The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1970/08/10.` ry ~i _ eNn.rcia, ' ~.~ f~''~`-~~in'i'F"z~~~~ i~t~`s,Nc"txt~.l~ ?~`~`x~S~~ ~ , ' ~¢ n ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~1 ~ '~~ ~~^ 7' 1.. M+. ~'~ ' . ~ r r' T1k ~.. ' ..~ .., .'~ ;~ :.. _ . { "~. _ ' . ;. ~ 1 , }. ; t 1 - 1~. ., .. 5 .K. ~: ~ r r ` : City Hall ~ ~ . , r ,~~~ ~ "Anaheim California ~ '.~ : Augus;E 10, `19.70" ` ~~ s < r ~'. .-`. `. j ': ti` ~,. , ~. ;.~. ' f ' ; A REGULAR ~ , , ' "j'' MEETINGiOF THE.r~1AHEIM•`:CITY~°PLANNING.CONIIfISSION . :; ~ .. ~ 's .; . , ' , ;;9 F ;,: , • ° < ' ' j c ~ , P~ . , .; . ; , : 3 ~ , REGULAR MEETING A regular meeting of tiie Anaheim City Planning Commission was called `' - ~ ~ f to'.order:by Chairman-Herbst 'at 2 00 o'clock.P M,>:'a quorum being `. r e ~ ~ ; p . sent : = ; PRESENT~ CFlFiIRMAN : Herbst ;; , _ .~ , : , . , ., . _ ~ , . .. . ~ `,. J : . ., ~, .,. . : .. COMMISSIONERS Allred;,Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour k , ~ '~° ABSENT > '~ , , COMMISSIONERS None ' ~ 3 `• ', - • . . ; PRESENT: Assistsnt,-Development Services Director Ronald Thom • ~. n ~~ '~ '~ pso Deputy City attiorney ;' ~ r ~ ;: F ank Lowry OFfice.~Engineer : Jay Titue r~~ rr ~ Zoning Sapervisor ' Charles`RobSrts ' : Assistant Zoning !Supervisor Malcolm ;Slau liter ~ -~ Y ~ ; ,~~ r~F"~ ~ t„ P.lanning ,Qo~ission Sec=eta r ' ' A r ~ ~~t 3 _. . > nn K `. . . . , . , e6s - PLEDGE':OF „ ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Kaywood led in the Pledge of Allegiance to.Ehe Flag~ ~ ~ , 'u e1PPROVAL OF Commissioner Kaywood offer d ' e a: motion.to approve the Minutes of'the. THE MINUTES ' meeting of.Julq 27 1970 as aubmitt d ec i,r.. , , e , a onded.by Commissionez; - - • ' • ;; , ~~ ~Seymour,c.and MOTION;CARRIED. : - , . . , , . .,. , ,, : ., . . ~ ';~~„ x _:. ~: . . .- , ., ., ,.,, . . ,.,, , .` ? ' ; : t . VARIANCE NO 2189 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINC THE ORIGIAAL HOUSE OF;PIES M MICHIELSEN, ` ` 5 a ~ ~~~ „'` ' , . ., 900 Rodeo Road, Los Angeles;. California;.,Owner,,.requesting.,WAIVER.OF ~ z +- ' ' :PERMITTED FREE-STANDING SIGN~LOCATION on~pro e c d ac ` ' ~~~;~ " p r y e ribed as • .An - irregularly shaped parcel of.' land:located aC the soatheast 'cort~sser ~of Euclid.;S ~Cat l t. D ' ~°~ -~ ~`r . tree a and : a rive 'havin a roximate pp 8 P , . g::: fronta es of %8 E t`; on c ! aw. ~ , ee . Eu lid Street and'290 feet on P . . ,. Catal a Driye, and fur.cher descritied as:830 NorEti Euclid St et: o ,, ~ ~~~, ~ ~ re Pr perEy;presently zoned C-1, GENE ~ RAL COMMERCIAL,~ ZONE. k '~ - . , , ]' wx Sub ect , 3 petition was coutinued:from tfie meeting of July 27, 1970, at the request of the petitioner . ; , ,''~ . Assistant 2oning Supervisor M l lm ~ a co .Slaughcer reviewed che location of subject property,_ uses~establisfied in close.proximity, and the proposal to el r ocate an existing free-stand- ing sigii' within 13 feet oP the south to be located 31 feeE from th o th e t n n ; ~ r e s u property line; hat one of the reasons setback was to foirthe equired preclude dev l e ' , e opm nt of free-standing signs too close to.edjoining property liaes,.thereby creating a conflict with the s igning of the adjoining-property; and that there was doubt that a hardahip could be showri to justif a oval a y ppr of the proposed reloca- tion of the; sign. . . . . . . . . . i i' ~ Mr. ~Allan Harte, representin the a ent for the etitioner a sieared before the Commission and noted there was a_problemgin thegexi ti l ~ ~'~r s n ocation of the company's;policy to locate a.,ai g 8n; Chat it"was the gii as far eway as possible from th 3 b t i a ~ "~ ; e ma n u h lding in order. t iE would not conflict with;the building -.therefore, the proposal was to relocate the existing sign.for aesthetic reas ona. . No one appeared:in oppositioa,tn subject petition. THE HFARING WAS'CLOSED. Discussion was held by.the Co~ission,as to the if;,the existing restaurant no c $ l p W i e ~~ , w losed, were to re open and the location Of the signewas epproved;-'this.'could mean another vaiiance being fi led b c se e . e au th propercy to-the south could claim a,hardship.in the'signing of'their pro ert d he p y, an t n inquired of the agent for fhe petitioner whether or not the sign could be locaEed north l at ` D er C alpa y, at the corner of - rive. Mr.;Harte replied that:the Cetalpa Drive location woald not be aestHeti cally acceptabie. Furthermore, the propoeed locatior. would in no.way interfere with the'ai nin p op g r g en the ecCy to the south:because the elevation of the'two signs was different both ae to ~ ~ ' . . . . . ' . . .. , . 1..~ ; 5271 :~ ; : i d~i . ~, ,;. ;:... ,; .. ,,_, ,. ,..,. .., :~ , . .. , . :-. R' ..~ , ; ~ 'r. ; ~. ~,' ' " , . ~ ' ., ~ ~ . MINUTF,S, CtTY,PI.ANNING COMMISSION, AugusE 10, 1970 5272 'V9RIANCE N0,'2189 = height and arigle; that theii sign would be~visible euming from the (Ccntinued).. south arid could interfere with The,Original House of Pies sigr_ - ;.howeder, Chey'would not object to,that; that the existing sign on ~~ = the.propeity to.the ~south was on1y,5 feet'from the bailding; and that, in all Iikelitiood, eay:new leseee~wocld retain the sign;location. Commissioner Gauer'offered;Resolution'No:. PC70=140 and moved for its~passage and adopEion i to granE Peti,tion for--Variance No. 2189,,subjecE to cosiditions. ($ee Resolution Book) • ~ On roll"'call Ere foregoing.resolution was passed.by the following vote: ~ , , _ , , - 'AYES ' COl~AfISSIONERS : Allred, Gauer, Rowland, ~Herbst. '.NOES:,.. COMMISSIONERS ~ Farano, Kajrwood;'Seymour. , _.. . _, ":ABSENT.- COMMISSIONERS. ,-None.. .. . ,-: ,. _ .. , - CONDITIONAL USE ~PUBLIC HEARING. R. H. AND THEODORA R. SIEGELE, 832 North West Street, PERMIT.NO. 1192 Aasheim,' California, Owners; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A ` ': R[iGS AND PAPER'SALV9GE FACILITY AS A CONFORMING'USE, WITH W?,IVER OF MA7CIM[JM;.PEg TTTED~WAiL HEIGHT~on pioperty described as: A rectangular- ly shaped parcel of 1'and a~avin a`frontage of approximately.157 feet on the east side of Pauline StreeC., havi~g a ma:simum depth of approximately'S7;feet, and being,located .`approximately?85.feet`north;`of the centerline of Cypress Street. Property presently classi£ied M-1; LIGHT%INUUSTRIP_L,'ZONS. ~. Asaistant Zonirg Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject,property, ~.nses estabZished in closa pror.imity, and-'tae prqposal-:,to,estsblish an:existing rags end paper ~§elvage":facility Rs-a cor.forming'use in the M-1'Zone, with waiver'of the maximum , permitted wail:heighf to aliow.e=ECtion of an 8=foot masonry wall behind the 5-foot set- `b`ack along ~he::north and wesb propert~ linea;"tti3t the petitioner baled old new§papers xhich he.deriyed fr~m.school 2nd church paper drives and'from_individuals:bringing tk:em to tfie`,'faciZity.for shipmeat to vaiious paper.mills for~reprocessiag; and that the Commission,would have;to deGermine,whether such'ari intense use'was appropriate in this ' area suirounded on,three.sides;bq residentisl usea, due;to~tkie~:ucisightliness of tnis stackirig, togett^er w'ith th~`fact`that truck t=effic~~on;tIia riarrow sE;eets;"nreated treffic hazards:. Fartli'ermore';~ subject property was.uotilarge;enough;fo provide for'sEorttge of waste paper~and storage of trc:cks awaiting to be,ualoaded -<thus many of ttieae trucks were parked ir, the-street, orea~ing ari en§ightly`eituation as well ,as being dangerous to the'pedestriads aad vehicular:traffic. Mr. Roy-,Siegele, the petitio~er, appesred before the Commission and.,aoted that they l:ed been.in`operation for approximatelq 18 montrs at this`location; tHat when he had applied for and recei~.ed his busir:esa license, he had assumed M-1 zoning permitted l•his type of operaEion - however, he had receatly been advised this was an M-2 use; that he wanted permission to estaolish this M-2 us2 in the M-1 2one and to be permitted to enclose the ;operation with an 8-foot masonry.wall since there was not much that could be done with this type of-unsightly operation'but to enclose it; and that he had been working on the problem of encZosing this operatiott since February. The Coa~issior. 3nquired as to the,reason far trucks being parkad on the street; whereupon Mr. Siegele replied that these trucks were parked there sometimes until late in the after- noon'awaiting their,turn to be unloaded, and the parking of them in the street was aeces- sary because there was insufficient room on.the.lot for their atorage. The Co~ission iaquired ae to whether or not there was vacant property to fhe east and whethei,this could be used for:parking of the trucks and:ingress and egress to Che property rather than using the'aarrow streets which were also used by reaidents in the aree. Mr. Siegele replied tha` there was property to the east, which belonged to the railroad, and that-he had.been Csyizg for some time to make'arrangements with the railroad for permission to park trucks and gain'access to his property -',however, they,were a long time-in making a decision,.although the latest information he had was there appeared to be a favorable feeling that thie could be done but nothing had been consummated in x~ written agreement form. A showing of hands indicated ten persons present in upposition to subject petition. Mr. Charles Ruby., 308 North Marwood, Fullerton,;appeared before the Commission in opposi- tion, noting he owned properties across the street from subject property; that his tenants maintained their properties and had beea there for a long time - however, they were naw up-in-arms because ~he waste paper operation had taken all the available parking apace in the street; that'.the M-1 Zone required off-street parking - however, the petitioner was not providing.any; tF:at just prior to coming to the hearing he had visited the area and noted there were three trucks and five cars parked, leaving no apace for others or peraona 9 . .,.. ..r ~,,:., .~:.~~'._ .;: .i _ .3•.. .:Y' ,. ,. . ...,. . ...:.:. ..., .: .J. ,': ..~. . .~... ~ .., . i . - . . .~-..~. ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~~ ~ ~~ .~~~ ~ .. ~..' ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 10, 1970 ~ 5273. ~ CONDITIONAL USE visiting residen.ts in this`.area to park,their cars; tHat the exis ting ~ -PERMIT:.NO.