nok read at che public hearinc~, it
is referred to Anc: made a part ~~~f th~ mir~iztes.
Dr. Mlchael 'rurano, agent for the petition~r, appeared bef~re ~he Gommission
and clari£fad thoy wer.e pr,~~~~-ing an ani.mal clinic and not an snimal hospit.al;
!:hat accorc'i.ng to the Ame~ican V~l-.erinary Mediaal Assaciati.on, tl~ere was a
~liffe' ~~nce between a ha~pital and a clinic:, being that a clinic had no boarcl-~
ing ~ all and no animals were kept Uvexniaht, that r.he oper~tion was :.-im~rily
an outpati~nt facility; that i:i~ey had a b~~se hoapita]. in Placentia ana th~
praposed clin~~c wou.ld aci: as a satellite of. that hospi tal an~i hospitalization
or major surgeries would Le refer.red f.rUm the proposed cli.nic to the h~~spital;
that routine h~urs for the clinic woulci be fr.om 8:00 a.m. to noc^, and from
2:00 p.m. to 6:Gn p.m. weekdays a~nd one-half day on Saturdays, with no night
hour.a; ~t.bat with regard to a veterinary clini.c bsing an appropriate usE for a
commer~~ial shopping center, this veterinary prRCtice would b~ pr.ofer~r~i~ra:.ly
c ~at.ed and he would. be tt~e practitioner 2t the clinic at all hours; that
~,~ey had take:z noise and s~nitatio.l ~ nto ~:onsiderat.ion in fhe construction of
t'~e facility and would be ful.ly eq~ai~p~d to deal with both F~~~~~ora; that ~here
,aere other such clinic.s in the Or~nge County area, such as ones at Univer-
eity Park in i.rvin~ and Lake I'orest which had na pr.oblems in connec* :on with
being located in ~.:ommercial shopping center; that sc_~me people liad a bad
connotation of vet.erinary clinics and hogpitals, how~ver, their ~~psent hcispita:~
was l.o~a+~c~d next~ dUOr to a medical. t~ospita ~ and ther^ had been no problEms ;
th.at in com;>arison there were m~ny pet stores located in commercial shoppinq
cent~rs, anci th~ proposed facility would have less boarding ~f animals and
less other problems.
Upcn inquiry af Chaiz;nan Gauer, Dr. 'rurano clarified there would be n.c~ boarding
o£ animals a~ the proposed vetera.nary clinic.
Zoriing S+ip~rvisor Charles Roberts presented a telegram fro:~ Mrs. Mary Dinndarf ,
Pxesid~nt, San~a ~1na Cany~n Improvement Association, Tnr:. , p:: ~tes~.ing C~ndi-
tional Use Permyt No. Z437 becaus~: of noncanformance with th<< ~ene.ral Plan,
the Scenic Corridor O~~erlay Zone ~ and tne Environmental Qlxality Act ~f 197Q .
TH~; HEARING WAS CLOSED .
tlpon i~~~q~ir~ of Commissi.oner Kinq, Dr. Turano gtipulated the.re w~uld be no
naiae ox ~ounds, no boax~din~~ of animals overnigh'-. ar.d any an~.mal rur~s wauld
be insidP the prop~sed building with no outdoor facili.cies.
Commisaioner ICing ef.fered a motion, sec~nded by Commissioner Farano rind MOTIOIN
CARRIED, that the Planning Commit~si.on. i n connection wi~h an exemption declaxa-
tian ~tai:us request, finds and 3eterr~«n .s that the pXOposal ~~o~~ld have no
s~gnificant Fnviroiunental impact an3, i~refo:.. , recommei~~s •co the City C~uncil
that no Environmental Impact Statem~nt i.s necessary .
Camt~iis~ ioner King ofi~r.ed Resolution r~. PC7~-1.57 and moved for its p~s~ .~ge and
adoption to grant Petitiun for Conaiti~~nal Use Permit No. 1437 subject to th~
c~nditions that the hours of. opFrati.on shall no~ ex~~nd beyond E:00 p.n~., t'~at
there shall be :o Autdoor £acili~ies, and ar.y prop~sed animal runs or stalls
~
~
MINUT~;S, CITY PLANN'[NG COM1~::SSIUN, neoember 10, 1?73 73-717
CUNRITZONAY, USE PEitMIT NO. ~.a37 (Continued)
ehall be locetHd within th~ confinea of the building etructure, thr~t no bomrd-
~ng of anim~le eha.ll bE~ permitted and thut construction of aubjec~ olinio aha'l1
provida for eound-e-~tenuation simi.lar to haspitnls ta ineure that nu "noir~y"
t~ounde ehall be ernittec9 tu ~hc~ outside of the bui~ding structure, aA etip~~~ ~te.l
tp by the petitioner, az~d ~ub ject ~ko conliitic,ns. (Sae Reeoluta.on Hook)
On ro11 call th~ for.eg~ing zesolut.ion was pdeaed by t~.he following voto:
AYI.S: COM.MISSION~~tS: Allr~~d, Farano, HArbst, King, Seytnour, ~AUer.
NUFS: GOMMISSSON~RS: Nonc.
AASENT: COMM7~S7~NERS : Rowland.
r:O1VDI'rION~1L USF ~ PL'BI:.7C H~ARING • FRANK LLt EmTA, 1201 Ga.rretaon Avenue,
PERM~T NQ. t438 Corona, Ca. 91720, Ownerj ~'RANK STEPFiAN, Pacif.ir CaaQt
Adjuetez.~, P. 0. BAx 6C34, An. i.m, Ca. 92806, 1~gei~tt
x~qu~:si;iny pern-issinn L•o rSTABLISH 'THE OUTDOOR STOFtAG~:
OF REL~USSESSED VEHICLES WATVING (A) NINIMUM REQUT~D LANPSCAI~I:1G IN F~t~T
SETHA(;K, (f3) REQUIRED 6~FOUT M1~S~J"IRY WALL E~ICT~QSING Qi7TU00R USE AND (Cj
MINZMUM REQUI}tr;D NUMBER OF ?'.ARKI'.VG S911CES on ~r.opPr.ty descri.h~l~ `~53 .~cre,
rectangularly-shapea ~~~r.cel af land r.onaiating of. aoproximat,.
ht-ving a fzontage of app~:~ximately 8U feet on tha weat sidF ~f- Norr_h i,e~r.on
Street, havi.ng a maxi.mwr depth of ak~proxtmat:ely 290 feet, ar~u being located
a~;p~•oximately 340 fee~ north of thP c:Priterlin~ of F.omneya nr~.ve. Prcperty
pr~sently ~1~,~:~if.<<~ci M-1, LTGHT INDIJSTIt1AL, 20NE.
Aasistai~~ Zoning Supervisor. '?hi.lli~- ohwartze noted fCr tl.-e Commisaion there
was no one present t~ rPpresent th~ ~etitionez and r~queeted the hear•ing on
this matter ba contint~.t.d to later on in the meet.~.ng.
I,at~r. on in tlie me~~ti.ng Mr. Schwartze ad~vise~ that Staff had contact ~~~1 tY-e
petitioner. who statea t115 atCarney was to ltave bePn ~,res~nt ~~~ 1~~~ m~~~ting
as his represen#:ativP, howev~r, ~:..nce the atta.rney did not appear thr. peti-
tioner was requesting a two-•wee-: continuance.
The Cc~nunission entered. ? n~o discuscion c~ncerniny a con~ `.nuance f~r subject
peti.tiori, Eollowing whi~ll Commissioner Allred offer.~d a motion, sECCncled by
Comruissioner aeymour and MGTION CARRIEI7, to conti.n~ie public henring far
conaide ation of_ C~nditional Us~ PPrmit No. 1.43i3 to the m~:eting of January 7,
1974.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBT~xC HF.P,RING, ~H~bDORA FRAH' 2306 Lambert D.rive,
F~RMIT NO. 14~1 Pasaaena, Ca. 91107~ Owner; Jc):~LPH TURNE~, 10662 L'ampson
~ Aven~z~ . Garder~ Grove, ~~. 92640 , Agent; requesting per-
mission to ESTABLISH 71 i~OtJDEN~MIT'ATIONAt CHURCH ~.'0 INCLUnE
COUNSELLING, BIBLE t:LASS~S, SP_T~F pI' RE%I,IGiOUS GIFT I'1'EMS F+I3D NEW A1VD USED BOOKS
on pxoperty described as: A.rn_ctanyularly-shapec. ~arceZ of land consistin~ af
approxim~~ely ~16 acre, havi.ng a trontagE of a~proximate:.y 43 fe~t an the
south side of Lincoln Avenue, having a m..ximuin de~~th of apprc~ximately .162
feet, and b~ing locatec~ approxiraat~~y 260 fe~t west of the centerllne of
Anahei.m Boulevard~ lProperty presenLly classi~ie~ C-2, GEN~R]'.L cor~xcr.~,
ZQNE.
No one ~ppe4.~d in oppositian ta subject petition.
Although the R~por~ to the Commissi~n was n~ read at the public hearing, i.t
is ~:efErred ta a~d made a part of tY~e mi.nutes.
Reve.rend Dick Vallandigham, 3142 Polk Avenue, ,i~naheim, Cali.fornia, appeared
before the Commissi~n a: ag~nti for the petitioner and clarified tY:at the
p•ro~osed ~sse would not primarily be a book businens and that they would not
be purch~s~.ncJ l.arge v~lumes of books to seilf that ~hsy would Y:ave ~a limitad
nurr~ber af pape:.back bo~ks which could normally be purchased at any drug atore
ar five-and-ten-cent-store; furth~er~ i:hat ttiere were two restrooms lo~ated
in L•he b~ck of tne bui7Lding; that the sizs of the statues they would. be aell~
ing were approximately 8 ir~ches to 12 inches tall; that the ^~etaphysical Cent~r
~ ~
M~NUTEB, CI~'Y FJ~ANNING COMMISS'L~N, DACemUer 10, 1973 73-718
C:~NDI7.~tONAL U5E PERMIT NO. 144Z (Contlnued)
presently had approximdtely 32 membere; th~t vche ema~.l r,hilar~n and younq
adults waul.d be at.tendinq ala9seo wf.cii an ~3ult under thoae spc~vifications
get forth by~ tho Churchi that regi.zding thd raquired trr~ah enaZosure, ~.e was
aware that the patrone of tkie ad~o3n+.ng bulldinge would be viewing eame and
he was f3.~xiL~.~ to the requirementa o~ the City Pur a dQCent trash ~nolosur.e
are~; that e~ncerr.in~~ aianing he atated t:hQy would bo rcp~l acj.ng thF inae~~-t
in the axiating sign located aver the front d.uox of the buil.diny and ir._ woi~ld
rond, "Metaphyai~•al Center" j th~tt he underahaud anfl would ~-mpl,y with a~.y
~tt~y regulutiona c~ncerning fir~ atandrtrda; and that h~ would c:omply w ~li all
th~e c:ondi~ions aet forth in the subtr.i.tked plans ~nci spFalficati~ns.
mHE PUBLIC HEARTNG WAS CLOS~D.
