The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1970/06/02.~ '~ '~ ~ ~ __~~ , , ~ City Ha11 Anaheim, .Calif.ornia ° `•\, June 2, 1970 `A REGULAtZ MEgT,:Ni~ t7k7 i~E ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM=SSION REGULAR :3EBTING:~= A reguxar an~r~tii~g;'ef -the;Anaheim City Planning Co~ission`was called , ~ ' " L6 C~YtIGi' lAv„CI78~LiLE:1 Rc~lsnd at' 7:OD o'.clock P.M. ; a- quorwn being + ; , ~,~re.aen~. ; ,,, ~° PRESENT' `= CiiAIRMAIQ, r Rowland. -'CO1~AiISSIOFIERS; Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbet, T~a~o,oa, ~r;;naur, ABSENT '< C~;?cy%;SiONERS. Noni. PRESENT - Aesisti~nt Development Services Director; Ronald Thomoson Assiatant City AttornPy:~ John Dewson ':' Officc Engineer: Jay Tit~s 2~~ning Su~ervieorc Charlea Roi.erts t~lanning Commiaeion Secr'~.tary; , Ann Kreba F2~iR:E ~ OF A.LLEG'L'-NCE - Comriileaioner Kaywood led in the Pledgr, of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF r' Approvel of the Minutes o.E the meeting of'May 18, 1970, was continued THE'MINUTES 'to the meeting of June 15;; 1970. ( INTRODUCTION OF =,Chairman R.~wland 3ntroduc;ed the new PlanninA CommiaRioner Mi.riam (Mrs. NEW COI~AIISSIONER Richerd~ f?.~qaood to the uudience,and welcomed hei as a~har~ing. replaceme .,*, for former f;osmnissioner T`.iom. ItECLAS3IFliCATION - PUBLIC 1lEARING. DECON f:?RPDRATION, 1833 Ee~,t 17th ;Strecst, 'Ssnta Ana, ~_.~._.~ . .. N0, b9 70=60 ~ Califor~3a, Oomer; WILLlAM D: .RICHARDSON, ''l833:F_asf ~.7t'h Street, ` ,=+ ' ~~.'sta Ana, Cali£ornia, A~~n.;'properEy described as;. An irregularly ~~_ N~E ~v~ 2~~6 _ d~,oped•parcel of'land located 'at the southeaet corntsr of Riverdale , e~~ Tustin Avinuee (foxmexlyJ~f£ereon Skreet) and having approximate ' • frontagee of 550 feet on.ltiverdel.e Aveu~e and 470 feet t,n Tustin Avnnue , Prop~,sCy presantly clae6lfied R-A,;AGRICt7LTURAL, zONE, REQUESTED;CLA33IFICATION: R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY R~SIDENixAL, ZONE, REQUE3TED VARIANCE: WAYVERS OF (1):MINIMUM.DI5~ANCE BE1T~"EEN HUII;DINGS, (2) MINIMUM BJILDING SITE AREA PER DiWLi.LING UNIT, !.ND (3) MINI1~iUM REQUIRED I.ANDSCAPED SETBACK, TO ESTABLISH A 1US~JN~T APARTMENT COMPLEX. ~oning.Supervi~or. Charle~ Roberts reviewed the l~cation of aub~ect property, usee aeSab- iish~d in clo~a ~roximity, existing aon3ng on tne property, the propoeed aoning, and ttae ="quAetad.wala~rA frc~ the R-2 2one eite development et~nanrrle tn dc.:;elop s. ?.05-unit car!o1ex, noting.further thit the dansity proposed waa approximately 30~.graeter t6aa perraftted iz~ the R-2 Zona,'ae well ae the fact ~hat 2400 aquare feet o~ land arca ~~as I requ4red, and the petitiloner was proposing only 2860 zqusYe feet pei unit. ~ ~ i Mr. :.a~azti, in revieqing the.evaluatiun of the propoaed pro~act, noted that the ~esign i ~ of the pzoject presnnted eome problemr, such se the fire accees lane which had only a ! 15-foot wida, cieer ecceee .r:., wt~ereas"tkie adopEed fire regulatione policy would requir~e ~ a~ninimum of 20 feet; th~c eince the petiL•loner nad zeceived a cepy.af the Report to the Commiasion, ha hed conferre~ with the etaff - thus the fire acceea drive was reaolved - ~ ~ h~owever, thera s:;ill ramainen ~ke uneighilinees from Riverdale: Avenun of the fire accesa ~ of AoLid concrexe, and staff would sugges~:.th~t the concrete appesrance be softened some- vhat aith concrata ribbone i~tesspereed with'lsndscaping: ( I A~other probl~ wl~ich the plane presentdd, Mr, Rq~erts continued~ was the fact that the ~ pr4w3sed nna street running along tha southarly psoperty line would convert the existing j R-1 lot~ into doub]a-£ront.~e.late, and in ord,ar to pcavide aome protection for the ~ singl~-f~mily homer, soma type of buf£aring should be provided - hovaver, since the pads ~ ~.E the R-1 ~~ts were vpproximats3p 5 fnet higher then eub~ect properfy, to'require a 6->oot audonry w~ll aoould bh inr~ffactive, but a`suggestion might'"be to conetruct said mt~sonry mall on Ccp of the slope if the eingla-.amily homaowa~ere eo deeired~ but this woulfl :hen praoent e pt~oblaal af rnspons3bility.of maintenance ctf the slope - therefore, 5162 K.•- .. - J~_n:• -~t~. w _ ~ „ra ~ _ - MINUTES, ~Y PLANNING COI~I7SSION, June'2,~970 ~.r~ ' S~Fg RECLASSIFICATION - the Commisaion might wish to require said 6-foot masonry waiT be _ ' N0. 69-70-60 r provided an the top of the slope with Iandscaping„and irrigation facilities - even though'the expense might be:aa`additional cost, VARIANCE N0. 2178 theae costs could be assumed where changes''in land use patterns (Continued) presented land use conflicts beEween.single-family and multiple- family zones; and the burden of alleviating these problems shouid - reat with t6oae proposing the higher deneities since presumably they would be reaping the benefits. A.further suggestion would be tv.relocate the new street farther r~orth, away from.the south property line, conatructing;single-story aparEmenta adjacent'to the single-familq,homes - this, thea, would not only present a better streeE pattern, but a better buffer for the exisfing aingle~family homes,`such a's was`done.on the apa=tment development south of Lincoln Avenue on the'east side of Sunkist Street.~ Mr. Roberte, in conclusion, noted that-with all these problems presented it ;;ould ~eem the project.could'be redesigned to present far less of an impact on the area by proviri- ing adequate'circulationy' more protection`for the single-family subdivision to the south, and deaigning a,~;'enerally more pl~asing overall dedelopmenE. Mr. William Richardaon, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Co~ission, request- ing'that consideration be given to the zone change as a separate item from the variance request since`conditione af approval were questionable for both ~etitions. Mr. Roberts noted that any reference Eo the new street and improvements would be a zequire- ment of the reclassification and not the variance, regardless of Whether the location of the-street were finalized c•• r'ot. Mr. RicSardaon then noted that the ataff report to the Con~ission reco~ended as a possible aolution the construction of a masonry wall and msintenance of the slope to ecreen,thie project from the seven homea bordering on the south of subject propPrty; P that some of tHeee homes already had fences, three had retaiai while another had a n8 walls_and redwood fences, paf.io•;~yith a 3-foot retaining wall - however, he could not see the logic in reguiring the.petitioner to provide both the retaining wall and said landscaping as we1Z'as maintenanee of the sloped bank. Furthermore, one of the reasons why the devel.opnent to the southeast of subject property had not been finalized to this date was becauoe 1en~ers were unhappy with the acceas road where Santa Ana Canqon Road dead-ended into th~ prope;ty; that a frontage roarl would be provided through aubject pro ert therefore, the lenders were looking more favorabl at the other p y because.two acceas roada were now bein y Project• to the southeast 8 provided; that the proposed development was similar to that to t:he southeaet, with density and square footage per uni.t the same; and thae ttie atreet pro~osed would be in the general area set aside for one-story dwellings, :~ithin 150 feeE af the,R-1'homea, and this was necessary to obtain the propoaed density mtl keep pedeatriane szom this property from having to croes to the recreation area - thua the street was proposed on the sourherly property line. FurLhermore, the ataff also recommended:~hat a maeonry wall be provided along the freeway frontage, whereas an exist- ing 6-foot chainli.r.k #encp was~a,''eady~the;e,..and•~.t would be neceasary to plant fast- growing ahrubbery to hide the fence -~herefore, the maeonry wall would be a waste of money. ~ Commisaioner .A21red inquired of the ageut why a masonry wall would conetitute a waste of money; whereupor. Mr. Rinhardson replied Chat all freeways had chainlink fences, and if thia chainlink fence were planted with h~acry shrubbery, this would give a better buffer ~ than a masonry wa32, Mr. Ri.chard Fox, ;d6 T~enuebec Drive, appearec~ before the Co~aias~on in opposition and etated he was thr~ chmer of a sing?.e-fa~ily home of which he was quite proud; that to introduce multiple-family developwent would present a grave traffic problem for both the res,±dents of the R-1 and the proposed development since presently, during rueh hours and s.hool time, it was difficult to gain accesa from this area; that the existing schools already were filled to capacity; that when they purchased their aingle-family home five YeBre ago, therc was all open land - now theae 35 homes were being completely aurrounded with apartments, and, therefore, he would l.ike to recoa~end that the Commisaiun consider R-1 ~oning for subject property rather than R-2 in order to rEduce the number of vehicles into the ,area, as resll as the n~ber of children, since if more apartmenta were approved, the single-family aubdiviaion would be completely inundated; and that although he was in favor of progrees, additionaf apartments would be harmful to the aingle-family reaidential inCagrity of the a~rea. Furth~rmore, if the zone were approved, then he would usge the Coawiaeion to c~~ny the requested waivere ao 6s~to give the aingle-family homeowners aome emall form of protection. Mr. Henry Hartman, 3939 Rogue Drive, appeared before the Co~iasioa and noted hia property adjoined sabject groperty an~ Was:one of:the homes af~ected bq the proposed streeC; that he concurred ~~ith the statements made by Mr. Fox in oppoaition - however, he would like to sEress thar: reei?~=nta of' thin r.rea had been appearing beEore the Commiaeion and City M~m~ft!~ _ [ 'iv,(, - -Hl~~ h ~/.t~,'. Y ~~~~,; \ t .. . ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ . ~ ~ . ~7 MINUES, CITY PiANNING C01~4_ISSION, June 2, 1970 5164 RECLASSIFICATION - Council•each'time a zone change was proposed far this general area; N0. 69-70-60 that waivers always seemed to accompany any request for multipie- family zoning; that the aingle-family homeowners had considerable VARIANCE N0. 2178 investments in their homes - therefore, the laws set uu :o protect (Continued) the single-family homeowners should be enforced. Howevzr, it appeared that the opposition by the single-family homeowners did not carry much weight, and he would request that if the proposed zone wtere approved, that the waivera requeated be denied since some protection ehould : be given to the residente of this area who have had their homea for only five years and could not be considered old or run-down; that the waiver of the wall should not be grante3 since the petitioner was propoaing a density greater than the adjoining propertiea - therefore, some meaeure of protection ahould be provided; that he felt very strongly about ~' this poiat since'if it were not required and problems arose, it would be difficult to obtain relief through the court sin~ce he had experienced this problem in another city; and that he urged the Commission to require the petitioner to meet all the zoning require- ments of the zone requeeted. ~ Commissioner Seymour inquired of Mr. Hartman whether or not he approved of the proposal but was only requesting the retaining wall. Mr. Hartman replied that he wae as oppoaed to the zoning as was Mr. Fox; that their subdivision was a custom tract; that they were not particularl?~ happy when apartments were approved to the south and west and just recently to the east, and to approve aparCmenta to the north wo~~~ld completely aurround the single-family aubdiviaion with apartmenta; and that although he was aware the General Plan projected low-medium density for this area, it was his feeling that additional study ahould be given to this area since this aingle-family subdivision was located on an e3-foot riae over subject property. Furthermore, to permit two-etory apartmenta would deatroy the entire view they formerly had enioyed from their property. Mr. Hartman, after reviewing the plana with Commiasioner Herbat, noted that the single- family homes were purchased five yeara ago, at which time Street A had been abandoned, and the Highway Department had assured them this atreet would never go through, and that although two-story homea could be built if aubject property were required to develop for R-l or R-2-5000, he would rather have two-story homea than a street behind him. Mr. Richardson, in rebuttal, stated that the proposed development would be an all-adult proj~ct - therefore, there would be little problem aa to taxing the achoo~ facilities. Co~isaioner Gauer inquired as to how the developer proposc3 tu control this - as an a1l-adult facility and prohibiting children. Mr. Richardaon repli.ed thst there would be only one and two-bedrocm unita, which would be a controlling factor. Commisaioner Farano then noted that he was eomewhat akept3ca'1 of the atatement made that this would be a controlled development for adults only and children vould not be allowed, and then inquired whether or not there wae a Constitutional law which pro- hibited renting to familiee with children. Aaeietant Gity Attorney John Daweon adviaed the Commiaeion that prohibiting children would tsa a violation of the Constitution; however, in trailer or mobile home parks they were reatricted many timee to adulta only and perhaps because of their tranaient aature, made it posaible for this type of facility to have reetrictions. Furthermore, many landlorda, in a manner of apeaking, maintained controls wherein apartmenta were rented, and if children were born to theae rentera, they were given a reasonable length of time in which to find other facilities.