•-1192 _ situation was:unsafe for children°in`this area`since~maay of the' ~ (Continued).; ~. childre-i had:.tha habit of'playing"~,in •the sEreet; tha,t`'£rom`.informa- r tion given:him,~there were two to!'three near accidenta very;-recently ~ • °because.of the large trucks~'parked.on the.street~and:other Erucks' 'having:difficulty making turns tfirough:the 8ree;•thatythe:opeiation was a very unsightly . E `one as;could;be noted in.Ehe pictures presented.by,the staff;,that he had`never'objected ~ `to the<oil compan~`,singe:there was-very.little;vehicular traffic;.and thaE.the assess~d $ ';valuation had`:increased 50% however,,the~assessor could not have visited"this,place; , otherwise he`would Have noted ttie`situation'did;not warrant 'Ehis type.of increase. .Mr. Abel Cabellero,:.2260 StandisH,: appeared before the`Commission in opposition and noted :.he owned property in thie,geiteral;area;`that he was'objecting to,the stench, dirtq papers snd~rags, the;unaightZ~* appearance, Che fire hezard;.flies,',rats and roaches;,that just becauae Mexican-Americans;lived in this area did not mean these people living:in oid homes `.'should'be subjected:to the'uasight2iness-and'filth; end`tha*_ steps shonld be,taken to °remedy tcis,. . Mr. ,7ames Berr"y; 322,North Peuli~e Street,; appesred before the Commission in opposition ~`.'and:stated .lie~ it was his''understanding that whea a business was sterted in Anaheim it was for tt-ie good of the city - howe~Qr, this area was almost entirely res3dential in character,'and;~-to permit auch a~.inteaee.industriaZ"uae was harmful to the area; that ,taxes and insurance changed.because of the use;;that:one of the'men he worked wich advised him to,netify his inssrance•agent about:;th'is use, and.'tke insurarice'agen~ stated he was wiae to-notify t?:em since he mfght be penalized in the.:event.'his property was damaged hy "fire~spreading £rom'Ehis oparat3o~; that tha insurance man,did r.ot advise him whether cr not.the<premium wouid be iacre~sed, but°there was a possibility the insura^,c~ could be turned~down;,ard that aa operation of this type'.would,have to oarry considerabie insarance to protect him~elf in the eve~C a fire'which:could spread to,the ad3oiniag properties for wl:ich they were.reaponsible: Furthermore, ~ha size of:tfie parcel was too smail for further eapanaion;.and the fecility had no'pZace #or. off-strPet`parkir,~.- The Co~nission Chairman noted that seb~ECt,property was zoned M-l, and the purpose of the i ' public;heazing wES to determiue whet}er or naz:this operation:should.be aliowEd to ' - continue wzder t:~e present.zonin~;subject to,apgroval of a condit3oaal ase peruiit. Mr Car.ios Solario, 3Z5 Nortt ?auliae Street,,appeared before the Coamiission iw opposition, aoting'lie repreaen~ed.his parents,w:eo'lived directZy across the streeE from tha eaistiag operation,.that his.parer.ts-were_.opposed to r_he existing operation, aad wher he had retur~ed from.the service end had noted t'r.is oper&tion; he had discussed the enaigh*_liness of ~ha operation with the petitioners, who,had s~ated they would improve the appear~r.oe 'of the p2ace„'but the'situatioa remained tbe same with an unsightly health hazard together with a hazard.to children'by the trucks parked there; that a!1 the r.eighbors were Spazish- speaking people who were.afraid to speak out their opposition ta this operation - there- fore, he was requesting that the Co~iesion teke some action to remedy this deplorable situation. Mr. Ed Fa1be, 517 East Cypress SCreet, appeared before the Commission in opposition, stating.he also owned property'in this area and tl:at he was opposed to t?~e fire hazard thia ty-pe of operation created. Mr. Siegele, in rebuttal, noted that statements ar.d accusations made regarding mice, rats, and.cockroachea.were'false siace the type of rags and,paper they haadled did not l:ave vermin, that the rags came from the Salvation Army and Goodwill Industries and the paper came:from school and`church drives; that the rags were a11 washed before they received them; that tHey were attempting to resoive the parking problem, and he would like to have five timea the amount ef spece he now had - however, he had'~tarted from scratch", and it was difficult to take care of the many costs of improvements; that in his.estimation they would be-able to resolve the aeathetic problem by construction of an 8-foot masonry wall adjacent to the`residential uaea; thet the commenta:made as to fire hazard were not basEd on fact since the resident§ had no,knowledge as to the combustibility of the matter, and the hazard was far less than they,had been faced with wlien.the gas end oil operation was located:there; that if;aaything in this area ceughE fire, it would smolder long before ` any actual fire, and the'existing hcmes would be consumed by outside fire twenty times faster than.a fire which origiuated on subjecC premises; tHat he was uneware possible accidents had'occurred; snd he would have appreciated being adviaed so that he could determine whether or not Ehe trucka were creating this hazard; that a trucking company had receatly moved into this.area and were also parked on the atreet - therefore, the trucka pariced did not necessari2y mean they were,from his eatablishment; that this truck- ing apeiatioa had equipment,in the street day i^'and day out; that they were attemp~ing to get along with-their neighbora and had wanted to put up.the fence.in February, but several thinge happened and.this feuce wsa nut constructed; that he would like to have an'area of two to three.acres, and with the Federal Government interested i.n the study ,-. r < :'..~ 7~ -'.: ~~ ~ .. '~.._ ~ ~,~~~ ~~~'~~ ~ . ~~~~~ ~.~~ . MINUTES; CITY PLe'~NNING.COMMISSION,'Aagust::.10, 1970 5274 CONDITION~IL ~SE - of secondary waste in a co~unity, this had made his business.grow PERMIT' NO 1192 considerably; snd that' up to;;th"e present time they kiad been unable ~;(Continued).,' Eo.find a more"suitable location = however, they were not desirous of,,moving jusE`because;the:people weie complaining without finding - am alternative<'solutio:r since Anaheim had as much waste paper-as any other. :ity in California. ~Diacnasion was held by-the Coi~ission on the posaib3lity.of approving.,subject petition .providing`that`the masonry;wall were erected, generally cleaning'up the area and providing for off=st;eet parking, ualoading oriented'away from the.residential'.uses since it'was difficult to',see t-ow an'~operaCion;of this intensity,could continue indefinitely without creating considerable`harm~,fo'.the-area, and t:cen'~nquired of the petitioner just what type of contact_the petiti'oaer had,~ade with:the_rvilroad regarding utilizing their land 'for iagress, egress, and;:parking.. Mr. ~iegele replied that he Y,ad aot made Eoo grest an effort to get a,co~itment from tae,railroad,since he waated to weit for the outcome of the public hearing> Furthermore, in.reapouse to'Commiaeion questioaing, stated he had planned to put up an aluminum wall, `but after a number of,meetiaga with`~he Zoning Eaforcement Officer, he had decided that an 8-fooE masonry wa23 would t,e more appropriate. Also, in all likelihood, this area would eventually be developed fur multiple-family residential uses = therefore, he wculd have to'move Eo another location, and that he had owned the property sinca 9pri1. Commissioner Seqmour expressed surprise that the„petitioner had closed escrow knowing there.was a problem in tHe eacisting opeiation on:subjecC. property. Mr. Siegele replied'ChsC it appeared tha only problem was fencing in February, and after going to the Building Departmea: for.a building permit, he:had;been adLised trst he could not receive a bui2ding permit uut3,l he had taFked with the Zoning Supervisur, and after meeting with_~the 2oning,Superyisor.aad the Zoning EuForcement Officer.and after their reviewing the;progerCy,;ilie ~oning~Deparemeat h&d advised him that approval of a variance was necessary,since a G-foot masoary wall,was a11 that was permiEted; t5at.this discussion was held~3n"March and:la*_er the eacrow officer told him not to makE:any imgrovements. . ~b'ecause~o£ the po~sit,le prubate problems on t'~e property; and.on'April 28 the Zoniag Division:;inquired why,he had'not filed a variance as ae had beer, instructed to do, whereupon he had discussed the matter with tne Zoning Division a~cd was advised that the Lse of the.property was'cZassified M-2 - therefore, this would have to be granted by wap of a coaditional use permitn.and that he did nat know there wo~11d be suc:e a problem when he'weaE throu~h escrow: The Commiss;on tnen iaquired vrhet.er or not the petiEioner could resolve his ir.gress and egress and parking problem with tne.ra3lroad within four weeks, and if eo, the~ perhaps subject,petition should be ~cntinued; whereupon Mr. SiegeZe stated tha: he wocld attempt to resolve this with the railroad within four weeks. Commissioner Al1rEd offered a motion.to continue Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1192 to the meetirsg of September i0, 19iU, *_o allow time for the petitioner to coatact the railroad in an attempt to obtain permission for ingress and egress and parking so that it would be oriented away from the residential properties. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. Prior to vote on the motion, discussion was continued by the Commission regarding.the fact that the exiating operation,might grow to such proportions that there would nat be suf#icient apace for..expansion and inquired what Ehe petitioner planned in the event this occurred. Mr. Siegele replied that it was his hope that the business would increase - however, it required considerable money to purchase property in Anaheim, and since there was very little M-2 property, this also presented'a problem, and that he and his wife spent Sundays driving around looking for a desirable piece of land.on'whic~r they could relocate their operation. Furthermorz, there was a tentsttve location, and if all negotiations came about,'he might be able to relocate and would also have a limited partnership since he expected within a year to be hard,pressed for space, and he was happy thE business had been so successful. However, he was not aware thet so.many people opposed his operation, but since..he was.unable to find`aa area within his meana, he hoped to relocate within one year..but did not want to be forced to,select the first place available. Commisaioner.Rowland noted that b~fore any voting took place he wouZd like to say he sympathized with the petitioner and felt he was acting in good faith. However, he could not imagine there was ar.y superfiMal addition which could be placed on the property to hide,the fact that this was a salvage operation; that the use was much too heavy for the area; that the people in this area had resided tbere a aumber of,yeara and, in ail likeli- hood, would reside ~here cor.siderably longer since this was par[ of the General Plaa, and ,, ~ !.: - _ i - (. f- ~ .._ ., i' ~. ~ 1 ~'r c f+ry~` ~ . Y -'~ ~ Q~ - ~ ~ ~ . . . . ;MINUTES~ CITY:PLANNING COMMISSION, August 10, 1970. -: _ 5275 ~ , . ,~ : , .,, .. , _ 'CONDITIpNAL USE ~he could thi-ik of,only one;way to go, and,that was to deny subject ' PERMIT:~NO, 1392 petit3`on even:if the,petitianer d'id obtain the.railroad's~:approval (Continued)-; -'for access and parking because Ehe use was too'i.