Minutes-PC 1974/05/290 P, C~ NiICROEI~MING SERVICE, IKC.
C~
~
~
City Hall
Annh~~im, Cnlifariiia
Muy 29, 1974
R~GULAR N1~E'PING OF THi. ANAI~IEIM CITY PLANNIt~G COMN:ISS70N
REGULAR - A regular. meeting of the Anaheim City Flanning Gommi.asion
MEETING wad cal7.ed to oider by Chairmc~~
r ~lt 2:00 p.m., on
`sant
May 29, 1974. a quorum being p
PRES~~1T - ~:HAIRMAN: Gsuer
- COMMISSION~RS: Comp'ton, Farano (who entered the meeting at
2:05 p.m.), HerUst, King, Morley
ABSENT - COMMISSIONGRS: ~7ohnson
A'L~C~ PRESk~NT - Assistant Deve?_opmant Services Director: Ronald Thompa~n
Malcolm ~l.aiighter
Deputy Gity A~torney: Jay 'Pitus
pffice Enyine~r: Ya~~l Singea
Traffic Engineer.•: Dan McDaniel
Planning Supervisor: Charles Robc:rts
Zoning Supervisor :
Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Phillip Schwaztae
Assaciate Planner: Annika Santalahti
Patricia Scanlan
Commission Secretary:
PL~;DGE OC - Commissioner tIerbst led in the Pledge of Allegiance to th~
ALI~}~GIANCE Flag ot the United States of America.
APPRQVAZ OF~ - Commissioner King o£f.er.ed a motion, seconded by Cnmmissioner
f the
THE MTN UTES Herbst and MOTION CARRIED, to approve the minutes o
bmitted
.
maeting of May 13, 1974, as su
VARIP~NCE N0. 25$9 -• CONTIIdUED PUBLIC liFARING. S. V. HUNSAKER, .TR. , P. 0.
Bo:;].28, 5az Juan Capi~trano, Ca. 92677, Owner; DOMINICK
TALLARTD~1, 70~ South Knott, Apt. S-3, Anaheim~ Ca. 92a04,
Agent; rec;uesting WAIVER OF PERMITTED US~~~ T~ ESTAI3LISH A SANDWICH SHOP ANU
UELICATESSEN WITH ON-~ALE BEER ANG WINE IN A~ EXISTING INUUSTRIAL COMPLEX on
proper ty described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land located at the
southwest corner of Oranget:~orpe Avenue ana Placentia Avenue coi~sistinq of
appr.ox imately 4.1 acres, having approximate frontages of 605 feet on the
sout2i side of Orangethorpe Avenue and 325 feet on the west side of placentia
Avenue _ Propert~ presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, 'LONE.
Subjec t petition was continucd from the meet:-ng of April 15, 1974, for
revision of plan~ and the filirig of a p~~'ition for canditiona:l use permit
an the subject property.
As~is t ant Zoniny Supervisor Phillip Schwartze. n~~t~d fnr. the Commission th«t
the pe tit.ioner was reqaESting an additional six-week continuance to allow
more t ime for preparation and submission of the necessary documentaticn ~nd
plans .
Commi ssioner Iting offered a motion- seconded by Commissioner Comptors a~nd
[dOTION CARRIEU (Commis~lo:lers Farano an3 Johnson b~ing ahsent) - to .`urther
conti r.ue the public hearinq and Gonsi3eration of Petitioii Eor ~'ariance No.
2509 to the meeting ~f July 8, 1974, as raquested by the petiti~ner.
74-232
• ~
MINUTES, C:C7'Y nLANNING ~OMMISSION, May 29, 1.974 74-233
VARIANCE N0. 2596 - CONTiNUFD PUDLIC HEAI2ING. MELVIN SCHANTL, ].7A1 Wast
~ KAtell.a Aven;ie, Anaheim, Cct. 92804, Owners RONALD ~.
TENTATIVE [NAP OC~' COMFR, 1095 North Main Streot., SuiY.e D, Orar~ga, (:a.
TRACT NO. A67f1 92667, Agont. Property dQSCrib9d as: An irregularly-•
~~` sl~aped par.cel of land conaiatinq of a~proximate~y 3.47
ac:re,s locat~:d nc+rthweaterly af th~ Mi.raloma Avenue over-
croasing anci the Orany~• E'ra~away, having a froi~tago of ~pprc+ximately 163 f.eet
on the nortn aidQ of Miralomr~ AvEnuo ar~d having a maximum ddpth of approxi•-
mately G17 f~ot. Pt opc~ ~y pre3ently clasaified R-H, AGI2ICULTURAL, 20~1E.
VARIANCE REQUEST: ~~1AIV1;12 QF (A) MINIMt~M I,nT WIDTH AND (B) MiNIMUNi WIDTH CiF'
~'t;DES'rRIAN ACCESSWAY , 7' C.ONSTRUCT A 77^UNTT APAR'PMENT
C~~MPL~X.
TFNTATIVE ^_'RACT RL:UUI~ST: ENGiNEEk: HAI~L & FOREMAN, INC. , 2530 Nort,h Crand
AvEnue, Santa Anar Ca. 92701. Subject property
is proposQd for subdivision into 8 it-3 zoned lots.
SubjecL p~:tition was continued Erom the meeting of May 13, 1974, in order
to a11ow the pe~itionEr time to submit revised plans to take into considera-
tion the attenuation of potontial noise from the Orange k'reeway l~c~ted
east ~f subject property.
No one appeared in apposition to subject petition.
Al.though the Staff Rep~rt to the Plann=ng Commise:ion datea May 29, 19?9,
was not read at the ptiblic hearing, it ia referred to and made a part of
the minutes.
Mr. Ronald Comer, tcie agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission
ta answer any queat.inns.
THI~: PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
In respon~e to questioning by the Plaizning Commission, Mr. Comer statea he
was ~atisfied wit~~ the conditions a~ set forth in the Staff Report; 1:hat he
was aware of the new Condominium ~rdir.ance and had no intention of parcelling
off the units and selling them individually; that the propased wali along
the property line adjacent tu the freeway wou].d b~ of masonry constructi~n,
and ~aould be tari oz any ~ther color d~sir~d by the Commisaion; that the
setback along said wall woulr~ be offs~t at int~rvals by 3-foot v~ide land
scap~~:i areas but would have wrought irun swinging gates to the planters
ad;acent to the freeN•ay for maintenance puxposes; t1iaL- Gaid wall wou].d be 8
feet high; an3 that he k~ad agreed at the previous Commission meeting to
~omply with the sound coni:rol standards wherein double-paned wind~ws, etc. ,
would be provided, ancl fortunately there were not too many winc3ows Eacing
the freeway.
COMN!ISSIONER FARANC~ ENTEkED THE MEETING AT 2:05 P.M.
Cammissione~- Compton inguired what the hardship was for the narrower lots
on th~ cul~c:e-sac, and Mr. ~omer stated th~.~+-. was the way they had the lots
laid ~ut, however, sa.nce the cul-de-sac had t~~ be a min.imum width, he did
not believe the plans c~+uld be re~?~~:-:- to make the lots wider and still
ha~~e the same number of lats, ana this reasonic:g woulcl also apply to the
requested waivez a.f the 8-foot minimum pedest.rian accessway.
Chairman Gauer noted tha~t it would be necessary for the Commission to
reaommen~? tq the C:ity Council amendment to Resolution No. 72R-234 which
approved rezon~ng of the subject ~roperty, said amendment being to delete
the condition requi~ ing the 5-.foot earthen l~erm and 5 to 6-foot masonry
wall, since thA ~ eti'tionPr was proposir~g cther con~truction w2-iich would
serve that purpoGe.
It was noted that the Director of Development Services had determined that
t1•.e proposed activity fell withiii the definition of. Seotion 3.01, Class 5
of the City of Anaheim Guidelines ~o the Requirements f.or an Environmental
Impact Report and was, th~.refore, ca tegorically cxempt from tYie requirement
to file an CIR.
~ •
MINU'.rES, CITY PLANNING CQNIMISSIOtJ, Mdy 29, ].974 74-234
VARTANC,E N0. 2596 AND TENTA'rIVE MAP OF TRAt:T N0. a678 (Continuad)
Conunissioner Compton off•arod R~eolution No. i'C'14-~.06 and movec~ for ita
~assaa~ and adoption to c~r~nt Petition for VariAnce Nn. 2596 an the bas~s
of the for~going flndinga, aubjoct ko the atipulations by the pe~itioner
and subjack to conditiona. (Sde RQeoluti~n Book)
Or~ roll call, thQ foreqoinq rnso].utian was paeaed by the followicig voC~e :
AYES: CGMMIBSIONERS: COMPTpN, F'ARANU, HERBST, KING, MORLEY, GAIiER
NOES: ~OMMISSICINERS: NUNE
AHSA.NT: COMMISSIONERS: J'OIiNSUN
CommisaionPr Compton offi~rad Resolution No. PC74-107 and moved for ita
passage and adoption tc~ recommen~d to the Ci*y Council that Reaolution No.
72R-234 approving R~alasgification No. 71-'i2-41 be amended to delet.~
Conditicn No. 3 and to add a new conditian to read as foll~ws: (See
Reaoiut.ion Book)
"3. That an 8-foot offaet masonry wall, tan in color, in
uddition to a 3-~oot wide landscapeci area, ehall be
auns~ructed aJ.~nc~ ~he easterly property line }a s~parate
the Orange Fr~eway fram the proposed 20-£oot wicis public
all.ey, and tha~ :~n ~caustical analysia shall be provided
showing thai: ~.h~a proposed building~ are desigr.ed to
llmit intruding noise to an interior noise 1FVe1 not to
exceed 45 d8A in any habitable ra~m measured in acr_or.d-
ance with the U.B.C. Standard Na. 35-3 and that a test
ieport showing compliance with ~.he allow~ble interi.or
noise level be submitted to the Fiuildinq Division prior
to occup~ncy, as stipu].ated to by the petiti~ner."
On roll call, the forQgoing resolution was passed by the f.ollowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: COMPTON, FARANO, HERBST, KING, MO:LEY, GAUER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
AIISGNT: COMMISSTONERS: JC~HNSON
Commissioner Compton off ered a motion, seconded by Commissioner King and
MOT~ON CARI2I~D (Commissioner Johnson being absent), to approve Tentative
Map of Tract N~. 8678 subject to the following conditions:
(1) That the approval of Tentative Map of Traat No. 8678 i3 granted
subject to the completi.on ~~ Rsclassification No. 71-72-41 and
Variance No• 2596•
(2) That sho~xld this ~ubdivision be developed as more than one
subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in
~entative form for approval.
(3) That all lots within this tract shal.l be served by undergr~und
utilities.
(4) That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to
and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in tha
Office of the Oranqe County ltecorder.
(5) '1'hat fire hydrants shal~ be installed and charged as required and
determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire D~partment
prior to cnmmencemsnt of structural framing.
t6) That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior
ta approval of a final tract map.
( 7) Thai: the awner ( s) of subj ect property ~ha.l l pay to the City of
Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as
determined to be a~prapriate by the City Council, said fees to be
pai3 at the time thp building permit is issued.
S
~
~
MINU'PES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 29, 19'74 74-235
VARtANCE N0. 2596 AND TENTATIV~ MAP OF TRACT N0. R678. (Contlnued)
(S) That drairia~3e of sub~c~ct propQrty ehall be diapoaed of in a
manner thai: is satisfactory to the C:.9ty Engineer,
(9) xhat Pr~rk Lane ahall Ue conatructed as a~ta~ndard 64-£oot wido
at,reet .
(10) That an acaust3.ca1 analyais be prc+vided showing that the
proposed buildings are deaigned to limit. intruding noiso to
an interior noise level nnt to exceed 45 ciBA iii any habitab].e
room measured in accordance with UBC Standard Na. 35~3 and
that a test report showing complianae wi~h the allowable
int.erior noise lovel be stibmi~.ted to the Buildir~g Diviaion
pr.ior. ~o occupancy, a~ stipu].ated to by the gotitianer.
(].1) TYiat the finaY tract map show lot lin~s extendir~g acros3 the
a11Qy which runs alony th~ northexly and easterly pr~perty
lines a.n ar.der i:o include the bloc;c wall srsown on the tentakive
tract map as Lot "A".
ENVIRONNtENTAL IMPACT - CONTINUED PtJBLIC HEA~ING. DUNN PROPERTIES CORP.,
REPORT NO. 123 2009 East Edinger, Santa Ana, CA. 92701, Owner.
PropertX deacribed as: An irzegula~ly-shaped parceJ.
RECLASSIFICATION of .land consisti.ng of approximately 13 acre~ located
N0. 7:3-74-55 at t:ze nor.thwe~t~. corner of Magnolia and La Palma
" Avenues, having approximate frontages of 1150 feet
VARIANCE h~. 2598 on the west si.de of Magno].ia Avenue and 1250 feet on
- "" the nortr~ side af La Falma Avenue, and having a
COt,1DITI0NAL ~1SE maximum depth of approximately 1250 feet. Property
PFRMIT NO. 1462 presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, 7~OHE.
TENTATIVE 1NAP OF REQUEST~O CLASSIFICA'~ION: C-]., GrNERAJ~ C(3MNERCIA.I~
TRACT NO. $660 ZON~ (LOTS 1, 2 AND 3)
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING, (B) MAxIMUM
HEIGHT OF STRUCTUI2E, AND (C! TEMPORARY L~ISPLAY OF'
BANNERS, T~ ESTABLISH A COMMERCIAL CENTER.
REQUESTED CONDI'IIONAL USE: PERMIT ON-SAI~E LIQUOFt ESTAIiLISHMENTS ADTD THEATRE5.
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: ENGINEER: WILLTAMSON & SCHMID, 1535 East First
Street, Santa Ana~ Ca. 92701. Subject praperty
is proposed for subdivision into 34 Ni-1 zoned
lats and 3 C-1 zoned lots (Lots 1, 2 and 3).