- however, :hey were not allowed to remain indefinitely. Furthermcre, the Commieaion could not approve zoning actiona by aetting forth cr~ntrols ae to adult-only facilitiea. Mr. Richardson noted there would be no two-atory units within 150 feet of the R-1 homes. Mr. Hartman then inquired of the ~ommisaion whether or not the new sCreet would have a fence adjacent to it. Chairman Rowland noted thia wae one of the waivers requeated by the petitioner. THE HEARIlVG WAS CLOSED. Chairman Rowland advised the Commiaeion to make their determination firat on the reclassi- fication eince all teatimony was for both the reclassification and the variance petitions. Commiaeioner 9eyme"~!s nated that the General Plan projected aubject property for low-medium den9lty - otherwiae~ eubject property ahould be considered as being R-2 rather than R-1; :-r. t,x. : i : _ F'a ___ ' ~.~+K. - ~ . . . .. ~ ,' , ~-,~.. - . ry, ;. - ~~ _ _ _ .._. _ i... . L~"..ti^ ~ ^s'~L'w! ."4''~3° 7-.~. ~T: t{(~g,~~ ~ y ~n sr 'Dt^2'? _h~~,C'R . ~ ~~; ~~.,,. :~ ~ . , _ } fCe- ~' _ _ ~ s r~,~ , a~ f~7 ~ F' i ~~ y r ~ ~I ~ t ,~~ ~: . . ~ ' ~ '~~'^ ~1 ~ ~..t:: - - ~ ~~, . . . .. . ~ .: . .. ._.... . . . : ~: . , .. .. . . . .. . . .. ~.. µ., ' ~ _ . ~ . . ~ ~ . .~ ''~ MINUTES,.CITY PL3NNING COPIliISSiON, June 2, 1970 5165 ?tECLp,SSIFICATION - that although a street was propoeed to separate the proposed zone N0. 69-70-60 and the exiating '_{-1, this did not preaent a step-down in zone whick normally was required when more intease uaes were proposed, ~' VARIAN~E N0. 2178 and by approving R-2 for the property, the R-l homea would ~e _ (Continued) completely surrounded and isolated by multiple-famfly zoning - something which was rather unusual for Anaheim; that the single- family homeowners had purchased their homea and apent considerable money, aseuming there would be other'single-family homea around them - therefore, some faria of protection should be afforded these homeowners, and with miaor corrections to th~"plans by reducti~n of denaity and`providing additional buffering, etc., thia might ~~ make the proposed zoning more palatable to the single-family homeownera; and that it l~ appeared the City was conaistently eliminating more end more R-1 properties in toto, which vas somewhat alarming since subject property could be deve~oped far R-1. Co~iasioner Allred concurred with the atatements made by Commiasioaer Herbnr~ noting that having a freeway in close proximity was no basie for aseuming a more intense use should be approved aince there were many fiae homes in the Sar.;a Ana Canyon area adjacent to the freeway - therefore, there was no reason to assume that subject property could not be developed with single-fan•ily homea, and that in the event the other Co~isaioners did not concur, perhaps a row of aingle-family homea could be built adjacent to the existing aiagle-family homes eo that a atep-up arrangement similar to that which had been approved and developed north anil east of Rio Viata Str=et and Lincoln Avenue aould be considered. Commieaioner Farano stated he was opposed to creation of double-frontage lo*_s, Commisaioner Gauer also felt that a single tier of aingle-family lota could be provided ~ adjacent to the exi.eting R-i homea. ~'~` Commieeioner Seymour offered Reaolution No. PC70-84 and moved for ita passage~and adoption to reco~end ~o the City Council thaC Petition for Reclasaification No. 69-70-60 be approved, aubject to coaditiona, baeing his motion on the fact that a better multiple- family reeidential development could be provided then aome of the rather undeairable R-2-5000 homee which the Commisaion had seen developad in recent years, and that single- family homee in close proximity to the freeway were less likely to be purchased than apartmente being rsnted. (See Reaolution Book) On roll,call the foregoing reaolution wAe paesed by the following vote; AYES; COPAtISSIONERS; Farano,`Herbet, Seymour, Rowland. NOES: C01~4IISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Kaypiood. ABSENT; COIAtIS~IONERS: None. Further diacueeion wae F~eld by the Commisaion regarding the variance petition in which inquiry was made ae C~ the reaeon the Commiasion paesed the R-2 zoning to the southeast of aubject property, ae well as the waivera; ~ohereupon, after reviewing the map, it was determined that eaid property had more freewey expoeure, as well ae being an odd-shaped parcel, and thie aituation did not apply to eubject property, Commiesioner Seymour, in response to Commisaion questioning, atated that $35,000 homes weuld have to be built on aubject property, and if R-2-5000 homes were built, these could be "cracker box" type homea as being the only economically feasible development, which wauld not be in conformance with the Commisaion'e deeirea for thie area - therefore, he would rather eee an R-2 development over an R-2-5000 development eince bCtter aite development etandarde could be impoaed. Commieaioner Herbst inquirad of Office Engineer Jay Titus the grade riae of Riverdale Avenue ae it approached the Rivereide Freeway; whereupon Mr. Titus replied the grade rie~ wes up to 15 feet at the easterly edge of subject property. Co~ieeioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC70-85 and moved for it:a paesage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2178 on the baeis that the proported denaity was 30X greater than permitted by the R-2 Zone, and the propoeed density would be imposing too great a burden upon the single-famil~ hameownera in the R-1 eubdiviaion to the south; that the siza and shape of the property wae adequate enough to develop tne property within the confinea of fhe site devalopmant atandarde oE the R-2 Zone, thereby providing ameni- tiea more comp:tibl~s with t/,ie existt.ng R-1 homea; that eubject property did not have the eame developmental prauieme as the praperty to the southeaet - consequently, there was no justification for coneidering the aforemantioned waivera ae aeceasary for the proper development of the property; and that the development plano indicated a creation of double-front~ge lote for the exis ting single-family homeowaers, aub~ecting them to the traffic noiees fzom both the R-1 and the propoaed R-2 deve:opmenta. (See Reeolution Book) . ~ ~ ~,, ` ,~ ,. ' r ,.r ~ ~ i~ ~ ~ •-i : -ry' t a ~ Q _. . ~ , •._a+ _ ~. ' _ _ x a ~ .r. ~ ' '^. ~.~ . ~ . . . . ~ . . . .~ ~ ',~.. ., ; ' ' , ~- . .. ~ ~ ~~ '~~ p ~'y ~ ... , . . . . . . MII7UTES, CITY PLANNIN6 COPIl~fISSION, Jcne 2, 1970 5166 ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7~ t e v .. . . - , . ... . . . . . . ; - ~.. ~ T•~ ~ RECLASSIFICATION ' On roll'call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following ; ~~ N0. 69 7d-60 voCe: ; • ..' , ~ „~~:~ ~ " , ` ' ~ ~ VARIe1.~CE N0, 2178 AYES: COD4lISSIONERS: Allred Farano Gauer Ka ~ ~ . ywood, Seysour, +~"{~ ~ > ' (Continued) ` :Rowland. , ~.~ ~~ C N0~5: • ~ COMMISSIONERS: . Herbst. ~ "j-~'`~ ` • , . ABSENTr. COPffiI~SIONERS: None. ~ : ~' ,K~-~ -~; , ; . . m ' "~ ~ Com i ssioner Herbst, in voting "no", stated that he felt because of the-.topography of ~ ' °~h "~ ~ Riveidale A~4nue.it would be difficulE:.to develop subject property for R-l; that the ~ ~:' ~ proposed loca tion'of Che`new street would afford the single-family homeowners a better '" seperation, provided that a wall and landscaping were provided on tHe slope, Ehan the ~' •,possibility:of apartments immediately abutting.Che single-family homes. ~` ~ ` RECLASSIFICATION .- PUBLIC:HEARING. CLARENCE WAGNER, 822 South Sunkist Street Anaheim ~ i~ ;~ _ , , N0, 69 70-b1 California, Owner; G~ORGE L,;ARGYROS,.17291 Irvine Boulevard, St. 107, ' , 5'~ ` Tustin, Calif~rnia, Agent; property described as: A rectangularly ~ VA I w R ANCE N0. 2179 shaped parcel of land conai.sting of approximately 9.5 acres, having ;. a fronCage.of approximately 660 feet on the north side of Ball Road, `;s ' , having a maximum 3epth of approximately 620 feet, and being loceted approximaeely 660 feet west of the centerline of Sunkist Street. Pro ert p y presently '*: classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. ~: ~ REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED FLOOR AREA, (2) MINIMUM RLQUIRED ~i~ 4p~ BUILDING.SETBACK, (3) MINIMUM DISTANCE BEIWEEN BUILDINGS, AND ~ (4).MINIMUM,REQUIRED CGVERED PARKING SPACES, TO ESTABLISH A . .r 288-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. ~ ~~r : . .~ .. .. .; . ` ~: ~ ~ '3a}; .?oning Supervisor Charles RoberEs reviewed the location of subject.property, uses estab- : 1,: h d c rz; s e .in: loae proximity, pending annexation for subject proparty, and the pre-annexation ` r' zoning request by.the petitioner to eatablish a 288-unit, multiple-family residential dev elo cient; that th ar . "` , p e.p king was provided,3~ediaCely adjacent to a single-family sub- ,L: division to,;the north - therefore, no two-story development was propoaed adjacent to if"~ these homea; that;the petitioner was requesting 25%, or 72 units, of the total units to '.~ ' '° be:efficiency (bachelor) type units having 450 square feet each; that the petitioner was , {" also_proposing 24 of the parking spaces,with-only roofs, thus 12 of the required carports ' N, did not ha ve storage cabinets as required by Code; that the petitioner had submitted revised.plens which eliminated the requested waiver of the building ~etback and had with- drawn this waiver;:thaE the petiEioner was proposing only an 11-foot separation between ` the rear of`some of the epartments and carports, whereas Code would require 15 feet - however, since this waiver had been granted in the pasC, and given the pro oaed p patio ''~ treatment, the waiver would not seem to be a substantial deviation from Code; and that r` the petitioner had'indicated the ossibilit that the p y project woul>d be deveioped in two ~~ phases, in whicl: case a parcel map would be required indicating each phase being L•otally ~, , independent in terms of parking, circulation, etc. Mr. Ga=ed Smith, architect for the ~roposed development, appeared before the Co~nission " and presented a colored rendering of the propoaed development, indicating where covered perking was proposed as set.forth in the Repcrt to the Co~nission and noting that subject property had multiple-family zonirig on three sides; ti~at a 44~ coverage was proposed; that only.l2 of the units were prof~osed within 12 feet of the carports; and that Che ~ ll feet between the rear of the apartmenCs arid carports was proposed to be used for a landscaped area and nc1: as_patios, as indicaCed by Mr., Roberts. Mr. Smith then r.eviewed the p=oposal of only roofed'parking, stating this was a plan which j tl~ey felt would be more desirnble from an architectural viewpoinC than providing reE;ular ' ~ c:arports, and that they would agree Co construction of a 6-foot masonr , wall where car- f . ports did not abut l:he north.property line. ~ Commissioner A11red inquired whether ur not provisiona were being made for storage eTse- f wliere on the site for those apartments no[ having storage cabinets in the carports. ~ ~ ~ Mi. SmiCh replied in the affirmative, noting that.a lar e room wculd be 8 provided for large i items to be stored, while storage of small iCems would be located near the apartments. I No one'appeared in oppoaition to subject petitions. I THE HEARTNG WAS CLOSED. ~ The Commission, in reviewing the plans and the Report to the Commiasion, inquired whether ~ ; the petitioner intended to construct this project in two phases; whereupon Mr. Smith ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~:•:.