«nse, that=the use ; ; ~rae locaCed in the ceater.of residential uses, and tliat the~parcel. ~,was too small:;to meet any of the iequired aite development standards of the~M 1~2one - - 'Co~issioner Farana`concurred with the statemen[s made;by Commissionei Rowland'both as to ~`the size of the parcel aud =•the 'fact that'`'one could ;not. assiime that appioval of the railroad .would be obtained for access and parking:;along:the easterly:lioundary.of~:subject,,property. Burth'ermore, `the 'streets were too:::narrow `to acco~odate the ,types of trucks that-would be ;going ;to this~.facility, thereby creating':a traffic hezard ' Commissioner.Allred~noted~that the petitioner had already eat~ablished his business = uafortuaately,-he;was issued a business licease~to operate -`:however, his_:;action to •~~continue,subject petition~did not'.mean~lie was Yn'favor of'giving the patitioner carte blancl:e`rigiits, and-:from comments'made; even~'if subject petition.were"denied, the peti- tiorer?would have to'be allowed a certain'amounC of time to're-estebl,:sh at anoChex 2ocation, and;3f he`were-willing to put up the wall until'he was relooafed;' this wuuld be for the,benefit of fhe people ire the neighborhood; and,.that, in all likelihood, he wo~Id.be moving becauae'tae size:of the parcel was inadequate for an~ expansion - there- °fore, the Co~ission shou3d corisider the.circumstances which the petitioner was faced , ,;with: , , _ , : ,, . _ Chairman Herbst asked staff.to explaln the procedure and policy of a business license. 2oaing-:~Supervisor ChariES Roberes noted t!:at the petitioner had made appl3cation for a ~busiicess ficense for;storage fac'ilities,'.eta., and si~ce.there was a building on the southerly.poitiou of the property whicn.apparentlp;wculd be used £or storage purposes, •and since warehousing;was,:a.permitted use'ia the M-I Zoae, the business licease was approved . Subsequezttlp, staff determiaed that,the operation, ia fact, was an outdoor -, storage operatiuZ which was.permitted oaly in'the M-2 Zoae - therefore,` the petitioaer was reguired to file.;a co~ditioaal~::use permit to estab2lsh the use as a conformiag use. On soll•call"the foregoiag motion loat by.a,vote uf 4 to.3.. ~ THE HEARING WAS C:.OSED, Commissior.er Farauo offered,Resolution No: PC70-E41 and moved'for its passage and adop.ion to deny Fetitidn for'Oonditionel.Use Permit No.'1192 on'the.basis that tfie proposed use adversely affected the adjoining 1ar,d uses; that tae size and shape of the parcel was inadequate to a11ow for fuLi.deveZopment of the propoaed use in a manner r,ot detrimer.tal to the peace,.heaith, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim; trat tY:e i~~istrial use was tao intense to be located in an area primariiy devoced to residentiaL uses;"that the truck traffic and parking generated by this use were detrimental to the saf'etq'o£`the residents in this general area; and that this use would be more auit- able,in an ,i_.;dustrial area`wherein only industrial traf£ic was generated and where the use could be ~.~re readily screened and buffered from adjacenr uses of similar material. Furthermore, thar;~ho petitioner be allowed nine months from date in which ta abate the use presently on the property. (See Resolstion Book) ^ ?rior.to ro11 call, further_discussion was held by the Co~ission as to.the length of time the petitioner,should he allowed to relocate, the fact ChaE'money had been investe' and a business license approved and the petitioner's willingness to upgrade the facility. Deputy City Atto=siey Frank Lowry advised the Commisaion that a business license provided `only tax revenue and was not a regulatory operation as it pertained to zoning. Therefore, approvaL:c±f a basiness license did not'obviate the need for approval of the proper zoning required and the site.development standards of said zone. Furtheraiore, a reasonable time for relocation could be six:moaths, and if the petitioner within that time was unable to move to a new site, if suhstantiating evidence were submitted, a further extension could be granted. Commissioner Farano then amended his motion to require the relocation of the existing operation to be accomplished within six months, with any further extension of time to be 'subject to subsEantiating proof of a hardship. On roll call the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote: I ~ i, AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland. ' NOES:` COMMISSIONERS; A1Zred, Seymour, Herbst. ~ ABSENT: COMMIS$IONERSt None. -i ~ x S. ~~ '~A^~T ~ ~ . ~` .~~.. ~ . . ,,- MINi1TES;'CITY PLANNING CONAfISSlON~:August'10, 1970 5276 _ . . ., ,_. : VARIANCE N0.'~2192 PUBLIC HE.3RING: B~~ZNARD A=AND MATILDA M. ABRAHAMSON, 107 Oak &im :: . _ Court,•Los Gatos, California; Owners, FRANK R MONNYG,>1213 North -~ ~ Harooi Boulevard, AnaHeim,,Califoruia,•Agent, requesting WAIVER OF PERMITTED USES.:-IN THE::C 2 ZONE TO~CONSTRUCT ,1N AUTOMOBILE-REPA3R SHOP.'oa property;described ' . as A;ectarigularlp,shaped:~parcel°of land ha`ving a'f;ontage;of.approximately..52-.feet'on: the east~side of Anaheim Boulevard;.havirig a maximum depth'of?approximate'ly„155 feet, and being located approximately;235 feet south'of:.the~cenEeiline of Nortli Stre._t. ,Prop.erty piesently classified;'C 2,':GENERAL :C'OP4IERCIAL, ~ZONE ,: ..,, ,.. ; . ~ A'ssistant Zoning Sapervisor M~1colm.Slaagtiter~reviewed_the location of subject_property,', u"ses establisHed ia;close-proximiEy., and :the proposal~;to establish.'an automob'ilerrepair. shop having four stalls for;;repair work in a building^lacated to.the:rear,of.an:'existing ` .: , ... ~P real estiate office'and t~e;fact thst the a'utomobile re air:facilities inqolyed the use of . impact wrenches,`,hammers,'.`end other tools;which could"cause<diaruptive noises to~,the -resideritial°uses to;tlie:east: ,therefore,;the`Commission would have to determine wtiether 'or aot;the proposed :use was'compatible with the`surrounding:uses already establislied. ,.~. _. . _ . - . .. ._ Mr Frank Monnig; agent-for the petitioaer, appeared before:the Commission and.noted he ._ •haa beeri:ia the automoiiile,repair business since 1945_and had owned his own:facility at '1213 North Harbor BouTevard`for tl:e past:thirteen years - however, he now proposed to relocate.to subject property. ~ ' The'"Commission inquiied whe~her or not he was the owner of subject property; whereupon '.'Mr. Monnig"replied;-that he was pu;chasing the propertq contingent'upon receiving approval ~ ._.of aubject:petition. . , . ' No oae 'appeared in opposition to subject petition. . .:- -THE HEARING WAS CiOSED, Liscuasion wss held by the-Coueaiseion as to the manner in which noises would be buffered, access location, and existing.fence locations., _ ,;; ~.Mr ,Monaig, in replf to L'ae'!~o~isaion's ataeemente regarding;the feace, sCated there was a;fence'ou the;.easterly property line as'well:as.along,the south propertv iine. Co~iseioner Kaywood.:inquized wAetaer or not the.proposed operation wouid;be as noisy or naisier.than~;the existing muffler:stlop; whereuv,'oa Mr.`:Monnig replied>that the coises would r.ot be es greai•.aince this would be eimilar to.a.regular garage operation. Coa~issioner Gauer offerad Resolu.icn No. PC70-142 and moved for its passage aad adoption to graut Petitiori for Varience No. 2192; sabject to coaditions. (See Resolatioa Book) Or_ roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votec AYES: COMMISSIONRRS: Allred, Faraao, Gsuer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour, Herbst. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. COPIDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC.HEARING. UIGITED FIRST METHODIST CHURCH, c/o Warren L. Schutz, PERMIT N0. 3193 914"West.Lincoln Avenue, AND MURIEL RUTH WAGNER LENZ, 930 South State ' College Boulevard, Anaheim,:California, Owners; WARREN L. SCHUTZ, 914 West.Lincoln Acenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A CHURCH WITH RELATED F:ICILITIES'on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land-consisting of approximately 9 acres having approximate frontages of 498 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard and 607 feet on the south side of Wagner'Avenue. Property presently.classified R-A,:AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Assistant Zoning Superyisor Malcolm Slaughter ieviewed,the`location of subject property, uaea established in:close proximity; and the proposal to establiah,a 20,000-square foot church and related facilitiea structure, noting that the sautherly 115 feet of the original 8~-acre parcel was not included'in'subject petition, and it was assumed this 115-foot atrip vould complete the development of Norman Plece presently only half devel- oped, and that;the,petitioner proposed a 6=foot'high fence along the southerly property line,;but since'this, in all likelihood, would develop for R-1 uses, perhaps a 6-foot masonry wall should be required - however, the masonry'wall along the east side would not.be aecessary aince this was adjaceat to the high school and.a chainlink fence already separated the'two uses: Furthermore, the petitioner bad indicated a hard surface recrea- tion area at the southeast co~ner o,f the,property, as~d ~he Commiasion may w~sh to consider : the dea~.xAbi~~.ty o~?~relocating thia area toward the north, away f~om the future single- fami7,y homee." ~ ~ .,, _ ~~ir"~+L~.~'!~?~'a"~~?`~c;::6~+'?~.r'k`U`~. .r.*~,,. = i ~.r #_~T~,'i ~ ~ ~" ~~ ~ _ . - i ~ y ~ ~ ' MINUTBS, CITY";PLANNING C01~4IISSION;.August 10, 1970 52~~ °CONDITIONAL USE ,Mr Culver Heaton, 774 North Lake Avenue; Pasadena „ aichitect of the PERMIT`N0.~1193 :. proposed church faci,lities;.,appeaied.before'Ehe Commission and noted ;(Coatinued);; ,;he represented the:United Methodist Church who was.contemplating `` `developing the•church and related'facilities, that the main facilities. would,be located avay from both the school and residential uses; that the purpose in placing ~he,.hard suiface:=recreational.area:pzoposed;to be used,~,for baskeE- ball apd volleyball at the southea'st corner was?because the"school had'a play.'area.locafed .. , , _ ~ there:;also ;however; there:was no;stiong feelirig as to it remainirig at th'is-location; end it could readily. be~ ,relocated .norther'ly: < ,' The Commission was of the opinion~that en outdoor game use sfiould riot be located adjacent .