Loading...
Minutes-PC 1971/04/05r'.,..k5:f..' a T .:~ ' . . -k~7.` .:'" ~. ~ `i . .~~~~ . ~ {, Y . . . :.: .~... ' . : ~ . ~.. . , . ~. ~. ~ , ~ ~ ; ~ ~^f: ; ~.... .: . , i: - . .. .~: E~ t ' . . ~.( - , ~. ~ . ~ ., - ~ . . •L; .:~: ' . . .. ' ~ S . . ~. ~ ~: . _ .. ~ . . . . , . z ~.. . . ., ..'~. -~". . I .,y. .~ .;; ,S ~: _ ..,_ . . . ~ . ... . ' :;: ,_~ _ ,_,. .,.. -... .r ~'~ . . ~- ~.. .:~,: . ~ . .. . ,~ . .. ....,., . . . ~ . ~. -~~. ~. -. . . . . . ...,.' .. ~ ..; . . .~~~ . .~ ~ . ,.~ . . . ~ . ~~' ~~ ~ . - . . ~ ' . . ~ ~ . . . . ... .. . . , ... .. . . . . . ' . . . . . ~~_ . . . . .. ' ., . .. . . . - . . , ~ " .. _ . .,~ ..v. ~ YI .' ~ , ' '... .. .~...:. ... , .~ . ,.' . . ~; . . , . ;.'~ . . . . . . . , . .. ' . ' . , . . . . . . ' . . ' , . . ~ ~ . . ' .. . . ~ . ' , - ~ .. . ... . . .. ~ . ' ~ .. . . ~ . . ~ ~. . . ~ ~ . " ~ ~ , . ' ~ ~ . , . . . ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ . .. ~ . . _ ~ _ .. . ~ . ~ " . . .. . . . . . . ~ .. .: , ~. . . ~ .~ .,.Y ~...:1 ::~ ' ~~i ' . ,;i ~:a ` ~ . . - ... . _ . . . . ~ . - ~ ~~:~~. . ~~~~~ ~~ ~.'~:~ .. .. ~ . . ~ - . . ~ ~ - . ~ . . ~ ~ . ., ..' . ~, . ~ . - . . . ~ E; .. . .. . . . . . . . . . t X . ~ . ~ ~ ~ . ~ . . . _ . . .~^~ ~ ~ . . ~ . ' . . ~ . . . . . F . . t _ I ! ! . ~ I # ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ . ~ I ( ~ I ~ J i I ~ ~ r , - _..~-•x~.....v....~ _ . ~ .. ,.. .. . ...._. ~n ~ ~ y m O ~ . ~ A~~~ .~.• : . . ..~_.....w...~,...~.......' --.,~_:. - ... . - ,.~ . ~;q?}~y~":'T- - ~ f ' +~"'_- .-~'r?,~,ir~.,~r}n"=:. .. ~ . .- ~ . . ,. . j - . f. I _ _. L~ ~ i,~ City x,all Anaheim, Calxfornia April 5, 1971 ,,;:,y~_ '~ A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANIvING COMMISSION REGULAR - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission MEETING was called to order by Chairman Herbst at 2:05 P.M., a quorum being present. .; _ PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Herbst. ~.,;.~;,.'s ~: '~? - COMMISSIONERS; Gauer Rowland Kaywood, Seymour, Allred ~ . . . ~ : , ..'~ ~ , Farano. e ~,. s" ; .~ ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS; None. ' ~ : PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson Assistant City Attorney: John Dawson Deputy City Attorney: Fr,ank Lowry - ~; Office Engineer: Jay Titus - M1 2oning Supervisor: Charles Roberts : Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Malcolm Slaughter _ tj Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs ~ { PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Farano led in the Pledge of P.llegiance to the ; ; ALLEGIANCE Flag. &! `~ APPROVAL OF - Minutes of the meeting of March 8, 1971, were approved as -~3~ MINUTES submitted on motion by Commissioner Seymour, seconded by ; ;;"a~ Commissioner Allred, and MOTION CARRIED. i3 ,; ; " ~, VARIANCE N0. 2238 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. AUGUST VILJAK, 511 North ~ ~ Zeyn Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting , ,, REQUIRED SIDE WAIVER OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED UNIT SIZE, (2) MINIMUM YARD, AND (3) MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK TO 'Fi 1 ESTABLISFI A 5-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX on property described as: A rectangularly- -_~ ~ shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 50 feet on the ~ west side of 157 Illinois Street, having a maximum de th of a P pproximately ~• ' f.eet, and being located approximately 308 feet north of the cent2r- '~ line of Broadway, and further described as 207 South Illinois Street ,y~ µ, Property pres . ently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENT;CAL, ZONE. ~ ~ 1` 1. r, ,,~ ;.' ~.. .;'~ , ~'~ s'.- ~~' ~ - II~; R': , , .f3! , :'t~ fi ~ f t ;' , Subject petition was continued from the meetings of March 8 and 22, 1971, to allow time for the petitioner to submit revised plans. 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the waivers requested, noting that where formerly there were five waivers requested, these were now reduced to only two, namely, minimum required side yard, said waiver was necessitated because the petitioner proposed to have garages, which were connected to the main building, placed along the property lines; and the minimum required recreational arca which would depend upon interpre- tation of the ordinance as to whether the petitioner meL• the intent of the ordinance for recreational area required of 1000 square feet with 705 square feet in private areas anr,i 330 square feet in common a:ea on the ground floor proposed. Mr. August Viljak, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the revised plans indicated one dwelling unit had been deleted; that all units met the minimum square footage and garage or open parking space was also met; and that his interpretation of the recreational area would indicate that this portion of the Code was met. 71-162 . - _-~---~; :!•~ ~,~;.°~ , ~ _a ~ . -~_ . .. ~ . ~. . . .. ,. , _ . .. . . . . _ . i . ~ I. . ' \~ ~ ~` ._J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 5, 1971 71~163 VARIANCE N0. 2238 - No one appeared in opposition t~ subject petition. (Continued) THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland offerefl Resolution No. PC71-54 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2238, subject to conditions, on the basis that the intent of the ordinance was primarily for large parcels, and the size and shape of subject property made it extremely difficult to develop within the confines or" !;he ordinance; therefore, a hardship resulted. (See Resolution Book) Prior to voting, Commissioner Seymour asked that a finding be made that granting these waivers should not be deemed as setting a preceder.'t for similar requests in the R-3 Zone since proof of hardship must be demonstrate3. Commissioner Rowland then concurred that this addition should be made to the resolution. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISS=ONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. CHARLES AND ERMA FRANK, NO. 70-71-35 1616 South Euclid Street and CHARLES AND FREDIE KOHLENBERGER, 1233 North Placentia Ave:ue, Anaheim, VARIANCE NO. 2237 California, Owners; H.M.S. AIR CONDITIONING CORP., 760 North Main Street, Orange, California, Agent; property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land having no street frontage located approximately 215 feet east of State College Boulevard and approximately 225 feet north of Placentia Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTLIRAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (1) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, (2) MINIMUM R~;QUIRED PARKING SPACES, (3) MINIMUM LAND AREA PER DWELLING UNIT, AND (4) MINIMUM ACCES•^,WAY WIDTH TO ESTABLISH A TWO-STORY, 30-UNIT APARTMEi:T COMPLEX. Subject petitions w~re continued from the meetings of March 8 and 22, 1971, to allow time for the petitions to be readvertised and for the submission of an access agreement. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed tl:e location of subject property, the existing zoning, and the proposal together with the waivers requested, noting that subject petitions had been continued from the meeting of March 22, 1971, in order to allow the petitioners time to resolve easement problems across the property to the west - ho~,es-er, as of the writinq of the report, the petitioners had not indicated this had been resolved; and that the petitioner was proposing a 32-unit develop- ment on the northerly portion, with a schematic plan for 11 units for the Placentia Avenue frontage portion. Mr. Charles Frank, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and advised the Commission that the developer, Mr. David Maher, was in conference with the union officials - owners of the property to the west - and that the architect had advised him that they would negotiate this easement favorably, but the board of directors of the unioa would have to give final approval - therefore, he would request an additional two-week continuance. , y5 d , ~, -. : . _ ~ I ---- ~ - _ ~ ~: ,. ~ a'; : ; ..~ ~':~ ~ :~ : ::~ ' :'3 s; ', .' 3 :•* . : ~t 1~' ~ke ~~ ~ ..~ ~ MINUTES~ CxTX ALANN~NG COMMISSION, April 5, 1971 ; _~ 71-164 RECLASSIFICATION - Ccmmissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue NO. 70-71-35 Petitions for Reclassificatian No. 70-71-35 and Variance No. 2237 to the meeting of April 19, 1971, VARIANCE NO. 2237 to allow sufficient time for the petitioners to (Continued) resolve easement problems. Commissioner Raywood seconded the motion. MOTIOF CARRIED. VARIANCE NO. 2242 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. C. M. BROOKS, ET AL, 914 North West Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; TENTATIVE MAP OF THE MC MICHAEL CO., INC., 469-a West Valencia Drive, TRACT NO. 7198 Fullerton, California, Agent; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT ARRA, (2} MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, (3) MINIMUM FLOOR AREA, AND (4) FRONT, SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS TO PERMIT A 12-LOT SUBDIVISION on property 2ascribed as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.8 acres, having a frontage of approximately 224 feet on the west side of West Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 465 feet, and being located approximately 941 feet north of the cer.terline of North Street. Property presently classified R-O, ONE-FAMILY SUBURBAN, ZONE. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: 12 PROPOSED R-O ZONED LOTS. DEVELOPER: THE MC r7ICHAEL CO., INC., 469-A West Valencia Drive, Fullerton, California. ENGINEER: ANACAL ENGINE~i2ING CO., P. O. Box 3668, Anaheim, California. Suhject petitions were continued from the meeting cf March 22, 1971, due to a tie vote and for the petitioner to submit revised plans. Chairman Herbst noted that since the petitioner had submitted revised plans, he would reopen the hearing and cansider additional evidence. Assistant 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close ~roximity, and the reason for continuance, noting that revised plans still reflected the 12-lot, single-family subdivision - however, the size of the homes had been increased to a minimum of 1525 square feet and ranged to 1681 square feet; that the West Street building setback had been increased to 20 feet; and that the development would still need waivers of front, side, and rear yard setbacks, as well as minimum floor area of the unit requirement. Mr. Cal Queyrel, engineer of the proposed tract, appeared before the Commission and noted that after having met with staff they had revised the floor plan, increasing the square footage to a minimum of 1525 square feet rs well as a 20-foot building setback since Y;his appeared to be the prime opposition; that the waivers they were rEquesting would allow the petitioner to enjoy the same privileges that were enjoyed by other properties in this area; that they did try ta meet the suggestions made by the Planning Commission - however, the one condition of approval of the tract regarding the sidewalks would be difficult to meet, and they would prefer to provide only 5-foot sidewalks and relocate said sidewalk adiacent to taa curb. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that he nad discussed this condition with the City Engi.neer,. who had pointed out that utility poles and fire hydrants would be located in the curb area, and an 8-foot sidewalk was necessary; that although an additional 2 feeL on either side of the proposed 5-foot sidewalk would be there, it would be necessary to have underground utilities - therefore, this would reduce the setback proposed. Mr. Queyrel stated tha*_ they would prefer a 5-foot sidewalk since the lots were too shallow to give up any more in dedication. _ - ` `. .. ` i i .. ~ / ~ ~~ . ~ i I i MTNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 5, 1971 71-165 VARIANCE NO. 2242 - Chairman Herbst inquired as to tne location of the light standards and would trees be planted in the TENTATIVE MAP OF additional 2-foot setback. TRACT NO. 7198 (Continued) Mr. Thompson re~lied that the Report to the Commission iadicatad that the trees would have to be planted on private property behind the sidewalks. Commissioner Rowland noted that this was not consistent with procedures approved by the City in the past since tracts had been approved with sidewalks immediately adjacent to the curb - however, where fire hydrants and utilities were located, the sidewalk was wrapped around these poles, and this appeared to work very well. ;%: ' Mr. Thompson noted that in areas where this hac 3een approved in the past, i the fire hydrants were located 2 feet behind the curb - therefore, if a ! 5-foot sidewalk were appraved, then the sidewalk would not curve around the fire hydrants, hut the Fire Department still insisted upon a curb hook-up for fire-figriting equipment. 1. . Commissioner Rowland noted that he would agree with the general concept of an 8-foot sidewalk - however, the City could forego this in this particular instance. Mr. Queyrel noted that where light standards and fire hydrants were proposed to be located, they could have an 8-foot sidewalk. Mr. Thompson noted that the Commission could make this a condition of `i approval, making the width of the sidewalk sub'ect to a r~ Cit En 7 PProval of the -,1 y gineer, requiring only a 5-foot sidewalk adjacent to the curb except where fire hydrants and light standards were located - every ~i; 300 feet - then the sidewalk could curve inward toward the homes so _i that there would bi: no blockage of the pedestrian way. ~ Six persons indicated their presence in opposition to subject petition. ~! Mr. Richard Maus, 907 North West Street a '_~ , ppeared before the Commission ' in opposition and stated that there appeared to be some question as to ;~ whether or not the City was being pressured into approval of subject petition and tract map - therefore, the opposition would like to rectify ~,;~ this by qualifying their positicn, noting that on January 13, 1971, a <,~ program was presented to the City fathers that they acquire a baseball ~~ diamond one acre in size at a cost of $23,000; that the Parks and Recrea- ~`"~' tion Director advised the City Council that completion of the ball diamond would cost the City $50,000, and this was a matter of public record, and ::....~ it was unfortunate that the Planning Commission c:id not have an opportunity to review this information; and that later on these plans for a ball diamond were approved by the Little League. Chairman Herbst interrupted Mr. Maus and stated that the Commission was { not concerned with the problems surrounding establishing the ball diamond since the matter before the Commission was one of land use w' `-^; . , hich did not encompass this ball diamond property. Therefore, if the opposition had anything else reZevant to the petition at hand, the Commission would consider it. Mr. Maus then inquired whether the utilities would be required to be placed underground; whereupon staff advised the opposition that this was a condition of approval. ;, .