Upon 'nquiry of. Comr~issioner Allrec~, ~tevez~nd V~~landigh~m stated parking
wo~ld be nravided in the munici.pt~l parking lot .d~oining sub)ect property to
Che aouth, and that he did not know the oxact m~~asure~m~nt~- of the parki~lg
lot although it appeare8 to be about onQ-qu~rter ~f a block i.n size.
Upon inquiry of Cammisaioner King, Rever.end Vallandiqh~m stated he wauld on~.y
be occupying th~ po: ion oE ::hs building that ~~vae previousl.y c~ccupi~d ~~y
Diam~nd Jim'~; that th~y did not intend to play any .~i.nd af r~elic~i.aus recorde,
however., they w~u].d orobably sing one nr two sonc~s as part of tt~eir clase
participatio~; that the adjoining buainesses would usually be clos~d during
the hour.s of th~tr serviaes so any noiae should not be a pzoblam; that ~t
w~uld not be necassary to ~lay loud-speake,rs due ta tY:e gaod :ouatfc:~ in the
building; that there would be no moxnir,q servic~s; and that L-i-ey would close
~he Center no la~ex tl~an 10:00 p.m. dai].y.
Upon i:iqui.ry Gf Commissioner Fax~ano, Re~erend Va.llandiyh--:m stated the nfune af
tY.e church was The Chur.•rh of. Revelati.ons; and he f.urther stated they would be
teaching from the King James versiot~ of th~ AiUle.
Cemn~issioncr Farano offered an explanation for his inqviry, beinq that tiie
Plar~ninq Cornmiasicn had al.ways done i*s best to cooperatF to the ext~nt ~that
it could urith churche~, but after a recent expErience with a religiou~ or•der,
it w~as found that the Commir~aior. could be fo~led sametj.mes; that he would
apalogize if he appeareci to be unusually cur~.nus but he did not waat to be
sur.~prised latcr on, Commissiar.er Far.anc £urther affirmed with RevArend
Va11<~ndigham ~hat he would be conduc*_i.ng t•e1L~i~~us ~ Christian cla: ~s, which
wt•re pursuznt to and in confarmance wl~h the e:veryd~y and curre.,L- day Chris-
tian id~ala eubject to Reverend Vallandigham's cleviattcz±s or inte~pr~tations
~F the Bib1e; and that the Commisaion would acc~~t- thP foregoing as a candi-~
*_ion for approval~
Upon inquiry c~f Comm~.s~ioner S~}°maur, R~ver~nd Vallt~ndigham stated tltey wo~;.~ ~!
be apexatinlr under a ~hree-year leas^,
Cummissioner King offer.Ed a motian, ser.on~?ed by Commisa~oner P.llred and MOTZON
CARRIED, that ths Plar.ni.ng Commission, in caz~nection with an exempta.on decla-
rati~~n stazus request, finds and determines tl~at thc. proposal would have no
significani: environmenta~ imgact and, thersfore, recc.TUrends t.o the City Council
t-hat no Environ.mental Impact 5tatement was necessary.
Cammiasioner King ~~fferFd Resolutian No. ~C73-~2~8 a;~d moved fr~r. its paeaage
and adoption to grax~t PG:i~ion for Conditional Use Permit No. 144~ subject tc
trash s~~rage areas beinq provided in accosdanr,e wi~h apprcv~d plans on file
wi.th the of£ice of ttie Di.rector of Pul~lic Mlorks, that the hc trs of operation
would tiot extend b~yond 10:0~ p.m. and that no lcu,d-speake.rs 4~auld be utiliz~d
in conneatior. with subject use, aw stlpulate3 to by the petii:i^nex; arid that
in order to determine kk~~ther anx a3verse effectis would result. '~rom the pr.o-
posed use, a thre~r-~•ear ti.me .limitation is imposed, after whi~:1~ time up~n
wriL•t~n request by the petit.ionex considerat3on may be given as ~o whether
th•fl cond ~.ti.onal uae permit should be e_.tended= ~snd subject to co:~ditinns set
forth in the Ragor~ to the Commi.saion. (See Resol~~tfon Boak)
Oz~ ro1.l call 4:he foregoing resolutinn was passed by ~hE fallowir;g vote:
AXES: COb]MIS5IONERS: AlXred, Farano, Herbst, King, Seymaur, Ga.~er.
NOE:S: ~OMMISSION~RF~: ~.~one.
ABSFNT: COMMISSIONERS: Rawlanc~.
~ ~ ~
MINUTFS, CITY PLANNTNG COMMI5SION, nc~cember t0, 1973 73-7].9
RECL7#SSIFICATTC~DI •- FUI3LIC HEARING. LE ROX AND G~1S1~-N H~ITMAN, ~asoo I,r,~n~ood,
Np. 73_~q_29 5unnymead, Ca. 97.3d8, Owners; ALEX DF.LLEHUMEUR (1R I~ENRY ~i.
-- -- ROIIE2tTS, ,TR., 9~61 Gri.ndlay, Suite 206, Cypresa, Ca. 90630,
VARYANCE N0. 256F. Agent. Pr.a~~ert.y doscribr~d ae: A xectanqu.lt~rly-shaped
-- ~~-~ ~arcel of land coneisting of appraximat~a]y 1.7 acres,
havirig a frontago oP appr.c~ximato~y 264 f.o4~ ~n *.he north
side ot Aall Ro%.d~ hav.tny .~ max~mum depth of appr.oxiiaatel,y ? 77 f~~t, and t~ ~~
~ocated appz':'~iinately h00 foet east of the centar.line af -n'~~ r:ern nvenue.
Propsr~y ~xesent].y clasal.fled R-A, AGRICULTUI~AL, ZONE.
REQUESTED C.LASSIFICATION: R-3, MU1:'PIPLE-Fl4N1ILY RES1:P;~;NTT"T~, ZONE.
RE;QUESTFU VARIANCEs WA'iVER OF (A) MAXIMUM I3UTLllING Hk~IGHT WITFIIN 150 FEET
OF SINGI.~-F1~IMILY itESIAENTIP-L 'I,ONE, (33) MTNIMUM YARDu
AND BUILDING S1;TBA''K, (C) MINIMUM DIS'rANCE; HE'I'WE~N
AUILDINGS, (D) i•:TN "1M WIDTH OF PEDESTRIFIN 7~CCESS1~vtlX~
(E) MINIMUM OFF-~T~cEk:'P PARKING 5PACES, 11NA (F) WAY~LS
ADJAC:ENT TO Ft-A AND SING,Lr--I'A*iTLY ZONE TO ESTAPI]'.,~SH
A 50-UNIT APAitTkiF:NT CaN~PLEX.
nppraxima~ely 20 pPrea~is iitdicated theiz• presence in o~position to subjec~
petitions.
AsE.iz~ant 2oning S.iper.vigor Phillip Schwartz~ reviewed the location of aubjPCt
~~roperty and surrounding uses and stated th~ aubjact area waa annPxefl to the
Ci+.y in 1956 and R-A zoning was esta~alishe~l on the ~ubject property at that
time; that ~he ctross land area pro~osed for dev~lopment w~s 73,ai0 square feo~t;
?hat iiet densit af thc ~roposed project would be approx.imately 33.3 dwelliny
units per ac.re ~ a net land ar~~ of ~ppr.oximatcly 63,470 square £eet (127Q
square feet pex d~~~elling unit); ti~at the pr.oject had a coverage of 53.1$ (55$
permitted); that the propoaed unit.~ would range f..r.om 745 squar~ feet to 951
squara feet.; that there w~ald be 35, twu-•bedroc~m with family room units, 14,
~ne-bedroam with stud~~ uni s, and one one-bedroom unit; thaL aZl of the ground
flaor units wouZd have pat.ios and a majority of the ~econd f.loor units would
have bal ~niea, that the exterior oi the building:~ woul.d consist o~ heavy
Spanish ~.~xured plaster, simulated shingle roofing anci Ruff--X mas~nite siding;
that all unita would have fireplac:e~, that the plans indicat~d the apar.tment~~
would be contained wit.hin four ~tructures, and that a swimming pool, re~r~r~tion
xoom and launCry facility would be provided; tha~: the proposed two-story
~truc:tures w~r~ sur.rounded on three sides by H~A and R-~. development which
would rer,uire the waiver of the one-story height li.mitation withir. 300 feet of
siiigle-family resident~al zone^; that tYie m~i~n entrance to al]. graund an~l
secona f].~.~or uni.ts were opposite each other with faur eYCeptions, and setback~~
of lti feet, 22 feet, and 26 feet woitl@ be required, and the petitioner p~-op~sf+a
8 feet. and 10 feet setbacks wliich would requir~ waivers; t;zat the plans 3.:idi-
cated distance between structure~ ~~lralle'1 tc~ one another to be ~5 feet and
25 feet, b incY.,es which would require a waiver fi~om t:he re~uired 28 f~et; that
the proposed 6-faot wide p~destrian a~cessway from the parking area at ~clie
rear of subject propeY~ty required a waiver from L-he 8-foot si:anclard; th-;t a
w~iver ~~t i:he r~quired parking space was reque:sr~d, however, in view of the
fact tnE Bri~3ing Code in determining window area c~nsidered that i,~k~enever a
z~~om was 5G$ opPn along any wa1i, it wa3 then consiciered to be pa~,~t of that
room ~o which it upened into, thus the farnily rooms ~vould not be cunsidered
a~~ beuzooms; that 50 of the 75 proposed parking spaces would be coverc:d, which
was one spr~ce ~er uni.t; that sul~mitted plang indicated carports would ~p
located along the east and north property lines with a 6-foot higti masonry
wall to be coristructsd along t2ie west propert;y line adjacant to the R-A zo:ied
Fr:~perty; and that aubmitted plans indicated a 25-foot wi.le "L"-shaped drive-
way from 3a11 Ro~.d, running northerly to the rear ~f th~ site and th~~n in a
we~tErly directiun, beiz~g the only inqress and eg~ess int~ ~he sifie.