`to anqone's~rear yera and:;inquired',whetfier or,'aot the yalley._vesper could-elso be.relocated. Mr Heaton, in reply, noted:that the=valley vesper.was!preferred.to be 2~cated in its preaent area:;since;they were attempting`:to,uae:various`.metfiods in`breaking up the parking ~ area so:; that , the harsh' paving ~ surfacas' would ~not be~ viewed :. from `.the,' streef and~ . the~souad would be buffered~from~tI~e residential uses to the south because the valley vesper, would;be:located~below a 6-;foot high berm with tree landscaping, and this.would be better~thaa a"~6-,foot masanry wall to buffer'any sound.. Mr Herman Lenz;,'represeating the'owner of Parcel 2,questioned the reasoning behind requir- ing tkist the,volEeyball-basketbalT area.be relocated to the north eince'the school already - had their vo3leqeall.court.adjacent to the R-l to the south, aad the City park on the west " side of.'StaCe'.Coilege Boulevard,was so lit up at night for little league basebell games that'one could; read a,newspaper_witl:out`any electricity, and the.noises from the park were considerably more tflen woald be comi~g from the bail court on subjecr properey. No oae,sppeared in oppoait3o-. to sub3ect petition. THE-HEARING WbS CLOSE~. . Co~issioner Se}rmanr noted thst he had inspected the properEy and was of the opiaion that ~, moat average;reside~ts wculd not wsnt a ball diamond or basketball court ia their reaz yard,"and just becausa tfie-scaool already,hEd th~ir facility did'noE.mean the noise should ._be compounded. Commissioner.Rowland noted thar.there st.osld appear to be no problems sir.ce the purchasers of the,Lenz property'~were in agreement to reiocation of the play court.' Commissi'oner Allred offered`.Reso2ution No. PC70=143 aad moved for ita passage and adoption to gr"anE Petition for Caaditional Use Pe;mit No. 1193,,aubject to ICPS&GW`reoommendations, amending Conditioa No. 12 to iaclude: ': .. provided, however, that.the hard aurface recreation area presently propoaed at the soatheast.corner of sub~er_t property be relocsted farther to the north, away from the potential residential use to the south of subject property, as atipulated to by the petitioner". (See Resolution Book) On ro11 call the foregoing resolutioa was passed by the following vote: AYES: COI~iiSSIONERS; Allred, Farano, Gacer,:Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour, Herbst. NOES: CO1~AiISSIONERS: None. : ABSENT: COlHMISSIONERS: Yoae. VARIANCE N0.' 2194 - PUBLIC HE.4RING. HERBERT AND ETHEI, MyERg, 529 Victoria Avenue, Venice, California, and TOMMIE B. AND HEI,gN M. CARTER, 806 Valencia Mesa Drive, Fullerton, California, Owners; U. S, FACTORY-BUILT, INC., 17461 Irvine 'Bouleyard, Suite A, Tustin, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF THE 6-FOOT MASONRY WALL ENCLOSING OUTDOOR,STORl1GE on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 240 feet on the weat side o£ Miller Street, having a maximum depth,of approximately 375 feet, and being located approxi~r~~ely 560 feet ~outh of the centerline of Arangethorpe Avenue, and furEher described as 1511 and 152i Miller Street Property presently classified R-A; AGRICULTURAL; 20NE, Assistant 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposaL to erect a chainlink fence with landscaping along the easterly property line inatead of the required 5-foot masonry wall to screen ontdoor atorage uses; that subject property was presently having a first reading processed before the'City Council under Reclassification No, 61-62-69 for M-1 zoning; that the petitioners had either purchased or leased the 42,000-square foot industrial building to the north,of subject property to fabricate housing units, a permitted industrial use, and use of the two adjoining lots - subject property - for the sEorage of the prefabricated units until deliver"y to the housing site was proposed; that in addition to the outdoor storage, a,small paint and trim shed was proposed on the northerly portion of the two parcels under consideration;;and that the Co~ission would have to determine whether or i ? , ~ ~ i I ~ (' f: ; f: I r. I i i. ~` `: i: . ;1 r W~..~, o=ooz masonry wall;:was submitted; that ~ :the materials.to be 'stored were not unsightly bur were £inished portiona of homes•and . ' ;would have an;appearance similar to a residential neighborhood, said units beirig``13 feet, ~ ;b inches in height ,, - . . x ,. ;, , , ~ : , . ' : ~ ~ ~+ A letter from~the Oiange County Water District was read to Ehe Co~isaion;,urging considera- + tion of dense,land3caping in place of a masoniy~wall to be more compatible with-the exist- 5 ing Anaheim Lake located to the.east of:subject.property.. Co~issionei Kaywood'inqnired whether or'not the agenr for the petitioner would.stipulate ?to planting_of oleander buahes.of;5-gaYlon.capacity.at 4-footicenters in order Ehat the :outdooz storage could k,e screened;with a den§e landscaping within a''two-year period of time, whereupon the''agent;for the``petitioner:stipulated to this requirement." No one_~appeared.in oppositibn to'subjecE'petition. '-,.THE.HEARING WAS CLOSED. Cawnissioner Allred`.offered.~Resolution°No. ?C70-144 and moved .for its passage and adoption to grant petition fo= Variance'Ivo: 2194,;subject•,tu nonditiods and the requir~zment that a ~',90 foot-set6ack along MiT2ec.Street be~fnll~ landscaped and`provided;with permanent irri- ~ 'gation,;facilities,•said,Iar.dsaaping to consist''of dense screen lendscaping.,adjacent to'the r4 chairil3nk fe:-ce, ~Ia~s,'for said,Tandscapiag to'be submitted'to.the Development Services. Departmen[ foi.approval, and that,a time:limitat'ion,of two.years for this use saall be grgnted; and upo~ request aa additional period oE time may be graated bq the Flanni~g '.Commission.. Oa roll.calZ thE~forego;ng resolLSian was pasaed'by tre following vote: ' , ,~y AYES =- COM~fISSiONERS: A.llred, Farano,.Gaeer,.:Rapwood, Rawland, Seymour,,H~rbst. NOBS ""COMMTSSIONERS: None: _ ,, e1BShNTc ` COD4IISSION£RS: -i~o~~. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. ROCKL4ND IN'JESTMENT CO., INC., 401 North Brooichurst N0, 70-71-6 Street, Suite 110, Anaheim, Califomia, Owner; C. M. RACH, Presideat, 430 North Gilbert Street,; Anaheim, California, Agent; property ( VARIANCE N0:;2193 described as: A,~rectangularly shaped percel of land having a frontage of'approximately.133 feet on [he north side o£ Ball Road, having a ~= - maximum depth of approximately 272 feet, and being located approximately ~` 130,feet west of tne centerline of Westera Aveaue. Property presently classified R-A, l AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. t :' , , { REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILX,RESIDENTIAL, ZONE, REQUESTED.Ve1RIANCEi WAIVERS OF (1) ONE-STORY HEIGHT LIMITATIO ~ N WITHIN 150 FEET OF A RESiD$NTIAL ZDNE-AND (2) MINIMUM REQIIIRED BUILDING SITE AREA PER I~TELLING'UNIT TO DEVELOP A 25-L'NIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. Assistant Zoning Supervisor rialcolm Slaughter reviewed the.location of subject property, uses established in close.proximity, previous zoning action on the property, and the proposal to establish a two-story, 25-unit apartment,complex which would be within 150 .feet of,R-1 zoned,p=operty to the south,"across Ba1T Road; that the General Plan projected medium=density residential uses:for:this general area;:E'haC'the,petitioner proposed a development with only 1131 syuare.feet.land aree per dwelling unit; and that the Commission ..would.have ta determine whether or aot sufficient evidence was submitted to warrant'consid- eration of waiver of the oae-sto,ry`heighE limitation..within 150 feet of the_single-family homes ta the south;'and if.'thia were denied, then~the.second waiver would be unnecessary since a reduct3on of three units would bring the coverage within Code requirements. Mr. Harry Kniaely, 1741 South Euclid Street, attorney for the petitioners,.appeared„before ~the Commission<and noi•ed that the petitioner and developer were:present:~to asiswer'questions; that the petitioner was withdrawing his.request 'for waiver of;:the one-story height limita- Eion within 150,feet af tY~'e,R-l~proper'tiea to the`'"south~:,and°would`~dedelop in accordance with Code;.,and t~at the waiver of the minimum`land area:,per dwelTing un3t was al~so being withdrewn - therefore,'the.ouiy ;con.aideration ~unde'r xfie apariarice ~'before~"~tihe,0offi¢~,ss~ion~ was vaiver of the one-§tory tieighi limitatiori wt"thin 150 feet of R-A property to:ttie . _ _~... ~. .. ' "Y•-.. ~ . .. .. . - -~. . ... ~, , .. . . ...' ~ . ~• -~ . . : . . . .~ ' . , ~ ~ . . . ~.. k .~~.,. . . . -.. .'. '~~ ' ~ .. . - . . . . . . .. ~ . . . ~ . ~ . . . . ~ . ~ . . ~:7., . . _ . . _ . , . . . G~ ,_., .,m.~, .< t F ' / ~~ ., i f ~ '~ ~ _ ,~~ ~ . . . ~ .. . . . ~... ~ . ~:, . . .., . _ .. .. :. , . L ;_ . , MINUTES~ CITY-`PLANNING C01~41ISSION, August:`,10~.1970 5279 'RECLASSIFICATION east and north: rurthermore; the~petitioner:,would.like;to post a bond NO 70;71 6•'~ to insare construction of ~a:,6-foot masonry wall along the north and ` ~ `, - _east~property'lines since,`in all-likQliho~d; this would not develop VARIAI3CE NO ~2193 for eingle family residential use. ',(Continued):! `' ~ ' ~boffiissioner Ferano inquired why the petit,.oner was requesting waiver ~' ~ of the viall along the~north';since~said property:-was developed`with a chicken~ranch,`and the view ,and smell from_;~s chicken ranch'would'appear undesirable - ,.~.therefoie, they would wish ;to protect:their tenarits,~and a 6-foot masoriry'wall would-;then .: , ~: be more`<desi=able. , - ~Three letters` of oppo : . sition-were.read tolthe Commisaion, opposed to waiver of the one-story heighe;;Timitation witHin",150 feet'of R-l properties..~., ,,. - ,THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. - °:Commissioner Rowland offered.Resc~•utio*a No.-PC70-145 and moved for its passage and adoption • to reco~end~.to the`City Council that Petition for Reclassi'fication No: 70-71-6 be,-approved, subject;to condition§; ameading Covdition`No.`4` to require the postLng of a two-year bond ~.~to insure consti~uction of;a.6-foo's'mgsonry wa1L in the!event the property to the north and east.deSeloped fnr:low-density.:residezitial uses. (See-Resolution Book) -0n ro11 ca1l..tl:e foregoing resoiutioa was passed by ~he following vote: AYES•~ : COI~fISSIONERS: Alfred, Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour, Herbst. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. =:9BSEN'P,:.: COINMISSIONERS: : None: Cormnissioner. SeymouY.offered Reaolution No. PC70-i46 and moved for ita.passage and adeption to-grant"Peti~ion for.Variance No. 2193,.'3a part,:.waiving the single-story height limita- ; tion for the:R-1 properties to t?:e'uorth and east only;and_granting'the'petitioner's `request'to.withdrew waiyer.:of the.minimum;required lan3 area per dwelling unit, subject Co conditions;:~amending Cordition Na. 2 requiring tl:at the one-story.height be maintained within.150 feet of'R=2'property t~ the.,sauth and revising plans to increase the minimam <required,land-erea to 1200 square'--feet'since'tre'pefitioner had withdraw¢ said waiver. !(See Reaolution Book). ` On ro11 cali the.foregoing resolution was passed by.the following vote: AYES: CO1~ffiISSZONERS: allred; Ferano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour, Herbst. NOES: CONAfISSTONERS: No~e. - ABSENT: . COl~AfISSIONERS: Nor~e. - Commissioner Kaywood-offered,Resolution No. PC70-147 and moved for its passage and adoption -to terminate all proceedings on Coaditioaal Uae Permit No. 668 on the basis that the peti- tioner did not intend to exercise the use. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSI01~ RS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour, Herbst. NOES: COr4iISSIONERS: No~e. ABSENTr COMMISSIONERS:. None. RECLASSIFICATION r PIJBLIC HFARING. :PIERCE C, Orff~e1NNEY, 1027 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, N0, 70-71-8 California, Owner; property described sa: An irregularly shaped parcel of land having frontages of epproximately 174.feet on the north side CONDITIONAL USE of La Pa1ma Avenue and epproximately 223 feet on the west side of PERMIT N0. 1194 Leisure Court,:being located approximetely 163 feet east of the center- :line of,West Street, a~d furEher described as 1019, 1023 and 1027 West La Palma Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, AND G1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL (DEED RESTRICTED),ZONES. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: PERMIT EXYANSION OF AN EXISTING PSYCHOLOGICAL GUIDANCE CENTER TO INCLUDE CERTAIN REMEDIAL EDUCATIONAL AND VOCATIONAL FACILITIES, WITH WAxVERS OF MINIMUM SIGN CLEARANCE AND MINIMUM.FRONT STRUCTURAL SETB~ICK. ~ Assiatant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Siaughter reviewed the loeation of subject property, uses eatablished in close proximity, and the proposal to reclasaify two parcel.s presently deed restricted to business and professional oEfices to~regular C-1-and three other parcels presently zoned R-A to th~ C-1 Zone; that.the petitioner proposed to.expand the ,*~ y.~r~ ,;,s:,.~:.. ,~>v .. ; _ .fC, ~ P ' ~..h.; ' t ~ Q ~ , ~ a x >MINUTES, CITY;'PIeYNNING COMMISSION', August 10,.1970 ° .. ' S 80 ~ ~ ~`~ `~ _ 2 :.. = : - RECLASSIFICATION ":~ psychological,guidaace center into'.an:additional home on the most NO 70-71 8 westerly porti'on of the ro~ert P p (P l' 3 ~ ; y arce _ ), p;oviding parkin north - of the reside~ces on;?Parcel~.4, with acceas to~I;eisure Court only and ;CONDITIONAL USE ~an additional`62 f ' ,~ eet on.L eisure Court (Parcel"~`5) for`which no plans PERMIT>NO 1194 'of dedelopmeat were p ted ' ~ r;" ~ resen . ,, Furtfiermore,;a=1200-square foot addi- (Continued)r ,tion *_o the existing;most weste ly i l -f ` ' ,.. . j r s ng e amily home was proposed,, . this placing~the sdditioz orily 3!feet from the . a *= Y . front setb ck'line, ' :~ ' whereas.Code'would require;l0 feet. It,was also noted:that a'200- s uar f t ~ , q e- oo sign was;proposed at~the southeast,;corner;:of the:~properEy whicfi would be at ;ground;level,.:whe;eas Code.re uired a fre a ~'•7 q e st nding.sign to`havera minimum 8-foot cTearance- -therefore, tHe Commiss;on.would;have to,determine whethe ' e ', r or not th ,p=oposed,use. was ;,compatible with the'surrounding laad uses - ~ "` . `. ,~h .. ~ * Mr Pierce Qmmanne -`the y,:: petitioner, indicated his presence and availability to answer questions, and that he concurrad with h : ~ ~` ,, t e findin~s and conditions of:the Report to the Commiasion ~~ : ~ :~ The Coffiuission inquired whether or~r.ot it was possible to relocate the proposed 1200-square foot addition to th . •. ~ . e rear uf the structure,,away from La.Palma Avenue, in order to eliminate encroaching~ir.to,the;.front?setback and wheth ' s ;; ~ er or not the ign could:be redesigaed or re- structuied so that if would meet Code. ' ,, -.;.. ._.. ` : ~ ?~ Mr O~enney advised the,Co~ission that the new;addition wasrproposed for public uae - therefore .they would fer h n ~s; , , pre zvi g this :for the La Palma Avenue frontage; that.they would iiisulafeithe addition so tli t i wo ^~; a t nld be,sonndproof to minimize the noise factor, and this would also add L•o the ap e ce '''~ ~ . p aran of the structu=e; and that`it was their intent Eo have:sig~ing,in accordance wiL•h~.the sign:at'Cal State :Fullerton si ce thi t s i ' '~; , ,:; n s ype of _ igning f tted their'needs, and the sign would ~e on a raised:portion of th u d .,4~.~ ''~ e.gro . n c ~ The.Commission i.quired of the a[aff what s uare foota e of ai in .was , q 8 8n g permitted under Ehe C-1'Zone r.equest; whereupon Zonin Sup b Ly ~ g er isor Charles Roberks advised<the Commission _ that the maximum aquare footage allowabie would be 350 s ` ' ~"`~~ : uare feet _ q per face: ~k Mr O~nanney ,stated tha the siga would be unframed aad`would not,~s;;'•as large as indicated on tre plans;-that the sc f' . out<headqusrters had a larger`sign`thsa they propoaed. •:The Commiasion note3 tast tre petitioner was utilizing single-£amily homes for co~ercial purpoaes;.whereas the scout:l:eadquarters. ss =e w a gular.office building - this being the difference.in t~e sign3ng pioblems': Fur"~ermore the CiE f ~ , y o Anaheim was suffering from %"signitis", and.it'was hoped,somet?~ing co~ld.be done to reduce signing in th CiC Fi a , e y as muc s possible. . The Co~ission.r.oted t?:at a stipu2atio~ should be made by the petitioner as"to the exact size of signing sirc th ' f! ^ e e C-1 Zone would permit s much larger sign than the Commission was desirous of having on the ropert 4 ' p y, - f s'; Miss Mary Fiefield, designer of the sign, appeared before the Co~ission and noted fhat the propoaed sign would b e s ' e an ext n ion of the existing wall along La Palma Avenue, going around the corner to Leisure Court; thaE a reader-boa d e 1 r type ign was proposed for a portion of this sign aad there would be no.viaible obstruction by the ro o d p p se signing; and that although the plans did not so indicate, there was .considerable landscaping already on the~premisea. ~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. ~' . THE HFARING WAS CLOSED. E Coamissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC70-148 and moved for its•passage and adoption to recommend Eo the CiEy Council that P etitiou for Reclassification No.-~~-71-8 be approved, subject;Eo conditions. (See Resolution Book) , ` On roll.call Ehe foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CO1~IlrITSSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Seymour, Herbst. NOES: COMMISSIONERS N ; one. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:_ Rowland. Commiasioner:Seymour offered Reaolution No. PC70-149 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant.Petition for Conditio al U n se Permit No:-1194 on the basis that the proposed use would be an expansion of an existing use and-that the si nin would b a g g e p rt of an existing wall which would be extended alongaide the property adjacent to Leisure Court, and subject to conditions :(Se R l ~ ~ . e eso ution Book) : _ i . ~ ~ ~' _ ~ ' ~ . ' z ~lY~i. Y~"'~a Ma `'~a.~. f~i~^fi ~'~.t4~i.'~?~~~` 1'~'' ~ r . ~ r "w ~r ~ ~~ y r f . ~ r ~ ~ 5 1 e Y~ rc r J~~ f y'3 ~ ~ ({~ , . ~ ~ ~- ~ t . .. ~, : .~ ~ ,:. MINUTES, CITY' PLANNING COMhIISSI0~1, August 10, 1970 5281 • ~ . . •~ '~ "~`REC,LASSIFICATION ?On roll call Ehe foregoing'resolution was assed b the f l~ ` ~ p o ,, . Y owing NO . 70:-71 S, ,, :;= i'uote ~; ; • . , - _ _ ;y CONDITIONAL USE AYES ~; COMMISSIONERS Allred ~'~ ano Gauer 'Ka ' , ywood Seymour;- PERMIT` 1 ~ ~ ' , , NO 1 ~ 94 , ~ ; -' ~"Herbst ' ` ~ J : ,~ y .. (Continued ` ' ~ ). NOES z COMMISSIONERS None ~ ' ~ '~;. ~ . N ~ . .. _.. ... . . . , `` `ABSENT:~ COMMISSIONERS None ' R` ' ~ABSTAIN COI~iISSIONERS Rowland:':. ~ ~ ~RECESS . ~ :Commiasioner Seymour moved`for a ten mi ut r e , . n e ec ss. .The,meeting recessed at 3d40 P.M:~ - _ ' RECONVENE Chairman Rowland reconvened the meeting'at 3.52,P M.,.-all " :.~. ~1 ;boa~issioners ,being'present; . ~`s~ ^ , ~, .. , ~ ~. .. •. ~. '., ~., ' ~ ~K~ ~ ~ ` RECLASSIFICATION PUBLIC HEARING ~OHIV R AND GEOR ~ . GE W. EHRLE, 156.~North.Berenen Drive . NO 70 71 7 ;Brea,: California, Owners; INVESTORS DEVELOPMENT CORP , 1345' ` ~ ~ ~ *~ . . North ' " ~ 'Grand Averue,-_Santa Aaa, California, Agent,.property ,described as: CONDITI013AL USE Portion,A An' irregularly sha 2 d„parcel `of land ~ c~ ` , ,. p , - .heving approximate. PERMIT NO 1195 frontages of 47& feet on.'the west-side of State'College Boule ard ~ . M'~ y and 459;feet.on the iiorth side of';:Romneya;Drive.and•Poition B- A VARIANCE NO ~2195 i n u ' ~ ecta g larly_shaped,:parcel,,of land having approximaEe`frontsges of` ~ '. ,.`150 feet on the west;side of State;:College Bouleva d and 1 ' ~ r , 50 feet on .GENERAL:PLAN ` Ehe north ss.de?af- Romneya Dr,ive ; Prope=ty presently classified R-A, ~~1MENDMENT NO ~321 ~~~ .~AGRICULTiTR?iL,; ZONE : . rr,:,:~ REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION .PORTION`A R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY~RESIDENTIAL ZONE ' +~,i;.~ ~~~ ~ ; . ~ PORTION: B C-1, GENERAL CONIl~SERCIAL, ZONE: . _ . ` , ~`' ' ~ Q RE UESTED CONDITIONAL USE ~PORTION B ONLY ESTABLISH;AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE'STATION ~ 5~~'~" ' ; ,,. `WIThZN.` i5. FBET'OF A'RESIDENTIAL'~ZONE, WITH WANER OF , R . ~ t~ EQUIRED LOC?,TION AT THE INTERSECTION OE TWO ARTERIAL` ~ x~,r j ~$IGHWAYS ~~ . . ~ ~ ' ,. .,~. ~~:~ ~ ~: ~:~ ~ ~ ~~~ ' ~~ ' ", ,`~ w . . :r < ,: : REQUESTED VARIANCE PORTZON A ONLY - WAIVERS„OF (1).MAXIMUM,BUILDING HEIGHT . . x N~ WITHIN;150 FEET OF R-A AND'.(2) MINIMUM DISTANCE BET4IEEN ~Ly~ BUILDINGS.TO-ESTbBLISH A:242-LTNIT.APARTMENT COMPLEX. " .