Loading...
Minutes-PC 1969/07/14~~ . . . . F; 5~~ , v ~'' y ,{„ ~ ~' i~ R 1 k h 1r+. ~ t "`n}` L , l r~T~~k~ r~Vf~ '~. yY~~, ~~ ai~'~ C~ 1_~+x~y, tt~- vl {> R t~~+ ~,<^'h ~ 7 u~+` ~~~ ~~'~ ~ ..~['z,",~} ~1~' 1 7 ~". f y x, ."r Jjn' 1 L3 "~~4. ~ ~. C Rrc y 'S ~'i^~ Y' ~ 'T ~ ~ y~ } ° r ~ '~ ~ C ~ ~ / Y~' ~ 5V~ u . ~' f^~' / ,'.~. r~.~ ~. . f~ . t yJ~.. ~rn ~ r{ . J' 7 ' ~ '"5~,4" .. . f. + "~ a-~ ' " q,~,A J+ S ~ e~ G'.~^i} ~ 4 '~ .~'F~.L. f`V~y,.,,) . ~ ~ ~ L ~ L~W"' " ~ ."3''V'X~ . t ~. W " ~ : .. Y~.t ~. Y ~ + S~ 1}. S ~ ' ti' '~ 5 - ~ ~~ ~ , ~'r , a , +.~ ~' ~ a' a ,~ Jy' ,5, 5 f~ .~ . W.h i~ . i ~ . T ~y, ' z Ky y ++ a~. 7~ j~~ dt,F,~ y w a5~` . y t ~ u 3r ti~` _ 1 s .4. y~ iF FJ 4`fi t . ,1 L s+n ~, , . 1 ~ {~ f `~. , ~ z , . . i .i . . ~ . hk ~~' ~ J 4 LX ,~ , '1 ~ . ~ l ~.. A . ` L ' }' 3 Lrt . t ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ : s ~ ' f ~ . ~ '~)k ~ . .r ~ ~ ~ ' 4 . ~ . ,~ ~ , ~z ~ ~ Y y , x f ~ i ~ t~. k 4 I ,u . '~6 , . r q;y~ 1 ~~C+1G' .df~~~. ~ L . S GS , 4 '1 G ~ . i. i nr ~r m q r f ~ ~ . , ~ ~ _ 1 -. J ~ J ' ~~~ ~ ~ 1 , ~~ < ~ ~ . ~~ ~ . ir F r^rrs 5 1 N y ~,: ~ ~ r F ~ ~- ~ d~~ 1 ~ ~ ~R 3 ~ ~~ a ~ i ~ r l ~ j . '~y~; t ~ ~f . ~w± W~ r . ; , ~ ~ ~ f "~' x ~; y s ' ~ , r ~ k d ~ n . ~ f~~ : i ~ ~ -" a~ t N }, ., ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i,y . S ~ .. l 1PX~ ii T~. ~ ~ ' ' i 4 1 : 4 1 ~ tr l. 1 . _ . ._ , ` . ~ ( a ~i5 . 1t~J~S.4?a J \ ., t ~~ . - 1 ~, + ~ ' ; ~ , ~ . G.v ~ J • i ~y. -'~ i ~y ~i ~ i S / 5 ~~ ' . . y. ~ ' , r ~ ~"'' ~ 3 ~ k ,~ ~ ~ Z" ~ ~' . YI F i r; e~ v ~ ~:,~ ~ ~ - . ,~ . ~ E_? 4~ y ' ' ~ ~ _ ,a,,,. i ~~.: ~- ; . ; < < ,w ~ ~' ~ F~~~%` . , 4: N r uC S' * _ _ ~ ' e a 4 - ~,~" ~ ~h k 7 ~ t fil : .. - i .. • 1 ~~ Y . . ~:'~~ . . ..., . ' ' ~ ~ ;... ,:. '":: ... .. . . . .. ~. ~ . ~ . )'t ' ' . . - • ~:~'~ I x . ~ " ~' . . ... , .. I . .. ~ 1 i ~ . ~~`~I . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . } . ~~ . . .. . . . . . . . . . ~ . j.~•._ ~ .. . ~ ~ . . .. • ,~ . . . . ~ . . j ~. ~ . . ' ~ :; . ~. . ~ ; ~ ~ ~ .., ~ . .. '. . . . . .. ~ ~ . I . . . . i.. . , . i5 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~~; 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ' . p' ' . . " ~ . . ~ . . ~ , ~ . . ~ r~~ ~. t ,. . " : . ~. . ' .. . ~ ~ . ~ . . . . zs" ~ ~ ~ 1' ~ .. , . , . S r~'~. ~ ~ . . ~. `' _ ±.{. ~4 _. . ~ ~~~ . n:• ~ . . . . ~ . ~ . .. ' . ~ . . . ~ . ~ . ~ . . . . ~ ~ . ::. i,- . ~ .. ~ _ . . . . . . ~ ~ ~ .. ,~ :.~ ~ ' : . . . . . .~ -. ~' . ~ . :i . ~ .~ ~. . .. . I . G ~: ; . ~ `~ ~ ro ~~ ~ t a ~ ; ~~ ~ ,i . ~,~~ ~ ~`~~ ~ ~~, <J ~l: ~t ~ ~ m ~ . ro , . . . ~ ~rm . . .. . . Cz s ~ ~ ~J ~ ~ . r . . ~: ., . . ~ ~ ~ `~ .: - ~ . ~ ' ~ ~ >s ~ " ~y . _ . .. ., . . .,. . , : ~ . i.: ... ~ . ~~ ~ , . . ' . . .. .. ~. . - . , - - ~ ~O - ; • i ~ ~t~ ;r .,:' ~ .. ~~~ L ~ ~~ ,.. ~~f ~ ~ ~ ~ :~j ~Y L :415tM~ ~ ' l ' ^~v~f r~ ~ ' Y ~ _ ,~~' ~ ~~ .~'~_ ,:fi ~ r . ~ y ~ .. 1.. ~ ~~ f-w . ~ _ 'r ~ ~ L~ ,G~ '~ ~ ~l-~1Nlar_ r~wf~,i~p~~' ~ t ^ t~ `• { ~ ~ , ._-1r ~ i ~~~ 1 ~~. ~y~,t . ,~,.,,.~ - ` ~ .~~1.5~ _ ~i9JLNY'~.If'~S.mL,:w »"s3tSw%?:A'MeK~~.Ma'Lr..;.~uw 4.^1~.•~id_tikt}:~1fiWi~lYi~'~', _......Ce'.s`'':i - __ ..~r )•..•`. ~ ~ ~ City Hall Anaheim, CaliforniF: July 14, 1969 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anal~eim City Planning Coumission was called to order by Chairman pro tem Rowland at 2;00 o'clock P.M., a quorwa being preaent. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: Rowland. - COI~AfISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Thom. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbat, PRESENT - Developmeat Services Director: A1an.G...Oraborn Aeaiatant Development Services Director; Ronald Thompaon Deputy City Attorney; Frank Lowry OEfice Engineer; ,Tay Titus Zoning Supervisor: Charles Roberts Aeais~ant Zoning Supervieor: pgt g=~ Planning Commiasion Secretary; Ann Kreba PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commisaioner Camp led in the Pledge of Allegiance Co the Flag. APPROVAL OF ~ Cummiseioner Thom offered a motion to approve the Minutea for the THE MINUTES evening hearing of the meeting of June 18, and the Minutea of the meeting of June 30, 1~69, as eubmitted, aeconded by Commisaioner Farano, and MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE -.CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL~ 204 East PERMIT N0, 1120 Lincoln Avenue~ to consider the ESTABLISHIfENT OF A METP..OPORT WITH RELATED FACI~,ITIES on property deacribed~ ae: Parcel 1- An irregularly ahaped parcel of land conaieting of appro,ximately 42 acree, having approximate frontagee of 2,600 feet on the north aide of Or~tngewood Avenue and 615 feet on the eaet aide of State College Boulevard and 800 feet along the weat bank of the Santa Ana River and having a maximum depth of approximately 750 feet from Orangewood Avenue; and Parcel 2- An irregularly ahaped parcel of land coneisting of approximatelry 43 acrea, having approximate frontages of 1,900 feet on the south aide of Orangewood Avenue and 1,000 feet along tb~fi west bank of the Santa Ana River and having a maximum depth of approximately 1,070 feet from Orangewc,~d Avenue~ the weatezly boundary of eubject property being approximately 750 feet eaet of State College Boulevard. Property presently claseified M-1, LJ.GHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Subject petil•ion was continued from the meeting of June 18, 1969, to allow time far the etaff to review the coamenta of both the Planning Commiesion and the opponenta, and to prepare additionai conditiona and restrictione for consideration by the Commiseion. Zoning Supervieor Charlee Roberts addresaed the Coc~ission and etated the public hearing on sub~ect petition wae conducted on June 18, 1969, at thn Anaheim Stadi~. The topfc of the conditional uae permit was the propoeal initisted by the City Council of the City of Anaheim to eetabliah a metroport with related facilitiee on the properCy i~edi- ately south of the Anaheim Stadium. The total area being included in the conditional uae permit amounted to 85 acree. Mr. Roberts further noted that at the hearing thare wae a conaiderable amount of die- cusaion on the part of the people in oppoeition to the proposal and a considerable amount of diacueeion held by the Planning Commiseion, and ae e reeult of theae dis- cuseiona, the.conditional uea permiC wae continued to thie met!ting in order to allow additional time for the formuletion •,f additional conditione and restrictionn to be applicable to the metroport if the proposal was approved, A preliminary liet of euggeated conditione was eubmitted to the Planning Coam-iesion on June 30~ 1969, and aince that time there have been additional confarencee held on the mattar, tha original liat of conditione has baen modifiad elightly, and all the Cormnieeionere now have a copy o£ the modiEied liat o£ auggeeted racommandatione. It wae felt that the conditione ae reconmended to the Comeaieeion, at thia time, ara morn definitive and ehould provide 4709 ~~ ~'+~~1~"'¢~#}a'~,:rf ~~~~"~ r : y + ~ ` ~',rt ~'fg'"~+~.~ ~' " ;,~ t,-t' ~ siaw,~r,. _ .. 1 ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLF,NNING COMMISSION, July 14, 1969 4710 CONDITIONAL USE - for more practical implementation of the metroport plan. If the PERMIT N0. 1120 Cammission would desire that the staff go into any detail on the (Continued) suggested conditiona, he would be glad to do so, Or if the Coarmission has any questions of the staff regarding the conditions, the staff would attempt to answer them. Chairman pro tem Rowland noted that the public hearing as such was closed at the June 18 meeting; however, if any of the Co~issioners have any queatione which they would like answered from individvals in the audience, this could be done even though the public hearing was closed. Co~niasioner Gauer asked that the suggested conditions be read for all interested persons to hear; whereupon Mr. Roberts read the recommended conditions as follows: a. Noiae levels of aircraft utilizing the metroport shall not exceed the noise levela developed by the DeHavilland Ttvin Otter or shall in no event exceed 100 PNDB on take-off. (All sound readings to be made in accordance with accepted measuring atandarde.) b. Aircrsf*_ shall be required to enter the flight pattern in conformaace with FAA regulations and wherevei posaible approacix the pattern along the freeways or the rit;er. The flight pattern shall be in accordance with that approved by t:~e FAA and State Department of Aeronautica and be in substantial accord with the design ahown on Exhibit A on file with the City of Anaheim. c. Conditione of operation shall, at all timea, conferm to the limits of all FAA require~enta. d. Airaraft shall be equipped with Decca instrumentation or equivalent aystem when it beca,ses avsilable and ia approved by the Ft~.A. e. Should any devia~ion from the foregoing conditions be desired by the metroport operatora, anch deviation ahall be brought before ihe City Council of the City of Anaheim and receive the approval of that body before being put into efft-ct. It is exgresaly underetood th•at violation of these conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the conditional use pexmit. f. That aub,ject propexky shall be developed subatantially in accordance with plans on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibita A, B, and C. Mr. Roberte noted that one additional change was proposed for the first condition, that being the word "STOL" after the t:~ird word of the firat sentence. The Co~ission then di~cueaed the third conditinn, noting that they expresaed the desire to have included "operation during daylight houra anly". Mr. Roberta then noted that the Commisaion's desire to include "during daylight houra only" wae for amplificatic+n purposes and should also include viaual flight rulea or VFR. Commiaeioner Faraao inquired as to where the exhibita referred were located. Mr. Roberte replied that Exhibit A repreaented the flight pattern plan which was before the Coffinnisaiun at the June 18 hearing. Exhibit B was the plan which indicated the propoaed location of the pximarq aurface or metroport facility. Exhibit C was the concept plan posted on the west wall of the Council Chamber which ahowed the propoaed terminal facilities, landing pads, parking facilities, runways, taxiways, etc. Commisaioner Gauer then noted that the Co~isaionera had received a letter signed by four ~naheim reaidents which wae then read as followa: "We the reeidents of the City of Anaheim continue to oppoae the establiah- ment oE the Metroport at the site proposed by the aCaff. We feel that the ataff has not deaonetrated that there is a public need for the Anaheim residents for this facility at this location. In any event the suggested conditiona to be impased on the Metroport as preaented by qour ataff are comQletely inadequate for the protection of the residenta of the area. Our comments and auggeations are as follows: "Condition No, 1 as proposed by the staff exhibits a lack of under- standing of the fundamentals of sound, We suggeat the following: "No aircraft ahall be permitted to use the Metroport if the perceived noise level generated by the aircraft exceeds 95 decibels at any V `~`Y __~.. ~ '~ ~.;~ ~ ~ ~•~ ' ~~' ~ ~ : ~ ~~ ii: MINUTES~ CITY PLF;NNING COMMISSION, July 14, 1969 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1120 (Continued) 4711 point 500 feet from the sircraft, Measurements to demonatrate conformance with this requirement wili be made at 45 degree increments 500 feet from the aircraft in a 360 degree circle. Measuremec-ts will be taken when all the aircxaxt's enginea are running at Eull take-off power. Noiae tests of any sircraft prespoaed for service at the Metroport will be performed by the City of Anaheim. Noise test data submitted bq the operator will nc~t be acceptable as evidence of conformance. The operator of the sircraft will provide the aircraft for the teats as requ.irad. Re-test of aircraft to demonstrate conti.nued confoxm- ance with neiae requirements may be required from t:ime to time but not more frequently than every 6 months. If, t~t any fucure time, tae State or Federal government adopt noise atandarda which are applicable to the operation of aircrafC from a Metroport, sueh standarda will apply in lieu of the noise standarda established by the conditional use permit if the atandards adopted by the atate or federal gevernments are more stringent thaa the standards pre- acribed by the conditional use permit. Otherwiae the conditional usa persit standards will prevail. "Conditicn ~;o. 2 again shows a lack of information on the part of the staff. The only reqnirement as to entering a flight pattern as set forth by the FPA is that the entrance be at a 45 degree angle. The homeowners and residente require greater protection than this. [Je suggest that the condition be worde3 as follows: •:~`+ "The fligb.t pattern ahall be in accordance with that approved by '.>;~~ the FL~4 and State Department of Aeronautics and be in subatantial s`,i~ accord with the deaign shown on Exhibit A, on file with the City •'~I of Anaheim and all aircraft Shall be required to enter and depart •'~~ from the Metroport along the route of the freeways or the Santa ~ Ana River. No aircraft shall fly outatde the outer flight limits ; s ae aet forth on the map ehown as bchibit A~ attached hereto and `}:;~.( ~':^,;,.~ made a part hereoE. "Conditioa No. 3 is completely meaninglesa. Of course the operatora will contorm to the FAA requiremente. The FAA regulations are inadequate and insufficient as to protection of the landowners and resideats. "Conditien No. 4 ia a completely meaningleas requirement. The Decca system is an enroute navigational system only. It ia not an approach control or collision avoidance system, "Conditioa No. 5 is alright as far as it goea, hnwever., it doea not pravide for n~tice to the ttomeowners who might be affected by the deviation or changea thac might be made. We therefore auggest that this requirement be changed to read as follows: "Any change in ccaditions or limitatione impoaed by the planning commieaion ahall be submitted to the City Council of the City of Anaheim and said body ahall act on auch requeated changea or modificationa. Provided, however, that no such changea or modificationa ahall be appzoved by the City Council unlesa and until notices ahal.l have been aent by U.S. mail to all property ownera in the City of Anaheim aouth of Lincoln Avenue and east of East Street and to the City Clerk of the City of Orange. Failure to notify said property ownera shall void any such proposal Co moci:.fy the conditions and limitationa. "Condition No> 6; Sub~ect to our review and approval of Exhibits B and C, we would faver thia condition as proposed by the staff. "In addition ta the staff recommendationa~ we would propoae the following limitationa and conditions be impoaed on the Conditional Use Permit, grnv;.ding it is granted: "1. The Lotal number of aircraft located on the proposed Metrogort site at any one time in any condition or statua shall not exceed four in number. ~r~ -v~ - f.L~IR~+~~:w. 1.... - 1 ~:n Z''%* .i ~ (~.~, l.': . . . . r . . , ... .. . . . . . