Minutes-PC 1975/09/15~ P, C 0 MICROFII.MING SERVICE, INC
~
~
f,lty Hall
Anaheim~ Califo~•nl~i
Se~~r.~r,ber I,~ !~7!;
kFGULl1R MFETI NG OF TNE ANAHEI M C ITY PLANNI Nf, COMMI SS IQII
~
~
k(:GULAR ° A regu 1 i r meet i n~ of tf~a Anat~c 1 m C i ty P 1 ann i n,y Lommi ss lon was c~~ 1 1 e<I to
MF.FTINf order at 1:3~ p.m, in the Cauncil Ghambcr~ a quoru~;~ bein~~ present.
PRESENT - CIIl11 Rf1AP~ : Fn rana
- C~MMISSIO~JFRS; Darnas~ Hcrhst~ Jolin~on~ King, Morley, TolAr
ABSFNT - COMI11 SS I ~~1FRS ; Nonc
ALSQ PRESEt~T- Frank Lowry
Jay T(tus
Ronald Thornpson
/~nn i ka San t~~ 1 ah t i
Allan 6aum
Patricfa Scanlan
Deputy City Attorney
OFf(ce Enqinccr
Planninq L~epartment Girector
Zoning Supervisor
Assistant Zonin~ Supervisor
Commission Secrerary
PLEDGE OF - Commissioner King le~l in the Plecic~e of Aflegianch to the Flag of the
ALLEGIIINCE Unitecl Statc:s of America.
APPROVl1l. OF - Commissioner Morley offerad a mnti~n, Seconded by Commissioner Johnson and
7HF. MINUTES MO'fI~N CARRIED~ that the mfiiutc~s ef the Planning Commission meettng of
Auc~ust 1~;, 1975, be ancl her~:hy are approvecl, as submitte~l.
RECLASSIFICATIQN ° PUBLIC HEARING, RAYMOND SPEHAR~ g13 Pa~oma Place, F'ullerton~ Ca.
N~. 75_7d-2 92G35 (Owner); WII,LIAM C. MC CULLOCK~ ~~.i7.0 Gampus Drive~ Ne~rport
eeach, Ca. 97.66~ (P~yent). Praperty described as: An irregularly-
VARIANCE N0. 2733 ~ shaped parcel of I,~nd consisting Af approximately 11.1 acres
located at the northeast c.orner of La Palma Avenue and Imperial
HlGhway~ having approxlmate frontac~es of 2(18 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue
and 365 feet on the e~ast side of Imperial Highway~ having a mar.imum depth of approxi-
mately 7y3 feet. Prc,,~erty ~resently classified RM-1200(SC) (RESIGF.PI7IAL MUI.TIPLE-
FAMILY-SCEMIC C(1RRIDOR OVERLAY) ZONE.
REpUESTED CLASSIFICATI~~~: CL(SC) (COMMERCIAL, l.IMITED-SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLIIY} ZONE.
REQUESTFD VARIANCE: WAIUER OF (A) PERhlITTED pISPLAY SURFl1CF, (B) REQUIRED BUILDINf
SETBACK, AND (C) PROHIEliTF.D ROOF-MQUNTED E~UiPMEtJT~ TO CONSTRUCT
A COMMERCIAL SNOPPING CENTER.
No ~ne indicated thelr presence in oppositlon to suhJect petiti~n.
Although the Staff Reuorr tc t~~ ~'lanning Commission dated September 15, 1975, ~ias not
read at the publlc hearing, sai<1 Staff Report (s referred to and made a part of the
minutes.
Mr. Ray Spehar~ the peti'~:ioner~ appeared before the Pianning f,ommission to present the
proposil bnd to answer questions.
Chairman Farano noted that the Commissinn was advise.d in th:~ Staff Report that an
enviro~mental impact report (EIR) was re.comnended ;o be prepared for the subJect proposal;
however~ 1nsCead of requ(ring a ful) EIR~ the Commissio~ would probably ju~r ae~l~e
information pertaining co the pro.ject and its effect and relationshiN to the surrounding
propGrcies. He further noted that it :yas assumed there were no proposed ten~nts for the
subJect development; whereupon, Mr. Spehar stated there were a numt~er of potential
tenants~ providing the proposal was a~proved; and that he had entered into escrow w(th a
Mr, Stone for ~ 7.5'acre, multiple-famlly residentlal develapment which was protnbly to b~
fourpizxes and six~lexes.
Canmissloner Tolar inqulre~l about future develnpment for the south side af La Palma
Avenue; and Mr. Spehar stated he hbcl sntered lnto a lease agreement with Keno's Rtstaurant
for that location; and that the 'i a~res remt+ining to he devclopec~ on the south sidt of La
75-420
~ ~ ~
MINU7F.S~ CITY PLAIJNING COMMISSION~ September 15~ 1975
RECLAS~IFICATION N0._ 75-76-2 AN0_ VARIANCE N0. 2733 !~~~~~tinued)
75-4z1
Palma Avenu~ would be approprlate for n hotcl sifc an~l he was p1Ann(nq to hold the 3 acres
far that purposa. Commissinner Bernes inciicatect th~~t sh~~ too~ had been Int~rested to
knnw whet the future plans vinre f~r tlie property to tl~e south; however~ the petlttoner's
response adequately ans~~erecl her questl~ns ln that regard~ proviciin~ thnt the
onviranm~nta) impact informati<~rn was provl~lccl~ as rQ~~ulred.
Chelrmt~n Faran~ then notecl thit ln orcier to save time 6n the puhl(c hearing far the
proposal, the Ct~mmission was Intr.rest~rl to have speciflc plans For tha proposal since the
subm~tted pl+~ns wnre very general ancl~ additl~nally~ were lntereste~l to havP Cl~e
envlronmental fmpact inform~tion in wrltten form for considerr~tfon.
Commissloner Herbst added that witl~in one°hdlf mtle of the sub,~ect property there warc two
other shopping centers; ~nd that the subJect property was .~butting other commercial
property and the proposal would have more lmpact on the area than the present zoning which
was RM-120Q(SC).
Mr. Spehar indicated th~t hc caulcl nrovide some informatlon at this mesting pertafning to
the concerns of the Planning Commissir,n~ however~ he dicl not have anythin7 in writing;
whereupon, Chairman Farano requested that the public hearin9 be contin~ied and~ upon
concurr~•nce with Mr. Spehar~ two wecks were agreed upon.
Commissloner Tolar offered a mc~tion~ seconded by Commissioner Mor',zy and MQTI~N CARRIED~
that the public hearin~ and consideratlon of Petitions for Reclassification No. 75-76~2
and Variance No. 2733, be and herehy are continued tc~ th~e Planning Commiss~on rneetina of
Sep[emb~r 29~ 1975, for the petitioner to provide information on the potential impact on
traffic~ air pollution and the development of the adjacent property to ttie north and
south, and for specific plars.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT' - PURLIC HEARING. WILLIAM LYON CO.~ 3~f~ 5an Mlquel Drive. Newport
REPf1RT N0. 153 Beach ~ Ca. 926h(1 (Owner) ; GARF.D N. .;MI TlI, 2~43 Westcl i ff Drive,
~ Newport Beach, Ca. 926(~Q (Age~t). ~'r~perty described as: An
RECLASSIFICATlON irre~ul~rly-shaped parcel of land consistinq of approxfmately 13.6
N0, ]5-76-3 acres, having a frontage of approximately 72~ feet on the north
~ side of Orangethorpe Avenue, having a rt~aximum depth of approxi-
VARI/1NCE N0. 2732 mately 1Q10 feat and being located approximately 24Q feet west
of the centerlin~ of Imperial N19`~way. Property presently classi-
fied RS-A-43.000 (RESIDEP171AL/AGRICULTURAL) Z~N[.
REQUESTED ClASSIFICA'fION: itM-1200 (RESIDENTI~L~ Ml1LTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE.
REQUE5TED VARIANC~: WAIVER OF tA) MIN'MUM FLQOR AREA AND (B) REQUIRED E14CLOSURE OF
CARPORTS, TO CGNS7RUCT A 3~4-UNIT APARTMEMT COMPLEX.
No one indicated th eir presence in o~position to subJect petitions.
Although th~ Staff Repc~rt to the Plannin~ Commission dated September 15~ 1975~ Was not
read vt the public hearing~ said Staff Report is referreci to and made a part of the
minutes.
Mr. Uavid Kelly, 3~3 San Miguel Drive, Suite F~ Newport Beach, the developer, appeared
before the Planning Commission and stated hc !~ad heen working with tlie William Lyon
Company for the pas: six months; that they had Just completect the "Milicreek" development
in the City of Costa Mes~ ancl were enjoying 1~~~ occupancy; and thzt the architect. Mr.
Gared Smith~ was present to discuss the details of the proposeci development.
Mr. Gared Smith~ the architect and agent for the proposal, appeared before the Planning
Commission and stated the Interdepartment~l Committee rec~mmenditions contained in the
Staff Report were accepcable; that the subject property was irre~lularly shaped, the
tapography was irregular ar.d the only fronta~e was on Orangethorpe Avenue; that the 21$
bachetor-type units with appro~cimately 50~ square feet of floor space were well received
~lsewhere; that the propased open carport~ were primarily to enhance the landsc~ping vicw
to give the tenants .3 pleasant place t~ drive flnd enter the project; that they were
presenting photos of extsting pro,Jects far tompnrison of apen vs. c~osed carports; that
there would be only sir, carports in eac~~ parkinci structu~e rather than the long rows of
carports and there would be landscaping al~n9side and in back of the carports to give a
pleasant environment in the parking area; and that they were prop~sing to hold back from
the property !lne with a landscaped p~rimetc:r for tlie entire site.
~
~ ~
MINUT[S, CITY f'LANNING COMMIS~ION~ Sepxembar 15~ 1975
75-427.
ENVIRONMENTAL it;F~CT REPORT N0. 15 RECLASSIF~CATION N0. 5-,~6-3 AND VARIANCE N0. 27~2 (Cont.)
TNE PUBLIC NEIIRING WA!t CL~SED.