~. . ~.' ~: ' ' . ~~~ ~ V; . . . . . ,• : . .. . ~ ~:~. .. -,- .. ~. ., ~ GEIGERAL PLAN AMENDTffiNT: , F , T0. CONSiDER A G..NERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR' Tl~ AREeI BOUNDED BY l't.,r- ' ~ ROSEWOOD AVENUE ON THE NORTH, STATE COLLEGE BG*UI.EVARD ON.THE EAST OM A ' ~ , R NEY DRIVE ON THE,SOUTH; AND THE EASTERLY TERMINUS ~R~ s` -0F.BRIARVALE.AND.ARBUTUS.AVENUES ON THE WEST, INCREASING THE , "~ DENSITY FROM LOW `TO-MEDIUM. , s.,:,.~; Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of sub~ect pro ert , us st l' ~ ~ p y ea e aUlished in close.proximiEy, and the.proposal to reclassify subject property to Ehe R 3 and C 1 Zon E ~" - es, no ing the proposal to establish a.242-unit, one and two-story : ~apartmeat complex on Portion A end a service station not located at the i t t ~ y " ~` . n erse~ ion of two arte~ials on.Portion B; that no two-story construction was proposed within 150 feet of R-1 ro erEies to the north w • a P p f' A'; or est th t the ro osed development precluded any con- ~ ~ P P ~~sideration of extending the two existi ~ ~: ~ ng streets.abuttin inEo sub ect 8 j property from the ~west - therefore there would be no'apartment traffic goin th h h i ~. ' ,~; g roug t e s ngle-family residential uses,to the north and west; arid that`although the petitioner wr~s proposin a ~ Y rl g service station on the corner parcel,:given;the number-of service'stations already in this area, it would,appear the enEire 10-acre parcel c uld be f~ ~ o st be develo~ed for all residential use, wheEher it be low,'low-medium or medium dens ity developraent or a m F n , co bination thereof. Furthermore,,-the.petitioner was proposing approximately 25~ of the. units'for bachelor apartmenta"having 434 s 'f h ` ~ , . ,quare eet eac , and the Commission would have. to determine if bachelor units were r r aE ` app op i e in this area given Eheisurrounding land uaes. , " ~~ i Zoning Supervisor Charles.Roberts reviewed General Plan Amendment No.. 121, indicating the study area; the,fact that the recently adopted Gener 3:Pl e , E. ~ ~' a an,d signated this area for low 'density.'residential uses; thaC two'alternatives had been prepared :bne for low-medium and h ~ , t e otrer for-medium,density; thaE the only area of the Plan effected.by the more intense >land uae would be an increase in the ea I ' . acr ge needed for park purpases,wherein the proposed development would mean an increase of.over one-half acre neaded f~~r ark ur aes h I p p po ; t at the Traffic. Esigineer had.indicated that'a.connection from the twu dead-end streets to R i omneya Drive would be desirable, which.could serve both the proposed multiple-famil ` ` ~ d evelopm eat ar.anq other approved development as to density arid the existing single-famil i ` ~: y subd vision to the north and weat of subject property; that-Rovmeya'Drive was a collector ~ = s.treet,. and approximately 69'homes>fronted on said street, with 14 homes aiding'on said ~' f~ ~ ' , . . .. . ~ ~~`. ~ k) GENERAL' PLAN '.. , , :.-, - - liepa , ~ 'AMENL`~tENT N0;~121 Mr ~Jack Davis, 1345;North~Grana;'Saata Ana,.appeared before the (Continued):;,, Commission, noting,his com an was::the ~ p y proposed:;'developer of the ~project; that'Ehey.were attempting to;~design a:.deqelopmenr whicii had two mejor problems,,`namely, R-1 to;:the'north and west:and a,heavily traveled thoroughfare ;(State College Boulevard),.on.tl:e:easE;'that garden-type~apartments - were'proposed,ad jaceiit to ttie R-1;?' said `apartments to :rent for $200 to $235 per: month; that'.;the-•ownership.wouZd remain with themselves and ~he insurance.compaay; that`the waivers requested;weie £rom the R-A;prop~rties to tne:.south as:to'height limitation,and the minimum distance between.buildings was a technical one;`eince'this had been granted by the,Planning 'Co~ission ead City Council`in the past; that tliese waivers.could be circ~vented by cor.necting the passageways; that it wes propoaed~to have the bachelor-type apartments oriented toward StaEe College Boulevard,; that:tre proposed~development would be more compatible with;the R-l;since single-sto,ry was proposed adjacent to the R-1; thet he.had ~~ at~empted to talk with some of the R-l.nei hbors and~the 8 , genersl opinion was they did not want.accesa through their.street, end'if a wall were proposed, it should be the same height:as ttee:carports;'and that,tre owners of the R-l on`.the north asked that,no carp~rts be proposed adjacent'to their property - therefore,-they had provided open parking. The Commiasion inquired whether or-not there was ady intention of extending Che twa stub streets througk subject property. Mr. A. R. McDaaiei, 500 NurEr Anareim ~3oclevard, engfneer.of,the project, appeared before the Commission.a~d stated it was nut th~ir intent to`estend these two streeta through subject:property since it wquld be extremEly^.difficult to develop with the densitv aeces- sary.aad to mee[ tne.desires;of tre davelopers; that the developers were not desirous of <creating a traPfic hazard by projecting heavy-density:traffic through a quiet,local street; that ti~ey were:proposing fhe staadard turn-around area where the street preser.tLy dead-ended to,aliuw'an area for;sweepers ~o Eci:t arouad; and zhat if emerger_~~y exits-were needed, speci'ai~.ga*_es covld.ce provided so t1:st access:could be gained to Romneya Drive and State CoYlege.Bou2evard. - Mr Robert Godwin, 1900 Rosewuod Aveaue, appeared before t:~e Commisaion in oppositioa and presente3 a sketc;~ of the area, i:~dicating where R=1 properties were located a~d tHe location of the proposed develupme.t, noting ehaC a petition signed by 87 persuns in opposition to t~e p;oposed zoning.was also 5ei-.g scbmitted; that'the residents were no*_ opposed to suit~ble developmer~ of snbject property bLt were opposed to the proposed use; that his southerly properL•q line abucted subject propertp to the north, and any rezoning action by the City.shoald meet taree criteris, namely, (1) that no significant bad effect wouid,occur to the i~mnediately adjacent homes, (2) that the development of the property be compatible with the surraunding neighborhood and community, and (3) that no more suit- able alternative was economically feasible. However, Mr. Godwin noted, the development did not meet these three cxiteria,' and if the proposed development were constructed, it would make his home unsuicable for family living because parking was proposed, both open and carport, along one wall adjacent to his property wherein a highly traveled, private ~ drive would,be closer to his home than to the apartments it would be serving, and transi- tioning should be considered:similar to that which was provided by.a trailer park and ~. apartments on La Fa1ma Avenue near tHe Riverside Freewa a and Newport Freeways wherein one tier of R=1 homes was protectedjbytanfettcehethenesingle- story apartmenta, ehen.a street before the two-story apartments were developed; and.the traasitioning effect in Santa Ana at the Mauna:Loa apartmen[s,owned and developed by the proposed developer of subject property, to the requirement that the changes in land use be compatible with the co~nunity and the nearby neighborhood. However, according to the City of Anaheim Forecast for 1970, there was enough land available for single'and multiple- family housing;,,that there was a need for more single-family homes;; that a 9~ vacancy factor in multiple-family housing kould be experienced by the end of 1970; and that the reason fo; multiple-family bousiag being`built was the fact that lenders preferred.Chis so_that they could participate in ownership; Ehat since there were other suitable alter- natives, the proposed development was not desirable or needed, although the arg~ent that the higfi land cost necessitated heavier density, this was not the case since the current assessed valuati.on of.his property for one-sixth of an acre was $7,160, and if 75 to 100 units we.re built on the.lend, then there would be a comparable value of land per unit; that'only one suitab2e multiple-family residential develapment, that being the Mauna Loa in Santa ~,na, would be accepCable £or aub~ect property because it maintained all aingl,e- atory, wae located on a.10-acre site, and did nc: adveraely a£fect Che nearby homea as could be aeen on tl~e phaCograph wherein the northernmost apartment was approxi.mately 20 to 25 teet fxom [he property Iine and was screened wi,th dense.foli.age, with Cha dri,veway locsted on the'south side, which represented a,transition between the~apartments, commer- cial, and two-story.apertments - therefore,•.in•~aummarizing,`the proposed zoning request , ji'_ _ _ _ "^y ~+ T ;' _ ~ ~ . ~~~ '~_ .!_ ~ .. • ,.` ~,. ~ .~~.c. ~ ., ~ ~ 6 ~ ' `. ^ '. ' , - e MINUTES~ CITF'PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 10~ 1970 - 5283 : ~. RECLAS$IFICATION `should.'be denied on the basis that;tnis was a high density apartment ' ~NO., 70-71-7•.- -complex not aeeded..in this:'general;-area,'_that~ofher more:saitable ' CONDITION?,I.;USE land -for khis;`type of density was>;availabTe.without.c=eatirig-'a hard- ;PERMIT~'NO 1195 ~, ship` on' the `ad~oining single family homes,+ tHat;;;apartments did not . :VARIANCE NO -2195 .~..pay their-'fair share;:3n taxes, that the _apartment layout would,make . GENERAL PlAN ~the adjacent'.residenEiai property'unsuitable'.for occupancy,:that'a . AM6NDMENT NO i'.121 'service st`ation was not needed an3,probably would be~:unsuccessful `(Contiauea); :based on the.removal'of one`service st'ation at'this;very intersect'ion. ' 'and the;other'station having changed harids innutuerable~t,imes,-;and ` ~that ttie proposal would be a benefit to a-~'few~profit hungry:individuals at the.'expense of many ~Anatieim.;resider.ts:> _ Chairman Herbst noted that;Mr. Godwin had~presented a,very.comprehensive stetement;-of '. : , ,_, PP . 0 osi,tioz which should suffice.for ell-the opposition:and th'en requested that ttie peti-: `Eioper~present his.rebuttal: ; ' `'' `' Mr Davis, in:rebu al; stated that he did not feel he.was a.profit=hungry;developer since ~ ~if that,were sa, the^ e~eryone would be._in the.apartment.building:_operation; that;.the only - ~ .~"stability in apartment develapment was,Lo!awn one in~:conjunction:with the;insurance or, ~ =:finance~ companq beceuse of Che high ci±st of l~and and interest'. rate,;'.that orher; fhan siagle- ' ":family:homes.were needed in`Anaheim,ar;3 the areai:in which'.su5ject property.was ;Located was ~ :`a traasition:area;;thet he disagraed that apa=tment developme,nt in,this location';would be , harmfvl;-,to.the siagle-family residents tazwise;'`that the.proposed'facility:_would not be child=oriented;since:.it was rot~bein desi ~ - .._ „ g, gned.;to house chiTdren;:th'at protection~was :afforded the §ingle-famil-•'residents b ~ y providing single story.units.abutting the,~-1 properiies, with,corisiderable lar.dscaping:'°and entry paE3os;;that there,were no recreational ,:facilitiea°for children, and the.irisurance cumpaay who.would~,be the joint owner 'o,f this ''project'had never'.financed au,~ deve2opmert geared to child-oriented;-faciliiies;,thar_ they would like to:wark wich the residents~of:this'area sinrte this°was pert`of'the problem which the Commission,also.