The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1969/07/28`. ~~ ~ ~ ~,~ 1 h.. t f t „ ..t~ .y. X. ~~ _ ~ '~V ~ e~ City Hall Anaheim, California 7uly 28, 1969 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Pl.snning Coamission was called to order by Chairman pro tem Rowland at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being preaent. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN PRO TFM: Rowland. - COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbat, Thom. AB~ENT - COt~AfISSIONERS: Allred. PRESENT - Aasiatant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompaon Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry Office Engineer: Jay Ti.tus Zoning Supervisor: Charlea Roberts Asaiatant Zoning Supervisor: Pat Brown Planning Commisaion Secretary: Ann Kreba PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commisaioner Herbat led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Blag. APPROVAL OF - Co~nisaioner Thom offered a motion to approve the Minutes for the THE MINUTES meeting of July 14, 1969, as submitted, seconded by Co~nissioner Gauer, and MOTION CARRIED. ELECTION OF - Chairman pro tem Rowland appointed Commieaioner Gauer se temporary CHAIRMAN AND chairman in the election of a new chairman and chairman pro tem CNAIRMAN PRO TEM for the 1969-70 fiacal year and atated that voting would be voice vote. Temporary Chairman Gauer asked for nom±natioas for chairman. Commisaioner Herbat nominated Commisaioner Rowland for chairman. Commiasioner Camp aeconded the motion. Co¢mieaioner Camp moved the nominations be cloaed. Cos~isaioner Farano aeconded the motion. By voice vote Commisaioner Rowland wae elected chairman unanimously. Chairman Rowland aesumed the chair and asked for nominatione for chairman pro tem. Cormniasioner Camp nominated Comnisaioner Herbat. Commisaioner Farano seconded the motion. Co~isaioner Thom moved the nominationa be cloaed. Commissioner Gauer aeconded the motion. By voice vote Commissioner Herbst was elected chairman pro tem unanimously. APPOINTMENT OF - Co~isaioner Gauer offered a motion to appoint Ann Rrebs as COFlIIISSION Commission Secretary for the fiacal year 1969-70. Co~issioner SECRETARY Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: AMERICAN WEST, 24519 Redlands Boulevard, San Bernardino, TRACT N0. 7035 California. ENGINEER: McDaniel and Asaociatea, 500 North Anaheim Boulevard, AnahPim, CaTifornia. Subject tract, located on the weat aide of Harbor Boulevard, approximately 500 feet aouth of the centerline of Orangewood Avenue and coataining 5.3 acree, is proposed for reveraion to acreage. Property preaently clasaified R-3, HULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE;, Aasiatant Zoaing Supervisor Pat Brown presented Teatative Ma,~~m£ Tract No. 7035 to the Planning Commisaion, noting the location of subject property, previous zoning action, and a proposal to eatabliah a three-atory, 248-unit, multiple-fsmily planned resideatial development. 4736 t ;< . .:r . .. . s.: - - R~r.~ ,w __. ~~ . ~ _ . . ".. . ~ '-1 ~ ~ ~ 4737 ~~ -~it MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 28, 1969 TENTATIVE MAP OF - Mr. Brown further noted that tha developers were now proposing to TRACT NO_ 7035 revert to acreage subject property; however, it was still their (Continued) intent to develop subject property substantially in accordance with plans which were approved under the conditional use permit, and that as a result of reveraion to acreage, amendments to the resolu- tion granting Conditional Use Permit No. 802 would be neceasary. Office Engineer Jay Titus adviaed the Commiseion that Condition No. 3 of the Interdepart- mental Coimmittee recommendations ahould be deleted since this could be handled in the piocesaing of any subdivision rather than making it a condition of approval. Commissioner Thom offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 7035, seconded by Commissioner Farano, and MOTION CARRIED (Commiasioner Rowland abstained), aubject to the following conditions: 1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative fozm for approval. 2. That all lota within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 3. That the abandonment of the existing sanitary sewer facilities be in accord- ance with the requirements of the Garden Grove Sanitation District. 4. That the interaection of the propoaed east-west atreet and Mallul Drive have a minL~num 20-foot radius curb return and a mini.mum 4-foot wide sidewalk. 5. That drainage shall be disposed of in a manner tnat is satisfactory to the City Engineer. 6. That Condition Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, above mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inapections. 7. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim park aad recreation fees of $75 for each dwelling unit, as required by City Council reaolution, which ahall be uaed for park and recreation purposes, said amount to be paid at the time the Building Permit is issued. CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Brown further noted that with the reversion of subject yroperty PERMIT N0. 802 to acreage, Conditional Use Permit No. 802, approved by the Planning Commission under Resolution No. 1933, Series 1965-66 on February 16, 1966, would require changes to the original conditions due to the changes in the Anaheim Municipal Code and the City Policy since said conditional uae permit had been approved, these being 1) deletion of Condition No. 4 which required street light fees since this could be bonded under the Tentative Map of Tract N~. 7035; 2) deletion of reference to dedicated alley requirement under Condition No. 6; 3) amend- ment to Condition No. 9 to reflect the new park and recreation fee of $75 per unit rather than $25; 4) amendment to Condition No. 10, deleting reference to Condition No. 4; and 5) amendment to Conditioa No. 12, to read: "That any sir-conditioning facilitiea ahall be properly ahielded from view". Commissioner Thom offered Reaolution No. PC69-170 and moved for ita passage and adoption to amend and delete conditions originally approving Conditional Uae Permit No. 802, reatating all coaditiona of Resolution No. 1933, Series 1965-66, deleting Condition No. 4; amending Condition No. 6 to delete dedication of alley requirement; amending Condition No. 9 to reflect the new park and recreation fee of $75 per dwelling unit; amendment to Conditioa No. 10 to delete reference to Condition No. 4; and amendment to Condition No. 12 to read: "That any sir-coaditioning facilities shall be properly ahielded from view". (See Resol.ution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolu[ion was passed by the following vote: AYES: COlffiISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbat, Thom. NOES: CO:IlIISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COrIIiISSIONERS: Allred. ABSTAIN: CQNIlSISSIONERS: Rowland. ~~ ~1 i3 ~! a _ ~. ~i$ r _ ~u _ _ "~s l~j '~ ~r i ~.. !~- t r.~ F ~; . µ r.r f~ i ~y "•y 5- y :: ~y ( . z J .'.~ ~' -~" ,'.+' } ;, .'•:o t c ;~ _ ~ a. Yu ~ ~~ ~ a", ~ ~i M " ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ 1.~ ) tii ~f' MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COTIItISSION, July 28, 1969 4738 a~ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS, DISTRICT 7, PERMIT NO : 1126 P 0 2 0 A e 4 ~ 7, . . . Box 4, Los ngel 3 s, California, and HOLSTEIN ENTERPRISES, ~ r~. INC_, 170 East 17th Street, Costa Mesa, Califomia, Owners; HOLSTEIN .;+ rta- ENTERPRISES, INC~, 170 East 17th Street, Costa Mesa, California ;~j ~_,.,' C '~ , Agent; requeating permission to ESTABLISH A PRIVATELY OPERATED PLAYGROUND PARK AND ;~ ~ RECREATIONAL FACILITY on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land ; ~{~ consisting of two parcels approximately 2.3 acres in uize, located at the northeast '~' ~' corner of the Riverside Freeway and Riverdale Avenue, having approximately 87 feet of ;: 4k frontage at the ~aesterly end of Alderdale Avenue, and further described.as [;101 Alderdale r~ '~,,. : Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, and R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONES_ .~a~ " ~ ~ r,~, ` Chairman Rowland noted that a request had been received for continuance of Conditional ~~ ''r + ~ i; Uae Permit No. 1126 from the develo ers of the p p , q g p pro osed ark said re ueat bein for a conti f f '~ E ~ nuance o our weeks and inquired if there were any persons present who were interested ~ " in subject petition. ~ ~ R There being no response, Commissioner Thom offered a motion to continue consideration of ' ` Conditional Use Permit No. 1126 to ~the meeting of August 25, 1969, as requested by the '' '~ 1. petitioner. Co~nissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, c/o Elden McPharlin, , ' PERMIT N0, 1125 1710 Crocker Citizens Plaza, 611 West Gth,Street, Los Angeles, "~ '~` ~ California, Owner; TERRACE GARDENS, c/o Fox Rea1Cy, 1405 East Chapman ~' Avenue, Orange, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A " CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL WITH ADJOINING COTTAGE TYPE" MINIMUM CARE UNITS on property ' , ; described as: An irregularly shaped parcel o: land located on the south side of Frontera ~ '% Street with a frontage of approximately 346 feet and an approximate depth of 413 feet and I ;; ~ beiag approximately 2,260 feet east of the centerline of Rio Vista Street. Property ' ~ P ~ presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. '' '~ ~ Mr. John Callos, 71I0 East Palmdale, Orange, appeared before the Co~iasion and noted '~ '` ~ ~,~; that after havin read the Re ort to the Commission the were p 8 P , y quite sur rised since r~~ ,•~ they had no idea the propoaed east-weat road would bisect their property, and since they b :1 ' ` had been proceeding on schedule at great expense regarding their plans, an alternative ' ,; ~ ~ ~ ~` ~ method wauld be reQUired - therefore, it was necessary to requeat a six-week continuance w a ~ to revise plans and to meet with the ataff re ardin the g g pro oaed atreet. P 7f ~ ~t ~ ~ ` . .. .~. ~ . . Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that the staff had recommended ~ ' the six-week continuance in order to allow the ataff time to explore an alternative means - ' of development with'the petitioners; that the ataff was presentlq studying poasible K ~ ~ amendmenta to Title 17 regarding the particular distances of dwelling unita and streets Y from oil wella and aince this study tied in directly with the preciae location of the .,~ east-west street ia this area, as mentioned when Coaditioaal Use Permit No. 1098 was ~ ~ conaidered, and because ita present proposed location was almoat inflexible, and as a ~ ; reault of existing oil wells on aurrounding property, the continuance wae necessary. ~ '~ Chairman Rowland inquired whether there were any peraona preaent interested in aubject { ~ petition, snd receiving no reaponae, asked for Co~iasioa action. 1~ ~ Co~iasioner Herbst offered a motion to continue Petition for Conditional Use Permit ~ ~ No. 1125 to the meeting of September 8, 1969, to allow time for the staff to study ~ "s possible amendmeats to Title 17 as it pertained to the location of dwelling unita and ~ streets from oil wells, and for the ataff to explore alternative means of development of aubject property with the peCitionera. Commiasioner Thom seconded the motion. "~ MOTION CARRIED. r ~. ti , ~. ~ ~ ~ i'~ d ` AREA DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC RF~RING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PIANNING COZT[fISSION 204 East y ~x `? PIAN NO. 103 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; to con5ider.alternative methods of develo in and osaible circulation of P 8 P property consisting of ; ~ ~' aeven parcels located on the aouth s~"de of Orangewood Avenue, approxi- : H ' mately l00 fezt west of t6e centerline of Ninth Stree[, having a maxim~ frontage of i ! r ' ' :.