Commissloner To'I~~r noted that~ In his oplnion~ the pcrtincnt ftcm!; of envlranmental impatit
relatod ta the lack of drain~~ge fac(Ilcles ancl water run-aff prohlems, *.ho ~olse gan.~rated
f rom the ~~d Jacen t ra I 1 roacl ~ and the l• rr_,~tm~n t to bc g I ven t~~ the yoa r-round spr 1 ng wh I ch
was located on the subJect property. In responsc, Mr, Smitf- stated thr sub.~ect propcrty
took a qreat deal uf watcr and the ~ropose~l solutln~ was to completely put t~~e drainage
underground via a 2~i-foc~t widc by ~i-foot high storm ~iraln wlilch woulcl b~ completely
coverad by a street c~r open l~nclsc~{~inq; that the ~1rAlnac~e struct~are wns to be construct~d
at such great expense th~t the price af thr, land was of Iittlo consequence; th~~t the
dralnage would nc~d to hc cnred for both ahove and belcw~ the subject prc~perty; hc,wever~
tlia proposed clevel opmen t wo~~ 1 d not be: acld t ng s 1 gn 1 f 1 cant w~ter to wl~at present I y crosaed
Orangethorpe Avenuc. Commission~r Tolar then noted tl~.~t when the pr~p~rty was devcloped~
thore -vould be wnter drainin~~ from it th;~t did not presently dratn from it.
In response to questloninn by Chairman Farano~ Office Engtr~~r Jay Titus advised that
Condltian No, f3~ on p~~ge 2-d of *.he Staff Report~ was adequate to insure the proper
drainage of the subJect property, Thereup~n, Mr, Smitr~ ~tlpula[ecl to complying with said
condltlon of approval concerning drainage facilttics~ witf~ the except(on that the source
of the natural spr(ng had not baPn loc~ted on thc property.
Chairman Farano then suggested that tl~e app'licant submit a supplement to EIR No. 153 which
would address the spring and the proposed treatment uf it; that the City shoul~ know In
what manner the applicant woulcl proceed to treat the natural sprin9 in the EIR; and
although the EIR was not actu~~lly deficlent, the supplement concerninq :he spring could be
submitted at the approprlate ttme prior to constructlon. Mr. Smith (ndicated that unfil
such time as the sprinn was located~ they did not know how ir. would be treated; chat
contrary to the submitted EIR~ thc spring was rr~re of a seepine~ of water and~ in hfs
oplnion~ would probably not be a problem; and that the general location of the spring was
in a graded area. Mr. Smith stipulated to providing the supplement~ as sugyested by
Chairma~ Farano.
In response to questi~~ning by Chairman Farano, Mr. T(tus aclvfsed that if the p~tltioner
agreed to provide the additional informatian regarding a solution for the treatment of the
natural sprin9 at a later date~ he believed the conditions as set forth in the Staff
Report would be suffic'~ent to c,ontrol the development~ and would probably satisfy the
requirements concern,;ng the environmental impac~.
Cammissioner T~~lar noted that he was concerned as to whal• measures would be taken tn
mitigaie the s wnd `rom drangethorpe; and, although the FIR covered the noise impact~ he
desired to knuw specifically what would be done in that regard, In response, Mr. Smith
stated t.he residential structures were proposed Lo be approximately 12~ feet from
Orangethorpe ~md carports ~nd landscaping would be lo::~ted within the ~2~7-foot setback
area, in add(tion to a 6-foot high wall across the fr~nt of the property on Orangetharpe;
that the units were generally oriented away from the freeway~ ~vith insulated walls, a
minimum of wir~dows~ and air-tight with strippeci doors, etc.~ to insure that the noise
level inside the homes would not exceecl 45 dbA; and that they were employing the services
af a sound engineer for the pur~ose of insuring that thc proposed deve~opment cc~mplied
with the State requirements for sound.
In response to questioning by Commissioner King, Mr. Smith stated the propos:~d development
was for adults only; that the development was not designed for families~ however~ they
wouid not evict tenants who brought chfldren into the worid while residing tliere. N~r.
Kelly add~d that the proJect was desiqned orimarily for a~fults ancl would be easlar to
manage without children; that there would be two tennis courts; that there would be ~0
two-bedroom units 3n~1 it was their thinking th~t if the market demanded, they would allow
small children up to pre-school age.
Assistant Zoning Supervisor Al1an Daum noted that the petitioner was proposing to
construct a chainlink. fence along tne north property line adJacent to the golf course in
the City of Yorba Linda in addition to a chainlink fence alonq tfie northerly approximately
one-half of the east property Ilne, said fencts to serve as a~uffer for the propossd
muitiple-family development from the ad,Jacent golf course. There~ipon~ Mr. Smlth
stipulated in behalf of the petitioner tl~at an average 60-f~ot landscaped area would be
maintained between the n~rth property line and rhe res(denti~l structures, said area t~eing
a slope or bank and to be completely tandscaped.
Canm(ssioner Johnson offered a motion, sec~nded by Commiss(oner K(ng and M0710N CARRIED,
that Environ,,~antal Impact Report No. 153, having been cons(dereci ;h~s date t~y the Ctty
P.anntng Ca misslon and e~iidence, both wrltten and aral having been presented to
~
~ ~
MINUTES~ CIYY PLANNINC COMMISSION~ Septomber 1>~ 19~5
75-42)
ENV I RONMENTAL I FIPACT REPOR_T_ N0. I 53 ~ RCCLIIS~ i F i CAT I ON NO`~5-76-,~, ~NO VARI ANCE (J0. ~t732 ~~dn t, )
supplement bAlti drAft EIR No. 151. the Clty Planning f.ammisslon bellaves th~t sald draft
EIR No. 153 does conform !o e Clty ~~~~ Stato fu(delincs and the StAtc of Californla
Envlronmentnl Qu~llty Act an~l, basRd upon such InformAtlon~ does horeby recommend to the
Clty Council thet they certlfy snicf EIR No. li3 Is in compllanco wlth sald Environmantal
Ouel{ty ~t~; provt~fe~l~ however~ thnt tha petitl~ner shal) submit supplemental
envirunmentbl Imp~ct infor,.~ition ~~rt~lninq to the existir,c, nntural spring on the properly
and the prapoye~~ treetment for ssme~ ssld supplemant to bc provided a[ the timc sntd
s~ring i~ located (found) on the p roperty and prlor to commenc~ment oP conatructlon of the
proposed clevelopm~nt.
Com-nl ss laner .lohneon of i ered Resol ut 1 on No. PC7y~ 187 And movt~d for t ts passage and
adontlon~ th~~t the Plenninq Commissinn d~es herel,y rer.ommend to ~he Clty Council that
Petitlon for Reclassiflcnti~n No. 75-7~~'3 be approved~ subject to the concfltlon that the
setback arda hetween the prop~sc' ch~inllnk fer~co along the nort!~ property llne and tt~e
northerly AppraximAtely ~nc-li~tf ' tlic dest property ilne being fully landscaped~ as
stipulatad 'n by Chc petitioner, and upon whiGli basis the Planning Commission does hereby
detr.rmtne tl. ~ sai~l fence Ancl landsc.,piny wl l l serve. as an aciequ~~te buffer and that a six-
f~t hiqh black wall is nat necessory along the norCh property line betwcen the golf
course in the City of Yorbt+ Ltnda and the propc.~srd multiple-faml~ly development because of
the topographic differences between tlie twn properties; and suhJect to the
Interdapartmenta) Coirmittce+ rec~mmendatlons. (S~e Resolution Boak)
On roll call, the forr.9oing resulution was passe~l by the followir~g vote:
AYES; CQPIMISSI~N~'RS: E~RIJES~ FlERBST~ JOHNSO~l~ KING~ MORLF.Y~ TOLAR, Fl1RAN0
NOES: COMMISSION[RS~ NO1~F.
qa$ENl'; COMMISSIONERS: NQFIE
Comnisstoncr dohnson offered Ftesolutlon No. f'C75-18fi ~nd moved for its passage and
adop:i:~n~ that Patitl~n for Varl~nce No. 2732 be and hereby is c~ranted, granting the
reGuested walver of the minimum fi~ar arca for a minimum floor area of 498 square feet~ as
pr~posed~ on tha bASis that the Planning Commission has previously granted s~id waiver for
efficlency (bachelor) type units~ not Co excep' 25~ of the tot~l number or apartment
units; grantinry the requestecl walder of requi~ ., enclosure of carports to perinit 304 open
carport spaces t~ a11rnv for vfsibllity throunh said carports~ and on the basis that the
Planning Commisslon had previously ~pproved such carports having partial enclosure~
subject to the condltlon khit the requlre:i 1~t1 cuhic feek of general ~torage area be
providad adJacent to each oF the respective a~~rtment units, since the 3,~~+ carport spaces
will have only partlal walls; subJect to thc stipulations of the petitioner; and subjeGt
to Interdepar*.Renta) Commi~tiee recammendations. (See ~esolution Qook)
On roll call~ the forectoing resolution was pas~ed ~ the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIQ~~ERS: BARNES, HERBST~ J~HNSON, KING~ MORLFY, TOLAR~ FARANO
NOES : COMM 1 SS I OtIEftS : NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NOriE
ENVlRONMENTIIL IMPACT - PURLIC NEARiNG. TEXNCO ANAHEI~1 HILLS~ INC.~ 3B0 Anaheim Hilis.
REPORT N0. 15`_ Road~ Anahelm~ Ca. 92a~? (Owner); ANAIIEIM IiILLS, INr.~ 380
Hills Road~ Anaheim~ Ca. 9?.307 (Agent); requesting permission
CUND171~NAL USE to CON5TRUCT A PUBLIC EQUESTRIA~I CEtl7ER WITtI WAIVER OF (A)
PERMIT N0. 1762 PERMITTf.O LOCATIOtI OF AN EQUESTRI~PJ CENTER ANO (fl) MINIMUN
~RQNT SETE~ACK on propcrty described as: An irregularly-shaped
parcel of lanJ consisting of approxim~tely 6.~ acres located
soutl~erly of the intersect(~n of Serrana Avenue and Nidden Canyon Road~ having
approximote fro~tages of 4h7 feet on the southeast side of Serrano Avenue and 725 feet
an the s~outhwest stde o~ Hidden Canyon Road. Property presently classified RS-A-43,OOU
(SC} (RESIDENTIAL/AGfiICULTURAL~SCENIC CORRIDOR QVERLAY) ZONE.
No one indfcated thAlr presence in opoosition to subject petition.
Although the SCaff Raport to the Planning C~mmission dated September 15, 1975~ was not
reaci ~t ehe publl~ liearinct~ s~~1~i Staff Report ts referred to and made a part of the
minutes.
