The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1970/10/19~;~FLECL'1 ;ALLEG: :AEPA61 :_,,.,:...,.:.",. ZOllj.27g' Planni~ Commis: to,;;,thes weet CON CONTINiJED>.F,' R`oad, Anahe` Suite -1400',t Faranc led;-in the:;Pledge;.of Allegianoe .to.the Flagi - r ~ r~ ~+ lncaa*. ovnsls'G1Tig o approximately 51 aores, hsving a frontage;•of approximately 445 feet~on the;south sid f': ~ .' ; # ~~'~,'' : e o Santa:Ana Can on Aoad havin Y ~ 8 a maximum depth,c.f approxi mately 1,963 feet'extending approximatelq 1 700 feet easterl Fro R ~'~ ~ ;~ ~ , y m oysl OakiRoad .`Property prasently olassified R-A, AGRICULTURAL`ZONE:;' -~ ~ '~~r= REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: PORTION.A - R-2, lif6ULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE U T "~ ', PORTION'B -.R-1, ONE-FAMILY..AESIDENTIAL, ZONE .. : ` ~ ' REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A PLANNED RESIDHi~'~'IAL DEVELOF'~lENT YVITH WAIVER:_OF ~ ,,io ,~'st' THE MAXIIdUM BUILDING'FiFIGHT WITHIN'150.FEET OF R-A ZONE , ON POATION nAn.ONLY. ~ TENTATNE TRACT'~REQI7EST: DEI/ELOPP7R: CALPROP CORP. , 1900 Avenue of the Stsrs, I,os Angeles a ~ , C lifornia. ENGINEER: Anaoel Engineering Company, 222 East " • Linooln Avenue,; Anaheim,`.CaliPornia: Traot 3s a segment of Portion A containing epproximately'9.3 aores, and'is proposed - for subdivisiori intq 103 R=2 aondomi i Zo ' . n um ts. , Sub3eat patitione were oontinued from`the meetings of September 10 and Ootober 5, 1970, to'alloa time for the petitioner to s b it ' " ~ ' , _ u m . revised_plan s, and<Yor staff to asaertairi:whether tHe City would-sooept a 10-14'aore.portion'of sub3eot property for a'.park in lieu of park arid reareetiion fees. r I Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that sub eot , ~ ° 3 property was looated on"tHe south side of .8anta Ana.Canyon Roed snd.it extends in;a westerl dire ti n f ~- y, c o rom the.extension of Imperial,Highwsy approximately,to Royal.,Oak.Road;_.that there were a ` ` ~ involved in es this re uest ` p b ' ~ i , , q , and the pe,titioner wss' proposing rezoning the entireYproperty into two separate,zones --the easterly portion•of'the~property is eque" t - I.: ~ r s ed:for R 2 Zoning Y' P. B ~ and tfie westerl ortion Por R-1 Zonin that;a Conditional Use'Permit has been initiated to establish a planned residentiel dE l l m ~ o , ; ~ ~ e op ent f r:the entire,pro3eot, end one waiver has been requested:Yrom tHe site development stendard9 of the R-2 Zb m ' j ne - aximuo~ building height within 150 Yeet-of'R-A 2oned progerty,,,whioh would apply,to Portion "A" :~nly and would also apply"only:to the fi t"pH , ~ ra ase of development.as it woulu spply to'the R-A Zoned property on tlie east side•oP"Imperiel'Highwsy whi h i ap n ; , c s pare tly owned by the sohocl distriot;;that the Tentstive Msp that is aubGlltted proposes the subdivision of the Pirst phase oY development into 103:ao d mi " ~ ' n o nium paroels ~ + -51~36- ~ ! ~ ~ . .... .. . I. 1it. ~~ ~ti ',"y:i;, :~1=~, IY ~' < , .: :. - . '- - , ' ' ,, . ~ ~ ~ . . . -~'. .. : . ~. ... ' . ~ .., . ~..~~~ ~ ~ . .. . ~~! J~ ~ ~ ~` :-. . ~~'- ~ , . ~ _~ ~ ~``~d+'? MINUTES, CITY YLANNING COMMISSION, Ootober 19, 1970 _ 5~37 R CliASSIFICATION - Mr. Roberts then nv'9d.that tHe:Commission had'reoeived a aonsiderable NO .70=71-13. ` amount of.informetion on this pro~e,qt sinae',this was.the;third heering." ": ` The iterti was'oontinued from the:0a~ober`5.meeting to give staff sufPioient ~ CONDITIONAL USE time to co:~taat both the City ~Laneger,'s offiae'and the Park and Reareation PERMIT,NO. 1202 Department oonaerning the:`City's;',position on aaoepting_a portion.of .this ~ ~r. property -:amounting.to approximately:l4 aores`- as.a publio park site', TENTATIVE MAP OF ' and'also for.'the-pei;itioner to.submit revised'plans,for the.wholed"evelop- _ TRACT NO :7288 ment.that would rePleat a"`].esse.:^":density than;whst was presently,proposed _ ~(oontinued) ~d s,.dAnsity t~at',would~be more,.in.eobord~ivith the land use statement s on the,General Plan'. ` Mr.;Fioberts'advise,d tnz Canmission-that staff had.been in .touoh with the City ~anager;'s offioe > arid;the Director of Parks,:end.,Reoreation,-and;:;the,?expresssion that had been reoeided from both of those offioes,was that_the City would not,be iriterested';.in thYs pnoperty for e park:site. 'Furthermore, as far as the revi'sed.plans aere`ooncerned refleoting.a lower density..for the eritire property; the only`,change,;that,;had been made was that the;applioants,had stipulated to creating lots within the'single.family,;erea,thau.would have 7200;square feet eaah rsther then that,presently proposed, and by,doing this the total.number o~ single!family,lots would be. aduaed fr.om 182 to'137 -`,this would heve a net effect'on:reduoing the,density from 5.4 dwelling `'.anits per gross aore to 4:9 d~velling units per gross aare over the eritira:110 sares. Mr.`Rdberts cerr~.uu_» by stai;ing that when..the-City.Counail adopted the updated General Plsn, . a maximum dwelling'unit density, of 2.7'units-per gross.aare was astablished for the hill and aanyon area.;;- and ttiis particular area"in Aneheim - this density statement was determined after extensive study.and deliberetion:whtoh;inaluded input the pebple who eotuslly live out in this area as to the'types ot,developmer,i that they would.like to see within the .oanyon area. '; Furthermore.; on several occa:ions.proposals nave'been msde for higher densities in.the oanyon ° area; however;,to'date no one ha~ stibmitted :suffiaient evidenae or givan suYfiaient oause for a deviation`from.i.na iowidansity',land use polioy as'is presently stated, and as a aonsequenae, both the.Plsnning Commission and'City Counoil:Have reaffirmed their previous positions numerous times'. _ ,Mr. Roe~ ts,.-in oonolusion stated that staff would reoommend, insofar as,.no evidenoe has been presented to:werrorit a ohange,in',the land use,:polioy'for the oanyon area,'thet a firm stand be ' tak~r. on the:>estab',;is}ied Tow density residential polioy;,that.one.other thing.with respeot to the development t~j;t zs'proposed~ iP,fsvorable:.oonsideration is.given to the types of dansity- a~ proposed~under.~his partioular,~lan'.it would.be fairly appanont.that in sll`likelihood the -: ad3aaent property owners;and other. proper.ty owners in the'hill and aanyon erea would expect to be.'.able t'o-achieve similar densities for.their partioular properties; and,that tk•e major aonsiderati~on b~dfore the;Planning Commission would,tie,what'effect will approval of this appliaation.have,on the development oP the total hill and oanyon area. Therefore, in con- sidering this item „ staff:had c•~ntaoted tlie Traffio:Engineer to cotein an opinion as to what effeots would be realized upon.tihe total deJelopment of the.oanyon, i.° a densitq compara~.,le to ~vhat is or.essr~ly proposed is.actually developed for-the entire area, and his immediate reaction was that all'of the arterial highways,in the area would have to be upgraded at least one desig- nation, and the effect this'would have on Imperlal.Highway the half width of the street would have to be:inare,ased from 37.feet to 49 feet - froui a hillside seoondarq arterial to e hillside primary - the effeot such an upgradfng would have upon this partiaular develapment would be that the setbaak elong Imperial Highway,would be reduoed from what is presently proposed on the plan of 20 ieet to 8 feet - a very important faoi,or which the Commission will went to consider as weli, i ' °..:.~ I 4' .:f ;;F ;: ; ~ Ddr. Tames Meyer, vice presi.d~nt.0alprdp Corp., sppeared before the Commission and stated he would like to direot several things to ~r. Roberts - speoifically in ooming back to the Planning Staff during the past two weeks - they did not propose.to go to 7200 square foot lots overall - this was indioated in the Raport to the Commission, and it was immediately pointed out to staff that was not their intent; that:this was one of their primary oonaerns thst this be alariPied before the Commission; that they were now before the Co~ission with two proposals - the origina:l; proposal which had besn submitted some two end one-half months ago to the Planning Staff, with the exaeption that they had.eliminsted the lerge renrestion oenter on the hill and spaoed out ; the smaZl neighborhood reareation oenters to mora.adaquately"serve the people aad buyers of eaoh ~ ,~ phase of the development as it was.developed, and eliwinated some of the problems raised as to the funding and sssurar_cos that that large reoreation oenter would be built - this was done after conversations with the stafP and FHA. The seaorid alternative was to simply eliminate the , developmeiit in the bottom of the oanyon shown on the csnter presentation and donate that to the City for a speaial use park area in lieu of park fees on this pro3eot - Mr. Roberts hsd already replied to that phase,.and they did not really like that proposal themselvbs, but it was sn economically scceptable proposal to the pr~-.jeot. ~ .___._~ ; .. ~ i 1 ~ 't ~ ~,.. : f.' 'i'ln!~„ w ~k~ ~ .'~. :1 _ _ ~~y,- ~'.t9~3 t ! ) I ~ .. , "~. k .. . - . . .. ~ - - _ . ~. , . . _„ . __._.. .._..,... _ ~; ~ - _ " ~ ~, ~ ` ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~~ ' ~ MINUTES, GITY PLANNING CO~ISSION, October 19 1970: ~ , 5 ~_-. AECLASSIFICATION = Mr Meyers then oontinued;_by stating tfiat the'Renoho Yorba pro,jeot was ' NO 7C 71'-13 ;, befor e the Planning C s ~ j , ommi sion for the,third time in six weeks;:that the`' Commission had under the bright li hts of ubli he r ' g ~ a P a CONDITIONAL USE ; ingsr.- exemined most of the details: of..this Pro3eot, and have abaomplished little. Afte PERIdIT N0 ':1202 month det ti' yt . r s of ailed; larinin P g of".:e'fine„projeat - everyone had come:alose to : being:guilty, of pceaisely wh t the ~f'~ ; ; a planning staff had warned everyone.about TENTATNE ARAp.OF ~~ reaoting and not planning:; Fortunately: the l th ;~~; , y fe t, ey had>realized.this TRAdT NO ::72gg error%;in time A pro3eut:oP this magnitude aould not b ( la ` ,,,;x t1c' . e;,p nned or sub- oontinued) stantiellq eltered in:publio meetings "rather it m t ' ; i , us be. ,judged on its ;._ ~ merits They had submitted to ttie •Commission a well thought plan`'aPter detailed study o£ the opp un ~: ~ l, ~ : ort ities arid the~,restraints of-tfie':site and the market „ substentially more'time .mone ` ' . , ~ y, and.'effort had been:spent on th ;~~w + ~Y., P J e planning of this ro'e.at to data than was' required, in order to submit it~to,the Commission. °.This was d ne`i f ' ia ' ' . . o n a;sinaere effor:t~ ully think throu h ~ to aare B arid perfeot;the planriing;.aonsiderations before submitting the- public body for a lan to l - ` ? ~ ~ ' ` p pprova a. : Ttiey had m ade every'effort to work with the:Planning steff, rather than:workirig striatly from s book of ;ordinanoe ` . s. =n elmost'every area the.plan substantially exoeeds the' minimum~requirements of the City,,howevor ~beiri as h n ' , g, reaso ad been, this in able erid open as they some aases worked to:'their detriment. Whenever they hed given asked to give more': Th tHey had b y , een e . did not wish"to destroy tlie integri:ty. of the plan in public meetings - to do by designing it wou ' , so ld be'a mookery of:the level of effort.that went into preparing ~the.plan. Mr. Meyers.further stated that they ohallenged the Commission to evaluate new concepts with a fair and open mind. Their eoonomio life as a oor,poration - Anaheim's life as an exaiting aity as well as.their common oommitment to-:aarefully;planned growth an n ~;~: _ o o ly be sustained if they were willing to be responsive .to the•ahanging-~needs ;of the`;aommunit and Ti - n ;~a; y. me ho ored conoepts ways of doing things must be'examined to.see whiah oan_be continued-to serve these adequately and wh nh s ' "~`~' i needs one ;must Be revised to refleat ahariging conditions': Eaah must be reoep- tive=to alianging aonditions and.advanoes in th e state oP the art. Land is one'.of the most scaroe of,wan's resourcesiand will tieoome more and mo s ar ., . re o ae.in:years to.oome - too much and for•too long this previous land has been wasted through arahaic o d s ~' ,.. c en noepts in development and ities.Orie must;maximi2e the.utilization of this land, and b . . an r.•; longer afford the luxury of unused side yards and slope banks,.unused but meeting Code requirements fo be made f t ' , o r spaae - use must his spsce,in'order S~r it to`be.avai7able~to e1L the residents o£ a:oommunity. For the developer ~xlso' it is e ,, , mor diffiault to,determine today's demands arid pnediot tomorrow's need§, e,nd to repeat yesterday's suaoessful formul he ` a. :T .planning of land.use must involve the studies o~ ebonomibs of various uses• ahanges in life style; fflmil o si i dic i y r n ze. and makeup; and trends , ations of future bhanges. Building housing,appropriate to todsy's needs is ` than architectural: oh d a mu sn pl more , nning ,jobs, it is also e politiael one, by getting s design approved at several levels of government. They;respected ~,he integrity of the Hill and Canyon Gerieral Plan, Mr. ALeyers oontinued, as well as tl:~s P.naheim General Plan. They also e . resp cted the flexibility oP these fine Plans, and then quoted from the Anaheim General Plan-1969 a e 19 o r , p g .g ve ning Planning Area "B" - polioies for residential development: ~~Enaourage the development of s variety of dwelling-types and i densities which proyide fiousing for different femily sizes d " an age groups . This was prenisely what they had attempted to do in their planning effort "Th . e a transition between various residentiel densities; the imaginativetarran apartments ca eme t1 b f d ~r ' g n n o homes and e aacomplished in the hillsides, while still proteoi;ing the integrity of ad3acent developments.° ~~A ~u~l eme t f g n o appropriate densities for a particular site; will ~ depend on location, topography~ a,;d the surrou di n ng environment.° The development oY the Ranoho Yorba ~ orderly development for the oan nt n J6 M rs o u h l yo area speo fi ally it u:.ll generate an orderly extension of the needed City utilities and street systems rio t p r of.the canyon. o the development of the more hilly areas I Mr: Dawson made the statement at the last publio hearing; Mr: Meyers noted, that this plan should~ in no wEy affect the Hill and Canyon.General Plan - the site because of its size and unique 1oi:a'~ion should be ~udged on its own merits.. The development of the Ranoho Yorba ' ~~s•rk the development of the Yorba Shopping:Ceni;er - a oommeraiel aenter whioh is now3needed11 ~ by residents of the oanyon area, and one whioh will divert much needed revenue from adjoining communities to the City of Ane,heim. ~Gr. ldeyers, in summary,'stated the pro~eot that is a suaaess in today's sophistioated market, a project thet receives nationel awards and publiaity for both itself and the oommunity, is a pro3eot that is carePully planned, giving'full aonsideration to the surrounding oommunity as well as its future residents - and he submitted this typeof a pro,jeat to the Commission for their approval. ,r~,: ~f -~. _ a. 1,. i~ ,, ~~', j~ ~P. .~ .,. ; ,. ., ..., .. , . . ~ ., ~ .. .. ~. . . u ~ : ~. ~. ~- . _. ... ,~ - .. ; `: :: •:.: - -: , ,~ ~~` ~~ ~""~ . .~. .:i : .' ~ ~ . . >.. c' l.^ , '~MINUTES CITYiPLANRING CO~ISSION, Oatober 19; 1970 ~t ~ ' :i ' 5~39 ' RECLASSIFICATION ~r A1.Hyatt,,251 Orange Aores Drive, appeared before the - , Commission and 'NO 70 71 13 ~ r ~ , stated all he bould do was restate;what he: had said at the last putilic ` :` ' hearing~in opposition';to sub3eot petition;=that the petiti'oners had not [CONDITIONAL~,USE submitted snyttiin differe t th : th ' '•• g n - ar~ . at whioh had been:pr.eviously submitted 'PERMIT:NO 1202 exoept to reduoe the'density ' from~5:2 t 4 .9 d ~ . , . o ? wel3ing units'per gr,oss aore; . :: ; that his':group;that he represented,'still:felt that-the>Iand should be put TENTATIVE 1dAP 'OF to ~ ~n~ 7~ ; use with e lighter:; density thet, would not r,e,quire the Yutnre widening of.