-~~ Mr. Maus also noted that there had been some understandings formulated yh ,. that these people involved in devyloping the property had advised the • adjoining property owners that their properties would ba separated from ~'~"-, the development by a 6-foot masonry wall. However, he felt that if some were given this privilege, then all adjoining property owners should be 1?`" afferded the same treatment; that when the size of the homes was increased to 1525 square feet, he had been informed that the arahitect would also ~ ~~;: ~ .~'c ';. i v ' 1~A .~ ..~..i . ~y . , r,~ . .. ~~ .'~' ._ ...'...~ ~ ~ . . . . _ .. - ~ ~ . .. .. . . .. .. _ . ~ • ~ . ~ . . s -a . _. a~ ~J_'~' _7_~:'...~.: , ^ ~ ~ ; ~' _ ,,. -_ __ _ __ ' ------ _1._._ l,_~ ~ -- ) _ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 5, 1371 . 71-166 VARIAN!.'.E N0. 2242 - change the architecture from ranch style to a Spanish : style, which would be injecting a different appearance . TENTATIVE MAP OF into the neighborhood - therefore, the entire tract TRACT NO. 7198 should be separated from the adjoining properties (Continued) since those homes already established would be faced ~• with their rear yards looking into the proposed type of architecture; that there still was the problem of size of homes since the revised plans indicated only one home would be 1681 square feet, and the ~etbacks still would remain the same. ~~~:=-: Chairman Herbst inquired of Mr. Maus whether he felt a masonry wa,ll should ~,,,~ ~ be required around the property, and why; whereupon Mr. Maus replied that '"`'` the tract sh~uld be enclosed with a block wall because of the different ;~• architecture that was proposed. Chairman Herbst noted that the Planning Commission was not an architectural , review committee, and developers were permitted to de--elop with whatever _' architectur,e they desired so lonq as the Code was met, or where it was not met, waivers had bee.n approved. Furthermore, there was no Code require- ~ ment that a 6-foot masonry wall be constructed in the single-family residential zone to separate lots, except where adjacent to major arterials. Mrs. Bonnie Pryor, 1004 Karen Place, appeared before the Commission in opposition and noted that her family had purchased their home in 1962, at which time they were informed that the minimum size of the lots for that area was 10,000 square feet, with homes having a minimum of 2000 square feet, and this was one of the reasons they purchased their home, as did all her neighbors on the street, because of the special restric- ~; tions; that she could not understand why the zoning had to be changed in >1 an azea just for one parcel and becausE the property owner left the lot ~;j vacant for a number of years, but now wanted to develop the property because f of a more favorable land price, and this appeared to be very unfair to ;~ the people who had purchased their homes in this area with the understanding _jt th~t the land would remain R-O. : 1 Chairman Herbst noted that any property owner had a right to request a .;~ change in zone, and that there were many changes in the area with some _ lots having only 6000 square feet. ~ Mrs. Pryor then noted that this was one of the areas in Anaheim from an ~ aesthetic vi~:wpoint that were especially nice homes - most of the homes ";.S in the area were considerably larger than the usual tract homes, and ='~ many people had commented to her that many cities had large homes :; immediately adjacent to small homes, all within one area; that the '`; Commission may also have to realize in the future that having larger =;{ homes adjacent to each other with rather spacious grounds was much better ~ in appearance than where smaller homes were interspersed. "4 Chairman Herbst noted that subject property was a hardship parcel because ~ this was formerly the site of a dump, and the owner would be having a :n difficult time in developing it because of the cost of removal of the debris and compacting it with fill dirt. Mrs. Pryor then stated that she was not in opposition to developing more than one home, but these should be homes on larger lots, thereby having fewer lots than was proposed. ~ Commissioner Seymour noted that if the existing zoning were maintained, ;, the builder would have to reduce the number from 12 lots to 9 lots, ~ •. which made a difference of only 3 lots. '~ Commissioner Seymour also noted that the Commission would like to see same continuity rather than a"hodge-podge" development, and this area already had some "hodge-podge"; that there were smaller lots on Redondo Drive; that he would agree with comments made by Mrs. Pryor - however, ~: subject property had a very unique situation because of its size and ~ th :; .~i! , . . . ~ ~ ~~ . ~--;. ._ ... ~ _ ~ _ ~ - . ~ I :,. -• _ , :{ '(~S '. s ; ;~ :x ~-~ '~ :;, `~ ~.~ ~: . '~ ';..kt ': ~. ~: ii~~ I f. _ (:~ ;~ MINUTES, CITy pLANNING COMMISSION, April 5, 1971 ~ .~ 71-167 VARIANCE NO. 2242 - shape, together with the fact that a portion was a former dump site; that the petitioner was proposing TENTATIVE MAP OF two sizes of lots, namely, 7000 and 7500 square feei-, TRACT NO. 7198 while there were z;,.ny areas in the city which had (Continued) only 5000-square foot lots and homes on these smaller lots were very att~:.zctive; that it was not so important to have large lot sizes as it was the quality and type of home built on the lots; and that if a property owner were sure that his home would not suffer if the quality of the home developed adjacent to his was higher, then the value of the hc+mes in the area would appreciate. Mrs. Pryor noted that there were raany smaller homes on half-acre lots in this general area - what would 1-iappen if these people decided to sell their property - would the area be subjected to a continuance of smaller homes once the City permitted smaller lots in the area? These people could then ask for 5000-square foot lots - however, the land was worth much more than the homes now existing on these lots, and approval of subject petition would be establishing a precedent for the area, and a variance could not be denied these other property owners if they desired to s~ell. Commissioner Seymour observed that it would be the hope of the Commission as a body to look at every individua7. petition and situation to determine whether or not the request was a legitimate one because the Commission was not desirous of giving way to the established standards, and this could be evidenced by action taken by the Planning Commission on Variance No. 2238, in which the Commission ~tressed that granting this petition did not set a precedent since hardshi.p had to be proven in the granting of a variance. Mrs. Pryor then noted that she had never lived in an area where once the standards were lowered that the pattern did not continue with higher standards, and this could happen in this area with many reguests for smaller lots. Mrs. Caroline Thompson, 856 North West Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition and noted that her family had also moved to this area in 1964; that their home had about 2900 square feet, and the petition before the Commission hit the residents of the area like a bomb because all of the residents had at least one-half acre lots, and it was her opinion that it was not fair to the property owners in the area to permit a reduction in lot size; that it appeared the Commission was trying to push this development, and the Commission had already decided what should be developed rather than considering the comments of the opposition who wanted to retain the area in the manner in which it had developed; and that the Commission should require that these lots be at least the same as had been developed in the area, namely, retaining them at 10,000 square feet or more per lot. Chairman Herbst inquired of Mrs. Thompson whether or not she had made a survey of the area to see whether or not aAI the lots in the area met the R-O Code or were less than the R-O Code required since these homes and lots had been there for a number of years, and the R-O Zone was established on the properties many years after thzse homes were developed. Commissioner Gauer was of the opinion that not many people would purchase locs in this tract and build on the property; that the developer was proposing homes ranging in size from 1525 *_0 1681 square feet, and most people these days did not like to have a large lot to take care of; that not everyone had 3000-square foot homes on 10,000-square foot lots; that the Commission was attempting to upgrade this area from 6000-square foot lots to 7500-square foot lots; and that this particular area looked like a desert which was now proposed to be developed with very attractive homes because the Commission was aware of the quality of homes built by the proposed developer. d _a. .. . : ., i - . ~ ~ .. ~ . , / c:U c~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 5, 1971 71-168 VARIANCE NO. 2242 - Chairman Herbst noted that the R-1 Zone which covered most of the single-family residential area in Anahe:im TENTATIVE MAP OF would be almost met by 8 of tY,e 12 lots in this tract, TRACT NO. 7198 and rather than having this property remain undev~loped, (Continued) since it was a former dump site, the proposed develop- ment was acceptable. Mrs. Thompson stated that she would rather see it remain in its present condition than have smaller homes on smaller lots since she and her neighbors wanted the area to remain with a spacious atmosphere and were _ not desirous of having a loss of value of their homes just to assist one man who was fully aware this was a former dump site when he purchased the property. Comn.issioner Allred noted that he had been a resident of Anaheim for y~ twenty-five years, and many of these existing vacant parcels had remained vacant all these years - therefore, it would appear logical to assume that in five to ten years owners of the large lots with large homes could request land assembly and develop the properties for a more intense use than presently existed, and that the proposed homes would be more salable than large lots and large homes. Furthermore, this property had not moved in twenty-five years. Mrs. Thompson then observed that, in other words, the Commission was not desirous of retaining the R-O Zone in Anaheim but was desirous of changing this existing area. Mr. Ray Siegele, 832 North West Street, appeared before the Commission in :' opposition and noted that he also had a deep lot similar to the Thompson ~ property; that he agreed with most of the statements made by the opposition; `i that perhaps the developer was upgrading the property, even though the :{ required 10,000-sgv,are foot lots were not being provided, nor were the •i 2000 to 3000-square foot homes - however, the residents having these >~ homes in this area would prefer them; that many people had $50,000 to ,.~f $75,000 homes in this area; that they were not complaining about the high cost of taxes since the people owning these large lots enjoyed them, and he could see no reason for permitting smaller lots by the ~ubdivision of subject property since it was his feeling that this would not upg>ade the existing homes in the area by placing new homes on substandard lots; ~:~ that there were still many large homes on both sides of subject property - therefore, this type of development should remain; that the homes on '~ Redondo Drive having 6000-square foot lots were developed in 1950, and ;.:~ the smaller homes were popular when Anaheim's population was small; that although West Street was considered by the Engineering staff to be widened, ,~:`;,, the Commission and City Council did not feel this should be done because • this would ruin a prime residential area; that the problem of expense to develop subject property was not the concern of the neighbors or the ~ City because when one was involved in business, such as building develop- " ment, a job should be started and completed without affecting the adjoin- ing properties; and that he had several friends who were interested in ',~ larger than 1500-square foot homes since those homes were not large enough for a growing family; and that he would recommend that the property be developed in accordance with the site development standards of the R-O , Zone. A petition of opposition signed by six property owners was read to the Commission. ;' = Mr. Queyrel, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the price ~~ ` of the homes would be a minimum of $30,000, and this did not include land- scaping. ;~ * .. +;: ; . - Mr. Queyrel, in rebuttal, noted that Mr. Maus had requested that a masonry wall be required to enclose this development, and they also would prefer ,: . to have that - however, the single-family zones did not require construction ~ of a wall, and, therefore, they were not providing it. Furthermore, the Commission must be aware of the fact that many lots in this area were only *• ~ .~'x ~~ ;. %, ~>~: : . . ~, ` ~ ~ ~ ; I ~~ :- ~~ . ~ ,; . : ,,: - . ,n.:. ~. ~ . ; _ . 0 (~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN, April 5, 1971 ~~~ 71-169 VARIANCE NO. 2242 - 50 to 60 feet :~ide and had only a 20-foot building setback. Theref~r,e, ~;a~y had attempted to build in TENTATIVE MwP OF accordance with development in the immediate area, TRACT NO. 7198 and most of the homes were valued at much less than (Continued) $50,000, as was evidenced by a statement by one of the realtors present at the last public hearing; and that the higher price was the exception rather than the rule. Commissioner Farano inquired as to the length of time Mr. Brooks owned this property and how long was the property used as a dump. Mr. queyrel replied that Mr. Brooks owned the property for twelve years, and that they did not know about the dump site until they conducted soil borings, but the dump site, from information given him, was there for about thirty years. 