M~. .lohn Mlllick~ Vlce President of An~iheim Fiills, Inc,, the agent for the petitioner.,
appeared bafore the Plan~in~ Gommissi~n anci stated regarding the requested waiver of 1:he
~
~
~
~
MINUT~S~ CITY Pl11NNIPlG CUMMISSION, September 15. 1975 )5•424
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPIICT RFPORT N0. !52 AND COND1710NAL USE PEaMIT N0. 1562 (Contlnuod)
perm!tted locatlon of an equestrian ccntcr tha[ they had Just rer;eivcd t+ppr~val fram the
Clty Councl) for doveloprx+nt ~f estAtc-sir.ed lots at~uttin~ tha ~ubject propcrty on the
north and bQing within 3~~ f•..et of the subJect property, sald development to be equestrfan
estetas slnce thay felt therc was a strony markcting dem~nd for snme. M~. Mlllick
descrlbccl the sur~oundin~t lancl uses~ notin~ that an unclerground holdir~c~ reservolr was
propc~se~l fer the prc~pnrty t~ the PASI ond tl~at propcrty w~s being helcf unt i 1 the CI ty took
posseaslo~ nnd tha surf~ce level would ser•ve as an overflc~w parking are~ for tl~e proposed
equestrlnn centor <l,~ring a h~rse show, etc.; that the equestrlan cenler, Itself, was an
Interim use of the subJect prapert~~; that they hncl previc~ugly recelvecl ~~ppro~al for a
elmilar use across the street frnm tlie yolf co~~rse and had a signe<1 le~se with the City;
hc~wover~ when tne City wAS considering selltng the golf course to a developer~ Anahelm
Nllls, Ine. hnd backcd off since t~ie equestrlan center was over t~ SIQQ~Q~O feclllty; that
the eyue~trlan contcr was promised cn the present and fut~ire resiclents In the arca and An
Inter{m fotlllty wes nco~iccl~ f~owever~ tne evantu~l permanent facility wou!d be located
elsewhere by the tlme of chc ultimate development af tlie Ranch.
TIIE PUBLIC HF.IIRINC+ WAS CLOSED.
!n respon~e to questlontng hy Commissioner Morley~ Mr. Milltck st~~ted khey would ltke
~approva) to h~ve the equestrian center at the subJect location for a minlmum of flve
yeafrs~ for amortiz~~lon purposes; t.hat considerable grading wa5 involved and they would be
peying high prop~~rtionatc water acreage and draina~e fees; e~d that the building would oa
madular in desic~n and relocatahle, with the loss of the founclations and approximal'olY 10$
In the ~tructural faclltt(es wl~Gn relocated.
Cortmissioner Talar noted concern in relat(~~nsl~ip to the ex(stinq tract to the narttnvest
and tl~e type of F~eople who would usc ~h^ facilities during the lnterim perlod; although
the t(me lfmitation dicl not concern him. Mr. Millick respande~l tl~at two types o~ people
would use the facilities -- i'hose who ownzd eques~:rian estat~ lats and rode for pleasure
and :hose who boardad their horses ancl were into a trainin~ program~ lived in condominlums
or on small lots~ and did not ~~ish t~ go through the prohlems of feeciing~ nrooming, etc~.
of their horses; that basically the residents adJacent t~ tl,e proposed equestrlan center
wnuld be "horse people" and there would not be a psychological problem; that dlthough the
sub]ect property iine was within 30~ feet of residential propertles~ tha equestrfen
buildings were 5uiee a ways from the ccnter itself and, in some instances~ 30~ to 400 feet
away; that for developme~t in the area, they were intending to go to a sales program and
not throu~h butlders since 'hey had a demand for custom houses; and that through tract
builder~ they would have ~rcl~itectural control~ h~owever, they were d~:sirous ta offer
frcedom for the purchasers to design their own houses.
In respunse to questioning of Commissioner Barnes~ Mr. Millick explairtied that thcy would
develcp th~ ridi~g and hiking trail system to connect with the exlsting trails and also to
a number of estates; and t.hat if the riders intended to go ta the south~ they would have
to cross over Se~rano Avenue. Thereupon~ Comi,.issioner Sarnes noted that crossing Serrano
Avenue would create a traffic. hazard, and Mr. Millick responcied that due to the arreount of
traffic which miglii eventually bu'ld up in the area, especlally when Fairmont @oulevard
was completed~ there may be a traffic si~nal for crossir,g.
Cartmissloner Tolar offered a motion, seconde~i by Commissioner Her~st ar+d MOTI0~1 CARRIEO,
that Environmental Impact Report No. 152 having been considered this date b~~ the Clty
Planning Comnission and evidence~ both written and oral, having beer presented to
supplement sald draft EIR No. 152, the City Plann:ny Commission believes that said draft
EIR No. 15~ does conform to the City and State Guiclelines and the State of Califarnfa
Envlronmental Quality i+ct and, ba~ed upon such informarion, does hereby recammend to the
City Counci) that they certify said £IR No. 152 is tn compliance with said Environmental
Quallty Act. (See page for addition to this motion.)
Commissioner 'iolar offereci Resolution No. PC75-1~9 and moved for its passage and adoption~
that Petition for Condltional Use ('ermit No. 15G2 be and herehy is granted for a time
periad af Flve {5) years, subject to review and consid~ration for extension of time by the
planning Commission anc~~or City Council, upon written request by the peLitloner; and
subJect to the Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. (See Resolution Book)
Mr. Millick took exceptlon to the statements ln the Staff Report referring to automatlc
sprinkler ~ystems to be installed in al) hay storage and bc,rn areas~ stating that the
mocfular structures were firepro~f and were not c.onstructed of woad. Chalrman Farano noted
that the petitioner wo~ld ~e subject to tl~e raquirements of the Fire Code. whatever the
requlrements were. H~. Millick then tool: exception to the requirement fer ~ayment of
landscaping fexs alang Flidden C~nyon Road, stating th~t they preferred to do tnelr awn
l~ndscapln~ under the mar~:etiny program that ha~i he~n undcrway ln Anahelm Nills;
. ~ ~
MINUTFS~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSI011~ Sopteml•,er Iri~1975 75~1~2~
ENVIRO~~MLNTn~~,IMPACT RF.PORf NQ. 152 AND CONDITIONAL USE FfRMIT N0. 1 62 (Contlnucd)
whereupon, Zonlnq Supervlsor Annika Santalahtl noted that the condition was rnqul~ed to
be sa t I s f i ed pr i or to the cor-~mencc~ment of the: reyu : s ted act 1 v I f.y and/or pr i or to t he
Issua~cr, of building permits~ whichever occurred first and if the petitioner proc:ee ded
to install tl•,a iandscepir~g and It was verifiad at t.he tlme of lnspection~ there should
nat be a problem in that regar•d.
Discusslon purSUCd reqardinct tfie adclltion.'~I InformAtlan rcquirecl In connection with the
enviranmental impnct report~ durfng which Deputy Clty Attorney FrAnk lowry advlsed th+~t
the EIR w~s Inadequate~ as sut>mitted; th~t thc prr.viously-approved equestrinn cen t er waa a
diFferent loc~t(on and did not. Involve the crossinq of ~errano Avenue; and that the
proposal cnuld have ~.n ~~~p~ct on the trnffic in the ~rea. Gommissioner 7olar inq uire~ if
it was possfble to recomn~e:nd cRrtificitfon of tfie EIR~ wlkh the ~dclltlonal informa tion in
the form of a supplement to he suhmitted later on~ and Commissioner Bnrnes noted t ha~ it
~id not saem rpproprtats to pass on the EIR when the fin~lings were negative t+t the presenL
time. M~•. Mllllck then 5tatecl that City Staff coulcl probahly appr~ve the supplemenCal
informatlon. Further discussion pursued ancl Mr. Lowry advised thnt rlir problert~ a reas
discussed in cc~nnectlon with the previous item on ihis agenda (EIR hlo, 15~) clid no t
compare with the sub.)ect EIR in that there were two areas of deficiency which werES not
addressed completely to meet the State requirements.
Chairmnn Farano inqu(red if the ~etitioner h~cl bern made aware by Cfty Staff cone erning
the deficic:ncies In Environm~ntal Imp~~ct Report No, 152; whereuFon~ Mr. Mlllick s tated he
had been advised by StaPf and khere ha~1 been a difference of opinlon on the matte r.
Commissioner Morley noted that if there was a leqal way of processing the EIR at this
meeting~ I~e would rathcr not have to c~nt(nue the matter; and he inquired if the re would
be a hardshiN to the petitioner if tnere was a ta~o-week del~y in order to comply with the
requlremenes for th~ EIR. Mr. Millick repliecl that the price of the work and ma t erials
involved would Just continue to rise in the interim.
Chair'man Far~no notec! th~t in ~revi~us considerati~ns~ the Planning Commission ha d
disagreed with EIR's but h~d recommended certiflcati~n to the City Council provid ed that
the amendments were made prior to the City Countll review of th~e E~R.
Thereupon, the Planning Commission g~nerally concurred that tf~p intent of the f ~ r egoln9
motion recommendinq to the City Council that Enviromnental Impact Report No. 152 be
certiflsd~ was to include the following:
..provided, howeve~, that the petit ~h~ll submit additional envir~nme nt~~
impact information addressinc~ the draina., '.+ciliLles or hydrology ~f the su bject site
and the impact on traffic on Serrano Avenue as may be created by the location of
parking f~cilities and the connection of the proposed equestria~~ center with the
existing and pr~posed equestrian trails in the area~ said supplement to be s ubmitte~
for City Staff r°vieai and spproval prior to City Council review of said EIR.
Comm!ssioner Johns~n noted that, in his opinion, the subJect site was too small and was
also too cZase to the adJacent residential tract; alth~ugh~ he was not op~osed t o the
proJect itself,
On roll call~ the fore~oing resolution to grant Condiiional Use Permit No. 1562 passed by
the fellowing vote:
AYES: C~MMISSIONFRS: DARNES, HFR85T~ KING, MORLFY~ TOLAR~ FARA~lO
NOES: COMMIS510NERS: JOHNSON
ABSENT: COMMISSIOPI[RS: NONE
u
~
MINUTES, CITY "~t~NNINf COMMIS~ION, Septemaer 15~ 1915
~w
~
75-W26
CANDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC tIEARING. TF10-MS l1. DQIIBIE~ JR., 1'if111 Les Palmas Drive~
PERMIT N(1. 1563 Sant~~+ Arrn~ Ca, 927~5 (Qwner); AKIRA AND TOSNIK~ SAITO~ 19~7
""~"'r'~ Faul kr,er Dr ivr. ~ P1 ~cent la ~ Ca. 92G7n (A9"-~t) ; request 1 n~
permission to heve ON•~SI1LE. BEER 1-ND WINE IN AN EXI5TI~IG RESTAUR~N1' on property
described os: A roctangulArl~~-shaped p~rcel of land co nsistinc~ of approximately
0.$ acre~ having a frontage of approximataly 13Q foet on the eflst side of Broolchursk
Stre~t~ having ~n rtu~ximum cleptli ~f approxlmr+tely 175 reet~ helnn locat~d approxi-
mately 195 feet s~utl~ of the canrerl lne of B~oadway, and Purther ctescribed as
31~i South Brookhurst Streek. Propcrty pr~sently class i f ted CL (COMMCRL'l/1L, LIMITED)
ZONE.