- "TRACT.NO 7288 highwa ;; 's h ' ,, ys more o ools, eto :and that slthough he oould repeat his ststements (oontinued): , made twc;weeks ago,;they aould still'b u ~ il ~ , e s tmied up by,statin kiis g-: group was still in~ opposition to~.the proposed developaen~; ~ec u ' e` f e Y~~ ~ ~,~ . : • a s o z , . . ' d r-sity. ' ~ ~~ '~Lr. Phi113p.Jou3onroohe, 21527 Mohler Drive,:, appeered before the Commission representing the Santa''Ana Can on Pro t O { ~..; y per y wners'Assooietion,,noted that he'was also resent at the previous meeting two weeks ago that th e no r n p '~' ;. , er was easo for xeading'again`.the speeoh he presented then, therefore their position was well known,'that' a good-utilizati '~ , on for the,.use of the land was ( Pound•;in the'aanyon whiah.is low:density re'sidential,.and he,cid .-.ot equate utilization with ~ "paoking them in" a l ' ,: ~ s a ose as it was possible.to~get..peopie:up to;the mazimum limits oP-any ~ stctu:tes that may be on the book'i th `C o ;:; . . n e ity f Anaheim; and.that a good:preoedent had been I ' set with low:density resideritial, and resolutions re o e we n r u~~rd from various organizations ~ ;; in the aitq oonfirmin tkiat~ u§a e and. t..o; were happy 6 g i witl% those es : . , r olutions.. Fui tier.more ,iP ~: e -Oand,~'ton would use•those resolutions as'a guideline,to future development 3n'the heny n o area, all ~he homeowriers would be aontented~with...that..~ Mr. Henry Fallek, 140 Orange Hill Lane, representing the Nohl Ranoh Homeowners Assoaiation; ' appeared before the Commissio nd t t d e ~ n a s a e they;f lt that the ed~oiningiNohl Ranch properties and the.proposed development would not be harmonious as tHose prope'rties t th s ~' " ~ o e we t were now ,developed, and:that.the topography of the.land~did not dictate that`something altogether diffe ' t ho ~ ~ w~ en r s uld go; _in there . , ,~.a . . . . . . ' . . ' 4 ~: k THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ `i ;, ; Commissioner.Farano;_.inquired•of Idr. ~Leyer,;Por olarifioation,purposes; whether the plan beYore the Planning:Commission wes u ta ~.'. s os ntislly or ideiitiual'with the plan that was initially sub- : mitte'd; . ~ . f" Mr. Meyers replied,;tkiat ~he,plan"now before the.Commission was substantially with that plan .origirially submitted with o e ,,. r ne exa ption, and that was the el'imination oE one row of condominium 1u' '. ; . ~ Commissioner Farano'then inquired whether Mr.'Meyer had also stated they hsd not stipulated to ! convert the lot size to 7200 ~ square feet, or was he.withdrawing that stipulation. ; Mr. Meyer.s noted that at the last meetirig the disaussion was "s1T over the bi,.11 park° as to the various lots i e§ v „ s z on. arious.pads and areas, and this added more to the oonfusion than benefit to any deaision making; thst they in re bmi su tting plans did not inarease these lot sizes to 7200 square feet but retained the originsl s3ze but the densit i th - , y n e R 1 area was lower.than what would be obtained iY the;• went to 7200-square foot lots thereby obtainin maximu d s g m en ity,. and they were substantially below.that now. Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that the oomment mede in the Report to the Commission relative to :7200-squa e fo t lo r o ts was based upon the ststements msde at the previous meeting, and not.upon any reVised plans. C..r.:missioner Farano than inquired as,to tha densitq that would result, assuming that the on~ ro f ' '` ~ w o condomir,, .um lots was eliminated sinoe the original density was 5.4 dwelling units. Chairman Herbst indiaated he had the impression that if the City did not aoaept that portion of the p r rope ty, then the developer-intended t~ deyelop the property. Commissioner Farano noted that sinoe the City did not want it, did that mean there ^-auld be i thi p e s roperty aould be dedioated.and allow the property to remain as it is for o t eay i pen , s ac P _ ~ Mr: Meyers indioated that they proposed to dediaate that property to the City in lieu of the required ark`ard o p ,re reation fees; that they elso had disaussions with the City as to this area. Howeve: thi r er ' , s p op ty did not fit the City's treditional pattern for parks whioh provide for joint use oP sohool grovnd faoiliti - es .and they understood that polioy, and totally agree with it; however, they envisioned that a e r.ea as a sp a3al use park with a very low develop- ment cost and hopeYully it would generate income to the City rather than a d i ra n on City oash flow. Commissioner Farano then noted that if it was not developed as a park, as the City has so ~ indicated, they then.would not want the property even though the property was proposed to ~ be dedicated to the City - then it would remain vaoant - or would the City refuse to take it? > ~ . . ~, .. ,,.. ._ ,, , ,: .. <, . .. ..:~ ~ .~ ~ ~~' ' ~ ~ ~ 'MINUTES, CITX:PLANNING OOM~dISSION, Ootober 19 ,1970 `;~0 - t~RECLASSIFICATION A'ssistant City'Attorney John'Dawson advised the dommission that the.City 'NO 70-71 13 +; would refuse to take, .the property `sinoe tlie, City.`'did _not eooept anything ` ' without'their §peoifia appr.oval.. CONDITIONAL.USE ?. ` ';PERMIT,:NO 1202 Chairman Herbst then~inquired whether~there ware any speoifia.reasons.why ` ',the •Ci~y, did not'soaept this'~ofPer::of laiid from._the :petitioner `outside oP ` ~TENTATIVE MAP~:OF the fact that.the property,was.:riot'ed~aoent to a sbhool? ~;:;zTRACT: NO:,:.7288 .; , ~r Roberts indioated that was one;of~the 'primary reasons for not a•~'epting ~ ~ •this offer, and•perhaps the other reason v-as the:aost of developi, .~he area. <Assistant Dev,elopment.Servioes Direotor:Ronald,Thomps`on advi.sed the Commission the two basio reasons fcr-not ao'cepting the~petitioner,'s offer was beoause the property was not ad~aaent,to ~a school, the''oost of developing,~the area, and'the parks in:this general area were planned to `:'serve the entire Santa Ana -0anyon;area; .'srid that ,the City:.would need the "'in lieu" fees to: develop these: parks.;for eVeryone:as soon.as po§sible.-.° Commissioner Kaywood:inquireZ of lSr. Meyers; if;the.City~did not acbept the land instead of ~''the park fees; would'the developer.plan to develop this F.roperty or leave it in its natural ~ state;`if~th'is:were developed~this'would;still keep the d~nsity at the 5.4 dwelling units, or : twice wht~t' the General Plan oelled for. ` .. Mr ~~Leyers replied that they would. develop ~;.e property for eoonomic reasons. ~Commissioner Farano`offered,Resolution No. PC70=186, and moved for its passage and adoption,. -:to recommend.to the City 0ounoil that Petition(for.Realassifioation-No..70-71-13'be disapproved `on the:basis=:'that there hsd been no real logiosl,reas~ns'aiivanaed by the petitioner'to warrant xealassifiaation of,the property;`ci~d there wes insuPfioient change_in.sthe oharaoter of the Santa Ana.Canqon area to substaritiate or form a`~asis upon:wliich this'larid aould be developad to the;;proposed~density.. - Prior to roll aell.the following disoussion was?.held bqthe Commission: Commsssioner Farano aontinued by stating he was sorry that the petitioner Yelt their plan had~. been sub,jected to.a publia type sorutiny.and the'Comm.ission had attempted to,publioly ahange and analyze,this plan;.that he was elso sorry the pet~tioner. Pelt aonstruative aritioism; thought and snalysis'for undarstanding;of;the,logic of the new type o~-development:did:not oonsti:tute-.a,fair critiaism for,suggestions from both,sides;that perhaps this was not the intent,by the petitioners,but the impression from statements made by,DAr. Meyers lsd him to believe-thet the.plari should be tendered, and:beaause'it is new, novel, and is a-deviation from the steraotyped and trenitiona3 fo~•us o,f development that this should be aaoepted - but he did not agree`with that fc,eling, sinaa thr.+ Commission had all worked very hard and tried.to oome,up with as many reaomman~iations, ideas,., and'thoughts on the ma.tter es a body such as the Planning Commissi~n oould permissibly do without pro~eoting ~themselves into the design,of the pro3eot. `=Just beoause an idea is new, a developer did not have the right ta,expeot the Commi'ssi~n to adopt or re~eot e plan without trying to save something, and this was.:exactly whet the Commission a~as trying to do. Furthermore, he t~nought it was a great developmeut,oould be a greet development, but with the density proposed for this pieae of property he did not think there had been suffioient showing that the philosophy of the development standards adopted Yor the asnyon were ready for this tqpe of development. The Commissiori had.stated, restated,;and reiterated, and.studied until it has been almost beaten to death, but the City was not reedq Yor this type of density,in the asnyon. Commissioner Gauer noted thet in addition to the statsments made by Commissioner Ferano, the Commission should add that:after having listened to all of the hearings on the Santa Ana oanyon, the Commiasion,voted to establish that area as t~ single Pemily residentiel area. Furthermore, all the homeowners were i•epresented and asked tfi~,t the City not permit this density as was proposed by this petitioner; and to.approve it would be establishing.a precedent sinoe this was the Yirst large piece of property before the Commission for development. Therefore, if this type of preoedent were established;!the ed,je;oent property owners on either side of the aanyon would'point,to this as a preoedent and the City r id have a higher density than was projeoted on the General Plan - therefore, this shauJd made a part of the findings of the resolution. Commissioner Rowland noted that in the Commission's original aontemplation of the hill and canyon, area density,the sl~pa enalysis indicated that there were varying degrees of density that could logical3y be,applied, ~epending on the topography, and as he reaslled that varied from 2.3 to 4.2 dwelling units per gross acre - then inquired of staff into which degree of density would subject property £e1L Mr. Thompson replied that sub,jeot properiy fell in the density of 2.7 dwelling units per gross acre. ~ - - . ~_ ,. - - - - , . --•~..,~f. ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ . ^+y ' MINUTES, CITY PLANNING C06~LISSION,'Oatober 19, 1970,, , ' ` • ~41 AECI~ASSIFIOATION - Commissioner,Rowland inquired whether this was.besed on the.topography.-~ N0.:70-71=13' whiah.existed•without extensive~:Tand.work? . CONDITIONAT~ USE Mr: Thompson,.replied in the affirmative, stating there was some flexibility PER~IT NO °1202 ; provided for~in the' sen::e.that near shapping,oenters:this transition oould ~`. `.~. - be permitted~'with"liighei .densities in oertain areas, and the'Report to the TENTATNE.MAP OF Commission indioeted,.that'it was felt thet 592~uriits or 5.4 dwelling units gross.aore was almo ' TRACT NO:.:J288 ;:per st twioe:as muoh.as,the Plan provided. `` " ,. ;(continued) ' , . , Commissioner Rcwland then inquired wHether in the overall density.of 2./;units per gross aore ` was,the.basia ariteria for estsblishing'serv~aes Por~the Hill and Canyon area for a long period of time,reoognizing eventua119tliere would be.`some 100,000 people'.in the aanyon - although the sewers were'.not in:as yet'they-were programed Yor .that - was that oorract? DAr ~.Thompson replied'in'ithe affirmative and noted that,the whole key was~to retain a balanoe with..,the~people living there and the aommunity,faailities - this was.espeoialTy important in relationship to the "number of.faaili•iiss suoh as tHe.arterisls, becau§e if this were to set s P y ,.. . recedent.and other properties_were to',oome:in later with similar densities, the;,Commission- Cit Council wouldQbe:foroed into the position of reaoting and liaving to gc+ baok~ as Mr. Roberts had,=po'irted out,and widen some of the eri;oriels that were put in. Furthermore, as the.:Traffic_Engineer note,d witkiout a~detailed study, it.would be verq diPficult to say what the.,impaat.would,be, but he~would say.if the`density were doubled in the entire aenyon aree, it would probsbly eritail upgrading all:of the.arteriaTs-highway.:system at least one olassifi- i oation: In.addition, if developments were,permitted to~go in before the.City had determined ~ what'the ultimate.size.bf.those=faoilities would be _the City would have some aonstraints, muah.the same as Brookhurst Street whei: it was initially developed;as a seaondary and a few years'later:it was,determined that the City.needed a primery street, and still another five ` years;down,the road it:wa§ again determiried thet:a ma3o'r arterial was:now needed. As e result, in thet partiaular area.the City might have to go baok in and buy homes to widen Brookkiurst ' Street.`' Commissioner Rowland noted there was a.point oP aonaern wHiah he would like to emphasize, and that was-that a.great number of the tiome-owners assooiations in-the canyon might be ' in for 8 little-bit of a.letdown.a3 the oanyon is developed, and.perhaps on this speaiPia '' pieae of-property -: beaause the•Hill and Cariyon General Plan did not say that evsry paroel out there'was going;to be a half aare - it will not work out that way. at all end it is not ` a reasonable way to develop all.`of that area. Everyone si~r?uld be prepared to axpeot, given any large.pieoe of-pr.operty of 100 aores or more,' if the density was pro~ected Por 2.5 or 3 dwelling units per gross aare`thst the density'might:be oonaentrated - and 300 units oould be developed'on relatively small sress of the site whioh would give an estremely i high"density,,on a loosl basis, but very.low density over the entire oanyon area; that ~ he felt this would be the type of,development. that might be expeoted in the oanyon, or ~ should be; and that if_this plan failed, it would fail density-wise on a loosl basis that ~ was tooevenly distribut~d or a relatively high density .. Th~refore sub3eot property oould ! be developed with.a very high density on a small portion, as Mr, yorba had stated and ~ reaognized that possibility, even though he might not have agreed with it - qet it aould happen that the area around.the shopping aenter could be developed with 40 units per aore for 10 acres and the balsnae oould be left in muah like its netural state and they would be within the realm of the General Plan for the hill and oanyon area, on whioh basis he would support such e plan. Commissioner Farano noted that the statement mcide by Commissioner Rowland was an exoellent idea, but he was not sure how that would work out under.the City's present ordinanae - snd e,s blr. Dawson stated, the City did.not want the perk to be developed for a park and they would not accept dediaation or conveyance of the-land under any airaumstafices, but this did not mean the property had.to be developed irito a pa,rg - they could leave it in its natural state which would be perYeotly fine as far as he was oonoerned, but if the City won't take the land like that under any ciroumstanaes, the Commission would have to have some sort of tool, maohinery; or prooedure thet would allow this type of development to be aoaomplished and yet save the:areas that'ere left in their natur~sl state to compute Yuture development; however, he did not Imow how this.oould be aoaomplished. Commissioner Rowland noted thet had happened all over in many areas - for instanae in the east, there were msny publi0 or privete groups that had worked very hard to oonserve the resouroes of a community - one in partioular~,-;~hhad worked very hard but very quietly, and that was the Audubon Sooiet,• - they have pioked up a great deal of property in Conn. for instance where they purohased land and put it in a land benk situation and solved the taxation problem - and put the property back to aommor. ~.and por common use in perpetuity. : ~•.