Mr. Schwartze continued by atating the Hnaheim General Plan des~~gna::ecl s~ab3ect
property for medi~un densit.y deve~opmpnt v~hich ~+ould allaw L~.p to 3F uni~s per
acre; tt~.at the R-l. re~idents in the ar~a llad expressed cancern r.~~~iding tY:~e
proposed two-story units in praximity }.o ~he~r homes and thc re:ultant IinA-
of-sir~ht factort thatc ~he petitioner h~c: lndicated a stuccc:~d carport wall
~pproxzmately 12 feet high to be la~ated acxoss the rear rropPr}y line adjac~nt
to the R-1 subdivision, and that Commission po~.i~y r+ad been to r.equire a mini-
mum of a 2~-foot c~ide landacaped planter area be+~~ :~n an ap3--tment gr~ject an~d
~ ~
MINCTES, C7TY PI,ANNINC. COMMI9Si0N, Deveatiber 10, 1973 73• '20
REC'LASSTb'ICAT_I.ON N4. 73-7A -29 AND VARIA~,CE NO. 256H (~:c~Titinuod)
R-1 zoned ~ropertyt ~h~~- the peti+:ioner had ~ndioated s~ gtuccoec~ varpart wa~].].
Appraximately 12 feet high t~.o bF laeat~d acr.oas the rpar property llne, ddjn-
cent to the R-1 subdivic~ion, and that Commiaeion policy had baen to r.~quirF a
minimum of a 20-foot wide landscaped plantor drea botwaor~ an ApA1'tllll:r'.t ~~r~~iect
and reaidential K-1 zAned p~:'op~,rty; th.~t reviced ~»hmi~i:ed p1Ane now indicatc~d
a~1ock wall adjucent to the west property linc~ anfl t;•-e height of tlic wdll
ahou.ld be ~ Yeet, decr~a:~ing tu y2 i.nche~ w.1.~hin tha ir~nr aetback ar.•ea an~
this ndvercised waiver wae nut now requtrc~d t+s the petit~aaner'a ieva.sed aub-
mittea plans indicated a carpurt wall in li~u of a bl~ck ~a11 alonet thte n~rth
r ~d ea~t prnr~erty lines.
htr. tt~nrv Roberta .lz~ devnloper., appez-recl k~al:ore the Commi ~sion and turther
explained th9 requested 7one change and variun~es ana tha surrcundiag land
ueeA. He ~tatad that the item of most cancern secme~l to be the hu:'nan impact
of the projeoti that becauQe df a queation raiae~i by C3.ty Ata.:f, they wero
prapoaing a m4dificr~tian to their plans increasing thn r~i~ace to 13 fee~ for
the pedestrian accc:osway leading to the parki.ng area at the rear of th~
~~roperty, as well as reducing the si.ze of the tv~o apartments ehown over ~he
a^cesswaX to singles, ther.eby creating two separate building a~ructures~
th3t of particular interest to the peop].e was the fact that tihere were nc
long parallel walls giving thz effect of a tunn~l or lndustrial qua].ity ~
the aro jeat; ttiat the project was dec~~.gned along L-he same lingg ~.hat t~ y had
used for their townhous~ and condominium projecta, allowiny an indivt~ :a1
feeling for each of the units; that thez~ Environmental Impact Repar' inc~icated
there would ba relativel.y little tr.affia problem, as ingress and eg ~sa would
be anto Ball Road, a ma~or artarial. highway, and there would be no ;chool
children in the project; that the proposed zoning was indicatecl or the Mas~t~r
Plan; that the proj~~t th~~~ were proo~sing wr~s similar or superio.: to the otih~sr
proj~cta in thE ~rea; a:~d that an apartmPnt project aeroas the street Ero:n
gubject property lzad buildings wi=h~.n 15 feet of adjacsnt R-1 properties azd
another project c~n Ball Road to the aast was approved wlth setbacks varying
fr~m 85 feet to 10 fp~t, a~nd in their opinion the propased projec~ was within
the general scope f~r City of Anai-eitu development.
Mr. Henry Roberts coiltinuer3 by stati:~g that in uddition tn the work they had
done on the p~:nject, they had conducted interviews with ~ number ~f resa.dents
in thE area inunediately adjacent to the apartment projects already approved,
and asked for reactiuns to the various issues which had been raised; that the
proposed project would address itself to most of the question~ and cra.ticisme
the residents h~d; triat th.e proposed pr~;ject wag geared to~ard tne privacy of
those residents in the Existing R-I, n~t to be vi~red or oL-herwise irritated
py the apartmPnt praject, and t11at was why t:~e carpor~s were being established.
at the rear line of the property; t2iat they were c~nsideriny i:hF posaibility~
o~ a 3-font setback between the carport wa11 and an exi~ting gr~pestake fence
which could be planted and also the possibility of havi~ng z~o wall alung the
carpr~rt, removing Lhe grapestake wall. and usinq the aarport wall as the new
property ~.a.ne with an easement dedicated to the peo~le iii the arez, and the
mansard rt~of would drain onto the pr.operty of the project with the peopl.e in
the R-1 development having use of ~he additional 3 feet of subject property;
tl-_at thege suggestions w~re g~arec: primarily towa 1 o.fferi:~g p~°ivacy to b~th
groups; that if ~n R--l. use werP r~eveloped on subject property, the l~omes would
then be within the minimum back yard setback of th~~ existin5 R-1 deve~opment;
that the pr~posed project would, bx the placement of the earp~rt3, guazantee
a bu£fer zone; that in their ir--er.views they found that ahildren wsre abusive
to the adjucent ~perties b; ~..iirowing things ove~ the fencea er o'.:herwise
i~.ritatinc~ pets il- ~he are and one property own~r interviewed indicateci th~t
childr~n scal.ed thEir fenc~ and crossed tnrougr, thei.r yard on their wa~- i:o
school; tlza~ in his opinion, these a~uses steitimed fram +:he planted 20--~oot
setback and he wa3 :,•eject,inq any such planting far the prorosed project; axid
that he wou.ld prefPr to have the plan being proposed. Thereupon, Mr. Roberta
presen*ed z drawing o~ the Froposed solution to tii~ rear setback question
~~i.ng di~-cussed.
Mc. Henr.y Roberts clarifie3 that the proposal was to take advantag~ of the
exi~ti..~ grapestake fenc~, setti.ng the c~_r~orts faci.ng fur~r,er onto the gub-
ject groperty, leaviiig a m~rgin for p].~r:ting, ~nd a11ow~.ng tY:e r,ians~rd roof.
o~~ the Tt-~. ~i.de .~nd the projPct s~ide; that und~r any circumstances, •tt-t_ design
of the c~rports wa~ to ~~~tally ~l.ock the ~~iew ne~ween th~: R-1 homes and .~ny
~
~
MINUTE3, CITY PLALLyNING COMMISSION, Doc~mhex 10, 1973 73-72:1
1tEGLA89~FICA'rI~N N0. 73-74 -29 ?~NU VARIANCE N0. 2568 (Continued)
reeidenaee l.oca~.ed within the propoeF~d pruject, ~naludii~5 peapl.e etand~ng an
the sFaond lloor in the pro jectt and thmt the ~~r.opo~ed diot.nnce fxom the exi,~t-
ing rt 1. prora~tiAS of 75 feet, was 10 Eeek~ l~~e than thnt a~nroved for the
"Family PAnc~" pxoject to the or~et a~nd eouth GIi F3a11 R~ad. Mr. Roberta con-
cluded by etating they shar~cl th~ concern~ of tlie resideY~~ts in tY~e r~~•ea, an~i
~hat ~hey wanted tt~e pxopo:;ed pro joct, whicl~ they would own and cont- ~-~ue to
own, t~ be 9uacess far boi.h the nr _ghbors ~nd thernaolves.
Mr. Al.Fred R. SeehusPn, 32(~7 Ball Roac~, Anahei.m, appear~a ~~fore t.ha ~ommiesion
in ~~E~position to aub~ect petitiana ..nd atated he and his fath~r-in-l.aw c~wned
the property to the ear~t of. subjc~ct prapertyt thP.t their pr~perty was purchaeed
tor their retir~mentt th~~t he was a.r.~al QetatA aa,~.oemanf that t;e ~rza oppoeod
to tho variAncas being requestedt and that he w~s not opposod to r_hc~ zoning as
auah but was opp~sed to 50 units for th~s 1.7 arxes of land.
Mr. Ron Cor.ich, 3146 Glenn Fio11y, 1~nah~eim, appeared befoz~ tre Gommis$ion in
oppositian to subject petitions, and eta~:ed ~hat he lived ~uat north of the
sut~je~t pro~arty and that. ~h~ reax line of the eub~ect ~r.~~~erty abut*.ed hio
baak yard~ L•hat he understood the developer to state the interviews conducted
indicat~d no effect oY~ the aurround~.nq r~sidenc~~s ar-c~, th :reupon, he presented
a pe}ition containing approximately 33 signat~ <~s i.n o~position to 3ubject
petitions= and further. stated that 108 af the peraons signing suid petition
of opp~~eition were present and tha~ rnost of them livAd on Gle~+n Holly and
Ball Road; that his main concern was that thE plans appear~d to be locating
tl•-~ bui.lding~- against thF fence; that 50 yards was tca close to a residential
ar~af that he was oppo~ae~i to the reque~ted xone cY~ange and the va•riance~ and
L-hat if the Planning '. mission v~ere in his position they would unde.rA~and
his ~b}ecti~ns.
Mr. Edward Zdan~ 3118 Gienn Holly, Anaheim, appeared b~£ore the Commission
~nd stated i~e lived east oL the subject site; that whatcvAr was approved F~r
~.he subject property would probably se~ a precederit for future similar rec~u~sts
for the vacant property west on Ball Roadt that he was opposed to the prop~sal
co~lcerni:~y the partia?. H al.l; that the ptopoced pro ject would block i:he air
passage in h;.s back yardi that preseritly he or.joyed peace and quiet in the
evenirigs, however, the proposed project would have cars driving in and aut
at all hours of the night, and with hs:~ k~~dxoom situatad in tre back of hia
home, the noiae would be a problem; that hp had expeo~.ed ~3ubject property would
be developed with something of th~ n~:ture b~.'~q ~roposed, however, he was strong-
ly o~posed t~ t^io-story development there; ~hac in cnnnectioii with the requested
zoning, the awners of t'e subject prope::ty haa the r.ight to change the zoning
.if it ~,~as within the Pl~nr.ing Commission's reoommendatians, and he aould not
stan~ in the way of the proje~t; that if he were the owner of the aubject prop-
erty he would want to develop the progezty with somet:~inq oth.er tha~z a private
residenc~; howe~~er., the project shc~uld be jc~pt 1SA fee* fr~m the ac~jacent R-1
prnperty ancl t,~e 12-foo~t wall beliind 11is propert,y was objectionable.