No one Indlcaled their presance in opposition to the s ubJect petlti~n,
Although the St~ff Raport to the Planning Commisslon d atecl September 15~ 1975, was not
read at the publ(c hearing, said Staff Report is refer~ed to and made a part oF the
minutes.
Mr. Jlm Abe~ 5~'1 East Chestnut~ Orange, re~sresenting the aqent for the pet(tioner~
appeared befpre tN~e Planning Ccxnmission and stated c~n cerning sinning that presently there
were twa buslnesses accupying the subJer.t p~operty and there was one free-standtng stgn in
~xlstence and onN unused sign ~ost whicli they would 1 i ke t~ util ir.e for tl~e subJect uae;
however. if the use of the hlank siyr post would crea*_e a~~roblem~ they would remove it
immedlately so that it a~ould not have to be removed later on.
THE PUBLIC H~ARIIIG WAS CLQSED.
Chalrm~n Farano noted that if ther~ was nat enough room on the exist(ng sictn to advertise
the subJect use, then the petitioner would be requite d~o apply for a variance, In reply,
Mr. Abe stated thit they would need a sign if they in t~nded to do business at tFie subJect
locatlon. Chairman Farano then noted th~t the Plannincl Commissinn had been reluctant to
grant varianGes pertaining to thc number of free-stan Jing s(gns and that the applicant
shoulJ contact ~he property ownei in an eff ort to add nnto the exist(ng sign.
Commissioner Morley noted thaC Che above-ref erenced e xistin~ sigi7ing was not located on
the subJect property, in which c:ase therP would he nn problem if the appllcant utilized
the blank sign post to erect ~- sign.
It wa~s notpd that the birector of the !'lanning Department had de.terr.ined that the proposed
activity fell within the, definition of Secti~n 3~~1, Class 1, of the Ci[y of Anaheirr.
Guidelines to the Requirements for an Envi~~nmental Impact Report and was, therefore,
categoricalty exempt from the requ+rement to File an EIR.
It was noteci that the property owner shnuld subm(t a written request for termir~ation of
Conditlonal Use Permit No. 1212 on the subjeck prope ~ty and Mr. Abe stipulated thereto.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. FC75-190 and moved for its passage and
adoption. that Petition for Conditi~nal Us e Permit ~lo. 15b3 bc and hereby is grant~ed~
subJect to the stipulations of the petitio~er and subJect to Interdepartmental Lommittes
recommendations. (See Resolution Book)
On rol l cail, the foregoing resolution was passed k~y the follo~ainn vote.:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNESp N[RBST, JOHNSOPI~ KI NG, MORLEY, TOLAR~ FARANO
NOES: CQMMISSiOPIERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NON~
•
• ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNI~IG CQMMIS510N~ September 15, Ig15
75-427
CONDITIOM~I. USE - PUBLIC HF.ARINC. RFCREATIONl1l. VF.HIGIES SERVICF CENT~R N1 ~ 30~ South
PEftMIT NA. 1$G~i Harbor Boulevard~ Suite 8~2~ Annhelm, Ca, 9?."4~ ((avner); JONN NUISN~
I(~1(1~ Magnol ia Street~ F'ount~in Velley, Ca. 927n(1 (119ent); rnquest-
inq permissiun ta ESiABLISII ,4-~ OUTDQf11t RECRF/1TI~NAL CFNTER WITFI
WAIVER OF (A) PERMITTFD OUTO~)OR USES AND (D) RFQUIRF.U ENC~.OSURF OF OUTDOQR USES on
property deacrtbed as: A rect~n gularly-shaped {~arcel of land consisting of approximately
7.0 dc~es locnted at the southwe st corner of Carpenter Avenue and Shepard Street~ having
approximato front~ges of AA feet on the south slde of Carpent~r Avenue and 11> feet ~n
the wesr, sido of Shep~~rd Street anci h:~vi~~q a mAxtmum depth nf approxlrnAtely 60Q feet,
Pr~perty presertly cl~ssifie~l ML (INDUSYRI~L~ LIr11T~D) 7.QNE.
One pe+rson indic~tecl his preserrce tn opp4sition co suh.~ect petitlon ~~nci, subsequently~
~~alvnd the full readln~ of the S tafP Report.
Although the Staff Rrport to tf~e Planning Commission datecl September 15~ 1975~ was nnt
rcad at the public liearing, satd Staff Reporc Is refer~ed to and made ~ part of thc
minutes.
Assistant Zoning Supervlsor AI1a n L'aum noted that onc letter had been recelved In
oppositlon to the subJecc petltion~ beinq fron, Kenney G~lf Enterprt5es, Inc. (Camelot
Golfla~d).
Mr. Richard Dentt~ 2150 4tli Aven ue~ Sa~i Uie,yo appeared before the Planning Comm(ssion and
stated he was presenk to represent the applicant~ John Fluish; that Mr, Nuish presently
awned and operatecl recreatlonal centers in six other cities; that he was in possess~on of
letters from most of the ather cities and th~ Anaheim Chamber of Commerce indicating
suppnrt of the subJect type usc; tt~at they had met with reprasentakives of Sterling~
Rackwell and fliior companies and all harl no c~bJectinns to the proposed development; thac
they expected that~ upon completion of the pronosal~ tlie total investment would be
approximately $2 million; that the property was fittin~ for th e subJect type use and would
compliment thc: exfstinc~ Camelot Golfland; that by adding recreational amenitles to the
area~ a family could spend the day together in one location; that the proposed development
would add a buffer between tlie freeway and the existing development; that drivir.g past the
subJect deuelopment~ one would see a scenlc corridor beautifully landscaped; that the
Fluor Company was locate<f Inxnediately behind the subJect pruperty and the proposed
development would not infringe intr~ the core of the (ndustrlal area; that the development
wo~ld be cantrolled through lie7hting, fencing, and employee co~tact; that they had similar
develapments in nther citles alvng maJor freeways and no traffic problems were being
created from the use at those !~cations; and that some of the referenced letters were from
chiefs of police of the or.hr.r cities where their other facilities were located.
Mr. John Rodriquez~ Jr., repres enting Kenney Golf Enterprises, Inc.~ the adJacent. property
owner to the east~ appe7red before tf~e Planning Cummission and requested that their letter
of opposition be read into the record. Mr. Daum read the referenced tetter. as follows:
"Septemb er 9th, 1975
Honorable City Counc.ll an~
Planning ~ommission
Anaheim, California
Re: Application of John liuish
Gonditional Use Permit No. 156~~
Gentlemen:
The undersigned are ~he owners of Camelot GolPland located at 3?.00 Carpenter
~venue~ Anaheim. We have bsen in operation since ,luly 19 71 and have successfully
enJoyed being located in Anaheim, and our business has continued to c~row over this
period. We Fe~l that the reason it has been so well acce pted by the community is that
.~e have kept the operation oriented to a family tyFe or recreation activity, namely
mtniature golf and arcade. We have not en~aged in other activittes whlch we feel
wauld dlstract from a pleasing~ qule~ anci beautiful atmosphere, such as race traeks,
batting cages, trampolines and bumper cars.
We have been in the miniature .~olf and arcade b~iness exclusively for the past
22 years and now own and operate 9 aolf courses in CaliFornia and Arizona. We have
very closely aatched other operations which include race tracks, batting cages~
trampelines~ and bumper ca r3 and have noticed that in all cases this type of activity
leads to small and large gangs hang(ng around and loiter~i~q~ rough-housing, and beinn
rowdy and developing a sit~~ation which requires a cnnsid erable amount of s°curity a~d
•
~ ~
MINIITES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SepCember 15~ 1975
CONDITlONAL USE PERMl7 N0, i564 (Continued)
75-428
police protectinn. Th~re have beon sltuntlons where armed guardg ~~nd trainad do~s had
to be br~u~ht In f~r a per(od of time t~ hreak up these ganqs. We ~~.r~.~n_~iy idel thnt
thls type of atmosphere would discour.~+qc families, women ~n~l sm~ill children siom
coming and enJoylnc~ playlnq miniature golf, We furt!:r.r f~~~l ;h~~t tlic A-'C'lIC@~:LUI'~I
and visuAl appeArAnce of the~~ propu~c•.~i uses wcxild totnily dfatract from the
landscaped~ park-lfkc theme which w~ now have.
~de own a~pr~xlmACely 4~,cres on the nnrth side of Carpentc~ /lvenuc~ Ad.~a(ning
Camf:lot~ and have owned tlils prapcrty for aE~proximatcly three ~3) years. We have been
approaclied mriny tlm~s by oporators and proR~ters desiring to havc ~s dcvclop thls area
~~~to the samo uses as proposed in the subJect appllcatlon. We hnve rafused to do this
because of th~ re~~sons stated. We have refused to do t.his ~~t ~~ny of our other 8
locatlons.
Wc are presently spcncllnq thousands of dollars rc-landsr.~pfng ond improving
Camel~t to insure il•s c~ntinuing beauty and pleas(ng atmosphcre. Recently we were
presented wit~~ an ~ward from Anaheim Be~iutiful for Its beauty and excellence. We are
~ery praud of this award and !~ulll contfnuc to main*.a(n Camelot ln that dlrection.
We do hereby respectfully requesC of the Planntnq Commtssi~n ~nd Cfty Councll
that they deny this appllcation because we very strongly fee.) that this proposed use
would be hlyhly and totally undesirable for this location.