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . ` ~~~.. .. ~. Q ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 14~ 1969 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1120 !Continued) ~ 4712 "2. Flighta ahall be made to and from thia Propoaed Metroport only between the hours of aunrise and aunset, "3. The only aircraft permitted to.uae the proposed Metroport shall be DeHavilland Ttain Ottera operating as an "air carrier" in the traneportation of paesengera and freight. No heli- copters ahall be permitted to land or take off from the proposed Metroport. "4. In conjunetion with the maintenance of any aircraft at the proposed Metroport aite the following limitations ahall apply. "a. Any "Run-up" of any aircraft engine under repair or maintenance ahall be limited to the hours of eunriae to aunaet. , "b. No more than one sircraft engine shall be "Run-up" at any one time. "c. No more than three sircraft engines ahall be "Run-up" in any one day noz any one engine "Run-up" more than three times in one day. "d. No "Run-up" ehall continue for more than two minutes at any one time, "5. Any violation of any of the foregoing conditiona shall be cauae for revocation of the Conditional Uae Permit. .-,-:~ "6. Notti,.ithstanding any other provieion af law, as to the eatablishment of the proposed Metroport, the City of Anaheim ahall be bound by all~proviaione of Anaheim Municipal Code including the provieiona covering and governing revocation of Conditional Uae Permita. "We the underaigneti realize that the pu;3lic hearing has been cloaed, however, aince the time of aloeing, the staff has preaented the conditions you are coneidering ioday, We feel it is only right that you also consider this letter .~ery seriously." (signed) Geral~ H. Vind., 259 So].oman Dr,, Anaheim, California (signed) Dale Jenaen, 2618 Janette Lane, Anaheim, California (aigned) Mary Ruth Ttselen, 2527 Oahkoah A~•enue, Anaheim, Cali£ornia (signed) Stuart D. Noble, 2~26 Whidb~ Lane, Anaheim, California Commisaioner Gauer thiep reviewed the recommended conditiona regarding "run-up" of engines and expresaed concern that th3e condition might not be practical, or whether tne Co~tiseion shouYd give canaideration to it, However, he asawned there would be some form of maintenance, but there wag no indication as to the volume of and magnitude of eaid maintenance proppsed, which could create undue noiae beyond regular operational ~ noiees. The Commisaion ahould, therefore, give hhia some coneideration. ~ I Commieaioner Farano noted tI~at some maintenance was contemplated at the proposed metroport eite, and then requested that Mr, Clyde Barnett elaborate on the type of maintenanne propoaed for the facility. Mr. Clqde Barnett, President of Coamiutercentere, appeared before the Commisaion and etated there would be rautine "thirA. eche2on" maintenance; however, if the enginea would need any overhauling, thie wou.ld be done at a profeasional base where conaiderable amount of apecialized equipment wae available for thie purpoae. There would be no engine overhaul on the ~remiaes, as auch. Furthermore, as far as "run-up" of enginea was concerned~ there was generally no run-up of turbine enginea, but reciprocating enginea had thia need, and the DeHavilland plane proposed to be used had turbine enginea. Commieaioaer Farano then inquired whether Mr.,Barnett viaualized any operation that would require the "run-up" or "rewing" of enginea for any purpoae other than teeting and inatrument reading; and if not, and a condition in the approyal prohibiting the "run-up" of any enginea for other than take-off or inatrument check purpoaes, this would not preaent any type of problem. Mr. Barnett replied negatively. , .;~ :~..> ~,.- 'rYsra- .pt}:~y~~~~~.ax a~..?r i'~ . ~ ~J t - - ---__ _ i. ~;J ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNtNG COMMISSION~ July 14~ i969 4713 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO_ 1120 (Continued) Mr. Thom requested that the term "third echelon" be explained. Mr. Barnett replied this was an old army teYm meaning the uae of a screwdriver, hammer, and pliera being used. Commissioner Camp then aioted he needed additional clarification in Condition "a" where it was reao~ended that "STOL" be inaerted. 4'/as it planned to have helicopters use thia £aci.llty? Mr. Roberta, in reply, atated it w~s anticip:ite@ tha.t helicopters would be utiii~in,g the facility, Commissioner Camp then stated that aince helicoptera would be utilizing this facility, thia ahould be included, such ae VTaT.,, since the restriction as to the ~toise level was for STOL aircraft only_ Mr. Roberts ir.yuirad whether the inaertion of scme pht~aeulogy that would include vertical take-off and landing aircraft aa well was adequate? Cammiasioner Camp responded th'at if the City wae pv:oposi:rg to control noise, which evidently was L•ha purpose S~f C:ite first cond3tion, tt:r:n hali;.opters or other typeF of air~raYe would hav.~ to be incTuded in this ~oise cont:rol factor, rat~er than one type of aircra't wliich waul~'_ be using the facility. Chairnian pro tem Rowland was of the opinion that the noise level would be the governin~ factor regardless of the type of aircraft; STOL or VTOL would have to co*.form with the noise '1eve1 - therefore, no c;~sr.ge need be mac;_ to the condition as it exists. Commiasioner Camp atated he wa:~ not deairous ~f "leaving the door open", reatricting one type of aircraft and not controlling any other type o£ aircraft - therefore, if one is to be restricted, then all should be subject to the same restrictions. Mr. Roberts then inquired whether the original ~wordii:g of Condition "a" of the staff report was edequate. Commiasioner Camp replied either the addition of "STOL/V'i0L" or leave as it is. Co~issioner Thom then inquired whether Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry could enlighten the Cou~isaion as to the correct wording that was necessary to legalize this cc~;2tioi,. Mr. Lowry repli,ed that the addition af the word "all" would be aufficient lnr~ would control any sircraft utilizing the facility, CouCii.seionei` Faratto then co~nented on the letter of cendit~ons which was submitted to eaa}+ Co~isaioner b} Che o~poait3on, which c,atailed all of the noise restrictiona (he then read the conditiox~s), and then i.nquired w5ether. thi8 ahould be included in this rondition; howevtr, he taould be agreeabia to including the word "aIi" ~nd th~en•eliminat- ing any mention to the tyge af aircrafk. b'urthei~suore, it was his opinian that the noiae 1eve1 of 100 PNDB would elimina~e moax hel.icc~tera except the very small ones •~aoul.d that be the net ~£ic?•t c£ the maximum PNDE? Development Servicea Direstor Alan Orsborn responded to the Carmnfasi.on's questions as follows: The preaent app.roval by FAA included both V~OL and STbL a•ircraf~t; that :*TOL aircraft were now £lying over reaidential areas, and as a maiter of fact, tu~> to the south of the proposed metroport site the Cit•y of Oraa~ge has r~cently had a~heiicopter pad at "The City" approved i~y FAA; that he was not certain as to ::hether there were any specific noiae limitatione atCach~d r_u that approval - whether it ~Tould permit both co~ercial and/or private helicopterf~. Therefore, the Co~issior,i's conaern is justified, and if the Co~ission wishes to relate it to the candition, then VTOL as ae11 as STOL should be included, and the limitatioi: ef the PNDB would be the criteria that would be the controlling factor; and since ap+lroval had been received to allow helicopters, then it should be included. Co~issioner Farano noted that all previows teatim.ony +and the approval by FAA s^,.:ipulated to helicopter uae of the facility; theref.nce, tre cor~dition as to noise should not eliminate VTOL per se. However, if he~ica,:ers were intended to be prohibitedt Lhan the noiae factor could climinate the very large aircraft b~cause of the PNDB limitstion, Mr. Orsborn then atated that the 100 PNDB would be aufficient to ~ermit helicopters Ps the application and approval as granted atates. Therefore, the L'.onun~.ssion might wis~h to conaider including VTOL and STOL in their consideration. --[y~`- ~~ :t' < ,, .,, .,.,~._.,,. .. _... ~~`~`?~s''~~~''~''Y,.~~ '~"~~s'°°,~~s`;j; fi ~_ .~~ ,• _ J._._ _..~ -- ---- ~~ ~ ; L,.._ . ;;;3.. r r-~.;, ~'"~f"' ~q~,~ y"RS~`~~°~' n. ".~. `.~,~~..,;-ri.¢r-c ~~.'`~ - -.~~__......._ ___~__ _-~. y MINUTES, CITY PLAARGLNr, :;u'i~!ISSION, July 14, 1969 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NC1„ :•;20 (Gontinued) ~.,/ 4714 Commissioner Farano then e~r.?x.ed that he had no personal feeling regarding the relocation of the Los Angelea Airwayi:i hclicopcer pad from the Disneyland location to the proposed facility, but that he wars not sati~fied ;:hat the perceived noise level as stated would be adequate aince ever.ything he had heard and read since the last hearing indicate~l th*st it w~~ild only be a matter of time when jet STOL aircraft would be in operation, and trade magazinea were now ca*rying a'tti:les regarding four-engine Douglas STOL air- craft which would take off and land in relativ~ely the same space and 2anding pattern that the "Otter" would; ttieref~~re, he wou1~3 be more satisfied if the Co~isaion were to have a condition which wouid relate to t;he prohih.ition of pure jet or piaton sircraft, although the DeHavilland was a turbo ~et p•rop and not.a pure jet. Co~iaeioner Farano note~a that he !iad telephnned to the str~£f a number of conditions, azcd the uae of pure jet ~~r pistor,. sircraft wns one which he '.• indicated should be pr,flhibited. Also, there, should be some restriction as to th~ ~ize of the aircraft - 'dlthough he coul~ :ioC axr~ the sense to restrict an aircraft which carried 60 passengers to carrying or.ly j0 ~r.e,::e~q~x7s ;I 'Lt 33d not Preaent any additional n.oise factor objection than the sma37~v.r ~.lEnt exc~pi £ns thr poseible change in traffic pattErns which could ocaur. An ad:l:wiqrtal ~eatriction which wai; not fn.?icated on the staff's recommendation as to related a~er,ation - since. his previous conc~rc was not so much to the metroport as a paeaenger facility eince auch a facility woul~ not produce the noise, additional tra~fic, as the -elated facilities would, such as t.he s..r,taurant, maintenance shops, and cargo facili.:.es with the trucks which could 'ae r1B:.,„~ the facilities ali hours of the day and nigltt - these were not ir.~?icated or spel.ted~out, but there was every inten- tion of having c&zgo and freighC whi~:: would sdd con,.~derably to the noise factor, Co~,mLsaioner Farano also noted that if the Commission were to act favorably on the mrtroport as to noiae levels and other factors whi~ch had been previously discusaed, then t1~e only operation permi~aible at th~e metroport should be passengers, facilities for handling thei.r baggage, and third echeZ:on repair maintenance as Mr, Barnett stated aince this had technical significance, and theA inquired whether other technician~s underatsnd if reference was mRde to third eehe`lon repair maintenance? Mr4 Barnett etate~ [iis c~~mpa~y was not concernen as to providing mainte~ance; even though a,maintencnc:e.han;~er was co4'idered, any aircraft in need of repair would have to be flown to 'Burbi~nk for a test of a minimum of ':2 huura because their hanger hr.d such a saph~sticate~ faaility and was so expenaive th'ere were only two like it, and che other was'tlocate~ a~ Loag Beach. Cammisaioner Farano then atated that the metroport ahould ~~,e ~ermitted to have the aireraft, passenger hand'ling facilities, ps.eaenger baggage hsr.dling, third echelon maintenance and possibly a reataurant, if Eti reataurant as pa~ct of related facilities w~s contemplated to be approved; howe~cr, rsny maintenance of a cargo facility should be prohibited unlesa preaented before the City at public hear.ing for approval - this covcred sll the aspecta ae far as he was concarned. ry~ A gantleman in tt~e audience requested to be heard regarding the ~gposition's suggce~!t~ed .; condi~.ion se to noiae level. ~ ~~Y Chairman pro t~a Rowland advised interested peraona tt :', ti~e public hearing ltad been ;:.;f cloaed; that the recommandsd condi~ions by the oppositfon were printed ia very clear ;;; and aoncise language and needed nr~.furtiier clarification; tha*_ the hearing was limited ,h tn the Coaimi.3eionera a.sking Mr. Baxnett queationa, only asking for clarification to `;~ queatione they had, which could be done without reopening the hearing; however, if :,Y_~~ the uther Commiasioners were deairous of reopening the hearing to receive other evidence, they could ~~ so. ~ 611 the Co~iaeionera atated they d~.d no~t want to reogen the heax;ng since all evidence from the oppoaition had been reiterated a n~ber uf timc.s. All the evidence as to `, noiee levels had been marvelousl astabliahed both at the g ~ e} y previous hearin and the ~~,';,y1 letter bef~..r~ th,e Ca.maisaion whicTi was writter. more clearly than that written by tha ;~ staff or the reco~nendationa made by t~he Commisaion - therefore, there was no nF~d f..~ for further explanation o~ noise lEVels, and if the Commission allowed this di,scuasion, ~^:<,r;~ then the hearing should be open for everyone present and intereated in apeaking. ,. o.. >i:> ^y;~i CoummLaeioner Gauer in revtewing Condition No. 5 of the oppoaition's letter atated thia ~ wae very important; if aubject petition was pasaed and if there were any change in the *a~; regulationa or res.trictiona, then these changes should be considered at a public hearing, ,~ and the people in the area ahould be notified aince a condition of approval which the ~:~p staff recommended was that violation of any reatriction wea grounds for revocation of the conditional use permit - if there were any deviation, such as larger aircraft, '~ aince he had heard that Co~utercenters had purchased all the trausport planes in the '~ County. _•,,;;~~ _ _ _ -- "~ ?; z+~ A } ~~ia F;,, ~~~6 f`4 ~, ~ ~ ; ~ -F ~~ ; k ° M ,T^ ~ ~ '~i y > I ~r~±, :.~: C) ~ c~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COi4IISSION, July 14~ 1969 471~ CONDITIONAL USE PE&KIT N0. 1120 fContiaued) Mr. Orsbora noted for the Cc~mmisaion this was Aerocommutera, a aubsidiary of Westgate Corporation, and not Co~at~arcenters, and that the information Commissioner Gauer referred to was substantially cor~rect, but he did not know r.o what degree this was, Co~isaioner Gauer atated }~e had heard this from his nephew who worked for F_4 and lined up the sirport patterna. Therefu.re, it one company operated an entire area, there could be a aituation `~here changes would be requeated, and there then ahould be some require- ment - if th~ metroport petitior. were adopted with apecific restrictions, no change in the reatrictiona should ever be made without a public hearing before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and all resideazs of the area ahould be notified - since Condition "e" does not caver the ~equ~rement. !: Commisaioner Gauex, in reapoase to a statement bq Coa~iasioner Farano that this condition was somewhat aterile, state3 he wanted the condition to read that a public hearing would ~ };' be held and all persona affected by any change should be notified. f ~,,,. ~~; Co~isaiuner Farano then noted that it was hia underatan~ing that the City Council at Fi;: ;,; aay time could take up the violation of a conditional use permit for conaideration of ~ termination; that in addition to the co~enta that Co~isaioner Gauer had made, the atatement that any violations give the City Council the basis to make a determination ~''~ ~ was not enough; however, if this could be done legally by forfeiture or termination~ ~--~ then this could be added. ~?;~=~',~ ~_:';`"~ Mr. Lowry advised the Commiasion that the Cit Council could revoke a conditional use ti:::, ;:: ~~ y permit for any reason or for no reason. . .. ?