1 Commissioner Farano then noted that there was a serious fill problem on ' subject property, and whether this could be used to justify the claim of ; hardship was not certain since the property owner had control of the 1 property for a number of years and was now asking for the "going price" on the property and still claiming a hardship which did not appear to be , logical. '~: F~. :i~; : f ;. .fst: .: Mr. Queyrel replied that the claim of hardship was based upon the fact that the lots in the area were not predominately 10,000-square foot lots as the zone on the property required. Furth,ermore, the lots were far less in width than the zone also required. Commissioner Farana n~~ted that many of these homes had been established prior to establishing the R-O 2one on the property, and although the lots were small in width, this may have no merit as it pertained to West Street since the zoning was established in the event these lots were redeveloped rather than because of the st.ructures on them; and that if land assembly did occur, this could create a"whole new ballgame"- because of the effect of the proposed development, this might start the "ball rolling" for land assembly and development with smaller lots and homes. Mr. Queyrel noted that the lots were narrow and deep, and many did not conform to the minimum 90 feet required by the R-O 2one, and that many of these homes were well maintained; therefore, it would appear unlikely that these homes or their owners in the foreseeable future would be torn down and redeveloped through land assembly. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-55 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2242, subject to conditions, on the basis that the developer r,ow proposed t~omes that were more in keeping with the minimum requirement of the R-1 Zane which this area was primarily composed of, and development within tI~e confines of the R-O 2one would not be consistent with other development in the area - therefore, waiver of the R-O standards appeared to be valid; and that although the developer was to be commended for pravid3ng ingress and egress through the tract to the Little League ball park, this would impose an undue hardship upon the residents of this tract with both vehicular and pedestrian traffic, which would be detrimental to the privacy of the tract, and said accessway should be eliminated. (See Resolution Book) Prior to roll call, further discussion was held by the Commission regard- ing the proposal, after which Commissioner Seymour stated that this particular area did not conform to the R-O standards for a majority of the parcels in close proximity to subject property, and that he was viewing the property as it appeared today with its peculiar problems. Furthermore, if land assembly were considered, this would never take place because the values were too inconsistent to try land assembly due to extremely high land cost. ' f'~':`__Y'^~Y~.-~. ~ _ . ~ ~ ~ • _r E Y ~ 1 ~ : ~ <~ _ x . - `~'. I ~ . . f ' ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ . 1 CO ~ ~. ) MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 5 1971 , 71-170 VARIANCE NO. 2242 - On rull call the foregoin~ resolution • r ~ was passed by the following vote: > ~, !~ ~ TENTATIVE Mpp ~F TRACT NO. 7198 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: A;lred, Gauer, Herbst, (Continued) • ` Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONE;RS : Farano. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. . Commissioner Seymour offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred and MO•PION CARRI ED t ~~ ~*~':: ..;; : + .. X , . , o approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 7198, subject to the following conditions : P„ t : : 1. That approval of Tentative Map of Tract No 7198 i t ; . s granted subject to the approval of Variance No. 2242. :. 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more tha ;`; ~ ~ " _s n one subdivison, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted i n tentative form for approval. ,`~ 3. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 4. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim i pr or to approval of a£inal tract map. fii ~` 5. That drainage of Tract No. 7198 shall be disposed of i n a manner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer. ~ 6. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted t and a ~* o pproved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange Count R ~?:. y ecorder. 'F ;.} 7. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim th .~ e appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be:~ _~ropriate b th i ;. '~ `} ~ y e C ty Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. ~ r,~ ~~ 8. That the cross section of Street "A" shall have a 40-foot ? curb to curb travel way and full S-foot P.C.C. sidewalks or th t - , , , a the width and location of the sidewalks shall be r: a Pproved by the City Engineer. T `~' ".~ 9. That a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the west boundar of L t ~~ y o s 7 and 8 and the south boundary of Lot 8(stepped down to 42" in th ~ ..~ ::::r e front setback of Lot 8). °i, µ 10. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the ~-~:ti sum of 154 per front foot along west Street for tree planting pur o . •"x p ses. t 11. That depending upon the determination of the City Engineer regarding the width and locati ~ on of the sidewalks along Street "A", the property owner shall either (a) t ~ ~ pay o the City of Anaheim the sum of 15C per front foot along Street "A"; or (b) i • ~ n-lieu of the payment of normal street tree fees the developer shall lant i ; = p a m nimum of one (1), 15-gallon tree in the front yard of each lot of th '' '`1 e subdivision, said trees shall be planted a minimum of 8 feet behind th e sidewalk, shall be subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance a d : , Y , n shall be installed prior to final building and zoning inspection Th d ' . e etermination of which of the above alterna- tives will be employed shall be left t ;'`-' : ' ` o the discretion of the City Engineer. :: :t ~r`' . ~. CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. CHARLES R. AND PHYLLIS M PERMIT N0 1229 . . TALMAGE, 10432 Center Drive, Villa Park, California ~ ` , Owners; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A STORAGE Z FACILITY FOR BOATS, TRAILERS AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES WITH WAIVERS OF (1) THE REQUIRED 6-FOOT MASONRY WALL AND (2) THE MINIMUM REQUIRED LAND:~CAPED SETBACK o n property described as: An irregularly- .. 1; . ~t4E ;. ti 'tii_, . ~ .~.<...., • , ~ 1 : r .. . _ -~ . . . ~ , - ~ . - ' ~ ' . ,x'2' - , ~ ' . _ ~ _ : ~ .. ' . ' ~ ' y . i .. . .. . . . . .... . ... . . . .. ~ . ~ . ~ ~ _ . . . ~ i _.._. I I ~ f v c~ (~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 5, 1971 71-171 CONDITIONAL USE - shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately PERMIT NO. 1229 2.2 acres, having a frontage of approximately 385 (Continued) feet on the south side of Katella Avenue, having a ~ maximum depth of approximately 310 feet, and being located approxlmately opposite the terminus of Howell Avenue and further described as 2300 East Katella ' Avenue. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of March 22, 1971, at _-~~~ the request of the petitioner. f., ~s~istant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of ; subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to establish a storaqe yard for boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles ~' in an enclosed area having a chainlink fence around the eri her oro ert P P y of the P y, whereas Code would require a 6-foot masonry wall enclosing ~ storage facilities; that Code would further require a minimum 50-foot wide landscaped parking setback, whereas the plans indicated the units would be stored as far forward as the property line; and that in the ~ event the Planning Commission determined this use to be appropriate, - approval should be contingent upon providing adequate internal circulation for fire protection, together with provisions for waste disposal for the self-contained camper units. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that there appeared to be some legal problem on subject property, and since Assistant City Attorney John Dawson had been negotiating with the property owners through litigation, he would explain this problem. ,,~ :~ Mr. Dawson advised the Commission that a portion of the Talmage property had been condemned when the Santa Fe underpass was constructed; that there originally were four parcels involved, and one was still under litigation, but in connection with the Talmage property there was a cash ~ settlement, with the City agreeinq to take care of the entrance a roach ~' P P to the ro ert • t P P hat one f Y. o the conditions in the settlement of condem- nation proceedings was that the Talmage property would be permitted to build to the property line where the underpass had taken away direct _ access to Katella Avenue; that where fees were required for trees, etc., under a conditional use permit or variance, these would remain unchanged - ~'_V all that would concern the Talmage property was the fact that their access to Katella Avenue had been taken away, and the fees would be charged ~~ according to the area which had access to Katella Avenue only; and that 3 a letter was on file that was available to the Planning Commission regard- '' ing this problem - however, since this action went through Superior Court, Y it should be binding upon the Commission in their consideration. ~. :' ~: Mr. Eugene Tutt, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the most important thing as far as the Planning Commission was concerned was the visibility from Katella Avenue : as set forth in the Report to the Commission, however, since this was ; only an interim use until the freeway was developed and the property was ready for a more intense land use, these conditions should be s~aived. ti Chairman fierbst inquired whether or not the petitioner would stipulate that the proposed use would be an interim use only; whereupon Mr. Tutt replied that if the Commission so required, they would so stipulate. Chairman Herbst then noted that there appeared to be an easement along '~ the west side of the Redel property to the east of the larger portion of ;~: ~. subject property and inquired if this were so; whereupon Mr. Tutt replied ~;' there was an easement and that they would have access over the Redel s. property. Commissioner Gauer inquired whether or not this would be a storage area '.. for old or new equipment; whereupon Mr. Tutt replied that this was proposed ~° to be a rental storage area for people who had this type of equipment but ~ did not have space available on their lots where their homes were. r ` ~ I F_~ ! _~ ~ ..1 ~ II i _, .... . ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 5, 1971 71-172 CONDITIONAL USE - Chairman Herbst further noted that the plan did not PERMIT NO . indicate any landscaping for screenin g purposes (Contia :~l~ proposed and inquired whether there was any plan to - haoe landsca.ping. Mr. Tut :t~ , whzn the overpass was built, the City erected a 6-foot c+,,_ :;r .. •,F.;u;~;; that the tracks were elevated about 6 feet above grade; t-~ .~,-•i:;xperty was a triangularly-shaped parcel that was un- developed M-•i ~~operty, and it would stay that way until the freeway was _ ~ completed. .__:.h1- -'~' Chairman Herbst then noted that this was a very shallow overpass and ~,~Y,~ inquired whether or not the fence could be removed. ~` ~i;, + Mr. Tutt noted that the property was visible when traveling westward - `, however, it could not b~ seen going eastward since the City had erected the fence presently existing, and toqether with a 1 to 2-foot strip between the concrete drainage and the fence, this area was not maintained, `.~ therefore, this would appear to be a maintenance problem of the City; and ~. that there would be no change in the use of the property until after the - freeway was completed. Chairman Herbst noted that the proposed use was not permitted in the M-1 =' Zone - therefore, since t.his was not a permitted use in the existing zone -?~i on the property, the required screening could be a condition of a ppzoval for the use of the propertv. Mr. Tutt replied that the court settlement stated that they could build ,y to the property line since they had no access to Katella Avenue. '<`,~ Chairman Herbst noted that the court settlement was to permi•~ the erection ,~ of a building - however, this was an alternative use, and the City would 1 require screening as a normal requirement for outdoor storaqe in the M-1 ~ Zone. Furthermore, because this wa~ a major entry into the city, he ' ,~ felt something should be placed there, and in viewing other similar uses, '9 these storage areas were very unsightly. ! '~ Commissioner Allred inquired whether landsca P '~::~ ping cou].d 1~e develo ed in a ;,t similar manner as was planted around the County trash collection center. *;~l Office Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission, in response to question- '~:•~ ing, that in all likelihood the fence belonged to the City of Anaheim -'.~: since it was erected at the time the overpass ~~as constructed, and that `~`:~:\ the drainage ditch also beLonged to the City - therefore, there would be no problem in removing this trash and maintaining it by the City. :. .; ~~ Mr. Lowry advised the Commission that as he understood the agreement in i the covrt settlement, a building could be erected along the property line, and that should present no problem - however, the petitioner was '~ proposing storage only along the fence; therefore, it would be within the ,~ Commission's prerogative to require reasonable landscaping since this was .:} a condition of other M-1 outdoor storage. ~i Mr. Tutt then advised the Commission that the petitioner was willing to provide some screening to protect the City, as suggested - however, with a fence at this location, together with the drainage ditch, this could present a problem - however, to have landscape screening on the inside wo•uld not materially affect the number of spaces that could be used on ~; the property. ,f Chairman Herbst noted that the Commission was desirous of abiding by the R.. - City's agreement made when the underpass was built - however, since the y petitioner was proposing to store vehicles on the premises and since this ~ was not a permitted use in tlie M-1 2one, one of the site development ~ standards of the M-1 2one required othar industrially developed properties 1 to enclose their storage areas with a 6-foot wall, and not to require this r.~ of the petitioner would be granting a privilege not enjoyed by others * ~<. : .ikc '.. ' i` ~ $. { ~~ V - ,. _ !~ _ . ... . ~ , _' ~ -~ i t;~..