Loading...
Minutes-PC 1969/05/05RRESENT - Aseistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry Office Engineer: Jay Titus Zoning Supervisor: Charles Roberts Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Pat Brown Assistant Planner: William Young Planning Commission Secretary; Ann Kreba PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Cotmnissi~ner Camp led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meetinga of April 7, 1969, were approved with THE MINUTES ihe following corrections, on motion by Coannissioner Thom, seconded by Commiasioner Gauer and MOTYON CARRIED: Page 4461, paragraph 6, line 5 ahould read: ....site developmeat stan3ards of the M-1 Zone.... and Apri1 21, 1969,,.on motion by Commiasioner Row~and, seconded by Commissioner Gauer and ~OTION CARRIED: Page 4473, paragraph 5, line 1 should read: ....variance would apply to the residence.... VARIANCE N0. 2082 - PUBLIC HEARING. Betz Corporation, 1401 Galatea Terrace, Corona del Mar, California, Owner; Sheldon Pollack Corporation, 3344 South La Cienega Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Agent; r_guesting WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A BUILDING ~ITHIN 150 FEET OF AN R-1 ZONfi, (2) biIN1MUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING STALLS, AND (3) MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE TRASH COLLECTION AREAS, TO PL'RMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 6-STORY OFFICE BUILDING AND A 2-STORY PARKING STRUCTURE on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel consisting of seven lots and a portion of an eighth lot situated at the northwest corner of Euclid Street and Westmont Drive, having frontages of approximately 424 feet on Euclid Street and approximately 91 feet on Weatmont Drive. Pro~erty presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERC7AL, AND C-0, COMMERCIAL 4FFICE, ZONES, Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, existing zoning, previous zoning action on subject and abutting properties, and uses established in close proximity, together with the Report to the Commisaion, noting thaC the petitioner was propoaing to establish a 6-story, 77-foot high office building, plua the mechanical room structure 2U feet above this height on the southerly portion of subject property, with a 2-story parking structure adjacent to it, extending northerly; that both structures were proposed to be just 4 feet from the westerly property line of sub,ject property which abutted an 18-foot wide, public alley, placing these structures within 22 feet of the R-1 zonad properties to the west, on the opposite side of the alley, and a aeparation of this distance would permit an 11-foot high structure only; that the parking structure would accommodate 110 cars - however, 230 parking spaces would be required for the uses to be located in the proposed office struclure; that the primary iasue before the Commission in this instance was not Chat of land use, aince the office usas proposed were permitte: in the C-1 Zone, but to determine whether the 77-foot high office building would be appropriate in as cloae proximity to single-family homes and whether there was justifica- tion for approving a 50% reduction in the required number of parking spaces to serve the proposed facility. ~3 t ~ Mr. Brown then noted that commercial activity had begun to encroach into the single-family subdivision located at the southwest corner of Euclid Street and Crescent Avenue, with an 4C~3 . ...... .__. ._.: ,.... . . . . py : ... . . . ~ . .. .. ... . ' ~. . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~is~~ . . .~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 5,41969 4484 VARIANCE N0. 2082 - architectural firm establiahed at Che northeast corner of Fairhaven (Continued) Street and Westmont Drive, iimnediately to the west of subject property; that two parcels at the southwest corner of Westmont Drive and Euclid Street had a resolution of intent to C-0, and five parcels on the east side of Fairhaven Street south of Crescent Avenue had been zoned to the C-0 2one - therefore, the Commission would have to give conaideration to the dONelopment ~re~ds within the area and determine whether the proposed building would be de*_r+_mental to the residents in the area. Furthermore, the issue of providing less than Code required park- ing.could prove to,be a very serious one with a deficiency of 120 spaces which wouid undoubtedly subject the residential streets to the west to an unreasonable ar,~ount of on-street parking; that the savings and loan inst:itution located i~ediately to the north of subject property had acquired additional parcels on the east side of Fairhaven Street to provide adequate parking for their facility - therefore, it would not seem unreasonable to expect that adequate parking be provided for the propoaed use; Chat in order to provide for Che additional 120 parking spaces, an addikional 42,000 squ~tre feet ~ould Ge needed, and this additional area could either be prc,vided by increasing the sizg of the parking structure or by acquiring additional parcels to the west; and that the only otner alterna- tive would be to reduce the size of the structure. Mr. Brown then noted that at the Interdepartmental Committee mzetir_S, the Engineering Division had indicated that although the Highway Rights-of-Way Element of th~ Ge~c•-~ral Plan indicated Euclid Street as being a primary highway with a hal'f-width of 53 fee}, :.ne policy of the City for the west side of Euclid Street in this itmnediate area was to require only 46 feet of half-width dedication; that the zoni'ng staff was unaware of this policy at the time the plans and the petition were submitted, and the design of the structure wr~~ proposed with the 53 feet half-~vidth dedication, and upon con~acCing the petitioners, ti~e~ had indicated it would be impossible to submit revised plans in time for the Commission meeting - therefore, they advised that the plans for the two structures would remain identical as to size, ground coverage, and height as originally proposed, but they would move them eastward 7 feet to the existing 46-foot right-of-way line to take advantage of the additional property which did not have to be dedicated, and this, then, would increase the distance from the R-1 properties to the west to 29 feet. Furthernare, the elevation plan indicated a roof sign which would be some 97 feet abov~ ground level, whereas Code would limit such a sign to 25 feet within 300 feet of the residential properties, and at the time of discussing this problem with the petitioners, they indicated that at a later date they would bring this sign into Code conformanc= by changing it to a wall sign rather than.a roof sign or request a variance, but they did not wish to have it considered at this time, and that no standard trash areas were indicated on the plans, whereas the Superintendent of Streets and SanitaCion had ind~cated it would be a definite requirement to provide adequate trash storage and pick-up facilit.ies, and this tvaiver should not be granted„ Mr. Nate Seideman, representing the agent for the petitior.er, r;ppeared before the ConW^~is- sion and noted that the proposed owner would be the City N•stional Bank; thar. studies regarding shadows had been made at 10:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M., which in3icateQ the mtnimum amount of shadows would be created by the proposed structure; that most of the shadows at 10:00 A.M. were slanted toward the south and the street, and a: 11:00 A,M., almost all were gone; that the peiitioner realized that the proposed structure ;~~ight be uu~.lui~g up this area in an intensified manner, and additional parking might have tm be supplied by pro3ecting the parking structure to be four-tier, but this was not desirable for the single-family homes to the west. The Commission inquired as to the reason for the petitioner assuming the waiver of the number of parking spaces would be granted when the ad~oining commercial shopping centet and savings and loan buildings were required to provide parking in accordance with Code, Mr, Seideman then noted that if the Commission required additional parking, they would be willing to add an additional parking level; however, this still would not give the required number of parking spaces. The Commission then noted that revised plans would have to be submitted before the Commission could consider such a proposal. Mr, Seideman further noted that in checkin~ with the Zoning Division, he had been informed of the various types of commercial uses that would be perciitted on sub,ject property, and it was his opinion the proposal would be much lesa intense than that which might be permitted. A showing of hands indicated four persons present in opposition. Mrs, Robert Fitzgerald, 512 Fairhaven Street, a~~peared before the Coimnission in opposition and noted that accor.ding to the master plaz for this area, all those parcels on the east side of Fairhaven Street between tiTertmont Drive and Crescent were pro,jected to be utilized i ..¢:...~W:' ~1 ~'R - ~i erw ` '~`° ,_~,:~..,...^ t ~'~ „a .~:~ 5 ;;+3tl . .. +. , ` _-. _ ~ ' .. i.:,... ..;f:!: X .: 4 : ' .:' ~~"i, . ~ ':::.'~. '1,~. .li ., ~ . _ . . . . _.,....._ -~,.,..~ - ~'.i _.__ _ _. ~'~ ~.~. . ..~... . ~ . . . . .. ~ ~ ~ . ~ . ~~ .. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 5, 1969 4485 VARZANCE N0. 2082 - for parking for the propertie~~ along the Euclid Street frontage; that (Continued) the residents of this area FtLC i?~at ~ince the r.ity, throupts previous zoning acEion, had committe~d tho..,r p;operties for t•arking ;~urposes, Ehis original concept shoc~ld'c „paei.d; that only five homes nf the original twelve homes on the east side a£ FntrYaven at~eet were not being utilized for C-0 uses; and that the resale value {,f thes~ 4~i•:~E~; :.,e considerably reduced because of the commerc;al influx of tae six lots ~n 2h.is ar.•c~a, and if the proposed structures were permitted, c!~ie wou~d reduce the possibi~ r>alrn of thEir property to an impossibility, Mr. R. E. P,ni1g~rs, 516 Fairhaven Stre:et, rt~;;~pr:ared before the Commission, noting that he concu~red with Mrs. Fitzgerald's comrnents ai:3 further added that if th,e proposed six-story structure were permitted, the xesidents of Y:iieae five homes would fintl St mosE undesirable ~ to.reside in their homes - however, any attempt to sell their propercies would"i.e im~s;~ssi~le beesuse a structure af this size within 29 iEeet of their homes would work a'defin.i'~e 'r.a"r3- ship on the property owners, and sincP ;a p.ecedent hc~d been established by approva;~.~ai the Keystone Savings & Loan A~sociatin.Z u~sing five oi the single-family lots for pt.ri;t.nZj purposes, Che remainder shoulri be utilizred far the additional parking which o:uuld be needed for the development of the six-atory office structi~re., Mr. Seidemun noted that hE: would lik.e 't~o remind the oppo:r.ition that since commercia3. zoning already was established on r..he g~rope.rty, this zon:tng allou;ed manp uses which woald be less compatii~;~ than the p.r.n~sosed structure; that the nroposad structure would cost in khe vicin:Cty of ii million do112:cs and would be a credit to ~he entire arEa~ and that he would be wiiling to prnvide cwo additional floors for parking if this w•ruld be what thA Com~iss•lon proposedo The Cormnission inquired why consideration was not given to •acquiring the pruperties ta the rear for parking purposes si!~ce there was a need for mo•re ground area far the type of structure proposed~ Mr. Seideman advised the Com,nission that ir was not their intent to exrand beyond the plans as before the Commission in the £utia,:.e, and this wa.s ~.ne reason for propoein~ ti:e two-stcry structure for pa.rking purposes, s:.nce if four sto-ies weze proposed, this woul~; have a dztrimental effect on the single-faciiTy homes to the :a:~s~. CotanisHiomer Camo noted there wa~ te;, nead to discuss pros an. cons on the psoposed struc- tvre until defiaite platts we~a presF~.nL•r,d to the Commission for parking which wonld be within re~x m oi the pa:cki, g r~equiremeLt:-s~ regardless of the meth:,d whicn Che petitioner wuuld t•tr.