Loading...
Minutes-PC 1971/02/22_. _ _- , . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ City Hall Anaheim, California February 22, 1971 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE AA.LHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commiesion _ . was called to order by Chairman pro tem Farano at 2:00 -"' ~ P•M., a quorum being present. ,„,.. ,. :•''=~"'"t~ ~ ~ ~ PRESENT - CHAIRMAN pro tem: Farano. ~ : , - COMMISSIONERS: •Allred , Gauer Ka wood . y , Rowland, Seymour. t: ~= ',, ;; ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. PRESENT - Asaistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson ~:, . Deputy City Attoraey: Frank Lowry Office Engineer: Jay Titus Zoning Supervisor': Charles Roberts Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Malcolm Slaugtater ~Y F~ Asaociate Planner: Don McDaniel Assistant Planner: John Graichen ~;~ Commiasion Secretary: Ann Krebs ~" PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Raywood led in the Pledge of Allegiance to ,, ;1: ALLEGIANCE the Flag. ~ APPROVAL OF - Minutea o£ the meetings of February 2 and 8, 1971 were i , THE MINUTES deferred to the meeting of March 8, 1971. +; : e ;`' ` r; .~fi'~'~ ~'~l 4'"' :'t~: : I~f ~ l:, i;'~ .~'~. ~, ~ ~; i `X_;: R~:~'~`~ ~ . VARIANCE N0. 2142 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. GERALDINE E. ROTH, ET AL, P. 0. Box R, Placentia, California, Owners; JEFFREY H. TENTATIVE MAP OF MILLETT, 1303 West Valencia, Fullerton, California, TRACT N0. 7137, Agent; property described as: An irregularly-shaped REVISION N0. 1 garcel of land consistinR of approximately 90 acres having a frontage of approximately 3,780 feet on the south side of Esperanza Road, having a maximum depth of approximatelq 2,200 feet, and being located approximately 2,800 feet east of the centerline of Imperial Highway, Property presently classified COUNTY A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OP MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT WIDTH TO ESTABLISH A 451-LOT~ SINGLE-FAMILY SDBDIVISION. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: DEVELOPER: SCHMID DEVELOPMENT, INC., 2949 Randolph, Costa Mesa, California. ENGINEER: MILLET, KING & ASSOCIATES, 1303 West Vale:~cia, Fullerton, California. 451 R-2-5000 proposed zoned lots. Sub3ect petition and tract map were continued from the meetings of December f4, 1970 and January 11, 1971, at the request of the petitioner. Zoning Supervisor Charlea Roberte advised the Commission that a letter had been submitted by the petitioner-developer requesting that sub3ect petition and tract be removed from the agenda until such time as they were able to finalize the tract redesign incorporating the Scenic Corridor Overlay recommendations. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to remove Petition for Variance No. 2142 and Teatative Map of Tract No. 7137, Revision No. 1, from the agenda, to be readnertised at the expense of the petitioner at such time as a finalized tract redesiga was completed. Commieaioner Kaywood aeconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. . 71-78 ~ ' ~ ~ , ~ / -y1 ` . /." MINUTES, C TY PLANNYNG COMMISSION, Febsuary 22, 1971 71`%9 CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. DONALD H. YODER, 17291 Irvine, ~ PERMIT N0. 1218 Suite 107, Tuatin, California, Owner; requesting .' permisaion to ESTABLISH RETAIL AND SE&VICE BUSINESS FIRMS PRIMARILY SERVING COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY WITH ONLY INCIDENTAL SERVICE TO TflE GENERAL PUBLIC IN AN E7CISTING INDUSTRIAL _ COMPLEX on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land • consisting of approximately 10 acres at the northwest corner of Kraemer •' Boulevard and La Jolla Street, having a frontage of approximate].y 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 Boulenard. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. -~>'~-: Subgect petition was continued from the meetings of December 28, 1970, and ~-.:,.~,'' Jaauary 11, 1971, at the request of the petitionar. ; 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberta reviewed th~~ location of subject property, ,~~ uses established in close proximity and noted that ataff had been working closely with the petitioner ta formulate a more definite proposal, and in - order to present a completed atudy, the petitioner had requested a continu- ance to the Marcii 22 meeting. ~ Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition - for Conditional Use Permit No. 1218 to the meeting of March 22, 1971, at ~ the request of the petitioner to allow time for the completiun of a study. Commissioner Rowlaad seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RE`~.ASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. LAWRENCE W. ALLEN, 525 South N0. 70-71-31 Gilbert Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; MADISON REAL ESTATE, INC., 600 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, VARIANCE N0. 2232 California, Agent; property described as: An irregularly- `^j shaped parcel of land located north and east of the northeast corner of Dale and Lincoln Avenues, having ~ approximate frontages of 499 feet on the east side of Dale Avenue and 150 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified _J C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. :~ ;( REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. ~ REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (1) MAXIMUM PERMITTED BUILDING HEIGHT, (2) MINIMUM SITE AREA PER DWELLING UNIT, AND (3) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, TO PERMIT A ~ TWO AND THREE-STORY, 138-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLE%. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberta reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal which would establish a two and three-story apartment complex on subject property, noting that . aubject petitions were continued from the meeting of Februarq 8, 1971, to allow time for the petitioner to revise plans to incorporate more acreen landscaping adjacent to the single-family homes on the north and to present a line-of-aight plan indicating the height of buildings as they would appear to the single-family homes to the north. Mr. Roberts noted that the zevised plans incorporated approximately 7 to 9 - feet of landscaping adjacent to the open parking area, with some areas being 26 feet deep - one at the eset and west ends of ttne property and one in the center, approximately 16 feet wide - therefore, the Commission would have ~ to determine whether or not the revised plans met the intent of the Commission when sub~ect petitiona were continued for additional landecaping as buffering treatment along the northerly property line and whether or not the coverage and density was appropriate for thie area. ~4 Mrs. Ann Madison, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the developer was glad that the Commission required additional landscaping which was now propoaed at 9 and 7 feet, with 26 feet in three different areas since this now made a better development; that the new design did not create a parking shortage, and the landscaping atrip propoaed would ; protect the properties to the north without turning them into a recreational area with conaiderable noises if this area were developed with a 20-foot atrip of landscaping; that it was pointed out at the last public hearing that the petitioner was proposing a zoe8=ed8toeberno ae~ana forecommercialCpropertyto *` r.esidential because theie app , , F i : ~-____..,m.o.,-- .- ~ + ~ ...._.... ~ `~ ~ :. 4 ; ~ ~,~ .~. , - . !~ _. . . _ ....__'.._..___J"____"__..___...._ ~ MINUTES, Cl~~~ PLANNING COMMISSION, Feb`~ `~ary 22, 1971 71 ,~ RECLASSIFICATION - along Lincoln Avenue; that the petitioner did not want N0. 70-71-31 to develop a strip of commercial along Lincoln Avenue becauae the proposed glsn of development was a much more VARIANCE N0. 2232 desirable one, providing better circulation; that it (Continued) would not be in competition with exiating developmeats becauae this would be a luxury-type development renting from $195 to $285 per month; rhat the availability of good land in Anaheim was fast becoming acarce and land coata had skyrocketed - therefore, thia was the reason for requeating the height waiver b efore the Commission; that the development would be l~::ss dense than commezcial - the zoning on the propertq; that the three atories proposed was lesa dense than other three-story apartment developments throughout the city, and then reviewed the various apartment ccmplexes having three stories; that sub3ect property had atreets on the west and on the south which gave it a more open appearance and which could not be accomplished if theae were interior lots, and these street Eigurea were not included in the comoutation; that there were no windows in the third story which overlooked the R-1 to the north except tliat skylights were propoaed which could'be removed if the Commission so desired, and when t:ie trees grew, there would be little visibility of the pro~ect from the aingle-family homes; and then Mrs. Madison submitted a letter in which the developer agreed to provide a circular drive for the Baucom property to the north along Dale Avenue, which would resolve the opposition presen*_ed by Mr. Baucom at the last public hearing; and tl:at Mr. Baucom had now signed a letter indicating his approval of the.proposed development, provided that all the previously agreed upon stipulations by the developer regarding landscap- ing, bumper guarda, etc., as well as the circular drive, were developed. In addition, the neighbors appeared to be very happy with the proposed development since the architect had done an excellent 3ob in resolving these recommendations made by the adjoining neighbors. Mr. George Pu~dak, architect for the proposed development, appeared before the Commission and noted that most of the unita were two-bedroom apartments having more than 1000 square feet each, and 43X were one-bedroom; that the theme would be Mediterranean; that the tile roofline was broken up, giving an interesting akyline; that the variable aetbacks were proposed, giving some units rather large patios having a garden-like appearance; that the balconies for the aecond and third floora were 7 by 14 feet, allowing for a good outdoor living area; that a number of outdoor recreational facilities were proposed, such as a awimming pool, recreational building with a gym, and a nine-hole putting green; that considerable brick, wrought iron, and wood were proposed to break up the atark appearance of the buildings; and that this would be an asset to the area. Mr. James Magrann, 2770 Yale Avenue, appeared before the Commission and noted that at the last public hearing he had indicated he was in favor of the proposed development, even though they were anly providing a 2-foot landscape area, and now with the 7 to 9-foot area proposed, this would be even better since it would be screening the proposed development as he looked out his rear window; that when the Commission suggested additional landscaping, he felt this would help in combatting exhaust emissions which created smog; and that there would be less traffic from the proposed development than from a commercial development. Mrs, Francis Neville of Madison Real Estate, Inc., appeared before the Commission and stated that she had talked with the owners of two of the • single-family homes at 2774 and 2780 Yale Avenue, the man being a landscaper znd maintenance man at Irvine, who had stated that they planned to move back , into one of the homes and would be glad for the proposed development since the woman could plant rosea again without having the gophers eat them. ~. I A letter was read from an adjoining developer of commercial and multiple- ;~~ faaily development in oppositinn to developing the Lincoln Avenue frontage for other than commercial uses. ` ~,~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Seymour inquired whether or not traffic bumpers were propoaed to slow down traffic on the 634-foot strai htawa g y; whereupon Mrs. Madiscn ~. replied that this was agreed to when the developer signed a private agree- ment with the single-family homeowners, Furthermore, stop signs would be posted at both exits to the street. *~ Commiasioner Seymour then inquired whether or not the green belt propoaed ~ along the north property line was to be trees, grass, or a hedge; whereupon Mrs. Madison replied this would be trees as stipulated to in the agreement, and the trees would not be cypress trees. t - i ~ - .y. . .~ 1 MINUTES, CI1Y PLANNING COMMISSION, Feb~i-dary 22, 197'1 ' 71=~~ RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Farano inquired whether or not the Traffic N0. 70-71-•?1 Engineer saw aay probl~m with having the exit from the proposed development acroas the street from Tyler Avenue; VARIANCE N0. 