Loading...
Minutes-PC 1971/01/11 (2)~Y~t ~ .. . . _ ~ ~ _ , , .. 1~. . - . . . . , . - .. . ~ . . ~ . ~ ~ ~ .. ~ .. . . . . ~ . . . ~. . ~ , ~ ~r ~ ~ '~~~' ~ I I City Hall ~w '""`" - Anabieim, California i ` " ~ January 11, 1S71 i A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAEEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ~ . ~tt- I REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commiasion r, was called to order by Chairman HerbBt at 2:03 P.M. a j ~ . ~ , quorum being preaent. ~ i. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Herbst. ~ ~ ~! r ~ - COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, ~I~~ Ray~aood, Seymour, Allred ` ~ , Farano. I . ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: None. 1 . j PRESENT - Assiotant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson ~ Assist t i ~ an C ty Attorney: John Dawsan ' Office E.ngineer: ` e~ Jay Titus Zoning Sc~pervisor: ~ ~ ~ A~saistant Zoning Superviso:: Charlea Roberta `'"' ' ~ Aasociate 2'lanner: Malcolm Slaughter ' ~~~ Commiesion :~ecretary: Doa McDan±el Ann Krebs :; PLEDGE OF - Fiami88ioner Gauer led in the Pledge of Aliegiance to the AL~FGIANCE g, -~ APPROVAL OF - Minutes of the meeting o.f December 28, 1970, were deferred THE MINUTES to th ~ e meeting of January 25, 1971. ;~ ~i ~` , ~ ^r ~, AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 - CONTINIIED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY ANAHEIM MIINICIPAL CODE PLANNIN ' ,~ ; G COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue " ' ~~ , Anaheim, California, to consider the addition of 1 Chapter 18.59, Scenic Corridor Overla Y(SC) Zone ~ to Title 18, Zonin g, of the Anaheim Municipal Code y , covering property located in the general vicinity of the Santa A ,, na Canyr,n area in east Anaheim. ' z~ x associate Plaanez Donald McDaniel appeared bsfore the Commis sio that a ~ j , n an~ noted s an introduction the ~?ublic Znformation Office would ' ~r~tich deacribed the back round d h n E ~ g an istory of the acenic corridor to lend ~ ~upport to the fact, that the proposed zo % ne was not aomething that was conjured up by the City but had been designated b * he S ~ ; ~ y _ tate as a potential scenic corridor, and the proposed zone would implement this s th { , ~ ysCem; that e green area on the map indicated the potential scenic area; that the scenic corridor was ai ~ se adopted by the County Baard of Supervisors, and ~ becauae both the County and City of Anah i ~ ~ e m had adopted this as a potential ~ scenic corridor, the State felt this, in time would devela th , p as such; that ~ e corrido~r did not only include that area immediately adjacent to the ' Riverside Freewa b y, ut was exte:tded from the ridge on the north to the ridge ,! on the south, encompassing both the Riversi ~, d a~. Freeway and Santa P.na Canyon Road frem the Newport Freeway to the Oreage-Riveraide Count li the hill , ,:; y nes; that sides were the primary areas visible i~~m the freeway; and that the s^enic corridor wa r;? ~_.. . , ~ s something which the City o£ Anaheim had been studying for almost a year. ~~ _ '~ :~ ° ; ~: ; . ,-_ ~.'', :~ke : . ~ ?: ~.;;z;,,~ After t:~e slide presentation, Mr. McDaniel noted that the slides contained a great deal of what the City was attempting in the canyon - therefore, he would like to get into more specifics as they pertained to the ordinance, and then read the description and purpose of Chapter 18.59. DIr. McDaniel noted that there were three elements to consider; namely, the river, the hills, and the trees, and 4f one had driven through the canyon i and really looked at the windbreaks, these wer~ what made the canyon a scenic area - therefore, without the trees this area would be like any other ~ hillside area; that some of the win@breaks would be impossible to retain because of the need to provide streets and utilities; that where large areas were proposed to be developed as ulani:e3 unit developments, it was possible 7:l-1 ' 4_ .. -__._ ~ _ ~ ---~ , _ _ ~. 0 ---' - - ~~ ' 'r ,:;~~_ . • r ~ • .~t V~ ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY P.LANNING COMMISSION, January 11, 1971 71-2 AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 - that enough acres would be left in their natursl ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE atate or at least the eucalyptus trees could be cut (Continued) down to a minimum height of 25 feet; that trees removed should be replaced, tree for tree, but not necessarily in the same nlace; that a n.edian strip could be provided in which trees could be planted; that a master plan of windbreaks should be established whict- would contain each windbreak in the canyon, and this woul.d be accomplished at the time of the adoption of the (SC) Zone - thus, wt:atever windbreaks remained would be recarded on a map so that when the property owner was ready to develop, he would be offered two alternatives, either top the trees to a height of 25 feet or remove the windbreak and reglace tree for tree; that it was possible to remove these trees without a permit at the present time, and if these regulations were established, this would prevent destruction of this natural beauty instead of winding up with the possibility of no windbreaks at all; that in some instances retention would not be possible, particularly where a public right-of-way was proposed, and means to replace these trees would be to have a master plan of street trees - making a strong statement of having specific trees rather than providing bottlebrush or oleanders - these trees should be of a type that would make an impact on the present street siand- ards by providing a median strip for primary, secondary or collector streets and still retain the travel portion at its present width - however, addi- tional right-of~way would be retained and would be the same as on Ylat land with the excess proposed for the center and would ;ange in width from 14 to 22 feet, s~af.ficiently wide to accommodate trees !rom the master plan of street trees with possibly using California pepper trees in the major highway right-of-way and eucalyptus in the lesser streets, but the main idea was to retain the "green" feeling rather than expect all windbreaks to be retained. Another thing about which the City was concerned was the cut and fill in the hillside development, which was in addition to the proposed (SC) 2one since it would be neces$ary to adopt new standards in the Subdivision Ordinance which would change the hillside standards of cut and fill presently permitted to be a 1'~:1~ whereas it was now proposed to have a 2:1 slope - this would flatten the slope with a greener appearance and less stark, raw land showing which the current Subdivision Ordinance allowed, permitting terracing up to 120 and 150 feet, and the proposed amend~ent would terrace every 30 feet w3th a minimum width c,f 6 feet, and previously there was no limit to the slope; that it was now proposed that the slopes should not exceed 50 feet in height; that formerly no stone was permitted for terracing purpcses, and it was now proposed to have indigenous stone or paving with impermeable materials, using a medium or dark earthen tone; and that landscaping would be required to be developed in accordance with the (SC) Zone instead of the pceviously-established engineering landscaping requirements which required only ground cover, whereas filled slopes and cut slopes would be required to provide trees, shrubs and ground cover. ~~ i 1 Mr. McDaniel then noted that another area of greac concern were the setbacks adjacent to the freeway and expressways where a green area should be pro- vided; that the State usually provided landscaping ad~acent to a right-of- way - however, most of this would be five to ten years in the future, and the proposed setback would be from the right-of-way line to a residential structure which should be 75 feet away and be entirely on private property maintained or used by the homeowner or in the case of a~nltiple-family residential use or mobilehome parks, this could be utilized for recreation areas. Furthermore, where homes backed onto the freeway, an additional requirement would be a landscaped area behind the right-of-way followed by a 10-foot high, solid masonzy wall - this would assist in reducing the noise and provide adequate visual blockage from the freeway - this would mean a 10-foot high wall and a 75-foot building setback and would necessitate a maximum lot width of 135 feet, while the R-.^.-5000 Zone would permit a considerably less setback, and this setback would apply only where property abutted the free~.ay or expressway; that the homes in the Walnut Canyon area. were currently de~eloped in this manner; that a gate through the wall was indicated which wauld allow the property owner to turn on his irrigation on the portion outside of the wall, particularly where a slope area was indicated;, that on second~ry and primar;~ streets no wa21 or 10-fout setback would be required - however, a wall might be required in a single-family subdivision since these types of homes were not permitted to front on or side on arterials,~~, but must rear on said arterials; that the building setback adjacent to a primary or secondary highway would be 50 feet, and this setback area could be used for lawns, swimming poois, or patios; that many of the tracts had h ~"+i r. ~.. ~ 1a i ~! _. -- - ---- ~,! ` ~1l ~_~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 11, 19i1 71-3 AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 - been built right up to the r3ght-of-way line, and ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE that by requiring them to be set back 50 feet, it (Continued) would allow the people to see the hills again, thereby providing a much better living environment adjacent to freeways, expressways, and other arterials. Mr. Albert Yorba, x0911 Esperanza Road, appeared before the Commission and noted that he had 37 acres in the study area on which he grew 212 eucalyptus trees - however, the ad~oining property owner had 17 acres and had only one tree; that the man further east had 57 acres and approximately 70 to 80 eucalyptus trees - therefor~, he felt there would not be any equality to maintaining these strips if one large property owner had many trees and had to replace them tree for tree, whereas other having a similar-size parcel would not have to provide any crees; that he had over 300 orange trees, whereas other property oconers had nonc; that a tree was cut down recently ir. his area cohich had a trunk 3 feet in diameter; that if the City thought these trees could be retained in the riverbed with ti-e Santa Ana winds and rain, many of the trees would be destroyed; that if the City wanted to retain the green area, then the inventory should also indicate the number of dead trees; and that he could not understand why the property owners who had reta±ned their erees should be made to suffer while those who got rid of their trees would not be required to replace them - this was totally unfair. r1r. McDaniel stated that these trees were indicated on the map and were identified through aerial photography, and a field survey was not made to locate each tree in its exact spot and condition - however, if the ordinance was adopCed, then a full-scale survey would be made; that this ordinance would n.ot be retroactive but only effective at the time of adoption; that the residents would not be required to retain the trees if they maintained their agricultural use, and retention of [he ~rees as proposed in the ordinance was so tha[ at the time a more intense land use was proposed, the trees would not be removed at wiil. Mr. Robert McQueen, 4831 *icKinnon Drive, appeared before the Commission and noted he represented the Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Association; that they had been looking at the master plan for the past three t~ four months, particuiarly as it pertained to the scenic corridor, and their group was quite interesced in maintaining the beauty of the area as ~he City now proposed; and that any~hing his group could passibly do ~o retain this atmosphere, they would be willing co help to retain one of the areas where the City had an opportunity ~o plan for the future rather than having a "cookie cutter" e.fiect, and ~his was the last chance to retain ~he scenic beauty of the major gateway to the County, and one of the things which madE this a scenic corridor were the many eucalyptus windbreaks; that he was fully aware there was some danger of these trees falling and damaging homes; that in this same area during the past tl~irty days some windbreaks had been topped, while ~:wo to three had been'caken out in the past several yQars, one just having been cut down last week in the Rinker development - although most of these trees were dead, but the live ones could have been retained; that anot}ier windhzeak ~ust eas~ of the Coldwell group might be removed sirc~ these windbreaks ran through the center of the property, and in some cases would appear as though the entire windbreak *•ould ha;+e to be cut down; that the trees recently topped still maintained their beauty, and when one went up through the hiZls there were many areas which would retain their vegetation and trees because of the inability to develop these areas; that someching would have to be done to re[ain these trees not only for their beauty but for ecology - need to provide uxygen and combatting the smog since the smog was going further into the canyon - chus if these trees were maintained, then some of the needed oxygen would be preserved - trees with which he was familiar, and if the City wanted to retain the beauty of the canyon, it must be looked after and protected. Mr. Gilbert Creamer, 21461 Mohler Drive, appeared before che Commission and noted he represented the Santa Ana Canyon Property O;;ners Association; that his association was nleased to see the City taking an interest in what happened in a canyon of this stature and wished to state that they wanted to support the City in every way they could in order that the sceni~ corri- dor might be nreserved. ~ ~ f - . ~~ _ _a ~ V ~l MINUTES, CITY PLANNiNC COMMISSION, January 11, 1971 ~.~ 71-4 AMENDMENT. TO TITLE 18 - Mrs. Charles (Julie) Cessop, 4809 Wassatch Drive, ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE appeared before the Commission and noted that what (Continued) her homeowners greup coas attempting to accomplish was retention of the scenic corridor, although they ~ recognized there was a need for more housing because Orange County was one of the fastest-growing coui~ties in the country; that ~ she could empathize with the builders because her husband was a c~ntractor, thus she knew some of the problems they faced; that the Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Association which she represented were of the opinion that building defi.nitely could coincide with the proposals presented by the Anaheim Development Services Department - a group of people who were very thoughtful and did not take off on some hairbrained idea; that they studied the problems for a long t:ime before presenting them to the public; that building must take place; and that the property owners she represented wanted to see the canyon built by incorposating good planning which should coincide with the scenic corridor. ~ Mr. Frank Minissalle, 20932 Mohler Drive, appeared before the Commission and ~ noted that his property was slightly mnre than an acre and pie-shaped, having ` frontages on both Mohler Drive and Santa Ana Canyon Road; that if the *equire- ments proposed by staff were complied with, 50 feet would be taken for widening Mohler Drive, a 10-fo~t country road presently - this together with a 50-foot setba~,c along said s~reet and a 75-foot setback from Santa Ana Canyon Road would mean 38,000 square feet of his property could not be used; '~h` that he had an older house, and he would like [o remove it and rebuild; that he en~oyed beauty as much as others, and it would be difficult to find i~ - anyone who would maintain this open area; and that although he would be losing three-quarters of his pronerty, ot hers with larger paYCels would lose ;- considerably more. ,A ~;~ The Commission inquired whether or not Mr. Minissalle was maintaining the '~ property at tlie present time; whereupon Mr. Minissalle replied that he was `~ keeping the weeds down and that if he removed the existing home and rebuilt, .,:~ he would lose at least one-half acre because of the setback. + ~~~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter noted that within the zoning ~_~ ordinance of the City of Anaheim when an ordinance created a definite `:;~ hardship, if the petit3oner could submit proof, a variance could be approved to grant some relief. ``'~ The Commission further inquired what type of zuning che Minissalle property ~i en~oyed; whereupon Mr. Minissalle replied his property was zoned AR, and - this was in the single-family category. ~~,-~, Pir. McDaniel noted thaL the County's AR or A1 Zone permitted only one home on an acre. r: Mr. Minissalle noted that he could only build one home on the property, whereas he had planned on building two homes, and this would not be possible "~ with the proposed setbacks of the (SC) Zone, and that many of the property ;;,;~ owners along Mohler Drive had only one-half acre sites and were enjoying ~; the scenic value of his property. Furthermore, he had lived on this property '-- for fourteen years, and no one had given him anyth:ng for maintaining his . proper[y. - The Commission noted that the only reason Mr. '.4inissalle was losing in build- able area of his propercy was because he was located at the intersection of two arterials, and assuming that he would not be able to construct an addi- ;:. _ tional residence on the property, this was because of the location and any- one else having the same problem would also suffer in this same way. There- fore, the City was fully aware of the problems and difficulties some of the people faced in the canyon, and if Mr. Minissalle was opposed because of the - location, perhaps the street could be developed away from his property. ~ Chairman Herbst noted that staff had stated that the Code recognized problem ~•~ parcels which might have a hardship, and this could be relieved through approval of a variance - therefore, this was a means by which Mr. Minissalle could seek relief at such time as he planned to build an additional residence R: on his property, and that there would be many small, problem parcels facing ~,: this same problem, and each parcel would have to be reviewed individually when and if a uetition were submitted requesting relief from Code require- ments, and that the (SC) Zone generally covered all parcels in the area ~ ., ~ _ ' . ~~ *.. . . . . . . . _ . .~. y'~' - . ' . , _ . . _ . _ . . ^~~ , ~ .. -, _ _ - \~-~ y. . _~~~ " ~_-- _ . ~-.~ ;t ~~ ~ ~. - ,~ r . _ _.__ _ ~: I _ . ; ~ :~: . ;~` ,:i . , ;~ ~ ~ ~J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMI9SION, January 11, 1971 71-5 AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 - and did not analyze each individual parcel which ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE might have a problem. Furthermore, the purpose of (Continued) the Commission was to have public hearings on the proposed zone to gather information which could be used in the future when these problem parcels were proposed for development. ~L ~ Commissioner Farano noted that if there had been any thought on the part of Mr. Minissalle that he was taking advantage of him, he wanted to apologize since the real point he wanied to get across was because of the physical location, this property might be made to suffer, but somebody's property 1 would have to face this treatment, and it was not intended that it would be ; his misfortune, and that if there were anything Mr. 