•;.l..ie; thac in all chF: years he had been on the Planning Commissiun, the Cotmnission and f..ourcil had mot allowed ar;ywhere near the waiver of parking that was being requesc=d by r,he petitioners~ and, therefore, the Commission should not be re~iewing, the propp~ed plan t~o determizie whaC ~:ould be provided by the petitioner since this ~aFS his dity when applying f6r a variance. Co~nissioner Gauer noted C.hat the Keysrone Savings & Loan Association, The California F~aderal Savings & Loan Aasociation, and the Broadway shopning center were :n close proximity to subject property and been r~quired to provide off-st:?eC parkiug in acco*d- ance with Co~e requirements - therefore, there was no reason for granting a privilege not granted the other commercial complexes by permitt_ng the petitioner to provide less than half the parking requ~lred and,p.rojecting utilization of both t'he com~~:cial anr? residential Gtreats for parkiag by employees and customers. Cammia~'~ner Herbsc noted fie was not in favo= of adding additional stories to the prcr•• posed parkino str•ucture since the single-family homeowners shon2~? have ~ome protectfon from further comme:tfzl encroachment by requiring tl~e extension of the C-0 Code as had bPen recommended under Area Development Plan No, 3 at the time the Keystone Savings & Lc~an Association had acquired the parcels on the east side of Fa3rhaven SCreet, and by acquiring these lots for parking purposes, this would eliminate waiver of the h!•~.ght standard from tho~C properties to the west, and tha: in hia ~p.inion, the petitioner was propasing to overbuild the parcFl without prrviding the nroper amenities for prospective tenants. M:', Seideman tnen noted that tlley had indicated onl.y the parking structure for two stories, ' and the other strusture would be similar to any building permitted in the C-1 Zone, while ~ the use would not t~e xny more ob.jectionable than a commercial store; that he had discussed ' wiCh the prespectLne purenasers .the possi9ility of having a four-story structure - however, it was their desir.e to have a six-story strucCure in order to have proper identification far advartising purposea. Mrs. Fitz~~erald requestdd to be heard again and stated that all of the homes on the east side of Fairhaven Str•et still remaintag had tt~eir living areas facing to the east, and this six-story officr building within 28 L•eet oE the living roam would be a very un- pleasant sight to se~.. , - `-`~"~' ,'~.i ~ ::;: ~ s,: :.~. , - . . ---- . ~ ~~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 5, 1969 4486 VARIANCE-NO. 2082 - ltoo letters of opposition were read to the Commisaion, (Continued) THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland noted that there were a number of commitments made by the City, regarding the properC,ies in this general area; that C-l,zoning was granted for subject property, and he would concur with the statements made by the agent that the property could be used for coffinercial uses more detrimental than that prorosed; that the-City,had further made a definite co~nitmenb to the aingl~~family homeowners on the east side of Fairhaven Street at the time the Keystone Savinge'& Loan Aseociation reques'ted use of scy ~ of the.single-family lots for parking purposes when they expanded their structure; ` a~ +-hat all of these single-family lota fronting on the east aide of Fairhaven Street would be committed for parking purposes and parking only, with a 6-foot decorative, ~ masonry wall and landscaping to £urther protect the single-family residents on the west side of Fairhaven &treet, and in order that the homeownera of the properties on the east aide.of Fairaaven Street might be able to amortize.their investments, and that.the height of the structure was allowable as it pertained to those properties on the west side of ~ the alley, even though he felt the property was being overbuilt, if utilization of those i single-family lots were made in accordance with the ares development plan, Co~niasioner Thom offered Resolution Noo PC69-94 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commiasianer Gauer, to deny Petition for Variance No. 2082 on the basis that Ghe Citq Council in approving C-0 zoning for five lots on the east side of Fairhaven Street established a pattern of development for the remainiag parcels along said street, and approval of the propoaed structures without utilizing s~ch parcels for parking pur- posea ~vouid be deleterious to the exiating single-family •:sidencea; that the requested waiver of the required number of parking apaces if granted would create on-street parking in the residential are~, to the ~aeat and southwest of subject property, which would be detx~±mental to the reatdential environment of these residences; that the waiv~r of the required number of parking spaces would be granting a privilege not en,joyed by other establiahed "commercial uaes t<. the north, east~ and west of aub,ject property; that altt~ough prop..~Yties abutting the alley adjacent to sub,ject property to the weat were zoned R-1, Area Development Plan Ao, 3, as recommended for conaideration by the'Planning Cowniasioq projected util.ization of C~oae lots fronting on the east aide of Fairhaven Street for cor.miercial parking purposes at such time as thoae lota fronting on Euclid Street'were developed - therefor.e, the waiver of the height limitation may be coneidered technical as it pertained to the R-1 lots to the west only; and that the petitioner was at,t;~mipting to-overdevelop aub~ect property with a etructure which would require approxi- mately 118% more parking spaces than was propoaed„ (See Reaolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votet AYLrS: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbet, Rpwlen.d, Thom, Allred. NOES: COMMISSIONERS; ri:;;te. ABSENT: CO'rQiISSTO*1ERS: Y'arano. Com~i;eioner Rawland, im vo:ing "no", etated chat hie vote ae caet :~a' without coneider- ing the property to the weet ae to heigh.G liraitation 91nce there wae no other eubatantial uae of the propezty along Euclid Street CT~at c•ould ba made - howe:nr, ainca tha commitment to utilize those lota on the eaet eide of Peir';iavan Street had been mrde when Area Devel- opment F•lan No. 3 wae coneldar~ed, waiver of tha ~;arking wae inconeietent. Commiaeloner Al1reA, in noCing his "no" vote, .~cated it wae or_ tha baeie that che peti- tioner wae p:opoeing to overbuild the oroperey wLLhouC psoviding psrking in accordanae with Code for a multi-ator~ building. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING, r°. AND MRS, WALTER FLUEGGE, 1668 South Nutwood N0. 68-69-85 Streety Anaheim, Cal'ifornia, f?wnere; LeRoy Roee, 1711 Waetmont Drive, Anaheisn, California., Agent; property deecribed ae: Parcel 1- An VARIANCE N0. 2076 irregclarly ehaped parcei of approximately 9.5 acree of land having approximr-te frontagea of 430 faet on the eset eide of Nutwood Street and 786 feet un the weat eide of Eaey Way~ located appxoximately 550 feet north of Che centeriine of Katellg AnPnue~ ;snd Parcel 2- A rectangularly ahaped parcel of approximately ,95 acrea of land having a frontage of appreximately 204 feet on the easE stde of Nutwood Street and a maximum depth of approximately 203 feet, being located approximately 702 feet north of the cen~tesline of Katella Avenue. Property prea@ntly clasaified R-A, AGRI~CULTURAL, ZONE. 3„`!^t^7. ~ ~•rn~. . 31 ~. ,,s~.~ iY~ ~a1,~ai._.~rb~'r s,~~~ti . f i4~;~~~ .,iz~ ,,r - d" J . . ~..'.. . . .~ ~ w MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COI~IItISSIQN, May 5, 1969 4487 RECLASSIFICATION - REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS UF {1) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEI6HT WITHIN N0. 68-69-85 150 FEET OF AN R-A ZONEy (2) LIVING UNITS MORE THAN 200 FEET FROM A STANDaRJ~ STREET, (3) MINIMUM VARIANCE N0, 2076 N-,iMBER OF COVERED PARRING S"tACES, (4) MINIMUM (Continued) SIDE YARD, AND (5) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETfdEEN TWO BUILDINGS, TO ESTABLISH AN APARTMENT COMPLEX CONTAINING 227 UNITS ON THItEE BUILDIN^v SITES (PARCEL 1 ONLY). Assietant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewad the location of subject property, uses established in cloae proxim~.ty, the proposed request, and the waivers «inich have been granted'to other R-3 developments, further noting that since Parcel 1 was that being cantemplated for R-3 dedelopment, there would be three main structures, and the petitioner hs:d indicated a parcel map would be submitted for this property, subdividing it into three p~ircels so that each main structure would have its own building site - one with frontage on NuEwood Street and two with frontages on Easy Way; that an interior. system of drive- ways mutually uaed by all three sites would appear to provi,de adequate circulation for anq future tenants and City service vehicles; that the 1969 Preliminary General ~laa indicated this area as being appropriate for medium density uses, thus the proposed reclassification would appear to be appropriate; that the average dens:.ty for the total apartment complex was approximately 27„4 dwelling units per net acre, with a coverage of 53.1%; that the Traffic Engineer had indicated to staff that the extension of either Crestwood Lane or Sallie Laue through to Nutwood Street was not necessary to provide additional vehicular circulatton in this area; and that as a result of petitioner's indication that Parcel 1 would be further subdivi~ed into three parcels, the Commission might wish to have the applicant file a mutual easement agreement for the counnon usage of the internal driveways by all three sites and a covenant mgreement for the common use of mutually located parking spaces. Zcning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted for the Commission that when the reclassification petition was originally submitted to the staff, Parcel 2 was excluded from the reclassi- fication - however, as a reault af action taken at the last Planning Commission meeting on the Pearl Scr.eet property requesting R-2 and excluding a small R-A portion, the staff advised the agent regarding this action, but the property owners indicated it was their inten[ to retain this parcel for their residence even though the reclassification petition now,covered both parcels; and tha±: the petitioner was still deairous of retaining this in the`R-A.Zone. r~. LeRoy;Rose, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commisaion and noted tl.:~t since.the General Plan indicated this area for medium denaity residential use, the p.Y•posal would'be well within that permitted; that the conditions of approval ae recommended an:~uld be complied with; that the waivera requested had been granted in the past for carporta and patio uae; that more than the minimur~ 1~ parking apaces was propoe,ed; that the propoaed wall adjacent to the R-1 pro~~erty to the eouth would be a portion of the carporte and would be higher than the b-foot normally raquired; that 227 unite were proposed, which was approximately 9 unita lesa than permitted by Code; that fire hydrante would be placed throughout the project in accordance with the Fire Chief'e reeommendation and would offer adequate protection againat fira; that the development would ba ona and two-bedroom apart- menta only, with both being ebove the minir~um required; that although only 45,000 equare feet of recreation area wea required, etpproximately 89,000 was being proposed~ and thia did not include the prtpate balconies oz patios; that each etructure would have ita own awianning pool, eauna bath, laundry facilitiea, and atorage on sach floor; that an attempt had been made to offer protection to the R-1 propertiee by having only two-story beyond the 150-foot limitation required by Code; and that if Ch~e Commiasion did noC grant the petitioner's request,of retaining the R-A Zone for Parcel 2q the petitioner had indicated he wuuld need.additional property to have a one-acre site - however, it was suggested that no delay in considering the proposal be made since the amount involved would be minor and would have no effect on the proposed developmente Mr. Lawrence McMichael, 1707 South Nutwoad Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition and noted that he had contact~_d numerous people in the R-1 residences from KatP11a Avenue to Cerritos who might be affected by the proposed project, and of these people, approximately 90 persons had been contacted and all had made the statement they were'opposed to any waivers requeated; that the waiver of a unit more'than 200 feet from a atandard street was for the protection of all properties in this area for fire and police protection; that a parking problem could result if aufficient parking were not provided, and this could be noted by viaiting any of the apartment complexes thronghout the city whera vehicles were parking on the streets; thst the residents of Tamara Lane would have an 8 t~~ 10-foot wall facing their living rooms, and one resident in particular who had only a 20-foot rear yard would feel completely enclosed in a cubicle because of the height of thia wall; that after reviewing the plans before the Commission, it would appear that approximately one•half of the traffic would be using Nutwood Sr-eet which formerly had experienced oniy single-family resielential traffic; and that this entire ~ ~.._ ~ V.r/ .' ., . . '~. _ . ~ . : MINIITES, CITY PLA1JDiING COMMISSZON, May 5, 2969 ~ : 4488 ~;~'str: RECLASSIFICATYON - area south and west of Nutwood and subject property was developed N0~ 68-69-85 with sin~le-story homes as well as apartments except for one two- story apartmenb on Easy Way, and this two-story development would VARZANCE N0. 