-"~T _ r;. ., ~; _ Q `' ~ MINUTES;"CITY PLANNING COZAtISSION, June 2,-i970 ' S167 RECIASSIFICATION - replieci;that in all probability this would be done in two phasea, N0.-69-70-61 and it~was their intent to.comply,with the reco~endations of the `~~ ` staff~regarding_the-parcel~map and circulation access in the interim. VARIANCE 'N0. 2179: (Continued). Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No; pC70-86 and moved for its _ paesage'and edoptioa to recommend to"the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 69-70-61 be approved, aubject to conditions. - (See Resolution Book) ' On roll call'the foregoing reaolution:was passed by the following vote: AYES: COPfffISSIONERS; Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbat, Raywood, Seymour, Rowland. NOES:;. COrffiiSSIONERS: :None. 'ABSENT: .CO1~AfISSICNERS: None. Co~isaioner Herbat.offered Resolution No. PC70-87 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Veriance No. 2179, in part, deleting waiver of the minimum required building setback aince the petitiouer withdrew it, and aubject to cunditions, together wlth the.atipulation by the peEitioner that in the event subject property were developed in t~to phases, vehicular circulatioa would be provided. (See Resolution Book) Oa roll call the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote: AYES: CODAfISSIONERS: Allred," Farano, Gauer, Aerbat, Kaywood, Seymour, Rowland. NOES: CO1~AfISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: C01~4IISSIONERS: None. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. ALANSON R. AND HAZEL M. LOUD, P. 0. 3ax 2039, Pomona, N0. 69-70-50 Cali#ornia„ Owners; STATE-WIDE INVESTORS, INC., 443 East Wardlow Road, Long Beach, Califomia,'Agent; property deacribed as: Portion A- VARIANCE>:10. 2171 A rectangularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.7 acrea, having a fronEage of approximately 130 feet on the south eide of Lincoln Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 595 feet, and lieing,located approximately 280 feet west of the centerllne of Stinson Street; and Portlon-B:- A.rectangularly ahaped parcel of lsnd coweieting of approxi~..Ately 1.'8 acrea, having a,frontage of approximately 132 feet on the.south side of Li~n.oln Av.enue, having a maximum depth'of approximately 601 feet, and beimg located approximately 420 feet weet.of Ehe centerline of Stinaon Street aad being contiguous to th~e westerly boundary of Portion A; and further deacribed as 2704 Weat Lincoln Avenue. Prop~arty presentiy classi- Hed C-1, GENERAL COI~RCIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENT'lAL, ZONE (PORTIONS A AND B)~ REQUESTED VATiIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMi1M REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK AND (2) ~RIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDEN'fIAL USE, TO ESTABLISR A 50-t1NIT APARTM4~NT GOMPLE7C (PORTION A ONLY). 2oniag Supervieor Charles Roberta reviewed for the Co~iseion the location of aubject property, usee establiahed in close proximity, ?revious zoning action reclassifying aubject property to the C-1 Zone, and the proposal to establiah a 50-unit apartment complex on Portioa A; that Portion B was an easement for the Southern Califoraia>Edison Company high teneion wirns and, for all practical purpoaes, was undevelopable<for any structuraa purposes. Mr. Roberte, in rea:eving the proposal, noted that the 35-foot buildinp setback vas being complied with; that acceas vae proposed through a 20-foot wide, paved drivevay along the eaeterly perimeter of the property; that the oae-story height limitstion vithin 150 feet of the R-1 homed to the south, acroas the Flood Con~trol channel, Was propoaed - hoWever, waiver from the R-A Zone to.the east and vest was requested; that plans indicated 0 to 5-foot setbacks £rom the weet property line, whereas Code required 10 feet; aad aince Portion.B vas eacumbered by the Edison easement, it vould aeem inconceivable that over half of the:property would be developed +with lexn and laadscaping - therEfore, the Co~isaion might vish to determine whetl~er or not more specific plans for development or maiatenance of Portion B were anticipaied. Furthermore, aince the General Plan pro- jectad subject property for higk~tay-relsted sommercial use, the moat important considera- tion was Whether or not commercial uaee were appropriate aince many requeste had been received requesting reclaeaification of the property from C-1 to R-3 on Lincoln Avenue, eapecially in the West Aaaheim erea - thua the Co~iaeion might vish to ~lirect the staff to atudy the entire area on both sidee of Lincoln Avenue from Brookhurst Street to the westerly city limits for specific reco~endr,tions ae to land uae, Mr. Ray Eeneas, 443 Eaet Wardlow Road, Long Beach, representiag the agent for the peti- tioner, appeared before the Commisaioa and reviewed the staff's findings, noting that `~ "" ~~~'+~~.~4 ~''~j'~e'~^`~Rj ~'~~M e~~'~p ~~~ ~ ~ ~S~ yyro ~ ~ ~ ~~ '~1 K~ t~ ! T S C ~ 4 1 l 1 r ~ ~'~ ' ~ ~~.'~'f .t~'„ f e-1. h'1 ~+~' '` p -h' ,"r '! 1 - s . r ~ _, fk '. 4 ~ 2 5~~. K"'~v~'~ . ~i .., . j i~ f ~ „~H^'t p_ ~ xt f~ y t' 3Y. - `3 F~. !'~ y P y~ ..jw,yJ k~T ~.y'~L j?J q.49 ~u+~ ? 1f L t 1 '~ ! Y`_~ ~ :~ ~ ~ r~ ~~ $ ~~ 1 ' . ._ : , l ~ - T..a' ~ M - ~ f ~ ~~ I • ~ ., ..1, j. .~. ~+ . V hr„' .1~ ry.. ~t- 4l~ s4~ a-,. • ~...~c~' ~~A. ~x ,t~ ~ rR s"~-j t a + ..`'.S c~:i. -~+~~ _ .. ~ . ~ ~ ~ . . . ~ ~ •~ ~ : MINUTES, CITY:PLANNTNG CONAIISSION, June 2, 1970 5168 RECLASSIFICATION` - Finding No. 9- fhe open planting area - would be located under the . N0. 69-70-50 " Edison easement, and it was their plan to provide for the side yard. ' in accordance.with the'Commission's recommendation; that there was VARIANCE N0. 2171 only a 1-foot seperation of Portions A and B, not the 4 feet as set (Continued) forth by the°staff; that it was their intent to establiah the side = yard in the easement area on Portion B, and then, in response to ~ Co~ission queationing, stated that in discussing this easement with the Edison Company:they were advised that the easement could be used for recreational purposes only so,long as no structures were developed under the easement. Chairman Ruwland then noted that if subject petition were approved in part, a condition of.approval should be a-letter submitted from,the Edison Company whirh indicated their release of the easement for landscaping,purposes. Mr. Heneas then voiced opposit3on to Condition No. 9 wherein a 6-foot masonry wall was required for both the.south.and east vroperty lines, and that althouqh they were in agreementwith thewall on the•south property line; there seemed-to be no reason for r•equesting the ~ wall on the east property line since, in all probsbility, that property would develop for other than single-family residential usea - therefore, they would like to bond for the wall along the east until such time as said property to the east was developed. ~ No one appeared ia oppoaition to subject petitions. THE HFARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Seymour noted that the proposed developme~c-t appeared to be one of the least ?r~~ deairable plana, and even though he was aot an ar~c~hi~te~ct, this was readily visi~le, and ` aince the developer had considerable open space, i~t,appeared that redesign of the projecty, , ;i~ uaing more of the open spece of the easement, would Ib~ deairable so as to have acceas from '"''~~ the property to the west, and then inquired of the dg~nt whether or not this thought had been considered in their drawinga of the plana. Mr. Heneas adviaed the Commiasion that they had origiaglly thought of having more open °;;; apace, but the Edieon Company had advised them the area would be available for recreation ~ purposes until auch time as they desired to change their lines, and becauae of the limiting ?.'~ nature of the Ediaon easement, they did not vant to develop an expensive recreational area which could be torn do~m just by a thirty-day notice. Hovever, they did'state there were -'~~ no immediate or foreseeable plans for changes to the posier linea, but they would want the ~ right to exerciae this in any event. Co~issioner Seymour then noted that the building coul~i be flopped around, having access '~ from and facing the west and stilY not construct any permanent structur~s in the easement; ~ that since there were two-bedroom units proposed, in i~ll likelihood, theze would be "~:'1 childrRn who would need reczeational space. ~ Mr. Hen2as replied that it was their intent to make this an adult development - this being ~ besed upon the fect that Lincoln Avenue would discourage parenta having childrea from `~ ~ reeid;ing there. - ,9 ~ Co~iseioner Gauer inquired whose responsibility it would be to maintain the landscaping '-; atrip on Portion B. ;~ , Mr. Heneas replied that after the Commission determined the amount of area needed for the ~ ..j eide yard requirement, ae well as landacaping area, they would also landscape an additional ' portion, and mana,gement of the apartment development would ma3ntain this iandscaping - ~'`,~ however, there would not be very heavy landscaping in the vicinity of the poles since " the Edison Company's heavy equipment trucks would have to come in to wash the lines, and `~ aince theae trutks could tear up the landecaping, expensive landacaping was not antici- ' j pated - therefore, it was planned to have a rock and grass effect which had low mainten- -,;~ ance but would still provide the aeathetic value of the propertg. ~ The. Co~iasion inquired whether or not an agreement had been reeched between the agent for I .i the petitioner and the Edison Ccmpany as ta the exact uae of this easeq~eat for recreatioa ~ ~ purpoaes, and untf.l some written agreement was submitted, the Co~ission would suggest ~ that subject petitions be cotr,tinued, directing the petitionar to rede~sign the developmeat ~ 7 incorporatiag the Commidsi?n`s suggeations. One of the basic reasons the Co~ission was ~ hesitant in approving'this rype of developmeat, considering tt-e £ar.t that the property ; ~ had a 600-foot depthh waa the fact that several years ago the Co~ission had moved fonrard i in the type of developmeat they would approve, and approval of this development would be ~ ; regreeaing, aince thie gave the appearance of a aemi-slum. ! I ; Mr. Heneas replied that he had attempted to develop the property - however, because of i the narrownesa and the depth of 600 feet, it was more difficult since they were somewhat ~---~ limited in what could be developed; that they were not desirous of developing this project i. . . r..}' Z ,~',¢'.,c -eY"'4 "c-s- pyC' r~w'{,c. `}y~` f ~ : ~ t .r ~ {{.Cis" ~-~ %~ . ,~ i ~ , c t .: r l~ ' ~.~. r7~ .~ ~ t 7i r ~ .F i }. l?d ~-. ~+.y„~ r~ ,J " s. - '~ .;,t ...1+~".. J.,~.~e s i' .e r :~?r~ 'Liii`,. ~ti 4 ~.4UYYi > ,~ ._, . . . - - - ~ . . . _ . ;r^, . ,... ~ .~ ~~ ... ~ . ~ ~ . . . ~ L~ MINDTES, CITY PLANNING CONASISSION, June 2, 1970 5169 RECLASSIFICATION -:with~a cement drive along the weat property line on which the heavy N0. 69-70-50 trucka would.drive aince heavy trucks would break down the driveway in a short time; that the driveway to the parking area was from the VARIANCE N0. 2171 east since it;was felt parking would be lost if acceas were proposed -(Continued) along the weaE property-line; and that it was their intent to have patios for the lower level of.the ts~o-story apartments. The Co~ission inquired as to the diatence of:.the polea from the groperty line.;, to which Mr. Aeneas replied that?the outer aideavof.the polea Were 12 feet from the property line. The Co~issioa then inquired as to the reason the petitioner seemed to be reluctant to reversing the propoaed ;plan-aince'the easement wae for [he maintenance of lines, it would appear the trucks wouYd stay within the pole line. Mr. Heneas atated that the trucks could take access from either side of the poles and there wae always the posaibility of replacement or the addition of poles. The Commisaion noted that the petitioner ahould redesign the propasal, providing for open area and landecaping in the easement since the eloseat the Edison Company would place the poles would be between the existing poles aince theae polea had to remain a minimum dietance.from the property line for safety purposea, and if the petitioner owned the underlying £ee in title of the easement, the propoaed development could b~e r~designad with conaiderably more lendacaping, preaenting a more attractive appearance than the stereotype, barracka appearance tt now had. Mr. Heneas noted that he had`:aBked tKe•~Ed~son.