The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1970/05/18~ ~ •, - - -- . . _. , ~. ~~ . ~ ~ ~~ ,., . ` ..~. . : _ , . _ ` ,; ~ . City~Hall,-' Anaheim;~`California `-Mey 18; 1970 . A REGUI.AR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COt~1ISSI0N . REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeEing•of.the Anaheim Citq Planning Cemmission was called 'to order by'Chaiiman Rowland at 2:OO.o'clock P.M.,.a quorum lieing present~ . PRESENT - CHAIRMAN. .Rowland.;, - '- COMMISSIONERS:' Allred (entered Council CHamber at 2:25 P.M.), Farano, Gauer,,Herbst,•Seymour. . ~ ABSENT - COIYIlKISSIONERS: None. PRESENT - Aesistant Development Serdices Birector: Ronald.Thompson `Deputy, City Attomey: - Frank I,owry 'Office'.Engineer: Jay_Titus: _ Zoning Supervisorc Charles Roberts Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Malcolm Slaughter Plannirig Commission Secretary; ., Ann Krebs PLEDGE.OF : ' ALI,EGIANCE - Cormaisaioner:Seymour led ir. thc Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, f .:APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of May 4, 1970, were a;pproved as submitted I• ; THE MINUTES oa moL~un,by Co~issioner Herbat,-seconded by Commisaioner Farano, and MOTION CAn°?ED. '; . ,1 RECI.ASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. JAMES MOORE, c/o Leonard Smith, 125-D South N0; 69-70-51' Claudina Street, Anaheim, Qalifornia, Owner; Leonard'Smith and James' ~ Hollenbeck; 125-D Bouth Claudina Street, Anaheim, California, Agents; `~~ requesting.khat:property, described.as:' A rectangularly shaped parcel ` of land having a.frontage of approximately 165:feee on the north side of Ba11 Road, having a ma~.imum depth of.approximately 218 feet,.and being located approximately 165 feet east.of the:centerline of Webater Avenue, and further described as 2449:WesE Ball Road;,be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,'ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the May 4, 1970 meeting to allow time for the staff to advertise'the property to the west for consideration of R-3 zoning. ~ Chairman Rowland noted that.since item No. 2, Reclassification No. 69-70-59, was property adjoining subject property, both petitions be considered simultaneously. RECLAS3IFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COrAiISSION, 204 East N0: 69-70-59 Linco2n Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing to reclassify property ' described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Webster Avenue and having approxi- .. mate frontages of 135 feet on Ba31 Road and 219 feet on Webster Avenue from the R-A, "'AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-3, MUI,TIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. , Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject properties, I uses established in close proximity, existing zuning and the resolution o.f intent on the property for C-l zoning pending, the reason for continuance of Reclassification No. 6R-70-51, noting that the Commission fel*_ that allowing one parsel to remain G 1 pending would create "spot zoniag"; that Ehe General Plan projected low-medium density along Webster Avenue:and highway-related uses_along Ball Road - however, since the west side of Webster Avenue already had developed for multipie-fami2; resi3ential uaes and with . Reclassification No.;69-70-51 requesting R-3 zoning, this would leave only one parcel still under the resolution of intent to C-1;,and that upon contacting the property owner under.Reclassifi~ation No. 69-70-59, the staff was advised that he was desirous of retaining the C-1 zoning pending on the property. Mr. Russell Nelson, 635 Esat CT~~~man Avenue, Orange, appeared before the Commission, noting he wa§ the owner of tht: prop,:rty at the northeast,corner of Webster Avenue and Ball Road; that he had purcha:ied the property ia 1965, being fully awere of the C-1 Zone pending on ihe property and had paid a price commensurate with commercial property; 5139 . . _ . . ._. , .- - r :::; ~ . ; . ;, , ~ '~~ ; G .;~' ~~,~ '~- ~ ~ ~" ~~ - ~ ~ ~ ' . 1~ ~~' MINUTES~ CIT' PLANNING COMMISSION,'May 18, 1970 5140 ~~ ~~". ~ ; •~, RECLASSIFICATION - that he~wes not,oppose~l to having both commercial and multiple-family ~ '~„~ N0. 69-70 51 development side-by-side;:that prior to purchase of the property he k ':~" ` ` - had made;an iavestigation to determine the feasibility of:commercial , ~ `-~ RECLASSIFICATION use far'the property, and since a market liad been deve7.s,ped to the . ~i N0. 69-70 59 east at.Ball Road'and:Roani-e Street and'the property t,etween his ` ~~°g ;. (Coatinued) : property and~the market was vacant, it was his deterr..ination that '~''~ Hio property was:desirable ior comm~rcial',developmw,nt; that in addi- ?4.'~e. ' '. : tion•to the exisEing;co~ercial zoning, he fe1t;-Ba11.Road, & heavily ~~' traveled streeE, was'indicative of'potential commercial<£or the.property; that he had be i ` th buil ~,- en n ; e ding;buaine3s for twenty=five years ,and.had.developed many~properties for' = e ar', apa tment;d velopment:since loans were more:reEdily ayailalile for ti:at type of '?~' construction;-.that sirice commercial uses,had been developed'witHin the block between " ~-~ Roanne and Webster Ayenue, along the norEfi side.of Ba11 Road,'even though the praperty Eo ~w'~ the east and his property,were developed for re'sidential,uses, this would still be ' '=~' a:mixture of coam~ercial'and'residential pses; and that since the General Plan indicated ;~ commercial uses for tfie Ball Road frontag?,' it was his ass•~mption this would be the ;..s manner in which proq~erties.along Ball Road would develap. . ... . . . . ' ' : .. ~ ~~,, . ~ . . _ . . . : , . '.~ , ... : .. ~K. Chairman RowYarid noted thaE R-3 development extended for a distance of 270 feet on the ~~~. ~~ west.,side of Webster Avenue, and the nearest:commercial zoning westerly was werit of V ~"'~' elare Street,'more than 500 feet west of the existing R-3. ~"'~~~ ~ ~~ i: ; Mr. Nelson nofed he did not oppose R-3 for the property to the north or east - all he "'~ >.was interested;in was retaining the commercial sesolutiom of intent on his property ~ ,?t~ since he.had many~opportunities to develo the p property witk highly speculative commer- ~~w'~ ~ cial_enterprisca, but he did not feel the City Council would approv~e these typea of ' ' "~.~ businesses.because of.the high school location on the south side of Ball Road ?' . ;~ Mr. Leonard.:Smith, representing the petitioner under Reclassification No. 69-70-51 ` h.`'f ;: , appeared before the Commission,;noting.there was little he could add to assist the ` , "'* Commission in their decision on Ehe property he represented; that the petitioner had : mm ` '~ a; o itment for the develo ment of the p property for R-3 a~d ~°:.: ,not desirous of con- ' x~`- :~ tinuation of Ehe commercial uses projected for the property; ~~_,, that because of the proximi:ty of the,.achool, as well as other co~ercial uses, the commercial use of subject "'~ property wo.uld not be.desirable. . :'~,'~ ' THE HEp~RING WAS CLOSED. .. . .~ ; s '"" , ., , Discussion was held by the Commission in which Commiasioner Herbst noted there was a significant change in the development of properties surrounding the two parcels under consideration from the original action taken by the City Council in 1964 to justify o _ c nsideration of multiple-family residential uses f.or the Ball Road frontages; that there had been no aftempt to develop the Ball Road frontage aince the inception of reclassification fo C-l, about six years, and to allow C-1 for this one parcel would c reate spot zoning which the Commission had attempted to avoid in the past; that if this were allowed to remain pending C-1, then R-3 would be surrounding this one C-1 ~ parcel, and since six years had passed since the pending zoning was established with- ~ ouE meeting any of the conditions, together with the further evidence that these parcels on both sidea of ~*2bster Avenue on the north side of Ball Road were developing for other uses, the pending C-1 zoning was not desirable. i. Commissioner Farano stated he could not agree with the statements made by Commissioner ~ Herbst that a pattern for R-3 development had been aet..just because the C-1 Zone had not been actively pursued, and that if the owne= of one parcel were in agreement that , would be one thing,but since he was desirous of retaining the pending C-1 he could see ~`I~ , no resson for going against the owner's wi§hes. _ Commisaioner Seymour.noted he would concur to a degree wit~ Commissioner Farano's statement since the property owner had indicated he purchased the pro~perty on the ~ssumption 3t had pendiag com.~ercial zoning, intending to develop some time in the future; however, ~here was a determinstion which the Commission would have to face - and that was how loa; in the future ahould property be held f_.~r potential development when it was possible the co~ercial uae would be detrimc-ntal to the adjoining oroperties - therefore, the Co~ission must determine whether or not sufficient time had elapsed or , whether the co~ercial zoning should be retained for another five or more years before determinin that th g. e Co~ission was in error as to commercial zoning for the property. Co~issioner Farano felt that some criteria should be aet up whereby a pending zoning was no longer active after a specific time so that a potential purchaser would not be faced with having to pay for commercial iaud which, in reality, eventually would be developing for a less intense use, such as w83 now proposed. ~. +uar_v.c-~.;°.r ~sr MtTi, ~3~s'£~tTS'~CS~z,'4'qeTr'F'x'S.w~ ~ ~i,.r,+~,.~"5~'~'p~".t~~`a '~' 7~u~'t'~ ~ c'v,^F }~ 4 :..: ~1R._ ~ Q /a ~ ~ F . ~. . : .~y . . ~ ~ ML~UTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 18,;1970 : . 5141 ~ . .. ~ RECLASSIF~~,ATION Co~isaioner Seymour noted that~property to the~west.had been or was NO= 69 70 51 . being develop d for R 3-'however, if;~:Ehey~had.developed:#or C-~, i ` ~_ ~- thentthe recl~t+sification to R-3 would.'not be;in order,:thus stopping RECLASSYFICATION . the commercial~trend at the northweat=`corner=of.Roanne Street and N0:' 69=70-59 Ball `,Road,~,and would not;:affect co~ierciaT_development :of'the prol~~*- ~ (Continued) ties'to the;east along'Ba11,Road ThereFOre,;=the;pattein had been ~ aet for these propertiee on botli sides`of Webat~r Avenue for R=3 uses. .. Deputy Cify Attoiney Frank Lowry advised the`.Co~nis.sion tliat.there was::no need far a. policy~since the`ordinance already sEated4the time>limitation for.:.compl'etion;'of•condi- tions, and.there.was no-~evidence timei~exteneions°were requeated~:`to meet these conditions - therefore, ,the pending C-1 2oiie was null and: void. `: I , ` :., _ ; -:, ;- `' i Co~nissioner Herbst noted that,: in his own'determination; since three of the four lots along>Ball',.Road had propoaed to.develo for.R-3 a remainin -p ,, pattern had been setr.- therefore;,the - g~parcel ;should not set' the:'criteria`'for'retaining ttre .pending' coa~ercial zoning; even thorigh he.was in sympathy;with the~property;owner having.purchased the-property for commercial,prices; the fact.remained;he did not utilize the_pending-zoning nor requested extenaiona:`of.-time for the completion of.the conditions of`approvel to.finalize the C-1 zoni'ng;ordinance:`, - Commiaeioner•Allrnd entered tlie Council Chamber at 2:25 P.M. Co~issioner•Herbst.offered Resolution No. PC70-76 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City'Couacil that Petition for=Reclassification No. 69-70-51 be approved, subject~to`conditians. (See`'Reaolution Book)`' On roll ca7~1 the'foregoing,resoluEion was pasaed by the following vote: A~fES:. COMLfiS5I0NERS: -Gauer,'Herbst, Seymour, Rowland. ~ NOESc COlYIl~SISSIONERS: •Farano. - ABSENT: 'CO1~AfISSIONERS: 'None.: ABSTAIN::COrIl~fISSIONERS: Allred. Commisaioner Herbst offered a motion'and moved for,its passage and adoption to recommend ' to" the City Council that Petition for Reclassification.No. 69-70-59 be,approved, subject to,conditions. On roll call the.foregning motion failed to carry the required majority vote as follows: AYES: CO1~AIISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Seymour. NOES: CONa1ISSI0NERS: Farano, Rowland. ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: None. 'ABSTAIN: C01~4SISSIONERS: Allred. . Commissioner Farano offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Reclassification No. 69-70-59 to the meeting of June 15, 1970, to allow time for a full Planning Co~aission to vote. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRI~.. CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED pUBLIC HEARING, STATE OF CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS, PERMIT N0. 1126 District 7, p, 0. Box 2304, Los Angeles, California, and HOLSTEIN ENTERPRISES, INC.,_170 East 17th Street, Costa Mesa, California, ~'~'~-~r$; HOLSTEIN ENTERPRISES, iNC,, 170 East 17th 5treet, Costa Mesa, California, Agent; requesting permission to .ESTABLISH A PRIVATELY OPERATED pLAyGROUND PARK AND gECgEATIONAL FACILITi an property deacribed as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land consisting of two parcels approximately 2.3 acres in size, located at tYre north- east corner of the Riverside Freeway'and Riverdale Avenue, having app=oximately 137 feet of frontage at the westerly end o£ Alderdale Avenue, and further described as 4101 Alderdale Avenue. Property presently classified R-[~.AGRICULTURAL, and R-2-5000, ONE- FAMILY,,ZONES. Subject petition was continued from the meetings of July 28, August 25, and November 17, 1969, to allow time to resolve a maintenance agreement and other problems involved in the development of sub~ect property. AssisEant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed for the Coamiission the location of subject property, usea established in close proximity, and the proposal to establish a'privately operated playground park and r_:reational facility on subject property, and the fect that the agent for.the petition~r had submitted a letter requesting that subject petition be removed from the agenda and continued until further notice. F ~ '"-~ ~t ,~ u~„a ~ 9¢~~r'-n~+ ` ~" r 5',t~ .tyr j..: ,i'~i4+ .