2232 whereupon Office Engineer Jay Titus repl3.ed that the ' (Continued) Traffic Engineer had reviewed theae plans and did not •~ iadicate there would be any problem aince the exit from the proposed development would be south of Tyler Avenue. Commisaioner Raywood inquired whether or not there would be any~on-street parking on Dale Avenue which could obstruct the view of motoriats; whereupon Mrs. Madison replied this would be something the City would ha•~e to resolve - however, the proposed development was providing adequate parking on-site for all the units. . Commisaioner Gauer offered Reaolution No. PC71-27 and moved for ita passage and adoption to recommend to the City Counc±l approval of Petition for Reclassification No. 70-71-31, sub~ect to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foiegoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. Commiasioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC71-28 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2232, subject to conditiona, '~~ amending Condition No. 2 to require that any final landscaping plans for the area abutting on the north•shall be sub~ect to the approval of the 5uperin- tendent of Parkway Maintenance in order to assure that adequate buffer acreening was provided. (See Resolution Book) j On roll call the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote: ~ AYES: COMMISSI;NERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Rowland. ` ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Kaywood, Seymour. _'~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. ~-i CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. A. N. SKINNER, 1209 West Rimberly Place, ~ PERMIT N0. 1222 Anaheim California Owner• re ueatin `-; > > , q g permiasion to ! ESTABLISH A AUTOMOBILE FRAME AND BODY REPAIR SHOP IN THE M-1 ZaNE on property described as: An irregularly- `; ahaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 150 feet on the north aide of Ball Road, having a maximum depth of approximately 295 feet, and being located approximately 330 feet east of the centerline of Claudina ~`~ Place, and further described as 237 East Ball Road. Property presently classified M-1, L2GHT INDUSTRIAL, 20NE. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberta revie~sed the location of subject property, uaes establiahed in cloae pzoximity, and the proposal to eatablish an auto- mobile frame and body repair shop in an area devoted to industrial usea; that other uses were all of an induatrial nature in thia immediate area; that the petitioner was proposing to utilize approximately 2300 square feet of building apace on the property and to conduct both storage and repairs within ~, the building, some buainess derived from referrals by inaurance compaaies; and that the Commission would have to determine whether or not the propased land use was appropriate, and if so, to condition approval subject to all activities and atorage being conducted indoors. ~t ,~ Mr. A. N. Skinner, the petitioner, indicated his presence to answer questions. , Commissioner Raywood inquired whether or not the proposed use would iacrease the parking needa in the area; whereupon Mr. Skinner replied there would be _ less parking since the proposed operator of the facility would have no employees, and there would be leas parking tnan a regular M-1 operation. Commisaioner Farano inquired whether or not there was a fence which separated ~~ aubject property from the property to the west; whereupon Mr. Skinner replied there was a fence on both the east and west property lines. ` Commisaioner Farano noted that when the Commission inspected the propertq, • there appeared to be considerable equipment from the fork-lift operation ,,~ parked out in the yard, and observed if the proapective operator had very much traffic, he could not aee how this could be handled, and then inquired as to the number of vehiclea that could be accommodated inside the facility; i i _ ._ ~. ~~._. . ' .. _ ,> ., . _. _... ! - / j I ---------- ( !~ l t ) I ~ MINUTES, CI1~~f PLANNING COMMISSION, Feb~ary 22, 1971 71-„E CONDITIONAL USE - whereupon Mr. Skinaer replied that five vehiclea could ' PERMIT N0. 1222 be accommodated, and then, in response to further questions, ~ (Continued) stated that the maximum aould have to be five if there j were no more room availableand all vehiclea were stored "' inside - however, since there would be no office space, there was a possibility. that up to ten vehicles could be accommoda.ted. ~ Commissioner Seymour inquired whether or not the petitioner.would stipulate ; to all storage and work being conducted wholly within the building; whereupon Mr. Skinner replied that he would so stipulace. ~ ; Mr. Skimner noted that he had a receipt which indicated that the street lighta j were paid for, and since this was one of the conditiona of approval, he had discussed this with one of the zoning representatives. ~, After Mr. Roberts had examined the receipt, the Commisaion advised the `~' petitioner that if subject petition were approved and it was determined through records that the street ligfits had been paid, this would be a condition that could be eliminated. Mr. Skinner also inquired about trash storage areas since there was one on ~ the property and twe on the property to the east. Mr. Roberts noted that the Public Works Department had specific requirements for trash collection areas, and if existing trash areas were sufficient, this would be determined by the Sanitation Division of the Public Works Department. . Mr. Skinner further noted that ad~oining businesses had signed his petition indicating they svere not opposed to the proposed use. '-! THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC71-29 and moved for ita passage ~ and adoptioa to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1222, subject .~ to conditions, and the stipulation by the petitioner that all storage and ` activities would be conducted within the building. (See Resolution Book) „j On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: "1 "' AYES: CQMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. '_.::;~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~~'' ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. I>; '?f~ CONDITIONAL lTSE - PUBLIC HEARING. THE SOUTHLAND CORPORATION, P. 0. Box PERMIT N0. 1224 698, La Mesa, California, Owner; TAVAGLIONE CONSTRUCTION 6 DEVELOPMENT, 3405 Arlington Avenue, Riverside, California, . Agent; requesting permission to ESTAB~ISH GASOLINE PUMPS IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PROPOSED FOOD STORE WITAIN 75 FEET C~F RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY on property described as: A rectangularl•-sha ed arcel of ~ P P lan d lo cated at the northeast corner of East Street and Santa Ana Street, having approximate frontages of 171 feet on East Street and 103 feet on Santa Ana Street, and further described as 1201 East Santa Ana Street. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of sub~ect property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on the property, and the proposal to add self-aervice gasoline pum~s to a"Seven-Eleven" Market presently under conatruction; that in evaluating this proposal, a service station- under which the use proposed would be established - ahould be located only at the interaection of ma~or, primary, or secondary arterials ~:. and provided these were not within 75 feet of a residential use or zone - however, a conditional uae permit would have to be approved to allow a service `~'~.: station within 75 feet of residential property; that etrictly apeaking, the proposed use was not a service atation, but it would have many of the a attributes of a aervice station, and similar applications have been considered by the Planaing Commisaion in the past; that diverae commercial uses proposed `~ with this property now would include gasoline pumps, and if approved, such usea could increase the already high level of vacancy rate of existing service stations; and that the Commission would have to determine whether or not the incidental gasoline sales ahould be permitted in aituationa similar to that ~ now proposed, and if so, consideration ahould also be given to an amendment ,~ ' to the Zoning Ordinance. '~ .' _ ~ --.~„ - - T.~.,....~_ - 1 ~. ~ / + ; - ~ I 1 - • . ~ MINUTES, CIT1c"~PLANNING COMMISSION, Febr~u$ry 22, 19'1 71-b.,) ~ • CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. Don Winz, District Manager of the Seven-Eleven Stozes, i PERMIT N0. 1224 1027 EI Camino Drive, Costa Mesa, appeared before the ~ (Continued) Commission and stated he would like to comment on state- ~ ments made in the Report to the Commission regarding .. ~ whether or not this would be detrimental to the area; : I that the drawings presented indicated a very attractive installation; that this could not be compared with service stations since this would be a self- service operation with the customer required to have hia hand on the gasoline pump at all times in order to put the gasoline iato his sutomobile; that the store operator would control the flow of gas on a counter in the store, while at a regular service station the attendant would begin pumping the gas while - 1` checking and completing the general servicea which would indicate lesa super- ,~t;~ ~;;;vision to the proposed operation; that this installation would have a safety . factor from the etandpoint of insurance; tha't they had obtained the approval ~, ~ ~ from the Fire Department; that in reference to the insurance, there would be ~: ~: ~ no increase in their inaurance rates if these pumps were installed since the ~ t insurance company did not consider this a regular service station operation; F and that they were a convenience-type market and service of gasoline would be ~: ~ one of the pluses in this convenience-type operation, and then reviewed the ` operation of the propoaed facility, noting there was a greater safety factor ;; in this operation than in a regular service station. ~ ~ Commissioner Allred inquired whether or not the management of Seven-Eleven ~: Stores planned to have any more of these in operation in the city; whereupon Mr. Winz replied that he could not state at the present time since this was the first in Orange County; and that they did have several in operation with ~:. stores in San Diego, with another proposed in Los Angeles County. Commissioner Gauer noted that the city was experiencing many existing service stations which had been closed - therefore, he could se~ no reason for the :~ proposed operation without establishing an entirely different operation than 1 originally proposed by the City Council; that there were plenty of other ; places in the City of Anaheim where gasoline would be dispenaed without the j problem of having to walk into a store to pay for gasoline; and that the ~ proposed operation was not suitable for the area in which the operation was proposed. Furthermoxe, since it was a convenaence service and only incidental ~~ to the primary use, that the petitioner should limit his operation to the ~ store approved for the property by the City Council; and then inquired of ";~ staff as to the number of service stations presently existing on East Street. :i Mr. Winz replied that they would limit the service to ~ust the pumping of gasoline since no repair work, mechanical or otherwise, was proposed, and if any other service were deaired, the customer would have to go to a regular ; service station. ~~ Commiasioner Seymour inquired whether the operations in San Diego also sold . oil; whereupon Mr. Winz replied that thia was a possibility, but he did not know whether oil was also sold there or not. Commissioner Seymour then inquired whether or not additional signing would be required for the proposed operation, such as banners, flags, A-frame signs, etc.; whereupon Mr. Winz replied that whatever was proposed on the plans was what they intended to have. - Commissioner Farano inquired whether or not some problems might result with other stores proposed in this convenience shopping center; whereupon Mr. Winz , replied he could foresee no problem to the other stores. ~ Commissioner Allred inquired of staff whether or not the signing on the plan was permitted, or would special approval be neceasary. '.. Mr. Roberts replied that thia would be considered a second free-standing sign, and the only way a second free-standing sign would be permitted bq right was ~ if it were located 300 feet from the proposed Seven-Eleven Market sign. Mr. Ted Wedel, 316 South East Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition, noting that many of the residents were looking forward to the ~ Seven-Eleven Market - however, he would be opposed to the service station operation and pumping of gasoline; that many of the neighbors he had talked with also expressed opposition to the gasoline pumping operation proposed since there were many service station operations within one or more blocks, * and he was opposed to it.due to the similar type of uses proposed; and then, ~ in responce to Commission questioning, stated he felt the two uses were not , compatible and would create a rather crow3ed condition at this intersection. ~ ~. MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Febrl~ary 22, 1971 71ta~ • COhDITIONAL USE - Mrs. ~rank Pescopo, 1329 East Santa Ana Street, appeared PERMIT N0. 