'riinissalle knew that ~ would allow the scenic curridor to be developed wit::~ut taking peoples' + property, he should submit this to the Commission. - Ass3stant Development Services Director Ronald Thocapson noted that Mr. Minissalle's property was rather an irregularly-shaped parcel; that - the McCarthy development to the south had 8000-square foot lots; that it -, would seem to be reasonable that the claser one 1lved to Santa Ana Canyon Road a greater setback would be desirable, and this setback could be in- corporated into the rear yards - therefore, Mr. Miaissalle might be able to get two hames on his property since staff had looked at subdivision layouts of the Minissalle property at the time the McCarthy Company presented their plans which also had a very large parcel - therefore, with careful layout, the Minissalle property cauld very easily be developed with at least twa homes. Commissioner Farano then noted that Mr. Minissalle ob~ected to the proposed ordinance because he would not be able to construct ~wo homes on the property. Mr. Thompson stated that wlth the existing zoning the Minissalle property could have only one home, and a different zone would be required for the property in order to develop it wi~h more than one home, and that there were many oarcels iii the canyon having 30 or more acres which u;ould develop for a higher density than they presently had. :; Mr. James Liberio, 1720 West La Palma Avenue, appeared before the Commission ~ and noted ~iis property was caithin the Overlay Zone area, located between the Santa Ana River and Esperanza Road; that he also had propercy having a `:~i 1500-foot frontage on Santa Ana Canyon Road, and requested that the 75-foot `! setback be explained again. Mr. McDaniel advised Mr. Liberio that cahere property abutted a freeway or an expressway, ic would be necessary to have a 75-foot building setback - this setback was measured from tha right-af-way line of the freeway, whether it be paved or a dirt portion, and in the case of the Santa Ana Canyon Road, i<.. would be behind the area where the fence was construcced. Furthermore, the Liberio property had an irriga[ion ditch which was 40 feet from the F right-of-way line, and this right-of-way line was not a regular type line since it varied and could not be cumuared with right-of-way lines such as subdivisions had, ~•~ith curbs, gutters, and sidewalks; that all subdivisions had required setbacks, but only in this instance was it proposed to be 75 feet because of the n2ed to set back sufficiently to biock noises from the freeway or expressway - hocaever, in no instance was it required to be a : dedication of 75 feet - it only represented a 75-fooc building setback. ~II Mr. Thompson, addressing ?~fr. Liberio, stated that he would have to make the lots a little bit deeper adjacent to these art~rial.s. Chairman Herbst noted that the City was not proposing to take any additional right-of-way from the area already given for the freewav or expressway. Mr. Liberio then inqui.:ed ~~hether a sprinkler system was required for the entire 75-foot distance; whereupon Mr. McDaniel stated [he sprinkler system ~aas required of the builder only for the first 10 feet adjacent to the free~aay or expressway and would be located in front of the zequired ma~onry wall. ~ Mr. Slaughter then noted that instead of regulation sidewalks, curbs and kc . gutters found in flatland subdivisions, this 10 feet would be substituted as a landscaped area. ~ '.: t r ,s ~ ' 7.. .:L.~::_..., - ' ~ T~~. ~~{~~ ... .. ~ . . `' ' ~ . •r+~YS. 51~.--~ . r_ . _ ~ J ~~-~*ww~.{ _ _ ' ^ { G ~ ! ~ ~ ~~ ~ i ; MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 11, 1971 71-6 ! AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 - Mr. McDaniel noted that by developing in this manner, ANAHEIM MUNICIPAI~ CODE the developer could save $5.00 per foot. (Cont~nued) _. - I Mr. Liberio atated that irom hia calculations for i . every three lots they were proposing they would lose ~ . , one lot. ~ Mr. Thompson stated that from staff's calculations, the developers might ~ gain four 2o five lots by developillg in this manner. +»~. Mr. Liberio then inquired if this became an ordinance, would the City ~ ~"`, police the area to see if spri~akler systems were in warking order. ;y-. ,. . ~ ~ Assistant City Attorney John Dawson advised Mr. L~herio that after the ~~ ~ sprinkler system and shrubbery were installed, these would be subject to City inspection, and later if failure to maintain the landscaped area was ~ -_ called to the attention of the City's Zoning Enforcement Officer, he would i contact the residents personally, telling them that the property was not being maintained in accordance with the City'~ requirements. Furthermore, j ,~ that where landscaping on service stations was not being maintained proparly, ; only when a complaint was received would ~the City Zoning Enforcement Officer contact the service station operator, and the reason why inspections j were not made on a regular basis was because the City did not have enough f enforcement officers to enforce these regulations. } Mr. Liberio noted that on flat land where properties were similar to sub- ~ divisions one could not look over a 6-foot masonry wall, and when one was driving on freeways, no one would Ue looking because it was necessary for ~ one to keep his eyes an the road; and that his only complaint after ta~king ~~`. ~aith the people who had ranches out there was the cost of mdintenance and t the danger of injury and property damage if these trees would fall, parti- i cularly when it was quite wiady, even though the tre.es were topped, and that ~ 1. there was always danger of the trees next to homes falling due to the type of ' ':~; soil in which they were planted. Mr. Thompson noted that the proposed ordingnce did provide a developer with a great deal of flexibility, and many of the eucalyptus windbreaka would not ~=( be left because of the reason stated, but they could be replaced at another ~: location when development occurred, and the reason this requirement was b placed in the ordinance was to retain the beauty of the properties. ;;' ,M Mr. Liberio asked whether or not the ordinance could be written to provide ; one tree per loC since the cost involved was considerable. a: '~`~ Commissioner Rowland noted that he could not see how this would be so expen- ~ sive since an 8-foot high tree only was being required, and that the City ", was desirous of having something that did not look like Garden Grove but more like San Diego. Furthermore, with the median strips in the middle of the streets, the City would maintain the trees and landscaping in the median. Mr. Liberio inqu3.red why the City could not pick up the extra expense of landscaping and maintenance of the extra 10 feet since they already were providing for the 40 to 50-foot right-of-way, and it would be much easier far the City to maintain it than for individual property owners to maintain it. The Commission inquired whether Mr. Liberio was talking about the 10-foot s[rip between the fence ad~acent to the right-of-way and the required masonry wall. If so, this would be private property - however, the City could ~T: consider going to a berm with no additional wall between the existing fence on the State right-of-way and the structure itself. Mr. Liberio replied that since the State felt this should be a scenic high~aay, then the State, County, and City should bear some of the cost to establish this as a scenic corridor highway because when a property owner sold his property, one of the first things that was considered was the amount of money that would have to be spent to put the package together - this would not only be the trees but a flood control problem, and that he ~aas not against maintaining the beauty of the area, but the burden on those property owners was considerable, and they would not be able to get the fullest return because they would not be able to build a maximum number of homes. i:.~~:.r,~,~'.°~!'~'.i~:+g~- ~ ~ . . .. .. . r : - r;:_.a~:. ,~,,,, i . . , 5 - 0 ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~~ . i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 11, 1971 71-7 ~ AMENDMENT T6 TITLE 18 - The Commission then inquired whether or not ~ ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE Mr. Liberio was ssuggesting that the proposal was a • (Continued) good idea, but the landscaping should be maintained _' i by the City, County, cr State. Mr. Liberio responded that the property owners would prefer it if the.10- ' foot requirement were eliminated since thi~ would reduce the number of lots ~ I per acre, and some g.eople would get only three lots while others would get i five ~ats per acre, and that another thing he wanted to complain about was _ the Development Review Committee - anytime anyone would want to plant trees = ",~~ or remove them, they would be delayed by requesting approval from the Ci*,y, }.,;; and all these delays were d~scouraging when putting a package together for .~ developing pieces of proper'~ty. r Mr. Ho~oard Budlong, 20046 Santa Ana Canyon Road, appeared before the Commis- ' sion and nated his property was adjacent to the expresaway as well as the ~ new freeway; that he could see some good in the proposed plan since the - people who owned property out in that area should have a responsibility to maintain the attractiveness of this area; that retention of trees was a ~. problem, and it might force developers to take their hands off of this area; that the 75-foot building setback might be good in some areas - however, he felt a 40-foot average setback weuld be better in most areas instead of a 25-foot setback; that he had 14 acres and some was along the freeway - therefore, these setbacka wou13 reduce the amount of yield of lots per acre and would be a great loss; that the landscaping would have to be taken care of by the City as was done with roadside parks since many people did not even maintain their own yards, and to think they would maintain an area which they could not even see was out of the question; that replacement of a eucalyptus tree for tree was also difficult to understaad because these trees were planted only six feet apart and trees should be planted so that they '' could spread their trees at 35 to 40-foot spacing which would give these '~ trees a chance to take shape; and that these three rules, in hia opinion, ' ~ should be reconsidered and :y possibly changed, namely, (1) consider a setback of 40 feet, (2) dedicate the l0 feet now required to be landscaped adjacent `,;i to a freeway or expressway so that the City, County, or State could main- ,~ tain this 10-foot landscape strip, and (3) instead of replacing eucalyptus trees tr - _-~~ ee for-tree, trees should be at 25 to 40-foot inte rvals - this was = particularly true where eucal}~ptus were planted only 6 feet apart. The Cummission inquired of Mr. Budlong whether or not he would consider providing a berm in lieu of the landscape strip and wall, or tvould he prefer to dedicate this strip. ',',~~- Mr. Budlong stated that if a ~oall w-_re not required, this might make a difference, but each parcel might have to be considered on an individual ~ basis. " The Commissioa further noted that staff was of the opinion that a minimum 75-foot building setback should be required along a freeway or expressway so that homes adjacent to these thoroughfares could have some protection from noise, dust, and odors - therefore, the berm or wall and landscaping ~aere very vital. Mr. Budlong noted that in the matter of small parcels the City should examine them on an individual basis also. _ <~ {.I The Commission noted that the staff had to present something in the form of a recommendation, and the purpose of the public hearings was to hear all : .I the problems which might arise. Mr. Gilbert Kraemer, 836 Alta V3sta Street, Placenti~, appeared before the Commission and stated he concurred with statements made by Mr. Budlong and zoted he had several questions which he would like to have staff answer: (1) Would t}:e scenic corridor encompass both sides of the river; whereupon Mr. Slaughter noted that the corridor extended from ridgeline to ridgeline; (2) Why were the windbreaks on the north side of the river not shown; whereunon P1r. McDaniel stated that the information that was av+ailable to staff was obtained from serial photographs, not field checks, but at the time the ordiaance was adopted, this field check would have to be made to be made to delineate the trees. ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~. _ ,i ,' ~ ----- I I ~ ~ 9;~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO*iMISSION, January 11, 1971 71_g AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 - Mr. Rraemer then inquired what the setbacka would be ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE along La Palma Avenue and Fairmont Boulevard; (Coatinued) whereupon Mr. McDaniel noted that these were both secondary highways, and the setback would be 50 feet. Mr. Rraemer inquired about the reference made to providing trees in lieu of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks aad inquired whether this also pertained to La Palma Avenue and Fairmont Boulevard. *ir. McDaniel stated that this in-lieu fee pertained to the San,ta Ana Canyon Road and the Riverside Fre~way, and the Public Works Department felt that the existing condition of both paved and unpaved right-of-way would remain forever - therefore, th~ in-lieu fee of curbs and gutters was proposed so that the medians could be fully lan.'.scaped, and that there would be a sub- stantial savings over fees required for curbs, guttera, and sidewalks. Mz. Kraemer then inquired whether or not the 2:1 slope would have to be maintained when Fairmont Boulevard was extended across the railroad track; whereupon Mr. McDaniel replied in the affirmative. Mr. Kraemer then noted that they had had a tentative tract map on file with the City for some time and on which they had tried to work out problems w3th the City - however, these additional conditions would mean a revision to the tract map, and he would discuss this when the petitions were considered by the Commission. , ~~ ~ i ~ ~ Mr. Liberio again appeared before the Commisaion and inquired about the televisiot~ antennas anci whether or not these would be a requirement of not only the new tracts but would they also be enforced on the existing homes. Mr. Slaughter noted that the Nohl Ranch homes had deed restrictions that ! would not allow a roof-mounted antenna - therefore, if there were any in 1 existence, this might be handled on a time limitation to allow for replace- ! ment of. these antennas inside. Mr. Liberio then noted that if an antenna were inside, the people would have very poor recep~ion. Commissioner Farano noted that he lived in the !Vohl Ranch area and had an inside antenna which gave him very good reception - however, his neighbora had an outside sU:enna, and the neighbor's reception was not as good as his. Mrs. Hazel Maag, 5865 Santa Ana Canyon Road, appeared before the Commission and noted that she hsd beven acres of land in the canyon area; that she not only had one windbreak, she had a double windbr~ak; [hat some of the trees had been cut down and some staked up in order to keep these trees from falling on the house; that one fell on the house, the garage, and the corral, and another fell on her car, but she took these trees out in the back of her home so that they would not fall on the house again, particularly with the heavy winds some always fell; that she would not like to live on thP other side of the windbreak; and that trees had fallen across her road sc that she was marooned in her home. Mrs. Maag then inquired whether or not the setbeick included the access roads s3nce she had highways and freeways and access ~-oads adjacent to her property. The C~mmission noted that it ~vould depend upon t:he type of road that was nlanned for her property. ?4rs. rfaag also indicated that the Santa Ana Vall.ey Irrigation (SAVI) di[ch was also adjacent to her property on the north side of the Santa Ana Canyon Road - c~ould another road be proposed there; whereupon Mr. McDaniel replied negatively. The Commission noted that rirs. Maag's property line started on the north side of the SAVI ditch, and the setback then would be measured from the free~aay, *irs. Maag advised the Commission that she had spent about $10,000 on her seven acres since 1967 on the windbreaks; that she would have taken more trees out but it ~vas too costly, and she would like the Commission to visit ner place to look at the windbreaks, many of which had their roots exposed. _ _ • } ` ~ ~ l~ t~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 11, 1971 71-9 , AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 - The Commission inquired ~ahether or not Mr.s. Maag ANAHEIM I~UNICIPAL CODE wanted to get rid of her windbreaks; w~r'rt3;;;t,on (Continued) Mrs. Maag stated not necessarily dic~ ~'^~s+ +o-~ ~.< tn get rid of them, but everyone knew ~;~:.z '~•~x.: °: ".::~z ' and money she had spent on beautify!~n~ ~..~x ~•.-a~~ztty; , but she did not want any more eucalyptus trees which were ~'•_ .: ,':s;:•T= ~~::~ messy since they cost several hundred dollars per month jus'.si4 c~"~;:r~r~ ;;:e~ cleaned up, and with the restrictions proposed, she did not ;:._..,, ~::i_ ,:ould buy these homes in this area because the cost would be too mucir ~ s~mewhere in the vicinity of $100,000, and who would want to pay that much for a home ,,.k,-.-~:, alongside the freeway; and that the freeway was built so high that people ..~'?` on the north side would not be able to see the other side, but she still r' would like to see it kept nice and beautiful but was also opposed to retain- ing the eucalyptus. ~~ ar,r~/ ~ Mr. Slaughter noted that one row of windbreaks a£ recently cropped on the • south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road east of Solomon Drive, and this was a treatment which the City would like to see. 1 A gentleaan in the sudience stated these trees were cropped by the Edison Company who had the equipment to do that. Mr. McDaniel noted that Mrs. Maag had pointed out very cleatly the treatment to retain or replace the eucalyptus trees and what was intended was to keep the trees in their natural state in the hilJ "de and canyon, but Mrs. Maag's trees could be cropped to 25 feet, and the :.. of the Edison Company cropping the trees was an alternative, but there was another alternative, and that was to replace these trees if they were not maintained - however, when they were oart of a grove, this was a normal thing, and this was the reason why the alternative to replace the trees was made, particularly where } a grove was being removed for a housing development, and the statement made i by Mr. Budlong was another alternative - instead of replacing tree for tree , of the eucalyutus, oerhaps one tree for each three to five eucalyptus trees _~ which were planted with reasonable spacing and st~ll maintaining a concept -~ of the green feeling. Purthermore, in reference to the 10-£oot landscape :I setback - one way rather than having the City or State maintain this since ~:4 this woul.d be on nrivate property, would be establishing a maintenance _~ district, and each person owning the properties could pay an assessment fee - '! this landscaping would not only be for the general good of the people riding i; in the area b~t for the property owr.ers themselves. .,~ 1 1 i Mr. Thompson noted that recently one of the tracts located on a 29-acre ~parcel just west of Wai'nut Caayon Estates had been approved for subdivision; ~ _,.~_:,,W that_when it,.was,~under,.,the_ j_ursidiction of the County, the property had oaa~- l : .. .. :.... __ _ _ _ .. . A-1 zoning - however, upon subdivision, they would have four lots feaer or 114 lots, by ~ planning as was indioated in the proposed zone, than the 118 lots they presently had. i ; ._. _...._ , _ . . .. _. .. . .. ._„ . . Mr. Bill Stark, 1665 South Brookhurst Street, representing R. A. Grant, ~ developers of the Nohl Ranch property, appeared before the Commission and "• stated that they had read the (SC) Zone and felt the anproach by staff ~oas ' an excellent one, and it was their hope that it could be carried out; that the div±ded roads and the desire to retain the windbreaks was also an ~ excellent one, and it was their intent tc retain most of the windbreaks on the Nohl Ranch; that the landscaping concept, stre~et tree planting, and setbacks ~uould present a problem since the scenic co:ridor was not just along Santa Ana Can}+on Road and the Riverside Freeway; that most of the streets on the Nohl Ranc?