~ +, F 1 G5. ~S y ~3 ~ r> ~ . . ~ v ,,,, > ~ :.t ~ t r 'L {r i n'^-t `1t ~~A .../. ~ ar fi r ~ ~ .r• ~y"^ c ri' ~ ~f ~ . r _ 5 ~ . ~ . ~ ~ ~ . . ' .. ~ ~ ~ . ' . . ~ ~ ~ . ~ _ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,,May 18, 1970 5142 CONDITIONAI, USE -.Commissioner Farano offered a motion to continue indefinitely PERMIT N0 1126 ; Conditional Usz Permit No. 112b as requested by the petitioner, (Continued) subject to the ' payment of le gal advertisment fees in the newspaper when subject petil•ion was t b e f.,-~ o e r scheduled for public hearing. Commiasioner Gauer seconded the motion. MUTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL:USE - CONTINUED pAgLIC HEARING. CLIFECO, INC,, 886 West 16th Street PERMIT N0: 1168 ~ , Newport Beach,,Califomia, Owner; RALpH STOCI~lAN, 1647 West Sepulveda : ` Street, Torrance, California, Agent; requesting permiasion for AN ON SALE L ~ ~' ,~5~ = IQUOR ESTA$LISHI~IENT IN A PROPOSED BUILDING, WITH WAIVERS OF ~1) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS AND (2) pERMITT ;ha ED SIGN LOCATION on property ~ deacribed as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land located north d an east of the north- east corner of Bsll Road and Lemon Street, having approximate frontages of 115 £eet th on e north side of Ba11 Road and 20 feet on the east side of Lemoa Street, the westerly boundary of the Ball Road frontage being appro i t l x ma e y 170 feet east of the centerline of Lemon Street. Property presently classified C-1 GENERAL COM , ME~CIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the ~eeting of May 4, 1970, to allow time for the petitioner to aub it e m r viaed plana showing aeparation of the main dining area from the bar, relocation of the building farther t h o t e south, and documentation that the signing would be integrated with the "Fish and Chips" take- t ou restaurant. Assistant:2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed for the Commission the location of sutject ro erty s a . ` p p , u e estsbliahed in close proximity, aud the r~quest to establish an English pub facility together with th f ' ' "~ $ , e act that the petition was continued to allow the petitioner time to reviae plana to incorporate reloc3tion of th ` ;S e structure farther to the south, separation of the dining area from the bar, and submission of evidence th t th x a e aign would be combined with the "Fish and Chipa" sign. It was also noted that the.petitionere had etipulaten at the l ub i ~~ ast p l c hearing it was their intent to sell -only beer and wine. Furthermore, the revised plana indicated a proposal to build a 1,581-square foot bailding adjacent to and immediately north of the exiating Fish and Chi e t k t p a e-au reateurant, this being approximately 6fi feet from the north property line; that the plans also i di t d h " n ca e t ree distinct areas, namely, the main.dining room, a bar_room, and a game and dart room; that the kit h - c en area for food preparation had been increased 12% - however, this was only 20% of the grosa floo a r are , whereas the Commieaion,requested that plana indicate 25% of the floor area; and thet Ehe petitioners had'indicated they no l n o ger required the additional free-atanding sign and, inatead, would have a wall sign on:the n b ew ui.lding - therefore, the sign waivers were being withdrawn. Mr. Ra1ph Stoclanan, agent for the petitioner, indiceted his presence to answer quesCions; that• eince after meeting with the Z i ; on ng Sapervisor, he had assumed the plans provided 25% of the floor area for preparation of food - therefore he h d , a stipulated that the building plans would provide said 25% to qualif this fa ili y c ty as a restaurant. No one appeared in opposition to sub3ect petition. THE HEP.RING WAS CLOSED, The Co~iasion discussed the various recommended changes and the fact that an alley easement provided access f or the apartment development to the north, which existed on subject property, and that perhaps it would n t b o e in order to require the masonry wall unless the apartment owner to the north so desired - nevertheless id ' , sa access easement should not be blocked. ( ' , The Commission further noted that since the petitioner stated it was his intent to encourage and anticipate family trade, the location of the restrooms was less than desirable - therefore, they would suggest that the restrooms be relocated nearer the dining area aince it was their intent in the separation of the dining and bar area that children not be sub~ected to the bar area. Mr. Stockman then stated there was only one alternative, which would be to locate the restrooms off the dining area; whereupon Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that if the plan were somewhat "flopped", with the restrooms at the south end instead of next to the kitchen and dart room area at the north, this would allow the restrooms to be easily accessible from the dining area. Commiesioner Gauer expressed concern that although the petitioner stipulated to on-sale wine and beer, from past experience there would be a request for on-sale liquor within a year, snd this area was developed as a very nice family area - therefore, the intro- duction of alcoholic beverages was undesirable, and that the Commission in the past had denied a number of aimilar requeats. ~(~'~ ~ - 1...:/.: fLY'~.` ;..y . . . ~ '~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ . . ~ .. . ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COM1iISSION, May 18,.1970 5143 CONDITIONAL USE :-:Deputy'City;Attorney Frank Lowry noted that the Comunission could not PERMIT NO:. 1168 - deny;the;petitioner the:;right to'petition and;._due.process of rights ,-(Continued) by'law;' that.this,.probably could not be enforced,-although he would ' : make::,an attempt to do so',if tHe Commission,so desired. Commissioner Allred offered'Resolutioa No PC70-77.and moded for.its passage and adoption to grant Petition'for Conditional Use,'Permit No. 1168, subject:to plans being revised to ~relocate.the restrooms closer'to tfie:'dining:area so that access:to them need noE be made th~rough"the,ba'r ;or game;;room; that.25% of the,.floor area be devoted.to food preparation I area', as stipulated to,.by;the:,petitioner for both items; t'nst the 6-foot:masonry wall be provided along the northiproperty"line:if,;the owner:`of the.apartment;development so' desired -.howeyer; in no event'would.ingress and egress be blocked to said apartment developmerit:by tlie wall;.;.and that~in the'event the;a artment o P wner indicated he did not desire said wall,';that a;:certifted letter shall be su'~mitted and made'a part of the file, indicating'that aeid waTl was,not desired by the owner of said apartments, and subject te`conditioas •;(See Resolution Book)': On roll,call the.foregoing resolution was passed by'the following vote: AYES: GOMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Herbst, Seymour, Rowland. NOES: COMNIISSIONERS: - Gauer. AES~:NT; COMMISSIONERS:;. None: Coumissioner Gauer, in_voting "no", stated.in addition to this area being g.:,ared to family-type.business, it was.in close proximity to single-family homes, and the single- family homeowners should be provided the same protective amenities of single-family homes elsewhere since, in all probability, the petitioner would request on-sale alcohol and a cocktail lounge. - - Zoning.Supervisor Charles`Roberts advised the Co~ission that the reclassification -proceedings for the property to-the,north of.aubject.property had been initiated for the apartment development and would be consi8ered at.public hearing on June 15, 1970. CONDITIONAL`USE - PUBLIC HEARING. LENORE N, KOEBRICH, 2130 East South Street, Anaheim, PERMIT N0..1173 California, Owner; requeating permission to (1) USE AN;EXISTING RESIDENTIAL:STRUCTURE FOR CHURCH~PURPOSES WITH OCCASIONAL OUTDOOR ` CHURCH SERVICES AND`(2);FUTURE CHURCH CQNSTRUCTION on property desciibed as: A rectangularly.,ahaped parcel-of land'consisting`of approximately 2.3 acres,-having;a frontage of approximately 165 feet on the soufh side of South Street, having a,maximum depth"of approximately 618 feet, being located approximately 670 feet east of,the centerline of.State College Boulevard, and further described as 2130 East South Street. ,Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Aasistant Zoning Supervisor;Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses'established in ciose proximity,.and the request to utilize an existing residential structure for a combination of rectory and a chapeL seating 36 persons and occasional ouCdoor masses, together with the fact.that a future church was proposed to be constructed. Mr._ Slaughter noted that the proposal was to utilize subject property in three separate phases; however, the petitioner had indicated that the plans before the Commission were only.conceptual plans -.thet the property might or might not be developed as outlined on the`exhibits; that Phase I proposed the use of the:existing residential structure as ' a chepel and rectory, convert'ing tne existing living roo,m into a chapel seating 36 persona, ! ` and the remainder of the house;would be used as a rectory; that nine parking spacea were proposed for the f3rst phase; that a 6-foot masonry wall existed along the west and south boundaries`of subject property;-that the plana further indicated a proposal to conduct occasional outdoor diasses on the und~veloped portion of the property to the rear of the exiating houae; that Phase II would involve.the construction of a fellowship hall and sanetuary on the sear of the groperty with the continued.use of the house as a rectory; and that Phase III would include the construction of a new 300-seat sanctuary on the I front of'the property approximately where. the house is presently located. Furthermore, _ subject property was a relatively.long and narrow parcel, and it would not be impossible to develop the'parcel with an R-1 subdivision in conformance with the General Plan - ' however, in.view of the previous denial for R-2 zoniag and the owner's desire not to ` develop R-1, Ehe proposed use might be appropriate - however, the Commission would wish to inquire,a's to the future plans for the church, particularly concern should be shown ` to the proposed outdoor masses in view of the fact that with the surrounding residential uses, the outdoor masses might be undesirable due to the noise and traffic that such a use might conceivably generate; and that if the Commission felt the use were appropriate, a time limitation might be established for the use of the residential structure. I ~., r[ ~s ~ ~s -q t~y~ M /t '~.~ ~ g ~~'y~..w+' ,~,~~,,,4y'~,~ `i~' . ;'^ n ,~'rt,~ ~, £~ :. a -` r } 2'~k~~ ayJy ~~ '~.e~ `jr-. I ~: <K~' f-- fi~^Yi. t~ '~ l~~~7z ~^ .Y7~ ~,,'S c'~'~'a~~ y ~ ~44 ~ (a -~`~~ ~~b'LS' ri7._ . ~4wy~7"^i'!',~.4~t'~.~!."Ir•+ dl . ~ .F~ ~~ „~q,u ~. q ,n '}a;~ `~' `' .. ~ ~. ~'lt~: ~-,+n'~5 Js~'e} rC +.Yt~.~"~ ^,`a`yt+,~w4a" ~t ~_~ .~'.. _ ~F ~,.r! c~'~ `'~ b ~ 2 ' ' ~ ~~~ h .r~ ;~i ~ . . ~ ~~ . . _ ~,~ . . ~ . - ._~__._;i M1 ~'. . . ~ . .... . ~ ',~ . ~ , ~ ~ ~ . - ~ ~ .. ~ ~ . F MINUTES,.CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 18~ 1970 : 5144 ~: CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. L, Bivens,` civil engineer, 128 East Katella Avenue, Orange, ; ` PERMIT N0,:1173 appeared before the;Commission and noted he was the engineer for (Continued) the.future'church:const=uction and would speak on the technical aspects of the proposed use, and at-this time he would like to . .introduce the parish priest of the proposed development. Reverend Stephen Balogh, 630 South-ynott Street, Apartment 5-B, appeared before the Commission and.noted that the Bishop of the Byzantine Catholic Church had been interested in establishing a'church and rectory"in this general area and had been viewing subject property which presented.the bestjpotenCial-for church purposes; that it was hoped that the,use of.this property would be an.asset to.the community; that ~he pariahioners were from Anaheim and aurrounding cities; that o.utdoor masses would be held one or two times ~ per year;'that this was a young cl~urch with yoang people; that it was their ir.:ent to use the existing.structure.for a rectory primarily and convert the existing liv~ng room into a chapel.which would be used only for.daily masses; and that the parishionel:s would clean up the balance of the property. Reverend Balogh, in response to Commission questioning regarding outdoor masses, stated `that,.,~n all likelihood, loudspeakers would be needed; that masses would be held at 10:30 A,M: - however, the`hours could be changed; and that approximately 150 persons would attend.these outdoor.servicea. Furthermore, there were approximately 100 families, all in their thirties, members of the parish, and that presently they conducted their regular Sunday masses at St. Catherine's Military Academy, where they would be held until the second.phase of development had occurred. Mr. Bivens then noted that although the plans of develapment were only concept,plans and they were desirous of studying deyelopment of the property in greater depth, even though, generally'speeking, the concept plans would be followed, they were primarily interested in explaining the purpose bf outdoor masses in an attempt to•submit favorable evidence of the need.of these masses which were to have greater benefit to the future of the ~'. church building program; that he wished to emphasize the fact that the exiating home would be used primarily for,a.rectory, and ehe chapel, for the present, would be used as a;small chapel for.parishioners to use on a daily basis for masses and general prayer; `and that the rear portion of the property would be used for future church building purposes, Furthermore, it was his feeling that there would be no more noise from the prngosed aperation than could be found in any residential neighborhood, and that the neighbo=hood would benefit from a general clean-up of the property, as well as providing ~ edditional landacaping to beautify the property - when occupancy of the p,roperty ~,,as i available, they would begin a tree planting program so that landscaping would be almost mature by the time construction of the sanctuar was ~ to be in about five years. y Proposed, and this was estimated ~ Mr. Bivens also'noted that it was necessary to have funds and be on a solid financial ~ basis before construction could begin. Chairman Rowland noted that in the staff report under paragraph 9, the staff's concern '~ was the effects outdoor massea might have on the residential environment of the area. °~~ Mr. Biveas noted that outdoor masaes would be held between 10;00 A.M. and 12:00 noon. ~ The Commission noted that the outdoor masses were proposed for the parking area, and since approximately 150 persons were anticipated to attend, inquired vhere the parking' would be provided. Mr. Bivens replied that the rear portion of the.property wou2d have to be ready in that ~. T~ I case; however, regardless of the number of people who might attend, this would have to "~ be taken care of, and maintenance of the area would eliminate dust and any other un- '?