~:Y; Co~isaioner Farano expreased doubt that thia could be done; that he disliked to dis- agree with the City Attorney repreaentative - however, the City had been faced with aeveral instancea in r~ecent years where the City Council almost had their "t_~eth pulled" when it came to consideratioa of revoking a conditional uae permit since this was a legal procesa, and they would have to have a legal reason or their action be subject to attack in the courta - auch as was attempted on the Melodyland Theatre, when the City didn't get very far in their action since the conditional uae permit was granted on land use to permit a theatre, and when r,hey tried to do something which the Citq did not feel was appropriate and attempted to revoka, the City had no legal standing. Therefore, in concurzing wi.th Cou~isaioner Gauer, the condition rPgarding any deviation ehould be more ~irmly worded. Co~isaioner Farano then atated hia suggeation 2s tu the wording - with some direction from the City Attorney's office - as follows: "T1-at a breach of the conditions of the condi:tional use permit ahall work an sutomatic forfeiture", ao that the only burden of proof which th•: City Attorney's office would have would be the en£orcement of a breach of a condition which constitutea said forfeiture. Commisaioner Gauer then reviewed Condition No. 5 of the opponenta' letter in detail and then co~uented that if the territory of the aforementioned was too large, whether thia wae the ~cthod which the Co~iasion wanted £oilowed, he was still insistent that something should be set forth whereb~ the City would notify the public in general so that no change would be made until a public hearing was held before the Commiasion and City Council. Commisaioner Thom noted as an observation the Co~isaion might be wandering a bit afield aince this might be out of tae realm of the Commiasion's concern because this would be up to the City Council wh~ ultimately would be the deciding body; therefore, the Chairman vrould have to determine whether or not further diacuasion r~hould be held. Commiseioner Gauer noted that on other conditional uae perm±ts restrictions were placed upon the use o:E the property, and this would be a aimilar aituation since land use was involved. Chairman pr,o item Rowland then stated the Co~aisaion had the reaponaibility to place ~ r,onditions on conditional use permits; however, he also thought statements made would mean the Commiasion was going quite far afield in areas whtch were not familiar to ' '? them and were not easy in making a determination; that some of these conditiona which ` the Co~isa~on should concern itself with were that of land use, while other aspects, ~ S if sub3ect petition were approved at the Co~nisaion level, would have to be decided by the policymakera - the City Council; and in that there was a broad spectrum as to financing, obligations o: the City, moral isauea, etc., were not really a part of the Commisaion's fuuction aince the Commission compriaed of seven men supposedly free ' of political influenc~e by ita very nature of being an appointive Commission rather than ' elective, could make determiaationa on the land uae facet only. - n ~ L~ R._ ~ ' ~`~~ ~'i ~1, ; 1 "~4 1 ('YY9 ~I ~ ~~ ~ MII!NTES, CITY P,LANNING i,~*lMISSION, July 14~ 1969 4716 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1120 (Continued) Commissioner Gauer was of the opinion that reco~endations could be made to the City Council who could then take them under advisement or reject them - therefore, he felt that the condition as set forth by the staff did not adequately cover the feelings of the Commiasion or would in any way asaure all the oppoaition that their feelings could be expresaed and shculd, therefore, be inc'uded as it pertained to any deviation being brought befare the Council, and the people ahould also be notified. Co~isaioner Thom noted he had no obj'ection to including this as part of the Commission's recommendation; hokaver, he did not feel this pertained to the Co~ission and was up to thia body to decide it. Chairman pro tem Rowiand noted that studiea made on noiae levels in the induatrial zone allowed the Commission to make recommendations in that area; therefore, the Commiasion would be on solid ground. Commissioner Camp then commented that the Commiasion was approaching the aubject petition, if he underatood it correctly, in a different vein than most of the conditional use ~ermita considered before by the Commission. In the past when a petitioner came in ~±th a set of plans submitted with a project, the Commisaion had been very meticulous in attaching all the conditions at their level which they felt were pertinen: to that development, and then it was aent on to the City Council. Was he ta understand under thia particular conditional use permit the Co~nisaion was suddenly divesting or divorc- ing themselves of their responaibility? Coa~issioner Thom felt that becauae the City Counail had initiated this petition, the Commisaion would have to handle it :n a different n~anner, Commiseioner Camp then stated just becauae the City Council had initiated a petition did not mean he would change hia position one iota; that just because they requeated it did not mean he thought it was proper or that the land use should be there; that the City Council has requeated thia be aet for hearing to detezmine if this is the place and under what conditions it ehould be allowed if it is allowed. He didn't think the City Council for one minute thought that because they initiated the peCition - which has been done many timea before - that the Co~isaion ahould approve it carte blanc without any conditions, and he for one, if he were to vote on it, it would be with the cond±r,iona which he felt were applicable to the aituation. If the City Council did not like th,~ae conditioas, that is their prerogative to chan~e, delete or add, but he would be ab`,.;.king hie responsibility if he did not give the City Council the complete thinking on the application since thia was what the Commisaion has done in the past. He was only tale:ing about land use, not the political or philosophical aspects that might be attached to it aince he felt they should not coi:cern themselves with them, but they muet concern themaelves with land use in which conditiona are alw~ys &pp].ir,ablE. A gentleman in the audience aeke3 tY.xt Exhibits B and C be posted on the wall, which was then done. Coa~isaioner Farano then noted that Mr. Lowry had ahown him the ordinance in which there can be grounds for City Council to terminate a petition. Chairman pro tem Rowland then noted that the Commission should not attach a condition obligating any body but the Commisaion level. Commiasioner Farano then read the section of the Code covering revocation and publ±c hearing and atated that perhapa Commissioner Gauer wanted added to the aforementioned aection, is that under the ordinance and lawa at thia time only a rather reatricted area in a comparative aenae, are entitl.d to a written notice - within 300 feet of the property under conaideration - mailing of legal noticea should be to property owners on a much broader perimeter, Commiasioner Gauer atated that the oppoaition's recoa~endation kas quoted, but if the ordinance statea a specific area, he would not recoa~end a greater distance, Mr. Lowry adviaed the Commisaion that the ordinance did not specifically require mailing of a legal notice to proper*yo uwnera within 3 00 feet. The only requirement, by law, was the publication of the legal notice in a newapaper of general distribution. Commiseioner Gauer noted that hia concern was based on the many complainta from residents that they did not receive a notice. This proposal affected a great many people who were desirous of being protected, and he felt they ahould be given protection. Co~iasioner Farano then noted that in line with Commissioner Gauer's suggestion, since the City already had the public hearing aspect of this petition, it should be specified "public hearing noticea". ~ ~- -- --- _ ~'ti%"~, , ,, , -- ! 1?^,~r - u ~ ~ r _ . . r .,.-. W ~ .. . , , . . . . , , . srcr m w r e ~; ~ fx : s t,~ r.; ~ -T- .. ..,.z ,.a: ~`.`,~ ;;~ ~ F r.~. :. ..~:.. C~ MINUTES, C7TY PI~ANNING COMMISSION, July 14, 1969 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1120 (Continued) 4717 Commissioner Farano then asked Mr. Lowry to explain the last aentence of Conditi~n "e". Did thia portion exist in the ordi~:ance or not? Mr. Lowry replied that it did not necessarily so atate, but it did carry out the standard clause in the reaolutian which would ultimately end up in the ordinance, if an ordinance were drafted, as contained in sub-paragraph (d) relative to termination or revocation. Commissioaer Gauer then atated that since in the past property owners within 300 feet only were notified, per:iaps this should be carried through in this petition; however, he etill would like other property ownera affected notified. Co~isaioner Camp then no5ed that this would encompaes mainly City owned property. Diacusaion was then held as to the distance from the perimeter of the metroport notices ahould be mailed, and if a perimeter of one-half mile to one mile were taken, this cLulc: involve notifying 50,000 people. Mr. Orsborn then atated he queationed seriously that the City of Anaheim taxpayers' money could be used to notify a11 the residents of the City of Orange in the periphery being coneidered since within 1,200 feet from subject property there would be both the City of Orange and the County of Orange. Commisaioner Gauer then atated notification to the City of Orange should suffice as notification to these reaidents. Mr. Orabom noted that thia had beea a courtesy extended by both cities when any contemplated zone change or land u~ae change was contemplated; therefore, if this were ind.icated in the Commisaion's resoluCion, it would adequately cover thls. Commiasioner Gauer then inquired w.heeher the opposition in both cities had homeowners associations whereby notification could be mailed to them, Mr. Stuart Noble adviaed the Coa~isaian that they did noe have a homeowners asaociation, but the oppoai.tion would be glati to give three namea of concerned persons, and it would be their problem to maintain a current lieting of theae three names; however, they would also like to have three pereons repreaenting the opposition from the City of Orange alsa notified. Mr. Oreborn noted that the City of Orange would generally be notified, and if this notification were aent to the City Clerk, the C:lerk in turn conld n.otify the reaidents of the City of Orange, which ahould suffice since notification to three peraona in the City of Orange could be considered being diacourteous to the other residenta, as well as uaurping the responaibility of the elected and appointed representativea o£ the City of Orange. A~r• Lowry, in reaponae to Commission queaGioning as to the publication of general circulation in which the legal notice was publiahed, atated the Anaheim Bulletin was the newapaper. Cen~ ?aionei Farano then noted thia legal notice could be placed in the newspaper where the reader of the paper would not ordinarily look; therefore, it coald be placed in a location whiah was easily apotted. Mr. Lowry thea noted that not only was the notice publiahed in the newspaper, the prope~rty was also poated, and the property ownera and nearby publi~-: jurisdictions were notified - thia left little elae but a peraonal telephone call. Commissioner Gauer noted that subject petition was a very controversial matter; that he had apent considerable time in reading all the data submitted by the opposition as well ae the propunents, commente made by the ataff and Mr, Orsborn in reply to questions by the oppoaition - therefore, he felt that hia commeata were made as to suggested conditiane, and with the full agenda the Commisaion was faced with in addition to eubject petition„ the Cou~ission should not consume further time in discussion; that he had viewed the proposai from an unprejudiced atandpoint when evidence was presented at the atadium public hearing; that he felt there was a need for this type of service; and that aince moat of the queationa which the Co~nisaion had were answered, action ahould now be taken by their body. Commissioner Gauer offered Reaolution No. PC69-146 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Uae Permit No. 1120, aubject to conditions as eet forth by the staff, amending Condition "a" to include all aircraft; Condition "c" ~ ; _'t; ~ ~~ ~ S. ~. ._.. . _ _ x , . ,m, ~y:t~ 4 ~, t._~, -;y ¢ ~ ~;,M .v~ :~~ ~w ~ ~~ ~ c~ MINUTES, CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 14, 1969 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0, 1120 (Continued) 4718 to include providing that operationa of the facility shall be conducced in accordance with viaual flight rules (VFR) during daylight hours only; and that any deviation or propoaed changea shall be conaidered at a public hearing before the City Council, notification of the public hearing shall be sent to three pe::sons within the City of Anaheim to be deaignated by the ~gsawners groupa as their representatives and to the City Clerk of the City af Orange. Prior to voting on the aforementioned reaolution, Co~issioner Farano inquired whether for8clarification pu~oses werenthelfollowingdincludedndil;ti ~i~a~iondof8theiactivities of the metroport to those operationa and facilities necessary for the handling of pasaengers and their baggage, including but not limited to ticket counters, restaurant, and other related facili~ies neceasary for pasaenger aervice; 2) all storage, shipping or handling of any type of freight or cargo shall not be permitted; 3) repair and maintenance of aircraft ahall be limited to "third echelon maintenance" (minor repairs and adjustments only); 4) that "run-up" of aircraft enginea shall be permitted only in conaection with take-off and instrument check prior to take-off; 5) that any substantial and peraistent violation of the flight pattern eatabliahed by the City and approved by FAA as depicted on Exhibit "A" shall be considered a breach of conditiona; and 6) that any violation of any of the foregoing conditions ahall be grounds for revocation of the conditional uae permit. Co~¢nisaioner Gauer concurred in the aix additional conditions as set forth by Commissioner Farano. Commiasioner Camp then asked whether Co~isaioner Farano intended to prohibit any freight? Cemmisaioner Farano then replied in the affirmative and asked for a clear and specific condition w:~ich would prohibit any cargo facilitiea other than passengers and their baggage. Mr. Orabora then noted for the Commisaion, as a point of c;larification, he would like to point out that induatrial zoning permits the very thing that was being proposed to be eliminated, and,the underlying zoning ia not affected by a conditional use permit. In effect, what the Commisaion is propoaing is to change the industrial zone permitted uaes auch as warehousing,, trucking, etc.; however, if these uaea were prvposed in a reaidential or light coamiercial or co~ercial-recreation zone, then the conditional use permit would be valid in prohibiting theae uses, but since the industrial zone does permit theae uaea, he wanted the Commiaeion to be apprised of this fact. Commiseioner Farano then noted that it was his understanding that the Fubject petition was propoaing to vary the uae of the industrial zone through the impoaition of a condi~- tional uae permit; that he presumed that along with the granting of the conditional uae permit the Coa~isaion could impose certain conditions which may be in derogation of Che underlying industrial zoae, but it could be imposed so long as it was attached to a conditional uae permit - and if he were wrong about thia asaumption, he wished to be adviaed of it aince it was importaat to him becauae it would affect not only the metroport operation it~g~~~ but all the surrounding facilities, Mr. Oraborn then noted;:~~it the property owner acrosa the street owned 20 acres of induatrial land. Would.t~e Co~isaion also prohibit the man fr,m handling freight, even though he was not a part of the property under conaiderati~: in this petition? Commiseioner Farano replied in the affizmative. Mr. Lowry z~oted there was one problem that he could foreaee - the Coumiission is aware that a heliport ia permitted as a matter of right in the induatrial zone, and the conditional uae permit was necessary to permit the STOL aircraft. Commiaeioner Farano then atated that the condition prohibiting cargo, etc., should apply to the operation of the facility for a STOL facility, and the Commiasion may wish to limit this to a STOL port only, forgetting about VTDL altogether. Commisaioner Farano thea inquired of Mr. Lowry could the Commiasion grant a conditional nae permit and, in so doing, superimpose conditions which are in derogation of the underlqing zone legally? If this could not be anawered immediately, he would ask that the conditiona be allowed to atand unleas the City Attorney's office determined there was something which the Commisaion was acting upon which was beyond their legal entitle- ment. Mr• Lowry atated that as far as the helicopter facility was concerned, the Co~issioa could not prohibit cargo handling and facilitiea since both were permitted usea in the M-1 Zone of which aubject propertq was, but as to the STOL facility, he would have to .,... ~_~ . .. . _ .:. ~~, , M.mFC.