Subject pei:itions were c~ntinued from the mee•~ing of May 13, 1974, for
Further considera~tion as requested by the petiti^ner..
Deputy City Attorne;~ Malcolm Slaughter noted for t:ie Commission that Commis-
sioner Kin.g had filed a Declaration of Conflict of Interest at the Max 13,
1974 Planning Commission meeting and that said document was on file with
the City. Thereupon, CAMMIS5IONER KING LEFT THE MEETING AT 2:15 P.M.
One persnn indicated his preser~ce in opposition to subject petitions.
Assis~ant Zoning Superva.sor Phillip Schwartze read the Staff Report to the
Planning C~mmission dat~d May 29, 1974, and sa3.d Staff Report is referred
to as if set forth in f~a~l in the minutes.
Zoning Supervis~r Ch~rles Robert~ noted for th.e Commis~ion that the revised
plans were received the d~te of this mseting; that at the last ~neeting, t`~
Commis~ion expressed cansiderak+le concern regardinq tY~e CitX maintaining
contxol if the C1 zoninc~ was approv~d; that ~ommendation of the
Interdepartmental CommittPe was that prior t~ ing it would be necessary
o ~
~a-Z36
MINUTES, CITY kLANNTNG CnMMISSION, May 29, .1974
ENVIRONMENTAL IM1'AC'P REPORT N0. 123, RECLASSTFICATION N0. 73-7~-55, VARrANCE
N0. 2598 CO~IDTTIONAL USk~ Pb;RMIT NA. 1462~'1'F.NTATZVE M~1P OF TFtACT N0. 8y 6f 0,.
for ~he developer to submit to the City the preciso plana for tha development
thoy uctually intended to conatruct on the subject proper~y and thosa plana
wauld come br:Lore r.hz Planni~ng CUmmiasion and the City Council for ~nppr~vals
thak anly ~ftex' said pl.ttna were approvod would the zaning be placed on the
propertys and t,hat t:he foreqoing would bo mado a condition o£ appraval for
the Fubject reclas~i~ication. tie furtller noted that the~ plans before ~.he
Commiesion at the present timQ were a reEinement of the conceptua]. plans
previausly submi*_ted.
Commiss~oner Farano noted that i.t was not the poli.cy of the C~mmission or
the Cit•y t~ pass upon ~ reclassi~'ication and egpecially a varianca or a
conditional u~e permit; witl~out precise plans, and I~lr. Robezts advised i.t
had besen the general palicy of the Planning Commission and City Council
tl~a~. where thexa was any controversy regaraing the d~velopment, rather
definitive plans were re~uired to be presented.
In response t~ qusst;.oning by Chairman Gauer regarding the recommendations
for the traffic ai~uation within the proposal, Ci~y Traffic Engineer Paul
Singer advised that the plans before the Commtasion had been prepared by
Kimm~l & Assoaiates 1nd tY,e proposed traffic flow plan was in subst~zntial
agreement with City S~a~ff's recomm•ndataons; that the traffic generation of
the project would have a s.ignificant impact on the adjacent arterial street
system which would be true of any development in th~ subject area; that the
great~st concern at the tiMe of the alignment of the street was thF spacirig
of the traffic signal. location in arder to effec:t progression; that the
service raad which was unnamed at the pres~nt time and was the main entrance
into the subjeci: propert~ frnm b~th La Palma and Magnv].ia was over 900 feet
from the intersection of blagnolia and La Palma to minimize the delay and
provide for aufficient atoraqe on-street foi traffic-tu.rning movement and
fo~.- thw wai~ing on t.raffic signals; that it was very likely that at somP
Eutu.r.e date traffic signals w~uld be required at both of the accesges of
the service road; that ~he driveways into the commer.cial area had been
designed in ~uch a way to prohibit or minimize left turns into and from the
sPrvice road.
Commissi.oner Herbst inquired if any c~nsideration had been given to the
tonnage of freight that would be coming iz~to tl-.e p•roperty, ~nd n~ted that
with the 301,000 square feet flf industrial space with a railway, biq diesels
and 60-foot rigs would be coming into the prop~rty at the access road and
such industrial traffic would bp interm.ingled with the cnmmercial traffic.
Mr. Singer then nated that he co~;ld not see where the two types of traffic
were not compatible; that the Commission's concern was probably directed to
the internal intersection between the cul-de-sac and the main serviaP road
and the t~affic volumes projected were low enough to be accommoclat~d; that
the servi.ce road between Magnolia and La Palma would probably have the
capacity of 3C'0 to 400 cars per lane per hour and the cul-de-sac would have
approximately 300 cars per lane per haur of green time which was well
within the projected volume, and which would include rat~ier large trucks.
Commissioner Herbst indicated concern regarding the closing time for the
businesses in the area and the effect this wculd have around 4:00 dr 5:00
p.m. on the traffic. He inquired if the traffic would justify traffic
signals bei.ng installsd at this time.
Mr. Singer advised that whenever t:~e traffic was justified by actual cour.t,
traffic siqnals could then be insta].led using public funds. He further
advised that although the traf~ic would be generated from the subject
property, the City policy had heen to install signals for u~e by the general
public at no cost to the developer. He noted that there were or,ly two
traffic signals in the City of Anaheim 'tha~t were installed by private funds,
one being at Orangethorpe at the Northrop facility and the other being on
La Palma Avenue at the Autonetics entrance.
• ~
MINUT~:S, CITY PI,AIJNING (''OMMISSION- May 29, 197~1 74-237
LNVIR~NMENTAL IMFACT R~PQRT N0. 123, RECLASStFICATZON N0. 73-74-55~ VARIANCE
N0. 2598, CONDITTONAL USE P~RMIT N0. _14F2, TENTATIVE MJ1P O[' TRA('T N0. Q660
In reply to qucstioning by Camm~isaionor rdrano, Mr.. Sing~r advised ~hat the
traffic projectton~ for the induatrial devc~lo~ment wdre br~sed on atudies in
~imilar tareas t•.hroughout the State and other agencies, i..e., the Stute
Uivision of Highways anc~ tha Automobile C1ub of America; thc~t the t.r~f£ic
vol.umos had baen calculated nn the project~d useo for the ~ubje~.t kropertYt
that thay hAd take~ in~o considerr~tion the automobile nnd truck traffic
eize and weight in r.elationship to the c~natructian of t:hE base of the
pavement; that they ha~ not projtcted the number of trt~cks that would be
gener~ted from the proposed uses, howr~ver, th~t f2ctor wauld b~ ~al.culatable
basod on '.he Orange County Road Depart~a8nt breakdown of truck trat~iC on
industrial streeta; ~nd that ~hay had taken i.nto c~nsideration the proba-
bility of 65•-foot oi- multiple-axle vshiclas for the c~nst.ruction of the
~>avement only and not in re~ati~nshi.p t~ traf•fic flow.
Commi3sioner Compt.o,i noted that betwsen ~he hours of 4:00 and 6:00 p.m.
there would pr~bably be a r~al i:r~ffic jam with people gei:ting oEf work and
with the bank, restaurants and the theatres all being located in clase
proximity, howev~r, th^. trucks would probak~ly not ae running during those
two hours.
Commissioner Farana not.ed that heavy ~xsage of the railwav could be anticipated.
Commissioner Morley yiotecl that a manufacturer that did a lot of shipping
usuall.y wanted his product picked up at thE latest possible time which was
around 4:00 or 4:30 p.m. and that could generate considerable truck traffi.c
during the peak periad.
Mr. Clyde Haugan, rPpresenting Delco-Remy Division af General Motors Coxpora-
tion, the property owner to the north of subject property, appeared. before
the Commission ancl reiterated his opposition to the subject petitions for
the dFVelopn-ent of. Lot 3~ as stated at the Commissian ~neeting on May 13,
1974. He further si:ated that hF needed to be znore explicit r~garding his
primary concern, being that whei~ the 5tate decided what the waste water
treatment would be for heavy mEtals, they p'lanned to place such a wa.ste
wat~r treatment plant along their south property line adjoining the subject
propert~~; that there would be an approximate 10-foot high bunker araund tt,~o
holding tanks which would be approximately 60 f.eet by 24 fePt, and a clari-
~ier tank would be approximat-ely 80 feet by 16 feet; that the concern was
that if the subject property was zocied commercial and a bank or an off~ce
buildiny was allawed to be constructed next to his property and a varian~e
was requested at a future date in connection with his development of the
waste water treatment plant, then there might be ur~favorable reactions by
the conunercial deve].opment. Hp 5tated that he was not objecting to the
commerci~~.l use c~f the sub;ect prc~perty bu~ was oz~ly concerned about that
property's tenants' reactions to his own future developm~nt•
In reply to questionir_g by Chairman Gauer, Mr. Roberts advised that the
proposed Al.lstate faca.lity on Lot 3 would have a driv~-in claims o£fice.
Mr. Bill Gray, Vice Presideni: of Dunn Proper~ies Corpc-~ation, ~ppeared
before the Commission and explained the setbacks between th~ pzoposed
Allstate structure and the adjoininc~ property to the north, bei,lg an approx-
imate 110-foot distance. He stated the main concern of the Comraission
appeared to be the traffic L•low and traffic generatien.
Commis~ioner Farano indicated that his main concern was foz the traff:.c
pattern and specifically that the proposed development contemplated 301,000
square feet of industrial development whi.ch would be ar.y number of uses,
and he was w~rried about the mix of the passenger cars ar.d the industrial
traffic; that Dunn Properties was experienced with warehousir.g and knew
•that there would be a lot of trucks injec~ed into what was, in his opinion,
a beautiful commercial develcpment, and would take away from the praject
and represent some ~erious problems; and that it appeare'. no one had studied
the impact af the 65-foot vehicles paseing in and out of the development.
~ ~
M'INUPES, CITY Pi,ANNING i;OMM'iS5I0N, May 29, 15~74 74~238
ENVTRUNMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 123, RF:CLASSIFICATION N0. 73-74-55, VA~TANCE
N0. ~598, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1462, TENTATIVF MAP OF TRACT N0. 8660
In rebut.tal, Mr. Gray etat~d tha~ tihe EIR addrassed itse:lf to traf.f.ic
generationt t.hat ~t-c~ atre~t deaign as far ao thQ width and turning radius,
etc., llad also takEn the an~iciputed vehiclea into conaicleratinnJ that the
atreet was designec~ to carry 7,000 vehicles and the project would pro3uce
approxi.mately 2,000~
Mz. Herrnan Kimme1, the Traffic Engin~er for the devel~per, appeared before
the Commissi~n and addr.esr~ed hlmself to the truck problem by atating that
the Orange County Roaci Department f~r ~he paat 19 yeara had eonduc:ted an
annual truck courit at var.ious locations and ciL•ies 1.n the Countyt that.
duriny that time, tht~ truck percFntages had boen decreaeing; tihat the truck
percentage on an average ar.~erial highwa~- at th3 present tim~ was 2.5~ of
total vohicles; that when they first beyan studying trxffic generation,
thay picked i,nciustxial ar.eas to study, one boing an all-industria] area tn
Anah~im and fau.nd 19.58 tr.ucks; t.hat they had found in the Costa Meaa and
Irvine r~r.ea ~hat the p~r.cent~ge was lowered to 10$; that the t.r.uck count.s
w~re from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and that the trucks begi.n earl.y but
during the peak houra the averagc was L~w; that they ran all day ~onq and
there was no unusual or exceptional ~ercentage during t.he pealc hours; that
the 65--f~ot vehicle was the lowest of the categor~ and was l~ss than 1~ of
~the t~tal; that it was too difficult for the 65-f~ot truck to be handled by
the driver~ durii.~ peak hours; and that qen~r~ally during the peak ho~irs,
there was mostly aut~mobiles which were h~ing dri~-en to and from work.
Cammissioner Herbst noted that his c~ncer.n was that the commercial traffic
was not separated from the industrial traffic in the development and a
bottleneck had be~en created; that a traffic signal would not be installed
im.mediately; that he was not sure any of the subject prnperty should be
zoned commer.cial but that perhaps the conditional use permit proceas would
be mare appropria~e far i.ts development; that by keeping thc property zon~d
M-1, it was mure likely to provide ~dequate protection to the adjoining
praperty to the north, an.d have semi-comm~rcial uses which would be
comoatible.
In rebut~al, Mr. Kimmel stated that the peak ho~ars for inaust.rial and
commercial traffic differed, and if there was a third access, t•he s~tuation
~would be •aorsened since '~here would be anather. access point for possible
accidents; that bv concentratinq the traffic, the siqnal would be warranted
soon~r; an~ that from a traffic enqineer's standAoint, he believed the
traffic flow patt~rn was desi.qned ~roperlv and preaented no unusual problems.
Commissioner Farano noted that it was conceivable that the subject property
could be developed with a Safeway distribution center or SPars; that one of
the most danqerou~ pl~ces was a market parking lot; that there would be
commercial shoppers, penple goi.nq to lunch or to work, as well ~s the
ir.dustrial traffic that would all be usinc~ th~ same accesse~.
Chairman Gauer noted that the Commission should rely on the expert testimony
being presented.
Cammissioner Compton noted that he would agree that it was necessary at
some pniiit to rely on guided testimony, however., the proposal to mix commer -
cial traffic witiz industrial traffic was unusual.
Commissioner Herbst reiterated his cvncei•ns and stated he was not in favor
of mixing the traffic:; that it 4/:~s unkno~~n what uses would be oc~~pying the
industrial space; that much consideratian ahould be given before zoning the
~roperty t~ mix ccmmercial witti industri~l property that had been in exist-
ence for a long p~riod of time; that th~: 4~roposal would give the City many
problems for y~ars to come, in i:is opinion, regardless of the experts'
opinions.