~ approximately 850 feet and a maxim~ depth of approximately 295 feet. ~ ,i ;\ ti hw. . . ; RECIASSIFICATION - CONTZNUED PUBLIC HFARING. FIRST NATIONAL BANR OF ORANGE COUNTY, ~ 4 N0. 68-69-99 P. 0. Box 269, Orange, California, Owaer; WILLIAM E, SWANK, 105 Town ~ a~ and Country, Orange, California, Agent; requeating that property . ~; described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located on the *„ south side of Oranges~ood Avenue, approximately 390 feet weat of the centerline of Ninth ~.~ Street, said parcel having a frontage on Orangewood Avenue of approximately 132 feet and ,t a depth of approximately 285 feet, and further deacribed as 1532 East Orangewood Avenue, be reclassified from tne R-A., AGRICLZTURAL, ZONE to the R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ^' ZONE. i' ~ ,,; ~' , ,i,:.-a-~ . ~ "`EY^m~'~~ `'i''"~r~'~~`~~~a:~'~i~''+~~j~~ ~~k~,3~ ~~,""Y,~~ u.,~~ t ~y "~,u,~,~~`,,xt~4`~k;~ ~4~+'~' ~'~1 ~ ~-~-i~~w~~,,~ !t L , 1 ~.J' ~ . ~ MINQTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION; Jaly 28, 1969 4739 AREA.DEVELOPMENT - Subject petition was coatinued from the June 30,~1969 meeting to : PIAN N0, 103 allow time ior the preparation of an area development plan and for ~ said plan to be legally advertised. RECIASSIFICATION NO.- 68-69=99 Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted for the Co~ission that Items (Continued) 2~;~~i 3 could be considered together since the area development plan. had been initiated because of the reclassification petition; whereupon the Commiseion determined that both petitiona should be considered aimultaneously. Chairman Rowland left the Council Chamber at 2:12 P.M. Chairman pro tem Herbst assumed the chair. Mr. Roberts then reviewed the exhibits prepared by the staff denoting the aeven parcels under consideration in Area Develupment Plan No. 103 and reviewed the Report to the Commission, noting tnat on all seven parcels there were aingle-family homes, one being an abandoned single-family reaidence which was under the reclassification to R-2, and three other single-family residential lota had rental units; that discussions had been held with the owners of aix of the aeven lots concerning their plans for the future, the ownera also owning [wo other parcels, thosE being Lots 1, 3 and 4 of the land use exhibit - the remaining four lota were under individual ownership, and the owner of the three lote and the owner of Lot No. 6 had indicated to the staff they intended to remain I in their existing homea for at least four or five yeara; that the owner of Lot No: 7 indicated a great deal of flexibility in the future uae of his property, noting that he vas willing to combine with other parcela for a aingle-family subdivision or consideration of developmeat for R-2; and that the owner of Lot No. 2 had not been contacted - however, he did not reaide on the property but rented the existing, older residence. ; Chairman Rowland returned to the Council Chamber at 2:16 P.M, and resumed the chair. Mr. Roberts then reviewed the alternative methode of development for the property, noting that the exhibita indicated circulation P;.r both multiple-familq residential development and single-family development, with the ~aethoda being compie~ed on a lot-by-lot basis - or some form of land assembly; that Exhibit "A" depicted mulCiple-family land assembly - - which had an indefinite number of poeaibilities, auch as a garden type apartment develop- '` ment, fourplex subdivision, or development as propoaed under ReclassiHcation No. 68-69-99; ;z hovever, [his would result in aeven separate acceas pointa to Orangewood Avenue and would be undeairable from the atandpoint of traffic congestion. Exhibita "B", "C" and "D" depicting aingle-family development were then reviewed by % Mr. Roberta, noting that Exhibit "B" proposed 19 R-l lota which could be developed in tvo phasea, combining four parcels in one phase and three parcels in the second phase, with no variaace being required aince all lota would be rearing on Orangewood Avenue, ~-'; and only one accesa wae propoeed to Orangewood Avenue. „ Exhibit "C" proposed 28 R-2-5000 lote and would require aggregation of all seven exiating ` parcels; however, this eolution contained four "side-on" lote which were not permitted by ' the Anaheim Municipal Code, and a variance would have to be approved, and there Would be two atreet accesaes to Orangewood Avenue. Exhibit "D" illustrated a aolution that could be completed in three independent phasea, " with aggregation of only two parcele at a time; thie solution propoaed three cul-de-sac '' streeta with 20 lots, 6 of which would be "siding-on" the arterial, Orangewood Avenue, and would create four acceas pointa to Orangewood Avenue, which also included Ninth Street, at intervals of approximately 200 feet. In conclusioa, Mr. Roberta noted that it was obvious some form of lot asaembly would be " the most efficient method of developing the propertiea in either a aingle-family or ~ ~ multi le-famil conce t• that the a p y p, ggregation of parcels, however, appeared to be a `~ difficult task to accompliah due to the differing intereate and intentiona of the indi- vidual property owners which might preclude the poseibility of having the area develop ~ in the most efficient manner; that although one peraon owned three of the lots, hie atated intentione were to maintain hie properties as aingle-family reaidences - therefore, the ~ Co~ieaion would have to determine the foregoing factors in their decision as to which exhibit was most appropriate in approving the area development plan. ~ Assiatant Zoaing Supervieor Pat Brown reviewed the reclasaification petition proposal ~ to develop a one-etory, R-2, 10-unit apartment development propoaed on Lot No. 5 of the area development plan oshibit, noting that the adjoining land usea were eingle-family ! tracts to the north and south and single-family residential homea on R-A.zoned property to the east and weet;_and that the petition was continued from the June 30, 1969 meeting to allow time for the~stsff to prepare the area development plan and to contact the property owaers under eaid area develepment plan aa to their deaires in developing these i deep, narrow parcels. ~ __ ___ . ------------ __ ~ ~ ~ ---- . ~~ - ?~ • ..,~,~~. y. . - . .. ... „ . . ~ .. -. . , e ..~ . . 3 ~i~.. ~ *~`'a.,LC_ . ......,..,.,. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, July 28, 1969 ~ 4740 AREA DEVELOPMENT - Mr. Maurice Johns, 2127 Lockhaven, Huntington Beach, appeared before PLAN N0. 103 the Cammission representing the architect of the proposed development, noting that he was available to answer questions; however, he was RECLASSIFICATION desirous of hearing commenta from the adjoining property owners as N0..68-69-99 well as the Commission. (Continued) Mrs. Ladona Rhodes, 1599 Sim Place, appeared before the Commission in opposition and noted that the majority of the residents in her area were at work during the afternoon hours - therefore, she was asked to represent all these people living on Sim P1ace, Loara ~.treet, and Rayne Way in opposition to multiple- ~ family development on subject propertiea; that the residents of this area had appeared before the Commiasion and Council a number of times, opposing nultiple-family development abutting the single-family homes to the south and west and across the street from single- family homes; that many of these homes were very expensive, and she could hardly understand the reasoning behind proposing multiple-family development in the center of an area primarily developed for single-family homes; that the properties under consideration in ' the area development plan presently had single-family homes on them, the majority of which were very nice homes, and those that were in disrepair could be removed and new ones con- structed; that they were not desirous of having the influx of the type of traffic which apartments generated, such as those apartments further down Che street; that apartment renters always seemed to like working on their sutomobiles on their off days in the street, which created an unsightly appearance; and that as an alternative, she suggested that consideration might Ue given to developing these seven parcels similar to the homes being developed on Brookhurst and Euclid Streets wherein the lots were not large, but the homes being constructed were very attractive, and this would not be objectionable if the seven parcels were not to be retained for R-1 development. ~ Mr. Y. A. Hammatt, 1545 West Orangewood Avenue, appeared before the Commission, noting he was the owner of Parcels 1, 3 and 4 on the exhibit posted on the wall; that they were not concerned so much about their own property, but they were concerned about a change which was undesirable in the nelghUorhood; that they had moved into this area which was quite rural, with a small country road, some years ago; that they had reared their children on this property, but these prop~erties were subsequently annexed into the City of Anaheim, and Oran~ewood Avenue had been widened twice, taking considerable frontage from these properties; that these properties had an irrigation pump and pipes serving them, extending from Ninth Street across the road to Loara Street where properties were served with water for drinking purposes except for Parcel No. 7; that he and his wife had patiently waited for users of this water line to convert to City water before they developed anything on their property; that the properties under consideration could not be considered single- family lots because they were large,agricultural acreage parcels; that he had made an attempt to irrigate his property with City water - however, the cost was prohibitive, Ueing approximately $37 per montli, while utilization of the irrigation pump cost them only $100 per yees, :he Coa~isaion noted that the area development plan was prepared to illustrate to the property owners of th~ atudy area, as we11 as adjoining property ownera, how these proper- ties could be developed with alternative means and also illuatrating the type of circula- tion that would be needed. Mr. Ha~natt noted that he would prefer having subject properties be developed for R-1 uses because any other type use would be offensive to the many friends they had in this area; that they had, to this date, acquired three of the parcels, and when owners of these other parcels determined they would move, they would again try to purchase additional parcels. The Commission noced it was not their desire to deprive the owner of Parcel 5 from develop- ing his property in some manner. Mr. Hawmatt noted that the firat time the street widening program took place on Orangewood Avenue, the County had changed the etreet level, and this was continued when the City took adtlitional property, creating a difference of 5 feet between the R-A parcels and the street, an~ any additional property required for street dedication would require visitors to his praperty to climb a steep hill or relocation of hia home with a new foundatian if the grmde were lowered. The Commission noted that this was quite true of many agricultural properties throughout the: Cit~y wherein the irrigation was affected, and this was due to topography and drainage re~puirements. ~,~+~ 9~ ~; .:`% :~:, : :~ ! ~ ;~ ~:~ '~':i a,,+ t,.; Mr. Hammatt, in conclusion, stated that the owners of Parcel 2 were a Japanese family and hadl tfieir property up for sale; that he had worked with the owner of Parcel 5 prior to his demise; that the o„-,uer of Parcel G was a fireman in Los Angeles and had ne desire to do anything with his property for at least four years; and that he was still desirous of developing all these parcela for R-1 uae, even though t}~e exhibits indicated a majority of their property would be used for road purposes. , ~' : ' ~„'~'"d~T,~` "~ ;°rA4e~r~.r~y4'~~'x'"~`~^~."'~r r ~s `~,;'°~rr~,'~v'~'v~ncts +,r ,! _ / . ~ ~^ .+'+r~ ~;; 1 tit ,rr ~,r r .