•Company if he couid build a miniature golf couree under the easemenC; hovever, theq'woti'tld not perait thia type of development under the easement. Commiasioner A1Tied offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petitions for Reclaesification No. 69-70-50 and Variance No. 2171 to the meeting of June 29, 1970, td allw time for the petitioner to aubmit reviaed plans, providing for a more attractive deaign utilizing the easement for more landacaping and recreation area, and for the sub- miaeion of a letter from the Edison Company.granting release for the use of the e~sement for recreational purposes. Commiasioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS ' - Chairman Rowland moved for a ten-minute recess. Co~isaioner Herbst eeconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting receased at 8:30 P.M. RECONVENE - Chairman Rwland reconvened the meeting at 8;40 P.M., all Commiesioners being presenC. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HFARING. SHIGETO FUKUDA, 14952 Miraloma Avenue, Anaheim, PERMIT N0, 1178 California, Owner; SHAt~AlA AND MOISEVE ENGINEERING, INC „ 2229 fiast Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permisaion to ESTABLISH A FACILITY FOR AUTOMOBILE AND TRUCR OVERHAULING, PAINTING, AND MECHANICAL AND BODY AND FENDER REPAIR, WIT$ WAIVER OF REQUIRED SCRBEN WALL on psoperty described as: An irregularly ahaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2 acree, having a frontage of approximately 30 feet on the yese aide of Miller Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 615 feet and being located approximately 775 feet north of the centarline of Miraloma Avenue. Property presently clasaified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Zoning Supervisor Charle~ Roberta reviewed the location of subject property, uses estab- ?ished in close proximity, existing soning on the property, and the proposal to establish en automobile-truck overhaul, painting and mechanical and body and fender repair facility ••ith waiver of the 6-foot masonry wall required for screening outdoor usea. Mr, Roberts also noted that the petitioner wae proposing to construct a 6400-square foot truck garage on the rear 1.5 acres, having ~ecesa over a 30-foot wide drive along the eouthnrly boundary of the property; that 14 parkiag stalls for automobiles Were proposed, with an additional 25 parking atalis for other vehicles; that gas pumps Were propoaed, and the petitioner wae propo~ing a chainlink fence in lieu of the required 6-foot mesonry wall. Therefore, the Commiaeion would have to determine whether the prop~sed ~±aP was appropriate for the area and whether therR was juatification for waiver of the wall. Furthermorn, unlese the petitioaer could sh~^w a hardahip inherent vith the property, waivnr of the wall would not aeem to be juetified - ho~tever, if the Comnisaion determined that the paiver should be granted, then aome conaideration ahould be given to some other screaning device, ~uch as denee landscaping, aimilar to that required of the trucking firm at Coronado and Blue Gum Streeta. ~;~'` ,f ~ t t "~ = .t _ r - ~' ( .. _ ... ..,., _ _ ~ "~ . ~ °'°~~ A~5 k '4[''~ C F ~ *shy~._14~'r~'~ "~N'~ 3 ~~ ~~ ~ yr~ 4~~:. ~ ~ N:~~ ~ 9~ ~,r M / '~ L r ~i+ ~ , - ~y~ - , c F :~2? , _ ; ? . . . ,a9 . . . . . .. . ~ ~ . . . 1 ] MIN[iTLS, CITY PLANNING COZIliISSION, June 2, 1970 ~~ 5170 CONID~TI~NAL USE - Mr. Harold Harvey,:repreaenting the owner of the property and since PERMIT N0. 1178 the property was in eacrow, pending purchase, he was also represent- (Coatinued) ing the prospective purchaser, Lorenz and Harvey, :uote@+t~tt~.IWueyt'.:.•. opereted a natiom~ide truck leasing firm.- leasing to other trans- portation companiea fully maintained trucks; ;that they were not the typical trucking company since they had no authority to heul goods under their own name on.aay highway in:the State of Califurnia or in the Uaited States since they were in the leasing business.only; that they provided the vehicle and the driver; that their trucks presently were leased by "Little Audrey", a transportation company located in Fremont, Nebrasks, authorized both in California and throughout the Unit~d States; that they presently hauled principally frozen products and produce, and the trucks were refrigerated; that there itould be no warehousing.of products on this property aince the property would be uaed as a terminal only, and the trucks would be in Califoraia approximately 67. to 8~ of the time; that it would be an uuco~on occurrence if all of the vehicles at any given period of time would be located in Anaheim since they generally turned around and vent east the same day they arrived; that at any given time a maximv~ of eight vehicles would be bn the premises, some for overhaul and repair; that although the staff indicated gas pumps on the property, these should have been indicated as dieael pumps servicing their own trucks and no other gas would be dispensed even for their own vehicles; that basically there would be no outdoor uaee on the property or parking of vehicles since they did not intend to repair the trucka outaide but would be done in the building itself. The Co~isaion inquired whether or not this could be accepted as a stipulation of the petitioner, to Which Aeaiatant City Attorney Joha Dawson concurred. Mr. Haxvey then aoted that there might be a feat minor adjuatment repairs outdoors, such as could be done with a scree~ttdriver, but removaZ of and repair of the motors would be done in the building; that a truck-washing facility would be located in one of the bays in the building, thus generating no outdoor use except for parking, and they would be in.7r,o aerioua trouble if all the trucks were parked on this facility; that they had one and one-half times the number of parking spacea required; and that at the present time they had sizteen trucka and were using 1.66 acres - hot~ever, if a truck strike did take place, there wee apace available for 100 trucke to be stored. Mr. Hervey then noted that the reason for requesting waiver of the mesonry wall was becauae the facility would be located approximately 300 feet from the street and the building approximately 440 feet from the street, and until the frontage portion was developed, they would prefer other than a masonry wall for acreeaing purpoaes, such as a higher chainlink fence on all but the accesa road to Miller Street; that they had purchased the 4.45-acre parcel becauee they were unable to find the site parcel to fit their neede without having to wait a year - therefore, they planned to file a parcel map aad perhaps aell the balance of the property, although at the preaeat time there were no plane of development for the frontage portion s3nce their clients were located in the eaet, but he would asaure the Commisaion that the property would be developed in accordance with the aite developmenc atandarde of the M-1 Zone. The Commieeion then inquired if the petitioaer were permitted to conatruct a chainlink feace, ~;ould he intend to landecape the fence ar~ea so that the truck atorage a~rea could be hidden from view. Mr. Harvey replied that this could 'oe done; however, they were concerned wiLh the portion facing Miller Street - if large trees were planted end the trucks brushed againat these treea, they could be permeneatly demaged. The Commiaeion noted that the Commiasion was interested in plantinga that would hide the vehicles, not neceasarily juat large trees. Mr. Harvey replied that they could provide aomething much more aeathetically aeceptable since they were aeethotically minded, but they believed the ecology of an area was important, and it wae their desire to make thia as attractive ae possible. The Cort~iesioa then noted they were also aesthetically mind~d aince there were many high- quality iaduatrial developmenta in the Northeast Induetrial Area; that the Co~isaion vas not too coaceraed vith the screening of the retarding basin - however, they were con- cerned with the portione to xhe north and south property linea which should be consiatent with the requirementa impoaed on other industrial developments in this area. Therefore, it might be poeeible for the petitioner to erect a masonry vall on the north and south property lines, with landacaping for the eaet and vest property lines. Mr. Harvey replied that to conatruct a 6-foot masonry wall along the north property line would have some limited value because of the height of the wall and due to the fact that the land wae 2 to 4 feet higher than their pzoperty, and the trucking terminal was pro- poeed along ~he southerly end of the property; that there was a drainage basiu at the southWest portioa of the psoperty, and in order to provide for drainage of thia property, ... ~a .. :... ~~. :.:~ .. , z ~: . . ~'..Ri ~~~~ . r . ,, . -. .. . ' _ ~ t 1 iS4 1 V.~ 4 '.} t \ '. " . _ ` .~ / ' . . ~ .~ . ... . .. , . ~ MINUTES, ~ITY P~AN~TING CO1~AfISSY~1Pt, Juae ~, 197Q 5171 V CONDITIONAL US~ ~- it was~mecess~ry tk-at this area .iemain open for assimilation of PERMIT N0. 117,6 th~ water iato .the sand~+ area without going into other areas. (Continued) Mf. Hervey then revie~ied the 8:eneral topography and composition of the p~oper.ties to the~aorth, aeuth, east and weat, noting that they hed consu3ted ~rith ~he i~o~l ,tesrin~;;fixw ~egarding C4e p:oper composition for paving the area and had been iaformed~t~i~t a 6-inch bbse o£ heavy material, together with 4 inches of ssphalt, vauid be needei~. Commissioner Herbst ao~s~d t~at r~srrognising the fect that aubject property was an industrial piece of property aad. truck's had e place in indastry aad had to have a place to atay, and since these vehicle,s waiu~,d be at a height of 13 feet, he could see no reason for requiring the 6-foot maeonry wall - however, if a chainlink fence with proper landacaping, auch as required,~f the trucking firm on Blue Gum Straet, were required, this woiald create no debris but amuld add to the aeathetic appearance, and the City, from experience with other trucking fttme, noted trucks had a habit of being rather measy - therefore, it was important to have trees which grew to at least a 15-foot height planted in this area to break up the undeairable appearance of trucka that would be parked in this area. Mr. Harvey replied that the appearance of the trucks could not be coneidered messy aince they vere painted white, and they had a reputation for having the best looking vehicles operating in the.United States since the washing faciliEies were maintained pr3marily ta retain the cleanlinesa of the trucks, and since they were hauling produce, meats and pharmaceuticals, it wae important these trucks have a sanitary looking appearance. FurthermorP, they would be very happy to provid~ landscaping in this general area, and he was sure they could provide something that would sccomplish the intent of the Commisaion to acreen from view the etorage of theae facilities. Mr. Roberta then noted that from cou~ents made by Commissioners Allred, Seymour, and Herbst perhapa the Commisaion wonld prefer to have as a condition of approval the condition attached to the TranServ operation, namely~ 10-gallon Canary Island Pines planted in rows and 5-gallon•Latif811a Acacia at 10-foot intervals to be planted withiu a 6-foot landscaped ar~ea, which would iaclude irrigation facilities, said landecaping having been reco~ended by the Parkway Piaiatenance Superintendent. Mr. Harvay, in response to Commieaion questioning, atated they had aixteen trucks and aerved one cuetomer; thereupon Commiaxioner Farano noted that thia was a maintenance operation. Mr. Harvey noted that they had a aimilar operation in Norwalk but it vas not their intent to relocate thi~i plant in Anaheim. The Commiaeion then inquired as to where the drivera would stay when they were in the city; would there be diepatching facilities; would there be an area for bunlchouses; and did their future plans include providing parking for the drivers' sutomobilRe while they were out on the road, or was aome other mode of transportation propoaed. Mr. Harvey replied that~it was not their intent to houee any of the drivera on the premises; that all the truck drivera were in the Loa Angeles area, and in all likelihood their wives would bring them to the facility and pick them up on thefr return - however, for the few of the truck drfvers who were from other atatee, they would be required to provide their own method of transportation and abode; and that they were fully aware of the arrival of any of their facilitiee and drivera vithin forty-eight hours of arriving time. Commiesioner Farano expreaeed concern over the lack of knowledge as to the ultimate development of the balance of the property although it was not under coneideration under thia conditional uae permit and inquired whether or not the petitioner planned to increase this facility aince this was a very heavy trucking operatioa, and this area might not be the proper area for such a heavy trucking operation. Mr. Harvey replied that at the time they acquired the property, they had thought they would need the entire parcel, but aince the plans of development were draxa, it was found they did not need thie.large a parcel, and it was not their intent at this time to do anything with the other portion - therefore, he could not offer any anewer to the Commiaeion'e queation. ~~:~~ Mrs. J. L. Sullivan, 1373 Miller Street, appeared before the Commiasioa in opposition . j and noted that since ahe was in the minority ahe had a feW co~enta to make on statements i made;that ahe had reeided at thia addreas for a number of yeara and bordered aubject property on the west; that no mention was made of the number af reaidents residing in I this particular area; that ahe hed an easement runniag on the nurtherly section of subject~ property, going out to Miller Street, and she was concemed that she would be landlocked; ~~ -, ;,~. ~ 1 ~ K ~ .. b M ~Y -~ . . . .. . . . ' ' . r . ~ . : . . . . \} ... ~ - ~~.