R~spectfully suhmitted~
KENNEY (~OLF ENT[RpRISES, ItIC.,
5/Ben D. Kenney~
President"
In rebuttal~ Mr. Dentt staterJ he was surprised at the comments cont~lned in the letter of
opposition~ since the appllcant had been in operation for approximntely 15 years (n the
City of La Mesa and he ha~f a let~er frorn the Chief of Police of that Clty stating there
had never been any problems from the use; that there would be much use of the proposed
facilitles by Bo~ Scout groups~ church groups, eic.; khat Golf World had been located in
the Ci2y of Anaheim for approxlmately 63 years and there had been no problems there; that
the proposed facility would cater to family~ church and civic urganizatlons and not to the
bad element; and that they would have rules set up for the users ko fallow.
THE PU[3L 1 C NE/1R I I~G SJAS CLOSEO.
Following review of the portfolio of letters of recommendation or support for the subJect
type use~ Commissloner Johnson noted the references ~vere mostly regarding the golf ~ourses
operated by the applicant; and that, althouqh the golf courses were be.fng highly
recommended, the proposa) appeared to bP a different typ~ facilityo
In response, Mr. Dentt stated Mr. Huish had started out with golf courses; that their only
aperation with cars was lo~~~tec1 in l.a Mesa; and that their operation in Fountain Valle~•
included a grand prix and a roller rink, etc.
Commissioner Mor•ley inquired if all of the other esperations of the applicant were located
in the heart of industrf~l areas; and M~. Dentt stated their operation in San Diego was
located on the aQ5 Freeway in an inciustrial area.
In response to questloning by Commissioner King regardinq the number of employees and the
limited parkinq spacss proposed, h1r. Dentt stated all of the 40 ~0 5~ employees would nat
be on the site at the same time; that at the peak +~orkin~ time, there would be no more
than 11 empluyees on the site; and that their policy was to overbuild the parkir.g since
they did not want anyone to come 3nd go away for lack af a parkinq space.
Mr. Dentt Gont.inued by stating th~y would stipulate tn providin~ adequate circulation and
access on the subiect property for fire protect9on vehicles; that re~arding tne trash
storage an~ . they had contacted the Sanitation Division o~ith plans and if the plans
were not ac. ~ they waul~i stipulate to meeting the requirements in that regard.
~ ~ ~
I~iNUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Snptc+mber 15~ 1~75 75~~~?~
CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0, 1a64 (Continued)
Commisaton~r Nerbst lnyulrc~l why thc appl(c~n! liad chnsen the s~ibJect property for the
proposed use; ancl Mr, Dentt stnkc~i thc~ rcason was t~~ compliment thc existing Camelot
Golfland ~~nd thr. prop~s~~l wnu1~1 ~~~i~l v.~rlety of otl~er re~re~tlonal amenitles lnto the area.
Cammissloner H*rbst then n~te~1 thnt the subJect type u~ shnuld on~y be permlttcd to
cont(nue in an in~lustrl~l area so Inng nY It was cnmpatible with snld e•eA; that ha had
opposed the Camel~t Golflnn~l ancl still felt it wes in thc wren~ loc.ntlan; that two wrongs
would not make a ri~ht; ancl thnt thr exposure to tlic ad.j~cent freew~~y w~~s for the
industrial zone ~ind the Clty F~ad a c~mrr~~clal-recreitian zone fo~ thc sub)ect typa use.
Mr, Dentt then stat~d they hAd als~~ chosen thc~ loc~~tion due to thc access and visibillty
from the Preewny; that thc freeway was ~ scenic corridor ~nd~ wfthout InFringing upon tha
industrial development~ r.hcy ~ould offer ,~ t~uffer beta~ecn the freeway t+nd the !ndust~ial
development; that they had met v+ltt~ Rockw~ll, and Rockwell coul~i see that the proposal
would add thc buffer and yet iC w~s n~t on la Palma wherc it ml~ht c~it up an existing
development.
Commissioner Hei•bst notea that not too lony ago a race track facility propased along the
freeway w~s denied by both the Pl~nning Commission and City Councfl; th~t Anaheim had its
areas deflned for recreatlonal~ cammercla) an~ industrial Jevelopmenc; Chat (t was know~
th~~t industrial land was cheapcr than other typES; however~ he was also very aware rhat
indi•strlal development would ugually on1Y go into areas that were protected from
commercial intrusion; that althnugh tl~ere had been other appltcations for reGreatlonal-
commerclal uses in the industrlal xones since t!~e Camelot Golfland was ~pproved, the City
had been able to keep the in~ustrial zones prfmarily for inclustrla) uses; that bYeakiny
down the (ntegrity of tf~e zones was detr(men2a! to ttie City anJ there had been a strong
flyht to maintain the industrial zones~ part(cularly; that by permitting intruslon into
the industr(al zones~ industry wo~ild not continue to go in; and for tl~e Forego(ng reasons,
the Planninq ° nmission shauld apposc the subJect petit•ion.
Chal~°man Farano noted that atthouclh lt w~s probably true th~t the Planninq Comm(~sion was
not necessarily b~uncl by prece~lents~ he 6elieved there was some consider•atlon to be gi~en
in thls situa±ion due to the fect that there was a similar use accorded to the property
owner immediately to the eas[ of sub;ect pro~erty; tl~at~ although the Planni~~ Commission
did not grant the adJacent sin~ilar use, the City Council might nevertheless grant the
additional application; anci tha~c usu~lly the Chamber of Commerce was staunch in its
attitude tcwards the induskr(al zoncs~ hnwever~ they perhaps felt the subJect arca was
alrPady dissipated.
Commissioner Herbst added that there were areas i~ the City wliere the subJect type use
would fit arsd he was opposed to permiCting a commercial use in an industrial zone.
In responsP to questioning by Chairman Farano~ Mr. Daum adv(secl that the subJect use ~as
specifically listecl in the Nunicipal Code as permitted only by conditional use permit in
the ML Zone.
Commissioner Herbat then noted that tiie subjecC use would not enhance the industrlal aone
and would hot serve the industrial area ir, any manner,
Comrnissioner Tolar noted that he found it hard to understand why the maJor obJector was
the Camelot Golfland (Kenney Golf Enterprises, Inc.) since there appeared t~ be a real
need for sai~! golf course. Commissioner Tolar then inquired concerning the hours of
operati~n, and Mr. Oentt stateci they would propose to b~ open fr~m ~:00 a,m, to 5:3~ p.m.~
during which they anticipatecl approximately 15 customers; from 9:00 a.m. to 11:OQ pom.
durir,g the school year; and from 9:~~ a,m, to 1:00 a.m, during the summer.
Chairman Farano noted that the proposal appeared to he primarily for daytime cr•owds and
one of the maJor consider~tions for tlie a~l)acent Camelot Golfland was that it was not to
be primarily a day2lme use~ howevzr~ he did not know what had actually developed with sald
golf course in that regard. In response~ Mr, Dentt state~l they wuuld be open during the
day hours mainly for maintenance purposes, Chalrman Farano then made an abservation that
tt appeared the operation would still take busincss durirg the day, when bus~ness came,
and during the summer wfien the chiidren wet'G out of school.
Cortmissioners Herbst and Morley concurred that the access to the subJect property was
extren~ely limited; anci Commissioner Morley noted that from that standpoint alone he tivas
upposed to the use.
Commissioner Herbst noted that although the Camelot Golfland miclht not be causinc~ a
trafftc problem in the area~ it was questlonable Just how much commercial development
cnuld occur in the aree before there was a drastic effect on th~ industrlal growth.
~ ~ ~
MII~UTES~ CITY PLANNiNG COi1MI5510N~ Snptertiber 15. 1975 75••429
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1564 (Contlnur~d)
.__.-___._._.-----------
Comm(ssioner Ilerbst inqu(red why ~~c a~plicant had r.hc~sen the suhJect property for the
proposed use; an~1 Mr, Dentt stateci the re~is~~n was re, cor~+pllmenC tl~e existing Camr,lot
GolPfand rncl the prop~sal would a~1cl variety ~f otlie:r recrertion~l amcnltles Into the ar~a.
CommlSSloner Herbst then n~ted Chit tl~c suh.lect type us~~ shnuld only be permitked Co
continue ~n an Inclustrl~) area so l~nq .is it was comp.itfble with s~id area; that he had
opposed the Camelot G~lfland and st(I1 felt it was in the wron~ locatic,n; that two wrongs
would not make a ri~ht; and that thc exposurc to the ~~d.jacEnt. frceway w~~s for the
industria) zonc and the City haei ~ commerclal-recreation zcme for the subJecC type ~~se.
Mr. Dentt then statecl they had alsu chosen the locatlon due to th~ access and visibility
from the freeway; that tlic I'reeway W3S ri scr.nie corridor and, without Infring(ng upon thc
tndusCrial development~ thcy could ~ffer a buffer between the frceway and the Industrla)
developnient; that they had met wfth Rockwell~ ancl Rackwell coulcl see that the proposal
would add the bufFer ancl yet it was not on La Palma wherr_ it m(~ht cut up an exiatlny
development.
Commissioner Nerbst noted that not to^ lonq ayo a race track facility proposed along the
Freeway was denied by both thc Plannin,y Cammiss(on anrf City Council; th~~t Anaheim had its
areas def~ned for recreational, commerctal and industrial development; that it was known
that industrial land was cheaper than other types; howevcr, he was also very awarc that
industrial development would usuaily only go into areas that were pratec:nd from
commercial intrusion; that althounh there had been other applications t'or recreaClor+al-
commeYCta1 uses (n the (ndustri~il zones since the Camelot Golfland was approved~ the Clty
had been able to keep the industria) zones primarily for industrial uses; that breaking
down the fntegrlty of the zones was detrimental to the City and there had bcen a strong
f1~hY to maintafn the ind~astrial zon~:, particularly; that by permitting intrusion into
the fndustrial zones~ inciustry would not continue to go in; and for the foregoing reasonsy
Che Planning Commission should oppose the subJect petition.
Chairman Fareno noted that altl~c~uyh it was probably true th~it the Planning Commission was
not neGessarily bound by prece~ients, he believed there v~as sor~e consideration to be given
in thls situatl~n due to the fact th~t there was a similar use accorded to the property
owner immediately to the east of subject property; that, although the Planning Commission
dld not g~ant the adJacent similar use, the City Council might nevertheless grant the
additfonal application; anci that usu~~lly the Cliamber of Commerce was staunch in its
attitude towards the industrlal zones, hawever, they pcrhaps felt the subject area was
already dissipated.
Commissioner Herbst added th~t there were areas in the ~ity where the subJect type use
would f(t and he was oppossd to permitting a commercial use in an industrial zone.