< ~r ~ :;c, ;s-,. - •',::~~ ;~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~~:'~in !t ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 28~ 1969 4741 <`?' AREA DEVELOPMGNT. - Mr. James Morris, 1550 Flippen Circle, appeared before the Commiasion ~_ PLAN NO, 103 in opposition, noting their properties backed onto Orangewood Avenue, ; and th?y were very much concerned with any type of development for j~ RECLASSIFICATION subject properties and its effect on traffic on these streets; that N0. 68-69-99 he had contacted all his neighbors, and they had atated they were ~ (Continued) opposed to apartment development and had reco~ended that subject properties be developed for R-1 uses since there was sufficient land to develop in this manner. y Mr. Gilb~rt Nash, 1524 West Orangewood Avenue, appeared hefare the Co~ission, noting he ~~'' was the owner of Parcel 6; that he would prefer having all these properties being developed for R-1 uses; that he recalled when the church was proposed on Parcel 5 and the concensus , of opinion of all the neighbors was that they were desiroua of having all theae parcela retained for siagle-family residential homes; that any conaideration for multiple-family development would mean 55 apartmenta for an area that was developed with very attractive homea aki h -"~ , m ng t is a desirable area to reside in; that apartment developments created a racetrack of any street they were located on; that he felt an obligation to his neighbors to maintain and develop this area for aingle-family reaidential purposes rather than ;~ apartment development; that in rev~•ewing the plan for Parcel S, it was proposed to have 10 unita with only 13 parking apaces, and since most families had two cars or more this ; , would mean a considerable shortage of parking spaces for just this one apartment• develop- ~ ment, and he could foresee residenta of these apartments, if all parcels were detreloped ! for multiple-family uses, parking on Orangewood Avenue as well as the side streets since ~ there would be a shortage of over 30 parking spaces, and since Oran~ewood Avenue had '~ already been turned into a racetrack, additional traffic would create added hazardous ~ conditiona to the children in the neighborhood. '~j Mr. Johns, in rebuttal, stated thac they were proposing to d~velop subject property at a ; :+?~ ~ denaity lower than that permitted since 14 could be developed on the property under the , { zoning requeat; however, they were not deairous o£ creating an environment that wss not . 3 appealing in its reaidential character, and, therefore, they were propoaing only ten 7 one-story apartmenta with residential characteristics; that the apartmenta themselves would be higher than average quality; that their client was desirous of maintaining the development at the high atandarda, in keeping with the homea in this area and was still ` , deairous of develo in the P g property foz multiple-family uses. r3 THE HEARING WAS CIASED. rv~ The Commiasion noted that evidence had been submitted from ownera of five of the seven ~ ~ y parcels, with the owners of four parcels indicating their deaire for maintaining the ~ ? properties in this area for R-1 residential usea; that the entire area was surrounded : =? by single-family reaidential development, and land assembly of these percela would '; develop a highly desirable, single-family subdivision development, removing the irrigation ~ '! syatem and having City water and City sewerage facilitiea; that conaideration of multiple- family development for thia area would be aimilar to propoaing apot zoning; and that the c Co~isaion had been presented with an opportunity not often preaented to them wherein the ~ majority of the property ownera stated they were deairous of maintaining their propertiea j for aingle-family reaidential use, and as one of the oppoeition stated, aimilar to the ~ aingle-family homea developed by S& S Construction Company on Euclid 5treet which were j , on smaller lots. i Cou~isaioner Herbat offered Resolution No. PC69-158 and moved for its passage and adoption ; to recommend to the City Council that Area Uevelopment Plan No. 103, Exhibit "B" depict- `' , ing R-1, One-Fawily Reaidential, Zone subdivision of subject property as a desirable means ~~ of developing theae seven large, R-A acreage parcels, providing for circulatian wh~ch would be more desirable than having individual development of each lot, creating seven aceesa points to Orangewood Avenue, and increasing the hazardoua conditiona. (See ' Resolution Book) .:~ On roll call the foregoing reaolution was pasaed by the following vote: AYES: COHILiSSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. :~ ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: Allred. a Co~isaioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC69-159 and moved for ita passage and adoption ; ' to reco~end to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 68-69-99 be dis- ~ approved on the basis that the entire area was presentlq developed with low density ; residential family usea, and to inject apartment development would be aetting an undeair- abl e precedent for similar requeats throughout the City, and that a majoriCy of the owners of the adjoinin arcel g p s were deairous of retaining their propertiea for s~ngle-family use or having land asaembly of their properties in accordance with the area development plan for low density residential uses. (See Resolution Book) "'.i ~ a ~~- ... . ~ _ ..'i . ... .... . . .. . ~ ~. . , . .,,... . .. . ~ _ . . ... . :~.~'.''.~'~ ~ ~ MINUTF,S, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 28, 1969 AItF.A`DEVELOPMENT - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following PLAN N0. 103 vote: RECLASSIFICATION AYES: COMr1ISSI0NERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. N0,- 68-69-99 NOES: COtIIfISSIONERS: None. (Continued) ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. WALT DISNEY PRODUCTIONS, 500 South Buena Vista ~PERMIT N0. 1127 Street, Burbank, California, Owner; WRATHER HOTELS, INC., 270 North Canon Drive, Beverly Hills, California, Agent; requesting permission to UTILIZE AN APPROXIMATE 30,000-SQUARE FOOT AREA ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR OUTDOOR BANQUET FACILITIES on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land containing approximately 21.5 acres at the northwest corner of Cerritos Awenue and West Street, said parcel having approximate frontages of 674 feet on Cerritoa Avenue and 1,394 feet on West Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Aasistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of sub3ect property, the uses ~: established in close proximity, and the proposal to utilize a portion of a 21-acre parcel on which a 50-tee golf driving range and an 18-hole miniature golf courae, as well as parking were already established; that the petitioner proposed to have a seating capacity ~ of 1,500 people for an outdoor refreshment and dance facility; that the north side of ; thia area would be screened by shrubbery and thatched frames approximately 10 feet high, ~; and all equipment utilized at the facility would be portable; that sub ect j petition was ~. filed as a reault of police complaints received from residents of the R-1, single-family •+ tract located northwest of subject property across ~~alnut Street when an outdoor 2uau 4;; .,;;<;_. was being held a[ this aite on June 8, 1969, with some 300 people attending, and the ~ complaints were registered as a result of the loud dance music; and that the Zoning , ~+,~ Enforcement Officer of the Development Services Department later contacted the manager ,I ' of the Disneyland Hotel and indicated that a specialevents permit would be ne~essary for ~ this type of activity since Disneyland Hotel had a business license for indoor dances at r the hotel facilities but not a license for this proposed activity, nor was the proposed ~ ` ~ activity a permitted use without approval of a conditional use permit if the use were to ,~_.. ? ..,:.,~;; be on a more e P rmanent basis. Mr. Brown noted that the proposed activity would appear to be appropriate for the commercial-recreation area; however, with an existing single-family residential tract located to the northwest and within 1,000 feet of the propoaed site of the facility, r.he primar;~ ccncern confiontia~ the Planning Commission would be that of noise created as a result of thie being an outdoor function, and the fact that complaints had been filed when the first one of these functions occurred would indicate that this was a definite factor for consideration - therefore, the Commission might wiah to question the applicant regarding what measures were taken or would be taken to reduce the noise problem. Further- more, another concern of the staff was that of parking since the Planning Commission, a[ their meeting on June 30, 1969, had approved Conditional Use Permit No. 1121 to establish a marina with related facilitiea on the Disneyland Hotel property proper. Aa a part of the ataff report on that petition, the staff included a reaume of existing and future parking requirements for all proposals received to date for the Disneyland Hotel complex. That reaume indicated that insluding the new tower and the propoaed marina 1,039 parking apacea would be required, with 2,050 being provided, 600 of these being provided ,at the golf courae facilities located north of Cerritos Avenue. However, once the exhibit hall, banquet room and other facilitiea previously approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 970 were constructeu in two or three years, 2,409 spaces would be required, with only 2,050 still being provided, leaving a deficit of some 359 spacea, and since the applicants were now proposing an actinity where a portion of these parking spaces had been allocated under Conditional Use Permit No. 970, and since the petitioner had indicated they proposed to accommodate 1,500 participants, serious consideration shoutd be given to reaolving thia parking deficiency; and that if the Commiasion considered subject petition favorably, they might wish to require additional sound baffling so that the residenttal area to the northwest could be be[ter protected from the noise effects and might wish to establish the time and/or day of the week limitations as to when this facility could be utilized for the requested purpose. Mr. Erneat Furstner,Director of Food and Beveragea of the Disneyland Hotel, appeared before the Commiasion and noted that when their first lusu party was held in June, they had had little experience with the noiae factor, and as a result of the complaint filed with the police, the subsequent parties were held after ubtaining permission from the City Council - ho~ever, they had surrounded the lusu area with a 6-foot berm, planted it with treea and bushes, and erected 10-foot thatched frames; furthermore, at the first lusu they had khree amplifiers which were directed toward Ball Road and anot:ier one to the west, but two were removed and the other was directed toward the dance floor area, and since all of Chese precautions have been taken, they have not received any complaints as to the noiaes. ..~~:;s~"~NY~ ~:~ •.~ ~ M: ;a ~ ~ i~ _ ~ '~ ~ MINUTES,. CITY PLA.WiING COMMISSION, July 28, 1969 4743 CONDITTONAL USE - Commissioner Gauer noted that he had driven by subject property and PERMIT N0. 