-r . ~ o - r;~-.,..~ , '+; 1 ...~. .... .. .r~'. . _. ~ ~ ,. _; , , .. - ; ,~ ~ _ ~ 1~ _~ ' !w. ~ , ~ ~ i 1dINUTES, dITY'PLANNING'CO~LAeISSION, October.:19, 1970 5~42 RECLASSIFICATION ~Lz~...Daxrson.:.addi'sed the_Commission that:•he would like to 6orreat sometHing -NO: 70-71-13 whi'gh Commissioner;Fareno had:stated fie had said - that he did not sey ~ that the City would not`,aoaept';'this,land.or any larid under any oonsideration. CONDITIONAL.USE:. His:only`statement was that one.aould`not dediaate:lend to the City unless ''PERMIT N0: 1202: the City.Cbunail,saaepted tha~':dedication by'formal-rasolution." The'~City' Courioil 5~uld ahange:its;mirid.about wtiat it.wented to aaaept and under;what TENTATIVE:MAP.:OE ' ooriditions'3t would be acaepted: He did not`want enyone.to feeL'that the •.:,;.TRACT>N0:` J288'` ,.City:would:'not adoept..tfie larid.'under any any airaumstances - that was not ' (continued)•.<: true , ~ Commissioner Seymour noted he-aonaurred with Mr.;Meyers''appr~sah to-the development of the land in the canyori area, and_he oould appreaiate :that eooriomi.as require the development that had been~'prasented to,the Planning Commission during ~he;;past several months = therefore, he did appreaiate:the eoonomio positi"on:~- but'he'-did_not'think that eaonomia position could be prostituted to'.the result oP an initial trend being set for.that entire aanyon:area. He thought,`unfortunately, the Commission had ~o stend firm with this being the ini.tiel pro3eot, and he e~holeheartedly:,oonaurred'witH:'Ccmr~issioner P.~rland's thought -'he did not think the dommission~w~,s'so;stringent,`:so tied!to.ordinanoes, or:traditional ways,of development.that they aould not`3ee the benefits not`only in a'plenned oommt+^_;ty, but in the_type of. thing Commissioner. Rowlarid.was talking about: ; What was under aons'ideration on this 110'aores was certainly?a plenned`ac~tn~.taity'- and'_in a,pTanned aommunity the opportunity to use areat3.vity 'in:development::-%but, in faot, that:oreati~~ity°results in doubling of the density without any 3ustifioe.tion'other the,n a planned aommunity - then he Pelt it was e"blind alley", and thus was completely in fav,or of Commissioner Farano's resolution. . ' Commissioner Kaywoodistated,she uould~like to add t~:the previous aomments by steting along- side Imperial Highway:;where;s proposed ordinanoe would require SO feet for a setbaok, there would be no"viay she oould see.allowing 20 feet, partioularly where the road may be expanded, thereby.autting beak`this setbaok to only'eight feet;where'a ne.w beautiful plsnned develop- ment was,proposed_only eight feet'fron:a primary.highwsy beaeuse this would not be a good living envir.onment for people'living,there,end"it would.be s.terrible preaedent for the Planning Commission to set;for the hill`and aanyon area. Chairman Herbst noted that he for one had probably..spoken out in favor of many.things in this proposed development;.that he.we,s very disappointed`that Mr. Yorba and Mr. Meyers'group had not been-able:to compromise= the Commission had offered.them room to compromise on the`density, but the Commission,had felt in the oanyon'area thei~•.body must maintain reasonable density; that since the first hearing before.the Commission -'~dr: Yorba and ldr. ~eyers were very aware of the Commission's thinking that the density must be lowered before the Commission would be able to oonsider it, and their:leak of submitting some revised plans - one of the reasons the Commission had:postponed,th~i hearing twice`- was to give them this opportunSty. The Commission liked to give everyone the same opportunity - and to give them every opportunity to meet the City's aode and requirements wherever possible = and by the petitioner-developer ooming bsok at this hearing today and steting that theq planned to go with the same set of plans, this was their privilege. The Commission then had to look at the averall hill and canyon area, ' to determin~ what this proposal would do to the area; however, he felt this would be the start of the oanyon that the Commission or City might not be able to si;cp, reoognizing that the serviaes were something that the original property owner did not look at_the overall paokage, but were cunoerned only about their pieoe of property. The Commission had to look at the overall picture, however, of what the ultimate development will be and try to plan it, and when someone aomes in with a density much higher than is being planned,this would throw an overload right at the beginning on all of the oommunity services - somewhere along the line someone who owned property farther up in'the canyon - could suffer tremendously - this is where the situation lies today,.and is what the Commission is considering - i:he overall community plan. Commissioner Farano restated his motion as follows: Commissioner Farano offere~t A:>solution No. PC70-186 and moved Por its passage snd adoption to recommend to the City Co»nci:', that Petition for Reclassification No. 70-71-13 be disapproved on the basis that the densities achievable within the framework oP tha`realassification is not in conformanoe with oharacter of a low density community as depi~ted on the General Plan; that no evidence was presented to substani;iate or varrant favorable aonsideration which would permit a density that is twice the density deemed eppropriate for the hill and canyon area as based on the slope analysis; that iY'sub,jeot petition were approved with the donsities proposed, setting a pattern of development throughout the hill and canyon area this would mean upgrading the~ arterials throughout this area at least one step as estimated by the traffic engineer, and placing the proposed R-2 development within eight feet of a primary highway, therebe creating an undesirable'living environment; 'ahat tha petitioner had not proven that a land use change had taken place in the hill and canyon area to warrant muli;iple family residentisl development of the magnitude proposed by the petition6r; that although the General Plan recognized thet more intense land uses might be appropriate in specifia areas of the aanyon, the amount of i•.itense land use proposed could set an undesirable precedent for the remaindqr of the undeveloped properties in the Santa Ana Canyon area because this was the first proposal for °.~„F°^x+F'~~ , ~~ ~:T~'~~. ~'~ ' ~ ~ :t!'~ ~ A ,4 I ~~',,..,..>:..,, ,~ `, ~' ~ - ~ ~~ .:, , y . „ ` . - ..~ ...h .sk.,,::. _... ca~.-n:w,.:~_..... r ~ a~..'.. . ~' .: .. _'~ 4., .. . .. ~ ... r..~ ...5.~.~ _~ . . . . ~ ,: ,. --~~..~ ~ ~''~' ~ - .~ . _ - ~ MINUTEb, CITY PLANNING CO1d~ISSION, October 19; 1970. : 5,~q.3 AECliASSIFICATION ;.;for in•~reased,land use for,.this'area; and that although the:Commission , , , , gg.. .. .. ^--NO.'='70-71-13~ tiad,made su estions.to.tHe petitioner-developer as to-the'aoceptable ' - "densities whi'oh might be aonsidered, and.then°requested revised plans . CONDITIONAL::USE; azioh'would,ro.leot;these .densities, the petitioner eleoted'to stand PER~IT N0:~~1202'. 'by his~original proposal for the:development o£'sub~ect property. " I :(See Resolution BookY , _.. . , :`; , ; , TENTATIVE TdAP OF .• . ' TRACT=NO.`;7288 'i0n roll~osll.the Yoregoing rasolution was passed by the following vote: ~ '.(oontinuedl ~ AYES:`. OOL~ISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Seqmour, Rowland, Herbst.` ;, . . . _ NOES: CO~EEdISSIONERS: None. '~ ABSENT: COtdSLISSIONERS:' Allred. Commissioner,Seymour ofPered Resolution No. PC70-187 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition Por Conditional Use Permit No. 1202 on the basis thst sinoe the existing zoning was;R-A, and realassiPiaation of the property was reoommended`for denial for G-1 and R-2, §ub~eot,petition oould not be eotivated.(See Resolution Hook;` ~ On rolT.aal1 the Poregoing resolution was passed bq the following vote: ' AYES:: CO~ISSIONERS: Farano,,Gsuer,`Kaywood, Seymour,. Rowland, Herbst. NOES: CO~ISSIONERS: Norie. .. ABSENT: 'COA~lISSIONERS: Allred. Co~issioner Farano offered a:motion to deay Tentative Map of Tract No. 7288 on the basis that since,:the.Planning'Commission has recommended disapprov.al of the R-1_and R-2 zoning on the property,:the.exiating zone would not,permit subdivision'of:the property as proposed. Co~issioner Seymour seconded,.the motion: MOTION'CARRIED. ., RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED.PUBLIC HEARIiVG. WILLIAM B.:.:AND ELSIE M. PURDY, 161 East N0.'70-71-12 Orangethorpe Avenue, Placentia,;California, Owners; H.M.S. AIR CONDITION- ING CORP., 760 North Main Street, Suite D, Orange,.;California, Agent; VARIANCE N0. 2203. property'described as: An'irregularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately one,acre, having a frontage of approximately 250 feet on the north side of'Placentia Avenue, having,a maximum depth of approxi- mately 318 feet,' and being located.approximately 530;feet east of the centerliae of State College Boulevard. Property presently:classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIUN:' R-3~ MULTi7LE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF AN R-A ZONE, (2) MINIMUM LAND AREA PER DWELLING UNIT, (3) MINIMUM FLOOR AREA PER DWELLING UNIT, AND (4) MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING SPACES, T0 ESTABLISH A 50-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. Subject petitions were continued from the:meetings of September 10 ar.~ October 5, 1970, in ~ order to allow the petitioner time to consider revision of plans. ";'; ~ , ~, j ~:;; Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commisaion that revised plans for Reclassification;_ No. 70-71-12 and Variance No. 2203 were received too late for staff to make an in-depth analyais! of them and, therefore, requested that subject petitious be continued to the meeting of I November 2, 1970, to,allow time for staff to make thia analysis. ; ~ Co~mnissioner Rowland.offered a motion to continue consideration of Petitions for Reclassifica- ~. tion No. 70-71-12 and Variance No. 2203 to the meeting of November 2, 1970, to allow staff i time to complete.their analysis of the xevised plans submitted. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion: MOTION CARRIED. - .;.,. ~~ -~-sa~ ~ v ~ ~~ l: .; -'~~IIiiAl4"r.9R ~ , -: ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ .;~ y.~ . i -~ ` ~~~ ' ~. -~'"1 MINUTES, CITY~PLANNING CODIIiISSION, October 19,;1970 - 5~44 ~CO:VDITIONAL USE , CONTINUED PUBLIC 3~eRING ROBERT-W ORR, ET AL; 1931:Port.Nelson:Place, ;PERMIT-NO 1205 `Newport Beach, Cal.ifornia,,:Owne'rs, Fp,ED;KAHLEN; JR..;:11692.Steele"Drive, ; : ;Garden Grove; CalLfornia, Agent, ~requesting permiseion to ESTABLISH A. ' ` CHURCH AND DAY SCAOOL IN AN EXISTING STRUCTURE`on property-,described as: 'A rectangularly shaped parcel of.land having,a:froatage of„approximately;'111 feet;on the south ~side of outh:Street; haviag a m_azimum deptti,of approximately: 156.feet'and;beirig located `approximately;' 250 feet wesk: of tlie centeiline 'of ~State' College•'Boulevard,:;and .further:;des- acribed"as 1906 East _$outh Street ' Property pre`sently:clasaified R=A,,AGRICULTURAL;,:ZONE. : Sub3ect pekition was contiaued from the meeting.of September 21, 19~70, to allow the petitioner :time to submiC plans~for develo mept of,the ro ert . , p ,..: . . ..• P .. P Y• :; .. „ . ... , .:. Zoning Supervisor Charles.Roberts;.advised the Commission that due to^some-confuaion, the' 'petitioner had withdrawn,hi"a petition, and upon!contadting the petitioner:.and',.clarifying the confusiron, tlie petitioner;then iridicated','he "wnuld proceed~•with~th'e,preparation of,\revised 'plans,;~howe`ver, he:would,need an additional two;week'continaance in whicH..to~prepere them ' 'and would submit a le[ter'requestiag said contiauance:`: ' Commissioner.Gauer offered,a mot~on to continue:consideration of CondiEional Use.`Permit No. •;1205;to the meeting,of No~ember 2,::-1970;;.to allow ~he''pc:titioner sufficienE time`to submit revised plans" Oommissioner Kaywood 'seconded':tfie_motion. .MOTION CARRIED., . Variance No `2100 was requested to be considered later in the meeting. -. CONDITIONAI: USE -;PUBLIC HEARING. LELA HATTON, 2170 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, ~ •PERMIT NO 1206 `Califoinia,^Owner; LOtT-S NORMAN,:13362:Nina P1ace,.Garden Grove, =California, Agent; requesting permission;to.CONVERT MOBILE HOME SPACES - TO`,OVERNIGHT-~TRA~LER SPACBS IN AN EXISTING MOBILE HOME PARK on property deacrib'ed,as:•. An irregularly shaped parcel of_1and,located aarth,and~east nf the norcheaet corner„-of Harbor~Boulevard-and Wilken~Way,. having approximate;frontagea;of 40:feet on Harbor Bouleva=d and;450 feet on Wilken Way; and:further described;as 2170;`South Herbor Boulevard. ProperEy"presently classified R-A,,AGRICULTURAL; 20NL'.:., " Zoning;.Supervisor Ctia~Ies~Ri,Uerts"=reviewed the-.ocatioa of'suliject oroperty, uses. established ~in close proximity; and the;proposal to_convert a number of existing`mobile home spaces into 22~overnight trailer~spacers along.,the southerly,portion; that the primary_consideraEion before the Commission,was wfiether:'the dual use of the.park was: appropriate since the;'proposed use could:.be considered commercial in nature,~:whereas mobile homes were classified as a moze perm~nent type'of:r~aidentiaT activity, with,a.-possible conflict which could result with ~iie intrusion of 'comme=cial uses "into'a residential use;;and.that'if the Co~ission deemed the use appropriate, they might wiefi to condition'3ts approval so as to preclude the use of the mobile ' home,spaces for travel trailers; and vice versa: ~ i Mr..Ivar Paulsrud, Mansger of the West Winds Trailer Lodge ?nd representing the petitioner,- appeared~before the.Co~ission and noted`thaC some of the spaces they were proposing to convert ; were too narrow, and they could have only 8-foot trailers because the lots were only 30 feet wide, and presently they had 14 spaces, of which only 4 would be affected; that he was sure these could be placed within the park even if some moved oui- that the maximum this would then affect wonld be 4 trailer spaces; that they had overnight spaces directly across the street ; from this 290-foot space; and that they did have throughout,the park 8 by 35-foot trailers ~I which'were classed as travel trailera which had been in the park aince it was first opened in l f ~ 1957. ~ Chairman Herbst noted that in 1957 the mobile home manufacturers were building only the I smaller facilities. , ~ Mr. Paulsrud noted, that parks had changed, and if they were raquired to put in large mobile homes,.it would be impossible to have ventilation in Ehe park, but with travel trailers, their purposes would be served; that during the past summer they had hung out the "no vacancy" sign on the 15th of May and;took it down the first of September, and during that time they had turned'away-an average of 35 persons daily - therefore, the`business was there, and they should take care of it since they were located approximately one-half mile south o£ Disneyland; ' and that they had two entrances into the proposed 22 spaces, ~ The.Commission noted that there seemed to have been quite a change 3n trailer park management since formerly when the,Commission had asked mobile home park;operators to provide 10% of their facilities for overnighE travel trailers, they indicated they did not desire to have the two uses on the property - this was particularly true in the Disneyland area. However, now there seemed to be a change, requesting the combination of two trailer uses - this might be a good idea, and,that the facility on West Street consisted of all overnight trailers, and in the meantime the other mobile home.parks had passed up the opportunity to provide this type of facility. ~.:.: , - , . ., . ... , a,^ ~ . ,:. . .. _ . _ , : . . ,: . . . ; ,,, ;,, *~ - _ .. :.