~ deairable effecta. Howeqer, since outdoor masses were proposed for only a few times during a year, the problem would not be insurmountable. Furthermore,•on special occa- sions. such as ground-breaking ceremonies, the outdoor masses might be conducted. Commissioner Farano was of the opinion that the petitioner could stipulate to the number of outdoor masses they planned to hold during one year. Chairman Rowland noted this cou'Ld be a condition o£ approval, and the increase in the number of masses to be held would be dependent upon complaints received by the City regarding same. Furthermore, if the adjoining residents complained, since'the City imposed this condition, the masses could be stopped without civil action taking place. Discussion was held by the Commission as to the hours arid•number of times these masses should be permitted to be held; whether or not approval should be given for concept plans or whether final plans should be appro~ed by the Planning Commission to determine whether or not the R-l homes would be affected; whether or not the existing home could be used for a rectory without conversion so that conditions of approval need not be met . +j ` ~ , . ; ~ . - - - _ ,.,_. ~~-:- ~ , '~ ~ ` ~ ' MINUTES, CITY:PLANNING COMMISSION, May.18, 1970' S145 CONDITIONAL USE - until actual nonstruction of the second phase took place, i.e., ~PERMIT N0 1L73 dedication, street improvements, street.lights, and street tree ; (Continued?;. fees. : " Deputy',City Attorney,Frank Lowry noted that'in the event the petition was not approved, the residence stilL;could be.used'es a rectory, and outdoor.masses might be held under -.a speciaL;events.pe:mit. - : '. Continued.disouseion was held by the Commiss3on"as to limiting the number of masses or cu=tailing.them,after the first mass held if it created a neigiiborhood problem; that Ehe petitioner indicated it might,be five:years before'the`construction program began, and alEhough.Ehe.ComQission.realized it was difficult to raise money to build a church, e'maicimum oi three years•could be granted for.the use'of the existing structure, and a request'.~for an;exterision of time~could b,e,granted.upon expiration of said three years ~ in the'event there were rio problems'with the use; and that since there were concept 'plans before Ehe Commission, the.Commission could require'xev:pw of the building plans prior to the.issuance of`:a'building permit, Commissioner Gauer;.expressed concern thet the Cormnission should want to impose all typQs . of conditions'when the petitioners had indicated their:plans and that they were doing as much,as they were financially:able. Mr. Bivens noted Condition No. 14 stated that plans would have to be in conformance or when Ehe building plans were'aubmitted and the'staff determined they were not in con- formance,.,the Cou~ission would haye to review them ior approvaT. x Commissioner Farano'inquired of the. staff whether this condif:.ion was sufficient for staff..to make this decisi~n. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that the staff's main concern was tfie height and location of the proposed structure as it pertained to its proximity - to the-single-family Homes;.however, iirthe Commission felt the master plan presented was basically in conformance with the Commission's approval, then staff could present the revised plans to the.Co~ission for approval prior to the.issuance of a building permit: However, this would not be at a regular, advertised public hea=ing, but would be considered under reports and recommendations at the end of a regular meeting. Mr. Bivens noted he was not desirous of having a Lime limit imposed on the residence, and perhaps this recommendation was made because staff thought Sunday masses were being held in the structure.` However,.Sunday masses would uot be held in the existing-struc- ture at any time. Furthermore, all'conditions imposed were acceptable, but they were desirous of having the 180-day time limition for Condition Nos. 1 through 4 extended so that theae items would not have.to be completed until a definite building program was begun. Chairman Rowland noted, ~egardin/~ conditions of approval and the request that the petitioner was making both as to delay in coaipletion of•Condition Nos: 1 through 4, as ~ell as use of the property, perhaps a special ~vents permit would be more in order than approval of the conditional use permit; :~owever, if it were the petitioner~F intent to utilize the property for o~her than residential uses, then the rules and requirements of the City of Anaheim sliould be adhe'reu ta because of the increase in the use of the property over and above that presently being done. The Commission_concurred with Chairman Rowland's statementa in that if subject property were to be used for other than residential purposes, then street improvements, lights and tree fees would be necessary becauae if the fees were not required, it would be granting a privilege to the petitioner which others did not enjoy when asking for a change in the use of their property.' Furthermore, if parishioners were planning to attend:daily masses, then improvement was imperative. ' Mr. Lowry noted that the special events permit would allow only the outdoor masses and would not permit conversion of a portion of the residence for church purposes. Further- more, if concept plans were approved, then Che zonditional use permit would be in force and efiect, subject to completion of conditions - however, use of the property for other than residential purposes would be dependent upon completion of these conditions. A letter of opposition was read to the Co~ission. TAE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Further discussion was held by the Coaanission and staff as to the manner in which • subject petition could be approved and still allow the new church to have some leeway; that Condition Nos. 1 through 5 had to be met before use of the premises for church purposes or issuance of a building permit would be allowed for conversion of the one ~ ,_ ,, . _. __ . _. . .... ... ..,..: ,. .:~..~ . . .. . _ . , , :. . ,; ; , ~ ~ ~ ' MINUTES, CITY PLAAiNING COMMISSION, May 18, 1970 5146 CONDITIONAL USE - room to be used as a chapel;'that the time limitation was.set forth PERMIT N0. 1173 not to permit;the use of the building prior to.aieeting conditions, (Continued), but in the_event a longer time was needed to':meet these conditions prior to_occupancy, and extension of the t'ime granted was based upon ` the fact that occupancy was not anticipated.immediately es was proposed under atatements made~by the representative of the p,etitioner;`and whethe: or not~coriditions must be met,would'be aE ttie discretion of the Commission and whether or not plans of developmenf were neceasary was•also:pertinent. The Co~ission':then.inquired whether~or not financing could be obtained from the diocese; whereupon Reverend Belogh replied that since.the'dioceae was fairly new, there was difficulty in.obtaining,funds for`at least one.year`. Mr. "Lowry expressed concern that the Comm;ssion was considering waiving aome or all of the noriasl requirements of the City where any expansion of a.~.se was proposed for property, and.if.thie`were so, since there;would be an increase in pedestrian:and vehicular traffic on:South-Street, it:would be,his recommendation that the street improvements and sidewalks be required to obviate the possibility of suits against the City due to the,lack of.-these improvementa, and if this were a fact, he would suggest a.two to:.four-week continuance Yn order that he'could present these suggestions to the City Attorney and Traffic Engineer for a possible solution, if there were one. .Commissioner Seymour noted that the existing atructure was proposed to be utilized as a meeting place, and no funds were available foi. construction purposes - therefore, if conversion of the home were proposed, then Condition Nos. l through 5 should be com- pleted becauae of the-fact that improvemenEs.were not.in and vehicles would b2 parked on the grass area, creating traffic, parking, and dust problems. Mrs, Lenore.Koebrich, the petitioner, stated for the Con¢nission that only the living room was'proposed to,be converted, and the balance w~ould remain as a home, with the chapel'being used by just a few people each day. Commissioner Farano noted he would be willing to 3nform the church representatives that the.Co~ission:was in'favor of the use; however, Condition Nos. 1 through 5 should be met even though.actual conatruction of the sanetuary waa; not contemplated-far some time. Chairman Rowland, in response to a question by Mr. Bivens, stated that the Coa~ission would have to take the'advice of the legal division as it pertained to the imptovements required und~er Condition Nos. l through S in-order that the City wou2d not be placed in a,tenuous situation; and that although.it seemed to be a very highly personalized condition, these were, in effect, conditions required of any change in use of property in,that the City would not be put in a position to defending themselvea against any suits. Commissioner Herbat offered Resolution No. PC70-78 and moved for its passage and adaption to grant Conditional Use Permit No. 1173, subjecC to ICPS&GW conditions; that outdoor, daylight•masses'be permitted four.times a•year - however, if after the first outdoor mass was held there were complaints received from residents, any future masses would not be permitted. (See Reaolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: C014tISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Seymour, Rowland. NOESs COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; None. Chairman Rowland noted that if the petitioners felt the conditiona of approval were onerous, they could appeal the conditions to the City Council for relief, but that the Co~aisaion was governed by recotmnendations of the staff as they pertained to the requirements wherein the general public was affected. _ ... _ ...__ _.~ ~.., ,..: ,:.. _ ~ ` ~.~; ~ r-~ 4~ ~,F MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 18 1970 c i , _ 5147 ;, - CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING, BERNIECE PAULINE MEIERS, 3041 Miraloma Avenue PERMIT N0 1171 ' , . Anaheim, .California, Owner; HOWARD J. MEIERS, 3041 Miraloma Avenue n , A aheim, Califomia, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A COM1~tERCIAL STABLE FOR THE BOARDING O ~ ~ , ' I F HORSES on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land consisting of appzoximately 4 25 ac h `'t '` • '; . res, aving a fronta e of.8 g pproximately 290 feet on:the north side of Miraloma Avenue havin a maxi d t , ~s ~^ •` , g - mum ep h of,approximately 640 feet, and being located approximately 990 feet west of the centerline of Kraemer Boulevard and furth s ~~ ~~ , . er de cribed as 3041 Miraloma Avenue. Properfy presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZpNE, %~' _ ~; f:. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of sub ect ro ert j 41k f ~' p p y, uses establiahed 3n cloae roximit p y,'and the resolution of intent to reclassify subject rop t t he ~ . ;m p er y o t M-1 Zone; that the property was presently developed as a chicken ranch with a single-family hom ith cc r;;' e w a essory garage and storage structures; that the peti- tioner prop'osed to'develop the property for a ~e '%r ~ , co rcial st~ble for the boarding of horses with approximately 42 stalls and a.riding arena at the rear of th '? e property; that the existing chicken pens would be removed; that off-str~et parking was proposed to be located o th t e west of the property, and plans submitted with the application indicated there was an existing 10-foot high metal fence t th 'i o e rear of the property and an exist- ing 6-foot fence on.the west properEy line; and that a 10-foot fe o nce was prop sed along the easterly boundary of subject property. Mr. Slaughter, in reviewing the evaluatic+n, noted that the Planning Coannission would have to determine whet.•her the uae proposed was appropriate in an area designated for industrial development, particularly considering the effects the use could have upon established uses in this area in terms of dust nuisance; and that if the Commission determined that the use would be appropriate and would have no detrimental effect upon the adjoining properties, then perhaps this could be established as an interim use with a Eime limit for the activity. Mr. Kenneth Bryant, 2020 North Broadway, Santa Ana, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the Commisaion and noted the petitioner had been a resident of the city for the past thirty-fiye yeass and operated a poultry ranch for the past eighteen years on the 4-1/2 acre parcel - however, because of the increase in taxes it was her deaire to have the property converted into a commercial stable for boarding horses rather than operating the poulty ranch; that four service stations were`erected at the Kraemer Boulevard and Miraloma Yntersection, approximately 1,000 feet easterly of subject property - however, two were not in operation and an industrial complex west of this intersection on the south aide of Miraloma Avenue also had a number of vacancies - therefore, it could be assumed that industrial ases were going to be slow 3n materializing far these many acres in~the Northeast Industrial Area; that the proposed atable'would be located approximately 300 feet from the street and would have poultry ranches on both the east and west sides, as well as strawberry plantings on the property on the south side of Miraloma Avenue. Chairman Rowland inquired as to the length of time the petitioner anticipated having this use; whereupon Mr. Bryant replied that a minimum of ten years would be necessary to real3ze a return for the many expenses of remc~ving the chicken pens and converting the property to a horse stable. The Cou~ission noted that in their inspection of the property one of the fences was in complete disrepair - however, the petitioner had not indicated t;~is would be replaced - and inquired whether or not the petitioner would agree to replacement of this fence since its appearance was less th&n desirable. Mr. Howard Meiers, agent and r.