-. . .: ~ ~ ;-w .:1..., . _. ,. --- ~ . ~ ~ ~~ t j -------- MINUTES, CITy pLANNING COMMISSION, April 5, 1971 71-173 CONDITIONAL USE - for a nonconforming use and requested that the PERMIT NO. 1229 petitioner stipulate to providing landscaping as (Continued) suggested by the Commission. Furthermore, since the petitioner had indicated this would be an interim use, he would like to knov, the length of time the petitioner intended this to be an interim use. Mr. Tutt replied that he would not like to commit the petitioner to a specific time limit, but wanted the Commission to set this time limit, and if after the five years as the Commission had stated this could be a time limit and that it could be reviewed for extension of time, this would be acceptable to them. Chairman Herbst noted that if this area did not change in the next five years, then the existing use proposed wauld be appropriate - however, if development occurred in the interim, then the petitioner should be required to meet all of the site development standards of the M-1 Zone. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not the petitioner had an idea of what was ultimately proposed to be developed on the property. Mr. Tutt replied that in all likelihood it would be a commercially-oriented type of business, but just what that entailed, he could not say. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ;i';~; Commissioner Rowland noted this particular conditional a ; ?~ use permit did not ppear to be part of the settlement made in Superior C M ~ ~ ourt; w? ere r. Lowry noted that the Commission was bound b the th ~~3 y agreement however, e proposed use and method of operation did not fall ~ within that agree- ment, and the only requirement which the Commission co it ld u not impose as pertained to site development standard .-,: s was the 50-foot building setback where no access was permitted. ., ~~ 'Commissioner Rowland then inquired wheth ?;: ,_,,,,_, er an thin Y g the Commission required of subject progerty w•culd b ~ `~ e questionable. f , - ~ ,:] Mr. Lowry replied that since the petitioner would be enjoying a land that was differe t ~ use n than approved in the settlement of the court, and since there appeared to be some v ` ~ "~ agueness in the proposed use, then Commission could request that the perhaps the ~ ','~ . t~ tre various site development standards which their bod f r p `~ y elt were needed ' ~; 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the Commission had disous at length the ro d E p se perty which did not have access to Katella Avenue - however, nothing was t ;T s ated about property which did have access; that from Engineering records there a ; ~~ , ppeared to be 99 feet on the west from which access was available. f Commissioner Rowland noted that according to this plan was th t , no e petitioner taking advantage of the access available. Chairman Herbst noted that this was one of the questions which he had asked - whether o ; r not the petitioner was taking access over the easement on the Redel propexty, and where would t ; he slope start, or would there have to be a common access. ~ 'Mr. Roberts noted that from his recollection the drivewa across £ wa di y s rectly rom Howell Avenue, and then reviewed with th C ~^' ; e ommission the location of the access as it pertained to the plans. ' Chairman Herbst then inquired whether or not the petitioner would stipulate to providing landscapin u t th ~ ,` g p o e point where the property began its slope for the underpass; whereupon the petitioner st t a ed that they would land- scape up to the common drive. ~..iht ,; . `I ~ f , ~:; ,,~ ~~ I~:'~ k; '.3 •`:i e r ":~ - ~; ~~ . r~ . *'- "~.1~3t. ' -;' . ;~~ ' ~ ,~,. s.:...~.r .~ . ~ . . . ~ - .. .. ~,' i. . . . ~ . . . . . . . .. ~ : . . _. . . . ~ . . !i % 1 1--~ ~ ~ l:_) MINUTES, CITY PLANNI~IG COMMISSION, April 5, 1971 71-174 CONDITIONI~L USE - Mr. Slaughter inquired whether or not the Commission PERMIT NO. 1229 also wanted to screen the property as one looked from (Continued) the Redel property going westward, southerly of the common access easement, because this storage facility would be visible across the Redel property, Mr. Roberts also noted that there was a strip alono the easterly property line east of the Redel property which should also be screened. The Commission then determined that tne property for a depth of 20 feet alonq the Redel westerly property line should be landscape screened, and the entire easterly frontage of the narrow strip should also be landscaped. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC71-56 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1229 for a period of five years with option to renew upon request and approval by the Planning Commission, subject to providing landscaping along the Katella Avenue frontage and for a depth of 20 feet along the westerly boundary of the Redel property line, as stipulated to by the petitioner, and along the easterly strip east of the Redel easterly property line, said landscaping to be sim~.lar to that provided on the Orange County Trash Transfer Station, and that a dump station be provided on the s3te for self-contained travel trailers. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Kaywood. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. TENTATIVE :7AP OF - DEVELOPER: J. W, KLUG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., TRACT NO. 7137, 4540 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, California. REVISION NO. 2 ENGINEER: MILLET-KING & ASSOCIATES, 1303 West Valencia Drive, Fulleston, California; property located between Esperanza Road and the Santa Ana River easterly of Imperial Highway, consisting of approximately 90 acres, and is proposed for subdivision into 440 R-2-5000 zoned lots. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter noted for the Commission that a letter had been received requesting a two-week continuance in order that the tract map might be revised to improve street circulation and to conform with the Scenic Corridor conditions which were a requirement of a condition of the R-2-5000 zoning. Commissioner Farano offered a motion to continue consideration of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7137, Revision No. 2, to the meeting of April 19, 1971, as requested by the developer. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: L. A. MUCKENTHALER, 1530 West Avolencia TRACT NO. 7370 Drive, Fullerton, California. ENGINEER: ANACAL ENGINEERING COMPANY, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; property locate~ east of Lakeview Avenue and north of Santa Ana Canyon Road, consisting of approximately 9.3 acres, and is proposed for subdivision into 41 R-1 zoned lots. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter noted for the Commission that the petitioner had submitted a letter requesting a two-week continuance in order to resolve problems. Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to continue consideration of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7370 to the meeting of April 19, 1971, as requested by the developer. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. " .. . . . , ~.. , _ y . ^ i ` >, ~ ,'. + : J ~, _~._.. _- 1 -- .~ + ~ V 1 i ` ~l '7 r! •a ',~ - !±~ J . .,~. . `1 ir k i'r.. _ ;i '; :: `-s `~- , ~- ~ -1 ! 1 i ' . f:';~•~-L'~ ~ / ~ {~J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 5, 1971 71-175 RECESS - Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to recess the meeting for ten minutes. The meeting recessed at 3:45 P.M. RECONVENE - Chairman Herbst reaonvened the meeting at 4:00 P.M., all Commissioners being present. VARIANCE N0. 2244 - PUBLIC HEARING. EUGENE E. LA MERES, New England, North Dakota, Owner; WILLIAM 'u'. LA MERES, 1570 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF P,EQUIRED PARKING SPACES TO PERMIT EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING MOTEL on property described as: A rectangularly- shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 175 feet on the west side of West St.reet, having a maximum depth of approximately 300 feet, and being located approximately 290 fr.et north of the centerline of Katella Avenue, and further described as 1759 South West Street. Property presently classified C-R, COMMERCII~L-RECREATTON, 20NE. Assistant Zoninq Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to expand an existing motel wherein 72 off-street parking spaces would be required - however, only 50 spaces were proposed; and that the Planning Commission would have to determine whether there was any justi- fication for waiver of 22 parking spaces or 328 of the required parking spaces. Furthermore, a similar request was approved under Variance No. 2129 for the Ivanhoe Motel, at which time the staff was requested to make a study of the parking requirements of the C-R Zone - however, due to staff's work load, this study had not been done. Therefore, the Commission would have to judge this proposal on its individual merit. Mr. Jo?~n Swint appear~. ~efore the Commission, stating he represented the agent for the pet~_ioner who had a heart problem and was unable to be present at the public hearing; that he was not prepa±-zd to present any substantiating evidence except that the Anahei~ Visitors and Convention Bureau htld recently stated that half of the visitors during the past month had been flown in, and Mr. La Meres also had an interest in the Park Vue and Cosmic Age Motels; and then reviewed the number of visitors during the past week at these motels, together with the number of parking spaces which were available but not in use. Commissioner Farano inquired how all these visitors managed to get around; whereupon Mr. Swint replied that 148 of the visitors rented automobiles and 43+t in the four motels in which Mr. La Meres had an interest did not have cars, and all these motels provided bus service to Disneyland and nearby places. Commissioner Farano noted that perhaps that was fine for trips to Disneyland, but what did these people do for transportation to restaurants; whereupon Mr. Swint replied that most of the visitors were from the East and Middlewest and were accustomed to walking more than people on the West Coast walked. Commissioner Farano then inquired where the cars that were rented parked; whereupon Mr. Sw~nt replied these were parked on the motel property - however, this represented only 14$ of the total visitors to these motels. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not the petitioner had made a survey of the parking requirements during the summer months. Mr. Swint then stated that the Ivanhoe Motel had made a similar request, at which time the City had conducted a study regarding parking require- ments, and this was verified by the owner of the Alamo Motel. ~ ~ ~~d~Yl',.'^4.. ~{'.;~~.'. ~ ~.l' „ . i ._b ~ :. : . 4 r ~ ; - : __- -..__ .__ . i _ . _ _ _ _.-.-- _ . U ~ --- (~ - ------ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMSSSION, April 5 1971 , 71-176 VARIANCE NO. 2244 - Chairman Herbst noted that at the time the Commissi (Continued) on and City Council reviewed the request of the Ivanhoe Motel evidence ' , was submitted which indicated that they catered t o a particular t.ype of business in conjunction with a program established with th e airiines, and a study of the number of narking spaces he used ov , er a period of a number of months was also presented. Mr. Swint noted that this would be the same type of a rrangements Mr. La Mere had. ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ Chairman Herbst noted that the Convention Center trade was primarily "flying-in" visitor c ~ -± •:y s - however, in the summer months, the ma or j portion of the visitors were "drive-in" , {.{' ; ; '• Mr. Swint noted that Mr. La Meres had a very complete package which he had planned to r ~. p esent to the Commission; however, his illness prevented him from giving this informatio n to the Commission. : ~;, Commissioner Allred noted that he coulrl not vote on this petition until he had more information - , , as to the numb~r of people who would be flying in - therefore, he would suggest that subject etiti p on be continued until such time as Mr. La Meres could be t '~~ present to give this documentation to the Commission and answer questions the Commissi ~ on might have sinae any spot checking of motels by an individual would indicat t ~; e hat there were no parking spaces available, and since there ~J was no parking permitted on ~he street, where would these extra people ark if `~ p they rented vehicles. . ~ Mr. Swint replied that Mr. La Meres was very well versed in the motel business and he w "~ , as sure Lhat he would not j~opardize his busine~-: if this were true. ~~ `1 ~ Commissioner Allred noted this might be true, but it might also mean ~ the petition _~ ,~ er wanted to cash in on the extra revenue. j t~ , 4 I Mr. Swint, replying to Commissioner Gauer's question, stated that ther would be no v l t ` ~ a e e parking. „~ Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to continu ;_~ ;~ e consideration of Petition for Variance No. 2244 to the meetin of A i ; ;; g pr l 19, 1971, to allow the agent for the petitioner time to be ';~ present to answer questions. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion ~ . MOTION CARRIED. : ,r; ~~ ~ VARIANCE NO. 2246 - PUBLIC HEARING. ANDRO PETERSON 415 W t , es Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; FEDERAL SIGN ; , & SIGNAL CORPORATION, 3036 South Oak Street, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting WAIVERS ,,,~ OF (1) MAXZMUM SIGN HEIGHT AND (2) MAXIMUM SIGN AREA on property described a 3 '' s: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land having a fronta e of a 10 g ~ e x' feet on the north side of Katella Avenue, having a maximum of a depth r pproximately 635 feet, and being located approximately 800 feet ~r ~~ east of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard, and further described as 415 W ' est Katella Avenue. Pro ert ~ P y presently classified C-R, COMMERCIAL-RECREA TION, 20NE. ~ Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject ro t p per y, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to erect a 51-foot high, 499-s uar f q e oot, free-standing sign, noting ~ that the waiver of the heiqht was ?; , a. necessitated by the fact that ther was a mobilehom e e ark a P roxim PP ate 1 3 20 f ' '. ~: location;~that based upon the 110-foot fronta eu f t P~ e g o the parcel a maximum 220-square foot sign would be permitted - therefor t ~.~. : e, he area of the proposed free-standing siqn would be a X a i : ~ permitted by Code; that the proposal would be similar to the si pro n osed f = p g or the Park Vue Motel which was denied by both the Planning Commission and Cit Co i ; y unc l in June, 1970, and as pointed out by staff in the Report to the Commissio n at that time, it had been indicated that ~~i `, .~e` ~ , + ' - ---.. _ _ - . ~ t _, -.