2076 inject on-street ~arking and prevent the single-family homeowners (Continued) from having visitors park on the street. Furthermore, there already existed a problem as to overloading the elementary school in this area because of the fact tha2 students from Horace Mann School were being bussed to the school, and the additional children from this facility could cre~r~ half-day sessions, and, lastly, the 12.57-acre parcel west of Ivanhoe Street was a complex largEr than subject property, and although they had requested two-story, they had been limited to one-stor;+ and did not seem to have a rental problem - therefore, single-story should be retained in this entire area. Mrs. John White, 1849 West Tamara Lane, appeared before the Commission in opposition and noted that a portion of her rear property faced Easy Way, and it had been known that residents of the two-story strucxures on Sumac Lane used their binoculars to look into their rear yards, and she was not desirous of having any more invasion of her privacy with two-story structures in this gencral area, and the.proposed complex with carports woul3 be abutting her rear yard and would destroy the effect of the view from the living ruom and patio with a stark, concrete wall; and that said carports could be relocated to the opposite side of the 25-faot drive, and a 6-foot masonry wall would be less objection- able than the rear of the carports. The Commission noted that the wall could be requir~d to be decorative and would be offer- ing more protection than a 6-foot wall since children could climb said 6-foot wall„ Mrs. White stated she was still in opposition to having the carports facing her living room windows, Mrs., Betty Marquardt, 1665 South Nutwood Street, appeared taefore the Commission in oppasi- tion and noted that although the slides presented to the Commission did not show Easy Way with vehicles parked on it, her observance of said street on Sunday indicated it was completely used for parking purposes by the R-3 tract to the east; that she was appeariag before the Commission in opposition as a homeowner for fifteen yeaxs in tY.is R-1 Zone, and her property was oppoaite the proposed 25-foot wide alley, over 600 feet long; that she was opposed to having to face the alley which would be directl.y across'from her front door and windows, which was a most depressing sight to look down a 600-foot corridor, and moat of the alleys in the-city were eyesores as it was; that the Commission and City Council consistently talked about "green area" throughout the city - however, she would like to have something other than an alley acrosa from her property; that she wfluld like [o have the.alley shielded from view of any homeowner on Nutwood Street since this alley would be a place where children would be investigating any unusual happenings in an alley; that a number of children from the apartment complex on Easy Way walked down the railroad tracks and in all likelihood would now walk down this alley; that the parking requirement ahould be raised from that of present Code since the City Council had set a precedent when approving the Lindgren property for multiple-family residential use by requiring one covered and one uncovered parking space; that consideration of multiple-family residenti,al uses for subjecC property was under different cir.~umstances than the Lindgren property since the Lindgren property had several schools and a park ad3acent to it, while subject property had single-family homes along Nutwood Street for its full distance and single-family homes to the south; that the play area on the proposed development was of grave concern - however, she wished to go on record as not being opposed to play areas, but from observatior. of other similar developments in the area, the rear wall of some of them had been knocked down and the play area filled with three-foot high weeds; that the block wa11 facing Nutwood Streeb for a distance of five feet was completely torn down, the wa11 having been a four-inch block wall which did not have steel reinforcement; that she did not know how the wall could `s.ave been permitted to be constructed since it did not meet Code, and each department in the C~ty to which she had attempted to make a complaint as to these eyesores stated that since this was private property, there was nothing they sould do, and this was not to be considered a police state; and that she was opposed to any additional eyesores being approved in this general area. Furthermore, the City per.mitted the removal of a$50,000 home at the corner of Nutwood Street and Katella Av~enue to erect a service station s~hich was an eyesore with all types of old sutomooiles and broken down mechanical devices kept there; that ir_ was her understanding this service station was a narcotics distribut;on area, and this could be verified through the Police Department, said service station having been opposad by all the property owners in this area; that in a visit with friends on Ball Road recently, she saw two ten year old children drive an automobile up and down an al7eyt and when she reported this to the police, she had beer, informed this was private property and was not within their jurisdiction - therefore, a similar thing could occur in the alley proposed on subject property; that every timA she had called the various departments of the City to report a violation, she was infor~ed that their hands were tied and the complaint was outside of their jurisdiction; and that the Zoning Enforcement Officer, Mr. West, had visited her place and this general area, as well as the service station in response 3 : 7 ~ ~ ~ : si !"c ..~ ~~`~ `~ fi:~'+.JiS~`~,~y .+~~' } 2e.ir ~ "r~w~,4 ~.tika ~ ~A1^~ t ~'M 7' -~ i~,~ . . 'X^'n f~ } .,s p. r ? R{ f( Y+ ~ v~. ~fiT 3~.„, k~.,. ~,~. 'i.. .~. A 1'.. ..• 3 ~ . _ ~ .. . ... . 1_ ~ ... . .. ~ . . . . ~ . . . . _ . _ ..~~~~,m Q ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COYil~fISSION, May 5, 1969 4489 RECLASSIFICATION - to her complaints regarding the old automobiles stored there, and N0, 68-69-85 they had informed him the vehicles were stored there because the owners did not have mnaey to repair them. VARIANCE N0. 2076 (Continued) Mrs. Marquardt again emphasized the fact that she was opposed to the 25-foot wide, 600-foot long alley which would exit in front of her home because this would depreciate the value of her property., and although developers of apartments might be able to afford taking losses on thef~ apartment complexes, she was unable to afford any loss in the value of her home. :;eputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised Mrs, Marquardt that the Police Departme~tzt was now in a poaition to remove abandoned vehicles which haci been left more than aeve~tty-trro hours from private property - however, this had occurred only withtn the past w.^._k. Mr. Rose, in rebuttal, stated that the waiver of the distaace of living units from a standard street applied to only 28 of the units; that an attempt had been made to provide circulation within the development, anc! since the parcel was 600 feet deep, it was some- what difficult to locate the units clr~ser to the street because af the requirement of one-storq within 150 feet of the sing,le-family homes to the west and south; that he recognized that a parking problem always existed where apartments were developed, especially that to the east where only 1~ parking spaces were required, and the proposed development would have 1.6 spaces; that the carports along the south property line could be relocated to the north side of the alley and a 6-foot masonry wall constructed, and the only reason this was done was for economic reasons; that no traffic problem would exist from the proposed development since the Traffic Engineer :zad not indicated such would be the case; that there would be no more children generated by the proposed devel- opment than would be generated if this were developed for R-1, and although the statement might be made that this would be for adults only, there would be nothing to prevent them from renting to families if needed - however, statistics proved there were fewer children from apartments than from single-family homes; and that the two-story construction was 150 feet from any R-1 - therefore, they were within the requirements of the Code. A showing of hands indicated eight persons present in the Council Chamber in opposition to subject petitions. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Roberts again emphasized the fact that Parcel 2 was included in the reclassification to the R-3 Zone; however, the petitioner would prefer that the parcel remain R-A. Commissioner Rowland inquired whether or not the General Plan indicated low-medium density for subject property; whereupon Mr. Roberts advised the Comnission that the Residential Housing Element of the 1969 General Plan approved on April 28, 1969, indicated this area for medium density. The Commission inquired as to the meaning of recommended Condition No. 10 regarding a modified knuckle at the intersection of Crestwood Lane ar.d Easy Way. Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Cotmnission that originally Crestwood Lane was projected to continue through subject property, and curbs and gutters were in on Easy Way - therefore, a modified knuckle would have to be constructed in order to have a proper turning radius from Crestwood Lane along the west side of Easy Way. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No, PC69-95 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for ~ Reclassification No. 68-69-85 be approved on the basis that the land use was in conform- I` ance with the 1969 General Plan; that the inczease in traffic from the proposed develop- :uent would not be more than that generated by development with R-1; and sub,ject to conditions as outlined in,the Report to the Commission. (See Resolution Book) -0n roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the folloa:zg vote; ~- AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Thom, Allred. l' NOES: COI~Il~fiSSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs Farano. Discussion was then held by the Commission rel3tive to the type of fini,h for the carports on the`south side of the proposed project abutting the R-1, and at its conclusion, the agent for the petitioner agreed to providing a slumpstone finish of said carport wall„ Co~issioner Herbst offered Resolution Noe PC69-96 and moved for its passage and ndciption, seconded by Co~issioner Thom, to grant Petition for Variance Nor 2076 subject to the provision of slumpstone finish on the carportwall and.the 6-foot masonry wall adjacent to ! the carporta along the south property line as sti ulated to b the Resolution Book) P Y petitioner. (See _ ~ '~ = ~ ~ _ ~ MINUTES,,CITY PLANNING CO~IISSION, May 5, 1969 4490 RECLASSIFICATION -.On roll call the foregoiag resolutioa was passed by the following N0. 68-69-85 vote: VARIANCE NU. 2076 AYES: CJMMISSIONERS: Camp,.Gauer, Herbst,.Rowland, Thom, Allred. (Continued) NOES: (;OMI~iiSSIONERS: .None. ABSENT:. COMMISSIONERS: Farano. Co~issioner Gauer then advised the"opposition that the staff should discuss with Zoning , Enforcement Officer WesE the complaints made by Mrs. Marquardb relative to conditions existing,along;play areas and masonry:walls'adjacent to multiple-family uses in this general area to determine whether any zoning code violations were being perpetuated, RECLASSIFICATION = CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. FRED KAY, HAROLD WILLIAMS~ AND MARTIN N0.