~n of the petitioner, sppeared before the Commission and noted he would be operating the horse stable; that if the Commission were referring to the fence along the front of the property, this would be removed and possibly replaced with a wooden fence-since he was dealing with the public, it was important that an eye- appealing appearance wae presented to the potential cuatoiners *tding up and down the etraet. The Commis~ion also aot~d that the attorney had indicated a minimum of ten yeara was n~ed~d to mak~ tha inv~stmant propo6ed worthwhil.n, and eincn aubjnet property was in th~ Northsu ~ Ittida~trial Araa, ehe Commiesion wae raluctant to grant a ten-year period of tim~ for ~~id us• in tha evsnt sub~ect petition oras approved. Mr. M~i~r~ not~d that th~re wara only 100 or 200 acrea of land being developed per year for indu~triai purpo~~~, and with tha amount of land aet aside for induatriel purposes, it might b• t~n eo fift~~n ysars bafore the area would bn completely developed - there- gcr~, th~ tnt y~ar~ r~qu~~tad did not. aaam to be unreaeonabla. ' Mr. Sty~nt not~d that th~ra coul~~~ba eoma oppoaition to tha fliea which could be i g~n~rst~d Prom th~ propo~ed operatioa - howevar, the poultry ranch had fliee aleo. ~ ~~ r' ::- !.:' ~...,- . -. . _"._ "'___ i.s'i .'l.;ie.?w _V E..T .i.'. ... ,, .. ...~... .r _ '... . '. ... '.. { :~l_.. ._.~,.`~ t ~~~~, ~~~~~~ . ~ ~ _. . , . . ' . . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COrffiISSION, May;1g,,1970 , ~ , , ;.. . ;, ,. . _ 5148 CONDITIONAL USE - Howev~er, since the petitioner's son would be operating this facility, PERMIT.NO. 1171 he,was certain he would make every effort to maintain the facility as (Continued) cleanly as possible,.and possibly cleaning the:horse stalls on a ` , daily:b'asis: The Commission inquired about the work-out arena area as to the manner in which the petitioner planned to.control the dust. Mr. Meiers replied that very little exercising and riding would be done on the premises since most of'the~horses would be taken to other areas to ri3e. The Commission slso noted that horse ranches could be attractive, such as those in Scottsdale, Arizona, where a great amount of area was in grass, which kept down the duat problem. Also,.a chemical, such as calcium chlorid~ could be used to treat bare ground arid would be very.effective and would not xequfre con$tant use after effective saturation of the property. The Commisaion also-noted tHat they were not desirous of depriving property ownera of an interim uae of their property - however, they were also not deairous of creating some problem for.t4ie exieting industries.in this area since.the chicken ranches had created problems to i~nduatries in the past with the many flies and undesirable odors - therefore, i# this proposal wer/: done in.the proper manner, it might be an asset to the area. However,<<=rom the Coa~ission's inspection of the property earlier in the day, with the many undssirable structtsres and general appearance, a general s:lean-up, together with a Iandacaping plan for the area, was deemed necessary so that the property would be improved'commensurate with Ehe appearance of the industrial developments in this area wherein considerable money had been expended to present an attractive industrial park appearance. Mr. Bryant noted that there was a problem in that the existing use was a nonconforming one; that the pens.would have to be removed and sold - therefore, the five-year periad '~ suggested by the Coa~ission for the use of the.property would be in'suffi_.cient to cover '~, the expenaes involved. Furthermore, he did not think the Commission would 'oe in favor of having the poultry ranch returned to the property after five years. The Cortunission noted that if, after five yeara, it was determined the use was not unde- sirable and had been an asset and there appeared to be no need for conversion of the property to industrial purposes, then the Commission might consider allowing the use for an additional number of years. '; "~<.'; The Commiasion further inquired whether the petitioner's son was faailiar and experienced with the type of operation proposed; whereupon Mr. Meiers replied that he did not have any experience - however, he had studied this fieid and was of the opinion that the proposed type of uae would be more profitable than the poul:.i; business. `' Mr. Norman Altee, 721 East Harmony Lane, Fullerton, appeared before the Commission representing the Orange County Food Service at 3051 Miraloma Avenue and noted that the food service operation was located approximately 300 feet easterly of aubject property, and a commercial horse stable would be very detrimental to the3r food preparation buai- ness; that they were opposed to the uae primarily becauae of the type of flies the business would generate. The Commiasion inquired as to the experience the food company had with flies; whereupon Mr. A1tee rEplied that there were a number of fly abatement methods - however, the type I. ' of flies around poultry ranches was entirely different than those around hors~e ranchea, ~~a and he was sure the Commission knew the bite of the "horse fly"; that flies were very . prolific breeders, with each fly laying between 120 and 160 eggs which matured in one `F month - therefore, the number of flies that could be bred in a short period of time could be directly related to the amonnt of manure in an area; that the flies from poultry ~ ranches did not attack people as horse fliea did; thal• horse flies were conaidered very unhealthful since the means by which they fed was by r~:gurgitating, and one could readily aee the prints of fliea because of carrqing this regurgitated food on their legs and the fact that flies cleened and preened Chembelves, thereby carrying this debris across food and drink; that flies were one of the most objectionable bugs, and the horse fly was y twice the aize of a poultry fly. Therefore, a.Fence along the east property line would be of no conaequence aince it wouid not deter th~a number of flies, and the Commission could imagine the possible unsanitary condition that might arise and be very detrimental to the operation of the Orange County Food Service if a horse ranch were permittad in V' close proximity to their facility. Mr. Altee, in reply to Commission questioning, stated he had derived all the information he presented to the Cormnission by paying a visit to thP public liurary wiiere he found ~ ~ large volumea of information on flies. Furthermore, he was less opposed to the existing • poultry operation because the fliea were not as objectionable, although they were a !- 1~ , , ., - - , _.~, , ~ ~ ~ MINUTES,' CITY PLANNING'COI~iISSION, May 18, 1970 . 5149 CONDITIONAL USE- - nuisance and should be controlled; and that in an effort to control , PERMIT N0; 1171 the flies from the poultry ranch, the fly abatement people visited (Continued) the ranch.frequently, as did the Health Department who visited the food preparation facility, to ascertain that the fly abatement program was'in effect. The Co~ission noted that some effort should be made to control the flies in this area; whereupon Mr.-Altee stated;Ehe food'aervice company had an effective program as it pertained to the.chicken flies - however, horse flies were another breed and were much more~objectionable since statistics indicated that 850 fly maggocs could be found in one ounce of,horse.manure - that theoretically one could apply some type of chemical to get rid of..the flies, but flies from a horse stable were an:-entirelq~differ~nt br~ed. The Commission noted that they would heve.to determine the appropriateness of the proposed uae, not only from the fly nuisance standpoinb but from other factore,; that a dairy also had problems and'they were in_a very sensitive position since a grsde ~4 deiry could be put oub of business if the fly situation were not controlled - therefar,~, ihey were not desirous,of being placed in a position of putting the food service compr,ny ~ut of business. Chairman Rowland noted that it was hia opinion the Commiasion would necd more information as to the Elies and abatement of same from the Health Department and the fly abatement people before'any decision could be made. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Co~aission that arrangements could be made to:have a representative appear before the Co~ission to give them the desired information. Mr. Lew Copea, owner of the Copea Baking Company at 1509 Kraemer Boulevard, appeared before the Co~;ssion in opposition.and noted they had had fly problems throughout the time they had operated their facility on Kraemer Boulevard; that throughout his experience in the baking induatry it was always felt that DDT was the only chemical that killed most flies - however, th3s also had developed a breed of super flies which had become a~une to- any abatement chemicals, and cons3deration should be given to this fact; that the baking company was in an area which had been slaw in developing - however, there were thirty.facilities dn this industrial complex, and the proposed use was within walking distance from the baking company as well as a number of other facilities in this general area. Coffinissioner Herbst left the Council Chamber at 4:05 P.M. Mr. Copea noted that they,were in the wholesale bread business, but they did have a small retail facility in.which they served approximately 200 persons a day, and it was his opinion that this was an area that wuld be developing rather rapidly, Furthermore, the Orange County Food Service was one of the largest facilities in Southern California for its type of operati~n; that he had lived in the Bay Area and had moved down to Southern California and was not desirous of having his own business hutt by the proposed use; that he was quite familiar with horaes since he had owned them himself, and horses not only bred flies but also brought in rodents, and there already were many rodents in the field near the area where the horsea were supposed to be lodged. Mr. Peter Karagines, owner-operator of the Orange County Food Service, appeared before the Co~nission and noted they had made every attempt to control flies in the plant - however, the trucks in which the food was placed were loaded outdoora, and, therefore, - the fly problem was a very difficult one to control, especially ~f horse flies were introduced inCo the area.' •.'`; Mr. Bryant, in rebuttal, noted that the Meiers family had indicated one of the reasons the Orange County Food Service had so many flies was because of the seagulls, and perhaps ttie=~ were other types of flies that these gulls attracted; that they were not desirous of having.a condition,placed on them regarding the control of flies since they felt the Oran$e County Health Department would control this; that poultry ranches had droppings left on the ground for several days, whereas the petitioner proposed to remove the droppings from the horses every day, and the problem of rodents would have nothing to do with the proposed use. Three letters of opposition were read to the Commission from industries in this general area. Co~issioner Herbst returned to the Council Chamber at 4:10 P.M. Cormniasioner Gau~ec noted that there was a problem that existed with ia~erim uses for industrial property, and as he understood it, these property ownera could make arrange- menta with the assessor's office to place their property in an agricultural preserve, then growing farm products such as vegetaules, strxwberries, and fl~caers on the property -, ~ ,kH ,pfi~e's ~,~ ~,,'r'K. <,;C.Ca I ~~.f~"'~w ~ `~ ~ '~~ ~ rav ~ ~a "'~ k ~ ~ f 7- ~ X~ tYr ~ i ~ hr5yy ~' S ~ ~, -C} . h ~'SAp '` T~F .~ t.r. ~, ~;r ~ :yn pJ : ~ ~, f}~ '7}~~ -?~a1. .~ t 4 Y ~. r ..,.,. ..~. r.. ~J~ } . Y ~ '".~ i ~ki~.~.'~'~Y_ _~ al~ ~` iw ~~,: ) s . .. • • , i.'. ~ 4' «&'}:.: x{Ty"~- ~7 ry. r~ ~ . *3 .~ ~~ .. y A'!~ k ~ ~7 .. rt ; ~ ;, : 4 x ~ d'~ q ~ ~ ~; . •~ . .. - . _ 'N'f , y ' ~ ~ . - ~ ... . ~ ~. . . . . . ' . ~ , ~ . . . ~~ . 0 ~ r~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COI~AfISSION, May 18, 1970 5150 CONDITIONAL USE - to take care of the numerous acrea of vecant land heing held for PERMIT N0. 1171 industrial purposea - then at least they coulu be receiving a small (Continued) i ncome which could take care of the taxes on the property, especially 'n when the owner could lease tFie land. However, tl~e Commission ahould ~ ,';~ have some definite figures on the taxea assessed on agriculturai ` property against the.income that could be made from agricultural products since much of ~ : this land was agricultural, and many people in this area had grot~m strawberries and. •. flowers n th l d ,~ '~ o e an - therefore, there was sufficient return to warrant consideration of an agricultural'pre ve y ~ aer as being a way of making some form of truck gardening or the growing of flowera. ` ~. ~ Co~isaioner Seymour offered`a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Condi- ti ,-. ,=~;; ~ =-a ~*'•~ ~ onal Use Permit No. 1171 to the meeting of June 15, 1970, to schedule it as the last . item.on the agenda,.as requested by the attorney for the petitioner, to allow time for the o ~~ ~ staff t obtain informetion regarding the tax assessor's charges when land was ~ reserved for agricultural purposes; the returns by existing truck gardening operations of aw str berries, flowers, and other produce that might.be grown on the land to warrant consideration of placing some of the'land into an agricultural preserve; for the staff to contact the Orange County.HealEh Department to arrange for a competent person to present data on health requirements of food preparation companies and fly abatement o pr grams as they pertain to both chickens and horses; to determine how the land might be utilized until needed for industrial purposes; and for the petitioner to submit additional information as to the manner in which subject property was to be landscaped and fenced oth th , er an the general concept presented at the hearing. Co~nissioner Herbst s c d d h e on e t e motion. MOTION CARRIED. +*"' ,;;; Commissioners Allred and Farano noted that they were not in favor of a continuance for ' '~ subject petition; that the Commisaion had aufficient evidence to make a decision; and t ;~ hat if there were a health problem, the Commission could reauest the Orange County Health De artment t r i ~=''~ p o ev ew the p=oB~lems rather than maki;Tlg•them•a part of sub ject petiticm so that th e owner maintained the standard setup for health standards, and that the Commission.must determine wheth er or not the land use was proper rather than all other evidence submitted. RECESS - Co~issioner Allred offered a motion to recess the meetin , i g Co~niss;oner Herbst aeconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 4:15 P.M. RECONVENE - Chairman Rowland reconvened the meeting at 4:25 P.M., all ~/ Commissioners except Herbst being present, j ' ~ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. RICHARD J. BARRY, 3711 Weston Place, Long Beach, PERMIT N0. 