Mr. Dave Okura, 312` West Ball Road, AnatiEim, appeared befor~ the Commis~ion
and stated 'ne livec~ two blocks wAs+: of: subject prapertX; ~khat with ' -'~^~ m
units bein~ ~~ropased ~Y1P de~•elopmer~t in t;he €uture miqht be ah_inged from
~dult concept to allow familias with children; ttiat in his opiiiion tl~-ere
definitEly wauld be traffic problems g~nerated ~rom the proposed projeet ii~
ar3dition ~u those problems wtiich already ex~.~~~d; th~t the variances bezng
rea,iiested wete outlandish; that tie could not unde.rstand h~.a 100 cars could be
accommodated in the pro~;osed project ar in c~njunctioz~ with on-street parkinq
an Bali Road; ~hat he env~sioned ca~s parkec3 all al~ng Ball Road if L-h~ ~ro-
posed project was constructed; that the balconie~ and carports would be tcn
close to the adjACent R--1 property; that he would agree '~hat ~he apartmenta
were rie•-laoking from the illustratione gr,sented; that as ~ group, mast o~
the homeowners were oppose~ to i:he prAposad project on the basis tha~ xt wa~
son~e~~'iat less ~han a really 3aod project and, through the package concc~~t, the
reclGssification, ~ara.ances, EtC.~ WRTH "snowed under°j ~'ldt lt appeare: s-hat
during the dal~ when the proper~y ~wners in the ~rEa wa~care~ ~heir lawns ~ Ll;ere
was a defir~ite decrease ~r~ the water press~s:.e ~nd he wondered how the propoaed
pzoject would affect the present ~~ate~~ situation and othe.r utilities in tt~~
ar~a.
~ ~
MINUT~9, CI'I'Sl PIiANNING C:OMMISSION ~ DLr~~Rll)OI" 10 ~ 1973 73-722
ItE;CLAgSIFICATION NO. 73-74-29`1~iN~ VARIANCE NO. 2560 (Con~inuc~d)
Mr. ~2on wiloe, 3156 Glenn tiolly, Anaheim, appesr~3d beforA thP Cammisaio~~ i n
nppoeition to sub j^c~ petiti.or-A and otc-ted hie homd ~ana locatod c:iroatly ber,ir~a
~~.. ~ j8c;t pi•u~exty and he woii].d no~ have puxchae~d ~he home i~ he had known the
subject prop~rty would be zono~ R-3i that ha was r.ot op?osec~ to rezoning sub••
ject propezty but that it shc-uld be R-1. He furthc~r. ~td~ecl in ~onnectian with
tlne proposed wall withitil 3 feet of t11e e~,.i ~z~ing grapeatake fence, t~hat tha
Southern California Ed~.~on C~mpany k~ad a 3.0-taot riqht-of-wuy and in hia
o~in~.an th~ wall. could not be ~laced in th~ pzopoaed locatian.
In .rebuttal Mr. Henry Roberts ~L-ated .~~arding the 150-~o~L• setback, ~hat the
lota along Ba11 Road wero under 300 f~~t deep dnd tho e~ub~ect propc~r~y was
13as tht~n 340 f:eet wide, and 150-foot setbaoks aompletely overlapped these
lota a•~c~ others throughout tl~e City; that tlie area reaident,s would not want
the t~ .luQ of L-he pru;jsct ~o be muah l~as than that bQinc~ proposed; and ttiat th~~
praject .:ae geared to i.he coimnunity. Rec~arding the prapoeed 12-faot wall, he
would agree a wall, pur.e an3 simple, anc~ on the property ].ine, wauld bQ objec-
tionable, and that was why ~they were suggesting thQ man~arr3 roof on tt~e baak
Qj.de to give a down ttect and setting it bac'c ~k~e 3 feet for the ~lanted area.
~togarding khe, n~iae. he atated that was a sErious ~~ncurn particularly in the
marnings when th9 T~si~ents of the project woul~: Ne getting up and going to
woz;., and that was wny th~~ wai.l was proposed ~nstead of an opeii r,arport, which
w~uld he another p~ssibillty to the develc~pmentJ that thP carpcrt was walled
and includec~ an ncu~.istic buf£ar between the project and the homes t.a t•he
north; t~hut althou~h there w~~~;ld be noise from the cars, those s~unde would
be no louder than tne sounds that would narmally be ~enerated from an R-1
deve~opment wi~h tr-~i.r garage5 in ~.heir baak yaras. As ta the poasibi].it~ af
th~ pro~oaed ~ir'.t~ becoming family units at a future time, hc~ sta~~d he wae
aware that t ~ity had haci a s~rious problam with anoth~r p~:~je~t in which
what ~ referred to as a den was allow~d to be enclosed and made use n= as
an extra bedroom, increasing the density; that tl~e den~ ln the proposed pro--
iact were completely open with no fr~a;ning ar subtle suggeati~n for ~lacement
of a door later on; anc~ that the design of th.e units was to have r.he ope~~~ area
adjacent to the living area. As to the traffic pr.~blem, Mr. Roberts stated
no one frc,« the propose.~ pr~ject wovlc~ be backing ou~ of the 26-foo` driveway
to the east end o~ the project, as that driveway would ser/e as the only
egress point for the pr~ject in an effort ta control traffic from the ~roje~t
at one l~~catinn. Regarding parking, Mr. Roberts stated he would :~ubmit that
the den would remain a den and not a li.ving unit, ~hat they were provic?ing
~arki.ng within the Code requirement of 1.5 apaces per dwelling unzt. Regardin,,~
the balc~niaa~ he clarified that th~se F~ould be provided on the soutti side
ot the second-flour uni.ts only and there wovlc7 bc no eavesdropping into the
R-1 development. Regar~ing iche utilit~.es in the area, he sta±~.ed any sewer
o.- wat~r uRage ~f the propused ~roject would be within tx~e :iawci and regalations
rEgarding same and the project ~aould requa.r~ no more usage than R-•t or any
other type use. Mr. RobErts ~urther stated Mr. Wiles had a legitlmate concern
due to the :shar~e of .iis lot which is at the end af a cul-de-~sac; that he had
respect for .all of tha questions and prob'ems raised by the resid.ents and if
the Plaraning Commission a~proved the ~ .:ct, he wo~alci like to work further
with the ppople in ~he area to tr,y t~ .~3olve the problems prior to review o~
the p.roject hy L•he City Council.
Comma.ssioner T'arano noted thers ~eemed +:o be ~. t:~eary being contrived by i;he
~evelopers tn avoi.d the 150-fc^'~ setbaak, but that sc~ far this portior~ of the~
City arai~tance stood invio'late. He srated ther.e might be someone who would
no~ m'_.nd someone lookiny into their back yard but still w~uld not want another
house within 15Q feet af them; that in his opinion the quality ox liva.ng c~-
life style was being di~cus~ed, He further stat~d rhat the pe~ple in Anaheim
do not particularl~ want another structure to be within 150 feet ~f an R-1
reside*~~e and he would not think this r~asoning had anything to do with Zine-
ot-sight; that using a line-of-Eight th~ory, the develop~:r could construat a
house withi_z 10 fe~t of R-1 derelopment with a wall 5Q fePt high, h~wever,
that would not bs withxn the spirit of the ordinance. He ir~~u~r.F~d if Mr.
I'~oberts woul.d lik~ a continuan~e cn subjec~ petition to revise t}~ proposal.
Upon inquiry oi Cc.nmi ssioner ~'erbf;'t, Mr. Roberts indicated he ~irst became
aware c+f the Plartn.ing Conunission nolicy cancoraing ~he 2d-foot landscaped
setback dur. ing hio Cis~cu~rio,ia wiui C~;~ky staf.~ bu~k at ~th~t ti:i~e it was ma8e
vPry clear.
~
~
MTNUTES, CTTX YLANNING COMMISSIU:J, n~cemb~r 10, 1973 73-723
RE~LAaSIFICATION NO. 73-74-2_S_AND VARIANCE N0.__2568. (Continued)
Can~¢nia~sioner Herbat note~d thak a man'R home io hie aastle and a 12-fo~t: wa11.
behind i~im would h~ 8e~nyirig hirn the right ~f vieibility enti r~1y arR cu~tinq
of.f any braQZe he m~ight Ot21AI'W~.9@ uet~ that th~ reae~oning behii-d the ~0-gQQG
landaoaped ar~a wa$ ~.~ pxavi8e greenery and treea so the~t the hoMenwner cuuld
loak out hie hack windaw ~nd not soe a carport, e~a.t ~nfl thn~ the landsc;aped
area woula provide a line-of.~aiyht buffor ~or ~he ~xopneed pro~~sct. Tn
connection with ~ha 150-f~ot a~tback requlrement, hA nat9d ttl,~t there hRd baen
some exaep~f~~ns whnra the prapoeala w~re wi,thin a few faet ~f the r=quirement~
that the proposed projeo± had ~o havp a buffert that the d~4lnanoes8 thatAh~r
mum= ~.hat the developer had not tried to mest ~~~,y ~f the
would aqroe w~.rh tha people in appoei~ion concex'ning 'he wa~.I complQtely acrosa
tha bRCk of th.? subject prope.rtyt that he could not agree witti ,the develnper's
inter.pretation of the ordinances a~. a111 that he wava.d consi :~er. +~ continur~nae
ta allow the develop~r to revise the plan8 to re~..res~rit the living standar8
tha~ the City r~qi~i.r~d; and that he would not vata for the p.roposal as pre-
ser-t~:d as it wae nowhere near the City'g requirements. C~rroniasioner Herbst
suggested thst Mr. Roberts visit the apartment house pro;ject loce-te.d .~t i:he
corner of Romney~ Drive and State Colle~e aaul~evard pnd st;ated that tlne projoct
wR~ developed to the stand~rds of tha Pl~nninq Cur,~mi~s~on, with aingle-fumily
garden apartments, and they we,ce rentEd b:afore th~y ~vere complefied.