~L . tth ~ ~` ~ '~ ~ . 1 V.J , , '7; ~ ~MINUTES, CITY PLANNING:COZIMISSION, October-19, 1970. _ 5~45 ; . H: CONDITIOIvAL USB ~' -Mr. Paulsrud stated they did not £oresee new industry would be coming in . - ~s• - PERMIT N07:1206 for.travel trailers". ~ - r;= '(ConEinued) . The Commission _then inquired why the petiEioner was proposing to convert .~. the enfire.paik;for EravAl~trailer use; whereupon=Mr. Paulsrud advised ' {' the Commission that:ttiey preaently had 22 spaces:for.overnight travel Erailers and were ` ; a'' requesting perm3saion _to have.lsn additional...22:spaces, and thaE:many times these. trailers ould b n h ~ a or ' . Y' w e.i t e:p rk f anywhere from two_to three nights.to'a week. ;`"' The:Commissfon n'o;ted that one.reason~for~,proposing~only 10% of the mobile.home,park~,spaces' for ' ' `~~ ~ -travel trailers was;tiecause the city was not desirous'of having.this type of living `a~: -, quartera fo become a erinanent t~ ~ . P ype of~facility and permit these_people to live there a1L of ~ ~~a~ ;-~ r~ the.time; since ttiis:would be a violation of the, public_ weZfar.e and' safety. ' r' Mr:,`Paulsru~~advised the Co~ission this would not,be a•problem with their facilities because '. from past experience these people came in and Ieft quite=,.egulaxly, and then in response to a ` question by the chairman, stated it was their intent to:iacrease the number of spaces by 15% ; to:20%; that they had a 5.6-acre.parcel, and if subject petition were approved, they would. hade~61 'permanent t e f ili i s d 44 ; , - yp ac t e an for overnight tr8vel trailer uae. The;Ceam-ission inquired;.what;;ty,pe,of facilities were being offered since travel trailer people ` had different.dem&nds•:and~needs Erom ehose:of.mobile home park residents, such as a grocery " w store, washing facilities, and`showers, etc. ~ ,: Mr. Paulsrud noted they had 12.machines in.their iaundry which were ,uaed by both.the permanent ~ and overnight residents, and.he:felt this was.adequate to:take care of both the temporary and i i e s ` ~~ ~'' ~ pei manent:res d nt ; that they provided six showera for campers that did"_not'have their own ' facilities indoors -.therefore, they could use the showers that were provided; that they were ~ ''' proposing to provide.a sewage sump station,foi the travel trailer residents - therefore he , felt all of the needs of travel trailer residents would be provided: Furthermore, he'had never seen the permanent residenta use the shower facilities - however, :they had uaed the laundry faciliEies. ~. , , r= Commissioner Gauer expressed concern that many more requests from mobile home parks would be coming into the City requesting pertial conversion~of their permanent faci3ities in order to ' reap some .of the piofits that.were now seen'-because of the totalLy-.equippecl overnight facility _ on.West SEreet, and the City migiit be faced with the same.pro6lem as they had presently on aervice station sites. , Co~issioner Kaywood inquired whether or not the petitioner would atipulate Eo a maxi mim of ~ two weeks at one time and whether or noG this would be a difficult policy to adhere to. Mr. Paulsrud noted that they could stipulate to this, but it would mean constanr. checking by i the office, but he doubted if they,would stay more.than ten days and just a very small per- centage would stay over that limit. Chairman:Herbst.reiterated the statement made previously that there were several places in Anafieim where ownera of travel trailer homes lived in theae peraanentiy, and the City was ~ quite concerned about this. Mr. Phillip Behnke, representing the overnight trailer park at 2157 South Harbor Boulevard, ~ - appeared before the Commisaion in opposition and stated their facility was located directly , in front of the West Wind Trailer Lodge; that they had 18 spacea, and aince the petitioner ! had started his operaEion in the spring, their facility had not been filled, even during the summer months; that they were Che first to receive permission to operate an overnight trailer ' ~~ facility; that since the Humble facility located about two blocks to the south of their pr~?oerty had ropened with 70 spaces, they had,never been filled, even in the summer; that TrAtel Motor Lodge on Garden Grove Boulevard, which had 200 spaces, was also not filled i during the su~ner months and had many vacancies; that by permitting the petitioner to increase his overnight space, it would create traffic confusion on Harbor Boulevard, pu114ng in and out o£ the facility; that he was also asked by a number of the mobile home tenants in the West Winds park to represent them at this hearing because most`of them had the old-type,8-foot trailers and it would cause them a hardship to find a new area because most of the mobile ; home parks wuuld not take these older-type trailers. ; Mrs. I,ela Hatton, owner of the West Winds Trailer Lodge and the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that she owned this facility since 1960; that they had been having overnight guests for as many spaces as they were allowed; that there'were about six overnight spaces when she purchased the property, and these overnight spaces were proposed to extend ' toward the end of the lot - however, they were sending people away last summer, even to Mr. Behnke's TrAtel and wherever there were facilities of this type, when people came to their facility; that the spaces in their mobile home park were small; that it was her under- - stending that a law was propoaed or passed that would consider any trailer 8 feet by 40 feet i {..- to be a travel trailer, and they did have many 8 by 40-foot trailers in their park; that i ~ ~ - '^ l~ ~, ,i, ~, ~ ~: ~ ~ n . . ~ . _„ . ~ , ... -- _ _ ~ _. .. ~ ~ ~ '', MINUTES,:;CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October:l9, 1970 5,1~46,~ CONDITIONAL USE~` - Ehey would like to use.the two rows'as indicated:on the,plana for these FERMIT%NO 1206: :'smaller.trailers; and that..they had two roads presently 'exiting from (Continued) . subject~_pioperty, one on Wilken-Taay and the.other.on.Harbor Boulevard. Co~iseioner Gauer nofec~ there was.a need for overnight travel`:trailer space, and'when . Disneyland was;operating to_full capscity, this;.need was very,apparent, but the only problem he could'see was how could.the City prevent these`people',from;living-.there'.permanently: Mrs Hafton replied that these•people came:in during the"su~er~for two to three days and;once in=a while a businessman,would come.in for:one or.two_.weeks.on:bus£nesa and bring:his family,, with him':;for.a vacation, preferring'their facilities because of.the trees and grass; as well ~as`the"swimming;`pool.for their children,:and in the wintertime, parEicularly during the 'liolidays,like Christmas,~New Years, and Easter;-they might stay late,'but they hardly had - .. ,: anyone 'stay'beyond~the'three-days. Co~issioner Seymour noted that since slightly over 40% of the park was:proposed to be.used for overnight~.traveZ trailers ~nd since the primary:use happened in the summertime, what would heppen.to;the permanent mobile home:residents. . ,Mrs. HatEon stated that they had'many people coming there all the time, and some also came :foi special'._conventfons:at the,Convention Center. Cou¢nissioner~.Seymour inquired whether it:was Mrs. Hatton's intent at.all, if this were approved,:to puE temporary:mobile homes on these pads until the next summer's zush started again;:whereupon Mrs.:Hatton'stated that wnatever would'be allowed, they would do, and,if they were,'not,permitted,"to do.this, then;:of course, they woald.not do it, but it was her undersfanding;:this would be a'new.law and was'recently passed that they would have to have a'special.place for travel trailers. ~ Commissioner Seymour noted'that was a point he wiahed to_bring out = that he did not want to see,an;integrf~:tion of the two-uses because of the.possibility.of vacancies in the travel trailer-area'oae week and_,then allowing someone'on a permanent basis to move into this travel trailer.space - however, when the,busy season rolled around the:following.year, they.would be .required"'tn leave or the contrary, where the mobile home residents would be allowed to stay there'~during.the winter and aE the busy season toss them out`of'the park to reap the benefit that the'travel:'trailers on A nightly basis would bring. _ Mrs HetCon=stated that it was not their intent to do this -, xhey'proposed to,have two rows of.travel,;traiTer spaces along:Wilken Way which would be.somewhat semoyed from the mobile hom~es,' and.she was sure thaE the permanent people did not mind the overnight people since they seemed Eo get along. A lettes of opposition was read to the Commission from the property owner of the commercial property on Harbor poulevard to the northwest of subject property opposing conversion of suts~ect property to travel trailer use. Mr. ~aulsrud, in r,~buttal, stated he could not understand why the commercial property owner on Harbor Boulevar.d would oppose the proposed expansion since his property was not even adjacent tn the trailer park. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission discussed the proposed expanaion and noted there had always been a need for ove=night travel trailer spaces and now some of the parks which formerly did not want to have their parks with dua! uses'realized the need and were coming in with the request; that the location of the expansion was ideal since;it was near the Commercial-Recreation Area, and the only thing which concerned the Commission was the need to pol3ce these facilities to assure that' these fecilitiea would not be used for permanent facilities or that the facilities were over their capacity; that perhaps the condition of approval should require a maximum time limit for ::ny one stay; that there also appeared to be a great need for mobile home park ' space according to a study prepared by the Bank of America and other lending institutions; that this was the second petition in recent weeks asking for the conversion of mobile home spaces, and perhaps theae facilities should be modernized so that present-day mobile hpmes could be accommodated; and that in all likelihood the present mobile homes would change in design, and the City, again, would be faced with a request for another conversion. ..~ i I` ~ s: " L i 1`. i i, ~'. 'I~ , , • ~;. ~ Chairman Herbst noted that the existing mobile home park was established on subject property ~ in 1957 and was of rather small acreage wherein a worthwhile mobile home park cnuld not be built or converted to the newer, 35 by 80-foot lots since it would not be economically feasible. ~ Commissioner Farano noted that perhaps subject property was noC large enough to convert for regulation-size mubile homes, but the other mobile home park managers would ha~re to face the -- ~ fact that their present facilitiea were not adaptable for their existing uses; that the ~ ~ travel trailer presented a new set of requirements, and he was not sure whether they were +~ .~ . . . . . ~ ~ , ~. i^ ~ ~''~'"-_ h. -.;~~ K _. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.,,,. ,`R Ti,,`'~41-``+ .'i. ^ ~~t~ r - ~ r"~ ~ - . ~ ' " ~. -" . ~~ .. ., ._ ._ . . . .. , ~ ,.. , ~ ~~~~ _, ... ::,. .:: .., .. .~ . ~,. , ' ., . . . . . . . . ~. .. , i. .. . , . , . ~ . .. . . .. ... ` . . . .. . . . . . . . . ~ . . .. . . . . : ~' =~ ` `'~'~`~~' < r . ~ *h. ; . .. ; , r ~ ~ ~ - ~- , ; . ; ,: . , , ': MINUTES, iITY PLANNING "COMM'ISSION, October 19,; 1970 .;r~,~ ~ ., ,. , . . ,...:.. v . , .,. , , . , ..,.. ... , . . ; . , ;: :: . . : . . .. ; ? CONDITIONAI:.:USE `"co~pptible i.ses, -:therefoie;..staff should aEudy.this and e~tabljBH guide- ' DERMIT N0.;;1206 lines and criteria for~travel trailer'-,parks ~ '.` (Continued) °' -~ ' i" - , Commissioner Rowland stated, that he felt r.he Commissf3 ;,p~s a~r~-,~hat > ~ ~ confused by?what th~y had heard':about'u~obile..haaes; t}~t ~e felt they ` presented a.living environment not unlike any other='livits~,;~nvira.s~enC.t;i~c crin ti'•y h8d - per.~ih=i ed ~:wellings, namely; ,three types single _f8mily; multiple-f~em..1;;; an%1~.mc;tels`or hote~,s; that ~'h~ felt; tbe Commissien might consid~* ~aobile, hca~e paYks in the s;~me;:li~r,'ht ; if they wer~ ; suita,ble fo. ~muZtiple fami'ly Living,~ apd ~b~tt. ~..~s wliat the Commissi~~n rail'ti+ten saying;~laCely, that `mobile~;hoiaes were permitted ;in. inultiple;familyi areas;;.thal• ..in:'the; i:fiam~sdiate future'tfie - City,might;'seej~some°in even~single-family arE~as beca'use of`Etne,type of innnile.homes being. ' ~.~, builE';and the type,,of developmenE proposed; t'hat these~travel!.trailers ~were very limited:in < use. and were~; a compiescial';ackiVtxy .- ; therefore; shouTd be•:viE~wed. as motelei' and as such, to be limit~.~ ~tn the ;eame re'sta 3~ctions. and. qualificati~ons' given t`o .motelF, ,be'cause they replaced them,;; ~ ~!thi& pa'rkicuiar: prop'erty and, the~ p=oposal' by. locat~ton. end si~e .was : a maTginal ei~F " for ,tpese typ~s u,f;;o~e=ations~.today~- motels,';by'their natur.~e, were par~t'of a marginal ~~?ze commercial yiT~next'q, and rif one 'looked,at the;size :of an "d;;~y~40-fout icrailer; this repr~ttiented on1y~320 su~.~;ere fee.t, and`there'was ab'solutely.nocplace:+aheiw .that>size,would fit in the multiple fa:~ly cw.llings which the CiEp'might'consider for: living qut~rtera for an excw•nded ' peri'od of tii~+ however, it was.comparable with a moteY:or.hotei;.,and,,iherefor~:, he r.i~uld . not•._aee why;t~e C.;uasission could'not act up~n_,ehis request; but ~taf!i should be instrun4e~1 ko .viex .cFese tn:„gs-in :this light and t!~ese t;~~~~~•s,, of Crai?etrs'shoul,d be subjected to a;~1 the ramifications'~`of a motel-living.endironment: iri'.the.City oi Anah:eim, such as bed tax, etc. ,. , ... , .. .. , ~ommi~sioner`Gauer concurred with [hesce.statements. .. : Commis,sioner:`Seymour atated he hed a,few further comments to u~,ice, adding:to that and concurrinf ':`with C..;mmiss3oner '"~qw:n-~d':s statements in that;the concept,of,:mobile:Home par~~ nrov,ided:'a ~: veh'icle to.permit cha,nge, and the City .was ce%tainly going tnroughS a bit ::~*f -•~hange in 'de+,~elop- ment;', that .tht s park was: conceived in 1957 - now a change ,~~as being pres.rt~ced, aud as Cc~mdvis- ;sianer Grcrer:,poinfed,out, subsequent to.that it was'the:C%ommission's bel'c:f. that perhap~ )9~. of°a:park should tie.devoted to travel tzail,er.use;:that,'che'CommieRion.caricuzred there'~zs a nePd>:for this t~v~e~ of facility,; and perhaps- the need:;exists' toda~y bu2, iErcould be'violat~~d in :the future;'and `:he Commission:woul~d-~~~rtainly went to-consid~~r these changes, and if tren~as ' chang'ed in five,y'earc,,wh~t wou?,d'ha~pen then,'and he contendti~'?;}iat a mo~ile-hbme park ` prov.ided '~.~ing ?eai le;•s >ru x, ~iiinimuzn cost and~ very .lr'Lr,tle ..hangc iCi tha site end was muc:: easier than, building a"crackeir .box'!, `•hom~ and' then tearing ehem ~•s•~n later Co start oyer aga:~.n; ~. thaE"'mobile :tiome .parks provided mnre :f,'.~•~~.'