1172 California, Owner; requesting permission to EXPAND AN EXISTING MOBILE FIOME PARK BY THE ADDITION OF FIVE TRAVEL TRAILER SPACES on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.9 acres having a frontage of approximately 335 feet on the east side of Beach Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 240 feet, being located ap~,roximately 980 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 300 South Beach Boulevard. Property presently classified R-A, AGR3CULTURAL, ZONE. Assiatant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to remove an existing residence on property consiating of a mobile home park in order to provide for five travel trailer spaces, and the Commission would have to determine whether the proposed travel trailer spaces were compatible with the primary use of the property and surrounding land uses, and in the event the Commission determined this use was appropriate, they might wish to require a 6-foot high masonry wall around aubject property and bringing the property, structures, and facilities up to current standards in terms of plumbing, fire protection facilities, building code compliance, etc. Mr. Richard Barry, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted the recom- mendations of tfie staff and the conditions of approval were somewhat of a problem since this was a vacation area and there was a considerable demand for spaces fdr:parking of this type of vehicle; that they had tried to accoumodate them lase year in their setback area - however, the Health Department had stopped that; and that the City also felt the need for allowing travel trailers to park since they allowed them to park on the Conven- tion Center site; that the money involved, as pertained to expenses for curbs and gutters, aidewalks, etc., could reach $25,000, whereas income from the rental of these spacea would be a maximum of $3,200 since they proposed to remove the existing single-family home to make room for the five travel trailer spaces. - , r .x~~.ar`z .:t.'~/.r,",='~E~dtY1'~K.i''~°'~K3?3i. . ~ ~ ~~~vS~~?yce"`~'.~mrxr ,'Sf,'~~~^a'~,Y .Y ~~`"Li`~4i.. r,~'_LS.'~`~vSy~t~~.• :.: ... ,.. .~. .:, . :.inY~.~7~.v.~.~, .~•;"i .;r~_. -,~cJ } ~ .. ~~:. ~~ ._, . [ ~*7dJ.y , /'~ ~yr '.i~ ~ ... .. ' ~ ,-, . :: , . . ~ .'. ,.i. ~ 1 , ~ ~ . . . . . . :..~. w .. ~ . Y '.: .~~.. . .. '.1~~. S l.. .i~°T'h'~ i,:] ~, ry'.A~~1~iN~:,CODLiIS .' ,,ay' lY: .;~q70 ' ' '% :t _ ` _ _ d j5151 ul1~~' ~ TGJ~~T US~ . ummisaioiti I~cvmour inquired whether ;or not, the petitioner was ~~`~iTi ~;~ ~~~17'L ~bjectir z ~11 or ~ust rsome of the conditions, and which. condition '~ ~ i~~uL .;ic•3), . w~is: l~e ccrn rned,with ~that~wouTd cost him $20;000. , ~: : .. , _ , ~fr; Bart;r ~ 4l 1 eil i;~ t wrtya :` d,gutters, , street grading, ; drainage, etc. were the ones he,;waa ref~.i=riuh;CO ai~~ce la ''qeaic, the~ City r^,ngineer had~presented a proposal in which ' the`propeil~ uw~ers ,re~:e rey~8ted to_ sign for the;:expenaes.of. curbs'=and gutters.for the entire blecb a,,:; _~nr:E let r was;;received reqaeating?an addiiional $1,000 change to provide fo~ the_drt c:.a} .~ppr: ch; and this incieaeed the cost,;to'$2;:800, and at the rate costs were sain~ up f•o,::;curbs'' d.:gutters; it was';possible they;cou~d reach three`to four ~ : ti'mea . the ; amo,in~. .t ~+~-~ we e an ~ that`,.he "had owaed:: thia paric 'and operated ' it aince 1950 . in ~., s manner-satis£ac --;• fio ~he.'Ci~y :of.Anaheim. ('li:~.irnan Qowlar,~1 ,rM ~~ i;ant• in, e~l likelihood the petitioner had considerable experience wicii ehe ~ountp >> ~:-;, ~d uni,~:prices,eatabTished by-the City Engineer have been ttor:t a11 ~'a) iK ir i-* e:cr.-ous to ,t~ha~ they actually` build -,however; over . a period of . ten ~ L•o i•we i, y yes~ s~.he cust would ri e steadily, and 'that it was' his opinion that the .. esEi..~acas for ~hesp eYpenses made liy the City were .reasonably accurate in this type of wurk. . ,, . Mr. Bar.,ry noted that one of the coaditions he wae,also.concerned with was that a fire hydranl• wa.~ reqi;ired, whereas one was'locaEed 500 feet:to the north of the property.. Chairm u`.~•7and advised the petitioner that this was a requirement of the Fire Department and.si~ , .~: Lrom that• would heve,to.be adjudicated with them. Mr. Barr.J naCed that k.is park-catered to the older people who'had smaller trailera. Coar.~issiuner !:erust entero•.t tne Council Chamber at 4:40 P.M. Mr 'Bar~ ~:oCed ~that ti~~e; ,:id more requeate for smaller trailer apacea; however, F.H.A. would ~ ~ i ~~e:~miC overni~~~~ ;;~-,iler ,spacea unless' Ehey sEayed at least thirty days, and this w i4 « •ateinent gii~~ ii _iaii when' he had; ettaupted Eo purchase the property to the suuth ~> ».-~~ide for ovei uriht•'rrailer•tpaces " Furthermore, a chainlink fence already existed n:; e i as a 3-In, h:~h,wall across one a=ea and this would meen the instslla- t tion of a t~ fa r masour~~ wail Eor~a diatance,of 300 feet, which would entail a consider- , ~ able amounC uf .ar.neJ, and that;whQn he purchased the property the property to the north was developed witii a strawberry field, but it ~ias nw conatructed with a motel. Further- j u~ore, he felt that when they a~peaed to the City they were protected by the "grandfather ' clause" as it pertained to the ~xiating uae. ~' j , ~ r The'Commissior advised the peticrioner that the "grandfather clauae" was established to 1 protect-people annexing into th~~ City, providen, however, they did not 3ncrease the use ~ of their'property. , , . ~ I^ ._ Mr. Barr~ inyaised as to the meaning of Condition No. 6 relative to providing plumbing in order.~'r.at-tha moUile home park would acco~odate not oaly California trailera but ' ot,~er trailers. ''r~• ~ Chairman itowinral noted thati ~ach trailer space in Anaheim was required to have a aewer trap ratHer thar, a long siueep as may have been provided for the other spaces. Zoning Supervisor Cha~:les Rqbttta advised tht petitioner and.the Commissioa that in Californ~a appro~ed tr.ailers Che trap was,located within the mobile home unit itaelf - therefora, ~8is rt:q, ~~ was in order to permit trailera built outaide of California to utilize tlie faqx,.,.i;y'by pyoviding thia trap underground, and the purpose of this was to avoid a sicuar.yu,i where $:~reiler did not.have a trap aithin its own facility to tFap sewer gases which coulad a+~p.p into`the kitchen area. . .; Deputy City nl•torney Frank Lowry advised the Coumission and the petitioner that the California Trailer Act formerly hsd a requ;[rement that the trap be installed individually in each trsi.ler. Mr. Sla~s;?:ter advised tne Commi.saion that in the past few year~ since the State of Ca13fo nzi.a aid noL req,.ire this trap, ic had been made a requirement of the conditions of. approval ul' .n~,- L~ ,iler park in the City of Anaheim. No one appeared in oppovitian to subject petition. THE N~e'.it7NG WAS CLUSBTi~ ThC'~Commission noted tliaiC although the petittoner was only requesting permission to e''stablisli fivc~ traile•r spaces and the trailer park had been in operation for twenty ,.,!`years, the day~ would come when curbs and gutterts,.etc. would be necessary, and although ~• r - s, . ~~ ,r `{d'- i~ ~*~~~ t.~'$'{x .r... . 4 ,~ ''k ~t.. ,~ i~ ~~i rd s-n, i r~ rky xr„r~ ~ ~ :`V~t~ CC c. y . ~,h , ~.c . .,;s S' ~t'~ ,T' t~l - ~ . ~ .e^ .+ta ~~ ~7' k.. R .. ~' ~ ~.. ~ I Yt ~ ) ~. 1~ w .?,+ }G < . r t'# v. 3 . y~ i ... 1 ~ ` , r , r ~7l.~ ~ ~ ..,.: k '~uy:._ `~, . }~r ,r' ~ ~S s. 1~~~'r"i~~r s^ ~a> - 1 i~ ..r Ff ~'~..i~ ~_ -L~d ~r~Fl~}~~ Y./'-r~ .;y'~,°~~~Jh ~s`~~ yt3 .~+ S ~'. ,; ' ' r~;~ } r ~+.~.a ~. .r.....~~ • ~ . . ' I , '___ _.,. ~ ~_ ~ ~/ SiJ MINIJTES, CITY PLANNING COI~SISSION, May 18, 1970 5152 CONDITIONAL USE - thi• wao ari~additional expense, tha incomn from the edditional use PERMIT N0:~1172 would 'juetify_rnquiring thgee conditions o:~appioval." Hotiiever, they (Continued) could eee no reaeon for requiring a'`6 fo~E maeonry wall as long as a chainiink fe'nen'alra~d ' existed ` ~ Y , provided, ho~tever, that additional .lendacaping be planted along aaid chainlink fence to adequately'ahield the trailer park from view from'the etreel. '. Commisaioner Seymour offered Reeolution No. PC70-79 and'moved for ite passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Uae Permit No. 1172,` sub~ect to conditions and an addi- tional condition that additional landscaping be provided;'along the`chainlink fence to act se a shield and hide fro+n.vie~, the trailer park from the stzeet. (See Resolution Book) On roll call:the foregoiag reaolution was paeaed by the following vote: i AYESs C01~4IISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer,"Seymour, RoWland. NOES; CObIIfISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COI~fISSIONERSt None.. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. RECLASSII+ICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING C02~4IISSION, 204 East N0, 69-70-57 Lincoln Avenue,:Anaheim, California; propoeing that property described as: Parcel.l - A triangularly shaped parcel bounded on the south by La Palma Avanue, on the east by B1ue.Gum Street, and on the north by Whitestar Avenue;.Parcel 2- An irregularly shaped parcel bounded on the north and east by Whitestar Avenue, on the south by La Palms Avenue,'and on the west by B1ue Gum Street; and Parcel 3.- 6 triangularly shaped parcel of approximately 12.5 acres bounded on the north by La Pa1me Avenue, on the south by tha Riverside Freewey, and having a frontage of approximately 1,450 feet on the eouth sidn of La Pelma Avenue'ae meaeured easterly from the intersection of La Pa1ma Avenue and the Riverside Freeway be reclaesified from the COUNTy pi1, LIGFIT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT to the ~ity ai Anaheim R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE. (Property awners• G..U. Kraemer, Jr., P. 0. Box 275, Placentia, California) ~ Aesistant Zoning Supervi~or Malcolm Siaughter revie~red the location of aubject propertyand uaes eetablished in close proximity, noting that sub~ect property wae presently being processed for ennexation to tha City of Anahnim, and the R-A eoning propoeed was a holding zone xo become effective upon annexation to tha City pending ultimete toning to the City of Aneheim M-1, Light Indu~trial, Zone. Mra. Carrie Coykendall, 15332 E. La Palme Avanua, appeared before tha Co~ieaion and noted th~t according to the erea map in the filn, the portion of the property at White- atar and La Palma Avenue was included - howevar, thie wae not thair intent and requested that this be eliminaeed from the legal deacription of the triangular parcel: Mr. Siaughter advised the Commieeion that although tha map indicated inclueion of this amell area, the legal description in the nawspapar, as ~all as the area proposed for annexetion, did not include it. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED, Codmiissioner Allrad offered Resolution No, PC70-80 and moved for ita paaeage and adoption to recommend to the City Council thaE Petition for RMelaesification No. 69-70-57 he approved, nubject to ann~xation to the City of Anaheim. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the Eoragoing resolution was pasaed by tha follow3ng vote: AYES: COI~AfISSIONERS: Alirad, Farano, Gauer, Harbst, Saymour, RoWland. NOES: COT~II~SISSIONERS: Nona. .~BSENT: COlIl~1ISSI0NERS; None. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HFARING, GILBERT KRAEMBR, 842 Alta Vista, Placentia, California, N0, 69-70-58 Owner; property dascribed ae; Parcel 1= A triangularly shaped parcel bounded on the south by La Palma Av~nue,;on the east by Blue Gum Street, CONDITIONAL USE and on rhe north by Whitestar Avenua; Parcel 2- An irregularly shaped PERMIT N0. 1174 percel bounded on the north and eaet by Whiteatar Avenue, on the south by La Palma Avenu~, and on the west by Blun Gum Street; and Parcel 3- A triangularly ehaped paresl of approximetely 12.5 acrea bounded on the north by La Pelma Avenue, on the eouth by the Rivereide Frnavay, and having a frontage of approximately 1,450 feet on the aouth eide o£ La Palma Avenue ae measured eaeterly from the intersection of La Palma Avenue and the Riverside Freevay. Proparty preaently classi- fied COUNTY M1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL~ DISTRICT. ~,. : __ _ ._.....~ ~~ . - • . ~ . ~ `MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COZIliI8SI0N, MaY 18, 1970 _ 5153 RECLASSIFICATION - RBQUESTED CLASSIFICATIONe''~.CITY OF`rANAHEIM M l`~ LIGHT°INDUStiTRIAL, N0.' 69=70-58 ' '.ZONE (PARCELS 1, 2%'AND''3) _.