~ , 1. +.j f ~ I ~, ~l .! l r`; ~ ~ LJ ~ _) MINUTES, CITY PLANNZNG COMMISSION, April 5, 1971 71-177 VARIANCE NO. 2246 - the Commercial-Recreation Area had been cited many (Continued) times as an example of what could happen to an area wheY~ signing was not controlled; that ihe previous pet:tioner, as well as the petitioner of subject property, had indicated that the existing signiny situation in the Commezcial-Recreation e~rea made granting of the variance necessary, this being due to the existence of nonconforming signing and signs established under other variances which made a.t difficult tn advertise any new uses. However, such sign clutter and obstructions were such that there was very little alternative but to erect larger signs which, in turn, created further problems for other signs in the area. Therefore, in conclusion, in view of the fact that the Commission and City Council had denied Variance No. 2180, it would appear that the petitioner for this variance would have to demonstrate good reason why his petition should be approved. Mr. Jack Bodrey, representing the agent for the petitioner, Federal Sign & Signal Corporation, appeared before the Commission and stated that the petitioner was erecting a 188-unit motel an.d was quite concerned about his investment, one of the problems being that the parcel had only a 110-foot frontaqe with a depth of 635 feet; that the site was in the middle of the block surrounded by eight motels who advertised their facilities with 40 to 50-foot signs, and the petitioner would be entirely dependent upon signing on Katella Avenue as his identification - there- fore, without proper identification, it would be difficult for visitors to locate the motel; that they had revised their desiqn and staff had informed them that if certain sign specifications were adhered to, there would be no signing problem; that the signing proposed was expected to do the job of advertising the location of the motel, and the size and shape of the sign was the same as their signs located in San Diego and Las Vegas; that the sign was designed to a 50-foot height, although staff a.ndicated it was 51 feet high; that the height of the sign was only 47 feet to the top of the illuminated section; that the sign was desiqned to have only 220 square feet, and there appeared to be a different method by which the staff ineasured the size of a sign; that the mobilehome park was the only residential Lse which limited the height of the sign - however, there were other signs just as close which did not meet this criteria for height but were the same as was proposed. ~j! Chairman Herbst noted that the agent £or the petitioner did not have to r tell the Commission the number of signs located in this area, nor those ~~ that were in violation, since they were fully aware of the necessity of '`;r a Sign Ordinance, and to maintain this requirement as nearly as possible, even though there were violations in the past which had been granted, and that many of the sign companies had sat in with the Commission in their ,'~: study sessions in preparing the Sign Ordinance when all had agreed they could live with said ordinance - however, the sign request now before the Commission requested approval of a sign that was twice that permitted by the very code which these sign companies noted they could live with, and a number of the signs in existence were nonconforming signs established prior to the adoption of said Sign Ordinance. Mr. Bodrey then stated his case was one of hardship since the petitioner would be limited to only a 27-foot high sign, while those in the area were anywhere from 40 to 50 feet high. 3, Chairman xerbst noted that the Sign Ordinance had been written that way '" and had been in existence £or several years. Mr. Bodrey noted that the Ivanoe sign was 50 feet high, and the recently remodeled Riviera also had a larger sign; that most motels had reader- ;,' ' board signs, and the 27-foot height sign on subject property would be virtuall~ invisible from Katella Avenue or Harbor Boulevard; that there '' was a question as to whether or not the mobilehome park could be considered a residential use since it was located in a commercial zone, and if this were residential, then every sign in this area was in violation; and that ~ „~t ~ '~. _ ~~ -- ~ . iJ f ~ (7 ~-~ i MINUTES~ CzTY ~L2{NNING COMMISSION, April 5, 1971 71-178 ~,., '~ : ` .~4! '+' '' ~ VARIANCE NO. 2246 - seven sign companies bid on this proposal, and all (Continued) came in with 50-foot signs, and their figure of the area of the sign was the same, namely, 220 square feet - not as staff ineasured it at 499 square feet. Chairman Herbst noted that the area of the sign was governed by the £rontage of the property, and other signs in the area had to comply with the same requirement unless waived by variance. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission this was basically a problem in the area of the sign permitted on subject property, and if the petitioner had more frontage, a larger sign would be permitted - however, this did not have any effect upon the height of the sign. Commissioner Kaywood noted that the sign clutter was becoming ridiculous, and unless a sign were located above the telephone poles, it could not be seen - therefore, it was her opinion that the height of 27 feet would allow the passing motorists a better chance tc view the sign since it would be more visible. Mr. Bodre~• noted that they had targeted this property to determine where the best location was, but the Kings Row Restaurant would block the sign, and that they wanted a sign that would be complimentary to the develop- ment. Commissioner Gauer noted that the carwash sign was within Code require- ments and was quite visible from either direction. Mr. Bodrey remarked that the Barclays Bank sign was only 75 feet from the residential zone, and it was 50 feet high - therefore, this area must be a commercial zone; that the location of the mobilehome park would make every motel sign illegal; and that they were pleading a hardship because the 188-unit motel would have no identification. Commissioner Seymour noted it would appear from the statement made by the petitioner that he was making a substantial investmer.t in the sign, and then inquired whether the petitioner. would feel the same if the Sign Ordinance were amended which would eliminate all these high signs. Chairman Aerbst noted that the siqn clutter was so great that one could not read any of the signs, namely, how high was hig;: or wide - where these signs were located up in the sky. It would appear that the signs at a lower hPight would be more visible by the motoring public, and the motel people were hurting only themselves with requests for higher signs. Mr. Bodrey stated that when they sighted the sign they felt that 47 feet high was necessary, an3 anything lower would not be seen, and if the petitioner had known this, he would not have taken the steps he had in developing the motel units. The Commission noted that they were sure the petitioner was fully aware of the sign requirements since this had been a part of the ordinance since its inception. Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that he would like to make a statement regarding Mr. Bodrey's comments on other high signs in the area: these signs were qranted prior to the time the Commission made the interpretation that mobilehome parks were to be considered residential uses. Commissioner Farano inquired what would be the permitted height if the mobilehome park were not located there. Mr. Roberts replied that the sign could go to a height of 60 feet which was the maximum of a sign in the Commercial-Recreation Zone; however, the size or area of the siqn was controlled by the street frontage - therefore, since he had only a 110-foot frontage, he would be permitted a 220-square foot sign. . _ . ~. . , . ~ ~'._ ~"r~ ~_ t :.-. ;~;;;dt : +:`',,~., ~ '.. ..~ t C _a _ _ . . . ~. _ . . _ f C~:) ~ ~~ ~) MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 5, 1971 71-179 VARIANCE NO. 2246 - Mr. Bodrey remarked that the manner in which the staff (Continued) calculated the square footage of a sign was different than the way it was considered by the sign people. Commissioner Rowland inquired of Mr. Bodrey how many signs had the Federal Sign Company erected in the ~ity of Anaheim; whereupon Mr. Bodrey replied approximately 200. Commissioner Rowland then stated that the manner in which a sign was measured would be the responsibility of the sign company, and since the ,...:- ordinance was written with the representatives of the various sign y~:..~~, companies present to assist the Commissian in drafting the Sign Ordinance, ~; there was no excuse for questioning the n;anner in which the size of a sign `~' was calculated. ~. ~ ~_~, Mr. Slaughter noted that the first sign which came in with a readerboard ,:. was the Zaby Motel sign, and the manner in which the sign was permitted was that a rectangle was drawn on the outside of the sign. Since then, ~ a variance was granted to expand this sign - however, the sign was ~: originally approved with 350 square feet. Mr. Bodrey noted that erection of a sign was a rather critical issue since the motel was ready for opening, and if a 27-foot high sign was all that would be permitted, the sign company would need~some direction from the Commission in the redesign of this sign. '; ; ~~ . ~ I ~' .ikc . Mr. Roberts, in response to Commission questioning, noted that the mobile- home park sign was 40 feet high - however, this sign was established in 1959, six years prior to the establishment of the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Bodrey advised the CommiGsion that they were not trying to violate the ordinance but wanted dir~ction to design the sign within the confines of the Commission's interpretation. Commissioner Allred then noted that the interested persons should forget what had happened in the past and look to the future since the petitioner had somewhat of a hardship case with the mobilehome park; however, he would not vote for a sign that was not within the confines of the ordinance as to height, and he would prefer a sign height which the motorist's eye could see, having a good readerboard, so that the motorist could see the types of services that were being offered rather than having to look skyward and possibly cause accidents. Mr. Andro Peterson, the petitioner, advised the Commission that since they did not have the same front footage that other parcels had, this should be considered a hardship; that he would be more than willing to go along with the reduction in the height of the sign - if the Commission would permit the proposed height, then he would reduce the height of his sign if within five years the City amended their ordinance which would limit the height of all signs - however, their motel was one of th? largest motels in the area and in Anaheim, and they r.eeded sufficient exposure to the traveling public to make this size motel a success; and that they were led to believe that they had complied with the square footaqe arca of a sign - however, if this were not so, they would be willing to comply with this portion o£ the ordinance. Chairman Herbst noted that representatives of the Federal Sign Company had appeared before the Commission many times, and the Commission was sure that they understood the requirements of the ordinance. Mr. Peterson noted that he had five companies bidding on this sign, and all came in with the same calculation as it pertained to the size of the sign. Mr. Peterson, in response to a question by the Commission, stated that they would only be willing to reduce the size of the sign if after the Commission established a maximum height for all signs in this area, but _:'~S~`ST~.Y•...ii~ ~~.~',y.:~,: i:~. . _ ~ is.~a~~ ~• ` _ f ~~ ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 5, 1971 ~J 71-180 VARIANCE NO. 2246 - he would still prefer the height requested, and that (Continued) it was his opinion that Katella Avenue would have a better appearance if the height of the signs were limited since he d3d not want to spend money for large ~ signs. Commissioner Kaywood inquired of Mr. Peterson whether or not he had checked , to see how low the sign could be placed and still be visible; whereupon _,, Mr. Peterson replied that the Kings Row Restaurant and the Samoa Motel on ~-. - either side of their property completely obliterated their sign at the "~ height suggested. ~ Chairman Herbst noted that the petitioner had two problems, namely, size :A, of the area of the sign and the height of the sign, and it was his feeling that the height of the sign was the most critical, and since the City had granted signs in this area at greater heights, even though the mobilehome ` park was there, to deny subject petition would deny a privilege to the ` petitioner which others enjoyed - however, if the petitioner could reduce ;~: the area of the sign, this would mean only one waiver to consider. Mr. Bodrey advised the Commission that since they wanted a readerboard on the bottom with the standard identification at the top, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to design the sign within the confines of the ordinance. Chairman Herbst was of the opinion that if the mobilehome park sign were ; 40 feet, there was no reason why the petitioner rould not also have a 1;.~ 40-foot sign. . <1 -~ Commissioner Seymour noted that he did not feel he had all the answers to ; the sign problem, but it was more apparent that the only answer would be i to establish an amortization period for all nonconforming signs - then the S~ Commission would be more consistent in their decisions in denying a right ,.~ which was enjoyed by others instead of having to evaluate each sign request, and that he personally would be opposed to most large and higher I}'r j signs in the area - even though these ro er ' +:1 it would be dif£icult to deny the right enjotedsbmay~thave unique problems, Y Y hers. ,;;;i Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to refer subject petition to the City Council without recommendation since a hardship sign would have to be `~ determined by them. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. ~i ~-~ Mr. Robert.a advised the Commission that the variance was a final action by the Plrinning Commission unless appealed or determined to be considered by the City Council - therefore, the Commission would have to make some kind of a r~commendation. P ~ Commissioner~ Rowland and Gauer withdrew their offer of a motion and secund. ;,y ~ Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC71-57 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2246 on the h:sis ` that the existing nonconforming signs and existing signing previously `~ approved under sign variance requests had become a blight upon ~he area; •I that approval of this request would lead to similar reqi~csts from adjoin- ing properties in the area as the signs on these propei:ties would be blocked by the proposed sign; and that the narrow street frontage of . subject property was a self-created hardship in that the balance of the ?:?" ~;. frontage of the original parcel, now under separate ownership, enjoyed »` ~ its own si nin -- 4 9. (See Resolution Book) ~~ ~t::.