The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1970/04/20,,; ~. _ _. . ;' ~ ` ~ - ~;d . 'City Hall _ Anaheim, California Apri1.20, 1970 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGUII-R MEETING -.A regular meeting of;the Anaheim City Planning Co~ission wes ualled to order by Chairman°Rowland at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being preaent. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Rowland: . - COZAfISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Seymour. ABSENT. - CO1~fISSIONERS: Herbat, Thom. PRESENT - AsaisEant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompeon Deputy City AtEorney: Frank Lowry Office Engineer: Jay Titus 2oning Supervisor: Charles Roberts _ Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Malcolm Slaughter Planning Co~iasion Secretary: Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE` - Cou~issioner Farano led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. RESIGNATION - Coa~isaioner Thom advised the Planning Co~isaion and the audience that aince he wa~ elected to'the City`Council,_he felt it was unethical for him to aerve on the Co~iesi~~~ien_it~ms w d e~eon~d~e~~ter ~, e, ---+^-~ - „ ~ . Chairman Rowland thanked Co~iasioner Thom for his contribution to the Planning Coc~isaion during the past year and extended the best wishes of the entire Plenning Co~niasion in hie new role as a City Councilman. APPROVAL OF - The 2linutea o£ the meeting of April 6, 1970, were approved as submitted THE MINUTES on motion by Co~isaioner Farano, seconded by Co~uiseioner Allred, and MOTION CAR.RIED. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. HERBERT GREENWALD, 1810 North Greenleaf Street, Santa N0: 69-70-46 Ana, California, Ovner; RAYMOND SEE, 12726 Pellisier Road, Whittier, California, Agent; property deecribed as: Portion A- An irregularly CONDITIONAL USE ahaped parcel of land consiatiag of approximately 3.5 ecres, having a PERMIT N0. 1165 fzontage of approximately 245 feet on the south aide of Santa Ana Canyon Road, having a maximum depth of approximately 400 feet, and being located approximately 400 feet west of the centerline of Lakeview Avenue (formerly Creacent Drive) and Portion B- An irregularly shaped parcel of land conaisting of approximately l acre, having a frontage of approximately 180 feet on the south aide of Santa Ana Canyon Road, having a maximum depth of approximately 300 feet, and being located approximately 220 feet west of the centerline of Lakeviea Avenue (formerly Crescent D~ive), and further deacribed as approximately 4700 Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property preeently classified R-E, RESIDENTIAL ESTATE, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COI~ASERCIAL, 20NE. (PORTIONS A AND B). REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: PERMIT~AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION WITRIN 75 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL 20NE~ WITH WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT THAT A SERVICE STATION BE LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF ARTERIAL STREETS (PORTION B ONLY). Asaistant 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses establiahed in'closg proximity, the requested zoning, and the request to eatabliah a service station wi.thin 75 feet of reaidentially zoned property, and then noted that plsiis presented were conceptual in nature; that the petitioner propoaed a atreet extending from Santa Ana Canyon.Road to Cerro Vista Drive, developing one half of the 8-acre parcel with a aervice atation on the eaet aide of the proposed new street, a rests;:rant on the west aide, and cou~ercial ahops on the balance of the property, consieting of approximately 4 acres; that the plana did not provide for minimum setbacks from either street nor was Ehe required landacaping propused -,ti~s:aver, upon contacting the petitioner, he stipulated to ~eeting all Code requirementa of the C-1 Zone if subject petitions ware approved. 5100 % , ~. . . ~ . , - .~ ~ ~ ` MINUTES; CITY PI~ANNING COZ4IISSION, April 20,- 1970 5101 REqLASSIFICATION - Mr:.,Slaughter, in'evaluating the proposal, noted ttaat the proposal ~NO:'69=70=46 `` presented problem areas;'namely, violation of the SanEa Ana Canyon ~ - Access Points Stqdy adopted by the State of California Division of CONDITIONAL USE Highways;,the County:.of Orange,:and;the City. of A~aheim and aonf?ict with ..PERMIT N0.'1165_ = the`Anaheim General Plan which did.not project cormnercial uses for :;:(Continued) this general area end ehe R-E Zone.established for the Peral_a Hills area`when the property wse annexed to'the City.of Aza~:eim. Mr: Slaughter also noted: that the Traffic.:Engineer had reviewed:the proposed street and ,presented-Eiye basic objections: 1} this was not an adoPted access.point; 2) the proposed location was too close`to,Lakediew Avenue,.an adopted access.point; 3) the freeway on=ramp at this location-was deaigned.'for:right turns only'and would not and sY.ould not take through:~fraffic;..4) an intersection of this nature would create a demand for traffic signals,_and this;-was no~ a`.proper location for traffic signals; and 5) the State had purchased:access`rights at tHis location: Further, although the freeway would be com- pleted in°the fa12 of tI-.is year,.it was anticipated thst the.traffin .colume for Santa Ana Canyon Road would,eqdaT or exceed its present:traffic voiume -:I:erefore, 3a anticipation of this traffic."crunca",.:the Access Points Study was adopted to preclude any promiscuous access and potentially dangerous traffic conflicts on the exp;essway;,.and that staff would recommend•t.hat the:proposed street not be permitted, and that no additioaal access to SanEa Ana,.Canqon Road'be allowed. ' In reviewing.the.General Plan pro~ect3ons, Mr, Slaughter stated that the General.Plan indicated a,commerMal facility,on the aorth side of.Santa :..^,a Canyan Road and the new alignment of the Riverside Freeway in`the general Iocstion of the northwest comer of Riverdale:Averiue and Lakeview ~venue, with auother one proposed at Cer;o Vista Drive and Noh1 Rancti Road~ and t:!at finallq,.e:mos~ importaat coresideratirn: was the fact that the petitioner was proposing commerciai zoning for a zone which was developed for the purpose of preserving tne ct!aracter arid:integrity of aa area known as the Peralta Hi11s, and any change from reaidential.to co~nercial land use would not appear to be in conformaace with the CiCy's policies br the expressed desirea of an overwhelming majority of the residents in this area, and the SanLa.Ar.a Canyon,area provided an opportunity to be developed as an extremely.deairabTe urbaa area whicl: o!.ipred`a ~nique living erevironment - however, this opportunity, would'require careful planning and implementation if this goal were ~o be achieved.. A showing.of hands indioated approximately 50 persons present in opposition to subject petitions. Mr. Clarence Hall, representing the peticioner, appeared before the Commission and noted tha~ the oasic consideration before Cae Commission was whether or not the proposed zoning was Cna oest land use, or whether tiee existing zoning was more appropriate; that when the area known as Che Peraita Hills was rezoned, the g~eametrics of the Riverside Freeway was not set; tFat the freewaq'was now being constructed and reloc~ted northeriy of Santa Ana Caa~or. Road - therefore, Santa Ana Canyon Road woul~ become a frontage road which had very few access.points to any of these prop~erties; that the freeway off-ramp was proposed to exit across the street from subject property; that commercial facilities were needed for the Nohl Ranch residents since the nearest co~nnercis2 shopping was on Tustin Avenue, approximately two miles to the west, and another was under construction two miles to the east of Imperial Highway; tnat if subject property.were developed under the existing zoning along Santa Aaa Canqon Road, this would require a masor.ry wall, giving the appear- ance of an institution; that the proposed commercial facilities would be ranch style architr~w:,,,-e and would be harmoniuus to the area and wouid provide facilities where the reside~ .n the R-E homes could ri~le bicycles or walk to the shopping facilities; that there wc no service station wi.thin two mi~es of this area; that ~he proposed zoning would not be detrimental to the area and would provide a better traffic flow sinc~ tne petitioner proposed to provide the traffic.signals rather than have the City install them - thus providing additional access to this general area than having to go sever~l miles to gain access; that if subject petition were not approved, this would add a serious amou~t of traffic conflicts because of the on and ofE-ramps of the freeway at this juncture; and that this would be the only frontage road not having access to it as aCher frontage roads in California had. Mrs Hall then reviewed his contact with the County of Orange and the State Highway officials regarding the fact that a~cess to Santa Ana Canyon Road had been dedicaEed, noting that he was informed Sant~ Ana Canyon.Road would be turned over to the City of Anaheim or the County, wi:ichever 3urisdiction the road would cpme urder; that any homes developed on adjoining properties would not face subject property since they would back onto the propertp and have a.6-foot masonry wali; that the are~ of the freeway on and off-ramps within two years-was projected to have 11,000 for the off-ramp ar.d 9,000 for the on-ramp in addition to local traffic on the road - therefore, it wonld seem to be imperaCive that a traffic signal would be of prime 3.mportance in order to avaid traffic conflicts; and thaC the developers proposed to meet all conditions recoamier.ded by staff which would improve the street with curbs ~nd gutters, trees, etc. ~~ '; ; ~ , .~ ~ a : ': s f ,, , ---- ~ _ `%; ~ ~ C MINUTES, CITY.PLANNING CO1~Il~SISSION, Apri1.20,'I970 5102 RECI:ASSIFICATION = Mrs.:Joy Adams, 222 Sweetwater'Place, appeared bEfore the Commiaeion N0:.69=70-46 and,presented a petition.signed;by 127.property owners residiag north " ` of Saata.Ana Canyon Road in.favor of'subject.pe~ition. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1165 .; Mr. Frank Liggett, 57T Peralta Hi11s Drive,.appeared before the (Continued) Commission in opposition, stating he was Vice.President of the Peralta Homeowners Association; that his fami.y ha~ owiied their pioperty since ' 1960>and had'resided in tneir home since 1964; that a aumber of letters , _ were on file from residenLs o£ the residenEial estate zonEd property in opposition to subject petitions; that their group had,'worked"many.fiours with ti;e Plarr_ing Commission,-0ity staff, and'City:Council in drafting.the R-E`Zone,`which =esidents had v~~luatarily arinexed into Che CiEy on the basis that the R-E Zone would.be mainEained so that.the rural`nature of the area could be reteined;.'that,tlie homes:in the area,'varied 3n price up ~o $200,000, a11 because.these p,eople desired to'have a rural a~m~sphere;;EY!at they were oppoaed to the possible diaruption of the R-E Zone wfiich they were again':tc understand"would be maintained; that.the'General'Plan for this area did;not project commercial,uses'far ~his area; that the site: of.