~ ~aould nresent a problem to them in land planning of the hillside; that the basic nroblem they could see and ~ahich was a challenge was one of the reasons why the ranch had not developed that ~oas retention of the beauty of the ranch; that they had a very difficult u problem in dealing with the topography - therefore, he would like to see the existing standards for cuts and fills retained rather than an additional aribtrary regulation put on thair program - something every developer ~vould ~= 8ave - and it would ~e their attempt and desire not to cut the hillsides more thaa possible, but it would be necessary to nut roads and bridges in , just to open up the area; that occasionally they would have problems which *{ tvere imuossible to arbitrate - therefore, if the Citp Engineer felt there i` was a oroblem, he could impose additional restrictions; and that other than ''~ ;~' those ob'ections he felt th~ ?ro osed zone coould be a J > P good program. -.~.,-- ~~i-.^. =~-a_..-.- ;:~~_- -_- ~.r _ ~ _s f ~, ~ . . : . --.. _ __ __- , _ .- - _ U ~ ~_~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COP?MISSION, January 11, 1971 71-10 . AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 - A letter from the Anaheim Beautiful group was read ANAHEIM MUNICIP9L CODE to the Commission indicating they were in favor of (Continued) the proposed zone. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Seymour inquired who would maintain the right-of-way adjacent to a 10-foot area. _- Mr. McDaniel replied that the right-of-way would be maintained by the State :.~< in the case of the freeway, and in the case of Santa Ana Canyon Road for a ~ 's neriod of time it would be maintained by ths State, but at such time as :~ "~~' Santa Ana Canyon Road became the Cit 's ex resswa Y p y, which typically happened ; after the opening of a new freeway, when Santa Ana Canyon Road was turned ~~,:, ''~ back to the City of Anaheim, then the City would be responsible for its ± maintenance, particularly the unpaved portion of the right-of-way, ' Commissiar_er Seymour ~hen noted that it appeared to him that the maintenance of this unuaved portion - when Santa Ana Road became the responsibility of ~ the City - in visualizing the type of landscaping that might be there, the _ maintenance of an additional 10 feet might not seem to be that much more of a burden since if the City did have to water a given area, watering an additional 10 feet would not be that much. Com..u~~ssioner Farano indicated he could not be sure whether any maintenance woulc~ be done on that 10-foot strip, If that were the case, why require a blo~ck wall behind this 10-foot strip. Why not give these people the use of these additional 10 feet since the way he understood it, the only purpose `s of this 10 feet of landscaping between the wall and the freeway right-of-way ,~ line ~was to create an atmosphere, somebodp making sure it was landscaped ;; pecause this would improve the appearance, and inquired whether that was ; correct. ,:;'~ ".:j Mr. Thompson stated t~ere were several answers to his question. Initially J when t:~e C±Sy staff started to discuss this with the State, the State had ~ indicated alang Santa Ana Canyon Road they would not allow the private ~;-{ developer ~to have a slope easement on the public right-of-way; that the _ slope had to be entirely on private property so that when the first develop- ment along Waln~,it Canyon Road came in, if the subdivision were graded out and the wall were nut in on the property line, there would be a 6-foot wall, and the pad would ~Se mu~h higher so that the wall would not be of much good ,':^~ to the homeowner - there~fore, this was one of the reasons for requiring the wall to be set ba.ck 5 feet; that just recently the staff had learned that `~ the State wo~ld probably allow a slope easPment now in the unpaved portion `"`?r of Santa Ana Canyor_ Road and this ultimately would be landscaped. Further- "~ more, there was discussion that they would allow earth berms, half of the earth berm being along the nerr Riverside Freeway on State property. This was something which theq had ~ust determined recently, and it was ~ust a little change in rules, and the State could then maintain this on private _ property. Commissioner Farano stated that he could not see why staff was recommending requiring someone to mai~tain something outside of a 1G-foot masonry wall when he did not see it - although Mr. McDaniel stated in his presentation that it ~.ould bene:it the property owner, if he r.ould nct see it, he could care less that this ~oas maintained. Another [hing, he felt the State should ~~ have sone !cind of responsibility in maintaining some landscaping and actually landscapi~g this area - if th±s is going to be a scenic corridor, then it should 5e a joint res?onsibility of the City of Anaheim and the State cu make sure that it was a sceaic corridor; that the State should maiatain their laadscapiag and keep up their part as well. Mr. ~?cDaniel stated that the landscaping on tiia freeway or expressway side of th~ wall would not be directly v=sible from the units iaside the wall, but L~at was not the only reason for requesting this landscaping be included since landscaping aad shrubs, together with a 10-foot barrier, was a noise barrier, and the trees and shrubs selected as screen planting were plants that would exceed the height of the wall so that they toould be visible within a given period of time; that it was not the kind of landscaping that coould be t,; along the wall for the visual benefit of people living there, but this would aQt : ~v ~ ~ ;.:~:.~ _ ..~.~_. - ` ,, !~ ~ _,. ! ! 3 i ~ „ .,i ~ - ~ '~ ~ ' - ~ t _, ~ - t `~ ~ _., ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING C4MMISSION, January 11, 1971 71-11 i •~. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 1R - absorb noise and eventually would become higher than ~ I ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE a wall - therefore, it would seem undesirable to build ,~ Continued a 10 to 20-foot high wall, but a 10 to 20-foot high tree or shrub was found not to be undesirable. ~ Ho:cever, just because the wall was there did not mean the people would not maintain the landscaping. Mr. Thompson noted that property owners along streets in Nohl Ranch maintained their landscaping. --~- Commissioner Farano noted that those propertie~ wer= not abutting a freeway ` ~ and did not have a wall between their property and tha freeway right-of-way, P ' and the idea of a man going over the wall or through it or around it to cut ~ grass and water the shrubs, as far as he was concerned, would not be done. ' ` Mr. McDaniel indicated that the ~roperty owner would nor_ be climbing over - ~ the wall since the zone oroyosed a gate which would permit the property owner ~! to gain acceas through the wall to maintain this 10-foot strip - however, the j i State could not maintain private properties, and, th::refore, they could not j ,~', assume maintenance of this 10 feet ir_ addition to their right-of-way, but ~ . ~ staff was concerned that, for example, the State would not landscape the road ; ~ w~thin their right-of-way within a reasonable length of time, and one might E witness the appearance of the Newport Freeway and the Santa Ana Freeway - ) then this proposed 10-foot strip would not become significant enough to screen ~ these properties effectively - the State usually did their landscaping in a " " ~ clumpy fashion so that some properties would be screened extrenely well and other properties would have very little or none at all; and that titis proposal was a G~ay of insuring that each and every property received a 10- foot strip of screened landscaping adjacent to the freeway. ~ Mr. Datason noted for the Commission that as far as Cheir body ~vas concerned ~ j ` in considering this, there was one important factor which had been brought ~ f ' out - the State could not maintain privately-owned property, neither could ; ~ the City of Anaheim, but there was one suggestion made by a gentleman in ~:~ the sudience, he believed it was Mr. Budlong, who would rather dedicate .I 10 feet than maintain it - therefore, it would be wiser under these circum- , _,~ stances, if that were the thinking of the Commission, to require dedication '•i. of the 10-foot strip being discussed and then let the City maintain it - ? however, this would be an exper_sive item over the entire scenic corridor as far as m+aintenance was concerned, and the City might not wank to assume this expense. Chairman Herbst inquired of Mr. Dawson if this particular road were a main arterial and homes were backing up to it, normally the property owner would have to put in curbs, gutters, sewers and sidewalks and if he dedicated a 10--foot strin from that curb line to the fence, the trees, shrubs and land- scaping were planted, whose resnonsibility would it be to maintain this landscaping strin. Mr. Dawson stated that if it were the property owner's property, he would have to maintain it, but if it were dedicated to the City, then the City i , would have to maintain it since it fell wi[hin the public right-of-way - ~ ~ t'~is ~ad been done by the City rather consistently in many of the areas K' ~o3.thin the City, esnecially median strips, but to be very pYactical about it, if the pronerty owner had a 10-foot masonry wall it would be most difficult ~~ to enforce the maintenance of that 10-foot landscape strip even though the '.~ City mignt require him to put in the sprinkler system in the first instance. ~n the other hand, if the City maintained it, there ~aould be a uniform maintenance, and the requirement of maintenance of a person's own private property might be enforceable, but it would not be the easiest thing in the world for the City to enforce said maintenance over long roads, freeways, and expressways - what would the City do if a man refused to maintain the landscaping. Was the City going to foreclose on his house, or how could this be enforced, aad suggested that the Commission be very practical about this enforcement problem. , Y, , , . , _ - . _. .. , ~... :. _ +_ .._ _., _ . _ - ~, ~ . , _ . .,.~:x ~. f _ _ . , 5 -- : 4 ~ f . , C.~ ~ ~ ~) MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 11, 1.971 71-12 AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 - Mr. Slaughter noted that as the City Attorney had ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE stated, once the landscaping was provided in the (Continued) standard parkway with a front-on house, it was an assumption that the property owner would maintain it, and, generally speaking, in this area by going ahead and maintaining it, it improved the general appearance and enhanced the area - based upon experience in the Nohl Ranch area where the slope had been well maintained, but on those tracts at the corner of Walnut Canyon and Santa Ana Canyon Roads, it would be expected that the same type of treatment and the maintenance programs would be put in ty the property owner; that as far as the City maintaining the landscaping along the freeway, there would be some severe difficulties encountered here because the State maintained their chainlink fence at the right-of-way line; and that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible., for the City to enter across that. ienced area to gain entrance to this 10-foot strip. Commissioner Seymour noted he concurred with Mr. Slaughter's rem2rks; that the planting on the curbs was generally taken care of and improved by the property owner, and the City did have the experience in the Nohl Ranch of the same maintenance, but in this instance, this was an entirely different problem - the 10-foot strip was something the owner could not see - there- fore, "out of sight, out of mind"; that he felt that this was the greatest difference, and when one talked about the curbside planting this was seen when one walked out the front door, and the same thing was true as it per- tained to the Nohl Ranch - but he did have a question in relation to the problem on the freeway - he could see how this problem could be handled on Santa Ana Canyon Road through dedication, but was this also possible on the freeway - if the 10 feet were dedicated to the State, would the State then maintain it, or would they even accept this dedication. Mr. McDaniel stated that he thought there was adequate right-of-t oetween the paved portion and the right-of-way line of the freeway to efi:ctively landscape for the environmental living there and for the people who passed on the roadway, but the question was when would the State and h~w taould the State do it since there was no way to insure that it would be ilone in a manner that would really screen those properties or that the landscaping would be d~tne five - even ten years from now. Commissioner Seymour then stated that except for the fact that this was a potential scenic highway and the 5tate must have some standards set as to how they would effectively landscape and screen "a potential scenic highway" or when it did become adopted - the Conmission and the staff were not talking about a normal freeway situation. Mr. Thompson stated he felt the State was as new with this urban-type scenic highway as the City of Anaheim was - however, after listening to the comments thus far, he was not so sure tk:at it might not be besc to require the wall on the property line of Santa Ana Canyon Road and the Riverside Freeway, and that along Santa Ana Canyon Road primarily landscaping in the unpaved portion could be done by the City since the State would permit it - thus some type of an assessment district to cover the maintenance of the landscaping could be set up; that the State should be pushed very hard to get them going on their landscaping along the Riverside Freeway in order that the City could get something meaningful in that particular area; that he saw some very knotty problems there, and as the properties in the caciyon developed maybe with the State allowing the berm - half on the right-of-way - maybe the State could be pushed quite strongly to do a landscaping ~ob since it appeared those communities that had pushed the State had gotten landscaping on the freeway - witness Downey and other cities - which had fairl.y well landscaped freeways. Hmwever, Anaheim did not have landscaped freeways to date, and one of the primary reasons ~aas because the City of Anaheim allowed a proliferation of billboards along freeways. Furthermore, since the City had amended certain codes, they were now enforcing removal of the billboards - therefore, it might be time for the City to require the developer to put in the landscap- ing in the public right-of-way along Santa Ana Canyon Road and the Riverside Freeway, setting up some type of an assessment district allowing the walls in both instances to be on the property line and pushing the State for some type of ineaningful landscaping program along the new Riverside Freeway; that the State in their design had paid heed co the fact that this was a potential scenic highway since scarification as it pertained to the cuts throughout the ca^.yon had really been minimized - if one had taken a look at this particular area, one would have noted that these cuts were more ' S _s ` . 1 ! , ~ ~ l,. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 11, 1971 71-13 AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 - rounded and a greater attempt was given to detail, ` ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE and that this could be attributed to the fact that the (Continued) State felt this was a potential scenic highway - something different from other freeways that had been developed through other canyons of this nature. Chairman Herbst felt there was a very simple solution to the problems by placing the wall along the property line and for the property owner to plant trees inside of the fence at approximately 20-foot intervals or planting a berm with low plants, letting him have his choice - this would mean very simply that the property owner could take the alternative, and if he had a 1500-foot frontage, this would makt it quite simple for the wall with a few trees which would be on the inside oi the property line where the trees would be maintained and watered since Code would require that trees have a minimum height of 8 feet. Thus, if a 6-Foot wa1Z were required, this would mean greenery would already be over the top of the fence to start with. Mr. Thompson concurred that the ordinance could be amended to reflect this. Chairman Herbst then stated he thought in some instances the berm would be more attractive than a block wall, and in some instances it would be less attractive, or there could be a combination of the two - therefore, the Commission should give the property owner a little more lacitude. Mr. Thompson noted that Mr. Budlong also had a very good point relative to requirement of tree-for-tree replacement, particularly as it referred to the eucalyptus windbreaks; thst Mr. Budlong had discussed this with Mr. McDaniel, and, therefore, the Commission might wish to consider this in a more realis- tic light in certain instances in the canyon, but it would depend upon the type of tree that was indicated on the mascer plan of street trees along various routes - these trees could be planted at given intervals, depending upon the type of tree, and if the same purpose could be accomplished as to eucalyptus trees - not necessarily be over-restrictive or a punitive measure against some of the property owners, then the 1:1 ratio could also be amended. Chairman Herbst also noted that he did not particularly like the idea of ~ replaciag the windbreaks tree-for-tree and referred co Mrs. Maag's statement in which she had only seven acres which were surrounded by eucalyptus trees -~ this particular parcel could be penalized having to replace the eucalyptus trees on a tree-for-tree basis or even om a 20-foot interval - therefore, ~ staff should come up with a number of tree-lined routes through the entire district which would not be so objectionable ca the property owners. Another ' consideration was that the streets could be a part of the tree-lined routes; ~ that if a row of eucalyptus could be taken down and placed in the parkway wherei they could be maintained by the City, together with the median strip down a street, this would effectively place a tree-lined area with3n the public right-of-way rather than an the property - chus, together with whatEVer planting that will be required along the fence lines and everyone owning a home would have their own trees and shrubs, the green effect which staff tvas attempting to establish or maintain in the scenic carridor would, in fact, be accomplished through tree-lined streets which would be much more effective than replacing them along the property lines by giving these trees more area ~ to spread evenly throughout the entire district. ! Mr. Thompson noted that the medians could be used as well as some of the larger setbacks, such as those next to the freeway where broader-headed trees other than the typical eucalyptus could be planted. Chairman Herbst noted he was not particularly a lo~er af eucalyptus trees because they were a problem, and this would get the eucalyptus trees out of peoples' yards and still have the screening and scenic beauty of the whole corridor ~ust by putting this into the street medians. Furthermore, he would not like to see ane property which had many eucalyptus trees penal- ized such as Mr. Yorba had indicated, while a neighbor might not have any; and that the City did not necessarily want trees clus[ered while other.areas would be bare - this would be one way of splitting the tree landscapi.ng throughout the district. Commissioner Seymour complimented the staff for having done an outstanding 3ob and gave particular special credit to Mr. McDaniel in studying and developing the proposed code. ^ f _- , - -- -----~--- ' ~ ~ ~ i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 11, 1971 71-14 i I AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 -• Commisaioner Seymour further indicated he was ANA.HEIM MUNICIPAL CODE heartened by the fact that the single-family i •! (Continued) residents out in the canyon area were in favor of ~ keeping and maintaining the besuty of this narti- ~ cular area, and if F!e were a resident there, he would also want this beauty ~ maiatained - however, he uas even more heartcned to near the large oroperty ~ owners themselves say they were in favor of maintaining some of the natural I besuty of the area; that he could also see Lhat the zone as written wac a i staadard and was only meant to be a standard, not meant to be held in peroetuity, never to be varied from, since thsre would be times and special "^:; 'u situations as was indicated by evidence presented, as well as other situa- - ~% tions which the City would have to vary from the standard, but he was now a' ~~'~ in a position to ive his a 8 pproval of the proposed zone with some minor changes unless the other Commissioners wished to add to these changes - ::s:- his changes being (1) the 10-foot landscape area adjacent to the freeway and expressway and its maintenance - Chairman Herbst had hit on an ideal - solution to the problem, either a fence or berm and landscaping on the interior of the fence, and then ttie maintenance would be readily avail- ; able and the City could feel certain it would be maintained; (2) the idea ~ of replacing windbreaks one-for-one - that was somewhat tight, and Mr. McDaniel also realized this - perhaps a more reasonable assumption would be one for every three trees in the windbreak area - other than that the entire zone was extremely well written with those ideas and others which the Planning Commission m~!ght have - if these could be presented, then the Commission could recess while the staff reworded these sections so that immediately after the recess the Commission cou5.d then attempt to adopt this proposed zone. ':~ Commissioner Rowland felt that the Commission eventually would take action ;;'} because both in private aad other public hearings over a long period of :a time the Commission 3ad expressed a conviction that the Santa Ana Canyon ,:~ was a distinet and unique asset to the community; that in some measute the .