`68-69-26 ROBERTS, 220 L~guna Road, Fullerton, California, Owners; HAROLI3 L, RAAB, 14482 Beach Boulevard, Suite I, Westminster, California, Agent; TENTATIVE MAP OF requesting that property described as: Approximately 10,5 acres of TRACT N0. 6733 land having a frontage of approximately 533 feet on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 785 feet, the westerly boundary of said parcel being approximately 906 feet east of the centerline of Highland.Avenue, be reclasaified from the COUNTY A1, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT to the R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE, TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: W.I,R. DEVELOPERS, INC., 9942 Central Avenue, Garden Grove, California. ENGINEER: Raab & Boyer Engineering Company, 14482 Beach Boulevard, Suite I, Weatminster, California. Sub,ject tract, located on the north side of Orangethorp2 Avenue, east of the centerline of Highland Avenue, ia proposed for subdivision ~nto 97 proposed R-2-5000 zoned lots. Subject petitions were continued from the meetings of September 23, OcCober 7, and November 4, 196R, to allow time for the petitioner to submit xevised plans. Aasistant Zoning aupervisor Pat Brown adviaed the Commission that the petit3oner had submitted a letter to the staff indicating that problems for which previons continuancea had.been requeateil were still unsolved and Yt would.probably be some;time in the £~ture before they could be resolved, and as a resul*_, they requested termination of the reclassification.and tentative tract map. Commisaioner Herbst offered a motion to terminate all proceedinga on Reclassification No„ 68-69-26 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 6733, as requeste3 by the petitioner due to the fact that he was unable to resolve problems involved-on aubject property. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. JOSEPH D. HT3~YRTE, 1464 East La Palma Avenue, PERMIT N0. 1098 Anaheim, California, Owner; HENRY REICHERT, 16262 £ast'Whittier Boulevard, Suite 25, Whittier, California, Agent; requeating permission to ESTABLISH A 196-SPACE MOBILE HOME PARK, WITH WAIVER OF MZDTIMUM REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK on property described as: An i.rregulariy shaped parcel of land ; containing approximately 26 acres located generally south of Fronter,a Street and east of ~ Rio Vista Street, the maximum east-west dimension of sub ect ro ert bein a a j P P Y 8 pproximately 2,171 feet and the maximum north-soutk dimension being approximately 860 feet, the ~ westerly boundary of st~bject property being located approximately 1,330 feet east of the ~ centerllne of Rio Vist: Street, and the northerly boundary of sub3ect property beiag ~ located approximately 1+~, °eet south of Frontera SEreet. Property presently ciassi£ied ' R-A(0), AGRICULTURAL (OIL PRO~UCTION), ZONE, ` j : Subject petition was continued from the meeting6 of March 10 and 24, and Apri1 2i, 19b9, in order to allow time for the developer and staff to wortc ~ut xhe probTem areas ~relative I to the alignment and the extent of dedication and improvements of the north-south collector ~ street; to determine the exacC location of oil wells on sabject property and parcels to the'east of aubject property; and to determine the_aligmnent of the east-west cAllector street as it pertained to'subject property and that property to the easC. " Aasiataat.Zoning Supervisor:Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses eatablished-in close proximity, and the reasons'for the previous continuances - to deter- mine the alignment:of the north-south collector`street as well as the east-west collector street as'required under Area Development P1an No, 37; locations of oil wells on subject and abutting properties; submission of plans which rzflect development of subject property , more nearly in conformance with General P1an Amendment No. 9T, backing up R-1 to the south with R-l and transitioning to R-2-5000, thence to the mobile home park as ~proposed; provide adequb•ce setbacks from abutting streets with sufficient landscape screening; and ~ provide guest parking:within the proposed mobile home development. F;~ a c~ ~ M.LNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMriISSION, May 5, 1969 4491 CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Brown, in reviewing the revised plans, noted ~hat the dedication PERMIT N0. 1098 of Ehe 59-foot wide, north-s~•>uth street on the westeriy perimeter of (Continued) subject px~bperty, extending from the south boundary of said property to Frontera Street wieh the pr.ecise alignment of the southerly portion. was being held in abeyance pending final decision by the State Division of Education as reques~ed by the Placeutia School Diotrict; that a 64-foot wide, dedicated, east-west street had been indicated along the nortl:erly boundary of the proposed mobile home park site lncated genErally in conformance with the requirements of,Area Development Plan Na, 37 - howeveri its westerly extension from the propQSed north-south street to Rio Vfata Street had not yet been precisely.determined sfnce the properties to the west are presently undeveloped; that all th~ oil wells lying to the northeast of subject property and those located on sub~ect property would have no serious effect on the proposed develop- ment; that develo~eent in accordancp with General Plan Amendment No. 97 was not indicated since the ~etitioner was propos;.ng tv develog the property en*_irely with a mobile home park rather than transiti9ning with any low to low-medium denaity uses - however, the revised plans indizate a 5-foot masonry wall would be constructed along the south boundary of the R-1 tract and a 6-foot landsaape;strip would be planted adjacent to this wall, with a 30-foot wide street north of the landscaped area, thus separating any proposed trailer park spaces a minimum of 36 feet from the R-1 propertiea; that the revised plans also indicated a 10-foot landscape setback area where adjacent to the north-south and east-west street frontages - however, the usual setback requirement adjacent to arterial streets was 20 feet; and that it was proposed to have 103 1Ox20-foot, off-street, guest parking spaces with an additional 44 boat and travel trailer stalls, and with the redesign, the number of spaces was reduced from 195 to 182, and the average lot size for each mobile home would be approximately 3429 square feet. Iir. Brown then noted that it was intended that the north-south street would extend south- erly across the southeast corner of the Rio Vista Eiementary School and the east side of the parksite to Dutch Anenue, and the Interdepartmenta~ Co~ittee would recommend that the City of Anaheim pay the cost of the road construction across the parksite and school property and also the westerly half of the road constructed adjacent to the school. Mr. Henry Reichert, proposed developer of the mobile home park, appeared before the Commission and noted they concurred with the recommended conditions except that an ir- revocable affer of dedication as well as the posting of a bond for img~rovemeat of the east-west street be accepted in lieu of actual dedic.aCion and improvement until such time as the properties to'the east and west were developed, 3n order to allow the peti- tioner the opportunity of farming the property; that the bonding for said imprwement should be for a five-year period or until such time as the property to the north was improved and the east-west street would be required; and that since extension of the north-souEh street to the south was undetermined, that an irrevocabl~ offer uf dedication be accepted for that portion extending southerly of the entrance to the proposed mob3le home park. Mr. James Geriak,. 2913 Hempstead Road, appeared before the Commission in opposition and noted that after a s;eries of prolonged hearings on both the Dinkler and Henning properties wherein ~•he oppositton had presented their position, together with the approval of General Plan A~nendment No. 97, the single-family homeowners adjacent to subject property under- stood that the Plauning Commission had co~titted themselvea to a transitional zone between the reaidential area to the sauth and subject property, with R-1 abutting R-1 and transi- tioning to R-2-5000 and then on to medium density; that the petitioner was now proposing a medium density abutting the R-1 to the south - therefore, the issue facing the Commission was one of more than land use - whether or not the single-family residents should consider having the confidence in the Commission's statements regarding land use for most ~of this area for a more intense land use; that although there was no opposition presented of consequence at the first public hearing, Commissioner Herbst had noted the homeowners felt the City had committed themselves as to the protection for the R-1 homeowners - therefore, there was no need for presenting a lengthy opposition to the proposed development as had been presented £or the Dinkler and Henning properties; and that there was no further reason for evidence being submitted to that effect. A showing of hanus indicated six persons present in opposition to subject petition, Mr. Reichert, in rebuttal, stat~ad that no opposition had been presented at the previous public hearings; that they were aware the City had committed R-1 adjacent to ~the R-1 - however, R-2-500~ could also be placed in this area; that it was now planned that in addition to the 6-foot masonry wall,to have a 6-foot landscape strip as welY as a 30-foot street between the R-1 and the proposed mobile homes; that this would be an adult mobile home park, and because of the fact that subject property had operating oil wells on it, it was rather difficult to develop it for R-1 purposes since streets would have to be a minimwn 184 feet from a well, and the proposed development was the only feasible manner in which to develop the property; and, furthermore, he felt the proposed mobile home park would not be detrimental to the single-family homes to the south. j', I f j~i '~f~_ ~ ~,` \~~' . ~ . Q ~ . st,-,,,: MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 5, 1969 ~k ~"` ~ 4492 ~,a CONDITIONAL USE - The Coimnission noted there were only two wells on subject property; ~~ PEI2MIT N0. 1098 whereupon Mr. Reichert noted there were oil wells to the north and ~';~; (Continued) to the northwest of sub ect 3 property, which also had to be taken into ~~`:;~} -`• consideration. ~ ,i~;:. ~rF; ' Coffiniasioner Herbst again noted that General Plan Ae~endment No. 97 required that the R-1 =,ir;:'; ~ ~ homes already existing in this area be abutted with R-1 homes for transitioning into ~ R-2-5000, and then medium density, whereas the petitioner was not proposing this form ~ < of development„ *-y~: ~~i ~~~~ ; Mr. Reichert noted that if they were required to develop in accordance vith the General +~ Plan amendment, it would be unfeasible to develpp the proposed mobile home park. ~~ :,~ ;;;•~'~;~~ The Commission then noted that the City's integrity was at stake since commitments had 5,;s'r;:;!;;i„ been made to the single-family homeowners as to the type of development that ~ould occur; k~:;:..-'l, therefore, it was important that the Commission honor their commitments. :~: ;:.. ~ :;:, ~,~. ~`` '~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED, Coimnissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC69-97 and moved for its passage and adoption, ,~~ seconded by Commiasioner Thom, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1098 on _- the basis that the proposed use would adversely affect the adjoinins land uses and the '' growth and development of the area in which it was proposed to be located; that the grant- r 2: ing of subject petition would establish a precedent by granting a privilege not enjoyed z ~,. by developers of adJoining properties who were required to develop in accordance with ;- ~1~' General Plan Amendment No. 97, providing a tier of R-1, 7200-square foot lots abutting n the existing R-1 subdivisions and transitioning to low-medium and medium density, whereas f;;;. ~-: the petitioner was proposing to totally develop subject property with a mobile home park ~ ' considered in the low-medium density category; that the commitment made by the Planning ~ t~ Commission and City Council after numerous public hearings were held to sasure the exist- ~;-,?? ing single-family homeowners in the area some protection from more intense land uses of "~ ~a vacant properties in the area bounded by Frontera Street on the north, Rio Vista Street s4,,,+..r~ on the west, Lincoln Avenue on the south, and Kraemer Boulevard on the east, should be honored since the integrity of the City was involved; and that no land use change had ~ taken place in the past four months to warrant favorable consideration of any General s~` r~~. Plan amendment, and no evidence was submitted to warrant favorable consideration of ~ ~~~ sub ect etition. .