-the freeway had`been known since 1960, and-evidence by the State proyed that a freeway did:not affect:the property values - much to their disgust; tha~ since the freeway was.relocated only 1,000'feet away-, there was no reason to allow an increase in traffic by permitting a commercial use of`Santa Ana.Canyon Roed; that the many people who lived in this area moved to the`,area knowing full well there.would be.inconveniences as to shopping and::poor access to their property; and that a petition'signed by 134.persons was obtained in.two days only from the.R-E property owners indicating they were all opposed to any change'in zone for this area.. Mr.' Donald Sawtelle, 4731 Crescent Drive,.appeared before the Commission noting he owned his'property since 1966 and had moved tnere fully aware of the provisions of the General Plan;,that the.freeway et that time was proposed to be relocated, and'they loca~ed there becau§e the City ,indicated this ruraY atmosphere wou5.d be retained; that he had four - childrQn and felt this:arEa would be ideal in which to live; that Ehere were residents near the ea.pressway - therefore,-no claim could be made thaC this was not a desirable 'residential area; and that in.his estYmation, this was a very desirable place for resi- dential;development and urged the Commission to deny subject petition and retain this area in.its existing R-E Zone.. Mr. A. C. Modell; 4830 Santa A~a'Canyon Road, appeered before the Commission, noting he was;opposed to any,access to Saata'Ana Canyoa Road.since Ehe State had acquired access to said road when it?was widened - tHerefore, the petitioner had.only a small entrance to ni~ property adjacent to the west end of his property;,that a proposal to have a service station at the off-ramp of the freeway was irrational since access could n~t be made to the service'station excepE when the traffic signal changed at Lakeview 9venue, and making a:left-hand turn across ~;igh-apeed, eastbound traffic to gain acceas to the proposed coimnercial service station facilities would create considerably more traffic conflicts than presently existed. Mr. Albert Aqatt, 215 Orangeacrea.Drive, appeared before the Commission and noted that the petition in favor of subject petition was from property owners to the north of Santa Ana Canyon Road, whereas those in opposition were property owners immediately adjacent to this property - all in the R-E Zone. Mr. Slaughter confirmed the fact that the 125 signatures were of property owners north of Santa Ana Canyor. Road, an~f ir.dicated the area in question on +:he General Plan map. Mr. Richard Garabedian, 861 South Dickel, owner of property to the west of subject property, inquired whether>a wall was proposed adjacent to the property line to the west and whether or not this.was the location of the service atation. Furthermore, he was not desirous of having trafEic i~ediately adjacent to hia property nor to view a service station from his property. Mr. Hall; in rebvttal, stated that the service station would be on the east side of the proposed.street, approximately,408 feet from the easterly property line of Mr. Garabedian - however, a 6-foot masonry wall was proposed adjacent to the east and south property lines; Ehat zoning was a situation of a particular piece of land, and whether or not the zoning should be changed or granted only if the use did not adversely affect the adjoining properties; that from a market analysis made it was determined that,there was a need for the proposed type of facility; that the amount of co~ercial zoning which this area would aeed was that which was proposed - therefore, any request by adjoining property owners would mesn an oversaturation of commercial uses; and.that there would-•be two•regional stiopping centers approximately two miles in either-direction, wh2reas the proposed shopping center was only,a neighborhood type facility with development of the property in a manner propoaed which would provide a better traffic control since signalization waF proposed. ::.. - • . - ~ . .: . ~ . ~ ~ MINjTPES, CIT7E. PLAN"NING COMMISSION, April' 20, :.I970 5103 - RECLASSIFIbATION -;,THE.HEARING WAS CLOSED. . ,.. _, , , , : N0.>69=70-46.`, , . ' Tne Co~ission iaquired.of Office~Er.gineer Jaq Tit::a whe~her or aot it CONDITIONAL USE was fessiole.to'cut'a street:through subject pruper~y. . . , PERMIT N0: '1165 . . , :: ; . . (Continued),- ~,Mr., iiCus replied tiia~ tttis:could be accompiisned because of t:te off, ramp;,aowever,;te peimit,traffic to,make?Ieft-tvrs on wesrbour.d t=affic ~ " wosld.be totally unfeasible;,.<~nd:that in`~order forautomobiies to get onto tc!e fieeway, westbound:p~otorists would rave to.'go east,to Takeview to get .o a west- bound•on ramp:" Furthermore; if aay residents north,of;Santa:A~a CaaSon Road were desirous of using.these facilitiea,:they,::also, would have to:ga ~o Lakevi2w Areaae;,approximately 200;:feet:to,;Ehe east. ~.ssisten~ Development Sex~;ices L~irector RonsTd Tnompsoa advised t*~e Commiasion thac ihe ,General~P.lan-indicated a, neigt!3orhood shoppiag cer.tEr on the nortnwest coraer of Riverdale - and Lakeview'_4vereues, which also wse par*_ of the propertp :~ot. being.i.sed for the.h~spital• or,docEors' offices,.;thus leaving ti:e balaac~e'of this vacant ptoperty availabla for resi- dential uses;`.and,the commercial area wouid encompass approximately four-acres of land. Ti:e Commission, i:e`discussirg tne.proposal, noted that::if trere were one plannir_g area in the City that had careful consideratior. and dpportunity for fresh, new planning, tf:is , opporCunity~was afforded ~he City.to start off fresh to build instead of rebuild 3n tFis area;.that the Commisaion;'Citj~ Council and staff had;sp,ent many'hours'in hearings and work sessions where evideuce was preser.ted as to tne type of surroundings these people ~fanted to live in; t~at staff iiad-devoLed many hours to determine where secreatioa areas, schools, park~, and puolic 'facilities should~be as they pertained ~o tite General Plan, and;the City had a totsi plan in the Santa Ana Canyon area encompassing tFis;::•;nat :to evideece w&s presented by th'e petitioner;.o warran~ the Commiesioz-feeling;favorably,toward, deviating from Chis,plan; tnat it'was the understanding and the rule of the Commission aud CosaciZ ~fiat the"Ci~y would r.ut deviate from tais plan; that adequate facilities were pisn~ed for tae'Santa Aaa Cenyon area, and aay'deviation would be detiimental to the area and to tiee Genersl P1an;,.haC the zoning requested by the petitioner would be spat zoning, a condition which tl:~ City.should avoid; that a resolu~ion by the.Commissi:on sfiould be drafted to recouanend to.the Ci~y. Council that the Commission was reaffirming their posi- tion„as ~o.tn~ pianr.iug principlea and matter of polic;~ being established wherein aot only this,eppliaation bu~ aa3 fu~ure applica;.ions:by the developers for this area shouZd be notified•tiEat:t?:is. area be retsined for residential p~rpose~s; ~hat there.was no reason for haviag sdditional servica stations in the City of:Anaheim, and-as to"~he attractiveaess i of :this area, the oaly way i~ coald be protected was to consider,any applicstions for other I thaa Iow-densit~ reside~tial uses as being out of order; that the residents were assured j ~hls=area wou3d 'oe maintair.ed as the finest re~idential area for people who wanted to live here; that ±hey provided.their.ow~ recreation - therefore, it was the duty of the City to retain the Peralta Hilis and Sanza Ana Canyon areas in accordance with that established in the Gc~eral PZaa; tnat tY:e General Plari must be a flexible instrumeat - however, as it pertained to subject property, since commi~ments have been made, then this flexibility mighC.not be as desirable; that for fiexibility in the future, any deviation from the present plan must be supported by cleer evidence that a substantial char.ge in uses and development have ~aken pla_e to just~.~y a change in zoning; that the Co~nission should adhere ~^ the f3.ne priaciples of plannisg and the foundation of the Analieim General Pian for the Hill aud Canyon area so that proper planning could be accomplished without reacting to a petition - otherwise, the City would find themselvea in the same position as they.had been in the past regarding leas than desirable planning practices; and that devistions must be considered favorably onlq upon strong and proper planr.iag principles. Commissianer~~ offered Resolution No. PC70-61 ar.d moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 69-70-46 be dis- approved on t'ne ba$is that the proposed reclassification was not in conformance with the General Plan or land uses established in this general area; that annexation of the Peralta Hills and Santa Ana Canpon areas gave the City of Aaaheim an opportunity =a "get off to a fresh start" in planning the development of this relatively uninhabited and undeveloped ` area of North Orange County, ar.d this opportunity was now presented to build instead of rebuild and to plan instead of react; that the City Council, Planning Commission, and ~ City staff had devoted man} hours at work.sessions and public. hearings in developing a i General Plan that would provide a xeasonable and.logical framework for guiding the develop- ' ment of.the Hi11 and Canpen area, and un~il evidence was presented that condi,t3.ons or ~ cix~umstances.were such as to justify some type of development other than that presently ; projected on the Plan, the current'guidelines should be followed; that adequate facilities have been planned for the Santa`Ana Canyon area, and any deviation, unlesa auhstsntiated ' ~~ evidence, would be detrimen~ai to:.the area and to tne Gexieral Plan progri,m; that ~ residents of the Santa Ana Canyon and Peralta Hills areas were assured prior to their annexatian to the CiEy of Anaheim and l:ad been re-assured subsequent to aanexation, that thie area of Ar.sheim wocld ba mai,^_L•ained as one of the finest, Iow-density, residential areae in L•he City - thus; it was the duty of the City tu retain Che residential integrity i r t~i ~ i i I ~ `'. i ~} ~ ~~ ~ ~:,~. '; ' ' ` ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY-PLANNING C~ISSION, April 20,,1970 5104 RECLASSIFIC_~TION`- of the Peralta Hills`:and Santa Ana Can~ot arees'in aocordance wit'c~ the N0.:69-70-46 la~d use policies" established in`the Genera't Plan; :that unless good ` `planning practices were followed in tHe development_of the Hill ar,d ; CONDITIOI3AL USE Canyon area,:the City would`find:itself reacting oace again, rather `PEI2MIT NOr 1165 than eetablishing`a._good pianning framework; that the proposed reciassi- (Continued) fication ~ ald pe deleterious'.to an area that had lieen;planned for low- density resYdential'~purposes,.and approval of subjecE petition would ' `establiah spot zoniag,which sY.ould be avoided;..that the Anaheim Geneial , P1an projecEed areas determined.to be-appropriate'for commercial uses based upon accessi- bility, convenieace;arid project.ed need'in a given'area,:and subject property was:not within ' an'area designaCed,,'£or-cou~ercial purposes; that the proposed reciassification and plan of development w,uld be a direct.violation'of the"Saiita Ana Canyon Access Points Study which . p~ ' was.'adopted in 1966 as a cooperative effort between`the City.of Anaheim, the County.of Orange, and;the State of;California as'an effort to control access to SanLa Ana Ca~yon '. Road;•a limited;access expressway; that Santa Ana°Canyon Road hsd been deemed a scenic highway route througn tne mountain area by the City.of Anaheim, Countq of Orange, and the State-of California; and.coam~ercial uses, as proposed, would detract from the attempt to ' retain'the scenic quali~ies of this road, one of the few remaining roads with scenic chaiacteristics; that the'laad uaes in this;general.area.had not changed since the General ylan`,was acopted in 1969`:to warrant,favorable:consideration of an~'land use change an requested; and tiiat the Planning Commission hereby`reaffirmed its previous position regard- iieg the.planning principles establis:cad in the ~,naheim'Genezal'Plan by restating as a matter of clear policy that tlie Hill and Canpon area sitould be retained for low-densitq residential purposes, and that this restatement-of policy should serve.notice to any future developers of the Hi11 and Canyon area properties as to what msy be expected of them when they,proposed deveiopinent,within the area, and that the Planning-Commission hereby recom- ` mends to the City.Couacil ttiat a similar reaffirmation.of the policy be issued by that Bod3. (See Resolution Bookl ' On roll ca11 the for~egaiag resolution was.passed by the following vote: ~ AYES: COMMISSTGNERS: `Allred, Farano, Gauer, Seymour, Rowland. NOES; COMMISSIONERS: ` None. AFSSENT E COMriISSI~NERS: ` Herbst, Tl-.an. ' ~ Commfissioner.Farano'offered Resolution No. PC;O-61A and moved for its passage and adoption to reafF;,rm the, Planning Co~ission's`planning principles of the Aaaheim General Plan to retairi;Zhe Peralta Hi11s and Santa Ana Canyon area for'1ow-density residential purposes and to reco~end ta the City Council that the City Council aiso reaffirm this policy of the CiEy of 4r.aheim. (See Resolutian Book) On rri3 ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: C0.4IISSIONERS: A1?red, Farano, Gauer, Seymour, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbat, Thom. Co~issioner Allred offered Resolutian No. PC70-62 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1165 on the basis that since the required zoning was recommended for denial, the use proposed would be inappropriate and not permitted in the existing zoning. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COI~tISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Seymour, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COI~IliISSIONERS: Herbst, Thom. VARIANCE N0. 2168 - CONTINUED PUBLIC F~ARING. WIiLIAM AND JAMES DE FORREST, 616 North Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) PERMITTED G 2 USES,TO PERMIT EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING, NONCONFORMING USE (WHOLESALE ESTABLISHPiENT WITH MINOR RETAIL ACTIVITY)~ (2) MINIMUM REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES, AND (3) MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT COV~RAGE on property describe4 as: A rectangu- larly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 54 feet on Anaheim Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 149 feet, and bping located approximately 204 feet north of the centerline of Alberta Street, snd further described ~s 616 North t~naheim Boulevard. Property.presently classified C-2, GENTRAL C02~4IERCIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued £rom the April 6, 1970, meeting because of a tie vote. Asaistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of au~jert property, ' existing zoning, and the reason the petition F~as continued from the previous meeting, ' because of a tie vote. ~ „ ; .~ ;1~, ... ~ i ... . H ...-:r .,-L .. . . . ~ . . . - .: ., . .. -. _ ....-.. -~~ ,. , b •: . ~ , , . .. . .- ; . ~~ .. .~ .. . . ; ~ . .. .,. .. , .. ~ . ~. ~ .. ' •F't . .. . .. r..:'~..+i.~ 1.. . . '.. ~. ., . _.. ...:__ , :. . .1...4~~~...L.'. • ~ :.,::..-,t-. ~ ~ .. ~. .,~,. , ~.... ..,:: . .~ ~, . .,. . . . ,. . . . . ~ ~ . ~ , ~~ _ . . ~.:; . . .. , -. . . .~. . .... ~, : ~.~~. _: ... . ~. ~ ~, ~".. ,..'~~ ..~~' .9L . ~ .. . MINUTES;'CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 20,.1970 5I05 VARIANCE~NO 2168,- Co~issioner Gauer rioted''that•,the Commission'had asked the petitioner (Continued), to make a survey of the possib'ility of`placing the addition.on part ` of.the existing:building; whereupon Chairman Rowland"noted'that although the'hearing was~closed, the Commiasion:could"ask questions of the petitioner as to ar.y~•neW ,deveiopnient. ' ' Mr '.William De Forrest, one of the petitioners,,appeared before the Co~ission and noted the~building contractor had."indicated,something;,to him ;egarding the variance.'that he was not~,;aware:of'as to perking,,namely,:.that Section 18..40.070'.of the Anaheim Municipal Code required only,one;parking space~;per 1,000'square feet of.?plans, and,,therefore, the ntimber of-parking.~_spaces.propoaed'would be ia accordance with Code requirements. 2oning Supervisor Char•les Roberts advised the.Co~ission:that the Report to the Commiasion of April 6'had.indiceted,.the number:of`parking~spaces as 2Q based:on`the fact that a large porEion of;the'structure would`be devoEed to retail.actiqities;.kiowever, this.h~d been a'mended as:-;of the:April'20th Report to: the Commission, and since thfs.indicated 9 apaces for_wholesale and retail and.office space, and the petitioner was proposing only 6 spacea, ~ the waivei~still was..necessary. i , ,. . _ , ,- ~ Mr. De Forrest, in response to Co~aission questioning, noted the had approximatel four Y purchased the property Su 1 y Years;ago; that the lock supply company was owned by the American Lock ~ pp y'Company which they operated; .. The Couunissi.on then noted that if subject petition were approved, the Commission might be making an:impossible decision,'and if retail;`uses were lbcated on this property, then a requirement should-be.'.made ttiaE e portion of the structure would be removed in order to provide adequaEe parking if the uae were changed froin the wholeseling proposed to general retail. Mr. De Forrest then s~ated he would stipulate to recpoval of a portion of the building so that`Edequate,parking would be,provided in the event the structure was converted into a retail operation; that they had,attempted to obtain'additional.property to the north - however,..becauae the property was in an estate or under,`trusteeship, the property could not be obtained until the elderly resid.ent of the property passed away. Furthermore, it was hoped the Coimmission-would grant subject petition ir,order that they might maintain their business at.its presen£, location:rather than moving to another one since it was more conveniently,located, and tllat ou~t of necessityit was necessary to have additional ware- housing due to deley in.receiving their supply-of:locks. Chairman ltowland noted that the petition could be approved subject to filing of a bond, and tne oniy.way this could be,looked at from a practical standpoint was bonding to insure that.if general retail uses were proposed in the future for subject pro ert p y, a portion of the new stsucture would be removed in order to provide for adequate parking. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that the condition of approval for the filing of a bond would be aimilar to an irrevocable offer of dedication for street wider.ing purposes. Mr. Roberta advised the Commission that a finding should be made relative to permitting warehousing in the C-2 Zone. I Commisaioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC70-63 and moved for its paesage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No, 2168, aub~ect.to ICPS&GW recommendatione and the condi- tian that a bond shall be posted satisfacfory,to the City Attorney's office in the City of Anateim to insuze adequatt park3ng in the event the exisCing warehousing use was converted to general retail use, as stipulated to by the petitioner, and the finding that although the exiating, nonconforming use was a wholesale operation permitted only in the M-1 and M-2 Zones, the nature of the activity was not unlike many of the retail establishments that require large warehousing and inventory storage ;reas, similar to a furniture store; that the Planning Commission determined the proposed expansion of the existing use would not hade,adverse effects upon the uses established in this area; and that the proposed parking was'deemed adequate for the wholesaling operation based on the nature of the activity. However, the Commission determined that precautions be taken to insure that adequate parking would be available in the event the existing wholesaling operation neased and general retail business takes place - thus the stipulation by the petitioner to posting a bond to guarantee the removal of the new addition if necessary would be in order to provide for adequate parking. (See Resolution Book) On roll cal]. f:he foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~,YES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Seymour, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COhA1ISSI0NERS: Herbst, Thom. r7'" - t1`. F ~ R ::.MS+ .> . N:1 i} ~l•,' i~ . ~ . .' .~, ~ ~~:~ ~~~ :-MINUTES, CITY PI,ANNING COI~SISSION; ApriT 20,.:1970 ~ . ,., -. ,. . 5106 ~CONDITIONAL USE ,- CONTIN[TEll PUBLIC, HEARIlVG. 'STATE.COLLEGE MEDICAL CENTER, 215-B Nor2h PERMIT NO . 1163 State.;ColTege Boulevard,:Anaheim, California;' Owner;,JAME?S A. CARTER, •~:t540 East Santa Ana'Canyoa:Road,:'Orange, California;;Ageat•, requesting " ;~permission~.to`EXPAND AN EXISTING MOTEL, WITH.:WAIVERS OF (1),REQUIREMENT '.THAT,;'A LOT. HQVE FRONTAGE,ON A PL'BLIC STREET:AND (2).:MAXIMUM BUILPIIVG.HEIGEiT on_property 'described as; A rectangalarly'shaped parcel'of`landilocated,generally rorthwest'of the ':inte;section!of State ColTege Boulevard:'and Center Street, having:,a maximian depth of :` .:approximatelq 270 'feet arid a maximum,width of`approximately 155 feet and being located. ;approximately.510:feet'.north of the centerliae'of Center.;Street and`-220 feet west of,fhe center,line 'of State;follege Boulevard. Property presently'classified C-O,.COI~lERCLAL- " OFFICE, ZONE:~ : . . . _ _ Subject,peEiticin was continued from the meeting of.April 6, 1970, in order to:aElow time PP P fresent'revisedntlansxfor1E:~e,roblems in connection with the proposed dev~lopment and to P P . project. , ,, -'.Assiatant Zoning.Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the_location of scbject propert;~, `uses.established in close'proximity, and`the proposal to expand an existing motel, with . waiver of tfie iequirement of a parcel fronting on a publia street or alley and minimum `required~structuraT'setback from"residentially zoned:~roperty, and the fact that the peti- tioner=,had;requested an,additional two-week continuance for the submission of revised plans,;_. : _ ' Commissioner'Gauer offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Conditional ;Use-Permit;No. 1163 to the;,,meeting of May,4, 1970; in oider to allow time for the sub- mission of revised plans.' Co~issioner Seymour.seconded-.the motion. MOTION CARRIED. :VARIANCE N0.:2170 - PUBLIC HEARING, DR. JOSEPH P, GLEASON, 958i West Ba11 Road, Anaheim, California,.Owner; ROWE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, p,.0. Box 3066, Anaheim, ` California, Agent;.requesting WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM BUILDING SITE AREA PER DWELLING UNIT, {2) MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT FLOOR AREA, (3),.MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING SPACES, AND ,(q) MAkIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, TO ESTABLISH A:THREE-STORY, 100-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLc~ on property desc=ibed as: A rectangularly shaped-parcel of lan3 consisting of ':approximetely.3.lr.acr~s; having ;a.frontage of,approximately 220 feet on the east side of Magnolia Averiue, having,e maximum depth of-approximately 60T feet, and being located approximate2y. 365 feet'south of'the ceriterline of La Pa1ma Avenue. Property presentiy classified.C••1, GENERAT. COMMERCIAL; ZONE (resolution of intent to R-3 pending). Assistaat 2oning Supervisar Malcolm Slaughter revYewed for the Commission the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity,'the existing zoning and resolution of intent to R-3 on the propertq pending under Recleasification