~ Comaission would adopt this zone, but the speci£ics of it would have to be J worked out, and tha Commission should take whatever time was necessary to ;i teork these out - however, the Commission should be able at this meeting to iI indic~te their intent to adopt this, recognizing some of the holes in it, t so that it would not be adopted without changes; that he felt there was • no urgency in acting upon this as long as everyone knew what was proposed. ~.~ Furthermore, one area which he was not interested in changing specifically was the cut and fill section - the only area of cut and fili which he might ; consider was that the cut and fill should relate to the geography- if it _ ,;'~ were a 45-degree slope which wa_s prevalent in the area, this should relate z:; to the natural incidence of the land and not to the ability that was now `'~;',~' available for stabilizing soils on an overhang bank, far instance; that the character of the canyon was its value, and this was also its own penalty, and if the canyon did not have these unique features, it would have been '' developed long ago; that the canyon had problems out there that were unique ? unto itself - the waterway that must be curbed, the slopes, the unstable soil of the area, the vegetation existing and planted, the windbreaks which < everybody curses but if these did not serve a useful function yesterday and `.;• today, they taould not exist, and so in some measurP foliage of some sort ~~as a necessity out there to buffer the winds that howled through the canyons and the fact that it was should not change the natural geography which included tonography; that cahat the Commission was considering was not an urban scenic corridor - why had the State softened the new contours of the freeway - few people knew why because this had been adopted as a scenic corridor,~with the County of Oran~e indicating their willingness to declare this as a:scenic corridor some years ago, even before "nycamore Flats Regional : ?ark cvas c~onsidered, and also the City of Anaheim had indicated to the State ;:M of Califor:aia their ~aillingness and eagerness to develop [his as a scenic corridor amd it will be developed; that the reason everyone was havin.g nroblems relating to this was because the scenic corridor as adopted and establisheid in [he State of California was normally located in undevelope4 areas with an undeveloped width of about 500 feet wherc no develonment ~aas ;, oermiLted ~ hawever, this obviously was not possible in the Santa Ana Canyon. ?j..'. Another t',itng some of the property owners had discovered on their own, and _ ~oere relat:ing it to their own properties, i-~ the flatlands Che properties which would suffer would be the narrowy deep lots which had narrow frontages on access xoads, but in the canyon the opposite was ~rue - the ones with 1i;.: wide frontage and shallow depth would be the ones that would be more diffi- i,~ ,. cult to de~~elon - therefore, one proble:a was replaced by another based on :~~ ~ ~ ~ i ~~~. '.. y - --__-~ _- . 0 _ ~ , , . I. -..; .::'"=:. '.~:: ;Y` ., 1' s:; : I +:.-i - ';Si : ti ::J ~:;;.} , . ~~•~ y t .; . : +`:., *. .t:t " _ ;, f ~~ ~ l~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 11, 1971 71-15 AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 - geography; that he did not know how the Commission ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE could phrase this to indicate the Commission's (Continued) willingness to accept this thinking, but that it had to be modified before the Code could be adopted since there were many areas that would require restudy and amending. Mr. Dawson advised the Commission that there were many details to work out, but for the Commission to express its inteation to go forward in prlnciple subject to amendments which were too detailed would be sufficient for the Commission eo pass the resolution of adoption of the ordinance. Commissioner Seymour noted his reason for feeling there was an urgency was because there were several properties in this area, and these people were awaiting an answer, but he did not feel the Commission should give an answer until they had adopted something - however, if the City Attorney inditated the Commission could take action by adopti±±o a resolution with the statement that further amendments would be made, then he would be willing to offer a resolution. Mr. Dawson advised the Commission that insofar as adoption by the Planning Commission, th~!s would have no specific effect upon the people before the Commission at this time; that they would not be subject to this plan of development until it became part of the law of the City - any property now being built would not be affected. Commissioner Rowland noted then that he would propose the Commission adopt this ordinance without changes, and the Commission would work on this to amend these changes, and if someone did not want to develop under this, they would have to file a variance for relief from the ordinance. Mr. Dawson noted that since the ordinance would have to be passed by the City Council, the Commission could pass this with suggestions to be made and during the interim the Commission could hold a public hearing to consider these changes. Commissioner Rowland stated these changes could be presented to the City Council before they took their final action on the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-1 and moved for its passage and adoption to adopt and recommend adoption of an amendment to Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code by the addition of Chapter 18.59 - Scenic Corridor Ovexlay (SC) Zone, recommending further to the City Council that Chapter 17, Land Development and Resources, Grading, etc. - Hillside Areas, Sections 17.06.110(a, b, c, and d); 17.06.120(b and e); 17.06.130; and 1i.06.160 be amended; that amendmPnts be made to the Street Cross-Section Standards; estab- lish a master plan of street trees; and that a finding be made that the Planning Commissien, although in agreement wich the concept of the (SC) Zone, deems that certain portions should be amended - however, [o implement the zone rather thaa a continuance of the proposed zone, amendments should be con- sidered at another advertised public hearing for January 25, 1971, with said amendments to be incorpurated into the (SC) Zone at [he time the City Council considered this amendment at public hearing, as follows: 1) Rathez than have tree-for-tree replacement, particularly eucalyptus, the sDecified number of trees per acre or a ratio of trees when eucalyptus windbreaks were replaced; 2) reconsider the required 10-foot landscaped area adjacent to the freeway and Santa Ana Canyon Road between the public right-of-way and the required wall. Prior to roll call, Commissioner Gauer noted that in the motion there was nothing stated about the setbacks to which Mr. Budlong referred in his nresentation - some of the property owners feeling that the 75-foot building setba.^.k tvas too much - therefore, he felt this should be another area which staff should study for presentation to the Commission by considering various sections of the canyon for varied setbacks. Also the matter of windbreaks - on each oarcel with one parcel being overloaded with windbreaks and others not having any, the Commission might w'ant to consider a given number of trees per acre - therefore, this portion of the zone should also be studied. Commissioner Allred inquired of staff whether or not these amendments could be studied and returned to the Commission within two coeeks in order that the City Council could consider these amendments; whereupon Mr. Thompson replied ~ . ~ . , „ . Jr , . .,.~' . . . . , ~ , ~ . , .. . , .. _ .. . _ . _ . . ~ . . . • . . . \ . ' ~ ~ i ! 3 i F: . _, ~.;., ~. '~ \ - ~. . r - : ~ .¢ - , _ _ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 11, 1971 71-16 AMENDMENT TO TITLE ,l8 - that this could be done and that readvertising ANAH~IM MUNICIPAL CODE could also be made within said two weeks. i~ (Continued) Commissioner Kaywood inquired as to requiring a 25-foot height limitation for flagpoles so that '~ this could also con£orm with t~e height restrictions in the area. Commissioner Seymour then amended his motion to include the following: A more specific definition of building setbacks; a slope analysis which -,;_ reflected a maximum allowable deviation in the existing slope; limit the ~~a ~~ height of flagpoles to 25 feet; and conaider variations in setbacks along ~, arterials if the developer proposes to use berms, trees, and landscaping '; or a wall with 8-foot high trees planted on the i.nterior of the wall that :;: ' would screen and buffer the noises from the arteFials. (See Resolution Bookj <~;~. . . `' j On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~i f ^ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Raywood, Rowland, ~ Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. _ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ` . ~ t' ~~ ~ ~° RECESS - Commissioner Seymour moved for a ten-minute recess. " ~:~ ~~ The meeting recessed at 4:30 P.M. ' ~; RECONVENE - Chairman Herbst reconvened the meeting at 4:45 P.M., ~ ~ ~ all Commiasioners being present. :~.a; ;:a ~ RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. GERALDINE E. ROTH, ET AL, ~ ;^h~ '; N0. 69-70-25 P. 0. Box R, Placentia, California, Owners; JEBFREY ' H. 'rIiLLET, 1303 West Valencia, Fullerton, California, s~r VARIANCE N0. 2142 Agent; property deacribed as: An irregularly-shaped f` .11 parcel of land consisting of approximately 90 acres ~! TENTATIVE MAP OF having a frontage of approximately 3,780 feet on the TRACT N0. 7137, south side of Esperanza Road, hsving a maximum depth ' ;'.~ REVISION N0. 1 of approximately 2,200 feet, and being located x;' ,~: : , approximately 2,800 feet east of the centerline of ?.,~ Imperial Highway. Property presently classified ' Y.,;`,,^;,f, COUNTY Al, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. ;? REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: CITY OF ANAHEIM R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE. ~. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT WIDTH TO ESTABLISH ~: A 451-LOT, SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION. ;'~ h i' TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: SCHMID DEVELOPMENT, INC., 2949 ; ~ Randolph, Costa Mesa, California. ENGINEER: ~ Millet, King & Associatc~, 1303 West Valenci.a, ?.:_.:..-:F Fullerton, California. 451 R-2-5000 proposed ; ;',,,~ zoned lots. , hJ Subject peCitions were continued from the meeting of December 14 1970 in _;r, ' ` , , order to be heard in conjunction with the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone ;7; ;; . tr'. + Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of f.; _, sub~ect property, uses established in close proximity, the number of times th ~ ~?. ,:;: e petitions had been continued due to annexation problems, and noted that when the r .,.. '~y :, ., p operty was indicated for a regional park site on the Orange County Master Plan a ro l f r ;,~-.. ' ,.,.,: , p posa or RS-5,000 zoning was requested in the County of Orange, and the Planning Commission and Cit C il i: • j; y ounc directed a letter to the County Planning Commission indicating that the park was a . i '~ desirable goal - however, if the property t~ere not develoned for a park th ~' , e proposed zone would appear to be ap~ropriate. Hn*:*ever, this property was not indicated on th _ ; e Anaheim General Plan or designated for a specific density, and subsequent to th t ' ~` I ~ a recommendation to the Orange County Planning Commission, General ?lan Amendment No. 122 - a densit t d f - ~~ = .:'k y s u y or the canyon - was considered by the Planning Commission, who had determined the entire area shou ld be developed for low-density residential uses; and that the recom- mendation had been forw d d _ ! ar e to the City Council, but that tody had not ac[ed on the General Plan amendment - however, at the Dec.ember 1, 1970, ~ , . ~~ -' + ~ _ ` - ,~._ -, + . ~._~ • _ ~ ..l _ ' ' 'j ' , . - .. . r;+•._ V ~ MINIITES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 11, 1971 71-17 RECLASSIFICATION - City Council meeting, indivi3uals representing this N0. 69-70-25 property and an additional 240 acres to the east VARIANCE N0. 2142 BPPeared before them and requested that the City Council reaffirm its previous position regarding TENTATIVE MAP OF the appropriateness of County RS-5,000 zoning for the entire 330 acres. TRACT N0. 7137, REVISION N0. 1 Mr. Slaughter then reviewed the proposal, noting _ (Continued) that the petitioner was proposing to develop a 451-1ot subdivision; that staff had reviet~ed both determined that due to manytunresolvedCproblems,CthePdevelopersaandastaffd were unable to provide all the information needed for consideration of the tract map at this time. Therefore, the applicant had r~quested that con- sideration of the variance and tract map be continued, and that conaideration be directed toward the reclassification petition only. Mr. Jeff Millet, representing the engineer and the petitioner, app~ared before the Commission and noted that a letter covering a number of questions as they pertained to conditions of approval (copy on file) had been sub- mitted for the Commission's consideration. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised Mr. Mi11eC. that this letter had aot been received by staff in time to submit a copy to ~ the Commission for review with the Report to the Commission, and suggested '?: that these questions be reviewed by him. ;, Mr. Millet then inquired whether or not a tentative tract map of a sub- ".;j division was a specific nlan since they knew a house plan would have to be ~a submitted. ~ Assistant C~?ty Attorney John Dawson advised Mr. Millat that the reclassi- fication conditions asked for plans, etc., which were not included in the .,;.~ tentative mau, and he would say that approyal of the reclassification c.•ould ;~ be sub~ect to approval of these oCher plans. ~ Mr. Millet then stated that he did not want a reclassification pending await- ing these plans - could the plans be submitted to the Planning Commisston ';~ prior to recordation of a tract maa. Mr. Dawson stated this was a satisfactory solution as they were sub~ect to ; approval and if so submitted before zoning action takes place. '''~~ . Commissioner Rowland noted that this was the manner in which a i:eclassifi- cation was handled when considered in con~unction with a tract unap since ~ a tract map must be recorded before the zoning change actually became final. ~~: Therefore, if plans were submitred prior to the recordation, th-~n the ~ reclassification still would depend upon submission of said plans. ~ : Mr. Millet then reviewed the proposed setbacks along La Palma Avenue, Fairmont h Boulevard, and the railroad, noting they felt a 50--foot setback was excessive and they would recommend either a 35-foot or 40-foot setback since presently there was a minimum 25 feet, and then inquired whether a~arage would be permitted in this required setback if it were separated from the home. Mr. Slaughter noted that [he conditions recommended at the December 14 meeting were essEntially a summary of the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone ~ohich ~oas 3ust approv~d by the Planning Commission, and the intent of these conditions was if the City Council did not adopt the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone and took action on this petition first, this would put the peonle on notice [hat these " conditions would anoly to all developers out in that area as far as the ~ +s„ setbae:c was concerned, it c,as a building setback and structures ~oould not be permitted there other than a swimming pool. Mr. Diillet then inauired whether or not ~ they considered structures - a cover withaonls foura ~e permitted and ~oere h, Mr. Slaughter replied that uader the buildingycode thattwouldebeuconsidered a structure. _~.; Mr. Millet again reiterated the fact that a 50-foot building setback was '~.; excess±ve, but he could live ;aith a 40-foot setback along La Palma Avenue, ra±rmont Boulevard, and the railroad tract, oarticularly Fairmont Boulevard ~; ~ ~ ~~ I ~` ~:ti t ~ . . . . . . .. . /1 . .... . _ .. ~ .~ . , .._.. . . .. " ___ .. . _ .' . - . . , ` .. .. - . r _ - ~ _} ~ , ~ i ~ ~a.. ~ .. ... .. .'~ i + . . , ' . ~ 1 ~/ ~ ~. ~ MINUTES, CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 11, 1971 71-18 RECLASSIFICATION - which was propoaed to be bridged over the railroad N0. 69-Z0:-2'S tracks and would be aloped - therefore, the lots would be considerably larger and the setback would VARIANCE NO`. 2142 go beyond the 40 feet along the road which would be elevated. TENTATIVE.MAP OF TRACT N0. 7137, Commissioner Rowland inquired whether or not the REVISION N0. 1 land was fairly conatant - level between La Palma (Continued) Avenue and the railroad tracks. ::• - Mr. Millet replied that the propertq was all flat and they would have ' ~ "'"~% ~ th to put in the storm draina on the property - however, ~ r ; e railroad was 21 feet higher than sub~ect property. "~ `~ Commissioner Rowland then inquired whether or not the setbacks propoaed ~ would be varied. '! Mr. Millet replied that it would vary a little along the top of the lots where it was proposed to have a little more depth ad~acent to the railroad '~ tracks. ~. Commisaicner Rowland then inquired whether or not there were some placea where the developer intended to have more than a 40-foot setback. ;~'~i~ Mr. Millet re~lied that there were some, and since a wrap-around drive could be placed ia the front yards, this would pull the homea farther back - ai-d according to the R-2-5000 Zone, they could have these within 10 feet of the front yard. Commisaioner Rowland then inquired what gercent of the lots wouid be affected. :~j ' Mr. Millet replied apprnximately 45 or 50 lota of the 451-1ot subdiviaion •-± would be affected. ~ Commisaioner Rowland then inquired of theae 45 or 50 lots how many would , ~ i.~ have a 50-foot setback - what he•.~as atEempting to do was get an idea of the ' overall development. ? 'I Mr. Millet re lied that there wou13 be a ~ , p pproximately 30 lots affected, and ~ if the wrap-around drive were permitted, then a 50-foot setback could be ~ Y.