1224 before the Commission in opposition, noting that they (Con~inued) weze previously opposed to the market at thia intersection; ~ that there were many accidents already at this inter- section, and the proposed uae would add more problems to • an already hazardous intersection; and that• the residential area did not need ,• any more accidents than already had h3ppened at this intersection. Mr. Bob Juatice, 502 South Dawn Street, appeared in opposition and atated that the proposed use wosld create more confuslon and traffic hazards to an intersection that already had four or five ma3or accide.nts; that there were `,,~:.'~ ~~ five gasoline stationa within two blocka at ona time, and now only two were ., ' in operation; and that the need for this type of service was not proven. ~ Mr. Toahio Kuba, 501 Sauth Dawn Street, appeared in opposition and stated ~ 4 ~;; that many of the property owners had appeared in opposition to the Seven- Eleven Market, both before the Commission and City Council, and th~ petition -~ had been sigred by many people in ooposition to reclassification of the ~ property; that he was opposed to •_'he gasoline pump operation because it would ~ ; tend to depreciate the value of hie property; that his property waa on the ~.. corner just oppoaite the proposed site; that he also had checked with ad~oin- i ing property owners who had indicated to him they also were opposed to ~ gasoline pumps in close proximity to residential uses; that the uses approved F were for neighborhood commercial type uses, and if this were permitted to E.' expand, he could see no reason why all those properties to the north would not f be convertad to heavier commercial uses, or that the petitioner would again ~ request a conditionat use persit for a more intense use of the property - therefore, he would request.thec this type of encroachment be d{.scouraged ~ now; that in the review of plar.s, it would appear that the entrance £rom ( East Street would be hazardous since East Street was too narrow to permit E, 1.^~t-turn pockets; and that he could envision many rear-end accidents because _ •• i~ this . i Mr. Roberts adviaed Commissioner Gauer that there were eleven service stations ..j between Lincoln Avenne and the Riverside Freeway, with four of these being '~ closed. ~:j Mr. Winz, in rebuttal, stated it was not their desire to create s problem as ':~ to the type of sales of the etorA and the gasoline pumpe; that this would be an att-€tctive installation and would enhance the area rather than create a proble~n as to property values; that it appeared there was a misunderstanding as to the degree of service station uses that would be permitted here since '~ there would be only gasoline pumps to serve gasoline and no lube racks, repair operation, etc. were proposed as could be found in a regular service ' station; that he only wished the Commission had an opportunitq to visit one of theae operations in the San Diego area to see that there would be no problem created; that there wouxd be no way in which other uaes would be permitted; and that thia was to be coneide-ed only a convenience service, ~ust as the market was a convenience service - furthermore, he was quite familiar with the area since prior to considering the area for a market, this area was thoroughly aurveyed, and iL• was important that there be traffic where a market of this type was located because they derived their businass from passeraby; that although he did not live in the area, he was sure there would . be some type of traffic flow; and that he felt the City, when they approved the reclassification of the property, took int~ consideration the single-family homes and the traffic problems which might be created. ~ Cammissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not the customer wanting gasolinC { would 'be waited on immediately upon driving up to the gasoline pump if the market operator were busy with another customer. Mr. Winz replied that the gasoline pump customer would have t~ wait his turn, as did other customers in the store. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. t The Commission noted that in the past requeats had been presented to them for gasoline pump installationa in carwasttes, drycleaners, etc., and approval of sub~ect petition would compound an already serious vacancy factor of existing ' aervice stations; and thae ayproval of this apecific site would create ~~ additional traffic problems into this area. < , _,.r,,,,~.:: - : . - • . ~s ;.~ 1;~: ~, ~ f I ( i MINUTES, CZ?Y~ PLANNING COMMZSSION, Feb~~ary 22, 1971 71~'~ ~ ~ CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Seymour o~fered Resolution No. PC71-30 ~ PERMIT N0. 1224 and moved for ite passage and adoption to deny Petitian ~ (Continued) for Conditional Use Permit No. 1224 on the basis that . ~ the proposed uae would encourage additional traffic and traffic hazards in the area; that the odors and noises from servicing vehicles with gasoline woul~ adversely affect the sd~oining ' residential uses; that approval of the petition would be granting a privilege to the petitioner which had been denied other petiCioners in, the past when ' two types of separate uses were proposed which included the pumping of _ gasoline; that the vacancy factor of existing service stations was already very high, and to approve thia zequest and others like it would tend to -,„~,,. increase this problem. (See Resolution Rook) ` rr, ``: '' ~~~~ On roll ~all the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: -:~: : AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. ~ ; NOES: COMr1ISSI0NERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. l VARIANCE N0. 2234 - PUBLIC HEARING. DAVID ALANI, 823 South Beach Boulevard, ~~` Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting WAIVER OF PERMITTED ~ USES IN THE R-A ZONE TO PERMIT ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN A PROPOSED RESTAURANT on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.3 acres, having a frontage of approxi- mately 192 feet on the west side of Beach Boulevard, having a maximum depth '~` of approximately 287 feet, and be3ng located approximately 910 feet north of the cer.terTine of Ball Road, and further described as 823 South Beach Boulevard. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to permit on-sale beer and wine in a restaurant in the R-A Zone, noting that the existing motel ~ and a c:offee shop were developed under Variance No. 1229 in 1960; that a buildin~~ permit was issued in 1969 for the conversion of a portion of the motel ; into a co£fee ahop - however, this conversion had not taken place; that the plans proposed to have a restaurant seating 92 persons; and that no bar was proposed since it was the petitioner's intent to only serve beer and wine with meals. Therefore, the Commission would have to determine whether on-sale beer and wine would be appropriate at this location. Mr. David Alani, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the restuurant was an existing one which they proposed to remodel with a medieval decor of London; that the English-type food would be served! and it was proposed to serve beer and wine with the meals as an incidental sale; that the restaurant was formerly operated as a coffee shop - however, he did not open that section of the motel when he purchased the prcperty four years ago; and that approximately $30,000 had been spent on improvements of the inside and an additional $15,000 more was intended to be spent. ,, ~ The Commission then inquired whether or not the sale of beer and wine was ~ to be considered an incidental use to the primary sale of food and that 4 there would be no bar - if so, would he stipulate to that. • Mr. Alani replied he would so stipulate. ~, Commissioner Farano noted there appeared to be some question as ta whether ~' or not the square footage required for food preparation facilities could be met since there was less than 25X of the area being devoted to kitchen fa.•ilities . ' a•. Roberts noted that ataff had not calculated the difference in square footage, but from a cursory examination, there appeared to be between 15~6 and 20% of the floar area devoted to food preparation. Mr. Alani noted there was another area not shown on the plans which was used for storage of food awaiting preparation; that the coffee shop had t been approved by the City with the existing squa.re footage - however, they ' now had this storage area which should be included in the food prepsration area for calculation purposes; and then, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the storage area was "down from the kitchen" where a service ~ door led across the way from the kitchea and was separated by a four-foot .~ passagetiay. ~ Commissioner Farano then noted that there were 83 parking spaces, and it woult'. ctppear there was not sufficient parking. ~ '~-~e+~ .'~ =. -+kw,,~~~ ~~. ,,. r~ ~"^~,...,. i~ . _ :. . iil?.. ~ ..~.. ~ - • ! 1 MINUTES, CIT~PLANNING COMMISSION, Febr~ry 22, 1g71 71_~ VARIANCE N0. 2234 - Mr. Roberts replied that when the motel was originally (Continued) approved with 83 parking spaces, 70 of these were for the motel units and 13 for the restaurant facility - however, ' with the plot plan submitted showing two of the units deleted and were now being used as part of the reataurant, there appeared to be adequate parking. . ' Commissioner Seymour also inquired about the parking; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated that under a general commercial zone 8 spaces per 1,000 wbuld be required - however, s{nce the property was still zoned R-A, then the general parking requirements were applied wherein only 4 spaces per 1,000 were required, and since the petitioner had used two of the units for the restaurant, this would reduce the number of parking spaces needed for motel purposes, and parking would be in conformance with code. ~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred noted that the p2titioner already had a reataurant approved for the property and had reduced the number of motel units in order that the restaurant would be adequate, and that the petitioner in this petition was requesting only approval of on-sale beer and wine, not appzoval of the ~. restaurant. Commissioner Kaywood was of the opinion thrst perhaps a plan should be submitted which indicated the additional area where food storage was propoaed. Mr. Roberts noted that the only changes that were being made were within the walls of the building, and the petitioner could open up the existing coffee shop by right. ' Commissioner Kaywood then inquired of the petitioner whether he proposed to ;~ operate this as a resttaurant and not as a cocktail lounge, and if as a •; restaurant, would he stipulate that this would be a restaurant with incidental -` sale of beer and wine and no cocktail lounge being proposed; whereup~n ;~ Mr. Alani stated that h~ would so stipulate that this would be a restaurant _?1 with the iacidental sale of beer and wine with meals and that no cocktail lounge ;~ was propose.~. ~~:~ Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-31 and moved for its passage ~ and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2234,. sub~ect to conditions, ; and on the finding that the petitioner stipulated this would be a restaurant with incidental on-sale beer and wine, and Chat no cocktail lounge would be r~ located on subject property. (See Resoiution Book) ; On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSZONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. . NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. GENERAL PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAi.'EIM CITY COUNCIL, ,AMENDMENT N0. 123 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, to consider a General Plan amendment for an area comprised of 4,200 , RECLASSIFICATION acres located generally south of the Riverside Freeway N0. 70-71-33 and Santa Ana Canyon Road, east of the Newport Freeway and to consider a reclassification of the property to the ~ R-A Zone at such time that it was annexed to the City of Anaheim. Asaociate Planner pon McDaniel noted for the Planning Commission that dve to ',. the proposal for a very large, totally planned com~unity in the Santa Ana . Canyon by the Grant Corporation on what was formerly known as the Nohl Ranch, '`~ the City Council auggested that a General Plan amendment and reclassification be considered to accommodate the proposed development plan for an area covering spproximately 4,200 acres located generally south of the Riverside Freeway and Santa Aa.: Canyon Road and east of the Newport Freeway; that the specifics ~• of the General Plan would be handled by the Grant Garporation and their planne^s; but staff had reviewed the proposal and staff's findings in terms of the current General Plan in which some of the statements now contained in said Plan were aet forth. (Mr. McDanieZ then reviewed these statements of the ~. General Plan.) .f;c . Mr. McDaniel stated that the area encompaesed by the General Plan amendment differed in one ma~or respect from the proposals for the flatlands because . ~ topography dictated this area wo+sld develop somewhat differently than the , . ._ ;. _ ' . t ,. _.. _. ., ,. _ .. ,_:u.