No. 63-64-28, and the waivers requested for maximum building site area per dwelling unit to permit 1,175 square feet per:unit and minimum floor area per dwelling unit to permit four units with 490 square feet and.,maximum building height to permit three stories instead of two stories; that at the time of the advertising of the petition, two additional variances would have been needed - however, revised plans were submitted, and the maximum building height within 150 feet of single-family residential zone and minimum parking requirement were eliminated; that the petitioner proposed a 100-unit apartment complex with 88 of the units proposed in a three-atory structure on the northerly side of the property and 12 single-story units within the 150-foot setback area, with parking proposed on Cne east and west sides of the property and carports and open parking along the south property line. Mr. Slaughter, in evaluating the proposal, noted that the minimum land area per dwelling uait and minimum floor area per dwelling unit for the four units might not be of major signifirance based upon the fact that similar approval had been granted in the past; however, the main question before the Planning Coam~ission was whether three-story aoart- meat units were appropriate for this.site, and if the Planning Commission deemed the use appropriate and approved this variance, the Commission ~eight wish to consider the desira- bility of screen tree landscaping a~ong the south property line of subject property to give 3ncreased protection to the R-1 homes southerly of subject property. Mr. I~arry Knisely, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the Commiasion and noted that the proposal was the third being made by Mr. Ray Rough; that this location was an ideal area for the. property since there would be no vehicular access through the R-1 property; that more than adequate open space had been provided; and that on two previous projc•ats similar waivers were requested. Mrs. Arthur Roark, 1010 Home Place, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated her property was immediately adjacent to subject property; that she was opposing approval of the three-story apartment complex since this would be an invasion of her privacy since all of her family's recreation was in the rear yard; that three-story ,,~artments would increase ar. already overcrowded clas§room condition at Gauer School since 100 children could be cnming from this complex; and that many of the questions of the neighbors had :~ '3 a ,::':9 ~ ~ _...__:: ~ _9 _ ~ :~ ;', i ;, s:~ .::~-... ..~. ~K ,,~ . ~ ~ . ~, ~ , . '- FIINUTES,; . CITY PLANNING COtt[SISSION;-. April 20; 1970 5107 VARIANCE I~O. 2170 - not Fseen answered by ,the petitioner. ;.:(Continued)' '.Mr. Knisely, in rebuttal, stated that this apartmeat complex would be ` totally`adult, as were the other two complexes = tnerefore, no childrea would be attending Gauer School;.that.the main concern.was the,matter of privacp - however, the projecttwas set back 150 feet from R-1 as Eo.the three-story heigl;t, and the height of Ehe building would be-28 feet; and that no one could ever expect to~have complete privacy, ,but if;'thi"s were a point of°.contenEion, perhaps>the wall height could be increased along the south side of the property or:dease.landscaping planted there: The Commission noted another alternative was to reduce the sEructure to two stories; that : Anaheim had honored maintaining tHe privacy of single-family homes, although many cities '~ throughout the United Statea had two-story homes without walls or fences;: •d.thaY*although the three-stoiy'st~ucture was set back 150 feet, this did not mean the l? •of-sight was lost...' Mr. Itnisely noted that initially the plan had three storiea within 150 feet, but the staff reco~ended amending tkis so that the three-story structure would be 150 from the R-1, and ttsat the`height of the screen landecaping worsld be at the discretion of the Commission or 'staff'-,;However, some othe; screening'was taken care of by carport location, and the only place for laddscaping consideration was tfie o?pen-parking area. Furthermore, if landscaping were,p.ut;.there by Che',homeowners,;th3,s could be worked out with them, buE these homes had been there for some time and had coasiderable dense landscaping at varying heights already. The Commission inquired whether or:not some architectural additian could be placed on the one-story.apar.~tnents which would block out any visual intrusion. Mr. Morris Bolter,architect of the proposed deyelopment, appeared before the Commission and noted that any possible intrusion could be taken care of'by increasing the height of the i wall and'planting trPes,adjacent to the wall, which he felt would be adequate. Furthermore, siace the.one-story height limitation.was'maintained within 150 feet, it would be economi- cally unfeasible to develop,,two-story for the balance of the property~ buG~sif'co~ercial ' uses were eatablished on subject property in accordance with existing zoning, they would be petmitted to build'a 75-foot high structure; and that there might be a problem in adding fieight to`the,6-foot walls since any increase in height would require stabilization of the wsll - therefore; he would prefer'to maintain a 6-foot high wall and provide dense land- scaping to screen and protect the privacy of the R-1 homes. Commissioner Allred expressed the opinion that the R-1 zoning pending on the property was acceptable, but he would pre£er that this be maintained at two-story rather than three- story. Mr. Knisely noted th,~t it wnuld not be feasible to develop two-story becauae of the cost of the land; furthermorP, che Commission should take into consideration other three-story developmenta approved 1n the City. Chairman Rowland noted that the 150-foot, one-story height limitation was originally established to provide visual privacy of rear yards since most res:tdents in Southern California lived in their rear yards, and the three stories proposed would be a sight , angle tFat wauld invade the privacy of these R-1 homea; that the major portion of the open wall areas would be oriented toward the R-1 - therefore, the Commis~ion was willing to listen to any reasonable and legitimate arrangements whereby this privac~* would be maintained, even though they recognized that three-story development had been approved by the City Council in the past. Furthermore, a 3-foot strip of landscaping, from his peraonal observation, wauld be inadequate from a maintenance standpoint, and it was the Cammission's duty to insure the privacy o.f these R-1 residents - therefore, he would enter~ain a motion to continue subject petition in order to allow the petitioner time to determine beCter means of orienting these three-s~orp apartments away from the R-1 since planting would not solve this screening problem, and that he woul:: suggest the petitioner meet wi~_h the six property owners affected by the three-story heigiit to determine the best means of assuring them the privac; granted other single-family residents. Mr. Knisely stated that a two-week co^tir;u a would be sufficient time and suggested that the property ownera meet with him tr. clisauss :.hese problems. Tha Coum~ission then noted for the c~pposition and the petitioner that even though problems might be resolved as to the single-fi'amily homeowners, this would not assure the petitioner that the Commission would approve three-story development since they did not want the developers to feel that convincing the six single-family homeowners that three-story development was acceptable would warrant the Commission's favorable consideration since any arrangement should not be the immediate effect, but the long-range effect if this property were sold to someone else, since this would be a major deviation from Code, and ihat the petitioner must prove to the Commission that a hardship, other tha-~ economics, 7would result if G.~e three-story waiver were not granted since this was basically the reason for a varlance from Che Code. '~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~. , M~ y b' ~ ... ... . ~ ,.i. ,. . ... . ~.. . .. . . _ .-~ . .. ~ . .. . . . y , . . ~' '. ~ ~ ~~. _ -- - . , , ~ ~, ~ , MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO2ftiISSION, April 20;,1970 ` 5108 VARIANCE N0: 2170 - Co~issioner Allred noted_that when the R-3'Zone was approved`for (Continued) sub3ect property several years,ago; only 50,-apartment units were 'proposed,:and this:proposal had iricreased'the dentaitq:to 100.uni~s, twice:'that originally considered, and.'at this rate, in four more years there was a,:possibility of an increase to six stories if this were Ehe pettern of.develop- ment therefore;.consideratioa,shoul'd be given to maintaining the denaity of Code, ' namely,,minimum land area of 1,225 square feet. per.unit, unit size, and height. Co~is'sioner Farano noted he'.was not serving ~'as a. Co~issioner just to provide people with the privilege of~using their,property;for its highest,and best use - that he was desirous of as"siating them,:but,it;was also his`duty to protect the ad3oining property owners, and from;.this,standpoint~he warited`some type of protection;for.the`R-1 fhat would be of a permanent nature,::and landscapingr in his estimation, was not permanent since~'.this cou3d- be removed;by subsequent'owners.of the,apartments. Mr. Bolter noeed'tinat trees could he a permanent requirement of approval of the variance, thereby assuring`that these.would remain. However, Chairman,Rowland.noted Ehat the trees could be removed by the Public Works Depart- ment .if,they.interfered with xhe electric lines. Co~issioner Allre~i offered a motion to continue.consideration of Petition for Variance No. 21i0~to:'the meeting of May 4, 1970, to allow the petitioner time to meet with adjacent i property owners and resolve the line-of-sight;problem and for a possible solution to be presented.to the Commission that a mcre permanent type of development would assure the liae-of-sight problem.being resolved, ether tkian trees, or to substanfiate with evidence that e hardship would resul,~ if:subject petition were not approved. Co~issioner Seymour seconded the motion.,. MOTION CARRIID. VARIANCE N0. 2172 -.PUBLIC"HEARING.` PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE C02~ANy, pacific Mutual Building~ Los.Ang~les, California, Owner; HENRY REICHERT, 650 North Beach Boulevard, La Habra, Celifornia, Agent; sequesting WAIVER OF MAAIMUM.PERMITTED DISPLAY AREA TO ESTABLISH A FREE-STANDING SIGN on property described as: An.irr,egularly shaped'percel of.land m naiating.of approximately 25 acrea, having a frontage of.approzimately 525 feet oa the west side of Manchester Avenue and approximately 816'feet on the east side of Lewis'Street,,being located approximately 1,340 feet south of the centerline of Orangewood Avenue, and further described as 2337 South Manchester Avenue. Property presenLly classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE, Assistant'Zoniag:Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established.in close proximity, and the'proposal to establish a 60-foot high sign with a display area of 168 square feet per face on subject property that is zoned R-A; ~ that a mobile home park was established under Conditional Use Permit No. 971 in which plans indica~ed a portion devoted to travel ;:railers; and that the R-A Zone allowed onl,y a 20-square foot sign and did not have a height limitation - however, if the formula appl:.ed to the pool supply company sign to the ;orth were used, then 9nly a 30-foot high sign would be approved. The Coa~ission inquired as to regulations imposed on sign advertising along freeways. Mr. Slaughter replied that there were no regulations for signs since this was co~ercial frontage. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the Co~ission that a distinction was made between on-site commercial signs and billboards which were not permitted along freeways - however, this did not apply to advertising signs on properties fronting on the freeways, Mr. Slaughter advised the Commission that approximately 60 billboards had been removed from freeway frontages: Mr. J. Jonas, representing the agent for the petitione!a, appeared before the Commission and stated that the reason for requesting this 60-foot high sign at this location was because travel`trailer park was depending upon freeway travelers; that the freeway was elevated at this point, and the northbound traffic was unable to see the existing sign, and then, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the pool company sign was visible because the freeway was again on level ground so that their sign was.readily visihle. The Commission noted 'C~iaG the petitioner was »,,~~ on1~y asking for a sttgn ir ... t higher than the pool company aign, but also a display~ area of 168 square feet anc ired as to the length of time the travel trailer park was located at this locatioi .,c k , }.~i~ ` ~. ~ -~,~•~ r~ . .. c . , . . .. ~ . . ~ . ~ _ - -~-,e.,,:..ar** ~r. :,,J.l s~.-r~ ~ ..-.;r,. .:rd ~ ~ ~ -- ~ ' . ~ ~.. - - ~ . . ~ . . . MINDTES, CITY p7AN1~TING~ CO1~iISSION, AFril 20, 1970 5109 ' VARIANCE Nd: 2172 - Mr, Jonas replied that it.'had been at`this location approximately one (Continued) , ' year•,','that:bnsiness wae extreme2y good for'June Jui ,. _ y,.August, aad a , part.,of SepYember,.;but the balance of the year'it was difficult to attrect people,;and, therefo"re, they felt a higher sign was necessary, .' Mr,.Paul Brigham,,.represeriEing Henry Reichert~.& Son, appeared before the Commission and ! noted.that 4.acres``of the;25-acre site was devoted to travel_trbilers, and the balance of the.property was.developed for mobile:-homes;:`that subject'property,Was somewhat depressed - ' like?:beirig,set~in _e hole:;; as to':vfsibility .from the`.'freeway because:,the freeway passed over Ohapman Avenue, and:~this propert}+ wes located approximately 300 feet north of Chapman Avenue." The bou~ission ingufred vihether or not it.was.felt the exi~ting,sign was adequate and effective at.the.time the trailer park was established, or did theq anticipate that another sign`.would`be aeeded: _ - ' Mr. Brigham seplied`it was tneir'£eeiing,after,:being in'operation for a:year, that the proposed.sign was necessary to attract.the off-season travelers. Mr. Thompson, in'.respoase to Co~ission questioning, stated that the conditional uae permit approved both the mobile home aad travel trailer park since the plans indicated this, and ' - the petition was so advertised. ' ~ Mr..Brigham,'in response..to Commission questioning, stated that it was not their intent to request an additional siga for the'mobile home park since the size of the mobile homes wes 'such that they would not be rem~ved from the site. ;' THE HFARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Sey~our offered Resolution~No. PC70-64 and moved for its passage and adoption to denq Petition for Variance No.. 2172 on.the basis that although the pool company sign had been approved for the property to the north, it did not mean this would establish a precedent for.any'.similar requests since-this site.was selected primarily because of its proximity t~ the freeway'and its being viewed f;om the freeway, and approvsl.of additional signs, especially in the manner in which the.proposed'sign was worded, would be approving ( a.form of billboard'oriented to.the freeway traffia,.which would be deleterious to the Cit~'s expoaure to yisitors to the City; and'..that no evidence had been submitted to sub- stan,iate a tiardship existed if s~bject petition were not approved. (See Resolution Book) Prior-to a vote being taken, further discussion was held by the Co~ission as to the height of the exisEing sign and tlie display area permitted by the R-A Zone and the height and display area requested, together with the height and display area permitted if the property were zoned C-l; whether or not to allow the same height as the pool company sign, based on :.he fact that Cney were in close proximity; and the cluttering of signs on freeway frontage properties. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Seymour, Rowland. NOES; COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ABSENT; CO1~fISSIONERS: Herb'sG,Thom. RECESS - Chairman Rowland declared a five-minute recess, The meeting recessed at 3s:58 P.M. RECONVENE - Chairman Rowland reconvened the meet~ng oc 4:07 P.M Co~uissioaers Herbst and Thom being absent.. VARIANCE N0. 2173 - PUBLIC HEARING. LEONARD M. WHITE, 730 North Euclid Street, Anaheim, California, pwner; requesting WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage ~af approximately 80 feet on the west side of Rowan Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 143 feet, and being located approximately 113 feet south of the centerline of'Connecticut Avenue, and further described as 1214 Rowan Street. Property presently classified R-O, ONE-FAMILY SUBURB(~N, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on subject property, and the requeat to permit construetion of a 2900-square foot house having 5-foot side yards, whereas the R-O Zone requirr;d 8-fool aide yards, and that adjoining properties having 5-foot side yards were developed priar to the r.eclassificatiAn of the properties to the R-0 7.one; therefore, the Co~ission would have to determine whether the request was ~ ?; :~ ~ _` ;~ ~ ~a f i . :,.:" f ~, r i I "-j i ` ~. , ; _ - .i ~ .~~._ '.~~~:.~ ~ ~ . .. ~ : _ . MINUTES, CI9'Y PLANNING CO1~IliISSION, Apri1 20, 1970 5110 VaRIANf,E N0. 2173`- appropriate for this area. ;;(Continued) A showing of hands indicated two pe=sons present in opposition to subject petition., Mr. Leonard White, the petitioner, appeared:before the Coamiission aoting he,preseatly. resided iri.Compton but_had his.:,office.`in Anaheim; that after looking for sone time for a.place to',:reside, subject property was deemed to.be exactly what they des.red, so they had_an architect.draw up plans;.bct Ehey were unaware the 5-foot side yard was not applicable, and noted-:tHat several other properties.in the area;also were not in conform- '' an.ce with:Code, and when theq had closed.e§crow and applied for a buildin they.were informed that an 8-foot side yard was required; that 21 of the 34r1otstinRthiBCh, ~ tract had less than l0;feet, and most,.with 5-foot<side yards; and that the R-O Zone required a`90-£oot lot width,.`and 10,000 square feeti - therefore, it would appear that not only;would,theae other properties be aarrower lots but would not meet Code as to side yards either, and approval of subject petition was`necessary because it was difficult to develop a large home on~'property with more than the 5-foot side yard setback. ` Mr.' Howard Polzin; 1205 Connecticut Avenue a , ppeared before the Commission in opposition, noting he was selected by his neighbors to represent'them iri opposition to subject petition as to the requesEed setback and the fact that the petitioner proposed a two-story,home; that there were deed restrictions in this tract Zimiting the height to one-storq; that the petitioner had indicated to neighbors.that he planned to use the second floor for storage putposes - however, he was sure tlie architect had designed the plans so that a regular staircase`would lead to the second floor, and since the height of the home was 28 feet, he interpreted that height to mean a second floor was proposed, and approval would mean the peiitioner would be allowed to have a regular second floor, whi~h would be agains~ the deed restrictions recorded on all lots in this tract; and Chat Dr. Abrams had stated he would seek an 3njunction to enforce these deed restrictions if subject petition were`aPProved. Chairman Rowland noCed that deed restrictions were a civil matter in which the City did not become involved, and the only sestrictions in which the City.became involved were those impoaed in graating a:petition; therefore, since the single-family zone permitted Lwo stories,-any consideratiQn of privaEe deed:restrictions would be matter for individual proper.~.owners to enforce. Mr.:Marcus`South, 1218 Rowan Place, appeared before the Commission in opposition, noting his property was immediately.to the north of subject property; that since subject and adjoining properties were zoned R-O, the regulations of khat zonc should be enforced; that regarding the staCement made`by the petiEioner that many homes had 5-foot side yards, the properties were,developed when the zoning was R-l and/or when additions were made to hamea, the variances granted were only necessary because the R-0 Zone did not permit the 5-fo~• side yard - therefore, waiver was necessary to complete the addition at the exist- ing side yard setback; and that when the R-0 Zone was modified, the percentage factor was applied. Furthermore, the:petiGionEr could meet,Code requirements sihce he was proposing to build on vacant property, and redesign was all that was necessary since the lot depth could be taken into consideration for maintenance of the room at the size now proposed; and that his home had 10-foot and 15-foot aide yards, and his bedrooms were to the rear of the property.with bedrooms on the south side. • The Co~ission noted that the plans indicated bedrooms and baths.along the north property line; whereupon Mr. South expressed the opposition that subject petition should be denied, and that the neighbor to the south also submitted a letter of opposition, as well as the property owners abutting the property to the west. Mr. White, in rebuCtal, stated that he would make no comments regarding the height since this was not a cousideratian before the Planning Commission; however, one of the opposi- tion, Mr. Polzin, built his home in 1958, and the lot was 85 feet wide with a building 75 feet wide - therefore; it must be assumed that he had a 5-foot Qide yard, bat he was opgosing gubject petition, denying him the right adjoining property owners had, and that a waiver was giaated in Fefiruary~ 1970, granting a 5-foot aida yard to Dr. Abrams. Mr. Polzin noted for the Commission that when revisiona were made to the R-0 Zone, the percentage factor was inserted; whereas foimerly only a 5-foot side yard was required. The Commission Secretary noted that four letters of oppositian from adjoining property owners were on file. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to approve subject petition on the basis that a number of waivers for similar side yard setbacks had been approved in the past; thaC the layout of the bedzooms facing northerly was•similar to the layout of the property to the north, whereby the bedrooms would be facing bedrooms or bathrooms; and that the existing 10-foot setback at the north and 5 feet from subject property would provide a 15>foot = t ~ ~ ~. . _ ~! . i 1 ~a ~` ' ~~~ _. >~ ... <':~' . .... _ ' . ~ - - "~ ~ _ - Q MINUTES, CITY~PL•ANNING COl~'Il~iISSION, April 20, 1970 5111 VARIANCE N0::2173 - separation between the two structures wY~ich would appear to be adequate (Continued), 'for light:and.air.. - On roll call the foregoing•motion lost.by the following vote: AYES:;~ ~COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Seymour. NOES:.,' CO1~AfISSIONERS: Allred; Gauer, Rowland. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:. Herbst, Thom.