Mr. H~nry koberts statod tlie subject area was a good one for development as
the peo~le 3.iked th~ :~:a~ and felt i.t was r~ nice ar~a in whi.ch to livei that
he w~ald reapectfully requ~st a continuanc~ in ordor to meet with th~ peo~le
in the aiaaJ that he would agree wi~h the Planning Co~nz~:sion's obearvation
that the 12-foot wall was difficulL- and that wae why he had worked so hard to
have the mr.nsard roof; and that in riis opi~ion there we.re s~:r~,ous qi~e~'ti.ons
cuncerned with alteznate des; gns aiiC he would like ta disc ~ss ther~e possi.bi l~.-
ties wit~ thoce concernPd.
Commissiotier Far~no noted the 21an:iing Cc,~.unis~ion •+~as des~rous of gr%-nting a
continua:ic~ of t' mt• for ~'~~ devel.oper to reconaider and redesign the project;
that he un~iersto~.. the cieveloper wanted to ma~'~ w~th the peap'le in the area
~nd that he would ~uggest tne peo~le be rea~~ynable on their part ta at least
know what the dcvelopPz ~::ss ^yGl~l~ to prapu~, ~; an~~i thai, he would not suggest
t;~at Mr.. Raberts could obtain approva]. ~f the rroject on the grounds that the
area residente were ir~ agresment with s~id proposal.
Commissioner Hexbst >>nted that since the Anaizeim General Flan indicated such
a property r..r multiple-family de~- l.opm~~~nt and it was ~~reaen~ly zoned R-A with
a Re~o~.ution of Intent to R-3, t-' ~lanning Commissian must consider the
properi:y for ':«at ty~e deveZopm , however, the P~anning Comn~~is~ion wanted a
project ~s :~cl. the i:ype unit thaL- woul.d be compatible with ~the ar~a; anc7. chat.
they al.so war.tad to extend the protec~ion to the property own~rs that could
be af f~rde :t.
Com,mi~aioner Rllred stated he wo~.ld ~uggest thaf: the trash starage area be
placed ~t a l.ocation other than next to the adjacent R•-1 properties.
C~mmissi~ner Farano o~~Pred a mo4.ion, s~co~ded by Commissioner Seymour and
MOTION CARRIED, that the Planning ~ommis3ion, in conneai~ion w'ith an exemption
de^lara~ian status reques~, finds and dete.ri~xnes ~hat the ~~roposal would have
no significan~ environmental imp~ct a:zd, therefoxo, :ecommends to the City
Council that no Environmeiital Impact S~atement is necessazy.
C~mmissioner Fara.no ofEered a matior., ~ec. ~nded by Comma.ssioner Seymot;r, and
b10T~ON CARRIEP, to reoper~ the public hear~rig and continue ~onsideration of
Petitio*io for Rec~.assification No. %3-74•-49 ~~n~ '.~ariance N~. 2568 to the
meeting of January 21, 1974,
~ ~
MINUTE~' . CITY P'.~TN;,ING COMMT53ION, December 10, 1973 ~3'~24
VARIANCE NA. : ~- PUBLIC !iFAR:[NG. DON GIT7'EL^aON, Prelude Development Corp.,
- 917]. Wil.sh~lre Boulevar.d, Bavorl.y Hille, C.~. 90211, Ownerf
roquee'ting WAIt1~R ~F (A) MAX]:MUM PERMITTED NUNlBER OF FRER-
S~'AP1pTr1G SIGNS, (B) MINIMUM UISTRNCF AETWEEN FREE-STANDING ~IGN~, AND (C)
YACATION OF FR~E-~'7'ANLIING S~GNS TO ~STABL.T.SH TWfJ FREL'-~3TANUJNG SICN9 on prop-
ertX deacrib9d aa: A rectangularly-sha~~ed parce~ o~ land having a fr~nrt~qa of
approximaLel,y 370 feat on tha aouth side oE Linooln Avenue, having a ma:~cimum
depth of apprnxime~toly 20Q !'eot, and b~i:~g locatc~d appr.oximntel.y 760 feot weat
oQ the cen~axline of Cliffro~e atreet. Propezty ~r~s~nt~ly clasaified C-1,
G~HERAL COMt~lERCIAL, Z~NE .
No one appe~red isi oppoaition.
Althouqh the Rdpork to the Commission was not read at th~ public hearing, ft
is referred to and mt+de a p~ert of the minutes.
Mr. Don Gittelson appearod before the Commic,si.on a~ ~hc~ petiti~ovod or ssubi~ct
that Conditional Uso Poxmit N~. _239 wh3ct~ was p~eviously app ~
>>roperty related tn a reetaurant and m~tel with an an-sale ~.i.Ruor li.cEnsej
that the re4tauzant with the an~sale liali~r licen.~e had be9n eiimi.nated; and
that they were limiting their use :~trictly to a. 54-~unit motel r.nd the p].ans
had beon so revi~ed.
TH~ ~'UBLIC HEARIN~ WAS CLQSED.
Upon inquiry o£ Commisgianer Farano, Mr. Gittelson advised the aubjeat parcel
was 370 fe~t long and two air~ns were bein.~ req~xested, one at each driveway
into Aubject ~rapertyj that one sign pl~-~ced in the middls of tha property
would not rea.ate t~ the3.r needs; that the lobby of the n~c;tel waa locxted on
the easterr, portion and if the ~ommissi~n objected ta two ~ign~, that he w~uld
compromi~e to have ore: sign if. it could be pl.aced near the easternma~tt dr~ve-
way, agproximately 63 feet fr.or~~ the east property line.
The Planning Cammission enL•ered into c?iscizssion reg~rdiiig the mess~ge contained
on thE sign which advertis~d "Monthly, weekly and claily" ratea, durcing which
Mr. Gittelson advised that t2~ey would be operating as a mctel, and Dep~.ity Gity
AttornPy Frank Lowry stated ha would so advf.se the peti*_ioner tha~t mo~els and
hoteZs ma}~ ~ent ~or r-o mnre than seven-day pera.ods and any renta.ts for longer
p~ri~c~s would be. pexmitte3 only at apartm~nts; tI-1at if the motel was rer.ted
fc-~r lonyer tkr~:. seven-day periads, the petitioner and the manager ~~~uld be
subje~t t•c -~rosecutivn ior violatson of the oxairA:nce whic~ Would constitute
a misdemeanor. Mx'. L~wry zpologized for th~ oversight on S~aPf's part in not
deleting the word "monthly" frort~ ~he propased signi.ng.
Thereupon, Mr. Gittelson stipulated to con-plianc~ with ail ~ ~~ cr_ndit.ionr~ out--
lined in the ~taff Regort ~o the Commission, and to ~hp permitt~:d rent~l
periods for motels; and, further, that the r.estaurant and ~n~sale liquox uses
wer~~ no longer proposed an ~ubject pro~erty.
Commi~si~ner Seymour off~.red a m~~tion, seconded by Cnmmi.sgione.r Herbst, anc~
MiOTION CARRI:;. .~.hat the Planning Conunission, in connection with the exemption
dec].aration status request, finds and determinES that t:~e propoeal would ha~e
no significant environmental imp~ct and, there~ore, .recammen3s to the City
Council that no Env~iionmental Impact Statement is necessary•
C~mmi~sioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC73-259 and moved ~or its p~ssaye
and adop~iol, to grant Petition Eor 4a.rianre Nc. 2567 in part, d~nying ~aiver
of the maximum pe1°m~.cted num~er of free-standing signs and the minimuzn dis-
tance between free-standinq 81C~T1S, on the basis that the ~?etitioner di.d not
grove a hard~ha.p would result if the vaaivers were no~ granted; and that wai.ver
o£ the lacat_on of free-s~anding signs i.s hereby granted on the basis that
subject ~roperty i.s dev~loped with two dr~veways and si.gns located wit.hin t.Y?e
middZe 20$ of ~aid prapertx would not relate to the needs for the signin3; and
that the petitioner stipulated. that only ane sign as praposed to be toc~t.ed
at the eaatern 3riveway, would be acceptable, and ~ubjecti to conditlons.
(See F.QSOlution L~ook)
Jn roll ca11 the f.~rego:in~ reaol~ation was passed by the following vote:
.AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ali.rFd, Farano, Herbst, Kiag, Seymaur, Gauer.
NOES : COMI~ISSI~NERS : None .
ABSENT: :.OMMISSIO'~IERSa fiowlar~d.
! ~ ~
MINUT~S, CITY PLb1NNING COM,MI~SION, Deaember '10, 1973 7~"725
VARIANCE HO. 2567 (Gantinued)
Commiaei.oner tlerbst e~dvieed tY-e pokli:ionar that the propo~sed tm~~el was »ot to
be uaed as a eubst+xndnrd ~partmant, that it wa~ n motyl t,o be rented detly acid
we~ekly, to which t.he petitioner. had st:~pulatecl. He clarif~.ed tha-t .:t app~earea
~ubjact sstabli~hment miqht be turned lnto a subatandard ap~rtcm~nt bui].ding
with kitchenettea, which wae illec~~l in ~tha ~'ity of ~nahe9m.
Mr. Lowry noted thdt City requ'_ r.ements r~ ,..rding equdre foot.aqe~ far living
apartm~n;;s and motele dig,tei-ed and mote.l units wore not bs.g enuugh ta ser:v~~
as apaxtMents.
AM~NDMEN~ TO TITL~' lfi, - CANTINUTrO PUBLIC HFARING. INIT_RTED 'u`.' TilE ~1NAHL~IM
ANAH~T.M MUNIC;IPAL CODE CITY PLHt~NI.VG COMMZSSION, 2Q4 East Linco~n Avenus,
`" "~ "~! Anaheim, Ca, y2~05; to conaider am~ndmgnt to Titl~ 1~,
Chapter 18 Ge ° Uafi.r~itiona sn:Z ~~articular~.y Secttons
18.08.330 - Automcbil~ Serviae 3tatior~, Section 18.08.6~7 -- P.~cr•eational
Vahicle, and Sectian 18.08.'150 - Truak Ssrvice Station, and the additior- ~.~
Chaptex• la.~l - Criteria Rr~d Ddvelopment Standar4~ for S~r~ric~ ~tations,
Su~~ect public heazing wa~ can~inuarl from the n~eeting of November 12, 19'13,
faz ~urther study and additional input from indc~+-ry.