~Sility . but, this srould bring `ta. ~ind -a .,question of staff,whether or not a time limit ~aiz,,d EL placed•in,granti:ig this peEition so`that the Cormnissiori couid rr; ~w i.,. i„,:.., ~ f;what coul,`d happEin in;th~ future. Ms. Roberte`advis2d;the Commission ttiat t::e ~lannin~ l~o~nission may-impose any conditions they fe1C were nezessary and:reasona6le, ancl vety often time limits have been impoaed on both c~ndi~iona2 use permits and varianr,es. Car~cissioaeu Seymour offered:Reaolution No. PC70-189 and uoved for ita passage and adot.tioa " to gra~it.Petition for Conditional Use Perm:t No. 1206 subjec.t t~'conditions, with the udded condit'on "that a three-pear time limit be escablished with tlse Commisaion to revie-a subject peCition`at-t,hat time to determine if any change had taken p2ace.. (See Resolution Book) Prior to voting, Commission Farano inquirfd af Cuma;_ssion2r Seymaur in recognition of the fact about 40% of this`facility was p:a~.,~% to be used for ttauel tFaflers, did he still want to offe.r th~ resolution; whereupon Co~anissioner Seymour r.eplied in the sffirmattve. Ccrorcnissioner Gauer st$ted that_the manner in which the petitioner proposed to conatruct this addition,it coul~ be;used snly':or travel trailers.. Chairman'Herbst noted that,lhe park could,eventuslly convert to i00% travr.l trailere; wh~e*eupun Co~iBSioner Seymou:~ notzd xhi.s aaas possibhe, anfl that might be the answer - that wa~3 what ;e was attempting tb say, that!,this type cif'development was ~Texiblr, and if the neF:d'wm.re f~or trevel trailers,. then _:;a Comviisaior."cauld change, but if the need changed, th~a Gommission should ~e flexible enough to.change with it. C~~..uniss3onpr Kaywood inquired of Commissioner Se,ymnux whether or not he intended to have a 13u~r.tation of a maximum of two weeka ior .sny ain3le tir~; whereupon Commissioner Seymour indicatEd t'iis was part of the recommended conditions of approval, but in sny event, it should be included in the conditiona. Mr. Roberts advised the Coanniesion that as a practisel matter, whenever any person wanted to cNange a use of their.parcel of land, staff had rer~lixed ~ new pKtition, and if the petitioner proposed to conver~ the balance of the ex3sting pr~:,~erty to a*.ravel trailer park, a new petition would be needed. Commissioner Farano inquired whether or not the r~esolution permitted the petitiozer to convert ' the entire facility for a travel trailer park; whereupon:Mr. Roberts advised Commissioner , _ - , r~- ,. f ,rq; ` ' f .. z 't - . . . , . .. . ... . . . , . . , . . ~- '"_ ,,, , . , , ~ ;. , ,:: , . ,. , ~ , ~~ `' ~ ~ . . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOV, October 19,;; 1970.'. ~g •r C015DITI0 AL,USE Faranc that'-Condition t7o:-w;con.Erolled an} d_•;i alion since,'it was,subject l PERMIT N0 :'1206 to;appiovel'of developmerit substantially in accordance wiEh the.plans " (Cc~tinued) . submitted 'and if;any deviation:}occurred; then the;:Commission would'have a chance to:.review:-and detPri~ine whether the revised'.plans'could be _ . , ., - ~ approved or:;require a new conditiol~al use permit, but iE did not grant the fietit;ioner a blanket,: privilege ,.. , ,, , '~, On ro~ll ~ all` ta~ foregoing resoLution was,"passed,;by the foLlowing vote:. .. ` e~YES•.- COMMISSTO:WERS: 'Gauer;'Kaywood; Rowland", Seymour,:Heibst:' : NOES:;~ COMMISSIONERS,: ~arano." ~ ~ ' ABSENT COMMISSIONERS ,.llred ~ ~ ~:, VAhTANCE NO ~221I,`: PUBLIC HEARINC JFY O..DE ARMOND, 1238 South,Beach BoulevaYd,_Anaheim, '. := Cali,fornia,;:Owner; 0 G..:GAVATT; 1500 East,Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, '~ Cali~ornia,_;Agent;:requesting WAIVER OF,'(1) MAXISIUM PERMITTED'SIGN HEIGHT,~ ~~) T•'IAXIMUc.,~.1VUMB~R OF .SIGNS PERMITTED,'. AND (3) '°*'.^. SiGN: LOCATION TO ESTABLISH A FREE-STANllIh"~ S~GP~'•on property desciibed as: A-iectangularly shaped,parce'l of land consist- ing of appro',~imet~~~ly 2.6 acres; ._having ,a: frontage of approximately, 180„feet on'the easr side ' of Beach Boulevar~i;r having a maaimum depth of 'approximately,''S75. feet,• and being%„located roximatel 4P ,. ` ~ y a~F,:4"feet south of"Ehe~~centec'~ine of"Ball Road; and furthei described as 1238 ; Sou[h.Beach_Boiilevard. Property;`presently r.lASSified C-l; GENERAL COMMERGIAL;'.ZONE ` Zoning Supery~isor Cha les'Roberts~_reviewed~the:locatiom of subject;property use~ es[ablished .n ciose pcoximit.y, and the.~ropo:sal to:estabLish a.:300-square foo[:sign-`advert:~ing,the exist- ing'liabby.`City",:~hat the;sign would be lursated approximately 30 feet north of.the..south proper; y li,ne, whereas.Code would require afly_free-standing;sign to be.located:within the _ centP-. 2~Y/.of the:pcoperev;, or.a miniwum of. 80 feet from the south property'Line,.thaE the >, pctitione~ was proposing.a•sign wiCh~n:`,90 feec.of an existing root.sign,.;and Code would requtre that the sign be,at LeasC 300 feec frosn any roof sign or free standing sign ~that ~the applicaat.was,proposing chat"the sign be'aii odeiail height of _36 feeC;~and due ta<t6e con[iguous riailer park Eo the west and"the ~inKle-Xamily" residential homes on `the south,; all:.of~which-.were within 300 feet of tne;propused sign, Co~!ie`would_'-limit._the sLgn heigfi[-~to a maximum of:25 fee'C; tha~ the PTanning Commisszon=.would~have to-'decezmine wheCher there was any:'justification~in granking the proposed's,'ign waYJers and, it would appear possible Eo.- : establLSh cl~e slgn,'at ,e ,~ermitted sign locaCion; and that 'if. the•sign;wer'e reduced in;;height `%so as;;to coiitorm with Ccice`requiremencs;and the existing roof,sign•were integraC'ed within,the - properred sign, it would ~ b~e' pussible to 'avoid. ail of Ehe waivers, ,~i,~ ,i;• !•c , i ,a;;ce was n[en~led Eo abace noncc~nforming signs, this LaeCer course;oF,action would best c~rry.'out fhe expxzssed in[enC of the.:ordinance. ' ~ ' Mr. ,Tay DeArmond, the petitioner, appeared bc~e~e the Comm~ssion aed ind~cated Efiat if,"subject peciNon •,•ere approyed, he vould, semove the F,xi.sting free-standing:-alg~:;,;that '.they had>been ac this locatioo for .fifteen' - years, an3'~here t~us sothing at Bear_•h'Aouleva*:::and Ba!L Road-when tHey staited"'except'a fruit.ptand - however,'with'so saany'of the s36ns a.lready .bei~ eziected to advertise th~ •4~:~s eiong Beach Boulevard, it bECame exttem~r.ly.~Iffic~ilt for any of C°.eir pocentiai cus[omers to chenge lanes in sufficien[ time.to leaae th.is`husy s'treet, Beaih Boulevard,:and enter their facilicies;,that he had expended a eonsiderable aaount o# Cime ixx studying the exact location of the proposed.sign,'and the height an,d loca[ion as propused on the plans ~eas determined to be tlie mosC logical one = r. ~; space ot 3 feet one way or the other would make a great desl of difference as to whether oY cot potPiu ial customers could see their propt:rty in suffieient time to leave'the highway;,that t'. establish ihis free- st~nding:sign i,1 accordance with Code would be almos~ impossiEle tJ ~o hec;~use.i't would ~ defear theic ~ucLre plans fot growth and expansion:tor "Hobby Ctty", that [hey had come a ~ Lar.g way to cheir ~~resenC facility and had custoroers who had traveled a long,way becausa of their special types oi: uses since they trLed to servi.ce tGe hobbyists' needs and should not be considered an ordinar,y shopping,centeY; [haG becauee many,people had stated they had pYCmised themselves they would":visir.Fiobby ~ity,'it would take [hem ouc of their way if they did not aee ttie.sign in sufficient time, that hP wa8 attempting to ptovide a sign that would r.otify the.porential customers in sufficient tinte for-them to visit his.facility; and that i~.~ location and height of the sign proposed was determined after pxtensive atudy of the area in order tliat their sign would not be l.os,t in the gla.re of the l.ights in Che area. Mr. DeArmond also noted that they had been attempting to.purchase the two homes iimnediately to the south;where a single-family sabdiviaion was b~eilt; .:e . ;t.esc were single- family,homes, the pzoperty had commer~ial zoaing t~nd if this werF accnmplished, then the proposed location of the sign would be within Code requirFanent, that their property was the last parcel in Anaheim, and che two houses to the souCh were in the City of Stanton; that subject property wa~ narrow and very deep, that location of the sign in the center of the property wouid create some traffic proble~:~s and mignt be knocked down by potenCial customers backing into it; that the two signs on the roof could be re~soved in a matter. of twenty minutes, but because the signs adde~ to ~he charatter and yuai~.er,ens of thp Hobby Shop, it was hoped tbey would be able to ret~iin ~hem - h~otvever, if the heignt, a.~e an:: ;~cation of the sign were approveiai, he would stipu',~te to removal a~£ Ci:~e r~x.C 4i~ns. . P ' :7'fi ' 7 . . ~ +.~~ ~ - ~. ';~~ ~ 1 "~ ~ ~ 2 ~ S Z' . •„#~tK ~arl."t'5~.t ~ ~~'Y~'q ~ ~'g.'~4 rr ~Ct'~1 fr K k'-LiEt ~~ ~1 t c '4 . 1 h ~ ~ A A ~~ ]~ " ~ ~ 7 S ~~~ ` y ' ` ' ~+ . . . .. ..~. ... .. ' :. r r~ T' ': ~1 , 4{ , `f ~ < . - - ~i ~ . . .. . + „ ':i . . ' . ~ ' ~ _ . ~ _ MINUTES,.CITY'PLANNING COI~Il~iISSION, October 19, 1970. ~49 _ VARIANCE'N0. 2211` - Commissioner Kaywood inquired of the petitioner whether or not the - `(ContinuE,) proposed-sign would be locaxed in, the same place as indicated on the ^, photograph;_whereupon Mr. DtArmond stated it`would be located 3; feet ~' northerlp of cie present sign locati,on and would be away'from.the ~ _ power,poles, to the east. Co~issioner Seymour then asked tfiat the petitioner explain`why he wanted a 36-foot high sign ~ 1 rather.;.than the required 25-foot sign, and would this sign be above Ehe existing signs in , '- ;, this area.; ~ ri = _ Mr. DeA~-mond ntated that..a 25-foot siga would be lost as one viewed tho line-of-aight up anw down:Bea~ h'Boule ard arti la l in it r `; tii _;my: . v , p cu r y s p esent location, end the sign would be hi~h enough to ~sk ;~~!; in the, y fcir;"people to see it in sufficient time to change lanes iu'preparation to leaving the heavily=traveled streeC, y.:? ~ , ~ . ~ , . ~ .. . ..rr1 ~ommissioner Seymour then inquired how far dowa the street to the south would the petitioner ' intend to ale;t potential.customers as to their location. Mr: DeArmond atated that it would be necessarq to have people see their sign below Starr Street since this street was only 300'feet south of their south property line, and it was n ecessary-to have:at least a 450-foot d.istance. Furthermore, if he could not acquire the o pr perty.to.the.south 8nd the property owner deveioped his coamiercial property, he could build righC to the.property line - then any low sign would be completely block~d out. Mr. Allen Ansdell, owner of the D!osaic Art Supply Company, one of the stores within Hobby ' City; appeared before the Co~aission and noted that in addition to his store there was r"K ~ also a do21 shop, a model shop,'a train shop together ~tith a doll museum which was free to ~''~'^ the public.and was operated by Mrs. DeArmond as part of her hobby; that all of these stores "` could not be seen-from'the traffic side of the street, and the basic reason for the height ' '~~ arid size~bf the sign was to advertise these shops at the rear and get Che people to visit I r their shops because everyone who came in was quite amazed at what they saw and what was ~ =:' offered in the .line of hobbies; that this.would also present an opportunity_;to groups knowing the e ' r was a doll m~seum; :and that the height; Ehen,.would allow.areas to place all tt.~ store ia n ~ '. na es - te stores presently.and six more ex ected next . p year to be. placed:on this sign. ''t -~''~ Mr. DeArmond, in,response to Cummissioner Kaywoou's questioning:regarding whether r ~r not the , sign wouid `be a blinking sign, stated it would be only a'lighted;sign: ' ~-,' No one`appeared in opposition to subject petition~. - : ..,~ THE HEARING.WAS CLOSED. ` ` : ;.,.. , . ~ . Commissioner Seymour,noted that'although,ha.was in:favor of replacing the old sign and i removing.the roof signs,>he was not in #avor of a 36=foot higk sign since the ordinance ` ` required a 25-foot high,sign when ,~•f~:hin 300`feet of residential uses, and that he was not : ~ opposed to the proposed location of 'the sign:' Chairman HerSst noCed that the Sign Ordinance recognized the fact that there were many non- o c nforming signs in the'city, and [his was the reason for requiring only a 25-foot high sign as the maxi~um height in many.areas; that it was not necessary for this s3gn to be 36 feet high, although he could see nothing wrong witn the proposed location since the petitioner was relocating the sign 30 feet farther to the north; and that if the height proposed were a roved this wou PP , ld set a rec~ . ~dent for p re uests fo r hi q gher signs in this area and it , could turn ouC to be a Harbor Boulevard - a prime example of undesirabl~e heights in signing n alo g a major arterial. ' ~; Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC70-190 and moved foz tts passage and adoption ' t to gran Petition for Variance No. 2211, in part, approving the location of the f~te-standing sign approximately 30 feet from the south property linc and denying the waiver of maximum height and a:ea of a free-standing sign and maximum number of signs permitted on a site ' ' , with the finding that the petitioner stipulated to removal of the roof signs. (See ResoZution Book) Qn roll ca11 the fc•-egoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: C0:'RiISSIONF.RS: Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour, Herbst. NOES: ' COM~IISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. RECESS - Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to recess the meeting for ten minutea. Co~issioner Rawland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 3:42 P.M. ,::. ,~~;._ ::.- . ~ Tj~ y .. r, ~ 7 - . 'k..~ y' A ~ ` ^ v . y • ~t, ~ s-'v ~?3 ~ -i:, 1 'k'0* ~~ ~~ .. ~ } r r, . . ~ " "'~ y~Lr~ua~ ~ ~~.~ ~y~ .. ~ ~f'~ { ~ } ~ . . .. . . ~ . . . . ~ .~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 19, 1970 Sif50 RECONVENE - Chairman Herbst reconvened the meeting at 3:57 P.M., all Commissioners heing present except Co~issioner Allred. VAKIANCE N0. 2100 r READpERTISED PUBLIC HEARING. DARYOUSH MAHBOOBI-FARDI, c/o Green Mansion Realty, 623 North Harbor BouLevard, Fullerton, California, Owner; ; JUANITA HAGppIAN, 3209 La Travesia Drive, Fullerton, California, Agent; requeating CONSIDERATION'OF VARIANCE AS PIU3VIOL~~LY ADV~.":T~;;ED AND REVISED PLANS FOR A PROPOSED`THREE-STORY; 106-UNIT ApARTMENT COMPLEX on property described as; A rectangularly shaped parcel of land consi§tin ;of a approximately-100 feet on ft,e weat<'side of-Pear1 Streetxandtalmaximumede$theofna a'frontage of 616 feeE, being approximatsly 425 feet riorth of the centerline of Wilshirr AvenuePr~Property Presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL; ZONE: 2oning Supervisor Charlea Roberts reviewed the location`of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the exi~ting and proposed zonin on the p y~ g revised:plans which the Commiesion determz;ned should begconsidered~atra publicthearinghtohe allow adjoining R-O property owners an opportunity to review the plans and present any oppr,si- tion since the variance was granted by tfie City Council with a number of changes which were not reflected,on the plans as originally.viewed by the Planning Commission; thaf the revised plans now proposed 106 units with six main buildings, and while the previous plans had seven waivera, the revised plans still needed three of these original waivers; that the Fire Depart- ment was concerned ~hat some portions of the structures would be more than 200 feet from a vei+~c.•..32r ~c~ess~.~a~ ~.