-': CONDITIONAL USE REQUESTED CONDITIONAL`USE:'ESTABLI3H AN ENGINE R$BUI~.DING'FIRM WITH PERMIT NO,.i174 WAIVER OF MINIMUM'REQUIRED FRONT`•SETBACK (Continued) (PARCEL 1 ONLY) Aasiatant Zoning Supervieor.Malcolm Slaughtar reviewed the'location nf aubject property, usea establieh'ed in.close proximity,,and'the Report to the:Comnission,:noting`that subject property wae presently under annexation,proceedinga to.th.:-City•of Anahe_:a and'no previous zoning:actions hed.takea plece.on the.property;;that the petitioner~wae requeating M-1 zoning for all three:parcels, and Ehe propoaed zoning would be in conformance with the General Plari~which projected:iaduetri'al development as being.appropriate for this area; that`plana submitted by the peCitioner for development of Parcol l indioated a machine shop which would rebuild truck engines; that the applicant hed indicated.the engine.e were to be transported to the property by truck, and the firm would not remove the engine,from the;operating vehicle; that the acope of the work:was generally on the block and the intemal mechined part.s o.f the engine; and that the petitioner indicated all work wou].d be done wiEhin`the butlding. The plana also noted that the petiti~ner was propoaing a 40-foot building setback along La Palma Avenue, whereas Code would require a„50-foot building setback from a primary highway - however,'given the slopea along La Pa1ma Avenue r'or`ita approach to the Riverside Freeway overcrosaing, this request would not seem detrimental, particularly in view of the unusual ahepe of the parcel; thaE the plana aubmitted aleo indicated no interior landscaping - therefore, all landecaping adjoining Whiteatar Avenue and B1ue Gum Street would have to be of the acreen type so aE to screen the parking areas from the public view along those atreets; and that due to the elevation of La Pa1ma Avenue, Code would require tre.s in:the,parking area for that portion of the property viaible from La Palma Avenue - therefoie, the Commisaion would have to determine whether the proposed use would be appropriate at this particular location. No one ap~eared to repreaent the petitioner. ~ The Commieaion requested clarification of the ataff's statementa in Finding No. 8 regard- ing the parking area being screened from public view. ` . , L: Mr. Slaughter replied that the M-1 Zone had two alternativee: either ecreening the park- ~ ing area at the front of the property or planting trees throughout the parking area. The Co~iaeion then inquired as to the amount of landscaping involved adjacent to the ~~ building instead of planting along the bank of the slope. Zoning Supervieor Charlee Roberta inquired whether or not tha Co~iseion was referring to the 10-foot required landscaping in the aetback; whereupon the Commiesion replied in the affirmative. Then Mr. Roberts stated that if the Commisaion so deaired to have the landacaping back to the front of the building, thia could be done as a condition of approval - normally, all of the landecaping was required adjacent to the right-of-way. I Co~aissioner Herbst inquired whether or not 2% of the area would be landecaped; whereupon ! Mr. Roberta stated that the 2% wae no longer a part of the M-1 Zone, and now the required ~ tree planting wAa one tree per 10,000 aquare feet. I Conaiderable diacueaion wae then heid by the Commiseion re~ative to the type of landacap- ~ _ ing necessary due to the elope of the approaah to the ~ ;s of the freeway, it being ~ determined that aome form of landecaping should be ~t43v. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED, I'<• i Commiseioner Herbst noted that in lieu of granting the waiver of the required setback, i the p~ti,tioner ahould provide ample landacaping along the La Palma Avenue frontage, and ~ that said waiver of the 50-foot required setback would be made based on the fact that ~ a portion of the frontage wae in a sloped area in th~ approach to the overpass. ~ Co~iasioner Seymour offered Reeolution No. PC70-81 and moved for its passage and adoption ~ to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 69-70-58 be ~ approved, aub~ect to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing reeolution was paeaed by the following vote: ? AYES: COrIlfISSIONEAS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Seymour, Rowland. NOES: ODt~ASISSIONERS: None. ' ABSENT: CO1~IIIISSIONERS: None. ':<;r:"- ; ~, 7 S ~ ~ k ~ ~.(~ P: ~'"1'~'L w~~' £'' v _+c~, ~ ~. ~'•~'x Q F ' ~ ` 'i ',C .L ti~:~l Sa'C" ^N' a V ~.~ . ~.I,y.?; '~c'7I" l*''`~Y nJ r t« } ~s 'F ~~. r Y $}",_ ~..~A. 1 . ~ :~ ~y •~`- _.-.. ~a'4 . M ..?,-,_ r~iei»'1,...r~~.,.N t.~;1~3 .a,~'~?",. .'-c~,:+~if ~ y~., i..:~=,$ ; Y, .....~,.~` .~l~t. 4.. ?7'4( r , ~"rc .~,i t~ ~~' . L ~' ~ ~ .... . t ~ r. ~.,: ~ _ ~~ MINUTES,i;CETYcPLANNING:COMMI3SI0N,.May 18,.1970 ! 5154 ~ ti: ~RECLA$SIFICATION C"o~ni~sionnr•Gaunr'~off~ced Reeolution Na.;;PC70 82:jand.movadY.for its N0. 69-Z0=58 passage;and adoption to,granE.Petitiori`for Conditioiial"'Use`Permit' ; . . ,, '. ,. No. 1174;:eubj'sct to conditione,;wiEh ~he addad condition thaC the <~ CONDITIONAL USE required lendacaping along ttie,'La:Palma Avenue fiontag!`ah1111 be PERMIT<N0, 1174 provided Yn the 10 foot raqdi=ed landecaped:irea;;_pttd"this'laridscaping (Continued) sha11 be-in addifion to thel•10=foot lendscaping presenEly proposed ` ~ ' adjacent-to the building, and"th~t'waivar.of the requirad 50-foot ee~- r back along arteriale was granted,on the baeie'tHat the s.=e,and ahape ~' of the parcel,;toget6er,withithe,sloping 'of the propnrty as.`.it-approactied`the Ls-Palma!:. Avenue;overcroesing, deemed'the requeat.arpropriate as lt~aving~e hardehip'`-proven:: ,(See . ~ Reeolution Book) . . .• i:. _ .: • . . 's, On roll call the.foregoing'resolution was paesed`by the folloaing vota ~~- • AYES: COI~fISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst; Seymoui,•Rowland. NOES: CODIISISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CODIlIISSIONERS: None. _ _ RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. RAYMOND DINKLER, 520 North Rio Viata Street,r:Anaheim, N0. 69-70-56 Californi~a, Owner; MODULAR TECHNOLOGY, INC.,.1104 East 17th Street, Santa Ana, Celifornia, Agent; property descrised ea: An irregularly VARIANCE N0.:2176 'ehaped parcel of.land coneisting of approximate1y,25 acree'located at ~he southneat corner of Rio Vieta Street and Frontera.,5treat~ having TENTATIVE MAP OF a ` pproximate fm ntages of 1;000 feet on Rio Viata Stteet and 1,360 TRAC1`N0:`7218 feet on Frontera Street, and`further described ae"520 North Rio 4ista Street. Property preeently-claeeified R-A(0)., AGRICULTURAL (OIL ` TENTATIVE MAP OF PRODUCTZ4~1) ZONE. `i TRACT'N0. 7219 _ ., '' REQUE3TED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULxIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED,VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED LANDSCAPED`SETBACK TO ESfABLISH AN . ~ 89=LOT,;FOUR-PLEX CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION. TENTATIVE TRACT,REQUEST: DEVELOPERo MODUTAR TECHIVOLOGY, INC., 1104:Eaet 17th Street, Santa Ana, California. ENGINEER:; Williamson & Schmid, 1535 Eaet lst Straei, Santa Ana, Celifornia. Tract No. 7218 propooeo the.subdivieion of the we9terly 15.9 acrea.bf subyact prbp~rty into 52 R=3 soned lots. • Tract No. 7219 propo~ns th• s'ubdivision of the eaet~rly 9.2 acres of eub~act property int~ 37 R-3 soned lots, ~ Assietant Zoning Supervieor Malcolm Slaughter rnvieitad the location af subject property, usee established in cloee proximity, and the proposal to rubdivide 25 anree of land located at the eoutheast corner of Rio Vieta and Frontere,Stree[s into two eubdiviaiCt-e of 52 and 37 R-3 zoned lota and requeating waiver of tha minimum landecsped setback ~long an arterial high~ay and a:local street; thst the propoaal was proJecting four-plex atructuree on 89 lote in the two eubdiviaione•rith a privata park and recreational £acility propoeed in the center of the projnct; that the petitionere had indicated thie would be a condominium project in which each unit within each four-plex would be sold as an individual dwelling unit, with each owner owning hia rnm apartment unit as we11 ae an undivided one-quarter lnterest in the land aurrounding the etructure;that ia confined within the particular lot of the eubdivieion; that eech ownnr would have an opportunity to participate in an undivided ownerehip in all ot~1'U'~ common areae within the development. In evaluating the propa.~al Mr. Slaughter noted that the Anaheim General P]an deaignated j the area bounded by the Santa Ana River-on tha east, Frontera Street on the north, Rio Vista Street on'the weet, and Lincoln Avenue on the eouth as being appropriate for a ~ mulCiplicity of residential densities; that a large portion of the area northerly of ~ Lincoln Avenue and west of.the Santa Ana River hed been deeignated for low-density resi- I dential development with development havfng occurred ~ith eingle-family homea; that the i plan also ahowed a traneitioning effect whereby low-medium densitiea were designated i along the eaet side of Rio Vieta Street and along the northerly boundary of the proposed ~ low-densiky area with medium-denaity development being designated for the area i~ediately south of Frontera.Stzeet; and that baeed upon thie atatement of land uee, it•would appear that the propoand R-3 zoning would be appropriate for at leaet a porEion of subject property - however, the Co~niseion would have to give consderation to the question of ! whether it would be appropriate to approve R-3 zoning along the Rio Vista Street frontage, ~ given the fact that low-density, eingle-family reeidential subdiviaiona have been devel- ~ oped immediately across Rio Vieta Street to the weat. Furthermore, CHe plana indicated I that the lote adjacent to the Rio Vieta froneage would have one-atory unita toward the ~ fronc, adjacent to the etreet, with ehe remainder of the structure being two-atory, and the tract had been deei ed in much a manner thae tha two-ator g i--•~-~r. 8n y portion would be alon i. Rio Viata Street and would be at least 150 feet away from the zone boundary of the R-1 subdivision. I ~; -a..~ ~~ -- - ~ m . ~c~~='--., -:f, «.,~ ~ :< F , .___ _ ~ ~ ~ '` R; ~ ~ ~ - MIN[1TES, CITY PLANNING COPAIISSION; May 18, 1970 5155 RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Slaughter then revie~ted the.requeeted waivera, noting that thEre~n N0, 69-70-56 Was only one inetance where rhe proposed atructural setback vas leas than that required by the'eite development etandards of the R-3 Zone, VARIANCE N0,2176 and Ehia was at'the southeaet corner of Rio Vista and Frontera Streets, and raEher than hading a 20=foot.setback along Frontera Street, a TENTATIVE MAP OF 17-foot aetback was propoeed; that the remainder of the ].ots in the TRACT N0. 7218 aubdiviaion.had the reguired atructural aetback; that there vere seven other instancea vhere the lendscaped portion of the setback did not TENTATIVE MAP OF meet Code, and in each of these instances the petitioners vere propos- TRl1CT N0. 7219 ing to have an open parking apace within a portion of the aetback that ~ (Continued) ' was normally required to be landecsped; that the Planning Co~ission ,;,~,~~~~ vould have to determine whether there waa justificatioa for these "' deviations from the atandarda, and in the event that it vas concluded ,~'~ that suck vaivers could be granted, the Commieaion might Wieh to require some type of ,_~ acreen landacaping around this open parking area or, a lw decorative vall to shield the parking-space from viev from the street. ~ Mr. Slaughter noted that vith res~ect to the condominium concept ther~e appeared to be `~ several pointa that the Crnrmisaion might wiah to consider, one'being that the Co~isaion '~ sight viah to quesEion the applicanta about the formal etructuring and functioning of t6e '; operating corporatioa to determine the methoda of general management, the prograo for ~ saintenance of all coumon areas vithin the development, including both property and ;~ buildings, and the funding and asaeaements for the maintenance of gronads and buildings; t6at another point of concern wae that of the open parking spacea that vere ptoposed on ',~,, each of the lota vherein four parking spacea ~ere provided aithin a carport or garagc ~' and t~rn open spaces were provided elsewhere - however, there might be a queation as to ~~~ vho vould haye Eitle to the open parking spacee, and parking problems might result because ,;;,~ of such aa arrangemen~. It vas further noted by Mr. Slaughter that the petitioners had indicated they anticipated each living unit within each four-plex would in all likelihood sell in the vicinity of $16,000 - this apparently was an attemp[ by the developers to aupply housing vithin tLe reach of a broader segment of the population, and that the project appeared to be gared tward lav-incame houaing - therefore, the Caa~ission vould alao have to dete=eine vhether such a proposal w~s conaiatent with the City's goale and obJectives for t6is area of the coemunity and also determine whether the quality of the developmant vould be consistmt vith theae objectivee. In revieving the general design of the aubdivision, Mr. Slaughter noted it vould appear that from a planning and land use standpoint, the most appropriata place for the proposed eaat-veat strent aould be adjacent to the southarly boundary of subject property, and if ttu street vere to be realigned to that location, it would provide a better separatioa of land uaes and would also provide greater exposure ~or larger numbers of people to the Citq park and schaol facilitioa that are propoeed for a portion of the school propert~ to the south, Ia concfuaion, Ms. Slaughter noted that the Commiseion vas confronted vith s~king deter- minationa on a number of pointe r~Fated to land use under this application: first, tbe detarmination muet be mada ae to whether the propoand density vould be appropriate ~t thia loaation given its proximity to the R-1 aingle-family subdivisions to the veat; secondly, the Co~iasion muet detnrmine whether the proposed variances vere varrmted; thirSly, vhether or not the condominium concept as proposed,vould be approprfate after giving considaration~to the poeeible problem areas involvnd in perpetual ~aintenmmce of common areas, common'parking apaces, etc.; and fourthly, the Co~mission vould hsve to determine vhether the propoaed deeign of the subdivision vould be desirable fra~ a lmmd use standpoint or whether aaother design would be of more benefit to a greater n~ber of people and the co~nunity in general. Mr, Relph Jenee~a, Vice President of Modular Technology, I•nc., appeared before tLe ~ Co~ission and noted that Mr, Getten, Mr. 0'Keefe, Mr. Matsick, and Mr. Ted Hale vere also p*esent to anewer'•.any questions the Commission might have about the prnpoaed devel- opment. • Chairman Rowland noted that Che petitioner's representatives had received a Report to ! the Co~isaion - therefore, they were fully aware of the staff's feelings as to the proposed use and the~fact that it was leBS than a desirable develop~enE. Hr. Jenaen replied that he had rnviewed the Report to the Camisaion--ho~ever, the statt ments mede vere differences in terminology. i cg'2.` ,~ *-*~3-~x7c Y s T~.. c:r~ ~~, z r .?. r -r'~~'~i~' ~ 5~ N:- ~~" . , H~; .r ~ ~ t . ~:"'C : .. ~~ Y r~ r 1 4 ~ J i.. .~i•~- ..~~ . .:. ...;I . ~ - . .. ;. , .. ~ ' Y t ~~;~~.~:~ , .~ ~ .....r.. .~j'•i,. ..~ . .. . ... . ., :~,. . . . _........ .._.. '. . . , . . ~ . . ~ . :.~~~.:. --::~ O 9 p ~ ~~ MINt1TES, CITY PLqNNING COTIl~iIS8I0N, Ma3r 18, 19?0 5156 RECLASSIFICATION - D~pitty City;Attoraay Frank LcRtry advi~~d tha Co~i~~ion that tha N0. 69-70-56 City Attoraey staff had m~t with ths p~tition~r~ r~gardiag thia davalopment, and most of the.legai probl~m~ h~d ba~n ~olved since VARIANCE N0, 2176 the State law was very ~pacific a~.it pertainad to perpetu~l title and haw the California lav mu~t funotion. TENTATIVE MAP OF TBA~ GT NO,~_7218 Chairman Rowland then noted th~t as~y+thing the Co~ission might approve would be contingent upon tha legal tatiofaction of thia condominium TENTATIVE MAP OF concept. . TRACT N0. 