Mr. Gray sca~ed that if the property was developed totally industr'•1,
other problems would be generated. He raiaed a question concerning ~...~di-
tiori No. 9 wha.ch lnad been discuasnd at th~ greviQUS Commission mEeting and
Mr. Roberts advised thr~t in retyping the StaL•f' Report, chan,qes had not been
made to the conditions and that a condition could be added t~ allow for the
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY FI,ANNTN(~ COMMISSION, May 29, 1974
74-239
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 123, RE;CLASSIT''tCA7'ION NO. 73-7A-55, VARIANCE
N0. 2598, CUNpI'i'IONAL USE PE12MT.T NO. 1462, TENTATIVE MAF OF T}tACT NO. 8660
introduct;ion of an ordinanco as each parc~l was ready to be developc~d wi~h
regard to the subjoct roalassi.fication, and that Co~lditian No. 9 for ~he
tract could b~ del~ted as previo~xsly d.i~+cussed.
Chairman Ga~ier notAd for ~he Commissi.on that ttle subject prapert.y could b~
kept M-1 and vc~rioua uees could be ~;or~sidered undQr conditi.onzl use permit
as thQ devel~per wAS rea.dy L-o proceecl.
Mr. Raberta advisod tihat during the early stag~s ~f dtsc:uasion with tho
devc~lop~r, l.li~ conditional uaF ~ermit approacta had bePn axp].or.ed; however,
the genera], charac~er of the development waa for c~uu~~~rcial u~e, thPrc~fore,
the St~ff had suggested it was more appropriate to requ~st commercial
zoning; and that the a~£ics-type uses proposed fur Lots ]. ~zncl 2 were not
qeared to commerce and industry but were general commercial u~es.
~n r~buttal, Mr. Gray stated that the petitions as processed set the devel-
oper back approximately a month; that a conditional use pcrmit was essen-
tially what tho Commission was considering Gt this time; ~hat t;1e preci.se
plans and elevationa would hav~ to come before t.he Commission prior to the
ordinance being reaci for the individual lr~ts, thereby giving the CitX some
cantrol; t.hat if the subject pettti~ns were approved, the de~~eloper would
be given the go-ahead for working drawings, the maps could be .ecorde3, and
the irtdustrial development could be started by July l, 1974.
Commissioner Compton nAted that he wanted to vote for the proposal, however,
if there wasn't another comparable projeci: in Orange County, ttien he would
conclude that the deve~oper was ~isking for. something very unusual.
:Cn xespon~e, Mr. Gray stated that his only similar project wou].d be the
Carson Mall. on Avalon AoulEVar~~; that there was approximat.ely one mi'.1ion
square feet af industrial buil.dings adjacent to the mall that came out onto
common streets, and there ~~as a series of streets that intermingled ir~ that
entire project. He c].ari£ied that the truck traffic generated on the
subject property would be co~ning down the panhandle on the pruperty and
would empty onto the streei: that bisected the property; that he did not i.n
any way envision the trucks drivi~-g into the commercial area from the
industrial area as they would be going straight through the property; tt~at
the proposed street was de~igned by Mx. Bob Williamson who was also a
traffic engineer, based on count; that the question hacl been raised ~:oncern-
ing a rai.l-served builcling and the size of buildings, i.e., a Safeway
distribution center of Sears; that regarding the size, Dunn Properties was
not in the ma.rket place to build the big l~lockbuster buildings; that they
did not antir~ipate large users but were m~~re in line with 35,000 to 40,000
squaz~ feet of divis~.ble space; that they had constructed a similar build-
inq in the City of Oranqe, rail-served, witn approximately 87,000 square
feet, and the maximum ten~nt was 10,000 square feet and the truck traffi~
was bobtail rigs; that 1:hey had been in the bLtsiness for a good number of
years anci constructed a lot of buildings, and truck traffic was one of the
major considerations in their designs.
In Xesponse to questioning by Commissioner Compton, Mr. Gray stated that
the propased Allstate tenant was aware that the AelcoRemy plant was located
next door to the sub~~ct px'operty, ha~vever, they were not aware that there
would be a water treatrner~t plant; that although they would like to put
Allstate in the proposed loaation, if it was not possible they could put an
industrial building at that locatiAn. Mr. Gray further stated that th~
Allstate people w~anted to be at the proposed location because of the shop-
ping center across the street.
Commissianer Herbst noted for the petiti~ner that wherever the subject
properry abutted other properties, th~y wexe aiso abutt.ing different zones;
thaL- he did not object to•the proposed industrial development or to the
commercial 3evelnpment on Lot 2, however, Lots 1 an~ 3 should remain M-1.
and througli the conditional use permit process L-here was still a p~ssibi?~.ty
of constructing the proposed uses.
~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING GOMMISSION, May 29, 1974 %4~240
ENVIRc~NMENTAL Zb1PACT R~~PORT NO. 123~ RECLASSIFICATION NU. 73-74-55, VARIANCE
NO. 2598, CONDITIONAL USE PERMI'P N0. 1462, TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 8660
Mr. Gray atated that ha could not proceed with t.he f.irs+ phase of the
industriul development until it w~a known what would be cr~natructed ~n the
subject prapQrty since th~ entire property har~ been master plannod; thr~t if
the Allstate atructuro wae not approvod under a conditional uss permit then
he inight be forced to cnnstruct an 11,000-square foat indust.ri.A1 building
thafi hc mtght not bo ab].Q to lexse•
In rasponse Lo furthQr c~ucationing by Commiasioner C~mpton, Mr. GrAy stated,
in his opinion, tt~at the Allstate people would not object to a water trea~-
ment plant or a clarifior being ].ocated on thp adjoining property to the
ncrth due tA the buffer that wae: proposed along the property linef that
when the water treatment facility was px'oposed it would probably have to
have an EIR thak wou].cl assure that there would be no noi.se or odor3.
In response to ques;:ioni.lg of Mr. Gray, Cammissioner Eierbsi- noted t.hat
under tt-e reclasaificatic+n proceas a particular use could n~~t be reatrictedT
that approval af the suh7ect peti.ti~n f.or reclassificatian would reaone the
proper.ty to C-1, or gener~ 1 commercial use.
THE PUBLIC H~ARING WAS CLO~~D.
Commissioner Herbst offered ~2esolution No. PC74-108 and moved for its
passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition far
Reclassificat:ion No. 73-74-55 be approved in park rezoning Lot 2 fram M-~,
Ltght Industrial, to the C--l, General G~mmercial, Zone; that it was deter-
mined that Lots 1 and 3 should remain with M-1 zoning since nat all general
commercial uses would be compatihle with the existing adjoining M-1 proper-
ties; subject to conditions. (Sc;e Resolution Iiook)
On rnll ~all, the foregoing resolution was p~ssed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIQNERS: COMPTON, FARANO, HERBS'I', MORLEY, GAU~R
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSrNT: COMMISSIONERS: JOHNSON, KING
Cam,-nissioner He~bst offered Resolution No. PC74-109and move-! for its passage
and adoption ta grant Petition for Variance No. 2598, i.n part, denying
waiver of i:he minimum required parking spaces for Lot 2 only since the
Plarining Commission has recommended disapgxovaL o.f the reclassificatian af
Lots 1 and 3 and 'the prpposed development could not be acc.omplished within
thE site development standards of the zoning on subject property, on the
basis that the proposed theatre would be in use at hours other than the
regular kiLisiness hours ~f the other uses; thasc waiver of the maximum per-
mittsd heiglit of a structure wa~ withdrawn by the pEtitioner; thai: the
wai~er of tempor~ry display of banner~ was granted on the basis that said
banners are part of thz design of the structure, as well as a development
theme, and are set back a considerable dis'tance from ttie adjacent etreets;
subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CONIMISSIONERS: C~NIPTON, FAF2AN0, HERBST, MORL~Y, GAUER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NQNE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JOHNSON, KING
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC74-11Gand moved for its passage
and adoptian to grant Petition Eor Conditional Use Permit N~. Z462; that
the petitioner expressed the desire to also have on-sale beer and wine in
the pro~osad delicatessen and the Commission determin~d ~hat this was an
appropriate use at the subject lo~ation; that the Commission recognizes
that at least one of the proposed restaurants would have a semi-enclosed
eating area, and these a.re determined to be a permitted use provided,
however, that said semi-enclosed eating area having not been advertised for
consideration at this ~ublic hearing shall be advertised prior to City
Counci.l revia~,; ~ub7ect to conditions. (See Resolution Hook)
s ~
MINU'~'ES ~ CITY P~ANN~CNG COMMIS.~iION ~ MSy 29 ~ 1974 74-241
ENVIRONMENTA'L IMPACT ItEPORT N0. 123, REC.LASSIFICATION N0. 73-74-55, VARIANCE
NO. 2598, CONUITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1462, TENTATIVG MRP OF TRACT NO. 8660 M
On ru11 aall, the foregoing reaolul•.ion was passed by thQ foll~wing votc:
AY~,S: COMMISSIONERS: COMP'I'ON, FARANO, H~RBBT, MORLEY, GAU~R
NOCSs COMMI54IONE1 :: NONE
ABSENT: COMMI;SSIONERS: JOHNSQN, KING
Commissioner He~rbat of£erad a motion, seconded by Comm.issionex Compt~n and
MOTION CARRIED (Commieaioners Johneon and King being absent~, t~y rlpprov~
Tentative Map of Tract No. 8F60 with 36 M-.1 zon~d lota and 1 C-]. zoned lot,
subjact to tho followinq conditions:
(1) That i:he approva]. of 7.'en~ative Map o£ Tract No. 8b60 ia qranted.
fillb]P.Ct to the r~ppr.oval af Recla~sification No. 73-74~-55.
(2) That should this subdivision be deve~.oped as more than one
aubdivision, eac)~. s~abdivision thereo.E ahall be submitted in
tentative form for approval.
(3) That all lots with.in this tract shall be served by underground
utilities.
(4) That a final tract map of subject property shall be sabmi.tted to
and ~pproved by the City Council and then b~ recorded i~.a the
o£fice of thP Orange County Recorder.
(5) That st,r~et names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior
to appro~al ox a final tract map.
(6) That drainage of subj~ct property shall be disposed of in a
manner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer.
(7) 'I~n~t ~ire hydrants sha11 be in~talled and chargPd as required and
determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department
priar to commencement of structural frar~ing.
(8) That pe::petual easement agreemer~t~ providing for ca.rculation of
trash trucks and emergency vehicles from ane parcel to another
shall be submitted to the City Attorney's Officc for review and
ap~roval: theri filed in the office of tha Orange County :~tecorder.
~
~
MLNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIGN, May 29, 1974 74-242
FtEC~S~ - Cha.irman ~auer de:lared a receas at 3:30 p.m.
R~:CONVF,NE ~- Chairman GAUar zeconvened the maeti.ng at 3: 40 p.m. , with
-~~~~ Commiesioner Johnaon beiny abaent..
Af2.CA DEV~T,UI'MEtdT - INI'rIA'PED DY THE ANAHEIM CITY PI~ANNING COMM~SSIQN, ~04
t~LAN N0. 115 Last Linaoln Avonue, Anahe:~m, Ca. 92805; to consid~r
~~ vehi~cular Girculation anc~ a~~aes for approxi.mately 2 acres
Doul~vard touthe~wQSt,~aNorth~5treet~toQthe~sautlh~Andrbor
Helena Strert to the e~at.
RCCLASSIFICATION - CON'I'INULD P~JBLTC HE:~RING. MART~iA K. ~C1iUMACHER, 2~.3
NQ. 73-74-5A North Helena °,tr~et, Anaheim, Ca. 92805, Owner; LEONARU
SMIT[i, 125-U South Claudir~a S~reet, Anuheim, Cr~. 9'?805,
VARIANCE NO. 2607 Agent. P~c:~~rty described as: A rectangularly-ehaped
parcel af lan3 aonsisting of approximately 0.23 acres
loaated at the r.orthea~t corner o£ North S~reet and Harbor
Boulevard. Property pres~ntly classified R-2, MULTIPLE-
FAMTLY RESInENTiAL, 2QNE.
REQUESTED CLAS~ZFICATION: C-1, G~NERAL COMMERCIAL, 'LONE
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM BUILDING SI'PE AREA 1~-ND (B)
MINIMUM LANDSCAPED SETBACK, '."Q CONSTRUCT A ME:DICAL
AND GENERAL OFFICE BUILDING.
Seven pex~sons indicated their presence in connection with t.he subject Area
Develc~pment Plan.
Assistant Zoninq Super~isor Phill.ip Sck~wartze read the 5taff Report ~o the
Planninq Commission dated May 29, 1974, and said Staff Report is z~ferred
to as if set forth in f.ull. He explained that Exhil~it "A", if adopted,
would eliminate any accass being taken from Harbr,r k~oulevard in the subject
area; that the a11eY between La Verne and North Street in tt~e ~tudy Area
would be wider.ed to 20 feet wi~h 5 fePt to be dedicat.ed bY the properties
frontinq on Harbor Boulevard ~and ac:cess to tho~e pr~perties woul.d be from
the alley.
Mr. ~eonard Smith, representing Dr. Richarci Garabedian, a prospective
dPV~loper for a parcel iricluded in the Stu~3y ArEa, a~peared before the
Commissi~n and stated he and his client did not ayree with the Plan as
prcposed; tk~at the area should be qiven additional study; ~:hat acc~rding to
the Plan, the entire w~.deninq of the alley would come from thc~ Fr~A°rties
tha~ fronted on Harbor boulevard; that 'l18 client would be rec~uired to
dedicate 10.25 feet far the wideninq o; Harbor Boulevard, in addit.~or- to
dedic~tin~ 5 feet for the alley, whic:, would .reduce the lot and make it
difficult to develop; th~t the widening of the a?ley should only require
2.5 feet of additional dedication rather than 5 feet; that as far as his
client's property was concerned, he woul.d suqqest entrance on1Y ~r' an exit
tor riqht-hand turns only to prev~nt crossinq of traffic lanes on Iiarbor
Boulevard; that the inclusion of t:".e pr~~p~r~y facinq on Helena Street in
the packac7e for commErcial development was not practical at this time; that
commercial deveZopment on Harbor Floulevard, in his opinion, was practical
but there would have to be some ki~~d of access; that Y-is client. was presen*ly
occupvinq a medical office in the 100 block an Harbor Boulevard ~ahere he
was usinq an alley far access and this was a very unsa~a.sfactory arrangement.