` On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: K:~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Kaywood, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Seymour. t ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; None. ~Insert: Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC71-57 to gr~nt a sign at a maaimum height ~' of 40 feet. The foregoittg motion was tied by the following vote: ?'~ ; AYES: CO~ISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Seymour. , NOES: GWdMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst, Kaywood. AB3ENT: COI~ISSIO~ERS: None. ABSTAIN: COM6AISSIONERS: Rowland. , ;. _~- _ ~ . . . .. ... . , ~ . .- . ~ . . ~ . . . . . ~ . ~'~ _. ~ - • { _ .z~',:r. [ _ . . . _. . , . . . : . ~ . ~ . . ~ . ' . .., .. .. . . . - .. .. .. _... , ... ~ . . . . ~l ~ . . ~ .~i _.. ~ a ~ ~! . . ~ : . i _ _ , ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 5, 1971 71-181 DIRECTIVE - Commissioner Farano offered a motion to direct the staff to prepare amendments to the Sign Ordinance which would establish an amortization period for all nonconforming signs. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Assistant City Attorney John Dawson advised the Commission, in response to questioning, that the Commission could establish an ordinance which would outlaw all nonconforming signs and amortize those existing by setting forth a specified time limit to remove the high signs, and if the Commission were desirous of having the Sign Ordinance amended which would amortize these signs, the City Attorney's office and the Develop- ment Services Department would be happy to prepare this. Furthermore, the courts had upheld amortization of signs at five years to be a reasonable time in other instances. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. ROBERT H. GRANT CORPORATION, N0. 70-71-40 1665 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting that property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 11 acres, located on the east side of Walnut Canyon Road approximately 2000 feet south of Santa Ana Canyon Road, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Assistant 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, noting that the petit~oner was proposing to rezone an 11-acre parcel to C-1, General Commercia,:, 2one uses; that the Hill and Canyon General Plan permitted only neighborhood shopping centers comprised of 2 to 3~ acres each; that the location would appear to be appropriate for commercial zoning based upon the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 123, however, the Commission would have to consider whether the developa:ent standards of the C-1 Zone would achieve the desired type of deve:lopment for the area or whether the standards of the C-H Zone would be more appropriate. In addition, the C-H Zone permitted a very limited range of commercial uses. Mr. Slaughter then no*_ed that in view of the change in land use policies reqarding commercial development ifi the major portion of the Hill and ~ Canyon Area, the Commission might find it desirable to pursue one of the three alternatives staff presented in the Report to the Commission. ''.~~ `". r ~ ~~:r i :I • .~t '~: ~~ ~, , ;: S'~'~. ~.~ .. Mr. Slaughter concluded by stating that in view of the adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 123, the Commission might wish to recommend to the City Council the termination of Reclassification No. 67-68-29 which permitted 11 acres of C-1 zoning at the southeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Walnut Canyon Road, said property also being a part of the petitioner's holdings, since that area was no longer indicated for commercial development. Mr. Bill Stark, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that in both subject petition and the subsequent petition they were requesting a zoninq which they did not really want; that he had become quite conversant with the Anaheim Municipal Code since this would be govern- ing development of their property; that they had been working with vari.ous City departments regarding the Planned Community Zone which would be more compatible with what they proposed to develop; that they needed some parameters for planning so that he had attempted to work with staff in resolving this - therefore, the need for the Planned Community 2one was necessary - however, it was necessary to have something immediately in order to effectuate some action; that they would like the Commission's indulgence to proceed with something for the property and in regard to the proposed C-1 Zone - however, there was only one zone which would really apply, and the C-1 2one was already approved for Santa Ana Canyon Road and Walnut Canyon Road, but they did not wish to pursue that reclassification. Furthermore, he did not feel anyone would be develop- ing in accordance with the C-H Zone because of economics within the zone requirements; and that they would be very happy to comply with the ~~ti,_.l - r / ~ ._i ~?~„ ~ . . \ ~ _~~ i ~ , ; ~ .' I ~ ~ j ; _~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 5, 1971 71-182 RECLASSIFICATION - recommended 25 to 26 conditions set forth in the NO. 70-71-40 Report to the Commission. (Continued) Chairman Herbst inquired of Assistant City Attorney John Dawson whether or not the Commission could add conditions as staff had set forth which were not within the requirements of the C-1 Zone the petitioner was requesting - would this be legally possible to grant a zone with the added conditions not normally required of other C-1 uses. Mr. Dawson replied that this would be rather difficult to make the action legal; however, the Commission had the power to deny the C-1 zoning. Chairman Herbst asked if the C-1 Zone were granted subject to all conditions set forth an8 the Grant Corporation sold a portion of the property, would the conditions be binding on the purchaser. Mr. Dawson stated that the City Cour..cil in the past had frowned on deed restrictions since they stated if a zone was not proper, then a new zone should be established, thus by esta:blishing restrictions which could be creating an isolated zonF, no one would know what was on the property, and this was one of the reasons for the existence of a Planning Commission, namely, to have orderly development of the property; that if the only possibility were to grant a zone a~ the applicant desired, some additional or less restricted action, such as filing a variance petition, thi.s would be a matter of record. However, to place deed restrictions on a parcel without benefit of recordation of deed restrictions would make the zoning of the property rather cloudy, and it was a very poor method of providing zoning. ?oning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted for the Commission that the recommended conditions in the Report to the Commission were the standard conditions of the Scenic Corridor Overlay (SC) Zone which would be applicable when it was adopted by the City Council. Chairman Herbst inquired whether or not the Commission could approve this subject to compliance with the (SC) Zone. Mr. Dawson noted that the petitioners were desirous of proceeding with their development, and it might be some time before the (SC) Zone was adopted. Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that Mr. Stark had indicated that he was not opposed to the conditions set forth in the Report to the Commissian, and since staff had worked with the PC and (SC) Zones, one of these zones could be applied later on. Mr. Dawson advised the Commission that the C-1 2one then could be approved subject to the petitioner's stipulation that they would abide by the recommended conditions of approval; however, if the property were sold, the purchaser would not be bound by these conditions. Furthermore, a re- draft of the PC Zone was on his desk - therefore, it would appear there would be no waiting for a more appropriate zone, and it was hoped this would be a zone that everyone could live with. Mr. Dawson, in response to questioning by Commissioner Kaywood, stated that the proposed PC Zone wou13 be presented to the Planning Commission at the April 19 meeting for review. Mr. Stark i:oted for the Commission that they were proposing a shopping center when there was no customer, but they just wanted the knowledge that there would be a shopping center when people came to live in this area, and under the proposed C-1, they were requesting an opportunity to be located in a place which was better planned when the Planning Commission adopted General Plan Amendment No. 123. This shopping center would be I i:' _ ; _ ~ ~- . ., . . _.. ~ : . 5 ~ .. ^_~~.-~ :-. , ~ _a : ; , :j , _, _. : -- ----._ --._ _-- ~ - - ------- -- __. _-----~ ~ ~ ~IINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIpN, April 5, 1971 ~.J 71-183 RECLASSIFICATION - located near the golf course and comprised of 8.6 NO. 70-71-40 of the 11 acres, with the 3.6 acres in streets - (Continued) therefore, the reguest was not for a cammercial center, per se; and that the greatest problem was trying to have peonie recognize that this as a shopping center since the concerns expressed by the Commission as to its attractiveness adjacent to t'^e golf course were also their concern. Chairman Herbst inquired whether or not this would be the "kick off" point of Anaheim Hills. ., Mr. Stark replied that it was their attempt to set up a community, and ~'~ `',' one of the bi ggest concerns to date was their success in having the City agree to move the maintenance yard which was located across the street ~)~ from the proposed shopping center. Commissioner Allred inquired whether or not the petitioner would be ~ ~ amenable to terminating the reclassification for C-1 now ; southeast corner of Walnut Canyon and Santa Ana Canyon Roadsalwhereupan ~. Mr. Stark stated that they would be agreeable to terminating that petition. Chairman Herbst then requeyted that the petitioner submit a letter to ;;, the City Council requesting termination of Reclassificatic:: No. 67-68-29, "r: Commissioner Rowland was of the opinion that there appeared to be no ,.r problem with a full line of C-1 uses since it would be no different than `~7~ other areas throughout the community, but he was concerned about the site ~ development standards, and he did not feel the Grant Corporation would ''" have any more success in developing the PC 2one than *.he Irvine Company `;~ had, but he would like to word the resolution in such a manner that the ,~ full range of C-1 uses be permitted -~lus the site dEVelopment standards y~ which the Planning Commission had recommended to the City Council when the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone was approved. "=! •~ ~'~~ No one appeared in opposition to snb'ect 7 petition. ;:. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ;'j ~~ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC71-58 and moved for its r~ passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for ; Reclassification No. 70-7.1-40 be approved, subject to conditions to which 4~ ~ the petitioner stipulated which were part of the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. (See Resolution Book) `~ - Discussion was held between the Commission and Mr. Dawson regarding the ; wording of the motion, with the Commicsion being of the opinion that t since the Commission only had the (SC) Zone with which they had worked, and - the PC Zone wa,s still on the drafting board, and since the petitioner had ~ stipulated to complying with the recommended conditions, there a eared ."~~ to be no reason wh thes PP _` • Y e c o u l d n o t b e m a d~ p a r t o f t he motion. Commissioner Seymour requested that a finding be made that granting C-1 zoning was not to be considered as establishing a precedent for similar requests throughout the Santa Ana Canyon since the C-H Zone permitted ,\' only small neighborhood shopping centers. ,; Chairman Herbst requested that a find3ng also be made that the Commission ,~;, recommended termination of Reclassification No. 67-68-29 since the 4. petitioner stipulat~+.d to that also. ~;, ;, The motion for approval was amended to reflect the findings suggested by Commissianers Seymour and Herbst. ~_ ~. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. `*:~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ' .ti:c ": ~ a:::, ''t. .,.. _ ~~ _ ,.. k --; ~ . _ _ - ~ ^t; e ~ , -. :: ~ ~ ' i : --.__ --- _ -- ` --- _ _. -- i.~.--- -- _ _ . _ __------___.. ~ ~ v MINUTES, CxTY PLANNING CJMMISSION, April 5, 1971 71-184 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. ROBERT H. GRANT CORPORATION, NO. 70-71-39 1665 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting that property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4,d00 acres bounded generally on the north by Santa Ana Canyon Road, on the aast by :~ier Canyon, on the south "vy the Edison easement, and on the kest by the t3ewport Freewag, and further described as the Nohl Ranch, be reclassified from the COUNTY OF ORANGE A1, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL, DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF ANAHEIM R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20NE to the R-H-10,000, RESIDENTIAL HI:,;,SIDE, 20NE. 