In response to questioning by Chairman Farano, Hr. Uaum advise<I that the sub]ect use was
specifically listed in the Municipal Code as perm(tted only by conditional use permit in
the ML Zone.
Canmissloner Herbst then noted that the subJect use would not enhance the industrial xone
and would not serve tF~e industriai area in any manner.
Commissioner Tolar noted that he ound it h~rd to understand why the maJor objector was
the Camelot Golfland (Kenney Golf Enterpr(se.;, Inc.) since there appeared to be a real
need for said golf course. Commiss(oner Toler then inquired concerning the hours of
operation, and Mr. Dentt stated they w~~~ld propose to be open from ^:00 a.m. to 5:3~ p•m•,
durl~g which they anticipate~l approximately 15 customers; from 9:00 a,m. tc+ 11:00 p.m.
during the school vear; and from 9~00 a.m, to 1:00 a.m. during the summer.
Chairman Farano notecl that the proposal appeared to he primarily for daytime crowds and
one of the maJor considerations for the adJacent Camelot Golfland was that it was not to
be primarily a daytime use~ however, he did nat know what had actually developed with said
golf course in that regard. In res;~onse~ Mr. Qentt stateci they would be open during the
day hours mainly for maintenance purc~oses. Chairman Farano then made an observation that
it appea~ed the operation would still take business during tl~e day, when business came~
and during the summer when the chil.~en were out of school,
Conmissioners H$rbst and Morley concurred that the access to the subJect property was
extremely limited; and Cammissione; Morley notcd that from that standpoint alone he was
opposed to the use~
Comnissioner Herbst noted that although the Camclot Goifland might not be causing a
trafftc p-'oblem in the area~ it was questionable Just how much commercial development
could occur in the area before there was a Jrastic effect on the industria) growth.
r•
L'
C~
MINUTESr CITY PLl1NNIN~ COMMISSI0~1, ScrCeml~er i>~ 1975
CQNCITIONl1L US[ PtRM~T ~IO, 1!iG~+ (Continucd)
~
~
75-~~ ~~
~n response t~ qucstioninry by Comm(ssl~,ner Kln~~, Mr. Dentt stotccl thc Chamber ~f Commerre
had been made aware oF .~11 t.hc actlvitics c~ntained (n the pro~osal; th:~t the propashl wrs
not like a movie theatrc whcre a I~~rqc amount of trafflc, c<~me 9l on~ ~ime; and th~it If
they h~d thought therr. ~vould he a tr~~ffir. prohlr.m~ thc:y would noc have pursued the subJact
locatlon~ bec~use they a~ant~d tn hc li~ Ot15InC55 ancl br. successful,
Commissloner Morley off~red t~ nx~Cian, seconclecl by Comm(ssioner Herbst and MOTIQN CAftRIGD,
that thE "lanni,~~ Commisslon d~es hereny rec~mmen~l to thr. City Councl! th,~t thc subJect
~raJect be exempt `rom th~ requirement to file an environmental im~act report, pursuant to
the provisions of the Ca'iforni~ Environmr.nt~~l Quality Act.
Commfssloner ?lorley offerecl Resolut.ic~n No. PC7~;°191 and mc>ved for its passage and
adoptlon. thak PetitSon `or Condition~l Use f~ermit No. l,F,~i be and heraby ts denied on the
basis that~ althouyh thcre presently exists a slmfl~~r use on ad.lacent industrial property~
the proposed recreational center would bc an intruslon In the Industrlal area and that a
further hreakdown of the intec~rity and protectfon of the ind~istriil area would be to the
detriment of the existing in~iustrial u~es and future development of said area; and~
F~~rrhermore~ that there is extremely limited access Co the subJect property whlch would
create potential trafflc problems an~i may result in curtatlfnc~ in~lust.rial expansion lii the
area. (See Resolution dook)
CammissionFr Johnson noted th,~t he would support the foregoing resolution to deny the
subJect ~.ropasal becau~'~ ~~1 the ii-vasion into tl~e Industrial zone, with the understanding
that f~ls vote was not ~~~fluenced by the op~osition from Camc~lot Golfland. Commissioner
Barnes concurrecl an~l further notecf that she was hopeful that the applicant could find some
appropriately zon~J properCy in the City for the proposed development.
On rall call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the followin~ votet
AYESc COMMISSI~NENS: BAR~lE5, HERBST~ J011N''Otl, KING~ M~RLEY, FARn~i~
NOES: COMMI~SI~f~ERS: TOLAR
l18SENT: COHMISSIONFItS: NONE
VARIANCE N0. 273n '~E~DVERTISFD PUBLIC NEARING. LEROY C. RAMSEY, 6~ti71 Western
Avenue, N7. Buena Park, Ca. 9~~z1 (~ner); JERRY NAIVORSEN~
2114 North Moody, Fullerton~ Ca. 9;'"~31 (Agent); requesting
WAIVER OF (/1) MAXIMUM BUILDI~lG NEIGHT AND (B) MINIMUM DISTAPICF BEi'1~lEFP~ BUILDIPIG
WALLS, SO CONSTRUCT A 9-UMIT APARTMF~IT COMPLEX on property describeJ as: A
rectangularly°shaped parcei of land consisting of approximately 0.3 acre, having
a frontage of approximately 70 feet on the south stde of Orange Avenue, having a
rnaximum depth of approximately 2QEi feet~ being l~cated approxfmate!y 956 feet west
of the centerline of Western Avenue~ and further des~ribed as 33~~ West Urange Avenue.
Property presently cla~sifie.d RS-A-4~~000 (RESIDEN7IAL!AGRICULTURIIL} ZONE.
SubJect petition was continued from the meeting of August 18, 1975, at the request of the
petitioner, and to readvertise for an additional waiver.
No one indicated their presence in opposition to subject petition.
Although the Staff Report to the Planning C~mmission dated September 15, 1975~ was not
read at the publlc hearinc~, said Staff Report i~ referred to anct made a part of the
minuteso
Mr. Jerry Halvorser,~ Li~e agent for the petitioner~ a~peared before rhe Planning Comm~ssion
and ~tated thP Nroposec apartments would be for his :wn use; that he also owned 19 ~nits
nexC door to the sub.jfct property with no vacancy factor; that there was a demand and the
subJect property had une problem in that it H~as not very wide -- there¢ore~ the requested
waivers.
THE PUBLIC Hi.ARING WAS CL~SED.
In response to questioning by Commissioner Herbst, Assistant Zoninq Supervisor A1lan Daum
noted that the requested waiver of the maximum buildin, hPiqht was a technical waiver.
~ ~ ~
MINUTES~ CI7Y PLANNINr, CQMMISSIQN~ September 15, ~975 75-~3~
VARIANCE N0, 273~ (f,'untinucd)
Ccxmilssloner Hcrbst rintr:.cl that walvers frorn I:hc minimum diskince Gctw~~n bu(ldinys
rcqulrcment had bcen walved many timc:s Lo a11oh~ for the development of n~rrow ~oCs; anci.
in his opinlor-~ the pl~ns for devclopment rf tl~e pro~crty were w~ll donc.
in respr~nse to t~uesrfoning by Comm(s~ioner King, M~. Helvorsen stated he, had worked wtth
the SanitAti~n Dlvlslon and by retocating the trash enclosure area and dedicating for a
50-foot no~parking zone~ it was felt that ony prohlem~ relatin~ to tr~sh plckup would be
alleviated.
Commissloner Morley offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Nerb~t and MOTIAN C1IRRIED~
that thn Plannin9 Commission doas hereby recommcnd to the Cfty ~ouncll that the s~g~~~nt to
proJecl• be extmpC from tiie requirement to fllr_ an envlronmental impact rtporr~ p
the provlslons of thc Caltfornia Envtronmental Quality Act.
Commissloner Herbst off~red Kesolution No. PC75-1~2 gnd moved for lts passage and
adoption~ that Petitlon for Vari~nce No. 273~ be ~rtd hereby (s gr~nted~ granting the
requested walver of thE maximum bulldtng h~ight on the bAS~s that the adJacent RS-A~43~000
zoned property to the e~st is desiynated on the Anaheim G~•neral Plan 'For medium-den~~ty~
residentlal uses and~ therefore~ the waiver may not be r,c:cessary in the Puture If said
adJacent propcrty dcvelop~ with satd residential uses; granting tl~e requested walver of
the minimum distance bet~~een buildings on the basis that the Ptanning Commisston has
previously granted similar walvers ta allow for the deve ~pme~t of ~arrow lots~ ~nd on r.he
basis of speciflc developrnent plans, as submitted; subJect to [he Interdepartmr.ntal
Committee recortimendaclons. (Sae Resolution Book)
On r~ll call, the foregaing resolution v-as passed by the Following vote:
AYES; COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ HERBST~ JOHNSQN~ KING~ MORLEY~ TQLAR* FARANO
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
RECESS - At 3~~5 p.m•. Chairman Farano declared ~ recess.
RECONVENE - At 3~15 p.m•, Chalrman Farano reconvened the meettng with all
'-'-"-'- Planning Commfssioners being present.
ENVIRONMEPJTAL IMPACT - DEVELOPER: HELTZER EPlTERPRISES-BROOKVALE, 740 North La Brea
REPOR7 N0. 141 Avenue~ Los Angeles~ Ca. 9h038. EN~INEER; ANACAL ENGlNEER-
ING COMPANY, 222 East Lincoln Avenue~ Anahelm, Ca. 92805.
TEN'fATIVE MAP OF Subject property, consisting ~f approximately 31.5 acres
TftACT N0. 8866 lacated between Romneya Driva and La Palma Avenue~ having
approximate frontages oP 662 feet on the south side of
Romneya Drlve and 1435 feet on the norch side of La Palma Avenue, havi~g a maximum
depth of approximately 1320 feet and being located approximately 4c~3 feet west of the
c:enterline of SLate Co!lege Boulevard~ ts proposed for subdivision into 168, RS-5000
tots.
No one indicated tneir presence in opposltion to the subJect matters.