1127 could not determine where parking could be provided for the 1,100 (Continued) guests propc;oed and inquired how this would be accomplished. i Mr. Furatner replied that if more than 600 vehicles were parked in thia area and more I were aaticipated, the golf courae would be closed down during the lusu party, and the ~ parking normally provided for the employees and customers of the golf course would be utilized for the luau overflow parking; that a majority of the parties would be held ~ on Saturday nights, with hours being from 6:30 to 11:30 P.M. The Commission inquired whether or not the propoaed use was temporary in nature, or ~ would this be permanent. Mr. Furstner replied that since all the equipment was movable, this would be of a temporary nature; that it was hoped they would be able to relocate the facility around the marina area when that was completed - however, this was no[ definite, and that originally they ~ had planned to have theae events from May through October, but it was found the months of May and June were too cold - therefore, theae would now be scheduled for July through October. Mr. Furstner, in reply to Commission questioning, stated that the operation would be of one-year duration, but [here was a possibility longer would be needed if the other facili- ties were not available at that time to them; however, two years at Che outside would be necessary, The Commission then determined that a one-year time limitation should be eatablished, and a[ the end of that year, upon investigation by the Commiasion snd a request from the petitioner, an additional year could be granted, No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING S~AS CLOSED~ a Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC69-160 and moved for its passage and adoption ~ to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No„ 1127, subject to conditions, with the ~ hours of operation from 6:30 P.M'. to 1:00 A.M., although the petitioner stated that ~ operation would be only until 11:30 P.M., and provided that the present sound baffling system be maintained and retained, and that at the end of the one-year time limitation established, upon request by the petitioner and investigation and approval by the ~ Coffiisaion, an additional year might be granted. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote: ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. VARIANCE N0. 2106 - PUBLIC HEARING. EDWARD J_ MARTIN, 903 South Agate Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; JAMES HODGES, 903 South Agate Street, Anaheim, ~ California, Agent; requeating WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR CARPORTS, (2) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, AND (3) LIVING UNITS ~ WITHIN 200 FEET OF A STANDARD STREET, TO ERECT A 26-UNIT APART!•SENT COMPLEX on property j ': described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately i ! 127 feet on the west aide of Webster Street and a maximimm depth of approximately 299 i feet, being located approximately 1,035 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road, and further described as 813 South Webster Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE< Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and uses established in close proximity, noting that subject property was part of a number of parcels reclassified to the R-3 Zone in 1964; that a resolution of intent was pending on the property, and the petitioner was now in the process,of requesting an ordinance to ! be read on the property; that the proposal was to eatablish a 26-unit apartment complex ~ with a density of 32.5 dwelling units per net acre and a net coverage of 55%; that 33 ~ covered parking spacea based on the present Code ratio of 1'y covered parking spacea per j dwelling unit had Ueen shown; that a 25-foot wide drive had been indicated along the southerly portion of the property from Webater Street, terminating in a 54-foot diameter j turn-around area towarda the rear of the property- this drive was effectively reduced ? to 18 feet in width due to two-story cantiley~red apartment units 8 feet above ground level located on the northerly side of this drive; however~ the Asaistant Fire Chief had indicated that the drive as proposed in conjunction with the turn-a•round a.rea would provide adequate fire accessibility. Furthermore, since the proposal was almost identical . . rr7?!R 4~??" g~ ?~" mt`;-, n'+~" F r; ~[~~.r~ y°k~s Yt; ~ ~,,.~.~'~77wme _.,f ~i ~ ~ y,~ C N .~T ~ r i..~ .~ f .7 3 w 'P~ "? ~ Y1' ~ ~~ '~r ' .y~~ 3~/ 1 ttyrt ~~,~pp ~ ( 1 ^. ;/ ~ 4'wQ 1 5~ 3 ~~ 7~ 1 ~.~I .?! ? MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July'28, 1969 4744 ~' ~ VARIANCE Nu. 2106 - to a 26-unit apartment complex now under conatruction on the property ~ ` (Continued) to the south, said property having the same dimensions as subject ~ ,r-, property, and similar waiver requests were approved on the southerly ,:~~. ~ property by the Commission and Council in November and December, 1968, ~: [ ~it would, therefore, appear that the proposed request was an appropriate one Por the area; ~~. v ,, that waivers 2-a and 2-c could be conaidered technical in light of recently proposed ?~ r ,"' ' amendments to the site development atandards of the multiple-family zones approved by ;y '~ ` ' the Co~issioa snd to be acted on by the City Council; and that in order to insure ',F ~ adequate fire and trash accesaibility to all portions of the propoaed project, the '~ 4 "~~~ Planning Commission might wish to stipulate t~irat no atructurea or obatructions of any ~" ~~.~ type be located within the 54-foot diameter turning radius area indidated on the plans. ~ ~;';° Mr. James Hodges, agent £or the petitioner, appeaxed before the Commission and noted that ':~ ~• "~ ~ . the proposed development would be similar to that now under construction to xhe south; - `~ that they were somewhat new~in developing subterranean conatruction in,Anaheim, and since ~i the parking structure was below the floor level of the apartment, there was some question "? ~ as to whether this was too close together; and that there was•a 25=foot drive terminating ~, at a 54-foot turning radiua to the~rear with the level of these garases. ~' ~ i': The Co~ission inquired what was proposed to be done with the badminton court and the shuffleboard area located in the 54-foot turn=around area. - j.`. , Mr. Hodgea replied that in addition to thia recreational facility there was also a pool ~ ;.,"-;r,. located between the northerly two buildings; that he had discussed the turn-around area `•A':``'"-'; with the Fire Chief and he had stated that if it were necessar to 7 , y gain access through ': thia 54-foot turn-around area, the badminton poles could be placed there on a removable ~'~ basis, with polea inserted in the concrete for esey removal - tt!is would then provide for adequate area for the fire trucks to psas through, and this had been done on the "-. ` structure being developed to the south. ~ ,~ t .+ f No one a eared in o osition to sub ect etition. ;h,; ` ;:^; PP PP j P < i ~`1 i THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.. r r~ ~ ~> Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberta, in response to Commisaion questioning, stated that ~s ~ the propoaed structure was almost identical to that now under construction to the south. ~ ~ F~ - Co~iasioner Camp then noted that since the building to the aouth was now under construc- ~ tion and two of the waivera were technical, there was only one waiver that had to be `" ;i conaidered. ; :~ Co~isaioner Herbst noted that the petitioner was proposing only 1'~ parking spaces per 4~ unit, and although this was within Code requirements, in all likelihood there would be 9~ ~ on-street parking of many of the tenants of thia etructure since the Building Industry ~ Asaociation of Orange County had considered 1~ parking epacea ae the minimum acceptable ° ,, to their trade - therefore, conaideration ehould be given in approving aubject petition ~ with this type of parking. . Mr. Roberta advised the Co~iasion that the parking atandarda recently recommended for r a approval by the Comoisaion would be considered by the City Council on the 29th of July, ? }, and sincs the Commisaion had reco~ended that the ordinance become effective 45 days ~~, from the aecond reading of the ordinance, unlesa the petitioner had an ordinance read reclasaifying the property to the R-3 Zone and had a building permit isaued prior t~o ~ that 45-day referendum, revised plans would have to be eubmitted to provide the parking ~;~~ in accordance with the new atandarda. ~ ~ ~t r + yF ; Commisaioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC69-161 and moved for its passage and adoption ~ ii to grant Petitioi~ £or Variance No. 2106, subject to conditions, with the added condition ~t~ ;~ that the turn-around area ahall be completely free of any permanent type construction. '~,r~_ ~~ (See Resolution Book) ~ i ~^` '~ On roll call the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote: ~;r t, I i} 1 ' ' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbat, Thom, Rowland. z~~ , F, ~? NOES: COZIISISSIONERS: None. ( -,y ; ABSENT: COM[fISSIONERS: Allred. I ~ - -~ r~.'h ~(y ~'C F t $S ~ i-. Ts{ d1.c°:~ ,e~rL`n' r~ ,, ~k S t5 1 ;:~.:i. ~; r"~ •'7 ~ ~ ~ _.__----. _ v~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMNIISSION, 7uly 28, 1969 ` 4745 ;-; i VARIANCE N0. 2101 - PUBLIC HEARING. JAMES D, COOK, ET AL, 2202 South Oak Street, `~~' :~~a~ Santa Ana, California, Owners; requeating t•lAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM BUILDING SITE AREA PER DWELLING UNIT, (2) MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE, yj AND (3) MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK, TO ESTABLISH A 4-UNIT APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT on ,,r,r{ ro ert described as: A rectan ularl sha ed ''~ P P Y g y p parcel of land having a frontage of °~,~ approximately 54 feet on the east side of Zeyn Street and a maximum depth of approxi- ~: mately 118 feet, being located approximately 90 feet south of the centerline af LaVerne {~ Street, and further described as 846 North Zeyn Street. Property preaently classified ( ~ R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE„ ~ ~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location o£ subject property, existing `:;-}~$a zoning on the property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal, noting - r.~:~-t~ that the Code required a minimum of 2400 square feet for building site per unit and a :~;~h 45% coverege, whereas the petitior.er was proposing a building site area per unit of 1586 square feet and coverage of 48.3%; that in 1957, a variance was granted to the owner of the parcel directly north, permitting the establishment of four dwelling units - on said property, although it was also zoned R-2; that the lot area per dwelling unit was 1909 square feet and the lot coverage was 34%; that it would appear the proposal was an overdevelopment of the property in view of the existing zoning and the deviations . requested from the building site area per dwelling unit requirement; that the properties on Zeyn Stree[ between La Palma Avenue on the north and North Street on the south were zoned by map in 1951 to the R-2 Zone - however, at the same time, one block west on ~ Lemon Street, R-3 zoning had been established, and since properties t~ the east, on the east side of Zeyn Street abutted C-2 property, it would appear the R-3 zonins would be more appropriate for the Zeyn Street parcels. Therefore, if the Commission concurred with this premise, they might wish to initiate R-3 zoning in this area. '' Mr. Ken Callahan, 2202 South Oak Street, Santa Ana, representing the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and noted it was apparent from the plans what was proposed on the property, and that he would be available to answer questions. The Commission then inquired whether the existing structure would be removed; to which Mr. Callahan replied in the affirmative. No one appeared in opposition to subject peti~ion. -~ THE HEARING [•IAS CLOS~D. Discussion was held by the Commisaion relative to the statements of the staff regarding the R-3 zoning for subject property since properties i~ediataiy to the west on Lemon Street were already zoned R-3, and subject property was abutted to the east by C-2 zoning- therefore, it was most logical that R-3 zoning should be established for these parcels since this would be a more logical statement than having overdevelopment in the R-2 Zone. ; rir. Roberl-s further noted that if subject property were zoned R-3, the only waiver would ~ be the 1-foot difference in the side yard setback, and this could have been handled 1 administratively. Commissioner Camp noted that as this entire area redeveloped for a more intense use, the Commiasion could expect to have innumerable variance requests proposing similar 4-unit ~ apartment developments. Comoissioner Thom offered Resolution No. PC69-162 and moved for its passage and adoption to rant Petition for Variance No. 2101 suh'ect to conditions. 