~ag^~~i'c°~ ~ g~§~~~+GF {s~ ~-'F~4~~;~~f~ .6~'xe.,^r ~.."" fi~"'*._"I' ','l d"n .,M1"`,x ^s Y ,.a, .: r wph r ~,.p ~ ;:~;iF 5~~ f ~ m ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 14, 1969 4719 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1120 (Continued) confer with the City Attorney for a legal opinion. Commiasioner Gauer then stated that conditions could be attached aince the City Council had already set this petition for public heariny, and when it was considered the City Attorney's office could determine whether or not this condition could be attached. Mr. Lowry noted that hia office could research this queation and have the answer available at the City Council public hearing. Co~isaioner Farano then noted his last condition would be the "running-up" of the engines other than take-off or instrument check prior to take-off•since Mr, BarneCt at3ted they would not be "running-up" the engines as auch, and no engine repair would be done on the facility because it would be necessary to have these engines run for a number of hours at a facility equipped for engine check and repair. Chairman pro tem Rowland stated he would like to clarify the Condition "e" relative to setting for public hearing and notification of same hearing - this would be at the Planning Commisaion level anly and obligating the Commission not the City Council. Mr, Lowry then noted that the ordinance required that the City Council hold the public hearing, and no reference was made to the hearing before the Planning Commiasion. Mr. Rowland then stated that the City Council initiated the conditional use permit; however, it was acheduled before :he Planning Commisaion because of the lan~ use factor - therefore, he woul.d asaume that the City Council would refer any public hearing back to the Planning Coarmisaion. Mr. Lowry noted that one could assume the Council would refer this back to the Co~nission, but this would be up to the City Council. Mr. Oraborn then suggested to the Commisaion a aolution as to the suggested wording of the public hearing condition of any change in the uses proposed in connecti~n with the metroport - f.rom comments made by Commissioner Gauer who was not concerned that the Planning Commisaion neceasariLy have it acheduled for them to consider, but for some public heariag either before the Coamiisaion or City Council, and that the hearing ahould be held - therefore, the Cormnission could auggest to the Council: That for any change in the uae propoaed in the future, a public hearing be called before the Council (which is a proper procedure) and intereated peraons be notified regarding said hearing. Coffinisaioner Farano thea atated he would second the motion as amended, but he had one ffiore comment regarding the flight pattern - one of hia initial thoughts was the more tightly controlled an operation was, such as flight pattexna, would be like the attempt to measure noiae decibels at so many feet from the aircrai`t. This may be a very valid point, but if the City were planning to have a rAetroport it could not be so t?ghtly controlled that it would st:rangle itaelf on cletail. The C~ommission had imposed as many conditione and restri~~tions without being too control'ied. Co.romisa:.oner Farano then queationed: Doea Exhibit "A" aet forth the proposed f;.ight ~at•tern so that if there ia a subatantial and continuous devistion from the flight '1~titera it could ~Y conaidered a violation of the condition without saying that every t nc,e a pilot flys outaide the flight pattern and doea not go over the riverbed or fr,~~way he ia guilty and a public hearing should be held? But if there is a continu- ot~;s L~se of a flight pattern other than that eatablished on Exhibit "A", could this be car,taidered a violation of conditiona? One reason he was trying not to limit this to coa,tL•nuous use of the flight pattern attached was for safety reasona, even though he wc~slc: prefer the flight pattern be over the freeway or river - however, if this became a~pattem of violation, could this be considered a violation of the conditions? Mr. Lowry stated that aince Condition "f" was in accordance with the exhibits on file, Lhip could be coasidered a'viols*_ion. :o~isaioner Farano noted he wiahed that to be clarified since the opposition in w~iting ' their recou~ended conditions has made a very valid poinC on this; while it was well taken, the Commission could aot be as atringent in their rea lation as was set forth. ~ i (Ia order to clarify the motion of approval it is being repeated with all the additions.) Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC69-146 and moved for ita passage and adoption, seconded by Co~iasioner Farano, to grant Petition for Conditional IIae Permit No. 1120, aubject to the following ~conditiona: 1) That noise levels of all ~ i ;; ~,Y. ,~';~ -~~ , ; - ;; - -- . . - `" . . _ ~ .. . _. . . `. s, TM~~' ~~~-~~ ~-~`~ ~.~.x,~,~~ ~ a~.• ~, r ~ ~ .y ~ c: ~~ : ,, : ,~ a : ' : ±~r~~~~ _ ' ~ ' , _ `~ _ -.T: k~.> ~....:~~.. ;~--, ~ - ~ ~`~ V MIN'JTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,, July 14, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 1120 (Continued) sircraft utilizing the metroport sha11 not exceed the noise levels developed by the I DeHaviiland Twin Otter or shall in no event exceed 100 PNDB on take-off. (All sound ~ readings to be made in accordance with accepted measuring atandards);2) that pure jet aircraft ahall not be permitted to operate from this facility; 3) that aircraft ~ ahall be required to enter the flight pattern in conformance with Federal Aviation ! Adminiatration (FAA) regulationa and wherever poasible, approach the pattern along ~ the freeways or the river. The flight pattern ahall be in accordance with that ` approved by the FAA and State Department of Aeronautics and be in subatantial accord I with the design ahown on Exhibit A on file with the City of Anaheim; 4) that conditiona of operation ahall, at all timea, conform to the limits of all FAA requirements, provided that operations of the facility shall be conducted in accordance with visual ,'' flight rules (VFR) and during daylight hours only; 5) that aircraft shall be equipped with Decca inatrumentation or an equivalent system when it becomea available and is approved by the FAA; 6) that the activities permitted in connection with the metroport ahall be limited to those operations and facilitiea necessary for the handling of pasaengers and their baggage including, but not limited to, ticket counters, restaurant, and other related facilities neceasary for pasaenger service; 7) that the storage, shipment or handling of any type of freight or cargo ahall not be permitted; 8) that repair and maintenance of aircraft shall be limited to "third echelon maintenance" (minor repairs and adjustmenta only); 9) that "run-up" of aircraft engines shall be permitted only in connection with take-off and inatrument check prior to take-off; 10) that aay substantial and peraistent violation of the flight pattern established by the City of Anaheim and approved by the FAA and State Department of Aeronautics ` (Exhibit A) ahall be conaidered a breach of conditions; 11) that should any deviation from the foregoing conditiona or any proposed changea in connection with the operation of the metroport be deaired in the future, auch deviationa or changes shall be brought before the City Council of the City of Anaheim at a public hearing and receive approval of that body before being put into effect. Notification of the required public hear- ing shall be accomplished in accordance with the Laws of the State of California with the addition that notice of said hearing shall be made by U. S. Mail to: (1) all property ownera within 300 feet of the metroport site, (2) three peraons within the City of Anaheim to be designated by the homeowners group as representatives of their group, and (3) the City Clerk of the City of Orange; 12~ that violation of any of the foregoing conditions shall be grounda for revocation of the conditional uae permit; and 13) that aubject property shall be developed eubatantially i.n accordance with ` plans on ~ile with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibits A, B, and C. (See Resolution Book) , On roll call the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COitiMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst. Before voting, each Co~issioner co~ented as follows: Co~ieaioner Camp noted that when the metroport was firat propoaed, his initial reaction was that he was againat it; however, since he had been out of town at the original public hearing, the verbatim minutes were aupplied him (which he had reviewed in detsil together with other information for five hours), and from a land use standpoint only - and thia was all he was voting on - with the'conditions attached, the land use is a proper one, Co~nisaioner Farano stated he had already spoken more than he should have; however, he would like to thank Mr. Barnett and hia staff for their presentation, the protesting audience which, in hie opinion, was one of the finest conducted and intelligently presented hearinga at which he had ever participated, and a special tribute should be made to Mr. Barnett who repreaenta an organization of infinite integrity and ability, and he was aure that any manner in which the metroport was to be operated would not be ia derogation of the City of Anaheim or the residents of the City of Orange. The entire matter was well preaented and well handled,and he was sure it would be successful. Co~isaioner Gauer concurred with the previous atatementa made and further noted that land uae was all the Commiasion was concerned with at this time; that although he had been queationing coeta and other mattere, that was not within the province of the Planning Co~ission; and that the Co~isaion had covered thia matter very thoroughly as far as land use was concerned. Commisaioner Rowland noted he hoped this action was only the first step in a comprehen- aive people-moving syatem in the City of Anaheim wherein a multiple distribution ..,'~' ~ ~ y . _..;:' . ._ .. .. . .. . „ , ...., , . . . . ~° _.wc+ww~,xra-• ~y`"t;y I ~s.'Et~4' ~,"~~r a ., r~'~7 J /r.''",'fY, t ( ,.•. yi ... ~ y,i „~w "P; 1 .,, ~ ~ ;`:.:;~; .' ' --,, ~: t ~'. . , .. ~'~:; C~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITX PLANNING COMMISSION, July 14, 1969 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1120 /Continued) 4721 ~ ~~~ ~.....~~ ~~ `. ;ts. ~ c~.,: eyatem could be available~for the many people attracted to thia city; that he did I not feel anyone in the City would be free of the traffic patterns of sircraft over ~' residences - everyone is suf#ering this now; and that from his own personal observa- I s tion, he did not feel that the noise from the proposed metroport is really aignificant if it remained the way the Commiasion hoped it would. Furthermore, he`felt the City ( should go on to more significant people-moving aystema in the co~unity. ~ ~ '" ANAI3EIM GENERAL - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING 'r` PLAN-1969 I t; ~~, COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; to ~ ~ consider the Community (public) Facilities Element of Che ~ ' ~ ~, ;:f Anaheim General Pl.an-1969. I, ~ '~ ~ Subject General Plan Element was continued from the meetings of June 2, June 18, and June 30 1969 to all , a , , ow time for further study. ~ Aasistant Pl.anner Dave Williamson presented the School Facilities portion of the Community (Public) Fa ili ~ t c ties Element of the Anaheim General Plan to the Planning Co~isaion noting this wa th ~ ~= , s e last portion of this element to be considered by the Gommisaion aince Library, Fire Police Park a d R ~ ` , , n ecreation, Circulation, Drainage, Sewers, Electrical, and Water portions of the Community Faciliti l ~ ~ , es E ement had been preaented to the Commiasion and approved by them previously; that the primar reas f ~ i ~.. y an or ncluding the achool facilities in the General Plan was to assist school districts in their long-ran e l .~- g p anning in attempting to ascertain the number of students who ~ would be attending city schools althou h all f h ' , g o t e school age children within the { city limita would not necessarily be attending the city schools that h ~ '• ; t e information J compiled was proposed to compare student enrollment from different densities of land i uae hi h `~ w c could be used to determine the effect on schools in the area; that before the 1960 ~ensus data had b ~ ~ ~ een uaed for both R-1 and R-3 - however, recently the City ~ did a computer run on the 1966 census to determine achool ~ i a e R-1 and R-3, and on the basis of this information it was determinedtth W h ( , at in comparison i with the 1960 census, a reduction in the achool age children in the R-1 ho ~~~1 mes was y noted, and a substantial inarease in the number of school age children in apartments ~ had been indicated that th 1 - ~ ' j ; e 966 vacancy factor of apartments was also taken into consideration, and since population c cles wer diff G 7 y e erent, the 1970 census could also indicate a change, and after 1970 th o i` G~ ' e censua w uld be conducted every five years so that the echool sub-element of the Community Facilities Element co ld b ~ u e updated; and that he was available to answer any questions the Co~ission might have relative t th ; o e report submitted to them. : Co~isaioner Gauer requeated that the graph under Future Outlook relative to the comparison figure of school age children in single-family dwelling units to that of multiple-family dwelling unita should be explained. Mr. Williamson noted thst in the K-6 grades, single-family units generated ,70 children per unit, while .21 were generated from multiple-family dwelling units, and that the high vacancy factor in 1966 of apartments had to be taken into conaideration, and as apartments became older, they tended to have more children. No one appeared before the Commission in favor of or opposed to the proposed school facilities. Assistant Development Servicea Dixector Ronald Thompaon advised the Commission that at this time it would be appropriate for the Commisaion to take formal action on all the Co~unity (public) Facilitiea portiona which had been brought to the Co~ission in a series of public hearinga. Chairman pro tem Rowla nd inquired whether or not the Park and Recreation Commission had submitted their reco~endations since they had a meeting on this. Mr. Thompson advised the Commiasion that a letter was on file from the Park and Recreation Co~ission with their recommendations f~.r revisions, and this was incor- porated into the completed Park and Recreation and Open Space Sub-Element of the Coa~unity Facilities Element of the General Plan. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. *i Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC69-147 and moved for its passage and ~: adoption, aeconded by Coa~issioner Camp, to recommend to the City Council the adoption of the Community (public) Facilities Element of the Anaheim General Plan-1969 which includes Library, Fire, Police, Park and Recreation and Open Space, Circulaiion, ~ Drainage, Sewera, Electricity, and Water. (See Reaolution Book) ~ '^_,s~., ». ; e ~ ~ 9. ~?t~ ~ ~ :': a~~"~"ie~!~~~`"'~~~ ~:~ ~ ~'~~ w~~t"~s~a~twe ~~~'-cr'~° Cr;,•~~s.wt[,,~je. ~,- ~r~, :~Sx^n ~, r., ~~V.~` F';"~ C_~ ~ 0 MINllTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 14, 1969 i:~ `,r~ , ;:, 4722 f',;~{. ANAHEIM GENERAL - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the £ollowfag PL4N-1969 vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS; None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst. VARIANCE N0. 2095 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, LEWIS AND JUDITH E. SCHMID, 1401 Smokewood Drive, Santa Ana, California, Ownera; GEORGE ARGYROS, Arnel Develop- requesting WAIVERS OFe(1)CMAXIBIUM DIS ~CE OFhDWELLING UNITS FROMuAtSTANDARIT S REET,Agent; (2) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN ACCESSORX BUILDINGS AND THE SIDE PROPERTX LINE, ! 3) MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZE, (4) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, (51 1NA7{I~ gUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF AN R-1 20NE, (6) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MAIN BUILDINGS ON A SITE, (7) MAXIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN DWELLING UNITS AND PARKING STALLS, AND (8) MINIMUM NUMgER OF COVERED PARKING STALLS, TO ESTABLISH A ONE AND TWO-STORY, 108-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land located on the weat side af State College Boulevard, having a frontage of approximately 310 feet and a depth of approximately 711 feet, and being located approximately 350 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road. Property presently classified R-3, piULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. 4;,: ;_, Sub~ect petition was continued from the meeting of June 18, 1969, to allow time for the ~' petitioner to submit revised plans which show development for the easterl ; peripheral circulation, and living unita a minimum of 700 aquare feet in gre8rtion, ?;. ,: Assiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses establiahed in close proximity, previots zoning action on subject property and the `~` ~ proposal, together with the fact that revised plot plans had been submitted and analyzed ` ! by the staff which indicated the petitioner still propoaed to develop a 108-unit apart- ~t~ 'a ment complex on subject property with several important changes as they pertained to k5 ~ the original proposal; namely, the original plans indicated a cul-de-sac street in the P~, ~ center of the State College Boulevard frontage, the private drive then extending from ~;i this cul-de-sac along the northerly portion of the property to the rear of the property, ~~ 7~ ~id cul-de-sac also dividing a not a part aection of subject property on the State ~r ~ College Boulevard f.rontage, which the agent had indicated would be uaed for commercial- ~tt~~ ~, profesaional snd commercial uaes; that the revised plans indicated a short cul-de-sac ;, sireet from State College Boulevard abutting the R-1 tract to the north which could act ; as a buffer between the R-1 properties and the progosal to utilize the State College ~ ~ Boulevard frontage for commercisl uses; that a reclasaification petition had been filed ` ;F~ for the "not a part" portion to ree'iassify it from R-3 to C-1, whicli would be considered ~ y, by the Planning Commission at the .;~.:iy za, 1969 meeting - however, no plans for the ~~~ development of this portion of the proper~y had been aubmitted with the petition; that the reviaed plans also indicated that instead of a drive only along the northerly portion of the property from the cul-de-sac, a 25-foot wide, private drive was proposed along .; the westerly boundary of aubject property, with a north-south extension of the drive in A;~ approximately the middle of the development, thence easterly to another north-south drive k which again would interaect the cul-de-sac, and this new drive would provide adequate r , £4.re and trash acceasibi~itq; that although the number of apartment units remained the ;. same, the total number of main structures was reduced from 13 to 10 under the present , ~ propoeal, and the revised plane also indicated no waiver was necessary for the one-story t ~ height limitation within I5Q feet of single-family aince this had been eliminated; and ~ ,- that the petitioner had also indicated the minimum square footage of liv3ng units would kr rti be in acecrdance with Code requirements - therefore, this waiver was also being withdrawn. 7~ ~ ~ Mr. Brown noted that aix of the original eight waiyers ~aere still required, and all but ~,~ ` waiveY "f" could be considered technical in light of recent Cormnission and Council action ~d, Y regarding proposed amendments to the multiple-family site development atandards; that ~~ ~ although the reviaed proposal was superior in a n;imber of ways to that originally pro- ~. ' poaed, the reason for continuance by the Commission to this meeting was to provide r- ~~' adequate peri~heral circulation and unita of no less than 700 s uare feet the st~ll had not incorporated the "not a part" portion, and the Commission would haveiL~ioner ~ff~~ dete~ine whether there was sufficient modification in the revised plans to warrant ~t'~ ~ reconsideration of combining the "not a part° with the balance of the R-3 property. g~ z 1 ~ , ry. Mr. George Argyros, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted ~ that with the reviaed plans relocating the street to the north of the "not a part" parcel 3' and abutting the R-1, this would make the "not a art~~ •c it could be developed with apartments or for commercialP sesl thatrthey8werePpresentlyce ~ negotiating with a national commercial tenant for property along the State College ~ BouYevard frontage and had the property to the south between aub ect servite atation in escrow, pendin develo j Property and the was not before the Co~ission forgconsideration; thatVhe~wouldcbe~agreeabientogrequiring '':~, . v u - -- - - ~ ` ..,~._ ~Y Tw. ~e1 r~s :: . ~~ ``~ .,, ~ ,~ : r ~ .. ,~: ` .~',F^' E ~' h f _ : - 'iw_-y.('h~4~~' . , ..~~~~4 .....~...., , ~.. i~ _ , ...._ ~ .,, . ,. ~~~_. . .. ~. .~~. .. ~~ ~ MINUTES, CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 14, 1969 ~ ;:~j a!:s~~' ..r~ d".~'t': .` ~./ 4723 VARIANCE N0. 2095 - precise site plans for ::he commercial property to afford some control (Continued) by the City; and that he had several letters in his poasession which would be of interest to the Commiasion since they were from the homeownera to the north, indicating no opposition to the proposed ~ co~ercial uae on the "not a part" parcel so long as a street separated their properCies fiom the cou~ercial property. Mra. Ann Madison, 600 South Harbor Boulevard, representing the Wagner estate, appeared before the Commiseion and noted there were three letters from property owners immediately to the .orth'of ttie proposed new street who had advised her they would not oppose C-1 zoning so long as the atreet separated the R-1 from the potential C-1. Ca~iasioner Farano noted that although the proposed developer of subject property and the "not a part" took considerable innbrage at the previous hearing and could not speci- fically atate the propoaed use of the "not a part" parcel, he was now indicating that co~ercial zoning was being requeated through a reclassification petition. Co~issioner Farana inquired whether or not the knuckle of the cul-de-sac would permit accesa to the drives to the west since these linea were penciled in as thoudh no accesa was being permitted. 2oning Supervisor Char].es Roberta advised the Commission that this was open for access to the drives and the c,arports to the west. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Co~issioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC69-148 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Variance No. 2095, sub~ect to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote; AYES; COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Fazano, Gauer, Thom. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: 'rTone. AESENT; COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst, ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland, VARIANCE N0. 2098 - PUBLTC HEARING. F. A. N~T,LESEN, 1190 Cherry Way, Anaheim, California, Ownar; EARL V. NELLESEN, i544 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting PORTION 1- WAIVER OF MINIMUM LOT WIDTH; PORTION 2- WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AND (2) MINIMUM LOT AREA, TO ESTABLISH TWO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS on property described as: portion 1- A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 67 feet on the east side of Cherry Way and a maximum depth of approximately 115 feet, being located approximatelp 83 feet south of the cent~rline o€ Romneya Drive, and Portion 2- A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 50 feet on the east side af Cherry iday and a maximum depth of approximately 115 feet, be~ng located approximately 150 feet aouth of the centerline of Romneya Drive, and further described as 1190 Cherry Way. Property preaently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.' ~ . . 5.5, Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the lotation of subject propezty~ uaes ~' established in close proximity, and previoua zoning action on aubject property aad adjoining properties, noting that the proposal was to aubdivide an existing R-1 lot into two portiona, the northerly portion having dimensions of 6J by 115 feet and a square footage of 7732 square feet, while the southern portion would have dimensians of SO by 115 feet and a square footage of 5770 square feet; that,existing single- family reaidencea wPre located on both of the proposed portions - however, it was the staff's underatanding that the southerly portion was proposed to be soYd by the owner of the properties, who presently reaidea on Portion 1; that several other variances in this general area had been granted similar minimum lot width and ar.ea waivers in the past - therefore, it would appear the proposal was appropriate ai.nce it is a sub- ' atantial property right enjoyed by other properties in the i~ediate vicinity; that the atructure presen~:`ly being used for reaidential purposes on Portiowt 2 was, in reality, a converted 1~-car garage with all utilitiea being conaected to the main residence on Portion 1, and if aub~ect requeat were reco~ended for agproval, the Planning Co~isaion might wish to stipulate cessation of the use of the structure on Portion 2 for residential purpoaes since itwould not conform with any of the required Building, Plumbing, and Electrical Codea and would have utilities crosBing a common property line. Furthermore, if the structure on Portion 2 were continued as a residential fscility, this would be illegal as it pertained to the site development standarda of the R-1 Zone. ~~~ r~ ~'~~;~~ 6r:~s #pea~?'XAfit°~`; ~ d'laV ,y4.?'x^~. ~~+~,'~1~}s~'~s.r-.' } t ~ .~ ~r 1~a }}. f 'r~,; - ~fi .ya r+•:'*. . ,. ~a~+ ~' ~ - a} ~ . ~~ VJ' `~J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 14, 1969 4724 VARIANCE N0. 2098 - The petitioner indicated hia presence to answer questions, (Continued) „~, No one appeared in opposition to sub,ject petition. ~:,,, .- , THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ - w;' Discuasion was held by the Commisaion relative to the findings of the staff and the detexminedtthat Condit oneNoai6eadequatelyecovered cessation of thetuse of thebresid - tial structure on Portion 2, en ~, u - -";~ Co~issioner Thom offered Resolution No. PC69-149 and moved for its passage and adoption "~"Y to,grant Petition for Variance No. 2098, subject to conditions, specifically emphasizing ~r ;~;~ that the uae of the existing atructure on Portion 2 shall cease to be uaed for residen- ~n tial purposes, and all utilities presently connected with the structure on Portion 1 ~ ;) shall be disconnected at the time the parcel map is recorded. (See Resolution Book) n ;; On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: x ~;;~. AYES; COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Thom, Rowland. "` ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT; COPIl~i1SSI0NERS: Allred, Herbst. ~r 4 ~ ks " VARIANCE IvO. 2099 - PUBLIC HEARING. ROYAL COACH MOTOR HOTEL OF ANAHEIM, INC „ 1015 West Ball Road, Anaheim, California, Owner; FEDERAL SIGN & SIGNAL, 3036 OF (1) MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF AOFREEtSTANDINGnSIGN WITHINi300nFEETAOF A~RESIDENTIAL USEVAND r2 ~ ' (2) MAXIMUM AREA (SIGN N0. 1); AND MINIMUM HEIGHT OF A FitEE-STANDING SIGN (SIGN N0. 2) ~ ,~ on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approxi- k mately 12 acrea bounded by Ball F~oad, West Street, Vermont Street, and the Santa Ana "~{ Freeway, and further deacribed as 1015 Weat Ball Road. Property presently classified , `~ C-R, COIIPfERCIAL-RECREATION, ZONE, ~~. .. ...: :.J ~ ~ Aasiatant Zoning Supervieor Pat Brown reviewed the location of aubject property, uses ~~ ~~i eatablished in cloae,proximity, and the proposal, noting that the petitioner proposed ~~y to erect two free-atanding signs on the eastern boundary of aub3ect ' located near the Ball Road off-ramp from the Santa Ana Freeway; thatptheetwo proposedy ,; ' signs would be located a ~`yi was propoaed to be the mai nidentificationesignpfor~the motor hoteleTandsi~s~locat?on~ 1~ ~' was intended to gain maximum freeway exposure - however, this proposed sign would have a ~ . diaplay area of 440 square feet, whereas Code would permit only 350 aquare feet, and " the height would be 58 feet, whereas Code would limit the height to a maximum of 40 feet as the reault of residential usea located within 450 feet of the proposed location "~ acroas the Santa Ana Freeway; and that Sign No. 2, the aouthernmost aign, would be : approximately 178 square feet in display area, 25 feet high, and the bottom portion of the , 5; ofSB ~+*oe~d b~T~hermorenlthe feet above the ground, whereas Code would require a minimum ~ petitioners have indicated that future aigne may be erected ~ ,' on the Ball Road or West Street frontage, but at this time there were no piana for such ^ r signa - therefore, the Planning Commisaion would have to determine whether the proposed x' height of Sign No. 1 would be detrimental to the aurrounding area since it was located within 450 feet of the residential use, although this residential uae was located across ~ s the Santa Ana Freeway which could act as a buffer between the proposed location of the , sign and the residential use, and the excesa of 90 square ~eet of display area was the x ; result of including three fla ~,' ~? area; however, there was no 8gpole pennants atYthe top of the gign as part of the display r~,r~ ~' elevated to the minimum of 8 feeterequirednbyhCodeesince an analyais ofcthedplansbindicated y ~ the aign, with the 2-foot additioaal base height, could be accompliahed without rttising ~ ~r ~4 the height of the overall aign merely by moving the lower aection of the aign upward. ~` Mr. Pecacek, representing the RoyaL Coach Motor Hotel of Anaheim, Inc., appeared before x the Commisaion and noted that the motel wae already under conatruction, with the first ~ } portion having 400 xeoma and it was planned to have 1500 rooms eventua ~~?;,'.,'~;c the aigna as propoaed were specific. lly - however, l'"~y ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i `, ~ ;,~ ; The Commiasion inquired whether or not the copy of the sign along the Ball Road frontage could not be relocated so as to eliminate thia waiver; whereupon the representative indicated this could be done. No one appcared in oppoaition to subj,ect petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~r~ > F ~.