~ accomplished - therefore, they would try to adhere to the 50-foot setback; ,~~ that they wanted this apelled out because when development occurred the ~ Commiseion acting oa thie at the present time might not be in office. ''~~ `w ; Mr. Millet then noted that there would be a large area on Fairmont Boulevard - where the slope would be very high, and they felt the wall ahould be on the top of the slope, with the property owner maintaining the slope - however, the City of Anaheim wanted the alope on Fairmont Boulevard, and, there£ore, ~`~ the wall would have to be located at the bottom of the alope - then wh > would take care of the alope? ~ ': Office Engineer Jay Titue noted for the Commisaion that it wae the City ~w En ineer's f~elin re ardin the wall on the p y ~ 8 8 g g pro ert line th~t since the ~_ ~lope would be very high and it also supported a roadway which would also go over the railroad tracks, because of this, the slope should be under the coatrol of the City in order that they would have the reaponaibility of ;i maintaining the alope a2nce if this remained with the property owner, the I slope could ~e over-watered which could cause sloughing off and undermine the roadway and in some way have a detrimental effect upon the roadway. °`'',-;~ Therefore, this was the basic reason for the City's insistence upon control- '_•'''~~ ling the slope which would affect a street. : ,.: . _ `:~ Mr. Millet then noted that an 8-foot wall was required - however, becauae the railroad tracks were 21 feet above subject property, a wall or berm would have little effect in reducing noiaes. ~'~ - Mr. Thompson noted that without a grading plan it was a little difficult to tell how high or where thia would be required - therefore, the City could not provide the answer at the present time. ~' Mr. Millet then atated he felt the landacaping being required was somewhat '~ excessive as well, as was indicated in the letter submitted, if they were to comply with the recommended conditions. ' -~. ~ ,.. .. i.~ _ n E. .. . __ . . ' `.,i ~i , , ~~~ ~~ ~_J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN, January 11, 1971 71-19 RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Millet then noted that on the cut-and-fill slopes N0. 69-70-25 they would prefer to put in 1'~:1 slopea - this would VARIANCE N0. 2142 be a slope as required by FHA who state one could have 1'~:1 which would wo k r up to a height of 12 feet - TENTATIVE MAP OF after that they put in some new aeismic figure and then it would b TRACT N0. 7137, e very difficult to get the 1'~:1 ratio unless the soil REVISION N0. 1 were compacted much harder which a soils engineer could get. Another item the b (Contiaued) , num er of trees and shruba namel , y, one tree for every 300 equare feet and one ahrub for eyery 150 square feet - shrubs per acre or they would be providing 150 trees per acre and 290 $15 000 er a , Rowland's question, , p cre, and then, in response to Commiasioner stated there was about 1' ac h ~ res on t e one street alone aince they knew there muat be landscaping and ground cover planted but the , tree ratio was something he did not know was being done anywhere else. Mr. Thompaon noted that the railrosd tracks would have to be bu£fered, and staff's recommendation did not cover the entire 90 acrea, but staff wanted the slopes to be provided for. Mr. Mi,llet then inquired why the C.ity did not require a landscape plan to be submitted rather than spelling out all the specifics. Commissioner Allred noted that if aufficient landscaping were provided, then the homes would be sold much more quickly. Mr. Millet replied that the homes would be completed and sold long before the landscaping was grown. Commissioner Farano noted that if a landscaping plan were submitted - since the developer was of the opinion the landscaping requirements were excessive- and the plan deviated somewhat from the requirements, there was always the tool of requesting waiver of this due to hardship. Mr. Thompson noted that this might appear to be a hardship, but if one looked at the 2100 or more variances which have been granted in the past, this was evidence that the City had waived portioas of the code where a true hard- ship had existed. The Commission inquired of Mr. Millet how many trains passed on those tracka each day; whereupon Mr. Millet replied he had no idea. Mr. Thompson noted for the Commisaion that the staff had heard from reliable sources that there was a minimum of thirty trains per day passing on thoae tracks. Commissioner Seymour then stated that with that many traina per day if he were to build ad3acent to the railroad tracks, he would have at least a 100-foot setback. Commissioner Allred further noted there was a apur railroad track that went out into the Orange-Olive area which had about three trains per day, and there were some subdivisions with $40,000 homes aear the right-of-way, which were only 25 to 35 feet off the railroad right-of-way - fortunately, this was not a main line. Mr. Thompaon indicated he was glad the Commisaion had brought up thia matter because the staff went out to look at those homes, and this was one of the reasons why the 8-foot wall and the landscaping were requirements; that there was such a differential where the wall was put in although it was far enough from the railroad where the 8-foot high wall and landscaping were developed on this particular tract, and this acted as a buffer and could apply to the propoaed development, acting as a buffer, even though the railroad might be 20 feet higher; that the homes in the Orange-Olive area referred to by Commisaioner Allred had homes fronting on a local street which ran ad3acent to the track and the road of which the track was a part - therefore, the wall and the landscaping would be to the outside of the local street which would set these houaes farther back. ~ 1 . . . . ~'~7 :21&' '~Y~ tG-~wur:.r. . { .... _ ~ ~~ ~ . . . ' - . . ~ . ~ „t.. r - ` ~ ~a ~ ! ~ yl ~ . / . ' . ~ . . . .____-_'_.__--~.~.-r-~ ~1 ~.~ ~ ~- ~ ., MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 11, 1971 71-20 ~ RECLASSIFICA':ION - Commissioner Allred noted that he felt homes N0. 69-70-25 ad3acent to a railroad track ahould be given ' additional buffering if they were to be sold. VARIANCE N0. 2142 Mr. Niillet noted that along the railroad tracks ~ TENTATIVE MAP OF the lots were consialerably deeper, and he could • TRACT N0. 7137, provide this 50-foot setback somewhat better than REVISION N0. 1 along Fairmont Boulevard and La Palma Avenue; that (Continued) he still could not see the logic to building an -., ~,, 8-foot wall since it would not be beneficial even though they did plan to provide considerable land- ~:' '~``' scaping along the railroad boundary. `~ ~~ Commissioner Allred noted that the homes he referred to as costing $40,000 'y were on Riverdale Avenue near Orange-Olive Road which had a b~rm together _u with a~wall, landsc.aping, and a partial street which acted as a buffer. However, some of the homes did back onto this wall while others did not. Mr. Millet noted that the Santa Fe Railroad tracks were 50 feet from their _~` property line; that they had a 100-foot right-of-way, and if the railroad planned to expand, they would hae2 to condemn property and expansion would take place to the north - therefore, he could provide this 50-foot setback because many of their lots were deep enough to provide this type of building setback from the railroad tracks. However, he needed action on this, and most of the conditions were part of the Scenic Corridor Zoae. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. `~ Commissioner Kaywood noted that when the Planning Commission gave its .1 approval and recommended approval of General Plan Amendment No. 122 to the .~ City Council, they recommended low density - therefore, to be consistent with that she would like to recommend R-1 zoning. ,~ ,~'~ Commissi,aer Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC71-2 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council denial of R-2-5000 zoning in '~ Reclassification No. 69-70-25, however, recommending that the R-l, One-Family Residential, Zone be approved so that properties encompassed in General Plan Amendment No. 122 would develop consistent with the recommendation of low :~~ density for the area, and subject to recommended conditions. (See Resolution " Book) ~> Mr. Millet inquired what type of zoning was on subject property since they ~ had been considered for RS-5,000 at the County level. - Mr. Roberts advised the developer that the only zoning in the City of Anaheim presently pending on subject property was R-A, recently ap?roved, and no other zoning was established as a result of action before the Orange . `; County Board of Supervisors. . « : Mr. Thompson then explained Commissioner Kaywood's motion and why the Commission could recommend a lesser zone even though R-2-5000 zoning was requested; that aince the Commission was only a recommending body, this vas a recommendation to the City Council, and the original R-2-5000 zoning request would be considered by the City Council at a published public hearing. Chairman Herbat noted that one of the points Commissioner Kaywood remarked about was the density etudy under the General Plan amendment recommerded to the :.ity Council which covered low density, and R-2-5000 did not come within the low-density category; and then in response to a statement made by Mr. Millet that the Commission should have taken that action six months ago, atated that the Commission did recommend low denr..ity over a month ago - therefore, the petitioner and developer should have been aware of that at that time since this type of density was recommended for the entire corridor. Mr. Roberts requested clarification of the conditions which were to be included in the resolu•tiop since certain changes were made in the list uf suggested conditions - was that corract or was the approval given on the basis of the recommendatipns originally made in addition to the four set forth in the Report to the Commission4 ; i ~ ~., ___..~,,,_._._.__ _ ..,., .,. s-'t'~' ' lr1E[_;r,.~v'" . - ~ Q _m ~ ,..:-.: ~ r ,- (J ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Jsnusry 11, 1971 71-21 RECLASSIFICATION - Chairman Herbst noted that although the Scenic N0. 69-70-25 Corridor Overlay Zone r.equired an 8-foot wall along the railroad, he felt a 6-foot masonry wall would VARIANCE NQ. 2142 be sufficient since nothing would be gained by a higher fence because the railroad was considerably TENTATIVE MAP OF higher than said 8-foot wall, being 21 feet. TRACT N0. 7137, REVISION N0. 1 Mr. Dawson noted that Condition No. 1 which requires (Continued) specific plans being submitted for use could be submitted prior to the submission of a final tract map. , ~ ~ 3 I a „ `'~ Mr. Roberts noted that to be consistent with the manner in wh3ch theae ' ~;. conditions were normally imposed, it might be desirable *_o tie Condition , No. 1 into requiring it to be prior to introduction of an ordinance zoning I this property; that these plans should be brought back and approved by the Planning Commission - not necessariiy at a public hearing but under Reports and Recommendations. ^'j Chairman H~rbst then noted that it should also be in accordance with the . requirements of the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. Commissioner Farano stated that if this were tied into the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone and the City Council did not adort said zone, then this property would be without any of the necessary site development standards. Mr. Thompson then stated that the Commission could do [he same thing as had F~ been done at the previous hearing if the Commission wanted to adopt the ' conditions which Mr. Millet referred to in a letter and subsequently they {I would be adopted because of possible amendnents the Commission might make ~ to the Scenic Corridor ~Jverlay Zone the staff would inform the City Council ~ when they took action on the reclassification - then these changes could be •~ brought into conformance with the amendments. Commissioner Seymour noted that since nothing was being gained by recommend- ing R-1 zoning, the only conditions the Commission should impose were those - outlined in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. ' .... Mr. Thompson noted these were the things he was primarily trying to say - if ' these conditions were approved and subsequently changed because of the "~ Commission's later action on the amendments to the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone which would take place in two weeks, then at the public hearing before -~ the City Council staff would inform the Council of these changes, and their ~•, recommendations should be brought into line with said recommendations. Mr. Roberts then noted that there were four conditions which staff had recom- aended in the Report to the Commiasion this date, together with an additional one - Condition No. S- which states that sub~ect property shall be developed in accordance with stztndards of the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. Mr. Thompson was of the opinion that these conditions should be spelled out since if this reclassification were considered prior to action taken on the • Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone, there would be nothin to refer to a „ ~~ 8 , nd this could be all bo I, tched up . ' The Commiasion then determined that all those conditions to which Mr. Millet referred should be made a part of the resolution recommending approval for R-1 to the City Council. `. On roll call the foregoing resolutioa was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Her.bst, Kaywood, Seymour. - NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Rowlaad. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ Mr, Millet advised the Commission that since a considerable number of changes would have to take place as far as the tentative tract was concerned to incorporate the recommendations of the Commisaion, he requested that Variance No. 2142 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 7137 be continued until ~R: revisions could be made if the City Council concurred with the Commission's , recommendations. ~ - -.-_ .. " ~i . .. - -• - ~ - , , ~ ` M1 6 r~ '.~ ' _ ..., ~ ~ . ~. ..,_ , I -.... ._.. . --- _ ~ + -.. . ~- ~ ~l j ~ ;I „ -~ ~ MIAIUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 11, 1971 71_22 RECLASSIFICATION - Commisaioner Farano offered a motion to continue N0 69-70-25 _ . conaideration of Variance No. 2142 and Tentative VARIANCE N0. 2142 Map of Tract No. 7137 Revi i N -,- , s on o. 1, to the TENTATIVE MAP OF meeting of February 22, 1971, to allow time for TRACT N0 7 . 137, the Cauncil to take action and for the petitioner REVISION N0. 1 to s b it u m a revised tract map in accordance with (Continued) this approval. Commissioner Ga uer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. _ •~"'~ RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM N0. 70-71-25 ' ' ~ CITY COUNCIL, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim r~ : ~ , California; to cons3der reclassifying property ~ described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consiating of approximately 242 acres of land havin a f ~' ~ g rontage of approxi- mately 6,088 feet on the south side of Esperanza Road havin a maxi ~ , g mum depth of approximately 2,215 feet, and being located approximately 4 977 feet , east of the centerline of Imperial Highway, and furthQr described as the Esperanza-Car ill ~, r o Annexation, from the COUNTY A1, GENERAL AGRICULTU~AL DISTRICT to the R-7-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE. - ' f Sub3ect petition was contiaued from the December 28 meeting in order that it might be heard V concurrently with the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zbne.. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed for the Commission the location of sub;ject ro e t _ p p r y, uses established in close proximity, and the fact that the ' property was indicated as a regional park site on the County Master Plan and at th ~ , at time a proposal was made for RS-5,000 zoning in the County of Orange; that the Anaheim Planning Commia i s ' ~ s on and the City Council di.rected a letter to the County Planning Commission to the effect that hil ,; jG w e the proposed park was a desirable goal, County RS-5,000 land uses would appear to be appropriate if th k h e par were not developed. At that time the property was now ahown or designated for a specific densit on th ~n y e Anaheim General Plan, and recently the Anaheim Planning Commission had approved Gener l Pl a an Amendment No. 122, determining that the entire area from ridgeline to ridge- line ahould be develo ed f l _ p or ow-density residential uses, and that this recommendatioa had been forwarded to the Cit Coun il h ~ y c w o had not acted upon this to date. However, at the December 1, 1970, City Council meetin i di ~ g n viduals repreaenting subject property appeared and requested that the City Council reaffirm it i `,~ s prev oua poaition regarding the appropriateness of County RS-5,000 zoning for this ro e t _ p p r y. In essence, the City Council advised the applicant to proceed with the annexation with th ~,~ e underatanding that the Council fe2t that the finding of appropriateneas of County RS-5 0~0 i ,~ , zon ng was binding upon t.e City. 1 ` Mr. James Liberio, 1720 West La Palma Avenue, appeared before the Commission and noted that he represented the property owners who appeared before the Council at the December 1 meetin re i g, quest ng that the City Council reaffirm i[s position on RS-5,000 zoaing to the Coun.ty and that if :~ , the City Council felt the propoaed R-2-5000 zoning was appropriate on subject property he ld ~ , wou concur with that. Furthermore, the Anaheim Planning Commission also recommended to the Orange County Planning Commiasion as did the City Council that this R-2-5000 _ zoning take place - therefore, he could see no reason for the present action as it pertained to public hearings. No one appeared in oppoaition to aubject petition. ,;~. TftE HEARING WAS CLOSED. : ' Mr. Roberts noted that at the time the Planning Commission considered this ~ ~~ item before the Orange County Planning Commission, the Anaheim Planning ~ Commission indicated it would appear that RS-5,000 zoning would be appro ri- ~-' ; ate for the property, p Chairman Herbst noted that thia was beside the point at this time since the - Commission had had many atudies on the denaity in the canyon which were j never done before, and through these numerous atudies and public hearinga the Commisaion felt the canyon should be developed with low-density, and by coming back to R-2-5000 zoning this would negate all the action taken by the Planning Commission on the General Plan amendment - therefore, the Commission ~~ should be backing up their recommendation of this General Plan amendment to ,~ the City Council. ~ ~ ; ___ -~, ,. ~ _ . ' • r~ __ `..~ ~ t : , _ , y . ~ , ' _- ! . i r, i C ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 11, 1971 \ ~ 71-23 ~ RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC71-3 ! N0. 70-71-25 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend (Continued) to the City Council that R-2-5000 zoning for Reclasaification No. 70-71-25 be denied on the many studies of the deasityioftthe canyoaadeterminediin theirsrecommendation of approval of General Plan Amendment No. 122 that low denaity residential i uaes be developed for the canyon, and that R-1, One-Fa~ily Residential, Zone ~ be approved for sub~ect property instead, aub~ect to the recommended condi- ~ tiona as aet forth by ataff as were appropriate for sub3ect property under ~ Reclassification No. 69-70-25 which would require site development atandards ~ set forth in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. (See Resolution Book) 1 '~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ',` ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allre3, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~~ CONDITIONAL USE - - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. DONALD H. YODER~ 17291 PERMIT N0. 1218 Irvine, Suite 107, Tustin, California, Owner; requesting permisaion to ESTABLISH RETAIL AND SERVICE INDUSTRY WITH ONLY INCIDENTALESERVICESTORTHERGENERALVPUBLICMINRAN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL COMPLE% on property described as: A rectangularly-ahaped parcel '~ of land consisting of approximately 10 acres at the northwest corner of - Kraemer Boulevard and La Jolla Street, haviag a frontage of approximately 607 feet on the north side of La Jolla Street and approximately 628 feet on the west side of Rraemer Boulevard, and further described as 1401-1515 North ~~ Kraemer Boulevard. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZOI3E. ii' Subject petition was continued from the meeting of December 28, 1970, at the r~quest of the petitioner. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberta reviewed the location of sub~ect property, uses eatablished in cloae proximity, and the proposal of the petitioner to ~ establish retail distributing and service firma including buainess and ~ profesaional offices primarily aerving commerce and industry in existing ~: industrial buildings; that the petitioner did not have a particular firm or ~ firms in mind but was deairous of being able to furnish s ace to `~ tenants who desired to o e P prospective rate in a P mann , er that would be appropriate, and if n the Commiasion determined it to be appropriate, it might be deairable to eatabliah atandarda governing the typea of businessea that should be allowed under thia section of the ordinance; and that if, in the future, ataff received a requeat for a uae proposed for aubject property and were uncertain whether or not it fell within this section of the ordinance, it might be necessary to preaent the proposed use to the Planning Commisaion for deter- mination as provided by the ordinance. Mr. Don Yoder, the petitioner, appeared before tlie Commission and noted ataff had descrtbed the purpoae of their application, but for clarification purposes he iaquired whether or not the uae could be any uae in the M-1 Zone; whereupon Mr. Roberts replied in the affirmative. Mr. Yoder then noted that he had developed most of this property, and the - nature of the buildings would be good for certain office-type uaes, such as engineeriag or architectural officea and sales officea oriented toward , induatry; that if these typea of uaes were proposed by proapective tenants, ~~`.;, then the apace would be available; and that Rraemer Boulevard would provide ideal acceasibility to the freeway, Furthermore, there were other commer- cial projecta - Woolco - being propoaed for the aorthwest corner of ~~ Orangethorpe Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard. In addition, this queation came up quite of~en as to availability of the facility - therefore, it was : necessary to get aome clarification on permitted usea since he did not want to file a petition for each requeat that would have to be conaidered by the = Planning Commiasion. Commissioner Seymour note3 that aince Code required filing of a petition for *'. consideration by the Planning Commisaion each time a different uae was propose3, and the petitioner indicated he was not deairous of having to ~ ~.., ~ . ' ;~ - . . 5 . 4 ... ` . ~ , , . ~ ! ~ ,,.- . .•~,,,..: ~_) ~ ~ i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING~'CbMMISSION, Janusiy 11, 1971 71-24 CONDITIONAL USE - take this route - he as a Commissionex would a3so PERMIT N0. 1218 have the same problem since he would not know what (Continued) commercial and industrial uaes meant, and these could be interpreted according to whatever anyone wanted them to be. Mr. Yoder inquired what was the intent of the M-1 Zone that related to uses l~e proposed. Assistant City Attorney John Dawaon stated that this portion of the M-1 Zone was for the protection of the zone. . ,:~; ' r`~°' Comm3ssioner Seymour further noted that he was not o uae - in fact, was in favor of it, but he wanted to knoweexactlyewhatPtype H~ of busineas would be proposed and did not want to give blanket approval - ~~ therefore, until these proposed uses were labeled, he would be opposed to ~i the request. Mr. Yoder then inquired whether the Commisaion wanted a list of apecific 1' uaes, and if so, he would atate only those uses permitted in the M-1 Zoae. Commiseioner Faraao noted it was not a matter of liating the usea but a • matter of the petitioner submitting a specific set of plana for the use proposed so that the Commission could make an evaluation that the proposed uae was a supporting businesa. Furthermore, when the Commission considered the Kilroy Corporation request for a miniature golf courae, considerable discuasion was held by the Commission as to what constituted a supporting use. Thus, the proposed request if approved would be a blank check, so to speak, even though the petitioner might not plan or ask the Commission to ~i approve any type of use which he felt was a aupporting use in the M-1 Zone. 'i1 However, the Commission could only approve a variance or conditional use ,_',j permit on a specific plan presented. 1 Mr. Yoder noted there was coneiderable competition with other cities around :~ Orange County, such as in Orange aad Santa Ana, where they permitted offices ,::i in the M-1 Zone, and in Santa Ana their city ordinance permitted commercial ~,;f uses in the M-1 Zone - for instance, he had a rEquest from en engineering ~, firm intereated in locating on aubject properCy, but they located in Orange ~ in their M-1 2one. Then the queation came up as to timing, and any pro- '`1 spective tenant would be "long gone" before he could have a use approved through regular channels in the City of Anaheim. `i :;~: Coamiesioner Allred then reviewed the request as it pertained to Code in which service busineasea were permitted in the industrial area but which `~ primarily aerved commerce and industry - however~ no retail sales were ~E`% peraitted. Mr. Dawaon noted that under a conditional uae permit a specific use would be permitted which would be aubject to conditiona. Therefore, it would be very doubtful, in hie mind, that the Commisaion could approve generalizations of uaea - but the Commiseion could approve a apecific uae or uaes for a - epecific piece of property. Therefore, he would auggeat that the petitioner could take his request off of the Commiasion's calendar until such time as he had a specific uae under consideration~ and then thia would be advertiaed at the next public hearing for Commieaion coasideration. ;; Mr. Roberts noted that the Planning Commission had directed etaff to start studies to establiah criteria of the types of aupport induatriea which should be allowed in the M-1 Zone, and that it was aesumed that ataff would ~ have theae readq for the Commisaion within the next four to aix weeka. ',; `•::.;, Mr. Yoder then noted that aince he had no apecific potential tenant in mind and aince the ataff was making atudies on the criteria for permitted uses in the M-1 Zone that were of a aupportive nature, he would requeat that sub~ect petition be continued until after the Commisaion had made a deter- ~, mination of these supportive uaea. ~ CommissioQer Gauer offered a motion to continue Petition for Conditional Uae Permit No. ].218 to the meeting of March 8, 1971, in order that etaff might `~;~ complete their etudiea regarding the criteria for aupportive uses permitted in the M-1 Zone. Commisaioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED, ~t "' i ,€~. ',- ..~_ -. --~. . - ~, -~e .,~~~ ~r ,t~ ~ ' ^i ` _ . ~ ~ ~-.~ ~ i ) MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 11, 1971 71-25 VARIANCE N0. 2225 - PUBLI~ HEARING, LEO GOGERTY, 1311 Cliff Drive, Newport Beach, California, Owner; VINCE MILAZZO, 626 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Agent; request- ing permiasion to EXPAND AN ERISTING AUTOMOBILE SALES AND SERVICE FACILITY on property deacribed as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 156 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 109 feet, and being located ap~roxi- mately 238 feet south of the centerline of Water Street, and further dea- cribed as 626 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property presently classified C-2, GENERAL COZfMERCIAL, ZONE. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of sub~eat property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action establishing C-2 zoning and Variance No. 1975 which the Planning Commiasion approved in 1968 permitting the expansion of an existing nonconforming use to construct a new automobile showroom; that in September of 1970, the petitioner presented plans ta add an 8-bay sutonobile repair ahop along the south property line with bays opening to the north - however, staff presented these plans to the Commiasion to determine whether the proposed expansion could be approved administratively without processing a new variance, however, at that meeting the Commission expxesaed concexn regarding possible additional noise which might result from such a use and further determined that a new public hearing would have to be held as the proposed expaneion was of sufficient magnitude to require the procesaing of a new variance - therefore, the petition before the Commiaeion was as they had suggested. Mr. Vince Milazzo, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that he had preaented these plana previously to the Commisaion, and that he had contacted a number of property owners regarding the proposed use and apparently had received no ob~ections to it. The Commiasion iaquired whether ar not there would be any openings along the alley in the rear; whereupon Mr. Milazzo replied that.thia would be a solid wall having no accesa to or from the alley. • • No one appeared in oppoaition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC71-4 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2225, aubject to conditions, with the'added~~donditiori"that aub~ect property ahall be developed substaa- tially f.n gCCO~dand~ with plane and-~cificationa on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No. 1. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer~ Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. VARIANCE N0. 2226 - PUBLIC HEARING. MAYER CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., 8020 East ~' Second Street, Downey, California, Owner; RENNETH E. ~ SARVAR, 2840 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, I Agent; requesting WAIVER OF REQUIREMENT THAT PARKING BE LOCATED BEHIND A "i!' RESILENTIAL STRUCTURE TO PERMIT PARRING IN THE REQUIRED FRONT LANDSCAPED ;:I; SETBACK on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land ? having a frontage of approximately 74 feet on the south side of Lincoln '-- Avenue, having a maximum de th of a P pproximately 200 feet, and being located ;;~ approximately 654 feet west of the centerline of Dale Avenue, and further deacribed as 2846 Weat Lincoln~ Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE (C-1 PENDING). ~ Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberta reviewed the locatioa of aubject property, '~ uses established in cloae proximity, previous zoning action whicl: established a resolution of intent to C-1 for aub~ect property, and the proposal to utilize an existiag aingle-family residenYial home as an office, providing seven parking apaces ia the front landscaped area, whereas Code would require ~ the existing front landacaping be maintained and all arkin ~ rear of the structure. Therefore the P 8 Provided to the , , queation which the Commiasion would r . `.t;+r:r~:.._:~. . _. ` ! _a . , a ~ ~ - --I-- ' - I . ~ / ___~ f ~ ._._. _.. . . .... . ...__. \ ~ _"_" ~~- ~ ~"~ ___ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 11, 1971 71-26 VARIANCE N0. 2226 - have to answer was whether the manuer in which the (Continued) property was proposed to be used would be a ppropriate. before the Commiasionrandenoted thatahe haant for the petitioner, appeared four years ago, at which time the City Council~askeddhimshislintentitand he had gone way beyond what the Conncil required him to put in, planting considerable landscaping, and the reason he aas moving his buainess was becau~e of the two and one-half to three million dollar apartment complex to the south of his present property, which would also include the property on which hia businesa was presently located. Therefore, he was planning to re-establish one lot weat of his present establishment and planned to operate in the same manner as he had ia the pr~st; that he proposed to install a decorative wall together with considerable landsca in completed it would be a reprQaentative building whichgheahopedewould9serve the area; that he was planning to wait until the apartment complex was completed before he would attempt to adopt the same motif and have a new facade for the existing building; that he had spent $15,000 at the time he developed the property at 2840 West Lincoln Avenue; that although it appeared to be a house, it was in reality a square building and had the same potential as he had at 2840 Weat Lincoln Avenue; and that he felt there would be no opposition to the propoaed use. Furthermore, it was not his desire to pave the front area where parking was proposed. Commissioner Seymour nated that the petitioner stated he did not want to pave the front area and inquired why. Mr. Sarvak replied that it was his intent to develop a new facade on the building, but he was desirous of waiting until the apartment development was completed so that he would have ,an idea of thp type of facade that would be compatible. Furthermore, it was not his intent to use the facility as living quartera since he had hia home elsewhere;. that the cost of putting in a drive, blacktopping, and eprinkler system would mean a$10,000 outlay alone; and that he was sure the Commission would be satisfied wi*_h his proposal at such time as the new facade was devaioped on the building, since he intended to be at this location for aome time to come. No one appeared in oppoaition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Roberts noted that it was possible the zoning on 2840 West Lincoln Avenue was passed prior to the adoption of the C-0 Zone since the C-1 Zone provided for converaion of existing homes for commercial purposes, and the petitioner's request was to permit parking in the front. However, the structure set back 20 feet deeper in the front than the new building proposed by the petitioner. The Commission inquired of the petitioner whether or not he had a means of access to the property; whereupon Mr. Sarvak atated that he had an easement to enter the property, and that the property would not have a cluttered appearance. Chairman Herbst noted that if the petitioner converted the facade ;~f the building to meet C-1 atandards, he Gould be permitted to have parking in the front setback. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC71-5 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2226, subject to conditions and the stipulation made by the petitioner that a new facade would be pro- vided on the front of the property at such time as the ad~oining apartment complex was completed, based on the fact that the petitioner could have parking in the front setback if the building were developed with this commercial facade. (See Reaolution Book) On roll caI.l the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. -~ ~ ~ I i 1:: - 0 .~b .I _ ~:,~;_;. ~^+~. ,t#;. r i `~ . ~ ~ 1 ;•;, - `:.~ . :~ ,- ~ ~ ~ ~..J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 11, 1971 71_27 VARIANCE N0. 2227 - PUBLIC HEARING. GULF OIL CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA, 1601 Avenue of the Stars, Los Angeles, California, Owner; RAY'S TRAILER SALES, 6767 Long Beach Boulevard, Long Beach, California, Agent; requesting permission to HAVE MOBILEHOME SALES WITH WAIVER OF THE REQUIRED 6-FOOT MASONRY WALL on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a fror.tage of approximately 100 feet on the west aide of Beach Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 225 feet, and being located approximately 230 feet south of the centerline of Ball Road, and further described as 1201 South Beach Boulevard. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NE. Zoning Supervisor Charlea Roberts reviewed the location of sub~ect property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to establish a mobile- home sales lot on aub~ect property with waiver oE the required 6-foot masonry wall; that since subject property was zoned C-1 and the property to the south was zoned R-A, Code would require a 6-foot masonry wall to aeparate the two parcels; that in view of the type of development propoaed on this property, the Commiasion might wish to determine whether some type of fencing or wall would be appropriate on the other property lines as well; that the petitioner was proposing 14 parking spaces to the rear of the property, and a 10-foot landscape strip was proposed along the Beach Boulevard frontage - however, according to the plot plan, all of the property would be asphalt paved; and that aince mobilehome sales lots were not a permitted C-1 use, the question before the Commission was whether or not such a use would be appropriate at this location. Mr. John Barr, 15719 Texaco Avenue, Paramount, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted he was one of the owners of the trailer sales operation; that they had attempted to sell this property for the past aeveral years and since it was ad~acent to a service station the owners had agreed to lease the property to them contingent upon approval by the Commission of the mobilehome sales; that subject property was located several hundred feet north of the boundaries of the City of Stanton where several hundred mobilehome sites were under construction, and this particular construction and general shift of mobilehome purchases was evident - therefore, they were desirous of capitalizing on potential sales to this mobilehome park; that the use would not be permanent - therefore, they were asking that this be considered for a time limit; that the property was preaently undeveloped and was a trash collection area; that they antici- pated having sales up to one mill.ion dollars for the next two to three years; and that they had received the recommended conditions of approval - however, they were not sure on the surface what they were or whether they would be acceptable in terms o€ economics. Mr. Barr, in response to Commission questioning, stated that they could live • with a three to four-year time limitation for the use UY the property, and that he was not sure the Commission was familiar with the market since it seemed to movc uaually where parks were being bu31t. The Commisaion then inquired whether or not the petitioner could comply with the C-1 site development atandards which included a wall along the south property line. Mr. Bar.r replied that there were no developments adjacent to the property except for the aervice atation. '~ . , ;:~ Chairman Herbat noted that he had viewed a number of these mo'oilehome sales facilities in Garden Grove, and if this were the petitioner's intent to develop in a similar manner, he would not be able to vote in favor o£ the `' proposed use aince he felt the use should be enclosed at least on the south ~ side. Mr. Roberta noted that since this was not one of the uses permitted by right in the C-1 Zone, and aince there would be no additional landscaping provi- aions required for this type of use, the Commiesion might desire to have ` landacaping in the interior around the display unit, and that a landscaping plan could be submitted to the Commission for approval, similar to that which the Commiasion approved for the mobilehome sales lot on East Street. ~ Mr. Barr note•d that they indicated 10 feet of landscaping along an 82-foot ~ frontage of aub~ect property, and this was concrete paving with small palm 1 ~ = J .. , ~~ , ~ ~ _ ~~. ~ . ~ f ~ ) ~ {~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Januaty 11, 1971 71-28 i VARIANCE N0. 2227 - treea, a requirement of the service station site; that (Continued) they recognized that they must create an atmosphere to sell tiie trailers - however, he did not know whether a , epecific plan of landscaping woulcl be desirable. ~ The Commission then inquired whether or not the petitioner could provide i 2% landscaping in the interior; whereupon Mr. Barr inquired whether or not this could be movable landscaping since when they moved coaches around, the landscap3ng would have to be relocated. The Commisaion noted that this landscaping could be in the form of develop- ~.'