Although the: Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated Septembe~ 15, 1975~ was not
read at the meeting~ said Staff Report is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Mr. Cal Queyrel, rspresenting the engineer for the developer~ appeared before the Planning
Commission and stated that because af economic and other factors, che previously apprAVed
proJect on the sub,ject property was proven infeasible and, following studies, they decided
to pursua single-family residentia) develdpment of the property; that they h~d al! kinds
of complicatlons with the PUD pro~sal and financing was a big factor~ since in snme years
financEng was more available than others; that the developer was proposing a single-famiiy
tract on the property which was pre-zoned for RS-5~00; that the average lot size would be
larger and wtder than requtred under the RS-5000 Zone; that the homPS would be quality
built although they~ had not submitted the plans at the time of filing for Planning
Cortimission considerasion of the subJect tract~ howeve~~ the intent was to build a 3~
bedroom house with approximately 170~ squa~e feet of floor space and a 4-bedroom house
wtth approximately 2400 square feet of space, and ssveral models would be between 1700 and
2400 syuare feet; that the intent was not to squeeze the property or bu(ld a cheap or
over-priced house; that tfie proposai would upgrade the area and it was the developer's
~ ~ ~
MINUTF:i~ CITY PLAMNING COMMISSI(1N~ Sep~ember I~~ 1975 75-~+32
~NVIRONMENTA4 IMPACI' REPOR7 N0. 1-il ANO TENTATIVE MAP QF TRACT N0. 8866 (Cc,ntinued)
prerogativ~ to bulld what he fclt woulcl scll; that thay wcrc propas(ng to havc ~~u parkways
and the sidewalks, curbs nncl nuCters would be constructr.d to hlllslde standsrds, and their
reasoning w~s [h~t on the Gettclson Tracc~ the Firc Ueportment would noc nllow fir~
hydranr.s in [he 7.-fno[ t+reA between the sls~ewalks ancl curbs ancl, wlth the pi-oposal~ tl~e
flre hry drart~ wc~uld bc 5 feet or so from the curh~ hchincl thc sidewalk; that the minlmum
lot depth wuuld be 1~Q to 11(1 feet; and that Che propossd lots werc less than required fo~
~n RS-72~~ dcveiopmenc, but morr than requlred for an RS-~~~~ development.
Dlscussion pursu~d re~ardinq the setbacks and lAndscnp'nq which were pr^vfously approved
as t~ ouffer between the subject pra~erty ~nd the abuttin~i property wh(ch was aoproved for a
canmerclal devela~ment frontin<; cn Statc Colleye Bou?evrrd, during which Mr. QueyrCl
staCed that unfortunotely tt~e Newp~rt Develapment Compan~~ did not recelve flnancing f~r
the adjacznt commcrclal development and a new plan for th,yt pre~perty oras under~vay whlch
would provicie ;hc ~ull 20~foot landscaped buffer on the cammercir~l property itself.
In response to i~aragraph 1~ of tfie Staff Report~ Nr. Queyrel stated that although he had
not ravlewed the report frcxn ttie Dspartment of Nausing and Urban Development rtgardirig the
r~roposPd subdlvi~ion, he was Awarc of their obJections to the street T-secttons at the
entrance te the t~act; hnwever, the devel<~per usually accepted the CiCy's de~erminatlon on
such matters. Mr, Queyrel further stated that rhe price range of the homes would be
S5~~~~~o co S7o,oon.
Cnmmissloner Herbst inqulred what the effects of atandard street sections for the prupc+sed
development would be and nat~d that the developer appeared to be gaining approximately 5
feet of land on each side of the property; that by hav(ng no parkways, the front yards
would be larger, however~ the City would then have no place to dig without tearing up the
sidewalks; that the developer might move the homes 5 feet forward and with 6 to 10-fo~k
setbacks there would be th~: appearance of a much tighter tr~ct, Commfsstaner Herbst then
inquired concerning the ef`ects of moving the property line back 5 feet from the
~idewalks~ having a standard street section but with the sidewalks next to the curl,s, as
proposed.
In response~ Mr. pueyrel stated the developer was not proposing smalt hcmes; that all of
the lots exceedad the 5~00-square foot requlrement; that the lot sizes were caluclated to
meet the requirement that the coverage not exceed 35~ nsaximum; that if they were required
to move the sidewalks in back of the property line~ they w%~uid lose quite a few lots and
that~ since they had received approval for 25~ units previousl;~ on the subJect property~
there was sufficient JustificaCien for the requested street gections~ etc.
Commissioner Herbst took except(on to Nr. Queyrel's statements, notin~ that there were
standard strPets and setbacks throughout the City and the subJect developer was requesting
the Planning Commission t~ subordinate the proposal; that there was ample land tnvolved
with the subJect tract to provide the standard streets~ however~ there might be a toss of
a few lots; that he was emphatic about losing khe 5 feet of right~of-way on either side of
the street required for a standard street section, unless the developer was willing to
st(pulate ta the additiona) 5 fcet in back of the sidewalk. Mr. Queyrel then stated that
the front setbacks would at! be a minimum of 25 feet from the property line~ which would
be from the curbline or whatever was decided upon by the Clty Englneer's Office rsgarding
said property line and placPment of the curL~ and right-of-way, etc. Mr. Queyrel further
stated they would submlt ploC plans and house plans for City Counctl approval.
Office Engineer Jay Titus advised that 7ract No. 6545 developed by S s 5 Construction
Company fln Euclid Street was a similar tract constructed with sidewalks adJacent to the
curb, however~ parkwzys were maintained.
Mr. Queyrel stated he felt the requested street sections were reasonable~ especially since
th-y were building large homes; Chat they were proposing to have 168 lots~ huwever~ under
the RS•5~00 Zone~ they could have a maximum of 185 1ots; that unless [hey were permttted
to have the street sections~ as proposed~ they would not be able to have enough lots. Mr,
Queyrel discussed another tract on Sunkist where the sid~walks and firP hydrants were
required to be a maximum of 2 feet from the curh~ with 2-foot easements~ and tt was
mantioned at the time of aRproval of sald tract that by not havtng the parkwayy the trees
would be trtrtmed by the property owners which wouid result in a great savings to the City
and there would be no upheaval af the curbs and sldewalks from tne tree roots.
Commtssioner Nerbst noted that with a 2-foot easement and 5~foot sidewalks~ he wondered if
the City would be accepting something which would not be good for the Ctty 10 ar 15 years
hence. Mr. Titus advised that with the 2-foot easement, there would not be enough room
fo~ any amount ~f digging or excavation. Commissioner Herbst further nuted that the C(ty
should have some protection ~n case there was a need to dig up ~e yard.
~
~
~
•
MINUTES, C17Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ Scptember 15~ 1`175 7S-4j~
ENVIRONMENTAL IM~ACT I~EPORY N0. 14) ANU TENTATIVE MAP_OF TRACT N0. 8A66 (Continued)
In respanse to quest(oning by Corrnnfs~loncr KOng~ Mr. QueY~e) steted thc developer was
willing Co decllcate a 5-foot easement,
Ch~irman Farano noted that thcre wt~s enough property or lancl Involved with tli~ proposal
for the cleveloper to af.' ~e by the orciin:~nces; th~it the ordinances wer~ belnq rewrl~tcn by
sic~n ~ompanies ancl deve~r.pers on ~ regular has(s; and that, althnugh therc appe~red to be
some sense t~ the propasal~ hc did n~t fee) the proper declslon on the subJect matters
cnuld be arrlvecf at until plans were submitted,
Comm(ssioner HerbsC noted that ht would llke co see morc land acldec7 to th~~ adJ~cent [dison
Park~ since the residents of the pruposed h~mes would really usc sald park; and that
whatr.v~r land could be added ~~ould surely help the are~.
In response~ Mr. Quayrel stated they had a numher of ineetfngs with tl~e Parks and
Recreation Dep~tirtment and although IC was ori~inally felt that mare land was destrable, it
was dec.ided that tlie C~ty could dn m.,re with the S55oono from p~rk fees than w(th
addltlonal land; and Chat the parlc should act~aliy have less u.e than would 1»ve resulted
from the prevlously-approved p~'a]ect~ since the resldents would have the(r own llttle
parks (yards) .
Commissioner Herbst nated~ from his recollection~ that the commr.nts presently being made
c~n~c~r~ing tF~c park usage wer~ what was stated for the RN-4000 development and~ thereforeo
were somewhat contradlctory.
Cortmtssiorter Tolar entered lrito dlscussion with Nr. Queyrel concerning the buffer area
whlch was agreed upon for the prevlously-aporoved development to separate the sub}ect
property from the adJacent c~mmerclal property to the east~ noting that he was not tn
favor of the 5 or h side-on lots which~ by their elimination~ woulci give r.he additional 5
feet on either side of the strer.t section which Commtssiuner Herbst was in favor of.
Mr. QuPyrel stat~d that the ~lde-on lots were the Idea of the architect~ who felt that
side°~ could be better treated than rear-ons.
The Planninq Commission questioned the previously-approved developments for both the
subJect property and the adJacent commerctal praperty to ttie east~ and Dep~~ty City
Attorney Frank Lowry advised that since the property was presently zoned RM-4~OQ and
proposed for development ~nder the RS°50~0 Zone, and the old proposal was being abandon~d~
the setbacks v.•ere open for debate. Further discussion pursued rec~arding the buf~er araa,
during which Mr. Queyrel stated they were still willing to provide the 10-faot setback;
hc~wever~ the escrow for the commercial deveiopmert had been cancelled and the new
commerr,lal proposal would take care of the problems relat~ed to buffertng.
Commissioner Nerbst noted that he had been oppased to the Commerci~,l zontng of t~e parcel
to the past because of the ex(sting commercial development in the area; arsd that the
Planning Commission was apparently misled concer~ing tl~e iEases that were supposedly
underway which purported that the property was a good commerciai site.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion. seconded by Commissioner Tolar and MOTION CAitR1ED~
that conslderatfon of Environmental Impact Report No. 1141 and T-_ntative Map of Tract Ne.
ti$66 be and hereby is continued to the meeting of September 29~ 1975, for further
information toncerning the dtsposition of the previously-approved comnercial develapment
on the adJacent property to the east and for the submission of plans for the s~~bJect
development. The Rianniny Commission clarified that, in the event the previously-approved
cammerctal development was being abandoned~ a letter from th~ petitioner withdrawing the
proposal would be in order.
~ ~ ~
MINUTE5~ CITY PLANNIPfG COMMISSIQN, Septor'~er 15~ 1g75 75'~'34
AM~NDMENT 70 TITI.E 17 - PUDLIC HEARING, INITIATEU BY T11E ANANEIM CITY ?LANNING COMMISSION -
ANANEIM MUNICIPAL CODE Yo ~onxlde~ an P.~~dmhnt to the Anahelm Municipal Cocfe~ Title 1'J~
l.and Develapment and aesource5~ Chapter 17.08 - SuGdlvisians.