~ . ~. . .. . . .' . Q . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CONAfISSION, June 2, 1970 ;~ ~ .t . -b.,.~ :. + ~:.'„ ' - N.. ~ ~ ~ 't 5172 CONDITIONAL USE - that no mention was made of the fact that there were•ten very old PERMIT N0. 1178 residents in the County in this general area long before industrial (Continued) buildings came into this area and long before any industries came to Anaheim - therefore, she would suggest that Mr. Harvey purchase her property or erect the wall; that she expected to live on her property for some time, until the children grew up; and that since they had a number of horses, the.wall would seem to be imperative - however, the suggestion to bond for the 'wall seemed.somewhat unreasonable since Mr. Harvey was eoncerned with the general appear- aace af .the area at the present time. Furthermore, from her understanding, all of the residents in this area intended ta reside here for a n~ber of years; that the property immediately abutting her property was part of a flood control basin; that the plans, as she had reviewed them, did not Yndicate any landscaping - however, it was her opinion this was important in order that the trucks and trash could be hidden from view of the resideata in close proximity. Commissioner Herbst expresaed the opinion that he had thought the flood control proptrty was adjacent to subject property, and aince it was not, then adequate masonry wall and screening adjacent to the propeity to the west was imporkant. :3ra. Sullivan expressed surprise that the property owner to the south was not present , aince they grew very attractive flowers for their own benefit, and any undesirable effects from the proposed use should be hidden from view. Mr. Harvey, in rebuttal, noted that in order there might be no misunderatanding, the Sullivan driveway was adjacent to their property; that the Sullivan property was at a different height, and the slope was from northwest to southweat and some grading would have to be done in order to complete development of subject property - this could lower their property line on one aide; that the opposition had indicated the trucks could roll all over the place - however, the trucks would be entesing only through one driveway, and since the Co~isaion was auggesting a c'hainlink fence with landscaping, this would bar the trucks from entering other properties and would also keep the Sullivan horses from running onto the trucking company property. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Diacuaeion was held regarding the accesa easement for Mrs. Sullivan; whereupon Chairman Rowland noted that the City did not police easements aince theae were private and went with the land - therefore, the property would never be landlocked. Commisaioner Allred offered Reaolutioa No. PC70-88 and moved for i.ts passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 1178, waiving the required 6-foot masonry wall screen- ing on the basis that similar operationa were permitted to develop with a 6-foot high, chainlink fence with dense landacaping which would grow to a greater height than 6 feet, thereby praviding adequate screening of the propoaed outdoar use and parked trucka, and aubject to conditiona, requiring that a 6-foot chainlink fence be constructed along the north, east, south and west property lines except that eaid fence not be required along the access drive to subject property; that a miaimum 6-foot wide planter area vith adequate irrigation facilitiea be provided for the full distance of the west property line, 221 feet on the north property, the northerly 315!' feet of the easterly property line, and the weaterly 221 feet of the south property line, said planter area to be planted with 5-gallon Acacia Latifolia planted on 10-foot centers and 15-gallon Canary Island Pines planted between the Acacia shrubs on 30-foot centers. Furthermore, that eaid landacaping ehall be subject to approval of the Parkway Maintenance Superintendent and permanently maintained, (See Reeolution Book) On roll call the foregoiag resolution was pasaed by the following vote: AYES: COZIliISSIONERS: Allr~d, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Roxland. NOES: COrIlSISSIONERS: Seyonour. ABSENT: COhQiISSIONERS: None. CONDITIONAL US~ - PUBLIC HFARING. CENTRAL ASSEMBLY OF GOD, ERNEST L. FRIEND, PASTOR- PERMIT N0. 1180 PRESIDENT, 1026 South East Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; req~esting permission to ESTABLISH A PRE-SCHOOL NURSERY AND F DAf SCHOOL ON AN EXISTING CHURCH SITE, WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED SIDE YARD AND REAR YARD SET&1CK on property described as; An irregularly ahaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.5 acres, having a frontage of approximately 174 feet on the east eide of 8aet Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 380 feet, and being located approximat~,ly~ 132 feet north of the centeriine of Turin Avenue, and further described as 1026 Sauth East Street. Property preaently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. '. ., >` . . 9..~ ~ tti; y ..~?P ~ . "~ 'T '}~~<~~5~ ~ .~.~~5 "~~~ ~i.~~~~~r~'u r ~C' ,,~,-~-.~ 'a' !'a '~°~~t ~ t .. ` , ~. .~-_ ~ . y r~~ .. r- ?tl-~. r~~~ ~ ,~„a~~ ~ ~k c,~'}~'~~.~ . ~ k y. ~~ - ~h r r 1 :. 1 r r ~~r _ . };, n~ -~r c..~ ~ ~~,.,1~(~ , ~ • ' ~ti~ r ~;N{sk~ht~~~~¢r.''.F~x.J'~..~'ti'kkn.~.~~~~.L1~4~~•~y,~k. a~ qa~'. K .;,',vT.t.Y_.fX,"W ar.._ ~.. , r. ~. ..,r, 2 ~ 5 ' _ e~ \ 'lFe'"~.~y. ~. . ~ :. ~ r_.r .. .. ~. ., . ~. ~: ' . ~ : t ~. - . _ . , ,. .... . _ ., . : .~.~ .., ~ ~~. ... ,... ..:.-,. . , , ,.~ . . . . .. .. . ~ . . : .:'.. ~ .:. . . , . . : .' . . . . ~.~' '~~ ~:~~ .. ~ ' ,~ ~ ~ . .. ' ~~ ~ " . MINUTES,_CITY PLANNING~.COr4fISSION, June 2, 1970 5173 ~ CONDITIONAL;USE - Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts revtewed the location of aubject <~PERMIT NO.:r1180 property,-uses establisHed in 'close proximity, and the request to (Continued) establish a pre-school;nurseiy in tNe church facility, together with an addition to:be-used; as a boys' shop:far'the church's youth program, - _' having a'9-foot higfi`structure.proposed.5 feet from the property line, whereas Code would require an 18-foot`seEback from the east property line end a 10-foot ~.setback from the'north properfy line: Mr. Roberts,noted that since there was a considerable amount o£ vacant land:as part of the church property, there would seem to'be,no.reason for not conforming with the Code setback requirements. Furthermore, tf the building wex~e conetructed at.the proposed location,.the Fire Department liad iadicated that an on-si~e,£i;e hydrant would be necessary due fo the extreme depth of the location of the buildfng from the front property line, and that since the.expense of such am.inatailetion was cous3dera6Te, the petitioner might wish to re- locate the;proposed building: _ Mr.,Goidon,:Breaton, 807 West Maxzim Avenue, Pallsrton, designer of the proposed building, appeared before the,Commission and indicated t,he basic reason for locating the building at the rear~of the'property wae because it was intended in the future to use this building for:a day. care school, and it wes felt a 2U-fooC space b'etween the building and the wall to,the east'wae not'deair,sble for the protectfon of the ehildren, and that the church was requeating permission to build this achool now, even tiaough there were no funds available at this time: Chairman Rowland'inquired whether.or not the petitioner ~,ras .awar~e o._f the c~oat ef insta~la- tion:of a fire hydrant wfiich, in his eatima[ion, would be the cost of the constzuction cf the.building. Mr. Preston noted that he was unaware of the fact that a fire hydrant would be needed and inquired whether the 15 :feet would mak~ that„much difference. Comomisaloner Gauer noted that children would be under careful supervision in ~a day care nu;sery, from his observation of a similar schoo2 near his hame, and thus it would make little difference as.to the:open areas. The:Commission requeated that Mr. Roberts give some et~tiatics an the r.eason for the fire hydrant.: Mr. Roberts replied that plana of the proposed development were reviewed by the Asaistant Fire'Chi'ef at the ICPS&GW meeting a week ago, at which time the fire hydrant requirement was'made; however, if the buildiag were located nearer the atreet or the front, then .he fire hosea would reach from the hydrant in the street. Furthermore, the cost of the water meter alone for the fire hydrant would b~ in the vicinity of $4,000, and the lines them- selves w__ld make this a very suhstsntial inveatment. Commisaioner Hertrst noted that unde~ these circumatancea it would be advisable to continue aubject petition for four weeks to allow time fot reviaion ef plans. Mr. Roland Neuman, 1025 Dove Place, appeared befora the Co~ission in opposition, noting that the entire rear of his nroperty abutted subject property to the east; that he was not desirous of facing a building directly out of his rear window - therefore, he was oppoaed to the locetion of the building within only 5 feet of the east property line as well as the proposed"day care nuraery. _ Reverend L•~nest Friend, Pastor of the church, appeared before the Cou~iasion and noted that the nuraery-pre-school would be located in the existing building - hovever, the new atructure would be for a youth building to serve the Boy Scouts and other youth activities. Mr. Neuman noted that the 20-foot setback required atill would make no difference if the the rear portion were used as a~vlay area. Mr. Roberts noted that Code required a building setback of 2 feet for each foot of height - therefore, waiver was requeated of the 18-foot building aetback to permit a 5-foot building setback. _ Mr. Preston noted that the ts eld their meetings once a week and would be held in the aew building, and that only a one-story building was proposed - however, there wes a possibility that later on thia would be changed to two stories. Co~issioner Herbet offerad a motion to continue conaideration of Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1180 to the meeting of June 29, 1970, to allow time for the petitioner to submit revised plans. Commissloner Kaywood seconded the motioa. MOTION CARRIED. , ._ . ... . . . . . ~ -- , - ~ - , ... ,. . , , >. . , . , ,: , _ ~. .' ~SY ~ ~ ; 1 ' ~ , : , . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO2MSISSION, June 2, i970 5174 F . :, ~ ~~ `~' . . . . :~{'~, • VARIANCE:N0,~2177 - PUBLIC HEARTNG..`:`CHARLES M.: BENGOCHEA, 2582 Seville Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting WAIVER OF THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SIDE t' - YARD SETBACR TO PERMIT AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL ~"+,, ,- STRUCTURE on property described as: A rectangularlq.shaped parcel of land located on the ''' ~southweat-corner.of.5eville Ayenue;and Shakeapeare'Street; having approximate frontages ' `'- ,. of;80 feet on Seville Ayenue and 100:feet on Shakespeere Street,,and further described ~`5' as 2582 Seville Avenue ' Property presently ciasaified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. _ , _ ~'A , 2oning Supervieor Charles Roberts reyiewed Ehe-lflcation of subject property, uses estab- lished in p l n .