~~„_,,.. . S ' ~ r C . . i / K' ~ ~, I MINUTES, CI' PLANNING COMMISSION, Febi~ry 22, 1971 71e~ 6. ~ GENERAL PLAN - the traditional pattern of urbanization; that the basic AMENDMENT 1~0. 123 ob~ective in planning thia area was to encourage the . I ' development and maiatenance of a residential living I RECLASSIFICATION ennironment which preserved the amenitiea of hillaide , ~ N0. 70-71-33 living; and that this proposal had more potential to ~ (Continued) provide a better living environment and preserve thoae • amenities of the hillaides than a conventional cut and .~ j fill subdivision and, consequently, would be in.conform- ance with the basic objectives of the existing General Plan.~ i • ~ . ~ Mr. McDaniel then noted, F~ith reference to the specifics of the Plar the ~ proposed amendment to the General Plan was basically in conformanc ,ith the •~ -~~. ~ existing Plan; that open space provisions due primarily to topography and ,:,?s:r~. . .~ s; location would achieve the requirements of a standard flatland deve~opment;' '~ that school sites would be provided at the same rate as was currently required; ~ that circulation, although aligned to satiafy this specific proposal, would ':O ~t conform to the basic circulation requirements of the general hill and can on area; that commercial land uses were maintained and would be provided in y _ conformance with the current General Plan; that the reaidential usea and ~- population projections, however, did not cunform completely with the General t Plan since the existing General Plan could not anticipate the variety and ~ ~ styles of residential development that were~ now being proposed; that the u . General Plan anticipated approximately 11,500 units, or 2.7 units per acre, while the proposal by the Grant Corporation was for 15,000, or approximately ~ 3..5 units per gross acre, representing a 23X increase; that the population ~: projection on the General Plan was for approximately 35,000 people, while the ~ proposal before the Commission was for approximately 47,120 people, also representing a 23X increase; and that the proposal, however, would grovide for additional facilities, such as schools, parks, commercial, etc. that would ~ be commensurate with the propoaed increases in density and population. ~ •'Y ~• , Mr. McDaniel, in conclusion, noted that although the proposal before the ~ ` Commission was for an area encompaRSing 4,200 acres north of the Edison ease- i i ment, there was no intention to realign any kind of agreements made•between the Cities of Anaheim and Orange relative to annexation of the property beyond F °~ the ridgeline of the Santa Ana Mountains since approval of the plan encompassed -<:~ only that area north of the ridgeline. ;~ Mr. McDaniel, in response to a queation by Commissioner Rowland, stated that +-~ there currently was an agreement betweea the Cities of Anaheim and Orange ,:~ regarding potential annexation of the property in this vicinity, and approval of this plan would cover areas that were on the other side of the ridgeline while the ridgeline had been determined to be the southerly boundary of ~ the City of Anaheim, anr3 the, approval of this would in no way indicate the ~ City's intention to annex ;:hose propertiea at such time as aanexation was ~`~' proposed. Chairman pro tem F'arano noted that Mr. McDaniel mentioned tltis General Plan amendment was at the request of the City Council and reques,ted that a General " Plan amendment be described so that the public could unders4:and the reason for the p:oposed treatment of such a large portion of land. Mr. McDaniel noted that a General Plan amendment was a tool that was used quite often when a city saw certain things happening in undeveloped areas _ which did not conform with the current General Plan pro3ections but which were ~ determined to be generally in conformance with those pro~ections. Commissioner Farano inquired whether this was a tool which could be used for '~ a totally planned community such as was being planned; whereupon Mr. McDaniel ~ replied that this was such a tool. Mr. Bill Stark, Vice President of Grant Corporation, 1665 South Broo~churst = Street, appeared before the Commission an~' indicated his appreciation of Mr. McDaniel's review of the proposed prc -t; that after he was finished with his presentation he would ask the C~~~~~.':.c.. :i's indulgence for a presentation by the planner who was responsible i`o.~ mos~ of the work in the displays around the Council Chamber to explain the details of th: proposal and the pro~ect to the Commission. t Mr. Stark noted that the Grant Corporation was started in Anaheim eighteen years ago, building in Southern California, Hawaii, and Nevada so the company , was national in scope; that the Anaheim Hills name was chosen for ~ the Anaheim phase of development and when they approached the City of Orange ~ phase of development, th~at might develop under another name, but that was some time i.n Lhe future, not having crossed that bridge yet. ~~ ! _ ; ' "~'~'; . ~_ _... :, ,>.. r - • ;-_ : - ..~,,. ~` ,. .. ~ ; -- r MINUTES, C~ PLANNING COMMISSION, Febr~y 22, 1971 71_gg~.._~ GENERAL PLAN - Mr. Stark also reviewed the connection of the Grant . AMENDMENT N0. 123 Corporation with the propoaed land developers of the I pro3ect and th.. status of the parent company to prove ' ~ RECLASSIFICATION their ability to embark upon a pro~ect of this size, noting ~ N0. 70-71-33 that their intereat in the property came about when ~ (Continued) Mr. Nohl after man ' y years decided to convert his intereat ~ into something else - then thPy became intereated when thia property came on the market - and approximately nine or ten ~' ~ months ago they started to review the property, making extensive studies and ~ wor'king with the various staff inembers of the City of Anahc:im and the City of i Orange - however, more ao with the City of Anaheim aince th3s would be the first ~ phase to b;; developed; that the total project covered 6~ aquare miles in area, _ ~ thus a good-sized, small city could be developed; that when they reviewed the 6;~,, '" ~~ General Plan as presented, this development was being done in rather a large ~'~; •,,~-•. scale; that the property was purchased on October 30, 1970; that they were ' ~ proposing a planned community; and that what was before the Commisaion was the result of coneiderable work and effort to bring this together. ~ '~ ; " ~ Mr. Stark t'hen noted it was hoped these plans followed the concept of the ~ Anaheim General Plan since they had attempted to put L-ogether a good development that wouZd maintain the natural appearance of the area; that they planned to annex portions of the property as development plans were finalized; that the portion designated for the City of Anaheim golf course was already being ~ processed for annexation, while the Walnut Canyon Reservoir was already in the city; that only 70 acres of the present proposal were in the City of Orange while the balance was in the County; trat they had attempted to correlate the work with both the Cities of Anaheim and Orange and the County, as well as the local school diatrict and had provided everyone concerned with brochures; that he•had talked with many of the homeoT~nera associations in the canyon; that because the property would be under one ownership, they would be able to control development of the property, which the City could also better control with site development atandards which were also to their advantage; that they had a conaiderable staff investment which they hoped ' to capitalize upon and to enhance this area; and that they might disagree `{ with the method of Yhe General Plan but in theor . y, they were in agreement. Mr. Stark then noted that in their research for a planning consultant they '~ were fortunate in obtaining the servicea of John Chapman, who, in his estima- =j tion, was an outstanding planner and who was also from a local Orange County =~ firm. _~ Mr. Stark also noted that he wished Co comment about any possible problem which might result from the boundary line of the proposed General Plan amendment and reclaseification as it pertained to the City of Orange= noting that this action in no way dictated the boundaries for the two cities since this was a~uris- ``; dictional agreement between the two cities, and the boundary line was used as '; an easier means of advertiaing the boundaries since the Santa Ana Mountain ridgeline had not been clearly defined as to metes and bounds for subject . Property. Mr. John Cha~man, Chapman, Phillips, Brandt 8 Associates, Sky Park, Irvine, appeazed before the Commisaion and noted that the planning stage of this project would be presenting it in two phases - how they looked at the property and the concept that was proposed for the properk~y; that the exhibits on the west wall represented some 'of the analytical atages they went through, and then reviewed the exhibits as to topography, character of land, and a slope analysis in which the background indicated a slope of 40X or more was almost unbuildable; that in addition to the proposed 27-hole golf c~,irse, an analysis • was made as to the possible lake locations in this hilly terrain and arrived , at three possible lake locations; t.hat because of geography and slope conditions, approximately 40X to SOX of the total area would be undevelopable, and this i would be left in its natural state; and that the ma~ority of the development would occur where slopes were 20X or leas, while th~se areas within the devel- opment having limitations, the latest methods of earth sculpturing would be used, ~ In reviewing the existing Anaheim General Plan which indicated a maximum development of 11,500 dwelling units, Mr. Chapman noted that the proposal by , the Grant Corporation was very close to that of the existin,r ~eneral Plan 1n which the City's projections were 2.7 single-family dwelling unita per acre, while their plan proposed 3.9 for the entire area; that the calculation represented approximately 45,000 people; that where cluster-type housing was proposed, it was a general ieeling that the numbnr of persons per dwelling ~ unit would drop below that eatimated but did not drup as low as past history indicated; that this difference in density between the City's proposal and ' the proposal before the Commis:~ion was the ~:•r~ct that the multiple-family areas had increased density o~+At that prcjac.ted on the a3apted General Pla. * that residents of multiple-faaily areas were not on:;: young peoplc but retir•~ ,~ke persons and even young families - therefore, the ir.crease in total populatio under the proposed development would be about 47,000 or a 3% increase, even though the unita might vary as much as 20X from that of the General Plan. ~ ,. ' ! , I MINUTES, CIT_~PLANNING COMMISSION, Febr,_i(ry 22, 1971 71= ,~ GENFRAL PLAN Mr. Chapmdn indicated that in planning the commercial aspect ' ~ AMENDMENT N0. 123 or rhe propoaed plan it.was calculated as a service facility . i _ ~ without any intent of drawing business from outside of the , RECLASSIFICATION community; that there would be a regional shopping center ,; N0. 70-71-33 located in the area south of the City's reservoir; that the i (Continued) highest concentration of population would be in this ~ . ~ general vicinity, as weii; Chat in addition to a low-density , subdivision development averaging less than 2.7 dwelling ~ I units per acre, there was a bright yellow .srea where single-family homes would , ~ average 4.6 dwelling units per acre, while the bright orange area was proposed for townhouses at 10 unita per acre an3 then up to 25 units per acre for the ~ multiple-family houeing element. i Mr. Chapman then reviewed the land use exhibit, noting that they were attempting to set up throughout the property a network of green belts and open spaces in relationship to the elementazy schools and park areas as the Anaheim General ~ Plan pro3ected; that although the Anaheim General Plan pro~ected only 1~ acres ' per 1,000 persons of park area, they were proposing 2 acres per 1,000 persons; that the existing amenities were there, att3 wherever it was possible, they would attempt to retain thesn in their natural state since, from a development standpoint, it was good business to retain what was ther.e and to emphasize it ~ since this would be the big selling point for these homes; that the plans on two maps submitted at the hearing and he wished to emphasize these were pro3ections and represented the company's thinking at this point in time as to its development; that what was inten~ed in the General Plan amendment was to set up a concept idea where detail plans can be made and the City could place use limitations and controls on the pro•perty which might last more than 1'~ to 2 years; their experience factor, oarticularly in Southern California and Orange County - usually the length of 'life of an original General Plan was 1'~ to 2 years - however, it was their intent in this concept of density zoning now being p~esented to make certain that these plans would have a longevity of longer than 2 years although it was difficult to predict the ~, length of time with the rapid changes of the housing picture as to financing, marketability, etc., and which was the basic reason for amendments .to a i General Plan; that in the concept of the density of zoning they hoped to ~ :~ alleviate any future General Plan changes since a concept for a piece of .