7219 (Continuedj Coa~issioner Gauer expreas~d cona~rn that aven though a resarve vas aet up on the property, in the avent the p~ople Mho purchaaed the property did not participata, then th~rs M~e a po~sibility the maintenance corporation could become bankrupt. . Mr. Lowry atated that there were tvo alternativa CC&Ra;.~nd~tbe Cixy of Anahmim had ~th~ power to step in to adminiater thie, but so long as tha City Attorney, Mr. ~~1s2er, had indicated the CC&Rs were in conformance with thoee •stablithad in the City, Yhere vae no guarantee, even if the City approvad the CC&R~, th~y wuld not run irto ~o~ fore of jeopardy with the law. Mr. Ralph Jeneen appeared befora the Commiesion snd noe~d eh~ir company h~d s~eaasohad this particular type of program £or about a yqr; thaC th~yr h~d gon~ to Ch~ S~cxamento. and San Joae area Co res~~rchtheir types of Eseiliei~~;and~t<vith+th'i Saak of .Amerir~ and F.H.A. in Loa Angelee, aswell'as Sacramaatiotand:San•Hrsabi~co9~to;d~t~tmiti~:ite pottnti~l and, therefore, they could not see hov any rrobl~ thould ~rise ~irce ono- ot th~ condi~ tions of approval aas that at least 807. oE th~ pro~~ot h~d:LO b• pra~old prior !o occupation, and the developer would have to k~~p th~ defici~nci~~ of'eh~.bud~t~t; th~t he had gone through a similar operation in 1963 Mh~n Town ti~1l:Coopar~tiv~s eMma into the Southern California area; ehat he had seC up tha man~g~mant t~~m; that th~ project was well maintained and run within the budgeC aet up; that'the succeu of ;e'proj~ct:.Maa dependent upon what the developer put into a facility, and £f the dev~lop~,r a~nted a successful operation without having ta stay wfth th~ dev~loyment, he.mu~t provide th~ right incentive,and many more controls were impoeed in that aaaociation than a~re employed in the City CC&Ra; that the proposed development, iti hir eatimation, Mould be a de£inite plw in thie price range propoaed ~t $16~000 p~r uh1t; th~t Eund~ Mould ba set aeide for the maiaten~nca o£ Che buildings and lrnd~capitt~:which would b~ pl~c~d in truet in the Bank of America who would adminlsC~r th~m; and that the rul~~ and r~gulation• aet up by the as~ociation aould have to includ~,,tha.~lw~~.o~~lh~ land. Mr. Jensen Ch~n noCed that the staff had remark~d th~t ehi~ Mouid not be ~ voluntary participation in the organization - however, tha vay th~ r~~ulation~ ehay propoeed v~re set up, Chere would be no choice between joinittg o~.not ~oit-i~sg; that th4 proposal Mould be in conformance with the General Plen adopted by the CiCy Counoil in 1964~~and th~...' •° d'ensityin this instance would be approximetely 14 units per acre, with the property yiald- ing approximately 3.7, 7200-square foot lota per acre; that the green area, aa well ae the parking area, would be maintained by the asaociation; and that the buildings them- selvea wmuld be painted and the roofa replaced through said asaociation. Mr. Jensen then reviewed a typical lot layout, noting that none of the two-story struc- tures would be within 150 feet of the R-1 to Che west; that the unita would average paymenta of $170 per month; that there were many people living in Anaheim who also worked in the City and could not afford the'pric~e uf homes eatabltsh~d in Anaheim; and that perhapa the proposal was not thp answer to this dilemma~, but it would allow people having an income of $9,000 Co $10,000 per year to purchase a place to ],ive. Furthermore, in the reaearch of the San Joee =acilitiea it was noted that about 50% of the purchasers were aingle peraons, while 35% were older couples whoae children had grown and who were not deairous of maintaining a regular homesite; and that the balance of the ownera were young couples having an average income of about $10,000. D1r. Jensen then noted that the San Jose faciiitj~ showed a ratio of .04 children per unit, and one of the governing factors in this low retio of children wae the size o£ the units which con2ro11ed the number of children in thia type of pro,ject. 'fhe Commission ti*as of the opinion that the .04 ratio of children was not typical and could not be applied to the City of Anaheim in the hiatory of children in homes and apartments, and then inquired where in Orange County the petitioner had set up a similar project and what were the statistica as to the number of children. ~~ °.~~'' ~ ~ ~ ~...i~+~'~'i.'~'~~`C .. ~y"~ ~ ,~ ~ '~~r > ?. 'h .~F ,~. j a~_;3r fi ,... ~ {~ ~_~ $'~ .:, s. yk .} 3. ~~ , k,.v..r,~ ~ ~ S~~ ~ ~.~`~ ,a~ y. r 7~ ~,.r<~, t~~ ~-S ~ iv - LY.. y s~ ~ ~ ~ Q e i .~ ~. > `~.~ 'h=rv, w ~~.f ~' .tyry+~'~ ,~ '~ ti~,'F. u~. ~n '~~ ~Y`'L nt ~.i ' ~~ . ~. ~ a a s t~~ ~- ~~'J` ..~=KC~~'_.:.~'." 4"Y~'.'.?7~.{4 z,NS,~,,;TK..-at U*r~°~~~, cR~,~CId'i {i~.r. rf i.sr•i3c~T t;~. ~~ y ~,.. ~ ~.3 ~"' ~~~t _ _..3 ~. ~.,. ~?,,~ '~ S ... ~. . .. . . _ ~ . . , ~ . . -.~`__` ~ ~ ~ MINUTES', CITY:PLANNING COI~iISSION, May 18, 1970 ~ 57.--, RECLASSIFICl~TION - The.Coarmission then noted that the proposed development wouid not be ~NO 69-70-56. compatible with the trailer park approved to the east since residents of this facility had better fnoomes.than those who would reside in VARIANCE N0.`2176 the proposed development, and thet the proposed development would be harmful to and affect the single=fa:nily homes on the west side of 'TENTATI~E MAP OF Rio Vista Street. TRACT=NO., 7218 Mr,. Jensen noted that because of.the increase in the price of the homes TENTATIVE MAP'OF they built on_the Wagaer'property, which had an original starting price TRAbT N0. 7219 of $23,000 - by the time the second unit was built,.their cost had in- (Continued) . creased considerably`so tfi&t they were forced to raise the price of these.homes, and:fhere were many two-story homes which remained unsold because,most prospective purchasers could not qualify, and now it seemed apparent that-an R-1 home could.not be built under $30,000. Furthermore, as to 3ncomes of reaidents;;.n.the single-family.homes to the west, he could not deter~:~ne this - however; those>homes were-builE some time ago, and he would question if many of the resi- denta of that development had purchased their homes since the increase in interest rates on loans since.when these homes were originally built, the interesf rates were considerably less. 'Furthermore, it was his opinion that for ersons proposed development the cost wou p Pro3ected to purchase in the ld range from $170 to $175 per month, which did not include the.recreation payment - thus there would be no mixing of different living en- vironments or incomes. Commisaioner Farano noted that discussion had been held regarding many different statistics which l+:d no bearing on the problem - that payments of $175 per moxith did not impress him; tt[at,he would prefer to diacuss the:quality of the units themselves, which he felt were not che.quality end type of.home he would like to see developed in this area•, that he was opposed to the greater increase in density than was presented by the developer - however, he was more desirous of making his own study since he was familiar with conditions in other parts of the country, and the selection of comparative develop- ments could not be applied to the situation in Anaheim, a city which was very unique in that only staEistics of similar aituations could be compared. Commissioner.Gauer noted that some R-2-5000 homes built in Anaheim, particularly those homes northwest of State College Boulevard and Ball Road, were low-cost housing projects, and many."of these homes remained unsold; that the appearance of many of these homes was less than desirable since landacaping improvements had not been provided and people with low incomes could not afford peymenta on homes as well as the additional improvements - therefore, there was a possibility that the type of condominium proposed might be attrac- tive to low-income people, but he did not feel this location was the place for this type of development. Further discusaion was held by the Commission, su~arized as follows: 1. Conaideration should be given to having a xayout of four-plex subdivisons similar to the Schoeppe property. 2. The proposed plot plan was poorly layed out with the recreation area too distant from many of the units, thus would encourage children to p.lay in the streeta in their own neighborhooda. 3. The idea proposed had many merits, but the layout was similar to row housing in Engla;~d. i ' 4. Th3E many young people would be moving into this type of facility because they could not afford any other facility. 5. That the propoaed development had insufficient recreation area which was not properly interapersed throughout the development. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson, in response to Commission I questioning, stated that the Placentia School District would prefer that no pedestrian openings be provided to the achool property - therefore, this was one of the reasons staff felt the east=west street should be located on the southerly boundary of the property. Mr. Roberta noted that the achool district was also of the opinion that whe:e apartments ~ were located near a achool, the alleys adjacent to them were ideal hiding places for I undesirable persona lurking in Ehe shadows, The Commisaion then noted that although the developers had indicated a very minor number ~ ~ of children in the development, they would recommend that he consider many more since 3 this would be the pattern from past history of ttie developments in Anaheim. ' j Commissioner Gauer was of the opinion that even though there would be more children in this development than projected by the developer, the environment would be better for children than a regular apartment''development, and the landscaping areas would be main- tained, which, in his estimation, was a very basic conaideration. ~ ^ c~'~6~{4~w~~K,, ~, nP- r+aSfi~-1 i~~ "`l s-~ F 5,,, /~~~'4.'G.."'-v ~ .;'r~'q",,,tw,~'s ~~~ . x }~ ~ 2~ a . i 5 „~ ~, G~, ~ ,~ ~ ~-:L 'Tx~ . ~ ~'+n1~ ~n ~ ~ T r .r ~. ~ t,~.a y it ~r~'' _ ~ ~~ i~° r~, 1~~ '' .~ ~r :' ;t,~~a ti ~t~'a'i~~~rS 4 . {~. i ~ 1 i ".-~t 1 a: ' _ ~_ 4~. . yf w.;•l.. `tl~i ~.,~. ~.~~,~yY rw ~~'f r4 1 . ~ f ~' ~ ::~. ~ . ' . ,. . . .. . . . ~ . . . ~ .. .. . ~~ ~~ ~ . . ~ . ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING,COMMISSION, May 18, 1970 5158 RiCI~ASSIFICATION - Co~issioner Farano noted that even though only one child per unit N0, 69-70-56 might be considered, this would be considerabiy more than the fourteen children projected by the developer, and with chiidren there w2s always VARIANCE N0. 2I76 the problem of,their teaiing up the landscaping or plaqing ba11 and annoying the other residents - therefore, his prime concern was the TENTATIVE MAE OF fact that there would be many more children than pllanned, necessitating TRACT N0. 7218 gome consideration being given to providing the recreation areas, basically for children, in convenient places. ~:~ TENTATIVE MAP' OF TRACT N0.•7219 Mr. I~Ialcolm Slaughter, 2656 East Carnivai Aven.ue, appeared before the (Continued) Commission and noted that he reaided in the single-family development ' to the west of subject property; that his neighbors and he were very:• concemed regarding the proposed development since the General Plan' '~~1• indicated this area for low-medium densitq; that the proposed recreation area in the center of the development was also of some concern since based upon past experience the City had regardiag condominiums, prime consideration should be given to adequate recrea- tion facilities since the previous condominium had provided recreation facilities - however, these were removed and no recreation facilities were now available; that the location of the street was also of concern to the residents since it was not in tha same ~ general area as adopted in the Area Development Plan when the Armour property to the east was approved for aparEment development, and the manner in which westbound traffic would have to maneuver around carves to get to Rio Vista Street would present a serious traffic problem; that the location of the street should be adjacent to the park which ~ would provide.for better policing protection, serving not only t:ie park but the develop- ment ae well; that the proposed alignment of the street did not ialfill the City's intent of the street to provide circulation for the properties developing to the east; that the proposal was to develop in two stages - therefore, if the first stage did not prove successful, the exte~sion of the street easterly would not be accomplished, and the access to Rio Vista Street would be obviated, and thia was based upon the fact that many of the apartment developments in the city were having many vacancies; that the City in making plans of development for circulation would be faced with a circulation problem unless the atreet were developed and placed adjacent to the park in accordance with the adopted Area Development ~lan; that the density proposed would not be in conformance with the General Plan as adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council wherein a step- down in densities was deemed more appropriate - however, this was not the case in this pro~ect in which they praposed R-3 adjacent to R-1, and some type of buffer zone shoµld be provided between the R-1 oa the west side of Rio Vista Street and the density pro- posed on the east side since the street was not sufficient to provide this buffer; that the plans did not indicate any private outdoor patio or recreation areas for families in individua2 units, and it wes difficult to believe that children would be going to tha recreation areas for all of their outdoor activities; and that he doubted this type of fa dlity was needed in this general area, an3 atatistics presented regarding other develop~ents in San Francisco, Sacramento and San Jose were not applicable to the unique living conditions in Anaheim and in this general area. Chairman Rowland noted that since Mr. Slaughter was a City employee it might seem some- what unusual - however, he had asked the Commission whe=:~er or not they would consider ~ hie and hie neighbors' concern since he was a property owner in the R-1 tract to the ; west - therefore, the opinians expressed by Mr. Slaughter were thoae of an interested i. property o~mer who represented his neighbors as well. However, because he had the ~ technical skills and knowledge of the area, even though he was a City employee, this ~id not make him a lesser person, and that the Planning Commission made their decision many times, much to the chagrin of the staff. ~ Mr. Jensen agreed that since Mr. Slaughter was a resident of this area he should not be penalized in defending his property because he was a City employee in the Development Services Department. Mr. Jensen then noted that the research done for this project was done ~n all serious- ! ness; that perhaps the research information was wrong, but it was a mi2lion-dollar ~ gamble and his firm could not afford this; that small developers, in tne past, had ~ built homes on small plots, which was something in the past; that they had conferred with persons of knowledge and worked with the Planning staff who had been very helpful ; in the past; that they were not fully aware of the fact that the street location was ' so adopted, but th~y wou2d attempt to investigate this ro ect and u ` ~ in this t e of a p j Pgrade their findings h progrems;ythat figur~~~regardin$tthetnumber o~sqhildren mighthbeeunrealisticypthatfit i was not his intent to pl~c~ hia compeny qr F.