£aced;~and thet ha had talked with'Mr. Godw£n:snd:directed him to visit • their,other de~elopment in Santa rlna so-:that h~'couid learn first-hand from the'singie- ~ family,'reside,nts ~c~ere that apartmeat development ad'jacent to°::,~hem.was accep*able `- r.he o`nly:difference between the:propased.development aad;.[he one in Sante Ana<.was the;fact that.iristead of commErcial daveiopmeat adjacent:;to the'single=story'apartments, th~y were ~~: ; ~ proposing two-story apartmeidts, thet as,to the,statements made regarding,the service ••station, they were,both pro,ar.d co:i on this subject.siace service stations.;ha'd been graated in the;past.-under.similar a'iicumstances;°that the apartment:developmer.t~at Rio Viata and Lincoln AvE::ue~hsd been approved by Che Commissioa, and it was their;fe~lirg that,the 'development was a very attr~etiqe"one; thet developmeat of'apartments these days required S new ser of amenities,.together, with a better living`environment with exercise rooms, auna baths,,swimming',poo3s,,Iounge rooms aet aside #or residents of ~he developmer.t to entertain and Iiave §ocial activities - alI these uaes could npt be pleced in a low-density apartment develupment; end tha*_ this was a new way of living which, in his estimation, was quice worthwhile. Cheirman Herbst noled From t!is obeervatioa one of the main objections from the City's standpoint was the proposal to have two streets dead-end adjacent to this project; that the area evidently had been planned previously,for some type;of circulation; that a land- scaped area should abut this single-family area;.that a maaonry wsll should also be provided; and that r,o.incompetible traffic pettern should be allowed. Commissioner Allred wae of.the opiaion thak the petitioner should.provide his own buffeXing ' ad,jaceriE to Ehe R-1, other thaa walls attd'a private drive, and that more circulation should be provided which would filter back into Romneya Drive. Mr. Davis advised fhe Coffinission that the'circulation was discusaed with the.residents of the area, and'mosE of them stated they preferred to'haVe the cul=de-sae type of street : since it afforded more protection for tHe'.children of the area, and that.he.could agree,. with.theae people since this would eliminaCe any!traffic coming from the proposed develop- ment, as well as from Sta[e College Boulevard. Furthermore, they had considered providing some.emergency type of circulation so thab accesa couTd be had by"the Fire Department, and that-one of the major complaints mede was the'fact thaE Romneya Drive already had consider- ably'.more traffic then was necessary: :Chairman-Herbst.noted xhat one of the ways in which to:have compatibility betwaen the R-3 1I and R-l was spaca - however,`the.petitioner was not providing this space aad projected i, carports iaunediately adjacent to the rear yards of Che R-1 homea which wss highly undesirable. ~ Mr. William.Phelps, 914 East.Katella Avenue, designer of the proposed development, appeared i before the Co~ission and noted t~at in starting a design progra~ all factors had to be ~ taken into consideration, name2y, ec6nomics, cormnunity requirements, location of the ~ project"-,in this instance adjacent to R-1 and a major arteriaT; that it was difficult to ~ satiafy everyone and econamice became very important; that discussion was hE2d regarding ~ extension of-the cwo streets•now dead-ended into subject property,.and he could not under- 1 \ .: - 1 ~,, $/",:{ra'7e'Atl:.t~C . 710. 4 1M1.9.'.,:/:C~,7DL+4W!~Sr . ' ~,`µ~~ a7'`.1~~'4"S~ 4' FJw"' ~ _ .} o* ev ., ... ' : : ~ ~ '~ ' ~ ~ . ~ _ : . : . .:. ~-.:. ~' e+, . ; .. ~ 1y f ; t 1 ~ `iC ... } ~"~ ~..Y ~ 4 ~ ~-~~ y ~ .. ,~ . ., ; , -~ r 1 ~ ~ n~ . y~ 1 5 ~ . ~ ~. .," - ~ MINUTES; CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON~ August 10~ 1970 5284 ~ • ~ r~; f; YM1 '~, ~-- 1 '..~ .,. '~+ . _, ;: ~ ~ ,. .~,~ ~,. RECLASSIFICArION stand tlie rea"sor,tng for the:City requiring these~two sEreets to dead- ' ~ ti NO _~70=71 7~ ".~~} ~ end, that this,'requiied additional: traffic which~: would be filtered : ~ ~ - , ~r 'CONDITIONAL:USES ontoCRomneya'Drive, and this~seemed unreasonable~since`:'this: ould.' w , ~~. . , , ~ rPERMIT~:NO 1195 subject`.thoae homestfronling.or Romneya Drive with an undue amount of ,',VARIANCE NO ~ 2195 traffic, that, from atplanni'ng' standpoint it would seem better: to orient " =' ~• , ~ GENBRAL•PLA.*lr~.` thertraffic~,away from therR'~1 properties,::.that . , it would•~be considerably ' ' , '~ , , AMENDMENT ~NO ':121 more desirable;µtoshave~cars ;par1~ iad,7acerit to: the R-l than to, have i- ` ` ' ~ . (Continued) ~ r ecreatioaal facil3ties adjacent to;the R 1, that one"of the altema- ; . !, ,'L ~;_~ ~ tives~ proposed?was R'2 5000 'zoning howeyer, they were~ propos ing a~' . ;~ r<<GC ,-` r, garden type apartments'~tadjacent to ;the R:1, that~'the fii'gher density. > type of,development vould~~not be oriented':toward; the R 1 buc`away and toward rate.College ':Buuleva;d,and Romneya~Drive;,that subject'property was':particularly difficuit to ~develop ~ because of the'"two,different•types~of problems,:namely;,a street carrying 40,000 vehicles- + o ' t , h' ,~R per day,- n the,east and sirigle family homes oa Ehe north and:.west, and that'.from a'designer's' ~ ~ ~ standpoint he felt,the proposed developmedt was:an excellent:'one since the+density was:less ' ~~~zy than the maximum permitted liy Code=which:,would ~permit up to '276 unit's .~~ Y, l V d ~.~ ., "~.. .i .-. ` .:- .:.. ' . .' .. . f~" The Commission;.then inquired what would hAppen if the service.~station zoning were~not ~~. granted: ~ : ; , - ~~ :; ' . . .~ '~ . . ; , ` ~ ~. µ'~ ~' J,KU'u'7 , ; ~ Mr Davis replied that they. ~would .have tc~;°re negotiate 'since~ Ehis was one o f the criteria ry ~ in purchasing :tne property,;and if."R 3 weie required,.-then a plan of.development would be $tt."' required which~,could';be much more:intenae'~than a-<service station . ~.~, Mrs aJohaSDembowski, 1706 Briarvsle Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition ~ Yand notted that all the homes: to tHe west of,sub~ject property,6ad their bedrooms' facing , "~;ti" , the propo~sed carports, and regardYess of ;Ehe quletness.of vehicles wnea ca=s were`started ' "' or stogoed,', there would oe a~ disrupt3ng 'element sto the: rest' of ttie" residents which could ~`~~ ;be very:'andesirable ,;therefore, somet}i~ag else'~should;be required:adjacent'to the single- '~~~k famil~ homes than carports or oper parkirig and a;private drive y,~ti F, , ~ ' ~ Five letters of oppoaition were read to ttie Commission r~; Coffinissiuner Se mour not d r t the t h ~ r ~ e C a .Y peti ioner ad indicated:the gard~n-type apartmenta ~ ~~ would rent fur $200 to $235,per mcn~h atd`:inqaired whaC the anticipated;rental wss for th ~ „~~~ ~ ~ e balance o£~;the utii~s ~ . . '. ;; . . '.; ' .. . .'.,: , .:. . . : > F "i - r 'k _ _ . ~ . ; -. :: ^+a t~ ~ 1 Mr Dayis re 2ied that the bachelor t P, ype u~its would rent at $150,.tHe one-bedroam at ` 1'~ #~''~ "$165,,arid the;two-bedioom:ar araund $I80;per month. ~ , "'~~ - . ': , ? '. ; S ` , .z~;a. Co~miasioner Seymaur,then noted thaE since,the developer was also experienced in building ~sd"h , ,apartments,~could he:iadicate the n•umber of vehiclea that would be`parked'ir. this ares - j, ,: ::since the opposition nad"indicated the posaibiiity of 400 vehicles.being perked from this '~ 'developinent. • . ,, _ , ti ~ Mr. Davis replied that from experience there were 1-1/3 to 1-1/2 cars per apartment, or yr; ac the maximum of 1-T/2 cars per apartment, this would be a total of'363 vehicles. : ~ ~ _ ,ir. Richard Escomillo, 1702.'Briarva2e Avenue, appeared before the Commission and noted that a.playground was;located near.his home, and each time a baseball game was in progress, I ~ ~ cars. parked'on:Evergreen and..Baxter Street almost.to..,the.freeway, as.'well~ as s~illing onto` Briarvale Avenue, and that if this,'proposal were approved,:these vehicles would also perk ~' along,Romneya Drive, creating an"undesirable situation, Furtfiermore, parking, according Eo figures,gresanted by the developer; was provided for tenants'.vehicles but.evidently nothing was being provided for.guest parking, arid if.the two dead-end streets were opened, - thia could mean_;guests of ,the'apartm~nt development perking on the residential streets, which would,be.highly.undesiralile.:._. - Commisaioner Rowland:inquired as to the length of both dead=end streets if a cuZ-de-sac were provided; whereupon AssisEant Development-Services Director Ronald Thompson 'advised . 'the Commission that there were ten.homes,';.or.approxir~ately 600 feet: Commissioner Row2and noted that since the standard cul-de-sac was 500 feet, to cul-de-sac ~ these two streeta would not be too great a problem. ~ ~' Commissioner Herbst noted that the proposed development;did fncorporate some of'the ! standards the City required;for two different residential uses to be"compatible and ~ recognized thaE if subyect property were developed with single-family homes,.this could ~ plece homes adjacent to a heavily-traveled arterial. ~ Commissioner Rowland..noted tl:at if commercial zoning were not approved on the corner parcel, I ~ then the.petitioner,would.be`required to re-negotiate. ~ - - l er~r,~ ~ \ , : R~~~ -'3'. ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ SS}.: ~~'' ~, ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION; August 10, 1970 ~~ ~ :- „ .. , ; . . 5285 ~, ~ ., .,: ;: ,:~ ;. ,. , : . . ,. ,_ , , ~;.: . ; _. RECLASSIFICATION '-:Commissioner:`~Gauer inquired whether or'not the'developer was',purchasing ;, •. -N0 70=71 7'~ the entire paicel, oi whether the;preaent owner:was proposing to reEain ~ •-. . 'CONDITIONAL YJSE ~title:to the`commercial portion, whereupon Mr Davis:replied that thei,r ~, ~PERMIT~NO 1195 .:company wae:`purchasing the:entire:.parcel: ~` ;VARIANCE NO r:2195 ~` :GENERAL PLAN<= THE HEARING WAS CLOSED r~ .; AMENDMENT.. N0.'