Dr. Richard Garab~dian, the prospECtiv~ developer for pioperty wzthin the
Study Area, appeared before the Commis~ion and stated he wa.s born and
raised in Anaheim and had always wanted his medical practi~.. to be in t!ie
~ity and on Hari~o~ Boulevard; that he had tried to acquire the property for
a lonq time and it was fina].ly availa:.le; that he ~aas proposinq a fine
architectural stl~tcture and he was desirous of havinq it aestheticallY
pleasinq and did not want a lot of cars parked ir~ the front wi~h the build-
inq setback to the rear; that havinq his pa.tients par.k in the rear and
enter from an alley was undesirable; that he would be investinq approximatielY
$37,000 for the lot and appraximately $100,OOQ for a buildinq; that what he
~ ~
M?NUT~S, CTTY PLA~NING CUMMISS'iON, May 290 197A 74-243
ARFA D~VFLOPNIENT YLAN I~O. 115, ftCCLASSIFICA'rIUN NA• 73•-7g'S4 AND
JARIANC~ N0. 2607 (Continued) _
wae ~roposing would b~ nic:er than a roaidence and the propArty w~zs not
conduciva ta dovelopmant with upaxtm~nta or ather rQaidontial dovelopment;
that his practice wou~.d be a cia~~t:ime n~3rationj ~hat he ne~de~ some kinci of
traffic flaw and ~hat us?-:g the al].ey was not, in his opinion, propar; and
that having riyht-hand turns ont:o tlarbor Baul~v~rd w~uld not areate a
traffic hazard.
Mr. Pete Aengoch~a, 839 North Hnrbor Boulovard, Anaheim, ~ppearoc~ before
the Commiseion and skated he had livQd at his px'ea~nt addreas f~r. 32 ynara;
that acrosa the atrQet from him thare was a dental offi.ca wh3.~:h wr~s ma.tn-
tained in the best and moat effict4nt mann.er, however, there wae no parking
pxovided for the patiQnts and the area on the other si.de ~f the alla,y wa~
full of weeds and ttie patients were reluctant to enter there to fi.nd ~ark:~ng
apace and usual].~ parkQCl ~n Nart.h S*_reet; tY.at he wanted tc, know how the
k.raffic and parking problems wou].d :~c: resolved in the ~x.rea since if th~
problems on the corner of Harbor Boulevard and ~Vo.rth Street could not be
re5olved what would happen with red~velopment; that someone was operating a
hotel in his block with eight raoms rented out inciividually with no facili-
tics to par.k, and they had been u~ing hi.s vacant l~t to do ~o until he
closed it off and now they were having a difficult time 4ccommodating all
af the cars; that h4 had raported the situation ta the City regarding
maintaining the alley and ~:he fact that water stood there a great deal of
the time; that he was not objectiny to thf: pro~~sal of Dr. Garabedian since
the more improvement happen~d to the ar.ea would benefit him; however., he
hoped the Plan would be to provide the necessary parking so that people
could stu;~ tY~eir car3 to patronize the doc:tor'~ office, etc.
Comrnissi~ner Farano noted thaL- Dr. Garabedian's plan provided for 14 parking
s~aces which was more than adequate for his propoged development.
Mrs. J~an Frinkls, 907 Park Way, Anaheim, appeared before the Commiasion and
et~ited she lived on the nor.th side of her street and wond~red what the City
intended foX the development on Harbc~r. IIoulevard; that the leqi~tima~e State
roate thxcugh Anahei.m was Anaheim Baulevard and not Harbor 9oulevard,
:.lthough ~.he Cii•.y Tr~ff.ic ~nain~er appeared to disregard that faci-; and
that the area under discussion was a residential ar^a anci she was orie of
the z~esidents. She inqui~ced i~ the area would be developed a~l commera?.al
and if so this would cut aff any future residential growth; that the City
allowed trucks ia~cluding semis on Harbor Boulevard constac~tly although tYie
maximum poundage was set at 6,000 p~ands.
Chairman Gauer noted that the City was tr.ying to itnprove the area arid that
~r. Calvy's office had not hurt the area.
Mr. Joe White, 809 West Broadway, I~naheim, appeared before the Cor,unissi~r~
r~preserlti.ng Mrs. Faye Cotler who owned five ~1.5-faot lots on liarbor
Boulevar3 in the area; that Mrs. Cotler was interested co know if the City
would coneider rezaning the pr.o~erty to agricultural since h.er pr~pert:y was
actually worth less aL the curr~n* time than it was H~en she purchased it
in 1957; that it was impossil~le to borrow money to develop the praperty
since it was hard to sell w~hen ~he property faced the alley for access
purposes• He further noted that the taxes on Mrs. Cotle.-'s property had
been reduced by one-third since khe assessor's affice could not prove the
propert~r was worth anything.
Convt-issioner Farano noted that the ~ominission was presentl~• considering the
property in the bl~~k north of North Street for a possible resolution of
intent to C-O or some othe~ commerc.ial zoning.
In response to questioning of Mr. White, Commis3ioner Farano noted that
rather than a'llowing curb r_uts on Harb~r Boulevard~~ the City Traffic
Engineer was requiring ac~;e~s to be thrnugh the alley.
i •
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSSON, Muy 29, 1974 74-244
AR1:A DEVELOPru:N'~ PLAN NU. 115, Ft~CLASSIFICATtON NO. 73-74-54 AND
VARII~NCE NO. ?.007 (Cant~nued) ~~ _~__~._
In reapona~ to furt:har questioning t~y Mr. White ragal-.~iiig ~ho atatus of the
wideniny af tfarbor Boul~vard, D~puty City At~:ornc.ay Malcolm Slauyhtez :~dvisc~d
that the proset~ GenerAl Plun called for a 45-foot half-width for tiarbor
Boul~vard and ..aid w,tcl~n~.nq would ocr.ar de~~endiny u~on availabi.l.ity of
Eunde and pri.oritiRS thr.ougt~out the City.
In rep],y to qu~~stioniny by Chairman Ga~~er, Mr:. Sahwartxe advis~d ~hat by
takinr r_he necesea~ry dodication from L•ho Har.bor soulAVar3 pr~perty, ttie
uses or~ t~Ielena StroPt co,xld rQmain reai.d~sntial. without an~~ intQrferencei
and that tho 311ey wAa prc~sent].y 15 fc~et in width.
CommiesionPr Farano iiotQd thai: by dedica~.ing for the alloy and tt~e widening
of Ht~rbor Boulovard, th~ propertieK would bQ quir.e emr~ll for. de~~lopment
and pr.obably :Land asRambly from a planni.nq atandpoint would be R good
approach; however, he was not confidont that the px~oporty owners were ready
~or land assembly and hQ would not want to put them j.n a position of having
to dQ so unless th~y want~d ~a.
Mra. Hi.nkle appeared uqain ;.-nd indicated ttiat the City Traffic Engineer had
made ~he ar~a uninh~Uitabla for man,y and that since parking was allowed ~n
An, '~im Boulevard i.t coizld eurely be allowea on HarLor Fioulevard ar.d that
c~as •~rhere the directxon sh~uld be.
Commissioner rarario noted ttiat there had been a numher c~f variances and
other uses for developmQnt on the west side of Harbor Boulevard anc~ he
would firid it harcl tn perceive that Dr. Garabedian's applicakion coul~i be
denied; ar~d tk~xat ~h~~ area was otherwise de~eloping strip commercial.
Chairmaz~ Gauer noted ~hai: ha would oppose st-rip commcrci~~.l.; that people did
noz lik~ going into an alley, however, tr.ey should be able to exit on
Harb~r Boulevard; that the property could '~e Pxit.ed by a right turn and
this would be necessary to allow fnr circuJ.atior.; and that he did not see
any~hing wr.ong with the praposal to constr~ct the medical and qeneral
office building ~s proposed.
Comm~ssioner Herbst noted that adoption of the Area Development Plan would
provide a tool for the future develUpment of the property ir:cluded in said
Plan; that if the praperty was zcned C-O, ~ahich w~q the lightest possible
use for commercial development, there stiould still be more than ~n alley
.or acc~ss purposes.
Office ~nc~ineer Jay Titus advised that Harbor. doulevard was not a secondary
street but a px~imaLy with an exception to the r~:quired width, therefore,
there was no parking on-street.
Commissian~r Eierbst noted tha~. except for the corner parcel, the prape~ties
may never be develo~ed.
Commissiorier Farano noted that it appear~d Dr. Gzrabedian's proposal was
jus~ified on the basis of the prPvic~us acti..n on the w~st side of Harbor
Boulevard; that he digayreed with the ingress and egrAss through the alley
atid that other than a 1ot ef small devel.opments, the land should be
assembled and ma3P into something substai-tial.
Commissioner Herbst raised ai- additional point, being ~hat C-O zoning would
allow deve].opmpnt of. subatandard lot3; that he wss not opposed to the Plan
but wanted to give the peo~la an opportuni~y t-o use their propertier~; and
that he was surpr~.sed that more prcperty owners were ~ZOt present at this
public hea.ring.
Mr~. LaVerne Harkey appeared before the Commission as a~roperty owner in
the subject area and stated that the proposed deve]opment would be to her
advantage since it would be a beautiful building, however, she was not
aware t'~at she would have to dedicate propert.y in the front snd in the re~r
for stzeet and a11Ey widani.ng; that it was hard. to imagine what her pr.operty
~
~
~
MINUTES, GITY PLANNING COMMI93ION, Me,y 29, 1974
74-24:i
A~A DEVFLOPMENT PI,AN N0. 115, [tECLABSICICAmION NO. 73-74-54 ANU
vAItTANCE N0._. 2607 ~Continued j _,_,_._,_.. .-
would look lik~ AfLer raking away 10.25 f9et £rom tha frontt tihat; sh~ lzad
~:c~nants At her ~ roperty and theze wr~s aonsidera-b].o noisc~ from the ~usy
etreet, t~owever, tha ten~nte di3 not seem to mi.nd thet; ~hat the aedic a ti.on
would poseikly not affaat tha resid.~nce but wauld ehoxLen the piQCe of
propart~rt And she inquired if ~he wauld bo requirad ta "givR" the prone rt.y
to the City that wae neadoci :Eur ~edication.
Gommissionar Herbst clarified that if th~ ~treat wee widened pr.ior to
devalo~ment of khe piece of pzopar.ty, th~ City would ac~auire the prope r ty
by conden~nation pr.aoeedinge, an~ Mr. Titue incllc:eted tha~ the Crty h~d no
immer~iate p1Zllg for the wicl~ning of Herbor Baulevard and as long as the use
atayod the samE there would be no r~quirement far dedicatiori.
TEiE PUBLIC HEARING FUR 11REA DEVI:LOPNS~N'P PLAN NQ. 1~.5 WAS CJ.,OSED.
Chaixman Gauer offered a resolution to recommend to th~ City Council d is-
approval of Areu Dc.~~elopment P].an No. 115 on the baeis of the foregoing
findings~.
r:'he foregoing reso].ution waa passed by the fvllowing vote:
AXES: C~'~MMISS'iONERS: COMPTON, FARAtiO, HERBST, KTNG, MORL' EY, GAi7ER
NOES: COMMISSxO~IERS: NONF
ABSEI~T: COMMTSSIONERS: JOHNSAN
At the cr~nclusian of further Comm~sfl'on dieauseion, Commissioner Faran~
offered a motion, 3econded by Commipaianer Herbat And MOTION CARRIED by
unar~imous vate (Commissioner Johne ;n being abeec~t) , ko rescind the fore-
going action to rec:ommend to the City Council disapprova~l of Area Deve l-
opment Plan No. 115.
Thereupon, Comma.ssioner Farano offc~red a motion, aecor~ded by Commissi.oner
HerbsL• and MOTION GARRIED (Commiaei~,ner Johnson being absent), to reopen
the ~ubla.c hearing and aontinua conaiderati~n of Area Development P1an r]o.
115 to the meeting of J~~ly a, 1974, .for further study concern.i.ng access
points ~n Harbor Boulevard.
RECLASSIFICATIOYJ NA. 73-74-54 AND VT~RIANCE NO. 2607
No one appeared i.n opposition to the Petitions for Reclassifi.cation No.
73-74-54 and Variance No. 26Q7.
Althaugh the Staff Report to the Planninq Commission was not :-^ad at the
public hearinq, it is referred to ~xn3 made a part of the minutes.
Mr. L~onard 5mith, the aqent for the petitioner, appeared before the ~ocnmis-
sion and staL-ed the petitioner would ac~ept the conditions for C-O z oni.nc,,
as set forth in the Staff Report to the Commisaian.
THE PUBLIC HEAKING FOR RECLASSII~ICATON NO. '73-74••54 A~]D uAYtIANCF NU. 2607
WAS CLOSED. ~
Tn resxionse to ~;uestionin~ bv Commiasioner Kinq, Mr. Smith stat~d ~hat
Harbor Boule•~ard waa a necessary access to tne sub~i~ct praPertY and i t
c~uld be poGted for rictht-hand turns ~nly.
Mr. Garabedian, the 3eveloper, appearec before the Cnmmission and ~tated
th~ oriqinal plans w-ere to h~ve inqress an~i eqress from Harbor Boulevard,
and Commiss~.oner Kinc~ noted that it wo~~ld be di£ficul~ to control ~he
people.
Aeputy City At~torneY M:.lcolm Slauqhter noted for the Comriission that since
the Area D;velopmen~t ~13n No. 115 had been co:~tinued for further study
reqardinq access on Harbor Boulevaxd, action on Lhe subject petition s,
including the request for an access point, w~uld perhaps be giving d iffex-
ent treatment and possibly pre-setting the s~age for action on said Area
Development Plan.