` ment on pada, and that the 2X landscaping should be developed in a manner acceptable to ataff. j~, No one appeared in opposition to sub~ect petition. ~ -~~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. .+~e ' : . ; -:~~ Mr. Roberts noted that the property to the south was zoned R-A and was vacant, and the General Plan indicated this for continuity of commercial uses - however, the type of use proposed on sub~ect property might predicate requiring said masonry wall. Chairman Herbat noted that since this was a nonconforming use in the C-1 Zone and there was a possibility it would remain there for ten years, then the use should be screened from the existing zoning. Commissioner Seymour inquired whether or not it would be appropriate to have the petitioner post a bond until the property to the south developed; whereupon Chairman Herbst noted that trailer sales should be enclosed becauae all of the wheels are generally exposed and storage area would be visible from the street - therefore, this wall would serve a dual purpose of screening an undesirable appearance as well as providing some forri of protection for the petitioner, and then in reaponse to a question by the petitioner, noted that the wall would have to be stepped down within the front 10-foot setback. Commieaiontr Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-6 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2227, subject to conditions, with the added condition that the site development standards of the C-1 Zone shall be met both as to conatruction of the 6-foot masonry wall along the south property line of sub~ect property and the provision of a minimum of 2% of the display area or interior parking to be landscaped. (See Reaolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst~ Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. BROOKHUP~ST SHOPPING CENTER, 2293 West PERMIT N0. 1220 Ball Road, Anaheim, CaZifornia, Ownez; IMOGENE SALATICH, 142 East Chestnut, Orange, California, Agent; requesting permission to HAVE ON-SALE LIQUOR IN A COCKTAIL LOUNGE on property deacribed as: A rectsngularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximat~ly 22 acres having a frontage of approximately 1,265 feet on the north side of Ball Road and approximately 610 feet on the west side of Brookhurst Street, and further describe3 as 2221 West Ball Road. Property presently classified C-l, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Zoning Supervisor Charlea Roberts reviewed the location of sub3ect progerty, uses establiahed in close proximity, previous zoning action on the pr.operty, and noted that Cenditional Use Permit No. 982 permitted on-sale liquor in the same building where the propoaed cocktail lounge was to be established - however, the liquor operation was conducted as an accessory activity to an existing restaurant to the east formerly in existence - however, the present restaurant was now the "Humpty Dumpty F.gg Restaurant", and it was staff's under~ standing that-the cocktail ~ounge would no longer be operated as a combined unit - therefore, this use would become a primary use and no longer qualified w ~s ' ;` ` ( -/ \J 1. ~, _J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 11, 1971 71_29 CONDITIONAL USE - under the previous conditional uae permit; and that the PERMIT N0. 1220 petitioner was proposing to develop the 20 x 44-foot (Continued) store as a cocktail lounge having a piano bar and a number of bootha, but no facilities for food preparatton were proposed - therefore, the primary question before the Commission was whether the proposed use of the property as a cocktail lounge was appropriate. Mrs. Imogene Salatich, the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commiasion and noted that aince they were not proposing to have food facili- ties in the exiating operation due to the fact that there were no cooking facilities, the "48" type license was requested of the ARC. Commisaioner Raywood inquired t•hether or not there was an area where one could broil his own ateak. , ~, Mrs. Salatich replied that there vas a cooking operation, but this was being utilized by the Humpty Dumpty facilities and was formerly used by The Cookery. Therefore, there was a complete separati.on between the existing Humpty Dumpty facilities and this proposed cocktail lounge. Commissioner Seymour noted that prior to the Humpty Dumpty operation, the bar was in operation using ~oint kitchen facilities, End that he could recall having visited The Cookery, but he aould not recall being in the joint facility - therefore, the usea could have a hallwag between the two uses. Mra. Salatich replied that there was a hall in the back, and it was not the ' normal type restaurant-bar facility. ~i ,,~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. I ~, '~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. `~ The Commission noted that the type of license applied for permitted only 'i adulte 21 yeara of age and over, and that a new conditional use permit was ! necessary to permit on-sale liquor. 'I ?; Commiasioner Allred offered Reaolution No. PC71-7 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Uae Permit No. 1220, limiting '~ the use to adulta over the a e of 21 ~~ 8 years and aub~ect to conditions. (See Reaolution Book) . ~ On roll call the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Kaywood, Seymour. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING N0. 70-71-26 COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; propoaing to reclassify property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxi- mately 262.48 acrea located aouth of Santa Ana Canyon Road and having frontage~ on the east and wast aidea of Walnut Cany~n Road, and further describad as the Walnut Canyon Annexation from the COUNTY A1, GENERAL AGRICU':.TURAL DISTRICT ta the CITY OF ANAHEIM R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the property under consideration for reclasaification consisted of the proposed golf course and was a portion of the Nohl Ranch area, and that the reclassification would establish City of Anaaeim zoning at the time of annexation to the City of Anaheim. No one appeared in opposition tfl sub~ect petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commiasioner Gauer offered Reaolution No. PC71-8 and moved for its passage and adoptioa to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- fication No. 71-71-26 be approved unconditionally, eatabliahing R-A zoning on the property at the time the property was to annex into the City. (See Resolution Book) ~ 1 4_~ .- ~ '- . . . , ~~ _ .. . :~?:' t _ . y ' d ; ~ , ~J ~ M~NUTES, CITY PLAH:IING COMMISSION, January 11, 1971 71-30 RECLASSIFICATION -, On roll call the foregoing reaolution was passed by the N0. 70-71-26 following vote: (Coatinued) • AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. -..,~_ RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING N0. 70-71-27 COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; ?'~ ` r' propoaing that property described as: An irregularly- `~ ehaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 11.5 ~.~ acres at the northeast corner of Howell and Katella Avenues, having a frontage i; ~: of approximately 765 feet on the north aide of Howell Avenue and having a ~ w~ maxim-im depth of approximately 1,070 feet be reclassified from the COUNTY A1, N AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT to the CITY OF ANAHEIM R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of sub,ject property, ~ uses establiahed in close proximity, and the proposal to eatablish R-A zoning on subJect property pending annexation to the City of Anaheim. No one appeared in opposition to sub3ect petition. THE $EARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Farano offered Reaolution No. PC71-9 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- fication No. 70-71-27 be approved unconditionally, establiahing R-A zoning for the property at such time as it was annexed into the City. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano~ Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. ";~ NOES: COMMIS.SIONExS: None. } ABSENT: COI~IiISSIONE~S: None. { G ~ ; ,;s~~ 1 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING •; N0. 70-71-28 COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; _ propoaing that property descr.ibed ae: ~,n irregularly- ehaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 11,5 acres at the northeast corner of Howell and Katella Avenues, having a frontage ~ of approximately 765 feet on the north aide of Howell Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 1,070 feet, be reclassified from the COUNTY A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT to the CITY OF ANAHEIPi PS-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZOHE. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the locatia~ of aubject property, uses established in close proximity, noting that the proposed zoning would establish a reaolution of inteat oa the property previously considered for R-A zoniag aince it wae located in the Southeast Induatrial Area; that the ro ose p d Sunkiat St P r eet ali nment would 8 run along the weaterly boundary of subject property; that the property would be biaected by the proposed ,, Sinclair Street, a local industrial street, which would zventually extend ~. ', from Howell to Cerritos Avenue; and that the recommended conditiona were those generally eatabliahed for development of M-1 properties in the City ~, "~ of Anaheim. t. No one appeared in opposition to aub~ect petition. ~. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ Commissioaer F3rano offered Reaolution No. PC71-10 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- _ fication No. 70-71-28 be approved, aubject to conditione. (See Reaolutioa ~` Book) +~ ' On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed•by the following vote: ~ d ._~, ,. , . I _ ~ U. (~ ~ ~.`~ , MIiTUTES, CITY PLANNING CO1~[MISSION, Jaauary 11, 1971 71-31 RECLASSIFICATIpN - AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbat, N0. 70-71-28 Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. !- . (Continued) NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 ' RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMI;' N0, 1152 - Prope~•ty located ~ on the weat side of Staf.e College Boulevard, _ ~ approximately 200 feet north of the centerline of °`~`'" Ball Road - Request for extenaion of time. %~ '`~` Zon~.ng Supervisor Charlea Roberta reviewed the location of subject pro ert uses establiahed in close proximity, and the requeat for a aix-month exteny~ ?~, sion of time for tke completion of conditions to eatablish an encloaed restaurant with waivers of the building setback and minimum landscaping - which had beea approved by the Plaaning Commissioa on January 26, 1970; + ' that one previous six-month extension of time was granted by the Pianning Commiasion on July 27, 1970, which expires January 26, 1971; and that ataff would recommend an additional aix-month extenaion of time, to expire July 26, 1 1971. Commisaioner Rowland offered a motion to grant a six-month extenaion of time for completion of conditiona of Conditional Use Permit No. 1152 granted by the Planaing Comm3aeion on January 26, 1970 in Reaolution No. PC70-6, said time extenaion to expire July 26, 1971. Commiasioner Farano aeconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. -i~ ITEM N0. 2 ~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 70-71-13, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1202, AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT :7 N0. 7288.(yorba), property located on the south :1 side of Santa Ana Canyon Road weat of Imperial j Highway - Requeat for conaideration of revised `,•~ plana. ~-~ Zoning Supervisor Charlea xoberts presented revised plans for the proposed i development of the property being considered uader Reclasaification No. ' ~ 70-71-13~ Conditional Uae Permit No. 1202, and Tentative Map of Tract No. 728g,! :~ reviewing the location of the property, existing zoning on the property, •-.; and the previoua Planning Commiasion and City Council action on said ;' petitions, in~icatin~ that the City Council had granted a re-hearing '°' on the basis that the applicant had indicated he had misunderstood ±he `~ Council'R queation aa to whether or not plans could be reviaed. ,~ Mr. Roberts then reviewed previous plans which the Planning Commission and ~ City Council had considered in their disapproval action, wherein the orig- _ inal plans propoaed a total of 592 dwelling units or approximately 5.4 dwelling unita per gross acre, and developiag three different areas, two of which would have 410 townhouses, and the third to be developed with single family honea having an approximate 3.5 dwelling unita per acre. Mr. Roberta then reviewed the revised plaas, noting there would be a total of 505 units; that the weaterly half of the pro~ect - 51.3 acres - would be developed with sin~le-family units at a density of approximately 3.4 I dwelling unito per grose acre on lots ranging in size from 5000 to 10,000 square feet - the larger lota proposed to be located along the westerly ' boundary ad~aceat to the exiating single-family subdivision. The center ~~, section was now proresed to be used as a 9-hole, commercial "pitch and :`. putt" golf course, open to the public; said golf course consisting of c'~ approximately 9.1 acres, and the remaining 6.6 acres would be left in ~ , slopes. Townhouse area A consiated of a ~ pproximately 27,g acres on which it was propoaed to establish 193 units or approximately six units Per groas acre, and Townhouse area B, located along Imperial Highway, ~'_` would consist of approximately 15 acres and was proposed to be developed at 9.4 dwelling unita per gross acre. ; Mr. Roberta in evaluating the proposed revised plans noted that the ~ primary change was that a"pitcF_ and putt" golf course was now being ;~ proposed in the center of the development where the topography is most severe; and that the overall density of the 110 acres was now approxi- mately 4.6 dwelling unita per gross acre - a decrease from the 5.4 originally proposed, but atill substantially higher than the overall ` 1:~~ ~:; . , ~ .. , . _ ~~_ . . .. Y W . _..~, . ., ~,. _ } ~~ . _. T~. ~~.___.=_....~ ~ . , _ _ _ . . ~ .. . . ......._ ~. -:. . ,. . . _ ` _ . ~ _y . . _ I . . ~ I ~ i 1 / ~.~` ( ~_ i ~~ MINUTES, CITY.PLAlfNING COHMISSION, January 11, 1971 71-32 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Conti,^..ued) - ITEM N0. 2 (Continued) 2.7 envisioned by the General Plan for the hill and canyon area. Mr. Roberts further noted there appeared to be two ma~or land use issuea to consider; first, and pezhaps foremoat, the matter of environment, and how the propoaed density might affect the environment that was desired for the area; tha.t.the Planning Commiasion aad City Couacil were faced with making.a decision aa to whether the propoaed density of 4.6 dwelling units per gror• acre would be complementary to the type of development that was envisioned by the City Council and the people who siready lived in the area; and aecondly, was the matter of the proposed golf courae - a commercial facility - would this facility be an asset to the area or would it have a detrisental effect upon the community? In determining wheth-er or.not the golf courae would be an appropriate use in this area, a point to be considered was the fact that if the golf course failed, would the developers come back at a later date and request s;.dditional housing unita in this caayon and thereby further increase the density of the total pro~ect. Furthermore~ this proposal deleted a street which the Traffic En~ineer felt was neceasary to connect this pro~ect through the canyon to Nohl ~anch Road.'.••: ~ • .~:•. :. In concluaion, Mr. Roberta noted that in diacuasion held between the Planning Commission and the applicant on October 5, 1970, there was some talk about eetablishing a mfinimum pad size of 7200 square feet for the single-fa~ily reaidential a:ea, and at that meeting, the applicant ' seemed to be ia agreement, however, at the October 19th meeting, he ~ indicated he was not intereated in developing in this manner. However, ; if the single-family lot pads now propoaed for 5000 square feet would ; range in aize from 7200 aquare feet to 10,000 aquare feet, approximately 135 lots could be developed rath'er::than'the 171 eow proposed, and ~ with auch a chan~e to the resent .;~ P proposal, the denaity of the entire ,` pro~ect would be approximately 4.2 units per gross acre. Therefore, ~ if thie density reduction were made, the question still to be anawered _::i was whether the propoaed denaity would yield the type of development - that vas deoirad tiq the community. The Commio~ion inquired ae to the extent of deviation that exiated on the propoaal froa that which the Commissio;7 had establiahed when !i the Scenic Corridor Overlay (SC) Zone was recommended for approval. Mr. Roberts replie~ that the propoaed (SC) 2one would require a 50-foot ~ building setback along Imperial Highway, and a 75-foot building aetback along Santa Ana Canyon Road, however, the townhousea along Imperial Highway would be the only deviation from the proposed standard as it pertained to the R-2, aad the single family homes backing onto Santa Aaa Canyon Road would have to set back 75 feet. Commiasioner Gauer noted that the Commisaion had not yet determined whether _ some relief ahould be Yranted along Santa Ana Canyon Road, however, this , proposal was quite a deviation from the proposed (SC) 2one, therefore, he could not aee how the Commission could consider reviaed plaas without a public hearing, , '~ Chairman•Herbat noted that in action taken an two.other reclasaification petitions earlier, ?-1 zoning was recommended, which was in the vicinity of 4.2 units per acre, and what was now being attempted was to relate , this proposal to the 2.7 dwelling units for the hill and canyon area _ however, with the previous reclassification petitions, development was required to be in accordance with the (SC) Zone, and the density proposed on sub~ect property was gradually reaching a more acceptable level. Furthermore:,.if.the petitioner would develop the lots proposed for 5000 square feet with 7200 aquare foot pads, thereby reducing the density ; to 4.2 units per acre, the proposal might be more acceptable. Mr. Harry Kaisley, attorney for the petitioners, appeared before the - Commisaion and noted that all the argumenta had been presented at public * hearinga before, and the proposal was for cluster houaing-condominiums, ~ keeping the ownerahip of Che hillsides in an association rather than attaining higher denaity; that the same density could be obtained by { developing the property for R-1 by the cut and fill method; that the i. ~..~ i i k ;, '. ~ _. ~~'± :_:, ;_ __ ~ ~ i I ~ ~ ~~ • MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 11, 1971 71-33 • REPORTS ANA RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 2 (Continued) __. Continued lot lines would then extend to the bottom of the •~ canyon and hills; and that the properties to the west might have 10,000 • square foot lots, but the buildable a;rea was only 6,000 to 7000-square foot pads. Commissioner Gauer noted that the Commiasion had set up certain standards aad setbacka and had denied R-2-5000 for the properties north of the ' ~' river; aad that if the proposed plans were approved an undesirable precedent `~A~: .