~ property at some point in time could be determined as to its densities, ~ the number of units that should be developed on the property or economic services and functions; that it was dtfficult to determine or predict what ~_i would be put on the property 3 to 4 years from now as it pertained to multiple- ~; family and single-family uses, but the General Plans had to be updated when a change in density was asked for, however, the Planning Commission and City Council need not be faced with ob3ections from the residential area when density requests were presented as had been every two years in the past aince it was proposed and anticipated that these concept densities for subject property would be effective for at least ten years based on ` the pro3ections of the types of land uses, since they hoped to take advantage of the natural amenities and save the open space - the population being asked for now, without asking for an increase every two years, indicated the maximum density for each planning ares within the Anaheim Hills development, but this did not mean it would be developed at these maximums. Mr. Chapman noted that the concept of density zoning - since this amendment divi3ed the ranch into ten areas, and each area had a sub-maximum density - then in reviewing one of the areas - A- which was above the reservoir and ' within the loop road around a 30-acre lake included 458 gross acres whicY~ was pro3ected to be developed with a maximum of 2,950 units •- ~:he concept ~ meant that the area could be developed with any one of thre. p,~!.ential residen- tial uaea, and in the detail plans they would be submitting f.'ax approval I for development of the ranch, the densities would be in basic auriformance ~ with the R-H Hillside, R-2 and R-3 standards, and the standards and site ~~ restrictions would be maintained so that they would be compatible with each • other. The importance of the density zoning was - whatever was proposed to be deve'_oped - if it was decided that one-half of the units allawed on that site would be developed on only lOX of the property in a given area, • then the balance of the 50~ of the units would have to be developed on the remaining 90% of the land, since there was no plan to increase the number ; of anits in any sub-area - and this was important for many reasons, particularly as far as the City was concerned. Schools could be pretty accurately planned - you don't have to ~uggle things every two years when densities were proposed , to be changed. Roads, circula~ion, utilieies, etc., could be planned for ~: this maximum density, and it was obvious from this what the advantages would ~ be to the City. Within each of these areas, there will be minimum and maximum ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CI~,JPLANNING bOMMISSION, Feb:~ry 22, 1971 71-~~ i _ ; GENERAL ~LAN - requirements - gross acreage of 30 plus 48 acres for lakes . i AMENDMENT N0~ 123 8nd allowing 28 acr~s for C-1, left a net of 352 acres, ~ i ending up with a net density of 8.38 units per net acre - • ~ RECLASSIFICATION and this was the moat densely populated area of the entire ~ N0. 70-71-33 raneh. There would be, as indicated, achool requirements, " (Continued) park requirements of 2 acres per 1,000 peraona - this will mean in this one area 'there would be a minimum of 19 acres of park, the maximum allowable of 7 acres for neighborhood commercial axeas, the plan indicated the Grant Corpo~ation conce,pt of e:>ttiag a maximum.density for the total development - with the City having very strict controla on the type of development, the green belts, achools, parks, maximum amounta of commercial acreage, and still allowing the developer to mee.*. the _ market demands aad type of planning that could lead to the best enviro~tment r `` without fighting the limitations of residential zoning - this type of zoning ~.y;: _.~~ would be a thing in the past. The density zoning concept was something being , done throughout the country and was a kind of thing that would a.11ow the city .~ , to have the best living environment which were the tools available today. i Commissioner Gauer inquired how the propoaed development would control water ~ in the proposed lake so that it would not become stagnant, etc., auch as the ~~ problem being faced at Westlake. ~ Mr. Chapman replied that aeration of the water was planned; that a drainage course from the lakes into the reservoir was proposed, and the lake depths would be from 30 to 40 feet or more -.that ;~here there was more fill proposed at the bottom, these lakes could be as deep as 100 feet - thua these would not be the shallow deptha which the artificial lakes had at Weatlake since ahallow lakes.had about the same water temperature on the bottom as on the top - therefore, it was much easier to take a hillside grade to create these lakes with depths to 40 feet, having cool water at the bottom and serating for circulation; and that with proper planning, these lakes could be developed - with few prob].ema by eliminating circulation or pollution of the lakes. i However, there were some plans that worked while others did not. i Commissioner Seymour noted that Mr. Cha man ia reviewin the ~ ' P . g proposal, had indicated these density proposals were for ten years into the future - was :~ that the length of time that it would take to complete this planried development. , ! Mr. Chapman replied that the land could be developed in eight qeazs, or it -.~ could take up to fourteen years, depending upon the market and based on the :~ current market information, the ability to aell units within ten years was a good round number. Commiasioner Farano inquired whether the Grant Corporation iniended to fully develop this land, or did they intend to sell lots for custom homes. ti Mr. ChapmRn replied that Mr. Stark should answer that question, but generally this was 'ntended as a planned development - however, Anaheim Aills would have • control over all development including even bushes in front of the shopping center, developing housing units, selling land to developers, and controlling development of this land with strict standards governed by CC&Rs that will be written by them - therefare, the restrictions of development would be written on the land. ~ Commissioner Farano then inquired whether or not this :neant that if the developer purchased a parcel of land - because of economical desires of the developer - could he come back to the Commission requesting an increase in the already-established density since the consideration before the Commission i was a General Plan amendaent for a life of ten years. However., he felt that ( this General Plan amendment should last forever. If not, he would not be in favor of this proposal, and that if the developers were talking about size of 1 parcels which could be sold to developers, what assura::c~ mould the City have that these developers would not be back asking for increases in density2 Mr. Chapman answered that eve=y time a ciey approves a General Plan amendment it is intended to last forever - but experience in the past rss proven that a General Plan lasts for about two years - whereas this Genera]. Plan amendment proposed would be for ten years since this was five times better, but ~ to answer the question realistically, anyone could come in for a zone change s£nce there was no assurance either the Planning Commission or City Council would honor previ~us Commission and Council comnitments, but to al2eviate the problem, the largest body that would be fighting any change ~ wouZd be themselvea, and~ if they had set up a development procedure on this •~c entire parcel using a density fact~r, they did not want those developers to F ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CI~,y)PLANNING COMMISSION, Feb{~~ry 22, 1971 /1-, ~ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 123 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 70-71-33 (Continued) intent to draw up - increase their density. For instance, in Laguna Niguel a portion o: ~he property was sold where the yield permitted would be 5,000 units, and the purchaser- developer had been asking for a higher density - however, the city indicated that the property had been sold for a given density - therefore, if this property were ever proposed to be developed, it would have to be developed in accordance with this plan. Therefore, it was their very strict sale CC~Rs. , i Commiasioner Gauer inquired whether or not this would be something like ~ Diamond Bar; whereupon Mr. Chapman replied that he would hope not since they "~T ~ did own the land, and the possibilities this piece of land had, having its own - ,.,, *:~ natural beauty, and its value would depreciate or appreciate with what development occurred on the entire parcel. Therefore, it made good business ~ ; sense to save what already was on the land and add to it since this would .Q'~ add to the value of the property, and that their company was a large company which had the ability to do this, while piecemeal development could not do ~ ~ this to build up the equity. Commissioner Farano inquired what portion of the property was proposed to be ~ built by the Grant Corporation. Mr. Chapman replied that Anaheim Hills would be a land development project since the company he represented was interested in total development - however, they would sell some property to other builders, as well, but the Grant Corporation would be able to control any developmsnt plans and for development to occur in a.progressive manner ao that they would not have the intention of lowering the real control of the density. He recognized that by committing themselvea to this extent, if a portion were sold off and any increase in density requested, this would lower the density of the adjoining undeveloped land and the protection would come from an economic standpoint. Commissioner Farano then noted that this would then lead back to the question ..j of density - this might be paychologically important, and he was in'terested :~ in the design, quality, etc., of the develop~~nt - howcver, he did feel that ( the Gzant Corporation had done a great job, and with further study of the proposal, he felt this would be good for Anaheim, but when one had to consider ~~:; the possibility of selling parcels to other builders-deveiopers, the question :, aroae as to how much of the developable property sold could be controlled. Mr. Chapman replied that under a sales contract, they proposed to develop i lots first and the development of the land, streets and commer.cial property ~ would be established first - however, they would be doing the land development, not building, but whether or not theq intended to build the commercial ,~~ areas, he was not certain - the first development would be a small shopping .area with the California Corporation, and with the City's golf course, they would build the clubhouse. After that, Anaheim Hills would develop . the land and off-site work and planning. Commissioner Seymour inquired whether Mr. Chapman felt the questions and statements Commissioner Farano made regarding quality of construction and development would be tightly controlled by the CC~Rs placed on the property - the Commission would like to see copies of the CC&Rs - after they had been . prepared by the developer for approval by the City covering individual .and total subdivision, whether the City would control all the major access r~~ads, whether there would be sufficient controls, and would the land developer , diligently pursue it. I Mr. Chapman replied that he would assume these deve2opments would be done under a planned residential development ordinance and as a part of this there would be sCandards controlling development, and when a final tract map was ~ filed, the City at that time could require these CC&Ra r~nd other controls . to be documented, thus giving the City greater control in tha development of this project than under regular zoning regulations. Mr. Stark again appeared before the Commission and noted that as Mr. Chapman Z had described, what his company was talking about were the residential and commercial ancillary uses as staff had indicated - thia would be a planned community, and the planning staff was presently reviewing the drafting of a ' Pianned Community Ordinance which should handle all control of many cf the ~ questions which the Commission had rssked, and staff, he was sure, would attempt ,,ke to resolve these questions. ~ , ; i ~ : . , ~ _ ---- -_ - ~. __ ~ ---- _ _ _ - -- MINUTES, Cr.