~„(~, in ~ position of f~pancing a mistake, ~ even though the Cit;~ had eatperience with sim;CJ.ar kypee o~ condominiums in the past; ~ that it was his feeling the pzoposed development would be sucae~sful if the market research data they had obtained were correct; and that the pro~ect, as designed, gavQ ' tae appeaxance of a larger aingln-family development and could be mainta~~ed - even though ther~ were past mistakes made in condaminiums, it was their hopa not xo make ' the same mistakes. ! ..' ~~ ~s~~r~ ~~ !.3~cy d. +. rn s cn S.+.. u~-..+.~ ~, .. `"''^~ a ..., ~ ~~, ~ J ~ ~. ~ F~'~ r ~ &~~~Y ~ r,~J ~y~y~-~ . ~.` ~S a '~'~~ ..~~r ~. ~ ~~.~'1 s& ~#"'~'. .c . ~ ,.., r... ~ F ~l /` Y h 4~ S~(~AY J. t/I ~~/ .~lf 1 S :~ 1 :: ~~•` .c~YM4 h~Z~I~'.:.J 'L 4~F$ Yy.J A r4 kt ~ ~~Tk~) ~(~yW~ ~ ~~J ,p 1 K~S ~ G ~,f . ~ .. .. : ~ r ..r....~ . . .;i„ :'.f{'nL. ~ ~Y:.~ Y ~LkY.~lr~ ~ ~ ~ a1~~ i ?' J p -( }. ~ ~ . .- _.,. . ~. +r ,.. . .: .. . ... . . . .. „ .. ~ ... ,. . ' ~ .... ~.. ~~. ~ 4 .~, ... ~ ~ ~ . ~~ ~ . . . . ~ ' , ~`'' . .. . . ~ . . . . . . ~ ` W MINUTESS CITY PI~c~,NNING'COMMISSION, May 18, I970 5159 RECLASSIFICATION - Chairman Rowland noted the petitioner was presentirig his opiaions N0. 69-70-56 ` to tl:e Co~nission,which he respected; however, he would like to - summarize the Co~ission's feelinga in general regarding the proposed VARIANCE N0. 217G development, namely, the number of children this type of faci'.ity ' would-generate; that"from his observations over the past few years, TENTATIVE MAP OF ~t wonld"appear that families would have'to be housed in other thaa TRACT N0, 7218 single-feaily homes, and aince the`City recognized this would happen, five gears:ago had made changes accordingly, such as the R-2-5000 TENTATIVE ri4P OF 2oae - howEVer, reaearch.data based on other cities could not be TRA_ CT N0. 7219 compared with Aaaheim aince this City.'s profile was different than (Continued) other:cities; that it was a foregone concluaion there would be cnildren ~ in any apartment.development, and families would not purchase units kncwiag fu1Z well they would have to'move after a giyen number of children had reached the maxim~ in their unit; that the propoeed development was not oriented toward childre:i since recreation areas indicated this; that whether or not . thia facility belonged ia ,his price range or:the area was not determined - therefore, the conclusion of tne Commissio. was t:~e project was not sufficiently children-oriented - however, experience in t;:e past indicated this was the wrong assumptioa in the City of Anaheim. Commisaioner Gauez felt he wocld like to see a comparison study made on the proposed developmer.t in coinparison with regular apartment living-as to its asseta and liabilities- in the two typea of eaviror,mental living since it wouid present a better picture as to which development had the bes~ living environment. , After further discuseion by the Co~ission regarding the proposed development, the I problema ir.volved,`the poss±bility of propoeing a~~ghetto" type environment, the ! Commission advised the developer thet revised plans ahould be presented as to recreation, i giving careful'etudy to tkee comments made by the Commiasion as they pertained to private ; outdaor recreaEion areae; clust~red outdoor recreation areas, better orierited toward j more than one locatioa than preaently propoeed; consideration of cluater type housing; reZocation of the atreet further to the south, adjacent to the park-school area; change in the density so that the area bordering Rio Vista Street wauld be more compatible with tne R-1 hames to the weat; and fos a more complete explanation of the manner in which the aseociation would bettEr control through regulations the number and type of residents aad the guarantee thaC the asaociation would be permanent after the developers no longer had control in order that there might be some assurance that the propoaed development did not turn into a"ghetto'! environment. I Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Co~iasioner Seymour, and MOTION ~ CARRIED, to continue Petition for Reclaseification No. 69-7Q-56, Variance No. 2176 and Tentative Map of Tracr Nos. J218 and 7219 to the meeting of June 15, 1970, to allow I time for the petitioaer to make further atudy and present revised plans in accordance with the Co~iasion's recommendations regarding recreation areas, atreei layout, improved environment by changing denaity in close proximity ta the R-1 homes to the west; further atudy and documentation regarding the asaociation for perpetual mainkenence; regulations regarding number nf children, etc. AMENI3MENT T0 TITLE 18, - PUBLIC Ha~ARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; propoaing amendmenta to Chaptere 18,13, R-H-10,000 Reeidential Hillside; 18.16, R-A, Agricultural; 18.18, it-E, Reaidential Estate; and 18.20, R-O, One-Family Suburban, Zonea pertaining to the keeping of animals; and Chapter 18.64, ConditionaT Uaes. Zoning Supervisor Charlea Roberta noted for the Commission that eubject amendments required further atudy and requested a continuance, Co~nieaioner Herbat offered a motion, seconded by Commisaior,er Seymour, and MOTION CARRTED, to continue amendmenta to Chaptera 18.13, R-H-10,000 Residential Hilleide; 18.16, R-A, Agricultural; 18 18, R-E, Reaidential Estate; and 18.20, R-0, One-Family Suburban, Zonea, and Chapter 18.64, Conditional Uses, to the meeting of June 29, 1970. ! ~ s~ ~ .riY'~'e:~ V ~ T^ (1'~F ~, .4'IY(~ J ~ '~ : '4 ~ s(',~#a~ ~ ~ z ~+ :. .: ~ ~ ~ `~!. . ~, ~~ . . ~' {, . ~-.. .. '~. .: , ' .. ,. , ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANA~ING CpMMISSION,.May I8, 1970 ~ : , : . ' , i - 5160 REPORTS .AND - ITEM NO 1 . '' • ~ ? RECOP4fENDATIONS •~ GENERe1I, PLAN AMENDMENT N0...119. ` 2oning Supernisor~Charles Roberts reviewed t~he propoaed amendment to the.Circulation Eleqient of ~the General Plan fo=~MaacHester-Avenue, changing it from a~secondary to a colaector street•.between`Orangewood Avenue~and Chapma~ Avenue and requested that the proposed General Plan ameadmerit=;be seE for public'hearing.; ;- Co~iasioner Herbst offered a motion to:direct the Commission Secretary,to set for ' public hearing Generel.Plan,Ameadment:'No.,.15.9,.proposing„an amendment to the Circulation Element of ,the General`P1sn,for.;Manchester Aiienue between Orangewood Avenue end the south ' City;limits; said;public:hearing to be scheduled•for June`29,`-1970: Co~niasioner Seymour - seconded the motion MOTIC.7; Ct,RRIE~, '~ ~ ' ITEM. N0. 2 ' • STREET NAME:CHANGE - G(~gLAND STREET TO ~ , SYi~HONY.STREET..' % . . . .• : , . 2oning-Sapercisor Charles.Rober~s reviewed for the•Qo~aiasion Che~fsct that a strett name conflict between two unconuected etreets geaerally located north of Orsage~horQe Avenue and eest of I,akevi~ Avenue indi'cated boEh an east-wesE;street and a north-south street, oae;in Tract No. 6561 a;id•the'other:ia Tract No. 6686;'and that onl~.one. residence eristed`on the north-south Garland Stre.et,,and after-contacting the'propeity ~ o..i~~r; ~e concurred tfie!proble~:might exist..,Therefore, the ata~f recommendr_d thab said s~reet name chenge-be•set.for peblic hearing.- ,. ` Commiosionei.~Herbst ofEerad a motion`}o direct ~he Co~mission Secretary.to set for public heariag co;zsideration of a street.name change for the north-south Garland street ~n Tract No..fi686 Lo Symptiany g~rPat; said•public hearing to be scheduled for June 29, ' 2970:- Cominiasioner Seymour seco~de8 the mot3on. MOTION CA1tRIED.~ ~ t " ITEM N0. 3 ,~ . ,' STREET NP.ME CHADiGE' - DOVER CIRCLE TO ':AORSET:CIRCLE. Zoning SuperVisor Chaxies Roberts rep•de~Wed for ttie Commission the possible confusion that might resalt with the,general publ3c and'the post office departm~nt because of a street.named Dover Circl'e located in ~he vicinity of BaI1 Road and East Street, which was a selstiveZy short cul=de-sac loalted in Tract No. 6812;.that at the present time only ~wo structures had oeen puichased and occupied, and the property owners and the tract developer had been advised o€ this problem and had agreed ta the renaming of Dover Circle to aay name selected by the staff, and the staff recommended renaming the street Doraet Circ2e = L•herefore, sta=f requested that said street name change be set _for puolic hearing. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to dirQCt the Commission Secretary to set for pubiic hearing,consideration of a street name change for pover Circle to Dorset Circle, said.public heariag to be acheduled for June 29, 1970. Co~issioner Seymour seconded Che motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1162 (Campbell-Hineman) - Amendment to conditions. 2oning Supervisor Charlas Roberts reviewed for the Commission previous action l•aken by the,Planning Commiasion on ConditionaT.Use Perciit No. 1162 on April 6, 1970, in which an auto paint shop was approved to be located at the northwest cor'ner of Broadway and Manchester Avenue; that a'problem had arisen izi the finalizing of the sale regarding Condition No..l as to the amouat of land for street dedication; and that the staff recommended that said condition be amended to require dedication of 45 feet ia widtti from the centerline of Broadway and Manchester Avenue. : Commissioner Seymour offered Resoiution No. PC70-83 and moved for its passage and adoption to amend Condition No. 1 of.Resolution No. PC70-57 approvir.g Conditional Use Permi~ No. 2I62 to`read as follows; "That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the C£ty of Anaheim a atrip o£ 2and 45 feet in width as measured from the centerline of the sCrzet along Manchester Adenue and a strip of land 45 feet in width as measured from the center- Iine of the street along.Broadway, including a 25-foot property line radius,for street widening purposes: (See Re~olution Book) , - - . ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 18, 1970 REPORTS AND RECO1~AtENDATIONS Oa roll call the forego AYES: COI~ASISSIONERS: NOES: CO111iISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMliISSIONERS: - ITEM N0. 4 (Continued) ing resolution was passed by the following vote: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Seymour, Rowland. None. None. ITEM N0. 5 CITY OF PLACENTIA USE PERMIT N0. 70/16 (Schorr Metals, Inc.) n; ~~ ~ Property located south of Orangethorpe Avenue and the 'c~a:~`~ Orange County Flood Control Channel and west of Rraemer ".';:~ Boulevard - Requeat to atore and sell non-ferrous, surplus metals and to operate a public weighing scale in the P-M (Industrial Park) District. ~ ;_x Assiatant 2oning Supervisor Melcolm Slaughter presented to the Planning Commiasion the .;~: City of Placentia Uae Permit No. 70/16, requeeting permiasion to store and sell non- :`~; ferrous, aurplus metals and to o erate a ,; Park, Dietrict, on property located eouth of10raagethorpeeAvenuenandetheMOrange$County '''-~~ Flood Control channel and west of Kraemer Boulevard; then noted that in diacuasions with ~:'?Y~ the City of Placentia PlanninE Department it was indicated that the petitioner proposed to conetruct a 4800-equare fr~ot building; that all activities would be conducted within ~,,f~:~ the building; that masonry walle would be required ae a condition of use; that the building wae prSpoeed to set back 32 feet from the seeback line; aad that a 20-foot i~~i landecaped etrip wae proposed in front o£ the building with no outdoor apparatus for the public scele propoand behind the landecaped atrip. ~ '!n~' The Cc~ieeion discuaeed the etitioner's p ~~~' tha City of Anaheim had induatrial davelopmentaein thie general~area3Whichtwereerequired '~ :' ,„.,~~ to set back 50 fnet whare adjacent to an arterial (Kraemer Boulevard); that masonry wall =: be required to shield from view the parking of trucke; and that uses as propoaed ehouid :"Y'.; be conducted ~oholly within the structure. '~w~ :~~;~ Co~i~eioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commieeioner Allred, and MOTION CARRIED, ';t;;~ to reco~iend to tha City Council that the City of Placentia Planning Commiesion be urged ;4r~; to coneidar tha folloaing, if Uee Permit No, 70/16 is approved; 1) 50-foot building ~;sF~ setback; 2) mesonry ~oalls to nnclose parking trucke; and 3) operation to be wholly =.;:,,~~, conductad ~oithin tha building, ITEM N0~_6 VARIANCE N0. 1696 (C. Mich~nl, Inc.) - Request £or approvai of raviaed plans. Zoning Supsrvi~or Ch~rl~~ Robert~ advised tha Commission that plan• under Variance No. 1696 w~re pr~~~ntad to th~ Commission on the basis of a rec~nt pol3cy by the Commission r~gardiag r~vi~p of all plan~ of devalopmant for tha Santa Ana Canyon area. Mr. C. H~ivor~oa, r~pr~~anting C. Mich~el, In~,.~ appaared•be'fore tha Eoffiission aad noted th~ proposad devalopment would h~v~ homes of 1400 to 1650 aquar~ feee; that the roofs would ell bs rood ~hak~ roof~ a;.aapt whare aa arna of tha pitch vas broken, then a composition vould b• placed thara - this would aot ba visibic to the ~trent; and.that tha price rang~ of th~~a hom~~ pould be in tha vicinity of $28,500. Co~i~~ioner Harb~~ offar~d a motion to approve raviead plans as prasentnd under Variance No. 1696. Commissionar S~ymour saconded tha motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJ~URNMENT - There being no further business to discuae, Commiaeioner Seymour offsrad a motion to ad~ourn the meeting. Commieaioner Harbst secondad the motion. MOTION CARRIED, Tha meeting adjaurned at 6:48 P.M. Raspectfully submitted, ~/J~IiYC~---~~.r, ~ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planaing Commiseion '~ 'a~ ~' ~~ ~ - .r •r. G - ~ - ~ - _ " ,,,,,e~; . . '. . ' _ . .,..,, ' , _ . • ~ _'~!~ -