~~;;:-je;~g acco~odating fire vehicles - a atandard included in the Planning Co~iseion and City Council-adopted "Fire Department Standards for Residential Developments"; that this might be alleviaEed by running concrete ribbons along the southerl prope=ty, which would give access for emergency vehiclea and would still permitplandscap nghon the southerly.portion of the property; that this accessway would become even more crucial if the applicant were to enclose the areas between the southerly buildings for lobbies and elevators as was indicated - this would be a possibility indicated by the petitioner, although the plans.did not:so reflect this - and that if the Commission determined the revised plans were substanCially in conforrmance with plane originally submitted, staff would recommend two additional conditions; aamely, parking in accordance with Code requirements and provision of an accessway along the southerly property.line for emergency vehicles, or such other redesign as,was necessary to meet the Fire Department standards,'and that since the original conditions of tlie variance were tied in to the"original,plan, staff.wouid'recommend that Condition No. 2, 1 requiring a 20-foot wide vehicular ingress and egress easement aloag the south property liue, be";deleted., Mr. Marko.Botich, architecC representing VTN, the developer, as well as the agent for the pefitioaer, appeared before the Commiesion and.stated a representative of the developer and the'.agent,were available to answer queskions; that the VTN staff designer, Mr. .;icul?e_, was also available;_that the pro~ect as;originallq.approved had not been changed according to the architect's viewpoints - that the development was still there, but the property dimensions precluded the'planning concept for the property; that the revised plans would be substantially ' in.accordance with the original development plans with the exception that where formerly there ' was a_drive along the north and south property lines, now one driveway was proposed under the new planning concept; ttiat the new plan provided for more green area which would be more pleasing to the eye of the apartment residents rather than an asphalted area; thac one building' had been eliminated from the interior of the dr~velopment which helped provide xhis green, open appearance, and one of the ways this was accompliahed ~as by purchasing a 10-foot by 600-foot strip along the south propercy line; that carports and a drive were proposed along the north property line whi~h would act as a buffer for so:.ud pza;; ie;,s ,;,yich L•:~e ad jaiaing propPrty ow~ er always felt was undesirable• that so f ' ~. ~ ( ! i fv i ~ I, ~. f , ~. r ;.. ,; . me o the conditions cam~ about because the adjo~uing S p.roperty owners did not want any visual or noise intrusion, and by placing the carports as propoaed, this would solve that problem since the cerports woaid have an 8-foot high wall which would assure the privacy of these property owners; that the lice-of-sight plan as set for.th in the glossy prints presented to th~e Comnission indicated these R-0 property owners would no[ be affected by a line-of-sight from two or tt~ree-story a~artments; that the revised plans were so designed that the required parking was now being prov.ided, whereas the plans originally viewed by the Commission two weeks ago did not reflect this; that they would work out the f:.e access problem with the Fire Department and staff; that they felt they could mee:t all the requirements set furth by staff without any difficulty; and that the R-0 residents to the narth had expressed their concern that their pr;vacy would be invaded - however, the prints submitted verified the fact that this concern was unwarranted. Mrs. Doris LeDuc, 1400 Birchmont Drive, appeared before the Commission and noted that when Tract No. 2049, of which her property was a gart, was developed, they were completely surround- ed by vacant land - however, all the adjoining property had now developed except for the 3~ acrea under consideration, and al"_ these were developed eir_her with single-family residences ur single-story commercial or multiple-family uses within 150 feet of the R-0 prope~Cies, and that the pictures she presented were indicative that the proposed development was not in confo7mance with what had been escablished in the area - therefore, ahe requested reconsidera- tion of the originally approved plans and requirement of single-story to be developed within 150 feet of the R-0 property. - ~ ~ =~ ~~. ~i'i~,~~ ^s ` ~r ; ~ R r ' ` ~ ~:~ . .. . .. .. . _. . , . . . . y . ~ ~ . ~, __ _ .. ._.....~.....,_ _ :. _ , , . ~. ..: . ... .: . , :.. ~ _ _, =-._...::::.__..s_~.,;~ -• _~ . . ~ ~ f'~ ' MINi]TES, CITY PLP.NNING COMMISSION, .OctobEr 19, "1970 ~~~ , . , . , ~51 .VARIANCE N0. 2100 - D'c. John`Kimball, 1424,Birchmont Drive, appeared before the Commission ~' (Continued) in.op?osition and_stated his;property was-i~ediately to the north of. subject::proprrty; thst-he,.was.in-agreemenE with statements made.by Mrs. LeDuc; that he.had atte'nded tiie .,ity Council publia hearing over a'year'ago when.the first plana were approved and,at which time the property owners finally added their approval =,howeder, the,'revised:plens.indicated several very important points which should be:brought.!out, namely,.all,:the parking was now proposed along the north property. line having,traffic froai these 106 apartments racing,up and down'the driv~e~, starting and ' stoppirig of motors,and:gene=aTly having undesirable fumes coming from these vehicles, and these auEomobile noises:would,be-harmful to`their health, peace, end safeky;.Ehat his bedroom was,located edjacent to this driveway as wes tlieir.play,and outdoor li~~ ops areri', and with tHese noises and fumes, they would be.depr:ived~of Eheir normal living p~,stem p~•esently enjoyed;'aad~that he was particularly concerned aboub this plan, especf.ally since against their,better judgment the•y"had agreed to;tlie plans presented to the City Council, which were also revised at thatihearing.`: Mr.-David Callins, 1077 West ;,gil Road, appeared before the Con~ission and noted that he was the original petitioner when.plans were considered over a year ago, and because they were unable to.obtain`financing, they soid this properEy; that he felt the proposed development was.a very handsome development; that the oarports:proposed would trap the sounds.and any fume's; that he felt the proposed plans were reasonably,in conformance.with the plans approved by the City Council except instead of one tier of carports, there were now two tiers of carports.along:the north property line; and•that he was hopeful the Coa~ission would approve these plans since he felt it wes a'very compatible development and would be an asset to the city.. The Co~¢nission.Secretary u.oted five_letters and two petitions signed by eleven peraons were on file, all in oppositiory and then summarized.the opposition presenCed. Mr.:Botich, in rebuEtal, stated that one letter of opposition indicated the recreational'area should.be,relocated - however,.this facility.was separated by one row of carports and was ~also further,buffered :.p la:.dscaping and gpartments with gazelio roof covering; that they were attempting to create a buffer which would allow for.privacy for the single-family homeowners as:well.as the apartment dwellers; that by recessing.the two-stAry building four feet, thie would make_ ehe two-stoiy structures o;.c a:.•1 or.e-:.~Ic s~:or.ies and the three-atory structures two and one-half:stories, and there would.be.no bad effect from these properties to the north I because of-the roof lines and parapets. .Furthermore, the;e were a number of requirements ~ ~` which they-£elt.weYe met,after he had talked with the property owners and explained to them what`was proposed"; and that this proposed development would actually help the R-0 properties by providing a buffer from the freeway noises noe--2xperienced, as well as being an asset tu the area rather than having a vacant parcel there. Cou~issioner Kaywood inquired.w!:er ,:e revised pians had been submitted to steff.for review. Mr.'Botich replied that this was only a potential or paxsial plan, but it did take care of the ~ paiking deficiencies and was submitted earlier tn the day. Cormnissioner Gauer then fnquired as to the totai amount of land now being developed as opposed to that:originally considered by the Commission; whereupon Mr. Botich replied there was 3:65 acres now, and,the developers were interested ir. developing with this plan before the Commission, end that one thing which was not brought out in the Report to the Co~ission was the fact ttiut in the event they planned to enclose the lobbies, this would eliminate the six units having dens since elevators were proposed to be placed there, and the parking would then be in excess of Ehe minimum requirement. ~ _ _ , THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Herbst noted that the Commission was required to consider approval or disapproval of revised plans, and,anything.pertaining to requiring single-story within 150 feet of R-0 could not be considered. Commissioner Ganer.noted that if the building were constructed below grade as originally planned, this would mean a 32 or 33-foot height to the parapet for the three-story which was below the 35-foot limit in the R-3 Zone. I Mr. Roberts advised the Co~ission there was no reference to 35 feet in the R-3 Zone, only as to one or two stories. ' Cou~issioner Seymour noted that the rendering indicated a row of trees, and the glossy prints also indicated these trees - however, he was concerned with the preservation of natural buffers and inquired of the architect whether or not the developer intended to semove the T.rees. ~i ~a; :k'`. ^*r,14'~ ~ +e~' ~+:E z4trr'z a*w~ ~~~Y j y` 'r~~ ~"~r~ ~ {~,-~w,,,rtt ~rR •,,, ,::r -..» F b,~'Y a~!~ ~ .. 1~.. f' ~ f ~ 'r F ~, ~~~ , c 'r ~ { h ~F ~> ~t -. a Sy,,, < ~: ~ ~ . . " ~j ~.: ~ ~ z ^' Yn .<.Z r'~~ ~` .r _ - . ..~... ~! '~f4.. 1 ~`'.ti ~„',{l~` ~ . .~. . .zT~: :.~ .A _,!n'. ' . ..:j~. . . . . . .. . ti . . . ... . . ..• ,. ti4 ~:_, ' r _ _. ~ ; ~ _ ~ MINUTES,:.CITY PI.ANNTNG COhAtISSION, October 19, 1970 ~A52 I VARIANCE N0. 2100 - Mrs. LeDuc advised,the Commission that there were no trees on subject (Continued) propert•y; and she had those trees planted on her property behind the ~ fence which had been coastructed_away from the property line in order tu p1anE these trees - therefore, these trees could not be removed from her_property. . Commissioner Rowland.noted that the revised plans aere far superior to the original plana, but as was Ehe case in:the original'consideration of this development, it was the wrong place, that~because it'was in close proximity;to`the R-O, the one-story height limitation should have been observed, but he`did not;know how the Commission could back up and reverse their decision ' :on the height; and.that froui the standpoint of the adjoining property owners, the reviaed `s:^ plans were;not better`than the original since they felt they were not afforded the same `"'' buffering'that was, formerly given. Discussion between the-Commission and the staff was held as to what the.City Council approved, it.being determinEd that.the City Council approved plans which the Commission had not seen or;, approved. Chairman Herbst noted that the main point of opposition from his observation was the fact ~ that the`:carports were now all proposed for the northerly property line, whereas formerly only a portion was proposed, and that ell the circulation would also be along the northerly property line which would create noises from starting, stopping, backing up, and generating ' odoxs from these vehicles. Mrs. LeDuc asked to be heard again and noted tha[ the property owners wanted to make their ~ feelings known because at the time the variance and reclassification were before the Cou~ission ~ ~ and City Council, the single-story duplexea`to the east were not constructed - therefore, their ~ properties were-the only ones that would be affected by two and three-story development and ~ made.a.big differ~nce to the owners of these seven lots which would be affected. There£ore, K+ they should not,be penalized because this was the last property to be developed, and two-story ~' should not be permitted because of this. ~ Mr'. Roberts advised the Coum~ission that a six-month extension of time was granted for comple- ; tion of'the conditions of the reclassification End variance which would expire February 19, 1971. Co~issioner Raywood then 3nquired of the opposition that since'~one plan had been approved, would they object more to the revised plans, or what? Mrs. LeDuc.replied they did not like to have a road immediately adjacent to t'heir property which would be very cloae to their pati~, making it impossible.to enjoy any outdoor living because of Ehe odors and noiaes; that the entire project was an undesirable situation and '~ was:aPfecting only half of the street because tl~e balance of the properties had been protected by regulations of the City of Anaheim, and that this would affect the sales price of their homea. Mr. Nicollet advised the Cou~iasion that undnr the R-3 provisions it would be possible to build a development without any waivers vith one and two-story apartments, in which case they could build carporta alang th.r, north property line as shawn on the plan for sixty cars, .~ and tnat he felt the property owners should be apprised of this fact since this seemed to be a their basic opposition. Commissioner Gauer acknowledged that the petitioner only had to prove up on the conditions and tvild withia the confines of site development standards of the R-3 2one, and no plan '~ - woul~ have to be considered by the City. -;~ Mr. Roberts noted that this wae true with one exception. In the event any project Eead plana ~ submitted for approval.and staff felt tbey appeared to be inappropriate, these plans would ~ thpn be brought before the Planning Coamiasion or City Councii for approval of p1an.. Assiatant Develapment Services Director Ronald Thompson noted that if the Co~ission determined ' this.was a au~erior plan to the original one, they mignt wish to provide for some protection ~ for the R-0 residents by tying this particular variance into the reclassification, and if a change in plans were noted at the time a building permit was requested, the City would have some control over what was to be developed under the R-3 Zone for subject property. Chairman iierbst inquired of the architect what type of wall was proposed for the carport structures adjacent to the R-0 property line, and t~at type of facia would be presented to ~ their view. Mr. Botich replied that a regulation-type block wall was ;proposed; however, it could be of o`her materials. . . . _- --~ Chairman Herbst then noted he would object if he had to face an 8-foot block wall adjacent ~- ~ to his rear yard; whereupon Mr. Botich replied that he was not sure of what the developer ~ ~ ::;~~-. ~'•;,:>'. `~-~ ''''~'fi'^,. c~iT~ ?l"~ y &ci` rE,"~-.~~~ ~ i~s~-.~GiN ~r`, c~bY h ~.~'?~- `~ i i Y ~i~'` ^~' b^~.~r`~ ~"~"~ 1~~' .J ~ ~ d Y ~ ~ t . i ~ x ? '+ f { ~ x r r~ ` ~'~ z'fy .f 4: ~ ~,~ ~. ~5~,• , , , ... . ~ .~.h ., ,,, . . ~ .. . . . ._ . ..1.. :' - ' "'~,, .. ~. , ~ . . . , i ...:....:. .:.. : . . ... . . ~,~ , . . . . . . ` : ~ ~..~s~. ~.,nam.. ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ . ~ .. _ . ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 19, 1970 _ ` , . , 5~53 VARIANCE N0. 