= 121 .. ' ` " (Coritinued) `,The Commission Secretary advised Ehe Commission:that.if a'chenge in' zone_from mulEiple fami3y development were being.'considered, then ~~ , consideration'~first;should'be given to~an ameridment to the General Plan. Co~nis§ioner,Rowland offered Resolution:No PC10 150 and moved for'iEs'passage and adoption . x''' ~.to recommend,to the:City Council„that.General P1an Amendment'No.__121, Exhibit B, be a'~ :`approved (See Resolutioa`Book) ;~~r On roll call~the foregoing.resoZuEion was passed by the following vote: ~~~ AYES . COMMISSIONERS .. Allred, Rowland,.Seymour, Herbst. ' ~~~ NOES; COP4iISSIONERS Farano,:Gauer, Kaywood. ~`~ r~ ,'ABSENTc COMMISSIONERS: None.._ _ . Commissioner'3eymour.offered a motion to~reco~iend denial of Reclassification Na. 70-71-7: ~ `to the City Council,on the basis..that commercial:zoning should not be'allowed; particularly ~"% ~. .for a,_service station~ on a' collector~street.' ; " i ~s , Discussion was held by the Commission and staff•:as ~o the motion, ' Commissioner'Seymour j~'' :noting,thac the Commission:could;not a rose R-3 zor.in rS"`' PP. g on the property since it had not ° been advertised foi that zone. Other c~mments:were as follows: Since a service sta:ion M~~ would not be aliowed.at this interseccion:~because i~t would 'oe extremely.difficult to ~ obtain~'any additional dedication:.from ~h'e,single family homeowners on Romneya Drive if ~~ `said street 'were changed to an arterial,and tne'service stetion'did;not`appear to be at a ~_'~-,~' logi~al;locaEion,•Ehat subject pioperEy, should be developed in its,entirely for a,multiple- `~ family.,residential deveiopment; that if ievised;~p2ans'iwere submitted,`they should 3ncor- ~„ : .: 1 ;porate•a be~ter means of pioviding.buffering,for,'the.R=1 properties than'that which was ,+~ ~ proposed, that aithough circulation waa;desirable from the standpoint of the Commission +~' ~ 'and staff, if:the iesidents of the'singl~=family subdivision"did not desire additional ~~,a circuTation;.then,pernaps this should noE be re uired•"that a ~ ~'~ 9 . pproval of,only a.portion ~~ of the properfy could mean,a delay before the City Council.if the City Couricil concurred ~ '~i in the-Planning Commission!s recommendation as,to,denial of Ehe co~ercial use -.this ~" would:liave to,be referrad back to""the Commission for readvertisement,.and by only.a fuur- >~ week.delay wHich would allow staff time;to readvertiae the reclassification to include botli: parcels under R-3 zonin *~ g~ this, then; would give the City Council a choice as to ~:; two zoning actions;.that by,the Commiasion sending a complete package on their recommende- '~ ;tions";as to R-3 ~oning on,the pro ert ?; p y, ~his would present to the City Council a much better picture of the Planning Commission's recoa~endations and findings,than if the '~ petition were denied,without any al[ernative being available to the City Council; and ~^ that the proposed development could,provide their own buffering, juat as was required of ~~ the R-3`,development on the south side of Ba11 Road east of State College Boulevard wherein '; heavy landscaping, a full-width street, either private'or public, dedicated was provided,and actual building setback from the south propertq line,was approximately 65 feet.- Eherefore, f fi if the City could require the R-3 to buffer their property.from industrial.uses, then the t Y same reasoning of providing a buffering for the R-1 from a more intense use could also be ', accomplished.' '~ , ;,j, Commissioner Seymour withdrew his motion for denial. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to reopen'the hearing and continue consideration of ~ Petitione for Reclassification No. .70-71-7, Variance:No..:2195, and Conditional Use .Permit 'i No. 1195 to the meeting of September 10, 1970, to.allow time.for the staff to readvertise subject property, proposing R-3 zaning for the entire parcel and for the developer to , present.revised plans to include Portion B, said revised plans to indicate a better method of providing:buffering of the proposed.project to minimize noise intrusions,,etc. from the I low=density;residential uses. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ ~ i f ~: ~ I i ~,~~: I ~ . . . . . . .. . ~ . . . ' .. . . ~ ' ~~ <_V r : . - -r ~- =.=w~,~~~; pcacn,: cauxornia, appeared::before ~the '.Cammis"sion and noted that evidently he rad.misunderstood the-,requirementa•for,subject, property, buc°=upoa tiaving''reviewed tre origiual pZans:;and tlie property, had determined` 'that developmenr of the carporEs_;along ttie south.property line would'be-.more appropriate 'than,the landscape.strip s~nd the~.6-Foot,maeo~rp wa11.. Furthermore,:-landecaping-on this 'stri~;would:probably nut;be meintaiaed. The Comdissiun advised the architecE, Mr. Jenkins, that since this landscaping would be ,`on private property, it,would have to be maintained by tHe rntner'of the praperty: Further= `more, the architect.would have had to been at the'public hearings,'both before the Commisaion and City Council;, to understand the history of.the area in question wherein R-3.zoning wes approved Eor a portion of the property south of Ba11 Road, which formerly 'had been the,delineatioa line of the industrial propertiea, end the~only wey to obtain a final;'agreement from all the industries 3n that area was to 'require that.the R-3 provide buffering against any M-l:noises,:;such as a masonry wall, dense landscaping, and building setbacks as required under the ares 'development plan since space aad landscaping were about the only way of reducing any objectionable noises which the residents of the apartments migh['have due to the iridustry.located to the:south. , <Commissioner:Rowland further noted that at the public hearings the discussion of the community values and,protections,whiah both industry and residential uses:needed were very thoroughly discussed -`therefore, if there.were to be:any consideration of reviaed plans by the.;Planning Co~ission or City'Council, then strict adherence to Area Development P1an No. 94, which'required the conatruction of:a 6-foot.masonry wa11 together with a 10-foot.strip,of dense landscaping, a,minimum 50-foot wide, dedicated.or private street, and a,structural aetback from~the<,south property line bf.65~:feet, would have to be main-. tained,..and that-any'parking which might be considered would have to be o en I Furthermore „ in:order thaE the City Council and the Plenning Commission mightpmaintgin ~ faith with the.industrial development in'the City of Anaheim, strict adherence to said ~ area development plan was'a prerequisite: I Commissioner Rowland:offered a motion to ~recommend to the City Council that approval of revised plans uader;Variance No.'2143 be.denied and require that the petitioner develop , -in accordance.with Area Development P1an No. 94 in order..that the integrity of the indus- ~ trial;area might be maintained. .Co~issioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION ~ CARRIED. Co~aissioner Seymour abstained from voEing. ; I _ ~ { ~ l + j ' , s~ ''? ~ r ~ 4 k ~~ !'~ r ~ x' ~ ~ ` 4 A _ ~ . • ~, ~._ . ., ~ .- ~~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY;PLANNING COMMISSION,.`August 10, 1970 528~ ~ : , ,' REPORTS - - AND ITEM N0: 2 ~ ;. - 'RECOMiSENDATIONS GENE p M <t~- u~ RAy Lp,p A ENDMENT NO 122 - Preliminary Santa Ana Canyon.: , (Continued): Density;Study: ` ~ ~. . ;• : ~ . ~. , ;; '' ,. .; . ''; '"' Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson revi w d f r` '»~ ' e e o the Commission the . studies`made'and diacussions held~,regardirg Geaera~l'Plen Amendment No ~122 and the ' density' study jand not d ha ~.. _ , . , e t t the Oiange;CounEy Elanning Commission and Boe=d of Super- Yisor h d n 'i .~ s a co tinued: a numlier of cases before'them, awaiting::the.CiEy of Anaheim's.= compleEion of~the Scenic Highway $Eudy arid the~`density;' t d °r ' s u y equi"red; .;Ehat General Plan Amendment No. =~122 is ;~now ready for'.consideratiori; at 'a :public ~;liearing: and _would "tfle n b s , ; e cheduled before the.City.Council approximatelq;;two weeks.afEer the~;Commission took action'in order that,the recommendations:;of the'Pl riin i ~ an g Comm ssion and City Council might'be befor`e the~planning Co~ission and Board of Supervisors when th i ` ~ ey:cons dered =the land use changes requested in Ehe Santa Ana Canyon:'area,.;that the.report was pr~sented ~b 'the st ff a ` "~ 4 y a t the morning_:session regarding Planning Area B; a-500,-acre stud ~ea 'liounded'.by the,Santa Ana Can on Road ri~•th t ~ y o e sou h, Imperial:Highway on the west, Esperanza Road~oni~the north,'and Eucalyptus-,Drive.on the east,~wherein consideration was being`given ~ h i ~ to eav er density chan,low density as presently.depicted on.the General Plan; and tliat ° said General Plan~amendment;:should b hed d ~ ;.L e sc ule ;before':the Elanning'Co~isaion at their next public tieering. - Furthermore;:it was'staff!s suggestion that a work'session be h ld ti?~~ , e - on August 17.at 7 00'P M-wherein::the staff could review thL'ough slides and.a field Erio; ~ as wellr 'as do m t ti ` ~r ~ . . cn en a on,.tHe proposal of :both the density study and the.Scenic Highwey Study since both were' needed~ in order th t t e '~i ~ . . a posi iv .recoa~endations could be=made to the County who were being.faced;:,with a11 kind§ of pressure from`the ,, rope ty owne a ' ~~ti ~ . p r r in this ~general ?area •:: ., : . . i , _, , .~'7,; Commiasioner Rowland•.'offered a motion to direct Ehe Commiasion Secretary to,set for public hearing~;General Plan Amend nt No 2 ' ~ ~ me . 1 2 encompassing..property.on the,'north`;"side of Santa 'Ana Canyon Road,east'of Imperial Highway ,so th'of s e ri " ~ , u E p ra za Road, and weef of Eucalyptus Drive,.for consideraEion of an amendment to the residential densities.proposed for that a ' `~~, ~t~ rea Commissioner!:Seymour seconded the.mo[ion. MOTION-CARRIED. ~; ~~" x ~ ~` ' Ts - ~ ~"`~ ADJOURNMEIVT , Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to adjourn the meeting to ' ~ ! ~ki > ' August 17:at-7::00 P.M:'for a.work sessiont Co~nissioner Seymour ,~ i ~t seconded the motion.:'MOTION',CARRIED. I ""'"~' , ? The meeting adjourned at 5:48 P.M. ,: ~y Respectfully submiEted, ~~,/~'t J , ' ~ ~ ANN KREBS; Secret'ary Anaheim City Planning Co~ission _ . ; .~ ~ . . . . ~ ' . . . ... ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . ~ - . ' . . ~ . . " 1 A.i . ~i a~ : { ~`.~'" '~'.~ ' ..y~ --• ~ ~.f ~ ~,' ` t t ~ f `a'' ~ r ~~ ~ 111 ~ ~' '~ ~~ ~7 t A ! 1 l+ ~p,~5, '~ -n•f` 4~t ~r$ ~ b Y~ ~~ ~ { ~1 .p~ ; .,`.l _. . . -.. ~ ~.':: , -. .~ ~ ~~ l; l , . _ . ~1 f ~ k ~~ ~ 41 ~ ~': . ~ ". : ~ . '!f ~ ' i' ~ F . : ' ' : ~ .. ,, .:..,; P. ' ~ ' ,. ~ ~ /. ~ .+ ~ ` ` ~ } 'r~ " '