~ ~ ~ P (See Resolution Book) ~`+~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: +~~ t: ' ~~ ~;I~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Thom, Allred. ~ ~' NOES; COMMISSIONERS; None. ? ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; Farano. VARIANCE N0. 2080 - PUBLIC HEARING. DONALD W. SHAW, 1901 Blake Avenue, Los Angeles, California, Owner; PETER V. DE SANTIS, 2323 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim~ California, Agent; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) THE MINIMUM DISTANCE OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN TO AN ABUTTING PARCEL, AND (2) MAXIMUM SIGN i~ IGHT on property described as: A triangular parcel situated at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and the Sants Ana Freeway, having approximate frantages of 648 feet on La Palma Avenue and 775 feet along the Santa Ana Freeway, and further described as 2323 West La Palma Avenue. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Assistant 2oning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal, noting that although the variance for the maximum permitted height was advertised, the petitioner had since indicated to staff there was a miain"tezpretaZion as to the exact height of the sign, and that it was proposed to retain the height at 25 feet or less which was permissible by Code, and that the applicant had further indicated to staff that to locate the sign any further to the south- east would negate the exposure value of the sign since the existing warehouse structure for thic moving company would block out the sign to northbound traffic on the Santa Ana Freeway - therefore, the apparent issue before the Commission was the proximity of the proposed sign location to the adjacent property to the west, and the Commission would have to determine whether the proposal could be deleterious to the existing or possible future signing for the adjacent industrial parcel. Mr, William Barker, representing the Federal Sign Company, appeared before the Cosrmiission and noted the basic reason for the ,proposed request was the expense involved in removing the blacktop, as well as the existing warehouse structure which would block the view of the sign from the freeway, and he was unaware whether or not the building was constrvcted prior to the Sign Ordinance. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. .. , : -:~•-~- ~ ~ p MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMiSSION, May 5; 1969 4493 VARIANCE N0. 2080 - THE HEARING WAS CLOSED, (Continued) Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC69-98 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Co~issioner Thom, to grant Petition for Variance No. 2080, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbat, Rowland, Thom, Allred. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. RECESS - Co~nisaioner Camp offered a motion to recess the meeting for ten minutes. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRTED. The meeting recessed at 3:55 P.M. RECONVENE - Chairman Allred reconvened the meeting at 4:05 P,M., all Commissionera except Farano being present. VARIANCE NOo 2079 - PUBLIC HEARING. GLADYS T. POYET, 1541 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Owner; BOREHAM INVESTMENT COMPANY, 1541 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Agent; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, (2) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF BUILDINGS PER SITE, (3) MINIMUM PARKING STALL SIZE, (4) MINIMUM NUMBER OF COVERED PARKING STALLS, (5) MAXIi~lUM DISTANCE OF UNITS FROM A STANDARD STREET, AND (6) MINIMUM BUILDING SITE AREA PER DWELLING UNIT, TO ESTABLISH A 162-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX on property deacribed as: A re~tangularly shaped parcel of approximately 5 acres of land located on the east side of Magnolia Avenue, approximately 325 feet north of the centerline of Broadway, having a frontage of approximately 333 feet and a depth of approximately 600 feet. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and uses ': established in close proximity, noting that that a resolution of intent to reclassify to R-3 was pending on the property, and an R-2-5000 residential tract was under construction to the east. Mr. Brown further noted that the petitioner had submitted a letter to the staff requesting a two-week continuance to permit time to submit new plans to bring ~_he proposal into ~ closer conformance with the R-3 site development standards. Commissioner Camp offered a motion to continue Petition for Variance No, 2079 to the meeting of May 19, 1969, as requested by the petitioner in ordpr to allow time for the submission of revised plans. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ , RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. HARE T. KISHIYAMA, 16507 Gramercy Place, Gardena, ~ N0. 68-69-89 California, Owner; WILLIAM PHELPS, 914 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, ~ California, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly shaped VARIANCE N0. 2081 parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 99 feet on the west ~ side of Western Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 642 feet,, ~ being located approximately 930 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. Pro ert ~_ p y presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF AN R-A ZONE, (2) MINIMUM SETBACK FROM AN ALLEY, (3) MINIMUM SIB$ YARD 1' SETBACK, (4) ADEQUATE ACCESS FOR FIRE AND TRASH VEHZCLES, AND (5) LIVING UNITS NOT WITHIN 200 FEET OF A STANDARD STREET, TO ESTABLISH A 40-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses i established in close pr~ximity, the requested waivers, and the Report to the Commission, ~ noting tiiat the density proposed would be 33.9 dwelling units per net acre and a lot covera e o f 48.7 • a _ _ 7 thta . 8 . semi-cul de sac rivate drive , P had been indicated extending ~ into the property some 225 feet west from Western Avenue, with carports located on either ; side of said drive; that another U-shaped drive had been indicated at the western end of the property from the 20-foot alley on the west, with carports in the center of said drive; that the bulk of the apartments were located in the center of this 617-foot long parcel; that the General Plan indicated medium derisity residential uses as being appropri- ate:for Chis area, and with the exception ~;f the church property, properties to the north ' ~; , _"`` .~i--,' ~ 4 1 ~., n~" .: x+t .~+r4cx ~ x ,~~ . i T t.~ ~~? . ., y,, K .:i• ~. r a~... ,~ U~t t r 1 ~ ~ c. . , , , : , f ,~.v.,~ '+' ~~>.. >~ ",~`.h':~ ~ %~.:~ r .Y.a _ ,r,ry,',~1 ir Fa,~`.Y+: C ~ ~. ~.~~. a ,. . , . -,. . ~ . ~ . . ~ . : ~ ~ ` , ... . .. .L.~„ .,:- .. .. .,- . „~ . ..'. ~ ~~. ~ . - ~~ - - . . . , , . . ~„~„ . . .,.. .. . . , . ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ . . ~ ~ . ~..,, . .. .~ .~ O ~~,. . ~ , ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNTNG CONIl~fISSION, May 5, 1969 4494 RECLASSIFICATION - and west had been developed for said uses except foe a small, lt-t1 N0.:68-69-89 parcel to the north which in all liiceli,~ood would not remain single- '?:: family indefinitely - therefore, the waiver for the height limitation VARIANCE N0. 2081 was a technical one, as were the minimum ~ide yard and.minimum sid~ (Continued) yard setback for carports; that the waiver's ~of adequate access ~or fire and trash vehicles and distance of livfng units fzom a standard street would be of major concern to thz Comacission ~3nce the disai.s~ant Fire Chief had indicated at the Interdepartmental Committee that it wavld be som~e~rh~t difficult to provide adequate fire protection to some of the interiar uatts; that b2cause ~ of the narrowneas of the parcel and its depth, it would be extremelg difficulC to develop the property with the.propoaed density; and that the~staff had sugges•ted, dur3.ng several meetings with the designer, that a standard, minimum 20-foot wide drive be provided either on the north or south property lines, or a combination of both, to provide better vehicular. accessibility to the proposed units - however, the deaigner had indicated this would be economically unfeasible because this would reduce the @ensity, Mr. William Phelps, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Coimnission and noted that because of the width and depth of the parcel, a number of problems had arisen, and severai of the waivers could be considered technical -however, the design feasibility was difficult, and the cul-de-sac as proposed would give the fire and trash vehicles the required radius for maneuverability; that the one-story effect in the front drive was necessitated because of the distance from the single-family homes to the east, and the major portion of the structure would be in the center of the property; that there were only two methods of designing the rear portion since parking was necessary to serve the units toward the rear, and the proposed peripheral drive around the rear parking area would provide ample space for emergency vehicles; that the 20-foot drive the staff had recommended for access for sub~ect property would be undesirable from an esthetic view- point since this wouid provide only a long, narrow alley with a carport environment along the alley, but would not provide a good living environment; that originally a subterranean type of development was considered, but too many problems arose, and, therefore, the proposed plans were considered the most feasible, The Commission noted that although subject property was a difficult parcel to develop, the design proposed was also difficult for the Commission to approve because of inadequate access for fire and emergency vehicles. Mr~'Phelps noted that the majority of the requirements of the R-3 Zone had been met as to parking, coverage, and density. Commissioner Rowland noted that although many parcels of land within the City of Anaheim were considered appropriate for R-3 uses, or were zoned for R-3, because of the shape of the parcel, this often made it difficult to develop within the density permitted, and there was a'..sa the p~ssibility that subject property would never be developed because of its size attu, siiape and being economically unfeasible to develop. Reverend Harley Murray, Pastor of the Western Avenue Southern Baptist Church, 219 South Weatern Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition and noted that after viewing the plans, the church was concerned about accessibility to the development since apart- ments already existed to the west of the alley, and if the alley were proposed to be used as part of the access for subject property, this could create an undue burden on the alley because the R-3 property to the west was already utilizing said alley; that the church's drive was now being used by the apartments to the west for access without the church's permission, and if no wall were required for sub,ject property along the south boundary of the property, the prospective residents of the apartments could use the church's vacant land for parking ~urposes; that the alley already created considerable traffic, and the church's drive was being used illegally by the apartments to the west; and that they were not opposed to the development as such, but did want a wall to insure separation of the church property from the apartment development. Mr, Fred Heistand, 215 South Loma Linda Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition, i noting he represented sev~n residents of this area opposed to the waivers requested for + the development of subject property; that they were fully aware the area was designated for R-3 - however, tlae waivera requested were detrimental to the area; that there was already a problem of parking in the area, and traffic at Del Monte Drive and Western Avenue was so congested that he had almost been hit several times by people making left and right ~ turns to and from the apartments to the north, on the east side of Western Aver.ue, and the proposed development would increase the parking on Western Avenue; that the proposal ~ would inerease the school population in a school that already was overcrowded; and that ' he could see no reason far i+nyone asking for waiver of access for fire and trash vehicles. Mr. Phelps, in rebuttal, stated that the proposed development was in accordance with the parking requirements of the City of Anaheim, and the only waiver of concern to the Comnis- sion would be the access for emergency vehicles, which he felt was accomplished by the i~ _ _ ; ,, ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMhIISSIQN, May 5, 1969 4495 RECLASSIFICATION° - 54-foot turning radius of the private drive, as well as the access N0. 