-: : Further discussion,was field by.the Co~ission-in which Co~issioner Allred'noted that since the City did:have a'+requirement in the:R-O:Zone, approqal of subject petition woulri be reacting to',a similar situation rather>than planning,for a proper future of the City, and similar•waivers would be requested which could not be denied - therefore, it would appear to-be impoztant that the Co~ission maintain the.zoning regulations wherever possible, and.since~the pet3tianer was designing his_:home for a vacant parcel of land, revisions could be made. 'Commissioner Gauer noted he alweys upheld and-recognized ~eed restrictions even though the City did not take these into`consideration; that the petitioner did not give sufficient evidence for the need.to build within 5.feet ol.the aide property line except that adjoin- ! ing properties were huilt in this menner; and that this was no reason for approval of subject pe::it+_or., Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson reiterated for th~ Commission the factthattthe.othet~ homes in this area were developed at the time the R-1 site development standards`were observec~, which were less""resErictive; however, since setbacks had been established for the R-0 Zone, all homes built in this area were now considered nonconform- ing, and approval of subject petition would contiriue the nonconforming usesf and this was the reason Dr:;Abrams and several others had to obtain variances when they proposed additions to their homes - said additions usually were in line with tfie existing structure and were not allowed to go in as a nonconforming addition, but they Y~ad to obtain approval •c+f.a variaace before said addition could be constructed. Chsirman Rowland noted that all properties within this aE~a between North, West, Loara, and.Westmont'were developed for R-0 lots with k-O stan~iards except for about four lots wnich had loG width waivers only, but''those lota south of Westmont.Driva were R-1 zoning `but"had beer_' developed under R-0 standards that were in exist.ence at that time, and that most of the variances granted were.because of additions. The Commiasion then requested that a recap of the variances granted £or waivers of the side yards be made prior to any further action by the Commission. (See page 5115) VARIANCE N0. 2174 - PUBLIC HEARING. EUNICE WILLIAMS, 1626 East Santa Ana Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; AMERICAN MOBILEHOME COMPANY, 6335 Beach Boulevard, Buena Park, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF PERMITTED USES TO ESTABLISH A MOliILE HOME SALES FACILITY WITH WAIVER OF MTNIMUM REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK on property described as; A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the southwest corner of East Street and Kenwood Avenue, having approximate frontages of 210 feet on • East Street and 235 feet on Kenwood Avenue, and further described as 1221 North ~ast Street. Propertq presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviet~ed the location of subject property, uses and zoning established in close proximity, and the Report to the Commission, noting that the petitioner proposed to display four mobile homes oa the easterly end of subject property, said mobile homes to be developed with patio and decking for display purposes with a graaite path leading from one trailer to another; that the petitioner intended to use this site as a display area for general sales of mobile homes; that there was no relationship between this sales facility and the mobile home park under construction to the west of this parcel; that the petitioner proposed an 8-cer parking lot, and there would be a considerable amount of land Teft vacant to the west, and upon inquiring of the petitioner of his intent for this property, the petitioner indicated this would not be used for storage of additional trailers but would have a combir.ation of landscaping, asphalt or rock to resolve problems of dust, weeds, etc. - therefore, the Commission might wish.to require the submission and approval of landscaping and development plans for the entire parcel prior to placing the mobiZe homes on this site; that the Commission would have to determine whether the rather intense couuaercial use would be appropriate in the area given the experience of similar operations in nearby cities, which left much to be desired from an esthetic viewpoint; and it would be incumbent upon the petit.ioners to demonstrate their ability to develop an attractive display area if the Co~ission deems this use appropriate. Furthermore, due to the depth of the lot it would appear there would be no reason for not maintaining the required 50-foot setback by adding an additional 30 feet to the setback area. ~ 'z ,~ ~i' 'S: :n~ :~: .. . TY . ~. . . , . . ~ - ;;?." ~. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING:COMMISSION, April 20,.1970 5112 VARIANCE N0: 2174 :- Mr. Philip•-Walsh, representing the agent for.the petitioner, appeared (Continued) before the.Cotmaission and;noted'it wa"s":their:desire to lease subject: property for the purpose of.:ha'ving this used as.a'sales lot for mobile homes; tHat;they would stipulaEe to`providing'the 50-foot setback as requ.ired~by`.:the M-1 2one• that it was'thei`r.intent to place theae mobile.home models in a permanent•manner as`,though they..were,.in a~mobile home park - fhis would include landscaping; that a detailed_lendscaping plan would be submitted;:p,rior-to moving the mobile homes`on the _ _ p;operty, that there:.was no intent that these would.be temporary structures except whea new models we'r,e'available,.and,then a plan`would`be.presented to the Co~ission or staff as to the'replacement model; that,the'use proposed would'be compatible with the existing uses in the area;, that,it was projected'to sell three mobile homes per week, averaging in price of $12y000.which would mean'.over a million.dollars on which Ehe City would realize taxea; and that if any additional models were contemplated,`they would"submit a plan to the Citq for approval. The Commission discussed the proposal by the petitioner and determined that since the petitioner stipuleted to a precis"e plan for the Con~isaion:to approve, Chere would be no need for a continuance since the plan could be approved`under Reports and Recommendations. '_'uithermore, the use was permitted in the C-3 Zone which was a less intense zone than the M-I'Zone,,and the petitioner had stipulated to meeting,.Ehe site developmenC standards of ~ the M-1 Zone as pertained to setbacks and landscaping. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE.HEARZNG WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer offered ResoluEion No. PC70-66 and moved for its passage and adoption to.grant.Petition for Variance No. 2174, ia part, for,permitted uses in the M-l Zone only; . that;tne pe:itioner had withdrawn his request for waiver of the requtred setback; that the propos~d coAanercial use was deemed to be compatible with the exigting uses in the M-1 Zone an the basis that,the established.uses were not pr~.marily indus~rial in nature; that the.Planning Coaunission determined`that the proposed sales'display area was similar to a model home'display area and, as such, should be made as atiractive as possible,wh~reupon the.petitioner had s~ipulated to the.submission.of a precise landscaping plan and to setting up.the`model.moliile homes as i£ they:were.:permanemtly-located on the site; and condittons, including tke submission-of a xevised plot plaa 3ndicating a SO-foot struc- tuial.setback, precise.landscap'ing plan, and the raar port3on of the property shall not ~e utilized for storage:purposes. (See Resolution Book) On roll call.the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES; COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Earano, Gauer, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.' ABSRNT: COMMISSIOd~RS: Her6st, Thom. ABSTAIN: COI~AfISSIONERS: Seymour. Co~issianer Seymour stated that because he had been doing business with the agent for the petitioner in,the past, there might be some conflict of interest - therefore, he absCained from voting. CONDZTIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. TRAILER COACH ASSOCIATION, 1340 West Third Street, PERMIT N0. 1164 Los Angeles,,California, Owner; LOUIS BELL, 1340.West Third Street, los Angeles, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN OFFICE BUILDING WITH GENERAL OFFICE USFS AS A PRIMARY 1JSE on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.87 acres, having a.frontage of.approximately 936 feat on the north side of La Palma Avenue, heving a maximum depth of approximately 205 feet, and being located approximately 217 feet east of the centerline of Tustin Av~nue (formert.y Jefferson Street), and further described as 3855.East La Palma Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm SY~ughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, noting that all the property was c~rrently zoned R-A,.and.the City Council adopted an ordinance on April 7, 1970, reclassifying the property to'the M-1 Zone, said ordinance becoming effective May I, 1970; that the petitioner was proposing to develop a business and professional office building primarily serving commerce and industry, wiEh the petitioner proposfng to utilize the entire second floor for their facilities and lease the ground floor to co~nerce and industrial oriented officee; that adequate parking and landscaping was provided in accordance with the site development standards of the M-1 Zone; and that since the Trailer Coach Asaociation was a representa- tive of industry and since the association proposed to lease office space on ti;, ground floor for similar uses, it would appear that the requested conditional use permit would be approp~iate. = ::;~ ~ 4 , _: ~ ~ i ~ ' _. - x r F ~ti ~ ~ ~ ~r~. ~ -~'.':=. ~, :,5~ '. j~ 9 1.~~:sj .:i . ~ `~~y~"~` ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ - • ... _ ~..n... ~ . ~n-f . , ~. . . ... . . . . . . _ _ . . , ~~ ~ ~ ~. ` ~ ~. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CONIliISSION, April 20, 1970 5113 ~, ..CONDITIONAL;;USE - Mr Slaughter.furtfier.noted that':it had.:been'the normal.pol'icy of the y ;o e~ : PERMIT.N0.-1164 Cit f Anaheim to,grant'temporary`sidewalk waiv,ers in indusErial'areas ~ (Continued) due to the small;amoant of pedestrian traffic°in the area`- therefore, ~ ~ '' '. the Commissio'n might wish'to consider reco~ending waivet of the'side-.. ~' ; walk`~requirement. ~ '. No one appeared to'represent the,petitioner.• r No one appeared in:opposi'fion to subject petition. ~ THE:,HEARING WAS CLOSED. .: Coumissioner; Farano expresaed~concern that the petitioner was not present to make himself available.for answering.questions the'Co~ission might'.have and inquired whether or not theie`was~anything in.Title~l8 that required'Ehe petitioner-to.be preaen[;for the public hearing and-'to.