*
~ ~
MI:~US.'CS, CITY PLANNING COMMiSSTON, MAy 29, 1974 74°246
AkEA U1:V~LUPMENT PLAN NO. 115, RECLASS~FICAT'ION N0. 73-74-•5 4 ANU
VARIANCE '~' 2607 (Continued) ~ ~ _
_..._.._. , .. ---- ---
Ct ~::rman C3auor notod t.hat pru~orty at Harbor Bou.l~vard <xnd Li.ncoln Avenuo
had twa ~ntrancea Eram Harbor ~oulovard and thr~t aoveral aQ xvica stations
were locAtad on Ndrbor. Boul.evard w~.th two or three e,itrances.
Mr. Smith at.ated thdt they would be willing to post ttie proporty for riqht-
hand turno only exiti.ng frum ~he aubjoct pruperty orito Harbor BUUlevard anci
he L•el.t thr~ doator's client•a would pr.obably couperate.
Commiaainnor Ki~~y clarified that th~o paint the DQ~uty City Attorney was
makiny was that approva]. of thA proposed drivQway on Har.bo r Boulevard woul.cl
be setting a precedant for the r.eet of the araa.
'Loning Suparvisnr Charloe Robert.s noted for tfie Commission that the matter
o;~ ~he lrea lUavQlopment Plan lir~d been r~viewecl quit•e extonsively by the City
Traffic Engi.nc~er and iL• was h~.~ Pirm racommendation that tkzere be no aacess
to Eie-rbor Boulevard- ther.efora, Sta~f would hava to rec~mme nd that there be
no acceas clrive into the ~arking area of the subject proper ty.
Commissionor tiorbat atcttad he could not see anyth:ing wrong with allawing an
exit an Narbor Baulavard witY~ entrance on the alley at Nor th Street.
Mr. Slaught~r .indicated that because oE the width oE the s treet there would
probably no~ be c~ lgh room t~ install a divider in Harbor Boulevard to
pravent left-hand .lrns arid. furL•her, ckiat some precaution ahould be taken
to aasure that if the Area Development Plan No. 115, ~•~hen considered, clid
not show that acceas could be alxowed, the procedure w~uld require that
temporary accesa rights would be terminated at a later dat e; however,
whether the developer would i.nvesr money on that pr~mise would be questfon-
ab1Q.
Mr. Smith stated the developer. would not. want to dev~lop t he proper~y an~l
then have his driveway taken away.
Commiseioner Farano inquired if the petitioner dedic~.-d r ighta of ingress
and eqress on Harbor Boulevard, co,~ld the Commissio~: give a iengthy per-
missi.on £or access until ~~uch time as there was other cleve lopment in the
~rea and 3i: that. L•ime the subject property would have to conf.orm L-o the
other properties. He s~ated he was no~ sure the Commissio n had exhaus~ed
all of the possibilities concerninct access in this pa.r'~ic~~lar case.
t:r. Slauqhter advised the Commission that the pracL-ical pr_oblem was ~that
the residences facing Helena Street probably all had garag es on the alley
which the City would become involved in acquiring if the s ubject property
was allowed to only dedicate an additional 2.5 feet and, i n effect, this
might be accepting a 17.5-foot alley; that granting a temporary accet~s tc
Harbor Boul~vard would be placing a burden or risk on the developer of the
sub;ject p.roperty and, therefc;re, it would be better to consider b~th the
subject petition and the Ar~~a Developm~nt Plan at the same time.
Commissioner Farano furthar inquired if the developer's i nvestment would be
ser=ously jeopardized if temporary access f.or ~ngress and egress were
granted to Harbor Boulevard, pending th~ fxnal dispositio n o~ Area Devel~
opment Plan No. 115, at which time the access might be taken away, and D1r.
Smith indicated the projeci: would have to be remodelPd in th,at case.
Commissioner Herbst noted that if Area Development Plari N v. 115 was ad~pted
to have two or three access poi.nLS in the blodK, the proposed driveway
might r~pd to be movecl t~ the north edge of the subject p roperty, and Mr.
Garabedian stated he was atriving to keep the cars away ~_rom the of£ice
building; that he +aas going to be ,qiving thP City $5,550 to be allowed to
build an uffice building, and he was not asking too much in return t~ have
an access as wide as a driveway to get in and out af his property; and that
he felt the situatinn sh~uld be a two-way thi.:7.
~ ~
MINU'1'ES~ CITY PT~ANNING COMMTSSI.ON, Mdy ~29~ 1974 74-G47
AREA DEVEraOPM~NT PLAN NO. 115, RECL~SSIFICATION NU. 73-74-54 AND
VARIANCE NO. 2607 Cont~nued)_ ,~_
Commi$ai~~:lar Herbst noted for the patikionar that the Commisai~n w~-s aon-
eidering C-O zoning on thn eubject p.roperty and whatever actinn was taken
would affect all the othel• prAperties in the area and the Commisaion could
sae many ~roblAms being ~reated with all thc~ properties wanting thig s~'~me
zoningt thst tha Traffic Diviaion was indiaati.ng acGeas to Harbor Boulevard
was nni: pezmfasible; and that i.f the property could be d-r.velopea with a
common access, this might be a possible ryolution to ~uture pXablems.
Commissionor Farano inquired iE the peL•itio~ner wae wi].lfng to mov~ the
progoaec~ driveway to the north side of th~ p:.operty ao that if limit~d
access rights were found to b~ proper on ElArbor Boulevard, that the adjoin-
ing property owner could al~o uGP that accPSS.
Mr. Smith repli~d that what Commisaioner 1'axano 4,as suggesting would result
in the fence hacinq to be remaved at ~ome future dat•e, und Mr. GarAbedian
reiteratc:d that he would not like tho idea o~ having all of the cars space
in front next to the proposed bui.lding.
Commissianer Farano offerec~ a motion, seconcied by C~mmiesiAner Kinq and
MUTION CARRIED (Con~niissioner JUhnson baing absent) , that t:he Planning
Commission recommende to the City Council tYiat the subject project be
exempt from the r.equiremen~. to prapare an ~nvironmental Impact Report
pursuant to the provisions of the Calif.ornia Environmental Quality Act.
Commi~sioner Farano a~fered a resolution recommending to the City Council
approval of Petition for Reclassificati.on No. 73 -74-54, rezoning the prop-
erty tc ttie C-0, Coi.>>~ercial Office, Zone and that the proposed acces8roval;
inqress and egress ~n Harbor Boulevard be further recomr.ienc~ed for app
subject to conditions.
Mr. Ro:~~rt.s inquired if the Commission was desir~us ~f amending condition
of approval No. 2 for the reclassificai.iun to indi.c~te dedicai:ion of 12.'~
feet rather than 10 feet, and t.he Comm,issi~n indicated in the affirmative.
Commi~si.oner King noted fo~ the Commission that gr~nti.ng the ingress anci
egress onto Harbor Boulevard wauld be creati.ng a very dangsrous condition.
On r.oll call, th~ foregoing resolution r.eceived the following vote:
AYES: COMMISS:CONERS: COMPTON, FARANO, GAU~R
NOES : CONlMISSIONERS : HERBST, KING, MORI.EX
ABSEIVT: COMMISSIONGRS: JOtiNSON ,
:~lr. Slaughter advised that the matter was then continued to the next meet-
ing for consideration by a full Commission unless another action ~ras taken
at this m.eeti.ng.
Conunissioner Herbst offered Resolutian No. PC74-111 and moved for its
passage and adoption to recammend to the City Couricil that Petition for
Fteclassi.ficai.ion No. 73-'14-54 be approved, rezoning the proper~.E~ to the
C-O, Commercial Office, Zone, subject to the petitioner relocating his
driveway or access point on Harbar Boulevard to the north property l~.ne and
an easement shall be e.cecuted by the petxtioner to permit joint or multiple
use of said access poii~t by o*_her properties to the north ~f subject prop-
erty, f~r use whenever development to the narth occurred; and subject to
conditions. (See Resolu~ion Sook)
Commissioner. King noted that he was objectinq to the resolution for the
reasons previou~ly state3.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed ?~y the follawing vote:
AYES: GOMMISSIONERS: COMP'L'ON, FARANO, HERBST, MORLEY, GAUER
NOES: COMM:iSSIONERS~ KING
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JOHNSON
~
•
~
s
MINUTES, CITY PLANNINc; CUMMISSION, May 29, ].974 '?4-'l48
AFtEA DEVEL4PMENT PL11N NO. 115, NECI~ASSIb'ICAZ'ION NU. 73-74-54 AND
VARIANCE NO. 1607 (Cnntinuad)
Commiasioner Farurio offared Reaolut~.ion No. PC74-1.12 and movr~d for ite
passug~: and adoption to gzant Fetition for V~riance No. 2607, subject to
i:he foreqoinq findinge and aubi~ct t~ conditiona. (See ReROluhion B~ok)
On roll call, the .f.oregoing ros~lution was p.ssQd by tha foll.c~wing vote:
AYES: COMMIS5ION~RS: COMPTON, FAk2AN0, HERBST, MORLEY, GAUF:R
NOES: COMMISSIONEPS: KING
ABSENT: COMMISSION~ItS: JQHNSON
ENVIRONNIENTAL TMPACT - PUBLIC t:^ARTNG. FiOWARD BUDLONG ANp JO~ MAAG,
REPORT NO. 126 Z0046 Santa Ana Canxon Road, Anaheim, Ca. 928~6,
V LOPM~NT iNC 16~1 Lunyley
ASSIFICATION
RECI Owners; SCHMIU DE E , • •~
Avenue, Irvine, Cm. 92705, Agent. Property des-
~
73-74-58
I~O criUed ao: A rectangularly-ehaped parcel of land
. c~nsisting af approximately 17.4 acres 14cated
VARSANCE NO. 2603 northerly of Nohl Ranch Raad and south of the
southerly ~ermini of Suloman Drive and Laandro
T~NTATIVE MA.P Or Street, ha ving a maximum width of approximately
TFACT NO. R679 1289 feet and a maxi.mum depth of approximately
~ 590 fpet, and being located approximately 1050
feot west of the cer~terline of Anaheim Hil~.s Road.
Property pre~ently classi£i.ed R-A, AGRICULTURXIL, ZONE.
R.EQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIAENTIAL, 'LONE
REQUESTED VARIANGE: WAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM uIDE YARD SETBACK OF A Rr;VERSED
CORNER LOT, (B) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH ON A CUL-DE-SAC,
AND (C) MINIMUM LQT WIDTH.
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: ~NGINEER: MTLL~T, KING & A~SnCIATES, INC.,
1335 West ~lalencia Urive, Fullerton, Ca. 92633.
Subject property is proposed for subdivision
into 60 R-1 zoned lots.
Three persons indicated their presence in oppos~tion ta subject petitinns.
Assi.stant Zoning Supervisor Phillip Schwartze read tr-e Staff Report to the
Planning Commission dated May 29, 1974, and said Staff Report is referr.ed
to as if set forth in full in the minutes.
Mr. Lewis R. Schmid, the petitioner, appeared bPfore tha Commission and
presented phota5raphs of the homes te bP construc:~:ed on the subject prop-
erty, and stated he had no ~bjections to the condit.ions as set forth in the
Staff Repart; that the driveways of the four ].ots being requeated for
waiv~r of the minimum side yard setback of a rever~ed corner Lot would .~e
in excess of 30 feet from the sid~ and the fence level would be lower than
the upper. lats which would not be a problem; that regarding the setbu~ks on
the cul-de-sac, the lots a" exceeded 10,~00 squax'e feet and the~ would be
able to keep the 60-foot fi~~-t widtt- at the structur33 setback since the
lots were deep enaugh tv handZe that situation; that regarding the minimum
lot width, i:o eliminate ths mass grading which was typical in the area,
t.hey nad drawn up a plan which was the oizly pos~ible desigri to leave the
terrain as natural as possibl.e; that the project was hillside development
and he enumerated other adjacent tracts in the area which, in his opinion,
had been granted the waivers he was requesting regarding the minimum lot
widths. He al~~~ enumerated the density factor of otner adjacent trar.t3 and
stated the pro~.osed density was 3.3 dwelling units per acre and anly one
tract in the area exc;eecad the proposed development with a lower density.
Mr. Judd Smith, 263 Hillcrest Drfve, Anaheim, appeared before the (:ommissi~n
in oppasition to the rezoning ar.d stated that he appreciated a c~ood living
environment and the flora and fauna that preser~tly surraunded the area in
which he lived; tha.t the map showed the lots ta be 10,000 square feet whic:h
was not all pad area since thexe was a great deal of slope involved; and he
queFtioned what the average pad size was.
~
~^M~
~
MINUTES, CIT~' PLANNING COMMISSION, May 29, 1?74 74-249
ENVIRONM~NTAL IMPACT REPORT 130. 126, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-58,
VARI NCE I9,Q• 2603 AI~,T TA 'IV~ NLA~ OF TRACT NC?. 8679 .~.(~n~ ued~_
Commieeioner rarano iiotod that 7056 aquare feet was the average pad ~ixe,
ae indicated in the Staff Rep~rt.
Mr. 3mith conta.nued by atating tha Or.ange Unified Scr.ool District had been
in oppoAitilon to the dansiL•y in the areat th~:. he was al.so l.n appasition to
the drainage in tl~e nrea since he had baen helri up gEtting into his homo
hecause tha build~r di~l not reaolve tha drainage prob~.emt that the kind of
dev~].apment proposed was excesEivQ and thore was planty of land thmt did
not have to go throuyh drastic grading to be developed with euch a plan.
Mr. Glen Salsbury, Hillcrest Drive, Anaheim, appe~red befora the Commi~sion
and stated he was not oppoe~d t~ development of the r~rea in an ardinary
£ashion but he was concernad abo~it his chilclren and schools £-nr if the
aituatian was faced l.ater on it could not be ex.plainec~ ca the children that
"you are sorry"; he further atated there should be some stipulaL•ion to keep
a~ many of the trees on the aubject pro~erty as poasible; that the Commis-
sion shauld l~ok at t:he future impact on the area; that he had been told
the area was under a master plan but the bui~.dera just k~pt movi.ng in and
building; th~t it was hard to deriy men making a living, howeveY~, they
sh~uld work witr-i.n acceptable cunatrainta and not set prscedenta; anc3 thaL-
it wae ~ime t~ set the foot down and stand on right:s.