Planning Aide Robezt Kelley pre~ented t.r.e Staff Repcrt: ztnd ~zdviaed ~-!~~t r.he
Planning Connnis~ton had r~quested Staff to supp:y spscific davelopm;,~r~'. s~and-
ards for those sPrvicn atatfons whi.cl~ would rent autamobjles, truck-~ and
recreational v~hicles; and that the px'oposed ord.inanc~ had been retrised and
was presented fc~r cn~sideratton at ~hi~ time. He furth.er stated that the
prapo3ed ordtnar:c~ did i~ot contain any z~rovision r.~lated ta the abs~ement of
abandol~ed senr:ir.~ stations,
Mr. R~n Werd~ritach, Coaununtt_° anci [r~9.ustey R~laCions Repror~entativ~ of. U-Hat~l
C~mpan~, 2515 West W~nston ~in~d, Anat~eim, appeared aefore the C~rnmiseion and
stated t,~ his opinion +•he prop~sed orc~inari~e had been chanqec~ to r.eflsct rental
of equipm~nt at s~rvice s~ationa~ primarily t.railFrs, h~wever, t-h~re would be a
conditional use permit re~uired in ~rd~r ior the serviae s~atio. to eith~r rent
autom~biles, trucks or recreational vehicles; ~hat ~-.he r~st.rict~on gLaCed on
s~rvice atat~.ons undQr. Sec:tion 18.G1.023.01 through .OS wouYd ~~e sufficient to
g~L away from the conditional use per.mit prccedu.re; that limi'ing the dfsplay
a,:ea to 10$ of the ~~rvice stati~n site and placement of the •c~uipment behind
the requirad seLbacks would in effect elim~nat.e many statian: from having
rental equ~~pment; and tltat Section 18.61.023.06 prav~ding thac trucks an.d
recrcatzonal veh_cles shall be of the two-axle type oporated under a Class 3
driv~r's liren~t would elimi.nate every~hing over 10,000 pound3 and th~..:efo,.~
5eation 16.61.023.Q4 pertaining to the ~rucks and r~creatiana7 vehicl~s .in
excess of 10 teet in h~ight or 22 feet in lengtki, could be remov~r~ from the
proposed ordinance.
THE PUBI.IC HEARING W?1S CLOS~D.
Chairman rauer stated the Cor~nission was tar.~c~ with the idea of. !xsfnr~ the
service statian~ for these convenience rent.als, l:owever, the Commiss~on was
nct anxi.ous to n;:~~: every service statior~ ~,. the City inv~lved.
Mr. Wexderitach atated it would net be ~conomicall,y fe~rsible for every ~ervice
station t.o have ~qu~.~meni: renta~ and als~ that the U~Hau~ Company policy was
not to have an over~kaundance of rental outln~s in any area; ~hat U-Haul trucka
were 11-1/2 feet in height, with ~.he exceptian o~ pickups azid Econolines, ~nd
wrere under the 22-.foot lenq~h r k~ut t;hey were undsr th.e 1Q ,000 pounds and nAt
subject ~a thc: Ciass 3 dri~te~`s L: cense restrictior.a of the State of California.
Comanissioner Herbst inquirad if a conditionai uae permit wa~ not rsqu~red how
could the City expect to ~ontrol ~he use when Aves~- service ~t~~tion would be
allow~±d to have ~thess ren'~als bp right; that the City woal.d ~~t k:~a•a wl~ich.
sarvice stations had the z~erstaiaJ tha~ ~~iere were s~veral oompAnies in• the
eqaipment rental business and had n~t contrc ~led the~.x own ind~.atr~ ta de `e;
that in viewir~g service statinne ~.n the Cit,y, he h~d abt~ervad s~varal ~aitch
vahicles ovFr az~d above triose allowed by ~h~ preaent Code and weze alsa glaced
aver the property lines an~ en~o other px•ape.rty li~nes.
~ ~ ~
MINIITES, CZTY PJ~ANN3NG COMMISSIUN, December 10, 1973 '3••72G
AMFNDMENT TO TITLE 7~6 ~ RNAIi~Y_M MUNICIPAI~ COL7E (Cotl,tiAL1~d)
In rebutcal Mr.. Wc~rde:.itsch ataCad he wr~e cir~t awAi•e oE the situ~.L•ior. t~eing
raforreci ~o by Commfssioner H~,rbst or it wauld ba correated. ~~e furthsr statec~
tr.e s~xggastiong which he wae preparnA to make had beAn incorp~:,rated in the
pruC~ose~ ordinar~r.c~.
Commisaion+e~- E'ar.ano notr,c9 concerntng propaaec~ Sac~.ion 18.61.n23.04, tlaat
recxea~.ional vehiclsa 23 fcs~t ar over in len~3th Anc~ wei,yhing ovar ~.O~OOO jJOUt1C~8
woul~l m~st ~.ikely come u~.~ar tha reet;ri.c~tia~na of ~ho CXaeH 3 driver's license.
Commissiongr Herbat not~d ~hat many automativa bu~ineea~s were getti.ng into the
recreatiunal veh.i.cle renta], and would be lookirig ~~,r ourleta, and ane euah
roquoat had alr~ady been recFived? that tti~e automotiv~ renta] bu~3naar+oa were
r.equired tn have aonditi.onal uge pern~its iri ma~at are8s= :.ltat ._n kiis opinion r~
conditional u~e pcsrmit applic~tin~n was favorablo in viaw of th~ fAC~ ~hat if
son~eone came i.n with a sni.tnblo Atte and with rsmple ground ept~~e and tl~e a?~~lity
to eervice the rental •~ahicles, a c;andikiona:l. u:se pQrniit w.ould pr~b~bly bP
griu-tad; h~wever, 3f. r~:tnta?ls were a.llowe3 ~n a11 9(.'CV~.C@ stz~tions by ri~~ht, the
privi.leg~ would be ~Lusod ~nd it was c:oraceivablo that in tha~ event an orc~int~ncc~
might result which wnul.d restrict tne use eni:ii:e~.yt anci that there would be II
nathing to stop a eerviae at~tion ~rer~i:or.f.ram purchASin~g recrec~tional vehicles
r~nd having them available for rent all ttie time or possibly eveil ~e'lling them.
blr. Weraeritsc:h clarifie~ hia etatement concerni.ng a conditional use permit,
t.hat in ~nar-y m~inicinali.ties, howc~vQr not in Axza2~~~im, conditiong had been f.m-
poaed ore a pernlit trat were imposs:ible for the seruica s~tation ~perat~ra to
mpet, i.e., remodeling of rheir service stat.ions, changing t~~~ir pole signs,
constructina 6-fnot walls ~round the enl:ire service atatiori oite, install.~.ng
planters, etc.
Upon inquiry of Gommissioner Farana, Mr. We~:'Qritsch advise~ tl-.e aforement~.uned
c~nditions were not ~~resently tho ca~e in the i,'t~ of Anar~eim; hoHever, it might
be in years t~ come.
~;~mmissi~ner Seyn~our ccmmented that with the c~mp~ titive forces combrnec~ with
the energy cr.i.sis, s~me extreme murketxng t~chniqu,~a were being introcluced and
G:-anges were be~ ng made rapidly i.n the petYolPUm ii du3try , ana hopefully thi.s
Commission uould ~pply somc. fair control which was necessar.X
Mr. Werderitsch ~tateci tl~at even rnor~ drastic and rapid changes were being
,onsidered by th~ industr and coticerning the 35 potential uses f~r service
gtation sites,~ he excend~d ~n invi~ation ~.o the Planniiig C~mmi~sioners to
attend a seminar t~ ba held at the Sherat~ari Inri on December 12, 1973, at 9:00
a.m. , 3uring whi.ah ti.me t~e service statian problema wou~.8 be discusged, in--
cluding mar.keting, zc~ninq, ab3tement ~~ro~edu~~s, and uses that wers coming
.`.nto vogue, so to speak, :or service stati.ons. He fu.r*_hex of:fered to make
arr.ang~ments if any o~ thc Conunissioners could attend ar:d atated that the
aenunar. wa> vital to the City in view of the fact that their :~.igurea indic,ated
~}l~~ ~,~~ut 40$ of tt:~ ser.vice statians in the nat~on would rie ahut down withir.
~:;ie next ttiree years ar.d that the seminar w~s primarily for planni.ng ~cmmissiocia
and ~alar~ ing departments and staffs irom the vari~us cities,
The Planning Commiasioner.s Pnterea diacussion concerning t.he refere~nc~cl semznar
an~~ De~uty City Attd.rney ~'rank I~owry advi, ed he 4~au~3 profer that a quoruun
of Commissxoners did n~~t attend, hrnyever, azraagementa could probably be made
through City faciliti~s ~or a fow of ihe Commissioners t~ a.•tend. Convnissioners
Farano ,~r-d Seymour indicated they were interc:sted in attendl.ng said semiilar as
they felt it was in the ~nterest o£ the City.
Mr. Werderitsch statPd khat abandoned service stationa were a p~~ve to him,
since he was a reaident af Anaheim and ther.e wPre approximatel~- seven service
srations within a tw~-Aluck ~.rea near his home whi~h were closedF and that he
w~uld like some provisiona made £or t~bat+~ment within the ordinanceg.
Gommisaionsr Farano aavi~er~ rlr. Werderitsch that the next time the matter of
servicQ station a~a~em~snt w~s considerPd by the City Council, tl~at he should
speak to xhe ma~ter at that time.
.
~
MINUTES, (:ITY PI~ANN:[NG COMMISSIUN , Decemk>er 10 , 19 '7 ~
~NDMLNT TU T?'rLE 18, _ANAHF.IM b1UNICIHAL GOUE (Ccn~inued)
7:~~727
CammiselonRr Seymour offared R~solution N~. PC7~-260 and moved f.t~r 3~.ts pa~r~aqe
and adopt:.an ~~ adopt and recamr~en8 to the Ci ty Counail adoption c~f an amendment
~o the Anahcim Municip~l CAde, 7'itle 18, Zoning, Chapter 1A.08 - nef~ni.t.ions and
a n~~v Chn~ter lfi.6]. -~ Cz-itc~ria r~n~ l~velapment Star~da~ds ~nr Servico Station~,
as depicted c~n Exliibit "A" . (Se~ ftc~eo].ution Book)
Un r~ll au~1. th~ forc~g~i.ng raeolution wa~ ~aased by the foll~wi:tg votie s
AYES; COM:~xSS70N~It5: Allred, Farano, Herbsk, King, 3aymc?u.r, Gau~r.