§ubmit sfiowings. Commissioner'Allred noted:that since the Commission was fully aware of the entire area and the use:was approp.riate f.or.the area, there appeaied to be no reseon for appearance ; of ttie petitioner nnless, tHe Cc~ission' had. a:question. Deputy City Attomey Frank Lowry advised Coaanissioner Farano that no showings were neces~~ry ' under..:a conditional use permit except where,a~specific'waiver:was,asked of the Code. The Commission then:inquired whether they were'within their rights to act on subject `::petition without the.presence of the petitioner. Mr.:Lowry adyised Ehe Coffinission that since all the necessary showings were set forth in the Report Eo~,the Commission, there appea=ed to be no reason why the Co~ission could not `.take'action. '.,y~ ~:~c' Coam~issioner''Farano stated he'felt anyone requesting a petition to be considered should appear~before the'Commiasion in the event any.questiona did arise,.and not to be absent asauming thaE the.use~was"appropriate and his presence was not necessary. Commissioner Gaaer offered Resolution No. PC70-67 and:moved.for its passage and adoption ' to~grant Yetition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1164, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book)_ Prior.;to voting, Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts inquired of the Commissioii whether or not.tlieq wished.to recos~end as a finding to the City Council that temporary w~aiver of sidewalks be granted. i Discussion was held by the Co~ission, and it was determined that the Cormaissio~ s recom- II mendation was.not necessary, and if the waiver were deaired by the petiti~ner, he should I make direct application to the City Council since as a general policy the City Council had waived sidewalks in industrial areas in Che past. On roil call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Seymour, Rowland. NOES: COMNlISSIONERS: Farano. ABSENT: COI~IISSIONERS: Herbst, Thom. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. WILLIAM MII,LER, c/o Boatel, Inc., Mora, Minnesota, PERMIT N0. 1166 Owner; ANN T, MADISON, 600 South Aarbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Agent; requeating permission to ESTABLISH A TRANSPORTATION CENTER WITH BUS STORAGE FACII.ITIES AND THE INCIDENTAL RENTAL OF AUTOMOBILES on property described as; A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approxi- mately 72 feet on the south side ot Katella Way, having a'maximum depth of approximately 240 feet,'and being located approx?.mateZy 246 feet west of the centerline of Mountain View Avenue, and further described as 304 East Ka~tella Way. Property presently classified C-2, GENERAL:CONIMERCIAL, ZONE. Aesistent Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of sub~ect property, zoning and uses established in close proximity, and the request to establish a transporta- tion center with bus storage facilities and the incidental rental of autotiobiles; that off-street parking would be adequate; and that the'storage of buses would be at the rear of the property where 16 tandem parking spaces were indicated on the plana. Mr. Slaughter, in reviewing the evaluation of the proposal, aoEe3 that the Co~ission would have to determine whether this use was appropriate for the area since the Anaheim General Plan indicated this area for co~ercial-recreation purposes, and a new bank was " 'T:~ . . . . . . . . . - -- - . ,....:...ve~. rvu. +~-c ~.. . .~.- _ _ . ~ . / .,4 - i .. . ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~.•~ ~ . ~ . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING C01~41ISSION, Apri1 20, 1970 5114 CONDITIONAL.' USE -_recently`approved to the east of subjecl. prop'r.•~ty,, Furthermore, the PERMIT NOa 1166 property was located_at the Katella.overcrosre+.ng ,f the Santa /.:na (C~n~inued) , Freeway, and arriving tourists'would-receiv~e~l.:~ir,.ftY ' ' . st impression as to the appeaiance of the area; •.thPrefc+z:e, ~re~,.,~,~~r1ar attention should be ,given to any .dev~,+.lopment:in thi:~ .;_~~:~,y •i~ that a pleasing appearance,might,be presented.to the';arxivi!:g',tour.isf:c, - t},~•r,~:ti~e G~:.~isaion might wish to;consider additional ,screen3ng, such as-:an 8-foat dpcar.a~y.~.z ;~;a13; to screen the bus storage..:,area if-Ehe use ver~~ clremed.appropriate: M.r. Michael Valen, 1441 Soutu F~est Street, the p:bpasE:d lcr,a~a~ of subject property and oqiner.-operator of the Town,Tour Bus Company, apF~eared befa.~•~ :~he Commission:end stated tliey were operating a bus tour service uader tht~ jurisdiction of a City ordiaance, serving the DisneyI.~nd~,area, the Anaheim Stadiud;,'the Convent:ion Center, motels and d~otels in:the Caa~uerciaT-Recreation Area, and Knott's Ber.ry _r.eL~~ that: since they had ~` ~> ~ offt~es . in botl: the Disneyland and Grand Hotr~.le plie~~ ~ ` r. , *~Ri~e desirflus.oi conso:.i~taLing th~ c~gexaicions into one office and at the same timrc;~ave an ai•ea where the buses could be ,parkea overnight; that subjer.t property was an.ide~l loca~_ion because of its ~~roximity to khe major areas aerved; :that there would be ieo storage, as auch - onlv bvernight park-. ing~uF buses and ~utomobiles which were ren.ted either, wit.h or withour, a d:;!ver; and "chat: ~!ince i;t,was his feeling this operation was an integtal part of the Cou~er.ial-Recreatioa c.rea, ;.'ti~ operation at this lo:;at+.; : would comp~rs~zt the area. .. The'Commission then inquired. whether i: was;ptanne.~i to have the buses repaired on the premises; whereupon Mr. Valen replied that their reg~a2r service was made off the premis~_s bY .piior+ arrangements.w~ith regular repair shops: ~ The Commissioii.expressed concern that storage faciYities at thi~ location mip;ht not be a very presentable sight t~ the visitors to the City using the Katellai overc.roasing and inquired as to the number of veAicles that,aould'be psrka~4 :~n the r~sr r,ortion of *?xe property. Mr. V~~len replied that par~ing .or storage of.• buses woii2d be oa an overnight : asis on.ly, and .it was.anticipated thE>re would be apprc~ximately'Een rental,cars on the pr~,~is.es. Cammissi~ner Gauer n~ted tt.at rie observed this area ,nFrer:several days and did ;at see many people using i:his entrsnce int~ the C:ity, ~;~ut thn:i~ ~,rere many exiting from this area. Mr. Val~n, `3n respcas~ +.,; ~_.-,t~kssion quef~tionin~;, st~~ted the buses were now pariced oves- night hehind' the.Chart~,:r:ntcuse. Commissioner Gauer note~l in driviii,g;through this area it was his feeling this entire area nee~sd a general cleaning up - t@~erefore,,the use propoaed might accompliah some of this. :~Irs. Ann Madison, agent for Ehe petitioner, noted that Mr.. Valen had a number of xetters from adjoining grap~r~y ~ers, all in favor of the proposed facilities, and that it was Mr. Valen s intent to improve t'he appearance o.f subjsct property since this would be 1:0 his advantage. The Commission inquired whether ~the .proposed Iesgee would be acceptable to conatruction of an 8'-foot decorative wa11 atong ttae easterly property li.ne. Mr. Valen replied thaL t:r~; intended ta ere~ct a wa11 there and took the lease on the progerty with the inteat of puxchasing 3t - nowev2r., he.would like approxYU~ately two years in which to ~.rect the wali so that he might wazy out an equitable agreement with the bank to the east. Eour letters in favor of aub~ect petition were presented.. No ~ne appcared ii~ opprsition to subjeet petition, TIiE i{EARING WAS CLOSED, Co~issioner Gauer of£ered Resolutinn No„`a'C70-66 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditianal Use~ Parwit No. 1166, subject to conditions, amending Coadition No. 3.of the Repor_ to the Couunission to raquire a 6-foot masonry wall to be erected within one year from this date, and findings that the pe*itioner stipulated to nc bus or autnmobila repair work o:~ the pre~r2.ses; that buses would be stored only over- nigh•~; that te~n ~utomobiles for rentsl purposes would oe pasked on the property; and that a decorative masonry wall w~ul~i be a~anst.ructed around the periphery of the property. (See Resolution Bdok) On roll call the foragoing resolution ~;as .passed by the following votc: _. .. ~.--- , . . :. . . . ~. ~ ~ `MINUTES, CITY.PLANNING COMMISSION, Apri1 20, 1970 5115 CONDITIONAI, USE -`AYLS:. COPIIfISSIONERS: .Allre~, Gauer, Seymour, Rowland. PERMIT N0.'.1166 NOES: COMMISSIONERS; None. (Continued)` ABSENT: COrIIiISSIONERS: Berbst, Thom. ABSTAZN: COMLiISSIONERS: Farano. Commissioner Farano, in abstaining, stated that his company leased property in close proximi,.~. - ther~fore, he,felt he 'should.not be voting on the proposal. VARIANI:E-N0, 2173 - Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that a recap had been made of (ContinaE". recent variances in the geaeral location of subject property, it being'"determined that nine"~variances had'been granted since 1963; _. however, in all but one instance,the variances were to permit additions ~ . xo t,omes and EY~c other for waiver of the re uired rear 9 yard aetback - therefore, a11 variances granted in,the past were basically because of a change in the site development standa.-da of the R-0 ?one wherein a greater niimber of feet were required based on the ~ percentage of ths width of the lot. Cc3r~issi~mer Allred offered ResoluEion No. PC70-65 and moved for.its passage and adoption ~-r~ ~~v.:Fetition for Varience No. 2173 on the basis that there were no exceptional or eaciraor:~inary circumetances or conditiona applicable to the property,involved or to the int~;+.ded uae of the p'roperty tr.at did not'apply generally to the,praperty or class of use in 2he same vicinity and zone; that the properties presently developed with 5-foot aide ryarde were developed within the requirements of the R-1'Zone prior to reclasaifying these p~roperties to the R-O:Zone in 1951; that variances granted for w~iver of._the side yard sEtback in this ~eneral area were only to allow for the constructiot, of additions with the asWe setbacke as the exiating atructurea on the same parcel; and that since the petitioner was propoeing,to cons~ruct tfle reaidence on vacant land, compliance with the "setback requiremente of thre R-O yone would not be difficult becauae a minor redesign would bring the sEructure within C~de rPquirementa. (See Reaolution Book) On roll call the foregoing reeolution wae paeoed by the following vote: AYESa CObIl~tISSIODTERS: Allred, Farano, Gaues, Rowland, $eymour. NOES; COI~AfISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CO1~R~tISSIONERS; Herbet, Thom. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, - PUBLIC AFARING, INiiIATED BY THE CITy pyANNIhG COMMISSION, ANAHEIM MUN?:CIPAL CODE 204 East Lincoln Averue, Anaheim, ~California; prapoeing to conaider amend~es:fie to Ti.tle 18 of.~ the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chaptera i$.04, General Provisiona - Uae, and 18.08, De£initione. Zonissg Buperviec: Char,lee Robdrxa,:~.:~ted for the Coma~esion t;:<~t tha Generai Provisions eect'ion govarning the ,k,.e~ring of ae:maiq for domeetlc, noa-:ummarcial uA+ in residantiai zonas and defitti*_:~ns of coop, co,rrab~ aad private stabl.e were set ~or p_„1iP h~~rina for thi~ ~.:,;:, ~nd daC~ grss~nted at the prnvious meet~ng aae bnsically tho r,~me a~ Lt par- taiaed ko th~ adverti~ed ~mandment - hoaever, ~.f sa.id an~andmsnt ~araapprev~,,~, ib aae recoaanended 'thet th~ Comwisaion sat fnr public haa~ing c.oaeiae.xetion of amandmemEs to Chspters 18.13, 18.16, 18.18; and 18.20 daaling with v:h~ kanping of animale in +~caordance with Section 18.04.020(6) and a.mandment of ChaptEr 18.64, Coadieional Ueas, to read; "Animal hospital^ and coaQaercial kennels" and "commercia?, nquee~trian eatsbliehment~e" ae aet forth in the Report to the Commiasion. No one appeared in opposition to aubject amendment. THE HEARiNG WAS CLOSED. Commiaeioner Gauer offered ReeoTutiom No. PC70-69 and moved for ite paseage and adoption to recoum~end to the City Counc+.l that the Anaheim Municipal Code, Title 18, Chaptera 18.04 and 18.08 be amended ao depicted on Exhibit A atteched hereto and referred to herein ae though set forth in full; that said amenc~ment would eatabliah regulatione which would conform with ChapCer 18.08 of the Anaheim Municipal Code which contsins the adoption of the Orange County ordinances pert8ining to the keeping of dogs and other domestic animals. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing reaolutinn was passed by tb~ following vote: ' AYES: COMItISSILNERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Seymour, Rowland. ~ ! NOES: CONAfISSI~NERS: None, j ABSENT: C(ri~IItISSIONERS: Herbst, Thom. I i ~ i ~ ~.~~~l3~DF1bt~`f ~"`'~`• ~ ~ ~ ~ `,~ ~tS;na ~,~ " ,~ . ~ ~ ,;'. ~. s _ ~+ w~ ,~, _ _ ~. ~ .. . . . . . ~+A . ~ . . ~ . ~L~ . . . }-'} r i .~~r Y~'~. ~.. v~.2c t i 4s~ } .~ s~' ' r. 71 ~. r i ~ s ~~ .: ,~~ r~ '. t ~ kj ~1 { '~ _ >' .. . . ~ . . . . ~ - .~~~_ "_"'_ ~ ZIINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 20, 1970 ~ 5116 - Co~issioner Seymour offered a motion to direct the Co~issior. Secre~ary to set for publ_ic hearing consideration.of. amendment to Title 18 of the Ansheire Municipa]. Code, Chapters 18.13, 18.16, 18.18, 18.20, and 18.64, said public hearing to be he13 May 18, 1970. ``` Co~issioner Gauer sec.onded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. " REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0, 1039 (Halopoff rroperties) - Convalesrent hospital - 31a15 West Ball Road - Request for admix-istrative approval.by the Planning Coamission to use a portion of these facilities for Category 'L' patients. ;,;t:~,,\~ Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed for the Commission pre~vious action on ~ubject petition and the request of the petitioner now to obtain administrative approval from the Coffiission or staff to convert a portion of these facilities for Category 'L' patients Mr. Roberta.then reviewed previous action on a similar request wherein after conferring with Stste licensing officials and based upon their statements, the Commission approved coneeraian of 131 beds for Category 'I,' facilities; however, subsequent to that action, the staff was advise3 that the previous information was not totally correct - that some of these patients could be potentially dangerous due to their mental state, and as a result, the ~taff embarked upon a more ~ietailed study of this type of facility by invit- ing Mr.,4i. R. Cameron, Regional Chief, Licensing and Certification, California Department of Public Health to address the Planning Gommission regarding the techn.ical aspects and ramificatians of Category 'L' facilities, at whicl: time Mr. Cameron advised that the City contact the Comprehensive Health Planning Association of Orange County who played an important role in the health facilities of Orange County. Thus, as a result of this meetiug with Mr. John Trabattd of that association aud other evidence presented to the Planning Co~mission, the Planning Co~ission dekermined that any requests for approval of Catego:y °L' facilities should be held in abeyance until the detailed study being prepared hy the Comprehenaive Health Planning Association of Orange County was completed, after which th2 Commission adopted said policy to that effect, and reco~ended to the 'Citv Council that their Body also adopt said policy - the latter action taking place on April 14, 1~370. Therefore, bas~ed o. the foregoing facts, it would appear that since the policy had been established by the Planning Co~ission and City Council regarding estab- liahment of new Category 'L' facilities, the ap~licant's request would not be in order, and it wouid further appear that such a zaquested use should be considerc~d at a public hearir.g in order to allow the adjoining residents an opportunity to review the request and express tFeir feelings on the matter. Chairman Rowland noted that since a policy had been estabYished recently wherein the Co~ission had given an in-depth review of the data, it would no~ be within the Commission's jurisdictinr to approve the request administratively. The Commission inquired as to the possibie cnmpletion date of the study and whether the hospital plann~d for South AnaY~eim Bouievard was alao propoaing Category 'L' patients. Mr. Roberts advised the Co~ission that Mr. Traband had indicated the report would be co~pleted no later than September, and that the haspital-convalescent home on At~aheim Boulevard did not intend to request this for their future facilities. The only reason the hospital was being considered by the City Council was because the Comprehensive Health Planning Association of Orange County requesr~d a ninety-day continuance in order to determine if the proposed hospital were necessary. Commissioner Gauer noted he had visited a number of these convalescent homes, and the nurses and help had to fee3 snd bathe many of the gatients who were unable to helg them- selves - therefore, any argument as to training qualified help ~hould also be taken into consideration as to this type of facility for professional help that would be needed. Mr. Paul Halopoff, owner of subject pr~perty and representing the operators of the con- valescent home, appeared before the.Co~ission and noted the Planning Co~ission and City Council policy wss e.stablished in hpril, 1970; however, the convalescent home's request for administrative approval was submitted originally in February, 1970, but at that time Mr. Pat Brown indica±rd that it was nossib~e that action by the Planning Co~nission and City Council would not necessitate filing a new petitinn to allow Category 'L' patients on sub~ect pro~~erty; that he had talked with various State represeatatives as well as Mr. Traband regarding this proposal long before the City of Anaheim had adopted s policy therefore, he felt some consideration should be given to this matter adminis[ratively. Furthermore, this facility Fras not built as a min~mum type operation since separate wings were developed and could be assigned to whatever Cype of person they propoaed. Mr. Halopoff furthex uoted that the administrator of the convalescent home was available to answer any que~tions the f,'ommission might have pertai~hing to this faaility; that they "~~. . ' ~ _~i:' ~~i.r -.'~~i! i i ~2 C~ - ~ ~, MINUTES,."CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOK, April 20,:.1970 5117 REPORTS AND RECOr4lENDATIONS ''ITEM:NO. 1.(Continued) had,agreed to prr.,;eide a faciliCy tnat would qualify physically~ for this type of use, and additional;,.recreaEion area and professioaal.staff had been applied for, and the only reason approval.of Category 'L! patients for the facility. was not obtained sooner was because of'an oversight o~ their part: in-an attempt to ready the building for opening in:March, this phase of.permitted uses was overlooked - therefore, he urged that the Commission give favorable consideration to the request for adminisErative approval for Category 'I,' patients. . ' Chairman Rowland noted,that the petitioner had demonstrated a:~ardship existed - however, the reason for adaption of the.policy by,tfie Cfty was because they were tfioroughly confuaed, and if:the State,Health Boar~ who.saould be`.well:qualified as to this type,of facility, were confused, the Commtssion was more`than confused since they ha~ ao way of finding the aiiewer, and in order to`,protect the City's and ci~tzens' interests, the policy was necessary in order to hold.in abeyance any other considerations.for a similar type use. After further dibcc:ssion by the Commission relative to the data presented by Mr. Helopoff and'data preaente3 by the staff, the Commission adviaed Mr. Halopoff there was no way the Planning'Co~ission could legally approved administratively permiselon to establish CPtegory 'L' patients Yn the convalescent home,`based on the fact that thE convalescent home was advertised as such and did not specify in the legal advertisement that it was being considered for l;stegory 'L' type.pat~ents.' However, if the.petitioner weredesirous ,~ of having.this c~asidered prior to the reporb.from the Comprehensive Health Planning Association of Orange County, he could submit`a new pe~tition requesting permission to establish the.use, and"then, perhaps, the data necessary for this specific type of use aould be essimilated,sooner,than September. ITEM NO. 2 VARIANGE 2159'- Traffic analysis - Kemp 8treet, La Palma Avenue, Olive Street, and Patt Street. 2oning Supervisor Charies Roberts adviaed the Commission that a copy of the traffic analysis made by Ehe Traffic Engineer;Ed Granzow regarding the problems exiating in the Kemp- La Pa1ma-01ivt li,vtt Street vicinity'had been received, said analy.is requested as a resalt of the variance petition to permit f'~. R-3 units for the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Olive Street being approved, and tesidents expresaing concern over the probable increase in traffi^.. volumes in'this area and their effect on the area in general, and that if the Commiasion had any questions regaYding said analysis, the Traffic Engineer was available to anawer questions. The Commission complimented the Traffic Division as ta this analysis and inquired whether or not one-way streets had been considered for this area. Mr. Zoberts noted for the Commission that the variance and traffic analysis would be considered by the City Council on April 21. Mr. Ed Granzow, Traffic Engineer, appeared before the Co~ission and noted in response to Commission queationing that consideration had been given to one-way streets for Julianna and Olive Streets; however, Patt Street was not suitable because industry required access, and further opposition to having Patt Street a oi.e-way st~eet was this would encourage truc}cs using Patt Street,again, and since the street was not wide enough for two-way traf:Eic, trucks might be discouraged from using said street. TheiCoimuission noted that the'report presented was f~r their information only, and the Planning Ca~ission could take no action regarding it. Chairman Rowland noted that t6e Con~ission might wish to reco~end abandonment of the alley to the City Council. Mr. Granzow advised the Commission that abandonment of any public access would have to be ' made upon application of adjoining property owners. Mr. David Stone, developer of the proposed 61-unit epar~ment development at Qlive Street and La Palma Avenue, noted for the Commission that if a'oandonment nf the alley were reco~ended by Xhe City Council, this would be contrary to their p~lans sia,ce circulation was based upon utilization of the alley, and since utilization was t~g;,rcant to circula- tion of their parking facilities, they would be unalterably opposed to any reco~endation of abandonmenr. of said alley, and that ic the City were contemplating said abandonmenC„ it was imperative Ehat they be advised of any plans. bi~~~a+ ~u~ ~ ~ ~.- y~ :~a ~i ,~:[F 48CCOAGlfl,~~th2 IDOC10II d,~MOTION CARRIED ~ ~ '~ ~ .. s~r'L~ ~:lf ~75 ~~: Lt ~ y i51~f t' L a~Y:. ~s e`~`~,*r~ r-1 * ~ ~ i .~ p . ~ J x ,r.'y c ;.aS~. '7 ~~ ~ A. 1 t .~.' f .. ' a $~ ~ t"y ~4r a ~ 4a r x ~~"~T~hhe meetingMadjournedr9t,r5 5~ P M - ~~ di ~. t '~ k _s-i ~ ~~` ~r a ~y.. ~ Y~k~ ~ jy ~~ f ~' t~ r ~~ x f ~vr~~ *d ~ y .:_~ ~~v ~ 4 1 ~ ~5 . < ~ . I f ~ 5 } J . ~ - ~1~.'t ~ , `~ ;~ ~ ~ ` ~ ` 5 N ;` , -~Reapectfully submitted, 7 i ,~ T .- ~ r i I `: 4 ~ ti 1 `' -" k ' . i ~k . ~ . ~a s°~ ~ h~ :. i.~ ~ "`a h t ? ~F ~ ~ 4 I ~~ 1~.,> > ~~ 5{ ~ tz, i' C !` ~~.^"z ~''+ . ~~ { / i' ~9~~'~! ~.i~~ ~~~ Y ~r~ ~ ~~ > ~ 'i t~ it . . 1 3 :-tk / ~ j~r ` ~ r ~ ~ ~ .,_[~11~7IQtEBS, .Secret"ary ~ , ~ i ~} ~ =Anaheim' City4~Planning Co~ission f ~ •'. S :' I 1 r' i : +' ` ~ ~ ~ K 2 F` `` 7:: ~~ ~ 1 . fa ~~ '' s ~ -~^~ ~ ~, f ~ ' t i i '~ ` ~~ ~.7 ~ f ' i r ~ n~ ~ p f F t ~~ ~.. F Y ~' ) d /t~ ~ ~ ) y ~,~~•~ I : f~~, F y ' \ { t ~J t f 1! ~:` ~ ~ t ~.1- ~,l ~, { . ~ t t ~ ,~ ~ '. S t . '. x a ' .. ' . y ~. .. ~. ~ . ~ . ~ . .~ -, V . y . t ~ ' S {_ ~ ~ ~ x ~~; t~ ~ -..' ~'~ -. :,' ) ~'~: i .n ~ -. ... y. . ~ . . ' j . ." .. .~,....~ ~ ..:.'.~. , .... , ~ ..;~,.. . ,'., ....'~. . ~ i f ..a, ,... ..'; ..'.',~ . ."~ ... .: , . ._.~ . . . ., ... .... -~'' .:1