Mr. Travassaro~, 259 Hillcrdst Drive, Anaheim, appeared before the Commis-
sion and atated there was one elementary school serving the subject area;
that in the fall trailers would be placed at that achool t~ handle the
children who ware already in the area; ichat there wae a secondary pro~lem
related tc i:raffic flow; that one of the main strsets would be Solomon
Dr.ive; and that houses were being constxucted at an unprecedented rate in
the area which ~~as worrying him.
In rebuttal, Mr. Schr~id s~ated the terrain was ruyged and would require
grading; that there was a demand for food, shelter and clothi.ng and if
there was no need, the builders would not be developi.ng.
THE PUBLIC HEARZNG WAS CLQSED.
Commissioner Hexbst noted that the roofs of the proposed homes would be
about 7 feet apart which was par~icularly bad in the hill and canyon area;
that looking at the layout of the tract, the developer was trying to justify
the 60-foot lc~~ width by the ~iepth and there were many lots that gave tl~e
impression that the land was beinq overdeveloped; and there was not ample
justificatian.
Mr. Schmid stated that they :lad further justified the lot width by nat
being abie to step from lot to l~t; and that plotting the lots was diffi-
cult as far as meeting the probl~mg was aoncerned.
In reply to questioning by Commissioner Herbs~, Mr. Schmid stated if the
number of lots was reduced by six, as suggested, it wc~uld be a matter of
economics.
Commissioner Herbst noted for the petitioner thaf~ the property uwner was
probably asking toa much for the land and realizing that there had been
mistakes made in the past, with regard to waivers, did not justify making
more mistakes.
Commissioner Farano noted that if there waa only a few substandard lot
widths, it would be a different story, but over 50$ of the lots varied from
the minimum requirement and there was apparently tao much development; that
the smalleat lot size was 7200 square feet; that althouqh waivers had been
granted in the past, did not make the proposal right nor did it make it
consistent with values established by the Commission which perhaps needed
to be re-established.
Mr. Schmid sL•ated th~: prc~ject was controlled by the terrain of the praperty
and the fact that the property had to connect with the existing streets.
• o
MrNUTFB, GITY PLANNING CUMM]'.SSInN, MAy 29, ].974 74-250
ENVJRONMENTAL IMPAC'r REPORT NO. 126, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-y8,
yAkIAN~F tao. 2693 ANU TENTATIVE~ MAP _ ~F TRACT N0. 867 Cantinuc~d~,
Commiaeioner Farano further noted tihat it was rxobably true that the stree~
layou~ w~s pradotexminod, however, there wt~s only ane way to eliminate the
nAed Eor the waivers and that wa~ to rnduce the number of lota by ~ix, ae
suggc~at-~d by Commiesioner ~ierbst.
Mr. Schmid etated that he had mor~ than met the requirem~nts oE the City by
providing oth~r lota which were much lnrger than thogP in quastion; and
Commissioner Far~zno reit~rated that a 508 waivoc on a subetantial r.~duction.
af the minimum width raquiroment waa not a minor request.
Ch~tirrnan G,~uer questioned th~ size of the lots in Tract No. 6734, anci Mr.
Schmid re~lie~d that thc lots ranged from 74 feek to 62 f.~et in width and
Mr. Salsbury stated hi.s property was 130 fe~t on the rear and 7'1 Eeet. on
the frant.
Commissioner Morlsy noted that, in his opinion, the property was being
uverdeveloped.
c mmi.ssioner Farano nated that, in hia apinion, the subject ar.ea was n~t
-~ 1, witl~ al]. the qround i;hat needed to be movPdj that it probably was R-H-
22,000 due to the configuration c~f the land; that to ge~ R-1 density he
would need to move a].ot of earth. around with cut and fill; that tie was not
er.thusia~'~c about some of the gradinq that had ~een done in the ar~~ anc~
that the subject property woul.d make a raal nice R-H--22,000 development.
Thereupon, Mr. Schmid requested a two-week con~inuanc~ to revise the plans
and indiaated in reply to questioning by Daput~~ City Attorney Malcolm
SLauyhter that ttiere would be no additional waiver~ requested at. that time.
Comn-issioner Herbst cffexed a motion, seconded by Commissianer King and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner J~hnson being abaent), to reopen the publi.c
hearing and continue consideratioYi of Erivironmental Impact Report No. 126,
Reclassification Iao. 73-74-58, Var.iance No. 2603, and Tentative Map of
Tract No. 8679 to ~he meetin~ of June 10, 1974, as requested by the
petitx.on~r .
RECESS - Chairman Gauer declared a recess at 5:45 p.m.
RECO~IVENE - Chai rman Gauer recoriven~d the meetix~g at 5: 50 p.m• ,
Commissioner Johnson b~inq absent.
VA1tIANCE NO. 2604 - PUBLIC HEn:~1R1G. M1~iX F. HI7~TSHER, P. O. Box 156, Umpqua,
Oregon, ? 4 t~ d, Owner ; FLQ;tk:NCE VALVANO, 11 ~ 4 North State
College Boule~ard, Anahei.m, Ca. 92806, Rgent; requesting
WAIVER OF (A) REQUIREMENT THAT ALL C-1 U5ES SHALL BE CONDiICTED WHOLLY WITHIN
A HUiLDING Al~D (B) sERMI'~TED :.~]:~:~S, `PO CONTINUE A RETAIL MARKET WITH OUTUOOR
DTSPLAY on property ~3escribc:d ds: An irregular~.y-shaped parcel uf land con-
sisting of appro~cima~ely 0.4 acre Located at thF corn~oximateafrontages~ofe~
State College Boulevard and Balsam Avenue, having app
85 feet on the south side oi Pla.;:entia Avenue, 85 feet on the east side of
State College Boulevard, and 163 feet on the narth side of Balsam Avenue.
Property presently classified C-1, G~IVE1tAL I:OMMERCIAL, ZONE.
N~ one appeared in o~posii;ion to aubject petition.
Althouqh the Staft Report ta the ~lanning Comznission dated May 29, 1974,
was not read at the public hearing, it ia reEerred ta and made a par'.:. of
the minutes.
Mr~. Florence Valvano, tl'le petitioner, appeared befare the Commission to
answer any questi~na.
TE3E PJBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~
~
~
MINUTFS~ CI'PY PT~ANNZ~VG CON1i~lIuSTON~ MAy 29~ 1974
VARIANCE NO. 2604 (Continuad)
74-251
Commieoian~x K.tnq note~d for the Commisai~n that. he had v~.ewed th~ subjoct
pz~op~rty in the field with Commisaioner Mar1Ry and that ~her~ were ~w~
exis~i.ng ~iqna whic:h slzould be aufficient for th~ Sub~eet use; that tht~
builciing was atr.ractive and that the produce could be kept outaide i:he
building as lor~~~ as it was kept ins.ide *tie chainlink fencQ.
Mrs. Valvano atated that the adait.ianal sic~r,~ F,cing requested weLe to
advertiao the apecials for salc ar w~t~l~~ ~~: a~f•ix~d to LIZe fQnce; ancl that
~.he produca wa~ kc~pt insidc~ tYle f c' :e .
It was noted that the ~irector of Development Sorvice3 had determined that
tho propoeed activi.ty fe11 within the deftnition of Section 3.01, Class 3
of the City ot• Anaheim G~zidelines to the F.equtrements for an Environmental
Impact Repor.t and was, therefore, catego.rically ~xempt from the r~:quire-
ment to £i.le ~+r. ~IR.
Commissioner K.i.ng furthex' ~~oted tl~at ~proval of the vari.ance would be
condi.tioned upon th~ chainlink fence remaining in ~'s preaent location witll
relationahip t~ the building.
Commiseioner King of.fered Resolution No. PC74-113 and movec~ for its pas~age
and adoption to qrant Fetition for Variance No, 2604, granting waiver of
ths requirement tizat a11 C-1 uses shall be conducted wholly within the
building and denyiiig wai.ver of permitted signs, on the basis of the fore-
going findings and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Huok)
On roll call, the f.oregoiny resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CaMMISSIONERS: COMPTUN, FARANO, HERBST, KING, MORLEY, GAUER
NOES: COMMI~SIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMtSSIONERS: JOHNSON
CONUITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. GREEK ORTHODOX COMMUNITX Ok' ORANGE
PE'RMIT NO. 1469 COUNTY, Attn: Deno G. Papas, Building Committee Chair-
man, 905 North Dale Street, Anaheim, Ca. 92801, Owner;
requPSting permission to CON~TRUCT A CHURCH AND FELLOW-
SHIP HALL AND PERMIT THE CON~INUED USE OF EXISTING CLASSROOM FACILITIES,
WAIVING (A) MAXIMUM FlUILPING HEIGHT ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND (B)
MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPAC'ES on property described as: A r.ectangular.ly-
shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.G5 acres having a
fron•tage of approximately 336 feet on the west side of Dale Street, havinc~
a maximum depth of approximately 352 f~et and being located approximately
].Oll feEt south of the certerline of Crescent Avenue. Property presently
classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
One person indicated his presence in opposition to sub,ect petition.
Assistant Zoning Superv~isor phillip Sc:hwartxe read the Staff Report to the
Planning Commission dated May 29, 1974, and ~aid Staff Report is referred
to as if set forth in ~u11 in the minutes.
Mr. Deno G. Papas, 10231 We~~waod, Villa Park, ~a parishioner ot the Greek
Or.th~dox Cliurch arid representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commis-
sion and stated they would accept the conditians of approval as set forth
in the Staff Report; that the reason they placed the church where they had
was f.or a maximum amount of landscapiny between the fellowship nall and the
church, a distance of 50 feet between the church and ~h~ south p.raperty
line.
Mr. Thomaa F. Brown, 324 Nort.h Coolidge, Anaheim, appeared before the
c:om~ission in opposition to subject peti.tion and stated that the property
own~:r had historically not complied witiz the conditions of approval of the
original conditional use p?rmit; that the liqhting was always facing toward
tl~e residential c:lusters in the area; th~t the fence was 6 feet or over in
hEight, contrary to his own violent ob;ect3on to the Planning Cepartment;
that ti? would recommend a postponement of the subje~t puL].ic hearinq until
the property owners showed they would comply wi~h the drainage condition
and that the fence be made to be 6 feet, as origirially proposed.
•
~
~
MINUTES, CTTY PLANNING COMMISSYqN, M~y 29, 1974
CUNUITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1469 (Continue~l)
~a-~5z
In rebuttal, Mr. PapaB atated that he was at ths originAl public hearing on
~he subject pro~.~.:rty= that. there wer~ two securi.t;y ltqht.s nn the cluesroom
bullding at the presen~ Cime v~hich were supposad to be ~i.rectad downward
but would not be require~' onca the faciltty was compler.od; that the security
lights were neceesary bec:auae certain t.eenagers used the ~arking lot for
purposes ~iot intended by the prop4xty owner and tho ar.ea need~d tG be lit~
up, however, thQ direction in which they faaed was prob~zb~y aii ~versight in
connection with maintenanco. Ragarding drai.naye, he stated the requirement
of the City had bec~n t~ drain the properry to the fror~t and make sure there
was 6 feet of. fence on the church side o£ the p:operty and a bui~.ding
pormit had been taken aut to accomplish that; that oriqinally the fence was
constructed at 4 feet and aubser~uently raised t.o 6 feet and new foo~inga
were installed, as r~equested by the City at that tS~Q.
Mr. Brown sta~od that the praperty could be drained di.fferent'ly; L-hat
following ~he first fence insta113tion, the property owner had filled the
land, installed the additio~nal f~otings and raised the heighi: of the f~nae;
that his property abutted the aubject property on the south; that the
aubject property needQd same technique for dr'ai.ning s~ that water would not
stand in the ?-eaz ancl they migh~ need pumpa f~r that purpose; that at the
original publ.ic hearing it wan indicated they would drain without fill;
that hA did not feel a 9-foot fence should b~ ~+ermitted in hxs own back
yard without a conditional use permit either; kha~ at the origin~l pub].ic
hearing, the Ci.ty Council aes~lred him that a 6-fc~ot fence was the maximum
without additional a~Prova].. Ir. c.onc-_usion, Mlr. Brown stated the progerty
owner did not have to use the :i ie~t of fill on che subject property.
Mr. Ira Smith, owner of a neighboring par.cel. on Dale Street, appeared be-
L•ore tihe Commission concerning the subject petition and stated that his
pro~erty was about 3 feet higher. than t.he subject property and his fence
was only about 5 feet hiqh; that he was no~ opposing the church, h~wever,
his feeling was that he did not have an adequate fence to provide privacy
since anyone could see into his hou~e from the clas~r~am building. He
further stated there was a eucalyptus tree that leaned about 1S degrees
aver into his property from 321 Dale Street, which was a hazard.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted for the Commission that r_he re-
quirement was that tk:e fence be 6 feet hi~h measured from the highest
finished qrade on either side of the fence.
Mr. Papas stated ~hat a building permit was taken aut i:~ 19?0 subsequent to
the original c~nditi.onal use pern-it approval, and a grade was established
at that time to what it presently was.
Commissi.oner Farano notea that the lighti.ng was required to be no more than
6 feet high and whatever th~ securi.ty problem was, that was the responsi-
bility of th~ peti.tioner•
In ~~ply to qu~stioning by Commissa.ozer Ki.ng, Mr. Papas statec~ the lights
in ~, ~stion were presently located on top of the bufldinq but were temporary;
tha~ there were four floodlights bein~ used to light up the pa'rking lot and
they would be taken down when the new structure was built.
Commissioner Farano n~ted that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to
verify the require*~nts and deterr.-ine if they were comglying with said
requirements.