8 , } (See Resolution Sook) '" On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. NOES: COMhiISSIONERS: Plone. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. Commissioner Thom offered a motion to direct the staff to initiate reclassificacion proceedings for alI Chose properties located between La Palma Avenue on the north and North Street on the south, along both sides of Zeyn Street, from the R-2, 14ultiple- Family, Zone to the R-3, Multiple-Family Residential, Zone. Co~issioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson noted for the Co~ission that with the proposed reco~ended adoption of a change in the parking requirements, the Co~ission might also desire to initiate a variance petition to waive the new require- ments and to permit only 1~ parking spaces since the size of these lots would not be redeveloped economically if less than four units were permitted, and in all likelihood this would be a waiver in the majority of any redevelopment of the narrow parcela along , Zeyn Street. ~ . ---~.--~~ <~ ~ . ~F'y r ; C` X ~ ~ ~ 4746 i `~;~i ~ _.,. MINUTES, CITY PLANN~NG COMMISSION, July 28, 1969 VARIANCE N0. 2101 - The Commission then noted that if land assembly occurred and (Continued) multiple-family developmen[ were proposed for more than one lot, this waiver should not be applicable, and something should be considered for thia phase of the parking requirements. Mr. Thompson noted that any high-rise or land assembly might also require some waiver from the site development standards of the multiple-family zone; however, if the Commission desired, it could be permitted for lots of less than 60 feet, and this, then, would rule out any land assembly. ' Co~issioner Thom noted that his motian for reclassification should also include a variance waiver of the parking requ~rements. Cormnissioner Camp concurred in his second. MOTION CARRIED. VARIANCE N0. 2104 - PUBLIC HEARING. MARGARET ILLING[dORTH, 901 Gretchen Way, Anaheim, California, Owner; AUGUST VILJAK, 511 North Zeyn Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting tdAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM SUILDING SITE AREA PER DWELLING UNIT, (2) MAXIMUM LOT COVEi2AGE, (3) MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND (4) STAIRWAY LOCATED IN THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK, TO ES'TP.BLISH A 4-UNIT APARTMENT DEVELOPM~NT on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 50 feet on the west side of 2eyn Street and a maximum depth of approximately 114 feet, being located approximately 332 feet south of the center- line of La Verne Street, and further described as 829 North 2eyn Street. Property preaently classified R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Asaiatant Zoning Supervisor Pa[ Brown reviewed the location of subject property, the existing zoning, and the proposal, noting it was similar to the previous petition as to coverage and site area per dwelling unit - however, one di£ference was that the petitioner was proposing to construct the stairways which would project into the side yard requirement; that the denaity under subject petition was 30.8 dwelling units per net acre and the coverage was 46.3Y, with a site area per dwelling unit of approximately 1423 s~uare feet compared with the 2400 square feet required; and that subject petition was the second on one agenda where similar waivers were requested from the more restrictive site development standards of the R-2 Zone versus the R-3 Zone. Mr. August Viljak, 511 North ZEyn Street, appeared before the Commission, noting that sub,ject property was located at 824 North Zeyn Street; that even thoush this was in the older location of Anaheim, the land was still expensive; that the staff's courments relative to the side yards and the steps was aomewhat difficult to overcome - however, they could be located closer to the building, or the stairway could be covered and made a part of the wall of the garage. Chairman Rowland noted that the petitioner's agent could obviate the necessity for the variance on the stairway by redesign. No one appeared in oppoaition to sub~ect petition. r THE HFARING WAS CLOSED. ;,~ .~M1~ ;'~s ~=r ;_:~ t ~ Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts adviaed the Co~ission that the apartments were ~ - proposed to be located 8 feet from both the north and south side property lines, ,~. whereas Code permitted stairways to project only 50% into the required side yards - ~: therefore, if the stairways could be relocated closer to the building, this waiver ~ would not be neceasary, fii I Chairman Rowland noted that this was physically poasible, and aince this was a construc- ~ tion problem rather than a zoning problem, 1-d should be denied. "' Co~issioner Thom offered Resolution No. PC69-163 and moved for its passage and adoption r+; to grant Petition for VsCiance No. 2104, in part, denying waiver "d" regarding the stair- ~ way projecting into more than 50% of the required side yard setback, and amending ~~ Condition No. 9 to reflect that "provided, however, that atairways shall not pro ect s" more than 507 into the required side yards", and sabject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) y ?~ On roll call the foregoing reaolution was passed by the followinl~ vote: ,< AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. *~.~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. t :; ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. `x ~ ~,- ;; ti. . ~4 ~. U., .i. . ...-, . .. . . , . . . . . ...., bY' ~.Y;',+SY' .y.. ,. ~ .'i~y~' I ~:: _ t `' ~; : ~ V '~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMNlISSION, July 28, 1969 ~ 4747 CONDZTIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARIIdG, TEXA00, INC.., 3922 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, PERMIT N0. 1128 California, Owner; AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEMS, 1508 South Alameda Street, Los Angeles, California, Agent; requesting permission to HAVE STORAGE AND RENTAL OF LARGE TRUCKS, WITH WAIVER OF THE REQUIRED ENCLOSIIRE OF OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA on property deacribed as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Kateila Avenue and Lewis Street, having approximate frontages of 150 feet on the aouth side of Katella Avenue and 150 feet on the west side of Lewis Street, and further described as S1S East Katella Avenue. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject praperty, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to permit storage and rental of large trucks with waiver of the required enclosure of the outdoor storage area. Mr. Brown noted that the proposal was to utilize a vacant aervice station site for the storage and rental of large trucks wherein the dimensions were 150 feet by 150 feet, and the original atructures and pumps would be retained, with trucks and sutomobiles being parked around the perimeter of the parcel by the Avis Rent A Car Systems, Inc. as a test proposal to determine whether this type of operation would prove economically feasible in the area or might be detrimental to the adjoining land uses; even though the petitioner had indicated th£a was a temporary use that would end in approximately one year since resulta should be concluaive enough to determine whether relocation at a more permanent aite would be justifiable. Furthermore, the use as proposed was a permitted use in the M-2 Zone, and in the M-1 Zune upon approval of a conditional use permit. However, it was also a permitted use in the C-3 Zone, but was never permitted on a bona fide service station site as per the definition of a service atation in Section 18.08:330; that the Pianning Commisaion and City Council in May, 1968, had denied two similar s:equ~eata for such a use at two other service station sites, feeli:~g that an undesirable pre~cedent would be set for other service atation s3.Ces in the City - conaequently, the prfm;,. consideration before the Planning Co~nission in subject petition was to determine whether the proposed use was appropriate on this aervice station site aince service stationa were permitted to develop in the M-1 Zone in conformance with the 3ite development atandards eatablished for service stations in the commercial zones, such as minimal landscaping requirementa, a 3-foot landscaped atrip adjacent to the highway right-of-way, no interior landscaping, and a maximum of 10 rental trailers on a site; that nor~:ally development of this type of,facility in the M-1 Zone wouln require a 50-foot atructural setback from the highway rights-of-way adjacent to an arterial highway, which Katella Avenue was, said aetbacka to be fully landacaped, or a 10-foot, fully landacaped strip in the 50-foot atructural aetback with parking permitted in the rear 40 feet of the required aetback; that the proposal was not necessarily the parking of vehicles but the outdoor atorage of vehicles in the M-1 Zone; that recent petitiona had been required to have all equipment diaplayed to the rear of the 50-foot setback if the masonry wall encloaure were waived, and eince there was ample industrial land and even some C-3 property available in the City which would provide a more auit- able site for the propoaed facility, both from the atandpoint of operation itaelf and permitting development more in conEormance with the eite development etandards applicable to other facilitiea in the industrial zonea, if aubject petition were approved, the Co~ieaion might desire to establish a time limitation on the uae as propoaed on subject aite for a period of one year, aubject ta review at the end of that time for either continuation or termination of the use. Mr. Charles Mathwin, repreaenting Avis Rent A Car Systema, appeared before the Co~ission and noted that although other aervice station aitea had beea denied aimilar type uses, aubject property was a service station not in operation at the preaent time, and they were attempting to obtain other property in this area; however, in order to convince the executives in New York that a more permanent type facility could be built and operated on an economic basis, utilization of subject property for a period of one year would auffice to preaent any data to the company's executives because of the rather expensive costs involved in developing such a facility; that only one alteration was proposed for the exiating atructure, and that was the raising of the canopy on the atation so that there would not be any problem in trucks hitting the canopy proper; that the facility would be only for truck rentals and not sutomobilea~ and then in reaponse to Coffitisaion queationing, atated that they proposed 16 to 20-foot trucka, and there was no intention of maintaining any trailers, but they intended to have tractors here, but the tractora would be the same aize as the trucka aforementioned. Mr. Brown, in responae to Commiasion queationing, noted that under the original condi- tional uae permit for International Harvester, they were granted permiasion to have small exhibita in the eetback area, but the one to the weat was required to have every- thing to the rear of the front setback line. Mr. R. W. Wright, real eatate agent for the Texaco Company, appeared before the Commission ~i and noted that the facility at the Katella and Lewia Street aite was modern; that the }' uae of aubject property wae well auited for the uae of atorage of Avie trucke for a ~ ~~~' _~. j yq~.~. t i A K i's'+,Ett r:~ Yr jy j' 'F 'R 4 c[! ~r! a~,4..~n ~ ~ "' 'atx . a ~ ' ~ MI r'," ••{ __~_~_"~ v'~.~.... ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 28, 19b9 4748 i ~„~ ,~u CONDITIONAL USE .