2100 - might offer as an alternative, but as an :erchitect, he would like to see (Continued) something more desirable, and he was sure there would be no opposition from the developer. .Chairman Herbst`offered a motion to approve sevised plans submitted for Variance No. .2100, subject to the additional conditions recommended by staff on the basis that theae were considerably better plans than originslly approded and additional protection was afforded the single-family homeowners by the buffers of caL~orts and a drivewayy thus having the two- story and three-sstory buildings seE back farther'from the R-0 than previously proposed, and further provided that the carports abutting ttie north property line be constructed of some decorative material other than a block wall to.offer better amenities facing theae groperty owners. . On roll~call the foregoing motion lost, with Commissionera Aerbat and Kaywood voting "aye" and Commiasioners Farand, Gauer, Rowland, Seymour voting "no". ~ Commissioner Seymour, in voting "no", s¢ated Chat although he agreed in part with the findings mad~ with Commissioner F~erbst's motion, he could not agree in toto, first because of the type of neighborhood immediately to. the north whYch was one of'the prime neighborhoods in Anaheim, he did not like to see any adverse effect which R-3 development might have, and, secondly, although.he was not on the Commisaion at the time this was originally considered, the Commission had not granted waiver of the one-story height limitation within 150 feet of R-1 properties - therefore, he could not see hoa,i this could have Y,een approved when the proper- ties affected were in a prime area, a~d even though it was passed pr~eviously, i.t did not mean he ahould look upor, it favorably now. Commiasioner Rowland stat~d that although ~t~i;~ was`one of the beec looking projects to be preaented to the Couunission sinre he had been oa the Co~issiou because it offered more internal advantagea and amenities, he felt it was misplaced and was not in keeping with the orig3nal intent of the Planning Commission ~;rha stated their primary concern wa~ the protec- tion of the property owners to the north; ti~at he vas in complete sympathy with the develop- ment but consideration had to be given to tbe mevea- property owners to the north who had to bear the brunt of the effect Ehis type of development wauld have, and it would •not 5e compatible with other development'in the area. Continued,discussion was held by the Commission as to Che-desirable and undesirable points of the:'revised plans and the facE`that the Planning Commission and City Council nad approved two_storq conetrucEioa withia 150 feet of the R-0 propert3es - howe"ver; the plan had changed :from that originally-presented to the Co~ission, and,then requesCeel sts£f to review khe original'plans as approved by Che City Council. :.` Mr. Roberts replied that,the original plans were for subterranean par.king and with a portion of the first floor alsu almost 50$ below grade,.the Commission determined this was one and ;one-half atories, and that the garages or carports as approved by the City Council were changed with more open space. '"Commissioner Rowland noted that the roof line had a mansard which changed the line-o£-aight from the apartments and made the roof of the northerly buildings in Line with the roof of the homes to the north. Mr. Collins advised the Cou~ission that the garages or carports were moved by request of the property owners, and the line-of-sight was improved. Commissioner Farano noted that the Co~ission did not grant two-story within 150 feet of R-0, but one and one-half story since a portion of the first floor was submerged. Commissionet Seymour offered R~solution No. PC70-188 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council denial of revised p2ans for Variance No. 2100 on the basis that although the revised plans were deemed to be an improvement over [he original plans from the standpoint that greater amenities would be provid'ed within the interior of the development, t:~e revised'plans.provided less proteation to the R-0 properties ~o the north since ti~e majority of the parking spaces for the apartment development were proposed along the north boundary of the property; that the original plans approved by the Commission incorporate~l architectu"cal designs that screened the majority o1E the developme~at from view of the R-0 properties fo the north and provided only a small percentage of the parking along the north boundaxy; that the proposed development proposed all parking immediately adjacent to the'R-0 property, creating undesirable odors and emission af noises from vehicles starting and stopping which would be detrimental to the general health and welfare of the adjoining property owners to the north; and that although .approval had been given for one and one-half and two and one-half staries by both the Planning Commission and City Council, consideration should have been given to the policy maintained in the past which required all properties adjoining these R-O properties to maintain one story both for commercial and apartment development; and that the revised plans had not taken into consideration the welfare of the adjoining property owners. (See Reselution Book) ~ •.. f". ~; .~ ~; i ~ ! ~ t ~x-.~-: t ~ i ~ ~ ~ r -r- .--- ~ 1 ~ , .,.. ., .. _. .. _. _. . ...~.~__ .__"'. .. . ...~~,.1 w _ ..~_ _.. . . .: , G~k ~T~B~ ~~ . °".~.~'"~ ~"~ a'2,r„'E,~wtr~"~i'U ~r,.'~~i t ~Y~s'!r~u -9~,~~ep~ ~ ~~'~ w~.;l~ ~ .' i ? ~d~ ""`. ~' t_; ,~ r _ : t l ~ ~ ac. a,'~ ... f t 2, . ~ ..~ , f . , -~. )~'~~ ~Y..= '\. ~~ ~~~ ~ t ~' ~ 7 7 ; '~t i~ r ~ ~ :.~ i.i ~~~ ~ f ~ ,. . ~...r 1 ~ t ,+,.t 4 ~ :. ~ a ,~l ~ -~ t t ~1 ~ f E "? r:.: ~ . -~ 1 ~: • .~. . r a.,.. - w ~' y. •., C x . .' ~ , ~. ...._.. . .~..,~!..r,. ~ ~..~ . ..~. ... .:... .., , . ..~: .. ~. • , ~ .-. .~~~~ ~_~ . ~ ' . ~ ~~ . ~ .. . .. ~ . MINUTES,,`.CITY PLANNING COMMISSION; October 19,.1370 5,~54 _ VARIANCE.NO. 2I00 - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: (Continued) ~ ` AYES: COrIISISSIUNERS: Farano, Gauer, Rowiand, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIUNERS:, Kaywood, Herbst: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:: AlLred: VARIANCE N0. 2214 - PUBLIC.HEARING. THE PACiFIC TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPAI~IY, P. 0. Box n' 524,.Room 1311, San Diego, California, Owner; requesting WAIVER OF . MAXIMUM.:?FRMITTED BUI LJING HEIGHT T0 CONST _ x .,:~ Wp, RUCT A 225 ~E TOWER on FOOT HIGH MICRO- ~:~ property deacribed:as: A parcel of land bounded on the north by Cypress Street, '"`x: on the east by Lemon'SEreet,,on tfie south by..Chartres`Street,'aud on the west by Clementine '~'~' Street,,with a"frontage of approximaEely 360 feet on Lemon.Street and further described as ~~~~ 217 North Lemon Street. Prcperty presently classified C-2, GENGRAL COIAIERCIAL, 20NE. ,- ;- i Zuni:.g c:upervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximitya and the Report to [he Commission and noted that the petitioaer proposed a 225-foot tower.which might be needed due to the obstruction of their microwave transmission system.by high-rise strucruses located at '~The City" in the City of Orange where a 25-story ~building.was proposed to be constructed in 1973; that the existing exposed microwave "dishes" f would be:incorporated into the tower, making this a more attractive struature than presently ' existed; thaE the peti[ioner indieated the existing tbwer would remaia~ until the propoaed tower vas complete-and the equipment could be relocated to t~e new tower, and that in addi- ! tioii,.the proposed 36-foot-high antenna would:be temporarily locsted on the existing tower; i"• and that the main question before the ~oo~isaion was whether tl~ere was evidence of har~ship which would justify permitting a strucCure 150 feet higher than Code permitted. Furthermore, ~~~ a finding could be made that if the Commissioa wiahed to establish a time periad in approvfn ' this petition when the existing twer was to be removed since it was evi~dent this vould not g~' ~` be built for aY least two or three yeara - thereforet the removal period could best be stated ~.'~~ ~ in terms of a period of time which would commence at the completion of the nzw tower. ~ Mr. Ha1 Marks, representing the Pacific Telephone Compaay, appeared before the Commission and ~-~ stated that he wished to qualify the original request-since their first review, other pressing i needs had been presented.as to the height neceasary; that an addition of 100 circuits for ~' loag-distance•ca11e to San Diego would be needed, and ib was also proposed to increase their ~ long distance transmissions to Los Angeles - therefar,e, at least 100 additional feet of height ~„ would be necessary for these_transmisaions.to Los Angeles; that the proposal to enclosn the microwP,e,~_faciliti~s inEo a Eower-like building would be an asaet to Ehe area; that there was no `intenEion nf constructing,it to a higher heighK since the building haci'already been re- inforced to its maximum; that the removal of the exiating tower vould have to await the removal of the radio eection~on the fourth floor to the fifth floor at such time as it was deemed necessary because of expansion of the offices, and to require it to be relocated at a,specific.time would create'a conaiderable burden and expense in the viMnity of $320,OOU, ~' and whar they propoaed would be the building of the tower and picking up the circuiCs as required unEil the need was apparent for relocation of the radio room and the tower, which, in ali likel~hood, would be in the first quarter of 1973 when they would complete the addi.- tion vhich would be almost to the radio tower, and if business incraased any addition to that would necessitate elimination of the old twer, and this old tower certainly did not enhance the present building. Chairman Herbst inquired a& to •the type of materiels that were proposed for this tower; whereupon Mr. Marks replied that aluminum grill would reflect the p:esent building addition ~ with the exception there would be black marble eo the second floor facing on the rear and the entrance, and then reviewed the color scbeme for the outside of the building. Mr. Marks noted that the appeasance of this structure would be r~ eigh-ri.se building since it ras their intent to be in this area a long cime, and that financing of the tower would be determined by tbe board of directors. ~ommissioner Kaywood inquired what would ha'ppen if the tower were not built; whereupon Mr. ~ Marks replied that if ''T,I~e City" were to build tha 24 ar 25-story building, it would be in I the path.af their 2500 transmissian circuita to San Diego, and they could not increase tneir ! calls to Los Angeles. Coum~issioner Farano then inquired why this tower could not be erected on top of the proposed ~ building; whereupon Mr. Marks replied that i° ehe tower were not built, they would lose 1200 circuits, and it wauld be impractical to erect the tower on top of ehe 24-story building and ~ then shoot back the circuited information to Anaheim, since they were unal,!e to build anything ; high enough at another site. Furthermore, Che City of Orange had no height limitations on this type of aa office building. i Mr. Roberts asked for clarification as to [he length of time the existing tower would remain. -- Mr. Marks replied both the proposed tower and the existing tower would rema.in, but building growth would necessitate remova) of the one tower, and for economic reasons, they would have __ ~ :~. -t . ~ r ~.~~ I : Jl~ ~ r :~ ' t~~. . . . ~ ' ~ .'-L~. . . . _ .. . .. .. ~ }~'N~&y~ ?.`~.~-; ~ y~YSYa traa~+~.~E~.,~.,tft~a~y~~ ~ a:_.,~~~ ~~ ,~w'~4a "'{q~.Up. j t~ i-;q'~.; +" ~::1 Y r t~ r~ `t ri7 ~~,. ;'_.. } l 'w. .~ 'X .: i: r,~e~ ' ~ ` y ' i 't _ ~ ty r ~ ~.T„ . .~ ~ ~~'h~'~~ ~~~ ~. ':_,' , ~ ~, , .: ~ , ~ ~ .. ~ . . ~ . . . _~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO1~ff2ISSI0N, October:l9, 1970- _ ~ 5~55 ` .,.. . . ..d VARIANCE NO 2214 - to move the radio roam which they.did not want to do at this time since ~ (Continued) it<would mean`F•asted space since they would not need this equipment ~~ i~ediately. ~ ~I _ _ No,one appeared in opposition to subject,petition. ..~, T , _ , :,~ HE HFARING WAS, CLOSED. _ ;..,;a ; ,,~ Commiasioner Farano.inquired how aoon the builders of "The City" high-rise structure would ~;:~ knov whether or not they were.going to conatruct it. _ . ; ~'»~~ Mr. Marka replied that`they would have an anawer some tfine in.November, but this would cut `'' them short on time aince they needed the Eime to build the building and obtain the equipment. •~ Co~iasioaer Farano then inquired what would happen if subject petition were continued until action was taken by "The City" on their proposed building. ' `I Mr. Marks replied they needed this additional time to increase theix transmission paths to Los Angeles - this was an obvioua need and the other to San Diego was a potential need. Co~isaioaer Seymour inquired whether additioaal storage would be built prior to the time the tower was erected. ' . _ ° •.` =i Mr. Marks replied tbat they were waiting•for approval from the corporate office which would ~~ necessitate filling out the,fourth floor if a 4A additioa were approved, and one portion would be_complete by the first quarter of 1973 - therefore, if this variance and the 4A addition were approved by the corporate office, this would allow them sufficient time far ,'~1 ,I plans and,construction. However, if xhe corporete office did;not a '~i then the plans would have to be changed by Ewo etoriea. PplOVe the 4A addition, . ;y ~ Commissioner Se ' ? ymour noted that if the corporate headquartera_did not approve the 4A addition, ,,~ he would like to have revised plans submitted to stef£ and approved as to their.redesign. -'~ ~ ~ . ' ' ~'.: ' . ~. ~ . ' ~ . , . "' . . ~ ' A Co~nisaioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC70-191 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance;:No.;2214 on the basis.that'a potential hardship would be created in the~event~~~The City";~constructed"the 25-story_building which would be in the path ; of any transmission to San Diego, aad;further provided that in the`eveat revised plans were ( required•'due to.Ehe corporate~office not.a'pproving the 4A addition;, that any'redesign a~d ~ ~ revised plans be:submitted to~;staff.to~.resolve~any zoning.:prablems. Furthermore, that a ' three-year,time limitation be establi'shed:for the.completiori of the proposed tower with the ' option of an extension of time'upoa.expiration of said three years upon approval of the , applicetion by the Planning Commission. (See Resolution Book) Prior to'voting, Commiasioner Rawland:inquired whether or not this height fell within the Gruen Report as to tall "structures in the Center City; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated that it did fall within the intent of said`report. Commisaioner Gauer noted that he resided in this gen~eral area, and it was his reco~endation that the telephoae company and City review very carefully the on-street paricing situation since people living in this area coula not even have emergency parking in front of their housea because employeea of the ~telephone company and the Security NatiQaal Bank appeared to take up all the parking spaaes, and if a doctor or a~ ambulance were requ~red fur residents in this area, it would be necessary to have double .parking on the atreet. Mr. Roberts advised the Comnission that the telephone c~ompany had been working very closely with staff as each expansion program was proposed, and ~a it pertained to paxking, parking as provided with each expansion met with the requirements of the staff. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESc C~IISSIONERS:' Farano, Gauer, Kaywood; Rowland, Seymour, Herbst. NOES: CO1~AfISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COt+~i~SSIONERS: Allred. Z. ~P .'~. ~_ 'y ic f r,': *2"C'~~~.~:., tt ~~. ~ v~,. F~a~.'~t ~, ~ y.. _t,Y r h i , -~ I . ~ ' " ` - ` ~ :l ~ , _,._ 3 r ~ J .-:~ r~~ I ~~. .~ ~ ~~ .. ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~ - MINUTES, CITY:PLANNING COIIlfTSSYON, ~ctober 19, 1970 ~ 5~56 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC, HEARIlVG. Ii~GHES MARKETS, INC., 2716 San Fernando Road, Los Angeles, ' N0. 70-71-17 CalifoXnia, Owner; LE ROY ROSE, 1711 Westmont Drive, Anaheim, California, `' Agent;;property descrfbed as:,;Aa~ irregularly shaped parcel of land VARIANCE N0. 