68-69-89 from the alley to provide said circulation; that a great deal of thought had been given to the design of this project, and he could VARIANCE N0. 2081 deaign the project to meet Code requirementa, but this would not be (Continued) a desirable development. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Considerable discussion was held by the Commission relative to the plans, the waivers, and the need for adequate fire protection, , ~ Co~issioner Herbst offered a motion to recommend approval of Reclassification lvo. 68-69-89, subject to conditions. Commissioner Thom seconded the motion. Commissioner Herbst offered a moCion to deny Petition for Variance No, 2081, seconded by Commisaioner Rowland, on the baeis that the property was overcrowded and had improper fire protection; that redesign was necessary for providing adequate safety precautions. ~ 9 The Co~nission then discussed the possibility of continuing sub3ect petition for submission j of revised plans to incorporate the inadequacies of the proposed development. 3 i Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that if a two-week continuance ~ 3 were considered, plans would be needed no later than May 8 in order to allow the staff ; time to analyze them and have them ready for the In!:erdepartmental Committee meeting. ~ Furthermore, if the variance were to be continued, consideration should be given to ~ continuing the reclassificatiom so that both are consid~red by the City Council at the ~ same time, Co~nissioner Herbst withdrew his motion of denial. Commissioner Rowland seconded the 1 motion. MOTION CARRIED. i, Couunissioner Herbst offered a motion to rescind action on approval of Petition for ~ Reclassification No. 68-69-89 in order that it might be considered in conjunction with the variance petition. Commissioner Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petitions for Reclassification No. 68-69-89 and Variance No. 2081 to the meeting of June 2, i569, j in order to allow time for the designer and the petitioner to submit revised plans ~ incorporating circulation which would meet with the approval of the Fire Chief. ' Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. MYRNA MYRON, 4455 Los Feliz Boulevard, Apartment ~ N0. 68-69-90 1202W, Los Angeles, California, Owner; Norman Milkes, 9778 Katella E Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property described ~ as; An irregularly shaped parcel of land at the northeast corner of ~ State College Bculevard and Center Street, having approximate frontages of 157 feet on State College Boulevard and 164 feet on Center Street, and further described as 2009 East f Center Street, be reclassified fram the R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the C-1, j GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. j I Assiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and uses ~ established in close proximity, noting that no previous zoning action on the property had been processed although the property had been used as a plant nursery for several years as a nonconforming use; that no development plans vere submitted - however, the petitioz~ers ~ had indicated to staff that if subject petition were approved, they would, in all proba- i bility, hsve an enclosed restaurant on the site, and since the General Plan indicates ! commercial or commercial-professional uses as being appropriate along the State College Boulevard frontage, the proposed request would agpear to be a valid one. ~ Mr. Norman Milkes, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Cou~ission and noted ~ that because of existing coa~ercial uses established in the general area, the proposed ; request would be in order; that sub,ject property abutted R-1 property to the east; and '+ that they would comply with the recommended conditions. ` No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Thom offered Resolution No. PC69-99 and moved for its passage and adoption, ' seconded by Co~niasioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 68-69-90 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) ' ~ ~~ ~ X-~-l,ro~i asts ~t~~i.+S~. y Z. V~ S~'~rj~ ,~~~"y,~ ~~ "~'i~ '~kv~.~~N~ ~~1 : ; ~ ~ L~ ''°ih5 S,' .: ^ . y~^' rA t- ~ '~` .~;: '~,r ~s d 1 - ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COIrI1tISSION, May 5, 1969 4496 RECLASSIFICATION - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following N0. 68-69-90 vote: (Continued) _ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Thom, Allred.. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~ ' ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. HORACE E. MORLOCK, 264 Granada Avenue, Long Beach, N0. 68-69-88 California, Owner; ALFRED EDEZSOHN, 237 Sast Olive Street, Suite 501, Burbank, California, Agent; requesting that property described as; An irregulasly shaped parcel of approximately 7.86 acres of land situated north and west of the northwest corner of Orchard Drive and Orangethorpe Avenue, having frontages of approximately 264 feet on Orangethorpe Avenue and 264 feet on Orchard Drive, the easterly boundary of said parcel being approximately 400 feet west of the centerline of Orchard Drive, and the southerly boundary being approximately 835 feet north of the centerline of Orangethorpe Avenue, be reclassified from the COUNTY A1, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT to the CITY OF ANAHEIM R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE, Aasistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and uses established in close proximity, noting that this property was still under the jurisdiction of the County of Orange - however, annexation proceedings were taking place to annex to the City of Anaheim; that no tract map or detailed plot plan for the individual lots was submitted with the application, but a preliminary plot plan was presented showing a tentative layout for 49 lots; that subject property, consisting of approximately 9 acres,. was proposed to be split off from two large parcels of land consisting of approximately 15 acres; that the remaining 6-acre portion was located at the northwest corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and the new alignment of Orchard Drive; that the General Plan indicated a neighborhood shopping center would be appropriate in the general vicinity of Orangethorpe Avenue and Orchard Drive; and that the Preliminary General Plan-1969 recommended for approval by the Planning Commission for the Residential (Housing), Commercial, and Indus- trial Elements on April 28, 1969, indicated low-medium density residential uses as being appropriate for this general area. Mr. Brown then noted that in the event the Planning Commission determined R-2-5000 zoning was appropriate for subject property, the Commission would have to determine whether the 5000-square foot lots should be permitted immediately to the rear of the existing 7200- square foot lots in the subdivision to the west, although on a previous reclassification on property to the north of said tract, 5000-squaie foot lots were permitted. Further- more, that the preliminary subdivision design that had been submitted indicated a number of problems would have to be resolved before subdivision could be approved, and this would involve a partial redesign and possibly a variance petition. Mr. Alfred Edelsohn, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and indicated his presence and availability to answer questions. ~. Commissioner Herbst noted that although the petitioner was proposing 5000-square foot lots, : they would be abutting the single-family tract now under the jurisdiction of the County, ~; having 7200 square feet, and since said lots were 60 feet wide the should also have 60-toot wide lots to provide for a better living environmentfor R-2-5000 ~,< ~ . ~~ "~~ Mr. Edelsohn advised the Coimnission that a 6-foot masonry wall was already constructed ;,~„~,.~ along the rear portion of these lots, and he could not see any inter-relationship of the , X proposed tract with the R-1 tract to the west. Furt~;~rmore, this was not a requirement ,~ ~, of the tract that was approved to the north of subject property, and it also abutted said tract, ;'; ~ ' '-'~ ~~; Commissioner Gauer noted that sub ect j property was not a part of General Plan Amendment ~,; ;c.,.a ' 9 k~4,.s:<<~ No. 97 wherein the Commission re uired 7200-square foot lots abut single-family lots "~''~'ct?;iA;},; ~ already existing. ~ EkY-:~'..'~iL ' ~ . . ~ ~~ Further discussion was held by the Commission relative to the possible requirement of „r~~~.~,~ 7200-square foot lots where R-2-5000 was approved abnttin R-1 added to ~~-+~r 8 the oss b' «r of setting different standards for di£ferent areas. P i ility tkr ~ ' ~,;;;.j~ Chairman Allred noted that if 60-foot wide lots were required abutting the single-family ~;;;~~%`~ tract to the west, approximately two or three lots would be lost, ~,~:+.r;.,.; Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted for the Co~mnission that the R-1 subdivision to the west did have a 7200-square faot lot area although it had a 60-foot wide lot and was developed under tk~e jurisdiction of the County, but other subdivisions abutting this single-family tract were developed with 5000-square foot lots, and this was extended along the north as well as the west of the County subdivision; and that the 1959 General ~ ~ ,. ~ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ ..., ~.. „ .,.;. , . . z ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 5, 1969 4497 RECLASSIFICATION - Plan designated this area for low-medium residential uses, N0..68-69-88 (Continued) Commissioner Gauer noted there were some very fine homes developed - • in the R-2-SOOO Zone; however, to approve prezoning on subject property would not guarantee a similar type of home would be deve:oped on subject property - therefore,.some protection should be offered to the R-1 homeowners already reaiding there by requiring development plans Co be submitted to determine their compatibility. . Mr., Edelsohn noted there were two owners of.these strips of land, and they had exchanged parcels in order to permit development of this L-shaped parcel, No one appeared in oppoaition to subject petition, THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Roberts noted for the Commission that he was desirous of emphasizing one point in the Report to the Commission: the preliminary design of the tract presented some deviation from Code requirements and would have some definite implication on the design of the tract ~ ~ to be submitted in the future - therefore, the Commission might wish to consider continua- ; tion of subject petition, i ~ , Cormnissioner Herbat offered a motion to recommend approval of Petition for Reclassification i No. 68-69-88 wieh lots of 60 feet which backed up to the R-1 County tract to the west. ' aeputy ~ity Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that it would be rather difficult ~ ~eg~lly to enfcsrce conditional zoning, and that in all probability a variance request ~ would be ~eceasary because of possible design of the tracc indicating side-on lots rather ' than rear-on lots as zequired under Section 18.04,075. ~ Commiasionex Herbst withdrew hia motion of approval. ~ Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Reclassi- ~ fiaati-on No. 68-69-88 to the meeting of June 2, 1969, in order to allow time for the ~aeti'tioner to submit a tract map indicating lot cuts along the west property line to be ia co~formance with the exiating R-1 tract of 60-foot lots and for a possible variance petition requesting waiver of side-on lots. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED~ ' AMENDMENT TO THE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~ ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing to consider CODE an amendment to Title lA of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.28, ; R-2, Multiple-Family P.esidential, Zone and Chapter 18.32, R-3, i Multiple-Family Residential, Zone - Off-street parking, accessways ~ and circulation. ~ Subject Code amendment was continued from the meeting of April 7, 1969, in order to allow ~ time for the Orange County Chapter of the Building Industry Association of California to analyze the staff's proposal and present their recommendations to the Commission, ! , Assistant Planner William Young reviewed for the Coaanission the data presented by the ~ Building Industry Association of California (BIA), Orange County Chapter, as presented i in the Report to the Coimatssion, noting the reduction in the recommended number of parking ~ spsces by BIA was '~ for bachelor or singlea, ~ for one and two bedrooms, and '~ for three ~ or more bedrooms; that 1 covered parking space per living unit was recommended with the exceptions Chat a carport should be defined as having a roof rather than enclosed on f three sides, that tandem, mechanical, or structural parking be permitted as methods of ~ fulfilling parking requirements, and crediC be given for dedicated street frontage where (~ parking was permitted to meet open or guest parking requirements; that re-study and ! ci.~zification of the screening of parking facilities from adjacent streets`and properties and living and recreational-leisure areas be made; and that any amendments to the Anaheim Municipal Code not be made retroactive prior to the date of application for reclassifica- tion of land to multiple-family residential uses. ? Mr. Young then reviewed ehe recommendations of the staff and the comparisons of the requests made-by BI.~ and the reasoning for staff not recommending some of the changes. Mr. M. Douglas, 524 West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, representing the Betker- Fredricks Development Cou~pany, appeared before the Commission and noted he was also appearing on behalf of the Building Industry Association of California (BIA), Orange County Chapter; that his compan?~ owned and operated 3,000 apartment units in Orange ; -" ~ ~~ ~;:<~~~ ~w~ ~~.~~,~ '~,a~,"`~ ~~:.~~ d~ ~~y~„p[v'`t '~rarF~ ~ : ~ 5 ~' ` ~ ,; } ?S ,-~- ": ~" r 't_- ~ ~ ~' . ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 5, 1969 4498 APIENDMENT TO THE - County, with the majority of them being in the City of Anaheim; that ANAHEII~ MUNICIPAL this represented a 36 million dollar income property; that from their CODE experience, coupled with experience and knowledge gained from a recent (Continued) investigation with developers, he felt qualified in presenting his recommendations on behalf of the BIA regarding parking requirements for apartment complexes; that it was just as important to khe owners- operators of apartment complexes to have the proper parking ratio as it was to the City since their tenants would be affected by a shortage of parking. Mr. Douglas further noted that most of the developers who had been consnlted prior to the public hearing were developers who retained their developmente for long-time, long-range income property~ and that the data preaented by the BIA, which he then reviewed, incor- p~:rated their comments, namely: 1'~ parking apaces for bachelor apartments; 1'~ parking spaces for one and two bedrooms; and 2 parking spacea for three or more bedrooms, said pa..rki~g to be met either with tandem, mechanical, or structural,.off=street parking areas; that a minimum of 1:1 ratio of covered parking ahould be required; that credit should be given for on-atreet parking along dedicated etreet fsontagea; that the requirement for covered parking spaces within 200 feet of a dwelling unit and a dwelling unit within 200 feet of a standard street should be eliminated; that consideration be given to amend the definition of a carport by defining a carport or covered apace as with a roof only; that clarification and reatudy of the requirement for parking facilities being screened from adjacent propertiea, living, and recreational-leisure areas, as well as streets, be considered; and that the effective date ahould not be retroactive beyond the date of apklication of a reclasaification of land for multiple-family residential use. Mr, Douglas also noted that in the surveya recently conducted in the North Rrange County area with 5700 apartment dwellers regarding the number of automobiles in Pach family, the ratio was 5.4% who had no vehicles; 51~5% had one vehicle; 37.87. hsu two vehicles; and 5.3% had three or more vehicles - therefore, on this basis, the stateLeent made in the Report to the Commission regarding the number of reqistered cars in Orange County would indicate there were more vehicles in the R-1 hom~s than in the apartment develop- ments, and this was further complicated by commercial and industrial vehicles. A survey wae made in Orange County recently, Mr. Douglas continued, specifically in Anaheim between the hours of 11:00 A.M. and 3:00 P,M., which indicated there was no need for more than 1'~ parking spaces per unit; that because the City had a few bachelor units was not important - however, in three-bedroom apartments the requirements for parking were similar to residences; that the City of Tustin had recently amended their parking requirements to conform with that reco~nended by the BIA; that the BIA and his company would be the first to admit that the 1~ parking spaces minimum requirement of the City of Anaheim was in- adequate since this did not take care of peak weekends, even though many tenants weekended elsewhere; that the 2;1 ratio required for planned reaidential developments was unrealis- tic since there was always a surplus of parking spaces, and, rherefore, this represented a waste of land, Mr. Dougla,~c noted the reason for re::ommending that oae covered parking space be required for eanh =x~it was based on the fact that management usually asaigned a garage or carport £or each ±auartment, and it would be difficult to police the balance of the parking to assure that carports for units having two or more bedrooma had their additional parking - therefore, the recommendation for the balance c±f the parking to be in open parking would reduce the shortage of parking for guests and would further allow parking for campers, boata, and trailers which could not be stored in carports because of their size„ Cownissioner Rowland inquired whether or n~t Mr. Douglas had any data or opinion on provid- ing all open parking, Mr. Douglas replied that the tenanta in their facilities preferred covered parking; that his report indicated storage was a necessity, and the requirement of the City of Anaheim of 100 cubic feet for storage in each carport was adequate - however, the requirement for enclosure of carporta on three sides wae archaic since an automobile was not an ugly or undeairable item and did not require screening; that most cities did not require this, and up to the pzesent time their company had been unable to design parking structures that could accomplish this economically and yet be eathetically acceptsble. Furthermore, credit should be given for all on-street parking in computing the uncovered parking requirements, and where heavily traveled streets necessitated or prohibite3 curb parking, then off-atreet parking should be provided. Commissioner Gauer then inquired of the areas in which theae stu3ies had been made - were many vehicles found parked on streets? Mr. Douglas responded that it was a foregone conclusion that the tenants would park on the atreeta even though parking was provided - however, open parking would encourage a tenant to park off-atreet aince he would not be forced to battle parking his vehicle with walls and posta. y.: ::;;- ,...,...... ,., _ ...,,,,_ .._. , , ~ ~ _ t~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COPII4ISSION, May 5, 1969 4499 AMENDMENT TO THE - Commissioner Herbst inquired whether or not the BIA had fi.gures on ANAHEIM MUNICIPl~L the r_umber of compact cars per apartment development.. CODE (Continued) Mr. Douglas noted that he had been approache+d recently by another develog~er regarding this figure, and although he could not accurately state the percentage, it was in the vicinity ~f 15%, The Commission then inquired as to the method of assuring guesr parking, to which Mr. Douglas noted that guest cars could not be identified, bu! from the management atandpoint and the environment of the tenant, the more ope.t*, parking would resolve this problem since with co.vered parking as now required, guestR were: hesitant to use a parking space which might be assigned. Mr; Douglas, in response to the Commission inquiry as to designated guest parking areas, stated he had no occasion to do this since the tenants had never asked this be done, and. it was not the desire of management to start policing the parking arean, and the fewer the rules and regulations, the happier the tenants would be, Mr. Douglas, in reviewing tandem parking, c'.ated that he could not become very enthusias- tic about this type of parking for automobiles except possibly for boats and trailers which might not be used except on weekends, Commissioner Rowland then noted that Mr, Douglas had raised a number of questions, and it mighC be to the Commission's advantage to have further statistics on parking experienced by other apartment developers since the City needed amendments to the R-3 Code - therefore, continuance for the submission of additional data would be helpful, as well as givi-g the Coimnission time to assimilate the data presented at this hearing because the initial report submitted by BIA was not too different from that which the staff had presented. However, the statements made by Mr. Douglas had emphasized a number of problems which should be thoroughly investigated to make sure the amount of land needed for parking was adequate, but not being wasted. Commissioner Gauer noted that every time the Commissi_on had a reclassification for multiple-family development, the major complaint seemed to be parking by the tenants in the street, either in the residential streets or alang streets which made it difficult for children when walking to and from school. , Mr. Douglas advised tha Commission that in order additional information might be gathered, it would be necessary to have at least thirty days to obtain this; that he would dislike seeing apartment complexes being built with inadequate parking such as was being exper;.- ~~ enced in Fullerton where many of the tenants were receiving traffic tickets; and that =` temporary "no parking" for street cleaning was acceptable-however, '~no parking" on streets ` for any length of time was undesirable. Commissioner Camp offered a motion to continue consideration of ameudments to Title 18, ` Chapter 18.28 and Chapter 18.32 regarding parking requirements to the meet•Lng of June 16, i 1969, to allow time for additional data to be assembled by the BIA and incorporated in ~; the Report to the Commission for further perusal. Commissioner Herbst seconded the ~` motion. MOTION CARRIED. 1 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 RECOI~SENDATkONS Orange County Use Variance No. 6240 - Establish an r~ffice trailer for the sale of homes in Tract Yo. 540~ - Northwest: corner of f Esperanza Road and Fairmont Boulevard in the Yorba Lind~ area. i Assistant ~oning Supervisor Pat Br~wn presentQd Orange County Use Variance No. 6240 to ~ the Planning Coaunission, noting the location oi the property and the request to establish an office trail•er in the central part of a shopping center for a period of one year as a temporary real eatate office for the sale of homes in Tract Noe 5400 in tha PC, Planned Community Drstrict located in the Yorba Linda area. Mr. Brown then reviewed Section 18.04,020(4) of the Anah?im Municipal Code regarding } temporary real estate office use and temporary real estate billboard use for any new ~ subdivision. t•' i: Commissioner Gauer offered a-motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange 1`' Cocnfy Planning Commission be urged to require review of any future requeats for exten- ' sion of time for the use proposed under Orange County Use Variance No. 6240, if subject '" petition was considered fa~orably, Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTIGN CARRIED. ~ ~ , _._.., _ . . ., - -- ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES;;.CITY PI,ANNING COMISISSION, May 5, 1969 4500 'REPORTS AND. . - ITEM N0. 