•f PLANNING COMMISSION, Feb~~ary 22, 1971 71~,_ ~Z GENERAL PLAN - Mr. James Evans, Assistant City Manager of the City of , AMENDMENT N0. 123 Orange, appeared before the Gommission and Rtated they • were not in oppo;sition to the General Plan amendment or .' RECLASSIFICATION reclassification except for the fact that the property N0. 70-71-33 covered by the Grant Corporation proposal encompassed __.. (Continued) property in addition to that which would eventually be annexed to the City~of Anaheim, a portion that would also be annexed to the City of Orange per the agreement made between the two .~ cities, and that a letter of this concern had been submitted•by the Mayor of Orange which he wished to introduce into the record, covering the recom- mendations of the City of Orange as to an actual legal description of the property which would be the portion encompassed within the previously agreed boundaries for the Cities of Orange and Anaheim (copy on file). " . . ~.~ _.. . ~~~,~ Chairman pro tem Farano noted th;st it went without saying that the remarks ~; made by Mr. McDaniel as they pertained to retaining the previously agreed upon ~ boundaries and the letter from the Grant Corporation to the City of Orange !" assuring them that this agreement would be honored - therefore, the Commission ~ would so make this recommendation to the City Council in the event the General ~ Plan ameadment was recommended for approval. ~ Mr. Robert McQueen, 4831 McKinnon Drive, representing the Santa Ana Improvement ; ~! Association, appeared before the Commission and noted that their organization F had reviewed the proposal by the Grant Corporation, and the general concept appeared *_c be very good; that this was an apportunity to do some long-range planning for the development of the canyon rather than the "hadge-podge" development as had been presented in the past; that tbose areas of concern brought out by Commissioners Farano and Seymour were also quite a concern to _ their organizaCion, but from comments made by Mr. Stark that the quality development they were proposing for the various areas would be tightly =.~ controlled - this would be acceptable since there had been problems with developments in the canyon in the past - however, with the controls proposed, ~ it was hoped that no similar situation would occur; and that he would stat•a they were in favor of the General Plan amendment provided that it was in ~ conformance with the plans presented by the Grant Corporation, known as . the Anaheim Hills development. , '.~'~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~.i Commissioner Farano inquired whether or not the Commission would have an opportunity to review development plans as they pertained to the site develop- ~ ment standards, as well as the •tract maps, in order that the Commission would be sure the proposal as presented for the General Plan amendment were ,, maintained. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that as Mr. Stark had indicated, staff had prepared a plan.ned community zone, and if it were adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council, this would provide a vehicle for both the Planning Commission and City Council to review plans of development for the area - but if not adopted as an ordinance, there would be some other vehicle that would still assure that any development would adhere basically , to that presented for this General Plan amendment. ~ Commissioner Farano noted that since the Commission was acting only on the General Plan amendment and re~lassification to R-A, tiie only way that develop- ment could be controlled would be through CC~Rs, and if the City of Anaheim had the opportunity to participate in the preparation of the CCSRs, this would further help the City in maintaining the typ~ of control necessary for develop- , ment of the canyon. How could the Commission take action on these items and ~ yet avail themselves of the opportnnity to participate in the preparation of ~ the CCSRs? ~ Commissioaer Seymour noted that he would like to approve the planned residen- tial development such as was prc,posed, but only if he had an opportunity to review the CCfiRs or other control agreements on the property. Ueputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that the City Att~rney's office did not prepare the CC&Rs since thes~ vere prepared by the developer ~ and then were submitted to the City Attorney's office for approval. ~ ~ .~kc :_,V:r.:~.".--~-^~i::.a~c ; _ ' ;~ . - [ ~ MINUTES, CIT`V~LANNING COMMISSION, Febr~~y 22, 1971 71-~ ) ::. '` ,~ ..°• L~ 1 : ~ ~ ~ GENERAL PLAN - Commissioner Gauer pffered Resolution No. PC71-34 and AMENDMENT N0. 123 moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council adoption of an amendment to the General Plan REC:.ASSIFICATION No. 123 in accordance with the exhibits presented by the N0. 70-71-33 developer of the property. (Continued) Prior to voting, Commis.sioner Rowland noted that since the Commission was consid~ring the General Plan amendment, why not have accompanqing development standards - however, at the moment, approval of the development plans.was in the hands of the City Council. Therefore, the development standards Cogethez with some form of density typical of the area, in this particular instance, the proposed denaity were clearly set forth - he personally would like to know what would happen were it before the City Council now - the two things were not separate at the present time. Commissioner Gauer then amended his offer of ?tesolution to include compliance with the Sceaic Corridor Overlay Zone. Commissioner Rowland noted zhat the City Council had reviewed the Scenic Corridor Zone, and from what he had heard through rnmors, it concerned him greatly, but it appeared to be part of the consideration - yet from the rumors what he could discern about them were not completely factual. Chairman pro tem Farano then inquired whether Messrs. Stark and Chapman were familiar with the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone tentatively approved by the Planning Commission and recommended for approval to the City Council. Mr. Stark advised the Commission that they were very `amiliar with it, although there were some areas they were concerned about, the concept in general they were in favor of except that some areas needed further review, and one of the reasons they wanted to receive a basic direction from the Commission on the concept of the General Plan amendment because they were working with both the Cities of Anaheim and Orange, and since these cities had problems in designing these facilities, this was their basic concern - however, they still wished to go on record as being very familiar with the basic concept of the (SC) Zone. Chairman pro tem Farano then noted that if the Commission were to.incorporate as part of the conditions cf approval compliance with the (SC) Zone as it pre~ently stood, would this place a great burden upon the developer. Mr. Stae~k advised the Commission that since the staff was drafting the Planne+d Community Zone, some of the aspects of the (SC) Zone were already iticorpo,rated i~ said zone. , Chairman pro tem Farano then inquired if the Commission did adopt the General Plan amen.dment with no development standards to speak of that would apply to the hi11 and canyon area, would Mr. Stark have any recommendations. Mr. Stark tken adv~.~ed the Commission that if the General Plan amendment were adopted as present~d today, the Commission would be recommending a basic density together with parks, scY.ools, etc.; that the reclassification would permit them a zone vhich would give them the opportunity to build one dwelling unit per acre, which was not their intent - therefore, they would have to come into the Commission requesting a s~ecific zoning; and before they would commit their firm to a multi-million dollar program, they wanted the parameters or the basic way in which this project would be going - the R-A Zone would be on the land upon anneaati~n into the City but did not give the controls for development which the Commission was desirous of having. Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that any action on the reclassification before the Commission would be the same as act{on taken before on annexationa ~ simply reco•Wmeading approval of a resolution of intent for R-A - however, any future development within that zone would permit only one home on an acre for all the parcel being developed, but the consideration of the General Plan amendment was ini~`ially a matter of determining whether the basic concept proposed would be conaistent with the Commission's ideas of the manner in which this development was to be done and whether or not each element of land use, density, circulation element, and open space was being provided. Commissioner Gauer inquired whether or not it would be in order to include in the motion the exhibits subnitted by the developer as guidelines for future densities for the area under consideration; whereupon the Deputy City Af.torney ruled tFiat these exhibits could be used as part uf the Commission's recommendation. i ~:: , - ! ~ i ` MINUTES, CI~.~PLANNING COMMISSION, Feb ~~~ry 22, 1971 71=~-i GENERAL PLAN - Commissioner Gauer further amended his motion to include AMENDMENT N0. 123 all exhibits preaented by the Grant Corporation in thetr study of the General Plan amendment as documented evid~:ace RECLASSTFICATION in izs approva?, by the Commission. (See Resolution Bc,~k) N0. 70-7i.-33 " (Cont~.nued) On roll call the foregoing resolution ~.as passed 'oy th~a following vote: , ' AYES: COMM7SSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gs,~a~:~ Kaywood, RowZand, S~~ys.ou:•. NOES: CQM:i'ISSIONFkS: None. ABSLNT: ~vMMISSIONERS: Aerbst. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-35 and ~oved for ite, p~lssage a.~d ad~ption to recommend to the C3d~y Council that Petition for Reclasaifica- tian No. 70-71-3:':i» approved, s~a~ject to a finding that while the 8uuthern California Edian~. Ca:apany easoment was described as the soutl4erly h:iir.dary of the area b~ing caiti.si3ered, this should, in no way, be ~oZxtirueu •ti~ con~lict with or violate th~~ agr~acaent between the Citie.^; of Anahe3m.r.nd Oran~e as to the ultima4e 7~,o~n~3ar~ separating the two cities, arid :aubject to c~nditions. ; (See Resoluii.on Bo:olc) On roll ~:ali the foragA:ing rasoluCion was passea by the foJlaw;L.ig ~rote: ; AYES: i;OM'r1ISSI0NERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Kay;vood, Ro+;;tand, Seymour. ! NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. + ABSENT: COMMISSIlSDi~RS: Herb~t. R:~~ESS - Commissioner Seymour moved for a ten-minu2e recess. The meeting recessed at 4:40 P.M. RECONVENE - Chair~:an pro tem Farano reconvened th~e meeting at •4:53 P.ri., Commissioner Herbst being absent. VARIANCE N0. 2235 - PIJBL'IC HEARING. ~T. MARK'S UNITED METHO'sLS7C CHIIRCH,, 3718 West Orang_ Avenue, Ansheim, Cali:or2is,,C::aer; requesting WAIVER OE MAXIMUM r~RMI'TTED m'UTLD'i:Nf, HEIGHT TO CUNSTItUCT A TWO-STOR'Z BUILDING WiTHIN J.:~ ~FE1 OF R-A ZJpE:~ PP:OPk, Ty on pro~,,rty deacribed aa: A rectangularl}~r,..upFd parcel of 7.atid cc~nsiating of approximately 2 acres, having a frontr.ge: of approximat:ely 234 feet an the south aide of Orange Avenue, having a maximum depth of' ~gproximately 391 feet, and being located approximately 670 fee~. west af the centerline of Knott Street, and £urther descr:ibed as 3718 Weat Or.ange Avenue. Property r~resently classif3.ed R-`, AGRT~LTLTURAL, ZONE. Zoning Super^~isor Charles Roberts rs.viewed the location o.f sub~ect property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to a~d a second story to the Sund,gy achooZ and fellowship bui].ding d.tieloped to the rear of the esisi:in,g ssnctuary located along the Eae~.erly property line; that the ~c-A code would require a 2:1 setbask fr~m adJoin4ng property lines, whereas the petitioner was rropo&ing A. 23-=ant high buil3ing located oniy 15 feet from the property line; that if the property were R~-1 or R-3 zon3ng, only a 15-foot setbac`:, as p_~posed, aould 'be required; and that the exis~ing church an~ faciiities had teen appro•ved in 2960 ut.der Conditiona2 Tlse permit No. 7°.. Mr, Roberts furthex noted :hat Lhe vetitioner. had applied for a buildina permit in April, 1!~i0, to ccnstruc~ t~e first flcnr of the fellowahi~, building -*_tuere£ore, the pet.itionez »as now requesting, approval of a srcond st~~ry to be ,•onstrvctad some time i.n ti:e future. Mr. Bti.l War.rea:, 5275 Vis[a Reai, Cypress, rep.resertting the petitioner. akapeared before the Commission, noting thera had been a long delay in submitting nl~ns fSr the second ~tory which they liad assumed was granted o,riginally i 1°50 - hnwever, financing ~ruhlams dc.iayed the pursuit of the expansion, anL now that tliis financing was availab,le, when a bvildink permit was requested, ttiey had been informed that no second 3tury had been approved under tha. originte.l conditional us~_ permit. Theref~re, the petition before the Commisaion was to bring th<~ z~ning permit in line with development plans, and they concurred with the recommended cenditions, if sub~ect petition were approved. No one appeared in opposition to subject pe~ition. -~ ~'r~--~ ;a;:,~. ......A.. . ~ . -. . ~ ` , ~~ .. :- , >_ ~ ~ " _.