NOES: t'UNlMISSIQNLI2S: None.
ABSENT: COMMr5S20NERS: Rowlrsi~d.
REPORTS AN~ - .iTF:M NO. 1
R~COMMENDA'1':L4NS ENVl~2'JNNS~NTAT, IMPACT REPO ~T FOIt THE ~1~NT~1 AIdR
~""'~~'-~ CANYON SOUTH RTVGR TRUNK ~+EWFR~ PHA.''iE .LI A,~~1I) Il~
}1ND 't'Hk~ WALHUT C1INYON SEWFR, 7PEIA5E TII.
Commissi.aner King offered ~ moti.on, sscon~ed by Gomm.~ss~.on~r Herb~t, ancl NiQTI:ON
CARRIED, hhat the Pla,inirig Cammi.ss:ion, i.n connect ion w~i:li the ~iling af an
En~~ironmentaZ Impact Raport for the Santa Ana ~anyon :out.h River Trunk Sewer,
Phasc II and III and Lhe Wa.lnut Canyon Sewer., Pha~~ :[TT, fi.nds and d~torminea
that i:he report con£orms to tl~e Ci.ky of Anaheim C=uide~inea ta ~he Requirementa
for ~~ Fnvirc-nmental Impact R~~,ort and was compl~to 1s a.n inL•~,rmative documNnt.
and that there would be rio aignifiaant adverc~e Hr~vi~onmPntal impact, ~herefore,
the I~.Lanning Commissj.on recomm~nds to ~he City Cauncil that sAid re~aort be
adopted as the Council's EnvircnmenL-a1. Impac~ S'tatement.
I'I'EM N0. 2
REV'ISION TO THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPA'L C~UE -
REPEAL OF CIiAPTER 18 . 84 "BUIL,DING L~INE S~'e:TBACKS" .
Co.mnie~ioner Herb~;t ~ffered a m~t.ion, seconded by Commissioner Seymour, and
MOTIUN CARftIED, i;o set for public k~earing consid~r~~tion of amendment ~~ the
Anaheim MuT~icipal Code, 'I`itle 18, Z~ni.ng, repealir-g Chap~er 18.84 - Building
Linp Setbacks, to be 3G:Y1E~11~.P.$ r~r ~anua:cy 7, J.974,
ITEM NO. 3
VARS:ANCE NO. 25~18 - Request ~a install a
free-standing monament sign.
Assistant Zaning Supervisar Phillip Schwartz~ pr~s~nted request :~ubn:itted in
behalf ai Canyon General Hospital for approval og a 5-1/2 by 6-foot, tree-
standing sign to be located on property at the nozth:~ea+. aorner of Riverdalt~
and Lakev~.e~a Avenues, ann more specifically to be i,nst~.Iled an Riverdale
Avenue. Mr. Schwart.ze continued by stating the p.ru~osed ~.Lgn in th~ C-O,
Commercia.l Office, Zo~ne under which subject pr~perL•y wa3 z~~n~d, c3ic1 not permit
free-standing or monum~nt sign~; ancl that the proposed sign was :~imilar to
thase previously approved b.y variai~,ce.
Commi~sinner HerLst offered a motion, s2candecl b~ Commi.ssione~ F~~rano, and
M~OTIOt] CARRIED, ~hat permission is hereby gran~t~d to install an additional
5-1/2 by 6-~foat, free-st~ndi~5 monument sign ~.dentif•ying emerge.ncy ~-nd aut-
patieni: facilities of the ~:anyon General Hospital, said si.gn t~ be insta].l~d
at t-he southwest end of subject property on R:i~reidale Aver~ue, and t~h~.t per-
mi.ssion is granted on th~ basis thrxt t:~e nai:ure of hospit~ils rec~uires aut-
patien~t and emergency sxgn~ for the conv~nienae of the pai:ients iii emergency
situations.
Later on in tha meeta.ng De~uty City Attornoy Frank I~owry :tn~lica~ecl Yeis concern
that subject request shuuld lzave required a public hesrin~3.
Mr. Schwartze advised subject request was `or an ~.ntazpretation of L•he Sign
Ordinance for C-O, Commerci~l Of~ice, ~oning as it rPl.ated to medical officeso
to determine whe~.her such a sign would be permitttd by right.
Commiasioner Farana sts~ted riis interpre4:ation was that tr,e requ~at was not £ar
an adc1itional siyn, but for an interpr~tation that an ~ut.•-patient desiqnat.ed
ontrance area couZd be included as paxt of the 2loepit~l s3.gning without requi.r-
ii~g a variance; and that this was his underst~nding tr.at ~he Cc~mmission had
concurred in.
~ ~ ~
MINUTE$, GIT`1 P1~ANNING COblMTSSZnN, D~cem}.i~sr ].Q, ].973 73-728
ITF.M Nn. 4
~'SS~'a ~ON'~RnL EASP NI~NT TN TJtACT NU . 741Y .
Commiseioner Fnrano ~f~@Tf3C~ Rc~solutiUn Nr~. PC73-26X rsnd moved for its pae~ac.~
and a~doption ta recommend to the arange Caunty Fl.e~od Contr.~al. Di.r~tric~r that thR
proposed qui.tclaim uf thA flo~~ct c:ont~:ol easement ix-cluded wit.hin Tentative
Tract No. 7419 i.n ~he Cit,y ~f Anahaim was in conformance wit}~ tti~ adaptod
Ane.hoim G~neral Plan and will have n~ eignifican~ efYect un the enviroi~ment
of the City. (See 12esalution Rook)
On r~~l]. call thp foreg~ing reso].uCion was pasa~d by the fol].awinr~ vote:
,~YES: CO~iMISSIUNERS: Allred, Fsrano, Herb~t, King, Seymau.r., G~uyr..
NOES: COI~IIrlISBIONEI2S: Non~.
AHSEN'r: COMNI?SS70NER~: Rowland.
ITEM NO . 5
~~.Q E. T T~ INSTAI,L .A TEMPORA.RY k'LAG POT~E
W:CTN CAG~ ,
Assiqt~nt. Zoning 5up~rvisor Ph.illip Sc:hwaitze prc~Fanted request t4 install a
temporary f~ag pole with ;,age .f.ar advertising pur..~aseg on property locatea
Un the we~t si.de ~f Aeach ~oulev'ard upproximately 92U feet nor.~h of the
centerline of 13a11 Road. He further stated ~ha~ a pers~on actinc~ as a flag
pole aitter would occupy the pol~ caga for a~,exiod ~f approx~.n~ately ~0 days.
Chairman Gauer sta~ted in his opinic~n the mattor ahould be con~~der.ed tzt a
public he~ring as the p.raposed ~ign was very ta11 and the Planniiig Commissi~n~rs
c~ncurred that the prablems whic:h thia aign mi~~ht ~reate ~n connection vrith ~he
traffi~ on Beach Boulevard necessi~a~ed thQ publ~.c hearing procedur.e.
Cammis~ioner S~ymour a.ffered a mation, seconded by Co*.iunis~aior-er Farana, anc~
MOTI~N C.#1RRI~D, tiiat the P lanning Commiss ion wouid consider a Petition for
Variance when filed b}~ t:ie petitioner ta .i.nsttt].1 a temp~rary flag pole witk~
cag~ on the suk~ ject property .
ITEM NU. 6
CUNDITIONAL USF PERMIT N0. 1226 -- Request
for approval of plans.
A~si.st~ant ?o,iing Supervi3ar Phillip 5ahwartze pre~ented request for approval
of plans in ~:annsction with Conditional Use Permit No. 122G on property located
on ~the ~ast side of Lalceview Avenue appx'oximatel.y 13.00 fe~t naxth ~f La Palma
Av~nue and st~ted that an extension of ti.me for ~ompletion a£ concla.tinns and.
the use of ad9i.tional property for the tawinc,~ sei-vice was requested in conne:c-
tion wi.th Conditional Use Permit No. 1226 , which pex~mitted a t4w~.ng service
and iinpound yar~lt that on July 9, 1973, the petition~r was requested by the
PZanning Cocnmiss3.on to present plans to the Building Divia~on ~o inciicate tYieir
progress; and ~hat the required development plans had been submitte~ to thE
Building Divisi~,~z within the 90-day p~riod.
Tne Planning <pmmission entere~d into discussion c~nGerr~ing the appropri~te
action to taL on thp subjeGt m~tter, durinq which Mr. Schwartze aasured ~he
Commiasionei~ that subje~t pl.ans had b~en recelved by the Ci~y ared this was
an indiaation that the petitioner was procesding vigorously= that in ths p~st
the peti~:ion~r had not proceeded toward cor~pletion of his construction; and
that the manr.ex in which this matt~r was being handled was the int~nt of the
Planni.ng Commis~ion acti.c..i of July 9, 197.3.
Conanissioner King offered a motion, secondec~ ay Commissioner Ner~at, and MC~TIOH
~,ARRZED, ~that sub ject development. plans , as requested by the Flanning Comm~.ssion
an July 9, 1R73, in connect.ion with Condi.tional Uee ~ermit No. 1226, are ha~reby
acknawledged ms received within th~ required 90-day period.
~
•
~~
~
MINUT~S, CITY QLANNrNG COMMTi3STaN, lleae~mk~er. 10, ].973 ~:~ •~2g
TTEM N() . 7
~~'L~1'.~~J,AT~ US~ PERMIT NO. 646 - RAC~UHdt POx'
torminetio,. ~ Yaropnzt~ ].ocated on the weetarl.y
sidc~ of t~oetern Av~nue+, r~pprox~.ria~~l~ 67Q last
soutlt a~' ~h~ conterline ~~ i,inau'.n A,venue and
fur.ther described as 145 ~outYi W~etexn Rvenue.
It was nn~ed that the maj~ri~..y uf conditionrt of approvnl of Cond~tinnel Uae
Pqrcnit No. 646, ~.o ~etabli~h n~ multipl~--gami. t.y planned r.egidential d~*velopmer~t,
a~ set far.th ::n Reeolurion No. 1417, Serier~ 19b4~65, had not been m~t~ that
the preeent ownar ~f the proper*.y had aul~mitted a letter r.eque~stii~g ~erminatton
of r~.l"1 ~roceecYings sinca they did not intsnd to ~,xez~fee tho use 3rar•ted undex
eub;ject permitT and that etAFi', t.Y~ezef~r.e, would x~command that su3~jevt peti.-
tion bA ter.minated.