2 RECOLIl~NDATIONS Orange.County Use Variance No. 6244 - Establiah a mobile home park (Continued) Propeity located bn the easL side of Douglas Avenue, approximately 1,050 feet north of Katella Avenue, bounded on the north by the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way and on the east by the Santa Ana River - 2oned A1, General Agricultural District. Aseistant Zoning:Supervisor Pat Brown preaented Orange County Use Variance No. 6244 to the Planning Commiasion, reviewing the location of the property and a detailed report !regarding the proposed use.' Diacussion.was held by the Commisaion as to the inappropriateness of the proposed use and its effect on the Southeast Induatrial Area s3nce mobile homes were not considered an interim'use due to the expense involved in establishing such a facility; and the injecEion of reaidential traffic into an area already being developed for industrial purposes which could have a deleterious effect on continued industrial development in this area. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County Planning Co~ission be urged to deny Orange County Use Variance No. 6244, on the basis that the propoaed use would be deleterious to the existing and future development of the Southeast Industrial Area, due to the incampatibility of the industrial and residential uses; and that the Commission further recommenda that the City Council go on'record by stating that the City of Anaheim would not provide services or utilities to the proposed mobile home park in the event that the County approved t}ie request. Commissioner Herbat seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 3 Orange County Uae Variance No, 6243 - Establish a parking lot in the R3, Apartment District - Property located on the south side of 23a11 Road, approximately 380 feet east of Gilbert Street. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown preaented Orange County Use Variance No. 6243 to the Planning Counaission~,noting the location of the p_operty, exiating zoning, and the proposal to establieh a parking lot, together with the conversion of an existing single= family dwelling for storage and office use in connection with existing medical facilities on the`ad,jacent property. ` , Mr. Brown further noted that the Anaheim Municipal Code did not permit the use of an R-3 zoned lot for commercial parking purposes, and since the proposed use was to be adjacent to an existing medical-profesaional use, the most appropriate zone for the parking lot would be the County of Orange PA, Professional-Administrative District; and that if the Commission deemed the proposed use inappropriate in the existing zone, thereby recommending that the use variance be denied, the alternatives as recommended by the staff be considered by the Orange County Planning Commiasion. Commissioner Camp offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Thom, and MOTION CARRIED, to recommend to the City Council that the Opange County Planning Cormnission be urged to deny Orange County Use Variance No..6i43 on the basis that the use was more apgropriate in the PA, Professional-Administrative District; however, if the Orange County Planning Commission determines the use ie appropriate, the following recommendations be considered; 1. Appropriate rezoning of the property be accomplished by the petitioners. 2. ,The er.isting single-family reaidential structure located on the property, which is proposed to be used for atorage and as an office, be removed within two years. 3. That the following site development standards be accomplished in the event either sub3ect variance is approned at this time or appropriate rezoning is later approved: a. A minimum 3~foot wide landscapPd area along the front property line. b. A 6~foot masonry,wall be constructed adjacent to any surrounding residential properties, stepped down to 42 inches in the front setback areas. co That tree screen landacaping on 20-foot centers be provided adjacent to any -required wall. d. That a minimum of 2% of xhe interior area of the parking lot shall be land- scaped, evenly distributed throughout the lot. ee That all such landscr.ped areas be irrigated and permanently maintained. f. That the parking area lot shall be surfaced with appropriate material, and all parking spaces adequately striped. \: . , ,~~; ~m ^~ r..rPZ . ,. F~:s iY, r..F,n.z F L,.a., ,+ r~,,,ilv=';; t,y~ :. ~ . .. , . ~ . .. ~ . , -~ . . . . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . i _. .. ~ ~. Ox' ~ .. . . . ~ . . ~ . ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 5~ 1969 4501 ~EPORTS AND - ITEM N0, 4 RECOMMENDATIONS VARIANCE N0. 2022 (Demetrious & Del Guercio - Ponderosa Mobile (Cantinued) Home Sales) -••property located on the southwest side of Manchester Avenue between Orangewood and Chapman Avenues - Request for a six- month extension of time to permit temporary mobile home sales, Assistanf Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and the previous;Commiasion action in approving Variance No, 2022, granting temporary mobile home sales for a period of six months,:with tfie provision that an additional six months might be granted if.requested of the Co~nission, which the petitioner was now doing. Mr. Brown.further noted;that the Ponderosa Mobile Home Park was located to the esouth ~ and west of aubject property, and sales were primarily for residents of this mobile home park. CoAnniesioner Gauer offered a motion to grant a six-month extension of time to allow temporary mobile home sales on the property at 2333 South Mancheater Avenue, said time extension to expire October 21, 1969. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion, MOxION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 5 CONDTTIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 300 (Global Van Lines, Inc.) - Property located on the south side of Ball Road and the west side of the Santa Ana Freeway - Request for approval of revised plans. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pat grown presented revised plans to the Commission which indicated an addition of 28,000 square feet of office space and a second level parking structure to the corporate headquarters of Global Van Lines located at Ball Road and the Santa Ana Freeway, noting the previous action by the Commiasion and permission of parking requirements for.the proposed~faci•lity to be based upon the formula of one parking space far each one and one-half employeea granted by the City Council on April 30, 1963. Air. Brown then noted that the revised plans indicated the 28,000-square foot office space would bring the total area to 61,041 feet, and repreaentatives of Global Van Lines had indicated 180 persons were presently employed, and they`anticipated an additional 150-170 employeea to occupy the new facilities, and in order to provide parking facili- tiea for these a itional employees, a parking structure was proposed to be developed above the exiating~ truck parking area and over the existing sutomobile parking area immediately east of the office building; said parking structure would be built within 5~ feet from the southeast and southweat property lines, and landscaping was being provided in this area. Therefore, with the additional parking structure, this would bring the total parking, exclusive of truck parking area, to 263 spaces, whereas upon the formula approved by the City Council, 233 parking spaces would be required; that new parking standards had been adopted since the Global building was originaily approved, and for camparative purpoaea, 244 spacea would be required for 61,000 square feet of general business offices and 183 spaces for corporate headquarters offices - thereior~e, the number of spaces proposed would be in excess of that required. Commissioner Thom offered a motion to approve revised plans marked Revision No. 3, Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3~ 4, 5, and 6 of Conditional Use Permit No. 300. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 6 CONDZTIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 107 - 2ion Lutheran Church - New church and school facilities located at the southeast corner of East and Cypress Streets - Request for extension of time and approval of reviaed plans. Zoning Supervisor Charlea Roberts,presented a request from the Zion Lutheran Church for approval of the revised master plan marked Exhibit No. 1; Revision No, l; and Exhibit Nos, 2.through 6, Eogether with a request for an extension of time to complete conditions , included within the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 107. Mr. Roberts further,reviewed previous City Council action taken on May 2 and October 31, 1961, approving extensions of time, and on April 26, 1962, granting a temporary waiver of street lighting asseasment on the Cypress Street frontage until a building permit was issued. r~C'! ~ i . r w, • y. .r ^ k y ~. ~g . C r y ,~ _1r'~", ru ~~3 a n ~ _ ,~ } . a ~.i ~ ~ ~~"'2...~'_d3. , „4..a+, ,~t.- ~ _ ...roo. '~ r_ tlmt 3a. }ti: L- ,~'S _~ _ . .. ~ - ~ ~ ~~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PT.ANNING COMMISSION, May 5, 1969 4502 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 6 (Continued) Co~iasioner Camp offered a motion to reco~nend to the City Council that a one-year - extension of time, to expire May 5, 1970, for the completion of conditions included in the approval of Conditional Use Permit No,. 107 be granted; and that revised master plan marked ExhibiE No, 1, Reviaion No. 1, and Exhibit Nos. 2 through 6 be approved subject to the addiEion of the following conditiona: 1, That the owner of aubject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a strip of land 40 feet in width, from the centerline of the street along East Street, for street widening purpoaes. 2e That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of 15p per front foot along East and Cypress St=eets, for tree planting purposes. Commisaioner Herbat seconded the motion. MOTZON CARRIED. ITEM N0. 7 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 115 - Considering an amendment to the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan - Reclassifying West Street from Hampshire Avenue to Cerritoa Avenue from a secondar.y highway to a major highway, and eatablish a precise alignment for West Street extending from approximately 122 feet north of the centerline of Hampshire Avenue to its existing alignment on the south side of Ball Road. Asaistant Planner William Young indicated that all data regarding the proposed General Plan amendment was before the Commission, as well as th2 precise alignment, and if the Co~mnisaion had any additional questions, he was available to answer them. Co~;issioner Gauer inquired [he reasoning behind the Engineering Department recommending Alternative A since a number of residential single-family homea would be displaced; to which Mr. Young atated'the alignment would be necessary whether or not the Center City link was established across the freeway, and it was necessary to protect any considera- tion of right-of-way providing for circulation into the Co~nercial-Recreation Area, and that the,property under Alternative B was considerably more expensive than the homes if.condemnation proceedings:were considered. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to direct the Commission Secretary to aet for public hearing General Plan Amendment No. 115 and consideration of the precise alignment for West Street extending from approximately 122 feet north of the centerline of Hampshire Avenue to align with Ball Road and its present alignment as depicted under Alternatives A and B, said public hearing to be scheduled for the evening meeting at 7:30 on May 19, 1969. Coannissioner Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CAC.RIED. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Co~issioner Herbst offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED„ The meeting adjourned at 5:30 P.M. Respect£ully submitted, ~~,L~ ~;'~~~ ANN latEBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission 'r ; . i : ~ , ,: i / . ~~~