~;~~; ,;c ose rcx imity,,:a d the;request.to establish a 330-equare`foot`room addition to`come wiEhin.4 feet`of the weat.property,'.line, whereas'Gode would require a 5-foot = ~~ri - setback, :and that the:petitioner.had received the endorsement`-of his adjoining neighbor ~-(~~' to the west, who'would be:most.affecCed.by the granting of said va'riance. : y'~ ; , - The petitioner indicated his presence and availability to anewer queations. ~y:~ ~:~ No one appeared in op~oaition to subjecr• petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Farano,offered Reaolution No. PC70-89 and moved for its passage and adoption o t .grant,Petition for Variance No:`2177, subject to conditiona. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COI~ASISSIONERS: Allred Farano Geuer Herbst Ka Rowland. ' ' ~ 3'wood, Seymour µ>="~ , NOES: CO1~AfISSIONERS: None. ~' _ ABSENT: COI~fISSIONERS; None. ~~- ~'.1 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIQ HFAkING. NICHOLAS DOVALIS, 1624 Chanticleer Road, Anaheim a'J `r , PERMIT N0. 1176. Californie, Owner;-JOHI1 VOGELZANG (TACO BELL), 2424 Moreton Street, ~ Torrance, Celifornia, Agent; prequeating permiesion to ESTABLISH A = WALK-UP RESTAURANT'HAVING'OUTDOOR EATING FACILITIES WITH WAIVER OF l~'MA7CI31UM PERMITTED'N MBER F F - I r+: U O REE STAND NG SIGNS on property deacribed ae: A rectangu- larly ahaped percel of.l.end:having a frontage of approximately 80 feet on th th id . e nor s e of Ba11 Road, having a maxim~ depth"'of approximately 183 feet, and being locatel approxi- m - ately 420 feet east of the centerllne of Magnolia Avenue. Property presently classified 0 1; GENE AL~CO ` - R P4~iERCIAL, ZONE.. Zoning Supervisor Charlea Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, uses eatab- lished i cl ae n o proximiEy, previous zoning action, and the proposal to eatablish a walk- up reataurant.having ouEdoor eaCing facilitiee and waiver of the number of free-standing s ' igns to erect two.free-standing aigne. Mr. Roberta further noted that the propoaed walk-up restaurant Kould aerve both walk-up a nd drive-through patrona, and that redwood tables and benches ~r•re proposed on both a poxch and eating area adjacent to the porch for patrona wiahinE.to conaume the food on th e premiaea, as we1T ae the fact that Code requirements were being me* as to landacape screeaing, setbacks, etc. However, the petitioner propoeed, in addition to a 60-aquare foot free-standing sign, a 9-square foot free-stending sign projecting from the building w ithin 28 feet of said 60-foot sign - therefore, the Co~iasion would have to determine ~ whether or not the uae would b~ appropriate for the area,•whether any adverse cffects could be..impoaed on the-aingle-family homea to aite north, and whether or not there was - sufficient juatification for approving the aiga w~iver. ~ Mr. Nicholas Dovalis, the petitioner, appeared before the Commiseion and noted that two queations needed clarification: the rendering indicated a projecting aign which, in ~ appearance, wae only ~..~' aquare feet because tt was a triangle, and he could not see hov , thi s could be coneidered a free-standing`aign. ~ Cbairman x~land advised the petitioner that ihis was the interpretation of the Sign ~ r ~ O dinance. ~. - Mr. Dovalis then inquired how it was determined that fire hydrants Were needed and who ~ , I would indicate their placement aince other buainesaes eatabliahed in the area were not ~ , requireu to instail fire hydrants. ~ , _ i t Mr. Roberts edviaed the petitioner that ,the Fire Chief would be th- responsible party to I revi~w the plena when a building•permit wae requasted, to datermi~.~ vhether or not one would be requixed - however, if one were requit~d, the cost of a water meter was between $3,800 and $4,000. ~, t ~ Y~ . - _ ' ~~r.vG .,~`i:~ ;"~~,~ ;2;r3+7 _ ~ ~'l6S _ ~nF,4 ~. .. ~'7'. ~.: .. - ~7„~i. ~. r „i': ~ '~ ~, , .~ . . ~ ' . . .~ ~ . . .,. ' '~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING Cqi~Il~1ISSI0N, June 2,~1970. _ , 5175 , CONDITIONAL USE -, Chairman Rowlend noted that if the petitioner were able to tap the PERMIT N0. 1176 water line in the_street,-.then-the cost would be nominal; whereupon (Continued) i Mr. Roberta, s~ated that hew~s not sure of the cost for this type of connection. ; Mr povalis then noted Chis would be a barbecue-ham operation established by the Taao'Bell people. Commissioner:Kaywood inquired whether or not the p~ojecting sign coutd not be relocated ~ and placed on,the facia of the building. Mr. John Vogelzang, egent for the petitioner, appeared ~-afore the Commiseion and noted that the design of the aign was to advertise the fact rhat barbecued foods.were sold, and to piace thia sign as a facia sign would deatroy the aeathetics which they were attempting.t~ attain. Commiaeioner Seymour then noted that since.the City of Anaheim was being inundated with walk-up restauraats, the City would have a;~similar aituation as the service atation problem, a~nd"then inquired whether or not a study had been made as to the feasibility of another walk-up restaurant. Mr. Vogelzang noted that there had never been a Taco Be11 closed down in Anaheim to his ,' knovledge, and this would be a barbecue operation. ~ No one appeared in oppositioa to sub,ject petition. THE HEARING,WAS CLOSED. Comoiasioner Herbst offered Reeolution No. PC70-90 and moved for ita passage and adoption to gran.t PetiEion for Conditional Use Permit No. 1176, in part, denying the requeated waiver to'permit two free-standing aigns, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call C'he faregoing resoLution.was paesed by the following vote: . AYES: CO1~AiISSIONER~u: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kayvood, Seymour, Rowland. NOES: COrAfISSIC~iERSt None. ' ABSENT: COr4tISSIONERS: None.. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING, ALBERT AND KATHI.EEN TROUT, 527 North Dale Avenue PERMIT N0. 1177 and MALF v~Cr ±J' , RED AND ALICE WADMAN, 525 North Dale Avenue, Anaheim, California Owners gAy ,: , ; GRUBER, 1304 South Magnolia Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN EDUCATIONAL FACILITY FOR'THE BLIN ;,,' `=~ D (BRAILLE INSTITUTE) WITH OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE o p ~ n roperty described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of 2and having a frontage of approximately 146 feet on th e i1", e w st aide of Dale Avenue, having a mexiwum depth of approxfinetely 219 feet being located r ;~.~_ , app oximately 245 feet south of the centerline of Creacent Avenue, and further deaczibed as 525 a ~al d 527 n North e Avenue. Property preaently clasaified R-A,.AGRICULTURAL, 20NE. ~ Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of sub ect stab- lished in close proximity, the l ~ e ,'~ proposa to establish clarsarooms and offices for the Braille Institute for the blind in an eacisting reaident!1a1 r st ucture, with the garage being converted'into a crafts clasaroam; that the g~tiCioner va T s proposing to utilize an exiating vaaant lot to the eouth for arkin p 8 Purposes, while the balance of the property would b .`~~ e uaed fo r outdoor recreational purpases; that the petitioner proposed a 5-foot masonry wall 3 feet to the re f h ar o t e ultimate right-of-way of Dale Avenue; and that a 20-square foot aign was proposed to be atta h d c e to the front of the proposed masonry wall. ! Mr. Roberts, in reviewing the evaluation of the pr8posal, noted that the Co~ission would i have,to determiae whether thi + o , s ut. ~ w uld be appropriate and an asset to the general area ~ since the plana indicated a rather intensive complex bein l g p anned for this property in ~ an are.a developed wtth single-family homea, and if 1t vere determined thia u aff c ~ e ae would not t the area , perhapa cansideration might be given to re uiri ry valls and screen landscaping areas t i u ID o as re the reaidential inEegr;lty of the &rea being maintaine6. Furthermore, if the masonry wall for the a e st property line were conaiderad appropriate, then some type of step-down treatment of the wall should b e required to provide sight distance for any traffic entering or leading the parking area or the circular driveway. Mr. Ray Gruber, agent for the petitionera, appeared before the Co,mmisaion and atated that a repreaeatt_ivxs of the Eraill e Inetitute would preaeat arguments in favor of the proposed development. ,; ' i :~ ~ ... . . .~... MTNUTES, CITY PYANNING COMMISSION, June 2, 1970 ~ ~ ~,x y y, ;: ` _ v,; ~ 5176 CONDITIONAL USE - Mrs. Shirley Grove, 1021 Vantage Street, Stanton, appeared before the PERMIT N0. ?177 Commission and in response to Commiesion questioning stated that it (Continued) was planned to have approximately 40 to 50 students at one time since they could never have more than they would be able to serve with classes having ten etudents each; that it was planned to convert the garage into a crafts classroom with approximately 30 atudents; that the students ranged dn ge rom 25 a d u , and clasaes for blind atudeats beloar 18 yEars.of age were handled in ~c~-~.y~~~ Anaheim had a number of adule blind persons who were desirous of learning different types of crafts, aimilar to those which sighted persons knew; that the wall wouid be built to the height required by the Code; that one teacher per classroom was propoaed; that the parking facilities would not be taxed since students would be brought to the facility by bus.or by relatives; and that clasaes would be held from 10:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. and only one session per day~ - The Commiseion, in reviewing the proposed signing, inquired whether or not it was intended to have a 20-square foot aign. Mrs. Grove presented alternate plans for signing buC: stated they would prefer having the block lettering signing on the masonry wall to that of a hanging sign as proposed on the alternate development plan. Furthermore, the basic reason for proposing this facility in a residential area was because older peraons wanted social recreation and not a clasa- room atmoaphere - therefore, a residential eavironment would be more in keeping with their desire$, and since theae were adults there was leas poasibility as to different types of noiaes which would generally emanate from a achool facility having amaller or younger children. Mr.' Andrew Zurick, 519 Nc+rth Dale Avenue, appeared before the Commiasion in opposition and stated that hia prime~ry oppoaition was injecting other than residential uses into this area; that all of tPiese lots were larger than a regular single-family lot, and if eidewalks were required on subject property, this would mean people walking would be walking,near the•street the major portion of the time, and thia could possibly create traffic hazsrds where no sidewalks were developed; that the uea could aet a precedent wherein this reaidential area could develop With other uses,and it was his feeling these lots should be,combined to develop the property for higher and better use without cutting up the area. Furthermore,.the traffic signal at Dale and Crescent Avenuea was located too cloae to the driveway entrance of aubject property, thus cauaing additional traffic canflicts. The:Co~iasion inquired whether or not the oppoaition wa$ aware of the fact that a conditional of approval would be requiring aidewalks and gutters; whereupon Mr. Zurick replied thie would affect only subject property~aad would not take care of the problems on other properties on Dale Avenue, end if addiCional traffic were injected onto Dale Avenue, children walking would be facing a hazardoua aituation. Co~isaioner Seymour expresaed the thought that eince moet of theae lots were larger than regulation aingle-family lcits, there was the possibility commercial uses might be requeated in the future for these properties. Mr. A. T. Zamora, 523 North Dale Avenue, appeared before the Commiseion in opposition and expreased concern that his rest would be disturbed because the parking area vas located sd,~acent to the bedroome of hia home; that ke was deairous of having the beat uses for this general area; that he had built hia home 18 yeara ago and had reared his seven children in what was originally conaidered a vaet open space; and that he was hoping the Co~isaion could adviae the reaidents of the area ae to the moat appxopriate usea for these lots which would be acceptable to the City and the neighborhoad. Mra. Grove adviaed the Commission that once a month they would be having small group meetinge during the evening houra; however, these never lasted for more than an hour or two, and the iegular houre•of operafion would be•from 10:00 A:M. to 2:00 P.M. Commieaioner Allred inqtiired what would happen to the property in the.event_the exiating operation, if approved, outgrew these faailitiea. • Mr. Roberts replied that the property would remain R-A and Che conditional use permit approved would be for a specific uae - therefore, any alternative use would require the approval of a new conditional use permit. Commisaioner Allred wae of the opinion that repproval of thie petition would set a prece- dent creating a"foot in the door" situation, as well as spot aoning, and that perhaps considaration should be given to land assembly in order that multiple-family development could be built on theae parcele. However, this area could not support any additional co~ercial land use. Mr. Albert Trout, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and noted that ~-.s nd~~`:~S ~: -~~ 9~ .. ~s L;r.ro~.,~~,s7't~ :i~ jn~tf,x.. ~ tt-~.p~ 4 , r 4 . }~ -:+~ ~'. ~5~'~, : ,~'.