•:~~ could be set for the entire canyon area. ~ 3 ~ ~' Mr. Knisely.advised the Commission that there were several things which s' i were not cnnsidered by staff in their evaluation, and that was the fact A~ that Imperial Highway had been chaaged from a four-lane to a six-lane ~ '~ highway; that.the petitioner was proposing a berm and landscaping along Imperial Aighway together with the fact that only one-story units were prouosed along Imperial; that a 12-foot median strip was preposed on ~ Imperial Highway, which would not be of benefit fos the proposed develop- - ment, but would be necessary and beneficial for the property further up the canyon; and that if Nohl Ranch were ever to develop it would have to start somewhere - why not with sub~ect property. Commissioner Gauer noted that if the plans before the Commission were approved - conaidering the fact that many people had appeared at public hearinga before both bodies, ann the (SC) Zone had been recommended for adoption - without giving any consideration to the other people, this would be a subterfuge without the Commiasion having a public hearing to allow the ~i ad~oining residenta an opportunity to express opinions. ~ Commiaeioner Farano noted that the Commission had just received the report from staff prior to the end of the review session - that all the time _j the Commisaion had apent at previous public hearings, by considering these '~ plans without adequate review such as at a public hearing, did not do ;~ justice to the Commiasion or other property owners; that during the previous -j public.heariags, the Commiasion had discussed the possibility of reducing =' the lot-,size, but not less than 7200 square feet, however, the developer ~i would not agree to that limitation; that he was only willing to consider that size bec~uae of the density of the townhouse area - and because ~ it was one of ~he bast developmeuts which had been proposed; that if . ~ the City could hold another area to a denaity of 2.7 units per gross acre, why should ttia. Commission give preferential consideration to tbis ~ proposal; that he would agree that the density around the shopping center , '~ could be very high, even as high as Commissioner Rowland had suggested ranging from 18-25 unita pe;r acre, with the balance of the area developed for aingle family residential use; and that he did not want to see townhouses except around the ahopping center proposed. Mr. Knisely noted that the Commission kept talking about the deasity in only certain areas, which was like a number.a game - the City could end up with a higher density than was propoaed, if these individual parcels . assembled were to request individual development. Commieaioner Faraao advised Mr. Knisely that the numbers game was only what the area could atand, and it had been the Commission's recommenda- ~ tion that low density be maintained, even though this did not necessarily mean every acre in the hill and csayon area. Mr. Kniaely noted that one acre, 10,000 square foot lots, R-1, R-2, and garden apartmenta had been indicated, but he could not find anywhere in the Code book where a density of 2.7 unita per acre was projected for the canyon area to Corona. Thus if one combiaed multiple family with single family having only a 4.6 uait per gross acre denaity, one could not get any lower. * .,~c Chairman Herbst in~uired if the golf course would be open to the public, would it still be a part of the CC6RS, if the golf courae failed then the City should require that the denaity established originally on the property be maintained, regardleas of whether the property was retained by the developers or sold to so:aeone elae. i; - d _a 1 .. , i ~ ___ , . r . _._------------- __ _ _ __ _----- . __. --- _ ,~,.~ _ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~~ l~ ~ MINUTES ~ , , CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 11, 1971 ~ 71-34 ; REPORTS AND. ~ ~ RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 2(Continued) ` ; i , __ • I (Continued) ~ Mr. Kniaely stated that the Developers-Cal Prop would . retain ownership of the golf course. Also, when the City Council granted . I a re-hearing.several weeks ago, it took two to three weeks before the ~ plans were presented to staff for review, aad economics was one of the i items that was considered. Then, in respcase to a questioa by the Commission,' as to whether or not.the golf course area would be maintained as an open ! area in the future,stated that the Commission should consider the petitioner- ~- ~ developers with whom"the~City was dealing. y:t,'..:,,.: ~ ~ ~S . ~ Commissioner Kaywood noted that the petitioners had mentioned the setback ~ ,, on Imperial Highway was to be 20 feet and the 50-faot setback established ~'7' f in the (SC) Zone was not needed by sub~ect ro ' some-one e~aea benefit - but if anyone had everPlived ontawbusy highway, ~' they would be aware of the need for a greater setback. Mr. Knisely replied that this was the purpose of the landscaped berm, i ~ and then inquired what was being accomplished as to number of feet of i a setback in the (SC) Zone, aince they were also providing additional lanes. ~ I Commissioner Kaywood stated there was quite a difference between a 2p- and a 50•-foot aetback. ~ . CommissiAner Rowland aoted that when the alope analysis wae~ prepared ~ on the hiil and canyon area, it was done in a very detailed, encompassing manner; that.he had seen aome of th~ original data of the slope analysis , wherein varying values were given to various areas, and inquired whether or not that data was atill available. - `i ~ '.~~ Assistant Development Servicea Director Ronald Thompson noted that on ~ ~ the orig3nal 8111 and Canyon General Plan, where level terrain was indicated, ? -) higher denaity was also proposed. -'-~ Commissioner Rowland stated he was discussing the original material from ~ which the final draft was developed - it might be necessary to resurrect `~ that original documentation. . ;-:; ., Mr, Knieely noted that photographs and figures in the Hill and Canyon ,,+; General Plan were in reference to the Ben Yorba property. Commiasioner Seymour inquired how could one consider the Yorba property ~ as being relatively flat, other than the area around the center at Imperial Highway - he did not think that was therintent of~PPing the statement in the Plan. Mr. Thompson noted that the hill and canyon area was divided into various planning areas, and sub~ect property is included in a portion of Area - B. A portion of Area B hae relatively flat terrain, therefore this could have a higher denaity. Commissioner Rowland noted that the point he wished to emphasize was based on his personal philosophy for the canyon - if a piece of property ` t~as differen:, and on the basis of the alope analysis, since most of ,') the propertiea •aere in large holdings, then the Commiasion ahould go I through the entire canyon aad apply specific units that would fall within .~ the requirement of the slope analysis - this would be the only proposal ,~` he wonld make aow - if bq tcpography and geography, the ratio arrived ° at was 2.7, then if the plan proposed was exceptional, he would grant F,, a lOX variance which would be eaeily reconcilable, and in that way the Yorba 110-acre eite would be assigned a 3.4 unit density. Furthermore, .the (SC ) Zone would have to be taken into conaideration, and how these unita were developed on the property would be the responsibility of the 'j' developer~ so long ae it.remaiaed within the denaity designated. How~ever, there was always the poasibility that the ad~oining property owner would be allowed to have a greater deneity - but only in this manner of assigning . density by the alope analyeis could the proper denaity be achieved, and * if the City ~auncil could buy ~hat, then everyone would know what was ~ being diacussed when reference was made to an average denaity of 2,7 unita per groae acre. `. i ~:> - . + ::. ~;`'', . ~..<._ , • " ,, - _ `:: 1r ~ :~'`,_,,,a,.,.., "t' _ ~ , - - !~ t _} ~ _ T - ; ~ i , U ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PI:ANNING COMMISSION, January 11, 1971 71-35 REPORTS AND ~ RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 2 (Continued) (Continued) Mr. Knisely indicated Commissioner Rowland's suggestion was great, but what was now documented was somewhat confusing, and property owners and developers relied on this. Commissioner Rowland stated he felt the existing documentation for develop- ment of the hill and canyon was reliable. Mr. Thompson advised the Commi~~ion that Ben Yorba in 1963 had a report prepared by ERA which indicated that the density should be 2.7 units Per gross acre. Mr. Roberts noted for the Commission that a map existed in the department `~r which was prepared as supplemental material _ and canyon area.into smaller areas which had specifichdens[tiestassigned within each planning unit, and it so happened that one of the areas covered sub~ect property, the Yorba homestead, and the shopping area site, and ; the number of units assigned to that area was around the 360-unit figure, ~ which had been previously referred to. e` `;~ ~t ':I ~ .~c Commissioner Rowland noted that in all fairness to the people living there, if the Commission was to give any credence,this supporting document was needed, since he felt staff did not "pull this figure out of a hat" and some mathmatical equivalent was used to arrive at the density figure quoted. • Zir. Knisely noted that the Commission was talking about numbers again, and when that was done .then planning should be done with computers not ~sople since numbers meant something to different people. What looked good in flying topogr~aphy would be what you would be placing on the land, and what cou13 be obtainzd from a piece of land • these were all factors that were Eaken into consideration in the economics of a pro~ect. However, when one allow'ed a magical number of dwelling units then one could expect urban sprawl~. Commiasione,r Rowland noted this was what the proposed development was - urban sprawl, and one would then get into the definition of semantics. Mr. James Meyer, representing the developer, appeared before the Commission and inquired why the Commission and Council kept saying this was one of the best developments they had every aeen, yet they were not approving the density; that contrary to common belief, sub~ect property was under several ownerships, and was only preaented in this petition as one parcel of property because there were seven owners - sorne related by marrriage and othera not - and this proposal was a sincere effort to develop a tough piece of property; tiiat the development of sub3ect property under the R-H, 10000 Zone would allow them 3.3 units per acre, and since they were only proposing 4.6 unite the same as was permitted under an R-1 Zone, he would prefer to develop as proposed, since they would lose control of the property otherwtse. Commisaioner Kaywood :u noted thaL if the 6+ units per acre were approved for a portion, it was ..hen possible to expect this same density could be requested for the proposed R-1. Dir. Meyer asked that the Commissiori consider the developer and what he had developed in the past - his integrity - had they been doing what they said they would do, or were they playing games. Commissioner Kaywood noted that the Planning Commission had recommended low density in their recommendation for approval of GPA No. 122, that the Commission had also adopted the (SC) Zone; and predicated on that had denied R-2-5000 zoning for the properties on the north side of the river recommending that the property be developed for R-1; therefore, she could not see why the plans as presented, with the major portion of the single family homea proposed foi 5000 square foot lots, aad multiple family density for another 58 acrea wou.~.d be granting the petitioner a special privilege - how could the Commission reverse their previous actions, 3ust because of a developer who might be a more congenial person or what? .; l i i , '~ 1 - • -- ~..) t..~ ~~ ~~ MINUTES, ~CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January .11, 1971 71-36 ~ REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 2 (Continued) (Continued) `- Mr. Meyer noted he did not envy the Commission's , position -.they.were faced with a very difficult task, but since the , Commission was working with a General Plan - which was ~ust that - and yet the Commission must consider approving very specific plana which must fit somewhere within the framework of the General Plan. Mr. Thompaon inquired of Mr. Meyer how would he resolve this in his own ,-..,.,. mind that the.Commisaion might.be approving a specific plan which was ''`° ~~.>.~ 100~ different than the General Plan, since everybody had to come in x::''',~": with a specific plan, if they were also approved in the same context, i , the General Plan would only be about 50,000 people off. ! .+: ~ ~ ~ Mr. Meyer replied.that he would°3ustify it by stating that when one looked - ; at planning, whether through the eyes•.,of a developer, the Planning Commission ~ or the City Council - his Boss spent 19 years in a City Council, as mayor, ~ ~ and on the.Planning Commission - so they had some very heavy detail'ed i experience to lean on. The Commission had to look at each parcel. As ~ 1 a developer,,they did not go out or state they wanted 110 acres in the ° ~ Santa 6na Canyon and draw a circle over.a given area. They looked, re'searched, talked and studied, and then took their chances on a piece ~ of property as being appropriate for the type of housing they thought could be built and sold in that market. As Planning Commissioners, they ~ would have to do that too, just as they in business made personnel and expansion decisions - they did not refer to a book, they looked at the person and had to evaluate each individual situation. Commissioner Farano advised Mr. Meyer that was what the Cosmission was `': attempting to do, then they were told they were trying to pull figures `p i out of the air, rather than saying the area was appropriate for low density '~; i for the entire area. I;,' ;~, Chairman Herbat noted that he had noC received an answer to his question I ' 7j as to the protection and retention of the golf course - the Commiasion ~ could commit that for recreational uae, however, the City Attorney wonld ~_~ have to assist the Commission in documenting that facet. Mr. Meyer replied that they would prefer houses there, but after further '~ economic studies, they felt the golf course would be an added amenity ;,~ in that locatioa; that the course would be a par 3 course, and if the ~ City had proposed a similar one ia the canyon, then this would not have , \, been proposed by them. Chairman Herbat then star.ed there was a definite need for the proposed type of development in the canyon which would be an asset to the com- munity, and the golf courae was "icing on the cake". However, he would prefer that all the single family lot3 and pads now proposed for 5000 square feet be changed to 7200 square feet and that the 10,000 square foot lots along the westerly boundary be retained as proposed, but as to the 5000 square foot lots, after the action taken by Commission earlier - in the day he could not approve the smaller lots; and that he did not feel that R-1 was the answer throughout the canyon. Furthermore, it was more practical to have apartments around a shopping center. ,~f Commissionar Herbst offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that revised plans marked Exhibit No. 1, Revision No. 1, be approved provided, however, that all single family lots presently propoaed at `~. 5000 square feet shall have 7200 square foot pads, that the development shall conform with the Scenic Corridor Overlay (SC) Zone except that ;;;, along Imperial Highway the 20-foot building setback shall be permitted based on the fact that the petitioner was propoaing a berm heavily landscaped and single atory apartments, thereby leasening the possible naise which would come from traffic on that future thoroughfare;that the proposed :~` golf course ahall be maintained in perpetuity as a recreation area, subject ~ to conditions. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. _ Prior to roll call further discussion was held by the Commission summarized *::- as followa: ''~ ~ Commisaiasioner Gauer withdrew his abjection to consideration of the plans on the basis that the City Council had scheduled a public hearing at which time adjoining property owners could expresa their ~ feelinge. ~ .. _ • ~__'-~ ~' ' ' :~~- '`~._ `~__„r,,.'' , i ~._. , - . , +5 d ~ ~ + _ .,. . . :: _ : ' ~ ~ ; . ' ~ I' ' __.._.-_ - --- - -_ _ _..___, ~ ._.~ . . ~~ ~ ~ i i . ` MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 11, 1971 71-37 ~ _ REPORTS AND~ RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 2 (Continued) -.- - (Continued) Commisaioner.Allred felt that there was no logic to permitting development for ~t-1 and still allow the.property easterly to develop for multiple family resideazial use. ` Commissioner Farano agreed:..with Commiasioner Allred's atatement ~ ; -~ ,.,,, noting~futher that he could only agree to heavier density where ' ~ it would aurround the shopping cenier, and not for the acreage ~ ~ o~" ~~' proposed, since ~this ahould all be developed for single family ~ A~ residential uae. Furthermore, he ~auld agree with a lOX increase ~ , ` ia density where a development plan was highlq deairable, but 4 : anything over that would be defeating the action taken by the ~ ~~ Commisaion on the density atudy and the two petitions considered ; earlier. ; Mr. Thompson noted that by requiring all the 5000 square foot lots to ~ ~ be developed as 7200 square foot pads this would reduce the density to ~ 4.23 dwelling units per gross acre for the entire project of 110 acres, i 4 Mr. Roberts inquired whether conditions recommended by staff in the October ~ ' 19, 1970 Report to the Commission would be applicable; whereupon Chairman `:. ,;' Herbst concurred theae conditions should be uaed as amended. Office Engineer Jay Titus inquired what type of berm was proposed along Imperial Highway. ±~ Mr. Meyer replied that a three to four fout high berm was proposed as :,~ well as trees and landscaping. ~~ Commissioner Seymour noted that he was as much in a quandary as the other j Commisaioners, however this was a pl~snned community concept and was very ~ ;#' good, therefore, with the added changes proposed by Commissioner Hesbst ! ~;;~ he would be in favor of the proposal. _, ~ Commissioner Rowland aoted that the Commission's thinking as to permit- j ting the berm and a 20-foot buildiag setback along Imperial Highway was ~ : already eatablishing a precedent and would be in lieu of any setback ;t as required in the (SC) Zone. -.~~;rt ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: . ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. ~ ~ NOES: COMMISSIONE&S: Allred, Farano, Rowland. t ' ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. 1~ ~ ITEM N0. 3 C VARIANCE N0. 2223 (Chester C. Kareon) - Requeat for clarificatioa oa wall requirement - Property ~ located at 2251 Coronet Avenue. ~ ~oning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that at the December 28, 1970, ' ' meeting aubject petition had been conaidered to permit a swimmiag pool ;a ~ extending into the side yard setback, and that one of the conditions of ;: approval required a 6-foot msaonr.y wall, and that the ataff and the ,+ petitioner requeated clarification if it were the intent of the Commiesion ~'.~ to require said wall. „`~ Discusaion was held by the Commisaion, and upon its conclusion, the { Commisslon advised ataff that it was thsir intent to require the 6-foot ~ masonry wall as aet forth in Reaolution No. PC70-230. E ~- ~ 1 ~'. (° , -~ ' < ~. . ; ~ -- r, /< ~ r ~ _ . ~ - • . - ,r ~~.., ` . . _ , _~ Y3tr _ ~ -.I. ' - . . . " ~.t . .~~ ~ ~ .. . ~, ... . ~ . . . ~. ,. . . ~ • .'~ : ~~..~ _~_~..~~ '~~ . . , / _ ~ !~ . .. . ' . . . . .. . t i. . ~~ . . , ~ _~_..__. ~ / .~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 11, 1971 I 71-38 TEMPORARY'ADJOIIRNMENT - There being no.fnrther business to discusa, ~ ; ~ 6ammissioner,.Allred offered a motion to ad~ourn ^"" the meetiag to January 20, 1971, at 7:00 P.M., ~` ;`t to hold a work session.on the Mobilehome and ~ •'-~ ~ Travel Trailer Park Ordinaace. Commissioner ' Rowland secon3ed the motion. MOTION CARRIED. I ' >. , The meeting adjourned at 7;qp p,M, .~~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ Respectfully submitted a ~a J r T ~~~~/ 1 ~S t ANN KREBS, Se etary ~ Anaheim City Planning Commission ~``. ;';: y` ,r? ,, . . ,:~ s_ ~?: ;?;, _ ..`'a! ~• .: , ~..., l'. ~ t . i - ..' * , ;~ ~ , ~j ~ I ~ ,~ ;~-"~'. F ~` ~.~y . ~.~a<.:,: ~_ '•S - ~~ ~~_ :.~ , r ' , , . { ,, .. ~ . ~~ ~ _ : w ~ , ~ . ~ k yi,. : ~~ ~ .. ti ' 0 a ! -4, ~ 1F ', a r n~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~~7i : ~~ ~ ~ ~ i . .. ' ~ n~ a r _ ` ' ~ ' ~ ; ~ _ . 7 . a . 4t~ y ' ' ~ n ~ ' .r ~ , , y ~, ~ ~ , ~ r ~~ ^ s. .;; ui r 2 ~- ' '~ } ~ ~ i ~ :' cs ~ ~ . . ~ i A. t ~ .,?~.' F~ ~ . , . - . , : P .. i~. i. t ~ `..k ' ' .. * . .. ~ -+~~_ .~~,~ ~ ' ~" '