- I - ~J *.~INif•T~~, CIT PLANNING COMMISSION, Febr~ry 22, I971 71-95 P1:1inIAiiCE ':;J. 2235 - THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. (Concir;~ed) Commissioner Kaywood offered Resalution No. PC71-32 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. ~~35, subject to conditions, on the basis that although the R-A Zone required a 2:7. building setback, if sub.~ect property or ad~oining prope:ties were zot~ed R-1 or R-3, only a 15=foot setback as proposed would be required. (See Retioluti.on Book) On roll call f,ne f.or~going resolution was passed by the following voie: ~~. ~~YES: COMMISSIONERS: Allre~, Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Seymour. '" ` t`~'NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~, ,".BSENT: ~ CQMMISSIONERS: Herbst. ~' ~ t~?~STAIT',; CoMMISSI(?NERS: Rowland. -~. r~. ~ ' ~ CARIANCE N0. 2235 - PUELIC fiEARING. EVERT S. PETERSON AND ROBERT AURAND, . 31208 r?.;~ing Cloud Drive, Laguna Niguel, California, `[ Ownexs; ROTARY OFFSET PRINTERS, INC., 700 East South - 1 Street, Anaheim, Caliiarnia, Agent; requesting P,ERMISSION TO ESTABLISH A FREE-STA ND7NG SIGN WITtT W,f_?'VER OF (1) MINIMUM HEZGHT OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN AND (2~ PEP ITT.ED LOCAT'i;N OF A FREE-ST.ANDING 3IGN on property described as: A rectan g:tlarly-shaped ~narcel of land having a frontage of approximately 20U feet on the south sic:e of South Street and being located approximately 150 feeC eas terly of the c:enterline of Dakota Street, and further described as 700 East South Street. Property p'resently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. r.j, Zonia,g S upervi~ar Charles Roberts reviewed the location of sub~ect property, ~ zxisting °ceplace zoning, ixses established in close proximity, and the proposal to existiag signing with one free-Rtanding si.gn to be located 74 feet :from the esterly property line at ground level within a br.ick framework ~ `~ ::~rlF _ . whereas , Code would r^,qu3re the sign to be a minimum of 8 f~et from the ground. Mr. Roberts, in evaluating the proposal, noted that the location of the sign could be placed 12 feet farther to the east to meet Code requirement, and given the location of the driveway, w!iich was approximately 13 feet to the west of the proposed sign location, the.:e might be some sight distance problems wherein a driver's v+.e~: could be block~ed sud he could not see pedestrians walking on the sidewal~, a:td this factor would appear to be the basic reason for the 8-foot minimum clearance requicement of the Code - therefuse, tha: Comrnission would have to detPr~ine whether the requested waiverP would be r.ppropriate and whether this could set an undesirable precedenY. for f~iture requeste. Mr. paul Ruff, 14761 Foxcroft, Tustin, ag~eared ce,fore the Comreission r?present- ing the agent far the petitioner an.3 ncted that they had gone to cor_sidera'~le expense to landscape the ~:aa, and the landscaping a~chitect had design~d the ~ion at the location proposed; that thei.r only interest in the sil,nir.g was for identifAcatioa, not for advert3sing, sud having it sEt low within t•he planter area mad.~ $ better appearance than having a sign similar to a"taco" sign 8 feet off the grour,d - therefore, for sesthetic purposes, the locat~on at grouad level was basically the reason for the waiver requested- ' Commiss~ioner Seymour no,`.ed tisat perhaps this would offer a great dPa]. a. +.t pertaine~ to aesthetics, but why was the petitioner requesting the ':~ity to ~;~ vary f•rom the si.gn locatioa. Mr. Ruff replied that there already was a planter in ttiis iot.stion with low ahrubs, ~nd the brick portion of the sign woula bl~nd in with the plar.ter - however, they were not aware of the sign locatiun requirenent at the time the planter and ahrubs were placed there; Chat placing a aign within said planter area, he had been informed, would be a violation of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Furthermore, there formerly was a plant 7 feet tall by 6 to 8 feet wide in the corner next to the dri.ve~.ay wh#ch had b~en turn out, and even when thia plant was there they had not experienced any sight , distance problems in the 16 years they had been located there. In addition, the sign would be.approximately 10 feet d3.stant from tf~e driveway and would be located behind the sidewalk. • , Mr. Ruff, in response to Commissia.i c!iiestioning, stated that the planter area w, was 10 feet acro3s; it had ~ust been ~~nstructad; and it was in t:ie ].n~~ition ~ of the old sign - therefore, the wiring far the sign was alresdy in. Fsrther- more, it would be possible to relocate both the planter are~ and sign, but it I would not: be as attractive in another location as the one proposei from sn 1~ aesthetic viewpoint. --.~T.:. , _ _ -• . , _ ~,. ~~ ' s . - i - ~,~- -_ ' ~ ------ -- ~ _~ ; - _ ~ MINi1TES, ;,ITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Febr~ry 22, 1971 71-~ VARIANCE N0. 2236 - No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. (Continued) THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ Commisaioner Rowland noted that not long ago the Planning Commissioa granted Anaheim Motors permission to erect a eign on Anaheim 3oulevard that had aesthetic beauty - therefore, the Commissioa should recognize that some contemporary signing which would technically violate the minimum 8-foot clsarance was more preaentable than requiring Code to be met; that 2he 12-€oot difference in aetback from property li.nes was minimal when one considered thE fact that the widlh of the property was 200 feet; and that since the petitioner had been at thia Zocation for 16 years without any problem as to sight distance, approval of the waiver appeared to be justified. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC71-33 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2236, sub~ect to conditions, based on findinga. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: All:ed, Farano, Gauer,,,Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Kaywood. ABSENT: COMMISSIQNERS: Herbst. RECLASSIFICATION...-•PUBLIC HEARING. HUGH D. AND LELA PROCTOR, 1445 South - N0. 70-71-32 Anaheim Br,ulevurd, :nsheim, California, Owners; property described as: Ar- irregatarly-shaped parcel of land CONDITIONAL USE having a fr:ntage af approximately 192 feet on the west PERMIT N0. 1223 side of Anaheim Boulevard and being located at the south- west corner of Anaheim Boulev~rd and Midway brive, and ' further described as 144'' South Anaheim Boslevard. `^':~i Property present7y cle~dified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE. , ;~ ~;~ REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. ~ ' ~I ji !REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH AN EXISTING RESTAURANT WITH~ON-SALE LIQUCR AS A CONFORMING USE. -'~i ~; Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject prop~rty, 3 I uses established in close praximity aa-d the proposal to establish C-1 zoning on i property which had a restaurant developed on it prior to annexation into the `~ City of Anaheim in 1956, noting that upon annexation to the City of Anaheim :• ~ 'R-A zoning was placed on the property, and that the petitioner was now propoaiug to have on-sale liquor sales in an exis ing restaurant as a conforming use. Mr. &oberts, in evaluating the proposal, noted there were commercial usea along Anahei~m.Boulevard in this general area - therefore, the reclassification petition would appear to be in conformance with land uses; that the proparty was not developed in accordance vith the C-1 site d~velopment standards since landscaping was almoat non-existent and parking was not sufficient to meet Cade reouirements - therefore, this preaented a problem as ta whether or not the zoning should be granted prior to the time that the site develogment staadards of the C-1 Zone had been met; that the present parking design access was provided by way of a public sidewalk and right- of-way to 6 spaces in front of the building, aad without these 6 apacea, only 13 spaces would be available, whereas Code would require 20 spaces. Mr. Roberts also noted that ataff had discussed the possibility of abandonment of approximately 48 feet of that portion of Midway B~ive located 3ust northerly of subject property, and if this property were abandoned to the petitioner, it would appear that both the required landscaping and parking could then be provided - the:refo.re, the Commisaion might wieh to discuss thia further with t;~e petitione~c. Furthermore, since the ICPS6GW conditions as presently formulated required that the propertq be developed in accordance with the C-1 stnndarda prior. to introduction of an ordinance, if the Commission felt that the property should conform with these site development standards. Therefore, it would appear that the ordinance should'be withhe~d until these standards were met, since there would be no building permit issued under which these standards might be required. to be completed. • No one appeared ia opposition to subject petitions. f.i _ :_ +... ~-.~Y.~ :.,~~~„"'~::~a.~~'; . ~ ~ ~ -.~ ~ - " . . - ., , -- ' . . `~ ~. ~ ..-. ..A.i~; ,~ :,,.~". ...,.. . .. ~~ _. " _ . .• ~ .. " / i ~ . ~ __.__..__.~_----------- : I MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMM7SSION, February 22, 1971 71-9~ RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Harry Rnisely, 1741 South Ruclic~ Street, attorney for N0. 70-71-32 the petitioners, appeared before tHe Commiasion and stated that the restaurant aad cocktail loixnge had been under the CflNDITIONAL USE same ownership aince 1953 and was started at the time the PERMIT N0. 1223 property was under the ~urisdiction of the County - however, • last December after a member of the fanily pasaed away, in order to settle the estate, a amall loan was requeated, and the banker had adviaed them that the uea o£ the property was a commercial use - how~ver, the zoning still was R-~~, and the loan could riot be granted until clearly-approved uae and zoning was established on the property in accordance with the Anaheim Municipal Code. ;,~~' '` Mr. Knisely also noted that he concurred with staff'.s recommeadatioas - however, ~ there might be some problem as it pertained to the right-of-way, and upon discusaing this problem with the Right-of-Way Division it was determiaed that j the propertq pzopoaed for abandonment was under the ownership of the State of Califoraia. Chairman pro tem Farano noted that there was a question as to part of Midway Drive being abandoned, and if this abandonment could be accompliahed with the property being acquired by the petitioner, this,would resolve the untenable dr.ficiency of the C-1 site development atandards. Therefore, he felt that perhaps the petitioner might wish a continuance to try to resolve this abandon- ment Froblem. Mr. Knisely concurred that pe•rhaps he could accomplish this in two weeks and agreed to a two-week continuance. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to continue consideration of Petitions !~"~,, for Reclassification No. 70-71-32 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1223 to the ?~ meeting of March S, 1971, in order to allow the attorney for the petitioners time to reaolve problems pertaining to acquisition of additional property ~~ which would allow the petitioners to comply with the site development standarda ,.: '1 of tae C-1 Zone. Commissioner Rowlan~ seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. i'~ ;, AMENDMENTS T(~ TITLE 18, - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARZNG. ITIITIATED BY~THE ANAHEIM ~~ ANAHEIM *iUNICIPAL CODE CITY PLANNING COMMISSI~N, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, ;;~ to consider amendments to Title 18, 2oning, of the :-! Anaheim Municipal Code by the addition of Chapter . ` 18.33, Mbbilehome Parks and Chapter 18.34, Tr.avel Trailer Parks. ii ' '~~ Subject Cede amendments were continuPd from the ~eetings of December 28, 1970, and Jan•aary 25, 1971, to allow staff time for further study. \~ Assistant Planzer John Graichen noted for the Commission that since the last . public tearing a work session had been held, and the proposed ordinance was amended by separating the mobilehome parks from the travel trailer parks as a result of concern expressed by the Commission as to the legality of two different uses, and then reviewed th~ various areas of concern which had been amended from tne originally-drafted ordinance, further noting that page 3, .paragraphs 6 and 8 should have 50X instead of the 75X related to the curvi- linear internal streets. , Commiasioner Rowla.nd inquired what staff determinefl constituted a curved ;, street - woufd this mean a street would have to be a radius of some sort. ''~ Office Engineer Jay Titus inquired whether Commissioner Rowland's question related to the degree of curvature; whereupon Commissioner Rowland replied that he wanted the term "curvilinear" spelled out. , Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that since these • uses could be eatablished only through filing and approval of a conditional use pe~~it, the Commission could review plans - however, in the particular s•ion which Commissioner Row2and meationed, staff was trying to get its in.