~, ~. r :.";~i:.' ~ ~. L:..,,! , `:'! `~./ MINUTES, CITY PL9NNING COMMISSION, July 14, 1969 VARIANCE N0. 2099 - Discussion was held by the Co~nisaion and it was determined that (Continued) the height of Siga No_ 1 was oversize only because flags were proposed on the top, which were computed in the square footage. Commissioner Thom offered Resolution No, PC69-150 and moved for its passage and adoption ~ to grant Petition for Variance No. 2099 for Sign No. 1, and denying the waiver on Sign l, *- No. 2 on the basis that the petitioner stipulated to raising the base of the sign to the required 2 feet to meet Code requirement, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution . Book) '~' On roll call the foregoing r.esolution was pasaed by ^.he following vote: s ,'r ~ C, ~~`: ~ ~, AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Thom, Rowland. ,._ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None, ~,,~ ,~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst. h~ i1~fRIANCE N0. 2103 - PIJBLIC HEARING. BARCLAY'S BANK OF CALIFORNIA, 1025 East Orangethorpe I~ ? Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; HEATH & COMPANI, 3225 Lacy Street, ~ Los Angelea, California, Agent; requesting waivers of (1) MAXIMUM NIt1MBEK OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS, /2) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FRE$-STANDING SIGNS, AND (3) MARiMUM HEIGHT OF FREE-STANDIN~ SIGN, TO ESTABLISH A FREE-STANDING SIGN FOR A PROPOSED < BANK IN ADDITION TO AN E){TSTING SIGN FOR AN EXISTING BRAKE SERVICE on property described ` : as: A rectangularly shape~d parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Katella ~` Way and bioyntain View Avenue havin a '' ` ~ 8 pproximate f.rontages of 216 feet along the south ;y side of Kat.ella Avenue and 240 feet along the west side of Mountain View Avenue, and further described as 310 East Katella Avenue, Property presently classified R-A, ', AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Assistaut Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close~proximity, and previous zoning action on the property, noting that a ~aholesale brake repa3r ahop was located on the southwest corner of the property, which would ~continue to opera~te for a period of two to three years; that the C-1 rezoning request ap~roved in April by the City which would establish the bank had not been completed.•, that the petitioner was requesting permission to establish a 60-foot high sign to:permit exposure to both the Santa Ana Freeway and the Katella Avenue overcrossing of the freeway, and it might be construed the location of the bank was freeway-oriented due to ita adjacency to both the freeway and the Katella Way on-ramp; that an exiating 40-square foot aign was still proposed to remain, identifying the brake shop - therefore, two free-standing signs located 180 feet apart on subject property would be the result; and that the Commission would also have to determine whether the two requested waivers were valid in light of the small size of the existing brake ahop sign and the fact that the petitioners had indicated the use of the property for the brake shop would be termi- nated within two to three years - therefore, the Commission might wish to, as a result oi these factors, establish a time limitation condition on the brake shop sign for its ultimate removal within a specified period of time. Mr. Howard Friedman, repreaenting the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Co~ission and reviewed the design of the proposed aign, noting it would not be rotat- ing nor flashing but would act as a guide for people using the Katella overpass and presented two photographa illustrating the height of the sign with balloons, and the aign superimposed on the photograph at the poaition proposed within the planter area. Co~issioner Thom then inquired whether a time limitation for the establishment of the existing brake ahop sign worked any hardship if a two or three-year time limitation oereestablished. Mr. Stanley Powlowski, Vice Preaident and representing Barclay's Bank, appeared before the Commission and adviaed it was their intent to take over the brake shap property in the future and planned to use the property for additional parking; however, they had agreed with the operator of the brake shop that use of the propert:; would not be for an indefinite time, but only sufficient time to permit relocation at another parcel - therefore, if the Commiseion G+ere desirous of establishing a two to three-year time limitation with review after expiration of said time limitation, tliis would be agreeable with them, No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commisaioner Camp offered Reaolution No. PC69-151 and moved for its passage and adoptions to grant Petition for Variance No. 2103, sub~ect to conditions and amending Condition No. 3 to include, "That the exiating brake shop sign shall be removed upon termination `o ~ e?u 'l~ =7 ;; ~ , ~i ~; -~ , ~-. , - ~ ;aq~~'C"`R'"m",~.~~r~~,`°~'E'K~t °~~'y,r'r ~'~'~`~"~'~,~l~i:eo'¢ir ~c;^`ie~'.~.-~w^v'.~a+. ~~~m,. ss7~ ;?~ C y~' " Yf '"~r'i'C ~^ -,e~+'.'.~ ~r *r~^ r r . }"t ' T.'~ ~;' . __-- ----._..,._--- .~ CU ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLAATNING COMMISSION, July 14, 1969 ' 4726 ' VARIANCE N0. 2103 - of the brake shop use, or shall be reviewed by the Planning Co~is- ,. (Continued) sion within three years to determine its disposition, whichever ~~~._~ ' occura first". (See Resolution Book) ~},.;+: On roll call the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote: AYES; COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst. ;.: ~~:4, _. ~; .,,, "' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT :0, 1123 - PUBLIC HEARING. L. KENNETH HEULER, ET AL, 220 West Cypress Street, Anaheim Califor i ~ E ?. ;~ , n a, Owners; JACK ADELSTEIN, 14122 Hubbard Street, San Fernando, California Agent; re ue' ti ~ ~` l of land ha'ving a , q s ng permisaion to ESTABLISH A REST HOME on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel fronta e of a ,and a maximum dep g pproximately 233 feet on the north aide of La Palma Avenue th of approximately 240 feet bein locat d ! r' ~ oY the centerline ZONE. , g e approximately 611 feet east of Euclid Street. Pro ert ~ P Y presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAi, - d Asaistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses establiahed in cloae proximity, previous zoning action, and the Report to the Commission, :_ noting that the previous Conditional Use Permit No. 1107 granted on April 21, 1969, to t establish a two_story rest home was now propoaed to include additional frontage fram 180 feet to 333 feet and was proposed to be entirely aingle-story with a reduction from 120 beds to 100 beds; that the plans further indicate that the large portion of vacant land adjacent to the west of subject property, also owned by the petitioner, was pro- ' posed to be develaped at some time in the future with an identical addition to the ~i convalescent reat home as that presently proposed when it became economically feasible - however, at thia time there was no request to include the pror~erty to the west as part o£ subject petition. `~ Mr. John Rinaldi, architect repreaenting the petitioner, submitted con~ept revised plans of the propoaed convaleacent home and stated he was available to answer queseions. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. ;_ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ - •~ ~ , : ; Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC69-152 and moved for its passage and adop- tion, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1123, subject to conditions. ~ (See Resolution Book) ~ti,~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: , AYES; COMMISS~ONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Thom, Rowlanu. NOES: C02~115:ti~p~NERS: None, ABSENT; COMMISSIqNERS: Allred, Herbst. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. GRACE BIBLE CHURCH, 2559 West Orange Avenue, PERMIT N0. 1124 Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting pe~~ission to ESTABLISH A PRIVATE ELF2fENTARY SCHOOL IN EXISTING CHUR~H BUILDINGS: WITH WAIJER ~r' REQUIRED INTERIOR SETBp,CKS on property 3esaribed as: A rectangu- larly shaped parcel of land 'located at the aout'awest corner of Orange Avenue and Velare Street, having approximate frontages of 272 fr,et on the eouth side of Orange Avenue and 238 feet on the weat side of Velare Street, and further described as 2550 West Orange Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE, Assistant Zoning Supcrvisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses establiahed in cloae proximity, and the proposal, noting that the petitioners had indxcated they were desirous of utilizing already existing classrooms and facilities at their church location for the Michael Kent Elementary School; that this p;.~vate school was presently located at 1845 Weat La Palma Avenue, and as a result of an exp3nsion in the number of proposed students, required a larger facility; that appro~imately lU0 studente from kindergarten through eighth grade would be involved in the school pr~gxam, and normal hours of operation would be from 9:OQ A.M. to 2:0~ P.M., Monday through Friday. Reverend Harold Petersen, representing the Grace Bible Church, appeared before the Co~nisaion and noted it was their desire to utilize the facilities which consisted of a church and related achool buildings granted under Conditional Use Permit No, 23 in 1958; that no aubatantial changes wera planned in the existing atructure, and they we:e attempting to utilize the existing achool facilitiea for the beat passible use; -- - s €j•~`.~".t7~bYrki#5+~'r.i.~~.~1+"uy . ~'~.~~~...,,~~'{`7~~'y~~r.'~~`le~~Se"~.:~u'~a,~-s~5. <<~ ,;''2a..;.,. . 1 y~' ~ . ~ ~ V~ . MINBTESp ~~I'~~ a'~..3.#~NNING COMMISSION, July 14, 1969 i t ?`4G1 :~.~!'gy4 ~ 472i CONDITIONAi ~?-~'~ - tha: tha lesaee, operatora of the Michael Kent Schoal, had an PERMIT N0: 11~~ ~xce?lenw reputation with all Orange Couaty educators; that the (Continued) layout of parking indicated adequate parking facilities and exits; that no traffic problem would exist on Orange Avenue since entrance and exita would be from Velare Street, and nia estimate of traffic would be no higher than experienced when the facilities were used ou Sunday; that the only outdoor activities would be a fifteen minute recesa in the morning and a half-hour lunch period, which would be under the superviaion of teacnera, and the play area would be a fenced in area. A showing of hands indicated five persons present in oppoaition ta subjecL petitioa. Mr,. Johu Coatea, 524 Aron Street, appeared before the Commission, noting his property was located at the northeast corner of Orange Avenue and Aron Street, and requested clarificstion of the requirement af the City to notify reaidents ia the area regarding any zoning action. Deputy City Attorney Franl: Luwry adviaed the Commisaion and thE opposiLion that the City was not required ta e~sil notices to residenta of the area, and the oaly require- ment of the State of California regulations was publication in a newspaper of general circulation - however, as a matter of courtesy, the City had been mailing notification to property owners w3thin a 300-foot perimeter of the property. Mr. Coates then asked that aubject petition be continued in order that residents of the area could determine wheti~er the propoaed use would be detrimental to the entire area. Chairman pro tem Rowland then advised the opposition that the public hearing was for the`purpooe of determining what was proposed, and the report reviewed by Mr. Brown indicated what the petitioner was proposing, Reverend Petersen then atated it was hopeful he would be able to answer any questions that might s~ill be pending aince he was hopeful residen~s of thie area would be parishioners of his church, and he was desirous of maintaining a friendly relationship. Mr~ Coatea noted 'ne was not appointed to represent all the people; however, from his contactins them, a number of people had indicated they ha~ not been netified, and the aingle-family homeownera had purchased their prcperty under the assumption thie would be for low density residential uses and not for commercial uses as the proposed private school would be conaidered although it was being located on the churcn property; that Orange Avenue was experiencing considerable traffic problems, and the proposed use would add to tnis traffic problem; that the City had approved apartments on Velare Street whicn was also adding a conaiderable amount of traffic; that there were adequate school facilitiea availabie in the area, and in all likelihood were considerably better tt:an the proposed private achuol; and [hat if this were a privxte school and operated on church property, would the church then be placed an the tax books? Kr• Lowry replied that the possesaory interest tax would not be establisk:ed on the church but on the school, similar to the way the California Aagels had been assessed to them by the County Assessor; therefore, if there were a leasee of the preperty, under the lease the lesaee would be required to pay the possessory tax. Mr. Coates then stated he felt a two-week continuance should be given in order that all problems could be resolved,. Furthermore, if aubject pet~tion were granted, could the Preabyterian Church also located in :his area be granted the uae of their property by another private school? The Commission advised Mr. Coates and the opposition that an additional conditional use permit would be required, as well as a public hearing, if said church were proposing to utilize their facilities for other than that granted. Mr. Coates then inquired whether or not 100 students would be permitted since i~ was his feeling the facility was not adequate to handle that many students and have playground facilities ae well. Mra. A1 Ganz, 509 Aron Street, appeared before the Cormnission and noted that she had not i received a notice; ti:at several children who resided in the area would be going ta public school in this area, and any increase in traffic would be a hazard to these children; that the Mattie hlaxwell School of Anaheim handled the handicapped children which the Michael Kent School was also trainin~, and of which the majority of the students were handicapped; that the reason for requesting a continuance was to investigate wha~ rights the property owaers had as tu the proposed use; and that she was of thE opinion that the existing buildings were not adequate to handle the proposed number of students. , ;~ ..~.:,:~, -'~"t:~P. ~-~. '= ~~~~ ~;~ . ~ l .. r :.: ~ -:'~ . : ~er r~.;~ t~"'c3 .+ L`,~y" yr,"~'_r„rc~ s'~;o- x__. _. 1-'$''i~w' ~ ,~~ ?e a a r.w ~z .._ : o~ . .. x ~.. .: . , . . ;~. , . .'. . _ . ~. , ~, ~. . ~ .~_.._ ...... _.. ___.__._. N=. ~J ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 14, 1969 ~ 4728 Y, \ J ~ .