Commi~sioner King noted for L-he petitioner that the point being mad~: was to
face tne lights away f.rom tl:e adjoining residential properties.
Commissioner Morley nated for the Cncnmis~ion that the fenr:e was noc 6 feet
from the hi.ghest grade at all points; and that it graduated down to 42
inches next to the street, which was a requirement.
~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSTON, Muy 29, 1974 74-253
CONDITIONAL C)SL PERMI'~ N0. 1469 (Continuad)
In reply to questloning by Mr. Srown conce.rning the fill on the subjECt
property, Uffice Enqineer Jay 'ritus atated he did not know ~:he condition of
thc~ pronerty aL• the timQ of the fi11; t:hat usually the wording of a con~]i~
tion was vQry generalt that if they had considered a sump pump, i:hey might
kiave investigAted tt~e cost and problems and subsequently might have decided
to fill the propcarty inat::~~d; howPVer, the City would not have required a
sump pump.
Mr. Brown further stated that th~ City Cour~,:il was not very explicit re-
garding the 6-foot wall ar~d the fill; thati it was discussed and the City
Engineer had stat.ed tha proP~~'~Y GQU1d be drained without the fix~; thrzt he
was an enqirleer also and knew thP pi-operty could l~e drained wirri.out that
much fill.
Mr. Roberts clari.fied for the Commissi~n tl-~at the condition of approval of
Conditiot~al 13se Permit N.~. 786 in 1965 was, "That the drainage shall be
di~char.ged tu the satisfaction of the City Engineer." He notecl ~hat the
cnndition ?.~.d not apply to the total proper~y being considered this date,
but was an L-shapad parcel indicated on the area map; that thez~e were also
conditiona of approval conaorning a 6-foot masonry wall t~ be constructed
along the north, west and south property lines ~~nd that any outd~or liqht-
ing was to be directed away from the residences to the north, east, west
and south ar~d not to excPed the height of the masonry waii; and the
Planning Commission had taken the final action in approval. of the Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 78G. He reviewed the condiY.ions of approval. for
Conditional Use Permit N~. 941 which was granted in 1967 and st.ated there
was no specific condition in. that approval which statec: the property "sha11
not be filled."
In reply to questioning by Commissioner Compton, Mr. Hrown stated hia main
concern wa~ regarding the drainage thar caused the 9-foot wall in his back
yard; th~t he had brought t11is matter to the attention of the Plarining
Commiss.ion and City C~un~il and wt~en everybody knew the prublem, why did he
now have a 9-foo~ wall, especially since it was a 6-foot wall ~nd later
changed to a 9-foot wall.
Commissioner Compton further inquired why Mr. Brown did not come to ths
Planr.ing Cammission and the City Council whenever the fence was being
raised, and Mr. Brown stated he had talked with the Plannirag Depaztment but
they procrastinated and all of a sudden there was a 9-foot fence without
the Planning Commission or City Council approving it.
Deputy City Att.orney Malcolm Slaughter advised tilie Commission that it would
be the Staff's position that tkie draining to Dale Street would comply with
the c~ndition of approval as dbbeing satisfactory to the City Engineer; and
that t,he wall was to be 6 feet high from the highest finished grade on
either side of the fence, which would still comply with th-~ ordinance where
a conditional use permit was requir~~d.
Mr. Roberts n~ted for the Commission that the wall in question should be 6
feet high from ttie highes~ finished yrade excepl: that i.t should be 92 incheg
in heigtit in the 25-foot setback area from the pro~~erty line on Dale SL-reet.
In reply to questioning by Commission~r It~ng, the petitioner stipulated to
raise or lower the heigh~ of the fence along the nortl-_ and south property
lines immediately to 6 feet from the highest f.inished grade on ~ither side
of the fence with the excepi:iQn regarding the 42-inch height within the
25-foot setba~k ar.e3 from Dale Street.
Mr. Roberts inquired if the petitioner would stipulate that all of the
buildings wAUld not be in use at the same time fo.r parking requirement
calculation.
Fathe.r Ge^rge Massouras, representing the petitionex, appeared before the
Commission aizd stated the sanctuary and the Sunday school wou13 be in use
at the same time; that the church would not only serve the Greek populace,
~ ~
MINUTES, C~TY pLANNING COMMIrSION, Ma,y 2~, 1974 74-254
CONUITYONAI~ USE PERMIT NO. 1469 (Continued)
but. wou:ld also 3ervQ oth~rs in i:he area of Orang~ Caunty and Los Angelos
C~unty; thAt ~f. tharo were 550 persons pre~ent, there would be an averAqa
of four or five pert~ana peL car; an~_1 that the families were rathar lar.ge.
Mr. Roberts noted that kyplcally tl~a number. of parkirig space~ for a church
was based upon the seating in the rtiain eanctuary if. all of the buildinga
were nct in use at ttia eame time by automopile generators and in i:hat cASC~
115 pr~rlcing spaccs w~uld be required f.or ~hi~t particular facility.
Commissi~~ner Farano nated ~hat the fellewahip 11a11 uae wauld require about
60 additioii~l ~arking spacea to that preean~ly beiriy proposed.
Mr. Papas atated the fellowsh.tp hall was anly in the planning atage and
that the parktnq cauld be taken int~ consideration at the time it was
proposed fo.r development.
Commissi.oner K~:.3 noted that the churah group would suffer fr.om lack of.
paxking spaces and Commissioner Farana added that the i-Fi~3hbor.houd would
also sufEer.
Commi~sioner Far•ano then noted that the parking requirement3 were beirig
based on the sanctuary anc! the ~lassroom anly at this time and z~ot for the
entire development.
~ommissioner Compton noted that the waiver of tne minimum r~equir.ed ~arking
apaces was determined to be unnecessar.y since said parking ~paces were
based on the minimum requiremen~ for the sanctuary and a waiver was not
needed at this time, and Assistant Development Services Director Ronald
Thampson concurred in that statement.
Commissior~er Farano further noted that there may have been some mistakes
made, however, the petitionPr had given his word to comply with the condi-
tions of appruval of tk~e previous applications on the subject property.
In reply to questioning by Commissioner King, Mr. ~Q~as 3tipulated that if
the exi.si:ing clas~room structure was retained for use, ii: would be brought
up to the ap~ropriat~ Buildi.ng Code, if r~quired.
Commi.ssior~er Compton offerQd a motion, sec7nded by Commissione.r L'arano and
MOTION CARRIED, Commissioner Johnson being absent, that thz Plannir~g
Cammission rec~mmends to the City Cuuncil that the subject property be
exempt from the requirement to prepare an ~nvironmental Impact Report
pursuant to the provisions uf the California E~nvironmental Quality Act.
Commissioner Compton offered Resolution No. PC74-114 and moved for its
~assage and adoptioa to grant Petition f.or Conditienal Use Permi~ No. 1469
in part since the waiver of the minimum number of parking spaces is deter-
mined to be unneceasary since the minim~.tm numher of parking spaces is based
upon the minimum requirement for the sanctuary only; granting waiver of the
minimun buildiny height adjacent to a residential zone on the basis that
said waiver was not unreasonable for the proposEd use; subject to the
£oregoing findings and stipulations by the petitioner to satisfy t' ondi-
tions of approval for the previausly-approved Conditional Use Permit No.
786 on the subject property; that the height of the fence along the north
and south property lines shall be raised or lowered immPdiately to 5 feet
from the highest finished grade on either side of the wall in accordancE
with the Code, as stipu].ated to by the petitioner; that the outside light-~
ing shall be downlighted immediately from a hei3ht not to exceed the height
of the 6-foot fence, as stipulated to by the p~titioner; and subject to
conditions. (See Res~lutior Boak)
Ori roll call, the foregoin~ resol~xtion was passed by the follawing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: COMPTON, FARANO, HFRIIST, KING, IdURLEY, GAU~R
NOES: CGMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER5: ~TOHNSON
~
e
~
~
MJNUTL5, CITY ALANNING C:)MMISSION, Mu~ 29, 197~
~a-z5~
TENTATIV~ MAP ~F - UEVELOPER: PRAUO WOOI)S CORi., 1156 Nort.h Tustin Avenue,
T12ACT N0. 8G33 Orange, Ca. 92667. FNGINL:ER: ANAC.AL ENGiNEERING CAMPA1VaC,
- P. O. Box 366t3, Anahej.m, (:u. 92803. Subject praperty,
consi.ati.ng af approximately 6.G5 acrQS and bein~ located
a~ tha northwest c~rner of Peralta Hi~11.3 Drive and Cerro Viata Wtty, i.s prn-
po~ed for •ubdivision into six (6a R--E, Residential Eatate, zoned lots
It was noted that no on~ was presc~nt to repr~sent the develonor.
Chairman Gauer nnt~d far the Commissian that the propo~~d one-acre iots
would plt~ase the residents in the area.
Commissioner Morley offered a motion, soconded by Commissioner. King and
MOTION CARRTED (Comm:Lsaioner Johnson belny abaant), that tha Planning
Commiss3.on recommende to thca City ~~~uncil that the subjpct project be
e~ce:npt from the requ.izement to prepar~ an Environmentul Tmpact Repor.t
pursuant- to the provisions of ~he Calif.ornia Environmeiital Quality nct.
Commissioner tdarley o~fered a moti.on, second~,d by Commissioner Her.bst and
MOTIQN CARRIED, to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 8633, subject to the
£ollowing conditiona:
(1) That shauld tlzis subdivision b~ deveJ.uped as more than one suh-
division, each subdivision thereo~ shall be 3ubmitted it~ tentat~.':
form for approval.
(2) That all lots within this tract shall bp ~erved by underground
utilitie~.
(3) That a finaJ. tzact map of. subject property shall be s•.:bmitted to
a~~ approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the
office of the Orange County Recorder.
(9) That street names .~hall be approved by the City of Anaheim prioz
to approval of a final t.ract map.
(5) That draitiage of: said prcperty shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to th~ City Engineer. If, in the ~reparation of the
si.te suf£icient yrading xs req~~ired to necessitate a grading
permit, no work ~n grading will be permitted between Oct-.ober 15th
and April 15th unless a11 required ofi-~ite drainage facilities
have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance shall
be provided th~ City that such drainage facilities will be com-
pleted prior to Octob~r 15th. Necessary right-of-way f.or o£f-
site drainaqe facilities shall be dedicated to the City, or the
City Council shall have initiated cond~mnation proceedingg
L-here~or (the costs of which shall bE borrie by the developer)
prior to the commencement of grading o~erations. T1-,e requirEii
drainage facilities •~hall be of a size and type sufficient to
carxy runoff waters originating from higher properties through
said property to ultimate disposal as approved by the City
Engineer. Sa.id drainaqe facilities shall be the first item of
constriiction and shal.l be completed and be functional throu5hout
the ~ract and from the downstream boundary of the proper~y to thP
ultimate poa.nt of dispoaal priox to the issuance of any final
building inspectioris or occupancy permits. Drainage di.strict
reimbursement agreements may be r~lade available to the developera
of said property upnn their request.
(6) That t.he owner(s) of subject proper.ty shall pa~ t~ the City of
Anaheim the appropri~te park and recreation in-lieu fees as
determinad to be aF~propriate by the ~ity Council, said fees to be
paid at tlie time the building permit is issued.
(7) That rire hydrants shall be installed and charge~ as required and
d.etermined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department
prior to commencement of structu~al framirig.
{S) 'I'hat water mains be installsd in Peralta Hi11~ D.rivey Cerro Vista
Way and any interior streets in accordance with tl,~ t~later Division
Master Plan for Peralta Hills and in compliance •:•, !.i: th~ Water
Division deaign reyuirements, 3pecifications, rules and regulations.
~
~ ~
MINUTF:S, CITX PI.ANNTNC COMMtSSTON, May 29- 1~74 74-256
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1
RECOMMENDATIONS VARIANC~ N0. 2590 - Requast for ClarificAti~n
of poxmitted uses - Prot~ert>> locat~d at the
$outhwest aorner of East Street, and La Palma
Avenue, and zoc~6d R-1.
Zoning Sup~rvisor Charles Roberts noted for t.he Planni.ng Commiasion that
through an oversighz, the petitioner did nat requsst off-sal~ ~i~aer anc]
wine in the original petition for variance No. 2590; h~wever, off-aale
beer And wicie is commorily acceptad as being a part of the operation of
rai:ail market3 of the type permitt~d, and thQ petitionar wAS presently
requesting the oxpanded uea.
Commisaianor ICing offored a motion, seconded by Commisaioner Fazano an~
MO'rION CARRI~D (Commi.ssion~r Johnson being absent) , t•hat the pern~itted
uses which werc grantad under Varianc~Q No. 2590 Ue ~xpar~ded to include
permisaion for off-sale beer ~.nd wine, as Xequested by i:he p~tit;ioner.
I'I~EM NO. 2
CQNDITI~NIIL USE PERMl'T NO. 139~ - Request f~r
exter~~i.on of time - Properi:y locatecl appr~ximaL•e'ly
115 feet north of the centerline nf ~'edmar Avenue
and f.urtl~er des~ribPd as 425 South Euclid Street.
Zc~ning Sup~rvisor Charles Koberts presented the Staff Report to the P1.anning
...,.,,mission dated Ma~r 29, 1974, and said 5ta~f Report is referred Lo arid made
a part of tit1P, minu~@s. He noted that the subject Conditianal Use Perm~.t was
granted by the Commissi~~~ on May 24, 1973, permi~t~.ng the establ:;.shme~nt of a
beer bax aubject to a one-year time consideration after ~rhich time Planning
~ommiasi~n would determine if any ad~verse effec~s would r~sult from th~
granting of said use and whether said u:e should be extended; that the City
Zoning Enforcement Officer and the Alcoholic Beverage Contr~l. D~partment
P,epresenta~ive had indicated ~that ~here were no pr~~blems v~itn or romplaints
about the subject eatabli.shment; that a field inspec:tion by Staff verified
t.hat the site complied to ths gPneral commercial development site standa~ds
and was compati.ble with surrouncling uses; and that the pe*.i1:i~ner w~s pres~
ently rec~uesting an additional three-year Extension of time.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motior-, ~ec~nded by Commi3sioiier King and
MOTION CARRIk~D (Commisaioner J4hnson being abaent)~ ~o graiit a three-year
extens~on of time for Conditional Use Permit t]o. 1390, to expire on 1Kdy 23,
1977.