2215 coneisting of approximately ~.0"acrea located generally at the southeast cornex of Orange Avenue and Beach Boulevard, having approximate frontages of b!5-.feet on the east side of Besch Bouievard and 421 feet on the south side of Orange Avenue, having a maximwn dep'Lh of approximately 815 feet. Property presently classified.C-1, GENETtAL .COIYAtERCIAL, ZONE, REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-~, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF ~~).MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM A COVERED:PARKING SPACE TO A ~ DWELLING UNIT AND (2) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, TO ESTABLISH A 270-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. ~ Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts rev~iewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to establish a 270-unit apartment complex, and noted that a small 150'by 150-foot parcel had been left out of the original petition for reclassification since the petitioner proposed to develop a service station, and the conditional use permit to allow a service station within 75 feet of residential uses would be considered by the Planning Co~iasion; that the plans originally presented at the filing date had been substantially revised and were reviewed by staff last Wednesday - however, staff had been unable to analyze the plans in detail due to the insufficient time to accomplish this and requested that a continuance of two weeke be granted staff in order to fully evaluate the revised plans - however, from a preliminary check it would indicate that some of the units were still more than 200 feet from a covered car space and some of the portions of the buildings were more than 200 feet frozd a vehicular accessway capable of accommodating fire department vehicles, and this latter requir~ament was part of the adopted Fire Department Standards for Residential Development. Furthermore, the petitioner was planning a 5 cr 6-foot fence around the patios in the.front setback area, whereas the variance was not originally advertised for this waiver. Chairm~h Herbat advised the agent for the petitioner that since subject property and the parcel propqsed for a service station site at the southeast corner of Orange Avc•nue and Beach Boulevar were under one ownershig, the Commission did not look kindly on any development where a small ' po~tion of a p=operty was 3eft out for obvious development for a service station and reco~ende that revised'plans should ref3~ct that tt-is portion of the property was being incorporated into the overall apartment development proposed - although the petitioner, by rigi~t, could build a service station'because of the existing C-l zoning, the petitioner was creating his own hard- ship and might not liave approval of any subsequent development of the larger portion of the property: Co~issioner Gauer noted that the Commission in the past had been crosaed up a number of times ~ when parcels were left out for ~se :~s a residence - however,..later on waivers were requested because of hardships which they had created themselves, and in his estimation there were more than sufficient service stations in the City of Anaheim withouC coneidering one that would obviously create a hardship on adjoining properties. Commis sioner Farano was of.the opinion that the Commission should not conaider subject peti- tions until both the parcel proposed for the aervice station and the subject property were presented to the Co~ission since the Commission had been down that path before. Opposition present in the Council Chamber asked whether or not a four-week continuance could be required in order to allow the adjoining property owners aufficient time to prepare their opposition. The Co~ission stated that the condit3oaal use permit was already scheduled for November 2; therefose, a two-week continuance would be all that was to be considered. However, the item would be scheduled ae the firat item on the agenda. Co~issioner Kaywood offered a motion to continue consideration of Reclassification No. 70-71-17 and Variance No. ,2215 as the first item on the agenda for the meeting of November 2, 1970. Commiasion@r Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PZANNING COMMISSION, 204 ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, to conaider an amendment to Title 18, Chapter 18.63, Billboards, amending Section 18.63.030 to increase the boundaries of the scenic highway for Katella Avenue from its present terminus at the centerline of Douglas Street to the centerline of the Santa Ana River. F :.3 F d ~i r Y j ::,:.`~.. - :... J ,k3 1 • ~ ~~ `:' ` ~~. . . '; ' , ._ .. ,. . ~~. ~ ~~ ~ . . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO1~AtISSION, October ~,:i9, 1970; 5,~57 AMENDMENT TO ~TITLE 18 =.of,Douglas ~treet to:the_centerline of~`the Senta Ana River since it ANAHEIM MUNICIPAI: CODE. .:appeared.to.be:ratlier Yllogical to:preclude 6illboards along the (Continued)' entire;portion of•Katella'Aveaue.in ~he,City eiccept';for that portion ' of Katella Avenue at.tfie.very entrance-to the City`of Anaheim where ' .= such'a:structure could have its most_detrimental impact.upon visitora to the city;: and that Katella Avenue was the`main entrance to the,newly-expanded Commercial- Recreation<;Area and the Anaheim:'-Stadium from the east - therefore, in view of.>this iC would " seem;,appropriate to extend said scenic highway deeignation as proposed. No one appeared in oppasit3on to subjecE amendment.` _. , , , THE`HEARING.WAS.,CLOSEI3. ` , Co~issiorer Farano.offered Resolution'No. PC70-192 and moved for its passage and'adoption to reco~end to:the City Council an amendment to Tit1e 18-Zoning, Chapter 18.63-Bi1lLoards, Secficn 18.63c030 of'the Anaheim Municipal Code to extend the boundaries of the designation of Ratella Avenue from:the'easterly terminus:et the.centerline o£ Douglas`Street to the centerline5of,the Santa Ana River, on the basis thaE`biilboarda at the entrance to the City of Anaheim were'detrimental to.the image the City wished to create upon visitors visiting the area. '(See Resolution.Book) . On roll call ~the.foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CO1~[ISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COFIIdISSiONERS: None: ~ ABSENT: COI~tISSIONERS: Allred. AMENDMENT T0 TITLE 18 - PUBLIC HEARII~G. FNITIATID BY THE CITY PLANNING COP4SISSION, 204 ,ANl1~IM MUNICIPAL CODE East Lincoln Aven~e, Anaheim, California, to consider an amendment to Tit1e 18, Chapter 18.68, Variance Procedure, Section 18.68.010, Planning Comnission authorized to grant variances, and Section 18.,68.030, Required Showings. ' Zoning Superyisor Charles Roberta revieved the proposal to amead the Variance Section of the Anaheim Municipal Code so tfiat;it would be compatible with t:~e State 1aw relating to variances ~ as.aet,forth'in Section b5906 of:;the.Goverumeut>Code, and ttiat the"Anaheim Zoning Code and aupport,ing.documents auch`as;the variance,petitions-and supplements should reflect the standards ae;set:forth in tt-e"State law; 'It was further noted that Title 1~'would be an amendmsnt by:ordinance'whereas the amendmenG to the variance'petiCion and supplenent would be , by resolution - therefore, two separate resolutions would be'requi,red. No oae appeared in opposition to subject amendment. TSE HEARING WAS Ci.OSED. Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC70-Y93 and moved for its passage and adoption to reco~end to the City Council that an Amendment to xitle 18, Chapter 18.68, Sections 1'8.68.010 and 18.68.030 be approvRd as aet forth in the exhibits. (See Resolution Book) , On roll call the foregoiag resolution wae passed by the following v,ote: AYES: C01~4IISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour, Herbst. NOES: ~OI~iISSI0NER5: None. ABSENT: CO1ffSiSSIONERS: Allred. Commiasioner Kaywood offered Resolution No, PC70-194 and moved for its passage and adoption to reco~end to the City CounciT the adoption of amendments to the Variance Petition form and Supple~ent to Petition as set foeth in the exhibits. (See Resolution Book) Oa roll call.the foregoing.resolutiom was passed by the following vote: - AYES: COrIISISSIONERS: Farano, Gaues, Kapwood, Rowland, Seymour, Herbst. NOES: CODIlSISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: C01~4IISSIONERS: Allred. 1 `~ , . _ . ----~ - . , . .. .. , , +.3 _.. . . _ ,, ,. , . : , . _ .,~. _~ St . ~ 1 . . ' . . . . . :~ .' . . ~.: '. .~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNTNG•COI~IISSION; October 19, 1970 ~58 ` REPORTS:AND ITEM N0. 1 RECOhAiENIDATIOrS TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4476; Revision No. 3- Subject tract located north and east of the intersection of the Newport and kiverside-,Freeways,'conEaining,approximately`14 acres,- Proposed for;aubdivision.into 86'R-2-5000 2oned lots: Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts presented to the Planning Co~nission.Tentative Map of Tract No;.4476,' Revision No.::3; noting the:location'of the property, existing'zoning, and the faet that the R-2-5000 zoning approyed~under. Reclassification No. 68-69-28 had technically expired; however,;-the petitioner had"submitted a request to:the City Council which was to be considered on`October 20,~1970, for an'exteneion:of tim~-#or com,pletion of conditiona necessary to obtaln an ordinance on<the property. Mr.,;Roberts then;,noted`Chat due to confusion as.to the apparent expiration date o£ the second one=year'extension of;:time for,Tentative Map,of Tract Y~To. 4476, Heviaion No. 2, said tract map time limitation had ezpired in acccrdanc~ with the Califoraia Subdivison Map Act. There- fore; the preaenb~tracE.map constituted a new appiication and•was substantially in accordance with Revision No. 2, except that there were 86 loes rather than tbe for~er 85 lota. Mr. Harry Rinker,~,developer of the tract, appeared before t~e Co~,tssioa aad indicated his presence to answer questions. In response to.queationing,by.Commissioner Farano, Mr. Robert $ein af 2~, Piau(cer's office stated that.the change in number of lots was due to the fac~t tfnat a~t the.secordatimn of Tract No. 5591-, one lot,had,to be deleted becanse of boundary line uncerta3aty~with i;e freeway, and thaE this lot was now being it~ciuded in the overall dev~elopmen~t v~f praperty approved for R-2-500tl zoning`under Reclaseification Na, b8-69-28, but the total lo~ta~ were sEill_Ehe same as`originally-approved. ' Commiasioner Seymour offered a motion, secoaded by C~ommfa+s3oner .Kaywood, and ~IOTIQN C.~RRIED, to.'approve`Teiitative Map of Tract No. 4476,, Revision 3~0. 3, subje~t to the €ol~oxing conditions• 1. That.ahould Ehis subdivision be developed as more than on~e sufidivieion, sactc subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.. 2.. That~the approval of Tentattve Map'of Tract No. 4476, Revision No. 3,`is granted subject to the:completion of Reclassification Noi 68-69-28. 3., 'That the alignment`of the tracb boundary;adjace~it to the freeway right-of-way shall be approved by tHe State Division of Highweys. 4. That a 6-foot masonry wall shall be consCructed"on the southwesterly property line of Lot Nos. 1 through 13. 5. That'all lots within this tract ahall be.served by underground utilities. 6. Drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. ITEM N0. 2 VARIANCE N0. 2213 - Property located on the northwest corner of:Lincoln Avenue and Rio Vista Street - Proposing to relocate the modular sign from the existing location in the service station canopy to the corner. _ Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberta presented to the Co~ission revised plans by the petitioner for the relocation of an existing nonconforming, free-standing, modular siga which the Co~ission had coasidered,at their previous meeting on October 5, in which permisaion was granted to adyertise the accessory carwssh as part of the modular sign - however, the petitioner had studied the possible expansion of the modular sign and indicated that structurally the exieting sign could.not be expanded'due to wind loads, inadequate footinga, etc., and due to this, the petitioner was proposing Co remove Eh~ modular sign from the canopy and place it.at.the aervice station point where the present rotating sign was located,.with the addition of the carwash sign;as.approved by tHe Planning Commission. Therefore, the petitioner was simply requesting that the sign be approved as the Co~ission had indicated, but relocated. Considerable discussion was held by the CoAanission relative to the relocation of a nonconform- ing sign, it being the opinion of Co~iasioner Farano that once a nonconforming free-standing sign was semoved, it no longer existed and could not be relocated. Furthermoxe, such an ~ction should be considered at a public hearing. ~. : ::: .; ,.. .~ A~N~.,~; ~~ ck~+~~j,-q•~r~~,~fi^`~~'~'~'~"~'~~~ ~gx.~,~~` d'",~`(~r'4~5't r r~~,,..+~.`` ~ T~. ,~*P~',Y^"'~^'.A„' t t y .'. T jx i ~ . ~ r. ~'" . x. . fb~ r ~ ~ ~.` ~y„~ R'~'~' ~ "~ ~~4 `w.._ 3 y~ s ~ ,~: . ~r~ ~~i' w ~ .~ . 7 ~ ~.:Yfy Y b~ ~:pi t;~ ~,~i~y I~ ~ cY ~ ~ ,p ~. ? .. ~~,,~~. 7~i.._K ~ t,..r....~~ ~~~. ..~ ~ w,7k.~.: i t,.. ~ ~"'~~` ~a~ ~~`4: k .,~ .. ~ . ;.. -.. . . . . .. ., . -.~.~.~.~..._- . a , e S ~; ...., a .. - ~,> , , :... ;. ...,:.. .... , .._ . .. .. " ' .yr .... .. . :.~ ' '._.-. . :- . . :,..-~ •' ~ ;:,.' ~ ~~ ~. ~ . . . ~ ~ . , . . . MINUTES,.:CITY.PLANNING COIYAfISSION; Dctober 19, 1970 5~59 REPORTS .'AND RECOtAfENDATIONS . - ITEM NOy2;(Continued) Assistant City Attomey John Dawaon:concurred with statements made by.:Commissioner Farano, stating that this would,require a new public hearing since it could no.longer be conaidered a•:nonconforming.; sign, .' Commissioner Kaywood,offered a'motion to deny„revised plans under Variance No: 2213 for relocation of the existing nunconforu~ing,.free-stending,modular sign to the coraer of the ` p;operty,'stating.that'it must be:set for public,hearing if this were to be:approved. Coi~issioner Rowland seconded ttie:motion. ; MU~ION CAttRIEL~:- , . ITEM'N0: 3 VARIANCE,NO; 2205, TENTATIVE MAP`-0F TRACT NOS. 4427, REVISION':NC;' 7;' N0. 5827; REVISION N~; 3; AND 7284, Consideration of the addition of a cond;itien to the reeolution approving the'~variance. 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts,noted for'the Commisaion that on October 5, 1970, the Planning Commission had,approved Variance No: 2205, subject tc~ dpvelopment substantially in,accordance with plans; that`suhject'property.was in ehe Santa Ana Canyon.area,_and that because.of staff's concera and the concem expreased.by the canyon residents ss to the desirable'types;and quality o£ housing that should'be built in the canyon, staff would recommend that an additional condition be-added by the City Council in their.coneideration of Variance Na.;2205 - to be conaidered October 20, 1970 - requiring that development plans be subjecf:to Planning Co~iesion and/or'City:Council review and approval pri~r to iasuance of a-building permit. , Co~issioner Gauer off~red a motion,.second~d by Co~iasioner Farano, and MOTION'CARRIED, to,reco~end to:the City Council that`an additional condition be'added to their considera- tion of Variance'No. 2205, granted by the Planning Co~isaion in Resolution No: PC70-182, dated:October 5, 1970,:as.follows: 2. That plans and specifications for the houses to be built in subject tracts shali be subject to review and'approval by the,Planning Commisaioa and/or,;City Council prior to the issuance of a:building permit. ITEM N0. 4. Consideration of setting for public hearing the Scenic Corridor'Overlay 2ane for the Santa Ana Canyon. Associate Planner:Donald McDanieT reviewed for the Cormnisaion the proposal to set for public hearing the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone unlesa the Coamission deemed it nec~ssary to have a work session.. The Co~ission was of thtt opinion that there were a number of points o~ concern which they wished to discuss at a work session prior to a public hearing and requeated that a work session be.scheduled far November 5, 1970, at 7;30 P.M. ADJOURNMENT - Tyere being no ferther business L: ~iscuss, Commissioner Seymour offered a notion to adjo~rn the meeeing. Co~issioner Kapwoosl seconded tlie motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 5c55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, I/l/r v ~ i / )/~t ~ ::.~ ANN KREBS; Secretary ;.,./ Anaheim City Pianning Co~ission . ( , ``~~4~~ ~ ~ ,~y . :. , _i _ i ~ - ~ ~ - _ ~ ,1 I i~ . ~.. R~ ~ A ~ ~~ :~ t ~• r J . . . . .. . . .V . .. ~, •. % 7 1 Y S;v i~ `. <t: ^ ! r .`r`i%£'ti ,'~:'~.~+~~' ~~~;~e vt e ~ :•;e;,,~ c~..~~.~ ~ • *• R - _ - ~ r . ~,:r ~ C~~: s .. , ~ _a