~ , ,. CONDITIONAL US~ - Chairman pro tem Rowland advised the eppositi.on that as to the PERMIT N0. 1124 adequacy of the facilities, this wculd be within the juriadiction (Continued) of the State code controlling private 5chools, and the Commission's jurisdiction was to determine whether or not the land use was ~ appropriate_ Mrs. Jamea Clark, 2565 Roven Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition and noted that the church pastor had stated there would be no traffic problem as to the operation of the school - however, with apartments now beiag huilt on Velare Street which ad,join the church property, even chough parking was pravided for the apartment units, these residenta would not park in the parking stalls but would be parking on the atreet - therefores exiting facilities for the proposed school could be subjected to traffic hazards from residents of the apartments; and that although the existing facilities might be able to pass State requirements, it was still her feeling the existing facilities would not be sufficiently large enough. The Commiasion advir,e3 the op~,osition that the State, in all probability, would inspec~ subject property prior to issuance of a State license to operate the school, and if the facilitiea did not meet said requirements, then a license to operate would not be iasued. Reverend Petersen then appeared before the Commission in rebuttal and stated he was extremely sorry the residents of the area did not receive the legal notice; however, as the pastor, he was deairous of maintaining good community relations, and although many stated they had not been notified, their presence here was indicative of the fact that they had either read the legal notice posted on the property or had been advised by Mr. Coates; that Mr. Coates had visited him on Saturday, and he had informed him of the proposal and stated he was•available to answer any questions. Furthermore, Mr. Coatea had visited aeventeen neighbqrs to inform them about the proposed school - therefore, that wae their form of notice; that although the question was raised thst the proposed school was not a church operated schaol, this might be true - hewever, ~hroughout the city many churches, in order to relieve their financial J.oads and utilizing the facili- ties to its highest potential, had either pre-school or elementary school facilities. Furthermore, Mr. Coates in his discvssion with him on Saturday had stated he atcended a church in Paramount, and his church there also had this type of facility as now being proposed on subject property. Reverend Petersen then stated he was desirous of having Mr. Bengston, operator of the proposed school,answer any questions relative to their operation; [hat many people were referring to the school as a commercial operation - hawever, he did no[ feel this could be classified as a commercial operation since the character of che neighborhood would not be changed, and the only outward appearance would be a fence around the parking and play area; that they had purchased the church and its buildings and were opera[ing under the original conditional use peraiit which granted the use of the pr.operty for church and related facilities, as well as the school; that one of the conditions of approval was that the property be developed substantially in accordance with the plans on file - therefore, any change would have to be submitted to the Commission for approval; that he had met with the Fire Marshall and the Building Depar.tment to determine whether or not the facilities were adequate as to fire and building requirements and had received their assurance everything was in conformance with Code requirements, Pir~ Clemis Bengston, 723 North Hawthorne, operator of the Michael Kent School, appeared lsefore the Commission and noted their achool was for children and it was a specialized school - however, no mentally retarded children were enrulled; that the children they presently taught were above average in intelligence and some were higher in intelligence than regular school children; that the facilities they now had were very much in need, and there wexe very few schools throughout the State that were similar to theirs; that the enrollment consisted of children hard of hearing, slow of learning, or had special problems and Were in need of small classes with individual attention; that their goal was to prepare these children so that they could enroll in regular public schools, as well as being placed on their feet; that the school they now operated had 38 children, and of these 38, 14 were already back in regular public school classes - however, the schools and various County authorities were constantly sending children to them, and although they were limited to SO srudents at the present school, because of the extreae need for their type of teaching, it was deemed necessary to find larger quarters [o take care of the demand; and that he was sure they would pass the S~ate code requirements since he was fully aware of the requirements, having to meet them before the Michael Kent School was permitted to operace. Mr~ Bengston, in response to Commission questioning, stated that these children were physically handicapped children and not mentally handicapped, although some were slow learners; that he anticipated an enroll~rent of vp to 100, but at the present time they were not firm in their commitments to desermine whether the enrollment would reach that count - however, chey had asked for a 100 student enrollment with this petition in the event they could accommodate that number; and chat chey had to pass Scate code .-W , .. , ~~-~~r~-° ~ , * - . . , , . , ~: ~.. .~. .~ . L ...{ . ~~'~.~~~~~ :., ~.' , ,. ' : .. .. .~: -. .. ~ : ~' , ,_' ~:~ . ', , , ; , ~ . ~ . . ,: . ~ ~~. . .. . .. ,. ,.~, ~ ' : - . 5 . .. .. .. , . . - ._ . . . . _ . _ . ~. . . .f . . . . . . .. O ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 14, 1969 '.¢'S'1 . y. , .:k!m'!G '_"_'_". "'~~..~.~ ,. ~ 4729 :"f' ~: i~: '`:i' ~:; ~ ?,~ CONDITIONAL USE - requirements. Furthermore, they had been approved by the State of PERMIT N0. 1124 California for special school facilities. (Continued) Reverend Petersen noted for the Commission that if a two-weeks continuance were contemplated, he would be unable to attend [he next meeting aince he would be out of the State for three weeka, and it was urgent that s~me decisian be made in order to clear the achool for opening in September. Commissioner Farano was of the op•~nion that there was no reason for a delay since he found nothing wrong with the proposed use of the property, although continuances had been granted for both the petitioners and opposition in the past. Commisaioner Gauer noted that according to the records on file, 31 persona had been notified of the proposed use of subject property, although he was not sure whether these were correct addresses since the assessor's listing of approximately a year ago had been used; that a church and school facilities had been granted under the original conditional use permit, and he felt nothing would be changed even if this were granted a two-week continuance. Commisaioner Farano again indicated he felt nothing could be accomplished by the con- tinuance since no evidence had been aubmitted that would show good reason for a con- tinuance, and that whatever the Ccmmission determined at the public hearing would not govern the education requirements since the State pre-eopted the City as to a license to operate, and the Commission was considering only whether or not the use was a proper land use. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC69-153 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1124, subject to conditions, on the basis that under the original conditional use permit school facilities had been approved for the property in 1958, and that the petitioner had indicared the school was not one for mentally retarded children but for physica.'.?y handicapped children. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. DAVID S. COLLINS, 1077 West Ball Road, Anaheim, N0. 69-70-1 California, Owner; RONALD A_ KAROS, 107~ West Ball Road, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described a~ A rectangularly shaped VARIANCE N0. 2100 parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.5 acres situated on the west side of Pearl Street, said parcel having a frontage of approximately 100 feet on Pearl Street and a maximum depth of approximately 616 feet. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAI,, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT COVERAGE, (2) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGNT WITHIN 150 FEET OF R-0 PROPERTY, (3) MAXIMUM BIIILDING HEIGHT, (4) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, (5) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS AND PROPERTY LTNE, (6) MAXIMUM DISTANCE OF LIVING UNITS FROM A STANDARD STREET, AND (7) MINIMUM PARKING STALL SIZE, TO ESTABLISH A 100-UNIT APARTMENT COMPL.F;. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and the uses established in close proximity, noting tha~ no previous zoning action had been filed on subject property; that the plans proposed a 100-unit apartment complex consisting of two main structures with an east-west direction from Pearl Street, the northerly struc- ture to be two stories in height and the southerly structure to be three stories in height; that as a result o£ major excavation of the property, the northerly structure, by defini- tion, would be only one story high and had a mansard-cype shake roof running the full length of its northern wall, which would effectively screen the apartment from the single- family dwellings located to the north of subject property; that the southerly structure could actually be considered a ttao-story structure because of the excavation previously atated; that a total of 202 parking spaces was proposed, with 158 being c~vered, which was slightly better than two parking stalls per unit; that the density would be 32 dwell- ing units per net acre, and the net coverage would be 647; that a peripheral drive was ;[`i-`::z' '.. ~~~:'} '.~. ' c~~ ~ ~ _ , MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 14, 1969 4731 RECLASSIFICATION - TAE HEARING WAS.CLOSED.. N0: 69-70-1 2oning Supervisor Lharles Roberts advised the Commission that R-3 VARIANCE N0, 2100 zoning had been approved at the southeast corner of Pearl and Pearl (Coatinued) Street~. Commisaioner Gauer note3 that the only opposition would be from the reaidenta on Westmont Street, and if proper acreening and elevation were developed, t5~en this would accomplish the effectiveness of eliminating invasiom of privacy, and that because the development was proposed to be more than 50~ below grade for the first floor, the strccture immediately south of the R-0 property would be considered single-story. Chairman pro tem Rowland noted that one of the detrimental aspects to the Weatmon~: area would be the circulation proposed at the north edge of the property where a private alley would be backing onto the Westmont single-family homes' living area, and in his estimation, this was the most significant part of the plan. Commiasioner Camp inquired whether the coverage would be reduced to 52% since a 20-foot accessway was being considered. Aasiatant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commiesion that he doubted very much if the accessway would decrease the coverage - in fact, it would more likely increase the coverage to more than the 64% now indicated. Commissioner Camp then noted this was the only portion of the variance which was of some concern, and although the petitioner was proposing more than the required covzred parking spaces, since thia might be approved for 65% coverage, this could be setting a precedent. Mr. Collina then advised the Commission that some of tt~ roofs of the proposed parking spacea could be removed, thereby eliminating this exceas coverage. Mr. Thompson noted that thia could be done to meet Code; however, it might ruin the architectural effect of the proposed development for subterranean parking. Mr. Collins noted that considerable storage space would be lost if these were removed. Chairman pro tem Rowland noted that there was no opposition preaented as to the reclassi- fication of the property, but the main concern was the variance requests, and considera- tion ehould be given to those. Further discuseion was held by [he Commission relative to the coverage, it being deter- mined that approval of the variance could be granted except for the minimum parking stail size and the maximum lot coverage, and prior to consideration of this befare the City Council, the developer could amend plans to bring this into Code requirementa. Commiasioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC69-154 and moved for its passage and adoption, to recommend to the City Council tha[ Petition for Reclaseification No. 69-70-1 be approved, eubject to conditiona. (See Reaolution Book) On roll call the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CODIlIISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PCb9-155 and moved for its passage and adoption, to grant Petition for Variance No. 2100, in part, denying waiver of the maximum lot coverage and minimum parking atall size, with a finding that the maximum building height within 150 feet of R-0 zoned property tvas no longer applicable because of subterranean construction wherein the first floor would be more than 50% below grade, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbat. Chairman pro tem Rowland appointed Co~issioner Gauer as temporary chairman due to a possible conflict of intereat in the following petitions. 4 ,i.i~+~ 7 ;1 , 4. t f, ~ \d ~ Q ^ LJ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 14, 1969 4732 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. ALBERT F. URBIGKEIT, 2884 k'eat Linc~.~ln Avenue, N0. 69-70-2 Anaheim,. California, and FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE AND TRUST COMPANY, 421 North Main Street, Santa Ana, California, Owners; VARIANCE N0. 2102 SHAREHOLDERS CAPITAL PROGRAMS, 8920 Wils~:ire Boulevard, Suite 333, Beverly Hills9 California, Agent; property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 9 acres having a frontage of approximately 494 feet along the south side of Lincoln Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 870 feet, located approximately 1,000 feet west of the centerline of Dale Avenue, and further described as 288!