ITEt+! NO. 3
CONllITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 941 - Request for
extension of time - Fro~erty locateci at
405 North Dale Street.
Zoning Super.visor Charles Roberts presented the Staff. R~port to the Planning
~ommi~sion dated May 29, 1974, and said Staff Repart is referred to and made
a part oi the minutes. ~~e r~oted that Conditional Use Permit No. 941 wa~
granted by the Commiss~ ~~ on May 8, 1967, to permit temporary church offices,
a languaqe school and llmited churcl: services in an exi3tix~g residential
structure, and the eventual construction of pernianent church facilities on
subject property: that conditian of appraval No. 12 provided a ti~~ limi.ta-
ti~n of. three y~aars for. the use oi the existing structure and tihat upon
request by the petitioner additional time miqht be granted; that one previous
three-ye~r t~in~~ extension was granted which expired Mav 8, 1973; that all of
the conditions af approval had besn satisFied; that ~he petitioner was pro-
posing the permanent church sanctuary for the subject parcel under. Conditional
Use Permit I3o. Y469, whiah was approvea earlier in this meE~ing; and that a
two-.ear extension of time retroactive to May 8, 1973, was pres~ntly being
requested by the petitioner.
Commissioner K~.ng offezed a motion, se~onded by c:ommissioner Farano and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Johnson being absent), to qrant a twa-year
extenaior. of timE ~or Conditional Use Permit No. 941, retroactiv~ to M~y 8,
1973, and to expire May 8, 19'15.
~ ~
MINUTES, CT'I''~( PL~INNING rOMMTSSION, May 29, 1974 74-257
RF.POR'I'S ANf) - ITEM NO. 4
RECOMMENDATIONS ~ND. T. NAL USE PERMIT ~10. 1218 - RQq~i~aet for
"-' ~ cl.ar.lfical•ion uf uae -• Pr~pe.rty 1 oaated at th~
r~urthwaet coL ,e.r ~f Kraemer HouZevrt~-d and
L,~ .7o~la St.rQOt, and zoned M-1, Light Induotr.ial.
Assistdnt 'Loning Supervioor 1'hill.i.p Schwartze presented the Staff Report to
the Planr,inq Commisaion datad May 29, 1974, and said Staff R~port is referr.ed
to and made a part of ttie minutes. Ho not~:d that Condf.tional Use P~rmit No.
127.8 was granted k~y thA Commiss.i.on ~~n Mar .h 22, 1971 , to estab'lish retail
distr.ibuLing Eirms and c~ervice bu~i~leae tii.rme, tncluding business and profea-
sional offtces, primari].y a~rving commerc:e and lndustryj that appr~~val was
c~rant.ed aubjoct. to the condition tha~ each use intancled ~o yual.ify under
Sectl~n 18.52.050 (2-a and 'l-r~) be submitted to i:he Commission f.or r.eview and
appr.oval in order that a d~termination could be mr~de ~s to whether ~uffi.cient.
pa.rking was providod on tt-~ property to accommodate an additinnal, parking
demand creat~c~ by such use; that th~ pQtitfoner waa r~questiny approval of a
use as a gym~nasiurn and danoe Mcademy at thi.s timo witt~ an indication that
very l.ittle t~affi: ~ould bQ generated 3ince transportation would be furni.ah-
ed t.-~ afternoon c].asa~~ and parking would only be n.:eded ii: the evenings and
Saturdays when other adjoining firma would b!~ cloaed , and ttiat the ceili.ng
hE~ight requir.tmen~.s mada it di I:icu].t to find suitable locations except in
b~~ildings which wer.e designsd for i.ndust.ri.al use.
Commis3ioner Farano noted that to interpret the Code to incLude gymnasiuma
and dailc~ academies in the M-1 Zone wo-ild Ue estabLishing a pr~cedent.
I~eputy C~tiy RttornE!j "'1AC Slaughter advised ~l~a Commission tha~ the requeat
was for a d^kerminat- ~ on as t~o whe*her the ~roposPd use was inciaental '-~ or
prin~arily tc ssrve commerce and industry.
Cummis~io~~.er Farano offered a motion, ~econcied by Commissxoner. Morley and
MOT`'ON CARRIF.B (Commiasio~er .ialinson being ahsent) , ro ~eny the reqiaest to
pFrmi.t a<.~ymnasium ~ind dance academy at the s~xbject .location sinc~ the ~aae
:~s n~t i.nci .-tal to or pr~marily to serve the purFoses and uses of M-i
zoried property; and, therefore, the pr~posed use is noi. witY..in the intent
of the original approval ~~ Cundition~zl Use P~rmit No. 121R.
::TEM NO. 5
REVZEW OF ~1MENDMENT TU OL'F' -STItEET PARKING
REqUIRF;I~~:NTS FOR MUL2'iPL~-FAMIL~.' R~SIDENTlAL
ZONES - TITLE 18.
Commissioner t:erbat noted :or thP Cc~mmission tha': a work ses~ioii to revi.ew
the ~ubject amendment :sou].d ai~~ear i-.o be in order.
Following dis~~U8S1.011 re~~arding the dates of regular Planning Commission
i~~eetin~s and the data set by the City C~uncil for public Y,earing on the
subject matter being Jt~ly 9, 1474, Com*~issioner King offered a mot.ion,
seconded by ~ommissioner Carano and ~TION CRRRIED (C~mmissionex Johnson
being absent), to set the work sessi~n for June 5, 1974, st 7:00 p.m. ancl
to set the public hearing fol t~A regular Planning Commi.ssion meeting af
June 24, I974.
ITEM NO. 6
REPORT ON N~TIONAL F.T~OOD INSURF_NC~ PROGRAM
It was noted thst in accord~nce wi1:h the comments received at the ttay ]5,
1974 j~int Commisaion/Counci.'_ work session, 5taif was ~raviding a writte.:
re;~ort e:it ~tled "NatiQnal Flood tnsurance Prog~•ac:i. ' as set forth .~n the
Repurt to ttie Planning Com~nission datPd Ma~~ ~~, 1974.
Subjec.t report was received for informatian only.
~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PL11Nt~.LNG COMMISSIUN, May 29, 1974 74-258
REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 7
l:EGOMMENDATION3 REVIEW aP' AM~NDMFNT TO '1`ITI~E 18 CUNCERN'LNG
""-' ~ AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIONS
Cc~mmissioner I(iizy ofPer~d a motion, B~CO~~aea by Cammissioner F'arano ancl
McaTiON CARRIEq lCommi~aion~r Johneon be~n;~ aboent), to echedule the subject
mattAr for di.ecussion at ~the June 5, 1` ' work eoasion and foz public hear~
'~ng at the regular Planning CommiaRion ,cioeting nn June 24, 1974.
ITEM N0. 8
PROPOS~D COMM~RC7,,T~1'., STAIILE AND VET~RINARY CLI:~IC -
County of nrange UP-35o3 and EIR 74-19
It waa noted fhat the pr.opr~aed uae was for land in thQ City ot Anaheim
"Sphore ~f Influence"t ~hat ':.he conce~-ns were evident in th~ propased uae
rc~~garding cunststence with th~~ 1983 Oranye County Land Use Element and City
policies in the Santa Ana CanXon area; th~at the pr4posed f~.~ili~ies wrould
include a c:ommercial atable, vetari~aary clinic, and rour mobilehome t.rai.lera
for empl.oyee and car.etaker us~, wtiich appc~ared to r.onstitute a commercial
land use i.n an area designat~d on the Orange County G~neral Plan for "uther
Open Space" ; and that tr~e proposul further repre~ser~i:ed ~~uestionable land
use in the City of Anaheim "Sphere oE Inf.luenc~."
Commissioner Herbst noted that he would have no objectiun to the proQ~rky
boi.ig used to graxe hor~es aa an interim use, or for a riding at~ble as
such, bu~t to astab119h a commercial use would set a pxeceden~ Eor other
commercial ~xaes in that area; and th~lt p~rmanent btiildings were being
proposed in the oper~ area vrhi~:h is also a fiood nl~tin.
Chairman Gauer not.ed that the type hnrae farm with white picket fences
would look yood in the C~nyon area.
C~n-missi~ner Herbat offered a mo~ion that tiis aom:aents be forwariied to the
Grange County Planning Commission.
The faregoing mation was s~c:onded by Commis~ioner Farario and MOTION GARRIL~
(Commissioner Johnson b~.ing ~bsent).
ITEM N0. 9
RECLA~SIFICATION N0. 70•-71-40 - Amendment
of legal description.
7oning Superva.sar Charles Roberts i~o+ed for the Plarning Commissinn that the
legu deseription provide@ an~i inc~ucled in Planning ~ommission Re~olution
No. PC71-58 a~~proving Reclassificatic~n No. 70-71-40, inadvertently omit.ted
~ Qortion of the subjec'c sit-e; however, submitted an3 approved exl-ibits
showed the entire site except for z slope ar~a.; that the petitioner was
req~iesting to amend th~ leg~l. description cont.ained in s~id r.es~lution of
approval to ~roperly in~l~~de all of the subject prop~rty within tt~~e C-1
~oned ar?a as originally intendr.-~d; that the City Attorney had reviewed the
requ?st and found that ~he leg~,l description could be amended nunc pro tunc,
and aZth~ugh the requested amendment was somewhat more thar, mino~ it qez~eral-~
ty carrespondea with the apprr+ved exhibi~ks and refl~c~ed ~he i.ntended scope
of the proj~ct as :~iscussed in public hearing; and that the Staf.f ~vas recom-
mer,ding that tht ~~^ue~ted amendment be ~Jranted.
Commissiunar King offer.ed Resolution No. Pc.74-115 and moved for its ~assage
anu adoptioi~ t~ amend Resolution No. PC 71-58, nunc pro tunc, approving
RecJ.assification No. 70-71-4C~ to delete the iegal desvription in its
entire*_y and add the a~~ropri4te new leqal description. (See Resolut.ion
Rnok)
Un roll call, the foreg~~iaq resolution was passed bl tne following vote:
AYES: COMN:~:SS?ONERS: COMPTON~ FAR11N0~ HERBST~ KING~ MORLEY~ GAUER
NOES: CODfMT~SIONER5r NON~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERB: JOFiNS4..
l
~ ~
MTNUTES, C.TTX PL3INNING COMMZ55ION, MaX 2y, 1.97~1 ~~"Z`9
REPORTS AND -• ITEM NO. 10
R~CdMMI;NDATIONS VA~f:4~f`3Z~~V0. 2001 - Clarification of.
' " pdrm~tted usae - Pr~perty located on the
west aid~~~ of AAach Boulovard, south of
13a11 Road .
Mr. Rueaell Jay, ll.:l.l dolphin .~rrac~, Corana del. Max, a~~pesred before tho
Commisaion and requ~sted to b~ able to have a mator homo sales lot on rhe
subject ~.~r~~.•erty whioh was previously ~prrove~ for a new car aget~~'y, H~
atatod 1:hat the propoaed uAe woul d be aimi.].~r to the car ayency since both
uses had products t}~at wero under the Depari:ment af Motor /ohiclea= and
thAt he Hould not mind goinq to a~ubl.ic hQaring proaedur~ except tha~.
timc was of the essenc~+ to him.
2aning Superviso: Charlae Rober~s not~d for ~lie CommiBSion that the appl.i-
cant w~~~~ hasical' Y questioninq whether ttie original ~pprovai of ~he ~uto-
mobile sales lot cculd be conetr.ued to be the sams ~.s a mobilehotc+e sa~eae
lot.
C:hatrman Ga~ier r~ated that tl,~~ request sY,ould g~ through the ].egnl procedure
of a publxa hearing= and that thESe t:ype requcats sh~uld not be accepted
becauso of tlme elements.
Mr. Jay stated it was nof. a matter af money and that the propo~sed use was
in keeping ~vit'- ~he other. developments in the area.
Com~~nissioner Farano no~ed that altk~ough the applicant c~uld k~e right f rom
a standp~int af the indivi luai prcperty, tha Commiasion was being requested
to construe the Ordinance to mean ~hat mo~ileY-ome sales l.ots would be the
;:3me as automobile sales lots.
Nlz . Jay further stated that the property owner next 3oor to the sub j ect
property had campei sales, and that he was trying to save time by making
his applicatian in ;.:iis mannex.
Commissi.oner Farano iloted for the applicant that more than likely if. an
ap~~lication was m~de, he would vote for the proposed uae; and if ~.he ~.c~ler
Commissioners felt the sama way, somP time in pr.~-construction preparation
might be saved.
Commissioner Morley not~d that the Commiasa.on could not commit itself ; tha~~
he did n~t feel there would be objections to the appiication; and th3t the
use as presented would not downgxade the area but: in fa.ct might upgrade it.
In reply to questioning by Commiss~.oner rarano, Mr. Jay indicated th~t
approximately 5 feet of l.andt~caping was proi ,~sed t~ be constructed alvng
Beach Boulevard.
Assiscant 'Loning Supervisor Phillip Schwart~e noted for the applican ~ that
tha earlie~t posaible date for a public hea ~.ng on the s~:bject request would
be June 24, 1974, and that the deadline Por receipt of the ~etition was
May 29, 1974.
ADJOURtrMEt~T - There being no further business to discuss, Commiasioner
-- Herbst ~ffered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Co~ptan
and MOTION CAHRIED (Com[nissioner J~hnson being a.'-~sent) ,
to adjourn the me~ting to June S, 1974, at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chamber.
The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitited,
~ . ~ ~`~'~'4t~i~•~
patricia B. Scanlan, Secretary
Anaheim ~ity Plannin.g Commi~sion
PBS:hm