- period of a year; that it was the intent of the Texaco Company to :'r„~,;:,r;" ' PERMIT N0. 1128 open the service station at such time as the business in this area ~,..~ '~ (Continued) warranted - however, they had anticipated when the service station ~'., .... ' ~ was constructed to open it immediately, but due to the lack of ~ success by the Angels, the station was not opened, and, thereEore, ~'~ they were attempting to establish some interim use aince they had a,long-term lease ~7,r`:~'~ on the property. r; ~~ P" Commissioner Gauer noted that the Co~ission had been attempting for a number of years ~t,~, to discourage the establishment of service stations at every intersection, and currently there were approximately twenty service stations closed in the City of Anaheim. ~;~'v: + . ~;,.,,;;~ Mr, tdright, in response to Coimnission comments, stated that the Texaco Company had fewer .'';, stations in the City then they had several years ago. Commissioner Farano noted that the.proposal of utilizing defunct or closed service b;?'. stations as a aecondary use would encr~urage oil companies to close their less success- ~` 3' ful atations and increase the size of their more successfully operated stations; that he would not encourage the interim use idea of service stations for other uses since !+~' ~~~ they ahould be used only for service stationa or nothing whatsoever. ~;,. ; Mr. Wright noted that they had thought ti~e baseball team would be a success and consider- +; able business would be derived from that - however, this did not occur. Furthermore, ~ the trash pickup company property was also, in his estimation, a detrimental use in that ~<,,,;~; ,r~~ea, and the Texaco people had a long-term lease on the property and were hoping to derive some revenue from the property aithuugh it would not be uaed as a service station. .' _ .. The Commission further noted that a 6-foot masonry wall would be somewhat expensive and wondered whether some other type of screening could be erected around the storage area. rIr. Wright stated that the vehicles that would be stored there would not be detrimental to the area; that they did not own the building but were only leasing the facility and were not desirous of expending additional funds for screening purposes. The Commission no[ed there would be an approximate 300-foot perimeter of the prope:ty if a fence were around this, and wondered whether this would be detrimental to the future service station facilities. Mr. WFight reaponded that since this was only an interim uae, they did not want to expend any money for a fence, and normally service stations did not have enclosures as proposed by the Commission. The Co~nission noted they were also not deairous of aubjecting the large restaurant i~ediately adjacent to subject property to an interim uae of trucka being in their front setback area aince the operators of the reata;::ant had maintained this facility with attractive landacaping both in the parking ~irea as well as the periphery; however, if the proposed use were properly acreened, somr. conaideration might be given to thie interim use - although it was not necessary to have a 6-foot masonry wall, but some fully enclosed fence other than a chainlink fence ahould be considered. IIr. i~right again reiterated the fact that this was only an interim type use, and it was not their desire to construct any type of encloaure becauae of the short-term operation proposed. 'E ~ Commissioner Gauer no[ed that there were twenty service stations cloaed within the city limits of the City of Anaheim, and if all these closed aervice stations were allowed to have some interim type use, this would be considered an undesirable aspect in many areas, auu in his opinion, if a service station could not be operated successfully at any given location, 3t shouid be removed. Co~issioner Farano was of [he opinion that only a aervice station and its complementary uses should be permitted and any other use disallowed. THE H~ARING 47AS CLOSED. Co~issioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC69-164 and moved for its passage and adop- tion to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1128 on the basis that the proposed uae would adveraely affect the adjoining land uses, eapecially the existing restaurant ~ wherein large trucks would be stored or parked in the front setback required of the M-1 zoned properties, with no propoaed acreening devices; that the proposed use would estab- lish an undesirable precedent whereby many undesirable interim uses could utilize service atations presently not in operation, as well as operating service stations; that the Planning Co~ission and City Council recently der.ied two petitions requesting permission to have storage and rental of trucks at service sl:ation sites, and to grant subject ~. ;~ *::- ,ti~, ~ -- +A. '~,: ~ ~ ~~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ",l~%~+1~t.~~ }5 c e -' I M1 f '~. _ ~ i.. . . , r C ~. . ,. . - . , , . , . . ~ 7rY.°~ ~, . . ~ .LC ,e '~ ~ . . t I. ._.,.L, i~^ ~r ,~ ~. t - ..I. . ~ . ~..~` ~~ -" fw, v.. ~<~.,. ~, ,.,; r~°~. s ~. e r A M M~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~c~~~=~ ' ~ --- ~ ~ ~ ~ { 2, r ;'~ MIN[JTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 28, 1969 4749 CONDITIONAL USE - pe~ition would be granting a privilege not enjoyed by other service ~ PERMIT NO.. 1128 station operators; and that the service stations established in the '_''; , (Continued) M=1 Zone were required to conform anlq with the aite development ' ,;,. ,: standards establiahed for service stationa in the co~ercial zonea, ' ~t '~ ` wherein minimal front ~setliacks and landscaping and no .interioY landscapino i ~~ were required - therefore, the uae of a aervice station aite not meeCing the site ~ ' development standarda of the M-1 Zone for other industrial uaea would be establishing ~,~ ' a precedent for requests of.aimilar waivere of landscaping and enclosure of storage area r i t f id equ remen s o sa zone, (See Resolution Book) ~ 1 ti~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote: ~+ ~}5 ~~~r AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. _ , ; NOES; COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ '~' ~.. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. ~ ~~ j F VARIANCE N0. 2108 - PUBLIC HEARING. HAROLD GRAHAM, Box 425, Big Bear Lake, California, ~; Owner; requesting WAIVER OF THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK TO ESTABLISH ~ AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING on property deacribed as: An irregularly 1 - ` shaped parcel of property aituated on the north aide of La Palma Avenue approximately i 950 feet east of the centerline of Lakeview Avenue, said parcel having approximately -! 175 feet of frontage on La Palma Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 138 feet. Property preaently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. ~:. Y>, Commissioner Farano left the Council Chamber at 3:45 P.M. ~ ...::ci,. ~ ;j Aasistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property and r .,,; uszs eatablisned in cloae proximity, noting that on July 8, 1969, the City Council ;.. had approved Area Development Plan No. 102 which provided for circulation and access ~ , for the area generally bounded by Lakeview Street on the weat, Orangethorpe Avenue on ~ the north; Trinidad Lane (a private street) on the east, and I.a Palma Avenue on the ;'~ south; that said proposed street would extend northerly from La Palma Avenue and would ` ~~ require dedication from the easterly portion of subject property, and since dedication ~_ would affect the propoF4d location of an industrial atructure for which the developer t,x ,,~ had already submitted u building permit, the City Council initiated the variance in ~ r;' order that the etitioner mi ht selocate the p gain P g pro osed induetrial structure and i ~'1 +,~ maximum use of this property, ~ ~y '1 J ~'`t~ t(;} No one appeared to repreaent the owner of subject property. ,>.: , aa No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. z; ' ; ~ ~ ~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. L r`; 3 ; Co~issioner Camp offered Reaolution No. PC69-165 and moved for ite paesage and adop- ~ ` tion, to grant Petition for Variance No. 2108, subject to conditione, and a finding ,~ that the recent approval of Area Development Plan No. 102 required the dedication of ~ r ~ the easterly 12 feet of subject property in order to provide etreet acceea to aeveral ~~ y landlocked parcela to the north, thereby neceaeitating a change in the location of a ~ ~ { building for which a building permit had already been requeated. (See Reaolution Book) $ i ' ~ On roll call the foregoing reaolution was pasaed by the following vote: ~ ;; ~ AYES: COFASISSIO~SERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbat, Thom, Rowland. f ° ; NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None, f ~I ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 411red, Farano. ~ r~ ~ ~ v'~ a RECESS - Co~issioner Thom moved for a ten-minute recesa. Cou~iasioner f ti~,,:~ r Gauer aeconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting receased ' i ~° '` ~" at 3:50 P.M. ~r'~ ~ ~~ ,~ RECONVENE - Chairman Rowland reconvened the meeting at 4:00 P.M., Commisaioners ~ ~,.~ ~; ~,;,," tp;:::;,-,: Allred and Farano being absent. i ; N ~t ~ `e: ~ ,~y R~~ .~l. ~ ~ ~ i +; ~ ~ ~ ,~ h'`~ : _.__.._ _ _---__._ ,_._. _~ __._. _..-- --._ ~ . ,. . .. . . . . . ... . . . ; .. . . . ... . ..Y'_ ..,.-.~.~,~.. , -'A?" j ~• ~,',~ i. ~ ~t ~. ~ .~, r'~ ~ n1 .f. .. . ~ ~ x '19 ' r w p. ~ i ~ 9 ~ .,. ~ i ~.F .~'rs{. x,.• . . .., ._. . . . , l i. r .. , ~ , . . ~ . r , .l..,, ~ I _. ~~?,~ .. . .. ` + Cr ~ . .. ~5 r ~ „ _ _ . _.... ,,.::,. ..- :,.. , , ~ '~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ,7uly 28, 1969 4750 RECLASSIFICATION' - PUBLIR HEp.RING.. HERBERT LIEBERMAN AND ALFRED SEEHUSEN, 12362 Euclid NO.. 69-70-4 Street, Garden Grove, California, Owners; DAVID MADDOX, 111 North - Western Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as: VARIANCE N0. 2107 Parcel l- A rectangularly shaped parcel of property containing .86 acres of land on the south side of Ba11 Road, approximately 330 feet east of the centerline of Western Avenue, said parcel having a frontage of approximately 110 feet and a depth of approximately 343 feet, and Parcel 2- A rectangularly shaped parcel of property containing .74 acrea of land on the south side.of Ba11 Road, approximately 330 feet east of the centerline of Western Avenue, said parcel having a frontage of approximately 96 feet and a depth of approxi- mately 343 feet. Property presently clasaified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE (PARCEL 1) and R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE (PA-RCEL 2), ~ f~ REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: PARCEL 1- R-3, MULTIPLE-FAt~fILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.. a REQUESTED VARIANCE: PARCELS 1 AND 2- WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM DISTANCE BET~JEEN ~ '~ BUILDINGS AND PROPERTY LINES, (2) MINIMUM ACCESSORY BUILDING `~ ;r,>,'t SETBACK IN THE FRONT 75% OF THE LOT, (3) MAXIMUM DISTANCE ':",'~'=` BETWEEN UNITS AND A STANDARD STREET, (4) MINIMUM NUMBER OE ~~ COVERED PARKING STALLS, (5) MINIMUM PARKING STALL SIZE, AND (6) ONE-STORY HEIGHT LIMITATION WITHIN 150 FEET OF R-A ,,~ ZONED PROPERTY, TO ESTABLISH A 45-UNIT, TWO-STORY APARTMENT s,..,.:,;:.~' COMPLEX. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, exist- ing zoning, uaes established.in cloae proximity, and the proposed development, noting that a two-story, 45-unit complex having 45% coverage and a density of 32.6 dwelling units per net acre was proposed; that the proposed parking was :ln conformance with the new off-street parking requirements recommended by the Planning Coum~ission for adoption; that a 28-foot wide, peripheral drive extended southward in the eastern portion of the property, thence westward in the southern portion, terminating in a 54-foot diameter turning radius; that carports were located along the east and most of the south property line, with private patios located along the western boundary line; that the proposed private drive would provide adequate access for fire and trash vehiclea; that the Preliminary General Plan-1969 indicated low-medium density residential as being appropri- ate for this area, with medium density residential on the north side of Ball Road - therefore, subject proposal would appear to be an appropriate request for land ~ise; and that waiver Nos. l through 5 could be considered technical in nature in light of recent proposed amendments to the multiple-family site development atandarda, and waiver No. 6 could probably.be conaidered technical since the General Plan deaignatea this area for low-medium density and in all likelihood the remaining R-A parcels would develop for uaea more intense than aingle-family residential. I4r. David rfaddox, agent for the petitioner, indicated hia presence to anawer queations, noting that the plane and the Report to the Cormniseion adequately deacribe the proposal, Mr. Maddox then presented a colored rendering and two colored Polaroi~ picturea of a building similar to what was being propoaed for aubject property. Mr. Maddox, in reaponse to Commisaion queationing, stated they had attempted to give a good ratio of one, two and three-bedroom unita in accordance with the demand of auch facilities in thia area. No one appeared in opposition to aubject petitions. THE HENRING t•~AS CLOSED. Chairman Rowland inquired what was entailed in the 150-foot waiver; whereupon Zoning Supervisor Charlea Roberts noted that a 1.04-acre R-A parcel to the east and another large R-A parcel to the west necessitated requiring the waiver of the one-story within 150 feet of R-A property. Co~issioner Herbst offer.ed P.esolution No. PC69-166 and moved for ita passage and adop- tion to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclasaification No. 69-70-4 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COl~fIiISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. NOESc COI~fISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COBIl~iISSIONERS: Allred, Farano. ~ i ~ ~. . i _.: ..,, „ _,, . ,_ r. , . -., ,. . . , , _ _ , . ~ ~ ~ MINOTES; CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 28, 1969 4751 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Herbst offered Reaolution No. PC69-167 and moved for NO,~ 69-70-4 ita passage and adoption, to grant Petition for Variance No. 2107, subject to conditions, with the added condition that park and VAR7ANCE NO.. 2107 recreation fees of $75 per dwelling unit, to be used for park and (Continued) recreation purposea, be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing reaolution was pasaed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland~ ~ NOES: COMIfISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING~. HOWARD P_ HOUSE, M.D,., 2122 West 3rd Street, ~ NO.. 69-70-3 Los Angeles, California, Owner; DENNIS DEVINE, c/o D& S Company, 13848 Ventura Boulevard, Sherman Oaks, California, Agent; property ~ VARIANCE N0. 2105 described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage ~ of approximately 316 feet on the north side of Broadway and a depth of approximately 288 feet, being approximately 188 feet east of the ~ centerline of Magnolia Avenue, and further described as 2500 block o£ Broadway„ Property ~ presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. : REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. ~ REQUESTED VARIANCE: ~dAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM NUMBER OF COVERED PARKING STALLS, (2) MINIMUM BUILDING SITE AREA PER DS~ELLING UNIT, (3) MAXIMUM DISTANCE FROM DWELLING UNIT TO A STANDARD STREET, AND (4) ACCESSORY BUILDING ABUTTING SIDE PROPERTY LINES, TO ESTABLISH A 66-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. Aseistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close prox~mity, existing zoning, and the proposal, together with the waivers being requested, emphasizing the fact that the petitioner was proposing a 66- unit, two-story,apartment complex with a densi,y'of 38.6 dwelling units,per net`acre and a coverage of 39.4%- however, the parking ratio of covered and uncovered stalls per dwelling unit would in accordance with the reco~ended amendment to the parking requirements in the multiple-family zonea; that two 20-foot wide entrances from Broad~way were indicated, with entrances expanding into 25-foot wide drives surrounding the property, and carports and open atalls would be located along the east and west property lines; that the 25-foot wide drivea would be excavated below existing grade level, and the flooring of the carports and open parking spaces would be at this new grade level;that the central portion of the project would remain at existing grade level; that two-atory apartment atructurea were propoaed over the carporta located around the interior perimeter of the drive - thus the majority of the apartment units would appear to be three-atory, however, by definition, eince the bottom atory (carporta) was depreeaed more than 50% below the existing grade and was ueed excluaively for park- ing, it wae conaidered a basement. Mr. Brown noted that the Preliminary General Plan-1969 indicated co~ercial-professional i and low-medinm and medium denaity, multiple-family reaidential uaes as being appropriate for this area - therefore, the propoaed reclassification request would appear to be an appropriate one; that Che first three waivera requested could'be considered technical '` in light of recently proposed amendmenta to the aS.te development standarda of the ''' multiple-family zonea - however, waiver No. 4 would be of some concern to the Commission aince i[ was the resul[ of overdevelopment of the property with too many units, creating a density of almoat 39 dwelling unite per net acre and reducing the minimum site area per dwelling unit below Code minimums; that an analyais of the plans indicated that by a reduction of four units from the total proposal, density could be reduced to 36 and minimum site area per dwelling unit increased to 1207 square feet, thereby being within Code requirementa. Mr. Dennis Devine, agent for'the petitioaer, appeared before the Commission and noted ~ that Y.he main reason for the density proposed was to meet the market demand prevalent ~ at thie time wherein oMe bedroom units were the majority being rented, rather than the two and three-bedroom unita - however, their proposal did not consiat entirely bf one- bedroom unita; that there was ample recreation facilities and ample parking, and the proposed development would be attractive; that they had built between twelve and seven- teen apartment developmente in Southern California similar to the one proposed, with the eame deneity; and then preaented slidea of a number of the developments they had con- atructed, reflecting the amount of landacaping and the type of architecture proposed and noted, in conclhaion, that their last project was a 28-unit development wMch had ' ~.. ~ . ~ : ~ .~,_. -_ - ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 28, 1969 4752 RECLASSIFICATION - been given recognition in one of the apartment development magazines.. N0. 69-70-3 No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. VARIANCE N0. 2105 (Continued) TAE HEARING NAS CLOSED. ' The Com~q;tssion discuased the proposal for waiver of the'maxiaum coverage and minimum square footage per,dwelling unit,. noting that to approve this- would be seCting a.precedent for similar requests.bf other R-3 developments; that although the petitioner had presented a very logical case for an.individual parcel, this could have been done wiEhout full background knowledge of the City's requirement ~ standarda and community values insofar as community aervices were concerned, and that in the past the Commission had denied these types of waiver requests, and aince the petitioner had not presented documented evidence that the requested variance was neceasary for the preservation and enjoyment of a aubatantial property right possessed by other propertiea and denied to subject property, waiver of the minimum building site' area per dwelling unit should be denied. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC69-168 and moved for its passage and adop- tion, to recommend ta the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. b9-70-3 be approved, subject ~to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland, ; NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. i ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano. ~ Commiasioner Camp offered Resolution No. PC69-169 and moved for its passage and adop- tion, to grant Petition for Vari.ance No. 2105 in part, denying the request for waiver of the minimum building site area per dwelling unit on the basis that the granting of this waiver would set an undesirable precedent for similar waivers for future R-3 requesta and would be granting a privilege not previously graated to other developers of apartment complexea, and that by reducing the number of total proposed units by four, conformance to Rode minimums for. building-.site area.:per dwelling-uni~'r.o41d be - accomplished, and aubject to conditions, amending Condition No.-2 to include,-`'!provided, . however, that the minimum:building aite area per dwelling unit is in conformance wiEh< Code requirements": (See Resolution Book) Oa roll call the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Thcmi, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CGMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HFARING. L~.WIS R. AND NDITH E. SCHMID, 1401 Smokewood ~ ` N0. 69-70-5 Drive, Santa Ana, California, Ownera; GEORGE L. ARGYROS, ARNEL a DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 17411 Irvine Boulevard, Suite D, Tust~Ln, ~ California, Agerit; requesting that property described as: An ' irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 225 feet on the ~ weat side of State College Boulevard and an approximate depth of 150 feet, subject ~ property being approximately 350 feet north of the centerline of Ba11 Road, be = reclassified from the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENT7AL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL } COMMERCIAL. ZONE. ~ i Assiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown reviewed the location'of aubject property, i ; previous zoning action, and the fact that an R-1 aubdivision abutted subject property f to the north; that the Commission at their July 14, 1969 meeting"had granted Variance No. 2095 to eatablish a 108-unit apartment complex for the large westerly portion of i ~i subject property with plans which indicated construction of a 64'-foot wide cul-de-sac t street along the northerly portion of the property extending`from State College ~ Boulevard, and at that time the petitioner had indicated they had aubmitted a reclassi- ~ fication petition for the State College Boulevard frontage of 225 feet; that when the ! Commiseion first considered the variance on the R-3 property, concern was expressed by the Commission relative to posaible co~ercial uses for the State College Boulevard frontage where it abutted an R-l tract, and due to the fact that a fairly.large, well designed commercial shopping center already existed acroas the atreet at the northeast corner of State College Boulevard, this add'itional commercial use might be auperfluous - tharefore, the Commission would have to determine whether there was a need for additional commercial property in this area, especially in view of the £act that there was a shepping center already located across the street, and a neighborhood convenience center had recently been approved by the City Council at the corner of Ball Road and ' SunkisC Street. ~ ". t ~.r~4h,~~~`Ak~AfR'x14f Fy-acan.~~gc~~f~!('<}'Y"4a.T"~~ 4wq ~/~,~Y M' y; l`~V ~f,a"..