~.._ ~~ ~.~,A s„ u~.~~~~ _'~F~~ LY ;~.,~1a'~ ~ "~+ ~-~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ } ~, r . . .. . . . ' .~ . , . . . ~ ~~ . ~ ,}', . . ~ - . ~ .. _ , " , ~ ~ ~ ~~~ , ~ ~ . MIWTES~ CITY•PLANNING CONQiISSION, June 2; 1970 " 5Y77 40NDITIONAL.USE - l~is father had:built his home; that they had problems trying to PERMIT N0. 1177 ;live on>their property because of the heavy traffic; that there (Continued) would be little addit'ional traffic from the propoaed use; and that only nine homes existed on the west aide of the street, which were without sidewalks = thus children would be subjected to traffic ' tiazards because they would lieve to walk near the traffic lanes, Mr. Howard Kogan, 15980 Mariner Drive, Huntington Beach, owner of property at 517 North Dale A•3enue, appeared before the Commiasion and stated he felt the area in which subject :property`was.located was ideal for residentiel purpoaes, and it was his:hope to build his home'on the property in,the,near'future - thus he was concerned with undesirable uses epproved`for the area;:although,he was happy to aee progress, he felt the use propoaed`was the,wrong type of use and would, in effect, be "opening the.door" for other requeats £or uae of the pr;,pertiea other thtn reaidential usea; and that even though deaial of`subject.petition would create a hardahip on the petitioners, he would much prefer:that the property be put to a better.use.than that proposed since he felt the area did'afford'a great measure of privacy for rearing children, and to epprove s use that might add to the traffic problem wae something the Co~ission should teke into consideration. Mr. Gruber, in rebuttal, stated that a church and achool were built and operating aouth '~f the Kogan property; that a church already exiated on the eest side o# Dale Avenue at Creacent Avenue; EhaC although one could not`consider a church a co~erciab operation, it did generate considerable traffic, and this was a change in use from reaidential as had been suggeated by Mr, Kogan. (' THE HFARING WAS CLOSED. Diecussion was held by the,Cormoission as to the proposed uae, the fact that Mrs. Grove had atated etudents over 25 yeara of age vere proposed, and thet this facility ehould be limite~d to 30 students and houra of operation as set forth by Mrs. Grova Mra. Grove atated that the Braille Inatitute did not provide for atudents over 25 years of age; that the claseea would constitute cookimg, mobility, Braille reading and typing. for young adults; and that she would prefer not to be limited to only 30 students since ehe was not aure how many studente they would have and requested consideration of a meximum of 50 studenta. The Commission`then noted far the oppoeition that any property ovner had the right to p~tition for a use or zone change for his property, and this would have to be considered at a public hearing before the Planning Commisaion. Commissioner Herbet offered Resolution No. PC70-91 and moved for ita passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Uae Permit No. 1177, aub~ect to the recommende9 condi- tions and eubject to a maximum of SO atudente, hours of operation from 10:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. except for special meetings once a month which shall be terminated by 10:00 P.M., as stipulated to by the repreaentative of tkie $xaille Institute; that a 6-foot maaoes-y wall ahall be constructed along the north, eouth and weat property'linea, provided that said wall ahall not extend cloeer than 10 feet to the right-of-vay along Dale Aveaue; that a 30-inch maeonry wall ahall be conetructed 10 feet vest of the east property liae in front of the propoeed parking area; that eigning shal~, be in accordance with alternate plan aubmitted at the hearing, marked Exhibit No. 4, in order that the appearance of the parcel would retain the reaidential character of the area; and subjece to a finding that approval of aubject petition did not eet e precedent for approval of more intenae uaes of the other R-A parcela in thia general area. (See Resolution Book) Prior to voting the Commiesion inquired whether or not approval of subject petition vould constitute aetting a precedent; whereupon Asaistant City Attorney John Datraon adviaed the Commisaion that aince the Commieaion was not approving a zone change but approving a apecific uae and the uee was a somewhat isolated uee, any favorable con~ideration by the Co~ieaion could not be construed ae heving eet a precedent. Co~iseionare Farano and Seymour vanted it fully underatood by the property ovnera along Dale Avenue that the Commiasion would not entertain petitions for any more intenae use for their propertiea since the use'being conaidered vas considerably lees intense thast even the church uae on the east aide of Dale Avenue. Hovever, the property oxners always had the right to petition for a more in*_ense uae. On rol_ eall the foregoing reaolution was pasaed by the folloving vote: AYLS: CO1~Il~fISSIONERS: A~}red, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour, Rowland. NOES: COI~IliISSIONERS: Farano, Gaue/Q.QPrLc.~i ABSENT; COI~IISSIONERS: None. ~ ; ~; ,::, ~ ,:`d ,.: ,s •.-a ' :i °~~ _~ ',i ~'t~ ,•~ ~ ~ ~ ii y ~ i ~ - --.] . 9 `,-~ ~ s . ;,q. .. ~ .~ ~ ~ ~. .~. . _ ..~ - ~~~ . , ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMLiISSION, June 2, 1970 5178 Commisaioner Gauer 1~ft the Council Chamber at 10:25 P.M. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. HALO INVESTMENTS, 3415 West Ball Road, Anaheim, PERMIT N0. 1179 Califomia,.Owner; MARVIN GUNNUFSON, 21804 Belahire Street, Hawalian Gardene, Califomia, Agent;.requesting permisaion to PERMIT CATEGORY "L" (LIGIiT MENTAL) PATIENTS IN AN EXISTING CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL on'property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 210 feet oa the north side of Ba11 Road, having a maximum~depth of approximately 343 feet,.being located approximately 455 feet east of the_c~aterline of Knott Avenue, and further described ae 3415 Weat Ball Road. Property presently classified R=A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, uses estab- liahed in close proximity, and the propoeal to convert one-half of the roome in a convaleacent hoapital for Category "L" patienta. Mr. Roberts noted that the Planning Co~iasion and City Council had adopted a policy not to approve any petition requesting permission to have Category "L" patienta until the Comprehensive Health Planning Asaociation of Orange County completed their study regard~ ing the hospital facilities and requirements and needs of the County, said study proposed to be completed in September, 1970. Chairman Rowland inquired as to the status of the report on the policy passed; whereu~on Mr. Roberts atated that nothing had been heard regarding the report, but aeveral weeks ago a similar matter was conaidered by the City Council and that body had continued the petition'for,90 days at the request of the Comprehensive Health Planning Association of Orange County to allow time for,them to aubmit a report. Chairman Rowland then noted that since the Planning Co~iasion and City Council had adopted a policy whereby they would not consider a petition untii this atudy was completed and available to the Ciky, even though the petition was before the Commisaion, he, for one, could not make a decision on the request until thia arudy vas completed and submitted to the City of Anaheim. Co~isaioner Herbst inquired why the petition was accepted and whether or aot the staff had-'pointed out'to the petitioner the fact that the Commission and City Council had this adopted policy. Mr. Roberta advised the Co~isaion that the petitioner was fully aware of the policy, but he had requested administrative approval of Category "L", and that even after all of this was pointed aut, the petitioner inaiated upon filing the conditional use permit. Corm¢isaioner Seymour offered a motion to continue consideration of Conditional Use Permit No. 1179 to the meeting of October 5, 1970, in order to allow time for the Compreheneive Health Planning Aaeociation of Orange County to complete'their study and submit their findings in a r~oort regarding the existing hospital facilities and needs for Orange County, since approval of any petition by the City would be contingent upon that body approving the us~ for a Iicenae. Co~iasioner Farano aeconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEP. CONDZTIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEp,RING. JOHN AND ANNE I~,JACIC, P. 0. Box 37'~., Anaheim, PERMIT N0. 1175 California, Owners; requesting permiasion to ESTABLItu A 48-SPACE OVERNIGHT TRAVEL TRAILER PARK IN CONNNCTION WITH AN EXISTING I~IOTEL on property deacribed as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land coneiating of approximately 1.5 acres having a frontage of approximately 108 feet on the eouth side of Lincoln Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 594 feet, being located approximately 565 feet east of the centerliae of Dale Avenue, and further described as 2760 West Lincoln Av,nue. Property presently clasaified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewe3 for the Co~iasion the location af subject property, usea eatabliahed in close proximity, previous zoning action, and the propoeal to utilize the rear portion of subject property for a 48-epace overnight travel trailer Park in conjunction with the exiating motel; that the plans before Che Co~isaion were concept plana; that more precise plans would have to be submitted; and that thie facility ~aould have to meet the State of 'California regulations as to travel trdiler parks. Furthermore, the petitioner was desirous of having the Commission's opinion as to whether this was a proper land use, and precise plans would be aubmitted upon this determination. The petitioner indicated hia preaence to anewer queatione. No one appeared in oppoeition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ,:-;;'z ,: ~. ~9 1„ . ~ f .Ti ) - -'+~ `~` ~~ ?"K ~ r~'~ '~{~ s t ~~ ". ~tt ~t ~.{, ~' ~ f ~ ^ ~~: ~~Vn ~ c''~~G ~ b ; 'c '~"_ ~~ ~~ ,~ i '? .r~{'~~ ~y .+. i- ~r~~ t ~.~ ~ 'ax :,i ~t L , ~ ^ K,'~".,.~ tR,~."'.~, ~,~: °~ J. _o~: "L /' 7'b~ 6`.Uy~'~'v~'~£i iC'~ i k~ 'ti~~; ~ !`r,3 . , tif ... . .. . . .. ..... .. . ~ . ., . _ . . . -.. - ~ 4~ ' . ~ ~._' ~ : . ~ . . . , ~ , - , MINUTES, CITY..PLANNING COI~lISSIOA, June 2, 1970 5179 C,ONDITIONAL USE -,Discussion was held by the Commission, it being noted tha.t the use PERMIT N0: 1175 proposed was a good interia uae for a specified period of time until (Continued), a higher amd,better use could'be made of the property. However, precise plans ahould be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval prior to isauance of a building permit. The Commission, upon carefully reviewing the plans, noted that aome of the apaces were lerge enough for mobile home apaces and then inquired of the petitioner wheCher he anti- cipated~havfng mobile homes in this facility. Mr. John Itrajacic advised the Co~ission that it was planned to have overnight trailer spaces only, and that no plans were anticipated for mobile homes; therefore, he would stipulate to travel trailers and recreational vehicles only for a geriod of approximately two-weeka'`'stay. . . The Co~isaion requested clarification of the State Trailer Act and the definition of s travel trailer;•in the event the Cormnisaion determined the use wae proper, whether said act wes aufficient to ineure that no mobile homea would be utilizing aubject property under this petition. Assistant City A¢torney John Dawson, in reviewing the State Trailer Act, noted that Section 18215.5 governed the type of vehicle and the length of time, describing them as recreational vehicles, and since the petitioner stipulated that these would be recreational travel vehicles w-ith a time limit of tvo-weeka' stay, approval in confor- mance with thia aforementioned aection would be aufficient. Co~iaeioner Herbat noted that the Travel Trailer Coach Association had a very specific definition for such a vehicle, as did the Mobile Home Park Association for their vehicles. Co~iesioner Allred offered Reaolution ~10. PC70-92 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1175, subject to conditions, including a condition that the proposed travel trailer park ahall be limited to recreational vehiclea only as defined.in Section 18215.5 of the California Adminiatrative Code and that a recreational vehicle ahall be allowed to remain within said park for a maximum of two weeks for any ai~gle time period as stipulated to by the petitioner. (See Re&~lution Book) On soll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vot~; AYES: CO1~fISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, H~rbst, Kaywood, Seymour, RoWland. NOES: COt~iISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COPIIfISSIONERS: Gauer. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATEU BY THE CITY PIrANNING CODIIiISSION, 204 East N0. 64-70-54 _ Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; propoaing that property dea-. cribed as; An irregularly ahaped parcel conaisting -~' 15.4 acres of land bounded on the north by Miraloma Avenue, on ti~e east by Red Gam Str~et, and on the south by Orange Avenue aad extending to a point approximately 1,200 fnet west of the centerline of Red Gum Street and further deacribed as the Orange-Red Gum Acnexation be reclasaified from the COUNTY OF ORANGE M1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT Co the CITY OF ANAHEIM R•A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC E~ARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PIANNING CO2~tISSION, 204 East N0. 69-70-55 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing tfiat property dee- cribed as: An irregularly ahaped parcel consiating of 15.4 acres of land bounded on the north by Miralome Avenue, on the east by Red Gum Street, and on cd~e south by Orange Avenue and extending to a point approximately 1,200 feef west of the centerline of Red Gum Street and further described as the Orange-Red G~ Annexation be rec2asaified from the COUNTY OF ORANGE M1, LIGHT INDUSTRIA;,, DISTRICT to the CITY OF ANAHEIM M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, 20NE. 2oning Supervieor Charlea Roberta reviewed the locatioa of subject propertq, usea ettab- liahed in close proximity, and the propoeal to establish City of Anaheim zoning under Reclaseification No. 69-70-54 aud to establiah a reaolution of intent to M-1, Light Industrial, Zone aubject to eonditiona under Reclassification No. 69-70-55 for property knotn: as the Orange-Red Gum Annex#tion. No one appeared in oppoaition to eubject petitions. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ . . .. . ..__ _ - -: r ,.. _.:..:_ . ..- , _ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' .. . MINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,`June "c, 1970 5180 RECLASSIFICATION - Commiasioner B~S~"`~O 9~fered'Reaolution No: PC70-93 and moved for NO' 69-70-54. its passage and<;adoption to seco~nend to the City Council that Petition for Reclasaification No. 69=70-54 be approved subject to RECLP,SSIFICATZON annexation to the City?of Anaheim. (See Resolution Book) NU': 69- 70=55 (Continued) . On roll call the foregoing,resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COt~tISSIONERS.~,~Allred, Farano, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour, Rowlaad. 1~OES: COMMISSIOh'ERS:'.;None. ABSENTo CO1~fISSIONERS: ''Gauer. ' Co~issioner Seymour offered Reaolution No. pC70-94 and moved for its passage and adoption to:recbmmend to:the Ciry Couacil that Petition for,Reclasaification No. 69-70-55 be approved subjec,t'to'co8ditione: (See Resolution.Book) On`r,oll call the foreg6ing reeolution was pasaed by the following vote: AYES: COP4IISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Herbst, i~;wood, Seymour, Rowland. NOES: CO1~iISSIONERSe None... ABSENTo COIAtISSIONERS: Gauer. REPORTS:AND itECO1~AfENDATIONS - ITEM N0: 1 ` f Requeat for clarification of plans as to whether the proposed uae would require a conditional use permit. Zoning Supervisor Charlea Roberta presenGed to the Plenning Commission plana for the : developmenE of an operation'called "The Charburger" propoaed to be located at the north- eaet corner of Lemon Street and,Ba1T Road, rioting that the staff queationed whether or not thie proposal could~qualify to be other than a welk-up or drive-through reataurant aince both would require a conditional use permit, further noting that the operation vould be aimilar.to a Rentucky'Colonel or Shakey's Pia9a located on State College Boulevard. However,,photographe presented,indicated a drive-up window,,and the agent for the pe*i- ~ tioner indicated that no_food would be constaned on the premises - therefore, ataff was deairous;of.having an interpretation by the Commiasion as to whether or not this type of operation would require a conditional use pezmit. Mr.,Leonard Smith, representing the propoaed developer a£ The Charburger, noted that the operation, in his eetimatioa, was not aimilar to the McDonald or Taco Bell operation but would only permit people to place their ordere and pick up the food to be conamned elsewhere. The.Coa~ission reviewed the plaae, noting that the propoaed uae would be in one section ~ of the property where a cleanera was loceted, said cleaners having the oaly one-way accessway which would be ueed by the propoeed facility also, and the amount of parking provided would not cover both pazking requirements for the cleaaera and the propoeed Char6urger. Considerable diacusaion was held between the Cormnission, the stafE, and Mr, Smith regar3- ing the proposal - as to whether or not it could te conatrued as an operation not requir- ing a conditional uee permit, and upon its conclusion, Commisaioner Seymour offered a motion to interpret the use ae being a drive-through restaurant Which ~tould req,uire a ~ conditional uae permit, Commissioner Herbst aecended the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N~_ E Orange County Case No. 2C70-20 - Property located on the aouth side of Taperanaa Road, approximately 6,000 feeb east of Imperial Highway consisting of approxi- mately 240 acres ie propoaed for reclasaificatioa from • COUNTy A1, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT to RS-SOOO,.SINGLE- FAMILY DISTRICT. ~ Zoning Supervieor Charles Roberte preeented to the Planaing Co~iaeion a propoaed sone ~ chaage by the County of Orange No.ZC70-20, noting the location of the property, land usea propoaed in cle~ie praximity in the City of Anaheim, a previous pre-anneaation aoning petition to the City of Anaheim, and the fact that.both the property under subject petition and the pre-annexation zoning petition were part of aa area designated by the County of Orange for a regional park expaneion project. =~c ~.,,s7.~e,~~' s~~'cx 'r~s`~fir'.r~~~~~f . ~t ~`5~~"~. ~a~„r~T +s ~ ,a g. ~ { u-- y ~. ! ,C .t ii :', . ,~ ~~ ~' , ~ ~. W : ~ 5 ~ v '.~` ~,:g.~~,s~ ~ k ~ ~ , M-, ~"^t i' ~ ~, ~.,~ 4~ ~, :_ ;; ~ L ~ y; '.~ . ..~li . . .... , . ., .. .,. . . . . . . . , . ~ ~ ---".c ~. !: :' r,., . ~. ~ ~ -~ ~ . . ' . ~ ~. . ~ MINUTES, CITY PIANNING COIYII~fISSION, June 2,,1970 5181 REPORTS AND `RECOI~iENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 2 (Continued) ;~ - Mr. Roberts further noted that given the general topography of the area and the phqsical bounda i u n 't ~~ r ea a rrou ding the property, it would appear that the ultimate jurisdictional respoasibility would rest with the Cit of A h i y na e m - therefore, if Anaheim were to provide utilitiea.and other servicea to tho.property, the property should be deve;to ed : rd ~' p n acco - ance with the City of Anaheim site deyelopmeat etandarda, and that the City of Anaheim huuld h i s aye the ~ pportunity to review any and all plans of developm=~,t for the property. Furthermore if a buildin e mit' i " , g p r were saueS in the County, then the park and recreatioa fees generally re~uired of all new residential develo ment in th Ci u ,~4; p e ty wo ld not be forth coming, although the City of Anaheim would have to provide these park and recreation i services when tbe homea became a part of the City. Mr. Roberts, in su~ing up the findings, noted that in the event,the County of Orange did t o ~~ no propose t proceed with plans for deveiopment of the regional park it would , appear that the proposed zoning would be appropriate for the area in view of the already approved trailer park and R-3 property zoning approved on property in the City of Anaheim just eaet of Imperial Highway. Furthermore on of h b , e t e asic reasona for reviewing plans was the fact that the City of Anaheim was undertaking c Scenic Corridor Study to encom as p s this and the entire Santa Ana Canyon area, and any development occurring within the canyon area sho ld b h u e suc that it would be consisteat with the objectiwes of that atudy. Mr. Roberte, in concluaion, noted that in the event that the Orange County Planning Co~ission and the Board f S o upervisora decided not to develop this property for a regional park, it was the opinion of staff that th e ~' e prop rty should be developed in accordance with all aite development atandards and generel development policies of the ^= '~ City of Anaheim. Theae development standards should include, but not be limited to the m d u , recom en ations set forth in the Report to the Planning Coa~ission. Discusaion was held by the Commisaion as to the location of the property, previous considerati n f o o petitions before the Commission, the fact that the L.A,F,C. had denied a requeat to annexation of property immediately west of property under ZC70-20 based on the f ct th t the a a County was projecting properties from the weaterly terminus of Featherly Park as an extenaion of the regional park which al i lud , so nc ed property now under consideration. Commissioner Herbat offered a motion, seconded by Commisaioner Seymour and MOTION CARRIEp (Commiasioner Farano abstaining) to rec d , , o~en to the City Council that in the event that~ the Orange County Board of Supervisora did not intend to proceed with the development of ` l" the proposed regional park that the proposed zoning would appear to be appropriate pro- vided that the develo ment co pli i h h p m es w t t e following conditions: 1. The extenaian of La Palma Avenue through the property in a manner acceptable to the City of Anaheim and th C e ounty of Orange. 2. That in the event it is determined that a new north-eouth artertal highway connecting subject ro t i h p per y w t thc area north of Esperanza Road ahould be developed on subject property, the location of this highway should be subject to the approval of the County of Orange. 3. That no residential lots be allowed to front on any arterial highways but rather ~ wouid be required to back up to La Palma Avenue. 4. That a 6-foot maeonry wall be conatructed along the entir~e aouth boundary of subject property, except for street and/or alley openinga. 5. That parlcWays ehould be provided for the entire leagt?i of La Palma Avenue, and that these parkways be a i l ppropr ate y landscaped and permenently maintained in e neat and orderly manner (also includin ermane t i g p n rrigation facilitiea), and that paricpay trees, as well as additional landscaping should be included withi th n e total land- scape scheme along all arterials. 6. That the circulation syatem that is to be designed for the property in questioa should b e acceptable to the City Engineer and ahould provide for the extension of circulation facilities to the abuttin ro ti , g p per es. 7. That since the ro ert in P P Y queation ia bordered by the Santa Fe Railroad tracks to ; the north, and aince eingle-family residential homea are propoeed to be developed on th e property, definite measures should be taken to provide a sufficient land- , scaped buffer between the residential lots and the railroad tracks in order to ~ create the best poasible envirox~ment for the future reaidenta of the area. 8 ~ . That development plana be subject to reviev by the City of Aaaheim prior to ~ ' issuance of a building permit. . I ADJOURNIl~NT - There being no further busineas to diecuas, Co~isbioner Itayvnc+d ~ offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Conmiseioner Herbst i seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at I 11:17 P.M. Respectfull submitted _ ___ ANN IQtEBS, Secretar ,Anahcim City Plaaning Commission .. .. . .... . .. . . - ~ - ,~.. f! 1 }; v ~ ~ . . . . ~:~'.~ ~- ~;'.: ~ •. i;: ~ ~ , ~, ~ ' ... _- y ~