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property and the proposal to establish a resolution of intent for R-H- 10,000 zoning for the entire 4,000 acre area generally referred to as the Nofll Ranch, and the purpose of this request was to expedite develop- ment proposals as each segment of the ranch was ready for development; that while it was the opinion of staff and the developers that a Planned Community Zone would provide a mare desirable method of aacomplishing the development of Anaheim Hi3.Ls, the City, to this date, had no such tool to use; and that in view of the fact that there was no PC Zone and since the developer was anxious to begin construction of the first phase, staff had recommended he initiate reclassification proceedings for R-H-10,000 zoning - however, upon further ana:ysis of the situation, staff concluded that while the R-H-10,000 Zone might serve the immediate needs of the developer for the first phase of the development, it questioned whether this would, in fact, be the most desirable method of implementing zoning on the entire development. Mr. Roberts also noted that the dens±ty for some of the area in Anaheim Hills would be 25 units per acre and other. areas would be large-acre estates, and if R-H-10,000 zoning were approved for the entire 4,000 acres, this might be misleading to some people as to the City Council's intended development policy for the area. Therefore, staff would recommend the Planning Commission consider it most desirable to recommend R-H-10,000 zoning for only that portion of the Grant pro~~rty most likely to be annexed and developed in the near future. Mr. Roberts, in conclusion, noted that since the PC Zone had been in the processing stage when the proposed zone was adopted, it would be a better tool for the implementation of the Anaheim Hills General Plan. Mr. Bill Stark, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that although they were requesting R-H zoning, he still was not satisfied with what they requested; that the City had some very talented staff inembers; that although they were asking for R-H-10,000 zoning, if they had the PC Zone, this could solve many zoning problems, and he did not want to have everybody in the canyon area p;:esent when the community was started and the first family moved in since this would be a different picture. However, he again wanted some parameters spelled out, but in the meantime, he would have to have somethinq to design to in land planning, and the requested zone was not their plan for the 4,000 acres; that the only other tool available ta them now was a conditional use permit, and they could not even ask for a variance except from the one- acre lots which the R-A Zone permitted. Therefore, the R-H-10,000 Zone was some tool which would be available until the PC Zone was established - in the event a developer wanted to go ahead, at least he knew the maximum density to which he could build, and since his company had made a commit- ment to the City of Anaheim on the density proposed for this property, they requested R-A zoning for the present. Chairman Herbst noted that the only thing he could see as a problem was when a developer decided he wanted to have a higher density, which would bring in a room full of people in opp~=_iti.on. Mr. Stark stated that he would agree with that statment - that this was a kind of danger - but the resolution of intent for R-H-10,000 aould only be requested by them when an ordinance was to be read, and the same would be true for the commercial zoning acted upon previously. ;~i...+-x ., ` ~ I ~ ~ (l MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 5, 1971 ~ ~ 71-285 RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Roberts noted that staff had discussed this t N0. 70-71-39 problem at lenyth, and if a resolution of intent were (Continued) adopted over the entire ranch, this would be tanta- mount to giving the zoning, and most hodies were reluctant to change the zone once it was given - ~ this was the reason for staff's latest statement regarding R-•H-10,000 zoning for only the first phase of development. . Mr. Start took cognizance of the potential political problem, stating _ this would be resolved once the PC Zone was established on the property. .; .4:~ Cai~iu~issioner Rowland noted that h~ would rather have a resolution of j ':~~ intent to the PC 2one, and in all probability the last zone the City s~ : would want to put on this 4,000 acres was the R-H-10,000 2one, and he was not about to go on a planning record for something which, at best, ~ ~ was not even an accommodation. ~ -, ,, ti Commissioner Faraao noted that the petitioner had indicated he also did not want the zone requested. Commissioner Rowland stated chat the actions of the Planning Commission and City Council were a very clear-cut indication how this would be developed, and he felt that the parameters had been clearly se:: forth in implementing the zone and were going as fast as they could, and that _ the people with whom they were dealing and selling it to would have to have as much faith as the City had in the present developer. Mr. Thompson noted that the petitioner would have th~ first phase under a conditional use permit for 130 acres, anc~ maybe by that time the staff `! would have the Planned Community Zone which could resolve the problem. ~{ !'~ Mr. Stark stated that this would not resolve the problem, but it was a step in the right di:ection; however, as leng as he obtainpd something, ; this would do for the present. ~ ~ Chairman Herbst noted that every time a development of this size was set back two weeks, it meant thousands of dollars lost;_arid since the petitioners had committed themselves on so much land, if there were anything the Commission cou.ld do to speed this along by giving them ~ some tool with which to work, this would be of great assistance. ? Commissioner Allred noted that a suggestion made by Mr. Thompson was '? also a tool - however., Mr. Stark was not particularly pleased with that ~ tool. Mr. Thompson stated that maybe this would alleviate some of the concern expressed by Commissioner Rowland. ,~ Commissioner Rowland stated that somewhere along the line the petitioner y must have some specific area where he proposed to develop, and he wot:ld hate to see this zoning requested for the entire ranch. ~ , Mr. Stark noted that it was very important that they establish a community, ~: and the portion discussed by Mr. Thompson was just part of it. Chairman Herbst inquired whether they were proposing R-H-10,000 for the 130 acres to which Mr. Thampson referred; whereupon Mr. Stark replied that there were 132 acres, and most likely they would request waivers to the zone until the PC Zone was established. F,;, Mr. Thompson noted that if subject petition were continued, this would N~i ::i, give staff time to have the proper legal description for the zoning action which the Commission should consider. ~^ ~'i:, . , . `. ' R:' ~. . 1 1 '.: s.~ t, sra^ . - .~ ~ - . - . . . ,. . . ;~ . .. y_ ..~_. _ .. . . . ~... . ... . .. . . ... . '.... .. - ~ ~ . ~y _ t _ : ~ LJ 71-186 RECLASSIFICATION - An annexation map was then presented to the Planning NO. 70-71-39 Commission which indicated the boundaries of the (Continued) first phase of the r~evelopment; whereupon the ~ Commission determined this was sufficient to take action on the request, in part. ~ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC71-59 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 70-71-39 be approved for that portion to be known as Anaheim Hills Annexation No. 1, encompassing approximately 162 acres, ,~'~~.;,, subject to the recommended conditions as they pertained to the site - development standards o£ the Scenic Corridor Overlay 2one, to which the ~~~~~~`~~~"'` petitioner stipulated he would com 1 ;; P y. (See Resolution Book) ?~,` On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ..~: . `,'y AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, " - Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. 1' ' ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. LENORE N. KOEBRICH, 2130 East South t,, ;}, NO. 70-71-41 Street, Anaheim, Cali£ornia, Owner; T. M. SHAMMA ~ ~~• ASSOCIATES, INC., 2229 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, ~~ VARIANCE NO. 2243 California, Agent; property described as: A }' rectan ularl g y-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.5 acres, having a frontaqe of approxi- mately 165 feet on the south side of South Street, having a maximum depth ~ of approximately 620 feet, and being located approximately 665 feet east ;~ of the centerline of State College Boulevard, and further described as ~ 2130 East South Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. '°! REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, 20NE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, (2) MINIMUM , ~1~ FRONT AND SIDE SETBA '' CKS, AND (3) MINIMUM FLOOR T~ AREA TO PERMIT A 13-LOT, SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION. ,° ` 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject ',~~ theperty, uses established in close proximity, previous zoning action on ;' property, and the proposal to subdivide subject property into 13 5000-square foot lots, 9 of which would bQ 45 feet in width, whereas Code would require a minimum 50-foot wide lot; that a zero side yard concept was proposed wherein the buildinqs abutted one property line with a ~:;;~;, 10-foot side yard on the other; that garages on five of the lots were located 18 and 15 feet behind the property line, whereas Code would require a minimum of 20 feet for a setback - this would be .to allow adequate room for car parking on the driveway approach; that the petitioner was also ~ proposing 8 three-bedroom units having 1273 square feet and 5 four- ;,~ bedroom units having 1352 square £eet, whereas Code would require a ` minimum of 1525 square feet; and that the primary question before the ' '` Planning Commission was whether the proposed land use was appropriate since the tract to the west was developed for single-family homes having 50-foot wide, 6000-square foot lots, and the ordinance provided that the R-2-5000 Zone was appropriate for areas designated for low-medium or medium density residential use on the General Plan. Another item to '~ consider was whether houses of this size were appropriate in the area ~ ; since the tract to the west was developed with 1525-square foot homes, Y:' as were other tracts in this area; and that it would a ppear that through ~w - a minor redesign, the need for waivers of minimum lot width and minimum fi, setback to a garage could be eliminated. ,~ ' Mr. Lee Webb, 13901 Yorba Street, Tustin, realtor representing the - petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the developer, t Tariq M. 5hamma, would discuss any technical problems as they pertained ' '< . : li `i ,. i t. . ~ _ : ` ^~ ., . .. .. , _ , _l ~ ~ I . . . . . . .. / . 1 _ _ __._. _ _- -- .. ._----- ....__._ ___...__ _ ~.:---'-' ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON, April 5, 1971 ~ 71-187 RECLASSIFICATION - to design, and then stated that in December, 1970, N0. 70-71-41 the petitioner was denied R-3 zoning, but staff had recommended R-2-5000 since a tract map had been VARIANCE NO. 2243 designed which indicated that 13 homes could be (Continued) developed cn the property. However, the developer at that time was not interested in single-family homes, and, the=afore, did not accept the Commission's offer of R-2-5000 zoning; that because the City Council also was of the opinion that subject property could be developed for R-2-5000 homes, the petition now before the Commission reflected both the Planning Commission and City Council feelings; that the p:-ce1 was somewhat difficult to develop because of its narrowness and depth, and because of this, waivers were necessary to develop it; and that at the last public hearing he felt that attractive homes could not be built in the price range which could be sold in this area - however, the present development had one of the most attractive designs for a project. Mr. Tariq M. Shamma, the developer of the proposed subdivision, appeared before the Commission and stated that because they were desirous of having staggered setbacks for aesthetic purposes and to create an interesting elevation, the front setback waiver was necessary; that they were also proposing zero side yards so that two narrow side yards could be combined and could be utilized for recreational areas; that in their design they were unable to provide the required 50-foot wide lots and still end up with 13 lots - therefore, this was the reason for this requested waiver; and that these homes would be of Spanish architecture and would be financed under F.H.A. 203 program, ranging in price from $28,000 to $30,000. Chairman Herbst noted that when only a 15-foot setback of the garages was proposed, this would mean vehicles parked in the driveway would be overlapping into the sidewalk area or the public right-of-way. Mr. Shamma replied that they were only trying to create a staggered effect. Chairman Herbst noted that if the drive approach were not with direct access to the street, then the proposed setback would not be so objection- able, but he would not approve a waiver of a setback where vehicles would be "hanging" into the public right-of-way. Furthermore, he would rather have a flaq lot if it would lend itself to a be*_ter development than as proposed, and if the developer were interested, he could review the map drawn by staff indicating how the property could be subdivided. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC71-60 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council approval of Petition for Reclassification No. 70-71-41, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMiSSiONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-61 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2243, in part, denying waiver of the front setback and lot width on the basis that subject property could be developed within Code requirements as far as tlzese waivers were concerned, and granting the waiver of side setbacks and floor area on the basis that subject property was a difficult parcel to develop within the confines of all Code requirements because of its narrow width and previous development on both sides of the property, together with the finding that tiie Commission would be agreeable to one _ .__. - ' . ,. ~~.4 - . 5 ~ 'i . , ~ x' ~. ~ ':ti '' ;'rr:8' ~,;.. ~ ~• ' : .~..: : , ;'.-'':' ~t *, -`:~! a MINUTES~ CITX PLAN1 RECLASSIFICATION • NO. 70-71-41 VARIANCE NO. 2243 (Continued) ~ ~~ JING COMMISS.iON, April 5, 1971 71-188 - flag lot in order that development could occur within the 50-foot wide lot width, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 5:59 P.M. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. HARU ASAWA A:ID GEORGE W. ASAWA, 1834 NO. 70-71-42 Sawtelle Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Owners; JOHN SWINT, 707 West North Street, Anaheim, California, VARIANCE NO. 2245 Agent; property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of ].and consisting of approximately one acre, having a frontage of approximately 170 feet on the east side of Beach Soulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 270 feet, and being located approximately 150 feet north of the center- line of Rome Avenue, and further described as 806 South Seach Boulevard. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE; TO PERMIT (1) A TRAINING SCHOOL IN AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND (2) AN AUTOMOBILE IMPOUND YARD, WI'!'H WAIVER OF PERMITTED PARKING AREA LOCATION, Assistant 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to utilize an existing single-family residence for office purposes and the existing garage as an instruction room Por the training of the installation of an automobile locking device; that the rear of the property was being used as an impound yard for automobiles; that the General Plan indicated the frontage along Beach Boulevard as being appropriate :or commercial uses - therefore, the C-1 zoning would appear ap~ropriate; that the matter of the types of uses proposed on the property might be of significant concern to the Planning Commission; that the proposed automobile impound yard would be immediately adjacent to both single- famzly and multiple-family developments, and the noises emanating from such a use may create a nuisance to the residents of the area - therefore, the Commission would wish to determine whether the use would be appropriate at this location since other impound facilities have typically been located in industrial areas; that the PlanninQ Commission might also wish to determine whether the proposed training facility and offices would be appropriate uses for a residential structure; and that the petitioner was proposing that all the parking for the training facility be provided to the side of the residential structure rather than to the rear as required by ordinance. Therefore, the Commission would wish to decide whether this arrangement would have any detrimental effects upon the area or whether approval of this request would set an undesirable precedent. Mr. JoY~n Swint, aaent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that their proposed use of subiPct property was rather a small one considering the size of the parcel; that the only reason for the impound yard was that they did not want to maintain the rear which would be a weed patch, and if paved now, it would be there when a commercial building was erected on the property in a few years; that the impound yard was indicated in the staff report as possibly for storing of junk cars - however, the petitioner had indicated these would be vehicles which were impounded by lending agencies and no junk cars or cars that ~ -- ~`-~~ ..~ .. . _ _ , __--- __ ti•~.- , ~~. : r; c . ... , 5 . . ~ . . . ~ . ~ . . . . ~i ' ^ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ , ~ -. ~. MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 5, 1971 ~ 71-189 RECLASSIFICATION - could not be driven under their own power would be NO. ?0-71-42 stored on the property; that the vehicles would be kept there until the payments were made, and the VARIANCE NO, 2245 training school woL1d be for abour four or ~ive (Continued) persons, and the object was to train these men to install the automobile car lock; and that under the sta•L•f's recommendations for conditions of approval, the trash area proposed would be considerably larger than their normal uses at the present time and requested that this be waived until the office building was under construction, at which time the petitioner would know the exact location of said trash storage areas. Furthermore, the waiver of the underground utilities was also being asked since the petitioner was proposing a 22,000-square foot building - however, this would be several years in the future. Mr. Bill Asawa, 806 South Beach Boulevard, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and presented a small tool kit and types of tools to be used by the trainees, also presenting a model of the proposed locking device, noting that the amount of noise that would be created would be less than a private residence, with the only noise being a small power tool to drill a ho3e into the metal; that when this locking device was placed on the vehicle, even if the vehicle were started by other methods than a key, the vehicle could not be moved except with the special key which would unlack it; and then, in response to a question by Commissioner Kaywood, stated that the locking device would be installed in the garage and the garage would be locked; and th•3t they had no neighbors since they had acquired the home at the corner. Chairman Herbst inquired why the structure had such an odd setback; whereupon Mr. Rcberts stated that this was a frontaqe road while the property was in the County. Mr. Asawa also replied that they would be the only ones using this frontage road and that they would stipulate to construction of a 6-foot masonry wall. Mr. Asawa further noted that these vehicles would have no repair work done on them, and then, in response to a comment made by Commissioner Gauer, stated that they would have no wrecks impounded, in this facility - only cars that were able to be parked there on their own power would be stored there, and these cars were generally there because of financial problems of the owner. The Commission then inquired what the plans were for the home purchased adjacent to that; whereupon Mr. Asawa replied that this would be used as their residence. Furthermore, they were planning to ask for abandon- ment of that strip of land at such time as they developed the property for an office building. Mr. Slaughter noted for the Commissicn that the condition requiring underground utilities only would be required when a future building was built, and the trash area would be subject to approval of the Sanitation Inspector - therefore, if they could satisfy his requirements, the build- ing of the trash storage area would be of no concern to the Commission. Discussion was held by the Commission as to whether or not a time limitation for the impound yard ~hould be established in order that the use could not be continued in the event the property was sold; whereupon Mr. Asawa stated that he would stipulate to a three-year time limitation. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts inquired whether the petitioner would also stipulate that vehiclec that would be impounded would arrive only under their own powerand that no outside repair work would be done; whereupon Mr. Asawa stipulated to that. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiu:is. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. i S a .~ ~. ~ I, - --- '-, ~ ~ ~ ~ !. l Ow7 Z~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ?!~ril 5 1971 , 71-190 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No PC71-62 NO. 70-71-42 . and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend ~,-•.~„-:- • VARIANCE NO. 2245 to the City Council approval of Petition fication N 7 for Reclassi- (Continued) o. 0-71-42, subject to conditi ons. (See Resolution Book) the following vote: On roll call the ~oregoing resolution was passed by ' =k•+i. + r~r' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES • COMMISSIGNE >i~ :,; ~~ ,. ,3.-:: ~ z.l' i-' ;;::~ ~h ,~ ,,. s ;r s: - :;' ';;l '~~', .;.~! ; S;.'' • RS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC71-63 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2245 for a period ' of three years; that only vehicles e:hich could be dri.ven under their own power would be in the impound yard and that no repair work would be conducted on the property; as stipulated by the petitioner; and subject to conditions. ~ (See Resolution Book) ! On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: j3~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. " NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. RECLASSIFICATION - PLBLIC HEARING. INITIA"ED BY THE CITY PLANNING NO. 70-71-38 COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing that property described as: Those parcels fronting on the east and west sides of Zeyn Street between La Palma Avenue and North Street be reclassified from the R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Assistant 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter reviewed the location of a subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal in which the Planning Commission had requested stafE to initiate reclassification of the properties to the R-3 Zone since the R-3 Zone more closely complied with the General Plan designation of inedium-density residential development being considered or having been approved on these properties. ~ ~ No one appeared in opposition to sub'ect ~ J petition. ` THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ! Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC71-64 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 70-71-38 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Fesolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by tlie following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS RENAMING OF ORANGE STREET LOCATED BETWEEN BLUE GUM AND RED GUM STREETS IN THE NORTHEAST INDUSTRIAL AREA. Assistant 2oning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter noted that the street name of Orange Street conflicted with the street name of Orange Avenue located in the southwest Anaheim area, and if renaming of the street was appropriate, it would be well to rename the street prior to the time that development ~~'•""~.c.~~-,' _ ~f. ~. . ~ . . . ' , . . . . . . _ • ._ - . •;r:;' h~ ~>s {",._ ...,. , _ . . .' _ . . ~ . . ~ -~ ' . i 4_ 1 ,_ . _ . . . i ~ ' 1 f .._- ` I y-° - - -- ----~L . ~ ~;~ . t~ ,. MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 5, 1971 71-191 ~ REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 1(Continued) I RECOMMENDATIONS occurs in the area, and the Commission might wish to ' consider scheduling this street name change for public hearing. i . Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to direct the staff to set for public hearing consideration of a street name change for Orange Street located in the Northeast Industrial Area. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ' . - ~,-. er' ~ ~,;~ ~ . ~,,:' :':~.. ~ . ~ ~ ITEM NO. 2 ~ - '~'~ ORANGE COUNTY L'SE PERMIT NO. 3138 (Anaheim ~ ~~ Union water Co. - Donald M. Eversoll) - Request j to establish a motor vehicle recrea: •~.n park in ~ the A1 "General Agricultural" Distri:,,. acated ~ on the northerly side of Esperanza Road at its i intersection with Wier Canyon Road in the East ~ ~' Yorba Linda Area. j ~ Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts presented to the Planning Commission ? Orange County Use Permit No. 3138, noting the location of the property and its proximity to the City of Anaheim boundaries, and the request to establish a private motor vehicle recreation park on a 632-acre site, providing 275 acres for back-country riding, 14 acres for an advanced riding area, an 8-acre mini-bike area, 24 acres for spectator observa- ! tion, 7 acres for a dirt bike raceway, 36 acres devoted to parking areas, ;i 31 acres in roadways, and approximately 240 acres of open area. Mr. Roberts also noted that the petitioner indicated that there would be exhibitions and/or races held on the premises at certain times; that additional facilities would include snack bars, a gate house, rental of ~i vehicles, offices, information and a first aid center, parts and equip- ~ ment sales, a repair area, and a recreation and picnic area. i N.r. Roberts advised the Commission that although the area surrounding i the subject property had not been developed to date, urbanization could ~ ~a be expected within the next few ~e - y ars; therefore, due to the nature of _•?, the proposed activity and the inherent noise and potential dust problem, the Planning Commission might wish to consider making a recommendation to ; the Orange County 2oning Administrator that certain noise standards be • established, and that the use be granted for a specific period of time, ` sub'ect to ~ ] periodic review to determine whether the use should be terminated due to development in the surrounding area. Considerable discussion was held by the Commission and staff regarding the proposal as to the noise problem, reverberation of noises from canyon to canyon which could travel a great distanee, a time limitation ; being established, conducting noise tests such as were conducted for ; the mini-bike trail proposed along the Santa Ana River in the vicinity -. of Autonetics, and establishing a maximum of 60 decibels of noise at the t,`.''?'~ property lines of subject property. ~' Commissioner Allred affered a motion to recommend to the City Council `~ that the Orange County 2oning Administrator b~ ing that noise tests be conducted to determine theed to consider requir- effects noises from the proposed use would have on theshill andreanyonl ~•., area; that a maximum of 60 decibels of noise be established at the °p - property lines of subject property; and that a time limitation of three _ years be established subject to review for consideration of an extension :~,, of time for continued use, if Orange County L•se Permit No. 3138 is %? approved. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~' (Commissioner Farano voted "no" and Commissioner Rowland was absent.) ,` ~:. ; ake' -'. '1 . ~ a::. R~~:...., ,. _ ~' ~ l' _ . . . _... ' ^5 . - , r _ , . ~ _ , . _ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 5, 1~'1 71-192 REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 3 RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1228 - Approval of '" revised plans - Property known as Carrows ' Restaurant at the northeast corner of State '"!` College Boulevard and Center Street. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Malcolm Slaughter presented a request by the architect of the existing restaurant requesting reconsideration of the requirement established by the Commission in apnroval of on-sale beer _ ._ f I;?~.. :' ~A `;..~i! 3 or a different circulation pattern since it would take considerable expense to relocate the wheel stops or bumper blocks and the landscaping; that the architect had stated that the majority of their business entered from State College Boulevard, and it would be difficult to re-direct traffic to Center Street, and the alternative secondary access was to the alley. The Commission reviewed the revised plans, Chairman Herbst still being gre~tly concerned that cars would be backed up into State College Boulevard if access were permitted from State Colleqe Boulevard. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to approve revised plantt of Conditional Use Permit No. 1228. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 6:32 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~'~ ~ ATiN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission _ ~ _ „ _ . , _ ~ ~ I il ~:ti ~S ; ~ ` - I ' f ~- ~ ~ ~ .J,~j ~ _ ~ ~ '~ w i ~~~ i ^' ` . .~ ~ i~ .q:; , ~' , t..`b )t ., .. .,. . ~~~ ~~~~'~~~~t;v+r~C~~) ~ .~ ~~ `~fi' ~'~~'*^~'"j~'~~ :., , r fi r. `°`~'s~~' ~l,r.+'?y a~C~ 3~.~ ~9''~y ~~+ y„a.; . '~ ,'~,,,~X~ .~.y~BrF}~u' .r`s~~~`"^'`~!E%',~+~Ye . t'' tiJ 1. ,',~ ~'~ M.' ~""' .t 4 vr % f ?+ ?` w. F,~^'~y "l.t x3a ~ ~'.~ ` . .'{ '`.{~ro't, ~.`,~ 15. t~ ~~ i 'f: ;• 5}, S r. 7?.s '~~'~•"-S'.-k`~i~ xt 4~i.I ~... ~ .. 4'~. 1 .~.1 J ~'J~a' .:^~ S'`1~t~~11`b ~~Z~}f$~ ij~'` _ {~ .~ 0 y. l . K ~ 1 Y ~ ~~"~~a~~ . 4 ~, ~ ;~ i. ~'' k r,,,i x t'~"~- 4~~r.r 3„y+3 y~, ~ f ~ [ ?~ i... r s '~ ~~~~r~7~~: ~'.~ {. 't; r E.~ ~faiFr~~a~ `F~''i . ~ A : '„~ _~13?~.' f ' , r i '1 r ~, t Y~ , 1 .. .n . .. ... ~ .~ ~ G„t.~~~f .:~..~.. '~/ :t:~~t.IT,`~}., ~ '~. . ~ .. ~~ } ~~ ~~ ,`Y ;.. ~ ~ ~ ~