~+p'h'x+.yi~- x r I' t ~,; ^^'n, t t.+- ;y . ~-l~ . S , Y ~ i ~ . . ~ { _ ; ~-' , .: `. . . ~ :~: . . . ~. i ' ~ .._i ; .. .. ~ _,..~.___.._~.. . ! .: :' . ~: . ~~ '~ "" V ~ ~ a 1~Zi~CrCES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 28, 1969 4753 REC;.~SSIFICATION - Mr. George Argyros, 17411 Irvine Boulevard, Suite D, Tustin, NO.. 69-70-5 California, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission (Continued) and noted ha had letters from several R-1 homeowners to the north who had indicated they w~re not oppoaed to commercial development for subject property; that theq were presently in the discussion atage with a financial institution and a reataurant - however, because the leasing agree- ment had not been reached, they were unable to aubmit plot plans far development of this parcel; that there was also a posaibility the 200-foot rI-1 parcel located between subject property and the service station site to the sou'th would be included in this commercial frontage development, and, therefore, if the Commission had a condition whereby precise developmenC plans would be submitted prior to the iseuance of a building permit, and the zoning was granted, he would stipulate to submitting said precise site plan. Mr.. Argyros again indicated that the M-1 parcel was in escrow; however, he was not at liberty to diacess the arrangements for said parcel at this time. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. Discuasion was held by the Commiasion relative to the posaibility of continuing subject petition in order that the property to the aouth might be considered at the same time and for submission of development plana. Commiasioners Herbat and Thom expressed the opinion ttiat they were not desirous of granting a C-1 zoning for aubject property unless development plana were submitted, because zoning of the property went with the land, and i.f the zor.ing were accomplished, then any uae permitted in the C-1 Zone would be allowed to develop on subject proper~y within the confines of the site development atandardR, and some uaes might be incempatible with the reaidential uaes to the north and the proposed multiple-fanitly tract to the west. Furthermore, this could be considered "spot zoning" with a small C-1 parcel between M-1, R-3, and R-1 propertiea. Mr. Argyros advised the Commission that he would not object to a sixty-day continuance and inquired whether Che zoning might be granted subject to precise plans. Commissioner Herbst noted that thia was not one of the requirements of zoning, although it was his opinion it was a desirous zoning tool to have to protect property owners, and thia type of zoning seemed to work out very well in the City of Fullerton. Chairman Rowland 5~sr_nd ?,e concurred with Commisaioner Herbat's feelin~s relative to granting blanket C-1 zoning for subject property; however, this parcel was in a rather "shakey area" wherein the normal aite development standarda of the G 1 Zone would not be applicable - therefore, it was important that preciae plana be aubmitted before the Commisaion to determine whethez• or not the propoaed commercial uaea were appropriate. Asaistant Development Sexvicea Director Ronald Thompaon inquired of Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry whether or not the Commiseion could legally tie the granting of a reclasai- fication to a precise plan. Mr. Lowry atated that he was heaitant to make a positive anawer and would have to consult with the City Attorney to determine whether or not the granting of zoning could be tied into plana. ~ '~~ ~; ~ Mr. Argyroe then adviaed the Commission that ample time would be given the staff in the = event the property to the south was prapoaed to be reclassified, and the properties ~' could be readvertised for the public hearing. Commieaioner Thom offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Reclassifi- cation No. 69-70-5 to the meeting of September 22, 1969, to allow time for the petitioner to conaummate acquisi[ion of additional property and for the preparation of plans, to- gether with an opinion from the City Attorney that the reclassification could be tied into precis:: plana of development. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. REPORTS AND - ITEM N0, 1 RECOMMENDATIONS Orange County Change of Zone 69-29 - Initiated by the Orange County Planning Commisaion, proposins that five parcela of land comprising 18 acrea located on the south eide of Santa Ana Canyon Road approximately two milea eaet of Imperial Highway be rezoned from 80-AR-10,000 "Agricultural Reaidential" and 100-C1-10,000 "Local Busineas" Dietricta, to County CH/35 "Commercial Highway" District. Asaiatant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown presented to the Planning Commisaion Orange County Change of Zone 69-29, noting the location of sub~ect property and the consideration now pending before the Orange County Planning Commiasion, together with the Report to the _~~ ~ ~ryy~~..~'~ r~ .'~,, ^ t~~wt r k'} t.'~` 'k }~r'C'" ( ~?~+e '~~d ~~ r~ ~°. 's~ t ,,`"4'S•+T^ .i +'-~''G,: '~' ~.~ r ^ ." `; ~43 ~ ~ _ .:v:?/ ~. _{, ~N {'_~,." a:.. .. . , . ___ ~~' ~ V ~ ~ a~ W .,:~~, MINUTES, CITY PLANNIN6 COMMISSION, July 28, 1969 4754~ " REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 1 (Continued) ~`~"'} ;~~ Commisaion attached herewith. ~ :~ Discussion was held by the Commission on the importance of retaining the Santa Ana ~u Canyon area as a scenic drive, as well as establishing controls for any proposal along ~y Santa Ana Canyon Road. , ~ ~ Commissioner Thom offered a motion to reca~nend to the City Council that the Orange ";~ County Planning Commission be urged to disapprove Orange County Change of Zone G9-29 on the basis that commercial zoning in a linear "strip" fashion as proposed would not be consistent i h h . =~ w t t e Hill and Canyon General Plan wherein commercial centers was ,<ll~ recommended, Furthermore, the proposal would also be inconsistent with the desires of the SEate of California, the County of Orange, and the City of Anaheim as was indicated by their joint decision to designate Santa Ana Canyon Road as a"scenic " highway . Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 2 RECLASSIFICATION N0, 68-69-65 and VARIANCE N0. 2049 - Property located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Sunkist Street - Reviaed legal and plans. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Pat Brown advised the Commission that subject petitions were b h ''~~'` roug t to the Commission primarily for their review since no action was necessary, and since the i ;.'~ pr mary purpose was to apprise the Commission of the fact that after the City Council had a d <;^~~ pprove subject petitions, although the Commission had recommended denial, the engineer and developer had discovered an error in the metes and bounds legal deacription amounting to a 27-foot wide strip running the entire length of the southerly boundary of the property, and that the City Attorney had given the opinion 'L that since it was the City Council's original intent that the property south of the C-1 property extending to the R-1 property be reclassified to the R-3 Zone there was , no need to readvertise the 27-foot atrip; however, the plans of development under the variance request would have to be approved by the City Council in order to have any ' validity as far as the reclassification of the property was concerned. Mr. Brown noted that the revised plans had been aubmitted to the ataff for review and ~ , it was determined that only two additional unita were indicated, and additional open space was propoaed with the balance of the property. Chairman Rowland thanked the staff for appriaing them of the opinion rendered by the City Attorney relative to subject property. ITEM N0, 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1022 (Herco Properties, Inc.) ~ Extenaion of time - Property located on the east side of j East Street, approximately 360 feet north of Lincoln Avenue. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pat Brown reviewed the previous action taken by the Planning C ommission on subject property, noting tha[ under the conditional use permit it was proposed to establish a walk-up reataurant; that one previous extenaion of time had been ; a gr nted, which expired July 10, 1969; and that the staff recommended an additional six- ~ monCh extension of time, to expire January 10, 1970 be approved, Commissioner Thom offered a motion to grant a six-month extension of time for the ' completion of conditions in Resolu[ion No. PC68-112 granted on April 22 1968 , . Commissioner Herbat seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITLM N0. 4 VARIANCE N0, 2100 (David Collins-Ronald Karos) - Property i located northwest of the intersection of Pearl and Pearl Streets.,- Staff request for clarification of a finding. ; Zoning Supervisor ~harles Roberts reviewed for the Commiseion their action on July 14 relative to the variance requeat as to the msximum building height and one-atory height limitation within 150 f eet of the R-0 Zone, noting that the staff had asaumed the Commiasion had granted the waiver on the basis of the findin s reae t d g p n e to them by the staff; however, the staff in reaearching had determined they were erro e i n oua n the information they had given the Commisaion relative to the assumption that the first ~'.tr ~, ~.Y `?s~'t. e8s`tt rf' : ~-T -~~C a.L + r1 t{f '~ %e*'.T~•j•~, '~~ 3`~j~-5 t; Y Ft i~ f.~ tti r; ~ - l y %` ~r~' ~er~ h , u' ~ ..,v~: t "n < E v~ ~ x ~ ~~ l~i~, . ~.. ~ . ' .. ~ . . ~ ~ .~ ~...,.. . . . ~ ~ 24INUTL~S; CITY PLAIiNING COl•;MISSIONy July 28, 1969 f+755 _ RL~POF.TJ l:Nll RLCOrR'~vI4T/ATI6PI, - ITEtR A0; 4 (Continued) atory was not to Ue considered as such, but a basement, and aince Chia was Co be uaed as,living fecilitiea, in accordance witli Code requirementa anything below grade liad to be;coneidered a basemienC and not a habitable place - therefore, it was requested approval.or clarification of a finding which the staff had drafted.after consulation ~rfth tlie City Attorneq's oEfice, that being, "That waivers l-b and l+c, above mentioned, are deemed appropriate due to the factthat the petitioner had indicnted on hin p~z:;s ti~at t.te fir.At aCOry r,f'eucL ?7uilding ~~i?1 be conetructed in auch a manner titnC uver. 5'% pf L•l:~e vert:tcni, iieiglit cf tae tir.st story vill be below tlie natural ;,r.ndp o~° s~d~;;ecL• ~ properl•y snd ue7.n~: *.he ;r.adu ri£ tiie ad;jacent properCy to the .zorth, ther~by crcal:im,:; s:+. ~ eLEective 'rei~;~ir. cf : 1 sCrJxies tor tl~~ prnposed northerly buildin~ and 2•'.; sco•,.~.ies f::r the scue~axl.,y '~uil.din~;". ~1or,urissinncr T~or.; :~'fer.eQ a~m~tiaa to reflect the finding in Petil•ion fo~ ;%nri.c.-:c~ I~:o. 21"~:~, approved 1n (ieau:uti~,n i:o. PCi:9-]55, that it was the intent uf tn~ .^,c;~*~issior. in t:telr nppr~?vfl! ct watvcr ~;t tnc maxiaium Uuil.ding hei~ht within 1S0 Per:t ai' Ciia .r..,J zc~nud prnpertiea and tt~e r.:~;cir.nim nuildin~ liei~ht permitted in L•.he R-3 <ione i:c n.a, "That ;aaivers 1-1~`and i.-c, aUove menCioned, are deemed appropriaCe due to L•!ie fa„t i!!at tiie peCitin;~er ~ine indica[ed cn his plans that the first story of eacl; ~~uii.ctia~ e~i'~J. be conxCr.ucted in auc'a a manner ttiat' over 50ry of the vertical height ct~ •,:t±e `_irel• stcr.y ;ti:l be be7.ow tha naturnl grade of suUject property and 'ueloc~ the gz~+da ci ~:i~c edj~cent prr,rcrty ta tae nortt:, tl:ereby cr.eating an effective height of 1=._ sCOri.cs ~o- tl:e proposed nc;~t:~ealy 't.uildinr and 2'~ atoriea for the southerly buildin~;". C~;~:.,issi+~n4x i:u:~p seconded r.1e mo[iun, t~UTION ~Al?RITll. A~~J;;Liii•.-i~~:..'.C - i:~cre ;~utn;, nn furti~er ousineas to discuas, Conmiasianer i.~••'.~st at'fered a ir.otion to adJo~irn the meeting. Commissioncr ti;r;,~p secended the raocion. li0TI0H CARRI~D. I rhe ~:~etiz.; ad jcurned at 4:45 P.~i. ?:eapectfully submitted, ~•U'% i '>`! ~ ~',. f AN~1 l:R~S^u, IIecretary ---- Anaheim City Piannin~ Curunisafar.