+ Wesc Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. . REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RSSIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT ~dITHIN 150 FEET OF AN R-A ZONE, (2) MINIMLJM FRONT SETBACK FROM LINCOLN AVENUE, (3) ADEQUATE ACCESS AND ~~[itCULATION FOR FIRE AND TRASH VCHICLES, (4) LIVING UNITS SIITNIN 200 FEET OF A STANDARD STREET, AND (5) MORE THAN TWO MAIN BUILDINGS ON A BUILDING SITE, TO ESTABLISH A 224-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed ~he loca~ion of suojectgroperty, uses estab- lished in close proximity, noting that no previous zoning acti.ons had been filed on the property; that the petitioner was proposing a 224-unit, two-story apartment develop- ment with a density of 28.8 dwelling units per ne~ acre and a lot coverage of 45.3%; that a 25-foot wide peripheral drive surrounded the property, with carports and open parking spaces located along the property line; tha[ 224 covered spaces and 114 open parking stalls were proposed, producing a ratio of slightly over 1.5 parking stalls per living unit; that in addition to two private access points to Lincoln Avenue, access was also indicated as being provided from the western drive co Baywcod Avenue, a public street which presently stub ended against che western boundary of subject property; that the Traffic Engineer had indica[ed studies made in 1968 regarding [he need for continu- ation of Baywood Avenue from its present terminus easterly through subject property, chence northerly to Lincoln Avenue would be necessary and in the best interest of providing circula[ion and adeqvate access Eor properties in this general area; that after reviewing the plans submitted with subject petitions, the Traffic Engineer had determined that his original position regarding the need for this extension of Baywood Avenue was unaltered; that the staff had discussions with the Parks and Recreation Recreation Department relative to their long-range planning for the school and proposed park across the flood control channel, and it was determined there was a critical need for a pedestrian access across the flood control channel to the school-park complex located to the south, and in their opinion this could be accomplished only by means of a dedicated public right-of-way; that the Assistant Fire Chief, after a review of che plans, indicated that although good peripheral circula~ion had been provided, access to several of the interior units would be difficult; and that the General Plan-1969 indicated highway-related commercial Uses and medium density residential uses for this area - therefore, the requested rezoning application would be an appropriate one. Mr. Brown, in reviewing the five requested waivers, noted the first three could be considered in a technical category since the first two had been included as amendments to the multiple-family site development standards; that although there was only a 141-foot separation between the two main structures and the vacant R-A parcel on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, said R-A parcel had commercial zoning located on either side and had been indicated as being appropriate for highway-related commercial uses on the new General Plan; that waivers for patio wall intrusions into required front aetback areas had been granted recently for multiple-family developments, very serious consideration should be given to the request for waiver of the required 35-foot setbsck establiehed by Council along Lincoln Avenue - this setback had been strictly adhered to by commercial and multiple-family developments in the pas~, and approval of a lesser setback could establish a precedent for additional variance requests; and [hat waiver No. 5 was the most critical one under consideration by the Commission, that being adequate access for fire figh[ing equipment and personnel which was an absolute necessity in order to provide for the safety and welfare of any fucure [enants of such a develop- ment. Mr_ Brown also noted that the Traffic Engineer's concern over the extension of Baywood Avenue to Lincoln Avtnue warranted critical analysis by the Coimnission; that in the half-mile distance between Dale Avenue and Beach Boulevard only one other street had access to Lincoln Avenue, that being Laxore Street, 700 feet west of subject property, and due to the intensity of development within this area, as a result of existing or proposed multiple-family develoi•~ants, adequate circulation was essential since subject property was a key parcel in respect to any existing and future development of this area of Lincoln Avenue between Beach Boulevard and Dale Avenue; and that the Psrk~ and Recreation Departmen~ and the Elementary School District had indicated a need for some --~~ , c . .. ~._.: . . .. . _ . : ~ tiK t~ ti._ ,~ _".r~ .: 1:~Sr~ s.:.y .;r.,n.. O ~ MIr'UTES, CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 14, 1969 RECLASSIFICATION - type of pedestrian access from the residential NO.. 69-70-2 channel to Schweitzer Elementary School and the south - the necessary accessway could easily be VARIANCE N0. 2102 the development of aubject property. (Continued) . .._____-_" ..':.,..,.::.~ ~l ~ ..,:.;,`;„ 4733 ;.~;~ `'=A area north of the park site to the incorporated into ,~ Mr. Brown noted that if the Commission did not recommend the extension of Baywood Avenue and Bel Ai.r Street, then a standard cul-de-sac shoald be required at the terminus of Baywood A?+enue, and a cul-de-sac stre•et from Lincoln Avenue at the median break to give direct access inco the develop- ment for west bound Lincoln Avenue traffic - this was essential for emergency as well as private vehicles. As a final note, Mr, Brown stated that the City and School District would build che necessary bridge across the Carbon Creek channel and improve the pedestrian easement regardless of where it was ultimately located on subjecc property. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberta reviewed a communication from the Parks and Recreation Department to the staff relative to subject property, noting that ultima~e population to the north of the Orange County Flood Control District channel and south of Lincoln Avenue between Beach Boulevard and Dale Avenue would be served by Schweiczer Park and School, said number of population being 1694; however, these people would be cut off from the park except by indirect route of access through the school property which fronted on Dale Avenue, and that the provision of a pedestrian access wovld also eliminate the need for bussing school children from this area according to school district officials. a`. Mr. Fred Halpirn, 2010 Prosser Avenue Los An eles a : g , ppeared before the Commisaion , ~ representing the agent for the petitioner and noted that as the staff report indicated, ? waivers 1, 2 and 3 were technical in nature; that the waiver of the secbaclc along ~'~ Lincoln Aveaue had been resolved since it was proposed to have only a 42-inch wall in a~;,,,y' the front aetback; that the developex was not opposed to dedicating a strip of land for access across the flood control channel to the proposed park to the south - however, i~k he was desirous of requiring that a fence be built to keep children from walking through ~ ') this proposed adult apartment development; that there were apartment developments on r~ either side of subject property, and a motel was located ca the north - therefore, the ~''""'~ uses have been established in the area; that ttae vehicular circulation, in their esti- ~'~~ mation, was excellent for both"the tenants and emer enc vehicles• that the street 4~ ,,~~ divider in front of subject property was a left-turn lane area and was not signalized - ~t`_.,`~ therefore, would be of little help except for those persons coming from the east; that '`~ ~`' the staff's comments relative to the circulation in providing the extension of Baywood r `{ r~.,..,,_=? Avenue through subjec:t property was undesirable because not only would it reduce the ;~ potentiai of the property, but would bring additional traffic from the apartment ~~ developments to the west; that he could see little reason for having Baywood Avenue ;,,,~'~ extended because the stub end had been in existence since 1963, and since the street _ was noc proposed to continue through the property to the east, it would serve no purpose, and the circulation they proposed would be adequate for the property since 2 it would provide more privacy than having a public street going through from the apartment developmenC to the west. Mr. John Orion, speaking for the owner of one half of the propercy, the other half being in trust, noted that Mr. TJrbigkeit came to Orange County in 1865 and had lived on this property since 1907; that in 1949 the Flood Control District had condemned one acre of the petitioner's property, and later, in 1953, the City of Anaheim had condemned 4.93 acres for the park; that chey had made every attemp[ to sell the property for the petitioner in order to get the highest and best use of the property; that the two pieces were now joined and were propased to be developed by one developer; that according to the Report to the Commission, the property was a key lot on the soul•h side oi Lincoln Avenue between Dale and Beach, and the recommendation of Baywood Avenue being extended would mean dedication of two 64-foot atreets cutting up this property into three pieces, and it would not be utilizing the proper[y for its highest and best use; that a dedicatad street from Lincoln Avenue already served the project to the west since 1963, and the only advancage in having Baywood Avenue extended through subject property would be, not necessarily circulation for subject property, for properties to the west; and tlsat Mr. Urbigkeit was of the opinion that since much of his property was taken for. public purposes, he was left with only 8•': acres, and a small portion should be developed as was proposed. Mr. Cleo Mossman, repreaenting the Magnolia School District, appeared before the Commis- sion regarding the proposed walking bridge across the flood control channel and noted that a number of st•udents were now being bussed from this area, and if the easement were granted and a bridge built, this wouid permit adults and children an opportunity to use the park,as well as eliminating t!ie necessity of bussing children to scheol. , ~,,~ , - ~ ~ MINUTESS CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONi July 14, 1969 ~ ~ ~ ..n y ~x~ c4 s,~. ~ ~ ~ ~1 4734 RECLASSIFICATION - The Co~ission advised Mr., Mossman that the getitioners had N0. 69-70-2 agreed to dedication of this access. ~ ti VARIANCE NO 2 02 '"" 1 Commisaioner Camp then noted that waivers 3 and 4 for maximum (Continued) building height within 150 feet of R-A Z~ne and adequate access and circulation for £ire and trash vehicles were the only ones that had to be resolved since the minimum front setback had been resolved with the clarification that a 42-inch wall was being proposed in the 35-foot aetback. THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDe Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that the petitioners had disrusaed with the Fire Chief the need for adequate access and circulation for fire vehiclea, and they had agreed to provide for additional openings. Commissioner Camp was of the opinion that the extension of Baywood Avenn~e was unnecessary since no indication had been given by the Traffic Engineer that a traffic problem did exist to the west, and there was no logical reason for extending Baywood Avenue through subject property. ,~• Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commiasion that if Baywood Avenue were not to be recommended for extenaion, then a modified cul-de-sac should be provided along Baywood k Avenue to prohibit any vehicular access; however, pedestrian access would be permitted. a7 r u F Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC69-156 and moved for its passage and adoption ~;.' to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 69-70-2 be ~:~ approved, subject to conditions, amending Condition No. 1 ta require dedication of a ~ ~: 10-foot easement along the west property line for pedestrian access to the park -;oss ~ ,~ the flood control channel as stipulated by the petitioner; however, no dedicat:. -~f a ~ . ~~ strip of land 64 feet in width should be required for Saywood Avenue or Bel Air ~treet; and Condition Nc. 2 to be amended to eliminate reference to Ba ood Avenue and Bel Air ;t~:;,;r5~~ Street; and Condition ilo. 3 to be amended to delete reference o Baywood Avenue and ~ ~~ Bel Air Street, and to lnsert "providing a 10-foot wide easement along the west property .~'~, line"; and Condition No. 4 to be amended to c'elete reference to Baywood Avenue and t{`~^~,Y.w,`~ r,~ Bel Air Street. (See Resolution Book) ~~~ -;w^:_.~ Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the Commisaion might wish to require providing some barrier, such as a fence, along said easement to prevent children from going into the propoaed adult apartment development. Commisaiorter Camp was of the opinion that dedication was sufficienc, and if the City of Anaheim and the School District were desirous of having this wall, they could provide it themselves at the time they were building the bridge aver the flood control channel. On roll call the foregoing ~,esolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Thom. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst, Rowland. y Commissioner Thom offered Resolution No. PC69-157 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2102, subject to conditions, adding to Condition No. 2"providing, however, that a 10-foot easement shall be provided along the west ~ propertq line for pedeatrian access across the flood control channel". (See Resolution i Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Thom,. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst, Rowland. ~: ~"~ ' - f'~.. y; 7~x.s !~!"s '$'.. ti f i ,~', , T d . is,- a:es- i. '- ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING CONAIISSIONy July 14~ 1969 4735 REPORTS AND - ITEM NOo 1 RECOMMENDATIONS Orange County Use Variance 4V-6274 - Prop~rty located on the west side of Brookhurst Street approximately 350 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue; requesting permission to utilize the rear portion of the R-1 lot for automobile parking and accesa in conjunction with the proposed professional use of the RP lot facing Brookhurst Streeto Aasistant Zoa£ng Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of the property under Orange County Use Var.iance - 4V-6274, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to utilize the rerir por'tioa of the R-1 lot for automobile parking with 11 stalls and access to said parkinj;: It was also noted that the owner of subject property was also the resident of it, and also proposed to utilize the RP lot as a chiropractor's office. Mr. Srown further noted that Brookhurst Street is indicated on che Anaheim Highway Rights-of-way Map as a major highway with 120 feet of right-of-way, and that when dedication to its full width was required, the existing structure would encroach three feet into this right-of-way, The staff recommendations were then reviewed by Mr_ Srown; namely, observance of the site development standards of the City of Anaheim C-1, General Commercial, Zone, require all parking to the rear of the office structure, and retention of all front setback landscaping. Commissioner Thom offered a mution to recommend to the City Council that the Orange Gounty Planning Commission be urged to approve Orange County Use Variance - 4V-6274, subject to the following condi~ions, seconded by Commissioner Farano and MOTION CARRIED: 1. Development in accordance w~th the site development standards of the City of Anaheim C-1, General Com¢:rcial, Zone. 2. That all required parking be ~,o the rear of the office structure. 3. That all front setbaEk landscaping be retained. ITEM NO_ 2 CONDITIONAL USE PEItMIT N0. 1079 - Ar'enal Motel - Request for extension of time - Property located on the east side of Seach Boulevard, approximately 500 feet north of Orang,e Avenue. Asaistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the request of Mr. Paul Knaebel for an extenaion of time for completion of conditions ~iue to the fact that he was financially unable to complete this project. i Comm:tasioner Thom offered a motion to grant a~ix~month extension of time for the ! completion of conditiona in Resolution No. PC68-362, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1079, said time extension to expire December 16, 1969. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Thom offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commiasioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned a[ 6:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission - _ ~ - 43'.' :. '+_ •.