Commissianer H~+rb~t offered Ra~;atution No, PC73-262 and movad tor i.ts paR~age
and adoption to tertniz~atQ all F-roceedinga~ of Conditio~:al Uee Parmit Nu. 646,
as requestc~d by the prap~zt,y oM~nQr, (SP.P. Resolution Book)
Oi, ro11 call tha faxAgning ~eaolutian wae ga~taQC~ by the ~o17.awing vote:
Al'ES : COMMISSI~NERSz Allred,, Farano, Flerb~st, K~ng, So~--nour, Gauer.
NOFS : CnMMISSIONEItB: Nono.
ABSENT: COMMISSION~RS s Rowlanc'..
ITEM NO. 8
NDITYt~~L I~SE PEP.MIT N0. 1145 - Request far
amEndment to Condition of Approval No. 11.
Assi~tant 7oning Supervisor Phillip Schwartze no~.ed fo~ the Convmission th~t
ttie s~abject property was located at thr~ northwest corner ~f Lakeview Avonue
Pund Ftiverdale Avenue and was bein~? cieveloped with the Canyon Goneral Hospit~l;
that the property immediately ro •'.he wes~ of subject praperty was preaently
v~cant and proba~Iy would be d~ve::.oped as a City parki and ~hat tY-a peti~ioner
was reguesting that ConBi.tion of F,pprovai Ido. 11 nf Cor~ditiona~. U~e Permit NU.
114 5 YaE~ a~ended f rAm ;
"That a 6-toot masonry wa11 shalz be constructed alonq L•hs west
praperty line az~d th~ aaster i 274 fset of the sou`.h praper~y
line; and, that a bond be po,3t~d w~ kh the City to guarantee the
lnntallation o~ a 6-foot mas<~nry wa:ll along th~ weatern balance
of the south property line ia: and when the Cii:y deems a wall ia
necessary in :hat area."
to:
"That if ti:~~ adjac~nt pr6perty to the west ia acquized as a park,
then the westerly property line of the suk~ject property sYia11 be
£ull,y lan3scaged with trees and th~t a l~ndsaaping plan shall ba
st~bmitted to and approved by l~o~h Development Servicea and Farks
and Recreati.on Lepartments. l~ur.t.tier, that a 3~and be posted wi}h
the Ci.ty to gu~rani:ee installi~tion af s 6-foot masonzy wa11 to
be constructed ~long the westEsrl~ proper~y ].ine o:~ th~ sub~~ct
property in tY-e event that t}lEj a8jacez~~. property to th~ we~t is
not acquired as a gark site."
Mr. Scrwartxe ekplai.ned the suggcsted amenciment woul.d allow the Ci~y the
oPtion ta de~cermine whether ~hA wal.l should be cone~ructad, depersdi.nc~ upon
whether a park wac~ developed ~n the ad joinir~g propgrty . ~
Ueputy City Attorney Exar~k Lc~wry noted ~or the Commiesion ~hat t~e requested
amendment to approva'1 of subject Conditiona~. Uso Penmi~ would ne~d ta be
accomplished thraugh a publ.'~c he~aring as euD~ jec~ request was far an amendm~nt
~o ~.egislatiun.
Comatiisaioner Sevmour ~ff~re3 a motion, se.^onded by Commisaioner Farano und
:90TION CARRIEA, to ~equir.c~ tihat the petitionez, at the petitioa~r's expens~,
reac'~vertis~ Conditional Uae Permit No. 11A5 ta con~ider ~he requ~st for amend-
ment to conditiions of appxo~val.
~ ~ ~
M.INUTES, CZTX FLANNING Cc~MMIS~IQN, nacembor 10, ].973 73-730
IT~M N0. 9
I~ ~A 1~CATZQN NO. 72-73-45 AND VAR~ANCE NO. 2499 -
(Mark Iz7: Homas, Tnc. )~ Iteqveat Por appr.ova~ ~f
firi~l flc~or plans and elevatiane - Prope::ty loca~ted
approximc~~ely 800 f•e~t east o~ tre c~nterllne af
I~ndheim F.filla Ftnad, tiavinq a froi~ta~~ o~ appraxim~tely
566 feet on khe south aide o~ Sa~ita Ana Canyon Road
and tiavir,g a maximum depth of ap~~roximately 990 fe~t.
Aesistant 'Lani.ng ~uperv.isar Phill.ip Schwartze preseni:ed request fur appr~val.
o~ final floor pJ.nne and elevations f.or tY~e developm~.~~lt of aub~e~t p~opert.y ar~
requir.ed by Condition No. 5 aF Rasolutian No. 73R-25ft (Reolaseificati.on No.
72-73-45) anc3 reviewed f~r thE~ Plann.ing Commi.ssion t1;at on Oct~ber 15, 1973,
the Comma.ssion revtewQC~ ~the p~tition~r's r.eque~t for approvAl ~f final P.loor
piann anci elevationt~ and bae~d on ~an anFtl.,y~si3 of t.he subtni.tted plan~;, the
Commi~sion det~rmined that the A~ibmitted plnns w~re not substantiall.y in
accordanc~ with th~ y?].a-ns ae a~taroved ti: c~ei- Varia~ice r~o. 2499 and wez9, in
eFgeGt, a sul~stan~:ial deviation f.rom the~ origi.nal plans. Mr. Schwartze Fur.ther
advised tlzat th~ revi.sEd plane beinq con:~idered at t1i~.t~ time very ,~ubatantially
conformed to those p1Rns ~~htch were original.ly a~pproved in the zoclasaific.ation
and vari.arice; that tlle dwelli.ng miae was essentially ~he same as tt~e original
plans and no new waiv~rq were ~ea.ng cx'ented; and tt~-at S~~~ff would rocommend
that t:he floor pl.ans anc~ ele+vati.ons beir~g ~ubmitted be a,~p~ov~ad.
Commisgioner Sey~nour offer~sd a motion, seconded by Commis~,i.oner King, and
MOTZON CARRIED, to apprcve the £i.nal floor plans and ele~-~it.ions rss ~ubmitted
i.n connection with Reclassification No. 7Z-73-45 and V~r.tancP N~. 2499.
IT~M N0. 10
Ct7NDITIONAL USF PEY2MI'.I' N0. 1193 - Request for
clarif.ic~ti~n of. RPSOlution No. PC70~-143 -
~zopezty located on the sauthea~t corner of
4lagner Avenue and ~tate Col.lege Boulevard.
Mr. Gaylen C~mpton~ 2304 Clif~ark Way, Anaheim, r.epresenting the peti.tioner,
ztppe~red beEore the Commission and stated the Anaheim Uni.ted Mwthodist Church
was requesting to construct two soitY,a11 da.amond~ on the east side of sub~ec~t
pro~erty, or~e on the nor.theast cdrnF-r and on~ on the southeast corner; that
the~e diamnnds would be used in cr,njunct~ion with the East Anaheim Bobby S~x
Lpagu~ activitie3; t.hat the ~re~ident of the league had talked wj.th ~he owner~
of t.he homes abutting subjecfi: propErty, and had ob~.ained tlaeir signaturE~s on a
petiti~~n indi.:ating Lhey did r,ot oF~ase tne United Methodist Church and East
Anaheim Bohby Sc~x Sof.tba].1 League in their plan to construct two softball
diamonds behind theiY prap~rty nor. the leug~ie's .i.ntenti~n tu play their teague
ach~dule on said pr.oper'cy nor additional athlel:ics engaged in by church 5~outh
groups; and that they were prop~sing no lighting as ttley would only have dzy-
time softball.
Upon inquiry of C~~nunissionpr King, r~garding ~hather this mattex' should be~
considered at a r~ublic hearing, Mr. Cor.tpton Qxplai.ned the uses which surraunded
the pro~erty in quesk.ion in~luded Katell.a High Schoo~ on thc east, approxii.iately
four homes to the south, the cliurc'.1 and Sta~e Cotlege Bou~.evard on the west,
and Wagner AveiluA to the nor~h; ~1,at with ~h~ sur.r.ounding 119P.~J in mind, a public
hearing mxght not rer:eive any differ~nt reaction than that he was presenting,
however, if a pub~ic hea.rir~g was determii;~d t~ be required, he was willing to
follaw that procedure.
Commissioner SeyMOUr r.PViewed fa.r thp Commission tlxat during the originnl publi.c
h~aring for Condii:iarial UsE Permit No. 11~3, thc •residents in thQ area were nat
oppaa~d to the cnurch or recxeational areas whats~aver and on ~his basis he did
not ~~el th~ Commission ~hould cauae the expense c~f adverti.sing this mati:er for
public hearing.
Deputy City At~.orney Frank I~awry advised he had rev~owed the mi.nutes of the
i?.lanning Commissior. meeting hrld August lA ~ 7.9a0, and trere wa~ a ref9rence
in connection with the recreati~z~~sl area on the southeast corner of 1he prop-
erty, and the.xefor~a, he would state that th~ sub~ect mattsx was m~zely a
request for interpretation of the use of the rec.reatic~nal fao3.lity .
Commis3ioner Seymour offerad ~ motion, secondod by Commisei.~ner FRrano, and
MOTrON CARRIED, that the Planninq Camrnissian ~inda and de~.ermines that the
softhall diamonde being requestecl aro in can.foxman~e~~lutinnhNausPG70 143ginally
appr.oved for. Conditional Ur~e ' prmit No. 17~93, by
~ ~ w
MIi~UTEB, CITY PY.ANNx,vC CAMM.I38TOli, Deoembe; c 10 ~]973 73-'l31
~-L~JOURNMRNT - Th.~rp b~ing no further
oftwred e motion,
Kin k+ueinesa tu
seaonded by d~.ecusa, Cc~ran~.esi.on~+r
Ccncrmi.esionez AlXrsd
g
and h~OTTON CARRI~L', to adjaurn tho m~~ting to Decdmbsr 27,
1973, dt ~~OQ p.m. i.n i:he Counci.l Chet~bor.
The masting a~djourn~d a~~ 6:~.0 p.m.
Re~ ctfully sul~mi.tted.,
~WZ.G~.G~~ / '" ' /~~ ~r7-t...-~ (~~
patricf.a R. :~a~+nlaz~, 3ecr.dtary
Anaheim City P].annJ.ng Commiettion
PBS:hm