•it established since they would prefer something other than the grid-type ,~ park, partic~larly since the land which might be affected by these uses would be in the Santa Ana Canyon, and the appearance of these parks as vieved from hilleide areas would not be affected if something other than grid devp?.upment ' were encouraged. ~ .~e Commisaioner Allred left the Council Chamber at 5:20 P.M. t~ •- ~ ~ ~ i MINUT~S, CITY~PLANNING COMMISSION, Febrnary 22, 1971 71-~ 1 . , AMEIJP:•iENTS TO TITLE 18, - The Commission discussed page 4 as to minimum ANAHEIM MUD'lICIPAL CODE aetbacks and screening, it being determined that .. (Continued) the words "or berm" should be added to the last two paragraphs on the page of Chapter 18.33; that _ in reviewing page 4 considerable discussion was held by the Commission regarding the required screening, and perhaps reference • made to materials and colors of the wall matezials should be deleted since the •~ Citq Council appeared to be adverse to mentioning this when reviewing the (SC) Zone, and all the efforts of the Commission to establish a zone for mobilehome parks and travel trailer parks misit be lost for want of this change. _ The Commission, in reviewing page 6, determined that the words "or berm" :~;~>;~~ "`Y should be added to paragraph K(1), and tha~ a minimum of one an3 one-half 3,,,:-., trees should be provided for each mobilehome lot in a park. ; Mr. Graichen also noted that on page 7 reference made to "Standard Detail .~` ~ Number 106 on file with the City Engineer" should be amended to " ments established by the City Engineer". read require- Mr. Graichen, in reviewing page $, noted that the refer;nce made to Section 18.61.070R ahould be changed to Section 18.33.060(K), and that the word ' ~, "public" be added to the last paragraph as the ].ast word of the next to the last line of said page. After rev3ewing the Travel Trailer Park Ordinance, Chapter 18.34, and making comparison corrections to Chapter°18.33, the Commission determined that the portions corrected in Chapter 18.33 that were similar to the ordinance in Chapter 18.34 s.hould also apply. . Chairman pro tem Faranc, noted that when mobilehome and travel trailer parks were combined, anything• less than 50 feet for an interior street was too small, and where only mobilehoLVe parks were developed, 40 feet appeared to be sufficient. Mr. Thompson nr,ced there were a number of ways which one could view this, particularly whpre mobilehome parks were proposed for 30 to 50-acre parcels. Staff felt there should be a good-size, primary entrance and by widening it, it was possible to avoid what had been experienced in the past where special drop gates were proposed to permit a aecondary access for fire and emezgency equipment; although this appeared to be the answer when an actual emergency arose, these gates did not serve the purpose for which they were iatended since damage to the City vehicles was considerable when knocking down these gates. Commiasioner Seymour concurred that the zone would control the major-type developments, but where a parcel was only 10 to 15 acres, this type of site entrance would create a hardship. Mr. Thompson noted that in all likelihood the areas where this type of develop- ment might o~cur would be in the Santa Ana Canyon where no access was available except for the adopted accesa points, and since the State of California Division of Highways had purchased access rights from these properties, and the ordinance was attPmpting to require this of parks where there would be an interi:al street system of collector streeta, the width of the entrance drive was proposed - however, this might be left up to the developers to desiqn the circulation. Furthermore, staff had reviewed a number'of mobilehome parks which~had been developed in the manner proposed 3n the ordinance, and they appeared much more attractive than the standard type development. Mr. Graichen noted that the intent of the ordinance was also to provide an internal 3idewalk system since it was not desirable to have residents walking in the traffic lanes. Mr. Mer13.^. McIntyre, Hemet, appeared before the Commission and noted he was the original developer of the Siexra Dawn Mabilehome Sub3ivision comprised of 220 acres in the City of Hemet; that in xeviewing the proposed ordinances, on page 5, reference made to screening, paragraph I(b) appeared to be a very excellent way of handling what appeared to be a rather unsightly method of separating the mobilehome park from other uses; that in the latest one he was planning, he proposed the upper 18 inches to have a screen block or every 15 feet there would be an area of screen block sinca many of~these mobilehome parks had 6-foot high walls extending almost one-half mile. Mr. McIntyre also n~ted that on page 2, Section 18.33.030 - G, the definition of a recreational vehicle•, there were some vehicles that were 8 by 35 feet in size, and these would not meet the definition as set forth. Furthermore, it would be difficult to calculate the size in accordance with the definition - ~ ~ r . I (~ ~ ~ -~-------- V MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Febcuary 22, 1971 71_gg ' AMENDMENTS TO TIT~,E 18, - therefore, he would suggest that this be changed ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE to a maximu~ length, such as 35 feet, then there (Continued) would be no problem in determining whether a vehicle • j met this criteria or not. ~ Mr. Graichen noted that this definition was taken from the State Code - ~ however, the formula au:~,.geated bq Mr. McIntyre might be a much better ~ manner in which to han;:;.P this. ~ ~ . ~_ j Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts inquired whether Mr. McIntyre had any comments as to the width of the driveways in mobilehome parka. ~i:. : + I ~ ~ Mr. Mcintyre replied that where mobilehome park lots fronted on a street, +:'''~'~~'~ ' particularly a main sLreet, although Sierra Dawn never had front-ons, these were 34 feet with a 4-foot planter in the centex, and on Palm Boulevard in ~: ~ Hemet the street was 70 feet wide and also had a planter area - however, it ° was difficult to move in a mobilehome even though a lot was on an angle ~ if a lot had mobilehomes already placed on either side. Therefore, he felt it was necessary to have at least a 35-foot right-of-w.zy fo~ a 60-foot !mobilehome, particularly whe~e they had to back in off of a street. 1 Mr. Roberts stated that the proposed ordinance and width of the street was for the main entraace which would be 50 feet wide, having a 10-foot center median and two 20-foot ingress and egresa drives. Yx~ Mr. McIntyre then inquired what the 300 square feet for recreational space was supposed to serve. <<; . ,,, '~~ Mr. Graichen replied that tNis was based u on the ;~1 p possibility that a mobile- hose park would serve children - however, many of the mobilehome parks recently developed were prohibiting children and providing an all-adult :~;{ facility. 1 j Mr. Thompson noted that the City might not be able to control prohib.iting children, and with the cost of livin as and a artmenta 8 high as it had been for both homes ; P , young families with children might find this a means of coping with this problem - therefore, some proviaion should be made for recreational :~ areas, although it was a ~ pparent that all-adult parks would not require this same amount. r~~ 'j THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ r; '~ n~ After further discussion as to the comments and recommendations made by !t Mr. McIntyre, the Commission determined that the definition of a recreational `•~ vehicle be changed, deleting any reference as to what amount of living area ,`"k, should qualify a vehicle as recreational and instead have it read to have a =^'~- maximum legal length of 35 feet. _~ s Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC71-36 and moved for its passage and adoption to adopt and recommend adoption to the City Council of an amendment to Ti.tle 18, Zoning, of the Anaheim Municipal Code by the. addition '-~ of Chapter 18.33, Mohilehome Parlcs, referred to as Exhibit "A", said exhibt.t ±. to include all the changes made prior to the offering of said resolution. l' (See Resolution Book) ~~ On ro=l~ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the fallowing vote: AYES: COMMISSICNERS: Farano, Gauer, Kayw~iod, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. "~, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst.' :t. , < ' ~'~ '` Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-37 and moved for its passage ~„ . and adoption to adopt and recommend adoption to the City Council of an amend- ment to Title 18, Zoning, of the Anaheim Municipal Code by the addition of Chapter 18.34, Trbvel Trailer Parks, referred to as Exhibit "A", said exhibit to include all the changes made prior to the offering of said resolution. ` (See Resolution Book) ,l On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the fbllowing vote: ~: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Raywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. "~ ' ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 'Allred, Herbst. ~ Commissioner Gauer left the Council Chamber at 6:03 P.M. , ~ 3 i >r'; ~ . ' ~ ~ .. ' ~ .... : ~ . . . .. . .. . 1' . . . . 1 . , . li .____ ; -- _ _ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO MMISSION, February 22, 1971 71-1 ~0 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 '; RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIQNAL IISE PERMIT N0. 1198 (Schlegel, ' Friedemann, Inadomi & Menke) - ~`; Property located oa the west side of Rnott '* '~ Street north of Ball Road - Request for a {~:. six-month extensioa of time. ; ~'• Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location o~ subject property uses established in.close , proximity, the proposal which the Commiseion had t granted August 24, 1970} for a private educstional club a_ad childrena' day camp with outdoor recreat ional facilities in a portion of a small neighbor- _ tl hood shopping center, and fo , the request bq the att.orneys for the petitioner ~ r aa extension of time for the completion of conditiona, and that staff ~";G,;',;,Y, had recommended a aix-mon th extenaion of time, to expire August 24, 1971. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to grant a aix-month extension of time for the completion of conditions in the graating of Conditional Use Permit No. 1198, said six months to expire Auguat 24, 1971. .Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION~CARRIED. (Commissioners Allred, Gauer, and Herbst absent) =D.3'OURNMErT - There being no further busiaess to discuas, Commissioner Seqmour offered a motion to adjourn th~ meeting. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting ad~ourned at 6:08 P.M. Reapectfully submitted, C •L-s-z. t~. '~,2..~~.,x ANN RREBS, SecretPry ' Anaheim City Planning Commission e.~ . k~.'.:_, ~~'.~:~~, R' -r , ,i t I' - f _ ,:.~i ~':.~ 1 ~.eiyYr _ ^,a,.t . - . . - ~ . R , . . , ~ . ; f~`T , . ~ rx . .~, . _ . . ~ . .. -., ~:csa .>~~ ~ ~~.~.. ~ y5~ . r ~ , G .':.~~ ~w ,~ S ~ ,~ ~ ~'~ 1 ~_ j! r~ 1 - xi. .. ~ , e; ~.:~. l~ ~ 1 T ~lf ..k +1 .'~ T ~". ~ .~-i ~~ ~. .. ,n ' ~~ ~r ~5~ , ~ ~ . . `j-' ~,~a r 4'~,~ 4, a r .s } ir t k x M'^'~f t 1{~' ~ ~ ..1F .Rt~ ';~ `'- ~' '~ r T ~ ~ ~ ~. i w - 4 ,,. ; 9 ,~ ~ r y~ ,ZC~i h ' i ~ > s Y . "l~. F 4, :' x ( - ~ 1 5 ~ f Y' f '~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~y ,~ t ~ x„c ~R 7 ~, F~, Y ~ .. ?7 ~ ~ ii 4 ~ w4 ..,.}- iT d~4q 2 rYS . `~J ~~G~{ ~ t ~f ~ `'' "~ .~ ti ~ L f{ ,k,f ~+y n.h'l,7 ~ } , .kt y ..~ ~_' 'f' ~a' ~tM ~ r ~,',+t ~ .. r{~ R{ ~Y'{~..7 ~..sL `a h s 1: ~r ~ . ~ ~~ . t r _ w ~~. >~ ,Iy.~ S 2 ~l ~7~ wM1n '. ~rf x5 J ~ ~ A r ~i ~,', ~f`1~ K+~,- S~i f -~..'~~ 4 ~ll~' ~rt k1~~ rF'.~ 1'~~{~i~ ~f~ F Y'~'` : > ~ p r~A.~ K .~~~ fL ~ ~y WiL '~13~' ~ ~l'~~3~S~jM :~~'S; y . 4 y Y ~ ~ ~ 4f ~ ~ L ~~ ~ y ~I ~C k ~ _ °'' ,i~ ,.nb ~ '~+ {~t'C~a S . .f y, ~t~A~~~ep,[~~ i~u~ ~l ~ ~ f ° ~ 1 I ... ~ .~ Yfl ~'T .. ~ ,{<< :v~ J f .~4 ' js~'.. 4 .. h~ ~ i.Yfr ~-w,~:T. ! ~'. .. . . . . . "'../ `~~,'1"~ '~ti :'~.~.r~e~`r: ~,::: -. r,= r -,4 ,:3 1 V . ~ t . ;y._ ~~yl ~ ` ~ ' ~ , ~' ~. : yt ~ ` ~a; t ~ ~J' ~~ ' _ 4Ti ; ;` ,~ :T C, = J r ` y 1 ~ ), ~^ , ,y r ~ + ,. ; _. . t: - . _ .. :.. ;:, _ . _ ,, ,: ; , ,~ < S ~,' t ' _ l t.. 1 -3 ~ ~ , ` , ' Y t Y ~ `'r!r ~ :~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~~ '~ h ' '~ C { 1 ~ ~ ( ~ ~: ~ . . ~ ! .. .~ s F! A{- ~' ~' ~: Y t 1P-^N' 9 ~ J N C ry. _ ~, rj~~J i ~-y ~r ~ ~ t ~,i ' ~ r.~ 1 '~ ~+~ ': r R t" 0 r~~~ ~' ~'.'~, t t _ _ 1 ~ ~T r . ~ . . _ . . . . r.