It was not,Pd that n~ or.c was pr~sent in the n4idience In connt+ctinn with tha sub]ect Code
amendmcnt.
Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry adviscd that Staff was requasting that the public hearing
on the subJect Code am~ndment ne postponed two weeks to ~Ivc the Plnnntng Commission an
oppartunlty to study the proposal. since there warr, severa) policy options t~ conslder;
And th~t some oF the optl~ns wcre l~corp~rc+ted In2o the proposed ordinance far the reason
that the provisions were t~ pari of the e1•Isting Code~ however~ Staff wAS soeking c~uidanco
as to wherlier the provlsions shiould cuntlnue or be chenged.
Comrnissiuner Morley offered a motion, secondeci by Commissioner King and MOT10N CARRIEp~
th~,t th~t publtc he~rirn ~n the subJeck Code amendment be and hrreby is postpuned to the
meeting of September 7_9, 1915, for furthcr study.
REPOR75 AND - ITEM N0. 1
RECOMMENDATIO~lS SOUND A7TENUATION IN RESIDENTIl1L PROJECTS - Heq•~est for
recommendation to the City Cnuncil for adoption of
Council Policy.
The Staff Report to the Planning Cartx~tssion dated September 15~ 1975~ was pr~esented and
made a part of the minutes.
it was noted that criteria derived From the (1) Gutdelines of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (FIUI)). ("<) the Uniform 9uildin~ Code~ and (3) conditl~ns which had
been required in the past by City Council for aevelopments adJacent to Che Rtverside
Freeway and th~ Santa Fe Railroad in the Santa Ana Canyon were utilized in tha preparatlon
of the subJect proposed CiCy Council poiicy. It was further noted that speciflc
construction requirerrMnts were not included !n the proposed policy in order to make
allowance for conditlons such as differences !n e1~vaLien between the de.velopment and Che
notse source~ etc., which would affect the strucCural requlrementS.
Commissir,~ier King offered a matfun, seconded by Commissioner Morley and MQTION CARRIED~
that the Pla~.ning Commission does here~y recomn-end to the Cit~; Cfluncil that the following
proposed City Council Policy be adopted:
PROPOSED C17Y COUNCIL POI.ICY OM SOUND ATTFNUAT~~N fti RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS
It is the policy of the City CQUncii that a noise level analysis shall be p~rformed for
any proposed residential development located within six hundred (600) feet of any existing
or adopCed freeway~ expres~way, maJor arterlal hlghway~ primary arterial hig M~ray or
railroad, excepting railroads where there are no niqhtttme (1~ p.m, to 7 a.m.) railway
ope~ations and where ~aytim~ (7 a.m, to 1~ p.m,) railway operatio~~s do not exceed fc+ur (4)
per day.
The following noise attenuation feature:s shall be incarporated in these residential
developments as requ(red to reduce the noise levels as Indicatecl.
1. In single-famlly r~esidential development~ located wit~iin stx hundred (6Qd) Feet
of any ex(sting or adopted freewaY~ expressway, maJor arterial highway, or primary
arterial high-~~ay there shall be o sound barrfer c~pable of reducing xhe sound of motor
vchicles to a maximum of b5 dBA at any polnt six le) feet above ground level within the
deveiopment. The sound barrier shall consist ~f an eartfi berm~ a masonry ..all or a
cumbination thereof, pro~•1ded that a masor.ry wall wt~ich ls used as a sound barrier shall
~ot exceed six (6) feet in height.. Where vehicu~lar or pedestrian access through the
barrler is permitted, gate~; or baffles may be provided; however~ said access sha1S be
deslgned :o minimize sound transmission.
2. In multiple-fami~y resldential developments located within six hundred (6Q0) feet
of any existing or adopted freeway~ cxpressway, maJor arterlal fiighway~ dr primary
arterial highway~ there shall be a sound barrier capable of red~~cing th~e sound of motor
vehiclas to a maximum of 65 dBA at any point stx (6) feet above ground level in all
extertor areas other than driveways~ carports and parking areas. The sound barrier may
consist af art earth berm, a masonry wail~ nr any portion of tr~e residential str~cture.
•
• s
111NUTFS~ CIT`t PLANNING COMMISSION~ September 15, 1975
~~-~~~s
I1'EM N0. 1 (Conttnued)
3, No hahitahle resfdentl~il struccure sh~+ll bs lnc~~t~c1 lr.ss th,~n ~nc hundred (100)
fect from a rr Irond tr~ck.
4. In al) residentl.il developments locatecl within slx hundreci (G~~) feet of a
rnlira~d track exceptin~ railraads where there are no nighttime (10 p.m, ta 7 a.m,)
rallway opcratlons and whcr~ daytimc (7 ~.m, t~ 1~ {~,m.) railwny operatinns da nol• exceed
four (~+) per day. there sha~l be a sound barr(cr wh(ch will providc line-of-sie~ht
shieldinc~ from ~11 pc~ints eic~ht (8) feet ahove the trncks tn the c~v~s of all habftable
structures lo~ated withln six hunclr~ci (6!1n) feet of :hc tr%~cks. ~~~,e sound barrier shall
consist of an eirth t~erm, a ma~,onry wall~ or ~~ combinitfon thereof. A masonry wall which
is used as a s~und b~rrier shall t,c: n~ more th~'+n s!x feet hl~h, Where vehlcular or
pedestrl~~n access throu~lh t:he birrler (s ~ermitte~l~ gates or nafFles may ~e pr~vlded;
howevcr, sald ~ccess shall be desi9ned to minimize sound tr.~rsm(;si~n.
S, Residential Structures shall be desi~ne~i to limit thc int~~rl~r noise caused by
motnr vc~hicles or railroa~l tr~icis to a maximum of ~~r ~iB CtIEL on an anniial basis (n any
habitable rocxn w(th w(nciows cl~sed, Proper design m:+y include~ hut shail not be limited
to~ huildinry orientitinn~ ciouble or extr~-strength winclows~ wal) and r_eillnc~ insulatfon,
and orlentatfan and insulaCion of vent5, Where ft is necessary that windows be closed in
order to achieve th~ required nolse level, me~ns sh~~ll t,e provi~ie~l tor ventilation/cooling
to provide .~ habit~'~ble environment.
CQMMISSIONER TQ1.11R LEF7 THE ME~TING TEMPORARILY A7 4:05 P.M.
- ITF.M N0. 2
Cf1t~DIY1~tIAL USE PERMIY N0, 1h23 ~ Request fcr extension of tlme -
Property consistin~ of approximately 5.1 acres, having frontage
ot' approximatrly ~+3E~ feet on the west side of Knott Street~
heing located approximately i~~~6 f'eet nnrth of the centerline
of Orange Avenue, and further described as ~15 South Knott
Street (Kn.:tt Avenue Christian Church).
It was noted that on September 5, 19i3~ the Pianning Commission c~ranted Conditional Use
Permit No. 1A23 to expand church facilities a~id construct a two-story educational
classroom buildirig ~aith offices and storage facilities at the ~subject location; that the
applicant (l~ary E. Martin~ President of the Board ~f Directors of the Knoct Avenue
Chrlstian Church) was requesting approval of a six-montli extension of time fur Conditi~na)
Use Permit No. 1423; that the applicant had inclicated financin~7 had been secured and plan
check procadures were expected to be completecl in the very near future; that the applicant
was making progress toward completion of the conditions of approval for the exp,~nsion of
the church facilit:es; and that one previous extensi~ ~ of time was granted by the Plannin~
Conmission, which er.p=red on September 5, 1~75.
Commissioner Herbst offered a mot?onti seconded by Commissioner Kin!~ and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissloi~er Tolar being temporarily absent). that a~~-month extension of iime be and
hereby is c~ranted for Conditional Use Permit N~. 1~~23, as req~ested by the applicant, said
extension of time to be retruactive to September 5, i975 and to Pxpire on March 5, 1976.
- ITEM_N0. 3
C0~lDITIONAL USE PFRMIT N0. 157_5 - Request for approval of ~evised
plans - Property cansisting ef approximately 7_.5 acres, having a
frontaqe of apprnximately ~-79 feet on the north side of Bali Road~
having a maximum depth of ap~roxima~ely 229 feet. and being
lorated approximately 182 feet east cf th~: centerli~e of Nutwood
Street (vacanti).
It was ~oted that the approved plans submitted in con~~ection withi the subjec:t condi~ional
use permit indicated a!-story buildin~ containing approximately 12~~Ob square feet of
floor eree~ with parking provisicros for 26" automobiles; that the revised plans indicated
a 2-story struct:ure containin~ approximately 7.3,1~{1- square feet of area in the first ~`loor
and approximately 25,IE~~ square feet on the second floor~ or a total area of approximately
50~14-- square feet; and thae 3lthoue~h the floor area v~as bein~ increased considerably~ no
additlonal Code waivers were being requested or needed.
Commisstoner K.In~ offered a cn~tion~ ;econded hy Commissioner Morley and MOTIOtJ CARRIEO
(Commtssloner Tolar being tempor~~.ril~~ absent)~ thai fhe Planning Commission does hereby
approve the revtsed ptans submitted in connecti~n with Condltional Use Permit No. 1~~5, as
request~d b~• the appl(cant, and based on the foregoin~ finclin~s.
~
~ J
~IINUTES~ ~ITY PLIINNING ~UMMISSION. Seatembcr 15, 1975
CQMMISSIONER 7bl.AR RETURNC.U TO TIIf MEF'TIPIG AT ~-:lb P.11,
~
~
75-436
11DJOURNMENT - Thora t ng no ~urthcr business to discuss~ Cornmtssioner Herbst offered
-""-' ntion~ seconded by Commtssioner Kln~ end MOTiON CARRIED, to ~dJou~n
~ me~tincl tc- an I1D,10UFtNED RFGULAR Sf.5510N to b~e eld dt 7:3~ p•m•
.IS ~JAte In tho Coun~ ll Chr~mhcr~ ta h<~id publ ic ~neetlnq on the
pro;~osAC1 expanglon of Redevelo{~me~t ProJect Alpha,
Thc meef. ing Ad ~~u1'ned At: ~~: 11 p.m.
Respectf«Ily submltte~l~
.,^,G - ) . ,~ca~~L'~z:~
tl~C.~-C---C -~-CL! ~
Patrtcfa B. Stanlan~ Socretary
Anahelm Clty Planning Commiesion
PDS:hm